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
Prince Harry admits the royal family made a fortune from the slave trade
Last week on Jan. 10, Prince Harry of the royal family released his tell-all memoir “Spare,” and despite the record-breaking sales pace, the book is now in the news for controversial reasons.
Forbes reported on Wednesday (Jan. 11), a day after its release, that the book’s publisher, Penguin Random House, said the piece of literature sold over 1.4 million copies. Meanwhile, yesterday (Jan. 16), Gayle King of “CBS Mornings” reported that the Duke of Sussex admitted in “Spare” that his family made a fortune from the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
He acknowledged that his family once generated wealth from “exploited workers and thuggery, annexation and enslaved people.” While many people praise the British monarchy for its tradition, most people aren’t aware of the royal family’s historical involvement in the progression of slavery. Esther Stanford-Xosei, a lawyer and reparations expert, briefly educated “CBS Mornings” viewers on Harry’s family’s demoralizing past.
“I mean it goes all the way back to Elizabeth I,” explained Stanford-Xosei. “The British monarchy has been heavily involved in financing enslavement voyages of traffickers, but also beneficiaries of actual labor of enslaved Africans.”
She continued, “The governor of the Royal African Company was James II, otherwise known as the Duke of York. They also found ways of branding African people with the inscription ‘DY,’ for Duke of York.”
While the royal monarchy has never publicly apologized, modern members of the British family, including Prince William, Harry’s brother and the heir to the throne, have expressed sympathy for their ancestors connection to the slave trade.
“The appalling atrocity of slaver forever stains our history,” William said on a visit to Jamaica last year. “I want to express my profound sorrow.” Stanford-Xosei suggested that the royal family won’t apologize because it could cost them money and their reputation.
“The reason why he doesn’t go further is that he’s aware [of] what it will mean to actually apologize, in terms of the legal obligation to make reparation,” she explained. She added that William and his family feared it would cost the monarchy “not only money, but status… He will be exposing the criminality of this institution.”
“In terms of Prince Harry going this far, it’s really, really important,” Stanford-Xosei said. “We can see the establishment reaction, including… the establishment media, who are seeking to belittle him, demonize him because he is daring to speak universal truths and actually be in touch with the conscience of humanity.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-admits-the-royal-family-made-a-fortune-from-the-slave-trade/ar-AA16rS4m?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a2777f6e4fa444b1bc7fb99caa2f8820
Commentary: Prince Harry’s memoir mercilessly trashes the royal family. He didn’t go far enough
In his memoir, “Spare,” Prince Harry spills more British tea than a certain band of revolutionaries did 250 years ago — with results that may be just as upsetting to the current monarch as the Boston Tea Party was to George III.
Many wondered if the tell-all, published last week, would contain enough new revelations to sustain public interest in the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, whose six-part docuseries “Harry & Meghan” premiered just last month on Netflix. The answer, so far, is a resounding yes: “Spare” is breaking sales records and has inspired more breathless headlines than virtually any other book in recent memory.
When it comes to juicy anecdotes, “Spare” is anything but: No tidbit is too salacious, too trifling or too controversial to make the cut. The erstwhile prince writes about losing his virginity to an older woman in a field behind a pub, tripping on mushrooms in Courteney Cox’s bathroom and sexy rendezvous with his now-wife, the former Meghan Markle, early in their courtship. He also offers more sobering details, like the exact number of people he killed while serving in Afghanistan (25) and the belief he clung to for many years that his mother, Princess Diana, did not die in a Paris car crash but had actually disappeared.
And he is unflinching when it comes to his family, portraying the Windsors as a cold, dysfunctional and ruthless clan in which hugs are beyond the pale but leaking stories to the Sun about your own kin is standard practice. In Harry’s telling, Charles is detached and relentlessly self-serving, William dull and peevish and Camilla a conniving stepmother straight out of Disney-villain central casting.
For all his anguished soul-baring and scandalous confessing, though, Harry can’t bring himself to identify, much less condemn, the real source of his woes: the monarchy itself. As I eagerly gobbled up every gossipy morsel about wedding seating Harry was willing to share, I kept waiting for him to go there and critique the institution that fostered such wild entitlement and bitter resentment in the first place.
Instead, he spends nearly 400 pages building a de facto case against the very concept of a hereditary sovereign — surely no one would choose to have an emotionally stunted dilettante like Charles in charge if they could — but ultimately dodges the very pertinent questions he raises about the dynasty he once epitomized.
For Harry, frostbitten todgers are fair game, but the “M” word is apparently the last real taboo.
“No one wants to hear a prince argue for the existence of a monarchy, any more than they want to hear a prince argue against it,” he writes in the closing pages of “Spare.” “My emotions are complicated on this subject, naturally, but my bottom-line position isn’t. I’ll forever support my Queen, my Commander in Chief, my Granny. Even after she’s gone. My problem has never been with the monarchy, or the concept of monarchy. It’s been with the press and the sick relationship that’s evolved between it and the Palace.”
The claim that Harry — who called his book “Spare,” after all — has no problem with the concept of a hereditary monarchy, one that almost inevitably pit him against his older brother and his father against them both, seems disingenuous.
He devotes many of the memoir’s pages to detailing the ways, overt and subtle, he was made to feel disposable and inferior from the moment of his birth, for no reason other than William got there first. Early on, Harry recalls how their bedroom at Balmoral was divided into two halves — his brother’s larger and more luxuriously appointed. Later, in adulthood, this tension curdles in unexpected ways. William, allegedly resentful that he didn’t get to pick what he wore on his own wedding day, tries to bully Harry into shaving his beard. Charles does not come off any better, looking the other way as his wife, Camilla, allegedly feeds stories to the tabloids about her stepsons in exchange for favorable coverage and constantly putting his personal interests ahead of theirs because, well, he can.
The pettiness described in “Spare” is staggering, with inane disputes over lip gloss rising to near-constitutional crises. And British republicans, sensing a moment of opportunity to revive their campaign against the monarchy after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, have glommed onto the ugly family drama.
“This row is destroying the monarchy and any sense of mystery or mythology that has sustained it in the past. We can now see very ordinary, unimpressive people who are prone to quick tempers, fits of violence and petty jealousies,” said Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchist group Republic, in a recent press release. “Harry has also highlighted the cruelty of an institution that raises children according to a rigid pecking order, telling the younger ones they must always defer to the rights and rank of their siblings. This is no way to raise a family, it is no way to govern a country.”
Indeed, it doesn’t take a child psychologist to know that Harry grew up in an unhealthy environment, deprived of physical affection while being made to perform for the cameras. “No matter how much you might love someone, you could never cross the chasm between, say, monarch and child. Or heir and spare. Physically but also emotionally,” he writes. “The older generation maintained a nearly zero-tolerance prohibition on physical contact. No hugs, no kisses, no pats.” This, apparently, included moments of intense tragedy, like Diana’s death. (Harry got a hand on the knee from his father.) When William embraced Harry upon his return home after a scary incident on the front lines in Afghanistan, it amounted to “a flamboyant, unprecedented display of physical affection.”
Whether he’s being willfully naive or is simply in denial, Harry also seems to believe there is a meaningful distinction between the British press and the institution of the monarchy. Yet the two organisms share a deeply symbiotic relationship, and function as interdependent parts of a system that preserves wealth and power for a scant few. Saying “my problem is not with the monarchy, it’s with the press” is like saying “my problem is not with sharks, it’s with their teeth.”
And, on some level, Harry knows the institution is difficult to defend in a democratic, post-colonial era. As James Holt, a former palace spokesperson who now runs the Archewell Foundation, says in the first episode of “Harry & Meghan”: “When you actually put [the monarchy] under pressure and you say that there is a family anointed by God, by blood, to rule over this country and other countries around the world, it’s a difficult conversation to have. And so in order for the institution to survive, it has to modernize, but it also has to have mass popular support.”
That support, in turn, depends on a constant stream of publicity — most of it the good kind, celebrating the lavish weddings, jubilees and funerals but also the countless dutiful ribbon-cutting ceremonies. Put another way: The royals need the press to cover all their good deeds, otherwise we might start asking where those tiaras came from.
And this dependence on publicity breeds paranoia and resentment within the family. Harry recalls a particularly tense Christmas at Sandringham, marred by bitterness over the Court Circular — the annual record of the royal family’s official engagements, which inspired the press to draw conclusions each year about who was a lazy mooch and who was a workhorse. “Maybe the stress around all this stemmed from the overarching stress about the monarchy itself,” Harry writes. “The family was feeling the tremors of global change, hearing the cries of critics who said the monarchy was outdated.”
Harry may be reluctant to condemn the institution more forcefully because of how fully he seems to have internalized the imperialist mindset. He devotes nearly a third of “Spare” to his military service in Iraq and Afghanistan, without thoroughly contemplating the role of the British Empire in their histories. And some of the more cringeworthy passages in “Spare” pertain to his experiences in Africa, a continent he seems genuinely to love but writes about using naive cliches: “In Africa all distance dissolved. All creatures mingled freely.” He even admits to considering getting a tattoo of Botswana on his foot during a drunken trip to Las Vegas. Instead, he winds up back in the tabloids after losing a round of strip poker.
Since they walked away from royal life three years ago, Harry and Meghan have assiduously rebranded themselves as progressive-ish celebrity philanthropists and multimedia entrepreneurs. Meghan’s Spotify podcast “Archetypes” aims to dismantle “the labels that try to hold women back,” while the docuseries “Live to Lead,” their second project at Netflix, earnestly profiles left-leaning icons like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They earned their liberal cred, such as it is, by distancing themselves from an archaic institution and calling out unfair treatment Meghan received based on her race, class and gender.Yet the Sussexes have yet to renounce their royal titles. In an otherwise friendly interview for “60 Minutes,” Anderson Cooper pointedly asked why they hadn’t taken this final step. The (still) Duke of Sussex responded with a shrug: “And what difference would that make?”
The answer is: a big one.
MSN again, how horribly biased and non fact based it shows itself again. I’m just so utterly fed up with bigot ignorant Mole and the Woke brigade at throwing Blighty under a bus yet again! Has he forgotten the billions we paid back for repatriations? 🫤☹️
Yes, as in HMS Pinafore:
`Never mind the whys and wherefore,
Love can levels ranks ...'
An ironical take on the present situation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0yDej3tRRg
It's also like `hvorfor'& `varför' as heard on Scandi-noir like `The Killing'.
Yes, it was a lot of money and the debt has only been paid of comparatively recently by the Government, that is, by us, as the only money HMG has is what we are obliged to give it as tax, plus borrowings which we also repay via HMG!
Gaining freedom was presumably regarded as something beyond price - so the slaves didn't get the cash- that's what rankles today. The money went to the owners as compensation for depriving them of their property, as it does in other cases. Had we not borrowed the wherewithal, they would have remained slaves.
Even if reparations are made, they are not likely to be paid to individuals but communities as I understand it.
`Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake'.
Let them self implode. Neither of their images will ever recover. On the other hand, the RF stick to their duty and walk the high road.
They are killing the Duo with the < silent treatment with zero engagement. 🤗 As you are aware nothing is more infuriating than zero engagement.
Listening to Lady C perhaps the UK Government will have a hand in the demise age shut down of Mole etc. Mole has shown himself to be a treacherous traitor who will stop at nothing. Someone who will lie with abandonment in order to throw his family, the country etc under a bus, that’s enough for the government to do something. 😟
Prince Harry drops 45 points and Meghan Markle 36 points in just over a month in US public opinion poll after release of his tell-all memoir Spare [Selected passages presented]
The couple, who were previously hugely popular in the US, have sunk in the polls as Prince Harry launched a fresh attack on the royal family and revealed a range of intimate details such as how he lost his virginity in his new tell-all memoir.
The Prince of Wales' polling remains strong despite being accused of attacking his younger sibling after a blazing row where he called Meghan 'difficult' and 'abrasive'.
Meanwhile Prince Harry's approval ratings dropped to a record low of -44.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11649671/Prince-Harry-drops-45-points-Meghan-Markle-36-points-month-poll.html
New polling by Redfield & Wilton for Newsweek revealed Prince Harry now has an approval rate of -7 on January 16, compared to +38 on December 5.
Meanwhile Meghan Markle had an approval rating of -13, compared to +23 on December 5.
The poll, which was made up of 2,000 US voters, marks a serious backslide in ratings for the couple, who moved to the country after stepping back from royal duties in March 2020.
On Monday Prince Harry was liked by 31 percent of those polled and disliked by 38 percent.
Meghan Markle was liked by 26 percent of those polled and disliked by 39 percent.
The poll also found that women were slightly less likely to like Ms Markle than men.
Asked about whether Harry was right to reveal intimate conversations with his family members in the memoir, 44 percent said he was wrong, with 26 percent saying he was right.
Harry and Meghan's approval ratings remained unchanged in 37 percent and 38 percent of Americans respectively.
The figure is striking given the amount that the couple have been in the news in the last few months, following the release of their Netflix docuseries Harry & Meghan and Harry's new book.
Redfield & Wilton's poll also found that only a third of the population had not heard anything about the contents of the book.
It comes as the couple become increasingly unpopular in the UK, with recent polling for MailOnline revealing 56 percent of people believe they should lose all their royal titles and patronages.
Among young people, the monarchy itself is also becoming less and less welcomed.
The poll by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, on behalf of MailOnline, also reveals that Harry's attacks on Charles, his brother William and sister-in-law Kate have not changed the public's perception of them at all. Kate's polling improved.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11649671/Prince-Harry-drops-45-points-Meghan-Markle-36-points-month-poll.html
I agree with Teasmade and Martha. I love the articles you post.
For non UK Nutties, the host is Jeremy Clarkson. You may remember this is the same CEO who got rid of Piers Morgan. 'the former head of the Guardian', say no more...
It has been very gratifying to see Charles,Camilla, Anne, Catherine, out and about in the past few days doing their duties, meeting people and smiling. This is the best FU to H and his book. I hope he and * are fuming.
Thank you for letting us now how Americans feel about the gruesome twosome. It's difficult to judge from this side of the pond. There's no need to apologise for posting article, anyone who doesn't want to read them can always scroll past.
Long may the "serious backslide in ratings for the couple" continue!
Thanks for posting that article, which was diffucult to read.
How does it serve the LA Times and its readership to brutally, and untruthfully, attack the monarchy and thus the UK? Is this about pushing the narrative/agenda that the British monarchy and the UK must pay reparations for slavery?
This is the writer:
"Meredith Blake is an entertainment reporter for the Los Angeles Times based out of New York City, where she primarily covers television. A native of Bethlehem, Pa., she graduated from Georgetown University and holds a master’s degree from New York University."
But, the LA Times is filled with articles worshipping the duo and trashing the British monarchy and the UK. I just do not understand what the agenda is. I do not see A Listers in Hollywood even socialising with the duo, never mind defending them or lining up to work with them. So, who is this publication aimed at, and why does it hate the British monarchy and the UK so much? Hollywood/Los Angeles is filled with British A Listers, all hoping for an honour from the monarch and an invitation to rub shoulders with royalty.
I bet the duo religiously read the LA Times and it feeds their delusions about themselves. What they did to the family and the UK, who gave them their immense wealth and global fame, is appalling treachery and shows remarkable ingratitude and evil self absorption.
If anyone wants to amuse themselves with predictions of seperation and divorce, and what happens to the duo after that, the above site has heaps of predictions, based on astrology, but with other influences.
* She will initially be caught up with the divorce, getting full custody, and a huge settlement, but will then build her brand.
* She is going to end up with a TV show or some kind of brand that will be global and put her in every home. (My opinion ... maybe she will put her name to a brand of toilet paper. We think Oprah but it could be something a lot more pedestrian.)
* He will remarry but not for a few years.
* Rumours that she is in Canada with the children and possibly staying with Jessica Mulroney.
* She has had an affair (always looks for the next before dumping the current) with a very wealthy man but he is not interested in a relationship or helping her or partnering with her in business.
The site also has interesting predictions about the Cambridges having another child (a girl). Very interesting is an update on Samantha's lawsuit. Nate the lawyer has been asked to testify, which drags Bouzy into the trial.
level 4
eaglebayqueen
Prolific Commenter
+1
·
7 hr. ago
I am astounded that he thinks he's going to write these things in his book and world leaders are going to ask him up to come out on a stage and talk about... environment? ... Vaccines?... geopolitics? ... His frostbitten todger? What?? What can this man who had every opportunity to learn and promote knowledge on important topics but never gave a flying f*ck to learn anything but thinks he should be promoted to the front of the line to solve the world's problems 🧙♂️🧞♂️🧚♂️🧜♂️🌈🌠
So this made me wonder when BetterUp will drop Harry from his position as Chimpo and “ life coach” (Serena). If it doesn’t happen then this mental health app is a scam because Harry is so damaged and ill.
Will Invictus drop Harry based on his disgraceful war comments and how he made fun of a disabled matron at his boarding school? This lady who could onlywalk down the stairs backwards, got up probably in pain, everyday to do her job. My god, that should be inspirational but to Harry she was ugly and deformed. He was/ is a misogynist.
According to the woman in this video, she says that it was Harold who did most of the screaming at staff in the bullying incidents, not the twat. And that is why no one wanted to release the report.
I have just watched the video - it was a Spectator interview, and one of the people being interviewed knows Camilla very well.
https://youtu.be/84Bt9h6Nukc
However, I do not think that she is the 'poor maligned' wife. Remember in his book he decribes how she reacted when he spoke harshly to her? She laid down the law and made it clear she would not tolerate it (nothing but adoration and support). She seemed to be okay with him screaming at staff and treating other people badly. What does that say about her?
Agree, no Nutty should feel the need to apologise for posting articles. I like others can’t always access certain sites; effort and time is valuable to us all. 🤗
narcs always think they deserve better treatment than anyone else, in fact, they feel they are entitled to it
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/978561-meghan-markle-met-prince-andrew-via-ghislaine-maxwell-before-meeting-prince-harry
I doubt this, because this is the so-called evidence:
There is a photo of her on a yacht with a group of friends, including Misha (? the friend of hers who makes a career out of marrying very rich men). Included in the group is a girl that is supposedly linked to Epstein. But this was just a group of women who hired a yacht for the day, or arranged to spend the day on a yacht of a friend with a yacht. Has Sommers got muddled up or is she referring to another photo that actually exists?
She was invited to participate in a yachting holiday. There is a tweet of this nature but it was posted by someone trying to spread rumours. At the time, she was working on Suits, had the Tig and had a nice little business going with merching, plus she was working her way into the UN for global recognition as a humanitarian activist thingy. This does not fit the profile of a young woman who entertains rich men in yachts.
But, what do you think? This is the relevant text:
This question was revisited by Sommers, the author of Ghislaine Maxwell: An Unauthorized Biography, in a new podcast shared on YouTube in which she explored the connections between Markle, her close friend Markus Anderson, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew.
Suggesting that Markle’s friend Anderson may have been a ‘connector’ to Epstein as far back as 2001, Sommers shared that the media may find a ‘photo of Markle on a yacht in Phuket, Thailand cavorting with Prince Andrew’ through Maxwell.
Sommers also claimed that Markle had been invited to the ‘Yacht Week 2016’, an event later described at ‘Sodom and Gomorrah at sea’ by GQ, although it remains unclear whether the Duchess of Sussex attended the event.
The author further said on Twitter: “The Duchess of Sussex is controlled by the same forces that controlled Jeffrey Epstein.”
Modern monarchs, regardless of how their predecessors carried on half a millennium ago, do not rule; they reign.
They may advise prime Ministers in their weekly meetings but whether the PM acts on that advice is up to the PM, the Cabinet and Parliament. The days of monarchs being all-powerful warlords are long gone; for all that George III is blamed for inflaming rebellion, it was the Government, not him personally, which was responsible for the tax rulings that the Americans objected to.
Cabinet government came about because the German George I preferred to spend his time in Hanover, not Britain. His ministers just got on with running the country in his absence.
----------------
Today's news is that new off-shore windfarms are expected to boost the income of the Crown Estates, which `own' the seabed under our territorial waters, for at least the next 3 years. This would have given the Sovereign grant a massive boost but the King wishes to make over the extra cash for community use rather than taking it for RF purposes.
Thanks for the info about the petition to keep Clarkson employed by ITV and Amazon but the only one I've found is a change.org one to sack him...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11653225/amp/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-Harry-turned-laughing-stock.html
Prince Harry's memoir and media appearances have been mocked by US burger chain Wayback, whose special menu now includes the "Royal Silencer" sandwich. The "one-of-a-kind" burger was "designed to silence the urge to spill family gossip to media outlets, book publishers and documentarians alike", the fast food chain said in a statement. In a further dig at the Duke of Sussex, Wayback noted the burger is made up of three patties, including "a spare patty for the world's most notable 'spare'" - a reference to his memoir.
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
I came across the `yacht girl' & `known to/by Andrew' allegations right at the start of all this, also the link with H's pal Skippy) (well, after engagement & before wedding) in JerseyDeanne. Even quoted her (alleged) rate: $500 an hour.
January 20, 2023 at 12:01 AM
I hope this makes sense now.
Thanks for the link, on the other thread, to Olive & Mabel - I love them!
One thing that struck was the comment made as Mabel stood stock-still in that stinking pond and refusing to come out, wtte ,
`She's in a very strong position - doing absolutely nothing...'
This describes the King's position perfectly.
Thanks for the Maureen Callahan link - her comment echoes this apposite story:
The Mrs Merton Show was a mock chat show which featured real-life celebrities getting outrageous faux-naïf questions from Aherne in her Mrs Merton persona. In one memorable example the wife of magician Paul Daniels, Debbie McGee, was asked "So, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mrs_Merton_Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N2hS3Dtl3M
RICHARD EDEN: Harry claims Omid Scobie's account 'utter nonsense'
https://mol.im/a/11655387
@Rebecca
Love the ‘Royal Silencer’ burger
Hahaha!
Petty Patsy Bugger - Sanswitch
Banging on
about Will’s extra banger
He’s a sausage short
of a baloney *sanga…
*OZ slang for sandwich
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue
@Maneki
I’m bored
they’re boring 😘
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10g3lh0/twitter_is_full_on_trolling_prince_harry/
@Maneki 😘
I am linking a video mashup of Harry’s 60 Minutes interview which is deliciously funny. Also, notice how red Harry’s face is. Poor lighting? Anger?
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1616167637767303168?s=46&t=RY7GMjR0x2kueQl9AO6u6Q
3 minutes
@Observant One, Thanks for the Hazmat memes. He really has made a a joke of himself. FWIW, I think if Hazmat learned to laugh at himself, he might actually reverse all the dislike of his cringy personality.
Another male American comic's take on Hazzard. He's hilarious. Unfortunately, I couldn't find his name.
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1616167637767303168?cxt=HHwWgMDRqev54-0sAAAA
I’m bored
they’re boring 😘
----------
I know the feeling, same here, I'm bored and they're extremely boring. At least you make us laugh 😘
the rumour is that journalists are trying to break the fake pregnancy stories because they think that including people in the line of succession that no one has ever seen is wrong
The latest Palace Confidential
At the end, they briefly chat about Andrew. As Rebecca English points out, there is nothing stopping him from going out with friends, going on holiday, and so on, but he seems to sit at home moping, with an occasional horse ride in Windsor Great Park.
Is he perhaps seriously depressed? I don't know if he ever played polo or went sailing, or has any interest in watching those sports, but he was in the navy for decades and flew helicopters and used to ski in winter, so he certainly led an active life.
I agree with some posters that until proven otherwise with evidence, this is gossip. Several commentators made good points about traitor Harry and the American kids no one ever sees in public as non viable successors. Is it true that in the U.K. , monarchs have to be approved by Parliament?
I am very curious to find out about the two ongoing investigations re: Harkles, one predicated on the results of the other. Lots of behind the scene issues are being addressed and guardrails implemented by experts. A Chinese curse for the Harkles: May you live in interesting times.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2023
Blind Item #8
The publisher of the ginger haired memoirs did an old record company trick from back in the day. It shipped out 1M copies just to say it was a million seller for week one. The thing is though, it fell about 40% short of that goal and sales have fallen off a cliff since which means they will have a lot of returns from booksellers.
Penguin Random House have been saying the number of copies sold across all formats is the number of book sales. The hardback copy of the book sold 600 thousand odd copies in America but PRH have listed sales as 1.2 million, the other half of the sales are people listening to the audio book for free on Audible.
Is it true that in the U.K. , monarchs have to be approved by Parliament?
………………………
The short answer is they don't.
'A new Sovereign succeeds to the throne as soon as his or her predecessor dies and is proclaimed as soon as possible at an Accession Council in St James's Palace.'
https://www.royal.uk/accession
Has this been posted yet? Taz is emphatic that here will be no rapprochement between His Maj & PoW on one side & Hawwy on the other.
She sees the yapping about as trying to get people to abandon their loyalty to the King.
Courage, mes amis! Stay firm!
The whole thing is decidedly deceitful of the duo, not only to the family but the country too. 😣
`The council is made up of the following:
All members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom;
The Lord Mayor of the City of London;
The Aldermen of the City of London;
High Commissioners of Commonwealth realms;' see Wikipedia.
The Privy Council consists of:
` mainly.... senior politicians who are current or former members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.' (ie all Party Leaders plus others eg former PMs)
In other words, the Privy Council is `Parliament-Plus' and the Accession Council is `Parliament-Plus-Plus'.
It was wonderful to witness the AC in session - and to realise that this is the successor to the pre-Conquest `Witan', the council of the `wise men' of the kingdom, who settled the question of who was to be king in the days before it was always the first-born son who succeeded.
The AC has to get it right - If, Heaven forfend, Hawwy was up for the job, he'd be blocked at this stage, as would his children. (see my next post)
Parliament unseating a reigning king is a difficult matter; doing it by bloodshed in 1649 had a profound effect on Constitutional thinking.PM Baldwin managed it by giving Edward VIII a straight choice:
Either relinquish the Throne in order to marry Wallis,
OR reign as an unmarried man.
Edward chose the former.
Whatever the RF knows for certain about these, the law forbids them from saying anything direct.
I maintain though that they dropped a load of subtle clues for those who can read between the lines.
Lady C, in `Harry & Meghan' discussed this in relation to the children Archie not being accorded the courtesy title of `Earl of Dumbarton'. To her, that meant he did not pass the `of the body' test. Nothing to do with Harkles not wanting it - that's just their finding an `acceptable' reason for it, `rationalisation' in psychological terms.
The rest of us could see that the lack of witnesses' signatures on the BP announcement was telling us the same thing - that there was something very fishy about the birth.
To me, A's `Birth Certificate' a was highly suspect in that it did not bear the official Seal in the bottom RH corner.
The printed statement that `this is a true copy of an entry in the Register' is valid only from the time that Seal is embossed, such that it can be seen even in photocopies.
I believe that is an interim certificate as issued for all adopted children. That is the hill I will die on.
I believe that the RF has been telling us all this obliquely, short of omitting them from the stated LOS; as it is, they are referred to as `Master' and `Miss'- no titles .
You're always very knowledgeable but I'm not sure new monarchs have to be 'approved' and by Parliament.
'the Council is held (without the Sovereign) to formally announce the death of the Monarch and proclaim the succession of the new Sovereign'. They just announce formally who the new monarch is. The Parliament as such, i.e. MPs do not 'approve'.
I'm happy to stand corrected.
I agree with you re the birth certs for the 5s' children. A's birth cert was dodgy as was the birth announcement. As for Lilibuck$'s, we never saw anything. I hope all will be revealed in time but it would take a very brave journalist to disclose the fact. The RF can always use plausible deniability.
It was wonderful to witness the AC in session - and to realise that this is the successor to the pre-Conquest `Witan', the council of the `wise men' of the kingdom, who settled the question of who was to be king in the days before it was always the first-born son who succeeded.
Thanks for the explanation! I was reading about the Accession Council and wondering to myself whether it was the modern equivalent of the Witan.
They used to be handwritten. Before the birth of Louis and Archie, the system was computerized. I think there is still a book in which the records are handwritten.
For Louis: the birth certificate was printed with all the details, signed by all who are required to sign it, and then stamped with the seal. The media were shown this copy and allowed to photograph it, thus what was published was a photograph of the original and official birth certificate.
Archie: The media was never shown that official, signed and stamped certificate. The registry office printed out the birth certificate (since it was the record on the computer, it did have all the details but no signatures or stamp). The registry office then stamped and signed it as verification that it was a true copy. The media were never shown the final and official birth certificate, but it was a true copy.
The birth certificate was changed about a week later. I do not remember the details but the changes were bizarre.
However, this does not mean that there wasn't something suspicious about Archie's birth. In order to register Archie's birth, all the couple had to do was give the registry office the relevant details and sign the printed document, which they did, 11 days after his birth. They did not have to provide proof that he was born of the body or even that he was indeed born at Portland hospital. If Archie was born of a surrogate, all they had to do was lie to the registry office about where and when he was born, and to whom.
My problem with the surrogacy theory is that it would require a number of people to keep a secret, other than the couple. It is a risky con, but I think the couple is crazy enough to do something like that.
As for Lilli's birth certificate - that was even more bizarre. And they refused to show it to the British public, but they want her to be given the title Princess, taxpayer-funded 24/7 security, and to be in the line of succession. (The media did get hold of a copy of the birth certificate, but I think it was almost a month after she was born.) Surrogacy would be far easier to hide in California.
Archie's birth certificate:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48315300
A month later, the changes to the birth certificate was widely reported (and she told the media that 'the Palace' made her make the changes'):
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/02/meghan-markle-name-archie-birth-certificate
There are plenty of copies of Lilli's birth certificate online. It is bizarre how hapless is named (First name: Duke of Sussex; Surname: His Royal Highness). He has a surname ... Mountbatten-Windsor.
https://people.com/royals/lilibet-diana-birth-certificate-shows-meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-titles/#:~:text=Lili%27s%20birth%20certificate%2C%20obtained%20by,Highness%22%20as%20his%20last%20name.
https://twitter.com/QGurtrude/status/1616471627323113475/photo/2
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24853192/?ref_=fn_al_tt_7
tell me this isn't the twat in this short pornographic seeming clip (no nudity involved)
check out the nose in profile in the first few seconds - that is definitely her weird ski jump with a huge bump nose.
All speculation about how much money they have. IMO her accumulated wealth when she met him is grossly over-estimated and does not take into account how much she spent. She did have expenses and has always loved spending.
Yes, the commentary actually stated that it was the successor to the Witan. It was a revelation to me. As I recall, my Malcolm Saville's Coronation Giftbook for Boys and Girls didn't go into details, although Wikipedia says this;
`The Coronation Gift Book for Boys and Girls (1952) – Although written for children to enable them to understand the process of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, the book was informative enough for it to be read by adults as well'.
Not just H...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11659451/PLATELLS-PEOPLE-bitter-pill-Harry-Kate-popular-royal-U-S.html
This was the first time that the Accession Council process had been televised and I see it as very important that it was. Here's what I took from it:
The broadcast made it very clear that the new monarch takes the throne on condition - for example, he had a number of documents to sign, in the presence of all the Council, in which he had to give solemn undertakings not to misbehave in a number of constitutional matters. Each document was described for the TV audience. Only when all the documents had been signed, did the public Proclamation take place
Under our Constitutional Monarchy, a king or queen reigns by `consent of the People' - hence it is implicit that this consent can be withdrawn. Usually, it's a foregone conclusion that the next in line takes the throne but it seems to me that this is the point at which the People, as represented by the Council, may not be given.
I assume that, faced with the prospect of H as king, this consent would not be given and he wouldn't get as far as sitting down and picking up the pen.
You're right and I'd say your interpretation is correct.
Thanks.
O/T
The story of St Edward the Martyr, king of England from AD 975 to 978, makes sobering reading against today's fraternal conflict, if anyone's interested.
It has everything - a king's son of questionable parentage who became the teenage king, his half-brother who became a child king who ended up as one of our most useless monarchs, a presumed wicked stepmother and a murder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Martyr
Taz concludes that H is a couple of sausages short of a fry-up!
"The royal names Lilibet and Prince Philip are among the royal names seeing a rise in popularity when it comes to baby names(opens in new tab) while other royals have seen their names decline.
Latest research from Slingo, shows that in England and Wales, according to ONS, more babies are being named after Prince Harry and Meghan's daughter Lilibet when compared to previous years.
The moniker, which is a nickname of the late Queen Elizabeth II, last appeared on records in 2013 but re-entered the rankings in 2021 when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's baby was born that same year.
But Lilibet isn't the only unusual name to hit the top spot in terms of baby name popularity - as the name Philip climbed up 20 places following the death of Prince Philip.
[Philip, to me, has always had a nice sophisticated ring to it.]
While popularity surged for these monikers, a few previous favourite royal name choices have been gradually slipping - with other names like Louis, Harry and Archie chosen over the likes of Charles, William, Charlotte and Elizabeth.
But it's the name Meghan that saw the biggest fall of all, dropping 576 places.
[Sorry Meghans out there, but this is so fittingly funny to me! Also for poor Archie's out there, but the name harkens to me, what we call here in Texas, Tr**ler Park Tr*sh (no offesne to decent mobile home dwellers btw)|
Elsewhere, the name Archie(opens in new tab) has maintained its position in the rankings while Harry and Louis saw a small increase between the time periods too.
In fact, the only royal name that has been steadily moving up the rankings over the past five years is Louis, the name shared with the Prince and Princess of Wales’ youngest son.
It comes after Oliver was the baby name that was knocked off the top spot in 2022 of the most popular baby name choice in England and Wales after holding the spot for eight years."
https://www.goodto.com/entertainment/royal-news/the-royal-family-member-with-the-most-popular-baby-name-might-surprise-you
[I'm hoping the word "Todger" becomes a new label of derision for a human being and winds up in the Urban Dictionary]
People are reporting getting free copies of Spare without ordering it.
And Lady C says she ordered one copy from Amazon, paid for one but got sent two copies. There are other people reporting the same experience.
The three-day coronation with pomp, pageantry and Camilla crowned too
Britain will enjoy a weekend of festivities with street parties, fly-pasts and a Windsor Castle concert for King Charles
Roya Nikkhah
King Charles will put diversity, communities and volunteering at the heart of his coronation, setting out from the beginning his hopes for the lasting legacies of his reign.
Over three days of “joyful celebrations” in May, the King will highlight the importance of public service and community-building as his manifesto for the new Carolean age.
Last night Buckingham Palace released details of the coronation service at Westminster Abbey on the morning of Saturday, May 6, followed by a large-scale ceremonial procession where other members of the royal family will join the newly crowned King and Queen. The plans dispel speculation that the coronation would be a “no-frills” event, lacking the grandeur of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953. King Charles will put diversity, communities and volunteering at the heart of his coronation, setting out from the beginning his hopes for the lasting legacies of his reign.
Hers featured a service lasting almost three hours before a congregation of 8,000 packed into the abbey, many sitting in specially built grandstands. A small railway track was built in the church to transport the scaffolding, which, if laid end to end, would have reached from London to Paris.
Royal aides said the coronation plans, which Charles is “actively involved and engaged in”, will ensure that his coronation day is “a thing of splendour”, with “pomp, pageantry, braids, brass and fly-pasts — a glorious advertisement for the UK with a traditional religious service at its core”.
Buckingham Palace has also said the coronation “will reflect the monarch’s role today and look towards the future, while being rooted in longstanding traditions and pageantry”. In one break with tradition, the Queen will be crowned alongside the King. It is also understood that Charles will wear military uniform instead of silk stockings and breeches as previous kings have done.
As many as 3,000 VIPs and charity representatives will be in the congregation to see Charles and Camilla crowned in a televised service, conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, expected to last up to two hours. The couple will travel to and from the abbey in the Gold State Coach, which was used by the late Queen for her coronation and restored for her Platinum Jubilee last summer. There will be large-scale military parades and “other elements of the King’s interests” will be reflected, according to royal aides.
Tensions between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the royal family remain high after their Netflix documentary last month and the publication of Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare, earlier this month. Some in royal circles fear the Sussexes’ attendance at the coronation will be a “circus” and a “distraction”. The couple have not yet confirmed whether they will attend, but sources close to Harry have said he would want to “show his respect” for his father’s “important moment”.
There will be no official role for Harry at the coronation service if he attends. The Sunday Times revealed earlier this month that Charles will scrap the tradition of royal dukes kneeling and “paying homage” to the monarch, a role to be performed only by the Prince of Wales.
A royal aide said: “There are no details yet on who will or won’t be in the procession or on the balcony.” Only working members of the royal family joined the late Queen on the balcony for the Platinum Jubilee in June.
A coronation concert at Windsor Castle will be held on May 7 with volunteers from Charles and Camilla’s charities in the audience. A national ballot will allocate free tickets to the public and the show will be broadcast across the BBC. Alongside stars of stage and screen, a coronation choir will perform, made up of singers from diverse groups around Britain, including refugee, NHS, LGBT and deaf choirs.
A documentary will be made following the choir’s formation and its members will be joined at the concert by a virtual choir of Commonwealth singers.
An extra bank holiday will fall on May 8, when the Big Help Out will highlight volunteering with events by groups including the Scouts, of which the Princess of Wales is joint-president, and the Royal Voluntary Service.
A Buckingham Palace aide said: “The King’s aspirations are for the coronation to be a moment of joyful, inclusive celebration for the nation, the Commonwealth and the realms, reflecting that Britain is a more modern and diverse nation than it was in 1953. With a focus on community-building and patriotism, His Majesty wishes everyone to feel as if they can have a stake in it if they wish to. It is equally important that the weekend should have some form of meaningful legacy, hence the support for volunteering initiatives.”
Sources close to the King said the monarch wanted the celebrations to build on the key commitments to cohesion, diversity and public service he set out in his address to the nation and the Commonwealth following his mother’s death, and again in his first Christmas broadcast.
The celebrations will also include the Coronation Big Lunch, repeating the jubilee street parties and encouraging people to sit down to communal meals around the country. Camilla has been patron of the Big Lunch initiative since 2013.
The Palace said the King and Queen hoped the weekend “will provide an opportunity to spend time and celebrate with friends, families and communities across the United Kingdom, the realms and the Commonwealth.
“Their Majesties are looking forward to marking the occasion with the public throughout 2023.”
My school's Annual Sports Day was scheduled for the day of the Fly-Past rehearsal about a week earlier, as the planes' route was immediately over the village football pitch where we ran our egg-and-spoon and sack races. There was excitement because there was a plane still `on the secret list' as the highlight - the delta-winged V-bomber. I'm glad we didn't realise just what sort of bombs it would be carrying as it went over our heads, very low. I can still see those huge bomb doors.
------
I find myself smiling at all these `inclusive' assemblages of performers, be they athletes or singers - I'm waiting for Games for those who just aren't very good at sports - now where's the choir for people who can't sing? Elitism is a strange phenomenon.
My `drug' has only ever been alcohol so I can't really comment on whether the world looks like this on LSD - judging by the LSD-influenced graphic styles of the late 60s, it doesn't.
https://www.demilked.com/drawings-under-drugs-influence-lsd-oscar-janiger/
Yet again, it shows H's ignorance and his inadequate vocabulary.
not sure about this version of events, but I do like it!
The Queen threw MM out of the UK!
I can see a loss of fans in the US after todgers description of Elvis Presley's house decor done on acid description. Especially with the sudden passing of his daughter Lisa Marie.
What does come across is the casual arrogance of an entitled idiot brought up in actual palaces (museums) who didn't design *anything*. Elvis was a self-made man brought up in poverty who bought the house 66 YEARS ago. Elvis died in 1977. He died at the age of 42, or about the age of Meghan, and Harry isn't far behind. Elvis has been dead for 46 years. The decor of the house at his death was due to his girlfriend Linda Thompson. Upon his death, Priscilla changed the decor mostly back to what it had been when they were married; she left some of Linda's room changes.
So, Harry, before you ignorantly spout off about somebody else's house, let's see yours. Open your house to the public! Is the house decorated like the palaces you grew up in, or like TWs idea of sophistication? Does this reflect your refined taste?
I had forgotten the charming scene where she literally elbowed an innocent man to bounce him or carom him out of camera range: see her at 3.05 time on video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqfza7bsyGI
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1719610/harry-memoir-dutch-Norwegian-royals-racism-modern-royals-on
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-praises-dutch-and-norwegian-royal-families-for-standing-against-racism-it-is-huge/ar-AA169F2t
I wouldn’t have thought of H as one of our great constitutional thinkers - is he hoping that he’ll be adopted by these other families? The Norwegians are part of the UK royals very-extended family but then so was Kaiser Wilhelm, with whom H shares some interesting features – a damaged child obsessed by his mother. He’s clearly blind to the changes in his own family’s approach to royalling over the last few decades.
I agree, tacky rather than druggy.
I don't recall this being mentioned - a good summing up of the case until 17th with some items we haven't noticed yet.
https://twitter.com/AllportDebbie/status/1616974536724840449
"...not sure about this version of events, but I do like it!
The Queen threw MM out of the UK! " - end quote -
I have just had a wonderful few minutes reading people's replies to the tweet. Many remember, as do I, the odd day (January 2020) Meghan had a meeting at London's National Theatre of which she was patron, and quickly was hustled out no longer wearing her wedding rings. She made sure the photographers snapped good clear unmistakeable photos of her hands no longer sporting wedding bands. Earlier in the dsy she was photographed wearing the rings, so we all knew their absence was some message, presumably threatening Harry in some way.
That exact same night she and Harry surprised everyone including the Palace by announcing that they were stepping back from royal duties.
Nutties, read the tweet and thread. What do you think?
I agree with Girl with a Hat, not exactly sure it all went down as the tweeter lays out, but I do think there is a possibility that Meghan really was hustled out unexpectedly from the National Theatre meeting, and to an aircraft; or at least the law laid down in some way that she knew her sweet grifting gig within the RF was up.
For whatever reason, Harry keeps on insisting that the Royal Family owes Meghan an apology and keeps saying accusingly "you know what you did".
Maybe they really did hustle her aboard an aircraft with hastily packed luggage, hence her claim that when she went back years later to Frogmore Cottage she retrieved her private diary.
No matter the truth, i am filled with delight at the idea that she was forceably flown to Canada.
I wish she were still there, rather than polluting the USA with her and her handbag's presence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11663339/Montecito-bookstore-reveals-sold-30-copies-Prince-Harrys-autobiography-Spare.html
thank you for the praise.
I too remember that engagement that was unannounced at the National Theatre and her leaving rather unexpectedly. That's what made the idea that she was being given the heave-ho by the Queen so interesting. I never believed that the BRF were as forgiving towards her as we are led to believe.
-----
OCGal....I read all that, too.
I don't know that it's exactly right, or maybe not in the right sequence...but I think the gist of it is probably correct.
I've always thought Mm was forced to leave the country in some way. Either: your flight is booked, get on it. Or, if you don't leave today, we will reveal whatever (to the authorities?).
She sure seemed to hot foot it back to Canada.
I still think they were told to take the break. Shape up or ship out.
Decide. Come back and discuss. We'll figure out a cover story for your choice. Instead of doing that, the Harkles plotted the manifesto.
I think the reason for the break was that the palace told them come clean about whatever sin it was...pregnancy, financial, Mm bullying staff, H beating up women, something as yet unknown. Maybe all of the above.
Harkles blindsided with manifesto instead.
I always wondered if it was the surrogacy, or fake pregnancy, doll discovered. But it might have been financial, too. Maybe both?
I feel like something significant triggered the palace to say to Mm, you're done. Out. Bye.
The part about the Queen canceling a meeting...I'd read something similar at the time. That the Nat'l Theatre meeting Mm had set up was canceled by the BRF.
Here's a Tumblr link with some other comments:
https://www.tumblr.com/redundant2/707100305395007488/sip-this-tea-slowly-could-burn-your-mouth?source=share
Here is one fun bit that an anonymous poster "channeled":
Anonymous asked:
"I wonder if their card said, behind a large yellow candle"
Their card states:
To: Harold and M, Duke and Duchess of Chunga-Changa
What: KCIII Coronation. You can see The Prince of Wales' Coronet, The Princess of Wales will wear an elegant dress that will match her Tiara and other crown jewels that will be loaned to her, and the Wales' kids looking so regal, specially Princess Charlotte with a nice dress that actually fits. This is a soft show of the future of the monarchy just to remind you what and who matters.
Where: United Kingdom. We do not have any branch in North America, we are not planning on bringing the coronation to you.
When: May 6, 2023. We know it's your son's birthday. We intentionally chose this day to give you a reason not to come. You no longer need to think of any excuse since we know you are not good at thinking.
Why: We actually don't want you here. The tax payers don't want you too. Nobody bloody wants you but we are still sending for the sake of sending. ...cont. on pg #2
...Cont. from post #1:
How to get there: Since you think that you are more important than you really are, and act like you're Earth's most victimized victim of all victims eversince victimization exist. We decided that it is best to send a platoon of well trained penguins from North Pole who will handle your security. The penguins will come at your castle at Chunga-Changa. They will excort you to your borrowed private jet. Those penguins will fly you first to Australia since you claim to be famous there. The Aussies will have a tea throwing party at you. Immediately after that, they will fly you to Vancouver Island where the penguins will take a pap photo of you so you can publish a pap photobook at Penguin Random House. After Canada, the penguins will bring you to Africa and tell all the citizens to ask you if you are Ok. Only then you can go to UK.
To protect you from the racist UK. We have commisioned life size yellow candles that will surround you while in UK. It'll be there while you are walking, seating, standing even when you are riding a car. No paps or British media can take a photo/video of any your body part since the candle will handle the cover. Also to protect Harold from the Willy, PoW, we decided to place your seat at the very back of the venue. The PoW and his family will seat in front being the heir. The spare like most stock of spare parts are in the tool box in the back. So you stay at the very back. Also since The Wife is mad that the Princess of Wales got first dibs of the designer brands and she needs to follow the queue after her, we are delightful to inform you that you no longer need to follow that queue. The British brands decided to remove you from the queue. You are no longer need to have to choose from their selection since it will not be offered to you. - end -
I prefer to keep a very open mind with regard to that comment from Mr Mole Vainglorious. For all we know it could be a bare faced lie, or a member of the family could have confronted either one of them with the truth, or the duo got caught over something untoward or the family insisting they tell the truth about something. 😉
It wasn’t on mine! Talk about the Odd Couple. The article stated they bonded over their respective ex-husbands’ sex scandals. Guess that makes some sense.
Is anyone surprised by this? Didn’t think so:
From The Express:
Harry and Meghan’s new Range Rover spotted despite pledge to be net zero by 2030
“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s security personnel have been spotted in a new £119,000 Range Rover Autobiography.”
"My `drug' has only ever been alcohol so I can't really comment on whether the world looks like this on LSD - judging by the LSD-influenced graphic styles of the late 60s, it doesn't."
__________________________________________________________________
Amen to that!!
Personally I would not want to view Elvis' personal palace under the influence of a psychedelic (or in Hawwy's case 'PSYCHO-Delick' influence). I prefer a wee bit of white wine (or if im being honest, a tall tumbler mixed 50% flavored sparkling water.
In 1969 my parents bought a new home in California and I was allowed to decorate my bedroom in dramatic bright yellow, black and white (one of the popular color combos at the time.)
James Bond puts the plane on autopilot, puts her in a parachute on a static line, and boots her out of the plane.
Prince Harry wants a judge to rule in his favour without a trial in Mail on Sunday libel case
Proceedings were temporarily paused last month to allow both sides to negotiate, but they failed to reach a settlement before the deadline
Victoria Ward
The Duke of Sussex is to ask a High Court judge to rule in his favour without a trial in his libel case against the Mail on Sunday, as he aims to echo his wife’s legal success against the same newspaper.
Prince Harry will apply for a strike out or summary judgment at a hearing due to be scheduled in the next two months after both sides failed to reach a settlement.
He sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article published last February that said he had tried to keep "secret" parts of his legal fight with the Home Office over his security and had attempted to "spin" the dispute in his favour by claiming he had offered to pay for police protection.
The piece suggested that when news of the Duke’s legal battle with the Government was first revealed, his PR team released a statement saying that he had offered to "pay personally for UK police protection", but that it was refused.
The Duke argued that the story suggested he had lied and had "improperly and cynically tried to manipulate and confuse public opinion".
Two-year legal battle
It comes after the Duchess of Sussex successfully sued the same newspaper group over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father, Thomas Markle.
In February 2021, after a two-year battle, the High Court granted a summary judgment in her favour, which she claimed as a “comprehensive win” over the newspaper’s “illegal and dehumanising practices”.
The Duke’s lawyers have argued in his case that he made an offer to pay for security for himself and his family whenever they are in the UK at a meeting at Sandringham in January 2020, at which the late Queen and King Charles were present.
He then reiterated his offer at a meeting with Sir Mark Sedwill, then cabinet secretary and UK home security adviser, the following month, they said.
However, part of ANL’s defence is that the offer was not made or communicated to the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
The newspaper group is contesting the claim on the basis the article expressed an “honest opinion” and will also argue it did not cause “serious harm” to his reputation.
Failure to reach a settlement
Legal proceedings were temporarily paused last month to allow both sides to negotiate, but they failed to reach a settlement before the deadline, last Friday.
In July, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in the Duke’s favour in the first stage of the claim, concluding that the royal was defamed by parts of the story because it suggested that his actions were "discreditable" and that he had intended to "mislead the public".
The judge rejected an argument put forward by the Duke’s legal team that the article accused Harry of lying, saying: “The article does not make that blunt allegation, whether expressly or by implication.
“The hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would understand the difference, as a matter of fact, between ‘spinning’ facts and ‘lying’.”
The amount recoverable by Harry in the event that he wins the claim has been set at £341,739 – almost half the £631,035 sought by the Duke.
Prince Harry is bringing two separate legal proceedings against the Home Office after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting from the US.
Harry's oath:- "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be my truth, my whole truth and nothing but my truth."
`RAF Norfolk' is presumably an understandable mistake for `RAF Northolt', 6 miles N of Heathrow.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-northolt/,
- often used by the Royals, as when they went to Balmoral and apparently gave up waiting for H. I watched the delay, so to speak, on BBC TV and I guessed that H was being held back by a screaming * who was insisting she should come as well.
Anyway, `Northolt' being rendered as `Norfolk' doesn't render the news of her expulsion invalid and I find the report completely believable. One does not mess with the Queen, for all that * seems to have appropriated the old Stuart motto `Nemo me impune lacessit', roughly translated as `Nobody mucks me about and gets away with with it'. Its rightful user is the monarch and ERII knew how to apply it.
BTW - BBC TV has just reported that PA has earmarked a significant lump of the cash he inherited from ERII for taking VG to court and His Maj is does not object. VG reminds me of an old, and tasteless, joke about an the occupants of an Italian nunnery, `all except Sister Monica' being repeatedly `assaulted' by successive armies in WW2.
`Why not `Sister Monica?', someone asked. The reply (in stage Italian accent), `Sister Monica doesn't like that sort of thing'.
Article from Telegraph over his action against DM.
Meanwhile, he is still suing the Daily Mail:
"The Duke of Sussex is to ask a High Court judge to rule in his favour without a trial in his libel case against the Mail on Sunday, as he aims to echo his wife’s legal success against the same newspaper.
Prince Harry will apply for a strike out or summary judgment at a hearing due to be scheduled in the next two months after both sides failed to reach a settlement."
And still trying to get the British people to pay for his hugely expensive security demands:
"Prince Harry is bringing two separate legal proceedings against the Home Office after being told he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting from the US."
https://archive.ph/2023.01.22-202722/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/22/prince-harry-wants-judge-rule-favour-without-trial-mail-sunday/
You know what you did.
Usually, if someone says that, you're supposed to know what it is you've done but people very rarely do. I think if you've done (or said) something, you know. It would be more mature and more intelligent to mention the alleged 'offence' as sometimes it's easy to misconstrue a statement or gesture. "You know what you did" is really not helpful and is just cowardly.
I think mentioned that I'd heard something akin to this from a fairly-well-connected person - apparently one of *'s female pals was suspected of spying on her/`keeping an eye on her'/reporting back to her handlers about *. No names but I wondered about LL.
That was about the time there was report in the press about a forced confession involving another of *'s pals:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8372755/WHO-investigates-Meghans-China-TV-friend-airing-forced-confession-British-businessman.html
Pure gossip of course.
If the deportation story was considered true, why on earth would the Queen etc allow her to marry into the family if they had proof she wasn’t trust worthy from the start? 😐 She was a known security risk. 🙁
Too fantastical with too many plot holes in the story to hold true for me. 🤔
Remember what happened to Rigby & Peller, the corsetry form?
ERII's mother was ruthless at times, as Crawfie found to her cost. * may have been on a very long lead/leash but it didn't follow that her grandmother -in-law was a pushover
* PR blitz from them. They are flush with money so she might just hire a PR firm.
* The 'so in love' couple and happy family narrative will be a main story.
* Bizarrely, close relationships to the royal family that do not exist will be another story. See Hello for examples:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/tags/meghan-markle/
Yep, that bizarre appearance at the polo with infant Archie is described as a playdate with cousins:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230122162302/archie-harrison-sweet-playdate-george-charlotte-louis/
* Contradictorily, she is trying to clean up her image and so expect more features about her in the media (whichever outlet she can find to take her, but PR will help with this).
* Yes, she is writing her 'memoirs' and she is fantasizing/strategizing for it to be the best bestseller ever. It will be a libel and defamation and plagiary trap for any publisher that takes it on.
* She is plotting how to make the lawsuit from her sister go away in a way that she can spin it as a victory.
* Her control over him has never been greater and will be obvious.
A playdate where she was ignored by everyone apart from Louis! As for Hello! describing her outfit as effortlessly chic, I've seen better looking sacks of spuds...
I'm a mum myself and I'm really really trying not to mum-shame but, goodness, none of her handling/interactions with little people look natural. We've probably been down this road numerous times though. That is one kraken that needs releasing.
We don't know what the RF knew when.
Yes, it was known she had a dodgy sexual past and was sensitive about her skin colour -but H seemed that H had at last fallen for someone who was prepared to put up with him. Yes, it was apparent that she had a lot to learn but presumably she'd be willing to do so, wouldn't she? All too easy to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Apart from the fact that it's very easy to be taken in by a narcissist if it's the first one you've met, there were obvious PR benefits to be gained from welcoming her into the Firm, apart from believing they'd got H off their hands at last.
Perhaps it was a calculated risk? As long as she didn't have access to State papers, unlike the Duke of Windsor did as king, or to defence secrets, it was thought OK.
Besides, she was too much of an unreliable loose cannon for anyone to recruit her, wasn't she?
She was wide open to being used by any enemy of Britain who offered her fame and wealth and too stupid or negligent to question the motives of anyone attempting to use her.
To me, the problem seems to be that of fighting a current war as if it were a previous one. In this case, perhaps the threat was perceived in terms of revealing defence secrets. Not of a vindictive bitch who would viciously attempt to subvert a national constitution by revealing the ruling family's grubby laundry and broadcasting it worldwide.
I don't either believe or disbelieve this report - I just reckon that it's not impossible.
My fault I should’ve explained myself better. 🥴
I was meaning to explain and give possible reasons for Mole’s affronted comment of you know what you did but not meaning the royal family would know why etc.
The duo are so easily offended and upset….so the slightest thing (said or done by his family) could’ve incited that comment.☹️ Any attention for headlines as well. 🫤
Look I don't want to be gynophobic but men get this sort of stuff from wags. sob sob sob you know what you did sob sob.
I concur, Maggot and Mole are known gaslighter’s; much ado about nothing! 🫢
I'd thinking `is it X claiming I discriminated against them by having words about their overdue books? Or Y not liking me telling them to pipe down in the library? Or Z complaining that I hadn't been keeping the rest of them quiet?' These days upsetting students is almost a hanging offence. I'd stick to my guns though and try to admit admit nothing without further evidence
Thank Heaven I'm out of it now.
EXCLUSIVE: 'Meghan thinks he's up there with President Obama!' Duchess tells friends Prince Harry is a 'shoo-in' for a Grammy nod thanks to his 'soothing voice' and rendition of Elton John's Your Song on the audiobook of Spare
* Meghan believes Harry is a shoo-in to win a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word for his memoir Spare, an insider told DailyMail.com
* 'He's a natural storyteller, has a soothing voice and even sings on the audio version,' said the entertainment industry source, referring to Harry singing Elton John's Your Song
* 'Meghan thinks he's up there with President Obama who won the same award a few years back,' the source adds
What next, voiceovers??
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11666953/Meghan-thinks-Prince-Harry-shoo-Grammy-audiobook-Spare.html
Why won’t Harry and Meghan relinquish their titles?
The royal monogram is a symbol of their obsession with their own notoriety
Kara Kennedy
After his recent campaign to hurt his family, you would think Prince Harry hates the pomp, pageantry and privilege that comes with being a royal. You’d be wrong. Not only does he love it, but it’s becoming clear he’s making a concerted effort to keep it.
When asked by Anderson Cooper why he doesn’t just give up his titles, Harry replied, “What difference would that make?” Ten out of ten for trolling, Haz. As a self-confessed “addict” of tabloids, he knows the majority of the British public believes that he and his wife should be stripped of their titles. But the truth is, without those titles, the Sussexes are just regular celebrities. The “duke” and “duchess” before their names allow them to maintain an element of importance. Just plain old “Harry” doesn’t sound so good.
Harry and Meghan’s obsession with titles has been well-documented. In the lead-up to her wedding, it was rumored that Meghan was “disappointed” with her incoming duchess title, as she’d longed and expected to be “Princess Meghan.”
In the years that followed, Meghan must have learned to love being a duchess, because she hasn’t let the rest of us forget it. Every letter is signed “The Duchess of Sussex.” In the infamous Oprah interview, she compared herself to The Little Mermaid, and she once told a journalist that little girls look at her and say, “Oh my God, it’s a real-life princess.” (I won’t tell you what comes to mind when I look at her.)
Their lives in their Montecito mansion tell a different story from the one they incessantly share with us. When interviewed, Meghan just so happens to have a pre-packed gift bag for a homeless person in her car’s trunk. Harry loves nothing more than tending to their chickens. They are just two normies, like us. But over the years their humble masks have sometimes slipped. In a recent interview with their friend Bryony Gordon, we see that at the entrance of their home they have a personalized doormat with their royal monogram. There is something poetic about people wiping their feet on it.
This adds yet another contradiction to their whole argument. The “establishment” that they both detest so much, that left Meghan suicidal and Harry feeling like a spare part, in Harry’s own words, “needs to change.” He’s spoken about how he’s been “hurt” and “worried” about what kind of lives his niece and nephew, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, will have living as the spares within the wicked, hierarchy-obsessed monarchy, while simultaneously fighting for his children to be given titles and reminding everyone who will listen that he’s a duke.
The monograms aren’t new, so God only knows how many personalized Etsy orders the pair has made since they stepped down as working royals. About a year ago, a photo was taken of Meghan’s garment bag after somebody carried her luggage from a Range Rover. It was personalized with the Sussex cypher that was designed for them after their wedding. The same logo that the Queen ordered them to stop using when she told them they can no longer brand themselves Sussex Royal. It was reported at the time of their departure that the Queen believed it was no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word “royal” in their branding. It wouldn’t be the first time they ignored her advice.
There is a real possibility that King Charles could retaliate to this calculated attack by stripping the Sussexes of their titles, but there’s also an argument to be made that this is the worst thing he could do. For starters, it would give them another reason to play victims, and more material for their memoirs. If they are stripped of their duke and duchess titles, they would be able to use the titles of Prince and Princess Henry, which we know is what Meghan has always wanted.
Maybe we should cut them some slack. After all, you can see why Harry needed to lie to Anderson Cooper. Answering his question of “Why not give back your titles?” with “We’ll have to get the whole bloody house redecorated” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
Harry and Meghan’s authoritarian streak
Who, exactly, do they think they are?
Freddy Gray
It is quite funny that Jeremy Clarkson, having written a silly joke about the Duchess of Sussex being paraded naked through the streets, should now find himself so ritually humiliated.
Clarkson, now in danger of losing his role as an Amazon television presenter and the acceptable face of British men who like cars, has felt compelled to apologize not once not twice but thrice. He first said sorry on Twitter, before Christmas. He also wrote to Harry. Then yesterday, in a statement, he performed the full grovel.
“I really am sorry,” he said. “All the way from the balls of my feet to the follicles on my head. This is me putting my hands up. It’s a mea culpa with bells on.”
Clarkson said he’d rushed his work — which of us hasn’t? — and not had his Sun column properly checked, thus neatly blaming the paper’s sub-editors while appearing to berate himself.
Having been publicly rebuked by his delightful daughter Emily on Instagram, Clarkson went on feebly to insist that he’s never been guilty of sexism in the past. “In all those controversial days on Top Gear,” he bleated, “we never once did ‘women can’t park’ gags or suggested that powerful cars were only for men.” In other words: “I’m not Andrew Tate, people, please, please please.”
Would the Duke and Duchess of Sussex accept this latest act of contrition? Would they heck! Through a spokesperson, the royal couple shot back:
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.
It’s hard to put a finger on exactly what is so irritating about that statement. It might be the sub-literate pomposity, the crud English dressed up as wit for social-media consumption. Haste rhymes with hate! You’ve so been owned Clarkson, lol!
It might be the lack of graciousness. We must assume that Harry and Meghan signed off on the riposte. They didn’t then just ignore — or refuse to accept — Clarkson’s apology. With vulgar haste, the Sussexes poured more scorn on Clarkson. They appear to be reveling in his public embarrassment and their PR victory.
Worst of all, though, the Sussexes’ reaction betrays an authoritarian streak. Note the headteacherish or judge-like tone in phrases such as “what remains to be addressed” and “not an isolated incident.”
The couple don’t much care if Clarkson is sorry for the hurt he may or may not have caused them. He must be corrected for his “long-standing pattern” of erroneous remarks. Their spokesperson’s language is partly facetious — troll fuel for the online fire. It’s also deadly serious. It’s the same bossy voice that Harry used over and over in his publicity tour last week, as he insisted that his family must be held “accountable” for their wrongs.
Is this the sort of royal behavior that progressive people seek? For hundreds of years, the British royal family has accepted that its role is not to regulate the speech of others or to declare who is persona grata and who is not.
Yet the very twenty-first century Sussexes have a much grander and more regal vision for themselves. They want to make the rules over what is acceptable and what is not, what is true and what is not, what is irredeemably racist and what is forgivable “unconscious bias.”
Which leaves quite a lot of us wondering: who, exactly, do they think they are?
Supposedly, the secret that is coming out about * according to Lady C is a sex tape, according to this tweet.
I wonder if * is the one who released it, trying to become like Kim Kardashian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Gd4HflXPs9E
https://twitter.com/sage1411/status/1617696219828215808
The poor people! This is their backyard! They were out walking their dogs, on a Sunday.
Meghan Markle hits the wrong note with global opera star Danielle de Niese as soprano, 43, hits back at Duchess of Sussex's attack on 'racist' Britain
Meghan Markle's claims of widespread racism in Britain were described as 'very unsettling' by opera star Danielle de Niese in comments to the Mail last night.
Like the Duchess of Sussex, De Niese is a prominent woman of colour in her profession who married into an white, upper-class British family intertwined with a famous institution.
However, the soprano, who is married to Gus Christie, executive chairman of the Glyndebourne opera festival, said did not appreciate the comments made by the Duchess during bombshell interviews with Oprah Winfrey.
'What I think is strange is to get your home country of America to say that the entire country of Britain is racist... I find that very unsettling.
'It's not to say that racism isn't everywhere, because it is, but I don't think you can tar everyone with the same brush like that. To say a whole community of people are racist, that hasn't been my experience.'
The soprano, 43, whose parents are from Sri Lanka with mixed European heritage, spent her childhood in Australia before emigrating with her family to America as a teenager.
Now chatelaine of the estate in the South Downs, East Sussex, where music lovers enjoy picnics on the lawn before watching the world-famous opera during the summer, she considers Britain to be her home.
She did not agree with Meghan and Harry's slurs about 'racism' in the Royal Family - which the Prince rowed back from in recent interviews - saying Meghan should have followed her example
'I am a mixed-race person and I have married a man who is not in the Royal Family but is still part of a big institution,' de Niese told the Mail.
'I've set out to support my husband and learn about the people around me.
'I very much set about learning about what happens here.
'There were people who tried to imply that I was ''trailblazing'', but I wasn't into that because it feeds the ego.'
The First Lady of Glyndebourne has two young children with Christie and is stepmother to his four sons from his first marriage. 'When Meghan and Harry first came to public attention, everyone was super happy for them,' she adds.
'I feel like we'll never really know why it went wrong. It's a complex story.'
Why is she at the WEF in Davis? She works for an art gallery. She is not a scientist, nor a politician, nor an economist, nor an influencer with a big following. Is she bandwaggoning and seeking attention, like her cousin?
True, but Gstaad's all about money.
Hauser & Worth is a Swiss Gallery ( for all that, they have a rather nice gallery in Somerset & I went to a course there a few years ago) so perhaps she's schmoozing potential, very rich, clients, on behalf of her employer? There's no mention, however, of an exhibition at Gstaad on their website.
Gt-Gt Uncle Edward couldn't stand it (State papers left unread or returned with coffee stains on them) for all that he would have been happy to be a Nazi puppet, living in luxury while his people were oppressed and the minorities murdered? Oh, I get it, that's exactly what H'd like.
.................
Has E really stopped `using' plastic at home? Or is that just the DM's interpretation? I reckon that those who, say, carry bags proclaiming `Imagine A World Without Plastic' are shallow thinkers more concerned with virtue signalling than practicalities. Has E had the insulation stripped from the electric wiring? Had gas- & water-mains replaced with iron pipes? What about the drains? Has she thrown out all the communication equipment?
What if she convinced him to make a sex tape, proof of how wonderful their love is? And that's what gets leaked 'accidentally'?
Who loses their privacy the most? And, who values or talks the most about wanting their privacy? Who is on a campaign against the tabs and or media in general?
This is what happens when you don't get enough sleep. I was thinking about this with the recent comments from Pamela and that tape. Or Kim K. With most of the tapes, the focus always seems to be on the woman.
my Swiss friend runs a carbon credit trading company. One company that does something to save carbon emissions will trade carbon credit with a company that produces them, and he's the broker. He won the WEF prize for best start up a few years ago.
He brings his Indonesian wife, who is a hairdresser, to Davos every year. It costs him $30k for her to attend. It also costs him $30k but it's a business expense for him, but not for her. He often goes on business trips so it wouldn't be unusual for him to leave her home with their 4 children but she insists that she go, so ....
What does the Indonesian wife do in Davos? Surely her Swiss husband is busy with business meetings? Does she visit with family? Why would she attend the meetings and gatherings? Of course, not everyone is like me, but I would hate to attend events where I am a fish out of water, and have never taken a partner along to any business gathering.
Sorry to go off topic folks!
The vague idea of a sex tape starring her is too ghastly ... I just can't go there! But, she did do some very explicit scenes in Suits (and other movies) and raunchy poses for magazine features, so there is plenty out there to make the entire royal family feel uncomfortable.
Contrary to what many believe, I don't think his family did any research on her and simply accepted the CV she gave. Note that in her very first meeting with hapless, which only lasted half an hour, she really talked up her achievements, and then elaborated in the next meeting, while staring intently into his eyes ... and leaning in for a kiss. Was the claw in use at the first meeting, or did she bring it out for the second?
Princess Eugenie is pregnant! Royal reveals her 'excitement' to be expecting a baby in the summer after declaring she wants her son August, 2, to be an 'activist'
no, she attends meetings and gatherings.
Davos isn't how people imagine it to be. There are dozens of presentations, talks, coffee klatsches at any one time and people wander from one to the other. Plus evening entertainment of movies, talks, music, etc including in the hotels, restaurants, public squares of Davos.
I agree that plastic pollution is appalling - I recycle all I can, responsibly, and use alternatives wherever possible, yet wishing it out of existence is fantasy IMO.
re gas hobs - I've been banging on for years that one molecule of methane (natural gas) produces one molecule of carbon dioxide and two of water, not so very different ratio from burning many hydrocarbons. Apparently though, that's OK, according to the virtue signallers I've spoken to, as it just becomes rain, so that's alright then... Floods? No problem!
We are rightly concerned about sea level rise (although it doesn't seem to bother people in very large countries as they have plenty of hinterland into which to withdraw - it's no so trivial if you're on a small island) but nobody thinks about the water itself. I reckon there's more water in circulation now than there's been for been for millions of years.
The evolution production of water was the main reason I changed from a gas to an electric hob, although I much prefer cooking on gas. We live within sight of the sea and in an area with abundant rain - I couldn't keep up with the black mould in the house (it thrives with RH of 70%+)
Also, anything that burns oxidises some atmospheric nitrogen, enough to produce respiratory irritants - my asthma has been less of a problem since I changed my hob, from presumably the reduction in both nitrogen oxides and mould spores.
Rant over.
Replying to @ParodyWhitney
That Archie was forbidden a title, based on his skin colour. In fact, he had right to the title of Earl, from birth, rejected because of the word dumb in Dumbarton. Only william’s children had right of Prince or Princess from birth, due to Letters Patent. Harry had to know this.
Parody Whitney @ParodyWhitney Replying to @EHennley
Hold up, they didn’t want Dumbarton b/c of “Dumb”? Using that logic I suppose they were cool with the “sex” in Sussex?
I love my gas stove. You will take it from me over my dead, cold body.
I love my gas stove. You will take it from me over my dead, cold body.
I love my gas stove. You will take it from me over my dead, cold body.
I love my gas stove. You will take it from me over my dead, cold body.
I love my gas stove. You will take it from me over my dead, cold body.
I love my gas stove. You will take it from me over my dead, cold body.
Let's let it go. There are all kinds of ways to pollute the earth and getting into this but keeping that because it is something beloved is exactly the kind of thing which can spin out and get nasty quickly as someone's protected is someone else's number one for elimination as a problem.
Let's back away from gas as an issue and go back to them please.
thanks
Sources close to * are briefing against Spare.
What does "briefing" mean in this context?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11669819/Meghan-Markle-gentle-concerns-Prince-Harrys-memoirs.html
The story about * having ‘gentle concerns’ about Harold’s book first appeared a few days ago in the Telegraph, in an article written by Victoria Ward. I didn’t post it here because frankly, it made me sick.
thank you. English isn't my first language, as you can probably tell. It's not even my second or third.
@Martha,
yes, I don't understand people who don't understand that.
I have long believed that * thought the public would understand their pain and suffering if she and Harry could control the narrative by communicating directly and bypassing the media. After her leaks to the media failed, we were exposed to Finding Freedom, Oprah Winfrey and the recent barrage of direct communication. Meanwhile, their popularity has plummeted and they are a laughing stock. Even after all of this, she still thinks we might understand her pain if she writes a book.
Interesting tea from Reddit Saint MM: https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10ked49/netflix_stories/
I have long believed that * thought the public would understand their pain and suffering if she and Harry could control the narrative by communicating directly and bypassing the media. After her leaks to the media failed, we were exposed to Finding Freedom, Oprah Winfrey and the recent barrage of direct communication. Meanwhile, their popularity has plummeted and they are a laughing stock. Even after all of this, she still thinks we might understand her pain if she writes a book.
I think it may have a lot to do with the fact that to be in the top 1% of earners, a person would have to earn somewhere around $500,000 annually (give or take $50,000 to $100,000 depending on the state). The top 5% of earners make between $150,000 to $250,000 per year (depending on the state). Ninety five percent earn less. I think 100% are sick and tired of the whining.
Harry & Meghan Netflix documentary director accuses Palace of trying to 'discredit' series
Liz Garbus suggested she had been given an insight into the alleged palace mind games the couple had complained about
The story about *'s 'gentle concerns' was also published in the DM and I posted about on the other thread. The book has backfired, H is a laughing stock so now she has to be seen to distance herself from the book. She'll end up throwing him under the bus.
Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Roberta Flack
Killing Me Softly With His Words
Seal(ed) with Abyss
And there he was
this daft sod
a stranger to her lies…
Strummin’ his todge
with her fingers
Ruining his life
with her words
Killing him slowly
with his bong
Killing him softly
all day long
Selling his whole life
in her words
Killing him surely
with seal song…
"The director of Harry and Meghan's Netflix docuseries claims Buckingham Palace tried to 'discredit' the couple's bombshell allegations by claiming the filmmakers did not contact the royals for comment."
Like the dastardly duo, she lies. The Palace replied that they wanted to see the mockumentary or the claims made in it before commenting. Their reply was ignored. (It makes perfect sense that one cannot comment on what one knows nothing about.)
In addition, the contact that was made was not from Liz Garbus or Archwell, and the query from the Palace was ignored.
This woman knows nothing about colonialism, racism in the UK, the Commonwealth or the monarchy, and has no valid position for criticism by simply being an American. (She proudly claims ownership for those accusations in the mockumentary.) I hope she gets cancelled, sued and worse.
@GWAH
Love my gas top but
prefer electric oven!!
My socially aware,
very left leaning daughter
was in Switzerland during
Davos.
No comment?
Not aware they were there?
Obviously for the Uber rich
pillocks,
as opposed to
normal pillocks?
My daughter is a lovely pillock,
has a lot to learn…
Mind you, I still wonder about that footage taken at the Investiture Anniversary exhibition, given just how sensitive they are about photography within the Palace. Who authorised it's release?
I wondered about that before. - but Wow! I've just found an answer. For eg, it is on the Royal Family Channel so presumably it's official.
In that case, BP didn't have to say anything - we were allowed to see it for ourselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsHHpfR62M - `posted 3 years ago'...
Well worth watching - at the end they show the seated assembly listening to piano music - and *is looking as if she's been reprimanded: - rapid blinking (even at quarter speed), swallowing, facial micro-expressions.) That's at 03.13 - 3.26.
Then let it run - I've just moved to typing this without closing down video - it segued to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsHHpfR62M
The comments are worth a look too.
..and now the tab is playing layer on layer of other commentaries that are unfavourable to them eg Sunrise TV on the handholding in Westminster Hall. I haven't explained it very well, nor am I an IT hotshot, but do try it for yourself.
Hmm. Is this what H means? They didn't edit out the revealing stuff about *? Just let us see it for ourselves, as I postulated earlier?
It is remarkable that this is one of the very few occasions, perhaps even the only one, when * seems to forget she's being photographed.
Of course, once the mockumentary was released, neither Buckingham Palace nor Kensington Palace made any comment at all, formal or informal, and we do not know if any of them even watched the hours and hours of narcissistic drivel.
@Observant One
What they dreamed of
in their pox filled hearts
Was the world to believe in
their lies, oral farts
As for Eugenie,
shut up.
Not interested.
I don’t care about those
two.
I care about Christopher Fowler
not well.
He’s given so much pleasure.
Those two have given nowt.
Oscar snub for Netflix’s Harry and Meghan
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10kln6b/netflixs_harry_meghan_snubbed_by_the_oscars_share/
Strummin’ his todge
with her fingers
You're so hilarious.
I hope your daughter didn't catch any bad ideas from that dodgy crowd in Davos.
In answer to your question about the Palace briefing against them - no they are making it up in their victim delusion. Both of them also think they are far more important and relevant than they are or have been to the monarchy.
If that Investiture footage had been suppressed, it would have caused a major incident (although I do not think the Palace has say over what is filmed and what is aired, other than for the Queen's funeral). Because the duo tried to barge in and created an incident in the background of the viewing of the Prince of Wales Investiture regalia (I think that is what it was, and the duo are clearly not relevant), they ended up being in the footage. They shoot themselves in the foot.
On that same occasion, the British tabloids featured a photo of the Princess Royal and the duo chatting happily at the reception afterwards. When the uncropped photo emerged, it was clear that Anne was chatting to her nephew and TBW was pretending to be part of the conversation (she is actually being ignored). She has a history of putting on such a show for the cameras and looking like a fool. So, contrary to anyone briefing against her or the media being against her, they manipulated a photo to project a positive image of her.
-----
I am still not fully decided ... was the drama and manipulation to get him to bolt with her to LA, once she had the wedding ring, access to his inheritance, the title and one kid as insurance, and believe that it was his idea? Or did she genuinely unravel when she found herself in over her head? Or was it when she realized her and her children, and husband, were never going to be top dog? (But I think she really believed she was the most admired and loved and popular royal ever, and believed that she would triumph over William and Catherine because of that.) She supposedly had this motto 'don't give it 5 minutes if you are not prepared to give it 5 years' from Trevor. She forgot that one pretty quick! Most royal married-ins take years to settle and become popular and admired and effective. Diana was different, but despite the delusions of the duo, TBW was never Diana and never would be (and everyone kept telling him but he would not listen).
“The word on the street is that the second book is ready to be published, but it won’t have a PR campaign (this is from the same source who told me that S P A R E had been written by a ghostwriter and was ready to be published in 2020). The book will be released in 13 weeks time and will contain chapters that were excluded from S P A R E, which means that more former aides will be thrown under the bus. By not having a PR release or campaign, it prevents leaks and also BP from requesting a copy or for the lawyers to gain access to any sensitive material. It’s a case of throwing out the damning information (which may or may not be true) as a means to ‘punish’ the RF, and harming other innocent parties who may have to defend themselves in the name of playing the victim again.”
They didn't need any help from anyone -they've done it all on their Own-ee-ohs.
oh no.
this is not what I want to hear. I am not even at the wedding yet let alone the Megxit summit and now there will be another one?
sigh It is too freaking early for a glass of wine
I feel like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill yet again
As for the idea that there will be no leaks or early stuff, yeah, sure. That worked so well the last time, didn't it?
If that Investiture footage had been suppressed, it would have caused a major incident (although I do not think the Palace has say over what is filmed and what is aired, other than for the Queen's funeral).
I would be very surprised if footage shot inside BP is released without the say-so of the Palace; they are very sensitive about it. QEII has her personal photographer who recorded every one of her engagements. I wonder if it was his work? Had BP objected, surely it would have been taken down?
The CEO of Random House was recently interviewed and said they wouldn’t be publishing any more books by Mole anything soon (words to that effect). 🫤
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2023/01/25/roast-a-harkle/
The latest Artemis Goog illustration:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fm5eyTYaEAAfR2E?format=jpg&name=small
Current tweets from Jerseydeanne - very heartwarming
Magatha, love the strumming the todger song. Every time I hear of it, I will think of Harry's little todger (something that I never thought would happen). Never liked the song...until TODAY!
Later, y'all. Have to get my newly hatched chicks to safety as there is severe weather heading our way. We saw a man in Home Depot yesterday that told us that he's going to pick out his next wife based on the number of chickens she has because chickens are the new wealth. Perhaps we should hatch out more just in case for the daughter whose 1-year anniversary of her divorce is in a couple of months!
I have a few problems with that tea I came across and shared.
* Hapless and the ghostwriter completed the manuscript in the first half of 2022, not 2020, but probably before the Jubilee, when he supposedly had second thoughts. The publication was put on hold when the Queen died, and a chapter was added to the end, hastily, to cover her death and funeral.
* The publisher cannot prevent retailers like Amazon from advertising, listing and pre-selling a book. It would be very risky to go ahead and order a print run without getting an idea of how many copies retailers will buy. It is bad business to fill your warehouse with books and then try to sell them. When a publisher presses the 'go for print' button, they know how many copies they will sell to which markets. S P A R E was sold on order before it was printed ... the publisher just was not sure if the public would flock to the retailers to buy (Amazon and other online retailers had pre-orders so this gave them a good idea of how many sales there would be, but physical bookstores were a bit of an unknown.)
* Translations will be required, and that takes time. Reviews and interviews by friendlies will be required, and that takes time to set up.
* Too many people are supposedly in on the secret.
I do think the publisher, ghostwriter and author will try to milk this cow to the death. Instead of a Volume II, I would publish something along the lines of 'stories from a runaway prince' and make each chapter a different story. Something people can dip into.
Killing Me Softly With His Words
I join @Girl with a Hat in saying you're so hilarious!
Strumming’ his todge
with her fingers 🤣🤣
* wrote her children's book The Bench, perhaps she could start a book series featuring Roger the Todger.
J.K. Rowling should introduce it into a new Harry Potter book.
/Netflix, you should call me.
Great minds and all that -please see other Nutty thread for
January 20, 2023 at 7:24 PM
Sadly, Meghan's Gang doesn't really work for Fagin's Gang. Can anyone think of an improvement?
Very slightly O/T, regarding Eugenie's preposterous comments about a plastic free home and how she wants her son August Bank Holiday Weekend to become an activist at age 2.
It's sad, but this is what a lot of British people think right now:
It's the beginning of the end for the Royal Family. And ironically, neither Hairless nor Meghandi are to blame
It's themselves. Not just the inclusion/diversity nonsense regarding how diverse and inclusive the coronation should be, but the emplacement of all things woke and green within their monstrously privileged lives, while throwing loyal servants (Lady Hussy) under buses to garnish their woke credentials.
Have you seen William nose to nose with that heinous, vile, fascist WEF booger Jacinda Ardern? And his gushing goodbye? She literally destroyed countless peoples' lives in NZ and the entire country despises her! And he can't read the room. Exactly like all of them, the elites. They can't read the room, because they're not on our planet.
Harry riding private jets to collect environmental awards, William launching the £50 million 'Earthshot Prize' supposedly to harness 'that urgency to find solutions to some of the world’s greatest environmental problems', and Charlie boy walking hand in hand with the WEF to pontificate about his climate views while allowing his misses to pop over to India to enjoy the occasional spa session.
The vastly wealthy thick dungheap lecturing the proles on the environment. They all have carbon footprints the size of a small countries.
Now Princess Eugenie, fresh back from Davos (did she cycle there?), bursts onto the green scene proclaiming: 'My son's, going to be, like, an activist from two years old, which is in a couple of days,' Great to hear, I'm sure he'll grow up to be an even more insufferable prat than this current crop of imbeciles. Because make no mistake about it: as dumb AF Harry might be, it's not like he's that far behind IQ-wise from all the others, clearly.
And what kind of name is August anyway? That poor poor child. What do they affectionally call the baby, AUGIE?
Apparently Eugenie is going to ban all plastic in her house. Good luck with that, I hope she allows a special UN climate auditor regular access to her residence(s) to ensure total compliance. Apparently she's isn't ware that all pipes and electricity wires are plastic covered. Also all kitchen appliances. What is her car made of? Her phone? Her fridge? Washing machine? Farking eco-friendly lightbulbs are made of plastic ffs! All of her bathroom products come in plastic. Modern medical advancements would be nowhere without plastic. Plastic is what keeps hospitals functioning.
The WEF - which sadly every member of the Royal Family seem to be entwined with - demonstrates is utter contempt for the global untermensch by inflicting this worthless dumpy scion of privilege on us.
We respected and admired the former Queen, but this lot? There's a reason she didn't let pathetic, spineless Charles become King before her death.
It's Game Over.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/01/blind-items-revealed-1_25.html#disqus_thread
Killing me Softly 👏🏻🏆
As for Eugenie,
shut up.
Not interested.
Amen. She is such a bore.
Love the Artful Todger! 🤣
Sorry, you also came up with the Artful Todger on the other thread. Very good!
Regarding to comment from CDAN.
I don’t think like that, nor do I think many Brits think like that. The comment comes off overly cynical to me and smacks of a silent republican type attitude. 🫤
The silence was strange - I'd have expected her to remind us, at the very least, to have our gardens securely fenced. No mention of who found him but his microchip would have enabled his owner to be identified.
I'm still wondering how beagle Guy ended up with 2 broken legs but I saw a mention a couple of days ago that he had gone missing and was found with the injuries.
The silence was strange - I'd have expected her to remind us, at the very least, to have our gardens securely fenced. No mention of who found him but his microchip would have enabled his owner to be identified.
I honestly believe that he angered somebody in the household who took him for a ride and tossed him out of a moving vehicle.
@Elskainga - I agree with your assertion that Liz Garbus is struggling to catch her last breath, before she is Markled into the sunset. I am amazed that * continues to find people willing to buy into her paranoid delusions.
O/T I do wish the King and the Prince of Wales, along with Lord Geidt, would convince Andrew that he will never resume his previous life as a buffoonish snob. The public’s disgust with him really began with his interview with Emily Maitlis. He told the most childish and outrageous lies and expected to be believed because of his HRH status. It was really quite pathetic. Even when questioned, he refused to say that he regretted his relationship with a convicted pedophile “because of the amazing connections he had made through him.”
While they’re at it, they could have a little talk with Eugenie and advise her to quit sulking on camera and toss out her ticket for the Woke Train. Things are a bit too dicey for the Royal Family right now. If they loved their dear Granny as much as they say, they need to straighten up and fly right.
Was it ever said it was a `road (ahem) accident? I've a feeling it was implied. Who gave the warning about not leaving her alone with children or animals?