THE BIRDS: they're stinking up Harry and Meghan's mansion!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's £11m Montecito mansion is engulfed by foul smell that 'is like offal rotting in the sun' caused by bird refuge nearby

Harry and Meghan's £11million mansion is apparently engulfed by a foul smell leaving neighbours 'disgusted'

The duke and duchess' headache said to have been caused by the nearby Andrée Clark Bird Refugee

Foul smell is said to have hit Montecito, also home to Oprah Winfrey, Orlando Bloom and Ellen DeGeneres

Harry and Meghan have have to contend with odour issues in the past, including a nearby cannabis base

By JACK WRIGHT FOR MAILONLINE

Harry and Meghan’s £11million California mansion is apparently engulfed by a foul smell leaving neighbours ‘disgusted’, it has emerged.

The duke and duchess’ headache is said to have been caused by the nearby Andrée Clark Bird Refuge, a 42-acre saltwater marsh. The area is one of the largest wildlife refuges in Santa Barbara and the water can become ‘stagnant’ leading to an odour.

The foul stink is said to have hit the area in Montecito, which is also home to Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Orlando Bloom and Katy Perry.

A local resident told the Mirror: ‘It smells like offal that has been rotting in the sun. It makes my stomach churn. I’ve seen lots of homeowners closing their windows when it wafts over.’

Local officials say the stench could last as long as the autumn, when improvements are in the pipeline. Cameron Benson, clean water manager for the City of Santa Barbara, said: ‘Water can become stagnant there. The odour issues are sporadic and sometimes they are worse in some conditions.’

Harry and Meghan have had to contend with odour issues in the past. Last year, it was reported the royals were living near a legal cannabis factory base in Santa Barbara.

The couple’s mansion is just up the road from the 20 large greenhouses full of the plants — leaving the luxury suburb reeking. Neighbours made a string of complaints, sparking the company to install new ‘odour control systems’.

Gregory Gandrud told the Sunday Mirror: ‘The stink was getting stronger and heading their way. I was driving along the freeway and was hit hard by the smell. It doesn’t make you high but it’s not what you want driving at 70mph.

‘I had to pull over. It made me completely lose my train of thought. Lots of people here are suffering.’

Harry and Meghan’s home — which has a sauna, library, and cinema — is surrounded by celebrity neighbours, most prominently Oprah, to whom they made a series of bombshell allegations about the Royal Family last year.

Notably, the couple’s mansion is almost home to the bench Meghan immortalised in her 2021 children’s book The Bench.

It comes as the couple have yet to publicly congratulate the Queen as she celebrates her Platinum Jubilee this year.

The couple have remained silent, despite news that Camilla will become Queen Consort when Charles is eventually made King.

They recently confirmed that ‘sources’ will no longer speak for them, and they will only comment when they wish to through their official press team. Despite the lack of public response, Harry is understood to have been enjoying video calls with his father over the past few weeks. He is expected to return to the UK for the Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

However, it is thought he will not be accompanied by Meghan, Archie or Lilibet amid a row over the family’s security arrangements.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK! A Major Victory for Piers Morgan

 

(I may be stretching copyright a bit here, but I wanted to copy and paste this piece from the Mail because it delighted me so! Chalk one up for Piers.)

PIERS MORGAN: Ofcom's vindication of me is a resounding victory for freedom of speech and a resounding defeat for Princess Pinocchios who think we should all be compelled to believe every fork-tongued word they say – now, do I get my GMB job back?

By Piers Morgan for MailOnline

'Everyone is in favour of free speech,' said Winston Churchill, 'but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.'

He could have been talking about Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, two people who think they have both the right to drop endless incendiary unsubstantiated bombshells about their family AND the right to censor and silence anyone who dares to disbelieve or challenge them.

Back in March, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent two hours spray-gunning the Royals to Oprah Winfrey in an explosive interview on prime-time US television.

They claimed a member of the Royal Family had been racist about their son Archie, and that their little boy had been banned from being a Prince because of his skin colour.

Hours later on GMB, Piers said he didn't believe a word Meghan Markle said triggering furious protest from her fans of the couple. Today OFCOM announced that they had rejected all the complaints against Piers 

Meghan also claimed that she told several senior Palace officials she was feeling suicidal, but they told her she couldn't have any treatment because it would be bad for the royal brand.

Oh, and she stated as fact that she and Harry secretly got married three days before their official wedding, in a private ceremony conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

On ITV's Good Morning Britain a few hours later, I said I didn't believe a word Meghan Markle said.

This triggered a furious protest from fans of the couple who accused me of being a racist callous misogynist who was belittling Meghan's 'lived experience' of mental health and racism.

But it was simpler than that: I just didn't believe her.

Not least because it was immediately established that some of her more outlandish claims, like the secret wedding and Archie's princely ban, were provable nonsense.

As the furore grew, a record number of 57,000 people, including Meghan Markle herself, complained about me to the UK TV government regulator OFCOM.

ITV's Chief Executive, Dame Carolyn McCall, responded by saying that she believed Meghan's mental health claims, and I was then told by my employers to either apologise for what I had said or leave the show with immediate effect.

I decided to leave.

As I explained in an article for the Mail on Sunday several weeks later: 'I wasn't going to apologise for disbelieving Meghan Markle, because the truth is that I don't believe Meghan Markle. And in a free democratic society, I should be allowed not to believe someone, and to say that I don't believe them. That, surely, is the very essence of freedom of speech? If I said I now believed Meghan, I would be lying to the audience, the very thing I've accused her of doing.'

Today, in a stunning verdict, OFCOM announced that they agreed with this argument, and rejected every single complaint against me.

Their report is lengthy and detailed, but in the end, it came down to an unequivocal and emphatic endorsement of my right to an opinion.

'OFCOM is clear that, consistent with freedom of expression, Mr Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's allegations and to hold and express strong views that rigorously challenged their account,' they declared, adding that their Broadcasting Code 'allows for individuals to express strongly held and robustly argued views, including those that are potentially harmful or highly offensive, and for broadcasters to include these in their programming.'

It concluded: 'The restriction of such views would, in our view, be an unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression both of the broadcaster and the audience.'

Chilling… wow.

Ironically, I would imagine that word will prompt a very chilly reaction from the self-satisfied Sussexes as they slurp kale smoothies in their California mansion over breakfast this morning.

Make no mistake, this is a watershed moment in the battle for free speech.

If OFCOM had found against me, that would have signalled the end of every UK TV journalist's right to express any honestly held opinion on air lest it upset the likes of Meghan Markle.

The whole point of journalism is surely to question and challenge statements from public figures, particularly when no actual evidence is produced to support them?

Five months on from my sudden departure from GMB, at least 17 of Meghan and Harry's claims in the Oprah interview have now been shown to be false or disingenuous.

 The whole point of journalism is surely to question and challenge statements from public figures, particularly when no actual evidence is produced to support them? writes Piers 

The poor old Archbishop of Canterbury was even forced to publicly deny he'd conducted a secret marriage ceremony because that would have been a criminal offence and he might have been sent to prison for it.

More pertinently, none of the couple's most sensational and damaging statements about racism and mental health have yet been supported by a shred of evidence amid furious denials from the Royal Family.

So, my observation that I didn't believe Meghan Markle is looking stronger by the day. And for the record, I still don't believe her.

But that's not really the point.

This is not about me, or Meghan Markle.

It's about free speech and the right to have an opinion.

We now live in a woke-ravaged era where it's become a punishable offence to say what you really think about almost anything for fear that someone, somewhere, will be offended.

This insidious 'cancel culture' as it's been termed represents the most serious threat to democracy in my lifetime.

People all over the world are being shamed, vilified, and even fired from their jobs for expressing an opinion that the woke brigade don't like.

Every day, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook explode with self-righteous judgements handed down by the court of woke public opinion, and the consequence is that debate is being destroyed at the altar of political correctness in a way that would have Churchill turning in his grave.

This was a man who fought off the freedom-muzzling Nazis, for God's sake!

Yet now people calling themselves 'liberal' are behaving like the worst kind of fascists.

That's why this OFCOM ruling matters so much.

It was preposterous that I had to leave a job I loved because I didn't believe a demonstrable liar.

But it happened because the corporate world has been cowed into surrendering to the woke mob whenever it bays for blood.

I was reliably informed recently that Meghan Markle wrote directly to my ITV boss Dame Carolyn McCall the night before I was forced out, demanding my head on a plate.

Apparently, she stressed that she was writing to Dame Carolyn personally because they were both women and mothers – a nauseating playing of the gender and maternity card if ever there was one.

What has the world come to when a whiny fork-tongued actress can dictate who presents a morning television news programme?

So yes, I'm obviously delighted that OFCOM has supported my right to disbelieve the Sussexes' lurid claims against the Royal Family, many of which have failed to stand up to even a scintilla of basic scrutiny of the kind that a woefully enabling Oprah should have conducted.

This is a resounding victory for free speech and a resounding defeat for Princess Pinocchios.

As OFCOM determined, to have restricted my right to disbelieve her and Harry would have been 'chilling.'

And when Meghan and Harry, whose unofficially authorised biography is titled 'Finding Freedom', lick their failed censorship wounds today, I suggest they heed the words of George Orwell: 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'

Just one question remains: does this mean I get my job back?  

FIFTY SHADES OF EVIL: common traits of cult leaders

Here are the typical traits of the pathological cult leader (from Dangerous Personalities) that you should watch for: 

1. He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance. 

3. Demands blind, unquestioned obedience. 

4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders. 

5. Has a sense of entitlement—expecting to be treated as special at all times. 

6. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives, putting others at financial risk. 

7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude. 

8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws. 

9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult. 

10. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub adults as part of a ritual or rite. 

11. Is hypersensitive to how he is seen or perceived by others. 

12. Publicly devalues others as being inferior, incapable, or not worthy. 

13. Makes members confess their sins or faults, publicly subjecting them to ridicule or humiliation while revealing exploitable weaknesses of the penitent. 

14. Has ignored the needs of others, including: biological, physical, emotional, and financial needs. 

15. Is frequently boastful of accomplishments. 

16. Needs to be the center of attention and does things to distract others to ensure that he or she is being noticed, e.g., by arriving late, using exotic clothing, overdramatic speech, or by making theatrical entrances. 

17. Has insisted on always having the best of anything (house, car, jewelry, clothes) even when others are relegated to lesser facilities, amenities, or clothing. 

18. Doesn’t seem to listen well to needs of others; communication is usually one-way, in the form of dictates. 

19. Haughtiness, grandiosity, and the need to be controlling is part of his personality. 

20. Behaves as though people are objects to be used, manipulated or exploited for personal gain. 

21. When criticized he tends to lash out not just with anger but with rage. 

22. Anyone who criticizes or questions him is called an “enemy.” 

23. Refers to non-members or non-believers as “the enemy.” 

24. Acts imperious at times, not wishing to know what others think or desire. 

25. Believes himself to be omnipotent. 

26. Has “magical” answers or solutions to problems. 

27. Is superficially charming. 

28. Habitually puts down others as inferior; only he is superior. 

29. Has a certain coldness or aloofness about him that makes others worry about who this person really is and or whether they really know him. 

30. Is deeply offended when there are perceived signs of boredom, being ignored or of being slighted. 

31. Treats others with contempt and arrogance. 

32. Is constantly assessing people to determine those who are a threat or those who revere him. 

33. The word “I” dominates his conversations. He is oblivious to how often he references himself. 

34. Hates to be embarrassed or fail publicly; when he does he acts out with rage. 

35. Doesn’t seem to feel guilty for anything he has done wrong nor does he apologize for his actions. 

36. Believes he possesses the answers and solutions to world problems. 

37. Believes himself to be a deity or a chosen representative of a deity. 

38. "Rigid," "unbending," or "insensitive" describes how this person thinks. 

39. Tries to control others in what they do, read, view, or think. 

40. Has isolated members of his sect from contact with family or the outside world. 

41. Monitors and/or restricts contact with family or outsiders. 

42. Works the least but demands the most. 

43. Has stated that he is “destined for greatness” or that he will be “martyred.” 

44. Seems to be highly dependent on tribute and adoration and will often fish for compliments. 

45. Uses enforcers or sycophants to ensure compliance from members or believers. 

46. Sees self as “unstoppable” and perhaps has even said so. 

47. Conceals background or family, which would disclose how plain or ordinary he is. 

48. Doesn’t think there is anything wrong with himself and in fact sees himself as perfection or “blessed.” 

49. Has taken away followers' freedom to leave, to travel, to pursue life and liberty. 

50. Has isolated the group physically (moved to a remote area) so as to not be observed

Prince of Piffle: Harry, we hardly know you!

DAILY MAIL    Sunday July 4/21

How the Prince of Piffle went from bloke to woke: He used to live for beer and naked billiards... now Harry's become a master of weird wokespeak. But never fear - JAN MOIR is here to translate

Once upon a time there was a prince who lived for drinking beer and watching rugby and sometimes running around in the scuddy, occasionally while playing nude billiards with comely young maidens.

He was popular, he was kind, he joined the Army to serve his country in Afghanistan and everyone adored him.

The Harry we used to know and love was a straightforward, straight-talking, two scant A-levels sort of bloke.

Then that all changed. Harry met a girl! He got married. He moved to California and different things became important to him. Things such as climate change, mental health, social media, mindfulness, raindrops, and myriad other subjects he could lecture us on at length, with passion, ad infinitum.

Somewhere along the line, he mutated from cheeky chappie to woke bloke, from devil may care, to caring very, very much indeed. So much so that he wanted you to care, too. And as he changed, so did how he talked.

Over recent years, Prince Harry has become a master of his very own brand of wokespeak. A kind of jargon-led, plum dumb waffle, sugared with an endearing raspberry ripple of his customary mild confusion. The result is an Eton mess of words that entrance his fans but utterly bamboozle the rest of us.

What the hell is he going on about? No wonder that the words ‘Harry’ and ‘clarity’ are rarely used in the same sentence.

In the modern manner, he is now an expert at constructing elaborate, airy sentence soufflés that mask the essential nothingness of what he is saying. In his speeches and utterances, he has become obsessed with key words such as authentic, trapped, lost, truth and oh God, compassion.

The prince has become in cyberspace that most terrifying figure in contemporary life — a man with a mission and a website. On the Archewell site that promotes the global good works undertaken by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex he states: ‘I truly believe that good mental fitness is the key to powerful leadership, productive communities and a purpose-driven self.’

Is that like a smart car? Who knows, but the prince has had a lot of therapy. What was that like, Harry? ‘It was like the bubble was burst and I plucked my head out of the sand and gave it a good shake-off.’

Car, ostrich, soap, shake? I’m confused already.

In his infamous interview with Oprah, Harry said that, unlike other members of his family, he wanted to ‘just, like, just be, just be yourself. Just be genuine. Just be authentic.’

But what is that? In a bid to find out, we tiptoe through the tulips of princely verbiage that denote Harry’s great awokening. We stand side by side, the puzzled swine before whom Prince Harry casts his pearls of woke wisdom from his great pulpit of blather and bull.

Here is his incredible journey from yahoo to guru in his own inimitable words . . .

AWKWARD APOLOGY, 2005

Awkward that one of Prince Harry’s very first public statements — in 2005 — is an apology for wearing a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party.

What he said: ‘I’m very sorry if I caused any offence or embarrassment to anyone. It was a poor choice of costume and I apologise.’

What he meant: ‘Whassup! Oh no, do I have to read this boring statement out loud? I don’t know why you are so angry Pater, because Straubs and Skippy thort it was a right laff.’

OPENING CONCERT FOR DIANA, 2007

THEN: ‘Hello Wembley! It’s great to see so many of you here tonight. Of course, when William and I first had this idea, we forgot that we’d end up standing here, desperately trying to think up something funny to say. Well, we’ll leave that to the funny people. And Ricky Gervais.’

NOW: Can you imagine a time when Prince Harry would appear in an arena in front of thousands and not lecture them about saving the planet? He even made a joke that is actually funny. Remember when he used to do that? Remember?

THEN: In 2009, Prince Harry is forced to apologise for calling a fellow cadet at Sandhurst ‘our little P*** friend’. He also accuses another of looking ‘like a raghead’ in racist slurs captured on video in 2006.

NOW: At the Princess Diana Awards last year, Harry seizes the opportunity to lecture us all that ‘institutional racism has no place in our societies, yet it is still endemic’, and that ‘unconscious bias must be acknowledged without blame, to create a better world.’ Yet he did not acknowledge or apologise for his mistakes in this area, nor mention he was sent on a diversity course as a result.

Sometimes what is not said is even more important than what is said, don’t you think?

THE ENGAGEMENT

When his engagement to Meghan Markle is announced in 2017, Prince Harry is not long out of the Army. Indeed, he speaks of his fiancee’s entree into the Royal Family as though she were taking part in a military exercise.

‘For me, it’s an added member of the family. It’s another team player . . . what we want to do is be able to carry out the right engagements, carry out our work and try and encourage others in the younger generation to be able to see the world in the correct sense.’

She’s a woman, Harry, not an all-terrain tank. Still, note that use chilling use of ‘correct sense’.’ Already he is moving into the role of jolly green tyrant convinced of the rightness of his views.

And Meghan employs the doltish Californian mindfulness her fiance will soon embrace, too. By marrying him, she is ‘investing time and energy to make it happen’, ‘nurturing our relationship’ and focusing ‘on who we are as a couple’.

THE MEGHAN INFLUENCE

Her words, his mouth . . .

2018: ‘What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.’

2018: ‘As my wife said many years ago when working on menstrual health and health education, this is not about periods but potential.’

2019: ‘As my wife often reminds me with one of her favourite quotes by Martin Luther King Jr. — “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”’

2020: ‘You know, when you go into a shop with your children and you only see white dolls, do you even think: “That’s weird, there is not a black doll there?” ’

GENERAL WOKESPEAK

March 2021: Harry gets a new job as chief impact officer of mental health firm BetterUp. ‘My goal is to lift up critical dialogues around mental health, build supportive and compassionate communities, and foster an environment for honest and vulnerable conversations. And my hope is to help people develop their inner strength, resilience, and confidence.’

May 2021: Interview with the Armchair Expert podcast about mental health: ‘Any single one of us, whoever we are, wherever we come from, we’re always trying to find some way to be able to mask the actual feeling. And be able to try and make us feel different to how we are actually feeling, perhaps from having a feeling, right?’

May 2021: At the Vax Live concert, Harry even attempts to ‘reunite the world,’ after coronavirus. ‘None of us should be comfortable thinking that we could be fine when so many others are suffering. In reality, and especially with this pandemic, when any suffer, we all suffer. We must look beyond ourselves with empathy and compassion for those we know, and those we don’t.’

HARRY THE DRIPPING TAP

‘I believe even more that climate change and mental health are two of the most pressing issues that we’re facing and in many ways, they are linked,’ he declares on The Me You Can’t See documentary aired on Apple TV in May.

‘The connecting line is about our collective wellbeing and when our collective wellbeing erodes that affects our ability to be caretakers of ourselves, of our communities and of our planet ultimately . . . we have to create a more supportive culture for each other where challenges don’t have to live in the dark . . . and where physical and mental health can be treated equally because they are one.’

Sorry to barge in, but did anyone leave the taps running?

‘A lot of people are doing the best they can to try and fix these issues but that whole sort of analogy of walking into the bathroom with a mop when the bath is over-flooding rather than just turning the tap off — are we supposed to accept that these problems are just going to grow and grow and we have to adapt and build resilience . . .’

NOT A RAY OF SUNSHINE

‘Every forest, every river, every ocean, every coastline, every insect, every wild animal. Every blade of grass, every ray of sun and every rain drop is crucial to our survival,’,’ says Harry making a speech at WE Day UK youth event in 2019.

‘It is all connected, we are all inter-connected. You in this room understand that and are already making this a safer, healthier and more resilient home for all of us and for generations to come. And for that I applaud you.’

Prince Harry also urges the kidz not to be swayed by social media or the mainstream media ‘distorting the truth.’ The mainstream media have something to say about that.

Is Prince Harry a Puppet? roars ITV’s Good Morning Britain. Meanwhile, queen of daytime TV Lorraine Kelly is understandably muddled. ‘I don’t know what he was talking about, it was gobbledygook,’ she says.

RAINDROPS KEEP FALLING ON MY HEAD

Uh oh. In December 2020, Prince Harry makes a speech to help launch an environmental documentary streaming platform called WaterBear. He wastes no time in calling for ‘affirmative action’ on climate change.

‘Don’t be a hypocrite like me and fly in private jets,’ is exactly what he does not say.

Instead, Harry waffles on about something called ‘sustainable nature-based economic stimulus packages that embrace a One Health approach . . .’. He also touches on ‘training a young generation of talented storytellers to create more inspiration and excitement around those values’.

Who are these budding bards generating thrills with their quills? Answer came there none. Instead it was on to the rain.

‘Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every single one of us was a raindrop? And if every single one of us cared, which we do, because we have to care because at the end of the day nature is our life source.’

I’m still confused. Clarity, Harry! He gives it his best shot: ‘For me it’s about putting the dos behind the says, and that is something that WaterBear is going to be doing: capitalising on a community of doers. There’s a lot of people that say, but this is about action.’

HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN I ANNOY TODAY?

October 2020: In an interview to mark Black History Month: ‘The world that we know has been created by white people for white people. I’ve had an awakening as such of my own, because I wasn’t aware of so many of the issues and so many of the problems within the UK, but also globally as well. I thought I did but I didn’t.’

May 2021: Harry takes part in an Armchair Expert podcast with Dax Shepard: ‘I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers. I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time. But, you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalise or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said.’

THE OPRAH INTERVIEW

In the infamous interview aired in March, Harry says: ‘I’ve spent many years doing the work and doing my own learning. But my upbringing in the system, of which I was brought up in and what I’ve been exposed to, it wasn’t — I wasn’t aware of it, to start with. But, my God, it doesn’t take very long to suddenly become aware of it.’

Author and Daily Mail writer Craig Brown has a theory that Harry confuses the word ‘compassion’, with ‘contempt’. For example, after telling Oprah his father stopped taking his calls and he and his elder brother were ‘on different paths’, and also having hinted that one or other of them might be racist, he says: ‘My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.’
Harking back to harry the LAD

2008: During his service with the British Army in Afghanistan: ‘No one really knows where I am and I prefer to keep it that way until I get back in one piece and can tell them where I was. At the moment, they think I’m tucked away, wrapped up in cotton wool.’

2010: Chatting with Prince William about England’s role in the World Cup: ‘A win would be fantastic, but I don’t think we should put a number on it. 1-0? A win’s a win. I’m more of a rugby fan but this seems to be a World Cup full of surprises. Let’s see what happens.’

2011: Before William and Kate’s wedding: ‘I’ve got to know Kate pretty well, but now that she’s becoming part of the family, I’m really looking forward to getting her under my wing — or she’ll be taking me under her wing, probably. She’s a fantastic girl. She really is.’

2013: During his military service in Afghanistan: ‘I’m one of the guys. I don’t get treated any differently.’

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE

2015: At a youth centre in Cape Town, South Africa: ‘I would like to have come to a place like this. When I was at school, I wanted to be the bad boy.’

2019: At a youth empowerment launch in London: ‘Be kind to each other. Be kind to yourselves. Have less screen time and more face-to-face time. Exceed expectations . . . Keep empathy alive. Change your thoughts and change the world . . . your role is to shine the light.’

CULT DYNAMICS: does this remind you of anyone?

Found this list of traits of cult leaders/cult dynamics on the net from a psychology journal. It ticks so many boxes you might as well call it How Meghan Markle Operates! I believe she is a cult of two, but the so-called Sussex Squad is also part of the cult:

The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. 

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

 

The group is preoccupied with making money. 

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). 

The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). 

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). 

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. 

The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). 

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

 

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

 

Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

 

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. 

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

I have nothing to add. . . . . . .

 

OK, Piers, now tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

PIERS MORGAN: How the hell can Meghan 'I hate royalty but call me Duchess' Markle preach about father-child relationships when she's disowned her own Dad, and wrecked her husband's relationship with his?

By Piers Morgan for MailOnline

Published: 15:53 EDT, 4 May 2021 | Updated: 04:24 EDT, 5 May 2021

What would make the current shortlist for the title of World's Most Ludicrously Inappropriate Book?

Donald Trump's Guide to Diplomacy?

The Art of Protecting One's Privacy by the Kardashian Sisters?

Why Marriage is for Keeps by Bill and Melinda Gates?

These would all be good contenders were it not for the announcement this afternoon that Meghan Markle has written a book called 'The Bench' about the very special bond between father and child.

Sorry, WHAT?

Notwithstanding Ms Markle's seemingly unlimited thirst for committing attention-seeking acts of gargantuan hypocrisy, this seemed beyond parody.

But it was real.

I laughed out loud when the news broke via her ecstatic publishers, and even louder when I read the accompanying gush-laden statements.

Ms Markle proudly informed us that her debut literary tome captures 'the warmth, joy and comfort of the relationship between fathers and sons from all walks of life.'

She added: 'This representation was particularly important to me ... and I worked closely to depict this special bond through an inclusive lens. My hope is that The Bench resonates with every family, no matter the make-up, as much as it does with mine.'

Hmmmm.

Meghan Markle has written a book called 'The Bench' about the very special bond between father and child. Sorry, WHAT? I laughed out loud when the news broke via her ecstatic publishers, and even louder when I read the accompanying gush-laden statements

Ms Markle proudly informed us that her debut literary tome captures 'the warmth, joy and comfort of the relationship between fathers and sons from all walks of life'

She added: 'This representation was particularly important to me ... and I worked closely to depict this special bond through an inclusive lens. My hope is that The Bench resonates with every family, no matter the make-up, as much as it does with mine'

I wonder how much these touching sentiments will resonate with her own family, or her husband's?

Lest we forget, Ms Markle has ruthlessly disowned her father Thomas and refuses to have anything to do with him despite the fact they now live just 70 miles from each other.

She is also reported to have disowned every other Markle, none of whom were invited to her wedding.

This doesn't seem like someone overly keen to operate 'an inclusive lens' to me.

In fact, it seems a singularly EX-clusive lens.

She also spray-gunned Thomas in her lie-packed Oprah whine-a-thon in a manner that was more 'ice, rage and irritation' than 'warmth, joy and comfort'.

As for Harry, he trashed his father Prince Charles in the same interview, moaning about how Daddy had stopped taking his calls or giving him cash, sounding like some needy spoiled brat teenager rather than a 36-year-old multi-millionaire doormat who ditched his family, country and duty because his chillingly controlling and ambitious wife wanted him to.

And unforgivably, he did this as Charles was desperately worried about HIS father, Prince Philip, who was lying seriously ill in hospital and later died.

How does any of this sit with Meghan's misty-eyed tribute to 'the warmth, joy and comfort of the relationship between fathers and sons'?

Very, very uneasily, I would suggest.

The pair of them also branded Harry's royal family a bunch of heartless racists, though no evidence has yet emerged to support any of their outrageously hurtful and damaging claims.

And they repeatedly attacked the institution of the Monarchy and everything it stands for.

Yet when it comes to flogging her book, what author name does Meghan Markle use?

Ah, of course: 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.'

Yes, she continues to cynically exploit her royal titles because she knows that's the only reason anyone is paying her vast sums of money to spew her uniquely unctuous brand of pious hectoring gibberish in Netflix documentaries, Spotify podcasts or children's books.

Of course, her equally cynical publishers don't give a damn about any of this shocking double standard.

'Meghan's touching text explores the relationship between fathers and sons and undeniably tugs at the heartstrings that parents and caregivers feel,' said Mallory Loehr, publisher of the Random House Books for Young Readers Group.

She cooed that the illustrator's art 'beautifully matches the tender emotion of Meghan's words, and every spread is infused with a vibrant sense of joy and love. The Bench is timeless—it feels destined to become one of those books that people will be reading for generations to come.'

And unforgivably, Harry gave the Oprah interview as Charles was desperately worried about HIS father, Prince Philip, who was lying seriously ill in hospital and later die

The pair of them also branded Harry's royal family a bunch of heartless racists, though no evidence has yet emerged to support any of their outrageously hurtful and damaging claims. And they repeatedly attacked the institution of the Monarchy and everything it stands for. Pictured: Prince Charles leads the procession of male royals, including Harry, at his father's funeral

Hmmm, I don't wish to rain on the comically sycophantic parade - but I suspect this book will become an instant historical classic for all the wrong reasons.

The whole notion of Meghan Markle dishing out advice to anyone about the relationship between fathers and children is absolutely ridiculous given the appalling relationships she and her husband have with their own fathers.

Yet her brazen decision to do it anyway is so sadly typical of a woman whose tendency for staggering hypocrisy is only matched by her extraordinary tone-deafness.

I'd honestly rather hear parenting tips from Britney Spears's god-awful father because at least they still talk to each other.

In the press release, Ms Markle is described as 'a mother, wife, feminist, and activist' who 'currently resides in her home state of California with her family, two dogs, and a growing flock of rescue chickens.'

What it didn't clarify is that she resides with a lot more animals than family members.

In fact, the only three members of her entire family she seems to have any relationship with at all now are Harry, Archie and her mother.

The rest have been discarded along with her ex-husband, and almost every old friend and colleague.

'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets,' was Harry's famous refrain in the build-up to their wedding.

And so far, she's got exactly what she wanted: the handsome British Prince, the Californian mansion, the millionaire celebrity lifestyle she always craved, and since Oprah's unquestioning softball PR stunt, the coveted and ferociously-contested status of America's No1 oppressed victim – a poor innocent waif cruelly mistreated by the beastly racist British royals until she managed to grab her confiscated passport and escape back home.

The fact none of this ugly incendiary narrative is true is irrelevant to the people who matter to her – the Hollywood woke brigade for whom a personal version of the truth is far more important than the actual truth.

But what Ms Markle really needs now is some old-fashioned home truth.

THE truth, that is, not HER truth that usually turns out to be of the Princess Pinocchio veracity.

And THE truth is that she's a cynical disingenuous manipulator intent on wrecking the Royal Family's image around the world with her shameless, shameful, money-grabbing victim-playing antics, and dragging her hapless husband along for the ride.

This new book about father-children relationships is just another example of Meghan Markle's never-ending penchant for preaching what she never practices.

If she really cared about father-child relationships, she'd take a chauffeur-driven limousine on the hour-long trip to see her own father who's never even met either Harry or Archie.

And if she really cared about father-child relationships, she would never have trashed Harry's family on global TV in the horrible way that she did, causing yet more damage, possibly irreparably, to Harry's relationship with his father.

But then as we've seen from her gruesomely self-interested behavior during a pandemic that's caused so much devastation and pain to billions around the world, Meghan Markle doesn't really care about anyone but herself. 

MEGHAN AND HARRY: the lies heard 'round the world

                       

SARAH VINE: If Meghan Markle was wrong about the wedding, how can we believe anything else in her Oprah interview?

By Sarah Vine for the Daily Mail

Truth, we are told, is central to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Indeed, it was supposedly the desire for truth that drove them to give that explosive interview to Oprah Winfrey, broadcast just over two weeks ago.

'How do you feel about the Palace hearing you speak your truth today?' asked Oprah.

'I don't know how they could expect that, after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us,' replied Meghan, casually dropping the first of many bombshells.

It was supposedly the desire for truth that drove Harry and Meghan to give that explosive interview to Oprah Winfrey

It was quite a moment. Oprah nodded in solemn agreement as the nation took a sharp intake of breath.

As the interview progressed, Meghan's 'truth' was broadcast to millions, unchallenged and uncompromising.

The Royal Family is a dysfunctional organisation; the royals were racist; the Duchess of Cambridge made Meghan cry. No one was spared.

She, by contrast, was just a naive young woman who had fallen in love with a handsome prince and found herself in over her head, attacked from all quarters.

She even compared herself to the Little Mermaid, a wide-eyed innocent adrift in an ocean of monsters. Oh, the pain. Oh, the agony. Oh, the injustice of it all. Oh, just leave my oat-milk latte over there, will you?

This was their truth, as told to Oprah, and many viewers — though far from all — lapped it up. Well, most of it anyway. Except as it turns out, not all of Harry and Meghan's truth was the actual truth — more like their own, somewhat Disneyfied, version of it.

Yesterday, after days of speculation, the couple finally admitted that, in one respect at least, they'd got their facts wrong. Despite what they told Oprah, they were not, after all, married three days before the royal wedding, on May 19, 2018, by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Despite what they told Oprah, the couple were not, after all, married three days before the royal wedding, on May 19, 2018, by the Archbishop of Canterbury

That particular nugget was one of the more startling revelations in the interview, a much-trumpeted 'exclusive', delivered with all the emotion that only a seasoned actress like Meghan can muster.

'You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that,' she gushed coyly.

'We called the Archbishop [as you do] and we just said: "Look, this spectacle is for the world. But we want our union between us." So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.'

How romantic, how touching. No doubt that was the point of telling the story. Except the Archbishop didn't marry them. By all accounts he administered a blessing; but it was not their wedding.

In other words, what Meghan said was — by her own admission — not accurate.

This then joins another misleading claim in the interview — that the Royal Family had somehow contrived to stop baby Archie being a prince.

The rules are crystal clear: under protocols established by George V, a great-grandson of a sovereign has no right to such a title. And if there is one thing the Windsors like to adhere to, it's protocols.

By all accounts the Archbishop of Canterbury administered a blessing but it was not their wedding

No doubt fans of Meghan — and they are legion, including the President of the United States himself — will dismiss such points as minor misunderstandings. But even so, it presents us with a problem.

If she is wrong about the wedding, then what else is she wrong about? How do we know that when she speaks her truth, it is the actual fact of the matter rather than her, or Harry's, Hollywood-tinted interpretation?

Until now, it has been almost sacrilege to question many (any!) of their more damning assertions without risking the wrath of the couple and their supporters.

Indeed, to do so runs the risk of being 'cancelled' by Meghan's self-appointed army of powerful players in the world of media and politics, as Piers Morgan discovered when he left his job on Good Morning Britain after daring to say he 'didn't believe' Meghan's side of the story.

But now we know she got the wrong end of the stick about events involving the Archbishop and her 'backyard', surely it is not unreasonable to wonder what else she may have misremembered?

And it matters because so many of the things said in that interview were so incredibly damaging. I'm thinking in particular about the allegation that 'concerns' were expressed by a senior royal about the colour of Archie's skin.

In the febrile aftermath of the interview, when feelings were running high on both sides of the Atlantic, the Queen issued a statement saying that while she did not underestimate the seriousness of the issues raised, 'recollections may vary'.

We see now that Meghan's recollections do vary from the actualité in respect of the wedding; might the same also apply to other events mentioned in the interview?

The more you scrutinise this interview, and the claims made in it, the more holes start to appear. And the worse it starts to look for Harry and Meghan.

Prince William, for example, has now vehemently denied via friends his brother's incendiary assertion that he and Prince Charles find themselves 'trapped' in their roles, as well as stating in public with ill-concealed fury that the royals are 'very much not a racist family'.

The more you scrutinise this interview, and the claims made in it, the more holes start to appear. And the worse it starts to look for Harry and Meghan.

Because if you are going to accuse people of doing terrible things — as they have done — you have to make sure you are on solid ground. The moment you allow yourself to embellish things, or attempt to cast the facts in a different light, you undermine your case. You become your own unreliable witness, and no one knows what to believe any more.

The fact is that these are two of the most judgmental people on the planet. They are relentless in their criticism of those they consider to be in the wrong. Which is, in some ways, commendable.

But the problem with pitching your tent so firmly on the moral high ground is that you risk it being blown away because it's so exposed up there.

Perhaps they just couldn't give a fig. These two are so wrapped up in their cloak of righteousness it probably won't even register that what they have done is so deeply damaging.

And besides, their concern now is surely their profile in America. Who cares what the peasants back home think?

Now that their chief-of-staff has stepped away from her role after less than a year, they have teamed up with a top producer to work on their lucrative projects with Netflix and Spotify.

Meanwhile, in what many consider to be a nod to Meghan's future political ambitions, they have forged new links with an organisation called Invisible Hand whose founder, Genevieve Roth, worked on Hillary Clinton's (unsuccessful) 2016 presidential election campaign.

Harry even announced yesterday that he's got himself a job — working as 'Chief Impact Officer' for BetterUp, a company specialising in professional coaching, counselling and mentoring.

But while all these moves may be seen as positive — or should that be 'empowering' — in the U.S., in the UK the interview has done untold damage to their reputation. Harry's personal popularity rating has plummeted, while 58 per cent of people now view Meghan in a negative light. A majority in one survey said they should have their royal titles removed.

However much Harry may be enjoying his new Californian lifestyle — he was recently doing his bit for the planet cycling around sunny Montecito (albeit dogged by a 4x4 bristling with bodyguards) — the truth is that while he remains a Prince and an HRH (a title Meghan also continues to hold, despite her clear disdain for 'The Firm'), Britain is his home.

Whatever version of events he may have manufactured for himself to justify leaving, however little he may value some things we hold so dear, that will never change.

That is his truth, however inconvenient it may be. Even if it's not Meghan's.

MEGHAN MARKLE: Harry-Go-Round!

One of my better gif animations. 

Piers Morgan unmasks Meghan Markle's contemptible lies

 

Dumped British TV host Morgan pours more scorn on Meghan suicide, racism claims

By Estelle Shirbon

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Piers Morgan, the pugnacious British TV presenter who lost his job over his attacks on Prince Harry’s wife Meghan, said on Wednesday he still did not believe what she had said during her Oprah Winfrey interview.

Morgan, 55, left ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Tuesday after a backlash against his comments on Meghan’s interview with Winfrey, in which she revealed she had felt suicidal while living as a royal in Britain.

“On Monday, I said I didn’t believe Meghan Markle in her Oprah interview. I’ve had time to reflect on this opinion, and I still don’t. If you did, OK,” Morgan said in a characteristically combative Tweet on Wednesday morning.

“Freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on. Thanks for all the love, and hate. I’m off to spend more time with my opinions,” he told his 7.8 million Twitter followers.

He added a photo of Winston Churchill with a quote on free speech.

In an interview that has embarrassed Britain’s tradition-bound monarchy, Meghan, who married Prince Harry in 2018, said the royal family had rejected her pleas for mental health support.

The American actress, who is mixed race, also said that someone in the royal household had raised questions about the colour of her unborn son’s skin.

The morning after the interview was aired on U.S. television, Morgan said on Good Morning Britain, among a torrent of other criticisms, that he did not believe a word Meghan had said. In a Tweet, he called her “Princess Pinocchio”.

The following morning, he stormed off the set of the live programme when challenged by a co-presenter about his stance.

Monday’s programme attracted more than 41,000 complaints to Britain’s media regulator, the second highest in its history, which announced an investigation.

Morgan first made his name in the cut-throat world of the British tabloid press, culminating in stints editing the now-defunct News of the World, then the Daily Mirror.

He later went into television, appearing as a judge on the reality shows America’s Got Talent and Britain’s Got Talent. For three years he hosted a chat show on CNN.

Morgan’s detractors said his attitude towards Meghan seemed to be partly driven by personal animus because, by his own account, he had got on “brilliantly” with her when he had first met her but she had later dropped contact with him.

Susanna Reid, who co-presented Good Morning Britain with Morgan and frequently disagreed with him on air, described him on Wednesday’s programme as “outspoken, challenging, opinionated, disruptive”.

Morgan told reporters on Tuesday he thought Meghan’s interview had damaged the monarchy and Queen Elizabeth at a time when her 99-year-old husband Prince Philip was in hospital, which he said was “contemptible”.

“If I have to fall on my sword for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview, so be it,” he said.