Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)?
There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he?
He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of being able to afford such a lovely bauble = although we still would like to drool looking at it).
Same holds true for the jewelry. (still drooling).
In reality, there can be things which are being "sold" which do not meet the minimum which is embarrassing but translates to no one wants this at this price. So ... it might make some sense to ask for cash ... but ...
But would he have that amount of cash? Maybe? He did, after all, need to borrow cash from his mother to be able to pay off Diana. Years later and the Dutchy did well under him, is one thing but hold that thought about Dutchy funds.
More recently, I seem to remember talk of the Queen Mother leaving debts and Queen Elizabeth quietly paying them off. But that was her mother, a woman of a different generation where women did not work, they married, men took care of the finances and women didn't get involved with that. That was then and this is now (pretty much everyone works in some way). But we really don't know because the estate stuff gets sealed.
Besides, there is rumor that The Queen has lent or given or something money to Prince Andrew so he could pay off Virginia or maybe it was the ski chalet or both. If any part of that is true, then that is a chuck of cash that isn't available.
I don't get to see the finances of how things roll but my guess is that the BRF are meeting their bills but soaking up a lot of extra is not happening. Things just cost more (and more and more) plus covid ripples affecting everyone PLUS the whole country is having serious belt tightening. And, the very public thinning of the monarchy (which actually started years ago). Or the cutting of the family subsidy (think Prince Andrew and so on). So ... they too, have been and are looking at cutting costs (which may or may not be sparked by a cash flow situation at the moment but more likely concerns of the potential for one in the future).
And then there is the we don't know the financial details but remember that the King gifted Angela Kelly a house which is not geographically close to Windsor. No idea about anything about the house but that was a kind thing for her. Was that cash out for him? Don't know.
One of the key things to remember (especially when the interest rate on savings is not even covering inflation) is to invest in things which bring you cash. And, they are usually linked to something people need. In short, you don't let cash sit around in some account earning pennies when it could be making way more for you somewhere else. Again, that may still be invested in something which is as illiquid as land once you buy it (think land like a parking lot in the middle of a big city where people always need parking. Or maybe a laundromat.).
So, when King Charles tried to have a conversation with his son about money (to consider having the future wife continue to work because at some point, the money from him would change) was actually an attempt to let them know (remind the son) that at some point, Prince Charles would be king and the Dutchy (which had been "helpful" to funding the son's needs up until that point) would then be under the control of PW. And that, would be that. He was thoughtful, as usual, thinking way ahead and trying to let them know ahead of time so they could plan/adjust now. The response to that early warning was not taken well or heeded (at that time or down the road as things started spinning out for them).
A question was raised about why would (somehow) legally KC be responsible for being the source of the money? (but) The real question is why should he? (Not like he's the one married to her - for richer or poorer and all that jazz.)
When then PC borrowed the money from his mother to pay off Diana at the time of the divorce, they (he and his mother) both knew that a) he would pay it back and b) that over time, the Dutchy would fund this repayment (I could be wrong about how I remember that explanation). But the Dutchy goes to the Prince of Wales and therefore is not a source of any money to people who are not in the immediate family of the Prince of Wales. So if money is borrowed by the son who is not the PoW (therefore does not have that income), what or how would a loan be paid back? A normal question by any bank loan officer. Or his father if his father were to bankroll a loan.
Thinking that the just the pure fatherly love would be enough to pay her off (just give her the money)? I don't think so. I suspect that the king not only saw how money was being spent on the lead up to the wedding, watching the bills from the first year of marriage, had vivid memories of funding his divorce and has advisors who are keeping him informed about the current and future state of the economy. We know he loves his son but would it really extend to such a huge financial payout? As of late, his public comments are few, far between and mainly come off as 'Thinking of you, Hope you are having a happy life over there.'
And, the claim of blackmail. Eh, yeah. That is a technical possibility. The problem with it is that once you pay anything - ever, there is nothing to stop them from coming back for multiple bites of the apple. And, having seen just the public behavior (not even what has been said behind the scenes, on phone calls, put in emails and texts - all that isn't coming out), would it make a lot of sense for the BRF to open themselves up for more or else I'll ... threats in the years to come?
The difficulty is having the courage to rip that bandage of blackmail off and release the information yourself, throw yourself on the ground, begging mercy and then ... you release the proof of blackmail (oh, my). People will gawk, tut-tut but your life will move on without the blackmail threat looming over your every waking moment while the blackmailer gets some tarnish at best and possible legal problems at worst.
People keep mentioning the need for an iron clad NDA. Who would really believe either could be trusted to follow an NDA and never talk about "the it" after a payout to go away quietly? Remember the court case where there were claims she/he didn't participate in the Finding Freedom? and so on. What does that past behavior tell us about the potential for the future?
Comments
Many people read this blog.
Some are good people. Some are not.
So, please remember this before posting some of your personal information. Thanks.
Once bitten by the threat of blackmail, PC isn't going to give Mrs. Todger any money to go away. That's up to Mr. Todger to fund her goingawayness.
The BRF, M16 have plenty on Mrs. Todger, plenty. They know all.
@Teasmade: Mrs. Todger would threaten to expose Mr. Todger's secrets regarding sex, and drugs.
It was later reported, at some critical point (before the wedding? On the brink of Mexit?) that this was nothing like enough to persuade her to go away, IIRC.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13tm3xd/proof_that_itv_had_an_explicit_promarkle_ideology/
It was ITV that showed the OW interview.
Brilliant summary of the reality of what a divorce may look like.
I would be shocked if separation and divorce were looming. It is highly unlikely that she has, or would, find a wealthier man than hapless who will let her control and manipulate him and put up with all the BS. Unless of course there is an idiot out there who has inherited a ton of money.
If hapless leaves her, he loses his children. And he has very little, if nothing, to go home to ... no home, no friends, very little family that is talking to him, no job.
I think the couple are highly delusional and very thin-skinned, so my guess is that they are constantly on the phone briefing flying monkeys and getting sympathy from friends like Tyler Perry and Oprah (yes, I think she is still a pal) and Gayle, and other friends are visiting (like Samantha's daughter) ... Marcus may even have moved into the guest house with Doria! TBW is plotting and planning her Hollywood triumph as an Oscar-winning producer and hapless is obsessed with his court cases and raging over the two times a British judge has now told him no.
Oh, and there is the Inside the Palace special they are wooing Netflix with.
Harry contacted divorce lawyers 'months ago' amid Meghan 'marriage problems', Lady C claims
Author and socialite Lady Colin Campbell, 73, told GB News the prince and Meghan Markle were having 'problems in the marriage supposedly for some time'.
Harry and Meghan have had "problems in the marriage supposedly for some time" amid rumours the prince called in divorce lawyers "months ago", a prominent author and socialite has claimed.
Lady Colin Campbell, 73, was commenting on reports alleging Harry had been spending time alone in two hotels, one near his home in Montecito and another in Los Angeles, the Scottish Daily Express reports.
Lady Campbell, who is known as Lady C, claimed to GB News: "There have been problems in the marriage supposedly for some time. I mean, I have heard from five totally reliable sources that Harry called in the lawyers some months ago.
...
"And also if there are real problems in the marriage, which there do appear to be, Harry's going to have a heck of a time extricating himself, because he has been very overt about all of his failings and all of his drug-taking."
...
During a discussion with Dan Wootton, Lady C said: "He's not in a very good position legally in terms of preserving his position, especially in terms of custody of the children, but I don't, I don't know that it's got to that stage yet.
"And you also have to be very careful what you believe, because anything coming from Montecito can very easily be a lie."
...
https://tinyurl.com/yk8yndju
----------
@Teasmade
Don't forget Travalyst, that's another job. Whether it pays is another story.
This is the article that quotes Paul Burrel. The comments are on with this link. I have just checked them and found something odd.
Guest Speaker often comments on articles and is completely pro TBW. For this article, this person posted some furious comments. I know this because of this Reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13tmfds/the_comments_of_guest_speaker_believed_to_be_meg/
The comments from Guest Speaker seemed to have disappeared, but I am looking at an archived copy so maybe they just are not on the page I am looking at.
Alongside this video are others that the algorithm `think' I might like. They go like this:
HGT's latest 2, followed by Bernard Cribbins `Digging a Hole' and `Man saves this crying wolf cub...'
I didn't know an algorthms could have a senses of humour.
PS `Delilah' seems to have been cancelled now, as it's about violence to a woman but it does sum up what can happen to coercive controllers.
The wealth of the RF is not liquid - so much of the apparent real estate is State property. The Duchy of Lancaster is a property portfolio but that doesn't mean it can be flogged off - it's `an inalienable asset of the Crown held in trust for future sovereigns. Unlike we folk who are often obliged to dig into capital assets, the seriously rich are able to live off the income from the capital and if one is stinking rich, living off the interest on the interest is the ideal. Digging into capital is utmost folly.
(Wikipedia)Sandringham and Balmoral are the monarch's personal property and Charles has bought various smaller properties here and there. Whether * would be satisfied with either, or both of these, is debatable.
--------
BTW re cost of Coronation - I heard that the biggest single item on the bill was for the return rail fares for all the troops that were brought into London, not the bling!
Guest Speaker: I've just called up the original comments here;
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13tmfds/the_comments_of_guest_speaker_believed_to_be_meg/
I found some more this morning after this but am not sure if it was this thread or another Sinner one.
-----
Is TBW the key production source? The above is taken from this article:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1774953/harry-meghan-memoir-spare-royal-family-Netflix
Which goes on to say that the couple will maintain control and earn a lot more money by insisting on being executive producers. Bad idea. Why? @WBBM says it perfectly:
"The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. What we have learned from that is that she can't be trusted an inch, or fraction thereof, still less, as far as we could throw her."
`You Can't Always Get What You Want' - to be played whenever she dares to show her face.
An interesting article on how Camilla reached out to help Catherine 'fit in' with the family and royal role, as well as giving useful advice when they set up their first large home, both before and after the wedding.
Remember TBW whining about no one telling her anything, but in the same interview, she affirmed reports of refusing assistance from anyone as hapless would tell her everything she needs to know? (The article explains why royal men are the last people to be helpful in helping wives fit in.)
I wonder if Camilla and Catherine tried but were rebuffed, or if neither of them reached out and said 'let's have lunch'. I think I read somewhere that Camilla did try and offer advice but the advice was not wanted.
When I read the article, I realize that there is so much to learn when joining the royal family. To refuse advice seems very foolish. TBW had never had staff so how the heck would she know what staff she would need to run a royal household? Even down to the make up guy she used - blabbing weeping IG-loving Daniel instead of someone discreet who knows about creating a royal image.
A few excerpts from Page Six. I forgot how much help was offered her:
'Buckingham Palace provided Meghan Markle with the Queen’s most senior staff to serve as her “mentors” before getting hitched to Prince Harry, according to a report, contradicting her claim that she didn’t receive help transitioning into the royal family.
“It is very disingenuous to make such a sweeping generalization,” a source told the Daily Mail. “There was a brilliant team of very experienced and loyal aides to help them. Sadly, she and Harry were willing to listen to no one. And that is the honest truth.”
In fact, Queen Elizabeth II enlisted her most trusted adviser, Samantha Cohen, to help Meghan prepare for her wedding and for royal life, sources told the British tabloid.
Cohen was also responsible for giving the former actress regular tutoring sessions on everything from royal etiquette to diplomatic protocol at Kensington Palace.'
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/10/queen-provided-meghan-markle-help-from-senior-staff-report/
It seems reasonably safe to assume that * told C & K in no uncertain terms what they could do with their `help'. Her claim that she was denied help is true only insofar as she probably refused it and turned it into yet another cock-and-bull story of how she was received.
@Opus
Has the acronym NEET dropped out of use these days, do you suppose? Used of youngsters exhibiting the characteristics of the drone* H has become - `Not in employment, education or training'.>
* as in PG Wodehouse's `Drones' Club'.
Many people were shocked and didn't believe the astronomical figure, but I have always believed £100million to be accurate.
At the time, I am sure the Royal Family also thought that the figure too astoundingly high to pay to get her to go away and stay away, but I bet now they wish they had agreed to her price at the time.
Our poster Wild Boar Battle-maid wrote "At the time of their engagement, it was reported that ERII had earmarked £37m to cover a divorce settlement." - end quote - Poor dear Queen Elizabeth actually thought that Meghan would go away for that paltry sum? How wrong she was, or would've been.
I wish the Royal Family had bitten the bullet and paid £100million, or whatever figure the harridan Douchass specified, to get her to go away before marriage.
Sadly I believe that even if they paid £100million now, the Douchass will NEVER GO AWAY. She (purportedly) has royal children to keep her connected to the Royal Family, and she has her gang of Sussex Sugars to secretly do her nasty bidding of tarnishing all good Royal things and people. From the very start she has caused damage including such unforgiveable actions as:
Hurting the United Kingdom's sense of community and honor with false allegations of racism; painful emotional headbutts to Royal Family members each individually from the late lamented Philip and Elizabeth, to William and Catherine and their children; Eugenie having to postpone her own wedding so that H&M could have that wedding date; making Sophie and Edward have to step up to the plate with so much more work since H&M fled the UK and their commitments; insulting various diplomats and heads of state worldwide by gauche lack of protocol; the outrage of daring to show up to Uvalde to take publicity photos; H&M attending Disney's Lion King premiere with Harry shilling for Meghan to get voiceover work while he (unforgiveable to me) as Captain General of the Royal Marines, missed the annual memorial which had long been on his calendar to honour the many victims of an IRA bomb at the Royal Marines base; in another action unforgiveable to me the two losers actually closed down Los Angeles National Cemetery in order to be professionally photographed rivaling and mimicing (I don't know how to spell that) the actions of the Royal family in Britain, who annually lay flowers and wreaths for the war dead on Remembrance Day. Well, in USA we don't have Remembrance Day, we honor our war dead tomorrow, on Memorial Day...and we don't tromp right over the graves as these two reprehensible people did as they play-acted sorrow.
I could go on with innumerable other scandalous lies and behaviors, omissions and commissions from the two scoundrels, but I won't. I am sure you all have your own list of their most egregious behaviors.
The more I think about it, the cheaper the £100million "shut up and disappear" payment would've proved. The payment would've been worth it to be able to look back in time and not see any of the irreparable damage the Douchass and her handbag husband have caused individually and together.
@OCGal: The future Mrs. Todger thought she was worth $100 million to go away? More crazy thinking! IMO Mr. and Mrs. Todger have not done significant harm to the BRF. What they've done is make themselves laughing stock tabloid fodder, and the laughing stock of on-line discussion sites. I also highly doubt that QEII put away $37 million for a divorce. Fergie walked away with the bare minimum, and she produced two flesh and blood royal children. Don't know what Diana got, and she produced two royal princes. QEII called Mrs. Todger "evil." There's no way she was going to give TBW anymore than the bare minimum. The BRF probably has enough evidence to charge TBW with fraud, serious fraud. The RF will have Mrs. Todger over a barrel, not the other way around.
I dread to think how much she has cost Britain overall so far, both in hard cash and imponderables such damaged internal community relations and external international prestige? How much into the future?
In those terms, £100m seems a bargain but hindsight is very different from perception at the time. Would it have been tantamount to giving way to blackmail, just not quite the same as conceding out of fear of what she might allege? Suppose news of it had got out - how would the general public have seen it?
We here might have applauded it, having smelled trouble from the moment her political opinions were revealed, but I daresay many of us have hesitated to say what we thought for fear of being thought racists ourselves. The only women in the public eye who dared say anything critical were tough ones who have shown themselves to be immune to criticism, namely Germaine Greer and Ann Widdecombe. Otherwise, it was `the death of Diana' all over again.
The general public would have thought ERII and PC had gone mad, wasting so much cash on such a sweet girl, the Press would have spun it as evidence that they were, moreover, deeply racist, and we'd still have had revolution brewing.
* has an uncanny ability to devise binds which puts others into `damned if they do or don't'/ `between a rock and a hard place' /between the Devil and the deep blue sea', in a way I find chilling. If nothing else, she has shown how narcissists work and how some of the world's nastiest dictators operate, gain followers and power. Perhaps. at last, we can answer the question `Was to AH `bad or mad?'.
Just pondering the
shemozzle surrounding
This Morning UK breakfast show
Phil and Holly
Pholly?
BackGrid photo of
Phil and his young lover
a picture tells…
How long did BackGrid
and the media
sit on these ‘innocuous’ photos
and why?
Can only imagine the salacious shots
and much, much more
the UK press have in store
for madam…
Was it more a case of what the RF thought it would be worth to be shot of her, than any intrinsic worth she might have? That is, did she think she could generate such a `nuisance value' that they'd pay and think it a bargain?
Had anyone known in advance just how dangerous she would be, I reckon she should have been paid out of the national Defence budget. As it is, she must have cost the Intelligence Service
a small fortune.
@OCGal
Thank you for defending
our side of the pond
I’m still bloody angry at the
hurt they caused
the Queen and Prince Philip
Betes Noires…
Harry haz no money…
I don’t think there’s any such species as an honorable blackmailer, and if there were, Smirkle certainly wouldn’t qualify. She is as insatiable as she is delusional about her own power. If the BRF had capitulated to $100 million, her price would have risen to $200 million. There’s never a final payoff for an extortionist, only an escalating schedule of continuing trips to the feed trough.
It’s too late now, but if the queen and her courtiers knew that early on that this American grifter was going to be a problem, they only managed to give the hydra 99 more heads after they created it a royal duchess. They feared the lobbing of the R grenade and employed a strategy with H and his problematic girlfriend that cost Neville Chamberlain his job as Prime Minister— Appeasement. If you try appeasement with evil, evil has won. When Harry started bringing her around in 2016, they should’ve sat him down with the MI-6 files on her and explained why this person could never become a Royal bride. Smirkle makes Koo Stark look like Emily Post. She threatened the R grenade? Publish and be damned is what they should’ve said. Look at everything they gave her and she lobbed it anyway. You cannot purchase the silence of someone whose only currency is talking and threats of talking. Oprah wouldn’t have been nearly so keen to sit down and conduct an interview about the racist royal family with a woman who had remained Harry’s short term f**kbuddy. The royal family unknowingly legitimized her fabricated grievances when they Stroeve to elevate her to their level. If they had been refused a Royal wedding, titles and berths as working Royals, they’d have milked the racist angle for a while sure, but I think it would’ve died down when Smirkle realized that as a free agent she could bugger off and find a richer man than H to screw, one that didn’t have so many family obligations or rules governing his public conduct.
Harry’s got a lot of notches on his bed post, a lot of rolls in fields and drunken fumbles with scores of women he doesn’t remember. She is not the first woman he’s paid for, but the only thing that makes her remarkable is she’s the only one who’s got him down the aisle… And not for anything so wholesome as “love”. It’s a right mess, and it came about because they were trying to be kind and hoping that H could finally be happy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I think that Charles and the whole family are now in a version of hell thanks to Harry’s choice of bride. After the recent debacle of the “catastrophic car chase“, the Sussexes have managed to Markle themselves. Their international stock has tanked. The BRF would be foolish to embolden her even more by offering her a vast sum of money in any capacity. If memory serves, Diana‘s divorce settlement was something in the neighborhood of 25,000,000 pounds, most of which was placed in trust for her children, and Charles had to borrow from the queen to even meet that amount. And Diana had birthed the future King and stayed married for 15 years. What should Markle get for 18 months as a Royal and a Reborn? 100 quid sounds about right. of course as the sovereign CRIII has got access to more…but she shouldn’t get a penny more than the queen had already earmarked. Frankly she doesn’t deserve a cent. If there is to be a divorce, then that would also have to be a custody hearing. If the children are as I believe fraudulent, how is there going to be a custody hearing? Our interesting times are not yet over.
Did you see my comment re Yorkshire in the last post? (26 May 10.12 pm)
Nah, Hazza No-cash.
I’ve been frank in my views that Miz Smirkle didn’t birth no babies. Of all the lies this pathological liar has told, her two biggest cons are “Archie” and “Lilibet”. Those aren’t children; those are the names of her business opportunities, and Archewell was selected long before she married Hapless, and registered before she was ever “pregnant”. The second con had to be a girl in order to compete with Catherine’s Charlotte, and “Lilibet” was Narc revenge on a 95-year-old lady who’d had the audacity to say “No.”. I believe that Harry’s wife try to purchase some wombs or some children out right but they’ve not got custody or any parental relationship with kids. But don’t you think, with her back to the wall in a divorce negotiation and threatened with exposure for her lies about these kids that Smirkle wouldn’t still be brazen enough to use “the kids” as a bargaining chip in the court of public opinion? Lots of puff pieces in her sugar outlets about how “the kids” are suffering the same upheaval that traumatized H as a child? How can she send her mulatto babies back to that racist institution, with an unfit father? Yet is she prepared to maintain the charade of growing children for the next 15, 18 years?
I don’t think there’s enough money in the world, not even in all of Charles’ portfolio that would induce Smirkle y to o be quiet and go away. She is no respecter of closed doors as we’ve seen again and again. Whatever “closed door” arrangements are come to, things have a way of leaking out around Smirkle, like corrosive acid on metal. Her need for attention, control and the last word Means she’s never going to honor any agreements long-term. There will be no peace for the royal family until she’s no longer drawing breath. It could be a very very long time before there is a cessation to this drama. Certainly longer than Charles’s lifetime. I hope William is ready for a protracted battle.
@Martha, thanks for your kind supportive words!
@Fifi LaRue, you disagree with me when I detailed just a bit of the purposeful harm H & M have done to the Royal Family when you countered: "IMO Mr. and Mrs. Todger have not done significant harm to the BRF. What they've done is make themselves laughing stock tabloid fodder..." -end quote- We must agree to disagree. I continue to believe H & M will harm the RF for as frequently and for as long as it is allowed. In my own family we have (by marriage) the profound misfortune to have a Meghan-twin in purposefully destructive unforgiveable actions, whose sick crap has actually permanently injured both me and my immediate family members, so I feel sympathetic and empathetic pain myself seeing what the RF is going through. The wanton disregard for the frailities of elderly Philip and Elizabeth and the cutting down of their entire lives' works is reprehensible, and the incessant annoyances towards the RF taken altogether as a whole do, I feel sure, add up to permanent harm. The harm may not be visible physically to those of us on the outside, but there has certainly been invisible long-lasting or permanent damage.
@Fifi LaRue, you also said they've made themselves a laughingstock.This I agree with, but it is taking too long coming and I hope it continues faster and with more crushing blows to H & M to stop them in their tracks. In the meantime I don't need a tarot reader to tell me they will continue to try to tear down everything held dear by basically anyone worldwide, Commonwealth member or not. I do hope that when all is said and done, many years from now, you were right in how little they ultimately damaged the RF, and how thoroughly they are remembered as just laughably boorish fools.
@Wild Boar Battle-maid, I applaud and agree with every single sentence you wrote, and in particular this resonates: "* has an uncanny ability to devise binds which puts others into `damned if they do or don't'/ `between a rock and a hard place' /between the Devil and the deep blue sea', in a way I find chilling. If nothing else, she has shown how narcissists work" -end quote- Brava!
@Wild Boar Battle-maid, you also wrote "Had anyone known in advance just how dangerous she would be, I reckon she should have been paid out of the national Defence budget. As it is, she must have cost the Intelligence Service a small fortune." -end quote- Right on!
@Magatha Mistie, thank you for thanking me, and for supporting my thoughts on the late Queen and late Prince Philip. However I must tell you that "your" blog avatar makes my heart start to pound like I'm in danger and then I begin to laugh at its awfulness...such a true representation of you-know-who. The teeth. The fake crying emotion. I love you and your words and thoughts, but you should post a trigger-warning before each post as a public service announcement so I can avoid the evil mien of she-who-shall-not-be-named.
@Hikari, as I had read each of your sentences I thought "check", yes, "check", yes, on and on. Each sentence is gold, but these two stand out:
"I think that Charles and the whole family are now in a version of hell thanks to Harry’s choice of bride"
...and...
"After the recent debacle of the “catastrophic car chase“, the Sussexes have managed to Markle themselves." -end quotes-
Oh Hikari, I hope your great thought and phrase can be spread far and wide in all the lands. Sweeter words were never spoken:
"...the Sussexes have managed to Markle themselves."
Smirkle's entire life and persona is fraudulent. She keeps getting away with it because we, the millions of honorable people out there, don't call her out on all her many lies. Why? Because we were raised nicely and don't want to trap or humiliate anyone in public.
By the time we all realized that she needs to be brought down a few notches, and the only way to do this is to fight fire with fire, she had built herself an impregnable fortress (that is my attempt at a double-entendre 'though I know the word only means unassailable or fortified, not unable-to-get-pregnant).
Innocent professionals such as Piers Morgan were vanquished, and innocent bloggers like Yankee Wally were crushed completely. Far too many innocent people have been caught and crushed by her machinations, and this leads me to ending this quick post on a provocative note, the same sharp note I've been whistling from the start of the whole Markle Debarkle:
Harry is not an innocent in any of this. Markle has fertilized and watered and tended and nourished the angry delusional entitlement Harry has secretly carried from childhood.
Harry and his Mrs. together are synergistically poisonous, more destructive together than the sum of their parts.
This is my opinion, my truth, so help me God; and as I am a praying woman, I also pray that no children exist which are in their household or care. From my lips to God's ears...
In the early days, let’s say the first year of their relationship from engagement to about six months in, most of us were under the illusion that H poor dumb ginger, was genuinely in love and just blind to her insincere manipulation. She was invoking Diana after all, with scent memory and clothing and all kinds of love-bombing, and he fell for it, so we thought. H is too unfocused and intellectually limited to ever make a go of anything or even get anywhere Without minders and managers, and it seems like it might work for him to be shall we say channeled & guided by a stronger personality. It worked for Elizabeth’s father. Smirkle’s control was never to support Harry and help him be better, as a true loving partner would want to do. It’s always only ever been about keeping her at the center of attention.
It’s been obvious for a long time that H is complicit, enthusiastically, in their various schemes to defraud his family and the public… And he’s reveling in settling scores and flinging family dirt into the public domain. He’s always been a festering boil waiting to explode but he was too stupid and disorganized to come up with these ideas on his own. Intrinsically very lazy too and he needs someone else to jam the prod up his proverbial backside. I think H enjoys having things jammed up his backside and that is her function. They’re both narcissistic sociopaths in my opinion, but H is the beta, the Loeb to her Leopold. When two malignant sociopaths team up, there’s still a leader and a follower, and the more dominant of the two is the idea person; the other takes orders. H is an odious little gobsh*te, but the royal family had achieved containment before he met her. What he’s gotten up to since he’s been married makes the cavorting naked in Las Vegas 10 years ago look nearly as wholesome as a Sunday school picnic. If the royal family thought that was the absolute worst he could do, they hadn’t seen anything yet.
He never would have runoff to America, written a Tele memoir all about his todger and his fetish for the face cream of his late mother or slagged off his family on American television while his grandfather was dying off his own bat. This was all her doing… But never once had he stopped it either. He’s in this up to his beady little eyes.
I feel for William the most. He’s lost his only sibling to the Darkside. It’s probably been known for many years in inner circles that H Would never amount to much and would always be needing a mess cleaned up, but it’s safe to say that the current situation Hass to be the absolute nightmare scenario that could hardly have been dropped up even in the late Queen’s worst dreams. William is in every practical way that matters, the only son of his father. Thank God he has Catherine and the children, and good in-laws. It wasn’t supposed to be this way, but William will be facing the future having to continually watch his back against the person who is supposed to have it— The one that shared everything in his childhood nursery and who we thought, erroneously as it turns out, was his best friend as well as his brother. That is probably the biggest lie we were told after “Charles and Diana were the fairytale of the century.” The ghosts of the past continue to haunt the house of Windsor.
"Honing in with Hikari" is always a must-read for me.
Cheers!
Thanks to you and everyone who keeps this blog on the road, all the current and past contributors , our moderators and Nutty herself for setting this up as a safe place for those who are critical of originally just one person with the outlook of a North Korean dictator. It is shocking that we, as citizen as of countries with well-established rights of free speech, making legitimate and well-reasoned comment in support of our national Constitutions, have to use aliases and be ever vigilant for our online security. The way *'s hench folk have behaved towards our allies is shameful; I'm thinking of course, of Yankee Wally, bless her, but there are surely others.
The resilience of * leads me to sometimes leads me to think that this blog will outlive many of us - not that I'm in any immediate danger of shuffling off. At least the signs are good, more people are waking up to the existence of what we've been hammering away at for the last few years. It is devoutly to be hoped that comment and discussion such as ours becomes part of public discourse and the Press & broadcasters start to see things our way.
God save the King! Confusion to our enemies!
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13v8yu9/sinners_or_saints_be_vigilant_and_use_critical/
The Forces of Darkness, if I can call them that without being accused of R-m, are gathering around that site - I'd noticed it over the last week or so.
@BarkJack_
God's honest truth is the bloke hasn't moved out!
He does have comped rooms at several prominent hotels. It's a non story. Next.
-----
He's had offers where he's due for engagement; this is common practice for someone of his level of celebrity, out of courtesy and good business. It's one of those Hollywood flogs (the hotel bit).
-----
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1662148821961392146
For some reason, I cannot paste the final commemt. But, I am not sure that the explanation is wholly accurate. He has access to luxury vehicles and a driver, they have very few meetings or engagements where time is not under their control, and why would the places he supposedly stays be in their area and not in LA, where traffuc and distance might be relevant factors?
No I do not think they are separating or divorcing, but I also do not think that is the blissfully happy marriage that they project. They both have a history of tantrums and childish behaviour. Add substance abuse and the constant war against the families and British tabloids and you have a toxic mix.
If this os true, then I think there are many other stories like this. The first time she went to Wimbledon with Catherine, she had a great idea ... her and Catherine should walk in arm in arm, projecting women power and modernising the monarchy. Catherine said no.
I just don't think the evil embodied in Mrs. Todger will prevail. Mrs. Todger manages to "markle" herself over and over. She's a losing loser. She came from being a nobody to being somebody back to being a nuisance nobody. She has very little power to affect anyone significantly, except for Mr. Todger. He will suffer the most because he's adjacent to the viper.
The most incomprehensible thing about this whole sordid story is how they somehow keep getting resurrected after they keep making these high-profile failures. Her 'gift', if we can call it that, is in having shown up at the precise time that the Zeitgeist was in her favor to exploit the Royal family with this 'Racist' narrative, and how she's been able to weaponize the fact that she's partially Black into a Get out of Consequences Free card. This continues to insulate her from the worst fallout from her screwups and odious behavior. No matter what she does, the incontrovertible fact remains that she is less white than the family she married into, and that has become her invincibility cloak. And it will continue. Any sanctions the RF will try to impose on her becomes more 'evidence' of racist bullying that drove her out of England and made her suicidal. We know this is all calculated BS, but she's got a sycophantic media in her corner still, and the means, apparently to keep purchasing supporters to stir things up online and get people Smirkle dislikes cancelled. People like Ngozi Fulani are her foot soldiers. These people--who are I believe, largely economically disadvantaged women of color--don't seem to recognize that she's exploiting them too. Why do none of her 'sisters' have an issue with a woman who has made a career out of exploiting white men for cash . . who's only dated/married white men of means; who has trashed her elderly father (Oh, right, Thomas's crime is in being a privileged white man, even though he shared all his privilege with the child who lied about her race to schoolmates, pretended to be Italian, told all her posh school friends that the nappy haired woman who appeared at school to pick her up was the family maid. . .) A woman who hasn't worn her natural hair since middle school, instead purchasing hair from impoverished women in the Third World, forced to sell their hair so they can buy food for their children--but she's such an EMPOWERING FEMINIST . .because she says so.
Until the scales fall from the eyes of her minions, RMM 'is' dangerous because of all the people and media outlets who are willing to do her dirty work. By herself, on her own merits and resources, she is a losing loser--she got absolutely nowhere until her mid-30s (or later, some claim) in trying to be a 'star influencer of the world'. Opening briefcases in F-me heels and a slip. Buying her way into celebrity charity events. 6th billing on a third-rate cable soap filmed in Canada--that is the pinnacle she reached. Until Harry and all the resources of the British Royal family came her way.
As long as she still gets interviews, covers, can claim influential celebrity friends and can purchase herself relevance and media attention, she remains dangerous. The problem is that no one with clout is willing to publicly repudiate her and enumerate each and every one of her lies. Everyone's all hand-in-pocket, looking out for their own necks/sharing management companies/contractually obligated. The Royal family itself buried all her skeletons. That was an error. I say this to King Charles: Your Majesty, time to open up the graves and let 'em out. Lance the boil so the infection can be purged. Take the heat; it will pass, but she has to be destroyed. I don't know what else to say.
No I do not think they are separating or divorcing, but I also do not think that is the blissfully happy marriage that they project. They both have a history of tantrums and childish behaviour. Add substance abuse and the constant war against the families and British tabloids and you have a toxic mix.
Now that all the vaunted projects have dried up/bombed spectacularly and there aren't any more commercial offers (except in her own PR spin), it seems that the "DIVORCE IMMINENT!!!" rumor mill is their new brand line for media coverage. More soap operatic drama so there can be a 'reconciliation'. Hence the "Harry Really Wants to Meet Thomas, Sr." narrative.
They've been living separate lives for years. Since the beginning, IMO. After making such a public display of rushing back from the seminal event in his father's lifetime to attend a four-year-old's birthday party . . H flew to San Francisco where he 'plays polo' (translation: has a boyfriend installed in an apartment). C'mon. I'm sure all the Nutties in the U.S. and abroad are aware of San Francisco's reputation. It's a very gay-friendly city . . the gay-friendliest in America. His wife has got her own friends; word is that Markus Anderson lives with her, wherever that may be . .it's not the Mudslide Manor. The marriage is a contractual arrangement whereby they make publicity appearances together. It's as legit IMO as the Taylor Swift - Tom Hiddleston romance, only it's a lot more dark and twisted. They deserve each other. They are locked together in their mutually toxic codependency. If he divorces her, he'd have to return to England. If she divorces him, she's cut off from her Royal supply. Divorce rumors are page-filler but I think, bogus. Being married doesn't prevent either of them from doing exactly as they please, and they remain a bigger force for anarchy (their mutual goal) together than separately.
The most incomprehensible thing about this whole sordid story is how they somehow keep getting resurrected after they keep making these high-profile failures.'
and
The Royal family itself buried all her skeletons. That was an error. I say this to King Charles: Your Majesty, time to open up the graves and let 'em out.
There's a new theme here- `Meghan Markle as one of the Undead.'
As an example, thank you to @Sandie who gave us a Neil Sean link in which he alleges that Meghan proposed to Catherine that they enter Wimbledon TOGETHER, ARM-IN-ARM.
It seemed far-fetched to me at first, but then I realized that Mrs. Todger has brass balls and may well have proposed this, having figured that Catherine would be so shocked and taken by surprise and wanting to be amenable to her new sister-in-law that she could be tricked into saying yes, starting a new precedent. Once a precedent like this starts it is so hard to go back to the old ways.
Neil Sean wrongly thought that Meghan was trying to show "girl power" by walking arm in arm, but I instantly realized that he is wrong. Meghan's intent was to not ever have to walk behind Catherine as is the norm with Royal precedence and protocol. She wanted to be seen arm-in-arm and I'm sure had practiced all this in her devious daydreams until it would be automatic almost muscle-memory that she would always grab Catherine's right arm with her own left arm, which would serve two functions:
1. When photos are posted, the person on the left's name is given first, so Meghan would always be listed first, and Catherine second when looking and reading from left to right as we do
2. When the two girls approached important people arm-in-arm, since Meghan would be clutching Catherine's right arm, Meghan could stick out her own right hand to shake hands, while Catherine would still be trying to disentangle herself from Meghan's claw grip in order to use her own right hand to shake the waiting person's hand.
Win-win for Mrs. Todger, lose-lose for Catherine.
This made me also realize that Mrs. Todger always gripped Mr. Todger's arm and walked together even in the most inappropriate circumstances, not in order to show everyone how loved up the noisome twosome are, but in order that she didn't have to walk a step or so behind Harry, who is the actual Prince.
The only place she should walk first, is into the dustbin of history.
The problem is that no one with clout is willing to publicly repudiate her and enumerate each and every one of her lies.
I wish more,people with clout could enumerate and debunk her lies but the thing is that anyone that's ever said anything vaguely negative is instantly markled. Look at what happened to Piers Morgan, for instance. I can't be bothered to look for examples. I think she lies like she breathes and can't keep track of what she said, what's lies and what's truth (or her truth). The fact that society has in the main become very woke, for want of another word that's not so overused, and liberal, has been helping her for the past few years. She's been very quick to capitalise on the fact. She can be very touchy, if she doesn't like something you say or do it's because you're racist and she is always misunderstood, the constant victim. I think more and more people are aware of her lies, though, and fewer and fewer people are taken in by her very superficial charm.
I'd say she now suffers, as does H, from overexposure. The world is tired of her and totally bored with her and her podcasts and other platitudes delivered as ramblings but trying to appear enlightened.
Breaking News: A Hearing on the @Heritage@OversightPR
Prince Harry immigration records case will be held in Washington, DC Federal Court in front of a U.S. Federal Judge at 2.30 pm on Tuesday June 6 in Courtroom 17. The Hearing will be open to the press.
So I looked it up for a little background:
"The Heritage Foundation sued the Department of Homeland Security for a copy of Prince Harry's immigration records on Monday, citing the prince's admitted use of illegal drugs." On Twitter, the Oversight Project seems to be the chatty arm of the Heritage Foundation.
I have no opinion, just thought this might be of interest.
The other big thing on Twitter today (I'm procrastinating a big deadline) is a photo of Doria pushing a big cart to the laundromat, dressed verrrry casually, contrasted to an immaculate Carole Middleton selling her business for 6, sorry, million or billion, dollars or sterling?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKk91x0Yg7Q
They're having a good go at * now.
• Meghan Markle is debuting an 'edgier' sense of style according to a celebrity stylist who shared that the royal has moved on from 'uber-glam' fashion.
• The expert said that Meghan's latest red carpet look was an 'absolutely perfect' example of her new style.
... Meghan's outfit choices have fallen into a 'more relaxed, California-cool aesthetic' than the looks she often stepped out in while in the UK.
However, the royal has made at least one deviation from this new 'relaxed' sense of style recently, stepping out for the Women of Vision Awards in a stunning gold dress by the brand Johanna Oritz which Holder [celebrity stylist and royal fashion expert Miranda Holder] says was an 'absolutely perfect' choice for Meghan.'
More in the same vein. How can anyone write this drivel with a straight face? An 'edgier look', 'an absolutely perfect choice' for * etc. Was the writer paid by *? We know * fancies herself as a style icon.
https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/meghan-markle-has-left-her-uber-glam-fashion-days-behind-and-is-leaning-into-edgier-look/
https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/meghan-markle-has-left-her-uber-glam-fashion-days-behind-and-is-leaning-into-edgier-look/
there's a comment that all the leaks about his hotel, etc are coming from Charles' aides.
I would post the link here but I'm in a hurry. Sorry
This is exactly what Mm is a master at. That kind of devious thinking.
Always planning how the still photo is going to look.
You, as an innocent person, wouldn't think anything of it as she chummily, cheerfully took your right arm.
And then she wonders why no one wants anything to do with her.
that's the comment.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/05/blind-item-8_30.html
and the blind is:
TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2023
Blind Item #8
The ginger haired one did the solo hotel stay thing again.
All this talk in the media about 'Are they or aren't they?' (divorcing) 'Is she or isn't she?' (pregnant) is straight from the Jennifer Aniston public relations playbook. There is even an article in Elle Magazine 'Why is Jennifer Aniston Always Pregnant?' published 24 September 2015. I remember going through grocery check out lines, many years ago, and every month or so there would be a headline about the status of Jennifer Aniston's womb and would wonder what desperate pr person was putting out this tripe. Jennifer has now aged out of speculation regarding her fertility and not soon enough will MM follow.
Let's not forget the TV program, 'Friends', ran from 1995-2005 which were very formative years for our Rachel and also Rachel Green is the name of Jennifer's character.
I could see that being shocking in the same way that it was shocking to Catherine to be asked to share her lip gloss. Always asking for something as if it were so small that it shouldn't matter to the giver.
As a side note, her collar is flipped up in the back.
Talking about the clothing now taking on an edgy feel, that just feels funny/kind of off for her age bracket. Maybe I'm wrong but edgy is (usually) a young person's game while someone older always has come off (to me) as trying to portray themselves as younger, hipper than they are. Not saying it cannot be done but mostly it feels like a Mom is trying to wear her teenage daughter's clothing.
Besides, why give up glam if they didn't have to?
`Playing the skin flute', for instance. Is `sorry' another one, as in `feeling sorry for himself'?
----
Grabbing the right arm, apparently just to seem matey, is so bloody devious but what else would one expect from *?
----
@Hikari
Yet again you have hit the nail on the head with great eloquence. I am in awe of your perception.
A post that really nails it about what H wants - not a republic, just more of everything royal for himself. Everything from More Sausage to his `share' of the Kingship, I'd say. I'm sure he couldn't cut it as a scholar of the Classics (no learning Greek for him!) but I'd say it's common knowledge that Mon/ Mono- means one. Monarch = one ruler.
Diana seems responsible for implanting that bonkers notion in his noddle. Perhaps he still believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13wcu5f/would_you_rather_hiking_in_transylvania_edition/
i was gonna say the are they divorcing rumors are so dull and so Hollywood playbook. so boring M you can do better 😉
so next week we have Harry in London (missing lilibuck$ star studded bday party) and while he is away the heritage foundation is in court on Harry’s immigration application. hmmm not allowed back in the US? all while the king is hiking g in Transylvania? is this like Gulf War 1 where GHW Bush pulled to coalition together while speedboating in Maine ? yes the harkles are getting so boring i am now entertaining conspiracy theories.
The Sussexes will not divorce: their marriage is their power
Expedience has held more relationships together than that crazy thing called love
The Sussexes’ marriage has become the subject of a commentariat sweepstake. Over the weekend, Princess Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell was the latest to wager that the couple are heading for their personal Gotterdammerung and that Harry will return, as inevitable as the asp at Cleopatra’s breast, to the shores of his motherland.
It is an increasingly prevalent view, but one I hold no truck with. Harry and Meghan may be one-trick ponies but I doubt they will ever consciously uncouple. Consider the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, whose own marriage was not expected to last. Whenever they were apart, people who met them noticed that this apartness diminished rather than enhanced them. They did not stand up singly as they did as a couple. According to friends of mine in LA who know Harry and Meghan socially, their dependence on each other is similar and due seemingly to some inner lack in themselves.
With all his princely social perfection, there is a boring blandness of personality about Harry that makes him less interesting alone than as a partner to the streetwise firebrand he has married. When Meghan goes her own way, she can be jarring. As was once said of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, ”He gives her class, and she gives him sex appeal.”
Together, the Sussexes are a phenomenon, inescapably visible, if increasingly hard to explain. What forces combined to produce them in the first place and how have they managed to hold out so long against the blasts of disheartening misunderstanding and misrepresentation? There is something almost heroic in the way they have held their perilous ground, disdaining all compromise, unmoved by their vociferous critics. They have faced every conceivable form of attack that rational people are capable of mounting and yet they have scarcely budged an inch.
No one quite believes in other people’s marriages. There is always a flavour of doubt, a feeling half instinctive and half logical that one party is taking the other for a ride, and therefore must have something nefarious up their sleeve. Male commentators tend to take this view more than women. They fail to understand that members of my sex enter into marriages, or any relationship, expecting very little in the way of fairytales and to most women marriage is a daily transaction.
The Sussexes’ marriage is expedient, and expedience has held more relationships together than that crazy thing called love, which, as Thomas Hardy, a man who did understand women, once wrote, is as evanescent as steam.
Feds to appear in court over Prince Harry’s visa after drug use admissions
https://nypost.com/2023/05/31/us-government-bound-for-court-over-prince-harrys-visa/
Does Harry even know what he wants tomorrow, the next day, month or year?
Does Harry have a clue as to what * is doing?
Remember - this was long ago (at least 5 years), the spumor was that Charles would build a home on the Home Farm, or one of the estates, so Harry (and fam) would be off the grid. It was obviously turned down. This could be a risen factor in the future IF H returns to the family: a place to stay that is off the grid free of prying eyes while he gets his act together.
'Feeling sorry for himself' usually indicates a person that is completely lost in self-pity and whining about his lot in life (while not doing anything to better it). I didn't see it in context, however.
I'm not sure whether this means the same in the UK but here, if we refer to a person as 'being sorry', we don't mean that they are filled with regret for their actions. We mean that they're about as worthless as a person can get. Do not expect any redeeming qualities in this person.
How to modernise oneself to become the number ONE in a thousand year "institution". (To use Harry's word)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12145835/Harry-Meghan-stop-writing-books-documentaries-left-say.html
It's the way my mind was working! I agree on the usual meaning of `feeling sorry' but within the context of that particular post, I was reminded of `Snow White and six of the dwarves were feeling Happy'.
Both terms seemed todger-and Elizabeth-Arden related.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13x0k27/a_duchess_a_liar_and_a_narcissist_walk_into_a_bar/
A duchess, a liar and a narcissist walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What can I get you, Meghan?"
(Credit to a YouTube commenter called Derek who left this under a Royal Rogue video five days ago.)'
'From the Northwestern school newspaper:
"Markle graduated from Northwestern in 2003 with a double major in theater and international studies."'
at https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/
So I looked into a little further at https://internationalstudies.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/first-year-focus.html
The first thing that struck me, almost top of the article, was this:
LANGUAGES
Students must take a minimum of 3 language courses at NU and demonstrate two-year proficiency in a foreign language.
This suggests that they may have tightened up this requirement since Markle joined the course. Nowadays a British student would have to have at least one good language pass at A-level/Scottish Highers and be prepared to learn 2 more.
There's very little that would inform students about Britain apart from
HISTORY 362-3-20 Modern British History, 1900-present - and something on the music of Purcell!
This might explain her ignorance of British matters but it also raises a very large question
mark about how she fulfilled any language requirements of the time.
As for `From Wildcat to Royalty', there's no need to get excited about this - it refers to sports teams although I don't recall mention of her playing legitimate games.
That joke made me laugh very early in the morning. Thanks!
-----
But royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams has now told MailOnline that he does not believe claims that the couple have 'nothing left to say' and will halt their outbursts.
Mr Fitzwilliams said there is 'obviously plenty left that they could say in print' and there remains 'enormous' international interest in Harry and Meghan's activities.
He added that the Sussexes 'specialise in doing the unexpected', 'have a great deal more to say' and will be considering how what they do will 'help their brand'.
.....
'It is obvious, for good or ill as they remain estranged from the Royal Family, the Sussexes have a great deal more to say.
'The way they choose to say it in future may be as sensational as the ways they have chosen to do so in the past.'
Also today, Charles Rae, former royal correspondent at The Sun, told GB News: 'Let's wait and see if they actually stick to this. They are supposedly now going to stop their royal bashing and be behind the cameras, they say, at Netflix.'
He added: ‘I think they've just suddenly woken up to the fact that they're no longer the golden couple of America.'
And media commentator Nigel Pauley told TalkTV: 'I think they're addicted to the limelight. Their whole ethos has been putting themselves out there with picture opportunities and soundbites.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12147811/Royal-expert-says-Harry-Meghan-wont-stop-revelations-memoirs.html
IMO, nothing they say or do can be trusted.
-----
WHINGEING Harry and Meghan are to stop making royal-bashing, fly-on-the-wall Netflix shows.
To huge relief, they are also binning any more moaning memoirs — 1,240 days after their January 2020 Megxit.
Instead the self-pitying Sussexes will only feature behind the Netflix cameras.
The drastic decision to stop their TV and book sniping will spare the Royal Family from further pain.
The couple have lashed out at King Charles, Camilla, William and Kate since quitting The Firm and moving to California.
But, 41 months on, their spectacular change of direction should end any more hurtful attacks and details about the lead up to Megxit.
Sources say it is because they have run out of material — to the relief of audiences around the world fed up of their whining
One insider told The Sun: “That period of their life is over — as there is nothing left to say.”
The couple’s brutal attack on the royals in their March 2021 interview with pal Oprah Winfrey was followed by badly-received Netflix series Harry & Meghan.
It also led to them being pilloried on cartoon satire South Park.
Harry gained more enemies with his hard-hitting memoir Spare, published in January.
More recently, the couple have come under fire for claims about a “near catastrophic” car chase with paparazzi in New York — later downplayed by witnesses and police.
Meghan, 41, has recently signed with Hollywood talent agency WME to explore a new career path.
It is likely the vastly-experienced firm advised her not to share every moment of her and Harry’s lives with TV audiences.
A source told us last year how the Netflix and memoir period was their “era of visibility” and that they hoped 2023 would be their “year of reconciliation” with the Royal Family.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/22538835/harry-meghan-stop-making-books-documentaries/
-----
Meghan has been regularly seen out in LA without her husband, according to society journalist Petronella Wyatt.
She said: “Friends of mine who live near them are always bumping into Meghan at parties these days. She tends to leave Harry at home.”
-----
Before she met the prince, her life was about eating out, going on holiday, and hanging out with friends (plus stalking paps and celebs at every event where she could worm her way in). I doubt that she has changed. Is she leaving him at home because he prefers to just sit around and smoke dope?
Not fake news!
So, `WHINGEING Harry and Meghan are to stop making royal-bashing, fly-on-the-wall Netflix shows.
`To huge relief, they are also binning any more moaning memoirs — 1,240 days after their January 2020 Megxit.
`Instead the self-pitying Sussexes will only feature behind the Netflix cameras.
`The drastic decision to stop their TV and book sniping will spare the Royal Family from further pain.
`The couple have lashed out at King Charles, Camilla, William and Kate since quitting The Firm and moving to California.
`But, 41 months on, their spectacular change of direction should end any more hurtful attacks and details about the lead up to Megxit.
`Sources say it is because they have run out of material — to the relief of audiences around the world fed up of their whining...'
...and if anyone believes that, they'll believe anything. They can dredge up/invent plenty more:
`Willi's sausages were artisanal ones of finest wild boar, animals shot with bullets of pure gold, with known ancestry going back to the 12thC hunting grounds of the New Forest, with every generation being 110% organic, spiced with juniper from the hills of Balmoral, accompanied and into black pudding to die for, crafted from their undisputed blue blood.
whereas mine were just cheap bangers, made from scrawny East European draught horses . That was on a good day - otherwise they were breadcrumbs and sawdust, flavoured with an Oxo cube.'
I jest, of course.
He is very entitled, has always been, so he probably thinks that his family has an obligation to take care of him. He surely will have own ideas what he finds acceptable "work" back in the institution and where he can consider living, after all he is now used to a palatial house with 16 bathrooms.
What role the royal family is going to give him when he returns? They can never ever trust him with anything, but he is his father's "darling boy". Where can the king place that unspeakable creature his son Harry has become?
"Markle graduated from Northwestern in 2003 with a double major in theater and international studies."'
at https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/
So I looked into a little further at https://internationalstudies.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/first-year-focus.html
The first thing that struck me, almost top of the article, was this:
LANGUAGES
Students must take a minimum of 3 language courses at NU and demonstrate two-year proficiency in a foreign language.
This suggests that they may have tightened up this requirement since Markle joined the course. Nowadays a British student would have to have at least one good language pass at A-level/Scottish Highers and be prepared to learn 2 more.
There's very little that would inform students about Britain apart from
HISTORY 362-3-20 Modern British History, 1900-present - and something on the music of Purcell!
This might explain her ignorance of British matters but it also raises a very large question
mark about how she fulfilled any language requirements of the time.
The actual status of RMM's degree remains rather hazy. You cite the school newspaper, which should be an unimpeachable source. But I've read elsewhere that there isn't really a major in Theater as such; Theater is housed in the School of Communications and isn't a stand-alone discipline. So technically I suppose she has a Communications degree with a Theater concentration. There was actually no verifiable documentation that she did coursework in Acting or appeared in any campus productions. One could obtain a Theater concentration in the History of Theater for example without ever having taken a single acting course at all, being purely academic.
It would appear that Madam has never had a single acting course in her life, but why would she if she came out of the womb knowing everything worth knowing, including the craft of acting?
It's always struck me weirdly that RMM chose Northwestern. It is a very highly-regarded school, and considered on a level with the Ivy League colleges. Notwithstanding that Communications is the epitome of a 'soft' degree, it's still prestigious to have attended there. However, it's halfway across our vast continent from Southern California, and the Chicago winters are brutal. Worse than Toronto, I'd venture to say. It boasts many high profile grads who've done well for themselves in the entertainment industry including Clinton Kelly (What Not to Wear); David Schwimmer (Friends) and Steven Colbert, late night chat show host. But for somebody like RMM, whose Daddy had contacts in Hollywood and who was focused on Hollywood stardom, it's strange that she didn't attend one of the excellent UC system colleges. UCLA or UC-Santa Barbara (Gwyneth Paltrow attended for one year before dropping out) would have had better degree programs for show business, not to mention proximity for internships and auditions.
As for the International Relations degree, since it doesn't stand alone either and is only offered in conjunction with another course of study as an add-on minor, it's probably not the most in-depth program available if one really was desirous of a career in the diplomatic service. We know that RMM bragged to Craig Ferguson that she'd mastered 'Argentinian Spanish' and why not as she was in Argentina for a whole three weeks. I would assume that the requirements would have been even tougher 20 years ago when RMM was allegedly enrolled than they are now, since the dumbing down of higher education has only been escalating since then. Too many well-heeled parent donors harass teachers who have the audacity to have stringent grading standards and expect A work for A marks, that the standard for what constitutes university level knowledge has slipped way down.
"legitimate games"--I see what you did there and I applaud it.
No, RMM is definitely not an athlete for anything that constitutes an organized team sport. Menages a trois on land or sea do not count as legit athletics. I'm not sure how it works with UK sports at the prep school and university levels but when a student here is affiliated with a school, they become self-identified as a member of that tribe via the school sports mascot, whether or not they actually play any team sport. Northwestern's mascot is the Wildcats, so 'Wildcats' encompasses not only the athletes but the whole school by extension, even the faculty. So if a parent is talking about their son or daughter to another parent, they might say something like "My son's a Bearcat. (University of Cincinnati)". "Oh, really? My kid's Fighting Irish." (Notre Dame) . . even if they aren't actually on any teams. This is supposed to create campus spirit since anyone can wear the school team colors to show school support whether they are at a game or just doing laundry in the dorm.
Oh, I have to tell you that, even though it's only the 1st of June, I'm calling this right now as "Hikari's Post of the Month." Sheerly sublime. Wish I'd thought of it.
`Willi's sausages were artisanal ones of finest wild boar, animals shot with bullets of pure gold, with known ancestry going back to the 12thC hunting grounds of the New Forest, with every generation being 110% organic, spiced with juniper from the hills of Balmoral, accompanied and into black pudding to die for, crafted from their undisputed blue blood.
whereas mine were just cheap bangers, made from scrawny East European draught horses . That was on a good day - otherwise they were breadcrumbs and sawdust, flavoured with an Oxo cube.'
However the friends emphasized that reports alleging the couple are struggling all appear to be “groundless” and based on speculation.
A friend of William’s told The Daily Beast: “William and Kate had plenty of reservations about the marriage in the first place, precisely because they feared Meghan wasn’t right for Harry. But what’s done is done and now William, like everyone else in the family, just hopes it all works out. Harry returning to the U.K., and trying to find him a job, would be a bloody nightmare.”
A friend of King Charles’ told The Daily Beast: “The marriage has to work. That’s not a case of Charles saying, ‘Harry has made his bed and has to lie in it.’ It’s a case of a father wanting his son, who he loves very much, to be happy and to have his wife and children in his life. These stories are groundless anyway. I don’t think anyone is seriously concerned that they are on the point of separation.”
...
A former friend of Harry’s who has not seen him since he moved to America told The Daily Beast: “I think the concept that they might not make it as a couple is there in the back of all our minds because he has undergone such a huge change of lifestyle. The over-sharing Harry is not someone we recognize and you just wonder if one day he will wake up and go, ‘Oh shit, what have I done?’ But the good thing is that, as of now, all the reports I hear are that he seems perfectly happy with his new, touchy-feely, Californian millionaire lifestyle. Long may it last.”
https://archive.ph/2023.06.01-141317/https://www.thedailybeast.com/royals-fear-a-single-prince-harry-would-be-a-bloody-nightmare?via=twitter_page&utm_campaign=owned_social&utm_source=twitter_owned_tdb&utm_medium=socialflow
• Tim Dillon says Sussexes are 'just like moths to the flame trying to hang out'
• He reveals conversations with people in LA who know Harry and Meghan
...
Tim Dillon said he knew people in Los Angeles who know the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - and the couple are 'just like moths to the flame trying to hang out'.
The 38-year-old broadcaster, who has 540,000 YouTube subscribers to his series The Tim Dillon Show, also claimed Meghan was 'begging people to hang out'.
Mr Dillon, who has previously criticised the couple, said in a recent episode: 'I know people in LA that know them, and all they want to do is hang out with celebrities.
'I was at a celebrity party the other night talking to somebody about this and they go 'these people are just... it's constant with them'.
'She was texting the person I was with there - and, 'no, you can't come'. I shouldn't have even been there. But the point is they just won't stop, these two.
He added: 'They are just like moths to the flame trying to hang out... They're like low-grade reality stars that are trying to attach to anything.
'I'm literally at the party and they are showing me texts of this woman begging people to like 'hang out'. She is trying to get places. It's sad.
'A lot of it isn't working, and they are rolling their eyes to me, and they're going LOL, and we are all having a good laugh about this because they're just a bunch of goons and no one cares.
'Now listen, at the end of day I respect the hustle, I get what she's trying to do, I get what they are trying to do, but it didn't work, right?
'A lot of people at this party were like 'hey man, you know, we text her back, we tried to be nice, she's the Duchess, but we've had enough, we've had enough of her'.'
...
We knew but it's good to have confirmation. Anybody else would be embarrassed but not our *, she would probably claim she's just networking.
https://tinyurl.com/ycxzpaaz
Mr. Todger could probably do alright if he went to live in Africa, and somehow redeemed himself slowly over the years.
Mrs. Todger going to parties in LA? Since Mrs. Todger is radioactive to anyone in the entertainment industry, the parties she's going to are not the Hollywood star and celebrity type of parties. Nope. She doesn't have the equipment to snag a wealthy old coot going downhill with dementia, with a pregnancy and an 18-year payout. Because if she could, she would have. Oh wait, she did! except it was with a numbskull, and there still aren't any children. She can't divorce Mr. Todger and get the 18-year payout from Charles or anyone else because there aren't any children with which to negotiate.
'She was texting the person I was with there - and, 'no, you can't come'. I shouldn't have even been there. But the point is they just won't stop, these two.
He added: 'They are just like moths to the flame trying to hang out... They're like low-grade reality stars that are trying to attach to anything.
'I'm literally at the party and they are showing me texts of this woman begging people to like 'hang out'. She is trying to get places. It's sad.
'A lot of it isn't working, and they are rolling their eyes to me, and they're going LOL, and we are all having a good laugh about this because they're just a bunch of goons and no one cares.
'Now listen, at the end of day I respect the hustle, I get what she's trying to do, I get what they are trying to do, but it didn't work, right?
'A lot of people at this party were like 'hey man, you know, we text her back, we tried to be nice, she's the Duchess, but we've had enough, we've had enough of her'.'
So, I'm wondering how Rachel is harass-texting these celebs she's begging to hang out with her. If these anecdotes are legit, that means that she somehow obtained personal contact information for these people. Not their agents' number; not a Twitter feed, but their personal cell phone numbers . . right? Who'd be dumb enough to give a toxic hanger-on like RMM their personal phone number?
The lyrics of Lady Gaga are appropos here:
K-kinda busy
K-kinda busy
Sorry, I cannot hear you
I'm kinda busy
Just a second
It's my favorite song they're gonna play
And I cannot text you with
A drink in my hand, eh
You wanna mak some plans with me 'cause
You knew that I was free
And now you won't stop calling me
I'm kinda busy
Stop callin', stop callin'
I don't wanna think any more
Stop callin', stop callin'
I don't wanna talk anymore
Stop telephonin' me
Bearing in mind that this is a nearly 42-year-old woman (or older) begging 'the cool kids' to 'hang out' with her . . a nearly 42-year-old alleged mom of two toddlers, so she'd have us believe. Is this how a devoted mom behaves, Rachel? Trying to scrounge up superficial acquaintances to go clubbing with? It's so, so 2003, and it's beyond pathetic.
This woman was given a Royal wedding by the Queen. She wore Queen Mary's tiara. Charles bought her a million pounds worth of clothing. She was flown all over the world, wined, dined, introduced to dignitaries. As the wife of a Prince and the first biracial Princess in the British Royal house for generations, she had a spot in the history books. She still will, for notorious reasons, though and not good ones. The world was her oyster and she threw it all away to scuttle back to her comfort zone . . hustling for free drinks at Soho House and to get on the periphery of some movie star's life so she can get a picture taken to prove that she's somebody. The Queen bestowed upon her the means to be somebody, all over the world . . but RMM is so limited, so dumb and blinkered, that she thinks being a Royal is inferior to whatever she's doing now. And this, my friends is a whip smart woman in action!!
Well, that's a long way round the houses but I dub RMM the new Charly. She was for a brief and shining moment elevated far, far beyond her station and abilities. Of course she couldn't sustain it for a long term. She was so far out of her league it was laughable. RMM knows she's a big puffed up bunch of nothing which is why she continually has to lie about herself and her phantom accomplishments. Now she's reverted to her old guttersnipe level of pay-for-play and her old guttersnipe ways. Same old same old. The same people that wouldn't give her the time of day ten years ago still aren't, even though she invited some of them to her Royal wedding. That's all the meaning that day had for her--a means to get Hollywood glitterati to an occasion that was all about HER. The transactional deals are at an end because RMM no longer is in a position to have anything to trade with. She's napalm; box office poison . . and she's done it to herself. Her ego will protect itself at all costs, which means she will never be able to accept responsibility for being the agent of her own downfall.
A commenter over at CDAN posts about the worst celebrity she ever met. Here are her comments (I hope you can follow along):
Worst - Prince Harry. Absolute drug addict loser
At Wynn(a casino). Naked pool party. Drug den. Kind of —I worked there and saw the behind the scenes
Do you know why you only saw those few photos of that weekend? Because his Royal Protection officers went down into Wynn security to identify everyone who went into that villa and then fanned out with money and NDA’s for any other pictures/stories.
They used those photo of the blurry floor and him holding his manhood — to look cheeky chappy. In ran in Crown friend TMZ. What you didn’t see is drugs on every surface of that room. What you didn’t know was those girls were strippers from a club and escorts as well as randoms from the pool.
Oh and Harry sucks at gambling and lost a lot.
No I did not see him naked but I hear he went to Double Down so he had the Ass Juice
https://vegas.eater.com/2012/11/26/6517675/shut-up-and-drink-ass-juice-at-double-down-saloon
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1776573/Princess-Eugenie-baby-labour-second-child
"Meghan Markle and Prince Harry poised for $135million income boost"
Meghan Markle could make a fortune by monetising her Instagram posts, earning more than some of the social media platform's biggest influencers, new data has revealed.
It’s predicted the Duchess could make $30,000 per post if she takes sponsorship deals and brand partnerships for her page.
The Sussexes Instagram currently has 9.4 million followers and a 5.82 per cent engagement rate.
Therefore, if Meghan produced just 27 posts in a year, she could make $810,000 - enough to cover some of the couple's expenses after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were cut off from royal funds.
Meghan Markle reportedly plans to relaunch her lifestyle blog The Tig.
It's thought the lifestyle brand could take on the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow’s $250 million wellness and lifestyle brand, Goop, and Kourtney Kardashian's $15million brand Poosh.
Meghan founded The Tig, named after her favourite red wine, in 2014 while starring in legal drama Suits.
The Duchess’ returning blog would offer tips on food, travel, fashion, the arts, design, conscious living and wellness.
The mum of two could also become a kind of agony aunt, according to details from the US Trademark and Patent Office.
Prince Harry told Oprah last year that the couple had "no plan" when they moved to California in 2020 and relied solely on his inheritance from Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in 1997.
Since exiting the Royal Family, the couple has signed a series of profitable deals to support themselves.
After making documentaries, books and podcasts, the couple are worth an estimated value of more than $135million, according to Forbes.
In addition to this, the Sussexes run their media company, Archewell Productions for Netflx including their Harry and Meghan documentary series where they made shocking claims about how they were treated within the Royal Family.
Close friends of the royal couple have apparently said that Harry and Meghan are taking on too much.
But the Duchess of Sussex is reportedly determined not to "buckle" under the pressure of being a celebrity.
She is believed to be holding her ground despite constantly being under public scrutiny and "won't give up" on her mission, as it's "her and Harry against the world".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-poised-for-135million-income-boost/ar-AA1bZ15w?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c7fa549f02c84433873933b277ffe1c2&ei=11
So true about * in your last two posts. Take the wedding yesterday of Queen Rania's son, Crown Prince Hussein of Jordan. Most, if not all, of the world's royals were in attendance, including William and Catherine and Beatrice and Edoardo. I'm sure H&* would have attended, had they been working royals still living in the UK. Such a glittering event, and where was * instead? Hustling, networking, hassling and generally demeaning herself. How the mighty have fallen!
-----------
I don't have to worry about National Insurance contributions and Unemployment Benefit nowadays - just as well as `Job Centre Plus' is very coy about where its offices are located, making claiming any sort of State Assistance daunting from the outset. So I wonder how H would cope, should he arrive back here truly destitute and devoid of anyone prepared to help him. We joke about him flipping burgers in Bu**ger King but I doubt if he would be recruited even for that.
No NI contributions to speak of, except for when it was probably deducted from his Army pay. No record of successful employment, no aptitude for hard graft. I can see him ending up on the streets or exhibiting himself like the unfortunate rector of Stiffkey, whose extraordinary story was frequently recounted to me by my mother:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Davidson
https://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/extra/series-1/vicar_lion.shtml
On a different note, there is one pap photo where you see the security guy in the front seat and a clear in the center of the back, between the two seats, is her. Security guy's look, body language and so on - looks like it was a replay of one of the last photos of Diana in the car.
‘Cruel’ Prince Harry Betrayed Dying Queen Elizabeth, Friend Says
‘INCREDIBLY HURTFUL’
Tom Sykes
Royalist Correspondent
Updated Jun. 02, 2023 7:12AM ET Published Jun. 02, 2023 3:57AM ET
A friend of the late Queen Elizabeth has dismissed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s reported decision to stop spilling royal secrets, saying the couple should have held their peace in the last months of the queen’s life when it was clear the queen was dying and was in great physical pain.
The friend’s furious response came after a story in British tabloid The Sun claimed that Harry and Meghan will stop making content slamming the royal family, with an anonymous source saying: “That period of their life is over as there is nothing left to say.”
The bereaved friend’s outraged reaction represents a rare insight into the closely guarded and highly secretive circumstances surrounding the death of Elizabeth, who died in Scotland in September 2022 as a result, The Daily Beast understands, of bone cancer.
The friend of the late queen’s told The Daily Beast: “For the last years of her life, certainly from when her husband died [in April 2021], the queen was in a lot of pain. In the final months, of course, it got very much worse; by the time of the Platinum Jubilee (June 2022), she couldn’t see very much, she couldn’t hear very much, and she was easily confused. She barely moved from her apartments in Windsor Castle. Appearing on the balcony at the jubilee required a titanic effort.
“That was the time for Harry and Meghan to bite their tongue. Instead they produced this unending stream of incredibly hurtful films and interviews attacking her life’s work. For Harry to announce he was writing a memoir when his grandmother was not just recently widowed but actually dying herself, as he must have known she was—well, the cruelty of it takes the breath away.
“The idea that they are now going to take a vow of silence after all the damage they have done, even if it was true, which I very much doubt, will do nothing to assuage the anger and disgust some of her friends feel about what they did to the queen in her final years.”
Although the palace refused to comment at the time, and her death certificate simply cited “old age,” her friend Gyles Brandreth subsequently reported that the queen had been suffering from bone marrow cancer at the time of her death. The bereaved friend told The Daily Beast they did not know the exact type of bone cancer with which the queen was afflicted, but said they saw no reason why Brandreth should be incorrect.
Bone cancer can cause severe, chronic pain and can make it difficult to move around, which would mesh with the palace’s default description of her health in the months before her death that she was suffering “episodic mobility problems.”
Cont.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cruel-prince-harry-betrayed-dying-queen-elizabeth-friend-says
@Hikari
Well said. I think he shares that charateristic with her, which is one reason why I think they will not split ...
Her ego will protect itself at all costs, which means she will never be able to accept responsibility for being the agent of her own downfall.
The comments about the evil duo in this thread are well worth a read.
I do believe that the late Queen did call TBW evil, and, as a depply religious woman, she fully understood what that term means.
This site is busy today, so well worth visiting.
She is rumoured to gatecrash social events and then wander off to do some snooping. I find this difficult to believe, simply because it is so darned rude and unacceptable. The first time such a rumour emerged it was about her snooping in the children's bedrooms in William and Catherine's home ...
Divorce rumours still swirling ... she is on the prowl for a new victim as she has bled the prince dry. I don't agree as I think they still have a substantial amount. But, if he loses all these court cases in the UK, he is going to have to pay out a lot. And, there is very little chance of them delivering on any deals that will fill the coffers. The IG documentary money has been pledged. They probably do not have enough footage to cobble together another Netflix documentary ... the runoured one about Inside the Palace will use archive footage and talking heads, but Netflix may go for it if they drop some accusations, as it will cause a stir and get views.
Was thirty two or thirty three.
She gave him fifteen years to live,
The only thing she meant to give'
(From `Verse & Worse' by Arnold Silcock pub.Faber & Faber in late 1950s/early 60s, can't find my copy or I'd give a page ref.)
Given that she is completely deluded about most things, there's no reason why she should not believe this would be a feasible career move.
--------------
The Tom Sykes piece is deeply moving - it's what we already believed but it's good to see it in print. It says a lot about what just sort of people the mealy-mouthed facilitators are. Despicable low-lifes. Thank you, Sandie.
National Portrait Gallery won’t show William and Harry painting
Portrait will be absent when the gallery reopens this month after a three-year renovation
When the National Portrait Gallery in London reopens amid much fanfare later this month after a three-year, £35 million refurbishment, the eyes of the art world will be on its new public spaces, including a cocktail bar open late into the evening.
There will also be much discussion about which pictures among the quarter of a million owned by the gallery have been chosen to be put on public display.
But among the pictures that will remain hidden from view is one of the better regarded royal portraits of recent years.
When it was unveiled in 2010, Nicky Philipps’s portrait of Princes William and Harry was described by one critic as “thoroughly modern”. Sandy Nairne, then director of the gallery, called it “a delightful image which extends the tradition of royal portraiture”.
These days, however, the painting might be regarded as a painful reminder of the rift at the heart of the royal family, and one that has particular resonance for the gallery’s patron, the Princess of Wales.
It depicts the Prince of Wales and Duke of Sussex in happier times, long before they fell out and Harry left the country to live a new life with his family in California. Both lieutenants in the Household Cavalry at the time, they are shown wearing the full mess uniform of the Blues and Royals.
The gallery will not say why the picture has not been included in the hang for the official opening, but both the gallery and Kensington Palace say that the decision was not at the request of the palace.
However, questions are being asked in art circles about why a picture of great contemporary interest, and one which is seen as being of considerably higher quality than many modern royal portraits, is no longer available to be seen by the public.
A gallery spokeswoman said: “Decisions relating to the portraits on display at the National Portrait Gallery are made by the gallery’s curatorial team. With over 250,000 portraits in our collection, we are only able to display a small percentage within our building, however, as one of the world’s largest and most important collections of portraits, we regularly lend and tour our works, both nationally and internationally. This portrait by Nicky Philipps was included in a touring exhibition — Tudors to Windsors — which travelled between 2018 and 2021. The portrait was last displayed at the gallery between March and August 2018.”
She told the Sunday Times last year: “Before their first visit, a policeman arrived to look around. William and Harry sat for five sessions of one-and-a-half hours each — three times together, twice separately. They’d arrive in full Blues and Royals mess kit, complete with swords and spurs, and my neighbours never noticed a thing.”
Harry was perched on the edge of a table, while William leaned against a pillar. “They were looking at each other, talking and laughing. William was very much the protective elder brother, straightening Harry’s belt. It was perfect, so I asked them to stay that way. They were both utterly charming, quick-witted and great fun. Harry was a very different man back then. I suppose my painting has acquired historic significance.”
There was, however, one criticism of the painting when it was revealed: it showed William as having more hair than he actually had. When Harry was shown a photograph of the painting during a visit to Barbados that year, he said: “I don’t know, I’m a little bit more ginger in there than I am in real life, I think. And he got given more hair. Apart from that, it is what it is. But, no, it’s nice. It could have been worse.”
We speak soon after reports of Harry and Meghan’s ‘car chase’ through Manhattan have come under scrutiny.
‘Harry and Meghan are just fascinating concepts,’ he says. ‘They’ve done something they’ll live to regret, which is their children have no relatives. They have no cousins that they see, or uncles or aunts, and they don’t see grandparents, except for one. That will come back to haunt them at a certain point. Montecito is gorgeous but it’s God’s waiting room: there is nothing, nothing, nothing to do. It’s a 40-minute drive from LA. There can’t be many kids there because young families can’t afford it. It’s a lonely, beautiful place.
‘I’ve lived in New York for 50 years and you can’t go faster than three miles an hour,’ he adds. ‘When I first read about it I thought, “That doesn’t look right.” They have too much attention. For people like that, unavailability is your greatest asset. If you’re out there too much, the public has a chance to get sick of you. I think they’ve made every wrong move you can make.’
@Sandie,
That's precisely why I DO believe it with no difficulty whatsoever. Since when has being darned rude and socially unacceptable ever deterred Madam? That's her MO. She does exactly as she pleases, DARES anyone to call her out on it, and when corrected or criticized for completely ignoring social conventions, she cries racism.
I can't remember the first place I read about the snooping in Kensington Palace but I believe that it was the first time H introduced her to William and Catherine. The time she was promptly escorted back to Heathrow immediately after it was discovered that she'd taken pictures of the Cambridge apartments/children on her phone. Charles was consulted, I believe. I can only imagine the self-control it would have taken William not to do harm to her. After this incident, it was decreed that Madam would never be permitted in Royal homes and grounds without an escort/minder at all times.
The trick is to give them nothing. What is commonly referred to as gray rocking, he term is a “wall of pleasantness”. The key is to be not cold or angry yourself. They can sense upset and they get off on it. They are looking for any reactions, positive, negative doesn’t matter. Since they feel nothing inside, their only entertainment is in provoking strong emotions in others. The more outrageous they become, the blander and vaguer their targets have to be. Worse than being unseen and ignored for them is to be acknowledged but dismissed. King Charles did this masterfully in his first speech, when he made it a point to address his son and daughter-in-law by name in the most fatherly sounding terms, so for a split second they must’ve thought they were getting somewhere… But then Pa wished them all the best “overseas”. That was dismissal of the first order.
https://youtube.com/shorts/HB86XFfzNy0?feature=share
https://archive.ph/aUVuR
It should be `All there is about Lilibet', ie SFA/Sweet FA
Interesting ... Someone somewhere must have kept a tally of all the official gifts she/they were given. I know that those gifts belong to the Crown, but traditionally women are allowed to wear the jewellery, exclusively, in their lifetime. Yet, we have not seen her wear any of the jewellery since they fled to Montecito, via Canada and another mansion belonging to Tyler Perry.
I assume the jewellery is in the royal vault. Has she tried to get hold of it and take it to Montecito and was denied? Will she ever wear any of it again? Is she resentful that she does not have that jewellery as her personal possession? (She never wore those gorgeous pearls, and has never been seen wearing the blood diamonds after the scandal erupted.)
The only 'royal'0 jewellery she wears and appears to still have:
* Pearl earring from the late Queen, purchased from the gift shop at one of the royal estates (Buckingham Palace?)
* A bracelet gifted by the King.
* Engagement, wedding and eternity rings gifted by hapless.
* Some of Diana's personal jewellery (the Crown stuff Catherine wears and I don't think TBW has ever worn any of it but I may be wrong.) ... a watch, a bracelet, butterfly earrings, and a ring (that she also has not worn since she fled, so she may have borrowed that, but I think she has it but doesn't really like it as it is not a diamond).
She has acquired heaps of jewellery, itty bitty stuff, but she buys that herself, with her husband's money. Gold and diamonds are her preference, and the more the better is her motto.
Many people read this blog.
Some are good people. Some are not.
So, please remember this before posting some of your personal information. Thanks.
May 28, 2023 at 12:03 AM
This was posted just below the rules. I had forgotten to add it to the rules when that was posted. So ...
Avoid personal information which would allow people to find you. No longer allowed.
Not everyone who reads this little blog has good intentions is a massive understatement. Some other bloggers have been swatted and similar.
No one wants to read/hear of some person shot to death by a swat team somewhere and no one can figure out why this person was targeted because there was nothing in their life which indicated this should have happened.
Furthermore, from the rules
This blog may or may not be the blog you are looking for. If not, we wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.
Thanks for the reminder. I've now added `snooping' to my list of extra red flags; its another challenge to someone else's authority, yet another boundary to be challenged. My narc poked around unbidden in one of my kitchen cupboards and suddenly exclaimed,
`Huh! Plastic straws?!!!'
Never mind that they were years old, when that was all that was available, and I wouldn't dream of being irresponsible with them.
Netflix has cancelled Heart of Invictus?
This video from March also suggests that something was about to happen re Netflix ink to Invjctus.
Looks as if it might be true about Invictus - or is is this the effectively the same as Sandie's news? Apologies if it is.
Heart of Invictus cancelled? Well . . I think the worm has finally turned, eh? The recent PR release about how Murkle and Hazardous were going to just be 'behind the cameras at Netflix' from now on is, I believe, Murkle's response to being told by their Netflix paymasters that "YOU'RE FIRED." Since everything they touch turns to cr*p, they swiftly become a liability to any company affiliated with them, even if the initial buzz is favorable in the (very) short term. Where Haz & Mess are concerned, short term viability is about one week, tops. Really anyone who has to tolerate them beyond one meeting promptly finds out how odious, recalcitrant and devoid of professionalism they are. Now she's trying to convince us that, what, she and Hazmat are now going to be directing? Directing what? The vaunted children's educational programming that never got off the ground? Maybe H is going to direct a remake of 'Trainspotting' with action figures?
I've got an idea for Lady Dumbarton: She could team up with Dylan Mulvaney, an equally toxic and annoying social media personality for a show on the QVC network selling cubic zirconia jewelry, bronzer and yoga wear. I'd love to see what happens when two gargantuan Narcs try to squeeze onto the same studio stage.
I suppose you have heard of Dylan Mulvaney over in the UK? (S)he's having quite the cultural moment. Dylan (born male and still a completely unaltered male despite claiming hormone treatments of which there is no evidence of) was a 20-something unemployed actor who was not satisfied with how his career was going as a man. He's had a few supporting roles in stage plays, but then Covid hit and he wasn't getting any work. His level of acting ability seems about on a par with Harry's wife's. His background is in musical theatre. Imagine Audrey Hepburn as a dude, with less of a singing voice and that's Dylan. He decided to reinvent himself as 'a girl' (I believe he's 27 or thereabouts so he would have left 'girlhood' behind a decade ago.) He wants everyone to believe he's a genuine transgendered person, but he's a genuinely 'a woman' as Harry's wife is a humanitarian. They are well-matched. Dylan is a completely fake woman and Harry's wife is is a completely fake human being; a succubus walking around in a skin suit.
I've got to hand it to Dylan; even if I think he's an odious little opportunist, he does have great stylists. Hair, makeup and wardrobe always on point. Sort of a young Jackie Kennedy vibe at times. He's much more appealing when he's silent, which unfortunately is almost never, but he does know how to pose for a picture. Maybe he could give * lessons there.
A spokesmodel for a home shopping channel is about the level of talent both of them have reached and so it would be perfect. Two shallow self-absorbed Narcs modelling goods that are as high quality and authentic as they are.
* Prince, celebrities accuse tabloids of phone-hacking
* Harry to appear in witness box in London's High Court
* Royal aides likely to feature in cross-examination
* Harry first senior British royal to testify since 1890s
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/harry-become-first-british-royal-130-years-give-evidence-court-2023-06-02/
Whatever happens, the media will be there in full force and he will get major coverage. It will make him feel important.
I wonder if wifey will be present to support him. Pity the King is not in town because they might have considered bringing the children to visit with grandpa and put out the message that the king fully supports his beloved son, and so on. Well timed, Charles!
-----
Security and the RF
State of the art detection devices can uncover monitoring equipment, a wire, for example.
Intelligence training familiarizes officers to the latest tech.
Security can exploit tech with techniques and equipment which make listening devices or bugs useless.
-----
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1598341796408573957
Harry is sensitive about how his intellectual capacity is publicly received, but I don’t think that it’s too wide of the mark to say that H’s IQ is around the 90th percentile. That is to say, high enough to escape being a clinical imbecile, but well below average, if “average” is 100. Who knows how many IQ points he’s lost through 2 1/2 decades of drug abuse and alcoholism? Diana‘s second boy is not the full quid. Even before he started abusing substances, he was most likely dyslexic and afflicted with hyperactivity disorder. He is not a sophisticated thinker at all, his ability to strategize and speak intelligently extemporaneously is about nil. Apparently he managed to learn how to read, and is capable of reciting lines fed to him. Unless he has been exhaustively coached for the witness box and sticks to his coaching, he’s going to make an ass of himself in the witness box. Unlike his wife, he cannot claim being heavily pregnant as an excuse not to testify in person. Only his status as a royal prince, and his posh accent have created the impression until recent years that he was semi-intelligent. But since he got with his wife, he’s been outed as a complete dolt, an infantile child-man who is dumber than a bag of rocks. He makes Hugh Laurie as the Prince Regent in “Blackadder” look like a brain trust. I look forward to the legal carnage.
Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Rod Stewart
The First Cut Is the Deepest
Karmaceuticals
I’ve given you all of my heart
But you screwed it
and ripped it apart
You torched everything
that I had
But if you want
I’ll try the King again
Flower, I’ve tried ringing, everything
The first cut was being racist
flower no, no
Other cuts were mien meanest
But when it comes to plain tacky
you’re first
When it comes to loving you
I’m cursed…
I hadn't heard of D Mulvany but gender transition is, like R-ism and immigration, another dangerous topic here, to be spoken about only with trusted friends, behind closed doors.
We've recently become aware of a not-entirely-dissimilar case like DM, before it was established that trans males could be excluded from female sports events. A trans male was permitted to join a a women's team, which then won a particularly gruelling event. Not only was the female first reserve deprived of her place to try for glory, all the team have now been accused of cheating, their achievement has been invalidated, doubt will hang over the result for good, and the reputation of the club has been brought into disrepute.
Moreover, the trans individual's status is now questionable, as she/he since reverted to being male, or so it has been reported. Apparently, he always wanted to take part in this event and presumably couldn't make it in competition with other blokes. Female privilege may have been claimed with that in mind.
I feel sick in every fibre of my being about this.
@Maneki
Thank you
I will Endeavour to visit.
Morse code 88 😉
Cop a load of this, as they say. It's a post on SMM apparently posted on Twitter by Megsy's brother:
https://i.redd.it/meghans-brother-posted-this-on-ig-v0-5l4wpdn4xv3b1.jpg?s=f548bd234c677ef44f74b1e85b24477c80a5e8bf
On the same SMM post, someone reckons H is going to sue `New York' for not believing them about the `chase'.
https://archive.ph/h1bB3#selection-2767.0-2767.13
The divorce/separation will
come from haz, eventually.
Madam will never give up
her golden goose/goslings
voluntarily…
The separation/divorce will
eventually come from haz
Madam will never give up
her golden goose/goslings
voluntarily…
Spot on ... which is why there is a high possibility of complete unravelling. Is she allowing him to endure this on his own?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12157195/Happy-birthday-Princess-Lilibet-Sussexes-celebrate-Lili-turning-2.htpp
https://archive.ph/2023.06.04-051037/https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/158704/20230531/sussex-family-preps-for-lilibet-dianas-birthday-bash-prior-to-prince-harrys-uk-journey.htm
Note the dig at the Princess of Wales, who is referred to as Kate Middleton.
Summer of 2017, and TBW visited this tea room in LA. She asked the proprietor to teach her some etiquette around tea time ahead of meeting the Queen.
IMO, she had no interest in etiquette. She simply was focused on getting that ring on her finger and was 'boasting' in anticipation of that.
Let us wander away from gender transitions, we are getting a little too far from the main topics.
Also, the rules have been updated slightly, so please review. Thanks
Nutty and us Mods strive as much as possible to make this a welcome and friendly blog. Please do keep in mind that everyone posts with the risk of potential dissent, criticism, and unpopularity. We depend on Nutties to keep this place respectful and hopefully fun.
This blog may or may not be the blog you are looking for. If not, we wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Anonymous or unknown posts are not allowed.
-Please try to keep the conspiracy theories down.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject.
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-Posts which may be deemed too many flat statements/too provocative or exceptionally mean spirited may not posted on the blog. If someone is deemed too disruptive, their posts will no longer be permitted.
-Many people read this blog. Some are good people. Some are not. Very limited personal information is permitted (to avoid tracing back to you). Remember that not every one who reads the posts is happy about what is posted here and other blogs have had difficulties.
-Remember that certain sites require prior approval for reuse such as Harry Markle. Please respect their request. Links to share is a great alternative.
-And, thank you posts are always nice.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families (and laundry) to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Moderation on.
At the time of their engagement, it was reported that ERII had earmarked £37m to cover a divorce settlement.
It was later reported, at some critical point (before the wedding? On the brink of Mexit?) that this was nothing like enough to persuade her to go away, IIRC.
Apparently she had a quite inflated idea of Harry's "wealth", or perhaps thought that they just had millions of dollars in spare change laying about to ransom Harry.
I don't know...Harry is still the Royal Family, and he will be treated with deference while at court. It also may be highly embarrassing for the British courts to have a royal person there testifying about his problems.
The Harkles have put out PR that they are done with trashing the RF. I wonder if someone at WME finally got through to the Todgers to STFU, and stop the victim act. It had to be someone tough, mean and scary to at least the Mrs. because she appears to run the Harkle show, while Mr. Todger will be playing the victim at court.
I suppose it depends what abilities and skills are being measured and when, in his case, he was assessed. I can see him being around the 90% mark going by his `Readin, Ritin, and simple Rithmetic' (I knew an otherwise competent secretary who had to use a calculator to divide by 10.)
Foreign Languages, I imagine, are beyond him as are geography, history, more sophisticated maths and calculus. As long as one doesn't enquire about his critical thinking skills and ability to detect false logic and recognise hard facts. In those respects, it's as if that bit of his brain doesn't work. Drink, drugs and his wife have done untold damage.
Incidentally, my narc husband was an Oxford M.Litt (in history) but that didn't stop him refusing to acknowledge that matrimonial law had changed since the time when a husband had total control of his wife. His reasoning was crazy, even argued in court that I should be forced to go back to him to resume my duties. His Lordship the Judge soon put him right on that - I hope that's what happens to H.
Sorry, I misstated myself. What I meant to say is that I don’t believe Harry’s IQ is above 90. I’ve consulted many charts, and they all seem to be in agreement that average intelligence is in a range from 110 - 90. This would put Harry on the cusp of below average intelligence, so I may have to go even lower, into the 80s. Once we get to 79, we are getting into the territory of mental impairment associated with Down Syndrome and the like. It’s hard to fathom a child with an IQ that low being in anyway functional at Eton, even with accommodation. That is IEP/special class territory. I don’t think Harry is that badly off, but in his case his actual level of intelligence is being masked by other disorders, substance-abuse, and being off his prescribed medication. People with ADHD and or learning disabilities like dyslexia can come across as low intelligence if their conditions are not being managed properly. With the right interventions and strategies they can focus and really show what they can do. There’s a cocktail of things wrong with Harry, and it’s safe to say that he has never lived up to whatever intrinsic potential might be in there. He’s lacking the drive to excel which makes people with modest abilities still able to be successful at something they pursue with diligence. Had he not been born a royal prince with the expectations of his house attached to that, he most likely would’ve been steered toward vocational education and learning a trade. Based on what we’ve observed from Hazza, I think an IQ of 90 is the absolute highest he would score, or somewhere in the 85-89 range. It might depend on how high he was when he took the test.
https://www.123test.com/interpretation-of-an-iq-score/
https://youtube.com/shorts/X8-4UNu7RMk?feature= https://youtube.com/shorts/X8-4UNu7RMk?feature=share
.........
As for why narcissists get married - my narc husband wanted a servant/slave with a good prospect of coming into money when eventually her parents died.
My mother later informed me that had I not left him, they would have cut me off without a penny, supporting the animal charity the PDSA and the RAF Benevolent Fund instead. His Honour the judge put him right on that as well - any `expectations' were not financial assets.
BTW; Marriage was once defined as `the Working Man's answer to the Servant Problem' - a name given to shortage of cheap, compliant domestic workers in the early years of the last century.
Mine refused to wash his hair unless I did it for him, as his mother and first wife had done before me, something else I didn't find out until it was too late.
Can anyone explain why this behaviour has not attracted the same level of condemnation that Andrew has received? It was mental cruelty. We should treat it with the same repugnance that's due to child abusers.
If possible, I'd like a link please.
TIA.
1. Here are some links from Subreddit SaintMeghanMarkle which may be illuminating:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/search/?q=Guest%20Speaker&restrict_sr=1
2. And one post on Subreddit HarkleSnarkle in which you will have to swipe right through the 13 images to show Guest Speaker's NY Post comments revealing antipathy towards Catherine, repeatedly referred to as Kate. Just looking at the 13 images leads me to believe that Guest Speaker is MM since whoever is writing those NY Post comments sure is single minded in accusing Catherine, and really has an immature and unwarrented unfair ax to grind:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HarkleSnarkle/comments/13vcmdl/megsguest_speaker_lost_it_in_the_ny_post_comments/
Hope these links work for you, and are what you are looking for.
Great play on words (as always) Endeavour - Morse. I forgot you were in Communications x
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/13yivq1/guest_speaker_aka_megs_is_all_over_the_comments/
Of course without more clinical information, I’m only spitballing about Harry’s IQ. I have my doubts about the whole process of measuring intelligence from a test, to be honest. I know I was administer an IQ test as a child, but the results were never shared with me and I have no idea what they are. Also I know that the standard IQ test relies a great deal on logic and even mathematical ability. Someone who was never exposed to these kind of puzzles, or who has a different way of thinking besides what is deemed “logical“ by scientists might be completely unschooled, illiterate even and yet absolutely brilliant. There are different types of intelligence and different strengths that I don’t think would be measured equally by a standard lab test. That being said, I don’t think there is much debate that Harry is a highly intelligent person. He has not given much evidence of it, if we are going not only by school records… He obtained a D average at Eton which is barely passing and that only by much assistance, having adults cheat for him and basically being passed through only because he was Charles‘s son, and not because he actually deserved a place at what is probably the top prep school in the world. Some brilliant people failed at traditional academics, like Einstein or Thomas Edison. both of these gentlemen talked late and might have been on what we now called the autism spectrum, because their parents were told that they were imbeciles who should be institutionalized. Academics do not tell the whole story. But a marker of intelligence is some thing called executive functioning, and in this has it seems to score very low. Impulsivity, volatile emotions, inability to plan strategically in the long term, and ability to delay gratification in the instantaneous for a greater reward in the future, the ability to organize his own activities… In all of these he exhibits the characteristics of a preteen. How much is due to organic disabilities and his ability to process information versus laziness and entitlement which are personality traits separate from intelligence it’s hard to say. But the fact that he is very sensitive about being perceived as a dummy is kind of telling. If he’s not as dumb as his reputation, when would expect him to make some effort to prove otherwise, but that hasn’t been forthcoming. His upbringing as a spoiled Royal Prince, catered to all the time, spared facing full consequences for his screw ups, covered for, makes it more or less impossible to assess what he really could do. But with all the support of the royal family having been removed by his own choice to run away to North America and be responsible for his own adult decisions, three years on I think we have the answer that H is not an above-average intelligent man. The excepted average intelligence is 100 and all indications are that H falls below
that. If he struggles with something like dyslexia, that would come across as low intelligence when it in fact is not. But by his own acknowledgment, he is addicted to narcotics and has been a regular user since he was around 14, so that is also a contributing factor to making him appear Intellectually impaired. Someone who is high all the time is going to be altered. If Harry were clean and sober and in a different environment, he might actually achieve something. But I don’t get the sense that he will ever be capable of self-directed independent living without people managing The basics of his daily life for him. If that’s not impairment I’m not sure what else qualifies.
Thanks. I take your point but environment also plays a part and it's also possible that Harry may have a form of ADHD. As I said upthread, we agree he is not academic and his choice of wife and consequent decisions haven't been the smartest. I think we now need to leave it at that.
Carping - here's what Google says:
carping
/ˈkɑːpɪŋ/
adjective (I'd have said it was verbal as well)
1.
continually complaining or finding fault about trivial matters; difficult to please:
"she has silenced the carping critics with a successful debut tour"
noun
1.
continual complaining or finding fault about trivial matters:
"he did not enjoy the constant carping of reviewers"
Years ago, on a teachers' course, I heard of a new, simple, 5-point scale for assessing a pupil's practical abilities, ranging from `!: Can make a cup tea' to `5. Has potential to be of significant benefit for the future of humankind (or rather, wtte).
Or as one joker put it:
`From Brooke Bond to James Bond...'.
Can H make a cup of tea?
So, he did not turn up in court today, because of his daughter's birthday and security arrangements. It seems the judge was not impressed, but the arrogant entitlement from him knows no bounds.
21m ago
10.53 BST
Judge expresses frustration that Harry will not give evidence in person today
The honourable Mr Justice Fancourt, who is presiding over the case, has expressed frustration that Prince Harry will not be giving evidence in person today.
The Duke’s barrister, David Sherborne, that Harry will attend tomorrow to give evidence and suggested he was delayed due to his daughter’s birthday party. Princess Lilibet of Sussex turned two yesterday.
“The Duke of Sussex is attending tomorrow to give evidence,” Sherborne said. “He flew yesterday evening from Los Angeles where he attended his daughter’s birthday.”
Mr Justice Fancourt said he was “a little surprised” to hear the duke would not be attending court on Monday.
The judge said he gave a direction earlier in the trial that witnesses should be available the day before their evidence was due to be heard in case the legal teams’ opening speeches ran short.
Whoops! Not a good idea for plaintiffs to do anything which the Court may not `look favourably' upon.
The judge said he gave a direction earlier in the trial that witnesses should be available the day before their evidence was due to be heard in case the legal teams’ opening speeches ran short.
That's asking for another slapped wrist, for ignoring Mr Justice Fancourt's clear instructions. Much more of this and he'll be declared as being in contempt of court. as he is certainly treating the court with contempt. Prince or no prince, he's not above the Law he'll be given a sharp lesson in respect.
Private’ Prince Harry set to face real world consequences in two court battles this week
https://nypost.com/2023/06/04/prince-harry-set-to-face-real-world-consequences-in-two-court-battles-this-week/
“The Duke of Sussex is attending tomorrow to give evidence,” Sherborne said. “He flew yesterday evening from Los Angeles where he attended his daughter’s birthday.”
I hope it can be proved that Harry explicitely knew he was expected to be in court Monday, and that he therefore knowingly ignored the judge's instructions. However if his own counsel David Sherborne didn't make totally clear to him that he was to be in court ready to go on Monday, even if it was unlikely he would be called to the box until Tuesday, that communication failure really is egregious. I doubt Sherborne would be so lackadaisical.
I think Harry did this on purpose and will claim no-one told him he absolutely had to be there Monday so that, if the court doesn't ultimately find in his favor in the case, he will turn around and try to re-sue or have the case re-heard claiming ineffective counsel from his own barrister Sherborne.
I bet that Harry's most-experienced and accomplished lawyer Rachel Zane Meghan Markle is the one who is craftily parsing the court's or Sherborne's phraseology "you are to be" or WTTE that Harry "should be in court Monday in case opening statements run short" and realizes that those soft phrases aren't suggestions but rather are commands, but since since she herself has had court rulings decided in her favor by pretended misunderstandings and forgetfulness, instructed Harry to show up a day late, so that they can save face if he loses the case, by claiming shoddy counsel.
Harry and Meghan always have an excuse, they are never at fault. However, I hope this judge isn't taken in by their machinations.
the barrister also said there was a lack of call date in Harry's case, telling the court: "There is no call data whatsoever for the Duke of Sussex and scant call sate for his associates.
Mr Green later said the duke faced "a very difficult starting point for the claimant proving he was habitually hacked."
...
Andrew Green said it was "extraordinary" that Harry was not in court for the opening of his own case.
He told the judge that court time would be wasted.
...
"I have to cross-examine him on 33 articles...and that cannot be done in one day.
- note that Andrew Green calls him "the Duke", not "Prince Harry"
Wasting court time won't help him, the judge won't look at it favourably. I don't know how he will be able to handle being cross-examined, especially on "33 articles". This may well go against him, not mentioning possible court costs depending on the outcome. Not a good start.
'The youngest daughter of Prince Andrew and the Duchess of York took to Instagram to announce the birth of Ernest George Ronnie Brooksbank on 30th May 2023.'
And August and Ernest!!!
Perhaps those handles are fashionable again?
I don't think Todger will prevail in his security lawsuit, but who knows? If the king wants him back in the UK, he'll want security for him.
Poor Baby Brooksbank with those names - Ronnie makes him sound like one of the Krays or one of a pair of comedians, Messrs Barker and Corbett, to say nothing of Ernie Wise...
And August and Ernest!!!
Perhaps those handles are fashionable again?
Did August ever go out of fashion? The meaning of August: "Profoundly honored Synonyms: revered , venerable honorable, worthy of being honored; entitled to honor and respect adj of or befitting a lord". Ernest means "serious and resolute". They sound like good names to grow into and aspire to.
They are going to be making their own way in life outside the Royal Safety Net. I don't think that their names are far enough outside of the norm to make that difficult for them. Maybe they are?
In the UK, juveniles achieve majority at 18 yrs, with all that entails. There's an infantilisation of the bloke, is he really saying that he has the mind of a child in an adult body?
It's like him being perceived as a `little boy' walking behind his mother's coffin when he was almost 13.
My father left school on his 12th birthday and had been in full-time paid employment for almost a year when he was 12yr & 50 weeks. On his 18th birthday he was in battle against the Kaiser's army. He certainly wasn't seen as a `child' then, although we'd agree that he was too young for either of those occupations.
Edmund Fry, 83, who runs the Rose Tree Cottage in Pasadena, California, where the Duchess of Sussex learned how to 'have tea with the Queen', slammed her for 'attacking the monarchy'.
He said the former actress is no longer discussed by customers at his tearoom because they are 'loyal to King Charles' and that both British expats and American customers feel 'let down' by her.
But Mr Fry believes the couple have 'squandered that opportunity' to do good.
'Ever since the Netflix thing came up and the Oprah interview and things were being mentioned about racism in the royal family and so on, it tainted it,' he added.
...
'The younger generation doesn't know what bone china is and certainly don't know anything about how to handle a cup and saucer, or how to handle a knife and fork.'
'They come to us mainly to find out, "What should we do, as we are having this social event?"
'The same sort of thing happened with Meghan. She knew she would be having tea with the Queen.' (DM)
Unfortunately, these etiquette lessons didn't benefit * very much. Apart from learning how to hold a fork or a cup and saucer, I wonder
if she had classes in deportment and general etiquette and good manners. It certainly never looked like it.
I made a lengthy comment last week about Harold partying in Las Vegas a few years ago. I cut and pasted a few comments from a CDAN thread for people, and it never showed up.
I went through a lot of trouble to do this and was disappointed to see that my comment never showed up.
-____________________________________-
Anyway, here is a tweet about Harold and his absence at the court today:
Oh myyyyy, heard that Harry partied way too hard at SoHo House last night. It was said to be an EPIC night! Is this why he was a no-show in court?
https://twitter.com/ArabellaRober19/status/1665781308088369153
I did not delete anything from you (or anyone else last week).
I just looked and did not see anything in the spam folder. If it had gone into the spam folder (for reasons I don't understand), I would have have marked it as not spam and allowed it to then be published. That I have to do periodically.
When it comes out of spam and then published, it does not, however, show up in someone's email account like it would normally for the others if you have marked that option.
If this is not a possibility, then I'm lost for options as to where it is. I'm sorry then for you. I know you do a lot of cut/paste and it is time consumptive. And highly irritating to have something not work the way you wanted.
@Abbyh
I found Girl with a Hat's post about Harry's Las Vegas shenanigans. Dated 02 June 2023 timestamp 3:17am. Here is what it said:
"A commenter over at CDAN posts about the worst celebrity she ever met. Here are her comments (I hope you can follow along):
Worst - Prince Harry. Absolute drug addict loser
At Wynn(a casino). Naked pool party. Drug den. Kind of —I worked there and saw the behind the scenes
Do you know why you only saw those few photos of that weekend? Because his Royal Protection officers went down into Wynn security to identify everyone who went into that villa and then fanned out with money and NDA’s for any other pictures/stories.
They used those photo of the blurry floor and him holding his manhood — to look cheeky chappy. In ran in Crown friend TMZ. What you didn’t see is drugs on every surface of that room. What you didn’t know was those girls were strippers from a club and escorts as well as randoms from the pool.
Oh and Harry sucks at gambling and lost a lot.
No I did not see him naked but I hear he went to Double Down so he had the Ass Juice
https://vegas.eater.com/2012/11/26/6517675/shut-up-and-drink-ass-juice-at-double-down-saloon" -end cut and paste-
My own comment:
I believe that many of Harry's current problems stem from (his own idiocy and) the fact that his protection officers and his press people were constantly cleaning up and hiding his criminal self-entitlement and actions that were rampant when he was a Prince in good standing. When he dumped UK for a free and easy life in California, the all-hands-on-deck efforts to hide his true nature ended, and we are now seeing the loser for exactly who he truly is. It is not a pretty sight.
Thank you.
It's not a problem for me to check to see (especially if I have not checked it in a while as I don't always remember to do this). I just am unlikely to remember who I did this for and when I did it.
Fancourt J. The Duke's excuses as explained by Sherborne are absurd and not the actions of a serious litigant. Judges are impressed by fame and so sadly I predict yet another win for the Duke.
I certainly hope that Harry does not get an easy win after this contempt of court behavior simply because of his rank. Since he is the first royal to take the stand in a courtroom since the 19th century, this is uncharted waters. But the Sussexes have squandered any goodwill they still had two years ago when Meg had her court case. Even though she was publicly censored for perjury, she got to claim pregnancy brain and more or less skated out of any consequences, even though it was pretty plain that she was a liar. The queen was still alive, and Harry’s wife got a soft judge who hesitated to throw the book at a demonstrable liar due to her allegedly delicate condition and her status as an American as well as a royal by marriage. Madame could entered claim that she just didn’t understand British ways And her experience had left her so traumatized that she was forgetful of key details, like the truth.
Is such a ploy going to fly with her husband two years on? Watch Harry walk to the court tomorrow and demand a summary judgment. His tardiness and appearing in court is all related to his tax and visa status, since I think we’ve established that he cannot stop over more than 24 consecutive hours in the UK, and he is limited to the number of days he is allowed to be absent from the United States on his present visa. The fact that he’s not being represented by a KC speaks for itself, really. Perhaps all the silks have been forced to recuse themselves since they are Kings Counsel, and the King’s son is the defendant. Conflict of interest, and as noted previously, uncharted waters. Harry is so adamant to score points against the Demon newspapers, he cannot be made to see reason about the viability of this claim. Of course Charles cannot in any way get publicly involved in this mess, but I do wonder if he is prepared for Harry to be made an absolute fool of. We all know that Harry is going to expect his father to be ultimately responsible for his legal debts. If Harry cannot pay his stabling fees at the Santa Barbara polo club, the prospect of him covering all of these hundreds of thousands of pounds for lawyers isn’t looking too rosy. Well, this will be a novel experience for all concerned, not least to the defendant. If Harry thinks he’s going to breeze in and talk rubbish and skate out again like he’s doing an interview with Tom Bradby, Let us hope he gets schooled good. I would love for his honor to slap the ginger nonce with a contempt of court citation. A two year olds birthday party in California it’s not a sufficient reason to miss one’s testimony in court the way some thing like a kidney transplant might be. Particularly if the child and question is as many of us here are convinced she is… Shall we say a figment of a couple of overheated imaginations.
Why the Palace Didn't Publicly Pay Tribute to Lilibet on Her 2nd Birthday
No shade? Buckingham Palace “did not snub” Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Princess Lilibet, on her 2nd birthday, a source confirms to Us Weekly.
When Lilibet turned 2 on Sunday, June 4, there was no official message from King Charles III and Queen Camilla shared via social media or a statement — nor was there a public birthday shout-out from Prince William and Princess Kate.
A source, meanwhile, tells Us that “the Palace did not snub Lilibet,” explaining: “There is no and has never been protocol for wishing happy birthdays to non working members of the royal family.” (For his part, Harry, 38, missed the first day of his phone hacking trial in the U.K. on Monday, June 5, to celebrate his daughter’s 2nd birthday at their home in California one day prior.)
Last year, however, Queen Elizabeth II — who died in September 2022 at age 96 — paid tribute to her namesake in a sweet message shared on the royal family’s Twitter account. “Wishing Lilibet a very Happy 1st Birthday!” the message read. One month prior, the family did the same with Sussexes’ son, Prince Archie. “Wishing Archie Mountbatten-Windsor a very happy 3rd Birthday!”
Buckingham Palace’s decision to not publicly wish Lilibet a happy birthday this year comes nearly one month after The Firm made the same choice regarding her brother’s 4th birthday, which fell on the same day as King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s coronation.
Charles did, however, make a private toast to his youngest grandson at the time, royal expert Nick Bullen exclusively told Us last month.
“I hear that the king made a toast to Archie ’cause it was his birthday, but even the way the king said that, [adding] ‘wherever he is,’ it was sad,” the editor-in-chief of True Royalty TV explained. “And I think that’s the sad piece is that these two grandchildren aren’t part of the story. I think that is sad for them, sad for the king, but the Sussexes have made their decision.
US Weekly
Seems like a reasonable instruction.
There's a very good article by Dan Wootton in the DM
Prince Harry's mission has finally reached court. But after being able to spout 'his truth' unchallenged to mates like Oprah and Tom Bradby, being the first royal in 130 years to give evidence under oath could backfire
A few excerpts:
His sorry excuse that he couldn't possibly arrive on time, given he'd only flown into the country late last night – no doubt by private jet or in first class – because he had to be in Montecito for his daughter Lilibet's second birthday, was the first illustration that we're not dealing with a man anchored in reality.
Prince Harry has been living in a post-truth world since meeting that shape shifting actress Meghan Markle.
The facts don't matter, only their feelings do.
Remember that * got away with lies and perjury when in court so maybe she convinced Harry he could too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12162131/DAN-WOOTTON-Prince-Harry-royal-130-years-evidence-backfire.html
If I was his lawyer, I would not want him on the witness stand.
By my arithmetic, he would have had to take off from LA no later the Sunday lunchtime even to cut it fine for his arrival in court. Was the party a breakfast one? Or, as has been suggestion, did he just decide to b*gger about in an attempt to reduce the time available for his cross examination?
This gives details of each of the articles he presents as evidence against the publication.
Interesting ... I did not know that he was partying in a nightclub in Lesotho while on a charity trip. Lesotho is a tiny mountain kingdom ... I live in Southern Africa and did not know they have a nightclub! Personally, I would choose to take the opportunity to do some stargazing (very little to no light pollution so a view of the universe that is unlikely to be available in the UK).
As for the articles, only a few have claims that could have been obtained by hacking... but then he must prove that the publication did or solicited or knew about the hacking.
The narc (allegedly) wife can't be happy about his passionate love for another woman being displayed in court.
It appears that court started about 10:30am and there is only one commercial flight that would arrive in time for him to get through customs and to court on time. That is United Airlines flight 231 that took off from LAX at 12:55pm PST and arrived LHR at 7:25am BST. The flights that arrived before then took off on Saturday.
The next flight to arrive is a Virgin Atlantic at 10am BST. Then it is British Airways at 10:10am and American Airlines at 10:50.
This site even lists one private flight from Van Nuys airport to London. It’s the Planet Nine Private Air "Private Air" It left at 4:55pm PST and arrived at 11:06am BST at Luton airport.
-----
No private flights that could have got him there on time either.
Some interesting informative comments in the above thread.
You need to read the article in its entirety. He is a bitter and angry man, bent on vengeance. I have no doubt that TBW stirs up this negative state, as any criticism of her is unacceptable to her. So sad ... let go and move on would require maturity.
So far, there is very little about the facts that matter in a court. His opinion on the government and the media in general, his wife's vengeful hatred of Piers Morgan ... none of this should be relevant.
If, as he claims, that some of the stories could only be obtained by hacking, then present evidence of who did the hacking and that the publication directed this to be done, or knew it had been done by the source but published anyway. To me, that is all that is relevant in this case.
And yes, he has dragged William into his opening statement. IMO he is very hurt and angry that he has lost his brother ... but the fault of that lies with him and his wife, not the media.
Prince Harry brands government 'rock bottom', calls Diana's butler Paul Burrell a 'two-face s***' and says stories about 'James Hewitt being his father' made him fear 'he'd be ousted from the Royal Family' in statement at Mirror publisher hacking case
...
In an astonishing trashing of the convention that royals avoid meddling in politics, Harry raged about the ‘state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom’.
...
And in his most outspoken attack on the British Press yet, Harry demanded: ‘How much more blood will stain their typing fingers before someone can put a stop to this madness.’
The 38-year-old prince proclaimed he was motivated by wanting to ‘save journalism as a profession’.
Really? He wanted to 'save journalism as a profession'! He hates journalists with a vengeance. He might also detest Paul Burrell but to call him a 'two-faced s**t' won't help, just saying he's two-faced would suffice. It sounds doubtful he's listening to his lawyers.
https://tinyurl.com/2m72vutc
@Maneki
Dan Wootton’s statetment at the end of his DM commentary is a very succinct summation of Harry’s dilemma:
“Prince Harry has been living in a post-truth world since meeting that shape shifting actress Meghan Markle.”
Two glaring errors:
His mother was Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana.
His father is HM (His Majesty), not HRH (His Royal Highness).
So, the allegedly thicko prince has allegedly thicko lawyers, or did his wife draft this statement and no one checked it?
Detailed coverage of his cross-examination at above link. IMO, he has a very weak case and his lawyers should be ashamed ... they are taking his money and so far have offered no compelling evidence of phone hacking, which did actually happen.
Dude is looking hapless. seems like the point of all of this was to 1) go after piers morgan or 2) if he can’t prove the illegal activity was he trying to prove the palace was leaking to the press and bam i was right? either way it’s an expensive way to air grievances and certainly supports the idea he is delusional and paranoid and prob a good reason to alter the line of succession and eliminate him from that. on the flip side. he comes across so mentally ill that perhaps he loses custody of the “kids” real or fake
Absolutely right, “Prince Harry has been living in a post-truth world since meeting that shape shifting actress Meghan Markle.” I posted in a bit of a rush before going out so didn't have time to analyse the article but to me what says it all is "His sorry excuse that he couldn't possibly arrive on time, [i.e., the birthday party] was the first illustration that we're not dealing with a man anchored in reality." (my emphasis). Not dealing with a man anchored in reality. Dan Wootton hit the nail on the head.
@JasonFarrellSky
Harry being quizzed now over an article he complained about which focused on his 18th birthday party. Green says essentially Harry gave an interview to PA which was quoted in newspapers including the Mirror. “The private information has been revealed by you in an interview.”
https://twitter.com/JasonFarrellSky/status/1666072860157255682
“Prince Harry has been struggling to find the various articles and documents in the many bundles of paperwork he has in front of him, writes Victoria Ward in the High Court.”
@angelalevin1
Harry's comments are excruciatingly embarrassing. How can it last for a day and a half?
https://twitter.com/angelalevin1/status/1666040983404834816
Prince Harry’s paranoia reveals a man who has failed to cope with his fame
Grilling at the hands of a KC was quite a bit tougher than Oprah
By Camilla Tominey
Quite what “call me Prince Harry” was expecting when he strode confidently into the High Court just after 9.30am on Tuesday is anyone’s guess.
As he was ushered into the Rolls Building from the back of a blacked out Range Rover, a phalanx of paparazzi snapping his every step, he even managed a smile at the press he claims has been “hostile” towards him since he “was born”.
But as he became the first member of the Royal family to appear in the witness box since Edward VII was at the centre of a baccarat scandal in 1891, it soon became apparent that Oprah Winfrey this wasn’t.
Until now the Duke of Sussex (and indeed his wife, Meghan) have relied on feelings over fact when presenting their “truth” to the world via Oprah’s sofa, Netflix’s streaming platform, Harry’s autobiography Spare and various interviews and podcasts.
Allegations against the press and palace - even those later revealed to be, at best, misleading - have largely gone unchallenged by interviewers, hand-picked by the couple to ensure the smoothest possible path to post-Megxit righteousness.
Quest against the media
Yet in Andrew Green KC, Mirror Group Newspapers’ barrister, the 38-year-old Duke finally faced an arch-inquisitor.
As the father-of-two at times struggled to acquaint himself with the reams of evidence in the “paginated bundles” before him, at one point joking: “I feel like we’re doing a workout,” there was little doubt Mr Green would be requiring him to do some heavy lifting in defending his phone hacking claim.
The Duke’s 55-page witness statement had already rolled the pitch for what was to come. “Our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our Government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” he said, revealing the scale to which Harry believes his one-man quest to reform the media is bigger than any of us. As he once told ITV’s Tom Bradby: this is his “life’s work”.
But observers could have been forgiven for wondering if he has actually followed the news lately when he added, seemingly in ignorance of Boris Johnson being brought down by partygate – a tabloid exposé – that “democracy fails when your press fails to scrutinise and hold the Government accountable, and instead choose to get into bed with them so they can ensure the status quo”. (And could he really only have discovered as late as 2014 that James Hewitt met his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, after he was born, thereby negating any suggestion that he was his biological father? Royal correspondents have been debunking the myth on this basis for decades). The witness statement also betrayed Harry’s growing lack of objectivity in suggesting that the tabloids were the same as trolls and that journalists and editors “had blood on their hands”.
The inquisition
Forensic in his approach, and unfailingly polite in his questioning, it was not long before Mr Green, once described as a “cross-examination master”, was deftly putting the Prince through his paces like a buttery assassin.
The crux of the case quickly appeared to boil down to Harry saying that any story where he was unsure of the origin must have been down to phone hacking and Mr Green providing him with other plausible explanations.
Had Harry realised, for example, that the Press Association had reported that Princess Diana was due to visit the Prince for his 12th birthday at Ludgrove school before any of the Mirror titles did? No he didn’t. Was he aware that another story about a rock climbing trip was already in the public domain? Or that an article about him breaking his thumb had been in the Edinburgh Evening News? No he wasn’t. And so on and so forth.
Prince Harry was today accused of being 'in the realms of total speculation' while giving evidence at a London phone hacking trial where he also suggested his father King Charles may have been a victim.
In a heated moment at the High Court, where the Duke of Sussex became the first royal to testify for more than a century, Andrew Green, KC for Mirror Group Newspapers, told him: 'That's not an answer.'
'Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation?' Mr Green said shortly afterwards when the royal said he was 'not sure' whose phone was hacked when he broke his thumb playing football at Eton and it appeared in the Press.
Ouch!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12165259/Prince-Harry-accused-realms-total-speculation-hacking-trial.html