As part of Samantha's lawsuit, the duo can be questioned.
That will be quite interesting - how far ranging could this go?
I don't know but it is interesting considering all the cases and the things which leaked out during them.
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
Judge rules Meghan and Harry must be grilled by lawyers for Samantha Markle's $75,000 defamation case accusing pair of 'lying about her in Oprah interview': Duchess' half-sister says she's suffered 'hatred on a worldwide scale'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11723917/Meghan-Harry-deposed-Samantha-Markle-lawsuit-judge-rules.html
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.
It would only be justice for the witch to be grilled by lawyers and to have to sweat under questioning. Let's hope the case goes ahead.
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
https://twitter.com/_Genevieves_/status/1622880153872261120
Sounds like Better Up isn’t long for this world.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2023
Blind Item #11
I don't know how desperate the ginger haired one is for money, but it must be desperate enough where he won't dump this awful social media app he shills for until his next payment comes due which is sometime in March. The app is going down hard and he should bail now.
'There is no way he would have ever turned it down': Tom Cruise 'will delay work on new Mission Impossible film' to attend King Charles' Coronation
***** Tom Cruise the super Royalist. My guess is he gets no sassing over Scientology there. Plus lots of his Mission Impossibles get filmed and produced there.
Thanks for the twitter link, I haven't seen any new C3 coins yet but I'll keep an eye out for them.
Seeking damages of $60,000 does not seem very much given the assertion of the worldwide infamy Samantha alleges. Is it really libel merely to assert one is an only child when that is not the case? How corruptible by fame are Californian judges who seem to be political appointees in any case?
The case is being heard in Florida, where Samantha lives. I don't think the Florida legal system is like the Britush one either.
The questions baffle me as well and I posted a few queries about it here on the blog. Samantha does have a lawyer, but I fail to discern a legal strategy in those questions.
IMO, TBW is going to destroy her sister, and if she can destroy her father and brother in the process, she will gladly do so.
As for the amount - it is the minimum required to bring a lawsuit of this kind. Samantha is not restricting herself but stating that amount as a minimum. A court will decide how much the damages are worth, if the jury gives Samantha a victory.
In the British court, TBW stonewalled the judge and did not hand in the evidence she was required to, and got away with it. She also lied to the judge and got away with it. Although I don't think Sanantha has a strong case, I do not think TBW and her hapless husband will get away with lies in an American court, but they will stonewall for as long as they can and bleed Samantha dry of money before the court case starts.
I completely agree with your post. The duo are manipulative and compulsive liars, and they will not get away with it in an American court.
The jury will be important ... either they will be bedazzled by the royal couple and leave their common sense at home, or they will punish them for their deception and word salad nonsense. The Sussex Squad will be there like a pack of rabid wolves defending their glorious goddess.
Can they refuse to answer questions in the deposition?
There's never been a better time for the Princess of Wales’s new private secretary to shake things up
I am hearing very positive things about Alison Corfield, the Princess of Wales’s new private secretary.
The former air stewardess, a 51-year-old mother of three, is set to “shake things up” at Kensington Palace following her appointment as Kate’s right-hand woman. She replaces Hannah Cockburn-Logie, a diplomat with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who stepped down shortly after the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year for personal reasons.
Corfield has been described in reports as “loud”, “persuasive”, “straight talking” and “a ball breaker”.
One friend told me this week that the Croydon-born brand management expert, who worked on Jamie Oliver’s free school meals campaign, is probably better characterised as “the life and soul of any party.” She’s been described to me as a fun-loving type who takes the work seriously, but not herself.
That is precisely the kind of person Team Wales needs right now. I am not for one minute suggesting that the future King and Queen do not enjoy their royal role - but it’s safe to say the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ antics on Oprah, Netflix and in Spare has sucked some of the joy out of it in recent months.
The couple have been trying to focus on their charitable endeavours - but with a dark Harry and Meghan-shaped cloud hovering over them, threatening to unleash a torrent at any moment. They have shown courage in refusing to be cowed by the friendly fire that has rained down on them since “Megxit” but I would like to see even more bravery from our future King and Queen.
Historically, their approach to their royal brief has been almost a little too “safe”. Because they are both quite shy, introverted people, they haven’t wanted to take too many risks. Yet they should take confidence from how easily they have recovered from recent Montecito misadventures - and use it as the impetus to push the boat out a little more.
Harry’s intention was clearly to portray his brother and sister-in-law as buttoned up compared to him and his “freedom-finding” wife - to confirm the public’s perception of both couples. But actually the unintended consequence of Harry’s autobiography is that it has shown a completely different side to William and Kate.
Far from being a couple of doormats, they called out the Sussexes’ increasingly erratic behaviour from the very beginning. Now we know what we know, their early suspicions about where Harry’s relationship with Meghan was taking him appear positively prophetic.
Moreover, far from seeming cold and unfeeling, William’s desperate, collar-grabbing bid to get through to Harry during that dog bowl disagreement showed just how much love he has for his little brother. It made him look edgy - which is not an adjective many people use about the Waleses.
So if down-to-earth, no nonsense Corfield is going to give William and Kate more confidence to be themselves and take a few more chances, then there couldn’t be a better time to “shake things up”.
Church of England might give God gender-neutral pronouns
https://nypost.com/2023/02/08/church-of-england-might-give-god-gender-neutral-pronouns/
'Ms Markle is also calling on Meghan to be interviewed on camera a day prior to the deposition' (as per DM article). Now that's something I'd love to see, and hopefully see the witch squirm.
I think a gender neutral deity would be heartily embraced by KCIII. He distressed the Queen and the Establishment a few years ago when he announced that once he acceded to his current role he wished to be known as the Defender of the FAITHS. That was a hard no from Mummy at the time but she is no longer here and Chas is doing things his way.
It’s a hard and frankly impossible line to walk in being the titular Head of the Church of England and therefore overtly sectarian yet be expected to preside as monarch with benignity and neutrality toward all as ruler of a culturally and religiously diverse kingdom. I’ve got no patience with the current “Wokery” but when it comes to God, actually gender neutral pronouns are most correct. God is neither male nor female; the Godhead is both. The English language forces us to choose one or the other which is why the current non-binary linguistic gymnastics are so awkward. God chose to create humans as male and female
To demonstrate that the deity is both energies at once. Together men and women in tandem
reflect God’s nature. Custom alone dictates that we call this entity “He”. We haven’t got a world that encapsulates both genders at once and maybe we should come up with one. God has no physical body so calling Him He or They doesn’t really matter—these are human distinctions. However if one professes the Trinity—God existing as 3 distinct beings, how can we separate them if they are all called “they”?
Charles is far less of a traditional list than his late mother so I expect we will be seeing some changes coming down the pike. I wonder if Charles is more fond of the current Archbishop than the Queen was. They might have a good deal more in common in their world outlooks.
I'm glad Catherine has had a lot of exposure recently, with nearly a visit to a school a day, for instance. At least she's trying to do something worthwhile with her Early Years programme.
I did read about God referred to with gender neutral pronouns but this hasn't been approved yet. In fact, the DM says 'However, such a radical rewriting would have to be agreed by the whole of the church's governing body, the General Synod, and would be fiercely resisted by traditionalists for breaking away from the words of the Bible.' Even if this was approved, I can't see it done in time for the Coronation (my opinion only).
I can see the judge's warning that the case could be dismissed. It is nothing more than two step siblings squabbling on a global stage. Samantha has creedence due to the Markle history unveiled in past court proceedings, what has been proven false in print, and the attorneys refusal to play in this case.
Depostions can be taken anywhere, so I am not looking for a court walk for a depo. I am looking forward to seeing this case proceed, as this may be how MM meets her end.
King Charles brushed off a member of the public's comments about Prince Harry with a chuckle as he arrived at the University of East London today.
The monarch, 73, was met with cheers as he stepped out of his black Rolls Royce at the premises this afternoon.
As the royal greeted members of the institution who were standing outside the building, a student in the crowd was heard yelling: 'Please bring back Harry!'
Appearing unbothered by the mention of the Duke of Sussex - who unleashed fresh bombshells on the Royal Family with his memoir Spare last month - King chuckled and said: 'Oh.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11727065/King-Charles-Queen-Camilla-meet-British-Bangladeshi-community-Brick-Lane.html
He distressed the Queen and the Establishment a few years ago when he announced that once he acceded to his current role he wished to be known as the Defender of the FAITHS
This is absolutely true. I remember when this happened. Charles the weak minded, was woke before there was woke. This is how and why * so easily charmed him with her 2020 version of woke. Hapless and Ch both got played the fool.
An interesting post about why she is so dangerous and why she is getting away with it ...
I disagree that the RF control the media. They are not protecting her or the hapless husband by controlling the media. They are not protecting them by remaining silent.
Any statement to the media simply gives a narc fuel, so the family are wise to not respond to the provocations from the duo. The duo are not rational or reasonable, nor do they have regard for anyone but themselves. Engaging with them, through the media or otherwise, is futile. The duo are desparate for engagement, but they cannot be trusted and that will not change.
Through the above post I found this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Meghans_Truth/
It seems to be a place to sort out fact from fiction, so it may be an interesting depository of information.
Great post about God and gender!
The English language has adapted and changed and grown over centuries. We need new pronouns because adapting the present ones is 'clunky'. I remember decades ago, in academic and educational book publishing, we tried to change the default position of using gender-specific pronouns to reflect a patriarchial world-view. It was awkward and we got resistance from conservatives in the educational and academic fields.
But we persisted (and the approach included artwork in educational books):
* Alternate using masculine and feminine pronouns by chapter.
* 'Shake up' patriarchial views by making the doctor a woman and the nurse a man; the teacher a man and the professor a woman ...
Of course, we were also challenging racial prejudices, so it was a time of exciting change!
God is both male and female so it os absurd that we always use masculine pronouns and titles to refer to God. It would be a challenge to invent new gender neutral words where these are missing in the language, but, as I said, English is famous for its ability to grow and change. More challenging would be changing hymns and prayers to reflect the new!
Linguists have suggested ways this can be done but there is a resistance to choosing to adapt. At present, the use of 'they' or 'them' to avoid specifying gender when referring to a person stifles and 'dumbs' down a language that has thrived by adapting and growing.
Re: Charles being"Defender of the Faiths"
I believe Charles is probably well meaning in his self-proclaimed assertion and title that he will be 'Defender of the Faiths'. But simply put..he truly cannot be that for Catholicism for at least several important reasons.
As a Roman Catholic, I think of how he benefits from the monarchy that took all the Catholic churches/monasteries and their lands which served as economic engines for UK development. It doesn't matter if some of the wealth was frittered away on wars starting with Hensy VIII etc...let KCIII pay reparations for the past deeds of the monarchy.
How can he "defend" my faith when his faith has different specific beliefs contrary to Catholicism; for exaple:
- Catholicism does not allow priests to marry, however some married priests of other Protestant traditions may be allowed to become Catholic priests.
- The COE officially denounces what it calls "the Roman Doctrine concerning Purgatory"
- The COE beleieves their leader, in the upcoming case of Charles is annoited by God, while Catholic Cardinals elect our church leader, the Pope.
- Henry VIII accepted the personally revised version of the bible by Martin Luther that eliminated certain books of the Bible compiled by the Catholic church.
Don't get me wrong, I respect the monarchy and desperately hope that it is not destroyed byCharles son and daughterin-law. I respect and like Charles and do admire his intent to "defend" them' WHATEVER Defend means!
But he sounds arrogant and presumptuous to say He Is The Defender of ALL Faiths.
And I won't wade into the controversy regarding the use of pronouns being contemplated by some clerics of the Church of England. But it won't surprise me if that becomes another distraction and issue fraught with ugly dissension.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books/zgbs/books/
This book gets 4.6 out of 5 stars, with 40,802 reviews. You can check out the reviews. I did not bother
I am grateful to Sandie for filling me in on the case of Markle -v- Markle. Courts of law are not really the place to try the truth of anything and Judges tend in my observation to be so impressed by celebrity they quite forget their duty to impartiality. I think I would, had I been consulted, have advised Samantha to write a book entitled My Sister the Duchess and I, rather than sue.
Bring back Harry! Can you please bring him back?
KCIII - who?
Your son!
KCIII smiles, chuckles and says "I know - would be nice."
The ball is in the Harkle court: KCIII is busy being King and preparing for his coronation. Harry is the one who left. IF the Markles appear for the coronation, it will be on KCIII's term and nothing else. AFter all, it is HIS coronation.
Would be nice is wishful thinking from a father. The King is the one who sets the rules this go round.
"I was just listening to Neil Sean and if you have not already heard this, Harry has contacted his attorneys to see if he can sue Sasha Walpole for invading his privacy !!!!!
This man is truly stupid."
The amount of money paid to Samantha could run into millions though. The $75k or whatever sum it stated, is meant in excess of $75k, not the amount requested/wanted.
Harry a disgrace/Samantha NAILING Meghan/SECRET supporters/$$$/Diana/ Eu...
https://youtu.be/2W0W1jaurVw
I think it is Heat that has an article about her wanting a third child but him not. Here is a tweet referencing the article:
https://twitter.com/ChangaDuchessof/status/1623303825175072768?t=mVdegIydbvT3TvcAt7vadg&s=09
She does not have much time to acquire a pregnancy to display, but that did not stop her from cupping at barely two months' pregnant in the past. But, I think she believes that a third child will automatically be a prince/princess if born as grandchild of the monarch, and that would give her leverage to get prince/princess titles for the other two children as well. But, my understanding is that the title is not an automatic entitlement but must be confirmed in Letters Patent by the monarch.
I don't think the marriage is floundering. But the following article, among many others, explains why she wanted children, and my take is that as they grow into some form of independence, she wants another baby to 'make it perfect this time':
"Like everything else in their lives, pathological narcissists need to be parents so they can feel good/better about themselves. Despite their public proclamations, everything is always about, for and because of themselves, and never the child. Having a child allows them to fictionally repackage their life in which their buried core shame is replaced with candy-coated feel-good illusions. These manifest as a “good-parent narrative” that is built upon distorted and often false facts, and a story that recasts them into a victim-turned-hero. These narratives allow them to experience superficial and repeated transient occurrences of the affirmation and validation that has been absent from their life, especially during their childhood. Such a contrived situation puts extra distance between them and their shameful feelings of being fundamentally inadequate or broken. ..."
https://humanmagnetsyndrome.com/hmsblog/narcissists-need-to-have-children/
The article continues, elaborating on these points:
GOOD-PARENT NARRATIVES
1. God . . . Giver of Life
2. The Opposite Parent
3. Vindication—Everyone Was Wrong About Me
4. Look at Me Now—I Was Always Good
5. This Will Heal My Trauma
6. Let Me Show You My Perfection
7. Someone Finally Needs Me!
8. My Child Will Make Me Immortal
CDAN blind today... claims that she slept with Getty's son before he killed himself.
Andrew Getty died in March 2915 from a bleeding ulcer but drugs were also related to his death. He lived in Hollywood Hills and was involved in producing/directing a film at the time of his death. He is also described as a philanthropist.
I doubt that their paths crossed, but she would definitely have been interested if they had. IMO the only way she could have met him is if she auditioned for his movie (they did not socialise in the same circles or the same places), but if she had, she would have exaggerated the encounter and added it to her list of accomplishments.
Some people speculate that TBW supplies information to CDAN. That does not mean that the information is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mLLF1696j4
In our new woke world, which aligns with the Charles, one forces others to follow what one dictates, and it is unthinkable to support or appreciate those different from oneself.
And, of course, it is tricky in the UK, where the sovereign is head of the Church of England and historically 'defender of the faith' refers to that role.
It will be interesting to see how Charles deals with the trickiness of this concept at his coronation because he does celebrate, respect and admire all religions, deeply, but is also head of the Church of England. I am sure woke Welby will be eager to help him with this dilemma!
If it is true, I wonder why they are so riled up.
I don't know if other UK Nutties are watching 'Marie Antoinette' about Marie-Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, but there are tensions between Louis and his younger brother who, with his wife, are always plotting against them as they want the throne. The younger brother's wife even faked a miscarriage. There was a scene tonight when Louis decked his brother who was later seen sporting a shiner (there was no dog bowl involved, though 😉)
Prince Harry's former lover Sasha Walpole revealed the Duke of Sussex is 'not the boy she remembers' and joked that he has 'traded down' by marrying Meghan Markle.
It's in the DM, the Mirror, the Independent, on Reddit and Twitter and in the NY Post😁. And the interviewer was none other than Piers Morgan😁
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11732547/Prince-Harrys-mystery-lover-Sasha-Walpole-jokes-traded-marrying-Meghan-Markle.html
"....Hapless has consulted with his lawyers about suing the older woman, Sasha Walpole. For what, I guess exposing him and his hapless todger.:
Well, I think The Todger has already been exposed enough!
And maybe Todger wants Ms. Walpole to shut-up before she reveals a little bit too much about what the todger looks and acts like in those brief, very brief 5 minutes.
Its kind of funny H appears to place more weight on the encounter. featuring it in a memoir, even embellishing it seems, while Ms. Walpole seemingly did not think much of the encounter. Too bad she didn't make bank off 'the quickie', like he did.
EXCLUSIVE 'He's not the boy I remember': Sasha Walpole, who took Prince Harry’s virginity, jokes to Piers Morgan on Talk TV that the Duke has 'traded down' by marrying Meghan Markle
Prince Harry's former lover Sasha Walpole revealed the Duke of Sussex is 'not the boy she remembers' and joked that he has 'traded down' by marrying Meghan Markle.
The digger driver - who has come forward as the woman who took Prince Harry's virginity - appears on the latest episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, which airs tonight at 8pm on TalkTV.
During the interview, Sarah, 40, was quizzed by the host about her feelings towards Meghan Markle.
Joking that the two women have 'a lot in common', Piers said: 'He's gone from a digger to a gold digger!'
Laughing along, Sasha then pointed out that both her and Meghan refer to Harry as 'H'.
Piers then went on to ask if Prince Harry - who now lives in Montecito, California after quitting royal life in 2020 - seemed 'happy' to her.
She replied: 'He's not the boy I remember, that's for sure.
'But again I'm not in his shoes, I have no idea what's going on in his head, I haven't seen him for 21 years.'
Piers added: 'Do you think he's traded up from you or down?'
Sasha replied with a laugh: 'Definitely down!'
Elsewhere in the interview with Piers Morgan, Sasha said she decided to come forward and reveal her identity because the speculation over Prince Harry's mystery lover was 'never going to stop'.
In his biography, Harry wrote how a horse-loving 'older woman' treated him 'not unlike a young stallion' and 'smacked my rump and sent me off to graze' after a 'quick ride'.
Sasha said: 'People are asking, family and friends. We know who it is, and then suddenly it's just a reality of 'This isn't going to go away'.
'Forever this is going to flare up. Until they know who it is, they're going to be questioning people.
'And yes I could not have said anything but then it's never going to stop.'
She added: 'He could have given me the heads up that you know, 'I'm going to put it in the book'.'
In an exclusive interview with the Mail on Sunday, Sasha revealed that she never spoke to Prince Harry again after they slept together in a field behind the The Vine Tree pub pub in Wiltshire.
Saha explained told how she and the young prince had become friends while she was a groom at the future King Charles's Gloucestershire estate, Highgrove. Mrs Walpole had invited the then 16-year-old to her 19th birthday party at The Vine Tree pub in the Wiltshire village of Norton in July 2001.
With Sasha feeling down in the dumps over an ex, Harry cheered her up by buying them ten shots. But when they sneaked out of the pub for a crafty Marlboro Light cigarette, they ended up clambering over a fence to make love in a field.
'He started to kiss me,' she told The Mail on Sunday. '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.'
She then returned to the pub while Harry hid in a phone box where his security detail found him. She rang her sister, Jodie Mayhead, the next day and the two women giggled about it.
In Spare, Harry writes that it was 'a quick ride, after which she'd smacked my rump and sent me off to graze'. Today his description of it being 'inglorious' makes Sasha laugh. 'I don't mind him saying that because it isn't really very glorious, is it? We were drunk and having sex in a field.'
And she clearly remembers giving Harry a one-handed smack on the bottom as their five-minute sex session came to a hurried close.
'It's his sense of humour. [We were part of] a massive horse scene and the slap happened in a horsey context, the book is a funny interpretation of that.
'His description is accurate – the real shock when I saw what he'd written was how true it was. That's what took me back the most. I'm not offended.
'Afterwards I did grab his bum and give him a slap. I gave him a little squeeze as well. He had a peachy bum. I don't know about the stallion thing; I think that was more to do with the fact that I worked with horses.
'To tell the truth, he didn't make sure I was happy. He was young. It's not until you are older you understand that stuff. It really was just a moment of passion.'
The sound of their friends spilling out into the pub car park brought the pair swiftly back to reality and they panicked at the idea of being spotted together. They also realised that when Harry had failed to appear at closing time, his security detail would have gone in search of him. They separated to return to The Vine Tree in the hope of keeping their encounter secret.
Sasha says: 'Afterwards there was the realisation, 'S***! What are we doing? Where do we go from here?' I don't remember us kissing, it was just 'Okaaaaayy!'
'We got up, put our clothes back on and agreed we had to go in separate directions back to the pub which, in hindsight, probably made it more obvious. If we'd only gone for a cheeky cigarette, we would have returned together. We had only been gone about 15 minutes in total – but it was long enough for his security to start worrying.
[And the article goes on]
So that was 22 years ago and probably the very first and last time 5 Minutes had stood anyone a drink, never mind 5.
5 seems to be H’s cosmic number as it keeps cropping up. Very ungentlemanly to spill tales like that for money. Did Chelsy know she was getting used goods?
5 Minutes is on the cover of Kneepads this week with the headline “My Own Words”. Lord knows nobody else wants to lay claim to them, you tosser. As has been remarked elsewhere, about halfway through Spare the tone changes drastically, marking the exact moment when I suspect JR Moeringer bailed on the project and 5’s ball and chain took over. I hope JR got well-paid for his contribution to this travesty.
Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Neil Sedaka
Oh! Carol
Sasha Didtell*
Oh! Harold, you really are a tool
Sasha broke you
made you look a fool
She rode you
slapped you on the thigh
You are no stallion
yet another lie
Harold there will never be another
bare arsed rider wearing spare
Good onya Sasha
she really didn’t care
Sasha didn’t want you
for a sweetheart
That I’m sure is true
a five minute fumble
a feeble messy screw
Oh, Harold, she’s alright feck you…
*Sacha Distel
Revelation
Charles Coronation
causing consternation
Should all be included
within the congregation
‘tis after all a titular role
Not undermining Rabbi, Imam
Pope or troll
Defender of the Faith
was all well in ‘53
Let’s move with the times
Defender of Faiths in ‘23…
https://archive.is/2023.02.09-220923/https://pagesix.com/2023/02/09/prince-harry-meghan-markle-hire-moneyman-adam-lilling/
She has not given up one little bit of her aim of world domination. She wants revenge on Hollywood, who did not make her a star, and the royal family, who did not make her Queen, or at least treat her as if she was. And most of all, she wants immense wealth and power.
That Adam Lilling loves Archetypes and is hugely anti-monarchy (and thus anti UK) proves my point: one does not have to be intelligent, of good character, have class or a decent moral compass to be very wealthy and powerful.
Summary: he is a major deal maker and hugely influentual in Hollywood but is not interested in content or quality ... just making deals. He has done deals with Ellen, and was at the birthday party turned vows renewal with the Harkles.
'Lilling told the publication: “Our mission is to take people who can affect change in the world and marry them with the top operators and entrepreneurs.”
He continued, “We’re not really focused on their entertainment endeavors. We’re focused on connecting their profits, their passion, and purpose with profit opportunities in the private equity landscape.”'
A visual montage of Charles and Harry through the years.
Every frame proves H is a poisonous liar. Charles showed much affection to his ‘darling boy’ and was remarkably tactile despite his repressed parental models. He made a concerted effort to be more like the father he wished he would’ve had. And contrary to H’s recollection, there was much bicycle riding and sport in general. Having one’s kid completely turn on one and concoct hurtful false narratives must be so painful especially for a sensitive soul like Charles.
If it’s not too disrespectful, may I just observe that KCIII had a very healthy bum back in the day and still does for a man of his age.
The Sasha interview with Piers Morgan.
She comes across as a really nice person: honest, straightforward, decent ... actually, everything his wife is not! And she does not spout opinions about anything and everyone or cash in on trashing people. Her advice to hapless? Sort out your family estrangement because life is too short, and be happy.
Surprisingly, everyone who works for the royals signs NDAs. She was a groom at Highgrove, so knew Charles. She won't say anything, because of the NDA, other than that he is a really lovely guy (not her words but pretty much what she says). She also knew William, who was actually at the pub that night.
@Hikari
God Save the King
"In our new woke world, which aligns with the Charles[Harkles], one forces others to follow what one dictates, and it is unthinkable to support or appreciate those different from oneself."
-----
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/10y759m/the_unfounded_theory_is_that_no_rich_person_even/
Why is the 10 million in their account been attributed to 'a mystery donor', with all sorts of speculation?
It comes from a SVCF (silicon valley community foundation = anonymous donor service).
Oh, now I see why it is mysterious! The donor uses the fund to make specific donations and remain anonymous. The money came from an individual and not a corporation, and that individual specified that 10 million must be given to the Harkles.
https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/
They donated nothing to this fund at all, and I removed the filter for the year, but they were given 10 million, which is huge compared with the amounts of other grants:
https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/impact/grants-catalog#grants
I almost forgot ... there is a new Palace Confidential.
likable and equally importantly she is English and as such would have been a very popular Duchess - and then he goes and marries the Californian botox grifter.
Major English public schools: debatable
Undoubted: Eton, Harrow, Winchester.
There's a list of the many English independent/public schools, at different levels of prestige, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_independent_schools_in_England
. Epsom seems to have been going through difficult times, to judge from its Wikipedia entry. Given that the only person I've ever knowingly met, connected with Epsom, was a retired neighbour in the 1950s who'd been a lab.tech there, I doubt it comes up very high on the Major/minor scale, probably even lower now. Back in the 60s, I met a lot of public school chaps at university (as well as from all the noted grammar schools of the time) but Epsom? No.
Somewhere else it was stated that 5 Minute Man was going to sue the Sasha lady for invasion of privacy. The lunacy is real, not made up.
Hopefully Gordon Getty's family will put a stop to him giving alms to Royalty who are rolling in the $$$. Ridiculous!
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/read-this/king-charles-plans-prince-edward-for-duke-of-edinburgh-title-not-princess-charlotte-after-change-of-heart
I agree that the perfect wife for Harry is a Sasha - decent, honest, down-to-earth, and seems like great fun. Instead he chose someone who profits from him being a nasty, dishonest, prat, talking in woke gibberish and without a moral compass. The best of him got left behind when he met TBW. IMO, the drinking, dope smoking and sitting round watching TV shows or drinking and smoking dope with friends made him very open and vulnerable to the predator that captured him. With all that time on his hands, he made no effort to learn how to cook, read, play a game of squash a few times a week, hwlp out on the royal estates, educate himself in any way ..
@snarkyatherbest
Thanks for the explanation, especially for the explanation of why the speculation that they essentially donated to themselves as a tax dodge is not crazy. It is most odd. A lot of money goes through that fund but mostly in small donations of round about 10 000*, and the occasional 100 000, so that 10 million really stands out. Very fishy. *For example, an amount of 10 000 was given to multiple Catholic parishes helping the poor, which combined would add up to at least a million, but maybe more as I only looked at a few pages.
Duchess of Sussex loses battle to avoid giving evidence in half-sister's court case
A Florida judge denied Meghan’s application to halt the discovery process pending a motion to have the case dismissed.
It means that both the Duchess and Prince Harry will be forced to give filmed depositions, under oath, if the case moves ahead.
https://tinyurl.com/467xnke2
I agree that someone like Sasha would have been a better partner for Harry—down to earth, uncomplicated, healthy, deeply invested in the country pursuits that were so important to the late Queen and Charles. Sarah Ferguson’s father Maj. Ronald was HM’s Master of Horse and his daughter was deemed good enough to marry in even though not an aristocrat. A groom might have been considered too humble as wife for a Royal Prince, though had Harry’s family had an inkling what the future would bring, they would have known H would do far worse in choice of spouse than a woman dedicated to HM’s service who was British—and though “older” is still younger than Harry’s wife. Also it certainly would have raised eyebrows if it was officially known at the time that a 19 year old woman had had carnal knowledge of a prince who was only 16. It might not qualify as statutory rape legally but still might have been perceived as predatory on her part. That would have reversed historical stereotypes a bit—it’s usually a highborn lady consorting with stable hands and getting into trouble, at least in novels.
Harry is and was no prize for a partner, which is why he wound up with Maggot. Sasha could have cashed in on her tryst with a teenage Harry but kept mum for 22 years until he spilled the beans. And he threatens to sue *her* for breaching *his* privacy??? How? He put it in the book… The only privacy she’s breached is her own by providing her own name. What he doesn’t like is that she has taken control of the narrative back and is getting attention and being humorous at his expense. What he really fears is that she will tell Piers Morgan and the world that his Todger is the size of a cocktail sausage and just as satisfying. Without any reference to size, she’s already implied that their encounter was a nothingburger from her side. That is hardly shocking. H is too selfish to be a Lothario…and based on the infamous shot of him covering the family jewels with both hands in Vegas, there’s not much there to write home about. Harry’s got wispy hands and everything was well-hidden.
H thinks himself far better than a member of the horse staff … And if he were really that into horses or country life in general, he would’ve happily based himself in Scotland or at that organic estate near Wales that Charles wanted to gift him. All of H’s past girlfriends and one-night stands—or in Sasha’s case—5 minute fumbles—dodged a bullet of misery and should be glad. Five Minute Man is a miserable tosser.
Yes we covered it. I wondered if they are allowed to 'plead the fifth' in a deposition. They will not be deposed together so could contradict each other if one of them forgets or wanders from the script. They will have a team of lawyers with them, but it will be tricky and expensive for them. The duo will try to make this as difficult and expensive for Samantha as they can, but Lady C says some rich unnamed people are willing to assist Samantha in this battle.
No one in the real royal family would let a nasty family fallout come to this. No matter how they will claim victimhood, blaming and smearing Samantha, they are not going to gain approval from the royal family. Right back when this started with her father, the late Queen and Charles asked her to go and see her father and sort it out.
It seems they're being given a deadline by which to reply to their Coronation invitations. She won't like that.
Thanks. Apologies for this oversight, I was travelling that day so must have missed it. It would be very good indeed mid some rich people were willing to assist Samantha with her case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11727351/Harry-Meghans-Archewell-Foundation-got-10m-mystery-donor.html
^^^^^^^ Not much new here but..... The Archewell word salad of a mission statement looks all Meghan's
I had already posted a comment (see Feb 9, 2023, 6:43 PM) and the link to Lady C’s video stating that Samantha had powerful backers. She for obvious reasons can’t name them, but it was not new news even for Lady C as she said some time back, good people were supporting Samantha. 😃
celebritytarot
9th Feb 2023
1. Will prince Harry attend Charles' coronation?
AoS Rx, Death, 9oW Rx, BOD - 2oS Rx
No. And I think it'll be coz they (palace and sussexes) aren't able to reach some "conclusion". Almost like either both are refusing to budge from their stance, or else the palace offers some options to sussexes and none of these options are palatable to them. It's like 'my way or high way' with them. The "negotiations" that are going on behind the scenes will not be able to reach a conclusion due to which Harry won't attend or will not be able to attend. I don't know what these negotiations are about as I haven't looked into it yet.
2. Will Meghan markle attend Charles' coronation?
9oW Rx, Empress, AoC, BOD - KnoC Rx
No. The real reason for not attending is because Harry is not coming (KnoC Rx), but the reason given out to the public will be something to do with her children/being a mother/ or being an accomplished homemaker who prioritises her family over everything else. OR, it could be some other reason related to her children for which she is refusing to budge or negotiate (9oW Rx, Empress, AoC). Like for example she's asking for security for her kids but palace is not giving it, or she's asking for titles for her kids but palace is not giving it, or maybe anything else that she wants for her children but she isn't getting it. Just like Harry, she wants all her demands to be met, and she isn't willing to compromise. Only difference between both of them is that Meghan's demands seem to be solely focussed on her children (for the coronation) while Harry has even more demands as he wants some official role as well. (Quite interesting Meghan has no delusions of even trying to appear a working member of brf, but it is Harry who still wants it).
3. Why will Harry not go to the coronation?
6oS, AoP, 3oP, BOD-4oC Rx
He wants clarity from the palace regarding some issue that they aren't providing to him. Like he wants the palace to guarantee him something and they are refusing to do so. Along with that it's almost like he also wants an official statement to be put out by palace regarding something (6oS,AoP), but obviously they aren't doing it. So in turn he won't show up at the coronation. This could be related to money or money adjacent like titles/security/inheritance etc. And another reason for not attending is also coz he wants a larger role in the coronation proceedings which he isn't getting (AoP, 3oP). He wants to appear as a "team/unit" with the working royals in the coronation formalities, and I'm assuming he isn't getting any official role to play, so he's refusing to come. He's being extremely stubborn and he wants his every whim pandered to but that isn't happening (4oC Rx). Like I said above, my way or high way with them.
* The BRF must apologize to the Harkles, publicly.
* Not only must the Harkles appear on the balcony, but the King must do so holding Archie. (Does the writer realize that Archie is a big lad now, the kid comes across as hyperactive, and the kid does not not know the king.)
I came across yet another article about 'moving on' from attacking the BRF this year, in the Express. (Everything is calculated with them, rather than genuine.)
The rumour was that they had pencilled in this year for the year of reconciliation, but their terms seem to be public apology, some kind of official role in the monarchy, access to money, photos of the children with the King. Their fantasy seems to include some kind of scene where the Prince and Princess of Wales bend the knee to them and abjectly confess, apologize and ask for forgiveness, and they think that through interviews and the podcast and memoir they have stacked up sufficient 'evidence' of wrongdoing.
I don't think they are going to get what they want, even with the Archbishop trying to persuade the king on their behalf.
How ludicrous - did she get the idea from the Sunday Sport? A newly-crowned, 73-year-old king struggling to hold a heavy, wriggling, and probably terrified, child to whom he is a complete stranger, without dropping him off said balcony, as the nation acclaims Charles as our new monarch and Archie as his rightful successor (or even Archie as the new king).
At least when Edward I held up his son as Prince of Wales, as `someone who spoke no word of English, the child was new born and at no risk of being dropped onto the streets of Caernarfon below.
And yet I see the report as being consistent with the fantasies of someone who is stark, staring, raving mad - on a par with some of the alleged statements of Idi Amin about Princess Anne...
I'm surprised she hasn't demanded that she rides to and from the Abbey in the golden State Coach, behind the rest of the King and the rest of the family who are barefoot and clad in their own choice of hair shirts/sackcloth and ashes, while Harry runs along behind. Perhaps that demand has yet to come.
As the Daily Mirror puts it today :
` The To Di For host, Kinsey Schofield, said: "Public relations wise, this is a requirement. If Charles does not invite Harry and Meghan, the pair will weaponize the slight."'
For the Twats, “reconciliation” means that KCIII and William are supposed to grovel in abject contrition for the “mistreatment” of the Harkles and their insufficiently effusive response to Harry’s wife. They want unlimited funds, security and titles for the kids. They want all the cake on both continents. Basically they consider reconciliation to be Charles giving them all their demands which the Queen denied at Megxit. They want everything they want with no consequences for their disloyalty and open sedition against the Crown. They will never ever admit remorse or fault and strive to reach a compromise on anything. Therefore insurpisingly they have no actual clue what the word means.
I have read in a published story somewhere that H will have no official role in the Coronation and any attendance by him or his wife would be as spectators only. As a Royal Duke he would be expected to pledge himself as his father’s liege man of life and limb against all manner of folks. Considering that Harold is precisely what KCIII needs protection against, 5’s continued possession and use of his ducal title is nonsensical. William will take the oath first and everyone else after him. Harold comes off the worse no matter what. The Harkles did their utmost to turn the Queen’s Jubilee and her funeral week into circuses starring themselves. Charles should expect no less if they attend. Major Johnny is going to have bigger responsibilities as chief equerry to the monarch to babysit Maggot and Mole.
Did I say New York? No, it is the Washington Post, and I am an idiot!
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
Jan 29
Everything we previously told followers on the Coronation is being revealed now:
-They are invited
-(Since Megxit) recommended to renounce titles on their own volition; show no signs of doing so
-Palace won't 'strip titles' but legal process underway to further 'slim' Monarchy
-----
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1619558679296229377
Hmmmm. Lady C aaaaalmost makes it sound as though this dam burst of information is being carefully coordinated. What do y'all think, or is this just me?
Very much coordinated, going on what Lady C has been alluding to over recent months. 😀
Well, it might work for one small sector of King Charles's people (a group that's easily outnumbered twice over by another minority group) but the most of the rest us us would take a very dim view of it.
So far, CRIII has not given an inch to H, as far as I recall- the beard & wearing the uniform were allowed by ERII. I believe the new `H(is) M(ajesty)' is much stronger than he is usually given credit for - he just doesn't make a song and dance about it.
Do the people that write this tripe lack critical-thinking skills?
Because the boy is black and the girl is not?
Does the writer imply that the girl is not black?
How's that work? Is she suggesting surrogacy for the girl?
Not like any of them are really black. Two of the whitest kids one has ever seen.
If the kids shown are truly Harkles. Which is also doubtful.
---------------
I'm afraid this would sound the death knell of the monarchy. Quite apart from that, why would Charles want to hold Archie on the balcony on the day of the Coronation? It doesn't make sense and sounds ridiculous (IMO). Wishful thinking from those two over in California.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZJtjVgNgmo
Five Minute ManBoy will not have an opportunity to go up to the King at the Coronation, and refuse the pledge. The opportunity has been taken away from Five Minute ManBoy.
`The sight of Charles, in crown, holding up Harry and Meghan’s son, Archie, on coronation day would go a long way to reverse recent damage.'
Well, it might work for one small sector of King Charles's people (a group that's easily outnumbered twice over by another minority group) but the most of the rest us us would take a very dim view of it.
So far, CRIII has not given an inch to H, as far as I recall- the beard & wearing the uniform were allowed by ERII. I believe the new `H(is) M(ajesty)' is much stronger than he is usually given credit for - he just doesn't make a song and dance about it.
Do the people that write this tripe lack critical-thinking skills?
I can just hear the choir singing "The Circle of Life" in the background. Did somebody watch The Lion King one too many times?
hmmmm will they acknowledge surrogate on L$ and are betting on arches or my conspiracy theory on a saturday night is there is something in the background about archie that they keep taunting about. we are fairly certain that arch was also a surrogate. some speculation that the lad stays with the surrogate after birth and after intervention by the BRF there is something so off about all the pr directed about archie. it’s like the you think you have a secret well we have a secret whose gonna spill it first. i just think there is something off on this focus on archie and not lilibuck$
I've read a couple of times that it'll be only William who pledges allegiance, not Harry nor any peer, hereditary or otherwise.
------
The balcony appearances are politically symbolic, not trivial, neither a bit of fun nor a photo opportunity. * and H have forfeited their right to be there many times over.
Who is this claimed 'royal expert' who claims that Archie's birthday is a perfect excuse for TBW to miss the coronation? Charles Rae, a former royal correspondent at The Sun. This 'will she, won't she' makes her important and the centre of attention, which she craves. And all the tabloids are happily being manipulated by her to give her that attention.
I suspect that she is already planning her 'outfit' for the day and is having a 'woke Californian' coronet designed and made for the day.
-----
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1733748/King-Charles-III-Prince-Harry-coronation-invite-PR-crisis-dxus
More of the 'King good guy, Prince of Wales bad guy' theme. This is from a senior person at the tabloids so I suspect she does have 'palace sources' but I think she is putting a spin on what 'insiders' actually said and what they actually mean.
-----
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1733705/meghan-markle-prince-harry-king-charles-coronation-invite-royal-family-news
And they are so important, that they have to have three scenarios planned for them! Once again, this puts them at the centre of the coronation, and they are loving the speculation and the attention it gives them and how important it makes them feel!
It's just occurred to me that the one `Diana look' that * has never copied is that from the time of her attending one of Hasnat Khan's heart operations - and inadvertently the Princess of Wales nailed it instead:
Diana in surgical mask:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/06/24/21/30019804-8455991-image-a-2_1593031228546.jpg
- and the then-Duchess of Cambridge:
https://s.abcnews.com/images/GMA/duchess-cambridge-prince-philip-funeral-02-gty-iwb-210419_1618846167499_hpEmbed_3x2_992.jpg
A long article from Royston pointing out where they five times when he wrongly blamed the media. Royston tries to be fair and keeps the language civil, but those two repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot and never own up to doing anything 'wrong'..
This is why they cannot be trusted and why and reconciliation or engagement with them is dangerous.
The five occasions:
* Publishing their lengthy Megxit statement when the late Queen asked them to wait, thus blindsiding her.
* Boasting about his kills in Afghanistan. (It was not the number that the Taliban objected to but him describing killing them as if it was a game.)
* The racism accusations, which they did nothing to retract for 18 months, when he then said it was 'unconscious bias'.
* The bullying accusations, which they vehemently denied, but which he confirms in his book, without using the term 'bullying'.
* A rant against the British press for publishing photos of him naked in Vegas, fooling around with some unknown women, when he was actually in a relationship with Cressida. It was not the British press, but TMZ who got the scoop. The Sun only published the photos after they had been published around the world and everyone had seen them.
This is a fascinating thread, packed with details. Here is a taster:
"It seems to me that via the guidance of someone like Teneo’s Tim Burt, Harry and Meghan pulled a similar strategy of derailing a deal from the inside when they determined that number two status wasn’t something they wanted, and then tried to kill the merger but get themselves off the hook for having been at fault for the destruction, using a similar strategy of leaks and manipulating the narrative perception. And any time someone tried to “save the deal” it would never have been good enough, because the strategy was indeed to tank it."
And this comment:
"She married in and joined the royal family, so the deal was that they would become some amount of working Royals within whatever confines that would be. That was the alleged deal that the BRF thinks they are all making. But the conditions were not to TW’s liking, they wanted to get out of the partnership of being working second-tier Royals. But they couldn’t just walk away because they would pay a price (reputationally and financially) and they needed to look like they left with clean hands in order to monetize their future, so they used the media and different strategies to make it appear that they didn’t do anything, but they were forced to be no longer a part of that family through no fault of their own.
Teneo, a professional, CEO, strategy, coaching, and PR ops management firm, has an established way that they destroy deals when someone in the deal is there client and doesn’t want to be a part of it anymore, but needs to go out looking clean.
Considering that Harry and Meghan later have today executive appear in their Harry and Meghan Netflix documentary and also hire him at Archwell, it certainly makes sense that they could have known about and used this Teneo strategy."
I’m posting this, but can’t vouch for its authenticity. Harry drunk driving in Montecito.
@sandie…very interesting. I can well believe they hired Teneo. Suits them perfectly.
starting at: ` Can you dumb it down for the dumbasses such as myself?
What were Harry and Meghan trying to get out of contract wise?
you'll find this, from Duchess-D, about the term `reconciliation':
I need to learn more about how this word works in the context of Ireland. I have found some papers discussing this, as it relates to northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the south. And I do believe it means something specific. But I don’t 100% have the historical and political context to understand whether reconciliation means that one of their goals is getting northern Ireland away from being a part of the United Kingdom and reconciling the two halves of Ireland back together? Or if it means some thing more spiritual like being Catholics versus church of England and reconciling the two faiths. If anyone does know about Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the term reconciliation in that context, I would love to hear it.
It almost feels like I have stumbled onto a super good tinfoil hat theory that two of the wealthiest, and most powerful Irish American men have a shared orbit around Meghan Markle the result of which has been an Irish American, marrying the prince, and then blowing up the royal family, causing the rest of the globe to wonder if they’re racists, and for Australia to decide to no longer keep the monarchy on their bills, and forward to Jamaica to move forward with its move to become a full separate republic….. makes me wonder if these two men conspired with Meghan Markle to be able to finally reconcile the two Ireland’s back together away from the United Kingdom? Oy!
BINGO!
That makes perfect sense to me. `Reconciliation' is another term for establishing a single political entity in Ireland aka `the whole of the island of Ireland', as used by Republicans, it involves the capitulation of the North. It's the bogey that frightens the majority in the six counties of Northern Ireland (note, I don't say `Ulster' - that ancient province consisted of 7 counties - Donegal opted to join what was then called `The Irish Free State' in 1922).
The six counties have a presbyterian protestant majority, known in the US I believe as `Scotch Irish', who are devout monarchists many of whom would defend their right to be British to the death. So a plot to discredit the Royal Family and, by extension, the monarchical principle, could go a long way to weaken the link between Northern Ireland
and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I don't think `reconciliation' has anything to do with religion but I don't want to take that any further..
An interesting video from Baggage Claim about how the values of the duo do not match the values of the monarchy. I think she summarizes the problem so well. Unfortunately, tabloids focus on those who serve self (celebrity culture). In the UK, the royal family represent service to others, integrity and so on. But they get a lot of attention, like celebrities. It is not surprising that this clash of values played out in the institution.
I did a five card reading with Cosmic Tarot to discover: are they together (rumours are they are separated), are they divorcing (I've seen that in my cards before), are they coming to the coronation, what is the state of their finances, and what happens next.
Are they together?
Four of Swords RX - I immediately read this as no, not together, definitely on a break from each other. Upright four of swords is the rest card, meaning quiet time. Reversed the time-out message of this card is emphasised, it is also about living apart and a change in a relationship.
So are they divorcing?
Six of Wands - this is the traditional victory card, it can mean that a legal matter goes in your favour. This is a card of relief after a difficult time and often a card that brings good news of celebration. Interesting depiction in this deck, the male warrior has turned his back on the lion that is wearing a crown, so I am inclined to say, read with the on-a-break-card maybe the divorce is all but done and signed??
Are they coming to the coronation?
Five of Pentacles RX - this is the exile card, and the card of extreme loss, in the RX even more so. This is exiled in the extreme... for whatever reason, this card is telling me not to expect the couple at the coronation.
What is the state of their finances?
King of Swords - this is the traditional divorce card, so I am inclined to think more seriously they are definitely divorcing and that they are in the process of dividing their finances. It is also a card of being calculating, so there is some good reason why a divorce at this point makes logical sense.
What happens next?
Eight of Wands - swift and sudden news. A big breaking story? This is a front page news story.
Underlying energy
Justice - this confirms for me that there are legal matters going on in the background, giving credence to divorce proceedings. It is also a karma card. It could also refer to the multiple lawsuits they and Bouzy and others are facing. It seems that Sam Markles lawsuit is focused on exposing them, but particularly Meg. These are a serious threat to the Harkles.
Second underlying energy
The Tower - this is a sudden catastrophic end. Everything comes tumbling down. Could it be that Sam's lawsuit succeeds in exposing the truth? It is also the toppling of a leader and loss of status, could it be that the Sussex titles are imminently going to be stripped? Could the calculating moves around a swift divorce be the way Meg gets to keep the Sussex title?
Based on this reading, I am sticking to my prediction that this marriage is all but over. News of a completed divorce may take us all by surprise. They will not come to the coronation as a couple, but that is not to say that H might not come on his own.
I drew two clarifiers on the underlying energy of catastrophic lawsuits, 8 Pentacles RX - huge financial losses, so it is going to cost H to get out of the marriage, and Nine of Cups - a wish come true. It could be that divorce is a precondition for H to get his wish to attend the coronation. It could also signal that there is a tentative reunion with his family. And for Meg it may be that the settlement figure is what she wanted.
Are they together?
Four of Swords
Yes. Has been conflict and unhappiness, but have made peace and are resting, relaxing, taking refuge as a couple and family at home (because they blame outside forces for troubles).
So are they divorcing?
Six of Wands
No. Energies in balance. Quarreling stopped. Very in love at present.
Are they coming to the coronation?
Five of Pentacles
Depends. Very worried about how decision will affect them materially. Which action builds their 'brand' and enhances their reputation in order to build wealth? (Could be trying to get something materially from the King and attendance depends on if they get it or not.)
What is the state of their finances?
King of Swords
Completely depends on public image. They are completely focused on money and reputation. In this they are at best clever, active, skilled, fierce, courageous but unreflective; at worst, indecisive, deceitful, tyrannical, crafty.
What happens next?
Eight of Wands
Yep, something very public like a statement or interview. It will be sudden and get a lot of attention but will be a 'flash in the pan'.
Underlying energy
Justice
Lawsuits, trial, marriage, treaties. She is being sued by Samantha; he is suing the British tabloids and the British government/monarchy. They want their Megxit manifesto demands met. They could be renewing their vows or negotiating some kind of marriage contract, as a reaction to their recent troubles (especially her).
Second underlying energy
The Tower
Oh dear ... Quarrel, combat, danger, ruin, destruction, ambition, sudden 'death', escape from prison. Whatever it is, from any of the above 'themes', they are facing sudden and catastrophic destruction. (It could mean that they are trying to destroy the tabloids, the monarchy and the British government, to escape 'the prison of their past'- this is what motivates everything for them.)
Clarifiers (lawsuits)
Eight of Pentacles; Nine of Cups
Most of their focus and energy is here (the lawsuits). They risk losing it all by being obsessed with small, petty things.
The lawsuits are actually about pleasure happiness, emotions, physical well-being. (I see it as blind to real cause of troubles and instead blaming media, monarchy, family ... their happiness and well-being depends on 'defeating these enemies'.) Dangers for them that they are unaware of are vanity, self-praise, conceit, over-indulgence (the real cause of unhappiness).
-----
Her slagging off the Royal Family from the US might be a Good Thing from an Irish perspective by increasing the level of American donations to the `Cause' - and the racism allegations could well chime with memories of English lodging houses which once displayed signs saying `No Blacks- No Dogs - No Irish'. ( `No drunken conduct' would have been safer.)
Whether *'s help is witting or unwitting is impossible to say. Her comments when in Ireland suggested she didn't pay much attention to Irish affairs, like not realising that abortion can still be a sensitive topic in a country which had been a theocracy for decades.
(Hint: by all means enjoy a night out at an `Irish pub' in London or elsewhere but best leave well before closing time if you wish to avoid embarrassment when asked to contribute to the collection. Refusal could be awkward.)
................
Meghan Markle's plot to take down the Royal Family exposed by MI6
The recent revelation that Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, allegedly orchestrated a plan to publish a tell-all book about her time within the royal family has sent shockwaves through the British monarchy.
The book, written by Omid Scobie, a known associate of the Duchess, was slated to be published next year and promised to reveal the inner workings of the royal family, with a particular focus on Meghan's strained relationships with King Charles and Prince William.
However, the plan has been completely exposed as the British intelligence agency MI6 reportedly caught Scobie red-handed with 50 photographs of Princess Charlotte, the daughter of Prince William and Kate Middleton. According to sources, the photographs were taken by Meghan and were intended to be used as a way to promote the book and garner public interest.
It appears that Scobie, who is known as a "little mouth organ" for Meghan, could not wait to profit from the book, which has been described as a regurgitation of previous tell-all accounts about the royal family.
However, MI6 had been keeping a close eye on Scobie and reportedly had a criminal file on him due to concerns that he posed a potential threat to the royal family.
Scobie was reportedly on a blacklist and there is now no chance that the book will be published as planned.
Under pressure from MI6, Scobie reportedly admitted that Meghan had hired him to write the book and that all of the ideas had been drafted by Meghan herself.
He also revealed that Meghan had sent him photographs that she had taken inside Buckingham Palace, many of which have never been seen before, including ones of Princess Charlotte in her bedroom.
This revelation supports previous allegations that Meghan had sneaked into Charlotte's room while the princess was sleeping.
Kate Middleton, the princess's mother, had reportedly smashed Meghan's camera during the incident, but the Duchess had still managed to keep the photographs.
Scobie stated that his role in the book was simply to connect sentences and make it sound cohesive.
In exchange for his cooperation, MI6 reportedly promised Scobie that if he told the truth about Meghan, he would be forgiven.
Scobie provided MI6 with his tracking reports on Meghan, which reportedly detailed how many people have claimed to have suffered abuse, both physical and emotional, at the hands of the Duchess.
There were also reports of how Meghan, who is described as believing she is the "Queen of the Universe," had mistreated staff, including terrorizing them, demanding work changes, and screaming at kitchen staff.
In the past, Queen Elizabeth had requested a report to be done on the matter, but it was sealed after she reviewed it.
It is now speculated that the report may be made public in light of these recent revelations.
The royal family is also said to be preparing to release a highly critical report about Meghan in response to the recent events. Buckingham Palace has also launched an investigation into claims that the Duchess drove out two personal assistants and humiliated other royal staff on multiple occasions.
The investigation has concluded, but the findings have not been made public yet. However, a crisis expert has stated that the palace will publish the report when the timing is right, possibly after the release of the second volume of the Netflix docu-series about the royal family.
https://royaltrends.quora.com/Meghan-Markles-Plot-to-Take-Down-from-Royal-Family-Exposedby-MI6
I agree with you that reconciliation in the context of Ireland is nothing to do with religion, it's to do with a united Ireland. Whether this will ever happen is debatable . There has certainly been a push towards a united Ireland in recent years. Ireland is a complex issue which, I fear, without wishing to sound patronising, is not usually well understood the other side of the pond.
If you wish to find out more:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland
https://www.politico.eu/article/poll-ireland-unification-support-costs-brexit/
I do not find the information on Quora credible at all, but suspect that there are grains of truth in it.
* They had no kitchen staff at their various residences, but she was reportedly reprimanded by the late Queen for how she spoke to/treated kitchen staff at Windsor Castle during preparations for their wedding.
* The only time she could have taken photographs of Charlotte, asleep in her bedroom, was at Amner Hall, when they stayed their during the Christmas before the wedding. Certainly not in Buckingham Palace. Although I do not find the story of her taking photographs of any of the children without permission completely unlikely, there is no way she could use the photographs. Even hapless would object, because it would be quite clear how she got the photographs. The bit about Catherine smashing the camera but the photographs were saved is ridiculous. Besides, the Harkles use their phones to take photographs and videos.
* MI6 and Scobie? Pure fantasy! There is no reason for MI6 to investigate the Harkles at all, unless they start consorting with and funding terrorists. I may be wrong, but they are a nuisance, not a threat to national security.
* In my opinion, the bullying report will never willingly be released by the monarchy. The aim of the investigation was always to look at HR procedures and processes and if they adequately serve staff. Why were staff bullied out of their jobs when there is a dignity at work policy? What changes need to be made? These were the questions, not 'was there bullying?'.
@WBBM and @Maneki Neko
Thanks for your informative posts. The puzzle pieces do seem to fit, but I do think that they are opportunists and align themselves with anyone and anything they think will support them in their war against the monarchy.
That's fine, as I said I didn't know if there was any truth in it but with TBW, nothing would surprise me any more.
Wow, this article by Dan Wootton hits hard! He thinks they should not be invited to the coronation, and that the Prince and Princess of Wales must be protected from them. Also, they will probably pull some kind of a stunt, and they are hell-bent on destroying the monarchy ... and William will never talk to his brother again.
-----
And then there is this (Sarah cashing in on her connection to the royal family - couid not even wait a year to pass after the Queen's death ... all to make money):
'Coming just one month after the release of Prince Harry's explosive memoir, Spare, Sarah Ferguson's book promises to answer Brit's questions about the Sussexes.
The book, titled "A Most Intriguing Lady", will see the Duchess of York "talking about her relationship with the Queen and answer a few questions about Harry and Meghan," a press release claims.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21365621/prince-harry-news-meghan-markle-king-charles-coronation-concert/
Quora is mostly a gossip monger site with hazy attributions by self-appointed “experts” and those who claim to have privileged information, so I also dismiss claims of Catherine smashing a camera. I don’t think the suggestion that the Harkles and their associates are being kept an eye on by the security services completely outlandish, though. When the toxic twats were under Palace protection and oversight I would have classed them as attention-seeking sideshow nuisances but it’s different now. These 3 years they have been freerange in the world, look how many shady deals they’ve made— The son of the king of Great Britain consorts with Russian underworld figures as landlords, and sucks up to the Hollywood wokerati—in exchange for what, one can only imagine. We can’t forget Harold’s recent remarks to enrage the Taliban—their presence at the Coronation most certainly creates a heightened security risk. Imagine the target that event now is to a highly motivated bomber. A loyalist of the late Ayatollah Khomeini nearly succeeded in carrying out the fatwah against the author issued in 1989–33 years later Mr Rushdie almost died in. rustic venue he thought was safe. I worked for 3 seasons at that venue and a hotbed of terrorist attacks it is not.
Harold has made himself a perpetual target now even if he is too unsophisticated to know what the repercussions would be. After the Oprah interview, the couple made their malicious intent plain and they reveled in driving two ailing nonagenarians into their graves. They’ve only doubled down and continue their threats and incessant heckling of the monarchy and the individuals involved. I think the time is long past where we could dismiss them as mere nuisances. They aren’t getting the response they demand from the King, and they have both proven that they’d rather blow everything up than have to settle for lesser anything than they think they deserve. What they both deserve is permanent incarceration on grounds of mental instability but that won’t happen. That’s a pity. The freak show will continue on in our full view but it’s not just harmless entertainment anymore. It’s civil war.
Gosh, let’s hope not. She’s already had it last year. Chas has had it twice, so it’s possible. All I read was “a seasonal illness” and assumed flu. If it’s Covid she may as well cancel everything for the next two weeks. She won’t be well enough to appear Wednesday at her next scheduled engagement.
Best wishes to the QC for a speedy
There are certainly inaccuracies but how significant are they?
I doubt if everyone in the UK, knows which royals, if any, live in which palace -Buckingham, Fulham, Kensington, Lambeth, St James', or Westminster? Those are all London palaces but not all royal ones. There are 2 more which are royal palaces but the name doesn't contain the word- the Tower of London and Hampton Court.
Charlotte was born May 2015 - do we know when * first got her feet under the table at KP as girl friend? Any sneaky pics of Cambridge children would have to have been taken after then but before they were ejected from KP in/about March 2019. Given that there were early reports of PrC sending her back to Canada for taking indoor shots without permission, including allegations of snapping George `in the bath', I don't think that bit's too far-fetched.
Furthermore, reports mentioned `her camera', not her phone. How did phones perform against cameras at that time, given that it was said she was taking shots of interiors for publication? If Catherine did smash her camera, the memory card would probably have survived - we're not talking about 35mm film.
MI5 or MI6? I can never remember which is which but could be both, given that *'s from the US and there may have been suspicion that she was associated with undesirable overseas elements. Messrs Neeson and McIlroy both seem ambiguous about their national identities (from Northern Ireland, Roman Catholic backgrounds). There may be much nastier people lurking in the shadows behind them and that would mean at least two external states involved, if not the 2 giants to the east that we all worry about - hence an MI6 involvement.
Both the late Queen and William visited MI5 HQ around the time of the wedding - to me, it looked like a message to her `Watch it - we're keeping an eye on you'. Also, there was a suggestion that her being taken on that Chester visit was intended to keep her in one place (on the Royal Train) for a couple of hours to allow the intelligence chaps (hidden in the guard's van?) to do the necessary to follow her phone calls.
Mil.Intell would have been failing in their duty had they not been watching her like a hawk, the more so if they thought there were too few degrees of separation between her and republican terrorists.
Something that did ring true was the story of Scobie being promised nice treatment if he cooperated - yes, well...
It'll be interesting to see whether this report turns out to be false or substantially true.
MI6 usually deal with overseas activities, if the story was even true, it would be a case for MI5 who deal with domestic - Blighty. 🥴
@WBBM, William visited MI6 Vauxhall Cross not MI5. Not sure about the Queen.. MI5 is based at Thames House and rarely ever mentioned in the press. 🫤
Your memory is better than mine! I do remember now William spending time at GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters, one of the three UK Intelligence and Security Agencies, along with MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6). I hope he found it useful!
On his granny’s secret service: Prince William interns at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ
The name is Wales, William Wales: licensed to kill three weeks on attachment with Britain’s spies.
Kensington Palace has revealed that the Duke of Cambridge has just finished a three-week stint at the secret intelligence service, MI6, the security service, MI5, and GCHQ.
. . .
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/07/prince-william-interns-mi5-mi6-gchq-on-her-majestys-secret-service
We need all the info we can get!
I think there are pieces of truth in the Quora story but elements may have been inflated or switched around to make for a juicier story. * definitely got in Dutch with the Royals and looked to have scorched her bid to join the Firm circa Nov/Dec 2016. Harold had been having his transatlantic booty call for about 6 months by then and brought her to KP to meet the Cambridges. I do not know if Charles met her at the time; he may have been at Highgrove or away on Crown business, but there was an unauthorized photo(s) of “a Cambridge child”—probably George. Lottie would have been around 18 months at this time. Whether William consulted with his father or not, Madam was promptly escorted to Heathrow and put on the next plane to Toronto. Presumably as senior ranking Royal in residence at KP, William would have the authority to remove Harold’s bint from the premises for threatening the security of his children. I think this is when the bad blood began. I surmise that Harold was told to end it and it seems that he did so; leastways the two were most definitely NOT an item any more 4 months later when they had the extremely stiff reunion at Skippy’s wedding. He might have kept it going through to the New Year, but only just. Is four months about customary prior to a wedding to send out invitations? She was invited us as the plus one but all indications were that everyone was shocked that she actually turned up. I think he broke it off with her months before, otherwise she would’ve been happier to see her, and might’ve arranged her transportation. She got her self there and he had nothing to do with it.
Whatever their actual status was between the photograph incident and the announcement of their engagement a year later remains murky, but it’s commonly held knowledge that Harry’s wife was not permitted to be in any Royal residences unescorted. That’s why Harry had to babysit her at the cookbook launch, even though it was held in a tent outside and he was high AF. She had violated their trust on the very first occasion meeting anyone in Harry’s family. She could not be trusted to not try and take pictures or recordings or perhaps pinch some small priceless family heirlooms if left alone for even a moment. This is why I have my doubts that she was permitted to wear the genuine queen Mary bandeau tiara at her wedding and wasn’t given a paste replica instead. They must have replicas of many of those pieces. I don’t know what to think other than Harry’s wife is a completely untrustworthy piece of work.
I would be surprised that she had an actual camera on her person rather than just a camera phone, unless it was one of those tiny lipstick cameras spies use. I’m sure Catherine is capable of going into mama bear mode when necessary, but William seems to me more of the camera smashing type if such a thing actually occurred. I remain agnostic about that but I think that her profanity was discovered and something was confiscated before she was hustled out tout suite to the airport. So considering that all of this went down and a year later Harold is staging an engagement to this woman, we can understand all of the glum faces at the Sussex travesty Wedding Show.
WB, con’t
As a foreign national marrying a prince and residing in Britain, it’s unclear to me which of the security services would take precedence when it comes to Harry’s wife. Both in tandem I expect. I was a great fan of the show MI:5 As it is known stateside because the original title is problematic over here due to “spooks” Being a racial slur of southern origin for people of color. MI:5 deals with domestic threats to the country and Six deals with international threats to the United Kingdom. Stateside we have the FBI and the CIA respectively for those functions. There is inevitably overlap and cooperation between the two agencies, because a lot of terrorist activities that happen domestically are funded and recruited internationally. Five would investigate the domestic crime but Six would be investigating all the tentacles in countries abroad and interrogating foreign nationals involved. With the Sussexes, I would expect 5 to have been watching them at home but 6 would have eyes on all their various trips out of the country, and all their Byzantine financial dealings outside of the UK. Now that they are resident full-time in the USA, I expect that our agencies are cooperating with the UK agencies. Maggot is a US citizen and has some protections under our laws but H is a high interest, high value foreign target. If something of a criminal nature happens to him on US soil, even if it’s from his own stupidity, that would kick off a diplomatic incident with our greatest ally and neither country wants that. But his presence in the United States also presents a security risk to his neighbors and his staff particularly after remarks that set off the Taliban. So yeah, if Harold and methane think that they are successfully flying under the radar of the authorities, I think that’s an illusion. The Twats must have their own dedicated task force in two countries. I bet they’d like that actually… Since they’re so important and all. They are giant PITAs is what they are.
I knew `spook' came from Dutch but I've just found this explanation:
https://boingboing.net/2020/10/22/the-racist-history-of-the-word-spook.html
Two nations separated by a common language...
Thanks to you too, Maneki Neko, for the Guardian reference - I'd seen reports on TV. ERII looked particularly stunning that day, with a wow of a hat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAm9Bf3MeA8
re pregnancy rumours
Many thanks for the memory jogger re the Guardian article. 🤗
Thank you for your comment but you're too kind!
As with everything, probably some kernels of truth in there.
One that caught my eye...possibly more than one picture of Charlotte?
No wonder Catherine iced Mm at the church.
1-2 pictures would be bad enough. But what if it was more than that?
A few pics could be plausibly denied for ill intent, although inappropriate. But a lot of pics would truly give one pause.
I was at my local grocery store just after 5am this morning, and was in paroxysms of laughter.
Usually I am the only shopper at that early hour, but this morning the store was swarming with at least 20 men men buying bouquets of flowers, Champagne, and fancily packaged candy for their sweethearts. Kind of last minute action, but at least they realized it before their deflated disappointed Amours reamed them out for forgetting this day.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have still not decided they will attend the King's coronation, a source close to the couple has said, with Harry said to want a meeting with the King and Prince William before he travels from the US.
Harry and Meghan are expected to be invited to the coronation on May 6, despite the fallout from the Duke of Sussex's explosive memoir released last month.
The Prince and his wife will attend as normal members of the congregation if they choose to travel from their home in Montecito, California for the historic occasion.
Some members of the Royal Family were recently reported to be 'spitting feathers' over the claims in Harry's book and his media campaign to promote it, according to royal sources.
Harry has not spoken to the King or Prince William about whether he will attend, The Mirror reported, with invitations set to be sent out imminently.
However, he is reported to want a meeting with his father and brother before he travels to the UK.
A source told The Mirror: 'Harry has been very clear and his position hasn't wavered – he isn't going to come if he feels the atmosphere will be as toxic as it was during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee and funeral.
'He's said he wants to reconcile with his family and it's their call, but so far nothing has changed.'
It is understood that those who want to attend the coronation will need to RSVP to the invitation by the start of April.
If he does decide to attend the coronation, Harry will not take on any special role at the event, and he and Meghan would not be allowed to appear on the Buckingham Palace balcony along with other members of the Royal Family.
Royal sources recently suggested that officials would ensure that Harry would not be seated next to his brother William at the coronation.
The Prince could also travel from the US to London without Meghan, in part because their son Archie's birthday falls on the same day as the coronation.
Such a plan could see Harry whisked in and out of the UK in a 48-hour trip in a so-called 'Harry in a hurry' scenario.
It comes after the Mail on Sunday revealed last month that the Archbishop of Canterbury could intercede to negotiate a deal between Harry and his family to attend the coronation.
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.
The King is reported to want a slimmed-down and 'diverse' coronation for the ceremony in May.
The monarch has cut the guest list to around 2,000 people, down from the 8,000 who watched his mother Queen Elizabeth II being crowned in 1953.
He has also halved the organisational time from the 16 months it took to prepare for his mother's service.
KCIII just sighs. I will take that as a ‘no’.
It [the plan to invite H] comes after the Mail on Sunday revealed last month that the Archbishop of Canterbury could intercede to negotiate a deal between Harry and his family to attend 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.
I wasn't sure if Charles had tried to use Welby as an intermediary but apparently, he has. This is well meant but Charles should invite H, if that's what he wants, as his son, hidden somewhere in the congregation but not as a member of the RF. I understand his position as a parent, however he needs to consider his position as a king in this particular situation.
As for H 'demanding' a meeting, it shows staggering arrogance and insensitivity. And H: we don't want that wife of yours in the UK either.
DM article 28 January:
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
I am so sorry I was offensive in my post about that post in Quora. My impression was that you shared it and asked everyone's opinion. In no way did I get the impression that you believed what was in that Quora post, which makes no sense. Catherine breaking a camera? TBW taking photos of Charlotte sleeping in her bedroom? And so on ... Buckingham Palace?
She took selfies of her and the prince on their very first, short, date. (Why did he not hear alarm bells ringing?) She contacted him afterwards (made sure she got his contact details before she left Soho House that night). So, she would take selfies with the royal children, but she had no IG at that stage, so, if she did take photos, she has them stashed to possibly use in the future.
The present fallout we see in the royal family would have happened before the wedding. No way would William and Catherine play nice if she had done what she is claimed to have done in that Quora post.
But I am very sorry that you were so offended, because my criticism was not of you at all, and you gave no indication that you believed what was in it, but I indicated that you did not have the time to make a long post about your thoughts. Posts like that one on Quora are very interesting because often they reveal stuff that the royal family want to keep secret.
----
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/112croi/cmon_meg_we_know_you_had_a_hand_in_this_but_at/
This Reddit post is about his description of how he first 'saw' her, on an Instagram post by his friend Violet. It is not credible to me and sounds like a Hallmark rewrite.
* He always preferred blondes, but no doubt she looked like 'fun' to hapless, who never seems to have grown up.
* She is not stunningly beautiful, so his description is way too 'over the top'
* No way were 6 men begging her to go on a date with her. She had to use PR to get a date to the many public events she weaseled her way into to get photographed. But only once did she have her photograph published in the media, after wangling a meeting with a reporter and begging. No one noticed her, so she was not remarkable. Darn, she even weasled her way into the UN, One Young World and so on, and she was still not 'famous'!
She engineered that first date. What better way to get noticed and make sure everyone would want to photograph her and ensure coverage in the media then to date a prince?
By the way, it seems that Welby, Catherine and Camilla are no longer 'in the room' as the King and Prince of Wales pay homage to the duo in California.
My opinion: TBW does not want reconciliation. Hapless wants to reconcile, but unless he does so on her terms, he fears he will lose her and his children, and be forced to return to a lonely life in the UK.
Perhaps I am mistaken in my view of hapless, but I do know addicts and they tend to take the path of least resistance. They are flush with money at present because Spare has done so well, and I reckon they surround themselves with those who reinforce her viewpoint, so I see no way out of the prison for him.
"But also now it's been alleged and as ever we have to say that word allegedly now Harry and Megan feel they could simply make more money by not attending. ... Harry in particular could be signed up for mega millions by a channel to simply be called what they refer to in TV Land as “presenters friend."
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/112m0vy/harold_and_wife_can_make_more_money_by_not/
Hapless is clueless about a coronation and the significance of royals, but his value to any TV channel would be to draw an audience.
Interesting ... but the chatter is that the duo are not interested in attending unless these conditions are met:
* Prominent seating (i.e. to be treated as very special and important people).
* The King and Prince of Wales to go to Montecito and bend the knee to the duo, especially TBW.
Probably on the list of things they want are money (ideally a share of the income from the Duchy of Cornwall), and some kind of role in royalty (Hand us the Commonwealth?)
How long might the Cambridge/Sussex hostilities last? Until the Harkles depart this life seems a reasonable guess but I wonder what poison A & L are being reared on? It may not be an armed struggle but it's psychological warfare all right.
Even now, the next generation is being drawn into it. I'm starting to think that Charlotte's appalling bridesmaid's dress was deliberate, whereas those of the other children were passable. Did * make it herself? That alone would have been more than enough to make her mother weep. Did that give H the idea she'd be cheap to run because she could make her own clothes?
I still find it hard to believe that *'s dress was actually made for her by a Paris couturier. We've been told that CW-K designed it - did she just give * the drawings and leave it up to her? Did * source a similar vintage pattern from Simplicity or Butterick and get it made up in a larger size, without fitting, by a little woman who does alterations, or did she do it herself? And then claim for it as if it were Givenchy?
She has a thing about `tailoring'- another term which means different things in the US and UK. Here, in the trade, tailoring is making structured clothes, with extensive use of padding, interlining and hand sewing, usually for men but occasionally women too (think: Catherine's coats). In the US and as she uses the term, it just means altering clothes so they fit properly, in her case it's enough to make a cat laugh. Dressmaking is making unstructured women's clothes. (My mum was a dressmaker, her sister was in tailoring.)
How sad that getting an invite to Ellen's birthday party (and being present at the vow renewal) had them 'buzzing with excitement' because mingling with A listers would give them more and better opportunities for deals.
Spayed and Spared
Will they, or won’t they
who gives a f*ck
Bistards are relentless
All now down to Chuck…
Oh no! I never felt you were offensive at all. It's so kind of you to apologise but there's no need. I copied & pasted the Quota post but wasn't sure what to believe and in a way I was sort of asking Nutties' opinions. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was offended! 🤗
What Meghan wrote about 'Princess Kate's wedding' TWO YEARS before she met Prince Harry - and how SHE dreamt of being a 'royal rebel' rather than 'Cinderella' - debunking claims she knew nothing of royal life
A resurfaced blog post from Meghan Markle's now-defunct website The Tig reveals her true feelings about royal princesses before she met Prince Harry - and they're not altogether flattering.
The entry from 2014, which was written by Meghan during her time on Suits, revealed that she dreamt of being a 'royal rebel' rather than 'a Cinderella' as a child - as she reflected on the 'pomp and circumstance' and 'endless conversation' about the wedding of 'Princess Kate'.
. . .
However, Meghan's 2014 blog post all about Prince William and Kate Middleton's 2011 wedding suggests that she not only knew exactly who the royals were - but that she'd also formed several very strong opinions about the Monarchy and its many traditions, years before she met her future husband.
The secret behind Pippa's incredible figure!
10.1k viewing now
Harry & Meghan 'to be treated like Beatrice and Eugenie' at coronation
877 viewing now
'Little girls dream of being princesses,' Meghan wrote in the post, before insisting: 'I, for one, was all about She-Ra, Princess of Power.
'For those of you unfamiliar with the '80s cartoon reference, She-Ra is the twin sister of He-Man and a sword-wielding royal rebel known for her strength.
'We're definitely not talking about Cinderella here.'
Another lie exposed 😁
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11750333/What-Meghan-Markle-wrote-Princess-Kates-wedding-met-Prince-Harry.html
You will be nice to me( stomps foot) or I am not coming. (Arms crossed, with a huff)!
KCIII just sighs. I will take that as a ‘no’.
What, they're waiting for a better offer? Auction their tickets off for charity.
I am glad we are not at odds! I do check Quora very occassionally and forget that there is sometimes interesting, if not credible, stuff there.
@WBBM
There are at least two scenes in the Nextflix mockumentary where she is surrounded by flunkies 'fitting' the designer outfit on her. The one was the ill-fitting bright green caped 'wonder' she wore to her last royal engagement; the other was the ill-fitting red dress she wore to some veterans gala in the States. Your explanation of tailoring is a light bulb moment for me. Catherine has a garment fitted and then 'tailored' to perfectly fit her. TBW orders something round about her size and then up to half a dozen people use pins to fit her into the dress, just before the appearance. What I find mind blowing is that her designer gear is much more expensive than Catherines', because Catherine often wears custom made clothes. I wonder if she was 'over billing' Charles and then had some scheme to pocket the excess. And you would think that with her unfortunately odd body shape she would do the same as Catherine. She is bossy enough to demand such a luxury so I wonder why she does not. Especially with the wedding dresses one would think the bride would ensure that they were not only tailored, but a week before the wedding. The last-minute mess of the flower girl dresses must have appalled Catherine.
"He [Harry] added that Kate arrived at the house the next day with a card and apology flowers."
Kate should had showed up with a single blck rose and stinging nettles.
What is the spiritual meaning of black roses?
According to the Language of Flowers or floriography in the 19th Century, a black rose implies hatred, death, and despair. Stinging nettle flowers symplize pain. I just chose it for the physicial effect of the greenery while poison ivy actually has overall positive meanings attched, such as the 'power of women', and powers of death & life.
Here are a few others Kate shoukd have chosen to add to her boquest to *:
Monshood = Disgust
Petunia = Deep
Tansies = I declare war on you
Yellow Carnations = Disdain, Disappointment & Rejection
Basil = I hate you
Sunflowers = Poumpous folks with delusions of grandeur(in Victorian times)
Lavender = Distrust
Blue Hydrangea = Coldness & Frigidity
Striped Carnation = Rejection
Buttercup = Childishness
Marigold = Despair
Purple hyacinth = Regret
Black Dahlia = Sadness
===There are many other flowers that could be included here but space is limited.
Floriography (in Victorian era) emerged as a clandestine method of communication at a time when etiquette discouraged open and flagrant displays of emotion!!
This article is being shared widely. This is how the article end s:
"So where the hell do Harry and Meghan go next? Because really, who today takes them that seriously?
They have made themselves objects of permanent fascination but simultaneously of mockery thanks to their regular bouts of on-camera spleen-venting and attacks on his family.
Today, they seem to exist on the periphery of the big leagues, sharing mimosas with people who have probably spent more time having their teeth capped than pondering the state of capitalism, the Sussexes yet to be welcomed into the political, philanthropic or business elites.
At least Harry and Meghan are connected to Kris Jenner and who knows what exciting new opportunities they might come up with over a mimosa business brunch? The Bilderburg Group might be yet to call the duke and duchess but The Official Harry Lip Kit? TBC."
Regarding the Todger’s alleged demands for apologies, prominent roles, etc: They have absolutely nothing to offer the RF except more problems. It would be lovely if they would magically change into assets who could help the new Monarch, but that is never going to happen. I believe Charles understands this and I am confident that William knows it to be true. The RF have the brightest and most experienced advisors in the world. This family has been through much worse during their 1200 years on the throne.
Hikari - I enjoyed your 2 part comment to WBBM. As always you provide great food for thought.
I am not sure where the story originates, but this person has tweeted copies of documents. Here are the tweets (about Virginia Guiffre and Andrew):
-----
Well well well, no wonder Virginia Giuffre didn’t want all of the Epstein documents released she is in for it now! Detailed in the paperwork her story has changed SIX times. She even claimed she NEVER had sex with Prince Andrew!
-----
In these emails between Viginia Giuffre and Sharon Churcher of the Mail on Sunday, they’re discussing all the money they’re making and Sharon insists that Virginia accuse Alan Dershowitz because they ‘believe he is a pedo but have no proof’.
-----
There is more ... including a letter from employers in Australia, an animal shelter, who fired her because she wasn't turning up for work, usually because of some problem with her car. Now, she lives in a mansion and shops in luxury stores.
For good or bad, nothing ever goes away on the internet, does it? sigh.
I think I remember it (in all the various leaks over the years) but not much was ever made about it. It just kind of was like biscuits where you forgot to add leavening to. Little hockey puck anchor - solid, not very edible, heavy for the size and has the capacity to help contribute to a sinking (damaged) ship.
Start of emerging Kraken? Maybe? We have thought that before.
The I'm such a liar always got better rotation. That probably will reappear soon.
As for the will they/won't they? Just keeping that in play at least keeps them in print. But ... does that keep them in the forefront of all the various other agenda items placed before the King every day in a good way?
One of the hardest things to do is to admit you made a mistake. And the more you double down on the decision, the harder to admit it. And, the less likely to have things work out well for you either.
Sooner or later, it all catches up to you. I saw something which took a good 6 years. Sad to watch.
Re: I am growing very weary of all of the “will they or won’t they attend the Coronation” articles.
You and me both, I just can’t be bothered to comment on it now I’m that bored with it. 🥺I’m waiting to see what happens instead. 🫤
'Buzzing with excitement' means that they are being compared to insects. At least 'purring with contentment' would have placed them up a bit higher on the evolutionary scale!
Well well well, no wonder Virginia Giuffre didn’t want all of the Epstein documents released she is in for it now! Detailed in the paperwork her story has changed SIX times. She even claimed she NEVER had sex with Prince Andrew!
-----
In these emails between Viginia Giuffre and Sharon Churcher of the Mail on Sunday, they’re discussing all the money they’re making and Sharon insists that Virginia accuse Alan Dershowitz because they ‘believe he is a pedo but have no proof’.
Something tells me that Sharon Churcher is going to get a big lawsuit against her from Alan Dershowitz which is well deserved.
I was roundly castigated here for being a pedo enabler because I doubted Ms. Giuffre's accusations against Prince Andrew. It isn't because I am a big supporter of Prince Andrew, but because of the prior lies and conduct of Ms. Giuffre in the state of Florida. Epstein was on trial in Florida years ago.
I LOVE the bright cheeriness of sunflowers! I've mostly given up on them because as soon as they bloom, the squirrels cut the flower heads off and run away with them, leaving me with sad, beheaded stalks.
/I suppose the squirrels have won, the cute little b*stards.
Thanks very much for the Daniela Elser piece. I enjoy her articles on Them. I haven’t watched South Park since it first started airing and my young nephew made me sit with him and watch the heartwarming holiday episode Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, but I am going to tune in to their lampoon of our favorite pinatas.
I know the feeling, I think we're all suffering from Harkles fatigue and that we're all waiting to see what happens. It might be a long wait though, especially as * has been keeping a very low profile of late...🥱
EXCLUSIVE: It's Markle vs. Markle! Samantha Markle accuses Meghan of defaming her in order to 'cover up' her 'false rags-to-riches' narrative during virtual court hearing as the Duchess demands her sister's libel case be dismissed
* Samantha Markle appeared Wednesday at a virtual court hearing in Florida over her defamation lawsuit against her sister Meghan
* Lawyers for the elder Markle claimed the Duchess of Sussex defamed their client to 'cover up' her allegedly false 'rags-to-riches' narrative
* Meghan had attempted to stop the deposition from happening
. . .
Lawyers for Meghan, who were also present on the call, slammed the claims as 'inappropriate' and 'offensive' to the former Suits star, and demanded the case be dismissed over its 'fatal defects.'
-----------
Demanding again. These two never politely ask but always demand. The nerve! And now Samantha's claims are 'inappropriate' and 'offensive'. And the Harkles' interview with Oprah or H's book weren't? They've lost all sense of reality. I hope Samantha wins her court case. Things can't always go *'s way.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11754295/Samantha-Markle-accuses-Meghan-false-rags-riches-narrative.html
`I think one of my all time best meggy looks is the Maria von Trapp drapery dress she wore to Harry’s cousin’s wedding right after they were married. It’s classic meggy—too big shoes, ridiculously ill-fitting dress and extremely messy hair. As one fellow sinner wrote, she looks like she shagged a waiter in the bushes'.
It reminds me of Dolly Parton's comment wtte that `It costs a lot took this cheap', only here *'s put in a lot of effort to look this dishevelled - all part of the plan to attract unfavourable comments so she could say we're R-ist.
Please don't forsake the Sunflowers. The meaning was based on earlier times and modern times they mean..."adoration, loyalty and longevity. Sunflowers have symbolic meanings in love, luck, spiritually and in dreams. For thousands of years, they’ve been held in high regard by many cultures to give protection and enlightenment.
Also sunflower signs refer to fertility and the circle of life. Their symbols are used as protection and enlightenment for the mind, body, soul, and spirit. And depending on how they manifest themselves to us, they can represent inspiration, a time to remember or a time to move forward.
Pippa’s life now: Kate’s sister quietly takes a new direction
At 39, the woman once derided for her party planning book has finished an MA and has her own business, says Damian Whitworth
Did you miss her, the other Middleton girl? Or had you not given her a thought these past few years until the word “Pippa” popped up just then and it suddenly all came back to you: the party planning book; Pippa’s tips; the Bottom that Immolated the Internet.
That was a more innocent age; when the most controversial thing a royal’s sibling could do was wear a figure-hugging dress to her sister’s wedding and in doing so melt algorithms across all social media platforms like a fever that held us all in its (essentially harmless) hysteria. Those were the days when people idly speculated: “Wouldn’t it be fun if Harry copped off with Pippa at the wedding disco?”
Perhaps you saw the photographs of her in some newspapers this week, running across a beach on St Barts while on holiday with her husband, James Matthews, a hedge fund manager. His family own a resort on the island. “Effortlessly chic,” cooed one report accompanying the pics of Pippa. “Beach goddess,” pronounced another.
Pippa, 39, always seemed to be possessed of boundless energy. She threw herself into running and swimming ultramarathons, and cycled across America to raise money for charities. Career-wise she has had mixed success. She worked for her parents’ party planning business for a while and received a fat contract for a book on entertaining that sold less well than expected and was widely lampooned. “Pippa’s tips” became shorthand for stating the bleedin’ obvious (to avoid staining tables place drinks on coasters).
In 2017 she married Matthews, 47, and so, like her sister, joined a family with luxurious homes, an estate in Scotland and even a title. Matthews’s parents are David and Jane Matthews, who own Eden Rock, a hotel in St Barts that is popular with celebrities including Beyoncé, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Elton John and regularly appears on lists of the world’s best hotels. David Matthews made a fortune in motor dealerships and luxury coach-making and moved into property development. The family own Glen Affric, an estate in the Highlands that comes with the title Laird of Glen Affric.
James’s younger brother, Spencer Matthews, is the former Made in Chelsea bad boy who is now an entrepreneur and married to the Irish model Vogue Williams. Their other brother, Michael, became the youngest Briton to reach the summit of Everest in 1999 but disappeared on the way down.
James was educated at Uppingham School but did not go to university. He flirted with motor racing but decided to pursue a career in the City. More than 20 years ago he set up Eden Rock Capital Management.
They were said to have moved out of the London home. With the Prince and Princess of Wales based at Adelaide Cottage in Windsor and James Middleton, Pippa and Kate’s brother, living on a Berkshire farm, the whole family are now close to each other.
Two years ago, James Matthews also bought Bucklebury Farm Park, close to the Middleton parents’ home. The £1.5 million farm operated as a petting zoo where their nephew, Prince George, was taken when he was little.
At the time of the purchase it was described by a spokesman as a business opportunity for Matthews. Pippa has been reportedly spotted helping out at weekends and the farm, now rebranded as Bucklebury Farm Deer & Safari Park, is certainly expanding, with new catering facilities and play areas. Animals at the park so far include sheep, goats, pigs, alpacas, chickens and 120 head of deer. The play areas feature a zip wire and trampolines and you can stay in a new lodge or one of five glamping tents in the woods.
It is not clear exactly what Pippa is planning. A company called Pippa’s Playground is registered at the same address as her husband’s investment company, and working at play has clearly become Pippa’s thing. Last year she was awarded a distinction in an MA in physical education, sport and physical literacy at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David (UWTSD).
She studied how parents encourage their children into activity at a young age. “I am passionate about sport and exercise and also love being with children,” she said at the time. “I wanted to find a topic that combined these two and felt that there wasn’t enough information, knowledge or focus on early years physical development for mums particularly.
“I wanted to learn to not only help my own children but to also continue work in the field to stress the importance of children moving from an early age.” She added that she had “enjoyed the balance of work and motherhood and getting back into reading, writing, and learning again”.
Her supervisor, Dr Nalda Wainwright, director of the Wales Academy for Health and Physical Literacy at UWTSD, said Pippa had contributed to an area that needs more research. “Her study clearly highlights parents are not accessing information and resources to support their children’s development.
“It is always a challenge to study at postgraduate level, especially when having to fit in with family life. Pippa has been committed and focused throughout her study, which is reflected in her excellent result.” Wainwright said she was looking forward to the opportunity of working with Pippa in the future “so we can help all families to support their children’s physical development and lay the foundations for health”.
Watch out then for Pippa’s playgrounds. Could be a serious business.
CDAN has a blind that they 'have been spending multiple nights apart' and it is not for work-related reasons. It is CDAN, which some have speculated is a vehicle for her to plant 'stories' that she wants circulating, but that is perhaps a conspiracy too far for me! Does anyone remember when they were last seen together displaying the usual hand holding? Was it early December? (At Ellen and Portia's party, they were far apart, with a large table and chairs between them.)
@Rebecca
Thanks so much for posting that very interesting article, which I would have missed if you hadn't. ... I had a wild thought: what if TBW had treated all her family as assets? Samantha has a master's degree or two. (The article about Pippa sparked off this train of thought!) Admittedly Thomas Senior and Junior are very 'rough diamonds' but the media loves a relatively harmless rogue in the peripheral of the family. She could have flown them all to the UK to get some lessons on royal etiquette and traditions, and dealing with the media, and I think they could have been one of her greatest assets.
And I think the Middleton sisters, in the long term, might leave a positive legacy in British society. People have complained that there is nothing new or groundbreaking about Catherine's work. If I can veer off topic perhaps ...
* She has strayed over the line by having that public meeting with government officials. Royals are not supposed to be so 'interfering', and they actually have no way to really influence government policies and budgeting.
* She has created and funds a research institute of some sort. It has the potential to become powerful and influence government policy and budgeting.
* She focuses a lot on visiting places that have established childcare facilities and play areas for young children. The media focus on what she wears and 'cute moments', but what she is trying to do is rally for more facilities like this. Does she visit working class communities, where these facilities are most needed, but where there isn't the funding in the community?
* She is trying to raise awareness in, and rally action from, the public. They are the voters and at every level have the power to influence government policy and spending.
Perhaps I just have a tinfoil hat on today!
South Park takes aim at Meghan and Harry as cartoon Prince and Princess of Canada scream 'We want privacy!' while they promote his book 'Waaagh' and take 'Worldwide Privacy Tour'
Article on several sites, complete with cartoons. Ridicule is a good weapon.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/south-park-takes-aim-at-meghan-and-harry-in-new-episode-worldwide-privacy-tour.5173499/
The DM summarizes, scene by scene, the entire episode of South Park, including all the visual references. It is hilarious!
@Teasmade
Thanks for the tip about this show and this episode.
My personal opinion is that neither will be able to see the funny side of this. The BRF have always been the butt of jokes and fodder for satire, through the ages ... from cartoons to TV shows like Spitting Image.
Is South Park a popular show? If so, being featured in the show makes them cultural history, even if they don't like the portrayal of them.
Of course the media, across the board, always misunderstood the notion of privacy (and indeed the definition) that they had in mind, which does have some support in definitions of the term. But it is too late now ... the whole issue has become a global meme with a global understanding that the duo try to but can't control.
Privacy (what they mean): includes the right to be free from interference and intrusion, to associate freely with whom you want, to be able to control who can see or use information about you, OR an individual's ability to determine for themselves when, how, and for what purpose their personal information is handled by others
Privacy (global understanding): a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people, OR the state of being free from public attention
The ship has sailed. They should lighten up and learn to laugh at themselves!
At school, Kyle complains to his Cartman, Stan and Kenny about the new arrivals.
'They have this huge jet parked in front of my house and they keep on wanting me to buy their book,' he says.
The pair hang banners above their house demanding privacy, and hold loud parties on their lawn with fireworks.
'Why are we so mad today? Because we want our privacy,' the prince shouts.
When the prince begins playing polo on the lawn, smashing Kyle's window, the South Park local can't take it any more. He rants to his school friends: 'The prince plays drums all day - I don't even think he has a job.
'She just seems to boss him around.
'Why did they even leave Canada anyway?'
Kyle's friends tell him they have had enough of his complaining about the Canadian prince and princess.
'I'm sick of hearing about them!' Kyle says.
'I can't get away from them! They are in my f****** face!'
Royals paper the outside of Kyle's house with magazine covers of the Princess' face
One morning, Kyle wakes to find that the house has been plastered with magazine covers featuring the princess' face.
They include a cover strongly resembling that of The Cut magazine after it ran a cover interview with Meghan last summer.
When Kyle confronts the royals, the princess yells: 'He victimised me!'
The prince springs to his wife's defense.
'This is an outrage!' he cries. 'We'll see how he deals with my blue penis!' That appears to be a reference to Harry's frostbitten penis, which he detailed in his memoir Spare.
The prince storms across the road to Kyle's house, then flashes him through the window, shouting: 'Hey, have some respect for people's privacy!'
Prince and Princess clash with Kyle at branding agency
The prince and princess turn to a crudely-named marketing agency for help protecting their privacy.
'There's this horrible spy who lives across the street from us,' the prince explains.
The branding manager says he already has a file on the princess, which she created several years ago.
'I have your brand already: Sorority girl, actress, influencer and victim,' he tells her.
The prince's brand is decided as: 'Royal prince, millionaire, world traveller, victim.'
Across the street, the Prince and Princess of Canada can be seen peering through a window as Kyle takes in their handiwork
Across the street, the Prince and Princess of Canada can be seen peering through a window as Kyle takes in their handiwork
Prince appears to leave wife after declaring that he wants real privacy - only for her to remain silent about his wish
The prince, inside the agency, suddenly has a lightbulb moment and realizes that he doesn't want to be a brand.
'Trying to make ourselves into a brand just turned us into products,' the Canadian prince declares.
'No more magazines and Netflix shows, we can just live a normal life!'
He stands to leave, and walks towards the door - but his wife remains inside the branding company.
'Come on honey, we don't need this place!' he says. 'Honey?'
The prince then leaves alone.
Kyle rejoins his friends, who invite him out to play.
The prince then arrives, and asks if he can play too.
He brings out his drum kit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html?ito=windows-widget-taskbar
/sarc (kind of)
At last the Commonwealth Trust has updated its website and removed all presence of the duo. The Daily Mail article outlines the criticism of the Commonwealth in the mockumentary, and the duo's hypocrisy, and betrayal of the Queen.
I was born in a Commonwealth country, grew up in a different Commonwealth country and have settled in the Commonwealth country of my birth. Neither country kept the Queen as head of state, but both voluntarily chose to be part of the Commonwealth because of the immense benefits for the countries. The patronizing BS in that mockumentary infuriates me. How dare they think they have the right to treat us like children who do not know how to run our lives and make wise decisions for ourselves!
https://youtu.be/FRbmsQ3WW_4
I have not watched yet, but she is good.
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
CONFIRMED!! Harkles PAID FOR this!
Headlines running from Yahoo & PEOPLE mag:
Harry recalls
" 'Heart-Attack Beautiful' Meghan Markle"
-----
We already told followers this odd verbiage from camp Harkle, but it's worth a reminder. We traced # GoodKingHarry hashtags back to misleading engagement; some stems directly from what our research showed as being paid-for publicity.
There are other hashtags under investigation.
-----
Full disclosure, the original tweet with that particular hashtag was deleted. I did not want to actually include the hashtag and risk being found and attacked by their bot network again.
-----
I always say, when someone is good or beautiful, people will say it out loud. People will tell them.
If the person has to tell US themselves that they are good or beautiful, I'm very suspicious.
-----
We can all (and should) engage in positive self-talk
"I'm smart, I'm beautiful, I'm strong" etc....
There is a difference between self-encouragement and grandstanding.
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1626229887425196034
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/113xh9l/al_qaeda_orders_the_assassination_of_prince_harry/
Google Translate:
Al Qaeda, in its One Unmah magazine number 8, published today, asks its terrorists, in a kind of binding fatwa, to take just revenge on Prince Harry, whom they refer to as Al Zanim, for having recognized that, During his participation in the war in Afghanistan, within the International Coalition, he killed 25 Afghans.
According to the aforementioned magazine, to which LA RAZÓN has had access, Al Qaeda considers that it would be an "opportunity for the British Crown to take revenge on its dissident son by reducing the cost of insuring him, and to make way for Islamic hands to let them be the ones who take their just retribution, since crimes do not fall by statute of limitations, and the right men run after him, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds”.
It will cost a fortune to provide protection for him and his family and I am not even sure that the British government or royal family can do so in America. But this is what they will demand without qualms.
But, I think that he has put the entire royal family at risk, the British government, and any British people anywhere in the world.
I don't think Al Qaeda is very strong at the moment, but every crazy out there will want to gain glory. Terrorism risk has just gone sky high, unless the British family and government bend the knee and apologize to the families of those he killed, which they are not going to do. (They are also calling for compensation for the families.)
Random House and the ghostwriter are equally as responsible for this situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W84GqXe5FyA
Trey Parker and Matt Stone are major players in Hollywood. In 2021 they signed a $900,000,000 contract to continue the South Park franchise:
Vanity Fair:
Trey Parker and Matt Stone Are Making $900 Million Worth of South Park
A landmark ViacomCBS deal renews the animated series for six additional seasons and 14—yes, 14—movies on Paramount+.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/08/trey-parker-and-matt-stone-are-making-900-million-dollars-worth-of-south-park
It wasn't surprising that there was nothing about South Park on her site.
And Lainey is the first one to post anything when the BRF comes up in the news.
So the 5's aren't laughing at themselves, we can safely assume.
MAUREEN CALLAHAN: Hallelujah South Park! Will their delicious take-down of privacy-hungry Harry & Meghan FINALLY make them see what insufferable hypocrites - and global laughing stocks - they've become?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11755649/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-South-Park-make-Harry-Meghan-theyre-laughing-stocks.html
Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Hoyt Curtin/Hannah Barbera
Top Cat
Toss Scat
South Park
the most satirical
South Park
fully derisible
Called them out on their SP*
Removed last trace of their dignity
South Park
the irrefutable revealers of
this sham
Don’t give a toss, just let rip
including todgers tip
They are toast
Waaagh Waaagh…
*starting price/selling point
Spare on a G String
His
“Instagram loving Bitch wife”
Has caused him ball-ache
and much strife
Didn’t he know
the South Park show
Would dissect and display
his life with his ho…
I'm SO happy that South Park illustrated how most Americans think about the dumb prince and his stupid (or b*tch) wife. We would prefer that they just shut up, go away and stop showing up in our newsfeeds.
For a bit of a laugh ... and, no, they won't sue!
Pathological liar? Yes. But to me, it seems she lives in a fantasy world and is upset and furious when people won't accept her narrative ('her truth'). Lawyers take her money and use the defence that how she feels is the truth and we must ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Bipolar? No. This disorder does not explain the vindictiveness. The so-called mood swings can all be explained by ...
Malignant toxic narcissism, with her husband being her biggest enabler, although she does have a few friends, acquaintances and staff who are also enablers. She simply uses victimhood to avoid accountability for her behaviour, and so she switches between arrogant bossiness and vulnerable victimhood when she is called to account or to manipulate according to the situation.
Now, isn't that interesting!
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11489w1/a_super_sleuth_on_twitter_who_asks_to_remain/
By the way, it is possible that the sponsor gave each participant a complementary tube of the cream, which is why he ended up using it. However, his story in his memoirs completely fails to disclose the link. And this information casts doubt on the entire story.
AM_Rike
7h
I asked an ER doctor & ER nurse who had worked in Lake Tahoe years ago about this dubious frostnip story. (See Jeremy Renner pics or read about the Donner Party for an idea of the extreme winter weather conditions there). They said if you sweat and the sweat dribbles down and accumulates into heavy cotton underwear, which retains liquid like a sponge, versus the recommended moisture wicking fabric you’re supposed to use, and somehow that part of your clothes are then exposed to prolonged icy, sub zero winds, that could potentially create an icy enclosure, which could possibly result in some “frostnip” damage. So it could possibly occur.
However, they had never heard of anyone being asymptomatic for 2-3 weeks after being removed from the cold, then suddenly complaining of frostnip, nor did they find that claim medically credible. FrostBITE involving necrotic tissue is a ho nutha story with extended periods of suffering and damage. But frostnip is a result of vasoconstriction caused by the cold. It is temporary and is mostly about numbness in the area which goes away as soon as you get dry and warm and restore circulation. If he had skin irritation that only manifested 2-3 weeks after returning to England, that would not be related to the arctic nor would it be frostnip.
They did say that they occasionally treated men for the symptoms Harry described. Lake Tahoe is a party haven for millionaires and, apparently, some men have applied cocaine to their member during a long party weekend in order to prolong their endurance during certain recreational activities. It numbs the member which protracts the inevitable outcome, making the wealthy male feel like a tantric marathon love machine. Unfortunately, cocaine can be a skin irritant and excessively prolonged “activity” can result in “friction burns“ on this sensitive area of skin. An emollient skin cream is usually all that’s needed to repair the affected skin. Plus giving the area a rest.
Given that:
1) this flareup occurred right before William’s wedding, during Stag-do duty time,
2) Harry freely admits to using cocaine to party, and
3) the Elizabeth Arden skin cream was recommended as a tried and true cure for Harry’s affliction. This came from a female friend of his in England so we can assume she wasn’t an Inuit referring to other frostnip cases, but rather the actual cause that gave rise to this condition. “Trust me Harry - it works”. C’mon! The SoHo House chippy wasn’t talking frostnip.
All in all, this seems like the more plausible scenario.
MAUREEN CALLAHAN: Hallelujah South Park! Will their delicious take-down of privacy-hungry Harry & Meghan FINALLY make them see what insufferable hypocrites - and global laughing stocks - they've become?
Well, she said she wanted to be a cartoon princess. Now, thanks to the brilliant minds at 'South Park,' Meghan Markle is one.
In 'Worldwide Privacy Tour,' which aired Wednesday night, Meghan and Prince Harry were savaged as hypocritical publicity hounds who nonetheless demand to be left alone. After promoting his memoir, here called 'Waaagh,' the 'prince and princess of Canada' move to South Park, whose children cannot abide their insufferability. At one point, the outraged prince flashes his frostbitten penis — to a child! — while defending his wife.
As the animated Harry and Meghan toddle around the globe, holding placards that read 'STOP LOOKING AT US!' and 'WE WANT OUR PRIVACY!,' their entitlement, stupidity and lack of self-awareness was sliced through by a cartoon talk-show host with, in my view, better questions than Tom Bradby or Anderson Cooper.
Appearing on 'Good Morning Canada,' Harry and Meghan — the latter speaking inanities with a Valley Girl accent — sit down to a chorus of boos. The impeccable line of questioning beings.
'Let me start with you, sir. You've lived a life with the royal family, you've had everything handed to you, but you say your life has been hard. And now you've written all about it in your new book, 'Waaagh.'
Harry: 'Yes, that's right friend. You see, my wife and I —'
Meghan: 'I was like, totallllllly, you should write a book 'cause your family, like stupid, and then [unintelligible] journalists.'
Host: 'So you hate journalists.'
Harry: 'That's right!'
Host: 'And now you wrote a book that reports on the lives of the royal family.'
Harry: 'Right!'
Host: 'So you're a journalist.'
Yes! Exactly right.
Meghan: 'We just wanna be normal people. This attention is so hard.'
'Waaagh!' indeed. You have to wonder what the mood is in Montecito this morning, the online reaction from us 'normal people' nothing short of a rousing standing ovation. Do Harry and Meghan get it now? Do they understand that they are laughingstocks not just around the world, but in the province Meghan values above all others — Hollywood?
'South Park': Grade A+. Chef's kiss. This was a perfect episode. The only possible criticism: What took Trey Parker and Matt Stone so long?
Granted, it seems every week does bring a brand new hypocrisy. One must work hard to keep up.
'Because I'm from the States, you don't grow up with the same understanding of the royal family. And so while I now understand very clearly there's a global interest there, I didn't know much about him.'
Part 2 follows...
That was Meghan Markle in November 2017, seated next to Prince Harry as they gave their first interview to the BBC as a newly engaged couple.
A fair number of people — myself included — found it near impossible, laughable really, to believe that Meghan, creature of Hollywood and student of fame, had little idea who Prince Harry or the British royal family was. Or that this self-professed smart, savvy, well-cultured woman had not so much as Googled her fair prince before their first date. No social climber she!
How will Meghan explain, as she claimed in last year's insipid Netflix doc, that she had no idea how to curtsy or why it was important to show respect to the Queen? As she sat beside her husband, who looked pained and humiliated, Meghan characterized her first meeting with the late Queen Elizabeth, one of the world's most admired women, thusly:
Meghan would have to have spent her formative years in the Yanomami Amazonian tribe, thoroughly cut off from the modern world, to have known so very little about the royals.
It all sounded very Yoko Ono, who, upon meeting John Lennon, claimed to have never heard of him.
Now — could it possibly be — that Meghan was insincere? A newly resurfaced post on her late blog The Tig (think Goop, but more basic and obvious) reveals that Meghan was very familiar with the British royal family and with William and Kate's nuptials. She even wrote about the type of princess she, Meghan, dreamt she might someday be.
Hey, Harry: Don't feel too bad. Even Lennon fell for it. As he told Rolling Stone in 1971, Yoko had 'only heard of Ringo, I think.'
Ringo! Not the world-famous half of the most celebrated songwriting duo of post-World War II Western civilization. When you're that well known, it seems, nothing is as refreshing as someone who claims not to know who you are or what you do or why people care about you. The implication, of course, being that said ignoramus sees through the veneer of celebrity to you. They like and love you for you, not the attendant wealth or social status or privilege or refracted fame that comes with being your other half.
Here's Meghan in her 2014 blog post, fantasizing about becoming a princess while also mocking the entire idea, because she's just that cool and just that above everything, even a storied institution dating back over eleven centuries.
'Little girls dream of being princesses,' Meghan wrote. 'I, for one, was all about She-Ra, Princess of Power. For those of you unfamiliar with the '80s cartoon reference, She-Ra is . . . a sword-wielding royal rebel known for her strength. We're definitely not talking about Cinderella here. Grown women seem to retain this childhood fantasy. Just look at the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royal wedding and endless conversation about Princess Kate.'
Well, well, well. How will Meghan explain that away? Or as recounted by Harry, that upon meeting Prince Andrew she thought he was the Queen's handbag holder? Or, as she told Oprah in 2021, 'I went into [my marriage] naively because I didn't grow up knowing much about the royal family'? By the way, Meghan's 'grow[ing] up' would have been at the height of the royal family's coverage in global tabloids: Princess Di's supernova fame, the first future king ordered to divorce, Diana's death and the subsequent wall-to-wall 24/7 media coverage of her funeral.
'I mean, Americans will understand this,' Meghan brayed, because 'we have Medieval Times, dinner and a tournament. It was like that.'
What must Harry, who wrote in his memoir that Meghan knew 'almost nothing' about the royals, be thinking now? Will he think to himself that his now-wife knew well and good who he was? As Andrew Morton wrote in his 2018 biography 'Meghan,' her friend Ninaki Priddy said that the future duchess 'was always fascinated by the royal family. She wants to be Princess Diana 2.0'
This seems to be the root of Meghan's self-obsessed rage, does it not? She married the spare. She'll never be the next Diana. If anything, Catherine, Princess of Wales, is carving out a similar beloved place for herself amongst the British people. Meghan is the also-ran, attempting to run a rival court out of a soulless Montecito manse while decrying the uselessness of all things royal.
But don't you dare not call her the Duchess of Sussex!
Lest we forget, Meghan's overarching message since joining this family has been the smug, insufferable, disingenuous utterance, 'Be kind.' It's what she said in that first interview with Harry, claiming that she made it very clear to their matchmaking friend she had one non-negotiable quality in a potential mate:
'And so the only thing that I had asked [our mutual friend] when she said she wanted to set us up was — I had one question — I said, 'Well is he nice?' 'Cause if he wasn't kind it didn't seem like it would make sense.'
We all know now that Harry isn't very nice. You don't take millions from your father and cling to your titles while disparaging and insulting him, then tell the world — for years — that they're a family of racists before taking it all back and blaming the press for your woes while revealing all manner of your father and brother's private pain and intimate information and get to call yourself a nice guy.
On top of all that, we're meant to feel sorry for Meghan and Harry.
You don't mock the physically disabled female teacher at your boarding school for kicks, as Harry did, and get to call yourself nice. You don't double-down and name this poor woman in your memoir, blame her for not being attractive enough to make you 'horny', then recount the serial humiliations you subjected her to without ever expressing an iota of remorse or guilt or shame and get to call yourself nice — let alone a humanitarian and a thought leader in mental health.
Mental health advocates — these two! It's just amazing. No matter how many discrepancies, these two evince nothing, not so much as a blushing cheek or a head hung in shame. They're like two dead-eyed sharks, moving ever forward through the chum in their wake. They don't seem to understand that credibility and authenticity is paramount when trying to launch themselves as personal brands.
They also don't seem to understand what laughingstocks they've become. After the priceless Jimmy Kimmel bit about Harry and his todger, after Stephen Colbert mocked the royal family to Harry's face during his appearance, 'South Park' — a show that gleefully flays hypocrites of all stripes — has focused their ire on these two professional victims. No one deserves it more.
As the young animated character Kyle exclaimed, 'It is seriously driving me crazy. I'm sick of hearing about them but I can't get away from them! They're everywhere. In my f***ing face.'
A cri de coeur for us all. Alas, Harry and Meghan seem to lack the one quality that might possibly redeem them: A sense of humor.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11755649/MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-South-Park-make-Harry-Meghan-theyre-laughing-stocks.html
I missed that Lady C episode. So, this alternative explanation is not only credible but it seems, that especially in society circles, everyone knew what really happened. Gosh, he has made such a fool of himself! It is only a matter of time and the tabloids are going to find the story and have a field day with it.
What will she do? Distance herself from him ASAP? Lash out in fury? Hide away, comforting herself with drinking, eating, crying ... not necessarily in that order?
This is such a mess!
She saved him! It was the fault of the family, the institution, the tabloids, the people of the UK. She found him and saw in him the man he could be, the man he really was. She tried to save him within the institution and the UK, but that was not possible, so they had to flee. His memoirs, all that truth telling (ahem!) are part of his healing and rehabilitation.
Do I sense another Opeah interview?
Wow! Top Cat was my favorite cartoon - such a jazzy theme song. 😎 You did it major justice with your newly created lyrics.