All these terrible revelations. They keep coming out - like a never ending clown car. And, there are supposed to be even more of them when the book is officially released. And that, is only hours away.
Some of this is planned. Other is an accident (of sorts or so they say). Either way, these releases always seem to wind up as a flash in the pan before something else (hotter, bleeds better) take that spot. At any rate, no matter how well planned these things seem to go, they don't seem to achieve how well run a Palace function seemed to go most of the time, for most senior BRFs.
Short term gains versus the long haul strategy. No one is saying "It's only a flesh wound." from a palace but ... man. It must be tiring to sound like you are smiling as you are saying: "The Palace has no comment." day after day after day.
Tiara stories - And yet another slightly different one. Now we read that she could have worn a Spencer tiara. Not certain how many they have but if she had been offered the chance to wear the one Diana wore - would she turn down the chance to cement that Diana 2.0 look? But wait, she is offered a cozy visit with Queen and a few others at the Palace for a private viewing of some of the Queen's tiaras (in the Queen's private dressing room no less). Trying on options and then some back and forth with Ms Kelly about the tiara chosen. But wasn't there something in Finding Freedom with a long description of where all the jewels kept kept and it wasn't in the Queen's dressing room? People expressed concerns about that as a potential security leak (I thought).
But in the end, * wore a bandeau which isn't technically a tiara. Tiaras extend in a full or almost full circle and tend to be raised - especially in a graduated height way - while a bandeau is more like a headband and they tend not to have graduated height and are worn more on the forehead. Perhaps the earlier conversation about what was chosen was just muddling the terms of tiara and bandeau. What is consistent is that getting ahold of it for the hairdresser was not easy on them.
After listening to HG Tudor's talk about the Queen saying yes to 5's engagement, there is a part of me which wonders if the Queen really told * that tiaras look good on her, was it a head game or was it something now which can't really be proven.
Balmoral Banned - telling his father, who is dealing with not just the immediate death of his mother but the weight of his future now as king, that his father is disrespecting the woman who has only known the Queen for a nanosecond compared to the years and years of his father. To be on the receiving end of that accusation - brutal.
Prince William and his wife were devoted to Suits? Really? Really? It was available (so technically possible) but is this realistic? that in the down time of new parents, more kids, raising those kids, learning about how to read the boxes, learning how to think like HM, learn about early childhood, gardening shows and so on special interests, that they would find an obscure (not mainstream but cable) USA show which was less about the legal cases than maybe the sex? Or is it more likely that this was some sort of dig about feeling some negativity about what she did in her episodes (you know - the sex scenes)? It would not explain why Prince William appears to be not ever really looking at her in some way. Really, it's just odd timing that this explanation now appears instead of long ago. You know, like in that first book they had a hand in - Finding Freedom.
.And we keep reading of demands for accountability (to which the response seems to be "For what?" because it is never very clear just how or what was wrong). I suspect what he really is trying to demand is: Respect. Respect for him, his choices and for his wife. The reality (IF that is what he is really trying to get) is that you can't force people to respect you just because (insert your good reason here). You have to earn it. Threatening people also doesn't make them respect you either.
And we aren't even two weeks into the new year. What's next for the Montecito people? A letter from the IRS?
Comments
Like so many of Harry's claims, however, there is much that is confused and wrong.
For example, Charles' PR team was headed up by a man in both 2019 and 2017.
And Harry's hunting trip only leaked because Germany's biggest newspaper was tipped off by locals that Harry and his friends had arrived in the country on a private jet.
They also managed to track down which estate they were on because he had attended the wedding of the landowner - nicknamed The Boar Terminator - previously and classed him as a good friend.
Harry does not name the staff member he holds responsible, but goes on to describe a showdown that he and William had previously had with their father over said person.
Charles was said to have angrily refuted their claims and denied that his staff would ever leak stories deliberately.
Harry said he was grateful, however, that William had phoned him to talk about his problems given the state of their relationship in 2019 and took the opportunity to highlight his and Meghan's concerns with the institution.
He said his brother snapped back: 'I've got different issues with you two!'
Harry claims to have had his brother on speakerphone as he stood in the garden at Frogmore Cottage at the time, but quickly switched back to his phone as he realised Meghan was approaching him.
But he says his wife could still hear his brother shouting and walked back into the house 'holding her stomach' - the incident coming just before she gave birth to son, Archie, with tears in her eyes.'
The End.
For someone who appears as hard as nails, * is remarkably weepy in the book, isn't she? (Allegedly)
A toe-curling account of how Meghan conceived, so to speak.
The extract ends, `Thank you, Mummy'.
Montecito’s Lying Circus
Roll up, troll up
for the Cirque du Folie
Clowns back in town
the cnuts off his trolley
Ringmaster meh
and her pernicious pot poodle
Bareback riding
the whole kit and caboodle
Coming next
Wet ‘n’ Wild live streaming
As marcus and scobie
join in tag teaming
Mudslide wrestling
atop riven rock
Meh wins by a fall
on heh’s oscillating c*ck…
Penile Servitude
Quite a trick
she’s played on this prick
He really is
thick as a brick
Time to deliver
an almighty kick
To *Petulantia
and her dead eyed dick…
*Hybris-evil Greek goddess
Roman name Petulantia
Check her out, madam to a ‘P’
Pet for short Maneki 😉
"With all due respect anon, you have clearly not read the book. Not that you should, but if you did you would understand that no sane woman would stay married to this man. They only reason any woman would marry him would be if: (i) she intended to divorce him and thought it would make her famous and leave her with a lot of post-divorce money, or (ii) she were also delusional and thought she was Diana 2.0.
I can usually come up with dozens of alternative entries but not this time. This is a binary situation and those are there only two option. If she’s sane, she leaves, and if she’s psycho she stays.
There is no “the perks are worth it” argument, because the perks are not worth it (unless the perk is being Diana 2.0 in which case, yes it’s worth it bc she’s not getting that anywhere else). There is no “she’s staying for the kids” argument because the kids are literally talking to the Diana Ghost Paintings. There is no “she’s staying for the deals” argument because the divorce memoir and reality show will make money than the wellness books and Diana documentaries.
It’s binary. If there is no divorce narrative by November that means she’s a psycho Diana cosplayer in a folie a deux relationship with Diana’s son.
https://at.tumblr.com/anonymoushouseplantfan/so-if-like-the-previous-anon-stated-it-might-be-an/bl06mamxjvcf
-----
I can think of another, more complex scenario: she thought she was in love. He was from a very wealthy family and he was a world-wide famous prince, son of Diana. He was her doorway to wealth, fame, global recognition, and a platform to fulfill all her grandest dreams about her self (humanitarian, philanthropist, feminist warrior, wellness guru, fashion icon, beauty queen, smartest person ever ...). That was intoxicating and it felt like love to her because it was the most excitement and dizzy explosion of emotion she had ever felt (or not often). And, she found out very quickly that she could manipulate and control him. He was perfect for a grandiose narc. In the past 6 years she may have become addicted to all that he provided for her as a narc; she will not easily, if at all, find another man to match him (wealthier, but not royal and not Diana's son); and she loves the drama that being with him provides. Something very dramatic would have to happen for her to ditch him.
@WildBoar
Underneath the spreading
megyhan ‘V’
Of ‘Vice and Den’ Schweindreck
@Observant One
Hoetoeculturist
@Rebecca
If only…
I’ll get to it
@Ian’s Girl
Cheers to Camelthot!!
@Design Doc
My wicked pleasure
@CatEyes
Perverted, perfidious,
pugnacious porcine
Thank you one and all 😘
He has the money from the memoir. She thinks she can get a huge settlement from him and while he is awash with money is the best time to make the grab.
Also maybe, she thinks his unravelling will buy her sympathy and heaps of doors opening for her to tell her story (definitely Oprah again). Just the idea of that much attention is intoxicating to her.
But, she has removed attendance at the Coronation from IMDB. So why has she changed her mind about going? It would be a perfect opportunity to boost her royal credentials (a coronation is historic), and the perfect opportunity to use the children as emotional leverage with the royal family. It does not occur to her that she may not get full custody. But perhaps as a narc her grudges and belief in herself as being more important and better than the royal family blinds her from seeing the opportunities?
Here’s one I lost earlier
Montecito’s Lying Circus
Roll up, troll up
For the Cirque du Folie
Clowns back in town
the cnuts off his trolley
Ringmaster meh
and her pernicious pot poodle
Bareback riding
the Whole kit and caboodle
Coming next
Wet ‘n’ Wild live streaming
As markus and scobie
join in tag teaming
Mudslide wrestling
atop riven rock
Meh won by a fall on
heh’s oscillating c*ock…
I have a huge problem with this, but it is clear that hapless, the ghostwriter and the publisher did not require any fact checking whatsoever.
I think they were all lazy and rushing for the big payout, and using sensationalism to get it.
If you know your memory is hazy, you double check. That could easily have been woven into the story, making it sound more authentic, instead of so much of it sounding like the voice of TBW, the ghostwriter, or a drunken/drug hazed mind.
The story about being at Eton when his great-grandmother died - write what you remember, then check the facts (I checked media reports and I was actually in Switzerland with my father and brother, skiing - we did a photo shoot and my papa made headlines by being overheard muttering to Wills and I that he couldn't stand one of the reporters who asked a ridiculous question ...), then express his frustration at his memory being so faulty, and not whine about it or blame someone else.
It is a memoir so it can contradict actual facts? Try and get a rocket to the Moon or operate a manufacturing plant or do countless other things with that kind of thinking. Distinguish between facts and fantasy and feelings you moron, especially when you are trashing everyone and making claims about what the King and Prince of Wales said and did!
When The Guardian mocks you, you know it is bad!
https://www.icollector.com/THUNDERBIRDS-Scott-Tracy-Puppet_i34765698
A very short summary of each chapter (they are trolling him!), but some interesting nuggets emerge that have not been revealed in the media.
Why is this woman forever collapsing, on the floor, and the steps, in floods of tears? That is such basic manipulation, and he falls for it every time.
Here's a link to `Look inside' Spare from Amazon books page:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spare-Prince-Harry-Duke-Sussex/dp/0857504797?asin=B0BJV8XM2W&revisionId=c8e1e8c1&format=1&depth=1
The style is appalling - not even up to Mills & Boon
Barbara Cartland
Perhaps?
Short sentences.
Staccato.
Somebody
Stop it.
Soon.
-----
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/109zv7r/thanks_thanks_and_no_thanks_what_even_is_an/
The above is a deep dive into all the people he thanks in his acknowledgements. It is interesting.
I do not condemn him for using 'alternative' practitioners because I have done so myself. Besides, I think his father is a keen supporter of homeopathy? But, the details in the above post indicates practitioners who are misleading in how they advertise themselves. He also seems to be 'over using' therapies and practitioners, which seems to indicate that they are not 'working'.
I don't know if I am making sense, but I live in a country where 'alternative' medicine is sort of on a par with 'conventional' medicine and covered by medical aid as long as they are regulayed by a professional body, registered, and adhere to certain standards. So, any outlet that sells over the counter medication, including pharmacies, (headache tablets and so on) also sells aromatherapy oils, Bach remedies, homeopathic medicines, a wide range of vitamins and minerals, the whole range of herbal remedies, some traditional medicine, and so on. (By the way, the 'alternative' therapies he mentions in his acknowledgements are not registered and covered by medical aid in my country.)
Harry´s Wife : Bower : The Drugs ( Meghan Markle)
https://youtu.be/qyedyBaOd3Y
There are contradictions, too: 'My half of the room [at Balmoral] was far smaller, less luxurious.' followed by 'I never asked why.' Yet he's whingeing about it. Or 'The Heir and the Spare -There was no judgement about it . . . I took no offense'. He obviously did take offense.
Overall a rather tedious read and I couldn't even finish the excerpt.
1. Meghan's Wimbledon fiasco?
2. The time they crashed the investiture exhibit, when meghan bwore that ugly brocade frock?
3. That time she crashed his polo match in that poo coloured tent dress, when Archie doll theories started?
4. The supposed space heater fire in SA?
https://at.tumblr.com/anonymoushouseplantfan/plant-you-read-the-whole-book-yeah-does-he-say/1qzywoz3rkks
Do they mention the Oprah interview at all? Their refusal to go to Balmoral, until the Queen died? Why he was staggering around as if he was still drunk for that last engagement in South Africa? Her whinefest with Bradby in the South African interview?
In a panel discussion on Dan Wootton’s GB Tonight show, Angela Levin said Archie’s birth story in Spare isn’t truthful. Older mothers like * would never be given and epidural and also put in a bath during the birthing process. And they wouldn’t be released from the hospital so quickly either.
Thank you for the link to the devastating satire of Spare in the Guardian. Wow!
I don't believe it.
I just can't with this blatant nonsense.
The only way this display of craziness would benefit H if he was ever put on trial for some horrific crime. If the gossip is true something horrific is going to come out about H his lawyers will pull out all the delusions during interviews, and his memoir.jmo
Older mothers like * would never be given and epidural and also put in a bath during the birthing process. And they wouldn’t be released from the hospital so quickly either.
-------
Exactly. I didn't find it believable at the time that she'd be released two hours after the birth. This was, allegedly, her first baby, she was an elderly primigravida, and the hospital would have wanted to know what medical care was in place at Frogmore. What did not make it believable for me was the fact that as a member of the RF she could have been sent home so soon. The hospital couldn't take the risk. Even Catherine, who was 31 when she had George, spent about 24 hours in the hospital.
This article in Harper's Bazaar is interesting:
First of all, British moms tend to leave the hospital pretty quickly to begin with. The Guardian reported in 2016 that new moms in the U.K. tend to stay an average of a day and a half in the maternity ward after giving birth . . .
Third, it’s important to remember all the resources the Duke and Duchess receive. They have a medical team on call to help with anything, regardless of whether Kate is resting in a hospital or at home.
According to the Daily Mail, that birth team consisted of 20 doctors, led by obstetrician Guy Thorpe-Beeston and gynecologist Alan Farthing; those two doctors were also present for the births of Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Other experts included anesthetists, pediatricians, lab technicians, and backups in case anyone couldn't make it for the birth.'
'''''''''
I wonder about *'s medical team. Did the gruesome twosome even thank their medical team?
Perhaps H should have a colonoscopy. Rectal cranial inversion is a distinct possibility.
Mel, my condolences. You gave your mother the best possible final days. She was lucky to have such a loving daughter.
It is a blessing that the queen didn't have to endure the Spare press tour. A prince of the realm discussing circumcision, horsing around all fresco with strangers, seeing ghosts and slandering his family - oh my.
H has clearly gone off his meds and on the powder. Poor dear doesn't have any crisp bills to roll and has to grow out his pinky nail. Thought that went out of fashion when studio 54 was closed down. Alas, the disco era was before my time. I was too young to watch Saturday Night Fever in the theater. I had to watch it at a friend's HBO enabled house when her parents weren't home. Teenagers think it is so sophisticated to be naughty. Most of us "get over it" in college or our early 20s. H has serious arrested development. No doubt caused by childhood loss and neglect and perpetuated with substance abuse.
H is the last person to be lecturing anyone about mental health and life advice. Everyone except the Dunderhead and his Doucheness see this.
Wondering if Harry has escaped the claw or if she is discarding H and focusing on her next target. Perhaps Tyler Perry wants a high profile beard? Perhaps he has a craving for roast chicken and waffles. Yikes.
H mugshot Spare photo with the needy little eyes is popping up all over the internet. Amazon Kindle and Spotify keep recommending it. No thanks. It is out there for anyone who wants it already. Besides, why slog through the entire whining missive when journalists feature the naughty bits and commentators such as the BLG analyze interview highlights.
H will make bank on the book. He better squirrel some away for legal fees. A Harkles divorce will make the Bradgelina breakup seem discrete and kind.
H triggers memories of my late little brother, a casualty of our narcissist mm other. Although baby brother was much more attractive and gainfully employed. Thank God and Grandma Bertha, I am smarter and stronger than either.
In the end, perhaps Hs contribution to the world's " mental health" is a high profile example of victims narcissistic parents and partners. I don't discuss my family, especially my mother, with many people because I fear they won't believe me. The length a narcissist will go to get what the think they "deserve" are unbelievable to many people, but not to fellow survivors.
Best be making dinner. Check Chicken Parm tonight. The culinary type. I don't dare check if there is another meaning in the urban dictionary. This single girl sticks to steak and salad on the rare occasion she finds a male worth cooking dinner for. I wouldn't dare risk a roast chicken dinner. Poultry no withstanding, the Harkles variety is NOT on my desert menu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io6F3LM62iU
In particular, there's a detailed comment from a midwife correspondent, blowing the birth and miscarriage stories out of the water. BTW, Harry and the gas story makes me think they'd been watching Ab Fab episodes when Patsy was in hospital...
Why is this woman forever collapsing, on the floor, and the steps, in floods of tears? That is such basic manipulation, and he falls for it every time."
Such a feminist, not !!!!
What do you make of this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11625563/Prince-William-complained-father-step-mother-planting-media-stories-Harry-claims.html
Prince William was 'seething' with rage as he accused his father and Camilla of 'planting' stories about him and his family in the press, brother Harry's memoir claims
I think that if anybody were planting stories, it would be Sings with Seals.
I had no idea the best way to induce labor was "a good bumpy car ride" according to H in Spare. That was the advice the Queen gave to M.
I don't believe it.
It actually does work! We were camping in New Mexico in the Gila National in January while expecting our first. Husband took what he thought would be a shortcut to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. We bumped through the Mogollon mountains in our trusty Land Cruiser across large rocks and streams on what was more or less a cattle trail. (Land Cruisers used to be a lot more off road capable.) After an hour, he said "We've gone 12 miles, and I don't see any sight of the main road." Through gritted teeth, I replied "It said 120 miles!" When we finally got back to base to sign in off leave, I was experiencing mild contractions. Right after the company baby shower for us the next day, we headed for the hospital to deliver our son, an 8-month gestation baby.
You may question the sanity of us going camping and hiking in the wilderness in below freezing temperatures when I was 8 months pregnant, but what can I say. We were young and immortal then.
Prince Harry knows very well how much this will wound and infuriate his older brother... It's his casual and relentless cruelty to Prince William - in the name of 'honesty' - that is so monstrous
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11629553/JAN-MOIR-Prince-Harry-knows-wound-infuriate-older-brother.html
So then they have the show. His father is there. His father laughs when he should not in the mind of 5. So ... afterward, PC compliments 5.
5: "...looking cross." and complains about how his father laughed when he was not supposed to. Both fail to understand why the other interprets the shared experience that way.
So ... 5 explains that PC tells him a story of how PC had just this experience with PP (Shakespeare, where PP laughed inappropriately and so on).
"...Was Pa modeling his own father? Because he knew no other way to parent? Or was it more subliminal, some recessive gene expressing itself? Is each generation doomed to unwittingly repeat the sins of the last? I wanted to know, and I might've asked, but that isn't the sort of thing you could ever raise with Pa. Or GrandPa. So I put it out of my mind and tried tried to focus on the good.
Pa is here, I told myself and he's proud, and that's not nothing. .
That was a lot more than a lot of kids had.
I thanked him for coming, gave him a kiss on each cheek.
As Conrade says: 'Can you make no sue of your discontent?'"
ok now, let's look at this
The first thing mentioned is about how the press will be able to use his past to write their stories (more detail in the book but that is where he starts). Ok. Who is already thinking this is how it will play out with them?
How intriguing how the character of Conrade is described when you compare it to how things are playing out in 2023. I just find that odd. And amusing.
What is not funny in any way is the next part where being royal is compared to acting. The message one is (subliminally - oh interesting word choice later) left with is: Royals are not really caring in the same way the character in a movie cares about me, who bought a ticket.
So ... at the play. PC, someone who thinks of Shakespeare as a national treasure, has probably read each play more than two hands worth, is described as not able to understand when to laugh appropriately. By someone who, in his own words, is willing to admit that perhaps he really didn't take full advantage of ALL the opportunities offered at Eton.
Who to believe?
Let's piece this next part:
"...Was Pa modeling his own father? Because he knew no other way to parent? Or was it more subliminal, some recessive gene expressing itself? Is each generation doomed to unwittingly repeat the sins of the last? How quickly a jump to view it as a negative/didn't know any better world view? And that with genetics, it is a rigid cannot be impacted by environment which actually contradicts epigenetics. I wanted to know, and I might've asked, but that isn't the sort of thing you could ever raise with Pa. Or GrandPa. Nice. Slide in a double bind/sour grapes. So I put it out of my mind and tried tried to focus on the good. oh that's nice (and it plays out, how?).
Pa is here, I told myself and he's proud, and that's not nothing. This starts out well and ends badly with a double negative which has the potential to leave negative in the overall impression of what was actually written. He was proud (better if it was He was proud of me.
That was a lot more than a lot of kids had. Compared to whom? Other kids at the school? Where? What pool of kids who have it worse? and how is it worse for them (meaning is that how it is worse really on your radar?)
I thanked him for coming, gave him a kiss on each cheek.um, trying not to comment
As Conrade says: 'Can you make no sue of your discontent?'"What an interesting line to remember. I need find where that is in the play and then think about why this line, of all of all of the ones for Conrade, is quoted.
@Raspberry Ruffle - Thank you for posting the link (@ 8:27 PM) to HG Tudor’s video discussing tea from Tom Bower, via Saint Meghan Markle’s Reddit. The information was definitely revealing, particularly at 6:16 minutes. Daily use of cannabis has been known to cause paranoia. All of this information makes sense with what we’ve seen/heard.
I have read excerpts with details of the births of their alleged children. Supposedly, their security teams brought them food to the hospital and they “devoured it.” No L&D staff, in London or Santa Barbara, would allow a woman in labor to eat. These stories are 100% false! If there is a need for an emergency C-Section, the mother might need general anesthesia. If she has a stomach full of burger and fries, she could vomit and aspirate the undigested food. This is why women are only allowed to have ice chips during labor. Even without a C-Section, it’s very common for laboring women to vomit. The sheer volume of lies in the excerpts I’ve seen is mind boggling. I have a feeling that the lies in this book will be documented like those in the Oprah interview.
My L&D nurse gave me a frozen OJ popsicle sweetened with honey. Best nurse ever! Daughter and daughters in law just got ice chips. But, yeah, anybody that has been there can tell that the whole narrative is a pack of lies.
As for ERII recommending a bumpy ride, given that she has been reported as regarding even the word `pregnant' too distasteful to utter, I think that she never said a word it.
1. The banyan tree is a tropical plant that requires high moisture. It is therefore uncommon in the USA though it can be found in Hawaii and Southern Florida (Hardiness Zones 10-12). I do not know the name of the state where the miscarriage supposedly occurred. It is difficult to dig beneath any species of tree even with a shovel because of tree roots. It is impossible to dig to any depth with bare hands even in freshly tilled soil.
2. The whole miscarriage story was just so wrong! You are not allowed to remove a foetus from the hospital, and there are no banyon trees in California,they are only found in Florida! Just one more story!
From the horse's mouth,as it were:
Air New Zealand takes a swipe at Harry after the airline debunked claims he made in his explosive memoir about 'Megs' booking a first class flight for her dad to travel to UK
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11629697/Air-New-Zealand-swipe-against-Prince-Harry-class-claim-memoir-Spare.html
----
By the way, TK Maxx do not have an annual sale, as described in thed memoir, but they do have flash sales (when they claim to offer designer items at very low prices) and clearance sales. So, the statement they put out via the British media is as misleading as the dastardly duo are. (They claimed to not have sales at all.) Hapless probably went shopping there once when there happened to be a flash sale or seasonal clearance sale, and between his lapses of memory, the ghostwriter and the wife, the recollection was inaccurately narrated.
It is so easy to check facts like this online and I think that it is appalling that between the publisher and the ghostwriter they never did and are simply raking in the money.
And leaving after two hours? The bleeding, the blood pressure regulation, the requirement to have a bowel movement -- is that not universal?
I just looked up the "ghostwriter," J.H. Moehringer, and he has two children. He should know better.
They advertised the fact TV networks were turning up to film this huge publishing event and also offered: - free coffee - a book token to the first 25 purchasers - free entry into a $250 prize draw
The result? An empty store. Just like UK."
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10arzxi/sydney_bookstores_empty_as_spare_goes_on_sale/
I keep saying that the sales triumphantly being declared are to retail outlets. There were heaps of pre-orders. Once the book was published and delivered, these pre-orders count as sales. These are not sales to the public. But, the publisher and author make their money from sales to retailers so they have done well. Retailers (bookshops and so on) will be left with books they cannot sell, even though they are slashing the price.
It was obvious from pre-orders and hype that it would be classified as a bestseller and it would be financially lucrative for Hapless and the publisher, but the book won't 'have legs' and do well on reprints and new editions, and any further books from the couple won't be as lucrative as this one.
https://tinyurl.com/4d7r57z9
https://tinyurl.com/5n6t782e
Lili’s “birth story,” like much that I have read, was written by *. They supposedly had In and Out Burgers and fries and danced around the room. It’s absolutely insulting to expect us to believe this nonsensical fantasy of theirs. Their fans must share a couple of brain cells between them.
The memoir claims that they were back at Frogmore Cottage within two hours of giving birth (not that they left the hospital two hours after the birth). All the checks were done one hour after birth and they then went home, according to him. It is bizarre.
And the chronology is wrong. In the memoir, she was bouncing on a ball and in the water bath, then they induced labour. I do wonder why they went to the hospital if she was not in labour. But maybe, since she was at least 10 days overdue, her doctor told her to come into hospital to be induced, but she wanted to avoid that so they did go to hospital but tried to naturally start up labour before submitting to being induced. There are so many possible scenarios. Did he claim that she ate a meal before Archie's birth (surely not if she was going to be induced) or before Lilli's birth?
The couple always omit details, twist a story or tell outright lies. It must be a nightmare to have dealings with them.
The ghostwriter and publisher have behaved atrociously, according to me. They have simply used him to make money. The 'his truth' defence does not wash with me. So many of the errors could have been avoided by some basic fact checking.
I would love to know what the investigations initiated by the Palace are about.
Most probable conception dates: Aug 1, 2022 - Aug 5, 2022
Most probable dates of sexual intercourse that led to the pregnancy: Jul 29, 2022 - Aug 5, 2022
Possible conception dates: Jul 31, 2022 - Aug 10, 2022
Possible dates of sexual intercourse that led to the pregnancy: Jul 26, 2022 - Aug 10, 2022
The results of this calculator are estimation only.
-----
Eugenie's wedding: 12 October 2018. (About 10 weeks pregnant, so she made a big show of a pregnancy that was not showing).
Soho House, Amsterdam party: last weekend in September, so she probably was 7 to 8 weeks pregnant and would have known
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10akgqj/buahahahahaha_harry_and_his_owner_meghan/
After all, it is supposed to be Harry's account, `warts and all'.
Since we have heard accounts that he gets explosively angry, perhaps the ghost writer got tired of getting yelled out for pointing out inconsistencies. "Okay, chief, if that's the way you want it, I will not change any of your precious word salad."
Hugo Vickers lists more factual errors the I did not notice.
The lie about the Portland hospital.
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1612896917587124225/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1612896917587124225¤tTweetUser=hrrysgreysuit
Their friend went to California to interview him and wrote this article. It is long and difficult to get through, but she inadvertantly and happily reveals some of his disturbed thinking.
Oh, he thinks his wife is owed an apology, from his family and everyone else
There's enough for another book! Prince Harry says he cut his memoir in HALF and stripped out details about his father and brother – as he claims he has 'long-term' aim to 'fix' the monarchy, insisting 'it's about trying to save them from themselves'
'There are details of his relationship with family he doesn't want world to know'. I suppose this means he was protecting their privacy in his book.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11633087/Prince-Harry-says-book-cut-tell-memoir-HALF.html
Ms. Gordon: You can take your head out of H’s ass now.
“There are some things that have happened, especially between me and my brother, and to some extent between me and my father, that I just don’t want the world to know. Because I don’t think they would ever forgive me.”
So he thinks his brother and father will forgive him for the bile he has already spilled? And does anyone believe he won’t eventually publish a second book? It sounds a lot like future blackmail material.
He is detestable. May the Gods strike him down.
Lady C said on her last video that she heard the CEO talking during a recent interview about any future books with the Duo….the answer was no…not for the moment or words to that effect. So their 4 book deal looks iffy, despite what Mole says. 🥴
A forensic analysis of the inaccuracies in Prince Harry's book 'Spare'
https://mol.im/a/11633705
After the loss of a loved one, it’s common to think that the person has gone on a trip and will be home at some point in the future. This is a normal grief process that allows one to gradually come to terms with the shock of a loss. Our brains are wired this way to protect us from the sudden horrific realization. So, what he went through was normal, for a while. He doesn’t really say how long he believed that Diana faked her death. At some point, the person can get stuck and not progress through to acceptance. After taking a guided Ayahuasca trip, he “now knows that Mummy wants him to be happy.” He also credits * with getting him the “right therapy” to help him. So, we knew she (and Doria, Oprah?) got him into the therapy that she/they think is best. This is likely where he learned how to skillfully diagnose unconscious bias, too. This newfound mental clarity is what compels him to divulge the personal details of his family relationships and ignore their right to privacy. He calls it saving them from themselves and says that they might thank him in five or ten years. Ugh.
Thank you for your kind words and info on foot. Now unbelievably, got bit by dog owned by mentally ill lady who I am friendly with and feel sorry for. Freak accident. She had a meltdown when she could not prove dog had rabies shot even though I told her it was going to be okay. Poor woman was so scared her old dog would have a likewise meltdown and not survive being imponded sooooo....I will be starting rabies shot series tomorrow (my butt can survive but my heart couldn't if either of them suffered.) No impound for 'Renni the dog'.
I'm thinking maybe Maghan bit H's todger and he's gone rabid!! And well, we all know bats are prone to rabies, sooooo maybe that explains Meghan being "bat-shit crazy' like we all suspected.
And please no sympathy for me, please. I'm doing what many other animal-loving human beings would do.
Thank you for the great running commentary...its been good to read and a delightful distraction from my woes.
@Nutties
Really appreciatethe comments and links provided because it has been so fullfilling to finally see the 'kracken happen' to those two, especially H!!! at this stage. Maybe * won't dare write a memoir after she sees the beating H takes!!
This is heavy going. Difficulty to read, compress, analyze and then put it down on paper. Not the most dreadful thing I've faced in life but not the easiest either. If it was, I'd be making faster progress.
Wish I had mentioned the contrast of his opening which does not mention that the Oprah interview had been a month before and how that might have been a factor.
There are a lot of times when reading this where it comes off as the older sibling tattling about the younger one doing something wrong but omitting that they, in fact, had been doing something which precipitated said response by little sibling.
Kindness about the response to the dog bite. Many people don't think of that, only themselves and that someone else ought to pay/be responsible for my pain and suffering as if that's the only pain and suffering on the planet.
I sure hope so!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11633705/Talk-recollections-vary-Harry-Meghans-truth-doesnt-match-elses.html
-----
Uncle Gary has his say:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11633497/Kate-Middletons-uncle-Gary-Goldsmith-goes-spare-Duke-Sussex.html
Camilla Tominey fights back!
There is something self-sabotaging about attacking the media and singling out particular reporters with such bile.
* They know exactly where to find the information they need to call him out for being a liar, without ever calling him a liar.
* They are far more eloquent than he is.
* And they don't have to depend on a reporter/journalist interviewing them and then telling their story and hoping that they are not misunderstood or important details are not left out.
Wow! This article is filled with truth bombs.
It seems that TBW did go to someone in HR, but this revelation explains what actually happened (Carruthers was the head of HR that Jason Knauf submitted the bullying complaint to.)
"Although well-meaning, Ms Carruthers had grown close to Meghan. Both shared a love of dogs and it was Ms Carruthers in whom the Duchess later confided when she was suffering mental health problems. Ms Carruthers had also arranged for her own PA, Laura Groutides, to become executive assistant and office manager to the Sussexes’ then private secretary, Samantha Cohen. Meghan used to refer to both women as “The Sams”. (Ms Cohen, a longstanding and highly respected royal aide who only agreed to work for Harry and Meghan because the late Queen had personally requested it, resigned in October 2019 after being “treated harshly” and likening the job to “working with teenagers”, according to Low).
Rightly or wrongly, disgruntled employees therefore questioned Ms Carruthers ability to get to the bottom of the complaints.
Thank you for sharing the WSJ commentary by Peggy Noonan. It is excellent.
Ironically, it was Meghan herself who acknowledged to the then Cambridges’ staff that Kate “had left in tears” - in a bid for help to smooth it over. That’s why the palace couldn’t demand a retraction.
I have the Telegraph (newspaper) and will read the Bryony Gordon article later. I'm afraid there is no 'newfound mental clarity' for H. I'd say dense fog instead, if anything, denser than ever before.
`The banyan tree is one of California’s most beloved trees. While it’s a bit delicate in appearance, it’s an amazing tree with an interesting history. The banyan was brought from Asia to California around the turn of the century. It was initially harvested for its timber but soon became popular for its lovely flowers and foliage. The banyan tree is native to China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. However, in California, it’s known as the California Redwood. It was initially planted in San Francisco’s Chinatown as an ornamental plant.'
As we say here, `You what?!' (BTW That's the first time I've ever used an `interrobang'!)
There's confusion about the name `banyan' - the photos in this article show the Indian Banyan, a form of strangler fig, but the article describes something else.
Perhaps it's equivalent to folk in the UK not distinguishing between pine, firs and spruces, so using `fir' for all 3, and probably other conifers as well.
`Beneath the spreading banyan tree,
There H knelt upon his knee,
Scrabbling really des-prat-lee
'Neath the spreading banyan tree.'
Over to you for the actions!
Is she narcissistically thinking that she can `save' him from himself?
Good luck with that.
The two HG Tudor videos I listened to.
HG Tudor Analyses Spare : Prince Thicko
https://youtu.be/Pdlg1H5n_iM
HG Tudor Analyses Spare : Chelsy
https://youtu.be/WBjeiBAcv8Q
Perhaps Camilla said `Governor of the Bahamas', a reference to Dk Of Windsor's wartime role, to keep him out of the UK?
Madam Guttersly
He’s taking the mikado
offering advice to Will’s kin
Hoping to Spare them
his bespoke suffering
Falstaff’s problems, apparent
it’s heir
The singing seal selkie
La traviata
More smoke, and coke mirrors
from the whining falsetto
Curtains for him and his
dope opera liebretto…
I think it’s a very clear case of Maggot and Mole who are the guilty ones; Confession through projection. 🥺😳
'Apologise!' Prince Harry demands Royal Family say sorry to Meghan…
https://mol.im/a/11634693
A new, long, update... as always from this blogger, a lot of fun!
Do you think she is inciting this or is he doing this on his own?
My opinion: it is going to escalate, but his family must not engage.
Thank you @Observant One
I’m not always sure
who gets what? X
'I was coming back from London to Frogmore after Archie was born, and I would walk into the nursery and there she was in floods of tears, tears dripping on Archie while she was breastfeeding him.' At the same time, he is reinforcing the idea that * gave birth to Archie.
Apologies to Nutties for interrupting the 'book' thread with posts. I thought we had moved to that thread, but it makes sense to keep it for the book posts.
From the great posts on this thread, I'm getting a 'the call is coming from inside the building' vibe about the book. The ghost writer & Mole's publisher weren't doing him any favors by letting him reveal himself in this way. (But they've made a lot of money!)
@Rebecca, you're welcome. I think the tide is turning a bit in the USA against Maggot & Mole.
@Sandie, thanks for the link to Crowns of Britain. That writer is usually hilarious.
Happy reading, everyone!
But I saw this today and thought it had applications to what we are seeing/motives.
Of the seven deadly sins, anger is possibly the most fun. To lick your wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to roll over your tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, to savor to the last toothsome morsel both the pain you are given and the pain you are giving back; in many ways it is feast fit for a king. The chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.
Frederick Beuchner
so many levels
The royal family aren’t at a loss for the duo’s wedding, the British tax payer is. 🫤
Confession through projection.
............
That's what I've been thinking all along. Some therapy he's been having!
Seems the M/H royal wedding cost 32 million pounds. The BRF paid 2 million for the actual wedding. While British taxpayers paid the 30 million pound bill for security.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/22/much-royal-wedding-cost-paid-7567772/
Security – £30 million
The big one: security.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge spent £30,000,000 on security for their 2011 wedding. That’s around 15 times as much as Harry and Meghan’s whole wedding will cost.
While the wedding might not be in London, security will be just as tight with threats having previously been made to Meghan and thousands of members of the public heading to Windsor to revel in the festivities.
TOTAL – £32,099,873
@seanonolennon
When Harry’s editor read the sentence ‘My penis was oscillating between extremely sensitive, and borderline traumatized,’ did they not want to stage an intervention of some sort? I mean that is for sure one of the worst sentences ever written in the English language.
https://twitter.com/seanonolennon/status/1614118630446489601
The cost of a London wedding didn't bear thinking about.
Yes, £30M+. I can't find it but I read this morning something about H saying his wedding was done 'on a shoestring'. Thank you very much, H, you ungrateful prat (from a UK taxpayer who partly funded your wedding).
For those who have been looking for it, it’s posted under AbbyH’s summary of Spare. It took me a minute to figure this out, because I read the comments backwards…
Lady C quoted A N Wilson’s observations today as well, and added both Maggot and Mole were dangerous and were very similar. TBLG said Maggot is a grandiose Malignant Narcissist and Mole is a vulnerable passive-aggressive narcissist.
Harry’s book is 'like reading Mein Kampf’ | A.N. Wilson…
https://youtu.be/pC11TiuPfd8
What do you think of this article - it is all about giving the duo the summit they want and opening all sorts of other doors.
I am gobsmacked, just by scanning through it. There is even a mention of giving them the part-time royal role they wanted.
What is the difference between a royal source and a Palace source?
If there a `reconciliation' and it then emerges that neither Archie nor Lilibet were sired by Harry, with an ovum from Lilibet, and finally born of H's lawful wedded wife, the Royal family will look bloody stupid.
In the corporate world, this is called `Blue-sky Thinking'
I’m having trouble opening your link…not sure it’s virus safe. 🥴🫤
Seriously, do you honestly see a reconciliation, especially one given in to the Duo’s demands as well! It not only insults the royal family but the British public as well. It’s just PR fodder and absolute nonsense.
That quote was a real head scratcher "most beloved tree" "California Redwood" "from Asia". My first reaction was - never heard of it. In California at least.
Then a quick dig around and it was oh - they mean the Moreton Bay Fig. They are everywhere. In fact there is a huge one right by the train station in Santa Barbara. Plus you find examples in most city parks across the state. Make great shade trees on hot days.
But I have never once heard them referred to as "banyans" in California. Even by the guys in the Botanical Gardens. Always called the Moreton Bay Fig tree. By everyone. Introduced from the East coast of Australia by sailors about 150 years ago.
As for the original story - just more makey up lies. There is a reason why one of the best books about life in Hollyweird had the title "Hello, He Lied". The rule in The Biz has always been - Talent, they are lying. About everything. Trade, they are probably not lying. Maybe.
I would not believe a single word spoken by Talent. Even if they were telling me the time. From a wall-clock. That I could also see.
Its that kind of business.
If this comes to fruition, H must keep his mouth shut. I don’t think he and what’s her name are capable. She does not want to go back into the UK base of the Monarchy, because she’s not the star and would be required to get along. The public would also need to accept them, if they are to avoid embarrassing boos and tossed eggs. The Monarchy will likely face a major backlash from citizens in the UK and the Commonwealth and a big push for a Republic. Is it worth risking the Crown to save the family? Would the family actually be saved, or would it just be for show, with the boiling pot turned to simmer? I don’t see this working - at all.
Oh, IDK.
The snarky edge of me says: someone who wishes they had (real) royal contacts versus someone who actually has worked with the Palace, developed friendships at some point and is considered to have a good working knowledge of when the palace says this, this is what the sub-message is (what the real message is).
Royal source:
Or, could be, someone claiming to be close to certain royals or former royals trying to send a message out (and you could be my pigeon for a trial balloon).
Always sounds less reliable but when someone not known for a lot of long term palace experience or sources says they have a palace source, look at it closely as it has the potential to be a Trojan horse. Trojans are always possible by anyone. I just tend to be more suspicious when some claim of palace source which is hot information but this originates from some one whose history with the royals is ... not as long as other people.
One thing I have read all during this car crash of leaving the UK is that many, many of the royal correspondents actually have been doing this for years. And years. So they are not someone who is just out of school trying to make a name for themselves. They have seen and heard many things which they may not have passed on. Either way, they have experience in context. And, aren't willing to burn their sources to what is being said inside palace walls. Not burning sources is kind of key to getting trust from a place not known for trusting people walking up and saying: I want to be your friend. And, I certainly wouldn't have an agenda to be your friend.
(yeah. right, sure. I have this bridge for sale. Any interest?)
As they say: your mileage may vary.
Actually I think I have heard of a USA female designer who did/does that. I want to say female (NYC ish based, perhaps more classical lines than some of the really avant guarde stuff) and would only work with say Jennifer Lawrence for the Oscars. If you asked about that event, you would be told that the spot was filled and that prior clients are always considered over potential or fairly new ones.
This work with existing over new makes good business sense. These are the people who have helped bring you to great heights (good reputation) so why leave them in the dirt and chase people who may or may not be of equal/greater value than those existing (who helped you succeed, grow the business) clients.
DM is now pushing the reconciliation agenda of the duo.
Remember, reconciliation was in their plans for this year, which were drawn up before the Queen died. Her death and the upcoming coronation of Charles has made this a priority for them. Why on earth would the family have a summit involving all sorts of outsiders for a couple who are not and will never again represent the Crown, and live in America? All this grandiosity is 100% the duo. The urgency to do this before the coronation also comes from the duo. They will try to grab the spotlight or even try to derail the coronation, no matter what the royal family do.
Note how these articles describe Charles and William and then look at how they are described in Spare and you can see clearly who is behind this story.
DM is now pushing the reconciliation agenda of the duo.
Remember, reconciliation was in their plans for this year, which were drawn up before the Queen died. Her death and the upcoming coronation of Charles has made this a priority for them. Why on earth would the family have a summit involving all sorts of outsiders for a couple who are not and will never again represent the Crown, and live in America? All this grandiosity is 100% the duo. The urgency to do this before the coronation also comes from the duo. They will try to grab the spotlight or even try to derail the coronation, no matter what the royal family do.
Note how these articles describe Charles and William and then look at how they are described in Spare and you can see clearly who is behind this story.
Blue sky thinking indeed it is! The article has been repeated from The Times to the DM. Although mostly a good paper, The Times is anti-monarchist and I still call it PR for duo. 🥺
Mole’s body language is full of aggressive anger, contempt and distain…goodness knows about Maggot…yeah a reconciliation is clearly on the cards…not! Mole isn’t interested nor is William . 🙄
There seems to be an alternating pattern….they’re coming, they’re not, they’re coming…they’re….
'It's fixable,' the source told The Times. 'Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit ''we didn't get everything right, and we got a lot wrong''... It's going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done.'
This is not Palace talk…it reads like blackmail. It’s all about the Duo. The pair are too dangerous to be anywhere near the royal family, even with others in the room. Also, perhaps not an invitation to the Coronation as I first thought….just talks….🥴
Royal sources claim peace is on the cards for Prince Harry and Firm…
https://mol.im/a/11636425
SARAH VINE: So where is Meghan? She's usually grafted to Harry's side
https://mol.im/a/11636007
I don’t Sarah sees a reconciliation between the families either! 😳
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11636007/SARAH-VINE-Meghan-Shes-usually-grafted-Harrys-side.html
Rishi Sunak risks being dragged into the coronation row as Royal insiders say King Charles should use the 'Churchill precedent' so that the PM decides if Prince Harry can attend
The Prime Minister could be drawn in to the increasingly intense debate over whether Prince Harry should be invited to the Coronation, after senior Royal insiders argued that the decision should be 'taken out of the King's hands'.
Sources say King Charles should use the so-called 'Churchill precedent' to escape the 'impossible' decision of either inflaming tensions by barring his son, or enduring the circus that would surround his attendance with wife Meghan.
Harry has so far refused to say whether or not he would come to the ceremony if he was invited, even when directly asked.
In 1953, Churchill, then Prime Minister, made it clear to the Duke of Windsor – who had abdicated as Edward VIII more than 16 years earlier – that he would not be welcome at Queen Elizabeth's Coronation.
A well-placed source told The Mail on Sunday: 'The Coronation is a State event and funded by the State. So, in the same way that Winston Churchill advised the Duke of Windsor to stay away [from Elizabeth II's Coronation], the decision of whether to invite Harry, who has no official Royal role and no state function at the ceremony, will be down to the Government rather than just his father.'
However, Whitehall insiders tried to hand responsibility for the 'Harry hot potato' back to Buckingham Palace.
A source said last night: 'Traditionally, the Royal Household provides us with the number of Royal guests, without giving their identity, and we construct the arrangements on that basis.'
This newspaper understands that the Cabinet Office is establishing a 'Coronation committee' of civil servants, Royal officials and Church of England representatives to plan the May 6 event.
The Home Office will also be heavily involved in the arrangements. If Harry attends there will be additional security concerns given his revelation that he killed 25 Taliban fighters when serving in Afghanistan.
. . .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11636107/Rishi-Sunak-risks-dragged-Harry-coronation-row-insiders-say-decide.html
Tom Bower makes a lot of sense in this piece he wrote ... but giving any high-level attention to the duo feeds the beast and does not tame it. The duo want attention and the more 'official' that attention is, the more you feed their grandiose view of themselves and the more dangerous they become.
My view is that they should not make any statement; officially continue treating them as irrelevant royals living in America; and continue to invite them to spend Christmas with the family and visit Balmoral in the summer with their children. They still lease a home on the Windsor Estate where most working royals have a home so it is not impossible to arrange private visits if they happen to be in the UK and the working royals are not busy.
-----
It has been such a long time since there was a royal coronation and so much has changed since then. Does anyone know or could make a good guess as to when the official programme will be published? I suspect that the duo will be invited but will be in the background like at the Jubilee celebrations. What I am looking forward to finding out is what if any tiara she will wear. (Will the King and Queen let her borrow from the total vault?) Her dress will be horribly expensive and will be 'a sweet nod to Diana', but will she wear an assortment of itty bitty jewellery?
She wore Erdem before she even met him, but not bespoke from the atelier. (She wore an Erdem dress when she attended that wedding with him in Jamaica.) She thus regarded the brand as 'hers' and was annoyed that Catherine also wore Erdem (but custom fitted from the Atelier). She was the one who was afraid of comparisons, but will never admit it. But the whole story probably has its roots in an incident when she demanded a custom fitted outfit at the last minute and the designer said no for whatever reason. She wore Erdem at the Festival of Remembrance just before they bolted, and countless other times.
Catherine and the Duchess of Kent wore the exact same Erdem dress, but not at the same engagement.
Countless celebrities and actresses wear Erdem dresses ...
Gaslighting ... what the duo always do!
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/female-soldiers-raped-colleagues-were-210000977.html
One of the comments points out that it is a classic bind. If they do come, the press will be all over them instead of the king.
And that is right.
All these royal sources pushing for reconciliation. It feels odd to me: just like clockwork as their plans were that his book would come out and then they would reach out to the BRF and play happy family.
And, having this appear in multiple papers does not mean that there is some ground swell of support for reconciliation. It can be the same original source but all these different spots so it looks like it is supportive all over.
Highly suspect I think after the earlier comment about differences of Royal source and Palace source. Given everything we have ever, ever read (good and bad) about how the Palace sources act, does this sound like it is parallel to past behavior? I say no. They don't reach out publicly if they want to do a reach out. They do so privately. But we have seen some trial balloons by * in the past.
You can see, of course, what they were driving at. A full-bore, full-gloss, full-glamour, late-night, old-school, slapped-tits, high-powered series of in-your-face king-of-our-hearts splashy global tête-à-têtes. The tone would be, to paraphrase one of his more toadying interviewers: “Harry, you’re the most famous man in the world.”
But all the frouffing, all the excitement, all the preening and full-fat transatlantic puffery could not hide one simple fact: Harry ain’t great on television.
In fact, he is awful.
Titanically, implacably, strangely, pallidly, clammily awful.
Who was this strange, motheaten specimen on all our channels, with the thinning sprig of tartan hair? He looked washed up, exhausted, eyes red-rimmed as if he had been crying for days. Perhaps he had. As for what he said, well, in another world, no one with this lack of humour or this dowdy, unoriginal way of expressing things — someone this unable to come up with his own ideas — would be allowed anywhere near primetime television.
That, I guess, is royalty for you.
The Panzer attack to promote his book began on Sunday, with a 90-minute interview with Tom Bradby. I must confess to already feeling drained by it all. Bradby, similarly, looked like some fading duchess in a Marlborough tearoom who had suddenly decided to cross-dress as a financial adviser. Harry reminded me instantly of Prince Philip — if the duke had talked like a Peloton instructor. At one point he said: “Forgiveness is 100 per cent a possibility.”
Both sat, almost hunched, as if on camping chairs, in a room — perhaps in a provincial golf club — where the bizarre hint-of-Arabia curtains said: no one actually lives here.
To say that Bradby let every single one of Harry’s balls sail into the goal would seriously understate how soft this interview was. By the end the prince was dictating the tone and direction of the chat so much he actually raised his hand imperiously and barked: “Hang on.”
Among the elliptical, weaponised woo-woo that Bradby let past were statements such as: “Silence only allows the abuser to abuse.” Andrew Neil would have bitten his throat out: who’s the abuser? What does he mean by “abuse”? Is he calling the royal family “abusers” just because they don’t like his wife? Because at the heart of this lies a simple, boring truth: the royals just didn’t like Meghan. The effect of the whole past week has been like watching one enormous, sustained, high-gloss, high-intensity fully televised gaslighting.
Cont. ...
And where, might you ask, was the duchess? Gently guiding the camera with a manicured hand? Meghan’s input in all this was instantly detectable, especially if you watched more than one interview. Who had decided, for example, that Harry would compare Diana’s death to a “bicycle chain” in as many interviews as he could? No sane PR, that’s for sure.
But you could just see a woman who thinks “archetyped” is a real word thinking it was the perfect metaphor — lofty and mysterious, yet something everyone could understand. People love bicycles, right? Wrong. The interviews were filled with stuff like this: prepared soundbites that initially made sense, but on closer inspection became mad, pistachio-scented twaddle.
In his more relaxed interview with Anderson Cooper, the smoothie US news anchor — how far this former war correspondent has fallen — we learnt yet again that the family motto was “never explain, never complain”. Was it, though? Is that something the royals actually say of themselves or something the media says they say?
In recent weeks I’ve felt more inclined to defend Harry: he has spoken eloquently on his childhood and the death of his mother. But, oof, on telly, he’s unlikeable, diffident and uncompromising, even when bathed in glossy CBS lighting. His thoughts aren’t offered with tentativeness, humility or charm, as Diana might have done; they are handed down with such condescending, military vigour, you think: Who does he think he is? The King? But you can’t have a ghostwriter for being on television. It never lies.
Any decent interviewer would have sensed his rage issues — he even talks in a scuffly, I’m barely containing myself Gordon Ramsay way — and romped home with a volcanic scoop. Instead they chose to trot out a series of obviously set-up questions and answers; at one point, Cooper told us that the royal family was like “Game of Thrones without dragons”. “I don’t watch Game of Thrones, but there’s definitely dragons,” Harry replied. Help.
https://archive.ph/2023.01.15-110025/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-you-cant-have-a-ghostwriter-for-tv-it-doesnt-lie-vcbjb62h6?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter%23Echobox=1673771574
I suspect that the publisher may have laid out conditions for his publicity interviews to prevent * from participating. They know that he is more popular and her presence would have a negative impact on book sales. I don’t believe the stories of a separation or imminent divorce. He showed a strong attachment and loyalty to her in the interviews and seemed happy at the RFK event. I don’t think he’s smart enough or talented enough to fake anything.
"Prince & Princess of Wales @TribesBritannia 18h
I think Meghan Markle has told Prince Harry that unless she gets an apology she will divorce him. She threatened him with suicide to get what she wants and thinks she can do it again."
Yes! This makes sense that she would threaten to divorce H [and probably amps the threats up by again falsely (my interpretation, my belief) claiming suicidal tendancies] if she doesn't get an apology from RF.
H has stridently claimed that the RF knows exactly what they've done. If H engineers an apology from the befuddled and cornered Royal Family, then Meghan thinks this absolves her of years of atrocious actions, and thinks that she will come out of this smelling like an innocent abused bruised rose.
So the Times article about a summit is very misleading. Eugenie is probably the royal, and she has always been and is still close to the duo. So none of what Roya wrote in that article came from Charles, Camilla, William or Catherine or any of their staff. But the story has now morphed into what is required of Catherine in a reconciliation meeting with TBW.
They did this before the Jubilee ... planted stories about being on the balcony and about frequently speaking to Charles and William. It was all a load of nonsense.
That distinction between Palace source and royal source is crucial when you consider what Roya said in the interview.
@OCGal
She probably sent him out to do those interviews with a briefing (I believe she is manipulative rather than direct). He is terrified that he is going to 'fail her', like he did at the Sandringham Summit.
This article tells a very different story. (William will probably never forgive his brother and there is unlikely ever to be any kind of reconciliation.) The source is a 'royal insider'. Is that code for something or a misleading term that could refer to the guy who delivers fresh flowers to Kensington Palace?
@Sandie, I bet you are right when you wrote "She probably sent him out to do those interviews with a briefing (I believe she is manipulative rather than direct). He is terrified that he is going to 'fail her', like he did at the Sandringham Summit." -end quote- Yes, he is terrified that he is going to 'fail her'. I think that failing her would be the best thing for them both.
- and -
@GABikerGirl, I agree with you entirely when you wrote: "If she can get RF to publicly admit any wrongdoing, even if there is none, all her other claims will appear to be true too. Never admit guilt to appease someone else. It's a manipulation tactic. H will only be more under her control because it looks like she's right and his family is terrible people. He wants to be her champion, and they will only make more grandiose demands." -end quote- You nailed it!
The Camilla Long piece is very good, though the segue to the documentary on the Holocaust was a bit jarring.
As Long writes, this really is the essential core truth: “Is he calling the royal family “abusers” just because they don’t like his wife? Because at the heart of this lies a simple, boring truth: the royals just didn’t like Meghan.”
I had seen the bleeding polo pony before, which is sickening enough, but accompanying that photo saw that he rode a pregnant mare to death. I skimmed by in order to avoid the picture. Could that be true? Should she have be being ridden to begin with? Has anyone heard this?
The Tom Bower story is extraordinary. I wonder who leaked it to him?? If the King is going to prostrate himself before Harry and Meghan he may as well abdicate and allow William to become King in May.
Lady C has said on two recent occasions the duo’s chickens will come home to roost in the coming months. They’ll find out that defence isn’t the best offence. I personally think Charles is aware just like historian Dr David Starkey said….that the pair will destroy themselves and he doesn’t have to do a thing. 🫤
...'Palace ‘sources’ quoted as saying that the King might ignore Harry’s treachery and deceit over the past week and seek ‘reconciliation’ by admitting his errors.'
___________
If so, Charles is making a big, big mistake. I hope the friends advised him against this course of action otherwise he'll be seen as weak and that will be the end of the monarchy. There might have been 'errors' on his part but there are far more on H's part (and *'s, let's not forget her). He is in a very difficult situation re the coronation, stuck between a rock and shard place and needs time to consider his options and avoid a knee jerk reaction.
It is despicable of H to put Charles in such a predicament now that he is king and has other things to deal with. H has handled the situation extremely badly. Coming out in the book with his perceived grievances is one thing, to put Charles on the spot now that he is king is another. I just hope and pray Charles doesn't do anything rash. If he apologises now, this will put pressure on Camilla, William and Catherine to follow suit - they've all dissed our esteemed duchess or somehow offended her or/and H, according to him.
That story from Tom Bower is extraordinary. However, it makes it quite clear that any capitulation would be a disaster, and it clearly gives the reasons why.
Someone at that dinner party seems to have leaked to Bower.
However, I think a lot of people misunderstand Charles and attribute meanings and motives to him that he did not intend. Remember his comment 'whatever in love means' that visibly upset Diana? The man was refusing to capitulate to the Hallmark version of love and marriage, and drawing a line between the public and private.
As for the threat of revelations about his behaviour during his marriage to Diana - hapless does not remember. He can create chaos with manufactured memories, and we have seen how he gets himself into trouble when he ventures into that territory.
Hapless has more to lose that anyone in his family in this confrontation.
And Camilla Long hits the nail on the head ... no one in his family likes his wife, and that has nothing to do with her being American, an actress or mixed race. To her, as a narc, this is very wounding, and as a malignant toxic narc, she is hell-bent on revenge.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11638381/TOM-BOWER-No-one-knows-better-Charles-Prince-Harry-barely-scratched-surface.html
WILLIAM and Charles have not spoken to Harry since he publicised his book Spare in damaging TV interviews, The Sun can reveal.
Harry and Meghan are now sweating on an invite to the Coronation in May.
Talk of a behind-the-scenes reconciliation summit ahead of the historic day have been dismissed.
A source said: “There has been no conversations or contact.”
Harry, 38, has been met with silence from the Royal Family after publishing his best-selling memoir.
The book includes revelations of a “fight” with William, rows between Meghan and Kate and private conversations with his father after the deaths of the Queen and Prince Philip.
He claims to want reconciliation and is asking for private conversations with his father and brother.
But The Sun understands that neither William nor Charles have shared texts, emails, or calls with Harry in Montecito, California.
Princess Anne and Prince Edward’s families have made it clear Harry is not welcome at the Coronation.
They fear what they say could be used in his next book.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21053335/charles-william-not-spoken-harry-since-promoted-spare/
Note that the Yorks are not mentioned in this article.
Harry and Meghan were 'not welcome' at star-studded BAFTA Tea Party in LA with executives deciding it would be a PR disaster following Spare fallout, sources claim (DM)
May more doors close on them. Well done, H.
It is long but scan through quickly as if you are not a subscriber, it gradually fades. There is a long introduction and then the article, written by a former editor-in-chief of Mail online.
The book went on sale in Spain and was being covered in the media about 5 days or so before publication and the interviews, so that makes a Clarence House dinner party possible.
Nonetheless, hapless made his threats in the interviews and not in the early pre-publication coverage of the book. So any supposed conversation about hapless at a dinner party could only have happened at Balmoral. Bower has contacts in Scotland who will leak to him and risk the displeasure of the King?
For someone who is supposed to be a meticulous researcher, Bower has been sloppy and very thrifty with details.
So Charles falls for his son's abuse and still wants reconciliation for the Coronation? Charles is a fool. Keep the Duo a million miles away from the Coronation, and revoke their titles ASAP.
You hit the nail on the head! 'no appetite to engage' indicates ignoring them to me, and not all these summits, which just enable attention-seeking narcs.
This was all started by The Times article and it seems that the royal sources were the Yorks (Eugenie) passing on the narrative from the duo.
I think the King is going to deal with this like his mother, the late Queen did: don't give them an inch, make no other comment other than recollections may vary and they are beloved family and we are so sorry they are so miserable, but they are welcome to visit the King at the Palace (no photos) ... arrangements to be made through courtiers. And, if they can face the family, they can visit at Balmoral or Sandringham (no photos and no filming), where they are on the King's turf and abide by his rules.
/I have no doubt that KCIII and PoW wants Tiny Todger to return in order to put him in a mental hospital and the children in suitable care; however, I also have no doubt that they never want to see Witchy Woman again.
The Duke of Sussex branded the article about his wife 'horrific, hurtful and cruel' during an interview with ITV's Tom Bradby to discuss his autobiography Spare earlier this month.
Obviously, it's not good enough. What do they want? Clarkson already apologised privately to H on 25 December. What he said might not have been in the best of tastes but is he not allowed an opinion? I'm sure worse has been said about Trump or Biden. Can they not give it a rest? Where will it all end?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11641055/Jeremy-Clarkson-dropped-Amazon-Prime-confirms-wont-commission-seasons.html
"By the way, Piers Morgan just heavily implied that Roya Nikkhah from The Times will be publishing a big story about Harry this weekend. I wonder what it will be..."
Does anyone know anything about this?
Maybe he will be suing the family for the infliction of generational pain and for restitution.
Clarkson had a perfect right to say what he did. The public overreaction is predictable but unwarranted.
Going grayrock takes time. It's not a one and done experience so perhaps the hard part is acknowledging that you can't tell what's happening on the other side (and then the this isn't working and giving up which is responding when if only you had waited, things were working but you didn't give it enough time).
Letting them be their own worst enemies is working howbeit slowly.
Bafta in LA is a really good example. Not only a public not invited but specifically why was publicly mentioned. That's sending a message.
It will be interesting to see if and how people in HW respond to it (ie whose team they want to play on - I'm guessing they are still hesitating on 5 and * to see if they can pull out of the avalanche of the book, NF & and their other past less than glorious appearances which translates to not deliberately having much to do with them which makes it easier to be on the other team in time).
I was reading George Burrell's latest and he brought up some things. One was the 5 was upset that he got 2 sausages while his older brother got 3 for breakfast. 5 was told that is because his brother will be king instead of he's older and has a bigger stomach. It also should have been when you are older and bigger, you can have more. That set a tone which allowed grievances to fester early.
Also he pointed out that Diana did not want him at Eton and thought that a bad idea for a number of reasons. She was right about that. Had she lived, I suspect she would have been fighting hard for allowing him not to be forced into his brother's footsteps and blaze his own trail. I don't think that would have magically undone the festering but it sure might have not allowed that to grow so large.
I also learned that Katherine Heigl was in Suits. Did not know.
Of course Clarkson had a perfect right to say what he did. The majority of comments in the DM agree with him and quite a few said they would cancel their Prime subscription.
As one commenter said, 'So they are allowed their freedom of speech but no one else is?' That's it in a nutshell. And you have to apologise to them but they don't need to apologise to anyone.
"By the way, Piers Morgan just heavily implied that Roya Nikkhah from The Times will be publishing a big story about Harry this weekend. I wonder what it will be..."
I wish the surrogacy could be proved and exposed to the world. That is the “kraken” that would effectively neutralize the two unhinged frauds. It would also be the basis for legal action against them by the Royal Family, or at least the threat of it in order to secure a binding, perpetual ND agreement that would silence them. Because it involves the order of succession, I would think it would also qualify as a national security issue and would warrant investigation by MI5.
Omg Plant…you must check out Deuxmoi’s Instagram stories right now. Someone “close to Meghan and Harry” is answering people’s questions about them. Considering this is the first response, I think we all know who the “insider” is.
According to Meghan approved Deuxmoi stories, she's beautiful inside and out, loyal, intelligent and thoughtful. Articulate about her beliefs and what she stands for. Very fun and goofy (emphasis on very). Someone everyone would love to have a good girls night. Loves to be around women and thrives off good energy.
Re: Harry saying the press caused all the issues but runs to them: Harry makes his point clear that he's not anti-press, he doesn't tolerate certain outlets and journalists who are unethical, those who are baseless in their reporting and spark hatred and drama from lies. There's also a difference between UK press/tabloid media
Re: not mentioning William and Kate lived at Nott Cott before moving: Maybe they did, nobody knows what Netflix cut. If they didn't, it wasn't an intentional omission. In the cOnTeXt of everything it's not that interesting.
Re: Harry thinking the family will mend their issues after the release of spare: Screenshot of Roya's Times article, saying that royal insiders seem to think so because royal insiders or sources are Palace mouthpieces.
Cont.
Re: if they think they haven't done anything wrong or are at fault: Harry addressed this in interviews that he's sure they've made mistakes
Re: the dogs and chickens getting evacuated from Montecito: they're safe
Re: why so many inconsistencies: screenshot of Ellie Hall quote tweeting J.R. Moehringer's screenshot of Harry explaining his memory or lack thereof in the book
Re: Harry panicking before releasing documentary and book: not true
Re: them being difficult to work with and rumors they're jerks to staff: they're gracious and generous. Like any business, people come and go for myriad of reasons
Re: Harry quoting Spice Girls unknowingly in the book: the source isn't sure but he loves them.
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
9h
No truth to rumors about a Royal "round table reconciliation"! Absolutely none.
-----
It's an absurd narrative, to begin.
[speculative] Harkles: "We demand an apology for being given free house, clothes, trips, wedding, wait staff, Courtiers, nurses, coaches, titles and patronages"
LOL "We demand apology for letting us leave just like we wanted to!"
Erm
-----
Who knows! In honesty it's an easy rumor to start but those who are aware of the inner workings of the Royal Family know "back and forth" is not how the Royal Family works. Harkles case is closed & stays closed.
-----
(Neil Sean says story comes from California.) Well, as you can tell I don't follow Neil Sean as closely as I should. Consider it ultra confirmed then because my source was not Neil Sean, rather, comms itself.
-----
Cordial, respectful, but NONE of the core crew are making calls to Harkles. None. H&M proven themselves worthy of Christmas Cards, invites to funerals & a Coronation.
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1615099430843162655
The whole conversation is interesting.
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
He is a very reputable source Lisa, and let me explain.
The "fighting" is quite one sided.
TRF, while perturbed by their behavior, shall continue to remain respectful and courteous toward the pair.
Rest ASSURED, deceptions are being dealt with.
-----
Some of the allegations have caused tremendous and severe shock and upset in TRF. Tears and all. So much hurt. Hurt for their families. You are right. They are human. They are appalled. However, publicly, cordially they will not say that.
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1615193228776734720
Re the Roya Nikkhah story
I’ve gone back and listened to the Piers Morgan interview with the above (which has others included) and read the transcript. It’s spoken in the past-tense…🥴
Piers said to Roya, you had a big story on Sunday in which your sources at the Palace were basically indicating that notwithstanding the onslaught that’s come their way King Charles in particular was prepared to consider reconciliation before the Coronation in May….
The link is below for the above.
"Don't Invite Harry and Meghan!" Piers Morgan Debates Coronation Invitation
https://youtu.be/w17XQ8B4LSI
I wonder if they've scrubbed it from iPlayer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDMpkibWDo4&ab_channel=MegynKelly
at the 36 mark
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jeremy-clarkson-emails-harry-meghan-144634651.html
The Telegraph
Prince Harry and Meghan accuse Jeremy Clarkson of ‘long-standing hate rhetoric and misogyny
• Victoria Ward
Mon, 16 January 2023 at 7:47 pm GMT·5-min read
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have accused Jeremy Clarkson of apologising “solely” to Prince Harry over his newspaper column about Meghan.
The couple issued a statement after the television presenter announced that he had sent an email to both the Duke and Duchess on Christmas Day to apologise for his “disgraceful” words.
It came as it emerged that Clarkson is “likely” to be dropped by Amazon, after he admitted that the streaming service was “incandescent” over the column.
A spokesman for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said on Monday: “On Dec 25 2022, Mr Clarkson wrote solely to Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. The contents of his correspondence were marked private and confidential.
“While a new public apology has been issued today by Mr Clarkson, what remains to be addressed is his long-standing pattern of writing articles that spread hate rhetoric, dangerous conspiracy theories and misogyny.
“Unless each of his other pieces were also written 'in a hurry', as he states, it is clear that this is not an isolated incident shared in haste, but rather a series of articles shared in hate.”
The former Top Gear host faced a public backlash after writing in The Sun last month that he loathed the Duchess "on a cellular level" and was dreaming of the day that she was made to parade naked through every British town while crowds hurled excrement and chanted “shame”.
He added: “Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way.”
(Cont)
Clarkson, 62, presents both The Grand Tour and Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon Prime Video, with new shows already in the pipeline for next year.
However, the company is expected to part ways with the broadcaster beyond the series that have already been commissioned, according to industry website Variety.
“This means that the [former] Top Gear presenter likely won’t be appearing in any new shows on Prime Video beyond 2024 (though there’s every chance a final Grand Tour episode could carry over into 2025),” it said.
Amazon Prime Video declined to comment.
‘Incandescent’
It came as Clarkson revealed he had emailed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to apologise for his “disgraceful” column.
In a lengthy post published on his Instagram page, Clarkson suggested that he was apologising because he had been asked to but insisted he was sorry “all the way from the balls of my feet to the follicles on my head”.
He said he had emailed the Sussexes to apologise on Christmas Day but, at the same time, told the couple he was “baffled” by their Netflix series.
The statement went on to say that both ITV, which airs Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and Amazon were “incandescent” over the column.
ITV has indicated it may take similar action to Amazon's over Clarkson's role as host of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
"Amazon reported tonight that they will be going ahead with filming that has already been commissioned, but not commissioning anything beyond that when it comes to his shows, ITV making it clear that their position is similar," ITV News correspondent Rachel Younger said in a report on the issue.
It is understood that one further series of the programme has been commissioned, but there are currently no plans beyond that.
(cont)
Clarkson argued that he was not sexist, pointing to the fact they had never done “women can’t park” jokes on Top Gear.
He said had not initially understood why the column had generated such a backlash, but then realised he had forgotten to mention that he was making a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones.
As such, he acknowledged: “It looked like I was actually calling for revolting violence to rain down on Meghan’s head.”
He said he would try to be “interesting and vigilant” in future columns, although claimed it was hard to be both at the same time.
“So can I move on now?” he added. “Not sure.”
Clarkson’s column has not appeared in The Sun since the furore over the article published on Dec 17, with the newspaper since telling readers he is “away”.
However, he returned to his Sunday Times column this weekend.
Kevin Lygo, managing director of ITV Studios, last month branded Clarkson's comments about the Duchess "awful", but said he would remain host of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? “at the moment”.
Dame Carolyn McCall, chief executive of ITV, has previously defended the Duchess.
She forced Piers Morgan to resign when he refused to publicly apologise after telling viewers of Good Morning Britain in March 2021 that he “didn't believe a word” of what Meghan told US chat show host Oprah Winfrey in an interview that month.
Dame Carolyn said she “completely believed what [the Duchess] says”, adding that ITV was “totally committed to” mental health.
Column gets 17,500 complaints
Clarkson’s column was eventually removed from The Sun’s website - at his request - after 17,500 complaints made it the most complained-about article in the press regulator's history.
Dozens of MPs urged The Sun to take “definitive action” against Clarkson, saying: “Enough is enough.”
The row escalated again last week when the Duke of Sussex told ITV in an interview that the article incited violence against women and said the monarchy’s silence on the matter was “deafening”.
He described the column as “horrific”, “hurtful” and “cruel”.
The claim that Amazon planned to sever ties with Clarkson prompted some customers to threaten to cancel their Amazon Prime subscriptions, saying that Clarkson was the “only reason” for their membership.
However, others had vowed to cancel if Clarkson’s shows remained on the platform, with some suggesting the company should also stop selling his books.
https://twitter.com/JimmyKimmelLive/status/1615176712471601153
https://archive.ph/lKzAm
https://twitter.com/JR42845598/status/1615337597827440641
@ObservantOne: The Jimmy Kimmel children’s version of Spare is soo hilarious and well-done. Thanks for sharing.
I did scroll through the comments and sadly, many are pointing out how Sparey has inadvertently tarnished his mother’s legacy.
That little book is brilliant.
I imagine most here know that "DeuxMoi" more or less would translate to "two of me", and that would certainly be accurate for both Meghan and her tiny appendage Harry. Who they think they are in private vs. who they think they must be in public; both of them combine to make one dynamic package, etc etc etc.
DeuxMoi prints reader-submitted celebrity gossip, so would, I'm sure, be happy to print this gossip purporting to be from someone who knows the inner workings of Megsy and Sparry's life.
Meghan could give a Master Class on manipulation of the press, thus I have zero doubt she uses DeuxMoi as a matter of course to get "her truth" out there.
Is the best description I’ve heard a few times now, when referring to the despicable duo. I’m just waiting for the implosion. 😶
It seems Amazon has dropped Clarkson and ITV, maybe.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11643683/Is-Jeremy-Clarkson-cancelled-controversial-Meghan-Markle-column.html
Guess what? They've scrubbed it; there's only couple of clips from the original screening in 2013.
That is why I like to have hard copies of history, cookbooks, repair books, things that matter. Streaming services/digital copies are *not* reliable. Things can be 'corrected' or 'changed'.
I'm don't think that the BBC values heroic men, so I'm not surprised that they would jump at the chance to take it down because somebody that made it had an actual opinion.
@ObservantOne: The Jimmy Kimmel children’s version of Spare is soo hilarious and well-done. Thanks for sharing.
I did scroll through the comments and sadly, many are pointing out how Sparey has inadvertently tarnished his mother’s legacy.
Indeed. People look at the real Harry 'in his own words'. I don't think that he cares about *anybody* except himself. He definitely didn't care about his grandparents or his father, brother, uncles, aunts, niece or nephews. He *says* he cares about his children and wife, but I see no evidence of that. Absolutely everything has to be about him or he throws tantrums. His persona was a creation of PR.
Now we look at Diana in a different way. She did do a lot of good, but I suspect that her mental illness was far worse than we knew. How much of her was like Harry and covered up by the PR?
Very good find! I wonder if the mock children's version of Spare would fare better than the Bench??
@Wild Boar and @xxxxx
I don't know about the BBC but ITV has axed Jeremy Clarkson. I don't know what they're trying to achieve, he is entitled to his opinion. Ditto Amazon and they might end up like Netflix with lots of subscribers leaving in droves. Just because the 5s are so petty they couldn't be gracious enough to accept his apology. If Charles did apologise, God forbid, would they turn down the apology? Would it be enough?
Folie à deux indeed!
Thanks for the link to the Emily Griffin article. It would be a very brave journalist who would dare ask those questions. What's the betting that either H or * would walk out/ask for filming to stop? H has been given an easy ride so far, it would be interesting to see a journalist probe a lot deeper. Wouldn't it be delightful to see Piers Morgan interview H? He'd never agree, though, they have to be sycophants, which results in hardly unbiased interview.
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle 'Spare' fallout threatens Hollywood future: experts
Could Prince Harry’s explosive memoir "Spare" hurt the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s chances of being a power couple in California? Several royal experts think so.
The 38-year-old, who lives in the coastal city of Montecito with his wife Meghan Markle and their two children, dished out another tell-all, which hit bookstores on Jan. 10. It sold 1.43 million copies during its first day on sale in the U.K., U.S., and Canada, making it the fastest-selling nonfiction book of all time, Guinness World Records shared.
But not so fast on the champagne popping, one royal expert warned. Kinsey Schofield, who is the host of the "To Di For Daily" podcast, told Fox News Digital that those within the couple’s circle in Hollywood may be wary of what they reveal out of fear the pair will publicly speak out once more.
"I think ‘Spare’ and the [recent] Netflix documentary will ultimately hurt Harry and Meghan’s relationships with the Hollywood elite," said Schofield.
"Did intensely private Beyoncé give Meg permission to read a text message that she sent the duchess verbatim to millions of Netflix subscribers?" she shared. "I highly doubt it. Did Courteney Cox expect to one day be called out for ‘magic mushroom chocolates’ in ‘Spare?’ Does Gayle King enjoy being grilled by the internet when Harry tells ITV there isn't a royal racist after Gayle appeared on morning television claiming that her friends, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, had receipts? They are putting people in uncomfortable situations."
"While having Tyler Perry and Oprah in your corner is a huge help, I think most individuals don't want to pick a side and would prefer to avoid the drama," Schofield added.
*****The article goes on to state...
Royal author Christopher Andersen told Fox News Digital that despite the backlash "Spare" has received from defenders of the monarchy, there’s no denying its appeal. And he believes the offers to continue telling all will keep coming.
"'Spare' is unflinching in its depiction of William and Harry's relationship — a tense love-hate bond I describe in my books ‘Brothers and Wives’ and ‘The King’ — and depicts Queen Camilla as nothing less than ‘a villain’ who has left 'bodies in the streets,’" he explained. "At the same time, it's interesting to see how the British tabloids have really gone on the attack. A lot of people may be sick of listening to Harry and Meghan whine, to be sure. But the notion that the Sussexes are somehow on the ropes is complete nonsense."
"Regardless of what you think of them, they remain an enduring object of fascination in the U.S. and the U.K. — their ratings and book sales are undeniable proof of that," Andersen continued. "The Sussexes remain quite popular on this side of the Atlantic. The lucrative offers will keep on coming, and so will the invitations. More than ever, Harry and Meghan sit atop America's celebrity heap."
"Spare" is the latest in a string of public pronouncements by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex since they quit royal life in 2020. At the time, they cited what they saw as the media’s racist treatment of the duchess and a lack of support from the palace.
To promote the book, Harry appeared on ITV, CBS "60 Minutes," "Good Morning America" and "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." Some had wondered if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would make an appearance at the BAFTA Tea Party in Los Angeles. William, 40, has been president of BAFTA since 2010.
"We confirm that categorically their attendance was not discussed whatsoever," a spokesperson for BAFTA clarified to Fox News Digital. "The BAFTA Tea Party in LA is for those involved in this year’s film awards season, so film awards contenders and nominees."
Andersen said if there’s any invite the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be concerned about, it’s the one for Charles’ coronation in May. "We already know they will have no official ceremonial role to play," he said. "So even if they are grudgingly sent an invitation, Harry and Meghan may feel it's simply not worth traveling to London simply to be shoved aside as they essentially were during Queen Elizabeth II's funeral. Harry has spent his life in his brother's shadow – he still carries deep emotional scars from being cast in the role of ‘the spare,’ and he wrote about that movingly in his book. Why would he subject himself and his family to more humiliation?"
Harry’s willingness to air out the Windsors' dirty laundry on both sides of the Atlantic continues to spark sales. However, some royal experts are adamant that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will need to find new ways to stay relevant in California. Royal commentator Hilary Fordwich reminded Fox News Digital that following the couple’s interview with Winfrey in 2021, Michelle Obama told Access Hollywood: "My hope is that, when I think about what they’re going through, I think about the importance of family and I just pray that there is forgiveness and there is clarity and love and resolve at some point in time. Because there’s nothing more important than family."
"Americans, with an absence of royalty on their shores, are renowned for treasuring family," Fordwich explained. "Britons value family too and certainly the recent outpouring for the late Queen Elizabeth II demonstrated the love for the royal family. In America, there was a time when family for recent immigrants was one of the few things they had. So family is especially treasured."
So was digging up old skeletons for a reported $20 million advance worth it? Fordwich doesn’t believe so.
"Perhaps Michelle Obama’s sentiments regarding Harry and Meghan's brutal break from the royal family speaks volumes for the sentiments of many Americans," she shared. "A-listers or not, another question is, would anyone want a family member disclosing intimate details publicly, such as in ‘Spare,’ regarding their own family?"
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-harry-meghan-markle-spare-fallout-threatens-hollywood-future-experts
Okay, he is/was Brit-adjacent, but one hopes that is coming to an end /s
The difference now is that it's the self-righteous mob baying for blood as well as a selection of the Powers That Be. Hence the rest of us have to express our opinions publicly under noms-de-guerre or behind closed doors only with those we know we can trust.
Of Rebecca English, he writes:
"...Editors don't fare much better than the journalists in Spare, with Rebekah Brooks in particular receiving a scathing description from Harry.
"Loathsome toad, I gathered. Everyone who knew her was in full agreement that she was an infected pustule on the arse of humanity, plus a s**t excuse for a journalist."
Will he apologise for this? Will he be treated like Clarkson has been?
We are now under a `Yellow Snow Warning' which I, in the mountains, used to translate as `n
Never eat yellow snow'.
Just seen David Starkey in conversation with Farage. Starkey when he is not being a self-centered windbag is so persuasive one has to ask whether one is not being swept up in the eloquence of his prose. He describes Harold as a traitor, to his family, to the monarchy, to the country, to his grandmother and her achievement the Commonwealth, and to his father. A simmering teenage resentment towards William. Starkey sees it as so petty. He sees Harold as having been converted to the Californian religion of woke with Markle as the priestess guiding him where the only value is oneself and to hell with any responsibility. What Starkey feels he says is contempt and is concerned as to the Americanisation of British public life. Should Harold be removed from the succession? Starkey thinks to do so would be to take a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and satisfying as it might be would provide further grievance from Harold.
Is Clarkson now going to go the same way as other once loved entertainers who once seemed unassailable?
. . . "he still carries deep emotional scars from being cast in the role of ‘the spare,’"
H was not 'cast' as such in the role of spare. He was the second born, which meant that if after Charles something happened to William, H would acceed to the throne. This is as daft as saying Charles was 'cast' as a future king. It is simply the natural order of things and is called hierarchy.
As for carrying "deep emotional scars", please! Deal with it. H knew right from the start that that was his destiny, it's not as if this was something that was forced on him in middle age.
I don't think that Herod's emotional scars are just from being born the spare.
If he had been better looking than William, or looked more like his mother than William, or was taller than William, or better in school, or had landed Catherine, etc he would have been able to handle the spare part better, I believe.
The fact is that not only is he second to his brother in hierarchy, but in many other things as well. That's what has him so frustrated - he cannot best his brother in anything.
Prince Harry has been called a 'stupid boy' and told to 'take responsibility' after his confession of killing 25 Taliban was used by Iran to defend its hanging of a British-Iranian citizen.
Current and former British military commanders have accused the Duke of Sussex of 'giving ammunition' to Iran's propaganda machine and exploiting his military career for financial gain.
In response to UK criticism of its execution of Alireza Akbari, 61, at the weekend, Tehran said Britain was 'in no position to preach' on human rights after the prince's recent admission about killing Taliban in his memoir Spare.
One commander said Harry had 'rendered himself a tool for the Tehran regime' while a colonel who served in Afghanistan said Harry should take responsibility for allowing Iran to compare its murder of a political opponent with lawful deaths in armed conflict.
To the disappointment of many former colleagues and military commanders, the prince chose to reveal his personal tally of enemies accounted for.
He also described dehumanising his opponents on the battlefield, thinking of them as 'chess pieces' who needed removing 'from the board', rather than human beings.
Iran exploited Harry's remarks after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described Mr Akbari's hanging, after being accused of being an MI6 spy, as a 'callous and cowardly act, carried out by a barbaric regime."
Yesterday Iran's Foreign Ministry fired back, tweeting: 'The British regime, whose Royal Family member sees the killing of 25 people innocent people as the removal of chess pieces and has no regrets over the issue, and those who turn a blind eye to a war crime, are in no position to preach to others on human rights.'
Just days before his death Mr Akbari is thought to have been severely beaten in jail before he gave what appeared to be forced confessions.
In an audio message broadcast on the BBC's Persian service he said he was tortured to make him admit to crimes he did not commit.
His Iranian captors described him as 'one of the most important agents of the British intelligence service in Iran'.
Former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West told The Sun: 'Harry was a stupid boy saying what he said but there is no equivalence with what Iran is doing.'
Colonel Richard Kemp, a former UK military commander in Afghanistan said Harry had played into Tehran's hands.
He said: 'Harry should take full responsibility for giving ammunition to the murderous Iranian regime's propaganda machine.
'While all decent people will reject Iran's lies, many of their supporters will be strengthened by the ayatollahs' exploitation of the duke's ill-judged comments.'
Former Royal Navy commander Rear Admiral Chris Parry agreed, suggesting the prince had effectively rendered himself a tool for the Tehran regime.
He said: 'The Iranians are using him for propaganda purposes. Despite the clumsy words by Prince Harry, it is highly duplicitous to claim equivalence between the lawful killing of combatants in warfare and a show-trial and political murder by a dictatorial regime.'
Prince Harry spent five months fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2012-13 as a gunner aboard an Apache attack helicopter.
The Army Air Corps AH-64 was equipped with Hellfire missiles and a 30mm cannon capable of eviscerating and persons in its path.
Harry's kills were recorded by a camera fixed to the helicopter's undercarriage. He also described watching the footage to tot up how many dead Taliban he was responsible for.
The admission brought widespread condemnation from military figures and fears of retaliation by militant supporters.
Downing Street insisted the execution of Mr Akbari and the prince's remarks about his experiences in Afghanistan were separate issues.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'Nobody should be in any doubt the execution of Alizera Akbari was a barbaric and politically motivated act with no legitimacy.
'Any comparisons between that and servicemen and women carrying out legitimate actions would be entirely false.'
Following Iran's exploitation of the prince's remarks, former Conservative leader Iain Duncan-Smith said he hoped Harry 'would reflect on that and not do something similar again'.
He added: 'Iran criticising us on human rights grounds would be a joke if it wasn't for the fact that they are maniacal, brutal, violent and dangerous.'
Former Defence Minister Alex Shelbrooke said: 'I think Harry's words were unwise. Everyone is aware of the job military personnel do. They don't then seek to exploit that for their financial gain.'
Tory MP Alicia Kearns, chairwoman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, added: 'We will take no lectures from a terrorist state which weaponises human life, and industrialises hostage taking.
'Its rape and murder of innocent women demanding the end to their subjugation is heinous.'
And former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said the comparison was 'absurd'.
'It shows the Iranians realise how badly they have behaved. The attempt to compare it with British troops, at the request of the Afghan government, fighting to protect Afghan democracy, is an absurd comparison by any standards,' he told the Mail.
'It's an attempt at cheap propaganda that won't convince even Iranians, never mind people in this country.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11646107/Prince-Harry-slammed-giving-ammunition-Iranian-regimes-propaganda-machine.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11646277/SARAH-VINE-Jeremy-Clarkson-ghastly-dinosaur-dont-let-Harry-Meghan-cancel-him.html
The Royal Family’s Apology for their treatment of Meghan Markle:
I’m sorry we spent £32 million on your heavily promoted wedding
I’m sorry The King stepped in to walk you down the aisle
I’m sorry we spent £1 million on your first-year wardrobe
I’m sorry you only undertook 72 days of royal work
I’m sorry we gifted you and your husband the titles of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Earl and Countess of Dumbarton and Baron and Baroness Kilkeel
I’m sorry we spent £4 million-a-year on your security
I’m sorry we hid your alarmingly shady past from the public
I’m sorry we covered up your rampant bullying of young professional women and then covered up the results of the bullying investigation in order to protect you
I’m sorry we gifted you an 11-room house on the Windsor estate, for free
I’m sorry we footed the £3.2 million bill to renovate your house to your liking
I’m sorry we granted you the honour of marrying in the historic Royal Chapel at Windsor Castle
I’m sorry we gave you your own independent team of staff
I’m sorry we appointed you your own adviser and assistant to make the transition to royal easier
...
I’m sorry we appointed you your own adviser and assistant to make the transition to royal easier
I’m sorry you were the first girlfriend to be invited to spend Christmas at Sandringham with Queen Elizabeth II and family
I’m sorry The Queen invited you to a theatre charity less than four weeks after marrying H - the earliest ever joint engagement with The Queen
I’m sorry we invited you to the funeral of the longest-serving monarch in British history after you continued to slander everything she ever worked for in multiple interviews and podcasts
I’m sorry we granted you, an American, your own coat of arms from the 500-year-old College of Arms
I’m sorry we didn’t silence you by making you sign any NDAs, allowing you to sign multi-million-dollar deals for books, interviews and podcasts
I’m sorry we’re the reason George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey and Elton John pretended to like you
I’m sorry we gave you the opportunity to co-write a cookbook, guest edit British Vogue, and ‘curate’ your own fashion capsule.
I’m sorry we advised you twice not to wear those blood diamonds gifted by Jamal Khashoggi’s murderer
I’m sorry our support made you feel emboldened to behave appallingly towards staff and ticket-holders at Wimbledon
I’m sorry your behaviour on the Oceania tour angered your hosts and we covered it up by encouraging positive coverage from the press
I’m sorry you were the first girlfriend to be invited to spend Christmas at Sandringham with Queen Elizabeth II and family
I’m sorry The Queen invited you to a theatre charity less than four weeks after marrying H - the earliest ever joint engagement with The Queen
I’m sorry we invited you to the funeral of the longest-serving monarch in British history after you continued to slander everything she ever worked for in multiple interviews and podcasts
I’m sorry we granted you, an American, your own coat of arms from the 500-year-old College of Arms
I’m sorry we didn’t silence you by making you sign any NDAs, allowing you to sign multi-million-dollar deals for books, interviews and podcasts
I’m sorry we’re the reason George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey and Elton John pretended to like you
I’m sorry we gave you the opportunity to co-write a cookbook, guest edit British Vogue, and ‘curate’ your own fashion capsule.
I’m sorry we advised you twice not to wear those blood diamonds gifted by Jamal Khashoggi’s murderer
I’m sorry our support made you feel emboldened to behave appallingly towards staff and ticket-holders at Wimbledon
I’m sorry your behaviour on the Oceania tour angered your hosts and we covered it up by encouraging positive coverage from the press
I’m sorry we invited you to The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee after you’d called us all racist abusers on international television
I’m sorry we thought you’d like to be patron of the UK’s National Theatre, we didn’t realise you’re not interested in the theatre
I’m sorry nobody stopped you from wearing a maternity coat and announcing your 8-week pregnancy at the wedding of your husband’s cousin
I’m sorry you publicly announced your first pregnancy on Infant Loss Awareness Day
I’m sorry we lied to the press about the existence of the nude pictures you took of yourself, easily available on the internet
I’m sorry we let you live free-of-charge in a two-bedroom London property while the free five-bedroom country house we gave you was renovated
I’m sorry we introduced you to world leaders, high-ranking officials and A-list celebrities
I’m sorry we helped perpetuate your lie that your degree was in ‘international relations and theatre’ and not ‘communications’
I’m sorry for all the jewellery we gifted you, including a pair of expensive pearl earrings from Queen Elizabeth II
I’m sorry we helped perpetuate your lie that you worked at the US Embassy in Argentina for several months instead of attending classes at the Embassy school organised by the uncle you didn’t invite to the wedding
I’m sorry we loaned you the use of a historic diamond-encrusted tiara
I’m sorry we took an interest in what colour your future yet-to-be-conceived baby’s hair would be
I’m sorry we permitted you to only allow American press to the unveiling of your first child in Windsor Castle, as requested, instead of British press
I’m sorry we helped cover up that you worked with the authors of Finding Freedom
I’m sorry for allowing you to keep all those freebies you’re definitely not allowed to keep
I’m sorry your husband, a prince, didn’t explain how to courtesy to The Queen
I’m sorry we acquiesced to you inviting celebrities you’d never met before to your wedding
I’m sorry we didn’t clamp down on you monetising your official royal engagements
I’m sorry we respected your boundaries by not hugging on first meeting
I’m sorry we allowed you to mistakenly believe you were more popular than Catherine and William
I’m sorry for providing a team of highly-trained, expensive doctors at your disposal
I’m sorry we funded a household staff of cooks, cleaners and nannies for you
I’m sorry nobody asked if you’re okay.
So sorry about all that.
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/post/706769830596968448/the-royal-familys-apology-for-their-treatment-of
Silence of the Sods
Wherefore* art thou
madam de faux
Gone to ground
in her ‘cito Shatho
Was the thaw’t of
haz’s melting penis
The tip-ping point
for substantial new weeners
Plotting and scheming
since the day she was spawn
She’s bound to clap back
tooting somebody’s horn
Her conscious bias
malice and fallace
The midwife was right
slapped her face, not her arse…
*Wherefore as in where
not why.