Another year and what will it bring for them (and us who watch)?
One thing I thought of is control of their image for appearances. It isn't just that they have lost so many people in such a fairly short time period but who they lost. The people who advised, handled details to make the events happen - road trips to volunteering. We've been saying all along that each loss is a ripple of warning towards a potential new hire coming in. New hires, yes but what about fund raising? Cash flow? This, from SMM, is an interesting read:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1puzsvh/impact_report_990_review_from_a_nonprofit/
Which leads us to money. Keeping their image engine running costs a lot. No doubt there are a lot details, paperwork, contracts to negotiate and find new groups to partner with. Hence the need for a good team. The duo could do some of it or all but for how long?
side note: the people losses are just the big name public staff losses, we know nothing about cooks (she is unlikely to cook all the meals), cleaners, gardeners and koi people might have come and gone.
With the recent changes to the foundation (making it more of a family thing with the kids) will that mean that now the kids will make appearances? give speeches, full photographs of? and all that. It has, after all, started up with William's kids. There was always a strong sense from Harry that he had a limited timeline before being replaced by those kids. And, it's clearly started.
The campaign to reconnect with his family - this might get interesting to follow as it appears that the main support staff for helping have left (unclear who is still around). Sure there are existing connections with supportive UK political people but it will take time for a new hire to come up to speed on this. I can't help but think that someone will need a good understanding of British history, culture in addition to diplomatic skills for this. It would be harder, not impossible, for someone from the US to come in with that level of understanding and sensitivity. Easier perhaps if they lived in NYC or DC but California is where I learned the term: GUD - geographically undesirable. Everything is far away and traffic is bad. But they knew that when they bought in Montecito.
What is new is that the palace is starting to request receipts. Giving notice to expect it in the future if it feels something is not quite right. That was a change not generally projected as likely to happen in 2025.
At any rate, it will still be difficult to gain traction with his family still not exactly expressing any support of forward reunification plans. You can bring a horse to water and all that.
In the mean time, the BRF in the UK are just continuing with their lives. Sure cancer was a hiccup but that seems to be over. They are just living life to the hilt. As life should be.
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.
The use of `aesthetic' to describe its function is as good as saying that much of what they do is a profitable vanity project and that the main beneficiaries of their `charity' are themselves.
Just disgusting speculation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15429751/Prince-Harry-not-returning-tarnished-Sentebale-charity-founded-bullying-row.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1pytqq4/just_seen_on_x_it_sums_everything_up_with_perfect/
A perfect post which hits the nail on the head:
BrightAwareness2876
•
Edited 5d ago
`The UK is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. One of the oldest democracies in the world. With the monarch being the head of state.
This is something I never understood. How was this allowed to happen? Harry and Meghan did not only attack a family or some kind of folklore for coffee mugs and biscuit tins, they attacked and tried to destabilise a state. One of the good ones, by the way.
And for all those who call us pathetic, this is my grudge against them. Frivolously, arrogantly and self-servingly trying to destabilise a healthy political system and all of its people, just for their own benefit. This I will never forgive.'
Thank you, BrightAwareness2876, I agree whole-heartedly. Yes, we are a Sovereign Nation. How bloody dare they.
I’ve been thinking about something from when * was living at Nott Cott.
Reportedly she was regularly sending mysterious `packages’ to the US – and did not trust anyone else to post them. There was speculation that these were instalments of her secret diary, being saved for future use against the Royal family, or else cash being sent to Doria for herself or for `washing’. I couldn’t help wondering if these consignments, whatever they were, were being intercepted by the Security Services.
Some time ago, I read a thick book detailing the history of the Post Office and was intrigued by the fact that almost from the birth of the Royal Mail (in 1660) letters were being intercepted on a grand scale, by the authorities, copied, then sent on their way to the addressees, in order to trap plotters against the throne. BTW It’s a criminal offence for anybody else to `interfere with the mail’.
Perhaps *’s communications weren’t as secret as she thought? Was she protecting them as only as far as the post box?
I’ve just come across this:
https://news.joblane.co.za/the-royal-excommunication-meghan-markles-lifetime-ban-from-kensington-palace-explained/
I’m pretty sure that the `right people’ knew all about her, if not from the start then very soon after. I’d love to know exactly what was in those packages.
We seem to be caught in a time shift, reliving old history with the Harkles. I was in Scotland on New Year’s Day and spotted a chap dressed as a Highlander from the 18thC. His large flat bonnet bore a `white cockade’ and I was tempted to ask him if he’d been in the ’15 or’45, and what he thought of there being a Charles III on the throne `at last’… I didn’t though.
The royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec) is said to have determined that Prince Harry meets the threshold for official protection and a ruling in his favour is expected in a matter of weeks.
Harry, 41, in May lost a high-profile legal claim against the government over the decision to remove his right to automatic taxpayer-funded police protection.
https://archive.is/DNsDz#selection-1629.0-1637.158
I now suspect that it would be reviewed again periodically. As just happened, things might change (again).
By the way, HG Tudor's latest video's title is something like "Charles demands that Harry show that the children are real".
"Prince Harry has reportedly (NB `reportedly’) won the right to automatic armed police protection when he and his family visit the UK, after a lengthy high-profile legal battle.
In May last year, the Duke of Sussex lost his court case against the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec) over their decision to remove his right to taxpayer funded police protection after he left as a working member of the royal family.
However, the 41-year-old wrote to the home secretary Shabana Mahmood in September after a stalker, who had previously made online threats, was able to get within a “stone’s throw” of the duke during his recent visit to London.
As a result, Ravec, which is overseen by the Home Office, launched a fresh risk assessment and is said to have (NB `said to have’) determined that the King’s youngest son does meet the threshold for official protection.
According to the Mail on Sunday, a source close to the Sussexes (NB. Two dodgy sources here) “It’s now a formality. Sources at the Home Office have indicated (NB. Not `stated’) that security is now nailed on for Harry.”
Weasel words galore here - I still shan't believe it until it's expressed clearly by either Reuters or the Press Association.
Sadly, only we critical thinkers will see through it.
Sorry, I missed your post. Weasel words `...it is claimed.'
SMM hasn't picked up on it yet - are the Harkles sitting on it for the US or is it simply a matter of time zones?
Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Bob Dylan
Blowin’ in the Wind
Overblown
How many jams does our meh
have to flog
Before we call out her scam
How many teas does our
suits-case sell
Before she’s named as a sham
Yes, and how many times must our
gruesomes lie
Before they’re as ever banned
The answer, my friends
is hoeing being sin binned
The answer’s
blowin’ rimmed and skimmed…
Happy New Year Nutties
Still here, just!
Jan Moir has a good article in DM
“netherworld of nothingness”
Princess Margaret and the Curse: An Inquiry into a Royal Life by Meryle Secrest
English | September 9, 2025 | ISBN: 1510782567 | 304 pages | PDF | 12 Mb
A Groundbreaking New Perspective of Princess Margaret by Renowned Biographer Meryle Secrest
Meryle Secrest, distinguished biographer in the arts and humanities, and recipient of a White House Medal, has turned her focus to royalty. In Princess Margaret and the Curse, she has put the conventional view of a much-reviled Princess on its head. Her latest study, which she considers more of an investigation than a biography as such, proposes that nobody knows the truth about the fabled, doomed Princess.
She is the first person to have looked at Princess Margaret in a particular family context. That is to say with reference to her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of a famous, hard-drinking Scottish family that had inhabited an ancient dwelling, Glamis Castle, for centuries. Her older brothers were already renowned for their prowess in alcohol consumption. Decades later, once she became Queen Mother, this Elizabeth would begin to imbibe by eleven in the morning. She was already lamenting the loss of her "drinking powers" when, because of severe bouts of morning sickness during her first pregnancy with the future Queen Elizabeth in 1926, she could not drink. Four years later, while pregnant with Princess Margaret in 1930, she was not so handicapped. Doctors believed it was perfectly safe for a mother-to-be to drink, so she drank.
The doctors were wrong. But it took another forty-three years, until 1973, before new studies established that alcohol in any amount was poisonous to the developing human being. The effect is lifelong. We now know that victims’ growth is stunted (Margaret stopped growing at five feet), and their skeletal structures are fragile. They get sick sooner and age faster. There are characteristic emotional differences, too. They never develop maturity of mind. They remain subject to sudden tantrums, rages, are poor judges of character, and particularly prone to run and hide, as Princess Margaret tried to do all her life. They may be as intelligent and gifted as she was, but mulish and fly into a rage. They are, it turns out, exactly like the person she became.
None of this has ever been recognized, let alone understood. With this study, the author places Margaret's life in its proper perspective. It seems particularly sad that someone expected to be perfection itself in her manners and behavior should have been born in the one situation where perfection was, in fact, impossible. It is time we looked at this public figure from a new and more forgiving frame of mind, and with a new understanding.
That's very interesting - thanks. QEQM's drinking, at least in her later life was well-known. Do we know if Diana was a drinker?
There may well have been some hard drinking and the Queen Mother did enjoy a tipple, as did Margaret herself. The Queen Mother may have drunk alcohol while expecting Margaret but I don't think Margaret presented characteristics of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I am not saying the Queen Mother was some saint but personally I'm taking the book's findings with a large pinch of salt.
There are umpteen things that would have been expected to have happened were it as successful as * claims but which didn't.
You're right, there are various degrees of foetal alcohol syndrome. The fact that Margaret was short doesn't mean anything, her mother was short herself, barely an inch taller than Margaret. I once saw Sarah Chatto, Margaret's daughter, and she is also an inch taller than Margaret. The rest I find debatable (personally).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bMsSKyms6w
Impossible! Or not?
Please be careful about some of the websites as they are highly manipulative in the editing.
I stumbled on one which was allegedly an interview between Tucker Carlson and Harry. In the comments were statements about how the FBI has just raided the Montecito house, millions are missing from Archewell, they will be going to jail yada, yada. Basically the what we all have thought would happen at some point, finally has. And, isn't it convenient, just up our alley?
Just like Neil is having someone do a spoof site of him, there are others out there as well.
So just like phishing, A) is it the original youtube channel (it wasn't Tucker and Harry link on his channel is with Piers). B) are there other news agencies also reporting (um, no, nothing about the FBI).
Think of it as "disinformation" you are (unwittingly) being asked to promote as truth. Don't know but it might make you trackable?
(if in doubt, cite the youtube channel and something when it was produced like Jan 5th or just a key word from the title? enough for someone to look it up if they want to. As they used to say on Hill Street Blues, "Let's be careful out there.")
Good point
"Prince Harry's latest 'olive branch' to King is so he can 'boost brand', expert warns.".
The Sun is still pushing reconciliation with headline `Clearing the heir'- I bet that wording came from Montcito. Dream on, Harry.
...from Daily Record.
I really would have thought better of Jennie Bond than to put her name to this.
I keep reading articles and so on that state security is to be resumed ... but has it? the article above (and others) talk about it mostly as a foregone conclusion. This, does hedge and says it hasn't been confirmed yet.
say what? What has changed? besides the chase which lasted for hours in NYC traffic, what threats have there been? And, more importantly, where? What countries is this all happening? If the UK, well, that can make some sense but else where?
One article in the DM pointed out that to give him security, would mean that he would be getting it whilst doing nothing for crown or country while the other senior members only get it while on work duty. Meaning he could fly in for some ribbon ceremony for Archewell and get protection.
As for Invictus, reading about the trying to rope in his father to participate, all that ran through my mind was a flash of the other ceremonies she ran rip shod over the real participants and how she could insert herself into Invictus again. Then, there was this nasty little thought of him agreeing but they had to bend the knee to the King, maybe forehead to the ground, kiss his shoe (not his ring) ... Ok, back to real life. One of the comments pointed out that having the King there would lessen the chances of Harry being booed. I could see that as a hail Mary try to less the boos.
Read this comment!
“JettaRockets, Whiterock, Canada, 15 hours ago
shouldn’t Princess Anne be the one to oprn Invictus? She is an Admiral of the Royal Navy, a General in the British Army, and Air Chief Marshal in the Royal Air Force, with the Army and RAF ranks. She also serves as Colonel-in-Chief for numerous regiments and holds senior Canadian military appointments, acting as Commodore-in-Chief of the Canadian Pacific Fleet. So it would make sense for her to do this honor, and also she can put little Hawwy in his place if he acts up.” - end quoted comment -
This commenter, I think, honestly has such a great solution, since Princess Anne would honor the Invictus war-wounded participants by her presence; she is a top Royal which would indicate to the world that this is a worthy cause to back (no matter how loathsome a loser the current patron and his grifter wife are, and no matter how much they’ve damaged the cause in the past few years - my opinion so any reading sugars just back off); and as the DM commenter wrote, she would firmly put Hairball (and his handler Megaliar) in place if he/they try to pull their typical shenanigans.
Article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15450831/Prince-Harry-King-Charles-open-Invictus-Games-UK.html?ico=comment-anchor#comments
Here's SMM's take on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1q8ms28/ingriftus_getting_desperate_for_cash_to_fund/#lightbox
Or rather keep Calm and Carry On- here's the clearest statement yet that H hasn't yet got what he wants and that the important people see through it all: https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1q9054g/government_source_claps_back_at_news_that_harry/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15452459/Meghan-Markle-return-Britain-summer-Harry-invictus-games.html
I was reading something yesterday about the money spent on the games but can't find the article. I have found this, though, about their finances. Total income £3,833,574, total expenditure £3,283,176, which leaves £550,398. The operational costs are astronomical. Incidentally, the games are not just for veterans but active personnel as well.
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/5054988/full-print
As for Birmingham, it is the largest city in the UK after London with a very diverse population (about 51%) but it is now classed as a poor city. This is partly, if not largely, due to incompetence at a local level. It declared itself bankrupt well over a year ago, there's been a bin men strike for over a year and problems with the implementation of a new IT system. The city need a major overhaul if it is to host the games.
On the face of it, IG is the last thing the city needs,
It is too convenient and just the kind of hot gossip that people would want to pass on to their friends who think like they do - saying: look, see. the kraken has finally come to her. Schadenfreude.
I'm seeing more and more similar stories (proof she's this or that, linked to Andrew, final proof the kids this, Harry's filing for divorce and so on) with supposed "facts" on similar sites but not with people I think of as more trustworthy about their facts or sources.
Lady C, Neil - they have been around for a long time and have made many friends over the years. They are, also, "local" to beating heart of the BRF, what William or Charles may be thinking (or MI5/6, the review board and grey suits) versus Hollywood.
Not saying some of this way out there stuff is impossible and as the US media is not bound by the laws the UK media is which is why it is sourced from the US - only that it is less likely to be swear in a court of law true. Take with salt and see who else is dropping this information as confirmation.
And wait a while longer before believing.
https://x.com/RoyalDailyTea/status/2011123955449446562
The Royal Family and the Great Britain have moved on and are living a life six years forward from the date when Harry left. Or?
All this sounds that he is returning back to his dream of being a prince when it is glamorous and having fun doing money tricks when royaling is boring. What did the papers call it? Having your cake and eat it? Half in and half out? Doing exactly as you please and see that everybody else is paying the bills?
Poor Harry, most 40 years and plus people understand that when you are nearing your life's middle years there is NO going back to your carefree teen years but Harry has never left those years and now he thinks he can get his golden royal life back by just insisting he wants it. Maybe he can, what do I know...?
But somehow he seems lack a few things his family has like sound work ethic, discretion, respect towards the peoples of his fathers realms and the great trick to know when to SHUT UP and keep going even when it is difficult and you want to answer back when someone has hurt your feelings.
Perfect examples of those Royal virtues being the Prince and Princess of Wales, God bless them. That's all I say.
https://x.com/i/trending/2010776056689561754
https://x.com/ThinkBeautiful_/status/2011485587069681977
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1qdp0c6/the_clap_back_insider_denies_diva_duchess_meghans/
Lady C tells us how she was told. Very short video.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i6F0AzEOSA8
* caught at LAX trying to flee to Dubai with $12M. The 1st video is HG Tudor. I speed up his videos as his speech delivery is a bit slow. Apparently there are several sources with the same info.
https://youtu.be/9cc07NE5KVg?si=1FElVlitSzWpGa_s
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php/?story_fbid=767609733026336&id=100093319480733
And to crown it all, a Hot Gossip video - now this could just be gossip - from a woman claiming * tried to seduce her ex husband, an Arab billionaire, in Dubai... It would be delicious if true. It's entertaining anyway.
https://youtu.be/nXH6E_j4g5M?si=H-SzXiLpIMfc_iJr
So Invisibet is their videographer now. She's 6?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15471923/Meghan-Harry-dancing-video-Princess-Lilibet.html
And I'm not sure about the perspective of the height of the camera for shooting. It seems higher than it ought to be (as in a kid isn't going to hold onto the camera above their head but more like their chest level which would be increasing steadiness as well as lessening the chance of being dropped) which would put it less than three feet off the ground.
She's getting more and more ridiculous.
Soon, she's going to try to convince us that she was a CIA spy or in the Special Forces.
Youtube Cognition Unlocked: "JUST NOW: Charles Uncovers Harry's Secret - Titles Revoked Ahead of Summit"
I wish we knew exactly who `Cognition Unlocked' is, apart from appearing to be a clear-minded psychologist/psychiatrist. Is he to be trusted? Does he have reliable sources? All we can do is wait and watch.
It reminds me though that even as I listened to Charles Spencer giving that address in the Abbey, I thought it sounded like a threat.
Perhaps we should have studied him more closely?
PS the speaker does confuse Althorp with Sandringham - the Spencer place is inland, in Northamptonshire, far from the Norfolk coast, unlike Sandringham. A slip of the tongue or evidence of a deep lack of understanding.
What do other Nutties think?
I always start with:
Is it possible? and usually it is. So, that doesn't help us.
How valid do I think this source is? Neil, Lady C, I'm good (long term players of generally really reliable intel). Some of the others fall in the "let's let them prove themselves over time before I trust".
Is it plausible? and in this case of fleeing, I think not for at least parts of it - which drags down the rest of it.
Do I think she could be playing with someone else? eh, you could say she has form from when she was in Canada, hooked up with H and who knows before that as nobody is coming out needing to tell their story.
Dubai? close connections historically with UK AND allows extradition. So why Dubai? If it's really that tenuous legally, Dubai is not far enough away.
But the real clinker in the story is the money. Ain't not no one gonna be toting 12 million dollars in cash on them. And you can't trust putting it as checked luggage. Full stop. You'd have it in an account you could access from anywhere in the world. Very Hollywood though to pitch the idea of carrying a large sum of cash. I grant you that.
They have not printed dollar bills larger than $100 since before 1950 (as part of not needed and lower money laundering. So, she'd have to be collecting cash in $100 bills. Banks are legally required to note when $10,000 (or even close to that amount) is deposited. Don't know about that amount for withdrawals but ... a good forensic accountant can trace the money. Again, concerns of money laundering has banks keeping an eye on movement.
Let's do some math. 12 million, over 6 years would needing to collect about 55 $100 bills per day. 1 million dollars would be about 22 pounds.
So ... that amount of cash as part of this is not a reasonable part of validation.
But what or really why is it part of the story? Well it draw us in, doesn't it? And who would (or why) want to give us bad intel? You know who we haven't heard about in a while? that guy who was a big name in confronting erroneous social media which made his friend,*, look bad.
I don't know. I just don't know.
Maybe it is part of some crazy plot to show how they have been badly maligned and, therefore, ought be able to come back, get the security, bop in and out for things that they want ... all as part of Operation Thaw - bring them back into the family fold, appear on the balcony, photos on the table for the Christmas speech, re-sprinkle royal alure and get money/fame/fortune for self, spouse and kids. Or maybe it's someone pushing something out to see if anyone would bite and run with that story?
I guess one of the main problems with this all along has always been that a lot of it is plausible, just crazy enough to be true stories and that the longer this goes, the crazier it sounds which makes it sound even more plausible of a final solution - that we want to believe is true - that he/she is getting their comeuppance, and justice has prevailed for people we care about.
The amount would be transferred electronically and in such a way to obscure the paper trail.
Many years ago I saw a film of the Royal Family in a concert and the music was so powerful that the then Prince Charles was crying with many tears in his eyes. His father Prince Philip sat there with great irritation on his face clearly thinking that his son aught to have had more self-control and not to make a great show of himself.
Maybe it would be better for the Monarchy if the King could find a little more of his father's character in himself when dealing with his unbalanced younger son's hysterics?
But it is easy for me to sit in my beautiful cold snowy homeland and comment the doings of the great and important people. I have not their worries.
https://pagesix.com/2026/01/18/royal-family/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-reunite-with-hollywood-pr-firm/
Adults who are normal KNOW who they are, they are very stable, narcissists do not. They are constantly "seeking" themselves, "finding" themselves and "defining" themselves.
I have been having a difficulty with the baroness constantly repeating (when she gets a new idea) that she has not had possibility to talk about or do something when she has done and said exactly that all the time again and again. But it seems that she is not talking to us. She is convincing HERSELF that THIS is the first time when she can (AT LAST) be herself and do or say things.
Poor woman has NO idea how stupid and intellectually constrained she truly is! Oh, sorry! She has told us again and again that she has always been the smart one (and breathtakingly beautiful)!!
Yeah.....
A show, any show like that, it isn't just sprinkling flowers or what ever but having the background (knowing) of the particular subject to pull it off. Julia Child - cooking. Martha. Icons. Shows which continue to be watched. Both are knowledgeable, able to convey this well, easily to the audience (you can do this too) and a force of nature/personality not to be argued with. They clearly control the space on camera.
Thank you. I'm somewhat lost for words at the moment - but I'm glad you re safe in your ` beautiful cold snowy homeland'.
SMM article asserting that a great deal of the info published about Harry was from legitimate sources. It bears out the wisdom of William's approach to ensuring that his friends were trustworthy. Having an entirely different kind of life from H is also clearly significant .
@alianor
I was just going to post about *'s non happening season 3 on Netflix when I read your post. Yes, such a show is 'a lot of work', especially when you have no discernible talent. Nothing is easy in life and a cookery/lifestyle show is a bit more than putting on a new frock and simpering to camera. One of the comments in the DM said, quoting * "Not only is Netflix partnering with me on my show, but also in my business, which is HUGE.". Delusional as ever.
I find it fair to comment his looks after the cruel and self satisfied smile he had when Anderson Cooper read his comments in "Spare" about William's hair. I hope my comment is "cutting"!
The concert I was talking about happened over 30 years ago so I have no possibility to prove you anything. But I do not need to do that. I am not interested in your beliefs, so please, you do you.
Considering that His Majesty is a person who dearly loves classical music I am quite sure he has had tears in his eyes many a time before and after that concert. I certainly have had tears in my eyes when listening something beautiful. I believe it is quite normal.
Why I remember that picture of His Majesty? Well, there was a scandal in Britain because of a biography of the then Prince of Wales by Jonathan Dimbleby which was hurtful to his parents.
Prince Harry insists Meghan Markle’s royal life was ‘absolute misery’ during UK tabloid trial testimony
Harry's testimony is irrelevant and should be stricken from the court record. It is immaterial and not germane to the case. Meghan Markle has absolutely nothing to do with his lawsuit. The events in question occurred between 2001-2013 well before he even met Markle. The case is supposed to center on illegal information gathering. Harry turned into another one of his performative grief sessions. In a court of law facts do not care about your feelings. Harry brought no evidence. Press intrusion and commercialization are not illegal. It is a bit rich to whine that your life has been commercialized by the press when you yourself have done nothing but sell all aspects of your private life to the highest bidder. Harry and his wife violated the privacy of the BRF over and over and over again. They made his grandparents final months an absolute misery. This vanity lawsuit should have never been allowed to proceed this far.
They are not permitted to draw in court but have to fix the appearance of the personae in their minds, then dash out and commit the image to paper in any breaks they can. The medium is pastel.
Respect!
The Duke of Sussex said he felt he could not complain about articles or Press conduct because of a Royal Family policy of ‘never complain, never explain’, which he had been ‘conditioned to accept’.' I think he complained and explained a lot in his memoir, Spare. Elizabeth Arden 8 hour cream and a frostbite on a certain part of his anatomy, anyone?
I think he seemed content to accept the RF policy at the time. Is all the bitterness now due to wifey? I think she's behind it and this comment in the DT confirms it . . .'What he really means is that his wife cannot see why everything about him cannot be commercialized, something she gave away when in Australia complaining about not getting paid in the belief they should get rewarded over and above for every little view of his royal worthlessness. ' . . .
His claim hangs on 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013, many concerning his relationship with Chelsy Davy. This is ancient history, why is he still banging on about it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1qjn1aa/harry_took_the_witness_stand_and_the_times_is/#lightbox
'The Duke was rebuked by Mr Justice Nicklin for arguing with allegations put to him, and was told: “Part of Mr White’s job is to put allegations to you. This is a big moment. You are doing exactly what lots of litigants do – you tend to argue back about what he is putting to you.”
Prince Harry did not “have to bear the burden of arguing the case”, the judge added, saying that was a job for his barrister. Later, he told him he should not feel under pressure to argue specific points, but should just “answer the questions”.' (DT). He couldn't stick to the facts and had to argue back. I thought he'd had enough experience of this sort of trials.
I get the impression that know-alls & narcissists can be relied upon to reveal themselves unwittingly in the witness box.
Claimer vs. Namer
Witless for the prosecution
is looking a bit lame
Taking the stand
last vestige of fame
Hoping for more dollars
for meretricious mame
The judge should end
their litigious game…
Except that he wasn't on the frontline, allegedly.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1qn913p/apple_news_decided_to_promote_this_old_post_today/#lightbox
I can't find this alleged photo - has anyone else tracked it down?
https://youtu.be/EdH2fyAWVww?si=RbvPt6WDk-Kelb4_
I've got it at last, thank you, although it needs the eye of faith to make out what it really is. I did find a pic of a moon bump which is based on the `mother' being encased in a tube of material from armpit to crotch, with built in bump, so there's no obvious edge to this sausage skin.
If this is the `evidence' the polite term for it is `inconclusive' but I prefer the sigle syllble `fake'.
What is the white line to the right of the bump? I think it's a rotten image and doesn't prove a thing.
She is the empty barrel making the most noise and she does not get that she has lost her looks, she has never had any brain power to loose and she is quite unable to understand that NOBODY wants her!
Baroness, make us all happy, go home and shut up!
I hope you're safe and not affected by storm Chandra
Thank you, so far, so good. We live on a hill but others not far away are having a bad time with flooding or the onslaught from the sea. We keep putting off doing the shopping but will have to do something about it soon.
'I think they realized it was Remembrance Day and they didn’t want to be seen at a party', she [Kim] said.
. . . And Kim was also absolutely clear that the images were had been shared online with the Sussexes' consent, explaining: 'We were told that it was totally cool to post'.
The Duke of Sussex was wearing a poppy on his lapel - but his wife had not worn one.
Kim has suggested that Harry and Meghan had changed their minds and wanted them 'taken down' because they didn’t want to be seen 'partying and dancing on the dance floor'.
'I think they realised it was Remembrance Day, and they didn’t want to be seen at a party, even though it’s already up, you know, and then taken down. And then I think they realized, like, oh, this was so silly'... (DM)
H turns up at a party wearing a poppy - * wasn't, of course - and then they realised dancing at said party wasn't a good look - but attending was fine. Obviously a mark of respect!
The former actress, 44, couldn't resist moving out from behind director Alysa Nahamias during her speech introducing the film to an audience in Utah including Prince Harry.
The Duchess of Sussex looked delighted as she posed for selfies after arriving at the Eccles Theatre in Salt Lake City on Sunday.
She then took her enthusiastic backing for the project to the stage, standing directly behind director Alysa as she introduced the documentary on Saturday morning.
As Ms Nahamias thanked Meghan 'for her incredible support', the Duchess was spotted slowly edging outwards on to the stage and into view from behind her.'
She must have realised the camera was not on her and she had to come into view. True to form, always has to be front and centre.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15508611/Awkward-moment-Meghan-Markle-Cookie-Queens-movie-premiere-Sundance.html#comments
https://www.celebitchy.com/959487/prince_harry_announced_as_the_keynote_speaker_for_a_global_privacy_summit/
I don't know if many of you are familiar with celebitchy but they are unwavering supporters of the Sussexes so be warned before you read the comments there.
I have just been reminded of this by today's trial report of a murderer in Coventry - another harrowing one. Ms Cook said that the very worst one (at the time of her talk) was that of Rosemary West in 1995. IIRC, she said wtte of sensing `papable evil'.
We seldom think of the effect of trials for such heinous acts on those in court as part of their work. There's something about Ms Cook here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-devon-58642987
Shipman's there but so too is Princess Anne!
https://pagesix.com/2026/01/29/society/private-investors-buy-soho-house-for-2-7-billion-after-2021-ipo/
Markled!
Jessica Mulroney and Meghan Markle, best friends forever?
The stylist’s ex-husband, Ben Mulroney, gave a surprising update on Jessica’s friendship with Markle during a sit-down with Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong on Wednesday’s episode of their “Can’t Be Censored” podcast.
While speaking about attending Markle’s wedding with Prince Harry in 2018, the former “Canadian Idol” host was asked about the reports that he and Jess are no longer friends.
“It’s Jess’s story to tell, I wouldn’t speak for her, so if she ever wants to talk about it…,” he said before noting, “From what I understand, they are on positive terms.”
Excreta Express
I really clearly can’t resist
The thought her name
is on the list
Of Epsteins brood of
willing mares
Who flogged their wares
In the pursuit of spares…
Katherine Keating being named
Minnows before/instead of
Piranhas
So there was chatter on SMM about it as manipulated. Mainly questions about head size, overall appearance and so on. I was leaning that way based on how perfectly unchanging the left side segments were.
So I looked into Surf Ranch. Oh wow. Nothing the pair does is ever cheap. $50K for a day pass in off season and $70K in prime season.
When you compare his ride and this ride - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDOP7UoZed0 - big differences. You see arial views (so I was wrong about the sides). The pros exhibit very relaxed body language during the ride, doing turns, really in the barrel while his appears more tense and less adventurous looking although it appears to be kind of improved a little in the night shot. His surfer pro friend appears to be kind of helping him on form as he rides beside. Absolutely no drone overhead shots - all from the water level.
Oh and each ride the wave lasts about a minute.
A beauty expert - "Why does Meghan look like this"
The photo is not dated but was taken in Epstein's Paris flat. It would be delightful if it was * in the photo.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2026/02/02/08/106001465-15519279-A_photograph_released_as_part_of_the_Epstein_files_apparently_sh-a-125_1770020781062.jpg
You're right, he does bat for the other team, he's married to a man and I wasn't implying some hanky panky going on but he's showing the woman some document. * could well have been involved in some dodgy business, especially if there was money involved. Mandleson now has very grey hair so the photo was taken some years ago, quite possibly circa 2015 before * met Harry. I'm almost sure the unknown woman is not *, it's just an uncanny resemblance. As many people have noticed, it's her posture, pony tail, Cartier bracelet. Nothing, however, is impossible...
The Norwegian RF have :
- a trial for the Crown Prince`s stepson starting this week
- the stepson arrested last night, just prior to his trial, this time for assault
- Crown Princess mentioned in the Epstein file over 160 times
- Epstein wrote in an email about the Crown Princess that she was a "mess"
But then again, we have Sarah Ferguson outed for bringing her daughters to visit Epstein days after he was released for prison for crimes of a sexual nature with young women as the victims.... No wonder Prince Philip hated her so much.
`England is the only nation on Earth that has managed to limit the powers of kings by resisting them, and has finally established a wise system of government in which the ruler is all-powerful when it comes to doing good, and has his hands tied if he attempts to do evil.'
Voltaire wrote this in a criticism of France.
See Stephen Clarke, `1,000 Years of Annoying the French', pub. Black Swan (2015) p291
There's plenty of overstock and not just jam/spread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/1quc7te/jars_of_meghan_markles_unsold_jam_overflowing_at/
another cross to carry says:
February 3, 2026 at 8:45 am
They have not fully appreciated the POWER of the Sussex Squad! From each paycheck I set aside an amount just for buying As Ever products. I am sure I am not alone!
https://www.celebitchy.com/960066/page_six_netflix_is_giving_away_duchess_meghans_as_ever_overstock_you_guys/
Has she had her nose straightened at last?
Might it have been more about exploiting ERII's weak spot about A M-W? Within the last week or so I saw an allegation about * blackmailing him (sorry, didn't note where it was. Was it here?) and he fended her off by providing access to H.
Three sh1ts shafting an old lady who loved them dearly. One her son, another her grandson and the third a sleezy
JudithAnnEgg
12 hours ago
Just read on another website that MM wants to adopt a baby "to gather public sympathy" for herself! I'm not sure if this is true, but it sure does seem like something she would do! I imagine her trying to adopt a biracial/special needs kid. I hope this isn't true because no kid needs MM or PH to be their parent. Most of us already agree that there is no Archie or Lilibet. IF she did adopt, she would be putting this kid out in front to show everyone how nice and angelic she is to do this, but not realize everyone else would be, "What about Archie and Lilibet?" Of course the child wouldn't be in the line of succession, but then I would imagine they would then call KC "racist" for not putting the child in the LOS.
Markle, 44, also wore the look in an Instagram post teasing As Ever’s upcoming launch, which was uploaded last week.
https://pagesix.com/2026/02/04/style/meghan-markle-brings-back-a-dress-from-her-royal-life-in-new-instagram-post/
As for the LoS, not a chance as clearly the baby wouldn't be born of the body, so screaming racism would be no use.
Is it the `upcoming launch' which hasn't happened yet and about which we've heard nothing?
Are they the same dress? Here she is at the dinner:
https://meghanmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/meghan-duchess-sussex-royal-foundation-dinner-15-nov-2018.jpg
Note the intrusive `sussex-' .
From casting a dressmaker's forensic eye over the photos, I would have said they may be the `same' dress - I'll spare you the construction details unless you're really interested.
They only query I have is about the way the bodice fits, or rather doesn't fit, In the earlier pic, it stands well away from the breast, enough to embarrass any gentleman standing next to her or to invite any bloke to explore. Yet it seems to fit more snugly in the later pics, despite her weight loss. Has she had it taken in (despite apparently not ever knowing that alterations are possible.)?
The skirt puzzles me. The original looks like a stiff heavy cloqué (US `cloky'), a kind of 3D brocade, the recent is a diaphanous overskirt, perhaps with a printed pattern.
Has she had it copied? To demonstrate that she didn't flog it? It's stated that it was `given' to her by the former Prince Charles, now HM the King. Or, to be Biblical, " `Given', which being interpreted, means she presented the bill to her father-in-law", sold the dress and kept the proceeds, allegedly.
I am now bewildered.
It's all as convoluted `as ever'.
Wouldn't it be better that Charles started his pension years early and left the salvage of the British Monarchy for the capable hands of Prince William for he has (modern) brains?
Cupidus/Cupida
An excess of products
no buyers to be found
Now hoarding her tat on
netflix ground
Her valentine dross
limited edition
Hope she’s not working
on commission
A puddled muddled
bloodied spread
As ever we’ll wonder
is she right in the head…
Neither Charles nor William
are their brothers keepers
Lilliputain
Oh megsie your’e in trouble
Goodness gracious me
You really thought
all could be rort
On the back of royalty…
The House of Windsor
has survived worse
Churchill once summed up the case for monarchy thus:
Constitutional monarchy, Churchill declared, was “a practical instrument and means of national self-preservation against every type of republic and every degree of dictatorship.” Hardly anyone, he added, “even the greatest simpleton,” believed any better system was available. “No one can presume to set himself up as national representative against the hereditary rights of the King.”
I'm quoting this:
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/constitutional-monarchy/
We've got a constitutional crisis on our hands at the moment, one greater than just the misdeeds of AMW, nauseating though they are. - this crisis looks to be far worse than the Profumo affair of 1963.
On a lighter note, were Churchill alive today, he’s perhaps say, `“No one can presume to set him- or herself up as national representative against the hereditary rights of the King.” We now know that extreme simpletons do attempt it!
Kingship is for life. Charles did not sign a two-party contract, he made a vow before God. There's a difference.
She always reminds me of those forensic facial reconstructions they make from clay when they've found an early human skull in a cave somewhere.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15539759/Meghan-goes-solo-dons-dress-enormous-train-Annual-Fifteen-Percent-Pledge-Fundraising-Gala-honouring-Beyonces-mother.html
Personally, I think that type of dress doesn`t suit her. It`s for someone who has a large difference between her bosom and her rib cage. Also, in most photos, the centre seam isn`t in the centre, so the effect the design meant to convey is off.
Ye gods -
This dress apes the Robe of Estate, worn by the monarch after the Coronation, in the way it is draped. Thursday was 2nd of February, the anniversary of the death of George VI died and Elizabeth became Queen.
Is there no end to the twists in her devious mind?