Well, that is a plot twist - Prince Andrew is giving up titles - announced by the Palace.
Dude is willing enough to face the future without that after his name. Say what you will but he is being honorable about this (we may not ever know the details of what it took to get it). Is there something else to come out we don't know about (yet) or is it just it has taken this long to drag out negotiations between the various parties to ink a deal? Time will tell.
For him, I wonder how it will play out about Royal Lodge. A place he has been totally unwilling to leave. Or how it will play out for the future of his daughters. Sarah - let's not go there. It is a real twist already. We don't gloat here.
BUT what about how it could impact the duo? Well, well, well.
Takes the whole racist claim off the table (and into the nearest deep ocean never to be taken seriously again by most who might have bought it previously). Expect it likely to resurface though as it was quite useful. People keep useful until it isn't.
I think it will really apply (reality aka pressure) on them with the whole idea of: This can happen to you too. We call that an "Oh shit!" right before all hell breaks lose moment in my family.
There is this part of me which thinks this is when they really start throwing the we want to come back and be part of you. Intensity likely to really ramp up in ways we have not seen the likes of before. And more than just humble pie would be offered (and possible outrage with the usual claims that it was not accepted to followed as a second course).
So ... put on your seatbelt and prepare for the wild ride.
Comments
This blog may or may not be the blog you are looking for. If not, we wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Posters who are disruptive will not have their posts posted.
-Anonymous or unknown posts are not allowed.
-We know that some of this is not family friendly. It can be a fine line sometimes on the topics such as sex and sexuality. Try to lean towards family friendly (thanks).
-Profanity has not traditionally been a problem, so let's keep it that way.
-We never encourage vindictive or other harmful actions.
-Please try to keep the conspiracy theories down.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject. (please drop us a message that someone is treading on your last nerve so we can be aware that this is a problem).
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-Posts which may be deemed too many flat statements/too provocative or mean spirited may not posted on the blog.
-Remember that not every one who reads the posts is happy about what is posted here. Please do not give out personal information. Be safe.
-Your privacy matters.
-Remember that certain sites require prior approval for reuse such as Harry Markle. Please respect their request on how to handle it. Links to share is a great alternative.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families (and laundry) to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Moderation on.
Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Jeff Beck
High Ho Silver Lining
Aerothot
You’re everywhere and nowhere megsy
You’re not all that
Thinking everything is rosé
While flogging your tat
Buzzing across the country
winged feral rat
Carrying sussexcess baggage
Desperate old twat
And the high ho’s bronzer’s shining
Everywhere on show ho megsy
We know you can’t stop whining
With or without Wuss
You’re so odious…
About the York princesses - who curtseys to whom? Do they have to perform a `révérence' to Catherine when she's with William? I can imagine that they would be p*ssed off at having to do so to someone they consider beneath them. Where does Sophie stand in the pecking order? Does Andrew loss of the Dukedom affect his place in the pecking order? Is he now of lower status than younger brother Edward, Duke of Edinburgh? Has there been a change in the pecking order?
"The general rule of thumb to remember is that a Royal Highness does not curtsy to another Royal Highness," Myka Meier, an etiquette expert and the author of the book Modern Etiquette Made Easy, tells PEOPLE. "Therefore, while the newly titled Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh will still have to curtsy to His Majesty King Charles and Her Majesty The Queen Consort, they will not have to curtsy any of the blood princes or princesses or those who have married one."
According to Debrett's, Kate and Meghan outrank blood members of the royal family — but only when they're with their husbands, Prince William and Prince Harry. "Protocol dictates that when the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Sussex are not accompanied by their husbands, Princess of the Royal Blood, such as Princess Beatrice and Eugenie, rank above them. However, when the Duchesses are accompanied by their husbands, the roles are reversed and the duchesses outrank the princesses," they state.' (People)
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1oabkrp/why_andrew_had_to_make_that_statement_this_also/
There's also a significant snippet in response, originally from Secondhand Coke, reposted by @CalChemicalPlum, about what H should do...
Andrew is certainly obnoxious and a boor but he is not a paedophile, who is someone who 'experiences a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.' Virginia Giuffre has been exploited by Epstein but she is not a complete innocent. She recruited other girls and she was paid - well paid presumably - to be flown all over the place to meet men. We have no way of checking the allegations in her posthumous book. I think she has lied on several occasions (can't remember which ones). Now according to her book quoted in the DM and the Guardian, she 'lost a baby days after having an orgy with Prince Andrew and eight other girls'. (DM).
She claims she was 18 at the time, adding: 'Epstein, Andy, and approximately eight other young girls and I had sex together. The other girls all appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn't really speak English.' (The Guardian).
Is this meant to cast some doubts on the baby's paternity and imply that Andrew might have been the father? And what about the other eight girls, none of whom has come forward as witnesses to my knowledge. There is also the fact that there were numerous other men in the US and elsewhere but the articles make it sound as if Andrew is the only one who's mentioned. The book might mention other names but Andrew, the Queen's son, was a low hanging fruit, easy to find and providing rich pickings.
I am not an apologist for him, he is odious but it seems to me certain sections of the press are trying to do a hatchet job on him. I think he is now getting his comeuppance but I feel for the rest of the RF, this is so disgraceful.
It is very difficult for me to understand the idea of a subject as I have always been equal with any of my countrymen and women and I have not any "subordinate" feelings towards the president of my country. I have respect towards the presidency as the highest representation of our nation, but not towards the man or woman if they do not earn it.
What do you think?
I don't know about the careless ones or the US tho'>
We cut off the head of one monarch in 1649, well before the same fate befell the French king, This was after a charge of treason , that is `waging war on his people'' . Since then we have worked out our way of making a monarchy function without running into despotism. We, the People, elect Parliament to do the necessary business and even if we hate to PM of the day, we can get rid of him or her without resorting to the headsman's axe or Mme. Guillotine.
Of course, our system still has a thread of the `theology of kingship' running through it, as it has done for over a thousand years so at heart it's a bit different from the situation in secular states.
You have summarised my position perfectly. Thank you.
It grieves me to think that Andrew is being picked on when others get off scot free of any criticism. It seems there's another agendum at work.
God Save the King
Uneasy lies the head
that wears the Crown
Damned either way
up’s now down
We’re not privy
to the full machinations
Facing the King
in his removal of stations…
I should have added that it's still not a hundred years since the Government succeeded in `persuading' a highly unsuitable monarch to quit. Edward VIII formally abdicated the throne in December 1936, choosing to follow his obsession with Mrs Simpson rather than to give her up and retain his throne.
I dread to think what could have happened had he stayed, especially if she'd still been around as his mistress, with easy access to sensitive State papers.
Even in the mid-1930s there was enough evidence to show that she was strongly pro-N*zi and he was a careless pro-German blabbermouth.
Andrew Lownie's book `The Traitor King' makes it very clear that, once hostilities began in 1939, they were leaking secrets, both deliberately and inadvertently to the enemy.
Thank heaven she was twice divorced as it gave a perfectly `respectable' reason for removing the pair of them. HM Government could hardly say that they were quislings, traitors at the very heart of the nation.
Lownie finally nails it - the suspicion about them was well-founded and the fears justified. I originally read this book looking for parallels with H - which incidentally are abundant and chilling - but I'm now going through it again more carefully - the hard evidence that Lownie presents is indisputable IMO and we had a lucky escape.
If only the current circumstances didn't scream that history is close to repeating itself. I'm sure the Harkles are associated with people every bit as unsavoury as those known to the Yorks...
As for the King and his recent decisions - let us not forget that this gentleman is (to my knowledge) still dealing with (or recently still dealing with) his yet unknown type of cancer. While still trying to fill his job duties as they come at him - fast and furious. And ... dealing with the grief of the loss of his mother (plus the long shadow she has cast about how to do this job).
He's not walking some easy path in life (at a time when many his age are looking at retirement as a time to put their feet up and just have a cup of tea).
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1oceen7/paranoid_meghan_markle_convinced_royal_family_has/
Rabbie Burns nailed it in his poem `To a Louse':
‘O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’
Sadly, as HGT might say, *'s narcissism robs her of the ability to understand that others do not have the same glorious view of her as she does and that all her failures result from her own actions and attitudes.
So it has to be someone else's fault...
(I also wonder if the reason Her Late Majesty protected her second son was because he didn't tell her the truth, perhaps not as deliberate lies but as a result of having the selective memory of a narcissist, one with huge holes in it? I read one report a while back which said he, as a boy, used to treat his ponies badly but BP did nothing about it. On one occasion, the grooms grabbed him and threw him onto the dung heap. Whether or not it had any effect was not recorded).
`I could've been anything, if only I'd had the talent'.
https://youtube.com/shorts/RUuJoBAhfxo?si=VjhdI2803QvbLtcD
The princely titles can certainly be removed by a king - George V showed the way in 2017.
The ducal title is a problem. I can't see the necessary legislation being passed by the present government - they have so much stuff to deal with and I suspect many on the Government side of the green benches would be happy to see Royalty disappear. A private member's bill doesn't stand an earthly chance of doing the job, IMO at least not until there's change of government.
Edward VIII was in effect removed by PM Baldwin because of being pro-Hitler and in regular contact socially with any number of influential N*zi sympathisers, not least Wallis, and he was briefly, Head of State.
In terms of threat, H is more like George, Duke of Kent, fourth son of George V, who was, however, implicated in the arrival of Rudolf Hess in 1942 and subsequently died in an air crash... (his son Edward became D of Kent aged 6, he's just turned 90). I'd support permanent exile for H.
At least the Harkles have made themselves social pariahs but I can't help wondering if their funding comes from sources `which are not friends of Britain'. After all, it's those sorts of links which have precipitated the downfall of the Yorks. (I do wonder how Lownie has found reliable sources for his latest books. `The Traitor King' gives references to specific documents for a very large proportion of his statements, almost like a learned paper even if not full Harvard references! How has he done it in the York book?)
https://radaronline.com/p/meghan-markle-royal-family-first-child-disability-scan-claims/
A bit rich, to say the least! To me , it fits in with my view of someone who can't keep her lies straight.
As you say, this doesn't square with *'s refusal to deal with the Queen's medical team.
As you say, this doesn't square with *'s refusal to deal with the Queen's medical team.
She might be going into make up as a new direction. That would be similar to going into having your own fragrance line. There are companies which have product for you buy, package under your name and then sell as you.
If true, that would be a further bending toward following the Kardashian business model.
Harry, Prince of Wales!
This will mean William will be king quite sooner than anyone thought, hence the flurry of ‘William taking control’ stories in the news this last week or so.
He will be taking over, and then, Harry will lose his titles
Age has nothing to do with it. It is not an automatic title, it has to be bestowed by the monarch and it goes to the heir apparent. Harry is not the heir apparent.
The Duchy of Cornwall was established by charter ie law to provide for the Prince of Wales's family. The title goes to the eldest son of the monarch and is automatic upon the accession of a new monarch. Charles wasn't even 6 when the old king died - his mother ascended the throne- his 5th birthday was on 14th November 1951 and Elizabeth became Queen on 2nd February 1952, not even 2 months after that.
Harry can whistle for both titles.
This is actually a continuation, from a different angle, how much H could come back to help. Notice what isn't there - how much or little his wife could step in to help take some of the workload off Catherine.
Him helping but her not would be a new variation of half in/half out. He's in, she's not but happily getting ink as with what the project du jour is.
Douchesse du moue
The kween of tarts
splayed many parts
Soho house madam sin
The countess of clarts
has vulpine smarts
and teeth like Rin Tin Tin…
*Ballenasaga
Eyes don’t quite meet
Much like her big feet
Hair looks borrowed
on loan
Her cat stalk dress
Neige blanche bland mess
As never seen a brush or a comb…
*Ballena- Spanish for whale
Baronesa de Ballenas
'The Duchess of Sussex has parted company with her tenth publicist in just five years after a big name she poached from Netflix quit after just three months.
Emily Robinson joined Harry and Meghan's team as director of communications in June, but she has already jumped ship.' (DM)
The best PR company in the world cannot change what most people see.
Exactly
Charles cops a lot of flak
Not always warranted
What’s your basis for feeling Prince William feels superior to British people?
Not William so much but his family has always given me the feeling that being a royal is to be above the rest of the world. Maybe not Prince Philip because he had a very hard life for a born royal before his marriage to the Queen but the Windsor family. Andrew is a good example of that and the Princess Marina had deep contempt for those members of family who were not born royal (the Queen Mother) while she herself was a daughter of a grand duchess of Russia.
I understand that when Catherine alone meets Eugenie she must curtsy to the born princess and I found that ridiculous. That was what the late Queen wanted. Ergo to be a born princess is something More Important.
But as I have said all my life I have been equal with any of my countrymen so maybe I don't understand these things.
Did that help?
As a British citizen - the term "British subject" is a historical one, used before 1949, although they are considered subjects of the Crown - living in the UK, I don't consider the BRF to be above us mere mortals but that's my personal opinion. I don't feel inferior to them, they are just in a different 'category'.
I can understand that to people outside the UK the concept of a curtsy might be ridiculous but this is part of protocol and traditions. I don't find it strange and it doesn't bother me. This is something that *, who is not as 'whip smart' as she claims, failed to understand and why she showed how she made an exaggerated mock curtsy to the Queen for a video. If she'd been a bit more intelligent, she would have accepted and respected our traditions and not said anything but then that's *.
To add to my previous post, curtsying also applies to the Scandinavian royal families
When it comes to executing monarchs and having a republic, we've been there, done that (30th January 1649- 29th May1660 ) - and had enough of it after little more than 11 years. We liked things as they had been and still do.
I like being part of a nation that does things differently and is somewhat contrary/paradoxical , but am very glad that I'm not ever going to be monarch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1oftmzi/megsy_and_her_strange_pregnancy_with_archie/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/?feedViewType=classicView
I assumed she'd meant amniocentesis but she was cribbing about ultrasound. Imagine it, `Just bare your tummy dear and lie there, nothing to worry about or be scared of.'
!!!
(P:S: One later favorite is Charles II for he did rebuild the higher aristocracy of England after the carnage of the Wars of the Roses and he was just one man.)
No problem! I realise we Brits can seem enigmatic when viewed from elsewhere.
@maneki neko
Thank you for this info - I hadn't realised that it was possible to use a blood test instead of amniocentesis. Even that would have revealed her real `truth' of course.
I don't for one moment believe that the ultrasound sound image she produced was taken from her. As you say, it could have been from the surrogate and I assume that all relevant details such as patient's name and hospital no. had been redacted.
Am I correct in remembering that there was some kind of message from BP saying that `Archie' was `safe with a family who love him?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/?feedViewType=classicView
The last sentence in this comment is interesting:
`She love bombs potential employees. Megsy must be extraordinarily convincing. Hey, she married a prince who's, allegedly, bi-sexual, and had no intentions of ever getting married'.
`Prince Harry STUNNED After Tom Bower REVEALS Meghan's REAL AGE'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWifes9pFpA
Might it explain the discrepancies in age between her and some of her school chums? It's almost believable but I'd like to hear it from Tom himself.
Sam's book. full stop.
P 114 has a photo of Doria and Thomas getting married and it is dated 1979.
P 116 Photo of Sam with Bo (Tom Jr's puppy he got after M's birth P 67).
Below it is a photo of Tom Sr with M as an infant which came from his photo collection and is dated August 1981
P 128 Photo of M dressed in her graduation cap and gown, 1999.
This book would have been Samantha's chance to put in ink what the real birth year was. And yet she doesn't. If it were true, Sam could not be found guilty of libel if she put that in print. At that time, it's not like M could apply family pressure on Sam to toe the line about the real year.
Ninaki Priddy. Friends from age 2. Coming from her would have really sent shock waves back then. But she doesn't let that out if it were true. Why hold back?
So ... how to explain why the magazine has her at 21 when she is 15?
I could see someone putting out the lie to make it sound as if she were older than she was to help get her started (as in would not need a legal guardian on set so please consider her over someone else who would - deal with it later). That would be the kind of thing a kid might try.
Typo. The 5 and the 2 keys are sequential in an up and down while 1 would be used in both on the keyboard for easy typing. Fact checking was not that big a focus in this type of magazine compared to say the WSJ. (a friend was livid when a magazine put words in their mouth to spice up a quote. Were they called to verify the name? yes. What was not verified was what was actually said).
Perhaps, based on the experiences she had in high school, there was a thought of maybe going directly into action, skip college? This push of notice me in a magazine might be helpful. What would be interesting is to see what is in print about her which would be why to notice her.
If the 1979/80 was true then what was she doing for the 5 years between graduation high school and starting college? We don't hear of any early friends made at some casting call.
I have always been bothered that we have never seen any playbill from high school through college showing her as an actress. No year book photos of this. Or sorority year book photos. We get almost nothing from college and very limited high school - a former teacher maybe.
Here's her middle-school graduation in 1995, aged 13/14
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/beaming-meghan-markle-shines-14-13289234
and four years later:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5711269/Video-shows-17-year-old-Meghan-Markle-high-school-graduation-day.html
They all look as if their going to First Communion or Queen Charlotte's Ball.
(Both get-ups make me cringe - sorry, it's cos I'm English) .
Is there a photo, anywhere, of her in proper grown-up university-level graduation togs? If such a thing exists, she would surely have produced it.
I'm an alumna of my country's number one university and I was interested in this. Though I have no great respect for Paula M channel she has very good piece 2.7.2025 about the duchess's university studies, it's worth checking.
When our baroness talks she lies.
She got the Royal Family over a barrel right from the start - even if they were fully aware of the truth (highly likely IMO) what could they do? Answer: nothing without being accused of racism, today's equivalent of the `unforgiveable sin against the Holy Ghost'.
Her whole personality is an artificial construct. People who say she's like an alien who is play-acting a human are very near the truth. Authenticity? To misquote, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
As a lot of comments say, Lili always looks unkempt and scruffy, with uncombed hair and often in pyjamas. What sort of a mother does that?
My only thought is that if she ever allows a full focus straight on (still, close up) shot, she would finally get the attention she claimed she didn't want for her kids standing outside the hospital and more. (I suspect all the pent up anger masking as frustration) would really come out).
Talking about photos, we don't see or hear about school runs. Just that one time when she was, as they phrase it, heavily pregnant. We don't hear from the mummies or nannies who also do school pick up dropping comments. Or school pictures. Year book. Or ... plays put on by the students (not even to appear in the background, let alone get a speaking part).* For some, it is quite popular to take a photo of the kid the first day of a new school year. None of that but we get the solitary pumpkin picking where the kids don't even get to have a school chum along for the fun.
* what will a graduation look like? a shot of the back of the head while wearing a cap and gown? A lot of small schools have graduations starting at kindergarten.
(the snarky side of me goes all out wondering what the kid could do once they learn that they too can have an Instagram account howbeit secret for a while and what they might post. Scenes from high school or college frat parties. Once that genie is out, she can't put it back in the bottle. It's game over for her control of the kids.
Wild Boar Battle-maid said she loathes the word "sweet". I have few more = "effortless" (when it's everything but!), "nod" (especially with "sweet"), curated (she doesn't know what it means), olive branch (there is a whole dump of those on her back yard), "royal fans" (an expression for idiots) and of course "organic" and "authentic" (like her hair, her teeth, her nose and her personality).
The sales text for her candles sounds truly obscene and that something is "inspired by M's own appreciation" makes one start to run for an escape!!
YIKES!!
I ask because a hello! article popped up in Yahoo news, and I clicked before I realised the source, but, inevitably I suppose, it was a back view. Could be anyone of similar shape & size, in a wig.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/863903/meghan-markle-doria-ragland-pumpkin-patch-archie-lilibet/
...Ahead of the launch on Tuesday afternoon, the Duchess of Sussex, 44, shared a clip of her working at her laptop and perched on her desk was one of her new $64 candles and a blue notebook with her royal cypher embossed in gold on the cover.
...'Another example of Meghan putting her royal cypher on pretty much anything, you can see it on her notebook in the latest Instagram story,' an X user wrote.
'I rather think that was the point. Pretty difficult to sell a candle for that price if it's not royal,' another insisted.'
This is very strange considering * hates the BRF, she's always keen to emphasise her [very tenuous] royal links. Particularly strange in the US where people don't care about royalty. She must think that a 'royal' - I use the term loosely - product will sell.
Personally, I think this is a little bit harsh. Andrew is certainly no saint and he's disgraced the monarchy but there seems to have a relentless campaign against him (there are anti monarchy pressure groups). This doesn't make any difference to us mere mortals but will satisfy the Giuffre supporters.
He tried to smear Virginia Guiffre and got the Met Police to try to help him.
He lied about cutting off contact with Epstein.
He partook in orgies with young women (maybe minors)
He did a lot of scuzzy stuff with wealthy people, selling access, and accepting bribes, etc.
Unpleasant fellow also.
But I do wonder the words of the King about ALL victims and survivors. Is he offering an apology to not only the Epstein sex slaves but MORE THAN THAT to the young British gang rape victims who the British government has again betrayed? If it is it is a very powerful move and very honourable!
I agree that the campaign against him has been relentless and that many people are confused/ignorant about just what `leasehold' means, as opposed everyday renting.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2025/10/blind-item-11_0540283169.html
The comments include a worthwhile offering from `Scottish Wildcat' a familiar name IIRC.
Press Association reports that the Lord Chancellor will remove Andrew's ducal title. PA is reliable source of info.
Thanks for the link to chad. I like these two comments:
Mango - Megsy wants to walk about Kingston looking solemn and saddened while her personal photographer takes lots and lots and lots of photos of her.
night music - Maybe her plan was to go and renounce that she's 47% Nigerian or whatever she decided there and then claim she's 47% Jamaican? I wouldn't put it past her. She's totally forgotten the whole...Maltese thing.
Unprincipled
Andrew’s done and dusted
end of York house
Time for a clean sweep
soho and spouse
Lese-majesty
will warrant they’re next
Delivered via email
or Royal cypher text…
@Alianor
Thank you for your reply.
I understand you don’t understand
the meaning of subjects.
@Maneki explained it perfectly.
I misunderstood, thought you were
deriding William and the RF.
'The Government is refusing demands to change the law to remove Andrew Mountbatten Windsor from the line of succession.'
I wonder if this will apply to Harry and the bairns at some stage.
I think it's more that just they don't live in the UK. It's that they are doing nothing for themselves to really show that they are pro-UK, pro-monarchy. Sure, Invictus is around but it's more like the *show while less and less on the actual competitors.
It's also that they are not raising their kids in the UK so they aren't seeing what it is like to visit a small village or Westminster to get a sense of the long history of which they are part of. Or the food. Or how to behave during high tea. None of that.
SoCal is really nice but it's not exposure to how or what it means to be a citizen of the UK (let alone what it means to be a member of the BRF).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thk9vHIiJLw
2. Does anyone know why Lady C is in the hospital? She's doing her video from her hospital bed!!!
I'm sure I read somewhere that we have a law prohibiting anyone being removed from the L of S.. I suspect that was established a long time ago to prevent a monarch acting arbitrarily to take out someone he didn't like, a parallel with the monarch being able to bestow titles and land on someone but not being able to take these honours away `when the wind changed'.
The time for sorting this out is when the Heir Apparent has actually succeeded. Until then, it's all hypothetical and a waste of time and effort to do anything about it. If it turns into reality, it's up to Parliament.
That's why there's no hurry about debarring Archie.
How much of this is true?
re Lady C: She broke her pelvis in a fall. Nasty.
Get well soon, Lady C
She seems to be defending Andrew in that video.
She also says that since Prince Philip was a Duke, Andrew can style himself as a lord.
I completely agree - it's utterly cruel. The papers should turn on some American offenders. I suspect that Markle's in it up to her scraggy neck. Allegedly , of course.
This is worth reading and thinking about - that Andrew, for all his arrogance and boorishness, has not intentionally attacked the Family and the Crown in the way that the Harkles have, although he may have `contaminated them by association'. He does understand the need for loyalty to the Crown.
(Just a thought that's popped up in my mind - how does his conduct compare with that of Edward VII - remember that chair that allowed him to receive the attention of several `ladies' at once? Perhaps the difference is that the papers back then didn't get hold of the story or declined to print anything.)
No, Harry has done much worse to sex workers, thanks to his vile delight in violence.
According to Bower, it was neither Meghan's rising star nor her work with UN Women that helped her land the job at World Vision, but down to her relationship with advertising executive Matt Hassell.
'To Meghan's good fortune, Matt Hassell, KBS's [former] creative director in Toronto responsible for the UN Women campaign, had fallen under her spell,' he wrote.
'Some would even say he was besotted by her,' Bower noted, explaining that Hassell 'insisted' Meghan was the right person for the job.
During his time as creative director for the award-winning Canadian advertising agency, Hassell directed Meghan for UN Women's 2015 campaign titled 'Leaders'.
Bower claimed that Hassell was initially unfamiliar with Meghan when they first met over Zoom, adding the ad man was even put off by her 'insistence' for complete creative control as the 'star' of the campaign.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-15201295/Meghan-Markle-demanded-class-tickets-makeup-team-brought-suitcases-clothes-humanitarian-trip-Rwanda-charity-accused-racism.html
They have NOT once said sorry, we LIED.
And that is just ONE THING they have said. (oh yes, and all British people are racists, that I almost forgot)
Such a pity * doesn't live by such a mantra
In that case, if William and Catherine were such racists, allegedly, along with the rest of the country, why is Harry so keen to rejoin the RF? And why is * selling a candle that 'evokes the freshness of a day in the English countryside'?
My first thought was along the lines of that already has potential to be crazy before she would show up. The comments are running along the lines of she would likely be disruptive by wearing white or that she does have experience at weddings already.
My next thought was: yeah, she'd probably announce her divorce.
That always makes me highly suspicious. (and I have been in that part of California and the need for sunglasses is highly over rated unless you remember the scene from the Woody Allen movie about the guy wearing almost a body suit with built in sun glasses to protect himself from UV - as I recall).
But that's me. Your take may be different.
If she truly believes that she can waltz back to Britain with all the goodwill of people she must be very ill. But I do wonder if the sussex-duo think that when the money in California is no more they can come back and be even more popular than when they were just newly engaged? That is what she seems to tell Harry and we all know that that intellectual giant is ready to believe anything his wife tells him. All this is very interesting and we shall see how their schemes will progress.
Sadly, she has nobody to tell her that, were she to swan back here in hope of taking over, her in-laws are in a position to get her `sectioned' under the MHA, I believe, and held in a cosy mental establishment, far out of public view.
Of course, even if she were apprised of this fact, there's no way she'd take any notice and an unedifying struggle could follow as she is `persuaded ' to get into the ambulance. I wait with bated breath.
https://avxlive.icu/video/The.Meghan.Effect.How.She.Shook.Up.the.Royal.Family.2025.html
Lots of good royal tea at this link. Not just about the repulsive duo.
Lilibucks looks extremely tall for her age.
https://x.com/nancytsidley/status/1985026817905111042
Blind Item #4
I'm not sure which was more staged. The Halloween photo op with their personal paparazzo once again present, or the "celebration" after the Dodgers win that included a friend who according to her own Instagram was watching at her own house with her own kid and then somehow managed to run over to the alliterate one's house and pose there.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2025/11/blind-item-4_2.html#disqus_thread
She's jumping up and down while Harry looks distinctly unimpressed. Another fake feeling.
...Indeed, the future King was said to have 'seen right through' Meghan's plans to marry the British bachelor Prince, and feared she had zero plans of remaining in the Firm for the long haul.
The allegations by Dampier followed revelations by the late Queen's cousin and eldest confidante, Lady Elizabeth Anson, that the Monarch was apprehensive about Meghan's intentions.
Great-niece of the Queen Mother and a goddaughter of King George VI, Lady Elizabeth, who died on November 1, 2020, was also apparently suspicious of the former Suits star's motives on the eve of the royal wedding.
Having served as her Majesty's party-planner and confidant for many years, she allegedly said just days before Meghan and Harry walked down the aisle: 'We hope but don’t quite think she is in love. We think she engineered it all.'
She also warned: 'It’s worrying that so many people are questioning whether Meghan is right for Harry. The problem, bless his heart, is that Harry is neither bright nor strong, and she is both'.
‘Meghan is clearly brighter than Harry, but she has to be careful not to overshadow him', she added.
Lady Elizabeth's words were revealed by journalist and royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith in her Substack 'Royal Extras', describing their private conversations.
Lady Elizabeth apparently told Ms Bedell Smith at the time: ‘I don’t trust Meghan an inch. Meghan could turn into nothing but trouble.'' (DM)
Lady Elizabeth clearly saw through *. A pity Harry wasn't as clear-sighted.
I believe she hates William who didn't give two hoots about her and that was extremely humiliating for her. And she hates Catherine who is so beautiful and the love of William's life.
`She's trouble'.
...Fans were baffled by the recipe and accused the former actress of effectively making a pot of 'mulled water', with one likening it to 'air freshener in mugs'.' (DM)
Basically, boiled water and her $16 Spiced Cider Mulling Spice Kit from her lifestyle brand. As one of the comments said, 'Yeah, nothing says Christmas like glugging down boiled potpourri.'. And apparently, * wants to be a billionaire using her brand...