British Royal Family Part 12: general gossip and information

And now is the time for one or more of you to say something cunty, yet insipid to me. Have at it. It never gets old. If you can't respect your elders, build your own playground.

They've tried. The threads get deleted. Muriel has crowned you, OP, Queen of the BRF Thread.

I would like to thank the poster who maintains the Queen Elizabeth Instagram account. I’ve been looking at it and really enjoying her fashions over the years. She truly has been the best dressed woman in the world. Diana overshadowed her for a few years but her clothes have been consistently amazing.

Yes count me in as one who doesn't mind the igram posts here. Some of the old photos are marvelous. If you don't like looking at photos, just skip those posts.

Who is Eugenia Garvarani or however the hell you spell it? The account in Instagram never runs out of Royal Family content and some of it seems obscure. Is it a pseudonym? Is there a real person? I can't work that account out.

[quote]Muriel has crowned you, OP, Queen of the BRF Thread.

I've been here decades. Muriel doesn't share power with anybody. Get over it.

R5 - here is a short bio of Eugenia Garavani, an alias for the lady pictured below.

"Behind Eugenia Garavani is Ana Laura Sánchez-Díaz Monge, a Mexican journalist and writer with extensive experience in the media, specializing in royalty, a journalist and media contributor such as Quien, Revista Central, El Universal and El blog World of Regina. She has a Master's degree in Public Image. Eugenia Garavani was born as an Instagram account that in two years grew organically counting on renowned followers like Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia, Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, Carla of Bulgaria, Sofia of Braganza, Diana of Orleans, Countess Laura of Gunzburg, the jewelry brand Mellerio and the Italian designer Valentino Garavani.

Eugenia Garavani is dedicated to inform about the events of the latest in real homes, as well as to address issues related to monarchies, to keep the chronicle in time of events where royalty is the focus of attention. Within the themes related to royalty, Eugenia, like any image consultant, talks about topics related to fashion and protocol.

The purpose of the brand is to continue narrating the chronicle within the world of royalty from a more current point of view, just as monarchies have evolved, so have journalists specialized in the pink press. The world of royals continues to be a market of great interest around the world, proof is that the followers of Eugenia Garavani are from"

As you can see the translation is not the best. I'm the person who posts photos of royalty here. If I find a rare one, a funny one or a beautiful shot, I post it. Whatever takes my fancy on my Internet travels. I'm glad some of you are enjoying them.

Very interesting and thanks, R7. I am sure I have enjoyed many of your posts.

Two photos of the Queen drinking at a state dinner. Wearing a tiara, she must have to be careful not to tip her head back too much.

Her Majesty wears furs occasionally. Here she is at the Opening of Parliament.

The Queen wearing the Scottish Order of the Thistle. The robes of the Garter Order are black.

Father and Son- Will and Georgie.

The Queen at work. It could be a letter from a fan or one of the endless government papers she has to read and sign from the top secret Red Box.

She loves her scarves.

Lilibet with her parents, The Duke and Duchess of York.

A lovely photo of the Queen's late sister, Princess Margaret.

Just a comment on the aristos and who they allow in...

I can’t speak for British aristocracy, but the super-wealthy in America are not impervious to charm, cleverness and other things. Sometimes they want to be amused or they enjoy an outsider’s wide-eyed appreciation of their lifestyle.

And sometimes a climber must be endured because they’ve attached themselves to an indispensible codependent member of their club. Like Heather Mills; I don’t think anyone loved her, but as long as Sir Paul wanted her around, there she was.

Is she concerned, appalled or embarassed by her husband here? LOL.

Trench. Check. Binoculars. Check. Camera. Check. Ok. she's ready to watch the horse trials.

R16, thank you for that photo. She’s gorgeous there. Wow.

Young Princess Elizabeth wore the Fringe Tiara at her wedding (click for photos). Shortly before the ceremony, one of the diamond spikes snapped and the royal jeweller had to fix it quickly. If you look closely, you can see a space where it broke.

I know someone who knows some aristos. The old class structures aren't nearly as strict but manners still count for a lot. Above all, he said the one thing that defines the aristocratic families is confidence: they all know exactly who they are and precisely from where they've come. There is an inherent confidence in them that can't be faked. They respond to similar characteristics in others. It may explain the success of Kate and Pippa. They seem outwardly confident. I often think more than anything that is what gives MM away... many of her ticks and gestures betray the nervousness inherent in her. She may be bossy but she's intimidated too. She may not believe she's out of her league but she's got to know she's out of her depth, in the sense that she sees nothing to help her make sense of her environment... so she disregards it.

She was a serious and studious young woman.

She could be just any old grandmother with glasses, sweater and handbag. Do browse around the room and notice that horrible plaid carpet with the mismatched drapes.

The Queen meeting Marilyn Monroe.

A curious Queen having a quick peek out the window.

When father and sons had more hair.

The Queen wore some fascinators back in the day.

The Queen and Princess Anne. Two work horses.

The Royals have had to wear some interesting eye goggles over the years.

Here’s something I’ve always wondered. Remember when Diana arranged for three supermodels to come and surprise young Will? I forget which ones. But I always thought that was weird and inappropriate. Anyone else? I’m having a senior moment, one of them was the gal with the mole and I can’t remember her name. Anyhow this was not my favorite side of Diana- the celebrity lover. (Cindy Crawford! Can’t believe I couldn’t retrieve that.)

R31 - well, I don't know if it was appropriate or not. Diana wanted to surprise her son for his birthday I believe. He was a fan of these models and what adolescent boy wouldn't want beautiful women showing up. If I remember correctly, he was quite embarassed about it. (I'm not positive but it may have been Cindy, Claudia Schiffer, Naomi Campbell...someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Let me get this straight — it’s okay to discuss grilled cheese and Carole Middleton, but Saint Doria is wildly off topic?

Do I have that right?

So which one of the supermodels blew him after tea?

R33 A detailed discussion of a church that Doria attended in the 1970s was deemed too far off topic if I recall correctly. I don't think Doria herself is off topic.

I’m late to the party but I’d like to suggest Victoria Henrietta for a baby girl Sussex.

Imagine if they have twins, girl and boy.

Elizabeth and Phillip, obviously.

So predictable.

I’ve always liked the name Alice. I could also see Megan going for Grace for some reason.

R33 did they say the name of the church Doria went to for 7 years when she abandoned her children?

It ain't very polished as coifs go, but at least she curbed the straggly sideburn bits.

R39 She never abandoned her CHILD.

How many times do we have to go through this? After the divorce Doria moved to a smaller place in a less glamorous area in l.a. Meghan stayed with her dad in the big house in the nicer area closer to her private school.

Also, Doria was taking care of her sick mother who stayed with her. Meghan would visit after school and stay over the weekends.

Doria was never in prison (public record), never sold drugs or was a prostitute or whatever else you assholes continue to lie about. Give it a rest. We like facts, not fiction.

Since you like facts, R41, provide them with your post that

[quote] After the divorce Doria moved to a smaller place in a less glamorous area in l.a. Meghan stayed with her dad in the big house in the nicer area closer to her private school.

AND

[quote] Also, Doria was taking care of her sick mother who stayed with her. Meghan would visit after school and stay over the weekends.

To provide YOUR facts you can give

the date of the divorce,

the addresses of both domiciles both before and after the divorce,

the report about the sick mother and

information about Meghan's visits after school and weekends.

YOU are the one insisting on FACTS.

Now provide them to support your claims.

Oh please r42...this stuff is well known. Some of the crap people come up with here is unreal. It’s all fiction masquerading as fact and opinion. If Doria was all of the things people allege it would have come out.

I think it was 2 or 3 threads back, r39, and there was information about a relative’s experience with the same group. Itwas named and linked. If you have an easier time finding an HRH Amma Megflower of Your Hearts post and putting her on ignore, it should turn up.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh dined with President Kennedy and his wife, Jackie, at Buckingham Palace in June, 1961.

I read that Doria taught belly-dancing at a nursing home. Is that true?

[quote] this stuff is well known.

Please.

R41 wants facts.

Should then provide them for their own assertions.

R47, with the exception of a few posts, this entire thread is a fact-free zone. I’ve never read such made up tripe in my life. I really enjoy the walk through history—thanks, posters for the great historical photos and facts. I don’t enjoy the crazy suppositions people are making because MM’s sleeves are too long or her calves are too thin. But DL is all about the bitchiness I guess.

Looking forward to more posts like r45’s... but I’m not getting my hopes up.

[quote]We like facts, not fiction.

Yeah, right. Tell it to Carole Middleton or James Severn.

Hypocrite.

Why are you calling people assholes R41. That's not civil, and awfully defensive for someone who has no connection to the subject. I mean abnormally defensive. I have never heard about a sick mother, that's so nice Saint Doria took that on as opposed to staying close to her daughter, who was raised in a posh area by her private school, by her awful terrible white trash father. So thank you for the clarification.

In that picture, even the glamorous Queen is in my opinion blown out of the water fashion wise by Jackie, who looks so fresh and original and modern.

So is there any basis to the artistic license The Crown series took where Jackie shit-talked HM following their meeting?

R51 - I take your point but upon taking a longer look at the photo, I think the deeper truth is that Jackie looks like a fashionable celebrity (and I say that with respect and admiration) whilst the woman to her left looks like . . . a Queen, who doesn't give a damn about fresh, original, modern, fashion, or style. It's an interesting photo for everything it tells the viewer about the two women. Jackie is playing to the camera, clearly excited to the core,positively lit up - the Queen's expression is devoid of self-consciousness. That lack of self-consciousness is very rare and the odd thing is, her mother had the same quality. John Singer Sergeant painted the young Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) and wrote of the experience, "She was the only completely unselfconscious sitter I had ever had."

That utter lack of self-consciousness is rooted in an absolute sense of self, and very few on the planet are so rooted.

Damn this autocorrect - John Singer Sargent, and he did draw Queen Elizabeth but upon her engagement to the Duke of York, before the Abdication and becoming Queen.

R53

I don't think Meghan lacks confidence. If anything she's a kind of Dunning-Kruger in action - doesn't know what she doesn't know, and doesn't CARE. She thinks she's knows best at all times. She also has an agenda - make herself the most publicized, most famous royal - that is not part of the BRF agenda. Autumn Phillips isn't or wasn't an aristo and she slid in just fine. Much of it is common sense.

Meghan has no judgment. Compare her with Cressida Bonas. I'm convinced Bonas dated Harry purely to elevate her profile in the acting and dance world, and practically crossed the days off her calendar until she could decently pull the plug. However, she chooses her moments. She did a transparent shirt and mini skirt shot on instagram, but she turns up at Harry's wedding faultlessly turned out, while Meghan, whatever the claimed price tags of her clothing, often turns up looking like a refugee from a soap opera that had its budget slashed and is using a stylist with no style (which is true in Meghan's case - she uses trashtastic Jessica Mulroney) You can't be thirsty EVERY FUCKING SECOND. And you can't constantly be trying to control things, as Meghan did during the Xmas walk, trying to be patronizing and showing she was "beloved" all at the same time. Give it a rest, Smeg.

If she's like most narcs, then all she cares about is herself in two dimensions - as in a still shot. Doesn't care about film and video. Doesn't care if she's caught out posing, or if, in context, the still shot is not what her PR claims it is. She only cares about the still shot and the narrative she wants to build around it.

Just looked up the Jackie thing. Jackie apparently leaned on the palace to include her sister Lee Radziwill and Lee's husband, Stanislas, but the palace did not want to, as Stanislas Radziwill was on his third marriage. Nevertheless, he was invited. In retaliation, nobody Jackie wanted to meet and be photographed with were in attendance. No Princess Margaret, and no Marina, just "every minister of agriculture they could find."

[quote]A Sandringham insider said : 'The men went out as usual for the shoot after a hearty breakfast. 'A buffet is laid out of kedgeree, bacon and eggs, cereals and toast to set them up for the day. 'It's cold trudging across the muddy fields so you need plenty of sustenance.' In years gone by the Queen and the royal wives would often be seen following along, picking up pheasants, partridges and the occasional duck.

[quote]Her Majesty was often photographed wringing the neck of injured birds, much to the annoyance of animal welfare groups, but at 92, those days have long gone. Pregnant Meghan stayed inside in the cold during the morning session, while Kate remained at Anmer Hall, her ten-bedroom house on the estate, looking after her three children, George, Charlotte and Louis. But at lunchtime the Merry Wives of Windsor were all driven to Wood Farm to be reunited- Meghan traveled in a Range Rover with the Queen and Prince Philip, 97, who missed church on Christmas Day.

We've had several comments on this thread and the last thread about the Royals wearing fur. I thought this bit from the DM was pretty enlightening. When I read about HM wringing the necks of injured birds, I was aghast, and I'm still trying to take it in.

It’s considered a mercy r57. Injured but not a clean kill, kinder to wring the neck.

R58, Thanks, that's what I've tried to accept. I guess it's rather shocking to me to think of the Queen being so hands-on in such matters. I really shouldn't be surprised. She's certainly hands-on when it comes to horses and dogs. I'll admit to having a sheltered point of view, but the idea of an old lady wearing a Hermes scarf walking through the fields and wringing birds' necks is such a jarring image for me.

[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.]

R60, I imagine that have plenty more stories to deliver, and are just pacing themselves. They don't want to look too much like they're piling on, especially when she's pregnant. I'm sure there will be a sort of honeymoon period when she finally delivers her child.

[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.]

What would be classified as a small amount? She had two hundred joints which she distributed to her guests, one guest didn't realise what it was and almost took it to the airport (apparently).

MM is lucky getting to ride around w the 👑 Queen.

I always heard that the British upper class bit the heads off injured birds as an act of mercy killing. Wringing the neck seems very pedestrian.

R63 If you're not trafficking then it's a small amount. This is a tourist destination that has had many spring break events. They have seen many people using drugs in a group.

The police will lock you up for trafficking (such as trying to get on a plane or cruise ship), but Rastafarians sometimes have public events with large pipes that sit on the ground and nobody gets arrested for that.

Cocaine is the drug that Jamaican authorities have a problem with because it's shipped from South America to the USA through Jamaican ports. The gangs fight for dominance of that trade. Marijuana isn't heavily linked to local crime and is used in home remedies so it's a pass unless you're a dealer or a trafficker.

Correction. They may hassle a local dealer, but only if the officer is corrupt and looking for a bribe. Usually local use is overlooked. Every academic study since the 1960s had recommended removing the illegal status of marijuana in Jamaica.

Some interesting anecdotal stories about the queen meeting every US president since Harry Truman, with the exception of Lyndon Johnson. Read on to discover which president kissed the Queen Mother on the lips!

R68 That's juicy. Thanks!

I like the picture of her with Reagan because she's wearing one of her scarves.

R56 - That is quite a hilarious tidbit about Jackie. Another social climber underneath it all, after all.

I remember that the dancing after the dinner when Gerald Ford was President was televised.

It was fun seeing President Ford dancing with the Queen.

But I was totally shocked to discover that for their first dance, the orchestra played, and I'm not making this up, "The Lady Is A Tramp".

I remember it quite clearly and wondered whose bright idea that was.

Re MM's confidence - her confidence level was off the charts at the beginning. You could see it in all the photos and in her outrageous blog. After hooking up with Harry, this continued, because she is clearly brighter and more sophisticated than he is. She really thought she could completely control the narrative. Unfortunately, this unwarranted self-confidence - hubris - led her to make some fatal mistakes, the first of which was the letter to the press and then the £54,000 evening gown she wore in her engagement photos. But over the last year, this visible confidence has changed. She has received such a hammering from the press and has been publicly humiliated shown in videos, eg, at the Remembrance Day event and William ignoring her attempt to engage him. Her smile is pasted on, but you can see she is not relaxed. All her efforts to rehabilitate her image fail because they are based on trying to stand out. It is all she knows. The worst thing is that she cannot defend herself against her critics, nor can she voice her right-on opinions.

I was looking at copy of Us Magazine with Harry and Megan on the cover in a doctor's waiting room yesterday. I was thinking boy Harry lucked out in getting his mother's looks rather than his fathers.

For ten minutes maybe he lucked out; he mostly hit the wall by his 30s, and his small remaining attractiveness was dispersed into the atmosphere around the time of his marriage.

Clementine Hambro, great-granddaughter of Winston Churchill, was one of the bridesmaids at Princess Diana’s wedding to Prince Charles. The 5-year-old tripped on her dress and started crying. Reportedly, after the incident, Diana asked if she had ‘bumped her bottom’.

[quote]top secret Red Box.

Can someone give more info on this?

nah r74. He still looks pretty damn good.

Wonder what Harry will do when he is as bald as William. A bald ginger is hard to overcome. Maybe he'll shave it all off.

Princess Diana with two Aussie Lifeguards in 1988.

[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.]

Sounds like a movie The Red Briefcase haha 😏

R42 I was sleeping but someone already got to it before I could - Thank you for providing the link about Meghans previous homes whoever you are!

As for the rest, you could have googled but lazy is as lazy does, not to mention your own lack of proof that Doria was in prison/prostitute/druggie. In America it is public record. So if doria has ever spent so much as a day in jail we could easily find out. Turns out she has never set foot in prison. I'm sure that FACT makes you seethe.

And another fact for you, doria divorced thom sr and moved out to a smaller apartment. This apartment was also featured in the fail. I don't visit that site so if you want photos, google it.

I don't remember where I read doria was either taking care of her sick mother or relative who lived with her but I do remember reading this. I will have to look for it again.

Here's what dorias brother said about jeanette, meghans grandmother.

When Jeanette suffered a stroke in later life, Meghan helped nurse her.

Joseph, 68, said: 'Meghan would sit there, talk to her, hold her hand, cook for her and take care of her – whatever she could to bring comfort. She loved her grandmother.'

And, according to Joseph, Jeanette helped raise Meghan while the star's mother Doria was working.

'My mother babysat while Doria was pursuing her career,' said Joseph. 'When Doria got off work she would go over to my mother's house to pick her up.'

After high school, Ragland worked as a make-up artist, where she later met her former husband Thomas Markle while employed at the studio for the television show General Hospital. She later worked as a travel agent and she also owned a small business, before filing for bankruptcy in the mid 2000s[12]. She went onto complete a Bachelor of Arts in psychology at an undisclosed university.[6] In 2015, Ragland passed her social work licensing exam in California, after having received a Master of Social Work from the University of Southern California in 2011.[13][14] Ragland worked as a social worker for a mental health clinic, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, in Culver City, California, for three years.[15]Ragland resigned from the clinic in May 2018 [16][17], soon after Meghan Markle's wedding ceremony. Ragland has also worked as a yoga instructor.[18]

FFS, who cares about Doria? She's not part of the BRF - just like Carole Middleton and the like are not.

Feel free to discuss her when (or, rather, if) she is seen with Baby Sussex aka SohoBébé. When MEGalomaniac and Hapless Harry try to garner the public's affection by wheeling out and showing off their spawn with the doting grandmother, that is.

But for the time being, Doria is pretty much irrelevant, so stfu on her.

R84, Go take a crap in the latest La Belle Pace or Sam Heughan thread.

If MM was married to a commoner she could dancing in the streets naked for all I care but when you marrie in the BRF there are rules to be followed like it or not . And that is to behave yourself and don’t merch and don’t be an attention whore .

And hanging around Soho farmhouse after your marriage is a big nono !

Let's face it: MeMe is one big NoNo.

R85, did you have too much sugar lately?

"Like a refugee from a soap opera that had its budget slashed". Lol, this is the perfect description, r55.

I think Meghan is getting anxious because she has not been as well received as she believed she would be. Plus, she has reached the apex of fame in this role. She'll have one last hurrah with the press when she has the baby, then she will slowly recede into the background as befits the spouse of the 6th in line. The RF had to play nice with her this Christmas because she is pregnant and not to have would look poorly on them.

Will she accept her position or will she continue to strive to be center stage?

ITA with R90. The freak be flummoxed.

Very interesting article about an interview with Mike Tindall... husband of Zara Phillips. Probably one of the few articles you can trust re. insight into the private lives of the Royal Family.

He seems to explain the "black rule": the Queen believes dark colours are for sad times. She doesn't leave the room for the speech, she watches with the family.

[quote]I want a new yacht, Queen told Whitehall in secret letter

I'm sorry that most of the article is behind a paywall. Buy her a new yacht!

Yachts. Jewels. Furs. Flunkies. All the things Meghan has been dreaming about for herself.

R51 here - Interesting take R53, and I totally agree about the confidence of having an immovable sense of self. I also take into account Jackie's artistic, aesthetic leanings, which the Queen doesn't really share from what I've read. Jackie would naturally be more interested in couture. I think what we really see in that photo is the shift from a 1950s to a 1960s look.

R94 - hell, yes. To be perfectly honest, I'm envious and admiring of Meghan's coup. I would add to that list, "I'm going to be in history books! And every Hollywood asshole who treated me like a nonentity can now bow before me!" I bet Meg can't wait to make her triumphant return to Los Angeles. As a spectator, neither can I - imagine what she'll wear!

R94 - Nailed it, mate. She just wasn't prepared for the sticker shock all that comes with, nor for the fact that she'll be getting a lot less of the loot than, say, her sister-in-law.

Harry didn't get his mother's looks: he got her father's family, the Spencer side's looks. Diana looked more like her mother's family; Harry looks pure Spencer, including the red hair. It is really William who got Diana's looks, including the nose.

There was a strong resemblance between Diana and a young Lady Cynthia Spencer (nee Hamilton), Diana's paternal grandmother on her father's side, except that Lady Cynthia's nose was smaller. She really looked like a Hamilton, but got the height from the Spencers, I think. Girls of 5'10"+ are common these days but Diana was very tall for a girl born in 1961. Neither of her sisters got so notably tall, nor did they get the blondeness of the Hamiltons or the Fermoys (their mother's family). Sarah was attractive, Jane positively homely, but Diana hit all the really striking chromosomes: the height, the skin, the fantastic legs, the huge blue eyes, the photogeneity - and when she went blonde it set it all off to perfection.

R55, good point about Autumn Phillips, who seems to carry herself well. While Peter is not as prominent as Harry, having Anne as mother-in-law must have presented its own challenges. Although, hmm, both of Anne's kids married very "common" people.

R94, well said, and Diana's height was critical, especially to carrying off the clothes and that dominant hairdo. Imagine her short; just isn't the same.

R98 - As Anne's children are commoners themselves (no title, plain Ms and Mr), marrying commoners was not a particular surprise or comedown. As Anne herself firmly pointed out, "They just happen to have a grandmother who is a Queen." She and Mark Phillips were adamant about Phillips not accepting a title precisely so their children could have the "normal" lives that MeAgain pretends she wants for her children.

R95 - Don't underestimate the Queen's aesthetic sense. Her clothes are chosen to support an identity that transcends time, a strategy both her mother and grandmother, Queen Mary, understood the value of and kept to. But HM's art collection is fantastic - she's a shrewd collector. Her aesthetic, perforce, has to be channeled in other ways. Kate Middleton seems to have grasped the concept, Diana didn't - her aesthetic was always focused on how to make herself as impressive and glamourous as possible. Kate Middleton seems to have grasped the concept and is resolutely sticking to her Upgraded Home Counties Girl style; MM hasn't learned a thing about this except to wear black a lot. Of course, it must also be said that MM doesn't need to, as she'll come nowhere near the throne.

The Queen's aesthetic also extends to her estates. The 40,000 acres of magnificent countryside on which Balmoral is situated are noted for beauty. So what if she wears an old sweater, a tartan skirt, brogues, and those damned pearls as she gazes out the windows.

Reading about Meghan's first wedding, I feel like it was all very "LA." My friends would throw a wedding like this, all hip and fun and irreverent. That said, I wouldn't want a one of them to marry into the BRF.

R95 here again, and great comments R100, very astute. I do think Jackie's attraction to the arts was more emotional and perhaps a little avant-garde by comparison. She did care about history, too, and did a nice job "refreshing" the White House with historical furniture etc. But I totally agree with your assessments of the various royal women. As much as I loved looking at Diana, it is clear now she was obsessed with her own image, and it was a very flimsy foundation for her role. She was a complex woman, and certainly roiled the BRF. It's too bad the drama is back, entertaining though it is. While I don't think the BRF will come "crashing down," the mystique is being eroded. I grew up with a British parent and have always followed the BRF and want the institution to endure. I like timeless things.

FWIW I had a friend who worked on the auction of Diana's dresses. The friend said Diana was completely professional, humble and easy to work with.

R99 - Completely agree, the height brought her from merely pretty to striking. The gorgeous skin, large blue eyes, teeth, and blondeness would always have been nice enough for the part, but the height gave her the beautiful racehorse legs and put the whole aspect just over the line to special. Charles seems to have gone for tall girls: I think Davina Sheffield was quite tall - she was one of the more interesting girls Charles dated. I'm not sure about Anna Wallace, with whom he was allegedly besotted (a/ka/ Whiplash Wallace). William seems to have inherited the taste.

Upon the engagement, they papers of course released all the photos of Diana's childhood and growing up they could lay hands on, and I remember seeing photos of a young Diana - perhaps 14 - playing tennis at Althorp, swinging her racket at a ball, up on the balls of her feet, and you could already see the astonishing legs.

"old sweater, a tartan skirt, brogues, and those damned pearls -. that country look is the most elegant ever. Form following function can be the height of style. They have to be good pearls, though.

R102 - Again we are in agreement. I think Jackie had a very strong pull toward the arts, which allowed her to express herself in a way that the restrictions of the era and circles she grew up in probably limited. It is interesting to speculate what she might have done with her abilities in today's world. She was so curiously apolitical, too, and the Kennedys cannot have been an easy fit for her. She always seemed more European than American to me - in that sense, a really unique American First Lady.

R104 - Indeed! Again, a concept many, including Diana and Meghan, simply don't grasp - they were/are taken in by the superficial veneer of glamour. And the pearls I assure you are top quality. A journalist writing about seeing the Queen in person once described surprise at their luminous quality.

Like the Queen's beautiful complexion, the pearls' quality usually doesn't emerge in casual photographs. You know what Bette Midler said after meeting the Queen in person (probably Royal Variety): "Man, that lady is WHITE!"

Also here with one British parent (I'm the hybrid as I have mentioned) and also with ambivalent feelings toward the BRF. Intellectually, I find it inexcusable in these days; but emotionally, another matter.

I still think PH lives at another place than MM . If they,would live together he would have learned her what the rules are of the BRF and the royal duties she has to perform . I have this feeling she’s is left to her own devices . And we all know what these are . Merching the hell out of these clothes , looking dishelved like she just fell out of bed . Not always polished like she should be . And she would look better If she had her natural hair . But than she would look black and that is one thing she doesn’t want to be .

I've read that the Queen Mother chose her style to contrast with Wallis. She intentionally wanted to look Edwardian rather that modern.

[quote] She understood public relations and thereafter continued to dress in a style that suggested wholesomeness, steadfastness, warmth, sweetness and lovability. She became what she invented, a picture that said goodness and stability.

[quote] Inevitably photographs of her by Cecil Beaton wearing the Hartnell creations helped create a more enigmatic vision in the public's eye. It's alleged that she was not averse to a little airbrushing to help define her waistline in the cause of good public relations.

I think British royal women have kept up this tradition of wearing clothes from a previous era to convey the image of stability.

Take Anne or example, she lives a very modern life. She married a commoner, had affairs while she was married, divorced her husband and married her lover. Plus her first husband even had an affair and a child with a call girl. All this was before Charles and Diana. Yet all of Anne's clothing style carries a traditional sense and she is viewed as a very traditional stable person.

I think there is an element of interest in fashion = vanity and that is not a quality valued by the British upper classes. It’s a very down to earth, posh girls mucking out the stables type of lifestyle.

The royal life is all Harry knows, but then again he's a guy. He probably has never given much thought to how a royal woman should behave; in his view, you just do the done thing. Therefore he may not be much help to Meghan. She needs an aristocratic gay gentleman to teach her upper-class nuances.

R108, agree though I think an interest in fashion is excusable if part of an interest in the arts. Like if one's interest encompassed historical dress.

R106, I've said upthread that Meghan would look lovely with a soft, wavy Andie-MacDowell-in-"Four Weddings" hairstyle. But as someone rightly pointed out, she probably can't bear to wear short hair because long is "sexy." Harry probably likes it long, too.

R106 R111 Very few adult woman wear their hair totally natural. When white women blow dry their hair to make it straight and lie flat nobody says they should let it be frizzy. Lady Louise had been getting a blowout recently, I doubt that's because she hates her race.

Meghan and Andie MacDowell have very different hair. Meghan would have to straighten her hair and then curl it daily or do some kind of "perm" to achieve that effect. It wouldn't look any more "black" than her current look. Many black women straighten their hair because they like the look or they find it easier to manage. Meghan is no different in that regard.

I'm not saying I like her hair or that it looks good. I just don't see that as a reflection of her views on looking black.

The late Queen Mother with her grandchildren, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward.

A cute photo of Andrew and the Queen with baby Edward.

What the hell happened to Andrew?

Her Royal HIGHness.

Camilla and the Queen.

The Queen and the Prince of Wales having a laugh at the Braemar Games in Scotland.

It's evident that Will and Harry didn't take after their mother in the abundant hair department.

An excited Queen at the horse races with Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

She is NOT amused.

She is mighty bored.

What a difference a day makes to Meghan's wee bairn. Now you see it, now you don't.

The Queen captured in a maternal moment - wiping Anne's nose.

The Queen as Wonder Woman. LOL.

Elizabeth and Margaret.

I think this thread needs about 400 more pics!

Umbellas are always on hand. The Queen with Andrew and Edward.

R127 - You're wrong. See R3. Thank you and kindly piss off.

R129, that must be you talking to yourself. Now post a few billion pics of lil' fat pompous Prince Andrew, please.

R129 I hope R3 didn't mean bring the entire contents of that Instagram account to this DL thread. A few images are appreciated and may spur conversation, but 15 pictures in the last 30 minutes may be a bit much.

R131 - No one is bringing a whole account to this thread. If you don't like the photos, then skip them.

How are we supposed to skip twenty pics posted in a row?

R133 - you see the little white DOWN arrow at the bottom of the page. Please press that and voila you're FREE!

Anyway, one of my favorite photos of the Queen.

R134, Thanks! That's pretty rare. The Queen rarely wears pants in public.

This is random but it occurs to me we never or rarely saw Diana with dogs or any other kind of animal. Not that everyone has to love animals, but she was definitely not a country girl in that sense.

Some of you appear to be practicing the same New Years Resolution early this year: COMPLAIN AND WHINE MORE. As you can see, it doesn't work.

“Never complain, never explain.” Who said that anyway?

R137 We will see if it “works” as well here as it did on your “dangling tendrils” threads. Wherever did they go? Oh, right, we complained and whined them out of existence. BRF threads are next. Carry on!

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

R136 - I came across this video of a young Diana with a dog.

Sorry for the double post. DL is working oddly today.

R139, who is "we"? Are you by any chance a schizo?

It seems to me the best thing to be if you join the royal family is your authentic self, or at least some acceptable version of that. But if your sense of self is not well developed, then you might have a problem. This might be a special challenge for actors, whose craft is inhabiting the personalities of others.

R150, I concur. You need a lot of stamina to cope with that family.

Stamina, you know.

Not hubris.

R149 Umm, the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. Are you, by any chance, in an institution for the intellectually challenged?

R139 is a Queen and only refers to herself with majestic plurals.

[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.]

R139 - I didn't start the Dangling Tendrils thread so they weren't "mine". I did post on it and enjoyed it until it became a fighting match between logical people and the Sugars. When there's little news to report, I post photos. I don't know why that gets your knickers in such a twist but I guess you find them offensive for some reason. Since you're an angry, unhinged troublemaker, that's all I'll say on the matter.

R151 stamina, yes, or an ability to keep it light and simple. There was a great line in “The Crown,“ young Elizabeth says to her anxious mother, “Well, don’t think too much. Gets one’s head all in a muddle.” I think that’s great life advice.

"Don't think too much"... I don't know if that's good life advice.

It's one of the reasons why America has a President called Trump in the White House, isn't it? I don't think people THINK enough before behaving, speaking, tweeting etc...

[quote] a fighting match between logical people and the Sugars

R155 Were the logical ones the people talking about pillow babies and surrogates, or the ones accusing Meghan of being a thug, or the ones calling the Sussex baby Zika spawn? Maybe they were the ones talking about Doria's alleged prostitution and drug dealing? Or were they claiming Meghan had a secret marriage that was annulled with no trace and no evidence but they're sure it happened?

Those were all on the dangling tendrils threads, and I don't think those were the sugars.

It was more in the sense of “don’t worry so much.”

The dangling tendrils were really funny, but they were also crazy and messy AF.

No one knows why they were shuttered. Other threads about the BRF which were not nearly as messy and had no big fights have also been closed.

What is it about MM? None of the others who have recently married into the BRF, ie, Mike Tindall, Autumn Phillips, Sophie Winkelmann, Jack Brooksbank (been around for nearly a decade), or the Maori carpenter have caused the slightest controversy, so how hard can it be?

R152, are you, by any chance, a pretty pompous ass?

R158 - I don't find any of these examples mentioned in your post as "logical".

Since I am a logical person, I am well aware that there are wackos on both sides. I am also mature enough not to get too upset about it either way.

R161 There is so much more tabloid material to mine with Meghan than with the others.

Quite beyond Meghan herself, whether you think she's lovely or horrible, there is the coterie of characters that follow in her wake. The drunken brother, the domestic assaulting sister in law, the bitter sister with the sharp tongue, the reclusive, later paparazzi-courting father, the Instagram obsessed BFF.

You can spin her as rags to riches one moment or scheming villain the next. She can be the seductress or the brash American.

Meghan is a tabloid journos dream.

I enjoyed the Dangling Tendrils threads, although I was never a prolific poster in them. And I've avoided posting about the Sussexes on the BRF threads. I would really prefer keeping them separate. I had lost my online access for several days, and when I finally regained access, I saw that all the Dangling Tendrils threads had been closed, and wasn't really sure what happened. I find the racial comments to be pretty frustrating, to be honest. I have occasionally posted about race on other types of threads, but that's because I'm a white guy with a black ex-BF, and we sometimes need to have in-depth, honest conversations with each other, so I think I can be reasonably sensitive when I broach the subject. But I realize not everyone can do that.

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

R161 those people didn't marry Harry or Will. The world doesn't care as much about their spouses. Will and Harry are the sons of the future king and the sons of the tragic beloved Diana. Kate got a lot of flack before Harry provided a new target.

I also have to say if MMs clothing choices and alleged merching were a big deal to the BRF, they would stop it. The royal engagements can be cut off. Harry doesn't have to be on the Royal payroll. They don't have to be given any home.

When the funding details are released as to how much money Prince Charles allowed for his children's families, the sums may very well indicate if Sparkles' clothes were bought and paid for or acquired in some other way.

Given clothing worn by both his daughters-in-law are itemized with prices in the media, comparisons to the money coming from Charles will be made.

No doubt, the clothing and accessories accessories line items will tell an interesting tale. I imagine the accountants are quite prompt with their tallies.

[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.]

Maybe MM is just borrowing the clothes from designers? Which gives them publicity. But it's why she doesn't get them altered. They aren't actually hers.

Here's a link to Clarence House's annual accounts. The 2017/18 report was released in June. You can check prior years in the archive. It doesn't itemize accessories etc or separate the Cambridges from the Sussexes. You will have to wait until June 2019 for that.

An article in the Sun notes that the joint Cambridge-Sussex account received £1.5 million more after Louis and Meghan joined the families.

That Louis.

He's the one spending all that money.

Not sure how to stop the links from only showing a video, but here's the Sun article about the funding.

[quote] Funding for William, Kate and Harry's "activities" are listed under "Other Costs" - which also includes capital expenditure and transfer to reserves, but there is no further breakdown or detail

Those posters hoping for more information may be sadly disappointed. Meghan's clothing for the tours and events may be covered under the "Other Costs" category and therefore it would be difficult to parse.

[quote]The royal engagements can be cut off. Harry doesn't have to be on the Royal payroll. They don't have to be given any home.

What a great idea! That wouldn't cause a scandal, would it? Are you a strategist in your daytime job too?

[quote]The Queen rarely wears pants in public.

I daresay the Queen has never worn pants in public.

Trousers occasionally, but pants, to the best of my knowledge never. ;)

R175 sure it would cause a scandal and then the public would move on. Pushing Harry out wouldn't bring down the BRF anymore than pushing Eward out did. Charles or the Queen could also offer MM and allowance in exchange for not wear black and only wearing British designers or whatever other rules they want. That wouldn't cause a scandal, because no one would have to know about it.

R176, The Queen did wear pants as she left hospital after knee surgery. And I've seen a few old photos of her on the Britannia, wearing pants. It's just that it's one of those things that seems to define her. Over the years, she's developed a sort of uniform, and her dresser helps her achieve it.

I did not realize MM was a basic narc until I started paying attention - i.e., the games about her dad after she'd praised him to the skies for years on her social media and in her articles and speeches. He was part of her branding, which was "raised on sets", and show biz savvy. Something an actress with a thin resume and long stretches of unemployment would like emphasized. Prior to that, I wondered what tiara she'd wear, didn't bother too much about her engagement dress as I figured "privately purchased" was PR. That could mean anything. Privately purchased by anyone and lent to Meg. I knew SHE didn't buy it, Charles didn't buy it, and Harry didn't buy it, so it was just words.

BUT, the one thing that made me suspicious was she was marrying HARRY. In the tsunami and PR about her education, Hollywood savvy, her mature age (a plus - not some ingenue overwhelmed by her new position), her pumped up background, it didn't seem popular to ask why someone as credentialed and grown up as she was wanted to marry Harry Fucking Windsor, drug-addled famously barely literate dimwit. He's a bro, and not the brightest of the breed either. And yet here was this reportedly sophisticated quasi-global creature hanging on his arm wanting to sign up for life. That was a flag in itself.

R178, I'm just taking the piss.... in the UK, pants means something much different than in America, 'which you obviously didn't know.

R180, No, I didn't realize the difference between the British and North American definitions. I try to avoid some of the more obvious gaffes, but I had no idea that we used that word differently.

Dangling Tendrils were closed because one troll continuously spammed them while incessently lecturing everyone else on the content of their post, and trying to divert the subject from Meghan. in addition, and as here, we'll get continuous remarks about "race" comments or "racist' content that is not actually happening, but the post will pretend it is. "I wish there weren't so many racist comments" and that sort of thing, when in fact, there are none.

Harry can get the boot. The BRF is not that big of a deal. Of course the tabloids will go mental for a couple of news cycles, but then it will fade. They are a niche preoccupation with most people most of the time.

Thank you, R182, for your first paragraph.

That was my experience of the threads as well.

I hate to stir the pot on the very boring and lengthy argument about colors, but Mike Tindall just gave an interview in which he went on about how the Queen likes bright colors "because she thinks dark colours are for sad times."

Perhaps the Queen reads the DL during her Christmas downtime and wanted to clarify.

I think for all her rectitude in her job, QE has set the stage for the firm's demise. Let's start with Diana. Certainly it is a WONDERFUL idea for a nineteen year old girl to become engaged to her son, the 33 year old Prince of Wales. They've dated for an entire five minutes. AND she has to present as a virgin. What could go wrong?

Her Maj was ALL for it. Diana was a Spencer, she knew the family, everything was GREAT.

There's the shadiness with money. On the one hand, all the none direct succession family members have complained of and often had to live relatively short of funds. If they are working royals, they are paid working royals, and then otherwise they are funded by the Queen if they are the queen's kids, or by Charles if they are Charles' responsibility. Housing and supplemental costs go along with that. So we have Harry squabbling with Cressida over the cost of a plane ticket, for example, and Fergie hustling this way and that. These rules and systems are supposed to keep corruption out and also keep the big wealth in the family consolidated, as long as those in charge of the big money take care of everybody else.

Except it doesn't work that way. Everybody side hustles, and the queen looks the other way. Where did Andrew get the sixteen million for his Swiss Chalet? I suspect he got it because the queen gifted him Sunninghill Farm when he married (it was her wedding present and not royal property). Then he sold it to some foreign gazillionaire for a price vastly over what it was worth. I believe that's where he got the money, but why did the gazillionaire overpay? I'm sure queenie didn't ask.

It's been suggested the queen wants her near descendants to have long courtships in order to avoid another Charles//Diana. Even live together.

Except, of course, for the one person who NEEDS a long courtship because he's batshit crazy, doesn't like rules, is a spoiled brat and has no judgment but a big ego. That's Harry. Harry can go ahead and meet someone he's only had a long distance relationship with for about a year and barely knows. Sure. And why is the person most in need of a long waiting period allowed to rush into it? Because it's too much of a pain in the ass to tell him no. Because she's weak, and he's spoiled.

When she has dutiful, relatively conservative acting, conscientious people in her family and in her life, it all goes well. When she has wild cards, she does NOTHING, and they are allowed to wreck it for everyone else. She's the one who refuses to deal with personality and maturity issues. She makes everyone else pick up the slack, cover up (like Kate had to do on the Xmas walk), and she throws additional responsibilities and titles at the miscreants.

I hope the whole thing goes down after she dies.

I see London

I see France

I see your (under)pants

179 - You are very perceptive. Harry shouldn't be a good proposition to anybody who isn't under thirty, broke, doesn't come from an abusive background and hasn't got a smidgeon of anything going on in their lives. The pay off versus "sacrifice" ratio isn't favourable enough for being with HIM, compared to his brother. And I'm talking status AND personality/character traits. But let's sit back and "enjoy". I don't have much respect for the Royals, but I am enjoying the "back in the day" thoughts on here as well as the photos.

[quote] I knew SHE didn't buy it, Charles didn't buy it, and Harry didn't buy it, so it was just words.

R179 is the accountant for Clarence House.

[quote] I did not realize MM was a basic narc until I started paying attention

She also moonlights as a psychiatrist.

[quote] QE has set the stage for the firm's demise

R185 knows she is already a better queen that Lizzie and wishes everyone would just admit it already

If any of The Powers That Be are here monitoring, I'm the one who posted at R184, NOT R185!

(I'll stir the pot about colors; I'm not stirring the pot when it comes to anything deeper about the royals.)

: )

188- Has something vexed you? And yes, The Queen has been responsible for the way that the Royal Family is regarded today by millions within and outside Britain, bad and good. And yes, she did think Diana marrying into the family was all good and gravy. Thems the FACTS. Buck stops with HER. Prince Andrew should be in the same position that his great Uncle was put in when he got past his place. I can't see the particular difference between Nonces and Nazis, myself, but that's me. Marrying a divorcee was the most benign thing about Uncle Eddy, after all. If The Queen hasn't got the morals to "get rid " of Andrew, it's no wonder that she can't reel in indolent Harry. She isn't unique in being a female member of a family protecting a nonce. It makes her "one of us". The same thing that renders any "mystique" in this null. But they still get to be Royal.

You cannot determine the observations people make about a woman merely because she has served out her privilege for a very long time. Nothing particularly bad was said. We are talking about The Queen who isn't Little Miss Muffet En Two Piece no matter how much you may want us to think she is. That is not to take away from her gowns , complexion, electrical heaters , scarves and longevity. Most people like to look at "nice things" and bric a brac all at the same time. Gives the eyes something to do.

White person can't see racism. It must not exist then.

R182 meet R106

R161 - Because none of the people you mention are working royals. Brooksbank, Tindall, Sophie Winkleman - they don't represent the royal family, don't get a slice of the Sovereign Grant in connection with their "official duties", and don't have their homes renovated courtesy of the British taxpayer. They're fringe, and in point of fact, they don't even have titles. Meghan Markle is married to the second son of the next Sovereign of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, carries out official engagements on behalf of the Crown, and will shortly be moving into a home that is part of a Crown Estate and that therefore will be renovated with monies from the Sovereign Grant.

Can you spot the difference?

Are the York girls working royals? In one of these threads it was mentioned that Andrew wants them to get more royal duties.

R190 - Actually - the Queen did have reservations about Diana. They just weren't "social" reservations. Socially, Diana Spencer was impeccable but the Queen allegedly expressed concern that Diana was too much like a nervous young filly, and also feared that she was a "bolter", especially given that Diana's Mum had "bolted". In some sense, being a countrywoman at heart and breeding horses has given the Queen a certain amount of practical insight. The problem is, she is never willing to use it to put her foot down. There were a couple of other dissenters but very quiet ones, including Diana's own maternal grandmother, Ruth Fermoy, and Robert Runcie, then Archbishiop of Canterbury, who did the boligatory pre-Cana meetings with the couple, and thought them poorly matched and characterised Diana as an "actress" - a charaterisation in which her grandmother fully concurred. The Archbishop expressed the hope that she would "grow into her role".

Which she did - as Princess of Wales. The role she never grew into was as Charles's understanding and supportive wife, which is what he wanted and needed.

But there were people behind the scenes concerned about the age, educational, and intellectual gulf between the two.

*obligatory pre-Cana meetings . . .

R194

R188 I'm so glad you found this site of sober, verified-fact based discussion instead of blundering into a forum devoted to pointless bitchery, speculation and gossip. You keep on reminding people what this place is about!

R193 - To answer your question, no, the York princesses are not working royals. They may appear at charity events now and then and at the usual BRF appearances (Trooping the Colour, for example), but they do not get money from the Sovereign Grant and are no on the official working royal roster. After William married, Andrew suddenly seem to realise that Kate was entirely eclipsing his two "blood princess" daughters and made a concerted effort to push them forward as "senior working royals". But the effort failed, it was way too late, and it was transparently partly resentment at the upstart newcomer taking precedence in the public eye. Like Meghan, Andrew realised late in the day (Meghan could be excused for this, but not Andrew) that the long game was going to a middle-class girl whose great-grandfather had been a coal miner, whilst his royally born daughters were going to have to find rich husbands or (awk!!!!) find jobs if they were to supplement the incomes from their modest trusts.

If Andrew resented Kate getting onto the first car in the royal gravy train, you can imagine his feelings about Meghan Markle hopping onto one somewhat further back, whilst Bea and Yuge ride caboose.

And after the maternity coat stunt at his daughter's wedding, that resentment must have turned to rage.

Five gets you ten Andrew's got private dicks digging into Meghan's past and giving the stuff to the DM.

R112, do we know what Meghan's natural hair type is? Just curious. I wonder what would be the most "natural" style for her, that would be easy to maintain. I for one love curls and waves and big fros, probably because my own hair is stick straight and boring. She does look good with an updo, like most women. I just can't stand the stick-straight hair on anyone, unless it's cut in a very precise geometric style, which few can pull off.

R194, was Lady Fermoy the Queen Mother's lady-in-waiting? I thought the story was that she campaigned for Diana as a potential bride for Charles.

R196 Just us two keeping that bitchery real!

R194 I have no doubt the queen has insight. Her fatal flaw is her unwillingness to act. She'll REACT - withhold an invitation, for example. She'll exclude. But she won't forbid, and if somebody "disobeys" as it were, well then, she does nothing. I always wonder where people get the idea that "the queen wouldn't tolerate this." "Or let them try it - the queen will not stand for it!" She'll stand for anything. Her opinion and wishes are conveyed, and if someone decides to ignore them, basically it's a side remark or a disapproving chat. But using her familial and social position to actually address something and compel it to be fixed? She won't. This is the family of second, third, fourth, tenth and twentieth chances, one after the other, without pause for the consequence part. Obeying her in matters of protocol, money, marriage, etc. is a matter of respect and willingness to be influenced. If the person doesn't care, there is no teeth behind it. Not financial, not status, nothing. She can be safely ignored without consequence, unless you really really want a great personal relationship with her.

Andrew did a great pic on his twitter account showing the family before the Sunday morning walkabout. Meghan is entirely blocked by Charles, even her shoes. There's not a shadow of her; it's as if she's not there.

Everyone wrung their hands over poor poor Harry when Diana died. He was just a bit shy of his thirteenth birthday. What about his fifteen year old brother, who had been his mother's confidente, advisor and emotional support, and now she was dead after they had one final phone call that he'd impatiently cut short? I don't know where he got his knowledge about what he needed and wanted, what he wanted in a partner, how to recognize it, test it, and be sure of it, and how to recognize that something was truly good for him and go for it. It's amazing. He's barely two years older than his brother. He even did better in school than his brother. No whiz kid, but he got out of school without needing teachers to cheat for him.

I think if you are in the position of the York girls you have to find either a rich husband or a husband who is mature-minded and bright enough to take advantage of your family and social network to secure a nicely paid position, sufficient status and not all that difficult or exacting about the daily grind. Better yet, a succession of them, lest things become boring.

Peter Phillips (an actual grandson, not an in-law, obviously) found plenty of positions like that. Still it's kind of interesting how few of the queen's near descendants found rich people to marry. You'd think at least a few of them would be "Just as easy to fall in love with someone rich as someone without!" if only for the increased independence a well-off spouse would provide. Starting with the queen herself, nobody married "up" financially, did they? Except maybe Viscount Lynley.

R198 I think her campaigning for it was an assumption on the part of the media. I mean, why wouldn't she? But I also recall reading that she wasn't an ally of Diana's and didn't provide much emotional support either before or after the wedding. Her loyalties were elsewhere and she was somewhat suspicious of Diana.

When I read books and histories about the BRF and their aristo connections, I remember how often people think that certain things - infidelity most of all, country life somewhat, etc. - are accepted by this crowd. Meaning it doesn't bother them. But in fact when one reads about them, it can be seen that infidelity often torments and brings heartache to the cheated-upon spouse, even with a title, money and position. It's not all the dry, sophisticated drawing room comedy life people think. And living in the country with a terrific estate but not enough money to really maintain it (nobody can afford the servants and staff needed to keep their piles completely open and to maintain the fragile chattel) makes some of these people feel buried alive. Lots of drinking, lots of escapism.

R198 - Yes, we do know what Meghan's natural hair looks like because there are plenty of photos of her as a child and young girl, before she began straightening it, and yes, she has African hair naturally. And, yes, to the poster upthread pointing out that white women change the look of their hair texture, too, why shouldn't black women have the same privilege? Well, they should and do have the same privilege, as you also point out. But there is a history here inside the black community about women who can "pass" as racially ambiguous straightening their hair to enhance the advantages this gives them. Meghan Markle leans white and always has, including through straightening her hair. And that's her privilege, too - she isn't obligated to lean more into her African heritage than her white heritage. I would venture to guess that her choice is far more disturbing to other black and mixed race women than it is to white people. But she isn't quite honest about it and I think that's what riles people. It's part of the sense one gets of her that she is a completely manufactured product that she put together for best advantage. She lacks authenticity. Her hair isn't the problem here, just a symbol of her general hypocrisy - like her feminism, as most of her advantages came from her two marriages. Trevoe Engelson got her the job on "Suits" and today she owes her global profile, wealth, title, social position, and lifestyle to two men: her husband and her father-in-law.

Some Diana doc came up in my YT feed so I watched it. James Hewitt was in it, I was surprised he was taking Diana to his mother's house for their weekend getaways, with his mother there. Diana used to bring his mother Orange Vodka (?) from Chuck's stash.

After watching doc I googled Hewitt, doesn't seem he ever married and as of 2017 was still living with his mother (in a 2 bedroom apartment).

R198 There are many pictures of Meghan's natural hair. It's super curly. She had worn it straightened since she was in high school.

Very few black women in public life have worn their hair in its natural state for most of their lives (eg Condolezza Rice, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Maxine Waters). There were few hair care products for natural African American hair until quite recently (maybe the last 5 years or so).

I'm not a stylist so I won't venture to guess what curly styles would suite Meghan's face, lifestyle and personal preference. My comment was in response to the idea that Meghan refuses to wear her hair curly because it would make her look black. The styling of her hair should not be used to assume how she racially self-identifies.

Going by childhood photos, Meghan's natural hair is very coily and textured, and left unstraightened, can grow into a nimbus cloud. It also looks fragile to me (the edges and the strands themselves). I'm not black, but I have always understood that this type of hair can become easily dry, brittle and tangled. I only had curly/wavy hair as a kid and I HATED combing it because of the texture. My mother had to threaten to chop it off before I recognized that even though it was troublesome, I had to do it or it wold look terrible.

It's a matter of a lot of moisturizing and moisturing again, and also finding a good cut, and also maintaining the hairline (edges). A lot of weaves, wigs, pieces etc. came became habits to protect the natural hair, but what needs to be done to the natural hair in order to wear a weave can be damaging itself (tight braids). Anyway, Meghan went straight since high school. It's the look she wanted. You can see from some of her early red carpet appearances that even straightened, her hair is finer (the actual strands are thin/fine - not talking about quantity of them) and more flyaway than it is now. She has more hair now.

R198 - Yes, Lady Ruth Fermoy was one of the Queen Mother's Women of the Bechamber for many years. They were close friends. Ruth Fermoy was also a gifted amateur musician (piano) and very much a social snob. She adored the BRF, adored Charles as many older women did, and took his side completely when the marriage got into trouble. She also sided with her son-in-law in the bitter Spencer custody battle, going into the witness box and testifying against her daughter, Diana's mother. Whilst respectably born (what Austen would call a "gentlewoman") she was no aristocrat and couldn't believe her luck when she married Baron Fermoy. She wasn't wrong about her granddaughter's character, but it was also true that she would always put the aristocracy and social class before her own blood. Ruth Fermoy's story is interesting in and of itself.

Wow, yes, very curly. I guess I'm just tired of long straight or straight-ish hair on women, period. I long for the return of real hairstyles - different lengths, heights, curls, waves, bangs, feathers, bouffants, dramatic towering updos.

Speaking of hair, seems Princess Anne never cut hers, did she? Wonder what style that actually is, what she wears. Just upswept and pinned? Kudos to her for not chopping her locks into something short and "sensible."

R204, and Hasnat Kahn is also an odd bird. Some years ago, in his forties, he married a "suitable" twenty-six year old, same religion, status and ethnic background as his own, what his family wanted. The marriage ended very rapidly, and he did not remarry. For many in the tabloid media and celebrity journalism school, Kahn was her true love and it was their tragedy that his family disapproved. As one bio said, with Charles she was wanted but not desired, and with Kahn she was desired but not wanted. His family was unbending. Now why an independently employed London-based, mature doctor has to bend to his family in Pakistan when it comes to who he marries is another question. He has given a few interviews, notably when that TV biopic starring Naomi Watts came out. He hated that, said it was fantasy and all wrong, and nobody knows his relationshp with Diana. He did convey that they'd had a "normal" sex life, that he frequently spent the night at KP, that she was a devoted mother and an earnest humanitarian. When asked if he thought they'd have married he turns it aside by saying no matter what course their relationship followed he always thought they'd remain friends. It was often said she went about with Dodi (some don't even think the Dodi thing was consummated) to make Kahn jealous.

But awhile back he revealed that right before she died, he (Kahn) was ghosted by her. Couldn't reach her, her number had changed, he was completely out. He seemed calm in telling it, saying that he realized what was happening because he knew her (he was saying she had done it before, to others, so he knew when she was doing it to him). So that was it - when she died, she had ghosted Kahn. That's how things were left.

One of the queen's elderly cousins - a well known one who goes back with her forever and is always on the documentaries - scoffed at the notion that Kahn was Diana's true love. She says "Charles was her true love! She was always in love with Charles!" And this relative has no use for Diana or how Diana behaved in the marriage. But I guess the Kahn fairytale pushed her over the edge. She was like, "It wasn't that guy! He has problems of his own!"

IOW, he was far from perfect. And now that I see that James Hewitt never grew up, and Kahn may have been an adult professionally, but in his personal life has been treading water since Diana, Diana's various affairs may have been attracted to her dysfunction because they shared it.

R205 - i don't think I, at least, was using only her hair to assume how she racially self-identifies, but as one of several indications, including her two marriages to white men and the fact that as an adult woman, she has never so far as anyone knows dated a man of colour. Her best friend in Canada who helped her up the social ladder was Jessica Mulroney, not Serena Williams. She has totally cut herself off from the rest of her black family, who might as well not exist, outside of her mother, and so far as we know from photos, they were present in her childhood and have caused no trouble for her.

Meanwhile, the photo you provided very lovely - no one keeps that softness into adulthood, certainly, but it does suggest that perhaps Meghan might rethink her hair and would look far softer and more youthful with the full, soft bob some have recommended, that lets some of that natural curl out to play. The over-stressed, over processed, brittle long hair she favours should be given a rethink. And, yes, she would be more identifiably mixed race with natural hair. So what? I don't suppose for a moment Harry wouldn't have married her with natural hair. Good lord, he's seen her come out of the shower, presumably, and as her blowout begins to lose its grip, and the curly hair emerging at her hairline . . .

Natalie Wood is a good example of someone who wore a lot of different styles. I could see both Meghan and Kate in many of Natalie's 'dos.

Kate should also let her curly hair flow, imo. It happened when she and Will traveled somewhere very humid, and she looked quite sexy.

And yeah, all of Diana's men seemed to be lacking, then again she was a handful to take on, huge persona and personality obviously.

[quote] I would venture to guess that her choice is far more disturbing to other black and mixed race women than it is to white people. But she isn't quite honest about it and I think that's what riles people.

R203 I agree that the colourism within the back community makes Meghan's self-styling more of an issue for some people within the black community. However, to the best of my knowledge, Meghan has never said anything about wanting to represent black women and their hair struggles so I don't see any dishonesty in how she wears her hair. Many famous black women, dark-skinned or light, wear straightened hair and aren't regarded as lacking honesty because they choose to do so.

Meghan's ability to "pass" is an accident of her birth. Regardless of how she chose to wear her hair, there are many people in the black community who would have been critical of this ability. Non-famous light skinned black people are criticized for "passing." This is a debate which predates Meghan. The think pieces online would require the killing of forests were they to be printed.

Meghan is unlikely to topple colourism by putting away her hair dryer and saying no to a Brazilian blowout.

R209 It looks like Anne decided on her hair in the 1970s and stopped thinking about it from them on.

To be fair, HM and Camilla have both decided on hairstyles that suit their various tiaras and they have not strayed from that. It's harder to tell with Camilla, but I wouldn't be surprised if her style didn't change for the rest of her time as a working royal.

^^from then on

The Royal Family isn't about to "wash their hands of Harry" and no, it wouldn't just be a minor thing if that did happen...there'd be a huge uproar.

They're not about to do anything to suggest that an immediate member of the BRF isn't necessary or vital. To suggest that one is expendable starts raising questions that all of them can be done away with.

And, they don't want that, even as so many of them like to whine and mope about their awful lot in life.

Yup r216. You pretty much hit at the crux of the issue. Just look at the crisis that Diana’s exit caused.

Diana lost her virginity to Charles AND created two little humans with him, so he very likely WAS the love of her life. Oh, plus he was the future King of England, so there was also that appeal as well.

I saw that doc with Hewitt as well, the one in which he talks about how he and Diana hung out with his mom all the time. It was when watching that doc that I realized the rumor about him being Harry's dad is complete b.s. because a good long look at Hewitt's face reveals that he and Harry have no similar facial features whatsoever.

At certain times Harry looks very much like Prince Charles. Particularly when he's scowling.

And I’ll add—the fact that their activism is so benign is infuriating to me... I mean, I get it, they can’t make waves, but geez, spending all that money on some entitled people (mediocrities at best) who pretend to make a difference just for tourism? The whole lot of them should be gone.

R211. There seem to be unwritten rules for determining the blackness of light-skinned black people. To determine if they merit being in the community it would appear that they must tick some boxes.

How many black men should a light-skinned straightened-hair woman date in order to count as adequately leaning into her blackness? Does that number change if she has curly hair? Does curl pattern affect that, so a 3a needs a different number of men from a 4c?

What about number and type of friends? How could Meghan and Serena hang out in Canada if Serena doesn't live there? How many black friends does a mixed person need? Who knows how many of her black family members she is in touch with and or why? I haven't seen anything about her black family members saying they were so close and tight before and now she's not taking their calls. Maybe they're not a close-knit family? Maybe they are and she's a bitch. That's not because of her skin colour or her race.

This seems like classic shadeism. If Meghan were dark-skinned the conversation about how many dark-skinned men she had dated would be a non-starter and not keeping in touch with her family wouldn't be some sign about how she identifies racially.

The straightened hair and nose job gives her an entrée she wouldn't otherwise have if she looked more identifiably black, plus her early signaling that she will play the race card to gain advantage, ie the letter to the press claiming racial harassment - MM will do whatever it takes, and that is why the public do not trust her.

R116, that story about the pot at Meghan's wedding was courtesy of her father. In his latest paid interview he announced that he didn't smoke any of the pot that was given out in gift bags. No one asked him about pot, being the piece of shit that he is, he just volunteered it out of nowhere

There will be more interviews from him and as USUAL he will drop little embarrassing, private things about Meghan or Harry. He is like her piece of shit half brother who tried to blackmail her by giving embarrassing or mean interviews and then threatened her he would keep giving them unless she gave him money. The one thing the Markle's have in common is that they want to bring Meghan down and ruin her life. And they are doing it all for money

r221, Markle is not a light skinned black person. She is not and has never identified as black. She is biracial, that is how she identifies. All these people out there defending her blackness and defending her from racism. A light skinned biracial who presents white is going to experience significantly less racism than a black person. I've heard it said that Markle's supporters fall into three categories - 1) Black people who seek validation from white people and want to prove that "black excellence" can be part of the BRF, 2) White people - sjw types who find her black enough to support and 3) white women who hate Kate. Which one are you?

Race isn't a card that black people play. Mixed race people do actually have complex racial identity. Harry wrote to the papers because some of their signalling was racist. She is black and from LA therefore she must be from the ghetto and dangerous. Tabloids aren't known for their nuance.

The conversation was going fairly well and then R222 just fucked it up with that race card comment. Thanks for nothing.

R224 I'm a black person happy in my blackness with natural 4c hair currently worn in a twist out who has dated many black men. Does that make me more or less authentic and my voice more or less valid?

I don't think of Meghan as black excellence. I challenge the idea that her hair or who she dates determines her racial identity and is some statement about her authenticity.

I'm done with Meghan's hair.

I've heard that the Queen mother was very committed to opulence. I rather enjoy this image of her. The gentle hand on her pearls is so cute.

Ingrid Seward wrote about her in a book called The Last Great Edwardian Lady.

For the Queen Mother, Downton Abbey would be reality television.

LOL. I read that she considered it impolite to discuss finances so she kept wracking up debt.

I enjoy the contradictions in her. The idea of her as soft and plump and short yet seen as a great source of strength in WWII.

R179 Haven't you heard? She married him because he was kind!

R216, you are being histrionic. They're not going to say "Harry isn't important or vital." or that we don't like him, or he's not worth the money.

It will be phrased in such a way that regular people will have to interpret it. Very benign. It wouldn't be labeled as some epic move. Hell, most people here barely know the difference between a working and non-working royals, and don't know that Beatrice/Eugenie are non-working and Harry is working, since Eugenie and Beatrice both have made speeches at organisations they support. It all looks the same from the outside.

Harry and Meghan were banished to a swamp. Did you see the uproar? That's because outside royal gossip "circles", there was none. None in the mainstream. Yet they were kicked out of London. Nobody in the media was at pains to describe how startling this was. There was no uproar. It was spun as their choice. Some media even hinted it was Harry and Meghan's personal choice not just to leave London but to take that particular fungus-encrusted servant's cottage in particular. Every time someone sneers at that place, their partisans and the media insist it is an upgrade.

So it will be when they unload Harry. It won't be "The BRF has unloaded Harry." It will be, "In a precedent-breaking move, Prince Harry has chosen to spend some time in America. While there he will focus on areas of particular interest - veterans, and she will continue to pursue her important humanitarian causes. William's family is growing and Harry has no intention of being a hanger on like Margaret or Andrew! He is taking the bull by the horns and give his (son/daughter) a chance to grow up outside of being defined in relation to those of higher rank. The child and Prince Harry will retain British citizenship. It is presumed Meghan became a British citizen upon her marriage." (that will be wrong, she still won't b a citizen.)

It won't be a soap opera. It will be boring. That's how they do this stuff.

R225 go ahead and pull a quote from the "papers" that was signaling. Nobody was signaling shit because nobody knew who the fuck she was or that he was dating her. There was no media coverage. His statement was the first most of the media had heard of her. Everything that amplified that statement was demonstrably and proven to be false by Toronto investigators. No paparazzi harrassment, no break-in, no harrassment of her mother. She was a nobody on a nobody show. What that statement accomplished was to make them "official" and TELL the media they were dating, which was what she wanted. It was only when that statement came out that the media and regular people were like - WHO? WHAT is Suits? What's a Meghan Markle? And went to google to find out.

It was made up. You can't "signal" about shit if you don't know it's happening, and nobody did. The statement changed that. That was its purpose. To do the opposite of what it pretended to want. To draw attention.

"fungus encrusted servant's cottage" LOL, perfect.

Um no r230. They will try to be boring but that ship has sailed.

Throwing around the word histrionic but characterizing Dim and Meme as 'banished to a swamp'? Physician, heal thyself.

Before Harry and Meghan were sent to Frogmore, people were sure the queen would bestow a wonderful country home upon them. Everything from Adelaide Cottage to York "cottage" to Castlevanie and Gormenghast was reported. When it turned out to be Frogmore Cottage, that's not even the real country. Many confused it with Frogmore House. Some still do. That it's their only place, not a country place, receives no emphasis. We were assured (by successive tabloid reports, not the BRF) Frogmore Cottage would undergo extensive renovations bringing it to tip top luxury standard, even though the plans of record shows some basic upgrading, the sort of thing one would do to bring a place to code, and general improvements, like the fantastic luxury of two parking lots.

I don't think Harry and Meme will go to America though. Maybe Canada. Fergie used to spend most of her time in NY, and it got no publicity whatsoever. This was long after her weight watchers, Jenny Craig or whatever pursuits that needed her stateside.

R231 This is from CNN's report on the release of the statement.

[quote] But the Daily Mail went further and displayed more prejudice, playing on stereotypes of African Americans. In a story headlined "Harry's girl is (almost) straight outta Compton," it reported Markle's mother lives in a "run-down area" in Crenshaw, Los Angeles.

[quote] It described the neighborhood as "gang-scarred" and dominated by "tatty one-storey homes."

The statement from Kensington Palace was released on November 8 after that story in the DM on November 2, 2016 . Given the movie is about a expletive ridden gangsta-rap album the implication was that Meghan being biracial and from LA were somehow linked to those things. If Meghan were indeed into gangsta rap or in any way associated with Compton and gangs then it would have been a fair association. She isn't, so the association isn't fair. NottCott is in London that doesn't mean Harry's is from a council flat and constantly dodging knife attacks.

[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.]

R230, no, that is the ship that IS sailing. The whole separation of William from Harry, Harry being shoved under the umbrella of the rest of the minor royals leaving KP to William, and the exile from London to a pokey saggy building in Windsor was all downplayed and spun to the positive even though there were serious implications to the Sussex status.

So will all of the further diminishment of Harry and Meghan, even to the point of them being struck from the working royals roster, because it will never be explicitly stated that way.

I would have liked to see Sparkle with a great hair style - perhaps something like Alfre Woodard in "Star Trek: First Contact".

Smart, sexy, and no dangling tendrils.

I just can't understand why even now when she does the little bun, she chooses to wear it as if she just grabbed her hair, twisted it and tied it and that was it, leaving hair in back sort of sticking out of the bun. Makes no sense to me.

One Daily Mail story is not "harrassment by the press" and the home break in and stalking by the paparazzi was already proven false. Given that the DM is a dumping ground for Meghan's narratives today, it would not surprise me if that Compton story were a set up, considering how quickly she and he not only jumped on it pretending it was a pattern of the media overall, but proceeded to lie about harrassment, break-ins and stalking stateside.

^Or rather, Toronto-side.

I thought that infamous letter also cited internet content as a source of concern to HRH. William advised against and then later claimed he supported it all along.

When did William say anything about Harry's letter either pro or con? Everyone knows it was hubristic and ridiculous.

R239, she does her own hair. Whenever she has professional assistance, her hair is a lot sleeker. This includes when Dior sent a stylist on one of their short tours (the fit of her clothing was on point then too) and in her recent appearance at the Claire Wright Keller / Givenchy thing. It's usually obvious to see when a pro has done her not just by the hair, but the make-up. She prefers a heavy porn-star hand, particularly with the contour and bronzer. The pros back off all of the bronzer and "smokey eye".

R240 I'm only responding re the signalling I mentioned in R225. I make no statement about how much harassment Meghan and Harry may have experienced or not.

If I may say so, I think Hazbean all on his own deserves the boot.

I wonder if Harry and Meghan will name the baby Philip if it's a boy? It would be a nice way of showing Philip how much he means to Harry as he approaches the end of his life - but on the other hand, Philip is notorious for his casual racism, and so it might annoy some of their younger fans.

I'm surprised Kate and William didn't use Philippa as a middle name for Charlotte. That way they could have honoured William's grandfather and Kate's sister at the same time.

If Charles plans to "streamline" the monarchy to focus it only on his direct heirs (effectively edging out Andrew), then he's setting the path for William to do the same thing to Harry after Charles dies.

Charles probably won't hang on as long as his parents did. By the time William is king, though, Meghan will likely have already moved on.

R245 They still need senior royals who can travel far afield. I think the BRF can be useful for more than attracting tourists. They can engage in the softest of diplomacy.

Meghan and Harry can be used for international travel. Putting them with the other royals is a good streamlining move as Charles takes on more of the monarch's work and William moves into position to take over as Prince of Wales.

Given Sparkle and Harry's behavior on the recent tour, "softest diplomacy" is not one of their strengths.

Let's recap what has already happened underneath the stories about hair, bellycupping, dark toned clothing, and hypnotic birthing rooms.

1. Harry and Meghan have been kicked out of the KP offices, including the press office. This is, of course, spun by Harry fans as he and Meghan having "their own court." No. They are booted from William's, and will be consolidated into the minor royal offices and press affairs along with Princess Anne, Andrew, and Edward. No $$ allocation for their own court. It is a demotion.

2. Harry and Meghan have been kicked out of London. That, to me is HUGE, but I guess I'm the only one who thinks so. Everyone else has at least a place to rest their head in KP or St. James. Not them. Added to which, they are off to a dumpy subdivided unprepossessing structure that seems to have little to recommend it next to residences they might have been offered. And it's their RESIDENCE! It's not a retreat or "also have the use of." It's their only residence.

3. The apartment someone on the Sussex team (wonder who) campaigned for RELENTLESSLY, the 21 room Duke and Duchess of Gloucester apartment next door to William and Kate's, turns out to be slated for a conversion into state rooms, reception rooms and offices for William, as he made an undertaking to remain at KP even after his father becomes king. This after months of stories that the elderly D&D of G "refused to shift" in favor of H&M. So in addition to William's 21 room home, the 21 or 22 room apartment his brother and his bride appeared to push for endlessly is now, also, William's.

4. William is the one being groomed for international travel. His trip to Israel. His trip to Africa, and his and Kate's tour last winter of Scandinavia, complete with visits to the respective heads of states and welcomes at the palace. Harry and Meghan haven't remotely visited at that level, save for Tonga, and Meghan's cursory and insulting "curtsy", if it can be called that, to both royals hardly augers her ready for more.

The BRF already have a lovely couple who attend minor European royal events, weddings, etc. They are called the Earl and Countess of Sussex. Has anything Harry and Meghan done in an official capacity declared them ready to take Sophie and Edward's place? Do they have relationships with these people, who already know Sophie and Edward? Is a European foreign bride prepared for Duchess Meghan to show up in an open maternity coat and a fistful of juvenile-looking gold rings she is merching, preparing to tell all assembled about her second pregnancy? Let's see what Meghan can do when compelled to attend an event where the focus isn't on her. Oh, reportedly Duchess Meghan had to rush from the reception. Security threat. Or perhaps the chef prepared something that unsettled her tummy.

They're not ready. They couldn't even do Invictus decently, and that is Harry's most consistent brief. He is not prepared, he is not trained, and neither is she.

Well said r250. Well said.

R249, I'm sure Harry's habit of clasping Meghan's hand extremely penis-adjacent as he sits legs akimbo, or Meghan trailing her fingertips down his arm or back before clasping his arm in both of hers as they approach a dignitary or notable who is expecting respectful, professional and diligent attention to the occasion at hand, Meghan's habit of "Meghan's Mirror" social media blasting the label and price of everything from footwear to underwear before she even puts a tootsie on a grain of sand, thus obliterating the purpose of the occasion, or Harry's habit of squeezing the interior of her thigh as they sit adjacent, or perhaps it's her holding his umbrella and tucking herself under his arm while high-beaming her best Stepford Wifie gaze, thus obliterating the purpose of the event, OR announcing her pregnancy at the launch of a tour, thus making the tour about her pregnancy and not about the tour's actual itinerary and purpose, all recommend the two of them to further foreign diplomatic forays among other royals, since they did so SPLENDIDLY with dignitaries. Then there's her charming habit of attempting to stand a few feet apart from the group with which she is posing, so that she can be isolated later in a solo shot, or maybe it was her rushing away from an event after less than three minutes because she felt unsafe, an event exclusively populated by Women of Color and ironically called, "Safe Markets." If anyone is ready for "soft" foreign diplomatic excursions, it is these two.

R250 I wasn't suggesting Harry would travel instead of William but rather in addition to. The Queen, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, and the Duke and Duchess of Kent will be retiring over the next 20 years. The Cambridge children will not be ready for full time royal work. Harry (and if Meghan is still his wife) can be part of the senior royals who travel. They would not replace the Wessexes or any other current working royal.

The tour was a moderate success. This thread and the DM are a vocal minority but most people don't think a hanging tag and a couple of poor curtseys made for a raging failure.

R246, Pippa's full name at birth was "Philippa Charlotte Middleton," so 1) "Charlotte Philippa" probably would have been overly similar, and 2) "Charlotte" alone is already a very subtle nod to Kate's sister (in addition to honoring Prince Charles and Carole Middleton more overtly).

You're right, though, "Philippa" would have otherwise been a lovely way to honor the princess's great-grandfather.

Agree with you R250, but I believe you meant "The Earl and Countess of Wessex".

I think the tour was a disaster. Nobody is going to say so. But you don't flee a marketplace because of invisible security concerns when it is full of women of color who have waited a long time to see you and prepared for weeks. Not when it's called Safe Fucking Markets. You don't announce a pregnancy at the very start of the tour, guaranteeing ALL coverage will shift to the ever-changing shape of your belly bump instead of the events and organisations you are highlighting. You and your husband don't stroke and squeeze each other while meeting notable, hosts, hostesses and dignitaries. You don't wear a dress with a slit up to your hip bone. The tour was a fucking tire fire and every leak from the various palaces and media reveals have shown it over and over. You don't give a pissy non-curtsy to Tonga royalty when that country's royalty has a long and warm association with your boss. You don't stage soap opera moments like the umbrella (that is on Harry and Meghan, not just her) and you don't do jackshit behind the scenes while Invictus organizers and participants wonder where the hell you are only to swoop in for applause and to demand a showcase for your wife. Tire fire.

Harry and Meghan have shown no interest in anything but self-promotion. So I wouldn't hold my breath about deploying them abroad for anything remotely intended to generate good will and support. Everything is a prop to them, and that is insulting.

Meghan reminds me of Marcia Brady as played by Christine Taylor in the Brady Bunch movie. I was inspired by a DL post recently to watch said movie on Prime.

Thank you, R80. Who hands the Red Box to the Queen and who is in control of what is in it?

Thoughts on Harry (only tangentially Meghan), and why I have no use for him.

The Invictus Games are a somewhat tenuous, fragile enterprise. Let's face it, they were created to give Harry something to do, emphasize his (exaggerated) military career, and elevate / mature his image while preserving what people seemed to enjoy about him. So although the games are a vehicle, and the participants are aware, the games are important to the participants. The BRF connection guarantees press coverage and a certain amount of legitimacy, and also sponsors. When the so-called "founder" loses interest, can't even go through the motions of the planning / scheduling phase (believe me, for Harry that is a kid glove stage requiring only his presence - either physical or virtual - and no real "work"), but insists on using it to showcase his spouse (who has done nothing) and garner applause, that is demoralizing. Yet Harry does this - or doesn't do this - impervious and oblivious to the people whose concerns, work, effort, care, dignity, investment he is wounding.

Anyone who reads Tom and Lorenzo's fashion blog knows they have been Harry and Meghan sycophants. They were sort of done with "Cathy Cambridge" (Duchess of Cambridge). To me, the fact that Kate is suddenly faultless in their eyes while Harry and Meghan are "Oh, whatEVER" just highlights Harry and Meghan's flagrant assholery. Suppose you are expecting a visit from Prince William's brother and his wife, the new Duchess. Everybody puts out effort. Gets the jewelry out of the vault, if there's jewelry in the vault. Gives some consideration to the menu. These shoes or those shoes? Do I need a haircut? Does he like seafood? How about her? And she shoes up with her hand glued to her "baby bump", disinterested in anything but posing, and HE shoes up with his neck unshaven, his teeth unbrushed, and his suit jacket wrinkled and unbuttoned. That is just spitting on people. That's saying, you made an effort and put in a lot of time, and we don't give a fuck. Tom and Lorenzo (and I know, I KNOW), wrote "JESUS Harry!" at the photo of him in a receiving line with his sloppy shirt, unbuttoned jacket, run down shoes, and scruffy face and hair. That is spitting on people's efforts, the efforts of people less famous, less privileged than you. He does this all the time. Even now, whatever the drama his marriage may be creating in his family, it's everybody else's job to make it work while he checks out, or sulks, or alternately beam or looks morose/pissed.

Fuck him. I mean, I know where this is going, so I just have to watch. Unlike some, I don't think he's a wonderful guy on the down low, caught in the fallout of a bad decision that grandma will fix any day now. I think this is him, and he's getting his. Just saying, I'm enjoying it, and it's going to get worse. She'll be gone, and not around for the long haul. He's on track to being pathetic. Almost there as it is.

R255, I did mean Wessex, and meant to type Wessex, but shit happens. Thanks for the correction!

Prince Edward is 20 years senior to Prince Dimwit which is nothing in those long-ass Bowes-Lyon/Mountbatten/Windsor genes; the Wessexes aren't going anywhere for quite the foreseeable future. The HazBeans are currently superfluous to requirements as they coast on their novelty which will wane following Sussex baby's birth. If anything, the BRF are scrambling to justify their perfumed existence within the Royal roster. Behaving like a couple of wanton social media influencers will not ingratiate themselves to those tireless behind the scenes for whom their life's work and solemn duty is to preserve and protect the monarchy i.e. HMTQ, the Prince of Wales and in ever increasing prominence Prince William.

On that list of Harkles' sins, do not forget racing into the van Straubenzee memorial service looking a mess, Megs reading Marianne Williamson cradling bump, Haz speaking about menstrual blood, and then slipping out the side door to the Clooneys. Train wreck.

R259 I'm guessing it's the Private Secretary to the Sovereign. He handles her communication with the government. That is currently Edward Young. I suspect he doesn't personally place the papers there himself but oversees the contents of the red box.

Anyone with more information about the Queen's staff?

R259 - I don't know who actually carries the boxes to wherever the Queen is (they follow her everywhere, including on foreign tours) but they are probably delivered to her Private Secretary, not directly to her hands, and the contents are whatever the government, probably the PM's office, deems it important that she be kept abreast of. Her right constitutionally is to be consulted, to advise, and to warn. She also has to read out the government's intended programme at the opening of Parliament each year so she shouldn't first see the document as she descends from the coach in her ermine and diamonds. Needless to say, she is privy to extremely sensitive information and discretion is paramount. She also has a weekly audience with the PM, I believe, when she is in residence in London.

One of the alarm bells that the Duke of Windsor raised early in his very brief reign was that sensitive papers came back to the government with stains on them, rings from the bottoms of cocktail glasses. He hated "doing the boxes" as he made plain.

[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.]

Christ, Edward Young looks like a put-upon little queen, with a Faberge egg caught in his mussy.

R230 - Spot on.

R268 Your comment made me look at R264 again and reminded me that every time I see Prince Michael of Kent I think of the Dos Equis commercials.

And when I hear the commercial I think of Meghan and Carole.

I wonder if Harry and Meghan are being "sent to Frogmore Cottage" because everyone knows they really reside at the Soho Farmhouse, and HM would like to officially free up Nott Cott. Hell, a recent profile on the Great Tew estate (location of Soho Farmhouse) identified Harry and Smeg as residents, so it's hardly classified info. That would explain the parking lots and such being done at Frogmore Cottage - not the sort of improvement one would expect for a family.

Very curious about the baby. Even some of the sugars on Celebitchy and such declare it's an IVF baby. That makes sense to me. It also makes total sense that, once she announced, Smegs couldn't stand to wait until she actually showed, so she climbed into the padding so she could do her Madonna posing immediately. Who knows when this kid is due. Some claim there are no body changes but I'm not sure. Stipulating that butt, waist and stomach could all be padding, and her face could be injectables, it's still difficult to say she's exactly the same as non-pregnant.

Concur, R263 except I believe the Clooney friendship is pure fiction. I don't believe they've laid eyes on one another since the wedding. The Clooneys showed up and exposed themselves as fame whores (not that we didn't already know, but this hung out their asses). That, IMO, was the end of that.

R262, perfectly stated. It is the Sussex's who are superfluous, and they have certainly done nothing to advance their cause and prove their utility. They've amply demonstrated they're in it for themselves. Particularly with Eugenie and Beatrice adjacent and eager, Andrew riding with mummy to Christmas, and Eugenie and Beatrice showing up to speak on behalf of worthy causes to which they've devoted themselves despite not being working royals. There are plenty of royals willing to do the job well. No shortage any time soon, and certainly no need for a couple of high handed bitchtastic divas.

I do like perusing the Harry theories and fans of his who attempt to take his emotional temperature. When he's frowny, the end is nigh and he's finally had enough! When he's smiley, it's because the end is nigh and he knows he will soon be free! When he's rude it's because it's all getting to him - the pretense.

All this for a spoiled moody shit. His smiles mean nothing. Ditto his frowns. It's all mood with him, and being allergic to stepping up. That's for other people. Even HIS mistakes are for other people to fix. When he makes a whopper, like his marriage, he gets high handed and demanding that people co-sign his idiocy.

I don't think for one second he was ever in love with Markle, nor she with him. I think he needed a big attention-getting gambit what with Kate's two cute kids - George was bad enough, but then comes the little minx Charlotte! - he had to do something with a quickness. Markle was on board, so here comes a wedding. Sure Harry appeared to be "bricking himself" to use a favorite term of his from his grandma's 90th birth documentary, but he bulled through, because what was the alternative? He'd hit a wall and needed to DO something as a re-set and jump start. But once done, he doesn't want to deal. As ever, he wants to do what he wants when he wants, with no consideration for anyone else. As she's his choice, all of her behavior reflects on him, so he demands his family enables her. What a prize he is.

R230 You're an idiot if you think I was being "histrionic".

You're equally stupid, if you think the BRF is cutting Harry loose over an unfortunate marriage.

If that was the case, the BRF would consist of the Queen, the Wessexes and the Cambridges.

No one is condemning HazBean to live at Frogmore if they don't want to. Plenty of people with his income manage to buy themselves perfectly nice residences in London.

Harry's cheap.

Wouldn't even pay for his old girlfriend's plane ticket.

Pay his own money for a place to live?

Hardly.

Unlikely for a man who grew up with every thing provided for him.

So what is the alternative, R276? To live in a dismal suburban dump with planes flying overhead day and night, just because it's free?

[quote]To live in a dismal suburban dump with planes flying overhead day and night, just because it's free?

That's a ridiculous statement. It's on the grounds of Windsor Castle. You've obviously never been or you wouldn't have made such a fact free statement. And, yes, I've been on the grounds around Frogmore. Dismal and suburban don't reflect where the house is situated.

I believe that they were given Frogmore so that when the inevitable divorce happens and Meghan demands to keep living in the manner to which she is accustomed, Frogmore it is! She won't be under foot at KP like Diana was and she can't complain she's been downgraded because she gets to keep what she's had all along.

I hate Harry to bring this woman into the BRF . They don’t love each other not in the beginning and not now . I loathe both of them with the heath of a thousand suns . That Dimwit and MeMeMe has cost the taxpayers 2 million pounds for the security at their wedding .and that for a twice divorced lesbian whore . I hate that people actual have to curtsy to these two morons . I love that QEll has put them in their place so to speak and give them Frogmore Cottage . Toad Hall If I remembered someone said ! So Mr Toad and Mrs Toad and their little toads have to live there 😂 ! Its their official residence . Have you seen how MeMeMe wanted to talk to William and he was fidgeting his scarf . Maybe she thought she could bedazzle him with her so-called beauty ! I think that was the deal with Mr Toad that she could have acces to William and Charles . And also If she could speak to William she can use that in saying its all love !

Its Frogmore Cottage and not Frogmore House R279 . And no its not all that . Its not grand .

SoHo Farmhouse must be expensive. It's basically a hotel with the gimmick that the guest rooms have been replaced by rustic cottages. The little cottages are probably no bigger or better than the cottage they have at Kensington Palace.

Why would they pay money to stay at a fancy hotel when they already have a similar home (free thanks to Dad) at a PALACE?

Sorry it must be R 278

Frogmore Cottage is not a palace . Don’t you ever read !

I dont blame William for having reservations about MM. Who could blame him telling his brother to slow down and get to know each other more perhaps living together first before marriage for heavens sake!

I'm not suggesting Frogmore Cottage is grand, precisely the opposite. It's not much and that's what she will get in the divorce, this not much, not grand residence and as an added bonus she will be out of the way and not underfoot. QE thinking ahead, being proactive giving them FroCott.

R286, if that was indeed the strategy, then whoever thought of it was genius.

R239, at the risk of annoying those who are bored with hair talk, I'm with you. For me it's not a race question (though I get it), but simply aesthetics. I do think Meghan is very pretty and I want to style her so she looks exquisite. I also want to put her in neat, chic little gamine clothes.

[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.]

Ironic, R56, as Nutmeg is on her 4th marriage (annulled one, divorce, CA common law, Dim).

R290 is full of shit but what else is new.

Annulled? How convenient, but not really. Show us proof. In America you should be able to find out as it is considered a matter of public record. Even annulled ones are registered so prove it or shut the fuck up.

Daily heil would be all over it if it was true.

As for Common law? Simply living with someone doesn't make it a "common law marriage". Again, prove it you stupid cunt.

DM claiming MeMeghan and Kate "played Scrabble together" on Christmas and all is well. In my mind what I'm picturing is Kate browsing through some games try to pick one for her and an entirely different person to play and MeMeghan spies an opportunity to insert herself, comes up behind Kate and puts a patronizing hand on her back whilst cupping her bump with the other and patronizingly says "I'll play with you, dear" with her gotcha smirk and thus Kate is trapped. Then everyone else avoids table these two are playing scrabble at like the plague whilst feeling simultaneously sorry for Kate and relieved that they weren't the one to get roped in. MediaMeg leaks warm and fuzzy scrabble story.

Lady Louise does look very nice in the purple coat and braids.

Louise is tall and has good bones, so she will have a lot to work with.

I don't believe that Meghan was married an additional time because her friend from high school and college probably would have let that cat out of the bag with all the other stuff she shared.

Tom probably would have mentioned it by now too.

Lady Louise looks indeed nice . I don’t think Kate and MeMeMe have scrabbled . MeMeMe always want the narratieve positieve on her . She leaks that story to the DM who plays the devils advocate so to speak .

R292 Poor little victim Kate boohoo

I think MeMeMe was too busy to craddle her fake bump incase someone didn’t know she is pregnant 😂

Also, that supposed first husband would have friends and family willing to spill, and I've not as much seen any, "My college roommate's brother was married to her" or anything along those lines in any comments anywhere on the internet.

R290 If you mean Meghan's relationship with Cory then it wasn't common law.

There is actually no legislation for common law unions in Ontario law. The law does recognize a conjugal union of 3 years or more but it's not the same as a marriage for assets, pensions etc.

Meghan and Cory were not together for 3 years, whether living together or not, so there is no way in which that could be called a common law partnership.

R300, no there's some other guy people keep mentioning, from the college years I believe.

Anyway, I think it's something someone on tumblr made up and now it's repeated as fact.

Lady Louise has had a very awkward adolescence, very much the ugly duckling, a bit like her cousin Lady Gabriella Windsor, who wasn't a pretty teen. But eventually, like Gabriella became an attractive young woman - not beautiful, but distinguished, classy, and beautifully turned out. I think the same will be true of Lady Louise. This is quite the nicest I've ever seen her look. In cases like these, the tide often turns quite suddenly.

Windsor is a market-town and naturally the areas around Windsor and Frogmore (the big house) are kept lovely. But it remains a rather dull quiet suburb, the town has a large homeless population, it's neither fish nor fowl, as they say: not gorgeous with a certain cachet like the Lake District and the Cotswolds, and not much to do as in London, one of the world's premier capitals. It simply isn't possible to suppose that this would have been a first choice for a primary residence for Meghan Markle, who sees herself at the center of things and in the limelight. No matter how nice the renovations, this is a wing-clipping for the Sussexes, and I'm sure it's not what Meghan Markle envisioned when she snagged Harry. She envisioned a life just like Kate Middleton's, and ignored the difference in their status' despite the fact that although both are technically HRHs and royal duchesses, one in reality takes precedence and will do so increasingly as time goes on.

Charles's reign will be a "bridge" one. He'll be on the throne for ten minutes before people start looking toward the new Prince and Princess of Wales.

I'm sure the Sussexes will get a nice little suite of rooms in St. James Palace or Buck House for their use in overnight stays in London.

But that's not what Meghan Markle thought she was getting: she thought she'd be getting a grand apartment in Kensington Palace and a grand country home like Anmer Hall in Norfolk: 10 bedrooms, part of the Sandringham estate, which is to say the Queen's personal property, renovated at a cost to the Queen of more than a million quid, including a new chef's kitchen done to Kate's specs, extensive security landscaping, and a road to the local church diverted for privacy, for which inconvenience the Queen paid for a new car park for the church.

The differences wouldn't be lost on someone as sharp as Meghan, but she has no choice here but to swallow it and keep doing her job - and it's still a better gig than she was ever going to get again at 37.

I think the college guy is the mystery secret annulment. I think Cory is the "common law" husband.

If it's US law, they have even more conservative laws re non-marital unions

[quote] Common law marriages are not valid in Illinois, so you need a license to be legally married in this state.

I used Illinois as an example since she was in school there.

Either way, Ninaki Priddy would have known and spilled if there was a college-era guy.

The college-era marriage is nonsense, another Tumblr fable, like Cumberbatch's fake marriage and photo-shopped kids and wife with the fake baby bump. Annulments do not erase the record of a legal marriage. And Cory, the hot chef, was Canadian. There was no common-law marriage there, they were a couple for a few years, she retained her own residence in Toronto.

I don't buy the "she's living at SoHo Farmhouse bit, either. Why on earth would she do something any junior DM reporter could find out inside of a month by paying a P.I. with the DM's deep pockets?

There's plenty enough here to work with, without resorting to the Tumblr crazies.

^Exactly. And like I said, people talk anonymously all over the internet, like they do here, and as far as I've seen NO ONE has said, "Yeah, I know whatshisname, they were definitely married before Trevor happened."

Which members of the Royal Family see the New Year in with The Queen I wonder? How many are still at Sandringham with her?

Gabriella Windsor certainly had better starting material than does Lady Louise.

Sophie is beautiful and one can only hope Louise got more of her features in the genetic lottery.

R297 - You bet your sour arse. Meghan makes Kate look better than she ever has. Mouth shut, demure, beautifully and appropriately dressed, lovely children, dutiful stabilising homemaker and wife . . . those optics on Remembrance Day with Meghan glaringly NOT included on the same balcony as the Three Queens tells you all you need to know. And yes, Meghan has been trying to play nasty PR games by leaking nasty and at times outright false stories about them to her bestest PR friend, Lainey. Instead, she should have been currying favour with the people who one day will be far richer than she and Harry will ever be and controlling the purse strings of the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall and then the Duchy of Lancaster.

But you can take the girl out of L.A. . . . . old habits die hard. Meghan totally underestimated the power the Cambridges will increasingly have, her place in the hierarchy - she just HAD to throw a tantrum of which tiara the Queen was willing to give her, she had to pull that maternity coat stunt at the Queen's granddaughter's wedding, she HAD to keep wearing foreign luxury labels more than British fashion, she couldn't for the life of her hide her greed for the limelight and the cameras . . .

The only victim here is Meghan Markle: a victim of her own nasty, shallow, greedy narcissistic nature, phonier than your proverbial $3 bill nature.

No wonder Kate looks happier, more relaxed, and more confident than she ever has before.

I think IF there was an annulled marriage whoever knows about it (Pa Markle, Sammy, ex bff) is saving that tidbit for the big payday. The big payday would be a book deal or when the divorce starts. Same goes for reason for Doria's absence (my guess is church related), that's their ace in the hole. Peripheral people not speaking up? Maybe they have skeletons in their own closets they don't want dug up if they go public whereas the Markles dirty laundry has already been aired and they all seem immune to embarrassment.

Ayayay. There is no annulled marriage. It’s already been stated marriages are a matter of public record even if they’re annulled. Any journalist—for that matter, any private citizen—could easily find the information through any number of web searches.

The Soho House seems so very posh and expensive. Do they work some of their rent off by posing for selfies with the guests or something, because with the gamine Cinderella clothes, the drugs and a sprog coming along, their expenses must really add up.

R312 - Exactly so. The many men Meghan Markle opened her legs for in hope of advancement, including allegedly Steve Mnuchin, is far more relevant to who she really is than some mysterious early annulled marriage.

R311 That's some Tumblr sounding logic. Rather than accept there's probably nothing there and find one of the myriad other ways to discuss Meghan, Tumblr logic says "I know it's there and we just have to wait for it to come out"

If they have receipts then there's no need for the tabloid to out their source. Ninaki had to put herself forward because she was giving first hand accounts. Putting her name out there says, "I was there before Meghan was famous. My position as her former best friend gives my story credibility." A marriage license and annulment papers are credible on their own. Everyone's skeletons can stay in their closets while Meghan is shoved naked into the streets.

Unless they plan a reading and speaking tour, a book deal is not big and they would need more than an annulment to fill a book.

The biggest payday re bidding wars and public interest was the wedding. Even if there is a divorce sooner rather than later, it won't generate the level of public interest that the wedding did. Interest equals money in the news business so if someone is holding their story for more money, they've miscalculated.

The putative first husband is a criminal attorney named Joseph Goldberg-Giuliano. Surely this marriage could be verified.

A lovely photo of The Royal Family at Balmoral by Patrick Lichfield.

r314 WOW Meghan is supposed to have slept with a guy who is now in Trumps cabinet??

Numerous photos here of the Queen and other royals at the Sandringham church service.

One of the Queen's many see through umbrellas with colored rim (it's clear not solid so the people can see her). She has many colored rims to match her outfits.

Photos of the Queen in various gowns and tiaras.

If you see this old lady driving, get out of her way! LOL.

I wonder if this photographer was nipped on the ankles by the corgis?

Queen Eliabeth (late Queen Mum) and King George VI.

The Queen with Wallis Simpson at the Duke of Windsor's funeral.

I think it's very likely that both Meagain and Hazbean prayed to the devil to give them Sohobebe. Even the fraus on Celebitchy concede that Meagain dabbled in the dark arts in order to snag Hazbean. Of course, Wills and Kate want to protect their children from devil worshipping grifters-- that's why they were banished from NottCott and KP. Who could blame them? Except the fraus on Celebitchy. I only alluded to the dangers of exposing young children to the satantic arts and I was permabanned from that rather ghastly forum. Naturally, I alerted the editor of the Daily Mail and they've personally reached out to thank me as they have on numerous occasions.

R318 The Steve Mnuchin story comes from the same place that gave Tumblr most of its favourite Meghan talking points. It's the original source of the annulment story too.

I don't think there's any evidence Steve and Meghan have even met. He's a film producer and she's an actress so it's easy to say she slept with him.

Anyone has other details?

R326 - Really Sugar? Try and get a grip on yourself. It's people like you who take everything so seriously and ruin the atmosphere for everyone else here. No one finds your "deluded frau" shit very amusing.

[quote] It's people like you who take everything so seriously

Funny coming from the person losing their shit over a parody post.

Perhaps Amma-Meg should pause her meditation and say a few calming words.

Maybe she sucks Wills off secretly in order to maintain or curry BRF favors and good graces. I could totally see these two having a covert sexual power play " relationship "(Wills be dominant of course).

Honestly, its very hot to think about.

[quote] Maybe she sucks Wills off secretly in order to maintain or curry BRF favors and good graces.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the queen sucks off anybody.

ROFL!!!

Louis Frederick John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, son of Princess Diana's brother, Earl Charles Spencer and wife Victoria Lockwood.

He's a pretty one, that Louis Spencer.

By the by, Diana bears a more-than-passing resemblance to her great-grandmother, Frances Fermoy.

Frances Fermoy as an old lady. You can really see the resemblance around the eyes.

Oddly enough, another of her great-grandchildren is actor Oliver Platt. So, you know, looks don't always breed true.

Meghan is dealing with a new husband, new baby, new country, new home, sudden world-wide fame and rampant criticism, as well as trashy relatives out to make money off tearing her down at every opportunity, all in the space of a year.

I've no idea if she's a nice person or not, if she loves Harry or not, etc. etc. All I can say is that, given the stresses she's had to navigate in the past 12 months, it's amazing the woman appears reasonably sane. A few tantrums/misunderstandings etc is not all that unexpected, given that she's embarking on a totally new life at age 37, as part of a very famous and repressive family whose traditions go back centuries.

Even Kate Middleton, British-born with 10 years of experience dealing with Royals under her belt, flailed at first.

If Meghan can stick out the next couple of years, she'll probably be fine.

Fair point, R337. I enjoy the gossip and the “Dynasty” drama as entertainment, but I sincerely hope the gal takes all the pointless bitchery with a grain of salt, especially in her condition. That said, I also hope she cools the tradition bucking.

I just want her to be gone. I don't want to have to read about her for the next x number of years.

WOW r333 Prince Williams cousin is gorgeous!

And yet you're here...

Give her a couple years to amass some assets R339. I think domiciling the super couple at Frogmore Holler was a brill stroke by the BRF. It will irritate the helll out of her .

R341 was meant for R339

An older Balmoral photo than the one at R317. This one has Fergie with Beatrice, Zara and Peter Phillips, Diana, Will and Harry as well as a battered Charles.

God, young Charles really was a geek (and not in a good way). Where the hell did he get those ears?

Hey, George III. Meet the longest reigning British monarch called Elizabeth II.

Love that shot R344. Those were the days. You could see Di and Fergie were super chummy at that time.

I wonder how different things would be now if Charles and Diana had of had a third child- a brother or sister for William and Harry. How that might have effected the family dynamics.

I’m dying laughing at the tartan sling in R344.

R303 We all know that London has more to do than Windsor. But what do the royals with their security teams actually "do" in London when they are not "working". Nothing, really. They don't mosey around the West End checking out restaurants and theater or check out interesting galleries. They get their "culture" from their royal engagements - openings of the ballet and museum shows. They can't go out in the public like that. The youngish ones frequent a small number of establishments filled with close friends and associates. That's it. So I don't know that Windsor vs London really matters. H and M will continue to go to museum openings/other cultural events that require royal attendance.

Has Vanessa Grigoriadis's article about the Markles been posted? I haven't seen it mentioned, but then I'm 99% over this whole thing and I'm sure I've missed a lot. Apologies if it was already discussed.

[quote]According to a Hollywood source, when her star was rising she threw herself a party at her home unofficially billed as a “Sayonara Zara” party and gave away the lower- priced clothes in her closet to her guests.

[quote]When Meghan would pitch a tantrum in her high chair, scattering peas on the floor, her dad would encourage her and even get in on the action himself, throwing more peas. Once, when Thomas junior and his friends were smoking weed in the living room while she cried in her room, Tom senior left to tend to her, then reappeared with a full diaper. He pulled out a spoon and began eating the contents, later revealing that he’d filled the diaper with chocolate pudding.

[quote]She kept her closet neat, and even as an adolescent stored her Betsey Johnson shoes in their original boxes, wrapped in tissue paper, until she was ready to wear them next.

[quote]“Meghan’s goal was always becoming a household name,” says an acquaintance in the television world. “She’s insanely smart and poised, but very, very guarded. She’s not a person you can actually be friends with. She’s the type of person who is best friends with her stylist.”

[quote]“The Kardashians and Anthony Robbins do this sort of thing—why can’t my dad?” is the way [Samantha] sums up her thinking to me.

[quote]the posh Brits I spoke with said they’d heard that some stories were correct: Meghan’s staff is annoyed by her waking up at a Californian five A.M. and texting about various initiatives she wants them to pursue, and Meghan is callous toward staff in general. One thought it was “peculiar” that her mother was the only family member at her wedding; another even said she’d heard Meghan was dubbed “Monster Markle” at Kensington Palace.

Monster Markle is insanely smart. Oooookay. I believe there's abso no diff between London and Windsor before i believe that.

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

[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.]

That Vanessa G article also casually refers to Meghan as a “self-made millionaire.” Uh, really?

R352 In the television world and in royal circles, I don't doubt Meghan is very smart. Neither of these crowds is known for high scholarly pursuits.

Meghan's no astrophysicist, but Northwestern is an excellent school. It's communication's program is highly competitive. She didn't have the money to buy her way in so she must have some academic strengths.

R351 She may regret that party now. A few Zara pieces might get her a "Thrifty Meghan wears high street brands" headline. She could use the positive publicity

Yes R356. She came to the marriage worth a couple million. I will give her that.

She still will still have to pay American taxes. I wonder how they will separate Harry's money from that?

Its not It's at R357. My bad.

In R355's pics, is the bird next to James Middleton his latest beard?

R358 I find it hard to believe. How do we know?

R333 - Louis Spencer resembles both parents but mostly his mother Victoria with his soulful brown eyes. Earl Spencer has blue eyes.

R358. Not sure where I saw that, but I did several times.

Don't royals get invitations to join others on these expensive vacations? So, they are not the ones paying?

If so, Harry cutting contact with some of his friends is not a good move, vacation wise.

We dont know R358, and youre right, we dont believe it. Must be something her awfully shitty PR came up with to counter her extreme gold digging persona, which is entirely justified. Ive also heard the suges on LSA say brightly, welp she will never leave harry, but IF SHE DOES she has her own money. haha

R358 Newsweek says she's worth $5million. So does Daily Mail.

[quote]Northwestern is an excellent school. It's communication's program is highly competitive.

So I’ve always heard, but between Meghan, Britt McHenry and Darren Rovell, my opinion of them is plummeting daily.

MM is not a millionaire . She was a supporting actress on Suits not a lead . They don’t make millions If that’s what you believe . Maybe 500000 dollars and even that might be a bit to much .

Daily Mail is suddenly legit now.

If the Suxxeses were getting a suite of rooms somewhere, then we would know about it. Instead, Richard Palmer, who usually knows these things, said apparently there was no room at the inn in all of London. In fact, going by what Markle usually does, the "suite" would be touted as a set of apartments.

Harry is already half out the door and some people think there would be an uproar if he got the boot? He's practically iced already while the scraps he's been getting are bigged up by his fans into some prize. It's happening NOW. In stages.

Kate and Markle went nowhere near each other. This is just Meghan sitting at her computer emailing shit to the tabs. Or her PR doing so. Last month Meghan was practicing for her imminent motherhood by changing Louis's diapers! Like that happened. This is just Smeg-scented codswallop.

Soho Farmhouse - they are not PAYING. Meghan was a brand ambassador of some stripe for Soho House. Hence her close close close affiliation with Markus Anderson. Soho House was rumored to be nothing more than a nouveau euro-trashtastic whorehouse and one of Meghan's pitches was she was a legit up and coming actress more in line with their target demo. So she got to travel around staying free at international Soho Houses and used the Toronto one practically as her home office. She and Harry took off for the Amsterdam opening some months ago -just up and popped over there. Supposedly, until Harry, Soho House felt they had pumped too much money into Smegs for not enough return. True to Smeg style, they gave her the proverbial inch and she took miles. I imagine this extends to expense accounts, guest accomodations, food and drink all free, and free travel when she could wrangle it, until she was in the hole for rumored thousands. This would be fine if there could be a correlation between her arrangement with Soho House and increased membership of the right sort, but there was apparently very little to justify it. Even her social media accounts, when social media analytics were deployed, revealed most of her followers were from Kazakhstan - iow, she was paying a troll farm. (Or someone was, which is another possible debt sink for her.)

But she "got" Harry. So that probably reinvigorated her membership influencer prospects for Soho House, and given her a new lease on the arrangement. IMO they are deep into the sunk cost fallacy, but we shall see.

If she was worth a couple of millions why she married Dimwit . She doesn’t have much and Harry was a Gods gift for her !

R355 Is James Middleton still single?

There's no way to know Meghan's wealth. That's the same for the royals, politicians, other celebrities etc.

There are guestimates online. Vanity Fair's reputable enough that it's probably true that she has at least 1 million thus justifying the claim of self-made millionaire.

The show for 7 years; plus appearances, speaking engagements, her little Reitman's line and whatever pittance she made from monetizing her blog probably adds up to at least a mil.

Well well well....look what I found. Even Samantha´s own mother hates her.

"Samantha Markle has also been previously accused of racism by her own mother, Roslyn, 72, who told DailyMail.com that her daughter would describe Meghan's mother as 'the maid because she is black'.

Roslyn of Albuquerque, New Mexico, said last year: 'When Tom Sr [Meghan's father] married Meghan's mom, Samantha told all her friends that Doria was the maid because she's black. She is not a nice person.

She added: 'She trashes Meghan, trashes me, her dad, her brothers – she's just been trashing everybody in her life forever.

'I am very serious when I say she has dogged on Meghan forever. She has never liked Meghan and she's always been jealous of her.' "

R371. Let's do the math on that.

Harry is reportedly worth $25 million (Time Magazine estimate). He is part of a family worth $88 billion (Town and Country estimate).

Why wouldn't she marry him if she is only worth $5 million? She doesn't have to be penniless to make it a good financial decision for her.

Actually there IS a way to know what Meghan earned. Unless you believe she made secret $$ whoring herself around, it is actually known what actresses at her level earn. Nobody socks away serious bank from "speeches" (for which she was not paid. She was COMPED - that is it. Travel and expenses. Ask Kruger Crowne). I know enough show business people and enough about show business money to know two things - how expensive it is even to be a minor player in the business and how little money even people who are working make.

Meghan does not have $5 million. I guarantee Newsweek, currently nothing better than a trash publication, did no research, just pulled it off the net.

For those who believe she has her own money, please spell out where you think she GOT it, as she came from none, and her acting resume is thin. I believe she has plenty of clothes, sunglasses, shoes, cosmetics and that kind of gifting suite trash she got from PR events and minor red carpets, but that is IT.

Reitmann's line didn't even last a year. If you know the miniscule percentage people who are actual names make from that shit . It was licensing, and she did it to raise her profile, not her bank account.

Jon Hamm, the LEAD on a premium cable television show, got paid 20k an episode for his first contract. It is believed they sweetened the deal for him when it became a hit, but don't come at me with Meghan ever getting fucking 50k or 40k or 30k or even 18k an episode for a minor role on the USA network that her then-husband got for her as a favor. ALL of Meghan's efforts since she got Suits has been geared not towards EARNING, but towards publicizing, so she could upgrade her social network and enhance her opportunities there. I'd say she succeeded, wouldn't you? But along the way, she did not earn money. In fact it's reasonable to assume she's in substantial debt.

Claire Foy made approximately 40k per episode playing the fucking QUEEN, and she's a real actress.

Suits is basic cable, USA network, shoe-string, filming in Toronto to save costs, and cast with basically no names (also to save money) of whom Markle was probably the least of them. They're not going to throw her a per episode rate substantially above what the union requires for her particular contract, nor are they going to give her a sweet ass contract out of the goodness of her heart. She lived high on the hog for a minor player on Suits. I don't see the rest of the cast traveling to the extent she did. Where did the money come from?

Markle has no property in L.A. and rented in Toronto. While some dispute that the show paid her rent, the show would HAVE to pay her rent as it's an American production filming in Toronto - i.e. on location, which requires accomodation and a per diem for the cast during filming. How she lived in the off season, I couldn't say. Unless of course, basic cable doesn't have to accommodate the cast the same as a network show. I haven't read the union rules that closely.

While she was still on Suits she was still trying to get her ass into low level industry parties. There was an article on her L.A. and Toronto past some time ago. Despite the Mulroney connection, she was considered a basic cable actress, and nobody knew her name or gave her access to places. It was Corey that got her into what status events she attended, because he was better known than she. She got with Kruger-Crowne that got her a couple of events she has embellished ever since - the UN and Rwanda. These were essentially photo ops, not money makers.

Again, all of Meghan's efforts were towards her non-acting future. She may have overspent what little money she had as an investment in her future, because apparently dating a popular, financially stable, well-connected chef in Toronto was not where she wanted to be. She wanted to go further. She did not get paid to push herself into higher circles. It was Soho House that got her there, and that was more a quid pro quo (she has access to their amenities and facilities, they hope she'll attract new members) than an income stream.

So we are to believe that since VANITY FAIR says MeMe is a gazillionaire it is true? On what planet is that rag reputable? Not mine. And on my planet there is a HUGE difference between living in Windsor and London. Do better Harkle PR. I know you dont have much to work with, but still.

It's behind a pay wall, but the Sunday Times is reporting that Samantha has been put on the FTAC (Fixated Threat Assessment Centre) list. It's a combined NHS-Met Police-Home Office task force which monitors people who stalk public figures.

I don't see how Sam can be a threat to markle, she's in a wheelchair with MS.

Boy, you guys really don't want her to worth millions do you? I don't particularly like her but I'm not jealous of her. If she made it, invested it, then good for her. But I realize she's not done. It helps explain why her aggressiveness/ambitiousness may grate on the Royals. None of them have been able to do that.

If Bean and Haz are worth what is suggested and a bag of chips, they can damn well pay for a dwelling they seem under the impression befits their station. Frogmore Cottage blipped NOWHERE near anyone's radar as a future "royal" residence. I am amazed the stroke of genius that came up with that as their option.

The Newsweek article linked above, got the $5 million amount from Forbes. Here's the first part of the article......

Prince Harry is slated to marry former actress Meghan Markle Saturday at St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle in England. It's no secret the royal family are well-off financially, but Harry's fiancée is too.

Markle, 36, is reportedly worth about $5 million before becoming a member of the British Royal Family, Forbes reported Tuesday. She earned much of her income by portraying Rachel Zane on USA Network's Suits. Through Suits, she reportedly made $50,000 per episode during her seven-season run, according to Fortune. Markle boosted her earnings by acquiring roles in other film and television projects, such as 90210, Fringe, Remember Me and Horrible Bosses.

Aside from her acting endeavors, Markle has increased her revenue as a businesswoman. In 2016, Markle released two clothing lines under Canadian retailer Reitmans—a company where she served as a brand ambassador. The lines, which were sold in select Reitman stores and online, sold out upon its release.

"The initial idea of developing a collection came from her. It was an amazing idea so our designers, who are all based in Montreal, worked closely with her," Monique Brosseau, vice president of marketing and visual presentation, said to WWD in January 2017. "She provided her vision and her ideas of what could be a work-to-weekend capsule collection. They worked together to bring it to life."

Markle, however, ended her short-lived partnership with Reitmans in April 2017. At this time, she shut down her lifestyle website—The Tig—after three years. Markle didn't offer an explanation as to why she abruptly closed the website, but she wrote via her now-deleted Instagram account that she wanted to thank "all the supporters" of her online community, InStyle reported. Ahead of her upcoming nuptials to Prince Harry, Markle also abstained from being compensated for sharing sponsored content via her Instagram account, according to Cosmopolitan.

Forbes named Kendall Jenner its "self-made" millionaire (or maybe billionaire) of the year, then waffled and weaseled when called on it. Forbes is trash. Both things - the self-made and the billionaire part - were bullshit.

Harry's worth less than 25 million, and please remember his income is the trust income on that, for which he pays taxes. His basic income is from his mother's estate.

The constantly changing stories about trust cash bequests from the Queen Mum are not reliable and do not skew with the large amount of debt she died with, nor with the fact that her daughter supplemented her during her remaining years. Nobody pretending she left sums in various millions to her great grandchildren or her grandchildren has ever been able to explain how that squares with her million dollar debt load and the allowance from her daughter. Not even media outlets, which have become sloppier and sloppier over time. After Eugenie's wedding we can see how these stories happen, as right after she married I read that she was a multimillionaire in her own right thanks to - you guessed it - the queen Mum! Never been mentioned before, but Eugenie was in the news, so let's get a trust fund for her.

Diana died with an estimated 28 Million, which represented the cash she got from Charles in the divorce. (and I am sure that cash came to her structured in a trust in the first place). Her will left this evenly split between Harry and William. The only edge Harry has over William here is he's younger, so his share accumulated more interest (or something) before his X birthday, which he reached two years later than William, so his share had an extra 2 years.

Taxes were paid on the 28 million, so carve that off. Then split it between "the boys." The Beneficiary Trust is an income trust. The principal can't be touched by either William or Harry, must be passed down to their descendants, and then there's some provision as to what should be done with it should either of them run out of descendants. This is a nice income and nobody will ever starve on it, but it is not the sort of income that purchases, say, an Amner Hall. Or a prince-worthy apartment outside the royal purvue for which Harry has to muster up the mortgage himself and the down payment. He certainly doesn't have the money outright. They are obviously extremely secure financially, but if they were not royals they would be trust fund babies where Mom and Dad still had the REAL money (in their case, it's dad).

I know plenty of actors with better careers than Meghan Markle - not big stars, but solid actors who have worked on successive series, and they do not walk away with 5 million in the bank after a 7 year run on their very first job.

R377 Nobody said she's a gazillionaire. Vanity Fair said millionaire. That just means over a million.

She earned about $3 million in salary from Suits. You must have more info than Time, Newsweek, Forbes and Fortune. Are none of those credible enough for you?

No, none of them are credible. They are all PR. The numbers do not add up. Not even the fucking lead earned $3 million in salary from Suits.

Maybe these estimates aren’t taking taxes into account.

And yet she is not worth even a million.

Vanity Fair - isn't this the magazine that legitimized her and Harry's lies about paparazzi harassment, and claimed it was only when she saw Harry with the Mulroney kids that she made up her mind about his sterling character? Vanity Fair, which basically funneled this story straight from Meghan and Jessica onto its pages?

Or Reittmans? Reittmans had to design, manufacture and distribute these clothes and I think charged five cents an item (just kidding, but they were cheap). Lots and lots of overhead, and a cheap price point. This is a licensing agreement where you get a stipend and then a percentage, but this thing folded before anybody made any money. She got to say she had a Reittman's line, so that is important.

Go check the recent credibility of Forbes, Fortune and Vanity Fair on a whole bunch of other, non-Meghan Markle topics and then figure out if they tell us legitimate news or if they simply regurgitate the dubious "facts" emailed to them from the subjects of their articles.

Those estimates are wrong, flat out. Wrong. Nowhere near those numbers. But she started pumping those out to avert 'gold digger' comments.

And of course, subtract taxes in two countries, the huge maintenance of simply existing in the show business space, insurance (once they're not filming, USA doesn't pay her insurance), her car lease, travel and other living expenses and she's even poorer.

She earned a living on Suits. A nice enough living. Most actors would kill to say that. For the Suitcase job, it's a nice job to have but she'd probably still need a roommate, and it didn't last long. Let's not amp it up to more than it is, or I will tell you now, if Markle made a million, every other working actor on the planet with more credits than she has has to be worth gazillions, and they are not.

Anthony Bourdain - and remember, his travel was paid - it was his job. Died with 2 million. But ok, quote FORTUNE.

And lest we forget, it was a power move of gargantuan proportions when Wills not only received Apt 1A with the 20 rooms at Kensington Palace; he further gets the 21 rooms in Apt #1 for offices and reception. So rather than subdivide into 2 units for a growing BRF or even bestow the favor upon his brother, William gets ALL. These are massive (though understated) optics. The 3 Queens balcony on Remembrance Day. Nondescript Frogmore COTTAGE to the Sussexes as their ONLY residence with NO apartment space allotment in London for overnighters--Windsor is close enough to drive there and back in an evening.

But I will hand it to Sparkle, she's not letting it stop her from grabbing what she can. Gurl is thirsty AF, and shameless.

[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.]

Just to clarify. That's 3 million over 7 years. ($50,000 per episode). Even if she only earned that in the last 3 years on the show she'd still be over a million.

R385 what are credible sources for you? You seem to trust Richard Palmer at the Daily Express. That's the same company as the Daily Star. They estimate she's worth $5 million.

R388 Anthony Bourdain has several trusts with assets that are undisclosed. Only the contents of his will have been made public. The trust may not add much, but that's still an unknown.

Even if she earned 3 million over 7 years, she is still liable for tax in both the US and Canada and fees to her agent which would not leave her with 3 million.

Hmm and she appears to be mimicking Diana's expressions. Creepy. Dim needs to wake up and run far far away.

R379 Sam damn well wheeled that chair across to world to roll up to Kensington Palace in October.

If that bitch were doing this to an ordinary citizen they'd call the cops.

They cited "reputational risk" in the article.

“Mimicking facial expressions” is pushing it, but I have always thought there’s a certain fetching look Meghan naturally has that reminds me of Diana. It shows up in photos every so often. She almost looks like a Spencer. If I’m seeing it, then Harry must have as well, and been touched by it.

If they finish correcting her eyes and let the braces do their job, with the proper hair and wardrobe Lady Louise could be striking in the Princess Anne manner.

Good for her.

[quote] Nobody pretending she left sums in various millions to her great grandchildren or her grandchildren has ever been able to explain how that squares with her million dollar debt load and the allowance from her daughter.

Easy. In the UK if you make a bequest seven years prior to death, that money is not subject to inheritance tax. The aristocrats transition family wealth this way all the time (the Duke of Devonshire is currently in the process, you can tell by the increased visibility of the Earl of Burlington.) So if the Queen Mother did this, and as it is conventional tax planning for people like that it's reasonable to assume she did, then she could have easily been cash poor and living on the overdraft from Coutts that was left once she died. Recall, she had a staff of forty at Clarence House. More to the point we'll never know because the terms of the will were pretty scarce. I had the impression it was assets - art, horses, real estate, not cash, which again would make sense of the overdraft at the bank and the conventions/protections around transfers prior to death.

Don't try making the anti-Queen-Mum-trust folks see reason, R397. I tried in one of the Dangling Tendrils threads, and a poster absolutely lost their shit. Why they care so much about whether or not the QM left some additional funds to her great-grandchildren I don't understand, but it's some kind of strange trigger for them.

I just saw this picture of Samantha Markle. Please tell me she's dressed as a caricature of a grandmother for a part in a variety show?

Good Lord! I choose to believe that she did not do this to herself intentionally.

She is barely royal adjacent, but she's currently topical.

Charles, 9th Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, is promoting furniture reproductions from the Althorp Estate where he and Diana grew up via "The Althorp Living History Collection." What does everyone think of the line?

Oh, thank you R398. I remember your efforts in the dangling tendrils thread. The logic was greeted with hostility.

How do people go through life thinking Vanity Fair, Forbes and Fortune do independent research? Do any of these publications cite the basis for their estimate of Markle's earnings? Did they get it from the USA Network's accountancy records, the acting union scale of wages (don't know if Suits was AFTRA or SAG - presuming SAG based on Markle's "I'm a fraud!" interview), knowledge of the production budget on Suits? NO. What are their sources? MARKLE.

Like many other publications, there's the occasional decently researched piece but most of what they put out is regurgitated PR. That's a lot cheaper than paying real staff.

I'm as sick of Samantha Markle as I am of Meme.

Even the BBC has not been able to reconcile the seven years stories in the sums claimed, R397. So the queen mum, a spendthrift in overdraft all of her life, had the cash to make multimillion dollar bequests to her great grandchildren or grandchildren seven years prior to her death, making each trust fund millionaires? Nonsense. That was face saving and reputation saving nonsense, putting it out there that a financially reckless, self-indulgent spendthrift actually made a canny estate planning move.

It's easier to claim great grandchildren since at the time none were adults who could prove the story false by their living circumstances or self-reports. If it were grandchildren, their circumstances would have quickly put a lie to the tales.

Other than posing, i see no facial resemblance between Markle and Diana, and certainly not in their body types. Markle does try to do some of Diana's characteristic physicality, leaning back with her hips going forward, a hand over her mouth, tittering.

OK, R403, lets not get too upset about it. I wouldn't want you to lose day room privileges.

....

[quote]How do people go through life thinking Vanity Fair, Forbes and Fortune do independent research?

Vanity Fair used to be a reputable mag.

I will be generous and guestimate Markle's per episode at 14k. She may have been slightly lower, but that's probably the ceiling for that network, that show's budget, the importance of her role (air time) and a seven year run (for her). She appeared in every episode across 7 seasons with the first season of 12 episodes and subsequent seasons 16 episodes. At 14k per that is 1,512,00 . Divided by 7 that is $216,000 pre-tax, pre-agent fees, pre publicist fees and common living expenses. BTW it is extremely expensive to be an actress, even if you're not working much. She is some kind of financial genius to get 5 million out of that.

But of course, go ahead and speculate they started out paying her more than Claire Foy was paid, or John Hamm was paid, but were very comfortable giving her only a few lines of dialogue in most of her episodes anyway. Value for money? What's that.

And let's remember Suits was by far her biggest income stream (I will not address yachting but if some of her Sugars feel it's unfair to overlook that speculated income and want to include it in the hypothetical 5 million, feel free. 5 million is still a lot of yachting money over seven years, all by itself).

This is Meghan Markle we're talking about, so let's also pretend she stays within her means and after 10 years of sporadic, low paying work in the "industry" prior to Suits, she landed the Suits job with no debt. Let's also pretend that somebody else paid her Tig and insta troll farm to subscribe and follow her, paid the hosting, paid the IT. She traveled all over the place - let's pretend someone else bought the airline tickets. She could stay free / comped once she started her relationship with Soho House, but let's also remember that relationship didn't exist because Soho just liked and continues to like giving her free stuff. Soho thought it would be getting something out of it. Did it? Or is it?

R406 and yet the Guardian cites not one single source, but litters the article with the "we made this up" standbys of "Probably" , "May be" , "are likely" , including the absolutely fantastical "the bulk going to the younger son to compensate for not being sovereign." Not a single source is cited, therefore, not a single fact made it into this piece.

It is tabloid swill. "Estimated" and "Estimates" appears in successive paragraphs. Not once are we told who has done the estimates.

It's filler bullshit, nothing more. There are no established facts and no sources. It's recycled nonsense.

As opposed to the source laden and citation rich post at R403.

I'll take the Guardian over you any day, toots.

Enough. Enough now.

Please, let's not get caught up in some internecine battle! I enjoy reading different points of view, but I think it's very difficult to provide much proof, one way or another. I think you've really done some yeoman's work, really. I would like to shake hands with you sirs, all around.

I checked into Suits ratings and while it was low rated overall, it was the second highest show in the desired demographic for the network on which it was produced. This does not mean it generated a ton of ad revenue. Rather, it's relative to the performance of other USA Network shows. One of the reasons Suits was worth producing for 8 seasons is it didn't cost much to produce. This would not be the case if a minor actress walked off with five million dollars just because they wanted to be kind.

R411 I take your point but you must admit it is annoying to be linked to an article that lacks a single source and is lazily stuffed with speculative language, as if that is some kind of proof. All it proves is that our media worldwide has slashed payroll, bent towards tabloid, and re-words and re-cycles to create stories out of nothing.

R403 doesn't believe info from Time, Forbes, Vanity Fair etc but spouts shit from Tmblr about Meghan being in debt to Soho Farmhouse and Dior sending a stylist on tour to help Meghan look good for merching. Only the most credible sources for R403

Just ignore it, R414. If you block and then check out the stream of posts, this one is way over invested.

Why are we talking about how much Meghan is alleged to be worth, when the real star here is Samantha's newest wig!

I have never seen this picture before.

R409 doesn't understand valuation.

[quote] Probably the Queen Mother's most valuable single possession, Monet's 1889 painting Study of Rocks: Creuse, Fresseline, now worth anything up to £15m at auction, was bought in 1945 for £2,000

The Guardian article uses assets publicly known to belong to the Queen Mother to guess at the value of her portfolio. Insurance companies make an informed assessment of what something could fetch at auction to determine a policy. The Guardian can't say for certain what any of the Queen Mother's art pieces would be worth, that depends on the market and the bidders.

For R383's claim that Harry and William don't have access to their full trust. There is no requirement that they pass the trust down to their beneficiaries in perpetuity.

Other news outlets claim a codicil was added later which allowed them to get the income from their trust at the age of 25 and access to the full trust at age 30. Both princes have passed that age, so they are independently wealthy.

LOL R417 - where's the groom? Shagging in the Royal Mews?

I've seen a number of those b&w photos from the wedding day and they are among the nicest images. Hadn't seen that one though. The Picture Gallery is my favourite space at Buckingham Palace - I don't say room because it is more of a corridor - but it's beautiful... a lovely shade of pink that feels warm, day or night.

R418... I learned by reading - probably one of those sources that can't be believed unless it says what you want it say, like the Times or the Telegraph or the Guardian or the BBC - you know, one of those fiction printers - that the Queen turned over many of the art works to the Royal Collection, which is held in trust for the nation.

R327 - Actually, I think the Mnuchin story was a CDAN blind, not a Tumblr story and I think it was tied to Meghan'as also alleged fling with Brett Ratner, who was the director of Deal or No Deal - on which Meghan famously was a Suitcase Girl - Mnuchin and Ratner are pals. I'll be the first to acknowledge that Enty is only slightly more reliable a source than Tumbllr, but I did say "allegedly".

R417 - Neither have I and it is a lovely photo. One would think with a start like that with a girl like that . . .

Lady Amelia Windsor—who's 37th in line for the throne—is a fashion model and studies at The University of Edinburgh. Her grandfather, the Duke of Kent, is first cousins with Queen Elizabeth II. Her parents are George Windsor, the Earl of St. Andrews, and Dr. Sylvana Tomaselli (her royal title is Sylvana Palma Windsor, Countess of St. Andrews), who is a historian at the University of Cambridge.

R318 - Why not? Her BFF in Toronto is Jessica Mulroney, daughter of Brian Mulroney, one of Canada's most loathed ex-PMs and very much what could be called "Trump Lite". If the bot could do Meghan some good, she wasn't picky about their political pedigree.

Look how pretty Edward is in R417.

R420. How dare you indulge in such disreputable sources? LOL

The link says the Guardian article was published only a few days after the Queen Mother death. It's dated. A lot could have happened to her assets since then. I doubt the Guardian would publish a story they hadn't fact-checked while the country was mourning a royal figure that many considered generally lovable.

Before the receipt checkers come for me. Yes the article was in the print edition on page 3 in 2002. Nobody put up a fake web article as part of a conspiracy theory.

Bitches be triflin today.

The marriage to the guy from Northwestern was annulled. He is an attorney now, not made up.

Pretty sure she did live with the chef for 3 years. So, common law.

Annulled, divorced, common law, married, all by 37.

[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.]

R428, that article is INSANE.

Either could have planted the piece.

Taxes are due on such spendy gifts, no?

Maybe Kanye can give the baby a tiny MAGA hat, lol.

[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.]

SInce I don't follow any of the dreaded "K" family members - is the one mentioned in the DM the one married to the nutty Kanye?

Or is this a different member of the "K" tribe?

I hope Meghan and Kim do become best friends. The resulting trainwreck will be hilarious.

Do we think Meghan and Harry might be slightly tempted to befriend Kim and Kanye? Which couple would pull rank?

I know it sounds crazy but Meghan does love attention and teaming up with the Kardashians would get her even more of it.

Two years ago, she probably would have loved to mingle with the Kardashians. But now...wouldn't she think she's above them? If she's trying to hang with "serious" celebs like Clooney, Oprah, and Michelle Obama, does she really want to hang with the foolish Kardashians? Also, they'd probably remind her too much of her dad's side of the family.

A few years back, William and Kate were touring the United States, and the tour included viewing a NBA game. JayZ and Beyonce were both there and apparently walked over to the royal couple to introduce themselves and chat. (I guess some people can do that, but other's can't...) Since JayZ and QueenB consider themselves royalty already, they probably wanted a photo op with their British counterparts. When Harry and Meghan tour the US, perhaps the Kardashians will engineer a similar encounter.

[quote] Meghan does love attention and teaming up with the Kardashians would get her even more of it.

They can always be reassigned an "official" residence in the Outer Hebrides.

I'll never say never but I'd be surprised at a Meghan-Kim friendship. Even pre-Harry Meghan seemed too bougie to befriend the Kardashians.

A former sorority girl who once refused to drink a mug of tea because the style of the mug was "so off brand," teaming up with the queen of the butt-selfie? Oh my.

Kim tried to befriend Kate and was rebuffed. Her baby gift was returned. Got to admire her for trying though and maybe she'll have better luck with HazBean.

Two trashy women together . Oh well I thought I’ve seen it all .Kim is desperate now she’s aging out and has to bow to Kylie .

So Kate has been shooting and bagging pheasants....

Kate increasingly is showing herself an iron hand in a velvet glove.

Strange, she never wears fur, and yet she hunts. She will wear either fake fur or something like alpaca fleece, which is just shorn off the alpaca. I think this pheasant hunting will tarnish her crown a bit.

[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.]

Can you imagine THE QUEEN's face when MeMeMeAgain stood in the Sandringham drawing room and still couldn't help her hands from traveling toward an inevitable manual clutching of her insurance policy?

R443, good God, those clothes look terrible, particularly the grey one with too much fabric in the bodice and stretched tight over her flapjacks at the same time. What is that floppy black thing on the right? Can't quite process it besides noticing the stick legs swimming in Minnie Mouse shoes. Oooh, the fashion horrors just don't let up.

[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.]

Good God. Prince Phillip was a fairly attractive man. Must be hard at 97 to look in the mirror and see yourself in such a state physically.

I had that same thought about Maaca the other night, R448. He's not quite 97, but you know what I mean.

I took a look at the Althorp collection, R400, and it's a bit too rococo for my taste.

I had the same question looking at the collection that I did looking at Lord Snowdon's furniture collections: Who is going to buy it at that price point? The aristos whose homes it might work in already have all the furniture they'll ever need, and OTT as some of these pieces are, I don't think they're gilded or fancy enough for wealthy Russians or Arabs.

He'd have been better off working with whatever their equivalent of Pottery Barn is to come up with something the middle classes could afford.

Are you talking about Viscount Linley's furniture collection, founded in 1985? He is a watch fanatic, too. There is definitely a market for luxury British furnitire and goods, what an odd thing to say.

Of course there's a market for luxury furniture, but they type of furniture in the Althorp collection or at Linley's doesn't seem to have much of a base. According to the Telegraph:

[quote]Linley’s company celebrated 30 years in business last year, but it has been in the press for reasons other than the quality of its furniture. Despite, or perhaps because of, the eye-wateringly high prices, it has at times struggled to make a profit, particularly following the recession. After a relationship with a Russian investor went sour, five years ago Linley sold 60 per cent of the business to yacht broker Jamie Edmiston. It is now controlled by Malaysian investors.

The "truce" between the Duchesses made the cover of Hello mag. Sugar and spice and everything nice.

I don't believe MM is even on Kate's radar. She has a vast array of clothing and accessories from which to choose, a hairdresser on standby, the right to wear awesome tiaras, a 21 room apartment in the palace, a gorgeous country house, a fantastic family, 3 darling children, and her status as the future queen of the UK. I do think, however, MM is indeed on William's radar, as a bothersome pest invading his space that he would like to exterminate.

R427 - Your grasp of law is alarming - I do hope you don't get picked for jury service. She can have lived with the Man in the Moon for three years - if she retained her own home address, filed tax returns as a single woman, maintained separate bank accounts, etc., there is no common-law marriage - show me a lease for a shared domicile with both their names on it. Sleeping over constantly doesn't constitute a common-law marriage. That is utter bollocks. She was nobody's common law wife and if she'd been married and the marriage annulled there would still be a legal trail of filings that any decent reporter could have found.

There was no first annulled marriage, there was no common law marriage to the chef.

Put up or shut up: show me legal records of a marriage and annullment filing; show me where Meghan Markle moved out of her own home, gave up the lease on it, and declared her residence to be the same as his on tax filings.

You can't because there isn't any. Give it up, will you, so we can discuss her real flaws instead of wasting time with fake news?

Well good for Prince Philip. That is an accomplishment. If only family got the first crop, I wonder if those Royal Chefs know what to do with them?

I don't think William gives a damn about her so long as she behaves and doesn't cause any pain to Harry. She's proven her behaviour problems. What becomes of Dim's feelings still TBD, but if the suggestions are true that William went to the Queen with concerns before the marriage, she's on that radar. However, I doubt it. Who would know something sensitive like that? William, the Queen, Kate and maybe Charles. None of them would leak something like that. So I am inclined to question its veracity. That said, if she thought it somehow served an end, Meme could have leaked it once Harry told her.

Ahem, someone was speaking of books...here is one for fashion fans. The Gown is all about the story behind the making of Queen's wedding dress.

The late Princess Margaret.

It's fiction, I think? Probably entertaining but these days the less fiction confused with history, the better.

They do touch in public on occasion.

Are everyone else's Instagram posts showing up as black boxes?

A cape and a headscarf.

R462 - no, I can see the photos.

The Queen in another cape with matching umbrella.

Some rare photos of Diana as an awkward teenager.

F454 - I agree. I believe Kate knows full well that William is protecting her and she'll do the necessary with visuals at the request of Buck House and Clarence House, but the rest of the time has quite enough in her life and pretty much ignores it all. In fact, I'd guess that MM is far more obsessed with Kate than the other way around, because Kate was granted everything that Meghan thought she would have but now sees she isn't going to get.

To poster upthread who said the royals don't take advantage of London so it doesn't matter to Meghan that she's been booted out to that dull suburb, I think you're missing the point. Whether they're heading out to the West End theatres every night or not, or Meghan isn't heading to the boutiques in Chelsea every day or not, it's still the center of things, and the royals do go out quietly to clubs, restaurants, the theatre . . . that's why the Cambridges were brought back from Anmer Hall and told they now have to make London their home base. It's where things happen, where decisions are made, where Charles lives . . .

Meghan Markle is a thoroughly urban girl. She'll go out of her mind with boredom in Windsor. It wouldn't have mattered so much if they'd ALSO been given a larger London home base, but they weren't. It is, for all practical intents and purposes, an exile and a come-down from what Meghan thought she would be getting as Harry's wife.

A lovely photo of the Queen when she was just Princess Elizabeth.

I love the fifties fashions on the Queen.

[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.]

It's almost the end of 2018 and if you're in need of a laugh, here you go! My apologies to the Queen.

Happy New Year to all royal watchers everywhere!

I'm not sure if people outside the UK will be able to watch it, but here's a review of the royal year from the BBC. Roughly half of it is focused on Harry and Meghan.

The people trying to control what topics are and are not posted about on these threads could not be more obvious.

Get a life, or as is more likely, hope you are getting holiday pay!

WHO is paying for all of the placed PR? About Sparkle, but also the other members of the RF such as Phillip? Is raising the celeb profile of the lot of them part of her PR plan?

Nah R442, the only ones who would have a problem with it are the subset of virtue signalling vegans who thinks [i]everyone[/i] SHOULD be vegans. The BRF eat what they hunt so not exactly gratuitous. Think of the pheasants as a version of free range chicken. Culling through hunting keeps numbers manageable; healthy for the flocks, healthy for the environment.

Now were it fox hunting? --a whole different ball of wax. Kate would be suitably raked.

Just noticed 11 posts in a row were one blocked poster, that is likely someone who is on the clock.

Wonder if the SM team gets paid a flat rate with a quota or if they get a bonus for volume? It is done both ways in the industry.

Nutmeg and Dim would fit so well with thirsty wanabees famous for being pissed on in a sex tape and for untreated craziness. Too bad Kum does not need tips on straightening the hair of her biracial kids, she was on that before the kid was school age. Birds of a feather for sure...

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

R475 - someone is full of good cheer today. I've been posting photos of various members of the royal family since this thread began. I wish I was getting paid but alas I do it for free. Carry on with your whining.

True R467. The number one rule upon going into a family is keep your damn mouth shut. The BRF must have been horrified watching the dangling tendrils unfold -- that'll teach 'em to think twice when poodly prince tells them 'she will hit the ground running.' It's better for them in the long run I guess since she's shown them who she is.

[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.]

In the most recent MM thread that got deleted, one of the last posters revealed some pretty interesting stuff, including that Michael Middleton and his mistress lived at the family home. If he or she is still around, care to elaborate on that? How does that work in that small village? Does the mistress pretend to be the housekeeper or what?

And please revisit the other tantalising points you made, thx.

I love the Queen’s orthopaedic hats. Same shape in different colors and the trim can be changed out. Different band, stick in a feather or a flower and she’s good to go.

In the most recent MM thread that got deleted, one of the last posters made up some pretty interesting stuff, including that Michael Middleton and his mistress lived at the family home.

Fixed that for ya.

Haha. It must be a major disappointment for a "writer" to be reduced way waaay down to spinning bullsjut about a minor celebrity royal on a gossip forum. I am still laughing ny ass off at the assertions that Windsor is no different than London, Sparkles is a wealthy well respected actress, and Catherine has fear of her moving in on Will. Harkles really should get their money back for the consistently crappy PR approach on their behalf.

Well, re Michael Middleton, why didn't he go to St Barts with the rest of his family?

A 2018 slide show of the Queen's year.

R477 Your love of photos is well-established and relevant to a BRF thread.

For the whingers,

Hubris is: assuming the celebrity you're fascinated by,

1) knows you exist in this tiny corner of the internet,

2) cares enough about your DL celebrity gossip thread that they pay someone to post responses to your speculations.

R486 - thank for your support. Happy New Year to you!

R483 - ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth!

R482 - I know, really? As if, in the years William spent weekends at Kate's family home in Bucklebury, napping on the sofa and enjoying Carole Middleton's famous Sunday roasts, no whisper of said mistress got out. She was stashed in the attic, like the first Mrs Rochester, with a keeper.

I'm calling right here the names of the IVF designer twins soon to make their debut:

Margaret Diana Elizabeth--to be called diminutively Margot

and

Albert Charles Philip

R435, doubt it. Kate and William are real royals. A lot of A list celebs (and A list reality stars like the K's) recognize Haz and Bean for what they are. Pseudo royals and jokes. No cachet at all. Harry was being shot down by C listers by the time he met Buckaroo.

Kate and Meghan playing scrabble together is like a scene in a movie. Imagine the dueling Duchesses, slyly putting down letters and spelling out words, each laden with subtle but devastatingly bitchy meaning, of course. What words would they be, DL?

[quote]Well, re Michael Middleton, why didn't he go to St Barts with the rest of his family?

He is with this mistress that everyone knows about. Obviously there is no other possible explanation.

What's wrong with you? Seriously.

Since crazy half sister is now on the most wanted list, this is going to get awesome. She will not be ignored, Dan. Meme's going to get more attention than she bargained for.

R475 R473 Since you've got them blocked I'll just tell you that the 10 posts were just the person who posts photos. They're fine and you're thinking too much about it probably because yes some places probably do have paid shills for MM but over here of course there are going to be positive posts about Prince Phillip because some people genuinely like him, in that way he is just like HM and Princess Anne.

I think the name(s) of Meghan and Harry's baby(ies) will say a lot about their future intentions as Royals. If they choose conservative, traditional names like the ones mentioned above, they're signalling a commitment to being part of the Firm.

If they choose less traditional names, like Princess Anne's family line: Peter, Zara, Isla, Savannah, Mia, etc., we'll know they are serious about wanting their children to have private lives and not be part of the main working Royal contingent.

IMO, R496, the more likely intended path is celebrity and it was indicated by the wedding guests.

Gays of Datalounge, I'm afraid our dear Meghan is no more, I shot her during a hunting expedition. With those feathered hats & skinny bird legs, I mistook her for a pheasant.

DM has Kate and MM engaging in "hours" of board games together over the Sandringham holiday. I actually believe this.

Happy New Year to all BRF posters. Here's to a gossipy and exciting 2019.

God-damned coal dusty bitch!

[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.]

Fergie needs a total makeover. Get rid of the clown red hair, the harsh black eye makeup, the unflattering clothes. For an example of how an older redhaired woman can look, check out pics of Jane Asher, who is around 15 years older than Fergie.

R502, great example. And a good example of a shorter hair cut, as opposed to long sausage curls, actually making a woman look more youthful. Not a frumpy old lady short so, but a nice frame for the face, light and swingy.

Why should she ? Maybe another hair color and other make-up but she’s fine otherwise . Why should anyone have to do plastic surgery ? She.s not an actress who has to live of her looks . What is it that every face has to be unwrinkled and has to be botoxed or perform plastic surgery on it . How old is she ? 50 or 55 . Let her be .Is every woman of middel-age has to become a competitor for young woman or their own daughters ? She had her time and now is the time for others to shine !

I definitely think some laser or a peel would go a long way to help her sun-damaged, smoker's skin.

Her natural hair colour is fine, but she's been hitting the bottle too hard. You can clearly see this intense kind of red is not her real red hair. She should ease down on the colour's intensity and she'd look gorgeous.

I don’t know about “Albert,” R490, the one in Monaco is so creepy I think he’s tainted that name.

[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 see anything inappropriate about that. The place was saved to make it a contributing enterprise. Probably a Ben Pentreath project anyway.

R438 - Brilliant - the first Post Prize of 2019 goes to you.

R502 - Asher has aged spectacularly well - that cut would probably take ten years off Fergie's "too much backstory" face. Contrast Asher with Pattie Boyd, who looks quite dreadful now - and for much the same reason as Fergie does: unwilling to give up the long blonde hair look that made Boyd so iconic in the Sixties and which looks awful now with her plump sagging face and figure. Boyd ruined the life of my younger sister in the Sixties (whose daughter is the niece I have occasionally mentioned when the fertility discussions re Meghan came up). I have pointed out to my sister that if nothing else, she has lived to look better than Boyd does.

Don't think it didn't resonate.

Re Fergie's new perfume business: I doubt the folk running Penhaligon's are going to lose any sleep. The latter's shop at the bottom of Wellington Street, down the street from Covent Garden and just off the Strand, is exquisite, as are their scents. For those of you visiting London for the first time, do make a stop there.

R499 - And the same to you, apologies for the dilatory response to your good wishes for 2019.

As the DM appears not to have let up in the slightest in its vendetta against Meghan and Harry, with a royal birth and christening upcoming, there should be plenty of clothes, at least, to comment upon.

Not to puncture R511's grandeur but if you can also visit any of the 36 stockists and stores scattered all across America.

How did Patti Boyd ruin your sister's life R511 ?

Maybe she pointed out the pomposity that runs deep in the family character?

R515 - Right, because millions of teenage girls across the globe weren't dying to ape Boyd's English rose skin, tiny figure, and, er, extremely high-profile boyfriend?

Not good with irony, metaphor, or hyperbole, are you? Shame. That's what makes English so wonderful a language.

R513 - That's no reason not to visit the original and legendarily beautiful store in the heart of London. It's like saying there's no reason to visit Tiffany or Cartier on Fifth Avenue because you can get their items secondhand on Ebay for less.

But hey, if you're visiting London, by all means skip Penhaligon's and Covent Garden and instead tour Tower Hamlets.

That down to earth enough for you?

My knowledge of the 1760s isn't as great as yours, R516.

And Penhaligons started business on Jermyn Street and stayed in St. James and then Mayfair, as you'd expect for his clientele. Well, obviously you wouldn't.

So stop making up shit you know nothing about and spare the racist digs about Tower Hamlets. You're a faker.

The legendary beauty of the Wellington Street shop, in Covent Garden.

About twenty feet wide, forty feet deep. Positively evokes Versailles, don't you think?

Positively! Quite! Rather!

R517 - Oh, you've discovered my secret: I'm a Time Traveller.

The store is there on Wellington Street, and has been for decades. it is exquisite, what's fake about it?

As for the dig about Tower Hamlets - you really think East London is what the tourists that the very same BRF we're all here talking about are alleged to bring in are coming to see?

Tell you what, we'll make it, oh, Essex or Tyne and Wear, all right? That white enough for you?

Oh, and a Happy New Year to you, too, you spiteful cunt.

Name calling is so 2018. It's a new year to start fresh.

Here is Pippa with her infant son Arthur looking like most new mothers: haggard but happy.

Meghan on a walkabout.

The Queen photographed by Cecil Beaton on the day of her sister Margaret's wedding in 1960.

Not really, R518, not in your snap and not having been to both the shop and Versailles.

Diana had the "common touch". Neither her sons or their wives have her charisma.

R521 - The Middleton girls do seem to run to gorgeous plump babies. Pippa's Arthur is what, three months or so and looks five months old there.

The Telegraph has an article about the most popular baby names of the year - interestingly, whilst "Henry" is now top of the pops for boys, neither Meghan nor Catherine make it to the top for girls. Arthur and Margot are also toward the top.

The Queen is amused.

Baby William is NOT amused.

Two different eras, two sovereign Queens and two very long reigns.

Wow, that's a gorgeous outfit at R527.

R525 - Well, in fairness, without the interest in clothes jewels and hairdos, the men are at a basic disadvantage. It would take a level of charisma on the level of JFK's to match that. And as even JFK humourously pointed out once, he would be known as the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris.

The hats of Catherine collage. They range from casual to whimsical.

They don't take photos like they used to.

The Queen, Prince Philip and their four children.

You don't often see the Queen go sleevless anymore. She did it in the fifties and sixties but almost always with those pristine white gloves.

R523 - I saw this photo in a volume of Beaton's royal photographs, a book I still have. He described the Queen's outfit that day as a wonderful "kingfisher blue" - I think this photo doesn't do justice to the vibrancy of the colour, which is more evident in the book.

When King George VI and Queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1936 after the Abdication, Beaton was called upon to take photos of the new Queen. He was not at the time familiar with her and had his doubts about well she would photograph. However, when he turned on his lights inside Buckingham Palace, her "porcelain skin", large blue eyes, and tiny figure, he realised, would more than do the trick and he produced the now-iconic figures of her in spangly dresses, draped in jewels, both inside and outside of the Palace. He was completely taken in by her legendary charm, and he became part of her circle of friends that included men like Noel Coward.

[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.]

R535 - Why don't women wear the gloves any longer? They were so elegant, but you rarely see them any longer. I do see them on the Danish princesses once in a great while but only on evening wear. They white gloves added such a nice touch to spring and summer day-wear as events like Ascot at one time.

[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.]

R538 - I think gloves complete an outfit too. They're also a good way to protect from contagious infections like colds and flus so the Queen has been smart to wear them through the years. The younger royals probably think they're too stuffy and old fashioned and they would rather be more modern so they press the flesh. Shame.

R533 - The photo is beautiful and epitomises the positioning of the new royal family after the Abdication of being the reassuring antitheses of the nightclubbing, divorced, duty-evading, brittle, childless Windsors, particularly Wallis. Robert Lacy in his book, 'Monarch" describes this idealised positioning of the new royal family as "always and effortlessly happy". There was probably more than a grain of truth in the stability and happiness of the family life of the Yorks as they took the step up to being first rather than second in the hierarchy, but that's never the whole truth of any family. But it worked then for the Yorks, who were also facing leading the country as the clouds of WWII darkened over Europe.

*Robert Lacey (not Lacy)

Does the queen ever get to dine in a restaurant? I don’t mean a quick stop during a tour. I mean a private meal with friends.

Oh she won’t ban drinking.

R543, Yes, the Queen has been known to dine at several very posh restaurants in London, and to plan various events at them. I think that, when it's a private (not official) occasion, it's seen as a less intimidating environment than dining at one of the official residences. She's apparently very unstuffy in her private life. I remember reading about one of her staff members traveling North to spend time with the BRF in Scotland. Apparently, after lunch, the BRF all joined together in clearing the table, and he began washing the dishes. The Queen stopped him, and told him she'd wash up, and he should dry the dishes. The Royals carry their own meals in Tupperware containers.

The first visit of a King and Queen to Canada and the USA.

Apparently she's eaten at Bellamy's and The Ivy and that's it.

But she's thrown parties several times at Claridge's hotel.

Money, money, money Must be funny In the rich man's world

R507 I agree the reigning Prince of Monaco has done negative benefit to his name. I think Sparkle will select Albert because it was Lillibet's father's name and is a wise strategy to curry favor. HazBean are undoubtedly defining their roles in the vein of celebrity, challenging traditional royal protocols in spite of voraciously suckling the royal teet and fleecing its privilege; but doesn't the Queen still have to approve the sixth in line's progeny's names? Fergie stated she and Andrew were originally going to name Beatrice "Annabel" until mil nixed the idea.

Strange calculations for MM on that site, r548. She seemingly spends way more than everyone else, but they’re counting several pieces of jerewly supposedly given to her as wedding presents from Prince Charles. Since they can’t confirm it for sure, it doubles her spending in comparison to everyone else.

Eugenie just posted an InstaStory with a look back at her memorable moments/events of 2018. Glaringly, she jumps from April straight into June.

R73 are you trolling? All Harry got from his mother's side of the family is his coloring. His beady, close-set eyes and thin lips are 100% Charles, whom h resembles more and more every day. And perhaps some height. Facially, he is Charles.

Will got his mother's looks and all of her facial expressions as well. But the Windsor horse teeth stick slapped him in the mouth, unfortunately, so he has his mom's lips but the mouth-breather looking teeth. Still, he came away with more of Diana in him than Harry did.

Meghan's very shady about her jewelry. There was all this brouhaha about her wearing "Diana's butterfly earrings" but of course the internet was on the case and went straight to extreme close-up, where the antenna on the jewelry and other workmanship details were completely different. And Meghan's slid around, ending up sidewise, whereas Diana's were perfect little butterflies set at the proper angle. Even though presumably she could be wearing some of Diana's pieces as Harry presumably has possession of a number of them, none really bear scrutiny. I don't think Charles has given her anything, because she's merching. If she did not aggressively merch, and comported herself appropriately, then she might get something, but of course, they couldn't trust her not to sell it. The most amusing Meghan's jewelry situation was the contrast between Meghan wearing the same fussy looking Claire's chandelier earrings to an event - the second time she sported them in a few weeks - while Catherine wore real rocks.

R550 the real issue is Meghan spends nothing. It's all merching, most of it borrowed and having to be returned. The prices claimed for the clothing are PR, nothing more. So is the "sold out!" claim. Sometimes google immediately shows it's not sold out, sometimes it's not a real thing - had limited distribution or was an early edition of something.

As blatant as it is, for some reason it is just not on for the mainstream media to acknowledge this, although this year the "Go Fug Yourself" girls, who have met Markle and are big fans, cheerfully admitted they are sure she is merching her ass off and good for her!

I suppose the media doesn't acknowledge it because in many cases they profit (embedded links promoting the stuff or where you can get it for less) and also because because the BRF is allowing her to do it, and WHY they are allowing her to do it opens a can of worms. They're not paying for her?

I noticed the Eugenie Instagram story as well. But I don’t think she had any pictures of Kate or the Cambridges either, am I wrong?

Probably Annabel was frowned upon because it was the name of that nightclub.

[quote]doesn't the Queen still have to approve the sixth in line's progeny's names? Fergie stated she and Andrew were originally going to name Beatrice "Annabel" until mil nixed the idea.

Yes, which makes me think the queen wouldn’t sign off on Diana as a first name, or anything weird or too trendy.

My guesses for the royal baby name:

Girl

Eleanor (Queen)

Matilda (Queen)

Alexandra (Queen)

Victoria (Queen)

Adelaide ( Queen although it's an Australian place name as well)

Mary (Queen)

Augusta

Helena

Dorothea (a more upper class option than Doria)

Elizabeth (Queen)

Caroline ( Queen and a female form of Charles)

Amelia

Henrietta (Queen and to honor father Harry who was christened Henry)

Diana (only as a middle name choice)

Margaret

Cecilia/Cecily

Other traditonal choices that may be considered:

Madeleine

Emily/Emilia

Hannah ( a form of Anne)

Julia

Grace

Olivia

Christina

Clara/Claire

Angela

Laura

Boy

Alfred/Albert - my first choice would be Alfred after King Alfred the Great)

Edmund

Philip

Richard (Kings)

John ( King bu a bad luck name)

Stephen (King but same problem as John)

Victor

Michael

They could go a little less royal but still traditional like...

Timothy

Joshua

Sebastian

Patrick

Thomas (Meghan's father so it's a possible olive branch move; if it's chosen, it's more like will be as a middle name)

Benedict

Nathaniel

Oliver (although this is frowned upon due to Oliver Cromwell)

It wouldn't surprise me if Harry and Meghan would go for something completely different and trendy (Meghan desperately wants to be known as a rule breaker and cutting edge royal) but a lot depends on the child's title. I think a higher title like Prince/Princess would limit the choices somewhat (eg. Prince Jude or Princess Brianna just don't sound right, lol) whereas Lord/Lady would increase the name options considerably. We shall see what happens and if the Queen approves a more daring name for her great-grandchild. She seems more lenient with Harry than anyone else.

Great list, looking at it and pretending to be Meghan, I would lean toward Olivia and Isabella.

Patrick is awfully Irish, I dunno about that.

Joshua? Sebastian? Which Harlequin Romance suburb are you living in?

They'll call a boy Charles and a girl either Elizabeth, Victoria, Mary, or Alexandra. Meghan's after nailing the "royal" identity to the wall, and as William's kids have already gotten George for the next heir, and Charlotte has both Elizabeth and Diana as middle names, Meghan can use Elizabeth, Mary, Alexandra, or Victoria as a first name. Diana is always a possibility for a first name, Harry still resents the family for the way they treated his mother. Charles has also only been used as a second name by William, so they're free to use that to curry favour with the Rich Granddad.

Imagine if she is having twins and they're stupid enough to call them Charles and Diana..

The names should be David and Victoria after the United Kingdom's most influential culture, sport and fashion ambassadors.

This video is good fun because it is much reported that the royal family find great amusement when the carefully planned goes off the rails.

At the Diamond Jubilee service at St. Paul's they sang Guide me, O Thou Great Redeemer. A great old hymn. But it's 'arranged' at the back end (about 2:31) and goes off the rails in grand fashion.. you can see it on the faces of the congregation and by the time they get to William and Kate (3:08), they are plainly amused.

If a member of the British royal family or aristocracy marries a person of the same sex, will his or her partner receive a title? A cousin of the Queen married his same sex partner in 2018, the Wikipedia entry makes no mention of his partner receiving a title.

Women don’t wear gloves anymore because we want to be fucking free of excess fabric. We don’t wear corsets or girdles or bullet bras or even underwire bras anymore. We wear pants — excuse me, trousers — and save hats and gloves for inclement weather.

Why are men so fascinated by wrapping women up in restrictive fabric? Even gay men.

R565 - Good lord, who knew a pair of elegant white gloves with an evening gown or a summery dress at Ascot would be so restrictive or could be compared to a corset?!

There is such a thing as adornment for its own sake, is there not?

Gay men are simply less uptight about appreciating the aesthetics of clothes, and frankly, it is men in the modern era who have been restricted to anything too, shall we say, ornamental, to prove their masculinity.

I suggest you head out to see "The Favourite" so you can see what men used to wear in terms of restrictive fabric also.

Draw it mild - it's just fashion gossip.

I agree they will name the baby(ies) something traditional as Bean wants to cement her royalness (I don't even know if that is a real word but whatever). She hasn't been spending all these months and whatever more months to come cradling a bump for baby with anything less than a royal name. I suspect Charles or Elizabeth as those names will make for the best headlines "Prince Charles weeps with joy as Duchess bestows greatest honor of his life on him"

R564, short answer is no. Ivor Mountbatten has a courtesy title. His wife received the female equivalent. His husband receives nothing.

There's a moderate movement in the UK to change the laws so that titles can be inherited down the female line (solving the Downton problem forever.). The argument, rightly, is it is plainly discriminatory that women as first born are trumped by men who come after them in the one of succession to titles. But whether there then is provision for courtesy titles to extend to male spouses or same sex spouses, I don't know. And politicians are loathe to touch it because it cuts a break for the posh (or perpetuates class, if you like.)

Is anyone else having trouble seeing R564's post? The reply space and number appear, but there's no text. I have no on on ignore.

The Cambridges paid tribute to Charles by naming their daughter Charlotte. Harry and Meghan could go with Caroline.

R568, thank you for your thoughtful reply. It's quite unfair that same sex spouses can't receive titles, hopefully, as time goes by & their are more royal/aristocratic gay couples, the rules will change.

As an aside, R571, I attended a wedding this past summer at Mountbatten's house. He rents out the whole place... including the bedrooms. It is very big by the standards of mere mortals but not by the standards of your typical stately home. A nice place, plain, situated on a rise above a lake and in big deer park. There are photographs of the royal family framed throughout the house. I think inferred from one the Countess of Wessex is a godmother to one of his children. I also recall a signed photograph of the party at the wedding of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. There is an oil painting of a young Queen Victoria in one of the reception rooms. It was fascinating to see the home of someone in this circumstances

R547, indeed from that article: "The Queen's visit to The Ivy is a departure from her favourite London restaurant, Bellamy's, in Mayfair - which is reportedly the only restaurant in which she has ever previously dined." WHAT? I mean, are they really saying the Queen has only ever dined in two restaurants that we know of? That's mind-boggling.

How interesting, R572. Any other tidbits about the place?

Lord Ivor Mountbatten's Bridwell, gorgeous place & Lord Ivor is rather handsome.

As I get a little older, I find the question I most often ask myself is: “Is this person a complete moron? Or a diabolical fiend?”

This is the question I have re Markle. Can a human being on the world stage BE this trashy, stupid, and clueless? Or is this some evil plot?

Part 13 at the ready:

What MM is, R576, is a representation of how trashy and degraded our society has become; a society that elevates thug rappers and women whose fame is based on publicised sex tapes. She's a Hollywood actress. From its" inception, Hollywood was known for trashy lowlife women and predatory men; read Hollywood Babylon by Kenneth Anger.

But I don't know that PH's former l/t gf's would have been much better, apart from having better families. I also don't think the BRF is any shining moral example, apart from QE2. most of them have been involved in some kind of scandal or behaviour that really couldn't stand up to much scrutiny.

I'm watching Royal Wedding, and Jane Powell's perkiness is offputting BUT aside from that, it's amazing to think that the Royal couple about whom the movie was titled just celebrated their 70th anniversary, and I also wonder what Queenie thinks of the movie. Providing, of course, that she's ever watched it.

R574, it was pretty usual.... mean it was a great place to be but if you've been to Highclere or Chatsworth, nothing on that scale. A very large family home. Like so many things in life, not as big in person as it seems in pictures. Not even same scale as Wrotham Park, where they did Gosford Park a hundred years ago and shoot interiors for The Crown (fairly certain the dining room there is the Queen's audience room in the show.) The thing that struck me was that the reception rooms at the front of the house were much smaller than the dining room and kitchen at the back of the house. The best room was the library, which was small, but smelt wonderfully of wood fires (smoky chimney?) and old leather and older books. It was a really comfortable room, had a good feel. The use of colour was pretty bold: a lot of mustardy yellow, forest green, scarlet up the staircase. Great views out of almost every window in the place. The house does have a great position.

Thanks R580 !

[quote] As I get a little older, I find the question I most often ask myself is: “Is this person a complete moron? Or a diabolical fiend?”

R576 is either the most dramatic queen or tumbled out of a 1950's comic book. DC or Marvel? Does your costume include a flamboyantly arranged scarf?

R563, lololol, great find, thx!

How could I forget the name Alice in my list @R557. It would be a great option for a Princess or a Lady.

I adore the name Alice. It just looks and sounds so pretty.

Alexandra is also a beautiful name like the queen’s cousin

And also Astrid !

The Queen as a child posing with her father, then Duke of York.

Prince Charles in Scotland as "Lord of The Isles".

The Queen in black to meet the late Pope John Paul II in 2000.

A sad photo of Diana.

The Queen rocks in red!

New book for royal and dog lovers.

The Queen having fun with sister Margaret and son Charles.

The Queen Mum and Princess Margaret all dolled up.

A young Camilla with longer hair.

A Mom and Son moment - Sophie and James.

An amusing moment at Ascot in 2017 - Kate had to catch Sophie as she lost her balance in the landau. Oh wouldn't that have been a sight for the paparazzi to capture - a Countess going head first into the lap of the future Queen. LOL.

A collage of female members of the British royal family.

This thread

Is closed

Why why

Kate and Will getting carried away at the Olympics.