Skip to main content

The Opening Act of New Adventures in Retail

 I keep thinking things will settle down to the lazy days of spring where the weather is gorgeous and there is a certain sense of peacefulness.  New flowers are coming out. increasing daylight so people can be outside/play and thinking gardening thoughts.  And life is quiet.  Calm.

And then something happens like a comet shooting across the sky.  (Out of nowhere it arrives and then leaves almost as quickly.)  

An update to a law suit.  Video of the website is released (but doesn't actually promote any specific product which can be purchased from the website).  A delay and then jam is given out (but to whom and possible more importantly - who did not make the list?).  Trophies almost fall (oops).  Information slips out like when the official date of beginning USA residency.  (now, isn't that interesting?)

With them, it's always something in play or simmering just below the surface.  The diversity of the endeavors is really quite impressive.  This award, polo, speech, speech, being a doer of good works, photo with this person, a cooking show is about to start filming (allegedly - but not in her home - unlike Julia who is in Smithsonian), potential to sell dog leashes to jam to cookware.  The only unifying link would be her and therefore being associated with her.  I thought I read that the polls which are more general public than her fans do not indicate a lot of interest in her.  That translates to questions of how supportive will this population then want to buy product?  

The lack of unity could be a problem for them in some ways though.  Some groups like cookware might also do cookbooks but that is less expensive.  So more of them need to be sold to be as profitable.  More could be sold because it was cheaper but also if you didn't like it, you could give it away at the office party white elephant gift exchange.  Most people don't buy/keep an expensive cookbook for the one recipe they like.

Cooking people might not necessarily buy the premade jam except maybe as a one off to test it as worthwhile enough to keep it around and find a (not necessarily hers from the cookbook) recipe.

This brings up the potential problem of one off sales to see if I like it enough to buy it again.  So initial sales are not always indicative of future repeat buyers.

Do the stats support that cooks also have dogs and even open to a cross sell?  Or this and that interests (I don't remember all the different potential options but it had a kitchen sink feel to the list)?  To be successful, that means a lot of purchases, well, everything.  Everything all the time.  And, again and again.  And, new product has to always be in the pipeline to encourage people to buy the new and improved to replace the old and now inferior.

Plus you have to have all this "stuff" made up from somewhere (takes time - is this ethically sourced?) and then ready to ship means sitting somewhere.  Waiting means more time and where is that space? So now this means a warehouse, people to maintain it and the package it for: Shipping - which takes more time (even Amazon doesn't get everything to you the same or next day).  Hold that thought - or ... selling it in some stores.  But even if it is in a store somewhere, you still need a central location to get it to the store.  Plus, selling it in a store means they take their cut so less profitable to the product owner.

Inventory can be expensive to maintain if it isn't moving for some reason or another no matter where it is.  Drop shipping could be risky if the real manufacturer isn't producing the quality you thought you were getting (and there is this big delay in receiving it).  

Not everything will be a big seller so how much of a discount will be needed and when to make that decision in order to move that product?  To offer a discount means to set aside the ego and say: I'm here to make a profit even if it means not as much as I wanted to.  I have purchased some Martha stuff on a discount.

This will be an interesting show to watch unfold.

Comments

Sandie said…
If anyone is confused about royalty in Africa and wonders about the significance of the wife being made a princess, supposedly ...

Morocco, Lesotho and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) are the only countries that have a monarch, i.e. a king as the ruler of the country.

All other countries, including South Africa, have a variety of kings and princes and princesses, and chiefs (like a king), but the only way they get into government is through the democratic political way (stand for election). In South Africa, some are more privileged than others, so the Zulu king presides over a lot of land and takes rents from the people living on the land, like a feudal lord, but nothing is done to actually develop the land. I am not sure what the arrangement is in Nigeria.
SwampWoman said…
alianor d'aquitaine said...
The idiots especially in Daily Mail are playing some kind of "power play" with the Royal Family trying to create their own little war in a teacup between the real royals and the morons. The baroness's "stateswoman" like habitus and presidential vibes stories are just pitiful attempts to flog a dead horse to get more clicks and money for the papers.

There have been over 50 first ladies in the USA and not one of them has ever went to an official visit looking like a cheap whore showing side boobs and bare skin all the way up where their legs begin. Even a moron like the baroness must understand that. She is trying to sell something no-one wants to buy. Her time as a sex kitten is definitely over.


Well. Dorothy Parker's saying "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" would seem apt.
NeutralObserver said…
@alianor d'aquitaine at 6:24 pm, I had the same reaction, the Daily Mail is trying to stir things up and bait the RF, with their articles declaring TW to be 'presidential' looking in her Nigeria photos. Tom Bower, who doesn't like either TW or King Charles, is being particularly provocative. He says the titles should be stripped because TW is looking so impressive. Huh?

To date, there has never been an American first lady, or even a national female politician in the US who has managed to look like the slutty prom date the high school bad boy had to ask to the dance because no one else would go with him. That's what TW reminded me of. Hazard looked disgruntled and disheveled throughout the trip. He was not happy to be there with his 'beloved.' He looked much happier alone in London for the Invictus ceremony.

Nigerians are culturally very different from Britons and Americans, but they have eyes and brains. They likely formed their own opinions of the pair. I doubt they admired her, or envied #5 for his choice of spouse.
Might it be they're thinking of decamping to Nigeria as tax exiles, safely beyond the reach of the IRS?

We all doubt the `Nigeria' in her ancestral claims but that 43% has me puzzled. What is it 43% of? Her total genome? Hardly - given that all humans share a staggering proportion of their genome with the great apes:

`The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. '(my edit)

Source: https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level

OK, there are chimps in Nigeria but even so...

The best guess is that the 43% is a probability, in which case it may mean there's a 57% probability that her African ancestors didn't come from the area now called Nigeria but from, say, the Gold Coast (ie Ghana) the other main source of black slaves IIRC.

On the third hand, we usually use fractions when we're talking in terms of parents, grandparents and so on. One of my gt-gt-grandparents came from Ireland, for instance, so I could say I'm 1/16th or 6.25% Irish (except that back then Irish people were legally considered as British nationals but that's a different rabbit hole. As is their ethnicity -the family name came from Gaelic but gt.gt.gt grandma's maiden name was `English')

In theory, numbers of forebears double with each generation going back in time and if there had been no consanguinity/incest 43 doesn't fit that sequence. Of course, the rule applies only if we assume no consanguinity/incest (ahem...) Even six generations are not enough to provide 100 ancestors.

Did she `steal' the figure from someone else? Or simply/conveniently select Nigeria as a better bolthole than Ghana, assume the majority Doria's ancestor came from thereabouts so knocked off 7% to allow for any white influence?

I doubt very much if she could produce any evidence, still less explain it.
The photo of the couple standing to attention, apparently and for the first time ever for*, for the National Anthem, had me wondering.

Were they treating it as a foretaste for their becoming King and Queen themselves, or they trying to show that they can act as Royals (when it suits them) in hope of being invited to pick up where they left in the UK?
Sandie said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13415203/mystery-missing-cheque-prince-harry-meghan-charity-failing-pay-fees-submit-records.html

The cheque got lost in the mail. .. LOL!

It is difficult to make sense of all the coverage if them acquiring delinquent status, but it seems they kept awarding/pledging donations after they were sent the notice of delinquency. They seem to think rules do not apply to them. But the major coverage of this is bad for them because people who accept donations from them will wonder if it is all above board.

By the way, two psychics predicted near the beginning of the year that she will be in legal trouble, with one speculating that she may end up going to jail. I doubt this will happen, but it is interesting. I thought their legal affairs were managed by a law firm, so I fail to see how this could have happened. Did no one noticed that the alleged cheque had not been cashed and not query this? I am pretty sure the IRS does not sit on cheques for months and not cash them.

The comments in this thread tracks all the donations/pledges they made, even after they knew they had been declared delinquent:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1crjq71/archefail_checkgate_nbc_a_major_network_covers/
snarkyatherbest said…
some more thoughts on the tour. she could care less how they went over within Nigeria. she just cares about the images and small video bites of her “performance”

what is it with caroline hererra ? used to be a fan but madam wears her much too much which makes me think she has a contract with the fashion line. and wasn’t she suppose to use Adele’s stylist? if so that stylist must not like her. in appropriate outfits and long maxi dresses which don’t look good on the mrs.

archwell check is in the mail lame excuse is hilarious. it’s what you say to the repo man 😉 shows they either have no money left at archwell or that there is no staff left to perform basic tasks or whoever they outsource admin stuff probably didn’t get paid and stopped doing the work. the timing is delicious and deflects from the “royal” tour. did the palace release this through back channels? is it Gavin Newsom “h&m i told you to stop calling me and stop calling my wife we know secrets too”. either way. they made enemies and making this public just reflects this.
They sent a cheque?????

Is the Office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex so behind the times that it hasn't heard of bank transfers, or whatever they're called in the US? Or would it have been too quick and there's no money immediately available? Was the cheque post dated to ensure the slowest possible transfer in hope of their receiving mucha spondulix in Nigeria? In ready cash/ newly laundered banknotes of course?
Maneki Neko said…
@Wild Boar

Don't forget *'s Maltese heritage!

'According to research carried out by the Daily Mail, the tale of her link to Malta begins in mid-19th century Ireland with her great-great-great-grandmother Mary Bird, nee Smith.

Having moved from Ireland, Mary is thought to have worked in the kitchens of Windsor Castle as a teenager, around 160 years before Meghan married there.

Mary married Irish shoemaker Thomas Bird, a decorated British Army officer with the 2nd Cheshire foot regiment who served in Ireland and India. The couple moved to Malta with the Army. They had two children on the island, including Meghan's great-great-grandmother Mary in 1862.'

https://tinyurl.com/48dd8xbc

I hope your gt.gt.gt grandma is no relation...
Interesting idea: the baroness wanted to have all the perks of the royalty but NONE of the work. The three days in Nigeria was more work (like shaking hands and meeting not great and important people, truly people unlike The Hollywood royalty she considers herself being part of) than they are used to do nowadays. She did not receive those gorgeous jewels princess Diana used to get as gifts. Just some wood beads and cloths that were not of Parisian fashion houses. She will probably answer to next invitation to Africa that "yes, please send the money to my bank account and keep the gifts, thank you very much".

(The story in social media is they were paid one million dollars, I don't know if it is the truth)
Maneki Neko said…
'The cheque got lost in the mail'

This reminds me years ago when we used to have to display a tax disc on the windscreen of the car. Some people didn't bother with a tax disc, leaving a note instead saying 'the cheque is in the post', as if they'd just applied for one by post and were waiting for it. The excuse didn't fool anyone.
Sandie said…
Supposedly they were declared delinquent last year as well. The renewal was finally done but dated May 2023 I think. I don't know why they don't just get things done on time, nor why they produce lies as distractions when they are exposed.
----------

Supposedly a German production company went to Montecito to do some digging and have produced a documentary for German TV that will involve exposing some things the duo would prefer to keep secret.
@Maneki Neko

As far as I know, I'm not related to anyone named Bird, although some ancestors were shoemakers. Any connection with *might be through my supposed slave ancestor back in the 18thC.

I've read that most ordinary Brits are much more closely related to each other than we would ever imagine, thanks to ancestors mostly living in small communities and having to walk everywhere. Am trying to find details of the research into how the coming of the safety bicycle in late 19C widened the geographical area over which chaps could find brides - I'm sure I knew which book it was in...
Girl with a Hat said…
Interesting development in Nigeria - a Civil
Rights Group demand to know who funded the harkles visit, especially as this was not an 'official' Royal tour. Think meg might have picked the wrong country to try to con.

https://twitter.com/MDymore/status/1790405390108155986

this gives a link to a youtube video
Girl with a Hat said…
@WBBM,

the 43% corresponds to the percentage of her genome which is usually found in that area of Africa.

So, white people might have those same genes that are considered "Nigerian", but since more people from that area possess those genes, they are considered Nigerian.

About 2000 years ago, a group of people who lived in the area that is now Nigeria migrated to the 4 corners of Africa and replaced the people who were living there. Kind of like the wave of people who pushed out the Celts, etc in Europe. This is called the Bantu Migration.

So, most Africans would have a lot of these genes, not necessarily just people living in the Nigerian area. The exceptions would be Arabs who were conquered by people coming from elsewhere, and the Bushmen in South Africa.

(I read Guns, Germs and Steel, an excellent book which explains why Africans never invented the wheel, among other things. The reason is that there were no beasts of burden. )

Girl with a Hat said…
I think it has more to do with some paperwork to be produced, i.e. some financial filings which they haven't bothered to prepare and send away.

It's more than just sending a cheque by mail.
Sandie said…
@GWAH
Yes, it is not just a cheque that got lost in the post, but they seem to be ignoring that. This is the latest:
----------

But Sussex sources claimed today that the 'delinquency notice' was actually issued because Attorney General Rob Bonta's office did not process the $200 cheque.

This was a different explanation to the one offered by the same Sussex sources last night, who claimed that the paperwork was filed on time but the discrepancy was down to a cheque which accompanied the documents going missing in the post.

Sussex sources told MailOnline this morning that the Archewell Foundation's tax filings for 2022 were submitted in full in accordance with all regulations in the US, which was widely reported in the media last December - including by this website.

They said the California state filing, renewal and required payment were sent and delivered to the Attorney General's office via tracked mail, and received on time.

However, the delinquency notice was then issued on May 3 because the cheque had not been processed by the Attorney General's Office, according to the source.

The letter says an organisation listed as 'delinquent' is banned from 'soliciting or disbursing charitable funds' and its registration may be 'suspended or revoked'.

A physical cheque was part of the filing sent to the California Attorney General's Office and it is understood that a new one has been sent to resolve the issue.

The letter from California's Registry of Charities and Fundraisers warns: 'An organisation that is listed as delinquent is not in good standing and is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required, including soliciting or disbursing charitable funds.

'The organisation may also be subject to penalties and its registration may be suspended or revoked by the Registry.

'Once you submit the delinquent record(s), you will be notified of the amount of any late fees that are owed.'

The foundation is separate from the couple's Archewell media and business divisions

In the initial explanation on behalf of the Sussexes yesterday, which has since been superseded by today's clarification, an Archewell source said: 'For the foundation, everything was filed on time.

'Part of that filing was a physical cheque. That cheque appears to have never been received, which we were only made aware of when this delinquency notice was published.

'A new cheque has been mailed and we anticipate that this will be quickly resolved and reflected in records within seven business days.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13416089/prince-harry-meghan-markle-archewell-foundation-cheque-attorney-general-california.html



The Royal Rogue youtube piece "Meghan's Body Language With Men"

How many pictures of that kind have you ladies in your photo albums? Other than your husbands or boyfriends?
SwampWoman said…
It is very odd how, each time they line up a faux royal gig, everything goes spectacularly wrong for them.
Girl with a Hat said…
there's a pic over at CDAN's last blind item for today in the comments

apparently that dress with the scarf that she wore to the polo match was loose in the bust and a guy got a pic of her nip slip but the nip slip is not shown in the CDAN comments, just the guy taking the picture of it, and it the nip slip itself is blocked out

forgive my rambling - I'm extremely tired
Maneki Neko said…
It's good to know that some Nigerian ladies do not consider * Nigerian. They want evidence of the 43% and state that no Nigerian wife would disrespect her husband and in-laws the way * does. One of them said 'she's the duchess of... what's it called?', genuinely trying to remember. This shows how interesting * is in Nigeria. They said she should go to Nigerian to learn some manners OWTTE. HG Tudor has a video showing much of the same but this one by * Mole is shorter.

https://youtu.be/YVn_53vrxSU?feature=shared
@GWAH
Thanks for the explanation.

Re-wearing yellow dress - I wondered if she was telling us something? Sure enough, here a clip via SMM that suggests something's cooking:

https://twitter.com/IsabelleBdl/status/1790533757365072265

Slack abs or what?

OKay said…
@SwampWoman Because they have no clue how to do it! Harry is the only one in their entire world (including staff and other flunkies) who has any experience with royal tours at all, and he sure doesn't know how they happened...they just sort of did.
Sandie said…
I am so confused.

So they hastily sent payment, for $200, which was processed. This was for 2022? What about 2023? What about the fines and the missing reports?

Why is Gavin Newsome putting his head on the block to defend them?

And did you see the video of them exiting the airport to get into their waiting vehicle? Her striding ahead, phone in hand, and him trailing behind, carrying luggage ...with an airport worker holding the door open for her. (Video included in the post.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1csdpet/when_the_cameras_arent_on_them_harry_and_meghan/
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1csmv8x/governor_newsom_chose_to_publicly_undermine_the/

The above post has a collection of information. It all seems very messy.
----------

I found this reading on Willuam interesting (here is the summary):

"Overall, it seems like William hates the media. However, unlike Harry, I don't see him aiming to sue them. Not as much as Harry does at least. For now, he just seems perplexed by their obsession with writing negative stories and theories about royal women."

https://www.tumblr.com/is-mayo-an-instrument/750442295951851520/dynamic-reading-william-vs-the-media?source=share

How the two brothers act with the media, royal reporters and photographers especially shows the differences in character. But the younger brother is married to a super smart paralegal from Suits!
Girl with a Hat said…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-Tv2iVks8


Hairy was booed at the African film awards. How come we haven't heard about this in the news?

He wasn't invited and just showed up, allegedly
Girl with a Hat said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
@GWAH
The video is fake. The duo arrived in Lagos on the 12th and the awards ceremony was on the 11th.
Girl with a Hat said…
https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2024/05/15/prince-harry-megan-markle-gavin-newsom-archewell-foundation/

California Gov. Gavin Newsom defended Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after his state deemed their charity foundation delinquent for not filing the paperwork in time.

“I’m here at a behavioral health site, a mental health site. The Archewell Foundation, run by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, (does) extraordinary work, particularly (for) women and girls, but notably, around mental health,” Newsom said at a press conference on Wednesday in San Mateo County.

“And I just want folks to know, not only are they in compliance, it was a technical paperwork issue that was wildly overhyped, and with respect, I hope people that ran those headlines run this headline, that it was a very typical, technical issue around paperwork that persists for so many others as well,” Newsom continued.

A source close to the foundation said the initial check to the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers got lost in the mail and another check was submitted, according to NBC News. The notice of delinquency, issued by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, states the Archewell charity can’t raise money until it resolves the issue.
Sandie said…
This is really interesting ... a glimpse of how previous friends of hapless view him and his wife (the entire article explains who Hugh and Rose are):

https://archive.ph/2024.05.15-210555/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13422927/prince-harry-clarksons-farm-jeremy-clarkson-meghan-markle.html

----------
Hugh and Rose did their bit to make Meghan feel at home after she moved here, having her and Harry to supper at their house in West London. They also attended Harry and Meghan's wedding in 2018.

The first indication that all may not have been well between the Van Cutsems and the Sussexes came in 2020 after the dramatic announcement that Harry and Meghan intended to 'step back' as senior members of the Royal Family.
Hugh's wife, Rose, publicly mocked the dramatic announcement. 'I am standing back as a senior member of my tax return,' she joked on social media, 'because I'd rather drink coffee, see my friends, love my family and do yoga.'

Rose, 44, explained that these activities were infinitely preferable to keeping receipts and 'do[ing] maths which I swear is bad for my health'.

She later declined to discuss her comments, explaining: 'I'm so sorry, I can't say anything. I'm sure you understand. I'm going to be in so much trouble.'

Rose headed the membership committee of Soho Farmhouse, the exclusive Oxfordshire club, where Meghan held her hen party and where she and Harry periodically escaped during the early months of their marriage.

Harry confirmed his rift with the Van Cutsems in his 2023 memoirs, Spare, revealing that Hugh's mother, Emilie, and one of her four sons had contacted him to voice their fury after his explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Sandie said…
People on social media are chatting: the real reason for the trip to Nigeria, and all public appearances, is to solicit donations. They only have to donate 5%, which is why they make such a fuss about the donations they do make. The rest is used to pay staff and to cover 'expenses'.

I bet she was on the phone to Newsom pronto (and, like a puppy dog, he did what mummy ordered him to do), because the IRS story threatens their ability to solicit donations, and, as I have said previously, organizations may be wary of receiving donations from them (and giving them publicity) in case they are not in good standing with the IRS.

Supposedly they flew commercial from Nigeria, but used the VIP facilities at LAX. Does anyone have proof of this? There are many flights from Lagos to Los Angeles, but none of them direct.
Sandie said…
A sharp-eyed sinner asked about the initials “PS” seen on a vehicle awaiting Harry and Meghan at LAX.

It’s a luxury airport service available at LAX and Atlanta International Airport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1ct6mv8/travel_tidbit_the_grimlooking_grifters_likely/

They were wearing the same clothes that they were wearing when they left Lagos, so I think they did fly commercial. But the proof is there that they used the PS service as the car that picked them up was branded with the PS logo.

Have they run out of people to lend them a private plane? She must have been desperate for attention or whatever to endure the very long commercial flights to get to and from Nigeria.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1csy3lx/the_fact_that_this_comment_piece_comes_from_the/

Petronella Wyatt is a friend of Queen Camilla, but the wording suggests that her source for this story is a previous Palace employer.

Basically, the King and Queen would like bygones to be bygones but William is preventing a reconciliation. Wyatt really pushes the reconciliation angle hard, and also goes to great length to paint William as the bad guy (but then admits that the King makes up his own mind, and William would not presume to tell his father what to do). It is an interesting read, and I wonder if hapless contacted Petronella and persuaded her that he is the victim. Being cut off from William and Catherine, especially with Catherine having cancer, must hurt him at a very deep level, but his unfortunate marriage has him trapped in victim and entitlement mode.
Sandie said…
The Independent article is most interesting:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/roman-kemp-kate-middleton-prince-harry-b2545304.html

The encounter with hapless at a party for Catherine must have been pre-wife because hapless at the time seemed to have awareness of others and how not to offend them.

The article is about Roman Kemp who did a DJ gig for a party for Catherine, and then years later she contacted him and visited him to talk about children and mental health.
Sandie said…
We missed this outfit because they held back photos and info about this appearance:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13425285/meghan-markle-prince-harry-nigerian-charity-workers-save-children-royal-trip.html

She likes to do this to extend the time she gets coverage in the media.
The lady in Donu's world (youtube) have some very wise words about Harry and his wife.

I will always remember Her Majesty the Queen's words to the world about the Sussexes: They will always be much loved members of my family.

A very noble lady she was indeed.
I see that Wyatts source is mentioned as an ex-friend of the Queen. Small wonder, f that's how he/she behaves.

----
If I were to have one wish granted by magic, it'd be that the Harkles bugger off to somewhere we see nothing of them and hear nothing of them ever again. They have outstayed their welcome.
... taking their ghastly crew with them, of course.
A palette-cleanser!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd181x080llo

Unseen pictures of Royal Family to go on display

I think the photo of the Queen, her sister Margaret, cousin Alexandra & cousin Edward's wife Katharine, all with their young babies, is absolutely charming. Presumably taken in '64 or '65.
Maneki Neko said…
Royal author Tom Quinn spoke about the Sussexes' trip to the Mirror (DM)

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's regal-style trip to Nigeria is a 'a bold statement that they refuse to accept they are no longer working royals', an expert has claimed.

Speaking to The Mirror, author Tom Quinn remarked that the whistlestop 72-hour visit 'confirmed the worst fears' for the Duke of Sussex's family, and has left the King and Prince of Wales 'absolutely furious'.

'Everything you might expect from an official royal visit was there – the receptions, the visits to schools and charities, to wounded soldiers and the disabled,' he explained.

'Meghan and Harry's speeches and their whole attitude has been designed to give the impression that they are still fully paid-up royals and William and his father King Charles don't like it one bit.'

Tom said that Harry and Meghan appear to have 'gone rogue' - and alleged that the Firm has been worried they would 'try to pull a fast one'.

'For Charles and William, it's as if Meghan and Harry are saying, "We don't need your permission to be working royals – we will do it on our own terms whenever and wherever we like",' he added.


The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have confirmed that TO and TOW were 'visiting Nigeria in a private capacity but the impression they gave was that they were semi royals.

The DM has an opinion poll, 'Do you think Meghan and Harry's Nigeria trip was a success?' 83% said no. No surprise there. TOW was basking in the adulation they received. She obviously sees herself as a queen and is happy to be centre stage, especially as Catherine has not been seen in public for months.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13425831/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harrys-Nigeria-King-Charles-Prince-William.html
For once, Quinn may have got it right.

It was a success for the harkles, in their minds, but for the rest of us...
Sandie said…
Note that Thomas Quinn is a prolific writer of historical novels. The royals are not talking to him, nor is anyone close to the royals. Quinn is the flavour of the month 'royal expert' for tabloids to talk to, but he is expressing his own opinion, fuelled by his imagination.

Most of what Bower writes is a compilation of what is reported in the media, mostly the tabloids. In the book he wrote about the duo, the only information that he sourced himself was interviews that he conducted with the crew that accompanied TBW when she did the shot for a chain store that she was representing ... the one where she acted like a demented diva and stole the shoes. Even his interviews with her family did not reveal any new information, and, most crucially, he did not get information from her ex-husband nor her close friends in Canada.

The books these self-styled royal experts write are nonetheless useful as a compilation of the gossip and snippets of information the media, mostly the tabloids, have managed to find.
IMO They're closer than ever to treason. It that's not arrogating full royal status to themselves, I don't know what is. If only I could damn them both to the perdition invoked in Micah Clarke.

'Fill up your glasses!' cried the old man, suiting the action to the word. 'Here's a toast for you! Perdition to all faithless princes! How came it about, ye ask?'

Indeed. Who is really behind it?



BTW, I'd love it if someone took pre-cosmetic surgery pictures and fed them into a programme that could predict what she might really look like now.
Sandie said…
There seem to be many opinion polls on if the Nigerian faux royal tour was a success or failure. The answer, I suppose, would depend on what the duo, individually and as a couple, would regard as success.

Attention as 'special' people? Yes, it was a huge success. From Vogue swooning over her wardrobe, to tabloids hour-by-hour coverage, to the entourage of photographers and videographers following them around, to the huge posters printed in their honour, from the extravagant security and transport arrangements, to the special events organized in their honour ... it was all a narc's dream come true.

Promotion of IG and assessing Nigeria as a future host for the games? Complete failure in every way.

Merching, soliciting funding for their lifestyle slush fund Archewell, and lots of valuable gifts like diamonds? Complete failure in every way.

Sandie said…
By the way, on a number of posts on the SaintMeghanMarkle Reddit thread, posters remark that they noticed that Guest Speaker was pretty much absent during the faux royal tour but returned with a vengeance when the duo touched down in LA. Just saying!
----------

I don't think they are ready to give up on the royal grift tour idea just yet, so have been wondering which country they will target next. If they are going to use IG as an excuse ... Canada has been used already, but ready for round 2? Liverpool (but she won't accompany him to the UK, so I think that is low on their list)? Washington D.C.? They tend to be reactive in the moment, so the next victim could be a very unexpected country.

By the way, a tarot reader I follow is reading in the cards that the marriage is done. Is separation and divorce the next act? It would be epic!
Sandie said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hikari said…
I don’t believe for a moment that Charles and Camilla would welcome the Dastardly Dumbartons back with open arms but for nasty vindictive William.

Just no.

William is justifiably protective of his wife, who's been accused of the most vile attitudes by Duchess DumDum, and the children. The whole world saw the evil look the Corpse Bride shot to 3 year old Charlotte and Whatever was visible to the public was 100 times more toxic behind closed doors. I don’t think that the Dumbarton’s would flinch either at hurting George, the heir to the crown.

Putting aside the injuries to William and Catherine personally, there is also the matter of the garbage published about Camila in Spare. Charles has unequivocally said that Camilla is his nonnegotiable priority. He will not invite her abuser back into the phone to spread more lies and be an all-around ass hat to his Queen. For her part, Camilla is extremely protective of Charles and very savvy about the influences that should and should not be around him, particularly now that he is in fragile health. She’s not afraid of hairy and I think she would tell him to get on his bike and shove off. Hawwy is a son but he doesn’t outrank Camilla in either position or in Charles’ affections. I think that’s been made clear.

I think if it were possible to wrest Hawwy away from his toxic partner, The king would make accommodation for his housing and possibility programming in a residential facility, but never again to be part of any public duties of the royal family. Maybe there’s a bossy at Balmoral going spare H could stay in, but as long as he’s tied his canoe to *’s overseas he stays. Charles is going to be a relatively short term or on the throne; after him comes King William and H should quake in his boots for that day because I think all the truths will be revealed then— The shenanigans with the children and the interfering with the line of succession and all the rest of it. Unlike Charles, I think William will let H fry. Presuming that the errant knob head lives that long.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1ctj3fm/guest_speaker_is_back_im_guest_spare_but_have_yet/

An example of the comments from Guest Speaker. William is the baddie, Camilla and Catherine are dismissed, and the King is the 'good guy'. I really am getting TBW vibes from the comments.
It is quite humorous idea that the King would take the Sussexes back and give them work within the Royal Family duties. And Harry's wife would behave and never tell tall tales to chosen journalists and never tell the world which relative was racist Tuesday last week and which relative will be racist Tuesday next week. And she would use decent clothes and curtsey to those family members who are more senior than she. And never tell papers that king Charles was going to bake a special birthday cake for her because she is his favorite over anybody else.

That seems to be the future the "royal experts" are hoping to happen. Truly hilarious.
Well everything is possible and the baroness is (according to herself) Brave, Resilient, Courageous, Powerful and Beautiful!
According to https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cthmdb/shining_example_of_what_horrible_bosses_look/ ...

...Ashley was with them in Nigeria. Rather bears out what I implied in a previous post. She's as thick as thieves with her auntie & I guess she knows a very great deal about what's been going on since 2017.

Now I'm wondering what the true reason was for her not being invited to the wedding.
OKay said…
@Sandie I've read enough of Guest Speaker's comments to convince me. NOBODY else would go that hard, and continue to harp on things.
Sandie said…
Ashley Hansen was the Archewell VP Global Communications Officer who supposedly quit ... not her niece.

This thread has an article with all the information about Ashley and other staff that have left them:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/18pekrl/a_larger_copy_of_the_times_article_re_departure/

But I found this in a DM article from January this year that had this to say about Ashley:

"Ashley Hansen, Archewell's head of communication, will lead the marketing team moving forward."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13022509/Archewell-exodus-staff-Harry-Meghan-production-company-Netflix-documentary.html

I bit the bullet and checked their three websites, but none of them mention employees at all. So, it is not clear who works for Archewell Productions and who works for the Archewell Foundation. But I think Ashley is still with them, as head of global communications.
Sandie said…
https://youtu.be/zmaiL4ViksY?si=Wklx005_2ZRMFtJZ

The latest Palace Confidential. They talk about the duo about half way through. An interesting observation that they make is that the faux royal tour of Nigeria was completely stage managed by the duo. They had only one member of the media with them: from People magazine. They had only one photographer with them: the creepy Nigerian guy. Everywhere they went, they were not only surrounded by security but they only allowed access to staunch supporters like the SussexSquad. Everyone they met and interacted with had to have their permission to be in their presence.

This pathological need for complete control is a very narc characteristic. This tour was completely under their control and it shows clearly what they wanted and could not get from the royal family.

I am also now more inclined to believe that every time they get papped it is because they/she calls Backgrid.

Of course, it is not possible to control everything and everyone all the time. That will always be their downfall, along with everything else.
Sandie said…
the Palace announced Thursday via the BBC that “Previously unseen photographs of the Royal Family make up a new exhibition at the King’s Gallery in Buckingham Palace.” The photos “capture their more private and intimate moments”… including a beautiful one of Kate in a long, flowing dress from her 40th birthday. Not included? Any images of Harry or Meghan.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240516201107/https://www.newsnationnow.com/entertainment-news/king-charles-william-furious-harry-meghans-nigerian-tour-reports/

The full article points out what hypocrites the duo are.

What all these commentators completely miss is that hapless is a beloved son, brother, brother-in-law, cousin ... surely there is much pain in losing him and concern about where his reckless stupidity will lead him. If anyone has had the experience of an out-of-control drug addict in the family stealing and comitting fraud to get money for the next fix and creating chaos in every encounter, you may know what it is like to have to break contact ... waiting for them to hit rock bottom and surrender, and hoping that it happens before they end up in the mortuary, but knowing that there is nothing you can say or do to get through to them.
One `tell' that GS is * is that she constantly corrects anyone who called her anything but Meghan Duchess of Sussex. `Megsie' and so on drive her nuts.
Tom Quinn stirring it?

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/meghan-markle-knows-one-move-074612188.html
Sandie said…
The late Queen's wealth was said to be £370million in 2022, with Charles now estimated to be worth £240million more than his mother, rising from £600million to £610million in 2024.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13428951/King-Charles-personal-wealth-jumps-10m-610m-making-richer-mother-Queen-Elizabeth-worth-370m.html

Do you sense a mixture of fall to the floor tantrums and voracious scheming coming from Montecito? The King's wealth is mostly in the form of property, and it is not only customary but also practically necessary to pass on that wealth to the heir. Nonetheless, they will target the King as they did the late Queen in the expectation of a big payday when he dies.
Sandie said…
I agree with this opinion:

Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
He’s enjoying his last years as King.

Harry will be fun for William to take care of. Besides, they are a mere nuisance while the real show goes on.

https://x.com/BarkJack_/status/1791328434695934196
@Sandie

Well, they can whistle for that, them and their Great Expectations.
Sandie said…
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/meghan-markle-knows-one-move-29180070

Tom Quinn projects a lot into the royals, claiming he knows what they think and feel and want. He is guessing.

But I am intrigued about his mention of a memoir from TBW. She loves controlling the narrative and getting her story out there, so why has she not written a memoir? Even if she does, such a memoir would never earn her the kind of income she requires for her lifestyle. She still wants to own that private jet and yacht ...!

Speculation:

* She is too lazy to actually write a book.
* Although there will be many willing to ghostwrite it for her (may the gods help that person), she does not want to pay for such a service.
* Publishers know that the first print run of the book will sell and perhaps they have learnt from Spare that they must be more conservative in printing the first, and maybe only, edition.
* Publishers also must realize that they must triple check everything she says, with lawyers, so perhaps they are just not prepared to offer her the deal she wants (less of an advance, less royalties, a smaller print run, and a modest publicity campaign with her having to pay her own expenses as other authors must do).

I really do not believe that she is trying to protect anyone else but herself, or promote anyone but herself, so I am still somewhat baffled that she hasn't churned out at least two volumes of a memoir.
SwampWoman said…
Siblings are far more ruthless than parents at taking care of a problem. Parents remember the first steps, etc. Siblings remember the tantrums and the horrid things that the sibling did to them personally that the parents may not even be aware of. The sibling remembers.
@Sandie

I read one report (The Sun?) claiming that staff/courtiers/`insiders' have said HM is angrier than anyone has ever seen him before over the Harkles' activities in Nigeria. I can believe this.

Removing the titles wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to them - think of how she snapped back about nobody `owning' the word `Royal'. She's wrong there, it's a matter of law. It wouldn't stop them arguing that nobody owns the words `Duke' `Duchess' `of' or `Sussex' and they'll call themselves whatever they bloody well like. I can even imagine them calling themselves `king and queen of England'.

As ever, she believes in copyright law for herself but tramples over the rights of others, from the basic level of plagiarism to stealing sacrosanct names and titles protected by law.

Were I HM Queen Camilla, (!) I'd be suggesting to HM that the time really has come to apply the full force of the laws covering treason, sedition and pretenders to the throne. Then start proceedings to extradite them and their crew from the US on treason charges. (She may be a US citizen but she can still be held to be guilty of treason by way of what she has done in the UK, `Archie' for example.)

Way, way back, Harry Markle foresaw them and their accomplices in the dock at the Old Bailey. I too believe that this should be their destination. It probably wouldn't come to a full trial - she's probably be remanded for psychiatric reports, be deemed from the evidence to be unfit to plead, then be committed indefinitely to an exclusive, cosy, secure madhouse, well away from reporters, photographers and ghost writers.

En route, she'd probably demand her day in court on the witness stand but, never fear, she quickly reveal her insanity. Counsel for the prosecution would only have to ask her why she believed she should be Queen of England.
Sandie said…
A mini card teading from:

https://www.tumblr.com/is-mayo-an-instrument/750693231145172992/your-reading-about-hm-and-the-media-are-very?source=share

What was the purpose of the Nigerian tour?
2 of Hearts (relationship/bond/soulmates), 6 of Spades (moving forward/calm after storm/water), The Magician (skills/power/influence)

There are a few reasons for this trip.
I see Harry shaking hands with people. From Harry's perspective, he thinks that this trip is a good way to strengthen diplomatic bonds. Since I pulled the 2 of Hearts, it seems like the organizers are those who have met him before.
Other than that, this tour feels like a self-healing trip. Something happened, probably in their personal lives or endeavours, and this tour helped them regain confidence.
In some way, I also agree with people who say that this trip is to show their power and influence. They hoped that this trip could alter the way people viewed them. They've been feeling like failures for a while.
Overall, I don't believe they are trying to stir up drama within the royal family. Though, I do see a glimpse of Harry missing his royal life because the way he perceives this tour is very similar to ones that he had in the past.

This tour was all about demonstrating their independence and success to counter any claims of failure. Additionally, they are also doing this tour to satisfy their personal needs and insecurities about their current projects. For Meghan, she aims to portray herself as someone who is now thriving compared to before.
Sandie said…
An Anon posted this about creepy photographer guy:

-----------
Misan’s main talent is in self-promotion, greatly aided by his family’s influence and wealth. He has no higher education; his education ended with attendance at a UK “college” (ie, up to age 18…the equivalent of high school in the US). He suddenly became a “self-taught” photographer at age 40, and a few years later used the George Floyd/BLM protests and his social connections with fellow poc Edward Enninful/British Vogue editor to get the Vogue cover as photographer (2020). Misan has known Marcus A and Edward E for many years (well-documented on various instas), so Meghan very probably has known, or has been aware of, Misan for a while as well. At the very least, Misan was a guest at the Sussex wedding in 2018, so she had an idea who he was by 2018 – 2 years before the George Floyd protests. Misan himself dates their acquaintance to at least c2016: “’Meg reminded me that had I not introduced her to a mutual friend (Misha N?) then she wouldn’t have met Harry. I’m grateful for whatever small part I played,’ Harriman told Vogue in 2022’” (US mag, Mar 14, 2024). (And speaking of rumors to investigate, who exactly did set up Harry and Meghan then...Misan? Marcus? Eug? Misha N? Violet von W? Prince Andrew? Kris Jenner (jk)? WHO?!)

IMO both Meghan and Misan are superficial “fake it ‘til you make it” posers.

https://www.tumblr.com/brf-rumortrackinganon/750747093447196672/look-i-admire-the-work-misan-has-done-and-how-he?source=share
King Charles 'angrier than anyone has ever seen him' at Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's Nigeria trip
Joseph Wilkes & Jessica Gibb & Steven Smith
Fri 17 May 2024 at 9:19 am BST·2-min read

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's trip to Nigeria is said to have left King Charles "angrier than anyone has ever seen him", according to a royal expert. Harry and Meghan were in the African country over the weekend as part of their work promoting the Invictus Games.
But there has been criticism of the visit, with some seeing it as an unofficial royal tour. According to a royal author, it is not just Charles who is angry.
Speaking exclusively to The Mirror, royal author and commentator Tom Quinn said: "William is absolutely furious and determined to find a way to stop this happening in future. Charles is said to be angrier than anyone has ever seen him. What's really upset the applecart is the fact that the Nigerians treated Meghan and Harry as if they too thought this was an official tour - all the signs were there as the couple were greeted with dances, receptions, visits to schools and charities."…

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/king-charles-angrier-anyone-ever-070153157.html

This is the report I was referring to.
abbyh said…
The post has some stuff which might be create some problems.
May I edit slightly?
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cudhnn/breaking_blind_gossip_megs_isnt_quite_as/

Enty claims he heard that the cooking show is not good. She is not as bad as Brooklyn Beckham, but she is described as robotic and fake.

There seem to be quite a lot of cooking shows with celebrities, who are not foodies, but the secret ingredient seems to be likeability. She is not likeable!
----------

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cudjvz/stop_looking_at_archewell_and_start_looking_at/

This is so interesting ... it is the history of the income from the Diana Fund. It used to go to the Royal Foundation for the brothers to use as unrestricted funds. However, when the brothers split, hapless directed his share of the funds to Sussex Royal. When that was shut down, without actually achieving anything except spend loads of money on admin, hapless had the funds transferred to Sentebale. She must be furious that she has no control over that money, and the only benefit to her is getting attention and tabloids' attention at polo matches ... but she did insist on being part of the polo documentary (hapless uses polo matches to raise funds for Sentebale, and he also donated some of the profits from Spare to them).

I find this very interesting. She can't be happy with this.

Sentebale has a very thorough and professional website. I am going to have a look at the annual reports because my sense that the Reddit poster, although understandably suspicious, is not correct in guessing that the duo dip into funds for personal use.

https://sentebale.org/annual-reports-accounts/
Sandie said…
https://x.com/MoaningSparkle/status/1791550257764958715

Please look at this video. The woman is demented with that fake smile firmly fixed on her face and her complete focus on self. This is how a Reddit poster describes it (they are posing for a group photo and he is standing behind everyone; he asks her to move so she actually blocks him even further):

I think this sums her up as the preening, self centered narc she is. Look at the posturing and refusal to move, despite Harry tapping her. She's clearly whispering something to him, you can see the resentment flash across his face. Harry really is the spare again, this time in his own marriage. He's shunted right to the back, whilst everyone else is stood next to each other.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cuiiuz/the_paperwork_they_filed_six_months_late_on_may/

Excellent commentary about the debacle of the cheque that was never sent. They were gaslighting everyone in the statements they made and the true situation is that they are in a mess. They always ask for an extension, but in this case they then missed the extended deadline. This comment is very informative:

----------
Archewell’s formal statement was inaccurate. A spokesperson for the Archewell Foundation said:

“We have diligently investigated the situation and can confirm that the Archewell Foundation remains fully compliant and in good standing.

“Due payments were made promptly and in accordance with the IRS’s processes and procedures. Furthermore, all necessary paperwork had been filed by the foundation without error or wrongdoing.”

First off, it’s not Archewell Foundation it’s Archewell, Inc. They seek to deliberately deceive their donors and the public. That’s unethical and should be noted by the AG. Secondly, this was an action taken by the State of California, not the IRS. Nonprofits file informational returns only with the IRD. So their compliance with the IRS laws is irrelevant on this matter. I believe they worded their statement this way on purpose. Once again, to deceive. It’s possible they did submit their paperwork on time (Nov 15, 2023) to the IRS. But clearly they failed to comply with the State of California.

Every working person in the US knows that it’s the paying entity which bears the burden of ensuring forms and payments are RECEIVED by the government agency on time. It is not the responsibility, nor the fault of the government agency when forms and checks are not received. That’s why most people remit electronically and those who don’t, remit via registered mail to prove the check and forms were sent on time. Archewell, Inc NOT Foundation failed to follow up for six months and did nothing until the delinquency notice suspending their operations went into effect.

No donors should trust any of Harry or Meghan’s charities after this flagrant display of negligence.
Ian's Girl said…
I fail to see how anyone is going to stop them going on these faux royal tours. Certainly there could be communication between BP and the various leaders of Commonwealth countries, and possibly other countries in Europe and other regions the British might not want them playacting royal roles, but it would come across as rather petty to try and actually enforce it.

No country interested in retaining a good working relationship with UK is going to welcome them officially as Royals, but Royals aren't the only people who get welcomed with cultural displays and visits to charities, etc. I worked for a very large American aerospace company for many years, and when various countries are hoping to bring offset business and ancillary contracts into their own region, there is a lot of this sort of thing on offer.

This tour was under cover of Invictus, and I suspect the there was a rogue element at play with the official who arranged it and plenty of grift involved, but no one is going to be able to keep them from doing things like this, or stop private businesses or charities from trying to glom on to a whiff of royalty, however tawdry. Heck, most people are not aware of one tenth of the crap these two have pulled, so there is still glamor attached to them in many eyes.

This will fade as they Markle themselves, and while I do think the titles should be stripped, and polite reminders sent to leaders of countries as to the official status of the grifters, I don't think it's a good look to try to prevent them from what they will call soliciting for their various charities. Better to facilitate thorough investigations into the workings of said charities and likely fraud involved, huge expenditures on her clothes, etc.

Hikari said…
Wild Boar,

Which do you think would be more likely to succeed; To have the kings son tried and found guilty of treason, or stripping the titles and forcing Toerag Todger to renounce any claim on the line of succession for himself and his ersatz h heirs! According to history, it hasn’t been that uncommon for offspring of the sovereign to be executed for treason, but it seems to be a damn site harder to strip titles or a force a Prince of the blood out of the succession.

The thought of Todger banged up in the Tower is delicious, but the Tower is basically a theme park these days and executions aren’t the done thing. There used to be dire consequences for any Royal that went rogue the way Todger had done. He and the wife have brazenly styled themselves the sovereigns of a rival court—based in the U.S., furthermore which would be funny if it weren’t so infuriating. What complete wastes of space and oxygen these two are.

I think the time is come for the unprecedented move of stripping the titles and forcing Hazmat out of the LOS By whichever legal means can be harnessed to this cause. It’s highly irregular but this is a highly irregular situation. The only oxygen driving this diluted train is those titles and the existing perception of continued ties to the Crown. Shame on Nigeria for falling for this guff, But that government was willing to suck up to the Dumbartons in a bid to host the Invictus Games. First of all, King Charles needs to issue a strongly worded official letter to all Commonwealth nations reiterating the the Duke and Duchess of Sussex Do not represent the Crown In any capacity and haven’t since March 2020, and that since they are a full-time residents of the United States And have surrendered all ties and privileges to both the United Kingdom and to the monarchy, it is highly inappropriate to receive them as an official delegation for any reason.

Then the machinery of government must be put in motion to ensure that all of the title is bestowed upon Harry and his baggage by association by her late Majesty Elizabeth be returned forthwith to the Crown. Can Charles not issue new letters patent declaring that no Royal who resides full time outside of British realms without British or Commonwealth domicile and has carried out acts of disloyalty against the Crown may bear titles of nobility or remain in the LOS of the British throne. It should be put to Harold that the only way he will see a cent of his inheritance is if he divorces the baggage and returns to the UK and swears fealty to his father and to the Prince of Wales. But he will remain plain Henry Mountbatten Windsor and will be sent off somewhere out of sight and out of mind.

The late Queen ordered Charles and Diana to divorce after Diana’s betrayal with the Panorama interview. Harry has arguably done far worse damage to the Crown, and he a blood Prince. There have to be some penalties for this behavior. Charles has a reputation for being soft and sentimental where his second kid is concerned but I’d like to know how accurate that really is. I think the whole family has wash their hands of Harry, but it has to be made publicly official by decree of law. Otherwise these two will never stop.
abbyh said…
I hear what you are saying about the titles ... but what I have always heard was that then they would be forced to use Prince TO and Princess TO or a push for Princess *. No one wants that except possible the squadies.

But ... what if the first prong was taking him and the kids out of the LOS?

Then the titles become almost unimportant to the world at large. That would be a lopping off at the knees move IMO.

Fifi LaRue said…
The only country suffering from the Sukkits appearance is Nigeria. Nigeria will learn, in retrospect, that they got screwed royally and financially by hosting the Sukkits, and giving them attention.
Hikari said…
Being taken out of the LOS would burn Todger, but apart from William and his children, I don’t think the majority of people give much credence to the line of succession. As long as everyone remains in good health, the succession is really only important for the next two in line. Harry’s wife’s status is not come from being the wife of number five to the British throne but because she is titled a Royal Duchess. I think that title is everything to her, just like it’s far more relevant to her ambitions that her alleged children get to be styled as a prince and princess of the United Kingdom, not that they are #6 and #7 Respectively. One’s slot in the LOS Is very important to those inside the family… So important that Peter Phillips ex-wife Autumn Was compelled to convert from Catholicism to the church of England so that Peter wouldn’t lose his place in the LOS, which is currently I believe 18th. 18 isn’t getting anywhere near the crown, except in the case of some form of apocalyptic disaster, but retaining that slot was so important to Peter that his wife had to be of the “acceptable“ religion. For the average citizen, most don’t know or care that Anne’s children are Ranked in the top 20 for the crown… The first apparent thing about them is their lack of royal titles and pomp. Titles and pump is what gets lucrative contract deals inked so the devious pair wouldn’t want to lose those. For obvious reasons the style of prince needs to also be taken away.
Lady C has commented that removing their titles would enable Meghan to mount another smear campaign against the royal family by claiming it was done because she is half black. The racism card again. There are enough ignorant people in the world who’d believe it.
@Sandie

That video is chilling. The woman needs to be committed to an institution.
@WBBM
The King and William should be angry. But what good will it do? Meghan and Harry keep raising the stakes but no one does anything of consequence to thwart them.. A good start would be to erase the Sussexes from the royal website. For the life of me I can’t understand why it hasn’t be done.
@Hikari

As I see it,

1. Treason charges: Nobody would be executed - we don't do that any more. H would also be subject to psychiatric assessment and doubtlessly `sectioned'. There would be probably be attempts at `deprogramming' him.


2.Removing someone from the Succession to the throne would be against the law.

Professor Robert Hazell, from UCL's Constitution Unit, explained: "The line of succession is laid down in law, most recently the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which abolished the rule of male primogeniture and introduced gender equality.

"The Queen has no power to change the line of succession. Only Parliament can do that, as it did in the 2013 Act.

"So if Harry were to be removed from the line of succession, it would require legislation through an Act of Parliament."


Acts of Parliament would have to be passed to change these laws.

There are already enough safeguards in place to prevent H ever succeeding to the throne. The Accession Council, held at at St James's the day the King was proclaimed, which was televised, made that clear. Acceding to the Throne is conditional - H would never meet the conditions.

------

Removing the titles: I believe that removing the titles would only give them something else to scream about, without clipping their wings which is the important thing.
@Sandie

Ye Gods! That clip from Moaning Sparkle!

She looks more and more like Archie's mother - that is the ventriloquist's doll known as Archie Andrews from the 1950s:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-ventriloquists-dummy-archie-andrews-50787961.html
I think that whatever the King or Parliament do, sort of getting them under lock and key, they'd ignore it with impunity and keep in dancing around in other jurisdictions on the assumption that they are beyond the law.

I believe the only solution is to be seen to treat them humanely. Let them show the world from the dock just what they are - completely insane. Use incarceration to keep them incommunicado from the press or similar actors. Either that or open the floodgates about her past - but that too could backfire.
I should have added that I think that a treason case would not go to full trial because neither is fit to plead, on mental grounds.

One of the few joys I had in my escape from my marital narc was to see and hear him reveal himself and his warped thinking in open court before a High Court judge. It would have been funny had it not been so expensive.
@ahbyh said

But ... what if the first prong was taking him and the kids out of the LOS?

That should do it - but how? I have heard both my science and history tutors say so many times, `Absence of proof is not proof of absence'. There is certainly an absence of proof that they meet the requirements.

Are they biological children of their 2 parents married to each other (the ancient test of legitimacy) and,that they were born of *'s body (they are not unrelated or only partially related) cuckoos that have been smuggled in out of sight of any reliable witness?

DNA is the only way but it has to be obtained legitimately - taking it off drinking vessels or cutlery surreptitiously is inadmissible in a UK court.
New name for her on SMM: Nutjob
This is comedy gold!!! The baroness wanted to tell the Nigerians the story about her marriage when the people of South Africa were dancing on the streerts just like when Nelson Mandela was freed from his prison.

Oh, I do wish her PR people hadn't stopped her. Can you imagine the faces of her audience listening that drivel! This story is from Neil Sean and shows how little she understands black people.

Harry is always telling how Africa is his happy place. If he did go around saying that Asia is his happy place, most people would ask which part of Asia. The truth is "Africa" is for Harry just his personal Disneyland.
Maneki Neko said…
The Harkles need to be careful who they mix with.


They 'were welcomed to Nigeria last week by a fugitive who has been federally indicted in the United States for allegedly orchestrating a $20million money laundering and bank fraud scheme, DailyMail.com can reveal.

Air Peace CEO and Chairman, Dr. Allen Onyema, whose airline the royals took for their flight from the nation's capital Abuja into its largest city Lagos on May 12 was a key member of the welcoming committee that met the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they touched down on the tarmac as part of their three-day-tour of Nigeria.

Dressed in navy and wearing shades and a red kufi hat, Onyema was one of a small group of dignitaries, which included senior military and government officials, photographed alongside the Sussexes as they deboarded their Air Peace aircraft.

Founded by Onyema just over a decade ago, Air Peace flies internationally and is the largest airline in West Africa.

Now, DailyMail.com has exclusively learned that the 59-year-old businessman is a wanted man in the United States, facing multiple charges linked to millions of dollars' worth of alleged fraud set down in a federal indictment filed in November 2019.'

I don't think this would have happened to the BRF. There is no allegation of wrongdoing on their part but in their/her quest to make money, and in their naivety, they could be victims of unscrupulous crooks.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13418423/Harry-Meghan-welcomed-Nigeria-fugitive-fraudster-wanted-laundering.html
There's only one other way of dealing with the Harkles, or any other malignant narcissist, apart from incarcerating them and that is to do nothing but in a positive way. I know that sounds daft but it's a matter of establishing oneself in an impregnable position, live the best life one can, and not rise to the challenge they offer because sooner or later something will change to your advantage - even if you have along wait. never interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes.

Let the Harkles exhaust themselves on the world stage - they've already used up much of the US's good will and H is showing clear signs of irritation with Nutjob but he's got to pass the point of no return, when he can't stand the sight of her any longer and returning to refuge in the UK, out of public awareness, without the `children', is his only way of escaping her.

Much as I love the idea of holding them both to account, it's more to satisfy my urge to vengeance than a practical solution. Is it a case of asking what's the least thing necessary to put matters right?

Separation from H would sink her but it's hard to see how the supposed children could be cared for - as things are, H can't bring them here without her permission but something may change. Who knows?
Maneki Neko said…
Snippet from Eden Confidential about TO &TOW's 'most ardent fan, Omid Scobie. Accounts just filed for the author's publishing business, MeYou, report that it held just £359 in capital and reserves — down from £35,400 a year earlier. The title of his latest book is, of course, Endgame.'
Maneki Neko said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian's Girl said…
The only way to strip the titles without them screaming racism, is Letters Patent/Parliament directing that only direct heirs and one spare, and possibly working royals, have them. That means Louis loses his, as do the Yorks and the Edinburgh children.

And it wouldn't even stop them from screaming racism, nothing will, but it would give some cover for doing it.

I don't see that happening. If Charles and Andrew didn't hate each other so much, Andrew might be willing to take one for the team in exchange for Bea and Eug being brought in as working Royals, but Our Andy seems rather attached to his title and there is no affection there for him to draw from to help KCIII out of this mess. And the Yorkies themselves, especially Eug, may be under suspicion for aiding and abetting the Harkles. I know KCIII wanted to slim things down, but surely he has seen that they need more boots on the ground, even before all the health issues started in. I note that they've added Bea to help with Japan. Maybe it's a trial run, in addition to being a temporary fill in for Catherine. He's got 2 lovely, real life Princesses available, and he needs them.
Fifi LaRue said…
It just came to mind that Rach's blurry video was a direct rip-off of Nigella Lawson.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/18m0jm1

We've seen this behaviour before, with the tattooed wheelchair athlete.
Also https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cuzs4e/prince_harrys_totally_inappropriate_immature_and/#lightbox
Ian's Girl said…
What in the actual heck did I just watch?! 🤮

Are we sure those clips and photos haven't been manipulated?!

😳😳😳
Sandie said…
@WBBM
His behaviour is bizarre. I think it is an indication that he is feeling very relaxed and happy and so he is not regulating his behaviour (on the contrary, I think she is always consciously putting in an act that she believes is appropriate for the moment). He is very happy with the way the tour is going. They had not read the comments on social media about how she was dressed yet!

Men touching each other, hugging each other, and so on is usually seen in sports. It is the context in which he did that which made it so strange. The man was not looking at him at all, but focusing on the child, and seemed to be startled. And this is a man he does not know.
Fifi LaRue said…
Re: video of Hairy touching random men inappropriately. Yew!!!!!
@Ian's Girl

That is always possible but H has `form',

I can't find the first report of this online and I've ploughed through umpteen images. It was a tattooed wheelchair competitor who took off his shirt to show the artwork to H, who took the opportunity to tweak his nipple.

Anyway, ere are a couple of other pics that made me wonder:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/harry-kisses-team-usa-wheelchair-rugby-player-after-they-beat-britain/ar-AA1gzK5t

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/13/10/3419883B00000578-3587231-Prince_Harry_hugs_competitors_and_presents_medals_during_the_whe-a-72_1463133269306.jpg
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cva4aa/meghan_markle_is_preparing_for_a_summer_of_love/

She is preparing for a PR offensive 'summer of love' to soften her image so that she can build ARO into a billion dollar brand.

I roll my eyes.

Sounds really authentic doesn't it?

If she was a nice, decent, softer person, she would not need a PR offensive, would she?
Sandie said…
I have a suggestion for nutjob and her husband ... instead of spending all that money on PR (billboards, interviews, paid articles ...), rather spend the money on some hardcore therapy especially tailored to rehabiltate narcs. They would probably need a combination of CBT, DBT, REBT and accountability, so they would have to work hard and they would need intense sessions for a long time.

https://southernliveoakwellness.com/narcissistic-personality-disorder-treatment/

I think they bolted because of narcissistic collapse. She was out of her depth in the royal family and so felt very threatened.

"Narcissistic collapse occurs when a narcissist’s ability to uphold their grandiose, confident image is threatened. As a result, they often become enraged, resulting in impulsivity, intense lashing out, or harm to others. While this reaction isn’t typically intentional, it’s a way for the narcissist to re-establish a sense of control.'

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/narcissistic-collapse/#:~:text=Narcissistic%20collapse%20occurs%20when%20a,out%2C%20or%20harm%20to%20others.

There are actually so many treatments available to manage the personality disorder. They should both invest in finding out who they really are, training themselves to be less toxic and more mindful of others, and then do something useful with their lives.

As for the route she has chosen - a huge global PR campaign for ARO - it will be like Archetypes. She will get attention and impressive sales initially, and she will believe that is success, but because there is no substance or talent or expertise or honest hard work to sustain the brand, it will fizzle out or even collapse. She is not launching a unique idea or product. Being the daughter-in-law of the present king of the UK, who only has two sons, is the only thing unique or novel about her. Initially she did pretty well in monetizing that, but the capacity to do so has dwindled. For a while now she has spent more money on marketing the product (herself) than she has earned from the product.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cve3j6/found_the_ss_in_nigeria_texts/

Another member of the SS spilling secrets about the tour. It is well worth reading to see how she operates.

Do you think this person is authentic?

They did travel with an entourage of about 16 people. Six bodyguards. Photographer guy. Three Archewell staff. So that leaves 6 more. Wardrobe, chef, who else?
Sandie said…
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
Issues blowing up and backfiring at camp Harkle are these: without proper vetting, some people are “taking advantage” of the Harkles in dubious ways.
----------

JolieBlonde
@JolieBlonde
Grifters being “grifted”.
Poetic justice?
----------

Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
Yes. Expect this to backfire even more as they scuttle toward money at any cost.

https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1792034601038238093

The meltdown is about this story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13433635/Nigerian-king-Harry-hailed-one-new-laws-conman-twice-deported-America-criminal-record-murky-past.html
Sandie said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
A card reading that sums up the Nigerian trip (apologies if I have already posted this):

https://www.tumblr.com/is-mayo-an-instrument/750693231145172992/your-reading-about-hm-and-the-media-are-very?source=share

What was the purpose of the Nigerian tour?
2 of Hearts (relationship/bond/soulmates), 6 of Spades (moving forward/calm after storm/water), The Magician (skills/power/influence)

There are a few reasons for this trip.
I see Harry shaking hands with people. From Harry's perspective, he thinks that this trip is a good way to strengthen diplomatic bonds. Since I pulled the 2 of Hearts, it seems like the organizers are those who have met him before.
Other than that, this tour feels like a self-healing trip. Something happened, probably in their personal lives or endeavours, and this tour helped them regain confidence.
In some way, I also agree with people who say that this trip is to show their power and influence. They hoped that this trip could alter the way people viewed them. They've been feeling like failures for a while.

Overall, I don't believe they are trying to stir up drama within the royal family. Though, I do see a glimpse of Harry missing his royal life because the way he perceives this tour is very similar to ones that he had in the past.
This tour was all about demonstrating their independence and success to counter any claims of failure. Additionally, they are also doing this tour to satisfy their personal needs and insecurities about their current projects. For Meghan, she aims to portray herself as someone who is now thriving compared to before.
Sandie said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13429449/LIZ-JONES-King-Charles-William-Harry-Meghan.html

A very weird opinion piece in the DM that ends with:

"Enlisting Beatrice to inject some glamour and youth will not help. We're not interested! Charles and William, be the bigger men. Give Harry and Meghan the best anniversary gift they could imagine. Welcome the Firm's biggest assets back into the fold."
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/king-charles-queen-camilla-could-071728108.html

Clapback about the Westminster wedding? Does anyone have info on where this journalist stands, vis a vis the Harkles?
Maneki Neko said…
@Sandie

As regards narc therapy, * would have to recognise that there is a problem and that said problem comes from her and no one else. I can't see that happening. No matter what renown psychiatrist might tell her, she wouldn't accept she has a problem. Some introspection pointing to the problem is not likely either. I think the website you mention is for people trying to escape a narc.

On a lighter note, you seem to be missing 4 members of TO&TOW'se courage. May I suggest a makeup artist and a hairdresser, as * was so well presentable, also a speechwriter. That leaves 1. A PA?
Girl with a Hat said…
@Sandie, not sure if she is authentic but her claims aren't so far fetched as to be implausible.

and thank you for all you do here!
Girl with a Hat said…
@Sandie,

I didn't know there were treatments available for narcissists.

I suppose the hardest part is to get them to acknowledge that they need it.

Maneki Neko said…
Not that it will worry * unduly but 'According to a recent survey, Meghan Markle's popularity in the UK is on the decline - but she's likely to take the news with a 'pinch of salt', claims an expert.

However, according to Press Box PR spokesperson, Lynn Carratt, Meghan, 42, is likely to be unworried by the low ranking as she would rather focus on success in her native US.

She told the publication: 'I believe Meghan will take the survey data with a pinch of salt. I'm not sure how interested she is anymore in getting the British public back on her side.' ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13434911/Meghan-Markle-disliked-UK-pinch-salt-expert.html

Perhaps but it's good to see that the scales have fallen from people's eyes, whereas 6 years ago a lot of Brits thought she was the bee's knees. I've just realised that today is actually their anniversary. I wonder if she's cooking a romantic little dinner or if they're going out? I wish that wedding had never taken place.

@ Sandie

I hear what you're saying but there's just one snag - narcs don't believe/can't see there's anything wrong with them . As my narc spouse said, `If were to change, it could only be for the worse.'

I kid you not.
KnitWit said…
Snarky, I was also wondering about caroline hererra. Her designs look so elegant on other women. MM has the uncanny ability to make anything she wears look like trash. She outdid herself with this tour. She has never looked so slutty! What an insult to her modestly dressed hosts. Maybe she is trying to round up a few "yachting" customers from the wealthier locals.

Does Nigeria have an extradition policy with the US? If not, maybe she should stay there.
Well, well. H admits he couldn't get what the Queen meant when she said she supposed she'd `have to say `Yes'.

What a nitwit.

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/queens-cryptic-nine-word-reply-135943664.html
Maneki Neko said…
@Wild Boar

I'm sure Charles and Camilla, the King and Queen, not just any guests, wouldn't be so petty as to snub the wedding of the year? As for confirming their attendance, surely they wouldn't wait until the last minute. The wedding is three weeks away, I believe, and Charles has better manners than no confirming at this stage. I suppose the article means the press has no confirmation but I'm sure Hugh Grosvenor has received their RSVP. The problem with his sister's wedding 20 years ago was that Charles and Camilla were not married at the time and therefore Camilla was not allowed to sit in church next to Charles. I hope they can rise above it.

At least we'll be spared the spectacle of the Harkles' at the wedding, particularly * in unsuitable attire and rats' tails.

The modus operandi of the baroness:

She makes a grand announcement, papers publish hysterically stories, nothing happens. She makes a grand announcement, papers publish hysterically stories, nothing happens. And again and again and again. She does not work, just tells tall stories and journalists react like Pavlov's dogs salivating hysterically and she gets satisfaction seeing her pictures in papers.

The question is how long are the journalists going to publish these idiot tales and folk read about her "I am going to restart my life! A new beginning" dim-witted ideas.

And if nothing succeeds is she going to crave to come back to the UK and be a full member of the Royal Family again?
Sandie said…
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/2024/05/18/royal-round-up-18th-may/comment-page-1/#comments

An update from the Crowns of Britain... helping us laugh at the antics of the duo and others from the royal family.

Her description of the polo appearance:

"But honestly, all that aside, just what the fuck was Meghan wearing?

Either media rags were being sarcastic or they’ve paid for some phony-sounding PR because I saw one article where she was described as looking like ‘a Hollywood A-Lister at The Oscars’.

Now I know I’ve seen some right messes at The Oscars, but this is taking the piss a bit. I’ve never seen her look even remotely glamorous, despite being able to afford the best designers money could buy.

And as they took their seats in the ‘royal box’, this outfit was no exception; Meghan, sat beside her husband with her rack practically hanging out, looked as far from ‘Hollywood A-lister’ as possible. ..."
Mel said…
Mm goes to Nigeria, a conservative country, mostly half-naked.

Mm goes on 'date night' with H (and another couple - weird) in California. Wears knee length, black, long-sleeved dress, no revealing neckline.

Oppositional defiance disorder.
She's told to be modest, does the opposite to get attention.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cwcp0m/harry_and_meghan_papped_on_saturday_night_having/

Moving on to Paramount after squeezing Spotify and then Netflix dry?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0lIty_ex1Q

Apparently ... there were high dramatics here at the `Anniversary celebration' but I can't access the up-to-date posts on her Facebook.

What do you make of this? Am I just too late?
Sandie said…
The photo I saw of them having dinner with besties Paramount CEO and wife, and another guy ... she was wearing a white/cream shirt with a large collar.

Here is the photo:

https://x.com/LynnRya82145304/status/1792534080459837697

Nutjob seems to be the only one at the table who has noticed that someone is sneaking a photo and is looking almost directly at the camera.
Fifi LaRue said…
The Nigerians were polite to Rachel's face.
Hikari said…
@Wild Boar

The Queen “supposed she’d have to say “Yes”, did she?

One wonders how the question was put to HM… more in the form of “I don’t care what you say, Grannie, I’m going to marry this woman and I expect a full Royal wedding. Because what Hawwy wants, Hawwy gets.” It’s quite likely the Queen already knew she was ill, and didn’t have the stomach to fight with her difficult grandchild anymore. I’m surprised she had the fortitude for the Sandringham summit. Based on her expression at the Corpse Bride wedding. HM already knew a mistake was in progress but I suppose everyone involved was resigned to the fait accompli and hoped the couple would rise to expectations.

Haha.

6 years on, this dumpster fire is probably worse than even the most skeptical could have Imagined. Who could have dreamt that she’d fake not just a pregnancy but an entire kid and a parental relationship (twice)? That’s my opinion but what I remain steadfast in in the absence of reliable proof to the contrary. Or that Harry, so allegedly proud of his title Captain Genetics Royal Marines would turn his back on his Marines to go to a Disney film? Can we totally blame his wife for this? Movie premieres get held up all the time due to production delays and H had had the invite to the Deal memorial for more than six months and never replied. This is what happens when your private secretary quits you because he can’t stand you anymore.

I feel like we are trapped in an endlessly circular loop. For at least the last four years we’ve been hearing how Harry’s wife wants to rehabilitate her image. If it hasn’t happened by now it’s not going to, She’s incapable, Because that means she’d have to start listening to advice and that’s never going to happen. Harry is too far gone. ARO is dead on the vine because she’s already bored with it. The dopamine hit of those SM photos had already worn off but now she’s gotta produce something and she doesn’t have the infrastructure. She had nothing but a grandiose plagiarized idea and a lame website that she slapped up overnight.

I’m thoroughly sick of the pair of them. How much longer can they milk recycling nothing over and over?

BTW,,, Did the devoted parents wish “Archie” a happy fifth birthday? And did the loved up pair wish each other a happy anniversary? If so I’ve missed it on both counts.
Sandie said…
@WBBM
She always walks ahead of him when they are not doing an 'official grifting appearance', and the bodyguards are always with her and making sure the car door is opened and closed for her. So this would be normal behaviour.

I tried to watch the video and I actually like the YouTuber, but she gets so much wrong. Nutjob never claimed to be a vegan but simply claimed to try to eat vegetarian/vegan during the week. The rudeness to Windsor staff about eggs in a dish, for which the late Queen reprimanded her, was about a vegan dish she wanted on the menu for guests at the reception after the wedding (not the evening reception). She had invited woke pretentious California people like Oprah and she wanted to impress them.

Until I see the video (for which there is a long explanation why it can only be shown in Facebook, which we cannot view if we do not have an account), I do not believe that Nutjob ran out of the restaurant crying, leaving hapless alone (but then a quick contradiction because they were not dining alone).

However, a psychic who gets some stuff right and some stuff wrong and who is very biased predicted for this year that we would see an argument between the two in publuc (impossible to explain away). So, I am intrigued.

Maneki Neko said…
The duo were having dinner with Tracy Robbins and Paramount exec husband at Lucky's Steakhouse in Montecito to celebrate their sixth wedding anniversary. No doubt trying to broker a deal. Then wife works as a fashion designer. Perhaps she could design a few outfits for TOW.

I realised that we're always appalled at *'s lack of dress sense and appropriate outfits. This is because Catherine has set the bar very high and is always immaculate with appropriate clothing that always fits. The rest of the royal ladies are always well groomed and appropriately dressed, even if on occasions the outfits are not to our taste. ILBW never disappoints with unsuitable, ill-fitting dresses, unsuitable stilettos (e.g., polo field), weird makeup and rats' tails that she can't be bothered to rake through. The contrast is stark.
Sandie said…
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1191259-prince-harry-gives-in-to-meghan-markle-as-her-anger-looms-large

Angela Levin followed hapless around pre wife as she wrote a biography of him ... and he did sit down and talk to her a few times. She was actually delighted at first when he got involved with nutjob, but, like many, then started to see some startling behaviour.

I think she is correct that hapless is frightened of going against her in any way. I think Angela is correct in that Nutjob does have power (to influence and control) in the relationship. I bet her tantrums and manipulation techniques are epic, especially with regard to the children.

This is another clip from when she made him stand behind her for the photograph, even though he asked her to move. She accepted a gift and then gave it to him to hold as if he is her aide. You can see the annoyance in his face.

https://x.com/MrMrsHenryWales/status/1792301981006008573
Maneki Neko said…
@Sandie

You can see the annoyance in his face.

You certainly can. H isn't even trying to hide it, and this isn't the first time he's been treated like an aide, or servant more like. He must be used to let * have her moment of fame but I wonder if one day the dam will burst. There must be unexploded resentment that could come to the surface but I'm not sure he's ready to lash out and man up and split up.
Sandie said…

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cwxm7f/were_meghan_and_harry_con_artists_mark/

The West decides who is a terrorist and who is 'fighting for freedom and democracy', who will be prosecuted and thrown in jail and who will be protected from prosecution (for the same behaviour), who is blacklisted for corruption and money laundering and who gets the green light, but in the Nigeria trip, the duo recklessly crossed the line, for the West.

The way they run their charity affairs is legal in America but highly questionable. They have numerous companies through which they can evade tax and legal accountability, solicit huge donations and use most of the money to pay their PR expenses ... and it is all perfectly legal, but morally suspect.

For now, they are doing their usual 'I am not responsible; I am a victim and good' and elites in America are supporting them, but will there come a time when elites distance themselves from the couple because they are too problematic?

They filled their bloated entourage with all sorts of staff to cater for their narcissistic needs but not one person with an understanding of law and diplomacy. Even senior royals, who do fill their staff with the right people, sometimes get it wrong, and if you are William and Catherine, tabloids and mainstream media work themselves up into a frenzy and pass judgment. At what point do the duo cross a line and get abandoned by the elite? It happened to Epstein, and many others.

And on a different topic, I am still intrigued about the gossip about the meltdown in the restaurant. I still have not found evidence that is true, but am wondering why more photos have not emerged. It seems that they are now trying to do the Spotify and Netflix grift with Paramount, but it is highly unusual for the duo to not call the paps to photograph them entering and leaving the restaurant.
Sandie said…
Prince Harry cannot broaden legal action against News Group Newspapers to include new allegations against Rupert Murdoch, the High Court has ruled.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled the individual allegations against Mr Murdoch should not be allowed to be taken to trial, stating they added "nothing material" to the case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggk2erkkvo

Do you think he will ever wake up and realize he is bring manipulated by his wife and lawyers? This is costing him money, and both lawyers and wife will abandon him if he loses his wealth.
@hikari

HM Queen Elizabeth is aid to have found mention of pregnancy somewhat indelicate. I've always thought that the way H told it suggested * was preggers/up the duff/in the family way/in the club/had a bun in the oven. I interpreted what HM said as indicating tat she didn't didn't approve of it but she was resigned to letting them marry as the alternative as better than H siring a bastard/having a child out of wedlock/an illegitimate child whose mother refused to shut up and go away.

it was reported that they offered a significant sum to go away (£37m) but who knows?

With ref to the egg incident - the reports I read was that the she wanted macrobiotic food but I don't know about the status of eggs in that system. As described by Wikipedia, the macrobiotic diet sounds very much like how we are recommended to eat anyway. I imagine there's more to it than that - perhaps it has to be `biodynamic' as well?

Had I been the chef, I'd have said `Let them eat brown rice'...
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cx4o0t/this_is_disgusting_poor_child_forced_to_behave/

This is creepy. At the end of the clip the child is even shaking her head. Nutjob is completely oblivious to the child's feelings. But I wonder who the arm belongs to ... I agree with the poster that it looks like a white woman and not a Nigerian.
Sandie said…
Richard Eden will be over the moon as he has been bleating on about using the cousins for ages! The headline in the DM is misleading and only mentions Beatrice.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13443177/Prince-William-joined-Princess-Beatrice-garden-party-2024-without-Kate-brave-rain-Buckingham-Palace.html

"Led by the Prince of Wales, making his first appearance at Buckingham Palace this summer, the glamorous party also included his cousins Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Zara Tindall - accompanied by her husband, Mike - and Peter Philips.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were also present."
Ian's Girl said…
Is anyone else concerned that Catherine is still not back to public duties, even limited ones?

I am. Someone please allay my fears!

@Sandie

One of *'s entourage?
If any Nutties need a laugh and can get hold of this little book:

Augustus Carp, Esq., By Himself: Being the Autobiography of a Really Good Man

I can recommend it.

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Carp,_Esq. says:

"Churchwarden, Sunday-school superintendent and President of the St Potamus Purity League, Augustus Carp Esquire is the unflinching opponent of Sin in all its manifestations. Glorious in his mediocrity, assiduous in exposing the faults of everyone he meets, resolute in the pursuit of goodness and his own advancement, the dimensions of his piety are matched only by his girth."

Remind you of anyone?
@Ian's Girl

Tom Bower commented a long time ago, before the nature of Katherine's illness was revealed, that it could well be later, rather than sooner, before we see her again, July or August IIRC. Chemo can be brutal, from what I've seen I've seen of it among my friends, and it can take more time than one might expect to get over it.

My friends all recovered, if that helps.

Stress may not be a direct cause of cancer but I can imagine that the emotional consequences of losing sleep and perhaps not being able to eat properly can bugger up one's physiology and ability to stay healthy. So I still hold the outrageous behaviour of the Harkles to be a major factor in Princess Catherine's condition.
Maneki Neko said…
@Ian's Girl

No, you're not the only one. I am rather concerned too. We were told she was having 'preventative' chemo but now the papers mention cancer. Charles, who is much older, is out and about. I know we can't really compare but this is not reassuring. I wonder if she will attend Duke of Westminster's wedding in nearly two weeks. This is a private occasion so I don't know if there will be any mention. William is said to be attending. Then there is Trooping the Colour on 15 June and finally the state visit of the Emperor and Empress of Japan at the end of June. Charles has asked Beatrice to help in Catherine's absence.

Originally, we were told Catherine would be back at work after Easter. This was nearly two months ago and it looks like she might not be back in the public eye until after June. She is reportedly being kept updated about her early years project. William has looked happy and smiling but is he hiding his concerns (up to a point)?

Opus said…
I don't know much about art and little do I care.... but that portrait of Kate. Had I not been informed otherwise I would not have been able to say of whom the likeness was intended to be. Sort of thing one might have submitted for ones Art O' level - sorry GCSE.
Hikari said…
@all

It would be reassuring if Catherine made an appearance at Trooping.the Color. That would be a less grueling engagement compared to others. She wouldn’t have to stand out there for the entire length of the event, she could come out and stand as long as she felt able for pictures. She knows she will be under intense scrutiny and probably does not wish to appear looking less than her best at an official engagement since those pictures will circle the globe instantaneously. If she does not appear, I think that will be an indication that she is too tired and ill yet to appear in public for any length of time.

When Charles was diagnosed with cancer, despite his age, I was not unduly concerned that he couldn’t beat this. He’s still undergoing treatment of course, but he has always been an incredibly resilient and active individual, and has a restless character that likes to be busy. I’m sure he has been chomping at the bit on late duties because he really seems like he’s in his element out doing meet and greets even if he’s not feeling 100% full strength he looks very well considering. Whatever procedures he’s had were much less invasive than Catherine’s. If she’s undergoing abdominal surgery, she’s looking at probably at least eight months for a full surgical recovery considering all the layers of muscle and fascia that were incised. We cannot rule out that she has to currently use a colostomy bag and just would not be up to anything requiring a lot of walking and standing. Even riding in a car might be extremely painful. And additionally she’s dealing with nausea and side effects of chemo and might have lost all her beautiful hair. She’s dealing with a lot of devastation right now, both physically and emotionally.

I guess the late Queen would disappear for months at a time when she was expecting her babies, and it was understood that she wouldn’t be seen until she was good and ready. In our Internet age, royals under the weather do not have the privilege of going into seclusion for months at a time. I hope Catherine is doing everything she needs for herself to feel better and is not being pressurized from any source to return before she is ready. I think Charles and William are both prioritizing her health over her visibility.

If Beatrice is being tapped to deputize for the Princess of Wales, that speaks volumes about the esteem in which she is held by her uncle. Bea may be the one to single-handedly rehabilitate the House of York. She
Ian's Girl said…
Maneki, Charles being out is what has me concerned about Catherine.

Now, he is King, and undoubtedly wants to project the image of strength and duty and health. Her re in The Firm, while important, is not as integral, although yhe right word either, but I hope you understand what I mean. She isn't the main playe, so her presence maybe isn't as meaningful as the King's, and maybe it's not seen as vital to have her out and about?

But, Charles'cancer was actually seen, whereas hers was microscopic. I wouldn't think her treatment would need to be near as strong as his

Of course, I suppose that would be hugely dependent on the type of cancer and maybe what organ/part is involved. And her age comes into play, as His Majesty's age works in his favor in this case, perhaps; his metabolism is slower.

I don't know, I just find it unnerving.

Ian's Girl said…
Catherine has been fit her entire life; bouncing back from any surgery should be easier for her than a healthy 70something, so that isn't a co.firt in my own mind, it's a bad sign.

But you're absolutely right when you remind me that she allegedly had an actual abdominal surgery, as opposed to some sort of procedure we're told the King had. Thank you for that point, it makes sense.

I do often wonder if she's adjusting to an ostomy bag. There's no reason it would be painful per se, although irritants can come up, but a beautiful woman, and moreover, one who is considered a fashion leader and is on of the most photographed people in the world, is going to find such a thing extremely upsetting on every level.

If it's temporary, she may just be waiting it out til the reversal. If it's permanent, she is probably going to have to rehaul her entire wardrobe, and rethink it going forward.

I can't imagine her needing the rounds of chemo that normally cause hair loss, but I don't really know that much about it. Most people I know who had very early, still only detectable on a precautionary biopsy, just have one round of radiation, but again, that likely depends on what type of cancer and areas involved. They will not muck about and take chances with her.

And I still think there is the possibility that she has put her foot down, and let it be known that she wants some time off. The Harkles have put her through the wringer and she's had a terrible scare with her health, which has to have come as a tremendous shock to someone who has done everything right health wise for her entire life.

God keep His protective hand on her.

Hikari said…
IG,

As I pondered in my previous post, Catherine’s long convalescent time May have as much to do with the extensive abdominal surgery she had in January as much as any cancer treatment. I don’t know how adjuvant chemo differs in terms of its agressiveness, Catherine has always prided herself on being sporty and healthy and this has to be a terrible blow to her self image. But just as she battled incapacitating HG with each of her pregnancies that necessitated hospitalization, she had some other physical factors that rendered her more constitutionally delicate then she appeared externally. We have speculated a lot here on her extreme slenderness; What some suspect is a long-standing eating disorder might in fact be something physiological like Crohn’s disease, which impacts how a person is able to absorb nutrients from food and the digestive system in general. Something like that may have required a bowel resection. If that’s the case or it’s anything having to do with the colon, it’s easy to understand why the princess would want to keep such procedures private and not go into great detail about her recuperation. This is obviously no simple matter that she’s going to bounce back from easily. It might in fact be life altering, if not life shortening. She may recover from the cancer but he faced with permanently having limitations on her physical energy due to whatever was surgically necessary. For an athlete like C. Who furthermore has a very high profile public facing role that requires her to project an image of beauty and vitality and stamina, she must be dealing with so much internal turmoil as well as the physical.

How this is going to impact her life and her ability to perform public duties going forward remains to be seen. I know the longer she stays away the harder it will be mentally to get back into the saddle… Imagine suffering from stage fright when your job for life involves endless public performances as a senior royal for the rest of her days. It hardly seems likely that William and the king would be going around on public duties looking so jovial if Catherine’s recovery or indeed even her continued existence was in doubt. What is it, 2 weeks until TOC? I hope she’s feeling up to showing her face to reassure the public or at least take a page out of Elizabeth’s book and make some more video appearances. It is concerning but she is in the battle of her life and whatever she needs to win, she should do, even if that’s laying low until autumn. In the scheme of things, the united kingdom and the crown will carry on if Kate sits out a state dinner or a bunch of garden parties, Nothing she could possibly participate in as a royal is more important than recovering completely for her children. All best wishes to her.
Her Late Majesty did indeed disappear from public view for months rather than be observed to be pregnant with Andrew & Edward, as I recall. ( I was too young to be aware of her 2 earlier pregnancies.

I cannot imagine the stress which being obliged to appear in public when under chemo would cause - the frailties of age are bad enough for the little people when it comes to body leakages and it doesn't bear thinking about think about it for our beloved Princess of Wales, with those circling vultures waiting to swoop on anything they can use to hurt her.

For one of my friends with breast cancer it was a close run thing as to whether she could survive the chemo as well as the cancer. As it was, she had to go on steroids and became unrecognisable from her face looking like the full moon. Think how * and her squadrons would enjoy that.
Hikari said…
Wild.Boar,

Exactly. The flying monkey squad would have a field day.

I think sooner is better than later for Catherine to make a public appearance, if only briefly. Trooping would be an opportune time. She wouldn’t need to move around overmuch, or speak. The pictures will be at a distance. She can take William’s arm if needed or maybe they can rig up something for her to lean on for support. She’s got the best glamour squad at her disposal. Her wardrobe people might have to devise a more forgiving dress than her signature closely fitted looks. A fabulous hat and a good wig if she needs it could disguise much. If she feels able to smile and wave for 15 minutes on the balcony I hope she will do it.

She may feel self-conscious about her appearance but she is a tough cookie. We have seen her in action. Her grace under pressure puts the born Royals to shame at times. She is being likened to the late Queen Mother, the woman who galvanized a King and a nation at war and scared the Fuhrer. Catherine has that inner steel too—all while managing to be an authentic and down to earth person— Two trades I don’t hear universally applied to QM. Catherine needs to get out there and defy the flying monkey squad. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t look or feel tip-top. Let imbeciles and the toxically jealous write smack—She is the Princess of Wales and she will be Queen one day.. They can put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Youth and beauty fade, And a woman who’s always been beautiful and always had her body under her command will find it harder than the more average among us to deal with the ravages of time. But there are inner qualities that only shine brighter with suffering and it’s those inner qualities that Catherine can draw on now.
Hikari said…
Wild.Boar,

Exactly. The flying monkey squad would have a field day.

I think sooner is better than later for Catherine to make a public appearance, if only briefly. Trooping would be an opportune time. She wouldn’t need to move around overmuch, or speak. The pictures will be at a distance. She can take William’s arm if needed or maybe they can rig up something for her to lean on for support. She’s got the best glamour squad at her disposal. Her wardrobe people might have to devise a more forgiving dress than her signature closely fitted looks. A fabulous hat and a good wig if she needs it could disguise much. If she feels able to smile and wave for 15 minutes on the balcony I hope she will do it.

She may feel self-conscious about her appearance but she is a tough cookie. We have seen her in action. Her grace under pressure puts the born Royals to shame at times. She is being likened to the late Queen Mother, the woman who galvanized a King and a nation at war and scared the Fuhrer. Catherine has that inner steel too—all while managing to be an authentic and down to earth person— Two trades I don’t hear universally applied to QM. Catherine needs to get out there and defy the flying monkey squad. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t look or feel tip-top. Let imbeciles and the toxically jealous write smack—She is the Princess of Wales and she will be Queen one day.. They can put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Youth and beauty fade, And a woman who’s always been beautiful and always had her body under her command will find it harder than the more average among us to deal with the ravages of time. But there are inner qualities that only shine brighter with suffering and it’s those inner qualities that Catherine can draw on now.
Hikari said…
Wild.Boar,

Exactly. The flying monkey squad would have a field day.

I think sooner is better than later for Catherine to make a public appearance, if only briefly. Trooping would be an opportune time. She wouldn’t need to move around overmuch, or speak. The pictures will be at a distance. She can take William’s arm if needed or maybe they can rig up something for her to lean on for support. She’s got the best glamour squad at her disposal. Her wardrobe people might have to devise a more forgiving dress than her signature closely fitted looks. A fabulous hat and a good wig if she needs it could disguise much. If she feels able to smile and wave for 15 minutes on the balcony I hope she will do it.

She may feel self-conscious about her appearance but she is a tough cookie. We have seen her in action. Her grace under pressure puts the born Royals to shame at times. She is being likened to the late Queen Mother, the woman who galvanized a King and a nation at war and scared the Fuhrer. Catherine has that inner steel too—all while managing to be an authentic and down to earth person— Two trades I don’t hear universally applied to QM. Catherine needs to get out there and defy the flying monkey squad. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t look or feel tip-top. Let imbeciles and the toxically jealous write smack—She is the Princess of Wales and she will be Queen one day.. They can put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Youth and beauty fade, And a woman who’s always been beautiful and always had her body under her command will find it harder than the more average among us to deal with the ravages of time. But there are inner qualities that only shine brighter with suffering and it’s those inner qualities that Catherine can draw on now.
Ian's Girl said…
Since y'all have been kind enough to try and talk me down, I'm going to take advantage of that kindness and expand upon my concerns.

If this is too far off top, Abbey, please feel free to delete!

I am also thoroughly confused by the use of the term adjuvant, especially given that I believe the word preventative was used, as well.

Adjuvant chemo is secondary to initial treatment, and seldom used in early stages. This does not track with what she said. In her own words, she said that cancer was not thought to be an issue initially, but ( my paraphrasing) that the routine biopsies that are always taken during any surgery showed that cancer was present. Which I took to mean extremely early stage. Stage 0. Maybe not even a stage at all, but abnormal cells detected.

Adjuvant chemo as I understand it is not particularly effective in Stage 1 or 2 colon cancer, and I'm assuming a lot, but it almost has to be colon cancer, because the other types of cancer where adjuvant therapy is useful wouldn't have been detected during an abdominal surgery. (Breast and lung)

All this to say that if the UK uses the same definition for adjuvant as we do in the States, she is much farther along stage wise than they're letting on. Perhaps at her request, and that's fine, but that's why I'm nervous


Amd maybe they're just doing it as a precautionary measure. because of her station in life, and that's fine by me, too, but people might fuss about preferential treatment?

I think back to how thin she was getting, and how we assumed it was Harkle stress, but it might also indicate more advanced disease.

Stress would certainly impact a Chrohn's or UC patient.

Thanks for bearing with me!

And Opus, yes, that cover is ghastly. I don't think any of her portraits have been good and I especially dislike the one in the floaty white gown, that's at a bit of an angle
The dress doesn't suit her at all and I think it looks ridiculous. At least you can tell who she is, though!












@Hikari

In the world of 60 years ago, I might have agreed totally. We shouldn't under estimate, however, the power of today's long-distance lenses.

Think of that pic of * shushing the children at a previous Trooping - presumably taken from outside the parade ground, or of the Royals coming down the stairs in the Palace on the day of ERII's funeral - or even the French ones of Catherine sunbathing. Add to that the incentive to capture an image of the Princess. It'd be worth a fortune to the photographer. (In the story I heard, via only 1 intermediary in 1990, from a freelancer who allowed his photo of Diana to be destroyed by her RPOs, he lost an estimated £30 000, at 1980's values.

So until the Princess of Wales is feeling physically and emotionally strong, not vomiting from the chemo, and her appearance is more like what we are used to, we should be patient and not expose herself to the venom of her sister-in-law from Hell.
Sandie said…
“Meghan was in tears when the brand launched and her new jam was widely mocked for being expensive and nothing special,” he told the UK’s Mirror.
“She has reached the point now where she thinks that anything and everything she does will be unfairly criticised. Like her husband, she feels that people are unfairly picking on her – she cannot understand why people don’t admire her work.”

Quinn added that the duchess wasn’t prepared for the criticism and is apprehensive ahead of ARO’s official launch later this year.

“She is especially sensitive about any criticism of her luxurious lifestyle in the US – from her point of view this is something to be admired not criticised,” Quinn added.

https://archive.md/2024.05.22-203830/https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markle-in-tears-over-unfair-backlash/news-story/516a6d8462f973799727c5452e335231

This is Quinn giving his opinion, but I think this rings true. She does think a luxurious lifestyle is to be admired, and has an over-inflated view of herself and her abilities. To expect the entire world to be abuzz with admiration and excitement over a few jars of ordinary and common jam is bizarre, but that is what she expects.

Most people would much prefer her and maybe even admire her if she accepted that she is ordinary and without talents to be admired, except for those who seek power and wealth and attention at all costs, and if she turned up and listened instead of making speeches, and used her position to raise money behind the scenes instead of getting attention to stroke her ego.

Charles is well known for inviting key people to elegant dinner parties with classical music and weekends in the country and charming them into donating money to causes such as his Prince's/King's Trust. I suspect that William and Catherine do the same ... invite key people for private tea or lunch or whatever. There is a reason why their Royal Foundation gets major funding every year to pay for major projects and Archewell is struggling to get any significant funding. The funding William got for the Earthshot Prize is an example of how this works. He had that huge amount of funding in place when he announced the project through what he did in private. Having a foundation with integrity and being a person with integrity attracted those huge donors in the first place.
We're having a snap General Election in 5 weeks and BP has announced the postponement of public engagements until after that date to avoid distraction:

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/royal-family-cancel-string-engagements-181728147.html

The D Day commemoration at Pompey will still go ahead though and I can't imagine Trooping the Colour would be postponed either - that doesn't involve a walkabout anyway. Apparently, this is normal before a Gen. Election (not that I noticed it before!) but I daresay it's a good opportunity to escape probing attention.
Sandie said…
There is every indication that the reason why the King has returned to public appearances and Catherine has not has nothing to go with the severity of the cancer, as posts here point out. For both, cancer was discovered during scheduled surgery. However, Catherine's surgery was far more invasive and thus required a longer healing time, but also delayed starting chemo. The doctors seemed to have wanted the King to take longer for healing and recovery but he pushed hard against his doctors, despite misgivings from his wife. I think Catherine is more likely to be influenced by her husband and children and family and thus accept the advice of doctors.

But I also hope to see her at Trooping the Colour. There is a very good reason for her to be there, beside the King:

"The Colours of the 2nd Battalion Irish Guards will be Trooped by No. 9 Company Irish Guards at the King's ceremonial birthday parade."

It's (Irish Guards) soldiers have the privilege of guarding the Royal Family.

Colonel-in-Chief: The King
Colonel of the Regiment: The Princess of Wales
----------

Plenty of updates and gathering of information at:

https://brf-rumortrackinganon.tumblr.com/

Well worth the read!

If a source close to a person or couple (friend or staff) talks to tabloid journalists, it is either with the consent of the principal, who wants to plant a story but not be the direct source, or it is someone who wants to be seen as important and get attention and thus 'sells' themselves as knowing more than they actually do and being closer to the royals than they actually are. Just keep that in mind, especially when reading all the details about the Rose Hanbury story. Who spoke to Richard and Dan (friends of William and Catherine do not speak to the media without their consent)? Can we believe the story hapless tells, as he tells it (and thus believe that the Rose story was planted by a female courtier working for the King)? Since the story of the affair was indeed drunk texted by Coren in Amsterdam and since the duo were in Amsterdam, is it unreasonable to assume that one of the duo planted the story by making a bitchy remark which then spread as increasingly salacious gossip?

Sandie said…
@Ian's Girl
Thanks for that info. The frustrating part is that she is not releasing statements so most of the reams that have been written are the opinions of various people or rumours from people supposedly close to her. I think we should stick to what she has actually said or officially authorized what could be said.

This is what Catherine actually said:

"In January, I underwent major abdominal surgery in London and at the time, it was thought that my condition was non-cancerous. The surgery was successful. However, tests after the operation found cancer had been present. My medical team therefore advised that I should undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy, and I am now in the early stages of that treatment.
... It has taken me time to recover from major surgery in order to start my treatment.

Key points:
Major abdominal surgery.
Preventative chemotherapy.
Early stages of treatment (round about mid-March) because recovery from major surgery required before starting treatment.

So she has been having preventative chemotherapy for just over two months now.

Near end of April, the King had had about three months of cancer treatment because he was able to start immediately. His cancer treatment continued into May but he was able to persuade doctors to let him take on public duties again.

The key difference between Charles and Catherine seems to be that she had to recover from major surgery before starting cancer treatment whereas Charles could start the cancer treatment immediately.

There is nothing ominous about Catherine not resuming public duties yet. Although I would dearly love to see her at Trooping the Colour, if she follows the same timeline as Charles, she won't be there and it will be closer to July before she resumes public duties. Even then, indications are that the doctors would have preferred Charles to stay away from public duties for longer.

Ian's Girl said…
Thank you all for your reassuring comments.

I've had kind of a delayed panic response to this, because she's had more than enough time to recover from even a complicated bowel resection, but I didn't completely understand what was meant by "a course" of chemo. In my mind I was thinking more of, say, a week's worth of IVs, when, in fact, a course can take several months.

Deep breath here. And thank you for bearing with me!
SwampWoman said…
Sandie said: Charles is well known for inviting key people to elegant dinner parties with classical music and weekends in the country and charming them into donating money to causes such as his Prince's/King's Trust. I suspect that William and Catherine do the same ... invite key people for private tea or lunch or whatever. There is a reason why their Royal Foundation gets major funding every year to pay for major projects and Archewell is struggling to get any significant funding. The funding William got for the Earthshot Prize is an example of how this works. He had that huge amount of funding in place when he announced the project through what he did in private. Having a foundation with integrity and being a person with integrity attracted those huge donors in the first place.

Yes, plus the funding will be used for what it was intended. It is not for the aggrandizement of grifters.
Sandie said…
Rebecca English was there and wrote a lovely piece about William being supported by his cousins at the garden party. It ends with this, which indicates to me that the family and courtiers are under no illusions about the characters they are dealing with:

"The unfortunate truth, however, is that none of them will be asked to support the working royals on a more permanent basis, however badly they are needed. And for that they must thank the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Those in the know tell me there is deep concern at Buckingham Palace that changing direction in this way would play into Harry and Meghan’s hands.
The Sussexes had been told very firmly by the late Queen Elizabeth that their preferred option of being ‘half-in, half-out’ royals while pursuing lucrative commercial careers was simply unacceptable.

This ruling was partly down to the Queen’s personal sense of service. But it also owed something to her quiet belief that Harry and Meghan’s allegiance to the almighty Dollar might supersede anything they promised to Queen and Country.

At the height of the ‘Megxit’ controversy, as it became clear Harry and Meghan would relocate to North America, I was told that Her Majesty was riled by the couple’s insistence they would continue to ‘collaborate’ with her in the future.

‘No-one collaborates with the Queen. This is not one of those ‘Kate Moss X Top Shop’ tie-ups!’ raged one well-placed source at the time.

Seeking commercial deals while acting on behalf of, or representing, the British head of state would also have been a clear conflict of interest, and Her Majesty knew that all too well.
Harry and Meghan could never accept it, of course, and here is the consequence: there can be no relaxation of the rules for any of the younger royals. It is full time or nothing.

The occasional garden party aside, more substantial roles for William’s cousins are out of the question – for now, at least."

https://archive.ph/2024.05.22-182334/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-13447947/REBECCA-ENGLISH-Royals-party-William-Harry-Meghan.html
SwampWoman said…
I'm probably a minority, but IMO being the mother of a young family that are undoubtedly anxious/frightened by the changes in their mother due to her surgery and chemotherapy trumps the public's 'right' to see her. She's not the heir. She will never be the head of the country. She is the wife of the heir and the mother of the next heir. She should not be 'forced' to appear in public while she is ill and suffering from nausea and diarrhea much like a case of the norovirus (ugh) or being incapacitated by influenza.

Speaking for myself, I could not even bring myself to CARE about the public, my work, or even my family AT ALL when I was that ill. Her chemotherapy cycles are broken so that she can recover and be able to eat, not so that she can show herself in public. She really shouldn't appear in public because her immune response will be compromised as well.

I want her to have the best opportunity to make a complete recovery, not have it recur and have to undergo treatment again in the future.
Well said, Swampie!

My sentiments entirely.
Ian's Girl said…
I want to make it clear that I don't in any way, shape, or form think Catherine should appear in public, health be damned.... just that I've been concerned that she hasn't!

And I still think she's further along in the disease than I personally thought, but that was me assuming from her verbiage that the cancer was microscopic, which may not have been the case.

But I don't want anyone thinking that I'm going on about this because I think she should get back to it. Not at all! Just worried, although less so now thanks to all your kind reassurances and common sense explanations.
Sandie said…
https://youtu.be/uG-8Q-T87dE?si=FbFR3rx8sU367fp1

New Palace Confidential. The conversation from about 19.30 is really interesting. I don't remember where it was reported, but hapless got a message to the media through an intermediary that he stayed in a hotel because the royal accommodation he was offered has entrances and exits that the public can use and that without his own personal royal protection he would not be safe.

The conversation in Palace Confidential indicates how absurd this story is. He was offered accommodation in St James Palace, which has mega security in place but is also right next door to Clarence House so it would be very easy for him to meet with his father in private.
Maneki Neko said…
This won't make *bhappy
Designer Julian McDonald is happy to advise Camilla but 'Asked if he'd like to dress the Duchess of Sussex, he replies: 'No, I prefer Kate and Camilla.' I wonder why...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cynalw/but_she_is_a_fashshawn_icon_richard_eden_designer
Hikari said…
WB,

I totally sympathize with Catherine’s plight. This kind of pressure in the public eye contributed to Diana cracking up and is the very reason William took a decade to be sure the woman he chose could handle what her future as his consort entailed. After a few early bobbles, Catherine has been brilliant and really impressed me with how she has grown into her role.

She has led a pretty charmed life by any standard until recently. Now come some storms, It’s much harder for a woman who has always been beautiful and at the top of her game to adjust to being lesser. She’s now a mature woman in her 40s, who’s had three children and now a major health crisis. Even after she is able to resume a public role, it may not look the same as it did and nor may she. It’s going to be hard, but I hope she can take strength and inspiration from Camilla and the Princess Royal, who have never been defined by personal glamor but who, as ladies in their 70s are arguably in the mist effective season, both personally and in their public service. People have been saying very cruel things for 40 years about Camilla in particular, and her detractors still do. When Diana christened her rival the Rottweiler, I think she meant in terms of Camilla’s tenacity in interfering in the Royal marriage more than her looks But the nickname stuck, along with jibes about entering her in the Windsor Horse Show and similar. Empirically speaking, she is not and never has been as conventionally beautiful as either Diana or Catherine. But she has kept her head up, kept smiling, found styles that suit her and have stuck with them, kept her sense of humor and by carrying on and being her authentic self basically told her critics to get stuffed. While still the Duchess of Cornwall, she showed her mettle, and by now I think anyone who is willing to let bygones br bygones about the past can see what Charles has always seen in her. He didn’t choose her because of her external beauty or perfect figure but for other intangible reasons that are more lasting. She manages some limitations on her stamina too and maybe she can give Catherine some advice.

The best advice is to ignore the press altogether. That’s what she’s got staff for, and she shouldn’t concern herself with it. Full stop. Get well, Catherine—we are rooting for you.
Hikari said…
@Isn’s Girl

In the wake of Catherine’s diagnosis, I read many anecdotal reports from commentators that it took them 8-12 months to feel recovered enough from abdominal surgery to resume their normal activities. If we consider that Catherine was not discharged from the hospital until nearly the end of January, she’s only been at home for four months. On average then, she’s only halfway through her full recovery. Frankly it’s horrific to imagine what kind of procedure she may have required, but if entailed having part of her intestines permanently removed, possibly a permanent ostomy bag, it’s easy to see that the initial forecast of her resuming duties after Easter, with Easter being so early this year furthermore, was overly optimistic. Perhaps they hoped that she would feel well enough to sit in church. Obviously she didn’t. It must’ve made her stress even worse to endure such a press hullabaloo over the sloppily altered photo and the bogus grainy video of a Catherine stand in. It’s hard to know what the palace was playing at with those items but hopefully they have been reminded that capitulating to blackmailers it’s always a bad idea.

In her video statement Catherine said that “cancer HAD been present“. From that I took it to mean that the surgery she had undergone was possibly to remove a mass that was thought to be benign, but after being biopsied was shown to be malignant. As I understand it adjuvant chemo is used not to shrink an existing tumor but to kill any errant cancer cells that may still be in the body, either in situ or having broken free from the surgery into the bloodstream. That is only my best guess as a layperson.

Abdominal surgery could also mean some thing reproductive… Uterine or ovarian. It doesn’t seem like a hysterectomy procedure would be as debilitating as having pieces of your bowel removed but having experienced neither I can’t really comment on that.
Chemo would be indicated if any cancerous mass was removed anywhere. In addition to the healing process and being wiped out from the chemo drugs, if Catherine’s procedure was gynecological, she could also be going through early menopause right now. It’s not my intention to be disrespectful by speculating on what she had done, just that any surgery in that area wouldn’t have a short recovery time, especially since her job is not entail crunching numbers on a computer. For her to resume her job at anything like previous levels, half a recovery is not going to be sufficient. She might not even be able to wear any tight clothes or high heels shoes much less walk around, stand in receptions and press the flesh with people.

Hikari said…

It strikes me that the most visible and ceremonial events of the royal calendar may be impressive, but in the scheme of things are far less important than the service work which they do behind the scenes. Wearing a stunning outfit on the balcony is great PR for herself and for the Firm… but those things are mostly cosmetic. The true lasting impact of her work for example with the early years initiative can still carry on with her working from home via video conferencing and private meetings and her own personal study and research. It’s true that her late Majesty, quoting her grandpa England I believe, said “I need to be seen in order to be believed.” She wasn’t wrong, but the parts of royal life that we see is really only the 10% of the iceberg sticking above the surface. Catherine is a valuable asset to the royal family and to the nation and if she hast to sit out a season in public few or even two seasons or three, all the better if it means that she will be a highly visible and beloved member of the family for many many years to come.

I know it’s natural for her to fear criticism over not looking her best, but as the year is March on, it is in evitable that we all have to deal with health declines and the gradual diminishment of our youthful looks. God willing, he will grant the princess another 50 years to serve her family and her people, and just as her sainted grand my mother in law had to do, she’ll have to make peace with her face and body changing over time. Elizabeth could not stay this brightly and beautiful 25 year old Monarch forever either, but the longer she lived the more and more she became her true unshakable self. I pray Catherine will have the same opportunity.
Girl with a Hat said…

King Charles 'in discussion to strip Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of royal titles'
The King was said to be in discussion with Prince William about the possibility of stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's titles.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1903097/king-charles-discussion-strip-prince-harry-meghan-markle-titles
Sandie said…
@Maneki Neko
I think the comments from Julian the designer are hilarious (not diplomatic at all) but understandable from a designer. For most of the outfits she wears, she makes the clothes look bad. Even when the designer has a team dressing her, she makes the clothes look bad.

In my opinion, she should accept that she has a square torso, a sticky out tummy, relatively broad shoulders, skinny calves, and is short, and dress accordingly. She is lucky in that she can wear bright primary colours and pastels. Too much black drains her of vitality. I suspect that she orders clothes online (in the past few years, it has been end of range bargains) and then takes them out of the packaging on the day she wears them and so there is no time to take up the hem or even iron out creases sometimes.
----------

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1czf2oj/meghan_and_harrys_pics_roughing_it_in_africa/

Do you think hapless has ever realized that she was putting on an act to get a ring on her finger? Does he even like the person he is now married to?
Sandie said…
Nutjob met with Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala at that lunch when she wore the red dress.

Some interesting things about this Nigerian woman, among many:

* She is an Earthshot Prize Council member.
* In 2020, she spoke at the World Economic Forum. So did Priyanka Chopra, who posted this about her (no word salad and nothing about me):
"Dr. Ngozi on behalf of Gavi has helped immunize more than 760 million children and saved 13 million lives since 2000. She is truly doing God’s work. Dr. Ngozi is Nigeria’s former Minister of Finance, an economist, international development expert and the Chair of @gavialliance. This is an incredible organization and the proof is in the numbers, With organizations like Gavi and their amazing partners like @unicef and @who, we can eradicate extreme poverty. Please support Gavi and the amazing work they do by signing the petition at @GlblCtzn. #Davos2020."

The more they do stunts like the Nigerian tour, the more they provide opportunities to compare them with others and reveal yet again how shallow and self-focused they are. But there is a rumour doing the rounds that they are so pleased with the Nigerian tour that they are considering doing a repeat in Ghana.(Lovely country, part of the Commonwealth, not participant in the Invictus Games.) Ghana is not wealthy so who would pay for this ego trip?

Sandie said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13456185/Sseazy-adverts-models-cannes-film-festival-yacht-girl-escorts.html

I still do not believe she was ever a yacht girl. No billionaire is going to pay to spend time with her. Besides, the traditional yacht girl simply offers her 'company' for a short time in exchange for money. Nutjob wanted access and influence from the men she pursued.

But I thought this expose in DM was rather interesting.
SwampWoman said…
Blogger Girl with a Hat said...

King Charles 'in discussion to strip Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of royal titles'
The King was said to be in discussion with Prince William about the possibility of stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's titles.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1903097/king-charles-discussion-strip-prince-harry-meghan-markle-titles


Yes, IMO she thinks she will be addressed everywhere as "Princess Meghan" instead of more correctly "Princess Henry". And she will think that the "princess" title outweighs a royal duchess and is a more important title.
SwampWoman said…
It strikes me that the most visible and ceremonial events of the royal calendar may be impressive, but in the scheme of things are far less important than the service work which they do behind the scenes.

I agree. Out of the public eye is where the important work takes place.
Sandie said…
Some excerpts from a Telegraph article:

"Armed with a new podcast deal and refreshed communications team, Markle is clearly continuing her relentless quest for relevance. But as the real royals in Windsor contend with double cancer crises, Markle has revealed herself as little more than the most infamous symbol of America’s high tolerance for low expectations."

"The problem for Markle is that she still believes in the power of her achievements long after she’s stopped achieving. ..."

https://web.archive.org/web/20240524140106/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2024/05/24/meghan-markle-prince-harry-sussex-royal-family-america/
Sandie said…
This gossip from Lady C, which she claims comes from someone close to the duo, should not be surprising to anyone here!

"Lady C’s bongo bongo drums tell her the H&M marriage has hit a rough spot but this does not mean they are divorcing anytime soon. Someone who knows H&M well told Lady C their relationship is sadomasochistic. Meghan mostly dominates Harry, but sometimes they flip roles. Meghan’s big role in the relationship is to blame Harry for failing to protect her and failing to keep her safe. And Harry’s main role in life is to blame himself for failing to protect Mummy so he must protect Meghan. Harry tortures himself that he can never be good enough as a husband. As a son. Harry is constantly being lassoed by Meghan. Unless he cuts the rope and frees himself, he will never escape Lady C does not have hope that Harry will realize he is abused by Meghan."

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1czov1m/lady_c_tea_youtube_52324_mininuggets_paraphrased/
Fifi LaRue said…
IMO the titles should not be stripped. They were given those ridiculous names purposely by Prince Phillip. Hairy was never, ever a favorite grandchild. He was the family's thorn-in-their-side, causing endless trouble, and he needed constant bailing out, and time outs. Prince Phillip did not respect Hairy, hence the laughable names of Sussex, Dumbarton, and Kilkeel. All three names lends themselves to endless idicule of the Hairy and Rach. Hairy and Rach are too stupid to realize their titles are insults.
Fifi LaRue said…
The only podcast deal the Harkles have is with Lemonada.


Someone is ratting out the Dumb Bartons, re: Lady C. Love it!
Sandie said…
Eye roll at another DM opinion piece breathlessly demanding that the duo come back to save the day because they are so popular and fabulous, but this poll from a few days' ago reveals the truth:

"There's new Royal family favourability poll on yougov (taken 1-2 May) and it's interesting because they included Sophie for the first time (finally!). Generally, no suprise there, H&M still at the bottom with Andrew. I would like to know why we keep hearing from journalists that H&M can help monarchy. How?? Here's overall net favourability: King +36, Queen +12, Prince William +55, Catherine +61, Sophie +41, Prince Harry -32, Meghan -43. Meghan has negative result in every group, young and old, male and female, conservative and labour, EVERY group has negative view of her. Harry has only one positive result, among people of age 18-24. But it's only +6, meanwhile William has +19 and Catherine +36. So, it's seems only journalists are interested in H&M comeback to Britain."

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1cw0x51/may_week_4_sub_chat/
Well, the words of the first lady of Nigeria:

"We don't accept nakedness in our culture, that is not beautiful.....Why did Meghan come here looking for Africa.....We know who we are and don't loose who you are"

(Youtuber Meghan's mole has the speech)
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1d0i28k/first_lady_of_nigeria_says_nakedness_is_not_in/

Someone put the deranged emu in her place! Since they insisted on taking control (well before they actually left the UK),they have not hired one person who understands foreign cultures and protocol. It shows! The way she dressed in Nigeria would not have been appropriate in any country. They were there for Invictus. He at least made some effort; she did not.
Sandie said…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13460069/american-government-documents-prince-harry-secret-fears-stigma-published.html

This is odd:

"American government lawyers are fighting to keep 'law enforcement' documents related to Prince Harry's visa application secret, claiming there would be 'stigma attached' if they were published."

Stigma is when someone sees you in a negative way because of a particular characteristic or attribute.

Is it the job of the American government to protect the reputation of the hapless prince?
Girl with a Hat said…
@Sandie, I had the same thought when I read that article about the US government hiding Hairless' documents.
Hikari said…
Re. Hapless’s documents

The current administration is pro-Harkles. Should there be a change in administrations with the next election, I wouldn’t be very surprised if concerns over stigmatizing poor Hawwy evaporate.

Hapless himself brought the stigma in himself and the British monarchy by extension when he published in his internationally syndicated memoir—bragged, it could be said—about all his adventures in narcotics and hallucinogenics prior to entering the US, when chances are near 100% That he defrauded the United States government by lying about pass drug usage on his immigration forms. And we know sure as heck fie just through observation alone that the rogue Prince has been high as a kite on every public occasion since

Most states now give a broad leeway to marijuana use… Capitulating to a losing battle with the citizenry, but Harry and his Mrs. favor stronger stuff and lots of it. But this puts the US in a sticky diplomatic situation with our cousins across the Pond. The antics of Harry were reluctantly tolerated here out of respect and affection for her late Majesty the Queen. No one held a 96-year-old lady in fragile health personally responsible for the renegade antics of an imbecile grand child. But now that Hawwy is the son of the monarch and more directly Charles’ responsibility, we implore CRIII to clean up his family mess before he has to face the “stigma” of having his errant kid deported permanently for criminal offenses.

Enough is enough now. Hawwy is officially an undesirable foreign element. He’s gotta go. As for Rachel, ffs can’t the FBI find some reason to incarcerate her in federal prison? She’s earned it.
Sandie said…
https://youtu.be/FMSykc90_rg?si=UNxhvaShgN9PuuH2

The Royal Grift goes over old ground by analysing that 'fab four' event they did. But, the body language comes through so very clearly. What TRG does not cover is how uncomfortable hapless looks. Overall, it is creepy the way Nutjob stares at Catherine. Menacing. Scary. Catherine clearly feels the evil eye and it makes her very uncomfortable.
----------

I laughed at this comment from @Hikari:

"can’t the FBI find some reason to incarcerate her in federal prison? She’s earned it."

Just my opinion ... she will stay out of prison not because she has done nothing wrong but because she is protected by a very corrupt, wealthy and evil elite.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1d11q2r/meghan_realized_she_needs_to_bring_charming/#lightbox

I think most of us have predicted that she would bring out the children to boost her image and brand. If that is what she wants, she will overcome any objections from hapless.

However, I think she will not ultimately do so, or I would be surprised if she did. The purpose of displaying her children would be to get her attention and make her look good and support an image of her being the perfect mom, wife, homemaker, style icon, and so on. Children that young are not easy to control (remember Louis?). From what we have seen of Archie, he is very active, and we have not seen any pics of either child bonding with their mother since they were babies. She won't risk not being able to control the optics.

So, I think they may take them with them on the next faux royal tour, but we will get glimpses of them getting on and off the plane, and so on. She may even call on creepy photographer guy to do a carefully managed photo shoot.
Sandie said…
Gossip about the children:

----------
Neither are red-haired. That's the problem. Meghan has photoshopped every splotch of red that has ever appeared on their heads because she WANTED gingers, but I've been told both kids are brown-haired, with Lili's hair being slightly lighter than Archie's.

----------
The kids aren't seen because they do not look the way she wants them to. Meghan has a very warped idea of beauty.

The pictures released of the children are shot so that we don't know what they look like, save for the pictures and video of Archie as a baby, and save for that first year pic of Lili with the very fine red hair and blue eyes.

Here's what I've heard about their actual appearances. As we've seen, Archie is the spitting image of Meghan as a young child. He is also reported to be Meghan's favorite, and that she has little to do with Lili. My theory on this, if it IS true, is that Meghan's original physical features are fine for a boy, but not for a girl. Meghan is said to have been hell-bent on a little girl with straight red/strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes. This is supported by the Todgers comments about Lili's appearance in the crockumentary and how Harry went on about her "blue, blue, blue" eyes.

That baby picture released when Lili turned one is what Meghan wanted the baby to look like. How photoshopped that picture was, I don't know, but the word is that Lili is NOT a straight- haired redhead with blue eyes. Maybe the baby did start out that way, but babies' features tend to darken with age, and Lili has been no exception. Her hair is said to have darkened to brown and that as it thickens, it's developing more and more texture, (which should be no surprise as even Harry has textured hair). Her eyes are supposedly a hazel color, but she IS only three. They could still darken further. She is said to be very thin, with a body type like Meghan's, and she is relatively tall for her age.

I hear that their temperaments are both sweet but hesitant. I heard that Archie is shy, very anxious, and compliant, eager to please and very malleable. Lili, on the otherhand, is stand-offish, demure, and observant. She has a sweet disposition, but is not the type of child to perform for others. She doesn't have the same eager-to-please flexibility that her brother has.

If the gossip above is true, then neither kid has Harry's red hair or looks like a Spencer, and neither kid has the characteristics or personality types that are sought after by agents looking for child models/actors. In other words, they aren't show kids, and that's why Meghan never releases any legit portraits or full faced pictures of them.

https://www.reddit.com/user/SecondhandCoke/comments/
Sandie said…

Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
H&M told one person they were “inspired” by KCIII portrait, hence a foray into portraits. Instructed their photographer to act. M reportedly said motioning to H “He’s next! [in line] And we aren’t in the gallery?”

🙄File this one away NPG.
Not sure if ‘photoshop’ is allowed.

https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1794709347462979829

Interesting discussion in above thread. (She knows he is not next in line but exaggerates or fabricates for effect.)

Note that there are about 16 images of hapless in the National Gallery archives, some with nutjob. The NG can have a portrait in its archives and never put it on display. Her claim that they are not in the gallery is false because they are ... in the archives. She cannot compel the NG to put images of her on display, which is what she wants.
Sandie said…
I have noticed a new video from one of the YouTubers claiming that the duo presented a doll at Windsor Castle because the baby did not move and that is unusual for a newborn.

Yes and no.

I have looked at William and Catherine presenting their newborns.

George: Born at 16:24 BST, 22 July. Presented to waiting crowds and media and left hospital 23 July. Arms and legs moving. Not tightly swaddled.

Charlotte: Born at 08:34 BST, 2 May 2015. Presented to waiting crowds and media and left hospital same day. No sign of movement. More tightly swaddled than George.

Louis: Born at 11:01 BST, 23 April 2018. Presented to waiting crowds and media and left hospital same day. Arms moving. Not as tightly swaddled as Charlotte.

Archie was tightly swaddled when he was presented ... almost to the point of being restrained from moving.
Sandie said…
The conversation about stripping the duo and their children of titles and removing hapless and children from line of succession is raging again, with strong opinions being aired. On some sites, it is like a raging lynch mob.

(One tarot reader who is pathological in her hatred of Charles seems to have deep psychological issues: https://www.tumblr.com/celticcrossanon)

Perhaps it is because I am from Africa that the titles do not bother me. As you may have seen from the Nigerian trip, Africa has many kings and princes and princesses, even within countries.

The titles do not/should not guarantee respect; that is earned by the person using the title. (If hapless used his royal status to get a special visa to enter America and stay there, this needs to be exposed.)

The HRH is significant in the UK, but complicated. Some are entitled to HRH but do not use it; some are entitled to it and do use it; and some are entitled to it but are told not to use it. The system looks messy to me and needs to be sorted out. The monarch can do this by issuing letters patent, but he risks deeply offending the York sisters and hapless and his wife. However, I think he should 'bite the bullet' because the children of hapless are technically HRH, and that is absurd.

The line of succession is, in my opinion, by far the most important issue. I have suggested that hapless and his children could/should be removed because they do not reside in the UK nor a Commonwealth realm and are not representing crown or country. It is not custom to do this in Europe. The Queen of Denmark stripped her grandchildren of styles and titles but she did not take them out of the line of succession. If you look at history in the UK, execution was a handy way to get rid of the unwanted in the line of succession, but they went to their death with titles and styles intact.

Hikari said…
@Sandie

I pondered the question of LOS vs. titles in an earlier comment. I can understand what the LOS would mean to anyone steeped in a monarchical system. For those in it, it’s desperately important because within the extended Royal house, with so many members carrying titles of equal weight, status is tied to one’s position in line. Anne’s children have no titles, and yet Peter compelled Autumn, a Canadian National, to renounce her Catholic faith rather than give up his place in the LOS, at the time #16. He and his sister and their kids continue to fall further as those ahead of then have kids. Really there is no scenario under heaven by which #16 Would actually gain any benefits from that position, but it was too important to Peter to give up.

From the American perspective—which is where the Harkles have chosen to reside and make their base for their grifting activities, Hapless’s current spot at #5 is meaningless. The are not generating these corporate deals, book deals, faux Royal tours owing to Hawwy being 5th. You may have heard the adage, “America likes a winner.” 5th place isn’t even honorable mention. The only spots in the LOS of any real relevance instead of the theoretical kind are those of William, the heir apparent and his heir, George, the next two Kings in line. George’s siblings garner interes too but after Louis, nobody else actually figures in the future of the Crown. There’s been plenty of times in history that the second born and his heirs became crucial, and that’s a fan to see that Hawwy and the Mrs can’t let go of. Practically speaking however, they cannot monetize being #5. Should something happen prematurely to William, Hawwy isnt the Spare any more.

Lacking any accomplishment or talent of their own, they are only selling point are those HRH prince/princess/duke/Duchess titles. It’s all they’ve got to peddle. If cutting off their income streams can only be done by revoking all royal titles and styles, it should be done. I say let him stay in the line of succession without titles just as Peter and Sara Phillips are. The titles are their continued link to the Royal fold they walked away from 4 years ago and are the only reasons Anyone still gives them the time of day.l

@Hikari

It's a matter of Law. I believe that it is not possible to remove anyone from the LoS without a special Act being passed by Parliament - HM cannot do it.

There have always been problematic princes, even of Wales, whose fathers thought would be useless as monarchs. Geo V had an accurate view of David but Albert & Victoria's had a v low opinion of their `Bertie'. It's possible that Albert would have leaned on Victoria to cut him out it been lawful to do so - in the event, he was a popular as Edward VII and acquired the soubriquet of `the Peacemaker' from establishing the Entente Cordiale with France.

PM Baldwin was heavily involved in the Abdication - David was presented with a choice - Wallis or the throne. he chose Wallis so legally he abdicated his responsibilities, even though he was `pushed' rather than `fell'.

To judge from what my MP wrote to me, the present Government is not of a mind to act; it's seen as an internal Royal family matter. H would have to be persuaded to relinquish his place in the LoS by making it more attractive to lose it rather than to hang on. Whether he is sufficiently desperate to escape his marriage to let it go, in order to get back here is anybody's guess.

Margaret chose the LOS over Townsend; the Kents became Roman Catholic and relinquished their places. George I was Lutheran and had to be received into the CofE to ascend the throne and so on.

Everything has to be done by law; when Mary I made Catholicism the state religion, it was done by Act of Parliament and when Elizabeth I reversed this, it was by Act of Parliament.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1d1rywz/%F0%9D%90%8C%F0%9D%90%9E%F0%9D%90%A0%F0%9D%90%9A%F0%9D%90%A5%F0%9D%90%A2%F0%9D%90%AC%F0%9D%90%AD_%F0%9D%90%A8%F0%9D%90%9F_%F0%9D%90%9E%F0%9D%90%AF%F0%9D%90%9E%F0%9D%90%AB%F0%9D%90%B2%F0%9D%90%A8%F0%9D%90%A7%F0%9D%90%9E_%F0%9D%90%9A%F0%9D%90%AC%F0%9D%90%AC%F0%9D%90%A8%F0%9D%90%9C%F0%9D%90%A2%F0%9D%90%9A%F0%9D%90%AD%F0%9D%90%9E%F0%9D%90%9D_%F0%9D%90%B0%F0%9D%90%A2%F0%9D%90%AD%F0%9D%90%A1_%F0%9D%90%8C%F0%9D%90%8C_%F0%9D%90%AF%F0%9D%90%A2%F0%9D%90%9A_%F0%9D%90%80%F0%9D%90%91%F0%9D%90%8E/

Interesting lists ... the asterisks indicate those who follow her ARO IG account.

If she did send out 50 jars of jam, only 11 people acknowledged it on social media. That is a fail.

Tracee Ellis Ross has been targeted in three of her campaigns, but is not following ARO. Interesting.

People like Jameela Jamil and Serena Williams have been major supporters, but neither acknowledged receiving jam nor follow ARO.

The post analyzes three campaigns. All three were launched with fanfare but then petered out. All participants of the 40x40 campaign were never revealed, and there was no follow up. Dozens of jars of jam for ARO disappeared without a trace. Archetypes was abandoned after one season.

She has also had trademark issues with Archetypes, ARO and Archewell itself. She does not seem to learn from her mistakes.
Sandie said…
Juicy Scoop (in this podcast, they both seem to be huge fans but are not above gossiping):

He “was told by a friend who spends a lot of time in Santa Barbara that, when Meghan and her friends go to the sushi place in Santa Barbara, Prince Harry makes them go get a steak from a nearby restaurant and then bring it to him because, as a child growing up in the Royal Family, you don’t learn to eat sushi.” In other words, he still goes to the sushi place with them but then gets a steak from elsewhere to eat at the sushi place because he never learned to eat sushi. Heather says that she’s surprised some sushi places don’t also serve steak or chicken but reasons that, even if they did, Harry is going to want a Ruth’s Chris steak. Guy says that Harry has moved to California, so he should have learned to eat sushi.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1d1x6or/juicy_scoop_podcast_recap_52314/
Hikari said…
WB,

I understand the complexities of making any changes to titles or the LOS. As I understand it, the only way currently for a person to be removed from the LOS is to die or willingly abdicate their place. It makes sense to legally disallow a capricious monarch the ability to summarily retract the tiltles and security bestowed by his/her predecessor. But the law isn’t a static thing but is created in response to a need. Law must serve justice or be reevaluated. The current situation in the House of Windsor requires a more robust response than normal due to its abnormality. The Harkles, aided and abetted by their minions have launched a full-scale attack on the monarchy. Is “Nothing can be done” going to be the official response forever? If so the British Crown and her subjects are all being held hostage to the whims and vendettas of a constitutionally irrelevant ex-Spare and his trollop, both of whom are mentally unstable and full of hate. Surely the instrument of law needs to serve the greatest possible good, not cater to the self-serving agenda of two rogue former members?

Given a renegade Prince who displays blatant acts of sedition against his father—not sure what else styling himself and his wife as heads of a rival court based in another country can be called— An offense which would have warranted execution a few centuries ago— Not to mention the potential treason of defrauding the Crown over the matter of his heirs— Does the monarch and the parliament collectively have absolutely no power to impose sanctions on this blatantly disloyal misbehavior? Harry and his wife have gone way beyond unacceptable— They have become flagrantly dangerous. The cosplay royal tour of Nigeria And the visible disrespect to both the people of Nigeria and the King has to be addressed because it’s just going to continue. I’ve heard that a similar visit to Ghana was planned before being canceled after the backlash.

Well it seems increasingly likely that nothing will be addressed about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex while this King lives. It seems that they have enough enablers from a corrupt elite which is anti-monarchy to allow them to fund their lifestyle and continue to blatantly disrespect the crown and do exactly that which the late Queen expressly forbade. It doesn’t look like anything is going to be done about it apart from cutting H off from personal meetings. He’s still a multimillionaire titled son of a king and the duos plan to make bank on that for the rest of their lives apparently—at the expense and discomfiture of the Crown..
Hikari said…
I was just making the observation that in terms of funding his lifestyle and his personal war against his brother and father, the line of succession is meaningless. The ongoing patina of royalty due to the titles and association with King Charles is the key to their toxic business plan. Quizzically, people still seem willing to give them money and deals and come to work for them. Not because they are great bosses, but because he is Prince Harry Duke of Sussex and his slatternly consort gets to use his titles too. I think we’ve reached what is known as an impasse which is what the couple is counting on… That there is a lot of bluster and talk about punishing them but ultimately nothing will happen to their titles, and the matter of their true parentage of two heirs to the succession isn’t going to be questioned either.

I am only a spectator to this with no dog in the fight but if I were British or from the Commonwealth, I would be livid. The kind of entitled behavior and preferential treatment to given to the likes of Harry and Andrew is a compelling reason Hawwy’s chosen place of exile decided to become a republic. I will continue to enjoy the dumpster fire that is the Sussexes while giving thanks that he’s not my kid, and this is not my circus. The “overseas Royals” won’t be stopping their flagrant antics anytime soon. King William is going to be more decisive I feel, however that can be done, whether within existing laws or working to update the law. Unlike Charles, it does not bother him to let it be known that he considers his brother a personal enemy as well as an enemy of the state which will not be tolerated.
Maneki Neko said…
I've just seen this which I think is a fig at *. I'm away and haven't been keeping abreast of news or this blog, I had a cursory glance and don't think this has been mentioned.

'We do not want nakedness in our culture': Nigeria's First Lady slams influence of some American stars on country's women in speech weeks after Meghan and Harry's visit'. She named * although apparently she was not criticising her. Hard to think she didn't have * in mind.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13463769/Nigeria-Meghan-Markle-Lady-Prince-Harry.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton
Sandie said…
@Maneki Neko
I have no doubt that the Nigerian president's wife was criticising the way nutjob dressed on the fake royal tour. The revealing clothes she wore would have been inappropriate for a real royal tour in any country. The story finally reached the tabloids, but they are twisting themselves into knots trying to make a case for it not being a criticsm of nutjob when it clearly was.

After day 1 nutjob probably saw the criticsm on social media so she turned up in her go-to white boyfriend shirt and cloth she was gifted, which she wore as a long skirt. So she covered up appropriately. She then reverted to the clothes she had planned to wear, the worst being the dress she wore for the polo outing.
Fifi LaRue said…
Megsy knew her photos would be splashed all over social media. That's why she was half naked during the Nigerian trip; she was advertising. Except she's getting long in the tooth, her boobs are flat, her facial skin is in horrible condition, and she looks like h*ll from Ozempic.
@Hikari

It looks as if our present Government has more than enough on its plate without having to do doing anything about the Harkles and I doubt if the next administration will be minded either. Were H to do anything in a positive way to suggest allegiance to another state, it could be different -actively supporting a nation which is `not a friend of Britain', for instance.

It'd be interesting were he caught pledging allegiance to the US flag, would he then be expected to apply for citizenship? It's unlikely to happen but the US would expect him to renounce his British nationality whereas we'd accord him dual nationality. Still, virtually all the individuals in the lower reaches of the LoS are German or Austrian.

I an only imagine that in their own twisted brains, that the Harkles still see themselves as Half In, not Fully Out and there's no shifting that.
Sandie said…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1d2872y/is_hugh_grosvenor_really_archies_godfather_or_is/

I don't know who first published the story that Hugh Grosvenor is Archie's godfather. But I don't believe it.

They did not publish a photo of godparents at the christening, and that is rather odd since they are so adamant about their children having titles and being in the line of succession. They did not even announce the name of the godparents. Same for Lilli.

But would the media not have seen Hugh Grosvenor arrive at Windsor for the christening?
Hikari said…
@Sandie,

That sushi anecdote is hilarious. It sounds wacky enough to have veracity because the entitlement to bring in food from another establishment and be served sounds exactly like the kind of entitled and rude behavior Harry is used to setting a pass on.

Despite the guy’s remark that everyone in California eats sushi, that’s not true. It is very popular owing to the high percentage of Japanese expatriates who settled in California. Most hibachi restaurants will serve meat as well as sushi, but some places will be exclusively seafood dishes. The Royals are raised to be wary about seafood and usually are not served it owing to concerns over its safety, principally shellfish. All varieties of fish including shellfish are used in sushi which is usually raw. I love it myself, having lived in Japan for six years, but it was certainly nothing I was introduced to growing up in the Midwest where battered shrimp and cocktail sauce was the height of sophistication in seafood dining. There are non-fishy options like California roll but Harry probably doesn’t like the other flavors like seaweed and wasabi … Or maybe he objects that ginger is served on the plate.

Harry’s dislike of sushi is probably the most benign thing about him. He probably doesn’t go for avocado toast either. He probably enjoyed steak frequently as part of the royal family, and this is his little rebellion. He’s probably all right with sake though.
Sandie said…
This is fun ... a list compiled from various contributions:

SIGNS & SYMPTOMS OF GRIFTITIS:

Chronic Compulsive Shopping Spree Disorder (CCSSD): Constantly buying expensive but unnecessary items to maintain the illusion of wealth and status.

Pathological Lying Syndrome (PLS): Inability to tell the truth, especially when it comes to personal achievements or contributions.

Selective Memory Syndrome (SMS): Conveniently forgetting past promises, commitments, or statements to avoid accountability.

Ego Inflation Disorder (EID): Exaggerating one's importance or influence in various situations, often leading to delusions of grandeur.

Parasitic Dependency Syndrome (PDS): Relying heavily on others for financial support or resources without making meaningful contributions.

Victimhood Complex (VC): Always portraying oneself as a victim of circumstances or other people's actions to garner sympathy and support.

Celebrity Obsession Disorder (COD): Constantly seeking attention and validation from celebrities or high-profile individuals to boost one's own image.

Delusions of Royalty (DOR): Believing oneself to be entitled to royal treatment or privileges, despite lacking any legitimate royal status.

Plagiarism Prowess (PP):Expertise in appropriating ideas, concepts, or creative works from others without proper attribution.

Grifter's Gambit Syndrome (GGS): Employing deceptive tactics and manipulative strategies to exploit or defraud others for personal gain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1d2gy9m/griftitis_aka_meghans_syndrome_signs_and_symptoms/
OKay said…
The sushi/steak story has been proven to be several years old. Guy doesn't have nearly as much inside scoop as he thinks he does.
SwampWoman said…
Wild Boar Battle-maid said: It looks as if our present Government has more than enough on its plate without having to do doing anything about the Harkles and I doubt if the next administration will be minded either. Were H to do anything in a positive way to suggest allegiance to another state, it could be different -actively supporting a nation which is `not a friend of Britain', for instance.

Yes, the prospect of WWIII is just a wee bit more important than the Sussex hemorrhoids. They're sort of like the actors/actresses that haven't had a hit movie in YEARS declaring that if (politician of the day) is elected, they are going to stomp off in a snit and move to Thailand or Canada or somewhere that things are run exactly how they say. Oh, wait, they're in California where an actor was just shot and killed while venturing outside when his catalytic convertor was being stolen by thieves. I guess that's exactly what they want.
SwampWoman said…
Hikari said: Harry’s dislike of sushi is probably the most benign thing about him. He probably doesn’t go for avocado toast either. He probably enjoyed steak frequently as part of the royal family, and this is his little rebellion. He’s probably all right with sake though.

Pfft. I don't do sushi either. My dislike of sushi probably stems from my microbiology classes. What could go wrong? Oh, the many, many things that could go wrong. Avocado toast is gross; avocado needs to be smushed up with lime juice, salt, jalapenos, and garlic.

Popular posts from this blog

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids

And the Next Act is...?

What's next on the docket? Thinking about the Kevin Costner event.  What do you think each person was told about how they should do during this  "event"?  That's an interesting rabbit hole.  Who said what to whom and when?  What is intriguing is to wonder: who would have thought to pre-think how to handle it if she did X, do this or if he did that, then this.  Or did anyone feel the need to come up with flowchart responses for anyone else? And, what kind of fallout options are there now that that is out there on video tape which are being whispered about and will dog them?  footnote 1 I don't know but do most events have to think up how to handle what could be a "difficult" situation that guest X or guest Y might decide to go free range?  Having always been on the responsibility level for tickets of low level special events, how common is it to have to have guidelines for handling free ranging participants or is it only people they think "could be&