ChaoticMusings

Date: Jun 6 1:54 PM, 2025

RE: Meghan's Moon Bump or is it?

Maddog · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
To the other Anon I do see what you mean . There has always been gossip over the washing line, it just always always seems to be more scathing about women. By women. It's just the depth of feeling on social media about celebrities or people the naysayers don't know themselves I can't relate to. I hate criminals who have commited evil crimes, loathing them I understand. ,this sort of thing not so much. This clip was uploaded by Meghan with beautiful black and white photo's to celebrate their daughter's 4th birthday. Yet this info is left out on some social media, manipulated to appear to be a weird look at me stunt by Meghan. Thanks for reply.
BIB: Stumped, I don’t see the correlation myself…is one supposed to cancel out the other in some way?
As for women re other women, do blokes never dislike each other, they never criticise each other? It’s not just a female thing as you are implying, distasteful behaviour and attitude is often called out regardless of sex and/or financial status and the likes.
Yeah, check out Maddog's health thread to see that in action.

Where were men criticizing each other there?

Posting clips about how to be healthier and live longer isn't critical, unless someone chooses to see it that way..

Maddog · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
OK, I went back and rewatched thinking I missed something.

I'm impressed with her moves that close to birth. Speaking of her moves they are fairly tame and she wasn't flashing a bunch of skin.

Are those moves unusual for millenials having a little silly time with their spouses?

I understand not liking her for her treatment of her in-laws, but I'm not sure this is a big deal..
It's a big deal when they want to be 'ambassadors' for the world while continuing to engage in global initiatives like the Invictus Games and diplomatic visits to countries such as Nigeria and Colombia. She wants to swan around with the title Duchess with all its connotations of refinement, class, integrity and dignity, then posts herself and her half wit husband, who should know better, behaving like the hoi polloi trailer trash she considers her own family to be.
Meghan proclaims she's a major advocate for mental health, family care, and gender equity (while cruelly ostracising her own elderly sick father). The Duchess hopes to be a cultural catalyst for positive change, reflecting her core belief that representation matters, and that communities can be enhanced through learning, healing, and inspirational support. In short, she aims to be an inspiration for others worldwide. Who the hell wants to aspire to her vulgar spraddle legged posturings while supposedly in the process of bringing her child into the world? Something that intimate and private - while also whining about having no privacy and being hounded by the media?
World Vision has been Meghan's only real claim of volunteer work before she met Harry, unfortunately World Vision charities has a long history of paying celebrities to be ambassadors. So that kind of kiboshed her image as some self sacrificing Mother Teresa/Diana Spencer wannabe. She's full of narcissistic shit. That's why people don't like her.
As for their infantile behaviour being explained because they're 'millennials'....what the fuck has that do with anything?
Would it be OK for a world leader to post this kind of thing on social media? Would that command any respect from other world leaders or those who hold them in high esteem? Or would people just turn away in embarrassment and disgust? These two have touted themselves as just that - high achieving, moralistic, ground breaking, woke ambassadors to the world.
The thing about dignity is people can have definitions that vary. But you sure as hell recognise its absence.

This wouldn't bother me one bit if Kate did it, nor would I think it was offensive.

Obviously you don't do it at a State Dinner, but this was private time between a husband and a wife..

Maybe it's the American in me, but I don't expect different behavior out of someone because they were born to or married into a "special" family..

Maddog · Go Outside

Here's one thing I'm certain of. When women
don't like another woman, everything she does will be deemed trashy, low life, whatever.

Y'all don't play.

Date: Jun 6 3:44 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
OK, I went back and rewatched thinking I missed something.

I'm impressed with her moves that close to birth. Speaking of her moves they are fairly tame and she wasn't flashing a bunch of skin.

Are those moves unusual for millenials having a little silly time with their spouses?

I understand not liking her for her treatment of her in-laws, but I'm not sure this is a big deal..
It's a big deal when they want to be 'ambassadors' for the world while continuing to engage in global initiatives like the Invictus Games and diplomatic visits to countries such as Nigeria and Colombia. She wants to swan around with the title Duchess with all its connotations of refinement, class, integrity and dignity, then posts herself and her half wit husband, who should know better, behaving like the hoi polloi trailer trash she considers her own family to be.
Meghan proclaims she's a major advocate for mental health, family care, and gender equity (while cruelly ostracising her own elderly sick father). The Duchess hopes to be a cultural catalyst for positive change, reflecting her core belief that representation matters, and that communities can be enhanced through learning, healing, and inspirational support. In short, she aims to be an inspiration for others worldwide. Who the hell wants to aspire to her vulgar spraddle legged posturings while supposedly in the process of bringing her child into the world? Something that intimate and private - while also whining about having no privacy and being hounded by the media?
World Vision has been Meghan's only real claim of volunteer work before she met Harry, unfortunately World Vision charities has a long history of paying celebrities to be ambassadors. So that kind of kiboshed her image as some self sacrificing Mother Teresa/Diana Spencer wannabe. She's full of narcissistic shit. That's why people don't like her.
As for their infantile behaviour being explained because they're 'millennials'....what the fuck has that do with anything?
Would it be OK for a world leader to post this kind of thing on social media? Would that command any respect from other world leaders or those who hold them in high esteem? Or would people just turn away in embarrassment and disgust? These two have touted themselves as just that - high achieving, moralistic, ground breaking, woke ambassadors to the world.
The thing about dignity is people can have definitions that vary. But you sure as hell recognise its absence.

This wouldn't bother me one bit if Kate did it, nor would I think it was offensive.

Obviously you don't do it at a State Dinner, but this was private time between a husband and a wife..

Maybe it's the American in me, but I don't expect different behavior out of someone because they were born to or married into a "special" family..

”private time” implies keeping it to yourself not uploading online, but maybe that’s just me.

These two deluded grifters trying to be relevant is toe curling cringey. They really don’t have a clue as to how they come across to the majority of people.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Exactly that, private time should mean....private.
If other women have posted vids of themselves twerking to bring on labour, pity they dont have a bit more decorum, but I doubt they parade themselves around the world as if they were royal...she does.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
OK, I went back and rewatched thinking I missed something.

I'm impressed with her moves that close to birth. Speaking of her moves they are fairly tame and she wasn't flashing a bunch of skin.

Are those moves unusual for millenials having a little silly time with their spouses?

I understand not liking her for her treatment of her in-laws, but I'm not sure this is a big deal..
It's a big deal when they want to be 'ambassadors' for the world while continuing to engage in global initiatives like the Invictus Games and diplomatic visits to countries such as Nigeria and Colombia. She wants to swan around with the title Duchess with all its connotations of refinement, class, integrity and dignity, then posts herself and her half wit husband, who should know better, behaving like the hoi polloi trailer trash she considers her own family to be.
Meghan proclaims she's a major advocate for mental health, family care, and gender equity (while cruelly ostracising her own elderly sick father). The Duchess hopes to be a cultural catalyst for positive change, reflecting her core belief that representation matters, and that communities can be enhanced through learning, healing, and inspirational support. In short, she aims to be an inspiration for others worldwide. Who the hell wants to aspire to her vulgar spraddle legged posturings while supposedly in the process of bringing her child into the world? Something that intimate and private - while also whining about having no privacy and being hounded by the media?
World Vision has been Meghan's only real claim of volunteer work before she met Harry, unfortunately World Vision charities has a long history of paying celebrities to be ambassadors. So that kind of kiboshed her image as some self sacrificing Mother Teresa/Diana Spencer wannabe. She's full of narcissistic shit. That's why people don't like her.
As for their infantile behaviour being explained because they're 'millennials'....what the fuck has that do with anything?
Would it be OK for a world leader to post this kind of thing on social media? Would that command any respect from other world leaders or those who hold them in high esteem? Or would people just turn away in embarrassment and disgust? These two have touted themselves as just that - high achieving, moralistic, ground breaking, woke ambassadors to the world.
The thing about dignity is people can have definitions that vary. But you sure as hell recognise its absence.

This wouldn't bother me one bit if Kate did it, nor would I think it was offensive.

Obviously you don't do it at a State Dinner, but this was private time between a husband and a wife..

Maybe it's the American in me, but I don't expect different behavior out of someone because they were born to or married into a "special" family..

Kate wouldn't do it, it's as simple as that.

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
OK, I went back and rewatched thinking I missed something.

I'm impressed with her moves that close to birth. Speaking of her moves they are fairly tame and she wasn't flashing a bunch of skin.

Are those moves unusual for millenials having a little silly time with their spouses?

I understand not liking her for her treatment of her in-laws, but I'm not sure this is a big deal..
It's a big deal when they want to be 'ambassadors' for the world while continuing to engage in global initiatives like the Invictus Games and diplomatic visits to countries such as Nigeria and Colombia. She wants to swan around with the title Duchess with all its connotations of refinement, class, integrity and dignity, then posts herself and her half wit husband, who should know better, behaving like the hoi polloi trailer trash she considers her own family to be.
Meghan proclaims she's a major advocate for mental health, family care, and gender equity (while cruelly ostracising her own elderly sick father). The Duchess hopes to be a cultural catalyst for positive change, reflecting her core belief that representation matters, and that communities can be enhanced through learning, healing, and inspirational support. In short, she aims to be an inspiration for others worldwide. Who the hell wants to aspire to her vulgar spraddle legged posturings while supposedly in the process of bringing her child into the world? Something that intimate and private - while also whining about having no privacy and being hounded by the media?
World Vision has been Meghan's only real claim of volunteer work before she met Harry, unfortunately World Vision charities has a long history of paying celebrities to be ambassadors. So that kind of kiboshed her image as some self sacrificing Mother Teresa/Diana Spencer wannabe. She's full of narcissistic shit. That's why people don't like her.
As for their infantile behaviour being explained because they're 'millennials'....what the fuck has that do with anything?
Would it be OK for a world leader to post this kind of thing on social media? Would that command any respect from other world leaders or those who hold them in high esteem? Or would people just turn away in embarrassment and disgust? These two have touted themselves as just that - high achieving, moralistic, ground breaking, woke ambassadors to the world.
The thing about dignity is people can have definitions that vary. But you sure as hell recognise its absence.

This wouldn't bother me one bit if Kate did it, nor would I think it was offensive.

Obviously you don't do it at a State Dinner, but this was private time between a husband and a wife..

Maybe it's the American in me, but I don't expect different behavior out of someone because they were born to or married into a "special" family..

”private time” implies keeping it to yourself not uploading online, but maybe that’s just me.
These two deluded grifters trying to be relevant is toe curling cringey. They really don’t have a clue as to how they come across to the majority of people.

Isn't the whole royal family thing sort of a grifter gig?

And just being a royal makes you relevant. Whether it should is a different question..

Young people share their private time on social media all of the time. Ever hear of TikTok?

I think Markle is probably using the former prince, but on the other hand, I don't hear stories of her whoring around like the former prince's mother before her divorce.

Maybe that sort of thing is considered acceptable for royals as long as it's done discreetly..🤷

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.

Date: Jun 6 5:02 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
OK, I went back and rewatched thinking I missed something.

I'm impressed with her moves that close to birth. Speaking of her moves they are fairly tame and she wasn't flashing a bunch of skin.

Are those moves unusual for millenials having a little silly time with their spouses?

I understand not liking her for her treatment of her in-laws, but I'm not sure this is a big deal..
It's a big deal when they want to be 'ambassadors' for the world while continuing to engage in global initiatives like the Invictus Games and diplomatic visits to countries such as Nigeria and Colombia. She wants to swan around with the title Duchess with all its connotations of refinement, class, integrity and dignity, then posts herself and her half wit husband, who should know better, behaving like the hoi polloi trailer trash she considers her own family to be.
Meghan proclaims she's a major advocate for mental health, family care, and gender equity (while cruelly ostracising her own elderly sick father). The Duchess hopes to be a cultural catalyst for positive change, reflecting her core belief that representation matters, and that communities can be enhanced through learning, healing, and inspirational support. In short, she aims to be an inspiration for others worldwide. Who the hell wants to aspire to her vulgar spraddle legged posturings while supposedly in the process of bringing her child into the world? Something that intimate and private - while also whining about having no privacy and being hounded by the media?
World Vision has been Meghan's only real claim of volunteer work before she met Harry, unfortunately World Vision charities has a long history of paying celebrities to be ambassadors. So that kind of kiboshed her image as some self sacrificing Mother Teresa/Diana Spencer wannabe. She's full of narcissistic shit. That's why people don't like her.
As for their infantile behaviour being explained because they're 'millennials'....what the fuck has that do with anything?
Would it be OK for a world leader to post this kind of thing on social media? Would that command any respect from other world leaders or those who hold them in high esteem? Or would people just turn away in embarrassment and disgust? These two have touted themselves as just that - high achieving, moralistic, ground breaking, woke ambassadors to the world.
The thing about dignity is people can have definitions that vary. But you sure as hell recognise its absence.

This wouldn't bother me one bit if Kate did it, nor would I think it was offensive.

Obviously you don't do it at a State Dinner, but this was private time between a husband and a wife..

Maybe it's the American in me, but I don't expect different behavior out of someone because they were born to or married into a "special" family..

”private time” implies keeping it to yourself not uploading online, but maybe that’s just me.
These two deluded grifters trying to be relevant is toe curling cringey. They really don’t have a clue as to how they come across to the majority of people.
Isn't the whole royal family thing sort of a grifter gig?

And just being a royal makes you relevant. Whether it should is a different question..

Young people share their private time on social media all of the time. Ever hear of TikTok?

I think Markle is probably using the former prince, but on the other hand, I don't hear stories of her whoring around like the former prince's mother before her divorce.

Maybe that sort of thing is considered acceptable for royals as long as it's done discreetly..🤷

Charlie did the initial “whoring around”, educate yourself ffs.

Date: Jun 6 5:12 PM, 2025

Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.

Makes me laugh when blokes don’t like being treated in the same way as they treat women…he’s a “stud” she’s a “whore”.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.

I thought he was kicked out of the family?

Oh, I'm not saying Chuck was an upstanding man. I just figured royal protocol would require the divorce to preceed the new relationships. Anything else would be unseemly.

It's obvious D and Chuck despised each other. On the other hand, Harry and Megs seem to get along pretty well. Even making silly videos together..

She may be a bitch, but she's the loyal kind of bitch that's there for her man.. And why shouldn't she. Unlike his father, Harry seems to be there for his wife..

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.
Makes me laugh when blokes don’t like being treated in the same way as they treat women…he’s a “stud” she’s a “whore”.

Chuck ain't no stud. A bony fucking weasel? Maybe?

Date: Jun 6 8:08 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.
I thought he was kicked out of the family?

Oh, I'm not saying Chuck was an upstanding man. I just figured royal protocol would require the divorce to preceed the new relationships. Anything else would be unseemly.

It's obvious D and Chuck despised each other. On the other hand, Harry and Megs seem to get along pretty well. Even making silly videos together..

She may be a bitch, but she's the loyal kind of bitch that's there for her man.. And why shouldn't she. Unlike his father, Harry seems to be there for his wife..

What’s with you calling women bitches?

Date: Jun 6 9:11 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.
I thought he was kicked out of the family?

Oh, I'm not saying Chuck was an upstanding man. I just figured royal protocol would require the divorce to preceed the new relationships. Anything else would be unseemly.

It's obvious D and Chuck despised each other. On the other hand, Harry and Megs seem to get along pretty well. Even making silly videos together..

She may be a bitch, but she's the loyal kind of bitch that's there for her man.. And why shouldn't she. Unlike his father, Harry seems to be there for his wife..

Diana always claimed she loved Charles whereas it’s been claimed Charles was more or less forced/encouraged to marry her…”whatever love is”.

Let’s see the Harry pair after 15 years of marriage before making a comparison…at the moment the Markles feel they are relevant to the masses.

Date: Jun 6 9:14 PM, 2025

Maddog, Diana had affairs and did so because the man she loved was in love with another woman. Diana is universally adored and I think her death was tragic. But can you imagine how the pitchforks would come out if Meghan was unfaithful?? She's not even allowed to twerk! It is a bit hypocritical. I don't frequent social media often but am a millennial and so twerking Tik Tok challenges whilst not exactly sophisticated, don't bother me. The dancing itself wasn't a "private moment", unsavoury couples all over the globe were shamelessly doing this!! People who can't take the outrage on this occasion seriously accused of being Meghan fans is also a bit silly but it is what it is. I neither like or dislike her.

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.
I thought he was kicked out of the family?

Oh, I'm not saying Chuck was an upstanding man. I just figured royal protocol would require the divorce to preceed the new relationships. Anything else would be unseemly.

It's obvious D and Chuck despised each other. On the other hand, Harry and Megs seem to get along pretty well. Even making silly videos together..

She may be a bitch, but she's the loyal kind of bitch that's there for her man.. And why shouldn't she. Unlike his father, Harry seems to be there for his wife..

What’s with you calling women bitches?

That's about the nicest thing she's been called on this thread. 😉

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog, Diana had affairs and did so because the man she loved was in love with another woman. Diana is universally adored and I think her death was tragic. But can you imagine how the pitchforks would come out if Meghan was unfaithful?? She's not even allowed to twerk! It is a bit hypocritical. I don't frequent social media often but am a millennial and so twerking Tik Tok challenges whilst not exactly sophisticated, don't bother me. The dancing itself wasn't a "private moment", unsavoury couples all over the globe were shamelessly doing this!! People who can't take the outrage on this occasion seriously accused of being Meghan fans is also a bit silly but it is what it is. I neither like or dislike her.

Yes, her death was tragic, and I do believe thats why she is so adored.

Famous, attractive women who die way too young are usually respected far more after death than many similar women are respected while alive..

Marilyn Monroe is another example and Amy Winehouse to a lesser degree

Maddog · Go Outside

And with Di and Marilyn, there is the conspiracy surrounding their deaths adding something else to the story for many people.

I think the conspiracy adds an extra level of tragedy for some..

Digger · Admin

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Harry is not a 'former' prince.
His mother had a husband who whored around before and during his marriage treating her like dirt. Like any woman with a backbone, she found love and affection outside of the marriage.
I thought he was kicked out of the family?

Oh, I'm not saying Chuck was an upstanding man. I just figured royal protocol would require the divorce to preceed the new relationships. Anything else would be unseemly.

It's obvious D and Chuck despised each other. On the other hand, Harry and Megs seem to get along pretty well. Even making silly videos together..

She may be a bitch, but she's the loyal kind of bitch that's there for her man.. And why shouldn't she. Unlike his father, Harry seems to be there for his wife..

Harry wasn't kicked anywhere. He chose to leave but wanted to keep his royal perks and make money out of it. The Queen said no, you can't have both. Because the Royals don't get paid for royal duties. You're either in or out. They chose out. And his father gave him money to the tune of millions and he also inherited 8.5 million off the Queen. And still he whined that daddy was depriving him.