Harry and Meghan #124 shoes might have a lift, but he's still married to the kween of grift

[LadyMuck]

It's Prince George's birthday on the 22nd July. I guess we can expect some drivel from the Cali2

 

[Chita]

Given she seems to be the brains of the outfit, I wonder what Haz does with himself all day? Play at the chick inn with the sproggles?

I wonder what he did all day before he met her.
He was waited on hand & foot with everything organised for him.
Only difference now is his Dad isn't paying for everything.

 

[Cassandra333]

Lovely new thread. Thanks to @Carpediem69 for thread and great recap and @JAR21 for the title.
Just woken up and don't have anything to say.

 

[LadyMuck]

Lovely pic of handsome Wills for a Saturday morning!

"Laure on Twitter: "Finally polo again https://tattle.life/threads/19920/" / Twitter"

 

[wisebutwild]

Sorry I don’t buy the surrogate twins theory.
I’m sure if they hired a surrogate and she was carrying twins then they’d have milked the twin aspect for every penny.
Imho there is zero chance that they would have rejected one twin, especially if they were biologically theirs.
They would have taken both babies because in their eyes it would “trump” Kate because she never had twins. The attention royal twins would get would be phenomenal and there is no way they on earth this pair would not have monetised them.
Pretty sure that rumour is a work of fiction.

If the surrogate was expecting twins it could be the reason the moon bumps she wore were way too large for the stages of pregnancy she was supposed to be at. I was ENORMOUS when I was carrying twins.

 

[hol20x]

Don’t know if this has already been posted.

Population Matters charity give Harry and Meghan award for limiting family to two children

The couple will receive £500 to donate to charity for making the "enlightened decision" to only have two children.

news.sky.com

They’re being given £500 to donate to a charity of their choice for deciding to limit themselves to two kids. I’ve heard it all.

 

[Scotch Mist]

Thanks for new thread and great title.

"Meghan Markle & Prince Harry WILL have a third child but have a few 'chinks in their armour', say their numbers" https://www-thesun-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/15533559/meghan-markle-prince-harry-third-child-chinks-armour-numbers/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM=#amp_tf=From %1$s&aoh=16258677223446&csi=0&referrer=https://www.google.com&ampshare=https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/15533559/meghan-markle-prince-harry-third-child-chinks-armour-numbers/

What a load of bleeping bollocks

'Harry a great leader and Meghan a great giver' give me strength, this is embarrassing shite.

I predict that they won't have any more kids no matter what the freaking numbers say

 

[Peachsquish]

Don’t know if this has already been posted.

Population Matters charity give Harry and Meghan award for limiting family to two children

The couple will receive £500 to donate to charity for making the "enlightened decision" to only have two children.

news.sky.com

They’re being given £500 to donate to a charity of their choice for deciding to limit themselves to two kids. I’ve heard it all.

Well if the charity is doing that well it can afford to give £500 prizes out to 10 recipients then it obviously doesn't need my donations.

 

[Wightgirl]

Don’t know if this has already been posted.

Population Matters charity give Harry and Meghan award for limiting family to two children

The couple will receive £500 to donate to charity for making the "enlightened decision" to only have two children.

news.sky.com

They’re being given £500 to donate to a charity of their choice for deciding to limit themselves to two kids. I’ve heard it all.

The irony is they might not actually have any

 

[Xales]

Lovely pic of handsome Wills for a Saturday morning!

"Laure on Twitter: "Finally polo again https://tattle.life/threads/19920/" / Twitter"

I had a look at those pics and couldn't see any spurs. Better ride(r) than his bro or better horse?

 

[wisebutwild]

Don’t know if this has already been posted.

Population Matters charity give Harry and Meghan award for limiting family to two children

The couple will receive £500 to donate to charity for making the "enlightened decision" to only have two children.

news.sky.com

They’re being given £500 to donate to a charity of their choice for deciding to limit themselves to two kids. I’ve heard it all.

From the article.........

'We commend the duke and duchess for taking this enlightened decision, and for affirming that a smaller family is also a happy family.'

If you say so!

Personally I don't see much happiness in that family.

 

[Innocent Hamster]

Don’t know if this has already been posted.

Population Matters charity give Harry and Meghan award for limiting family to two children

The couple will receive £500 to donate to charity for making the "enlightened decision" to only have two children.

news.sky.com

They’re being given £500 to donate to a charity of their choice for deciding to limit themselves to two kids. I’ve heard it all.

Unknown charity gives never heard of before award to desperate fame whores in shallow bid for publicity.

 

[Happy Lady]

This site just popped up and made me think of a certain couple

www.archiesfootwear.co.uk

They advertise for flip flops that have "No Breaks or Blowouts and No Toe Clawing"

 

[NorthernValkyrie]

This site just popped up and made me think of a certain couple

www.archiesfootwear.co.uk

They advertise for flip flops that have "No Breaks or Blowouts and No Toe Clawing"

Pretty sure the couple could learn a thing or two about each point

 

[Doodlebug005]

Morning all! Thanks for new thread, love the title

Piers tweeted about Ofcom and "Princess Pinocchio"... He is right , surely they cannot find him wrong for questioning a proven liar

 

[Cassandra333]

Is anyone else thinking of writing to the TV company to complain about Wendy Williams comments on the Queen and Dumbarton? I don't usually complain to TV companies to be honest. In fact I think I've only done it once and that was to the BBC.
But WW comments were so offensive that I think I'm going to complain. By criticising the Queen in such a horrible way, she's actually offended the whole of the UK. And the comments about Dumbarton were equally offensive.
If I had a magic wand, I'd refuse to let her enter the UK ever again. Along with Orca and Windy King.
And the whole 'he'll get bullied' argument is rubbish. The poor kid is going to get bullied anyway, everyone gets bullied at some point in their life and it will carry on until you stand up to it. Take away one reason to be bullied and kids will find another. School is the best place to learn how to stand up to bullies because it's far harder to learn that lesson in adult hood.
So I'm thinking of putting in a complaint but then I think isn't that what WW wants? To cause a reaction? Perhaps better to totally ignore it? After all, she's not a person of any significance in the UK.
What does everyone think?

 

[Nuttynana]

Is anyone else thinking of writing to the TV company to complain about Wendy Williams comments on the Queen and Dumbarton? I don't usually complain to TV companies to be honest. In fact I think I've only done it once and that was to the BBC.
But WW comments were so offensive that I think I'm going to complain. By criticising the Queen in such a horrible way, she's actually offended the whole of the UK. And the comments about Dumbarton were equally offensive.
If I had a magic wand, I'd refuse to let her enter the UK ever again. Along with Orca and Windy King.
And the whole 'he'll get bullied' argument is rubbish. The poor kid is going to get bullied anyway, everyone gets bullied at some point in their life and it will carry on until you stand up to it. Take away one reason to be bullied and kids will find another. School is the best place to learn how to stand up to bullies because it's far harder to learn that lesson in adult hood.
So I'm thinking of putting in a complaint but then I think isn't that what WW wants? To cause a reaction? Perhaps better to totally ignore it? After all, she's not a person of any significance in the UK.
What does everyone think?

It's very tempting but ignoring her is the best way, no fuel, no fire.

She is an ugly, untalented, ignorant piece of trash

 

[Nannyto2]

" oh dear.
All going a bit Pete Tong for you both, is it......."





"LLLLLLLOOOLLLLLLLLZZZZZZ"

I've shamelessly copied this from another lovely forum I'm a member of and thought you guys would love this...

"...If you read the T&C on the Archewell website you'll see that if you submit your "act of compassion" to them you handover all copyright to your story and will not get any royalties from it if they use it. A cheap way of getting material for whatever it is they're doing with Netflix and Spotify?"

(I don't know how to put the following into a Spoiler - if someone tells me how ill edit it.....)

The small print...
By submitting material, you are granting Archewell (Archewell, LLC, Archewell Foundation, Archewell Productions & Archewell Audio, collectively Archewell), its principals, related entities, successors and assigns (Archewell Parties), an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable license to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed, the Submission in whole or in part for all purposes it deems, in its sole discretion, appropriate. For purposes of illustration but not limitation it may post the Submission on this or any other affiliated or non-affiliated websites, include in online uses, film, video, games, publications, educational materials, seminars, forums, promotional materials, etc.

b. By submitting material which contains your or any person’s name, biographical material, photograph or likeness you are granting Archewell and the Archewell Parties an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable license, in any media now known or hereafter developed, the right to use the names, likenesses and biographical materials included in the Submission in whole or in part for all purpose it deems, in its sole discretion, appropriate. For purposes of illustration but not limitation it may post the name, likenesses and biographical material on this or any other affiliated or non-affiliated websites, include in online uses, film, video, games, publications, educational materials, seminars, forums, promotional materials, etc.

c. Archewell has the right to edit, revise, abridge, crop, combine, condense, quote selected portion of the Submission as it deems appropriate or necessary. Archewell is under no obligation to use the Submission in any matter or at all, its use is in the sole discretion of Archewell.

d. You shall not be entitled to any credit, consideration, notice or payments of any kind. You waive any Moral Rights you may have to the Submissions, and agrees that if Archewell or any Archewell Party elects to use the Submissions for any purpose, all rights under copyright or other intellectual property rights which may result from Archewell or Archewell Parties’ use relating to your Submissions shall be the sole property of Archewell. You further agree that if Archewell or the Archewell Parties elect to use your Submissions, you will execute any documents requested regarding the usage. If you violate any of the representations or warranties you have made and as a result a use by Archewell and/or the Archewell Parties of the Submissions causes them to be liable to any third-party, You agree to indemnify Archewell and/or the Archewell Parties and their agents, employees, affiliates, subsidiaries, representative and all related parties from and against any and all damages, costs, judgments and expenses (including reasonable attorney fees) which it incurs as a result of its use of the Submissions.

e. Archewell reserves the right in its sole and unfettered discretion to refuse to accept or use any Submission for any reason including but not limited to, that it believes contains obscene, offensive or inappropriate content, that does not comply with these Submission Rules or that is not consistent with the goal and objectives of Archewell.

f. No additional compensation of or kind is due you, nor any further consents are required form you, nor are you entitled to any further notice or credits regarding the use of the Submission.

g. You acknowledge and agree that the Archewell and the Archewell Parties do not now and shall not have in the future any duty or liability, direct or indirect, vicarious, contributory, or otherwise, with respect to the infringement or protection of the copyright in and to the Submission.

h. You acknowledge that, with respect to any claim by you relating to or arising out of Archewell and the Archewell Parties actual or alleged exploitation or use of the Submission the damage, if any, thereby caused to the applicable entrant will not be irreparable or otherwise sufficient to entitle such entrant to seek injunctive or other equitable relief or in any way enjoin the production, distribution, exhibition or other exploitation of the Submission or any material based on or allegedly based on the Submission, and your rights and remedies in any such event shall be strictly limited to the right to recover damages, if any, in an action at law. You agree that any dispute between yourself (and any third party whose material, name or likeness are found in your Submission) shall be resolved by binding and confidential arbitration in Los Angeles, California either before an AAA or JAMS arbiter.

no get out clause then

 

[Chita]

The irony is they might not actually have any

Kids or money left?

 

[Scotch Mist]

Is anyone else thinking of writing to the TV company to complain about Wendy Williams comments on the Queen and Dumbarton? I don't usually complain to TV companies to be honest. In fact I think I've only done it once and that was to the BBC.
But WW comments were so offensive that I think I'm going to complain. By criticising the Queen in such a horrible way, she's actually offended the whole of the UK. And the comments about Dumbarton were equally offensive.
If I had a magic wand, I'd refuse to let her enter the UK ever again. Along with Orca and Windy King.
And the whole 'he'll get bullied' argument is rubbish. The poor kid is going to get bullied anyway, everyone gets bullied at some point in their life and it will carry on until you stand up to it. Take away one reason to be bullied and kids will find another. School is the best place to learn how to stand up to bullies because it's far harder to learn that lesson in adult hood.
So I'm thinking of putting in a complaint but then I think isn't that what WW wants? To cause a reaction? Perhaps better to totally ignore it? After all, she's not a person of any significance in the UK.
What does everyone think?

Good points and I agree with you about bullying.

My daughter was bullied at school (something I never allowed to happen to me). I said to her if someone is mean and bitchy and calls you names give it back to them. Anyone who's ever insulted me has been repaid with many choice insults. Anyone who hit me at school got it back too. I beat a boy in a fight at junior school.

My daughter said that if you fight back now you can be excluded and are deemed just as bad as the bully. This policy means that kids literally can't fight back against bullies now. This lack of resilience building is the crux of the problem and that's why bad kids get away with bad behaviour and take it into adulthood.

I bet hardly anyone has ever stood up against Meghan in her life which is why she continues with her horrible bullying behaviour. She has got away with it so far and thinks that nobody will ever win against her.