British Royal Family Part 14: general gossip and information

Bitches, please.

All right, I'll bite: Meghan Markle getting the patronage of the National Theatre is a disgrace. Maybe the NT Board doesn't care because of what they think is her fundraising potential. But really, can you picture the cream of British theatre bowing and curtsying to an American joke actress who had one acting job on her CV - and that on a joke cable show?!

I like Kate, but it really is shocking how little she and William do, especially compared to the rest of their family. Young kids just aren’t an excuse...they have nannies, and outside of tours, it’s not like the royals aren’t home for dinner every night.

R2 It's pretty ridiculous to bow to most of the royals. Have you seen Edward's contribution to the arts or the military?

DLers can anyone find a clip of the royals on that stupid show he made them do?

I was just watching it the other day, R4.

You are a gem R5. Thanks for having it at the ready.

I love Anne's face thought this whole debacle.

Meghan's bad acting means she and Edward have at least one topic they can discuss at family gatherings.

R3 - It isn't shocking the British public, only self-selected audiences on sites like this and CB. Kate and William married in spring 2011, Kate has had three children and three six-month maternity leaves. She also lost the first trimester each time to severe morning sickness. With Kate's childbearing duties finally over, and with the Queen giving her the family order last year, I believe the numbers will climb this year, especially as Harry and Meghan will be retreating for awhile upon the birth of their baby and the move out of London.

Meanwhile, Kate came out quite respectably in the recent you.gov poll. The public isn't really counting engagements; they're going with their emotions on how people look and what their emotional impression of them is.

It's like voting: most studies show that people vote with their guts, not their heads.

Let's face it: if people were looking at the monarchy with their minds rather than their hearts, it would be gone.

But the monarchy stubbornly and consistently enjoys something like 70%-75% support amongst the UK public, and every generation they say, Oh, the young don't care, they'll go off this, and the next poll comes out, and there the monarchy is, enjoying approval ratings that PMs and Presidents can only envy. Kate came out in the top six - they look at her and they see a pretty, well-dressed, quiet, unassuming young Mum of three who cleans up terrifically at state occasions and does them proud. They don't see lazy Kate.

Of course, what happens when HM goes is anyone's guess.

I read the article about the national theater. What jumped out at me was some comment about how they didn’t want to call it the Royal theater, lest it not sound inclusive or something. I kind of rolled my eyes at that one. Was it once called the Royal theater and then changed? In any case it might just be right up Meghan’s alley.

R7 You're right. The public view the monarchy with heart rather than mind.

Kate's lack of work is noticeable enough for the public to comment and give her multiple nicknames about it. She's enjoyed a ratings bump in comparison to Markle Madness, but she'll need to do more than that. Will running off on a ski-holiday and missing Commonwealth Day doesn't get him any points with the public either.

If the Cambridges have a busy year visiting places outside of London, shaking hands and cutting ribbons, they'll be golden.

Pointing out uncomfortable truths about the Cambridges on this thread bring out the Meghan-haters as if this is even about those two recent-arrivals.

The Cambridges lower numbers are more than likely a tactical move on the part of the BRF (although I doubt they mind). Low numbers or not, they're more popular than PC.

I don't think Kate's baby factory has been shuttered. QEII had four and I think Kate would like to get to that number. Also if she's thinking about the future then more kids = duties spread around, especially when she and William get older.

I agree, R2.

I hope it doesn't happen.

I recall an incident a some years back where Prince Charles was scheduled to attend a funeral (I think it was) of a famous actor (perhaps Richard Attenborough) and he couldn't attend.

Instead, PC intended to delegate Kenneth Branagh (to speak?) in his place.

There was a big outcry at this plan because the older, more veteran actors deeply resented the idea of having to accept Branagh in Prince Charles' place. And it didn't happen.

Does anyone else remember this?

If this story is correct, then I would expect that as this idea of giving Sparkle the patronage of the National Theatre is floated, that Buckingham Palace would be receiving multiple protests at the idea.

What an embarrassment. Well, maybe you had to be British~ As far as I'm concerned the best thing was seeing that very handsome Walter Payton and a short glimpse of his rear end...BTW I'm black not a White guy with a fetish here. His death was very sad.

R11 - I think a fourth baby would be risky for the Cambridges. The Queen had her family in another era when a four-child family wasn't exceptional. Also, she missed a great deal of Charles' and Anne's childhood because she became Queen so young, and Andrew and Edward were almost like a second family; she was by then able to pace herself and enjoy their childhoods more. I think that is why she is sympathetic to Kate's and William's desire to keep their official duties more balanced with family life.

The Queen values motherhood - someone once described stopping with her in front of a portrait of QEI at some event, and HM said something about how pathetic QEIs life was with no husband and no children. My guess is that HM thinks Kate has done a very good job on the family life front while still keeping her hand in on the Duchessing front. The one thing nobody wanted for the next Heir was another Diana. A successful, stable, loving family life was crucial. I think everyone talking about how "lazy" Kate is has altogether mistaken what her real brief was - including from the Queen and Charles.

The Queen has shown marked favour toward the Cambridges and wouldn't have given Kate the family order last year, or given them Anmer Hall and renovated it at her own cost, if she didn't think Kate was doing exactly what she was brought on to do. It wasn't to do loads of engagements: it was to found a stable family and keep William happy The "official" work was secondary, but I think will be stepped up now.

And I very much doubt there will be a fourth pregnancy. Kate's done the first half of the job, now she has to step uo to the second half.

R9 - The "public" in this case actually means the tabloid press and spiteful sites like Celebitchy. And it isn't as if, since getting back from that tour, that the Sussexes have been burning up the pavement with three engagements a week.

The other thing that has been noted is that after this third baby, Kate has looked markedly more confident, happier, and more relaxed in her public role. That's why I think the third baby was the last one - it's as if she can look forward now with the "must complete the family" agenda done. And it must be said that Meghan Markle's mistakes, negative press, and bizarre dress sense have made Kate look better by comparison. Kate was very savvy to ignore all the furore over Meghan and stick to her style and quieter persona.

I do recall the bit about omitting "Royal" from the name when the NT was founded in the early 1960s. The whole royal warrant thing is two-sided. On the one hand, royal patronage is always welcomed if it increases prestige and funding - on the other, it can also seem overly imperial.

I've been to the "Royal Opera House" and to the "Royal Ballet Company" at Covent Garden and I never stop to think what that "Royal" means - it's part of the charm of the names.

What I want to know, though, is after HM is raptured, who is going to pick out all that gold thread on the red curtains at Covent Garden that outline those giant EIIRs, and replace them with CIIIRs?

The only thing that does keep me wondering about a fourth for Kate&Will is how close Kate is with Pippa. I can see her wanting to try for a sister for Charlotte.

R16 - Why try for a sister for Charlotte?! What could possibly be more desirable than being the only little Princess in the family?! She probably has William wrapped around her little finger - who needs the competition?! Kate should surely see that.

In fact, it's so desirable a position that I plan to be Princess Charlotte in my next life.

"I've been to the "Royal Opera House" and to the "Royal Ballet Company" at Covent Garden and I never stop to think what that "Royal" means - it's part of the charm of the names."

- yes, agree, it's got a wonderful, romantic sort of grand fairytale feel. "National" - yawn.

We are all Princess Charlotte R17. She is very easy to mind meld with because she is of a singular purpose and devotion to honor, like her Queen.

Edward VIII The Traitor King

Harry should have a look at the last time a royal married a multiply-divorced American hussey. Didn't turn out well.

r7 I would not assume that Kates childbearing "duties" are over .I think she will have more children.

R21 - Well, we will just have to wait and see.

I'm more curious as to how soon after the first baby the Sussexes will rush to have another. Kate had her first at 31 and her last by 36, Meghan is only having her first at 37. It is very different to have your first over 35 than your last.

R15 The broadsheets are not where one goes for royal news. The tabloids are the most read newspapers in the UK, both in paper form and online. That makes them significant influencers of public sentiment.

The broadsheets were all in favour of Remain. The tabloids favoured Brexit. We all see how that went.

Don't dismiss the facts because they don't suit your opinion. The public like Will and Kate but they also think they're prone to laziness. That's a fact.

If Kate is smart she'll shut down the baby factory. She takes 3 months off at the start of a pregnancy, 6months off after the birth and reduced duties while the baby is young. She is doing very little for about 2 years around each child. The Cambridges have 3 children already. That's enough.

In a family with people living well into their 90s and beyond, the public doesn't need more royal mouths to feed.

r23 The Broadsheets were not all in favour of remain .The Daily Telegraph could not be MORE pro brexit if it tried and either The Times or The Sunday Times was pro brexit ,I cannot remember which.

I also do not think public sentiment would be against the Cambridges having a 4th child as you seem to assume.

The opinion re the Cambridges 4th child are all my own but I suspect it would get good public support. Zara could have a whole cricket team if she wanted to, but Will and Kate doing limited engagements as they raise an ever expanding family might not go down so well.

Throw in a few pictures of them on the slopes or in St. Barts while everyone else is living through austerity measures and see how that goes over with the DM comment section.

Well many DM readers seem to be pro austerity as they keep supporting and voting for the tories so... r25

Also one more child is not "ever expanding".

r24, you are very much mistaken. The (Barclay's Bank-owned) was extremely pro- Remain, as is the FT, as is The Times, as is The Sunday Times.

They can expand if they're paying for it. The heir and the spare can be on the public accounts. Louis and Cambridge baby numbers 4 and above can go on their own accounts. Deal?

LOL The Daily Telegraph as ALWAYS been pro brexit r26 .It is no secret .You either do not live in the UK or you are trolling?? The Telegraph was involved in a controversy for calling anti brexit tory mps traitors.

r28 I don't think the public pay for royal babies food and nappies or whatever anyway.That is not how royal finances work but sure deal!

The Telegraph is a sub-par broadsheet. It's a tabloid in disguise.

And more to the point r31 It is pro brexit .In terms of its size I think it is the only UK paper that is in the broadsheet large format.

Lol. They don't even get to ride in any publicly-funded vehicles, no "official" trips covered by public funds. Will, Kate and the first two ride in the Range Rover while Louis+ get an Oyster card ...for the rest of their lives.

Referring back to the last thread, the Australian magazine that said Charles and Camilla are divorcing is well known for making stuff up for its front page. They recently had "Andrew and Diana's 37 year secret!" with a photo of Andrew about to kiss Diana (hello or good-bye, on the cheek), and I vividly recall that they were in possession of the fact, when Kate was 5 months pregnant, that Louis was twin girls. All their information comes from "insiders" and "pals". They've been making stuff up since at least the days of Diana. Ignore them.

R31 is right, the Torygraph is crap.

My r29 post meant for r27

If the Queen and the Court were upset about Will & Kate's so called "laziness" they would have done something about it long ago. They really don't get to dictate to the Queen, "Oh, Granny....we really DON'T feel like taking on TOO much right now....it's just TOO tiresome...." That's not how the BRF works.

EVERY biography of the Queen discusses her (and Philip's) disappointment over losing their freedom so early on...they had hoped that George VI would live long enough for them to enjoy a relatively "normal" few years as husband/wife and be free to be hands on parents and for Philip to have a naval career. They were crushed by George's death for obvious reasons but one of them was the fact their hopes for their freedom were finished.

It's very obvious that Will & Kate have been given time to have the life that was denied Elizabeth and Philip.

The fact that in the last year, there have been many changes in how Charles and William are being positioned into the roles they will soon assume.

You sad BRF cows are seriously deranged. And, your DL days are numbered.

Thing 2 that drives me batty is how Harry's income is gravely quoted on DL as 400k pounds a year from the trust he got from Diana...like that's a truthful and fixed number because....well, we insist on it being so!

That's not all the money Harry has.

Two: Harry also inherited money from the Queen Mum.

Three: Harry also is largely supported by his father and the Duchy of Cornwall.

Obviously, the House of Sussex doesn't have the means of the House of Cambridge but trying to suggest that Harry is desperately providing for a spendy wife on a measly 400k, is ridiculous.

As for supposed huge clothing expenditures, I thought we had covered that? The vast majority of the shit she wears is "borrowed". She's not buying 50k pound dresses from her Suits money or from Harry's (or Charles') bank account. THEY'RE BORROWED AND RETURNED.

[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 always assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that Kate’s minimal work load was due to William being overly protective of her; he couldn’t protect his mother, etc., that sort of mind fuckery. I’m old enough to remember just how big of a “star” Diana was—the public and the press couldn’t get enough of her. Who knows what she voiced privately. With the Queen regretting not being more involved with her children when they were young, as other posters in this thread and previous ones have stated, maybe it’s a joint effort to ensure Kate has more of a private life.

Or perhaps Kate is just lazy and so is William. But, it’s fun to speculate.

They're not giving her many opportunities to merch clothes so she has to figure out other ways to make money, such as selling pictures of their place and promoting Soho.

She's getting boring. It never changes -crappy clothes, crazy family, bump cradling, endless PR. Hopefully they'll wrap this thing up after the baby is born and send her packing.

R39, we have been through this. As a member of the BRF she is not supposed to accept freebies, loans or otherwise.

R23 and R24 - I don't think that the DM's and Sun's and Mirror's readers really believe everything they read about the royals. BTW, I would put the Express somewhere between the DM and The Telegraph: headlines are tabloid-like but once into their reporting, it's fairly reliable and doesn't make things up the way the DM, it must be admiited does.

The tabs occasionally get things right: their reports of trouble early on between Charlles and Diana were endlessly denied before it could no longer be denied. Sometimes, their "dare to go where no paper has gone before" approach makes them seem brave rather than corrupt. The broadsheets in their genteel way held off until everyone else was talking about it and sources are found to be more reliable, which is why I tend to believe Tiara Gate when I see it in the TIMES.

I agree as you know that Kate should not and believe will not have another child.

And she is no less entitled to maternity leave than any other woman, and as to the first trimester, I cannot imagine that she wouldn't prefer to carry out engagement than spend 12 weeks trying not to vomit day in and day out. She had to be hospitalised with George and looked quite awful when released home (the paps of course were there forcing her to smile as she left).

But I agree: a fourth child would make it look like Kate would rather breed than work. Personally, I think she knows that, and her marked appearance of confidence and assurance I think is a sign that she is preparing to step up this year.

The Telegraph is middle-market and deeply pro-BREXIT, the Mirrors, if memory serves, surprisingly came out for REMAIN. The Tims and the Sunday TIMES came out, naturally, for REMAIN and needless to say, so was The Guardian.

R42 - Given that they are about to hand her the patronage of tne National Theatre, I wouldn't count on them sending her 'home" with the baby. They will do no such thing. The baby is Charles's grandchild, the Queen's great-grandchild. You can't send that packing without far more reason than she has given them so far. The name of the game will be a carefully calibrated length of leash, constant surveillance by courtiers and PR staff, and limit her patronages to ones to which the Queen gives consent. Her schedules and events will be reviewed, she will be aware that they are watching her, that several members of the family already dislike her profoundly, including the ones who in the not too distant future will hold the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. The uninspiring Frogmore Cottage is the emblem of their status in the BRF's eyes.

I don't know what to say about the merching issue. The Palace has teresely insisted that her huge wardrobe has been "privately purchased" when the list of her astronomical costs came out last week. By whom and under what circumstances, no one knows, but we'll see something when the expenses for the Duchy of Cornwall are published later this year.

Gather round, gather round, children,

It's 'Wallis and Edward -- LIVE(ish)!!!!'

This is so, so fascinating. She wiggles and he splays his legs akimbo. They clearly adore each other after all those years. Touching, really.

So Frogmore = the Bahamas

[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.]

Every time I've seen that interview I've thought how much Wallis sounded like Audrey Hepburn. Such an odd accent. I lived in the Brabant region of the Netherlands (southern region bordering Belgium) for some years and knew the Brussels area like the back of my hand, and never met anyone with an accent like Audrey's.

R41 - Well, neither point of view completely excludes the other. Kate has led a reasonably sheltered life, which was true of Diana as well, only the latter at a rather upgraded level. William is likely spoilt. And it's also true that the disaster Diana's stardom brought to his parents' mismatch and his family life left William with a determination to see that public life didn't do that to Kate or his own family. It's not possible that the Queen didn't sympathise with this. And, they could still be lazy, too. The two theories aren't mutually exclusive.

Will and Kate meet the Obamas.

Zara's husband Mike Tindall clowning around. That's one strange looking curtsey.

Prince Andrew had so much potential. Then Sarah Ferguson happened and it all went downhill from there.

A rare photo of the Queen in slacks.

Yo Amma Meg, d'ya put out that call for Laura Wasser in Part 13 cuz you got wind of Jeff Bezos' and his imminent divorce?

R57 - LOL - I bet Sparkle is kicking herself now!

No one noted the DM's earlier headline today about Meghan's and Harry's 2.5 million quid "bolt hole" in the Cotswolds. Of course, they neglected to mention in the headline that it's a rental . . .

R58 - I hate the phrase "bolt hole" almost as much as "baby bump" and "ample assets".

I wonder who leaked the location of that "bolthole". My guess is MM herself who wanted to show that yes, she does have a country place!

The word "bolthole" sounds downright... degenerate or dirty; something not at all flattering.

Princess Anne is up and running. She made appearances in Gloucestershire yesterday.

There was no question she has a country place, R60, two if you count Frogmore. It’s a London place she doesn’t have.

Will gets a thrill - piloting a helicopter. Oh the memories.

You're right R64. You can see it in William's eyes.

So instead of driving 30 minutes to Whitechapel and just standing in front of a helicopter for the photo op, Wills uses public funding to fly from his house to his lunch appointment?

Well done.

R63 - Exactly so. A rental in the Cotswolds and a less than grand suburban home base were probably not quite what the future Duchess imagined. In fact, I believe they rented the Cotswold place well before the wedding, as they were envisioning a beautiful apartment in London and eventual "purchase" of the Cotswold place (read: gift from Charles or HM) as the two axis of their lives. The Frogmore Cottage "offer" probably put a spanner in the works and now they have to figure out how the three-year rental fits in. Of course, the Cotswold place is further away and gets then out from under the eye of the Queen and her courtiers at Windsor, where they can privately entertain people like the Clooneys. Of course, now the paps know where it is they can stake it out when Harry and Meghan get into their car and head away from Windsor but not toward the capital.

R55 sure, Fergie is to blame. Andrew wasn’t a pedo on his own, it’s always a woman’s fault, right?

R68 - My, someone is hyper sensitive. Now where in my post at R55 did I blame Fergie? Andrew's life (and potential) unraveled when he divorced his toe sucking wife. He was away a lot as a Naval officer so she got bored sitting on her fat ass. I'm not sure if he was a pedo back then. His marriage to Fergie was the start of his decline.

R67 The place in the Cotswolds have been in the tabloids since the summer so the paps could have staked it out before now. The new part of the story is they have found a photo of the place from

[quote] a freely-accessible and public document.

The tabloids could have sent a drone over the property to take photos months ago but the BRF could sue for invasion of privacy.

The result of the case against the paps for the topless photos of Kate was that even though she was outside, her distance from the road mean she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Cotswold rental reportedly includes 3 acres of land, plus it's on a larger private estate. Using long lenses or drones to photograph them could be see an an invasion of their private space. So this old low res photo is all the press can use legally.

It's possible that some of the stories about who the Sussexes' guests have been, and about walking the dogs etc come from drone photos or other such means.

Speaking of Fergie, it was odd at Eugenie's wedding, after wedding actually when they were at Andrew's house and Euge's was getting into the car and only Andrew and Bea were helping her with her dress while Fergie appeared to be cowering in the corner all shy acting and trying to stay out of sight (while wearing slippers I believe)? Was she not allowed in the pictures or drunk or what?

The light within me recognizes the light within you, R57.

Whilst I have done extensive research on the likes and dislikes of Jeff Bezos so that, strictly in the advancement of my humanitarian endeavours of course, I might mould myself in such a way to turn his blighted male gaze upon me should we ever meet. Alas, I had someone MUCH closer to home in mind yesterday; someone who has become the father I never had. Who better than a sexy ersatz daughter to comfort a declining man in the wake of Antipodean divorce rumours?

Imagine my shock that one of my colonies — the colonies I so altruistically honoured on my veil!! — should shatter this news upon my psyche via a cheap magazine. I, too, am a victim in need of the succor!

As my own sweet amma, Adora Doria as I call her, once told me as a tiny fatherless waif, "Flower, a celestial being came to me in a sweat-lodge vision and shared your calling with me. You will become the feminist voice of the generation and you will do this by prostrating yourself before the ancient Sumerian Goddess of Ascension. Moving ever upwards and never, ever, ever looking back — sucking each successive patriarchal mark dry — is the path to the heavens. This, my child, will come to be known 5th Wave Feminism and you shall invent it!"

XOXO,

Marry me, r72.

One big mistake MM has made was highlighted above. She thinks the courtiers are in fact servants, and as a family member, they have to do her bidding. She hasn't grasped that she is an employee just as they are but with a lower rank. In terms of the BRF hierarchy, they have higher status and greater influence. I recommend watching Yes Minister.

So... it's official then?

R72 - I can't offer marriage as R73 has already beat me to it . . . have a pint on me.

Bad link, I'll try again.

Where are the DL conspiracy theorists?

I fully expect to hear that Meghan's backers had Russian/Chinese hackers break into the National Theatre website and leak the news on Kate's birthday.

Or Meghan had her PR people pay off the National Theatre to upstage Kate (we know the National Theatre would choose a paltry sum from Meghan's PR company over continued royal patronage)

What happened to attending to the needs of the Commonwealth et youth HazBean went on about in their engagement interview? Guess the blind about Sparkle only wanting to do the "fun" engagements is true.

R75 - Only the Telegraph carries the story of an accidental premature leak of the news"

"I has been one of the most closely guarded secrets of the Duchess of Sussex's career, as she worked behind-the-scenes to perfect her first Royal patronages and announce them to the world.

That is, until someone at the National Theatre got a little overexcited.

The theatre has accidentally published confirmation that the Duchess would be their official royal advocate on their website, with a photograph celebrating the news.

In a message on the main ‘what’s on’ page of their website, dated January 10th and intended to be shared once the news was confirmed by Kensington Palace, it declared: “The Duchess of Sussex announced as our new Royal Patron”.

The patronage is currently held by the Queen, who is understood to handing it over to her new granddaughter-in-law in a public show of support."

As of a few moments ago, it did not appear on the royal web site or the NT's web site or in the DM, Express, or TIMES.

[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.]

Bet the NT is thrilled.

Curiouser and curiouser--you're right about the timing--on a day when not only is it Kate's birthday no less but William is on an official engagement. Is Sparkle's life really just a series of serendipitous coincidences? Is it strategy?

R79 Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga are all Commonwealth countries. The Autumn Tour was a commonwealth outreach according to the BRF website.

Meghan and Harry may be fashion-challenged money-wasters but in the 8 months they've been married, they have started bringing attention to the issues they said they would champion.

More like they used it as an opportunity to seize attention for themselves R84. You may name the countries they visited but who can recall any of the programs they were addressing? Betcha most remember it only for the bump cradling--and maybe something about Invictus, as an afterthought.

R85 - Second that. In fairness, I would say that with the possible exception of The Prince's Trust, this is true of most royal patronages. They make the Patrons look much better than the Patrons do the causes.

R78 - Generally, conspiracy theories tax my patience, but I have to say that where Meghan Markle's ferocious ego and desire to beat out everyone around her, anything seems possible. It just HAPPENED to emerge ACCIDENTALLY before time on . . . the Duchess of Cambridge's birthday.

Anyone who believes this little "accident" wasn't set up by La Grande Narc herself and her PR team is naive.

It's precisely the sort of petty, spiteful (and meaningless, given Kate's secured position) oneupmanship that Meghan Markle is becoming famous for: like the maternity coat stunt, the labels visible on her clothes, the baby bump cradling at auspicious moments . . .

I wonder if the Queen and Charles and the Cambridges took note? Betting the Cambridges did, at least . . . oh, just wait till they step up to Prince and Princess of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall revenues.

Not saying whether they seized attention for themselves or not R85. R79 asked what about the Commonwealth. I said they have visited Commonwealth countries on the tour in October.

I'm more inclined to view it the way R86 does. The Prince's Trust has been around long enough to get some traction and seems to do some good. Can't name anything they support. I vaguely recall Heads Together but not which organizations they support. Most of the patronages are a blur.

I do remember Diana raising awareness about AIDS and landmines.

I posted R78 before there were any comments on the DM story.

[quote] How very interesting that this was ¿accidentally¿ posted a day early - on the Duches of Cambridge¿s birthday.

Currently the second most liked comment on the DM article.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but now I can think like one.

R88 - Diana should get credit for wedging open the door for AIDS sufferers, but the landmines campaign was post-divorce.

Very few lives are changed by royal patronage, except in so far as royals persuade donors to come to galas, join boards of trustees so that their names can appear on the same page as HRH Whomever . . .

I seem to recall Michael Douglas in "Wall Street" nonchalantly telling Charlie Sheen, "I just joined the Board of the Museum of Natural History. Cost me a cool million . . ."

Patronage is the job the monarchy (and not just this one but most of the rest of Western Europe's monarchies) invented for itself when it lost real power. Only the sovereign has a hand in governing, and it's a light hand at that.

So patronage saved the life of inherited European monarchy. The causes ensure the royals aren't finally fired for doing pretty much nothing but living beautifully; the royals ensure the causes get some extra PR and a few more donations.

The irony is that the causes could survive without royal patronage, especially as the royals don't provide major financial support (they leave that to the Gordon Gekkos), but it is doubtful that the royals would survive without the causes.

So, it's really the inverse of how it appears publicly: the causes are the patrons of the royals, who otherwise would get booted out of their grand homes by mobs with pitchforks and torches.

Let Fergie II go hang out with the stage poofs.

R91 You thought the thread needed a bit of casual homophobia?

R87 The House of Sussex won't be getting money from the Duchy of Cornwall once Charles becomes King and the Cambridges become the new Wales and take control of the Cornwall money. Charles will assume control of the Duchy of Lancaster money (that the monarch gets) and Harry and Megs will be funded via the new King aka "Dad".

The Duchy of Cornwall money is for the Heir Apparent and his family, meaning children and other descendants of the current heir.

Harry and Megs won't be dependent on being funded by Will until he becomes King.

R93 - True, but as Prince and Princess of Wales, William and Kate will still be in a position to marginalise the Sussexes more, and will do so, as I pointed out, even more when Charles dies. And then, when William controls the Duchy of Lancaster's revenues and gets stingy with them, Meghan will finally feel a little pain. Of course, Charles is likely to do what Diana did and leave both boys another trust. Meghan probably figures that by then she'll be a 65 year old Duchess and will have royally screwed them all and won't care.

As I said, the BRF made its own bed here and will be sleeping in it for a long time to come.

R94 The Prince of Wales can only marginalize others if the monarch allows. Charles' ability to sideline his siblings (read Andrew, since he's the only one who cares) is directly due to HM allowing him to do so.

Perhaps Charles will allow William to do the same. I wouldn't take it for granted that he will. Charles has the unfortunate distinction of being the longest heir in waiting. The Queen may have divested some of her activities to him in recognition of the length of her reign and how long he has had to wait. Charles may not be quick to share the power since he will have a markedly shorter reign.

R46's video is one of the best things I've seen on these BRF threads. I've tended to think of the Duke and Duchess of York as empty-headed socialites. But I was really impressed by the Duke's sympathy and concern for his less advantaged subjects. They really were a tragic case. Their collusion with the Nazis were unforgivable. I also thought it was interesting that he mentioned a conversation he had with Princess Anne. I always had the impression that he and the Duchess were largely not in contact with the rest of the BRF.

The patronage announcement is curious, and I think it may be something Markle contrived on her own, and not something condoned or bestowed by the queen. She could think of it as something more informal, and just announced herself as a patron without it being known or discussed by either the NT or the BRF.

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.

The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.

The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.

The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.

The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.

The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is run by another country.

The Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

R98 - LOL.

William is detested by staff. He is pompous one minute, sulky and sullen the next. He and Kate are rather loony. They have accused staff of stealing things or misplacing objects on purpose. Staff have come and gone but strangely, this hasn’t reached the papers. I remember Diana saying that Willian was like his father and Harry was like her. It is starting to really look that way.

[quote] Of course, Charles is likely to do what Diana did and leave both boys another trust.

Why would Charles leave the then King William a trust when Wm will be entitled to the proceeds from the Duchy of Lancaster? It seems redundant/unecessary.

R100, I read somewhere else that William drops 'hints' to staff members, and then waits to see if they appear in the press. It's his way of testing the discretion and loyalty of staff. I can't possibly imagine being in his position, but I don't feel terribly critical of that. When you look back on William, Kate, and Harry as a threesome, you can't help but notice their ease, comfort and affection for each other. Watching that pap stroll for Christmas between both couples, it seemed like Kate was running interference between her husband and Meghan. I'm not a frau, but I thought it was out of some kind of loyalty to Harry, who she also seemed to care about. My estimate of Kate improved immeasurably at that point.

R79, I personally thought the Autumn Tour was disastrous at many points. The half-assed curtsy to the Tongan Royals was very disrespectful. The Queen has enjoyed a very friendly relationship with the Tongan Royal Family, ever since Queen Salote attended her own Coronation. She included a personal message for Harry to read to the Tongan Royal Family during their visit. I have to assume she followed the news for the reaction, and must have seen Meghan's piss-poor curtsy.

Meghan's abrupt exit from a market in Fiji, where thousand of people had gathered for hours, is inexplicable, and has never been explained.

They did okay in Australia and New Zealand, but made asses of themselves in Tonga and Fiji (Meghan, naturally).

Photo attached is of Tonga's Queen Salote at HM's Coronation. She was greatly admired and beloved during her visit. HM and Queen Salote enjoyed their visits.

R101 - Well, Diana left both sons the same size trust, knowing full well that William's prospects were much arger than Harry's. There is no suggestion that Charles will treat his sons differently - especially if he has changed his mind about Harry's choice of bride.

*larger

R100 - and you got this from where and, of course, believe it without question, but you don't believe the Tiara Gate story or the angelic Harry yelling, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!"

As Diana was a first class narcissist with serious psychological and emotional issues, her statement that Harry is like her is more alarming than anything else.

R11 is correct. There WILL be a fourth baby for Will & Kate.

Charles will NOT leave a trust for Harry. All the money that Harry will get has been given to him in trusts. Everything else goes to William, as there is no tax on sovereign to sovereign inheritance. Which means that William will be responsible for his brother’s income, just as Charles will be responsible for his siblings and the Queen was responsible for her sister.

Which means it would behoove Harry to lose his fucking attitude towards William, as Wills will literally be his brother’s keeper.

There's a picture of Michael Middleton in St. Bart's today, courtesy the never resting Daily Mail.

He must have left his mistress behind or smuggled her onto the island.

[quote]William is detested by staff. He is pompous one minute, sulky and sullen the next. He and Kate are rather loony. They have accused staff of stealing things or misplacing objects on purpose

Substantiate that!

R107 - Interesting that about trusts. However, if there is enough animosity built up between the brothers by then, Charles may just shrug and leave Harry the trust and Harry will just have to pay the damned taxes - it may be a worthwhile tradeoff to avoid having to take handouts from William. Charles is personally worth about 400 million. Admittedly, much of it is not in liquid assets, but still. If Charles feels William has turned against Harry because of Meghan, he can just leave Harry the trust as the lesser of two evils.

By the way, did anyone see on Sky News tomorrow's headlines previes a headline about Meghan wanting a £50,000 greenhouse in the Frogmore place, and the folk in Windsor not being keen on it?

William and Kate are aliens. They do rectal probes on staff. I know this. Ask me anything.

Upstaging Eugenie or her wedding day and, now, trying to upstage Kate on her birthday?

My, my, my....it sure is amazing how many people on DL have insider information on the inner workings of the BRF!

Stop assuming Harry is poor/will be poor "if he doesn't shape up". He has money from Diana and the Queen Mum. It's highly likely Philip will leave his grandkids something and most certain that the Queen herself will leave individual family members assets from her own personal fortune when she leaves this mortal coil...though obviously Charles gets the bulk including Sandringham and Balmoral.

No one is going to allow primary members of the BRF to have to go "rogue" due to lack of funds. Andrew and Fergie have pushed the boundaries of what royals can get away with and they've been reined in every time they got caught.....that's how Andrew allegedly has a worth of 40million pounds despite all his shenanigans over the years.

R106 must the fetus currently gestating in Kate.

I have to wonder why it was reported Charles and Camilla are divorcing?

R109 There have been reports

[quote] Everyone walks on eggshells around William: Many members of staff, even operators on the Palace switchboard, are aware that William can be ‘difficult’ or ‘a little grand’.

[quote] Indeed, even Charles is said to be wary of his mood swings. In the years immediately after Prince George’s birth, William notably preferred to focus on his young family rather than spend time with his father at either Highgrove or in London.

[quote] Since then, there’s been a froideur between William’s court and that of Charles.

That's Charles throwing his eldest son under the bus in his biography "Charles At Seventy: Thoughts, Hopes and Dreams" by Robert Jobson (2018).

Andrew built up his fortune by cashing in on his name with nefarious criminal elements of the oligarchical sort and international arms dealer set. All above board of course. Harry isn't clever enough to do likewise. Now Meghan on the other hand, gurl knows how to commercial.

Have seen that R116 but it is a long way from accusing staff of stealing, moving things, and performing unauthorized rectal probes on one another and then blaming Kate and William and leaving Santorum on the ermine trimmed coronation robes.

R113 - Well you certainly don't have insider information, because the Queen Mum didn't leave Harry or William anything to speak of - that was a wearisomely often debunked assumption about those trusts - the BBC and Bazaar and all those places got it wrong and used the term "reportedly" advisedly. She left her entire and deeply indebted estate to her daughter, the Queen, except for a few bequests that at most went to her grandchidren - Harry and William were NOT her grandchildrne, they were her GREAT-grandchildren and she knew perfectly well that Diana had left them trusts - it was Andrew's kids and Edward's and Anne's that didn't have trusts. She did not have 15 million quid to her name for most of her life, what she had was all tied up in her jewels, art, and real estate, and QEII was constantly bailing her mother out and paying off her debts. She lived well beyond her income. The stuff about her having set up 15 million in trusts for the two great grandchildren she already knew had trusts from Diana was, quite simply, false.

No one has suggested that Harry will be "poor". But as those things are reckoned in those circles, he's not terribly rich, either; his father, however, IS, and his brother one day will BE. Much richer than Harry.

The heart doesn't bleed for him, I assure you. But he's just not that rich.

Oh, God ^ this again. It's like fucking Beetlejuice.

^Day-o, day-o Daylight come and me wan' go home . . .

R119

Maybe the chill between the brothers isn't really caused by Meghan. She's involved but as a side item not the real cause.

[quote] William may be Charles’s heir, but he’s extremely competitive with members of his family when it comes to media coverage — although he gives the impression it doesn’t concern him.

[quote] In reality, it does. Take Meghan and Harry’s appearance in Cardiff on a royal engagement in January.

[quote] It was a time of peak interest in the couple. Intriguingly, William — who was also on a royal engagement — chose the same day to display a new and dramatic buzz cut hairstyle. As a result, Harry was not the only royal prince featured in the following day’s papers.

If Charles, biography is to be believed, perhaps William was happy with Harry as the third wheel in pictures with him and Kate and hanging out at their place. When Harry started stepping into the spotlight for himself and moving on with setting up his own family maybe William didn't like that as much. Perhaps he offered some well-intended caution about Harry and Meghan moving too fast but Harry heard it as William being competitive because of their history.

Hmmm. The drama continues.

Of all the delusions, the Queen Mother's estate troll has the coolest. It's wrong, but the fierceness is up there with Ruth Fisher.

R116 - Yes, can you imagine Charles's indignation when his son was more engaged by the birth of his first-born child, after his wife's difficulties early in the pregnancy, than by hanging out listening to Charles talk to his plants at Highgrove? I mean, really, what stable normal young man of 31 wouldn't prioritize hanging out with Dad over his new young family and the adjustment to parenthood?

If a certain froideur was generated, I'd say it came from William's annoyance at his father's obliviousness to the deep emotional and momentous changes in William's life that come with new parenthood.

I saw on a video that the reason behind the tension between the two households is that MM is jealous of PH's close r'ship with Kate. There is no doubt that they were very close. It is known that MM made PH break away from certain old friends and made him end all contact with Chelsy Davy, so to me this makes sense.

R123 - The terms of the Queen Mother's will and the disposition of her estate are on the royals' web site.

R124 I believe the passage is referring to the rumour that the Middletons get to be the primary grandparents to the Cambridge kids but without explicitly dragging them into the discussion of the dynamic between the Wales men.

So this trope, again. The green with envy Will of Harry's media interest to mirror the sordid history of their parents. How oft we heard tales (and there was no internet then--imagine!) of Charles feeling jealous of his own wife because Diana was too damn popular and he resented being overshadowed. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Are you kidding me, R122? He got a haircut to draw away attention from his brother? Do you really think William wants to draw attention to his hair? If he really wanted to draw away attention he'd drop a picture of one of his kids. That's SOP for the Cambridges. FFS, his hair, really???

And I'll add, William and Kate seemed the most relaxed they've ever been last year when Meghan really came on the scene. Obviously, it was not because they like her (clearly they don't). I think they were relieved to have the spotlight on someone else for a while.

Upon reexamination of the Duchess of Sussex's new patronage, (I still do suspect Meghan's PR finagled today's oops! reveal) this is actually a brilliant move on the BRF's part, on the scale of a Frogmore Cottage cunning maneuver. The optics are, look at the deference we in the Firm are showing to the new married-in. Why, Her Majestty The Queen is bestowing favor by appointing one of her very own patronages especially upon the new duchess. We are showing how much faith and confidence we have in Meghan's unique abilities. See, WE have always gone out of our way to treat her as a part of our family (the one she never had bullshit) and should things go tits up as they are wont to do, WE cannot be faulted for not supporting Harry's new wife in every conceivable way.

But this is the National Theatre. Yes, venerable. But here's the thing, it is THE STAGE. Not box office film nor worse, soulless vapid television (Meghan's own background). This is a place for the theatre sort, nerdy-theatre types who sneer at anything that isn't theatre. This is the unfamiliar world Meghan gets to integrate. Wanna bet which patronage Meghan would much rather have had? How about BAFTA where the real brightest stars of the British universe gather. Guess who has that patronage? Her biggest fan, Prince William.

R129 It's a quote from Charles' biography. I didn't write the stuff.

Unlike so many DLers I make no claims of insider information about the royal family. I put forward some speculation based on the statements in the biography.

R131–I like the way you think!

R131 Your speculation is as good as anything here but I think you're assuming the British arts scene is like the North American scene. Most British actors do formal training eg LAMDA or RADA. The cinematic and television scene is much smaller than in the USA so most actors do stage and screen. For example, Eddie Redmayne, Benedict Cumberbatch and Cillian Murphy are all movie stars who still do theatre. Most try to be skilled in period work as well as contemporary material because the UK does both. It's not theatre-nerds vs movie stars.

The BAFTA is a high profile international event that brings out the stars, but all the big UK stars also come out for the London Evening Standard Theatre Awards. If Meghan likes hanging out with celebrities, she'll still be able to network with the big names in the UK through her theatre patronage because it's a much smaller market.

Your explanation R134, was probably exactly how it was sold to Meghan.

Because it's true. William already has the BAFTA and there's no way to get it back so make the best of the situation.

If you think Meghan is a social climber always looking for her best options, I can see how she could look at it and say Toronto was a smaller market so she was able to make connections up the food chain that she wouldn't have been able to in LA or New York. She's done it before so she could say she'll do it again.

But making connections depends on the person you want to connect with - doesn't it?

Are the upper levels of the National Theatre apt to want to "connect" with Sparkle?

Will her position as Harry's wife guarantee their acceptance? Their interest?

Or will her low level entertainment credentials make them less likely to want to "connect" than with another member of the RF?

Certainly less likely than their previous patron - The Queen.

Any British Dataloungers who know that environment and the people she will be interacting with like to comment?

r137 They will outwardly accept her with open arms, and give interviews on how wonderful she is, to ensure she does not hamper their day-to-day in any way.

But as of today I can guarantee that she has become the new favourite hate figure among the stage actors of Britain. At every party, gathering, opening, there will be private knowing glances shared between the performers, and from now on there will be a lifetime's worth of sniggers, smirks and eyerolls behind her back. She'll never be able to escape it.

[quote]Andrew's life (and potential) unraveled when he divorced his toe sucking wife.

Fergie was not the toe-sucker but the recipient - the “suckee”?

[quote] They will outwardly accept her with open arms, and give interviews on how wonderful she is, to ensure she does not hamper their day-to-day in any way.

None of the royals affect their charities' day-to-day operations.

So far they don't, r140. But Meghan is an overreacher extraordinaire and certainly no respecter of Royal Family tradition. If I were the head of the National Theatre my plan tonight would be to endlessly flatter Meghan into a kind of submission, to ensure she does not play at any jumped-up funny business with my Theatre. It's the only way to be sure.

R 139 the sucked ?

The director of the NT can try with all his might to contain MM, but you can be sure she will do things that will make his hair stand on end. Every appearance will be entirely on her.

[quote]@SmartWorksHQ is ready to welcome the Duchess of Sussex, who will help women choose outfits for job interviews. On previous private visits, Meghan has coached some women.

The last thing she needs to be doing is doling out fashion advice.

Charles is a whiny little bitch and a nasty piece of work, huh, R116? No wonder he is gaga over Smegs. Shit father and complete narcissistic twit..

I don’t think PC is gaga over MM . She wouldn’t be at Frogmore Cottage If he was R145 !

[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.]

Great idea for a new thread 'Meghan Markle's fashion tips to help unemployed women land that job.'

Tip 1 - Long hair makes you feel sexy

2. Undo a few buttons on your blouse.

3. Wear a dress so tight the outline of your bra shows through

4. Always dress differently than everyone else; you'll stand out that way.

5. Wear stiletto heels on every occasion.

If all else fails, join Soho House and arrange to meet a gullible prince.

Besides Mega ego and Sophie Wessex, no other working royal could empathize with women dressing for a job interview. They're the only two who have ever gotten a job from an interview process.

Princess Anne may be a hard working royal but she's a ribbon cutter and wears clothes from the 1970s

Kate worked for her parents or their friends while waiting to become a royal wife.

If not Mega or Sophie, which royal do you think is better for this gig?

Meghan the so-called feminist ! First her father paid for university and after that paid for her when she was an actress . Then she met Trevor Engelson who gave her jobs and made Suits happen . Than the celebrety chef Cory who gave her acces to Toronto Celebs circle and than she met PH who made her a Duchess . Hows that for a feminist . All she got in life came from the hands of a man .

MM has just been on BBC News at Smartworks and it looked as if everyone really enjoyed her visit. She could be great - I wish she realised she should just be herself and relax a bit.

No kidding. Smegs giving fashion advice for job interviews is hilarious. As is overseeing classically trained stage actors. You really couldnt make it up. What's next? Patron of hair stylists?

You guys have had 14 threads to work through your hatred of Meghan. Aren't you done yet? How long can you bitch about her? Doesn't it get boring after a while? I guess making stuff up helps.

R153 - if you paid the remotest attention, you'd find quite a bit of juice and fun gossip much of it quite critical, about the rest of the family.

Royalty is an outdated concept clinging desperately to a veneer of relevance so it can also cling to its privileges and status. Meghan Markle fits perfectly into that paradigm. I don't see why she shouldn't share the general contempt, cynicism, and irony that surrounds these discussions.

Unless you're really getting out of bed in the morning fully believing that Meghan would have leapt to snag that spoilt, dimwitted, gap-toothed ginge if he hadn't had HRH in front of his name and "Windsor" after it.

R153 If some posters gave up hating Meghan

1. They would have to give putting faumanitarian, narcisistic, merching and z-lister into every post about any topic.

2. They'd have to give up the mean-girl nicknames that make them sound like 3rd graders.

3. They'd have to give up "hoping" to live long enough to see Meghan cursty to Queen Catherine in about 20+ years

That's too many New Year's resolutions for one year.

So no Lazy nor Waity nor Air Miles digs either R155? Tampon Twins a no no, too? Talk about austerity!

You're adding salt to the wound R156. It burns. Make it stop!

R155 - And if the posters criticising other for criticising an obvious social climbing narcissistic grifter for being one (although they're the first one to call Kate Middleton mean-girl names, but that's all right because Kate's all white), they might relax and have a bit of fun here. Or they could move on to other threads where people call actresses mean-girl names for their hair, tits, legs, face work, etc. This is DL. Get over it.

[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.]

R158 Who is dropping that race related criticism of Kate? I haven't seen any poster mention Kate's race except you?

"She could be great.."

Nah. MeMe treats her friends and family like crap, unless she needs them for something, and has no charisma or talent. She has two faces -- furrowing concern and plastered-on smile. Narcissist shallowness doesnt disappear with time or new situations.

Ditto R159, and the shoes. Is that coat new or a recycle? If new it is tasteless on the duchess' part to have worn something so pricey to this particular charity. Just 'cuz it's plain doesn't excuse the obscene tag. I would have liked to have seen one of the ladies pick out a coat for Meghan and then ask to exchange it with her expensive one.

R158 - Don't be disingenuous. The point was that the people who call Kate mean-girl names are the same ones criticising other for calling Meghan mean-girl names. I've seen quite a few jump in and feel perfectly comfortable saying Kate looks like a man, she looks old, she needs Botox, she has short legs . . . but the moment people start criticising Meghan for style, hair, bump-cradling, bird-legs, whatever, they turn into "haters" - and "haters" is the code for "racists". Calling Kate mean-girl names is all right. Calling Meghan mean-girl names isn't to this set. Figure it out.

Meanwhile, all the pious types wringing their hands over "Meghan haters" are never there when she pulls yet another PR stunt: like the ooop! early announcement of her NT patronage, easily the most prestigious of the four, on . . . . THE DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE'S BIRTHDAY! Please. We call 'em as we see 'em.

R159 - And, yet again, Meghan is wearing black for a daytime official engagement. The dress is too tight and she looks like a mathematical equation with the huge bump in front and back covered with tightly stretched black. She looks ridiculous and like she's still screaming I'M PREGNANT to the world. Yeah, we get it Megs, you've got a bun in the over, the first woman in the world to do so.

I am, however, on board with you and the shoes and the coat. As for having one coat and wearing it over and over - don't be ridiculous. That's why girls marry princes: so they can have a dozen or so winter coats in the wardrobe room. "Closet" is too weak a word for what holds the wardrobes of these women, and I mean all of them, not just MM.

*bun in the oven (not over)

Meghan looks so good today on her engagement. She seems happy, light and content.

I have to say, those shoes are fabulous. The rest of the outfit is ok.

She’s looking like she’s around 6-7 months as well. What’s her due date? Or am I opening a can of worms?

So, we have a woman who never made it beyond supporting cast on a second-rate cable show patron of the National Theatre. A woman who gave up the one paying job she ever achieved to marry well helping women get into employment. A woman who abandoned a dog supporting an animal charity.

Absurd.

And I don’t think she looks good - she looks bony and ugly. Nice of her to wear an Oscar de La Renta coat to look at secondhand clothes though. Just doesn’t get it, does she?

R163 I've never understood the term "Meghan-hater" to mean the same as racist. I assume people can hate a celebrity/ public figure for all kinds of reasons. I assumed hater meant being unreasonably critical of the person. I see a lot of unfair criticism of Meghan on this thread. Occasionally it's also racist but mostly it's just unreasonable and generally harmless. The scrabble discussion was particularly amusing.

I see some unfair criticism of Kate on this thread but mostly it's complimentary. I've never seen anyone mention racist things about her and didn't assume that the posters were racist simply for criticizing Kate. You didn't mention criticism of Edward or Andrew or Camilla being evidence of racism and they get way more grief on this thread than Kate does.

I think Waity, Tampon Twins or Smeg are "mean-girl names". I don't think saying someone has short legs or looks old and in need of botox are mean-girl names.

Perhaps I have a different understanding of what's happening here than other posters.

MeMe dresses like Kim Kardashian. Too much makeup and eyelashes, hair pulled into tight bun, tight tight shmatta pulled across the tadpoles, lucite stripper bunion shoes. And the coat, if not hanging on the shoulders, flapping around. What the H is fashion forward here? She is a meek follower worshipping at the Kardash altar.

Her outfit for Smartworks was pretty good compared to her usual fare (excepting the overly-expensive coat). But watching the video of her visit, I don't think she understands her role as patron. She monologues to them, as if the folks she's talking to don't already understand the cause for which they are supporting. She's supposed to engage with them, get their thoughts, express support...not totter on like she's some sort of expert. Blech. Those poor people who have to act like they're interested in what she's saying. She's a blowhard.

Why does she never close or button up her coat? It looks so sloppy, and the juggling of gloves, purse and Harry’s arm look terribly awkward.

Princess Margaret's old home near Caernarfon is for sale

Is it just the far too tight dress or is she getting fat?

Not fat as in fuller due to pregnancy, but REALLY fat.

That belly looks suspiciously high for a real bump.

[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.]

Look, two years ago you wouldn't hear a kind word about kate. She wasn't an english rose or regal back then. She was a coalminers great granddaughter. A jew. A hard faced, short legged, middlebum striver.

That changed as soon as meghan entered the scene. People don't like two faced fairweather fans.

[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 these organizations request a royal patron, do they get to request a specific family member to be their patron? When the Queen transfers a patronage to someone else, does she let the organization know first, and do they get to make up a list of their top three choices for the replacement? If I were the theater group, and I couldn't have the Queen, I'd want Anne to be the patron. I'd want someone older who looks like they could be sophisticated and mature enough to appreciate live theater. A female seems like a better fit. My second choice would be Camilla, followed by Charles.

I liked someone's argument for Sophie being a better fit for Smartworks. She has actually held office jobs for which she had to interview. Did Meghan ever do any waitressing or temp work between her sparse acting gigs before she got the role on Suits? Even one of the York girls, specifically Eugenie, would be a better patron.

Tight black dress. Check. Oversize open coat. Check. Slut shoes. Check.

The same boring uniform we've seen before. Check.

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

She might be one of those women whose arms and legs remain rather thin no matter how much weight they gain. But these women mostly get a FAT arse, fatter than Donald Trump's.

And a HUGE belly.

Honestly, I don't get women who complain about having supposedly 'fat' thighs as they often have got an hourglass-shaped torso. Having an hourglass-shaped body looks SO MUCH BETTER than looking like being pregnant in the thirty-second trimester.

Fat ass alert in R180's pic, btw!

Rather a fat arse than big fat flabby middle aged old lady arms.

It's very strange. Meghan has hips, but thin legs. No tits to speak of, but she gains weight like the definitive apple shape.

Her waist and torso are so NOT her friend.

R177 - what's the point of giving a Grade II status to buildings if planning permission is given for major renovations?

I hadn't realized yesterday was Kate's birthday and I agree that there have been too many coincidences with MM. Will must be pissed by the little upstart.

Stage actors are notoriously uppity and snobby about their "craft". The poster up thread is right, she might as well be a soap actor in tgeir midst. They will have fun smiling to her face while rubbing her nose in it.

Looks like meg and kate have something in common. Their waist and torso are not their best friend.

Kate has a loooooong torso, her wide shoulders give the appearance of having a waist.

I doubt will is upset with meg. He didn't even remember kates bday.

As a professional female (attorney) it really is not professional to wear shoes with Lucite or clear plastic inserts/parts to work. Those are not really considered work shoes, they are too dressy/after five/brunch type shoes. I would not be impressed if an applicant walked into an interview with stiletto shoes with clear inserts. I would have to worry if she would be prone to wearing cocktail and after five wear to work. No matter how cute they are.

I do not see broad shoulders on Kate. Charlene in Monaco is one who has broad shoulders. What you confuse R190 is Kate doesn't have hips. She also has a modest bust line so not to be mistaken as hour glass let alone curvy. Kate's most distinguishable feature, however, is her slim waist. Her legs are short in proportion to her torso but her torso is not necessarily long as torsos go on women. How you cannot see a waist on Kate I don't know.

Does Jeff Bezos like plastic lucite shoes?

Already, they are suggested contestants for his future affections. Top three -- Miranda Kerr, Amber Heard, and Megan Sparkle.

Yep, the push Duchess is taking right over at Smart Works.

If Nutmeg wears camel, so does everyone else.

R190 - Are you serious? Meghan has no waist and Kate has a tiny one.

If you compare, too, in that picture in R193, Meghan's shoulders are wider though she is much shorter than Kate.

Kate has a naturally athletic figure. She starves and diets herself into the skinny shape she has now. You can tell she is not naturally that skinny by how gaunt her face is. And no, she does not have a waist. She is straight with straight hips, musuclar legs/thighs and wide shoulders. You don't have to have has wide shoulders as charlene in order to have wide shoulders.

R186, no, really, NO. You can rather easily get rid of flabby arms - but the belly and arse fat is nastily persistent. And it has the nasty tendency of coming back, despite endeavouring to get rid of it (liposuction and the like), keep it away respectively (working out).

R168 - Nailed it, totally agree. An Oscar de la Renta coat to tell poor women how to dress for low-end office jobs - the kind of job this woman never held in her entire life.

Funnily (as well as sadly), Kate starved away her previously good figure.

R99 here’s the original Yes, Prime Minister scene that bit @ r98 was from.

Yes, Minister & Yes, Prime Minister are said to be strikingly close to real political life.

I really think now you are being intentionally obtuse to purposely disregard the notches in Kate's sides that define her waist.

If you get a wide flat arse then yes I can see how that would be unfortunate. Not really the case with Meghan so far anyway. Her butt sticks out and is high and round which is a good thing.

Enough about women's bodies...here are some of the Queen's jewels. Aquamarines are faves.

Do we know the next tiara engagement?

Agree to disagree. I don't see a defined waist. I see straight hip to waist ratio with broad shoulders on an athletic figure. She should stick to that instead of dieting herself into a frame that is not natural on her.

"Us Four" - The King and Queen with Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

A sneaky video of Kate playing with baby George.

A very unusual hat for the Queen.

Why the heavy warpaint in daytime?

Minding her posture while seated.

R181 DM says the organizations make their request directly to the royals they'd like to be their patron.

If the point of a royal patronage is to raise the profile of the organization, how would Anne raise the profile of a theatre company?

Many of Anne's 447+ events were not even covered by the media last year and of those few people read or comment on them. Anne has done several engagements in 2019 and none of them have been posted on the DL thread dedicated to the watchers of the BRF.

The NT says it wants to be less elitist that's why it dropped "royal" from its name. Having a mature "birth princess" as the patron doesn't seem to fit their goals. Camilla is aristocratic and Charles is notoriously "formal"

The current director of the NT does very contemporary work and they're trying to present the theatre as accessible to all audiences. They're not looking for patronage from a mature royal. A struggling actress who grew up doing school productions and eventually lands a regular-paying acting job on a long running tv-show seems a better fit with what they want for their brand. If not Meghan, then Harry, William, Kate or Sophie might have been in their top picks.

At the risk of being lambasted here, I ordered QEII's favorite jam she reportedly has with every tea, the "Little Scarlet" strawberry conserve from Tiptree. I got it via Amazon and like many of the reviews mine came with the seal broken. Packaging doesn't seem to hold up well to international shipping. It became too much of a hassle to replace and having many years under my belt canning things like jams I went ahead and risked consuming not seeing any other questionable traces of spoilage.

Verdict: It's a nice and natural-tasting strawberry flavor. A touch too sweet for my taste but then most things are. Not entirely convinced I would order it again, (hefty freight cost and all) but if I find myself in Ye Merry Olde England I might pick up another jar.

R215 Was it on a scone and did you jam first or cream first?

Hearty good luck to the NT if they think associating with a middle aged minor soap "actress" who screwed her way to thw bottom will make their shows "more accessible."

I'm one to do the cream then jam; though it's said The Queen prefers hers jam first.

At R195, it's apparent she cannot for the life of her keep her hands off her abdomen. It's verging on insane.

R218 I'm far less discerning and will have it either way. Glad you're enjoying your purchase!

Come now, R217. Meghan screwed herself firmly to the middle.

Cheers R216 !!!!

Hey, lets not go looking down on soap actors/actresses. Susan Lucci is worth 60 million and Dame Judy Dench is only worth 35 million.

R223 - people on soaps have the most difficult acting gig. Many of them have to memorize pages of dialogue overnight. Markle's work is NOT comparable.

LOVE r206’s aquamarines. The first jewels I’ve seen that made me gasp.

MM’s Smart Works outfit was fine until you get a load of the SHOES. The clear vinyl is staggering. She has to be trolling. I hope none of those poor women think those are appropriate for work.

I’m not sure in what universe those are appropriate for anyone in a workplace that opens before 6:00 pm. Maybe in LA (Kardashia).

I said nothing about Meghan. R217 mentioned soap actress in a disparaging comparison to more critically acclaimed actors. I pointed out that some soap stars may not be A-listers but they make bank.

In a discussion of royal patronages I didn't think the difficulty of the job was the metric being used.

I’ve the sense Kate doesn’t give much of a toss what Meghan does nor the attention she receives. If anything, she has demonstrated a very low-key even-keeled nature. William on the other hand has generations tucked into his genetic code of foreordinated superiority and natural contempt. Like him or hate him, with the resources he will increasingly have at his disposal he is not one to fuck with.

Charles, too, has spite in him. I don’t doubt he has fed some of the discord between his sons’ houses to paint himself into some flattering idea of elder statesman who wise counsels his boys into shaping up whilst playing up the sides to his favor. Such a nest of vipers it's no wonder Sparkle gravitated toward it; but other than the attractive life of leisure and privilege, Kate doesn't seem as natural a fit.

I just noticed that Meghan is HOLDING her gloves again instead of actually WEARING them.

They could be men's gloves because they sure look oversized.

Does she LISTEN to people or does she just like to HEAR HERSELF TALK???

[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.]

Screamin' headline on my news feed. ARE THOSE SHOES APPROPRIATE? Duchess Of Yacht Raises Eyebrows With The Footwear She Chose To Wear On First Public Appearance Of The Year

Out of touch doesnt begin to describe it.

Clearly it's a case of "DO AS I SAY" to the lesser beings, "not as i do."

R229, totally agree. She's not active listening, she's active interrupting with her "mmhmms" to rush the speaker along so that she can say something about HERSELF, not what the speaker just said.

Radiant R215,

Members of our muck-caked peasantry tell us that one might find Tiptree within some of the most fearfully perilous halls of commerce, if one dares. Rumour has it, one wretch just procured two jars of damson at the Wall Mart in Mountain View, CA. Imagine that. Je vais mettre fin à cela!

Namaste,

[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.]

Amma Meg, it was indeed my experience that I could find many iterations of Tiptree fare in variant humble locales--all but the singularly elusive "Little Scarlet" strawberry conserve which forced my meager supplement to Bezos' divorce settlement.

R205, her arse NEVER stuck out like THAT.

Deal with it: Your heroine is getting FAT.

And it's not just baby fat she can get rid of rather easily. It's PURE fat. Her pregnancy is nothing but THE FATTENING. She should've known better, but, well, a narc would never think it possible she might get fat just like so many other women do due to pregnancy.

Black is a thinning "color". Is Meghan wearing so much black so she appears thinner? It's not working, gurl. Let's have some real color.

Where the hell is Harry? Has he lost his groove? He's missing in action while his attention whore wife steals his thunder.

Has Harry ever seen her without the warpaint?

Is her skin really that bad she needs resort to slapping all that stuff onto her face?

R240, he's probably already having a mistress.

You know, shagging the mistress takes its time.

MEagain isn’t ugly. She’s very cute facially, her body is oddly rectangular but not bad. Let’s not lose sight of her *truly* appalling characteristics in a sea of unfounded criticism of her looks. She’s no supermodel but she’s no slouch either.

Think not of the ex-wife, sweet R238. The past is DEAD. Think of it as an investment unto the future philanthopied ventures of ourselves, HRH Duchess Royale Mrs. Windsor-Bezos and dear daughter HRH Lady Infanta Vicdoria Vagina Regina Açaí Willow Windsor-Bezos — ventures of KINDNESS.

XO,

R243, I never said she's ugly. But she doesn't watch her weight, very likely because she deems it just IMPOSSIBLE that SHE, the GREAT MEGHAN, can get fat like any other human. Wearing black all the time might hide the first signs of the fattening, but she shouldn't be fooling herself by thinking this will work forever.

It won't.

Black is "thinning" but if you're going to wear something TIGHT instead of TAILORED, it shows the weight and loses it's usefulness.

It is so gross how the black dress is showing every nook and cranny of her butt.

I don’t need to see that!

She oozes insincerity from every pore. It is difficult to listen to her speak. All her bullshit about “stories.” Every speech she gives, she rambles on about “stories.” Sometimes, a person just needs a suit. They don’t need your bullshit “story.”

Brits usually have good bullshit detectors. How are they dealing with her air headed ramblings?!

Marianne Williams indeed.

Sparkle's belly button was off centre today, is this normal for pregnant ladies? Is she wearing padding to make her pregnant belly look nicer?

Damn, Victoria Beckham makes some shit ugly coats! No wonder her fashion line is tanking.

No R239, her arse never stuck out AT ALL; in her famous Suits thespian endeavors, they padded that thing to fill the pencil skirts out.

Her tits really are at what passes for her waist in R249.

I don't understand why every article of her clothing is either too tight or floppy and oversized like a bag lady.

Has she ever worn something that fit properly?

You guys don't get it.

Look at Sparkle's behavior at this recent event. She is not going to be satisfied with talking to those who have built and supported the charities. She plays to take them over.

And as for the NT, like many in the "acting" profession, Sparkle wants to DIRECT.

That is the reason for the patronage of the National Theatre.

She plans to direct the plays they put on.

OMG, R249, thanks for pointing this out. Yes, she is wearing padding, it is off center, and she has fastened it too high on her torso. You would think she would take 10 minutes to Google this (or look in a damn mirror).

"She plans to direct the plays they [NT] put on."

I will guess that you have never seen a National Theatre production in any of its auditoriums?

Is that supposed to be her belly button, R249?

I was assuming it was the seam on some (too tight) undergarment or more likely pantyhose. But, do pregnant ladies wear pantyhose or girdles / spanxx? Seems like it would not be a good idea.

Once again, we have been treated to a garment so tight we can see the outline of Sparkle's bra and undergarments. Does she think she is being "prenancy positive" or something by wearing such tight clothes? As already noted, nobody wants to see her ass checks being "cupped" by her painted-on dress. Vomitous.

Also, if this is a single pregnancy, she looks like she's due any day. If it's twins or other multiples, I can buy that she's only 6 months. (Isn't that today's story? She's due in April?)

Because I'm a silly person, I ordered some of R215's Little Scarlet Strawberry Conserve. I believe it's made with Fraises Des Bois, not common strawberries.

Seriously, if this is a single pregnancy, she's got a problem. Either with blowing up like a balloon or with having pre-eclampsia.

Pantyhose would not have hidden a pregnant belly-button unless it was control top. Girdles/spanx affect bloodflow. They're generally bad for the wearer's health like their cousin, the corset.

The Queen Mother was a lizard.

But always in impeccable pearls and hat r261.

R256, it’s probably not pantyhose, because she appears to not be wearing any. Her shiny shin blades can be seen at r213. Although her bump is bumpy in that photo.

I never used to buy the fake pregnancy thing until I saw the off-center belly button. That is impossible with a real belly.

I heard that she's wearing the fake belly and forcing Harry to carry the child to term. It makes sense... only a thieving, grifting narc cunt would pull such a stunt. I tried warning the fraus on Celebitchy but they banned me. I hope the rest of you join me on Twitter in spreading the word about Meagain's mechanations-- meghanations, if you will.

R165, I agree Meghan looks good. A neat hairdo makes a world of difference.

I have no interest in so-called mean girl stuff. I just love reading about social climbers, people who come from little or nothing, and ascend to high sassiety. I like hearing, and speculating, what qualities or means or arts they employ to get there, and what they do once ensconced. In that regard, Meghan is a rollicking good story and I can't get enough! I almost never think about her race, though it's an interesting aspect. I'd be just as intrigued if she were a blonde bim. It's her being an unknown hustling actress from LA that makes it all so juicy.

OK, R255.

I'll confess the really, real truth.

Sparkle really plans to WRITE the plays.

And STAR.

I agree, R181, I bet they are genuinely thrilled to have Meghan.

[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 constant belly-grabbing is tacky, tacky, tacky.

I wish pregnant women wouldn't wear such tight clothes. No, not saying they shouldn't have pride in their bodies, or should hide. It's just - we get it, you're pregnant. I like more modest clothes in general, and the old-fashioned empire-waist maternity dresses could be very chic in their way.

The future Princess of Wales and Queen celebrated her birthday with a tea party at her home. She was joined by her children and husband.

I loves me a tea party! But to have Her Majesty attend as celebrant for one's occasion of birth? [html removed]

R258 enjoy you sweet order!! Life is too damn short not to indulge in the odd harmless whim. We grow fraises des bois in our garden. I first had those things from a street vendor in Taormina who called them fragoline di bosco, and my God it was a pure summer romance. But those things are delicate as fuck and we always eat ours as soon as we pick rather than can a batch for future toast. So I lined Tiptree's wallet instead.

Tiptree is not a posh brand...regardless of whether the Queen eats it or not. I get it every week from Morrisons. Now, Fortnum & Mason jam...that’s what you want to treat yourself to.

r273 The Queen isn't posh with her food outside of official functions. She's famous for using tupperware at her breakfast table, for example.

You misunderstand R273. Many of us hold an affection for Lillibet and it is simply a bit of fun getting to sample what she reportedly has a particular fondness for. Nothing to do with poshness per se. Wouldn't that be more in line with the royal warrant designation?

I see many of you are unfamiliar with English / Scots people in general.

They are both incredibly proper.... and incredibly thrifty.

It’s an interesting combination, and one I admire.

R276 Tupperware placed on the table by a footman. She has chefs...of course she’s “posh”. I doubt he’s microwaving her some Supernoodles for lunch.

And Fortnum & Mason is “the Queen’s grocer”. I bet she eats their jam far more frequently than flipping Tiptree.

And who the hell calls her “Lillibet” these days? Jeez.

R276 Some are, not all. I’m British and I do love having our royal family and our national habits explained to me so frequently by Americans..

r277 I'm English too, living in America. If you hate the Americans and their opinions so much, why don't you head over to pinknews.co.uk instead of coming to the American-founded Datalounge?

R278 must be living in the USA for a long time to be defending R276 as a general statement about modern day Britain.

Prince William with a beard! Yummy. He should grow another to offset his jowled big tooth dome head thing he has got going.

Are Charles and Camilla getting married? The palace apparently responded with "no comment" to the rumors.

[quote]I’m British and I do love having our royal family and our national habits explained to me so frequently by Americans..

LOL... true. You can always tell in part because the post sounds as if it was written with a feather, by someone dressed like this. Well, it's better than breathing through the mouth with dried cum on their shirt cuffs.

I guess.

Um sorry, I meant divorced, not married re: Charles and Camilla.

I'm an American living in England. How can I get in on this catfight? ;)

R280

Agreed. Absolute hotness with a beard. Meow!

They responded but did not deny the rumor re divorce? Do you have a link?

[quote] the publication also reported that The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall who got married in April 2005, are due to announce that they intend to divorce "imminently".

[quote] But when asked if the family would comment on the claims, a spokesman for Clarence House said: “It is not something we would comment on.”

Why would they bother divorcing at their ages? Camilla still has her own house, and I can't believe either is having a scorching affair with someone else. It would make more sense to separate in a quiet and friendly way and just get on with things. I believe that's what they'd do, though I don't believe these rumors anyway.

Actually, I thought it was a Burberry not a de la Renta, but I could be wrong and what's the difference except that one is at least British.

The outfit was absurd. Lucite shoes and a tight black dress over a huge bump in front and an increasingly massive arse in the back, and a camel hair Burberry, de la Renta coat, whever it was, to talk to an organisation helping poor women dress properly for the job market.

I thought she looked absolutely fine, and the shoes were great. They were her own shoes she’s worn for awhile. I have to say, there are probably a lot of men commenting on the shoes, because every woman I know would love them.

[quote] an increasingly massive arse in the back

The average British woman is size 16 (body on the right). The body on the left was the average women's body in 1957. It was a size 12 hourglass shape.

[quote] After sampling the measurements of more than 5,500 women in the United States, the study revealed that over the last two decades the average waist size has increased 2.6 inches, from 34.9 inches to 37.5 inches, with "even greater distinctions found when considering race and ethnicity."

The average size in the US has increased over the last 20 years from size 14 to size 16.

Meghan is bigger than she was a couple months ago but neither she nor her arse are "massive." She is about average.

One wonders if R289 is a size 0 Instagram fitness model.

R290 - You're missing the point: she was supposed to be setting an example for women who are entering the job market in low-end office job,s not auditioning for a role on "Suits" or trying to snag a rich royal.

Those clothes are not considered professional wear. The fact that mose women like the shoes in and of themsleves is beside the point. I'm a man and I liked the shoes and the coat, although the ridiculously tight dress was totally inappropriate, generally and specifically.

That was the point. As usual, she was thinking more about herself than those served by her "patronatge".

R291 - the actual numers don't matter, what matters is HOW she looks. She's clearly one of those women who carry BIG in the thighs, hips, and arse. So her arse looks huge. The black dress making her look like a giant "S" was ill chosen.. We all know she can't stop reminding the public that SHE'S GONNA HAVE A BABY! no matter how awful she looks in a tight black dresd. What size average British womena are isn't relevant. What's relevant is how Meghan Markle looked in that dress, which was awful.

Thanks, r291; whether one likes MM or not, the “massive” comments are really, really, stupid and stretching it. And r292, you maybe haven’t been in the modern worksplace—those shoes are worn every day by women in the workplace. Times have changed, we’re not wearing Mary Janes any more.

R291 American sizes are bigger so more accurate to say American women have gone from average 16 to 18 if using a comparison to British sizes.

R292 You're missing the point.

She was helping out at the charity. The woman she helped to dress in the photo-op wasn't wearing shoes like hers. Both the CEO and the Chair of the board R230 are dressed in clothes that low level job seekers might not wear to their interview but would be appropriate in an office depending on the office culture and the job.

In most offices Meghan's outfit would be quite acceptable. People may have other preferences in style but that doesn't mean the outfit was inappropriate.

The increase in sizes re American and British women really has nothing to do with this conversation, although it’s interrsting. She’s not fat, she’s pregnant—shes Been skinny all her life and will most probably return to something resembling that, just like Kate did.

R295 Point taken

R282 - Harry's "worth" is always set at about 30 million - his actual income, the revenue from the trust, is put at about 300,000 quid before taxes. If he had a trust that started out at 7 million as well as the one that Diana left which was larger than that, his annual income would be around 500,000. It isn't. And the BBC and other outlets used the term "reportedly" in all their articles. They weren't lying: they were printing unsubstantiated reports.

Harry and William woudl be worth a good deal more had they each had two rather one trust.

The Queen Mother was always in debt. Her daughter kept paying her debts off - the Queen Mother never had a spare 14 million quid to rub together.

Take a look at Harry's published net worth and then tell me he's got two trusts each now worth about 30 million but his annual income is only 300,000 - before taxes.

There is no record of such a trust. There is of Diana's. There isn't of the Queen Mother's.

Reply[39] you are so wrong, wrong wrong. You're a stupid twat. The royals do NOT borrow and return dresses. The royal family are not allowed to receive and accept free gifts from anyone. If this were the case every designer in the fucking world would be sending them fucking truck loads of the stuff. Imagine the publicity and prestige. Some of the big boys like Chanel or Armani would give them 20 outfits a day free for the rest of their lives! Wether you agree or disagree on what they spend the initial cost of kitting out a new female royal must be astronomical. I doubt Markle is paying 50k a dress but just take a quick look at designer evening gowns on Net a porter will give you an idea. These are NOT haute courture dresses. They're click and put in your fucking basket for 15k. Oscar deal Renta's average 5k to 10k. The pink lace Marchesa gown Kate wore some time last year was at least 8 grand. If Markle is borrowing stuff on the sly and the press can prove it she's in for a roasting like nothing she has received so far. But damned if they do, damned if the don't. We complain if they wear cheap high street shit and complain when they wear designer. But, if I was going to be shot down in flames, I'd rather go down in Oscar's cashmere than Top Shop acrylic crap!

In defence of shoes.

Marie Henein is one of Canada's top lawyers. Please note her work shoes!

That's not to say it's what everyone should wear. Times have changed and office wear has changed too. If you like flats or low sensible heels, wear them. If you like stilettos, go right ahead.

There's room for Sophie and Kate's nude pumps, Zara's booties and Meghan's animal print.

Those shoes may be loved by trashy women! No way are they appropriate for a workplace, neither are those hideous shoes that attorney is wearing.

R302 posting from 1950... they most definitely are worn today. If that makes women trashy, then we know how you view women. But then again, the trashing of a woman because she’s fat due to being pregnant tells me a lot.

So either she spent 500k on clothes or she’s merching them for money. Which is it?

Muriel should ban all the Markle threads. Nothing but loser fraus who don't belong on this site.

The point is the supposed patronage is about JOB INTERVIEWS for women having difficulty in the job market, at square one. If someone tottered in to me for a job looking like MeMe, i would guess her priorities are all wrong. Kim Kardashuan would lurve.those.shoes, eh?

[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.]

Uh oh, the Meghan stan is back. The shoes are a non issue. Showing up in a $$$ coat on the heels of such bad press re wardrobe costs is indefensible. It shows she gives not one whit about how the BRF is perceived in a time if austerity. She is a self absorbed asshole and your attempts to squash any discussion about her isn't going to make it any less obvious.

Um, why does her bump in R307 have an angle? It's square.

R306, the outfit on this lady would be fine for a night on the town, not for a job interview. It is too low cut, and not what I would consider "office wear". The coat is hideous, does nothing for the lady's figure, nor does the color enhance what she is wearing.

Camel is an overall unpleasant color. Who wants to go around looking like a splat of baby diarrhea?

MM's £££ get-up is especially insulting in view of the fact that the women are being outfitted from racks of used clothing.

[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.]

Not defending the coat. My position on the outfit is R159. The shoes were made an issue by R289 and the posters saying they're trashy and inappropriate.

The charity organization seems to have different taste from you R310. There's no suggestion that Meghan chose the woman's dress and there is a photo of someone else putting on the client's belt.

From a PR point of view, the charity wouldn't select clothing they considered inappropriate for a client to wear at such a high profile moment. The charity knows what a hiring team would be looking for in a professionally dressed applicant because that's their job. The posters on this thread may have more conservative views than the general UK job market.

[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.]

Meghan looked great in this beige outfit the other day.

[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 Buckingham Palace band plays a rendition of "Bohemian Rhapsody" to celebrate the film's Golden Globe wins.

This is the birthday greeting that was given to Prince William for Kate.

Charles and Camilla were in Scotland today. Camilla has recovered from her bad cold she had over the holidays. She hadn't been seen since before Christmas.

Young Princess Elizabeth as a Girl Guide.

The uniforms of the Queen's sons and daughter. I think these photos were taken during the Jubilee celebration on the Thames in London. Why should Edward be wearing any uniform when he dropped out of the Marines? Unless he's an honorary Colonel or something, it's a bit rich.

Another engagement announced for Harry and Meghan next week. So far, we have Monday and Wednesday events.

"I may be ancient but don't ever think I don't know what's going on and what people are saying".

The Queen with her four children. Top photos (left to right) are Charles and Anne and the bottom photos are of Andrew and Edward.

The Queen with her grandchildren, Peter and Zara Phillips.

Meghan certainly would be of wonderful help to those under priviledged womyn by setting up a class that teaches them to grift, merch and ghost their way to $ussex/$uccess!

Meghan at an event yesterday.

Hey picture posting troll, why don't you get some fucking meds for your Aspieness?

...well, this thread went off the rails pretty quickly.

Sparkle missed a golden opportunity to showcase maternity business suits / similar work wear.

Maternity business suits are still hard to find. Maternity clothes manufacturers seem to think all pregnant women spend their time lolling around or skanking around.

I don’t understand why sparkle showed up to a work wear event in a casual dress, overcoat, and skank shoes. How is that work wear?

Plus, she was in short sleeves. It seems she perhaps planned to wear her overcoat as a blazer, and someone probably asked if they could take her overcoat— because it’s an overcoat.

And suddenly there she was in short sleeves, looking very underdressed.

R332 - she didn't even wear hosiery either in the dead of winter in England. Duh.

Sparkle’s outfit would be ok work wear if she’s working retail at the Limited or something. But that’s about it.

The point is, kitting out a new female royal shouldn't be the same for the one married to the sixth in line as it is for the one married to the second in line, a future Princess of Wales and a future Queen Consort. Meghan's wardtobe costs, whoever is paying for them, are way out of line for her place in the hierarchy. They may appall DM reader's but to Meghan, they keep her delusions of grandeur: she's just like Kate. She's Really Important. So she has to have Really Important clothes. She easily look as nice if not nicer in much less appallingly expensive clothes. She wants those labels - they're 1) what she married Harry for, and 2) they confirm that she's gotten where she always wanted to go.

But she DOESN’T have Very Important Clothes. Her wardrobe is random shit.

She keeps haphazardly pairing very cheap looking off the rack items with ill fitting supposedly designer clothes that look cheap because they fit so poorly.

It’s ok if something Is inexpensive. In fact, bonus points for thrift. But it shouldnt LOOK cheap.

Sparkle seems to think any cheap polyester garment is beyond reproach as long as it’s black.

R335 - I take your point, and probably many other posters here do, too. But the general public doesn't: they hear de la Renta, Burberry, Beckham, Dior, Givenchy, and see the price tags, and it Looks Important, and that's all Meghan knowsn or wants. In that sense, yes, Markle is even more crass an unconsciously comical than we suspected. She's really no Amal Clooney, let alone Audrey Hepburn.

But my point is, it's still a ridiculous amount of money for the wife of the sixth in line; regardless of whether she's gotten it right, the cost is inexcusable and demonstrates that all she wants it to look like her fantasy self, not like someone who understands the terrain she now inhabits. That she keeps getting it wrong is just more evidence of how out of touch she is - and probably was where Harry and the Windsors were concerned from the beginning.

It's quite interesting in its way to observe, and it points up how savvy Kate is to keep her look "boring".

R332 North American women rarely wear hosiery unless it's part of their outfit. Black or coloured nylons/tights are worn to match clothing or to make short skirts more modest. In the dead of winter, most North American women wear black/coloured tights or pants/trousers. Nude tights are considered old-fashioned for anyone under 60.

Finding "nude" tights is impossible for many women of colour in most markets so many don't even think about it. Southern women are more likely to wear nylons.

Consider how often one has seen the Trump women wearing nude tights (not even when visiting the Pope). Nancy Pelosi often wears hosiery but Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama rarely do.

The DM's comment section seems to prefer nude hosiery but it's not a preference that all or even most British women seem to share.

[quote] It turns out I am only one of a handful of women walking the planet (air hostesses aside) that think nude tights are acceptable.

Until I see an actual list from BP saying the Queen requires nude tights, I'll say people who want to wear them should do so (Kate) and people who don't want to wear them should be free go without. (The York sisters and Zara sometimes do, sometimes don't)

For the female posters on this thread, do you wear nude tights/nylons regularly?

Why do you think she halted the tendrils?

Sparkle isn't most women of colour r337, she is racially ambigious and can pass for white. She could find "nude" tights to match her pale chicken legs. Or ,you know, she could have worn some black tights (not of this thin nude crap a good pair of 60+ dernier). She must be cold blooded to rock up in summer clothing in the dead of winter.

r309 I've finally come to the conclusion that she is wearing padding and yesterday it wasn't lined up properly. Apparently there were a number of photo's noticed by DM commenters where the bump was flat and folded while she was sitting. Funnily enough the pictures disappeared soon after those comments.

R337, I’m a North American woman, and I can tell you NO ONE I know wears any hosiery anymore, either to work, church, dinner, or wherever. I’m in my late 40s and work for a stodgy large multinational corporation. It’s considered to be very old fashioned.

&meant to add—I work in the northeast US, and weather doesn’t matter. It could be 20 degrees, and women still don’t wear hosiery if they’re wearing a dress. Instead, they’ll wear pants or boots. And of all things, my mom tried to find hosiery today in Walmart in taupe for the winter, and they don’t even sell it.

Who gives a shit what 'we do in America'?? In Britain women in a professional environment wear tights. But of course being American you think what you do is the ONLY way to do things.

Tights in the U.K. is not just acceptable but necessary. Seeing someone in winter with bare legs is very odd and that person would definitely be gossiped about by all. M&S does a great range of nude hosiery, in a variety of colours, which Meghan would be able to wear. Not wearing tights makes me think that Meagain wants attention brought to her bird like legs!!

Bare legs are in everywhere. No one cares about whether a woman wears hosiery or not except for some crotchety old men who still think it’s their right to tell us what to wear. Hosiery sucks. Try some on if you don’t believe me. If a woman doesn’t want to wear it, I’m all for it.

R342 I was simply bringing my perspective as the poster upthread asked... geez where have you all been? Bare legs are youthful and modern, and no one under 60 wears hosiery anymore unless it’s black and more like tights, and with a dress that looks better with tights. It’s not just the US, it’s everywhere.

R342 You don't know that I'm American. I've actually lived in the USA, the UK and other parts of the world. I didn't say the American way was the only way.

My comment at R337 was about tights being a preference rather than a rule. Some royal women wear them all the time and some royal women wear them sometimes. Meghan is originally from the USA. In some things she will retain her American style and others she'll adopt the British style or possibly a Canadian style she's picked up along the way.

It's said that the Queen hates wedge shoes. I rather imagine the monarch has more important things to worry about. Kate seems to like her wedge heels and wears them well. Similarly, just because other people like nude tights doesn't mean everyone else should be required to wear them and criticized when they don't.

R342 is right. I’m American but have worked in Britain, mainland Europe and all over the US. In Britain and most of Europe hosiery is worn in formal / professional settings. Not so much in summer when bare tanned legs look fine but in winter very definitely. It just looks odd to see a woman wearing a skirt suit or dress with bare legs mottled blue from the cold.

I’m a woman Meghan’s age and I cannot imagine not wearing tights in winter. Don’t enjoy wearing trousers either. Come to think if it, every woman I know wears tights (nude/black/coloured, doesn’t matter). Where do you have to live to not be needing them? Hawaii?

I have never owned a pair of nude tights; black and coloured yes, nude no. They remind me of my grandmother doing to church.

She has brought down Givenchy's standing, that's for damn sure.

Very insightful article about Harry linked below, though five years old.

Harry has the same problem many meatheads have. By eschewing university, he lost access to the “Kates” who could have been spouses for him.

So he kept dating in a very restricted pool of childhood friends and aristos until the Sparkle debacle.

R341 - I spent the holidays in New York City. I went out in the evening and out to the center of the city and stores. All the women dressed elegantly at Lincoln Center and the theatre in the evening wore hose. I saw plenty of women on the subways on the way to work in winter coats over office suits - most were wearing hose.

I don't know what city you were in, but in Manhattan women are still wearing hose with pumps and dresses and silk blouses. I even saw one or two wearing . . . pearsl!!!!!!!!!

R353, Wearing pears? I do declare! (I know it was a typo, but it still made me laugh)

Silk hosiery is beautiful.

R343 - No one????!!!!! No one under 60? Even women with varicose veins, uneven coloring, or those who don't spend their time tanning their unbeached pale legs with spider veins all over them? All the secretaries, grannies under 60, no one, really just NO ONE?!

Maybe in L.A. Not in Chicago and not in Manhattan and not in Boston - not to mention that in the latter city the sting of the Atlantic that cuts into skin all over Boston in the winter makes the idea laughable.

Yes, but those in the real know (cough--Toronto--cough) wear teeny-tiny Claire looking shirt from Birks. Pearls are so... hang on, speaking of pearls, did Sparkle just cast aside to be forgotten that nice set she got from Fiji?

I know two women IRL Manhattan who would wear those Lucite shoes. One is an Italian from Bay Ridge who made good but still has cheesy taste sometimes. And the other is a real-life Edina Monsoon who’d wear them with a Gucci tracksuit and fur vest and ganja beanie. I can see them being considered demure in Brighton Beach.

I suppose those in the provinces can be convinced they’re fashionable.

All of Harry's problems stem, in one way or another, from being a total dumbass.

If hadn't been born Royal, he'd be working in a chip shop.

Agree, that article was brutal. Haz is in the frau mag Cosmo today "Prince Harry Reportedly Feels Responsible for Megan Markle Being So Miserable." She is working her ugly magic on an immature unstable mess.

Being jealous of William - seems pointless. Their roles were both set at birth.

Neither man chose his path.

For Harry to be jealous makes him sound really juvenile. How pointless.

So, are we to believe that he didn't know anyone anywhere in the world who would be willing to marry him and start a family?

Obviously, one person did. But was she the only possibility?

If that article is true though, it does explain why the RF didn't put a halt to the HazBean duet.

Meghan: This is perfect for a job interview. I wore something similar when I interviewed for my yacht job.

R356 they wear pants...

R356, I want to add—older women of a certain age do wear hosiery... but younger, modern women do not. They really don’t.. they’ll wear tights and dark stockings, but not nude hosiery at all.

[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.]

R351 - Brutal, as another poster upthread put it about that article, isn't the half of it: I'd add shrewd and prescient.

The story about Harry calling Cressida daily is scarily reminiscent of Diana's behaviour with men she was pursuing, as well as how her control of her demons dropped the moment she was married, as biographers spoke of the difference between how she behaved up at Balmoral in summer 1980 as she was "vetted" as Charles's future possible wife, and 1981, after she became his wfe, as her hysteria and need for incessant attention surfaced. Never mind the love of media attention . . . who does that remind us of?

R365 trust me, the Queen doesn’t give a shit whether anyone wears hosiery.

Couple enjoyable rumors floating arond: The New Diana has more than several sm accounts where she continues to personally takes on the haters, a la Cardi B. Waiting waiting for the sleuths to uncover the accounts. AND the terminated NT memberships in protest of the Suitcase Girl "patronage." Juicy.

R367 - Not now, she doesn't - she may have in her inarticulate fashion 40 years ago but not any longer. I suspect she's accepted that it's really out of her hands now, and into Charles's and William's and Kate's. Her husband is clearly is, as my Friend the Doctor candidly puts it, CTD: Circling the Drain.

R368 - Terminated NT memberships in protes ot the Suitcase Girl's patronage? Link, please - not that the BRF will care. But at least someone else noticed the inappropriateness of people like Dame Judi Dench curtseying to the One Role Wonder On A Joke Show.

r367 and r369, I've always understood that tights are one of the Queen's basic rules for Royal Family women.

The skin toned item is likely hosiery, not tights. Tights are thicker and more casual.

There was a kerfuffle when Kate started wearing the skin toned hosiery. I guess there was some debate as to whether a young woman would comply with the Queen’s wishes / preference.

I think it looks much more polished to wear hosiery with a skirt or dress. Though t’s pribably quite uncomfortable.

And no “suntan” hose, ladies! Remember those from way back? (Shudders)

The DM has up for the second time this week an article about Harry's and Meghan's rented converted barn in the Cotswold's. The article this time in its headline does acknowledge that it is rented, not purchased, but then goes on to emphasise its "glitz" factor and the neighbours like Stella McCartney, Kate Moss, and of course, the Beckham . . . as well as . . . "a celebrity members club" that serves as the local.

They aren't letting up. They're doing just what they always do: follow up a "Duchess dazzles in . . ." article with one filled with more shade than Sherwood Forest at midnight.

I think the article referenced above about Harry is also notable for its statement that everyone knows the DM has direct line to the Court of St. James.

In other words, this throwaway line in the article asserts that the DM knows whereof it speaks.

[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.]

For clarity, here is the line from the article about the Telegraph and the DM and their access to the BRF:

". . . has recently appeared in The Daiy Mail as well as The Daily Telegraph, both publications being well known for their all but out in the open back channels to the Court of St. James, let alone the royals themselves . . ."

I don't know about the entire US, but in Manhattan women started dressing like harlots in the office after the runaway success of Sex and the City in the late 1990s. Some of the older partners in the law firm where I worked as support staff were scandalized and made complaints to HR but many weren't and the younger associate male attorneys loved it and would intercede. HR gave up by the early 2000s and most of the women, including some of the female attorneys, looked like whores.

This was otherwise a relatively conservative law firm, considered one of the top ten in the US. It's been years since "appropriate office attire" was a thing.

R375 - I am not an attorney so obviously must bow to your first-hand knowledge here - but harlots are well known for wearing sexy lingerie, are they not? It's my impression as a man, albeit a gay one, that men LIKE the way hose makes women's legs look, especially if they are enhanced with seams up the back.

I'm reminded of Marilyn Monroe in one of the early scenes of "Some Like It Hot" in the ladies with Curtis and Lemmon on the train, as she turns around to show her sheer black stockings and purrs, "Are my seams straight?"

"I'll say!" says the slavering Lemmon emphatically.

I dunno, I suppose I am not on the front lines here, but I thought hose were sexy and smoothed things out and helped make the ensemble, especially along with stilettos.

Harry really is an impulsive halfwit so no surprise he was easy prey to a cunning opportunist. His destiny is sad regret on a beach in Mustique.

I think the pendulum is swinging back to wearing hosiery again in Manhattan. Not just black tights, but nude as well.

I think women are realizing that the right shaded nude can look like bare, but better. Hides all those imperfections. Very few women have flawless skin on their legs. And I think it’s a more professional look. But I’m old-fashioned and think that women shouldn’t be showing a lot of skin at work. You don’t want to know what I think of tattoos.

I am pleased to read upthread that the Queen's beloved cousin Princess Alexandra has recovered from her fall and is now back to doing royal engagements.

R378, well, thanks for acknowledging that women in Manhattan don’t wear hosiery... that might change but so far, they don’t.

r96 I take it you are referring to the Windsors not the Yorks as timeline wise and character wise I cannot imagine Sarah Ferguson for all her faults having contact with the Nazis!

R379, agreed. Thrilled that Alexandra is back at work and HM's love for her cousin is so well known and obviously deserved.

[quote]The skin toned item is likely hosiery, not tights. Tights are thicker and more casual.

That’s an American distinction. In British English ‘tights’ encompasses everything from sheer and silky to black and wooly.

The problem with sheer nude tights, is that they're like single use straws. Sometimes it seems all they need is a stiff breeze and they've laddered. The best one can get out of them is about 3-5 wears. The costs add up and who needs the hassle of keeping an extra pair at work or in the handbag in case the bloody thing ladders before an important meeting.

Opaque tights are virtually indestructible and work better. If one wants to look professional, and bare legs won't do, wear trousers.

[quote]you maybe haven’t been in the modern worksplace—those shoes are worn every day by women in the workplace.

By streetwalkers? I work in the media, which is pretty laid-back as far as dress codes or lack thereof, and I've never seen a woman wearing Lucite shoes in the workplace.

Lucite shoes are work wear only if your name is Courtney Stodden.

Great comment at DM. On earlier threads re: her interviewing of PR firms, the father and half sister were part of the strategy.

TheMIghtyG, Greenwich Village, United States, 11 hours ago

There is indeed "more to the fallout." Thomas Markle and Meghan are working together. Whenever she needs some distraction from bad press, Thomas pops up to give another interview.

Lucite shoes are strictly for strippers. The fact that some high-end shoe makers occasionally throw a bit of Lucite into their lines does not lessen the truth of this essential fact. Strippers buy ultra-high-end label shoes too, you know, they have the cash ready to do so, it's just that they gravitate towards the Lucite. More power to them. But no Lucite on a taxpayer-funded member of the BRF, please.

R385, I’ll back you up on that. Lucite shoes are NOT a thing in Manhattan offices. Maybe in some creative industries, but your regular office-dwelling woman? Nope.

I cannot even imagine how they would stick to bare feet and cause blisters. That’s just... NO.

I can't believe what I am about to say will somehow be in defense of Sparkle but--her shoes aren't Lucite nor acrylic. Those are reserved for those platform heels you see on strippers. Lucite is a plastic and glass-type compound which is stronger than just plain plastic and less brittle than plexiglass. The clear plastic you are seeing is what the shoe fashion industry terms as "pvc," Meghan has worn Gianvito Rossi pumps in years past and I admit they always catch my eye. I believe these are Gianvito Rossis also.

My timing collided.

And to piggyback on r388, even a hint of Lucite would be a hard pass for a work shoe. Maybe for an evening look, haha, some insets...

R391, tomayto tomahto. Clear plastic shoes are gross. Have you ever had plastic - excuse me, PVC! - pressed up against your skin for more than ten minutes?

Which one of you was this?!!!

The Leading Expert, New York City, United States, 5 hours ago

Her problem is that everyone can see right through her, they can see that she's as phony as a $5 Rolex bought on the streets of Bangkok!

Meghan wore these Gianvito Rossis in 2015. And yes, I would wear these; strictly as night time shoes.

Sorry, r395 the Lucite/PVC cheapens the whole look. Also, ruins the otherwise beautiful line of those shoes.

Just to be clear (pun intended), pvc is soft against the foot similar to many man-made materials that make up shoes these days. Lucite is hard and feels like you're wearing Cinderella's glass slipper. And naturally, neither breathes.

Wow, R351, interesting article. Prescient, especially the final lines. I really had no idea Harry was so vulnerable.

Also, with reference to r395's pic, what the hell is she carrying in her hand? Is the purse Lucite too? Or is it....MIRRORS?????

We need Amma Meg to come here and explain the spiritual significance of her stripper-accessories

R397, you’re right, though. Lucite is what the heels are made of, PVC is the upper.

Still ridiculous material to use for footwear outside of a bedroom or stage.

R400, in her absence, I would guess it’s to show everyone that she’s still SEXAY. A YUMMY MUMMY, if you will. Because that’s all women are good for.

Or I suppose there’s some third wave bullshit about “reclaiming” the expression of a marginalized sex worker’s power or somesuch.

Or poor taste.

Thank you, r402, I will gladly accept your plausible (all too plausible, sadly) explanation during the tragedy that is Amma Meg's absence.

R351, [quote] his jealousy directed toward an older brother whose married, happy with his wife, the proud father of a growing family

Oh dear. Which one of you wrote this?

I personally never saw much fashion game in Meghan's arsenal even during her Suits/Tig prime. She just seemed a series of throw whatever against the wall and see what sticks. Only now she has Sugar Daddy Charlie to bankroll her vanity. Though still cannot wrap my mind how it is she drops haute couture coin and winds up looking like she's wearing those clothes you order online from China supposedly custom made to your measurements. We see what the item looks like on the model as envisioned by the designer, and then it is something altogether weird on Meghan.

Let's not bash Kate and William when Harry and his spouse are still at the bottom. Check the totals.

Meghan is a cute girl who should be married to an Ernst & Young accountant.

She is not beautiful, not charming, not clever. And her style is straight outta Reseda / Bay Ridge.

Her type used to be told to shut the fuck up and take care of the kids. Now, she’s encouraged to flap her stupid gums all the time.

More’s the pity.

[quote] Her type used to be told to shut the fuck up and take care of the kids. Now, she’s encouraged to flap her stupid gums all the time.

[quote] More’s the pity.

See you're bringing that top shelf misogyny R407.

Queen Victoria and her five daughters.

"Mother of Nine, Grandmother of Europe, and one of the 19th Century's most prolific diarists. She recorded her thoughts on everything, and everybody..."

I posted that article, R351. The whole site is a goldmine of info about the royals, but British and European. The owner wrote one article about MM right before the wedding. Interestingly, the comments from before the wedding expressed just the same criticisms and concerns are we see now, 18 months later. The writing was well and truly on the wall.

both not but

Yeah I can’t imagine why you don’t wear tights at winter. That must be freezing with your legs bare . But some like MM just have to come out of a car and walk a short distance . When you are on foot it must be really cold . Remember at Christmas she was wearing boots to go to church . No bare legs there !

[quote]Thomas Markle and Meghan are working together. Whenever she needs some distraction from bad press, Thomas pops up to give another interview.

This had occurred to me; she gets sympathy points for having such “terrible” relatives, plus more attention. And Daddy Dear gets a few nice checks from the Daily Mail and maybe a little something from the Sussexes too. It’s a win-win.

I think navy or black hosiery with a dress or skirt looks a hell of a lot better than bare legs unless it's late spring or summer. Bare legs in winter makes a woman look half dressed. Nude hosiery seems for more formal occasions. But please, no hosiery or tights with open-toed shoes!

You’re ALL hopelessly mental; banned from other sites with your puerile, insipid Markle nonsensense and you’ll be banned here shortly. Nelly, British centenarian queens (lowercase “q”) and fat British housefraus. You are ruining a wonderful site.

Oh my we offended you R416 ? Its a gossip site remember ! And a gay one too ! And i still think PH is gay . And that’s why we have Meghan Markle as a Duchess now . She is a lesbian .

My blessed earthbound star-seeds at R400 and R402,

If you must know, I wear PVC as a reminder; a reminder of the hard times. You see, whilst Mother did her best to raise a frail fatherless bantling (that wouldst be moi) in the bombed-out tenements of the Deep South of El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula, there were times —insolently humiliating times — whence the only thing holding the shoe-rags to my tiny chicken-boned feet was clear packing tape.

I implore you, do not weep for me!

That sole pair of taped shoe-rags, through my truculent care in cosseting them a'tight in precious newspaper night after night, saw me through the eons between kindergarten and my thirteenth birthday herein whereupon an anonymous kind soul slid a Payless gift card betwixt the makeshift plywood door and gravel floor of our happy home.

And after I sashayed out of Payless wearing that first pair of XXXXXXL chartreuse pumps I sat on the bench in front of Hot Dog on a Stick and wept tears of gratitude. That night, unable to sleep, I found the roll of packing tape and carefully affixed a tiny piece to the insole of each shoe. And then, I slept.

#Blessed #Gratitude #NeverForget #Kindness

Look, everyone! Meghan herself has graced us with her presence!

Having a good morning Meaghan?

So overcome with The Emotion was I that I wrote "chicken-boned" whilst I meant "quail-boned." My adult feet are chicken-boned, alas.

AMMA MEG!

I was just browsing the website at R351 and there’s an article on there about DL’s beloved Princess Alexandra and Prince Philip carrying on an affair for 20 years...

I was just browsing the website posted at R351 and there’s an article about DL’s beloved Princess Alexandra and Prince Philip carrying on an affair for 20 years...

Oops, sorry for posting that twice!

Gather round, gather round, children! Today, we have an exciting presentation on the horrible, disgusting, putrid illnesses (you know, STDs, mania, typhoid) of the Royal Family from King Henry 'Choppy-Choppy' VIII himself onwards!

The excitement!

It is surely possible, R417. Along with her family being part of her PR strategy. Given her history with her father, quite likely. The photos with the Canadian sure boost your theory.

R351's article is a good (but very sad) read. For several years now, my own instincts have told me that Harry is a very vulnerable man-child, and the author of that piece pretty much laid out the evidence. It's ridiculous of me to feel protective of him, but I always have.

R407, I’ve worked for a Big Four Accounting firm. Accountants tend to be attracted to other accountants and professional, educated types.

They’re too smart, practical and money-conscious to settle down with a transparent gold digger like MeAgain. And their colleagues would laugh at them if they did. And there’s no way a climber like MeMe would be attracted to someone who lives a sensible, low key life (even if they have a lot of money, which accounting partners do). There are exceptions, of course, but the type of men who would be attracted to an M. type generally wouldn’t do well in an accounting environment, anyway.

Never confuse accountants with massive ego Hollywood and business mogul-types. They’re cut from an entirely different cloth.

First Carole, now James....what's with the middletons and their interviews and articles.

And this one is a DM exclusive.

Who has the bigger cock? Harry , William , Charles or Philp?

I think William and Philip have the biggest.

R427 - No need to apologise. I feel absurd in my tenacious affection and respect for the Queen, when it's plain the whole show is now a scam.

The Cosmo article where they assert he feels guilty for her being miserable - of course it is her crappy PR putting words in his mouth, again, the way he threatened the media at the beginning. It's classic narc move -- pout at not getting your way, and push someone else out in front to demand it for you. No matter that the someone else is in pain -- better, actually, becsuse they're a snap to manipulate.

R422/R423 - I highly doubt this rumor. The Queen seems very fond of her cousin Alexandra and I doubt she would be if she was bonking her husband.

Princess Margaret with her husband and children.

The christening of Harry. I love the Queen telling Anne's children about her dog Dash. Zara asks: "does he bite?" Love Diana's outfit.

George and Charlotte.

A family shot.

R432 - I rather agree, but it's doubtful her PR did it without his consent, and that's where this dog is really buried. He keeps giving her whatever she wants, without regard for the impact on his image or the family's. The comparison to Diana's woes once she married in (most of which was completely down to her sudden switch from Adoring Malleable English Rose to Charles Why Aren't You Paying Attention To Me 24/7 and Why Isn't This the Barbara Cartland Heroine Life I Imagined witch) is, in my opinion, simply the most short-sighted, family-alienating tactic Meghan could possibly adopt.

The BRR has spent two decades recouping from the wretched perceptions of "BRF, the Persecutors of Diana the Marty"r. Resurrecting this meme that now throws blame on the BRF for Poor Little Meghan's woes, as she parades around in expensive clothes and has her new home renovated at the taxpayer's expense through the Sovereign Grant, and gets curtsied and bowed to by her betters, is stupid beyond belief.

In his own way, Harry is showing himself as helpless as Charles was to deal with Diana's increasing skills at manipulating the press. The difference is, Harry's tactic is to collude in it, whilst Charles just stood by flailing.

But Harry is being foolish in service to what I believe is still a desire to stick to the family to whom he owes everything he has, and who can still deprive him of more of it.

Really, I can't believe the continuing truth of how the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons. William was fortunate to have absorbed Charles's arrogance rather than Diana's narcissistic issues, as Harry clearly has. Diana was right: Harry is more like her, and that is going to be Harry's tragedy.

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

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

I always love it how they throw Diana under the bus . She can’t defend herself anymore . . Charles is always painted as a martyr who survived his marriage to Diana . And I.m sure she had her demons but after her marriage she became a monster according to Charles . So this young girl 19 or 20 years old became untamed and uncontrollable after he marries her . And he older one couldn.t do anything about it . He thought he would get a breeding mare docile and easy to control but she became a Megastar . I mean the whole world knew who she was . And he was jealous of her . Always in the center of attention from his birth and than nothing . So he began an affaire with the woman he knew understood him Camilla . So Diana just had to shut her mouth according to him and had to know her place . But she didn’t . She fought back . And of course her problems began to excel . No wonder when you knew he was seeing another woman .

Is it known if WIlliam cheats on his wife?

I have a perverse hope Philip has been keeping a diary for the past 70+ years and will publish it on his 100th.

It wouldn't be at all surprising if William had a mistress at this point. However, he'd probably be canny enough not to humiliate his wife in their social circle by flaunting his side piece, as Charles did. What's more, Kate is no Diana: She'd simply blank the whole thing out (in the grand Royal wife tradition) and get on with things.

R441 You can comfort yourself that the scenario you describe would never happen to The New Diana. She would never ever let Haz have a happy day in his life, and would rachet up the manipulation and control as necessary. I have seen in two instances men kill themselves as their only escape from a narc, and while not a huge admirer of Charles, am glad he has found happiness in his life.

This damsel in distress garbage is so retro.

r444 And maybe get pregnant again?You'd be surprised how many marriages with issues reach for that option as a distraction. Apparently Diana even contemplated having a third child after she knew her marriage was on the rocks and Camilla was back.

R441 what about all the media coverage of Diana’s histrionic antics and multiple adulteries BEFORE she achieved sainthood by dying at the side of her cokehead boyfriend? She was certainly able to speak for herself then - and did. Every fucking day a new woe-is-me-the-most-persecuted-person-ever tirade.

Ask the wives of all the men Diana was fucking how saintly they think she was.

I do sometimes wonder r447 What Julia Carling would say about Diana publicly if she did not have the restraint and self discipline of an edit button?! The wronged woman martyr role does take on a slightly different feel when you acknowledge Diana did the same to other women.

[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.]

One thing I don't get - if MM is upset by all the negative publicity, why does she keep doing the things that are generating it, ie, massive overspending, not wearing British fashion, drawing attention to herself?

What is the conversation like between H and M every time her family pulls some shit? Is Harry starting to get at all tired of this, or is he rather enjoying the drama? It ain’t dull!

George and Charlotte having been caught illegally entering the U.S. at R436

I'm not a fan of Camilla but she does wear some nice outfits and hats.

Beatrice of York in black.

Lots of photos of kids spontaneously hugging Kate.

Supercute r455

Charles trying NOT to burst out laughing.

The Queen with her family including baby Prince Andrew at Balmoral. I love the sturdy old-fashioned carriage. Andrew was the chubby baby.

A Cambridge family photo session.

That choker on Camilla's neck - WOW! She looks good in pink.

Every thread on the BRF inevitably brings up the Diana/Charles conflict. It seems unnecessary. I felt horribly for Diana. But she had made friendships among the other Royals, and had the support of many of them. Prince Philip sent her affectionate letters, signing them 'Pa'. She had a friendship with Princess Margaret (halted after her TV interview). Her two sons were the future of the BRF, which she surely knew. I could understand her furor at Charles, and her desire to ruin him. I'm only human. But her attempts to destroy the entire BRF really left me cold, and unsympathetic. I know that I'm only adding fiction, but I think it illustrates something honest. I doubt that Stephen Frears intended a sympathetic portrayal, but somehow, it comes through. HM didn't deserve the miserable shellacking she received.

R438 Of course youre right that Harry is colluding with his wife to harm the BRF with special hate to the Cambridges, but i can only imagine how it's being couched to him - oh Harry they dont appreciate you, you deserve so much more, oh Harry they hated St. Diana blah blah, poor poor ME Harry, what about ME?

See, there I go again having a small soft spot for him, mainly because his pain is so obvious. Surely if things go south, his wife will yank the smidgeon of control he has over the PR so quickly he won't even know what happened. Yes, he is swimming in treacherous waters.

Can any of the family members be a "working royal?" If so, did Beatrice, Eugenie, et al choose not to be? Working royals get paid, correct?

R441 - Diana btroke up someone else's marriage, committed adultery, and washed the family's dirty linen in public with the Morton book, which she at first lied about cooperating in.

Diana threw Charles and the entire BRF under the bus. She thought by doing so she would emerge trimphant, Charles would come to heel and ditch Camilla, and the whole family would cover before her martyred image.

Instead, they kicked her out and forced the divorce she said she really didn't want, finally tired of putting up with her endless problems, which they had done from as early as summer1981, when she was rude to guests at the Queen's dinner table, screamed at Charles on a nearly 24/7 basis, and got sent off for psychiatric help before they'd been married six months. Even the Archbishiop of Canterbury in his memoirs was honest about how mismatched he saw they were when he met with them before the wedding.

The fact that she got involved with Dodi Fayed should tell you everything you need to know about "poor Diana not here to defend herself". He was an infantile puppet of a powerful father, with a drug history, whose fiancee was parked somewhere else on another yacht, a total idiot, and his idiocy cost her her life. Their relationship is a matter of public photo record, remember?

And she already defended herself in that legendary and embarrassing Martin Bashir interview, remember? "Queen of People's Hearts"? During which she suggested her husband wasn't fit to be King (speaking of throwing people under the bus).

She threw herself, her husband, her marriage, and the BRF under the bus.

*cower (not cover)

R464

The most fascinating part of the Di and Chuck thing for me is the effect on the sons. What must it do to your head to know that you're the product of an arranged marriage? Your mother had an "appropriate" uterus, so here you are!

Eh? Arranged matches occur in mamy cultures, successfully, including the BRF. The problem wasn't the arranged marriage, it was her mental illness.

r464 is right. Diana was no saint.

Possibly, R446. Having another baby (or two) to revitalize a stale marriage is a leaf right out of Queen Elizabeth's playbook.

R469 - the Queen may or may not have had two more children to revitalize a stale marriage, but that's an unprovable rumour. What isn't a rumour is her regret at missing so much of Charles' and Anne's early childhoods because her father died relatively early and left her Queen at 25. Andrew and Edward were her chance, after establishing her reign, to have more time with her young children than she had with the first two.

It's also much more likely that at that time one Heir and one female "spare" weren't considered enough "insurance". In fact, it's still true, or Kate wouldn't have had that extra baby last year. Now, the Throne is secured after Charles, by William and then two sons and a daughter.

Style of thing.

[quote] As one might expect, given the politics of both households, opinions among courtiers concerning Miss Markle becoming a future royal duchess is sharply divided among staffs of Buckingham and Kensington palaces. As one might expect, the hidebound traditionalists of Buck House, who’d initially objected to Prince William’s burgeoning relationship with Kate Middleton, and later are rumored to have attempted to orchestrate an engagement between Harry and Cressida Bonas, are less than pleased at the prospect of the fifth in line to the throne plighting his troth with a half Black American actress whose previous husband is very much still among the living. Objections to the relationship are rumored to have become so virulent that last November, according to the author’s sources, it was a particularly nasty, old and aristocratic cabal of courtiers at Her Majesty’s official London residence that were behind the Daily Mail’s now notorious article,EXCLUSIVE: Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang scarred home of her mother revealed-so will he be dropping in for tea?

[quote] Their latest salvo came in the form of an interview with her older half sister entitled, I’m hurt she hasn’t reached out to me’: Meghan Markle’s wheelchair-bound half-sister slams Harry’s girl for charity work, saying ‘humanitarianism starts at home’-after revealing they haven’t spoken for NINE years.

It could be BP that's colluding with Samantha Markle.

They tried to scare Harry away from Meghan but instead pushed him into her arms.

[quote]Can any of the family members be a "working royal?" If so, did Beatrice, Eugenie, et al choose not to be? Working royals get paid, correct?

The Monarch decides. Charles has already said that when his reign begins he is slimming it all down significantly and the presumption is he is cutting out the Yorks, among others. Andrew is said to be furious about it but Charles has had no use for Andrew for years now due Andrew's and Fergie's various scandals. Andrew has campaigned heavily for a more important place for his daughters but it hasn't and isn't going to happen.

HM has not publicly disagreed with Charles about this.

The reality is that Charles is now a de facto regent and will be king within a decade at most. Andrew can have all the hissy fits he wants, it won’t change a thing because Chuck will be king (doo wop doo wop doo wop)🎶

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

So everyone talks about how Charles has said he’s slimming down the monarchy but has he actually said this publicly? Or is this a bunch of people surmising what Charles’s plans are?

Whoever is writing for that royalfoibles website, sure likes the word “burgeoning”.

I'm trying to be prescient, for the DL of 20 years in the future (right). But I think it's a big mistake excluding the York sisters from participating in official duties. I've watched their appearances and interviews, and it really comes very naturally to them. We always make fun of their bizarre fashion sense, but they are both very enjoyable presences on video. I like both of them, very much, and would like them to do public appearances. Beatrice and Eugenie, forever!

Beatrice attended to the refurbishment of her Granny's doll house from many years ago. I thought it was rather touching.

I think the Yorkies will be invited back to ribbon cutting duties. I'd love it if they told them to go fuck themselves.

Princess Eugenie. I really do like the York sisters.

The question is whether Andrew will be involved in new scandals.

“The clothes are very important,” Meghan said of preparing for any role. “I remember when they first laid all of these sensible shoes out and these sort of dresses. . . . I cried. I thought, I can’t play anyone who’d wear these clothes. I just can’t do it.”

If Philip gave a speech at the Markle-Debarcle wedding, I like to imagine it might have gone something like this

[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.]

Ahem, R470. A son, a daughter, and another son. In that order, if you please.

I wonder if the protection officer will reveal the real story of the market clusterfuck.

This is hilarious as just this week her camp released to the press that she was well loved by her staff.

That is some first class spinning - one of the people is the problem? Like she wanted to be one of the people in the market where she bailed, despite women and children waiting hours in the heat to see her. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, woman of the people Sparkle, that MUST be the problem. Her clawing to pose as Diana 2.0 could not be more obvious. Go away.

CanadaUKlover, Toronto.Ontario.Canada, 28 minutes ago

Feel sorry for the baby with a narcissist for a mother and a dimwit no backbone father.

Why did she have such an idiot grin on her face when she was hustled out of that market? She was pissing her knickers and giggling with excitement.

I like how the Mail is couching it in terms of her desire to be "one of the people". Yea that's the ticket. We're unhappy with her desire to be one of the people, not her diva demands.

One has to wonder when Hazza is going to give his two weeks notice.

I that Charles will have to make the York sisters working royals at some point in the near future out of necessity. The older working royals, the Gloucesters, the Kents, and Princess Alexandra still carry a substantial load of engagements and are getting on in their years. They retire or pass away long before any of the youngest are anywhere near ready to begin public duties and the Cambridges and the Sussexes aren't enough to pick up the slack.

At R436's picture, It looks like Prince George has already picked up on his father's usual public post of the hands clasped in front of his waist. Funny.

*think that

I think it's unfair to deny the York sisters the chance to be working Royals because their parents are sleazy. Beatrice and Eugenie seem good-natured and rarely put a foot wrong, and their tragic style sense gives us all something to talk about. More Bea and Eug, please.

I think Bea and Eug could look fabulous if they played to their strengths of hourglass figure and great skin.

I agree, R496. They're both attractive in their way, and most of their problems could be solved by correct tailoring and the right foundation garments.

The Queen with her young family.

We don’t really see Sparkle out and about— what’s this stuff about her mingling too much with the people?

We don’t really see Sparkle out amongst the people, do we?

For those of you who are interested, here are some photos and info on Camilla's family.

An unusual shot of the Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) and her bridesmaids in 1947.

Happy Diana on holiday.

I will caption this photo: KEEP CALM and CARRY ON, MA'AM.

All I see is the red in Charles' face.

This is the Queen and Princess Margaret outside of Buckingham Palace as Diana's funeral cortege walked by. I remember the Queen bowing her head as well as Prince Andrew. I did not see Margaret or Anne do the same but, in fairness, the casket may have blocked my view if they did.

Just as Kate is assuming 1940s-50s fashion style, having a fourth kid would be a very retro thing to do, so I bet she will.

The article says MM is miserable with her role. How long before she bails?

[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.]

"...I cried. I thought, I can't play anyone who'd wear these clothes. I just can't do it."

^^Said the clueless patron of the National Effing Theatre.

R513 - yes, I found that statement quite odd for a so-called ACTRESS.

Kate's mother Carole Middleton makes the cover of French mag Point De Vue.

Charles & Diana looking chic. Ralph & Russo coat+dress.

R512 - Photoshop of Diana who never wore this dress.

Lovely photos of Kate and Will with their new puppy Lupo on a Welsh beach in 2012. They had a couple of years of peace when they lived together in Wales and Will was a helicopter rescue pilot.

Photos of Kate and Lupo in 2012. She had an easy rapport with children even before she had her own.

Her cup runneth over.

In the article from the DM:

[quote]The female chief protection officer, whose departure was reported in The Sunday Times, took over from Sergeant Bill Renshaw, who had been Prince Harry’s head of security and retired last year after more than 30 years in policing.

She first came to public prominence during the young Royal couple’s tour of Australia last October, where she was photographed wearing heels while she kept a watchful eye over the pregnant Duchess.

And the blonde inspector stepped in during their visit to Fiji when huge crowds turned out to greet Meghan on a solo visit to a market.

The protection officer was seen taking the Duchess to safety shortly after Meghan whispered something in an aide’s ear.

In one photo the police officer raised her hand to clear the way, and in another she appeared to be scanning the scene for potential threats.[quote]

So was the chronology Meghan whispered something in an aide's ear AND THEN the RPOs stepped in to remove the duchess from the unwashed?

Fudged up on the quotes above ^^^^. Sorry for any confusion.

What is of note:

[quote]The protection officer was seen taking the Duchess to safety shortly after Meghan whispered something in an aide’s ear.

Someone is trying really hard to garner sympathy.

As per Radar Online, Meghan "collapse" after a Royal Family get together (Christmas obviously) and wailed "Why does everyone hate me?" Don't believe it.

The idea that the BRF or any sector of it and its minions colluded with Samantha Markle AFTER the engagement doesn't hold water. Once in the family, it was entirely to the family's benefit to have Sparkle do as well as possible. It might have made minimal sense before, but once the engagement photocall and interview were over, it was done and dusted, and it was to nobody's benefit to have dealings with the psycho half-sibs.

As the old saying has it, "If you lie down with dogs, you shall get up with fleas." The two half-sibs are covered with more fleas than you could count. I except the father, as Sparkle set up that scenario herself by ghosting him the moment she started dating Harry.

I have little sympathy for any of the parties here. Meghan Markle had gold-digging narcissist written all over her, and they either had the balls to tell Harry NO or waive your place in the line of succession, head for Toronto or LaCa and marry your aging opportunist, and we'll see that you're comfortably settled with a nice going away present and some sort of annuity and additional trust from your father.

They thought they could play both ends against the middle, and they were wrong.

As for being at Kate's birthday party, please - Meghan's PR office managed to her most prestigious patronagte (no one gives a shit really about Mayhew and Smart Works) of the National Theatre "accidentially" announced earlier than scheduled right on Kate's birthday. Meghan will only get near William's and Kate's family on the most formal occasions. Meghan blew that relationship early on.

I saw the video of Sparkle talking to women being served by Smart Works on the news this weekend. One of the things I noticed was that, yes, she IS now cultivating a carefully slightly calibrated British accent, she had way too much makeup on, the camera kept cutting away to focus on her incessantly cupped bump, and the big chunky black bracelet she was fastening on one of the women's wrists as part of her "interview" outfit was nothing any woman I know would wear to an interview. Unless things have changed more than I realised, the name of the game in interviews for office work is unobtrusive everything, so that the interviewer sees you, not your jewellery or your chic lucite pumps or your neon orange top.

As I said, I have no sympathy for Meghan Markle, or Prince Harry, or the BRF. The latter should have insisted that the couple live together for a year, in Britain, before becoming engaged, the way Crown Prince Frederik and Mary Donaldson were forced to do before Queen Margrethe consented to an engagement - and that was after a three-year long-distance romance.

And if Markle complained that they wanted children and time was of the essence, too bad. That's her problem, not the BRF's.

As usual, the benighted BRF made every mistake in the book. Some people never learn.

In the video from Smart Works, Meghan makes these condescending, slightly disgusted expressions every time someone speaks to her. She really is very “off” in how she interacts with people.

R524 The article was written before the engagement. Once Samantha was let loose, there's no controlling her.

Funny you should say that, R513 & R514, since it’s DAME HELEN MIRREN who said those words.

R528 - I agree. That's why I said "minimally" before the engagement, and added the lying down with dogs bit.

No one really knows what went on behind the scenes. I keep returning to Tiara Gate and the Remembrance Day optics and the exile from London to that boring Frogmore Cottage dump, as the real signposts - no one has EVER denied Tiara Gate, and the optics last November speak for themselves, as does the evaporation of the grand KP apartment and a REAL grand country home. For the rest, they have to give her patronages, the Queen's been handing them off to younger working royals for a few years now, it's basically meaningless, the NT and all htat, and the BRF will put the best face on it by continuing to look like they fully accept Meghan and she'll be treated as one of them publicly for the foreseeable.

But it's also clear she got off to a bad start, foolishly made enemies that she didn't have to make, and that she has already caused schism in the family and had her fingers slapped by the disappointing Frogmore Cottage as her "home base".

I think Sarah Ferguson is still in love with her Prince Charming.

R493 R495 The public regard the York sisters as socialites who vacation entirely too often. Making them working royals will not be popular. Having fewer royals on the public purse is a more palatable option.

Having royal patronage and attendance at functions is not nearly as popular as it used to be. When the older working royals retire, some of the charities that they supported will get a new patron and some will not.

How many of the other royal houses in Europe have as many working royals as the Windsors? Is there another European royal family that has the monarch's cousin being publicly funded to cut ribbons and shake hands?

Sarah's hardened look comes from too much smoking, sun, drink and general debauchery.

R530 - It's also interesting that from the hundreds of patronages the Queen has, she only gave Nutmeg TWO.

Some Botox, tooth whitening, an eye lift and laser or chemical peel would go a long way for Fergie. Gingers have a tough time in the ageing department.

R532 The comment at R530 wasn't about Meghan. Everything isn't about her.

Since you raised the issue, I think it could be a show of support or enough rope to hang herself.

Meghan is a very new member of the royal family. She is learning about British life, has a new marriage and is set to become a mother in a few months. It would be irresponsible of a family or a firm (depending on how one thinks about the royal family) to put too much work on a member (of staff). If the queen wants Meghan to succeed she won't give her too much. If she wants her to fail, she's given her room to do so.

R534 - I think the Queen is proceeding with caution when it comes to Meghan.

R524 why do you think the BRF are responsible for any of this? Playing both ends against the middle?

Harry is an adult. That’s it. He can do what he wants and in reality there’s nothing the queen can do about his stupidity or poor judgment. He wanted to marry a scam artist and he did. Your scenario may have played in the 1930s but not now. He made his badly-fitted expensively bedecked bed and now he can lie in it.

Of course Harry can do what he wants. Whether he and his chosen spouse can stay on the royal payroll is quite another matter.

[quote]Why did she have such an idiot grin on her face when she was hustled out of that market?

Ugh, yes. If there was an threat, why did she look so happy about it?

I can’t believe she ever earned money as an actress, she’s truly terrible at acting.

I'd blow Prince Andrew like a set of bagpipes.

R538,

With the utmost of undue respect to you, in regard to that fateful day wherein my time on this physical plane's mortal coil was nearly wholly CUT SHORT at the hands of a violently complacent horde of women and children whose fearsome countenances betrayed overflowing soupçons of bloodlust and whose gaping maws bared murderous fangs supplicating with the anticipatory spittle of a bucket-list meal of Duchess et SohoBébé en Croûte...

Are you following along, R538? I do realize that you denizens of the lesser intellectual realms — "untellectuals" I call them (and you!) LOL — do not subscribe to the timeworn logic of the greats, including Pythagoras, that more is indeed more and that verbosity of the written word is a sign of a totally huge brain, so I shall just get straight to the point:

The dress adourned by my heavenly bod that day was all wrong. I cried. I wept. On a contemporaneously terminal day such as that, dressed in a dress that hindered my Universe-bestowed gift of thespianry, you judge me for expressing my grave existential terror for I and SohoBébé's very selves with a snickery smile?? Spoken like a stupid child who doesn't understand that the best acting perfourmances only came about because the character's costume was hawt! And they were not forced to wear flats!!!

I shall go embody indigo peace now,

R536 - I don't think we're entirely in disagreement. My "both ends against the middle" comment had to do with letting Harry do as he wished against their better judgement but figuring they could make use of his scam artist bride in the diversity arena - providing she made an effort to fit in nicely. But she hasn't.

And yes, theoretically, Harry could have done as he wished. But they had some options: remember, everything he has stems from his membership in this family. Charles could have told him he was welcome to marry Meghan after she had lived with Harry in the UK for one year on a private bases. They could have told Harry that if he refused, he would be supporting their entire household on what was left of his 300,000 quid a year after Inland Revenue got through with it; that they would not make her part of the Sovereign Grant expense account - which would have meant, in essence, that she wouldn't have any charity work to do and would be an HRH but without the limelight and wardrobe she'd been salivating over since the day she met him. They could have been rude to her and made it clear who they figured she was and that they'd make her life hell if she didn't at least agree to the year's wait.

The Queen permission is required to marry for persons within the first six places of the succession. She could have withheld permission, as Harry was going to be sixth in line shortly, unless Meghan agreed to live with Harry in the UK for one year before becoming formally engaged.

In short, they could have given both Harry and Meghan a taste of what their dislike and disapproval would mean - instead, they bent over backwards for a woman who started sticking the boot up their arses before the wedding was even done with Tiara Gate.

They've got no spine. They didn't even try. When the bloom is off the rose in three years, which it usually is in marriages if something else hasn't taken its place, Harry's life is going to be hell, and they will be at least somewhat to blame.

D.M. has 4 stories on their homepage about the "young" royals. 2 are about Meghan and 1 is about Kate and 1 is about both. The story about the possible departure of Meghan's protection officer gets over 7K comments while a possible terrorist plot to murder Kate gets 700. The story about Meghan not being invited to Kate's birthday party gets over 1K.

It seems that's why the tabloids love to report on Meghan (positively or negatively). She generates clicks and comments like nobody's business.

R538 she's a psychopath and a narcissist, the only logical explanation. She loves attention of any kind.

So anyone who likes attention is a psychopath? Got it.

R544 No, last time I checked it is not normal for someone to smile gleefully when they are being whisked away from a dangerous situation

R545, It is if you’re trying to put on a brave face... and since you don’t really know what she was thinking or what was going on, you should put your fake MD back in the drawer and stop pretending you can diagnose psychopathy.

^and lots of people smile uncontrollably when they’re extremely nervous. It’s not psychopathy it’s just how people sometimes are.

I suppose failing to create meaningful relationships and disregarding people like they are a pair of old clothing when they no longer useful to a purpose is "just how people are sometimes." How right you are.

R548 I’m sure you know intimately what it’s like.

Seems Wills was the only grownup in the room asking Harry to maybe slow his roll down a bit where Meghan was concerned. Now he is being painted as the villain in the piece by HazBean PR with Pa supposedly having to step in to get William to be more supportive and invite the couple to stay with the Cambridges for Christmas. Dad and to a lesser extent grandma enabled a spoiled manboy petulant halfwit against their better instincts by allowing him to shove his shiny new toy down everybody's throats and demanding they love it as much as he.

Agreed, R550. William's intelligent choice of wife, and his advice to Harry (if true) to proceed more slowly with Meghan, has raised my opinion of him. He has developed better judgment than I would have expected.

R551 - William's caution would have been any concerned elder brother's appropriate reaction, but especially one in his position; in fact, it should have been Charles's and the Queen's response, as well. I think Harry was probably in a state of quiet hysteria and William's perfectly understandable cautionary stance set him off. They all should have known what was coming down the pike when the pair threatened the UK press a year before the engagement with putative charges that were never ever proved. It was a warning that Meghan was ready to do anything to nail an unassailable position as Harry's future bride and make it difficult for him to ditch her, and that dimwitted Harry was ready to do whatever she told him to.

Every alarm bell the BRF had should have gone off at the sight of Meghan and Harry antagonising a press they knew well enough to know would never forgive it. William's subsequent "support" statement was a hasty show of brotherly support. William is lucky it didn't rebound on him the way it did on Harry and Meghan. I doubt William won't be making that mistake again.

r540 AMMA MEG!!!

R552, Your comments about the press reminded me of one of my favorite stories about HM. Back in 1954, HM and Prince Philip were staying at a lodge in Australia. Apparently, they were engaged in a heated argument. The Queen chased Philip out of the lodge, throwing a pair of tennis shoes and a tennis racquet at him. When she realized she had been caught on film, she ordered Philip back inside. The Royal Press Secretary charged outside, and insisted that the film be exposed.

[quote]The Queen soon reappeared, her serene public persona re-affixed. 'I'm sorry for that little interlude,' she told Townsend, 'but, as you know, it happens in every marriage. Now, what would you like me to do?'

The BRF know they have to cooperate with the Press. It's very much a tit-for-tat arrangement, that benefits both parties.

[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.]

R554 - Love the story about HM sticking it to Philip, thanks.

I'll be watching with amusement over the years as the BRF shrugs its shoulders and turns a blind eye to Meghan's continued PR games, exemplified by petty spite gestures like the maternity coat stunt at Yuge's wedding, the leak of her highest profile patronage on Kate's birthday, the "poor Meghan she's suffering just the way Diana did thanks to the wicked BRF", the increasing distance between the brothers . . .

The next joint family appearances in the first half of the year are customarily Easter at Windsor and Trooping the Colour; of course, the Sussex baby's christening, which, if it's born in late March-early April, will occur in June-July.

I'm so looking forward to the smiles of unity.

I hope Vicky Charles will reproduce Malibu’s gallery wall with nothing but photos of Bean at her finest.

Like this one...

And this one...

R555 - Jesus, three million on the taxpayer's back for the sixth in line to the throne??!! So she can make it look like Soho House? We're supposed to believe these two wastes of space are worth this?! Whilst she parades her humanitarian creds??!!

If the UK taxpayer is willing to go along with this without protest, they deserve it.

To all those outide the UK - this is why this scam keeps going generation after generation.

And of course this one...

Why do people assume that baby Sussex will be christened?

As a religious ceremony, aren't there formal promises and religious requirements for the parents and godparents?

R524, there is no way the BRF could have openly objected to the marriage. I think Harry would have married her any way leading to an estrangement from the family. It would have the public relations nightmare that I am not sure they could have recovered from.

Or r556 Sadly potentially the funeral of Prince Philip too.

While Sparkles and Harry were exiled to Frogmore Cottage but Sparkles in turning lemons into lemonade. That cottage is probably going to lovely and will probably afford them the opportunity to be further from the BRF watchful eye. In fact, it probably is a dream come true for Sparkles.

Nah, R565. Plenty of watchful eyes at Windsor and with no home base in London, living in a lemon of a place adjoined by 2 parking lots? More like nightmare come true.

Yes, FrogCott is the royal equivalent of living in the shed at the bottom of mom’s back yard. It’s in the grounds of Windsor Castle under the watchful eyes of anyone who cares to peep.

I’m sure it will be very comfortable by the time it’s renovated but it’s still basically a house in the suburbs not a country estate with a pied a terre in town.

Maybe, but she is getting a shed with 3 million in renovations designed exactly the way she wants. Not bad if you can get it.

According to the tabloids they spend most of their time at the place in Great Tew. If that's where their friends are, that's probably where they will be even if they had been given suite 1A. It seems easier to entertain the vapid Soho set out in the Cotswolds than it would be to bring the lot of them to Kensington Palace or even Windsor.

Given that the cottage is on the grounds of Windsor Castle, it is not personally owned by the Queen. Is that correct?

Wouldn't that mean that neither Sparkle or Dim have any "right" to continue to live there as long as they want?

Her legs are so awful. Like baseball bats.

She'll live in SoHo House luxury at home with the insurance policy and her mother while Harry becomes ever more miserable, not least because he probably cannot now, and never will be able to understand why he so suddenly fell from Most Beloved Royal (after the Queen herself) to most Loathed and Detested Royal (after Sparkles herself). He's in for a rough ride no matter what happens here on in because the British Public have roundly rejected his wife. I've never seen such resentment for a royal before in my lifetime as I've seen for Sparkles. The British, on the whole, hate fake insincere people more than anything. And they really, REALLY hate paying for a very obviously fake, insincere, Big Spending Royal.

Where did this 3 million pound sum for renos come from?

I vividly recall reading on the DM shortly after the bloated wedding pomposity that Meghan and Harry were getting Adelaide Cottage (also on the grounds of Windsor Home Park ironically) as a gift from Her Majesty.

Actually, Elle is reporting the number as 3.8 million, so, closer to 4 million for the renovations. And that's just the estimate, when we all know that the estimate is never the final cost. It could end up being as much as 6 million and the British public will still have to foot the bill.

Is this another wishful thinking drop by MEghan like mom being unprecedentedly invited to Sandringham for Christmas, or some made up figure?

This can’t be the most cost effective way to deal with the Sussexes. Surely there was a property needing less work they could have been shoved into?

Is it possible Sparkle actually wanted FrogCott?

With her shit fashion sense, we know her taste isn’t the best.

Just so we understand HOW incredibly high the 3.8 million price is on this Cottage renovation, here is Country Life's most recent "Best Country Houses for sale this month". Note how some very beautiful English manors are going for around the 1.5- 2.5 million mark.

For further perspective on just how high Sparkle's renovation costs are, here is Country Life's "20 Magnificent Houses For Sale" from 2017

Some of the renovation cost is because they're reconverting Frogmore Cottage from flats into a single residence, some is because it's a Grade II listed building so they must use matching materials, preserve the Victorian material that's being removed etc, some of it is to do with their own elevated taste for grand fireplaces and a dramatic staircase.

Amma Meg, come to us, we are dying to hear all about your new, wonderful, healing plans for your new Spiritual Centre, FroHo Cottage!

No matter how nice the renovation is, how can anyone relax in a place where planes are flying overhead night and day? But surely Harry's income of £300k would be sufficient to buy a lovely place in London if he wanted, even at current inflated prices. Mortgage rates are very low.

Why can’t Megs buy a place in London with her millions?

Isn’t that what feminism is all about? Why is she living off men her whole life if she’s such a feminist?

She’s gross.

[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.]

Red and purple? Fucking forget it. The black is better.

She's trying to wear Royal Colours, r584 to emphasise her ROYALNESSSSS. Purple, crimson - all she's missing is a bit of gold trim.

Oh thank god the tendrils are back in full force. And the BRONZER amidst the furrowed concern.

Tendrils. Cupping off the charts. Red and purple- no comment.

From footage, we see it’s challenging to simultaneously cup and brush back tendrils.

Indeed, r588

Maybe MM can start her own version of the Invictus Games and call it Tuff Tendrils or something equally as stupid. Can you embrace your belly and stuff your hair behind your ears while wearing whore heels, a wandering baby belly, and the ugliest, tightest, most expensive clothes ever created? And that nasty, chipmunk-faced Chrissy Teigen can be Igor.

As of now , the Daily Mail has "0" comments on this story.... meaning there are so many anti-SoHo Ho comments that they're having a nervous breakdown and just shutting down the comments.

It will change, in a few hours, they'll allow ome comments, but the number will be fewer and strangely pro-Duchess of Sucksex

R572 I think you're exaggerating a little.Brits don't detest Harry and while they certainly don't like Meg,they don't hate her either.They just don't take her seriously.And yes she's a terrible person and Brits are aware of that.

Sorry, r592, we LOVED Harry unreservedly, and actually, people were thrilled when it was reported he'd found someone he loved.

And then we got to know her. She is indeed terrible person, who, worse, pretends to be an "humanitarian" . UGH.

And then it sets in that we are paying for her.

Live updates from Birkenhead

The way she is cupping, her spine is a c. She looks like the Hunchback of Notre Dame in a Fruit of the Looms ad. The video link is golden, R594.

I hate red and purple together, even when Diana wore it.

The British people, and I confidently speak on behalf of everyone, detest Meghan and her “look at me” antics. It saddens us that Harry hasn’t got the balls to stop her making a fool out of him and the BRF. He’s even more spineless than we ever thought he could and would be!!

For the love of God, can she for once, just once, not obnoxiously cup her belly the entire time?

Obviously, R598, you are unaware that she is the Only Woman in the History of the World to Ever Be PREGNANT.

The cupping is to check If her fake baby bump is still in place or keep it in place ! 😂

I actually think the belly cupping is a self-protective gesture. I think MM reads every bit of publicity, maybe even here. A DM article said she is miserable at the backlash she is getting without even the means of responding. I have a low opinion of her but realise that it must be extremely difficult to get out in public knowing that you are going to be torn to shreds in the international press. Her smile is pasted on, but every so often, the mask slips, eg at the Remembrance Day event.