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
The photo that includes her and Archie is not very clear, but Lilli and hapless are dressed the same as in the clearer pictures of just them, so genuine?
Hugh Hefner's widow is described on the old Playboy cover as this.
As for merching the kids, the Kardashians would probably beat any and everyone to the punch. Say what you will but that is a family who can spin on a dime at the drop of a hat. They, also, have lightening fast reflexes about decisions which need to be made so they can take advantage of an opportunity. They would be up and running within a month or possible less. They don't do endless meetings to have meetings where arguments over the background colors of the label still haven't been decided. And it they aren't in it, then it may not be as profitable as we all think.
New Palace Confidential.
----
@abbyh
Yep, I was fantasizing of what she could do of she did not tend to stuff everything up with her unfortunate personality flaws and lack of talent and work ethic! Merching yourself and your children sounds and seems like an easy path to untold riches, but the Kardashians got it right because of the intelligence and wise decisions behind what is essentially a superficial and trashy but very lucrative and long-lasting brand.
The child's outfit, with the long, heavy looking socks, closed-toe shoes & pale, longsleeved dress is just bizarre for a July 4 outing in Southern California. Was it unusually chilly there that day?
Well heeled American moms can easily find adorable & colorful sundresses & sandals for their little 'princesses'. This poor little girl reminds me of the unfortunate children of my own childhood who were shunned by the rest of us little monsters because their moms just could never dress them in quite the 'right' way, for whatever the reason, so the other kids thought they were odd. What was ILBW, who seems to spend a fortune on her own outfits, thinking? Couldn't a decent children's clothing manufacturer give her a freebie that was both cute & suitable? Is her child getting a healthy diet?
It's illegal in California to take photos of children & show their faces without parental consent. The New York Post showed clear photos of this child's face. The photos were by Backgrid, per usual with the Todgers. Obviously, the Todgers wanted this photo to be seen.
If ILBW is going to merch her little ones, she will need to up her game. Dainty print dresses & MaryJane shoes have their place, but this instance wasn't one of them. If she wants to appeal to up market moms, she needs beautiful photos of beautiful, healthy children in adorable & appropriate outfits. If she's going more mass market, my guess is that this little girl's outfit might be too expensive for the average Walmart shopper. She should know who her customer is, & aim for it.
Bottom line, this photo makes me concerned for the level of care these children are getting from their putative parents. That said, I know looks can be deceiving. Hopefully, these children are adored & well treated.
Her hair upset me the most. But also H seems to never change his clothes. Yuck.
Her dress didn't look clean, either. Yet another outfit someone dragged out of the hamper. I didn't even think the knee socks looked clean.
Mm has NO idea how to merch. Who is going to look at a somewhat unkempt kid and that mess of a dress and think, oh, I want one of those for my kid.
If you're gonna merch, everything needs to be pristine and visually appealing. You couldn't even see what the front of the dress looked like.
Also, IMO Mrs. Todger spends her days reading about herself, and the talk that the children do not exist is getting to her. Therefore, they put out a grainy, pixelated photo to try to prove that a child exists. There's one thing to always remember about Mrs. Todger: Everything that comes out of her mouth, her "close friends," PR, whatever, it's all a lie. Everything is a lie that emanates from Mrs. Todger.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14se4x6/disturbing/
African hair does not always come out silky. It can be very dry, and many redheads do have dry, bushy hair anyway, regardless of ethnicity.
I do believe they could have done more to make her hair look cute. The wee one definitely looked as though she'd been snatched out of bed and dressed hurriedly in an older child's dress. I wonder if Hazmat dressed her? Many dads are not the best at dressing their daughters.
I don't think we can really tell from a rather blurred photo that H never seems to change his clothes - maybe that green/khaki T-shirt is a favourite - or that Lilibet's dress doesn't look clean. Harry having been in the BRF and the army, I'm sure his personal hygiene is fine (or else the lack of it would indicate some form or mental health problem).
Someone would need to see the children and interact with them to be able to see whether they appear happy, well adjusted and meeting the expected milestones for their respective ages.
USA tv personality Katie Couric famously said Todger smelled of booze & cigarettes from every pore when she met him in her memoir.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10044751/US-TV-host-Katie-Couric-takes-potshots-Prince-Harry.html
Both of the Todgers have looked pretty scruffy in public on occasion, which is one of the reasons I've been concerned about the welfare of the children. Slobs can be loving & attentive parents, however, & neat ones can be disasters.
According to Taz ... newest video. The tabloids accepted hapless's claims about a payout to William and joined some dots, incorrectly. Unfortunately, everyone has accepted this as true. The tabloids deny that the payment was ever made; the Palace is silent. Yes The Royal Foundation did give IG a huge donation, but my research shows that this was money from the princes' joint foundation (i.e. what William owed Harry after Megxit was finalised, which was about 15 or 16 months after they flounced off to Canada). Hazmat only decided to sue after he got married and miraculously bumped into Sherborne while on holiday at Elton's place in the south of France. All very fishy to me!
-----
IMO Tyler Perry has also trolled Mrs. Todger big time. He praises her publicly, but I bet he doesn't take her calls, not since she trashed his property, insulted the help, and called the paps.
They did it last year as well!
https://www.alamy.com/line-judge-at-wimbledon-2022-image479944802.html
can someone explain to me on what grounds she had the royal box cleared when she was with her friends? didn't these people have legitimate tickets for the royal box? how could she do that?
yes, they'd paid good money for those tickets -it was reported that they received compensation form the personal accounts of the then Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Kent.
Ah, * at Wimbledon! She particularly distinguished herself on that occasion. I don't think she was in the Royal box - correct me if I'm wrong - I think she was in Court 1 to support Serena Williams (meaning she just wanted to be seen at Wimbledon). She went with two American friends, Genevieve Hillis and Lindsay Roth. Allegedly, she wasn't allowed into the Royal box because she was wearing jeans. If true, once again she totally ignored the dress code.
She asked her staff to stop people taking photos of her - the arrogance! - and has several rows of seats cleared as she thought a man was taking a photo of her. The man was simply taking a selfie... It's always all about her.
The Duke of Sussex is said to be working on a documentary about Africa, a project that won’t involve Meghan Markle’s participation, The Daily Mail reports. Meanwhile, his wife is expected to explore commercial endorsements in fields that are meaningful to her, like food, wellness, fashion and therapy.
https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/news/prince-harry-charity-focused-hollywood-1234865857/
So, she has come full circle to be the merching blogger? She will make about 10 times what she was making in her pre-royal days, maybe 100 times, but not near the multi-million brand deals I thought she could get when they bolted.
Food and wellness was her brand pre-royal life, as was fashion (disaster), but therapy? And does she mean massage and facials?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12278371/What-Sussexes-make-Omid-Scobie-revelations.html
The Royal Grift does a forensic analysis of the parade photos and is of the opinion that
a)* is merching the kids' photos, in connection with a specific hotel
b) the whole set up of them at the parade stinks (my interpretation)
What do you think?
Prince Harry is more popular with Americans than older brother Prince William, according to a new poll.
The YouGov poll of around 1,500 people was conducted between April and June - a different methodology to standard surveys, which generally run over a few days.
The poll, cited by Newsweek, found Harry wooed nearly half (48 percent) of Americans in the second quarter of 2023 with 24 percent disapproving, giving him a net approval score of +24.
William trails behind his younger brother after being well-liked by 43 percent of interviewees but feeling the cold shoulder of 21 percent, amounting to a net rating of +22.
But Harry was trumped in the poll by sister-in-law Princess Kate, who received a 46 percent approval rating and just 11 percent disapproval, for a net rating of +35.
Meghan Markle didn't fare so well in the survey, with just 40 percent of respondents in her home country approving of her, with 23 percent giving her negative reviews, leaving her with a net rating of +17.
However perhaps most surprisingly of all, the poll found Harry and William are more famous in America than Princess Kate and Meghan - despite the fashion icon status of the princes' wives.
YouGov's 'fame' rating is linked to how many people have heard of a public figure, as opposed to how popular they actually are, which is a separate measure in the quarterly polls.
The latest survey revealed 85 percent were familiar with Meghan and 84 percent with Princess Kate compared to 95 percent for both William and Harry.
Harry's popularity in the US now appears to be on a steady surge following the release of his memoir Spare in January and the Netflix documentary series a week earlier.
A poll from Redfield & Wilton for Newsweek on December 5 showed Harry was liked by 52 percent of respondents and disliked by 14 percent, giving him a net approval of +38.
Princess Kate had also been liked by 52 percent and disliked by just nine percent, while William was liked by 51 percent and disliked by 11 percent.
Redfield & Wilton also polled 2,000 US-eligible voters for Newsweek on January 16 - six days after the publication of Harry's tell-all autobiography.
Harry was liked by 31 percent and disliked by 38 percent, giving him a net approval rating of -7.
Meghan was viewed favorably by just over a quarter (26 percent) of Americans and unfavorably by 39 percent, leaving her with a lowly net rating of -13.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/prince-harry-s-popularity-surges-in-america-as-he-overtakes-prince-william-in-new-poll/ar-AA1dCSHl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=de3cc57ea8f944859710ce67216601fb&ei=13
Prince Harry is more popular with Americans than older brother Prince William, according to a new poll.
The YouGov poll of around 1,500 people was conducted between April and June - a different methodology to standard surveys, which generally run over a few days.
The poll, cited by Newsweek, found Harry wooed nearly half (48 percent) of Americans in the second quarter of 2023 with 24 percent disapproving, giving him a net approval score of +24.
William trails behind his younger brother after being well-liked by 43 percent of interviewees but feeling the cold shoulder of 21 percent, amounting to a net rating of +22.
But Harry was trumped in the poll by sister-in-law Princess Kate, who received a 46 percent approval rating and just 11 percent disapproval, for a net rating of +35.
Meghan Markle didn't fare so well in the survey, with just 40 percent of respondents in her home country approving of her, with 23 percent giving her negative reviews, leaving her with a net rating of +17.
However perhaps most surprisingly of all, the poll found Harry and William are more famous in America than Princess Kate and Meghan - despite the fashion icon status of the princes' wives.
YouGov's 'fame' rating is linked to how many people have heard of a public figure, as opposed to how popular they actually are, which is a separate measure in the quarterly polls.
The latest survey revealed 85 percent were familiar with Meghan and 84 percent with Princess Kate compared to 95 percent for both William and Harry.
Harry's popularity in the US now appears to be on a steady surge following the release of his memoir Spare in January and the Netflix documentary series a week earlier.
A poll from Redfield & Wilton for Newsweek on December 5 showed Harry was liked by 52 percent of respondents and disliked by 14 percent, giving him a net approval of +38.
Princess Kate had also been liked by 52 percent and disliked by just nine percent, while William was liked by 51 percent and disliked by 11 percent.
Redfield & Wilton also polled 2,000 US-eligible voters for Newsweek on January 16 - six days after the publication of Harry's tell-all autobiography.
Harry was liked by 31 percent and disliked by 38 percent, giving him a net approval rating of -7.
Meghan was viewed favorably by just over a quarter (26 percent) of Americans and unfavorably by 39 percent, leaving her with a lowly net rating of -13.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14u1i6e/just_saw_this_on_ig_stories_parking_it_here_for/
Thank you, SMM. I think I'd had driven off the road, overcome with mirth, had I seen it.
Gumblina1964
•
1 day ago
Megains mattress
I watched the video and disagree with the analysis that the photos are not real and that the children aren't theirs. However ... wife and son are nowhere to be seen in photos of father and daughter and I find that odd. Where were they? No sign of any bodyguards at all in any of the photos. That is also odd. That couple do not leave their home without bodyguards. Are they finally downsizing? What is interesting in the video is the connection between the hotel, the photos posted on its website, and the disappearing vehicle in the parade. I think she could be doing low-level merching, but I would be more convinced if the photos were used to merch the clothing items that Lilli is wearing.
And then we thought Trevor helped her get a part in Suits. Maybe it wasn't him after all...
-----
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14vbg8n/interesting_question/
A thread discussing a social media post asking what the goal is of the outrage about her. I don't have much faith in her getting her just desserts for hurting, using and conning others, but I do think discussion is important to value and invest in integrity, decency, accountability, fairness ... People should not prosper from using and hurting others, and should not get away with such appalling dishonesty. We all make mistakes and sometimes mess up spectacularly, but the couple in Montecito will never feel remorse, regret, shame ... and never apologize or learn anything that might make them better people. People like them are destructive ... in relationships, families, institutions, and at large in the world. Appeasement did not work with Hitler and it is not going to work with the ex-royals.
ATURDAY, JULY 08, 2023
Blind Item #4
When the press run beings for the sports documentary, the ginger haired one plans on doing the entire thing solo. This really does seem to be more and more of an conscious uncoupling.
I don't know anyone who cares for Nutmeg. Under no circumstance whatsoever is her polling that high.
Yes indeed - but that other person seems to have had just about every actress one has heard of, including one or two of the greatest.
-----
At least there's now some consistency in the appearance child known as Archie, in the parade film, he does still could be Gavin Gringas. Or not.
Just a reminder:
https://www.facebook.com/106245230948025/posts/this-baby-is-gavin-gringas-there-is-no-baby-archie-this-child-is-the-child-of-me/317783973127482/
What I do find odd is that in the first photos of them at the parade, I'd swear there were pedestrian crossing marks painted on the road and somebody (not sure who now) talked about them being at a crossing with a lot of people waiting to cross. in the `hotel' video from the car I couldn't see any markings on the road surface.
I'm not saying they definitely weren't there, only that they were invisible to me.
SMM talks about roasting special chicken to get your man (no, you don't ask a Mountie to cook it)- and refers to a recipe
https://www.glamour.com/story/engagement-chicken - quite an old edition.
2 points - in the UK when did you last get the giblets with a chicken?
- also in UK, we're advised not to wash the chicken as it's likely to spread around any bacteria (altho' Jamie Oliver suggests pouting boiling water through the inside). Cooking it properly will kill any nasties on/in it.
check out this video of * with Lilibucks at the 4th of July parade. At the beginning, there's a zoom in on Lilibucks and *. Later, the video zooms out.
Not to be nasty to the poor child, but is there some sort of distortion because the shape of the child's head seems rather odd.
The video is so blurry all the children's faces look quite eerily mask-like. Mind you the comments below that twitter post point out plenty of other inconsistencies e.g. where has Archieficial gone, is that actually *, why does Lilibucks appear not to be moving etc.
"However in a clip shared by local hotel Rosewood Miramar Beach days later promoting their 4th July celebration, Meghan can be seen alongside her husband and daughter as they wave to passersby.
The luxury 5* hotel is owned by businessman Rick Caruso, who previously revealed how he had first met the couple back in May 2020 to discuss 'charity work' as well as their future plans."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12282553/A-royal-wave-Meghan-cuddles-Lilibet-greet-performers-4th-July-parade.html
According to The Times, Meghan and Harry have since dined at the exclusive hotel, while the Duchess' ex-husband Trevor also tied the knot at the premises last year.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14vhibs/best_twdis_tweets_of_79_compounding_what_most/
Regardless of her having a dig at Catherine about the `silver platter' tradition, the poster can't imagine * letting the chance go by of having the world's press photographers waiting to snap her as she emerged from the hospital with a real live baby. Just look at that crowd that awaited the Cambridges.
She didn't dare do it with a doll.
Why didn't we think of that before, instead of believing all the rubbish she spouted about `privacy'? Of course, we hadn't realised at that time that she's an inveterate liar.
But why aren't the two other kids? the ones to the right of her?
I too did find it rather strange that * would pass up a chance to have the world's press outside a hospital to take photos of her and her newborn.
I thought at the time that * said something about having to pose with makeup and hair done just after the birth but Diana and Catherine managed it. I researched the question and apparently * and H were not asked to by the Palace because Archie wasn't going to get a title! I didn't watch the Oprah interview but this is what the snake said.
"Meghan replied: 'We weren’t asked to take a picture. That’s also part of the spin that was really damaging. I thought, "Can you just tell them the truth? Can you say to the world you’re not giving him a title, and we want to keep him safe, and that if he’s not a prince then it’s not part of the tradition? Just tell people and then they’ll understand"... But they wouldn’t do that.'"
I don't remember her saying this when Archie was born - whoever gave birth to him. Does she really believe her own bull? It sounds to me as if she was really p¡$$ed off that her sprog wasn't getting a title and decided in a fit of pique she wasn't going to pose outside the hospital. It could also be that she didn't actually give birth (although a surrogate might have).
In the first week of December 2018, the Dorkess visited a retired actors’ home for her very first solo engagement since her wedding. I think we all remember the bizarre outfit she wore, with its even more bizarre accessory—Square Pillow Bump, that resolutely kept its four-cornered shape whether she stood or sat. She announced at regular intervals how VERY pregnant she was feeling…though according to maths, she was about “four months along”, though SPB said at least seven. And she wouldn’t “give birth” until six long months later.
When I clapped eyes on Square Bump crammed into a floral print spring garden party frock more suitable for Lady Louise, two sizes too small at least— Really, however did she manage to stuff that in there? The seams were screaming and her back fat look like a PlayDoh factory— I said to myself, “Bloody hell, she’s going to FAKE this entire thing.” Hollywood celebrities like Beyoncé and George Clooney’s wife play this game— But at least they have some biologically legitimate children at the end of it, and pictorial evidence that they brought the children home and are raising them. During the Australia tour, I wasn’t sure. I was extremely agnostic considering the stunt she pulled at Eugenie’s wedding. The bumps she sported Down Under could possibly have been a first trimester pregnancy from someone who had previously been extremely slender through pharmaceutical means. But even then she couldn’t get the bump consistent. There were several outfits including a formfitting white dress where the bump was nowhere to be seen. Emboldened because nobody called her out for fakery and she was getting congratulations for being “pregnant”, she continued to ramp up the ridiculousness. We all saw it.
When she disappeared from view for 2 months from March to May—no baby for 8,9 weeks after having appeared at the Commonwealth Day service looking elephantine, It only confirmed my suspicions. They were scrambling to maintain the fiction that she was “nesting” and taking healthful turns about the garden with Doria. About the circus that was the “birthday”, I’ll only observe that the story that a 40 year old high risk mother who had gone overdue by two weeks at least would have her baby effortlessly within a few hours after apparently consuming a large fast food meal And would be released to be back at home with her newborn only two hours after birth… And not a single member of the press phalanx camped out in Windsor saw them either departing or returning home is all bollocks as it is her reason for not showing off her baby on the steps of the hospital— She hadn’t given birth. Yet a mere 30 hours later, we had the tableau at Windsor Castle. It was more under their control there. Even though I was and remain firmly in Camp Moonbump, the fevered speculation on the inter webs that a Reborn doll had been used seemed too mad even for Harry’s wife. I didn’t think the baby like object in Harry’s arms looked like “Darren doll”— To me he looked exactly like Thomas Markle.
Then I read that for those purchasers of the Reborn willing to spend enough money, they can special order their own bespoke doll made in the likeness of a loved one… Perhaps a child who had passed away, or in this case perhaps a baby picture of the mother’s father.
I haven’t commented on the parade photos of “Lili”, nor will I except to say In the couple of blurry shots we’ve been treated to, this child looks frightened and upset. In Harry’s arms she looked anxious; standing with her “mother” crouched down on the ground with arms around her gurning maniacally at the camera as she does, It looks to me like the child with the sad sad little pigtails is crying. Kids this little sometimes cry at parades, but this kid looks like a hostage. The baby portraying her in the Christmas photo of 2021 looks to be screaming as well even though on first glance you tell yourself she’s laughing. I really don’t think so when you consider that her eyes are squeezed shut. I have a bad feeling about these children, but how badly off they really are, or whose they really are remains to be seen. A child subjected to being hauled around by two complete strangers for a photo op in the middle of a crowd is enduring an upsetting experience but one that’s soon over. If this child hast to go home and live with a narcissistic mother, that is a whole other level of concern.
I know I find the original stories far more convincing (the Harkles were planning to do the walk on their own & alerted the press, who promptly informed the RF - Catherine was at the polo with the children but * heard that one of H's exes was there too, so `came as she was', grabbing the baby/doll, and rushing to the polo ground.)
The DM seems to have gone sugary since the court case. Are they smarming up to the Harkles because they don't want to be sued?
Besides, the Palace do not ask them to pose for photos when leaving the hospital. The Palace informs the public that the royal is in labour and then that the royal has given birth, and are open about where and when. The photographers and public gather of their own accord, and when the royals leave hospital, they are gracious enough to pose for photos. Since no one knew that she had been taken to hospital and given birth, nor which hospital they were at, no photographers and crowd could gather. That duo always blame others for situations they create themselves. Besides, Sarah Latham was under the orders of a couple who refused to follow tradition anyway, because she was not informed by her principals and did not have their permission to say anything to the media until the couple were back home with Archie. The duo created the mess but blame everyone else and, in their minds, are always the victims.
As for the photos taken at the parade: the photos of all four were stills taken from a video taken from a vehicle in the procession - the one belonging to the hotel, and which then left the procession after taking that video. It was planned, which is why Lilli was dressed like Charlotte (see, she is a princess). She gave the hotel and the one media outlet permission to publish photos without covering the childrens' faces. And she probably made a quick buck selling the photos and video to Backgrid.
@Fifi LaRue
Yep, her fixation on Trevor is creepy. It makes no sense because she dumped him, but toxic malignant narcs do not make sense to 'regular' people.
This Redditt thread has some interesting information about a remake of The Bodyguard. She is a lousy actress who does not fit the role as written in the script, but maybe she has 'suggested' to Kevin that he completely changes the idea and makes it about an actress who marries a prince and has to be saved from assassination by a bodyguard. Is that what she is trying to manifest? Kevin is preoccupied with a problematic divorce, which may be why he has not killed this story, but maybe he has been living under a rock and does not know what a nightmare she is and is actually considering the idea.
The Lying Sting
The dearth of a child
has no worth
Hence her no-show
after birth
If she could’ve
she would’ve
held aloft her progeny
On top of the steps
for the world to see…
As I’ve said before, I do believe
the children exist, not sure
whence from?
Archies birth was a farce
She was used to projecting her
putendum on a plinth
Why suddenly shy…
* on tenterhooks as Harold has plans to remarry the surrogate to keep the children in the line of succession. Read with a salt shaker please.
The sick games continue. Next we get to talk about how Harry’s wife Thinks that she is going to be the third Mrs. Costner and replace Whitney Houston in a remake of The Bodyguard.
Really, what does it take to get an involuntary psychiatric hold in California? This woman needs locking up for the public safety, not to mention the safety of any children in her vicinity whether they be biological, adopted or rented.
Debunking the parade photos…
https://youtu.be/9-gx4VeCRho
I'm pretty sure that a child has to be born of the body of the wife of the royal father to be in the Succession.
Even if a royal bastard has been conceived in the `usual' way, the parents' subsequent marriage doesn't put the child into the Succession. I believe this was established centuries ago - to have allowed such legitimisation would have invited chaos and bloodshed as the existing line was disrupted.
It was bad enough when a bastard of an otherwise childless monarch made a bid for the throne. Think Duke of Monmouth.
Hikari...the most puzzling thing is that photo of the Harkles with H's thumb white from the pressure of pushing into the baby. And the baby never moves.
Indeed. I've re-watched that photo-call so many times after people pointed that out. The first time, I hadn't noticed, I was looking at the baby's face and the "New Meghan" decked out in her ultra-tight on the midsection short white belted trenchcoat dress and her signature wobbling sky-high heels thinking to myself, "Yeah, sure lady . . just one day and a half ago you claimed to have given birth and out you toddle in this outfit. Pull the other one. Also, what have you been taking to get your face to blow up like that and pardon me, but your stomach seems to have migrated sideways." What Harry's thumb was doing was not on my radar initially.
To be absolutely fair, I reviewed video of Princess Charlotte's first appearance outside St. Mary's. Her father was carrying her in a car carrier, not poking her arm, and she looked equally still to "Archie", not a twitch even with the crowd noise and click of lenses. It really is possible for a newborn to sleep like the dead . .or like a Reborn, but of course there was absolutely no doubt that that Catherine had just given birth to a precious little girl or that that precious little girl was in fact, alive. If the public questions whether Markle would in fact be insane enough to present a plastic baby to the people of the world and to the Queen of the United Kingdom, well, that's her own fault. Past history is the most reliable indicator of future behavior and Harry's wife is as crazy as an outhouse rat. Especially if she believes that we don't smell one where "Archie" and "Lili" (or "Aldi" and "Lidl" as they are drolly referred to in Europe) are concerned.
Someone here (please identify yourself if you are reading this) suggested long ago that Markle gets off on all this rampant speculation about "her children" even if she is regarded as certifiably insane because it gets her talked about and constantly in the press. She gets off on any and all speculation about herself, her kids, et.al, even if it makes her look really bad. To a Narc ANY attention is desirable, no matter what it is. Of course she'd prefer to be venerated, but since that's not happening, she'll take being mocked. Doesn't matter, so long as her name is on the top of the trending search list. We're all just egging her on, even those of us in the blogosphere that decry her as a dangerous psychopathic fraud. She'll take being roasted as a grifter over being ignored.
Trotting out "the children" is just the next stage in her rampant mental illness. I call it her Munchausen's by proxy syndrome. She'll make these kids suffer horribly just to get pictures of herself in the news. Doesn't matter if they're actually her kids or just some kids she grabbed from a casting call. They are all just props to a Narc.
It's hard to argue that Thomas Markle's nose has shown up on both "Kids"--quizzical indeed if Snarkle isn't even a genetic contributor, innit? Thanks to her, and to digital manipulations and the possibility, a very real possibility that someone of her means could have ordered a doll on the Internet that looks just like an infant version of her father . . remember the plastic baby feet photo with stock bluebell footage on her "first Mother's Day"? . . .I no longer believe what's supposed to be the evidence of my own eyes. She can't take a truthful picture any more than she can make a truthful statement. Lying is a compulsion for her. I don't believe those are her children precisely because she wants so much for us to believe that they are.
Meghan's First Husband Joe's Parents Broke Silence About her Secret Daughter(Markle/BRR )’
This is a firmly anti-Markle channel about which I know nothing yet. Could it be Mexican?
Not very easy to follow - I had to lower the speed to 0.75 to hear the commentary more clearly but it seems to be claiming that the dirt on *'s first marriage (the one that's never mentioned) is coming out now.
As far as I can make out, it's being alleged that * did have a daughter when married to Joe (not clear whether Joe was the father or not) and she was using the child against him. Anyway, the parents pushed for, and got, the marriage annulled by the Church.(I’m not clear if that renders divorce unnecessary under US law or whether civil divorce has to happen as well. It sounds as if the grounds for the annulment wasn’t impotence but more a technicality about the service itself. Can someone enlighten me please?).
It goes on to discuss her being a gold digger going after a `Goldburg' family fortune but I couldn't follow this point. Sounds like a habitual MO - no surprise there!
My hearing is not quite as good as it was and I gave up listening before the end. I do hope Nutties with sharper ears, especially where Spanish accents are concerned, will be able to comb through this and rate it for likely veracity or otherwise.
Your question prompted me to do a little research into this topic. I am not Catholic nor have I ever been married or divorced, but as far as I understand it, Church and the state are separate in the matter of a marriage dissolution. It is not necessary to have a civil marriage ceremony in addition to a 'church wedding'--as far as I'm aware, all civic jurisdictions will honor a marriage contracted by a clergyperson regardless of the faith, so long as the officiant meets the requirements to be licensed to perform marriages and the appropriate civil paperwork is also filed with the city hall. It's not terribly difficult to get licensed to perform weddings and I know of a few acquaintances who took an online course and got a certificate in order to officiate at friends/family weddings. Hopefully these unions are legit with the state of Ohio but I really couldn't say for sure.
Getting disentangled from a marriage is a bit more complex. The state can issue annulments under a limited set of circumstances, and from a civil point of view, an annulment 'erases' the marriage. A Catholic annulment is an ecclesiastical matter separate from the civil courts. Often referred to as a 'Catholic divorce', it is not sufficient to also dissolve a marriage civilly. The couple would have to also pursue a civic annulment or divorce proceedings with the state. An ecclesiastical annulment states that the marriage took place, however it was never a sacramental marriage. This frees the parties to marry again within the Catholic church, even if children resulted from the union. Children of an annulled marriage are still legitimate in the eyes of the Church.
The U.S. has 51 separate jurisdictions that handle marriages and divorces, and statutes may vary slightly from state to state. I don't know if other church bodies besides the Catholic Church issue annulments. I am a Protestant and there isn't any restriction on a divorced person getting remarried in a church wedding the way there is for Catholics.
*****************************************
Annulment: A Catholic Perspective
https://www.hbgdiocese.org/tribunal/divorce-and-remarriage/12-myths-about-marriage-annulments/
Annulment vs. Divorce: A Civil Perspective
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/annulment-vs-divorce/
I thought that might be the case but didn't want to make and sweeping but erroneous statements. I wonder if Joe's parents really have decided it's time to open up or if it's just a case of wishful thinking of those like me who want to see her socially obliterated and kept safely in gaol or some other `fcility'.
Besides impotence being a reason for the `non-existence' of the marriage, it could have been fraudulent I suppose; was she carrying somebody else's child but told him it was his? I speculate, of course. This would be on record with the secular authority, I expect.
I'm sure it'll all come out in time. Let's hope we live long enough to see it.
Interesting that *'s first husband's parents are now talking. It's a bit late so I'll watch the video tomorrow. Annulments don't seem that straightforward. I remember Caroline of Monaco had her first marriage annulled. She divorced in 1980 but the Vatican didn't grant her an annulment until 1992, well after she remarried in 1983. This is what the Guardian said "The Vatican does not permit divorcees to remarry in church and a growing number of annulment requests are winding their way from lower ecclesiastical courts to the appeals court in Rome, with the majority Italian, followed by requests from America and Poland. Princess Caroline of Monaco was able to annul her 1978 marriage to Philippe Junot on the grounds that they had produced no children". As her children from her second marriage were 'technically' illegitimate (she couldn't remarry in church) they were barred from succeeding to the throne. She eventually for her marriage annulled to rectify the situation.
Why was *'s first marriage annulled has never been revealed. I'm sure it wasn't for non consummation! Maybe she married Joe Giuliano under false pretences, e.g. claimed a non existent pregnancy? While looking it up, I found this video. The comments are interesting. One of them said * and Joe got married in Las Vegas without telling the parents and the father, a powerful lawyer, had the marriage annulled. Of course, these are all allegations but there's often a grain of truth in them.
https://youtu.be/mWIWUuGArGc
If that’s what happened, the child, now a young woman is absolutely blameless in how she came into the world. I don’t know if that the truth of these allegations but one thing I do know is that it is a signature feature of the narcissistic personality to accuse others of the identical character flaws which they themselves possess. So as far as I’m concerned, what Rachel said about Samantha might as well be an admission about herself. It was also Narc revenge on Samantha for Sam’s defamation lawsuit… And going back to the engagement period, Samantha letting it slip that Dorito’s Little Flower had worked as an escort. I’m sure this is why none of Rachel’s family members on either side, apart from her accomplice Dorito were permitted to meet H or even speak to him— Her family knows where all of the childhood and adolescent skeletons are buried.
Lots of people become teenage parents and have ill-fated young marriages without being psychopaths. But we know that Rachel is different. If there was a teenage pregnancy I don’t think Joe would have been the father as the wedding took place after college. Sounds like it was a Britney Spears - Jason Alexander wild weekend in Vegas. Again, such stupidity happens to a lot of people but when Rachel is involved in anything, it turns sinister real quick. I believe the young man’s family was well-off, so I totally believe that a fraudulent pregnancy may have been used or some other form of blackmail in order to grift his family. Oh Rachel is nothing if not extremely repetitive and predictable. This was an early form of the later much more successful con she poured on the BRF. Unfortunately for the Royals, they didn’t have the stomach to intervene and put a stop to hairy ruining his life the way Joe’s father did. This Shakespearean soap opera may be entering Act 3: the Divorce— but it’s one that’s going to drag out for years.
Didn't Samantha Markle say there was no marriage before Trevor?
I'm sure it'll all come out in time. Let's hope we live long enough to see it.
---------
I'll second that. I hope this is the start of a steady drip drip drip release of negative info.
That link sounds about right, up to a point. The comments get wilder and wilder:
@katarinacarlos9251
6 months ago
People need to seriously do their homework. Maggots first husband, was her high school sweetheart, with whom she had twin boys - which was annulled - by his parents. Those boys now live in Atlata, GA. Joe Giuliani, was Maggots SECOND HUSBAND, which produced daughter, Noelle. Joe's uncle Rudy had the marriage annulled and when Maggot abandoned Noelle, her sister, Samantha adopted Noelle and Joe paid the child support to Samantha.
The third marriage was Trevor Engleson and all the documents and evidence can be found with the US State Department.
Also photos at
https://smokemirrorsmontecitosfauxroyals.quora.com/Is-this-Joe-Giuliano-with-his-and-Megan-s-child-1
- one of someone who isn't Joe, with Doria & *
- one of a chap named as Joe with small child who looks like a grandchild of Doria
If this `wedding' took place in Vegas, might it have been a ceremony that wasn't recognised by the secular authorities? (rather like `Newgate weddings' that took place in the gaol of that name in the 18C? Marriages conducted by defrocked imprisoned clergy, with no questions asked and no Register kept?) That is, did something that take place by with all the legal non-status of the supposed `garden wedding' of 2018? One not registered in formal documents?
I can't make sense of the dates - I've even come across a site which asserted she'd married somebody else before Joe but as that site couldn't distinguish between photos of Joe and those of Trevor and referred to H as `Duke of York', I don't give it much credence. Except could the Joe marriage have been annulled because she had been divorced?
As usual with her, it's smoke and mirrors, half-truths and downright lies.
Annulment appears to be
the preferred ‘morning after pill’
for many
The parade started at Manning Park, went south on San Ysidro, then west on Jameson, along Coast Village Road, up Hot Springs to East Valley, the back to the Upper Village. I have cycled / driven those streets many many times over the decades and I did not recognized the background location. A lot has changed on Hot Springs / East Valley area due to the Mud Flow disaster a few years ago and I had not been up there much recently so just doubled checked on Google Street view to make sure I did not miss something. You often miss minor details due to familiarity.
So on the west side of San Ysidro, north side of Jameson / Coast Village Road, eastern side of Hot Springs, south side of East Valley Road I dont see a hedge, wall, driveway / road intersection like the one in the background of the "photo". So based on that it looks totally staged to me.
My guess is the actual location is one of the streets north of East Valley. Which were not on the parade route. Somewhere very close to Casa Harkle.
https://tinyurl.com/2p824knp
Also in the DM
I saw the comment you quoted, it's not something I find credible. Perhaps there will now be more people prepared to talk, not just about that wedding but other events that * would like hidden from us.
Yep, she has not given up in grabbing as many awards as she can! This particular award is relatively new (in an entertainment industry that is over-saturated with awards) and dogged with controversy.
An article in the Sun that sums up why it is absurd that they are being nominated for an award in non-fiction category when the series was filled with lies and other nasty stuff, and has nothing to commend it other than a lot if people watched it:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/23031418/meghan-harry-hollywood-awards-netflix-doc/
This Reddit thread (in opening post and comments, so scroll down) explains why these awards are rather iffy, especially this one:
-----
Hollywood Critics Association:
- Founded 2016.
- First TV Awards ceremony held August 2021 (focus previously was on films).
- August 2022: 9 members (about 7%) quit due to one member's violation of numerous HCA bylaws, including harassment, bullying, slander, sharing member-only information with non-members, breaking the code of conduct.
- January 2023: Los Angeles Times ranked the HCA awards last in a ranking of 15 events, due to scrutiny and inquiries regarding its operations.
- June 2023: HCA President Nikki Fowler resigned, citing a 'hostile, biased' work environment. This was followed by the HCA looking to restructure amidst claims of racial bias.
-----
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14xk641/meghan_harry_netflix_series_nominated_for/
@BarkJack_
Stunned to see absolute bollocks of a claim today suggesting "rift" between HMTK QC & PPoWs'.
Could not be further from the truth. Inside sources tip us off that core Royal Family is "closer than ever".
-----
No, there is much evidence to the contrary. Any outlet that runs with this story today should be hugely questioned & their integrity stained.
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1678818120402698240
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
Onslaughts of targeted articles attempting to erode the mystery, respect & dignity of the Royal Family are being noted & privately investigated
-----
likely will not see light of day. She sure feels invincible at this stage with a constant strategy of speaking indirectly.
The house of cards will fall when William is King.
God bless and save HMTK.
-----
It's actually been going on since 2021. That is when I first learned of this. The investigations are ongoing.
Only now, able to say so with such verity
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1679007524089987072
Worked as a journalist. Modelled for Dior. Married a Monaco royal. Has produced what sounds like a very interesting documentary about a murder and an Italian royal ...
Now, compare with the trashy talentless narcissistic duo in Montecito with all their awards, for achieving what?!
OT
I found this video on the BBC News website about a volcano eruption on the Reykjanes Peninsula in the south-west of Iceland which I thought might be of interest to you. It has lovely music with it.
BBC News - Drone captures dramatic Icelandic volcano eruption
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66170738
Edric Streona - Eadric the Grasper d.1017 - `the most treacherous man in England', a Mercian Lord known for his greed and acquisitiveness at a time when England was still struggling against Viking/Danish attempts to conquer the country (we'd been under attack from organised armies for 200 years by then).
Eadric betrayed first his young king, Edmund Ironside (Son of Ethelred II, the `Unready' or ill-advised, having had Eadric, his bro-in law, as his chief adviser), in favour of the Dane Canute, then turned his coat again to support Edmund but then deserted him at the battle of Assundun whereby Canute won the crown and a kingdom.
Canute promised to reward Eadric richly for what he had done; he turned up, expecting a gift, possibly more land and riches galore. His `reward' however, proved to be a summary beheading, his head was stuck on a stake and displayed on London Bridge and his body chucked into the ditch around the City wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadric_Streona
I reckon Meghan the Grasper & her puppet would come a close second to Eadric in a competition for the most treacherous individuals in our history.
The Olde English knew how to call a spade a spade, they didn't mince words, and got right down to a definite definition.
I love these nicknames for our beloved monstrosity. Really, she's the gift that keeps on giving.
MusicDSPGuy
One of the posts upthread had a video from Celt Views which is all about how this isn't her in the parade video. Lots of photoshop - nothing we haven't seen before.
At one point though, she brings up that the red wagon/car from a photo was not in the parade this year but it was last year. If this is true, that's kind of interesting in relation to your observations about the location. But have not heard anything like that from another source. So, who knows?
@Maneki Neko
Thank for for that fabulous little film, it's the best so far. It was clear that something big was going to happen from the seismic activity maps my husband has been watching online - it's early days yet. I'll show it to him once he's astir (it's 5.30am here right now.)
----
The critics award nomination ... they nominated themselves. I think she spends a lot of time trawling for awards she can buy for herself!
Not quite the reward that the original Grasper got but it'll do for now.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14yneml/ive_never_seen_a_more_fitting_tweet_how_dare_they/
One comment is that it should be posted up on billboards all over the USA. Hear! Hear!
https://twitter.com/barristerlawusa/status/1679165276179275776?t=zce1kGdOTDzcG2_oiR-tBg&s=19
Says they're no longer at Olive Garden & it's being said she's still chasing Getty and a political career.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/14ylogo/so_phony_it_makes_my_toes_curl/
Her film about taking flight to Canada, a feast of appalling acting.
I bet that airline person who knelt to her was a steward camping it up in a borrowed hat and she didn't even realise she was being ridiculed.
In truth, she probably created and scripted the fantasy herself - we just don't say `Thank you for your service' - it sounds like a note of appreciation to one's local bus company.
That Thank You has the same homogenized feel as the story from the Lion King.
She was so upset but that didn't stop her being videoed when they left. It looks so posed and staged and the whole thing is nauseating. Good thing I haven't had breakfast yet.
Not quite. Behind closed doors, sources tell In Touch, Harry, 38, is panicking over money and his and Meghan’s future in America. “Obviously, Megxit has blown up in their faces,” says an insider. “Harry is starting to wonder if they made the right decision leaving England. He’s even suggested to Meghan that they return to London and the royal family.”
Meghan was livid, says the insider, who adds that the duchess, 41, was even more taken aback when she learned Harry had already reached out to his estranged brother, William, 41. “Harry admitted he’d phoned William to call a truce and told his brother he and Meghan would be open to going back to London, where they would serve King Charles.”
William was stunned by the call. The brothers have been on increasingly bad terms since Megxit, and revelations made by Harry in his memoir, Spare, divided them further. (Among other allegations in the book, Harry claims William physically attacked him in 2019 during an argument in which William allegedly called Meghan “rude,” “difficult” and “abrasive"). “William didn’t quite know what to say,” says the insider, noting that the future king told Harry “he would think about his offer.”
Harry feels as though he and Meghan are running out of options, says the insider. Despite the success of Spare and their well-received Netflix docuseries Harry & Meghan, the parents of Archie, 4, and Lilibet, 2, are quickly losing favor in Hollywood — not to mention opportunities to make money. Shortly after the Spotify announcement was made, the company’s head of podcast innovation and monetization, Bill Simmons, blasted the couple, calling them “grifters” on his podcast. And in a recent interview, United Talent Agency CEO Jeremy Zimmer said Meghan “was not a great audio talent, nor necessarily any kind of talent.”
The Sussexes may have no choice but to return to the U.K., where they can enjoy other perks. “Harry needs a Plan B,” says the insider, adding that the royal family would likely take him and Meghan back. “Even in light of everything that’s happened, how would it look if Charles said no?”
https://archive.is/2023.07.14-032020/https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-may-return-to-royal-family/
No smoke without a fire?
They were not holding hands. None of the photographs show this. The photographer (the one who befriended Thomas Markle) said they were, and gushed about them.
Charles may find a cottage for them to live on one of his estates, and may try to rehabilitate his son over time, but I do not see her ever being able to fit into the royal family, in private or public. She is a hustler and a grifter and a malicious narcissist (my opinion), and she is never going to stop causing trouble ... and spending money.
Maybe hapless thinks he can still get the half in/half out arrangement ... that formal royal connection would give them a boost and some protection against consequences of their actions.
The red vehicle was from Mission Linen. A local company. Its a regular at local parades etc.
Plenty of parade photos here. Including video. The photos are at Manning Park. The video on Coast Village Road.
https://www.montecitojournal.net/2023/07/11/village-4th/
Although to be perfectly honest most local people go to watch the parade downtown on Lower State Street. Unless they have family / friends in the Montecito parade. Or more likely head to East Beach later on to watch the fireworks just after sunset.
It would have been a good excuse / cover story for a staged pap shoot though.
As for local parades in Santa Barbara. July 4'th is OK. The fireworks are the highlight. The Solstice Parade is most fun but Fiesta is by far the best. Old Spanish Days. Its a week of great events around town in early August and the parade is always a great spectacle. And the street food is fantastic. Best time to visit.
Now that Mission Linen truck photo. A couple of problems. That location background is nowhere on the parade route. Definitely not San Ysidro, Jameson, or Coast Village. Some parts of Hot Spring kinda look like the background but not there. Now East Valley is the most wooded and closest to Mudslide Manor, east of St Carmel's, but not there either.
Plus I dont see the double yellow land divider that is on all roads on the route. And most streets off the route too. Either the yellow lane divider is not there. On the street the photo was take on. Or else Photshopped out. The shadow under the truck is all wrong too. It was a typical SoCal July day with high coastal status so dull and overcast but starting to burn off. The Coastal Layer often does not burn off till late afternoon or evening at this time of year. Most years its only later in the dry season you have sunny mornings / early afternoons in Montecito. August / September.
One way or another those photos look staged and / or heavily Photoshopped. Its not like these people dont have form when it comes to faking and outright fraud.
The Miramir Rosewood had two vehicles in the parade - a yellow and pink. The Mission Link truck was behind the pink vehicle. The video seems to have been taken from that yellow vehicle, and most definitely not from the Mission Link vehicle. Although photos were probably taken from this vehicle, the published photos/stills that were posted by the hotel and sold to Backgrid were from a video and were taken from the yellow vehicle.
There must have been permission granted from the duo since in some outlets the children's faces were shown (including the hotel's social media site). I am assuming a connection between the duo and the hotel in getting those pictures published to try to overshadow the Scottish coronation ceremony, but I may be wrong about that.
Montecito has a lot of wooded areas, just about everywhere and especially in the area at the beginning of the parade, and, so far, I have identified at least two pedestrian crossings along the route on San Ysidro Road (where there are schools) - in the area closest to where they live, near the beginning of the parade route. But the photos do not seem to show them at a pedestrian crossing but does show a sign associated with roadworks perhaps (lots of roadworks going on in Montecito so lots of roads closed,and people having to take alternative routes). There are also a lot of clipped hedges around properties on San Ysidro Road. As I said, trees galore, and large mature trees.
There is always a kernel of truth in the speculation and gossip about them, but this often spins off into fantasy and fiction. I think all this chatter about them feeds their ego! But AI is going to exponentially multiply the problem and we will all find it difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is computer generated.
If I disagree with something someone posts from somewhere else, I am not insulting or finding fault with the person who posted it. I often post something I found elsewhere and then disagree with it, and sometimes am taken in by it until someone here points out some major flaws. But in this case, I can verify that there are indeed pedestrian crossings, wooded areas, mature trees, clipped hedges, neat sand walkways ... along the route where they were most likely to have been.
Change of topic ... the strike in Hollywood is growing. How's that for karma? But also a good excuse for delayed, poor or no delivery of projects after lots of hype.
Interview between Deuxmoi and the lawyer who runs the CDAN blind gossip site. Some interesting gossip ... including that he did not get gossip about the royal family before TBW met hapless.
Harry, Meghan are ‘devastated’ by Emmy snub amid run of ‘bad luck’: royal expert
https://nypost.com/2023/07/14/harry-meghan-are-devastated-by-emmy-snub-royal-expert/
Comment:
CookieMonster2020
The Emmy snub is really pretty cataclysmic for them. If they are looking to generate new revenue through other production activities (which obviously they are), just an Emmy nomination might have yielded them much more credibility than what they have now (which is none). If they would've won an Emmy, it may have been a game changer. But another problem for them now is this SAG-AFTRA strike. Literally no one is working in Hollywood, and Ari Emmanuel (her goon from WME) is being slaughtered in the media along with all the other media moguls who make significantly and disproportionately MUCH more money than the talent they represent and/or portray in film and other media outlets. Meghan is a SAG member, and since all activity for future work is currently shut down for an indeterminate amount of time, she can't really work or even really look for work right now. The point is that all of Meghan and Harry's ideas of striking it rich in Hollywood are literally crashing down all around them. Things are definitely not good for these two.
Blind Item #10 - Reader Blind
Foreign blue blooded folk of a royal nation claim the alliterate one and her ginger husband have never lived where they say they live but instead have always lived apart. The alliterate one stays with the kids at a San Ysidro ranch in a chalet owned by her father in law whilst the ginger haired one is all over the place.
the news person who said that no news about the BRF ever appeared in their newspaper before * was the youtuber who used to be an editor of Star tabloid in the USA. I don't know her name.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12300433/Meghan-Markle-shops-Montecito-Farmers-Market-without-Prince-Harry.html
Of course, rules are to be flouted, they don't apply to her.
'While Meghan largely managed to fly under the radar during her trip to the market, she was friendly and smiled politely at the handful of locals who did recognize her - as her security kept a watchful eye.
The large bodyguard kept a safe distance from the duchess and minded her pooch while she looked around the market.'
I wonder how they can pay for this security.
There's also something about the Harkles' dots, two beagles and a Labrador. If, as some Nutties believe, they can't really look after two children properly how can they look after three dogs? I don't think anyone would trust them with even one dog.
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-hundred-million-dollar-whineathon-docuseries-nominated-for-hollywood-critics-award/news-story/068c7907f8cbf447594f52df27aac31d
Headlines from Sky News:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's 'hundred million dollar whine-a-thon' docuseries nominated for Hollywood Critics Award
She brought her dog to her local farmer's market although dogs are not allowed, and she ignored a big very clear sign at the entry saying so. That poor little beagle would be in danger of being kicked and stepped on by the market crowds who didn't expect a low-to-the-ground dog underfoot where dogs aren't allowed, and if the dog isn't perfectly trained, the dog could conceivably be urinating to mark territory on every basket display of fruits and vegetables in the whole place.
Not following the rules is, in a sense, showing power and marking her territory. Harkle has certainly pissed off the world by pissing on the Royal Family, her own family, the peoples of the Commonwealth, and anyone who feels aghast at her brazenness.
Why do the rules never apply to her?
From DailyMail article with link: https://shorturl.at/atC03
Thanks. I can't recall which paper first said it here/ reported it from her though. We had visions of * hiding away in a cellar at Nott Cott, busily typing away in secret. (You may recall it reminded me of my very disagreeable French penfriend with whom we were stuck for 4 weeks on an exchange visit. She very conspicuously kept a secret diary in which she wrote all her criticisms of us and the trivia of our daily life.)
It’s trying to be `touchy-feely’ when we’ve managed without it for years - there’s better, more precise, language such as `contacted, wrote to, phoned, texted, emailed, spoke to, shouted, got in touch with, called, rang, got on the blower to, gave him a bell/tinkle/sent a letter/card/telegram/ used morse code/semaphore zoomed, face-timed and so on.
In H’s case, it could be argued t was appropriate, I suppose, because he was,in effect reaching out a grasping hand and crying `Baksheesh! Baksheesh!’ I hope he was wearing the Arab-beggar’s outfit , borrowed from his old woman’s wardrobe when she went to the mosque in Cape Town.
Interesting that this is who took the photographs, and it is not a Backgrid photographer.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3087485/bio/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/150m40k/hypocrisy_misan_harriman_wonky_photoshopping/
Not only photographs, but a video of her at that market. A commentator claims that the photos were sold exclusively to DM - the tabloid they keep suing! I am still gobsmacked that she went to that market with the dog and bodyguard to simply buy a small bunch of flowers!
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/150mi09/oh_look_no_one_cares_about_you_meg/
It seems that other tabloids are publishing the story but not using the photographs:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1791466/meghan-markle-breaks-rule-farmers-market-prince-harry
Interestingly the pap photo was taken by Jill Ishkanian who sold it to the DM. Jill used to work for US Weekly as their West Coast new's Editor but after leaving in 2006 to set up on her own US Weekly got the FBI to raid her home & office as they suspected she hacked into their e-mails for tips.
This was the woman who called the cop's on Heather Locklear for "driving erratically" then took photo's of her being stopped by the Police - she made $27,000 for those pic's. She lives in L.A. but grew up in Montecito ..... her & Me-again sound a perfect match & i've no doubt whatsoever the pap shoot in that farmer's market was fully set up between them both, might have even shared the cash generated by the selling the pic's 😏 Got this info on her by googling her name as I was expecting Backgrid who're the Harkle's usual go-to pap agency.
from a comment at this CDAN blind:
SATURDAY, JULY 15, 2023
Blind Item #6
The alliterate one had dinner last night with someone who is not her husband.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/07/blind-item-6_01412187212.html#disqus_thread
This post asks how did * treat the other people she encountered if she treated HM Queen Elizabeth so appallingly? -IMO It ties in with `Did they jump or were they pushed?'
One report said that the final straw was the way * gave Samantha Cohen a basinful (or wtte) of anti-semitic abuse. They were very firmly booted out of the country but should have been grateful for being allowed to save face by claiming it was their wish to go.
It tells us all we need to know about both of them - that there is no limit to her vile behaviour yet H still supports her unquestioningly. They are truly the spawn of Satan. Allegedly.
Supermarkle Cheap
To market, to market
to pose for pap gig
Home again, bin bargain
on legs like a twig
Au marche, au marche
dragging her poor dog
No gain, home restrain?
nothing left to flog
To merch it, besmirch it
s’nout in honey pot
Flower’s in need of a comb
over THOT…
Quickie 🎤
Apologies: Mary Poppins
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Chin Chimera
Even as a child she was
so very fake, precocious
Looking back her words and dress
were sloppy, slack, atrocious
Supersocalfragileegoexrfaudacious
Um, what a fiddle
Um, what a lie…
@WildBoar
I’ve always thought they were
booted, happened during their OZ tour.
Whilst they were away W&K
removed them from the fab four
nonsense.
They were hoping for seperate courts,
the Queen nixed it.
Frog cottage was a slap back at
their request for ‘rooms’ at Windsor.
Madam thought she held all the r’aces
WBBM. interesting take. i’m getting more comfortable they were kicked out hence the nastiness to the family since then. and all theH wants back won’t change it. i still think we know only a tenth of the crap that went on.
Have n't seen the video. Just the papped photos shown in all the news media. That location does not look like anywhere on the route to me. I've lived off both Hot Springs and San Ysidro and have not only driven all streets on the route but cycled them almost ever day for years.
The location of those papped shots at the parade looks more like somewhere above East Valley or around Middle / Hedgerows etc. The signage you saw is at the bottom of Olive Mill at Jameson. Where the gas station used to be. There is a roundabout being built at the off-ramp from 101. To match the one at the other end of Coast Village. The battle over the freeway widening has been going on for many decades and this work is part of CalTrans finally surrendering to the locals. A long tradition in Santa Barbara.
If Jill took these photos like the recent Coast Village pap walk ones then she would know how to arrange the parade vehicle photos quite easily. She grew up just off the parade route. Knew her years ago when she was working her way through school at the deli counter in Pierre Lafonds in the Upper Village. She lived across the street from where I lived at the time. She was a very sweet person back then and I was very surprised that she ended up years later in The Biz' cesspit in LA. Exactly the sort of people we made fun of back then. And she never stuck me as one of those type of people.
She seemed to me never really cut out for that horrible shark pool which is why she kept getting into such high profile messes. Not just the Locklear one. And now getting mixed up with the Harkles. It will end badly for her. Pity. She was such a nice person when I knew her back then. But The Biz' is like that. Turns otherwise nice people into monsters and low-lifes. So best stayed away from. Unless you are already a backstabbing sociopath. Or in Trades.
I too was always convinced the gruesome twosome were kicked out. I remember how during their tour of Australia, after the announcement of the alleged pregnancy, it was mentioned that they would move out of Nott Cott. I think, IIRC, it was also mentioned they'd have separate offices and staff. This came from BP/KP, definitely not from those two and while they were away. I found that very suspicious, it sounded as if the decision had been made behind their backs and without their blessing. Good! Maybe that's why madam was peeved - remember the hot cup or pot of tea, the attitude during the Fiji market tour and the unbelievably crass remark about not believing she wasn't paid for that.
Good to hear from you. You're always so busy! Frankly, I'd rather read about your day/week and family, it's far more interesting and entertaining than anything the duo do.
SUNDAY, JUNE 18, 2023
Blind Item #8
Remember the really rich guy from the well known wealthy family who had lunch a couple of months back with the A list mostly movie actress and everyone was guessing whether they were a couple. Yeah, he had lunch in the past ten days with the alliterate one. She certainly enjoys hanging out with single billionaires.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 10:45 AM 266 COMMENTS
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/kate-middleton-prepared-gloves-off-080231063.html
Kate Middleton is prepared to ‘take the gloves off and play dirty’ if Prince Harry and Meghan Markle reveal more royal secrets claims inside source
Charlie Elizabeth Culverhouse
Sun, 16 July 2023 at 9:02 am BST·3-min read
An inside source has claimed that Kate Middleton is prepared to ‘take the gloves off and play dirty’ to 'stick up for the royals and herself' if Prince Harry and Meghan Markle make more allegations or reveal more royal secrets.
• Kate Middleton is reportedly ready to do anything to 'stick up for the royals and herself' should Prince Harry and Meghan Markle make more bombshell allegations against them, an inside source has claimed.
• According to the source, Kate will happily ‘take the gloves off and play dirty’ if she is forced to 'fight fire with fire.'
When Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped down as working members of the Royal Family and moved to LA, no one could have guessed that more shocks would soon follow; The couple's bombshell Oprah interview, their Netflix docuseries Harry & Meghan, and, most recently, Harry's memoir Spare, in which he claimed Prince William was ‘gone forever’ after his marriage to Kate Middleton.
All worked to create some serious tension within The Firm, though they never showed it publicly. But now Prince Harry has reportedly reached out to his family to ‘call a truce’ and begin planning his return to the UK and, even if he doesn't come back, could be flying in briefly for an upcoming big royal milestone, we can't help but wonder how the royals are feeling about being in his presence.
While Kate Middleton, according to an inside source, has so far shown 'an incredible amount of tolerance and bitten her lip,' Prince Harry and Meghan Markle need to be wary as she 'won't hesitate to keep sticking up for the royals as well as herself.'
Speaking to Closer, the source shared, “Kate won't hesitate to keep sticking up for the royals as well as herself. Kate is fiercely protective when it comes to defending her family and the overall interests of the royal family. If that means fighting fire with fire at times then she’s more than willing to do so – even if it makes her less popular with certain people.
“She’s very much the voice of reason and is known within the Firm for being a clear, fair thinker who tries to weigh up all sides before rushing to judgment or thinking ill of anyone."
The source warned, following the news that Meghan has been dropped by Spotify after her Archetypes podcast failed to reach hit-level streams, that she should be 'wary' of penning her own tell-all memoir as her husband did.
They said, "Meghan needs to be extremely careful with these power games because Kate won’t hesitate to keep sticking up for the royals as well as herself.
“She’s shown an incredible amount of tolerance and bitten her lip but even she can only be pushed so far, and this latest revelation is being seen as a very clear message to Meghan to back off and watch what she says about Kate moving forward.
“The bottom line here is that Kate’s not afraid to take the gloves off and play dirty if she has to. It’s about self-preservation and not being walked all over, but also what’s fair and right at the end of the day, too.”
I was perplexed for a while, wondering why your grandchildren are not at school - then realized you are in the Northern Hemisphere and it is probably Summer holidays. Senior moment for me!
Some card readings for your amusement ... summary:
-----
Overall, I see the same thing I always do with the both of them.
Meghan is juggling too many things at once. Something that I have previously mentioned in another reading, is that she craves for stability (financial, career, etc). Harry, on the other hand, seems to be lacking in energy when it comes to their Hollywood endeavours. Obviously, he never wanted any of this and when he did agree to it, he didn’t expect it to turn out this way (lol).
Although, one new thing I did see, is some people in Hollywood might be sponsoring Harry or helping him out financially (which might not be news to some people). Funny that I only see that with Harry and not Meghan. It might be because these people only are interested in Harry.
This is mostly an assumption, based on what I heard in the news and seen in my readings:
I think H&M got too comfortable with the stability that they had with the Royal Family, that when the rug was pulled under them willingly (in reference to Megxit), they thought they’d still be standing.
I felt like they got too cocky especially after they made those Netflix and Spotify deals. That’s why when they officially left the UK, they didn’t put in the effort into production straight away.
----
My comment: Even if there is a strike, why is she out shopping for a bunch of flowers on a Friday morning instead of working? IMO, that kind of work ethic is questionable for someone who wants to be an award-winning A-lister in Hollywood.
I felt like they got too cocky especially after they made those Netflix and Spotify deals. That’s why when they officially left the UK, they didn’t put in the effort into production straight away.
@Sandie,
I wasn't clear on whether these are your own comments or a digest version of the source you were citing but I'm wondering if the cards have anything to say about the exact circumstances surrounding Megxit? (a term she probably hates with a passion because she didn't come up with it.)
We know that the Sussexes were agitating for this "Half-in/Half-Out Royal Court West" deal from the beginning, as well as agitating to the Queen to live in Windsor Castle. The Queen resolutely said no to both requests (demands), and kept saying no. That's why we saw the pair's behavior getting worse and worse with every passing month their demands were not being acceded to. After the disastrous Oceania tour, preceded by the deliberate hijacking of Eugenie's wedding, the pair were removed from Kensington Palace grounds, offices and the Royal Foundation. FroggyCott was the Queen's puckish response to "We demand apartments at Windsor!"
In retaliation, Harry & wife mucked about with embezzling renovation funds and releasing fake stories in the sugar press about how much Meg was enjoying visiting the organic farmer's market and nesting. Despite the publicized "List of Demands for the Adjacent Peasantry: Thou shalt not look at us, speak to us, ask to pet our dogs or volunteer to babysit our non-existent children--the duo were not actually spotted ever using FroggyCott to my knowledge.
The even more disastrous and culturally insensitive antics of the couple in South Africa was, I believe, their death knell in the Royal family. Not only did they egregiously insult local religious and social customs, but they debuted a baby boy never before presented in England as "Archie" to Bishop Tutu and his family and then gave self-pitying his-n-hers interviews to Tom Bradby.
When they got home, I believe they were summoned to the Queen and told that they were being asked to leave Royal service and the country with immediate effect. HMTQ probably offered them a few choices from within the Commonwealth to take their garden leave and offered them the face-saving measure of allowing them to make like it was their own idea to go in order to pursue other opportunities. She asked them to wait until the Palace had had a chance to craft a statement before releasing anything to the press, but more fool her, because of course they didn't do that. Instead they hosted an international press call at Canada House and told the world *they* had decided to *step back*. No, I believe they were pushed out. Harry might have had drug rehab in Saanich or maybe not . . but nothing about the scatter shot, half-a$$ed flop sweat in a brown turtleneck way they announced their departure suggests that it was their own well-considered and constructed exit. They wanted to flounce out and prove they were the *real stars of the Royal Family*, all right--but the Queen forced them out before they were ready to go on their terms.
"Calling a truce" takes TWO parties in a dispute. The Harkles are still trying to frame this like they are the magnanimous ones who never wanted this terrible rift and are just trying to be reasonable with the bullying racists they had to walk away from to protect their mental health and their children. Nyet. I think they were driven from the field as a very real clear and present danger to the health and well-being of the monarchy in the abstract and personified by William and his family. With or without the brag, "We're just one plane crash away from the throne", this was a rout, and it was permanent. No restitution back to the fold is coming. Private reconciliation most likely not either, though I do think Charles would take H in (sans the wife) as a form of charity. H will be housed and fed . . and never to return to Royal duties. In every way it is possible for two individuals to be done, those two are. The manifesting isn't going to work. They are Out and they were thrown out, forcefully. Their egos can't take this which is why we've had to endure three and half years of this vitriol emanating from Montesh*tshow.
Strange how many CDAN comments seem to think she is still part of the Firm. What are they on?
@SwampWoman
I was perplexed for a while, wondering why your grandchildren are not at school - then realized you are in the Northern Hemisphere and it is probably Summer holidays. Senior moment for me!
You are absolutely correct as usual! It is summer holidays, and they go back to school in 3 weeks and 3 days if anybody is counting (and I AM). I told husband that after cooking 3 meals per day every day for multiple children since the end of May, I'm going to have a nervous breakdown and close the kitchen for AT LEAST a month. With just husband and myself watching our weight, we have coffee for breakfast, maybe a smoothie for lunch plus a sandwich for him, and some sort of salad (I like Greek) with fat and protein for dinner. Grandkids are GROWING and never get filled up. I make huge meals for them.
The grandkids are worried about whatever will we do without them here because we'll be so lonely. Our house will be silent without squabbling or any child telling on a sibling or cousin. The idea that Grammy may be walking on the beach and enjoying an adult beverage outside on the patio at a beachside restaurant with hubby or with my old lady gang is inconceivable. OMG, I will be able to sleep past 6 a.m. which is when smallest grandson arrives every day! I'll be able to go back to the gym!
But, yes, it will be very strange to have a quiet house. We probably will mope around a bit because so much joy has left.
His grandmother not only did not allow them their own court or rooms at Windsor but she also was the one who decided that the half in/half out option was not workable (after it was all presented to her) as well as the pulling of the protection (his book I believe - William tells him that he needs to talk to Granny about it).
Despite all the comments about how he was such a favored grandchild, that she disliked confrontation, she was, however, able to rip that bandage and make hard decisions that people were not going to like.
So glad she missed the book release. With all the other pain she was in at that time, she did not need that too.
Thanks, SMM, for today's laugh - an old photo from the Tig that's priceless. I know one shouldn't mock the afflicted but really - !
The discussion is interesting - the striped sofa also featured in the shots from Lili's birthday party which they wanted us to believe took place at Frogmore. Oh yeah? They shipped it to Frog Cott? Or did they get its twin at B&Q?
yes, I remember that, and I also remember that she left the theatre without her rings - wedding and engagement - on her finger. As though she was making a threat to Harold.
The catatonic-zombie look on her face is frightening. If that thing was walking towards me on the street, I would instantly cross to the other side, or turn around and run. Did she think the look on her face was come-hither s*xy?
It is worth it for other Nutties to skim the comments but here are a few that jumped out: The first made me laugh regarding the stupid ripped jeans:
"last time i tried one on my foot got stuck in the hole and i pulled without realizing and ripped the whole jeans. Never buying ripped jeans again. They are truly 100% trashy"
"WTF is going on here? Lumps and swags of fabric, but not where they would be clothes. Is she wearing a shirt?"
Additionally, I think one commenter is right in saying in her right hand she's holding a clicker to take this excrable photo AS A SELFIE. What do you all think?
Finally, regarding the striped sofa cushions that look awfully familiar, one commenter said that this photo was taken in Cory Vitiello's yard and some wag wrote:
"I was just about to comment on the garden bench with black and white pillows. It gets around just like Megsy!"
Cheers, Nutties!
In a very weird pose. Clearly done so that lack of rings couldn't possibly be missed.
I was getting mixed up with dates as I thought they subsequently went on the visit to Canada House, but that was the day before. There is also another unsubstantiated story around that could have been on the day of the National Theatre visit, where * has her "official" (in the capacity as Patron of the NT) visit cut short on the orders of HM The Queen and is driven straight to RAF Northolt in the company of Edward and Sophie to board a flight to Canada, her bags having been packed for her. As I say, it's unsubstantiated but would tie in with Hikari's suggestion that the Palace wanted them to wait for a crafted statement to be made but the SXS disobeyed.
By then the Queen must have had enough of their nonsense. On a personal level, that's the main thing I find unforgivable - the hurt they caused the Queen and Prince Philip towards the end of their lives.
Thank you, awesome Nutties, for clarifying so many inexplicable things for me as I've watched for years now the push-and-pull garbage of the Sussexes: are they in, are they out, lies, proclamations, accusations etc but all emanating solely from the dastardly duo and their mouthpieces, with zero replies or retorts from the Royal Family.
Rather than being exasperated and disgusted by the ongoing Harkle drama, thanks to you all I am finally able to see it in a different light and will enjoy the whole Kabuki Theatre performances of Mr and Mrs Harkle, with their unending 'all style but no substance' posturing and delusions.
@Fifi LaRue, you wrote "...Harold was used to being put in "time out" over the course of his life with the RF before the Insane One showed up. For Harold, this was business as usual, and when their "Time out" was up, they'd be back in the UK doing as they pleased. That's what Harold told Mrs. Todger, and she believed him. Hence, the 12 Month Review that the Todgers put out in their PR. As Hikari pointed out in the past, the Palace never mentioned a 12 month review. The BRF dusted their hands, and were done with the Todgers."
@Vetus Sacculi and @Girl With A Hat, yes! I too remember the whole mess when Meg as Patron of the National Theatre got hustled out in such an odd manner. When she entered she was wearing her rings, and when she left she was not wearing any rings and was purposely splaying her hand out on her clothing to make it totally clear that she was ringless. Yes, it certainly was a message.
@Hikari, and other Nutties who have weighed in with great comments, you have opened my eyes to your convictions and now I agree with you that they were pushed out and not given the option to return, but graciously allowed to pretend to the world that they had the return-in-12-months option in order to save face.
Until now:
- I believed that the immature duo left their jobs and put out their surprising press release about henceforth being half-in and half-out as a knee-jerk reaction to being told by the RF to quit messing around and complaining, to grow up stat, and to buckle down and do the work. Both M & H hate being told what to do and enjoy conflict, and thought the RF would bow down to their demands and not the other way around.
- I believed the 12-month review grace period was true. I didn't think they deserved the generous offer of being welcomed back into the fold in 12 months time after 12 months of trashing the RF and trashing the way of life, but was certain they would go back with tail between legs and take up their duties again like nothing ever happened, while continuing to do a poor job since they are essentially ungovernable.
Now:
- I am gratified that I have been wrong all along, and that they were never going to be welcomed back and fêted like prodigals.
- I feel so good to know that their secret knowledge that they were well and truly OUT, and that leaving was not their own selfish decision on their own selfish timeline, is why they have lashed out furiously, accusingly, derangedly, and lied countless times. A trapped animal is very dangerous, and these two have been trapped in a situation of their own making, and continue to be dangerous.
Even though I can now enjoy watching the Harkles in this whole mess, I feel sorry for the RF who will never be rid of the Sussexes, and most sorry for William, Katherine and their darling children who are the Harkles' biggest targets.
The Montecito twosome will never give up, and they will always be a threat. That is their only genuine talent.
More rumours that they are taking time apart, citing supposed 'palace insiders' sources (probably a royal commentator). However, if you read the article, the speculation is based on the assumption that they will spend time apart while he is in Africa filming for a documentary. Her life is described as "tacky tinseltown", so I don't think she is the source of the article! But, the article insists that she is on track "to establish her own brand and make millions"! I think she will need many millions to feed her lifestyle!
But, I agree that they do have stark differences.
yes, I think that both Philip and the Queen must have worried about their legacy and the well being of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with a viper such as * in their midst, instead of being at peace in their last moments and knowing that they were no longer capable of helping their loved ones.
ITA - why didn't we think of that before?
Some one pointed out that the Royal family dare not change the site for they are afraid of the reaction from Monteshitshow and I do believe that is right. But I wonder if the King intends the site stay as it is till the Sussexes divorce for that may take time. And the site with the baroness's ugly picture seems more and more idiotic when the time goes by. Just wondering...
There are rumours that the Golden Couple are planning a glorious return to the royal service. Everyone surely understands how much they would give their special Starpower for the "Institution", because they did the job so much better than anybody else during their first round, did they not?
(Little cold sarcasm to cool the warm summer evening)
Do you suppose they've purposely left a few things unchanged, so as to have an excuse why they haven't updated the Harkles' info?
"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are "taking time apart" in hopes of rebuilding their bond after the pair's marital woes were fueled by family drama, http://RadarOnline.com can report."
> Reports of their relationship division have spread quickly through blogs and social media. My question:; do the Sussexes want this report out there at this time? Perhaps it's just ONE of the Sussexes who is furthering publicizing this narrative?
Question: How will the Sussexes react to this being in the news? Or is it a case of "the Sussexes" now being two different reactions, Meghan's and Harry's, but not together.
Someone is spinning and curating the story. Meghan is the one with powerful WME behind her. Harry is seemingly on his own.
https://twitter.com/storiesbyjemay/status/1681370842599501826
the tweet references radar on line but there is no such story there.
here's the story, finally
Harry and Meghan TRIAL SEPARATION: 'Nasty Fights, Humiliation and Failure' Lead Prince to Pursue 'Peace' — Inside The Drama
https://pagesix.com/2023/07/18/rumors-swirl-theres-trouble-in-paradise-for-prince-harry-meghan-markle/
We still don't know for certain who the supposed children are: genuine offspring in the conventional way, fruits of their gonads if not her womb, hirelings or figments of their imagination. The king may have had to say that they can call them `Prince ' and `Princess', thanks to George V's ruling, but it came with overtones of `they can call them what they bloody well like'. His `wherever they are' reference sounded almost like `whoever they are'.
Whatever changes could be made at this stage would only stir up the Hollywood Hornets' nest. Best wait until the divorce and demands for help with paying child maintenance start rolling in on the tide and not worry about ambiguity just yet.
Clarence House is the official residence of the King and Queen. They work at BP and do the commute (not far). BP is being extensively renovated so that is their excuse for staying put in the home that they love!
-----
Separation for the couple? I doubt it, but I can imagine that it is not a 'blissfully happy and in love' relationship ... he is notoriously hot headed; she is not only controlling and manipulative but also prone to absurd theatrics. However, they are firmly entwined in this 'us against them' situation they have created. I do think however that he has an advantage ... he has a powerful and rich family that would give him refuge and support (plenty of dwellings on private royal estates), and some measure of security. She only has her grifting and hustling as a backup. The children are a powerful bargaining tool for her, and she would ruthlessly use them to inflict as much damage as possible. I don't know if he realizes that. Besides, Mudslide Manor is a huge property ... there is a guest house he can use if they need time out from each other. If he is staying at places outside the property, then I would suspect that he is meeting someone or doing something that he wants to keep secret from her!
I think you are spot in in your reasoning as to why the information for the duo has not been changed on the royal website, or rather has been changed in such a bizarre way. Communicating with the duo is a nightmare (who the heck wants their word salad on the royal website); any changes will inflame them.
https://www.royal.uk/the-duke-of-sussex
This is about what he was rather than his life at present. The children are not mentioned?
https://www.royal.uk/the-duchess-of-sussex
Hers is rather outdated as she is not the patron of the National Theatre and does not support the arts. The children are mentioned, but no HRH! And there much about her past rather than her present interests.
No mention at all of all the awards they have collected, and the website insist that they divide their time between the UK and North America!
It is all rather a mess.
Presumably it's copy-cat crime, unless of course * has a grudge against Huw Edwards and is behind the allegations about him. Could she have loathed his highly-respected reports on everything Accession related, from the late Queen's dying to the Coronation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/153clkl/lady_c_tea_youtube_71823_a_few_nuggets/
Lady C,(paraphrased) Markle is using her conniving PR against Dan Wooten. There are several signs that Meghan’s Sussex Squad are behind this story and negativity. They are asking people to come forward with accusations against Dan. I like that GB News is trolling Meghan’s fans by promoting his return. I can tell you I was on his show last night. He was only on holiday. I will make this point – because there are people who want to support Dan Wooten but hesitate to, because Dan wrote the original article in support of Amber Heard against Johnny Depp. I know Dan. He is a good and decent person. Dan is openly gay and is a true mensch. Like all mensch’s, they are easily manipulated. Amber duped Dan. He can’t apologize for legal reasons. He is a professional and due to protocols, it would compromise his employers. Dan knows I am a firm supporter of Johnny Depp. I hope you appreciate that sometimes in life, certain things can’t be undone.
Lady C gives an explanation on Dan Wooten scandal at the 32:00 mark. She does say some of the Sussex Squad is attacking Dan, confirmed by Samantha Markle. Lady C thinks there is an orchestrated campaign to hurt Dan Wooten deliberately. Lady C thinks this is the equivalent of the Nazi’s attacking gay people, retarded people, deformed people and anybody regarded as an adversary to their regime. All of this is leading somewhere very dark and something is going to have to give. And it can’t come soon enough. You have crazy people encouraged to tell lies about good, truthful people, something must be done. There must be accountability. If we don’t stand up for what is right, the abusers will be silenced. This is all beyond belief. Lady C thinks Harry should disavow the Sussex Squad and by his silence, he is complicit. She spent 20 minutes on this topic.
Quickie 🎤
Apologies: Laurel & Hardy
Trail of the Lonesome Pine
Sorrel & Lardy
The arch-backed wail
of montecito
Beyond the pale
the loathsome swine
She lay supine
he surfeit with whine
Both in denial that
they’re in decline
Oh doom
flower’s failing to bloom
You goon
fell for golden shower flume…
I do think they have 2 children, despite so much evidence to the contrary. I just can't get my mind around them thinking they could fake kids, and also because her number one goal would certainly been to have one or two little permanent ties to her mark. That's Basic Grifting and Gold Digger 101. I don't doubt they mightv've used a surrogate.
Byline Times is stirring Dan scandal -this publication seems to have a history of being very pro-Markle
https://archive.ph/2023.07.18-134727/https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-probably-sociopath-samantha-markle-lawyer-libel-lawsuit-1813570
How many folk here now think that she is not simply a narc (albeit a toxic and malignant one) but a sociopath? I have gone from 'absolutely not' to being open to persuasion.
“a mental condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others”
https://activebeat.com/your-health/6-behavioral-indicators-of-antisocial-personality-disorder/
----
Rumours that Scobie is going to 'reveal the name of the royal racist' are swirling. This is supposed to be their 'year of reconciliation' (how crazy does one gave to be to even think of such an idea) ... not going well, is it, keeping in mind the passive aggressive petty swipes at his family in one of his many lawsuits against the tabloids in the UK.
interesting. some you tubers are backing off the no children with them and surrogate scenarios. why now? on twitter sleuth seems to think it’s the palace lawyers but if lawyers are shutting this down i would be more apt to think WME as they rebuild her brand curious though. they point to Lasy C saying the children are with them (or some children are with them) this whole thing makes my head hurt. can’t we just go back to solo pap walks again
"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are "taking time apart" in hopes of rebuilding their bond after the pair's marital woes were fueled by family drama"
Does this mean that in the event of a separation and possible divorce they'll lay the blame at the door of the BRF, namely Charles and William and Catherine? That's how it sounds to me. Remember, nothing is ever her fault.
The Royal website is a mess with some things not being updated and I find that rather perplexing! I agree that Clarence House is not the official residence of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, but it is the official residence of the King and Queen.
https://www.royal.uk/royal-residences-clarence-house
-----
I have sympathy for Dan Wootton but optimistically believe that he will fight back and win.
-----
The theresa longo Twitter account claims to have contacted old friends of hapless and their responses are a mixed bag.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/153u9c4/living_his_best_life/
I will be surprised if this "separation" drags out long term without mention of the word "lawyers". IMHO, H's trip to Africa for the documentary does not a "separation" make - he is away on business, just like if he is away to London to give testimony.
And then there are the tea leaves of telling that this has been coming - she was radio silent when he was his book tour, she signs with WME etc, and the rumor of the phone call to William to talk aobut returning to the UK. Maybe H is content to live away in the country on one of Paw's farms, and give time for the clamour to die down, but she won't do it. Would he ever be able to return to service to the Crown? Maybe. It would not be on his terms though - and that is the true test if all the rumors are true. Going back to lurking.
Shauna, of The Vintage Read Show, gives a fascinating view on Samantha's book and what it reveals about Thomas, TBW and Samantha. Makes you think ... Thomas gave Samantha no assistance when she was financially unable to keep her children, when she pursued academic qualifications, in her struggle with MS, but at the same time, he was giving everything to his little narc princess. (Neither was he there to protect his two older children when they were being abused by their mother ... their maternal grandmother had to step in.)
Is this the precedent for the way in which * the Royal family have treated Markle?
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2022/24/lucy-worsley-investigates
New post up.