What’s on My Mind?

What’s on my mind? I’m Nicole Parton, retired columnist and reporter with a Big City newspaper; author and co-author of 10 traditionally published non-fiction books; blogger at Nicole Parton’s Favorite Recipes. To find me there, go to https://nicoleparton.blogspot.com To receive this blog by email, plug your email address into the bottom of the blog. Don’t worry ... Your privacy’s paramount. No ads ... No unwanted messages. Even I won’t know your email address. What’s on my mind? Read on.

March 21, 2021

When Harry Met Meghan (Part 4)

What’s on my mind?

“From what I understand, she (was) on a little TV show here in the US, and she’s saying she sacrificed this tiny celebrity show status to go be a princess and that’s a tremendous sacrifice.”

- Behavioral analyst Chase Hughes

What’s on my mind? Polls are for dogs. Ain’t it the truth? Among Americans, Meghan Markle’s positive polling stands at 45%, well above the 36% positive rating for the Queen’s corgis. In the UK, only 31% of respondents like her; I can only surmise how many fancy the corgis.

https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/04/royal-family-favorability-harry-meghan-oprah/

Polls can mislead, depending which polls ask which questions to which subjects. In other words, GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Polls rise and fall on the fickle whims of the day, so Markle needn’t dab away tears that not everyone’s a fan.

Foremost among those who’ve suggested Markle’s pants are on fire is Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan who, after watching the March 6/7 Oprah Winfrey interview, said: “I don’t believe a word she says … I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report.” Morgan became the program’s former host after more than 41,000 complaints flooded into the ITV network. Included among those was a formal complaint from Markle and another sent sent the country’s broadcast regulator.

Words offer a smorgasbord of choices from formal to relaxed. As a former interviewer, I’m interested in why people pick one word over another, particularly when the choice of word seems jarring. It’s a small thing, but shortly after the Oprah interview started, I felt uneasy when Markle stated that “in and of itself,” it was a “miracle” to have slept through the night before her wedding day.

I hope I’m not being unfair to the Duchess, but “in and of itself” is a phrase one doesn’t normally hear in everyday conversation. One might hear it in a boardroom, or a lawyer’s office, but it’s an odd turn of phrase with reference to one’s wedding day.

“This woman wants to impress upon people that she’s ‘smart’,” I thought.

Which Markle most certainly is. She’s also articulate, attractive, genuinely concerned about social issues, superficially charming, and a beaming mother to son Archie, now 22 months old.

The reason I raise this picky point about language is that I heard a markedly sharp contrast between Markle’s use of this formal phrase and the vague, stream-of-conscious sentence fragments she spun when it suited her in the Oprah interview. I found Markle adept at blurring her words with what I’ve concluded to be intentional ambiguity, as she did while claiming the palace failed to “protect” her.

As an experienced interviewer, I found few (if any) substantiations for Markle’s veiled, shadowy insinuations.

Markle holds a position of considerable power. Any serious public allegations she makes should be substantiated with a clearly stated “who, what, where, and when.” When Markle’s mostly unverifiable allegations met blow-back, Markle - or her representative - went to Oprah’s best friend, TV host Gayle King, to say Markle had “proof” of everything she’d said.

This woman needs to develop a thicker skin and get on with it, rather than issuing lawsuits, threats, and complaints while trying to curry favor from key corners of the media. Markle’s whining about “unfair treatment” is frankly becoming tedious. I say that not to be nasty, but in kindness, as a retired columnist and reporter. If Markle wants the media to stop commenting about her, she should lower her profile, assume an aura of demure elegance, and zip her lip.

The queen’s response to Markle’s complaints was pointed and direct: “Some recollections may vary.” Markle’s issues will be addressed within the royal family. The queen is astute, experienced, and wise. She would never trade insult-for-insult.

At the interview’s conclusion, actress Markle was clearly eager to leave viewers with a few well-rehearsed words worthy of her alter-ego, TV paralegal Rachel Zane: “Life is about storytelling - about the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we are told, and the stories we buy into.”

Reread and consider those words. Coming from a woman whose “truths” to Oprah didn’t always ring true, I find those words curious. In my view, they were the truest words to fall from Markle’s mouth during the entire interview.

* * *

Why do some people feel Meghan Markle’s saccharine sweetness isn’t the real deal?

Among those questioning Markle’s sincerity are internationally recognized body language and behavior analysts Chase Hughes, Greg Hartley, Scott Rouse, and Mark Bowden. In a two-hour panel discussion, the experts gave their opinions of Markle’s (and Harry’s) demeanor and language.

Panelist Rouse’s introduction of what was to come was more than interesting: “All we’re doing is telling you the body language we see … (not) whether anybody’s innocent, guilty, or anything like that … We’re Switzerland. We don’t care. We’re just telling you what we see …”

Hartley: “She starts with kind of a curt, smirked lip, and then when she says ‘I did not …’ (Google Harry or the royal family) Look, none of us believe(s) that. None of us. If you were going to date a prince tomorrow, you’d look him up.”

One panelist referred to the patterns of Markle’s shoulder shrugs (“.. a classic sign of deception”), eye flutters, blinking, requests for approval, and more. “It’s a subtle pattern, but it’s there. It’s a thread that runs through this.”

Said another: “I think it’s really notable that she’s using the word “Meg” in the third person. The only time she does it is when there’s something negative: ‘That’s ‘somebody else.’ So she’s dissociating herself from the negative activities that are happening …” For the full discussion, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYyEx20DiKU

Interesting people tend to have many interests: Markle writes in calligraphy, a precise, fancy script that requires more time and attention than users would normally apply to cursive writing in Romance languages.

Forensic handwriting examiner Sheila Lowe addressed Markle’s writing style in the May, 2019 online issue of SheKnows magazine:

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/2044773/meghan-markles-handwriting-analysis/

“Calligraphy is by its nature stylized and is all about

appearances. Someone who chooses a calligraphy form of writing ... cares about how they come across … Meghan’s beautiful writing has many flourishes that on one hand draw attention to her, but on the other, there is a formality that also keeps a distance. What this tells us is, Meghan wants to project an image of beauty, perfection and uniqueness which serve to hide some insecurity … The degree of control seen in this handwriting reveals a woman of strong emotion who works to hold back the tide and only show what she wants others to see.”

Next: The Duke and Duchess’ “brand.” Does money buy happiness?

© Nicole Parton, 2021

March 20, 2021

When Harry Met Meghan (Part 3)

What’s on my mind? Once upon a time, a handsome young Prince roamed the world looking for his mother. Prince Henry Charles Albert David (known as Harry) was only 12 when his mother died in 1997.

“Mother! Mother!” called the Prince, but heard only the echo of his own voice. “Mo-ther!” The young Prince didn’t know it, but his mother was always by his side, watching over him.

The young Prince’s older brother also missed his mother, who died when he was 15. Second in the line-of-succession to the throne, the older Prince married commoner Kate Middleton, who grew up in the village of Chapel Row, in the English county of Berkshire. Meeting in university, the couple had known one another nine years before their 2011 marriage and initial move to what has been described as a “modest beachside farmhouse.”

Kate performed the domestic duties without household help while William served as an Air Ambulance search-and-rescue pilot before turning to his royal duties. Now the mother of three, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, appears content to be beta to William’s alpha. Kate is 39; William will be 39 in June.

Harry, the young prince, also served his country, rising to Captain in the British Army over 10 years and two tours in Afghanistan. In 2011, the young prince assumed his royal duties before meeting American actress Meghan Markle in July, 2016. Commoner Markle grew up in Los Angeles.

Everyone loves a love story: Endings are tinged with sadness. Until she met Harry, Markle was in a relationship with celebrity chef Cory Vitiello from 2014 until July 2016. Markle had formerly been in an 11-year relationship with American actor and producer Trevor Engelson. Married in Jamaica in 2011, the couple cited “irreconcilable differences” on their 2013 divorce.

In the Nov. 30, 2017 edition of The Grazia Gazette, Markle friend Abby Wathen said the divorce “empowered” Markle. Engelson’s net worth is an estimated $12 million.

Harry and Meghan’s May, 2019 wedding drew a worldwide TV audience of more than 29 million. The couple now has a son, Archie, and - post-Megxit - expect a daughter this summer. They live in a nine-bedroom, 16-bathroom mansion in Los Angeles on which they’re reported to hold a $10 million US mortgage.

Numbers, numbers ... Meghan and Harry’s lives always seem to come down to numbers. More about money issues in a few days.

As originally reported in The Sun’s Fabulous Magazine, when British TV presenter Lizzie Cundy heard the news of the royal romance, she immediately texted Markle: “What a catch!” Markle’s reply: “Yeah, I know!” But then, who wouldn’t be delighted to date a prince?

Has the young prince found his mother figure? Markle will be 40 in August - some than three years older than Diana, on her death. Harry will be 37 in September. Some might say Markle is the alpha to Harry’s beta, whose role within the royal family appears to have diminished and whose voice has weakened since Megxit and this month’s tittle-tattle Oprah interview criticizing the Crown. More about Markle’s charges - and others’ rebuttals - later this week.

* * *

It’s often said history repeats itself. The story of Wallis Simpson, the divorced American socialite who became a duchess, is well known.

In 1936, after less than a year on the throne, the weak-willed King Edward VIII abdicated to marry to his mistress, Wallis Simpson. The lengthy affair had been an open secret, beginning when he was a prince and she, a femme fatale.

The headlines were brutal (as they’ve been for Meghan Markle ... Sexist and racist headlines she doesn’t deserve). On leaving the throne to marry Simpson, Edward became Prince Edward, the Duke of Windsor. When commoner Simpson married Edward, she became Wallis, the Duchess of Windsor. On Edward’s scandalous departure and moves to the Bahamas and to Paris, the vapid partying began.

From something bad, something good can emerge: Edward’s abdication led to the coronation of his younger brother, King George VI. George’s premature death in 1952 led to the coronation of a truly magnificent queen. Sixty-nine years later, Elizabeth II continues to hold the throne.

When Harry met Meghan, 80 years after Edward’s abdication, a similar version of history would soon repeat itself when a prince and newly minted princess spurned the Crown. Each would lose their titles of Your Royal Highness, becoming simply Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

In an astonishing twist of history, the Rolls-Royce that bore American socialite and divorcée Wallis Simpson to bury a King, is the very same Rolls that carried American actress and divorcée Meghan Markle to marry a Prince.

Before this event, in the Autumn of 2018, Queen Elizabeth presented Harry and Meghan with the 10-bedroom Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Estate. The couple’s extensive, $3 million US renovations to Frogmore delayed the move into the historic home. Slightly more than a year after moving in, and Markle’s complaints to Harry of feeling “unprotected,” the couple left Britain for a new life in Canada. When Markle felt “unprotected” there, too, they moved to Markle’s familiar stomping grounds in L.A.

It’s been reported that Markle was “deeply unhappy” in Frogmore, feeling “isolated” and “convinced there was a conspiracy against her ... This wasn’t the life she was used to and she wanted out.”

https://www.womanandhome.com/us/life/royal-news/the-mystery-behind-prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-frogmore-cottage/

Whether Markle knew it or not, Wallis Simpson, who died in 1986, was interred in the Royal Burial Ground on the Frogmore Estate.

* * *

Markle took care in selecting her “look” for the Oprah interview: With her hair up and parted at the center, she wore a diamond bracelet that had belonged to Harry’s mother, Diana, as well as other jewelry rich in symbolism.

It was Markle’s dress - an eye-catching Armani design adorned with white lotus flowers signifying rebirth - that drew murmurs of surprise. After watching the couple’s blockbusting interview, world-renowned behavior analyst Mark Bowden said Markle’s body language “just begs belief … This is an actress.” Among his comments, Bowden called Markle’s dress a “costume.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYyEx20DiKU

Indeed: A well-known, iconic photo of Wallis Simpson shows Markle’s “look” similar to Simpson’s.

There appears to be a concerted effort among Markle-boosters to compare her much publicized unhappiness in the royal household to Diana’s - a distraction that minimizes the similarities to Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor. I find the Meghan/Diana comparison off-putting. Markle may wear Diana’s jewelry, but will never generate the love and respect accorded “the people’s princess.”

Tomorrow: Four body-language experts, a handwriting analyst, and Meghan Markle.

© Nicole Parton, 2021

March 19, 2021

When Harry Met Meghan (Part 2)

What’s on my mind? Who is Meghan Markle? Does anyone really know? Does she?

This, we know for sure: As a second-tier actress on what has been described as a TV soap opera, Markle married “up.” While still in her role as “Rachel Zane,” Markle caught the eye of the late Princess Diana’s younger son, Prince Harry, whose brother William is second-in-line to the throne. On her May 19, 2018 wedding to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle became “Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex,” a princess of the United Kingdom, Countess of Dumbarton, and Baroness Kilkeel.

Unfortunately, the life of a newly minted senior member of the royal family was not to the Duchess’ liking: The couple had been married less than two years when in January, 2020, they announced their decision to “step back” from the monarchy.

Earlier this month, in a two-hour interview with media superstar Oprah Winfrey, Oprah asked: “Everybody knows that you weren’t just marrying a family. You were marrying a 1,200-year-old institution. You were marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?”

And then they were off, with Markle whinging: “I didn’t grow up knowing much about the royal family. It wasn’t part of the conversation at home.” Saying she did no research into the royal family, Markle added: “I’ve never looked up my husband online … I didn’t fully understand what the job was ... What does it mean to be a working royal?”

This is like returning a jar of peanut butter to the supermarket, complaining: “I didn’t know it contained peanuts.”

Is Meghan Markle a victim or a villain? A shape-shifter or a shifty-eyed opportunist? Digging into her past and present over many days has confirmed an uneasy feeling I’ve had for months: Meghan Markle is giving a performance on the world’s stage. She’s uncomfortable in her own skin. She’s insecure.

Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah cemented that feeling: Several of the answers Markle gave Oprah didn’t ring true. More about that in an upcoming post.

Will Harry and Meghan’s disaffection with the monarchy erode that institution? Or will it be Britons’ disaffection with this troubled couple that brings the monarchy down?

Maclean’s magazine called Meghan and Harry’s interview with Oprah “the crisis of the century.” I hardly think so.

Wouldn’t Princess Diana’s tell-all TV interview (“There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded …”) have qualified as a more serious crisis for the Crown?

Wasn’t the Queen’s slowness to lower the Palace flag after Diana’s death - a flashpoint for Britons arguing the monarchy should be abolished - a greater crisis?

Didn’t Charles’ wire-tapped whisperings to Camilla (aka 1993’s Tampongate) trigger a crisis of confidence in the Crown, and a crisis of monumental proportions in the morality of a future king?

Is one woman and her besotted spouse’s laundry list of complaints about their privileged lives an argument for toppling the monarchy? It is not. The history, traditions, and “glamor”of the institution bring considerably more income into the country than the Crown takes out. Just as the monarchy needs Britain, Britain needs the monarchy.

Queen Elizabeth II has steered the royal ship of state through oft-troubled waters for 69 years. Her grace, intelligence, grit, understanding of history, and keen political instincts have earned her the respect that is her due. God save the Queen.

If Markle and Harry intentionally threw a hand grenade at that ship, they won’t sink it. Editorials will be written; voices will be raised; changes will be proposed when the Queen dies, but the monarchy will survive.

It will survive a divorced American actress just as it survived the far greater crisis a divorced American socialite posed, 80 years ago. Tomorrow, more about the jaw-dropping parallels between Meghan Markle and Wallis Simpson.

© Nicole Parton, 2021

March 15, 2021

When Harry Met Meghan (Part 1)

What’s on my mind? Watching and listening to Meghan Markle is like entering the Hall of Mirrors. The many Markles before you - short, tall, wide, small - do not necessarily represent reality.

In reading about Markle, as I’ve been doing for several days, I’ve encountered numerous contradictions. It’s been a week since Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, and I’m starting to understand the rabid frothing at the mouth that goes with expressing even the slightest criticism of her.

“Racist!” That’s how I was demonized on Twitter, many, many times in a single day. But oddly, one day later, all that unrestrained fury vanished, as though it had never happened. Which perhaps, it never had. That’s the disruptive, obsessive behavior of social media trolls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Two days later, when someone on Twitter referred me to a new YouTube posting about Markle, an onscreen message flashed and disappeared in roughly one second. In all caps, it read: BARB: WE NOW HAVE TWO OF THEM! I immediately cut the connection.

There’s a whole lot of “Markle-as-Saint” goin’ on, as well as a whole lot of “royal family demonization.” Finding the “truth” is like picking through a minefield, but I will say I disagree with Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Elizabeth Wellington, who on March 8 wrote:

“It becomes clear in [the Oprah/Markle] interview that Harry was effectively cut off because his wife is Black. If that’s not racist, I don’t know what else is. What else do you call being stripped of royal security and your family no longer taking your calls? But this is the kicker: Even before a child was born, the palace discussed removing the honorifics Prince and Princess from the couple’s future children.”

WHOA! Wellington’s summary comes directly from Markle, who haltingly told Oprah: “The idea that the first member of color in the family not being titled in the same way that the other grandchildren would be … It’s not their right to take it away, to change the convention for Archie. Why?”

Wellington writes of Markle’s “incredulous” tone, “as if she still didn’t believe it.” Well, I don’t believe it, either, with plenty having emerged to debunk it. More about that, later.

Buckingham Palace’s politely restrained post-interview statement was as enlightening for what it didn’t say as what it did: “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.”

(“Saddened”? “Enraged” is probably more accurate. “Challenging”? “Willful and selfish” works for me.)

The statement continues: “The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning.” (Of course - but Markle’s vague claim remains unproven.)

“While some recollections may vary (a tactful and deliberately ambiguous phrase), they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately (Message to Markle: Stifle.). Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” (Harry’s in the dog house; Archie’s guileless; and Meghan …)

I defend her right to say it, but disagree with Inquirer columnist Elizabeth Wellington’s view that Markle and son Archie are the victims of racism. I’ve never met Markle, and don’t give a fig about the color of her skin.

Having watched the Oprah interview and the following day’s out-takes; having read numerous articles, current and historic; and having carefully considered on which side of the Markle v. monarchy controversy I stand, my opinion is that many of Markle’s self-serving comments to Oprah Winfrey were disingenuous.

“Some recollections may vary ...” as the Palace stated. But after days of digging into this, I’d say many recollections differ from Meghan Markle’s.

In forming that opinion, I’ve taken the published comments of father Thomas Markle and half-sister Samantha with a very large pinch of salt. I’ve also done my best to disregard the reporting from extremist and malicious sources.

So into the Hall of Mirrors, to reflect on Meghan Markle, in a couple of days.

© Nicole Parton, 2021

March 13, 2021

Space Odyssey

What’s on my mind? An online friend recently expressed a twinge of discomfort about the organization of his kitchen. I know plenty about kitchens, mainly that ours is too small.

If your kitchen is also on the small side, this post may help. I’m very good at giving advice, even if not so hot at taking it. I want to visit my kitchen - not live there. Having a well-organized kitchen helps Himself and I do exactly that. So here are some tips, take ’em or leave ’em. Top tips, first:

When I’m not using it for stock, this stock pot sits on my kitchen counter as an ideal storage for kitchen tools. Group tools in large and small jars inside the pot. Raise the jars on small blocks of wood. The jars will be hidden, but your tools will be at exactly the right height for you to find and use.

Our kitchen has minimal cupboard space for canned goods. To solve this problem without spending a lot of money, I bought a custom-made bench for a covered area of the patio.

The seat of the bench flips up, revealing a handy storage space for two and three layers of dozens and dozens of cans.

Essential to our efficient, bug-proof storage of canned goods, the ample space in the bench lets us take advantage of on-sale case-lot goods. Decorated with cushions, a storage bench such as this will work in almost any room of a house or apartment.

Cupboards are a major component of efficient kitchen storage. Well-organized kitchen cupboards need washable, durable, tightly closable, similar-sized containers (preferably opaque, preferably matching for the wow! factor, and preferably unbreakable). I organize mine by food-type, grouping sugars together and doing the same with cereals, flours, etc.

No matter how large or small, a deep freeze provides efficient storage, saving time, money, and waste. Examples? I packaged this chili for a larger meal, but also in smaller containers for a handy lunch.

I routinely buy fresh mushrooms in bulk and on sale, cutting them with an egg slicer (faster to clean than a food processor; faster to use than a knife). I sauté, cool, package, and freeze them in 1/2-c. portions for later use in recipes … A space-saver; a time-saver; a money-saver.

With writing my priority, Himself does much of the cooking. A well-organized kitchen is especially important when more than one person’s cooking. While many of my older recipes are on file cards, I share my very favorites with the readers of my second blog, Nicole Parton’s Favorite Recipes: http://nicoleparton.blogspot.com

Anyone can organize recipes this way: Blogs can be public or private - for your eyes only. No need to write out recipes: Screen shots work well for private blogs.

Himself also added vertical and horizontal shelves to the hall cupboard, adjacent to the water heater. I store baking pans there.

There’s more, of course, all of it revolving around space and efficiency. I wrote about kitchen organization years ago. While these books aren’t easy to find, Amazon may be able to find gently used copies.

© Nicole Parton, 2021

March 4, 2021

Dances with Geese

What’s on my mind? Himself and I live on an island. Recent pre-COVID summers saw the arrival of 10 times more camera-totin’ tourists than we have residents. By the end of August, when most visitors vanish, we still hear the familiar honk, honk, honk! - not of tourist traffic, but of Canada geese, honking like party horns. Canada geese have claimed this island as their own - with yucky consequences. Swooping in like dive-bombers, they favor our parks and waterways, ready to drop ... E-w-w-w!

One neighbor got so frustrated he shot a goose, which was awful. Literally “winged,” she wintered alone - unable to fly, dodging traps. Which was how I came to write Dances with Geese.

Neighbors got song sheets, with some forming a well-rehearsed chorus line. As most of us sang, the dancers stepped and high-kicked. At the song’s last line, they turned, bent over, and wiggled their bums. Everyone screamed with laughter, releasing a lot of the anger some harbored toward the geese. So now, allow me to present ...

Dances with Geese

In our part of town, we have a new dance

You don’t have to jive, you don’t have to prance

You do need to watch where your feet are at

Or risk a fall right on your prat!