Well things are kind of quiet on both sides of the pond. Maybe a quiet before a storm?
The new king has settled into his role as has Camilla.
The new Prince of Wales has adjusted to his new role while his family has to a new home, new school, new friends. There doesn't appear that much planned until maybe Moonshot New York in early December now that Remembrance Day has passed (but I could be wrong about that).
And people seem to be used to saying King instead of Queen or remembering that Prince of Wales now refers to Prince William. (although it still takes me a while when someone writes "PC" that they mean Princess Charlotte I must admit)
We've had a chance to see the first State Dinner after (lovely). What I don't remember reading was if she would have have had enough time in to be allowed to go to it if they had stayed. I suspect not as I remember that it took Harry a long time before he was put on the guest list. (A lot of arguments averted before you get into what would she been allowed access to if true)
And in Montecito, there seems to be a fairly steady stream of stories about what might or might not be happening with (insert one of the deals here) and an occasional new release from Spotify. Or of another award banquet somewhere. It is a little early for the holiday card to be released. Same-o-same-o/rien de nouveau.
Or in some news article of yet another story about how the brothers should or will reunite. We haven't seen one of those in the last couple of days. Or was it weeks? They were everywhere like unwanted glitter for a while. But really, how serious could such an article be before the release of that new book anyway given the number of stories about how the BRF are hiding behind the sofa out of fear? Maybe that would work only if you were thinking of the proximity of the two award galas in NYC, holiday spirit or start a new year in peace and you didn't know of the alleged stories of how bad this will be for the BRF.
Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. AKA just treading water.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11168399/Harry-Meghan-set-return-UK-latest-broadside-royals.html
Happy Thanksgiving. Rest up because the book and netflix pr will be ramping up!!!
"I think they must be referring to Advance Reader copies (ARCs), Which used to be known as galley proofs. I’m a public librarian and we get boxfuls Of these sent to us monthly, unsolicited. We’ve got a bookcase in our break room they are put on and staff are free to help themselves." -end quote-
Oh! What a wonderful gift it would be if the literary gods somehow sent the SPARE ARC to your library breakroom shelves, and you could read and give us the down and dirty scoop on the whole mess.
A girl can dream, can't she? But in this case, the whole thing isn't a dream, but a loathsome nightmare. Where will it all end?
-----------------------------------------
Happy Thanksgiving Wishes to all Nutties!
In their inevitable way, they think this kind of attention makes them important. We’re actually just waiting for the ambulances to show up and that’s a fact.
Catherine and William will be visiting the former hotbed of colonial revolution— Boston is where it all kicked off with a small tea party in Boston harbor in 1773. But Catherine & William will be received like rock stars as they have been on their two previous visit to the United States. We look forward to their visit and I’m sure Catherine will slay in her photographs.
I checked your link. It gave me a fright but luckily I'd already looked at your second post and checked the date!
Agree, the Idaho murders are horrific. After five years, someone has been arrested for the killing of two teens girls in Delphi Indiana. Very few details have been released.
Here - a quiet morning watching the parades on TV, giving thanks for the memory of freezing my *ss off in Philadelphia 21 years ago, chaperoning a marching high school band.
No news is good news. Be at Peace. We need it.
New Palace Confidential.
On my side of the Pond, everything is revolving around the grisly slayings of four college students in Idaho, and a number of mass shootings that have also occurred in the last 2 weeks. It is not a good time to be in America, and oddly enough the antics of the Montesh*tshow clowns do not factor. There has been genuine excitement over the upcoming trip by the new Prince and Princess of Wales to Boston, though the mood is rather subdued at the moment with all this violence. The transparently self promotional puffery engage did by the two clowns in California is beyond tedious.
O/T @Hikari: I am wondering whether there is some ongoing large scale tampering with psychiatric drugs, such as inserting adulterated/fake psychiatric drugs into the supply chain.
The real problems besetting our Nutty population both here and overseas far outweighs the imaginary outrage of the Montesh*tShow Carnival. They are, however, good for a comedy break.
Happy Thanksgiving to all on both sides of the Pond. I am thankful for this blog and the Nutties who post.
Agree, the Idaho murders are horrific. After five years, someone has been arrested for the killing of two teens girls in Delphi Indiana. Very few details have been released.
Here - a quiet morning watching the parades on TV, giving thanks for the memory of freezing my *ss off in Philadelphia 21 years ago, chaperoning a marching high school band.
No news is good news. Be at Peace. We need it.
Amen!
/Former Marching Band Mom here.
A friend texted me a Happy Thanksgiving message and told me her weather conditions up there near the Canadian border. Then she asked for my weather. I hated to text her back "73 degrees and partly cloudy". She texted "And you probably think you're cold, don't you?" Heh. Yes, yes I do.
I check that breakroom bookshelf A couple of times a week just to see if there’s anything new on it. Sometimes A month will go by without us getting anything new, and then three boxes will suddenly show up. It is the publishers decision which titles to release ARC’s for; I’ve scored some best sellers from that shelf. No sign of SPARE. If it is actually dropping on January 10, I would expect it to have arrived already if there was going to be one. Usually they are released this season prior to publication, so we might get a batch of books slated for June publication in February. I would lean to they are not being a pre-release ARC for this title because neither penguin or H wants this controversial information in the public domain early. It could tank sales. people will be forced to buy a hardcover. Hardcover sales are what drive best seller rankings. Equally important, they don’t want Charles finding out early the extent of Harry’s treachery so that he can make plans in response. Hazmat’s intent is to fully sandbag his father which is why he is a vile little worm. The holiday season is usually prime glowing PR for the Royals, and everyone has a very busy December planned. After all the working Royals unveil many of their various charity initiatives during the Christmas season, And you all their festive activities including the Christmas walk in Sandringham, Public feeling will be warm. Then two weeks later Harry will drop his bombshell whinefest. Guaranteed to rag on his stepmother in super petty fashion. Meanwhile, Queen Camilla hosts A tree decorating and party at Clarence house every year for special needs children. Isn’t Harry just going to look like a colossal ass when he bitches that Camilla made over his childhood bedroom at Highgrove House into a dressing room? Which she did because like he was no longer living there, being a grown man? I will keep my eyes peeled for an ARC and in the unlikely event that there is one I’ll be sure to snatch that puppy up!
Dear Lord - please spare us, please!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11168399/Harry-Meghan-set-return-UK-latest-broadside-royals.html
_______________
That article dates from early September.
_______________________________
Happy Thanksgiving to American Nutties everywhere 🦃🍗🥧
Please see the very next post at 6.51pm on 24th.
Thank you.
Private, but reported in the tabloids?
I am of the opinion that the central problem still remains: the duo cannot be trusted and do not share the same values as the Prince and Princess of Wales.
Hopeless out walking with his dog.
Well, this sounds like a mess!
Quick hymn 🎤
Apologies: George Bennard
The Old Rugged Cross
The Old Buggered Dross
On a hill far away
stands the old riven rock
An emblem of whining and blame
How she loves to mouth off
lips foaming with froth
About her world that’s imploding
with self inflicted pain
She’ll perish atop
that pile of rock
‘til her trinkets and trophies
outweigh her sad clown
Will still cling to her crock
In the hope that somehow
she’ll inherit the Crown…
The Twitter feed I referenced via a Reddit post ...
To me, the only way he does not blow up all bridges to his family (unless they are saintly in forgiveness and acceptance), is to refuse to accept the award. Better still, repudiate what Kennedy said about giving them the award (racism and neglect of mental health issues). Sending someone else to accept it does not solve the problem, and it creates another: people have bought very expensive tickets to be in the same room as the notorious pair.
And wasn't he scornful about awards in that chat with 'Greta'?
Who thinks he is going to obliterate all bridges and go anyway? Does he even remember what the truth is?
And surely they have a large enough property to exercise the dogs? And weren't they using a dog walker?
https://twitter.com/barkjack_/status/1595973177808912384?s=46&t=HuLG7hI_4QPKT_SKInkFwQ
talk of not going to the awards? went off the rails.? me thinks that perhaps the Mrs was calling Kerry Kennedy about the racism narrative seems like a narc move. gives the award more attention, gets ahead of likely titles stripped as a way to prevent it or making the push back intolerable for the crown, no discussion of titles for the kids anymore. and the racism angle really makes it about her not about both of them (again he’s the accessory in this narrative) he may want to go back and this narrative likely shuts the door to that. Chaos, the new PR strategy
oh and he’s pap walking. expect more of that. they prob need the $
I'm on the library wait list for Spare. 47 people are ahead of me.
Marjorie Orr, a UK astrologer, has written that she believes that Kerry Kennedy included Dookie and Ducharase in the Ripple awards to take a major, public dig at the BRF, because of the Kennedy family ties to Ireland. Hmmm.
Unknown/Anonymous
Really good comment. Can you please finish off your profile and then I will be able to post this?
Thanks
Marjorie Orr, a UK astrologer, has written that she believes that Kerry Kennedy included Dookie and Ducharase in the Ripple awards to take a major, public dig at the BRF, because of the Kennedy family ties to Ireland. Hmmm.
There's that, of course. Hardcore Irish patriots will have little love for the British Royals. Another big helping of motivation, and this one much more personal and closer to home is to compete with and screw with her cousin, Caroline. Caroline is Kerry's Catherine--the higher-ranked, more beloved, more stylish, scads more famous Kennedy female. Caroline is now the Queen of the de facto American royal family. Sounds like Kerry is as big an embittered and jealous Narc as someone else we could mention, but due to her vastly inferior internal qualities cannot match for profile the family member she's most jealous of. So she has to create a competing, inferior copy of her cousin's project to try and steal Caro's thunder for her more legitimate award. The level of talent representing each award speaks for itself. Caroline is dealing with the true Royals, not the trashy counterfeit versions. "Ripple of Hope"? What does that even mean? Sounds highly ineffectual . . and also BOUGHT and paid for.
I'm not sure Harry even realizes what he's done. He is a disgrace not only to his birth family but just a disgrace as a human being.
In the first visit, JFK was still the pin-up in many places; no sign of him, so to speak, on the later trips.
Mel Gibson is another anti-English person - Braveheart' encouraged obvious anti-English sentiments in some sectors of the Scots population. It's noticeable that those places with a history of 19thC immigration from Ireland have a different voting pattern from elsewhere.
I’m sorry I missed your self-correction 🙂
I miss them. They were good posters. They brought a lot to this blog. I wish they would come back.
Yes, we are getting thin on the ground, which is a pity. Of course, there's not a great deal to get our teeth into - but we shouldn't hope for more drama from the Harkles just so we can be entertained.
At least that's what I think. What I'd really like would be for this all to be over, no sign of * on our horizon ever again, perhaps hidden away in some enclosed ashram dedicated to loopy but harmless beliefs, with our British Constitution at least as firmly in place as it was before this time four years ago, as if * had never existed.
Good for our country and good for me - it'd would help my health no end.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/royal-expert-backlash-tweet-meghan-markles-skin-colour-124156358.html
The Mob has descended on Angela Levin
What a lot of people don’t realize about Mel Gibson is that he is American. Born in New York state; his father Hutton moved the family to Los Angeles when Mel was 12. A few years later he split from Mel’s mother and moved Mel and his brothers to Australia, where he had family ties. Being a young adolescent at the time, Mel quickly adopted the protective coloration of his surroundings and become Aussie in his speech and manner. He burst onto the international scene as an Australian export, and it was quite a few years before I realized that he was actually American. If you listen to Mel these days, the Aussie is completely gone and he sounds like a New Yorker (which is to say, New York State. New York City and environs have a distinctive accent.
A lot of Mel’s adult problems can be traced to his rearing by his father Hutton, a domineering certified loon. It is he that fueled Mel’s brand of militant Catholicism with his own fringe church which he espouses today. Hutton was an abusive father, which I believe is the source of Mel’s alcoholism and other emotional problems like volatility. I’ve always recognized the damaged child underneath the adult imbroglios. If Mel is anti-royalist, it’s not because he’s Australian but because he is a Catholic, a particularly militant strain of Catholic, and the British royals have not been Catholic friendly since Henry VIII.
Sadly several regular posters have gotten upset with me because I felt that something written was more in the direction I was trying to keep the blog from going. This set up doesn't allow me to personally let anyone know what it is that is a little too far. And, I'm not interesting in publicly saying: X you broke this rule in the guidelines. That's shaming and not how I roll.
I miss them. They were good posters. They brought a lot to this blog. I wish they would come back.
Heh. I have had a lot of my posts cut. I figured I'd transgressed somehow, even though I wasn't sure why or how, but then I am the Queen of Off Topic posts (I should change my screen name). It is a little difficult to stick to one topic when there isn't a lot happening with them and what IS happening is concocted.
https://www.shefinds.com/collections/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-spotify-archetypes-podcast/
The story is still going... does Neil Sean (the source) have a genuine source or is he picking up made-up gossip/speculation? Allegedly, as he always says.
Never going to happen but if it did, the Duchass would indeed break the Internet.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1013637-meghan-markle-planning-juicer-memoir-than-prince-harry-wont-pull-punches
That paragraph is literally from the article!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1689856/prince-harry-meghan-markle-spare-cruel-treatment-exit-spt
Of course it will be in the memoir. The Duchass will insist on playing a major part in the memoir, but it is this aspect of his life that will get the most attention.
A long but wonderful article (extract from a book). It seems that Lady C was right - the late Queen did have bone marrow cancer.
Please reconsider your statement that `British royals have not been Catholic friendly since Henry VIII', with regard to Mary I & the Stuarts. Also, Henry VIII persecuted Protestants as he saw himself as head of a catholic Church of England, loyal to himself, not Rome. He was keen to demonstrate that, prior to 1066, the English church was more or less independent of Rome, his agents scoured monastic libraries for Anglo-Saxon evidence of this, as foundation documents for the CofE. It was the arrival of French bishops with William the Conqueror that fixed the link with Rome.
The difficulty, especially in the late 17thC and through the 18th C, was the territorial ambition and Absolutism of the French kings (before that, it was the Pope's insistence that Catholics had to be loyal to him, not Elizabeth I, that effectively defined Roman Catholics as traitors).
As an illustration - take William III's invasion of 1688 (yes, it was an invasion - he came with a huge, heavily-armed fleet - see Lisa Jardine's Going Dutch). He came with the Pope's blessing as His Holiness saw the expansion of French control as a threat to his own authority. Not many people know that and few would believe it anyway.
For a handy read about European history of the period, try Tim Blanning's The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648-1815
Unfortunately, `history' is often more about what people choose to believe to have happened, not what actually did happen.
Thanks though for for MG's background - it explains a lot.
The controversial Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, already suffered slight embarrassment when the price of his book has halved ahead of its release, but it’s now free for Black Friday on Amazon
Adopted sign up. By
Adam Cailler
Then I skimmed the last few days of Adam Cailler's Twitter feeds (VERY pretty calico cat in his profile) and saw nothing.
But it's no longer Black Friday in either country, so maybe we missed it?
Please , let it be true!
A sprat to catch a mackerel ... I must admit that is new to me and I had to look it up. I like it!
I don't think booksellers are going to make huge profits from the book. This particular giveaway is to get people to subscribe to a service. For Amazon, that is Audible. So, yes, that saying is very apt.
In themselves, the duo are not a 'great buy', but, because of increasing notoriety, they encourage sales in a service or product. For Kerry Kennedy, that is the millions she is making from ticket sales to an event that is supposedly not sold out yet, but is close.
Supposedly Sunshine Sachs brokered this deal for them months ago. Right about the time that 'Earthshot is heading for Boston' was announced, which was round about July? Coincidence?
Perhaps questionable curiosity on my part, but I can't wait to see what the duo do. Burn bridges by turning up together and adding fuel to the fire? Find a reason not to go but accept the award anyway (as I said, Kerry Kennedy has managed to sell millions worth of tickets on the promise that they will be there)? He pulls out and leaves her to burn bridges on her own? What I do not think they will do, but should do, is refuse to accept the award because it is being given on false grounds. JK Rowling stood up to Kerry Kennedy and returned her award, but I sense that the woke salad tossing couple are not fans of hers.
Amazon's deal is available when customers take out a trial of their audiobook service Audible, and the book is now on the list of free works which can be purchased by Audible listeners during the trial.. I checked on Amazon UK and it is indeed free: 'Start your 30-day Audible trial to get this audiobook free!'. Are they that desperate? (Are we?)
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's "rock star" status threatened to "overshadow" other senior royals, according to an expert.
By SOPHIE MCCABE
10:22, Fri, Nov 25, 2022 | UPDATED: 10:22, Fri, Nov 25, 2022 (from the Express UK)
https://archive.ph/wdJi4#selection-469.0-501.24
___________________
Also Amazon Audible trials are one month free trial. So don't get yours until January, for the Spare book.
CORRECTION! You can sign up now. Reserve your audio copy. Cancel and still get your audio copy. Which probably has a 30 day life.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11471637/Prince-Harrys-book-Spare-Amazon-FREE-Black-Friday-deal-months-hits-shelves.html
How sad that H realized too late that he was always #2 and would never have a palce of importance in the greater scheme of Life in the Firm. He did not pay attention to what is aunt and uncles were doing for the Firm - they were supporting the Queen, not underminding her.
A quintessential spoiled brat.
i still think KK made the remarks on behest of the mrs. it makes the narrative about her not them. he’s only along for the ride. i think they will show. she would not turn down a black tie event and full of rich people. no she will be there and she will make sure he is there
for what it’s worth barkjack said the first draft of the book was boring and not juicy at all. we will see how much they “juiced “ it up for the revised version. i’m hoping it’s a big dud probably the most a Thing thing being “i was so misunderstood” “family is unloving” and it’s a whine fest about not getting enough hugs
Just off to listen to Lady C’s latest video. 😛
If he and his wife got pushed out of the firm, it wasn’t due to their status as the second tier couple, but their adamant refusal to serve the monarch and the people rather than themselves.
I’m looking at this quiet couple of weeks as the calm before the storm and, in this case, probably Storm with a capital “S”. M has a history of running quiet while she is plotting and planning to upstage the real Royals. It cannot sit well with her that William and Catherine will be in Boston (a beautiful old and at the same time innovative city) for a megawatt awards presentation— supposedly in which former President Obama wants to participate. Didn’t H offer to attend to “help” William and W declined his offer?
That would be unforgivable to the raging Narc. She is definitely plotting — and not just to attend the Ripple Awards.
I can see her trying to gate crash the Earth Shot ceremony, perhaps even with the kids in tow. Anything to draw attention away from Catherine and William — even better if she can somehow demean and/or humiliate C and W.
I would greatly appreciate it.
-----
In their latest Archewell promotion it says they're servicing the people.
Which is interesting language. Makes you wonder what exactly is she doing there anyway. Utilizing her yacht skills?
I'm not sure Harry "was like that before he met his wife." No one knew how long the Queen had when he married but if only he'd bided his time, he'd be taking a meaningful role now. So would * but she was not interested in serving the BRF and the nation. This came to me a few days ago when I saw William and Catherine at Charles's state banquet for the SA president. I think H&M, had they behaved properly all along, might have attended. In due course, H would have been at Charles's side alongside William. If only he'd thrown his lot in with his family instead of some floozy, he'd have all the security he claims he needs and would not need to wonder where the next $ comes from. I wonder how he felt looking at pix of the state banquet with everybody in their regalia. As for *, tough, she sought tawdry fame and fortune in California but it's been hard work for very little gain and does not bring the prestige and recognition a place in the BRF would.
A Bill is a proposal for a new law, or a proposal to change an existing law, presented for debate before Parliament.
A Bill can start in the Commons or the Lords and must be approved in the same form by both Houses before becoming an Act (law).
------
All I could find is this very recent article (on various websites):
King Charles III will be able to revoke Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's titles with passing of a new bill.
Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York Central, has pitched a 'Removal of Titles' Bill which can allow His Majesty to take away the titles of royal family members.
This labour MP in York has brought forward a private members bill in parliament to deprive Andrew of his title. If the bill becomes law, it gives the power to the monarch or a Committee of Parliament to remove the royal titles of certain members of the royal family. Whether Charles will or not is not certain.
And more details here ...
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/royals/queen/239028/exclusive-extract-what-the-queen-really-thought-about-harry-and-meghan
The following blog post has the relevant Bill plus Letters Patent relating to titles:
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/702012245771747328/psow-as-cos-what-i-meant-was-that-including-the
Private Members' Bill (Presentation Bill)
second reading - 09 december 2022
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289
...
Long title
A Bill to give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative or following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament; and for connected purposes.
...
Private Members' bills
Private Members' bills are public bills introduced by MPs and Lords who are not government ministers. As with other public bills their purpose is to change the law as it applies to the general population. A minority of Private Members' bills become law but, by creating publicity around an issue, they may affect legislation indirectly.
Like other public bills, Private Members' bills can be introduced in either House and must go through the same set stages. However, as less time is allocated to these bills, it is less likely that they will proceed through all the stages.
https://archive.ph/2022.11.26-172038/https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/royals/queen/239028/exclusive-extract-what-the-queen-really-thought-about-harry-and-meghan?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MN-MailPlus-Briefings-221126_SATURDAYBR5_NEWSLETTER&signin=none
Yes, the Duchess may know quite a bit about servicing a subset of the people but that is only speculation. We’ve got from her own mouth that she expects payment for service and that is not speculation.
Maneki,
We all wanted to believe the best of Harry—and that he was every bit as shiny and down to earth and jovial as the top notch image management by Edward Lane Fox promoted him to be. We all wanted to believe in his “love story” and that he and his unconventional American princess would do great things for Britain and the Commonwealth. If * had been a quality woman, she could have been as good for the Royal family of the UK as Princess Mary has been for Denmark. Unfortunately * was not such a woman. She has not been good for Harry but long before her, he was not good for himself. Now that the Palace protection has been withdrawn, we see the true Harry. I think we’ve had ample testimonials from Harry’s teachers, friends, former squaddies, former girlfriends, Invictus veterans…et. al that Harry has never been all we were encouraged to believe he was. All the racist behavior, non-performance in the military and the cheating at school, the drugs, the drunken pool parties, the reckless insubordination, the cheapness, the poor boyfriend behavior, the obsession with status and the jealousy of William and his children were all there prior to 2016 when he crossed paths with the wife. She did not create the Haz we now see; she held up a mirror to his true nature. She’s made him worse for sure but he wasn’t a good person before. She has encouraged all of his worst traits into full poisonous flower. I don’t feel sorry for him—these are his choices. He is a hollow vessel of avarice and revenge.
Hilkari's comment about how if they had waited, they could have made themselves as indispensable as Anne and with all the trappings they wanted. The real stuff.
But they wanted the Tinseltown version of royalty which never really is able to fully display the full weight of appearance, ceremony, tone/weight of history, real jewels instead of paste. Exhibit A: recent article talking about how cheesy the Di dresses have been lately for the Crown. Close but not quite on target.
I thought why would you want the not real thing when you could have the real one?
I don't know but maybe if you grew up watching on set lots of praise/clapping after a cut or during a show, that you would learn to think that once you made it through to a part, then you get not just the clothes, the status but the applause and attention (on set immediately and after thanks to your agent/handlers). Instant and sustained reinforcement.
What if part of the issue was that she was expecting more fawning from his family without realizing that is not his family culture? Or like after each tour, no celebratory end of that work party like a set party? No rah rahs you did a great job. Another reason not to stick around? Maybe?
Neil Sean? Oh, I suspect that he could be teasing her by putting that out there (that Catherine would be a guest).
We all know that that kind of interview is not the sort of high on the list of types of interviews the family wants to be associated with before you get into the past personal history between the two, the total lack of any control of the final product or that what Catherine is supportive of is not in line with the alleged theme of the podcast. No upside for BRF and all downside = big no.
He came out with something which was positive about her (maybe around the time of the QE funeral) which seemed a little out there in terms of unlikeliness and nothing seemed to come of it. As always, allegedly with the twinkle in his eye. IDK but it is kind of funny to think about how that interview would come out in final form depending on who was editing and their motives
"Servicing" the people. LOL!! Freudian slip. Ducharse telling on herself. My, my.
Delicious that a bill is being put forth to take away royal titles. Dookie and Ducharse better hide behind the couch. When that news hits their ears, they'll be extremely worried. Charles might not do anything, but William surely will take action.
Just from experience, when Ducharse has been quiet for a long time, it indicates that she's having work done, and needs time for the swelling and bruising to subside. When she does appear, her face be slightly different. Perhaps Fat Markle is having lap band surgery.
I had a quick look, it seems the Queen was really very happy and also very relaxed about things. I wonder if she was really that relaxed about *.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11472423/Queen-feared-Prince-Harry-little-love-Meghan-Markle.html
In!other news, Charlotte is to be made Duchess of Edinburgh in due course.
Also good article by Sarah Vine: If anyone deserves an anti-racism award it's King Charles, not Harry and Meghan
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11472951/SARAH-VINE-deserves-anti-racism-award-King-Charles-not-Harry-Meghan.html
That's a powerful assessment of how H's image fooled us all and how we wanted nothing but good for him. You naied it by saying that * certainly ` did not create the Haz we now see; she held up a mirror to his true nature.'
Thank you.
I was rushed when I wrote the post (as usual in my daily life! Lol) I don’t think they will bring the kids to the Earth Shot awards ceremony, but do think they could drag them to Boston. I believe they have two children who were born of surrogates that they treat abysmally. (More on that in a future comment.)
I base my observation regarding the gate crashing on M’s prior gate crashing activity and on the pair’s crashing of the 50th Anniversary of the Prince of Wales Investiture event. The YouTube video of the Investiture is cringe worthy. Markle and her man kept creeping into the room despite clearly being told by Charles to stay the hell out. Keep in mind, the viewing was held inside a Royal property, with heavy Royal security present, and the four main senior Royals scowled at them repeatedly and told them to keep out. M has balls of forged steel.
In Boston, they will be in a public venue and, while British security will be present, it won’t have the absolute authority that is has inside the UK. M will likely be absolutely brazen — past performance being a very good indicator of future performance for most individuals, especially narcs. I can clearly see her pushing into the event.
I can also see them dragging the children along for a so-called “private” meeting with their Uncle W and Aunt C during the Boston trip. After all, it is the holiday season and the kids should, according to M, visit with their Uncle and Aunt. Never mind that the meeting is not in the Royal agenda and that M will broadcast every moment of the supposed meeting to the press.
The Royals, at the best of times, lead highly structured lives that can be very stressful. There is no room in their schedules for an “off” day, no allowance for waking up on the wrong side of the bed, having a bad hair day, or being under the weather on a working day.
To have to add the stress of dealing with the sh*t of H and M is terrible. H should and does know better. He knows from his own personal experience the sometime stress and burden of Royal service. Yet, he will happily add to William and Catherine’s load.
H needs to watch out. Karma can and will be a b*tch.
So on to the important stuff, Lady C says in most recent tea serving that if Harry shows up for Ripple of Diarrhea there is no way back for Frido and he knows this. Barkjack is reporting huge fights at Mudslide Manor over it, with Halfwit remaining resolute not to torpedo his only way back to welfare on a crown prince's lifestyle.
Still, I don't believe they are divorcing. They are co depends feeding off negativity. They need each other and have cast their lot and sold their souls to Nutflex and Roast Penguin and Spunkify for what exactly??
Those poor kids. The tea is Archie is suffering from attachment issues to point he's acting out and needs intervention. One can only hope Halfwit will wake up and find a way to hustle those kids home soon.
Meghan unfiltered on those podcasts show us why she never made it in Hollywood. She's dull and pretentious and nobody gives a toss about her or her beliefs. And that is why I agree with Lady C, whose turned out the best most reliable tea since the beginning. Credit where credit is due. But she's right: give Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enough rope, and let them damage their own reputation.
The Daily Mail is not unimpeachable, right? Has this really been vetted for authenticity? King Charles is to make Charlotte the Duchess of Edinburgh, hence the reason the title is being denied to Edward?
This is nonsensical to me. A Duchess title comes via marriage to a Duke. Not even the Queen Regnant-to-be was made a Duchess on her own; the Dukedom was conferred upon her husband. To create a Duchess with no Duke is…irregular. Not to mention, Charlotte is 7 years old. By the time she’s 18, or 21, KCIII may well have shuffled off this mortal coil. Does he propose to make a child a Duchess? Charlotte will be the Princess Royal in time. When she marries…her husband wouldn’t become the Duke if Edinburgh through her. I am confused by this story.
The about-face on the Edinburgh title vexes me. If Charles wishes to honor the memory of his late father in this fashion I think PP would call it daft. If Sophie isn’t to be the next Duchess of Edinburgh, then Lady Louise has more claim to a close bond with Philip than Charlotte who was 5 when he passed away.
Wild Boar can fact check this, but I think the last occupant of the ill-fated Sussex Dukedom before Harry, Augustus Frederick, 6th son of Geo. III, Victoria's uncle, had displeased the sovereign by marrying (twice) without permission. Neither of his wives was made the Duchess of Sussex due to the marriage being unsanctioned, but Victoria created Wife #2 the Duchess of Inverness in her own right, so she would match rank with her husband.
Would Charles really take this route? Rather bizarre. Edward would’ve taken another Dukedom from Mummy at his wedding if he or the Queen knew Charles would renege on his promise.
Is this, like the bogus Coronation date published by the papers erroneously just more speculation without proof?
Kate’s in touch with American over-40s but Meghan is where the money is
As the Prince and Princess of Wales head stateside for their first US tour in eight years, Amanda Foreman assesses the British monarchy’s popularity across the Atlantic
Two royal events dominated the American headlines in 1981. The first was the great “curtsy scandal” in April, when the White House chief of protocol, Leonore Annenberg, was photographed curtsying to Prince Charles during his brief visit to the US. The idea of an American bending the knee to royalty — and English royalty no less — sent people into a frenzy of righteous indignation. There were editorials, letters, television debates, and seemingly endless outrage at the insult to American republican values. The State Department was forced to make a statement, and Annenberg never lived it down. Three months later, more than 14 million US households either stayed up all night or got up before dawn to watch Charles and Diana’s wedding.
As the French like to say, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Four decades later, Americans are still viscerally tied and eternally conflicted about the royal family, only now they have been joined by two players from the other side who are pumping as much oxygen as possible to keep this psychodrama alive. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s move to California has made the volume louder, the talk trashier, and the stakes for the royal family never higher.
A two-hour chat with Oprah Winfrey turned a 70-year reign of selfless dedication and duty into a mere sideshow compared with the vital question of who said what to whom. Imagine what the Sussexes’ documentary series and Harry’s biography will do. With William and Kate, the new Prince and Princess of Wales, due to arrive in the US on Wednesday for a three-day trip — their first state visit since Queen Elizabeth’s death — there is going to be a royal smackdown of sorts that will allow a direct, peer-to-peer comparison between the working Windsors and the working-it Windsors.
If you believe the British press, the Sussexes are wearing out their welcome in the US. Their popularity is slipping down the scale, just like each episode of Meghan Markle’s Archetypes podcast on the Spotify rankings (down 76 places last week). But if that were actually true, the Sussexes would not be attending one of the most expensive charity galas in New York on December 6 to accept an award for their humanitarian work. The Robert F Kennedy Human Rights foundation, named after the younger brother of President John F Kennedy, is giving the couple the Ripple of Hope Award in recognition of their “heroic” fight against the royal family’s “structural racism”. Everyone knows that charity galas select their recipients with both ears and eyes focused on getting bums on seats. It’s the oldest game in town. Some charities even demand that they commit to buying a certain number of tables. There happen to be four other “name brand” recipients at the event, including the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, but they are being treated like the proverbial chopped liver compared with the excitement over having Harry and Meghan come to the East Coast.
It is a duel representative of a cultural and generational divide in America. The Waleses and the Sussexes carry extraordinary weight — but it’s with their own constituencies rather than each other’s. The US broadsheets and magazines that cater to readers who were alive before the internet have been questioning for some time now whether the luxurious lifestyles of Harry and Meghan are out of kilter with their narrative of victimhood. In August, New York Magazine published a 6,000-word interview with the duchess, rather cheekily entitled “Meghan of Montecito”, where she was given the opportunity to talk about herself without interruption. It was a risky decision to go beyond her natural fanbase on TV and social media. Unlike the infamous Oprah interview, the reporter kept a modicum of distance from her subject. One choice line read: “She has been media-trained and then royal media-trained and sometimes converses like she has a tiny Bachelor producer in her brain directing what she says.”
The best way to understand the Sussexes’ relationship with ordinary Americans is to put it in the same context as Gwyneth Paltrow and her Goop lifestyle company. Goop was valued at $250 million in 2018, having started out as a newsletter in 2008. Experts routinely criticise the company for peddling expensive tat to credulous consumers who are chasing after something called “wellness”. Her supporters could not care less because they don’t need the products to be real, they just need them to be emotionally satisfying at the point of sale.
Harry and Meghan are selling something similar, call it “me-spiration”. It’s not a philosophy so much as an ego massage and it’s a pure money-maker. Netflix and Random House each have millions of dollars invested in its success. Random House is sitting pretty. Books dishing the dirt on the royal family always sell, no matter what. Netflix has more of a challenge on its hands. But an Oscar-winning screenwriter who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity revealed that the streaming company regards them in the same way they do the Obamas, who also have their own producing deal. The Sussexes must succeed because they are too expensive to fail. In any case, they have a star power that goes beyond the normal considerations of content or success because their brand is cross-collateralised with The Crown, still one of Netflix’s flagship series which regularly tops the streamers viewing figures in the US.
With two media juggernauts each working overtime to protect their assets, and a formula that milks two of the biggest obsessions in America today: royalty and identity, the Sussexes are assured their place in the social mediaverse. There will be no shortage of interviews, humanitarian awards, and self-generated documentaries in their future. The war between the Waleses and the Sussexes was over before it started.
@abbyh - I think you’re right about Neil Sean trying to get a reaction out of the Duckarse by suggesting that The Princess of Wales will be a guest on the podcast about stereotypes. She often feeds the media some whoppers to generate publicity or to pressure someone to invite her to something (anything, really), so turnabout is fair play.
I can’t quite believe that KC III seriously plans to give the Edinburgh title to Charlotte. Could this be another ploy to fire up madam’s temper? I certainly hope it is just a rumor. I would really love to see this important title go to Edward and Sophie.
Thank you for posting the link to the excerpt from the biography of the Queen. Very interesting excerpt!
THE PRINCE & ME Prince Harry was my toyboy when he was 21 – I was 34 and a mum-of-two and I bet his book doesn’t mention it
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20561974/prince-harry-toyboy-book-catherine-ommanney/
Charlotte, Duchess of Edinburgh
doesn’t make sense
I’ll take a large pinch of salt
and a seat on the fence
As for the Queen and Philips
last hours
Shouldn’t have been written
nor her private labours…
Wow!! Rebecca
More to come?
Hopefully madam Susshex next
Would this be in keeping with the idea that a slimmed monarchy and having titles sort of stay more within the nuclear family than having them continue to go out and stay out? Entailed sort of?
One of the potential issue might be would be that if it did go to PE, then it elevates him and his family at a time when KC is trying to not have as many people coming in (PE's kids) while still trying to keep PAd's kids at more of an arms length. IDK. Maybe?
I'm sad that everything I read was that PP wanted PE to have that. Maybe there is more to this than just this part we are seeing.
@WildBoar
Mel Gibson has American
citizenship, Australian permanent
residency and Irish citizenship.
The latter probably shows his
true allegiance, along with his faith.
Tripartite, with unilateral thought.
@abbyh
KC needs PE and Sophie,
so do Will and Kate.
Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra
and the Gloucesters are
all getting on.
Unless Edward has refused
the Dukedom I don’t understand
why he wouldn’t inherit.
@abbyh asked
"Would this be in keeping with the idea that a slimmed monarchy and having titles sort of stay more within the nuclear family than having them continue to go out and stay out? Entailed sort of?"
Maybe. But in the not too distant future Charlotte will be in the same position Edward has been in his entire life... Child of the monarch but not the heir. And after that if things unfold normally, she'll be a sib of the monarch as Andrew, Anne, and Edward are now.
We seem to think of W&K's children as being in the "direct" line but really, if that term is used, really only George is. I saw a comment on another site claiming Kate is raising "three future monarchs." Certainly hope that's not true! (Tragedies in store if it is true.)
Charlotte and Louis are in the same kind of position LoS-wise Harry was in growing up. And once they marry they will be just like Harry (in terms of constitutional roles.)
If Charles doesn't want to risk this title or any other "getting away" then all titles need to go to Will and George only. Then to George's firstborn when he has one. No exceptions. Of course that would make having titles kind of stupid.
Charles is looking at the direct line of succession. The Duke of Edinburgh title is the most senior title after the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall titles. Charlotte is third in line after George the next direct heir after his father.
According to the DM King Charles has has bestowed Charlotte the title, she has equal rights as a boy. Therefore title denotes her seniority in the line of succession. When she marries her husband will become a Duke of Edinburgh because the changes made at the time Catherine was pregnant with George.
I quote
‘It would be a fitting way to remember the Queen – who, of course, had the title Duchess of Edinburgh – and a way for His Majesty to honour the line of succession.’
As the Prince of Wales’s second child, Charlotte is third in line to the throne, after her father Prince William and brother Prince George.
When the Princess of Wales was expecting her first child, the rules of Royal primogeniture were changed to allow a girl born to the couple the same rights as a boy.
In the event, William and Kate’s first child was Prince George, who was born in 2013. But the new rules meant Princess Charlotte’s position at birth in 2015 was not affected by the arrival of her younger brother Prince Louis in 2018.
The title of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh is one of the most senior in the Royal Family.
Charlotte’s position as the second child of the heir to the throne is similar to that of Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, who was the second child of Prince Philip and the then Princess Elizabeth.
But unlike Anne she will not drop down the order of succession until her older brother George has children. When William becomes King, George will become Duke of Cornwall and then Prince of Wales – but not Duke of Edinburgh.
A source said: ‘Charlotte’s position is historically significant because she is the first female member of the Royal Family whose place in the line of succession will not be surpassed by her younger brother.
So it is constitutionally significant that Charlotte should be given such a corresponding title, because it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she will accede the throne if, for example, Prince George does not have children.’
These are historical changes made to the line of succession and titles, which is why we’ve neverseen them before.🥴
I agree, you’re right about Lady C, she has consistently got it right about Maggot and Mole and in great detail too! 😃
My assumption is that James does not want any kind of public role, so he will not continue his grandfather's legacy, as his father is doing. Edward would thus be in agreement that the title should pass to someone who will play a public role in the monarchy in the future. We cannot assume that Charlotte would want to, but the monarchy has always embraced modernizing and so passing the title to a female would not be a problem.
However, we need to separate rumour from fact. There has been no announcement about the Duke of Edinburgh title. The DM is reporting what a source told them informally. Since they have not named the source, we cannot assess the accuracy of the information. I trust that the DM has done due diligence, but there has been no announcement and no confirmation from an official royal source.
I do wonder why the King would risk offending his brother and sister-in-law. It is not a good idea to have festering resentment in the family firm for personal and professional reasons!
I agree, otherwise scurrilous
lies, misinformation,
would be classed as truth.
The podcast is struggling to stay in the top 100, so the young people who are supposed to be their important supporters are not listening. What is the point of sinking millions into producing a podcast that hardly anyone listens to? For how long is Spotify going to try to make fetch happen? They failed with the Obamas and now the duo.
The Netflix contract is all hype and no delivery so far. The memoir has been so heavily discounted that it is now been given away for free, after her pathetic book was a complete failure.
Their foundation (whatever) is nowhere near even a million in income and survives on donations from the SS. The really rich and influential people in America are supporting the Earthshot prize and shun the duo.
The only currency they have is their notoriety ... people are curious so putting them on stage at an event will draw attention, which is essentially free PR. The risk is that it can be bad publicity because the duo are attracted to shady stuff, which gets exposed when they 'shine a light'!.
They are not even powerful as influencers. Their campaigns have flopped, and they don't go out enough to be fashion or lifestyle influencers that will earn them millions. Possibly she is getting all that itty bitty jewellery at a discount or for even for free.
It is misleading to compare them with the Prince and Princess of Wales. If you want to assess their success, you have to find someone comparable. Philanthropist: Bill Gates? Influencer: Kardashians? Activist: Greta Thurnberg? Podcaster: pick from the dozens.
What are you measuring with fame? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Ted Bundy ... just some very famous people.
A: Queen Elizabeth II, when in the Channel Islands.
These are the last bits of Normandy, ie France, under the English, now British Crown. The Islanders were given the choice in 1215 (the only good bad King John may have done) receiving big tax concessions in return for their loyalty (ie. they are free of taxation imposed by Westminster - this is inviolable and I imagine that one reason they were never in the EU as they couldn't be subjected to VAT.)
So there are precedents for females of ducal rank in their own right - perhaps Charles is following through from daughters of the monarch having equal treatment their brothers in the matter of Succession. They usually end up as Dukes but `Princess Royal' is bestowed as an honour, not a right, and it's never been moved from one princess to another upon a change of monarch. Wikipedia explains all this.
MG as `Irish'? Exactly!!!
That story about his fling with an older woman is most interesting.
He had a 'type' - blonde. He married someone completely different.
He stayed on affectionate terms with women he had been intimate with ... until he got married.
He always thought he was the Queen's favourite and had a special relationship with her.
He was really entitled in terms of having bodyguards at his beck and call, as well as a fleet of cars, and often misbehaved and thought he could get away with it.
He always complained about his position and never wanted to be a working royal. I am unsure who of the duo was pushing the half in and half out life and why. And I do not understand why he did not pursue a different path all along. Why 'string everyone along' and take millions from taxpayers for all that they cost (and she sure did spend) for the wedding, the clothing, the security, the tours, the free housing ...?
I agree, no official statement has been released by BP regarding the DoE title, and I too hope the DM has done it’s due diligence. Until it’s formally confirmed by BP it’s media (meddling) speculation. 🫤
Americans love an underdog, so it’s not easy to lose our support. Telling lies and whining about how hard it is to be a member of the Royal Family was all it took.
I am unsure who of the duo was pushing the half in and half out life and why.
I think it's well documented that H said he didn't want to be a royal years before meeting his ball and chain. I think he would have confided in her early enough that he wasn't happy as a royal, in which case it's not hard to imagine that she 'understood' his plight - of course! - and encouraged him, probably trying to engineer marriage. It would have been very attractive to H to have a future life in California, free from the shackles of the BRF and making money, being part of the Hollywood set etc. that she dangled before him. From there, it wouldn't have been difficult to talk H into leaving the BRG. That way, * had fame and riches without a 'life of service' to the BRF. This is my own take on things for what it's worth.
Apparently, the Kent title is not covered by the Act of Settlement and can be inherited down their line - another example of our law being more complex than it may seem at first sight. It sounds as if the rules for the Edinburgh title may differ in that respect. We can't make assumptions.
Duchess Kate will be 90 next February, the Duke of Kent became 87 last month - both seem very frail now.
Well, this is a load of nonsense. How could William enforce an NDA?
Who has a connection to Closer and is thus probably the source of this story? The same source of the stories about Catherine being a guest on that ridiculous podcast? The same source of the stories about secret meetings of reconciliation in America? The same source of the stories of the Prince and Princess of Wales so looking forward to seeing Archie and Lilli? The same source who needs the royal stardust to stay relevant?
I suspect that he finds her craziness exciting, but also believes that if he does not fully support her, he will be as bad as his father (and the rest of the family) who deserted his mother and so she died. He thinks it is love, and I wonder why because he was bought up with lots of love from an extended family and had love, presumably, with decent people like Chelsea and Cressida.
He was a ticking time bomb just waiting for that ruthless manipulative grifter to get him in her grasp. Why did his family not see that coming and help from a much earlier age, or was there nothing they could have done to save him from a woman like her?
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20221125158100/meghan-markle-appearance-baffles-fans-ask-questions-photo-prince-harry/
Filters? Botox? Or a mixture of both?
I wonder why the Duchass converted? Was she afraid of being excluded, of not being eligible to be Queen? Neither of the couple is religious and only turned up at church for photo op royal events, the marriage, and the christening of the son. Since the daughter is listed in the line of succession, I assume that she was christened but the ceremony was a top secret, just like the names of the godparents.
It’s a safe-ish bet that William will likely become King before his children are of marriageable age. Charles would surprise me if he equaled the longevity of his parents. At that point, George becomes POW and Duke of Cornwall…could Charlotte retain Cambridge for herself and a husband? Louis will likely receive York when Andrew vacates it. Edinburgh could revert to the Crown upon Edward’s death and William could give it to whom he wishes then. Why are we assuming that Viscount Severn couldn’t accept the title? I have wondered whether James is on the spectrum, but the lad is only 14 and we don’t know what the plans are for him. I doubt he knows himself. Is the Earldom not hereditary? James has had his fathers subsidiary title since he was born; does that cease at Edward’s death? If so, what does that mean for his mother? There is precedent for being titled without being full-time Royals.
In a recent interview after the death of his father, Edward was circumspect when asked point blank about the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title— He said the Prince of Wales (as Charles then was) will do what he thinks best. So there is a possibility that Edward has already resigned myself to not succeeding his father. I guess we shall see what develops.
Posted today, Neil Sean says: - problems with first director were about the duo requiring a script for every interaction right down to having a cup of coffee. - they kept rejecting scripts, making filming impossible - they (the Sussex team?) didn't get release forms from all participants so a lot of content is unusable - what's left over for Netflix to use is thin and dull - the Sussexes have disassociated themselves entirely from the docuseries (source close to the couple) and are trying to change the subject with Ripple of Hope. - the press are trying to sign up the docuseries directors (who are still under NDA) for the juicy inside story - Netflix still want to get something released.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/z653gu/netflix_tea_from_neil_sean/
https://mobile.twitter.com/ukroyaltea
Royal Tea
@UKRoyalTea
·
Nov 26
A hypothetical PR Plan:
What if you made a docuseries and regretted some of the content? What if that content could get you banned from high profile events or cause your money-making titles to be revoked? AND the success of the show determined if you keep a lucrative contract? 1/
Royal Tea
@UKRoyalTea
·
Nov 26
- “We really wanted to respect the creative process, even if they didn’t make the choices we would make”
- “We are coming from a place of love and learning, and hope the world can look past the manufactured press drama and just see two people trying to live a truthful life”
8/
Royal Tea
@UKRoyalTea
·
Nov 26
And if it all goes terribly wrong, you pretend you chose to end the contract with Netflix, say nothing negative publicly because of your NDA, and have carefully planted “sources” say walking away was 100% your choice because you had zero control of what made it into the show.
9/
curious about duke of edinburgh. we know charles has told edward whatever is gonna happen and if so when it’s announced. but wow we got everyone speculating. it’s a spectacular look over there moment (which would be better served right before the spare tire book comes out) to distract from something? so why now? courtiers bored? is something else happening? did see in the mail that andrew has been stripped of protection? who is next? maybe there will a bunch of title jockeying come up here soon. i’m not gonna fall for the speculation. i think it’s part of a bigger plan or charles is testing someone to see if they are spilling secrets.
https://twitter.com/UKRoyalTea/status/1596528470376722432
Why the messiness?
Royal Tea
@UKRoyalTea
·
Nov 26
Replying to
@melanieredie
Indecision and changing their plans has been a constant - very short span of attention, desire for immediate results, and a lack of foresight has been a huge cause of problems since the very beginning. They have no patience or ability to play a long game.
PDina talking to Samantha Markle and Paula M. Samantha is being very measured and fair in what she says.
Charlotte IS in an historic position because of the move away from male primogeniture. But that doesn't translate into a constitutionally important position. Unless George suddenly becomes a Catholic or doesn't have children, Charlotte will no longer be in the "direct line" once George has kids (if direct means can't be supplanted.) She's never been Anne because of the change in law but she'll be Harry, Edward, & Andrew. And she'll likely be the future Princess Royal. Of course, if she is the DoE maybe she'll take on the work of the awards once she's no longer a minor. If I were Edward I'm not sure how long I'd keep doing that work especially if the long-promised title went elsewhere.
Regardless of what the DM says or doesn't say and regardless of what Charles actually does with this title, it was not my impression that with the changed law in 2013 women could pass on royal titles and in the future upon marriage men would automatically be granted royal spousal courtesy titles. I didn't think the law made girls the same as boys except for the LoS. Am I wrong?
It is obvious that the Duo is in full CYA mode with Netflix and perhaps Spare.
* is really trying to cover herself - there is so much "not me" floating from her camp that if you were naive, you would think she was a marionette on strings.
What is sad is that the Duo are not standing up to / out right rejecting the RFK award as KK talks about the why it is being given to them. I have always said that after KCIII's statement of "Harry and Meagan living overseas", their future with the Family/ the Monarchy/ the Firm was soley on what they would do next.
The RFK award publicity IS the Rubicon. The Kraken of their own making. Could these two be so stupid to attend, accept and smile at such a lie being spun on their behalf?
Is there something with royal second sons that they do not comprehend the obvious? Does it take a literal 2x4 across the head to get them to wake up and realize the hole they have palced themselves and that no one is going to bail them out? That it is over? Your days "in the sun" are gone because you screwed up and there is no coming back from it? Talk about a moral story for Louis - wow.
very short span of attention, desire for immediate results, and a lack of foresight
This is what has characterised the duo right from the word go when they clapped eyes on each other.
I’m not entirely clear what you’re saying. The change by letters patent meant female’s had the same rights as males and yes this change is constitutionally important. It’s highly unlikely the DoE title could or would be passed onto Charlotte’s children, as it’s not happened before to my knowledge. King Charles could give her another ducal title, but it would appear the DoE title is a very senior title hence why as third in line she could receive it when she marries.
I think if the Queen wanted Edward to have the DoE title, she would’ve bestowed it upon him shortly after Philip’s death. The fact she didn’t appears to me as significant and intentional. 🥴
No age group is interested in them. Most people can smell the fake work slogans. Dookie and Ducharse lack charisma, intelligence, wit, and humanitarian values. They lack STYLE. No one wants to copy their clothing choices, no one wants Ducharse's hairstyle.
In a poll on CDAN the question was, "If forced, who would you rather have dinner with Harry or Megan?" Everyone voted for Dookie, one person voted for Ducharse.
I always understood that the Duchess of Kent's conversion to Roman Catholicism stemmed from personal tragedy.
After 3 successful pregnancies, in 1975 she `fell' again but contracted German Measles aka rubella. There was a vaccine by then but this was being given routinely only to young girls who presumably weren't pregnant. Women of child-bearing age had to ask for it and be demonstrably not pregnant. (I had my shot in 1976, having been on the Pill for a couple of months - I was in my 30s.)
Termination of pregnancy, however, was the usual medical response to infection in a pregnant woman, as the potential damage to the unborn child was horrifying -see Wikipedia.
So the Duchess had a termination. Then, in 1977, her fifth pregnancy ended in a stillbirth. I gathered that she had some sort of nervous breakdown as a result and that the greatest help she had in dealing with her grief/guilt/sorrow came from a Catholic priest. Hence her eventually being received into the Roman Catholic church in 1994.
BTW the elder Kent son had married a Catholic and lost his place in the Succession as a result but was restored to it by the 2013 Act. His father had kept his place because the Duchess converted after their marriage. They married in 1961 - a school day for me but our English mistress brought in her transistor radio so we could listen to the service in class. When he uttered `I do,' she was all of a flutter, saying `Oooh! He's sounds so manly!'
The story about m & H sounds like * plant, as per her usual modus operandi - tell a porky, then accuse the other side of reneging on the `arrangements'. when nothing happens to involve them.
*I may have deleted in error.
It's not clear the Queen could award the title to Edward if it passed to Charles when Philip died. I guess she could have "stripped" Charles of that title (people talk about that being done so easily :-) but clearly she wouldn't have. And she would not have taken it from Philip when he was alive. But there were official announcements from the palace when Edward married in 1999 saying he would inherit the title "in due course." It wasn't just speculation in the press. Maybe she did change her mind but if so, I certainly hope she had the courage to tell Edward that.
When the law changed re: primogeniture I do not recall reading anything that said royal males and females born after x date are now totally equal. I don't recall hearing the law change meant women could pass titles on, that married-in husbands would get courtesy titles and that the change invalidated the LP from 1917 that gave certain privileges only to male line descendents. And does this change mean now there can be a Princess of Wales without a Prince? A Duchess of Cornwall who controls the Duchy without a Duke? Somehow none of that's been in the press. What has been is that girls are no longer displaced by brothers in the LoS. And that's important but it doesn't necessarily change everything. But ok.
I'm a little confused though because you say "It’s highly unlikely the DoE title could or would be passed onto Charlotte’s children, as it’s not happened before to my knowledge." Well, no, ducal titles generally haven't been passed on by women. But what's to stop that title from being passed? It passed to Charles. And it probably would have passed from Victoria's second son to his son had the son not committed suicide. It passed from Frederick to his son. And if it can be given to Charlotte but stopped from going to one of her children, then the whole thing about James getting it if it was given to Edward is BS. That could be stopped too if Edward had it. So the logic just isn't there IMO. Also, if the plan is to not award it to Charlotte until she marries, I highly doubt Charles will be awarding it. By then Edward probably won't care but the chances Charles will be alive then seem small to me. Charlotte is 7 now. Her parents were 28 & 29 when they married. I wish Charles the best but can't see him as a 95/96-year old King.
With everything so equal now, I wonder if the honor Princess Royal will continue to exist?
"Regardless of what the DM says or doesn't say and regardless of what Charles actually does with this title, it was not my impression that with the changed law in 2013 women could pass on royal titles"
I think like you.
...
Text extracted from the debate in the House of Lords
"Hereditary peerages and female succession
Most hereditary peerages descend down the male line (known as male primogeniture), which means that the peerage can only be inherited by a male relative. There are some exceptions that enable a woman to inherit. These are:
a) A woman may inherit a title which is a barony by writ (rather than the more common letters patent).
Most peerages in Scotland may pass to a woman in families with daughters but no sons.
b)A ‘special remainder’ may be granted by the Crown to allow a woman to inherit a title.
c) A woman can be given a hereditary peerage by the Crown. (my opinion: Here Princess Charlotte can inherit Prince William's titles, but DoE is not Prince William's)
...
That was my understanding too, but there is a debate about that in parliament. And I'll leave the link here. So whoever wants to read it can agree or not!
...
House Of lords
Women, hereditary peerages and gender inequality in the line of succession.
Published Monday, 03 October, 2022
Women, hereditary peerages and gender inequality in the line of succession
2. What are the peerage inheritance rules?
2.1 Hereditary peerages and female succession.
2.2 Gender recognition and the peerage
Exceptions to the inheritance of
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/women-hereditary-peerages-and-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/
In relation to this item, the list of special titles follows. And I didn't find Dukedom
https://peerages.historyofparliamentonline.org/special_remainders/3
" Rules preventing women inheriting most hereditary peerages should be changed, campaign groups and some parliamentarians have argued. In April 2021, the hereditary peer Lord Lucas (Conservative) asked the government about its plans to amend the rules known as male primogeniture. He argued that changes in 2013 to how the royal succession is governed should encourage a “detailed consideration” of the issue. Government statements to date have suggested that it views reform as “complex” and not a government priority.
Titles were originally something the monarch gifted to someone, usually for some great service to the Crown. Once gifted, they become hereditary and, as we have seen, are very difficult to take away from any idiot descendants.
I think he should have given it to Edward immediately and honoured the formally pronounced wishes of his parents. I doubt that the Duke of Edinburgh would have been concerned that within a generation, his title may go to someone (James) who does not want to continue his work or be a working royal in any way at all. I suspect he would say it is just a title!
As for the Queen and her regard for the duchess and 'special relationship' with her idiot grandson ... I am not convinced that she has been interpreted correctly. After the ruckus about the naming of the daughter, a Palace source said that she was informed rather than asked permission. Her supposed remarks that she was delighted, or something like that, might well have been sarcasm! If we look at her actions, they were clear and swift. HRH taken away, part-time royalling rejected and it being made quite clear that the duo do not represent her, promptly taken out of the procession at that Thanksgiving service ... and so on.
Tea from BarkJack shared in that above post. As expected, he blames his father for everything that happened to his mother. Someone commented that she has succeeded in making sure he is estranged from his father, just as she is from hers. But now that his father is king, are they regretting it, or did they always think that they could control the consequences and decide if there is a reconciliation or not? (My opinion is that she only allows relationships with family that can be controlled, as Doria can, but always views family as 'things' that can be used when it suits her agenda.)
I think the King will be magnanimous like his mother and will continue the message that hapless is a dearly beloved son.
Independent_Leg3957
4h
* MM has a personality disorder and so will always start conflict and then try to claim victimhood. What she wants more than anything is control and to avoid accountability.
* MM can't play a long game and needs quick gratification. The BRF operates in decades, centuries and eras.
* MM had an absent mother and a fractured family. She has no clue how to operate within a harmonious team and I don't think she wants to learn.
* Her grifts only work in the short term. People eventually figure out she is not what she seems and she has to move on and start anew. I'd say 5 years is the max she can pull something off.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/z6gqbe/why_did_mm_and_ph_really_fall_out_with_the_rest/
The original source of the tea about the memoir.
Isn't her secret/private appearance at that fundraising event tomorrow? She will have photos taken and use them to get attention as she has done with the photos from the One Young World event. I wonder how much she can control the taking of photographs? Will he appear with her? It is her solo event but she may want to 'boast' that he is still hers to control.
Re. DoE
The Crown has to make provisions for the future so that it may continue, but at some point enough planning is enough and we have to live in the now. The present should not be held hostage to the future and what ‘May’ happen. Edward has waited patiently and done his service. He should have the title both his parents promised—and Charles did also sign off on the plan. Some day 30 or 40 years hence, the title will pass to James. If he wants to return it to the Crown, I am sure that is an easier prospect than wrenching it away. Then King William or King George can decide what to do with it. To deprive the father now because his teenage son might not want it decades from now is holding the present hostage to the future. It’s not the prince of Wales; England will not fall if Edinburgh skips a generation. Maybe Louis could have it then. York is kind of tainted now.
The King can do what he likes regarding the title. We still have no idea how much credibility the DM article has.🥴😞
The then Prince Charles had a civil wedding to Camilla. Civil weddings aren’t legally allowed for royals. At the time there was a lot of debate whether his marriage would be considered legally valid. It didn’t matter what the actual laws were, he still went ahead regardless. Lord Falconer head of the judiciary at the time, (with his considered rather dodgy and debated interpretation of the law) said it was legal under the human rights law amongst a lot of other jiggery-pokery…hmm. The details and legal advice given is sealed until after Charles’ death. 🫤
`I guess up til then they thought it was fine to tap dance all over a frail nonagenarian...'
You deserve an Honorary Damehood, I just can't decide whether it should be for Services to the Crown or to Literature. Or an MVO at the very least.
(It'd have to `Honorary' because you're not a subject of our monarch but you'd be in excellent company.)
https://www.netflix.com › title
This documentary delves into the former Meghan Markle's first year of married life with Prince Harry, and the lead-up to their first child's birth.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81464559?preventIntent=true&locale=en-GB
-----
The link leads to a Netflix page but a dead end. What do you think this is about? Arguments about if the mockumentary will air or not?
Thank you. When I warm to my subject I get inspired. The Suxxits made me incandescent when I think of the elder abuse they put TQ and Philip through. But I enjoy my little hobby here very much.
I don't believe this DM article. My thoughts is: EoW will be DoE. I only change my mind when something official comes out of BP. And I even think that speculation about Princess Charlotte comes from this Parliamentary debate. A kind of public relations to draw attention to this debate that should be of interest to the group that fomented these issues
Yes I know. I'm full of conspiracy theories.
Today the DE says that Prince Edward rejected the DoE title as being hereditary so his son would not inherit it. But if the King can do what he wants, he just has to do as the Queen did in her communiqué with the title of DoE. It is enough for KCIII to announce that after the death of EoW, the title of DoE will return to the crown.
So these articles are making us go round and round and round.
....
Back to talking about the Sussexes and questions I can't get answers to.
The surname of the children of the Sussexes
"In 1947, when Prince Philip of Greece became naturalised, he assumed the name of Philip Mountbatten as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.
The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.
For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor"
https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
...
Note: I always found it odd that H&M didn't use H's ducal surname as their own children's surnames like PW's children. The birth certificates of Prince William's children show the surname of Cambridge, the name of their parents' dukedom at the time of their birth.
On Archie's certificate, his father's the surname are listed as Sussex. But Archie doesn't have the last name of his father's royal house. I say Archie because he was born in the UK when H&M were still senior workers.
Couldn't it be Archie Harrison of Sussex?
-Everyone will need Covid Vaccination proof or a negative PCR test within 48 hours of the dinner.
-Photography or any recording of this event is strictly prohibited.
-This event is closed to the media. If you are non-media guests, you have to sign off with this statement: “Neither myself nor any of my guests are attending this event as members of the media.
thanks for the barkjack link. so her sources are saying charles is to blame for diana’s death (but not so far as the wild philip had her killed conspiracy rumors). well that’s not gonna go down will with dad question will be will they get the invite will they have to accept conditions (barkjack threw out some big ones) and how will she weasel her way out of the conditions
now richard palmer weighed in (he rumored the june coronation date wrongly eden is the one that brought up the duke of edinburgh stuff) he says it may be the wessexes are reluctant because of james and the original thought was james could turn it back when the time comes . that would be a hard thing to do. it was your grandfathers and then presumably fathers and these children at raised about respect for tradition. it may be hard for him to say no to it as that would be dishonoring father and grandfather. perhaps the wessexes are rethinking it
It is a burden that the Earl does not carry lightly – not least when he is the one who will inherit his father’s title, the Duke of Edinburgh, when his eldest brother takes the throne. The Countess recalls the time when, two days after their engagement, Prince Philip popped round to ask his youngest (and, some say, favourite) son if he would be willing to become the next Duke of Edinburgh. ‘We sat there slightly stunned. He literally came straight in and said: “Right. I’d like it very much if you would consider that.”’
The Earl is almost apologetic as he admits that ‘theoretically’ the title should go to the Duke of York. ‘It’s a very bittersweet role to take on because the only way the title can come to me is after both my parents have actually passed away,’ he explains. ‘It has to go back to the Crown first. ‘My father was very keen that the title should continue, but he didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew, so it was us who he eventually had the conversation with. It was a lovely idea; a lovely thought.’
-----
And there is also this:
In June 2021, Prince Edward gave a television interview in memory of Prince Philip’s 100th birthday. This is what he had to say when asked, “You will be the next Duke of Edinburgh, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, that is quite something to take on?” He replied:
“It was fine in theory, ages ago when it was sort of a pipe dream of my father’s…and of course it will depend on whether or not the Prince of Wales, when he becomes king, whether he’ll do that, so we’ll wait and see.”
I skimmed it pretty fast, and don't know if I concluded correctly.
I find the birth certificates bewildering. Archie's surname is given as Mountbatten-Windsor, but none of the other royal children have that on their BC. If they followed the same model as used by William and Catherine, his name and surname should have been Archie Harrison of Sussex (no HRH or prince).
The duo always have to know better and do things differently, but I personally think giving the surname as Mountbatten-Windsor is more correct and causes less confusion.
Meanwhile across the Pond - tomorrow is the Day that Hoosiers will extend their gracious hospitality to TBW at the JMW Indianapolis.
No. I am not attending, but I do have a subscription to the Indianapolis Star (note - this is NOT the same IndyStar that was go to reading 50 years ago. It is a subsidiary of Gannett and reads like USAToday) and I will be posting what goes up in print.
Where was the dinner party? Who was in attendance? The publisher needs investors to go ahead with the book?
Where did HarryMarkle get their information?
We need receipts.
That is some interesting tea! If it was an investment dinner party, what was he trying to get them to invest in?
Thanks for the reply. But I don't know if I'm correct: George and the others are listed as prince/ss, but Prince William was not yet the Prince of Wales and his children were not the sovereign's grandchildren, but great-grandchildren!
It was not said that Archie could not be a prince because he was not the Sovereign's grandson, as per LP 1917. Archie was not the Queen's grandson as Prince William's children that were listed prince/princess at birth.So there is a contradiction here (if I'm right). However, MM never pointed the finger at the fact that Prince William's children are princes being great-grandchildren (like Archie) of the sovereign. She threw bait for racism. And this is leading me to the possibility that maybe, in fact, there is something odd about Archie's birth and his impediment from being named Prince.
...
OMG! H (according to Harry Markle blog) is joining the dots between Diana's death and what happened in 1979? The only thing I can remember from 1979 was the attack on Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, a relative of the British royal family, was assassinated on 27 August 1979 by Thomas McMahon, an Irish republican and volunteer for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).
If true, this will be a bombshell against your father. HE needs to be admitted to a hospice. And no, he's not better than MM!
it is curious if he was at a dinner party for investors. was this for ButterUp. they haven’t had a funding round since last October and there is no doing an initial public offering in the current market so i could see the need to bring out the dog and pony to sell another round of funding. only it doesn’t look good to have an illbehaving guest clearly not getting help from the company he is shilling for. or is this the madam planting leaks. make him look bad and unhinged softens the book impact or makes it all about him. she can claim the victim”look what i have to put up with”.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11477117/Meghan-Markles-low-key-Thanksgiving-Duchess-prepared-lunch-300-homeless-women-Los-Angeles.html
for nutties in the US this reminds me of a great episode of How I Met Your Mother where the thanksgiving volunteers arguing over who gets the donated goodies
Yes, you are right ... only the first born was entitled to be styled HRH Prince. The late Queen issued Letters Patent before George was born saying that among their children, girls would be treated equally in the line of succession and that all of their children would be HRH Prince/Princess. She issued no such Letters Patent for any children of the duo, who put out a statement from their office in BP saying that their children would not be using titles, and I think the reason given was that it was so they could have a private life outside of working for the Firm. (They do have titles they can use: Earl of Dumbarton and Lady, presumably the Honourable Lady, but I don't think they can use them without an official statement from the Monarch.) It was only in the Oprah interview that they changed their story, and revealed how resentful and upset they were that their children did not get the same as William and Catherine's. I think they leaked through Scobie, but it could have been someone else, that she was most affronted by Dumbarton!
Now there is a conflict: Kerry Kennedy invited them as a gigantic F U! to the RF because of her Irish heritage; and, Dookie is blaming the IRA for the death of his DEAD MOTHER.
When Dookie accepts his award, let's hope and pray he blames the IRA in his acceptance speech.
Those lunatics all deserve each other.
I wonder if she thought of cooking Thanksgiving lunch for her father?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11477117/Meghan-Markles-low-key-Thanksgiving-Duchess-prepared-lunch-300-homeless-women-Los-Angeles.html
Before W&K had any kids the Queen made Will's future younger kids princess and prince. Only George, assuming he was a boy, would have been a prince. He would have been the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales (at the time.) Per the 1917 LP he was to be a prince but the others would not have been at birth. At least that's the way I remember it.
when i mentioned butter up i should have clarified last funding round was october 2021. some of their competitors have only about 6 mos to a year of liquidity left. wonder if it’s getting harder for butter up too
Mayor of Boston who is a rising star in her party is going to welcome the Wales. everyone will want a photo op with them it’s good for everyone’s PR
Thank you for the clarification.
...
Snarkyatherbest ❤️
-------
Both Diana's death and that of Mountbatten were the end of August and hey! - 1979 & 1997 have the same digits!!! This must mean something!!!!!
As if...
What animal shall I liken him to? Has he got the brains of the mythical jackalope? Or does he still believe in Santa Claus & the Tooth Fairy? Or am I insulting jackalopes?
The following thread on Quora is also too much information for me right now, but the dots join to explain why she is doing this gig in Indiana:.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/z78lp3/the_grooming_of_meghan_two_degrees_of_separation/
That would be great to post. We need your name on it.
Blogger Sandie said...
It is late here and trying to wrap my head around Charles being fingered for the death of Mountbatten and the death of Diana by the idiot prince is just too much for me. He clearly has a very serious mental disorder.
The following thread on Quora is also too much information for me right now, but the dots join to explain why she is doing this gig in Indiana:.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/z78lp3/the_grooming_of_meghan_two_degrees_of_separation/
Thanks, Sandie! WHAT a coincidence. And, yes, I tend to agree that it will be a standing room only event because the people sponsoring it will just give away the seats and PRETEND there was great interest.
Louis Mountbatten was D-d's Gt Uncle, born at Frogmore House. D-D & my Mum spent part of their honeymoon at Broadlands, his place in Hampshire - that's where they arranged it all.
That proves it - of course he was a villain - all I & Megsy got was the rotten, stinkin, cottage and that Cambridge kid is named after him as well.
I can see it clearly now. How it all fits together...'
Or that because it is well-established that the IRA was responsible to Lord M's death they must have killed Diana as well?
And/or that CR III was behind both attacks?
Or there was an unknown assassin who was obsessed with killing royal-adjacent people at the end of August? Were they at the same phases of the moon?
------
It's comforting that H's audience was somewhat discombobulated, I'm surprised he seems to have dropped the `Grandpa killed Mummy line - or is he past telling the difference between Lord Mountbatten and Prince Philip?
3 others died in the explosion that killed Mountbatten; the same day 18 British soldiers were murdered in an ambush at Warren Point and 2 civilians were killed by accident as the soldiers attempted to defend themselves.
If we add in the 11 who died in 1989 in the Deal Barracks attack, that's a total of 33 IRA victims they have used for their own purposes. H's disregard for the memory of these victims of the IRA makes a mockery of their play acting on Remembrance Day - he needs to be forcefully and publicly shamed for this, should they try similar tactics next November. As a former soldier, he reveals himself as a total disgrace.
...
"Extraordinary new documentary explores life of Prince Philip's beloved uncle Lord Mountbatten and his glamorous heiress wife - who both had bisexual affairs and branded were 'persons of extremely low morals' by the FBI"
1/2
The images are extraordinary. The beautiful young couple are laughing and kissing and frolicking and simply having a blast in the sunshine. She has her legs draped over him, giggling as he pulls her closer.
We see more of her lithe form than you'd expect to see of a woman of that class, from that era
The black and white footage, of the young Dickie Mountbatten – later Lord Mountbatten – and his bride, society heiress Edwina Ashley, is shown in a new documentary series about the private lives of some of the more flamboyant members of the royal family.
Little wonder the three part series, The Private Lives of the Windsors, kicks off with Lord Mountbatten, the naval commander who introduced the Queen to her future husband, his nephew Phillip, and later became a mentor, and honorary grandfather, to Prince Charles.
This documentary tracks his extraordinary journey from the fringes of royal society (a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, he is described as a 'second division royal') to the heart of the House of Windsor.
What a romp his journey was too – quite literally, in some respects. Dickie and Edwina's wedding was THE society event of the year in 1922. The royals were out in force, the bride was the richest heiress in the country, and the British public couldn't get enough detail on the wedding arrangements.
The inside detail on how the couple actually conducted their marriage would never be public, however. Theirs was an open marriage.
It has long been known that Mountbatten (a charismatic man one colleague said could 'charm a vulture off a carcass') had a string of affairs.
As this documentary series shows, however, it was Edwina who started to cheat first. She went on to have what can only be described as a harem of lovers, including polo players, aristocrats and magnates.
Although he was devastated by the first infidelities, Dickie coped by taking his own lovers. He later admitted 'Edwina and I spent all our married life getting into other people's beds.'
And how. Their marriage involved bed-hopping and threesomes. We do know that FBI documents from the 1940s revealed shocking claims that Mountbatten was secretly 'a homosexual with a perversion for young boys.'
In the documents, the couple are described as 'persons of extremely low morals' and many have suggested both were bisexual - a huge taboo at the time.
This documentary doesn't venture too far down that route, but it does paint a fascinating picture of a marriage that was completely at odds with the public, rather proper, images.
...
"Extraordinary new documentary explores life of Prince Philip's beloved uncle Lord Mountbatten and his glamorous heiress wife - who both had bisexual affairs and branded were 'persons of extremely low morals' by the FBI"
1/2
The images are extraordinary. The beautiful young couple are laughing and kissing and frolicking and simply having a blast in the sunshine. She has her legs draped over him, giggling as he pulls her closer.
We see more of her lithe form than you'd expect to see of a woman of that class, from that era
The black and white footage, of the young Dickie Mountbatten – later Lord Mountbatten – and his bride, society heiress Edwina Ashley, is shown in a new documentary series about the private lives of some of the more flamboyant members of the royal family.
Little wonder the three part series, The Private Lives of the Windsors, kicks off with Lord Mountbatten, the naval commander who introduced the Queen to her future husband, his nephew Phillip, and later became a mentor, and honorary grandfather, to Prince Charles.
This documentary tracks his extraordinary journey from the fringes of royal society (a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, he is described as a 'second division royal') to the heart of the House of Windsor.
What a romp his journey was too – quite literally, in some respects. Dickie and Edwina's wedding was THE society event of the year in 1922. The royals were out in force, the bride was the richest heiress in the country, and the British public couldn't get enough detail on the wedding arrangements.
The inside detail on how the couple actually conducted their marriage would never be public, however. Theirs was an open marriage.
It has long been known that Mountbatten (a charismatic man one colleague said could 'charm a vulture off a carcass') had a string of affairs.
As this documentary series shows, however, it was Edwina who started to cheat first. She went on to have what can only be described as a harem of lovers, including polo players, aristocrats and magnates.
Although he was devastated by the first infidelities, Dickie coped by taking his own lovers. He later admitted 'Edwina and I spent all our married life getting into other people's beds.'
And how. Their marriage involved bed-hopping and threesomes. We do know that FBI documents from the 1940s revealed shocking claims that Mountbatten was secretly 'a homosexual with a perversion for young boys.'
In the documents, the couple are described as 'persons of extremely low morals' and many have suggested both were bisexual - a huge taboo at the time.
This documentary doesn't venture too far down that route, but it does paint a fascinating picture of a marriage that was completely at odds with the public, rather proper, images.
As a seaman, no, because he didn't obey orders. He wasn't a team player. But people would say they would follow Dickie anywhere, to get away from any problem – even though Dickie had probably got them into the problem in the first place. He was a real Marmite figure. People either loved or hated him.'
Prince Charles adored him, and the feeling was mutual. He once described Mountbatten as his honorary grandfather, but he was more than that.
He was an honorary father,' really, says Lownie. 'Prince Charles was a rather sensitive boy, and he showed him affection that his own father, the Duke of Edinburgh, never did.'
He also tried to – and succeeded in – advising Prince Charles on his love life, famously telling him that young royals needed to sow their wild oats, but settle down with a young, virginal girl.
He tried to set Prince Charles up with his own grand-daughter, Amanda Knatchbull, unsuccessfully. There have been suggestions that if Mountbatten had lived, he would have advised Charles NOT to marry the then Lady Diana Spencer.
Lownie doesn't agree here. 'I think she was exactly the sort of person he would have wanted her to marry. Perhaps when things went wrong, he would have tried to advise him to hang in there, but I'm not sure that would have made a difference.'
Mountbatten's funeral, full of pomp and ceremony, was exactly the grand send-off he would have wanted, and underlined his position at the heart of the royal family, where he always felt he belonged.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8503775/Lord-Mountbatten-glamorous-heiress-wife-bisexual-affairs.html
Moderator
We need to remember that certain sites, HarryMarkle is one but there could be others, who are ok with a link shared but to do more ("reuse content" is their wording), someone needs to get pre-approval.
I know the site is interesting so please let us respect their request.
Thank you.
Sorry, unable to copy the entire text. There's a really fascinating part that I missed by copy-paste. I confess! I don't have Rebecca's s(❤️( kills to do that!
-
________________
Howard Stern criticizes Oprah Winfrey for 'showing off' her lavish lifestyle and $2.5 billion wealth on Instagram: 'You gotta be a little self-aware'
The radio host, 68, spoke about how the media mogul, 68, 'loves showing off' her wealth and is 'not embarrassed by' it
'It's f****** mind-blowing when you follow her on Instagram. She's got servants and like people cooking and it's f****** wild'
He then admonished her for not being self-aware, 'You gotta be a little self-aware and know that there are people struggling out there'
Winfrey has a net worth of $2.5 billion - from her talk show, TV shows and brand deals - according to Forbes
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11479383/Howard-Stern-criticizes-Oprah-Winfrey-showing-lavish-lifestyle-Instagram.html
I've racked my brains trying to figure out which investors and potential investors PH met with, and I've realized that this is most likely related to BetterUp. None of the "companies" that Megs and PH incorporated in Delaware would be appropriate for outside investors. And the Harry Markle blog mentioned that Megs was not invited to the dinner with investors, so it must be something completely unrelated to her.
Although very little information is publicly available for BetterUp, here's what I think is going on:
Based on the timing of the company's previous couple of rounds of venture capital, I think BetterUp now needs to raise additional cash to continue to fund its growth. I think the $300million they raised in October 2021 is close to being fully utilized. Previously, BetterUp raised $125 million in February 2021. I suspect that BetterUp could very possibly be burning through $100 - $125 million every six months at the company's current growth rate; therefore, they are going to need additional investment within the next few months in order to continue to fund the company's growth. Keep in mind that BetterUp is a relatively young company and is most likely not generating positive earnings, so it can't yet fund its own growth through earnings.
Until the stock market started tanking at the beginning of 2022, BetterUp was very close to doing an IPO (initial public offering, which is when equity in a private company is offered to the public in the form of shares of common stock…it's also known as "going public"). Given that we're in a bear market, which is a terrible environment to do an IPO, I suspect BetterUp is planning another round of private investment, which is why they are dragging PH along as the CHIMPO ("Chief Impact Officer") show pony to meet with current and potential new investors.
Before retiring, I was a professional portfolio manager, so I have an idea of what those investors and potential investors would have been thinking at that dinner. When you're attending a meeting or dinner with a company's senior management team, having a clown like PH yammering on about his memoir would be an unwelcome distraction. I can imagine that those investors were thinking what exactly does this CHIMPO guy do at the company and why on earth is here? As an investor, you have a limited amount of time with senior management of the company, so you want to devote that time to picking their brains about their business model, company performance, growth strategy, and business outlook and to challenging them on their growth assumptions, etc. so you can make as informed a decision as possible. I think those investors thought PH was a rude guy with a few loose screws as he was spouting conspiracy theories.
While the nuts and bolts of BetterUp may seem kind of irrelevant (and my apologies if I've been a boring finance geek!), I do think think that every data point we can uncover on the dastardly duo's income and business activities can help us formulate a better picture of what is going on in Montecito. I suspect that Megs and PH might be facing a cash crunch, so trying to get a better sense of their household expenses vs income is on the list of things I plan to look into.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/z7gmm5/the_recent_post_on_the_harry_markle_blog_got_me/
This is interesting - a very recent article on Zara and Peter and their life and work at Gatcombe Park. Nachos makes an appearance as he is obviously very well connected in the 'horse world'.
I cannot help compare how untitled royals have been set up and live their life compared with the duo who really are out in the cold, bumbling around, and making a mess of everything.
Her last podcast...
It repeated her assertion that she's a forgiving sort of person and would hate to think that she had hurt anyone the way Catherine hurt her. Perhaps she's relying on the Blair defence - she says what she believes and believes what she says so what she says aren't deliberate lies. She's one deluded bunny if that is so.
I did the decent thing and hid it behind the other mags on the shelf in the Co-op.
I'd forgotten today was podcast day - how remiss of me! - so thanks for the link. * had to pick a mixed race guest, although it was male one this time. Said guest had to put his two cents in and state that the UK was a racist country (how original! How droll!), falsely claiming there was outcry that ‘Indians are going to take over’ after Rishi Sunak became PM. She knows how to pick them.
Tom Holland, the historian, author and podcaster, said: ‘As ever, the inability of American liberals to understand the world beyond the US in anything but American terms is a thing of wonder.. I wouldn't tar all American Nutties with the same brush but he's spot on regarding Megs and her guest.
can’t wait to see/hear about the Indy event. and Earthshot!!
This is really ugly. The guy comes across as bitter about being rejected for a promotion he wanted and seems to blame everything on racism. He says people were prosecuted for threats to TBW. Is he fantasizing?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11482351/Meghan-Markle-faced-credible-disgusting-threats-life.html
Pure narcissism ... if she is not allowed to shove her way into the limelight and grab the microphone to talk, and say whatever she wants, and be adored, she takes it personally. Besides, in her brief time in the UK she did nothing else but stand up and give speeches and shove her husband away or pull him away in the middle of a conversation he was having. I am sure someone has a compilation ... we should send it to Palace Confidential!
She has no right at all to swan into the UK and expect the royal family and the whole country to bow down and give her whatever she wanted without question or any regard for anything but her childish desires.
A brilliant summary of the book Courtiers at the above link.
Some excerpts from the post:
1. The relationship between the brothers:
The breakdown between William and Harry started long before Meghan came around. It started when the brothers realized they had different visions for their work and butted heads over it. William is more of a strategic long-term thinker focused on the big picture supporting the experts. Harry is more focused on the "here and now" with immediate effect, taking credit for the experts' work. The example Low gives is conservation: William created United for Wildlife designed to end illegal wildlife trade and engaging with local authorities on how best to do so. Harry likes to go to animal conservation camps to help with daily tasks and take a couple pictures pretending he's the expert.
The palace - royals, courtiers, and staff alike - were keen and eager for Meghan to find her place in the monarchy. She was given some great latitude and leeway to explore and develop her role, but she was also held to the same standards that everyone else was. There was a very real concern by everyone that she would be offended if she knew her security assessment focused mainly on her race and they took great strides and pains to keep those discussions away from her.
----
The book sounds like a good read.
I think the royals were rather bemused at how much drama the couple created about real and perceived threats. A man turned up at Windsor with a crossbow to kill the Queen, Anne had a man with a gun, who actually shot her bodyguard and a policeman I think, trying to kidnap her, Charles had a man try to shoot him, albeit with a starter pistol or something like that, the Queen was shot at when she was riding a horse in a parade ...
The threats are not okay but they were only unique in their response to those threats.
The real reason they left is because neither of them are suitable for the position they had, because of their character. So many people would admire them if they admitted that.
If we remember the leaked comments after Dookie was a speaker at some event that Gayle King arranged for him, that he sounded like a drunk at the end of the bar, going on about his murdered mother. And then when the fake Greta called him, he had the speech pattern of a cocaine user/former user. Ducharse never lets Dookie speak spontaneously or off the cuff. He usually has a speech she's written for him. Imagine Dookie loose on his own at that investors' meeting? Batter Up didn't do themselves any favors by having Dookie there.
Looking at the article as a whole, I would say his was rather too biased and you need to be neutral in a position like that. 🫤See below.
From the DM..
Mr Basu also raised eyebrows when he criticised the Prevent programme – which tries to detect and deradicalise Muslim extremists – as 'toxic'. The senior cop threw his hat into the ring to become head of the National Crime Agency – dubbed 'Britain's FBI'.
Nothing in print or news that * has landed or in anywhere.
The big news is the released probable cause for a murder suspect in the Delphi Indiana murder case, and the USA vs iran soccer match.
The only regret I have about it being *’s final podcast is no longer being able to read Hilary Rose’s brilliant commentaries:
It’s Meghan’s final podcast! Oh, the relief. Here’s what I’ve learnt
After weeks of sitting in her authenticity, the Duchess of Sussex is ‘Man-ifesting’ the last in the Archetypes series. Hilary Rose looks back
Last week, Meghan promised that it was the penultimate episode of her podcast and I managed my expectations. Was that the truth, or her truth? Shortly after 10am today, “Man-ifesting a Cultural Shift” manifested onto my screen and it was billed as the finale. She was telling the truth, and that’s a beautiful thing.
Today, I learnt that Meghan is fascinated by how our brains are wired. She keeps a big pile of clever books by her bed, including one “which posited the concept of neuroplasticity”, and these books made her think about herself, as you’d expect. She broadens the conversation to include other residents of Montecito. Her husband told her that if we want to shift how we think about gender then we have to actively include men in the conversation and everything I have ever read about Prince Harry makes me certain he said that.
Meghan promises chats with thoughtful men, so probably not Harry. The important thing to know about the immensely talented film-maker Judd Apatow is that his wife once made Meghan feel Seen. And then she proceeds to troll her first guest, the talk show host Andy Cohen, at length. Why? Because he didn’t remember meeting her way back, when she was a nobody and he was a somebody, and which feminist powerhouse married a prince and is laughing now, huh, Andy?
“I didn’t want to embarrass him,” she adds, “it was just funny to try to remember how things were,” and over at Kensington Palace the Sussex Survivors’ Club thought yes, that must be it, laughing not trolling. Here is what I’ve learnt from listening to 4,112 hours of Meghan’s voice, a number I plucked from the air and which in this context is as true as any other. Although the exact figure is more like 13 hours.
1. Difficult women are not difficult at all, they are warm, wonderful human beings and the problem is you.
2. Sitting and standing are interchangeable concepts. Also, sitting is not necessarily about chairs. For example, you can, and should, stand in your knowing and stand in your authority. However, you can also sit in your knowing, sit in your authority and sit in your truth.
3. Life isn’t about earning a living and having a laugh. It is a serious business, so ask yourself this: are you living in your full self? At any point this week did you feel the strength that comes from embracing humanity? And did you keep that sense of self while holding up the mantle of what comes with being a parent? Or did you think “bugger it”, park the little blighters in front of an iPad and lock yourself in the bathroom?
4. Plato was sexist and also wrong about wombs. The goddess Artemis, less so.
5. Q: When is the truth not the truth? A: When someone else is saying it and you disagree.
6. It is dangerous when a person’s self-awareness is not trusted, unless you’re accused of bullying them, in which case their self-awareness is wrong.
7. Who said the following: “There is a certain stress that comes of not being believed.” Was it:
a) Meghan
b) The Sussex Survivors’ Club
c) A sympathetic Court of Appeal judge, after Meghan admitted that her sworn statement might not have been the truth or the whole truth, but it was definitely her truth.
(the correct answer is a)
8. If anyone asks, “Are you being a person in the world in the most nuanced and real way?” the correct answer is not WTF.
9. If someone asks Meghan, “How are you?”, she replies, “Delightful.” (She did, she really did. I swear it.)
11. There are parental tentacles of tradition and it seems reasonable to assume that they are out to get you.
12. You have layers that thrive within you, as you strive to become a fully fledged human being. Do not mistake this for indigestion.
13. Put the following in the correct order: candid illuminating enlightening stirring in depth vulnerable energising dynamic raw refreshing. Or put them in the blender and blitz until they form a podcast.
14. Women! Are you having authentic, complicated, complex and dynamic experiences? Are you heard and understood? You should be.
15. Men! Shut up.
16. Strong back, soft front: Is it . . .
a) a haircut?
b) A new species of lizard?
c) Or the solution to male-female misunderstanding?
(The correct answer is c)
17. Grade the following in terms of how much it fries your brain, and bear in mind that it is a question Meghan poses to one of her guests, at the end of a long and more than usually incomprehensible ramble: “What do you think ends up being more additive, I guess? Having men more leeway just to be more expressive and emotional and perhaps more of themselves than they internalise, or really creating more space for women to be accepted as they are? Or is it both?”
And then, in little more than the time it takes to reach Mars, the last podcast is over. Meghan tells us that it’s been funny and eye-opening. We reach the inescapable conclusion that she is wonderful, and she explains what alchemy is, presumably having read all those clever sciencey books by her bed. You start with a dense piece of material, or metal, she explains, “and it can be churned and churned and put under so much pressure that you can’t imagine how it’s going to survive, but when it comes out the other side”, she says, leaning into the mike, “it’s gold. Actual gold,” and my mouth opens in a silent scream. Meghan’s conclusion is that her podcast has made her feel Seen, and seeing as she’s spent 40-odd years jumping up and down trying to catch our attention, this is reassuring.
She leaves us with one final thought about “the courage that it takes to step out and speak up, even when it puts everything on the line”, and possibly she means “when you have to swap a free palace for a mortgaged one” and can you hear her, Kate? You poor, happily married Stepford Wife and future queen?
As a tribute to the overall quality of these podcasts, I’d like to give the last word to Noddy Holder. “So here it is, merry Christmas, everybody’s having fun,” he sang, “look to the future now, it’s only just begun.” The future is indeed now, and I have been on a journey. “Be brave in your audacity,” I would like to tell Meghan, “and compassionate in your bullying, which you deny. Embrace your dimensions, except maybe the shouty one which sends emails at 5am. Rescue more chickens and sit in your truth, and if telling the truth doesn’t get enough attention? Live your best lie.”
He asserts that there were prosecutions but produces no supporting evidence such as time and place of trials, convictions or sentences. Yes, I saw some nasty online comments which could have come from anywhere but I don't recall any official action for as much as Hate Speech.
Knowing * as we do, surely we would have heard her screaming the place down about it?
Remember how she construed a new heater smoking as an assassination attempt? As usual, when switched on for the first time, it burnt off the protective coating on the elements. I shouldn't think she's ever had to follow the instructions about opening the windows when first switching on a new electric cooker, to let out the acrid smoke generated. Her sole culinary equipment is probably a toaster, discounting of course what she uses to `cook' that `roast chicken'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11482351/Meghan-Markle-faced-credible-disgusting-threats-life.html
One post on social media.
Bubble wrap - sounds kinda cheap or they had extra plaques to burn