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
@Maneki
Agatha Christie was a
very wise woman.
EXCLUSIVE: Judge rules Meghan and Harry must be GRILLED in deposition over Samantha Markle's claim the couple lied about her in Oprah interview - exposing even more of what's left behind their curtain of secrecy
They have already spilled intimate details of their lives in their Netflix special and in Prince Harry's tell-all memoir.
But now the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will have to submit to their most revealing interrogation yet as part of a lawsuit brought by Meghan's sister.
A judge refused to grant Samantha Markle's request to stop depositions being taken, meaning that Meghan and Harry will be grilled by her lawyers.
Within the next few months they will have to discuss subjects like whether the late Queen Elizabeth was a racist.
But in a victory for the Duchess, a judge warned that the case may be 'ripe for dismissal' before the depositions take place.
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell said that after a 'preliminary peek' at Meghan's request to dismiss the case there may be grounds to throw it out.
She is seeking $75,000 in damages over the Sussexes' claims in their 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey and their 2020 biography Finding Freedom.
According to Samantha, the allegations subjected her to 'humiliation, shame and hatred on a worldwide scale'.
Meghan's lawyers have refused to respond to 38 questions from Samantha's lawyers filed in the Florida federal court lawsuit as they want Judge Honeywell to rule on their motion to dismiss first.
They also asked the judge to stop the discovery process but she refused to do so.
In her ruling, Judge Honeywell wrote: 'Defendant Markle does not show that unusual circumstances justify the requested stay, or that prejudice or an undue burden will result if the Court does not impose a stay.
'Although a preliminary peek at the motion to dismiss suggests that some of the claims against her may be ripe for dismissal, the review does not reveal, at this time, a clear indication that the Court will dismiss the action in its entirety.
'Thus, defendant Markle does not satisfy the high standard required to stay discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion.'
The ruling means that Meghan and Harry will have to sit for deposition which will have to take place before July, if the case moves ahead.
They are likely to be challenged about statements that Samantha wants a response to including: 'Queen Elizabeth was not a racist' and 'King Charles is not a racist'.
Samantha claimed the Duchess 'has utilized improper stonewalling to resist Mrs. Markle's discovery efforts in this case' in the hope the case is dismissed.
She alleged that Meghan has provided 'zero documents' after she made 38 requests for emails and text messages, with the Duchess objecting to 'each and every one of the requests'.
Meghan's lawyer, through her lawyer, refused to respond to either because they were 'not relevant' to the case.
They refused to answer other questions on the same grounds, calling some 'vague'.
Her lawyer declined to even respond to basic biographical requests for a response from Samantha.
They include that Meghan is not an only child as she claimed in the Oprah interview - she actually has a half brother, Thomas Jr, as well as Samantha, her half sister.
One request from Samantha states: 'Please state whether or not you have ever spoken out in defense of the Plaintiff after seeing the public scrutiny/hatred she has received from your fans'.
Another claim Samantha is challenging is that Meghan once claimed she used to get into her old Ford Explorer through the boot because it was so broken down.
In the court papers, Samantha is seeking 'any and all documents to evidence that you had a Ford Explorer with non-functioning doors'.
Samantha and Meghan have had a difficult relationship for years which exploded into public view after Meghan's engagement to Harry was announced in 2017.
Samantha was quoted by journalists as saying that 'The Queen would be appalled' and called her a 'ducha**' on Twitter.
In her memoir, titled 'The Diary of Princess Pushy's Sister', Samantha claimed that Meghan ordered their father to disown his children from his first marriage if he wanted an invitation to her wedding.
According to the book, Meghan told Thomas Sr. to divorce himself from her and her brother Thomas by saying: 'You don't need them!'
Thomas Sr. refused and supposedly said: 'I love you all equally' to which Meghan replied: 'Why can't you just comply?'
Samantha also alleged that the stress of the row was one of the factors in Thomas Sr. having a heart attack which prevented him from attending the star-studded wedding in 2018.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11723917/Meghan-Harry-deposed-Samantha-Markle-lawsuit-judge-rules.html
(Thanks CE).
As for the book post, if you have more comments about the book, you read it, feel free to post that there.
A judge refused to grant Samantha Markle's request to stop depositions being taken, meaning that Meghan and Harry will be grilled by her lawyers.
It should read (it’s since been corrected in the newspaper)
A judge refused to grant MeghanMarkle's request to stop depositions being taken, meaning that she and Harry will be grilled by Samantha Markle's lawyers.
Meghan and Harry will be deposed in Samantha Markle lawsuit
https://mol.im/a/11723917