I've been playing a lot of chess lately. A real thinking of what if, then this or what about that? Always thinking about where to be in future moves. And, what will the other side do in response.
One of the problems with taking away all the titles is that now she is reduced to being (merely) Princess Harold from what little I understand about title protocol. (and how long do you think before Princess Meghan, like Princess Diana, would take to emerge and no guesses as to who would drive it?)
But ... what if ...
only the Sussex and Kilkeel titles were taken away? Allow them to keep Dumbarton. That one never seems to make any headlines - meaning a rare mention to almost never in terms of existence.
She would now be Countess or Lady Dumbarton, right? If Sussex is what is commonly mentioned instead of Princess, then why not leave them with just Dumbarton?
I remember reading they opted not to give that title to Archie at his birth fearing he would be teased by kids later on.
I was pondering this as we hear (periodically depending on if she wants to be titled so just plain MM) as the Duchess or Duke and not so much Prince H and her as Prince H.
So ... could this happen like this according to protocol?
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.
Nutty and us Mods strive as much as possible to make this a welcome and
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. Nothing you would not mind having your name associated with on the front page of the local paper, above the fold.
-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 is still on.
Check Paula M channel, our heroine never danced vulgar baby mama dance. So you know she would never stoop so low.
Well, I call that mental illness when you can not keep your stories straight and yet you believe that people are taking you seriously!
Prince Harry 'wants his father King Charles to stand alongside him at the Invictus Games'
I'm sure the people of these other territories would have something o say about having her dumped on them though and it would damage the unity of the UK. Of course, it might be different were she/they to be incarcerated in rather than allowed to be free range.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16024421/Meghan-Markles-pop-local-book-store-owned-wealthy-friends-downscaled-one-small-table-theres-no-sign-jam.html
Also, your casual comment “ Of course, it might be different were she/they to be incarcerated in rather than allowed to be free range” perked me right up and delighted me. I may start going out each night and searching the night sky for the first star I can see, and chant the “twinkle, twinkle, little star” mantra. I so wish this for them
That was one of 3 good headlines on the news shelves of the Coop today. IIRC, Bella ( I think) here had words to the effect that `this is what Camilla said' in relation presumably to speculation that the Harkles might turn up at Balmoral - `Remember who is the Queen'.
From the National Enquirer, that H had squandered a $60 million fortune, for which he was blaming Meghan, among others.
It did my heart good to see it - such a welcome change from the usual sycophantic drivel.
Commenter said: “I can see Harry (Megaliar, it'll be her!) demanding Archie & Lili get center stage if the grandchildren are given vigil time. That would be so hypocritical of Hazbeen and true to form.” Ouch, I bet Charles has already given the written command that Archie and Lili are to stand vigil on his death, so that new King William must obey, but I would guess King William will arrange that his three children will stand vigil at a different time than Archie and Lili.
TWO: Additionally, as I understand it, correct me if I misremember, during QEII’s lying in state, Harry per protocol was NOT entitled to wear a military uniform since he was not a working member of the Royal Family, but Charles caved to his haranguing pressure and allowed him to wear a uniform to cosplay a working Royal.
I suspect Charles will leave firm instructions, that can’t be undone or ignored, that Harry will be entitled to wear his cosplay military uniform for Charles’ funeral, and perhaps the vigil.
I wonder if the Duchess of Monteshitshow will somehow horn in and stand vigil while using glycerine tears and actress-theatrics, claiming she is the favorite daughter-in-law, and also be front and center at the funeral, arriving late and sashaying her hips as was done at least one time before.
I’m exhausted just thinking of the shenanigans to come.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16026921/meghan-markle-birthday-splash.html
The girlish jump with balloons in the water did nothing to convince us to consider you as a young woman any more, so I'm sorry baroness, just start to live your middle aged years with dignity, please!!
I vote for the latter. I think Prince William is 100% done with the relationship with two-faced brother, Medusa of a sister-in-law, and kids of unknown provenance.
There is no upside to meeting with those kids alone or with hovering parents. There would only be an uncontrollable downside. Even if William specified no photos to be taken, and to not breathe a word of a private meeting, I can guarantee, if past shenanigans are any indication, that the world would soon know of the private supposedly affectionate, secrets-exchanged, eternal love avowed meeting. The press would bleat nonstop about private details, and harangue William for more.
William would never be able to disentangle himself from even one private meeting with the kids, who, I acknowledge, are innocent in every way. The story would be like an evil blob in a science fiction movie, where it doubles in size and evil intention every day. Impossible to squash. Impossible to outrun.
William is wise to protect himself from that circus which would enormously benefit the Harkles, and be destructive to William and his future reign. That’s my take!
she looks like a giant insect here with those twig legs, sunglasses and trailing balloons.
Even Taylor Swift who is the godmother to Blake Lively`s children has cut off contact with them, because their mother tried to blackmail Taylor.
It`s unfortunate, but the kids are still under the control and authority of their parents, so it`s best to stay away from them.
The same holds for William, Catherine and the invisikids, if they exist.
Harry used his children as a bargaining chip to try and lure Prince William into a meeting.
Harry was bewildered; it’s claimed he said, “So he just didn’t want to meet them?”
The commenter on X wrote a truthful zinger in reply:
“For someone who’s never met his own father in law, this is a bit rich. I’m sure Thomas Markle was bewildered too.”
I too think that William won't have anything to do with Harry and *. There would be no point in meeting just the children who, anyway, are just strangers. I think it will be a very long time before there is a rapprochement, if any, between the brothers. William needs to protect the King and his own family. Distance is the best way.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c64b629442387a4018d457132551480e2be47ef7a16832703aa2be47815c5c88.jpg
“He knows more is going to come out about the murky circumstances of the births and he doesn't want to be accused of complicity in any way.” - end snip -
The commenter hit the nail on the head, I believe.
Not that H's hair is ever going the get tangled in low branches.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16031485/Martha-Stewart-Meghan-Markle-UK-visit-King-dinner-party.html
This, especially after the whole color of the skin of the baby which dominated the news cycle but - as pointed out by a MMS poster - it allowed the whole they won't give my kid the hrh and oddities about the birth to go unscrutinized.
William is protective of his family and will not lightly put any of them where they could be subject to something said by his brother/wife. Heck. Even one of the kids.
Which reminds me - not even a card from either kid?
Sorry, I wrote that it would make sense that William didn't want to meet the children. I was thinking of William not wanting to meet H&*, and of course then if there are future revelations re the births then not meeting them would make sense.
Di-arrhoea
No need for balloons
with her inbuilt floats
No fear of drowning
her feet are like boats
Legs like storks
not fit for walking
Lame ducks Di-lemma
perpetual Grave stalking…
Loose Loins Lose Coins
Martha Stewart
a woman of renown
Effectively outed
megs indiscretion to the Crown
Unable to keep
legs or lips closed
The King I’m sure
will remain indisposed…
'Meghan Markle denies chatting about her reunion with the King at a California dinner party attended by fellow lifestyle guru Martha Stewart.
A source [read: *] close to the Duchess of Sussex has clapped back and claimed Martha 'must have been confused' because they were not seated near one another.'
Now Martha Stewart is a little old lady? I know who I believe.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/01/02/670102998d3244511d385ba9d8cf57ae.jpg
If they are considering even to let such ideas to the papers means that the money has run out and they are in a panic mode. Well, this could not happen to nicer people, could it?
Everyone agrees trust has to be rebuilt. An apology doesn't have to be a surrender.
Not going down the path of how many times do you really think she has apologized and where did the idea that an apology is a surrender source? but moving on to the idea of rebuilding trust.
Specifically who in the royal family agrees that trust needs to be rebuilt? Or, is it the palace who is agreeing? So ... where did this idea come from or could/should this be viewed as a "flat" statement stated as true but may not be?
The other thing is, I seriously doubt William's first order of business is to start the process of removing the titles (despite many people's hope it is in the top three). Nah, I think it is way far down the list. But I do think that the waiting for that process to start will be a Damocelian sword hanging over them in Montecito.
Interesting points you've made. The Harkles might apologise but no one wants a mealy mouthed apology. What also matters is remorse. They can apologise all they like but without genuine remorse, their apologies will be worthless. Remorse is not regret. Interestingly, Google gives three parts of remorse (AI).
• Deep Guilt: A strong emotional pain over causing harm to another person or breaking a moral rule.
• Taking Responsibility: A clear acknowledgment that your own choice caused the bad outcome.
• Internal Torment: A lasting sadness that stays in your mind rather than just a quick flash of being caught.
I could see some applying to Harry if he really tries but * is too much of a narcissist for any of this to apply to her.
That phrasing of an apology is not a surrender? That's very rigid/black and white thinking. You are either with me all the way, my ride or die, or you bat for the team so don't even try to think about meeting in the middle some where.
Sort of sounds like manifesting the failure is not an option.
Which reminds me of a question for our British Nutties; I have always understood the Princess Michael of Kent was rather strongly disliked by the public and perhaps the family, but she seems to be tolerated and I've never heard her booed. I know she's not a working royal, but she does turn up at events now and then. I've just always been curious as to how the public generally treat her. Again, understanding that she doesn't any sort of public role at all.
I'm confused - some reports suggest that H is at B-l, and Bella that both, or even all 4 Harkles are there. How many times has * set foot there? Istill thought she'd never been there. What is the truth? Apart of course, from at all the shenanigins around the death of the late Queen when only H was there.
Princess Michael of Kent had undertaken public roles and is the patron of lots of charities as are other members of the RF, although not in an official capacity as a working royal. She and her husband do not receive any public funds (Sovereign grant).
She is better liked than she was when she first came on the scene, I think. The fact she was a divorced and her father served in the Waffen-SS didn't help. Princess Michael of Kent was nicknamed 'Princess Pushy'. I think she was seen as rather Imperious but she does come from German nobility. She was also accused of being racist (among other things, she wore a blackamoor brooch to a Christmas lunch where * was present). She had a stroke earlier this year and we haven't seen her or heard of her for a long time, except at the Queen's funeral for instance.
On another tack I managed to catch part of the Channel 5 documentary about the late 10th Earl of Shaftesbury - it's a cautionary story which H would have done well to have heeded. It's probably too late now.
See Wikipedia and :https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/articles/murder-earl-shaftesbury.
There are distinct parallels with H's own life - and some differences of course
The Earl was altogether a much nicer person.
She hasn`t evolved in any way, has she?
https://youtu.be/erAyWcKKQhM?is=ql319sQA_KM4R_dS
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jason-arday-now-063000073.html
The university has been left with serious egg on its face. Even though it's only one of the faculties involved and, dare I say it? , not one of the heavyweight ones, the damage extends much further than one might imagine at first sight, IMO.
Exactly, serious egg on its face. I couldn't help likening Jason Array to a certain ex actress, both given a pass for the same reason. In fact, some readers also thought the same in comments. Plus ça change...
I didn't pay for it.
Hassanal Bolkiah, the world's longest-reigning monarch, issued the decree after the 33-year-old 'tarnished the monarchy's good name', according to a statement.
... While the palace hasn't revealed the specific actions that caused Pengiran to lose her titles, according to reports by Malaysia's New Straits Times, the Office of the Grand Chamberlain confirmed she is no longer of the royal family and stated:
'The revocation was carried out following conduct by Pengiran Raabi'atul Adawiyyah that was deemed unbecoming of a spouse of a member of the royal family.
Harsh but the treatment would have certainly been appropriate in a certain case in the UK.
Foster Child
Fostering ties
end on a pyre
Burning bridges
David and Goliar
As ever awkward
so out of key
Arrogating the stage
It’s all about me…
I like Sophie Winkleman, half sister of
Claudia, daughter in law of Princess Michael of Kent
She’s a good actress, still working
Madam could have continued working but she can’t act
apart from tears, coy, big teef grind
.
Hussie Wallet
Cambridge conundrum
what a farce
Many academics
fell on their arse
Similarities with madam
quite a few
The ability to lie and
believe it’s true…
It's tragic - it seems to me that he fell victim to a succession of enablers - initially those afraid to do due diligence but ending with those eager to signal their own virtue.
Poor chap, may he rest in peace.
The Duke of Sussex, 41, is set to return 'more and more' to the UK following his visit last month that left him 'buoyed', 'very happy' and 'really energised'.
Harry will return in September for around a week, when he will take on a series of engagements for the Invictus Games'...
Sonos Harry is missing his family/the UK, is he? Or so s he need more money? We're very happy with you in California, Harry.
So now Harry is missing his family/the UK, is he? Or does he need more money?
Someone on X referred to the douchass as “mago-mago”, a description with which I was unfamiliar. I am so glad I looked definition up, and will leave conclusions to you all: “ In Nigerian Pidgin, mago-mago means dishonest, deceptive, or manipulative behavior, especially trickery used to rig a process or cheat someone.”
And she is so indescribable stupid (or lazy?) that she did not changed that exact percentage figure or nationality so it is easy to see where she got it. The brains of that woman!!!
“ Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_ Fan account
Exclusive- Thomas Markle had to take necessary steps to avoid being marred posthumously.
Apparently in speaking to certain people about a “book” MM fantasizes writing, enough intel was gathered to not only tip Thomas off; but he was then advised to seek sworn, notarized written statements & video corroborations to refute a variety of hypothetically slanderous situations!!”
'The book, described as 'historic' and 'extraordinarily moving', is expected to cover Diana's childhood, her deeply unhappy 15-year marriage to the then-Prince of Wales, and the febrile days following her shocking death in a car crash in Paris in August 1997.'
Given his eulogy at Diana's funeral where he mentioned 'we, your blood family will do all we can to continue the imaginative way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition but can sing openly as you planned.' The blood family - I presume the BRF is not their blood family? - didn't do too well where Harry is concerned. I think I know what tone the book will have.
Will it detail how she found solace in the arms of other men?
Or that she got rid of staff if she felt somehow threatened by them?
How realistic will she (and he) be painted, knowing what we do know about how he didn't want her to stay at Althorp after the marriage ended?
The eulogy - they all rode up in the train with the casket together. CS was the Queen's godson. The air on the ride up was described as "chilly".
And yeah, what and how many interactions did he have with not just H but both kids through the years? It was easy to take the pot shots while live on the world's stage but how did it all roll when the palace was doing everything they could to present the kid who was having difficulties in life, as everything he was not behind the scenes. Sure people would have welcomed the break.
The book is expected to be out on 22 September in the UK so not long to wait to read the reviews.
Thank you, Maneki Neko and WBBM, for your insights into Princess Michael. If she could control her ego enough to be liked, it beggars belief that Nutmeg couldn't. I realize PM was very much used to aristocratic protocol, but even after all this time, I am stunned at what Nutmeg threw away.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/media-scrutiny-jason-arday-meghan-markle-1814765
... and there was I thinking that that the RF had avoided the worst of the muck throwing by keeping schtum... You just can't win in a scenario like this.
I hope that in his book Charles Spencer won't be going on about the manner of Diana's death, practically accusing the BRF of killing her. I don't think he is a conspiracy theorist but rather that he might be of the opinion that the BRF is indirectly responsible. I could well be wrong, of course.
The question is how long can the royal houses of Europe go on when the societies around them get harder and harder for normal people to feed their children and pay their bills. And the attitudes of King Charles that his family is somehow so much more important that he doesn't need to listen his subjects are already history in the other European royal families that more and more concentrate just around one nuclear family and less and less even titles for them.
Harry was somewhat good as a prince before he left. The years after have shown an unbalanced egoist who does not give a damn about the people in different organizations be they children of Sentebale or veterans of Invictus. Harry, you have self demonstrated again and again who you are and the world believes that you are exactly the "man you have become" and the world does not like that man.
'indirectly' - by that, I mean that Charles Spencer might imply that had the BRF, and Charles in particular, treated Diana better and helped her with her mental health problems (e.g. when she threw herself down the stairs when expecting William), and looked after her post divorce, then she might not have died. That's only my take, we'll see the tone of the book soon enough.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-harry-meghan-plan-move-210000637.html
Oh, bloody 'ell...
....
'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are planning to move back to the UK, the BBC understands.
As first reported by the Daily Telegraph,, external Prince Harry and Meghan intend to relocate from the US later this month to a private, non-royal residence outside of London.
The couple's children, Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, are enrolled to start at a British school in September.
King Charles was told of the move on Sunday. There are no current plans for either of Prince Harry or Meghan to resume their roles as working Royals.
Is the California dream no more? Do they need money? Palace sources are saying 'there is no half in-half out option'. Let's await further developments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ey03z9d1o
Prince Harry and Meghan moving back to UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ey03z9d1o