British Royal Family Part 13: general gossip and information

For godsake, is the 12th full?

It is now.

That was fast.

I so loved scarfgate at Christmas at the church. Mrs Toad plotting and scheming so she could go to Sandringham at Christmas.She thought she could bedazzle Charles and William who have so much more money than Mr Toad .

There was a story in DM about how Kate and Meghan played Scabble together at Sandringham. LOL. Like Kate would rather spend time with Sparkle than at her own home with her children. Yeah, right. I need to see a photo of those two playing before I believe that event actually happened.

I'm with you, R5.

I never bought the "playing board games all night" tale. Pure BS.

Especially for Kate.

She was acting as buffer between Sparkle (and Harry) and William at church. (See that "scarf" video. Wow.)

Once they all were out of public eye, her duty for the day was done.

Add to that the fact that their plans to spend Christmas with her family had to be quashed because of Sparkle - I doubt that Kate spent any more time with her than was necessary to publicly shore up the image.

Today's Big News On The Feed:

WHT HARRY IS DOING TO PROTECT HIS WIFE MMMARKLE. And Why.

Kate: How many points for “gold-digger”?

Meghan: How many for “frigid bitch”?

Hyphenated words are not permitted in scrabble.

Kate get 15 points for her two words and Meghan gets 23. Play on

How the working royals measure up by hours worked.

Here's another possible baby name for Soho Bébé aka Baby Sussex, in case it's a girl:

Alexandrina

It's Queen Victoria's true first name. Plus, with Alexander being one of Prince George's middle names, Duke Dim and Duchess Deluded might not want to pick a name being the female version of one of Prince George's names, Alexander, but yet similar to one of HM's middle names (Alexandra).

Btw, I would've loved George to be called Alexander instead of, well, George. Was Alexander perhaps the true favourite name with William and Kate, who eventually decided to bow down to tradition by using a 'traditionally royal' name?

Yes, Alexander was reported to be Kate's choice but QE2 overruled her. What I don't get is Louis. Will they call him Lou; or Louie, or Lewis, or LouEE?

Alexandrina will not be chosen. My bet is on Elizabeth, Caroline or Victoria for a girl; Phillip or Charles for a boy.

In British English it’s pronounced Louie r12.

I like Sophie, she looks good, dresses nice and from what I've read on much less of a budget and seems to do a lot engagement wise. I read on one of these threads that she had some "early mis steps". What were the early missteps, anyone know?

Tbf, using one of the first-born's middle names as a first name for the second son as in Louis' case is a bit, well, meh.

They should've picked Arthur instead of Louis. On the other hand, it's also one of Prince William's middle names, so perhaps this was the reason this name was NOT chosen as the boy's first name.

I wonder what name they would come up with in case they got ANOTHER son.

Picking one of the first-born's middle names as the first name of the second-born son is, tbf, a bit meh.

As his first name, they should've picked Arthur instead of Louis.

On the other hand, Arthur is one of William's middle names, so perhaps this is why they decided NOT to choose Arthur.

I'm with R8 on the Scrabble game. In the words of Noel Coward, "With our deep subconscious minds we seldom dabble/But something must impel/The words we spell when we're playing Scrabble".

Also, significant that Kate went out shooting at things for the first time we know about when Sparkle finally left?

Did Fergie get an invite to Christmas this year? She’s gotten a few invites, I believe she makes her appearances on days that Prince Philip isn’t there, and that she doesn’t stay at the main house.

What about Mathilda and Patricia for the Sussex spawn? These are names of former princesses after all, too.

Same goes for Frederick, Adolphus (lol), Alastair (lol), Victor and Octavius (lol), in case it will be a boy.

When asked if she minded not being invited with the others to Christmas, Fergie said the girls came over later or whenever, and I think she's got loads of friends. She is biding her time.

When Sophie married Edward she was a high up, maybe an owner, in a public relations and/or advertising firm. One of the tabloids got proof (a tape?) of her offering access to the BRF to a potential client if the client signed on. She was accused of selling access and worse. She resigned and became a dutiful royal wife and rehabilitated herself to the extent that it's well known she is HM's favorite daughter-in-law. They are very close.

r21 Thanks.

On another site, it was mentioned that they did indeed play Scrabble, but that it turned viscous almost immediately, with Kate trying to maintain her calm while Meghan pushed her buttons with various words she chose, such as "waity" and "stewardess". From these reports, it culminated in a physical altercation in one of the fountains out in front of the big house at Sandringham, with Camilla egging Kate on from the sidelines and Prince Philip laughing about the tenacity of his "new little blackmoor". Apparently, Queen Elizabeth was so furious that she's cutting both their haute couture allowances each by £100K for the next five weeks, no matter what engagements they have planned. Additionally, I heard that she told Meghan if any of her children come out with even remotely brown skin-tone, she'll need to chuck them back. Kate supposedly laughed very hard at that one. So hard that her vagina bone got bruised and the family doctor, Dr. Capability Brown, had to be called in to the estate on Boxing Day, no less, when Meghan and Kate were set to go on their first shopping outing together at Peter Jones in Norfolk. The whole thing is so sad, and as everyone knows, it's all Prince Andrew's fault.

Louis is also one of William’s names, R16. If you want to hear how they pronounce it, R12, you can replay the vows at W&K wedding, where Kate says Will’s full name.

For Sohibebe, I like:

Margaret Louise for a girl

Julian Henry for a boy

Though I suppose “Julian” isn’t especially royal.

Julienne Dupree ftw, works for both sexes.

R24, hmmm, true - so there goes my theory on how they ended up with Louis instead of picking Arthur. Thanks nevertheless, it's good to learn something new.

For a boy, Dim and Deluded might pick William, at least as one of the middle names. If so, William can hardly deny being the godfather.

Is Margaret considered a bad luck name?

It’s quite pretty, but you don’t see it used much since Princess Margaret’s “reign” of terror.

SohoBebe needs to be called Doria II. The meltdown would be epic.

[quote]it turned viscous almost immediately

With the addition of cornstarch?

Margaret is far too conservative for Mega's liking.

Given her appreciation of marijuana and booze, she'll love Marguerita though.

Marguerita for a girl, Hemprey for a boy.

So the Queen has banned Annabelle for its association with a night club, sure, Marguerita should go down nicely.

Tungsten for a boy and Tungstina for a girl. There you have it, inspired by Charles' loving nickname for his new DIL.

Ralph and Fanny, very charming traditional names.

Very good, R31.

I think one of Margaret’s granddaughters is named Margarita. Linley’s daughter?

The new baby should be called "Miss Sissy Boodles", a good name for a boy or a girl, and a nice shout-out to Datalounge.

R36, let's not forget about King Ralph with his British royal roots and his American upbringing.

Nicholas and Alexandra. Good luck names.

Fanny and Alexander

Harry and Sally.

Fred and Ethel.

Dumb and Dumber

The person Earl of Snowden's daughter is Margarita. Marguerite was one of the Queen Mother's middle names.

[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.]

Well, that's three clicks I'll never get back....

I'd almost feel sorry for her because the Mail has plainly decided there's money in them thar hates. But I don't feel sorry for her as there seems to be a fair amount of substance to what they write. Poor, dim Harry... duped by one of the oldest stories in the book.

More and more it all feels like it turns into this...

R47 This story was done to death on BRF thread 12. DM is repeating a Vanity Fair story from two weeks ago. This story is so dead it's beyond flies. I'd say the bones are bleached.

A girl: Beyonce. A boy: Barack.

The Queen chasing William

Look how happy they all look, R55.

I think the little girl skipping (on the left) may be Zara who is just a bit older than William.

Look at all the guys in the chef uniforms also wishing them well, R55.

R41 - Da!

After all, they WERE family.

I love the look on the Queen's face in the chase pic. Half 100% grandmother, half the kid's an heir to the throne!

R12 - "Louis" was the first name of Charles' deeply beloved great-uncle and mentor, Lord Louis Mountbatten, Philip's uncle, who was murdered by the IRA. So "Louis" has huge significance for Charles, particularly as he was turned into a martyred war hero. First Earl Mountbatten of Burma, the last Viceroy of India, and Supreme Allied Commander in the Souteast Asia Command in WWII. So that's why the presence of Louis in William's sons.

And something of a party boy who swung merrily in both directions. His wife, Countess Mountbatten allegedly had a hot affair with Nehru.

r53 - Yes, it was- the fact that the DM is fobbing us off with this stale biscuit is alarming: it must mean they've run out of shit to throw at Meghan.

R55 My fave post so far.

I love how the Queen is determined to catch William with a strong quick run, but also maintain the gracefulness with which she carries her purse and gloves.

[quote] it must mean they've run out of shit to throw at Meghan.

It may have. But I wouldn't count on it lasting.

True, R62, but if you watch, after she's grabbed William's hand, she looks over to check on the little skipping girl (Zara?) as well.

I love the gif in R55. The Queen took off to catch William, and then the other ladies in the crowd followed her lead, running to keep up with HM. They don't realize that William is in danger, and they're enjoying the emotion and spontaneity in the jog. At left, Diana is smiling, too, as she runs, but then her facial expression suddenly changes when she notices that William is getting too close to the carriage.

In the late 80s, there were plenty of articles about how William was a naughty kid, and Harry was the shy, quiet one who followed him. They would eventually reverse roles.

Prince William was age 4 and the youngest of the pages at the wedding.

Zara was age 5 and the youngest of the bridesmaids.

He'd had a long day... of misbehaving....

equal opportunity offender...

stiff upper lip fail:

R61 That can't be the case.

There's must be more to come. The DM is teasing us with the possibility of a February birth. That could mean Meghan was pregnant before the wedding: the hussy. I'm sure Kate and William were chaste in all the years they lived together. As were Jack and Eugenie. The idea of a non-virginal royal bride is unheard of and the possibility will be debated ad nauseam.

If there's nothing there for the moment, they'll make something up. The DM slapped up an old picture of Kate with a gun to say she was part of the Boxing Day hunt, sans proof. The story about Kate and Meghan playing scrabble has taken off with nothing but an "exclusive" from The Sun, that paragon of journalistic integrity.

Chip and Dale

Let's keep playing Kate and Meghan Scrabble.... couple of posts up there made me chuckle...

Kate: 5 for the V, and one each for E, N, and T so that's eight!

Meghan: and 1 for T, 4 for an H, 1 each for the O and the N, and two for the G. So that's nine. One ahead of you!

Kate: Which reminds me P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T... there's fourteen! I do love this game.

[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.]

R72:

Meghan: What do I get for D E M A N D I N G on a triple word score?

Kate : Frogmore Cottage.

Charles, ever the Edwardian sportsman, seen here "water skiing" circa 1970

R72 had Kate leading with 37 to Meghan's 31 (Why did M miss a turn?)

But then at R75 Meghan came back hard. Kate only gets 10 for cottage because Frogmore is a proper noun. Meghan's triple word score gives her 42 (Maybe waking at 5 a.m. does have its merits)

Current totals

Kate 47; Meghan 73

The game is afoot. Play on.

We won't be hearing much about Meghan for a while now, will we? She'll be gone on maternity leave for 6 months. Unless she devises some way to get exposure outside of her RF duties. There's only so many times she can go to that soup kitchen.

[quote]Unless she devises some way to get exposure outside of her RF duties.

Gee, do you think she could?

I'm sure she wants everyone to see her huge belly with Diana's grandkid inside. Since she can't post pics of herself on social media, then she has to either make a surprise appearance somewhere or arrange to get papped.

r71

please let me profess my endless love to you! never leave DL!

The DM must be getting desperate for sure. That photo of Kate out in the field with a gun is before the engagement, if I remember, let alone after the wedding.

The story about Meghan being due in February is being carried by other outlets, as well, however. I'm not an obstetrician but I would be very surprised if she had been pregnant before or after the wedding, not only because she'd be on the point of delivery NOW, but because at all costs they would want to avoid the slightest appearance that Harry was shotgunned into a marriage and couldn't have backed out if he'd wanted to, especially after the engagement when Meghan began showing her true colours.

I don't think the issue was a "virginal" bride, contrary to deliberate obtuseness of the poster upthread. The issue would have been one of being respectful enough of the conventions not to make fools of the BRF and the UK taxpayer, who shelled out two million quid for the security for their wedding. Or did you think Thomas Markle, Sr., paid for it?

The story about how Jessica Mulroney as she advised MeAgain on her new wardrobe (whose cost has exceeded every other HRH in Europe for the year) "used Kate's style for tips but consciously avoided copying her" is nothing short of hilarious, because Sparkle with her thick middle, low-placed breasts, and pathetic bird legs couldn't wear Kate's short skirts, nipped in waists, and clean tailoring without looking like a kid dressed in her Mum's clothes for a lark.

So it does appear as if they're rapidly running out of ammo.

*very surprised if she had been pregnant before or just AT the wedding (not after) R82

Harry didn’t wanted to marry her according to Charles himself . But If she was preggers he couldn’t say no could he ! I ’m saying this for a long time but nobody believed me ! She wanted the fairytale wedding even she had to become pregnant for this to happen . Remember the Wedding dress who was to big at her breasts ? But hey I was a looney for saying this . And trust me she wanted it to happen . And I even think she had a miscarriage after the Wedding . Remember she looked really rough and Harry too after their Wedding . And now she uses a surrogate . It will be due in april 2019 .

[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.]

Jesus James his girlfriend really looks old . Wasn’t he the gay one ? It reeks like a bearding situation 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.]

When did Charles say he didn't want Harry to marry MM?

The busiest royal yet again. Anne in a jaunty hat.

Georgie is very afraid and holds on tight.

Dig the outfit Anne is wearing with her parents here.

R88, never! R84 was just making that up. You realize over half this thread is just made up, right?

I think the Queen was quite pretty in her youth.

R84 - Please provide a link to any reliable source in which the media savvy Charles revealed that Harry really didn't want to marry Meghan Markle. As for being pregnant at the wedding, that is absurd - if she were even six weeks along on 19 May, she would be delivering NOW. The dress was too big because it was poorly tailored (if you think houses like Givenchy make clothes the way they used to, think again), and badly designed for a woman with a nearly impossible figure: no waist, low placed tits, and the decision to add a long trailing white veil, as if she were a fucking virgin on her first marriage.

Making up a miscarriage for the reason she isn't on the point of delivering that baby she was pregnant with AT the wedding is also absurd. There is no proof of either whatsoever.

What you choose to believe is your own business, but expecting others to respect wild conjecture without offering any proof but bullshit made up by obsessives like skippyisheretostay is quite another.

And I say this as someone who would put very little past Meghan Markle in her desperate quest for a last shot at global fame having failed to achieve it as she aged out of the one decent role she ever had.

But there is such a thing as logic. Charles wouldn't have said any such thing anywhere that he could be heard. And if he had, the DM would have it up there in 14pt. type.

Here are some photos and information on the Kent royals - Marina, Edward, Alexandra and Michael.

If you don't want to be discovered, do you wear hats and sunglasses while swimming in Jamaica? Duh.

The Queen Mum with her daughters Elizabeth and Margaret. The photo was taken by Cecil Beaton.

R78 - I agree. As she enters her third trimester and they plan their move to Frogmore Cottage, the most news will probably be the announcement of her "patronages", a spate of engagements showing how active and dedicated she is despite being seven months gone, and then at least 3 months' maternity leave and setting up their household at Frogmore. Then, of course, there will be the christening, great Christians that she and Harry are, who never set foot inside a church unless it's in company with the Queen surrounded by paps at Christmas or Easter, or at some big observance at the Abbey.

How delicious would it be if Kate showed up at little Charles' and/or Elizabeth's early summer christening in, say, royal blue with a large cartwheel hat, instead of the obligatory pastels that Meghan somehow didn't get the memo about for Louis's christening?

I may be in the minority but I've always thought that the Queen was better looking than Margaret. Her face had softer features to me. Margaret's large blue eyes were bigger than the Queen's but her nose was longer and her mouth was larger than her elder sister.

Another Cecil Beaton portrait of Elizabeth and Margaret.

Charles said so in his bio ! I read it in the DT threads . So don’t be mad .

Eugenie had to postpone her wedding so Mr and Mrs Toad could marry . Odd n’est ce pas ? So it could be that she was preggers ar the time or a month before the wedding . She was desperate and when the guy you’re with is on drugs and alcohol its not so farfetched that she could get herself pregnant .

If the Sussex baby is a girl (which is my guess), I think the couple may choose something like Eleanor. Eleanor is a name that would honor both of their heritages. Eleanor is a old royal name (eg. Eleanor of Aquitaine was Queen of England) and it was also a name of America's admired social activist first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt.

^ First Lady

Amal vs. Meghan. Sorry Duchess, Amal Clooney does it much better.

Trust me the BRF is in on it . Why they have to go to Frogmore Cottage ? To be out of everyones spying eyes . To deliver the baby as far as possible from London . They having a surrogate baby these two .

As far as possible from London would be the Shetland Islands. Windsor, 30 minutes drive and swarming wit( tourists? No.

Diana's eyes.

I'm not a fan of Camilla but she seems down-to-earth enough to let a little girl take her picture.

Ummm, ok. Whatever.

We may be able to decifer when the Sussex baby was conceived by two things: the day of birth and the weight of the child.

R96 You do know that hats and sunglasses can be used to shade people from the tropical sun, right?

When Meghan provides such good material to hate, like this striped camping tent, why must one quibble about wearing sunglasses at the beach?

^ decipher

R85 Thanks, that was me who asked.

I agree with R99, I’ve never understood all the fuss over Princess Margaret being such a ‘great beauty’.

It was pity-praise R114.

Charles swinging Camilla's granddaughter.

Charles and Camilla as young children.

Belly laughing.

R102 Technically Eugenie's wedding was moved for Harry not Meghan. He's a senior working royal and Eugenie is not. In the age of television, most royal weddings are in spring/summer because it's more likely to have good weather and lots of light for the cameras. Regardless of who he had married, Harry's wedding would generate more media interest than Eugenie's and would take precedence.

Harry and Meghan's wedding was planned for 6 months after the engagement was announced so they couldn't have been planning it based on a pregnancy unless they planned to have Meghan in maternity wear. Besides, for long-time royal watchers, one of the most alarming things about the 2017 Vanity Fair interview was its forthrightness. Meghan shut down her blog, stopped posting on social media and then gave a "farewell to acting" interview where she as good as announced that they were engaged.

[quote] “I’m sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time. This is for us. It’s part of what makes it so special, that it’s just ours,”

Her statement doesn't prevaricate on the future of the relationship and she speaks on behalf of the couple. If her statements were not allowed by the queen, Harry would have been forced to end things or step aside.

If this were a shotgun wedding, she would have to have been pregnant before she did the interview in June 2017. Meghan may think she's special but I doubt her meditation can get her to pull off a longer gestational period than an elephant.

To give you an idea of the estimated conception dates for February births...

February 1 — May 12

February 15 — May 26

February 28 — June 8

If Meggers does give birth in February, they'll simply say it was a premature birth.

I would love answers to the following, if anyone can help. 1. Has the Queen give home to any other grandchildren than William and Harry? If not, did she give Harry one because he is Charles'son? 2. Is Anne's marriage one of convenience.? They never look happy together. 3. Is the Midldleton marriage troubled? 4. Why do we so rarely see Camilla's children?

R122 here. Sorry for the errors above. I have Parkinson's.

No idea about the other questions, but the answer to question no. 4 is pretty simple: Camilla's children are irrelevant to the crown. Additionally, it's very likely they want to be kept out of the royal limelight. Once in a while there's, say, a pic of Charles playing with one of Camilla's grandchildren to keep the press satisfied - and in return, the press leaves them alone.

It works pretty well with the Cambridges, so I think there's a similar agreement re Camilla's family.

Have there been any recent Camilla sightings?

[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 so wish someone would treat Camilla to a bra-fitting for her next birthday.

Yes, and take Eugenie with her, R127.

R122 - I'll have a go at replying to your questions.

1) Indirectly...The Queen gave Anne Gatcombe Park and as far as I know Peter and Zara live on her estate. They didn't receive any home of their own. Remember Anne and Mark Phillips didn't want titles so their children have no titles and do not carry out official duties. Will and Harry are the direct heirs of Charles so they would have to have some place of their own.

2) If I remember correctly, Anne was still married/separated from her first husband Mark Phillips when love letters between her and Timothy Lawrence were publicized and the public became aware of the relationship. (I guess she figured if Mark fooled around, she would too). Anne and Tim got married quietly at Crathie Church on the Balmoral estate soon after her divorce. So while the relationship began as a love match, there have been rumors that they are now leading separate lives. She's the busiest working royal so she's away from home alot. Tim accompanies her sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised if she's seeing someone else on the side and maybe he is too. I don't know if she'd want to embarrass the Queen again with her second divorce so maybe she'll wait until her mother dies to do it.

3) Will and Kate are pretty solid so I think their marriage is successful so far. He's very close to her family.

4) Camilla's children are not royal so no one cares about them. Their mother went through hell when Charles and Diana were divorcing and she was THE ROTTWEILER so they're very wary of the press. They keep out of the spotlight. I think Charles probably sees Camilla's children/grandchildren MORE than his own.

Hope these replies answer your questions.

R120 is for sure a guy because he didn't calculate correctly. This is why you shouldn't take anything about pregnancy written on this site as remotely factual without a source.

R129: Thanks.

R122, R129 didn’t the Queen give Eugenie and her husband a residence in KP? Although it was reported that after the wedding they were seen shopping for a bigger apartment in London. And before moving in with Brooksbank, Eugenie and Beatrice shared an apartment at St James’s Palace.

And I think R122 was referring to Carole and Michael’s marriage when asking if the Middleton marriage was in trouble. I never heard of any discord between them except here on DL.

R122 Tom Parker Bowles writes in the mail on Sunday magazine as a food and wine critic and is well known in his own right. I will check the others. I think they are established and settled, really.

there have been zero substantive rumors regarding Michael and Carol. I'm sure they've had tough days (as every couple does) and being catapulted to fame added stress, but otherwise they've come off as a normal and stabilizing force. Michael seems introverted or at least happy being in the background.

Margaret was very attractive and stylish but I never bought the “great beauty” thing.

And you are for sure a dolt, r130. There's no link because I used PrognoCIS.

LMP 4/27 — the estimated fertility window is 5/7 to 5/17 with an estimated conception date of 5/12 and an estimated due date of 2/1.

LMP 5/11 — the estimated fertility window is 5/21 to 5/31 with an estimated conception date of 5/28 and an estimated due date of 2/15.

LMP 5/24 — the estimated fertility window is 6/3 to 6/13 with an estimated conception date of 6/8 and an estimated due date of 2/28.

If you had bothered to look at the chart contained in your link, you would see that the dates are the exactly the same as what I posted.

Carole Middleton is interesting, as is the whole Kate/William meetup in college. Was Carole really crazy into getting William to fall for Kate? Or was she like all of the mothers whose daughters went to the same university? Is there a definitive story on what really happened?

R130. Male doctors have been estimating due dates within the margin of error for a long time.

R120 did say it was an estimate, and that he or she was putting out possible conception dates.

The difference of 1 day between the estimates at R120 and the calendar at R130 is negligible.

There's a difference of 15 days from the John's Hopkins site you provided which is using the start of the first day of the menstrual cycle. That's not the same as the date of conception. Using the Johns Hopkin calendar,

1 first day of the last period was April 27 = approx due date February 1= approx ovulaton date of May 11

A proper bra fitting for Camilla, hear hear! Although sometimes I think Kate’s bras fit a little too well. She looked so “perky” on her wedding day, I found it distracting.

I have often noticed, without intending to, Kate's nipples showing through her clothes. Her coats are either bespoke or custom tailored, so they fit her like a dress. I noticed her nipples on her wedding gown as well.

Better to be 'perky' than to be pompous and pretentious like the merching MEGalomaniac.

Twins come earlier than singles so there’s that; especially if they’ve already safely scheduled the date for a caesarean.

No way she'll have a c-section - having a caesarean would prevent her from stepping out and showing off the spawn.

^^^Or she could spin it for maximum publicity that her life was in danger so an emergency section was necessary.

I delivered in in a Western European country whose medical system is very much like the British. My caesarean was at 11:25 pm and the midwives (what they call their particular brand of nurses on staff for obstetrics woke me and had me walking befire 7am. They told it speeds up recovery and healing to walk so soon. By noon I was capable of getting up to go to the bathroom by myself (as soon as they removed the catheter). As an American this was quite an eye opener in differences but damn if I seemed to do okay. They also cut off meds after the one and only round they gave me following my spinal block—none even when they removed the staples less than 24 hours later.

I think Kate was going for the bullet bra look on her wedding day. I don't think that was her nipple showing through. I prefer Kate's pre wedding bosom.

In other words, if healthy with no complications it is conceivable for Meghan to pap walk the baby(ies) for the public the next day or so—or at the very least by the time they are ready to be discharged from the hospital.

Sorry, last thought, but I also delivered in a paying private clinic so perhaps not too dissimilar to Meghan’s own privileged medical care.

[quote]In other words, if healthy with no complications it is conceivable for Meghan to pap walk the baby(ies) for the public the next day or so—or at the very least by the time they are ready to be discharged from the hospital.

And the great news is that if she's still got that post-baby bump belly, she has a closet full of ill fitting clothes that are perfect for the still recovering figure.

R140 Time to have your eyes checked, deary. Those are princess seams, not nipples.

I love how today's articles focusing on fashion and Mulroney, pretend the problem with Megsy's fashion is she has been dressing too much like Kate. Yes, that would explain the slit up to her hip bone in Fiji (or were they still in Australia), the visible strapless bra strangling her boobs, and merching the camisole by unbuttoning her top at the Straubenzee wedding. Too demure.

R101 - which bio? Pick out the sentence and show me where Charles is quoted as saying Harry didn't really want to marry Meghan Markle.

R143 - C-sections are notoriously hard on women's bodies, particularly older women. Losing baby weight is hard enough normally, and with Meghan running to fat the way she does in the bottom, hips, and thighs already, she'll have quite the job getting back into shape if she has a C-section. Given her publicised concerns about getting back into shape in that "pregnancy agreement" she forced on Trevor Engelson, I doubt she's unaware of what a C-section would do to her figure.

None of this is an issue if there's a surrogate. It doesn't matter if the mother is legally the baby's mother and you can't pay in the U.K. or whatever - nobody is going to enforce the law, acknowledge it has been broken, or tell the truth where this situation is concerned and the BRF will be hear no evil, see no evil, etc.

But I think it's IVF anyway. Although the "development" of this pregnancy has been incredibly bizarre. She wasn't showing, she announced it, and the next day she's full on. That is fucking ridiculous.

I laughed out loud on the train, R75.

R155 More like she wasn't showing, went full on, and then announced it

No, she wasn't showing when she got off the plane with her binders, wasn't showing just days before, announces it, then BAM. The Eugenie wedding was bullshit - she kept the bottom buttons open to create the silhouette that wasn't there yet.

Re the surrogate storyline in R155.

The BRF are willing to lie to the British public and pay off doctors for Meghan Markle because...?

The doctors/nurses are willing to falsify medical records because...?

The BRF would open themselves up to the ongoing uncertainty of being caught in a criminal conspiracy on Meghan's behalf because...?

The week before the maternity coat stunt at Eug’s wedding and the immediate announcement she was wearing a fitted lambskin pencil skirt. Quite the maternity wear for that bump so huge it required holding with both hands 24/7.

While I don’t sign onto conspiracy theories, there is something weird about this pregnancy. Can’t put my finger on it. That said, I extend my sincerest wishes for a healthy baby.

Baby Sussex has my sincere sympathy with those 2 as parents.

Hope baby gets a loving nanny (assigned by the Queen) who tell the 2 moronic parents to fuck off.

Meghan definitely looks pregnant. Gaining weight, bloated, etc.

But in about 6 weeks she went from looking not pregnant at all to looking 8 months pregnant.

In fact, at the senior citizens center, Sparkle was larger than my sister was right before she gave birth. (They are similar height and build.)

Mrs Toad is not bloated or has swollen ankles and feet nor swollen breasts . She has still chicken legs to this day.

Regarding mysteries that the BRF conceal - anyone have any info on the suicide of the nurse who shared info on Kate's stay at the maternity hospital?

Two weeks before she was going on that Aussie tour she was wearing a pencil thin leather skirt or you all have forgotten this already ! She wasn’t pregnant than . And than boom she was walking with a bump fake or real ? Before the tour she was going to Amsterdam for the opening of Soho House and party with the elite !

In the panel discussion with Kate and MM, just weeks before Kate gave birth, you could really see the effects of pregnancy on Kate - her face was hugely bloated, like a really overweight woman.

You can clearly see she is wearing padding in this picture. Not saying she isn't pregnant. But she has definitely been wearing padding to accentuate her bump.

Another angle. Ever see a square belly before?

I think that she used padding on the tour so that her pregnancy was the focus. Why she's using it now is anyone's guess. Wouldn't she be big enough now not to need it? Re the BRF being willing to lie, I don't think they know for sure what is going on. Traditionally, the palace would have formally confirmed the birth month by now and they have not done so. They did so for Kate.

R170, didn’t she refuse to let the royal gyno examine her? I do wonder about that.

And as far as refusing a C-section: you can plan to do without one, but sometimes you don’t have a choice. (Maybe she’ll be able to avoid one in the UK, but doctors in the US demand it at the merest hint of complication.) And, of course, you can always choose it from the start, because it’s more convenient for the doctor.

Yes, there was a preemptory article about refusing gyno and all Palace participation, not using the customary hospital, even possibly doing a home birth, out of sight. I dont think St. Doria was mentioned, but seems llikely she would take control.

A water one would be best for the tadpoles.

There is no mystery r165. An Australian radio show host prank called the hospital. The nurse who answered was mortified that she’d fallen for it. She committed suicide. Her family were devastated but said she had already been depressed. There, nothing to do with the BRF and no mystery.

In today's pile on the Mail notes Meme's "£400k wardrobe: How the duchess wore new clothing worth FIVE times more than any other royal woman in Europe in 2018 - while Kate's spend was a modest £68K" but cheerfully counterbalances with "Meghan could have her baby at the same hospital where doctors saved Sophie Wessex from dying during the birth of daughter Lady Louise 15 years ago". So there's that.

R172 haha just good for the little toads !

R174 - Oh, it's clear she married Harry only out of love - not for a 500,000 quid wardrobe and her face plastered on magazines across the globe.

Camilla and The Queen both wear their tits too low and too spread out. They could use some lift.

Well, they havent been on any physical mag covers in the US aside from the virginal wedding, and whatever People is paid to do, so I'm not so sure her "face is plastered around the globe." When I saw the 30 or so glossy mags arrayed at the grocery checkput since last fall, I made a point to ascertain that she has not been featured. Honestly, the Hazbeans do very very little that is newsworthy -- the wedding yeah, to announce we wont be seeing Haz parade his drunken dick around, hopefully, and the tadpoles when they hop out of wherever, but their publicity has been more along the lines of damage control as opposed to setting the international scene on fire. MEH.

R177 must be a man unfamiliar with women's bodies. Or a fashionista who abhors normal women.

Prince Philip (aka The Grim Reaper) fooling around. It's amazing that he can still do his horse and carriage riding at such an advanced age.

Three beautiful photos of Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

I've always thought that Princess Anne and her first husband Mark Phillips had some of the best royal engagement photos ever. Here is one - just the two of them and their dog sitting in the grass. Sometimes less is more.

R179 There's no excuse for Camilla's silhouette.

I'm quite familiar with normal women's bodies of diverse ages and cup sizes. Camilla's breasts look like they're reaching for the floor. Dianne Keaton is 72 and her bras don't settle her bosom at her navel. Madeleine Albright is 81 and her chest isn't hanging out at her belt either.

Camilla has a preference for soft lacy bras that sometimes show through her clothing and do not provide nearly enough support to give a flattering shape. Get that woman to a bra-specialist ASAP.

Don't even get me started on Eugenie's reception dress that made her breasts look like they were large magnets repelling each other.

Its been a long standing criticism of Cam that she has a terrible allergy to well fitted foundation undergarments. Her clothes are beautifully tailored, her hair well-coiffed, Charles has given her (and the Queen loaned her) the most gorgeous jewels. It's all marred by the noticeably sagging, misshapen bosom.

Some of Camilla's clothes are gorgeous. They are elegant and expensive looking. I personally adore her hats. Imagine if all this were worn by a beautiful, slim woman.

It's clear that Camilla's Fashion Rule #1 is Comfort. She wears those dresses and gowns that have almost no silouette whatsoever, all made of flowy, drapy fabric that is often bias-cut. It's no surprise she feels the same way about what's holding up her tits.

Another Meghan thread got deleted. The one about her serving joints at her Jamaican wedding.

And now the thread about Harry begging his Dad to help restore Meghan's reputation has been closed after 36 posts.

R187, I swear she has an intern captive, whose sole job it is to shut down all dissent/criticism. Or more likely it’s the PR firm who takes care of Beyoncé and JLo and Barbara Streisand. I’ve read a few choice comments in gossip forums and websites and cannot find them again. They’re gone from the internet.

^^ Barbra

Please forgive

[quote]Camilla and The Queen both wear their tits too low and too spread out. They could use some lift.

Jesus, they are both about a million years old. Gravity cuts them more slack.

[quote]Some of Camilla's clothes are gorgeous. They are elegant and expensive looking. I personally adore her hats. Imagine if all this were worn by a beautiful, slim woman.

Funnily enough, I think you almost have to a woman of Camilla's various dimensions to carry off much of what she wears. Not disputing it is lovely, but it is also often wildly over the top. Somehow it suits big bosomed, fat assed, saggy, wrinkly, rode hard and put away wet Camilla. I struggle to see a slimmer, more beautiful woman carrying it off... it would look like she's aiming for attention. On Camilla it just kind of seems... so Camilla. Can't explain it better. Maybe the only parallel is the Queen Mother's look... she pulled it off... it would just look odd on most other mortals.

Look below... she carries it off... Kate's hat, to me, looks too much... busy, big, it's wearing her. Which is typically Meme's big problem.

Because she doesn't ask them before she does it, and it's done, and they let her in, and what are they going to do? Extend a pointy finger, announce they and Harry were hustled, and banish her? They'll look the other way.

If nobody knows, it didn't happen. They've operated that way for plenty of other things. Andrew has done plenty of illegal, at least monetarily.

NOBODY is coming for the BRF. Even now none of the press admits she's merching because it would beg the question why does the BRF let her merch and the answer to that is a can of worms, right?

Even how the media phrased it "Meghan WORE clothes WORTH" or "SAID TO BE WORTH" vs. "She spent." cause they know she didn't buy them. But they don't come out and report it, not even the Times of London. Yet it's a real story, the number and amount of outfits she's hustled this past year. In Canada, Sophie Trudeau was busted in the media for just ONE little Birks quid pro quo. The Briitish media? NOT. They don't come for the BRF for real shit. They come for the BRF for soap opera shit so they can change the narrative when need be to sell papers.

R193 I think MM probably does borrow a lot of her clothing in exchange for the exposure. I don't KNOW this. The only way to know this is to have detailed accounting records, which aren't available to the public. The only thing reported said that Charles spent around 1 million pounds more this last year. The other way is if someone at the fashion houses ratted her out, unlikely that will happen. I also don't think it's a big deal if she is doing it. The clothing she and Kate wear sell out fast. Everyone had to hide their valuables from Queen Mary. I least designers get something out of this arrangement.

[QUOTE] Everyone had to hide their valuables from Queen Mary

I think this is a little misunderstood. I don’t think Queen Mary would put her eye on just anything. She was a fastidious collector and had a real memory for details so if she visited some duke’s pile and saw that he had, say, a porcelain miniature that belonged to a larger set that was in the royal collection, THAT’s when she’d pounce. Because she wanted the pieces reunited. Same with old portaits and whatnot. She was a very good historian so she knew what was significant to her family and the nation, why let it hang on some unrelated peer’s wall when the painting is of family?

I agree with r179

Sorry r183 but there are people who are short-waisted and whose breasts are not naturally high-set even when they are young. There’s nothing wrong with their bodies even if you find the proportions aesthetically lacking. and nobody has the right to tell Camilla (or any other person for that matter) what kind of undergarments she must wear. Maybe she feels uncomfortable in the sort of garments that offer ‘more support’? she always looks well-groomed and stylish. Her underwear is nobody’s business.

It sometimes seems to me that some people have been conditioned to think that a woman having her breasts pulled up to her chin (almost) is somehow the best, the most ‘right’ or ‘flattering’ or ‘best-looking’ whatever. Reminds me of that ancient Chinese tradition of binding feet so that they’d be ‘most flatteringly tiny’.

Tl;dr if you dare tell me what to do with my breasts (provided i’m not guilty of indecent exposure – which never happens to me) it’s PISTOLS AT DAWN. Even though i’m not camilla

For heavens sake how did "Camilla should wear a more supportive bra" become linked to Qing dynasty foot binding?

Nobody is telling Camilla what to wear. This is a gossip site. People give opinions and speculate about the BRF. MY opinion is that Camilla's breasts hang down to her ankles and she would look better with a more supportive bra.

Kate has a long torso and relatively short legs for her height. This is evident in her pre wedding clothing choices. Natasha Archer's brilliance has been in styling Kate to accentuate her shapely legs and add the illusion of elongating them. In the early days that was done with shorter hemlines.Recently it has been in shortened waistlines and cropping her jackets. I consider the tartan skirt Kate wore in December to be excellently styled. The fullness of the skirt adds volume to her ever-shrinking frame. The length gives the appearance of long legs and the solid black in the top and the boots draw the eyes into a vertical line. Simple and masterful.

Camilla on the other hand most often goes for sagging boobs, lumpy undergarments and dresses that have abandoned the very idea of a waistline. She does however have an excellent hairstyle for large tiaras and wears them stunningly.

I couldn't care less what you do with your sagging tits so you'll be standing with your pistols at dawn all on your own.

R196 = saddlebags

Princess Eugenie, Princess Beatrice

Name him Meghan! Name your son!

I disagree, R192. Carole Middleton's outfit at Kate's wedding was very Camilla-esque and she was by far the smartest looking person in the wedding party. I love Camilla's beautifully crafted coat dresses and suits. It would be hard for anyone except maybe Joan Collins to pull off the big pink cartwheel hat, however.

The marijuana wedding favours thread has not been closed.

R202, there was a longer one that disappeared.

R192, I think Kate decided to wear that rather large hat because of her facial features back then. Let's not forget, she had been given birth to Louis not long ago and still had a fuller face. Which actually suits her pretty well - facially, she looked just gorgeous back when she was pregnant with George. In her late second and third trimester, she was blooming and glowing, having a fuller face. You can't recreate that particular glow with facials, fillers and the like - it takes just a bit of fat and water in your cheeks to create that look.

YOU cannot compare a woman like Camilla to Diane Keaton. Camilla had children. That always affects the breasts.

I'm sorry for being late with my reply, but I just saw R54 and R67, and oh! Papa! To be FOUR and still so unprofessional! I blush for him, subjects.

Fortunately he has grown up rather better, and of course when he inherits the Crown he will have me there to ensure everything is tickety-boo, so be of good heart.

I never tire of reading and looking at photos or documentaries about the generations preceeding Elizabeth II. Queen Mary and that crowd are fascinating as are all the other royal houses since they were all related to one another thanks to Victoria and Albert. In fact, starting with Victoria, there are some great stories and gossip about her descendants.

R200 gave me a huge belly laugh. Ahhh.

I don’t even mind that MM is merching. It’s just that she usually does it so obviously. Is she merching maternity designers now? That’s actually where it would make sense. Clothing for preggos is so awful and expensive but it’s occasionally necessary. These designers have a captive audience. Perfect!

R207, have you seen the documentary series that starts with this episode, "The Father-in-Law of Europe"? It was the Danish Royals that really tied all the Houses together for the 20th century.

Thanks R209. No, hadn't heard about it.

Not talking about the documentary, but in general, as regards the British Royal Family, I liked the part where they all cowered and refused to let Cousin Nicky and his family stay with them. I can't believe they didn't realize he was going to be murdered and his wife and kids too.

R201, here's the wedding.... CM is in simple, Catherine Walker with minimal white piping and trim, while C is in a sherbet spectrum Anna Valentine, pleated, and with gold trim. She's got a bit going on (and I say that as somebody who thought looked awesome.). My point was more out Camilla's outfits as a whole... it's the hats that are crazy town, consistently... a smaller woman couldn't really carry it off... older bigger ladies, (and you see two below) they have some room to move. Although I concede the Valentine coat dress could have looked good on CM, but not the hat.

At a minimum, you probably wouldn't want to sit behind her at the theatre.

R211 The British Royal Family are not supposed to engage with politics. Had George V offered asylum to Tsar Nicholas and his family, it would have put the British government at odds with the Russian state. In addition, dislike of the royal family's foreign connections was so strong at the time that the BRF changed its name to Windsor. That was certainly not the time to insist on sheltering their Russian relatives. The Romanovs had other relatives in Europe who also declined to rescue them.

R216 that doesn't make it any more heinous. So what if the other families turned them down? They could have at least had him send the kids, or the wife and kids. Who would challenge the right to save children? IMO that will remain a black mark against the Windsors for ever. Other refugees were accepted. Hell, Nicholas' own mother ran out on him.

R193 - I was under the impression that the DM contacted the Palace who only responded by saying that the clothes were "privately purchased". Of course, "privately purchased" suggests Charles and his support for both sons' wives' wardrobes. The word "purchased" isn't arguable, so they are either lying to the public, or Charles really is indulging the sixth in line's ridiculously overblown wardrobe needs, because there is no way Harry could possibly afford these clothes, they come to a bit over his gross annual income of 400,000 quid before Inland Revenue gets through with it.

And it's a safe bet Meghan isn't paying for them.

You also have to factor in that Meghan is still a US citizen and has the tax dilemma about gifts worth above a certain amount hanging over her. I suspect some "arrangement" has been made behind the scenes whereby they are purchased by Charles and then "leant" to his daughter in law.

R217 The Bolsheviks would not have allowed it. Royal kids are heirs to the throne and objects around which monarchists could rally.

R217 you really don’t have any knowledge or insight of the political climate of the time. As for “so what if the other families turned them down?” - so what if the BRF turned them down? Everybody else did. Why are you singling them out for opprobrium?

R219, I get that. But there was a "window" where those kids could have gone on vacation with Granny and Alexandria, and simply never returned. They could have planned for it and done it. Nicholas was adamant that he wanted to keep his family together and Alexandria was an hysterical bitch who refused to leave h im because he "needed" her advice and support . So they were fucked.

R216 - I know. That's all a matter of historical record. But it doesn't change the fact that they left close relatives to a ghastly fate - and, the Bolsheviks, of course, would not necessarily have gone even for a huge ransom, as leaving any of the immediate family alive was a danger in terms of future groups coalescing around them. - very much the way the Tudors for three generations.

The resemblance between George V and Tsar Nicholas was so strong that they looked more like brothers than cousins.

The change of the family name was more directly connected to its German origins - causing the Kaiser to state dryly that he was looking forward to the next performance of "The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

It wasn't one of the BRF's or the British government's finer moments, no matter what the rationale.

Forgot to finish this sentence:

. . .very much the way the Tudors, after the defeat of Richard III, spent three reigns getting rid of as many of the Yorks as possible, refusing permission for them to marry, etc., as they knew full well the Yorks really had the better claim, and till the end of QEI's reign remained fearful of another Yorkist uprising.

In the same way, the leaders of the Russian Revolution felt that leaving any of the immediate family alive risked future challenges to same through a remaining Romanov symbol.

As it is, under Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church is making a startling comeback that no one would have thought possible between 1930-1980.

R221 There was no window for going on vacation in the middle of a revolution. It was either smuggling them out or negotiating their exile/ asylum.

R222 The Romanovs were left to a ghastly fate, but no one knew the fate would be so ghastly when there was that small window of opportunity for them to leave. The Romanovs themselves chose to stay together and so consigned themselves to that fate.

R224 there was a window of opportunity. In fact Nicholas and Alexandria were approached by people within their circle including his mother, who suggested the kids leave "until things settled down." And he and Alexandria felt it would send the wrong signal and make him look weak. I read that in several histories of the Romanovs.

meant to add that this was in early days of the revolution. Yes Nicholas and George V did look like brothers. And they were friends too. They were close.

R225 George V was part of the asylum discussions after the Tsar's abdication in 1917. The family were executed in July 1918. There was no window in that period for the kids to flee.

The window when the Romanov kids could have left the country was much earlier in the unrest when there was much uncertainty. The family's own decision to stay implies that they did not assess the situation to be dire.

R227 - Well, no one, including yours truly, would ever have called the intellectual judgement and capacity for analysis of Nicholas particularly sharp. And the Tsarina was crazed with worry constantly over their one son, the heir, and his haemophilia. It was, i suppose, a perfect storm in the end. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if they had gotten the kids out, especially the two youngest, Alexis and Anastasia. Even if the boy had succumbed after escaping Russia if they had let the two youngest go, Anastasia growing up and having children would have continued the line and offered the same danger to the Revolution.

R222

[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.]

[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.]

The Queen in the Order of St John of Jerusalem. We don't see her in this outfit very often.

Young and old.

Oh the captions I could write about this amusing photo. LOL.

An unusual outfit. Did it come with a cape or did she just wrap a matching shawl around herself and fasten it with a brooch? Whatever it is, I like it.

The Queen is a country woman at heart. Dogs and horses.

Philip looks like he's up to something.

When I think of the Queen, pearls and gloves come to mind.

Lots of silly memes on Instagram that the Queen will die on Jan 5. Some people lead sad lives.

R240 now I look at that face and I See Andrew, no doubt about it.

I don't know if I like this mix of diamond tiara and sapphire necklace. I like matching sets and she does have a sapphire tiara.

The Queen at Balmoral. She has blankets for a picnic perhaps?

A young Diana with a dog.

Charlotte vs. Carole Middleton. I think Louis resembles his maternal grandmother more. Charlotte looks more like William.

The two tone Queen.

Lovely skin.

Gorgeous engagement photo of Anne and Mark Phillips. She never looked so good.

Another beautiful shot of Anne and Mark.

Before the anti-fur campaign took hold.

Princess Anne could give Lady Di's frills some serious competition in her day. Love the big hair.

A video of Charles speaking of his late aunt Princess Margaret.

A gem of a picture. The British Royal Family in 1951.

From left to right: sitting in the front row are Richard of Gloucester (now the Duke), Prince Michael of Kent and the late William of Gloucester (handsomest prince). Seated are Queen Mary, King George VI with 1-year-old Princess Anne on his lap and Queen Elizabeth with Prince Charles standing beside her. I've always believed that Charles was closer to the Queen Mum than the his own mother, the Queen. Standing at the back is Edward, Duke of Kent with Princess Margaret in front of him, Princess Alexandra and Marina of Kent, Henry the Duke of Gloucester, then Princess Elizabeth, Prince Philip and Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

Princess Eugenie clowning around during a photo shoot.

r243

those ain't sapphires, though. but the necklace looks like it's difficult to match with... well anything, i agree

This is my favorite photo of Anne. I think she looks gorgeous, and the menswear look is fantastic on her.

R256 - they may be aquamarines.

Camilla with her late mother Rosalind Shand.

Camilla looks good in blue.

How big is William's willy?

R243 here’s the aquamarine tiara that goes with the necklace.

R261, don't you have enough cock with Harry's, Meghan?

R263 if it fits in one hand it's very disappointing!

R230's article is a really good read.

For R209

Danish King Christian IX who had beautiful daughters who married into the other royal families of Europe. And sons who became kings.

Here is the famous family portrait from 1886.

r258

yup

Not a MMarkle fan, but the Sayonara Zara thing and marijuana joints in the wedding party bags are actually funny and make me like her a tiny bit.

R268 - you seem to be easily pleased. LOL.

R269 well, let’s put it this way, it shows more originality than the whole Party Pieces enterprise, including Pippa M’s book (and I say that as someone who actually likes Kate).

For me that's the issue that lost me on Meghan. Had she stayed true to her grifting, boho Jennifer Aniston-copy roots instead of the fauxmanitarian disingenuous feminism and the fake-ass merching "influencer" bit I might applaud her (former?) qualities that fly in the face of the BRF veneer of gentility.

Handing out dope is “original”? Hardly. And Party Pieces actually was when it was started - a very long time ago. Although Pippa’s book was moronic.

Meghan Markle is not a bad person - she’s just not the person she’s trying to portray herself as. That’s what makes her so dislikable.

R243 - I believe those are Brazilian aquamarines. The Queen does have a beautiful sapphire set with tiara, necklace, chandelier earrings, and ring, but that isn't it.

One sapphire that seems to have disappeared from view very quickly is the Queen Mother's original engagement ring, which consisted of a large Kashmir sapphire set in platinum. She seems to have stopped wearing it very early, replacing it with a large pearl surrounded by diamonds. Kashmir sapphires are (in my view) alone amongst others in their extraordinary colour, and the mines were small and emptied by the late 1930s, I believe. So I'm a bit surprised that this large sapphire ring disappeared from sight.

R247 - isn't that the famous "magpie dress" that was discussed on another thread?

I read that Duke and Duchess of Windsor article, it was amusing. But god, the writer was a bitch! Sounds like the Windsors were nice enough company, and all he could do was trash them.

Anyway, I've never known what to think of the Windsors. It was shocking that he abdicated - I mean, wow- but they did make sort of a go of it.

One thing I simply can't see is the Duchess' famed style. Her outfits all look rather boring to 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.]

[quote]However Mr Markle has said that he will continue to talk: 'Meghan and Harry's silence empowers all the crazy tweets and insults against me and my family.'

He thinks it's because they're silent rather that the fact that he's too chatty which has led to the insults.

I imagine it must be physically painful to have so little self-awareness. And if it's not, it should be.

By now, their relationship is so damaged, he probably doesn't even want to talk to her. He's just trading his sob story for cash from the tabloids.

He's been a lot of fun this week, though. After imploring Kate to be nice to Meghan, he returned to attempting to coerce Meghan into calling him.

I think Lord Snowdon took most of these Anne pictures. He really knew how to do the glam photography. Anne was a fabulous personality with a great figure, but suffered back then in comparison to other princesses such as Caroline of Monaco (who is about 7 years younger but was a fabulous sexy type beauty). She herself was tart on the topic of not being what people expected from a princess. Snowdan's pictures of her made the most of her hair, eyes and figure while angling her to de-emphasize her weaker points, which were her nose and chin.

Oh please, Markle knows exactly what he's doing. He's more self-aware than his horribly spoiled kid. He was ghosted by her long before he opened his mouth, and now she's trying to retcon that he's ghosted BECAUSE he opened his mouth. Bullshit.

She used him relentlessly to build her brand, milking his show business job for all it was worth - and her biracial background as well. I'm sure she borrowed and did not return money, or rather took, as she had to do something to pay the rent in the nine or so unsuccessful years pursuing a career.

She's retconned him out of her life, even lying that she paid her Northwestern tuition with financial aid and work study, rather than acknowledge he paid for her. As far as I'm concerned he has license to say whatever he wants. Every word out of her mouth is a lie or fantasy - he's just as entitled to do the same if he chooses.

And at least HE was successful in his chosen career. When he began to hit the media because of Meghan, and all the sordid antics got backlash from her partisans, GH's Nancy Lee Grahn tweeted that he had been a fabulous lighting director, considerate, talented, beloved, and always always took responsibility for his team. If there was an error, he took the blame, if something got praise, he spread the credit around.

Plenty of people are liked at work but are shitty people, R280. Markle himself implies that until picture-gate they were communicating.

I'm not endorsing Meghan's treatment of her father. I'm merely pointing out that his behaviour is crazy enough to generate insults regardless of the silence from Meghan and Harry.

If H and M were just your average couple living in a small town in England and the bride's father ditched her on her wedding day then while she was still upset with him he started posting public messages demanding that she take his calls, some people would say she was wrong and some people would say he was wrong.

If the father then escalated things by regularly taking out ads in the local paper to tell people all about his grievance with his daughter, some people might still blame his daughter but many people would say, "OK, we've heard you, now give it a rest."

That's similar to what's happened to Mr Markle. That he can't see how he's contributing to people's negative opinion of him speaks to an amazing lack of self-awareness.

If Thomas Markle is such a “shitty person” why was his brat of a daughter smarming all over social media about him for several years? Why was she writing syrupy articles about him on The Tig?

I don’t understand the whole “He must not talk to the media” nonsense. Why not exactly? She talked about him when it suited her “brand” to do so - but he can’t do the same? She hasn’t ascended Mount Olympus to become a goddess by marrying Ginger Nuts - there’s no reason at all why she can’t be talked about by whoever has something to say.

Thomas is talking to the media because Meghan and Harry won’t talk to him - it’s that simple. I don’t believe he’s selling interviews, I think he’s taking exception to the nasty things being written about him and feeling that he has to respond to “set the record straight”. I think he feels that if he only says nice things, what’s the harm?

How that bitch can cast him out like this, I have no idea. So he sold some stupid pap shots. And? She’s done the same thing more than once - and TM did at least have the grace to own what he did and apologise. If the botoxed bride had any decency she would have spoken to her Dad and put out a statement saying something to the effect of, “Look...everyone makes mistakes. He’s my Dad and I love him and will miss him deeply at the wedding”. That’s all she had to say.

But she is a malignant narcissist who cares about nothing and no one except herself. She’s made her bed and now she can fecking lie in it.

^^no lies were told.

R275 The author, James Pope Hennessy, is worth looking into. He led an interesting life, was a great writer, and knew everyone you wanted to know at the time. His death was scandalous— He was found murdered in his house. He was known to pick up shady young men and take them back to his house for a rendezvous and finally one did him in.

The Duchess’ style was praised for its restraint and precision, so it’s easy to see why you would look at photographs of her today and not be able to see what the big deal was. She didn’t dress in a fussy manner (in major contrast to the Queen Mother) and the tailoring was always perfect. She accessorized with a fabulous collection of jewels given to her by the Duke. When you look at her collection, you can really see the wit and whimsy that was said to be a part of her personality. For example, she had a giant jeweled flamingo pin standing on one leg, and simple seashell earrings decorated with jewels and enamel. Occasionally she would break from the austerity of her streamlined dresses and wear something very tongue-in-cheek like Schiaparelli’s famous lobster dress. Her style was elegant, very sophisticated, and never easy to pull off, despite the air of simplicity he clothes seem to have at first glance.

Suzy Menkes wrote a book long ago called The Windsor Style that is absolutely wonderful if anyone is interested. You can find it used on amazon.

According to Mr Markle, Meghan's not taking his calls. That's it.

If the worse thing Meghan's done to her father is to stop talking to him without a good reason, it's batshit crazy for him to keep going on about it publicly and to keep threatening to embarrass her even more.

Thomas Markle is free to speak but he must also learn to live with the consequences of exercising his freedom.

Some people will agree with what he has to say and others will think he's an asshole.

Interesting that pa markle never got a Christmas card from Nutmeg, he really has been cut off for good. He needs to accept it and move on, wailing to the press all the time isn't going to cut any ice with her.

I love that TM issues peremptory demands to the BRF every now and again. He’s told the queen to invite him, get MEAgain and Kate to talk and force Harry to see him. He then tells Harry to “man up” and call him. He accused the BRF of holding MEAgain hostage and stopping her calling him. This farce is hysterical.

Meghan Markle has all the power here. She’s the one being protected by police officers. She’s the one with the staff who open her mail. She’s the one living in a palace and spending outrageous sums of money on crap clothes.

With that level of inequality, it was her reponsibility to do the right thing by her father, not the other way around. He’s a man who (unlike Ms “When Will I, Will I Be Famous” Markle) hasn’t asked for any of this. He was living quietly alone & the world’s press descended on him whether he liked it or not.

To not even have the decency to introduce him to Dimbo before the engagement, let alone the wedding, is truly unforgivable. Then not to send help when it was clear he was struggling is disgusting.

Who cares if him talking to the press “cuts no ice with her”? She was already trying to write him out of her life anyway, so what has he actually lost?

This is on those two spoiled brats, nobody else. And I hope he continues to “embarrass” her. No one deserves it more quite honestly.

[QUOTE] whether he liked it or not.

With Samantha fanning the flames of the press and pushing him into the ridiculous photo shoot stunt. That cunt deserves her diapers.

So his daughter is mean to him and...

He's still a massive manipulative asshole.

I thought that the father and sister were to be part of her PR framing? Pretty sure there was discussion on a prior thread. Perhaps it is all just stunty PR to frame her in a particular way?

Still wondering WHO is paying for the tsunami of planted stories, many of which happen to involve her father and half sister. All dramas need stock characters, no?

I have a feeling Papa Markle was quite a bad father, other than writing a few checks (which is a parent’s responsibility, after all.)

The way Sparkle went so overboard in describing how great he was tells me she’s hiding.... a lot. That’s what children of very dysfunctional / neglectful / abusive oarents do.

The people I know who had the best, most loving, helpful, and stable parents take this for granted. They think everyone has this kind of family, so it wouldn’t occur to them to “praise” their parents as if they were superheroes.

Will the tabs ever tire of the Markle family? They're all the same complaints about Meghan reiterated with some minor twist to justify repetition and republication. I guess once reader stop clicking and commenting,

At this point, all I want to know is, does Markle Sr. or does he not have enough materiel to fucking embarrass the shit out of that jumped up L.A. grifter when he writes his "tell all" book about how lovely things were between them before she started dating Harry Windsor and Dad was no more use to her? She fucking never introduced Harry to her father, never, not once, from the time they started dating until the wedding was being planned, but she introduced him to her mother. The obvious reason was, she was afraid that if she did introduce Harry and her father, there wouldn't be an engagement. Something about all that is very aromatic, and not in a good way.

My guess is, though, Thomas, Sr. doesn't have a thing on her that isn't already in the public sphere. If he did, they'd have bought him off long ago. Neither the BRF nor Meghan herself seem to live in fear of anything he could reveal.

If he had a high card to play in this game, other than blubbering gadfly, he'd either have played it by now, or would have let them know he planned to play it. Their ongoing silence means they know he hasn't got that card.

He very well might be a “massive manipulative asshole”. But so is his bitch daughter, so who gives a crap? They cancel each other out.

I just don’t like the suggestion that because she’s married a man famous for his DNA she’s somehow off-limits in terms of media coverage. She wanted to be famous - famous people get talked about, often by people who actually know them. So, hot toasted tittie for her if those stories are less than wonderful. That’s life. Hopefully the Givenchy her father-in-law is paying for is some consolation.

The Queen matters because she’s our HoS. Her family have no other value than to entertain us. So keep talking Samantha & Thomas - this is the most interesting the BRF have been for years.

Believe it or not R294 there are still masses of people in the public who've not even cursorily followed the drama--so each time a jab is delivered to the cold-hearted wretch of a daughter is news to somebody. She's a fool not to have dealt with her father.

R296 You're the one comparing Thomas with Meghan and somehow thinking her alleged behaviour cancels his.

She may be a twat. Tabloids say she's horrible in private. The MSM says she's demanding. If she is as reprehensible as you believe then she's an asshole.

The behaviour Thomas Markle has displayed in public definitely makes him in asshole in my books. So if anything, together they're double the assholery.

And as for Mr Markle, he's getting repetitive AF.

That makes sense, R297. If it's the case, it would seem that Fleet Street itself is engaging in a PR campaign by saturation bombing Meghan long term to the point that she is unsustainable in the RF. IOW, to get her ousted.

“ The obvious reason was, she was afraid that if she did introduce Harry and her father, there wouldn't be an engagement. ”

Hmm, so, it would seem. And in order to justify not making the introduction, she would have had to tell Harry some tall tales about how toxic dad was. And now there’s no taking all that back, so she has to maintain the freezeout. (Just speculating, what the hell do I know?)

Yes, plenty of people are great at work while being sucky people. The kind of sucky people who pull every string they've got, every connection, to give their kid a start. The kind of sucky people who work 24/7 to give their kid opportunities and advantages they never had as a kid. The kind of sucky people who instead of shrugging and letting their kid take out tens of thousands of dollars of college loans, pay for it out of pocket even though they should be saving for their own retirement. The kind of person who is great at work and then lets themselves be exploited left, right and sideways on social media to advance their kid's brand. Then has to listen to her fiance' say his family is the "family she never had."

Don't give me that shit. The sucky person is Bean. God KNOWs she has demonstrated that. We can see it from space, her smarm, her self-awareness, her self-aggrandizement, her bullshit.

[quote] The kind of sucky people who work 24/7 to give their kid opportunities and advantages they never had as a kid. The kind of sucky people who instead of shrugging and letting their kid take out tens of thousands of dollars of college loans, pay for it out of pocket even though they should be saving for their own retirement.

I calling for receipts on this. Where's the evidence that Thomas fully funded Meghan's college instead of saving for retirement? He's never said that. He's said he lost his money in bad investments. Do you know more about Thomas Markle's finances than he does R301?

R259 Dig Camilla’s fab dress and the Edie Sedgwick earrings, groovy baby yeah!

Meanwhile Camilla’s mother looks, shall we say, formidable.

Exploiting the world’s poorest people for cutsey photos you can put on your “lifestyle” blog, lying at the UN about your career as an 11 year old feminist, boasting in interviews about starting a “girls program” in India - then piggy-backing an actual charity there to cover up yet more lies...all considerably more “assholery” than posing for stupid pap shots when you are already in the limelight through no fault of your own.

And it’s not just the tabloids talking about Markle’s rudeness...it’s the broadsheets and some magazines as well. It’s pretty established now that she’s an entitled, tantrum-throwing cow. Th e stuff about the tiara was in an authorised biography of Charles, the tabloids only repeated it. Her father has demonstated little more than stupidity so far. Maybe there will be unsavoury stories about him, who knows? But so far, she’s winning the “manipulative asshole” competition by a country mile, in my view.

For the last time, you're the one only making it comparative R305.

Nobody was extolling Meghan's virtues so pulling out the same oft-recited screed of her short-comings is totally unnecessary. I'd say most of the regular posters on the thread hate her as much as you seem to and the others are neutral, so I'm not sure who you're trying to convince.

[quote]...the bride's father ditched her on her wedding day

No. He was never going to be at the wedding. She was on record at the very beginning as wanting her mother to give her away with no mention of her father AT ALL. It was only to cover the bad press that the "he was invited, oh, no, he can't come." story came out. There were never any plans to have him there. Her mother? Yes. Her father? No.

[quote] I have a feeling Papa Markle was quite a bad father, other than writing a few checks (which is a parent’s responsibility, after all.)......The way Sparkle went so overboard in describing how great he was tells me she’s hiding.... a lot. That’s what children of very dysfunctional / neglectful / abusive oarents do.

Sparkle's teachers said her father was a very involved father. And she herself talked about how he brought her to work with him, showed her around the set, etc.

And while it is a responsibility to pay for your child's education, that does not mean that you have to pay huge sums for very expensive primary, secondary and college to the detriment of your own finances. It is not a necessity that everyone attend those schools. It's also one's responsibility to make sure you prepare to support yourself when you can no longer work so that you don't have to reply on your children to pay your way. That means making reasonable choices as to how much should be spent on your children's education.

Don't buy into the "he must have been bad because now she's famous she won't talk to him BS.

^^ should be "rely", not "reply".

[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.]

R293 I had horrible parents so I get what you mean and I'd agree with you if her father was the only person in her life she seemed to have dropped but he's one of many that she has ghosted so I think it's more likely that she is the problem. Especially since there are many other things that point to her having some personality issue like the way she staged those charity photos while mirroring Dianna almost exactly down to the way she had her sunglasses. Or the way she would try to sneak into boxes at wimbledon 2016 that she didn't have a pass to.

I think he's just decided to humiliate her because it's the only thing that gets to her.

I'll say this: we've read quite a lot about family dysfunction in the BRF, but the Markles make the BRF seem rational, sane and normal in comparison. I think Meghan should call her father, even though that would seem like rewarding him for his awful behavior. But, at this point, whatever she does, he's going to share it with the press anyway: that's a given.

I don’t think it’s a given that he’ll definitely share with the press if she speaks to him. He managed to keep out of sight for 18 months, doing nothing to draw attention to himself. It’s only since she ghosted him that he’s been talking.

The problem is more likely to be Samantha, I think. I can’t see her ever shutting up. I suspect a lot of this may be down to Meghan demanding he stop talking to Samantha and him refusing.

I think Samantha is dangerous to Meghan. She made the remark once that Meghan was “brave” for putting herself on the world stage when she had so many skeletons in her closet. I bet Samantha knows some pretty explosive things about her - and I bet Meghan is terrified about this supposed book she’s writing. Also, Lady Colin Campbell has become friendly with Meghan’s brother and says that there’s a lot more to come out about her.

I remain convinced that Meghan wants nothing to do with her family because they know too much. But she’s played them all wrong. Loyalty is the only way to keep people like this quiet - and you earn that by behaving decently towards them. A wedding invite would have gone a long way towards repairing bridges - ignoring them and publicly snubbing them was the worst thing she could do.

[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.]

My father was an asshole. He was abusive towards my mother and my sister. Now that she's a grown woman of 38 she chases after him and is so sympathetic towards him, excusing and rationalizing everything. She is in actual denial about stuff he did. Like it didn't happen or she excuses it. Kids overcompensate. So when I see the photos of Meghan with her father, I don't put much stock in it. We have no idea what he or his older nasty children were like. But I like Doria. I think she divorced theasshole for a reason. And I read somewhere that his grown kids treated Doria horribly. Why not call it racism? That's exactly what was operating. I don't think her father was mentally strong enough to deal with all of that. He might be a recovering alcoholic, too. He seems very scatter-brained and needy.

How much longer is HM at Sandringham? If the Sussexes don't get their pap stroll soon this holiday it will be another snub like Balmoral this summer.

It wouldn’t be the first time grown children from the first marriage treated theur step-mother horribly and it’s not always has to do with racism, R315.

On another note, I saw here on DL the reasoning that someone who did not remarry and did not have another family must be immature and unstable. Why not apply this logic to Doria? We don’t know what kind of a relationship she had with her daughter. We don’t know how often they see each other now or how close they really are. We only know that Meghan deemed her appropriate to be introduced to Harry, have several photo-ops in Toronto and be invited to the wedding. We also know she is the only member of Meghan’s family who didn't talk to the press. Was it because of her goodness of character or because Meghan had only enough financial resources to pay for her mother and her first husband’s silence?

Samantha's mother called her racist. She said Samantha called Doria "the maid because she is black."

Thomas and Samantha Markle don't want phone calls; they want big fat checks.

The problem is, Harry and Meghan don't have that much money, and the BRF isn't going to shell out to pay off the wife of the sixth in line's trashy family, not unless what they have on her is so bad that it could damage the Monarchy itself. Clearly, they don't have anything like that.

R300 - I think your supposition is pretty logical. I always thought all that panto around him being included at first in the wedding and then suddenly it all falling apart was just that: a panto. She never wanted him near Harry.

Meanwhile, Kate and William (and the newly married Eugenie and hubby) accompanied HM to church again today at Sandringham, as they have post-Christmas every year at Epiphany ahead of Kate's birthday since they married in 2011. Kate looked beautiful in blue Catherine Walker, beautifully turned out, as usual, and very much the future Princess of Wales. Don't expect to see the Sussexes set foot in church again until Easter, their kid's christening. or a big society wedding.

And for those who were insisting Kate is already pregnant again, as you can see from the fit of the coat and her recent outfits, she quite clearly isn't.

What she is doing, however, is winning the PR game.

There's also a rumour out in the press that Meghan is going to be handed the National Theatre as a patronage. It would be too bad - because, regardless of what sort of person she is or I think she is, she was a joke as an actress with one decent job to her name on a joke of a show, and I think it would be an insult to the NT.

R317 - Cf. the treatment the Spencer children, especially the wonderful Diana, treated their father's second wife, Raine Spencer, daughter of romance novelist, Barbara Cartland, whose fluffy works, ironically, were what fed the young Diana's ideas of what love and marriage were really like.

She should have read Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary, instead.

But the Spencer daughters were absolutely merciless toward Raine Spencer, and Diana allegedly once tried to push her downstairs at Althorp.

It's odd how the blame game goes in families. Diana's mother left Diana's father - did those girls think their father should have lived a celibate life after Frances left him? Frances had good reasons for leaving, but she did run off with another man; and Raine apparently played a crirical role in helping Johnnie Spencer recover after his stroke. The animosity healed somewhat in later years, but before then, the Spencer daughters made Raine's life hell.

R317 - Meghan has cousins, uncles, etc., none of whom talked to the press. There are photos of her surrounded by black family members in childhood and early adolescence. She clearly did not develop close relationships with them, probably for both legitimate and some strategic reasons. She also ditched her uncle, the diplomat, her father's brother, who pulled strings to get her the three-month internship in South America after she flunked the exam for same - where she went shopping, made coffee, and xeroxed papers, which is what those internships usually entail, and then used to build her "international studies" persona and alleges made her "fluent" in Spanish.

Face it: the woman has spent a lifetime constructing a completely manufactured persona, and the veneer she added in snagging Harry is the icing on the cake.

As for the UK press trying to "oust" her and make her life as a member of the BRF impossible as another poster upthread suggested: in their dreams. I don't doubt they'd like to, but that baby secures Meghan's future, as several of us pointed out before it happened, even if the marriage goes tits up in five or ten years.

The BRF made this bed by allowing Harry to marry her without conditions (like waiving his and his children's places in the line of succession), and they're going to be sleeping in it for a long time - only after William takes the throne in 15-20 years will the BRF really be able to marginalise the Sussexes sufficiently to render them superfluous.

But until the Queen and then Charles are raptured, they can only contain them a bit by limiting their allowed activities.

Meghan was a fool to alienate the Cambridges. William won't forgive or forget the trouble she has caused his wife - the future Queen Consort.

I wonder if Meghan went to see "The Favourite". As the film doesn't inform the historically challenged public, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, came back to court after Queen Anne's death, and became again powerfully influential and died at a ripe old age, one of the richest women in England.

The upstart was 1) fictional, and 2) even if she wasn't, didn't last long after Queen Anne died.

You curry favour with those to whom the long game is going.

Both of Meghan's parents attended her first wedding. According to Mr Markle, he was invited to Meghan's wedding to Harry but was not able to attend. His name was printed in the wedding programme.

With all he's said about Meghan recently, including the story about the marijuana in Jamaica, if Thomas hadn't been invited to the royal wedding one would have expected him to say so by now.

Thomas and Sam could be saving stuff for a book deal. True dat. If there isn't a book in time for the first wedding anniversary or the Sussex baby then I'm calling BS on it. Timing is everything for trashy tell-all books. Meghan is still a fairly hot commodity now. If Sam or Thomas have a hot book deal the publisher will pony up for a ghost writer to get it on shelves while people still care about Meghan and Harry. In two years nobody but the most committed monarchists will give a shit.

R323 - The invitation to her father and printing his name in the programme was pro forma - neither Meghan nor Harry nor anyone else at court of any other member of the BRF reached out to him to give him help and information. Meghan probably knew her father well enough to have a shrewd idea that he'd never make it, despite the information. If she ghosted him from the moment she started dating Harry, what would have made it logical that she would suddenly have wanted him there in front of the entire BRF as the Father of the Bride?

Yes, he was "invited" after a fashion, and he never denied that, and Meghan covered her arse with the invitation. But he was also left to find his way as her mother hadn't been from the outset. The invitation was cover and went precisely the way Meghan wanted it to - it fell apart and she was able to keep the fat loudmouthed embarrassing Dad far from Windsor Castle and environs.

She didn't want him there or she'd have introduced her important squeeze to Dad long ere the wedding, as she introduced him to Doria.

It was panto, the whole thing. She was much happier taking the arm of the Prince of Wales and next King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in his grey three-piece cutaway and beautiful silk cravat.

Because if she knows nothing else, Meghan knows something about optics.

*he'd never make it, despite the invitation (not "information")

R324

I keep reading (here) and on the various tabloids and broadsheets, that the BRF failed to prepare the Markles adequately for what they were facing. We've heard that Meghan never introduced Harry to her father. But....Markle Sr had several phone conversations with Harry, who supposedly advised him not to talk to the press. Markle asked Harry about Trump and Brexit, then repeated Harry's comments to the press (a violation of protocol). And when Harry later reminded him that he should have listened to him, and not spoken to the press, Markle hung up on him (which he later recanted).

I'm willing to lay a great deal of blame on Kensington Palace, for not doing its job preparing Markle properly for the wedding. But I really don't know what they might have been told by Meghan. It seems like Harry did make some effort, and was rebuked for his efforts. And now, Markle is telling Harry to "man up" and "get over it". He should take his own advice.

R323 - Tom and Sam have nothing up their sleeves for any book, either singly or together, that her best friend and they themselves and all the investigative work by the BRF prior to the engagement haven't either known, alleged in the DM, or had scrubbed from the Internet.

I repeat: if they had anything explosive, anything at all, they'd have dropped it during the engagement, or the BRF would have made use of it, so that she couldn't dig in and get herself entrenched with the wedding and pregnancy.

They'll have nothing but reminiscences sprinkled with sour comments and exclamations of being wronged, especially Dad.

He's 74 and in ill-health. Meghan probably can't wait for him to drop dead and relieve her of the spectre of his big mouth, lamentations, exhortations, etc. She'll appear grief-stricken and in black (not that anyone will be able to notice the difference as she wears black so much, anyway) and then move merrily on.

But they've got nothing on her that we don't already know - even if her father held back, Sam wouldn't have. Their ammo is gone.

[quote] Meghan has cousins, uncles, etc., none of whom talked to the press. There are photos of her surrounded by black family members in childhood and early adolescence.

R322 And how did those photos make it to the press if none of people in them talked to it?

R327 her father may not have anything more juicy on her or he may not be willing to share any information that could really be damaging because he still has sentimental feelings for his Bean, but at the same time he may want to correct the many wrongs he sees about himself in the media. People were saying things like “why did he expect to be invited to her second wedding if he hadn’t been invited to her first?” etc

R326 - Yes, we heard about the "phone conversations". Those aren't substitutes for an in-person introduction the high-profile catch your daughter is determined to marry, and actually, we really don't know what Harry really said, including "Don't talk to the press."

I don't doubt Meghan had good reasons for a strong sense that her father was too far off the "brand" she'd spent years cultivating, but she also made very public declarations of how wonderful he was, how much she loved him, and how much she owed to his love . . . until the day that she didn't need either the pretence or the reality of their mutual love any longer, and he became inconvenient.

The sum at the bottom of the column, in my view, remains nought for me in terms of my estimation of her as a person, a daughter, a woman.

If Harry ever becomes inconvenient, he will suffer the same fate. Her ruthlessness is quite evident. For the foreseeable, however, Harry and his title and his family remain critical to the life she's always dreamt of.

Unlike her, he cannot cry in his Givenchys all the way to the bank.

R328 - But he was invited to her first wedding, there are photos of him there, and it is quite easy to retrieve photos these days from the Internet because families put them on Facebook, etc. Perhaps those photos were also leaked by her to bolster the times when she wanted to play the race card. But they were published in the DM, willy nilly. That she has a large assortment of black relatives whom she also, one way or another or for one reason or another, separated from rapidly at a youngish age isn't arguable.

She kept her father and her Second And Far More Golden Catch far apart, and she did so for reasons that were rooted in self-interest.

R324 You're writing your own history on this one.

Mr Markle's biggest complaint right now is that Meghan isn't speaking to him. He says they were in touch before the whole paparazzi incident. There's no evidence that she ghosted him as soon as she started dating Harry.

He also notes Harry gave him advice which he refused to take because he thinks Harry sees himself as better than him. It's unclear how much support Kensington Palace made available, but Mr Markle's own admission is that he didn't take the advice and help that was offered.

[quote] There are photos of her surrounded by black family members in childhood and early adolescence. She clearly did not develop close relationships with them, probably for both legitimate and some strategic reasons.

R322 seems to think that as a child Meghan did not develop close relationships with her mother's family for "strategic reasons." Wow. That's some kind of planning on her part.

BTW. Meghan's uncle on her mother's side gave an interview and gave photos to the Daily Mail. It's very flattering so of course it's not mentioned much here. She also has some long lost cousins who spoke to Inside Edition. They were congratulatory and not much else. The tabloids have focussed on those relatives who want attention. For all Mr Markle's claims that he was left to the wolves, he was the one who made a deal with the tabloids, not once or twice but repeatedly and with multiple media houses (TMZ, DM, The Sun, ITV). He also keeps doing things to remain in the public eye, like his recent Santa outing with his friends.

Mr Markle loves attention and he doesn't seem content to do things the way the BRF would like. I highly doubt any amount of advice from Meghan, Harry or KP will change that.

R332 - If you think Meghan's future husband and her father never having met in person, which would have been entirely up to her to arrange, isn't evidence of her ghosting her father, then you clearly just don't want to believe it.

It is customary for the daughter to bring the intended home to meet the family and vice versa. She made sure he met her mother; he made sure she met his father and brother; she clearly refused to allow Harry to meet her father. That would have been up to Meghan - after all her highly public praise of her father, the fact that she reffused to all the two men to meet in-person speaks for itself. She laid the foundation for the ill-will long before the engagement was announced.

If that isn't ghosting, I don't know what is.

The photos of Meghan with her father at her first wedding were provided by him, R331, and he was not in any of the photos that were in circulation before, which lead to much speculation in many Meghan’s fansites that he didn’t attend, that they were estanged, that he abused Meghan, that he was an incompetent drunk and drug addict who couldn’t do his job well, etc. Maybe someone (truly a saint) could manage to keep silent when faced with such allegations, but I can understant that he didn’t.

*allow the two men to meet

R333

R331 Race isn't a card people of colour play. It's a reality of daily life. Whether you personally recognize a person's racial or ethnic diversity in their features doesn't mean that when they talk about race they're pulling a "card."

On the DL it would be unacceptable to tell femme lesbians that talking about LGBTQ issues means they're pulling a gay card but ever so often there's the casual or overt reference to the race card as if that's acceptable language.

R334 - I think it is quite obvious that the higher Meghan climbed socially, the more anxious she became to keep the father she once praised so effusively on social media out of sight.

And if it is true that Thomas Markle "likes attention" as another posterd stated (although he didn't seem to be shooting his mouth off when she gained some modest fame on "Suits"), it's also clear that the apple didn't fall very far from the tree.

Because, as others have pointed out in speaking of her, all Meghan Markle ever wanted out of life was to be famous.

R333 Bring the intended home to the father happens in some families and doesn't happen in others. Meghan met Will and Kate on Harry's side, but he didn't meet Sam and Thomas Jr on her side. Nobody has said that's weird because clearly Meghan's not close to her siblings to way Harry is.

Mr Markle doesn't say the behaviour before the wedding was unusual for their family. You're the one labelling it as ghosting.

R336 - I'm sure it is a reality of every day life. That doesn't mean that that reality cannot be used to advantage occasionally. The same is true of Meghan's highly touted "feminism" - the only problem with that is, that she owes both her two biggest breaks in life to two men: her two white husbands. And she owes her more than decent college education to her father paying for it. Currently, everything she has she owes to a very luck break in the Matrimonial Stakes - so let's call it the feminism card, and it's as phony as everything else about her.

R338 - Not meeting Samantha makes perfect sense. Not meeting the father she presumably planned to have walk her down the aisle in a globally broadcast wedding and whom she formerly praised to the skies doesn't.

And unless one is completely estranged from said family, I don't know any families where the intended was not introduced to the family.

So she was either lying when she praised him so publicly whilst he was still useful to her, and their affection seems evident in the photos from her graduation and at her first wedding - or she ditched him when he became too embarrassing to produce in person.

Either way, she doesn't come out looking plausible.

I hope Sammy has diaper rash

Feminism is complex. First wave, second wave, third-wave womanism etc. You don't agree with her definition of feminism. Fair do's

Meghan is a biracial woman who grew up in a racial diverse family with a mother who presents as African-American. I acknowledge her right and privilege to speak about that experience.

Saying someone uses "the race card" "to advantage" is about the most white imperialist shit one can say to delegitimize a person of colour's right to acknowledge their experience.

[quote] And unless one is completely estranged from said family, I don't know any families where the intended was not introduced to the family.

R340 since you don't know those families they must not exist then.

R342 - Asserting that only a member of the community can make any judgements is a good way to evade occasionally unpleasant truths about individuals. Meghan Markle seems to have lived a rather privileged life, going to a first-class university, dating quality men, and finally, with the help of her first husband, getting her one decent acting job. She has nearly zero talent as an actress as five minutes of watching her on "Suits" makes clear, tried to become Gwyneth Paltrow with that absurdly pretentions lifestyle blog, and was finally by all accounts welcomed unreservedlly into the whitest family on the fucking planet by its Sovereign and next Sovereign. She has, in fact, gotten pretty much everything she ever wanted, and used other people to get it through strategic and tactical relationships. Stop painting her as some sort of racial martyr. And she's about as feminst as Betty Boop.

*pretentious lifestyle blog

R343 - Oh, please, spare us. The custom is widely enough practiced to be a reasonable assumption, ESPECIALLY after all her praise of her father publicly and having him at her first wedding. She only suddenly found him pesona non grata when she started dating a Windsor.

Whatever else, Meghan Markle has obviously already sown division in the family she so hungrily hankered to join. She's earbed the enmity of the Yorks with the maternity coat stunt at the Queen's blood granddaughter's wedding, leaked nasty stories about the Cambridges to her pal Lainey earning William's enmity,spent a fucking fortune on clothes in seven moths, and gotten herself and Harry booted out of London and stuck in a dull suburb in a place half the size of the grand Georgian mansion the Queen gave the Cambridges and renovated at her own expense - instead of living, as Meghan fully expected, a life just like Kate's.

There are clearly pesonality issues with her. And with Harry, come to it.

That she managed to fuck things up with her father is, therefore, no susprise, as she managed to fuck things up with Harry's family pretty quickly.

No one has EVER denied that Tiara Gate story or Harry screaming, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!".

*earned (not earbed). Damn this autocorrect.

As well as alienating William, MM has alienated Kate with a number of well publicised events which are likely accurate. MM has also alienated Harry's oldest friends, deemed some too disruptive to associate with, forbade further contact with his exes, and put a stop to the pastimes that bound him to his circle of friends - hunting and drinking. To me, none of this makes any sense. So who does this leave? His cousins? Charles and Camilla? Sophie and Edward? Not likely. British celebrities?

R344 I'm not asserting that only members of the community may voice opinions. I make not claims about Meghan's morals or her talent.

I'm challenging what it means to be a member of that community. Is Meghan's membership of the community negated by her apparent privilege? There have been comments on the multiple BRF threads which have used "race card" to suggest that Meghan does not have a right to discuss race because she is "white presenting" and or didn't experience abject poverty.

A rich white woman can still experience sexism. The privilege she experiences from her wealth does not negate the fact that she may face discrimination because she is a woman. A similar argument could be made for rich gay men, or white gay men etc.

I'm also calling out those posters who use the term "race card" as a way to dismiss a person of colour's claims that they have experienced racism.

R346 It's definitely reasonably, just not universal.

Personally, I only know one family where the groom asked the father for the daughter's hand in marriage, but I've heard it enough that I assume it's a fairly common practice. Nobody asked my father for my hand in marriage. It doesn't mean we're estranged and he did attend my wedding. This isn't an endorsement of Meghan's behaviour or saying I believe her father was definitely invited.

In R343 I'm saying there could be more possible explanations than R340 puts forward because some families are different from the ones he or she knows.

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

Why would Pa Markle do things as the BRF would like and follow protocol when Bean herself refuses to follow protocol and do things as the BRF would like. Appears to me she and her daddy are very much alike.

Also, she had the gall to cause a good bit of turmoil within the BRF (who have vast resources) in a short period of time, I have no problem believing she'd do far worse to her average, no resources, of little means father.

[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.]

Even without the stunning architect fiancée, anyone can see that poor Bea is running headlong over a cliff with this guy.

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

[QUOTE] She has, in fact, gotten pretty much everything she ever wanted, and used other people to get it through strategic and tactical relationships.

As do we all, and as you obviously have never been able to.

The Yorks will not be outdone in scandal!

Fergie took Diana's love letter scandal and raised her with some toe-sucking pictures. Beatrice took Meghan's fuzzy timeline with the Toronto chef and raised her with a broken engagement plus a baby-mama and kid kicked to the curb.

I wonder, is there any way MM could have succeeded with the BRF and the British public, or would they always have had the knives out for her? She can't do anything about her family or her past, but would dressing appropriately, not leaking stories, not drawing attention to herself, cooperating and trying to fit in have been enough?

R230 - Reading about the Windsors, I don't understand why King George V was so bloody cruel to his wife and family. I wonder what was behind his terrible behavior? He seemed to be close to his siblings, he adored his mother Alexandra and his father Bertie (aka Edward VII) seemed like a fun guy. However, George V wanted his children to fear him. Anyone have any opinion on his shitty character?

r359 I do believe that is exactly what she could have done to fit in, in other words don't bite the hand that feeds you.

A video of Will and Catherine's arrival, departure and walkabout at Sandringham.

Catherine really needs to put on some weight. She's so thin, it's starting to make her face look haggard.

R320, I can't believe the BRF would let Sparkle have the patronage of The National Theatre.

As the Queen herself is the current patron, such a move would be an insult and be seen as such by the truly talented professionals who love The National Theatre.

And Sparkle would be embarrassingly out of her league.

Look at how lovely her face was when she was pregnant in the middle photo compared to the one taken today on the right.

Diana knew how to wear hats.

"I didn't know anything about the Royal Family or who Prince Harry was. Honest".

Kate is 6+ months pregnant and has a double chin in the middle picture at R365.

There are porn sites for those who like that look.

It was fur cuffs for the Queen for church today at Sandringham.

R368 - porn sites for pregnant women? Yeah, ok.

I'm standing by my first comment - Kate's face looked healthy unlike now with sunken cheekbones. She needs to put on a little weight. Being skinny as you age does not make you youthful.

Yes, R359.

I do believe she completely lost her opportunity.

She could and should have

1) Never began her contact with the Duchess of Cambridge with the initial, right out of the box, gossip story about "Boo Hoo She didn't offer me a ride." It was the first of several stories meant to put Kate in a negative light. It was stupid and quite unnecessary.

2) Worn low key, nicely designed and FITTED clothes by BRITISH designers. (They would have been delighted to oblige.)

3) Accepted the advice she was clearly given by the trusted woman with a long experience of working with the Queen herself. A woman that the Queen herself asked to assist Sparkle.

4) Ceased and desisted with the constant, ridiculous and easily mocked Public Displays of Affection.

5) Followed protocol by letting her husband go first in public events, which besides his precedence would have allowed her to follow his example as to how to behave and who to respond to.

6) Showed some modesty as a newcomer to an unfamiliar family and unfamiliar job.

7) Stopped looking for and grinning into any and all cameras in sight.

8) Accepted with gratitude whatever tiara choices she was offered on loan for her use.

9) Found an attractive hairstyle that would have added greatly to her appearance.

10) If no help was available, she herself should have examined her own outfits before leaving the house to be sure that there was no mud on her shoes, no dangling tags, no plastic on any bags and that the basting stitches on all apparel had been removed.

There are plenty of things she could have done differently.

Some lovely photos of then Princess Elizabeth in 1940's.

The Queen and Prince Philip on a plane.

I love this meme!

Once upon a time when Prince Edward had hair, he wasn't a bad looking chap at all.

Elizabeth and Margaret with their father the King and corgi.

Interesting tidbit: at the time of the engagement between Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, Lady Ruth Fermoy (Diana's grandmother and Queen Mother's Lady in Waiting) said: "Mark my words. No good will come out of this plebeian girl." The Daily Mail newspaper reported: "Fergie is going to take down windsor's house." Fashion magazines called Sarah "robust" and "corpulent."

Below, Fergie has to hold on to her leg while curtseying to the Queen. Is she afraid she's going to fall over? That's Fat Andrew beside her.

The young Andrew was quite handsome.

A royal group shot. Edward and Sophie are the only ones missing.

No Prince Philip either, R379.

R356 the poor thing is really unfortunate looking and has no sense of style. I imagine how vicious the comments would be if Meghan (or Kate for that matter) wore a dress like that or had her hair styled like that.

Zara is actually quite beautiful but she has gotten really hefty. And the dangling tendrils hairdo is flattering on no one

R359, if she had been humble and low-key, unflashy and thrifty, at least at first, and exhibited the utmost respect for the institution she was joining, the public would have been understanding of a few flubs as she adjusted to royal life. Even her embarrassing family wouldn’t have been so much if a problem had she not snubbed her own father so ruthlessly. She’d have gained sympathy and a certain admiration, perhaps.

Oh, and R359, she should NEVER, EVER threatened through her lawyer and through Harry, the British press.

That was a huge, and very, very stupid move.

NEVER PICK A FIGHT WITH SOMEONE WHO BUYS INK BY THE BARREL.

R371, I’ve always been mildly fascinated with the “she didn’t give me a ride“ story. What was Meg‘s point in doing this, do you think? What did she hope to achieve? Do you think she was just gossiping a little carelessly, and Lainey ran with it? I mean, I suppose it’s not possible that the story could have come from anyone but her. If so, how stupid.

And yes, the letter to the press also a terrible, boneheaded idea. It smacked of her playing damsel in distress, and Harry falling for it like a dope. Has he learned nothing from his late mother’s media misadventures?

It’s interesting that Queen Rania said in the statement about her alleged wardrobe costs, that her clothes are “largely borrowed, received as gifts or purchased at reduced prices.” I mean, it is interesting in itself that she decided to resease such statement, but to word it this way? It seems that even the most affluent monarchies do not want to give the impression of Belshazzar’s feasts going on in today’s political and economical climate (which Meghan is not perceptive enough to pick on, or simply doesn’t care). And IIRC Rania wasn’t even the top spending royal (before the ufos took her off the list), wasn’t she second to Meg?

Queen Rainia has her own domestic issues which predate Meghan.

R385 I think she very clearly overestimated her cunningness (no wonder, really, having pulled off such a coup). She probably felt so much smarter than all these people who had everything handed to them since birth and went nowhere, when she came from nothing and ended up on a par with them. She may have felt it just wouldn’t do for her, with all her fabulousness, to play second fiddle to the boring plate of oatmeal Kate, and decided to go with a preemptive strike as a warning - be nice with me, girl, or else. It backfired, of course.

R388, that's the thing about MM, her over-arching self-confidence. She really seems to think that she is smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else and that everyone will just fall for her line of bullshit. I must say, I really enjoyed seeing the smile wiped off her face at the Remembrance Day event, where she was stuck in the back row with a woman who looked like a Gestapo prison matron. She was like, 'I can't believe this is happening.'

It’s fascinating, really. Meghan is the most interesting thing that happened to the BRF in this century. It’s like a reality tv version of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, only with more fashion, but everything is just as foreign to her.

As unpopular a view as this is here, I think Meghan's doing fairly well.

She's made a splash rather than slipping quietly into the family. That may be good for her if she is seen as high profile rather than someone who can be silently cut off.

While more committed royal watchers can find many mis-steps, for the casual watcher, I think the Sussexes' recent tour was a fair success. Fall colours versus pastels and black outfits versus florals won't matter to most people.

Her family is pulls her down a bit, but they're crazy enough that she gets some people who think she's been a terrible daughter and some who think she's well rid of them. Doria's dignified silence works in her favour.

The area I think she really needs to watch is the spending. British designers or foreign is less important than the DM hammering away at how much her clothes costs. The average Brit who doesn't care about the royal family can still count cash and in an age of austerity it will not do for her to seem like a spendthrift.

R391 - with Brexit (or no Brexit) coming soon and economic hardship predicted, the overspending on clothes becomes a really bad PR optic. She should watch herself but I don't think she will.

A conspiracy-tinged thought just popped into my head. What if she anticipates a truly damaging story dropping and is saving a tearful reconciliation with Pa Markle as a Trumpian means of diverting attention in the aftermath?

^Given Megsy's antics, a thing like this does sound likely to happen.

She’s not that strategic, r393. She’s more of an instant gratification type.

I rather agree with everything you say, R391. The thing is, I think it’s the royal family and the institution of the monarchy that’s being hurt by spendthrift antics, more than Meghan herself.

"the sussexes recent tour was a fair succesz...

Yes, he successfully looked near like a homeless person and totally screwed the invictus games, and she perfected her pushy dangling tendril hanging tag style. A fairly tesounding success.

Yep, every day a new story came out about their poor behavior, MEagain being downright rude to people, mocking them both for their scruffy and/or badly fitted wardrobes, the “spotlight must be on Meghan” tone of the Invictus Games... the whole thing was a PR disaster that Meg’s fans tried to claim as some sort of coup.

You do realize that only the people in the Invictus Games, and they families, actually care about the Invictus Games. Like seriously, who the hell outside of the UK has heard about these games? You can't take the spotlight from something that didn't have it to begin with.

R357 - Your assertion that most of humanity gets what it wants, and does so by "using" other people strategically is breathtaking. You have no idea what I wanted and wheter I obtained it or not.

She's a clinical "user". Most of the rest of humanity isn't - but it is true that the type is particularly overrepresented in show biz.

The spotlight is meant to be on the participants r399, not the ex-actress with no prior knowledge of nor participation of the games giving a speech about herself.

R397 - You forgot bringing the art of baby bump cradling to new heights, which reached its apex at the awards show where she did the Double Top and Bottom Cup staring into the cameras and the audience JUST as her dear award winner wedding dress designer began her speech . . .

R393 - And I'm telling you that there is no damaging ENOUGH story left out there. That ship has sailed, the horse is in the next county. The tabs would have hunted a story like that down at least one if not two years ago; it will be left to Meghan to overreach herself again in the future.

R391 - Not slipping quietly into the family is her mistake, not her success. The BRF has already had considerable experience with those who "make a splash" instead of slipping quietly into the family - Diana and Fergie didn't work out too well for the family. By not slipping into the family, she's more or less confirmed the expectations of many that she can't belong and won't belong, and that she's willing to endanger the institution itself to suit herself.

Speaking of conspiracy-tinged theories, I wouldn't put it past Meghan to want to damage the institution now that she's figured out it isn't going to give her and Harry what it is going to give William and Kate and their children, and since she figures she'll be all right no matter what, she mighgt as well damage the Cambridge's future inheritance.

If so, even theoretically, she's learnt nothing since her entry into the Golden Circle - viz., to wit: they'll get rid of her and Harry if they think that as a couple they will damage the institution. Not even Harry's father's affection for him will save the Sussexes if the Windsors get a whiff of institutional damage.

R401 Regardless of what you would like, the spotlight is on whatever the news organizations think will generate revenue. The BRF and their PR people try to work within news economics by using royals as bait.

The news media are currently fascinated with Meghan so they'll send a crew to see her and some residual attention will come to the games or whatever organization/event she happens to be attending . That's basically how most other royal events work too. Kate wears a nice dress to look at some children. The media talk about her hair or her clothes, oh and by the way she was at the opening of this new children's wing of random hospital.

It's a standard playbook.

R360 - George V's attitude toward his children wasn't uncommon for the era, which was barely past the Victorian and Edwardian eras. His wife, Queen Mary. colluded in this and said once, "I have always to remember that their father is also their King." A biographer of King Georve V said very pointedly that "the Windors, like ducks, make bad parents: they trample their young." The disciplinary views of the era were exacerbated by the perceived demands of royalty. It is interesting that when King George V died, in 1935, the future Queen Mum, at the time (but not for much longer) Duchess of York, wrote to a friend, "Unlike his own children, I was never afraid of him, and in the twelve years of having me as a daughter in law, never spoke one unkind or abrupt word to me."

Go figure.

You will appreciate R402 that some LSA stan is using the MeMe Double Handed Baby Bump Clutch for their avatar. I haven't noticed any further pregnancy photos, just the same old odd ones. The tadpoles must be huge by now.

R403 I don’t think you can say that there are definitely no big stories still to come about her.

Personally, I think she cheated on Trevor (probably more than once). I think the tabloids know this, as it’s been heavily hinted, but they can’t get anyone to go on the record. Trevor’s relative nodded when asked whether Meghan’s “head had been turned” by another man but wouldn’t elaborate and her friend Nikki (?) very strongly alluded to it, but didn’t want to be specific.

The bigger and more potentially damaging the story, the more evidence a tabloid needs. People are probably talking off the record - for now.

Also, Markle has so far been a) a girlfriend the tabs were desperately hoping he’d marry then b) a fiancee planning a “joyful” royal wedding then c) a newlywed and now d) an expectant mother. Huge, damaging stories so far haven’t really been in anyone’s interest - and if the marriage were called off or the baby lost the tabs with their “bullying” could be blamed.

The press always know stuff that we don’t - that’s where genuine blind items come from, and there can be many reasons why they don’t run with it.

So, maybe they have something, maybe they don’t. But it’s a mistake to assume they’d already run something massive if they had it. They might not.

You miss the point r405. She should not have been giving the keynote speech at the games. Harry insisted to the committee that she should give it. It was inappropriate and narcissistic. The games have nothing to do with her. Harry barely got involved at all. They hijacked the event to make it all about them instead of the people participating. That wasn’t the press making that decision, it was HazBean. Pushy and parasitic.

The media and public can’t do much to Meghan, except perhaps cause tension in her marriage.

Narcissists cannot cope with criticism - they really, really can’t. So, actually I think negative press about her is hitting her considerably harder than most people realise. So, I beg to differ...I think the press and the public can do more than just cause tension in her marriage.

Well, I’d like to see a healthy baby safely born. After that maybe some juicy scandals, if there are any to be had.

How many responding here were tuned-in adults during the Diana years? The drama really was something else, day after day.

R409 The Invictus Games is a profile raising vehicle designed by Harry and his staff to give him a platform as he transferred out of the military. He then brings is wife on to the platform. I'm still not seeing the surprising part. It's not like the Invictus Games existed independently of him and he hijacked a pre-existing organization for his own ends.

Invictus doesn't generate it's own interest yet. It can't stand on its own as a separate entity from Harry. To help generate buzz he decided to do his first official event with his then girlfriend at an IG event in Toronto. It was designed around news economics. They'll come out to see the first official Meghan and Harry moment, and by the way, there's this thing called the Invictus Games.

Why is best picture the last award at the Golden Globes? If they started with best actress, actor and picture, who the hell would watch the rest of the show? And if they handed those awards out in the back like the technical awards, why the hell would anyone tune in at all? In Australia, having Meghan end the event keeps the press there for the closing (what will she wear, what will she say yada yada yada). It's like a door prize draw at the end of some boring meeting: usually disappointing but hope keeps people there til the last minute.

None of this is particularly narcissistic or unusual. It's standard news/entertainment business.

Except that Meghan is so not ready for prime time. She can’t even dress herself!

She comes off like a high school junior running for student council president. Albeit one who overslept on the day of her big speech. Cheesy, immature, insincere, full of cliches.

I can’t believe she thinks anyone is buying her fifth-rate pablum.

Markle is definitely from the, “if I say it, it must be true!” school of thought. I’m surprised she’s not a Republican.

R408 Even if Meghan cheated on Trevor, how is that truly damaging to her?

It would be juicy for a little bit, but who breaks up with someone, or worse gets a divorce, because their spouse cheated on someone else in the past?

With the number of cheating scandals in the British Royal family, being revealed as a cheater would seem to make Meghan fit right in with the Windsors. If the public can move on from Charles and Camilla's tampon tales, I'm not sure a historical cheating scandal will topple Meghan. But, I'm open to being wrong.

If the tabloids have something I think it has to be more that merely salacious. It must exhibit a breach of public trust; criminality; or an act which threatens public confidence in the monarchy. The marijuana story was in that vein. It was technically illegal, even though no-one would have prosecuted her for that in Jamaica. Until the tabloids can come up with something bigger than that, I think they'll just be running stories about clothing tags and her whinging father.

I don’t believe the tabloids are sitting on some juicy Meghan story waiting for a rainy day to reveal it (although I wish there was something juicy enough about her). It just doesn’t make sense: she is a hot topic NOW, why wait and risk that someone or something comes and pushes her out from the news? Why risk that some other paper will run the story first?

R417 The common practice in British tabloids is to constantly publish lots of stories about a particular person, doesn’t matter how insignificant the stories are, so that when the person applies for an anonymity injunction to stop publication of the *big* story the press can point to them and say there is considerable public interest so the injunction can be denied.

I heard that, R418, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I said. All I’m saying is whatever information they could possibly have on Meghan could have any number of people who know something about it (except maybe some stuff that was strictly between MM and her former husband, but I’m sure she paid him off, that’s why he dropped the idea of a show based on her story). Even if someone, e.g. DM, paid good money and had all the paperwork signed with one person, e.g. her former classmate, who provided the juicy info, there is no guarantee someone else who knows about it, e.g. another classmate, doesn’t go to The Sun, and they publish the story first.

R322 are you a moron? All three women were real. Sarah won the long game of dynastic power, but Abigail lived her life out as a wealthy woman, which is all she cared about

[quote]Once upon a time when Prince Edward had hair, he wasn't a bad looking chap at all.

Edward was adorable. More refined-looking and less toothy than Andrew.

The bitches who slag his looks in these threads seem to forget he’s in his 50s. Of course he’s losing hair and gaining weight!

[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.]

Queer Eye for the British Royal Family: A panel of experts lavishes praise on a homely minor royal until she believes that she's a fashion plate.

R420 - Wikipedia is your friend. Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, died at 83 one of the richest women in England. She wasn't "ruined" financially as the film suggested at the end. She didn't just win the "long game of dynastic power" - she died rich and powerful. I never suggested Anne wasn't real you fucking moron - she was the last Stuart Queen of England, a matter of historical record. I did Kings and Queens of England at schools like everyone else. The Marlboroughs survived Anne and were reinstated at court by George I. I repeat: Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, won more than the long-term dynastic game: she died at a ripe old age, very rich.

Oh, and whilst Abigail was real, the suggestions of Anne's lesbian relationship with her have been rejected by most modern historians who put the story down to male spite against women with power. But it made for a very entertaining film.

Can we talk about the brother who was a drug addict please? I've read about rumors, but I've had the impression that Bertie, Queen Elizabeth's father had a brother who was wild and involved with drugs. Even heard rumors he was Gay and as out as it was possible to be back then, and drank or drugged himself into an early grave. Did he ever marry or have kids as they were all practically forced to do or did he just burn his candle out and die?

R426 I think you’re referring to Prince George of Kent. He was married to Princess Marina of Greece and they had a few kids including Prince Michael of Kent.

I read once that there were rumours he had an affair with Noel Coward of all people. I don’t think he was gay though, probably bi.

What about Gloucester? Didn't Bertie have another brother? Kent may be the one I'm thinking of.

R412, I was tuned in during the Diana years, and I agree with you. But there was a difference.

Diana was a star: arguably the biggest in the world. She had charisma, sexiness (and ruthless narcissism) at levels that MM can only dream of, and she developed the style and glamour to match, not to mention her Mother Teresa act, some of which I grant may have been genuine. The fact that she was Princess of Wales brought her to attention, but it wasn't what kept the attention. When she danced with Travolta, who was a big star at the time, you barely saw him. And I say all this as someone who didn't like her.

P.S. I can confirm that Princess Anne's engagement photos were all taken by Lord Snowdon. I have no idea why they can't be found as a series online, but I suspect it's because they're copyrighted into a photography book somewhere.

R424 Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. R420 wasn't arguing the historical accuracy of the film "The Favourite" he or she merely pointed out that you made an erroneous claim in R322 that

[quote] The upstart was 1) fictional

when in fact Abigail Masham was a real historical figure and died a very rich woman. You're the one who should have checked Wikipedia before posting.

You give it as an example for Meghan to consider and point out that the fictional end is different from the historical end. R420 doesn't challenge that.

You seem to assume that Meghan's aim is to somehow take down Kate (represented by Sarah in your analogy) in which case she would prefer the fictional account to the historical reality. The other poster raises the possibility that maybe all Meghan wants is to live and die a very rich woman like Abigail.

Do you think Me’s baby is going to be born a reptile?

"I say Charles do you ever crave, to appear in the front of the Daily Mail dressed in your mothers bridal veil"

More likely a Pisces, R431.

I don’t doubt there’s a SohoBébé brewing even though she really looks like she’s wearing padding. I don’t doubt Harry is besotted with her instead of being forced into it by some kind of blackmail. I do believe she’s merching - there’s no other explanation for the appalling fit of her off-season clothes. She’s advertising the upcoming cruise wear lines. I do believe she is rotten to the core. This belief is based on her past actions of ruthlessly using and dumping people.

Camilla as a young woman.

Diana met this little girl on a hospital visit.

[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.]

Is it just me or does young Camilla look like Lynn Redgrave at R435?

R439 - no I saw the resemblance too.

Interesting fact: William and Oscar winning actor Eddie Redmayne attended Eton College at the same time.

Charles and Anne.

A slide show of the impressive jewellery collection of Princess Michael of Kent. She may be a bitch but she was a stiking woman.

Marie-Christine has an interesting way to wear a stand of pearls and brooches.

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

Oh goody, I'm glad Lady Colin Campbell is starting to weigh in on the matter of Prince Harry. I remember reading her "Diana In Private" when it first came out. It was full of dirt, and had the ring of truth. In fact, I think I'll see if it's in my local library, I'd like to take another look all these years later. I wonder who's blabbing to her? Paul Burrell, meanwhile, has nothing to say that I want to hear.

Lady Colin Campbell is a T, so I’m sure everyone here on DL will idolize her.

The York Princesses - Beatrice and Eugenie.

Some of the events planned for Harry and Meghan in Birkenhead next week.

Why was Camilla known as "The Growler" at school?

Do you like Kate's hair down?

OR do you like Kate's hair up? Either way she's got a great head of hair.

Neither Diana's sons or their wives have her star power.

No she’s not r447, she is intersex. The T glom on to intersex because it’s a real medical condition but they are not the same.

The Kents Christmas Card.

R454 didn't her husband divorce her when he discovered she had a dick?

The young Marie-Christine (aka Princess Michael of Kent or Princess Pushy) was quite striking as a brunette.

When you read Harry and Meghan's itinerary, you realize how boring a big part of their lives must be.

I think Kate comes as close to Diana magic as Will could have reasonably chosen. She's got height, a great figure, good taste, carries herself beautifully. Most importantly, she has a dominant, iconic head of hair, and the great part is, it's the opposite of Diana's: long, dark, flowing, and able to be worn in a variety of wonderful styles.

What Kate doesn't have is Diana's air of drama, sadness, and preoccupation with fashion and celebrities - thank God! She also doesn't have Diana's aristocratic facial features, but rather a lovely, fresh, approachable look all her own. I loved Diana, but there was a bit too much "high flying, adored" about her.

Meghan and her growing stomach. I hate the phrase "baby bump".

A lovely photo of the Queen and Prince Philip looking down on Charles and Anne.

Hunchback Katie Keen may have height but what is height for a woman if it comes with no presence nor long legs? The hiked up hemline on her dresses look ridiculous and is too obvious. You can still see her long torso and short legs in un-photoshopped pics.

She doesn't carry herself "beautifully" seeing as her posture is horrible.

And "iconic hair"? You having a laugh? Her dusty wiglet is legendary and when her hairdresser came out and said he uses hair pieces, kate quickly sent out an official statement denying it. Oh my sides. The clip on have already been revealed as her hair near her scalp is a different colour and texture (and thickness!) To the bottom which is thicker. The length itself drag her already collapsing face even further down and makes her jowles look that more severe.

Sweetheart, she doesn't come near Diana . Diana had warmth, presence, star power...IT! it can't be manufactured or bottled and sold. Meg doesn't have it either before you start shrieking.

And it has been noted by several people that Kate looks like she is wearing a costume. The 30s, 40s and 50s fashion does not suit her. It doesn't suit her unnatural (starved) skinny body or her athletic shape. The clothes wear her.

She looks best in sporty wear and more casual clothing.

The Queen rides by and Autumn Phillips drops a VERY LOW curtsey. Is her knee touching the grass?

The Queen and Prince Philip watch the horse trials.

Debutante Camilla Shand with her family.

The frau (R462) doth protest too much, methinks.

Diana is not coming back, dear. Kate is who we have, the future Princess of Wales, and she's pretty damn good.

Kate is boring as hell. I'm not a fan of her long hair twirling, her 1950s housewife dresses or her recent love of Gestapo-era coats.

As a queen consort I'm sure she will be fine. I assume William and Lizzie were going for "The anti-Diana" when they selected her.

R460, I agree, baby bump is awful, yech. The British tabloids have some odd expressions that they use over and over again: loved-up, worryingly thin, all smiles. One I always liked was "incandescent with rage."

The anti-Diana would have been short and squat.

Kate legs are pretty short. She just styles them well. Her hair is as opposite as one could get. She also chooses to be fashion regressive with her commitment to fashion from the 1930s-1960s. She occasionally breaks that that, but usually her clothing styles are from the previous century. Diana was a trendsetter.

Kate determination to focus on her family and to care about outside causes only as much as is absolutely necessary seems the opposite of Diana to me.

It's not a perfect match but I see enough to call her "anti-Diana"

Yes, I would agree "anti-Diana" but not in the negative sense. And she's smart enough not to try to be Diana. However, I do think many of her outfits are wonderful, and impeccable in the way Diana's were in the 1980s. Diana's style was quite conservatively Sloan-y for a long time; she just wore it better than anyone else.

I rather see Kate as the antidote to the distress Diana caused in her wake. She may have presented well on the world stage but she was nothing but unrelenting DRAMA to those on her personal level. It is utterly exhausting to have someone like that in your life! William and the Cambridge children deserve stability and peaceful domesticity considering the spotlight they are under because of their positions. My opinion has changed drastically on William in light of his decision to wisely choose Kate.

I'm not one to mythologize the dead. I think there are many negative things about Diana, but her willingness to grow and change and look outside herself are things I consider laudable.

Kate was in preparation for early a decade and has been a senior royal for close to another decade now. In that time she has shrunk more than grown and models a vision of womanhood that is firmly about home and hearth. She seems more suited to the world from the style of her clothing (1930s-1960s) than to the age in which she lives.

It's good she's not trying to be Diana, but whatever she is, is decidedly boring and not very useful for a modern woman.

In other words, Kate may not be the candidate you would hold as a mantle for the modern woman but as many like to remind, she is in line to be consort not regnant. Her primary responsibility is as support for her spouse, the heir presumptive who will embody the role of figure head. The other stuff is periphery by fangurls projecting their own wished-for ideas of a princess.

Kate's even more important role is to prepare Princess Charlotte to be another great Queen of England after events take their course.

Not personally projecting, just giving an opinion of a public figure R475.

Your opinion on Kate's role isn't the definitive one. It doesn't come with a job description. One could just as easily say your opinion is a projection of your own desires.

Not a projection of my desires when there are centuries of precedent to define roles in the British monarchy.

“Not very useful for a modern woman” - ooof.

No, she looks like a mare.

R467 said Kate was "pretty damn good." I think she'll make a fine enough queen consort but I wouldn't say she's good.

The roles change over the centuries. Each generation makes it their own. Queen Elizabeth does not reign in the way that her father did. There is no requirement that Kate follow a template from the 1950s.

Disagreeing with an evaluation of how Kate has taken on her role doesn't mean I'm a " fangurl" with "wished-for ideas of a princess."

Take a good look at "Lady" Colin Campbell.

That's a man, darlings

[quote]Kate's even more important role is to prepare Princess Charlotte to be another great Queen of England after events take their course.

Is there a terrible accident in Prince George's future? Do tell.

At least Kate isn't a hypocrite, making claims to humanitarianism and feminism. She supports the causes she seems to believe in, children's welfare and mental health. I am interested to see how she will develop in her 50s and beyond, when she has lived and experienced more.

I understand her taste for retro styles. It is the only was she can be at all original and stylish within the restrictions of her role.

R484 Fucking hell. Why does every conversation have to trend back to Meghan? If the best you've got is "at least she's not Meghan", that's pretty bad.

Kate does so little for the charities she supposedly supports that it's laughable. "Wife", "mother" and "stabilizing, loyal support" are way stronger points in her favour.

I always thought Kate had long legs, but then a commenter directed me to a site that showed she doesn’t. (What a terrible thing to blog about!)

She still gets respect from me because she wasn’t blind to her body flaw and committed to fixing it by dressing strategically. It works. I think the vintage styles are part of that.

Meghan should hire her “Suits” wardrobe people to help her out now. She looked great in that wardrobe.

I think part of the problem is that Meghan cannot afford to hire people or buy her clothes and alter them. She probably makes the best of what she has, using Jessica M and borrowed clothes, so really, the criticism she gets seems undeserved.

Were MeMe to cut back on her face filler treatment she'd have plenty of money to "alter" her polyester shmattas.

Being a fan of mid-century style, I love Kate's retro outfits, don't find them boring at all, but rather suited to her job. If one were to go down that road, it could be said Diana's late style got a little tedious, one sleeveless sheath dress after another.

King George V and Prince Michael of Kent look very similar

Prince Michael also looks like Tzar Nicholas

Prince Edward and George VI

Nicholas II was his own worst enemy. He had a chance to get his children out before things got BAD, and he and Alexandra chose to keep them close. If I remember correctly, his mother implored him to let her take the children abroad.

[quote] I think there are many negative things about Diana, but her willingness to grow and change and look outside herself are things I consider laudable.

What did Diana say or do to give the impression that she was willing to grow and change? I only remember hearing acrimony, not self-reflection, in discussions about the marital breakdown. A lot of wallowing. That and all the boyfriend drama post-Charles

R494 is right. It was all “poor me” without a shred of recognition of her own shortcomings.

George will simply bow to Charlotte's destiny. R483

Those family resemblances are remarkable. They’re all very distinguished looking gentleman.

R481, if Kate is not “good” in your view, what more would you have her do, or do differently? Who is an example of someone she might emulate? Sincere question.

That photo of Bea and Eug at r448 is gorgeous. Was it from the Vogue photoshoot? Whatever, Bea really needs to hire that makeup person. It's the best she's ever looked.

If it's a boy, Lamprey Charles Philip.

If it's a girl, Lamprey Alexandrina Elizabeth.

If it's another indeterminate one, Glamis Monster II.

What many seem to confuse--to include she who must not be invoked--is that marrying into the BRF is not like winning a pageant where with the crown and sash you adopt some fashionably woke platform to change the world to your idea of good. Doing something brash like that treads dangerously into political territory and damages all pretense of neutrality for an institution. So rather than carry some platform they default to patronages which is in the grand scheme of things is really a very benign position. They are not meant to do much with it beyond their name in type face and occasionally greeting subjects. No making of waves, no interjecting social commentary, nothing that could in the slightest be interpreted as provocative by someone--anyone. So being banal (though maybe not to YOUR taste) in the end accomplishes the main goal which is, do not distract from the monarch. All they do in any official capacity is to serve as the representative of Her Majesty. It is almost like a religious devotion; she is God's anointed Head of the Church and all reflected glory goes to QEII and by extension God. Philip has this figured out, at the detriment of his naval career. Kate seems to get it, too.

The receipts for me are that Meghan claims work study and financial aid. Since she lies as she breathes, it's obviously her dad. AND her many psalms to how her father worked himself to the bone for her.

I think Meghan believed she'd be working for herself when she joined the royal family. Set an agenda that was suitably high-minded and charitable, but HER agenda. HER staff. She'd determine the direction of things.

Instead however she is family, she is an employee. She's not paying for the staff, for the roof over her head, for her transportation, so it all does not flow downward from what she dictates, but from consensus, via courtiers and staff paid for by the Queen and by Charles. She works for them.

In a way she can't be blamed. The American media and fashion bloggers ruthlessly promote the Cinderella aspect of the monarchy, assuming that when a woman marries in she has an "unlimited" budget for the wedding dress, has Lizzy's jewelry staff at her disposal, and that "staff" doesn't mean pas, aid de camps, schedulers and security, ass kissers, hair brushers, linen ironers, food tasters, personal chefs, personal wait staff, etc.

It does not mean that.

Also hilariously saw what went to the permissions council or whatever it is called in October 2018 for Frogmore Cottage's end game (the previous plans I think were filed in July). They're making five separate residences out of the place, not one luxury residence. Taking the current subdivided into apartments configuration and making a different sort of five. Meghan and Harry are certainly in amongst it. I wonder who their very near neighbors will be, particularly as the near grounds aren't being set up for beauty, but for two shared parking lots. Sounds like a very practical place.

Which of Philip’s children is his favorite?

Anne, R504. He's talked about her far more often than he has the boys, and loves to joke with her and tease her about her love of horses...which he shares. He is happiest driving his little cart around the estates with a team of horses.

It's true, I think, that most Americans have a wrong picture of the BRF.

But, if you had any smarts, you would try to find out what is expected of any new member of "The Firm" before signing up.

All that information is out there and easy to find.

I've no sympathy for Sparkle. If she didn't know what she was signing up for, it's only because she chose not to find out and fixated on the supposed pot of gold.

Previously she had been playing in very tiny sandboxes and thought she could get away with her mean girl tricks with her husband's family.

More fool her.

R503 Sorry, but there is no way they’ll be living in a single flat in that building. They’ll have the whole house. It was divided into flats for staff but it’s being converted back. It’s (by British standards) a fairly substantial country house - on the open market probably £2m or so. But it’s not a mansion like William & Kate have. It’s listed so they need permission to make any substantial changes. The actual plans for what they are doing are not available for the public to see.

R501 Spot on. Kate & William, like them or loathe them, are getting everything right. The BRF are not supposed to be celebrities nor are they supposed to be using the positions they’ve been given by us (the people of the UK) for their own self-advancement. Whenever they visit a cause or charity they do so in pkace of the monarch and they are there to highlight the work of others. It’s not supposed to be about them.

Markle does not get that. Her absurd showboating on tour might have had her cretinous fans screeching with delight but the people who actually matter back at the palace would have been mortified.

Incidentally, does anyone think that Celebitchy prat might be Mio. I’ve become convinced of it.

How is it determined if a commoner marrying into the RF can retain their previous job? Obviously, acting is not a suitable profession for a current member of the RF, but what if Meghan had a more run-of-the mill job? Mark Phillips didn't take a title and continued with his military and equestrian careers. Sophie Wessex continued to work in PR until the influence peddling fiasco that forced her out of her job. What if Meghan had a career in medicine, worked in finance or was a business owner who wanted to keep working? Does the family really need another working member who's attached to the sixth in line? Did the scandal with Sophie put the RF off of having a regular working person in the fold? They would need to attend the requisite family events and there shouldn't be a conflict of interest between job and RF or government business. Otherwise, what's the problem?

“After all I’ve done for this fucking family” - Diana, caught on one of those tapes. On one hand LOL, on the other omg!

R508 If the future king can work as an air ambulance pilot, I am pretty sure the wife of the 6th in line could pursue a career too.

A very visible job, like acting or modelling wojld be too difficult, but something less so would be fine.

I actually think it’s disgusting that Harry hasn’t bothered to get any kind of job since leaving the army. It’s not like he’s devoted himself to being a full time royal - he does about a third of the amount of engagements his 92 year old grandmother does.

If they are "working royals" R508 they are expected to be working royals. That is their job. Working royals are those who receive tax payer money. It's expected to be a full-time gig. Laughable considering how much they work in comparison to those with real jobs, but I suppose their schedule must be open to accommodate any engagements. If they are "private royals," more like the York girls who do not receive tax dollars, they are permitted to have jobs, as they need to make a living like everyone else.

I've been on DL for over a decade, and I can say confidently that this BRF series of threads is one of the most insane, make-believe series ever. You bitches live in LaLa Land.

R504 Do you need to ask? Anne, Anne, and Anne again.

Phil's perspective: Firstborn - Might as well have been named Nancy Third born - One word, Fergie Last born - Dropped out of the Marines and took up prancing on the stage

How could it not be Anne?

THe actual plans, R507,are the plans filed in October 2018 converting it to five separate residences. Please don't pull bullshit out of your ass that it's going to be one residence and the plans are secret. The plans are required to be public because it's a listed building. The two parking lots planned also support this.

The amended plans as of November 2018 call for tunnels to connect FrogCott to FrogHouse. The tunnels will make it easier for guests in FrogCott to visit the Royal Highnesses at the House. It sounds like Doria will be the permanent guest at FrogCott and she will assist in Meghan's natural home birth at FrogHouse.

Good God the Frogmore Tunnel troll is back.

What’s is PHilip’s problem with Charles?

Our dear Meghan is known as the "Frogmore Tunnel".

Philip and Charles both romanced the same stripper who's based in Monaco. It came out in the late 80s. She apparently later gave birth to a child who could very well have been the son of either.

Good grief. Poor Elizabeth.

Twenty seven BRF gossip threads and we're finally hearing about this choice tidbit r519??! More DETAILS please. Your post was sparse on them.

Sorry, I was just making that up.

Darn. It was a good made up rumor though, as far as those things go.

Anne is all man. She is more man than all her fruity brothers combined. Of course she is Phil's favorite. I suspect he likes her children better than the others as well. However, I think he has a major soft spot for Lady Louise.

R507 You are wrong. The plans are not visible to the public for security reasons. The application is there, but the architects drawings and floor plans are not available....and there’s a note attached saying why. Google it. And you are simply deluded if you think they will be living in a two/three bedroom flat sharing a front door with staff.

They are getting the whole building - and it would be ridiculous if they didn’t. It’s not even a particularly big place.

Taking mum for a ride.

I love Lady Louise! I also love her name. So strong and classic.

As I’ve said before, Lady Louise has a young Marianne Faithfull look to her.

Also so ugly!

R514 The plans are not publicly available. Frogmore Cottage was divided into 5 apartments and used for staff prior to the decision for Harry and Meghan to move in. The current renovation plans are secret due to security concerns (according to the MSN, DM and Hello mag)

[quote]A special note on the application states it contains ‘sensitive information’ and that the plans, architect’s drawings and other documents have not been made public.

I remember there was some noise when it came out that William had listed Kate’s occupation on George’s birth certificate as “Princess of the United Kingdom.” Harry is probably going to demand the same for Meghan. Is it even possible, considering she is still an American citizen? Or could she have secretly obtained British citizenship already?

R498 I find Maxima's take on her role quite interesting. She's well-dressed without seeming to regard herself as stuck in the 1950s both stylistically and as a woman. She is also smart, engaged and appears well-rounded.

I'm not saying she's perfect because nobody is. I simply prefer Maxima's idea of being a royal spouse to the one Kate has presented so far. Mind you, Kate is still a young woman. Her views and style may change.

R532 Ha ha, I knew you’d say Máxima.

What about Mathilde queen of the Belgians ? She is always well dressed and before she became a queen sometimes very modern

I love Maxima in her casual (almost peasant) skirt, very casual sandals, and toe nail polish.

You my dear friend are very besotted with Maxima . Nothing special about her .

R430 - Put it this way: I would wager a months' pay that Meghan has had fantasies about taking Kate "down" but her version of that is to damage the Cambridges in favour of herself and Harry in small petty ways - hence, the nasty leaked stories to Lainey, Meghan's bestest PR friend.

Abigail tried to "ruin" the Duchess of Marlborough, not just ensure her own economic future - the two were tied together, as she had to replace the Duchess in the Queen's favour in order to get to the economic security. There wasn't room for both of them if Abigail was to use the Queen to get where she wanted.

Today, things are slightly different (emphasis on the word "slightly"). Meghan's economic future was vastly improved the moment that ring was on her finger and will be further assured once she gives birth to Charles's next grandchild. I say "slightly" as it is Charles who holds the purse strings for the Sussex and Cambridge households now, and whose goodwill Meghan needs if Charles is going to be coaxed to loosen those purse strings further and leave his son a second fat trust to supplement the one Diana left him.

So currying favour is still the name of the game, and to a certain extent, Meghan may have thought it to her advantage to make Kate look bad. It backfired, Meghan made some serious missteps and her grasp greatly exceeded her real reach, and Kate has come out of it looking better rather than worse.

Meghan Markle is not a nice woman. Her father-in-law isn't a fool and neither is her grandmother-in-law and she showed her claws far too early and loudly. The "gift" of that dull cottage at Frogmore with no grand base in London, and the placement of the four senior women at Remembrance Day were the first real signs that the Sussexes had had their hands slapped.

Don't kid yourself: if Meghan thought she could get away with, and benefit from, damaging Kate's image, she would. Her narcissism and delusions of grandeur, coupled with years of vicious social climbing whose habit she can't drop, make that a given.

Harry was an easy mark. Meghan's mistake was assuming that therefore, his grandmother and father and brother were also easy marks.

R531 - that's because people don't graps that a royal duchess, as opposed to an ordinary duchess, is an HRH and that carries the rank of "Princess". Technically, without those ducal titles, Kate would have been Princess William and Princess Henry, just as dear Marie-Christine is Princess Michael of Kent. So William was correct in listing Kate's occupation as Princess of the United Kingdom, and Meghan is likewise.

Royal duchess: HRH, Your Royal Highness

Ordinary duchess: Your Grace

Kate and Meghan are both Princesses of the United Kingdom (although Meghan only by courtesy until she becomes a UK citizen), using as their primary titles their husband's royal ducal titles.

^*grasp (not graps)

Agree with you, R537. I think MM imagined she had got the better deal than Kate. All the royal perks but far more freedom to do the exciting photo op trips to Africa, where she and Harry would save the world. The rest of the time, she would be lounging on super-yachts like the York sisters do, lunching with the most fashionable people in London, all on the royal expense account. Kate and William, meanwhile, would be at one tedious appearance after another. It is very clear that Harry thought he was getting the 21 room KP apartment, because it was reported that he was hurrying along the renovations. What MM hadn't counted on was how cynical the British public are and how mean-spirited they can be. The BRF is a house of cards just waiting to fall down, which may be sooner rather than later, after QE2 dies and their support base also dies off. It takes a lot to win the respect of the public, years of effort. Biggest mistakes - the letter to the press, the engagement photo dress, the gala wedding, and not managing her family. Her father, for all his flaws, presents a pretty pathetic figure, and it's hard to take MM seriously as a caring person.

R531 - Meghan can't "secretly" become a UK citizen. She is taking the normal route toward same, and probably advisedly. Her title is therefore strictly a public courtesy. American citizens are also through, I believe, an amendment to the Constitution, barred from accepting titles from foreign goverments. No one, of course, is going to make a fuss about Meghan's title by marriage, especially as she has publicly announced her intention to become a UK citizen.

So in point of fact, Meghan's passport is actually still that of a US citizen, not a UK citizen, and the title issue is moot. Harry can't very well list her occupation as Princess of the United Kingdom on a US passport.

Should Harry die before Meghan becomes a UK citizen, that title would remain strictly a courtesy until she remarries. If they divorce before she becomes a UK citizen, the title would evaporate. They took Diana's and Fergie's HRHs away through divorce and they were UK citizens. they wouldn't hesitate to strip Meghan of hers, using her US citizenship to insist she has no right to it.

After she becomes a UK citizen, that title becomes hers by right, not just courtesy.

I thought Meghan became a citizen of the UK before the wedding? Didn't I read that they "expedited" the process for them?

As for the Frogmore House conversion, after seeing pictures, it looks small and drab. And when they say there a re five flats for staff, I have to recall that their idea of a flat for the staff is not ours. Those "flats" are probably small, cramped affairs and gutting the place to renovate it for Meghan and Harry will take some doing. I think it's a shabby idea at best.

The discussion has moved on but I think a baby girl will be named Caroline or Carolina in reference to Charles.

"Harry was an easy mark. Meghan's mistake was assuming that therefore, his grandmother and father and brother were also easy marks."

I think Charles might be an easy mark. For one thing, he must still feel bruised from the public beating he took about Diana, guilty in general about how badly things went with her, and soft when it comes to poor little bro Harry. Charles also likes the ladies as well as the "arts" and New-Agey things. Meghan can easily play him.

The Kate-didn't-give-me-a-ride story was petty and unwise. She was probably stressed out trying to nail down Harry (it had to be done carefully), and sensitive to any slight from the family. She probably told a tale along the lines of, "Ugh, Kate's a piece of work. Get this, I told her where I was going, and she was all, 'Oh lovely.' Then I find out she went to the same store, and didn't even give me a ride, can you believe it? Who treats someone that way? That's just not kind." I can hear it all, in that earnest hipster-actress voice they all have in LA. Couldn't contain her pique, blabbed to someone she knew would spread the word, and voila. Just my 2c of imagining how it went down.

Caroline is a good bet, and a nice name.

I think Regina Elizabeth or Virginia Elizabeth would be options for a girl, giving a nod to Elizabeth I as well.

I think Stephen Charles or Robert Charles for a boy.

Too bad there isn't a "Name the royal baby contest l" ;it would drum up more publicity!

I love this photo of the Queen keeping an eye on Prince Andrew.

The then Princess Elizabeth in her wartime uniform.

The Queen at Balmoral with her black labs.

Suspense at the Braemar Games for the Queen and Andrew.

Kate has an upcoming engagement next week.

Princess Anne would have done 8 engagements for the year by the time hardworking Kate does her first one. Anne has events in London, Gloucestershire, and Derbyshire while our Kate can only make it out to Islington.

Well, at least she'll get to "recycle" some outdoor outfit and her 10 year old boots so the public know she's thrifty and down-to-earth.

R551 - I can hear your sarcasm.

Here's my snark: never mind about the wives, what have Harry and William been doing lately?

[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.]

R552 - other than shooting birds out of the sky at Sandringham, you mean? Not much but the holidays will soon be over for them and it's back to the grind (um, work sort of).

R551 I agree, Kate is boring and predictable. Wouldn’t it be better if she, for once, got a brand new, with tags on, all-black, sleeveless Givenchy total look, complete with stiletto heels? Would be perfect for an outdoor engagement in January!

And MeMe's crap PR agency continues to pit her against Catherine in forums and via "press" channels, both in the US and UK, a really stupid tactic in the overall picture. A thoughtful, intelligent approach is obviously not what they're after -- they are in it for the Hazbeans' benefit, period, the sooner the better and the MORE the better.

R544 - I wouldn't bet on Charles being that easy a mark. The one thing he won't tolerate is damage to the institution, which he knows s now vested long-term in William's and Kate's success at carrying the thing on; his own reign will be relatively brief. Charles may seem indulgent to a certain extent, but what Meghan didn't understand is what Charles does understand: damage to the Cambridges IS damage to the institution, it is their burden to see that the thing survives and gets passed down to future generations. It isn't just petty tit-for-tat gossip shit: it's about the validity of the whole show.

Charles is also notoriously tight with money except when it comes to himself, and punctilious about respect for his mother and her position. He also won't forget or tolerate disrespect in that regard, and that Tiara Gate shit and the leaked stories about the Cambridges won't have gotten by him.

They'll put a nice face on it, it looks like they'll let Meghan have the NT patronage, which will be very prestigious for her (if not for the NT [sic]), and they'll all try to put the late 2018 tabloid fracas behind them, behave as a united family, etc. The new baby will help rehabilitate things.

But that Frogmore exile shouldn't be taken lightly, nor the pointed refusal of a grand apartment base in London. It means they realised that she can't be trusted to put the institution first and herself second, and that she and Harry needed be taught their place in the system. They'll renovate the house and make it look nice, but it's no Anmer Hall, she isn't the future Queen Consort, and they can and will shorten the leash if and when necessary.

R552 Looks like Willnot is teaching Kannot how to do things. He has one quick trip to a hospital in Whitechapel.

He can take an air ambulance to get there, or do a flyover to impress her.

Those two are always so hard at work.

Anne doesn't have three children under five; it's my opinion that the Queen wanted William and Kate to have the time with their young family that she didn't due to becoming Queen at twenty-five. What matters is that Kate behaves well, dresses appropriately, clearly isn't a limelight seeking narcissist, and her "boring" approach takes a well-worn leaf out of the royal book: identify a reassuring, feminine style that outlasts fashionable trends, looks authentically British, and stick to it. Boring is the least of the family's worries; they already had one charismatic fashion superstar - didn't work out too well.

Is there anyone in the BRF that you bitches actually LIKE?

Everyone likes The Queen R560!

R560 - Against my intellectual reservations about the whole thing: I really do admire and respect the Queen, except for her refusal to "interfere" when her children and grandchildren go astray. I'm also somewhat partial to Anne for her rugged independence and refusal to accept titles for her children's father, and, therefore, her children. The Countess of Wessex is a hardworking royal, and I have always liked the Queen's quiet niece, Sarah Chatto (nee Armstrong-Jones). I also rather like Princess Alexandra. I am suspicious of Charles ever since his "spider memos" emerged, although I respect what he's done environmentally at Highgrove and the Duchy of Cornwall. I heartily loathe(d) Andrew, Fergie, Harry, Meghan, and Princess Michael of Kent.

Oh, and I despised the pretensions of Margaret and her husband, Antony Armstrong-Jones.

I adored the Queen Mother.

R562

I completely agree, R559, well said. It’s all about a stable foundation and longevity, and that’s what a happy family will give to Will as future king.

R560 - all of them, of course, in some way! That’s why we are here. My British mother always used to say that the royal family were like family. I always like to bitch about family but I do love them.

As far as the queen interfering in her children’s grandchildren’s love lives, I think she is a wise woman who understands human nature on a very basic level. It would be very difficult for her to do more than give sincere advice.

R560 haven't you heard that Catherine, Duchesses of Cambridge is the Buddha reincarnate: perfect in fashion, motherhood and domesticity. She is the model for royal womanhood and shall never be criticized.

Death to the peasant so says she is merely adequate versus acknowledging her obvious pre eminence.

New drama afoot?

R566 - Now that would be REALLY DAMAGING to the Royal Family. Two divorces for the future Defender of the Faith and Head of The Church of England including the love of his life. Don't believe it.

Divorce? Maybe. Camilla sick and dying? More likely.

Some do the false equivalency of ranking Kate at the level of, say, Maxima, Letizia, Mette-Marit, or Mary in Denmark. The former two are reigning Queen consorts whilst the latter two are crown princesses (married to their respective heir presumptives). Camilla is their sole British peer. Kate should not be rated to any of their levels--William is strictly, for all intents and purposes, only "the spare."

There are plenty who acknowledge Her Majesty has been conscious to let W&K focus on their young family since it is to everybody's advantage; there having been no practical need for them occupy a more prominent role in the firm thus far. Plenty to allow the older members (incl. the Queen's own children) to continue to serve in their respective capacities. (Every cog in the proverbial wheel wants to feel appreciated and have something worth contributing.) But now they are aging, to include HM. So we see visible signs of Charles taking the lead, and William assuming a more center stage in the power structure. Up until this point Kate has done what was expected; stay discreetly but firmly in. her. lane. Married to the spare means you fade somewhat into the woodwork (or as much as the international press will let you) and hold a quiet respect for your privilege. I think now we will begin to see her assume more of a presence as she draws nearer to becoming the Princess of Wales; although she'll stay true to her nature which means she won't be flamboyant nor sensational but definitively reassuring.

Funny enough, although CP Mary outranks Kate my impression is she looks to Kate for cues. I've seen indications when Mary has copied the Duchess' style and hair, but the most recent indication is Mary recycling and repurposing many more items in her wardrobe recently than she has ever done up to date since marrying Frederik.

Very astute, R569. You hit the nail on the head. William and Kate are not crown prince/princess (Charles and Camilla are) and shouldn't be expected to have the same level of publicity.

Charles an easy mark? Who sent the Sussexes to live at Frog Holler then?

As to whom we like in the BRF - I like Zara Tindall as I imagine most people do. And I also like Princess Michael of Kunt as she is known around here, for her wonderful elegance and style.

URGENT!

Would one of you babes please get in touch with Laura Wasser to ask her to contact me IMMEDIATELY?? I would do it myself but my dear friend Jess, gorgeous daughter-in-law of Canada's most beloved Priminster, has not yet alighted upon the bars of my gilded CAGE with a new batch of burner phones. And you believe that my keepers have not manifested existential pain betwixt my acursed life? #SoBroken

It is with heavy hand that I must now admit that choosed wrongly. My Love is unkind. I must move on. I must find a co-traveller worthy of the gifts I bring — gifts of philanthropistism, cooking, love and light, ethereally superfluous beauty (not that I believe it...it's just what the entire world says), and above all else, KINDNESS.

I find myself in torpid need of an older man; a wiser man; a man who, too, has felt the sting of divorce. As such, I NEED LAURA WASSER, AND I NEED HER ADMITTED TO THE UK BAR RIGHT NOW!!!

My beauties, please manifest this fulgent wish into my universe so that I may live my best life.

Namaste,

Haha at the those posters defending Will and Kate's laziness.

In 2010 when Sophie Wessex had a 2 year old at home she did 188 engagements. When James was 3 she did 191 and when he was 4 she did 324.

Sophie is a less senior royal than Kate and she had a toddler at home plus Louise who was 7-9 in those years. Sophie had nannies to help and so does Kate. In her first year Kate did a grand total of 34 engagements and she didn't have any kids or morning sickness.

Calm down, Kate hater.

The truth stings a little bit R574.

No lies were told in R573.

Fresh scratching post, aka Part 14 at the ready:

r575, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

R577 That to response to Kate's next outfit at the urban garden too. Glad you agree.

Place your bets.

My money is on tight jeans so we can see how much she's regained her figure; solid colour jumper (with or without a button-down shirt underneath), zippered rain jacket in a muted colour and her scuffed-up brown boots.

^^^ That's my response

R578, how lame you are. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

The OTT antipathy is clouding your Kate hating judgement. You distill legitimacy down to metrics? Here's a clue mate, Kate already has the job. How ever many engagements she does to your satisfaction is not and never was an audition on her part. It just highlights your woeful ignorance of the BRF as an institution.

All Kate has to do is enough. And since HM has awarded Kate the Royal Family Order, for the boss she has distinguished in vociferous terms it's enough. No matter how many engagements Sophie conducts, or whether Meghan doubles Sophie's measure, it won't move them up the line of succession, it doesn't improve their standing, You realize a lot of those engagements are just busy work and dog and pony shows right? Something to give members in the family something to do.

The only one who matters ultimately is the monarch, and the direct heirs. Historically, all an heir is supposed to do really is avoid scandal which has proven more often than not a surmountable task for them. The Cambridges have done a remarkable job accomplishing, even if it means per your estimation they are do nothings. You cast your aspersions but then you labor under the same miscalculation that Meghan is operating upon.

It really boils down to make the monarch and her heirs look good and you've done your job.

The BRF has become a bunch of Kate fan girls who can't admit that she's pretty and she had some pretty babies but she's lazy as hell.

She is lazier than any of the other royals. It's easy to say she's more refined than Meghan. No prizes there. The Markles are a shit show. But compared to any of the other working royal women, including royal spouses who married into the BRF the way she did, she does so very little.

R558 Are you Kaiser , notasugarhere or Nic919 ?

I meant to say "this BRF thread" at R582.

R583 DL is anonymous and I'm not on any other platform. Those names mean nothing to me.

Does anyone not feel gratitude for the re-appearance of our Amma Meg at r572? Shame on you. Welcome back milady!

R565 - Oh, don't be wet. Kate's doing well, she's grasped the fundamental truth of the thing: rock the boat too much and it capsizes. Stable and boring is what's wanted. It doesn't make her the Buddha reincarnate, but it does make her eminently sensible. She's done what she was hired to do: give William a stable family life, be a dutiful wife and daughter in law, never outshine her husband, support British fashion with her wardrobe, and her worst enemy wouldn't deny her obvious penchant for motherhood. The Cambridges present well as a family and much of that was Kate's job.

R567 - Don't you believe it is right. What on God's earth would Camilla have to gain by it? She has her own bolt-hole (Bolehyde Manor), she enjoys title position and even the good will of the Queen, if she and Charles have grown apart neither has to do much but appear together and then happily enjoy separate private lives. Charles has nothing to gain by it, either, except more PR headaches. Privately they can spend as much or as little time together as they please, in comfort and style. Divorce is unnecessary.

R581 - Nailed it, mate. The "engagement counters" just don't realise that Kate's won the only audition that mattered. William would have to be arrested and convicted for boiling bunnies for brekkers in front of the kids to get dislodged from the succession. That's the catch about inherited monarchies and peerages: merit matters not - only birth order does.

Honestly, I don't care if Kate's "lazy." I just want her to look good in tasteful outfits, cut the occasional ribbon, and present a calm, steady image. We've got enough chaos in this world.

Dear me R587 I said Kate would make a fine queen consort but I found her fashion choices boring and I was roundly lambasted. I assumed I was not effusive enough in my comments so I've been reformed.

Hail Queen Catherine

I find the Kate haters amusing.

And comparing her appearances to Princess Anne's - that raises the hilarity stakes enormously.

Strange, though, that the very people who want to use The Princess Royal as a club to batter Kate, spend no time really talking about TPR and what she is doing, etc.

No, they can't be bothered to spend their time praising one woman for her commitment to The Queen and "The Firm". Instead they mention her only in passing as a way to insult another member of "The Firm".

And all in a bizarre attempt to make Harry's wife appear ...what? ... committed in any way to that which Princess Anne is so committed to? Hardly.

R591 - You really just don't get the point, do you?

Yes, that's exactly what the future holds: Hail, Queen Catherine. Boring clothes and all. No longer HRH, but HM.

I'm just hoping to live long enough to see Meghan Markle trying not to bare her teeth as she curtsies to Queen Catherine and King William in public.

R560, I have tremendous admiration for The Queen, and I've been 'Mary!'ed several times for admitting as much, once even admitting that I would cry and go into mourning when she finally dies. I'm an older person, and almost everyone from my past is gone. She represents dignity, continuity, commitment and duty, and is a holdover from another era.

I also like Prince Philip and Prince Charles. I admire Princess Anne. I think Camilla and the York sisters would be fun to hang out with. I'd enjoy having tea with Princess Michael, only because she's a fascinating and well-educated woman (talented writer, too). I always liked Harry. I had higher hopes for Meghan, and was hoping for her to find success in her new role, but I've lost confidence in her since the wedding.

R553, Thanks for letting us see that Art Chatto has his tits out again.

Kate is lazy. Meghan is a bad addition to the BRF. Mega ego and the ginger prince have little to offer.

Kate does less than Sophie. Whoever you compare her to, she is appropriately styled Duchess Dolittle.

[quote] Does anyone not feel gratitude for the re-appearance of our Amma Meg at [R572]?

No gratitude, just second-hand embarassment for the person who writes such unfunny, belabored dreck and the others who enjoy it.

R569 - Fair points and quite true: Crown Princess Mary is Camilla's opposite number in Denmark, not Kate's. Charles is Crown Prince Frederik's opposite number, not William. It's the age disparity between the two couples that throws people off.

Mary, remember, is Australian, not Danish by birth. Her family emigrated from Scotland. So it wouldn't be surprising if she and Kate, essentially two middle-class British girls, looked as if they shared some tastes. That said, Mary has a very different figure: she is much slighter than Kate, and lacks not only Kate's height, but her tiny waist. I saw Mary once in person and was surprised at how petite she is.

Meghan is really the opposite number of Mary's sister-in-law, Marie, the younger Danish prince's second wife. Marie keeps a very discreet profile and has done very nicely fitting into the Danish royal household and life, as Mary has.

R593 It is you who do not get my point. I acknowledge that Kate will be a fashion regressive boring Queen.

R596 - "Dreck" - is that Olde English?

Kate and William are not only lazy, but they’re mediocre people. Look, we’re all pretty much mediocre people, but we’re not rulers of a country (yes I know they have no real power, but they live like they do). They are living a lavish lifestyle we’re supporting, but they excel at nothing. At least business people excelled at making money. These two sloths are zilch.

[quote]I'm just hoping to live long enough to see Meghan Markle trying not to bare her teeth as she curtsies to Queen Catherine and King William in public.

If that's what you're sitting around hoping for, you need to get out more

R588, Camilla no longer owns Bolehyde Manor - see the very bottom paragraph under "History" in the linked Wikipedia article.

Camilla's country house is called Ray Mill House, in Wiltshire.

SohoBebe will be named Americo Henricus Charlemagne Dorio if it identifies as male. America Henrietta Charalina Doriana if it identifies as female. Since it needs to decide its sex the names won't apply until later. Hazza will call it Regret and Megs will call it Meal Ticket until then.

They will raise it in a completely gender neutral way, including only ever dressing it in black. Pink, blue or other colours could create gender bias.

I think it makes Kate the better mother.