Tiaragate: Our Lady of Perpetual Clapbacks Sets the Record Straight (Part 2)

To recap: Claims emerged in spring 2018 that Meghan and Harry had thrown a corker of a tantrum over which tiara she was to be loaned for their wedding. Mr. Gore's Good Internet has been aflame with speculation ever since. Catch up on Part 1 for all the backstory you will need in Part 2!

The green-eyed cyclops which doth mock the meat it feeds on

A new wrinkle was added to the Tiaragate saga with the August 2020 publication of Finding Freedom, a hagiographic biography by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand supposedly written without the cooperation of the Sussexes (but clearly written with the cooperation of the Sussexes).

Dude you're melting

Omid is an established Markle mouthpiece (that fact has been literally noted in a legal proceeding by a judge), and Finding Freedom was widely perceived as Meghan's effort to clap back at her critics and set various records straight. So what did Finding Freedom have to say about Tiaragate? It happened - but not the way the papers had reported.

Per Scobie and Durand, there was never any disagreement over which tiara Meghan would wear to her wedding. The conflict arose later over Meghan's access to the Queen Mary Bandeau during the course of wedding preparations. General bad feeling over "foot-dragging" by royal staff exploded into open conflict after Meghan flew her hair stylist in from Paris and turned up at Buckingham Palace sans appointment, demanding immediate access to the tiara. The relevant staffer, Angela Kelly, wasn't even in London at the time, but our precious little madam isn't the type let a thing like manners, security, or even geography stand in the way of what she is entitled to. (And the list of things she is entitled to includes, apparently, the personal jewelry collection of the Queen of Freakin' England. Extraordinary.)

Megsy you don't fool us. We know you were after a Margaret-in-the-bathtub Poltimore moment.

Harry was as per usual drafted in to do Meghan's narc rage dirty work, and ole son really turned up and turned out! This part of the story mirrors the original rumor, with a furious Harry dialing up courtiers all over the Palace to berate them into pressuring Angela Kelly to drop her entire life on a moment's notice in order to serve the whims of her betters. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Kelly did not cut short her travels.

We should note here how unbelievably, inexpressibly stupid it was to antagonize Angela Kelly, a woman nicknamed AK-47 who has been Her Madge's closest and most trusted advisor since the 90s. Kelly is a Liverpudlian working class girl, the daughter of a dock worker, and a [literal] street brawler par excellence. Or should I say palace brawler? Kelly once had a knock-down drag-out fight at an employee security entrance with the other girlfriend of a married pastry chef (who, in addition to his two girlfriends, also had a pregnant wife). After forgetting her security pass one day, she threw a hysterical Reese Witherspoon-style DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM fit that escalated so far that palace security ended up throwing her to the ground. Harry you stupid posh boy, you DO NOT want Angela Kelly's particular brand of smoke.

Angela DGAF, she will cut a bitch

Perhaps the most extraordinary part of this whole episode is that the gruesome twosome seemed to sincerely believe that this version of Tiaragate made them look good. Somehow, they sincerely believed it was reasonable for Meghan to materialize sans appointment and demand instant access to the royal vault. The existence of planners and schedules was apparently evidence of grave persecution. The existence of security protocols was apparently an act of oppression. And AK-47's unwillingness to reorder her life around their whims was somehow evidence of racial hatred toward Meghan.

DELUSIONAL.

Real clown sh!t

Let us pause here for a final observation on Angela Kelly. As Personal Assistant, Adviser and Curator to Her Majesty The Queen (Jewelry, Insignias and Wardrobe), Kelly has complete control over access to the Queen's jewelry collection. After the wedding, Meghan was never again seen wearing any piece from the royal vault. I contend that this is not a coincidence.

So we now conclude with two competing versions of Tiaragate. Which one really happened? I lay out my Grand Unified Theory of Tiaragate in Part 3. Stay tuned!

____________________

Meghan Didn't Start the Rose Rumors

With regard to the now infamous Affaire Hanbury, one of the most persistent speculations I see increasingly (and annoyingly) presented as fact is that Meghan is responsible for starting rumors of the affair. And it's like guys. I get it. Meghan is awful. But there is basically zero chance that this rumor originated with Meghan, as I believe a dispassionate analysis of the facts will demonstrate. Shall we commence?

Naughty boy Bill

Our story begins on March 22, 2019 in the pages of The Sun newspaper. Under the headline "Kate Middleton has fall-out with glamorous best friend and tells Prince William to ‘phase her out’," the collapse of the formerly close friendship between Rose and Kate is chronicled by reporter Dan Wootton. Though Wootton never explicitly identifies the reason for the rupture, in the first sentence of the piece he does pointedly identify Rose as Kate's "rural rival."

Consider the context here. This is a gossip article in the British tabloid press, which is a globally famous morass of rancid misogyny (and Wootton is a pig, although fair play to him he does have a knack for landing important royal exclusives - but I digress). In the misogynist's mind, what does it mean for two women to be in conflict and competition with each other, or in other words, rivals? Why, they are fighting over a man, of course! So while the reason for the falling out is never made explicit, the savvy reader is nonetheless invited to intuit the existence of an affair in the very first sentence of the piece.

This is some very subtle sh!t, and a classic British tabloid tactic for breaking sensitive stories without running afoul of draconian UK libel laws. And there you have both the first and second strikes against Meghan being the source of this story. Our Lady of Perpetual Clapbacks charges through life with all the subtlety of a Rottweiler sinking its teeth into the soft flesh of a startled burglar. Our Megsy also has zero understanding of the British psyche, and has made exactly zero effort to assimilate to British culture or adopt the British way of life. (South Africa, any one? Stiff upper lip? Internally damaging?) Meghan is incapable of planting a story like this because she lacks the psychological capacity for subtlety, as well as fine-grained knowledge of the British press/legal system.

Classic Megsy

Compounding Meghan's personal deficits is the press team she chose to work with, the infamously aggressive Sunshine Sachs. We royal watchers have witnessed SS steadily alienate the British public with hardball tactics tailored to American celebrity culture but poorly suited to the UK. We also witnessed SS double, triple, and quadruple down on these tactics despite obvious backlash. Trust and believe, SS did not magically develop the ability to engage the British way for the span of exactly one story. Strike 3.

The way this story gained traction in the media is another strong indicator Meghan was not involved (strike 4!). Wootton's exclusive would probably have fallen off the radar fairly quickly if not for a bizarrely over-the-top rebuttal penned by Richard Kay in the Daily Mail. Kay loudly sings William's praises as a family man, decries the threat to Cambridge "domestic tranquility," makes vague allusions to potential legal action, minimizes the relationship with the Cholmondeleys, and generally takes the whole Lady-doth-protest-too-much routine to the Nth degree.

I won't get into nitty-gritty of the Kay piece because there's just way too much detail there, but suffice it to say that every sentence is basically a brand new WTF moment. Keep in mind that most readers of the original Sun piece probably interpreted it simply as a story about a friendship ending, and hey, who hasn't lost a friendship in their lifetime? Big whoop. But suddenly, Kay is bringing up the Cambridge children and praising "family man" William (why? what does "family man" Wills have to do with his wife losing a friend?), condemning "extraordinary" rumors (wait, this seemed like ordinary "life happens" stuff - what's the extraordinary part?), alluding to previous legal actions against the press to defend Cambridge reputations (whose reputation is at stake and why?) while noting that "inconsequential reports are simply disregarded" (again, why is this consequential?), and on and on and on.

Sus

We should note here that Richard Kay is known to have very strong back channels to the palace. He was thick as thieves with Diana back in the day, and is known to have maintained connections with both the Wales boys. So to an observer-in-the-know, Kay's piece looked very much like the Cambridges lashing out in fury and panic over a tabloid rumor that three days prior hadn't seemed like a very big deal. The obvious conclusion was that the "rural rivals" story was in fact a very, very big deal. 

(This perception would later be fully cemented by William circulating threatening legal letters to press outlets. Notably, these letters asserted his right to privacy pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention to Human Rights. They made no mention of British libel laws, with the obvious implication being that he had no grounds for a libel action since truth is an absolute defense. A defiant and offended press continued reporting the affair rumors, with one Daily Beast headline sassily asserting "Prince William’s Lawyer Tries to Suppress Rumors of Affair.")

To summarize: The "rural rivals" story gained traction due to the Cambridge's overreaction. It was a massive Cambridge own goal, deliberately nudged along by silver-tongued viper Richard Kay. (A similar pattern of overreaction would later play out with the Catherine the Great Tatler debacle, which I am firmly convinced Meghan also had nothing to do with - I'll probably do a post on that at some point.)

Silver-tongued silver fox. Is that 30 pieces of silver I hear jangling in your pocket?

Finally, social media took the story fully viral. Giles Coren tweeted and deleted his now infamous confirmation, and Nicole Cliffe expounded her theory of L'Affaire Hanbury in an eye-popping (since deleted) Twitter thread.

And lo, the deed was done. So while I believe Meghan has enthusiastically weaponized L'Affaire Hanbury via the Sussex Squad (classic Sunshine Sachs tactic), I believe the story emerged and gained traction independently of Our Lady of Perpetual Victimhood.

That conclusion in turn begs an obvious question. If not Meghan, then who?

My best guess is the story was planted by some faction within the Turnip Toffs, possibly but not necessarily by Rose herself. Indeed, I think the original Sun article contains a critical clue:

The tension between the future Queen [Kate] and Meghan along with the imminent split of the royal households has emboldened the Duchess, who is growing more comfortable with her public role.

That's the key word right there. Emboldened. It seems Kate had been feeling her oats lately, and attempted to assert her dominance over her aristocratic social set by exiling two of their own - two very, very high-ranking members, no less. But the powerful jaws of the British class system clamped shut on Kate. This story was planted to remind her that her future role as Queen Consort doesn't wash out her past as a social-climbing, Wisteria-sistering, middle-class parvenu. And social-climbing arrivistes don't get to exile blood members. (I believe that to be the Turnip Toff perspective, and must stress that it is certainly not mine! If you're interested in further reading on this theme then I highly recommend this post from Royal Foibles.)

And yes, I do believe the affair is real. If a single one of these Windsor men is faithful then I will eat my damn shoe. Fin.

____________________

What Happened at the Mountbatten Festival of Music? The Curious Case of the Stolen Ovation (Part 1)

 

Mountbatten Festival of Music 2020

Alright folks, strap in, strap up, batten the hatches, secure the storm shutters, and affix the tinfoil hats firmly to your heads because I'm about to make some highly irregular claims.

But bear with me anyway.

Namely, I think Harry has already been sacked from his Captain General of the Royal Marines post. I think it happened at the Mountbatten Festival of Music (MFM) 2020. And I think they sacked him in a very public albeit coded way. It happened right under our very noses and the great majority of us didn't have a clue.

I started looking into the goings on at the MFM because of the Believing Bruce body language video embedded below. Commenters on his channel were claiming that the standing ovation Harry and Meghan received was actually meant for the orchestra, which had just finished the overture when they entered. This fit into some rumors I was investigating at the time that the gruesome twosome might be surreptitiously recording footage of royal events to use in a Netflix documentary. Stealing performers' applause in order to get a "standing ovation" shot for their doc? Very on-brand for these entitled twerps.

A commenter pointed out the reaction of the short dude on Harry's right/viewer's left, which seemed to confirm that something was indeed very off with the whole evening. So I tracked down the original video (Standing Ovation for Prince Harry and Meghan as they Complete Last Few Engagements) and started watching reactions one by one. Yep. Somethin' ain't clean in the milk and every last person on that balcony knew it.

This guy reminds me of Popeye

Poor Popeye looks devastated

Harry's last true friend?

Oozing that inimitable English quality of polite savagery

Pashmina Lady can't believe her eyes

But she likes what she's seeing

I solemnly swear that I am up to no good

Astounded

Ole dude's eyebrows are just about flying off his forehead

i am so uncomfortable

Yiiiiiiiiikes

Good sirs I remain skeptical

However, I was given pause by the fact that this video is clearly titled Standing Ovation for the Harkles and appears on The Royal Family Channel, which is a verified channel and not a stan account. A quick glance at their Wikipedia page reveals that they are owned by ITV, which is a huge establishment player in British media. Surely a bunch of establishment insiders knew the real scoop; why would they facilitate the gruesome twosome's outrageous and false self-promotion?

The clincher for me was none other than Meghan herself. Watch the video from 0:55 to 1:50 and focus exclusively on Meghan's reaction. She is first surprised, then delighted by the audience's applause. Meghan is absolutely pleased as punch. This is not the sly narc smirk of a rude schemer thieving other people's accolades; this is the ecstatic smile of a woman finally being lauded in the manner to which she always felt entitled.

A simpering fool and her dignity are soon parted

And yet... All the pressed-lip, tight-smiled, bulgy-eyed expressions on the balcony tell a very different story. So what the heck is really going on? Are the Harkles being standing-ovated or no? Since the video of the full concert was uploaded to Youtube, might we find some answers there?

As it turns out, the answer to that last question is a resounding YES.

The video of the concert has two audience shots during the standing O, one at 3:34 and the second at 3:38. In the second shot the orchestra is clearly visible behind the audience. The audience have their backs turned to the orchestra, and are applauding towards the back of Royal Albert Hall where Harry and Meghan are seated. That is probative. The standing ovation was not for the orchestra, it was very intentionally for Hazza and LaMarkle.

The audience, clapping, with their backs to the orchestra. Not the orchestra's ovation.

But equally obviously, this is not an authentic, heartfelt, laudatory applause. And it's not just the tense expressions on the balcony that lead me to believe that. If anything, the expressions in those audience shots are even more extraordinary. There are a lot of mirthless smiles in that crowd, beginning on the lips but failing to reach the eyes. And most curiously of all, some of those audience smiles appear to be openly mocking.

Mirthless smile

Open mockery

Contempt

Did you get the shot, babe?

What a couple of knobheads

For posterity

Amused

Tight-lipped

Skepticism over the shoulder

Mr. Moustache is skeptical too

Not here for the nonsense

What. Is. Going. On?

With the aid of some rogue YouTube commenters, we figure some things out in Part 2! Stay tuned!

____________________

Tiaragate: The Saga Begins (Part 1)

Tiaras and tears and tantrums, oh my! The rumors about various tiara-related Sussex ructions have been flying thick and fast since Spring 2018. We don't know exactly what happened, beyond the fact that Harry and Meghan definitely pitched a fit over some tiara. However, I think we know enough to piece together the broad contours of the story.

'Twas I that caused the ructions!

The first version of the story surfaced in the tabloid press in the context of various leaks about Meghan's shocking bridezilla behavior. In this telling, Meghan had set her heart on a particular tiara, which was not identified but was said to have emeralds. Courtiers politely explained that the tiara was of uncertain Russian provenance (read: obtained via questionable means from desperate aristocrats fleeing the Russian Revolution) and might cause controversy. Keep in mind the Mueller investigation was in full swing at this time, and the GOP had not yet succeeded in burying their collective treason. It was perfectly reasonable for the courtiers to be concerned about the potential for scandal if Harry's American bride were to drape herself in shady Russian jewels.

At this point, any sane human being would take no for an answer, and gratefully accept whatever the Queen (the Queen! of the whole damn United Kingdom!) put on offer. But sane and grateful? Our Megsy? Ha! This audacious tacky Z-lister went full narc rage mode, roping in then-fiancée Harry to do her dirty work. Big Man Harry set to work making a slew of rage-y phone calls, eventually crowning his crescendo of aggression with the line that lives in royal infamy: "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets."

"Meghan gets what she's given by me."

Well, there wasn't an emerald in sight on the day of the wedding, so it appears that Meghan did not in fact get what Meghan wanted. But speculation continued to run rampant on Mr. Gore's Good Internet: which tiara had been the focus of all the ructions? Royal-watching opinion was split between three options.

The first suggestion was the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara, a dramatic ring of interlocking diamond-and-pearl ovals with exchangeable pendants. One set of pendants consists of emeralds, and the provenance is indeed Russian. However, it's a stretch to characterize the provenance as questionable. The tiara was smuggled out of Russia during the Revolution on the orders of the Grand Duchess herself, and remained in her possession until her death. It was later auctioned by her heirs and thus came into the possession of the British royal family.

DRIP, bitch!

The Grand Duchess Vladimir is one of the Queen's favorites, and is frequently worn by her. Moreover, the British royal women tend to be assigned a tiara, which they wear repeatedly to various functions, and they do not wear each other's assigned tiaras. So demanding the Queen's favorite tiara would have been an audacious effrontery, but then again audacious effrontery is 100% on-brand for Megsy Dearest.

The second heirloom suggested to be at the heart of Tiaragate was the Greville Kokoshnik Tiara, also containing emeralds and of potential Russian provenance. Officially, the GK was commissioned for society hostess and heiress Margaret Greville and was modeled after a Russian tiara. However, rumors persist that the Greville Kokoshnik is no mere knock off but rather the real deal, smuggled out of Russia around the time of the Russian Revolution and perhaps sold by or stolen from its original Russian owners. Those rumors were certainly not abated by the fact that the GK hadn't been seen in public for the better part of a century until Princess Eugenie wore it to her 2018 wedding. Until then, royal watchers weren't even certain that the tiara still existed.

Emeralds? Check! Shady Russia connection? Check!

Certainly, it's easy to understand why the courtiers wouldn't want the world's attention on this piece. Featuring it atop the head of Harry's bride would only invite speculation as to the origins of the tiara - English or Russian? Commissioned, sold, or stolen? - and might also invite lurid speculation as to the fate of previous owners. For my money, this was far and away the strongest candidate.

Finally, in distant third place was the Queen Victoria emerald tiara. I consider this option implausible. Yes, it has emeralds, but that's the only part of the story that fits. The provenance is neither Russian nor questionable; in fact, it was commissioned by Prince Albert for Queen Victoria. Moreover, this tiara is currently owned by the Fife branch of the family, so Her Madge couldn't lend it to Meghan even if she had the inclination to do so. I suppose that wouldn't stop our Megs from launching into histrionics fit to shake the Devil from his slumber, but the details just don't fit the original rumor.

I'm not big on jewelry, but I would literally slit throats for a chance to wear this.

Speculation eventually petered out as no new information emerged. Interest briefly revived in June/July 2020 after Lady Colin Campbell's biography was published, in which she claimed the tiara at the center of it all was the Greville Kokoshnik. However opinion on Mr. Gore's Good Internet remained divided. Moreover, a new wrinkle was soon to be introduced by Our Lady of Perpetual Clapbacks via her lapdog/press mouthpiece/human waxwork Omid Scobie. The saga continues in Part 2!

___________________

Something Weird Is Going On With the Royal Marines (Part 1)

I'm convinced there is some wild f&cksh!t going down vis-a-vis the Royal Marines and the Captain General position, although I'm not exactly sure what. Here l gather my speculations.

I think the RF want to wait until the one-year review to name a new Captain General, but the RM are sick of the nonsense and have embarked on a public pressure campaign to get the ball rolling. These articles are 2 keystones of that campaign:

Prince Harry devastated as brother William poised to take much-loved marines role

Top general accuses Prince Harry of turning his back on the Royal Marines after stepping down from ceremonial role as part of Megxit deal

After the chaos and scandal of the Harry years, I think they wanted good ole professional, reliable Anne but she declined - per DE, she’s 70 with 15 existing military appointments. Reasonable.

Reasonable.

I think they are currently trying to give the post to William and he doesn’t want it. Taking over Harry’s old post pumps nitrous into the brothers-at-war narrative, and on a personal level Harry will certainly never forgive him. However the RM are clearly pressuring William in that DE article - they talk about needing royal representation for big upcoming events, they point out a key procedural meeting that needs to take place, then follow up with how the RF’s interests will be damaged by losing a direct connection to the RM.

Harry is off the table and out of the running. He will not be restored to his position. In fact, my personal tinfoil is that he has already been formally stripped of the role! It happened at the Mountbatten Festival of Music during the “farewell tour” and was done very publicly but in a coded way. Effectively, it happened right under our noses and we didn’t suspect a thing! It's an elaborate theory whose exposition will require several separate posts. But wow, if I’m right, the RF and RM really turned the public humiliation dial up to 11 for the gruesome twosome.

Hip Hip... Hooray! Hip Hip... Hooray! Hip Hip... Hooray!

Ultimately, there’s really no one but William who’s both available and suitable for the position (Andrew we know you’ve got time on your hands these days but don’t even think about it!). Hence the DM article with the retired muckety-mucks portraying Harry as feckless and absent; they are bringing out the big guns to blast the way clear for William to take up the role.

(The saga takes a surprising turn in Part 2! Join me there!)

____________________