In the past, it always kind of bothered me that the media tended to call Catherine as Middleton. This even when they had been married for years. On some level, I felt perhaps they had missed notice of the wedding or something? Kind of spitefully mean middle school response.
I just saw this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtWxSvzGRo
Very interesting about why it doesn't apply to Meghan.
Think back through the history of antagonism towards the media - Harry with his past (photos, comments) and then bringing her in (where it was more she controlled output + good for her plans of expansion) to now the situation where she no longer could. Full stop. And, not a whiff of apology for the most part.
Notice that it follows other stories of how the BBC have been rather coming face to face about past less savory actions to get what they wanted (lies to Diana and so on).
I think we are seeing a shift in how reporting will handled - in ways it has not in the past. The King? William, Prince of Wales? Don't know but I think the people who will most benefit will be Camilla Queen Consort, Catherine Princess of Wales and the Wales children.
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.
It's perhaps worth noting that Diana was Lady Diana or sometimes Lady Di and Princess Diana but Fergie, aka Sarah Ferguson, was always Fergie, occasionally the Duchess of York. Perhaps this is because Diana was from an aristocratic family. Short names can be viewed as more 'common', e.g. Andy, Steve, Dave. Inversely, some politicians think it makes them more 'relatable', e.g. Tony Blair, Tony Benny etc.
Don’t you all think this comment is spot on? I just read it on Cheere Denise’s most recent video about the Harper’s Bazaar cover and article.
I wonder how many of these journalists envy Catherine and would have wanted to marry either William or Charles.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/20/entertainment/meghan-markle-has-risen-to-comic-levels-of-self-importance/
and read the articles, and especially the comments.
The one about the fire hydrant and the responses to it are particularly funny.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1p37ekb/behind_the_scenes_at_harpers_bazaar_it_seems/
The home that * used for her interview in NYC for Harper`s Bazaar, belongs to Victoria Jackson, owner of No Makeup Makeup Company and a patron of the Harkles. She lends them her private jet, and her home in Montecito and in L.A.
This explains *`s decision to try a no makeup look on the Harper`s cover.
https://x.com/sage1411/status/1992078368536408435/photo/1
I suppose Victoria Jackson is a 'friend' for now who'll go the way *'s other friends go when she deems they are of no further use.
'My trip to Meghan Markle's pop up shop where even the Montecito set baulk at £24 for a jar of honey!'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-15315193/JAN-MOIR-Meghan-Markles-shop-Montecito.html
It's considered disrespectful to refer to anyone by a name they have asked you not to use. `Meghan Markle' was her `professional' name as an actress. I despise her and use that name to disrespect her. `Duchess of Sussex' sticks in my craw.
Personally, I like how Jan Moir talks about 'our favourite jampreneur':
’. . . Meghan is seen single-handedly inventing Christmas before invading her own privacy by kissing Harry, boiling up some of her twig tea in a saucepan, tablescaping like a lunatic and making a wreath out of broccoli florets before gurgling: ‘I love the holiday season. It’s about finding time to connect with the people we love.’' (except her father and in-laws)
Am currently in Singapore at a conference. Visited the Hermes shop with a friend who can afford that stuff. She wanted a Hermes blanket. I told her that the one she was looking at had been shown on one of the many Markle videos/shows. Immediately she said ‘I can’t stand her - you’ve ruined it for me. Won’t be buying it’. The shop assistant looked disappointed but said it was a common reaction
She wouldn't have qualified for a Freedom Pass so would have had to have paid her fare. What a come down that would have been.
TBH, I'm surprised she hasn't yet claimed to be a refugee on account of how she was persecuted. Does the rubber dinghy on her Chat GP coat of arms perhaps represent a plan to paddle across the Channel/ La Manche, to claim asylum in France?
Her wish for legal confrontation with William will be granted, but not in the way she expects. I wonder if she realises that , or if she's relying on not being extradited from the US?
*The Old Bailey's gonna need a bigger dock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvWzRbbVTAk
What I really noticed was the idea that they will be "recalled" back to the UK to serve and help the King. Whew. That's really out there if you ask me.
Joking apart about buses, didn't she complain that her driving licence had been `taken away', along with her passport? We may have assumed that it was simply looked after for `safe keeping'' but could it have been because she was seldom fit to drive, for whatever reason?
Interesting post here. I'd already had a go at testing how symmetrical her face was/is in this way and got such a diabolical-looking `2025 right-side of face' (had a choice of leaving slight gap between the halves or overlapping them? result that I wondered if some of her early UK photos were manipulated to flatter her.
That `2025-RHS' face gave me the same chill as her stare into the TV camera at Eugenie's wedding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DECqlegnEKE&t=44s
It seems legit to me. We have speculated that HGT was in some way acting as an advisor to Royal security, so he may be an insider. The dateline is 5 days ago so were it unauthorised I imagine it would have disappeared pdq if not, like that `announcement' from KP about surrogacy.
The content is no real surprise , it's more or less what I would have expected, apart from how early MI5 is said picked up on her - I just feel profound sadness that they were able to get HM over a barrel.
The reference to H as `Sussex' as early as 2016 suggests to me that this may have been a code name, based on conduct of previous holder of the title, later used for real.
If it is fake, it's a very good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr71SZazSKU
`Operation Aurora: To stop the Sussexes'
`HG Tudor analyzes a purported top-secret operation to mitigate the Sussexes' impact on the British monarchy. The plan involves several strategic moves, detailed in a confidential memorandum. This in-depth examination explores potential political and social ramifications'.
Maybe the King wants his reign end in peace without The Sussex Scandal even if his elder son is then forced to start HIS reign with that same wretched scandal (i.e. to make Harry and wife plain mr and mrs)
If the baroness chose herself the front page photo in the harper's bazaar she DOES NOT SEE herself as other people do, that's all I can say.
Neil Sean reporting that according to a reliable source, * has approached the Buckingham Palace shop, in hope of their stocking her produce. She can't have got the memo that the shop exists for charitable reasons (the care of the artwork held by the Crown), not for the enrichment of the Royals.
As the website says, “The income from every purchase you make contributes directly to the care of the Royal Collection”. It specifically states
`All profits are donated to charity' -in Britain that means exactly what it says.
https://www.royalcollectionshop.co.uk/
Meghan Markle is accused of keeping £1,300 green Galvan dress from 2022 photoshoot with Variety and re-wearing it for her festive Netflix series
Plus ça change...
The list now reads 'Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor' instead of 'The Duke of York', 8th on the list so after Harry and his sprogs.
'Although she appears to wash her hands after rubbing the seasoning in, eagle-eyed viewers noticed she kept all her jewelry on while handling the raw meat, sparking concern about her lack of kitchen hygiene.
'I don't know anyone who wears their rings and bracelets when handling food, especially a turkey. Guaranteed spread of bacteria,' one horrified user commented on the video.
A second wrote: 'I mean I love sparkly engagement rings as much as the next jewelry-hound, but not while cooking!'
'Right? Who wants crap getting stuck in your ring's setting?' asked another.
'So gross, and it's basic food handling knowledge. Proof she has no idea what she's doing,' declared someone else.'
. . . 'Someone else then pointed out: 'Then she picks up the pepper grinder without washing her hands. Another Salmonella Sussex disaster.''
This won't help her cookery videos.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1p80af4/recent_article_by_hilary_rose/
The realm of the baroness is falling. Whatever is she going to do next?
Camilla Tominey said in September
`You’d have to have a heart of stone not to want Harry welcomed back
The Sussexes have been incredibly irritating, but families belong together, not apart'.
That's fine by me - my heart is rock-solid that I don't want him `welcomed' back. I might just tolerate the idea if he was kept out of the limelight, preferably by being sent to Coventry, (For non-Brits, that a metaphorical fate, not a literal one).
As for the assertion that families belong together...
Camilla Tominey is just hoping to stir up some dysfunctional behaviour in the BRF so that she can have more things about which to report. Well adjusted and well behaved people like the current working royas don't give her much to work with. LOL
As I understand it, the new monarch has to agree formally to what one might call `Terms and Conditions' and, in theory, the Privy Council & Parliament have the final say to whether the reign goes ahead, much as the Witan did in Saxon times. I doubt if it get that far, were (Heaven forbid!) the Waleses out of the picture.
Remember, the monarch reigns only if they have `the consent of the People'.
tripe - sorry, point of view.
Whatever that is around her left wrist (`Diana's' watch? A stonking great bracelet?) are we to assume she wears it in bed?
Also, has anyone been able to make out if she's wearing nail varnish when cooking? That's another big no-no for cooking (it can hide a ton of dirt under the nails.)
He has never been so horribly UGLY and without any dignity than in the Colbert show. And he is on the royal.uk website. I'm glad he does not represent my country.
Really.....
The blue flowers are cornflowers, often worn by the King in his buttonhole. I don't recognise the others as English, either as wild flowers or cultivated ones. The orange poppies are Californian. Likewise, I can't think of any flower with a single whorl of 7 petals.
Neil Sean talks about how the invisikids were hanging around during the filming of *'s Christmas special, but no one was allowed to speak to them or interact with them. Very well behaved kids he says.
Bougie
Hihosynth(etic) Fouquet
With her hammy holiday display
Had me retch in her floral tin bucket
Each calendar pocket
Filled with crackers and vomit
Made me wish haz had balls to
Just Fucket…
Left too late
To clear the slate
Poor old pa
needs love not hate
Should she go or
should she stay
Makes no difference
either way
Pa cast out without a say
Madams fault
parley delay….
It's been claimed that * reached out to her ailing father.
I personally don't believe it for a moment.
Quasi-Royal Elevates Humanity With Her Perfect Christmas Special | “With Love, Meghan” Analysis by Dr Todd Grande
The Beeb pointed out that `he's never met his grandchildren' - blow that ! He hasn't even met his son-in-law!
According to The Times, and thus SMM, she instructed her aides to `reach out' to her father, or reading between the lines, to check whether the reports about his health were true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/?feedViewType=classicView
The big stuff like him saying he will only tell his brother face to face - we know that's never going to happen but what is said in MSM isn't that it won't happen but that it could ... which then isn't followed up as a challenge by the palace - never explain probably.
Big stuff they have some explanation, reason why and push, push that narrative.
Little stuff like more people questioning the whole kids thing (from the birth stories up to how very limited outsiders talk to a kid and even that is under highly controlled situations) may actually be more damaging long term. Trying to squash all of them is like pinching bubble wrap - there's always another square untouched that you notice just after you popped a bubble.
We're likely to notice this as we've been watching this for years now. We have a good sense of what was a normal level of response within the media about any story to currently to historical.
WBBM, the tide doesn't usually flow in instantly like a flood. It is small and not super obvious that it has turned. Only people paying attention tend to notice. Nice catch. I had also been seeing change.
This is an interesting story about a young woman who pretended to be pregnant and then used a doll as her newborn.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1pfwe09/netflix_christmas_show_storing_boxes_in_the_oven/
She's in clothes the colour of cow dung, stirring a pot over a burner which is surely not turned on. The oven below contains stored boxes - is she at a kitchen showroom? - and the only way to make sense of her `height' is to assume she's standing on a box. (for reference, I've shrunk from 5'5" to 5'3" and my standard-height hob is now level with my umbilicus, not my crotch.)
How bloody ridiculous!
She sent an email to an address he hasn't used in 5 years.
Harry and Meghan Parody Psychotherapy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66nopZ9oW68&list=RDUI0jAxh0kkU&index=2