Before joining dynasties, Sadie Robertson and Christian Huff established some ground rules.
The 29-year-old shared that she and her husband practiced abstinence before their marriage, explaining…
E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Category: News Feeds
Kim Kardashian knows middle daughters have to stick together.
That’s why the SKIMS founder shared a super sweet glimpse into bonding time with her 8-year-old daughter Chicago and sister Kourtney…
E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Reading Time: 2 minutes
During a recent appearance on The Jamie Kern Lima Show, Meghan Markle made a passing remark about Prince Harry’s military service.
And because everything she does is subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, the Duchess of Sussex might be regretting those remarks today.
The topic came up when Meghan reflected on getting through life’s difficult moments by recalling advice her husband once shared with her.
“But you know, he was a helicopter pilot in the British Army for 10 years,” Meghan said (via Radar Online).
“And sometimes, on really hard days, he said, ‘Hey, but my love, you know, even if there’s a storm happening, above the storm the sun’s always shining.’”
The remark quickly caught the attention of royal watchers, who argued that Meghan’s description blurred the line between Harry’s overall military service and the years he actually spent flying helicopters.
To be clear, there is no dispute that Harry served in the British Army for roughly a decade.
He entered the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2005 and remained in military service until 2015, eventually leaving with the rank of Captain.
However, his aviation career began several years after he enlisted.
Harry started formal helicopter flight training in 2009, earned his wings in 2010, qualified as an Apache co-pilot gunner in 2012, and later became an Apache Aircraft Commander in 2013.
He flew operational missions during his second deployment to Afghanistan before transitioning to a desk assignment in 2014.
Critics therefore argued that describing him as a helicopter pilot for the entirety of his 10-year military career was inaccurate.
The interview sparked debate online, with several commenters insisting Meghan had exaggerated Harry’s credentials.
One Reddit user wrote, “He did not serve as a pilot for 10 years because in his earlier years of service he hadn’t done that training.”
Another added that Harry “served for 10 years in the Army, not as a helicopter pilot.”
One commenter even went so far as to accuse Meghan of “stolen valor.”
Another person claimed, “Suspicious. I don’t think he was allowed to fly on his own, only as a co-pilot. And he doesn’t seem to have a license now. We never heard of him flying after the military like William,”
Others suggested the statement was likely a simple mix-up between the length of Harry’s military service and the years he spent flying military helicopters.
Harry has long described his decade in the Army as one of the most meaningful periods of his life.
The Duke of Sussex completed two deployments to Afghanistan, although only the second came after he had qualified to fly Apache helicopters. His military experience has remained central to much of his charitable work since leaving royal duties, including his continued involvement with the Invictus Games.
Neither Meghan nor Harry has publicly addressed the criticism surrounding her remarks.
Meghan Markle Accused of ‘Stolen Valor’ For Remarks About Prince … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Post Content
American faith in news is at an all-time low, aided by a president hostile to the press. But presidents have long attacked journalists as biased. What does objectivity really mean?
Post Content
The men responsible for the bloodshed 150 years ago were never prosecuted; instead, they rose to South Carolina’s highest offices.
A surprising amount of what feels like farmers market etiquette is actually the law. A market can turn away a golden retriever at the gate … Read moreThe post Farmers markets are booming, and shoppers still don’t know the rules…
Taylor Swift has said that as she became an adult her hair lost its curls, but is that even possible? Science provides an explanation for her texture change.
Health Digest – Health News, Wellness, Expert Insights
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Almost exactly six months ago, Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped and held for ransom.
It is widely believed that she died shortly after her abduction.
DNA evidence thus far seems to be a dead end.
A man is preparing to sue authorities for his wrongful detention and the ransacking of his family home. More than anything, he wants them to publicly clear his name.
DNA evidence is a bust so far
On Thursday, July 30, investigators for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD) confirmed that the hair sample found at Nancy’s abode did not lead to a suspect.
Authorities did not disclose much about the hair sample, including where in Nancy’s home they may have found it.
It is possible that the hair is suspicious but did not turn up any matches in their search, almost exactly six months after the fact.
Alternatively, it seems possible that the PCSD did determine whose hair it was — only to find that the individual is not a suspect.
Remember, we all leave epithelial cells, hair samples, and fingerprints just about everywhere. Most crime scenes, especially residential ones, are home to countless samples from friends and loved ones.
Just over a week after Nancy vanished, police detained Carlos Palazuelos.
An attorney representing Palazuelos and two family members filed a notice of claim on Monday, July 27. This is the formal precursor to a lawsuit against the PCSD.
According to his filing, Palazuelos was held “without probable cause” for seven to eight hours after being pulled over. Meanwhile, news of his seizure was spread far and wide.
“Carlos’ arrest was made in a public fashion that was intended to damage Carlos’ reputation and subject him to humiliation and suspicion by implicating Carlos in the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie,” the notice of claim describes.
Palazuelos is not the only member of his family highlighting the outrageous behavior by the PCSD.
Carlos Palazuelos wants his name publicly cleared
The notice also describes how men in military gear pointed guns at family member Daniel Maddox and “ransacked” the home.
Maddox was removed from the residence, forced to the ground, and handcuffed.
The fruitless raid resulted in “significant property damage” including breaking the front door, the door frame, ceiling tiles, the attic entrance, and more.
In addition to not turning up any evidence, the lawsuit notes that the detention and home search were based upon “false and baseless evidence.”
Family attorney Jesse Showalter affirmed: “Whatever this purported evidence was that the sheriff’s department used to obtain the search warrant, it’s wrong. It’s not good evidence.”
Additionally, the PCSD has refused to clear Palazuelos’ name. There are, obviously, paranoid conspiracy theorists who are convinced that he is a suspect.
The family will file a lawsuit, seeking $2.5 million for Palazuelos, $500,000 for Maddox, and $250,000 for Josefina Maddox, who owns the house.
Additionally, they want Palazuelos’ name cleared publicly.
Many of us can imagine the horror of our homes being ransacked for no apparent reason, our loved ones manhandled or handcuffed without any clear cause, and all for nothing.
Unless investigators are holding onto some secret belief that Palazuelos is involved, it’s unclear why they would not seek to clear his name. (Also, it’s generally the municipality, not the department, that pays to settle these cases — taxpayers pay while officers sued for wrongdoing often face no repercussions.)
They have 60 days to respond to the notice. The clock is ticking.
Nancy Guthrie DNA Evidence is a Dead End & Former Person of Interest Prepares to Sue … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip