Harry & Meghan #438 it's life, Jam, but not as we know it.

[Cinnamon.girl]

This is why I think it’s insane that people think KC3 is secretly funding him or secretly longs for him and is plotting his return. KC3 will always love his son, but he will not enable his life

I don't think his not wearing the Coronation medal is significant, as it features Camilla who he dislikes intensely. We were told that he didn't stay to collect his medal and that it was sent on to him, but he did get one and they made a point of confirming this.

We've no idea if the king is funding his son, but as for "enabling" it depends what the definition is. Both Stoats are such a disaster that left to themselves they'd have crashed and burned a long time ago. They have a safety net and it's his father. If the Stoat speaks at IG at St Paul's Cathedral in May, that's enabling as only the king could have sanctioned this. He's enabled Harald's fake family to maintain their fraudulent Royal status, despite overwhelming calls to stop, protected them in Court. So many examples.

Enabled their stealing from charities by covering up all wrongdoing. HM was Head of the Armed Forces when the Stoat was allegedly being violent and taking drugs, and now her son is Head of the Armed Forces while the Stoat steals from veteran charities and takes drugs. Both Harald and his jammy Ho are still on the Royal website, with a link to her ludicrous kibble sales.

"Enabling" imo is allowing wrongdoing with no consequences. Someone's funding the Sussexes as they don't care how many people they hire for failed events, how many podcasts they launch, camera crews, CEOs, PR spins, jets, expenses, court cases, legal fees. They just don't care how much stuff costs, how much they waste, because they're not footing the bill and are earning nothing.

If his father is prepared to protect Harald to this extent, is it not logical that such help would include financing?

 

[DoubleOld]

And that Gwyneth first established herself as a star, someone who's bankable and who can actually drive the market. She built relationships with all the right people, the exact reputation that would work with a lifestyle brand, and only then started the newsletter (minimum investment) that she grew into a business selling physical products.

Maybe the ship has sailed when it comes to Smegs and Hollywood, or maybe it can only get worse from here on so she wanted to cash in on whatever goodwill she has left before it's gone, but Smegs should have launched her Tig 2.0 first. The market is too saturated and the global economy too uncertain to take massive risks, even with someone else's money (assuming someone's backing her or she's using Sparry's inheritance supposedly earmarked for the alleged Flatpacks). Patience isn't really her strong suit though.

All of Smegs and Sparry's actions just keep showing that William and Catherine were and still are really smart to wait, watch, do their research, practise and then strike when the time is right. It's not exciting, maybe there are short-term losses (e.g. their reputations for being lazy or missing out on 'trending issues') but it's really smart and enduring. Does FarkeWell still exist?

Also, Gwyneth's identity is very clear - she's an actress and a businesswoman, and also does meaningful philanthropic work. When I try to remember what Smegs says she does, all I can remember is a jumble of phrases like no one asked if I was okay, The Duchess, they were racist to me, mom, humanitarian, supermodel, do you know she does voiceovers, washing up liquid, Suits, oat coffee, etc etc. None of those phrases evokes memories of any real good work done


The fun part is, I don't particularly like Gwyneth and sometimes I actively really dislike her. So I was writing this post without bias.

I can relate @ChaoticArtist. I actively dislike Gwyneth Paltrow and some of her advice and products have been deemed outright harmful by medical professionals. However, she has shown herself to be an astute businesswoman with a strong work ethic and a clear vision of the direction she wants her company to go in. Even if I disagree with almost everything she says and does, you gotta give her credit for having the hustle and putting in the time to get things going.

 

[The Tipsy Titian]

I’m wondering if the British person who refused the ham is Eug or is she still living overseas with the barman?

Please let it be Princess Anne and please let her have told her where to shove it, lemon by lemon

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

Its like car crash in slow motion with victims along the way we can't help watching ....

The couple in the article are probably nice likable people who can relate to audience. And they have partnership with Warner/HGTV not netflix. They likely have different financial structures. Shes finished but even if someone tells her she won't accept it.
I just don't understand why shes still trying. For L.A she's over the hill. Shes millions. Why can't she just go away quietly and raise her Prince & Princess (for now) that she seems to be too embarrassed to show to the world.

Both Stoats still have a lot of information not revealed, as they've only shared the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the family history Harald knows, and what he's told the Ho as he wallows in self-pity and envy. NF could be holding out for this.
Normal families are bound my self-protection and loyalty to guard each other and hush things up, but the Stoat has few if any borders especially now as his brain is disordered.

 

[wibble]

Honk, honk

 

[Scotch Mist]

Ooh I hope the news about Hazno being ousted as patron of Invictus is true but Mike Tindall isn't a working royal so it couldn't be a royal patronage. Why is this only on GB News?
Does the CEO of Invictus have the power to get rid of Hazno?

 

[Chita]

I personally reached the end of the line with letters to the Royal Family and the bland replies, if I was "lucky". However, I find myself with the energy to get on the case again, and set out below my latest missive to Sir Edward Young. We can all engage in this way, if we can be bothered and if we accept that we will not receive a response of any substance. At the very least, it's a reminder to them thai none of this is going away any time soon.

Sir Edward Young
Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary
Buckingham Palace, London, SW1A 1AA

Dear Sir

As Private Secretary to the Monarch, I am sure you must possess a remarkable grasp of our constitution. I would be most grateful if you would kindly enlighten me on the following questions (please cite specific reference to the relevant statutes or other principle on which you rely):

1. On what basis is a person resident in the United States qualified to serve as a Counsellor of State in the UK?

2. On what basis is a child who is not demonstrably “born of the body” qualified to be included in the line of succession?

3. Is there any threshold of sustained corruption and depravity perpetuated by titled members of the Royal Family, which if exceeded should give the Monarch cause to act unambiguously to uphold our constitution? Please address in particular:

• lying to the courts in the course of legal proceedings(perjury) and flouting its orders (contempt);
• bullying, including directly and indirectly publishing in the United States and elsewhere divisive and mischievous lies which foment racial disharmony and bring this country, the Commonwealth and their peoples into disrepute;
• attacking our system of government and the role and credibility of admired members of the Royal Family and their children, including supporting those third parties who hatefully do so at their instruction;
• deliberately refusing to provide clarification to address genuine public anxieties as to matters of fundamental importance to continuing public support for an hereditary constitutional monarchy, notably the qualification of offspring to be included in the line of succession, wilfully withholding basic information and deceiving the public;
• profiteering from royal connections for personal gain;
• financial mismanagement of charitable donations;
• collaborating with foreign states or other third parties to undermine our monarchy and/or our settled values of justice and freedom of speech which the Monarch has pledged to uphold

4. What actions by the Monarch would be appropriate, in your view, with respect to corruption and depravity of the type listed in 3 above?

5. In what circumstances would the Monarch be justified in concealing, facilitating or turning a blind eye to corruption and depravity of the type listed in 3 above?

6. In what circumstances would Parliament be justified in conniving with the Monarch to conceal, facilitate or turn a blind eye to corruption and depravity of the type listed in 3 above?

Given that our monarchy exists only with the consent of the people, it is reasonable that the answers to these questions are made transparent. I therefore look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully etc

My letter to him would say,

Yo, Sir Ed,
WTF is going on with Harry and his invisible kids?
FFS do something to un-royal the little sneak and his beastly wife.


Luv Chita

 

[Flowerstar68]

Ooh I hope the news about Hazno being ousted as patron of Invictus is true but Mike Tindall isn't a working royal so it couldn't be a royal patronage. Why is this only on GB News?
Does the CEO of Invictus have the power to get rid of Hazno?

Invictus has never been a Royal Patronage, Mike would be brilliant.

 

[Fredsnail]

Are we 100% sure?

Not been officially confirmed or announced

 

[wibble]

Does the CEO of Invictus have the power to get rid of Hazno?

I'm sure it could be arranged in the archery competition

 

[Thalia]

Hubby and I stayed at a hotel in Boston last night for a graduation. On the bar we went to after, there was a bowl of lemons. I wanted so badly to take a picture to post here but couldn't think of an excuse to explain myself with all of the people around!

You should have just brazened it out and told them you were sending the pic to a team of international citrologists for reference

Next time

 

[Amiyaya]

In writing to the men in grey….

I was always taught Sincerely for those unknown, and faithfully for those known.

you can be sincere to everyone but faithful only to those you know.

How would I sign off to the palace? I don’t ‘know’ them but I am a faithful subject. Would this depend on who I am addressing?

 

[Shemakesmemad]

OK, maybe I'm being petty, but the amount of time, energy and resources put into Rachel Ragland pisses me off. Why is she getting so much assistance that she doesn't deserve? How about some of us common "working folk" getting a break. Must be nice living in a world where you're not allowed to fail.

JFC, that woman brings out the worst in me. I feel like I'm sinking down to her level. She is an energy vampire.

Time to read my meditation journals, open my mind back up and focus on the good people here on tattle.

Anyone else having this struggle?

Absolutely! I spend a lot of time trying to keep myself positive in general - I’m a strong believer in what you put out there you get back! 🫣 but the negativity trips me when it comes to those two I wonder why I let them get up my nose so much and then I think it’s because they are never ever called out by anyone for their behaviour and actions and that gets my goat

 

[Chita]

A while ago I wrote a couple of letters to Invictus. I found some contact details online.
I said the veterans were being overshadowed by Meghan's fashion show.
I mentioned that the Harkles having all their expenses paid etc etc was unacceptable and I said that I would no longer support Invictus if they allowed all of this nonsense to continue. I reminded them there are plenty other charities helping veterans.

I urged them to distance themselves from the Harkles because their association with them is giving Invictus a bad name and making it a laughing stock.



I like to think that my letters and the many others I am sure they received have made them stop and rethink things.

 

[Hula flight]

Was that shouting in the background real then?? I thought it was a joke version someone had made?

 

[Chita]

In writing to the men in grey….

I was always taught Sincerely for those unknown, and faithfully for those known.

you can be sincere to everyone but faithful only to those you know.

How would I sign off to the palace? I don’t ‘know’ them but I am a faithful subject. Would this depend on who I am addressing?

I was taught the opposite.
If you know the name it is Sincerely.
If you don't it is Faithfully.
The way I remember which is which is if your letter is addressed to Dear Mr Smith - it is Sincerely.

If you don't know who the Feck they are - it is Faithfully.




Addressing royals ia whole nother ballgame though.
---
..

Was that shouting in the background real then?? I thought it was a joke version someone had made?

me too. There were plates smashing as well. Has to be a spoof.

 

[mardymare]

Probably a false rumour that Kevin Costner and Adele sent their jamscam bowls back.

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

Lady C



Suggestiveness of strawberry jam? Lady C was not aware of the Urban Dictionary meaning but is not surprised at a double meaning. The Harkles are the type who would play such games.

Surrogacy? The Harkles' behaviour throughout Aldi and Lidl's gestational periods has fuelled speculation and suspicion that Smeg did not give birth. A big red flag was Haz implying that Aldi was already 2 weeks' old. Also swaying moonbumps and Smeg's agility in late stage megnancy. The mystery and lack of transparency has been undermining the Monarchy. Clarity is needed asap because the Harkles are one plane crash away from the Throne. A huge constitutional issue has arisen directly out of the Harkles' conduct, mischievous or otherwise. Simple solution - if children were borne of Smeg's body TRF needs to provide incontravertible proof like all other heirs pre-Aldi.

TRF have been playing ostrich? Lidl was delivered for and not to Smeg - a clear indication of not being popped out by Smeg. İf apparently valid birth certificates are provided the Palace are obliged to put Aldi and Lidl in the line of succession. Lady C says now is the opportune time to address the situation ie. confirm that Aldi and Lidl were borne of Smeg's body and from Smeg's eggs. Eggs, uterus and disgorging.

Rights of the British people and citizens of the realms? Whoever witnessed the birth needs to say indisputedly what the situation is. TRF's duty is over and above the Harkles' right to privacy.

Action? Lady C calls on all of us to request clarity from TRF. İf doubt remains uncleared then people will deduce that a deception is true.

BIB
"İf apparently valid birth certificates are provided, the Palace are obliged to put Aldi and Lidl in the line of succession."
Is she saying the birth certificates provided were "apparently valid" and that's why the Palace were "obliged" to put the Flatpacks in the LoS? Both birth certificates were fake and invalid, Lili's a joke. Is this the Palace excuse for putting them in the LoS? Without a birth certificate Ffark couldn't have got a passport and gone to South Africa and Canada.

"Now is an opportune time to confirm that Aldi and Lidl were born of Smeg's body."
Is she for real?

If she believed the vile insinuations against TM were untrue she should never have included them in her book. Her fake anger at the accusation didn't stop her using it for sensationalism. Of course TM won't sue, he's been destroyed.
Shameless woman, far worse than Jobson, Hardman or Bond.

Have we had the bombshell yet? We were waiting for months and it kept being put back, and I feel a bit stupid not knowing if it has been and gone. Also I've not read the book, only excerpts on here.

 

[wibble]

Hello, my beautiful peeple...

 

[SweetSummerChild]

I bed the Stoat would like one of these!