Harry and Meghan #371 And the Emmy still doesn't go to.....

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Another agree-er on the Fox's Glacier Fruits


Mmmmm OMG I can't leave them alone, I have them in the car glovebox
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 18
Unpopular comment but I think the striped dress is the best she’s looked since she turned up as a breezy American gal in jeans and a shirt as his girlfriend.

I mean she’s managed to not get it right once in between those occasions, but credit where it’s due she looks alright imo.

Dear Captcha

This is a reminder that your eye examination is well overdue.

Yours
Specsavers 😁
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 55
nicked this from popcorned palace YT they're doing a live for Smegs' birthday 😂 😂 😂

View attachment 2356944
😂

If it were anyone else, I'd have said they wore it deliberately so they would be memed - free publicity. Look at all the free PR Priyanka Chopra got the first time she'd been paired up with Nick Jonas for the Met Gala or something (CBA to confirm). She'd worn this camel trench coat-y dress with a huge train. People had fun photoshopping omelettes etc on it. Same with other celebs.

Smegs would kill for that sort of attention. And then she would also be fuming and plotting revenge against the memers for 'disrespecting' her (the reason(s) we should respect her escape me at the moment. Ask me again next year).
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 26
Just watched Lady C's latest. I believe her, separation will be announced and divorce proceedings begun by end of this year. And yes Parliament should absolutely be involved in discussing custody of the kids, and whether or not they should be in LoS. The English Parliament has been involved in deciding LoS since 1215, in fact in the latter half of Henry VIII's reign that's pretty much all they discussed, lol.

It will be very delicate diplomatically because if the kids are full US citizens, a US Judge will absolutely favour Smeg for custody, especially over a drug addicted father with severe mental health issues. I have no doubt Smeg has been covertly recording Hazno's meltdowns for years to give her evidence for just such a custody hearing. And US Judges are very pro mother and very pro keeping kids in US if the other parent is of different nationality. In this instance, you've got the added complication of the US's proud republicanism - they will not want to be seen to be being pushed around by the English Parliament which they fought a war to get rid of.

Most elegant solution would be to remove the kids from LoS altogether.

Hold on Tattlers, it's gonna get juicy!!
BIB "Parliament has been involved in deciding LoS since 1215"

All you say is true and would apply if we were dealing with a normal situation, but if
Parliament is being involved it is IMO solely to add backdated legitimacy and cover for BP.

"Succession
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne."

The time for discussing whether they should be included was before they were added, not months afterwards. Why now, why not at the time? Does anyone recall Parliamentary debate last year? The Flatpacks are already in, so MPs are not really being asked to discuss whether they should be there or not. KC wants Parliament to legitimise them, that's all, and they are not legitimate insofar as proven born of body and witnessed by doctors to be in the LoS. All the talk of surrogates won't get round this. It's Either/Or, and you can't have it both ways. The ancient first rule.

MPs will assume that the Palace has proof of life and legitimacy. Not so.They won't be told the truth, so how can they discuss custody and eligibility?

It seems likely that BP removed MM's name from one of Ffark's Copy birth certificates because they knew she wasn't the mother. Lili's birth certificate is not a legal document. It's only thanks to sleuth bloggers and people on here that things like this have come to light. No thanks to TPTB.

Above all, (as per your post that MPs absolutely need to be involved in custody and LoS), those debating need to be certain that the children are eligible in law. However unlikely to accede, being in LoS is a serious constitutional matter.

I hope Lady C is mistaken. It would be "elegant" as you say to remove them altogether, but KC put them there under duress and wouldn't dare remove them. He might limit passing on the title, faff around a bit.

I don't believe this will go to court or a US Judge involved, publicity like Depp and Heard. It will all be under the radar, no transparency.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 25
Sorry, if this gem has already been posted, but Jan Moir is in rare form with this little ditty. So many funny zingers. This is my favorite:

Yet after seven years of behaving like two handsy old hams overacting in a royal romcom set in a petting farm, Harry and Meghan can't blame puzzled viewers for fearing the worst when the carousel of caressing suddenly stops.



1691180994051.png
1691181354872.png


Hmm, Both look on verge of tears in this one.......................................ILBW has usual horsey rictus smile; I can't decide if haz looks angry or ready to cry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 33
BIB "Parliament has been involved in deciding LoS since 1215"

All you say is true and would apply if we were dealing with a normal situation, but if
Parliament is being involved it is IMO solely to add backdated legitimacy and cover for BP.

"Succession
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne."

The time for discussing whether they should be included was before they were added, not months afterwards. Why now, why not at the time? Does anyone recall Parliamentary debate last year? The Flatpacks are already in, so MPs are not really being asked to discuss whether they should be there or not. KC wants Parliament to legitimise them, that's all, and they are not legitimate insofar as proven born of body and witnessed by doctors to be in the LoS. All the talk of surrogates won't get round this. It's Either/Or, and you can't have it both ways. The ancient first rule.

MPs will assume that the Palace has proof of life and legitimacy. Not so.They won't be told the truth, so how can they discuss custody and eligibility?

It seems likely that BP removed MM's name from one of Ffark's Copy birth certificates because they knew she wasn't the mother. Lili's birth certificate is not a legal document. It's only thanks to sleuth bloggers and people on here that things like this have come to light. No thanks to TPTB.

Above all, (as per your post that MPs absolutely need to be involved in custody and LoS), those debating need to be certain that the children are eligible in law. However unlikely to accede, being in LoS is a serious constitutional matter.

I hope Lady C is mistaken. It would be "elegant" as you say to remove them altogether, but KC put them there under duress and wouldn't dare remove them. He might limit passing on the title, faff around a bit.

I don't believe this will go to court or a US Judge involved, publicity like Depp and Heard. It will all be under the radar, no transparency.
I don’t know enough about the circumstances surrounding the Harkle kids well enough to comment on all your post, but three points I would add:

1. Parliament has conferred backdated legitimacy in the past, and also taken it away. I mentioned Henry VIII as the best known example whereby Mary Tudor was legitimised in LoS, delegitimised and then legitimised again, as was Elizabeth Tudor. There’s also the example of Henry II and his four sons although the Parliament pre John was so different from what we have today that I don’t think it makes a good comparison.

2. I see the phrase “born of the body” a lot in these threads and was just wondering where that came from? The 17 century legal wording was “heir of the body” and it was debated in the Lords in the 2013 Succession to the Crown Bill in which Lord True pointed out that this would exclude children of a Same sex marriage or born of a surrogate and should be amended to genetic heir. That’s an interesting debate to read for anyone interested in this issue and can be found here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2013-03-13/debates/13031351000661/SuccessionToTheCrownBill

3. If Lady C is correct then I reckon KC3 has been consulting the Law Lords and seeing if there’s a way around whatever issues exist with the Harkle kids (of which you are clearly better informed than I am!)

I find it all very fascinating tbh.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 31
Oxymoron:
EF188F64-FC5F-4553-8774-08A737CCDB40.jpeg

These two constantly contradicting themselves. bleeping idiots!

Good luck to those kids. I don’t think I need to be a fortune teller to know they are going to be mighty fucked up when they grow up. If Harry wanted to stop the ‘genetic pain’ then he shouldn’t have had kids. He obviously has never heard of Philip Larkin. Spot the dog is no doubt more his level.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 44
I don't think KC3 will invoke anything regarding the custody of the kids. The backlash would be too great...

He may well fund any custody battle of H's from behind the scenes, but other than that he won't do anything. A powerful world leader pulling strings to keep children away from their mother will not be viewed kindly by the public. And she will not keep quiet about it!

I honestly don't see H getting custody, his book and all the revelations within have put paid to that. I think he may stay close to wherever she is because if I were in her shoes I wouldn't let the kids back in the UK without me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 33
Did we see this? Now friends with John Travolta.

But not Scientologists. Although that might be the next thing, I suppose.




OMG, she just never learns. Travolta has always been a private person. This article reeks of having been written by the Reeks- bragging about their A lister pretend friends is no bueno in the world inhabitied by the elites.

When is the ILBW ever going to comprehend she is a reek not an elite.:sneaky:

1691183175372.png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 38
Another agree-er on the Fox's Glacier Fruits


Mmmmm OMG I can't leave them alone, I have them in the car glovebox
I do that with Polo mints, eat one then pop another one in my mouth, its like an addiction 😄

On topic: looking at Harold in the photos, the way he is holding his mouth and lips, do you think he has lost all his teeth? 🤔🤔🤔 I once saw a very old lady with her mouth like that and she didn't have her false teeth in! 😉
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 28
Did we see this? Now friends with John Travolta.

But not Scientologists. Although that might be the next thing, I suppose.



I can see that happening. She thinks she'll get her career going, he's basically going for any and all "therapy" and just the sort of type they'd go after. Hmm... You think M will be the next Mrs Cruise...? 🤔
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 28
I don't think she'll ever remarry. Who would want her now after all her lies and scheming? She's no spring chicken, can't dress appropriately and has the personality of a gnat. 🙄
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 35
what's this with Travolta? we was speculating about him this afternoon and already our tattle has reached the tabloids? can't those pesky editors interns go somewhere else for their news? have we been hacked by the News of the World? can we join our case to Sparry's for a pittance of a couple hundred thousand quid compensation?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 41
Thanks for new thread and brilliant recap! And for the fab title!

Going early with my suggestion.

Harry & Meghan #372
So staged and so beige!
I love this 🙌🏼 and your profile pic made me really laugh, what an unfortunate photo 😆😆😆
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 23
Meghans Mole. Why is she not wearing engagement ring that H gave her yet still wears bracelet from Trevor

 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 25
I do that with Polo mints, eat one then pop another one in my mouth, its like an addiction 😄

On topic: looking at Harold in the photos, the way he is holding his mouth and lips, do you think he has lost all his teeth? 🤔🤔🤔 I once saw a very old lady with her mouth like that and she didn't have her false teeth in! 😉
Untitled.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 27
Someone needs to create a doll incorporating Meghan Markle and her mangy ratty wigs, her full ill fitting dentures (would come with 2-3 sets so as to be swapped out frequently) and badly placed facelift tapes with a extra roll of tiny masking tape and some bonus putty to make the nose yourself. Illicit substance paraphernalia accessories provided, along with a dirty outfit and wrecked shoes two sizes too big stolen from a REAL Barbie……..
It’s all real right? because it’s OUR truth after all……….and if we say it is, IT IS, so let’s reveal the secrets to the world! Oh and the doll would be super cheap…..just like her.
I would have hours of fun with this doll 😆
---
I wonder if she had a rib or two taken out it might give her a waistline then ?
I’m sure that will be next 🤦🏼‍♀️😆
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 22
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.