Part 9: Dangling Tendrils, Ill-Fitting Gowns, Is It Time for a Style Intervention for New Royal Duchess Meghan?

Thank you, OP.

A special shout out to MM's best friend, Canadian fashion guru extraordinaire, Jessica Mulroney, who never disappoints with her unique style choices for the London-based "Royal."

Three Evening Events Announced as Harry and Meghan's Autumn Calendar Begins to Fill Up!

U.K. paper Sunday, August 26 - "THOMAS MARKLE is pleading for a “final chance” to make peace with his daughter Meghan and Prince Harry."

These heartrending appeals from this fragile old man are really making me detest his daughter.

Will the Palace be giving the new duchess professional etiquette tips on how to avoid embarrassing herself as she insults reporters multiple times during an interview?

She will never give an interview again.

Now she's above journalists, peasants and interviews.

I don't know anything about that interviewer, but his ultra-gummy smile and pendulous double chin is repulsive.

Isn't the Duchess, the new royal, supposed to put up and humor "repulsive people" as part of her new job description? Being cunty to lessers who have physical deformities is a big "No,no" among royals, at least as publicly as MM did. Maybe she was drunk when she displayed her contempt. Might that save her from an etiquette and humanity lesson she needs, despite her pretensions?

To put it bluntly, she has no class. I will leave it at that, r9.

How actors with class and real talent treat the press.

R6) Really?

An interesting psychic reading (before the wedding) here. A sensitive reader but I was shouting at the screen because the cards were clear enough but she was reading it as all about Harry and his family, when its obvious to me it was all about Meghan and her family and the disfunction. Not to say Harry doesn't have his own share of disfunction, as the child of a sainted neurotic. I agree with posters who feel the same vibe from H&M as from the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Sexually besotted, emotionally stunted, now bound together as each other's torment and prisoner. They got married on the same say as Anne Boleyn was executed. Laughable really, the karmic script writes itself...

Back on topic: her clothes, hair and style are just not appropriate for her new 'role'. And Harry needs to get down to Garrards and buy her some subtle statement jewellery. She can't copy Catherine but she could take useful notes of her strategies and tactics. Meghan is tiny, play up that gamine/sylph, go for Audrey Hepburn; timeless, chic. Oversized 'fashion' makes her look silly and will very soon become mutton dressed as lamb. Try for a 'signature' look that the High Street Gals could copy, that would make her more relatable and popular. Above all, be groomed. Keep the messy hair and off-the-shoulder for the boudoir.

Your preface, R13, leads most sensible readers to avoid your morass.

[Quote]They got married on the same day as Anne Boleyn was executed.

Well, British history being a thousand years long and bloody, it would be hard to pick a date when nothing inauspicious happened.

In the other thread while ranting about how white latinos can be, funny how no one ever so vehemently rants about how black latinos can be, despite the fact that many people are unaware of it, moron mentions that Meghan looks latina, but with African hair that she straightened. Bitch tons of latinas, some who would even look white otherwise, have African hair. They know about relaxer too.

Black people are not latinos, they're black.

R6 Major bitch is what she is really like

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That is an impressive look for Kate. She looks more "royal" with her hair styled like that.

R19 - So there is Kate up at Balmoral with the Queen, looking elegant, lovely, mature, perfectly groomed, looking more and more like a future Queen Consort and the mother of a future King, and, as R20 above points out, very royal. As opposed to . . .

As the DM tirelessly points out, no sign of Harry and Meghan BUT don't worry the DM adds, the couple are 'believed to be relaxing at Balmoral with the Queen".

For the poster from Thread #8, yes, we KNOW some Latinas look very black, and we know many of them have African textured hair, and others among them DON'T, that was the point: lots of them don't look particularly black or particularly white and THAT'S the look Meghan Markle has cultivated, and THAT'S why those of who didn't even recognise her name didn't instantly think she was BLACK. OK?

And no one suggested that "white" was supeirior, whatever the fuck you want to call it, although obviously Meghan Markle thinks so, because SHE is the one doing her best for most of her adult life to minimise evidence of her black DNA and play up her white (excuse me: Europeanoid) DNA.

Since we've been urged to return to the topic, which is MM's style - that IS her style: leaning white, marrying white men, hobnobbing with the white upper crust, and dressing (she thinks) like the ultra Europeanoid Audrey Hepburn. Give it a rest - we all know what the point is here..

Meanwhile, MM's "style" is making Kate Middleton look not only flawless but Blindingly Appropriate.

If they aren't there already, as the DM suggests, I'm sure H&M will get their arses up to Balmoral eventually for the express purpose of seeing to it that Meghan, too, is seen riding with the Queen to church services, so she doesn't cede too much ground to Kate (and so the newly baptised member can get a refresher in how the Anglican service runs).

Official records are reportedly out stating that Charles split $8.7 million between his sons' households to support their "work-related" expenses, including their wives' wardrobes, on which Sparkle has reportedly spent $1.7 million, and that "She insists she isn't getting freebies". But I can't remember where I saw it so have to track it down.

R16 - The only ranter here is you.

I'm not a fan of gray for women but everything else is perfect.

R16 - Your sentence construction is fatal and renders the passage unreadable.

R23 - I somewhat agree: the woman has to be either creamy pale or healthy ruddy to do well in gray. Kate is neither, her colouring is more "tawny", but she's compensated with a great deal of blush - ordinarily I'd object to that, too, but she clearly realised she would be photographed through a tinted car window, and the extra makeup allows her to be seen. without looking garish in the resulting photos. She's worn gray tween before - as long as it's tweed-y, she gets away with it. And the black hat and hair are flawless.

^gray tweeD

[quote]In the other thread while ranting about how white latinos can be, funny how no one ever so vehemently rants about how black latinos can be, despite the fact that many people are unaware of it, moron mentions that Meghan looks latina, but with African hair that she straightened.

Jesus F. Christ-o-Matic, what a grammatical morass! One can only hope that you are not a minority so you can escape stereotypes about people of color.

Yes, Kate is the perfect princes.

Hilary Mantel put it best in her essay "Royal Bodies":

Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished.

Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared ‘weary of being looked at’.

Wasn't that the horrible painting that was done from a photo?

R21 Crathie Kirk is Church of Scotland which is Presbyterian not Anglican. Otherwise, carry on.

Sorry Kate fans, but that bronzer looks like it was put on with a trowel.

Sorry but compared to Meghan's contouring she looks fresh as a rose.

I watched the psychic's video, she said she felt Kate would have a 4th baby, a girl.

Any new pics?

A reminder to r31, that loading up your brush with too dark bronzer gives off a way-too-heavy, Real Housewives of Orange County look.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I bet they gonna be there next week-end.

Yes, it's funny that the DM is reporting that Harry and Meghan are supposed to be at Balmoral, yet they're not there for the photo opportunities, unlike the rest of the family.

R21, it was near the end of the previous thread, an article from the Toronto Star, re Charles doling out a chunk of change to the four of them.

Wild ass guess as to why Harry and Meghan were a no show at church: only one couple can fit in the car with the queen. (Philip went last week and for whatever reason wasn't going this week.) So if H and M were in a trailing car, rumors about being out of favor would fly.

I'll bet that next Sunday, H and M are in the queen car and either Kate and William come with the two older kids in a separate car or they stay home.

More.... Note that Anne came with Sir Tim and daughter-in-law, a full car. Edward came with Sophie and daughter but he drove himself so theoretically they could have fit into the queen car.I

Driving to church is fraught with difficulties!

R30 - The Lord's Prayer is part of the Presbyterian service, as well. In fact, there are very few Christian denominations that don't include it, but it is absolutely part of the Presbyterian liturgy. So the "For Thine is the Kingdom . . ." bit still applies, but your point is taken. However, note that in the Roman Catholic liturgy, the "For Thine is the Kingdom" line is not added to the end of the Lord's Prayer. I'm not sure what the reason is behind this ecclesiastical decision.

R28 - I remember the awful reception the painting received, but that's the artist's fault, not the sitter's. Hilary Mantel is a notorious pain in the arse. She is, gawd help me for saying so, a hideously homely woman with a beak for a nose and a receding chin whose bitter remarks about Diana Spencer and Kate are, I suspect, rooted in a most unfeminist (and probably unconscious) anger at biological realities: men with power and money who can pick and choose, 99.9% of the time choose pretty women.

Did Mantel expect William to pick someone who looked like her?

And if true that Kate is tired of being looked at - at least we know that being looked at isn't why she married William - something we all know that, given a shot of sodium pentathol, Sparkle would have to admit is exactly why she married Dimwit: to be the center of attention.

R43, OMG! Today is the first time I've heard of Hilary Mantel, and I went to look her up. She looks like a Pekinese!

The Sun had a run down of the cost of her outfits since the Wedding. In 2 months she spent £160k which is 40k more than Kate spent in a year. PH only gets an income of £400k from his trusts, Charles must be paying for all of this.

How is it Sparkle managed to make herself look veritably plump in that blue/black Dior dress at the RAF Centenary? If she had more character depth than a blow-up kiddie pool I *might* suppose she was making a statement in irony.

That grey thing is the ugliest dress I have ever seen. Looks like felt underlay for carpets.

Since MM is practically shapeless, r46 I think the word you were searching for was "blob."

According to the psychology of colour, r46 grey's negative impact is:

Unconfident

Dampness

Depression

Hibernation

Lack of energy

Blandness

They all look bundled up. What's going on? The queen is wearing gloves as well. It's friggin August even in the UK.

Meghan always wanted to "be somebody," which will take some work and image-building. Kate never wanted to be anything other than what she is, which is why she appears comfortable in her next-to-do-nothing royal role.

Sparkle and Dim could have ridden with Charles. If they were there.

William is the heir (after Charles) which is why he gets the better seat (in the car).

Does Sparkle think she should ride with the Queen because ...of....why?

@50 Yes the weather has changed, it has got quite cold I was looking for a blanket last night and I'm not even that far north. It's about 12 degrees centigrade / 53 farenheit in Aberdeen

oh i didnt realise Charles was there.

[quote]Harry & Meghan Making Plans To Adopt Palace insider on secret mission: 'They couldn't wait to become parents!'

[quote]Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are adopting a baby girl from Africa! The royal newlyweds fell in love with the infant while visiting an orphanage during their secret honeymoon and have started the process to make her their own. But their groundbreaking decision has thrown the palace into turmoil! “This will be a first for the royal family,” The National ENQUIRER learned from a high-level aide. “Harry and Meghan are going to face a lot of opposition from the old guard. But they are stubborn and ready to stand up for what they want.”

I'm sorry, I thought this was hilarious. It sounds like they've discovered the African Baby Catalogue.

This will surely finish Prince Philip off r55.

Isn't it odd for a barely married couple to adopt so soon?

R56, R57, Since it's the National Enquirer, I don't actually believe it. I just thought, with all the swirling stories and speculation about Harry and Meghan and their whereabouts, this just went over the top.

She's just so damn pinterest-y. And amateur "fashion blogger." You know, "I want to be appropriate, but also keep that sexiness!" Translated with her (as it is on pinterest) it is "tousled" hair, an extra button unbuttoned, skyscraper heals and contour make-up, especially the lips.

Meghan wanted to be running the show. I don't think she realized that lesser royals don't run the show. I think she imagined bringing her "show business chops" into the game and giving interviews and stuff. Lesser royals don't do that.

She has nothing that Diana had. Part of Diana's public allure was the public got to know her when she was 19 years old and the public watched her grow up, become disillusioned, and all that. Then, too, there was something very natural about Diana in the role. She managed to look relaxed and unaffected in expense gowns and billions of dollars worth of jewels. Diana had the hair, the height - these aren't small things when it comes to making an image statement. Meghan is as basic as it gets, and it's just not as romantic getting to know somebody on the public stage when they're already close to 40. I remember when they tried to play up Sophie's supposed resemblance to Diana - it was really the coloring and the haircut and stopped there - it just didn't work. Essentially she was a perfectly attractive, quasi-dowdy public relations exec marrying the Queen's youngest child, and it never got more interesting than that. Meghan looks like an ex-starlet, basically. She looks like she should be on real housewives, or something else where starlets go after their shelf life expires.

Charles isn't paying for anything, Markle is merching. The royal "rules" are a joke. If someone like Meghan goes rogue, there's nobody to say no. What if she refuses to comply? What are they going to do? Unless they want to be seen to be "punishing" her, there's nothing they CAN do. There's a certain amount of good faith that's required to do this royal thing. As terrible as Meghan's taste is, anyone can see that she doesn't get near a tailor, the stuff is pulled out of the box and put on (sometimes with tags, plastic, stiching, etc. still there) and can see that what she puts on is random and half-assed. This is not the consequence of her shopping for herself.

Shy Di vs Merching Meghan.

Everything for show...Jolie sickness.

I wouldn't take anything the National Enquirer said. Why would they adopt before having their own child? Adoptees are excluded from the line of succession. If they're going to try on parenthood, why wouldn't they try it on first with their own kid who at least gets into the line of succession?! It sounds like typical brazen bullshit from the NE, who make the DM look like The Economist. I can just see them laughing at their computers as they tap out the story.

Re the merching. Sooner or later, we'll find out, but if the official records say that Charles funneled $4 million to Harry, there'd better be something to show for it besides an equerry, a secretary, and travel to Dublin.

It's simple as can be:

1. Adopt African baby = Bonus points for humanitarian profile (and a lot of other celebrities are doing it so MM is "on trend")

2. Adopt African baby - Gets Prince Harry immediately locked into the family unit by casting him in a fatherly role, great PR for his charities

3, Adopt African baby - Gives MM time to get pregnant as Harry gets even more excited to have his own child

4. Adopt African baby - Puts stodgy Palace courtiers on notice that there's a "New Normal" and they'd better get with the program

The only thing mysterious about Meghan is what the hell happened to her two "beloved" dogs? So the beagle got euthanized after getting hit by a KP protection vehicle and she didn't want to be bothered with his extensive surgical work? And poor left behind Bogart in Toronto seems to have possibly had the same fate?

She sure milked being a dog lover for the sake of her lifestyle website and for the paps while dating Harry. Just live everything else in her life she didn't need them anymore after her engagement.

There's no way they're adopting an African baby. As someone said, that would pretty much kill Phillip. And it's the Enquirer, which is never reliable.

R64 Harry is 6th in line, I doubt any courtiers give a fuck what he thinks, he’ll never be their boss.

Meghan's beagle rode to the wedding with Liz

Why people are so obsessed with those dogs?

What has happened to her since the engagement? Looking at those photos, she looks like the much younger sister of who she is now, but also something about her face is different.

No, that's not Meghan's beagle.

R68, because she had those dogs all over her social media boasting about how she'd adopted them, rather than bought them (one earns brownie points in the celeb world for pound hounds), and how she and her dogs were a "package deal" and how the dogs were her world and then... the dogs disappeared.

She had her minions lie about the reason for leaving the Lab mix in Canada, putting out that he was too old to move to England, when she had pictures on her social media of the dog as a puppy when she adopted him, so at most the dog was six, but more likely five.

Six is not too old of a dog to move - it's not as if she was taking the Mayflower back to England. There are ships that will take dogs in a short time, and Meghan had used a private jet to get to Harry, so she could use a private jet for her puppy.

The British love dogs. By abandoning her dogs (and that incredibly expensive engagement dress) she got off on the wrong foot.

And now, with abandoning her dad, spending mad money on non-British clothing and accessories, vacationing with the Clooneys rather than anything approaching humanitarian work, she's not endearing herself to the public. But she's so headstrong and narcissistic, she doesn't seem to care.

Kate looked like she was dressed for dead of winter in grey and black. If it was cold, color doesn't matter- it's the fabric, as The Queen showed.

Meghan would be ripped apart for that choice. Out of season color! So inappropriate! Even one of the papers mentioned Kate previewing fall fashion.

Calm your tits R72, people here said the color was no good.

By the way, one of the most innocuous royal fan sites, Royal Circular, has decided to shut down because Meghan fans were too venomous towards the board founders after they posted what they thought was a fun poll and left out Meghan. The nerve!

[quote] Yesterday, because Royal news was slow, I decided to conduct a poll on Royal Circular Twitter asking our followers who they were most looking forward to seeing return from their Royal holidays. Now I knew that if I included The Duchess of Sussex as an option then the poll would be 100% for her, that’s just the way Royal Twitter is these days, so I decided to mix it up a bit and include Her Majesty The Queen, Prince Charles and (stupidly) The Duchess of Cambridge leaving the 4th option as Other and allowing people to comment with who else they were looking forward to seeing.

What a big mistake.

Now I have been a part of the Royal Twitterverse for a long time and never have I received the abuse that I received yesterday. I was accused of favouritism, I was accused of HATING The Duchess of Sussex and I was accused of being racist – all because I didn’t include The Duchess of Sussex as an option on an insignificant poll that was meant as a bit of fun. The comments aimed at me were disgusting and because I chose to defend myself, I was the one doing the attacking, how do these people’s brains work?

There is a difference between being a fan of The Duchess of Sussex and being obsessed with her. Many people in the Royalverse at the moment are the latter.

There isn’t a blogger, writer or even Royal Reporter who I know that has not received the same level of abuse in some way because they’ve dared to criticise Meghan in some way or dared to report on The Duchess of Cambridge instead or they’ve written about Her Majesty The Queen instead of Meghan. Really people? Is this what the world has come to?

To the Meghan obsessives let me ask you this. Do you think that The Duchess of Sussex would be proud of you? Of the way, you treat other people? Of the way, you accuse people of being racist who is, in fact, nothing of the sort?

Sugars are spoiling the fun for everybody.

It's the silly season. Everyone is hiding out at Balmoral, etc. and with no news, people are turning on each other.

Sounds like the Sparkle sugars are as bugnuts crazy as the Di loons. They identified with the crazy narcissist.

Harry has managed to marry a woman like his mother, he seems to be very much like his father in that respect. Let's hope this isn't going to drag on as long as that did.

R66 is right - the courtiers at Clarence House (which is now pretty much the real center of power as the Queen recedes) don't give a tinker's curse what Harry thinks - they work for the man who holds the purse string, and will continue to do so. Harry needs his father's good will if he wants to keep getting all that money funneled to him while he keeps his Trust safe from being spent down and just keeps it earning income for his "extras", like polo ponies.

The fact remains that Harry chose to stay in: having made what he will assure the public is this enormous "sacrifice" on behalf of the Monarchy and the Nation, I doubt he's eager to have children who are automatically excluded from the succession and who will be viewed as second-class less-thans by the rest of his family. He needs his own first.

Then he can make a magnanimous gesture and have a biracial family (wait- wouldn't his own kids be "mixed race"?).

And what makes anyone think that after all her years of hair straightening, nose narrowing, dating and marrying white and getting herself into the whitest family on the planet, MM is anxious to dandle a baby on her knee who looks like all those relatives she didn't invite to her wedding?

Lastly, there are some rising voices who don't think it's so wonderful that rich white people adopt African children as if they were the latest chic accessory for the Rich White Liberal. It would move the Sussexes even closer to celebrity - paging Madonna and Angelina and Sandra and Charlize!

It would also give rise to rumours that poor MM really WAS too old and "can't".

No - the pressure is on MM to get into the Club and show she can do what Kate did and give Harry kids who take their place in the line of succession.

Then they can adopt all of Botswana if they like.

R72 - The difference is Kate was up in Scotland where it really WAS very cool (you will note the blanket across the Queen's and Kate's knees), and looking much more like early autumn than it is further south, and certainly unlike London in the middle of a heat wave in the first week in July - when MM wore that absurd Cruella De Ville outfit complete with matching leather gloves.

In fact, Kate was dressed appropriately for a day in the 50s fahrenheit up in Scotland. And she looked a hell of a lot better in her gray suit with the black hat and beautifully done hair than MM did in that hideous gray dress in the middle of the summer in Dublin that outlined every stitch of her strapless brassiere underneath.

Kate looked mature, royal, well-groomed and appropriate. Meghan, in her gray dress, looked inappropriate and a mess and the colour was far worse for her complexion that Kate's. So far, MM has managed to show us her brassiere twice this summer..

R74, That's really quite sad.

Sugars foam at the mouth and screech foul as rabidly as Trumpanzees, over idols who clearly are in every way con-artists. There really are suckers born every minute.

Ooh I hope they DO adopt an African baby. That would be delicious. It wouldn’t go over as well as they think it would, though. As r79 has said, it’s not automatic brownie points, appropriating a little black baby and trying to shoehorn it into privileged white life.

R17 lots and LOTS of latinos are black people.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Sugar site, HELLO magazine, is reporting that the Excesses are using helicopters to get to their country home. That will go over well. The other royals have been roundly criticized for the same, but environmentalist Meghan is apparently special.

Meghan fans are just like Trumpanzees, they ignore anything about her that doesn't reflect well. Kaiser, Head Frau at Celebitchy, will not post anything that goes against the narrative that Meghan is Perfection on Earth. For instance, this helicopter story will never see the light of day over there.

Here, Meghan sugars attack a long-time royal reporter (one who has bent over backwards to be nice to Meghan) for using Meghan's name on a Tweet, but not her title, when Kate's title was used. The reporter was pissed.

I swear they ran the same exact article after Diana died as an explanation for the tabloid furor.

38 hours of unused footage, that would be interesting to watch. Expect it 's been destroyed.

where is meghan. someone please check the buckingham basement.

Really wonder how long this will play out before the palace insists Harry either resign or ditch MM? Like if all this negative publicity went on for another year, and didn't settle down..

Forlorn sugars like R67 still peddling debunked wishfulness as alternative fact? Again--No, that is not Guy--no matter how many times it falsely gets perpetuated. The dog in that picture is QEII's Dorgi "Candy" (dachshund-corgi crossbreed). Similar pictures of the two traveling in cars long pre-date Harry and Meghan ever meeting.

Thank you, R90.

If Guy had ended up living with the Queen, you could be absolutely positively certain that Sparkle would have announced that to the world.

Instead, where Guy's fate is concerned, there has been total silence.

Bogart had a narrow escape.

R89 - Wonder no more: the answer is, indefinitely. You can go on asking the question from now till Domesday - no one is going to insist that Harry either resign or divorce MM unless a scandal that dwarfs the Morton book appears, and that isn't going to happen, because everything that is out there is already out here.

Give it up - Harry and Meghan will divorce quietly and after several years and a couple of kids if Harry is unhappy enough, and not before and until then. He's sixth in line - no one cares if the world knows they're not joyously happy, if that's what's slipping through the PR net around them.

And Harry may never be that unhappy. After his parent's spectacular split, he'll hang in by his fingernails not to go the same route. And you have to know Meghan won't leave without splinters from the porch railings under her fingernails.

Fantasy, pure fantasy. Dig in for years of entertainment from Sparkle's wardrobe, the pregnancy announcement, the christening, the cooing and gushing from the tabs, the whole predictable course of things.

Don't particularly like Magpie, but seeing you cunts day in and out, twist your brains to spin,spin, spin to keep a series of bash threads going on vapors is truly stupefying...

So why do you read those threads r93?

Here, r93 - Something far more engrossing for you to read

Hey, I’m just here to talk about her appearance and to eavesdrop on the other stuff in the meantime.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I’m waiting for the epic fall

Matt Smith is just promoting his own ass, I don't know why we should listen to him.

R86, that reminds me of Mnuchin and Linton, or Leona “taxes are for the little people” Helmsley.

Such entitlement from a C-list actress.

Is Meghan's sister a regular on the DL? I can't believe you jealous nasty queens are attacking her for every little fucking thing! If she were blonde and white, she'd be the perfect American princess, yeah I know...

R93 - Cut us some slack - it's not our fault there are no new outfits to talk about until next week . . .

Oh fuck off r101. Everyone gets dragged here this is fuck all to do with race.

R101 - If she were blonde and white, she would have been Chelsy or Cressida - and the DM would start in on them just as they did on Kate and even Diana.

Nobody escapes - that's how the tabs sell.

Learned helplessness turned toxic. Like Norman Bates, man.

^^ wrong time, wrong place.

*bows out*

I don't think she's vacationing with the Clooneys. The Clooneys are both publicity whores - that's why they showed up at the wedding. That was just a piece of cover bullshit Markle put out because Harry disappeared to Africa without her and hasn't been heard from since. So quick, put out a "mini-moon" story with celeb bonus points. I'm sure the Clooneys don't care - they were happy to prance about the wedding despite not knowing either bride nor groom.

I read this long long long LONG thing oni a tumblr today that, as insane as it was, kind of made a certain weird sense. Namely, that the wedding came about as mostly a business deal - part of Soho House's global expansion ambitions, with Markle and Harry not directly endorsing, but continually showing up where a Soho House exists or where one will be established. Ron Burkle has the money to make such an arrangement worth Harry's while, and what else was he doing with his life? It makes a certain sense since it is constantly put about that they have a home in "the Cotswolds" which is where Soho Farmhouse is, and their very own Boswell, that Obie dude, twittered about his weekend vacay there, but nobody can pinpoint what house exactly it is that they are staying in (I vote for "none" and that she's esconced at the farmhouse).

What I am looking forward to is 38 year old Harry with a rode hard and put away wet 43 year old wife. Many 43 year olds look younger but she's not going to be one of them.

How can Harry's trust be spent down? Neither he nor William can access the capital. Maybe of the discretionary, but not of the main one. There are provisions against it going down descending generations.

MM made a big deal of the Clooney visit yet no PR. It's been radio silence except for lone wolf stories about an adopted dog, don't photograph MM on Air Canada, Doria is moving inti KP, etc. Not exactly the type of joint statements or activities coming from a newlywed couple.

No pics of the happy couple at Balmoral despite the fact that everyone including Anne's famously elusive Captain husband were all photographed en route to Church in the miserable, dank and rainy weather.

Just empty silence.

R110, the silence is deafening.

Who has shut down the Markle Machine? The Firm? Knowing how she loves to be the center of attention, did HRM call for a blackout on MM?

Meghan herself? Did her fee-fees get hurt and now she’s pouting and refusing to play? I think, as has been observed here, that she has a tough hide and isn’t going to let the haters stop her.

I think the Palace is putting her in the time-out corner.

R110 - How did MM "make a big deal" of the Clooney visit? She hasn't said a word about it. I don't like her, but let's please stick to things we know she's worn or said, and not accuse her of stuff for which there is no proof. We don't know that it didn't happen, and if it did, the reporting wasn't "making a big deal" but reporting something that happened.

That said, it is strange they haven't done their obligatory "to church with HM in the limo" photo up like the rest of the family. The Earl and Countessl of Dumbarton north of the Tweed, I believe?

And they have engagements early next wee, don't they?

R109 - Exactly - Harry and William, but especially Harry, need Charles's good will as they could never support their wives' wardrobes AND the polo ponies AND the skiing vacays AND the staffs of their homes (you don't support MM married Harry so she could clean the loo herself on Saturday, did you?).

That said, I believe there are ways the principle of a trust can be touched, but they are exceptional cases for exceptional circumstances.

What Sparkle spent on clothes since last November would have cost Harry half his annual income from the trust. Let alone the $200,000 engagement ring.

Somewhere, there has to be a public record of what that $4 million Charles funneled to Harry and William paid for.

^don't suppose

Assume all PR stories are put out by MM's people, r112. The adopted dog, Doria moving in, stories in the Sunday Times about no further comment on Thomas Markle etc. Somebody is feeding the beast and we can pretty well figure out the source.

If it's in Lainey's column, it's from MM via Jessica Mulroney.

Well, Meghan did cause that CDN blind that was obviously saying Mike Tindell cheats on Zara. She must be bitter over their pda when her own Harry wipes his lips after she kisses him. She wants to drag everyone else down.

I think Sparkle is getting both her jewelry and her wardrobe from extra-royal sources. She's like a freaking billboard. No sooner does she set foot outside the car then the tie-ins commence. Way past the "Kate Effect" Givenchy merched the shit out of the wedding dress, getting it all backwards (Givenchy said it "cost" 400k BECAUSE it was a royal wedding dress, not because they made it very special for a royal wedding). They made a big deal over the bridesmaids dresses which were unlined, un-sashed, and had rolled hems, and there weren't even socks or tights for the girls. It's clear the wedding dress was just copied from the neckline of her Theory top and then the general idea borrowed from a bunch of 1960s minor royal weddings, and then hastily stitched together from a bolt of fabric. Curious about the veil which claimed to have all the flowers representing the commonwealth stitched into the lace. Did anyone actually stop to verify or was this taken on faith.

MM made a big deal because it came from HER. It had her skinny elongated thumbprints all over it, particularly the bit about Meghan "watching the twins" so the "boys" could play basketball. That's her all over. Never knows when enough is too much, overshoots, and crashes into a wall.

R119 with their 10 nannies, I'm sure MM wasn't babysitting.

“HRM”, R111?

"Her Royal Majesty"

That wedding dress as one close friend of the BRF said, "looked like concrete" Heavy not delicate, plain, drab, ill-fitting, further cheapened by her messy bun. Who could have known that this was a foreshadowing of the fashion disasters to come.

Yeah, I think in lieu of tolerating a few years of marriage, it's going to be a few cycles of press releases. Neither one of them is terribly capable, but Markle in particular has been tone deaf and recalcitrant, even offensive. She seems like she'd be susceptible to narcissistic rage ( as demonstrated to others.) I think it's over.

Let's be fair, we all could have known of the fashion disasters to come, because she had a million fashion disasters prior to the wedding. They ranged from the idiotic - stiletto heels and wide leg pants dragging in the slush, to the attempt to be provocative and rebellious - the sleeveless, bare legged, messy bun thing she wore at the Stephen Lawrence memorial. Literally nobody else was dressed not just with bare arms or bear legs, but in that spring like, lets half lunch afterwards spirit. It was all solemn, bordering on dowdy, business attire, plus it was chilly. It being seasonably chilly (April) at the time made her contrivance all the more transparent (she "never wants to forget about that sexiness").

True story - you know that Club Monaco dress she wore to the wedding wear her bra showed for a bit? I stood behind a woman on the Brooklyn subway who was wearing that dress today, right before I got off. I was looking down and was all "Hold on - I know those pleats, those colors!" and sure enough. First off, the fabric is cheap, so the multiple hundred dollars Club Monaco is charging is a rip off. It is way more of an H&M dress. Second, it was blatantly a transitional work dress, not nearly dressy enough in fabric or execution for a damn wedding. It's "I bought this to take me from summer to fall and will throw it out over the winter because it'll never last" AND, "Ok, I'll wear this to Kaitlyn's baby shower at that restaurant. Or little informal pre-wedding bridal party get together at that cute restaurant."

^R125 here - a bazillion typos up there, but hope the gist was clear.

Thanks, R122, but there is no such thing as “Her Royal Majesty”. The Monarch is known as “Her (or His) Majesty”, abbreviated to “HM”.

[quote]Re interview linked at [R51], when asked about her joining into the Royal Family, Autumn, Peter's wife says (around 1:35 mark)..... ...I've had some people in the family who have guided me and helped me through it, TOLD ME WHAT TO WEAR AND WHEN TO WEAR IT Most likely means that Harry's wife just doesn't want to go along. —Anonymous reply 68

I apologize for the ugliness of the quote function above. I thought this was very apropros, coming from the recent Mark Phillips thread.

The thing that really pisses me off about Meghan (I was pretty much not criticizing her, at first), is that she's been given lots of help to fit into the British Royal Family, yet she seems to just disregard it. Most of the guidelines are relatively simple, yet she doesn't seem to care. I'm sure she has Google alerts to her name, so she must be able to see all the negative press she and her family have been bringing the BRF.

And, to add to that, the Queen herself has shared her private coach with her, attempting to give her some direction, and we still see all these gaffes. And, the Queen sharing her private coach is pretty much unprecedented. I've never read of anyone other than Prince Philip sharing the royal coach.

R125, perfectly clear and enjoyed reading it. Are you a man or a woman?

I’m a stickler about fabric. Surrounded by old garmentos in NYC for half my life, picked up a snobbery or two. She has terrible taste/luck/discretion when it comes to fabrics. Everything she wears looks like it’s made out of cheap fabric. Givenchy? DeLa Renta? It looks like H&M or Forever 21. I’m assuming these designers use better quality fabric. It should look like luxurious clothing, but it doesn’t. She has a spectacular gift for making designer things look tatty and cheap.

Meghan would not have been ripped apart if the gray dress was as well-tailored as Catherine's dress, it was as appropriate and fit as well as Catherine's, and accessorized un-ridiculously a la Catherine's. Bonus points if Meghan combed her hair. You may have noticed that while her color choices have been poor-to-inappropriate, it is the fit or lack of same, the cheap look while claiming the thing is couture costing thousands, and the slapdash grooming. And hooker shoes always. Don't cherry pick. It's not about the color.

P.S. Non-ridiculous, non-phony facial expression is also a plus.

R130 I am a woman, and thank you. I must say though, that the Club Monaco dress did not just look cheap on Meghan. It's clear up close that the fabric isn't great and it really is more of an H&M kind of dress. It does look much better with the string tie around the waist than the belt Meghan wore, but I definitely can't see it standing up to dry cleaning or lasting more than one season's wear.

R123, the faces of the rest of the royal family just kill me as Meghan and Harry leave the altar. They are looking away. Everybody's serious. Their faces are averted. Charles' head is turned completely away, Kate's is half turned and her expression is very serious, Camilla's is turned away.

There's a really wince-making gif I saw, of Charlie van Straubenzee, the guy who recently got married at the wedding where Meghan showed her bra (a bra that was merched via tweet an hour or so later). Harry wipes his eyes while he's at the altar, and it doesn't appear to be from happiness. It's at a crucial moment in the ceremony - vows or pre vows. As Harry wipes his eyes, van Straubenzee drops his head and turns his head away. The faces of just about EVERYBODY in the crowd who was not a celebrity is funereal.

I don't like MeAgain but some of you are acting like she's some PR genius.

I don't think all the stories come from Meg's PR, some of them for sure but not all of them. H&M are the tabloids' shiny new toy, they write shit and invent shit about them to sell papers, last year it was all about W&K.

I think there's different possibilities after this month of quasi silence :

1. Someone (The Queen, Charles, William) told them to keep quiet until the crisis with daddy is fixed,

2. There's already troubles in paradise for the newlyweds, Harry hiding in Africa, Meghan hiding in Canada and they keep quiet to avoid any tabloid scandal,

3. Meghan is plotting with Jess her great fashion come back somewhere in Canada, silence creating expectations.

4. They are in troubles with the BRF explaining why they didn't show up in Scotland. There was something about the Queen having enough of the Markle drama in the DM, so maybe she told them they're not welcomed until they fix the shit they created.

R133, there is one other thing about the wedding.

No way to confirm it, of course, but I think that the camera missing the bow & curtsy to the Queen before Sparkle and Harry went back down the aisle was deliberate, not just an "Oh, let's show the action from above now."

The bow & curtsy video clips from other Royal Weddings are important visuals for those events.

And I find it very, very hard to believe that the absence of such a video clip record of that moment for the wedding of Sparkle and Harry was an accident or a miscue.

Seriously, it's not a big conspiracy so we won't see MeAgain bow.

Most of conspiracies can be explained by people's ineptitude to do their job properly.

I agree that MeAgain is so accustomed to PR being part of her daily life that she is leaking selected items (whether true or not) to Lainey and her friends at PEOPLE, and possibly, I suspect, at the Telegraph, which despite howls of derision and disgust BTL, continues to push gushing columns about MM and her awful wardrobe choices. Re the Telegraph, it is also possible that it is the PR machine at Clarence House that has the there.

That said, some of the things I'm reading here are just over the top, bordering on ridiculous. Actually, yes, the veil did have all the Commonwealth flowers embroidered on it - the veil was the only really beautiful component of the wedding ensemble.

I don't remember seeing MeAgain curtsey after leaving the altar at the wedding, but in fact as she is still an American citizen, if she hadn't, she would have been somewhat justified in not doing so.

The Queen, I believe, remains in Scotland till October. So far, H&M are the only people who haven't been snapped up there doing their bit to be seen observing some courtesy toward her, and heading to church with her.

There is absolutely no physical evidence yet whatsoever as to where either of H&M really are, be it Africa, Canada, or Scotland.

They have three engagements during the first week of September, approaching fast, so I'll be far more curious about it all if they don't show up this weekend, the real end of summer.

No one has the slightest notion what the Queen is thinking, she isn't famous for sharing intimate feelings with anyone except her very closest intimate circle, and no one in that circle would ever speak to anyone who would or could leak it to the press. So assuming the Queen doesn't want them up there until the Markle Saga is sorted is just specious.

My guess is, Harry and MeAgain are giving themselves a nice long private luxury honeymoon before getting back to work, and in doing so, are also trying to deprive Markle Sr. of any oxygen for his press rants. And kidding aside, she is preparing, I am sure nervously, for the Commonwealth tour coming up in October, which of course requires extensive wardrobe prep.

It will be interesting to see if the criticisms her wardrobe has garnered since the engagement will have had any impact on her choices for the Commonwealth tour - bearing in mind that it will be spring in Australia.

And I'm still not sold on the merching issue, but if I'm wrong, and she is accepting freebies, that alone shouldn't be too hard to uncover and expose. If the DM hasn't exposed that yet, my guess is, there's no evidence for it, because the DM would love to bring her and Harry down big time and wouldn't hesitate to use this if they could prove it. How hard could it be to prove?

[quote] I don't remember seeing MeAgain curtsey after leaving the altar at the wedding, but in fact as she is still an American citizen, if she hadn't, she would have been somewhat justified in not doing so.

The reason you don't remember seeing Sparkle curtsy (and Harry bow) to the Queen (and yes, they did the curtsy & bow) is because at that very moment the camera shifted from showing the bride and groom to show the action as shown from high above the scene.

I would not be at all surprised to find that this (oh, it's important to shift the viewpoint right now so we don't see the bow & curtsy) was done deliberately.

I can think of a couple reasons why some people would be pleased to know that what would have been an iconic clip from the wedding was never recorded.

No proof, of course.

[quote] Age and treachery will win out over youth and skill.

R137 There's no "evidence" of merching cause they pretend Charles pay for everything.

As long as you can't prove they don't pay, you can't prove merching.

Even the DM will not write about merching unless they can prove it.

Given the more vocal critics of the RF and their spending habits these days, there may be a more skeptical analysis of Charles's legal documentation of how funds are spent.

Does anyone know what material was used to make the wedding gown? One of the common criticisms is that it was "thick" and "heavy". Thick cloth would be less likely to wrinkle which is important when she is sitting down for half the ceremony (plus everyone freaked over Diana's wrinkled cream puff when she got out of the carriage and didnt notice that most of the wrinkles had shaken out when she walked out with Charles).

I'm just curious about what kind of fabric can be that thick...it was like two layers of wool crepe.

Another mismatch, the veil being so much longer than the train of the dress. Long dress trains are no fun so i dont blame her for choosing a shorter dress train but the long veil was left to be corralled by two little boys who had to hold it up while she walked down the aisle, lace being lightweight and difficult to lay straight.

R139 - "Even the DM will not write about merching unless they can prove it."

That was my point. If the DM can't prove it, it's probably not happening. If you don't pay, you're accepting freebies. The DM has extremely deep pockets; it lists the cost of every outfit MM and Kate wear. It's inconceivable that the DM can't uncover the fact that Charles's published expenses on behalf of his sons' households are lying about MM's wardrobe. Everyone knows what Kate's "work wardrobe" costs (about £160,000 annually) and everyone "knows" Charles is paying for it, but they no more see an itemised list for Kate than MM. But they believe without question that Kate isn't taking freebies.

So if there are no itemised lists for Kate, and no itemised list for MM, why do people automatically believe MM is taking freebies and merching, and Kate isn't? After all, things sell out quickly after Kate wears them, too.

There just isn't any proof, and until there is, there's no merching, either. If she's doing it, MM is playing a dangerous game, especially given that with the DM's pockets, they could eventually uncover this.

If the FOIA could get Charles's "spider memos" to MPs out to the public, the DM could get MM merching freebies out to the public.

It's like that huge scandal everyone claims is just around the corner that will bring MM down. If it were there, MI6 would have heard of it and found out about it, or it would have been released well before MM has a baby and cements her position.

It hasn't come out because it isn't there.

No proof, no event. Full stop.

R142 You realize Charles didn't publish his spending for the year, right?

If you don't have access to how much he spent for the year, how can you compare it with Meghan's wardrobe?

maybe the designer dresses are not top notch quality because it is bought from off the rack sales. it will explain the terrible fabric and ill fittings.

I doubt designers send her shit in purpose, it would be bad publicity for them.

those off the rack cheaper versions of runway designs can be ill fitting with terrible fabric.

I was looking at some women's "better clothing" websites, ie designer label dresses in the $500-$800 range and they were polyester. I can't imagine paying that much for polyester.

R143 - then what was that about it just coming out that Charles had split $8 million between his two sons this year?

Haute couture is overrated, like everything now you pay for the label not the quality.

R148 Splitting 8 millions means shit if you don't know where the money is going.

R149 - "Haute couture is overrated, like everything now you pay for the label not the quality."

There is something to that, I think. The industry isn't what it used to be because off the rack got so much better. That is probably one reason Kate almost always looks better than MM - Kate isn't substituting label and cost for actual quality and fit. Kate's wedding dress by Sarah Burton for McQueen at least looked like £200,000, and was fitted within an inch of its life, with lots of sumptuous material and detail. MM's looked like she got it on Say Yes to the Dress.

R150 - well, we're back at Square One, aren't we? We don't know where the money is going with Kate, either, do we? Neither woman's costs are itemised on Charles's published list, it never has been. So why assume MM is merching but not Kate, when you don't have the costs for either?

And $8 million is a great deal of money: if Harry's half isn't going to MM's wardrobe, whose overall cost HAS been publicly cited, where is that $4 million going?

You see the dilemma - if itemisation for neither the Cambridge nor Sussex household is listed, you cannot assume that Charles isn't paying for MM's clothes any more than you can assume he isn't paying for Kate's and she's getting freebies, too.

I want proof. Without it, the topic is moot.

Some off the rack are lousy qualities. I have bought some name brand that are really good and some bad fabric and fit. I guess Meghan bought the latter.

R152 - true, but overall pret a porter has allowed women who never in their dreams could afford what used to be haute couture to look well dressed and stylish.

There's a wonderful documentary about Yves St. Laurent, directed by David Taboul, as he follows the house as it puts together a collection. In it, Laurent calls himself "Le dernier couturier" (the last couturier), i.e., the last man standing who is still doing the painstaking work that used to separate a top tier fashion house from good quality off the rack. It's a wonderful film, I recommend it.

In it, you see what haute couture used really to mean - almost nothing done by machine, seamstresses with hands gnarled by years of bending their fingers against columns, every stitch taken a moment at a time, the process from sketch to toile to actual cloth, the endless revisions . . .

Nothing that MM has worn, including her wedding dress, had the class and beauty of one of Laurent's trouser suits from the collection, let alone some of the cocktail gowns.

It's sad, but I'm afraid it's the industry itself - things lost, like so much else in these tawdry times.

Nutmeg should sit down with Crown Princess Mary of Denmark and have a serious discuss about how to look good in a petite frame.

Speaking of Mantel, the way she is delaying the publication of her final book in the Cromwell trilogy has become absurd at this stage. Her excuses are daunting - she says she wants to meet expectations, which means she is still not done writing the damn thing? Still has not made important story decisions? I think she just wants the attention and the damn thing will never come out. She wrote two of them in the time it has taken between the second and this one - actually in much less time.

Anyway, it is clear she is in love with her fictitious version of Cromwell. Her treatment of Anne Boleyn is as stereotypical as it gets. Far nastier than her treatment of the clearly psychopathic Henry. Since history tells us that Boleyn was innocent of the crimes for which she was beheaded, Mantel decides she was guilty of something, even if not guilty as charged. So there's a similar sexist bent to her writing that is papered over with superficial fairness, kind of like J.K. Rowling will do.

^ discussion

The longer she takes to write it, the longer we have to wait for the mini series. Get a move on!

R153, I know the topic is thread drift, but I see a change even in film costuming. When I watch the 1930s movies, every piece of clothing worn by the leading ladies, like how Jean Harlow's costumes compensate for her upper body being somewhat narrower than her hips, and her not really having an ass (so it's cleavage with dropped or draped shoulders, or drapes around the hips that make it seem as if the dress, not her shape, is creating the wider curve, and that her hips are perfectly in balance. And everything clings perfectly and looks great, even when most actresses aren't wearing bras in their evening wear (Loy didn't, Harlow didn't, Lombard didn't). The detail, the cut, the beading, the trim, the finish. Then come the very early 1940s and it's crap by Dolly Tree, who seemed to throw lace doiles onto the cuffs and collars of everything and call it a day. I understand this had to do with a massive increase in labor costs.

But it's also style. Was reading a profile of Princess Grace the other day, which alluded to a famous photograph of Grace and Audrey Hepburn backstage at the Oscars, both in profile, both in beautifully structured, columnar evening gowns - can't recall if both were strapless. But it was tiny waist, high bust, beautiful shoulders and a skirt that was fitted but also curved. The writer said this was the last gasp of fashion before it became garbage - ff less than five years and there is Grace in a monstrosity of a multi-colored caftan with a big jeweled collar, or giant turbans perched on her head, or shirtwaists that did nothing to define her slight upper body and made her look thick waisted and piano legged. (Although for some reason Jackie Kennedy managed to avoid all of these faux pas and still look sleek). For another example look at the tiny waisted shirtdresses worn by Elizabeth Taylor in the fifties, with the crinoline under the skirt and the darts in the bust, or the pants and fitted tops. Then comes HER caftain and turban period. The mystique just vanished, and both women were paying just as much for their wardrobe. That Halston look, IMO, did not look great on many women. Super models (Lauren Hutton, for instance) and Liza Minnelli, and that was it.

^PS - Similarly, on Gone with the Wind, I love noting how every single costume worn by Vivian Leigh consciously compensates for her teensy tiny head, massively long neck, and almost nonexistent shoulders. In some of the costume tests her head looks like a pin on the end of a toothpick - her face is the size of a pea.

I know these threads, nine and counting, are about MM's fashions, but I am pretty sick of the whole thing. A royal's life should not be an endless fashion parade or a string of red carpet appearances. It should be no different than a work wardrobe, because after all, it is a job.

The clothes should not suck so badly that they draw attention to themselves, and there should not be a social media tsunami blasting across every platform how expensive they are and how important the wearer must be therefore, and here's where you can get it for cheap.

Meghan is making it about the fashion. That's what she thinks the job was about.

R160 - Some people are interested in the subject. If you're sick of the whole thing, then leave and post on another thread which interests you. Isn't that easy solution to your problem?

R135 The lack of video showing Harry and MM's bow and curtsy to the Queen seemed deliberate to me. They also didn't have a red carpet either. No balcony kiss because of logistics. The English press won't comment on it, but I think that they got a less than Royal wedding because MM is a divorced woman.

It has nothing to do with Harry's place in line to the throne. Prince Andrew and Fergie had a very "Royal" wedding.

Even if "merching" is not allowed, I don't see those cheapskate Royals caring one bit. They probably love MM's grabby ways.

No red carpet at the church. That's another thing, that frigging veil snagging on the stone steps after the wedding. Who could not have foreseen that??

R163 - You forget - Prince Andrew was the son of a reigning monarch and at the time he was SECOND in line to the throne. That's why his wedding was bigger than Harry and Meghan. You're "sugaring" but you're not very knowledgeable.

Lest you conveniently forget re: HazBean's wedding, the couple invited only ONE reporter in for the nuptials and allowed just four photojournalists to be stationed outside of Saint George's for prime spots of snapping first images of the new couple. This contrasts markedly to Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles' "wedding" which hosted 30 cameras from the BBC alone or the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge who invited two photographers from each British paper among other press inside to cover the event. It could easily be argued imposing such shortsighted limitations naturally results in missed moments to capture.

This will work. No backlash at all.

The usual royal photographers were complaining on twitter that the "wedding" was charging close to a thousand pounds for the privilege of a spot from which to record the proceedings.

This is going to come to some bad end - the grift is so in your face.

R165, Andrew was 4th in line to the throne when he married Fergie in 1986, as William was born in 1982 and Harry in 1984. William was a page boy at the wedding.

I think your point that Andrew was the child of a reigning monarch is more significant. Harry isn't even the spare anymore. He is the son of the heir and brother of the second in line, not the son of a reigning monarch. He's all the way over to the side.

R165 - Andrew was fourth, not second in line by the time he married Fergie: Charles had two sons by then. It is also true that his commoner bride was still much more in the mold than a divorced American C-list actress just past 35 who had already used her relationship with him to elevate her global recognition, talking about him to a magazine before an engagement was even announced, and antagonising the British press well in advance. H&M got the wedding they deserved: cut rate.

Second, in fairness to MM, it has always been about the clothes for high profile female royals. Margaret was the first out in Dior's "New Look" in the 1950s that MM has tried to copy. People forget all those wonderful Cecil Beaton portraits that played up the elegance of Margaret's and the Queen Mother's attire. There's just no getting around it. Remember what JFK said at that breakfast in Paris, about being the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, "No one wonders what Lyndon and I wear." They did the same thing with Diana practically from Day One.

It's how badly MM is doing it that is the story.

R155 - re Mantel and Cromwell - too right, Cromwell was a vicious man serving a vicious overlord. That said, it hardly made Henry unique among monarchs of the time. Compared to Peter the Great, Henry VIII was Franklin Roosevelt. History is more nuanced than we like to think. For all the villainy ascribed to him by Shakespeare, the truth is the Yorks had a better claim to the throne than the Tudors, who knew this quite well and spent a couple of generations after they won, ruthlessly persecuting remaining York family members, refusing permission for them to marry, hounding them even in foreign countries - all to make sure there were none left to challenge the claim of the Tudors. It was as much as Shakespeare's life was worth to do anything but turn Richard III into the arch villain of the Wars of the Roses - a myth that the much admired Thomas More helped along. Richard was, in fact, deeply respected in the North where before he got dragged into it all, as he had governance of a large swath of the country. He was an excellent soldier, a loving husband who agreed to give up half of his wife's considerable inheritance in order to marry her, but a lousy politician, and he paid dearly for it both personally and historically. One thing I appreciated about the adaptation of Philippa Gregory's "The White Queen" was the more sympathetic portrait of Richard.

But it is surprising to see Mantel attempt to rehabilitate Cromwell. Perhaps Mantel figured it was the only way to refresh a very old story and make it new.

R159 - re the Hollywood costumes - I wonder if part of the problem for the early 1940s was the war years: perhaps certain materials were in limited supply? Or the styles became a bit more brash as women entered the workplace to take over men's jobs while they were away? I had heard that actresses like Stanwyck and Davis were a "nightmare" to dress because of their proportions and their refusal to wear brassieres.

R163 - re the royals secretly approving of MM merching as it saves them money - now THAT would be quite the story, I hadn't thought of that. Charles is a notorious tightwad. If he's letting his secondary daughter in law get away with that, he has even less judgement than I supposed after the revelation of his "spider memos" to MPs. Neither he nor MM would escape unscathed from THAT.

It's how to prove that, as always, remains the problem. The DM needs a very good mole.

Tell that to Ms Markle next time you see her sashaying in a $75,000 gown, r160.

That dress was borrowed and returned. I don't believe for a second it was privately purchased. Markle just likes to big up everything to show her importance. Oh the dress was a gazillion pounds and "privately purchased" just for me! Oh, they are spending a jillion dollars on security - just for me!

She's amping up the low rent life she actually lives, on the grift, scrounging for free clothes and shoes that don't fit, planting stories in the media that the other royals aren't as good as she is, making up narratives about what she's doing behind the scenes. She's sitting on her ass in lockdown somewhere, actually.

Can anyone identify the spot on her heel? Is that part of the design?

Jesus, even the hem of the wedding gown itself is just a rolled hem. That dress must have been sewn over a weekend.

Looks like a pair of borrowed shoes with a scuff on the heel.

LOL, r173!

George Clooney and me & whatshisface for a weekend!

Got a dog!

House in the Country!

Air Canada - No Photos!

Doria moving to the Palace!

Adopting African Child!

Balmoral - Any Day Now!

Not Talking to the Markles!

Amal Clooney and I are confidantes!

Blah Blah Blah.......

It's funny that the supposed Clooney happening came directly after that CDAN blind saying the celebs from her wedding don't talk to her, isn't it?

Those shoes look so painful for her - it gives me a headache just looking at her contorted feet

R173 - It was the Palace who tersely confirmed it had been "privately purchased". If it had been borrowed and returned, the Palace would simply have kept its mouth shut altogether. Either Charles or Harry bought it for her. If she'd bought it herself, the Palace would have leaked that. What the Palace wasn't keen to let out was that taxpayer funds through the Duchy of Cornwall or the Sovereign Grant were already supporting the extravagant taste of a Big Time Outsider, a divorcee no less, before she'd even made it to the altar.

R123, the look on the faces of Kate, Camilla and Charles as Megs and Harry walked down the aisle past them after being wed says it all. No smiles, all look sad and resigned to what Haz had just done to the BRF.

I think Meghan would rather merch than play Fergie to Catherine's Diana. Fergie who famously said people expected her to dress like a princess but she didn't have the funds (Charles, of course, had the Duchy). So she merches, gets whatever box of whatever label Jessica Mulroney gets her, plus odds and ends and one offs (like the stuff she wore, which came with a stylist, in Ireland), tells us all it costs billions of pounds so we think she's super important - I mean this is just her BASIC wardrobe but it's what her role requires - but in reality it's odd lots. She couldn't play this game if she actually had to buy stuff. She'd literally have nothing to wear if she were on Charles' allowance - nothing attention getting anyway. She'd be busy spending the money on essential basics and so forth, no room to impress us all with faux couture.

R123, even more strikingly, they were all looking down and away, not looking at the newlyweds. Charles had his head completely averted.

R179, there is a ton of wriggle room in privately purchased. "Privately purchased by the person who actually owns the gown", for example. A million ways. Not to mention the palace, as several reporters on twitter have noted recently, is not a bastion of truth telling.

R181 -"She'd literally have nothing to wear if she were on Charles' allowance - nothing attention getting anyway."

That's not a bad theory - that she's found out that neither Harry's income nor Charles's handouts will get her the clothes that get her the attention that she married Harry for. It's a quaint idea, given that the Ascot dress cost $13,000 (exclusive of hat, shoes, belt, and bag).

Charles's handouts will get MM quite nice Duchessy clothes, but quite nice isn't what she wants: she wants clothes that blow everyone else out of the water.

If Harry had married Chelsey or Cressida, he wouldn't have this problem: neither would have married him so they could blow everyone else out of the water. Someone more appreciative of the position for other reasons would have been less irked by its restraints. But Harry married the one woman who wanted to be a royal duchess only for the tinsel attached to it.

William married the other kind of woman: she might have wanted the status and its significance for her descendants, but not to feed her narcissism, and she's happy to play ball with the restraints.

R180 - I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that the BRF were overjoyed at this match; they just tried to make the best of a bad situation. The difference in expression at H&M's wedding, compared to William's and Kate's, and earlier that of Peter and Autumn Phillips.

Of course, they looked ecstatic at Charles's wedding, too, and we know how that turned out. The only person who didn't look happy at that one was the groom.

Is that a label still stuck to the sole @ r174?

R183 - Not really. "Purchased" means "purchased". Someone paid for it or they were lying, which I'll grant isn't unknown behind Palace doors. But usually the simplest answer is the true one. Someone bought it and clearly the BRF thought whoever it was, wouldn't be a good look for the BRF. Meghan buying it herself isn't such a bad look - all that independent feminist working woman bullshit, but it would also look a bit pathetic. That leaves Harry and Charles. Who the hell else would buy a $75,000 dress for a couple of engagement snaps?!

The BRF was trying with the word "privately" to assure the British taxpayers that THEY hadn't paid for it. And maybe they didn't. But the price tag was still Not A Good Look.

All of which is to say, the moment MM got her foot in the door, it was the wrong foot.

R184, Meghan isn't blowing anyone out of the water, that's the failure of her plan. The only way she can is to report afterwards that the dress cost a gazbillion dollars, far more than anything Kate wore in the daytime. The reality is the clothes look cheap, unfinished, or like a rough sketch or sample that's going to be reworked later. Also, it's suspicious that some of her stuff turns up on some of her friends - her Ascot hat is a different color but the same hat Priyanka Chopra wore to the wedding, and nobody hustles like Priyanka. These people are getting freebies left and right, but all from a limited number of sources - labels that have a big name and lots of publicity, but are leaking money and circling the drain. Anybody looking at what Meghan wears would think - oh poor thing, she had to take what was left. So she compensates by having it reported that the outfit was ten tons of money. The label, of course, cooperates, makes themselves look exclusive and successful. No fire sales for them!

I think my favorite thing is that black Emma Wickstead Markle wore to that thing before she got married was the exact dress/suit Sophie Wessex wore in blue - in a previous season. This is all smoke and mirrors. And I think the reason the media isn't having a fit over it is the media knows it's bullshit, but they'll sooner or later try to trap her in her b.s.

R183, no, "purchased" means "Someone purchased it". Not "Someone purchased it for Meghan, and or the BRF purchased it." You can't just "decide" that the BRF meant all the other stuff you are filling in. The simplest answer is they didn't spend 75k on a dress for one photo shoot. It's Ralph & Russo as well, and that label is an enormous whore, so the whole thing is just the BRF skirting the issue.

I just looked up the "privately purchased" source and it was KP, which completely invalidates it. Not BP or CP.

For a long time Markle herself was obviously releasing info under KP. The spelling was American, it was wordy as hell - no, word SALAD-y as well, as if the professionals had taken leave and crazy people had taken over.

You can say that again.

Happy faces at Will's wedding.

CP Mary got spanked in the press for spending too much on clothes.

Sparkles doesn't have the body or budget to approximate Amal Clooney's style. MM looks like Amal's EA.

Sorry curbside DL Mantel critics - she has been awarded the Booker prize twice. Only 3 other authors have done that. Top literary critics and historians seem to think she is pretty on top of things.

She has an autoimmune illness and is obviously on prednisone; the side effects of prednisone are unmistakable in her appearance. It is her illness that prevents her from completing her book. Many fear she will pass before she is able to complete it.

R188 - R189 - all right, I'll accept for the moment your assertion that as Kensington Palace said it, it is automatically untrue and Ralph and Russo made her a present of it because they're whores and then KP lied about it and set MM on her way to be the Duchess of Merching well before the wedding.

And the tabloid media, which wants to take down Sparkle so badly they smell of it even on the Internet, knows the whole No Freebies rule is bullshit (the public, however, doesn't know that and it keeps being repeated officially), that she's broken repeatedly one of the cardinal unwritten rules of royal behaviour, and they're "waiting" to trap her?

Waiting for what? We keep coming back to the same place: there's no proof. None whatsoever. If there were, the DM wouldn't be sitting on its arse as MM fucks Harry blind trying to get pregnant and they look like they're attacking a pregnant woman?

If they haven't found it out by now, they aren't going to find it out. It's moot, all of it.

R194 - I know she won the Booker twice. That doesn't mean she didn't try to rehabilitate a snake like Cromwell, or that her remarks about Kate didn't sounr rather cruel and somewhat bitter. By the way, Mantel wanted to be a barrister; Cromwell was a lawyer. I always wondered if she felt some sort of tie with him for that reason.

And, yes, long-term use of steroids does cause weight gain and affects the appearance. But they didn't giver her that nose, chin, and teeth.

Re Princess Mary - I don't think Australians are sentimental about crocs. It's also sometimes bandied about that her marriage to Crown Prince Frederik, whilst stable, has lost most of its romance, he fools around, and she's just happy to parent their four very attractive children and she loves her life as Crown Princess of Denmark so figures it's a decent trade-off and doesn't make a fuss.

I also suspect Crown Prince Frederik is far better off than the sixth in line to the British throne, even if Harry's father and grandmother are richer than Frederik's Mum.

The Danish royal house is the oldest in Europe and while hardly poor, do not have the massive fortunes of the Dutch, British, or Lichtenstein royals.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The desperate rehabilitation of Harry's rep has officially begun, r198.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Correction - 21st anniversary

We know that...

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Here are the engagement portraits for both couples.

Megan's sheer-topped, ballgown is obviously inappropriate.

What a boring dress. However on that dress form, it looks a lot better than it did on the bride. Sad!

My favorite thing from when Meghan was obviously dictating to KP PR was an announcement that she had "expressed the wish." That's what she thinks is the fancy, gracious way a royal causes something to come about. Not "invited", not "asked", not "appreciates", but "expressed the wish". It's like she read it in some chick lit fantasy about becoming a princess and is imitating her ideas of royalty out of that. It pretty much covers all the Meghan bases, that expression. Fake graciousness and grace, but "must be obeyed" as royal wishes must. They need do nothing but express the wish.

There's a brouhaha over this wedding exhibition thing now. None of the usual suspects, includiong Mio Scobie or whatever his name is, have reported that the clothing will be on exhibit. Only people. Emily Andrews then repeated it, then People scrubbed the story and nobody's saying anything further at the moment.

Wow. The comments on DM for that link at R198 are brutal.

I didn't read them all and started with the earliest, but the negatives seemed higher than they used to be.

What struck me from the pictures was how very young he looked.

The only missing from that sheer top ballgown is a few pom poms and a feather headress.

Reposting image.

The thing about Harry is you can see her (Meghan) from space, it's that easy. Other than the sugars, it's not like she's not transparent. I don't even think she fooled her so called social circle in Toronto. I think they're all trying to run the same self-aggrandizing grift she is, and are using each other, so essentially she was at her own level. I mean, does anyone really take Jessica Mulroney as a blissfully, heterosexually happily married mid-thirties influencer who is big on self-care? The woman has more shit injected into her face than Jocelyn Wildenstein, enhanced by the obligatory sun damage all over her chest. This is a lady who tried to pull a Pippa at Meghan's wedding but was sadly upstaged by the demurely dressed Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess's happily waving princess daughter. Anyway, even the average person on the street or lurking on the internet had Meghan's number from the engagement interview onward, and here is Harry not only falling for it, but even when the scales fell from his eyes, as I bet they did prior to the wedding, he still thought she would impress OTHERS. He is really the Dunning Kruger poster child of the royal family.

So Mad News of the World (yes, a rightwing lying crackpot outlot but thus far, and maybe BECAUSE they are so crazy, they're the only ones reporting what social media is saying about Meghan) says Harry AND the RF are suspicious of Meghan's tales about her father because someone tipped them to her social media, her speeches, and her Elle article extolling him as devoted, providing life lessons, blah blah blah as recently as 2016. So her spin that he's a narcissist she patiently tolerated all of these years seems a bit contradictory, and MNW says Harry and the BRF wonders who is lying and who is the narcissist (hint BRF and Harry - it's her).

I think the article that backfired wasn't just the narcissist one where Meghan was described as not having "a mean bone in her body" but also said that she was "praying for him". As ever with her, that was a bridge too far for most people and tipped off the fakery.

I think they should list the dress on ebay to the highest bidder. It should be listed as the twin sheet for the guest bed in your house - startling bid should be $5.99.

-- DM comment on MeAgain's wedding dress.

New tack: Trying to make it seem like people are interested in seeing that ugly dress-- and adding the Queen's tiara to sweeten the pot!

I know MM is not at all fat--and in fact is possibly too thin--but God, when the lens frames her unfortunate midsection the creature looks thick as a post! And really, what an awful wedding dress anyway. It appears as if made by an amateur seamstress who patched it together from all the polyester crepe she could manage to rummage out of her local fabric store discount bin.

R215 It's really sad that the dress looked better on the mannequin for display than in did on MeAgain. She has no waist and is built like a box. At least the mannequin showed off it could have looked better worn on someone with a waist. Still that dress is just so dull and boring. Absolutely no wow factor. Kate's dress was perfectly fitted and stunning, worthy of a royal bride. MeAgain looked like she was wearing a cheap white sheet with zero work that went into it. Kate's gown looked like it took months of painstaking detailing and work to put together and it showed. Megs, it looked like she bought it the weekend before at a sale. It didn't even fit her!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

There was no money for Charles to cut off, R219. They were never funded as part of the Sovereign Grant and if anybody COULD have cut them off it would have been the Monarch not her heir.

It's amazing how wrong MM's instincts are. Far from being impressed by her £54,000 engagement photo dress, people were astonished that a dress could cost that much unless it was an Arabian gown encrusted with real gems. And it was very clearly a formal gown, very much at odds with Harry's daytime attire. But I will give her credit for one thing - she started as she meant to go on. No surprises there.

R221 - I don't think MM cares one jot what people think, as long as she gets to live out her fantasy. That's her problem, not having expensive tastes - shit, Mary of De nmark, Letizia of Spain, Maxima of The Netherlands, and the Grandmother of All Huge Spenders At Taxpayers' Expense, Queen Rania of Jordan, all do it. They marry these men to live this kind of life. The trick as was mentioned once on another thread, is to know when to stop. Rania's is a particularly ugly story, as despite her husband's enormous wealth, Jordanians do pay for her luxurious wardrobe and perks, and they don't live the kind of lives Danes, Brits, and Dutch do. It's quite scandalous.

Look, rich people like living like rich people. We all know MM wouldn't have shared a taxi, let alone a bed and a life, with Dimwit if he hadn't had HRH in front of his name. But for modern royalty, this presents a dilemma that they have to navigate carefully, and Harry and MM aren't doing that.

By the way, the Danish government has made it clear to the DRF that only the heir and the eldest grandchild of the monarch can expect to receive an "appenage", of salary, for the work done on behalf. That means that Frederik's and Mary's other three children, and Frederik's younger brother's four children, will essentially be on a level with the Yorks and eventually Harry's kids - they will have to depend on handouts from the top or their own resources if they want to keep living like royals. Only at most two people will be supported by the Danish taxpayers. The DRF never made a peep and insisted that they never assumed otherwise (which is a lie). The DRF is worth about $3 billion, but it's mostly landholdings, not easily liquidated assets.

Charles and the BRF should take note. If the government here had any spine, it would stop grovelling at the feet of the BRF and insist that only William and his immediate family get money from the Sovereign Grant, Charles sticks to the Duchy of Cornwall, the monarchy isn't insulated from other funding cuts, and do away with all the other economic perks that are mostly hidden from the Great Unwashed here.

Let's see how long MM sticks around if Harry gets cut off from the Sovereign Grant.

And the dreamers still insisting that since H&M went underground their marriage is already over really have to stop it.

I'd put a year's pension on the fact that instead, she turns up In the Club by the time they set out for their Commonwealth tour.

We have a winner here.

R223 - LOL. MM isn't fluent in French and Spanish, and as for learning Swedish and Danish in a day - Amanda should take a listen in at the Danish news sometime and hear the difficulties for English speakers in mastering the sound, never mind the peculiar grammar. Mary of Denmark took years to become fluent, so did both her sisters in law, Joachim's first two wives, and her father in law who spoke French, English, Danish, and Chinese. Queen Margrethe speaks English, French, Danish, and German. Joachim's first wife was a bilingual Eurasian investment banker who spoke English and Chinese before she learned Danish, and who probably had more brains in her pinkie than either MM or Kate or Mary have in their entire bodies. Joachim's second wife speaks French and now Danish.

These are real multilingual Europeans, not frauds like MM.

The sales job is really getting ridiculous. Let's see MM sit down with the really truly actually fluent in French Queen Margrethe, who communicated more in French with her French speaking husband that she did in her native Danish, and have an in-depth conversation with Her Majesty.

R222, are you saying that MM and PH expected the current shitstorm of public condemnation and are indifferent to it? From the comments in the DM and elsewhere, I'd say the BRF's ship of state is veering perilously close to the rocks.

R222 - Please, the "current shitstorm of condemnation" is limited to blogs like these with a self-selected group, ditto the commenters btl of the DM. The vast majority of the British public doesn't know and doesn't care, and therefore, H&M don't care about what they undoubtedly view as a few unfriendly ripples that they blame on the hostility of the tabloids, especially the DM.

If the moronic British public didn't riot in front of Kensington Palace when nearly $4 million of taxpayer money, through the Sovereign Grant, was used to renovate William's "apartment" in KP, on the excuse that it was a historical state building and therefore "vested" in the public (except the public don't get to live in it, only the royals do), they aren't going to do more than yawn at the minor, mostly Internet based, gripes about MM's wardrobe. Given that, H&M, yes, will be mostly indifferent. You think Harry and MM read DL? Or even Jason, KP's PR head officer?

And the BRF has been on the rocks before - they survived the Abdication, Margaret's peccadilloes, the Wales marriage debacle, and the entry of an obvious first-class C-list divorced American actress grifter pushing her way in through their dimwitted member (using "member" advisedly).

When you see an editorial in The TIMES, or even the Independent (which is anti-monarchy but also left wing and probably sees MM as a racial "breakthrough" that they will be reluctant to criticise), or the BBC mentions a rising tide of criticism of MM amongst the hoi polloi - then Harry and MM and the BRF might pay attention.

Till then, I stick by my prediction: they're having a nice long rest and working on that baby, without which MM's position is far more vulnerable than she's comfortable with - once that announcement is made, they've got at least two years of a criticism free breather as the cooing and gushing commences

Next public engagement is, I think 3 September? They have three between 3-6 September. They will look refreshed and beaming.

If they don't, then call me.

Actually, I stand corrected: I believe that the charity gala performance of "Hamilton" is tonight, not next week.

So, children, we will at last have another ensemble to critique - complete, if the gala proceeds according to custom, with exits from limos at the theatre amidst flashing lights and a red carpet.

R226

Post your red carpet predictions.

R228 - "Post your red carpet predictions" Well, if you insist . . . "Hamilton" is a very hip on-trend phenomenon, so a traditional tiara and sash gown is out.

Therefore, my top prediction: That tuxedo trouser suit MM is so hot to wear and that Harry allegedly dissuaded her from including in the upcoming tour. Didn't Diana wear something like that to "Phantom of the Opera"? Silk top underneath cut as low as possible, - but will it conform to traditional cuff length or will it stop at the ankles to show her Aquazzura stiletto pumps?

Second guess (come on, give us some slack and two shots at it!): sleek full length column dress ditto the Aquazzura stiletto heels.

What if she wears the wedding reception McCartney gown?!

R228 won't happen. The queen frowns heavily on anything but dresses for female royals in working positions. Meg got to get away with covering up her chicken legs in trousers during her engagement but has had to wear skirts or dresses since marrying Harry, save for that cheap looking Givenchy pant suit in Dublin which the queen reportedly hated. As well as her awful too-long trousers to Wimbledon.

This will be MeAgain's first red carpet style moment as the show is a benefit gala. Can't wait to see what she comes up with for an evening gown.

The McCartney gown looks too much like a wedding dress for a gala or anything else.

R230 - Diana got away with it several times, and as this is Harry's charity, not one the Queen is particularly invested in, I think MM will do whatever she likes. How do you know the Queen hated that trouser suit in Dublin? No one knows what HM thinks.

Of course, Megs could wear a sleek black cocktail length skirt and top it off with a tuxedo look jacket . . .

R231 - well you're probably right about the McCartney dress, it was just a thought. You rarely see the reception gown worn again.

I'm going with black Prada gown, sleevless and halter T-back.

Lol, she can always use her engagement dress.

Charles didn't pay 75 000 bucks for nothing.

R233 - Good guess - of course, the black would be another erosion of the "rules".

I wonder if HM is looking on and thinking, "I did my best, if they're going to take it down be eroding everything that set it apart from celebrity, it's their lookout."

I do find her attractive but her legs look like baseball bats. Really awful. And Harry’s pins aren’t th shapeliest either. Two strikes against their spawn.

R236 - She can look quite charming; she isn't a great beauty, but is on what I think they used to call the "piquant" side; if she played that up instead of trying to copy a far more beautiful Hollywood icon, she' do much better. In her early days, Hepburn had a somewhat piquant look (cf. her "Funny Face" role), but only someone who was in fact beautiful and extraordinarily photogenic can get away with that. Think Joan Fontaine in "Rebecca" (Maxim calls her "funny face") where you are not supposed to notice how terribly porcelain pretty she ism because she's the plain second wife in Rebecca's shadow - only she's amazingly pretty when you look and that's how she pulls it off.

But I digress. Yes, the bat legs. Hence, my bet on either the glittery tuxedo trouser suit (sequined lapels, natch).

Her bat legs ruin every outfit.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Why? Why would she wear something at this unflattering length?

Chuck is not paying for the crap that Meghan wears.

A tuxedo mini-dress is a huge 'fuck you' to the RF: "I can't wear a fashionable pantsuit? Fine, I'll just wear it in dress form, but it'll be even more inappropriate."

HA! You see! I wasn't far with the black tuxedo.

Honestly it would be a good look with someone with decent legs.

Well, that IS disappointing! No long dress, no glitter, this was clearly a cut-rate gala.

And her legs look ghastly. I see she is trying another tactic rather than hiding them, but it isn't working. Deah deah.

She looks like a junior associate arriving for lunch in the 41st floor wood-panelled board room.

R243 - Begging your pardon, but the black tux look was MY first guess, first!

R229

Exactly R220. Charles is responsible for his own household and for his sons. The queen is responsible for her own children (save Charles, I would presume).

Looks a bit too "corporate" for a gala.

R243 But I posted the Julia in tux pic!

Meghan dear, these outfits are much better for a woman with a petite frame and bird legs.

Yesterday, Crown Princess Mary was in red (see R154) and today she is in blue.

Sunshine Sachs represents Hamilton and Sunshine Sachs is also the home agency of Meghan's agent, whom, at the time of her engagement, a "source" said she would retain to "field calls and offers" although she would not take on any more paid acting work. One wonders why they were retained, in that case, but their attendance at Hamilton seems like a typical PR package.

Well, her hair is at least neatly done. From what I can see, though, it's a double-breasted short coat-dress, and the double breasted design is not doing her waistline any favours.

Her knees are appalling.

R248 - oh, all right, I'll split the credit with you.

R229

The dress is too short and her legs should be declared a national disaster.

A Judith and Charles tuxedo dress.

She tries to dress like her character in Suits?

R249 - Pss. Mary has made rather a speciality of the coat-dress to great advantage, she often wears them to the opening of the Danish Parliament (I did mention I was in the crowd there once, haven't I? She looked flawless in a fawn coat-dress, I wish I could find the image), and like MM, she is smallish with no waist. Of course, she has nice legs, which MM doesn't, so that helps.

For those still insisting that they did not bow to the Queen. The camera crew missed it.

Imagine where her tuxedo dress would be when she sat down...up to her crouch.

"Joined" Harry-- makes it seem like she's coming from someplace else. Repeated several times by shade-giving DM!

So this is yet another American design house? All right, the play is about American history and is an American creation, but still . . .

Everyone claiming the marriage is over because they took a break - as you can see, they have not announced a separation, but are back to the working Duke and Duchess.

Pregnancy announcement late November.

Ohhh her legs are hideous. And why does she stand in that ungainly manner!

R141 - the wedding dress was made from an exclusive double-bonded silk cady.

R260 It's a Canadian house it seems.

If so, girl was really in Canada this summer;

R263 - I can see Jessica Mulroney's hands all over this tux.

R264 Yeah, totally a Jessica look.

RR263 R264 R265 - truly.

Someone needs to have a firm chat with Nutmeg. She just doesn't seem to be very bright about her fashion choices.

It's a Canadian brand, Judith & Charles, and as far as I can tell is High Street priced. It might be something she had in her closet from her Suits days or maybe when she snuck into Canada when her PR had her at the Clooneys, up in Scotland, blah blah and etc.

Is one of her stick legs thinner than the other or is that a trick of the light?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

This tux is too small for her, she gonna explode it if she sits.

She may be pregnant.

They "showed off" her legs in Suits bed scenes and in photoshoots, and since they are so scrawny I wondered why. It's because they are long, and in the photo shoots they used George Hurrell type shadow contouring to create the illusion of shape, and in the Suits bed scenes, the covers were arranged to shape her legs, so it appeared as if part of her calf was concealed by the bedsheet, when the truth is that was the entire calf.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

She has anorexic legs.

R262, you don't even know what double bonded silk cady is, let alone the attributes that make it "exclusive". That is Givenchy press release bullshit from the time of the wedding. All the fashion mags repeated it, but nobody knows what the "double bonded" crap means.

But I want to be helpful, so google says cady has various definitions, often contains spandex, The "threads" website called it a mystery fabric, and apparently it's very "on trend" to now describe various types of silk crepe as "cady".

Here is a link to someone who went and investigated "cady". Since Givenchy idiotically stated the dress cost a fortune (I think they meant it was WORTH a fortune) because it was a royal wedding dress (that's like saying, we charged you a lot of money because you HAVE a lot of money), it would be typical of them to use "Cady" in this manner. It seems to be a means of taking conventional silk weaves and calling it "cady" to denote it's hot shit and luxurious. Same fabric, different item, it might be called something else.

R275 - gee, if you had to google it, you didn't fucking know either, did you? Duh.

I replied to someone who asked what her dress was made of. I didn't go into details.

"Exclusive" could mean they got hold of this bolt of fabric, whipped up the dress and a bunch of bridal attendant outfits over a long weekend, didn't line it or do any tailoring, rolled the hem, and there was nothing leftover so it went to scrap. Voila, "exclusive" cause nobody else will have clothes from that specific fabric bolt. There are identical bolts to be had, but not that exact bolt.

The suggestion that she is already pregnant is being based on the pulling of the dress at her (alleged) waistline. I'm sure it's possible and I haven't the slightest doubt if she isn't they are trying mightily, but her clothes often fit this way, and if she's in the early stages she wouldn't have a gut now, anyway; my niece lost weight in the first trimester (quite alarmingly) and didn't look pregnant until nearly her fifth month, but then I suppose each pregnancy is different.

I doubt the legs are to distract from her family saga, I think that is over-egging the pudding, this is just another bad fashion choice, but at least it's High Street priced and within the Great Commonwealth of Nations to Which We All Belong (said a young future Queen once).

I thought the material of Pss. Anne's first wedding dress particularly beautiful and it was announced as specially woven 1,000 dernier per inch, only I haven't the faintest idea what that means. The "cady" term is also a new one on me.

Why would you answer the question if you are just parroting something you read, though?

All labels use buzzwords and hyperbole, so if you want to actually answer the question, you don't quote the press release, you find out the meaning behind the words.

It's BECAUSE I never heard of freaking cady that I looked it up. It reeked of the nonsense it is.

She thinks she has great legs. That's the thing. She's worn "short suits" before. I have no doubt that if Kate went out in a short dress - Kate with her spectacular legs - if Meghan went out in a still shorter dress Meghan would believe she'd one upped Kate in the sexiness department.

Hey R278, as long as I'm providing the service, I thought I'd look up 1,000 dernier per inch, and it goes to thread count. Dernier actually is a legitimate textile term, so there's that at least.

R280 - well, that's the point. Royals don't need to look "sexy". Royal women should look elegant, presentable and appropriate for the occasion. Glamor is fine but sexy is not something the royals portray. She's not in fucking Hollywood anymore. She can leave the "sexy" in the privacy of her home with her husband.

R281 - Why, thank you. Anne's dress, if I remember, had a beautiful weight and look to it that could be seen in photographs, and was most unusual in design; I thought it much the best of that generation's crop of wedding dresses (do not even suggest that we discuss the disaster that was the Emanuel's, although I will admit the silk taffeta, also especially woven for the occasion, was nice).

Flaunting slim pins.

I think Meghan looks good in the short black suit dress except when her left leg bows back. She needs to keep her legs together! Harry looks good too.

She's worn a similar dress before. She still thinks she's an actress.

Anorexic attention whore.

Harry is always fidgeting.

Much too short, much too tight, and her legs are so unattractive. How does she keep making such unfortunate fashion choices?

I hope she's wearing panties underneath that short number.

R249 Macron's wife's outfit is fab. It's just her head that isn't a great look.

Brigitte Macron has better legs than Meghan and she is 30 years older.

Well, this neckline is good for her. Way too short of a hemline for someone of her age. Hair messy again. When oh when will you get it right Princess Henry?

R288. Oh, no. NO! The eyebrows have been reshaped and look like sperm. Tendrils are the worst ones yet (except the wedding).

Kate has often worn short skirts, more before she married William but several since; I just saw her in a short red dress interviewed when Wimbledon opened, as she is Patron of the All England Club. She looked spectacularly good in it.

R294 - Odd, when I saw the first photos, her hair looked neat. It must have come down very quickly after arrival.

Wearing black again. And there was me thinking royal use to wear black only in mourning.

R286, is that person in that IG comment saying she's happy she stayed true to her original style? Because that photo must be from a photo-shoot in which she was styled by other people.

R275 More like Lumpy...

That looks like a Louis Tussaud Harry at R288.

R286 Look how thick her hair is in the lefthand photo.

Coral lipstick is not a good color on her.

The comments in the DM article are far from favorable. I've seen better legs on a daddy long leg spider.

And too much blush, like usual.

Is this the kind of tux we have to look forward to in Australia?

[quote]Because who needs 👗 when there’s 👖#ootn #greentux #flamingo

And why does Mulroney, a "stylist," always look like her clothes came from the floor beneath the clearance racks at Charlotte Russe and Forever 21?

And the blush is orange. Ick.

MM's Canadian clothes are better than the Givenchy uglies.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r290 - Prince Andrew pervving.

Why are they entering through the back, and not the front door?

R309 because Harry's so much used to enter through the 'back door' ...

Do Canadians have a word for chav? That Mulroney woman is pure chav Real Housewives of Toronto.

It's not, in essence a bad look for her, but as always, she's used extremes to give what she thinks are detail that make it special. The coat-dress is a nice look if the event isn't too formal - this just needed to fit better and cover her knees, and the clutch is clearly intended to give it some glamour, but a bit more earring would have been even more helpful. It IS a charity gala, but she looks terribly corporate. Then, so does he, so the word "gala" was obviously misused. I get the lean toward Sophisticate Gala Black, but the two of them actually look a bit funereal together. They could be at a memorial for a Fallen Foreign Dignitary.

At least MM's shoes fit for once. Are the heels lower than she normally wears?

If that is a Tussaud Harry, they need to roll him out more often. At least he looks happy.

She just can't seem to get it right: the hair in the back, her knees, and the fit in the middle are awful. Absent these, it could have been a quite nice ensemble with a longer hemline, a better fit, a bit more "glitz" indicating a "gala" performance, and better managed hair. Why does she always do buns? Why doesn't she try a real chignon with one of those long jeweled pins through it, and use a more metallic material shoe? It's not that hard to dress it up and clean it up. It's just . . . dull, messy, and poorly put together, but it didn't have to be.

Despite the outfit's problems, I think it's one of the better fitted that she's worn.

It's not 3 sizes too big, just 1 size too small around the west.

Look at the other people they are speaking to. None of them are dressed formally.

So "gala" is not really the right description for this event.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

You know you use too much eyeliner when instead of having contoured eyes you end up having two black eyes.

Is she using that hideous orange-coloured blusher as bronzing powder replacement for her chest?

Soon she gonna have Amy Winehouse legs.

“bat legs”? More like golf clubs.

Dress was too short and I could almost see her tit in the gap of the neckline. Not that it was that low and open, but there was still a gap somehow.

At least the shoes fit.

And for the love of fuck, can someone get her hair under control?

And her legs. Listen, sometimes we get mosquito bites or razor burn or bark our shins on the open dishwasher door. Sometimes legs can have marks and bruises. If you’re going to a formal occasion where you’re going to foist your “slender pins” on dignitaries and such, you go down to the drugstore and get a can of that spray-on makeup for legs. Sally Hansen makes one. I’m pretty sure that there’s some super fancy premium brand at... wherever fancy people in London shop.

Her legs look like she was just rescued from a year on a desert island.

in the pic at R307 (and in other pics in the DM spread), she keeps holding up her hand, trying to show off the ring on her finger. I realize that sometimes the camera flips the image, and the photographer forgets to flip it back. So, is that her wedding ring? If so, someone should tell her we've already seen it. If that's not her wedding ring, then this would be the most obvious merching ever.

That hair, that hair, that hair WTF?

She's almost 40 years old and should have learned to deal with her hair by now. Beyond that, as Harry's wife she has access to hair stylists every day if she wants them. WHY is her hair always such a fug mess?

The tendrils in the front we've discussed. Perhaps she thinks they make her look younger and somehow artless (they don't) but what is with the lumps on top and on the sides and the frizz and WTF?

Gawd, her hair looks beyond bad. It's like she's at the end of her Brazilian blowout cycle and didn't figure the event was worth rushing to renew it for.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R328 - I find Macron ferret-like, to be honest, but re the gushing upthread about what an asset MM is for the BRF because she speaks French and Spanish . . . you can bet your arse that the highly accomplished Queen Margethe is speaking French to Macron here; not MM's "school French".

That is not a chignon; it's a French twist. A chignon is at the nape of the neck. Those buns she wears are what Granny Clampett wears.

She’s such an asshole.

R331, Lol! Trenchant commentary indeed!

R331 she really is. She nails the look of smugness and exaggerated humility “aww, poor little me, the real star of today’s performance?”

I think Madame Macron dresses better than either of them r249

Thank you r262 for answering my question about the wedding gown fabric. Ive never heard of cady either. I think it's a synonym for unobtanium.

Her legs bow backwards which is such a weird look. She has really terrible legs. No tone or form. She needs to put on some weight, maybe that will improve them but they look like shapeless sticks.

Dress is okay. A little too short but better than her usual disasters. The hair though...why can't she keep it in a bun without it unravelling? Mine is shorter than hers and I can pull it all completely back before getting in the shower. Instead, she goes out in public looking like she just woke up and put in a scrunchie.

Overall, I didn't think she looked too bad but, as usual, the messy bun (the DM called it 'her signature bun') seems to be constant, and the too-short dress just emphasizes her sad bird legs. Since she's supposed to be into yoga and fitness in general, you would think she would start trying to develop her legs so they don't look like porch railings.

The hair can't be controlled because as the closeup photo shows, it's so dry, brittle, and fried, that only SuperGlue would do the job. It's like asking why straw is sticking out from a bun. She probably is due for her next blowout, but I'm surprised she didn't load it up with some of the many products out there for smoothing fried hair temporarily. If the hair isn't going to be contained by the bun, why wear the bun at all?

Perhaps she's tired of faking it and is letting it go natural slowly. That would be newsworthy! And I know the BRF would love it . . .

If you look at the photo of her exiting the car and entering the theater, you can see her calf muscle. She's not doing enough stretching.

What she needs is to gain about seven pounds. She'll look a hundred times better and she'll have an easier time getting pregnant.

She's busy stretching other muscles, r338.

Anyone know if the BRF regularly reads articles about themselves in publications like the Mail? Does Palace PR study the comments / take them seriously?

[quote]Does Palace PR study the comments / take them seriously?

In fairness, no one with a brain takes the comments seriously. Read them often enough and you realize a good number of commenters comment continuously. The Comments are like Cheers for the angry, the isolated, the insane and the semi literate.

R328 - the Macrons were guests of a "galataffel" (state gala dinner) at Christianborg Slot in Copenhagen. Denmark's version of the Daily Mail (it's much less nasty, though, more a blend of HELLO and the DM), Billedbladet, has a brief video of guests entering the gala. The last guests to arrive are Princesse Benedikte (the Queen's middle sister), Prince Joachim, the Queen's younger, and his pretty French wife, Marie, then Frederik and Mary, and last, Queen Margrethe.

Mary and Marie are similarly built but are dressed very differently, but both beautifully, and both look the way Meghan simply never does no matter what she wears, and they were born no more royal than she was. Mary is wearing a very elegant black and white gown, Marie and off the shoulder simple claret coloured gown.

Shit, the two old women, Queen Margrethe and her sister, Benedikte, are dressed better than Meghan, and the Queen is a dead ringer for Mother Goose.

Interesting point: the two guests, the Macrons, come in very last, and as the Queen comes to greet them, Macron bows and Brigitte does a brief curtsy. I was surprised to see them bow and curtsy, given France's determinedly anti-monarchical bent.

Christiansborg Slot ("Slot" means palace or castle, although it can be used also to denote a grand country home) is a beautiful venue, and it is where Mary first appeared, during the week before her wedding to Frederik, in the historic ruby and diamond demi-parure the Queen gave her to wear throughout her lifetime. If you can find the video, Mary wore an absolutely gorgeous dress for the occasion and it is so obviously the kind of thing Meghan should be wearing. It gave mary the waist she lacks and had that same scooped neckline MM favours, but it fit perfectly and the materials was beautiful. It looked the way those luxury labels Meghan keeps wasting money on never fit her.

R340 - I'm betting that Jason, the current PR chief for Kensington Palace, scans the stuff, and given Meghan's narcissism, she probably can't stop herself, but I'd be very surprised if the rest of the BRF reads the articles, let alone the comments. They have paid staff to do that for them.

They only really look at the stuff if a major shitstorm breaks, like photos of the half-starkers wife of the fourth in line having her toes sucked poolside by a Texas millionaire appearing in the Sunday papers whilst they're all up at Balmoral.

How could a narcissist deal with the almost uniformly negative comments in the Daily Mail?

R344 - Because it's a function of narcissism to be unable to resist reading about oneself/

" oh they're just jealous". That's how.

R286, in that other picture it looks like they photoshopped someone else's legs in. Those aren't her calves, even when she weighed more.

Harry looks like he's getting a tic in one eye @ R288.

Haha, R334.

R342, this one?

Bean adheres to the Gangsta-Frau of Pinterest credo in all its forms.

Next Stop on the Singing Sussex Show is Australia. Let's hope MM wears short skirts the whole visit.

R350 - No, but it has that same neckline (Mary also favours that line) and it's from the same week. That one you posted is the one Mary wore the night before the wedding to the Royal Theatre Gala - the sash, by the way, wasn't made with the dress but belonged, I think, to Queen Ingrid, the Queen's late mother. The gown I was referring to I believe Mary wore earlier in the week, Monday or Tuesday. The week before the wedding there was a series of events, one every day - welcome speech at the Folketing for which Mary wore a beautiful gold and pink suit; then one at the Mayor's Hall, where she wore something similar to what Meghan tried at the Straubenzee wedding (flirty chiffon skirt with fitted jacket - but dig the Mad Hatter headpiece); the dinner at Christisansborg Slot was early in the week, and the red dress was the last night. Good thing Mary was young and healthy, the schedule would have felled an elephant. Oh, there was a gala lunch as well, to which she wore a very pretty outfit, and a rock concert. Fun week if you were following the wedding at the time. Mary really pulled off a series of lovely outfits in the space of five days while preparing for the wedding.

R93 here: I said what I said!

OAN: OH, 'MERCHING TROLL', there's a clean up on isle 7 - get to it and stop hovering over this thread on your Cricket!

R350 - not, I hasten to add, that I didn't think the red gown wasn't fabulous - Mary looked spectacular. Red is Denmark's colour so it had symbolic meaning, as well, a nice gesture. Her wedding dress was also done by a Danish designer, Frank Uffe - you know, the kind of gesture that MeAgain ignores.

My point being that Mary is also a box between the hip and shoulder and isn't very tall or a great beauty, but like MeAgain is quite pretty enough, and look what these clothes do for her. Only difference is Mary has the legs.

R354

On Instagram somebody posted: looks like she finally found a stylist who doesn't hate her.

Was it @stevie.wonder?

A stylist who has a marginal distaste for the rather common duchess then.

MM looked very pretty in that short black dress. The dress was a bit snug in the midsection, but that could just be due to her body type.

Harry and MM look very happy. Not a concern in sight. The Markles just need to move on completely. They aren't going to muscle any sympathy out of these two. I think that both Harry and MM are pretty cold when they are no longer interested in dealing with someone.

She looks happy... but not Harry. I used to view him as roguishly cute, but now when I see his face I only see dumb, nervous, and in over his head. For the tragedy of his parents’ divorce and his mother’s death, Harry had the sympathy of his country, and its indulgence. he now appears in shock that his public is losing esteem for him. I wonder if he has ever experienced not being liked before?

I agree with poster who said MM thinks she has great legs. they’re not so bad, at least they’re slender and toned. She appears happy in photos but no connection to her husband...I think she’s psyched to be out and getting that attention again, must have been jonesing for a taste! People like her don’t exist to themselves without a steady diet of narcissistic supply.

R330 I'm a Woman... W-O-M-A-N!

^^^ song starts at 3:58

I think she looked ecstatic.

She must think it's where she belongs, not the boring events with the Queen, the military parades and visits to old people.

She thinks she's an artist, an actress, a writer and she thought she was among people like her and who appreciate her.

Harry was just happy he could do his little bear circus show at the end. "Yeah, I'm still the most beloved!!!!!"

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

So English : "Queen of the World"

Little Britain who voted Brexit and still believes there's a British Empire will appreciate, the others will roll their eyes.

[quote]She looks happy... but not Harry.

Excuse me! Take a look at their body language. They are mirroring each other in the right picture, and the left picture, Harry has his feet pointed in her direction. Yep, that's all thanks to that little black dress.

[quote] No me gusta afeitarme todos los días.

lol. It's probably true, too!

The "source close to the former Suits star," the "Buckingham Palace insider," and the "second source" have been hard at work this week. And yet the three sources still has time to post pictures of her tacky outfits, workout videos, and happy heterosexualist marriage on Instagram all day!

[quote]“Meghan is absolutely broken by the drama with her father,” a source close to the former Suits star reveals in the new issue of Us Weekly. “There’s no way she can have a relationship with him or even reach out to him to stop him from speaking. She knows he’ll record the conversation and sell it. She has high anxiety wondering if this will go on forever.”

[quote]Puzzling over the problem has brought one bright spot, however — an unlikely allegiance with Queen Elizabeth II Opens a New Window. . “What may surprise some is just how supportive Her Majesty has been during the problems Meghan has faced with her family,” a Buckingham Palace insider shares. “Meghan is in a tough place, and the queen knows it’s completely out of Meghan’s hands. She has only sympathy for what’s been a difficult and distressing situation for her.”

[quote]More than sympathy, the 92-year-old monarch has admiration for the L.A.-born actress and activist, who became the newest member of the House of Windsor when she wed Prince Harry Opens a New Window. in May. “While Meghan and the queen come from two very different backgrounds and generations, there’s a warmth between the two that’s genuine and loving,” says the palace insider.

[quote]It’s a far cry from the famously frosty relationship the queen had with Prince Harry’s late mother, Princess Diana — and it was by design. When the 33-year-old flame-haired royal knew things with Meghan, 37, were serious, he requested a sit-down with his grandmother. “He wanted to make sure every family member knew that the queen supported the relationship,” says a second source, “and how important it would be for Meghan, who’s from a very different background, to feel welcomed and supported.”

[quote]It turns out, the monarch hardly needed prompting: “The queen became fond of Meghan at their first meeting,” says the insider. “Not just because she’s the charming woman who brought happiness into her grandson’s life, but also because she quickly demonstrated that she’s intelligent, polite and keen to learn.”

Yep, look at those Hamilton pics it shows a daughter totally broken by her father behavior, don't you see?????

She clearly doesn't give a fuck, "insiders" should stop with the "anxiety" and "broken" little daddy's girl.

Wow, it looks like Kate's pregnant and quite far along! I saw a rumor that it's twin girls; that would put Harry at eighth!

Sorry about the weird site, it was hard to find a link that wasn't too long. Look up Princess Kate Takes A Larger Role With Queen's Help ( this is all at Balmoral.)

Duh it's an old pic of Kate when she was waiting Louis.

Seriously?

[Quote]there’s a warmth between the two that’s genuine and loving,” says the palace insider.

vomit-inducing.

Richard Kay confirmed H&M were not at Balmoral this month.

But besides that their relationship is genuine and loving, lol.

Thanks R354/356, it was fun to go poking through all Mary's photos. There were a lot of red dresses and with her coloring they all looked great. You're right about her body type being similar to Megan's. Those clothes would be flattering on Megan so she'll probably never wear anything like them.

I don't know why she chooses that cheap looking Jessica Mulroney to emulate. Megan didn't join the Real Housewives of Kensington Palace. We should do a Datalounge parody thread of that show.

I guess from now on, we'll be looking at baseball bat legs. From top to bottom. Wish she'd go back to the long skirts to ease the horror.

Americans,Californians in particular,don't understand dress codes.They are just not used to it.Australians are the same.It's the hot weather plus the casual&relaxed attitude.If Mary Donaldson can do it so can Meghan.That's a woman she should look up to.

R376, aside from trousers, there’s nothing to be done about her legs. Even with a long skirt, her Darfur orphan skinny ankles show.

And we won’t know if she’s pregnant, because she’s already thick in the middle.

All MM has to do is look to Queen Letizia for inspiration, but substitute British high street labels for the Spanish ones Letizia often wears. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, Letizia looks perfect for whatever event she is attending or activity she is involved in, at a fraction of the cost of MM's get-ups.

Wouldn't be surprised if she's 2 months or more along, r378. Or Harry's got her eating cottage pies and bread pudding.

R378 - I don't think MM thinks she has great legs - I think she knows she has lousy legs and here has just shrugged and said, "So what?" And frankly, I can't blame her. She can't hide her legs forever just because they don't match up to her late mother-in-law's spectacular ones or Kate's very good ones. But she could frame them better. Her sternum and low placed boobs are the real problem - she has to cut very, very low to get cleavage and by then it's too low for decency. Her thick waist makes everything pull there: with her money, why can't she have a few alterations done that let the side seaming out slightly so it fits her there properly?

I think the feminised tuxedo can look great on a slim woman, but not if it's badly proportioned. A few inches longer, and the waist better fitted, and the hair piled on top of her head instead of that awful bun, with glitzy earrings, would have done wonders for the look.

What it looks like as she's done it, is one of those Desk to Dinner! outfits - she went to the Ladies in the office at the end of the workday, pinned up her hair, change her purse, added heavier eyeliner, and called a taxi to head for the theatre. What she doesn't look like is a royal Duchess attending a gala performance for charity.

R379 - Letizia though has a terrific figure - she's very small boned with a small waist, great legs, and a full bosom, none of which Megs has. She wears clothes much more easily than Meghan or Mary. Mary has her clothes very carefully tailored to make up for the thick middle, Letizia doesn't have to.

But neither Leitizia nor Mary would ever have appeared at a public event with their hair looking that bad. The closeup of the hair texture was nothing less than frightening. That said, both women are also married to future kings, not sixths in lines, so they are both under more pressure to keep the side up all the time.

R380 - Wouldn't surprise me, either, because at her age, you have to know they've been trying at least since the wedding.

So now all those fantasists who have been insisting that the marriage is already in trouble can relax for a couple of years, all right?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Sugars are so dumbbbbbb.....

Read this pearl: " The fact that Jessica Mulroney has ZERO mention of Meghan around wedding time made me respect her so much. As a stylist, selling herself and her clients is her bread and butter – and many of Meghan’s other friends, Priyanka Chopra, Serena Williams, many of the suits folks and even those not AT the wedding (looking at you Millie Mackintosh) had pictures/mentions of the royal wedding (for whatever reason, but ahem self promotion) – nothing from Jessica. That, I think speaks volumes about their friendship."

Jessica was totally not a famewhore during the wedding. TOTALLY NOT.

In the picture at R382 with the visible white bra under sheer black, her two crossed legs equal a pirate's single peg leg. She should stand that way more often.

R382 - MM actually looks much better in a couple of the dresses in that collage you posted than she did yesterday. She also looks fresher - the fried hair and weight loss and strenuous "trying too hard" aura are making her look tired and older. Of course, she IS older now . . .

She looks great in the mid-calf sleeveless black column dress there, and great in the shorter, but not too short, dress with the nearly elbow length sleeves. These are both proportioned better for her. The short dress with the lace sleeves is a very pretty dress in and of itself, but it really emphasises her shoulder to hip "box" frame.

She looks bad in too short and too long, she looks better in less rather than more cloth, and better in block colours than multicoloured ensembles.

Her hair looks far less fried in those photos, as well. The photos are unfortunately all too evident how much she's aged since those days. She looks mid-20s to early 30s in those. She looked every bit of 3 years from 40 yesterday, and Harry looked even younger and dumber next to her.

I wonder if he's keeping the beard to minimise the age difference. It's only a few years, but, I am sorry to say, when it's a woman on the shady side of 35 and a man who hasn't hit 35 yet, the difference is more noticieable.

She needs to fall pregnant, and fast.

She has bird legs in that dress at Hamilton

Stork not turkey r386.

Ladies with the inverted triangle body type are often encouraged to show their legs as they can be their best feature. MM does look nice in that dress and her legs look good. Yes, they are slim, but they look nice and toned.

I can believe that the Queen is being understanding to MM and her family drama. The Markles are awful people. There is no telling what MM endured during her childhood with relatives like that.

"nice and toned"

Facially, meghan kind of resembles Hilaria Baldwin (Alec Baldwin's wife) before Hilaria messed up her face with plastic surgery. I saw a pic of Hilaria Baldwin and it was almost uncanny, except when you got to the legs. Baldwin has shape and muscle tone.

Hilaria's body is much better.

R388, sadly, every single one of Markle's relatives is a terrible person unworthy of an invite to the wedding. Not just the Markle side, but the Ragland side. Her mom got an invite but alas Meghan has not seen her since the wedding. It is very unfortunate that Markle was born into such an awful awful family. Her father paying for her entire life while saving nothing for his own retirement is the least he could have done for her. Including her bills before she hooked up the Trevor.

The Little Hollywood schoolhouse school which let her rub shoulders with the connected and privileged and make contacts even at that young age. Trips to Europe. His brother pulling strings to get Meghan posted to Argentina, which she has dined out on ever since to enhance her wannabe "global citizen" status. The uncle wasn't invited to the wedding either. Her education at Northwestern University even though it is impossible to find the evidence that she graduated. His getting her her first agent and her union cards through his connections.

The poor girl, ALL of her relatives suck. What are the odds that in a family full of people on both sides, not ONE other than her mother was worthy of an invitation to the wedding? And her mother hasn't been seen with her since.

R391 Hilaria's body IS much better. But with almost the same face as Markle, and also petite, it really highlights how bad Markle's body is.

R393 If you want but I don't think their face look alike.

Really? So if harry’s Toes are pointing to MM he’s happy? That’s a reach! But I’m guessing you were using sarcasm.

One thing I’ve been meaning to add to this thread is MMS infertility. I cannot remember where I read it, but will look it up. IIRC, it was from the jilted chef boyfriend, it was about the seriousness of their relationship: they had visited a fertility doctor as they were considering children at one point. I sensed it was in response to the claim it was not a major relationship. Anyway, he disclosed they were told she could not have children. Guessing they had been trying.

His name is Cory and he is expecting baby with another woman now. This article states they dated and lived together for two years, AFTER her divorce and BEFORE she started up with PH. OK, Sure

Anyway it says they broke up because of her increasingly diva like behavior, culminating in her taking the credit for a pasta dish that he created. I swear, any and every opportunity to get a leg up and look good!

R395, I wonder why she would be infertile.

It would be considered a benefit to *some* men, but I’m pretty sure Harry wants kids. I know plenty of men who adamantly want to be child-free. (Although look at Clooney!)

Didn’t I read something about Harry and Meghan wanting to adopt an African baby?

sorry forgot to post link. I searched for the item, but could not find. Could have been removed from web during RF cleaning. I Did not think much of it at the time, it was before I became interested in the saga that is Sammy Jo goes to the Palace.

MM looks so much better with the Boy Brows and side part in the photo on the left.

R397, I saw that rumor online about African adoption.. She is such a copycat, I can see her doing that… She’s always a few steps behind the celebrity trend. However she won’t, not now. She needs a natural born child first. At market yesterday there was a tabloid cover stating MM is expecting twins. Strikes me as odd that today the story came out that she and Henry saw a fertility specialist prior to the marriage, to ensure ability to have children. Definitely seen a pattern of PR efforts that seem to be reactionary to rumors.

I just got in!!! Im "Dan Peterson" stay tuned!

R395 R398 I recall reading the same thing (pre-wedding) - that MM was infertile. Now I can't find it either... interesting.

Got in where, Dan? The fertility clinic? One of her clown shoes? Pa’s gated community? Under the toile bedspread dress?

Do tell.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] ... interested in the saga that is Sammy Jo goes to the Palace.

Thank you, R398.

More and more that is the image that comes to mind.

Where, oh where, is Alexis when you need her?

I don't have a link but I remember reading that she deliberately dieted qff 15 pounds before the wedding and made Harry do the same. She's had crane legs ever since and it was a stupid thing to do.

[quote]I wonder why she would be infertile.

Could be as simple as an asymptomatic STD. If left untreated, chlamydia can make it difficult for a woman to get pregnant. I can't believe the number of mid thirties women I know who are having trouble getting pregnant.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Sorry, I was wrong... adopted kids can get courtesy titles, so as the son/daughter of a Duke, Prince Harry's children would be called...

but neither could inherit the title under the law as written.

"Children adopted into a family do not acquire rights of succession to a title, and children adopted out of a family do not lose their rights. An Earl Marshal’s Warrant dated 30 April 2004 decreed that the adopted children of peers should be accorded the styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of peers, but without right of succession to the peerage.... Thus, for example, the adopted son of the Marquess of Ely is now known as Lord Andrew Tottenham (which is the style for the younger son of a marquess), rather than Viscount Loftus, which is the subsidiary title for that peerage....

The younger sons of a duke or marquess have the courtesy style of “Lord” before their forename and surname. The daughters of a duke, marquess or earl have the courtesy title of “Lady” before their forename and surname.

There is not the slightest evidence that MM is infertile. It's not beyond the reach of the imagination that as she hit her mid-thirties, she did what many focused career women do today, and had some of her eggs frozen, just in case. If she does have trouble getting pregnant within the year, she and Harry can then agree to have them fertilised in vitro with his sperm and then implanted. But I cannot imagine they won't first give it a full year of the old-fashioned process first. In fact, I'm not sure that any respectable fertility doctor wouldn't insist on that before trying in vitro, especially as MM is still three years from 40 - they'd only go right for the in vitro if they already know she has a medical problem.

The stuff around the first husband and the hot chef stating things like she's infertile aren't first-hand and therefore aren't "admissable".

By the way, infertility drug treatments play havoc with a woman's body, and often result in weight gain - so if Markle starts looking pudgy but there's no pregnancy announcement, that might be a clue.

But so far, she looks more anorexic than anything else.

[quote]The stuff around the first husband and the hot chef stating things like she's infertile aren't first-hand and therefore aren't "admissable".

LOL... where the fuck do you think you are?

From afar it looked okay but up close the dress just looks cheap and slutty!

R411 - Why, Law and Order DL, of course!

You know there's a UK version of L&O, don't you, starring the delicious (and out) Ben Daniels?

Oh, look! DL’s long-awaited Rachel and Henry silicone sex dolls have finally arrived. Who wants to go first and report back?

R403 Inside Samantha Markle's carry-on luggage onboard her transatlantic flight to LOndon appear on Celebrity Big Brother?

R414 -I hope they did something better with her hair than she does with her real hair. I wouldn't want that straw scratching my inner thighs . . .

R398 She sure has a type. Trevor with his unappealing mouth is the worst of the trio.

R404 That pert posterior is long gone or never existed in real life.

R406 And it made her wedding dress ill-fitted even though the designer had altered it at least 3 times due to the weight loss.

MM could have endometriosis. That can affect fertility.

I'm not so convinced that Harry and William are dumb. I think it's possible that they have dyslexia or ADHD and that would explain their poor performance in school.

Harry has a great speech writer. I very much liked the speech he gave at the young heroes award presentation (or whatever it was called) and the speech he gave in Ireland.

I hope the Ragland genes are a million times more powerful than the Markle genes.

She could have the Bubonic Plague, too, and that could affect her fertility.

So many possibilities!

R410 True. I think that IVF drugs given to the woman can end up causing her to die of cancer. Liz Tilberis and Elizabeth Edwards as examples (although Edwards never publicly said she had IVF but it was likely used for the youngest 2 kids after their son was killed). What good is having kids if you leave them orphans?

R356 Crown Princess Mary is quite tall, as in model tall: 5'8" Like Charlize she can wear many types of dresses and carry it off unlike more petite women.

R417 - The resemblance to Harry is quite startling, now you mention it. Of course, Engelson got her the "Suits" job, and Harry got her the "Sucks It" job. So the resemblance is not just, ah, skin deep.

The chef, as you point out, was definitely the dish [sic] of the three. But she certainly does have a type: the question is, do they resemble Pa Markle in better days?

R420 - sure: endometriosis, chlamydia, scarring from half a dozen abortions, and, as 423 points out, bubonic plague; did we leave out scarlet fever as a child? Treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma? A "tipped" cervix? PID from an IUD?

The fact is, she appears to be a healthy, if annoying, 37 year old woman, still three years from the next cliff edge (40), with access to the best medical assistance money can buy (it's a safe bet they won't be seeking funding from the NHS), and women her age become pregnant for the first time on a daily basis all over the planet, although some might take longer than others to "catch". Plus, even if she's had a couple of abortions, that means she CAN get pregnant and HAS been pregnant, which ups her chances.

Unless and until such information becomes public knowledge, we can assume nothing one way or another about her fertility - her age alone just doesn't qualify as the determinant.

These threads have become so frau-dominated with the Royal Dish loonies with their talk of "Nutmeg", "Sugars" and "merching" gibberish. Dear Royal Dish frauen: please return there post haste.

I worry about a friend who went through 10 rounds of IVF and didn't have a kid. Imagine the effect on a woman's body who got over 1,600 shots of hormones?

But, the baby is darling and the photo is sweet.

R425 - I don't know where you got Mary's height as 5'8", but her husband is barely 5'11" and even in heels she isn't as tall as he is. She's maybe 5'6", and I've seen photos of her with other royals like the much taller Maxima of Holland (about 5'10") and Mathilde of Belgium (about 5'7-8") - Mary looks petite next to them. I don't believe Mary is 5'8" for a moment.

Smegs has to do something about her straw hair.

When a woman hopes to get pregnant, you're supposed to gain 10 lbs to increase your chances not lose 15 lbs.

R431 - I really think you merit a prize for finding that in response to my post!

416

R426 I don't think Pa Markle had any "better days." in all of the photos, he's got a big gut, bald head, and that horrid nose.

The chef's mom said that MM spend a holiday with their family and was very nice. Cory's mom laughed when asked if her son broke up w/ Meghan because MM claimed credit for the pasta dish.

R430

Height 5' 7 3/4

Round it off to 5'8

Please show me the link that says Mary is shorter!

Why is Crown Princess Mary of Denmark in the IMDB?

R432 Apparently Duchess Kate ignored your "gain 15 pounds" rules on 3 occasions.

Metallic logo below...

Kate's 36 years old, Megan's 37. Kate already has three children. Megan hasn't even gotten started.

Megan seems a bit anorexic and that's never good for fertility.

typo corrected: Metallica.

What fabric would be the best for the Metallica logo? How about Cosplay by Yan Han Pleather (silver)?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

typo corrected : spent a holiday (not spend a holiday).

[quote]Well, the rumor is that Kate used a surrogate in all 3 pregnancies. I'm not sure I believe it.

I'm sure I don't believe it. Because it sounds fucking cray.

DM reporting that MM made a secret solo trip to Toronto - ditching her royal ways and flying commercial. She flew Air Canada last week for a three-day trip to visit best friend and stylist Jessica Mulroney, sources confirmed to ABCNews. Jessica Mulroney advised Meghan to wear the black tuxedo dress on her return to London for the Hamilton performance Wednesday night.

No surrogate for Kate's royal babies. During surrogacy, the surrogate's genetic material affects the genetic development of the baby. The BRF aren't having any low-class surrogate DNA interfering with the royal embryonic development.

If anything, Pa looks better now. Younger, he looked like Jack Nicholson and Quentin Tarantino’s bulb-headed offspring.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Kate didn't use a surrogate, stop reading those conspiracy loonies and freaks.

Yes, I have seen women give birth and leave hospital the next day looking pretty great. Depending on how much help they have at home they either continue looking great or deteriorate from lack of sleep.

R424, Wendy Wasserstein came to mind, too.

I don’t give a shit WHAT anyone says. Messing with hormones is asking for health issues. My neighbor who’s a pharmacist said - anecdotal, so shoot me - she’d be filling yeast infection and acid reflux medicines alongside birth control pills for her women customers. She said they always went hand in hand.

The Pill was a game-changer for women, and I’m glad we have it, but it gave me so much more trouble than it was worth. I hear the same complaints from all my friends who take it. We’re all getting close to menopause age and I’m curious to see what they all do now.

IMDb is not a reliable source. She just isn't 5'8" - Middleton is about 5'8", Google photos of them together. both wearing high heels, on the occasion of Kate's and William's visit to Denmark a couple of years ago, you can clearly see that Mary is at least 2" shorter than Middleton - and don't tell me Middleton is really 5'10", she just isn't.

In a huge hairpiece under a lace veil, and a tiara, Mary was still only as tall a her husband who can't be more than 5'11". If she were really 5'8" she'd have towered over him in all that. Below is a link to one of their wedding photos; in all that, he's still got an inch or so on her. He's 5'11" on a good day and she's maybe 5'6"

queensconsortofengland blogspot com 2016 05 royal wedding dresses crown-princess html

R444 - dear God those Kate-hating fraus will say anything. The bloody woman was hospitalised the first time round with extreme morning sickness; does everyone suppose the hospital participated in the fraud?!

And whilst she had to look good going home for the photos, it was only for ten minutes or so and she wore tons of makeup and probably wiped it off and fell into bed the moment she got home, as the nanny took over. And you could see her swollen postpartum belly under her dresses - the idea that the entire hospital would have participated in such a fraud is beyond ludicrous.

R5442 - oh ffs - Kate is athletically built, was healthy and under 35, slim hips don't indicate a damned thing, she's obviously a first class brood mare - Diana had slim hips, too. You want to look at the small royal who had to have a C-section, look at Letizia, who had both daughters by C-section.

Kate looked good with the help of great hair, a load of makeup, she clearly had postpartum swollen belly, and went home to the very best postpartum care in the world, and a nanny.

You know, it's not as if she exhausted herself working to the last minute whilst grocery shopping, doing the wash, etc. KP isn't rural rice paddies in southeast Asia, you know?

In addition, there are photos of her on vacay with William in her first pregnancy after the morning sickness passed off, in a skimpy bikini with an obvious baby bump.

Those rumours are absurd.

Kate had those babies herself. she has always been in good shape, athletic, doesn’t put on excess weight during pregnancy, and of course, lots of support and help.

It was stated a rumor that MM couldn’t have children, per ex. I posted it here, not saying I believe it, just odd. Of course at her age she has potential of having kids. One aspect that a fertility doctor looks to is maternal history of pregnancy. Doria had one successful pregnancy that is known, M. Who knows if she had problems before or after having MM? I am curious about Doria...not much known, just college grad later in life, originally makeup artist, had good relationship with ex after divorce, they would even vacay with their daughter together. quit job after the wedding, lives in home left to her by father. No brother or sister to accompany her to wedding? It’s bit weird to not proffer plus one so she would have companion to travel and share experience, it had to be overwhelming. It would use have been nice for her IMO.

One thing not brought up yet....MM sister had lovely things to say about MM in pre-wedding press....MM was adored by family on both sides especially by dad. sister did not seem bitter at all. She was a teenager and thrilled to have little baby sister. she said they all lived together...it was sweet. tide seem to turn just before wedding when the family realized they were not going to be included. Then we all know how it went from there. I feel for the dad, he gave so much to M, didn’t make a plan for himself in old age. I sense they were genuinely surprised and hurt, even blindsided, when they realized they were cut off by M. And then when PH stated family she never had, it began to become clear MM had denounced or denied them. Look up earlier interviews..I think the sister’s vitriol comes from seeing her father treated like some deadbeat loser, because according to her, he was devoted to MM. it’s sad. He looks heartbroken and angry, don’t think he saw it coming.

Pa Markle will have the last laugh, if he lives long enough.

Megan will be Fergie in no time.

I think Sandra Bullock's son is American, not adopted from an African country.

She totally fucked over her father. What is galling is she used him to enhance her brand because he was the one with the show business background. So she billed herself as having "grown up on sets", learned about lighting because of her dad, she wrote about him for Elle, praised him on instagram, extolled him in her speeches. Her sister has implied that not only did her father give Meghan her first opportunities as an actress - jobs, representation - and pay for her schooling, travel, etc. -he paid her fucking bills until she managed to land a guy (Trevor) who could pay them. She wanted to live a lifestyle she couldn't afford and when she'd get in debt her dad would clear them. She sucks.

He was playing with the paps - it's easy to see those were pap set ups, nobody was fooled. And so what? Meghan ALSO had herself papped. Meghan still has her own photogs at her appearances. Meghan works the media. Meghan used him. Her dad can't play the same game she's playing? Why not. It's interesting to me that although, on the surface, it appears that her father is just a nightmare yapping to the tabloids, most people feel for him and know there's more to the story, and that more to the story is she used him and dumped him.

But didn't you think it was very clever of Kate to magically make her ankles and face swell while someone else was carrying her children? She's a witch!

For fuck's sake, women with no hips have children all the fucking time.

Kate is 5'9". I'm 5'8", and she's taller than I am.

R450 the pill was the greatest thing to ever happen to me. My weight was great, my periods were neglible, I was on it for 20 years. After that I figured better get off - didn't consult a doctor. My periods commenced EXCRUCIATING. I never had a single side effect being on the pill but had countless side effects letting mother nature be mother nature.

My mother had seven children. I am the second one, so I remember the very youngest. When she had No. 7, my dad brought one of her pre-pregnancy dresses to the hospital, zippered her into it, and drove her home with the baby. There's a picture of my mother at the beach (Breezy Point!) with me and my sister. I'm a fat seven month old, my sister is a skinny toddler. We are both perched on her knee. Her stomach is as flat as a board, her arms are toned, her legs look great. I am astonished at the picture, but I saw for myself when I was older. A lot of people my age have the same stories. For God's sake, Kate Middleton looked like a truck ran over her compared to my mother.

Is this still a gay board?

R249, for a second, I thought you were refering to Aretha! (But then she's the Queen, not the Crown Princess.

R455 - She'll only turn into Fergie if Harry ditches her, and I don't think he is going to. He's not his Uncle Andy by a long shot. The two of them will the Yorks in terms of importance in 20 years as Kate's and William's kids become the focus, but by then MM won't care, she'll have had a lifetime of wealth and privilege and unlike Fergie, she'll still be part of the family.

Absent a major upset, the possibility of which I think is being over-anticipated by some hopefuls here, Pa Markle will be dead in ten years or so and it's the lifelong Duchess of Sussex who will have the last laugh as she settles into her comfy life with Harry the Dim.

Harry made the bed and he's going to sleep in it for the rest of his life.

Get over it and settle in for the Queen's funeral, Charles's coronation, William and Kate stepping up to Prince and Princess of Wales, and all the ridiculous outfits MeAgain will wear to same.

Dear Meghan,

This is the way you wear a blue and white dress. Please avoid another montrosity like the one you wore this summer. Take note, keep calm and carry on. Thank you.

Is she in mourning?

Her dress was so tight and short that trying to take her seat without exposing herself must have been difficult.

I don't know, R464. The doomsayers have been predicting a major correction for quite awhile. Are people really going to want to support the likes of the Cambridges and Sussexes in luxury, especially with MM in residence?

R468 - The doomsayers have to keep it up or the whole saga has no place to go.

If, as I said earlier, if the plebs didn't riot ad William's and Kate's 21-room "apartment" in Kensington Palace being renovated to the tune of £4 million of taxpayer money, I haven't much hope. The Independent awhile ago ran a good piece on what the monarchy really costs the state, uncovering the bullshit about that "only 60P" and the money they allegedly bring in through tourism.

I see it more as a slow erosion than sudden death. It's the slowing disappearing line between celebrity and royalty that will do them in, not the absurdity of people this rich getting a penny from hard-pressed taxpayers that will deal them the final blow. Remains to be seen if the presence of MM delivers that blow or if it will wait another generation.

Ultimately it comes down to one thing - how ever much the royals are disliked, politicians are hated more. And that is the thing that saves them.

R4420 - I do think you have a point there. Compared to the long list of our very own Deplorables from both sides of the HoC, the royals must look benign - and they seem to make people feel British, which is something the Camerons and Corbyns bloody don't (being even-handed here). Ringo Starr said when he met the Queen Mum backstage after the Beatles' first Royal Variety Command Performance that it was the first time he ever felt really British.

I don't which makes me despair of Britain more: the weekly PMQs or Trooping the Colour.

I think that's why I'm so partial to the Wars of the Roses period of history (someone called it England's longest running soap opera): at least you could look at the Plantagenets with a certain awe.

R466, remember when the royal women weren't allowed to wear black unless for funereal reasons? Poor Diana whore a black dress for her first gala while engaged to Charles and was raked over the coals for breaking protocol.

MM must realize she is no longer trying to sell sexy....no, a greater feat: she must now try to sell herself as a woman with dignity.

Upthread it was mentioned how MM is perceived regarding ethnicity. Been thinking about it, when I see her I only see a somewhat cheesy, brunette Caucasian, nothing exotic or unusual about her.

R472 - You didn't direct that to me, but odd you should mention that black Emanuel dress - I remember thinking to myself, "Now that she's got the ring, the claws have come unsheathed,, the demure modest English Rose veil drops a bit, and the narcissist's craving for attention is showing." It wasn't just the colour: it was the cleavage - all she had to do is bend over a bit and the world saw a fine feast of young flesh. And I thought the same about MM when I saw the dress she chose for the formal engagement photos: the moment the engagement ring was on and Harry couldn't back out without looking a complete fool, out comes the $75,000 dress with the sheer top. Never mind how extravagant it looks, or that the next Heir and his fiancee took far more modest photos and Kate was wearing a far more appropriate outfit, or that Harry looked ridiculously underdressed next to it, or that it sent a message to the British public: "I don't give a fuck what you think; I got the goods now and I'm flaunting it."

August 1980, Diana is up at Balmoral exclaiming over its beauties and impressing everyone with how nicely she fits in as she pursues her goal: Charles.

Autumn 1981, after the honeymoon, Diana is fleeing Balmoral for London with the words, "Boring. Raining."

So far as I can tell, speaking of Balmoral, the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton did not pay a courtesy call on HM and show or Craithie Church so they could get snapped with her. I don't think a few days with Charles and Camilla at the Castle of Mey lets them off the hook.

I wonder if the BRF are getting used to the Pre-Wedding and Post-Wedding shifts in the personas of women who shove their way in.

And the MM PR machine keeps on humming...gee, wonder who may have dropped this BI in today’s CDAN?

This permanent A++ list celebrity is working with her favorite child to hide the cost from the public of a soon to be huge wedding that has gone ridiculously overboard in cost and is currently to or three times the cost of a not that long ago much more popular wedding.

It's fascinating to watch how the BRF continues to deftly sprinkle the royal magic dust mesmerizing the public with its long held traditions of great symbolic pageantry and nostagia for family members long deceased. How long this spell will continue to hold sway over the dubious optics of publicly funded luxurious lifestyles is anyone's guess.

Like you, r469 I see the decline in popularity of the BRF manifesting more as a slow erosion than sudden death as the lines continue to blur between "royalty" and "celebrity." Or maybe the lines have always been blurred but no one really saw the extent of it until MM happened upon the scene.

Historically, there was always a sense of elegance about the "royals", masterful and benign displays of social superiority that had the public in awe. With the advent of MM decked out in her ill-fitting and inappropriate frocks, sporting heavy bronzer, messy buns and lifeless hair, eyes hungrily fixated on the cameras ("Meghan is girl of 2018 for Tatler"), there's a sense of the loss of regalness. Perhaps the "erosion" started with Camilla Parker Bowles, or Fergie, or Andrew and his appalling hijinks. MM is now another key cast member in this amusing comedy of errors who seems determined to carve out a larger-than-life presence on the royal scene with besotted Harry.

As many other posters have said, the brutal reality of the impact of this descent may hit once the Queen passes and there's no strong, revered or respected figurehead to steady the boat. It's just kind of sad to be witnesssing the slow erosion at such a sudden and accelerated rate.

Thanks, R476 for this...

[quote] J. Mulphoney’s ass, still angry at being upstaged by Princess Charlotte

You made me laugh as I recalled fame whore Mulphoney going for her Pippa moment (she probably practiced, watching her ass in the mirror) only to be upstaged by Charlotte, claiming all the attention with ease with her rapidly becoming famous "wave over the shoulder" look.

A perfect, "Back off Bitch" moment. Advantage? CHARLOTTE FOR THE WIN.

Being upstaged by a toddler...that had to hurt. Not to mention she looked ridiculous. And her sons are creepy looking.

When the Queen passes what, R477?

Her Majesty will never “pass”.

She will, however, die. As will we all.

[quote] Harry made the bed and he's going to sleep in it for the rest of his life.

Is he? I don't see why he would when Margaret, Charles, Anne and Andrew didn't.

^^Yeah this is not a family who just put up with bad marriages any more.

First of all I'm not a Meghan fan but....

Why was it OK for dear Pippa to upstage her sister with that "ass" on HER wedding day?

It wasn’t really her decision r483. She was wearing the dress chosen/approved by her sister and walked up the aisle behind her. She wasn’t posing on the steps out front waiting for a stray pap.

She did not upstage her sister, it's journalists who are pervert.

It's her sister and Kate knew about the dress, if men can't resist an ass it's not her fault.

R481, 482 - That's exactly why I think Harry will be desperate not to continue the unhappy tradition that Margaret set in motion.

Don't forget the role the pervasiveness of the media plays in all this now. The royals had quite their fair share of unhappy marriages, adventurists, and less than stellar members from one generation to the next, but a great deal was hidden from the public. Even in the 1930s as the Abdication Crisis shaped up, the public was kept in the dark about much of it until the last few weeks. The American press had it all over the place but a self-imposed blackout descended on the UK press.

The entire Washington press corps knew about JFK's incessant philandering, but in those days, a "gentleman's agreement" kept it tactfully out of the public eye in a way JFK would never get away with today. I imagine that a few men in the press knew about FDR's relationship with Lucy Mercer, as well.

Margaret's relationship with Townsend, and then her divorce from Armstrong-Jones, were the first big Windsor media stories that couldn't be kept under wraps. It's been downhill since then - then came the Wales and York debacles, a period of calm, and then the entry of MM.

Pippa did not upstage her sister. The media, again, blew the photos up and then tried to assert that absolutely no one looked at the bride after Pippa appeared, which was absurd. Kate looked stunning and all eyes were upon her after a couple of glances at Pippa's rear end.

These days, the influence of the media in shaping perception can't be overstated. So far, MM and Harry have shown regrettable clumsiness in managing the media. I'm sure MM sees herself as masterful in this regard, but, there's an old Nordic saying:

"A sharp weapon is always a danger to the hand that wields it."

I think Harry may surprise everyone. He has more riding on this marriage than just his personal happiness: he brought in a mixed race older divorcee American C-list actress. Failure for this marriage would bring snickers of, "Told you so - she was 'unsuitable' and everyone could see it but you. . "

No, Harry will hang on for dear life and so, of course, will MM, who knows she'll never get a better gig than this one. Once baby arrives, you all can kiss that early divorce fantasy good-bye.

As for that "far more popular recent wedding" - Harry's wedding got the least UK viewers and requests for licenses for street parties than any modern royal wedding broadcast to date. Most of Britain didn't give a damn.

You can't accurately vet the feelings of the vast British public by HELLO, Celebicthy, Royal Dish and Royal Gossip, and the Daily Mail, in all of whose interests it is to blow up the Harry & Meghan Story.

I don't even think Yuge's wedding is being broadcast, is it?

Do you think William will divorce Kate? What happens if he does?

What will the reaction be?

William and Kate seem happy, they lived together for years before marrying. I think they’ll go the distance but HazBean is a different story.

R47 - No, I don't think William and Kate will ever divorce. They seem to be making quite a success of their marriage, they have three adorable children, there has not been a hint of trouble in the marriage. I think they really love each other and spent a great deal more time together before marrying than either Charles and Diana, or Harry and Meghan.

William has been much savvier than Harry in his choice, perhaps because he knew he had to be. It is Harry who is repeating his father's mistakes and instead of looking for the anti-Diana, looked for her narcissistic double, and married after spending only intermittent periods of time together over one year.

Why would he divorce her, r487?

I don’t even see a MM/Harry divorce imminent.

Kate and William are strong.

Even if they fall out of love I see them staying together for the kids and for he Crown. They can both have side-piece.

I doubt Meghan would stand Harry's infidelity and Harry would go crazy if Meghan had someone else in her life. They're each other vanity project.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The body language is so telling at R492. Pippa is literally just walking up the steps. Jessica is sashaying. And then she got upstaged by a toddler.

Sugars should worry Jessica is Meg's BFF.

To be FAIR, the Meghan haters who think she's the devil incarnate are just as insane as the people who think she's the greatest ever.

I'm intrigued by the situation, but the person seems very...meh. The only part of this whole affair that is truly interesting is her Honey Boo Boo family.

I do find it funny that as someone who may or may not be fame desperate, I'd never heard of her pre-Harry. And I'm in "the biz".

R495 MM was actually very likable in her role as "Rachel" on "Suits". Very pretty and put together well. She really needs the stylists from the show on her payroll NOW!

She reminds me of the Jennifer Aniston character on Friends for some reason.

R496, I'd seen the commercials for the show, but aside from loving Gina Torres, never was inspired to watch an episode.

The show was ridiculous. A non-degree'd, non-accredited lawyer who's a legal genius?

Everyone in this saga is ripe for the fake-caption game. Jessica Rabbit's comes from Quora:

[quote]I got a dude to get 23 dances at double price because I said I might let him touch my vagina at the end of the next song. At the 23rd dance he said “you're never going to let me touch it, are you?” To which I said “I don't know, why not buy another dance and find out?” Which he declined and left, later returning for 3 more dances just to be sure.

R500 that made me LOL. Accurate.

In the still at r492, the middle photo looks like she has a jelly dong hanging out of the back of her dress.

Jessica is one of those women, like MM or Elizabeth Hammer or Louise Linton or wine women I know IRL, who is technically attractive but in a very generic cookie-cutter way.

And they are absolutely mercenary cunts. And men never see it.

I worked with a woman who looked just like Mulroney and you’re dead right r502. She was a cold, calculating cunt. She was useless at her job (end user tester) but fucked her way up the ladder. Every man she got embroiled with ended up damaging his career because of supporting her blinding stupidity. She just blithely went on to the next idiot.

There is an article in DM that calls MM a rebel for breaking all the rules in the Queen’s fashion protocol. I wonder if this is what MM wanted all along? Funny how awful Meghan looks in the one picture where she’s next to Kate, even though it’s not Kate’s best look by far. But other than that, I thought DM chose good pictures of Meg. Turns out she had some nice looks after all. Never appropriate, but nice.

Wow, trampling over a ninety year old lady who's her benefactor... what an inspirational person.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

She looks lovely.

Cute couple.

R506 Thanks for posting this wedding. I thought the bride's dress was beautiful. She needs the Clark Gable ears-pinned-back surgery, though.

She's getting hate on DM's comments for being Turkish.

What's with this trend of grooms having beard stubble at their weddings?

MM looks better in the dresses that Jessica Mulroney finds for her and the Suits' wardrobe stylists. But it is quite apparent that Jessica is pushing the orange bronzer, orange blush and coral lipstick because JM is wearing it in her SM. It looks awful on both women.

R478 According to her husband, Jessica practiced that stair sashay for a month. At the wedding, it looked so ridiculous and her butt rides very low on her body.

Charlotte is a riot. I like how she told the photographers who were outside Louis' christening as the RF left, "You aren't coming!"

Whoever posted on a different RF thread that the ungainly York sisters are better speaking in videos rather than still photographs was right. Eugenie did ok in her interview about human trafficking. Beatrice was very sweet in the interview that took place inside the Queen's renovated Welsh Cottage (playhouse) that Beatrice oversaw.

R492 Pippa's butt is low riding too. I never understood the praise.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R512 - there are two possibilities: (1) she didn't get the memo or (2) she just fucking doesn't care. I'm going with the latter excuse.

R512 Another poster (maybe an earlier thread), showed how Kate has broken those rules. Kate wears black tights, bare legs, and over-the-knee dresses when not on official RF business.

There's even a photo of Kate wearing an -over-the-knee summer dress, with no nylons or tights, and wearing wedgie shoes that the Queen hates and bans. There is a photo of Kate and William that was taken on the grounds of Buckingham Palace where Kate is wearing black wedgies, bare legs and a shorter dress. The Queen must have been away.

There's a million photos of Kate in the above-mentioned clothes and shoes.

R514 There's a difference between on and off duty.

Off duty they ca wear whatever they want as long as they don't look like Jessica Mulroney.

On duty, they must respect a protocol and there has been articles about the Queen being angry with Kate cause she didn't totally respect the protocol.

Meghan just doesn't give a fuck, Kate is trying most of the time.

I don't think the Queen "bans" anything - there are some broad rules that float out there in some mysterious ethosphere, that mostly have been disregarded since Diana. This is especially true of the "no black" rule, which Kate has more or less observed. There isn't the slightest evidence that the Queen hates wedgies, or trouser suits, and basically,

The DM is just stirring the pot until the next outfit comes along, lest the Great Unwashed forget that MM exists. If the Queen, who hates confrontation, was capable of "banning" anything, she'd have banned MM from entering the family and told Harry to grow up and if he wanted the totally unsuitable American grifter that badly, to give up his place in the line of succession and head for L.A..

Probably everyone, including the Queen, realises that the times have changed and the next generation will have to take responsibility for the increasing loss of mystique for the monarchy. And, after all, Harry is now well down the line of succession, so who cares? Ffs, MM showed up to the RAF's 100th anniversary celebration looking like one of the rich widows targeted by Joseph Cotten in "Shadow of a Doubt".

If MM didn't get a memo on that outfit for that occasion, she's obviously free to do as she likes.

R515 is correct: Meghan doesn't give a fuck - it's quite clear what she married Harry for, whilst Kate, as the future Queen Consort (and an Englishwoman, it must be said), keeps more or less inside the lines.

R514 you have never seen Kate wear any of that on an official visit. I don’t much care for her but I must admit she always looks appropriate for whatever she’s doing.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Rich people may like living like rich people but Meghan Markle was not a rich person. She had and has no money of her own. Her sugars try their hardest to claim that she made "millions" on freaking Suits, but she did not. Basic research will show you what her weekly salary was for her first EVER contract job, no name, featured role, not in every episode (or so I've read). She would not have reached 15k because no show pays what they don't have to pay, and it's basic cable. Just remember Jon Hamm, a no name but with far more credits than MM, got 20k an episode on premium cable until they sweetened his contract after it became a monster hit, and work back from there. Markle was also, at least it was rumored, continually living above her means, which one reason her sister Sam claims her dad paid her debts until she found Trevor, and, after Trevor, Corey. This is a lifestyle she wants to become accustomed to and never has been, but I think she thought it was going to be a lot more Middle Eastern yachting and couture and less English country frump and penny pinching.

I totally agree that all the articles about what the queen insists upon, bans, forbids, etc. are a joke. Nobody knows. I read "stockings are a must!" and see Eugenie without stockings. Of course Eugenie is otherwise suitably attired and groomed, and not wearing stilleto hooker shoes, so nobody notices. The no-color nail polish has been on white people trend for a long time; it's not queen-dictated, it's convenient. A neutral manicure is versatile and suitable for everything. The queen has also indulged her miscreant family members and enabled them, most particularly, and gratingly, making Harry a major when he quit because he didn't want to take the written part of the credentials he needed to earn his way.

Air Canada fucking sucks.

I agree that Meghan doesn't care about protocol, only about the attention she's receiving which, to me, makes her an asshole. You know she Googles herself, and can't be oblivious to the many articles written about her disregard for protocol. There's a difference between private life and public appearances. No one cares what Meghan wears when she's on a private visit to Canada. But the 'Hamilton' appearance was a benefit for one of Harry's charities, so she should have dressed more appropriately for that appearance. The York sisters are not on the Royal schedule so, for the most part, their appearances shouldn't need to follow the traditional protocol, unless/until they're making public appearances with the other Royals.

R512, I’m 47 and when I started working in a corporate environment, most of those points were dress code. Well, it’s NYC, so women did wear black. And trouser suits, but mostly not. (Interesting to note how many women still wear dresses. )

And those were the general rules for young women when I was growing up. Spaghetti straps were gauche; strapless was okay for some reason, but it had to be a very glamorous evening occasion.

Maybe they should bend the trouser-suit rule for MM, though. Her bird legs should not be seen.

"It is known Meghan is a known animal rights advocate" according to this article. Known by whom?

[quote]Meghan Markle: Royals ‘stunned’ as Prince Harry skips Balmoral tradition for his wife

[quote]MEGHAN MARKLE, 37, and Prince Harry, 33, recently visited Balmoral, the royal holiday home near Aberdeenshire, it is believed. However, it is said Prince Harry skipped a key royal tradition [grouse hunting] out of fear he would “upset” his wife.

Supposedly they're all animal lovers but they hunt.Hypocrisy runs deep in this family.

I think I read that the Queen likes grouse (to eat) and so it's probably on the Balmoral menu a lot.

As for Sparkle, her "I'm a vegetarian", with her "I cooked him a chicken dinner" conflicting stories means that she's eat anything that's put in front of her, as long as she doesn't have to pay.

She loves us.

I have been seeing #megxit on Daily Mail

Me too, r528

What does that hashtag mean, [R528]?

(I haven’t read the whole thread yet..)

Brexit .... Megxit: Meghan out of the BRF.

#megxit is a play, of course, on Brexit, with people predicting that Meghan will either fly the Royal coop, or be pushed out of it. There seem to be a lot of people pulling for it (at least over on the Daily Fail).

Thank you, [R531] and [R532]! I appreciate you explaining.

I liked her on “Suits” but in real life she does not appear to be a very endearing person.

Once you’ve read any stories about her personal relationships (cutting relationships off as soon as the person becomes “unnecessary”—as part of an overall life pattern) you can’t get the word “fake” out of your head when you see her.

R533 She's always acting, always aware of cameras, always playing coy. It must be exhausting to live like that.

Her "Can you see love?" was totally fake and for the camera.

There was no "awww" and nothing justified her young and coy "Di pose". She thinks she looks cute and demure when she just doesn't.

People (and dogs) who have outlived their usefulness are just dead weight and they’ll drag you down if you let them. If they’re not doing anything for you, it’s time to cut them loose and never look back.

Here’s your one chance, Flower. Don’t let me down.

Catherine's legs are more than "very good". I think they're better than Diana's.

I wonder how long Bogart's (or Guy's, I don't remember which one is supposed to be with her) lifespan is now there's some cute purebred puppy living with her.

Bogart is safe back in Canada, celebrating his narrow escape.

Guy is almost certainly pushing up daisies somewhere in the UK.

Guy is alive and has a new brother, a Labrador named Oz.

Could we stop acting like dogs are human beings?

This dog is not their "child" or the other dog "brother". It's just a dog.

That's an old picture of Meg and poor Guy, isn't it? Her hair looks different now. Is that how KP looks, in the background there?

It's an old pic.

Kate's legs are short, thin and athletic.

Some like that, some don't.

R540 No. We can't. It's impossible.

Dimwit wanted a copy that looked like Kate and Pippa . He.s been in love with Kate and after her Wedding with Pippa . . Sparkle fits the bill.

I think what PH wanted was to be seen as the "cool, modern royal brother", dashing off to Africa with a hot bi-racial wife at his side, as opposed to stodgy, boring Wills, with his predictable English Home Counties wife. He also said he needed to find someone who was used to media scrutiny, hence he picked a bi-racial actress. The problem was, he picked the wrong one. Someone like Emma McQuiston would have been perfect, but chances are, she wouldn't have had him either, like his past gf's.

R543, Kate’s legs are short? I’ll give you “thin” and “athletic”, but short?

Are you from that short-legend girl blog?

^^ short-legged

Is Kaiser really praising the idiots cause they adopt a "black" dog? Really?

I didn't know there was racism against black dogs....

Not even giving it a click, r549. But I’ll agree: Kaiser is a stupid cunt.

Kaiser would say anything to praise Meghan.

Adopting a dog is nice but a non-event.

Praising them cause the dog is black is totally OTT.

Thank you to everyone who joined in on the 9 Dangling Tendrils threads. I am taking a small pause from DL and won't be starting #10 thread. Carry On! :)

R545 I never saw that supposed chemistry between harry and pippa or harry and kate.

It always seemed friendly and sibling-like to me but what do I know. Stranger things have happened.

R547 Short in proportion to her body. Kate is quite tall for a woman and she has a long torso.

Notice she always wears heels. Those wedges, those nude pumps, those tailored dresses and note how she always wears dresses. Easier to hide short legs.

Btw, I think she has lovely legs but I can see why some wouldn't. Not everyone likes athletic slim legs. Some think it's too masc. Especially if you are already thin with no hips.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Felicity Jones or Claire Foy would have been great choices for Harry.Or maybe Lily James.I'd take them over Kate(and Meghan) any day of the week.But they probably wouldn't like a royal lifestyle and they're too talented and accomplished to give up their careers.

R554, I see your point. There are some photos of Kate which highlight her long torso and shortish (?!) legs. See photo.

Kate dresses her figure extreeeemely well. You’re right about the heels. She chooses circle skirts that accentuate her small waist and give the appearance of hips.

Dressing myself, I have to be realistic about my own body flaws (short torso, broad shoulders) and stay away from some silhouettes that Is love to wear. I think it’s hard for Meghan to admit that she’s not perfect and wants to wear what she likes, regardless of what’s actually flattering. It’s not easy to face those flaws. But like Kate, you can fool many people’s eyes with good choices.

Whoops. Here’s the photo of Kate.

R558 that photo is from before she got married when she was on the outs with William. She took up this charity rowing competition as a way of keeping busy and still being in the public eye . A short while later they got back together and she immediately dumped this project. Her excuse was that she'd be too busy planning the wedding. I wonder what her teammates thought of that.

R559 To be fair, compared to Meghan "hard" work to plan her wedding, Kate was certainly busy.

R554 - I agree - Kate has a longish torso so her legs seem short, but they're hardly "thin" or lacking in length, the woman is 5'9". Thin? Compare them to MM's legs before you use the term about Kate's pins, which are nicely curved, elegant, and look great in high heels and short skirts. She also has a small waist, something MM also lacks. But whoever said Kate's legs are better than Diana's is blind. Diana had legs like the great tapper Ann Miller - they went on forever and were, along with her beautiful skin and huge blue eyes, her most memorable feature. Kate isn't a patch on Diana - pretty but unremarkable. Diana wasn't a classic beauty, but she was striking in a way neither Kate nor MM can ever hope to be.

But as for the legs department: ask 50 women whose legs she'd rather be born with, Kate's or MM's, and get back to us with the results.

I haven't seen the #megexit bit on the DM, but I'll take everyone's word for it; but whoever they are, they're living in a dream world. MM is here to stay. Deal.

I don’t get the disparagement of Kate’s or Meghan’s legs. Yes, Kate’s are a bit shortish for her torso, but not critically so, and nicely shaped. Meghan’s are thin, but we live in a culture where thin equals beautiful, and her legs are actually well-proportioned. And anyway, who cares about legs wnen there is so much more that can be justly criticized before we even get to the lower extremities?

R562 - Thin doesn't equal beautiful when it comes to legs like MM's, which is why she's tried hard to deflect attention from them. Her legs are, by any standard, are awful. It's not as if she's a 5'10" model from the 1960s advertising Courreges boots and a mini-skirt from Carnaby Street. Patty Boyd had very thin legs, too, but somehow the effect in the short skirts was very, very different.

But you're right about the rest of her: but that's kind of the point. She has awful legs, no waist, boobs low-placed on her sternum, and from the back looks like a box. Which Kate, and the erstwhile 1960s icon Patti Boyd, emphatically did not, thin legs and all.

And whoever upthread mentioned her loud, "Can you see, my love?" to the husband towering behind her as being strictly for the benefit of the press, you're right on that, too.

Interestingly, when rumours began to become stronger on the cracks in the Wales marriage, Chuck and Di took their dog and pony show swiftly off to Germany, where in a crowd, Charles was heard to ask loudly, "Are you all right, darling?" The next day the papers all blared, "Charlie's Darling!" I remembered the incident because Diana for the occasion a yellow and black coat and hat loud enough to be seen in the dark - one of her occasional howlers.

Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

I can't get the word "fake" out of my mind when I see her without even having read anything. I thought it was cool that Harry was marrying a biracial woman. I thought what a lot of people did - oh, this is smart. It ticked all the boxes - she was experienced in Hwood and in front of the cameras, but was a terrible actress without much of a career to give up. Therefore this would be a comfortable transition for her - she wouldn't be jonesing to get back to Hwood. I didn't even mind her engagement outfit although I thought it was bizarre that they took questions standing across a pond in Kensington Palace garden, and I also thought her ring was generic looking. Those were the high points. She opened her mouth in the engagement interview and it was all over. Her fake little voice. "We were roasting a chicken!" "Is he kind?" The way they stumbled over the dating timeline and over the question about meeting families. She was trying SO hard to come across endearing, but you could see the mechanics. I re-set a couple of times to see how she'd do but then quit trying. She's fake, end of.

Nobody has heard from or seen Guy the Beagle since he broke both his legs. Markle put out one item on him, an interview with his original rescue organization where it was clear the organization was going on assumption about Guy's life in Britain and had no direct knowledge. It's assumed he was put down after breaking both his legs.

She's even acting in the third person. When she decided to let it be known she'd flown to Canada, the report was too precious for words. Meghan was "lovely". She had a glass of champagne and sipped peppermint tea. Then she watched the Book Club. She is so self-consciously twee when she tries to paint a picture of herself, although nothing beats, "She prays for him" about her father. All of this shit comes from Meghan.

Oh, funny thing, you know how she's always banging on about how she wants her freckles to show - don't photoshop them away? Well if you scroll through her bestie Jessica Mulroney's instagram, you'll come to an image where Jessica thanks the photog for "not photoshopping my freckles away". Markle is a copycat down to the last inch.

Kate's legs are long, incredibly well-shaped, and of course, strong. She has a long torso. Doesn't make her legs "short", which they are not.

R546 - Well, McQuiston was taken, and she's probably far too bright and far too sophisticated for Harry. She's probably immensely better off as Viscountess Weymouth and the future Marchioness of Bath than the Duchess of Sussex. She was born in London and her mother was an English socialite and her father a Nigerian oil magnate. She has more money than Harry and her title is, in its way, classier.

Harry's highly placed, certainly, but he's really just a dim ex-military guy with the veneer of money and class cloaking his essential dullness. MM is much more his speed than McQuiston who, from what I've seen of her, could chew him up for breakfast and spit out the pits.

And it's because MM is just his speed that I think they'll last, and the #megexit types need to get a grip on reality, absent MM turning out to be slightly crazier than I give her credit for.

But what do you think of her legs R563?

McQuiston would never have had Harry. Even when McQuiston breaks the rules, it's clear she KNOWS the rules and respects them, and any self-promotion or rule breaking is strategic, as with all the instagramming aristos. She's totally familiar with the world she occupies now - she grew up in it, was educated in it.

ITA Harry thought he'd increase his star power, being the unconventional, rebellious, popular brother with the biracial wife., further tying him to Africa. His biggest problem was he chose a fraud. Look at Wills. Not only is there real love between him and Catherine, but the Middleton family is an incalculably valuable value add both financially and emotionally. That is a great fallback for both of them. Harry, OTOH, married a woman who has completely cut herself off from her circle. All she has is Marcus Anderson and Jessica Mulroney, and whatever Mulroney is getting out of it (who knows, her husband is gay), she has her own family, and that family is not Meghan's. Meghan is still alone. The Mulroneys aren't going to adopt her. Markle is completely dependant upon Harry and upon her shady connections at Soho House. I think she hoped to leverage both in to real money, but good look to her at age 37 with Harry's funds tied up in a trust.

Harry's previous girlfriends - what a bargain he must have been. "Hi, I'm Prince Harry, very endearing, or so I'm told, with a low IQ and only passable literacy. If you hook up with me I hope your family has some excellent properties because otherwise it's a two bedroom cottage in Not Cot for us. I will cheat on you routinely, but expect your complete attention upon demand. I may also be bisexual although the BRF has sat on that ever since the "playful" Vegas and other pics were published. Rumors are I'm sterile - we shall see about that! Dad took me to a rehab center for two hours when I had a bit of an issue with drugs (only marijuana, never anything stronger, no no no never), and that sorted me completely. Hasn't been an issue since! I still love my whiskey and pints however." Even Chelsy, who always came off like the ultimate international beach party babe, got an advanced degree while dating Harry. He is outclassed among his own class. But he should have stayed away from Soho house.

But the thing is R568, Harry probably thinks he can play with the McQuistons. He thought he could keep pace with the Obamas. he's indulged. He was indulged by Chelsy for years, a woman far better educated and more accomplished than he. I don't think William is any whiz kid (Art History was too hard core for him and he had to dial it down to geography), but I think a whole lot more mature and not as intellectually lazy. Harry and Will's friend, Guy Pelly, married a well-educated American heiress and they seem happy. Maybe I'm naive, but Pelly has no title, so why would Lizzy Wilson marry him if he were as dim as Harry? Harry's been socializing above his mental pay grade for years, and I think he enjoys it and believes he is equal to them. Meghan comes off like the kind of person whose personal environment looks like a bomb hit it, and all she cares about is what's on camera. Look at the youtube of her when she was 18 - that is not "moving" mess, that is near horder slobbishness. Saw an instagram of her taking a picture of a vintage-y little place setting - but everything out of lens range was crumpled tissues, crumbs, etc. Look at her personal grooming - doesn't blend her make-up, doesn't clean her shoes, her nail polish is cracked. Harry probably doesn't mind being a dim slob himself, but he thinks he deserves better from his SO.

R571 - I never saw the photos you refer to, but certainly Emma, Viscountess of Weymouth, wouldn't have been seen dead out in some of the faux pas that Meghan Markle has ventured out in, in her attempts to look like royalty.

What some Americans may not get is that to many, the Windsors are a set of dumpy, second-rate middle-class German arrivistes, and the glories of the British monarchy ended with the Stuarts. The Windsors are the "muggles" of that daunting parade whose study in schools are the dreaded "Kings and Queens of England".

So whilst as things stand, Harry is cloaked by his position in the pyramid as it looks today, there are sectors of the ancient landed aristocracy - you know, people like the Cecils, the Norfolks, the Percys, etc. - who look down on the royals as just shadows of the Plantagenets, the Tudors, the Stuarts, and who count their own ancestry as going back to those days. McQuiston joined a far more impressive line, if you arsk me (which you didn't). But then, Viscount Weymouth wouldn't have given Meghan Markle a second glance, either. So it all has a certain logic.

I do believe I remember reading (II'm not sure of this and haven't looked it up to check) that after Pippa Middleton broke up with George Percy, the heir to the dukedom of Northumberland, Her Grace the Duchess of Northumberland said sniffily, "We didn't think she was quite 'wife' material . . . "

What a coup that would have been for Ma Middleton, eh? One married off to a future King and the other to the heir to one of the oldest most prestigious dukedoms in the stud book. I can only imagine Carole's reaction to Her Grace's comment . . .

Assuming I'm remembering properly, that is.

R572 here - I stand corrected: it was Pippa's ex, Alec Loudon, whose family sniffed about Pippa Middleton not being "wife material" because of the circus that surrounded her due to her sister's connection to the BRF, not the Northumberlands.

Alex's father was Sheriff of Kent, a very successful businessman, and the Loudon's were rumoured to be very old-fashioned and to be wary of Pippa's well known inclination to social ambition, and discouraged the relationship.

It gets quite Byzantine as you work your way through these little hierarchies, doesn't it? Meghan Markle was the recipient of an exceedingly fortunate set of circumstances.

R572, Not to be disagreeable, but since I'm barely familiar with the Viscountess of Weymouth, I Googled a bit, and I'm not sure about her fashion sense either. I mean, I realize this is for a 'themed party', but the very idea of a 'themed party' seems a bit dangerous. They've certainly caught Harry out, in the past.

Re Kate's figure - one thing I notice is that she has extremely broad shoulders, and a freckled chest as well. Every time I see her in a strapless evening gown, to me she looks like a guy, an athletic one at that.

They are all trash: do little to do nothing to you wish they would do nothing. Being from an old aristocratic bloodline, in this day and age, means nothing more than being inbred.

I can't resent her for being where she is. She worked damn hard to get there. But I don't see her staying there long. She loved using social media for namedropping and bragging about her wealth and status. What's the benefit of hanging out with the Clooneys if no one really knows you did it? What's the benefit of being photographed at huge social events if you're pressured to dress matronly. What's the benefit of starving yourself regularly and overexercising if you're expected to avoid showing your legs and shoulder blades in public? I think that even with the magazine covers, the vacations, and the expensive clothes, she's going to get bored very quickly, as she's not in control of her marketing/branding. (At this point, with all that's been published, she needs a whole team to do damage control.) Of course, she's going to wait until she gives birth to $t Diana's grandchild before she makes her exit. If she has Diana's grandchild, then she stays relevant; paps will continue to take her picture, and people will still care (tangentially) what she does. She'll collect alimony while she runs a lifestyle guru blog.

[quote] She worked damn hard to get there.

??

She's been hustling her whole life...and it paid off.

I wasn't bored.

Emma Weymouth colors outside the lines and can be racy, some might say tacky, but so are many other aristos - check out some of their instagrams. The point is though, she can clean up and play the role to perfection when called upon. It's second nature to her. She's at home in that world.

Middleton doesn't look like a man, Sugars need to get over themselves. "But Kate! But Kate! Kate Kate Kate!" Sit down, Jan. It's Markles' simpering, who me, faux dewy eyed, waify ingenue routine, her nonstop PR which is as twee as she tries to be (Peppermint tea! Prayers for daddy! Not a mean bone in her body! "Lovely". One glass of champagne. Book club! Watched the kids!) that has people hating her as Sugars well know. She's phony. And how you can set your watch, as soon as she and Harry exit anywhere, she runs her hand down his back for the cameras.

And yes, her clothing is ass. If she knew how to pull herself together - accessories, hair, hats, a lot of her clothes would work better, although nothing would save that aging Palm Beach socialite-esque GOAT dress she wore to the garden party.

R577 - you have her mechanisms backward although her motives are correct. More like "What's the difference if you hung out with the Clooneys or not (NOT, in her case) as long as people think you did?" Her stories are lies. BUT, if someone buys them, that's all she cares about.

R580 - "I wasn't bored." [Jennie Jerome]

I'll say. Harry must be a bit like Lady Randolph's second and third husbands, both of whom were younger than her son, Winston.

MM is probably already tracking younger sons of the aristocracy, just in case.

His mother was self-obsessed for a royal - leaving the dinner table before the queen, not coming down at all, all kinds of private protocol-breaking that the BRF had no answer for because the truth is they're powerless.

However, she moved comfortably in the royal world. She may have been on her guard during her engagement interview, but she was comfortable in the circumstances themselves - traipsing across that lawn on Charles' arm, Charles, who had dated her sister and whom she'd known all her life. I see photographs of her now and wonder why people didn't riot - she is dripping with jewelry and her clothes have that 1980s OTT fabulousness, BUT, she wore them very naturally, that was the key. She wasn't regal as such - it just looked and may have felt normal for her to have millions of dollars of diamonds and other gems everywhere whenever she went out formally. Heavy duty stuff. Compared to Meghan, when one looks back, her public comportment was faultless, umbrella polking in the arse included. She's dressed properly. She knows rank and how to behave. I think the most outrageous thing she ever did was debut a new, much blonder, longer hairdo at one of the major annual royal events - don't know if it was Trooping, an anniversary, RAF or what, but she was in white, diamonds galore, and of course the new hair took all the press. That was considered de trop and she was spanked in the press. However, the rest of the time she fit in.

Lovers, R583. That's the key.

Ps I also had tendrils.

R585 - I've always thought so!

Where do people think MM can go after this? The Mulroneys can't sponsor her forever - if she needs a place to stay in Toronto, she stays with them, albeit I think after all the social investment they made with her she is not connecting them to the BRF in any way - Kate & Co. managed to - faultlessly - participate in the wedding without once even glancing at the bride (or at Jessica Mulroney). Markle has no money of her own. I don't believe she's seen as the real deal,or someone who can be trusted. One might have felt Fergie was self-serving, and indiscreet, but that if she were interviewed she'd call it as she saw it. I don't think there's the same audience for how things went down with Markle. And is she really in a position to transition to an aristocrat, young or old? She lacks the charm, they seem to ignore her at the weddings she has attended. Is there a publicity mad, trashy kind of billionaire out there who'd see her as a trophy? Her own Ari Onassis?

R584 - But Diana only exhibited that behaviour AFTER she got the ring on. Like many narcissists, Diana was capable of controlling herself when necessary to pursue a goal, particularly when the "goal" is a person. Personally, and full disclosure I'm not a clinician, I think Diana's narcissism was clinical and part of borderline personality disorder. BPD types are notoriously capable of adapting and charming - up to a point. They are difficult to treat because they never think they are at fault, it's always someone else's fault, a symptom Diana exhibited.

But before Charles finally caved in, Diana did not break any or the rules, and her upbringing as a member of the landed aristocracy, and the Spencers' closeness to the throne, disguised a great deal. It should be said that there were people who saw through her much earlier, one of whom was the then Archbishop of Canterbury who, in the pre-wedding sessions, accurately sized Diana up as "an actress [sic] and a schemer". Her own grandmother was doubtful of the match.

The disguise, however, fell privately quite quickly after the wedding, at least privately. Charles probably didn't know what hit him in the months afterward when she began to throw tantrums and demand that every moment of his waking life be focussed on her. Publicly, of course, Charles didn't stand a chance.

It is one of the strangest hugely symbolic public relationships I have ever witnessed (from afar). But looking back, all the signs were there. We just either didn't see them or ignored them at the time.

[quote] I think the most outrageous thing she ever did was debut a new, much blonder, longer hairdo at one of the major annual royal events

It was for the opening of Parliament. She got a lot of flak for it. I didn't know this off the top of my head; it was posted in a previous thread.

[quote]The Princess of Wales chose November’s opening of Parliament to reveal a new, severe upsweep, thereby upstaging the Queen and her speech—and stealing the show. At a private party later that evening, Princess Margaret told the Queen she had let Diana make a fool of her.

I too was recently struck by the enormous amount of bling Diana wore; diamonds and pearls and other gems. Where did she get it? Did Charles buy it for her? I never really noticed it at the time, except she always looked wonderful. I guess we had all seen too much Dynasty!

Here's the thread for part 10. We are about there.

[quote]Where did she get it? Did Charles buy it for her?

Heaps of it will come from the Royal Collection.... some of it will have been bought for her as gifts. Recall, Meagain Markle's engagement ring is formed in part of diamonds that had been Diana's... so either they picked apart an existing piece to reset in the ring (which they did a lot) or, more likely, Diana had a number of loose stones kicking around. (The Saudis were always giving the royal family jewels.).

But the Royal collection is old and vast... it's a jewellery store unto itself. The pieces can often be worn in variations (a tiara becomes a necklace etc.) And the Queen is good about loaning it out.

We make fun of Fergie, but she is descended from Stuarts and Tudors, and is at ease in those circles. She- and her daughters- are in the mold of large, "jolly" highbred girls you see in Wodehouse. She's a cousin of Diana.

Thank you R552 for your work keeping the dangling tendril threads going! Hope you enjoy your break from DL and return full of snark.

Thanks very much, r594. Glad you enjoyed the 9 threads. I'm still here following like you!

Kate and Wills' cocker spaniel, Lupo, is a black dog. Did Kaiser miss that?

OR not a single part of Markles ring is Diana and Harry just said it was.

I don't trust a word that comes out of either of their mouths.

Whoever was helping Diana with her "speeches" released videotapes of these sessions where it seemed Diana would just ramble. I've posted this before, but in one ten minute stream of consciousness she slammed her sisters, her sister Jane in particular who was dating Charles at one point, Charles, the queen, her dad, all the while humble bragging til she was blue in the face. How it was all down to little her to stand up for the family, for herself, to her dad, to the queen, to Charles, to whomever during her life, because others were just insecure and cowardly. My fave was how she described her sister clinging to Charles' neck whenever Diana was around (Diana was sixteen or so) - implying either that her sister was terribly jealous/insecure or that Diana at sixteen and pudgy was just that alluring. The truth is though, that Jane is famous for publicly saying she did not love Charles and would never marry someone she didn't love. That ended that. Nothing to do with Diana, and that being the case, doubt she clung to his neck around little sis.

Kind of OT, but I'm still sort of dumbstruck that Diana was actually in love with Charles, no matter what a brat she acted during the marriage. I do believe those grand dames who say no, it was not Hasnat Kahn, but Charles that Diana pined for, even after divorce.

Charles' marriage to Diana is yet another example of the Queen's Achilles heel. She's lazy when it comes to her family. Her eldest son, known for moping about and pining, at age 32 becomes engaged to a freaking NINETEEN year old with whom he has nothing in common and with whom he had spent time only a handful of times But everybody approves because everybody knows the family. Insane.

Link Part 10 Dangling Tendrils.