I know someone who is pregnant. They are calm. They have their plans about this and that, what they will do and when that will happen. It looks very nice and well spaced out. But all I can think is that the birth is not all that far away. It is flying fast at them and I can tell that there are still a lot of things which need to be on the now list dates instead of the when I get to it list.
That's the problem with a coming at you soon deadline. It suddenly is right there and you are thinking: Wait a minute. This cannot be. I thought I had more time to do X or Y and now I'm suddenly short on time with lots of things left undone.
This coronation could be like that. It seems far away when you aren't in the thick of planning for it as it's not part of your daily, hourly thinking mind. But it's not that far way. 65 days is not much.
So will they come? Will they stay home? Who knows but the news always seems to have space for yet another maybe article. And, it keeps them in play which buys them some time.
I have no crystal ball telling me what they will do but I do know that they will have to come up with an answer pretty soon.
Comments
Oh dear, what bad luck for hapless. The following post on Reddit goes into detail about how this could affect him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11nzm67/betterups_bank_silicon_valley_bank_svb_just/
SwampWoman . the SVB failure. so a lot of private companies/start ups were required (per venture capital funding) to use SVB for their own company banking. deposit customer receipts, use for paying interest on debt, accessing funding from venture capital with funds transferred through SVB. so does Meghan’s fabulous oat lattes have funds tied up there? what about ButterUp? payroll services? this could prove very interesting for the get rich quick schemes by lending their Royal names to these private companies. as it stands the Feds have seized the bank assets. FDIC only insures up to $250,000 per person/entity of deposits and a lot of the bank assets are either really long dated treasuries selling at a deep discount from where they bought them or there are loans made out to some of these start ups. sell the loans to a distressed hedge fund who maybe less willing to keep lending. it’s all gonna be interesting who is impacted most. and the contagion in the next two weeks will be interesting and hopefully not so wide spread that it sends all of our 401ks into a tizzy.
IIRC, 'ButterUP' was already having financial difficulties. I have read that a lot of start ups with their money tied up in SVB that may not be able to make payroll have been advised to immediately put their employees in non-paid furlough (*cough*layoff*cough*) status. Not much else they can do until it gets sorted out. If you're bleeding money, best slap a tourniquet on to try to keep from bleeding out.
If people aren't getting paid, neither will mortgage payments or car payments or purchasing of trendy oat milk lattes. We saw the flash of the explosion today but the shockwave hasn't arrived yet. I *think* it will be mostly confined to the west coast but (shrug) I could be wrong. It wouldn't hurt to draw a couple weeks' worth of cash to cover living expenses, I suppose.
California might need to find a volcano to drop ILBW and her blue-todgered husband into. With the SVB failure, uncertainty for tech industries that banked through them, the record snowfall, and the coming huge rainstorm that may melt all that snow simultaneously and turn central valley into a lake (it has happened in the past), they really need to find a way to whip up some good karma ASAP. Those California vultures may be coming home to roost.
Fun thing that happened to Wells Fargo customers in my part of Florida today, coincidentally. (?) The customers' already deposited paychecks in their accounts disappeared while their automated bills were taken out. 'Technical difficulties' is the explanation. (This is why our bills are only semi-automated; we have to manually approve each transaction.)
That Daily Beast item is pretty depressing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11nzm67/betterups_bank_silicon_valley_bank_svb_just/
ROFL. If I were in CA and they start crowing about something else, I'd look for the nearest fallout shelter.
Lady Colin Campbell addressed the matter yesterday, but only in a very vague way. Saying that things are taking place behind the scenes isn’t saying much.
Charles is getting absolutely roasted over these titles for the Invisikids. My feeling is, if he’s kept the Todgers twisting in the wind for six months and said nothing about titles, why not delay further until after the Coronation? Granting the titles now will only increase the Todgers’ agitating for a balcony appearance and official portraits with the spawn because, you know, cha-Ching. Hard to keep them in a back corner behind the candles now.
As you know, I don’t believe all is strictly in order as regards Harry’s alleged children. If they actually exist and are not being playacted by hire children and dolls, I believe they do not meet the constitutional requirements to be legitimate Royal heirs. The style of Prince or Princess is the least of it—the LOS May have been tampered with grievously, not once but twice. The Queen, and now Charles legitimizes these children by listing them in the line of succession, and giving them titles doubles down on this official line. Hence, on paper at least, Archie and Lilibet of Montecito are as fully, legitimately and unequivocally as deserving to be heirs of the kingdom as George, Charlotte and Louis—of Charles himself…lesser in rank but not in the substance of being Royal.
This is impossible for me to accept, knowing Rachel’s dissembling. I simply don’t buy either of the dodgy pair as legitimate parents. Could KCIII be calling their bluff with this announcement now? I would suppose that all members of the Royal family have DNA on file for ID purposes, medical history, security,etc. We know the circumstances of those births were untoward and the documents are non-standard to say the least. Whatever’s gone on, it’s now called a Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom. That is the law—but only as it concerns legit Royal children.
Edward’s long awaited elevation to DoE is diminished by coming after TBW’s gloating appearance over having her demands met. Charles could have at least waited until after Edward’s announcement.
Today she doesn't exist for the majority in the US because people are quietly worried about the stability of their banks, the safety of their investments, and the safety of their savings. Meanwhile, in California, people are having to evacuate the increasing flooding while perhaps also becoming suddenly unemployed/not getting their pay.
I agree with you on almost every point except the timing.
I believe `Archie', is either imaginary or a child born of surrogacy. Either way, it looks as if an adoption process has been gone through to comply with English law, whether he's real or not. It's a similar case with `Lili' except I gather US law recognises as legitimately theirs without an adoption having to take place. Digging into either of those aspects is fraught with problems, as I see it.
On the other hand, there's hope in that the `Southparkles', a Sinner called them on St M M called her, were so damn' secretive about the circumstances of both births that, unless they can produce appropriate witnesses prepared to swear on oath that Meghan birthed the children, they have no automatic rights to any inheritance under English law, other than bequests in their parents' wills (just as unmarried couples have hitherto risked for their kids.) To be brutal, Without the evidence they are what used to be called `Royal bastards'.
I firmly believe they are `cuckoos in the royal nest' , at least until the Harkles produce the correct evidence. It's 1688 for real this time (James II's son was so much like him it is clear that there was no substance to the rumour.) Just when we were laughing at the ridiculous idea that anyone would want to smuggle in a couple of impostors, it seems to have happened, even if the warming pan has been kept firmly out of sight.
-----
As for Charles's `indecisiveness', that was an idea wickedly planted by Diana. Unfortunately, it has been seized on, and clung to, by the public when it was only her opinion.
Leaving the `Oh well, I suppose you can use the titles' until after the Coronation would have risked them kicking off even more dramatically than they are likely to now.
I still believe that had the King answered the Harkle's clamour with an `In your dreams!' and rescinded the kids' right to a title, all hell would have broken loose, initially from H$M, then the Press. All would have screamed `Victimisation' and `R-ceism!', with a backing chorus from our republicans.
As Commoners, we have the freedom to tell our narcs to s*d off; we can change the locks and make sure we avoid them in the future, a privilege denied to the King.
Another `archaic' law that we assumed was irrelevant gave the monarch custody of any grandchildren, to protect them from unfit parents. Whether or not it's been struck from the statute book, I don't know but it would have given Charles clout were they to be brought to the UK. Even if the King now has no legal obligation towards the children, he may well feel a moral obligation to protect them, regardless of who they really are. We don't know what harm * might do to them if she felt he had thwarted her.
Could a modern monarch say the equivalent to `Publish and be damned!' if she threatened to hurt them? Would it call her bluff if he did or would she go ahead with whatever she'd threatened?
We can only wait in anxious silence and try not to jump to conclusions.
Charles could have at least waited until after Edward’s announcement.
----------
Indeed he could. But I was under the impression that the 5s announced the titles, forcing the Palace to make it official? Then they announced Edward's new title on his birthday.
I also feel that Charles doesn't nwaant to 'upset the apple cart'. He is in a difficult place.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11846311/Documentary-explore-life-hooker-murdered-Earl-Shaftesbury.html
I also seem to remember a recent blind posted on reddit (saint meghanmarkle) suggesting that visitors to Mudslide Manor are now instructed to curtesy when meeting TBW..... No idea if there’s any truth in it!
One can only hope for a better outcome for Harry and that the parallels begin and end with the speculation about how they may have met as well as her delusions of grandeur.
The King did not announce the titles for the Californian kids - they did through People magazine. The King probably was waiting until after announcing the Duke of Edinburgh title for Edward but the duo pushed their agenda and went rogue. Note that Edward and Sophie visited Edinburgh immediately after the announcement was made. This was no accident because the Palace organizes and co-ordinates. If there were talks between the duo and the Palace about the titles for the children, the King would have wanted to wait until after granting the title of Duke of Edinburgh to Edward. The duo have shown yet again that they are self-centered and not team players and refuse to accept their lower place in the pecking order. The King should keep this in mind in terms of having them at the coronation!
I have a theory of what might have happened:
* They did refuse titles for their children when Archie was born, dishonestly saying that it was because they wanted their children to have a 'normal life'. This was not true. They wanted prince/princess, but the Queen refused, hence the accusation of racism (you did it for William's children, why not for mine).
* When the King, thinking they did not want titles for their children, did not pronounce them prince/princess after the Queen's death, they had to do something. So, at the Queen's funeral, they cornered Charles. I suspect that they used word salad instead of being direct and did not make clear that they wanted the prince/princess NOW. Charles thought they wanted their children to be able to choose when they turned 18, as with Sophie and James, and assured them that he would not take away the titles. (The duo hotfooted it out of the UK after the funeral, so they cornered Charles, when he was grieving the loss of his mother, had just done an exhausting mini tour of the UK, greeting thousands of people - talk about inappropriate!)
* Remember the duo are not on talking terms with the family and distrust courtiers, so the misunderstanding was never cleared up. The duo stewed in California. They finally got talking to the Palace (who knows how clear they were) and were stalled because Charles wanted to first make Edward Duke of Edinburgh, which he saw as a priority. Since no one trusts the duo, they were not told this. So the duo did a smash and grab and went the tacky route of making an announcement via People magazine. They could not wait and they wanted the Palace to follow their agenda and prioritize their demands, but that is not how the Firm works.
Surely the result of this smash and grab is that the family and the Palace will lose any hope of trusting them? Yet from California we get the relentless propaganda of them being on the balcony and even returning as working royals. (Note the recent 'royal engagement' she did and him pushing the message of being devoted to 'service'.)
Louis high-fiving Beatrice and all being good would be a lovely outcome!
Will they be able to elbow their way into the balcony? Official photos of them and their children with the crowned King? A role in the ceremony?
For pure entertainment value, I do want to see them at the coronation. I want to see her in an inappropriate and ill-fitting outfit, dripping with itty bitty 'symbolic' jewellery and blood diamonds, with the theme being 'American princess'. And I do want to see some hero in the crowd pelting them with overripe bananas! River suggest that the best protest the people could make is turn their backs on them. Simply turn way from them as they appear - but I think Brits will get more vocal and demonstrative than that!
The rumour has started that she is pregnant. I have always predicted that she will use a pregnancy to get attention and protection from criticism at the coronation. I do hope I am wrong. She has always had a protruding tummy and there was no belly cupping or even hint of belly cupping ... but she has worn black for her two recent appearances.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11841983/Meghan-Markle-visits-homeless-charity-pregnant-women-Los-Angeles.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11841087/Meghans-high-end-brunch-look-Duchess-Sussex-sports-10-000-outfit.html
Surely I am wrong?
Royal Tea
@UKRoyalTea
·
Mar 9
It’s interesting that we keep seeing the Sussexes photographed in LA. It’s a 2 hour drive from Montecito, so they either have a 2nd home there, are driving 4 hours round trip (or more with LA traffic) or are flying there regularly. I guess the carbon footprint doesn’t matter?
https://twitter.com/UKRoyalTea
People in the comments are saying that this is normal in America. I suppose if you have a chauffer-driven luxury car and plenty of time on your hands (i.e. no job) and plenty of money then it is normal!
I was just digging for proof that Lilibet's christening actually happened when they said it did, because I was sceptical of it being on a weekday at their home during lent. I found this publication by the Episcopal Church in which Bishop John Tayler confirmed he performed the Christening
https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2023/03/08/los-angeles-bishop-baptizes-princess-lilibet-daughter-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle/
But what is interesting is it says:
“On behalf of Presiding Bishop Michael B. Curry, and at the invitation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, I had the blessing of presiding as the sacrament of Holy Baptism was conferred on their daughter,” Taylor shared, saying that the service took place March 3 at the couple’s home in Montecito, California.
“Prince Harry and Meghan were gracious hosts to the congregation of family and friends who were present,” Taylor said.
"The couple initially had asked Curry to preside at the baptism, a service he helped plan. But when he tested positive for COVID, he asked Taylor to take his place, according to Amanda Skofstad, the church’s public affairs officer. Curry has since recovered from what was his second bout of COVID."
Now Bishop Michael B. Curry is not just any bishop he is THE bishop who gave a sermon at their wedding. The fourteen minute long sermon that attracted much attention round the world, not least because he was the first black bishop at a royal wedding.
He is the current presiding Bishop and primate of the Episcopal church. In other words he is the head honcho. He is the first African American to serve as presiding Bishop. He has no links to Los Angeles or California, he was previously Bishop of North Carolina.
( From Wikipedia: In the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Presiding Bishop is the chief pastor and primate of the national church and its nine ecclesiastical provinces. The Presiding Bishop is charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating, developing, and articulating policy and strategy, overseeing the administration of the national church staff, and speaking for the church on issues of concern and interest. He or she is the president of the House of Bishops and is elected by the church's General Convention to serve a non designated term )
So he is probably similar in status to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is not just any old local bishop. They really did have plans for a really grand Christening for Lilibet. Only the head Bishop is good enough for them.
And as to why he would come to Montecito on a weekday in Lent - well he would have been returning the favour for the global platform that they give him at their wedding. And then when Covid struck him down Rev. John Taylor stood in for him at the last minute.
They really did have illusions of grandeur. Hence also the gospel choir. It fitted in with intending to have their wedding Bishop there.
As WBBM has pointed out, there are strict laws governing the privacy of surrogate & adopted children, which is understandable. I will, however, completely give up on Charles if he's been lobbying Parliament, or whatever body sets the rules for the aristocracy, to change the 'of the body' rule, especially after all that the poor Marchioness of Bath went through.
Charles should recognize that although he's the monarch, it isn't all about him. His mother certainly never made it about herself. Sometimes Charles seems King Lear-like, sacrificing his 'good' child for the sake of an ungrateful one.
Here I go again, an American opining on poor old Charles. LOL!
HG Tudor YouTube video:
https://youtu.be/Z1bVdRaF8dg
She also stated the duo leaked and/or pushed the envelope early regarding the announcement of the titles. The announcement of the above was meant to coincide with Edward being bestowed the Duke of Edinburgh title.
@Sandie,
Yes a four hour round trip is very normal to American’s. It would be a rare thing in the UK. Of course the duo have a driver…you don’t expect entitled people like them to drive themselves do you?! 😂
Carbon footprint concern? Are people seriously expecting the duo to worry about that…they beg and borrow other people’s private planes just for the privilege, then to lecture others to be mindful! 🫣😂When did the hypocrisy bypass those thinking the duo ever actually cared and gave a stuff?! 😞😕
I also feel that Charles doesn't nwaant to 'upset the apple cart'. He is in a difficult place.
Yeah, the RF didn't release that. The announcement was so messed up that it sounded as though they named (christened) the kid princess, like a little froufrou dog. It would be like me saying "Pardon me, I'm going to go outside now and sprinkle some water on the dogs and rename them as royalty."
The RF have days absolutely stuffed with activity and have to plan EVERYTHING far in advance. Now, who do we know that has had absolutely horrendous 'publicity' via South Park and Chris Rock? Who do we know that has enough spare time to say "HEY, whatever your title is of an acceptable church, we need you to come to our house for a Christening Partay! There will be dancing and wine. Oh, you say this needs to take place in church? Here's some money, shut up, this is a PRINCESS that needs her privacy! There will be important guests.
Twitter is reporting a source that says that much of Harry's/Meghan's money was stuffed in SVB and may only be insured for $250,000.
iSource News
@isource_news
BREAKING: HARRY AND MEGHAN STAND TO LOSE MILLIONS IN COLLAPSE OF SVB BANK
Sources tell iSN the couple set up accounts following the advice of friends in Silicon Valley.
"This is a major blow," said our source, "They had all of Harry's money there."
I don't think they have any 'friends'. Maybe some of Harry's BetterUp party posse who have all their assets in that particular bank?
The same source is/are reporting the same thing about Oprah but I'm suspicious. Surely these people have (expensive) advisors that would tell them that putting all of their financial eggs in one basket (bank) is incredibly stupid. I would tell them that for $50, but I'm not an expert like Jim Cramer (who said to buy stock in this incredibly great bank on February 8).
I agree entirely with your post at 12.13 pm, 'I have a theory of what might have happened'.
As for another pregnancy, please no!!! Or else it'll be another mythcarriage that will happen on the day of the coronation or the day before.
As the coronation is on Archie 's birthday, will she insist on her prince being on the balcony for the occasion? She's brazen enough.
I also feel that Charles doesn't want to 'upset the apple cart'. He is in a difficult place.
The scurrilous Montecitos will make a last days decision whether to show for the Coronation. They most certainly will not RSVP in a timely manner. And even then, they might reverse it. They will keep Charles hanging, they got his number! Megs saw through Charles within ten minutes of first meeting him. She then taught her Hapless whipped student, how to exploit Charles along with her.
One plus, is that after Coronation they will have no good reason to haunt the UK again. Post Coronation, there must be a hard Royal cutoff, with Wills and Anne insisting on this.
Some of Prince Harry's family members 'WERE at Princess Lilibet's christening' - despite senior royals not attending
- Lady Jane Fellowes and Lady Sarah McCorquodale 'attended Lili's christening'
- Marie Claire reports Princess Diana's older sisters had been present at party
As precious few details have been released about the christening ceremony of Princess Lilibet Diana last week, one thing that has stood out to royal fans is that senior members of the royal family had been invited but were not present.
Prince Harry, 38 and Meghan Markle, 41, christened their 21-month-old daughter in an intimate ceremony followed by a party at their home in Montecito, California, a spokesman for the couple confirmed.
After People magazine revealed a few details about the party, including that four-year-old Prince Archie danced with his sister while songs were played from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's wedding, royal journalist and friend of the Sussexes Omid Scobie offered some detail about the guest list.
He posted on Twitter: 'King Charles, Queen Camilla, Prince William, Princess Kate were invited but didn't attend.'
However it has now been reported that Prince Harry's family was not completely under-represented at the christening and party, as his aunts on his mother's side were supposedly in attendance.
Marie Claire has reported that Lady Jane Fellowes and Lady Sarah McCorquodale, the older sisters of the late Princess Diana, were among the guests at the christening.
It is not clear when the Duke of Sussex last saw his aunts, although they have been present at his important life events along with Prince Harry's uncle, Earl Spencer.
Both Harry and William have remained close with their aunts and uncle on their mother's side since the death of Princess Diana in 1997.
The Duke of Sussex was last pictured alongside his aunts in 2021 when he and the Prince of Wales joined together to unveil a statue of their late mother at Kensington Palace.
Both Harry and William were pictured warmly greeting Lady Sarah and Lady Jane with kisses and hugs.
Last week, his aunts were reportedly among a guest list of around 20-30 including Princess Lilibet's godfather Tyler Perry, who loaned the Sussexes his $18million (£15million) Beverly Hills mansion in 2020.
Another guest reported to have been at the party was Doria Ragland, Meghan's mother, who plays a big part in family life for the Sussexes as revealed in their Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan.
Other details of the party are scant, but People magazine reported that the ceremony was hosted by Reverend John Taylor, last Friday.
They were serenaded by a gospel choir, who are believed to have performed Oh Happy Day and This Little Light of Mine — a song that was played at Meghan and Harry's wedding.
Meanwhile an insider revealed that after the ceremony, 'attendees were treated to an afternoon of food and dancing — with Archie enjoying a dance with his little sister!'
Details of the warm ceremony may be seen to reflect Prince Harry's disclosure last weekend that he 'smothers' his children with affection.
In an interview with controversial therapist Gabor Mate, the Duke said: 'It leaves me in position now, as a father to two kids of my own, making sure that I smother them with love and affection.'
He had been referring to claims he made in his bombshell memoir Spare that the Royal Family did not often physically touch one another.
It is perhaps no surprise that the couple hosted the party in their own home, as Meghan has previously discussed her attachment to the property as 'free' and full of 'joy'.
Not many details have been given about decorations at the party, although Harry and Meghan's mansion is reported to be kitted out with chic Soho House candles and the couple boast a grand piano in their sitting room, which was gifted to them by Perry.
Speaking in an interview with The Cut last year, Meghan said of her home: 'We did everything we could to get this house. Because you walk in and go... Joy. And exhale. And calm. It’s healing. You feel free.'
One of the first features that Meghan and Harry saw was two palm trees, connected together at the bottom, which the Duke claimed represented the loved-up couple.
'And now every day when Archie goes by us, he says, "Hi, Momma. Hi, Papa,"' explained the Duchess.
Following the announcement of Princess Lilibet Diana's christening, questions were raised about whether or not the youngest child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex really was titled 'princess'.
After the Sussexes released a statement claiming it was her 'birth right' to hold the title, Buckingham Palace revealed it would update both Lilibet and Archie's titles on its website.
Within hours, the titles were updated and they were named as Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. The line of succession was also updated to reflect their positions as sixth and seventh in line to the throne, behind their father Prince Harry.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11847859/Some-Prince-Harrys-family-members-Princess-Lilibets-christening.html?ito=windows-widget-push-notification&ci=555408
as for svb. the mrs seems to have some money lately (Getty?) before the collapse and now social media rumors that she and oprah lost a lot of $. perhaps again she will pivot in her favor. charles. we lost all our money in a bank collapse waaagh not from spending$ on Pr to trash the family. there is a twitter account i source that has been espousing all sorts of rubbish. i swear my gut says it’s her or someone close to her. pregnancy nonsense. loss of $ at svb and lots about how much oprah lost (she loves to get at people via rumors) the same site had Oprah building a place for them in Maui to hide out (move to an island). i think she’s trolling oprah who hasn’t been a bestie in a long time. or someone is having a fun time trolling all of it
Prince William Allegedly Suffered the Most From Charles & Diana's 'Toxic' Marriage
While there is much discussion about Princess Diana’s experience during her marriage to the then-Prince Charles, there isn’t a lot of focus on how hard it was for Prince William. We’ve certainly gotten Prince Harry’s perspective in his memoir, Spare, but the Prince of Wales has largely remained silent about his parents’ marriage.
Now, a new deep-dive article from the Times of London is sharing how hard it was for William — he may have suffered the most. The boys’ upbringing was described as “unhappy” because they were surrounded by “warring parents who were prone to shouting, sullen silences, vicious arguments, and tears.” William was often left to console “his weeping mother” by pushing “tissues under the bathroom door.” He reportedly told her, “I hate to see you sad.” That story is just soul-crushing.
William may have developed his well-known temper during this era because he was known at school as “Basher Wills” as he took his anger out on others. (That sounds familiar, no?) And one nanny reportedly noted that “the atmosphere at home was at best difficult to deal with, at worst toxic.” She recalled William telling Charles, “I hate you, Papa, I hate you so much. Why do you make Mummy cry all the time?”
It makes sense as to why Harry sought therapy in his adult years because there appears to be a lot of trauma to unpack. Just because a prince lives behind palace walls does not make his story a fairytale. As the oldest child, William experienced more of the darkness than Harry did — and it seems like it was a harder childhood than he may ever admit.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/prince-william-allegedly-suffered-the-most-from-charles-diana-s-toxic-marriage/ar-AA18tBUg?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=39158ae1bbcb440fa061f34a74f7ecd5&ei=12
did they lose all of their money in the collapse of SVB?
Royal Tea
@UKRoyalTea
·
Mar 9
It’s interesting that we keep seeing the Sussexes photographed in LA. It’s a 2 hour drive from Montecito, so they either have a 2nd home there, are driving 4 hours round trip (or more with LA traffic) or are flying there regularly. I guess the carbon footprint doesn’t matter?
https://twitter.com/UKRoyalTea
People in the comments are saying that this is normal in America. I suppose if you have a chauffer-driven luxury car and plenty of time on your hands (i.e. no job) and plenty of money then it is normal!
I can confirm. A two-hour one-way commute daily in order to work is not unusual here. We have a lot of people in our school system that live in rural Georgia and commute two hours (one way) to work daily.
Ms. Todger has never seemed very Christian, I would expect her to follow some sort of new-agey California religion, maybe one that uses crystals & astrology, although by California standards, she's not very Californian. Both of her parents are in-comers from other parts of the USA. You have to be at least 5th generation to be considered a real Californian.
If they don't RSVP in a timely manner, their seats will be given to someone else. If they RSVP and don't show, well, their seats will be given to someone else and they'll never be invited again. Don't see the problem here.
"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been invited to King Charles III's coronation on May 6, but have so far refused to say whether they will be attending.
Apparently, that's not because they think it's fun to toy with nosy people like me's emotions, but because they genuinely haven't made a decision, and won't until they come to a series of compromises with the King and the Royal Family.
Their first order of business? Asking that their son Archie's birthday be acknowledged.
"Archie’s birthday falls on May 6, coronation day, and the Sussexes want the family to recognize that," a source told OK!. "The Sussexes have asked for some kind of celebration or acknowledgement to be factored into the day’s plans to ensure that his fourth birthday won’t get lost during the momentous day."
Following their eviction from Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, the Sussexes were apparently offered an apartment in Buckingham Palace, but they're asking to stay with Princess Eugenie and her family at Frogmore instead, according to OK!'s sources. (Eugenie is taking over the home from the Sussexes.)
"They want their children to spend time with other family members, especially their cousin August who is around about the same age as Lilibet. Both couples get on extremely well and are keen for their children to be close," a source told OK! (it's unclear whether this is the same source as the first).
This source added that the Sussexes reportedly want to be included on the Buckingham Palace balcony on the day. "This could prove a real sticking point because the Palace have narrowed it down to only working members of the Royal Family on the balcony," they said. "Harry and Meghan are keen that they too should be a part of that special family moment."
Last but not least, the California-based couple need to know that they and their children will be safe if they return to the U.K.
"There is still an ongoing legal case between the Sussexes and the Home Office over their security. The couple wants more security while they are in the U.K. and this needs to be ironed out before they attend the coronation," the source said.
That seems like a lot of things to figure out in less than two months, especially considering the state of the Sussexes' relationship with their family. Sigh."
https://archive.ph/2023.03.11-152600/https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/prince-harry-meghan-markle-coronation-negotiations/
Oh G*d, she probably does.
Toxic atmosphere? If she's not careful, the public will give her a toxic atmosphere she'll never forget...
Oh G*d, she probably does.
Toxic atmosphere? If she's not careful, the public will give her a toxic atmosphere she'll never forget...
"Following their eviction from Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, the Sussexes were apparently offered an apartment in Buckingham Palace, but they're asking to stay with Princess Eugenie and her family at Frogmore instead, according to OK!'s sources. (Eugenie is taking over the home from the Sussexes.)They want their children to spend time with other family members, especially their cousin August who is around about the same age as Lilibet. Both couples get on extremely well and are keen for their children to be close," a source told OK! (it's unclear whether this is the same source as the first).
Seriously? She expects us to believe that sh*t? Five bedroom house, two couples, four children? I seriously doubt that the ILBW and Blue Todger share a bedroom (or a house). Where will the Netflix crew sleep? What about Doria and the other hired help? Notice also that Eugenie did not proffer the invitation, ILBW is inviting her family probably so that she can get more sneaky photography in.
They really expect to take over a king's coronation?
They really expect a grandson's birthday to be acknowledged as a part of the overall festivities? If this is true, I am correct in my thinking that they need the titles, the access that they might wrangle to remain solvent.
If KCIII gives in on any of those points (staying at Frogmore with another couple - that....is laughable at its best), his reign is doomed.
i totally think she will exploit a the svb situation but hopefully the palace is saave enough to have the two show them their depositors certificates (you get two. one up to $250,000 which the FDIC will honor and another which will be a claim on assets to be liquidated). somehow between Charles and Getty she will milk some extra cash madam will once again slip by on the skin of her teeth.
problem is she will have to move. no one in hollywood is touching her. while she was pap walking with her assistant a bunch of celebrity driven events (fashion shows) were in town. Uncle Elton was there and yes somehow didn’t make it to see the kiddos or the christening. she has worn out her welcome. she needs to move.
Back on the Todgers: Lady C valiantly posted a video today, as she has a nasty sounding cold. In short, she said KCIII's hands are tied by laws governing medical privacy, which Ms. Todger is well aware of, & she says that Ms. Todger has adroitly played the race card. KCIII doesn't want to upset the Commonwealth nations by disrespecting his DIL & grandchildren 'of colour.'
Lady C. again insists that by this time next year or sooner, the Todgers will be exposed & will meet their downfall. Who knows? Lady C. has been right in the past, & she doesn't seem to get sued by the subjects of her books.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAfEEeH3egs
/I am gifted locally-produced alcohol so don't have a dog in this fight.
speaking of one that needs to be cut loose. there are a lot of pr articles out there. daily drip drip drip of the christening now a radaronline piece about camila and charles bickering about everything. wonder is one of them is having an affair with rose too. the only good thing is she will spend her new round cash on pr and like a habitual gambler will have spent it all before May.
problem is she will have to move. no one in hollywood is touching her. while she was pap walking with her assistant a bunch of celebrity driven events (fashion shows) were in town. Uncle Elton was there and yes somehow didn’t make it to see the kiddos or the christening. she has worn out her welcome. she needs to move.
I think Canada said "Oh, HELL, no!" and I don't think England wants her. Maybe she can be placed on an uninhabited Orkney island if Scotland is paid enough, or an uninhabited Aleutian island. It seems cruel punishment to inflict her upon a town or village in an inhabited area.
The guy who supposedly baptized Lilibucks was away at a synod the day of the alleged christening according to someone on Quora.
So the 5s are now making new demands. Who do
They think they are? I posted this earlier, half jokingly: "As the coronation is on Archie 's birthday, will she insist on her prince being on the balcony for the occasion? She's brazen enough." Do they want front row at the Coronation? (Probably).
As for that "special family moment", the Coronation is a state occasion. They just don't get it, this is a not a family do. They want Archie 's birthday to be "factored in" the celebrations - may I suggest Charles acknowledges the momentous occasion (A's birthday) during the ceremony to make sure no one misses it.
They want assurances that they and their children are safe if the go to the UK: this is a thinly veiled, and unsubtle, demand for special protection. Charles, please don't cave in to their demands, I beg of you.
Now suddenly Eugenie and Jack are back/still in FroggyCott? I distinctly remember when Jack's new job in Portugal was announced that the Brooksbanks were vacating FC and moving back to Ivy Cottage on the KP grounds for their London residence. KCIII was going to put Andrew in FC as Royal Lodge gets mold removal and a new roof in preparation for the eventual move-in of the Waleses. Froggy Cott does have 5 bedrooms but that'd be cozy wouldn't it--with a room for Augie, another for the new baby, the master bedroom and Gramps in one of the spare rooms?
Ha. Well, it's all in the York family, innit. Maybe Chas has told Andrew he can cram in with his daughter's family because his current profile in the Firm does not warrant more space. He can have it to himself when Euge and Jack and the children are in Lisbon.
******
KCIII needs to stand firm and stick to his guns about working members only on the balcony. Period. Regardless of tantrums. Madam can be told that should they attend with the children, Master Archie can have a birthday cake during the family lunch but there will be no 'official' events marking a four year old's birthday. A fourth birthday is not a state occasion or even a particularly momentous occasion in an ordinary family. I spent my fourth birthday miserable in the hospital after a tonsillectomy and that's the only reason I remember my 4th birthday. Otherwise it would have been a completely forgettable day. The surgeon was not asked to rearrange his surgical schedule on account of it being my 4th birthday, imagine that. I got a Baskin Robbins ice cream cake in my hospital bed which I was in too much pain to eat. We don't all get the awesome birthday celebrations we want every year and that's the way it goes. One might consider that flying to London to watch one's grandfather be anointed King of the United Kingdom is a pretty impressive birthday gift. It's wasted on a four year old but it's equally wasted on his ingrate parents.
Gee, shades of Archie being christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, 300 miles away in York on that day, in front of hundreds of witnesses.
A christening/baptism is not a legal ceremony in the U.S. A baptismal name is sometimes different than the one given on the birth certificate, but the legal name is the one on the BC. I've never heard of a 'christening plus disco party' as a private event at home. The entire point of a baptism is that the child is being welcomed into the family of faith--as witnessed by a congregation, in a church. Lots of weddings take place at home, births too, but I've never ever heard of a home baptismal font. The Suxxits have made a travesty of another sacred ecclesiastical ceremony just as they did with their sham wedding.
Sometimes baptisms are tiny, private affairs--I was born 10 weeks premature and was baptized in the hospital on my first day of life because there was a fair chance I wouldn't survive. Any Christian can actually baptize someone in cases of extremis but ordinarily, it is meant to be a celebration of the *Church family* with the parents and the newest member. If the child called Lili is real, she is coming up on her second birthday. She was born in Montecito, allegedly, where her parents have resided for her entire life. They've had almost three years to find a church to properly baptize their daughter. But no, they wanted a Royal christening attended by the Queen. Since they didn't get that, they are doing a half-assed 'home party' attended by celebrities dancing and call that a proper baptism? B--ls---t. So much for their beliefs in God. It was nothing but an opportunity to get into People Magazine again.
Did 'godfather' Tyler Perry really fly from Atlanta to attend this debacle . .? Yeah, ask me if I believe that.
Woke head of risk assessment in the SVB bank which collapsed used woke criteria to assess risk. Markled again!
By the way, the reason that so many people had their money in this bank was that it was used by venture capitalists to fund new tech companies and projects.
$1k invested in a start up company that makes it big, well that $1k could be work $100k for example, but if you invest it in a mutual fund, you get 10% if you're lucky on an annual basis.
Lady C. again insists that by this time next year or sooner, the Todgers will be exposed & will meet their downfall. Who knows? Lady C. has been right in the past, & she doesn't seem to get sued by the subjects of her books.
I listened to Lady C today and wanted to tell her to get some rest, don't worry about the Todgers because they'll still be pains in the butt in a week, but you need some rest! I felt so sorry for her when she said that she really felt like puking when talking about them! I feel her pain; I feel like puking when listening to them.
CLOWN
What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl?
MALVOLIO
That the soul of our grandam might haply inhabit a bird.
CLOWN
What thinkest thou of his opinion?
MALVOLIO
I think nobly of the soul, and no way approve his opinion.
CLOWN
Fare thee well. Remain thou still in darkness:
Thou shalt hold the opinion of Pythagoras ere I will
Allow of thy wits, and fear to kill a woodcock, lest
Thou dispossess the soul of thy grandam. Fare thee well.
(Act 4 Sc2)
They can't even lie straight in bed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11848809/Royals-hope-Harry-Meghan-seated-Iceland-Kings-Coronation.html#newcomment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11848813/Sophie-Wessex-relieved-royal-ranks-means-no-longer-curtsey-Meghan.html?ico=related-replace#newcomment
(1) svb harry meghan - Twitter Search / Twitter
Twitter:
"Harry and Meghan will reportedly lose millions in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
Oprah stands to lose $590 million."
I don't know what they do in bed, but bet I would have to Google it. Waffle makers, salad dressing and roast chicken will never be the same since I found this site.
H may over share details in his next book.
Do you think it would be possible to seat the interlopers in the hinterlands of Westminster Abbey? It would be great if they were at least across a very wide aisle from the working royals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11848705/Woke-head-risk-assessment-Silicon-Valley-Bank-accused-prioritizing-diversity-issues.html
Woke head of risk assessment in the SVB bank which collapsed used woke criteria to assess risk. Markled again!
By the way, the reason that so many people had their money in this bank was that it was used by venture capitalists to fund new tech companies and projects.
$1k invested in a start up company that makes it big, well that $1k could be work $100k for example, but if you invest it in a mutual fund, you get 10% if you're lucky on an annual basis.
Nobody ever thinks that 'risk' means that they may lose everything above $250,000!
I'm not sure what 'woke criteria' is, but apparently it had nothing to do with financial analysis and risk assessment. This is what happens when idiots are put in places of responsibility.
i am sure the intelligence authorities have it all. question is how to release it for maximum effect. lure them to UL for coronation actually take the passports (thanks M for the idea) and charge them criminal with fraud short of criminal charges charges not really sure what stops them. then again if we push the idea that an arrest is possible perhaps she won’t return for coronation
"There has always been a grudging respect in California for the royals. Not just, as Harry and Meghan might have thought, because they have fancy titles and wear tiaras, but because they have a formal, constitutional role that transcends mere celebrity."
https://archive.is/2023.03.12-042117/https://news.yahoo.com/harry-meghan-learning-hollywood-only-080000874.html?guccounter=1
It strikes me as ironic that the Firm was unbearable for them because they couldn't be top dogs. Yet they fled to a place where, for the main part, you earn respect and admiration through hard work and exceptional talent, attributes they do not have.
Apologies:Flintstones
*Dino’swhore
Barmy and Sweaty Trouble
Encased in their **prehistoric bubble
With their kids wam and bam
There was no thank you Ma’am
Just more *** raptorus
clawing of rouble…
Blabba Grabba Sue!!
*Dino- duchess in name only
**Prehistoric-old, passe, antwacky
***Raptor-plunderer, robber
bird of prey
Janet continued, “While she adores motherhood, go-getter Meghan wants more. She’s been talking to her friend, mega-producer Tyler Perry and he’s offered her a role in an upcoming project.”
https://mediatakeout.com/meghan-markle-allegedly-preparing-to-star-in-one-of-tyler-perrys-low-budget-films/
Probably just speculation...
* Supporting role in a relatively successful TV series.
* Blogger with a decent number of followers - focuses on selfies, pithy sayings, food and travel.
* Scrambling for more income through merching and 'modelling' - relatively successful but not on a global stage and not raking in multi millions - and also a huge fan of grabbing freebies at events.
* Relentlessly seeking attention by attending every event she could get into where there were the media and photographers, pushing herself into every TV show she could, calling paparazzi, and resorting to begging reporters to write about her.
* Increasingly pushing her way into the world of any organization with a global presence, like the UN and One World.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11p37f1/very_awkward_moment_when_meghan_markle_realised/
The clip in the above post is very telling - she really thinks she is so important and special and has to tell everyone, repeatedly every time she speaks. Bragging and name dropping, as one person says in the comments.
Well, that's Archie's birthday sorted then! Maybe *' demand that his birthday be factored in was a bridge too far. Let's see if precious Archie's birthday trumps the Coronation. What a difficult decision... She's so maternal, I'm sure she'll want to stay in California to spend the day with him. Maybe the date was a tactical move by Charles.
@WildBoar
A reminder of Puck.
In his earlier versions
he was known as a
malicious fairy, or demon.
Rather apt…
Bottom Puck 😉
I do wonder if he kept his investment and bank account in the UK. She always kept her money in America, but I wonder if he took all his money and added it to her pot of gold.
@KnitWit
An overdose of karmasutracals
There are several abbey floorplans on the Net. It's a cruciform church so plans usually have East at the top.
The West Door (main entrance) is at the foot of the cross, with the belfry stairs immediately to the left. If they were to be seated by this door she would be deprived of sashaying the length of the nave and so far from the action (in the Sanctuary, just in front of the High Altar) that for photographic purposes she might as well be out of the building, on the other side of Parliament Square.
The King could let the police arrest them for their crimes, or get them detained for mental health treatment. Also, if they brought the children, he could call Social Services and get Archie and Lili taken into care! I wonder if thy realise that? If they did, they might all stay away.
Wishful thinking, of course.
Fait accompli
Princes, princesses
of Montebegrow
Are so far removed
not part of the show
One day God willing
we’ll see George
Prince of Wales
And Charlotte, Princess Royal
and all that entails
Duke of Edinburgh
going to Louis
By that time I’m sure
the markles will be phooey…
An article about how paparazzi work with celebrities. I found it frustrating as I cannot pinpoint which category she is, only that she loves being 'papped'. My guesses are that the duo do call the paps, and that she is obssessed with her image and 'looking good' so she smiles and is friendly. But is she making money from the photos or is it all about being in the spotlight and image control and PR?
Remember when they were dating, and even early in the marriage, if she was papped when she was with him during 'private time' or even sneaking into an event via a back door, she would pretend to want to hide her face? And she even made up obvious elaborate lies about harrassment. He must be so thick to still buy that BS, but he seems to be calling the paps as well now so maybe she has made a 'convert' out of him!
woke criteria means that the head of risk at SVB was willing to fund groups of people that she thought were traditionally denied credit. Does this mean that she gave money to people who were refused credit by other banks (perhaps due to bad business plans, bad credit history) or as she believes, simply because of their socio-economic standing or race?
He hasn't moved out of the egocentric phase of young childhood where everything is about his wants and needs. It is how an infant survives. Harry isn't an infant, he isn't owed anything, and he doesn't seem to understand that. He doesn't seem capable of thinking about anybody except himself and his immediate gratification. It appears to me that he has been functioning on an infant level for nearly 40 years now.
I don't think he should be taking care of children.
To return to the possibility of her being in the Abbey - will she time her strategic miscarriage for some critical point in the service, say at the Crowning itself? If she's by the West Door, the medics would be able get her out of the way with minimal fuss. It might be worth it for her to be taken to A&E in hospital (ie NHS; St Thomas' is just over Westminster Bridge). She could have a full diagnosis in no time.
seriously some of the social media speculation is that if she doesn’t go (wasn’t invited) she may announce the divorce that day to dominate the news cycle because still another well timed pregnancy would not do it
I think KC will alter the LoS quietly by requiring it to be made up of only WORKING royals. This will require all family members and their spouses and children to declare their loyalty and dedication to the UK and the Commonwealth, or go their own private way.
https://twitter.com/ArabellaRober19/status/1634944639647244288
that being said and bringing it back to the harkles i am seeing more on social media about how much they lost. said it two days ago. the mrs will cry this one to Getty or the King even though they were likely in financial trouble before this. blame svb for not making payroll. Mrs is lucky again that she can spin this bigger. both the King and Getty should be looking at the two certificates they will be given one will be an FDIC one which will be for up to $250,000 the other will be a claim on a bank assets above the $250K guarantee latest rumor today is the those second certificates will settle at 50 cents on the dollar so not bad. ( and that maybe distressed hedge funds buyers trying to shake loose some of the claims which may in fact settle even higher) washington mutual settled those unsecured/uninsured claims for roughly 57 cents on the dollar during the great financial crisis in 2008/2009. if harkles had any substantive money in there they won’t be wiped out completely.
@SwampWoman,
woke criteria means that the head of risk at SVB was willing to fund groups of people that she thought were traditionally denied credit. Does this mean that she gave money to people who were refused credit by other banks (perhaps due to bad business plans, bad credit history) or as she believes, simply because of their socio-economic standing or race?
If I have a bank account that has the funds that my company earned to pay the IRS, my California taxes, my employees, my company vendors, my advertising, and the bank is loaning out my funds to companies then yes, I DO expect that the recipients of MY MONEY would have a viable business plan. I do not care what their gender or perceived gender is. I don't care if their skin color is green. I want them to be able to return MY MONEY with something extra for renting it. If they have been turned down by other banks, it is probably not because they are middle-aged men dressed in thongs and pasties (although that would DEFINITELY have an affect on their business if it is something with public contact like a restaurant or bakery and that should be taken into account IMO. If it is a pool maintenance company, I don't care, but I wouldn't want them in my pool). It is not the bank's money that they are lending out, it is MY MONEY and my customers' money and I expect them to be careful custodians.
At the end of the day, it was *probably* the tech sector's downturn and the bank's purchase of low-yielding (but safe) bonds that couldn't cover the rising interest rates. The bank having big public displays of wokism wouldn't have given me a lot of confidence in their continued viability because being woke isn't their job. Taking care of my money is.
Markle Magic Mushrooms - get a Royal High
Clevr latte - comes leaded only
MM 10 hour cream - because todger care should last more than 8 hours!
Sussex cures - have toes like a Duchess!
Royal Weed - Harry’s special blend
It could take quite awhile to get that settled, though. That is going to be a problem for people living as large as they do. They may have to drive themselves or call an Uber. Bye bye assistants, security, nannies, and People magazine articles? (Oh, snap, they may have to attend the coronation now.)
I think this is a good solution:
I think KC will alter the LoS quietly by requiring it to be made up of only WORKING royals. This will require all family members and their spouses and children to declare their loyalty and dedication to the UK and the Commonwealth, or go their own private way.
https://twitter.com/ArabellaRober19/status/1634944639647244288
I think that both Blue Todger and ILBW know that this is going to happen so they're trying to grab money ASAP.
I was going to write about *'s "wellness blog".
Boasting tips on fashion, health and wellness, it is thought the website could rival Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop website, which is reportedly worth £200million. I'd say Gwyneth won't have much to worry about. Unless * tried her own version of a certain scented candle, God forbid.
She could also reportedly become an agony aunt on the blog. Would anybody take advice from someone who destroys relationships? As for fashion/styling advice, again who would listen? (apart from her sugars).
I suppose she has to bring home the bacon if SVB has collapsed.
PS I'd like to see that bat in the belfry.
It turns out that the guy that the 5's said performed the baptism wasn't there at all. It was some sort of guy from Doria's strange church
On their final event as working royals the Queen told H&M to walk behind the procession. Meghan was having none of it and clambered over chairs to cut in front of Sophie and Edward.
https://twitter.com/JR42845598/status/1634849903318011904
Meghan Markle's fans were left disgusted after an offensive Saturday Night Live joke poked fun at her attendance at the Coronation.
The sketch saw comedian Michael Che take aim at the Duchess Of Sussex as he made a crass joke about the speculation surrounding Meghan and her husband Prince Harry attending King Charles' coronation.
He joked that Meghan has been offered "$19 an hour" to attend King Charles III coronation as a mocked up image of her dressed in a maids outfit was shown behind him.
In the segment, Michael said: "It was reported that the organisers of King Charles' Coronation have officially invited Meghan Markle.
"And this is nice: at a starting salary of $19-an-hour."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/meghan-markle-fans-outraged-offensive-29437905
Mea culpa,
CRAIG BROWN: News just in from Harry and Meghan's new hometown of Montecito... yes, watching paint dry CAN save the world
By CRAIG BROWN FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 00:25, 7 March 2023 | UPDATED: 01:08, 7 March 2023
BBC Radio 3, Monday, March 6, 2023:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be mulling over an invitation to the King’s Coronation in May.
A statement on behalf of the couple confirmed that they have been emailed about the event but it’s not yet clear if they’ll accept. And that’s the news. The time is three minutes past eight.
March 7: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be mulling over the a la carte menu at an out-of-town restaurant near their home in Montecito, California. A statement on behalf of the couple confirmed that they have not yet decided between the Cobb salad and the sushi. A decision is expected imminently.
March 8: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be mulling over whether to go out or stay in. A statement on behalf of the couple confirmed that they have been involved in discussions about the relative benefits of the two options.
March 9: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be watching paint dry. A statement on behalf of the couple confirmed that they are pursuing their paint-watching in a spirit of universal unity and reconciliation on behalf of all the underprivileged people of the world
.
March 10: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be preparing a statement about how their paint-watching operation is going. In an exclusive interview on CNN — his first in more than two hours — Prince Harry said: ‘I was never given the opportunity to watch paint dry in my childhood. It was always like “Oh, no, no, no, you must be able to find something better to do. You want to do this, you don’t want to do that.”
‘They tried to make out that the paint would dry whether or not I watched it. It was, like, brutal. And that’s something that, as an adult, I’ve struggled to cope with.’
(cont)
March 11: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be mulling over an invitation to watch paint dry at the newly decorated house of their neighbour Oprah Winfrey in Montecito, California.
In an exclusive interview with the entertainment editor of Psychology Today, the duchess said that over the coming years they are determined to let their children watch as much paint dry as possible.
‘It’s, like, a very positive experience. It, like, teaches you that though paint of whatever colour or creed may at first be very, very wet, so wet it’s like, really, really wet, well, you only have to, like, wait long enough, and — here’s the amazing thing — it will eventually dry.
‘And to me that’s the most valuable life lesson of them all.’
March 12: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be mulling over whether to sign up for a major Netflix series, Harry and Meghan: Becoming Dry.
A spokesperson for the couple said: ‘Harry and Meghan are proud to share their passion for watching paint dry with millions of others, harnessing their own expertise to push for safer, more inclusive paint-watching communities around the world.’
Speaking to her friend Gwyneth Paltrow for her podcast Spending And Caring, Meghan said: ‘Harry and I want to shed light on paint and continue to watch it dry so as to empower and inspire others to protect this beautiful, fragile planet we call Earth.’
March 13: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are said to be gazing at their own navels with great tenderness and compassion, in a specially curated session at the Archewell Navel-Gazing and Enlightenment Retreat (ANGER) in Montecito.
Prince Harry reveals on the My Best Trauma podcast that learning to gaze at his own navel has done wonders for his mental health.
‘As a child, I, like, literally didn’t have a navel, or, if I did, I didn’t know where it was and was certainly not encouraged to gaze at it.
‘Growing up, I suffered from unconscious bias against my own navel. I never gave it a chance to speak, so naturally it felt sidelined.
‘And that’s why Meghan and I are now on a mission to teach everyone to engage with their navels, and to listen to everything our navels have to tell us about our shared values.’
News just in: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announce their new Archewell Nursing Home, dedicated to nursing all kinds of grievance, from the wholly inconsiderable to the very small.
End.
“For a shy girl, Kate was surprisingly extroverted on the stage. The school put on two productions every year, and during her time there, she was in almost every play. It didn’t matter whether she had a lead or supporting role; Kate simply relished being part of a team and a production and loved the opportunity to dive into the costume wardrobe. The school had an impressive drama department, with performances staged in the sports hall, known as the New Hall. The teachers and pupils made sets, and rehearsals often took place after class. ‘Catherine was in most of the school plays I produced, and she was a real joy to direct,’ said Jim Boyd. ‘She always remembered her lines, and she was very reliable when it came to rehearsals, which is why she always got good parts. She had a great voice and would often do solos, and she was very confident. If she didn’t get a big part, she was never bothered, which was very endearing. She was also up for anything, especially if it involved her dressing up.’”
Kate: The Future Queen by Katie Nicholl
The King was 12 days short of four-and-a-half when his mother was crowned and knew how to behave himself; Archie will be exactly 4 when his uncle is crowned and is an unknown quantity, apart from reports of ADHD. Given that his mother doesn't know how to behave, I'm not surprised if the King has not `requested the pleasure of his company'.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11n9k6s/huge_news_files_released_by_elon_musk_prove_harry/
and here;
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11q204t/thank_you_hmtlq_you_had_the_last_laugh_after_all/
(`Bequeathments’ – aargh!!!! Do you really say this in the US???)
Also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11pzyml/monday_morning_humour_from_the_telegraph_uk/
and so on.
How could he gotten gebetic materia? When the childre met the Queen. When the children were at ther Jubilee. All it took was them to have touched something or drank from a cup.
Charles even could hgave hired a dectective service from the US to pick up the Harkles trash. It is done all the time. It is legal to piclk up trash aftersomeone throws it away.
I think the King could have gotten the information on the surrogacy possibility. He would not have had to violate medeical confidentiality. He could have again used a detective to find the surrogate. Dectective firms find people all the time. Maybe it would be difficult.
Or the most obvious, The King could have have had a meeting with the Harkles qnd discussed the strange pregnancy photos of her letting the mound in her stomach slipping to her knees or where at the baby shower she was seeminly not preganant at all. He is damned anyway for wht he has not said. Why not be damned by them for searching for the truth.
Frankly I think Charles j=knew they were surrogcy children and he does not care one iota. He is weak and wants to fool the public because he loves his 'dear boy' over the monarchy. He figures this is just a 'one off' and he doesnt care what happens after he is dead and gone. He provided William as a heir and he did his part. He did not want to change the 'of the body' rule because he would rather not upset his 'dear boy' and his then cherished daughter-iun-law who he loves.
If it was a bank in central Missouri where farmers had their funds available for planting season and equipment payments and the bank went under, there would not be a Presidential news conference about saving the bank. The people in East Palestine didn't even rate a visit.
DNA evidence collected by devious means is not admissible in English courts.
The fact that the Harkles produced no evidence for the births being according to the rules for royals should be enough - whatever purported evidence they have given so far us cannot be substantiated. Nothing adds up except to make a pack of lies.
I don't think anyone can second-guess what goes on in His Majesty's mind.
He may well have firm evidence but it would be impolitic to advertise it or apply it now. Were I in his shoes, I'd go for the most elegant solution, rather than a messy one. Before the Coronation is no time for messiness. For a start, he is unable to strip the parents titles on his own - it is a matter for Parliament rather than something that can be achieved by acting like the first King Charles. Our Constitutional Monarchy sets limits to what the monarch can do autocratically.
in 1917, George V could act against foreign relatives living in a country with which we were at war because they were hardly in a position to complain.
My experience of English civil law (not criminal law!) is that one thinks one has a clear-cut case when in fact there are layers and layers of `howevers,`ifs, buts and maybes' as conditional causes underneath.
PS We don't even know that the children met the late Queen at the Jubilee-there were no independent reliable reports, on repetition of what the Harkles themselves said. No photos.
Her late Majesty took jolly good care not to be anywhere near them because *wanted photos - for Netflix.
That is, assuming that the children really were here. The birthday party pics could have been taken in the US & there were no reports of them or of kids' stuff bring landed in the UK.
So I believe the chuldren were there for that visit, but accept that many may disagree with me.
It seems the duo had the children with them because they wanted photos and footage for commercial purposes ...
It is actually quite sad that relations with the duo are so bad that neither the late Queen nor Charles allowed photographs, which then could be used on the official social media accounts or websites by the monarchy. Charles likes to display family photographs in rooms where he does official business, but it seems there are none of those children.
My speculation is that the duo wanted photographs but they wanted copyright and control and to use them for profit in a Netflix documentary. The royal family love having heaps of family photographs and I reckon the Queen especially would have wanted photogrdphs of her with the children, but neither her or Charles would agree to the terms demanded by the duo, who wouldn't allow private family photos over which they had no control and could not profit from.
The Standard is an evening paper (well, early afternoon) and is behind:I read about the 5s' children yesterday morning and posted it. Let's hope it's true but the 5s could fly into the UK with the children and * could try and push to have them at the coronation, arguing it's Archie's birthday and it's such a momentous occasion etc. I wouldn't put it past her.
I hope you have been inspired by the Harkles' navel gazing and have engaged with your navel. That was very funny.
Should have read `only repetition of what the Harkles themselves said'.
Did it say that they've got to decide if they're coming or not before the children are discussed? See Indie. piece at
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-news-latest-kate-085230661.html
I agree - she could attempt to outdo Caroline of Brunswick but with children in tow.
This is also from the Reddit site ... do you think this is genuine? That they were all set up to throw an Oscar party at home but cancelled because of the SVB collapse? Who would attend such a party? Those who did not get an invite to the actual Oscar parties?
Maybe they cancelled the party because they could not get enough people to attend? Just speculating! I suspect that this is fake news.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11853749/Kate-Middleton-regal-joins-Prince-William-Commonwealth-Day-Service.html
Here is that social media account: (posts about royals and readings of astrological charts interspersed with posts about favourite actors/movies/series) ...
https://houseofbrat.tumblr.com/
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
19h
More hot air. The kids automatically inherit titles upon HMTQ death. More pan flash by the CA Jesters.
The media is running wild with their use of titles, but to be fair it is the birthright of the children.
I can assure you, this will matter NONE, in the long run.
An excellent post, a first-rate interpretation of Lady C's view. It's an eloquent version of what I was trying to say from what I know of the Law - I haven't watched Lady C yet.
No apologies needed but the Standard is not published on Sunday do their info was out of date. The MoS article didn't say whether the 5s have to make a decision about coming or not. It did, however, say this
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been invited and are expected to be at the event on May 6, but many family members are privately telling friends that they will give them the 'cold shoulder'.
In a fresh snub, members of the Royal Family are reportedly hoping that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be 'seated in Iceland' if they attend the Coronation of King Charles and Camilla as expected.
I like the expression 'seated in Iceland', nothing that they don't deserve.
https://tinyurl.com/bdf7kh88
Meghan Markle dusts off résumé, files to relaunch pre-Harry blog: report
https://nypost.com/2023/03/13/meghan-markle-dusts-off-resume-files-to-relaunch-pre-harry-blog-report/
Neil Sean said "those children remain a mystery to senior royals and many more senior royals would like more 'insight' into those children. This is a story that is developing."
Even people who once thought Ms. Todger was actually pregnant, have begun to cotton on to all of the subterfuges & inconsistencies that the Todgers resorted to re: the births. We don't know what will happen. How crazy do you have to be to concoct a scheme like this one, if it is true? No wonder the RF treats Ms. Todger like a radioactive & crazy aunt out on a pass from the loony bin.
@Sandie, Netflix, Schmetflix. I'm not nearly as trusting as you are. I wouldn't trust a thing in a 'documentary' which used footage cribbed from other people's lives, like the purloined Harry Potter premiere footage, & the Katie Price hospital footage. A lot of the thing seems to have been filmed on the Todger phones. (The engagement scene.) So it probably is as reliable as some tweener's most recent TikTok video. I wouldn't accept a single frame from that ridiculous production on its face value.
I doubt the real royals laid eyes on the Todger children during the Jubilee. If the children were there, why weren't they at the Jubilee Pageant with all of the other royal children? Lilibet is about the same age as little August, who was there with his parents. The photos you mention were produced by some guy who takes photos in Los Angeles from London on his IPad. If some lovely group photos are released by the real royals somewhere down the line, I will stand corrected. What a bizarre couple the Todgers are.
I wonder if it may be enough for the King to say, after the Coronation, wtte that in the absence of the appropriate documentation for the birth of either child they can not be considered as rightful prince and princess until those documents are provided. Allowing them to use the titles was an interim arrangement made on the understanding that the documents would be forthcoming but this has not happened yet. Nevertheless, they remain much-loved members of the family and we look forward to being able to confirm that their princely status has been restored'.
Also, I do sometimes wonder if the Harkles will murder each other.
https://twitter.com/ccrook1974/status/1635376554544070657
Poor Gwyneth Paltrow must be quaking in her Isabel Marant boots. Meghan Markle – that esteemed public figure – has just been given preliminary approval to relaunch her lifestyle blog, The Tig.
According to reports, details filed with the US Trademark and Patent Office show that the website shut down by the 41-year-old in 2017 could make a comeback as early as next week – and go head-to-head with Paltrow’s £200 million lifestyle brand, Goop.
Markle bid her three-year-old blog a soupy farewell when she got engaged to Prince Harry, leaving those who depended on her fashion, travel and beauty tips and rousing one-liners at a loss. How to make that “Aegean-style kale salad” and “beet cheesecake” without her recipes? How to master “winter wellness”, without the Meghan know-how? How to formulate your own coherent thoughts on equality without the Tig there to put it into words rivalling those of our greatest thinkers: “Girls just wanna have fundamental human rights”? Luckily, the spiritual funk we’ve been mired in for six long years may be coming to an end.
The inspiration for the website’s name famously came from Markle’s favourite Tuscan wine, Tignanello. “It was an ah-ha moment at its finest,” Meghan has said of her first sip. “For me, it became a ‘Tig’ moment – a moment of getting it. From that point on, any new awareness, any new discovery or ‘ohhhhh, I get it!’ moment was a ‘Tig’ moment.” I feel duty-bound to point out the notable lack of “Tig” moments since.
Certainly, Markle didn’t “get” royal life, or at any point during that stuffy stint garner “any new awareness” that there was only one star in the room – and that was the Queen. She didn’t “get” how badly her Oprah whingeathon would go down or how tone-deaf that six-hour Netflix documentary would sound to a post-pandemic world beset by social, economic and existential challenges. Last month, Newsweek reported that the Sussexes’ popularity had plummeted to an all-time low in the US, with Prince Harry down 48 points since December and Markle down 40. In fact, The Duke of York has higher US approval ratings than these two. But Markle wouldn’t let a little thing like that prompt a “Tig” moment either.
To be handing out advice from this lowly podium certainly shows consummate (I’m tempted to say delusional) self-belief. Because here’s the thing about Paltrow: you can deride her $15,000 (£14,000) vibrators and “affordable yacht rental” services all you want, query the science behind her “eight-day, mono-diet goat-milk cleanse” and “vagina steaming” witch-doctorisms, but in the eyes of Goop’s eight million plus subscribers, the 50-year-old Oscar-winner is an inspirational human being with a covetable life.
cont.
Behind every successful female lifestyle brand is the straightforward science of envy. Without it, Reese Witherspoon couldn’t have become a lifestyle guru worth upwards of $400 million. Kate Hudson wouldn’t have a business portfolio (encompassing fitness-wear and supplements) worth an estimated $100 million, and Jessica Biel wouldn’t have been able to build her $550 million wellness empire. You might not catch Michelle Obama flogging hypoallergenic baby wipes anytime soon, but the reason her books continue to break publishing records here and in the US is that she projects the same ‘I want her life’ aura.
Whether or not it’s an illusion, there’s a a classiness to their behaviour that makes it easy to put them on a pedestal. But how many women want Markle’s life? Personally, I don’t know any. Then again, the women I know aren’t big on grudge-holding. A resentful life isn’t one they crave. And to put it bluntly, for all the Sussexes’ talk of “finding freedom” and “inner peace”, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of either. After all, the disgruntled Duchess is still triggered by the struggles she and her husband had to endure in the lamentably “small” cottage gifted to them by the Queen and the memories of being forbidden to wear coloured frocks lest she overshadow more important royals.
Both Obama and Paltrow have had their challenges. The former first lady has been honest about how hard those two terms in the White House were for her; the Goop-founder has spoken candidly about the breakup of her marriage. Yet in both cases the admissions ended on an up-note: a lessons-learned, ‘how did I make the best of this?’ note. The reports from the official US Trademark and Patent Office papers about the relaunched Tig state it may include “commentary in the field of personal relationships”. Meghan the agony aunt, lecturing us on how to maintain healthy personal relationships? Good luck with that.
https://archive.is/2023.03.13-190928/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/03/13/meghan-wants-lifestyle-guru-now-problem-no-one-wants-advice/
Good heavens ... someone else is suing the duchess of Montecito. All information in the above Reddit post.
Unfortunately, we have laws about not revealing that Couple X's child was born of a surrogate, unless the parents themselves reveal it. It's medical confidentiality.
Then I should think Parliament would be justified in requiring proof from the Todgers that Lily was born to ILBW. If such proof were not provided, Lily would be removed from the line of succession. This would be necessary to ensure the integrity of the constitutional monarchy.
DNA obained from the trash pi]ut out for collection os not devious. Its legh]=almin US. Besides...Charles does not need to go to British courts...only have the proof to know and then to call their bluff. Thats what us Texas do...outsmart someone by calling one's bluff when you know they don't have the winning hand.
Besides...Charles does not need proof at all. He can claim the children are not of the body, then the Harkles have to prove its true (in a court of law or otherwise, lol).
Why do I get the impression so many are making Charles out to be a cowardly foolish dimwit dumber than his son?
“The tig wine...appears to be a sophisticated drink but beneath a veneer of class, quickly becomes insipid, lacking in endurance and readily turns bitter. Does not travel well. Has been transplanted to california, where it has failed to compete with more established and substantial vintages.”
“How could you forget the vagina-scented candles? Maybe Tig will sell frosbitten penis lollies.”
Speculation that this account is actually her ...
Joined January of this year.
2 0777 tweets so far, mostly photos of her. Expresses rabid hatred of Catherine frequently. This is obsession!
Interesting comments here ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11qr7t4/looks_like_ilbw_had_been_found_on_another_twitter/
English law is not the same as US law.
Charles isn't stupid, just very cautious.
Not only do we have a small, highly-sensitive proportion of our population, over-represented in TV advertising, but also a very vociferous number of antimonarchists and republicans. A mis-step by Charles with regard to these group could be disastrous.
The Harkles' refusal to reveal the details should be enough to damn them legally. This is the last time I'll say this.
-------
I see that Shallon Lester at 42 is smeared as `middle-aged'. When should we start describing * as middle-aged? She turns 42 in less then 6 months.
To sum up:
`A descendant of the younger brother of the Richard, Lord Athenry, who died in 1645, claimed the Barony as heir male in 1827, and Thomas Denman, the Attorney General for England and Wales, agreed that he was heir male, but he was not recognized by the House of Lords.'
I read the entire case on line and it shows the Lords stated wtte that, although `everybody knows' something to be true, that isn't adequate proof; there has to be the correct documentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Athenry, with references.
The alleged spawn should not have been entered into the line of succession or acknowledged publicly without the Palace being certain of the children’s bona fides under the law—conceived by Meghan from Harry and out of her body. Period. Those are their own rules, not mine. There is sufficient cause for doubt that these conditions were met that 4.5 years after TBW announced her first blessed state, I can’t help but wonder what kind of a pickle the House of Windsor is in viz these children. There are now a new Prince and Princess who have never been seen in England, whom commentator Neil Sean calls “mystifying to senior Royals”. No less so to us plebes out here. Is KCIII sending a message by the non-invitation of Archie and Lilibet to the Coronation? One does not invite figments to the most important event of one’s life. The King has also deftly checkmated his daughter-in-law who has made such a fuss over a fourth birthday being more important than a divine anointing of a sovereign. Leave Prince Archie at home in Cali on his birthday and be a bad mum or stay home for the cake and pony show? It’s a dilemma for Mugsy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11r0guh/is_it_possible_that_tw_sent_paparazzi_to_her_dad/
Also in the comments is an account from someone claiming to have `run with Eug's crowd' and which apparently details how * got her claws into H (and dragged Eug into into it, infuriating both Eug and Bea. Also claims that * was setting up IVF without telling H (! - yes it's extraordinary - no mention if H was unwittingly the `donor' male or not.)
My view is that knowing * as we do, nothing would surprise me now.
Evenmore ideal if they don’t have the kids full time and then it’s a bigger case of fraud and criminal charges. rent a baby is a dangerous game. would love it to be this way so 1) don’t have to worry about the kids (well other than a mom who would rent them out) 2) could actually result in criminal charges. that would ruin her and him most likely.
I submit that when it comes to Royals or other heads of state, their medical status becomes a state matter, not just a personal matter.
Exactly!
Thank you for the link to the Reddit comment. I love the ending:
“The Scarecrow (Nutmeg with no brain) and the Tin Man (Ginger with no heart) tried to pull the curtain back on Oz. And Dorothy’s house fell on them leaving nothing but a pair of stolen designer shoes from a Reitman’s shoot.
Now? Here come the flying monkeys to finish them off.”
‘Meghan gives Harry a love he’s never had before’, says Duchess of York
In an interview to promote her new novel, Sarah Ferguson also said ‘Diana would be so very proud of Archie and Lili’
(Short excerpt because it is frankly nauseating):
The Duchess of York has claimed that Meghan Markle gives Prince Harry “a love that he’s never had before”.
In an interview to promote her new novel, she said that the Duchess of Sussex “loves him and loves the children” very much and that she would never judge them for their decision to move to the US.
Sarah Ferguson, affectionately known as Fergie, related her own experience of moving to America after her divorce from Prince Andrew.
She said: “I believe very strongly that I have absolutely no judgement on any other person’s life, and I look at how much she loves him and loves the children and gives him a love that he’s never had before.
“That’s how I look at it.”
Of course, it would attract cries of R-ism, of persecution of a `young black' mother were it to be done but also that those who believe it's a con are 100% sure that they are right and have covered all the loop-holes she could wriggle through. ie make sure they know the answer before they ask the question and can bring the appropriate witnesses to testify.
Quite a tall order.
------
* expected to be Queen - well, I'll happily call her Ma'am to rhyme with jam, that is MAMM, Middle-Aged Meghan Markle.
Every new mother I've met has always said `Would you like to hold him/her?' and are entirely happy to pass the child over. I can still holding one for a moments for a family photo - when I was 3. I was so afraid of dropping him, he was so heavy.
What a set up!
The coverage then moved to the West Coast, featuring mostly California, which is getting slammed by heavy rain from an atmospheric river storm coming off the Pacific.
One of the shots featured a reporter doing a brief standup in front if a raging flood of muddy water in - guess where? Montecito.
There are wide areas of the California coastline from the San Francisco Bay area all the way south to Los Angeles. under flood warnings and residents in some areas along the coast are being told to evacuate.
I wonder if the Harkles were trying to get a helicopter to ferry all of them away from the mudslide mansion.
Didn't she just last week say that she hadn't ever really met Mm?
Regarding the surrogacy reveal
in the words of Rachel Hunter
Pantene ads
“It won’t happen overnight
but it will happen”
Some people on StMM haven't been paying attention or else, as one Sinner suggests, they've been invaded by Sugars, some of who want comments critical of MAMM removed.
Heavy is the head
that wears the Crown
Time I think
to cut Charles some slack
He’s copped enough crap
and undeserved flack
Still in mourning
for his Ma and Pa
Whist battling his begat
bête noire …
@Hikari
I agree, but it’s not Just Harry’s
wife’s medical records we
should be looking at.
Duke of Sussex ‘declined to respond’ to royal reporting debate invite
Associate editor at The Telegraph Camilla Tominey opened a discussion at the Society of Editors’ Media Freedom Conference in London on Wednesday by telling the audience Prince Harry did not respond to a request for participation.
The panel, which included royal editors from the Daily Mirror and The Sunday Times, discussed a number of criticisms Harry made about the media in his tell-all book Spare.
“We did invite Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, to take part in this panel but he declined to respond,” Ms Tominey said as she opened the panel discussion.
...
https://tinyurl.com/393ry686
Rumours that TBW is thinking of 'giving advice' to people, as some kind of 'agony aunt' when she gets back on social media. (I am sure this is not going to happen but her just word salading away in her delusional way.) Nevertheless, an Anon is having great fun with the idea. Here are a couple of samples from the numerous posts:
Dear Duchess, I have bought a Valentino suit. How can I make it look wrinkled the way you wear them?
-----
"Dear Duchess: I have a SpongeBob figure, freaky thin legs that go on for miles, and huge bunion flipper feet. Can you suggest a style that's best for me? Signed, A Chicken"
..."Dear Chicken: First, buy a Magic Mirror that shows you how you THINK you look, not how you actually look. Second, wear anything that's free or that can be stolen from photoshoots. Leave on the price tags, never iron anything, and never EVER have your clothes tailored. An ill-fit is the best fit. As Always, The Duchess."
----
Late at night so maybe, for me, it is a case of small things amuse small minds!
* giving advice was mentioned the other day as part of her revived Tig. ILBW was reportedly going to give advice as an agony aunt, as well as 'wellness' & styling advice, recipes too, no doubt. The mind boggles. We could actually have fun with questions: I don't get on with my father, I hate my in-laws, I seem to be unpopular but I can't understand why everybody doesn't see what a fantastic person I am. How can I make people see how great I am?
Anyone watching George the Giant Slayer? Another careful observer of `The Meghans'
I haven't scrolled he whole way down but stopped at the illustration based on Quentin Massys' portrait commonly known as `The Ugly Duchess', the model for Tenniel's drawing in Through the Looking Glass. (`Speak roughly to your little boy and beat him when he sneezes...'
I couldn't copy the image address so here the DM link:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11851151/16th-century-painting-portrait-cross-dressing-man-new-research-says.html
It's worth looking at 'cos it's been photoshopped with *'s physog and an appropriate caption re her attendance at the Coronation.
Tenniel's version :
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.PhZ_646EN9nNkzKJA2zMiAHaGK&pid=Api&P=0
the twats lawyering up to retain Frogmore cottage, allegedly
“They’ll be having lawyers look at whether this eviction is even legal, given they signed a long lease and poured their own money into renovations.”
the twats lawyering up to retain Frogmore cottage, allegedly
“They’ll be having lawyers look at whether this eviction is even legal, given they signed a long lease and poured their own money into renovations.”
Did they bother to read the small print? I can't imagine H parting with the money that readily.
-------
Husband has just mentioned that `according to the news' H has had a `makeover' of hair and skin. I shall look at any new pics with interest.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/harry-meghan-coronation-text-video-b2301707.html
`That resurfaced video proves Meghan and Harry must attend the coronation
The couple’s attendance would be a positive sign amid the family feuds – and would also make for must-watch TV'
The comments are scorching.
IIRC, when the paper was launched in 1986, it trumpeted that it would ignore `royal gossip' and only mention the Firm when there was serious news. It appeals to the Centre Left and, dare I say it, a high-minded, readership. An article like this would have been unthinkable. They'll wriggle and say it's just an opinion piece but they have sunk to what for them are unplumbed depths.
He is out there trashing his reputation in interviews, and she is 'royalling'. Odd!
A very interesting post cutting through the BS she put out about herself. There is an analysis of how much actual screen time she had in Suits (not a lot), plus some other convincing points about her not having the money the tabloids says she had, scrambling unsuccessfully to get another job, and so on.
It all comes back to Soho House doesn't it?
She 'used lemons picked fresh from her own garden to make the treat for World Central Kitchen in March 2021.
And in a post shared on the royal's Archewell website this week, the couple announced she has contributed the recipe to The World Central Kitchen Cookbook: Feeding Humanity, Feeding Hope.'
Why wait two years to inform us? Feeding humanity, feeding hope, so much compassion! Feeding us BS more like.
Royal news – latest: Harry and Meghan to ‘miss out on Met Gala’ over ongoing ‘family drama’
Sources have suggested that the Sussexes will be reluctant to attend red carpet events
LOL
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/she-knew-she-getting-brian-120000747.html
I read the article and agree she knew what she getting into. She would have had plenty of 'training'. She didn't realise, however, that she wasn't suited to life in the BRF and probably believed in her own self-worth and thought everybody would fall under her spell. I think she had totally unrealistic expectations that she'd be able to flourish and be the darling of the family if not the whole country. She's all froth and no substance.
She just didn't have the dedication and humility needed. She could never have been number 1 and be bigger than the Queen.
This article is hilarious ... it does not include a photo but I remember the photo well. It was cropped. The uncropped photo shows Anne talking to Harry. Both are ignoring TBW, who is pretending to be part of the conversation. The only interaction Anne is having with her is to completrly ignore her.
----
There she is doing 'royal engagements' and focusing on her image, in stark contrast to hubby, who is shredding his reputation. Is she planning to dump him? In my opinion, no. A part consequence of him shredding his reputation is that it makes her look good. That is valuable to her, and he is still 'her bank'. He is the one who has pulled in the huge appearance fees, has a high-paying job, published a huge bestseller, is related to a very wealthy and influential family, had the pot of gold that enabled them to set up in California. IMO she will only dump him if he stops bringing in the millions and she finds another fool to fund her expensive lifestyle. For now, she just wants to stop the bad press about herself and if allowing her husband to be trashed to do so, then so be it.
In the race to be an admirable human being, she wins in every single way, while the Montecito Todger-Tossers can't even make an inch of progress, while at the same time they scream that the race was fixed. Yes, the race was fixed, but fixed in their favor. They got to start the race not at starting gate but within easy reach of the end. Your sister blew past them to win in a race she didn't even want to be in.
I send your dear sister the best wishes and best vibes possible...for health, good cheer, courage, stamina, and a happy full long life.
Neil Sean reports that Harry and Meghan wanted to be the hosts of the coronation concert and felt their names attached would have bought in the big names.
'That's what the bottom line comes down to. What do you feel like is the right thing for you?'
She continued: 'They haven't asked me my opinion.'
How profound! As for her opinion, why should the 5s ask for it? Can they not think for themselves? ILBW certainly can (H, not so much)
------
That's exactly it. I think she was incredibly surprised when her smarmy love bombing didn't work. She fully expected to be the darling and surpass Catherine in every way.
Interestingly, I think she could have done that if she would have behaved herself. At the time Catherine hadn't quite stepped up yet. She wasn't as popular then as she is now.
She certainly had a lot of popularity, but I think MM could have surpassed it if she had played her cards right.
Can it be done without a fight?
Convince her that it really would be better for her if she let go?
I'm hoping it's true that she has been presented with a choice between accepting the invitation with no guarantee that the invitation will be expended to the Harklets, or staying at home. Her choice will show what's important to her. No quite the judgement of Solomon but in that direction.
I'm sure there will be stringent conditions attached to bringing the children, we're unlikely to be told what they are. In an ideal world, they would slink off to the US, never to be heard of again.
-----
Ditto. Sending all of you good thoughts.
HumorMe probably right. and i imagine frogmore they were behind in payments
Hmmm we are having a dribble of pr from Montecito. Donation of some furniture to a homeless shelter, the infamous lemon olive cake recipe (when she gets an idea she just cannot let go of it) trying to deflect on the Harry/protection/mail lawsuit. rumor is he will be in person tomorrow for it? but then again i may have seen wrong. I am thinking a buggy pap walk because Princess of Wales and Irish Guard tomorrow and maybe Harry in London for trial.
May your sister continue to heal quickly.
What disturbs me at present is the PR that she is flooding the media with, simply by feeding stories to Hello magazine. She is 'royalling' in an attempt to fix her image problem, and she is doing that solo. As I said in the post I deleted, I do not believe she is heading for divorce. She is simply ruthless in serving self, but he is the one bringing in the millions that fund her lifestyle. She is not going to dump her source of funds, and he allows himself to be controlled and manipulated by her, and feeds her with blind adoration and will do anything for her ... that suits her perfectly.
He is back in court:
Mlr Justice Nicklin
10:30am Court 13 (CVP)
QB-2022-000595 Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited
He also has a court case against the government to get 24/7 security provided by the UK. I think he is awaiting judgment on that one.
And BarkJack on Twitter is adamant that they are planning to be at the coronation. They will be staying at Frogmore Cottage and want all the royals, including the King, to attend a birthday party for Archie there after but on the same day as the coronation. This is typical of a grandiose narc ... control, because it is in 'her' space, and grandiosity, because she expects the royal family to prioritise paying homage to her on the day of a historic coronation. They did not do so during the Jubilee celebrations for Lilli's birthday, but she never gives up on what she wants. The demands in their Megxit manifesto have not gone away for her. I trust that the royal family will deal with this manipulation as they have done in the past ... ignore her!
mnthem - Slappers Rappers
Lil Di$$ and Archezee
Mama fifty pence aka 50 pee
Papa Poop Dogg aka Ice Lube
Performing soon on
Scoobies doob tube…
Foolio - angsta’s paradise
I normally read all the posts but must have missed the one about your sister, it must have been deleted when I looked at the blog. I hope she gets better and send you and your family my best wishes.
On another note, I had to laugh at the idea that all the royals, including the king (!) will attend a birthday party for Archie at Frogmore. I don't think she can be that delusional, can she? On the day of the Coronation the King et al will all go to Frog Cott?? 🤣🤣 I thought she complained it was too small? Surely, her child deserves no less than BP and a balcony appearance?
Quickie 🎤
Apologies: Elton John
Candle in the Wind
Wick-ed
It seems to be
you’ve lived your life
as a harlot who has sinned
Knew just who to cling to
in the reign setting
I wouldn’t like to know you
You make me sick
Your candle like your ego
Burnt to the wick…
https://youtu.be/0wQmqgf2kIs
I think that Charles gave the Duke of Edinburgh title only for Edward's life and not as a hereditary title because James does not want to live a public life and forever be under public scrutiny. Charles wants to honour his father's memory by making sure whoever has the title will continue his father's work, which Edward does.
I am also surprised that many Americans do not realize that the dastardly duo having titles for themselves and their children does not give them access to an inheritance, property, positions or special privileges, or even a formal role to play in the monarchy. I think British people who want those titles removed are simply angry at the disrespect and how the duo basically stole millions from taxpayers by getting away with a massive con.
Tight-Excitement9457
4h
The Real Housewives Recap on YouTube have been doing a Deep Dive into Lady C's book "Meghan and Harry: the Real Story". They just put out Chapter 5 and it seems to me that Harry threatened his 90 year old grandmother and the rest of the family that if they didn't allow him to marry Meghan IMMEDIATELY, he would marry her anyway and the Queen would just have to "suck it up" basically. She just wanted him to wait a little longer but Meghan would not wait and threatened to leave if he didn't marry her and be quick about it. He was so addicted by then that even the idea of separation just sent him into crying fits of rage like a 2 year old. Just like Meghan he wants what he wants when he wants it and it better be now. He told the RF he would say they were all racist and that's why they had to leave. If true, this explains everything. Meghan started the fire. As usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA6IU9yowGc
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11thhvh/lady_c_tea_youtube_31623_a_few_nuggets/
I was wondering why I felt out of the loop regarding the news about her since I didn't see any comment explaining the situation.
-------------------------------
I laugh at the thought of the twat thinking and trying to convince the BRF that she needs to be the one to host the coronation concert. Can you imagine what thoughts would have gone through the royals heads when she proposed this? They probably thought back to the occasion when she work that white mini dress with the unkept hair in NYC. I know I did.
Yes, most of us Americans have no clue as to all the protocols, rules, laws & traditions which govern the British monarchy. I think that for many, royalty of any sort is like a Disney movie. ILBW knows this, although of course she also knows the RF really doesn't really work that way. She thinks the public is dumb, & she wants to exploit it, as all grifters do.
This American also knows that titles do not guarantee a lifestyle, an allowance or protection. Been watching the princesses of York be told to get an education that will result in employment, lose their protection at age 18 from the Crown, and be treated like everyday people unless they were at a Crown event. I have watched the comedy of Harry play out with him actually believing that he is someone special, when HMTQ told him and laid out the ground rules in the Sandringham Summitt. He was shunned at Philip's funeral, put in his place at the Jubilee and then Ordered to behave at The Queen's funeral. We have all witnessed what H did.
We all reap what we sow in this life - KCIII is dealing with that now. HMTK can only appear to be the better person - an olive branch invite to the Coronation. Granting the titles to their kids as this was set in place by his great-grandpa. Anything else is giving in, and H knows this. Victimhood is the Harkle stock in trade. KCIII has done what is required. Nothing more.
We 've commented on how * apes Wallis but the parallels between H & David/Edw VIII are chilling:
`...the real scandal lay in what happened subsequently, Evidence suggests that Edward was not passing sensitive information to known soies and calling fr Britain to be bombed into submission, but was also complicit in a plan to be reinstated as monarch in the event of a N*zi victory. Archive footage and interviews combine to present the case that the duke was collaborating with the enemy'
IIRC, the programme streses thta much material has come from parliamentary documents that hadn't been oerused before.
Stay home from the Coronation Todgers, because rotten vegetables, rotten eggs, cold shoulders, and boos will be your welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkFp-N1HxI
This* rivals the best of the beat generation poetry! Surrealistic; an angry screed rebelling against mainstream convention. Just like H & M.
As I read it, I snapped my fingers appreciatively and felt myself transported to a dank basement coffee house (not serving MM's Clevr brand lattes, thank you very much), and like I was listening to you spit the words out.
It was confusing but I caught your drift, and though I allude to raw beat gen poetry, it also referenced to me Francisco Goya's Black Painting "Saturn Devouring One of his Sons," especially in close up. Did Goya have MM in mind? Devouring, devouring, devouring. We are the devoured. See https://www.openculture.com/2019/07/the-most-disturbing-painting.html
-------------
*our bard Magatha's amazing piece for Nutties' delectation, in case you missed it first time around:
mnthem - Slappers Rappers
Lil Di$$ and Archezee
Mama fifty pence aka 50 pee
Papa Poop Dogg aka Ice Lube
Performing soon on
Scoobies doob tube…
Foolio - angsta’s paradise