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
@Observant One:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/emily-maitlis-praises-prince-andrew-110929088.html
In addition, I saw a TV interview yesterday with an American woman billed as a `Sexual-abuse Lawyer', discussing the alleged faked photo.
Her line of argument, as far as I could make out, was that even if A hadn't done what had been alleged, he must have done something with someone so he should still have been tried and found guilty for it.
I've met that kind of `reasoning' even among people who've done Jury Service. No, the Law doesn't work like that here - and I prayed that I never do anything that'd land me in Court in front of such a Jury.
Just sayin'.
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@Swamp Woman - yes, I'm inclined to agree.
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?
Having two legs broken is a strange injury. Being thrown out of a second story window would do it, too.
https://tinyurl.com/Spare-wife-vs-Diana
The big image on Reddit post comparing the grifter's "fashions" with Diana's fashions will take your breath away. Over the years I've seen occasional comparison photos side by side of one or two outfits, which easily convinced me that the grifter pored over every fashion choice of Diana's and did her level best to copy them. Her efforts reveal what a complete loser she is. The problems are manifold:
- styles have changed since Diana's day
- Diana had a magnificent toned body, and posture and stature of a model
- Diana had professional tailors and couturiers and Palace advisors to
-make her clothes fit perfectly
- be perfectly suited to weather
- be perfectly suited to the occasion
- etc...
The grifter sees the specifics of Diana's clothes but doesn't understand the spirit of the clothes.
Somehow she takes Diana's chic clothing choices, and since she doesn't accept advice from anyone, morphs and wrestles what was perfect on Diana into coarse laughable clown costumes on herself.
I noticed clearly here when comparing and contrasting, that modesty and perfect fit elude the grifter. Whatever Diana wore, obviously the Jezebel wants to one-up, so her version will have a slit up the thigh, or sit way lower on shoulders, or be skin tight, or ballooning with so much excess fabric a wind could lift her, or be cut down to below her sternum, or be sleeveless where Diana's had sleeves, and so on.
An example, look at the grotesquely inappropriate bright red ball gown that she wore aboard ship. The images of Diana vs Jezebel are in bottom right quadrant. Diana looked lovely and modest, and I am sure her dress was perfectly suited to her event. On the other hand, Jezebel took that lovely red dress idea, and paying zero attention to propriety, chose (or forced her "couturiers") to cut the dress way down in front below breast level, be sleeveless, built a gargantuan trailing skirt so she could sweep in royally, and be the antithesis of Diana while trying and failing miserably to mimic her.
Oh how I wish Jezebel had had to climb up a long ladder to get aboard the USS Intrepid. The event was to honor U.S. service members, and yet again Meghan had made the event all about herself.
The story of her life...
I read your post today at 12.29 re the CDAN post copied by @Girl with a Hat - sorry for the late post but we're away and out - and like you I find it rather horrific. The CDAN poster might think "this is what a lot of British people think right now" but s/he doesn't speak for me. As you said, this 'smacks of a silent republican type attitude.' Probably a pro abolish the monarchy type.
I disagree. Although I'm not British, I am part of the Commonwealth.
I think people are displeased with Charles' and William's wokeness and want to see their monarchy stay out of these areas of contention. Also, William was very quick to throw Lady Hussey under the bus for allegations which were later disproven. I don't think she's been reinstated, so he sacrificed her to please someone who as a provocatrix
Shades of the movie Single White Female. Very, very disturbing.
"... in the midst of all this, Meg managed to remain calm. Despite what certain people were saying about her, I never heard her speak a bad word about anybody, or to anybody. On the contrary, I watched her redouble her effort to reach out, to spread kindness" it goes on, gives examples including: "... she shared all the freebies she received, the clothes and perfumes and makeup, with all the women in the office."
Riiight. So Sparey and Scary did not hire government-approved people, or people that were already in the employ elsewhere. They just hired random people that emailed for a job. I don't believe it.
Re never hearing Scary say a bad word about anybody or to anybody. ROFL. He sure has the hangdog look of a man that knows punishment is heading his way. Isn't 'spreading kindness' her buzz word(s)? When people ask me what I'm doing, I NEVER say "Oh, I'm spreading kindness!" I might say "earning brownie points", "working on my karma", or "making somebody's day better". Funny how people that write about her somehow independently come up with "spreading kindness".
"More than once a staff member slumped across their desk and wept."
"For all this, every bit of it, Willy blamed one person. Meg. He told me so several times, and got cross when I told him he was out of line. He was just repeating the press narrative, spouting fake stories he'd read or been told. The real irony, I told him, was that the real villains were the people he'd imported into the office, people from the government, who didn't seem impervious to this kind of strife--but addicted to it. They had a knack for backstabbing, a talent for intrigue, and they constantly setting our two groups of staff against each other."
and then the paragon of virtue being "calm" paragraph
Some of the conversation was a repeat of information already known from reading articles and S’s previous interviews; some information was new for me.
Tucker begins by explaining to the audience that the marriage of * and Twat had been extensively covered in the media, but that Fox covered “almost none of it”. In part because “well, it’s not really our country, but also it’s hard to know what’s true. Everything you read about their relationship has been filtered through the celebrity management machine of huge multinational PR firms. And so there’s an enormous amount of lying and we don’t want to repeat lies, even unintentionally.” He goes on to say that they (Fox) basically ignored it until S was a guest on his nightly show a month ago and he wanted a longer interview with her because she was intelligent and articulate. Below are links to interviews (second is just a part of longer interview).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Wz9vZNedg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2n_cAVCEjs
Overall Tucker believes * is lying about S in the Netflix series simply based upon her body language when she’s disavowing S. shabby treatment of her father. Samantha is articulate and doesn’t bash *. She comes across as one of *’s PR victims who has had a chance to process all the lies and shenanigans, and just speaks her truth about the familial maelstrom that * and Twat caused and continue to push.
- When * was born S and Tom Jr. both lived with their father and Doria, and were delighted with a new little sister when they brought her home from the hospital. They were a blended family that lived together until Doria’s divorce from T when * was 6 years old. Divorce didn’t keep family from seeing one another and having normal celebrations and get togethers regardless of where anyone lived. Normal things occurred such as older siblings going to college, getting jobs and moving into their own apartments, etc. S is not a disconnected sibling raised elsewhere and then brought together (with*) later in life.
- There was no rift in the family until fake news came along.
- There were no racial factors within the household, nor in daily life in Southern California. * lived a very culturally diverse life at home and at the private schools she attended. Hollywood was an eclectic backdrop with lots of cultural and creative people. The family was not rich (not silver spoon kids) but * was privileged in her surroundings and education, which gave her the opportunities she had.
- In response to Tucker’s suggestion that * is a calculating person, S says “you think?”. (Lol)
- S on the reports of * wearing Diana’s perfume on her first date with Harry: “I don’t know any guy that would want to meet a woman that smells like their mother.” Tucker: “paging Dr. Freud. … sick”
- S does find it odd that * poses and dresses like Diana.
- Tucker estimates Twat to be a weak, lost person. S agrees the assessment is fair; however “we all make choices. S doesn’t think Twat is “poor Harry” or that he is a victim. Although he “may have some arrested development from the early death of his mother, he’s not 12 years old. He’s a man and made his choices.”
- Tucker: “is she (*) smart? I mean you can’t be too stupid to pull this off.” S disagreed with the statement. “If there’s some plan to have things go a certain way, and to calculate all of this, and quote ‘spin the web,’ it’s not going real well … you can’t be smart if it’s turned this sour. Something’s gone horribly wrong”.
- Tucker: “people don’t like to see betrayal of family, which is what we’re seeing. ….. she’s (*) blowing up families.”
- * ignores a hands-on father who (in her own words) “told her to draw your own box and check your own box.” This in reference to not checking the white or black box on forms. * sicks her own PR people on her dad and family.
- S found out from a London attorney “there was an entrenched media agenda against us.” (In the lead up to Twat’s wedding)
- Photographer Jeff Raynor took the pre-wedding scandal photos of Thomas Markle, as well as the pictures taken when * moved to Montecito. * had a relationship with JR prior to the wedding and setup her own father. * used media to tarnish her father purposely, and then blames the media for the debacle.
- S describes * as Oz behind the curtain pulling all the strings to discredit her own family. Calls * a puppet master.
- Tucker describes * always coming across as a passive victim of other people’s evil plans. He giggles and says he found the Oprah interview “so amusing.” LOL
- With regard to *’s treatment of father S says “ …not just narcissistic but sociopathic, antisocial, not to feel what you’ve made someone else feel and experience. I feel there’s a total disassociation there and that she truly does not feel.”
- If S could say something to * she would say “….. (long pause) because everything that has happened is water under the bridge. You can’t take it back. There’s no apology that can fix it. I think the only solution would be to get counseling, for you, for your children. You got to stop lying. You can’t live a lie. It’s hurting you. And it’s a horrible role model for your kids, who are in the stage of development where they start identifying or defining themselves and learning about the world around them. You are sending those kids all the wrong messages. ….. how can you ever have an honest relationship with your kids when you’re teaching them to lie? And how can they ever trust you? ….. what a scary way to grow up knowing they can’t believe anything mom and dad say. … wake up and get counseling.”
- Tucker: “stop lying.”
It’s nice to know how Tucker views the Sussex hot mess.. He rarely shies away from giving his honest assessment. It’s also good to know that Samantha was given positive exposure on a very popular, hour long program.
pg. 346 - * can fly to New York, Morocco, California, Uvalde in private jets and yet she can't find a way to travel to see her father? Excuses, excuses ....and again, not smart spouting such drivel.
I was thinking about how there is this special area at LAX for celebs so they can have privacy getting arriving or departing.
I am going to cut and past, then delete this
so it is all in one place
sorry, very sorry
I don’t think most Brits see either Charles if William as Woke. Charles has decades displaying his inclusiveness of differing religions. The Lady Hussey thing was a knee jerk reaction. It wasn’t a wise move overall, but it’s clear they had little time to nip the whole situation in the bud, because of the looming awards in America. Grace and understanding is given here, we also have zero idea whether Lady H would want her job back.
I try and look at people overall and not centre on one thing . Living in a country is vastly different from viewing something from the outside in. The royals are human beings just like the rest of us, name me a perfect family, someone who isn’t or hasn’t been hypercritical or has contradicted themselves at some point. There aren’t many or more likely any.
I most certainly wouldn’t want to be royal. Despite all the wealth and privilege, they aren’t free to do as they want, they essentially give up their freedom for a country. That’s a huge ask. I’d choose an imperfect and at times a fallible royal family over a President any day. 🫤🤗
I agree that William had a knee jerk reaction re Lady Hussey but the general tone of the CDAN was unpleasant.
Interesting ... how much of this did she/they do in 'breaking up' with royal family/UK/her family? Here are the 10 items:
* They’ll blame you for the end of the relationship
* They won’t take any responsibility for their actions
* They’ll try to manipulate you into coming back
* They’ll gaslight you (denied things that were clearly true)
* They’ll badmouth you around town
* They may threaten to hurt themselves
* They’ll hold onto your personal belongings
* They might jump straight into a new relationship
* They may stalk you or keep tabs on where you go
* They’ll try to control how the relationship ends
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Biographer Says Public Is ‘Tired’ of Hearing About Them After Duke Accuses Him of Writing ‘Utter Nonsense’
Months after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped down the book Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family was released. Journalists Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand authored the Sussex-friendly biography.
Following it’s publication some royal watchers opined that Scobie was the duke and duchess’s unofficial spokesperson. He denied that but was always viewed as a strong supporter of the couple, which is why his recent comments as well as what Prince Harry wrote in his memoir Spare have left a lot of royal fans scratching their heads.
Scobie previously spoke about the couple on the podcast Royally Obsessed. Scobie admitted that he “sympathized” with the duke and duchess, but felt the public was getting tired of listening to all the drama.
“In many ways, how can a regular person not have Sussex fatigue at this point? I almost feel it’s like my duty to follow it every step of the way,” he said. “But I can understand how general members of the public have just had enough of hearing about the royal dramas in general. I sympathize with the Sussexes in some ways, because they’re only now getting to join the story at this very late stage.
Scobie added: “For many years, they weren’t able to share their side. They watched others try and tell versions of it or they sat back and watched things reported about them that they didn’t agree with or didn’t feel were a fair representation of themselves. So now they’ve come in with their versions of events, with their stories and are filling in the gaps that we didn’t know about. But of course, it comes after years and years of coverage. So I think people are starting to get a little tired of the story in general.”
In another appearance on a podcast episode of Commonsense titled “Omid Scobie: The Truth about Prince Harry and Meghan,” the author discussed the polls that show a decline in the Sussexes’ popularity.
“It’s why their polls, their popularity polls go down and down because ultimately they are making people feel uncomfortable with the things that they are talking about,” Scobie said (per GB News). “Sure there are also people that think enough is enough, we’re tired of hearing about you, we’ve got Meghan and Harry fatigue — stop whining. There are also really valid conversations that just make people feel freaked out.”
Scobie’s comments come after the release of Harry’s memoir Spare in which the duke had some thoughts about what Scobie and Durand wrote in Finding Freedom regarding security training for royals to take part in.
GB News host Dan Wootton played some of the audio from Spare in which Prince Harry said: “There’s been some reporting about the Palace deciding to instruct Meghan in guerrilla warfare, and survival tactics in the event of a kidnapping attempt. A best-selling book describes the day special forces came to our house, all of which is utter nonsense.” The duke then insisted: “Meg wasn’t given one minute of training.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-s-biographer-says-public-is-tired-of-hearing-about-them-after-duke-accuses-him-of-writing-utter-nonsense/ar-AA16MQr7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=69b862273f76464a96590e26ad06fd85
Thank you for posting the above article. Markling really is a verb. Omid, please open your eyes to the fact that these two imbeciles have no loyalty towards anyone and are congenital liars. Look out for your own interests. I so wish the Old Bailey had charged Markle for perjury when she claimed she did not contribute to Finding Freebies.
@Lindathe GoodSnitch
Tucker Carlson’s news show is the #one news show in his time slot. I hope this favorable to Samantha newscast will help with her defamation lawsuit. I read in February the parties will meet with a mediator. If parties don’t come to an agreement then the lawsuit will be tried in October (I think this is correct) in Tampa, Florida.
Nate the Lawyer is being called as a witness and he has proof that Christopher Bouzy used bots for clients. Nate is suing Bouzy also for defamation.
This is an interesting article. Here is one excerpt:
As the pre-release publicity for Harry’s book grew to a crescendo, one British newspaper article noted the slim chances of a family reconciliation, reporting that “a source close to the royal family said the King, Camilla [his wife] and [Prince] William believe the situation will remain unchanged while the Duke of Sussex remains effectively ‘kidnapped by a cult of psychotherapy and Meghan.’”
Evidence for Harry’s “kidnapping” comes from three directions. First is the sheer number, as well as the highly personal nature, of his public revelations and his evangelical belief in the need for complete openness. Second is his language. Phrases like “awareness,” “my truth,” “lived experience,” “my struggles,” and “my journey” trip off Harry’s tongue in a way that seems distinctly odd to English ears. Third, we have the prince’s own narrative. In Spare, Harry writes at length about his extensive experiences with a range of therapeutic approaches; he even credits the therapists who helped him in the book’s acknowledgements. Harry recalls that, after an alleged fight with his brother, the first person he contacted was his therapist. Even a psychiatrist and advocate of therapy considers this “puzzling” and “bizarre” behavior. Harry was married by this point. Why didn’t he turn to his wife for support?
Singalong 🎤
Apologies:Dick Van Dyke
Julie Andrews
Mary Poppins -Jolly Holiday
Folie de Urgh
It’s a jolly ‘ol
without megsie
Megsie makes your bum
squeeze tight
When your world is bright
extraordinary
Megsie turns it all to shite
‘appiness is not allowed
around ‘er
nor the peeps identified
as white
As megsie grabs your brand
with ‘er clawed ‘and
Your ‘eart stops beatin’
like a frozen glans
Oh, it’s a fol de rol with megsie
who’d ‘ave us all believe that
day is night…
I've just read your post at 6.33 pm yesterday and it's so, so true. We all know and it doesn't take a qualified psychiatrist to see it. H relies on psychotherapy as an emotional crutch but this is unhealthy. And did he have his therapist on speed dial when he had a fight with William? A good therapist/psychiatrist needs to set boundaries and shouldn't allow patients to phone them at the slightest upset. Nothing short of a lengthy deprogramming treatment would be able to reset his mind.
Regarding the spiteful,
pettifogging, inaccurate
CDAN blurb
I would never ass-ume
to know the thoughts of a
foreign nation.
Asinine Arseholics!
@GWAH@Swampie@Maneki
@Rebecca@Observant One
Cheers 😘
Sometimes hard to grab
a handle on Seal & her Son(g)
@Maneki Neko, very unpleasant indeedy! 😖
and Magatha Mistie, agree, and love Asinine Arseholics! 😁 You made my day!
There's no polite answer, except perhaps what an Open University tutor, said in a religious studies tutorial I once attended. The topic of the day was Judaism and one class member made an absolutely outrageous comment about the Holocaust.
There was an utterly shocked silence that anyone , especially a confessed Christian, could say such a thing and I wondered how on earth the tutor could respond - he had been put in an impossible position.
He couldn't ignore the comment but if he'd said anything like what I imagine he and the rest of us thought, he could have been in deep trouble with the OU for disrespecting a student's opinion. This view, expressed on the street, could have landed the student in court.
After a protracted silence, the tutor, a Protestant clergyman who read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, said icily,
`That is a point of view',
and proceeded with the tutorial.
Doubtless, the offending student was dealt with privately by the OU, as he had offended against its basic tenets.
News from Archwell:
* New hires, yet again.
* There is going to be an Invictus documentary this year: "The couple’s next Netflix unscripted original series about the Invictus Games will release in 2023." It's another mockumentary, featuring ... Twit and Twat!
* "An impact report on the charitable giving of The Archewell Foundation is expected in the coming days." That is going to be a weird piece of grandiose word salad!
* A second season of Archetypes is expected, because she has a new hire for podcasts.
My theory: That is why she is 'missing'. New staff, another mockumentary, an 'impact report', and more podcasts.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687851/Archbishop-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-fallen-spell-Harry-Meghan-say-Palace-sources.html
From the above article (which is a summary from Kate Mansey of the special relationship the duo has with the couple:
-----
He has praised Meghan, saying: 'She's a person of profound humanity and deep concern for people, seeking to carry out her role with every ounce of her being – and I think she's a remarkable person.'
-----
Then there is this, the source of which is someone in Lambeth Palace:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687797/King-Charles-WANTS-Harry-Meghan-attend-Coronation.html
I will copy and paste the article in a new post, but note:
"Last night, both Lambeth Palace and Buckingham Palace declined to comment, while a source close to Prince William said they were not aware of any such negotiations over the Coronation."
The King has asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to broker a deal to allow Harry to attend his Coronation – but has met resistance from William, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Charles wants Justin Welby to strike an agreement with his warring sons that would allow Harry and his wife Meghan to attend the Westminster Abbey ceremony in May, senior sources close to Lambeth Palace say.
Speculation has been rife about whether the Sussexes would attend the high-profile event since they stepped away from Royal duties – and especially since the publication of Harry's tell-all memoirs, Spare, earlier this month, that contained a string of wounding attacks on senior members of the Royal Family.
It comes amid reports that Charles is mulling over doing his own TV interview ahead of the Coronation.
The King is said to believe that Harry and Meghan's absence at the coronation would be a greater distraction than their presence, so is prepared to make concessions to persuade them to attend.
But William is understood to be concerned that his brother will use the event to stage a 'stunt' that would overshadow the event.
Sources say Harry could be guaranteed a high-profile seating position in the Abbey or an informal assurance that he will be able to keep his titles as an inducement to attend.
However, William fears that unless Harry's visit is tightly scripted, he could steal the limelight by, for example, going on a walkabout in a deprived London borough with Meghan.
One source said: 'The issue of substance is whether they attend the Coronation, and if they do, under what terms and conditions.
'The family is split, and all the indications are that Harry is being advised to agree to nothing at this stage and 'play it long' right up to the last minute, which is making negotiations with him very difficult.
'Harry's camp made clear that the idea that he would just attend the Coronation and behave himself but then be stripped of his titles was a total non-starter.
'While he might decide at some point to discard his titles of his own volition, he objects to the idea of being forcibly stripped of them.
'He resents being lumped together with Andrew in the public mind as the two 'problem Princes', when he considers the circumstances to be totally different.'
Last night, both Lambeth Palace and Buckingham Palace declined to comment, while a source close to Prince William said they were not aware of any such negotiations over the Coronation.
Harry's representatives did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr Welby, who will officiate at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey, was first asked to act as an intermediary between William and Harry shortly after the Queen's death in September.
He has previously been dragged into the soap opera surrounding the Sussexes when Meghan claimed in a TV interview that he had secretly married them before their official wedding in 2018 – forcing him to clarify that the ceremony broadcast to the world was the legal marriage.
He was also forced to pull out of the Church's General Synod in July 2019 in order to baptise the couple's son, Archie.
Speculation over Harry and Meghan's attendance at the coronation comes after the release of the couple's Netflix docuseries and the Duke of Sussex's tell-all memoir, Spare.
Despite the King's dignified silence about the allegations aired in Spare, Royal insiders say he was 'livid' about his son's attacks on the Queen Consort Camilla, calling her 'dangerous' and a 'villain' in TV interviews to promote his book.
The Duke said: 'She was the villain, a third person in the marriage, she needed to rehabilitate her image.'
Harry also accused William of physically attacking him and claimed the Palace planted negative stories about Meghan in the media.
Harry has called for a reconciliation with his family, but only if they apologise to him.
The King has not publicly responded to Harry's allegations and insiders fear Charles may be questioned about them if he were to do a pre-Coronation interview.
The BBC is planning a feature on the King, detailing his life and plans for the nation as monarch.
Charles is said to be 'mulling over the interview offer' but Palace aides are allegedly 'concerned about the line of questioning', insiders told The Mirror.
'It is not the done thing to avoid subjects in interviews, so it makes matters tricky,' the source explained, adding that the situation is 'very delicate.'
The Palace knows that any commentary about the Sussexes would 'make worldwide news' and could prompt a response from Harry and Meghan, which the insider said 'would be unpredictable.'
Charles could also pre-record content and supply it to the BBC which, allowing the Palace to have control over the narrative. Pre-recorded content would 'not address the Sussexes,' the insider added.
MailOnline has approached Buckingham Palace for comment.
This story originates with the Archbishop and not the King or Prince if Wales.
My opinion: the Archbishop is doing the bidding of TBW.
And it was deliberately planted this week to steal attention from Catherine. There is one article about the open letter from the Princess of Wales, buried in Femail; there are at least 4 articles, lead story, about TBW and the hapless prince. Job done for TBW!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11687013/Kate-Middleton-says-shes-absolutely-determined-change-attitudes-early-years-development.html
and
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1035423-meghan-markle-prince-harry-let-go-of-top-archewell-execs-amid-spare-fallout
I's not clear to me if they quit of their own accord or were fired.
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/king-charles-wants-archbishop-canterbury-070000269.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687797/King-Charles-WANTS-Harry-Meghan-attend-Coronation.html
There are multiple versions from a wide range of `popular' sources which strikes me as odd, such as a completely unattributed one on `Yahoo Home BANG Showbiz'...
This is going to run and run -groan.
I've only read a few comments, the thought of the 5s being invited is one I don't want to entertain.
Charles WANTS Harry to attend his Coronation: The King 'asks Justin Welby to broker deal allowing Duke and Meghan to be at ceremony, but William fears his brother will use the event to stage a 'stunt''... as 'monarch mulls over giving his OWN TV interview'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687797/King-Charles-WANTS-Harry-Meghan-attend-Coronation.html
The source of the story is Lambeth Palace. Buckingham Palace declined to comment. Kensington Palace say they know nothing about this.
Note my comment above about the timing of this story and how it has been dominating the tabloids, overshadowing the open letter from the Princess of Wales in her early childhood development work.
The archbishop is doing the bidding of TBW (he always has been entranced by her). Remember the story they put out about the summit they want, and the apology? This is them turning to the archbishop when their ploy failed with the royal family. Note that William is cast as the villain in the story. Remember how they used to use the Queen? They are now trying with the King, using much of the same tactics.
Of course Charles wants his son at the coronation, but I doubt he is fretting about the duo.
Did the duo overshadow and hijack the Queen's funeral? No. They will not overshadow the coronation either.
Thanks for this. We're away at the moment and we're out and about and I haven't really been able to catch up with the news soa Kay have well missed quite a bit.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Welby is at *'s bidding although he should be circumspect after the 5s revealed the married her in secret 3 days before the official date. The DM has mother article with the headline "Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby 'has fallen under the spell of Harry and Meghan' say Palace sources".
I suppose the Palace won't comment until Charles has made a decision anyway.
I despair of him.
I'm really starting to suspect that he indeed did marry them back in February before the wedding. Or the 3 days before the wedding.
And now they are blackmailing him with that information.
Tom Bower must be correct. Harry Wales must have some serious dirt on his father. This has gone way past being magnanimous towards a wayward son. This now looks plain weak and poorly advised.
The country gets it, as does the Prince of Wales. Prince Harry chose to quarrel with his family and has books to sell going forward. Give him no oxygen. Stop this damaging soap opera.
With this county, it’s great institutions and economy under attack from all quarters, lines simply must be drawn in the sand. We have become a global laughing stock. The Royal Family should only exist as an asset. As a distraction it is pointless.
Does Justin Welby’s management of the Church, which is now almost totally irrelevant to the younger generation, inspire any confidence that his intervention here will do anything other than hasten the monarchy’s demise into a similar situation.
The idea of Etonians, like Welby, wielding soft power behind closed doors is frankly a totally outdated concept. Look in the mirror King Charles, take a deep breadth and man up - before it is too late.
What the b---y h---l does this twit think he's doing ?
The coronation is a STATE Occasion - it is not for healing any s--ing breaches between father & son - that is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE FAMILY MATTER.
The Coronation is a State Occasion - and PAID FOR BY US.
And we do NOT want to waste our money providing security for a second-rate, car salesman of a spare.
The yacht girl and gormless WILL cause trouble; they will not be welcome; they will completely spoil the atmosphere -
and if anything goes wrong - then this wettie wokey King will be completely to blame.
Who's storing up eggs ready for maturity by May ?
What this twerp king is doing is actually a SLAP IN THE FACE TO his subjects - his people; he's putting his pathetic 'feelings' before the State.
What a shower.
Sounds to me like a piece of Harkle puffery, like the Balmoral birthday cake, especially given the lack of stated sources and her habit of leaking. BP habitually keeps schtum.
BTW - there's an Icelandic `delicacy' called `hákarl' - rotten shark meat. At its mildest, it smells like grossly over-ripe Camembert, at worst one is knocked back by the ammonia and feels like retching. Best followed by slug of the local caraway schnapps called brennivín (aka Black Death' )which effectively takes the taste away. I can cope with the booze but not the fish - 3' in the nearest I ever want to be to it.
If I ever refer to the Harkles as the `Hákarls', you'll know why.
STEPHEN GLOVER: It's unthinkable Harry be invited to Coronation
https://mol.im/a/11690707
This thread is way over 600 posts, so I'll wait for a new thread ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20230129235914/https://archewell.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Archewell-Foundation-Impact-Report-2020-2022.pdf
You can also find the impact report at the above link. (I had oroblems with accessing the PDF.)
He's not an Etonian but was a grammar school boy and strikes me as made of sterner stuff than Namby-Pamby Wimpy-Welby, and capable of more rigorous thought. H was also one of Diana's executors. He'd understand that a `deal' involves an arrangement beneficial to both parties, not one in which one party tramples over the other.
It's horrible that I predicted something like this, as I'm sure others did, the moment TW uttered the words `modernise the monarchy'. It's grotesque, abhorrent and I pray that something will happen to stop the Hakarls in their tracks.
Yes, the Coronation is a State Occasion, not a family party, so perhaps it's time the Government stepped in, although it's not as if they haven't enough on their plate as it is.
I'm a great one for tradition and links with the past but perhaps this is almost an undeclared civil war and drastic remedies are called for. Postpone the Coronation indefinitely and let Charles reign as an uncrowned king? It'd be grossly unfair, as would be persuading him to abdicate in favour of William, although better before he makes his vows than after.
Arrest, charge and convict H & * of treason, lock them up, throw away the key, then have the Coronation?
Princess Charlotte's incredible inheritance revealed: Details
Gemma Strong
Mon, 30 January 2023 at 12:32 pm GMT
The British royal family has curated an extraordinary collection of jewellery – priceless and historic heirlooms to be passed down through the generations.
As the only daughter of Prince William and Princess Kate, Princess Charlotte will one day have access to some exquisite pieces, formerly owned by her great grandmother, the Queen.
But she is also in line to inherit a truly remarkable piece that will no doubt mean a great deal to her father, William.
Charlotte is set to receive the iconic Spencer tiara, which previously belonged to her late grandmother, Princess Diana.
Diana famously chose to wear the headpiece on her wedding day to Prince Charles in July 1981.
The glittering tiara is designed in a garland style and features a central heart flanked by continuous running scrolls, interspersed with star and trumpet-shaped flowers. It is set throughout with circular and rose-cut, cushion, and pear-shaped diamonds, mounted in gold.
The tiara was inherited by Diana's father John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer in the mid seventies and, as such, remains in the Spencer family.
It went on display in London in 2022, at which time Charlotte's inheritance was also confirmed…
Eh?
The person who wrote that article is an absolute idiot! Earl of Spencer's youngest child is named Charlotte Diana. (Yes, the exact same name as the only daughter of the Prince and Princess of Wales.) She will be able to wear the tiara for her wedding as her Aunt Diana did, but it is the son of the Earl of Spencer who will inherit it.
It is astonishing that they have turned the coronation into the Twit and Twat show - high-level negotiations, Archbishop, terms, apologies ...
The coronation is about the King and the people. It is not a family gathering. She is an American and he resides permanently in America.
I do wish someone would shut this down, not by meeting any of their demands or releasing any kind of statement, but by ignoring them. Send them an invitation, seat them behind working royals, and tell the Archbishop to cease his meddling. 'My son is welcome to be at the coronation, and he is welcome to arrange a visit to me and his family in the UK whenever he wants. He remains a beloved son to me.' That is all the King needs to say to the Archbishop.
The problem with H is that he p*sses inwards no matter what side of the canvas he's on, tho' perhaps it's easier to keep an eye on him that way.
Appropriately, one stage of the preparation of Greenland shark in the old days was to steep it in a bucket of urine, to help remove the toxic `antifreeze' in the tissue ... shade sof what JC aid he'd like to do.
Also, someone should remind Welby that being A of C does not confer immunity from an unpleasant fate, think of Becket, Cranmer and Laud.
I think Sandie has the right idea - ignore them beyond observing the formalities.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/20230130163023/meghan-markle-migraines-prince-harry-hospital/
Speaking of hiking to the South Pole, the Duke of Sussex wrote that he experienced: "Head spins, followed by crushing migraine.
"[There was] pressure building in both lobes of my brain. I didn't want to stop [hiking] but it wasn't up to me.
Has he got only 2 brain lobes? That could explain a lot.
Or does he mean both sides?
In which case, it's not migraine (the clues in the name - Migraine from `hemicrania'. ) Vertigo? That is nasty
DAN WOOTTON: Why is Meghan distancing herself from Spare? Royal insiders fear the disappearing act by the Duchess of Sussex is to secure her even more power during Harry's negotiations with Charles over the coronation
It was Meghan Markle herself who publicly proclaimed that her relationship with Prince Harry was like ‘salt and pepper’.
‘We always move together,’ she insisted.
Well, not at the moment they don’t.
That strategy has been torpedoed in 2023 as the Duchess of Sussex allows her husband to deal alone in public with the massive backlash prompted by his egotistical, puerile, nasty and divisive autobiography Spare, designed to destroy the reputation of his brother, the future king, and begin the process of dismantling the British monarchy as we know it.
While I have been told Meghan was privately supportive during the writing of the book – and heavily involved with the scorched earth strategy in regards to the royal institution and British media – publicly there has been a marked change in tone.
In a striking quote seemingly briefed by those close to the couple, a source told the Daily Telegraph of Meghan’s view of Spare: ‘Is this the way she would have approached things? Possibly not. But she will always back him and would never have got involved in promoting such a personal project. This was about his own life, his own journey and his own perspective.’
The newspaper – one of the few British titles with which the Sussexes retain a working relationship – also reported that Meghan ‘may have raised gentle concerns about whether it was the right move’.
So what is really going on?
It seems hard to believe that Meghan has all of a sudden decided that publicly roasting her husband’s family is a mistake, given that’s exactly what she has done in the past.
And, apart from the specific rolling back of claims the Royal Family is racist, Spare is the continuation of a narrative she started in her infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey, much of which has been disproved (where an obedient Harry joined her for the latter portions).
Indeed, the Duchess is said to be privately ecstatic that many of the previously concealed and publicly damaging claims about Prince William’s behaviour, especially the so-called physical attack on Harry, during her time in the Royal Family have now been made public.
That’s why, contrary to any suggestion of disunity between the Sussexes, Royal Family insiders now fear there is a far more nefarious motivation behind Meghan’s rare silence.
By keeping out of the public bunfight surrounding Spare and making no comment on its contents, Meghan could be setting herself up as a power broker in likely forthcoming negotiations between Harry and his father King Charles over his possible attendance at the coronation.
The Mail on Sunday’s Political Editor Glen Owen revealed yesterday that the King has asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to broker a deal to allow both Harry and Meghan to attend the Westminster Abbey ceremony in May.
Uber woke Justin Welby is seen as an ally of the couple, especially the Duchess, who may be able to have a breakthrough moment.
But, quite rightly, Prince William is deeply concerned about such an approach, believing his younger brother could use the internationally significant event to stage a damaging stunt.
Those fears are well-founded and not paranoia, especially after Harry recently told his close friend Bryony Gordon in an increasingly deranged interview that for relations to heal with his family ‘what I’d really like is some accountability’ and, he added, ‘an apology to my wife’.
In this context, it’s Meghan who now holds the key to appeasing her husband and granting Charles his misguided wish of family unity on his big day.
That’s a situation that Meghan will relish.
The former Suits actress was incandescent when courtiers, most likely at the behest of senior members of the Royal Family, appeared to cut her out of the Megxit negotiations by holding the Sandringham Summit when she had returned to Canada to care for her young son Archie.
One royal insider told me: ‘Meghan’s silence around Spare seems highly strategic.
‘She can now appear to be the peacemaker while making it very clear to her husband what concessions they will need before they agree to attend the coronation.
‘She’s put herself in a position where it’s now almost impossible to circumvent her.
‘But, make no mistake, Meghan still wants to cause the ultimate damage to the Royal Family. Her fingerprints were all over the Netflix series which even questioned the role of the Commonwealth, the life’s work of Her Late Majesty.
‘There’s no trust there anymore, but what choice does anyone have if Charles is determined to have them both there.’
I believe that is the fundamental mistake the new king is making.
If the past two months have taught him anything, it must surely be that Harry and Meghan are on a destruction mission and negotiation is futile.
For Charles to put his wife Camilla, who Harry described as ‘dangerous’ and a ‘villain’, and son William, subject to the most toxic of the bile from his younger brother, in the position of having to be face to face with the Sussexes at the coronation seems needlessly cruel.
And, after witnessing everything that went on, including Meghan’s alleged bullying of royal staff, the idea that Wills would even countenance being party to an apology to the Sussexes is ludicrous.
Charles is playing with fire by allowing Welby, who has clearly fallen under the spell of the Sussexes, such a position of power.
He has previously said of Meghan: 'She's a person of profound humanity and deep concern for people, seeking to carry out her role with every ounce of her being – and I think she's a remarkable person.'
Yeah right she is! Meghan is actually a person of profound selfishness with a deep concern to seek revenge on anyone who gets in her way.
It’s also a miscalculation to suggest that non-attendance at the coronation by Harry and Meghan would overshadow proceedings.
0
As William worries, the bigger risk is the couple, who feel they have nothing to lose in their pathetic mission, hijack the national moment of celebration for their own purposes.
Charles and the rest of the royal institution metaphorically opened their arms up wide opens to the Sussexes during the funerals of both Prince Philip and the late Queen, and the Platinum Jubilee celebrations, only for the couple to use the access to reveal more lurid private details in their commercial projects.
It’s time for the Royal Family to wise up to the Sussexes’ strategy and realise there’s imminent danger in Meghan’s current silence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11693197/DAN-WOOTTON-Meghan-distancing-Spare-Royal-insiders-fear-Duchesss-move.html
I am sorry about posting Dan Wooten article you aready referenced!
Thanks for posting the whole article.
It is astonishing!
For the King to make a statement gives her power (engagement feeds a narc). To be silent allows her to control the story (through her puppet the Archbishop, she shapes the narrative).
The royal family have a way of sending a message through symbolism, so I think they may just do that.
The latest story about the coronation is that the King will use a transparent canopy for the anointment. Charles, the moderniser! IMO, effective modernisation does not disrespect and disregard tradition (which is exactly what the dastardly duo would do) but 'evolves' it, adding new layers that strengthen and enrich it.
Thank you both for the Wootton article - to call it a `real zinger' isn't quite the right term but it gets to the nub of the matter. I'd meant to follow Sandie's link but somehow failed to do so.
For me, this is the key sentence:
If the past two months have taught him anything, it must surely be that Harry and Meghan are on a destruction mission and negotiation is futile.
We narc survivors have learnt the hard way that, painful as it is, there comes a time when one has to let go for one's own sake. Forget the fantasy of how good the relationship `might' be like, there can only be change if the other party has a Damascene conversion - and there's nothing you, the victim, can do to bring that about.
I only hope and pray that His Majesty comes to see this in time, before it's too late.
Someone on TikTok is stirring the pot with this video of 20yr Charles talking about marriage.
It's profoundly sad that, although he knew the score, he married someone who was unbalanced enough to destabilise the monarchy despite seeming ideal. Decades on, those pigeons are still coming home to roost.
I recall a French TV mini-series in the early 1970s, `Les Rois Maudits' (beautiful clear French, I hardly needed the subtitles) about how one medieval king, Phillipe V, was cursed for attacking the Knights Templar. Apparently it's been remade - hence this quote from IMDb:
`With his dying breath he curses the king, the king's advisor..., the pope,...and the thirteen succeeding generations of their families. There follows one of the most dramatic periods in French history, half a century of political intrigue, murder, treason, war and famine, which ultimately culminates in the 100 Years War.'
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Rois_maudits
It's the source for `The Game of Thrones'.
Charles doesn't deserve this treatment, even if it is the final article of the what I call the Narcissist's Creed.
In a surprise move, Princess Anne has seized full control of Prince Harry's trust funds following his recent controversial statements regarding the royal family. The move is seen as an effort to distance the royal family from Harry's divisive comments, which have caused backlash and negative publicity.
According to sources close to the royal family, the decision was made after it was determined that Harry's actions were damaging to the charitable organizations he represents. "You really don't want people who are divisive representing your charity," said one source. "Harry's recent statements and behavior have been divisive, and it's not in the best interest of the charities for him to continue representing them."
As part of the move, most of the funds Harry represents will be transferred to Princess Anne, who is known for her tireless charity work and her commitment to working with organizations that make a positive impact on the world. In addition to her royal duties, Princess Anne is also the president or patron of a number of charitable organizations, including African Parks, Dolan Cymru, the Henry Van Straubens E-Memorial Fund, Map Action, Rhino Conservation Botswana Charity, St. Paul, and Well Child.
Despite the loss of his trust funds, Harry will retain his private patronages or presidencies with these organizations. However, it's unclear how much influence he will have over their operations moving forward.
The decision to transfer Harry's trust funds to Princess Anne also comes amid reports that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have struggled to make a meaningful impact with their charity work in the United States. According to sources, the couple has failed to secure any significant exposure for their charitable efforts, and have not followed through with any of their business contracts due to mental health issues.
Furthermore, their charitable foundation is registered in the state of Delaware, which is known for its lenient regulations regarding charitable organizations. Delaware requires charities to give only 5% of their income to actual charity work, while 95% can be used for expenses. This has led to criticism that the Sussexes are using their charity as a means of self-promotion and a way to funnel money into their own coffers.
The move to transfer Harry's trust funds also follows reports that Prince William was initially considered as a successor to Harry's charitable roles. However, a Buckingham Palace statement insisted that the roles would be handed to working members of the royal family, leading to speculation that Princess Anne was the likely choice.
Harry's recent statements have also led to the loss of his patronage with the London Marathon Charitable Trust. He made self-reported drug use and boasted about it underage, claimed to have claimed took the lives of 25 souls, admitted to bullying a disabled person and and a ton of other paranoid and absurd accusations about the royal family.
The move by Princess Anne to take control of Harry's trust funds is seen as a strong message from the royal family that they will not tolerate divisive behavior or actions that harm the reputation of the monarchy and the charitable organizations they support. It remains to be seen how Harry will respond to the loss of his trust funds and the negative impact it may have on his future endeavors.
https://royaltrends.quora.com/Princess-Anne-SEIZES-Control-Of-Harrys-Trust-Funds-After-Royal-Family-Attacks
Apparently the Guardian and Telegraph (UK) are sitting on an embargoed front page story that was going to break at 1.30am this morning but didn’t, possibly due to a legal challenge.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1620160944616906752?cxt=HHwWgIDR7fHy-_ssAAAA
There are now more mumblings on twitter that the embargo will be lifted at 5pm this evening https://twitter.com/homeofdcu/status/1620254259848839169
The embargo could be for any number of reasons and not necessarily related to scandal ( groundbreaking scientific discoveries for example), However if it’s a front page story, it’s going to be something of consequence.
I’m not holding my breath, but seem to remember there being some speculation that something was going to break about the dastardly.duo in the new year and there does seem to have been a proliferation of surrogacy stories in the Mail over the last few days.
Dare we hope?
My apologies in advance if it turns out to be a damp squib!!
The article you posted regarding Princess Anne holding Harry’s trust as well as becoming patron to several of Harry’s charities is interesting. That it is written in plain English that Harry and Meghan can no longer be patrons of these charities due to mental health issues, drug use and underage drug use as professed in his fauxmoir is astonishing. The BRF are holding Harry accountable somewhat. I hope this is just the beginning.
I wonder if they know a divorce is in the planning stages and are trying to protect any $$$ from the grasp of the Claw.
`Meghan has made her final vows to become a nun in the Poor Clares'?
`Archie and Lilibet tell their real story'?
`Deadbeat Harry found in Indian hippy ashram - refuses to return to the West'?
If only...
According to sources, the couple has failed to secure any significant exposure for their charitable efforts, and have not followed through with any of their business contracts due to mental health issues.
How reliable is Royal Quora? It does read like a serious report so one hopes...
Quite a long article but makes very interesting comparisons, DE eating many of her past words.
Please feel free, anyone , to post in full, I'm in a rush.
BBCNews also giving airtime to Princess of Wales's Early Years presentation-
Do I hear the sweet music of the crockery being smashed elsewhere - That trouser suit! Wow and Double Wow!
------
Meanwhile, I wonder if we'll ever see this headline in The Sun:
`Druggie Harry Goes Ha-re!
-seen dancing and chanting up and down Oxford St with other devotees!'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alT0T74I2RI
Has Oprah dropped Meghan and Harry?
The Sussexes were not present at the media mogul’s sixty-ninth birthday bash in LA
Kara Kennedy
As stars came together to celebrate Oprah’s sixty-ninth birthday this weekend, there was one very noticeable absence. Best friend and confidant Meghan Markle appears to have been bumped off the guest list.
A-list megastars gathered to celebrate the TV icon’s birthday that was organized by Anastasia Beverly Hills, in unison with the brand’s twenty-fifth anniversary. Kim Kardashian was in attendance, posting some pictures on her Instagram Story with the caption, “Happy Birthday @oprah. Sharon Stone said it best last night toasting you that you mean the world to the world! Happy birthday!” Don’t worry Megs, we’re sure it wasn’t that fun.
To channel Oprah herself, is the exclusion an act of racism? Unconscious bias? Is Meghan at home crying on the kitchen floor after patiently waiting by the mailbox all weekend? It seems that Mr. and Mrs. Markle’s loud mouths are now being used against them after a series of similar incidents over the last few years.
On a more serious note, snubs like this show that the tide is turning with the Sussexes — and that the gamble that saw them trade in the lifelong duty of being working royalty for the money and fame of being celebrities hasn’t paid off.
Just three months ago I wrote in our October edition that A-listers were leaving the pair off guest lists because of their “capacity to share,” adding that celebs never know where details of their private lives might end up.
It’s easy to see why Oprah wouldn’t want the pair at her birthday shindig after Harry’s latest revelations. During his press tour for the duke’s memoir, Spare, nearly three years on from that bombshell interview with Oprah, he made her look stupid. On national TV, during a two-hour interview where the couple managed to tell seventeen lies, they planted a seed that would see the British royal family branded as terrible racists for the final years of the Queen’s life.
Oprah’s audible gasps, and her lack of pushback to Sussex’s unfounded claims, exasperated this storyline further. “Were you silent, or silenced?” became one of the most recognizable soundbites of the year. Meghan’s fake tears combined with Oprah’s sympathetic expression to stick the knife in further. The interview was not an attempt to speak truth, nor was it an attempt at reconciliation. This was Harry and Meghan’s campaign to finish off the British monarchy — and they used Oprah as a pawn.
The Sussexes were also omitted from the guest list to Barack Obama’s sixtieth birthday, which was a hotspot for philanthropic Hollywood stars such as George Clooney, Jay-Z and Beyoncé: figures that Harry and Meghan are modeling themselves off. At the time, royal watchers speculated that the Obamas pulled back because they were unhappy with the Sussexes’ very public falling out with the rest of the royal family in months prior. The Daily Telegraph wrote, “When it comes to Harry and Meghan, it seems, the former president and first lady remain firmly of the view that blood is thicker than water.”
“The Sussexes equal drama. Everybody over here is starting to realize that they never intended on having a quiet life,” a Hollywood insider says. If Meghan and Harry ever had a chance of cracking the Hollywood scene, staying silent would have been a good option. If they were ever silenced by the palace, as Oprah implied, we never noticed.
https://youtu.be/bzlNiwAasks
Prince Harry’s first public speech since ‘Spare’ will cost you $995
Prince Harry is scheduled to make his first public speech since the release of his bombshell memoir ‘Spare’ earlier this month.
The Duke of Sussex will speak at BetterUp’s upcoming Uplift summit in San Francisco, California. The 38-year-old author will give a talk at the two-day convention for business leaders held on March 7 and 8.
“The immersive summit will feature the exchange of ideas and inspirational conversations delivering unparalleled insights for leaders around talent retention, growth and how to best enable managers to lead high-performing teams through the current climate of change and uncertainty,” they added.
Harry has been BetterUp’s Chief Impact Officer since March 2021. The start-up focuses on coaching people on their mental health to help them improve their “mental fitness” so that they can experience peak performance at work and in their personal lives. Harry has gone public with his mental health struggles and details them in his memoir.
While virtual registration for the event is free, attending the event in-person costs $995.
The tickets grant buyers access to workshops, fireside chats, group coaching sessions and food and wine.
BetterUp said in a statement that in addition to Prince Harry, speakers will include Issa Rae, David Chang, Robin Arzón and Adam Grant.
https://nypost.com/2023/01/27/prince-harrys-first-public-speech-since-spare-costs-995/
I’ll be one of thousands booing Harry and Meghan if they attend the Coronation
After insulting our country and the institution King Charles now embodies, the Sussexes will turn a solemn occasion into a family drama
The Coronation of King Charles III on Saturday, May 6 is bound to be very different in character from his mother’s in June 1953. Elizabeth II was young (just 27) and blessed with a shy, fawn-like beauty allied to a high moral seriousness that enchanted the British people. She was an emblem of the post-war hope for a better future. By contrast, our new King is the oldest person to accede to the throne. Although hale and fit, Charles will be 74 when the crown is placed on his head. He commands affection and respect for his long service to the nation and his patently good heart. But this is not a figure who readily makes monarchical magic or connects with a new generation. That role will fall to his heir and his wife: the Prince and Princess of Wales.
A great deal is riding on William, Catherine and their three adorable children; more, perhaps, than the Palace would care to acknowledge. They will be hugely important to the success of the big day. Whether Prince Louis will be allowed into Westminster Abbey to provide his unique take on events remains to be seen. (The four-year-old Charles did attend his mother’s Coronation, but he was a notably more solemn child than his ebullient grandson and was never, as far as we know, seen thumbing his nose as little Louis did during the Platinum Jubilee parade.)
So, just imagine how the Waleses must be feeling. William inspired by his grandmother’s steadfast example. Kate providing emotional intelligence and high glamour – witness her firecracker appearance in a red trouser suit on Monday night. Both are clearly doing their level best to help steer the Windsor ship through uncharted, post-Elizabethan waters. Yet, now, they face the already daunting prospect of the Coronation being turned into a nerve-wracking and embarrassing ordeal by the presence of Prince Harry and his wife.
The King has reportedly asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to broker some kind of peace deal that would enable the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to be present at the ceremony. This initiative arises from the dubious belief that the Sussexes’ absence would cause a greater distraction than their presence. (The Duke of Windsor – formerly the King – wasn’t invited to his niece’s Coronation and it passed off extremely well.)
We are told Justin Welby may be authorised to offer sweeteners – a prominent position in the Abbey (at the Queen’s funeral, Meghan and Harry were relegated to the cheap seats in the second row; some of us wouldn’t have let them in at all), an informal assurance that Harry can keep his titles as an inducement to attend.
And what then? What if the petulant pair from Montecito are persuaded by the Archbishop to park their commercialised contempt for the Royal family for a day? What if they do deign to turn up to witness that most solemn religious ceremony whereby our sovereign is publicly anointed under a transparent canopy? Or “new Netflix content” as it will shortly be known, once Meghan has called her agent.
It is a deeply uncomfortable prospect. Relations between the royal brothers are currently so bad they make Cain and Abel look like Groucho and Harpo.
And what of the insults in the book to “unfriendly” Kate and Camilla, who “sacrificed me on her personal PR altar”, according to Harry. The Queen Consort is too much of a brick to throw a spanner in the works, but she would be well within her rights to tell Charles, “OK, darling, you go ahead and invite Harry to your Coronation, but I’ll be washing my hair.”
Look, any parent can appreciate the King’s desire to have his younger son present on the most important day of his life. But the Coronation is a state occasion, not a family outing. Charles should be more worried about the feelings of the British people than he appears to be. Most of us think that the Sussexes have behaved appallingly. The damage they have dealt to the UK’s reputation in the US with their now oddly-muted accusations of “racism” is incalculable. Selling your own grandmother is supposed to be an example of unthinkable ruthlessness, not a business proposition, but Harry did it anyway.
On no account do we want to see him and Madam made welcome on a landmark date in our country’s history. The idea is repellent. I’d certainly be among the thousands booing them if they had the nerve to show up. (Members of Team Meghan would beg to differ, but here’s the catch; they are the least likely to be monarchists.)
For a sense of the excruciating awkwardness that awaits if the Sussexes do attend the Coronation, cast your minds back to Harry and Meghan’s final appearance as working Royals at a Commonwealth Day service in March 2020. It wasn’t quite Murder in the Cathedral, but the extended clan was looking daggers at them. The then Cambridges could hardly bring themselves to acknowledge the Sussexes. Sophie Wessex pretended to be incredibly interested in the Order of Service, bless her. Meghan did her “I’m so glowing and compassionate, me” routine with a receiving line of enraptured clergymen when she noticed Prince William come in and hastily scuttled along. No love lost there. And that was before she told Oprah that Kate made her cry. Things are a hundred times more acrimonious now.
Is that really what our King wants at his Coronation? I bet it’s not what a smarting Prince and Princess of Wales want. (William is said, with justification, to be concerned his brother will pull some “stunt”.) It’s certainly not what the British people want. In fact, there is a real worry that we will think a lot less of our new monarch should he be seen to capitulate to an ungrateful couple who have insulted both our country and the institution Charles now embodies.
By all means invite Harry and Meghan to a private celebration, but don’t allow them to turn a solemn occasion into a tawdry family drama. Sacred anointing with holy oil or a bar of daytime soap? The King must choose, and choose wisely.
Queen Elizabeth II's former chaplain has claimed that Prince Harry should be banned from attending King Charles III's Coronation in May.
In a savage attack against the 38-year-old, Dr Gavin Ashenden said that Prince Harry "can't be trusted" and accused the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of depending "on publicity". Speaking on GB News, Mr Ashenden said: "I’m flabbergasted that anybody thinks any good can come out of this. I'm not flabbergasted in the sense that the Archbishop presents himself as having great skills in this area, but I think I'm with William."
Speaking of the couple's pending attendance at this year's coronation, he added: "I don't think Harry can be trusted not to pull off some kind of stunt. After all, he and Meghan depend entirely on publicity.
And I think before they will be capable of being invited to such a public space they should show that they've become trustworthy and I don't think there's the time or the opportunity to do that."
He also added that he believes the whole thing "is doomed".
“The immersive summit will feature the exchange of ideas and inspirational conversations delivering unparalleled insights for leaders around talent retention, growth and how to best enable managers to lead high-performing teams through the current climate of change and uncertainty,” they added.
Did they assemble this paragraph from a `Table of Buzzwords for Business Bollocks'? That is, 3 columns off words, adjectives, nouns and verbs?
`Shut your eyes then choose one word from from each column to create pretentious garbage guaranteed to impress gullible clients.'
Morganatic Emphatic
All because her kids
weren’t bestowed
With titles she expected
with no proof she’d farrowed
Charles I’m sure
will make the right decision
Cut out the canker
with a deft incision…
God Save the King
Harry is a liability to BetterUp as it is obvious he has unresolved mental health problems. If BetterUp really worked, then we’d hear and see a happy and supportive father, son, brother in H. Also, with * manipulating and probably threatening Harry, he is a mess of a “man” who is a laughstock on the world stage.
Just no, BetterUp. It ain’t working.
Beliar Messiah
Are we really to believe
Coronation hangs on
the rank ratted weave
Madam Mefarge
and her twisted visage
The voice of treason
all a murky mirage…
@WildBoar
Thinking of madam at dinner
when they said “pass the port”
she automatically rolled over
to the left 😉
-----
Don't forget who tipped you off to the fact that there are ongoing investigations into targeted social media manipulation against the Royal Family.
You read it
@barkjack_
first!
Is Bouzy behind it?
You bet. He's not behind ALL of it.
But the bot farming bit we believe.
It is an industry-wide tactic for Hollywood PR reps to drum up support on socials.
Can include real people managing multiple accounts in support of a star.
Can also mean buying followers, real or bots
Didn’t you also say suggest the Harkles will have their comeuppance later this year based on findings? Or did I make that up?
Yes good show! writergirl.
I mentioned if wheels really start turning it will be the end of the year.
Based on what I know it's looking to drag way on into 2024. Sometimes good things take time!
Are they about to be exposed ?
Investigations are always ongoing.
Security is always on alert.
Based on what I know, definitely not yet and disappointing for some, shall likely drag way on into 2024.
-----
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_
@Rebecca
Thanks for the Allison Pearson
account, en pointe.
Good to see she’s calling her
‘Madam’ hahaha!
But I like you!!!
@SwampWoman
Harry is a liability to BetterUp as it is obvious he has unresolved mental health problems. If BetterUp really worked, then we’d hear and see a happy and supportive father, son, brother in H. Also, with * manipulating and probably threatening Harry, he is a mess of a “man” who is a laughstock on the world stage.
Just no, BetterUp. It ain’t working.
These are not real professionals, they are 'life coaches' and 'career coaches' (actors between jobs?). I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that people that are life coaches or career coaches are probably not wildly successful or else they wouldn't BE life or career coaches, they'd be out successfully living and working in their chosen fields. People that are life and career coaching staff are not qualified to work with mentally-ill people. If people with mental health problems are relying on BetterUp to give good advice, they are in deep trouble.
Would anybody want somebody like Harry to coach them on life or career? Maybe its just me that would shriek in horror and speed away from the suggestion.
You couldn't expect "Madam" to know the phrase 'pass the port' 😁. She must be well familiar with the nautical word, though 😉
You’re welcome🙂. Not being very creative (unlike you, with your clever verse) I figure copying and pasting here is my best chance at contributing.
@WBBM
The vacuousness of Better Up’s PR is equal to Madam’s.
_____
This is detestable:
NY Post:
Secret Princess Diana letters detail ‘ugly’ Charles divorce: ‘On my knees’
https://nypost.com/2023/02/01/secret-princess-diana-letters-detail-ugly-charles-divorce/
It's another anniversary about now - the dreadful storm of 1953 that sank the ferry `Princess Victoria' and other vessels in the Irish Sea, then tracked around Scotland to contribute to the East Coast floods. The Netherlands were hit badly as well.
Princess Diana’s Butler Thinks Prince Harry Is Confused Because This Is Not the Direction His Mother Would Want Him to Go
Ever since Prince Harry released his tell-all memoir Spare, many royal watchers have given their opinion and commentary on the Duke of Sussex’s claims against his family. Some have questioned what really went on behind palace walls all those years that got us to this point and others have wondered how his mother would feel about Harry’s path today. Well someone who was with Princess Diana every day and there as Prince William and Prince Harry grew up is Paul Burrell.
He began working for the royal family when he was 18-years-old and became the late Queen Elizabeth II‘s personal footman. In 1987, he joined the household of then-Prince Charles and Princess Diana and continued working as the princess’s butler until her tragic death.
Butler says this is not the path Diana would have wanted for Harry
In an interview following the release Spare, Burrell stated that he believes Harry thinks he going in the same direction his mother had planned by breaking away from the monarchy while making allegations to damage the Firm and moving far away for freedom. But according to the former royal employee, this is not what the princess would have wanted.
Speaking on behalf of Slingo, Burrell opined: “I think he’s convinced himself that this is the way his mother would want him to go but I could counsel him with that and say ‘your mother was a huge supporter of the royal family. She was very proud of you Harry being part of that family and your brother. She always supported the monarchy. She was proud to be a royal princess too, even when she died she was still a princess, Diana, Princess of Wales, and she wanted to continue to support the Crown in anything she did.”
Burrell continued: “There is a huge difference between your mother’s work and what she wanted in life and yours. Just because she wanted to have a bolthole in Malibu in California to take you and your brother on vacation once or twice a year isn’t to say she was about to abandon the country … She never would have abandoned the country. I’ve got letters that say ‘I long to hug my mother-in-law, I know, mama, what it feels like, I understand what it feels like to be queen of this country, I understand your thoughts and feelings,’ all very supportive towards the queen.”
Burrell also discussed the misconception that Diana was “fighting against the monarchy” before she died.
He explained: “That’s what the public gets mixed up too, they think that Diana was fighting against the monarchy, she wasn’t. She was fighting against her husband because she wanted a fair settlement and to be treated respectfully. She was never fighting against the monarchy, the queen or Prince Philip.
“Harry believes now that he’s following his mother’s dream … We’re getting back to the fact that an 11-year-old’s vision of his mother is a very innocent view and memory of a wonderful life which he had with his mother, which I understand completely. I saw it, I understood that Harry was still tied to his mother’s apron strings. I understood that he thrived on love and cuddles and kisses from his mummy. I saw that. And then it was taken away, his heartbreak I saw that too.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/princess-diana-s-butler-thinks-prince-harry-is-confused-because-this-is-not-the-direction-his-mother-would-want-him-to-go/ar-AA170KZ8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3ad63a6e10854f529f871029da9fdc87
Well, Harry was a month away from his 13th birthday, not 11.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10rxe47/no_star_studded_party_for_you_but_we_can_go_to/
https://youtu.be/38B8UDgzRHo
What on earth is she wearing?
.....................
I thought the photos of the 5s with * in a white dress wasn't new, if that's what you're referring to. I'm sure I've seen that white concoction before. Or is it some oversize piece of grey/green fabric in the Reddit photo?
I'm surprised they didn't have a vows renewal at the same time
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Join Jennifer Aniston and Katy Perry at Ellen and Portia's Vow Renewal
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were among the guests who witnessed Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi's surprise vow renewal.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex attended a gathering on Tuesday, which was thought to be a 50th birthday party for de Rossi — however, the celebration turned into a vow renewal ceremony for DeGeneres and de Rossi officiated by Kris Jenner at their new home, where the couple moved in last week.
Not only did DeGeneres have no idea about the vow renewal — quietly yet meticulously planned by deRossi, who only told a few people about it as the event neared — but de Rossi also surprised to her wife of 14 years by wearing her 2008 Zac Posen wedding gown, quickly changing into the dress before the ceremony began.
In a video shared to The Ellen Degeneres Show's YouTube channel, Prince Harry and Meghan are seen among the group watching the romantic moment unfold.
Other famous faces at the event included Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Carol Burnett, Courteney Cox, Melissa Etheridge, Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom.
Comments:
Marty Martin, 18min ago
what a cheap shot at getting in the news......
Linda Bolin, 11min ago
again, no one cares about their vows or these wanna be's from Europe.
jackie lope, 2m
of course they did! anytthing that generates attention for both couples!
Frank and Sue Neikirk, 2min ago
Dont know what you think but that smile on Markels face is creepy
jackie lope, 5m
of course they did! anytthing that generates attention for both couples !
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-join-jennifer-aniston-and-katy-perry-at-ellen-and-portia-s-vow-renewal/ar-AA172GkD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8b8d6fa65b8b44cd958d12d9c8a85850#comments
Source: The Telegraph.
Rupert Everett: I know who Prince Harry really lost his virginity to
Victoria Ward
Thu, 2 February 2023 at 9:30 pm GMT·4-min read
It was one of the more intimate revelations in the Duke of Sussex’s memoir and one that, for many, raised more questions than it answered.
Who was the horse-mad woman who took his virginity in a mystery field during what the Duke himself admitted was a rather “inglorious episode”?
The mystery has now taken a surprising twist after Rupert Everett teased that he knows the identity of the woman in question.
Not only that, the actor also mischievously claimed that the episode did not take place behind a pub, or even in this country.
Everett was interviewed for the Telegraph Magazine on the day the Duke’s memoir, Spare, was published.
The conversation turned to the inevitable and it turned out he had strong views on the whole Sussex saga.
“By the way,” he offered with a twinkle in his eye. “I know who the woman he lost his virginity to is. And it wasn’t behind a pub. And it wasn’t in this country.”
Asked if he was suggesting that the Duke had purposefully tried to cover his tracks, to protect the identity of the woman who was really involved in the tryst, he offered little more than a sly grin.
“I’m just putting it out there that I know,” he added.
A source close to the Duke said: "Amazing that he would know such a personal detail better than Prince Harry himself."
The Duke painted quite a picture of the episode in his book.
He revealed that towards the end of 2001, Mark Dyer - or “Marko”, his aide and mentor - had paid him a visit at Eton.
He took him out for lunch but looked “grim” and the teenage prince - then aged 16 or 17 - feared the worst.
Dyer revealed he had been “asked to find out the truth” and the Duke suspected he was referring to his recent loss of virginity, convinced someone must have spotted him in action.
“Inglorious episode, with an older woman,” he wrote. “She liked horses, quite a lot, and treated me not unlike a young stallion.
“Quick ride, after which she’d smacked my rump and sent me off to graze. Among the many things about it that were wrong: it happened in a grassy field behind a busy pub.”
In the event, Dyer had actually wanted to confront the Duke about his alleged drug-taking and the episode in the field did not warrant further mention in the book...
The first older woman identified as a potential suspect was Liz Hurley.
The actress was asked in an interview if she was the woman in question.
“Not me. I’m not guilty,” she replied, adding for clarity: “No. Not me. Absolutely not.”
The incident is alleged to have taken place at the Rattlebone Inn in Sherston, Wilts, where both princes Harry and William were regular visitors.
Suzannah Harvey, 44, a former model, and Catherine Ommanney, 51, an interior designer, both sought to distance themselves from the encounter.
Miss Harvey has previously admitted “passionately kissing” the prince in a muddy field after a Christmas ball in 2001, when she was 23.
But last month, she posted a picture of herself with a packet of Ginger Nuts on Instagram, writing: “The only ones I've ever touched ... believe zero of what you read.”
Miss Ommanney, who dated Harry when she was 34 and he was 21, told The Sun that she hates horses and was “definitely not that girl in the field”.
Meanwhile, Everett revealed that the memoir had altered his perception of the Duke.
“It’s made me change my view,” he said. “I was angry before, and now I just feel very sad – sad for Harry. I felt so sympathetic towards him for years and I still do now.
“Honestly! As someone who has put his foot in it quite a bit, I feel particularly bad for him about the Taliban thing. That changed everything and loses him the one group that still loved him.”
The Duke was widely criticised for revealing that he killed 25 people in his role as an Apache helicopter pilot during his second tour of duty in Afghanistan.
Several senior military figures warned that he had jeopardised his own security and that of others.
The Duke insisted on a US chat show last month that his aim was to give veterans the “space” to be honest and to share their experiences without shame, reducing the number of suicides.
He denied “boasting” about the figure and blamed the media for taking the comment out of context and turning it into “the most dangerous lie that they have told” by elevating his security risk.
Col Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said: “His explanation might have been more credible if he’d included it in his book.”
An old Army blanket?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10sfy4l/wellchild_revenues_down_58_since_megxit_while/
The hapless one has just published an open letter to WellChild, perhaps to boost donations (as patron)? I'll post the link when I find it. It is long and rambling and has not achieved publicity. As a patron, isn't he supposed to attract funding?
Are they going to ditch him? I think they should.
Rupert Everett says he knows who the woman is, but it did not happen in a field behind a pub or even in England. I don't mind him being misleading to protect the identity of the woman involved, but I am not convinced that is why he lied, and he could have done so in a much more elegant way.
IMO, the publisher really let him down. There was a large team working on the book but none seemed to have the experience, expertise or willingness to do some fact checking and careful rewording to protect their author ... they treated him like a pot of gold to grab. I do think he is very difficult to work with, and I am pretty sure there was heavy toxic influence from his wife, but the publisher could have made more effort.
Apologies: Various
Mack the Knife
F*ck the Wife
Oh the shark meh
has big teeth, eh
Takes them out
every night
Forced old hazzer
into a corner
Now she’s keeping
out of sight
You know when that skank bit
hazs’ penis
Puffed pillows
bloomed overnight
Hazs’ onus
is on his anus
Needs to keep his
orifices tight…
I hope the above link takes you to the right photo ... it is her being dressed for the last UK appearance when she wore that ill-fitting green dress with a cape draped on one side. She has multiple people dressing her and still the outfits do not fit properly. I do not understand this.
@WildBoar
A horse blanket,
as used previously
by stallion haz.
Madam likes to collect
ephemera…
His letter to WellChild.
As some commentators point out, him calling himself a 'royal' patron is misleading. He is royal but does not officially represent the family or the monarchy in any way.
there's a comment at this CDAN blind item that says that Hairless was in talks to host Saturday Night Live, the television program that is guest hosted by a different celebrity every week.
This s one heck of a discussion - why she went to HR,
not a medical person.
Rings true to me.
Comment on CDAN that GWAH mentioned referred to * as `Duchess of (I'd better whisper it...) Suxdix'.
She was friendly with the head of HR based in Clarence House. I suspect that when the hapless husband was warned that the bullying complaints were piling up, she contacted this person in HR with some manipulative story about being depressed. Quite rightly, the HR person (who really liked TBW) said that HR do not deal with such matters, and no, HR could not authorize her to go to a spa at the monarchy's expense. However, that HR person did nothing about the complaint when it was formally 'escalated' to her, other than bury it. It was only after Megxit that the Queen privately paid for an investigation into the complaints and why they were buried, but that report was subsequently buried.
What he said about the birth of Archie, combined with the many rumours, is most confusing. It is astonishing that claim they they were back at Frogmore Cottage within two hours of the birth (and that includes travel time). There has been no leak from Portland, other than a denial from the doctor who was supposed to have delivered the baby. Perhaps Portland has a super secret entrance so absolutely no one saw them arrive and go into the birthing unit and then leave with a baby! (They had bodyguards with them, who went out to get takeaways, so they were not alone.) It is odd that there was and has been no leak from anyone. They threw Sara Latham under the bus for telling the media that she had been taken into hospital, in labour, when at the time, Archie had been born and all had been back at Frogmore Cottage for hours. Why would a professional like Latham take it upon herself to tell such a big lie? And why did the Queen give Latham a job organizing the Jubilee celebrations?
-----
From a Spotify perspective. Fit the strategy to buy original content and something of a coup. Not sure they really executed on it in terms of what they produced, and the jury seems to be out (at best) on the original content strategy. Generally I’d be a bit “meh”
From a human/British perspective. Obviously both Sussex’s have been through some pretty awful stuff and I feel sorry for them for that. At same time, they can come across as at best naive and at worst a little calculated. I doubt they’ll win in the court of public opinion, and some of the complaints felt tone deaf given their relative wealth and privilege.
The institution of the British monarchy is somewhat bonkers IMHO. The whole magical lineage and leader of the faith piece doesn’t really feel to have aged well. Institutions (or those with power within them) tend to fight tooth and nail to persist - will be interesting to see how, if at all, Charles modernises and updates now he finally has his chance.
-----
The person at Spotify is British and obviously an anti-monarchist and completely clueless about the duo. IMO there is no justification for signing a contract for such a huge amount for unknowns who have no track record and no expertise. I doubt that anyone at Spotify will admit that they messed up, but it is clear from the above that Spotify was not happy with what was delivered.
Apologies - the link for the tea from Spotify.
Nurses' gossip was that there were no births at the Portland when she claimed to be there.
Her references to the geography of the hospital are wrong - there's no A&E there, private hospitals don't touch it, nor is there provision for an expectant mother if things go wrong - the patient has to be taken to an NHS hospital. No signing-off of the birth by anyone, that we know of,.
The timing at `sunrise at Windsor', the rapid arrival home, (I have a young friend who had her first when she was in her early 20s. The babe arrived in hospital about 9am. I telephoned her about 4hrs later as she arrived home, about 4 miles away as the crow flies. The Portland to Windsor = 21 miles ++ away, geriatric prima gravida with `issues', and royal
to boot?
Nah!
Put-up job.
The Reddit link for the tea on Spotify.
Did I already post it? We have loadshedding for 8 hours a day, split into three times, and I lost the connection while the connection was being switched from backup to regular as the electricity came back on again!
Their next project is going to be a rom-com, as producers because it is a lot less time-consuming and work to be a producer!
And both BP and JP are ignoring their 'reconciliation summit' demands, and there has been no formal contact between the King and the Archbishop regarding this.
Archive link to the Telegraph article about the rom-com. The truth about the 'reconciliation' story with the Archbishop that they put out there is debunked in a paragraph buried near the end of the article.
I thought the thrust of the recent post was that whole `suicide' episode may have been an attempt to create a false narrative and to get something, albeit fake, on the record - something they could display in the future as evidence of her mental state at the time. No good saying months down the line that she'd felt suicidal if they hadn't mentioned it before. They went to HR to get it on to paper, although it didn't come umder HR's remit. I can't think what to call it - perhaps a `reverse alibi'?
The obvious response at the time would have been to suggest she sees somebody with medical qualifications in the first instance but that risked a physical examination. She could only have done that safely if she was genuinely pregnant. Any
Ergo, the whole thing suggests a elaborate charade based on nothing other than the will to get one over on he RF, possibly planned months earlier.
there's a comment at this CDAN blind item that says that Hairless was in talks to host Saturday Night Live, the television program that is guest hosted by a different celebrity every week.
Well, that would certainly preserve their privacy, since it has a very small audience.
There is very little about the `details' of Archie's `birth' that sounds even possible.
Nurses' gossip was that there were no births at the Portland when she claimed to be there.
Her references to the geography of the hospital are wrong - there's no A&E there, private hospitals don't touch it, nor is there provision for an expectant mother if things go wrong - the patient has to be taken to an NHS hospital. No signing-off of the birth by anyone, that we know of,.
The timing at `sunrise at Windsor', the rapid arrival home, (I have a young friend who had her first when she was in her early 20s. The babe arrived in hospital about 9am. I telephoned her about 4hrs later as she arrived home, about 4 miles away as the crow flies. The Portland to Windsor = 21 miles ++ away, geriatric prima gravida with `issues', and royal
to boot?
Nah!
Put-up job.
I keep thinking of the mandatory medical tests and procedures that have to be done with a newborn to make sure that it is healthy. Does anybody know how time consuming those various tests are, or if they are even mandatory, in the UK?
Archie has change colour.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/20230203163491/prince-harry-meghan-markle-kitchen-us-home-photo/
He is no longer red-haired for a start, despite being under a downward pointing light, there are few highlights in his dark brown mop, or elsewhere come to that. Has he been photoshopped or is this a different child? Should we assume his skin tone results from shadows?
I had a shufti a the video associated with the report - only a glimpse of Li'l Lil as obscured by advert but also ploughed through the heap of saccharine comments.
NB Found something near the end (I've starred the critical letters (a `t' and a `u' featured but I wondered if one was originally an `n', if you get my drift. This is one heck of an allegation - one that may have crossed the mind, only to be rapidly dismissed as just too nasty to contemplate:
Claudia Lewis
Claudia Lewis
4 weeks ago
Meghan's father covered up her felony animal murder s(**)ff movies. Do your research.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/baby/newborn-screening/overview/
It sounds as if there are few at the time of birth, the rest follow a bit later. In theory, a parent who doesn't get them checked could be viewed with suspicion.
The Suxdix want to do ROM COMS now? Please, neither has a sense of humor ( humour). Are these travesties to be starring vehicles for you know who? Or do they just want producers credit and pay for no work.
She missed her chance with an earthy crunchy lifestyle blog. Something mindless and apolitical.
An investigation into the Lady Susan controversy, which is most interesting.
Supporters of the duo do not realize that the duo do not want to destroy the monarchy but to control and exploit it. The duo themselves are stupidly encouraging this anti-monarchy agenda. It comes across as childish spitefulness ... I really want what you have, and if you don't give it to me, I will destroy it. It makes no sense!
But, it is looking increasingly bad for the duo that they are associated with the spite of the anti-monarchist agenda, and that they are fuelling the behaviour that they claim they are victims of. They don't care about bullying and 'misinformation' at all, even if it is done in their name, as long as it is not directed at them but at the people who won't worship them and give them whatever they demand.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/large-increase-towns-anti-social-150656811.html
Poundbury is the experimental housing development project by the King outside Dorchester, not the sort of place one associates with this kind of behaviour, hardly a `sink estate'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sink_estate
Do the perpetrators think they are making a political statement?
I've only had time to watch the first 5 mins of this but it looks like an excellent analysis of Woke v. free speech, highly relevant to us, methinks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvv5kcecnp4 conversation
Konstanin Kisin is Russian-born, now here in UK :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Kisin
Have also watched the video of him speaking at the Oxford Union - first rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKIOSnKX96E - Official Oxford Union video, with added foreign language subtitles (are they in Polish?)
This is narc manipulation to feed the need to get attention and be at the cetre of things. They have started and all these stories.
They were always going to be invited. So will many others whom the media won't even notice.
The Palace are old hands at managing tricky diplomatic incidents. Their appearance will be managed with professional diplomacy and I suspect they will be kept away from working royals, who will probably ignore the duo. My guess is that they will be placed with Eugenie and Beatrice and their spouses.
Will the next story be what tiara will she wear, if any at all? There will be a plethora of stories of her borrowing a fabulous tiara from the Royal Collection, and who knows what else she can feed the tabloids with.
On the day, will she dress appropriately? After all, this is a woman who wore a sleeveless dress for Trooping the Colour and then pushed down the shoulders to make it into some kind of sleeveless evening look.
Or will the next story be a demand that William and Catherine must apologize to his wife? The King and Queen are centre stage at a coronation, but the Prince and Princess of Wales will get almost as much attention, so devauling them before the event is vital for the duo.
All newborn babies are given tests at birth. How time consuming they are depends on how well the baby is, if the baby appears healthy it doesn't take long. Sometimes jaundice is spotted and then the baby will have to stay in for treatment. I never believed * gave birth and was allowed home after a few hours. Even Catherine, who was younger, stayed one night in hospital after having George and left after 10 hours after having Charlotte. But remember, * is better than everybody else and does everything better.
And here we have the story! So, according to this 'expert', TBW will wear a coronet! ... as will the Princess of Wales, so they will be treated as equals on the day, which they are not. TBW is not even a British citizen, nor a citizen of a Commonwealth realm. But the sugars will be in ecstasy imaging their queen wearing a 'crown'.
My solution to the problem would be to distinguish between working royals and non-working royals. Catherine, Anne and Sophie wearing coronets, and the rest in tiaras from the Royal Collection or their own.
There is an interesting story on the other thread about the bill to be introduced to strip the duo of their titles. Basically, Parliament has the right to strip those titles but there is nothing in the law that gives a reason to strip their titles. This is going to be tricky and I cannot see the King being happy with Parliament having this power.
And isn't their surname Mountbatten-Windsor, not just Windsor?
I also saw a similar article (won't even read it) in the DM re the latest tripe from the duo, i.e. rom-coms. As I scroll down to look at pix, I spotted this sentence:
'One source said: 'There will be more of a heavy focus on fictional, scripted content''
More of it? I thought there was already plenty of it in their productions. Somehow I can't see this new production being a resounding success.
The above thread includes an article from Fox News that speculates that she may be relaunching The Tig. She did say in The Cut interview that she was getting back on IG, but then tried to retract.
She won't do this unless she can guarantee millions of followers, and she is not going to get that organically. For her podcast, she posted billboards to create hype. Will she try the same again? Is there any way she can fudge the rules? Perhaps she can use the dormant Sussex Royal account to redirect to the new site? The royal family would be furious, but when did those two care about disrespecting others and breaking rules? I reckon she would love to swan into the Coronation with a relaunched Tig with many millions of followers. (Thinking that the royal family would be so envious, but in reality they would probably be thinking 'all that damage to everyone for you to end up going back to the self-absorbed exhibitionist you always have been'!)
It would be a space where she can feature herself every day, make up her own rules, block any unpleasant messages, celebrate all that is superficial about her, and merch to her heart's content. However, she can also wield political and social influence over her ardent followers, and that would really thrill her.
The danger is that she has so many failures behind her and nothing has changed in her character. Also, unlike the original Tig, she will be scrutinized, critically, and will not be able to get away with lies. Plus, she is getting a bit old to play the teenager in her ripped jeans. And too many people have seen through the 'I am just a mom and a wife' routine, pointing out that most people do not live in a mansion, have 24/7 security and SUVs with a driver, hugely expensive designer dresses fitted by the designer and to wear once for an appearance, travel in private jets ...
There is much risk in such exposure, but I think she won't be able to resist the attention she will get and the ardent followers she will capture.
I can't see it being successful either.
It's only a 'style expert' who claims * and Catherine will wear a coronet. I'm not sure they can be treated as equals. They're both the King's daughters-in-law bit are hardly equals. Anyway, the Express is biased towards * so I'd take their claims with a pinch of salt.
She'll want, and expect, to wear a tiara but it's been a coronet affair in the past. As the wife of a royal duke, I'd have thought she'd have to wear the same as Fergie, assuming the Yorks are there. Whether Sophie will be a duchess too by then is unknown but it'd be one in the eye for Twinkletoes if she is and she treated as equal with them.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2023/02/03/archewell-staff-transition-leave-resigned-fired-out-of-their-roles/
That is very interesting tea from Lady C!
It most certainly is. Apparently Lady C was asked to talk about the matter. I’m going to listen again! 😁
Meghan & her new BILLIONAIRE/paying BOTS/Psychiatrist's condemnation/Opr...
https://youtu.be/Rx9PfV1kqDs
I’m still in the middle of listening….but Lady C said the Getty family are worried that Maggot is after money from the 89 year old Gordon Getty. According to Lady C, she said Maggot has been laying on a sob story of feeling vulnerable in hope Getty buys her a house. 😐Maggot has been hiring conference rooms to make it look like business.
Oh, snap! Is she cosplaying Anna Nicole Smith? She married an 89-year-old billionaire and ultimately ended with nothing from his estate and dead.
Are Americans falling out of love with Harry and Meghan?
Polling shows a drop in the couple’s popularity since the release of Spare
Last weekend, 25 of the entertainment industry’s most influential women gathered at a highly-publicised beauty event in Los Angeles that also served as Oprah Winfrey’s 69th birthday party. Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Lopez, Cindy Crawford and Sharon Stone were among the guests. As various American publications were quick to point out, however, the Duchess of Sussex was not.
Her absence has been interpreted by some as a sign that her friendship with the all-powerful Winfrey — a guest at Harry and Meghan’s wedding in Windsor and now their neighbour in Montecito, California — is on the rocks. Winfrey has positioned herself as an ardent Sussex sympathiser since she sat down with the couple in March 2021 for their first big interview after leaving the UK. The sense that this alliance may have faded has led some in the US media to speculate that the Sussexes’ star is waning in Hollywood power circles following the release of their Netflix documentary series and the publication of Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare.
“I work with several publicists in LA and they say that Harry and Meghan aren’t considered for high-profile events because the fear is that all eyes will be on them and that will take away from the cause,” says Kinsey Schofield, an American royal commentator and the host of the To Di For Daily podcast. “I think people are starting to hesitate in associating with them because they seem to be a dramatic pair that fixates on the negative.”
Americans also appear to be reassessing their opinion of the exiled royals. A recent poll by the consulting firm Redfield & Wilton Strategies showed that Harry’s popularity in the US nosedived by 45 points between December 5 (the week before the Netflix documentary launched) and January 16 (the week after the publication of Spare), while Meghan’s fell by 36 points. US approval ratings for Charles and Camilla and the Prince and Princess of Wales also dropped during this period, albeit to a much lesser extent. Is the American public, once welcoming and protective of a couple who they viewed as victims of Britain’s colonial legacy and emotional repression, tiring of Harry and Meghan’s compulsion to tell (and retell) their story?
“The Netflix documentary marked a turning point,” says Christopher Andersen, an American journalist and the author of The King: The Life of Charles III. “There was the torrent of complaints, many of which seemed, for want of a better word, petty. The whining did not go over well with Americans.“
Brenner Thomas, a co-founder of the New York-based public relations firm The Lead PR, says that the couple should have recounted their experience in Britain “authoritatively” and only once. “If you’re someone privileged, as both of them are, you have to do it with a bit of a wink,” he adds. “The real issue is that Americans don’t like their royals acting like reality TV stars.”
Thomas interprets the announcement earlier this week that Archewell, Meghan and Harry’s media organisation and charitable foundation, is parting ways with two of its senior figures as a signal that the couple are dissatisfied with the reception of their recent projects. Ben Browning, Archewell’s head of content who oversaw the Netflix series, will step down later this year along with Fara Taylor, the organisation’s head of marketing. Neither will be replaced. Via an Archewell press release, Harry and Meghan thanked Browning and Taylor for their help with “vital ‘look back’ projects,” adding that they will now focus on projects that “look forward”. “I think Harry and Meghan feel that the way they were portrayed is not what they were hoping for,” says Thomas of this shake-up.
Thomas interprets the announcement earlier this week that Archewell, Meghan and Harry’s media organisation and charitable foundation, is parting ways with two of its senior figures as a signal that the couple are dissatisfied with the reception of their recent projects. Ben Browning, Archewell’s head of content who oversaw the Netflix series, will step down later this year along with Fara Taylor, the organisation’s head of marketing. Neither will be replaced. Via an Archewell press release, Harry and Meghan thanked Browning and Taylor for their help with “vital ‘look back’ projects,” adding that they will now focus on projects that “look forward”. “I think Harry and Meghan feel that the way they were portrayed is not what they were hoping for,” says Thomas of this shake-up.
For Meghan, focusing on the future may also mean rebooting The Tig, the lifestyle blog that she ran for three years before her engagement to Harry. “I’m hearing that she’s about to launch it again,” Schofield says. “I think she’s going to lean more into mummy content this time. She’s taking a project that she deemed successful before she married Harry to show the world, ‘Look what I can accomplish without my husband.’”
This desire to reassert her individual identity is a possible explanation for Meghan’s absence from the avalanche of interviews during Harry’s publicity tour for Spare. While Harry has frequently cropped up in his wife’s projects — dropping in to compliment the tennis player Serena Williams on her hair in an episode of Meghan’s podcast Archetypes, or juggling outside a window in a video for Meghan’s mentoring scheme for professional women — she has kept a low profile in recent weeks.
This is not, says Schofield, because Meghan wanted to distance herself from the book’s litany of revelations. “I don’t think Meghan is embarrassed by the book. Her hands are all over it . . . She is trying to brand herself separately from Harry and this has been some good downtime for her to perfect the product so that when she does come out to talk about The Tig, it doesn’t feel like, ‘Oh God, not them again.’”
Andersen highlights another reason for Meghan’s minimalist PR strategy: the fear of being considered just like the American divorcée for whom Edward VIII abdicated in 1936. “She is painfully aware of the comparisons made between her and Wallis Simpson,” he says. “The notion that she controls the poor boy and has lured him away from his family and the nation he was born to serve . . . She made the wise decision to distance herself from Spare. It’s Harry’s life story and it’s up to him to sell it. There is also the question of Meghan’s memoirs. Why go out on the road with Harry and blab now when she can sell her own story for $10 million in a year or two?”
“There is no question that Harry and Meghan will continue to be well connected in the US,” Andersen says. “As a power couple, they have few equals. They’ve made it clear they want to be relevant. They’re not going anywhere.”
She is only 2 years older than Harry.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11713609/Im-older-woman-took-Harrys-virginity-Digger-driver-Sasha-Walpole-40-comes-forward.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11713609/Im-older-woman-took-Harrys-virginity-Digger-driver-Sasha-Walpole-40-comes-forward.html
I thought she’d be after marriage too. Lady C said the Getty family aren’t concerned about a marriage because they don’t believe that’s the case here, it’s the money they are concerned with. We all know and according to Mole’s mouth she’s capable of anything so I personally wouldn’t put it past her, even if it’s only trying. 😉
No this isn’t the exposé Lady C has been alluding to, that’s due later in the year. I think that will be the surrogacy and a mix of other exposed lies.
Has Princess Eugenie set her sights on Megxit 2.0 with a new life in California? Friends claim Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been sending Prince Andrew's daughter details of homes close to them in Montecito
Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank could be about to do their own Megxit as they may be considering following Prince Harry and Meghan to sunny California after the birth of their second child.
A friend tells me the Sussexes have been sending 32-year-old Eugenie, the youngest daughter of Prince Andrew, details of homes close to where they live in Montecito.
But I'm told the couple are instead looking at homes in the West Hollywood area of Los Angeles, and they plan to rent first before taking the plunge and snapping up a property.
America won't be totally unfamiliar territory for Eugenie, who spent two years living in New York between 2013 and 2015, when she worked for the auction house Paddle8.
At the moment Jack and Eugenie, who have just announced they're expecting a sibling for two-year-old August, split their time between the UK and Portugal, where Jack works in high-end property development.
Although he recently took a job at Discovery Land Company with property tycoon Mike Meldman, a transition is likely to be fairly smooth as the company's core properties are dotted around the United States.
When in Britain, Jack and Eugenie have been staying at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor.
The late Queen gave the property to Harry and Meghan before they left to pursue their American dream. My source tells me: 'With a growing family, it all feels like it is about new starts. This isn't just a pipe dream.'
Eugenie is known to be close to Harry – she was pictured with her cousin at the Super Bowl last February, and in his memoir, Spare, Harry writes that Eugenie and Jack were the first Royals to meet Meghan.
Of this first meeting, Harry wrote: 'I remember Euge hugging Meg as if they were sisters.'
Eugenie gave birth to her first son August Philip Hawke Brooksbank, who is 13th-in-line to the throne, at London's Portland Hospital in February 2021.
Last week, Princess Eugenie showed off her growing baby bump as she stepped out for dinner at the Chiltern Firehouse in London.
She was spotted as she left the Marylebone restaurant last Tuesday evening.
The mother cut a cosy look as she joined her mother Sarah Ferguson, 63, for dinner.
The Duchess of York, who declared herself in 'granny heaven' over the happy news, was then later seen leaving Maison Estelle with Princess Beatrice's husband Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi.
Posting a tribute on Instagram to her youngest daughter last week, Fergie wrote: 'You will be sharing puddles, Augie! Superb news, Granny heaven…. So deeply grateful.'
This came after Eugenie shared her pregnancy news by posting an adorable snap on Instagram showing her one-year-old son August kissing her stomach last Tuesday.
She wrote: 'We’re so excited to share that there will be a new addition to our family this summer.'
There was also a camera emoji and the words 'by Jack'.
It was not the first time the daughter of the Duke and Duchess of York has broken her big personal news this way - she took a similar approach in 2020 when she announced that she was expecting her first child.
Posting a photo of baby slippers on Instagram, she wrote: 'Jack and I are so excited for early 2021'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11713947/Megxit-2-0-Princess-Eugenie-follow-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-California-friends-claim.html?ito=push-notification&ci=iTss7phcCf&cri=UH6Eu5HwvE&si=iJANmsHQpl66&xi=c3c56fff-5cc1-48ae-bf7c-2ed9417ca9bb&ai=11713947
They weren't invited to the Oprah party, although that doesn't really seem to matter, as Oprah is on the way out.
So is NPR, by the way, where listener numbers have been dropping like a stone ever since NPR went very, very woke.
So, the author seems to see their star rising. I see no such thing. IN fact, I seem them associated with the pariahs.
I’m still in the middle of listening….but Lady C said the Getty family are worried that Maggot is after money from the 89 year old Gordon Getty. According to Lady C, she said Maggot has been laying on a sob story of feeling vulnerable in hope Getty buys her a house. 😐Maggot has been hiring conference rooms to make it look like business.
I accidentally sent this before I was able to put down my thoughts. I got a text with a picture of the black bear that had killed livestock about 4 miles from me with a "be careful" message if I hear a disturbance in the pastures at night.
It is strange that the family is not worried about marriage but is worried about money. I suppose that means that everything is bound up in irrevocable trusts except the amount that is his 'portion' which is probably going to be divided amongst the survivors after his death.
If he doesn't have any mental deficits, his money is his to use as he wishes. I don't see where his family has any grounds to oppose it. If he wants to use it on hookers and blow, well, that is his business.
Sitting nice and close, hand resting on his arm just so, those big brown eyee welling over with tears. Maybe the other hand on the new baby about to miscarry.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10txjvw/you_saw_it_here_first_the_38_statements_samantha/
There is also this:
Megs is stonewalling...This is in the motion that Samantha filed on Feb 3, 2023 is to compel Megs to respond:
On December 15, 2022, the Plaintiff, SAMANTHA M. MARKLE (hereinafter referred to as “Mrs. Markle”) served her First Request for Admissions, First Request for Answers to Interrogatories, and First Request for Production to the Defendant, MEGHAN MARKLE (hereinafter referred to as the “Duchess”).
The Duchess’ responses to all three discovery requests were due on January 17, 2023.
The Duchess did in fact serve her responses to all three discovery requests on January 17, 2023, however she did not produce a single document in response to Mrs. Markle’s First Request for Production, nor did she answer one interrogatory or admission.
The Duchess has utilized improper stonewalling to resist Mrs. Markle’s discovery efforts in this case. Not only has the Duchess refused to produce documents and answer discovery requests, but she has also refused to coordinate any depositions in this case. See ECF No. 58.
As such, Mrs. Markle moves to compel the Duchess to respond to her First Request for Production, First Request for Answers to Interrogatories, and First Request for Admissions.
-----
TBW is ruthless, and will easily destroy her sister without qualms. Heartless woman!
Prince Harry is served court papers by Meghan Markle's sister Samantha who is suing the Duchess over 'malicious lies' told in bombshell Oprah interview
Meghan Markle's sister Samantha is demanding Prince Harry give evidence under oath against his wife as she gears up to take her defamation case back to court.
In legal papers filed in Florida on Friday, Ms Markle has called on the Duke of Sussex to take part in deposition proceedings under oath, The Mirror reports.
The 56-year-old is suing Meghan, 41, for £60,000 in damages, claiming her reputation was left in tatters after her sister spread 'malicious lies' in her 2021 Oprah interview.
Ms Markle is also calling on Meghan to be interviewed on camera a day prior to the deposition, and reportedly wants her to make 38 separate admissions in the case.
Among the admissions, she reportedly wants Meghan to publicly state that both the late Queen Elizabeth and King Charles 'are not racist'.
. . .
Good luck, Samantha. I hope she wins or at least makes life difficult for the witch.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714235/Prince-Harry-served-court-papers-Meghan-Markles-sister-Samantha.html
Operation Harry in a hurry: Duke of Sussex may be whisked into Britain for a 48-hour Coronation visit - but without Meghan Markle
Prince Harry could be whisked in and out of Britain for a 48-hour appearance at King Charles’s Coronation without his wife Meghan, sources said last night.
One working theory, dubbed ‘Harry in a hurry’, is that Meghan will remain behind in California to celebrate Archie’s fourth birthday while Harry flies into make a brief appearance at the event on May 6.
It was reported yesterday that both Harry and Meghan would be invited to the ceremony – but it remains unclear whether they will accept in the wake of Harry’s tell-all memoir about Royal infighting.
The report came after the revelation in last week’s Mail on Sunday that the Archbishop of Canterbury had been drawn into discussions about the couple’s invitation to the 90-minute service.
It was suggested that they might accept the invitation if they were given a prominent pew and an undertaking that Harry would not lose his Royal titles.
Sources close to the organisers say Charles’s desire to deliver a cut-down and ‘diverse’ Coronation has proved a nightmare for organisers racing against time to complete the arrangements.
The monarch has cut the guest list for the Coronation to just over 2,000 people, down from the 8,000 who watched Queen Elizabeth being crowned in 1953.
However, he has also halved the organisational time from the 16 months it took to prepare for his mother’s service.
Government sources say the next few weeks will be ‘crunch time’ for decisions over how many peers, politicians, diplomats and bishops will be invited. Seventy years ago, they nearly all made the cut.
But the King was advised that the 8,000-strong list was achievable only because a series of temporary structures were added to the abbey.
To do so again would risk damaging the 900-year-old building and take far too long.
The alternative of using the much larger St Paul’s Cathedral would be both a break with tradition and an unwanted reminder of Charles’s marriage to Princess Diana.
Some experts have suggested nearby Westminster Hall could be used as an ‘overflow site’, as with some weddings, with guests watching on screens.
A source said ‘cutting the guest list so radically while also making it more diverse is proving to be a total nightmare’.
In 1953, the guest list included every member of the aristocracy with a hereditary title – there are currently 807 – plus all members of the Privy Council – a total of 741 – and every bishop – they now number over 100 – as well as heads of state and ambassadors from around the world. Seventy years ago, they all brought their spouses, too.
In addition to the bishops, to match the ‘diversity’ requirement, space would also have to be found for representatives from other faiths.
One person involved in the planning said: ‘We need Wembley Stadium, not Westminster Abbey.’
A source said: ‘It would have made more sense to hold the Coronation in the autumn... but Charles was keen to get on with it.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714133/Operation-Harry-hurry-Duke-Sussex-whisked-Britain-48-hour-Coronation-visit.html
My pet turkey 'Firkie' started laying eggs and accomplished laying her 3rd, 4th and 5th egg during the bitter Ice/Snow storm we endured here in Texas, one of the hardest hit in the nation last week.
I am sorry to be so self-centered to announce this, but I am so happy (and my Wound Care Doctor better not read this blog, lol, because he told me to not take care of my poultry flock).
Now back to the Harkles...who cant raise a feathered floof like I have, me thinks!
the author of that Times article doesn't seem to understand American popular culture very well. Ellen Degeneres is hated by everyone in the USA. If the 6's are seen with her, as they were at the renewal of vows, that's not going to be doing them any favours.
They weren't invited to the Oprah party, although that doesn't really seem to matter, as Oprah is on the way out.
So is NPR, by the way, where listener numbers have been dropping like a stone ever since NPR went very, very woke.
So, the author seems to see their star rising. I see no such thing. IN fact, I seem them associated with the pariahs.
Out of curiosity, I looked at NPR's numbers. The report I read sounded somewhat nebulous, as in '31 million listeners tune in once per week'. Their demographics are vast majority white women over the age of 35. Instead of programming to their strength, they said "Oh, NO! How can this be? We must hire demographics that are different than our listeners because they are too white! And we are not woke enough!"
It was a bold move. Stupid, IMO, and self destructive, but a bold move. It would be like the Hallmark Channel suddenly deciding to devote a significant portion of their programming to gory murder mysteries and Sci-Fi horror while ignoring the people that just want to believe in romance and happily ever after.
Many questions indeed and I don't know how they can all have a bearing on the case. Samantha is very brave to take on her sister but the witch will probably lie through her teeth. She's not averse to perjury, what's a few more lies? I hope she doesn't destroy Samantha.
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1622097174627598336
The connection between TBW and Bouzy dates back to the SussexRoyal IG account, i.e. when she was a working royal.
Prince Harry is served court papers by Meghan Markle's sister Samantha who is suing the Duchess over 'malicious lies' told in bombshell Oprah interview
Meghan Markle's sister Samantha is demanding Prince Harry give evidence under oath against his wife as she gears up to take her defamation case back to court.
In legal papers filed in Florida on Friday, Ms Markle has called on the Duke of Sussex to take part in deposition proceedings under oath, The Mirror reports.
The 56-year-old is suing Meghan, 41, for £60,000 in damages, claiming her reputation was left in tatters after her sister spread 'malicious lies' in her 2021 Oprah interview.
Ms Markle is also calling on Meghan to be interviewed on camera a day prior to the deposition, and reportedly wants her to make 38 separate admissions in the case.
Among the admissions, she reportedly wants Meghan to publicly state that both the late Queen Elizabeth and King Charles 'are not racist'.
Meghan is understood to want the case dismissed entirely.
Ms Markle, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, claims she's a victim of 'humiliation and hatred' on the back of 'demonstrably false and malicious statements' allegedly made by her sister.
She's also reportedly called on statements from father Thomas Markle, former royal aide Jason Knauf, her daughter Ashleigh Hale and online security expert Christopher Bouzy.
A mediator has been appointed in an attempt to avoid a trial, while Meghan's lawyer Michael J. Kump reportedly stated the demands Ms Markle has made are irrelevant.
Ms Markle reportedly felt slighted by Meghan's recollection of being an 'only child' growing up. When she first expressed anger over the comments, the Duchess of Sussex pointed out she was simply describing her opinion.
The duo share a father but have different mothers.
Her rocky relationship with Meghan exploded into public view after her sister's engagement to Prince Harry was announced in 2017.
She was quoted by journalists as saying 'The Queen would be appalled' and called her a 'ducha**' on Twitter.
She gave numerous interviews attacking the Duchess but has since backtracked and complimented her.
Ms Markle released a book about her sister titled The Diary of Princess Pushy's Sister: A Memoir, Part One.
It lays bare details of the Markles' upbringing, including the rivalry when their father was still married to the actress's mother Doria Ragland.
But Ms Markle also writes of her adoration for Meghan as a baby and described the infant as 'bi-racial, beautiful, and was both the color of a peach, and a rose'.
And recently, Ms Markle appeared on an Australian breakfast news program slamming the royals' six-part Netflix docuseries.
She labelled it a 'flopumentary' that was 'ridiculous' and bordering on 'comedy'.
'It is so much rhetoric at this point, and so many lies have been thrown out there, debunked, and yet still there is this repeated need to push this narrative.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714235/Prince-Harry-served-court-papers-Meghan-Markles-sister-Samantha.html?ito=windows-widget-push-notification&ci=554176
I stopped supporting my local NPR station long ago, after they canceled a very popular show hosted by the nationally respected animal behaviorist and dog trainer Dr. Patricia McConnell to make room for more youth oriented (ie woke) programming. I only ever listen to NPR on the occasional Saturday when I am in the car, specifically the show called Hidden Brain, which can be interesting.
Personally, I’ve never heard of Epsom Collage. Eton is a public school on par with Harrow and Westminster. 🥴
I was just reading about the death of headmistress of Epsom College before I came here. I don't think I'd ever heard of it before reading the article, and I wouldn't say it's on a par with Eton. Harrow is a much more similar school.
Meghan Markle 'will not like' Sasha Walpole revealing how she took Prince Harry's virginity in a field behind a pub, royal commentator says
* Sasha Walpole, 40, revealed on Sunday that she was 'older woman' in Spare
* Royal commentators suggested the Duchess of Sussex would not like revelation
* Read more: How the close friendship between Prince and stable girl faded away
The Duchess of Sussex will be displeased by Prince Harry's 'older woman' speaking out about their tryst, a royal commentator has claimed.
Sasha Walpole, 40, a digger driver and mother-of-two, revealed to the world that she was the first lover of the Duke of Sussex.
The then 16-year-old Prince and the 19-year-old stable girl had a one night affair in a field that is described in detail in Harry's recent memoir, Spare.
Ms Walpole and the prince had been firm friends for two years before the encounter in July 2001 after they went out for a cigarette together during a pub trip.
Best-selling biographer Robert Jobson tweeted: 'Loving the interviews with Harry's 'older woman'.
'She seems down to Earth telling her 'truth' for cash. Not sure Meg will like Sasha Walpole telling Piers Morgan that the Harry she knew seems under a spell. But “H” started it by writing about her.'
Social media users agreed, with some suggesting that it was only fair, given that Harry had written about the evening first.
Others commented that the two year age-gap between the young lovers meant Ms Walpole was not much of an 'older woman'.
The Duke of Sussex, 38, explained in his memoir how his first lover treated him like a 'young stallion' and detailed how the steamy exchange took place in a field behind a 'very busy pub'.
Over lunch in a cafeteria shortly afterwards, one of Harry's bodyguards - who had a 'sombre look' on his face - told the Prince that he had been sent to 'find out the truth'.
The father-of-two wrote: 'I suspected he was referring to my recent loss of virginity, a humiliating episode with an older woman who liked macho horses and who treated me like a young stallion.
'I mounted her quickly, after which she spanked my ass and sent me away. One of my many mistakes was letting it happen in a field, just behind a very busy pub. No doubt someone had seen us.'
The royal commentator speculated that the Duchess of Sussex would be irritated by the revelation, despite the fact the tryst was detailed in Prince Harry's memoir.
One royal commentator said he thought Meghan Markle would be 'annoyed' by the revelation.
[The article went on to state:]
'He started to kiss me,' she remembers. 'It was passionate, intense. We both knew. It went from a kiss on to the floor pretty quickly.
'It was instant, fiery, wham bam, between two friends. It was sparky because we shouldn't have been doing it.
'He wasn't 'Prince Harry' to me, this was Harry, my friend, and the situation had got a little bit out of control. It felt naughty, I suppose, in the sense that it shouldn't be happening.
'We didn't set out to do it – it wasn't premeditated and I didn't know he was a virgin.
'There were no virgin vibes – he seemed to know what he was doing. It was quick, wild, exciting. We were both drunk. It wouldn't have happened if we weren't.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11716129/Meghan-Markle-not-like-Sasha-Walpole-revealing-took-Prince-Harrys-virginity.html?ito=push-notification&ci=wtHVWqT5I4&cri=Vj_wnO4ZEz&si=iJANmsHQpl66&xi=c3c56fff-5cc1-48ae-bf7c-2ed9417ca9bb&ai=11716129
I think she does not mind if the Earl of Spencer finds out and denies this because it would have spread and done its work, and her rabid fans will not believe what the Earl says anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10ut7vj/a_new_twist_in_tiaragateaccording_to_myra_on/
There is a discussion about this account and its history here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10uwuwx/how_confident_are_we_that_myra_is_meghan/
By the way, so many people are still so confused about this tiara and are convinced that Princess Charlotte will inherit the Spencer tiara, and wear it for her wedding. No, this is not true at all.
The Earl of Spencer has a daughter (his youngest) named Charlotte Diana, the exact same name as the only daughter of the Prince and Princess of Wales.
Lady Charlotte Diana, traditionally, can wear the tiara for her wedding, but she will not inherit it. The only son of the Earl of Spencer will inherit the tiara.
Princess Charlotte Diana, traditionally, will wear a tiara from the royal collection for her wedding. The Spencer tiara is not part of the royal collection.
Trevor Noah jokes about Prince Harry’s ‘frostbitten penis’ at Grammys 2023
https://nypost.com/2023/02/06/trevor-noah-jokes-about-prince-harrys-frostbitten-penis-at-grammys/
@Raspberry
I plead ignorance about Epsom College. The Times writes that “Epsom College won the Independent School of the Year award in 2022. The judges said it was a “beacon of excellence” and showcased the benefits of an independent education.”
While Harry might have successfully sought vengeance, especially against his media enemies (full disclosure: he brands me a ‘sad little man’ in the book) and brother Prince William, and have oodles of money to fund his extravagant lifestyle forever more, any veneer of respectability is now gone, meaning he and Meghan will increasingly be treated like bog standard celebrities.We saw as much last night when he was the butt of jokes at the Grammy Awards, where Trevor Noah made a gag about Harry’s obsession with talking about his manhood while introducing his close pal James Corden on stage to present an award.
To tittering from the A-listers in attendance like Jennifer Lopez, the comedian said of the Late Late Show host in reference to Harry: 'He's also living proof that a man can move from London to LA and not tell everyone about his frost-bitten penis.'
No wonder, realising the costly and long-term consequences to their precious brand from the tawdry past month, has Meghan started a campaign to distance herself from Spare.
Sources seemingly close to the Duchess have told the Daily Telegraph – one of the few British titles with which the Sussexes retain a working relationship – that she ‘may have raised gentle concerns about whether it was the right move’.
One told the newspaper of her view on the book: ‘Is this the way she would have approached things? Possibly not. But she will always back him and would never have got involved in promoting such a personal project. This was about his own life, his own journey and his own perspective.’
But Meghan’s reputation is now intrinsically linked to that of her husband, who has proven himself to be petty, vindictive and hypocritical about protecting his privacy time and again.
Like the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson before them, it’s now clear to me that the decision to Megxit was selfish and financially motivated, not an altruistic bid to improve the world, as the Sussexes once tried to have us believe.
I predict Harry and Meghan’s reputation will only decline further as their proximity to the Royal Family fades and they will be remembered as the embittered and gossipy ex-royals who had the opportunity to modernise the monarchy from within and blew it all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11718959/DAN-WOOTTON-Spare-Prince-Harry-blame-Sasha-Walpole-telling-story.html
DAN WOOTTON: After the crude and misogynistic disclosures in Spare, Prince Harry only has himself to blame for Sasha Walpole deciding to tell her own story about taking his virginity. No wonder Meghan has raised ‘concerns' about the tell-all
Usually in the hours after a true but unflattering story has been published about the Duke or Duchess of Sussex, journalists are braced for the predictable and inevitable legal threat or whiny statement about some sort of horrific intrusion into their lives.
But yesterday there was no missive from Montecito after Sasha Walpole revealed in intimate detail how she took a 17-year-old Prince Harry’s virginity.
The idea that the deluded Duke can ever complain about someone in his life delivering their accurate version of events publicly, thanks to the tissue of half-truths and downright distortions he’s expected us to swallow in recent months, is risible.
After all, Harry is now the modern-day version of Lady Whistledown, author of Bridgerton’s anonymous scandal sheet.
Private conversations are all noted down for publication at a later date.
Ordinary citizens getting on with their lives can be thrust into the spotlight as and when he chooses without any warning.
Family tragedies are exploited publicly to settle scores.
The Royal Family’s previously unbreakable internal cone of silence, so important to the late Queen, has been smashed.
Even the liberal luvvie over sharers in the Hollywood establishment, featuring Harry and Meghan’s so-called new pals (translation: work acquaintances) can surely no longer trust him to keep his big trap shut.
Happily married mum-of-two Sasha, a respectable private citizen who now works as a digger driver, is one of the many victims of Spare, Harry’s grim autobiography designed to settle scores and make him very rich, to hell with the consequences to anyone else.
His revelations of a ‘quick ride’ with an ‘older woman’ who ‘smacked my rump’ prompted an international hunt for then stable girl Sasha’s identity, which was already an open secret in polo circles.
Just 48-hours before she decided to go public, Hollywood actor Rupert Everitt upped the ante by claiming, ‘I know who the woman he lost his virginity to is’, before speculating the romp didn't actually take place in a field outside a pub, as Harry had written.
In this cruel new world of social media, Sasha, who is now 40, knew it was only a matter of time before she was rumbled, so wisely decided to control how she revealed her version of events.
As woke Harry would likely now say, Sasha, who is actually only two years older than Harry, was claiming back her own narrative after keeping his secret for 21 years.
She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘I didn't invite any of this attention, but I know the hunt would have kept going until people found me. I don't understand why he went into such detail. He could have said he lost his virginity and left it at that. But he described how it happened – in a field behind a pub.
'That's fine if you're not the other person involved. But if you're me, then you suddenly feel as if your world is getting a little bit smaller.'
Throwing Sasha to the wolves was only one of many crude and misogynistic revelations in the tiresome tome Spare, where so-called feminist Harry gloriously revealed his anti-woman true colours to the world.
He trashes the ‘cold, small’ matron Pat at his school, who he would ‘stand on the landing below... doing antic dances, making faces, mocking her as she came down the stairs’.
He dismisses the country’s most successful female newspaper editor as a ‘loathsome toad’ and an ‘infected pustule on the a**e of humanity’.
H's actions should illustrate to * what a sorry arse he is and he definitely isn't a Gentleman nor is he appearing to be any catch!!. She got the Ring but she also got "The Ringer' instead of the Real Thing, a distinguished wonderful Prince of the Realm!!
My ultra-liberal Calif. sister agrees with me. In fact we have great-bonding phone conversations on how much we agree on one thing in life, our mutual abiding disgust we have of the nasty duo. We want their comeuppance as soon as possible. We want it big and pronounced!!
Thanks for posting that article - not too difficult to work out which part to read first!
I wonder if TBW realizes that he was such an easy catch for her because no one else wanted him!
Just re-read an old Agatha Christie
‘They Came to Baghdad’
A new world order
plotting to take over civilisation
as we know it.
Spiffing good fun, elaborate
fantastical plot,
scarily reminiscent of the world
in which we are now living?
I re-read it recently (‘They Came to Baghdad’). There is another one too, the Big Four, with a secret, global organisation. Agatha Christie's novels certainly surpass Spare! 😉
Comeuppance
Harry being mocked
nothing new there
The mocking’s been heightened
since he released
bare and spare
Whoever he rode
in whatever location
Will go down
in the annals as
premature ejaculation…
@Maneki
I think Agatha is the third
most read after the bible
and Shakespeare?
The fact her wildly improbable
plots now seem probable
is a worry?
H & M
Never in the same league
as ‘Happy Valley’