British Royal Family Part 7: general gossip and information

R592 - Your point about it possibly being Philip's last Christmas is well taken. I'm not sure it was ever publicly confirmed that Kate and William were spending Christmas Day with the Middletons. Given Philip's state of health, it might always have been the plan for Will and Kate at least to have lunch at Sandringham and attend church, and then head back to Berkshire. Americans don't celebrate Boxing Day and the 25th is usually the end of the hols. except for New Years. In Britain, 6 January, Epiphany, used to mark the end of the hols. The Yule season, at least used to be, quite long and lazy. So spending the first half of the day with HM and Philip wouldn't have been wholly out of the picture, anyway.

I wonder if Philip has been filled in on any of this. MM is lucky his fangs have been pulled by age and illness, because if he were 20 years younger, sh'ed be getting the same treatment he doled out to Fergie.

Whatever the case, the BRF has succeeded in an intervention so late and so lame that the subliminal message will be the opposite of the public one.

Which may tell us everything they need to know about whom they blame for all this.

Any word from the Prince of Dim yet?

Christmas at the Windsors, ahhhhhh. The Cambridges are being forced to go in a pretend show of love and unity. The stuff of dreams!

The DM has a small article up today with the headline, "How Meghan AVOIDS reading negative press about herself!"

A concept whose absurdity is so glaring it can be seen from outer space.

She hasn't shown her face since this started - they aren't moving into Frogmore until the renovations are completed and she's only five months along at a maximum.

So the idea that she isn't aware of the furore is made up out of whole cloth, and was just an excuse for the DM to regurgitate all the stories, sly dogs that they are.

Got to admit, the DM are the masters of snark, both overt and subliminal.

There was recently an excellent documentary on Christmas at Sandringham.

But why was Phillip so mean to Fergie?

Because she was photographed having her toes sucked by her American side piece r6.

In 2018 DoE's bigoted gaffes would not be considered so amusing.

Those over at celebitchy are insane!!! Meghan and Harry are Saints (especially meghan) and will and Kate are pure evil and kaiser knows for a fact this is all coming from them to make poor meghan look bad. The excuses and reaches her readers/commentators will go to turn black into white and blame everyone but meghan is shocking. They act as if they KNOW exactly what's going on. Im not going to bother commenting as I know kaiser will delete it. She did another comment I made saying if this was the other way round you'd believe the media in criticising kate but not meghan. The lengths they go to to justify meghan behavior and demonise everyone else is absurd.

I think they are just upset that no matter what they say, do, screech or shriek Kate will be queen and Megs will be ..... well, I don’t know, maybe divorced, maybe back on an unknown cable show, maybe still hanging around but not in a position of power or influence.

They are frantic on lsa too. I admit I dont know a lot about the chess game that is the British Monarchy, but over there they seem to believe that MeMe will be Queen after the people vote on who's next. IT COULD HAPPEN R10 STOP TGE NEGATIVIVITY

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

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

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

With rumors of a falling out between Meg and JM, does anyone think its possible that JM is the source of some of the "leaks"?

Kate's Hello cover.

Older members of the Royal Family are still active. Here is the Duke of Kent.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

Her joy for pregnant Meghan??? The DM is in a PR/horseshit shoveling class by itself.

R13 - Hijus merengue dress on the future Duchess of Marlborough, but looking at the house is enough to turn one into socialist.

But the future Duchess of Marlborough will never be royal.

R21 - No, just rich as Croesus and holding one of the most famous titles in the British aristocracy, never mind the house.

I'd take it - and him, too.

The Daily Express appears to be taking over from the DM and is now printing the stories of the rift that the DM was printing a week ago.

It's rather like a relay race.

I wonder if it will all just die down after the tabs have gotten their photo ops of the Happy Families lot leaving church on 25 December?

No one has to like Meghan but her life is tied to other people. She isn't some solitary being. All the negativity aimed at her hoping she'll fail is fucked up because of all the others that will be caught up in it. Harry seems like a truly good guy I don't want to see this blow up for him or his family.

Astounding at how hateful some people can be for their own enjoyment. Now a kid will be involved. Willing to ruin people to sell "papers" and so many enjoying it. Is it a surprise things are the way they are in the world?

They should stop with the leaks, cut MEghan off at the knees with budget and engagements on behalf of the BRF, follow through on consequences when she won't quit the commercialism (merching). She and Harry act like children and they need a consistent parental hand.

We will still be able to read between the lines w/o the preponderance of drops. Afterall, who could misunderstand why they got Frogmore Cottage as their official residence?

Will and Kate will be making an appearance on Dec 11.

Sounds reasonable R25. I think the likelihood of this couple doing a 180 and behaving respectfully are remote, but hope for the best. I fear for the child of a narcissist though, no matter what.

Toodling around I just saw a horrible merching piece where Megan says something along the lines of "I am going to give my daughter this particular watch because I bought it all by myself and want her to know what independence is." Then there's a very clear commercial pic of the watch with brand blazing. This is her mentality -- can it change I dont know.

R26 11 December is, as most in today's Only Today Matters Britain have forgotten, was Abdication Day in 1936. As an aside, I think it very amusing that no journalists have pointed out that holding the vote in Parliament on May's BREXIT deal on Abdication Day might just be, at a minimum bad optics, at a maximum a bad omen.

But welladay, it's a very good day to counteract that history for the BR, with a visit like this by the Cambridges.

I remain of the opinion that the Palace is doing the very least amount of damage control possible in this situation, and damage control that LOOKS like damage control, in order to stick it to Meghan and Harry as much as possible.

I'm also still mystified at Harry's deafening silence. Shouldn't he be defending his love with more accusations of racism and abuse by the British press of same?

So, the groom at R13 is a direct descendant of Consuelo Vanderbilt, I think.

Daughter of the fabulously wealthy Vanderbilts.

She who went to her wedding in tears because she didn't want to marry the guy - the 9th Duke of Marlborough.

But her mother, Alva, a true gorgon who whipped her daughter with a riding crop for minor offenses, insisted.

The bride, secretly engaged to someone else was locked in her room as her mother threatened to kill the secret fiance.

Crowds had gathered to see the bride on her way to her wedding and stories were that she was clearly weeping in the carriage. And, weeping behind her veil at the altar. (Newspaper stories at the time realized the bride was apparently being forced and this was not the happy bride people expected to see.)

The Duke finally requested an annulment (and Consuelo agreed) in 1926 after they had divorced in 1921.

R24 - The issue isn't that Harry is a Good Guy or a Bad Guy - the issue is that he's immature, confused, weak, and harbours (in my opinion) resentments toward his own family re his mother that he has never dealt with. He has all the earmarks of the passive-aggressive adolescent who cuts off his nose to spite his face.

Meghan Markle's narcissism and failure to appreciate the realities of the circle she so nakedly longed to enter would have been obvious to anyone who really saw her clearly. She just didn't understand that she wasn't there to stand out for her feminist activism, her pointedly apposite fashion style, and her royal status, but for her work on behalf of the institution that let her in and gave her what she wanted: an A-list life and profile. She also confused that A-list status with her real status inside the family: the wife of the sixth in line. She thought, I believe, that that HRH and A-list status put on on an equal footing with Kate - but she was never going to be on an equal footing with Kate, as what was on offer for the Sussex's new housing arrangements made clear to her.

Harry I think was caught between a psychological rock and hard place: attraction to Markle for all the things that were wrong with her and that made her unfit for a place in the BRF but would satisfy his desire to stick it to the BRF, followed by eventual misery at her failure to adapt to what, after all, had given him his status, his wealth, and that had defined him and protected him.

And in the family's defence, another reason for not trying too hard to stop the marriage is that like any family, they winced at the prospect of forcing Harry to choose between his family and his infatuation - because the damage done forcing that sort of choice could never have been healed.

I think, all in all, they did the right thing - letting Harry drink the cup he mixed for himself to the dregs and learn by experience. It was the only real choice they had, albeit with fingers crossed behind their backs.

What he forgot to factor in was that what no one in the family would support was any behaviour that harmed the institution itself. They would, and they will if they have to, throw Harry out with Meghan if the choice comes down to him or a damaged celebrity monarchy.

Harry may just be realizing that he IS dispensable. After a life lived as the official Spare and a beloved bad boy, he probably thought he was more important than he really is.

These days, Charlotte is the official spare, with Louis as HER back-up. Harry will only become more irrelevant as time goes on. What a bitter pill that must be for Harry--and his wife--to swallow.

New rule: the eldest daughter inherits the crown, and Charlotte shall be Queen! There is something in her demeanor which is so reminiscent of Clare Foy's in The Crown.

Christina Onassis's mother was married to the 11th Duke of Marlborough for 10 years

Meanwhile, a check of the Future Engagements on the BRF web site shows absolutely nothing for either of the Sussexes through the end of this month, including Thursday's Meat Loaf benefit gala for the Invictus Game, even though it has been publicly announced in the press that Harry will attend.

The BRF do "embargo" many events so that they are not announced until just before, but as everyone knows now the Cambridges and Sussexes will be at Sandringham for Christmas, why not put it up there?

The Kents, the Gloucesters, Pss. Anne, Edward and Sophie Wessex, Charles and Camilla, are all carrying the load. The Cambridges host a Christmas party for children of personnel who are posted overseas tomorrow, and then fly to Cyprus to spend time with British troops stationed there away from their families for the hols.

Calendar stops at 19 December for this month.

Interesting, no?

18 No one cares about the oldies and what they are up to. Except for Princess Michael, as she is somewhat entertaining at times.

I care about the oldies, and would care a damn lot more if they were riding my tax pence. I was on that calendar the other day and saw nothing at all for the delicate Sussex flowers, but many days where the Princess Royal is set to do THREE events in 8 hours, sometimes back to back. WTH? She deserves a lot more credit but oh yeah she's old so whatevs

R36 - Second that, mate!

i wonder if carole's interview + all these meg articles are in exchange for the tabloids not to publish something really big. maybe they agree not to publish meghan having sex for money in exchange for all these little stories and Carole cooperating? Something along those lines...

Phil talking about "Sugar Daddies" and shit....

Anne is currently cool. Used to be groovy back then.

Is that Anne or Charles in drag?

In that photo, Anne reminds me of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy.

Philip was so handsome when young. I saw a great pic of him waterskiing...mmm.

R29, you forgot to mention Consuelo's happy ending with her marriage to Jacques Balsan in 1921. They were married until his death in 1956. She deserves it and she forgave/reconciled with her mother, Alva.

Tomorrow is also the diplomatic reception at Buckingham Palace . It's a tiara event and usually only the Queen (now princeless ) ,Charles and Camilla and William and Kate attend . I'm looking forward to see if Meghan weasels her way in and if not, the reaction of her stans .

R45– if Harry is not back from Zambia, I don’t see Meghan attending by herself

One dreadful winter day as i fought my umbrella whilst crossing Kingsway I was forced by stopped traffic to stay on the center island. The wind blew my umbrella inside out as i cursed and stomped my soaked shoes in the rain

Then I realized stopped right before me in a royal car seated in the back was Princess Anne. The light from a skylight in the car fell on her so I got a very good look and I was surprised to find her quite lovely This was around 1995.

Nice story r47.

Thanks for bringing those details r34, it is interesting. Whither they Sussexes? There was so much ink spread about 'how hard' they'd be working, right out of the gate, not even pregnancy would be slowing down their tremendous work ethic (or so the fraus at CB keep parroting, daily).

Was the 11 Duke of M the son of Consuelo? He had quite the colorful life himself, married to Athina Onassis and all. One of his other wives was related to the Bavarian royals and the Lichenstein princely fam iirc. His last wife was from India.

r30 Everything you said is a product of your imagination as is the rest of the speculation that goes on. You have no concrete proof of anything. The vultures at the rag publications have smelled blood in the water, as soon as they picked up on the dislike people have toward MM. They can now run crazy and chum the waters.

There are many ways to interpret things, but no interpretation equals the truth. You want the things you have said to be true but that does not mean they are. I can make a lot of interpretations about you based on what you have written would I be correct?

I know now why Megs is so close to her mother now . Since she whitewashed herself so much she needs someone from African American decent so she can say she is black and we all are racists. When she can’t use her mom anymore she will drop her like a hot potato like she did with everyone else in her live .

Good point, R50.

Sorry must be “life “ r50

R49 - Most gossip is by its very nature, speculation. And it's quite true that the British tabs are experts at shit stirring with spoons made up out of speculation and whole cloth.

That said, it is also true that the BRF can't hide everything, and where there's this much smoke there's usually a bit of fire. We do have eyes, the BRF has been slow to address this, no one remotely denied Tiara Gate or Melissa Tabouti's assertions, the deprivation of a London base base for the Sussexes, the pointed optics on Remembrance Day - are quite nutritious food for speculation. This is, after all, a gossip site. Tiara Gate and Harry's temper tantrum over it appeared in a respectable and mostly hagiographic biography of Charles just published.

It should also be remembered that the tabloids picked up the trouble in the Wales marriage for a long time whilst the BRF pooh-poohed it. The tabs turned out to be right, and not for the first time. The tabs do have paid informants and often cleverly combine what they know with a bit of, shall we say, artistic licence to avoid prosecution.

So dismissing it all is as specious as swallowing it all whole. At a maxiumum, something has clearly either gone badly awry, including with the marriage, already, or at a minimum, some genuine bumps in the road have arisen.

What looks least possible is that absolutely everything is fine, the BRF couldn't be happier with Sparkle who hasn't put a foot wrong since that Vanity Fair cover article in which she virtually announced their engagement before the BRF did, and well before the time the couple said in their interview that he proposed, after she moved to Nottingham Cottage - which was after the publication of the article, which was put together six months earlier, as cover articles customarily are.

Meanwhile, the DM today insists from another "inside source" that not only are the Cambridges staying at Sandringham for Christmas, but HazBean will be staying with them, because "space at Sandringham House is tight".

If they're wrong, it won't be the first time, and if they're right, it's clear that everyone involved is, as the Americans say, taking one for the team.

There is no way in hell that the HazBeans are staying with the Cambridges. My guess is that the Cs will spend a minimum mount of time at Sandringham and then hightail it back to Berkshire for a delayed family Christmas.

Because he's a Brit I thought he might have some insider info, but ,oh hunny, this queen got it so wrong.

Some Buckingham Palace Christmas decorations. Love the royal tree ornaments!

I enjoy the reasonable argument from R53 but let's dive back into some reckless fanfic with Kate and Meghan as allies

Kate: Megsy, I owe you big time.

Meghan: I know, right. I'm the best thing that's happened to your public image since you met Will. No more Waity Katie, Lazy Katie, Willnot and Kanot. Now it's all "Catherine has never put a foot wrong." Even the flying hemlines are forgotten.

Kate: It's great!!! I mean, it sucks for you, but gurl get back to me when you've finished your first 10 years of negative press. #paidmydues (sips gin)

Meghan: (side eye) They're relentless. And I can't even drink

Kate: Bitch, I deserve this drink. 3 babies in 7 years.

Meghan: You're not helping.

Kate: Fine fine fine. We'll look for some short term distractions to take the media heat off you. Hmmm, I wonder what the York girls are up to?

[quote]My guess is that the Cs will spend a minimum mount of time at Sandringham and then hightail it back to Berkshire for a delayed family Christmas.

R54, this is my suspicion, as well.

I asked in one of the other threads (I wish there weren't so many to keep track of) whether the Cambridges might go to Sandringham on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day to put in an appearance with Harry and Meghan, and then immediately return to Bucklebury. Someone joked that they would need a helicopter for that, as the places are 250+ kilometers apart. But a 6-hour round trip by car, while not exactly pleasant, is quite manageable, especially when you have their financial resources. I'm sure the Cambridges are not squeezing themselves into a Honda.

R56. Thank you for the clip. Love the tree ornaments.

R58 who the hell wants to travel 6 hours by car on Christmas day with 3 kids (5 and under) plus a nanny? Are you secretly wishing them a mental breakdown for the holidays?

Theyre taking the heli, babes.

And how enjoyably familial to complate the Sussex staying in Amner. As in, you all are staying in that part of the house and we will be way over here.

Prince Charles will be attending Bush’s funeral. Shouldn’t Sparkle tag along since she is an American?

contemplate..

[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 say, Kate looks bonny in that outfit! I think she and Wills fly to Cyprus tomorrow to spend time with British military forces stationed away from home over Christmas.

Almost everyone here hated Kate, don’t forget.

[QUOTE] I know now why Megs is so close to her mother now . Since she whitewashed herself so much she needs someone from African American decent so she can say she is black and we all are racists. When she can’t use her mom anymore she will drop her like a hot potato like she did with everyone else in her live .

Obsessed with her race, whether you admit it or not. Just like the American Obama haters who vehemently claim “it has nothing to do with his race!!!”

R66 - As it says at the beginning of Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana": "O, Fortuna, velut luna!"

"Oh, Lady Luck, changeable as the moon!"

As Meghan Markle is finding out before she's much older.

She makes Kate look like the soul of duty, rectitude, and traditional feminine deference to the accepted hierarchy.

I wonder if not just Harry, but Meghan as well is actually genuinely miserable, as she discovers the difference between fantasy royal life and real royal life. The schedule the bureaucrats put together for the tour Down Under was punishing, she didn't get huge kudos for it back in the UK, a lot of the work is boring small talk with the plebs, or sitting through boring services at the Abbey, she's being told where she can live and how well, because someone else is paying for it, she doesn't have a limitless income for clothes and jewels, the Cambridges are always going to get the best deals, Kate has emerged from maternity leave and is working it successfully, and, as Diana once said, "The work is 80% slog and 20% fantastic".

I suspect Meghan has gotten the shock of a lifetime since spring, wedded now to a dim bulb caught between her and his family and who hasn't said a word yet against the tabs in her defence (unless he's preparing a lawsuit, which is always possible). I wonder both are questioning their choices or at least whether they should have waited longer.

I believe they are both due at a private event today or tomorrow, the memorial service for the von Straubenzee son in whose name a fund has been set up, and who was killed at 18 in a car crash, and Meghan has been asked to give a reading.

But that is a private, not official, event. She hasn't been seen at an official event since the Royal Variety Show, after which the bad press really became intense.

Kate looks great! Let is snow (even if it's fake). LOL.

I suspect that Doria knows her daughter too well to move here and live with them. She's a trained social worker, and whatever the rights and wrongs of Meghan's upbringing, Doria has been able to maintain her decent relationship with Sparkle by keeping a careful distance from her and maintaining psychological boundaries.

The similarities between Meghan and Diana just keep piling up, because Diana also quarreled with her family: her mother, her sisters, her brother . . . Charles's long-time staff also began leaving after the marriage; the Wales marriage also came under terrific strain very early in the day; Charles and Diana also didn't spend much real time together in the year they "dated" before the marriage; Diana also got pregnant within three months after the wedding; Diana also loved the spotlight and evidenced major NPD traits, particularly lying and often believing her own lies, and also had a habit of ghosting people suddenly when she was done with them.

It really is quite striking.

That pic of Kate in tartan is lovely. It reminds me of my sister in the 90s, she had long bouncy hair then and almost this exact outfit. The skirt was knee length instead of mid calf but the sweater is just about identical.

My take on the whole matter is that Meghan expected the red carpet rolled out for her when she joined the Royals, and Will expected his new sister-in-law to kiss his ass because everyone does. Neither did what the other expected, and mutual butthurt ensued. Both got backed up by their enabling spouses.

I think they're all acting like a bunch of spoiled assholes. Their only job, besides birthing babies, is behaving themselves. They need to grow up, take stock of the enormous privileges they're ALL enjoying, and STFU.

What's all that BS about Diana? So is Harry fucking his gf? Did the gf present Harry with the gift of jewelry days before their wedding? No, the similarities are next to none.

Narcissists share a lot of the same traits, forever and ever. Its rinse reoeat, with calm moments quite fleeting. If he hasnt already, Haz will rue the day Buckaroo's lasso landed on his neck..

I agree Meghan's had a couple of missteps, but they haven't been monumental and I for one hope it all works out great in the end. And much to the chagrin of many jerks on this site, it probably will.

R75 - It's quite possible it will work out, at least for awhile. But they said the same thing about the Wales's and then about the Yorks, and it didn't. The thing is, the focus on the Cambridges is in my opinion a blind: the person she really pissed off is the Queen with the tiara business, and then insulting the Yorks at Eugenie's wedding. It's stupid to antagonise the Cambridges given their future position, but it was beyond stupid to throw a tantrum about a tiara at the Queen - that displays more than a misstep: it displays a complete disregard for the realities of the life she was entering - ditto the maternity coat at the Queen's granddaughter's wedding.

In my opinion, Meghan's missteps were not totally surprising or unexpected for some of us who grasped what she was about from the Vanity Fair cover article onward.

But Harry's silence, taking off to Zambia, staying longer than planned and leaving her alone with this, and not uttering a word (at least that I know of, and unless he is planning to file suit for harassment or slander) is more surprising and, in a way, more ominous. Harry is known to be weak, changeable, to cheat on significant others, and to be heavily conflicted when it comes to his blood family.

Believe me: the Firm will throw both him and her under the bus if they believe they do more harm than good to the institution.

Remains to be seen if Meghan retreats into a mode more like Sophie Wessex's and Kate's, stops acting as if she's going to be Queen someday, and more as if she grasps that everything she has or ever will have she owes to the Queen's and Charles's good will.

Her husband on his own isn't terribly rich, the Firm calls the tune on what homes are on offer and where they are, and the Cambridges one day are going to be calling that tune.

So it's on Meghan and Harry to shift gears and pull it out.

The sad thing is, there isn't a third Wales brother to marry a new wife and pull the white-hot critical spotlight off of Meghan, the way that Meghan pulled the spotlight off Kate. Meghan could very well find herself the public's Royal scapegoat, just as Sarah Ferguson was back in the day, until William's children are old enough to start dating. We'll see if she can stand being in the hot seat for the next 15 years: Only someone truly made of tungsten could handle it.

"Breath of fresh air" - the Knell of Doom.

[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 drops that Meghan has told friends she wants to move to Canada has her head so far up her ass she is farting clouds. No way in hell the BRF are going to let HazBean live anywhere they can't keep them on lock down when they feel like it, firmly under their thumb. Sparkle must be sentimental for Toronto because it was where she was her most empowered, doing what she wanted and over-hyping her brand. The Firm is not going to let her ass run free like she thinks. The only way she can take Harry to that fantasy of hers is if he renounces his place in the line of succession. Yeah, good luck with that bitch.

That plaid skirt is cute and she looks good. I do think she loves him and adores the kids, things that may bore some onlookers, but i think the BRF shoukd be pleased to have her.

The fake snow actually looks quite good.

Whoops ^^^ Duchess Kate of course.

Kate made a speech as Will looked on.

There is no “Duchess Kate”.

A video of Kate and Will today. They look very happy and relaxed.

R79 - The DM has done that before, more directly, contrasting after one event on MM "returning to her Hollywood roots" [sic, we know what that implies], to "Kate's more natural look" (translation: Hollywood tramp v. nice Home Counties English girl).

Kate is coming out of this smelling like Ye Traditional English Rose.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, is the best thing that ever happened to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, one day to become Catherine, Princess of Wales, and thence to become HM Queen Catherine of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (assuming NI survives BREXIT as part of the UK).

Whereas, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will remain so for the rest of her life OR for the duration of her marriage to HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; if said marriage dissolves before Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, becomes a UK citizen, then Meghan, formerly HRH the Duchess of Sussex, will go home to L.A. as . . . Ms Meghan Markle, former wife of, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

I agree, R81. Kate has always seemed genuinely well-suited to this lifestyle, and happy in it. Some of Meghan's fans have claimed that we all disliked Kate before Meghan came along, but that was never the case for me. I admired her from the start, and was amazed that she hardly put a foot wrong during the decade that she and William spent dating and maturing together.

And, for the record, as I said in one of the other now-deleted threads, I originally liked Meghan, too. It was only at the point of the pre-engagement magazine story and engagement interview that my opinion started to shift.

If Diana couldn't keep her HRH status as mother to a future King, no chance in the realm of reality this grifting narcissist is going to retain hers after the divorce.

I concur with r76's assessment of the current situation, perhaps without such a dire outlook. I'm hopeful that lessons can be learned here, changes made and a success for show in the end. It's a very rough gig, marrying into the BRF, even under great circumstances or familiarity.

That said, Meghan would do well to remember that she exists in her royal role to serve the monarch. That is, at the moment, QEII. It will soon be King Charles, and after that, King William V. She will be serving these people, and the crown they will hold. Both Charles, and then William after him, will also control the purse strings to her lifestyle. Coming out of the gate with trouble with any of them could be disastrous.

It's their crown, and their rules ultimately. You play the game by these, if you want to win.

Kate is a natural with babies and children but then she's had lots of practice.

I'm not the thread police here, but r50/r67 should be blocked if they continue that line of talk. It will get our discussion closed or deleted.

Sorry I'm usually for live and let live but this is the current reality. Please don't continue that discussion.

R80 - in essence, quite true, but not so much because they want Harry under their eyes, but because the UK taxpayer isn't going to pay to support Harry and Meghan living essentially private lives in a foreign country. It's not as if they can make Harry Governor General of Canada, because they can't and won't.

But I agree that if Meghan has already seen the Light and knows she doesn't want to spend the rest of her life like this and wants out of the deal, and Harry wants to stay with her, he has no choice but to waive his and his descendants' rights in the line of succession.

I think he hates the work too, and thought it would be bearable with MeAgain by his side. I think he already knows he was wrong.

They'll have much happier lives as Harry and Meghan Windsor in Canada; Charles and the Queen will see to it that Harry has a handsome annuity in addition to the income from his trust, and they can turn into Edward and Wallis lite.

Summary of Kate's outfit. The plaid skirt is by Emilia Wickstead.

But meghan will not want to give up royal titles and privelages. And chances to appear on Buckingham Palace. I wouldn't be surprised if she's whispered in Harry's ear the poisonous viper that she is, that we should be king and queen and relaying to him that people don't like will and Kate (they are work shy etc) especially as Harry was voted more popular royal (she came sixth, Kate beat her her HA! take that meghan and celeb itchy) That woman wants to rule.

No idea about the frock, but the watch and the earrings aren't new, she used to wear them before. In fact, she has got them for quite a while.

Kate looks positively TRANSGENDER. Straight up and down shape of a teen boy before the hormones are given.

Shapeless breeder. Useless eater.

There is no way that Kate & William will leave their home and allow Sparkle & Harry to remain by themselves in Anmer Hall after whatever appearances happen with the Queen at Christmas.

Not one single chance.

If the Cambridge family head off to spend the rest of the holidays with Kate's family, it will only after Sparkle and Harry have packed their bags and departed for wherever they are currently living.

^^ Do you think Will and Kate are personally counting the silver and hiding it from Harry and Meg?

Kate looks adorable in that outfit - I'm sure MeAgain looks at that tiny waist and the way Kate's long slim figure can carry all that cloth and goes green with envy.

Just what the BRF ordered: keeps her mouth shut, her womb open, provided a nice stable home for William, adorable children, and maintains that wholesome Home Counties aura.

William knew what he was doing. Such a shame Harry didn't.

The new Harry&Megs vs Will&Kate drams boils down to one simple point: Harry and Megs are too left field with their ideas and ambitions. Their goal of etching out a distinct and "unique" place among the family simply is not in line with what the family stand for. They are not supporting the most important thing - the survival of the Monarchy. The Palace sees that the public need a bit of help in redirecting their own support and placing it where it belongs which is behind the Monarchy and not some popularity contest winning Prince and his fame loving star of a wife. The firm will always do what has to be done.

R87 if you’re going to attempt sarcasm, it helps to get the titles and styles correct, which you didn’t.

“Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge” would be either the widow of or ex-wife of the Duke of Cambridge. I don’t have the time to correct all your other errors.

Best if you and the other clueless obsessives stick with what you know - “Will”, “Kate”, “Harry” and “the grifter from L.A”.

Did you even hear what you said R100? Keeps her mouth shut and her womb open... just what the BRF wants. Is there any more damning evidence that the BRF is an anachronism that must be eliminated? This is what they want for their women? MM no doubt didn’t realize that the BRF was this backward; she thought she could shake things up.

This is partly why the criticism of MM feels so misogynistic. Many people are criticizing her for her ambition and desire to be different. Isn’t that what we want for our women? Do we want them to keep quiet but keep that womb open???

I think I could get behind that premise if Meghan would just do things that didn't scream "self-serving." So far I have seen nothing from her but spoiled entitlement with a bank cheque book.

But Meghan's womb got bushwhacked far sooner than Kate's. What was the Duchess of Sussex trying to demonstrate to young feminists everywhere by getting knocked up within a mere three months of her marriage.? "Girls, make your money maker now!"?

At least the Cambridges had a year and a half to two years to enjoy their young married status in private and fucked unbridled and unencumbered up in Anglesey, Wales where William was an ambulance pilot and Kate was a common haus frau (and apparently happily so)

Yep, I'm afraid "Shake your money maker" is the sole lesson to be learned from Meghan, whomever she shakes it for.

R103 - the monarchy's very existence depends on women's wombs for procreation and continuing the royal line so that part of your argument is null and void. As far as shutting their mouths, that rule applies if it's anything political or controversial in any way. The royal family cannot be seen to be favorable to one political party or attached to a questionable charity. They have to remain IMPARTIAL and ABOVE all of that shit. The Queen is a UNIFIER not a DIVIDER. She is Queen of everyone in Britain and the family should follow her example.

Whether you like them or not, those facts are NEVER going to CHANGE but most of the royals do realize that they do have to ADAPT to the times albeit very, very slowly. For example, it's only in the last couple of years that the royals have utilized social media to share royal events.

R105 you know (or maybe you don’t?) that pregnancies for women over 35 can be highly problematic and difficult. I know a few people who got married in their mid 30s and they didn’t wait—they didn’t have the luxury of waiting. Who cares if Kate and William waited? That’s a personal decision for each and every couple. I know someone who just got married in her mid 20s and got pregnant quickly because she has the BRCA jean. She can’t wait either.

The proles here will never catch on to Catherine, DoC....

She married into an extremely powerful, public corporate FIRM. They even call it "The Firm", because that what it is. Her marriage got her a husband AND a job. Her husband's father and grandmother - and their senior courtiers - are H& M's bosses, they pay the bills. And like the rest of us out here in working land, they have to abide by their ways and rules, stuffy as they are.

If it doesn't suit them, they are free to leave and live as private citizens. Charles would certainly pad Harry's existing income stream (from his Diana inheritance) to insure their comfort. They would still be a part of the overall family, just not participate in public events or do charity work. Translation: NO publicity.

The Epstein sex case has been settled. Ok, who paid whom?

Can you hear the big sigh of relief at Royal Lodge Windsor? Prince Andrew is doing a happy dance as I type.

The main overall case involving Epstein wasn't settled r110. The pending civil case that was due to go to trial this week was between Epstein and attorney Brad Edwards, who represented many of the victims. It was a personal case between the two men; Epstein has issued an apology and probably paid a monetary settlement to make that one go away. He is still extremely wealthy.

There is however, a pending federal case in FL re the horrible, controversial non-prosecution agreement that was negotiated in secret 10 years ago between Epstein and the then-U.S. attorney for South Florida, Alex Acosta (who is now Trump's Sec of Labor). That case is pending, if it goes to trial the victims would very likely be able to publicly testify, a right they were denied previously since the case was settled so strangely.

I remember rumors of Charles and Diana’s bad marriage started very early on. In 1983 Elvis Costello did the song “Every Day I Write the Book” and while the Charles and Diana characters have nothing to do with the song, Diana’s dissatisfaction comes through loud and clear. I definitely remember stories were going around even in 1983, although that might not jive with the ‘official’ chronology of their marriage breakdown.

No, R99, but neither would I trust Sparkle, a media whore and leaker, to snoop around my home, my bedroom, my desk, my kitchen, my bathroom, my children's rooms, etc.

Especially after the story about her being caught photographing "private spaces" of the RF while she was still auditioning for the role of Royal girlfriend.

Hell, I wouldn't want her perusing my DVD collection.

R102 - ON THEIR OWN, the ladies using their FIRST names are correctly referenced. It is not Duchess Meghan of Sussex. It IS Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. If she is using ONLY the ducal title without her first name, yes - it's HRH the Duchess of Sussex. Harry, however, born a Prince of the Blood, uses his FIRST name after his title - the way Diana wasn't supposed to.

"Prince Harry's new title is His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and after marriage, Meghan Markle's title is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."

NOT: HRH Duchess Meghan of Sussex.

I used their first names correctly, you twat.

102 - Oh, and speaking of clueless - her title is only hers by courtesy right now. The minute Harry divorces her, if she hasn't yet become a UK citizen, that courtesy title goes the way of the Dodo.

"Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is a member of the British royal family. Her husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, is expected to become king of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms, making Catherine a likely future queen consort." Wikipedia

Any more clueless remarks you'd like to make?

R103 - No one is arguing that monarchies are anachronisms, at least, I'm certainly not.

What I'm arguing is that their survival depends on people like Kate Middleton, not people like Meghan Markle who want exactly those anachronistic perks, but without sacrificing anything for them, AND pretending they're earning them by a few speeches, and showing up occasionally at public events for an hour or so while little kids curtsey and hand her flowers, and an hour later she gets back into the limo and heads back to Kensington Palace or Frogmore Cottage or wherever.

Kate plays the game much better, and as it is William who will reign, not Kate, she has done exactly what she was supposed to do.

Meghan Markle on the other hand, wants to shake things up but just enough to suit herself, but not enough to endanger the very framework of her title, social status, perks, homes, designer clothes, expensive jewelry, long holidays, nannies, chefs, chauffeurs, etc.

Kate, at least, is honest, and always has been - she's never wanted anything more than the job of being William's wife and the mother of William's children and settling down. Meghan Markle is the hypocrite, touting her feminism when her first husband got her the only real acting job she ever had, and her second husband got her the A-list status she's always hungered for.

Every thread of clothing on Meghan's back, her homes, her income - EVERYTHING - is due to the man she married and even more, to the family behind him.

But she acts as if she is should take all that AND be a free agent, as well.

The two fantasies aren't compatible.

She wants to empower women but doesn't mind her perks being paid for by working women taxpayers in the UK. She'll gladly take her father-in-law's annual handout to his son, which is based on the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall, which are derived from land development that is actually worked by . . . ordinary taxpayers.

She's a fucking hypocrite and it shows.

r101 r106 r109 and others if you are Americans, what the fuck are you doing protecting or defending the monarchy? I suppose the logical answer is you wish to be a royal in order to have the "god given right" to look down upon and piss on those deemed less than.

Unfortunately there are heaps of you crazies.

R117, I'm just an active participator in these threads, and an avid viewer of the Soap Opera that is the BRF like everyone else. I also try to make sense of what's going on sort of like working on a jigsaw puzzle. Nothing more. WTF is YOUR problem, son?

R118 - Ignore him. His reading comprehension skills are too low to distinguish between objectively discussing truths about a system and totally endorsing said systems.

What happens on these threads is that the racy, misogynist, and nationalist hysterics come in, accusing everyone of hating Meghan because she's mixed race, or hating women because they acknowledge that the monarchy is a hereditary system based on hierarchy which makes childbearing extremely crucial, or hating Americans because Meghan is American, or hating Brits because they hate Meghan.

What they can't seem to do is enjoy a bit of lively discussion.

*racE, misogynist . . .

R119

Kate is at the diplomatic reception wearing the Cambridge lovers knot tiara and her royal order and cameras were allowed in apparently for the first time ever. Is it to stick to meghan?

R121 - No, it's to support the Cambridges. Kate looks stunning, wearing again the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara, which the Queen has clearly given her for the duration, the diamond and pearl drop earrings that Diana often wore with the tiara, and a sparkling, filmy, ultra-feminine gown. She looks very regal, very relaxed, and I'm sure Meghan is spitting nails after spending the evening in a (yet again) inappropriately low cut yet slovenly navy blue outfit complete with the usual mess.

Where's the gent who called Kate's hair style that of a Lhasa Apso? He needs to look at the photos of the two women at events tonight juxtaposed.

[quote]Kate looks festive in tartan at a party for military families

She really does look lovely, but for her sake I really do wish she'd put on 7-10 lbs, if not 15 (that's a full stone, right?). I'm worried about a possible eating disorder or at least an excessive preoccupation with diet and weight. I don't recall ever seeing her this thin.

122 that's what I meant. Are the courtiers sending a message to meghan becuase they know she'll see. I agree with you its pissing her off that she's not at the Palace in, a tiara, with the queen posing away showing off her bump.

Why no pics?

Correction: the DM (which moves faster than the speed of light) has already placed Kate at the glittering diplomatic reception and moved Meghan and Harry at the memorial service to the sidebar on the right.

Harry's hair, if possible, looks worse than worse than Meghan's. You can see how bald he is on top, he looks like he's getting a paunch, his clothes are wrinkled - the two of them look like they've been holed up in a bear den for a few months.

And as Meghan didn't know the young man who was killed, and Harry did, that he let her do the talking at this memorial service is rather second rate.

R123 - A "stone" is 14lbs. And, yes, I think Kate's face could use more filling out.

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

So maybe Harry went on the Royal/wealthy equivalent of a binger? Whereas a working class guy might stay out all weekend spending his entire paycheck before coming home, he may have done the same only grander.

R124 - I think the increasing message here is the rank of the Cambridges. You will note that Kate is now wearing the yellow ribbon backing to the family order pinned on her shoulder for the first time. The ribbon itself has significance, and before now, she has worn the order itself (the portrait of the sovereign in diamonds) a few times, it was awarded last December. Now she is wearing the ribbon as well, which means she has been awarded that for service to the Crown.

I think this all has everything to do with moving the Cambridges further front and center as the Queen ages, prepares for widowhood, then death, and the inevitable creeps ever closer. I don't think it's meant pointedly AT the Sussexes, but they can't miss the meaning of it all.

Kate looks lovely overall, but the makeup, particularly the rouge, is a bit much.

Exactly R126 why the fuck is meghan giving a reading?!

Harry is going to look like shit when he loses his hair, just like Will.

There is nothing feminist about marrying into royalty. You have to walk behind them, the kids aren't yours. As long as the husband lets you do otherwise you're fine. But it is based on his whims. The whole thing is BS, the whole system is archaic. If she was a feminist she would had insisted he give up his succession rights.

Interesting how she wore a maternity coat to the wedding but in her appearances immediately after she didn't wear maternity clothes. She really knew how to get the press that day.

R130, Kate has alreafy worn the order with the ribbon to the state banket for the Dutch royals, the pictures are on DM site.

R132 - I know- it's rather shabby of Harry, who knew the young man, not to give the reading. It does somewhat smack of Harry meekly making way for Meghan to get some attention. But it is inappropriate as she never knew the man. If I were the family, I would be a bit put out.

Cuz she's been a pain in the ass shrieking that she wants a share of the attention. So Harry pulled his own impotent strings and the best he could get was a favor from his bff. But the optics on her doing this are extremely tacky since she doesn't even know these people.

R134 - Did she? Could have sworn I didn't see the ribbon at the Dutch state banquet, but I'll check.

R134

Sadly, although exquisitely bejewelled and attired this evening, Kate does look a tad anorexic in the DM pictures. Elegant and hungry. Big Liz looking even more shrunken. They both need a good feed.

R130 Yes, Lilibet is making a clear statement.

Wow, Kate is lovely, her eyes are sparkling. She looks like she wants to be there and has prepared accordingly, as opposed to she who shall not be named, who is her usual sloppy self, hanging on to the latest guy. Skinny looks good on Kate, maybe still breast feeding?

R137 - It's the sash I was thinking of - she hasn't been given any of the sashes yet.

[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.]

Let me settle this for once and for all in terms that the DL crew can clearly understand. It goes like this: Meghan is Jackie O marrying both her husbands for wealth, status, and opportunity. Everything she got she gained through her husbands and their families. Therefore, she became all she was known for through those men. The difference between the two women lies in the fact that Jackie never tried to front by stating that she was a feminist because such a claim, she well knew, would have been contrary to fact.

Has Harry ever attended the Queen's Diplomatic Reception?

It’s for the grown-ups, R144.

It's a Tiara Wearin' Night!

If that means no R145 then it isn't a stub for him (and Meghan) and not to be invited tonight , it's just regular programming.

You tell that to Meghan R147

I think people (ie Harry and Sparkle fans) have a hard time understanding/excepting that Heirs and Spares are ALWAYS on different career tracks. Heirs get to do the Big Events, ALL the time while Spares get the side gigs and an occasional big one, but usually just the ones where the whole clan participates.

Then again, frequently the Spares seem to have a hard time accepting this as well, even though they spend a lifetime learning these facts of life.

You would think Sparkle, who has never been higher than 6th or 7th on a Call Sheet, would understand this...

Was just going to say that R148 she won't care she'll have wanted to be there.

Is it true that Meghan is trying to get Michael Avenatti to represent her in the divorce?

Camilla looks great. I'm not usually a fan of her choice of shapeless dresses but I think she looks good in this structured silhouette. I'm torn about Kate's dress. I think she looks ethereal, but I wonder if it has a bit of the air of the ingenue which doesn't quite fit with the mother of 3. Just the fit of the dress is lovely enough though. Waif-like

Kate looks spectacular. Also getting the hairstyle right for a tiara is tricky and she's nailed it here.

Is MM really speaking at the memorial service for Harry's friend whom she never met, who died long before they were a couple? That just seems bizarre.

R148 I don't send social media messages to celebrities. I also don't assume that I know what they think or want. I'm not about that frau life

R144 - I can't say - certainly Pss. Anne and others have, so I see no reason why Harry shouldn't have. I haven't looked it up. I think tonight was the first time cameras were allowed inside the reception, however; formerly, they only papped the guests driving in.

The winter diplomatic reception custom is also a tradition of the Danish royals - it takes place in Christiansborg Slot ("slot" means palace) on New Year's Eve, and requires full evening mufti AND the family orders, which means the Order of the Elephant, on a highly ornate chain that ruins all the ladies' gowns. The royals stand for hours received the diplomats. It looks like the evening from Hell, frankly.

R151 - Come on, now. We've just gotten back on track with civilised discussions of the diplomatic reception (I think Kate wore the same jewelry to it last time and also a white spangly gown). There's no divorce in sight, we all know that. Baby, christening, Meghan taking on a couple of patronages . . . sorry, children, you will have to let this go for awhile.

All this papping going to waste tonight. BUMMER

camilla looked fantastic (as usual, imo), but i'm not a fan of catherine's dress - it's, indeed, too ingenue-like. something a disney princess would wear. idk...

R133 - Indeed, and I think she made a permanent enemy of Prince Andrew, who is rather a vicious sort, and angered the Queen - whose flesh and blood granddaughter Eugenie is.

R155 Thanks for the information. Really useful. Anne is the queen's daughter and has been a working senior royal for more years than Harry has been alive. I think the BRF are signalling the succession plan. Kate and Will have had the kids and now they will focus on the work of the Firm. The Remembrance Day image of the 3 Queens is repeated again tonight (currently image 4 in the DM story). That's my bit of speculation.

Now I'm off to google the Order of the Elephant and ruining dresses.

I think Camilla's gown is made from silk dupioni. It is very stiff and imposing formality which suits her as next in line. Kate's represents youth. Yes, three kids and all that but she (and William) are the future.

Is Anne at this?

R158 I'll take anything over the dress Kate wore to the Dutch state dinner. I thought that blue dress looked like the 80s rose from the grave.

I definitely agree that one healthy stone of weight would make all the difference for Kate, and she'd still be nowhere near plump.

R162 - I had initially the same view of Kate's dress at the Dutch state banquet. However, after repeated viewings, I liked it better, at least from the waist up. It was the ruching on the bottom of the dress that made it look like a dance hall girl's outfit from a saloon in the Old West (not that era is a speciality of mine, you understand . . .).

I see Camilla is wearing the Honeycomb Tiara - she wears that quite a bit. Dear God, the rocks on display - that little creature from "Fantastic Beasts" that can't stay away from shiny things, what is it, the Niffler, would be dead of heart failure.

The thing about the NYE Diplomatic reception in Denmark is that it is almost always guaranteed to be butt freezing cold that night in Copenhagen. So the ladies, especially Queen Margrethe, show up in furs, cloaks, also often long gloves (I think they're required for all that hand-shaking but don't quote me), as it's like a receiving line, and they've got on their most impressive gowns, tiaras, chandelier earrings, and that Order of the Elephant on a huge chain over their bosoms with an ivory elephant dangling at the bottom. Honestly, I don't know how they walk, let alone stand for the entire reception.

R142 I don't think the Fail is ever going to get this right . THIS. IS. NOT. DIANA'S. TIARA !! It was loaned to her by the Queen and after Diana had that unfortunate meeting with a tunnel wall in Paris in went back to the Queen.

I for one would like to see Kate in some other tiaras for a change.

R166 - Actually, we do know it. If you look, you'll see that I said "which it looks like the Queen has clearly given her FOR THE DURATION, the diamond and pearl drop earrings that Diana often wore with the tiara".

Kate doesn't have a tiara of her own; Diana did, the Spencer tiara. But really most of us know that the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara does NOT belong to Kate any more than it did to Diana.

What I'd like to know is what happened to Queen Mary's emerald choker that Diana once famously wore around her forehead, 1920s style, at an evening event I think in Australia?

Did anyone else see the exhibitions of Diana's dresses that William auctioned off for charity?

I still can't believe the vitriol aimed at Meghan whilst the BRF - and the Queen - hide a sordid man who had non-consensual sex with minor victims of sex trafficking. *Shakes head.

Why aren't any of you railing against the most disgusting Prince Andrew with the fervour and venom aimed at a woman who dared to show a bra strap in public, but has never committed rape against minors.

This is twisted.

R167 - LOL. I'll bet she feels the same way.

HM has a gorgeous sapphire parure that she hasn't worn in a long time, with a necklace strung with sapphires the size of small plums, matching sapphire chandelier earrings, and, of course, a sapphire tiara.

She seems to be fond of the Burma Ruby tiara as well, but I wonder if that's out of sight given it was a gift from the Burmese people and with what's going on there now . . . it might not be politic to wear it.

There’s no such person as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

There is The Duchess of Cambridge, however.

Further to my post above, the Queen appears to have worn the Burma Tiara last year - here is some interesting info it:

"The new ruby tiara was made by Garrard in 1973. The rubies used in the making of the new piece were also a wedding gift; Elizabeth received them from the people of Burma. The gift included precisely 96 rubies, all of which are now set in the tiara. The Burmese people believe that rubies help protect the wearer from the 96 diseases that can afflict the human body — they definitely wanted to ensure that Elizabeth remained hale and hearty. The rubies and diamonds were set in a series of rose motifs, and if you know your English history, you’ll recognize a heraldic rose that combines white and red petals as the Tudor rose."

I’m not a fan of the design of that Burmese ruby tiara with the weird fan motifs, but we don’t see ruby tiaras as often as plain diamond ones so it’s a treat to see it. They’re so red too, wonderful.

R171 - There may be a medication for your Grammar Pedantry Syndrome.

There is such a thing as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge if her first name is being used. Otherwise, formally, you are correct: without her first name being used, she is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. But she is NEVER Duchess Catherine, any more than Diana was Princess Diana.

If you marry in, your name never comes after the title with the exception of "Queen". You have to be BORN royal to have your name come after your title: hence, Princess Anne, Prince Charles, Princess Eugenie . . .

BUT: Diana, Princess of Wales. And Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge OR HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

You surely aren’t addressing me, R174. I have been studying royal history for decades. I think I know more than anybody on this board about royal history, and not just the Windsors.

^Think fast! Name Elizabeth I's childhood nanny/governess. You have ten seconds starting NOW

Times up - you lose

Crawfie, you cunt

And blocked

[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] Why aren't any of you railing against the most disgusting Prince Andrew with the fervour and venom

Because he’s white

Do they actually go by Wills and Kate in private, or did the tabloids just give them those nicknames in order to accommodate shorter headlines? I've heard that Kate prefers to be known as Catherine.

Same with Fergie. Was Fergie her school nickname or something?

I SAID ELIZABETH THE FUCKING FIRST, YOU BLEEDING CUNT!

The answer is Cat Ashley. Get to the back of the class, you damned fraud.

Cat may have been her nanny and taught Elizabeth I her alphabet but Elizabeth was educated by top thinkers in England, mostly faculty at Cambridge.

Here's a picture from an earlier Diplomatic Reception (2016).

Since Charles and Philip and William are wearing breeches here, I assume William wore them (along with Charles) tonight.

So Kate changed her outfit but Camilla didn’t.

HMtQ must have paid a pretty penny to pedophile Andy's victims, as his BFF Jeff Epstein settled before the victims could testify in court.

Would these funds come out of the Sovereign Grant? Or the Privy Purse?

Momma sure loves her dirrrty boy.

Men of the British royal family wear their ribands attached to their vests, not over the shoulder. The old German way. King Constantine of Greece (also German, despite the ‘of Greece’ or his ‘Danish’ blood) does the same.

R187 It must run in the family, after all Charles turned out to be friends with some pedophiles too, Jimmy Savile and Bishop Peter Ball. I don't hear you complaining about him?

R185 William is wearing them . You can see a bit of his leg in the picture .

R189 I don't recall any judicial testimony in which Charles was accused of raping minors. Have you?

Hanging with pedophiles does not equal raping trafficked minors.

But you know that.

Camilla is wearing the same gown tonight as she wore in 2016.

Yes, I am aware R184. And thank you for reminding me of Elizabeth's education in such a seemingly gentle way. Cat remained with her even after she became Queen after the two had been barred from each other's company for a few years during Mary's reign. Have a good one!

The story I read was that the girl PA slept with was 17, which is above the age of consent in most places. So while icky it's mostly likely not illegal and doesn't make someone a paedophile. Are they not attracted to prepubescent children?

R173 - Burmese rubies are famous for their sought after colour, which can be particularly rich because they both reflect and absorb the red spectrum Something looks red to us because it absorbs the colours of the spectrum, except red, which it reflects red back; Burmese rubies both absorb and reflect red - the colour is therefore not only richer, but also stable in all lights.

The ones selected as a wedding gift for the Queen were undoubtedly of the first quality - hence the gorgeous coiour of the rubies in that tiara.

Quoting Wikipedia, R115? As a reference?

😂

R195 - As long as her first name isn't mentioned, no one is debating your point, including me. Of course, inevitably, someone, somewhere will mention her first name . . . you can just go on pretending that she doesn't have one, unless she becomes widowed, in which case, her first name will mysteriously reappear, attached to the title.

You also left out that had the Queen not conferred those ducal titles on William and Harry, their wives would be known as Princess William and Princess Henry - in which case, their first names really would have been erased.

What the fuck is R115 talking about? If Harry and Meghan divorce, she ceases to be "HRH the Duchess of Sussex" and becomes "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" until such a time as she remarries.

No, R174, you’re mistaken. Diana was only styled as “Diana, Princess of Wales” after her divorce. Prior to her divorce she was titled and styled as “HRH The Princess of Wales”.

Just because you read it here or on Wikipedia or on the Mail Online doesn’t make it correct. It’s not.

[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.]

R194 the allegation against Andrew involves a 17 year old and the age of consent in Florida is 18

R114, what would have been the proper title for Anne, before she became the Princess Royal?

HRH The Princess Anne.

Mr Ed for short

HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips.

R199 - And what was she called when, whilst still the Princess of Wales, HER FUCKING FIRST NAME WAS USED???!!!!!

The press and the world referred to her as Princess Diana. Those in the know, naturally, only referred to her as HRH The Princess of Wales.

But at some point somewhere her fucking first name had to come into play, and since she could not under any circumstances be called Princess Diana, how the fuck would her first name be used except as Diana, Princess of Wales?

The difference after the divorce was that she lost the HRH. Her Royal Highness. If her first name was to be used BEFORE the divorce, ever, she could only have been called Her Royal Highness, Diana, Princess of Wales. I acknowledge it wouldn't have happened often, particularly in formal documents . . . but at any time that it was used, it had to precede the word Princess.

After the divorce she went from being HRH The Princess of Wales to Diana, Princess of Wales. We all KNOW that.

But you keep evading what the form of address or reference would have been used if her first name were used in conjunction with her title whilst she was still an HRH.

Any news on The Duchess of Kent? She was absent from Princess Eugenies wedding. She looked a tad frail at Harry's wedding.

R205 you need to take your meds. Or switch to decaf.

The more outraged you get at being corrected, the stupider you look. By all means keep SHOUTING and swearing - it’s not going to make you any less wrong.

The 17 yo was a victim of sex trafficking beginning at the age of 14. So no, this is not a case of a 17 yo choosing to sleep with a gross old guy. I will mention again she is a victim of sex trafficking. A serious crime, indeed, as a victim of sex trafficking is no position to give consent.

Hence HMtQ providing the funds to settle with victims and keep her beloved rapist son from being accused directly in court of non consensual sex with a victim of sex trafficking. You see, someone who is being threatened and intimidated and punished is no position to give consent. If the Queen had not paid the victims, Andy would have been in deep trouble with US authorities.

R198 - NOT if she has not yet become a UK citizen. I do not know why this seems to be so hard to understand.

HER CURRENT TITLE IS USED AS A COURTESY ONLY, BECAUSE SHE IS STILL AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. THE DAY SHE BECOMES A UK CITIZEN, THE TITLE HRH THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX GOES FROM BEING A COURTESY TO HER RIGHT BY MARRIAGE.

IF HARRY DIVORCES HER BEFORE SHE BECOMES A UK CITIZEN, THE TITLE THAT SHE IS USING ONLY AS A COURTESY GETS TAKEN AWAY ALTOGETHER BECAUSE SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO IT EITHER BY COURTESY OR MARRIAGE OR CITIZENSHIP.

IF HARRY DIVORCES HER AFTER SHE BECOMES A UK CITIZEN, YES - SHE TURNS INTO MEGHAN, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX (BY ALL ODDS, WITHOUT THE HRH).

Speak up, r209 - we can’t hear you!

You fool.

And maybe due to this expenditure, the Queen has ordered Camilla and Kate to start recycling dresses to cut down costs.

The settlement has cost the Queen tens of millions of dollars.

Everyone will be recycling clothing and Christmas dinner will consist of whatever animals were killed that day on the Sandringham grounds.

[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.]

R207 - And you keep looking evasive because you simply will not address the issue of how Diana's Christian name would have been used in conjunction with her title before the divorce at such time as it was necessary to refer to her by her Christian name.

You seem to forget that I was not remotely arguing with your point about the title absent the use of the Christian name. The problem doesn't exist with the boys, because they were born Prince William and Prince Henry and their first names are included with their formal titles.

If your point is that there is no such case, that the women who marry in completely surrender their Christian names as part of their married titles, just say so, and that at no point can their first names be used properly with their titles - just say so.

And to cut costs even further the Sandringham animals will be cooked outside in cost-efficient stoves. The York Princesses and the recently acquired old Etonian tequila boy will be manning the barrels and serving.

R210 - You're right, you can't hear me. I explained this several times and I still get a response saying, What are you talking about, after a divorce she'll be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Unless, you fool, she is still an American citizen at the time, at which time she will have no right whatsoever to any title.

Did the point get across with the caps?

The only point made by the caps, r215, is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are having a tantrum at being called out on that.

Divorce settlements are negotiated. She may still keep the title based on what she's will to give up and what the BRF is willing to live with. It's still not worth yelling online about hypothetical situations.

189 - It's awful , isn't it? Mind you, a healthy minded person doesn't marry into a family with a nonce in the immediacy who hasn't been "sent away" as the royals are used to doing to "errant" relatives. Now , I can see why a certain type of white person, looking up to the top of "their own" and mired in UK class consciousness, pseudo serfdom and deference with a probable case of "cultural cringe" about the "New world", would do it, especially if mired in White privilege, but why would a conscious non white person do so, especially one, for all its faults comes from a far more "open", "talk out the neck" society? I could NEVER swap my genes with any of these folk, could you, knowing what you know? And no, I'm not being shady, I am being serious. No conscious non white person would marry into this family, especially a feminist one , so why did Meghan, knowing that it is the whole family that you marry when marrying into Royalty? Too much is counter intuitive with Meghan and the image that she tries to portray versus the reality.

Who gives a crap if they’re Anne Princess of Whatever as opposed to Princess of Whatever? The title shit is stupid and boring.

Swirling Tendrils.

Don't you dare attract the tendril obsessives to this thread

^Hah as opposed to Princess Anne of Whatever... still, ya boring.

It would be a chalk line to tread R217. Diana gave up HRH status in her divorce proceedings to get more money and thereafter massively rued that decision (who can forget those apocryphal tales of wee lad William promising weeping Mummy he would restore her HRH once he became king). The decision also set a precedent that was bolstered during the York divorce with Fergie never even being given an option. In the event of a divorce, Wills very well may be Prince of Wales and "grand" would not be the word at the umbrage he would heavily take against the idea of Meghan even remotely retaining an HRH.

The “title shit”, in your quaint parlance, is what it’s all about, R219. You clueless obsessives would have nothing to obsess about if they were all Mr, Mrs or Miss [html removed] Windsor.

Gurls, gurls! this is all so bothersome and overly pedantic. Can we try to discuss something else?

Oh and speak for yourself r175.

R224 still fucking boring.

I don't think MM cares as much about the title - she is American, after all and not raised in the aristo milieu.

She wants the coin, and that is fine. She will get it. She can raise that half royal sprog in Compton with Doria. Sell photos to the paps. If the kid turns out cute, do some modeling. Make even more coin. Good life ahead of her.

Maybe Serena will teach the sprog tennis and the kid may turn out to be a tennis star.

President Dump, President Drumpf, President Bone Spurs, President Orange Ass. Same person. Doesn’t matter what the name is, he’s still an ass.

People obsess about Brangelina, Beyonce and Taylor Swift. No title needed. Repeated plodding on about what may or may not happen in a possible divorce is wearing.

The writing is on the wall. flashing in neon with sirens blared. Not an "if" baby, but "when."

Is it that time now: when the readers of tea leaves descend upon us?

r169 there are some of us who are very concerned about the Epstein case, and Andrew's seedy involvement in it. I've posted about it in these threads several times (r111, etc). There will likely be more posts to come, if the pending federal case ends up going to trial.

Andrew's main accuser, the former Virginia Roberts, says she had sex with Andrew three times: in London in Spring of 2001; then in NYC; then in the Virgin Islands on Epstein's private island. I believe (without checking here, off the top of my head) she was of legal age on at least two of those occasions, but not the third (?).

Andrew really messed up when he was caught out and papped with Epstein in broad daylight in NYC, in 2011, three years after he struck a plea deal for his sex crimes and had to register as a sex offender in several states. Then there was the messy details re Epstein's little "loan" to Fergie to the tune of 100s of 1000s of $. No one would ever call the Yorks a brain trust lol. Very sordid stuff and worrisome for sure.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Or as Aristotle put it, "We are what we repeatedly do." Tea leaves notwithstanding.

R323 I appreciate your feedback.

Unfortunately for Andrew, in the US it is against federal law to have sex with a minor victim of sex trafficking. According to federal law, a minor is under the age of 18.

Andrew committed a federal crime in the US by having sex with an underage victim of sex trafficking. The state law about age of consent is irrelevant as federal law always supersedes state law.

Therefore, Andrew has committed a federal crime. That is probably why he will never return to the US as he may face charges.

R217 - Yes, they can be negotiated. But the fact is, legally, if she's still an American citizen, she has no primary right to the title. So if it's begin negotiated, what does that look like?

Meghan: I want to keep my title of Duchess.

Harry: Americans can't legally holdy titles - you were only DoS as a courtesy. You should have waited to sign the UK citizenship papers before I caught shagging the Duke of Westminster - who is too young for you, anyway.

Meghan: I'm going to call myself the Duchess of Sussex anyway, you and your fucking family can't stop me.

Harry: Bitch, you can call yourself anything you like except Pigeon Pie or they'll cut you up and eat you. But you won't be recognised as that here or anywhere else except by Lainey and the fraus on Celebitchy.

Meghan: Tell your grandmother that if she lets me keep my title, I'll give back the Queen Mary Bandeay Tiara I sneaked out of her room when she was napping.

Harry: In the first place, it's not in Gran's power to "let you" retain a title you have no legal right to, and second, you won't get out of the country with that fucking tiara because MI5 is going to be waiting at Heathrow to search your bags.

Meghan: Dumbarton isn't yours.

Harry: I actually knew that.

Cheers R235!!

Apologies for the typos in my post above I was enjoying the story I was writing too much and typing too fast.

That title can't be negotiated, it isn't remotely in anyone's power to give an American citizen a title s/he isn't legally entitled to.

The titles were negotiated with Diana and Fergie because they were UK citizens.

If Meghan can refrain from destroying her marriage before she becomes a UK citizen in five years or so, then, absolutely, she and Harry and the lawyers can sit down and negotiate Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, minus the HRH, provided she gives back the stolen jewelry and promises not to take the children out of the UK while they are underage without the written permission of the BRF and agrees to a DNA test for young Lord Dumbarton.

But before then, they cannot legally negotiate something she loses the minute the decree nisi comes through. It isn't theirs to negotiate at that point.

Then why are you here, r226?

For gossip that has nothing to do with fucking titles, r238. I don’t care if she was Diana Princess of Wales or Princess Diana of Wales or The Princess of Wales. It’s such a stupid, boring argument.

I'm bored by people insisting their speculations about titles are solid facts supported by British law.

R219 - Not to Meghan Markle, it wan't boring.

Duchess duchess I'm gonna be a Duchess, I'm gonna be a Duchess, Good morning, Duchess Meghan, How did you sleep, Duchess Meghan, what tiara would you like to wear this weekend Duchess Meghan, can I wipe your arse for you Duchess Meghan - duchess duchess duchess duchess . . . heh heh heh, take that Samantha!

Of course r234. I wasn't making a distinction between the state and federal charges, just summarizing some of the allegations against Andrew in a short paragraph.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I wonder how his foreign status plays into possibly being charged with federal charges here in the U.S. And if somehow he could claim "diplomatic status" due to his royal rank or status as foreign trade emissary for TQ. Just throwing that out there, have not researched this.

Want to give a hattip to r116, and recommend that post. This poster always gets it right, across all these many royal threads (they have a distinctive posting style so are easily recognized). Insightful, spot on and much appreciated. No one can say the royal threads don't have substantive discussion.

Their post at r119 also hits it on the head.

R240 - Actually, the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 10 prohibits states from granting any titles of nobility on citizens. Moreover, certain US citizens while holding office are also prohibited from accepting foreign titles.

And - there was a further amendment that stated that any American who accepted, claimed, received, or retained any title of nobility from a foreign government would be stripped of his or her US citizenship.

To be honest, I think both countries ignore the niceties in situations like this. The US knows this is a courtesy title right now, Meghan knows she has to become a UK citizen to nail it in stone . . .

They're much more interested in her tax obligations than her title.

R218 - Er, she's not non-white. Hun, she couldn't wait to get into that family. You could ask the same question of Emma McQuiston, Countess of Weymouth and one day to be Britian's first mixed race Marquess of Bath. And SHE was the one with all the money! But HE had the class, the old title, and the castle.

Why would Meghan marry into such a family? Isn't it obvious? To take on their privileges. To fulfill her fantasies of being them. To become as famous as she's always wanted to be. Never again to have to get up at 4am for makeup calls on set. And to stop worrying about competing with 20 year olds for the ingenue roles she was about to age out of.

There's political science 101, and then there's real life . . .

[quote]In 1983 Elvis Costello did the song “Every Day I Write the Book” and while the Charles and Diana characters have nothing to do with the song, Diana’s dissatisfaction comes through loud and clear.

In the video, he's so much more into her -- which seemed likely at the time, since he was kind of middle-aged and boring. How different from the real story, as it turned out.

R424 Andrew does not work as a diplomat in the US so he would never have diplomatic immunity. The US has a very restricted definition as to who qualifies as a "diplomat" immune from prosecution. And besides, for such serious crimes as rape, diplomatic immunity does not always protect from prosecution. Typically the US will expel the diplomat so that he/she can be prosecuted in their country of origin. In addition, in order to maintain good relations with the US, most countries will waive immunity in cases where the evidence demonstrates that a diplomat has committed a serious crime.

No, it is unlikely that Andy will ever step foot on US soil, as the consequences may be severe. Federal prosecutors are currently working towards indicting the President. They would not give a damn about Andrew's royal standing if they had evidence that he committed a felony.

R243 R219 Everyone critical of Meghan isn't a racist, misogynistic nationalist. However, collectively the criticism of Meghan has more racist, misogynistic and nationalistic themes. I've never heard anyone accuse Kate of stealing jewelry, prostitution, suggested she was capable or child abuse and or called her a thug. Those are all criticisms that have been leveled at Meghan on DL. There have been several comments that Meghan is intrinsically incapable of fitting into the BRF because she is a brash American and Kate is an English rose. Discussions of her age suggest that women have an expiration date and she's somehow passed hers. Some posters have called her "used" because she was previously married.

It's funny to discuss tiara demands, fashion missteps and run down cottages in the suburbs, but let's not pretend that's all people are saying about MM.

The people calling out these unseemly undercurrents in the criticism directed at Meghan aren't all humorless hysterical sugars.

Agreed, R116's post was outstanding.

R227, don't underestimate the longing of many Americans for social status. I know we like to pretend that class doesn't exist in the U.S., but it does ― it's just better hidden than it is in England. To be clear, I'm not talking about wealth, which is often used over here as a proxy for class, but which even the most vulgar people can amass (Trump is an example). I'm talking about prestige that is connected to family history, values, education, and taste, like the Boston Brahmin.

Meghan wants the royal family's money, certainly. But make no mistake: she cares very much about her title.

Very well said r249. I also agree that r116's post was truly outstanding. R235 that was very funny, I would love more of those dialogue pieces! Too many quality posts to mention really, I hate leaving anyone out, but time for bed. Just wanted to check in and say thank you all for another great day here on this thread. Here's to many more!

I don't see Sparkle willingly giving up that title...it's money in the bank for the rest of her life, whether as bride, widow or divorcee.

And, if she has to give up US citizenship, I'm sure she will. I would, in her shoes, if it means getting a prestige title and all that brings to the table.

Agree with those who have said Wills and Kate are making it very clear they are on a different levels to H&M’s. 2019 will most likely see them seperate themselves further. You can see Charles is really getting ready to take the reigns too. Harry has had a good year but he’s now being reminded that winning a popularity poll means diddly squat. I feel quite sad for him, I think he’ll end up a bit of a tragic figure in the long run.

[quote]Where's the gent who called Kate's hair style that of a Lhasa Apso?

R122 That Kate cleans up well when required to formally represent Queen and country is not the issue. It's the everyday public engagements, the lionshare of her public duties, and much of her off-duty hours that she is at her most Apso-ish. Shoulder-length hair would give her a more polished private and professional look.

Megs and those bloody, sloppy tendrils hanging in her face. But then Megs represents only Megs, so no surprise.

R253 I think you are severe for Kate . She’s only 36 btw . She can do her hair in a knot when its long . When she’s older than yes shorter hair .

And i also think Megs should look much better with a hairstyle like Halle Berry .

It’s so obvious that Charles like Kate better. Did you ever see his face when he’s with Meghan? He can barely disguise his disdain. Watch his body language next time, he looks like he standing next to a piece of rotten cheese. When he is with Kate he is with a kindred spirit, both in nationality, values, and class.

R256 LOL I love your sense of humour.

Amongst the testy but nevertheless entertaining discussions of titles, English history recent and not so recent, Prince Andrew's legal woes and loathsome character, Meghan's tax woes and her priceless gaffes, the obvious signs that a crisis occurred recently backstage in the BRF, historic jewels, with the House of Commons Horror Film being presented on a daily basis till the 11th (and what genius selected Abdication Day for a vote which may well see the toppling of another sort of succession), which some of us, for our sins, are watching -

What is there left to do but stand for the Loyal Toast?

[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 earthy salt-of-the-earth farm boy is cute.

According to Sky News (which is running the BREXIT debates) Sparkle and Haz did indeed attend a private dinner for Mrs Obama at the Berkshire estate of the Clooneys last ngiht.

I do hope Sparkle changed her clothes first and combed her hair.

The divisions opening between the Cambridges and Sussexes are about more than rank - I can see Meghan dragging Harry into what she wants to create as a more celebrity centric, internationaist profile, whilst the Cambridges avoid the celebrity circuit and make it clear that they are about Britain first. I suspect that over time, Meghan will lose more public support as it becomes clear she is using her status here, which to an extent is supported by British taxpayers, to build an international profile for herself, and focuses her "work" in Africa, whilst ignoring the many problems in the UK with poverty, education, knife crime and drugs that primarily affect youth here, the economic disparities between the southeast and almost everywhere else, especially the Northeast . . .

The Sussexes and the Clooneys; the Cambridges and the RAF, the Diplomatic Reception, local schools . . . Interesting optics.

R259 - That's very British Royal: you dress respectfully as if you were visiting someone's home, with a bit of practicality. The Queen Mother, during the War, put together an assortment of beautifully tailored suits and hats in "dusty" colours such as lilac and blue and grey that wouldn't show so much dust as she went about visiting blitzed areas in London in her pearls, hat, gloves, and four-inch heels. When asked why she kept up with the pearls, hat, gloves, etc., she said sweetly, "They would wear their best clothes if they came to visit me . . . " which gives you some idea of how savvy her public persona was.

Meghan's hunger for an international profile does make one wonder if she isn't planning some sort of trade-up/escape in 3-5 years, once she's a global brand on her own. Divorce the ginger simpleton, take the little Earl of Dumbarton with her, marry a billionaire, never have to cut a ribbon again.

Meanwhile, Kate and William have landed in Cyprus, and Kate looks beautifully put together, showing Sparkle the real meaning of "casual elegance" including the hair.

I fully agree with R261.

She already started styling herself the Queen of the Commonwealth (lol) with the tacky and ridiculously long veil with the flowers symbolising the Commonwealth nations embroidered on it.

What dear Meggy forgot is that she will never be Queen of the United Kingdom, let alone Queen of the Commonwealth. Let's face it, even Kate might not be Queen of the Commonwealth as it's very likely the Commonwealth will dissolve once the current Queen bites the dust.

R265 - Interesting point, that, about the Commonwealth dissolving, or at least dwindling significantly, after the Queen goes. Charles is not nearly as well liked or respected, let alone the next generation. I hadn't thought about that. Should that occur, Harry and Meghan would be further marginalised and left with very little to do - especially if they have been so foolish as to focus all their work up to then in underdeveloped Commonwealth countries.

What is this sudden insurgence of Clooney? Its so obvious what him and amal and meghan are doing. The couple wants to become part of British royalty and the other desperately wants to in the celeb hierarchy she never reached during her so called actress days. Hope it backfires on them all spectacularly.

Their relationship/association rather than friendship has seemed PR managed from the onset. Clooney didn't make much of an effort at the wedding, appearing as if in a walk on cameo, smirking and inappropriately dressed.

245 - She is non white. Meghan is not white in other words. And I care not for any other, including white person who marries any of the inbred aristocracy. Now take your needs darling and eat some carrots, hun. Meghan , like I and all non white people are "non-white", you dunce.

Sophie was overdressed for an official engagenent of English concern while Megan delivers a Marianne Williamson homily for someone she doesnt know at a memorial service, and then rushes out to brown nose celebs --which scenario seems the better in context?

R261 The Sussexes may have a different foreign relations role from the Cambridges. The point of splitting Kate and William from Meghan and Harry is to have wider reach rather than overlapping portfolios. The two teams should not be competing for "public support".

With Brexit, it would be good for the UK to strengthen ties with potential trading partners. The Commonwealth remains fertile ground for trade with the UK. If the BRF only focused on the wealthier commonwealth nations then they would been seen as hypocritical. Even poor under developed nations must spend money on goods and expertise (IT, agribusiness, intelligence gathering etc). Meghan and Harry could be well used by the BRF and the UK to maintain warm relations with many countries that can be markets for UK good and services.

Helping underdeveloped countries to grow keeps more of their citizens in their own country and reduces large scale economic immigration to the UK. That will help with UK domestic issues like unemployment which feeds into crime and drug use.

Think of the Sussexes as the opening act for Charles and then later William.

I'm not saying Harry and Meghan are doing a great job at the moment, or that they have the skill set to do a great job. I'm just pointing out that the Commonwealth thing may not be a self serving as some people seem to think.

[quote]does make one wonder if she isn't planning some sort of trade-up/escape in 3-5 years

That's about the consensus on the Divorce Watch thread. 3-5 years until Megs has had a gutful of pomp and circumstance. The question remains, however, what billionaire would take her on, given her woeful inelegance, blatant self-promotion and unworldly demeanor. Her late mother-in-law was no Cambridge Don, but she did have flair, glamour and lots of pizzazz, a dazzling jewel worth possessing, if not for the long-term, definitely for the short. With Megs, all the potential next up the ladder will get is some other dog's dinner.

Why the fuck does everything have to be compared to Meghan Markle? Sophie should have worn trousers. Anne often wears tailored trousers to these types of events. Kate is wearing wide-legged trousers today. Totally appropriate.

R273 - Oh, you should head over to Celebitchy, where everyone is crowing that Kate's olive green jacket and wide-legged trousers are SOLELY due to the fashion influence of Meghan Markle.

R272 - Her late mother in law was also the ex of a future King, not the sixth in line, and the mother of a future King, and was a member of a family with centuries of ties to the BRF and part of the landed aristocracy. Given her beauty, life drama, pedigree, and status, nothing Meghan can do will ever measure up to that.

R271 - Some of those are fair points, but I would point out that it will take generations of investment to achieve the goal that the EU itself keeps talking about re poor countries keeping their people at home. In the meantime, climate change especially in the Sahel and the birth rates in those countries will probably render moot efforts like this.

But I do agree that the point here is to split off the spheres for the two, so that they do not compete in the same arena. Just the same, I also think that as they do so, the optics are going to be much better for the Cambridges at home. And it is support at home that is crucial to the monarchy surviving the loss of the Queen.

R274. Doing it at Celebitchy is stupid. DL should not join the race to the bottom

Too late 🍸

Some of you are insane. Some of us love watching Meg and her shit and still hate nasty Randy Andy. Some of us are anti monarchists and think they are all crazy. That is why they are fun to talk about. They have no real relevance to the world. Britain would not turn over and fall off the earth if the monarchy ceased to exist. Which is why most of us don't care about their titles and addressing them correctly. Maybe you shou,d start a title thread.

R278 - Well, if Corbyn gets in when May's government falls due to her utter ineptitude and mendacity in handling the BREXIT negotiations, Britain might come closer to republicanism than anyone supposed possible. And, no, Britain wouldn't cease to exist, although it would cease to exist within the framework so many associate it with across the globe.

The title of the thread is British Royal Family Part 7: general gossip and INFORMATION (emphasis mine).

If you aren't interested, skip those posts. But in point of fact, those titles reflect the essence of a hereditary monarchical system (as well as the hereditary peerage system here). So the niceties aren't completely unrelated to information about how the whole thing works, and why the Sussexes are being treated differently from the Cambridges.

At the moment, the UK does not have a codified constitution as most other western countries do. The statutes passed by Parliament are the supreme source of law in the UK. Parliament can change, amend, etc., the collection of passed statutes that represent an unwritten constitution just by passing new statutes, but I don't believe that will do the trick.

Only a new codified, written Constitution will present the realistic opportunity to abolish the monarchy and the hereditary peerage system.

Even Diana wasn't doing so great on the second-husband front. The best she could do at the time of her death was Dodi Fayed, the SON of a billionaire (an important distinction) known more for his cocaine habit than any actual accomplishment in the material world. Most men of substance, at least according to Tina Brown's bio, considered Diana lovely damaged goods, entirely too high-profile and high-maintenance to make a good trophy wife.

Billionaires want the focus on them, not their wives. Like Charles, they don't want a woman who constantly steals the spotlight and has well-publicized emotional problems to boot. Diana probably would have married again, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good a material match as her first marriage.

R280 - It wasn't just her odd position after the divorce - Diana never learned from her mistakes, her psychological and emotional issues kept her from moving on. The thing is, she lost the best man she'd ever fixated on, which was Charles, with all his flaws. Dodi Fayed was an idiot man-child totally dependent on a dictatorial father for his money. James Hewitt was a worthless cad. The heart surgeon was never going to marry her, his family wouldn't accept her. She was always picking the wrong man at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

Had she been more emotionally mature, more sophisticated, more self-controlled, savvier, she could have either seen off Camilla, or, if she couldn't, quietly made the best of it as many women before her have in exchange for an extremely high profile marriage and life at the top of a social and economic pyramid. She had the children, she could have had better side pieces who were more emotionally fulfilling - but she just couldn't. So she lost the whole shooting match in the end.

I am curious to know if Meghan Markle has actually figured anything out from Diana's sad fate.

Agreed, R281. Charles desperately wanted a warm and supportive wife, someone who would give him confidence and strength, just as his beloved grandmother gave his awkward grandfather confidence and strength. If Diana had been able to do that AND give him the daughter he wanted so desperately, she might have outlasted Camilla. But a Diana who could have been more attuned to someone else's needs long-term (not just for a short-term photo op) than to her own needs would have been an entirely different woman. No leopard can change that many of its spots.

R282 - I believe the model that George VI and Elizabeth set in their marriage was one very much in tune with era, as well as their personalities. Even their two daughters couldn't replicate the model, although Elizabeth never seems to have gotten over her infatuation with Philip (whatever gets you through the night!).

But I think you're right that that was the model Charles was aiming for, and ironically, he came much closer to it with Camilla than Diana.

The troubles boiling just below the surface of Diana's facade emerged during the engagement, the honeymoon, and in the earliest months of the marriage.

It remains one of the strangest modern royal episodes I have ever witnessed in my time.

Interesting posts r280 / r281. Good points.

TBF I think Diana was really totally fucked up. She was pregnant & threw herself down the stairs to get rid of which brother? Harry, right?

Yikes, just looked it up, it was WILLIAM that she tried to murder by throwing herself down the stairs!

R285 - 286 is correct, it was William, and it wasn't very far down the stairs, and it was at Balmoral during the summer hols., and the Queen Mother was present and duly horrified. This tells you how early the Wales fairy-tale had fallen apart, how quickly Diana's (it must be said) fragile facade collapsed under the realities of marriage and marriage to the Prince of Wales, and how badly she needed to be the constant focus of attention.

You must remember that this was a girl whose major reading in her teens had been Barbara Cartland. She really thought Cartland's novels reflected reality.

And she was no Meghan Markle with no real exposure to the royals and their ways before marrying in. Diana's sister, Jane, was married to the Queen's Private Secretary, Diana had spent time up at Balmoral the previous summer, and her maternal grandmother had been a friend of the Queen Mother's for decades, as well as a Woman of the Bedchamber.

Meghan, at least, has the excuse of wandering into uncharted waters. Diana had no such excuse.

Highly doubtful that Kate is pregnant. She's too slim.

I think Diana was also a narcissist like MM & obviously picked horrible men to be involved with.

TBF, I hated Diana's dress at the time with those big puffy sleeves.

R287 - Diana was emotionally fragile and very young. Instead of getting her the help she needed, Charles fucked around with Camilla lied about it and made her more crazy than she already was at the time. Charles (older and supposedly wiser) as well as the Queen should have insisted that Diana get some intensive therapy to deal with her issues. Charles was too spoiled and selfish to have any empathy for his young bride. He was so stuck in his ways and a man of solitary habits, he didn't give her the attention she needed. Diana wasn't perfect that's for sure but I don't think Charles put a lot of effort into his marriage.

Charles had all the power in that relationship, and he was very cruel. I don’t believe Diana went into the marriage as a narcissist but she sure came out one.

Diana could be very cruel and mean spirited also. She also had affairs with married/taken men. I wonder if she would've been a better human if the marriage had been somewhat good?

This thread was at its best when tiaras were the topic. Why care about an arbitrary title? Although reading some 'opinions' seeming to imply that the new monarch is elected has also been entertaining.

Charles and the BRF got Diana help - on their honeymoon she threw herself down the stairs and they got shrinks up from London to see her. Ultimately you can get someone help but if they don't want to take it, there is nothing you can do.

r271 writes:

[quote]Meghan and Harry could be well used by the BRF and the UK to maintain warm relations with many countries that can be markets for UK good and services.

That's fine, and hopefully will be the outcome. But the perceived motive at the moment for all the international hobnobbing is the raise MM's profile and status, and not support Commonwealth ties (although I'm sure that's how they will try to sell it).

r261's post is spot on, worth a re-read.

R296 - Diana said all they did was give her drugs to calm her down. Yeah, that would help her come to terms with her emotional childhood baggage.

Post was meant for R295

R290 - I think you're in very good company. It was a loathsome merengue and the Emanuels should have been hanged where Anne Boleyn's head was struck off.

If only it hadn't had the meal-bag sleeves, it might have achieved a blend of elegance and romance. Fitted sleeves would have done it.

Diana was over 5'10" and even she was overwhelmed by that marshmallow.

[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.]

R289 - I believe many share your opinion of their shared trait of narcissism. But at least MM seems to have married somewhat appropriate men. Trevor Engelson seems a decent sort, the hot Toronto chef has also been a gent and has had nothing but kind words for her in the aftermath of her ditching him for a Windsor, and Harry's probably all right at heart. All three are miles ahead of the likes of Dodi Fayed (de mortuis and all that) and James Hewitt.

I think MM is worse for Harry and the BRF than they are for her. With Diana it was a photo finish, as they say.

Smegs: Fergie is your future as well. From the comments

"What happened in the court is similar to what happened to Fergie. She's only entitled to his wages and not his trust fund...or family trust. Fergie was only entitled to some of Andrew's wages from the Royal Navy. When you marry in to these types of families, expect nothing should it turn sour. Harry married without a prenup, because he doesn't need one. Meghan will get very little should (when?) goes all wrong."

Fucking boom!

R300 - Seriously??? Just 8,000 quid a year for two kids?!

Something tells me that the posters obsessing over the titles are all American.

R301 agree with you on this, MM has better taste but she's always going for men with money. Diana went with sexual attraction only, she followed her sexual attraction instincts, she never had to worry too much about money. MM goes higher and higher for money. Eventually she'll wind up with a Saudi billionaire as one of his wives, while she talks about sexism & racism. That is coming after she dumps Hazza.

R303 yes just 8k a year for 2 children. The judge also told her she is free to live in the family home and she can take the family car but that is it. She was seeking a new home, a new car & 1.5m pounds a year.

Love all the psychiatrists diagnosing narcissistic personality disorder and other psychological ailments on these threads. Must be thumbing through your trust DSM 5.

R297 - It wasn't just Diana's parents, either. Her grandmother (maternal), Ruth Fermoy, the one who was a close friend of the Queen Mother, sided with her son-in-law, Johnny Spencer, in the brutal custody case following the divorce from Diana's mother. It was one of the big society scandals of its day. Diana's grandmother, who was just gentry herself till she married the Roche baron, always sided with the aristos and royals. She never trusted Diana and told friends that Diana was "an actress and a schemer" (sound familiar?), and when the marriage broke down, sided with Charles.

So the parents provided the worst sort of neglectful, obtuse aristo parenting, the middle sister suffered from bulimia or anorexia, I forget which, and Diana began lying and fantasising in childhood.

The only sister who seemed to do well was, ironically, the really unattractive one. The youngest, the heir to the earldom, had several unsuccessful marriage and also had bad relations with Diana.

Johnny Spencer was considered a huge catch for the young Frances Roche, but he turned out to be both a bore and a boor. After three girls, desperate for a son to inherit the earldom, he forced his wife to undergo painful and intrusive tests to see if she was the reason they kept having girls.

I ask you.

R307 - It's called gossip. No one is hanging out a sign in Harley Street.

Get a life, will you?

I’ve never heard anyone say a good word about Earl Spencer. Everything r308 writes has the ring of truth. Di was fucked up by her family and she was damaged from an early age.

R309 Triggered much?

r297 Diana was an unreliable narrator.

[QUOTE] Note that is HOW Smegs will be referred to when she divorces Hazza, she will be Meghan of Sussex

Wrong. Upon divorce The Duchess of Sussex will become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Same way that The Duchess of York became Sarah, Duchess of York.

Same way that The Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales.

I have no hate for Diana but she was only 19 when she got married, way too young. People should wait later, esp if there's some weird shit going on in the relationship.

That Tessy of Luxembourg story is something else. It really IS MM's future.

R311 - No, just bored with anhedonic types like you.

You can look that up in the DSM.

R315 - No, she'll do a bit better if it comes to it. The BRF won't want to look too brutal. The Luxembourgs don't care so much, they don't have the same global profile.

I mentioned Tessy in one of the other MM threads the other day, and how Meghan should take heed. Its an example of what a wealthy, powerful royal clan can and will do to a wayward in-law gone rogue, even if she is the mother of their grandchildren/nephews.

r317 remember Tessy is also playing up her poverty and problems to try to wring more $ out of her in laws. She's not as destitute as she claims to be, Henri and MT love their grandchildren a lot and would never let them go without. They are taken care of; she just wants more play money for herself and to keep her lifestyle going.

R269 - She could have fooled me, and apparently quite a few others.

She's mixed race, hun. She has a white white Daddy and a black Mum. She's been straightening her hair for years and narrowed her nose, only married white men and then married into the Whitest Family On The Planet.

Direct your carrot exhortations to her: she's the one fooling herself in the mirror every day.

R318 ahh, that was you! I hadn't heard of her & then went to look her up. Then today the DM story, WOW!!

r269 (Sarf) and r319, we love you and look forward to your posts but can you do us all a favor and avoid these topics? They are unpalatable to our web-owners here. Plenty of other stuff to talk about and argue.

r320 Tessy is quite the operator imo. She's been spending some time in Dubai and the Middle East lately, where many young starlets or single poshies go to 'vacation' these days. I think she developed a bit of a spending habit when she was married to Louis.

I'm thinking the reasons the child support ordered today is so low is because they children already have trusts set up and derive some income from them? The child support would then be supplemental. Believe me those two boys aren't living in poverty in London.

R316 Did you go look that up just for me? You broke out the big dictionary and everything. Aww, you do care.

R321 - Oh, all right, I'll try. I do love baiting the moralising wet messes, though.

Love you too.

IDU why we shouldn't talk about the "race issue" here, in intellectual terms.

She may be "not white" but what about that new word, "white adjacent"?? Because as a child, she was black, as a young adult in that video she's black, as a teenager, she was black. She got a nosejob early on. She started skin bleaching early on. And under 10 she started having her beautiful 4c thick hair straightened.

I have 4c hair myself. I stopped straightening my hair when I hit 18. And now its the IN thing to do. Beautiful, thick natural 4c (BLACK/AFRICAN) hair. She's got bald spots and thinning on her hair from the SHIT she's done to her scalp. That is her choice. She gets a lot of work done to get rid of the black in her and that is just a pity.

I love my hair. Now is the best time to wear 4c hair (Meghan are you listening)? I have never gone around screaming "racism & sexism" though I have experienced it. I'm female, my hair is now below my shoulders and thick AF. She is CRAZY not to embrace this hair beauty!

(smooches) r324.

I daresay maybe we could talk about someone other than Meghan?

I thought Kate looked lovely today on her day trip with William to Cyprus.

^ In addition to being female, you also seem to be quite jaded R325, and your entire diatribe supports only one fact: That you decided to deride Meghan Markle. Skin bleaching? Damn, just damn......

r325 I personally don't have a problem with academic discussions of the topic, here or elsewhere. There's a lot to be gained from interesting, civil discussion, even using MM as a central point since she encapsulates a lot of intersectional points inc race, gender, class and economic status.

At issue is the mods here don't like the talk, not because of you (you are intelligent) but because it attracts the lower form of poster here who want to bait, troll and upset people. They disrupted the other royal talk threads and got several deleted. I'm only trying to keep these discussions open and clean.

Besides r327 is right this is the general Royal gossip thread and we shouldn't hijack it with MM & Harry talk like we have. There are three other active threads right now for that specifically, including the one below which we need to finish/max out.

Let's leave this one for the general UK royalists and enthusiasts.

R325 is the hair police. Any hair modification in black women equals self hatred

She does not bleach her skin. If she did she would have no freckles.

Meghan does not have a royal title. Meghan is not royal. She married into a royal family. She is only "wife to" and as Harry's wife is styled as a princess of the United Kingdom entitled to the style of Royal Highness, as well as Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel. Harry's titles. She is styled as "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex". Such titles are only hers by courtesy. IF there is ever a divorce, for identification only, for recognition, she'd become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. If Harry was a lorry driver, she would be a Mrs., but not a lorry driver.

Oh vey with the titles again. For the life of me, I don’t u derstand the difference between the Duchess of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It’s all BS.

She doesn’t bleach her skin. God. So sick of this nonsense.

R333 - The difference is that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will no longer be an HRH (Her Royal Highness), which carries with it the rank of Princess of the United Kingdom, and will no longer be entitled to bows, curtseys, or that form of address. She will be an ordinary Duchess like Fergie, and carry it mostly as a courtesy. No one will give a shit about her Duchess title without that HRH in front of it. It's the HRH that counts.

And she will no longer be considered a member of the royal family.

Perks over, homes renovated by the taxpayer over, allowances for designer clothes over . . . and no more appearances at Sandringham at Christmas, or Windsor at Easter, or Balmoral in the summer, or on the balcony on Remembrance Day.

She can save that Black Widow Dior dress she wore for the RAF 100th anniversary celebration for the Signing of the Divorce Papers Service.

The BRF meanwhile be turning cartwheels down the newly renovates hallways of Buck House.

So what did Princess Meghan wear to greet Prince William and Kate at the airport?

So you think that the Frogmore Cottage was really strategic on the part of HRH? I do. If they get divorced she will be stuck out there alone with the child or children. She still won't be able to have her mother with her full time, and visitors are still able to rent out FMH & the public comes 6x per year. And she'll be quite a bit far from London. Meanwhile PH would be back at the KP cottage, with visits to his fug kids or 50% custody.

I really wasn’t asking for an explanation, r335. I understand: married to Harry=good, divorced from Harry=bad.

R334 apparently she does skin lighten/bleach. She is no longer this color, even with the fact that black people go lighter and lighter, she's much lighter than this now.

She was adorable as a little black girl imho. Why did she have to erase all traces of her black heritage? And scream racism yet marry the whitest family that's ever existed? She has severe issues.

Meant LIGHTER & DARKER, not lighter & lighter

She doesn’t look much different in complexion there lmao.

And that little black girl is the same biracial person she is now. Her dads white.

I have no idea if MM has ever bleached her skin but just a personal opinion, I really don’t like seeing that. It always looks weird and natural darker skin is always more beautiful than the oddly grey lightened skin tone.

From what I've seen of MM, she'll exit the marriage with another mark on the hook. She's much too clever not to do so.

Of course, she'll be saddled with two kids and be in her late forties, but she'll turn something up, she's that kind of woman, for all her feminism.

They'll probably give her the use of Frogmore Cottage till the kids come of age.

Yes, I think the Queen offered Frogmore Cottage but no luxurious London base to send a message to the Sussexes about their place in the scheme of things and to sideline them a bit.

And I also noticed today's little PR stunt, with Meghan making an "unannounced" visit to King's College to discuss issues like slavery. Only, for all its unscheduled nature, HELLO Magazine got a photo of Meghan in a tight black tee shirt, and amazingly for all the allegedly candid nature of the grouping, she's the central figure in the photo, looking sultrily up at it.

She is a piece of work, all right.

Enough with the judgment of the colour of MMs skin please. Take that shit to one of the many, many, many, many MM threads on here. Much appreciated.

Unannounced visits with stunning photos is a standard BRF tactic. Kate is often popping up in unannounced visits. Charles at MI5. Harry at the Chelsea flower show, Her Majesty and William at Grenfell.

It's like the lot of them are hanging out behind trees waiting to jump out with a "boo"

R345 - An unannounced visit by the PoW to MI5?!!!

Now that sounds mighty careless.

R343 it's interesting that her predecessor, Angelina Jolie wanted to be part of MM's wedding but was living in the USA at the time, so no invite. Also, her predecessor, Angelina, has not dated anyone. No one wants her as she is also SJW baggage. Literally no one wants her.

[QUOTE] intersectional points inc race, gender, class and economic status.

Oh god, here come the SJWs. Run!!!

How is Jolie a predecessor to Meghan?

Actress who found herself aging out of the good roles so re-invented herself as a global 'humanitarian' with a (possibly feigned) interest in poverty, education and other international issues. Makes several trips overseas to support her interest, making sure the appropriate level of publicity is engaged so as to affect good pr. Parlays these interests into new social circle and networks.

Both women found their actual highest fame however in their marriages, both to handsome, wealthy, highly famous men with mommy complexes who found themselves easily dominated until (in Jolie's case) they woke up and realized the nightmare they were living.

Megs has yet to adopt multiple foreign foundlings. Yet.

Oh and both were born and raised in the SoCal-Hollywood fishbowl of superficiality and empty living. Both lived through bitter family divorces as children, and both used their fathers' pull and connections in show business to get their starts there.

Both have also lived out bitter on-and-off estrangements with said fathers, while idealizing their mothers.

It beggars belief that anyone could have thought that piece written by the California New Age huckster could be a good idea. And that particular piece - what was that, the narcissist's credo? What amazes me about MM is that her every instinct is the wrong one. And yet she maintains this insouciant belief in her own right on-ness.

R300 Don’t make stuff up - should she divorce, MM won’t be called “Meghan of Sussex”.

[quote]but can you do ME a favor and avoid these topics? They are unpalatable to ME.

R353 If Meghan divorces Harry she will be Meghan Duchess of Sussex until she remarries not HRH Duchess of Sussex . .

I believe classical socialists would call the HRH a "reified concept" - in fact, we could start a whole thread on reified concepts: royalty, marriage, currency, religion . .. the list is potentially endless.

The problem with reified concepts is, they take hold of the imagination, and the imagination is a far more powerful force than most of us are prepared to accept.

As I said at least twice on these myriad threads: the problem for modern monarchy is that the concept of royalty is based in deference toward inherent difference. With modernisation, that can't really fly openly. If anyone can marry in and suddenly become "royal", the inherent difference narrative is hugely begged, and why bother with it at all?

If a 37 year old divorced foreign C-list actress who only had one real acting job in 15 years of trying, isn't a great beauty, has no real talent except for self-promotion and social climbing is suddenly called Your Royal Highness - the narrative is already bankrupt and the brand cheapened . . .

The question is, when will that cheapening reach its apex and suddenly persuade a benighted commons that these people really aren't worth their deference, never mind their money?

In my view, Meghan Markle comes quite close - in a very short time, she's brought the family more trouble than she could possibly be worth.

I would wager anything that the BRF behind the scenes has already recognised their error in letting her in. Their next problem is how to address this.

I prefer Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary’s coronation crowns over (Queen Mother) Queen Elizabeth’s. Hers is shaped like a hat-box. Dreadful, but then again she had a pumpkin-shaped head.

Great post, R356. I'd say that William's marriage to Kate has a similar problem: 'pit to palace in 3 generations' seems great, until you realize that it flies in the face of every concept which underpins the monarchy. Kate's long apprenticeship--10 years--helped to mitigate this somewhat, as she gave the impression that she 'earned' her spot through sheer persistence, though the 'work-shy' label that came later on didn't help. Hence, her current image makeover now that the heirs are born, where her wardrobe and demeanor are working to make her appear as queenly as possible. Kate's devoted enough to the branding that she might just pull it off, but Meghan's antics surely aren't helping.

Looked at from the Royal perspective of 100 years ago, not a single 20th Century regnal spouse is appropriate save for Phillip (and even he is borderline). Not even the Queen Mother and Diana, who came from the aristocracy, would have passed muster with Queen Victoria.

After Princess Anne, Sophie of Wessex is the most hard working female royals around.

[quote]Their next problem is how to address this.

Every problem has its solution, where the Royals are concerned.

R353 She'll revert to her pre-marriage title - Meghan of Merch.

Forgot her designation - HNH, Her Narcissistic Highness

A description of Harry and Meghan's behavior at the Van Straubenzee event.

I've made a thread for all of those who want to discuss Harry and Meghan (Hazbean).

[QUOTE] who came from the aristocracy, would have passed muster with Queen Victoria.

One time though, Queen Vic allowed it for one of her daughters. I think she felt like “new blood” was needed however I don’t know why she executed this plan for the female line, the male line would have made more sense. She let her daughter marry a marquess, who became a duke. He had a lot of money.

R363, just fuck off, will you.

Call my doctor because I think I'm about to go into a diabetic coma r363.

Who with a sane mind is supposed to believe any of the claptrap in R363's link?

OMG. Like the BRF is going to solve world peace. Cancer and poverty, too?

This is DL. Let's talk about what we really want to know.

Which of the Royals bleach their anuses?

So anything positive at all on MM cannot be posted in any thread on DL? She must out-evil Dump...

Burmese tiara.

I hope the Cambridges don't put their whole family on a single helicopter.

R373 = Princess Michael

I guess the dangling folk should be grateful they just voted down their threads...

R371 The consensus from the myriad DL threads about MM is that any positive comment means the poster is a Sugar. They are idiots.

Sensible posters know she is such an asshole/cunt manipulative social climber who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, has a fake pregnancy, and is getting divorced in the next 3 weeks to 5 years. In the meantime, she is bleaching her skin and accuses everyone who doesn't like her of being a racist misogynist. None of the critics are racist misogynists. She is defrauding the Windsors by making them pay for clothes that she then returns and keeps the cash. The Windsors are too stupid to figure this out.

After the divorce she will no longer be HRH and this will be devastating to her. The divorce will be precipitated by the loneliness she feels from living 20 minutes from London and seeing Kate wearing tiaras she can't touch. She will never be able to remarry.

She wears a cheap wig with hideous tendrils.

Any other statements should be ridiculed.

R370. Yes!

From r375's link:

[quote]POLICE are investigating an army of online trolls who hack bank accounts and threaten to kill in the name of Meghan Markle.

MARY!

R358 - Absolutely. Some of the commoners have done extremely well: Sophie, Kate, Mary of Denmark, and the younger Danish prince's two wives; they've all tried really hard, been discreet, dressed appropriately, clearly desperately grateful for their extraordinary fortune. I think it really interesting that the two glaring examples of the fuckups are in the BRF and were Charles's and his son's wives.

As far as the post by R373 of the person who just HAPPENED to sit behind H&M (and PIPPA!), I'm sure H&M made a huge display of their profound love knowing they were in a crowd of people watching them. Maybe they even meant it, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

But really, the poster just felt the human solidarity to make a difference and passion for change?

The poster obviously wasn't in the room when Meghan Markle threw a tantrum because the Queen wouldn't give her the Vladimir Tiara to wear at her wedding and Harry screaming "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!"

I'm sorry - the human solidarity bit isn't really human solidarity unless it includes humans like the grandmother of your fiance who is draping your head with historic jewels.

I suppose I interpret the term "human solidarity" differently.

When I lived in America, I found that interestingly, the drivers most likely to cut me off, fail to signal when turning, and pull out in front of me when there was easily 100 feet of empty road behind me, were always the ones driving cars displaying Obama or Clinton bumper stickers, God Bless the Whole World-No Exception bumper stickers, Coexist bumper stickers, Wolves Belong bumper stickers.

I did see some delightful ones, though, my favourite memory being the one that said, "Frodo failed: Bush has the Ring".

I really hate virtue-signalling.

[quote] I suppose I interpret the term "human solidarity" differently.

[quote]When I lived in America, I found that interestingly, the drivers most likely to cut me off, fail to signal when turning, and pull out in front of me when there was easily 100 feet of empty road behind me, were always the ones driving cars displaying Obama or Clinton bumper stickers, God Bless the Whole World-No Exception bumper stickers, Coexist bumper stickers, Wolves Belong bumper stickers.

Could you be a little more tangential and bitter, please?

Kate's olive jacket and bell bottom trousers are an unusual look for her, and as usual she nails it.

I’m team Kate .” LovelyMegs” is very quietly the last weeks . Sitting out the storm I think . Keeping a very low profile nowadays these two . I think someone exchanged some harsh words with them . QEIi or Prince Charles .

BTW I Loved Kates red tartan pleated skirt she was wearing at the meeting with the Raf people and their children and wives at KP

That olive jacket with navy trousers were a definite fail. I don't get the penchant for shades of green and yellow. No one successfully carries those colours off except a banana and the Jolly Green Giant.

I Loved it R384 ! I think the trousers where black and combined with the olive green jacket not bad at all . But I like the seventies style and she looked,young in it .

Sorry they are navy blue indeed . In some pics they looked like black .

Did I read somewhere that MeMe is taking credit for Kate's outfit? Or did I just nightmare it.

R385, tell that to Meghan Markle who wore olive green to a summer christening and black to a visit in a children's hospital.

R371, MM's marroon or burgundy red coat was praised in one of the Dangling Tendrils threads.

But you know that anyway, so fuck off, sugarbabe.

R380 - Oh, well, if you're going to BEG . . .

Most certainly.

That taken care of, completely agree with posters upthreaed that Kate's day clothes this week have been outstanding.

The fraus on CB are shrieking that this is all down to MM. The irony is, olive green looks ghastly on MM but stunning on Kate.

And the swingy plaid tartan skirt with the close fitting black top was wonderful, as well.

You need what Kate has for that tartan skirt outfit: height, slim hips, and a small waist.

Eat it, MM.

It's been kind of boring since they locked MeMe in the tower and threatened to behead bumbling, balding Haz.

That tartan skirt was an abomination. Pure granny look. If that’s what Kate is going for, then ok, but it already looks like she’s mimicking QEIi at 70 years old.

^oops meant the plaid skirt Kate wore a few days ago.

Does anyone have the link to that british gossip forum about the royals - I forget what it's called but it was posted here on DL when the two got engaged.

R392 - I don;t know about your gran, but neither of mine ever wore anything like that tartan skirt and if they had, they sure as fuck wouldn't have looked like that in it. She was attending a children's Christmas party with fake snow all about. It was cheery, simple, easy and youthful, seasonal. The only thing I would have changed is perhaps a winter white top rather than black.

R394 - There are a few forums about royal families throughout Europe that include the BRF but I don't know of one specifically dedicated to the BRF. There's one that's the W&K equivalent of the Meghan frau sites called Crown and Cambridge or Cambridge and Crown . . . but it might be Instagram.

Thanks r396

This specific forum from what I recall was more critical of the family - it wasn't a fan site.

I found it r396

R397 - In that case, I think the places you are looking for are called, respectively, Royal Gossip and Royal Dish. They have links to each of Europe's royal families on the site, and they are fairly critical of just about everyone - I can't tell the sites apart, frankly, after a couple of visits. They use exactly the same format.

It's a pity the Royal Gossip blog was discontinued because the author was very intelligent and articulate. She would have had a field day with MM.

R398 - Yes, that's one of them.

One of them is rather more viciously critical of MM than the other, but as I said, I can't even tell them apart so stopped visiting.

Children were invited to a Christmas event at Clarence House and Camilla had real reindeer in the back garden.

Photographs of The Queen eating and drinking are unusual so I wanted to post this one.

I love this photo of The Queen with Charles, Anne and corgi at Balmoral.

A photo of a young Catherine Middleton.

R403 every night before going to bed Lilibet drinks glass of champagne

R406 - I thought it was a gin and tonic. Or maybe that was the Queen Mum.

R407 here it is, Bollinger every night. And other interesting details what and when she drinks

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

There's an article on the daily mail saying Charles has a framed picture of meghan. She's fighting back and will be more smug and obnoxious. I don't blame William for not being close to his dad if he does crap like this to get at William and his family by leaking stuff.

But why would Charles deliberately antagonize William, R410? That makes no sense.

A summary of Kate's outfit in Cyprus.

Another great, informal photo of the Queen.

Who remembers this photo? At least we know one item the Queen has in her purse: lipstick.

Any truth to the old rumor that Rod Stewart's song "Maggie May" might have something to do with the Queen's sister?

Why would Charles displaying a framed picture of Meghan be an attack on William?

A photo of casual Kate taking George for a walk.

I know a lot of people didn’t like it, but I loved Kate’s outfit with the olive jacket. The color suits her really well, and the look was so polished but casual.

Christmas tree

R416 - family photos that are displayed at Clarence House are changed pretty frequently. I guess it was Meghan's turn.

I think some people believe that Will is wary of Nutmeg so any support for her is a slight against him.

I don't think Will or Kate are leaking negative stories about Harry's wife. It may be Andrew but it's more likely staff/servants who can no longer tolerant her attitude. It may be some of the people who have already left the Sussex camp and there are many from which to choose.

Thanks R420 I guess War of the Roses part deux is way more fun than unhappy present and former employees bad mouth boss in exchange for cash.

R416 There have always been reports that William isn't close with Charles and Will and Kate don't go see him much compared to the middletons with the kids. Basically Will doesn't like his dad much. Considering his father leaks negative things about William (those articles for Charles birthday saying William is grand etc) I don't blame him for steering clear of Charles. I think he is still completely on his mother's side. So I feel the photo could be a passive aggressive move. Look I'm taking Harry and Meghans side.

^ tolerate

The photo is a B&W one of him handing off MM to Prince Harry in St. George's after he walked her down the aisle. I big piece of positive pr for him there - and we all know how much Charles loves good pr for himself. I don't take the placement of this specific photo as a big commendation of MM either way.

R424, if anything, this particular pic is more like Charles taking the piss out of Megsy as it shows him, the father-in-law, having to walking the bride down the aisle instead of the father who was alive and would've been well enough to lead his daughter to the altar.

I agree with the assessments. If it was a photo of MeMe alone, you know the one with her walking down the aisle with the sunlight streaming through the windows, that might imply a great admiration. As it is, Charles is in the picture *with his son* and his son's new bride so it just reads as a father participating in his son's wedding--no ringing endorsement for this bride in particular; in fact, the bride's role is so secondary as to be virtually changeable.

I love that there are people here who think everything is a coded message and that they are in competition somehow. The fact is Chuck will be king, Wills will be king after Chuck, Haz will be more and more sidelined as he gets further from the throne and gets uglier by the day, no phone in vote required.

>poof<

All the other MM/Harry threads are gone.

Are you sure, sugarbabe at R428?

Hardly, R428.

Charles is much savvier now than he was in the 1980s and 1990s when Diana wiped the floor with him in terms of public opinion.

And much savvier about not broadcasting what he really feels, especially about the system he was born into.

There are a handful of things you can reasonably suppose are true about Charles: he knows how precarious is the position of modern monarchy and he both understands but doesn't subscribe to the reasons why; he has clung to a very Edwardian outlook on society and his place in it, whilst managing to sound terribly modern publicly; he doesn't want the system that has been so kind to him damaged; he wants his son and his son's son to inherit what he inherited; he adored his grandmother - who was also an Edwardian by birth (the Queen Mum was born in 1901 and Edward VII died in 1910) and absorbed deeply her social outlook; he has an ambivalent relationship with his father; he reveres his mother.

These are the things that really, I believe, make up Charles. the rest is window-dressing.

My guess is that the situation with Harry and Meghan, as Meghan's true nature began quickly to emerge after the engagement, is the most conflicting and painful one he has had to confront since the desperately awful days of his own collapsing marriage, and the agonising years of public rehabilitation after Diana's death.

[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 allegedly 'went mental' and had a fit when William approached him to talk about his relationship with Meghan when they first got together.

Report in the UK Sun, but written by Emily Andrews who is a well known royal reported with bond fide inside sources:

Some details from the above report:

William sat down with Harry early on and tried to discuss how fast he was moving with Meghan, but Harry threw a fit and would brook no criticism: "Harry feels he couldn't protect his mother, so he's going all out to protect his wife"

Other royal fam members also had questions, which were met with resistance. Meghan initially wasn't invited to Pippa Mids's wedding, for fear she's overshadow the bride by publicly appearing with Harry. After pressure she was invited, but chose to only attend the evening reception.

Megs did approach Kate for assistance initially, right after the engagement was announced. But Kate was very busy with the kids and couldn't find much time for her allegedly. This further increased Harry's irritation and led to his accusations that W&K weren't doing enough to 'welcome' Meghan. Meghan felt rebuffed.

One big new detail: when hell broke loose with Thomas Markle just before the wedding, and he pulled out and played games with the press rather than speak to Meghan, she cut him off. William felt that wasn't correct and she was making a mistake. Even Charles had misgivings and sent an aide to talk to H&M, to no avail; Megs still hasn't spoken to Thomas since.

One thing I don't buy in Andrew's column is the assertion that William resented Harry getting the "plum job" of Commonwealth Ambassador. The real "plum job" is Head of the Commonwealth, now the Queen, and will be passed to Charles, and undoubtedly one day will come to William. The whole Commonwealth Ambassador thing is a bit of a backwater, as the Sussex tour showed.

I also don't think Charles "dotes" on Meghan - if he did initially, Tiara Gate and the abuse toward staff would have put paid to that.

Lastly, if Meghan was as clever as the aide remarked, she wouldn't have make the mistakes she's made - the major ones being Tiara Gate and the maternity coat at Yuge's wedding.

I notice these bits are interestingly left out of Andrews' column.

Oh, yes, I'll bet there were "concerns" when Harry brought Meghan home.

R434 picked all the bad bits about Meghan. In the article they all sound petulant.

I was intrigued by this bit:

[quote]Meghan’s father Thomas Markle was about to pull out of walking his daughter down the aisle after it was revealed he had posed for paparazzi pictures. Calm but collected, Meghan decided her team should say nothing publicly and cut him off.

So apparently she really did ask him to walk her down the aisle, and he accepted. The wedding plans didn't fall apart until after everyone found out that he was having himself papped for cash in Mexico. I'll give Meghan credit for that, at least; I had previously believed the theory that he was never invited at all.

R433 Another factor in the Wills Kate Ginger Megs skirmish, culture clash. Megs is American with the overly familiar hey, how ya doin'? approach. Kate is standoffish Brit, exacerbated by her elevated to Royalty position.

Even though it's the Sun, much of Andrew's story seems far more plausible than what Hello! and the BBC are shoveling.

I recently became aware that the RF are given directions as to what colours to wear when official photos are to be taken, eg Charles birthday (white or blue). Clearly this was also the case for Louis' christening. So why did MM wear head to toe olive green, and why did Harry not stop her?

Wow. Harry's managed to alienate his brother, which would not have been easy to do, and his friends. He's put all his eggs in one basket (so to speak), so who will be there to catch him when his thug, Givenchy-wearing wife divorces him for a tattooed rapper who owns his own island?

Not surprising Harry's alienated the lot of them as well as the staff, because MM's behaviour threatens their jobs. I really believe that once QE2 dies, there will be some serious pondering on the part of the British public as to the utility of maintaining the BRF. The last thing they need is an iconoclast shaking things up. Despite her dodgy background, I think, based on Harry's residual popularity, she might have pulled it off had she kept her head down and acted suitably complaisant and respectful. I would say it's too late now. The knives are out for her.

I'm so grateful that at least one of these threads have survived. This photo is from the Queen's 65th Jubilee, when all the world's monarchs were invited to Buckingham Palace (if I can locate the guest listing, I'll try to post it).

R440 Take that "thug" bullshit elsewhere. Thank you.

Per the "Royal Servants" documentary, Charles called a footman from way down the hall to come to his office. On the side of HRH's desk was a waste basket, but unfortunately when Charles attempted to throw a crumpled piece of paper into the basket, he missed and the paper fell to the floor. He called a footman from way down the hall to pick up a piece of paper which lay just a few feet from him THIS is how out of touch the man is. I hardly think that Meghan's "mistreatment" of staff would bother him, UNLESS he could use it to his advantage somehow.

Here's a funny from the Chanel 4 comedy series "The Windsors": Charles' character has released one species of varmint after another on one of his estates to control the population of the animal below the succession of animals, creating a beastly nightmare. It's gotten to the point where the top dog species has assumed monster-like proportions, and it's alluded to on film by shaking branches and horrible beastly sounds. When he knows the animal is near-by, then he gets the hell out of the area asap. He has a groundskeeper named "Simpkins," and Simpkins is just outside the formal entrance to the mansion when the monster appears near-by. Charles gives a warning through the glass telling Simpkins to run for his life, so he does just that making it to the formal entrance door. Charles is absolutely incensed, however, my the man's audacity at trying to use the front door as he yells through the glass "NOT THIS DOOR, MAN - USE THE TRADESMEN'S (rear) ENTRANCE!" Poor Simpkins is eaten alive, and Charles is not particularly moved by it. I thought it was hilarious, and telling though in an over-the-top, comedic way.

Eduardo Breatrics’s new beau- what is his story?

[quote]But why would Charles deliberately antagonize William, [R410]? That makes no sense.

He probably learnt it from Philip and wants to pass it on to William.

R444 the difference is that it is the footman’s job to do things like this. He isn’t being imposed upon or forced in any way. He is paid to do this, no matter how silly it might be. He applied for a job that involves doing this. Verbal abuse is not part of the job.

The Hanovers--and despite the name changes, the current Royals are direct descendants of the Hanoverian line--have always known difficult relationships between monarchs and their heirs. George I hated George II, George II hated his son Prince Frederick (who died before inheriting), George III (Frederick's son) hated George IV, Victoria couldn't stand Edward, Edward wasn't crazy about George V, George VI dodged that bullet but having a female heir probably helped, though reportedly Elizabeth and Charles have never been close, and now Charles reportedly has a distant relationship with William. It seems to be in the blood.

I don't believe for a moment that Sparkle wanted her fat, slovenly, loose-lipped ungainly father there, I think the whole thing was a panto.

The word for the British approach is "reserved" not "standoffish". It is true the English, particularly, don't gush and spill their guts to whoever is within earshot. and throw their arms around people they don't know as if they were their best friends. To the British, this seems a touch, er, insincere - the latters poseur quality reeks of insincerity.

Kate's interactions with children especiallly and crowds isn't standoffish at all if you actually look at the photos and videos, but warm and direct: but they aren't effusive.

I note that the Express has picked up the Brothers at War story and is running it as if the discussion about Meghan happened last week rather than two years ago.

Despite the officials explaining that the couples take it in turn to attend the Board meetings, the press insists that Kate and William not showing up is an indication that they can't even spend an hour in the same room together. Having just hosted two highly pubic Christmas parties for military personnel and their families, for one of which they flew to Cyprus, someone at the Foundation says "it's a shame Kate and William missed it" [the staff Christmas party at the Foundation].

As happened with the Charles and Diana debacle, the tabloid press has become a third partner in this relationship.

This conflict and other issues Meghan and Harry brought into the family was the last thing the BRF needed after finally achieving some peace and equilibrium culminating in William's apparently calm and successful marriage to a nice Home Counties girl who created the next generation's Happy Families.

It will be interesting to see how the BRF tries to put this behind it and patch over the cracks, or if they just shrug and say, Hell, Harry made the bed, he can sleep in it, and if they end up marginalised, they end up marginalised, if Harry ends up leaving, he can leave.

They will rush to protect the Cambridges first, because they are Next On Line and the fate of the monarchy down the line rests with them.

R439 - Why didn't Harry stop her? First, she'd tell him to fuck himself if he suggested she go upstairs and change whilst the car waited downstairs, and 2) her putting two fingers up to the family is his way of putting two fingers up to them - he still blames them for what happened to his mother, and so he is the passive partner hiding his anger behind the active partner. In a sense, he is using Meghan as much as she is using him, and almost more unfairly, as he is permitting her to take the heat for doing what he's too cowardly to do himself - stick it to the family.

She definitely wanted him there. He blew it by selling photos to the tabloids and causing a major scandal. This brought way more bad publicity to the BRF than a “slovenly” man would have. It brought terrible negative attention to his daughter, which is why he bowed out. I’ve also felt that if Meghan “ghosts” people, she learned it from her father.

If the Sussexes won't behave, the Firm will definitely let Harry and his wife swing in the wind. He's sixth in line and the more he fucks up, the better the Cambridges look. He's definitely dispensable at this point, though he might not have realized it yet.

Oh, Ginger realizes he's expendable. He's realized it all his life as his brother received the lionshare of attention. Marrying Megs was his "Fuck me? Fuck YOU!" for a lifetime of sparedom.

If they specified colors to wear for the Christening photo, and someone showed up wearing a different color, then they should have not let that person appear in the photo. Harry's not the only one who's afraid to tell her "no".

Imagine the stories THAT would have created, R454. They gave her rope to hang herself. After the divorce, she will be airbrushed out.

R455– There will be no airbrushing out of the Earl of Dumbarton’s late mother

Perhaps not his late mother, R456.

No, Sparkle did not want her father there. Never intended to have him there. The "he's too sick" story was only to pacify those asking "WTF".

Sparkle never even introduced her father to Harry. And that was way before his connection to the paps. And, Harry, in a colossally stupid move, never insisted that he should, properly, meet the father of the woman he planned to marry. The man who would then, due to their marriage, become tangentially associated with the Royal Family.

Why is it that people choose to forget that Sparkle said at the time of the initial wedding talk that she wanted her MOTHER to walk her down the aisle. With no mention of her father.

There was no talk of her father being involved until he surfaced with paps and subsequent stories surfaced about how she ghosted him, etc. after that "The family she never had" bullshit.

R456 - Pardon?

The pap photos of Markle, Sr. began before the infamous ones of him being "measured" for a suit after it had already become clear that his attedance at the wedding was already in doubt.

Everyone seems to forget that long before he even proposed, during the entire time of their "courtship", Meghan never once introduced Harry to her father. Or anyone else in her family except her mother.

But she was prepared to have him first meet Harry at a time of extraordinary stress, and meet the rest of the world's most prestigious royal family, and walk her down the aisle in a globally broadcast wedding ceremony?

I very much doubt it and the term "sources" and "courtiers" and "aides" actually covers a very broad territory.

So I don't buy it - the time to introduce her father to her Prince was well before the wedding. She declined for, well, reasons.

I think he's emotionally and possibly mentally unstable, he was probably terrified, no one reached out to him from the BRF - and he knows a great deal about Meghan that his low inhibition controls might let out.

She didn't want him there, the whole thing was handled to look as if those pap shots were the reason. They weren't. They just gave Meghan the excuse she needed.

She wanted that unstable fat man around the Windsors like she wanted her weaves to fall out when Harry lifted her veil.

You're all forgetting that from the moment they began dating, Meghan refused to introduce

^Ignore last sentence - it strayed out of its proper sphere before I could edit.

R459

R458 - great minds, as they say. You just beat me to pointing out that she kept her father and Harry far apart during their courtship period.

R449 I know it was just a typo but I very much enjoyed imaging Will and Kate hosting PUBIC Christmas parties. Oh testes, oh testes, how lovely is your ball sack..... decorating dicks with icicles sounds like such fun....

Imagining I mean....

What happened to all the Meghan Markle fraus? Did they get the hint and fuck off or what?

They’ve formed a consciousness raising circle and are stabbing effigies of Will & Kate with organic, hand-crafted curated vintage hat pins r464.

PUBIC Christmas parties r462? those are the BEST kind lol.

Harry is the prime issue with most of this imo. The Andrews piece in the Sun highlights this; he has definite Mommy and damsel-in-distress issues that he hasn't worked through. Much of the anger is coming from him, and he appears to not be helping his new wife by showing her no guidance on how to fit into her new role (HIS main job, not his brother's, father's or grandmother's). Get it together Haz.

If Meghan had introduced Harry to her father and his side of the family and then they'd sold private information to the media she'd have been slaughtered by the press even more than she has been. This is the public's introduction to the Markles but Meghan's known them for her whole life. Perhaps she suspected they were capable of this behaviour and was wary of getting the BRF tangled up with them.

If anyone who acts like Samantha Grant were anywhere on my family tree I'd keep my friends far far away.

Where IS our darling Sam? I miss her unhinged rants

Maybe she's like Beetlejuice; you have to say her name 3 times.

marry me, r449.

Sam is working on her book formerly titled Princess Pushy. I'm sure the book will be published and heavily promoted to coincide with Baby Bean's Birth.

I wonder who is Sam's publisher and if she got an advance

You know, this bit in Em Andrews's article stands out strangely:

[quote]Meghan is said to be far less intimidated by the royals than might be supposed. At a recent gathering of senior family members, including Meghan, one well-placed aide remarked: “All their IQs put together would not equal hers.”

At first it reads like the senior aide believes she's super-intelligent. But after a second reading, in the context of the entire piece, I wonder if the aide was really saying that she only believes herself to be super-smart and superior, in her own mind. And I'm wondering if Andrews slipped it into the middle of her piece to make it seem hazy and open to interpretation.

R473 It's weird that you're rereading a tabloid article for secondary meanings. This is not LitCrit.

Are you a conspiracy theorist or an English major gone rogue?

Neither, idiot at r474. I'm a royal gossip enthusiast participating on a British Royal general GOSSIP thread, about a tabloid article, on a GOSSIP message board.

Wtf is your excuse for being in here? This isn't exactly the comments section at the NYT Book Review.

I'm not the one re-reading tabloid articles seeking the author's secondary meaning.

Yup, "enthusiast" fits you.

Yes maybe r467, but MM would not get the blame, *they* would, for violating privacy. There might be some embarrassing blowback on her but it wouldn't be any different than what actually happened. Also I tend to think that if she had introduced Harry to her father and sister that he would've charmed them and the sister especially would've ended up liking Harry more than MM and in a weird way, would feel protective about him. Harry could also have talked about dealing with the tabloids and how they love to whip up drama and how that's affected his life growing up. You know, draw them in, make them feel like they are part of the team. He absolutely could have done this convincingly.

[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 don’t blame MM for not speaking to her father after the publicity shit he pulled. If he really cared for her he wouldn’t being running to TMZ for exclusives. That trust is probably irrevocably broken

IIRC he didn't say anything until it was getting close to the wedding. During all that time she had never taken her future husband to meet him. The article reveals that she was close to him. A cynical person would think she used him until he was no longer of use to her then ghosted him. The doting white father doesn't play as well with her narritive about racism as her black mother. Her father says that she was a demanding child but never rude, parents always want to see the best of their children. For him to admit she was demanding it was probably worse than that. They state that TH wasn't paid for the article. MM has had multiple opportunities to resolve this, she has chosen not to. TM seems to have resigned himself to being cut out of his daughter's life. The trust is probably irrevocably broken, he no longer knows who his daughter is.

Tina Weaver at the Daily Mail echos R477 sentiment that Harry is the Markle Whisperer.

However, the DM is notorious for it's shit-stirring. According to them, Thomas has "only" given 4 interviews. They've had 2 of those as exclusives with repeats and sub pieces for weeks after. The only thing that generates more traffic than Meghan stories is Brexit. Meghan stories easily get 2 thousand comments and have gone up to as much as 10-thousand. I can't see it being in the DM's best interest to reduce the amount of drama and ad revenue the Markles generate so I'd take their advice about family harmony with a grain of salt.

This Kate/Meghan media mayhem reminds me of the Jen/Angelina media mayhem back in the day. But I still believe that the real issues are between Charles/William/Harry

When a couple have been living together for several years before they get married, the parents should not be paying for any part of the wedding.

I wonder how much Doria contributed to the wedding?

Thomas Markle is my favourite character. If he were fictional I'd say he had the most complexity.

Talented professional, wins the lottery, loses in bad investments, hiding away in Mexico, dotes on his last daughter more than the other children, lavishes her with cash, trips up by not maintaining discretion just when she needs it most, dramatic heart attack just before the wedding, keeps talking to the media as a way to get his daughter to speak to him. What will he do next?

If this were a movie I don't think people would find him credibly written, but put him on Days of Our Lives, Y&R or General Hospital and he would fit right in.

The Daily Mail is right to focus on him. He is at turns sympathetic, entitled and infuriating.

R480 - And what was her excuse in all the time she was dating Harry but somehow made sure the twain never met?

Face it: whilst he could do anything for her, she loved him to death. When he was 1) suddenly not on brand, and 2) dangerous because of how much he knew about her past - she dropped him like the proverbial hot potato.

This smells to high heaven. This woman wanted her father nowhere near her new life and new identity.

The sources and aides are telling the tabs whatever story they think will get them the largest payoffs, and then the DM takes unattributed quotes and "tweaks" them.

Meghan dropped her father the moment she began dating Prince Harry - on that score there is no denial and no argument.

Naturally, he struck back. He's a sad old clumsy clown now. And he knows too much.

She deserves every last bit of the backlash she's getting for it.

R470 - Regretfully, I am already spoken for. But, as Scarlett O'Hara's Mum taught her to say in these situations, "Sir, I am not unaware of the honour you have done me in asking me to be your wife, but . . . "

And I am also the guilty party who after years of going to great lengths to avoid the "public/pubic" typo, at last fell into the pit.

I am mortified.

A public pubic pit

R488 - You are forgiven.

Much obliged.

The DM is moderating comments in advance for that article, and strangely there don't seem to be any (or many) positive MM comments.

I bet that if Mr Markle dies in the next year or so, Sparkle will appear at the cemetery and throw herself on the coffin, screaming "Daddy, Daddy" "I didn't mean it!!!".

Harry will stand behind her and close his arms around her.

Samantha will demand that Sparkle and her dim husband vamoose. Pronto.

Check the 1:32:10 mark on link below...

My, my what big eyes you have for your brother-in-law.

As a girl, perhaps she had a crush on William. He was a teen heartthrob, and she was close in age to him.

I think she alway had her eye on the prize and that’s William and not Harry . Harry was just a vessel to get to William him be the future king with all the wealth he’s gonna get .

I’d not noticed how small and beady her eyes are until that pic @ r493.

The latest Thomas Markle interview in the DM is heartrending. His worthless daughter is too busy saving African peasants to send her poor old dad a Christmas card.

R497 So heartbroken he had to reach out to a publication? To me it reads like textbook manipulation on his part. Nobody wins here.

R497 I think it says she did send him Christmas cards and he's revealed them to the media.

BTW, There are no peasants in Africa. Welcome to the post feudal world.

Peasant meaning: 1. a person who owns or rents a small piece of land and grows crops, keeps animals, etc. on it, especially one who has a low income, very little education, and a low social position.

According to her father, MM has not been in contact with him in months, hence no Christmas card.

You will find that persons simply refer to themselves as farmers regardless of the size of their land.

The connotation of peasant is negative and classist.

R498 - If he didn't use the only channel he could to get himself a minor win, he would be playing right into her hands, leave her the winner of the field, and end up with nothing; no daughter no voice and no payoff for his pain.

The bitch extolled his virtues till she met Harry, praised him to the skies till she met Harry, used him up the wazuli till she met Harry, and the INSTANT she met Harry, erased him from her landscape. She made sure Harry never met her father in person, not ONCE.

I know it's annoying when people stand up from the chopping block, seize the axe out of the executioner's hand, and hit him with it, but it's refreshing to see it happen in this unjust world now and then.

I feel the same way when I see bullfighters gored in the ring. Once in a while the bull gets his own back. That's how I see Thomas Markle.

Is it a wince-inducing spectable? Yes. It is entirely unjust? No. I rather feel for that poor slob in Rosarita.

She's a manipulative user - ruthless, hard-arsed, dishonest, and the only person in this world she really loves is herself.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." So far, Meghan Markle has generated nothing for the BRF but conflict, family division, embarrassment, and an utter failure to comprehend the realities of the system that has given her the only thing she has ever wanted in life: A-List status.

^spectacle (not spectable)

R502

And it took a complete fuckwit like Harry to pull a Z-list actress/grifter from oblivion to the front pages. Now that's a special kind of talent.

A proper attribution to the quote in my post, by the way: Matthew, 7:16.

R502

R504 - An emotionally immature and, I think it appears more and more clearly, bitter and confused fuckwit. I don't think anyone realised until he brought MM home just how immature, bitter, and confused.

Relationships reflect us back to ourselves and to those around us.

I think one reason that none of his previous flames made the final cut was not only that the timing was off, and Harry's cheating, but that none of them quite fulfilled his emotional agenda the way Sparkle did.

Meghan Markle, in her trashy, D-list, grasping, narcissistic appositeness, was just what the doctor ordered. She was perfect for Harry, but not for the BRF. Just as Diana was perfect for her public role, but a disaster for Charles, and, in the longer-term, also for the BRF.

What she has also done is open a window into Harry's real conflict and anger where his family are concerned, something I don't think any of guessed from his pubic persona until she came on the scene.

R506 I always felt that the knock-backs Harry received were due more to the disinclination to want the very public Royal role coupled with realizing Harry's major failings and not wanting any of that, thank you very much.

The "cheating" assertion is intriguing. As much as I follow the BRF, I don't remember reading anywhere about Harry's wandering eye/dick, let alone that it caused him relationship problems. In truth, I can't imagine anyone less randy.

[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.]

R507 - As far as the wandering dick goes, I have no prima facie evidence and I don't think anyone else does, either; it was one of those rumours floating out there for a long time and was allegedly one of the primary reasons his relationship with Bonas failed.

I think the real issue is that he belongs to a class of men who assume infidelity is a birthright, and that was also floated as one of the reasons MM threatened the British press a full year before the engagement - so she could establish herself as The Chosen One before he even proposed. As her lawyer's letter and his statement specifically mentioned "racialist abuse" (although this was not supported by evidence or ever proved), the tactic make it that much harder for either Harry or the BRF to ditch her - she played the racism card early in the game, and it worked.

It was a swift and clever move on her part, and Harry, of course, fell in line immediately. It got Meghan into the position she wanted, but long-term sealed her fate with the British press, which will hound her for the rest of her life as a royal, and sealed Dimwit's fate immediately.

I can only imagine, after a lifetime of experience with the British press, the consternation behind the scenes as the Queen and Charles and William watched Harry burn his bridges with the press.

And I completely agree with you that Harry doesn't like the work to start with - I've said the same in earlier posts on the other threads. He thought the novelty wife would make it more bearable, but in fact, she's made it worse.

The TIMES (UK, of course) this morning had a prominent article on Meghan's private secretary, Samantha Cohen, announcing that she will be leaving her post after the royal baby is born in the spring. The headline comes straight out and calls Meghan "Duchess Difficult".

Mind, this is the TIMES, not the DM, SUN, or MIRROR.

The TIMES is the Establishment. If they are printing this, and the family isn't issuing any further statements beyond that the Cambridges and the Sussexes will be spending Christmas at Sandringham, you have to know who they are siding with here, and that they will not step in now to save Harry from the consequences of a decision they warned him against.

Kate's first Christmas with the Royal Family in 2011. Love this outfit and color on her.

The Christmas Tree in the Duke of York's office in Buckingham Palace. That's one big office.

Kate looked very fetching in that first Sandringham Christmas as Duchess of Cambridge. More to the point, it was also a bona fide English Home Counties look, a style Kate has wisely kept to, and against which Meghan has looked, rather than sharp and edgy, by turns cheap, or confused, of slovenly, or inappropriate, or flashy.

MM always looks as if she shops sales in New Jersey. Kate dresses classic BRF which is not always a good look, but at least its appropriate.

r511 and cold. Heating old buildings, and I work in a Grade 1 listed building, is a complete pain. Draughts everywhere. The heating is always breaking down somewhere and I think we've had our heating updated more recently than Buck house.

It is amazing that for all the money she's spending, the Duchess of Success so often looks so sloppy. Really, all Kate or anybody has to do is just stand next to her. Meagain is an utter failure.

Considering that two thirds of migrants are found to be illiterate in their own language, the term peasant may not be too far off the mark.

[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 don 't understand the point of giving notice because she's difficult yet not leaving for several months.

With most jobs in the UK there is a notice period, usually it's one month (after probation). For more senior positions and high profile it can be a minimum of three months.

[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 think Samantha Cohen was already leaving and then specifically asked to stay longer to easy Meghan into it . Obviously it's not working .

R522 I thought that was the excuse given for the other aide leaving, not Cohen

R497 The African orphans can do more for her than her father. It's not a difficult choice for a narcissist. Same with the kitchen and cookbook. Hugging orphans and hijab-wearing women plays better, at least in her eyes. Shame she doesn't have tuition bills to pay anymore. He'd get a Christmas card then.

In the DM story, Thomas says that he contributed financially to her first wedding. So I guess she HAD to invite him to that one. He doesn't say how much he paid, but apparently it was such a sum, that he was given a special "thank you" for his generosity on the wedding program. Yes, there was a printed "wedding program".

Adult couples who have been living together for several years should pay for their own wedding and not mooch off the bride's parents, er, correction, the bride's father.

I appreciate how much the level of discourse has increased here since the deletion of the other Markle threads. R506 and R509 were very insightful.

I just wanted to shallowly step in and say to R521 how much I love the triple tiers on the Queen's dress in that photograph. Is that a 1920s or a 1930s look? I don't know as much about fashion as you other DLers.

The neckline seems more 1930s to me, and the waist, but it could be late 20s.

I wonder if Princess Anne would be relaxed about Fergie marrying back into the royal family IF that were to happen in the future?

QEII's dress is an Angela Kelly special. A fantastic designer for the Queen, nearly everything is a hit imo.

Agree with r527 re the discourse here recently. I put it not so much to the deletion of certain threads, but the apparent deletion/blocking of certain posters, who were spamming the board and these threads. The powers that be were busy last night fighting the good fight, I saw a few new outings go 'poof' within minutes.

Hopefully we can move onto Pt 8 of this series without incident.

r529 I don't think she'd care much. After QEII passes she'll pretty much retire to Gatcombe and her horses and grandkids, Andrew will be out at Royal Lodge in Windsor and two will only see each other at major events (Coronation, funerals, weddings, etc). Andrew will have no role in the court of King Charles III, Anne will be welcome there but with a lesser role than she has now.

I really wonder, R531. The elder royals will be gone soon and they will need new help. It would not surprise me if Bea and Euge were given more prominent roles. Zara Tindall would be perfect, as I have never seen a bad word about her. But she's got a great life without the RF job.

If Charles can successfully neutralize Andrew after their mother passes r532 - as in, send him back to Royal Lodge and private life, permanently - I bet he might be willing to draw in Bea and Eug on a part time basis, perhaps as needed. His main beef was always with their father, and not them.

Some of this will depend on the mood and reception to the new monarch and court after the changeover, of course. The new King will be careful to gauge public response to a new face on the coin, so to speak. And also depends I gather on the outcome of certain federal and civil cases pending in the US surrounding a certain sex abuse and trafficking case. We'll see.

It will be a question of resources vs. Charles' slimmed down monarchy, whatever that actually is going to mean. He can't keep up the same number of engagements and shit can his sister, Edward, Sophie and Andrew and then expect William, Kate, Harry and his wife to carry the load (esp. the way she's behaving). But in any event I can't see him bringing the York girls back on the scene in any meaningful way. They didn't get formal roles under their grandmother's reign, I can't see it changing under their uncle's.

Charles will never be king because Great Britain is going to collapse. Post Brexit the entire kingdom will be eating rations. They will have to sell the royal assets for food. Then they will eat the royals.

enough about living royals..i want a full rundown of Queen Anne and this supposed love triangle with the Duchess of Marlborough and Abigail Masham.

Everyone interprets Charles' claim that he will scale down the monarchy to mean that his siblings will be stripped of their responsibilities. I think that is unlikely. They are patrons of scores of organizations and some of them are popular. Stripping them of their responsibilities will be highly unpopular for Charles. I suspect that, with the exception of Andrew, the current working royals will continue but there won't be new ones -- that's why Beatrice and Eugenie are being kept out. Elizabeth is letting Charles set the tone for the future. As the Queen's cousins (Gloucesters, Kents) die off, they won't be replaced and the set of working royals will gradually shrink. But I'll bet that Anne, Edward, and Sophie aren't shown the door.

R516 That is a classic example of a false equivalency.

To use such a pejorative term to only refer to Africans is noteworthy. According to the National Literacy Trust 15% of Brits are functionally illiterate. Are illiterate rural people in the UK also peasants? I'd love to see you call them that to their face.

There is no historical basis for the theory that Queen Anne had a lesbian relationship with Sarah Churchill. Theirs was a deeply psychological relationship. As the relationship between Anne and Sarah was cooling, Sarah wrote to Anne that people are talking about the strange relationship between Anne and Abigail. Anne was mortally offended. Anne was a deeply religious woman who passionately loved her husband. Sarah and Abigail loved their respective husbands, as well. Sarah's relationship to her husband John Churchill is one of the great love stories of the period.

Agreed, R537.

Angela Kelly has done quite a bit to sharpen the Queen's "look" in her later years, without interfering with the recognisable identity HM's clothes have created for her, a strategy the Queen Mother, and now Kate, have seen the wisdom of but to which Sparkle is oblivious. The Queen's "orthopaedic hats" have gotten less so, some of the dresses quite creditably pretty.

Occasionally, when still youthful, the Queen was not averse to showcasing her somewhat hourglass-like figure. One of her most famous dresses was the 1953 black and white "magpie dress" by Hartnell - it created a sensation. I can remember my Mum exclaiming over it on the front pages when the Queen wore it to the Royal Film performance, which is one reason I recall it. That gown that could be worn today. Unfortunately, the history is, it was so copied everywhere the next day, and HM never wore it again.

I do think many forget how wonderful the Queen could look in her salad days.

The Queen Mother, after she and Bertie came to the throne, is said to have taken inspiration from a series of Winterhalter's in the collection for her evening-wear. She realised that the less regal look of her Duchess of York days would no longer do, and she needed something more regal as Queen. Apocryphally, George VI is said to have mentioned it to Hartnell as they looked at the Winterhalter's in a gallery in Buckingham Palace. Bertie is alleged to have conveyed the decision with a gentle, "These might do for the Queen, don't you think?"

She never abandoned the look for evening wear for the rest of her life.

Damn again, ". . . looked at the Winterhalters", not Winterhalter's.

R541

R541, is this the Hartnell magpie dress? The Queen does look sensational.

I'd just like to say, and I hope it doesn't piss anybody off, that I loved the Dangling Tendrils threads before they got invaded by MM's goon squad. Been on DL for a number of years and I've never seen a thread grow like that. Some of the postings were truly insightful and well written. So thanks to everyone who played by the rules - that was a fun ride.

HM had quite big tits and a tiny waist. She was very va va voom in her day, though I doubt she ever showed it off.

She must raise her eyebrows a bit when she regards the “sexy” Meghan Markle, who has no tits or waist (and a flat ass, now you mention it.)

Same here, r544.

I really miss the Dangling Tendrils thread too. I don't dislike Markle at all and have no strong opinions about the other Duchess but I really enjoyed reading the fine minds who saw the makings of the Greek tragedy inherent in the Harry/MM marriage. Are we all doomed to repeat our parents' mistakes until we gain a modicum of self-awareness? A very sobering thought. Why are Wills and Harry so different? I once remember an astrological reading of Wills' birth chart that said he was destined to be one of the most debauched, profligate and ostentatious wastrels of his family, but his mother's sudden death changed this trajectory completely. It forced him to grow up, look at his parents' marriage with a more critical eye and completely changed his personality, forcing him to use his mind, rather than his instincts.

Hey BRF gossip troll and other interested parties, should we start another edition of DT? What if we remain vigilant and have a zero tolerance policy for the racists, triggered fraus and deplorables. FF the fuckers if they act up?

I like your idea, R547, BUT, I was under the impression that if a thread has too many FFs it'll get shut down. Is that incorrect? Because I would love for DL to try again with this.

Yeah, R548, too much FF-ing will shut it down. There has to be another way. I'll pop a vein if I see another frau with "insider" information from Tumblr or another debate on blackamoor brooches. Any ideas on how to keep the discussion on track? Should we start posting pictures of tiaras and Di's iconic looks? I love it when the gentle folk on this thread do it!

Speaking of astrology, someone recently created a Diana thread asking which of her daughters in law would she have liked more had she lived. The most interesting and likely, true answer is neither. Because neither of the boys would have chosen as they have done. I think both men would stayed single longer than they did- William married at 29 and Harry at 33. I think they would have been more emotionally stable people but would be massive players. William in particular would not be such a tight ass (It's understandable why he has become one though, after the chaos of his childhood) and would not choose a middle class "safe" gal like Katie. He'd go for a beautiful, aristo like Diana. Harry would have been less lost and more secure about his position as a Spare. Ironically, chances are he would have married a "safe" middle class gal like Katie (being an earthy Virgo that he is). Just my feeling.

Did Princess Margaret have an iconic look, like the Queen's Magpie dress and Di's revenge dress? One for the ages?

Margaret was only 5’2”, shorter than HM. She dressed well for her height, never looked overwhelmed by fabric.

I understand what you are saying r547, and to everyone else chiming in on this topic. Personally speaking, I think we have to put paid to the DT days of yore. Things there were fun, until they weren't. This is when a vicious younger set came to the DT threads who were utterly feral with their lack of home training, inability to make a cogent argument, understand collaboration, to learn the culture of DL, or form a witty, original thought. They brought nothing useful with them, certainly not their "secret insider gossip", or their "super special secret ultra closed FB group insider information", and how can we forget their junior high level fan fiction writing exercises? But boy did they bring a kind of crazy that was unhinged and quite disturbing. (I know, MARY!) It got very dark, and very angry, and unforgivably stupid. That is when I completely retired from those threads.

Of late, Muriel has been shutting most MM threads down about as quickly as they spring up. Playing whack a mole must get painfully tedious after a while, but it seems to have done the trick. the invading hordes have retreated at least for the time being. Fingers crossed.

I started the BRF thread as a place to comment on all aspects of the BRF, good or bad, historical or modern. You posters have kept it Interesting, fun, silly, witty, yet still bitchy. No need for dryness here, let it all hang out. Just don't be an asshole is really the one request. I know these threads don't have the same drama or vibe as DT did and perhaps some folks might be missing that. I understand completely.

Anyone can certainly start their own version of DT (I'd caution against using that name however) and see if you can make it work. In my experience, a successful thread is a collaborative process. If you want one tip from me, behave more or less the way you do here. As I said in another BRF thread, thoughtful, reasoned speculation as opposed to crazy, rabid conjecture makes ALL of the difference.

One more thing. Please don't FF someone just because you disagree with them. That should be saved for obviously racist or homophobic posts. We don't get much of that here, which hopefully, is one way we have made it to 7 soon to be 8 as smoothly as we did. When someone tries to get shit started in that vein, warn them off, then move on. See my r443 as an example.

Spread your wings, play fair, but fabulous, stay witty and waggish, use your noggin and common sense, and have fun! xx

Adding my wistful appreciation for the DTs threads. It's too bad people don't understand what a site like this is. I haven't so much fun on the site for years.

Yes, that's the magpie dress. I think it is one of those rare creations that is of its era yet transcends it. It's so classic it could easily be worn today by a woman who can carry it off.

Diana wore a striking black and white gown on a tour to the Middle East that some people thought seemed like an homage to the magpie dress.

Hartnell was something of a genius and he specialised in evening wear. They don't have anything like him these days.

In the 50's it seemed like Margaret gravitated toward large, poufy gowns with frothy, sparkly, Cinderella type skirts. But in the 60's she was as much of a hippie as any Royal could be...a rich hippie. I can still remember what an odd duck she seemed in the 60's. Quite rock-n-roll.

This photo is priceless.

Margaret was a caftan wearer par excellence.

That's a lot of va va voom for one picture, R556. The knowledge that she was a cunt to end all cunts does somewhat diminish the effect though

The knowledge that she also had vodka in her morning OJ makes her a DL icon. Morning drinking, caftans & cuntitude. The DL trinity.

Part 8 is at the ready once this one is full.

I hear you r550 but Diana was such an unhappy person. Her death screwed up her kids but living would have as well. William would still be the caretaker, feeling responsible for her. I think he'd still be unmarried. Everyone says Harry is dim, if so he wouldn't have the capacity for introspection and he'd still marry a girl just like Mom. Also I don't think she would've aged gracefully.

Angling Entrails

Margaret, if memory serves, was one of the first to step out in the 1950s in the Dior "New Look" - wide skirts and fitted jackets. It served her tiny figure and little waistline well. She lost her looks fairly soon and the New Look was on its way out in by the early 1960s, but her wedding dress, again by Hartnell, hewed to the look, with a ballgown skirt and fitted bodice. The design managed to look both royal and sculpted down to her size.

LOL, R561. LOVE Angling Entrails! They'll never find us

Blowing tangling angling.

I don't think work horse Anne will be going anywhere when Charles becomes King.

Different times, same look.

Young Meghan with her mother Doria.

R565- I think Anne and Charles have a solid working relationship, unlike Charles and Andy. But Anne likely has very little patience for Charles' more emotional and whiny side and had even lesser patience for Di. She was known to call her "that ridiculous woman" and was very put out because Di did not want Anne to be her children's godmother because of her strictness with children (to their advantage, I think- look at the well-adjusted Zara and Peter)

Every once in awhile, we get a rare photo of The Queen participating in a SELFIE.

Harry was a weird looking kid but Megs I gotta say was really pretty

Whoa. I can Liz transitioning into her reptilian form in R569's picture

This is Princess Elizabeth of Clarence, daughter of King William and Queen Adelaide. If she had lived, she would have been Queen instead of her cousin Victoria. Premature deaths have shaped the future of many monarchs.

Imagine if William or Harry had got together with Charlotte casiraghi? Aren't the monaco princely family meant to be really horrible people?

That is rather a sweet photo of the child Meghan with her Mum.

Andrew, to the poster upthread, has already been considerably marginalised. He doesn't do much these days, and after his failed attempt, after William married, to get his daughters onto the royal gravy train as "senior working royals", he seems to have accepted the fact that with Charles' sons married and breeding, he has to recede.

What Charles has to worry about isn't Andrew, but filling the Queen's nearly universally esteemed shoes, and, of course, further disruption from Meghan Markle if the dust doesn't settle there, and soon. It's taken two decades for Charles to leave behind the spectre of marital scandal, he doesn't need another one just as he nears his "destiny".

He will have the task of bridging a very long, successful reign with a short reign and handing on to his son a monarchy as little damaged as possible by modernity.

Andrew and Anne simply aren't issues.

R573 Everything I’ve read about Charlotte has been about how poised she is. I remember her giving a quote to a magazine stating that she isn’t a princess and doesnt want to be treated as such. I know she was a popular choice for Harry years ago. A lot of people (royal fans) wished William with Princess Madeleine of Sweden

R573 - They're Catholics, firstly, and although that barrier has been lowered, for the direct heir it still would have presented a problem. The Monegasques were also riddled with scandal by the time William and Harry were in the marital mode, and they aren't inclined to do the kind of work the Windsors are expected to do. They really aren't taken seriously as royals. Charlotte Casiraghi I think is on her second out of wedlock child - she's eurotrash, most of the Monegasques are.

R568 - Yet again, let's put paid to that "godmother" canard. If you look at the godparents of all the Wales children and their royal cousins, close family are almost NEVER appointed godparents, and that is true of the current generation, as well. Anne could have cared less about that, and she has at least half a dozen godchildren of her own, one of whom is Crown Prince Haakon of Norway. Princess Alexandra, the Queen's cousin, was the only family member selected as William's godparent. No Edward, no Andrew, no Anne, no Margaret . . . and Andrew and Margaret were both somewhere else and also didn't attend.

But that Anne despised Diana isn't arguable. Oil and water for sure.

Interestingly, HELLO Magazine, the Mother of All Frau Centres, has taken the unusual step of printing a column about the negative press that has followed Meghan recently. The column, needless to say, take's MM's part unreservedly, observing that the Duchess has "kept a dignified silence" and quoting fans who are defending her . . . but more to the point, stating that Meghan will be announcing her patronages early in the New Year - which is to say, just as she begins her last trimester and maternity leave.

IF HELLO is correct and Meghan will be announcing patronages early in the New Year, that would put paid to the "early divorce" speculations and indicate that the BRF is allowing Meghan some scope, pendant, no doubt, on her having learnt something from the treatment of staff reports, and attempts to get the BRF to adapt to her rather than the other way around.

Whether it will change her sartorial decisions, of course, is another matter.

Young Anne with her children

After years of being a non-entity, I've been seeing A LOT more of Prince Andrew at public functions. I guess since the Duke of Edinburgh retired and the Queen cutting back, he has picked up some of the slack.

R580 - I don't think his "official" roles have been returned to him - he was removed from his former big plum job of Business Ambassador for Britain. I didn't suppose he would disappear entirely, but I think his major influence is gone.

I think much depends on how Harry and Meghan come out of this. If they survive and the dust settles and they take on significant work, the Yorks will continue to recede.

However, if problems persist, the two younger Yorks, Bea nd Yuge, may be pulled forward.

The Queen touching Sophie's hat.

Sophie Countess of Wessex having a laugh with Autumn Phillips.

For the most part, Sophie carries out her many royal duties quietly. She's also one of the most stylish of the royal ladies.

The Queen driving while yawning.

Count me as another who agrees with R544. And the label "MM's goon squad" was fitting.

I've been on DL a long time and there are lots of threads I bypass. I've no problem with people disagreeing on a topic, but the tone of certain posters was incredibly nasty and it was easy to see they were not regular to the board. And it seemed obvious to me that their intent was to get the threads removed. (I saw one poster obviously gloating about it.) Why not bypass a thread if you don't like the topic?

But, I must also say that I enjoy the so-called "insider info" and stuff from Tumblr or wherever. Gossip is gossip, whether from the DM, or elsewhere. And I never found any of the posters who posted these kinds of posts to be rude, insulting or nasty.

On another note, I think that picture at R556 is the best picture of Princess Margaret I've ever seen. I was never struck by her "beauty" in photographs, but she looks really wonderful there.

Sophie and Autumn look like they could be mother and daughter.

Another here with r544 and also r586. I didn't mind silly, far-out-there gossipy bits from Tumblr or other sites, as long as they were noted as being out-there and for entertainment value. DL has a long and large tradition of wild and woolly gossip, read at your own risk. As much as I like and respect BRF goss troll (aka SSAA intern 3), I disagree entirely re the Tig homage write ups. Those alone were worth dredging through the many other posts. I hope that poster continues their calling here.

The issue with the MM threads is the spamming. A specific idiot (who may be in here) has been out of control and starting multiple threads, using multiple devices or browsers, which have been deleted when spotted. It's that poster who raised recent ire, and not talk of specific royals or related topics. Spamming gets a punishment worse than death.

I'm sticking with these BRF threads for now. Civil and interesting and not out of control.

Yes r588 the spamming is a huge issue. However, I'm not clear what you are saying as I was and remain a MASSIVE fan of HRH Flower, and would LOVE to see more of those pieces! Hell, I used to refer to myself as HRH Flower's agent! Apparently, someone is seeing this thread greyed out. I am set to Asbestos Eyeballs, so I don't. It might be best to keep the DT talk to a minimum as the timing seems suspect. I hate having to walk on eggshells though.

I, too, have been very grateful for this thread. I think lots of us want to have civil discussions on the topic at hand. Last week, my computer died on me, and I ordered a new CPU. It was only on Saturday that I was able to get an adapter to let me hook up my old monitor to my new CPU. In the meantime, my ex dropped off a laptop so I could at least access the Internet. In the interim, all the DT threads had been closed or deleted. I practically went into withdrawal. I'm never mean or hateful, and definitely never racist, so I felt personally shunned.

R589. keep up the good work. We don't deserve to be marginalized just for having specific interests. I mean, if all those threads about La Belle Pace, Ben Barnes, Luke Evans and Sam Heughan can survive, why can't the people who dislike this subject just put them on 'ignore'.

I still prefer the older BRF threads before the Tendrils came here. I just felt like there was more discussion instead of everyone ganging up on one person and acting as though they know the Royal family. What was a BRF thread turns into a Meghan thread. I like discussing Meghan, but it becomes tedious when everything is overblown and posters are writing 10 paragraph essays on how much they KNOW the Queen hates Meghan and how they KNOW Harry and Meghan are going to get divorced

Bici e baci, trenchant subjects r588 and r589!

Yes, even agent-subject r589, whom’s auspicious demands for 10% (10%!!) actualized jejunely in The Ghosting. In the oft-quothed verbiage of my dear friend Malala Yousafzai, “I don’t know her.”

Still reading, I am. Procuring the divergent means of the cyber-quilled missive unto your humbly subservient selves avoids me at this avgolemony moment, so behooved am I of the multitudinous choosings of regal thongs foresuch to enter the gilded course of THE BIKINI BABYMOON.

So mote it be,

OH MY GOD, FLOWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am so fucking happy right now. Ahhhhh,,,,,

The tendrils. Sigh.

I liked the pace of those threads but the lack of reason was a bit much for me. Insider scoops, tumblr anon/CDAN data drops and fake baby bumps.

Here's a thought, if you don't like post then scroll past. There's no need to get a thread that others enjoy deleted because they don't agree with you. Getting a thread deleted is not going to magically make everyone like Meghan Markle.

[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.]

Oh dear lord!

Meghan. I do like the dress and her hair pushed back

Another pic

I think she looks good. But the OTT bump "clutching" as the DM put it is ... ew!

I don't mind the outfit and she looks a lot neater than she has in the past but the bump cradling is seriously bonkers.

Jesus, could she act anymore desperately?