British Royal Family Part 4: general gossip and information

Is it really too much work for you slobs to keep your Sparkle posts to the Dangling Tendrils threads?

Thanx OP!

Thank you for your dedication r1, you may pick up your gold-edged hall monitor sash and badge in the principal’s office.

Such original biting wit r3, you tedious shit bag.

You are most welcome r2.

More stories of Queen Mary on the grift, please!

More Grifty Mary stories!!

More on the Wessex's kids. Aren't they both a little "off?"

We have no evidence that the Wessex kids are off. Lady Louise had eye surgery to correct a problem. Every royal baby and child is rumored to have a disability. Every one. It's probably because the royals keep their offspring out of the limelight as much as possible and people assume the reason is a disability rather than a desire for privacy and concerns about safety.

Isn't your president Trump and his offspring a little "off?"

You need to worry about your own country that is falling apart, and your disgusting, lying, evil leader instead of wasting your time playing Gossip Girls.

Agreed r8, I’d be more concerned if they were trotted out daily as instahos like Kardashian spawn.

Sorry, had to bring this over: “I think Harry is a very emotional guy, and he wants so much to prove he can protect and support Meghan, and battle all the evils out here of racism, and other crap. He sees insults where none exist and he is always worrying and making sure she is treated with Respect when a lot of what he is doing is entirely misplaced and he over reacts to real and imagined slights. It must be exhausting to be him. Harry is probably a wreck now about the baby.”

I agree. And I believe Meghan is whispering in his ear the whole time. “They’re treating you like a child, Harry. See? They just did it again. They’re laughing at us, Harry. It’s because I’m black. And you have every right to the crown Harry. You’re a PRINCE. Act like one.”

R9, why are you posting on a gossip board?

Well, to be fair to MM, those palace courtiers can be total shits to deal with on a daily basis. They believe themselves to know better than the Royals, themselves, and they don't hesitate to demonstrate it. They gave Fergs absolutely hell while she was part of the family. They were setting her up to take her momentous fall. They fucked with Phil mercilessly when he first came into the fold after marrying Elizabeth. When she became Queen? They REALLY stuck it to him. Poor Phil. MM is still adjusting, no doubt, and if there's some friction because she's holding her own, then so be it.

Fergie needed no help in fucking up. Neither does Meghan, based on what’s happened thus far.

R11 I think maybe at first Meghan did goad him, and not necessarily intentionally. But he needs no encouragement by this point. He is ready to slay dragons whether they are real or not. Sort of like a shell shocked veteran. In a way, you can see the results of Diana's instability in him, and the turmoil those boys went through. William seems emotionally detached, as if he's walled off a lot of stuff.

He has probably filled the role he played in Diana's life, for Harry. As the older brother he was the kid who tried to calm Harry down, and help him keep it together. Harry is emotionally more volatile, and William is the one who sat outside Diana's bathroom while she cried and told her he'd fix things, remember? I think as William's relationship with Catherine matured, and William grew closer to the Middletons, they were like an oasis of comparative calm in contrast to what he'd grown up around.

At some point in the past five or six years, Catherine has probably told him to stop holding his brother's hand and let Harry get on with his own life. Especially after they started their own family. I think Catherine has a lot of compassion for Harry, but both William and Catherine are impatient for him to grow more mature and calm down.

I think they were hoping he'd found someone to help him with that. And maybe she does. I think in any relationship it doesn't work well at all if both partners a re emotional or temperamental. But in general I am very much interested in observing the dynamics between the two brothers. I noticed they seemed tense , not relaxed in the BBC special about their father. I've seen them more relaxed and the camaraderie was evident, in the past, but not so much this time.

It makes me sad, R15, as it seems Harry is burning every bridge for a woman who will ghost him.

Excellent analysis, r15. And I agree with r16.

"He sees insults where none exists"

Seriously, r11, do you think he's never read Data lounge?

Because, R12, a scandalous president, and an administration that is rife with corruption and lies, makes for fabulous gossip?

If you can't handle the heat, switch to a lighter weight cotton caftan.

Bringing this over from the end of the other thread:

[quote]I remember reading once that Queen Mary was visiting some aristocratic family, and saw a table clock there that had been a gift of one of the early Hanovers (maybe George IV) to a mistress of his, who was an ancestor of this family. Because the clock had once been the property of the Royal Family, Queen Mary considered it as still somehow belonging to them, and she asked for the clock back! They gave it to her, too. (Did she research the clock's whereabouts in advance? Is that why she went to visit them? The mind boggles.)

Now THIS is interesting!

Also interesting - Is QEII a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad?

QE is also a cousin to the Irish king Brian Boru line.

Its an island. Over many centuries, with all the fucking, everyone is probably related to everyone else at some point.

New stamp for Charles' 70th birthday.

They wanted it to be Charles, William and George. They even would have compromised on the tutu but George would not wear that shade of blue. It's times like these Harry's so useful.

[quote]R596 Queen Mary was visiting some aristocratic family, and saw a table clock there that had been a gift of one of the early Hanovers... Because the clock had once been the property of the Royal Family, Queen Mary considered it as still somehow belonging to them, and she asked for the clock back!

She sounds like a real cunt. What made her that way?

A firm belief that her husband was appointed by God to be monarch, and that she and her family were really, truly better than everybody else.

[quote]R1 Is it really too much work for you slobs to keep your Sparkle posts to the Dangling Tendrils threads?

Meghan IS the royals now. No one cares about the rest of that dimwit, cheap ass group with their sick blackamoor brooches.

Nobody has mentioned that Meghan's personal assistant suddenly quit after a mere six months? Reminiscent of how Prince Charles lost a lot of staff in the six month following his wedding to Diana. Do people really leave plum jobs at KP or for the royal family unless something is really amiss?

[quote] Kensington Palace declined to comment on the PA's departure. However, in what the Mail describes as a highly unusual move, a Palace source was authorised to pay tribute to the former employee. "Melissa is a hugely talented person," the source is quoted as saying. "She played a pivotal role in the success of the Royal Wedding and will be missed by everyone in the Royal Household."

R27, at first glance, thought the headline said “... Mounted By All Britain”!

Prince Edward's daughter Lady Louise through the years. She was born premature and had to have an eye operation.

I wonder if she left because of poor treatment or because of the loss of prestige in working for MM.

Queen Mary grew up poor and was only half royal. She was a greedy cunt.

Louise has certainly improved with age. If they'd only fix her teeth, she'd be a pleasant-looking young woman.

[quote]at first glance, thought the headline said “... Mounted By All Britain”!

No, that was Margaret.

R32’s photo montage reminds me of DannieLynn Birkhead. Poor thing.

What Diana knew is that those awful people working in the office are corporate drones. So she did her own thing.

R30 HaHaHa .........

How many people have been fired or "resigned" in the short time since Trump has been in office?

What do you suppose is that vindictive little brat's justification? Or should I say "excuse?"

The little Eve Harrington was probably whipping her top off in front of Harry, or something.

Too soon...

[quote]What do you suppose is that vindictive little brat's justification?

Who are you referring to? Meghan or the assistant?

What do you mean, R26?

Queen Mary used her utterly unassailable position to her own great advantage from the time she became Queen consort. No, I don't necessarily advocate for her rather ruthless scheme for acquisition, but it's comical just the same. Think about it. In no time flat, she earned a reputation for subtly bullying her aristocratic subjects into parting with some of their treasured material items, and she did so with no shame whatsoever. Again, picture the scenario - a family of aristos receive notice that Queen Mary would like to drop by for tea. Instead of being honored by the visit, they immediately begin the task of hiding their most treasured jewels, antiques, and family heirlooms in anticipation of her expressing a liking for them which meant she wanted them for herself. Think about how the verbal exchanges must have gone down. It's fucking hilarious which is why I produced my small series of gangsta Queen Mary, Hustler Extraordinaire series via these threads. During the course of her reign and likely the course of her lifetime, that old lady acquired enough shit to stock her own shoppe, I'm certain. She's a great source of fodder appertaining.

Queen Mary had an encyclopedic knowledge of the family's jewels, art, and furniture, and she had knack for finding out exactly what pieces had gone missing where over the years (like the aforementioned clock) and reacquiring them. Under that jewel-clad breast beat the heart of one helluva museum curator.

When her brother left the famous Cambridge emeralds to his mistress, Queen May marched right over and demanded them back. She most likely had to pay the mistress to get them back, but whether she did or not, and how much she might have paid, remains a mystery. More on the emeralds at the link below.

Lady Hudson as photographed by Cecil Beaton early 1920s. She was the one with the chairs painted by Angelica Kaufman which Queen Mary "acquired."

R27 I don’t think of her as a cunt. She was deeply insecure about her non-royal birth and being brought up impoverished - her family h ad to move to Europe from England to escape creditors where they were shuffled around between their rich and Royal relatives, literally the poor relations.

So I think it’s kind of fabulous that she landed the grand prize - heir to the throne of Great Britain - after being engaged to his older brother who promptly died, and then being reassigned to the next in line.

What’s also fabulous is that her husband who would become George V wanted her to look exactly the same way that she did when they met which is why she dressed as a Victorian/Edwardian lady all her life. And he rewarded her by purchasing millions of pounds worth of diamonds which she was always happy to wear ALL THE TIME. Check out the link.

Queen Mary had a fascinating life.

R41 I' m referring to that thing known as president Trump and HIS constantly disappearing staff. What does he do with them after they've been "relieved of their duties? Bury the bodies in the basement of Trump Towers NYC.

My favourite Queen Mary anecdote: At the wedding of her daughter Princess Mary, the writer EM Forster, who was short sighted, bowed to the iced and multi-tiered wedding cake thinking it was Queen Mary.

Such a resemblance between Queen Elizabeth II and her grandmother in the picture at R46!

I can't think about how times have changed. If the present Queen had arrived at someone's doorstep demanding her jewels back, the police would be called. People put up with a lot of shit from the Royal Family.

[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.]

R51 The Mail had to reward her for leaking the tiara story.

Quid pro quo.

Well, I was just going to post that interview, R51, as I found it interesting.

[quote]The vintage Manolo Blahnik bag Fergie held at the wedding belonged to her mother.

[quote]‘Mum had carried the handbag at my wedding to Prince Andrew and the admission tickets were still in it. They were green — which was why I wore green on the day.’ And the elderly woman in a wheelchair whom Sarah embraced in the crowd outside the chapel, was her mother’s friend, Jessie Huberty.

and Camilla was good friends with Fergie's mother. Does that mean that whatever issue caused Camilla to pass on the wedding had to do with Andy?

The Queen and other members of the Royal Family attended a Remembrance event at Royal Albert Hall this evening.

I, of course, would have sent the thank you notes promptly and properly.

R48, that anecdote made me LOL. Thank you for that.

Again, this is why I come here.

Look at the seating arrangement in the royal box. The BRF are nothing if not subtly overt in their unspoken statements.

Yikes. To the back with thee! Formally Harry has precedence immediately after Will’s kids, so that’s very interesting.

Sad that Philip couldn’t make it. I know he likes to hit the big events. And if there are incontinence concerns, he can easily slip out of this venue.

I assume Charles will be laying the soverign’s wreath at the Cenotaph in the morning, with HM on the balcony like last year.

I wonder if they switched seats, R58. I would think Harry would be seated closer to the Queen?

R55 what are the fake red flowers you see Brits wearing on their lapels in homage to?

War dead and they are poppies, R61

Remembrance poppies r61 to commemorate servicemen and women who died in all conflicts.

Hmmmm. Well England sure had a lot of CONFLICTS...as it colonized everything it could.

You are displaying your absolute stupidity, R64. Especially on this weekend.

I am not a Britt, so I am unfamiliar with their customs.

Do they observe Veterans Day on the same date we do?

Which you no doubt benefit from immensely, r64. Would you rather live in an Anglophone country or El Salvador? Yeah, I thought so.

Veteran’s Day and Remembrance Day both celebrate the armistice that ended WWI. It was a much much bigger deal in the Europe vs the US, so they conduct lots of ceremonies like the Festival of Remembrance and Remembrance Sunday.

She's thinking "You know, this gets old after the first few thousand times. FFS, can't an old lady just come in and take her seat unnoticed a time or two? And you wonder why I have a flask of Gin buried in his bouquet of flowers."

While Queen Mary seems imposing and haughty, Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) seems sweet and sincere. I saw her once in person and it was clear she was charismatic. There's a reason Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe.

In the picture in R58, everyone looks serious except the Duchess of Sussex, who is smiling. Is it because they are all dour and she's not, or because the occasion is serious and she doesn't get it?

R58 yes, clear statement from HM

I also noticed she is the only one smiling, she is always ready for her close up.

As she should be. Her new country is in love with her, and likes to see her happy.

She is also pregnant, the happiest and most beautiful time in a woman’s life.

No, she shouldn’t be smiling at a Remembrance Day occasion. They are always solemn.

Come on now. Teresa May also has toothless smile on her face. Andrew never smiles, and Camilla is sulking because the Queen ignored her again. Charles is having trouble with his bunions. Will and Kate are too busy wishing they were anywhere but there. Anne is always the same - the enforcer. The Kent guy dead center thinks it's his birthday celebration as he sings "Roll out the barrels......." And the Queen is tired of it all.

Camilla is in desperate need of a G&T and a cig.

William has a hard time hiding his boredom.

Looks like MM is wearing a sleeveless dress again at a solemn occasion.

R61, I hope you are not an American.

Because if you are you should be ashamed not to know about the poppies and their significance.

No, r76, PM May is not smiling. It is bad form on Meghan’s part. Just really out of place.

R34 is correct, Queen Mary's mother was a great, big fat person, even Jame Gumb would've passed on her. Mary's father was the product of a morgantic marriage, but, Queen Victoria was fond of Mary & the rest is history.

[quote]R81 but, Queen Victoria was fond of Mary & the rest is history.

Lezzie love?

I don't think so, R82, Victoria liked finding a bone in her fish.

[quote]R79 I hope you are not an American. Because if you are you should be ashamed not to know about the poppies and their significance.

Okay, I looked them up. We don’t wear those in America. We wear many different ribbons for different causes, and small flag pins, but that’s the only one i’ve seen Britts wear.

I thought they were also the logo for the Oxfam thrift store (a charity) but in retrospect maybe that store had just added some to their sign when I was in London once....which actually WAS one November.

We certainly did have poppies here in the USA. Veterans would sell them for a donation. I0 remember being a tiny kid and my Pa coming in from work with a poppy on.

American here.

Veterans still sell poppies around Veterans Day.

They can be worn or attached to the rear view mirror on your car.

But, yes, they are sold around this time of year.

Andrew looks as if he's ready to kill someone there. Anyone.

R85 / R86 I did not know that...thank you for filling me in.

Love the pic, R87.

Liz is channeling Queen Victoria with her"We are not amused" expression.

Someone must've stole Andy's candy.

Anne looks like she just spotted a small, furry animal she wishes to devour, Caw-caw!

Andy is likely not thrilled with his seating arrangement.

That picture at R87.

Only one person in that box is smiling. Clearly they've missed the point of the occasion.

I think that's simply Andrew's resting face.

We used to wear poppies. I think my mother would get them at the bank (?).

Are they singing a hymn? Well, some of them are. MM is smiling, so there must be a camera she’s spotted. Some have their mouth closed, but some look as though they’re signing.

The Remembrance concert and tribute event in London is very moving. It involves a performance by all the armed services bands, and they all sing " I Vow to Thee My Country." I love that hymn. McCain had it played at his funeral. So did Winston Churchill.

You know it occurs to me. The Brits snubbed Trump. Yes, Prime Minister Teresa May went to France, but not a single member of the Royal Family attend and this is the 100th anniversary. Someone should have gone. At the very least,Andrew. But no member of the Royal Family attended. I think they are avoiding Trump.

R95 Maybe that's what got Trump into such a snit!

Great long read, inside gossip about Prince Andrew

Well, R96, it didn't help. He's definitely in a snit. And I'm thinking/hoping it has more to do with indictments than whether he's snubbed by the Royal Family. I found it very interesting in the photos I saw in the Daily Mail of tonight's big dinner at the Musee' d'Orsay in Paris, it was couples night, and Melania was not there. Trump went, but she wasn't there. I'm wondering if he slapped her around and told her she had to stay home. He'd do something like that. Apparently there will be another ceremony tomorrow morning at the Arch de Triomphe in Paris and Putin is expected to attend. I would love it if Putin cancelled, or at least didn't have time for Trump. That would be terrific. Didn't Trump claim he invited Putin here? Said after things settled down with the investigation, etc. I wonder if Putin is scared of being arrested if he comes to the USA. LOL! That would be something. He's got sense enough to be scared of Mueller. Lot of stuff goes on and we rarely hear about it, like the Mueller people stopping guys as the get off planes. That's how they got Nader. Love it.

R95- Thanks for posting that. It was very moving. If I recall correctly, That as Diana’s only input on the music at her wedding to Charles.

Positioned on Outer Mongolia MerchAgain can’t see anyone’s faces to take a cue from and she doesn’t understand it’s a solemn occasion not a pap stroll that’s why she’s grinning like a manic coked up clown.

The two ladies on the far left are smilling, too...a performance is probably going on.

I like how William, Catherine and Harry are all trained not to look directly into the camera, but Meghan does, and it looks awkward. She seems to think she's still a TV star.

Whatever they are singing, only Anne, and the men on both sides of her, know the words.

R102 she isn't looking at the camera, she's looking looking the same direction as everyone else. Several people are smiling. It looks like some are singing along. Some look blank. Andrew looks really pissed. He has a very impressive RBF.

Is Andrew still Britain's Trade Ambassador? What does he trade?

Andrew is such a sleaze. That VF article doesn't even cover everything.

[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's an old article. Andrew was removed from his position as Trade Ambassador . He was hit with a one/two punch. First the photo emerged of him with the young girl, and then hanging around with Epstein. Then Fergie got busted in an influence peddling pay for play scheme all based on her being able to get some sleazy business guy a meeting with Andrew and make some deals.

It sort of ripped the covers off both her & Andrew. Fergie was disgraced and banished, Andrew was stripped of his position as Trade Ambassador, and was not included in several important balcony scenes. In fact he was sort of persona non grata for a couple years until the worst of it had blown over. People say Andrew is The Queens favorite, but sometimes with the kid who causes the most trouble, the one you have to keep an eye on constantly, it's not because you favor them, it's because you're scared to death what may happen next.

Don't know how it all works but with staff resigning, I think any number of things could have happened. It's easy to assume well, Meghan is a diva and she mistreated staff. But all kinds of other options abound. For instance, maybe Harry just imposed certain stafffers on her. Maybe some of the women lusted after Harry and resented her. Maybe she got assigned the dregs or the leftovers and they didn't suit her. The thing is, as I recall, Staff at KP or throughout the Royal household and administration gets rotated. Reassigned. And clearly these three "resigned." So IMO, they were either new and found the tasks onerous, or they were fired for cause. I say they got fired. For cause.

R108 Yeah I'm still surprised he managed to survive all that thanks to HM. I doubt that anyone will ever be exposed in such a way again or top his antics over the years. I imagine that from their point of view any other crisis that could come up would seem small in comparison.

Fired for cause r109? And that would be why KP made the unusual step of praising “Melissa” to high heaven? Both women and one guy who quit ALL lusted after balding ginger Harry? Bullshit. Three people quitting within 6 months sounds like it’s a hostile environment.

They are lumping 'three' staff defections together for the article, but really only two of note have recently occurred: Melissa and Samantha Cohen. Edward Lane Fox left months ago, long before the wedding I believe.

They were unsuitable.

Probably the staffers were caught trying to sell insider info to the tabloids.

Meghan’s the hottest news to hit Britain in a century, and everyone’s looking for their 5 minutes.

Samantha Cohen was the queen's assistant private secretary for a long time. She resigned following Christopher Geidt's resignation. She was assigned to MM to teach her royal protocol for 6 months.

R115, thanks for that information. I suppose it’s possible she was fired, but much more likely she quit after that assignment.

Frankly, she should have been fired in view of MM's continued gaffes. I can only assume MM ignored her direction.

People working for The Firm do so for the prestige, as it's well-known that the wages are minimal and the protocol tiresome. To say nothing of having to navigate the arrogance and nastiness of courtiers. For many, a changing of the guard, as it were, provides the opportunity to escape that nest of royal vipers for a far better paying, more pleasant gig.

Highly doubtful r114. Please - Samantha Cohen sell info to tabs? MM is not the second coming.

Well, she’s revitalized the monarchy, and got both the UK and the US populations interested in it again.

#You’reWelcome

I think Andrew and Fergie are the most likely culprits of tiaragate as revenge for MM's showboating at their daughter's wedding. The fact that Fergie didn't mention HazBean once in her syrupy interview is telling.

Meghan did not revitalize the BRF.

R122, she did, in a way - she certainly boosted Kate and Wills' popularity.

[quote] But all kinds of other options abound. For instance, maybe Harry just imposed certain stafffers on her. Maybe some of the women lusted after Harry and resented her. Maybe she got assigned the dregs or the leftovers and they didn't suit her. The thing is, as I recall, Staff at KP or throughout the Royal household and administration gets rotated. Reassigned. And clearly these three "resigned." So IMO, they were either new and found the tasks onerous, or they were fired for cause. I say they got fired. For cause.

Perhaps the most clueless person ever to post on Datalounge, if it recognizes where it crashed into. Not just clueless to herself, her peers, and others, but just fucking weird in the general scheme of things. Is this for real or a DLer trying to troll the shit out of the fucked up mid-life frau obligates who crash in occasionally?

I doubt this woman was fired for cause.

It says right in the article the woman was leaving, but stayed for an extra six months to help MM.

[quote]R124 Not just clueless to herself, her peers, and others, but just fucking weird in the general scheme of things.

You believe Samantha Cohen was all these things?

I have mixed feelings about Sparkle. On one hand, you have a obscure, American actress who somehow married into the British royal family, I'm like "Well played, Toots, well played"! But then, there's all that belly-clucthing & announing her impending motherhood the day after Eugenie's wedding (a cunt move on Meg & Ginger's part). Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

"clutching", not "clucthing".

It's a shame that Samantha Cohen's long career with the RF is ending on such an inglorious note. She was tasked with bringing MM up to speed and all that's happened is that MM has brought herself, PH and possibly the BRF in disrepute. It is likely that she did her job as well as possible, but MM was either too stupid or too stubborn to take advice.

Can Her Majesty be fired for teaching the guards how to dance the Virginia Reel?

I didn’t see Meghan or Sophie on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office balcony and the Whitehall Cenotaph ceremony.

The Queen was there, along with Camilla and Kate.

Trimming things down, I guess

On the bright side, Harry wore his Captain General of the Royal Marines uninfor the first time. Love the cap. So much more spice than boring old Will’s highest ranking uni. Harry still needs to get that Royal colonel position of the Blues and Royals from his aunt tho

Somber but 🔥🔥🔥

What is striking from that article is that Ms. Cohen clearly has an idea as to how to dress - her clothes are appropriate and flattering. MeAgain used whatever knowledge was imparted to stick a thumb in the eye of the RF. There has been a tsunami of stories glorifying her, trashing Catherine and extolling her rx with Charles. Not hard to see where those came from. Will they continue? Or will her means to sow dissension be curtailed?

I think we sometimes overlook or underestimate the Palace staff for skulduggery and intrigue. Clearly this Samantha had already planned to leave, and extended her stay by six months to help the Sussexes. Robert Lane Fox left much earlier. So it doesn't seem like they resigned because of stress, at all. There's a hierarchy and a lot of back stabbing, pettiness, and double dealing in the palace and much of it comes from the staff. I know. I watched the Crown. That Tommy Lascelles and Elizabeth,the Queen Mother plotted and schemed a lot...and all "for the good of the Crown." Oh, and I agree that Tiaragate leak is the Revenge of York!!!! Fergie, Eugenie, and Andrew. Definitely. Especially given that Eugenie wore an emerald tiara at her wedding. Personally, I think the tiara would not have worked as well on Meghan. All Icansay is that if Harry is worried about Meghan fitting in, he needs to school her on what's expected and he should have made absolutely clear before the wedding. She loves all the media attention, but the reality is going to sink in now the hoopla is over. Meghan is always going to be second row or toward the back, and always on the "other balcony." That's the established pecking order. It's The Queen, Charles then William. Period. And Meghan doesn't take precedence right now at least, over the Princess Royal.

I bet Fergie and Andrew are general troublemakers and shit stirrers. I think their daughters also have some cattiness, but not nearly as lethal as mummy's. Edward and Sophie know how to navigate that minefield. Harry should take note. I think William and Katie have it figured out too. Right now Harry andMeghan have a target on their backs so they need to be more circumspect.

"I Vow to Thee My Country" is a hymn set to the music of Jupiter by Holst. Check out the b&w newsreel footage of Churchill 's funeral on YouTube. Near the end, his coffin is on a barge going down the Thames and as it passes the docks of East London, the cranes all lower, it looks like they are bowing. Incredibly moving.

So the order of succession will be Elizabeth -> Charles -> William -> George, unless, of course, there is an abdication, assassination or revolution?

^ Yes.

R138, you are correct, except you have not mentioned the possibility of one predeceasing another (e.g., Charles before Elizabeth).

George followed by Charlotte and Louis until he has an heir of his own. After Louis I'd become a republican rather than face the alternative.

So in what year will George probably become King?

FYI, "Republican" in Britain means a person who does not want a monarchy. It is no relation to what "Republican" means in the US.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

So George is required or expected to marry a woman and father a kid?

Given how long Windsors live, it's quite possible George won't be king until near the end of the century.

Of course, Harry and William are, by all reports, heavy smokers, so that might change things a bit.

Given the recent tabloid reports on Meghan's behavior, I'm betting now that Kate will pop out at least one more kid, to put the succession beyond the Sussex reach once and for all.

[quote]T135 And Meghan doesn't take precedence right now at least, over the Princess Royal.

Except with the public. And the queen.

Sure, 148, the Queen values her own daughter less than her ill-mannered granddaughter-in-law of six months' vintage.

R148, put down the crack pipe. Really.

William smokes? I know Harry does - lots of photos - but I never knew William did.

R148, drugs are bad, mkay ...

[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 dockworkers were paid to lower the cranes because it was a Saturday. They weren't too fond of Churchill anyway.

[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.]

Four princes - Edward, Andrew, Harry and William.

Wearing a French designer while “honoring” British dead.

What a stupendous cunt.

Does anyone know the uniform that Edward is wearing? Is that the coat of the RWY? The blue collar seems new.

Where is Sophie?

Precedence is not written in stone. As much discussed, the Queen recently updated the rules around the blood princesses, it is reasonable to expect the new King will do the same in due course. I can see him creating a status for his sister where she takes precedence or ranks equally with the new Prince and Princess of Wales. She is much respected. But she's a pro. If Charles makes her curtsey to Meagain (assuming she's still around come the day... the Queen is surely good for at least another five years), Anne would handle it like a pro, do as required and not bat an eye.

Sophie was there. Another balcony. Go to Getty Images and you see who was about and where. There's an image out now of Kate and William walking out of Westminster Abbey, side by side, looking dignified. Behind them trail Dum and Tag, holding hands, her smirking. She thinks it's all one big set.

And she got booted to the second row during the service.

Neither Anne nor Margaret EVER curtsied to Diana, so......

You're all a bunch of #Cluck🐔Things

Anne, the Princess Royal, will never, ever curtsy to Meghan, and Charles would never dream of making her do so. Someday Anne might curtsy to Queen Kate of her own volition, but that's a totally different situation.

They will all do as they’re told, or the checks stop coming.

It’s not like any of them are going to go out and actually get a JOB.

Me! shunted to the side at the annual Remembrance Day observance.

Nobody tells Anne what to do, R165. Even if Charles could, he's not going to make his sister, a blood princess, curtsy to his social-climbing American daughter-in-law.

Me would have precedence over Anne if she was with Harry at an event though, once Charles succeeds. If she’s by herself no, Anne would have precedence since she’s of The Blood.

Remembrance Day Tributes

Wasn't there some story about Diana and Remembrance Day? Either she didn't go or she turned up late?

She arrived after the Queen and wearing a dress that wasn’t completely black. Both major no-nos.

It’s said that she was suffering some major post natal depression at the time after William’s birth.

Lol DataLounge gets such a hard-on over the curtsying of women (sigh). Posters in these threads make up elaborate Dynasty-like scenarios of drunken princesses in evening gowns sneering at each other as they curtsy when one enters the room.

Folks, the BRF might line up per the order of precedence, but standard operating procedure for bowing/curtsying is that no one bows to any other member of the royal family except for the sovereign, the sovereign's spouse, and dowager queens. That's it. It really is that simple. Otherwise it would be a complete clusterfuck of people bowing and curtsying all over the place.

[quote]Otherwise it would be a complete clusterfuck of people bowing and curtsying all over the place.

I'd sort of like to see that, though.

Oh FFS, let's all join hands and curtsy together while delivering a reggae version of "God Save the Queen."

Kate and William both smoked. I imagine they stopped when she got pregnant. my sister made me stop when she got pregnant because she puked at the mere hint of Cigarettes.

Kate has the face of a smoker.

Yes, R176. If you notice, Kate and her mother both have bad skin because of smoking. Look all they have to do is look at Camilla. And I'm not joking. The ravages of too much alcohol and the chain smoking have taken a toll. Camilla was never a beauty, but she could have been a handsome attractive woman. I like her taste in clothes most of the time for state occasions.

Booze and smoking also aged Princess Margaret early.

Margot got sloppy in old age. burned her legs severely in a hot bath. Old sot.

^The water was so scalding hot that both her feet were stuck to the bottom of the basin. How the hell does that happen?

Didn't Margaret develop diabetes at some point? She couldn't feel how hot the water was because her circulation was so fucked up. Or maybe it was nerve damage from all the drinking.

Well, r180....you start drinking at an early age and don't stop, really. Then when your old, say late 60s, maybe you have neuropathy. You run the water so hot that you don't notice it when you stick your feet in. WHen you try to get them out of the basin, the soles of your feet come off. You're more scared than hurt -- the nerves died long ago. You scream, but only for another drink. Your lady-in waiting comes in and see's what's happened. Then the screaming really starts.

She was drunk, of course. That’s how she could burn her feet so badly.

The ugliness spewed at the Duchess of Sussex on this thread is sad. The thing I keep telling myself about the depth of racism in the human race is that, well, at least we know about it. During the Obama years many of us believed the human race was evolving a bit more quickly and things were headed in a peaceful, more harmonious direction. But that was all temporary, and now we know just how bad racism is among humans. At least we can contend with it head-on.

It has nothing to do with her race, and everything to do with her personality. Perhaps she will change once she has a child.

It has a lot to do with her race. Let’s call a spade a spade. Same with President Obama. But she’s got other factors too like the weird fashion mishaps and the tendrils and the awful father and sister etc.

What a coincidence! (No.) There was just this VERY same discussion on the latest Dangling Tendrils thread! Can it please go live over there instead? I want to hear more about Margaret's melted feet.

I doubt Margaret ever drew a bath in her life. A servant does that (if they do for Charles and others in the BRF, they did for Margot). And they use a thermometer to check the temperature. I'm sure it was a lie to cover up some drunken accident.

Good point r188

So why is Fergie vilified? She’s white. First it was her weight, then her lack of breeding, then her affair . . .

Kate was criticized for her lack of royal duties and her mother’s unfettered ambition.

I could provide other examples.

I don’t believe Meghan’s race is the issue. She just seems so self centered and insincere. Her relationship with her father doesn’t help her cause.

[quote]I'm sure it was a lie to cover up some drunken accident.

It must have been one hell of an embarrassing accident to top searing the soles of your feet off in a scalding hot bath.

Well, having an affair while 6 months pregnant (Fergie and Steve Wyatt) is a reason to be vilified. Grifting whore!

Fergie was vilified long before her affair.

Yes, that was just an example, dear. Fergie was always a vulgarian.

And she was criticized for it, despite her race.

Diana was criticized in her earliest appearances as well.

The point is, it’s par for the course, so I reject that the criticism Meghan faces is due to race.

Look. One thing you have to remember. With Fergie, Andrew, etc. The Palace, the staff, the RF, they all know about this stuff and try to keep a id on it for weeks or months before the public finds out. It is a rare thing to know something at the same time or ahead of the Palace. Diana's accident being the exception.

[quote] The Palace, the staff, the RF, they all know about this stuff and try to keep a id on it for weeks or months before the public finds out.

Of course, but they DO know about it.

And given the steady stream of PR stories with a glowing slant for Harry's wife, together with the unpleasantly nasty behavior behind the scenes, makes the unveiling of these stories about her true behavior all the more telling. She's had plenty of time to get her act together and it's been obvious for quite some time that she has no intention of doing so. Did she think that any bad behavior of Hers would be hidden in the same way bad behavior of life long members of the RF would be hidden? Who, with any sense, would really believe that?

[QUOTE] , then her lack of breeding

This was never an issue for Sarah, her pedigree in the landed gentry was very respectable.

She was criticized in papers at the time. I remember it.

Yeah, race is not the issue with MerchAgain Markle. She’s a slovenly, demanding attention whore, THAT is why she gets dragged. Her barely-tanned skin is not the reason. I had no clue who she was when she first turned up but if I’d had to guess I would have thought maybe Mediterranean of some sort.

[QUOTE] She was criticized in papers at the time. I remember it.

I don’t remember that at all. She wasn’t the daughter of a Peer but she was descended from Peers on both sides of her family, and her father was tight with Philip and Charles because of his involvement with polo. She’s also descended from Charles II just like Diana and Camilla are. The royal family knew Sarah as a child.

I know all of that r201. I just remember that as a criticism of her, particularly in contrast to Diana.

Someone has selective memory. Duchess of Pork anyone?

Yes, I remember that. Her spending was criticized, her lack of formality, her “vulgarity”, and on. I really don’t think Meghan’s biracialness is an issue.

and I’m telling you that I don’t remember her family tree being an issue. The vulgarity, weight, familiarity, etc yes THAT I remember.

Her father was fine but, her mother was a bolter, like Diana's mother was. The other criticism was that Fergie had been a chalet girl. It was spun that, unlike virginal 19 year old Diana, Fergie had a bit of life experience. She had an older boyfriend too, like much older. But officially, she was a breath of fresh air and not mopey like Diana. The tabloids had a great time alternately tearing her down and then building her up always in comparison with Diana.

I recall she was criticized for being poorly educated (secretarial school, was it, not a higher class Swiss "finishing school" like Diana ?) and worse for being spoiled goods who was kept by not one, but two men and benefiting financially from them:

[quote]During her youth she dated Kim Smith-Bingham, a stockbroker, and Paddy McNally, a motor racing manager 22 years her senior.[5][8] She lived with both men.[9]

She would not receive the same benefit of the doubt as the younger and "virginal" Diana.

Is a chalet girl the snowy mountain version of a yacht girl?

The Diana lovers here too alternatively like building up and tearing Fergie down. The Diana Girls here are the anti Meghan Mean Girls. And no, they’re not British. They’re middle aged white gay American men who shrieked loud when Diana died!

[quote]Her father was fine but, her mother was a bolter, like Diana's mother was.

I don't know about Sarah's mother, but I think it's unfair to characterize Diana's mother as a "bolter." Diana's father was a neglectful alcoholic who routinely had affairs and expected his wife to tolerate his bad behavior, roving eye, neglectfulness and numerous indiscretions, often with the women who were in her social circle. One can argue that it's what aristocratic women signed up for at the time for a "life of luxury," for it was incredibly painful for Diana's mother. What you call "bolting" is a woman who did not have the resources or social cachet to fight for her children. She left her marriage mostly bereft while the dissolute Johnny Spencer controlled the purse strings and access to the children by virtue of his birthright. It's no doubt that he neglected his children as he denied their mother access to them. It's in all of Diana's biographies. She acted out by tormenting her "mother substitutes," the nannies who kept getting fired. The late Earl Spencer lived in one part of his palatial estate, as his children and caretakers were kept in another wing and rarely saw them. Yet, his unloved ex-wife who did not have the resources or the social backing to fight for her children was painted as the wicked woman.

Sorry for the temporary derailment of the Diana / Fergie discussion, but I'm headed off to bed and wanted to get this question in. Does anyone think Philip screwed Margaret at one time? Or do you think he was smart enough not to touch her, as it would be the one thing HM likely could not forgive of him or of Margaret. Margaret was so jealous of her sister, I can't imagine she didn't at least try her damndest to get into his pants. I think I asked this before, but can't remember the consensus.

I don't think Philip had an affair with Margaret. That would have been just too much for either of them. There were LOTS of allegations that he had an affair with Princess Alexandra, the HM's beautiful and regal cousin Princess Alexandra, the daughter of the dissolute Prince George, Duke of Kent and Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.

From Prince Philip, his flings - and the Irish connections, The Independent (Ireland), 2004

Queen Elizabeth has consistently maintained a stoic silence in the face of claims that her husband has been having affairs. However, a new biography reveals that there may be some substance to the rumours.Myles McWeeney reports

From the Duchess of Abercorn and the Countess of Westmorland to Princess Alexandra and the Countess Bonnie Frescobaldi, this is a list of names that could be a roll-call of the most celebrated aristocratic beauties of the past 50 years. However, the women have another connection - they have all been linked at one time or another to Prince Philip.

As the man married to one of the world's richest women, Queen Elizabeth II, Philip has often taken a role in the background with the popular image of him as a bumbling incompetent whose greatest contribution to public life is putting his foot in his mouth. But a new book by TV presenter Gyles Brandreth investigates the rumours that Philip has been a serial philanderer.

Brandreth shines the spotlight on Sacha Hamilton, the Duchess of Abercorn, in particular. She is the daughter of Lady Kennard, reportedly one of the Queen's closest friends, and she married her husband, James, the Duke of Abercorn, when she was just 20 years of age in 1966. The two families are close, and Abercorn was appointed Lord Steward to the Royal household in 2001.

The slim and very attractive duchess, who lives with her husband on a 5,500-acre estate near Omagh, Co Tyrone, is a descendant of both Alexander Pushkin and the Romanov Grand Duke Michael of Russia and is therefore a distant cousin of the Queen. She told Brandreth, a former Tory MP, that she had an intense friendship with Prince Philip from the late 1960s through to the late 1980s.

"Our friendship was very close," she was quoted as saying. "The heart came into it in a big way. There's a hugely potent chemical reaction in him. It's a highly charged chemistry. We were close because we understood one another," the duchess reportedly said. "It was a passionate friendship, but the passion was in the ideas. It was certainly not a full relationship. I did not go to bed with him. It probably looked like that to the world. I can understand why people might have thought it, but it didn't happen. It wasn't like that. He isn't like that." But not everyone believes her denials of sexual intimacies with Prince Philip, particularly since their names were first linked in 1987 when a newspaper published a sensational picture of Philip, wearing a towel, with his arm around swimsuit-clad Hamilton.

Sarah Bradford, a historian and biographer who 10 years ago published a biography of Queen Elizabeth II, is quite adamant that the relationship was physical. She also asserts that Prince Philip has had numerous other affairs, but not with the famous women he's been associated with in tabloid newspapers over the years, women such as the exotic-looking film star Merle Oberon or British singer Pat Kirkwood.

"He has affairs and the Queen accepts it," she told Brandreth. "I think she thinks that's how men are. He's never been one for chasing actresses. His interest is quite different. The women he goes for are always younger than him, usually beautiful and highly aristocratic."

More than any other royal biographers, Bradford is in a position to be au fait with the gossip and innuendo of the inner circle of Buckingham Palace. In her private life, she is the very well-connected Viscountess Bangor.

More at link

During her mother's divorce, Diana's own grandmother (and friends with The Queen Mother) testified against her own daughter. Despite knowing he was a mean drunk that beat his wife.

No wonder Diana was so fucked up. Any info about her sisters and brother? I know her brother's been married about 4 times and wouldn't let Diana stay at her childhood home.

Do we think Big Liz ever had an orgasm?

The descendants I don’t worry about. But HER...?

Diana's grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was part of the Queen Mum's court as both Woman of the Bedchamber and Lady in Waiting.

R215 One of Diana's sisters suffered from anorexia.

From r213's list of Philip's alleged mistresses - Countess Bonnie Frescobaldi - I bag as my drag name.

Didn't need to dig too deep to find another potential drag name from Philip's hareem of upper class tottie: MISS HELENE FOUFOUNI. Spectacular names and what a philanderer (allegedly).

What about Philip's four month long tour aboard the royal yacht Britannia? Wasn't this during his anti-amoeba campaign when he railed against Elizabeth's courtiers about his diminished role in the family and demanded their children be named Mountbatten-Windsor? Please don't try to sell the idea that he was chaste for those four months while his wife the Queen held the fort back at Buck House.

R220, that is Hélène Cordet. Born Helena Foufounis, she changed it, no doubt because 'foufoune' is a French word for vagina.

Perfecto - thank you r222.

I'd completely forgotten that Fergie has an older sister living in Australia and three half siblings. They stay completely out of the limelight although I'm sure they attended Eugenie 's wedding.

I think Fergie’s family distanced themselves from her after one of her books alleged her mothers alleged abuse.

“He caressed my backside,” she continues. “I had heard that he was famous for his ‘admiration’ of the ladies, but I didn’t expect him to be handling my booty. As handsome as Prince Philip is, I wasn’t sure if he was making a pass or just exercising some royal rights to squeeze the foreigners.”

- Debbie Reynolds

I doubt Prince Philip was interested in Debbie. He already had someone bad in bed at home.

Whatever. The Queen had the benefit of seeing a stable happy marriage of her parents. Allegedly squeezing Debbie Reynold's bum doesn't make the case for a serial cheater. I think while Philip was certainly a flirt who appreciated a pretty woman, I don't think he acted on it. And in those instances where he was "in danger" British Security and Intelligence officers were there to keep him on track. Maybe watching The Crown is a poor reference to cite, but I believe that during the Profumo scandal, for instance, there was Philip going to see that doctor, Steven Ward, and the doctor was pushing drugs and women and his "practice" was a front for that. Once British Intel got wind that Philip was a patient, they intervened. That had the ring of truth , IMO. So did the wildness and partying with his lunch groups and his Aide, Parker. What happened there was essentially true and documented. Parker 's behavior and his indiscretions his letters, etc were scandalous especially for the time, and He had to be let go. I think according to the standards of the time, flagrant cheating divorce, etc were anathema to the Royal family. Not saying it didn't happen obviously because King's had mistresses, and Princelings did drugs and ran wild, but Elizabeth's parents were symbols of rectitude and once Edward VIII abdicated they promoted a very high standard of decorum. Philip was not stupid. His wife had the whip hand. She could either elevate him and celebrate him (which she did) or he could make discreet appearances now and then to remind us they were married, and she could have done her "queen-ing" solo for the most part, as long as he showed up for state occasions. In point of fact if were not a good husband and father she could have sent his ass on a lot of 6 month or even 12 month "tours." I just think all the gossip about Philip being a philanderer is over blown. They do love one another and that has been made abundantly clear for years and years.

R227, several biographies have pointed to the Queen being quite the little sex-driven minx in her younger days. So much so that Phil took to hiding from her, complaining "She's always at me (sexually)."

Was he complaining or humble-bragging?

R213 It should be pointed out that Bradford has since retracted her claims that Philip had affairs. She surmises that Philip enjoys flirting but that she no longer believes it went any further. I think it's very possible Philip had an affair(s) in the mid to late 50s when there was tensions in the marriage over the Queen's new role and the way he was treated within the Palace. However, numerous biographies have pointed out that the Queen and Prince Philip had a very happy sex life. Indeed, as others have stated Philip openly complained while he and the Queen lived in Malta that she couldn't get enough of him. There is one biography I read about the Queen (I can't remember which cause I've read a few) but a former Dean of Windsor is on record as saying that the Queen is no prude and enjoyed her sex life with Philip.

She never did blow jobs or anal. Of course Phil got some on the side.

God help us when these two adulterors take over the throne.

Charles isn't worthy to be King. He's not worthy to shine his mother's shoes.

Louis gets a cover on Hello!

I think there's too much smoke around Philip for there not to be some extramarital fire, though I agree it was probably over with decades ago. He is pushing 100, and testosterone starts to dip in the late 40s/early 50s for most men, which is when some philanderers settle down.

I always got the impression that Philip is the more emotional/sentimental of the two, despite his gruff exterior, while the Queen is more shy and reserved. Ceratinly if you read the letters Philip wrote Diana he really is much warmer than he comes across. Behind the scenes I think the Queen depends on Philip a great deal and he is really her rock. Certainly the perception is that while the Queen is head of state, Philip is the head of the family and he "wears the pants" at home. I have noticed that since Philip retired, the Queen comes across a little lonely at her public events and less talkative. I also think she's noticeably aged over the past year and that might be from not having her partner around.

I do believe that when one of them dies, the other will not be far behind.

[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.]

R238 Not surprising given how high profile Harry has been this year. Ironically, I think the Queen's popularity will dwindle somewhat as she increasingly hands over more public engagements. Harry is kind of in the best place right now because he can kind of do what he wants. He will never be King and his period in the limelight will fade once George and Charlotte are older.

The BRF's latest addition, allegedly beloved by just everyone, Merching Meg coming in at no 6, beaten by Prince Pips who is hardly seen in public these days.

Fail.

Harry will shortly become “The Prince...” and he will be the son of the sovereign. So, yes the paparazzi might become more obsessed with George and Charlotte as they grow up, but he will have some pretty significant responsibilities. And his own kid(s) will still be in the limelight.

R241, "The Prince ..." ... the prince of what? Of dimwittery?

Now he's Duke of Sussex and that's it. He will never be "The Prince of Wales" or whatever you're dreaming of in your deluded brain in order to elevate him to some rank he'll never have.

R214, what do you mean "The Prince...."? He already is a prince and William will be Prince of Wales.

The definitive article “The” is used for children of the sovereign and special cases like Philip. Of course it doesn’t typically matter when you have a territorial peerage, but it shows up in full, formal titles. For example, Andy is formally “The Prince Andrew (other given names), Duke of York, Earl of blah blah, Baron blah blah”. Anne, Andrew and Edward will lose the first definitive article when the queen passes.

A family shot taken by Prince Andrew.

R244, you're mostly right. But Anne, Andrew, and Edward will not lost the use of the article "the" before their names after their mother the Queen dies. Because they were children of the sovereign, they will continue to use the article although, of course, they are usually known as The Princess Royal, The Duke of York, and The Earl of Wessex respectively. The article is not used for grandchildren (e.g., Princess Beatrice).

Look at all those white people at R245, enjoying the fuck out of their privilege.

R245, I think it's a damned shame that I know everyone in that photo by name, excepting the woman hiding behind harry even down to Sarah Chatto and her son. Way too much Royal watching.

I’d love to see The Queen reward The Princess Royal for her years of service by giving her a peerage. Make her Duchess of Something, and let her children finally have a Lord/Lady style.

Why isn’t Viscount Severn in the family photo?

R244 Anne, Andrew and Edward will continue to be styled "the" after the Queen passes. They were granted the title at birth and will continue to be styled as such until they die. Once the Queen passes, however, Anne, Andrew, Edward and his wife Sophie will no longer perform official duties on behalf of the monarch as Charles wishes to slim down the monarchy to only the Sovereign and their children. I doubt that any of them will actually stop undertaking public engagements so I'm curious as to how they will be funded.

They'll probably be funded out of Charles' funds, just as Elizabeth supports some of her lesser-known relatives that way.

Since Anne, Andrew, and Edward will all be sixtysomething when the Queen goes, they'll probably happily retire. Who wants to be cutting ribbons in their 70s? I bet even Charles doesn't really want to do shit like that anymore.

The Queen is hosting a 70th birthday party for Charles on Wednesday. Beyond the British Royals the following royals have confirmed attendance: King Philippe and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, King Harald and Queen Sonja of Norway, Crown Prince Haakon & Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway, and Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark.

[quote]R245 A family shot taken by Prince Andrew.

Who’s the lady who can’t get off her phone?

[QUOTE] Who’s the lady who can’t get off her phone?

It’s ME, you nog!

R248, yes, I got everyone except...

Who is:

1. The man standing next to Mike Tindall? Is that David Armstrong-Jones?

2. The younger guy behind Sophie? Is that her son James?

R253, I think that's Princess Michael of the blackamoor brooch. Standing next to her husband Prince Michael of Kent, the older man in the back with the beard.

r249, As a woman, Annie would likely get a Marquisate but it would be better awarded to her husband for the children (who create the largest hole of titles in the line of succession).

(1) Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948)

(2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982)

(3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013)

(4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015)

(5) Prince Louis of Cambridge (b. 2018)

(6) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (b. 1984)

(7) Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960)

(8) Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)

(9) Princess Eugenie (b. 1990)

(10) Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b. 1964)

(11) James, Viscount Severn (b. 2007)

(12) Lady Louise Windsor (b. 2003)

(13) Anne, Princess Royal (b. 1950)

(14) Peter Phillips (b. 1977)

(15) Savannah Phillips (b. 2010)

(16) Isla Phillips (b. 2012)

(17) Zara Tindall (née Phillips; b. 1981)

(18) Mia Tindall (b. 2014)

(19) Lena Tindall (b. 2018)

14-18 might as well be the janitor's children let alone Anne, Princess Royal la ti dah.

R255 - the man standing near Tindall is Lady Sarah Chatto's husband and the man behind Sophie is one of Sarah's sons (Arthur or Samuel?? - they both look a like it's hard to tell).

They could give Anne a Marquisate she could pass on to her son (that does happen occasionally: Mountbatten's eldest daughter inherited his title and passed it on to her son Norton). That would fix the issue with the Phillips family. That would also make Zara into Lady Zara, but Mike would need a title to pass on to Mia and Lena.

I'd have really liked it if, when they fixed the primogeniture issue, they'd gone back and placed Anne right behind Charles, putting her at #7 now and her son/granddaughters in the top 10. Andrew's sleazy head would have exploded.

Anne never sought titles for her children so it’d be very unlikely she’d accept them now. She and Mark Philips chose not to take titles and I respect them for that.

Anne and her children are already out of the top ten, and in another few years they'll be out of the top twenty. After that, does it really matter?

Anne will continue to do her job regardless of any such popularity.

And I have to question how this poll was taken - everyone knows that Princess Anne does the heavy lifting with appearances.

Anne never wanted titles for her kids and I get the distinct feeling that the kids are glad.

r262, for posterity and it is the BRF. Aristocratic titles have always gone hand in glove.

I just think it is all Anne's freaky desire but it seems a bit snarky when she has an exclusive title.

Anne’s children are old enough to decide for themselves. Princess Frizz hair shouldn’t have a say, The Sovereign as font of honours should be the final word.

It is clear in that photo how shy and retiring a wallflower is Lady Sarah Chatto. Poor thing, with Margaret and Tony for parents... it is touching how endeared she is by HMQ.

r266, I think it will be done by HM C3 when appropriate.

Few things are as royal as the granting of titles.

Poor Lady Louise, bless her heart.

For all Charles' intention to slim down the monarchy, who is going to do all the jobs currently done by Andrew, the Wessexes, P. Anne, the Queen and Prince Phillip? Charles and Camilla can't be everywhere and neither the Sussexes or Cambridges will be willing or able to take it all on.

Well, the Cambridges will eventually have to do do more engagements.

As for the Sussexes, they can go fuck themselves.

I wonder when Liz and Phil stopped fucking. At their age, it's impossible, but I wonder if, around 75 or so, they said "one last roll, darling?"

At their age it is all hand jobs and oral sex.

From the footmen or from each other?

Each other.

Oh dear R271! Oh DEAR!!!! Whatever has gotten into you??? Are you part of the Windsor clan?

R276, yes.

[quote]R271 As for the Sussexes, they can go fuck themselves.

Except, the public [italic]loves[/italic] them. Especially the younger fans. And that’s what it’s all about.

R278 so you think YOU are 'the public'?

LAWL.

The public loves Harry. As long as Harry loves Meghan, Meghan will be fine. If the love goes sour, though . . .

What is Louise carrying in that wicker breadbox?

I wonder if it's a Fortnum and Mason hamper. The shape and colors are right.

Harry is loved. Duh--uh. We knew this. I'm surprised he came out ahead of the Queen. This poll must have been done around the pregnancy announcement. I Will say: Meghan better take note. She best not mess with Harry.

R283 - if Nutmeg screws it up with Diana's precious son, she'll be run out of Britain.

Personally, I don't get Harry's appeal but to each their own.

R257 - I highly double Princess Anne will be given another title. Why would she need one? She's PRINCESS ROYAL for fuck's sake. Only being Queen would be a step up and, barring a major catastrophe with multiple royals dying, that's not going to happen.

^ highly DOUBT

Wait till her husband dies and give it to him posthumously for the children to inherit.

Who was it who was made a hereditary peer and he asked that the award be made to his deceased father so that he could bee the SECOND Whatever of Somefuck?

Anne's children were fathered by her ex-husband, so I doubt she'll be lobbying for him to get a title any time soon.

Princess Royal title adds no special precedence or territory, it simply is a traditional title for the oldest daughter of the sovereign. Making her a duchess though, she could pass the title down if the Queen crafts the LP in such a way that there is a remainder to her children.

Princess Anne rejected a title for Mark Phillips, which would have been passed to her children, so I don't see why she'd have changed her mind.

Leave the Princess Anne title stuff alone! She's not going to accept another title. She didn't want one for her kids to begin with. Why would she accept one now? It. Will. Never. Happen. Leave it.

No, no no, Anne has put the kabosh on titles for her children. The Queen has abided by that. Her brother may see differently than his little sister.

I don't get the Harry love, either. He's never accomplished much, and you'd think the combination of Nazi uniform-wearing and Vegas naked pool-playing would have finished him with the public for good. I suppose that every time the public looks at him, they see the little boy following his mother's coffin.

I wonder if Diana hadn't died, if Harry would have been more stable. Or if he continued to be a drunken layabout, the public would have less patience with him?

For what it's worth to anyone, THE Princess Margaret did bow to Diana's coffin. It just occurred several seconds after the Queen's bow, standing next to her.

I don't think Harry is unstable. The Nazi costume was for a bad taste costume party. It's not like he's a Nazi or racist. The pool party was just a bunch of young people having a good time. I've been to parties that got much wilder than that. I'm not famous , so it didn't make the papers. Skinny dipping with a group of friends isn't that unusual. Hell, one of my Muslim friends talked about skinny dipping with her mixed gender friend group in Turkey. I'll agree he hasn't accomplished much, but what have most of the Royals accomplished?

If Harry hasn't accomplished anything more (and possibly less) than most Royals, why is he the most popular Royal? I suppose that's the conundrum.

Queen Mary in action, doing her thang. Her voice can be heard at 00:55 stating "You know the sort of thing that I like." Haha

It is classic Windsor "spare" syndrome. Living mother or no, Harry was destined to follow his great aunt and Uncle Air Miles into spoiled petulancy. He's just been able ride the sympathy train to mitigate his loutish behavior. As much as the public martyrs Diana, they will project onto Harry the sad little boy who tragically lost his mother to justify all manner of ills.

[quote]R295 I'll agree he hasn't accomplished much, but what have most of the Royals accomplished?

Quoted for Truth.

Pinning medals on people and breaking bottles of champagne on ships’ hulls is hardly a real job. And neither is riding in limos.

These people would starve if pried from the taxpayer’s teat.

R296 Why are any of them popular. Is he popular or just popular compared to the rest of them. He still has his looks, the Windsor early frump gene hadn't caught him yet. I think that's a big part of his popularity.

Go Queen May at R297! Order those shopbottoms around!

Zara and Peter are old enough to decide for themselves, thank you very much.

Megs needs to ease up on the fillers, lip injections and botox. She gets refreshed far too often. But if she can't help herself, the least she can do is quit with the oompa loompa foundation and industrial strength orange bronzer. And if she can't do that much, then the least she can do is blend that shit. But hard too do I guess if she's as high all the time as it appears she is.

R295, Harry's nudity was much ado about nothing, but, Harry's wearing a Nazi uniform was appalling, especially considering his family's history.

I completely agree R304. But Harry fanatics dismiss the incident as schoolboy hjinks to be easily forgiven and overlooked. Of course we all make mistakes, but then again I know plenty of 20 year olds with a great deal less privilege who manage better discretion.

R297 I love you for that. Klepto Queen Mary, scoping out all her swag.

Harry's public nudity was certainly not much ado about nothing. He was a BRF member who got naked in front of strangers in public. It's trashy.

The Nazi thing was idiotic, but the nudity thing was not "normal', and we all know there' s more where that came from that's been suppressed.

So are all of you posters above who are saying Harry wearing a Nazi uniform was merely idiotic, saying the same thing about the Baraboo boys? I don't want to bring the conversation about that photo here, but let's be clear, it's the exact same thing. Any argument about boys being boys in either case is bollocks.

It's pretty normal for teenage males to try and shock, R308.

This was not trying to shock, R309 and what Harry did was not "normal" or many other royals would be running around naked in front of strangers in Vegas. This boys will be boys is bullshit.

R310 Okay, have it your way.

There's no particular reason Anne would be given a marquisate rather than a dukedom. However, it's unlikely she will get any title of nobility; as has been pointed out, she has a title, i.e., Princess Royal. As for her, Andrew, and Edward between without jobs when Charles comes into the crown, it's hard to know exactly why he means by trimming down the monarchy. I suspect they will still be called upon to open new hospitals, etc., but the big responsibilities will fall to Charles's offspring. Dissing Anne would anger some Brits and Charles is already unpopular. I do think Andrew should watch his back once Charles is on the throne, though.

Liz and Phil haven't shared the same bedroom since at least the 80s.

Well R313, I'm sure you would know.

Actually it became common knowledge after an intruder broke into her room at night, it seems Her Maj had the entire bed to herself.

It doesn't mean they don't share the same bed fairly frequently. Even young aristocratic couples historically (don't know about contemporaneously) had rooms of their own.

The person who did the screenwriting for The Queen, which had Phillip saying, "Move over cabbage." said he got it from impeccable sources. The nickname, and his remarks that if she were going to sleep she could move over but if she weren't he would bunk (can't remember the rest).

In the Crown they had separate bedrooms in Season 2, but obviously they were still boning since they had two kids that season.

He called her ‘Cabbage’ as a rib to their shared German ancestry.

If you are a King or Queen or President or WTF ever, someone who has to keep irregular hours or who is like to be awakened in the middle of the night with one emergency or another, then yes, your spouse may opt to sleep in a separate bedroom. If they also have a hectic schedule, and work, and have obligations, that makes it even more typical. It doesn't signify anything, and honestly they came from a class and a generation where it was not uncommon. The Queen Mother and King Bertie did not share a bed or a bedroom, but no one would accuse them of having a "troubled" marriage. Among a certain class of the nobility, it was unseemly to share a bedroom much less a bed, and even to express too much pleasure in having marital sex. Only whoors liked to fuck. I suspect Philip and Elizabeth had/have a suite with his and hers bedroom, a sitting room, a dressing room, a bathroom, and a nice parlor in between.

Wasn't it a "thing" for upper-class couples of that era to have separate bedrooms? I believe JFK and Jackie had their own rooms too.

[R312] Indeed Princess Anne is very well respected amongst a large slice of the UK public for her legendary work ethic and unflashy way of fulfilling her duties. If Prince Charles were foolish enough to sideline her or be seen to demean he would suffer an instant backlash.

I saw some video of them going in to some reception or other recently, like within the past month, and Anne and Charles were laughing and joking in a very relaxed way In fact I don't think I have ever seen Anne so animated, laughing and clowning like that. She and Charles appear to be very close.

R319 you’re right. My paternal grandparents had exactly that arrangement, back then the master suite was literally a suite of rooms - 2 bedrooms, 2 dressing rooms, 2 bathrooms and a sitting room was my grandparents set up. They were quite well off but not massively wealthy or grand, they were “respected” rather than “society” and that layout was commonplace in their generation/social circle. Quite often the dressing room would have started off as a nurseray at one time.

[quote]R319 If you are a King or Queen or President or WTF ever, someone who has to keep irregular hours or who is like to be awakened in the middle of the night with one emergency or another, then yes, your spouse may opt to sleep in a separate bedroom.

Nice try.

Her pussy stinks.

For the Queen Mary fans— I am currently reading the diaries of James Lees-Milne from 1942-1954 and just read an entry he wrote upon Queen Mary’s death in 1953. It’s too good not to share:

“At Brooks’s [the gentleman’s club JLM belonged to] I overhear Sir John Coke, Queen Mary’s Comptroller telling another member how sad he is made by her death. He said she never altered her mind once it had been made up; that she had never known to be late once in her life; that now she was gone there was no member of the Royal family to keep the rest of them up to the mark, no one now to prevent the Queen from having meals with people like Douglas Fairbanks, from motoring in a Jeep without wearing a hat, etc. Only once I met her, when I conducted her around an exhibition I organized in Cheyne Walk in 1940, in aid of the Finns. She was extremely stiff and formal, and rather ungracious. Very knowledgeable and informative about furniture and bibelots of a royal sort; contradictory, splendid and awful. Her death truly the end of a spent era.”

Well smell R323

One of the reasons that Philip allegedly harbors such animosity towards his ex-daughter-in-law Fergie (besides her embarrassing public toe-sucking) is because he had a raging affair with her mother, Susan Ferguson (later Barrantes) in the 60s when her then-husband was Philip's polo manager.

What does a Woman of the Bedchamber do?

What do the Ladies in Waiting wait for?

The Woman of the Bedchamber makes sure that Her Majesty is "fresh down there" before engaging in marital relations. This is a custom that goes back to Queen Victoria.

Are you serious r329???

That's bullshit. They help her Maj with duties, thank you letters and other things (accompanying on engagements, etc.)

Who does keep the royal muff trimmed, then?

Ever heard of the swan upping? It goes hand in hand with the famous stiff upper lip.

Her ladies in waiting answer correspondence on her behalf. I sent HM a letter as a child and one of her ladies in waiting replied.

Is it a kind of waxing....like the Brazilian?

Sorry.....for r333

I dare say no more! I've said too much!

I bet it’s a special waxing pattern....the royal ladies can pick the Swan, or the Tudor Rose.

The Women of the Bedchamber probably have to be skilled in this...

I wonder where Meghan is getting her pubis and backdoor waxed these days.

You wouldn’t want to go to a spa, because they could sell the hair.

Think what Di’s could have fetched!

She probably nibbles it off while doing yoga r339.

[quote] no one now to prevent the Queen from having meals with people like Douglas Fairbanks, from motoring in a Jeep without wearing a hat, etc.

Shocking, indeed!!!

A couple of things: Yes, the Queen and Prince Philip have separate, albeit adjoining, bedrooms. This is not in the least bit shocking as this was the standard in almost all upper class marriages for centuries and was still the practice when the Queen and Philip got married. It has nothing to do with the state of their marriage, it's how it always has been.

The Queen was alone in her bedroom when Michael Fagan managed to sit on the foot of the Queen's bed and wake her up. Philip was actually out of the country when this happened which is why he was no where to be seen.

Prince Harry will remain the most popular royal until his marriage to Meghan hits the rocks, which it will.

^ and then it will hit 99%

[quote]Except, the public loves them.

The Brit public love whoever Hello, Woman's Day, OK and the Daily Mail, with the relentless haranguing of Palace PR teams, tells them they should love.

You give The People too little credit.

They know a true Star of Today when they see one . . . and they have [italic]spoken.

[R342] What makes you confident Harry and Meghans marriage will hit the rocks?

[quote]They know a true Star of Today when they see one . . . and they have spoken.

Uh, no. They have been inundated with PR and they have followed like obedient sheep.

R346 Two people, the products of self-absorbed parents, who are themselves self-absorbed, with poor judgement skills and even poorer impulse control. What could possibly go wrong?

[quote] Prince Harry will remain the most popular royal until his marriage to Meghan hits the rocks, which it will

And you just know that Harry told Meghan all the family secrets. I wonder if Meg will just blackmail the Royal Family for a great divorce settlement or if she will spill it all to the pre$$?

From my understanding, Queen Mary was like the Bar Bush of the Royal Family, a battleaxe who ordered everybody around and they were all terrified of her.

It sounds like Andrew was a vulgar man who could not have survived in the age of #MeToo

[quote]His behavior toward women runs the gamut from boorish to oafish. A woman who attended a weekend party with him at a country house in Dorset recalled his clumsy manners. “I woke up on Saturday morning with a fire extinguisher pointed at my face, behind which was the face of the foolishly laughing prince,” she said. “I told him, ‘Go away!’ It turned out that he had gone to all the girls’ rooms.”

[quote]Another woman who knows Andrew well told The Times of London that he looks uncomfortable at parties unless he’s got a girl fawning over him. “[He is] pretty base in terms of women,” she said. “He is a boobs-and-bum man. There is nothing sophisticated about it. One minute you’re having your bum pinched, and the next minute he is reminding you he is Your Royal Highness.”

Can you imagine such a grotesque looking-man protected by his ever forgiving mother pinching your ass? And you know it was more. "Eew, I got my vag fingered by Prince Andrew" and there's absolutely no recourse as his mother is the Queen who dotes on him and rewards his bad behavior at every step. The article is jaw-dropping.

[R350] Apparently Princess Margaret loathed her grandmother Queen Mary and found her to be very cold.

These Andrew stories have been in many books. Nothing new to see.

Yep we aren't going to get anything new about Andrew until the Queen dies, also he has also survived a lot of corruption charges as well so I don't think even #MeToo could have brought him down.

[quote] These Andrew stories have been in many books. Nothing new to see.

They're new to me.

Unlike you, apparently, I do not avidly read all the Prince Andrew biographies.

The unmitigated FILTH that runs thru that family is just shocking.

R355, they are in general royal family books and magazine articles, not "Prince Andrew biographies'.

The best is the dinner he had at BP for his navy buddies. The moron started a food fight, and priceless artworks were so damaged they had to be sent to museums to be restored. The Queen was livid.

Andrew is what my great-aunts would've called a "ne'er do well."

Charles and Andrew embody the concept "entitled" -- both literally and figuratively. The success of the Queen, Harry, and Anne is that don't appear to act entitled -- it doesn't mean that they aren't, but they are able to convey something more powerful: in the case of the Queen and Anne, it's duty; in the case of Harry, it's ease with common blokes.

R346 I have to concur that I think Harry and Meghan's marriage will likely end in divorce. First, I get the impression Harry went into this without really thinking about it deeply [a character trait of his]. He even admitted in an interview before he met Meghan that he was desperate to get married and feared he was going to be left behind. They only dated just about a year before becoming engaged and they never spent more than a few days together at one time due to the long distance nature of their relationship which I think spells for trouble down the road. Looking at Meghan, I'm already getting the sense she feels bored/over her head with the restrictions and protocol of being a member of the royal family. I think she approached this relationship as "the ultimate acting role" by marrying the most attractive member of the most famous family in the world. This opinion is somewhat validated by the "tiara-gate" scandal that has come to light about the Queen having to put Meghan in check before the wedding. There is also the fact they come from very dysfunctional families and both seem somewhat emotionally stinted, particularly Harry. My money is on them becoming the Charles/Diana of their generation.

I'm not the biggest fan of William or Kate but they did a couple things right. First, they waited years before becoming engaged and getting married (even breaking up more than once) to ensure they could make it work and that both had time to bail if need be. Also Kate comes from a very stable family background and that's something William highly values as he is allegedly closer to the Middletons than to his own family. I also get the feeling Kate knows how to handle William who allegedly has a bad temper, whereas, I think Meghan dominates Harry and it that will eventually backfire.

Family photos leaked by a MeAgain fan account.

Every time I see a snap of George and think he couldn't look any gayer...I find out I was wrong.

Louis looks like the Joker.

Get that messy family sorted, Queen Charlotte!

Louis looks like a happy kid.

There was no tiaragate scandal. You’re all following a story that was made up. You have no idea how how jewels worth millions of dollars each are managed in that royal firm.

It’s gossip, R364. Most of this shit is made up.

I call bullshit on the tiara "scandal" as well. The one she wore was exquisite. I can't imagine as a newcomer, pissing off The Queen or any of her aides.

R364 Why are you so fucking serious? Are you truly such a dullard that you take umbrage to a thread with the word GOSSIP in it? Why are you tilting at windmills?

In short, why are you here?

Call bullshit on it but it appeared in The Times which is about as legitimate and sanctioned a news source as you will get in England. Not only that, but a very respected reporter, Valentine Low, is publicly staking his reputation that the source Dan Wooten utilized is as solid as it comes. Are you really going down that path that all media is the enemy of the people?

R358 - yes, and it's also very telling that Buckingham Palace has NOT denied it.

Who scrubs the Queen's loo?

Does Charles require that his bed travel with him?

And does it have one of these?

[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 have a degree in European history with a concentration on British history. I have been studying royalty and jewels for over 35 years so I think my opinions on royalty and jewels are valid.

...and I don’t mind gossip on this board but the gossip aimed at Meghan has taken an increasingly vicious tone, and we all know what the heart of it is. It’s everything that’s wrong with American/Trumpist culture today, and you’re all playing into it, partially flamed by a few trolls who don’t care a single fig about royalty but who DO care about perpetuating division in America.

Prince Louis looks a lot like Kate

R376 - Louis does resemble his mother as a baby.

R375 Your "degree" does not make you an expert to dictate to those of us of color raised on American soil who may have less than flattering opinions of Meghan and who contribute their own perspectives of her integration into the BRF--so kindly alight off your fucking high horse prick.

The mother in law of Princess Madeleine of Sweden was allegedly discovered buffing Prince Charles - by Diana!

R379 - Madeleine was married LONG after Diana's death so how could this be true?

I believe Tiara Gate happened. The Times would not have printed a word if they weren’t sure they were on solid ground.

Before the wedding Rose ar r380!

R377 babies all look alike

I remember the headline of The Sun after Fagan broke into the Queen's room was "come on Phil give her a cuddle".

R378 has stated her (colored) boundaries

Huh R378, mighty high-horse talkin' for Black.

And by a simple click of a mouse R385 is revealed to be the degree troll aka R374 who along with her many talents can also claim a deficiency in reading comprehension. She proves the idiom a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I suspect her flaunting a "degree" is at most a bachelors which translates to a false overconfidence of an assumption she is the authority. Wisdom distills there is always something to learn and a new perspective to be had that can shift the paradigm of one's own clouded worldview of which every one of us is subject. I very much doubt she has measurable post-bach levels under her belt; otherwise, she would be one of those Phd assholes who insist she be addressed as Dr. on even the most relaxed and informal of occasions. But by all means degree troll, go on with your truncated rhetoric. Or better yet, why don't you open a royal family blog to showcase your fine knowledge.

R386 who said I was the box you check for Black?

Whoa R386, maybe it's a Yellow or a Brown posting.

Get over it R247, that's the way the world works!

R375, Meghan is your typical and all too common narciccist TV star who believes the universe revolves around her, and as someone else wrote the cunt is jealous of Kate and William.

What does Fergie do and buy to run up her huge debts?

Oh, here we go again with the racist/jealous accusations.

Yes, I’m a flaming racist Trumptard who wanted to marry Prince Harry. You caught me out.

[QUOTE] Meghan is your typical and all too common narciccist TV star who believes the universe revolves around her

So it sounds like you don’t like ANY TV stars then?

Fergs is mired in living the lifestyle of a Royal while no longer having been royal for decades. She's also not very smart. At the time of the divorce, the Queen called her onto the red carpet and asked her point blank "What do want?" Fergs: "To be your friend." Queen: "Okay." Fergie, Fergie, Fergie! She screwed herself out of a good divorce settlement being sentimental with those who hold no sentiment.

R392 when you do nothing, you can run up debt by existing. Compound interest can be a real bitch when its debt and not savings. When you're not employed you have a lot of time to spend. I'll also add that Fergie isn't content to lead a simple life. She likes the fame, she wants to be important and have important children and important friends. I costs money to keep up with the crowd she's in or wishes to be in.

Well, at least she got that awful Andrew out of her life.

Prince George, Duke of Kent. Fourth son to George V and Queen Mary. Jazz age bon vivante, gay sex addict and drug addict, wild Royal party boy, suspected Nazi spy, Any uncommon knowledge about him unlikely to be found among official type reading?

R398 A few corrections about Prince George, Duke of Kent. He was more likely bisexual as opposed to gay as he is known to have had numerous sexual affairs with men and women, and his marriage to Princess Marina of Greece was known to be a very happy one. He was not a suspected Nazi spy (that was his older borther David the former Edward VIII) in fact there have been rumours for decades that George was actually working for British Intelligence during the war. Also he was reportedly Queen Mary's favourite child and despite his sex and drug addictions, was actually the most well adjusted of George V and Queen Mary's sons - their most well adjusted child was Princess Mary, The Princess Royal.

George was also by most accounts the most intelligent, and he was definitely the most handsome. There were some lamentations in 1936 that he wasn't the one to inherit, rather than Bertie.

He looks like a much improved version of Bertie, and Marina was the best looking of the royal wives by far.

Seriously, if Hollywood had made a movie about the Windsors at the time, they'd have cast George and Marina as the King and Queen.

He's like six inches taller than his older brother. WTF happened to David, anyway? Why was he such a strange little troll?

Two of the men that it's well established George had prolonged flings with were Cecil Roberts and Noel Coward. He is also rumoured to have fucked were Anthony Blunt and José Uriburu Tezanos the Ambassador from Argentina to the UK (ironic given the conflict over the Falklands). The real love of George's life, however, was American socialite Kiki Preston who was also responsible for George becoming addicted to drugs. It is rumored that Kiki's third child, Michael Temple Canfield, was fathered by George. Indeed, this opinion seems to have been shared by Kiki's second husband and by George's brothers.

His relationship with Kiki was ended when David managed to pull strings to have Kiki removed from England fearing for his brother's health. Although George's marriage to Marina was a happy one, there is some conflicting accounts of him being somewhat pressured into it by his parents.

[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.]

Tommy Lascelles, long-time courtier to the Windsors, told Queen Mary's biographer James Pope-Hennessy that George V was the 'most physically repulsive man he [Tommy] had ever met.'

I don't think he was so bad, really. But maybe he cleaned up well for pictures?

Any scandal or dish /information around the Queens cousin The Duke of Gloucester and his Danish born wife The Duchess of Gloucester?

David was short because he had a bad childhood case of either mumps or scarlet fever, can’t remember which. Supposedly it stunted his physical and emotional growth. He was said to be under endowed and the wicked rumor going around was that only Wallis Simpson’s pussy could please him.

I wonder if Bertie had some kind of illness, too. By all accounts he was physically frail, and though taller than David, he's shorter than his two younger brothers (as the picture shows).

Inbreeding.

David has that same pained, dull-eyed expression in every photograph. Even here, with that hot piece Dickie Mountbatten.

Did Philip ever have the Dutchess Alotta Fawgina?

Some of them had terrible looking eyes.

Whatever do you mean, R413?

Is Prince George the first brown eyed (future) monarch?

Charles II and James II had brown eyes. Inherited by their dark-eyed Italian grandma, Maria de' Medici.

Inherited FROM, I mean.

James' daughter Queen Anne was also dark-eyed. I think the blue eyes came in with the Hanovers.

George I appears dark-eyed here.

I wouldn't have kicked George out of bed.

George II appears dark-eyed in portraits too, but his grandson George III had the big, bulging blue eyes we associate with the Windsors.

George III as a young man. Put staring Freddy Windsor (pictured in R414) in a powdered wig and they could be brothers. I guess that's what happens when German cousin marries German cousin for a couple hundred years.

Let's try that again.

Fuck Wikipedia. One last try from Pinterest.

Freddie Windsor looks like an evil doll that's come to life.

Michael Canfield, thought to be the Duke of Kent's son, was the first husband of Lee Radziwill.

Story was that when he was introduced to the Duke of Windsor, the Duke looked at him and knew he was his brother's son.

Michael Canfield was adopted by Americans who, if I read correctly, never treated him as well as their natural children.

Well, Canfield wouldn't be the first royal bastard, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

[quote]R391 ... narciccist TV star who believes the universe revolves around her, and as someone else wrote the cunt is jealous of Kate and William.

While, of course, royals feel no entitlement at all.

Re Tiaragate-I believe it happened and really, given how many women turn into bridezillas, is not particularly surprising. The surprising thing is that Harry is so whipped, he got involved.

R429, I believe something happened where MM had a little temper tantrum. Absolutely.

Her childhood friend said she knew all about the RF, and I wouldn’t put it past her to know about the tiaras.

I think tiara gate is bull shit, or at least an exaggeration. There are details that make no sense. The part about the tiara maybe being Russian doesn't make sense. The origins of the royal jewelry is well documented. Royals wear Russian jewels, so that wouldn't be an issue. It's also vague about what kind of fit was thrown, what did Harry say or do and who did he do it to. Most of the crazy Di and Fergie stories had detail. The more interesting thing to me is the leaking of this story. What's their end game? I'm guessing it was Andrew and or Fergie. It's been mentioned in these threads that Andrew wants his daughters to get more prominent royal engagements. Maybe he and Fergie think campaigning against MM will make the public more interested in the Yorkies.

Maybe it was a lame excuse given by a staffer instead of saying it was reserved by Eugenie? And it was at the time of the poisoning of the former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil. Yes, lame excuse because because as was pointed out by R420 Meghan likely researched and knew more about the royal jewelry collection than many royals themselves.

Great find, R297. Thanks for posting.

I read that Crown Princess Mary, Queen Maxima, and Princess Sophia of Sweden also made crazy demands for tiaras of their queens and threw fits when they didn’t get them. I’ve read that Oprah advised princess Angela of Lichtenstein to insist on the biggest tiara in the family, as befitting her role as the first African American princess, but Prince Hans Adam refused.

Yes but MM would not have been shown a tiara if Eugenie had dibs on it already. It is possible that she'd done some research and, knowing her gown was very minimalist, wanted a blingy tiara to set it off. And that she was underwhelmed by the selection she was shown so she asked Harry afterwards to intercede in hopes of exchanging the bandeau for something bigger and the Queen said no.bigger

The Queen disliking the veil is interesting. It was way OTT and of course, this was her 2nd wedding. Hardly the blushing bride. Eugenie certainly outshone her there, better tiara and no veil so the focus was on it.

^ don't know where that second "bigger" came from

Huge can outshine the sun.

I read it as MM had researched RF jewels told Harry she wanted X tiara and then threw a fit when informed that HMQ decides on a small group to make a selection from, you don’t get to just breeze in and browse through Her Maj’s tiara safes.

If MM had done any research (which I'm sure she did), she would know that The Queen presents a selection and you chose from that- like Diana wrote about her engagement ring. Megs said the same thing about the tiaras.

To think she was thumbing through the tiara catalog or told The Queen do you have something with emeralds? is ludicrous.

Well yes [R439] But people can sometimes be ludicrous and unreasonable especially when their passions are eccentric like tiaras!

Having chosen her engagement ring from the African Diamond Catalog, she probably thought it worked the same way with tiarae.

You’re all idiots and don’t know anything about how The Queen’s priceless treasures are handled. Meghan had NO reason to complain, it’s all lies. The Queen’s courtiers gave her a selection to pick from, she can’t argue.

The £54,000 engagement dress told us everything we need to know about MM. She started as she meant to go on. There are certain women who leave a string of corpses in their wake and I think MM is one of them. Amber Heard is another. Looking at the latest pics of Johnny Depp, you see a man who's been hollowed out from the inside. I think Harry will end up the same.

I wonder if Princess Eugenie will get pregnant pretty quickly after getting married like Meghan did?

Looking at the DAVID pics SOMEHTING HAPPENED. Royal docents, WHAT HAPPENED? The Nanny...?

The Duke of Windsor and his first cousin Lord Mountbatten were rumored to have been fuck buddies in their youth.

I'm still aghast at the astronomical cost and butt ugliness of the engagement dress. She actually chose it, as opposed to a sample she was given to merch.

[quote]R432 Maybe it was a lame excuse given by a staffer instead of saying it was reserved by Eugenie?

That tiara’s fairly ugly, anyway (the big honking gemstones aside), and I can’t see Meghan wanting it. It wouldn’t have gone with her streamlined look at all, as it has a loud WONDER WOMAN vibe.

The piece should be broken down and reset into a new [italic]parure,[/italic] as it’s a bit clunky and awful, as is.

[quote]R444 I wonder if Princess Eugenie will get pregnant pretty quickly after getting married like Meghan did?

Could very well be preggers NOW.

She didn’t look exactly small on her wedding day...

I agree. Other than the Huge emeralds, it's hideous. Meaghan's was much nicer. Just like her mother, Huge went over the top.

I don’t think that’s the tiara at the center of the controversy. I think it’s this one-

[quote]R450 I agree. Other than the Huge emeralds, it's hideous. Meaghan's was much nicer. Just like her mother, Huge went over the top.

It’s also kind of vulgar to wear attention-grabbing colored gemstones on your wedding day...I mean, why WOULD you?

If you’re in Vegas, okay. But for a more dignified ceremony, i’d think diamonds and pearls are about as far as it goes.

Meghan’s was perfect.

That is all.

Wow, R451. I must say, until recently I had no idea about the importance of tiaras.

I agree about the engagement dress. I'd barely heard of her at that point but seeing that photo told me what I needed to know. A couture gown with a sheer bodice (notice Harry's strategically -placed thigh) paired with a blue day suit. Complete mismatch.

To each their own. Meghan's Queen Mary bandeau was lovely but Eugenie's was spectacular. Had the QM tiara solitaire diamonds instead of cheaper clusters it may have elevated a level but much like economy cluster diamond rings that are meant to emulate the brilliance of a single stone, it pales next to the magnificent emerald solitaires. The Greville Kokoshnik was a knockout and quite frankly upstaged Meghan's bandeau.

From everything I've read, I think The Queen and her personal staff decide which ones to make available, and there are maybe three or four to present to the Bride-to-Be. They chose from what is offered. But if you're Fergie and you know all about the tiaras, etc. you might "suggest" to your daughter that she request a particular one because Granny likes her so much and she was so good about moving her wedding date for Harry, etc. then Fergie puts it out there that Meghan couldn't get her hands on it because it was promised to Eugenie. How ever this happened I do see Fergie's fine hand behind the scenes stirring up shit.

So R452 said, "It’s also kind of vulgar to wear attention-grabbing colored gemstones on your wedding day...I mean, why WOULD you? If you’re in Vegas, okay. But for a more dignified ceremony, i’d think diamonds and pearls are about as far as it goes." (Irony must escape this one...) What do you suppose that long-ass veil was meant, if not for attention-grabbling showboat theatrics?

R443, speaking of wakes of destruction, she reminds me of Margaret Atwood’s anti-heroine Zenia, from “The Robber Bride”.

When I think of Meghan and Harry, I think of one of the characters telling her friend whose boyfriend Zenia has seduced: “she’ll take one bite of him and throw him away”

I agree r457. This whole thing has Fergie's smell all over it.

Posted on the Meghan thread last night, re Tiaragate- a likely explanation:

Now that Tiaragate is dying down I pretty certain what happened can be pieced together. I think Megs was presented a selection that included the Queen Mary diamond bandeau, which she eventually wore to good effect. But I think her 1st choice might have been the long-MIA Marie Feodorovna sapphire bandeau, very similar to the diamond bandeau and last seen on Princess Margaret in the 60s. This piece as a large sapphire at it's center that's removable as a brooch and could be replaced by say, an emerald.

I'm guessing Megs chose this one a few months before the wedding. Come mid-March there are the terrible Skirpal poisonings, and all the UK is up in arms in anti-Russian sentiment. QEII, sensing some controversy with this tiara choice, takes it back and asks H & M to accept a second choice (the diamond bandeau). Megs is upset, so is Haz who is already nervous gets very tempermental about it. Gran calls him to meet about his attitude and the "Meghan will get what she's given" meme is born.

Fwiw I think it was Harry causing most of the upset; Meghan imo wouldn't be so foolish as to make that many waves before the ink is dry on the marriage certificate.

The Feodorovna bandeau DOES have a questionable provenance; it's thought to have been brought out of Russia by one of the exiled Grand Duchesses or her daughter, and purchased by Queen Mary at a fraction of its worth. This piece is small and modest enough to be the type presented by QEII to her granddaughters and g-daughters-in-law - Kate had the smallish Cartier Halo as an example. It also fits the narrative by Wooten and Val Low at the Times re a tiara being taken back due to 'potential Russian provenance'. The emerald detail may be a mistake or red herring, or perhaps was offered with the idea of an emerald replacing the sapphire center. Either way the idea of the Queen becoming nervous re public feeling re Russia and what amounted to them murdering on UK soil would be enough at that time for her to probably rescind her offer.

I don't think Eugenie's choice had anything to do here, although perhaps Meghan requested that bandeau as a 2nd choice only to be told it had by then already been chosen by Euge - further inflaming Haz and causing a tantrum. Either way her final choice - the Queen Mary diamond bandeau - worked out well for her imo.

More on the sapphire bandeau tiara here. Is really the proper size in line with what the Queen has been offering up to the recent new royal brides:

[quote]R456 To each their own. Meghan's Queen Mary bandeau was lovely but Eugenie's was spectacular.

For a bride to strive to look SPECTACULAR at a solemn religious ceremony is itself in questionable taste.

That emerald-encrusted geegaw was pushing it.

R361 is a big liar who loves to make up lies. The "family photos" were not leaked by Meghan. They were released by Prince Charles

I can believe Meagain was belligerent before the wedding about tiaras and everything else, there's a reason Charles was already calling her "Tungsten".... She didn't have to wait for the ink to dry on the marriage certificate to show her true demeanor, no way would DimWit have backed out and she knew it.

Surprised though to hear Fergie could be behind any leaks though. I recall the pics of her after the wedding at the residence where she is in slippers and rather cowering or hiding in the background while Andy does all the gown adjusting as the couple gets into the car. Wouldn't Andy more likely be the leaker. Although Fergie's recent interview in the DM was rather feisty and my have had some hidden shade about veils and such.

R463 are you kidding me? It’s what EVERY bride strives for. Have you ever even been to a wedding?

Jersey brides, sure. But don’t we hold royals to a higher standard?

EVERY bride. Seriously, do you think they’re wearing white long dresses with veils and tiaras to appear modest?

SPECTACULAR means you are turning yourself into a SPECTACLE.

A wedding is neither the time nor the place.

And if you're going to throw religion is the mix, wearing a veil--nevermind it's obscene length--was not a suitable choice for a divorcee. Perhaps you know very little of the underpinnings composing solemn religious Anglican ceremonies?

R469 I guarantee you—right or wrong—every Bride wants to look SPECTACULAR on her wedding day. Every single one of them. Anglican or not. Geez I can’t believe anyone is even arguing this.

FFS R469, you are demented. ALL royal weddings are a spectacle with the veneer of a church sacrament for gravitas. If you are going to persist with your opinion you had best realize your judgement is clouded by your disdain of Eugenie (or is it unreserved fondness for the Duchess of Sussex?).

[quote]R472 you had best realize your judgement is clouded by your disdain of Eugenie

I don’t know anything about her, aside from the fact that her choice of ostentatious tiara for that particular day was tasteless.

Maybe you have an aversion to emeralds? Thank god for your sake the newly minted duchess didn't get her choice of tiaras!

The Greville emerald tiara was fantastic on Yuge and made her ensemble. It would have been perhaps a lot has she worn a veil; in its absence the piece became central to her look. It perfectly balanced the origami intricacy/simplicity of the Pilotto gown with its low cut back and lack of decorations (lace, frills, trim etc). A big hit, fashion-wise.

[quote]The success of the Queen, Harry, and Anne is that don't appear to act entitled -- it doesn't mean that they aren't, but they are able to convey something more powerful: in the case of the Queen and Anne, it's duty; in the case of Harry, it's [bold]stupidity and commonness.[/bold]

FIXED

[quote]R474 Maybe you have an aversion to emeralds?

Oh no, I love them, actually. Green is my favorite color : ) But not on a bride.

MAYBE you could throw in some aquamarines.... maybe. Classical wedding looks are modest, austere, or buoyantly hopeful. Or if none of those, at least simple (like Carolyn Bessette’s)

Emeralds, rubies, etc. don’t say that. They’re too decadent for a wedding day.

But you know, my family’s from Boston. A little old fashioned when it comes to ceremony.

R406 I just read that the other day in Hugo Vickers' new book about Queen Mary. Personally don't think George was ugly at all, certainly not in his youth.

Regarding Noel Coward and Prince George, Duke of Kent. I think it's fairly established, and known within circles of the royal family, that they had a sexual relationship, though after Coward's death his long term partner denied Coward were anything but friends. However, allegedly the Queen Mum once joked with a mutual friend after Coward's death that "Noel was almost my brother-in-law."

George's marriage to Princess Marina was came to fruition after he was blackmailed by a [male] French architect whom George had carried on an affair for several months. George's brother David allegedly paid off the blackmailer with his own money. It's not certain what King George V and Queen Mary knew about his sexual escapades but the decision was made that he must marry.

Despite his marriage to Marina, George's affair with Noel Coward continued after his marriage and Noel became very good friends with Marina. Allegedly Noel and George's relationship continued right to George's death in 1942.

Queen Elizabeth was never going to offer any of her personal tiaras. The Vladimir Tiara ( the one with loops and emeralds) was purchased from Princess Marina’s mother, who herself inherited it from the Russian Imperial family in exile. It is strongly associated with Queen Mary, and as such Queen Elizabeth has a strong attachment to it. I think we’ll be lucky if we even see Camilla in it, I have a feeling Queen Elizabeth’s will might command they put into storage until Catherine becomes consort. One never knows what might happen.

Look. I read a couple of articles about Eugenie and Harry being close, and Eugenie warming to Meghan and chatting up Meghan and Harry about her own wedding, looking for suggestions to make it meaningful and memorable. As between the two young women I doubt seriously there was any animosity or competition to out do one another or have a tiff about tiaras. At that point Meghan would have been as helpful and as sweet as she could be. She was not about to walk through the door acting like an asshole.

Yes she was stressed as any bride would be, and especially with millions of people all over the world watching, and the drama with her father and half siblings being played out in public. Shit Who wouldn't be. I don't doubt she may have been difficult to deal with, and Harry over reacting too out of over protectiveness. But I do believe that Eugenie had no part in what ever happened with tiaras. I like R 461 explanation. What I'm saying is that while I will never put anything passed Sarah Ferguson, I do believe Eugenie was innocent of anything underhanded or malicious. I think the reason the press still loves Fergie is because she probably feeds them gossip from time to time and probably always has. Probably been paid for it a time or two as well.

A royal wedding is supposed to be a spectacle. It’s being broadcast to millions of people around the world. The royals are supposed to be grand and over the top when it’s called for.

I don’t believe it because the whole approach to Meghan’s look that day was streamlined. Having a flashing Christmas tree of a tiara with bright colors on top of her head would have corrupted that look.

Her clothes on the show SUITS were good. She’s been dressed by expensive stylists for years. She knows the power of luxe understatement on a day when many were hoping she’d expose herself as cheap and trashy.

Her dress was by Audrey Hepburn’s favorite designer ...and Hepburn wouldn’t have stuck some big monstrosity studded with huge colored stones on her head with a plain wedding dress, either. [italic] Elegance Is Refusal.

[quote]T481 The royals are supposed to be grand and over the top when it’s called for.

Yes, but still tasteful. And a wedding day is exactly when that kind of “over the top” is NOT called for.

Grand is fine. They’re not expected to pretend their not filthy rich. Meghan’s long veil was a concession to that need for showmanship.

As much as some might dismiss the story, TiaraGate gained traction across media outlets and will forever brand a footnote. Even more likely, it will become just one more red flag among an orchestral string of colossal red flags that knelled the inevitable demise of the Sussex coupling.

When a story like Tiara gate hits The London Times, you know it is true.

People can bob and weave and dismiss it all they like, but it would not be in The Times if it was not true and confirmed.

Enough about the fucking Times!

A bunch of muckraking, yellow journalist swine!

BBC posts 1 picture of Prince Charles from each year of his life.

What a nice pic

Why was the Tendrils thread closed?

It reached the 600 +/- post limit. There's a new thread, part 23 I think.

[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.]

R482 - Audrey Hepburn's favorite designer Hubert de Givenchy is dead. Unless he rose from the grave to design Nutmeg's wedding dress, it was just a poor substitute designer who did the honor. The one and only Givenchy would have made a much better dress and it certainly would have fit better.

Is James Middleton the bastard child of George V and Vincent Price?

[QUOTE] R479 Queen Elizabeth was never going to offer any of her personal tiaras. The Vladimir Tiara ( the one with loops and emeralds) was purchased from Princess Marina’s mother, who herself inherited it from the Russian Imperial family in exile. It is strongly associated with Queen Mary, and as such Queen Elizabeth has a strong attachment to it. I think we’ll be lucky if we even see Camilla in it, I have a feeling Queen Elizabeth’s will might command they put into storage until Catherine becomes consort. One never knows what might happen.

The only way that HM Queen could prevent Camilla from wearing The Vladimir Tiara is to be buried with it on her head (or break it up and sell the stones, which isn't likely).

The transition from Monarch to Monarch is instant and complete. She doesn't get to lock stuff away or make any binding 'Statement of Wishes.

How many tiaras are there?

[quote]I have a feeling Queen Elizabeth’s will might command they put into storage until Catherine becomes consort.

That’s ridiculous. Seriously. You’re getting carried away.

[QUOTE] She doesn't get to lock stuff away or make any binding 'Statement of Wishes.

Who knows? QEII is larger than life, there will never be another like her. Maybe they’ll revere her memory with things like that.

Yes because nothing prompts memory like locking something away where no one can see it.

If these tiaras were purchased they'll be the personal property of whoever owns them. There's nothing to say the Queen MUST pass them on to the next monarch/consort. They're not part of the Crown Jewels. There's nothing to stop her leaving any of them to any of her children, grandchildren or any of their wives.

Nothing except tax. Bequests from sovereign to sovereign are exempt from estate duties. As are gifts given in life providing seven years pass between the gift and the death of the giver. So if she’s ya sing away 250,000 pound tiaras somebody is going to have to pay up. In other words, not gonna happen. This is a woman who struggled to get her head around flying a flag at half mast. She’s not going to buck royal estate planning precedents.

There’s jewels that Queen Mary said should only be worn by future queens regnant and consorts after her death. So far, QEII has honored her grandmother’s wishes with some of these pieces, I haven’t seen Sophie Wessex or Camilla or Anne wear the Vladmir or that diamond wall Kokoshnik. Granted they aren’t queens, but Queen Mary said it and QEII obeyed it, even though Mary has been dead since the 1950s.

[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.]

[quote]QEII is larger than life

Then life must be smaller than 5' 4" (163 cm).

I’ve seen a homeless half bath before - well, stepped in it - but never a homeless kitchen. It was good of William and Kate to highlight this tragedy.

Kate was in a good mood today.

I think Louis resembles Catherine when she was a baby.

Louis seems like a jolly baby.

Close ups of George and Charlotte.

Louis has William’s eyes.

Charles dancing up a storm.

Kate's highlights in her hair soften her face.

Louis is going to be the looker of the bunch when he grows up. Mark my words.

I thought Charlotte was a very cute baby. She looks like a mix between the Queen and Carole Middleton. Louis looks less Windsor than the others.

Oh, all three children will be attractive: You can see that already. But Louis will be the best-looking.

Louis has the windsor gene big time....he looks like a mix of William and the Queen.

R 517 Wow, I don’t see William at all! He looks all Kate to me. Then again, he’s only 6 months old. Time will tell.

Out of the three, I liked Baby George the best.

Of course we haven't seen that much of Louis before.

Charlotte is cute, but tbh, she never really appealed to me.

[quote]Charles is throwing a birthday bash this week with European royals turning out en mass.

Actually HM is giving the party to celebrate Charles' 70th birthday. And it's later today.

Agree it’s early to say who Louis will resemble. I thought Charlotte was all Carole Middleton but as she’s grown I saw some Queen Mother as a child and now the Queen.

Future Queen Charlotte is the spitting image of her Great Grandmother ER2.

Hopefully Charlotte’s square shaped head elongates somewhat into an egg shape.

A rare glimpse of emotion from The Queen on Remembrance Day.

I was watching a documentary about the royal family on Netflix, where they were watching home movies and giving commentary. They showed a home video of a young Elizabeth and Margaret, with Margaret goofing off, and while watching the Queen scoffed and went “Typical.” There was so much fondness in her voice. Living so long has great advantages, but it’s got to be hard to to be the only one left.

R524 This is an old picture I think dating back to the early 00s. But it's one of the few times the Queen has ever been seen to shed a tear in public.

George has the sags under the eyes all the Kings and Queens get.

How many babies is Kate allowed to put out, forming a blockade to the throne?

[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.]

R399, a few corrections about your corrections. My assertion was not that Prince George, Duke of Kent was a GAY sex addict, but that he was a GAY SEX addict. Note the difference. I am not mistaken in my reporting that he was also suspected by some to have been in secret collaboration with Hitler and the Nazis, and some believe that he was wiped out by British intelligence for it. I don't care to dispute that the man's marriage was a happy one, but I will make a point of noting that he continued to have affairs with both sexes even after having been married. Finally, just as it has been rumored that M Canfield was his illegitimate son, so too was it rumored that another of his offspring was Raine Spencer, stepmother to Diana. But thank you for taking the time to "correct" me.

I think Will and Kate will probably have one more. 4 seems to be the standard number among royal families. I think Crown Princess Victoria and Queen Letizia are the only exceptiona to this at the moment, only having 2 children

Rainier and Charlene have 'only' two, too.

^ Oooops, of course it's not Rainier, but Albert.

Back in the day, wasn’t a British sovereign able to name their successor? (tho i’d think it would have to be someone who made SOME sense.)

Aside from any real feelings she has, what would stop Big Liz from naming, say, Harry, the most popular royal, from directly succeeding her?

Any personal bitterness aside (ie, Kate’s), would there be a legal outcry from outside the Saxe-Coburg/Gotha klan?

The legal rule of succession is a matter for the government/parliament. HM could 'name' whoever she wants as successor but it's down to parliament to agree it.

An example where there is no legal line of succession would be that of Head of the Commonwealth, which recently required a unanimous agreement on Charles' succession.

It is part of the British constitution (such as that is) that the eldest child (previously son) of the sovereign was heir to the throne. So there’s about a thousand years of history to stop her.

R538 / r590 thanks for the laugh! The pomposity in your correction was so thick I was surprised you didn’t close with pistols at dawn. Relax, baby, it’s just a message board.

How odd that Jack Brooksbank is in the back seat, Eugenie in the front passenger's and the royal protection officer driving. Wonder why he didn't drive like William and Harry or the couple isn't seated together. It doesn't look too good.

Typing while giggling. Meant r530. Whatever your number you’re a glorious windbag.

R532 The Grimaldi’s are a princely family, and their standards are a little less... royal? After all, it took Albert years and years to even get married

For R539

Willem and Maxima of the Netherlands stopped at three. I guess after popping out three identical red haired/block shaped daughters they figured they might as well quit and let Maxima get her figure back. It’s not like a boy would have made a difference, The Netherlands has absolutely primogeniture.

R526 The picture of The Queen shedding a tear at R524 is definitely from The Cenotaph on Sunday morning, I saw it live on TV and was surprised.

No 1 and no 3 of Willem's kids are blonde, no 2 is a redhead (and a gorgeous one at that).

So I'll never be Queen?

I make the following inquiry with no snark whatsoever: Memory serving, I think it was Cher who was rumored to have the two last ribs removed from her rib cage to effect a slimmer waist line. Would such a drastic measure also help Meghan to attain a bit of waist if she were to undergo such a procedure after her childbearing days are over? Is this an actual viable option for a woman like her?

[quote]R545 So I'll never be Queen? - Meghan

Not unless you GET BUSY, girl! I’m sure you know some out of work actors who’d take on special, high paying ...assignments, as it were.

R538, maybe Yuge gets carsick riding in the back. Doesn't explain though why Jack didn't drive like Harry and Wills did. Maybe he doesn't have a driving license.

More likely that they don't own the car and it belongs to The Royal Protection Squad so neither of them are insured to drive it. I think William & Harry were in their own cars.

That’s right, I forgot the Dutch had three. I thought they had 4 for some reason.

That, or maybe being a tequila brand ambassador Jack wants to "represent" at the party; hence the need for a DD?

Lizzie's toast for Chuck is very sweet

Wow, that was quite a lovely speech by HM. Camilla got a mention too!

A picture of Kate arriving. Nice earrings.

When I read that I knew the Di loons will be unhappy r553.

That was a lovely speech. Well done, whoever wrote it.

Charles and Camila

Throwback

True, R555 it seems like Di loons jump at any chance to be unhappy.

Passing the torch. Camerler, girl, get ready for your close-up.

Don't look at the Royal Family instagram comments on the family photos.

Lots of "It should be Diana there!!!"

Even if she were alive, I doubt he'd invite his ex wife for his birthday shoot. It's a sucky situation, but it's what happened. I'd like to think if she had lived, she and Charles would have eventually found a peaceful coexistence. Camilla or no Camilla, they would never have lasted.

Harry and Wills look like they are wearing wigs in that snap at r558. Ash blonde? What happened to Harry's red hair?

The Diana loons have got to get over themselves. The woman's been wormfood for two decades.

If she'd lived, she probably would have ended up in a tabloid spiral that would have made Fergie blush. She was headed that way before the accident. She wouldn't be at this party, she's be living in luxurious exile in Dubai or something.

Anne and her children's father are able to get along when they need to and Andy and Fergs have their...whatever. Chuck and Di would have gotten there.

I honestly don't agree, R564. Diana was unstable even as a young woman, and that kind of mentality doesn't age well. I don't see her ever settling down and being a happy person with a new spouse: Drama was what she lived and breathed.

[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.]

Harry and Meghan

Mark Phillips, Princess Anne, and Peter

Sorry, TOTALLY off topic, but get a load of this. Wow!

....

10/10 response R570

Lol I think the jewel-hungry Queen Mary will become a DL meme. You did it, old gals!

Better look at Kate

R569, that's amazing. I had seen the pearl before and didn't realize it sold! Amazeballs.

And who says Harry is the most popular royal when it's online polling bullshit that can be gamed by the most fanatical fans (cooking clearing macros, robo voting). Fanatics lurk on the internet; they're the ones who vote in polls. Harry is definitely the most popular in online fandoms, but that's the way it's always been. Many have been led astray thinking how goes online goes the general public.

She and Charles had sorted it out somewhat by the time she died. Reportedly they would talk on the phone and he'd give her advice. I do think she was in love with him til the day she died - one of the queen;s elderly relatives scoffs at the entire Hasnat Kahn thing, says, "He had problems!" which I can well believe, and says Charles is who Diana always wanted, and this senior was not a Diana fan. How, though, do they sort out Diana's pride, fairy tale princess fantasies, etc. from perhaps her love for the man himself? I mean look at him! It's so hard to believe he'd prompt an undying love.

I've never understood the queen's supposedly hostile attitude towards Camilla until finally Charles told his parents Camilla was non-negotiable, and they thawed? It's obvious that the queen trusts and respects Camilla now as she never could Diana. Camilla can be trusted. It's obvious Camilla is a trouper, no-drama, has her own functional, sane grandkids and kids. What on earth made QE and Phillip so against her? Unless their hostility towards Charles when Charles was in midlife led them to blame him for the demise of his marriage. Surely they knew it was a huge mismatch and not all his fault, and surely they didn't hold Diana as only sinned against, never sinning.

R576, you are on the right track. Diana needed therapy and possibly medication. She wasn't mentally well. That's why the boys and their wives now focus so much attention on mental health. Why else would they? She needed help and it was the 80's - it wasn't talked about, even then - so she likely didn't get the type of help even a normal middle class person would get today. That's sad, but it doesn't change the fact that she was unhinged.

Well, R576, it wasn’t as though they had a choice. The queen and Phillip would never have threatened to bypass Charles over Camilla. They were stuck and Charles knew it.

IDK, was Camilla from the posh upper royal circles? I watched a doc the other day that made it seem like she came from regular stock. So, if this is so, she'll be the first Queen of regular stock? (Kate is always talked of as the first to marry in.) Maybe QE and PP had to get used to that idea.

IDK, maybe I'm very off on this.

Kate in those heavy, royal as fuck earrings (which I read she's had since 2011), and Meghan in the same paste she wore in Fiji, where nobody could figure out where she got them. Some of the sugars hoped they were a gift from a royal, but they are clearly not 'real" no matter how a couple of the journalists on twitter insist they must be because no way "Meghan does fake." Although one journo acknowledged the earrings are hardly royal looking.

I am dying to see MM's dress because there is not a sign of fabric in the car shot, so I think she may be strapless. This will be good.

R579, in the UK, there are essentially three tiers of society, if you look at it simply: royalty, nobles, and everyone else. One can be an "everyone" and still be quite rich and even close to the others personally and in society, in modern UK. So Camilla is not from nobility although she is descended from nobility. But I believe her family wealth was enough.

R579, I am far from an expert, so I’m just going to give my impression. I thought Camilla was part of the wealthy upper crust social circle. Maybe not proper titled aristocracy, but well adjacent. She’s not a clueless upstart, that’s for sure.

[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.]

Link to Part 5 for when this one fills up

Oh, okay I was totally off then. Thanks for the info!

R580, I can’t wait, either. From the few shots we’ve seen, there have been lots of... sleeves.

I’m calling it now (said it earlier, too): strapless with empire waist. Short enough to show off her merch shoes.

Since Meagain has made it clear she regards Audrey Hepburn as a style inspiration -- all that Givenchy and those boat neck collars -- I've been waiting for her to wear a towel. Was tonight the night?

This is Camilla in The Cubitt-Shand Tiara (she has her own) Puts her in a different league to Kate.

Edward IV secretly married a commoner - I believe he was the first King of England to do this, and this was in th 1400’s

The woman had long silver blonde hair and was very beautiful

[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.]

Also Edward IV’s wife was the widow of a lowly knight and that Edward married her was considered scandalous at the time.

It is very obvious the queen has come to appreciate Camilla and has for a long time. Her toast at their wedding was fulsome and acknowledged the long road they had come to be together. She always refers to the love they share.

Just don't know why they knee-jerked "Horrible woman" at the time of the Diana/Charles bust up and even after Diana's death when it was Diana who was running around with an arms' dealers coke addled playboy son. I can't even imagine the chaos if Diana were alive today. Definitely William's life would be far less peaceful, although I could sort of see Carole Middleton "absorbing" Diana into the Middleton fold and making her feel accepted and welcome.

[quote]Just don't know why they knee-jerked "Horrible woman" at the time of the Diana/Charles bust up and even after Diana's death when it was Diana who was running around with an arms' dealers coke addled playboy son.

Maybe because Diana had two young sons? Let's not forget the tenor of the times. Each of the three was as bad as the other.

Camilla's great grandmother, Alice Keppel, was a long term-mistress of Edward VII. One of many I'll add.

The story goes that when Camilla was introduced to Charles, she reminded him of that. Don't know whether it's true.

R594, thanks for that. I think that's the 47,643 time that this particular anecdote has been shared about Alice Keppel and Edward VII. Such insight. What else can you share?

I can share that you're a well know prick, r595.

r595, Ms. Keppel was reported to have mentioned that she would courtesy to HM and then leap into bed.

LEAP!

Doors to manual!

I think Charles and Camilla have weathered the storm and she’s been accepted. I recall people being offended on Diana’s behalf because Charles led her on to marriage while his heart belonged to Camilla.

Frankly, I think Camilla WAS the woman for him. She just wasn’t available at the right time.

Or that’s how I perceive it. Who knows what the truth is.

Carry on!

R593, yes Diana and Charles shared two young sons, but she was dead. Dead, when the queen was still calling Camilla "horrible woman". Did she also castigate the many men, some married, with whom Diana had affairs and whom Diana pursued?

My attitude towards Diana was mixed. I never thought she was a babe in the woods. Her side eye was epic, and she always seemed to be thinking differently than she was behaving (or was supposed to behave). Clearly there are light years between her and Markle, as much of Diana WAS a traditional British woman who respected her sons' heritage. Reading about her antics with her children's nannies is harrowing - firing one because she felt William loved that nanny too much (breaking his heart, although I think he brought her back at one point early in George's life), the malicious rumors she spread about Tiggy who was not even in her employ. The way she trashed the father of her kids knowing they'd hear about it. There are youtube videos in which she's a piece of work, borderline to her fingertips, only sinned against, never sinning, trashing seven people in 10 minutes, her only fault her naivete and silly expectations.

OTOH, while I may at one time have suspected her "common touch" with the people was all front, I don't think it was. When I look back at video she is absolutely perfect, her timing and tone in particular. Sure, she was egocentric, but maybe in interacting with the public she found a true talent and also found that she was appreciated for being her best self. She really did have a talent for it and the public validated it in her - yes, you are great at this.

R589, her name was Elizabeth Woodville. Have you never watched the STARZ series "The White Queen?" She was also a witch, but a good one. Very good. Highly recommend!