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
I too would like to send my best wishes to your sister for her recovery from what must have been a traumatic surgery.
___
Dan Wootton in the Daily Mail:
DAN WOOTTON: After the damage she caused to the monarchy, Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business. It might be right for Harry and Meghan's career to attend the Coronation but it's wrong for Charles, Wills and Britain
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11873343/DAN-WOOTTON-Oprah-Winfrey-needs-butt-royal-business.html
I'm also struck by the parallels between H and the Kaiser with regard to their fixation on their mothers - there was an excellent documentary on them first aired in 2013, repeated more recently:
Queen Victoria and the Crippled Kaiser under the same `Secret History' title. This looked at his relationship with both his mother (Victoria's eldest daughter) and grandmother.
I found a trailer on You Tube but so far the full film eludes me.
Both films focus on first-born sons and how they go to the dogs; George VI. (Prince Albert), a second son, was fine but his brother, George Duke of Kent (4th son) was a known philanderer and drug-user and suspected of treason in connection with Rudolf Hess's arrival in Scotland. He died in an air crash which was a rum business.
There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule about which royal prince `goes rogue'.
Prince Harry ‘could not afford private security without earning’
The Duke of Sussex complained that he could not afford to pay for private security after quitting his royal duties “until we are able to earn”, the High Court was told.
Prince Harry is suing the publisher of The Mail on Sunday for libel over the publication of an article about his attempt to force the police to provide bodyguards when his family visit Britain.
Mr Justice Nicklin has ruled that the article was suggesting the duke, through statements issued on his behalf, had falsely claimed to have offered to pay for police protection himself before bringing a legal case against the Home Office.
Harry, 38, wrote in his memoir, Spare, that a meeting with the late Queen, his father and brother at Sandringham in January 2020, where terms were laid out for his departure from royal duties, was a “fix”.
Justin Rushbrooke KC, representing Harry, told the court that during the meeting the duke made an offer to pay for his family’s police security.
Rushbrooke said it was irrelevant whether Harry “did or did not communicate his offer to pay directly” to the Home Office or the Royal and VIP Executive Committee [Ravec], which reviews the royal family’s security needs on behalf of the home secretary and police chiefs. Harry had never claimed he made the offer directly to the Home Office or Ravec but “self-evidently believed or assumed” that the offer would be passed on, the barrister said.
Andrew Caldecott KC, representing Associated Newspapers, publisher of The Mail on Sunday, said Harry claimed he emailed Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, three months after the Sandringham summit, saying it was clear “we couldn’t afford private security until we were able to earn”. Caldecott said Harry claimed the email also contained an offer to pay for his security.
Harry also claims that three weeks after the summit, he had a discussion about his offer with Sir Mark Sedwill, who was then the cabinet secretary and UK national security adviser, the court was told. The duke allegedly “reiterated his willingness to pay for security if necessary”.
Caldecott suggested that Harry’s offer at the Sandringham meeting to pay for police protection was pointless unless that offer was communicated to the government. “What the British taxpayers pay for is a matter for the government and not members of the royal family,” Caldecott added.
He claimed the duke’s suggestion in bringing the libel action that a newspaper “in a modern democracy” should not be able to comment on the situation was “deeply concerning”.
Harry began proceedings against the Home Office in September 2021 after being told that he would no longer be given the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting from his home in California. The Mail on Sunday asked the duke’s solicitor and PR agency a series of questions about the action and received a background note setting out Harry’s judicial review claims, but not direct answers to the questions.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “I don’t understand the reluctance to answer straightforward questions about legal proceedings in the court.”
The judge reserved his ruling on whether the newspaper can continue with its defence that the article was “honest opinion”.
the gossip around Hollywood is that the twat is going to start pimping the "kids" for money very soon.
This was somewhere in the recent thread about another site doing `a deep dive' into what Lady C said. Daly, I lost track of it but if I find it again I'll post a link.
Harry and Meghan's 'game is up' as approval ratings are 'through the floor' in America
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's popularity has sunk stateside over the last few months, multiple polls suggest.
Mother's Day
TUI holiday adviser shares top tips for the perfect Canary Islands trip
Helen Skelton 'emotional' over 'broken' Gethin Jones
Urologist Begs Brits To “Shrink” Prostate With This Tip (Every Morning)
Nutritional Sciences Ltd
King had hand forced by Sussexes over Edward's title, expert claims
Princess Charlotte's favourite song she loves to dance and dress up
by Taboola
Harry and Meghan's 'game is up' as approval ratings are 'through the floor' in America
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's popularity has sunk stateside over the last few months, multiple polls suggest.
By ADAM CHAPMAN
09:17, Fri, Mar 17, 2023 | UPDATED: 16:04, Fri, Mar 17, 2023
450BOOKMARK
Megyn Kelly in stitches over latest Prince Harry interview
Enter your email address here
SUBSCRIBE
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's popularity is at an all-time low on both sides of the Atlantic but the picture might be even "worse" in the US, claimed Megyn Kelly. The US TV host cited the latest polling, which points to dwindling support for the Sussexes, telling Sky News Australia their "approval ratings have gone through the floor over the last couple of months."
She continued: "They have gone down even lower in America and the UK. She's [Meghan] even lower than he is. Meghan's are as low as they come.
"They haven't even been doing anything for the most part these last few weeks with these numbers going down. It's the same or worse here in the United States."
Megyn's comments come days after TalkTV's Piers Morgan claimed Americans are turning their back on the young couple.
On Wednesday's instalment of Piers Morgan: Uncensored, the 57-year-old broadcaster sparred with his TalkTV guest, Fox News host and lawyer Geraldo Rivera over the Sussexes' appeal stateside.
--------------
In other news, he three Wales children will get a starring role in the Coronation procession at Westminster Abbey. Is that broken crockery I hear all the way from California?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11874081/Prince-Louis-Charless-coronation-Georjavascript:void(0)ge-Charlotte.html
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1z65fq
(I learned this from well ... someone who is really good at this stuff)
put in the title and then add streaming before searching.
When I googled, it also had a roku link so it probably is there somewhere in their set up. Roku has some interesting channels - one is nothing but back to back Midsomer Murders and in Film Rise (I think that's the channel) it also has Midsomer Murders but it is set up by seasons.
Actually nothing new in this National Enquirer story ... I was disappointed as one expects a 'can't be true' story from NE! They mix with people like Oprah, Tyler Perry and Ellen, which must be difficult for TBW, who finds it unbearable to not be number one in any situation. I suppose that is why the royal titles are so important to them. She may not have numerous mansions and a private jet like her 'friends', but she has something they will never have ... that magical link to the very well-known British royal family, and the grandchildren of Princess Diana.
Gosh, thanks for this information. Not sure that I understand it though but it works.
So for Nutties who might be interested in another member of the family with a difficult childhood, thanks to a difficult birth and consequent disability, who precipitated a catastrophe on a hitherto unimaginable scale -
Here's the link for Queen Victoria and the Crippled Kaiser':
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1z65fq
Thanks for that update on the court case. If I remember correctly, the court case is actually about him demanding that the government do a 'fair' review of the decision to not provide him with security. From the report shared above, he does not have a strong case. If he wins this, he will regard it as a major victory and crow ungraciously like she did when she won the case against DM, but the amount that this is costing the taxpayer will not win him any friends in the UK.
"According to Neil, MM wants the Princess title. She also wants the people who visit her home to call the kids Princess or Prince, so they will be familiar with hearing the titles with their names, especially when they are in the UK."
Charles came to OUR christening! King shocks congregation at a Cotswolds church by appearing at baby girl's baptism, weeks after he was unable to attend his own granddaughter's ceremony
https://tinyurl.com/yydeash5
For example, it is said that the wife of an eminent Professor of English came unexpectedly to his office and caught him canoodling with his secretary-
`Humphrey!', she exclaimed. `I'm surprised at you.'
`No, my dear,' he replied. `I am surprised, you are astonished!'
I am not surprised that she has some of Diana's personal jewellery (the really iconic/expensive pieces belong to the Crown). I do find it interesting that she wore some for her faux 'royal engagement'.
----
In terms of her appearance at the coronation ... if she does appear, she will want to be wearing a garment, tiara and jewellery all steeped in 'symbolism', and my guess is that references will be to the late Queen, California, and her personal family. How late can she leave it to have a gown custom-made, probably in Paris but maybe by some woke transgender black designer in America? It usually takes many pins and at least 6 people to fit her into the designer stuff she wears ... I would not want to be anywhere near her when she gets dressed for the Coronation!
You are to be blessed by mentioning your sister medical challenges in print so people can submit their good wishes and prayers. I also join inwith other Nutties saying I've said a prayer to our Lord for her health.
I can personally attest that I think my fatal incurable diagnosis was averted by me casually mentioning my situation to a kind lady I did not know and her responded saying she "would pray for me". I miraculously was healed almost immediately and the medical specialist said he "could not explain it". But I knew this lady's prayers to the Lord was instrumental.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11ur9g3/megxit_now_3_years_later_original_sussex/
...has some very interesting observations on the indirect but very powerful role of the British public on how H turned out. Had not the formerly reserved, sober, polite, public, who once knew how to behave at times of mourning, not given way to hysteria, blame and criticism, not screamed that the Queen should acknowledge their suffering, should leave the sanctuary of Balmoral and drag the boys back to London, had their frenzy not looked like revolution, the lads would never have had to walk in that procession to placate the buggers.
Their behaviour was shameful. It was hard for an oldie like me, who could remember the mood when the old King died (solemn, gloomy) to understand. Whether it was because they hadn't experienced the atmosphere of the immediate post war era ( VE Day was just one day) or the fact that it was summer and that brought them out onto the street, or whether demographic change had influenced the responded, I don't know and I don't understand it. There was also very strong social pressure to conform to the lunacy. In a way, I can understand H resenting the idea of the people weeping & wailing when they never knew her.
The cuddly toys, balloons, grave goods, flower-chucking (no thought for the horses), and applause were alien to those like me, the `sort of thing foreigners do' as we would have said. The Press stirred it - `Everybody knew', or so we thought, that the Royal Standard never flies at half-staff - it was a reporter who started the fuss about that. Of course, Fayed pushed the assassination narrative. The Spencers were also at fault for doing nothing about bringing D home when she was their responsibility.
It was a horrible time, a warning about entrants to the family who encourage a cult to build up around them.
wow, what a story! you are blessed!
https://archive.ph/2023.03.18-181137/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/03/18/prince-harry-asked-give-months-notice-making-trip-uk/
A more detailed article about his bitter fight to get security, as revealed in his court case against DM.
From this article, it seems the Home Office went above and beyond to provide him with special favours but he complains about everything. He comes across as a very bitter and angry man. I can understand that he must be bitter and angry to have lost everything in his life, but he is blaming everyone but the actual cause, and wanting to punish everyone in the UK.
Dear hapless, this was not an arranged marriage. It was your choice, and you threw a tantrum and made threats every time someone in your family tried to warn you ...
One commenter said:
Kerry Kennedy & Prince Harry...Kerry is the ex wife of disgraced Governor Andrew Cuomo...
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/03/blind-item-6_18.html#disqus_thread
H’s team:
What they reported was false. He was willing to pay. They hurt his feelings when they said that he was trying to mislead the public.
ANL:
Erm, we reported and provided commentary on how he never offered to pay and the Home Office confirmed that they never received such an offer. The Press Association reported with the same conclusion, have not retracted their report and haven’t been sued. He also ignored our requests for comment before running our story.
H’s team:
Well… he WAS WILLING to pay and he said this at Sandringham. But he also said at the time that he would have to figure out HOW he’d pay bc he hadn’t received any money for trashing his family yet.
Also, while he never formally made the offer to the body that is actually responsible for security, they should have just been aware.
The Mail is cruel and mean. They upset our client.
...
https://www.tumblr.com/aka-krich/712060716513968128/this-court-reporter-live-tweeted-it
I looked at the CDAN blind and the comments. I don’t think it’s Todger.
@Sandie
Thanks for posting the Telegraph article. I agree that it is much more informative than the Times’.
Harry and Meghan’s demands could create ‘chaos’ at Charles’ coronation
https://nypost.com/2023/03/18/harry-meghans-demands-be-chaos-at-king-charles-coronation/
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1742723/Meghan-Markle-embarrassed-Prince-Harry-body-language-video
Ramblin’ Guy
3 hours ago
Unfortunately, creating trouble is their brand and they’ve monetized it. If they don’t, they don’t get paid.
___________________
Ah Writes
4 hours ago
If they demand the kids come, then they'll demand they also ride the golden carriage. And if they demand to stand on the balcony, then they'll push their way to the front of it. And if they're included in a reception after the coronation, they'll start singing Happy Birthday to the son they unilaterally titled prince. To include them is like throwing steak to a tiger in the hope it will become a vegetarian.
________________________
Ali Star
4 hours ago
Harry and Meghan don't need a place on the balcony they need to be thrown over the balcony. They demanded an apology to Meghan over made up lies of racism. The Royal family should demand an apology and sue for defamation of character and demand the $32 million dollars back for the wedding.
_________________________
Louis Maione
2 hours ago
In the article they are referred to as exiled royals, they quit plain and simple they want all the attention and perks but don't want to do the work.
___________________________________
rob barclay
3 hours ago
pushing to be included on the Buckingham Palace balcony on the big day — a royal protocol reserved strictly for working members of the royal family only. Henry and Nutmeg only want the Benefits not the responsibility of their titles.
Any photos and video of the Harkles on the balcony will only go to finance their war on the monarchy and endless pity play on Netflix and in future books.
What’s worse is that it may even cause the citizenry to do the demands of the Sussexes one better and make a demand of their own to Charles — that he resign and pass the throne to William.
That is, if there is STILL a monarchy on Monday, May 8, 2023.
Any photos and video of the Harkles on the balcony will only go to finance their war on the monarchy and endless pity play on Netflix and in future books.
What’s worse is that it may even cause the citizenry to do the demands of the Sussexes one better and make a demand of their own to Charles — that he resign and pass the throne to William.
That is, if there is STILL a monarchy on Monday, May 8, 2023.
there should be a little trash can beside the time stamp of your comment only you can see. click that.
Prince Harry was told to give 28 days notice of his planned trips to the UK so that his security requests could be assessed, it has emerged.
The Duke of Sussex was informed that it would then be a matter for the Home Office to consider whether the requested security arrangements were necessary, following his decision to “step back” from royal duties.
A furious Prince Harry hit back, demanding that the Home Office committee responsible for royal security give him an example of someone with the same threat assessment as him who had received no security after leaving public duty.
He also criticised the arrangements for his family’s visit to Britain in June 2021 for the memorial events for Diana, Princess of Wales, describing them as “patchy, disjointed and inadequate”.
Details of the dispute between the Duke and the Home Office over his future security arrangements were disclosed in legal documents relating to Prince Harry’s libel claim against the Mail on Sunday, which hinges on an allegedly “false claim” concerning his willingness to pay for his own police protection in the UK.
The Duke is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article published last February concerning his legal challenge against the Government’s decision to deny him and his family the right to automatic protection.
The article said he had tried to keep “secret” parts of his legal fight with the Home Office over his security and had attempted to “spin” the dispute in his favour by claiming he had offered to pay for protection himself.
The Duke won a judicial review against the Home Office’s decision to deny his family automatic security in September 2021.
A date for the hearing has not yet been set, but the documents released as part of his legal battle with Associated Newspapers reveal the bitterness of the dispute over security arrangements.
In a summary of his claim against the Home Office’s Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), Prince Harry’s lawyers state that he is “gravely concerned about his safety and security during future trips to the UK” and that he feels he has no choice but to take legal action “given the gravity of what is at stake for him and his family.”
They add: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been subject to intense media scrutiny, hostile social media attention, and targeting by violent extremists due to (amongst other things) the [Duke’s] ten years of military service in the British Army, the Duchess of Sussex's race and their involvement in charitable and other social justice initiatives.”
The Duke’s lawyers say that the requirement to give 28 days notice of a visit, during which a case by case decision would be made by RAVEC whether to provide him with security, creates uncertainty and could threaten his safety.
They state: “It hinders their ability to plan for and manage his security arrangements; may lead to [the Duke’s] actual arrangements being inadequate and compromise his ultimate security.”
Prince Harry’s legal team cite as an example the Diana memorial events visit, claiming that his security team did not have time to strengthen the proposed security plan.
At one stage it was suggested by RAVEC officials that the Duke’s security requirements could be assessed by a series of “test trips” to the UK.
The claim documents reveal that in March 2020 the Duke angrily questioned RAVEC’s assessment of his security needs.
He said: "I would like them to provide an example of where someone else has left 'public duty’ with the same threat assessment as me, and received no security”, adding: “I was born into this and the threat will never decrease because of my status regarding the family.”
The Duke has asked Mr Justice Nicklin to rule in his favour without a trial in his libel claim against ANL, an application the newspaper said was “wholly without merit”.
She was/is a nutcase.
The Todgers should stay home in California. Just stay home, and chill. Has no one offered Mr. Todger a play-by-play televised commentary on the Coronation?
Obviously, Mrs. Todger has no say in anything Coronation related.
Children? They have never existed, so monetizing them.
What I surmise from this article is that the duo were not evicted, but in order to renew the lease, they would have to start paying rent at commercial rates and they were not happy to do this. Negotiations are not possible with this duo, as has been revealed in his fight for taxpayer-funded security.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11876647/Harry-Meghans-children-Archie-Lilibet-given-role-King-Charless-Coronation.html
I suspect that they are the 'royal source'. They always have to make everything about them and create drama. There is no role for their children. Charles did not play a role in Queen Elizabeth's coronation, and he was her heir. The children of the Prince and Princess of Wales will play no role, but will be in the carriage procession and no doubt there will be official photographs as well. To call that an 'official role' is to stretch the definition of words!
As far as I'm aware, the only time it's been used in England was in 1208 when they whole country was placed under a papal one (King John had refused to accept the Pope's choice of AoC). As `1066 And All That' put it (IIRC), `Nobody was allowed to be born, married, or die' for over 6 years. That is, the churches were closed and the sacraments not administered nor burials allowed in consecrated ground (like the first lockdown in 2020).
It is used in Scots law where we would say `an injunction', when the court formally forbids someone to do or say something that interferes with someone else's rights, apparently. Is this is the sense in which H's team are using it? It seems daft to me, when we know she calls the paps, as Diana did. They've suffered nothing like the obstruction that the former Miss Middleton did.
Or is he thinking that enhanced security would mean that those who boo him if he comes to the Coronation will be arrested? Or is the scheme to get the security and then claim that it works because nobody is now harassing them, proving his point?
BTW, we call people `batty' (or they have `bats in their belfries' ) but `bat-shit crazy' is a much better term for these two.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11876637/Buckingham-Palace-struck-deal-Harry-Meghan-let-live-Frogmore-Cottage-rent-free.html
Not sure if there is any truth in the above - I pray there isn't. I can't seen it happening myself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11876647/Harry-Meghans-children-Archie-Lilibet-given-role-King-Charless-Coronation.html
This is a story from the memoir that I have not heard before and sounds quite alarming. Is hapless a psychopath? Because he has certainly revealed as acting like one at times.
I really like the channel, by an Australian:
https://youtube.com/@thevintageread
No doubt the reigning monarch has some influence on decisions by making requests, but it was not 'the Palace' or 'the Monarch' who negotiated any agreements with the duo regarding FC.
I suspect that the board said that if they wanted to continue to occupy FC (renew the lease), they would have to pay market-related rent, and the duo then threw a tantrum. Them insisting on staying at FC rather than BP, because the latter is 'not safe' is an extension of this tantrum. I suspect that they don't even know themselves what the tantrum is about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z-KkW4hQyY
I get that Charles wants to position himself & Camilla as the nation's grandparents, but he needs to be careful, & not cheapen the monarchy too much. I wasn't a fan of all the references to his 'mummy' during the Jubilee & after the Queen's death. He was making it too much about himself. I also think he should keep the little Wales children out of the coronation. I suppose he wants to provide a balance to Camilla's grandchildren, but not only is he giving the Todgers an opening for grievance claiming, but he's making it about his family, not the nation, a mistake his mother would never have made. Perhaps the Wales children's roles is just a rumor. I hope so.
I read that this would not be used, at least not for both processions. It's suspension is still of the 18th century -as far as I can make out, just from leather straps, no springs as we understand them.
Occupants of all ages are prone to motion sickness and for older people, with bad backs for instance, it would be hell.
in 1953, I clearly recall the sun coming out at last as the Coach reached the Cenotaph and the back gleamed as the light caught it. I hoped it was a good omen for the young Queen's reign.
I doubt that Camilla's children will play any role but simply will be present at the ceremony. They will not be in the procession, walking into the church or returning to BC.
The Californian children are too young and have no experience whatsoever of any kind of public engagement as a royal, and have next to none experience of being in a royal castle, nor do the couple have a nanny Maria to watch over them. The only value of them making any kind of appearance is to give their parents media coverage (at the expense of the king, the institution of monarchy, working royals, official heirs, the people to whom the king will devote his life to in a very old ceremony ...). Children of that age are prone to having tantrums, not being able to sit still and be quiet, and being immensely destructive, through no fault of their own. Their parents have no experience of watching over the children in circumstances of the coronation and one would think that they would be relieved of not having to try and manage two very young children, on their own, in such stressful circumstances.
Your link to the story from the memoir reminded me of an incident of mine.
I went to Paris in 1989 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. It turned me off crowded venues for life. People, mostly recent arrivals to France (if you get my drift) were walking around, casually throwing large firecrackers in people's faces. I couldn't believe that people could be so crazy.
So, I believe that the twit falls into that category.
Trevor Coult has been demonitized on youtube for speaking out about the Sucks its
Yes, I was truly blessed. Also my brother has been blessed, having survived 4th degree Leukemia at age 64 and then major strokes and 2 accompanying comas at age 70 & 74 yrs of age and recovered completely. He now calls himself 'Born Again Ken' and tells people about his miracle reecoveries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X6uBb-nU0I
Re the State Coach
The suspension was improved and updated for the late Queen’s Golden jubilee in 2002, but it was still seen as a bone shaker and not a comfortable ride. As far as I know, I don’t think it’s been improved on again since. 🫤
You read my thoughts when you wrote… Anyone fed up with this constant will they/won't they?
To me it’s coming off as a complete pantomime….of will they attend or won’t they, it’s an all PR puff stuff by the duo to keep them in the news. 🥺🙄
Yesterday there was a headline that the Wales’s children have been given a role in the Coronation, and now we read the Duo’s children do too?! Anyone buying the latter?!😁😂🙄Again it’s all PR puff nonsense from Maggot and Mole. As for anyone believing they will travel in the State Coach is unbelievable, it’s only used for the Monarch and their spouse and no-one else.
I simply cannot be bothered enough to waste my time reading the articles. The duo are officially out of the family, I’d rather just wait and see what materialises. 😕
https://www.tumblr.com/ladykinrannoch/712125950870061056/reading-return-and-rehab-round-two?source=share
Situation
Prince of Wands
Indicates that he is at the centre of things at the moment, and he can embody any or all of these characteristics: swift and strong; impulsive; violent; just, noble and generous with a sense of humour.
Challenge
Temperance
Combination of forces; realization; action based on accurate calculation; economy; management; success after elaborate maneuvers; the way of escape. (They are trying to keep things balanced and in control.)
* Note wands next to cups brings out negative aspects of the cards ... so I interpret the following two cards in this way
Immediate Past
4 Wands
Unreliability from over anxiousness and hurriedness of action (Basically, they can be very impulsive in a very publuc way.)
Immediate environment
10 cups
Dissipation; debauchery; pity; waste; stagnation. (Someone using a lot of 'substances' and feeling very sorry for themselves?)
Goal
8 pentacles
Basically, they want wealth and material possessions and the power that derives from that (Intelligence applied to material affairs; skill; cunning)
What happens next
Queen of wands
This is her, wanting attention back on her and doing something to achieve this (Adaptability; great power to attract; generous; impatient of opposition; can be stupid, obstinate, revengeful, domineering, quick to take offense without cause)
* Note that Queen of Wands brings out the negative aspects of the following card ...
Broader social context
Princess cups
Agree that this is probably Eugenie (Gracious, sweet, voluptuous, gentle, kind, romantic, but negative aspects coming to the fore: indolent, selfish, luxurious)
Others views
The Fool
Speaks for itself, but it means that different people view them differently ... filled with ideas, thoughts, spirituality; foolish, eccentric and manic. Basically they have the world at their feet and endless opportunities spread before them, but they are oblivious to the dangers and one misstep and they go hurtling down into an abyss
Hope and Fears
The World
In a nutshell, they want it all, everything they have ever demanded and more.
Outcome
King of swords
I would not want to get on the wrong side of this guy, who will, mostly, decide their fate, especially in terms of 'wanting it all'. Here are his positive and negative aspects: Active; skillful and clever; fierce, delicate and courageous; often unreflective. Incapable of decision; deceitful; tyrannical and crafty.
Bottom of the deck
The High Priestess
This is about fate but also about that which is hidden ... change, alteration, increase and decrease, fluctuation. She often represents the journey known as 'the dark night of the soul', but, also, to get to the truth, you have to navigate your way between two pillars and lift the veil. (I would stay at home if I was them, especially if this king of swords guy knows secrets or tries to uncover secrets about them that they want to keep hidden! But the card may simply mean that they are experiencing an existential crisis!)
Tarot does not answer yes or no questions, but in terms of him returning to the UK and him going to rehab ... Wands are hostile to cups (literally, cups represent water, which extinguishes fire, as represented by wands)
Is H returning to the UK - 9 cups
Seems he wants a happy return but here is what is sabotaging that ... Danger of vanity, self-praise, conceit and overindulgence.
Is H destined for rehab - 7 wands
Someone is quarrelling, a lot! At its best, the card can represent energy feeling at last gasp; struggles; possibility of victory; obstacles and difficulties but there is the courage to meet them; victory in small things.
-----
Interesting reading! Yep, I would definitely stay at home and close the doors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11vlocb/letter_from_the_palace_to_the_harkles/
And the original source is:
https://meghanstruthsfictionsandfantasies.quora.com/ti-105053413
I say `perform' advisedly - it implies using the congregation as an audience. Church choirs `sing', regardless of whether there's a congregation or not; the `audience' is the Unseen. The Orthodox churches have got it it right the congregation doesn't sing - - the choir does it on their behalf.
Themes of One Young Young World Summit in 2023
Peace and Reconciliation – How can communities build and sustain lasting peace?
Climate Emergency – How can we ensure responsible stewardship of our planet’s resources?
Food Crisis – How can we end this global food crisis before it becomes a hunger catastrophe?
Education – How can we fight inequality through education?
Mental Health – How can we make mental health a priority?
https://opportunitiescorners.com/one-young-world-summit/
I tried the link to the Sun article but all I got was 'Sorry, page unavailable'. Bizarre... I tried to Google 'Trevor Coult the Sun' and got the start of the article or the headline, 'I spoke against Prince H and MM and it cost me £2.5k a month... I've lost my livelihood. I clicked on it but got the same message as before. I wonder if someone in California ordered the Sun to take down the article...
I think I saw an article that said the King had chosen very traditional music for the coronation.
@GWAH
I find people like that very frightening - who ignore or seem to enjoy discomfort and fear in others. To me, there are stories in Spare that demonstrate such behaviour from the idiot prince.
I saw on twitter that the Body Language Guy says that the Sun took down the page about Trevor Coult. I have no idea why.
I think the technical term for people who ignore or seem to enjoy discomfort and fear in others is "sadist"
Funny thing is, if you go to her website, the original watercolor has been sold. Wonder who bought it?
First cell says, "Daffy! Looks like we've got a stiffy from the palace!..."
https://www.tottering.com/collections/country-life-originals/products/copy-of-freezing-weather-cl1489
Thanks for the link to the cartoon. I’d like to think the original watercolor is in the Royal Collection.
It’s going to cause a lot of upset with the Royal Family': The Crown sparks taste and decency row over plans to show replica of mangled Mercedes from crash that killed Princess Diana in Paris that 'a lot of people will find sick
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11879007/The-Crown-sparks-row-replica-mangled-Mercedes-carried-late-princess.html
The partnership between Archetypes and the Global Boyhood Initiative includes guides on how to coach boys on healthy masculinity, and how men can be an “ally” in the home and workplace. Archetypes is not a partner with the campaign group’s schools curriculum programme.
The Global Boyhood Initiative was founded in 2020 by Equimundo, a US-based gender equality group and the Kering Foundation, a French violence against women foundation.
Archewell was approached for comment.
The story is everywhere ... Andrew and Sarah sure know how to pick friends ... the requirements seem to be very rich and seedy as hell.
Can I add Eugenie to the above? She did befriend that awful woman who married her cousin, supposedly through Soho House links.
He slept through an attack on his camp in Afghanistan. Probably drunk or stoned.
The Queen always hoped for/appealed to Harry's Royal training and better nature to prevail . . in my opinion, Harry should have been told in no uncertain terms that at that end of that one-year review, if he and his wife refused to go back in harness and behave appropriately that he would be expected to abdicate his place in the LoS, along with any pretensions to HRH or titles for his children. Edward VIII was permitted to retain a Ducal title, so H could have kept Sussex for what that's worth, I suppose, but the LoS is what really matters in the scheme of things. He no doubt would have refused such an order, which is why the machinery to bring the matter before Parliament should have been in place and ready to go.
The fact that H and the baggage are still agitating for taxpayer funded security and a high visibility role at the Coronation shows that their pretensions to still being Royal haven't been as firmly shut down as they could've been. I don't expect the odious pair to turn down the opportunity to turn the Coronation into a dog and pony show around themselves and will grab the spotlight any way they can. The non-invitation of 'the children' who whether figments or real are both too young to attend a momentous state occasion is going to force Harry's wife into a corner . .
1. Accept the invitation for herself and leave 'the kids' at home in California in the care of faceless nannies, abandoning the new little Prince on the fourth birthday which she's been haranguing on for six months is a global occasion rivaling the divine anointing of a new sovereign ---> HYPOCRITE ALERT.
2. Stay home and throw "a celebrity birthday bash" on her own for the tyke, complete with an array of laughably photoshopped pictures.
Well, it's not like being accused of being a hypocrite has ever bothered her before. But I wonder if it's dawned under the weave that possessing a title bestowed by a foreign power would render her ineligible to run for political office in the United States. Maybe she's abandoned the idea of taking Dianne Feinstein's Senate seat to focus on rebuilding her Tig empire.
*******************************
"Why All the Smoke and Mirrors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSTzG3loKnU&t=3094s
Story left out of the book "Waaagh" by the twit when he got so drunk he was throwing up and being a sexist pig.
Can I add Eugenie to the above? She did befriend that awful woman who married her cousin, supposedly through Soho House links.
I find myself wondering whether their friend-picking radar is that faulty, or whether they are handicapped in that they don't have very many people to choose from. The monied people that are actively working (legitimately) while trying to preserve their capital assets in an uncertain economy and banking system probably wouldn't have time for them. These hard-working people would also want to steer clear of them because of the York reputations and the old 'birds of a feather flock together' adage. They don't want the stigma.
I can't see them hanging with other broke royal people and having casserole dinners with cheap wine weekly. "This is rather tasty, what is it called? Macaroni and cheese? I must have the recipe for the chef!" Then they could attend weekly Broke Royals Anonymous meetings where they talk about what big meanies their older brothers are, and how unfair it is that they aren't being supported in a multi-multi-millionaire lifestyle.
That would leave in their friend zone people on the fringes of society that have a lot of money (so perhaps they wouldn't mind parting with a few millions to invest in questionable schemes). Nobody is exactly sure where that money came from and they aren't about to ask. Here, that money comes from the sale of illicit items, whether it be drugs, guns, people, or information.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-slept-through-entire-camp-bastion-attack-8859904.html
He slept through an attack on his camp in Afghanistan. Probably drunk or stoned.
Getting hashish there is/was lots easier than getting hold of any liquor.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Afghanistan++hashish&form=HDRSC3&first=1
Though, the recent news says the Taliban has banned cannabis cultivation. Hashish is made from marijuana plants.
Would someone explain the American usage of `interdict' to me please?
------------
In the US, interdict means to intercept and stop. Usually done with some planning.
As in, the drug lord's cocaine shipment was interdicted and seized by xxx Federal agency.
A wellness war is brewing... but are you Team Meghan or Team Gwyneth?
Paltrow has turned Goop into a behemoth to match her glossy Hollywood credentials – but the Duchess of Sussex is coming for her crown
In any war, there can be only one winner. While football fans have long been engaged with the rivalry between Manchester United and Liverpool, wellness aficionados now have a similar rivalry with which to occupy themselves as they sip chai lattes and chant on their bamboo yoga mats. In the blue corner: Gwyneth Paltrow, Oscar-winning actress, founder of Goop and titan of wellness, worth £200 million. Now 50, she is a compelling advertisement for her own brand. And in the red corner: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, 41, former actress and founder of The Tig.
Markle might have been out of the lifestyle influencer game for a while, her focus having been elsewhere on account of marrying a prince, birthing two children and causing havoc within the British monarchy by persuading the fifth in line to the throne to move to California.
But the news that she is to relaunch The Tig, the wellness and lifestyle website she started in 2014, has had many wondering whether she is coming for Gwyneth’s crown. Perhaps Meghan will soon be launching her own jade eggs, festooned with a royal warrant.
When it comes to achieving her goals, Meghan has form and she has a lot in common with Gwyneth – both actresses have married famous British men and had two children. But can she really topple Gwyneth, queen of lifestyle monetization? Read on to see how the two measure up, and whether the odds will ever be in Meghan’s favour.
The brand names
Meghan named The Tig after her favourite wine, Tignanello, a “full-bodied red” created in Tuscany that retails for up to $150 (£123) a bottle. As for why Goop was called Goop: who knows? Gwyneth has said the double O is strategic – successful internet companies have double Os in their names and she “wanted it to be a word that means nothing and could mean anything”. So it could be in reference to any kind of goop, but knowing Gwyneth’s penchant for talking about her vagina it’s probably best not to probe.
The strategies
That trope about how there can be only one winner? It doesn’t really apply to the wellness industry, a pie worth so much money that all comers can have a slice. According to a recent report by McKinsey, the global wellness market is worth upwards of $1.5 trillion, with annual growth of up to 10 per cent. Post-Covid, spending on personal wellness has only increased, with more people prioritising their health than ever before.
With spoils so rich, it’s little wonder that the wellness market is becoming increasingly crowded, creating the need to be strategic about how you compete. As befits her glossy Hollywood credentials, Gwyneth has gone for the highest of high-end propositions since launching Goop from her London living room in 2008: think $43 Shhhowercaps, $44 Fur Oil and $75 vaginal jade eggs. Goop makes 70 per cent of its total revenue through product sales, while its own-brand ranges, including Gwynnie’s G. Label clothing range and Goop dietary supplements, are the company’s fastest growing categories, with 50 per cent year-on-year growth.
Meghan’s The Tig was more modestly pitched and was aspirational rather than unaffordable, though this may well change with the relaunch. For the three years that The Tig was active (it shut down in 2017) products took a back seat to lifestyle and travel content: recipes (Aegean-style kale salad), beauty advice (known as #TigTips) and wholesome content about chickens. Fast forward to 2023, however, and few would bet against Meghan launching her own products, particularly clothing and accessories, given that she can be assured of blanket media coverage that leads to most items that she wears selling out.
The credentials
I mean, they both look well. Their skin glows, their hair is glossy and neither of them look in imminent danger of dropping dead from a heart attack. Is that enough? In the wellness business, it probably is. This is an industry built on baloney, propped up with spurious claims and flooded with outlandish products that promise users hope in a jar. Qualifications? They don’t have any. But what they lack in diplomas, they make up for in bullish confidence. Besides, who needs to be a health expert when you can be an expert in media manipulation?
The USPs
Both are twice-married, both have two kids and both have glamorous, powerful friends. When it comes to marketability, Gwyneth has her Hollywood connections and status as an Oscar-winner, while Meghan’s acting credentials aren’t quite so elite. But for the legions of women obsessed by the royal family, Meghan’s (relative) rags to riches story is compelling. She’s a woman of colour who married a prince, a backstory that trumps being a woman of Hollywood royalty who married the lead singer of Coldplay.
The backlash
Meghan’s haters are outspoken and well-documented. Few women provoke such ire as to inspire a whole episode of South Park (The Worldwide Privacy Tour, in which she’s referred to as a “sorority girl, actress, influencer and victim”). By contrast, Gwyneth has only been mildly lampooned on The Simpsons, in an episode where Marge gives a friend some Paltrow recommended tea and says “I think you take it orally”. Yet Gwyneth also has her fair share of critics. She’s frequently lambasted for her overpriced products and unorthodox wellness regimes (in 2018, Goop agreed to pay $145,000 in penalties to resolve allegations that it made unsubstantiated claims about three of its products, including a herbal tea that “helped prevent depression”). She’s also currently being pilloried on social media for revealing how she fasts until midday, lunches on bone broth, exercises for an hour then has “lots of vegetables” for dinner, a regime which some experts claim shows signs of disordered eating. The door is wide open for Meghan to start posting healthy recipes comprised of actual carbs, like California’s answer to Nigella.
Both are jaw-droppingly tenacious. Criticism doesn’t bother Gwyneth: in fact, cynics would say she courts it. “I don’t care about the haters,” she told CEO magazine in 2021. “They are irrelevant to me. It’s like [the presenter and podcast host] Brené Brown says: ‘I’m not making this work for people who aren’t in the arena.’ Haters don’t mean anything because they are not my people.”
Meghan’s attitude is far less dismissive. She devoted a whole documentary series to how she feels about her ill-treatment, as well as an Oprah interview, though more recently she’s preferred to speak through “sources”. Given her wish to stay out of the spotlight, it will be interesting to see how she navigates the issue of promoting The Tig.
The odds
Evenly matched. Gwyneth is a glowing, cashmere-clad businesswoman with strong convictions, even if some are a bit wacky. Meghan, meanwhile, is a humanitarian who styles herself after Diana, Princess of Wales and is likely to eschew Gwyneth’s more outlandish products and claims to focus on more wholesome subjects. In these godless, apocalyptic times, we’re all susceptible to the glossy allure of self-belief. The competition is on. If nothing else, it is going to be entertaining.
“Meghan will offer a male fragrance that smells like Harry’s balls. Because its ingredients will include Harry’s balls”
Must have been Mm since it's used incorrectly there.
thanks for the article.
about the throwing of the tea in Australia, sleeping in different bedrooms, etc
Harry and Meghan’s new project? To make boys less toxic
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have partnered with a charity that challenges ‘gender norms’. Harry’s family taught him about those, says Helen Rumbelow
The news that Prince Harry is directing his charitable focus towards the Global Boyhood Initiative, a campaign group challenging gender norms, shouldn’t come as a surprise. The Global Boyhood Initiative says we are “gendering our children even before birth”, and the British royal family could not be a better test case of the lasting burdens and privileges of being born a boy.
If Prince Harry’s older brother had been born a girl, Harry would be the one getting all the crowns and palaces, well on his way towards becoming king if not for William’s pesky “Y” chromosome. The sexist line of succession is still observed for any aspiring monarch born before, as the now-amended law states, 2011.
And if William had been born in the male sex but later decided to change his gender, legally, to female — what then for Harry’s succession to the throne? Well, that is a question above my serf pay grade, but would make an interesting discussion point for the classroom. His wife Meghan’s podcast Archetypes has a partnership with the Global Boyhood Initiative, an outside organisation that is conducting a pilot of its workshops on gender and sexuality in London schools, with the idea of ending the era of “boys will be boys” in favour of more fluidity.
As ever the royal family are here to help, if not by — as Harry and Meghan’s website states — “promoting gender equity by fostering positive masculinity in boys and men” (Prince Andrew, anyone?), then at least by giving teachers a ready-made set of male “archetypes” to talk around the problems of modern masculinity, like a bunch of child therapy puppets (Prince Andrew, anyone?). Welcome to the royal guide to raising a good man.
The polling company YouGov found that just 8 per cent of people have positive views of white men in their twenties, by far the lowest of any ethnicity or age group. Young men underperform academically and are more likely to be unemployed compared with young women.
A report last week from the House of Commons library found that the unemployment rate had risen slightly in men aged 16-24 in January to 13 per cent. It had fallen in young women to 8.5 per cent. Young men are also more likely to live with their parents. Prince Harry, who scraped a B and D at A-level and spent his post-army years rudderless in Kensington Palace is exhibit A.
The Global Boyhood Initiative last year produced a report, The State of UK Boys, which examines our obsession with gender from an increasingly young age, right up to the adoption of “gender reveal” parties, setting off blue or pink fireworks for babies in the womb. In short, tiaras are not just for girls. It should, at this point, be noted that when Princess Diana was pregnant with Harry she knew from an ultrasound, which her husband at the time did not attend, that she was having a second son.
However, Diana knew that Charles really wanted a daughter. He had been brutalised by his father, who never considered Charles “man” enough — as described in his biography, written in collaboration with the journalist Jonathan Dimbleby. Prince Philip thought, says Dimbleby’s book The Prince of Wales, that “soft”, arty Charles was “a bit of a wimp”. Are you paying attention at the back? Who can spot some language with “gendered assumptions”?
The Global Boyhood Initiative says that “while the family is a place of nurturing and support for many children, it can also be where gender and sexuality are regulated and policed”. Which sounds a bit, you know, Channel 4, until you read the part in Spare where Harry’s face is forcibly shoved deep in the slit belly of a stag at Balmoral as a male hazing ritual. “I tried to pull away,” Harry said, but the hunting guide, “pushed me deeper.”
Meanwhile, Diana was so nervous about Charles’s reaction to Harry’s sex she kept the scan result secret. “Suddenly, as soon as Harry was born, it just went bang, our whole marriage, down the drain,” Diana says in the transcripts she sent to the journalist Andrew Morton. “Charles always wanted a girl. I knew Harry was a boy and I didn’t tell him . . . First comment [from Charles, after the birth] was: ‘Oh God, it’s a boy.’ ”
“Oh God, it’s a boy” could actually have served as the summary title for the lamenting tone of nearly every report on boys in recent years, from the rising frequency of porn use to, perhaps related, rising claims of sexual harassment in schools, kick-started by the campaigning website Everyone’s Invited.
When you attend workshops aimed at boys in schools — as I did in a talk on sexuality and consent in a boys’ private school — you find a group of teenagers conflicted. They are both mostly inured to violent sexual practices through porn and simultaneously worried that the scale of male threat has been exaggerated, leading to a paranoid overreaction by police and schools to boys’ first innocent and fumbling attempts at seduction.
The Global Boyhood Initiative confidently states some disputed issues as fact, such as this: “Sex-segregated sports systematically strengthen traditional gender binaries and legitimise supposed biological differences.” I would take issue with “supposed biological differences”, and whoever made up the rules of British royal succession (was it God?) believed that biological differences were quite clear. That is a whole other workshop.
But the polarisation, described by the report, is real. There’s a fear about the harms boys may be doing to girls. This co-exists with the equal and opposite fear about what the “fear about what boys may be doing to girls” is doing to boys. Confused? Then maybe Prince Harry, a man at war with the male role models in his life, can show us the way.
Blooding: writer assumes it's a male thing - no. In the 1950s I'm sure that girls were bloodied after the kill when they first rode to hounds, by having the fox's blood smeared on their faces. The stable where I rode proposed taking us out the next time the Enfield Chase Hunt met locally & I was up for it, blooding and all, but it didn't happen.
Global Boyhood, sex education and boys: there's about to be a Government clampdown on who can go into school to talk about sex and gender. There have been hair-raising reports recently of(ahem) special interest groups attempting to indoctrinate very young children with their views that anything goes. One class was informed that there were as many as 76 genders. Some of the youngsters were traumatised and refused to go school the sext time these sessions were on the timetable.
I hardly think H is a role model for the new man. It's interesting that these damning reports about him are leaking out now, especially as Daniela Elser has made such a volte face.
H is a sadistic, psychopathic, addicted sot.(IMO)
.......
I reckon the Wales's marriage went down the drain after Harry was born not because the baby turned out to be male but that Charles must have realised that Diana knew all along but had lied to him. What a stupid, cruel thing to do. Even if she believed his reaction would be bad, it should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that it would be far worse when the truth emerged.
Thanks for the confirmation of the tea throwing incident. Not only did she throw tea at a member of staff who had the audacity to incur her displeasure but she threw a fit when they were shown their rooms, demanding to have the whole of Admiralty House to themselves. IIRC, I think the RF had to send Andrew to apologise in person for her atrocious behaviour and the member of staff was amply compensated - unfortunately,not from *'s own pocket.
I reckon the Wales's marriage went down the drain after Harry was born not because the baby turned out to be male but that Charles must have realised that Diana knew all along but had lied to him. What a stupid, cruel thing to do. Even if she believed his reaction would be bad, it should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that it would be far worse when the truth emerged.
Agreed. She said elsewhere that the months she was expecting Harry were the happiest of her marriage. But all along she was nursing this deception . . how many months between initial scan and delivery . .6, 7? If she'd told him the truth as soon as she knew, he'd had had half a year to get used to the idea of a second son. His comments immediately after the birth (plus the fact that he prioritized a polo match over being with Diana in the hospital) show him in a very bad light, no doubt--but if we can inhabit his shoes for just a moment--he got to her room expecting a long-wished for daughter. He'd been told it was a daughter. Then he arrives and is presented with Harold, who, though he became a cute toddler later was not an attractive infant. Charles blurted what he did in shock, but he should have been able to do better with his years of Royal training. I'm sure he felt that he couldn't trust her after that. Certainly not after she took up with Captain Hewitt before Harry was out of nappies. That might have had a little something to do with the marriage hitting the skids. Also I think Hewitt may not have been her first indiscretion. When was Barry Manakee reassigned from the Princess's protection detail?
When Harry was young, it was not as immediately apparent that he is Mountbatten to the bone the way it is now, which would also have unsettled Charles. Double standard, but there we are. Diana was not always a truthful person when it suited her not to be and Harry was one of those times.
I do believe that it was Wendy Berry, the chief housekeeper at Highgrove during this period who said in her memoir that Diana left St. Mary's hospital very quickly after Harry--the same day, the way she hadn't with William. According to Ms. Berry, in her opinion the hasty checkout was because Diana had no intention of allowing the nursing staff to observe her habits . . meaning the purging. Ms. Berry had charge of cleaning Diana's bathroom personally at Highgrove and if one supposes she's hiding a habit of making herself sick several times daily from her housekeeper, she's deluding herself. Recalling that comment in the years since I read it, I have always wondered if some form of pre-natal nutritional deficit contributed to Harry's emotional and developmental problems. William seems to be fine, but he's got to carry around the knowledge that his mum accidentally on purpose gambled with his life when she flung herself down the stairs at Sandringham while pregnant.
Emotionally stable people do not throw themselves down staircases on purpose, pregnant or not, even it's only a gentle roll on carpeted pile in an histrionic bid for attention. Diana was not screwed on tight so there's no doubt where Harry gets the emotional instability from.
@Rebecca: Thanks for the reprint. I don't know who wrote that article, but the portrayal of Mrs. Todger as competition for G. Paltrow seems to be so are out of reality, it belongs on Mars. Goop has about 60 employees, and brings in millions upon millions yearly. Mrs. Todger, on the other hand, is unable to retain any employee longer than six weeks. She's not the type of person people want to be loyal to, except for Mr. Todger. And his reasons don't fit any one's idea of healthy loyalty.
Never been much of a fan of G. Paltrow but, hey, if ILBW can scam people out of a few million a year copying Paltrow, she will have it made (if she saves some of it because people will move on to the next trendy thing soon). Fenty is also a company to aspire to, but, oddly enough, she doesn't seem to be interested in marketing to women of color. I can't see her in meetings to convince investors to provide funds to grow the company, though. Maybe that's what the Getty thing was about.
So how DID Prince Harry get a US visa? Campaigners demand to know if Duke admitted 'multiple' drug use on application - and call for the royal to be deported if he lied about taking cocaine before moving to California
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11884759/So-DID-Prince-Harry-visa-despite-drug-use-Campaigners-demand-know.html
A place in LA where she can buy her own 'crown', and I am sure they could quickly do something custom-made for her with all the required woke symbolism.
She will probably decide at the last minute to attend and then whine 'victimhood' when all the other royal ladies have taken all the tiaras and bandeaux in the royal vault. Tiaragate II looms.
Yes, if she claimed to be `afraid of Charles's reaction', how did she think he'd feel when the truth was known? I suspect that was a `rationalisation', an `acceptable reason' devised in retrospect, following months of gloating that she knew something that Charles didn't. Whichever way she saw it, it suggests spite to me - perhaps this nasty streak was the source of Harry's attitude.
I sat on the fence over the Wales's marriage - until she publicly slagged off Charles in the interview. She overlooked that the boys were `half him' and so she was indirectly attacking them. I wonder in what other ways she may have planted mental IEDs in Harry's main? Perhaps his entire existence has been as an `F- you' to Charles, especially as there's the question hanging over his parentage, even if Hewitt had not arrived on the scene at that juncture, there's at least one other candidate who has been said to have been `romantically linked' with her but is seldom mentioned.
Still. if real ermine is OUT , there shouldn't be any anti-fur protests. Might it be OK if they did what our local museum's done for the stuffed animals and stated the age of the specimens (50 yrs minimum)? For hereditary peers' garb it'd be more like: `These stoats died over 300 years ago'.
Charles got lucky by driving Diana to the brink of despair that she had to seek love from another man, becais=use he husband was lost to the mistress (as time proved). I am a very sane person who loved my husband and it would have cruahed me to know my husband still loved another woman. I experienced ann upsetting thing when I married my husband and found greeting crads by a former lover and pictures of her, and he quite willingly offered to burn them because of his love for me, an act he thought woukd signify the past was truly over never to be resurrcted.
Emtional abuse can drive people over the edge, We see it all the time in society now; finally people are realising how emotionla abuse can drive peoplke to do things they would not ordinarily do (ex. bulimia, suicidial actions). Diana and the stair incident has been widely different in reports depending on who is retelling it. Obviously it was a cry for help or attention from a cold husband who loved another woman. I give credit to Diana for going forward with having another child by Charles. She loved the BRF. She turned to Philip and Elizabeth for help. ERII shouldn have hglped instead of turning a blind eyue to her soins (inc. Andrew)
It is spurious accustaion to promote the idea that Harry may have been adversely mentally affected (or an unattractive baby) by nutritional deprevation by Diana. If one believes that then look to Charles as the culprit who caused her so much distress. Look to the Queen whom did notnget her help. Her noiwn husband shoulkd hqave nutured her and made it a proiroty to care for her. Loving huswbands I knwo do notn act like Charles did!
Blame Charles for deciding to marry Diana. He did the asking! He could have asked a more sutiable partner, let's say, his beloved Camilla who he wanted to be a tampon for! nee d i say more. Charles crushed a young girl and no wonder (and God Bless her) she found a way to survoive his abuse. She produced 2 heirs to the throne.mShe was not perfect, but she does not have to be! Are any of her detractors perfect? No of course not. How many of her detractors suffered such disappointment in their marriage, inflicted by an absent husband, an unfeeling husband or worse a husband who let it be clearly known his love for a woman was for his old flame! No one can judge Diana especially not knowing all the facts.
It seems as if the detractors would think it better that Diana had died after producing just William for all the criticism the poor woman got fpr "making Harry" deliberately ob=verlooking the fact Harry was only 13 at the time of her death and Chalres has had decades to form Harry into something defferent, especially from his exclusive influence during his formative preteen years (ie drinking, drug using, etc...) his wild teenage years to his young irresponsible adulthood. Charles has been nthere all along guiding Harry and the Queen/Philip had their influence as poor Diana had cared so deeply for him and his brother. Just look at the pictures and hear how Harry received deep love from his mother which impressed him and supported him for the rest of his life. Diana wouldn have never allowed him to go astray and be so disrespctful of the Monarchy which she by all acoounts respected and loved.
Comedy - Prince Hairy's master class in bringing down the BRF.
Charles did not give Harry what he needed growing up. I will grant you that. He's a man damaged by his own upbringing, doing the best he can given what he's got.
Diana is not responsible for her mental illness any more than Harry is for his, but we do expect Harry to take responsibility for his actions and so it is with Diana. She absolutely respected the Monarchy, but love? She didn't seem to even understand it, for the most part.
I know, I know. Everybody said she was a baby when she got married. I have no sympathy. I was married, a part-time criminology major at University of Texas, an NCO in the Army, and we had our first child when I was her age at marriage. I didn't expect my husband to follow me around all day trying to make me happy. (Actually, that would have been annoying.)
Diana was a mentally-ill woman that, at age 28, pushed her 60-year-old stepmother down a flight of stairs because she was angry at her. That's right, the Princess of Wales could have been arrested for attempted murder or even actual murder had Raine wanted to press charges or suffered fatal injuries. The men that she had affairs with fled from her because of her demands and instability.
I thought that she was an immature brat that would never grow up. I don't think she could. I think she was suffering from a frontal cortex dysfunction. I think Harry is also mentally ill.
Staying with a mentally-ill person cannot make them normal or happy.
I agree completely with what you wrote about Diana. “It didn't help that she claimed to love the things he did and made him think they were a good match, then promptly dismissed all of it after the wedding.” Bingo. Diana presented herself as being something other than who she really was. If Charles, the Queen or Prince Philip had known how ill (and ill suited) and how damaged Diana was, there never would have been a wedding. D’s grandmother Lady Fermoy knew it wasn’t a good match because of her granddaughter’s many problems, but said nothing until it was far too late.
Harry certainly is Diana’s son. Thank God for William.
Well said.
In 1981, I was 15 years old and as captivated by the 'fairy tale romance' of Charles and Diana as anyone. Diana was only 4 years older and I thought of her as a glamorous sort of older sister figure. I was charmed by this sort of Cinderella story . . albeit our Cinders in this tale was more blue-blooded than the House of Windsor itself. For the daughter of a peer of the realm, she seemed incredibly down to earth, as 'normal' as an aristocrat who grew up in an ancestral stately pile with servants and the honorary title of "Lady" could be. Still now I find it quite incredible that she drove her own little car around London and faced the horde of press on her own before she moved into Clarence House.
Could the Palace, the Queen and most of all Charles done better by her? Definitely, yes. The match of Charles and Diana has to rank among the very worst ideas which has ever been hatched by anyone. A lot of people tend to forget, owing to his old-soul nature that Charles was actually more than a year younger than Harry was at their respective marriages- Charles at 32 was presented as a near geriatric whilst his son, nearly 40 and more bald than his father is even now still gets to market himself as a 'young dad'.
Is Charles completely to blame for marrying Diana even though his heart was engaged elsewhere? Mmm, despite the temptation to say yes, I wonder if any of us would have done better at defying the Duke of Edinburgh in this matter, not to mention Mummy. I think actually it was put to Charles that, having had several meetings with the young lady, it was time to poo or get off the pot as it were. I think at this stage Charles was pretty desolate, having had several proposals of his to more age-appropriate aristocratic ladies roundly rejected. Amanda Knatchbull, e.g. the granddaughter of Lord Mountbatten. On paper, Diana, of the venerable Spencer family was the best of the rapidly dwindling options for Charles. He should have recused himself, if only because he'd already dated her sister . . sloppy seconds and kind of incestuous, very Mary - Anne Boleynesque, but at first it looked like it could be promising. The bride-to-be was incredibly young but she'd passed all the auditions with flying colors, being a canny little actress. Her prospective marriage family had no idea that she loathed the country, and all country pursuits and was afraid of horses. It was the audition of her life, for Princess of Wales, and she nailed it.
My point here is that Diana was ill-prepared to take on the role of Princess of Wales--not just the position itself but as Princess to this particular Prince of Wales. Very like her future daughter-in-law MM, she only saw the fairy tale parts and not the less glamorous parts. She and Charles were doomed, not only because of his infidelity with Camilla but because their expectations were so very different. It's tempting to blame Charles and Camilla for everything that went wrong with Diana later but that is oversimplifying the extent of the problems she brought into the union. The trauma of her parents' divorce and growing up in a fraught household where there was violence and alcoholism unfortunately resulted in grave emotional damage. No husband, no matter how loving was going to be able to fix what her childhood had done to her, and as we know, Charles had his own childhood traumas. He needed a nurturing Mummy figure while she expected him to be her doting Daddy and shower her with endless attention. They were at cross purposes before they ever said "I will'.
Diana was a young girl in love with the idea of love and of being the Princess of Wales. Real love takes time and compatibility to blossom and she and Charles never had either. For all the talk of Harry's engagement being fast--it was the standard length of 6 months, give or take a week. Charles' and Diana's engagement was barely 4.5 months long.
I hope she has found the peace which eluded her in her lifetime.
I wanted to address a few of your comments to me:
It is spurious accustaion to promote the idea that Harry may have been adversely mentally affected (or an unattractive baby) by nutritional deprevation by Diana.
I was neither accusing nor promoting as fact this idea. What I said was I have wondered whether it's possible. That is all. Eating disorders wreak havoc on the brain and body chemistry and can lead to malnutrition in the sufferer, so it's not spurious to be concerned about fetal health. We simply do not know how well Diana was eating or otherwise taking care of herself during her pregnancies. I'm not suggesting there is an iron-clad cause and effect with what ails Harry but we can't rule out the prenatal environment as one factor of possibility.
As for H being an unattractive baby, that's the Windsor influence I'd say and nothing to do with Diana. H's current levels of unattractiveness as an adult are more in the realm of personal responsibility.
There isn't any scenario in which I think Diana's death would have been a desirable outcome. The trauma of those events in August 1997 still echoes in the world, not least for Harry, I imagine. Given the current state of affairs with the Montecito duo and the vile things they have inflicted upon the Royal family and the late Queen and Duke of Edinburgh in their last years, and now torment Charles and the Wales family, I'd certainly say that all indications are that it would have been better if William had perhaps been an only child. Or, if Harry had been the girl Charles had wanted, would the sting of being 'the spare' been mitigated and she could have grown up to have a productive, meaningful life within her limited role? Because we cannot truthfully say that Harold's life has been productive or meaningful or content in the sphere in which he was born. A girl might've turned out like Margaret . . .or she might have been more like her Aunt Anne . . who, if there were any fairness in the world would've succeeded her mother as Queen.
Diana wouldn have never allowed him to go astray and be so disrespctful of the Monarchy which she by all acoounts respected and loved.
It could be argued that Harry's late mother was not showing a great deal of love or respect for the monarchy during her last few years . . She only survived her divorce by one year, and it was during that year that her own mother Frances told Diana in so many words that she was acting like a loose woman, though not in such nice language.
Diana was very wounded and wronged by so many in her life; unfortunately her fragile mental health was exploited by jackals (Beshir) . .but she was also often her own worst enemy. H and M have that in common with her.
----------
@CatEyes
He [Charles] could have asked a more suitable partner, let's say, his beloved Camilla. Camilla was in an on/off relationship with APB and would not have been considered a suitable bride. It sounds shocking but at the time, a royal bride was not permitted to have a 'past'. The RF didn't want any scandals about past lovers surfacing.
Lady C is on🔥today
I can tell she has lost her patience with King Charles' inaction regarding Harry & Meghan.
Her words to KCIII:
It's time to "do something aside from waiting for them to hang themselves, you have the rope, PULL IT!"
https://twitter.com/jomilleweb/status/1638322744684158977
Yankee Wally is on this podcast. We haven't heard from her in ages!
I think Diana admitted misleading Charles about the sex of the baby. She went alone to her prenatal visits and when asked if she wanted to know, said yes. Probably more than one scan was taken, to be sure, at different times. Advocating for her, I can understand how crushing the news was since she knew how much Chas hoped for a girl. Their marital communication was never great and she didn’t want to be the bearer of disappointing news. She was still only 22 years old with a husband who could be snappy. Chas probably paid her more loving attention when he thought she was carrying a girl than he ever had and she didn’t want it to end. But it would have been far better to rip the bandaid off quickly and get it over with. Perhaps she had some magical thinking going on… the scan was wrong…. It will be a girl if I wish hard enough.
I suppose Charles wanted William to have a sister to recreate what he had with Anne growing up. The two were and are very close. And C knew from firsthand with Andrew that a younger son was only likely to be corrosively jealous of William. Et viola that is precisely what has happened. If Anne was jealous of Charles she has never let on. She spoke wistfully about would having liked to attend university like her brothers, but nothing specifically against Charles and his position. She has been his staunch right hand always. Chas wanted that for William. It’s not Harold; never has been. Anne had Diana’s number too with the press hogging.
There is an adorable photo of little Sarah Chatto running to greet her cousin Charles at Balmoral. How many 18 year old guys would be genuinely tickled to greet a little 8 year old girl cousin? Charles would have been a good girl dad.
loose like Hell on Wheels. Please!
I am sorry for all the horrible typos. Won't make excuses though I coud, but nonethe less it's difficult to read through.
Re: Charles & Diana
- Camilla is responsiblr for her personal behavior which made her an 'unsuitbale partner for Charles.
- Charles is responsible for falling in love with Camilla with her 'reputation'. Afterall, isn;t the storry that she risquely mentioned her relative was a former British King's mistress and she risquely said to Charles words to the effect "Maybe we should give it a go?"
- Charles could have have found a sutiable marriage partner the world over from any royal family, many aristiocratic families and honorable women who shared his pursuits.
- What did a man so mature, wise, well-read and supposedly intelligent thinks a naive young virgin he's only seen a few times would even be a sutable dating partner?!
- Its laughable that Charles didn't realise she might change since she was so young and they could soon drift apart.
- Differences, even major, in likes, backgrounds, education and intelligence does not doom a couple (as my parents had in every category imaginable except values and who only knew each other in a few weeks before marrying after a blind date).
- As far as partners fleeing from Diana, there were as many or more partners Charles was attracted to and dated. Diana only married one, Charles.
- People cite the story of the stepmother being pushed down the stairs, but there was quite a bit that the stepmother did to hurt the young children (Diana being one). So I would say the Stepmother had first crack at being sinister and abusive (see story about her denying the children of her husband visiting after hisnheart attack). Two sides of the same coin and famously they became good friends later on. Funny how detractors see the bad in Diana.
- No one looks at the psychology of Charles narcissicism and abusive behavior toward Diana who was just a young girl at the mercy of a much older who everyone knew to curtsy to and obey. [When Charles is crowned by Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, he will experience what is believed to be a sacramental encounter with God.].
- Many people have been driven mad by horrible spouses who emotionally abused them. I would have been driven to a deep dpression being married to a man who was still in love with another woman who would not leave him alone and vise versa. If Diana had not found a way to cope she surely might have killed herself. But Charles was very lucky she didn't.
- Charles has only himself to blame for being sexist and just wanting a daughter. Back then sonograms were not always accurate. I had them with all three of my pregnancies and never knew for sure what gender I was going to have. Charles only has himself to blame for not going to prenatal appointments and discussing the pregnancy with the health care providers. Maybe Diana was afaid to tell Charles because he was already cold to her, she felt his disappointment with her (what does still being in love with your old lover says acceptance, huh?) and ignored her needs. Heaven forbid if she had to incur more disappointment from her husband, most of all because of the contents of her own womb.
I wished Diana would have lived and helped Harry and been a loving influence over the course of his life, as he surely does not seem to have flourished with Charles form of love ('Whatever love means".) I wished she would have married again and had children to be lovely siblings to William & Harry (guess it would not have made a difference to the LOS though).
King Charles like his mother before him is obviously hoping against all experience to the contrary that Harold is going to repent and be a loving son to his father on the long-awaited Coronation Day. Banning Harold outright would have been a terrible look, but any hope of reconciliation now is ludicrous. But I can understand Charles wishing to appear magnanimous ahead of his anointing. Afterwards there will be time to pull the rope or release the beastie but that can wait six weeks. Now a new wrinkle—what will KCIII do if Harold is deported for lying about his drug use? That’s perjury on a federal document. Perjury is a Sussex specialty.
I would be surprised if an omission Re. ‘Historical’ use of controlled substances would be enough to deport the son of the new monarch of our oldest ally. That would be embarrassing to Charles at this delicate juncture in his reign. If *current* possession and ongoing use of narcotics could be proven though—that’d be another matter.
It’s time for the California Bureau of investigation to conduct a raid on Mudslide Manor. Harold’s provided probable cause. If they work fast,they can have Harold back in Blighty for all the pre-Coronation festivities.
What the Dickens!
Great Expectations
fell to Bleak House
A Tale of Two Cities
for Chuzzleshit and spouse
The Awful Todgers
Pecksniff Papers
Aided by Barnaby Grudges
opioid vapours
And Our Mutual Friend
Scobie Heep
An Old Curiosity Flop
what a creep
Dumbey and Son
will soon be for it
All for Mrs Jellyby and Li’l Dorrit
Nancy and Mr Bumble
should harkle The Chimes
They’ve fallen from favour
deserve the Hard Times…
I always thought he needed an intelligent girl of spirit, a bit like Anne - or Camilla, who didn't want to be Queen anyway.
There were too few foreign Protestant princesses for him to marry; a commoner would have been unthinkable and there were few daughters of the nobility and gentry (well-connected landowners) who hadn't been around the block and were without a `past'.
I believe Charles was `bounced' into that marriage. Without him fathering a legitimate child, he'd have been succeeded by Andrew, who was also unmarried at the time. There was real fear of a constitutional crisis.
I have read that the DoE told him to marry Di or stop seeing her lest her reputation be compromised.
.......
Women's rght apart, I think that daughters having the same rights with regard to succession as their brothers may bring difficulties for their marriages. Brides always had to promise to `obey' their husbands, so what's a monarch to do?
Mary I and Anne were fortunate that their husbands were prepared to play no political part in their live;
Elizabeth I avoided the problem altogether but left us with a crisis, having named no successor;
Mary II and Wm III (of Orange a pretty remote descendant of James I ) may technically have been Joint Monarchs but there's no doubt that Wm was the ruler.
Anne's husband, George of Denmark, was happy to keep out the way politically.
There was a big problems with Albert though - he expected to be crowned king but that was out of the question. `Prince Consort' was the final decision - yet it seems that he controlled Victoria and `her' decisions.
At first, Philip found his position hard to swallow - again he was Prince Consort but known by his Edinburgh title. A settlement was reached, matters improved when `Windsor' was changed to `Mountbatten Windsor' so that his children bore his name.
Camilla being queen is a reflection of our long-held principle of a wife having the same rank as her husband - no morganatic marriages here.
@OCGal
More like Edvard Munch 😱
The Spencer’s
more blue blooded than
the Royals
craved a Royal wedding
Finally!!
Lady Fermoy, Diana’s Grandmother
and Elizabeth, Queen Mother
contrived the pact
Lady Fermoy later regretted
she hadn’t revealed
her granddaughters mind set.
* Duke of Sussex is now facing calls for his US visa application to be released
* Ex-prosecutor says 'admission of drug use is usually grounds for inadmissibility'
* But other lawyers say Harry's admissions wouldn't be enough for a probe
Prince Harry's admission of drug taking could threaten his US visa, an American lawyer has warned as he insisted there was 'no exception for royalty'.
...
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Page Six last night: 'An admission of drug use is usually grounds for inadmissibility.
'That means Prince Harry's visa should have been denied or revoked because he admitted to using cocaine, mushrooms and other drugs.'
Mr Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers which is based in Los Angeles, added that there was 'no exception for royalty or recreational use'.
But Texas-based immigration lawyer Sam Adair told Page Six that it was 'unlikely that these admissions will present a problem' because there have been no criminal convictions.
And attorney James Leonard told the publication that revealing in a book that 'you experimented with drugs when you were a young man' would not be enough for immigration officials to launch an investigation into Harry's status.
...
It would be good if something could bee done but I'm not holding my breath.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11889021/Lawyer-warns-Prince-Harrys-drug-use-threaten-visa.html
Love 'What the Dickens!' Very good!😁
New post up!