British Royal Family Gossip: Part 33

We are burning through these threads unbelievably quickly. Lord knows what willl happen when the sprog arrives.

I like this flower print dress that Sophie wears here.

A couple of outfits that Anne wore when she was pregnant. No tummy hugging and no tight clothes. My, how times have changed.

Wow! They got that Forbes article down as soon as they awoke for the day in Great Britain. Oh well, once something hits the internet it's never really gone is it. The truth is still out there. Fuck you Me-Gain and your crazy-ass North Korea pr!

EPIC Royal Blind from CDAN!

Answer:

Prince Charles Tara Palmer Tomkinson (“committed suicide” uh huh, in 2017)

BONUS FACT. Prince C also had a long running affair with Catherine Zeta Jones. Although boringly, she was legal.

Nutty Flavor has cut and pasted the Forbes article towards the bottom of the comments on this Enty blind

Prince Harry, sixth in line to the thrown.

Does Forbes proofread or was this retyped? I love it, though.

Dear goodness! Anne was enormous in that picture on the left. The times have changed, but really not that much for the average woman. I'm on the west coast (northern CA, not L.A. -- that's another universe) and I don't think I've seen second or third trimester women with tight clothing stretched out over bumps (and I live within walking distance of four, yes, four pilates or yoga studios). Late pregnancy can be hot and uncomfortable. I can't imagine being encased like a sausage helps.

SMEGhan’s infamous BJ scene from Beverly Hills 90210.

Not so hard to imagine salad tossings....

He is a freelance writer not an on staff journo. Forbes has blog types posts online, quite separate from the print magazine. Quality is obv different too.

What I found interesting about the author is that he's financial writer who reported on some market or the other, (can't remember which), not a culture or society writer.

Princess Charlene of Monaco curtseying to the Queen and Prince Philip.

Princess Alexandra of Kent curtseying to the Queen after her Westminster Abbey wedding. I like her dress.

Princess Anne curtseying after her first wedding to Mark Phillips. My favorite royal wedding dress.

It's Princess Margaret's turn.

Sophie and Princess Michael look like their squatting on a toilet.

Turn the sound on/up for Theresa's epic curtsy.

[quote]Princess Anne curtseying after her first wedding to Mark Phillips.

She had a second?

Timothy Laurence (m. 1992), Mark Phillips (m. 1973–1992)

I'm really struggling to see how anyone could think this is a funny April Fool's

Ah, so it's "after her first wedding, to Mark Phillips" not "her first wedding to Mark Phillips."

R20, bad isn't it? I think Sparkle is "in " on this.

Will anyone curtsy to Sparkle? I mean, other than Harry when he's going down?

I'm sure she's behind it R22. It's deeply unpleasant.

R20 - Hasen't DL established that Blind Item isa shitty gossip site? What's going to be announced on Monday? That William is the father of the Sohobébé? I think it's utter bullshit. Just suppose it's true. Does anyone believe that the Palace would announce it to the world?

Are Will and Kate breaking up? Nope. Are Harry and Meghan breaking up when their baby is almost here and they're about to move into their new home? Nope.

Sounds like Blind Item took bits and pieces from other stories/sources and made up a whole story themselves. How bloody lazy can a gossip site get?

^ Hasn't

R25, the presumptions are that it is an April Fool joke, the onus being that April Fools Day is on Monday. I think DLers are concerned about its poor taste. Especially as there is another similar blind, not long before, but omitting the baby bit.

Helen Keller knows Blind Gossip is a waste of bytes. It must be so cheap to advertise there. But you kind of wonder what the value system is of the person who runs 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.]

It’s obviously an April Fool’s joke...which is why they said all will be revealed on Monday. A few years ago they said that Angelina & Jen Aniston had got it on.

But I detest Blind Gossip anyway. It’s so obvious that they go through the headlines and create a “blinds” from them.

I am more interested in CDAN which tends to have stuff that comes out of left field and ends up being supported elsewhere. It was, for example, the first place to say that Markle”s behaviour on the Aussie tour was terrible.

The Forbes article was insubstantial. There was no financial expose at all.

What type of a store is Reisman's? I live in So Cal, so have never seen one. Is it similar to Macy's?

It’s cheap r32. Halfway between Macy’s and Walmart.

R5 what a great blind.

WHO is this Tara Palmer Tompkins! Is she like Rose Hanbury the Turnip?

TPT was one of the socialites from the "It Girl" era. Her father is a close friend of Charles.

Tara Palmer Tompkinson was an “it girl” (rich parents, lived in Chelsea etc) who became very famous when she went on a reality show and proved to be funny, endearing and entertaining.

She had a very, very bad drug problem which caused her nose to collapse.

She died a few years ago in her late 40s.

Could be wrong, but I don’t believe the blind.

Charles was Tara's Godfather.

R36

It IS true. Half of London knows about it. Why do you think she had such a bad drug problem in the first place, fucks sake.

Is this part of the "lucrative deal" she has with people.

R5, where did you hear that Tara committed suicide?

And here's another one --

R38 Half of London does NOT know about it. I live here...I doubt you’re even British.

And are you seriously suggesting the only reason anyone would take drugs is if they are fucking Prince Charles?

Piss off, you arrogant cunt.

It says in the blind that she killed herself. Was that the officially announced cause of death?

She didn’t kill herself. She died of a perforated ulcer and peritonitis.

Unless the R38 twat wants to provide some fucking evidence saying differently?

I can wait......

This is on her wiki page. It’s nice:

“In 2007, Palmer-Tomkinson was a contestant on Comic Relief Does Fame Academy for the BBC.[21] She gave away tickets to see her compete in the show to "ordinary people" who had helped her out (the other contestants generally giving their free tickets to other celebrities). She invited the policeman who found her stolen car, the locksmith who helped when she was locked out of her house and her parents' local shopkeepers”

Well R20, Harry was the one who asked Me-gain in an interview (in Morocco I think), about the baby, "Is it mine?"

So the ensuing little joke is not out of the blue.

Harry did what? That can't be true. He actually asked her if the baby was his?

William didn't hook up with Meghan but Charles did. That's why the Queen banished her and Harry to Frogmore-- to separate Meghan and Charles.

[quote]Harry did what? That can't be true. He actually asked her if the baby was his?

Yes, he did. In front of the press last fall. He obviously intended it as a joke but it raised eyebrows. I think it was maybe during the Australian Tour but I'm open to correction on that.

It was pretty recent, during the Morocco trip.

Someone described Haz saying something stupid in public to his brother about balding head, and that's what this little "joke" was like. He is embarrassing and not funny.

There's also the story that has Harry allegedly unrolling a bill he's just used to sniff with and says "Hello, Granny!"

[R49]

Not all the Ginger Prince's jokes are funny. Little did he imagine Frau's everywhere would seize that comment to insinuate the Duchess was carrying a bastard heir.I bet Prince Harry regrets the remark now.

His sense of humor is like Prince Charles and Prince Phillip,both have bad senses of humor.

I'm sure he paid for that joke, dearly, behind closed doors. "No salad tossing for a month!"

Well hello R53, you’re back with another post confirming that you’re insane.

Well done on “and” rather than “an”! You need to work on hitting the space bar after each “.”. And no need for the additional parentheses —> “[“ and “]” - the Datalounge editor is clever enough to recognise a post number and conver5 to a hyperlink.

Keep it up!

Has Wills' alleged affair already been discussed? (I'm guessing yes)

The now gone Forbes article calls William “Prince William of Wales,” is that correct?

A very interesting thread on Le Twitter.....

Thanks Nicole.

R59 Nope, not Nicole but I follow her. Thought it was very interesting how she laid out the argument.

Nicole is spinning spinning spinning.....

The CDAN blind is especially amusing for using the word "reign" for "reign him in" (which does kind of give the game away) - it's "rein". .

Meghan's friends are so subtle.

I suspect Meghan’s “friends” are either being paid or have something else at stake by actively diverting attention away from MM rumors (sex tape, surrogacy, etc.).

Where were all these “friends” (like the infamous “5 friends”) at the wedding? Maybe some of them could have stepped up to the plate and sat with Doria, or served as a bridesmaid...

I suspect whoever is footing the bill for all this “stealth” PR (SoHo House?) is going to be really disappointed in the results. There’s only so much one can polish a dishonest turd.

The twitter at r58 is obviously the writing style the fraus here are trying to emulate.

Ah, yes, surely Harry and his moral compass is the reason for the frosty turn of brotherly relations; he and Meghan have been playing scapegoats, bless their altruistic hearts, for everything in Harry's history indicates his willingness to put up with media shenanigans, no?

Nicole's only interesting contribution is this: American gossip outlets have ran with Will's affair. Why have they not been entertaining the arguably more salacious bits on Meg and her knight in SJW armour?

Apologies for my inability to properly conjugate verbs, Anglais, c'est trop difficile!

Some fan of Skippy archived the Forbes article here, where you can find it in its entirey if you want to archive itself and auction it off on Ebay one day:

http web.archive.or web 20190329225305 https www forbes.com sites rogeraitken 2019/03/29/meghan-markle-does-the-british-tax-payer-know-how-much-me-gain-royal-is-costing amp

*archive it yourself

R68

Much discussion is occurring around the article's "disappearance" - if the BRF thinks pressuring FORBES to take it down made it disappear in this day and age, they are sadly mistaken.

The BRF must not know about the Streisand Effect.

R57, yes, though is seldom used now he's a Duke.

Did someone really link that nicole cliffe twitter shit? She repeatedly self-professes to stan for MEghan. More deranged frau vomit garbled in ohmygodIloveher mental gymnastics disconnected from reality nonsense. This Nicole person probably rereads the Twilight and Fifty Shades series on loop.

Timeline of a Grifter.

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

Sounds like MeAgain is taking a shot at Charles, now, too #AnotherTiaraGate . That's her friend Wace, the doxxing journalist.

R74 Sounds plausible, we all know how Meghan shies away from extravagance.

A tiara was never on the cards no matter what her father in law said - the Fiji event was black tie. Tiaras are never worn to black tie events.

The Dutch State Visit banquet was white tie - tiaras, if possible, are de rigueur for white tie.

Kate didn't want to wear to wear a tiara at here wedding; she was going to wear flowers in her hair. She was informed that as a future Queen she would indeed wear a tiara, thank you very much, and choose the smallest one offered.

^ her wedding

I'm starting to like this Meghan. She's seems kinda fun. Hope she's having fun. She and the Ginger.

That Nicole is a prat. Harry moralising over Wills having an affair and now has to “sit on his hands” and let his precious, beloved wife take all the blame?

Absolute bullshit.

Kate & Meghan don’t get along because Meghan’s an obnoxious, rude, entitled cunt.

And, notice how we’re forever hearing how much Harry wuvs, wuvs, wuvs his Megsie? Hardly ever hear that she loves him. In fact, I don’t think I can ever recall anyone ever saying that.

I posted the information about Charlotte Wace's family in a previous thread. Meghan sat beside Charlotte's uncle at one event. That's hardly evidence that they have a friendship. In fact, that's not proof they've even met.

Wace , Andrews and Markle are like a coven. And Scobie is their gimp.

[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.]

R81 makes an excellent point - is Meghan just crazy about her husband? ??

The most interesting thing about the Forbes article is its disappearance.

There was no scoop about how much she’s costing taxpayers. Quite a disappointment.

^ The Forbes article also repeated the ridiculous claim that came into the marriage with $5M of her own.

That Forbes article was odd, though.

Others mentioned poor grammar etc and I re-read it wondering if there was a British/American mismatch in style/spelling (it was written by a Brit) - but no, it was just very poorly put together, and really didn’t seem like it was authored by someone who used to write for the FT. Or actually anyone who has ever written for a living at all.

Curiouser & curiouser.

R88, it was impossible to get a cached version of it on the internet archive. I guess because it was so recently posted. There were typos and agree with everyone it didn’t seem written by a pro. Perhaps its removal was justified.

[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.]

Prince Charles and Tara TP WERE sleeping together, you ignorant unwashed proletariat who naively think otherwise. If you don’t know about this, its because you’re the half of London that nobody cares about.

If you are ‘connected’, you know.

I don’t understand why this is so hard to believe. You Royal Family fan freaks remind me of the mentally ill Michael Jackson STANS *shudder*

Is the Forbes article here? If not, I can go hunting for it. It was a blog type thing with several good nuggets that you just know the ME-gains loathed (see above).

What's the commentary on the latest DM on Sunday missive that Charles had to talk Meghan out of wearing a tiara at the Fiji reception? Would she be as silly as to ask for a tiara knowing it isn't recommended or the proper protocol for such an event? as noted upthread only white tie events require tiaras, such as the formal event that Kate attended that same night - she wore the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara.

r58 - The most part of Nicole Twitter thread was not her editorializing, I doubt Harry has ever counseled Will. I don't think anyone has.

[bold]The best tidbit is that Rose herself was the leak.[/bold] When a mistress does this, she is trying to force a decision. FWIW, I have colleague in London who is always taking 3 day weekends to the country and appears to be somewhat aristo. Not the inner circle, not even the outer circle, not even the fringes, more like the fringes of the fringes.

[bold]Asked him about it and he said that he had heard rumor - but doesn't know if it's true or not. [/bold]

R91 Do people like you ever stop and take a step back?

Me: “I could be wrong, but I don’t believe this blind”.

You: “It’s true. I have never met either of the people, or anyone who has ever met them, or ever set foot in the country it happened in but I know it for a fact because several million people I have also never met living in a city I have never visited believe it is. Although, I have no actual evidence for this last statement so I’ll just insult you instead”.

You are so deeply stupid I am almost moved to pity. Almost. I shall instead hope that the next time your family member...probably your 13 year old spouse who is also your sibling...gets hold of one of the many family guns that you are sitting (stuffing your toothless, fat face with yet another cheese burger) in exactly the wrong place in your smelly, unclean trailer.

Now stop bothering your betters by talking about things you know nothing about. Which, I accept, probably means you shall remain silent forever, but that’s no great loss to the world.

R91 Alas, if one desires to signal socioeconomic standing, playing up stereotypes is strategically flawed. As Constance has vulgarised, 'it's all fam' and 'they know', but those who do comprise far less than half the town, darling, and I hardly believe you make the cut.

R95, seek help. Your level of anger isn’t healthy.

For those who keep on about the recent Forbes pieces on Meghan that's been deleted, its preserved at the link below. Scroll thru the panes to read the whole thing.

Nothing is ever permanently deleted from the internet anymore.

About the author of the Forbes article -- he seems like the unlikeliest person to write about the Sussexes:

In the last thread, someone mentioned the Reitmans people (or maybe camera crew on thecomnercials) said Sparks was very arrogant. I want to know more about this! Apparently the Reitmans collaboration was ended quite abruptly.

It ended when she was close to announcing her engagement.

In reading the timeline on “Harkle Debacle,” it looks like Meg got out of a lot of her commercial relationships very abruptly in early 2017. (Engagement not announced until late 2017.)

Do we think Megs did this prospectively — that is, before she was on firm footing with a Harry? And weren’t they broken up at Inskips wedding in March 2017?

Seems like 2017 was a very chaotic year for her. Not surprised as her unstable type seems to require chaos to feel at home.

R95 take your meds dear

R72, that Nicole Cliffe is the most annoying frau on Twitter. You’ll see her turn up in Twitter Moments every now and then. I have her muted.

Just one more of Meghan’s white knights.

I like r95's level of anger. It's refreshing.

[quote] And weren’t they broken up at Inskips wedding in March 2017?

Only the Tumblr tin hatters believe Harry and Meghan had broken up and she was a stalker who gate crashed the wedding.

She was already seeking legal advice in the late spring/early summer of 2017, r102.

R100, someone named Jean Malek was the person who left a comment on one of Gary Janetti's Instagram posts about Meghan being awful. Other folks recognized the name as the person who directed the Reitman commercials. Sorry, too lazy to find the link but if you google it should pop up.

Boy, we really had a quiet decade with the BRF. And now all hell is breaking loose!

Well if this Rose woman put the gossip out there, shame on her!

>>>>When a mistress does this, she is trying to force a decision.

So this woman was hoping to replace the DoC as William's wife? Seriously?

More likely it's revenge for being dumped by her lover, the husband, to damage or ruin his marriage. But if the affair has occurred in within a circle of friends, what happens is the mistress is demonised and banished.

I am in agreement with one of the posters who theorised that it was not Rose Hanbury who had an affair with William, but she knew about it or enabled it, and Kate felt betrayed by her.

An affair would certainly explain why Kate's been looking so peaked lately. Beautiful, but peaked.

The revenge of Sparkle after Tiaragate and now Frogmore Cottage . She is plotting against Kate and William and Charles .

Of course Sparkle is plotting, you only have to look at the organised smear campaign against Kate, by MM stans, all over Twitter. It will be MM responsible for all this rubbish. She's like a feral rodent, hissing, spitting and lashing out.

The frenzy and plotting and climbing up a very short ladder, looks quite desperate. The narcissist will never learn and will always be ugly.

Yes, like some critter in your basement you can't get rid of.

Actually, r105, I think agree with you. I’m always amazed when a different lens sharpens your vision.

The level of hubris is astonishing and repellent.

Sparkle seems really dim- not realising that the RF works according to protocol and all that...

How can someone so stupid snatch a royal prince?

Now she’s saying she doesn’t want to give birth in Lindo wing, hints at “emergency Cesarian” and continues to throw shade at Kate saying she “doesn't want to be primped and blow-dried to whinin an inch if her life, but wants to spend the previous time with her newborn.” Thoughts?

No thoughts, just gales of laughter at using an unborn baby as a publicity prop. Jfc

On some deep level she must want people to hate her. That's the only explanation that makes sense. If I were Kate I would want to do serious harm to this walking bowel movement in ugly clothing.

Seriously, it would be news if William weren't having an affair. As for Kate, she'll forgive him. And forgive him. And forgive him. Eventually, she may have side-stuff, too. As I've written before, she'll take a beheading before she files for a divorce.

As a previous poster wrote, if the Cambridge marriage ends it will be by the hand of William, and, as for that prospect, I could take a running start, flap my arms and fly over Lake Michigan before that happens.

The only arc in this story belongs to the DoS and whether she cleans up her act. She's made BIG mistakes. But, I'm sympathetic to her too. After reading these threads, I'm convinced she has her hands full with Harry. Of course, it's always on option to leave him, but with what? As others have pointed out, she won't get a settlement that sets her up to play with the truly wealthy.

Her ambition exceeds the reality of her situation. The DoS had better come to terms with that reality.

[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.]

ITA with R124. This whore sees herself as some kind of hip hop Eleanor Roosevelt, but she's really a bunny boiler with dirty hair.

Exactly R124, she's never sported a blow for a public engagement, so that jibe from the salad tossing global feminist is a bit rich.

But couldn’t she give birth at Lindo wing and then NOT pose on the steps with the baby immediately afterwards? Surely Harry can afford to pay for an extra stay at the hospital if needed in case of a Caesarian.

You need to give it up, Della, and I say that as a DL friend. You keep hoping she's gonna turn the boat around, but seriously. Given her personality, do you really think she's going to do the soul searching type of introspection that would be required to make such an enormous change?

Kate and Charlotte

Narcissists can't just have a good talk with a therapist and be better -- the don't want to change the massive ego and insecurity on top of unquenchable thirst. This is it baby. She's livin' her best life!

Exactly, r130. She will never see others as people, just props in the ongoing play in her head. She'll just continue to wreak havoc with other people's lives and repel anyone who is close to her.

Also, I'd bet money that in 20 years their kid will have shut out one of them. She'll either alienate kid from Harry a la Jolie, or she'll be such a disinterested mother the kid will abandon her.

Agree about competition/alienation with the father. It is possible the child will be a narc too, trained by master narcissist megs and depressive ragey Haz in a "royal" setting....I fear for the baby.

r128, Hello, Doll.

I don't know. I'll admit, you raise a pertinent question about the desire and ability of the DoS to right the ship.

I do, however, enjoy the suspense. Another poster likened her intro to the BRF to Alexis Carrington in 'Dynasty". In no way, shape, or form, does the DoS occupy the same iconic status as Collins or Carrington, nor will she ever, but still.

I worry about the kid, too. Who knows, though? Maybe they'll turn out to be a Sarah Chatto.

That would be lovely, R135.

One thing about people who are alienated from their own family - they have no problem becoming alienated from their in-laws or their own children, and pulling their spouse along with them. For people who are not alienated from their family, it's a huge leap; they have a hard time imagining breaking away from people they have grown up with and loved, even if they weren't perfect.

In some ways I can, unfortunately, relate to the ease with which Smegs severs ties and burns bridges. I've done the same thing with friends and family, and I'm only now realizing how devastating this behavior has been. I think it may be a military brat thing...

Even though she's not a military brat, she was moved around a lot in her childhood. Right?

Let me know if this is behind a pay wall, I'll c&p if so, DLers.

R140, that bit of “journalism” has Sunshine Sachs written all over it: prop up client by (attempting) to smear the rival.

It’s Ken Sunshine’s specialty. Unfortunately, it gets old quickly and tends to backfire.

It's here as well - on the dreaded tumblr!

Poor Camilla Long! Failed TV presenter now seeks notoriety as a Megan stan.

One must have some purpose in life, I suppose.

R74 I can't remember the name, but the Ceylon sapphire tiara discussed on this board a couple of days ago would have been pretty with her dress. Does anyone know if that tiara may have been on offer had the occasion been appropriate? Any diamond and sapphire tiara would have looked great, but can't find many examples other than the ones the Queen wears regularly.

R85 - Actually, there was: the estimate for their new "household" that the taxpayer is indeed paying for was mentioned as anywhere from $500,000-$1,000,000. The formal announcement was that Latham's salary, £140,000 would be paid by the taxpayer, and that the rest of the expense for the new Sussex "household" would be split between Charles and the Queen. That sounds nice until you remember that the revenue the Queen and Charles also comes from the taxpayer if you trace it far enough back.

No matter how you slice it, Harry is the sixth in line and he and his wife seem to believe that they stand in equal importance with William and Kate, and should get exactly the same privileges. If she'd been a bit more discreet with her wardrobe costs, and remembered that the renovations to Frogmore Cottage were also being paid by the taxpayer, perhaps she'd have gotten farther with her other demands.

She seems more and more less Princess Michael than Lady Macbeth.

R134 - Ah, Della, haven't you read George Eliot? "Character is destiny". Especially when it borders on the clinical.

Meghan Markle has all the earmarks of the clinical borderline and/or narcissism pesonality. One of the hallmarks of same is the inability to change course or behaviour because they externalise all blame for whatever goes wrong. Harry's Mum was a poster illustration for this issue. The real problem here is Harry, not Meghan, because he's done what so many do who haven't made much progress dealing with family psychodrama: he's gone home, hoping to recreate the family environment but this time make it come out right. It was Harry who chose Meghan, and he shouldn't be let off the hook for that, and he will, inevitably, pay a huge price for it just as his father did.

Both of Harry's parents, in different ways, exhibited a primary characteristic of self-entitlement, one culturally and the other clinically. It can't have been easy to have a father who was an entitled petulant twat most concerned with his own needs, and a clinical narcissist for a mother.

The only really remarkable bit of the story is that William went in the other direction.

This headline will sting.

R147 - The Exress is just following its usual clickbait headlining. I'm sure Meghan has been told in no uncertain terms by the medical team that any pregnancy in a woman over 35 is, in industry parlance, classified as "geriatric". That would have been true of Kate's last pregnancy, as well.

It won't sting - I doubt her OB/GYN doc minced words, especially as, at 37, she would have been required to undergo amniocentesis.

The Express is famous for its headlines - once past the headline, the DE is usually pretty factual.

R147, it certainly will. Being termed an “elderly primip” isn’t personal, it’s just medical terminology. And appropriate when one is closer to menopause than menarche.

This Nicole twitter person is a long time MeAgain stan. She spins a well phrased story but it predictably ends with MeAgain as the wronged heroine.

[quote] Her ambition exceeds the reality of her situation. The DoS had better come to terms with that reality.

Very good, Della.

Will might have strayed (I would be surprised but not shocked for a variety of reasons) but I doubt seriously it was with Rose, despite her big tits. (Straight guys love big tits and won't notice a magnitude of other faults if they are there.) A more likely candidate would be Jecca, as was widely rumored a few years ago and there is so much more public evidence of a relationship. But Will and Jecca were childhood friends and BFFs. I think that although deeply devoted to her, it would have been like screwing his sister.

Despite her overall healthy appearance, Kate is looking very, very stressed. Slightly too thin, and haggard in the face. Obvious stress. Is it simply post partum or dealing with the whole MeAgain situation or dealing with the old rumors surfacing in the press? Who knows?

But someone certainly seems to have knives out behind the scenes for her, which she realizes. I wonder who that could possibly be?

[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.]

R2, That is a beautiful dress on Sophie. When was this photo taken? Looks a bit like Meghan's blue Morocco caftan. I like both dresses a lot. I don't know why Meghan got slammed for it, it's lovely (I say it a tad grudgingly).

Two parts, hope this works. It's a classic.

R153 - There is probably no woman of any ethnicity and shade who isn't flattered by sky blue - it is one of those colours that enhance all other colours. I don't know why Meghan is so insistent on wearing black and neutrals, most of them don't flatter nearly as much as this sky blue does. That goes also for rose, a soft (rather than acidic) yellow - what I call Easter egg colours. This is a most attractive colour on her.

Part deux.

That charities thing is bogus. It's Meghan trying to push back against the stories of her hypocrisy. And of course, her idea of doing that is to show that OTHER PEOPLE are inspired to give. Not her. Her influence and importance. It's also using her "baby".

Must say if those affair rumors are true, I'll be disappointed in William. I did buy into the whole idea that he was opting for the King George/Queen Mum happy family model.

King George didn't cheat on the Queen Mum, did he? That we know of?

Prince Andrew posted this photo in honor of Mother's Day in Britain.

Princess Eugenie shares some photos of Fergie for Mother's Day.

^ with the happy bonus points of an F/U to Charles for the Daily Mail story.

R161 made in relation to R159.

"Her ambition exceeds the reality of her situation. The DoS had better come to terms with that reality."

The problem is, her ambition was completely thwarted until she got her lucky break in getting into this situation. So she finally got the global fame she craved, but at a price, and either she ignored the obvious price tag dangling from the hem of her piece of luck, or really wasn't clever enough to perceive it.

The latter, given that she got off a plane on an official tour with a tag hanging off the bottom of her dress, being more likely.

I have always supposed that she abused her staff so much on that tour that someone allowed her to get off the plane with that tag hanging deliberately.

I once saw a wonderful biography of Jerome Robbins on PBS's series, American Masters. Talented as he was, he apparently was horrible to work for, and once, during rehearsals for (I'm not sure whether it was Gypsy or Fiddler on the Room), he began backing perilously close to the edge of the stage, and not one member of the much-tried cast facing front called out a warning; they simply watching him totter over into the pit.

Meghan strikes me as being cut from the same cloth, only without the talent that made people willing to work for Robbins.

*simply watched (not watching)

R163

R158 - There were always some very vague rumours but, frankly, given Albert's besotted feelings toward his wife, which never diminished over their marriage, I doubt it. He was shy, he stammered, and he was utterly emotionally dependent on the Queen. She and her biographers always tried to downplay that dependence, trying to suggest that she leant on him as much as he did on her, but I don't believe it.

Her mother, after Elizabeth turned down his first proposal, said of Prince Albert, "I am sorry, I like him so much and hope he finds a nice wife, because he is a man who will be made or marred by his wife." It was a shrewed assessment, and turned out to be correct, for when she finally accepted his third proposal, she turne out to be the wife who made him, not marred him.

Pity her grandsons and great-grandson didn't learn the lesson. Harry will be marred by his choice of wife. William, more the other direction.

I can really believe she won’t go to lindo wing for the birth . They would know she is using a surrogate . And lindo wing is where most of the royals give birth .

The affair rumOR and the Middleton Party Pieces story are all from the Harkle PR machine trying to drag Kate and William through the mud. The "Donations in honor of Sussex Baby" are also a Sunshine Sachs production. A lie repeated ten times doesn't become any less of a lie. No matter how it is insinuated into a conversation.

R144 - Except for her own blood daughter (Anne wore the Russian Fringe at her first wedding, but they bought a new one for Margaret for her wedding), the Queen has never leant new entrants tiaras that she herself still wears. The sapphire tiara would also have been viewed as far too grand for a 36 year old American divorcee marrying the sixth in line. Eugenie is the Queen's blood granddaughter and a blood princess, but even she was given a tiara the Queen doesn't wear (albeit a grander and more impressive one than Meghan was given).

The choices would always have been ones like the Cartier that Kate wore, the Greville that Eugenie wore, Queen Mary's bandeau tiara, or possibly smaller lesser known ones like the Greek key.

Kate AFTER her marriage was given the more impressive Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara for obvious reasons: the name. So Meghan will never get her hands on that one, either. After the Queen dies, because the Cambridge emeralds are part of the Cambridge emerald and diamond parure (drop earrings, the pendant in the magnificent necklace, and the drop emeralds that can be switched for pearls in the Vladimir), Kate may well come in for those as well. She already has a magnficent emerald and diamond necklace that is only referred to as "privately purchased". Which means they were possibly a wedding present from the Queen and Philip and/or Charles, or from one of the Gulf State potentates with close relationships to the BRF. Meghan, needless to say, got no such gifts, which probably also bothers her.

I always wanted one of these cars when I was a boy. It never happened.

Diana had that special something. No one in the Royal Family today has IT.

The Windsors at Christmas. What a hoot!

Elizabeth The Queen Mum as a young girl. I can see a resemblance to her in Eugenie as well as Charlotte.

Another National Enquirer headline.

Harry and Meghan as babies. They have a similar look.

The Queen with Camilla.

I love the artistry of National Enquirer covers, the photos they choose for the facial expressions. I believe Eddie Murphy once did a standup routine about it.

Above we see:

Queen: "Ugh, they're disgusting. Off with their heads!"

Meghan: "Disowning us? Are you fucking kidding me?"

Harry: "Not bloody likely!"

Will: "I warned them. Don't fuck with us."

Kate: "I am the iron hand in the velvet glove."

R176 - Yes, Andrew got the beautiful dark-haired, blue-eyed Celtic colouring of the Queen Mother, and passed it on to Eugenie. The unfortunate Bea got her mother's colouring and the exaggerated pop eyes and teeth that appear in other Hanoverian descendants. Pss. Margaret also got her mother' beautiful colouring - the Queen somewhat less contrastingly.

I don't see it in Charlotte, yet, though.

After meeting Kate, a little boy tells his mother: "Mummy, I want to marry her". Swipe to get the whole story and video.

R170 I actually think Kate does have "it." Her quality is just more modest and accessible, not amplified by the kind of extroversion Diana had toward the media. Kate holds back, which probably helps keep her sane.

I'm a big fan of Kate, but I agree she looks "worryingly thin," as the tabs like to say.

R176, I read Megs’s expression more as , “Who wants their dick sucked? Anyone? I’m always ready to suck a dick!”

Whether she actually puts out or not, she definitely wants you to THINK she’s all fucking, all the time.

R180 ok that got a genuine LOL outta me.

The TorontoPaper (whatever that is) actually calls Markus a "pimp" and Meghan a "pro" and a "cheater". They also think Meghan and Co. are behind the smear campaign of Will and Kate.

A longer one.

Torontopaper1 reads very "frau" and feels like its a troll account. If they actually tweet something not known, and comes it to pass, Id be actually be impressed.

R184 - Torontopaper presents as something above and beyond trolling. The odd thing is, whoever it is also managed to give the impression that she knows somewhat whereof she speaks. The trolling usually comes in on predictions, which are pretty much guardian variety (the end is nigh, bitch! which isn't true and may not ever be and if it is won't be for a long time). But some of the other content has an oddly knowledgeable feel to it.

Damn this auto-correct! *Garden variety (not guardian)

R185

I see that R156. Markle stops in the middle of a word when she spies the camera, and then gets all SEXAY!+!

A year ago, who would have guessed that that the soon to be wife of Dim would throw so much mud on the BRF and with a quickness?!

WHO is paying the Sunshine Sachs bill?

R156 "Hiiiiiieeeeeee!" Meanwhile, the woman next to her completely ignores the camera.

I like to imagine how she seduced Harry on that first date, all the eyelash batting and looks of earnest caring and piercing intelligence mixed with eroticism. She must have given the performance of her life! I actually kind of love her for it.

R180 George Soros? or Clooney?

R188 I mean

R188 - Actually, William and Kate and probably Camilla, as well as quite a few of us guessed.

But, as usual with the Cassandras of the world - no one listened. Including Her Maj.

Kate almost certainly knew since she was the first target of Sparkle's nastiness with that "She didn't offer me a ride" item.

Didn't I read that Kate was bullied in her first school which led to a change of schools?

So, Kate knows all about bullies and how they work.

Text from the Forbes article from those who missed it (long)--because once something hits the internet/sm, it never really disappears darling.

MEGHAN MARKLE: DOES THE BRITISH TAX PAYER KNOW HOW MUCH 'ME-GAIN' ROYAL IS COSTING?

The Duchess of Sussex, aka Meghan Markle, is watching her popularity and acceptance sinking, possibly taking the British Royal Family with her. Apparently, the way to make the public in Britain like her is to spend tax-payers money on PR machines on both sides of the Atlantic, in addition to a generous allowance.

Being in the public eye puts a person under a degree of scrutiny - and especially when you are a Royal. Some voluntarily choose the public eye, and some are born into it.

Just last weekend (March 23) in The Express tabloid it was reported that royal expert, Anna Pasternak, ventured that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's marriage is "going to become increasingly difficult."

The author of 'Untitled: The Real Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor’, Pasternak claimed that the Duchess is heading into a “tricky situation” - akin or similar to that faced by Wallis Simpson and Princess Diana, where the "ultimate goal is survival." Strong stuff. Like Simpson, Markle is a divorcee. The most famous marriage of royalty to entertainment was in 1956 when Grace Kelly, the American film actress, became Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainier III in April of that same year.

One of the most famous actresses in the world at the time, armed with a stable of films for which she received high acclaim, plus an Academy Award for Best Actress (1955) tucked under her arm, retired from acting at the age of 26 and began her duties as the Princess of Monaco.

According to reports, Princess Grace was loved and accepted by the public during her lifetime, and when she died at the age of 52, according to biographer Jeffrey Robinson, “…it was like the lights went out. Monaco just stopped.”

Move forward to 2018, where another actress has married into a royal family - this time, in the United Kingdom (U.K), which has for the last three years been torn apart by ongoing Brexit trials and tribulations. The tension in the country is palpable.

Meghan Markle, a relatively small-time actress say some (shady boots) , married Prince Harry of Wales on May 19, 2018, at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.

Although not so well known prior to this - her second marriage - she was best known for a small role in a series named Suits. Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and sixth in line to thrown, on the other hand, was the younger son of one of the most famous Royals in history, Princess Diana of Wales, and known throughout the world due to his Royal status. His Royal Highness spent ten years working in the Armed Forces, ending operational duties in 2015. Meghan Markle, who grew up in a middle-class household, was looked after by her family throughout her life. When her father won the lottery when she was nine years old, he seemingly made sure that every cost was covered for Meghan, sending her to the best schools and training. Well, why not if you have it.

(Cont.)

Of course, Prince Harry grew up as a Royal, and unlike his brother Prince William, seemed to like the partying side of life a little more. As his Royal Highness grew up he was in the papers often, normally for partying in Las Vegas or some other antics. But he knew the price of being in the public eye and putting a foot out of place. Yet he is 100% British and the public love him, still, regardless of these reports.

There was finally an announcement in November of 2017 that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were engaged, which was soon followed by an interview, which was the start of Meghan’s decent.

During this interview, Meghan proclaimed that she did not know much about Prince Harry, and because she was American, did not really understand the importance of the Royal family - although she was snapped in a photo in front of Buckingham palace when she was 15 and apparently had many books on Diana and the royal family, according to reports.

All of this gave fuel to the British public, who started to leave negative remarks in the comments sections of online publications by the hundreds, if not thousands. At Meghan and Prince Harry’s wedding, on May 19, 2018, there were no family present from her side, except for her mother, in sharp contrast to the marriage of Catherine Middleton and Prince ,William of Wales, the now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Meghan’s wedding received widespread attention for the lack of family and close friends. Prince Charles gave her away, although her own father is alive and living in Mexico, and she had her own shadow as a Maid of Honor. Again, the British public were left puzzled, as seen by the comments in the media.

Of course, with their exclusion from this great event, Meghan’s own family took great exception, with the most vocal being Samantha Markle - followed by her father, uncles and cousins - who could not understand why this happened. And, they never got an answer. But they had a clue when Prince Harry went on the radio and said that the Royal family would now be the “family Meghan never had.”

Meghan’s family shot back immediately that this was all a lie, protesting and offering proof of the opposite. Samantha even explained that the father financed all of Meghan’s education, while Meghan stated at a conference she paid for her own education. Yet Samantha has receipts from the father, apparently.

At the same time, reports of the cost of this wedding, mixed with the drama of the Markle family, hit fever pitch. According to the British tabloid, the Express, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Royal wedding is said to have racked up a £32 million bill (c.$41.6 million at the current exchange rate), with the majority of that hefty sum (paid for by the British taxpayer) going towards security - a whopping £30 million (c.$39 million), to be exact.

One might argue that with all the zillions of tourists flocking to Britain with pull of Buckingham Palace, seeing the Royals and the nation’s deep and rich history, it was frankly a drop in the ocean.

Figures also show that £1.5 million (c.$1.95 million) was spent by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), a U.K. government department that has responsibility for the creative industries, tourism and leisure across the nation. Some will be more familiar with the DCMS in the pursuit of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in giving oral evidence before the committee in Parliament.

(Cont.)

All this while wages and living standards for your average working Brit are depressed and have been so since the last financial crisis around a decade ago.

The public seems to have had enough now, with people writing on sites that they feel Meghan is embarrassing the Royal Family, and the public in turn, even “taking them for fools”, adding that “Harry is a young and naive and cannot see what is happening before him.” Prince Harry is 34 and Meghan in 37, which is very close in age.

People have seemingly too become incensed at all of the reports and apparent lies that Meghan has told, and started to turn against the Duchess of Sussex now in serious numbers, on blogs, forums and websites. Not Harry. Meghan - the Duchess of Sussex.

She has even apparently been given a nickname by royal staff at the royal household - “Me-Gain.” And, Harry quite clearly is said to be very unhappy with that.

Dicky Arbiter, a Royal insider and ex-Palace press, speaking to Nine News Australia on Harry’s reaction to these reports, was quoted as saying: “He would be angry that something like this is coming out. You have got to remember too...I mean, you were here for the wedding and you saw how the media were operating. They were putting Meghan and Harry right up on a pedestal. Since the end of summer in the autumn, they have been chipping away at those pedestals and really having a go.”

Cosmopolitan magazine stated in a report referring to “Me-Gain” comments apparently made by royal staff writing: “To be honest, there’s probably little to no truth to rumors that staff call Meghan by this nickname, but that doesn’t make the reports any less hurtful, obvs!” That said, gossip about the Royal family certainly sells newspapers.

Every day it seems, articles come online and in print about Meghan, reporting on everything from the dishes she serves guests (avocado on toast) to her wardrobe (with outfits costing up to £100,000 (c.$130,000 each), her extravagant baby showers - two to be exact and more.

The public perception of her started to sink faster than a millstone in water. They made it clear that they would not suffer another Wallis Simpson.

The palace knew they were in trouble and started to hire PR, separating the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the Cambridges, and giving them their own household. According to reports, even Prince William and Catherine observed the negative publicity, fearing it will outshine the work and legacy of the Royal Family as a whole, and wanted to separate themselves from what has been labelled “the Markle Effect.” Cambridges' cha

Such a strange gossipy piece to appear in Forbes. I always thought that magazine was somewhat serious.

The mention of Princess Grace (who no doubt has many threads of her own) makes me think. She really did her Princess job very well. And seemed to be a caring mother. Couldn't have been easy in that decadent Euro-milieu.

(Cont.)

The palace knew they were in trouble and started to hire PR, separating the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the Cambridges, and giving them their own household. According to reports, even Prince William and Catherine observed the negative publicity, fearing it will outshine the work and legacy of the Royal Family as a whole, and wanted to separate themselves from what has been labelled “the Markle Effect.”

• Meghan Markle’s PR chief moved positions and became the fifth aide she has lost since she married Prince Harry. According to The Sun, Jason Knauf is now a “senior adviser” for the Cambridges' charities. In addition, the general consensus among royal reporters is that Meghan is seen as difficult and high energy and is said to “snap” at palace employees. • Following this move, and the desire to separate the Sussexs’ from the Cambridges’, according to The Daily Mail The Queen agreed to the creation of a Household for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and gave permission for it to be based at Buckingham Palace. • As part of the new order, Harry and Meghan have named Sara Latham, Hillary Clinton’s former Senior Campaign Advisor, as their new dedicated head of communications. With costs estimated and thought to be in the ball park of £500,000 to £1 million (c.$650,000 to $1.3 million), it will be paid for by the tax payer. The ultimate irony. They are spending tax-payers money to make the Duchess of Sussex likeable to the very people who are not warming to her, by spending their money. Viscount Yves de Contades, CEO of International Excellence Magazineand luxury expert remarking on these recent matters, said: “Relating to populist media through PR experts has become indispensable, because if you are not talking to them directly, they will simply take it from any source - however unreliable.”

He added: “Unfortunately sensational stories get read substantially more than the truth. Good PR is about maintaining certain values and connecting honestly with your audience. And, it would be wise to pay those bills yourself.”

Frank Marr, CEO and owner of A Marr + Associates and a reputation management/PR expert based in London, said: "Reputation management is imperative for the monarchy. In an era of discontent, erratic political situations along with the big gap between the rich and the poor, there has never been a more important need to explain why the royalty is needed for the nation."

He added: "Their role as pillars to society and how they can play their part to support the nation [Britain] needs to be managed in order to maintain reasoning for this existence of influence." Is this really the right approach?

According to inside sources, who like Meghan’s friends cannot be named, Royal Communications have a very lucrative deal with People Magazine in America. The reason? Apparently, they feel if Americans fall in love with her, then the Brits will naturally follow.

This is made clear when American actors like George Clooney have recently criticized media treatment of Meghan saying she is being “pursued and vilified”, and likening her scrutiny to that was received by Princess Diana. Like all PR for Meghan, this statement, too, seems to be doing more harm than good, with thousands of people leaving vitriolic comments.

(Cont.)

Others have expressed the thought that “Princess Diana-style PR will backfire on Meghan Markle and it’s not worth the gamble”, as reported in The Sun. And why is that? This one is quite simple. Because she is not Princess Diana, and many people are quick to point out that she is quite the opposite.

According to Lorraine Kelly’s viewpoint, the well-known Scottish journalist and broadcaster wrote: “Meghan Markle has mishandled her relationship with her dad Thomas ever since she began dating Prince Harry and she seems intent on making it worse.”

“By all accounts the Duchess of Sussex has taken it upon herself to brief several of her “close friends” to blab to a U.S. gossip magazine about how hurtful she has found the whole saga, and that - contrary to what everyone thinks - she has been in touch with her father Thomas.”

And, according to Samantha Markle, this could not be further from the truth. And again, she has the proof.

The British public expect the Royal Family to be wholesome. Perhaps not virginal, but wholesome, and a divorcee from America who has perhaps told a little fib or two, or ten, is just not sitting well.

And, the fact that the British public, again, are left paying the bill is a bridge too far for many of them as she as seen as the antithesis of what a Royal should be - loyal, demure, honest, caring, family oriented, frugal and modest.

Meghan is appearing, by her own fault, to be none of these. And to be honest, why would she want to be anything but herself? Why should she care what the people think about her? Well, again, it is simple. It is because she now represents a Royal Family, one which has outlasted most, and wants to live to see another day.

According to an article in Town and Country magazine, Meghan is worth $5 million compared to Prince Harry’s $40 million, a sum he has accumulated from funds left in trust to him by his mother, Princess Diana, an inheritance from the Queen Mother, and his former salary as a captain in the British Army.

Yet, the British public ARE paying for Meghan’s PR, and hopefully they will learn to love her, for Harry’s sake. Regardless of what opinions are about Harry’s girl, the bill for Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, is being paid for by the British tax payers, and hopefully they will get what they pay for. And, it’s certainly racking up in any currency.

Let them eat cake? You betcha!

I agree the article repeats the stan narrative Smegs has a worth in the 5 million range but they make clear to attribute that figure to Town and Country magazine; so not exactly quoting the purported sum as being an unmitigated fact.

It's photos like these that make the Yorks so unpopular. While Brexit chaos ensues in Britain, Fergie and her Babysitter Bea are off on another holiday to watch the Bahrain Grand Prix. Optics was never a strong point of Fergie and Family.

It's true, the royals are always "on holiday." Nice gig.

Uurgh, do you think skint Fegs will be turning tricks, there?

Fergs

R197, the print version of Forbes is a serious and reputable magazine.

Their online portal posts blogs by freelancers (this guy) and people known in their industries. It is much like Medium, where quality of writing and gravitas varies widely.

The Tatler piece, in contrast, will run in print. Hope we get more like those. , This referencing comments online, etc. reads like one step up from Tumblr, and in fact, kinda is. Hopefully more journalists will take a look after the fiscal years accounts are made public.

This ran a little over a year ago, so yeah, we should have known.

But crying Charlotte and stories about Wills shagging the neighbors? Did not see that coming. Even though the likely source is clear, surely this has a corrosive impact on the institution?

Her Majesty hates Camilla.Its so obvious, I see why the Blackamoor trolls try to deflect by their Meghan lies.Face it,Camilla is more detested by HRH....always will be.You slags need to except it and move on.Jeez

Good , but long, read about the Forbes article.

R207 you’re back with your latest daily deranged rant! Let’s review today’s post:

The Queen is “Her Majesty” which you got right but then you called her “ HRH” - why the demotion?

Hit the space bar at the end of each sentence - I know that it’s your signature but it just makes you look stupid.

“Stupider”, rather.

“It’s” not “It’s”. You use “Blackamoor” as an adjective - it’s a noun - but no big deal as you don’t seem to understand its meaning anyway. Space bar after “lies” - you’ll get the hang of it eventually. Space bar after “be”. “Accept” not “except”. I’ll allow you the basic colloquialism “Jeez” but it needs a space before and a full stop after.

But no “an” for “and” this time - we’ll done, Crazy! Best to avoid the word at all if you don’t understand its application, as you’ve done here.

[quote]I have always supposed that she abused her staff so much on that tour that someone allowed her to get off the plane with that tag hanging deliberately.

Oh, absolutely, R163. I actually posted to this effect when it occurred. The flight from Fiji to Tonga is 1 hr and 30 min. yet no one noticed when the very nature of their job as support staff is to pay attention to detail? No flipping way it went unnoticed.

Also, do folks recall how the thank you notes for their wedding were so tardy that Eugenie and Jack's were sent before theirs'? And that the Sussexes had to send an apology along with their thank you notes? Of course, palace staff were sitting on them. They are nothing if not protocol experts and they knew exactly what they were doing, making the "piece of work" arriviste look as ungrateful as she is. Of course, nothing kept Meghan from asking "Hey, shouldn't I be calligraphizing my John Hancock on those thank you notes right about now?" It really was a masterstroke by the staff -- revealing by not doing. Revealing just how ungracious she is. What the fucking hell did she have to do after her wedding that precluded sitting down for an afternoon or two or however many it would take to acknowledge the people whose attention she craves? I think this was even more telling than the label, though the label is so heavily symbolic.

[quote]Meghan's friends are so subtle.

Unlike her haters.

R163, the story you told about Jerome Robbins occurred during rehearsals for Mary Martin's Peter Pan. Bear in mind that at that point he was still an active dancer and such a fall could have ended his dancing career. But you are right, and it's a true story, everyone saw what was about to happen and no one said a thing.

Jerry was brilliantly talented. A brilliantly talented cunt.

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

[quote] Revealing just how ungracious she is. What the fucking hell did she have to do after her wedding that precluded sitting down for an afternoon or two or however many it would take to acknowledge the people whose attention she craves?

R210, she was busy getting a meal ticket into her womb asap.

R210, I’d forgotten about the thank-you notes. Another example that underscores the importance of being respectful of “the little people”.

Yes, R213, I noticed the same thing about the location of Nottingham Cottage being right next door to William and Kate's garage.

All one had to do was look at the labeled map of Kensington Palace.

There was nothing accidental about Sparkle's trick.

R213, very plausible. And when ambushed, Kate knew instantly that if she "went shopping" with Harry's paramour, it would end up pictured everywhere. Kate has learned to exercise caution with new people, and rightly so.

How did Kate and Sparkles end up at Wimbledon together?

R208 - We're indebted to you for that article, which lays it on the line about the issues surrounding the bad PR collecting around the Sussexes.

My guess about why the Forbes article was removed: this may seem small but it does contain a sentence virtually accusing Meghan of lying - the fact that they're called "many fibs" doesn't lessen the BRF using it as grounds to threaten Forbes to retract the article or be sued for slander. That one bit is enough. And is wasn't a quote from another source: it's contained in the regular text.

I'm sure the BRF found most of the article damaging, but the phrase about Meghan's many fibs, in my view, just crossed the line into actionable territory. Aitken should have been more careful how he incorporated that into the article.

R212 - Was it that early? Thanks for the clarifcation. It's a wonderful documentary. Complicated man, not that I am in any way excusing his behaviour toward colleagues. One of the funniest bits was how when they were working on West Side Story (the theatre version), even Leonard Bernstein was cowed by him and Robbins had the gall to critique Bernstein's music in places. And Bernstein was hardly short of ego or temperament.

Apologies for the digression, others.

That Forbes article states twice that Samantha had proof that Meghan was lying (about her father paying for MM’s education and about MM being in touch with him). IIRC, Samantha never provided any evidence and I doubt she has any.

R210 - Are you serious? This about the Thank-You notes got by me. After the Wales wedding, people were astonished to get handwritten thank-you notes from Diana from Broadlands dated the next day.

Odd how THIS story never made it onto Celebitchy!

I read somewhere that Diana's father instilled in her the importance of prompt thank-you notes. That's a very good quality.

If that Forbes article received editorial approval, they should shutter the business. The writing is appalling.

As serious as a heart attack, R222. I found this, which is pretty damn grovelly and funny. It sounds as though Meghan did not bother show off her signature. I recall seeing thank you note from the Brooksbanks signed by Eugenie and I believe Jack, too.

[quote]"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have asked me to thank you for your letter of 24th May and I must apologize for the delay in responding to you,” a note sent from the head of the Correspondence Section at Clarence House, Claudia Spens, which was obtained by Hello Magazine reads. “As I am sure you can imagine, this has been a particularly busy time for this office and we have, consequently, been unable to reply as quickly as we should have liked to."

[quote]The message continued: "It was so kind of you to take the trouble to write as you did and Their Royal Highnesses were immensely touched by your generous words of support. The Duke and Duchess were heartened to learn of the charitable donation you made to the Myna Mahila Foundation in their honor; this was most thoughtful and commendable of you and Their Royal Highnesses are incredibly grateful."

R224 - I agree, it's not exactly on a par with, say, the prose standards in The New Yorker. But I'd be curious if there are any legal experts on this thread, whether they think the bit about "the many fibs she told" was a stray potentially actionable statement that got overlooked and the article pulled.

R226 If they said they'd been hacked I would buy it. The style is more like a blog post than a news story or even a feature. The structure of the story doesn't make sense. I've never read anything else from that freelancer so I don't know if it fits his style.

Wouldn't Forbes/Aitken's defense be evidence of the lies or a history of telling lies? How hard would it be to prove?

It wouldn't surprise me if Samantha produces photocopies or electronic images of cancelled checks to Northwestern signed by Thomas Markle in her new book. I'm assuming the publishing date is scheduled to coincide with Sohobebe's arrival.

R228 - Technically, I suppose so, but it would be a comical exercise and not worth the time and effort trying to prove that Meghan Markle was lying when she said she didn't know anything about the royal family or about when she started dating Harry. Samantha I'm sure has no access to cancelled checks that old.

Re the timing of Sister-Woman's book - yes, I thought also it was scheduled to be released as soon as the baby arrived. She's been remarkably quiet for awhile, perhaps due to the book, perhaps due to the fact that persecuting a nine months' pregnant woman is bad optics.

[quote] Samantha I'm sure has no access to cancelled checks that old.

It's unlikely, but Pa Markle could still have them. Banks had already started to image checks by 2000, so conceivably pops can call up the financial institution and ask for an electronic file. That is if he's willing to work with Samantha

Samantha very well *could* have access to checks that old. Both of my parents kept receipts and cancelled checks and warranties and tax returns and you name it. The man had a prescription from 1967. Some people keep very good records and keep them for a very long time.

Out of curiosity, I skimmed another of Aitken’s articles. He’s not a very good writer, and it was full of grammar and punctuation mistakes.

And some people are just pack rats. I think Pa Markle would be likelier to fall into this category.

Yes R223. Diana would return home from events and write thank you notes straightaway. Something I admired her for.

Another good read.

Probably why he is a freelancer, R232.

It was a good read, with punctuation sure to thrill nervous shills. The overarching point of suppressing the original article stands, and will be a good topic on the boards tomorrow. Good luck to the crap PR in effort to force people into liking the unlikable.

R237 - "The overarching point of suppressing the original article stands . . "

Agreed. As the old saying has it - "It wasn't the crime so much as the coverup."

Didn’t buckaroo write on that famous Father’s Day Instagram post her thanks “for teaching me the importance of handwritten thank you notes”

Good memory!

[quote]"Thanks for my work ethic, my love of Busby Berkeley films & club sandwiches, for teaching me the importance of handwritten thank you notes, and for giving me that signature Markle nose. I love you."

Does anyone else wonder if any palace PR team members every peruse DL? Not the ones paid six figures, but the interns and low level people. Not to be self-congratulatory, but now that Royal Dish (or whatever it's named) shut down the Harkle topic, it seems that outside of private Tumblrs or the Daily Mail comment sections, Celebitchy, LSA, and DL are the largest sites discussing them, with the latter two not actively censoring comments.

R225, what is the "hilarious" reason they are apologizing? Boy, Travel and Leisure really jonesing for clicks with that one.

I really do feel so awful for Mr Markle. Watching another man walk your daughter down the aisle after everything you have done for her must have been hell.

If Meghan was ashamed of his weight or suchlike, there are a million upper crust costumers who could have taken care of that in a flash. Look at bumbling overweight dad of Diana’s. He scrubbed up very well in top hat and tails. The royals would have been bemused by Markle Snrs ‘working class’ ways but honestly, I do think Charles and co would have just taken it in their stride: they’ve seen it all in their time and would no doubt just have been more impressed by the honesty.

I don’t believe for a second he had a heart attack days before the wedding. I bet she cooked up the whole thing to keep him away, and paid him off.

I hate her for all this. Disgusting ungrateful tramp. Hate her Hate her Hate her.

The piece in the Sunday Times by Camilla Long was interesting, is linked above but behind a paywall. Someone posted a link to a tumblr imaging of it.

Is it true that Ben Fogle was 'ghosted'? was he ever that close to the Cambridges? And Guy Pelly as well - hasn't he moved to America with his US-born wife, to run a farm - ? This might explain why he isn't seen much in the UK. I doubt he's no longer friends with William and Kate given he was Prince Louis's godfather just last year. Some of these claims are interesting - would this author, Long, have the sources for it?

Also found this interesting piece, re a huge tiara of all things. Apparently the Cholmondeleys are cousins with the Astors; the current Marquess is a distant cousin of fellow "Turnip Toff" (Norfolk toff) Rose Astor van Cutsem, who's married to William's oldest and dearest friend William VC. The latter was godfather to Prince George and their daughter Grace was infamously the junior bridesmaid at Will & Kate's wedding. So these ties with these folks go deep and beyond just charity work- they are literally all related by birth or marriage.

Apparently they share tiaras. This outstanding piece, the Ancaster Heathcote, was worn by Rose Astor at her wedding and then by Rose Cholmondeley just a few years ago at the Spanish state dinner a few years ago.

Why does Kate hate William's friends? Did they think she wasn't good enough to marry Wills?

For one thing, Will's aristo circle is very incestuous. They have all slept with each other. Second, they never accepted Kate; called her and her sister the Wisteria sisters, fragrant climbers. They sneered at her background.

R246 I don't blame her then.

How miserable to stay in a shitty marriage just to become a Queen Consort. She should walk away from Wills and gain some self resepect. If this is true, Kate is truly pathetic. Wills needs to learn that "What Wills Wants Wills Can Get" has consequences! At least MM and Haz are seemingly honest about their farce and work in unison for their grifting goals. Wills and Kate are the real farce.

Wonder what they say about Me-Gain?

R248 A) maybe it isn’t as shitty as we all think B) they have three kids together. I imagine it would be hard to walk away.

[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.]

William and Kate are likely fine. Me-Gain trying desperately to drag them into the mud using her PR machine reflects on her, not them.

Just to make sure I'm fully caught up on the latest goings on, we think that Wills is having an affair based on a) the fact that Kate has been looking rather, um...haggard lately and b) the chinless Chumley chick may be the mistress but more likely just knows who the mistress is and c) the hip hop ho is behind it all?

LOL R253

A veritable viper in the midst of the family she never had!

R248 - Why don't you write her a letter and suggest it?

She didn't marry William just to become Queen Consort - unlike her grandstanding sister in law who leveraged a one year long distance relationship, and who can't let go of her husband in public lest someone smell out the truth: she married him to become oryalty - Kate has known Will for 16 years, they went to school together, they share a great deal of water under the bridge, he's the father of her three children . . . you know, little things like that.

I'm suspect Kate's self-respect is in very good shape.

*to become royalty

*I suspect

R244 - I actually remember photos of Rose Astor's wedding - she looked very sweet and the tiara looked fantastic on her. It's a beautiful piece, very late Victorian-Belle Epoque.

The Queen Mother's family has a similar one on a smaller scale, the Strathmore Tiara. It is alleged however to be too fragile now for use, unless it's been repaired or reinforced. I have only seen one formal photo of the Queen Mother as a very young Duchess of York wearing 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.]

Wonder if they are sharing a room?

I wonder how many of those stalkers (R259) are the Sparkle Sugars on the attack against William and Kate. They have certainly invaded this thread.

Diana incorporated the Japanese flag in her dress while on tour in that country.

A big "MEOW" from Torontopaper.

Bug Eyed Bea took her bf and Mom to Bahrain.

The females of the Windsor family.

R260 - let's hope the British taxpayers didn't pay for her trip.

More

TP is full of shit

Heh, I like Bea's boyfriend. He looks like trouble. I think he'd be a marvelous addition to the cast!

The royal soap opera 😂

The Royals ! Come and see next day . Is Sparkle having a meltdown in frogcottage ? Will Dimwit holding her hand whilst giving birth ? Will the froglet be a boy or a girl ? Oh yes and an Italian aristocrat to spice things up a bit . All this and more on the ROYALS .

Torontotoiletpaper, r268? As for Bea's boyfriend - don't fancy them as a couple, they just don't look like a match. Our bug-eyed princess is punching well above her weight appearance wise. Trouble ahead indeed.

I think Kate looks great for her age, particularly given her slim build. People age. As well, I think it's great that she doesn't go crazy with botox and fillers. Nobody wants some Real Housewives monstrosity in that position.

Bea and her new boyfriend have known each other since childhood. Their families have been close for years.

Beatrice seems so naive. I’m afraid she’s in for more heartbreak.

Run Bea, just run!

[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.]

R268 sounds really really hurt by TorontoPaper. I think I'll start reading it.

Don't you mean butt hurt, R278? Re-read R268 with an attempted a sense of humor.

This sums it up very well

[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.]

R269 I agree wholeheartedly. Edoardo will add quite the louche and colourful touch. Also, how soon people forget. Fergie's own mother Susan was a bolter, who ran off with an aristocratic Argentinean polo player. It's practically Bea's genetic destiny to marry a bounder!

There is a documentary about the royals on TV. I had no idea that QEII was born via caesarian or that the royal birth had to be observed by the officials.

“Meghan’s celebrity lifestyle adds to our fascination”

It's a good docu., R283, watching it, too.

What channel is this documentary please?

Popsugar.- Harry and Meghan Practice Some Self-Care Just Weeks Before the Arrival of Baby Sussex

April 1, 2019 by MONICA SISAVAT

"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are just weeks away from becoming parents, and the royal couple is practicing some self-care before baby Sussex's arrival. Just days after beginning her maternity leave, Meghan and Harry were spotted visiting Ilapothecary in London on Friday. The wellness store is known for "providing women with the best all natural, organic skincare products" and offers a variety of treatments, including massages and energy healing. The pair kept things casual in jeans and sneakers and reportedly spent over two hours inside. Given that the duchess has always been big on wellness and Harry has adopted some of her practices, their visit doesn't surprise us."

R282 - "Also, how soon people forget. Fergie's own mother Susan was a bolter, who ran off with an aristocratic Argentinean polo player. It's practically Bea's genetic destiny to marry a bounder!"

And here we are, back to the Harry & Meghan scenario. Two siblings, same gender, same parents - one makes a reasonably mature decision on a spouse after years of dating the same person . . . the other is destined to do the opposite and leap into a foolish match with a glaringly opportunistic and inappropriate partner after a few months of dating.

Ha, in that picture Harry is all “leave us alone” while Meghan is loving it.

ITV1, R286, “Secrets of the Royal Babies: Meghan and Harry”.

Any bad PR about the British Royal Family = the work of Meghan and her minions.

Any positive PR about Meghan = the work of Meghan and her minions.

Meghan wearing any outfit = Meghan merching.

Meghan being photographed in public = Meghan courting celebrity that is not her due.

Datalounge frau logic = tragic, embarassing and boring to read.

R291 Bye then! Sorry your break from Celebitchy was such a disappointment.

In the photo at R287, it's telling how differently the two react.

Any guesses about when Meghan will actually get to wear a tiara again? Will it be the same tiara she wore for the wedding?

[quote] Any guesses about when Meghan will actually get to wear a tiara again?

When hell freezes over.

R294 - State occasions are when the tiaras come out. I think Kate's only worn the Cambridge Lover's Knot twice in the last year or so: the state visits of the Spanish and Dutch reigning couple. So Meghan will have to wait to be invited to one of those. Diana had to wear them far more frequently than Fergie, for obvious reasons: she was required, as the wife of the PoW and a future Sovereign, to appear at more of them.

The question is, has Sparkle been given the loan of that tiara for life? Or have they bought her a new one that they don't care if she flees the country with?

R294 Do you know how long it took for Andrew and Fergie to be invited to a state occasion after their wedding? I've searched a bit but haven't found anything.

I’m going with Alexander or Alexandra for bebe. One of HM’s names, and Alex is still what an LA mom would regard as a cool name.

r292 reminded me of one more:

Anyone who criticizes the boring Meghan-centric posts on Datalounge = a frau from Celebitchy

Some of us only know Celebitchy because you people infested this forum.

R299 My apologies.. I thought you were one of the trolls who believe the sinister Cambridges are behind every unflattering story about Meghan and Harry. Re-reading your post, I understand and agree with your sentiments.

Fergie wearing the York tiara.

^I love it, even though it was made for her.

r300, it's ok. I am the tunnels troll. One day the tunnels at Frogmore Palace will be revealed and everyone will see I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG.

I love the idea of the tunnels, although I don't believe in them. I sort of love myths. I love the idea of Doria riding Welsh pit ponies from Frogmore House to Frogmore Cottage (heck, all the way to Windsor) as part of her secret mission to protect her daughter discreetly. My city actually has some secret tunnels (and a forgotten subway) and they're very iintriguing.

Frankly, I don't remember seeing Fergie at ANY state banquets yet there she in that photo looking (for once) quite fresh and fetching in her York tiara, all young and smooth in what appears to be an appropriate gown. The question is, where was she?

The York tiara is quite nice. I expect Beatrice as the eldest will get to wear it at her wedding. But it's not nearly as classy as the Greville that Yuge wore.

Of course, Fergie might have been at state banquets in other countries whilst on "official" tours representing HM.

R291 - So what do you think her expensive new PR operation is for if not to make Meghan look good to the public?

Was Fergie once considered pretty or attractive? By what standard, the same British aristocracy standard as that "model" Rose lady? Because Fergie looked hideous in that York tiara photo.

Sarah wore her tiara on official visits for ex to Canada and Australia.

R307 she was widely ridiculed by the British tabloids as being fat, ugly and ginger.

Re the Strathmore tiara - Pss. Margaret wore it occasionally and I believe it was leant to Serena Stanhope when she married Margaret's son, then Viscount Lynley, now Earl Snowden.

R309 - I think the organ pleats dress she wore to Ascot after the engagement was brought up here on a previous thread. I believe the DM headline was, "FROCK HORROR!"

Serena wore theLotus Flower tiara at her wedding.

Kate has worn it several times.

(I miss Order of Splendor. )

Right after her marriage, Fergie had the whole “breath of fresh air“ publicity going on. I thought she had a great look, with massive red hair and big jolly smile. I liked her. I remember being at the beach and reading a cover story about her in Vanity Fair, quite entertaining. The gist was, look out Boring Diana, here’s some competition for you! I even remember the cover headline: Fast-Lane Fergie. Ah, the Tina Brown days…

R312 - So it is, I did see it on the Queen Mother, as well, when she was newly married so I must have mistaken it for the Strathmore. It must be true then that the Strathmore is too fragile for wear. I think in the photo I saw of her with the Strathmore, it was worn the same old fashioned way, low on the forehead.

Did you clock the ropes of pearls on the then Duchess of York in that photo of her you get when you scroll down on that link?!

R313 - I'm waiting for Tina Brown's post mortem on the Sussex divorce.

So, Kate has gotten to wear three beautiful tiaras: the Cartier at her wedding, the Cambridge Lover's Know which due to its name she will probably keep on loan for the rest of her life, and the Lotus Flower. Very nice.

Fergie's fashions: A retrospective

Fab or drab?

Fergie's fashions: A retrospective

The signature hair bow

I have mixed feelings about Tina Brown, but she did foresee the problem that Diana was going to be. Very early on, Vanity Fair did a cover of Diana looking fierce in a crown, with the headline “the mouse that roared.” Boy, we had no idea what was coming.

Sorry, looking fierce in a tiara, not a crown. If I’m not mistaken it was the Cambridge lovers knot? I feel like I’m getting to know my tiaras thanks to this thread.

Here's the Vanity Fair Diana cover, from 1985.

One wonders if Diana saw this kind of thing and thought to herself, "Hm. I am sort of fierce. They can't push ME around!" In other words, believing her own publicity, with disastrous results.

Fergie has no clue about style or rather her style is atrocious, Meghan is like her in this regard. They both dress for the occasion instead of curating a wardrobe that reflects individual sense of style. That's why they look mishmash and out of sorts even while wearing expensive outfits. I think Kate, with help of a stylist who's the antithesis of Jessica Mulroney, is starting to understand this concept. One curates own style based upon body, unique needs, and what sort of fashion effect one wishes to put forth, if any. Kate's increasing favoring of sleek silhouette reminiscent of 1940s/ 1970s but still keeping modern flair, I believe serves her quite well. Silhouette, proportions, and fit are so crucial in being well-dressed, it's not about trends or pricy designer outfits. Meghan does not understand this and her bestie Jessica is just as clueless as she is.

And here's the Fergie cover I remember, from 1987. Totally 80s, totally fab! Imho.

For me, the first inkling of trouble for Fergie was when she and Andy were in LA, and she acted a little silly. I still find her endearing, though. About 10 years ago I actually bought a ticket to go hear her "lecture." It was pretty harmless, she was self-deprecating and fun, and as I recall had great gams.

Fergie's Fashions: A retrospective

80s polka dots

Can we at least say Fergie and her fashions were FUN?

Fergie's Fashions: A Retrospective

80's rouching

Fergie's Fashions: A Retrospective

R311 was this the frock horror?

R314 more superb pearls worn by the Queen Mother and the Queen.

I'm kicking myself for having donated my British royal jewels book in my last move otherwise I would have more info on these babies.

Can't wait for Tina's views as well.

R324 Fergie was a victim of the 1980s. Most of the fashion was horrific.

Fergie's Fashions: A Retrospective

Golden Girl

I can't pull up the "frock horror" -?

Two of the links don't work sorry. I'm looking for replacement ones

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

Fergie is a ragamuffin

The "frock horror" is the second one in this lineup.

Replacement for R326

Another attempt. Hope it works

I like the look in r325. Not the hair, but the dress.

R289, I noticed the same thing. Meghan looks like she’s thoroughly enjoying herself. Her nose is a bumpy, lobed mess.

And I wonder if there was an assistant bearing loads of shopping bags full of free product, sneaking out of a basement exit. I’m positive MM walked through that place, pointing out products she liked.

The links work in preview but not when posted. Please excuse the technical difficulties.

R332, She looks great here. Love her hair, and you can see the good legs. And the "frock horror" wasn't as bad as I had anticipated.

Time to ring the help desk in India.

One of my favourite looks on Fergie. It fits nicely without being overly tight.

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

Oh dear. Clearly Fergie had lost the will to go on.

Wonderful how 60+ women dress in the same clothes as rappers.

Is there a list of which tiaras are the most valuable and expensive and who can wear which and when?

Are the tiaras arranged in some hierarchical order?

Fergie looks like a lost sister wife in R341 and R342.

True R345! Much prefer Sarah is the 90s and early 2000s.

r344 we've discussed tiara etiquette endlessly in several of the earlier BRF gossip threads. Basically, if the tiara is owned by the Queen personally or is a part of the crown jewel collection, the the Queen herself decides who wears what. She keeps most of the larger tiaras for herself, with a few 'loaned' out to senior female royals to wear to the rare white tie or formal events.

For example Camilla has sole use of the Boucheron Honeycomb tiara, a very large grand piece worn mostly by the Queen Mother for many years. After her death it went to her daughter the Queen, how has loaned it out permanently (so it seems) to Cam to wear when needed. It looks fab on her large blond Farrah Fawcett type do (Google to see pics). Kate has been given the Cambridge Lovers Knot to wear, which was previously worn by Diana when she was married to Charles. Kate has also been seen in the more delicate, lighter Papyrus tiara (see discussion above) at the Chinese State dinner a few yrs ago. She also infamously wore the small Cartier Scroll tiara at her 2011 wedding to William.

Sophie Wessex has her wedding gift tiara, which was designed personally by Edward. She also has worn the Queens smaller aquamarine tiaras. Anne has two or three tiaras she wears, at least a couple of these belong to her personally as they were bequeathed to her by Philip's mother and gifted to her by her own mother. Zara wore her mother's Scroll Key tiara at her wedding to Mike T.

Sparks of course was loaned the Art Deco diamond piece for her wedding, but so far hasn't been seen at any formal events that require a tiara. We'll see what she's loaned for those and if it becomes a 'permanent' loan. Camilla and Kate of course will, in due time, be able to wear and control the loaning of the larger sets once they are Queen Consorts.

R344 this is one list of the BRF tiaras altho not complete as it doesn't have the superb tiaras of the Duchess of Gloucester. Princess Michael of Kent has lesser ones. Don't see Princess Anne's here either.

Of those at the link, I would think the Grand Duchess Vladimir would be the most valuable because of its provenance and loaded with large diamonds and interchangeable drop emeralds and large pearls.

Although listed here, isn't the George IV State Diadem (priceless), part of the Crown Jewels?

That's all I got.

Yes the George IV diadem is part of the Crown Jewels, and not personally owned.

Read that the Gloucesters have six tiaras they inherited from the prior Duke via his mother, Queen Mary. One is the Iveagh tiara, which the current Duchess wears, and was worn by her daughter Rose at her wedding. I'm not as familiar with the Kent family tiaras, although they would certainly have a few that were also passed down from Queen Mary and the previous Duchess (Marina).

I love the Tiara Talk interludes.

Gloucester tiaras.

r351 That's some major hardware on the tiaras the Gloucesters own. The original Duke was parsimonious and the family accumulated a fortune from the civil lists back in 20s and 30s when the lists were extremely generous.

r350 The diadem is the most beautiful of the tiara-like pieces in the BRF, IMO. I understand the difference b/t a diadem and a tiara, but I lump it with the tiaras b/c it registers as such among the casual observers.

r347 The Boucheron Honeycomb tiara is gorgeous and it is more suitable for Kate to wear. She has large head and has the hair for it. No tiara can make Camila beautiful or even pretty. (Sorry, just my opinion)

Sophie's aquamarine tiara was purchased for her. She sometimes wears it as a necklace. The one designed by Edward consists of random pieces from something longer used. It looks tacky. Don't know of any other aquamarine tiaras worn by Sophie.

r301 The York tiara was purchased for Fergie. It hasn't been seen in a long time and may longer exist.

r344 There is no hierarchy among the tiaras. Obviously the larger ones are more valuable and the diadem is only worn by Queens. Otherwise there are many tiaras that haven't been seen in decades and others (like Eugenie's at her wedding) have never been seen.

Are diadems only worn by a reigning queen (consort or regnant)?

Ah nevermind. You answered that R352.

I should turn in...

R351 Thanks for the lovely link. The Gloucester tiaras are spectacular! I'm a great fan of The Gloucesters, actually. I know that the Duke and Duchess go about their business in a very dignified and kind fashion and they fulfill a lot of official engagements. We never get told much about them of course- they're not as gossip worthy as The Knocked Up Kardashian Royal... The Gloucesters also have two gorgeous daughters and a son who's a handsome war hero and is married to a consultant paediatrician. They're something of a contrast to the Charles and his gang to say the least......

It seems to this casual and ignorant reader that some of these women are assigned a single tiara that they wear for most occasions requiring one (but might be allowed use of another?)

Is the tiara MM wore for her wedding “her” tiara? Are we likely to see her wearing others?

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

Why didn't Harry tell her "no"???

You know what, just ignore that article at R358. I'm pretty sure that's a Megfan site.

What's the protocol when you're wearing a tiara, curtsy and it falls off? Could someone clarify that if the tiara touches the ground you must forfeit your title?

Betting odd is the UK very high now for a new Princess Diana

Surely that will see William totally at the end of his tether with the two of them?

The Kiss of Death by Meghan 😂 . Everything she touches dies haha

If they suddenly invite Smegs to go grouse shooting (or whatever they like to kill), we'll know that William is indeed at the end of his tether and has decided to take the "problem" into his own hands.

r356 I think that tiara is from the royal equivalent of the stand of old umbrellas by the back door, free for the use for anyone who needs them.

Diana has become one of the top picks for the name of the child, which of course would serve as a tribute to Harry’s late mother. Adams said, “At the top of the betting here is Diana at 10-1, red hot favourite. No great surprises there, obviously all the connections are there.” (Also a popular bet is the name Victoria, the name of Harry’s great-great-great grandmother, which shares the same odds to Diana, at 10-1.)

The tiara Meghan wore for her wedding was gorgeous. I prefer it to the one Kate wore at her wedding, but less than I liked Eugenie's. Both Eugenie and Meghan had art deco style tiaras and I like that more than Kate's romantic swirls.

Different strokes for different folks.

R320 - Yes, that's the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara, now on loan to Kate. Meghan can whistle to Domesday for wearing that one. I note that at the Dutch state banquet the Queen leant Kate the gorgeous pearl and diamond Belle Epoque necklace that is often worn with it, and if I remember was a wedding present to the Queen Mother, then about to become Duchess of York, from King George V and Queen Mary, who were very pleased with Prince Albert's choice of a bride.

Tina Brown was very shrewd in this article, but she missed the clouds hanging over the York marriage. By the way, are you sure this is 1985 and not 1987? She mentions the York marriage being cosier than the Wales marriage (hint: they're realy in love, the Wales marriage was crossed fingers and let's give it a go on his part) and the Yorks were married in 1986.

According to most biographies, after Harry was born and the "spare" secured, the marriage was already over in all but name (or, I rather suspect, a third child would have been had as Charles wanted a daughter very badly), which Brown doesn't quite come out and state in this article, but most insiders and most of the press knew it. That they held on for another ten years is remarkable.

Eugenie's tiara has a slight sense of a kokoshnik to it.

Oops just saw that the Greville has kokoshnik in its name.

R369 - I think it was meant to be and is. There are two other large Russian themed tiaras, in the collection, the Fringe and the singly named Kokoshnik. The Queen, I believe, still wears both, but more ofteh the Kokoshnik. which is less delicate and very grand. HM and Anne both wore the Fringe at their weddings. There is another version of the Kokoshnik in one of the Nordic family's collections, probably Denmark as Queen Alexandra was a Danish Princess and the Russian Tsar's mother, I think, got out of Russia safely and took refuge in Denmark with lots of her jewelry, but I'm not sure. I just know there is another one out there.

It's ironic that the Dowager Empress got out with her jewelry but not her son and granchildren.

I think the emeralds in the Greville looked beautiful with Eugenie's coloring.

I think rubies would suit Meghan's coloring very nicely.

Perhaps it might be necessary to go back to emeralds for (presumed) Princess Diana, if she favors her father's ginger looks.

[quote] It's ironic that the Dowager Empress got out with her jewelry but not her son and grandchildren.

My jewels didn't make the poor decision to listen to a crazy shaman. And they were decidedly easier to spirit out of the country.

R368 the Diana cover says 1985 on it. The Fergie cover 1987. I think the Fergie article talked about how she and Andrew can’t keep their hands off each other.

Naming that kid Diana would be so tacky.

I agree with you R375. Also, I tend to think there would be a public backlash if they should name the baby Diana. That's probably my own bias, but somehow I don't think the British public would warm to it.

There was talk that Sparkle wanted to make the emerald her " theme " stone, maybe as a contrast to the famous blue sapphire that adorns Kate's hand. But have any of the royals ever had a " theme " stone? I think some of our knowledgeable DLers had some very interesting posts on this.

The Queen, Charles and Camilla would all undoubtedly be thrilled if the baby is named Diana.

R372 - It will not be a Princess Diana, it will be Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.

R374 - I've always thought Diana a bad choice - not least because if the little girl turns out homely, short, and dumpy, being named for a blonde blue-eyed 5'10" global star with spectacular legs would not be easy. Why burden the child with that kind of iconic baggage and comparisons later on?

Elizabeth Taylor had three biological children: two sons with Michael Wilding, and one daughter with Mike Todd. The two boys came out strikingly like their mother, including the blue eyes; the one daughter came out as the spit of her father, Mike Todd, including brown eyes. I actually saw one of the boys once in his twenties in London - absolutely stunning.

I don't think Harry's daughter should have to risk that.

Diana was associated with sapphires, not just because of the (rather tacky) engagement ring, but the magnificent suite one of the Gulf State potentates gave her as a wedding present, and the enormous sapphire brooch the Queen Mother gave her that Diana had made as the centrepiece of a multi-strand pearl choker. And, of course, her colouring with the enormous blue eyes.

I don't think Kate has been so associated with sapphires, just the ring. With her coluring, emeralds are a much better choice, and she does have a magnficent emerald and diamond necklace (she wore it to the BAFTAS whilst pregnant with Louis, I think). The Palace only commented that it was "privately purchased" which means it was probably a wedding present from the Queen and Phiilip.

If the baby has Diana as a middle name it wouldn't be any weirder than Charlotte's name.

eg Victoria Elizabeth Diana, Alexandra Diana Elizabeth, Isabella Diana Elizabeth , Isabella Eleanor Diana, Matilda Diana Isabella.

(a few permutations of former English queens regent)

R376 - Meghan and Harry aren't good at long-term strategy - while Diana might please the public and give Harry another way to stick it to the family, it would immediately put the backs up of Charles and the Queen, and they need Charles's continued favour desperately, not least financially. Much better to flatter the Queen with Elizabeth or Mary or Alexandra and use Diana as a second name.

That said, my bet is still on Diana if it's a girl. I don't think Harry and Meghan will be able to resist the short-term thrill of the tabloids shrieking about how wonderful to have another Diana in the BRF and the honour to the People's Princess, etc., etc.

Is it certain that they'll have a girl?

I'm guessing Mary.

If a boy, James or Richard.

I like Alexandra as a name but I don’t see it being either woke or starry enough for the Duchess of Froggy Bottom.

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

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

The poster who said they wouldn't dare go for "Diana" and piss off Charles, Camilla and the Queen surely is correct. That would take some massive balls. Really, it would piss off just about everyone in the family, and much of the population.

And oh, their own Instagram account. Knew that was coming. This will be interesting. Gee, I wonder who will be curating it? Certainly someone has been itching for her own social media outlet for some time.

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

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

That first Instagram post, my word how grand! I know it's supposed to be Harry and Meghan's initials intertwined, but let's face it, it looks like an "M" with a crown on top. Slay Ka-ween! I've followed. This is going to be fun.

R384 - Prince Edward's son is named James and Richard has, er, some unfortunate connotations.

Boy for sure they'll flatter Charles with his name. Girl is far more problematic as they'll want to flatter but attract media hysteria as well.

R390 - Scroll down to the photo of Diana wearing the enormous sapphire brooch the Queen Mother gave her on the multistrand pearl choker. Holy Jesus.

Meghan just cannot help herself. In the growing up on MWC article, she described the show's guest stars as much older than she was when she hung out on the show's set. Trouble is, Nikki Cox is 40 years-old, only 2 years older than Meghan. Also Meghan pretty much tagged herself as being angelic Catholic school girl while those women were ho's. Such a feminist she is.

Royal brides through the years.

An odd photo of The Queen and Prince Philip. Did they move the furniture?

Meanwhile, @kensingtonroyal has posted a “welcome to Instagram” for @sussexroyal, with an extremely flattering photo of Harry and Meg. No doubt there’s a sense of relief there. Like how gracious you act toward the tiresome guests as they’re finally on their way out the door.

A rare photo of the Queen - yawning!

A video of Charles with the boys at Balmoral.

R388 it's so fucking transparent isn't it. Now I know why she was grinning like a maniac. I suspect it was her idea and started the manipulation telling Harry, this is a way of modernising and being new and we are so popular in Hollywood and with youngster. I wouldn't be surprised if no one in the Palace or family knew about this.

Can't wait till Prince Louis birthday and hopefully a new picture but I feel megain and Harry are already plotting something to make it about them.

Please tell me that this nonsense (desperate need for attention, glory, Instagram) will backfire on them sooner rather than later.

R400 - I don't think Harry and Meghan can be trusted with their Instagram account. Between that and the trolls, it may be a lost cause.

R386 - Jesus, that monogram says it all - you can barely see an H but you sure as hell can see the dominant M under the crown. The woman is a sociopath.

[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.]

Hope they post the most narcissistic and ego driven posts, even selfies that it becomes so ridiculous and backfires in their face. The thing is that this exactly what they want even Harry. To be talked about even negatively, to do things on purpose to antagonise.

I'd love for the queen to call their bluff and say leave the monarchy, become celebrities but you and you children won't have titles anymore and won't be royals and won't have our money and palaces. Then what would they do?

I too would like a home that's perfect for me - may I have 3m of taxpayers' funds?

She rolls on obliviously doesn't she?

I think the Palace are making a mistake to allow these two their own account.

Harry is falling for Meghan's "lifestyle" hook, line and sinker. I'm always suspicious when one spouse completely changes to please the other spouse. Harry is a changed man and I don't think it's for the better. Time will tell.

[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.]

R403 that's why I think if the media and royal courtiers who dislike Harry and meghan should have a complete ban and blackout on any news of them. Like they don't exist. That would get to them. It will never happen and they will get talked about constantly even bad and they love every minute of it! They think it makes them more interesting, relevant and famous than will and Kate.

In the talk show clip, I think it was Conan, Me-Gain elevated her fathers position from camera man to DP, which as she explains is Directorof Photography. These are two profoundly different roles, DP being , in my opinion the most important job on any set. She is a compulsive liar.

Why is the Queen always dressing like a pensioner? Even when she has a dress on she looks horrible. I know that she IS the age of a pensioner, but she doesn't have to dress like one!

R405 - I'd take anything in this article with a bucket of salt, especially given this: "A separate yoga studio is being accommodated for Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, who will assist with child-rearing once the Royal baby is born."

Dear me, poor Doria.

R408 No offence, but "Medice, cura te ipsum"

R409, Thomas Markle was Director of Photography for Married with Children according to IMDB.

Haha Doria raising the froglet ! I don’t think for very long . She will be on a plane two weeks after Megain give birth or the surrogate .

Kate is serving up 1940s rich bitch in R387 and I'm here for it. The colour is perfect for her and her face is a smidge fuller than it has been recently. It's very flattering.

Poor Doria she will be on call 24/7 . You don’t gonna think M is going to raise that froglet . She will only pic it up when there is a camera nearby . Than she will be the doting mother . I fear for this kid . Two sociopaths as parents . Oh my .

I really hate these two. I don't think they'll be happy until will and Kate start their own Instagram and they'll have fewer followers and no celebrities following them, which is what they want.

Am I just being overly paranoid in thinking there is a plan to ruin the Cambridges. The Clooneys, serena and now her new Instagram buddies are part of it. I'd like to see a situation with the Cambridges and these celebs. Do we think they'll be nice and friendly to will and Kate or bully them, passive aggressive meanness. Id love it if will and Kate snubbed the celebs.

This sounds awful but I hope William becomes king soon as and yes that means Charles dying. I want him and Kate to get revenge on Harry, meghan, Clooneys and all the others.

Celeb instagram has become an online country club where exclusivity is now on public domain e.g. which celeb follows each other and vice versa. I suspect one of the prime reasons for Harry and Meghan having their own instagram account aside from merching is to further distinguish themselves as having celeb followers. Celebs meaning Meghan's recent buddies who prior to her dating Harry were not part of her social circle let alone friends.

R417 - It is all a quite interesting situation and it is quite remarkable how quickly Meghan Markle has managed to sow division in the BRF, despite quite a warm welcome from them. I don't think she can help herself, she sees the whole world and all of life as a fight for centre-stage and winning. I cannot imagine the BRF is happy about how the Sussex marriage is impacting it. But there really isn't anything they can do about it except marginalise H&M as far as possible (starting with refusing to allow them to have their own PR and "brand" of "work"). I don't expect Charles to peg out given his family history, the ages of his parents, and the excellent medical care he has access to, but should the unthinkable occur and Charles die before HM, or very shortly after becoming King, the Sussexes will be well and truly fucked.

I have to chuckle when I imagine Meghan's approach to choosing a baby name. In addition to being a name she likes, it must be also be "on brand", appealing to her target younger audience, classic yet interesting, regal yet of the people, globally-appealing, etc.

My predictions:

1. No way, no how is Doria going to be doing child care for baby Sussex. She has her own life in LA and appears to be content with that. Besides, I have a hunch that Doria knows exactly what kind of person Sparkle is and keeps her distance. After all, wasn't it her Dad that Sparkle used to praise to the heavens on her pre-Harry social media.

2. Baby Sussex, if a girl, will not be called Diana. I believe the Queen has final say on the name and as a first name, Diana will not be it. Also, what a terrible burden to put on a child. Bad, bad idea.

Comment...

1. Regarding tiaras chosen for their weddings, Kate wanted to have flowers in her hair, but was advised that as future Queen Consort, she must go with a tiara. As a result, Kate chose the smallest tiara being offered. Quite a contrast to Harry's bride's tiara demands.

And one more thing,

I have said more than once on these threads, and I repeat it again, I remain convinced that the fact that there is no iconic "Curtsy & Bow to the Queen" video from the Sussex wedding was quite, quite deliberate. Whether the Queen privately let it be suggested or the media people were ticked off because of the bridal couple's behavior, who is to say? But I find the resulting lack of that "moment" to be hilarious. Just recently I saw a video (did someone link it?) of a collection of all the "Curtsy & Bow" moments from the series of royal weddings and chuckled to myself that no such video exists. (Yes, Yes, I know it was caught from above, but you all know exactly what I mean."

Heh, Heh, Heh.

I don't even follow the BRF that closely, but I'm a bit sad if it's true that William is cheating on Kate. I like her.

I'm confused. I thought Harry and Meghan were going to be under the Buckingham Palace PR account with the other lesser royals not having a separate Sussex account. It sounds like a separate court to me.

R421, What do you suppose would be the purpose of ixnaying the curtesy and bow photo?

^curtsy

R424 - That move, the Curtsy and Bow, is THE iconic moment from those weddings. Youtube has a whole set of them. Princess Alexandra, Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, Princess Diana, Fergie, Catherine Middleton, Princess Eugenie ... While there is no video of the moment, you can hear it described at the 1:47:00 moment at the wedding of the then Princess Elizabeth to Prince Philip.

And, what, for the Sussex wedding, they forgot? Or got their cues wrong? Or decide, just then, the photograph from above.

Yeah, right.

I'm not buying that. At All.

I think the RF may have known this was going to be a disaster of a marriage (after all Tiara gate had already shown them what was likely to be ahead) and didn't want to have video evidence of that moment.

Sparkle must have been royally (if you excuse the expression) pissed off.

Something happened at the Sussex wedding but I'm not sure what it was.

Nothing about Keens dress said she was wanting a flower headband. Her tight lace dress with deep v neckline and cone boobs read 'sexy', not 'romantic'. So how would a flower crown match the dress and veil?? I believe it was pr to make her sound humble. Before The Great Whitewash her fairweather fans said the same thing on RD and other nutter forums.

I don’t understand they can have an instagram account . They fly now under BP . So how this was allowed I don.t know. So all the other royals can have their own instagram now . I can imagine what its gonna be . Glorifying herself and merching the shit out of everything .

R423 - Their PR office is supposed to report to Buck House's PR chief. Whether that includes their (nauseating) Instagram account I don't know. They do not have a separate court, but they do have a separate "household" which means staff - secretaries, PR liaisons, etc. there is a difference.

R428 - Go back to Celebitchy. Only the fraus there refer to Kate as "Keen".

You thought Kate's dress was "sexy"??? On what planet do you live?

The Yorks have their own as well...what's the big to do?

If it's a boy baby it will be named Cooter.

R429. What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!

R434 - Good segue into an interesting bit on Celebitchy that had got by me (this is for the tiara crowd, too):

"Duchess Meghan wanted to wear a tiara in Fiji, Prince Charles told her ‘no’

[quote from DM article: "The Prince of Wales told the Duchess of Sussex not to wear a tiara to her first overseas state dinner, fearing it might look ‘extravagant’. The Mail on Sunday can reveal that Prince Charles intervened over plans by Meghan to wear a lavish headpiece to an event in Fiji last October. The Duchess had hoped to borrow a jewelled tiara from the Royal Collection for the event, but she was advised by her father-in-law that such ostentation is avoided in parts of the Commonwealth where it can be seen as reminiscent of a bygone era or ‘extravagant’.

A source said: ‘Meghan did not understand all of this because she was new to the role and so Prince Charles told her that it would not be appropriate. It was very kindly done.’

The absence of a tiara drew attention when Meghan, wearing a blue full-length gown by Safiyaa, arrived for the dinner hosted by the president of Fiji Jioji Konrote – not least because the Duchess of Cambridge wore a large diamond and pearl headpiece once owned by Princess Diana to a state banquet at Buckingham Palace on the same night. Meghan did, however, wear a pair of diamond earrings that are thought to have been borrowed, possibly from the Royal Collection, which is the largest private collection of art in the world.

Charles is believed to have taken a greater role in planning official foreign trips made by the Royal Family since the Queen gave up overseas tours in 2015. Commonwealth leaders formally announced last year that he will succeed his mother as the next head of the organisation and aides say he is determined to show respect to each of its 53 member states. The UN estimates the average monthly wage in Fiji to be just £400 and it is thought Charles considered the tiara would ‘not be in keeping with modern monarchy’.

Last night an insider told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The Prince, having travelled to all these places many times over many years, is very well placed to give advice on such matters.’"

Kaiser's comment: "Once again, the Daily Mail made it sound like Meghan “demanded” something, when really she was probably just asking for advice as she and Harry planned their Sussex South Pacific Tour. She likely asked Charles, “Should I wear a tiara for this dinner? Is that appropriate?” And Charles advised her not to. And now, months later, they’re making it into a thing because the Marchioness of Cholmondeley has a big mouth.

This is the look which Meghan thought was tiara-ready. She’s right – a small tiara would have looked amazing with this dress."

And Kaiser has lost all semblance of balance where Meghan is concerned: a tiara would have looked absurd with that plain dress and if Meghan "asked" if she "should" wear one with it, she was out of her mind, too. Sure, she wasn't eager to wear one or anything like that - just askin' . . .

People really believe that Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, of the Middletons who flaunted their new signet rings as ostentatiously as they could, would pass up the opportunity to wear a tiara at her wedding in favour of flowers in her hair?

There's one born every minute.

It's good to see the money the Cambridges/BRF spent spinning that bit of urban mythology has borne such lush fruit.

Then why did Kate take that tiny tiara, the smallest offered, if she wanted to bedazzle with grand jewels?

r321, Thank You.

When it comes to the DoS choice of garments, even though I could see it, I couldn't put my finger on what is the problem. You've written exactly what I've been thinking but didn't know how to put it into words as well as you did.

The DoS needs help identifying her own curated style; not in competition to Kate. She simply doesn't have Kate's physical gifts and, I'll just write it: the bearing that comes with being the future Queen Consort.

But, in CONTRAST to her.

And, you're right. That can only be accomplished with identifying who you are and your style, then stick to it.

I've consistently argued the DoS needs to go almost, if not, severe, however allowing color and careful choice of print and accessories.

I hope william is keeping note of which celebrities are following them and the celebs which have aligned themselves with Harry and Meghan to ruin him and kate alongside Lainey and kaiser. I hope will gets sweet revenge on these fuckers (they are essentially wishing death on his family)

R373 Quite right my dear Dowager Empress! One has to understand one's priorities.... Jewels first, always.

“Should I wear a tiara for this dinner? Is that appropriate?”

Imagine this being your dilemma.

I'm just shocked you refer to that blue schmatta as a "gown," and horrified she demanded a TIARA to top off what looked like my gran's Sunday morning fry-up caftan.

R352 I can picture Fergie punching those diamonds out of her tiara and replacing them with Diamonique, pawning the real stones in her grubby little hands.

I first heard the "flowers in her hair" story shortly after the wedding, when their was so much press about her McQueen gown. I don't know whether the story is true but it's been around for years.

^ THERE was, sorry.

Flowers in her hair would have been quite beautiful. But yes. It had to be a tiara.

All I notice in the Sussex Instagram logo is a BIG M. The H for Harry is definitely an afterthought.

New names for H & M from someone in Daily Mail comments:

washtub, Sin City, United States, 2 minutes ago

The Fool and The Fake are on Instagram!

What’s odd is, they’re presenting themselves as supercasual, of the people, while at the same time appropriating the “their royal highnesses” titles and crown logo.

R437 I don't know why Kate chose the tiara she selected. Possible reasons

A. It was Liz's first tiara, gifted to her on her 18th birthday, so the provenance was particularly appealing.

B. It made Kate look humble for choosing a small tiara given the tales of her as social climber which had currency in 2011.

C. It's not really a small tiara at all since it has nearly 900 diamonds

D. It was a subtle nod to Kate's future as a queen since it was originally purchased for the Queen Mother and later worn by HM. It says she is the true future queen who surpasses Camilla, who didn't/couldn't wear a tiara for her wedding to Charles. It is the embodiment of that powerful 3 queens imagery.

E. It's pretty and she thought it matched her dress.

Pick the one you like best.

R449 that's why I'm saying I hope this scenario happens. They are outed from the royal family. No titles for them or their kid/s. No longer welcome at events and none of the palaces are open to them. No money from the royals. Either stay in America and become full time celebrities or get normal jobs. They wouldn't like that.

[quote]It was Liz's first tiara, gifted to her on her 18th birthday, so the provenance was particularly appealing.

Which Liz the Queen Mother or daughter? In an article linked about about tiara etiquette, it's noted that a young woman isn't supposed to wear one until her wedding day. Was this rule dispensed by then or was she given the gift in anticipation that she'd wear it some day?

R450, Good list. Surely some combination of all. I always imagine Carole Middleton being her daughter’s advisor on matters like these.

My favourite from he DM comments on the Married With Children / Sparkle's dad story today...

Al married Peggy. Harry married Satan.

R452 My understanding is that it was made for the Queen Mother and gifted to HM on her 18th birthday. Neither wore it very much. It seems to have become a "starter tiara" for a queen-to-be.

I don't know if it's such a big deal they have their own Instagram account. Andrew has his own "Duke of York" twitter account.

It wouldn't be but Hollywood celebrities and kaiser and lainey will make it out like they are so amazing and so much better that they have to have their own accounts. That they will have more followers than anyone in the history of social media because of meghan. They shine so brightly that they are being separated from the firm specifically will and Kate.

R456, is his account's logo also adorned with a fucking huge crown?

[quote]B. It made Kate look humble for choosing a small tiara given the tales of her as social climber which had currency in 2011.

R450 She always wore small tiaras until the Lover's Knot tiara. IMO, Kate did so to avoid hard feelings among the female members of the BRF. The Queen changed the curtsying order when Kate married, so that the other women of the family did not have to curtsy to her. As the wife of the second in line, she was the 3rd highest ranking member.

Kate has a large face and a larger tiara would look best on her.

Ok, so I checked out Andy's insta account.

He welcomed the Sucksex account - by using a pic depicting a cuntishly looking Meghan.

Hilarious!

Lainey already made comments to that effect today in her post re the new Sussex Ig account. That there will be competition re hits and follower numbers, with the Sussexes making a big play for top numbers which = popularity and (in her eyes) standing and importance.

I don't know why the more savvy celeb bloggers and writers can't figure out the big differences between royalty and celebrity. Royalty is a formal hierarchical structure based on hereditary rights of succession, and the monarch in the UK is Head of State and has a constitutional purpose. Celebs are simply famous.

A link is needed r460.

Excepting Camilla, the other royal women have to curtsy to Kate when she is with William but not when she isn't with him.

Sorry!

Eugenie was classy, did a “welcome cousins” post.

I wonder what Andrew has stuffed in his lower left jacket pocket.

Garlic

R447 - It isn't just the M under the crown, a symbol so nakedly inappropriate it's nearly comical. For one thing, there is a specific difference in size and significance between a tiara and a crown. Meghan will NEVER wear a crown unless she marries a King. Kate, of course, will. She will only and ever wear a modest tiara, so the crown over the monogram broadcast's her delusions of grandeur. And secondly, scrolling down down the Instagram, there are photos of H&M together, but only very large photos of Meghan herself carrying out her "humanitarian" work. The black and white photo of her hugging the Muslim women from the cookbook is another giveaway - hers is the only face you see. If you look at the Cambridge Instagram, it shows Kate and William interacting with people at events but showing the people as well.

She really is a piece of work. And if the family didn't know it before, it should know it now.

I love the Fiji tiara story.

As if Megain would be taking advice on what to wear! If she DID, we would have 50% fodder for gossip about her.

And a woke WOC such as Megain should be sensitive to the feelings of a former colony and the implications of wearing the jewels of a former imperial “oppressor”. For fucks sake.

I love the photo of H and M in their Instagram where they have their backs turned to the camera. There are barely any people in the crowd! She's so enamoured with looking at herself, she barely takes notice of what's around here. A half empty field!

[quote][R429]. What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!

Only in Harry's pussy-whipped imagination.

R469, that assumes she has any understanding of British history. I suspect she doesn’t.

Don't forget it wasn't long ago that Meghan attempted to suggest Mike Tindell was cheating on Zara (of course it was her PR that dropped that one). I like to think Mike Tindell offered to remove all of her teeth and then she ceased and desisted. The Cambridges just choose to stay above, but how long can the BRF justify tolerating a 6th in line and spouse who are publicity hungry and spend thousands on PR, much of which is a smear campaign on the heir's heir and his family? Between Diana and Charles, things are dicier - she was the mom of the future king. Harry, not tolerating this should be a no brainer.

R458, and does Andrew's instagram have not just a crown on it, but royal all over it? This is pitiful.

Ghetto.

R474, well, face it, Andrew, born a prince and son of the monarch, is much more royal than Megsy, wife of some down-the-line duke, will ever be.

A476, tbh, who cares? Andrew is a scummy scum of the earth who slept with underage teens. Can’t go no lower.

That instagram logo is beyond pathetic. Her name's first letter is dominating the entire logo.

Is Duke Dim still relevant? According to the logo, he's not.

Perhaps they can merch these

Ugh, r476...

[quote] Can't go no lower

R477, I'm begging to differ!

[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.]

R459 The Order of Precedence was originally changed for Camilla. Changing it for Kate made it consistent with the previous change. It would be unseemly for Camilla to be the only princess by marriage who curtseys to the princesses of the blood royal.

There was a long discussion about Camilla's "demotion" on RF in 2005. Prior to her entry into the BRF the general rule was

[quote] Married women are ranked between themselves as their husbands are, and daughters have the same rank as their eldest brothers (after their eldest brother's wives but before their younger brothers' wives).

I am no fan of Markle but those of you getting worked up over their Instagram “logo” should realise that all royal cyphers (or monograms) are designed by the College of Arms and approved by The Queen. There are, of course, a bunch of arcane rules and traditions regarding their format. The College of Arms was founded in 1484...

Markle didn’t whip this up on her Mac on a lazy Sunday afternoon over a mug of Red Zinger. Harry had his own monogram. When they were married Markle was assigned her own and their joint monogram is, as these are for married couples, a combination of both theirs.

Having said that, their new Instagram presence has the potential for hours of entertainment, but don’t get in a right old state over their cypher (not their “logo”).

R369 Meghan wearing that tiara is like putting lipstick on a pig. You put lipstick on it, it's still a pig.

So - if the planes are continually buzzing overhead, why does the queen choose to spend so much time at Windsor Castle? Why does Andrew live in Windsor? Or is it just Frogmore that is under the flight path?

Why did the Queen build Windsor Castle so close to LHR? Surely someone would have checked first to see if planning permission had been given for a large airport nearby?

R474 Yes, Andy's Insta has a crown plus his Insta handle is HRHtheDukeofYork.

Before Mega, Randy Andy and his fam were our fave royals living the good life above their station.

r484 is correct. It was approved. Don't get your knickers in a twist as they say. The gram account will be giving us all endless pleasure to come.

r487 Windsor Castle predates Heathrow by several hundred years.

R487 - I trust you were being ironic. But in case you weren't (you never know on DL):

"The original castle was built in the 11th century after the Norman invasion of England by William the Conqueror. Since the time of Henry I, it has been used by the reigning monarch and is the longest-occupied palace in Europe. The castle's lavish early 19th-century State Apartments were described by the art historian Hugh Roberts as "a superb and unrivalled sequence of rooms widely regarded as the finest and most complete expression of later Georgian taste". Inside the castle walls is the 15th-century St George's Chapel, considered by the historian John Martin Robinson to be "one of the supreme achievements of English Perpendicular Gothic" design."

Is Frogmore Estates THAT close to the airport?

The best advice is to get babies accustomed to noise so you don’t have to tiptoe around them. Little buggers learn how to sleep through anything.

Of course, not that Megain will be doing any actual childcare.

LOL Lainey calls Meghan a "a Hollywood millennial" as if she's a 25 year-old starlet. At 37, she's teetering on the brink of GenX. Harry, at 34, is also on the upper end of the millennial scale (22-37).

Yes r491 they lie directly under the incoming flight paths. Heathrow is less than 2 miles directly to the east.

Lainey keeps referring to Meghan as some kind of big Hollywood star, pre-marriage. Totally odd and bizarre. Even her stans admit she wasn't anywhere near the A-list there. Personally I'd never heard of here before the big dating-Harry reveal. Never watched Suits.

R438 Della, yes I agree Meghan should go a different direction in her fashion choices, because sartorially what she's been doing hasn't been working for her. Meghan doesn't possess innate style so she needs a good stylist not a hack bestie who's in need of one herself. Not sure what you mean by severe, but if it's about line and silhouette then I agree. Meghan has thick neck, square shoulders, and boxy torso (to match her masculine jawline before botox), which makes it hard for her to wear fitted, hourglass silhouette that Kate is now wearing. Turn her weaknesses into strengths. So for formal or work occasions I think Meghan needs to wear structured, empire/ high waist outfits, preferably with singular focal detail on shoulder or waistline area. Focal detour such as ruching like the outfit in the article I'd linked, would work for her. Also preferably in bold primary colors or bright jewel tones. Since she'll invariably look boxy to some degrees anyways, length needs to be kept between short to medium, longer length dresses nor skirts accentuate her boxy torso. Also, large prints instead of small, and simple prints not too complex. Then on less formal days, I think she could play up American heritage with classic sportswear, something relaxed yet casually elegant so think early 1980s Ralph Lauren or late 1940s Claire McCardell inspired pieces.

Of course, my suggestions would mean that Meghan erase her fashion ambitions honed from growing up in L.A. where trendy equates with being stylish. Also, I just don't think she has natural fashion sense I think fashion is but another way to impress, so she's always going to care more about labels and trends as opposed to dressing to look good with the body she has to work with. Kate is lucky in that she can wear almost anything and look decent. Meghan can't compete with that, she has a narrower range of style to work with.

R484 - Points taken - I looked them up and you are correct. But here is an interesting bit: a "cypher" and a "monogram" are not the same things. A monogram is made by overlapping or combining two or more letters or other graphemes to form one symbol. A cypher is a series of uncombined initials - which is what William and Kate have.

That said, it is true that the initial M as incorporated does dominate the H - unless you look at it as sort of a Rorschach test.

And it is a coronet over Harry's cypher and it is the one used by his mother, Diana, so he chose it in honour of her.

Corrections ARE accepted here!

[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.]

Nutmeg probably thinks she has more right and entitlement with anything to do with Diana than William her own son.

R489 and R490, it’s R487 here - yes I was being ironic.

There’s an old and probably apocryphal story about an American visitor to Windsor saying just that.

I think Meghan was thinking of this genuine royalty when she designed their monogram.

R495 I agree with you about the short to medium skirt length and focal detail at the shoulders but disagree about ruching. The dress in your link looks messy on her IMO. She doesn't have the height for the ruching.

You're on the money with the Claire McCardell suggestion. The Caroline Herrera dress Meghan wore to the polo event in 2018 is the best silhouette for her I think. It's basically a version of the McCardell Popover dress. The Roksanda dress from the Australia tour has a similar shape: i.e. fitted to the waist with a mid length full skirt. The book launch outfit was separates but obeyed the same basic rules.

The reverse also works: i.e. loose oversized top with pencil skirts. That was basically the styling on Suits.

I think the Club Monaco dress at the wedding worked and the Givenchy dress at Ascot didn't because the former had a strongly defined waist and the latter does not.

The RF PR team is trolling the trolls with the M. Love it!

R502 Where are you seeing this?

Under the the crown logo on the Sussex Instagram is just an "M", why not M & H? Or just an "S"

I'm the " This is a good read " poster, and here's another one.

R504 It's for Meghan and Harry Markle. And baby Markle.

R504, if you look closely, it's an H and an M overlaid on each other. But the way it's done, the M is more prominent to most people.

R505 Thank you for the article. I agree the bottom line for the Queen is protecting Charles and William, but it's apparent that Harry and Meghan will continue to hog the spotlight and raise their profile, even as they are supposedly being sidelined. They aren't playing by the royal rules. I wonder if the family is simply counting on the fact that the marriage will implode fairly quickly.

R491 The aircraft noise reading in Windsor is approximately 60 dBA. It's similar to the level of regular conversation. For comparison, the average ambient noise level for Manhattan is about 70 dBA (not including traffic hotspots) and many parts of London are between 50 to 80 dBA. The area around Kensington Palace is about 55-60 dBA (excluding the areas closest to the arterial roads).

Windsor is quiet most of the time, and if you've lived in a city, the aircraft noise won't be that noticeable. If you're comparing it to the countryside, it could be distractingly loud.

R509, I live in Manhttan under a helicopter flight path and around the corner from a firehouse. All day long I hear it, but we all sleep through the noise. The only time that noise bothered us is when there were huge steel plates on the street and trucks passing over them caused a loud rattle.

R510 I notice how loud the emergency vehicles are when I'm on the phone on a business call. Otherwise they don't really register for me.

R508 give them enough rope? Are they planning something I. E the long game?

Markle and her eunuch are seriously fucking me off.

They want to talk about their “work”?

Their work is to represent the monarch. That’s it.

Watching them use a platform neither of them earned to glorify themselves is absolutely abhorrent - and will backfire on them sooner or later.

[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.]

R514 - Love the DM - they'll never let up throwing shade at her.

I agree with the poster upthread who said that the Sussexes will do everything they possiblly can to outshine the Cambridges and build their "brand" ostensibly within the constraints of the Queen's orders whilst in practice, ignoring them. I can only imagine the secret conference - to no avail.

The moment the Queen consented to the engagement, the BRF was on its way to being made a laughingstock.

But why aren't they stopping it. They're getting away with murder and I want to see her cunning and knavish behaviour stopped. I want them and their Hollywood buddies to have egg on their face especially lainey and celebitchy. I want will and Kate to come out on top in every way and meghan and Harry to come stumbling back to earth and all her ego destroyed. I want will as bafta patron or whatever he is to make careers difficult for meghans Hollywood gang.

R516 is working her way unto the BRF's Fixated Persons List.

[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.]

R514 DM just turned off the comments, almost all negative.

you can see the cost of the handbags rises sharply after the wedding.

Aren't william and Harry and Charles going to be at David Attenboroughs netflix premiere tomorrow. Will meghan show up? Will she let the two brothers be together without her? What stunt will she pull for prince Louis's birthday that's coming up?

[quote]PUBLISHED: 03:13 EDT, 31 December 2018 | UPDATED: 11:43 EDT, 2 April 2019

Is R514 is going to be updated every quarter?

This should be entertaining.

R522 🤣🤣🤣

The DM: setting new lows in tabloid journalism. #threadbump

R516 - Don't hold your breath. The BRF always just lets situations like these play themselves out. Meghan and Harry are still the new kids on the street - they're about to have a baby, in a couple of years they'll have another one. Meghan will be hitting 40, and about five years after that the sheen will finally be off the rose, people will be getting bored, and either they'll divorce or recede, especially if HM is gone, Charles is on the Throne, and Old King, and the new Prince and Princess of Wales start asserting their ascendancy.

Other than that, the BRF will do nothing but what they always do: cross their fingers and wait.

I've read various tumblr and twitter posts that the Sussexes' IG may be a BRF strategy to separate the Harkles and their bots and stans and haters from the rest of the BRF social media. And that they may get their own Twitter for the same reason.

I don't know what's actually going on but that idea sounds very plausible.

Clearly, genius!

Most people on these threads are absolutely 100% obsessed with Meghan Markle. That right there is kind of a thing. She is infinitely more interesting than every other Royal to so many people. Not sure she deserves it, but it's obviously there.

Her negative impact on the immediate and extended family in under a year is extraordinary.

The rumors about William could be completely untrue, but it has seeped into the public consciousness now.

I would bet money Me-Gain will pull some stunt on the 1st birthday of little Louis.

Surely William and Catherine are feeling stressed by it all. Guess H was jealous and resentful of them all along.

honestly, r528, what the hell is she gonna do? even if you hate her, compared to people who actual are in the succession, what the hell is she gonna do? be slightly annoying?

This pathetic attention whore is like a car crash you can't look away from. That isn't the type of interest she should crave due to the fleeting nature. This is the royal family, not the fucking Kardashians. All these stunts just make her sleazy and sad. It also solidifies that Harry is a henpecked moron.

From the DM:

QueenFan, Melbourne, Australia, about a minute ago

Meghan is Heather Mills with an extra shoe.

Will and Kate should totally follow the Sussex formula! Who wants to be King and Queen when you can be the Spencer and Heidi of the royal family! Holy brand-recognition Batman!

Is the pussy that good that Harry doesn't give a shit how fucking stupid he's looking?

To be fair r533, by all accounts, he is pretty stupid.

R533 Harry needed cheating with help from his teachers to graduate from prep school. So yeah, he's pretty dim by all accounts.

Harry looks like he farts while women go down on him. Poor Sparkly!

So they can do whatever they want isn.t it ? We cant have a separate court we will have our own instagram . They have already over the million followers . Can you imagine how they gonna fool these followers . Look how femininist i am or look how humanitarian i am . And the merching will be off the rocks . Its like Trump people believe everything .

Dimwit and MeAgain where going to Llapothece and they where papped . So they called the paps upfront . No way you gonna get her out of the limelight .

What I find funny is that all the good and proper Insta names they could have had have been taken by their stans. Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Frogmore House ( although that would have been hilarious), Royal Family Sussex, etc , etc. They are stuck with Sussex Royal. And they can't link that to a Twitter of the same name, as Sussex Royal on Twitter belongs to some random bloke called Kevin, who hasn't used his account since 2014 after becoming obsessed by hackers. *snort*

Yes and she used PopSugar R538 to bypass the UK paps, and therefore the palace, and possibly Lord Giedt.

R539

Royal Sussex is already taken as you say R539 by something that is actually useful to the community

Queen Victoria was super tiny!

Sugars are spamming a Twitter account that has been dormant for five years now? Did they expect Kevin to be reading it? smh

[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.]

How do I find out what upcoming engagements the royals have?

All this goes to show what a petulant angry child Harry is. He has probably been a nightmare behind doors this whole time, but the palace was able to sell him as something else.

So it's ok for the cambs and yorks etc to have social media but not harry and meg?? Make up your mind. It's either ok for all or not.

I'm delighted. Now I can follow Will and Kate and be spared looking at that fake creature.

R546, on the Court Circular.

Have a little play around with the calendar for future engagements.

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

I think it's possible that Kate or one of her friends or family leaked the Marchioness C. news. They could have done it to make William end his affair w/ her or any other affairs. I doubt that William has a mistress in CT because it would have been all over the NYc papers and tabloids.

The worst royal hair belongs to Queen Mary of Teck. I didn't realize how much Queen Elizabet looks like Mary.

There is a television series about Victoria. Has anyone seen it? It has good ratings.

Hah talk about good genes... the queen might live another 10-15 years! There is incredible longevity on the maternal side. Queen Mary smoked like a chimney and still lived to be 85, even back in the day.

R543 I like the picture she sketched in her journal. She wasn't bad.

R244 The only time I thought the Marchioness of Cholmondeley looked beautiful was when she was wearing this tiara at the Spanish state dinner.

Megain's monogram with the crown over it looks just like Juicy Couture - always copying someone.

Is saw that the princess royal has many public engagements the next month and Harry too . I hope they pay her for that .

The Princess Royal sometimes carries out up to 3 to 4 engagements a day. She's formidable and would have made an excellent Queen.

People always praise Anne for her busy royal schedule but I have never once heard anyone say that she showed any warmth or kindness.

[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.]

R562 She isn't a warm and fuzzy person, but I've never heard that people dislike her or that her appearances are unwanted.

R554 - Some of that hair wasn't Mary's - after the fashion of the day, for most of her life she wore a "fringe" or "fascinator" - a crimped curled piece in the front. I don't know why, her own hair was thick and dark and wavy, although in that photo she is already old so her hair was white.

I met Princess Ann at a local Save the Children do and she was lovely - not gushing and she didn't go for the full body hug - but she talked and listened and responded to all the StC volunteers and everyone really appreciated her visit. If you want faux sincerity and warmth then she is not the woman you want.

R543, women are obese now

Thanks for that Princess Anne story. Personally I could do with less of the crouching down and hugging that Diana popularized. Warmth and concern does not always have to be conveyed physically.

The thing with Anne is the No-Bullshit vibe she gives off.

What a relief in the day and age we live in and with Sparkle and Dim's over the top bullshit.

R569 - True. It's odd isn't it - Anne and Diana were at the opposing ends of that spectrum of royal vibe, and now Diana's son and his wife, and Anne, are again at opposing ends of that same vibe.

I’d rather spend a day with Anne than a minute with vapid Di.

Those posters who would like to see Eugenie and Jack become full time royals should consider the cost to taxpayers.

An earlier conversation on DL about the RF led me to look at the calendar of events for Anne. This was about a month ago. And she was to spend 2-3 days in Yorkshire.

One of the events was a visit to a furniture factory that was celebrating 50 years of their business.

I thought about the people who started that business, employed people, built and sole furniture and managed to survive for 50 years. If I was someone from that firm, I would be very happy that it was Anne who was coming to see my company and share in our celebration.

Because what I had built and worked for was something real and Anne's reputation for honesty would be welcome.

^^ Should be "sold"

R529. Do you think it’s outside the realm of possibility that Meghan, like Diana, could embarrass the family and Harry in ways that are more damaging than annoying?

[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.]

R573, look at her list of patronages, salt of the earth. She cares about the people, without flare, flash camera and coverage.

[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.]

R575 - Not R529 here, but I think 1) she already has embarrassed the family, and 2) there certainly is potential around her for "damaging" (that sex tape, for instance, and refusing to remain apolitical, for another), but the fact is, she's not a future Queen, she's married to the sixth in line who will eventually become the seventh, eighth, etc.

Part of the damage Diana was able to do was because of her position as Princess of Wales - no matter what delusions Meghan harbours, Diana was a global star on an order far higher than Meghan's - and that was without social media.

Remains to be seen how strong a line the BRF take. Both Diana and Fergie managed to tarnish the brand to some degree. Then they had an era of calm. Then they let Meghan in. If they can't take a strong line now, they're probably in for a good deal more embarrassment, and possibly more damage.

By the way, Harry at that little ballet class today looked so much happier than he does when out with his wife.

[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.]

MeAgain's make-up artist is on a flight to London, ready for Insta-bebe! Check Daniel Martin's snapchat out. How much will this cost? It was £13,500 for the wedding........

R580 and the thing is Diana didn't go into the royal family with a step by step plan to become a pop culture icon, and a controversial figure. It happened naturally whereas Harry and meghan are deliberately trying to make themselves infamous and meghan especially creating a Diana esque image. A plan to become an icon.

Wasn’t Meghan going to sell pictures of her baby to magazines for “charity” like Brad and Angelina? Then of course she wouldn’t pose with the baby on the steps for free.

R583 - Yes, I agree. That said, I do think Diana shared with Meghan a love of the centre-stage and attention, she just wasn't aware of her power till she got there.

Andrew is in Yorkshire giving out his Duke of York awards.

Part 34 is up to use after this thread is maxed at 600 posts.

The next "royal" wedding is that of Lady Gabriella Windsor and Thomas Kingston on May 19.

Photos of Fergie The Fool at Ascot.

This may seem way too dumb of a question but I am genuinely wondering about the celebrity relations with Harry and megain. If the celebrities that are friends with HM and their new Instagram fans like Blake lively, goop etc were at a event with will and Kate, would they kiss ass? Be openly rude and dismissive as a way to show loyalty to megain? Or be normal and respective. I think they've shown such gang handed behavior towards will and Kate in order to keep Harry and meghan up and essentially creating teams. (do these celebs realise children would have to die for megain and Harry to be on top?!) I hope william would snub the celebs and get them where it hurts, especially Beyonce.

[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.]

This TV film of "Harry and Meghan - Becoming Royal" looks embarassing.

r592, it's a sequel to a film they did last year (which was awful).

[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.]

Someone should tell Fergie to stop wearing trainers with skirts.

Diana in her over-the-top wedding dress.

Harry talking to a baby. The child has the same IQ.

Camilla and Charles having a laugh with a little creature (lizard?).

I'd still suck Harry's clown pubes dick.

The Queen meeting guests at Windsor. Notice Eugenie and Jack's wedding outfits on the right.

[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.]

R596 That's one of the best pictures of that meringue of a dress.

R580. I think she has the potential to do more damage than either Diane or Fergie, especially if the marriage fails and she exposes all the family secrets she's learned (certainly Harry has told her too much already) and alleges that the family was racist and abusive towards her. If they don't offer her a sufficient financial settlement, the book/talk show route would be an option. The family will be lucky if she turns out to be nothing more than an annoyance.