Please continue your discussion here.
Link to Part 37 is below.
Please continue your discussion here.
Link to Part 37 is below.
|by Anonymous||reply 602||Last Friday at 6:34 AM|
The Queen was cute as a little princess.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||04/14/2019|
Photos of the Cambridges with the Tindalls at a Norfolk horse event.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/14/2019|
Charlotte either has big cheeks or she's stuffing herself.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||04/14/2019|
|by Anonymous||reply 4||04/14/2019|
^ as an example of lunacy, mildly.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||04/14/2019|
The Queen walking on the beach with a dog.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||04/14/2019|
I love Charlotte's little kilt.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/14/2019|
I've been looking for a photo of an interaction and/or conversation between Will and Kate and so far I haven't found one.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||04/14/2019|
Zara and Will.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||04/14/2019|
Flouncy collars were all the rage when Lady Diana appeared on the scene.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||04/14/2019|
If there is a surrogate she is being managed and supervised by and under the watchful eye of Amal as per whatever legal agreement was drawn up by Amal and binds all parties (Spenderella, DimWit, Casa de Clooney, Surrogate and whatever household help interacts with them all). Surrogate is not loitering and lurking outside churches and health food stores or where ever they went shopping.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/14/2019|
George's blond hair is getting darker.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||04/14/2019|
A kilt is worn by men and boys. Girls wear skirts.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||04/14/2019|
R11 loon alert.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||04/14/2019|
George and Mia are friends.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||04/14/2019|
I've had R11 on block for several threads.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||04/14/2019|
Now, the rumor is that Meghan will have a home water birth.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/14/2019|
Not a good idea if true, newborns have drowned during waterbirths.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||04/14/2019|
Another business going bust for James Middleton.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||04/14/2019|
No cash for Fergie.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||04/14/2019|
No they haven’t r18. Google is your friend.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/14/2019|
Meghan will try anything trendy just to show that she's "different" than the other Royals. She wants to be the "FIRST" at everything so people will think that she's a "modern" woman who will "change" the monarchy. I just find it all pretentious, delusional and desperate.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||04/14/2019|
Meghan may be a cunt, but she didn't make water births better or worse. In the UK they have lots of experience with water births. It's not "trendy." It's just one of the options available. Some women labour in water and then give birth on a bed or a birthing stool. Some labour and give birth in water. That's standard NHS care available to all. It's not fancy.
The US is more skeptical about using a midwife vs a doctor and doing anything except an epidural and monitors on bed with your legs up.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/14/2019|
The woman in the brown dress is not the surrogate, she was in the same spot a year prior, wearing a red dress. She has different eyebrows than the woman in the shop.
If there is a surrogate, and a possible candidate was spotted in the Cottswalds, it is not either of the women above.
Locals report that FrogCott seems vacant and the renno photos MeMe provided to the press/People were of the mausoleum, not FrogCott. Odd. But that is nothing new, lol.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/14/2019|
Why does she do this? Clip-on veneers? Amphetamine? Ephedrine? It's horrible.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/14/2019|
R25 - My guess is ...
(1) She likes to hear herself talk and therefore she talks a lot. She uses up much of the saliva and she gets dry mouth. She has to moisten her mouth and lips.
(2) It could be a habit she learned in LA to make her look like a sexy starlet.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/14/2019|
I'd keep my mouth closed and not run away with it R26 , if I gurned like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/14/2019|
That's the mouth movement of people with dentures. I don't think the maggot has dentures. It could be because of the set of her veneers.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||04/14/2019|
They have water births in Louisiana. They are not that unusual
|by Anonymous||reply 29||04/14/2019|
But MM has only just heard about them R29 so she imagines she is the first person in the RF and possibly the UK to have a water birth. Whatever will she hear about next?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||04/14/2019|
So I read this morning some in the U.K. are saying the birth will be early ... MAY? That can't be. This bitch wore a maternity coat to Eugenie's wedding back in October, and we were told she was three months gone - had passed her 12 month scan.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||04/14/2019|
Tumblr says birth will be tomorrow to maximise publicity
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/14/2019|
First time mothers are often a week or more late. Early May makes sense given 40 week gestation.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/14/2019|
But her age is not the usual first time mother's age .
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/14/2019|
Mother's age doesn't matter. Ask any OB and they will tell you first pregnancy tends to go late. R33 is right that it is often a week or more. Now before others jump on with their own anecdotal exceptions, this is simply a general consensus in the obstetric world. In medicine there will always be exceptions.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||04/14/2019|
Did the Queen refuse to make the baby HRH from birth because she dislikes H&M’s behavior? Or, was the matter decided long ago when the Queen issued Letters for the Cambridge children?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/14/2019|
R35, you learn something new all the time. It is interesting, But I guess it's the same with all things health and medicine related, no two bodies will ever be the same. I'm only familiar with bone health, and obviously know nothing of pregnancy. So yes, I was making an assumption, I suppose.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/14/2019|
If there’s a surrogate, she’s a nameless hostage. She'll be young and uneducated and under constant surveillance and special diet. No one will miss her.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/14/2019|
R25, I have a possible explanation. I have a permanent retainer along the inside of my bottom teeth, put on when I had my braces removed 1000 years ago. I frequently unconsciously play with it with my tongue and end up making that jutting jaw face. I had someone at work give me feedback about it once, so I try to be more conscious about it. I have NO idea if that is what she is doing, but just offering a possible explanation!
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/14/2019|
George is growing up! Looks like a fun day out with the kids.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||04/14/2019|
R39, that makes sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||04/14/2019|
She looks just like Doria in the still at r25. Wow.
And that video is good because it really drives the point home (I never realized how often she does that thing!) but the music is hilarious.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||04/14/2019|
veneers don't make you do that with your jaw.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/14/2019|
R31, that is puzzling.
I’m not sure how it works according to the NHS/UK, but in my American experience, women aren’t allowed to go beyond 42 weeks. After that, labor is induced. It’s dangerous for a baby to stay in there too long. And most women just want that baby OUT at that point.
My SIL was a MONTH late (back in the late 1960s when doctors were more laissez-faire), and when she finally came out, she had long nails and a full head of hair!
Maybe they’re lenient in the UK, but in sue-happy US, that won’t happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||04/14/2019|
[QUOTE] R36 Did the Queen refuse to make the baby HRH from birth because she dislikes H&M’s behavior? Or, was the matter decided long ago when the Queen issued Letters for the Cambridge children?
The Queens behaviour is puzzling given that Harry will become the child of the Monarch very soon (within 10 years) and his children would be entitled to an HRH at that point.
Another interesting point is that if Kate doesn't have any more children Harry will also move back up the line of succession to 5th when we have King Charles, it's also possible that he could end up as 4th in line if none of Williams children have had offspring when he becomes King.
We haven't had people moving back up the line of succession since King George VI died in 1952.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/14/2019|
The Walk of Shame.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/14/2019|
The Duchess of Cambridge's Pearl Pendant Brooch .
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/14/2019|
Is that Brown Velvet woman in r46? She’s hiding behind the plant this time, but I think it’s her!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/14/2019|
r36 - I think the royal grandchildren not having an HRH was decided when Edward and Sophie didn't use it for their own children. Harry's kids will follow suit and be styled Lady or Lord or Earl(?) so and so.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/14/2019|
When Harry acts like he takes the responsibilities of being in the line of succession seriously, maybe his kids will get HRH. As it is, he's not entitled to it. He can get it when Charles is king. There is no need to prematurely bestow. He made sense with William, but as Harry and Meghan see their positions as commodities, they haven't really demonstrated.
I seriously doubt none of William's children will have offspring.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/14/2019|
R45 Before the new Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, the only Cambridge entitled to be HRH was the oldest boy. HM would have had egg on her face if the oldest had been a girl, given that the new Act was based on primogeniture. That’s why she issued new Letters Patent. As to the Sussexes - they will be entitled in more ways than one when Charles becomes King.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/14/2019|
No R49 - the Queen (as far as we know) hasn’t refused the Sussex child anything. The Letters Patent of 1917 restricted the HRH style to male line grandchildren of the Sovereign and to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. She issued her own letters patent to allow HRH for all Cambridge children, not just the eldest son (George),, I believe in Kate’s second trimester.
All she’s doing so far is sticking to the rules of 1917, which haven’t been tested like this before due to her living to a great age and having William marry and have children while she’s alive and while his father the PoWcis alive.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/14/2019|
Average age for Royals to marry is 30+.
We will almost certainly have King William V before any of their children reproduce. Charles looks fucked now.
Harry will almost certainly move back to 4th in line at that point (temporarily).
|by Anonymous||reply 53||04/14/2019|
R49 The Wessexes requested permission from the Queen for any of their children to be styled as children of an Earl, which they are. However it is believed that legally they are still HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, they’re just not referred to as such. Their position in the family is the same as Beatrice and Eugenie, if that makes sense, apart from styles and titles.
In the same way Camilla is legally HRH The Princess of Wales, but referred to by a lesser title.
In the Wessex case to allow the children to grown up non royal and out of the public eye and in Camilla’s case because of sensitivities with Diana’s death.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||04/14/2019|
Brown Velvet is wearing a Moonbump in the pictures being floated around. The baby was born before the Australian tour even started, and here she is presenting it for MM's inspection. Unfortunately, her jaw got stuck mid-jut and she's unable to look down. You can see her straining to move her head in this photo, but it just won't budge.
The baby has been kept in a climate-controlled breadbox ever since in order to hinder its growth. When we next see it, it may look even smaller than this. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong; it just means that the climate-controlled breadbox industry has come a long way.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||04/14/2019|
Interesting blog about voice over possibilities
|by Anonymous||reply 56||04/14/2019|
They all don't automatically get an upgrade in title when the monarch dies....there has to be a Royal Patent issued. Harry & MeGains kids aren't automatically "Prince/Princess" when Great Granny dies and Grampy Charles takes the throne. What does happen is that Charles is instantly the King, the second QEII takes her last breath and William moves into the "Heir Apparent" position. And, he's not officially the Prince of Wales until King Charles gives the OK.
Charles has made it clear he's trying to streamline the number of "official" royals. I doubt he's going to upgrade the Sussex kids.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||04/14/2019|
Actually according to the Letters Patent of 1917, they would be upgraded on the death of the Queen as their position in relation to the Sovereign changes at that time. Any change to this would require a new Letters (not “Royal”) Patent.
You’re right about the PoW title being granted at the wish of the Sovereign, but that has nothing to do who is entitled to the HRH Prince/ss style and title.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||04/14/2019|
Actually will be automatically upgraded to HRH Prince/ss on the death of the Sovereign according to the 1917 Letters Patent as at that point their relationship to the Sovereign changes from great-grandchildren to grandchild. “The Sovereign” is an ongoing concept, it’s just the holders of the title who come and go.
Hence “the King is dead, long live the King!”.
Charles may want to limit or streamline who gets what styles and titles but he’ll have to issue his own Letters (not “Royal”) Patent to update the rules of 1917. Or have his mother do so while she’s alive. It’s ultimately the decision of the Sovereign but requires the formal Letters Patent process.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||04/14/2019|
[quote]You’re right about the PoW title being granted at the wish of the Sovereign, but that has nothing to do who is entitled to the HRH Prince/ss style and title.
One has to be crowned Prince of Wales - yes, a ridiculous investiture ceremony is performed. Here is Charles circa 1970. Until Will is invested as PoW, he is known as the Duke of Cambridge and Cornwall.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||04/14/2019|
I believed the Queen would grant baby Sussex the title because working royals will still be needed down the line, even in a streamlined monarchy, and it makes sense for those royals to be William and Harry's children.
Also, if it was decided years ago (or when Meghan became pregnant) that Harry's children would not be given the title at birth, why didn't BP issue a statement to that effect? Doing so would have warded off the speculation we're seeing now.
It is puzzling.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/14/2019|
Well gays, and frauen. There are so many conspiracy theorist spinning yarn, its getting a bit overkill. I made the mistake of reading the comments on that torontopaper1 twitter. According to these nuts not only is Meghan not with child, but she is now homeless, and Harry as moved out. I do wish people could keep it classy like Dreamboat Andy, but this does not seem to be the case.
I feel Meghan is just padding her gut for attention, and is pregnant. Why does everyone think its all a big hoax? I wish Prince Andrew would give us some guiding words of wisdom, and a knowing wink acknowledging his sexy sophisticated ways. My biggest question is; if you frauen can find all these pictures of some random hag, then why cant any of you find some high definition pictures of Andy's armpits?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/14/2019|
When the Queen dies and Charles becomes sovereign, William automatically becomes Heir Apparent.
But the title Prince of Wales is his only when the sovereign grants him the title. I don't believe there has to be a big ceremony. But whether or not Charles grants William the "Prince of Wales" title, William will still be the Heir Apparent.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/14/2019|
Charles became Prince of Wales in 1958, 11 years before his Investiture at Caernarfon.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||04/14/2019|
And Doria's side of the family keeps on giving....
|by Anonymous||reply 65||04/14/2019|
R61, perhaps the title is something that’s being withheld and dependent on the behavior of its parents. Obviously it’s something Meghan wants.
Would there be a definitive announcement if the Queen wasn’t going to give it a title?
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/14/2019|
Fergie looked cute in her turquoise ski suit.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||04/14/2019|
R66 Strange to think it could be up in the air at this late stage or that they negotiating terms.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||04/14/2019|
R68 they "may be" negotiating terms.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/14/2019|
WTF, I don't remember this? Was just scouring through the Express archives. Does anyone know any outcome of this?
|by Anonymous||reply 70||04/14/2019|
The bestowal of HRH is one policy of protocol the Sussexes are unable to circumvent. When HM issued her LP in 2013 it was not as a favor to the Cambridges but as a foresight to all future progeny especially if George had been female. If the Sussex spawn is bestowed HRH at birth then it contravenes making a more streamlined monarchy, especially if future heirs have large broods; for example, if Louis has 9 children like his great great great.... grandmother Victoria. As it is, beyond children and grandchildren of a reigning monarch's son(s), the HRH stays within the heir apparent's bloodline alone.
A new LP draft makes no logical sense for the future other than as a favor of exception for the HazBeans.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||04/14/2019|
But since the Sussex baby will eventually be an HRH, wouldn't the exception simply be to let them use that title from birth?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||04/14/2019|
There is always the off chance of Charles preceding his mother in death. In which case, Sussex offspring would never be titled HRH. A matter of cart before the horse here.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||04/14/2019|
R71 If George has nine children the British people would be very unhappy as they would all be supported by the taxpayer when he becomes King.
Recent Royal tradition is for smaller families.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||04/14/2019|
I'm not sure why I'm struggling with this issue, and I have been reading these posts and elsewhere, so please let me know if the following is correct. As it stands today, there is still no absolute primogeniture in the BRF. If Will and Kate's eldest child had been Charlotte and second eldest had been George, as the succession law stands today, George would still be Prince of Wales when Will becomes king. The Queen's 2013 Letters Patent simply ensured that Charlotte (if first born) would have been styled HRH Princess.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/14/2019|
r75 No it ensured that Charlotte if born first would become the heir, not skipped over in favour of any brothers. She might also have become the first Princess of Wales, although that is normally given to a male heir but if we follow the changes to its logical conclusion then the female heir should have alll of the rights and responsibilities as the male heir.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||04/14/2019|
I left out, at R75, that if this is correct, and as explained by posters above, nobody should have expected the Queen to issue Letters to style Harry's children HRH. What confused me is that so many people seemed to expect that the Queen would do so.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/14/2019|
If I were the Queen, I wouldn’t give that hooker any satisfaction, and I’d wait until the divorce before giving any offspring of that unholy union a title. Pffft.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||04/14/2019|
Why, R72? So that the Sussexes’ feelings don’t get hurt? This us how Royalty works. Everybody in the family has a rank based on their relationship with the Sovereign. This is the same, with varying rules, in all royal families, not just the British royal family.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/14/2019|
The only ones who might have expected an HRH for the Sussex spawn are those with limited understanding of the British monarchy, and HazBean nutters.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||04/14/2019|
R70, I don’t, either. How creepy. Kind of reminds me of the time Marla Maples’s former publicist.
“It is also revealed that this publicist, Chuck Jones, would later testify that while he was working for Maples, she 'brought singer Michael Bolton back to her room following [Donald] Trump's departure from a west coast trip.'
That publicist was Chuck Jones, a man who was later fired after he was allegedly seen stealing lingerie and 200 pairs of shoes from Maples' apartment on video footage that was recorded by a hidden camera.
That footage also allegedly showed Jones licking Maples' shoes. “
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/14/2019|
To try to clarify - the government altered the laws of succession, after getting agreement from all the countries where the Queen is head of state. The new laws meant that a girl would be the heir if born first. The Queen's lLetter's Patent just brings royal HRH rules into line with the changes in succession. There is no practical reason from Hazbean's spawn to get an HRH before Charles becomes King.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/14/2019|
ding ding ding
|by Anonymous||reply 83||04/14/2019|
Thank you, R76 and R82. So to take it a step further, it's clear that if George's first born is a female, she will one day be Princess of Wales?
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/14/2019|
R84 Assuming that George one day is King then assuming that his potential first born is a daughter then assuming that she survives into adulthood then when her father is King, say, in sixty years’ time, then yes, she would most likely be Princess of Wales.
I wouldn’t get too hung up about it though, there are quite a few variables.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||04/14/2019|
[quote] She might also have become the first Princess of Wales,
No, there has been one other PoW who did not get the title through marriage. The tragic Princess Charlotte, only child of George IV was the first. She (and her infant) died after childbirth at the age of 21. Her death led George III's brothers to a race to find brides and reproduce. Victoria was the result. Unlike Victoria, Charlotte seemed genuinely beloved in her lifetime.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/14/2019|
R75 When it became obvious that HM would be Queen (and it was pretty obvious once her mother reached middle age without getting pregnant) there was discussion regarding her being crowned Princess of Wales. I read this somewhere years ago - I don’t have a source, could dig one out as I found it interesting enough to remember.
This was knocked on the head as “Princess of Wales” had always been the wife of the Prince of Wales”, not a female heir.
HM was always Heir Presumptive to the throne - never Heir Apparent, as there was always a chance (a really tiny chance!) that her mother would produce a boy who would be ahead of her in the line of succession, or her mother would die, her father would marry again and squeeze out a male heir.
Gender blind primogeniture wasn’t even considered in those days. I believe that Sweden was the first monarchy to introduce it, which they did retrospectively, so that Prince Carl Philip was, for a year or so, heir apparent, until replaced by Princess Victoria, his older sister. The change was at the will of the Swedish government, allegedly, and not what the King wanted - the retrospective part, I mean.
Of course there have been other monarchies such as Denmark who were originally male only and then updated the laws. In Denmark’s case, to avoid some rather unfortunate looking inbreds ascending the throne in place of the current fabulous Queen Margarethe. Google the descendants of Hereditary Prince Knud for some scary examples of the offspring of first cousins married to each other.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||04/14/2019|
Prince Ingolf would otherwise have ascended the Danish hrone...
|by Anonymous||reply 88||04/14/2019|
Ingolf’s sister Elisabeth.
Never marry your first cousin, kids!
|by Anonymous||reply 89||04/14/2019|
The current Danish Queen - now THIS is what a Queen should look like!
|by Anonymous||reply 90||04/14/2019|
R90, she is regal!
|by Anonymous||reply 91||04/14/2019|
They call her Daisy. She smokes like a chimney. She is interviewed a few times in Elizabeth at Ninety.... she's a Queen without being terribly formal or imposing.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||04/14/2019|
|by Anonymous||reply 93||04/14/2019|
Her grandmother was an English princess, hence “Daisy”. She also has a fabulous upper class English accent (see the video in R93). She was once very tall - 180cm, I believe, but she’s shrinking a bit now. She rocks !
|by Anonymous||reply 94||04/14/2019|
And she had an almost certainly gay husband.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||04/14/2019|
quite a history lesson R94
|by Anonymous||reply 96||04/14/2019|
Not if one is Danish, R96!
|by Anonymous||reply 97||04/14/2019|
My understanding was that a clear law regarding gender-blind primogeniture was being considered by the BRF, but as it didn't come to fruition before the birth of Will's children, the 2013 Letters Patent are what we are left with.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||04/14/2019|
R94 - Queen Margrethe isn't called Daisy because of her grandmother - but because the name "Margaret" means a daisy - and yes, her grandmother was Pss. Margaret of Connaught.
She was very tall but I agree, she is shrinking. She reminds me these days of Mother Goose in a charming way with her spectacles and upswept grey hair. I've seen her in very elegant clothing but with flat shoes. She strikes me as endearingly eccentric.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||04/14/2019|
No, R98, Britain and the Commonwealth realms now have absolute (I.e. eldest inherits regardless of sex) primogeniture.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||04/14/2019|
Guess that I was t clear there, R99 - I meant that “Daisy” is an English contraction for “Margaret”. It’s not a Danish word.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||04/14/2019|
And because her English grandmother, called Margaret, as you said, was nicknamed “Daisy”.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||04/14/2019|
R72 - R79 and R80 are correct. No one gives out HRHs so that families will be "equal" because hereditary monarchies are based on inequality: that is to say, birth order. And frankly, although technically they are eligible to call themselves HRHs when Charles becomes King, he can simply say that they will continue to be "styled and titled" as they already are. Otherwise, Prince Edward's kids could be calling themselves HRHs now, too. But when you're that far down the line of succession, it doesn't necessarily follow that they'll suddenly start calling themselves Princes and Princesses. And last, as Harry and Meghan have made such a fuss about rejecting all that high falootin' HRH business - they'll look like hypocrites if they suddenly accept the HRHs.
So the likelihood is that the Sussex kids will be Earl Dumbarton and Lady Mountbatten Windsor till the end of the chapter.
My guess also is that most of the family can't stand her, including the Queen, who doesn't want to see that jumped up grifter get any more puffed up than she already is.
I note today that the DM has more photos up of Meghan as a child, in all of which she looks far more African-American than she does now. I think the DM is enjoying reminding people of how much Meghan has de-Africanised her look since childhood.
And the Express has a piece up talking about how Meghan has "elevated Kate" and made her look smooth and confident, no longer the newbie (and compared to the try too hard arriviste although they don't come out and say so).
|by Anonymous||reply 103||04/14/2019|
R101 - It's nice that Daisy and Margaret happen to coincide like that - after all, by the time QM was a young woman, how many people remembered her grandmother? I believe QM has a very pretty jeweled daisy brooch that she was given in honour of the connection to her grandmother and the name's English meaning.
I was a bit disappointed that Mary and Frederik called neither of their two daughters Ingrid after Frederik's grandmother, but only used it as second names. Ingrid was very elegant, indeed, while Isabella is pretty, it's a bit trendy, and I though Ingrid would have been nicer, and then they went with Josephine for the second girl, although that certainly has respectable royal connections.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||04/14/2019|
My view is that if Harry and Meghan are so much against titles and privilege (I know - fat chance!) that they would have declined any (not just Royal) titles for their children, but also for themselves. So that they’d be Mr and Mrs Henry Mountbatten-Windsor and their offspring Master x or Miss x Mountbatten-Windsor. I wonder if she’d have found him that attractive then...
|by Anonymous||reply 105||04/14/2019|
Same as with the Wessexes. If they were serious then rather than on their marriage accepting “just” an Earldom to show how democratic they were, rather than a Dukedom, why not decline all titles and just be Mr and Mrs Edward Mountbatten-Windsor?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||04/14/2019|
Brown Velvet has also been photographed in close proximity to Harry (she's the one in the yellow scarf). When the photos first appeared you could easily recognize her face. Those photos were purged from the internet and have now been replaced by blurry ones. Yes, PURGED and REPLACED!!!!
But here's the utterly bone-chilling part...
WHY ARE THEY STILL LETTING US SEE HER YELLOW SCARF!?!
Hold me, DL; I'm scared!
|by Anonymous||reply 107||04/14/2019|
R194 I thought that Ingrid was ruled out as their close cousins the Norwegian Crown Prince and Princess already had a daughter called Ingrid - first born - so if the Danish Crown Prince’s daughter ascended the throne one day there would be two regnant Queen Ingrids in neighbouring countries.
The Norwegian Princess Ingrid looks like growing up to being an absolute beauty, btw.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||04/14/2019|
Those DM photos today of Meghan as a child really speaks volumes about how she has chosen to present herself as White or pass as White. Until it's trendy to claim the Black half of her, so she has all the "privileges" (SJWs love to use this word) of being White while co-opting only with positives of identifying as Black. Wonder how much chemical hair treatment she has to have to tame her naturally kinky hair; she'd have one hell of an afro if she left her hair in its natural state. Nose job to look less Black, botoxed jawline, never dated Black men, went out of her way to join White sorority in college. Why exactly are Black women/ WOC and SJWs/ feminists so enamored of her? She does everything that goes against what they claim to stand for.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||04/14/2019|
Eh I dunno, guess I'm a rube, but I just see them as baby pictures, ahead of her having a baby. (And I'm no sugar, baby!)
|by Anonymous||reply 110||04/14/2019|
I doubt she’s had too many hair treatments lately. She’s been wearing a lot of really bad wigs.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||04/14/2019|
A nobody who will tell after a while when she needs more money and can blackmail them for the rest of their lives
|by Anonymous||reply 112||04/14/2019|
Anne is my favorite.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||Last Monday at 1:30 AM|
The "Elevated" article, as mentioned above.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||Last Monday at 1:40 AM|
Since when is “Daisy” a common nickname for “Margaret”? I’ve never heard that. Although I never understood how “Peggy” was a nickname, either.
Or how “Harry” is a nickname for “Henry” - seems like it should be a nickname for “Harold”. I know two “Hank”s and both use it as a nickname for “Henry”.
I love the Russian diminutives ending in “-asha”. Our neighbors have in the same family: Natasha, Masha, Sasha, Dasha.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||Last Monday at 1:42 AM|
The flower name comes from the Old English word dægeseage, meaning "day's eye". The name Daisy is therefore ultimately derived from this source. Daisy is also a nickname for Margaret, used because Marguerite, the French version of that name, is also a French name for the oxeye daisy.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||Last Monday at 1:45 AM|
Since always R115. Same as Sally for Sarah, Polly and Molly for Mary, Jack for John and the more obvious ones. Now that some of those names have been basically hijacked and used as first names, their history has been lost.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||Last Monday at 2:03 AM|
Sadie is another nickname for Sarah., another one that's been hijacked.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||Last Monday at 2:14 AM|
Fanny for Frances for example
|by Anonymous||reply 119||Last Monday at 4:09 AM|
R106 - Edward didn't decline the dukedom for himself and the HRH for his kids for the same reasons as the pretentious "Look How Modern and Progressive We Are!" Harkles. Firstly, he was promised his father's dukedom when Philip died, and secondly, he was well aware that with him and his children falling farther and farther down the line of succession with every child and grandchild his older brothers had, calling his children Your Royal Highness would be faintly ludicrous. He was simply more realistic about it. He knew the two kids would be better off without it as they made their way in the world.
It was not at all some pretentious "stance" against royal privilege on Edward's part. The Wessexes seem to have built a very solidd, low-key family life and the Queen is alleged to be very fond of Edward's wife, Sophie, who has worked very hard.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||Last Monday at 5:05 AM|
R115 - Since forever, but especially in the 19th century. In Louisa May Alcott's classic, "Little Women, the eldest sister is named Margaret ("Meg"). When she marries and has a daughter who is named Margaret after her, the little girl is called "Daisy" to differentiate her from her mother. Daisy is a twin, the brother is named for his father, John, and is called Demi (Demi-johnJ, also to differentiate him from his father, and the twins become the popular Daisy and Demi of the story.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||Last Monday at 5:10 AM|
R108 - I'd forgotten about Norway's Ingrid and you're right, she looks like turning into a beauty - she has her mother's delicate features but without the harsh blonding, she has her father's colouring. However, Isabella was the second child, Mary and Frederik already has a male heir, Prince Christian, but I suppose better safe than sorry. Prince Christian, by the way, is also turning quite handsome, although he has to watch it a hint of pudginess. The younger twins are also pretty. It's one of Europe's most attractive royal families.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||Last Monday at 5:14 AM|
*HAD a male heir.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||Last Monday at 5:14 AM|
The surrogate has already been taken care of. Meghan used the same service Beyonce used. Let's just say that the woman is disappeared.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||Last Monday at 5:18 AM|
She's already had the kid, some are saying.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||Last Monday at 5:19 AM|
Dickie reckons not.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||Last Monday at 5:29 AM|
Since Meghan is a control freak, I doubt she'll risk a home birth. Will it be Amal's hospital of choice, the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital?
|by Anonymous||reply 127||Last Monday at 5:30 AM|
Yes she had the kid already. He was born last month in Morocco. They named him Morocco.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||Last Monday at 5:36 AM|
Enjoying all the nickname discussion!
I love pointing out the absolute unpredictability of childbirth. You can’t control it! Someone who practices yoga in earnest should understand that.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||Last Monday at 5:42 AM|
Here you go R115
|by Anonymous||reply 130||Last Monday at 5:57 AM|
R125 Because Dickie (short for Richard, but somehow more apt) is the final arbiter on all things Royal.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||Last Monday at 5:59 AM|
Thanks, r130! That helps explain a few.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||Last Monday at 6:02 AM|
Later, bitches. Off for a gong-bathing session!
|by Anonymous||reply 133||Last Monday at 6:04 AM|
Another celeb lines up behind Clooney to kiss MM's ass:
DM headline today: Vogue editor Anna Wintour praises 'inspiring' Meghan for bringing 'modernity' to the royal family - and even says the royal's style choices are making her re-think her signature look
|by Anonymous||reply 134||Last Monday at 6:23 AM|
What, this signature look?
|by Anonymous||reply 135||Last Monday at 6:27 AM|
I guess AW's signature looks is that same hairstyle she's had for 20 years and the oversized sunglasses (cheaper than having plastic surgery around the eyes, I guess.) The big chunky sunglasses indoors looks so fucking stupid, but she and Yoko cling to it.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||Last Monday at 6:29 AM|
vogue is not the vogue we all knew . First the Kardashians and now M ! And other trash .
|by Anonymous||reply 137||Last Monday at 6:31 AM|
M is the cheapest whore ever . She puts on a dress and she looks like a pig . Even the expensive ones . There is not a single dress that I saw on her and thought I have to have that . She looks like trash and behaves like trash .
|by Anonymous||reply 138||Last Monday at 6:33 AM|
It's lost the essence of what it once was. Pretty much like the BRF.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||Last Monday at 6:34 AM|
The BRF doesn't need to be modernized. The British people love tradition. The barely-changing RF provides them with a feeling of stability while the rest of the world around them continues to "modernize". Anyone who wants to make drastic changes to the Institution does not belong in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||Last Monday at 6:37 AM|
DM really goes overboard with the costs of clothes. Children are not exempt.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||Last Monday at 6:40 AM|
Where’s our conspiracy theorist from the last thread gone? Searching for the ‘woman in brown’? Come back. It was fun playing with you.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||Last Monday at 6:53 AM|
I understand that many people appreciate the tradition of the BRF, and the pomp and circumstance, but does it really provide anyone with a feeling of stability? For example, do British people feel better about the insecurity of the Brexit debacle because of the BRF?
|by Anonymous||reply 143||Last Monday at 6:54 AM|
It's been announced that Charles and Camilla will be visiting Germany in May.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||Last Monday at 6:54 AM|
Anna Wintour lost all credibility when she cozied up to the Kardashians.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||Last Monday at 6:55 AM|
Oh no, R144. So soon on the heels of the long-awaited birth!
|by Anonymous||reply 146||Last Monday at 6:56 AM|
The optics are all wrong. Definitely NOT her best look.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||Last Monday at 6:56 AM|
Right, r146? Well, who knows WHEN that baby’s going to arrive? It may not even be born until they get back.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||Last Monday at 6:58 AM|
I've never seen a good photo of Zara's second daughter Lena Tindall. They're taking a different approach with their firstborn Mia who has been in the public eye a lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||Last Monday at 6:58 AM|
Charlotte, George and Mia.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||Last Monday at 6:59 AM|
Lottie gets a joy ride!
|by Anonymous||reply 151||Last Monday at 7:00 AM|
George fooling with Mike Tindall.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||Last Monday at 7:01 AM|
George is practicing his swordmanship.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||Last Monday at 7:11 AM|
One of my favorite photos of Charles and Anne is on the left.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||Last Monday at 7:13 AM|
Children usually don't look anything like artist renditions.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||Last Monday at 7:17 AM|
Our Monday laugh.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||Last Monday at 7:21 AM|
The only photo I've found of Kate and Will laughing together with Zara.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||Last Monday at 7:23 AM|
[quote]Why exactly are Black women/ WOC and SJWs/ feminists so enamored of her?
Not all of them are. There’s a healthy LSA thread for “unpopular opinions” on Meg. I agree with you, black women don't owe her their allegiance. Sarah Jane only pulls out “as a biracial woman” when it suits her purposes.
As for SJWs, they think they’re proving their “woke” credentials by defending her.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||Last Monday at 8:33 AM|
Oi! Harry! Pay for your own virtue
|by Anonymous||reply 159||Last Monday at 9:05 AM|
So has gossip on Wills affair died down?
|by Anonymous||reply 160||Last Monday at 9:13 AM|
[quote] Whether a $5 donation, £1000 contribution, offering to volunteer, or spreading the word – you’ve played your part. And on behalf of The Duke and Duchess (and Baby Sussex), we thank you so much.
Is the baby here already?
|by Anonymous||reply 161||Last Monday at 9:19 AM|
Prince Philip is carriage driving (again).
|by Anonymous||reply 162||Last Monday at 9:44 AM|
Are those his minders in the backseat?
|by Anonymous||reply 163||Last Monday at 9:47 AM|
Grooms from the Windsor stables.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||Last Monday at 10:51 AM|
I think they are more likely to be RPO's .
|by Anonymous||reply 165||Last Monday at 10:53 AM|
R161 “...Their Royal Highnesses wanted you to know the impact of your support – ...”
Is she a Royal Highness, too? Sorry, no matter how many times the titles and styles are discussed here, my brain can’t retain it.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||Last Monday at 11:29 AM|
I hate how the picture at R161 shows Meghan in focus, in the forefront, with a beaming, beatific smile and hands folded in prayerful delight, while Harry is blurred, looks sarcastic and cynical, clapping half-heartedly.
|by Anonymous||reply 167||Last Monday at 11:41 AM|
Man, in some of those shots it's obvious Meghan has overdone the lip filler, which, btw, is something not recommended for pregnant women.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||Last Monday at 11:46 AM|
Princess Diana Let Prince Harry Have Tarts for Breakfast ......
|by Anonymous||reply 169||Last Monday at 12:06 PM|
He's getting on my nerves, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||Last Monday at 12:07 PM|
R162 I'm concerned for the horses...
|by Anonymous||reply 171||Last Monday at 12:10 PM|
H-ASSboy lost the minimal charm made-up by daddy's pr machine. Behind the curtain was simply a petulant fucking idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||Last Monday at 12:18 PM|
Asshole PH and an even bigger asshole the Duchess . That radio host was right ! If he wants to be the worldstar biggest humanitarian don’t let the British people pay for it .
|by Anonymous||reply 173||Last Monday at 12:34 PM|
Why can't the royals be humanitarians
|by Anonymous||reply 174||Last Monday at 1:01 PM|
R174 They can be as humanitarian as they like but not on taxpayer funding. Give that up and they can outdo Bono, Angelina and Albert Schweitzer if they want
|by Anonymous||reply 175||Last Monday at 1:13 PM|
Why can't Meghan be a humanitarian without repeatedly aggrandizing or congratulating herself on an international scale is the better question, R174. Why can't humanitarians exist without a large paparazzi presence and a self-initiated social media deluge of self-congratulations? Are you trying to tell us that quiet charity, benevolence, and empathy are inconsistent with being a humanitarian? Is rolling into a ball and performing auto-fellatio or auto-cunnilinguis the future of charity? You know, instead of truly felt empathy or horror for how some of our fellow human beings live. It seems that promoting charity and benevolence nowadays means that there is a Louis Vuitton purse, a Givenchy gown, or a photo op as reward somewhere along the line for such "selfless" pursuits.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||Last Monday at 1:17 PM|
R174, but they ARE!
|by Anonymous||reply 177||Last Monday at 2:05 PM|
I’m putting on my tin foil hat here but what if Earl SohoBébé of Froggy Bottom / Lady Kermita Froggy-Mountbatten was born today but has been overshadowed by the terrible blaze at Notre Dame so Duchess Spenderella is holding back the news until it will be top headline?
|by Anonymous||reply 178||Last Monday at 2:17 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 179||Last Monday at 2:21 PM|
I thought of that, but she was up late last night putting those bloody Diptyque scented candles, and nesting articles out. She's no more pregrant than my tom cat.
|by Anonymous||reply 180||Last Monday at 2:23 PM|
The Daily Mail, back again with more pictures of our Meg.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||Last Monday at 2:27 PM|
Why isn't Edward a Duke? Does his mother hate him or something? Seems rather embarrassing to be left out. I think that giving the HRH title to grandchildren of monarchs is a bit much in this day and age. but then people live longer and it might have been awkward for people to not to refer to William and Harry as princes.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||Last Monday at 2:32 PM|
I love the Queen's outfit. Would we call those A-line coats, the cut is classic and georgeous. The head peice is a bit much, but things got a little weird as we phase out of the 60s into the 70s.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||Last Monday at 2:37 PM|
Meg was cute as a teen, but damn she has some ugly/awkward childhood photos.
(I do too, by the way. It’s an awkward phase.)
|by Anonymous||reply 184||Last Monday at 2:51 PM|
The hatred for Meghan is absolutly madness on this thread. I thought Kate's hatred was bad, but this is 10x worse. Some of you are crazy
|by Anonymous||reply 185||Last Monday at 2:54 PM|
R185 She has a knack for bringing out the worst in people. If she was humble and genuine, people would feel differently about her but most people see right through her fake ass persona.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||Last Monday at 3:00 PM|
Bravo, R176 - spot on.
|by Anonymous||reply 187||Last Monday at 3:04 PM|
Am I the only one who thinks she looks cute with her curly hair?
|by Anonymous||reply 188||Last Monday at 3:17 PM|
R188, I think so, too. And I think she’s pretty. It’s just her behavior that’s hideous.
R185, I don’t HATE her, but I’m not a fan. Some of us recognize the rampant toxicity. It hits close to home. If you can’t see it, you’re either lucky to have avoided someone like her. Or you ARE someone like her.
|by Anonymous||reply 189||Last Monday at 3:57 PM|
R151, great find, glad someone is calling it out. They want to be Jolie or the Clooneys but with no $ and on the dime of the taxpayer.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||Last Monday at 3:57 PM|
Oops, meant R170
|by Anonymous||reply 191||Last Monday at 4:00 PM|
It really is surprising that she has all this family she spent time with, but invited NONE of them to the wedding. Sad.
|by Anonymous||reply 192||Last Monday at 4:33 PM|
R176 Because there are very few truly unselfish humanitarians among the celebrity set. By nature they're narcissists, entertainment industry is an industry that attracts narcissist just like STEM careers tend to attract scientific minds and geeky personalities. There are the rare few celebs who do charity work without publicity nor fanfare. One of them that I know of was Robin Williams, for many years until he died he visited ill children at the hospital that I'd worked at. He'd come in by himself and spend entire days visiting with young patients, I'd noticed he'd spend more time with the unfortunate ones without families at bedside. His eyes literally were windows into his soul, they'd betray sadness when he was around those babies/ children. He'd also interacted with unit staff, never putting on any airs or let you know that he was a rich celebrity. No publicity at all, only photos taken were for the patients and families if they chose to do so.
Cannot imagine Meghan and Harry doing something like that, as in doing something so genuine, caring, and meaningful.
|by Anonymous||reply 193||Last Monday at 4:35 PM|
Me-Gain was set up with humanitarian PR opportunities by Sunshine Sachs to raise her profile/to raise the profile of her brand/The Tig, etc. This is more of the same, with trashing the Cambridges thrown in. They are, quite literally, poseurs.
Harry banging on about menstrual health at the memorial service of a young man who had been a personal friend was an affront to his family and to basic decency. These issues are just a pretext for more narcissistic supply.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||Last Monday at 4:46 PM|
R185 - If you head over to Celebitchy you'll find the same level of hate for Kate that you do here for Meghan. Mirror images.
|by Anonymous||reply 195||Last Monday at 5:24 PM|
R193, aw man. It helps to hear those stories.
There are so many regular people who volunteer for the really unglamorous things. Mucking out the kennels at an animal rescue, picking up trash or planting bulbs in the parks, cooking in soup kitchens, things like that. In my opinion, that’s the REAL philanthropy.
Meghan is very insincere and if there weren’t a camera nearby, she wouldn’t get near enough to spit on the people who need charity.
|by Anonymous||reply 196||Last Monday at 5:34 PM|
Thank you, R193. What a stark contrast. Robin Williams had mental health and substance abuse problems, but he was no fake. He attended Juilliard with Christopher Reeve and they remained close friends, despite their divergent careers, and Robin was there for him after his accident and was there for his family after Christopher's death. Somehow this high-profile celebrity managed to support his friend without making it all about him.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||Last Monday at 6:01 PM|
Me-Gain ghosting what appears to be a loving family, making young children cry, mounting a PR attack on the family she never had and causing staff to leave in droves says a lot about her.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||Last Monday at 6:25 PM|
R196, that’s 99 percent of celebrities, especially the BRF. Why single MM out? No one, not the queen, Charles, Anne, Will, etc would ever volunteer to “get in the muck.” They bring attention to a cause. I’d rather they didn’t have squat tbh but if they have money I’d rather they at least bring attention to needy causes rather than sit on their ass all day. But then if they sat on their asses all day and did nothing I think the public would get tired of them very quickly.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||Last Monday at 6:30 PM|
What are you talking about? The BRF represent and promote Britain's interests. Are you another one from the US who doesn't understand the basics?
|by Anonymous||reply 200||Last Monday at 6:55 PM|
Love all of the cynicism about the humanitarian role. It really is a ridiculous “job”.
|by Anonymous||reply 201||Last Monday at 7:07 PM|
Esp when it is on the dime of the British taxpaying public, R201. And then they get lectured by these hypocritical know nothings.
He proposed while they were roasting a chicken but they are vegan? Sure Jan.
Druggy twats and the whole padding thing is wacked. Anything for attention with these 2, from flashing bras to holes in shoes to denouncing older generations, the ones who pay for you to live in luxury! Disgusting.
I sometimes honestly wonder if she was a plant to bring down the monarchy.
|by Anonymous||reply 202||Last Monday at 7:13 PM|
Whacked out conspiracy theories are two doors down on the left.
|by Anonymous||reply 203||Last Monday at 7:50 PM|
R199 They bring attention to charities without making it all about themselves, unlike Meghan and Harry. Did you read Harry/ Meghan instagram account's post, the one about Harry's work with military charity? It read like a souped-up resume and it tagged Meghan in it as if she had long dedicated to the cause of military service members' wellness. It only mentioned the charity once and in passing, while Harry and Meghan was put forth front and center as if they were the fucking brains and sweat behind the charity. That's the main fucking difference, they're all about promoting themselves as humanitarians. Has nothing to do with doing the fucking right/ compassionate thing. I'm the one who posted the bit about Robin Williams, and yes it's all true as I'd seen it with my own eyes when I worked as pediatric critical care RN, no way was that man faking his genuine humanity, and I'm talking years (not one-off thing) that man did his work without any publicity. I still remember a photo ingrained in my mind, of Robin Williams next to a baby whose family had abandoned him, as he had both genetic anomaly and severe congenital cardiac condition. The baby was a ward of the state and sadly was alone in his own hospital room during Christmas. Robin went to that baby and was told of his situation, and you could literally see his humanity on his face, not pity for the baby but compassion/ sadness/ acceptance. We took a photo of Robin next to the baby and it captured although Robin smiled for the camera, his face betrayed all that he was feeling. That's what I mean by genuine. While I can see fakery from Meghan in almost every photo where she's doing "charity" work.
And yes many people can tell who's faking and not faking sincerity and compassion. I have family members who are borderline personality, and I've had my share of cluster B personality patients in my work as psych DNP now.
|by Anonymous||reply 204||Last Monday at 8:09 PM|
R196 the British Royal Family are not celebrities. If MM wanted to advance the cause of these charities, she would lead by example (which is not a twenty minute descent dressed in outlandishly expensive tat), and put her money where her mouth is. Charles actually does ‘get in the muck’, as you so gracefully put it. Looks at the work he has done at Knockroon and Poundbury. The SR Insta is a shameless money grab.
Just don’t expect her to be grateful.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||Last Monday at 8:16 PM|
Thanks to this thread, whenever I see her, I will be reminded of the ugly motion she makes with her jaw.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||Last Monday at 8:17 PM|
R199. Sorry R196. ^^^^
|by Anonymous||reply 207||Last Monday at 8:19 PM|
I miss Robin Williams.
|by Anonymous||reply 208||Last Monday at 9:51 PM|
R23 Yes, but those women were actually pregnant.
|by Anonymous||reply 209||Last Monday at 10:34 PM|
R55 You are insane. That is not the same woman. The brown velvet dress woman has a distinctive, long crooked nose and I doubt whether she is the surrogate, anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||Last Monday at 10:43 PM|
R65 MM is cute. There's nothing to be embarrassed about these photos that have been released. I think Baby Sussex will look like MM as a child only with lighter coloring and reddish hair. the child will have a gap between its front teeth just like H&M (MM's original teeth).
|by Anonymous||reply 211||Last Monday at 10:49 PM|
R210 I think R55 was being ironic. The numpty on the previous thread is the insane one.
|by Anonymous||reply 212||Last Monday at 10:50 PM|
R604 previous thread. Get a hobby.
|by Anonymous||reply 213||Last Monday at 10:52 PM|
R212 Thanks. I've blocked some of the anti-MM people (the "merching" asshole and others but I can't keep up. ) I am, for the most part, empathetic to MM but the whole Moonbump fraud is just too much with talk of water birth, doula, etc.
We have all seen MM's's Moonbump slip to her knees, collapse, and slosh around. She needs to just shut up and stay hidden like Amal did after wearing just the tiny Moonbump early on.
|by Anonymous||reply 214||Last Monday at 11:00 PM|
I was cracking up when I skimmed the thread on Sunday afternoon with all of the commotion about the "pregnant" "surrogate" in the brown velvet dress. The dubious interloper diaspora that loves a good conspiracy theory took a massive, collective dump on DL after their banishment from whence they came and were no longer welcome.
Not only was the Brown Velvet Lady obviously a caretaker or curator who stood at the same spot two years running, but, WAIT, get this: BVL appears to be much further into middle age and unfavorable childbearing years than Meghan is. Oh, the craptacularity.
|by Anonymous||reply 215||Last Monday at 11:07 PM|
But, R215, what about the secret message MM sent with the shoes she wore in Ireland? She LITERALLY announced that she was using a surrogate in a brown velvet dress!!!!!!!!
Also, take note of the empty space above her toes and behind her ankles. Sure, DL will just call them clown shoes, and that may be the case with some of the other rowing sculls she's worn. BUT, when you add the fabric of the shoes to the equation, she is clearly sending the message that Brown Velvet's dress is going to be loose, with ample room for a growing baby. See? It all makes sense!
I think the problem here is that MM is so self-sacrificing; so pure of intent; so divinely touched, that only the pure of heart (that would be me) are able to read her shoes. So sad for you if you can't!
|by Anonymous||reply 216||Last Monday at 11:32 PM|
Well done, R216!
|by Anonymous||reply 217||Last Monday at 11:34 PM|
And how did pregnant velvet lady become a Manson girl? I thought she looked great. 70s fashion is what is hot at the moment.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||Last Monday at 11:40 PM|
These threads are so lame. They are 95% unhinged, lunatic fraus whose husbands or cats or whatever haven't come near them in years. There is an actual one-off gay person in this thread but the crazy brigade quickly drowns out actual good gossip.
Get medicated, for the benefit of us all.
|by Anonymous||reply 219||Last Monday at 11:50 PM|
Damn, you are TOTALLY EAGLE-EYED, R216!
|by Anonymous||reply 220||Last Monday at 11:51 PM|
Most things can be read in the shoes, but others require Bellagio.
You can see the velvety brown facade below as well as the amniotic soup gushing straight out of the dilating cervix of the fountain.
All signs point to the 21st, because brown shoes --> Bellagio --> casino --> blackjack --> 21. Plus, the Queen said it would mean the world to her if MM allowed her to share a birthday with SohoBébé.
|by Anonymous||reply 221||Last Monday at 11:57 PM|
R219 The rest of us are the pointless bitchers.
|by Anonymous||reply 222||Last Tuesday at 12:21 AM|
Then do everybody a favor and go the fuck away, R219. Yes, these threads could be better, but they're not. So either deal with it or leave.
|by Anonymous||reply 223||Last Tuesday at 12:27 AM|
Talking of souped up resumes, Meg's Wiki was mentioned on a previous thread , so I took a look. It's ridiculously self-indulgent. Not only that, her signature appears in the Wiki box, as far as I know, the only BRF signatures on Wiki are the Queen's and Charles's.
|by Anonymous||reply 224||Last Tuesday at 12:57 AM|
William was fond of popping down to the local boozer, for pub quiz nights.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||Last Tuesday at 1:40 AM|
If Will were not royal, he would be a typical redneck. Liking spots and hunting . Outside of sex, I can’t imagine what he has to talk about with Rose.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||Last Tuesday at 1:57 AM|
R 223, fuck right off lass, I am sorry the Duchess stole your mythical boyfriend.
|by Anonymous||reply 227||Last Tuesday at 2:21 AM|
Oh yeah, THAT'S the problem, R227.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||Last Tuesday at 2:25 AM|
Bravo 👏🏻 R216 !
|by Anonymous||reply 229||Last Tuesday at 2:50 AM|
I just adored the IG post about some charity that focused its first paragraph on Harry and Meghan’s accomplishments and the second paragraph mentioned the fucking charity.
And the charity should be grateful and shut up because of not for their Royal Highnesses, who would give them a second thought?
|by Anonymous||reply 230||Last Tuesday at 3:12 AM|
She didn't even mention Sir David Attenborough when she put the post up about Chaz and Lads attending the premiere of Our Planet.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||Last Tuesday at 3:19 AM|
R231 Well, why would she? Is he important or something? After all, her loyal subjects were there to catch a glimpse of HER!
|by Anonymous||reply 232||Last Tuesday at 3:33 AM|
The thing is R232, she wasn't even there. After a brief waffle about Charles, William and Harry lending their support for the protection of the environment, she went in to a full scale essay about herself and the Dim Prince's work in Botswana, and other places ( so much waffle I lost interest), and when she eventually came up for breath, after talking about herself, she still failed to mention Sir David Attenborough....and it was HIS night! A celebration of his work! Not a chance to add yet MORE pictures of herself, and hijack the event, while sat at home, probably fuming that she wasn't there with all the cameras flashing. BUT, I get what you mean *wink*
|by Anonymous||reply 233||Last Tuesday at 3:48 AM|
R233, I guess that sums up Prince Dimwit’s definition of a woman who could “hit the ground running”!
|by Anonymous||reply 234||Last Tuesday at 3:55 AM|
She wasn't even supposed to be in Botswana, that time, certainly not in an official capacity. They were only shagging at that point. Yet she makes out that she was there representing the BRF lol
|by Anonymous||reply 235||Last Tuesday at 3:57 AM|
In hindsight, that is very telling. He sure was not looking for someone who would be a loving addition to the BRF or someone grateful for the generosity of the British taxpayer. Harry chose someone to act out his simmering rage and resentment against the family he did have, apparently.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||Last Tuesday at 3:57 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 237||Last Tuesday at 4:03 AM|
MeMe is not subtle.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||Last Tuesday at 4:04 AM|
She's talking to her US Sugars, purposely, ignoring the British. Why? She knows she isn't liked. The Sugars are crazy, nuts, nasty and really quite frightening on social media. Frightening because I've never seen such a huge army of people that don't grasp that this is not a reality show. It's not about likes. Their knowledge of the royal family and how it works is atrocious. Why does she need to create an army? It reminds me of the Alfie Evans case ( in the UK ), the father building up an army to attack the press, the hospitals ( even physically, in that case ) and elevate himself in to some sort of deity.
|by Anonymous||reply 239||Last Tuesday at 4:41 AM|
Stop with the “sugars”. It’s old and frumpish and tumblr.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||Last Tuesday at 4:46 AM|
Well, the father thought that he was campaigning to possibly save the life of his CHILD. Bit sadly noble from the perspective of a desperate parent, no?
With Me Gain is is sheer narcissism.
|by Anonymous||reply 241||Last Tuesday at 5:01 AM|
Sorry R240, I honestly don't know what else to call them. "MM fans" doesn't quite represent the army they seem to assemble themselves as, but I'll think of something else, ha., in future. God forbid I ever become frumpish. R241 I know what you mean, but having been involved with some of the horrible attacks on the hospital concerned....I won't go there, anyway. You are right, different scenario.
|by Anonymous||reply 242||Last Tuesday at 5:07 AM|
myrtle_cottage, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
Meghan controls the whole Sussex show. Harry provided the means to her elevation.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||Last Tuesday at 5:07 AM|
Many of the comments about humanitarianism and the BRF, which I suspect are American (meaning neither disrespect nor insult, but many outside in republics do not understand the concept of a constitutional monarchhy), miss the point.
When Europe's monarchies began losing their real power in the 17th,18th, and 19th centuries, the ones that survived (Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein) did so because they reinvented themselves as "constitutional monarchies', which is to say, figureheads whose ability to retain their privileges rested upon their ability to: "represent" their nations as a whole, without favour - above politics, as it is phrased, and to do so in a way that reflected the best of their nation's traditions and values back to the populace; to draw a clear distinction between Head of State from Head of Government; to highlight the causes that served the common good; to set example. The Queen's governmental powers, constitutionally, are the right to be consulted; to advise; and to warn.
The BRF's job is to support the work of active humanitarians, not to replace them, and to make sure that a broad spectrum of causes are covered, to avoid charges of political inclinations. Lastly, if they want to keep their (still immense) privileges, they have to maintain distance between what they represent, and celebrity. Once monarchy descends into celebrity, the end is nigh, because who would want to pay taxes to renovate homes for the Clooneys, the Beckhams, and the Kardashians?
Harry, by this time in his life, should have understood this. Meghan Markle clearly doesn't.
The present Queen is the last of her breed - someone who has balanced all these demands superbly. Her eldest son has slipped in this regard, and his youngest son has completely abandoned all pretence of honouring that balance. Harry seems bitter, angry, and spiteful, and married a woman who would encourage and feed and use those feeligns to advance her own agenda.
The result could be quite deadly. But whether it turns out to be more deadly for Harry than the institution that gave him all his privileges in the first place remains to be seen.
|by Anonymous||reply 244||Last Tuesday at 5:12 AM|
Very well said R244
|by Anonymous||reply 245||Last Tuesday at 5:22 AM|
R244, thanks for that explanation. Admittedly I’m an American who is puzzled by the anti-MM comments re: her activist support of charities (frankly I think the taxpayer support of the BRF is an abomination), but you actually explained it in a way that makes sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 246||Last Tuesday at 5:22 AM|
MEghan squandered the goodwill many (including myself) held for her when the engagement was first announced. We took it at face value all that her pr was peddling. But she couldn't contain her narcissistic impulses nor balance the copious lies she has told to elevate herself so the charm wore off.
She is not gaining new followers or a new appreciation for her personality. It has been a slow ebb of people-even stans-opening their eyes and seeing her for the phony she is. People find it increasingly harder to explain her behavior and overt manipulation of the press.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||Last Tuesday at 5:56 AM|
Is Meghan dumb enough to write posts using British spellings/ words under Sussex Instagram account now that it’s been pointed out that she’s the one writing posts on the account? It is her behind those unctuous posts promoting herself snd Harry while barely mentioning charity or person they’re purportedly honoring. Remember, they said Meghan liked to write her own speeches so this aligns with that control freak aspect about her too. No way would she leave writing Instagram posts to others, those posts reek of narcissistic elevation of themselves. Sickening.
|by Anonymous||reply 248||Last Tuesday at 6:16 AM|
[quote]Is Meghan dumb enough to write posts using British spellings/ words under Sussex Instagram account now that it’s been pointed out that she’s the one writing posts on the account?
Sure she is! But she’ll slip up sometimes so it’ll be a hybrid of Brit and Yank.
|by Anonymous||reply 249||Last Tuesday at 6:22 AM|
Meghan looks so much like her mom in these childhood pictures.
|by Anonymous||reply 250||Last Tuesday at 6:42 AM|
I wonder how long ago those photos were purchased. I could see the press sitting on them until arrival time. What no pictures of the happy family and baby on the hospital steps? Well, folks, this is what Meghan would look like if... And her mother's freakish post-delivery photo is revealed. The poor woman looked awful.
|by Anonymous||reply 251||Last Tuesday at 6:59 AM|
When Diana was " at it " at least she had the goodwill of a lot of people behind her. Although, I suspect that many were like myself and winced.
|by Anonymous||reply 252||Last Tuesday at 7:05 AM|
Oh they have done their work very well the BRF in slinging mud at Diana . She is now the devil and Charles is the good one . He is every much to blame as Diana . Its so good that Diana is dead and can’t defend herself . I know she had her flaws and mental health problems but to make a total devil out of her is a bit too much . You can say what you want but she was the only one who had charisma and the people loved her . And maybe she started to believe herself she was important but I still miss her . She had mega star power and all these Hollywood celebrities nowadays have none . And MM even less . She really thought she could be the second coming of Diana .
|by Anonymous||reply 253||Last Tuesday at 7:22 AM|
What Diana did to her sons was horrible. Slinging mud in public only made herself look good in the short run but it affected both of her sons', and now we see that Harry has the worst of Diana's personality traits: hunger for publicity/ celebrity status, blaming others while wrongly feeling persecuted when she was the one generating own publicity in the first place. Having affairs with married men while playing innocent cheated-on spouse in public. Harry continuing on with his do as I say not as I do shit show. He's Diana without anyone to rein him in, worse Meghan is by his side/ in front of him to egg him on.
Diana got a very generous divorce settlement according to that article. But as is the case with borderlines personality disorders, money's not enough, it's the constant attention and declarations of love/ praise that they crave.
|by Anonymous||reply 254||Last Tuesday at 7:34 AM|
Charles' message to the President of France regarding the Notre Dame fire.
|by Anonymous||reply 255||Last Tuesday at 8:07 AM|
R247, I agree. Despite not knowing who she was, it seemed to be all good. Very quickly after the engagement, it wasn’t hard to recognize her game. It’s remarkable.
And I can recognize the problem with Diana, but she had “it”. Knowing what I know now, I still have a favorable opinion of her. She was flawed but appealing.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||Last Tuesday at 8:12 AM|
People should define what they mean by humanitarianism. If it means showing up at a hot spot or place in need and grandstanding, forget it. For too many it is all about creating a platform for self-promotion. In exchange they are doing bullshit like "Highlighting the problem." Or "Getting attention for the issue." NOPE. They are getting attention for themselves. If they were true humanitarians the PR would be minimally about them and all about the locals who understand the many facets of a situation and have the solution, and need support for the solution. Celebrities, though, tend to want to impose their ideas. They love the white man savior thing. Have failed to recognize that their is a local infrastructure in place that usually needs MONEY, but otherwise does not really need the opinions of fatheaded self-promoting douchebag wannabes.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||Last Tuesday at 8:13 AM|
The Queen's Notre Dame message.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||Last Tuesday at 8:16 AM|
I think Diana's problem though is she lied too much, although I'm sure Charles did too. I don't believe he said, "I refuse to be the only Prince of Wales who never had a mistress." I don't think their marriage hit the rocks as early as Diana claimed it did - there are too many affectionate and physical pictures of Diana and Charles from private collections that have come into the public sphere. For all their differences I think they were too much alike in their needs to succeed as a married duo. Both were spoiled. Both were extremely needy. Both needed praise, admiration, support, etc. The Queen's relatives, in documentaries, throw up their hands when asked about Diana, and talk about Charles, "If EVER a man needed love, support, encouragement, it was him!" as if she committed a crime by not giving him a sufficient amount, and instead wanting him to give HER love, support and encouragement. Tina Brown's bio of Diana pretty much boils it down to that - one of them needed to be the caretaker, and neither one was interested in the job. Each wanted to be taken care of, admired, etc. They were also apart in their interests. Camilla is an avid countrywoman, Diana supposedly not so much, although there are photos of her out with the queen on horseback and to my surprise Diana's form looks good.
I think Diana was genuine in her empathy for those in need, and according to Tina Brown's bio this surfaced in her at a young age. It was also a self-esteem builder for her because she engaged well with the elderly, with people in wheelchairs, with people at a disadvantage in some way, where others her age might shrink back.
I also think a lot of it was the era in which Diana lived. If she were alive today she'd probably be considered a model princess. Charles obviously had no problem paying the bills for her clothes - of all their problems, that doesn't seem to have been an area of friction. As it shouldn't have been, since he spends a fortune on his own maintenance. Diana's ways with the public were modern back then but would probably be considered very traditional, very poised, very good today. Great with kids and the elderly, which always plays well. Good sense of humor.
For all the histrionics, Diana was once asked if Charles wanted her back and asked her to come back, would she go back? After a pause she said yes. It didn't seem to be from wanting the position.
When I look at pictures, an additional problem is I think she loved him and he was ambivalent about her.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||Last Tuesday at 8:22 AM|
Also when it comes to Diana, another reason for the big impact was the Windsors are a pretty ugly family. That someone tall and passably good-looking actually married in caused a sensation. I love Princess Anne but as she herself said she was no one's idea of fantasy princess. Margaret went to seed far to early - the Liz Taylor model of bloated, overtanned, alcoholic and toyboys.
|by Anonymous||reply 260||Last Tuesday at 8:25 AM|
Thank you R257 for this
[quote] People should define what they mean by humanitarianism. If it means showing up at a hot spot or place in need and grandstanding, forget it. For too many it is all about creating a platform for self-promotion.
I was just taking another look at the picture of Sparkle on stage at that Women's Day Panel where she is trying to pull a "Basic Instinct" maneuver.
The woman sitting on Sparkle's right looks totally disgusted.
It must have been infuriating for serious minded participants to have to include and worse listen to the psycho babbling Sparkle.
|by Anonymous||reply 261||Last Tuesday at 8:29 AM|
R227 you can stop right there. I'm not the person you're addressing, but I'm sorry if you think Prince Harry is hot stuff. You should get out more. The world is full of rich male celebrities with good teeth, handsome facial features, good bodies, and a personality that ranges beyond "Aren't I a scamp." Some of them even have eyes that are on either side of the bridge of their noses instead of meeting in the middle. Some of these men are even princes, aristos and other forms of nobility or landed gentry suitable for Cinderella fantasies. Get off thinking people want to crawl into bed with that balding brillo haired rashy looking gumby-bodied guy. Every time you are somebody else claims a Harry or Meghan critic just wants Harry, you look moronic. Nobody fucking wants Harry except some female morning television show hosts and they're only pretending.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||Last Tuesday at 8:35 AM|
I'm sorry, but this is a reminder of Women's Day, and an example of what she is all about.
|by Anonymous||reply 263||Last Tuesday at 8:39 AM|
Nasty. And she either caught the hem of that dress or had it taken up by Johnson's the cleaners.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||Last Tuesday at 8:41 AM|
R257 "People should define what they mean by humanitarianism." I completely agree - it's a very gooey, vague term, and it doesn't remotely describe what members of a constitutional monarchy are for. The members of such a monarchy have two primary jobs: representing the nation in a way politicised governments cannot; and "patronage" - lending their names and support to good causes.
Albert Schweitzer was a humanitarian. The people putting themselves at risk in Medicines sans Frontieres are humanitarians. The pro bono lawyers in Legal Aid are humanitarians.
Royals showing up in designer clothes for an hour or so and then being driven back to their luxurious, taxpayer built and maintained homes are patrons, not humanitarians.
Diana's real humanitarian work, such as the Land Mines campaign, was done after her divorce when she was freer to pick the causes she liked. Before that, she operated like any other royal patron: showing up at gala events looking dazzling, doing walkabouts, attending exhibitions and giving the occasional speech. But as for slugging it out in the trenches or contributing large funding - not. Fundamentally, she did what all royals do, only with far more spectacular interest and coverage.
I'm reminded of a story about Queen Mary, which I've told here before but will repeat: she once went to tour a hospital with a few junior-grade members of the royal family. After an hour or so, one of the younger members complained that she was tired, and besides, she hated hospitals. Queen Mary levelled her with one of her fabled cold stares and said, "You are a member of the British Royal Family: we are never tired, and we all love hospitals."
And that's the outlook the present Queen absorbed from her grandmother, and the ethic that her mother and father shared, and that Meghan Markle is incapable of reflecting: it isn't about her.
I have a good deal of ambivalence about the monarchy and paying any taxes toward it, no matter how small.
But if we MUST have it, I greatly prefer Queen Mary's and the present Queen's attitude toward the work. Paying to renovate the residence of the petulant, spiteful sixth in line and his grasping, attention-seeking, It's About Me! wife is close to turning me into a bona fide republican.
|by Anonymous||reply 265||Last Tuesday at 8:47 AM|
She’s a SEXY humanitarian.
|by Anonymous||reply 266||Last Tuesday at 8:47 AM|
R266 - If you mean Miss Markle - depends on your point of view (especially here). To me, she has the appeal of a hungry shark.
Which, at bottom, is what she really is.
|by Anonymous||reply 267||Last Tuesday at 8:51 AM|
I’ll say it again: Sparkle is fascinating because we can’t quite believe such a creature could have ever made it this far.
She is a vapid, not-too-bright valley girl. One can easily picture her as the incompetent checker at Vons who always fucks up your order.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||Last Tuesday at 8:57 AM|
[quote] One can easily picture her as the incompetent checker at Vons who always fucks up your order.
That could just as easily describe, Kate, Fergie and the York girls. If you switch the description to male, you'd cover most of the Mountbatten-Windsor men.
|by Anonymous||reply 269||Last Tuesday at 9:03 AM|
Thanks for that, R263.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||Last Tuesday at 9:09 AM|
Except in Markle's case R269, she'd brand you a "racist" for questioning any discrepancy on her part (and is probably sleeping with her married manager).
|by Anonymous||reply 271||Last Tuesday at 9:13 AM|
[quote] and is probably sleeping with her married manager.
The description at R269 still holds true for all parties concerned.
R271 Some "Vons shoppers" are racists and some aren't. It's OK to call out those who are.
|by Anonymous||reply 272||Last Tuesday at 9:18 AM|
What do you all think of SNL spoofing MM and Harry's relationship? I think its interesting how they play up the black thing, given MM at most looks Italian/Latina, certainly not black. I cringed when Kenan mentioned something about Meghan's skin. Its also funny when they keep showing all these black relatives of Meghan, given that she is only in touch with her mother and no one else even came to her wedding. They also keep reiterating that MM is so popular with the public, is that backed by evidence or just wish fulfillment by the Americans?
It feels kinda patronizing to me, like the greatest achievement by a half-black woman (who doesnt look black at all BTW) would be to marry into a white, racist, imperialistic family within an archaic institution which should be abolished anyway. I wonder what these people/Americans will think when the baby comes out as completely white-passing?
|by Anonymous||reply 273||Last Tuesday at 9:18 AM|
Who died and made R273 the arbiter of blackness?
Do people need to submit their resume to R273 for her to decide if they look black enough, have strong enough black relationships or if the person they married adds or subtracts from their black percentage? That must be so tiring. Awww.
|by Anonymous||reply 274||Last Tuesday at 9:28 AM|
R274 LOL, calm down. I was questioning SNL really, not MM's blackness. To me she doesnt look black, thats all. I dont know about her black connections, only that no one except her mother was there at her wedding and she is not in touch with any of her relatives, black or white.
I find their royal family skits based on wish fulfillment and patronizing, when the reality is completely different.
|by Anonymous||reply 275||Last Tuesday at 9:44 AM|
I'm in the UK, saw a few clips of it online, and it made me cringe.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||Last Tuesday at 9:45 AM|
Again, in that scenario the person who points out a discrepancy on the someone else's part who happens to have a deeper melanin pigment does not automatically rule them a target to be called racist R272. That is pure spin to say because racists exists it therefore entitles people calling whomever racists. Way to minimize the depredation of a word.
You must be young, or ignorant.
|by Anonymous||reply 277||Last Tuesday at 9:53 AM|
[quote] she'd brand you a "racist"
R277 You have assumed that the undefined "you" is a person with different melanin. Since this is an anonymous board I assumed "you" could be a person of any race.
In the scenario the poster assumed that Meghan would call anyone who is pissed at her "mistakes" a racist. I disagree. Some of the "shoppers" may be racists (a condition which is independent of their melanin levels). Their racism may be apparent in how they complain about her poor customer service and or incompetence in her job. I think it's OK to call that out. Some of the disgruntled shoppers may not have expressed any racist sentiments. It would be inappropriate and incorrect to accuse those shoppers of racism.
I'm not young but I do use great a moisturizer. It takes years off but it doesn't make you less judgemental so it's useless to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||Last Tuesday at 10:16 AM|
I'm not young but I do use a great moisturizer.
|by Anonymous||reply 279||Last Tuesday at 10:17 AM|
Margaret went to pot pretty quickly after she married.
|by Anonymous||reply 280||Last Tuesday at 10:18 AM|
I can't link to radar online but I can to Tumblr.
Endearing herself to her British audience again
|by Anonymous||reply 281||Last Tuesday at 10:18 AM|
A more mature Margaret.
|by Anonymous||reply 282||Last Tuesday at 10:18 AM|
R281 - whatever decisions she makes, she seems to get it wrong.
It's almost as if she says to herself "what would piss the British people off the most? Ok then, I'll do it that way".
|by Anonymous||reply 283||Last Tuesday at 10:22 AM|
The Queen and Princess Anne clowning around.
|by Anonymous||reply 284||Last Tuesday at 10:24 AM|
First it was Cambridge vs. Sussex, now it's Charles and Anne.
|by Anonymous||reply 285||Last Tuesday at 10:25 AM|
His Royal Geekness and The Beatle Babe. LOL.
|by Anonymous||reply 286||Last Tuesday at 10:28 AM|
286 - LOL. Charles has to be one of the few men alive who look better at 70 than they did at 17.
|by Anonymous||reply 287||Last Tuesday at 10:32 AM|
She's so pissed off with her British audience, especially the press, I feel she is deliberately using American spellings and words in her most recent Insta post.
|by Anonymous||reply 288||Last Tuesday at 10:45 AM|
[quote]You are insane. That is not the same woman. The brown velvet dress woman has a distinctive, long crooked nose and I doubt whether she is the surrogate, anyway.
But you do concede that the part about the climate-controlled breadbox is accurate don't you, R210?
|by Anonymous||reply 289||Last Tuesday at 10:48 AM|
[quote]In the scenario the poster assumed that Meghan would call anyone who is pissed at her "mistakes" a racist. I disagree.
[quote]It's almost as if she says to herself "what would piss the British people off the most? Ok then, I'll do it that way".
Classic willful ignorance.
|by Anonymous||reply 290||Last Tuesday at 10:52 AM|
R281, perhaps she has reason to worry...
This lovely neonatal nurse killed 8 babies at a hospital in Cheshire...
|by Anonymous||reply 291||Last Tuesday at 11:28 AM|
Nothing has been proved against that girl so that may be a tad defamatory R291
|by Anonymous||reply 292||Last Tuesday at 11:40 AM|
As if by magic I log on and I see Lucy Letby. I'm in Cheshire, not Chester but South Wirral so I'm more than familiar with this and as R292 says, absolutely nothing has been proved. That is not representative of the NHS at all. Markle is just buying time, IMO.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||Last Tuesday at 11:45 AM|
She really has a knack for alienating everyone. Imagine you’re a boutique birthing center, designed very carefully with the latest equipment and aesthetics. Or the hospital where royalty give birth to royalty.
And here comes the Duchess, thinking it’s not CLEAN enough. The woman who sticks her tongue in a man’s anus.
I’m sure the professionals who work in these facilities appreciate that. They can go sit next to the people whose parking lot was commandeered by her eminent domain.
|by Anonymous||reply 294||Last Tuesday at 11:47 AM|
R289 The accuracy of your statements about the climate-controlled breadbox goes without saying.
|by Anonymous||reply 295||Last Tuesday at 11:48 AM|
Please accept my apologies; Lucy Letby has not been convicted and is innocent until proven otherwise. It was a joke in poor taste.
(And as I come from a family of nurses, I do know how dedicated and professional 99.9% are. It’s partly why I find the Letby case so fascinating.)
But it also proves my point about the Duchess and her shitty attitude. Justifying her choice by throwing all birthing facilities under the bus for being unsafe and unsanitary.
|by Anonymous||reply 296||Last Tuesday at 11:53 AM|
How strange that Charles' letter to the President of France uses the American spelling of "realize" vs the British spelling of "realise". See R255
|by Anonymous||reply 297||Last Tuesday at 12:04 PM|
I agree R296 - it is a shitty attitude and why would you alienate the people who may be looking after you in a few days?
In what surreal world is a home birth safer than a good hospital ? What if her dogs wander in halfway through? I bet she hasn't thought of that.
|by Anonymous||reply 298||Last Tuesday at 12:05 PM|
She dumped her dogs off somewhere.... arent they MIA?
|by Anonymous||reply 299||Last Tuesday at 12:07 PM|
The dogs are long gone allegedly.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||Last Tuesday at 12:21 PM|
Since when is Sparkle a clean freak?!
Many of her photos from her single days show cluttered, dirty living spaces. And, she seems to rarely wash her hair or clean her shoes and clothes. Her face always looks dirty (though this is bad makeup I’m sure.)
She actually looks like she would smell bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 301||Last Tuesday at 12:26 PM|
Meghan wrote about Kate on The Tig.
|by Anonymous||reply 302||Last Tuesday at 12:35 PM|
R302, ha! The internet never forgets.
And the entire NHS will not forget her snub. I am sure that she would have received the best possible treatment at any hospital.
And she may still.
Certainly whichever birth professional she chooses will prioritize the health of the child over the mother’s desire for a new age “birth experience”. So she may start out in an inflatable pool in a Frogmore Commons parlor, but she will be whisked away at the very first sign of trouble. NOBODY will take the risk of making the wrong call if the health of a royal baby is in the slightest danger.
Or she may have the perfect rapturous birth she’s imagining.
|by Anonymous||reply 303||Last Tuesday at 12:59 PM|
Remember when the BFF sent Kate a copy of her book, which was supposedly based on MM?
A fashion blog devoted to Meghan’s style first unearthed the old Tweet from Lindsay Roth’s account where the author tweeted a thank you note from the Duchess of Cambridge’s office after she sent her a copy of her debut novel.
“The Duchess of Cambridge has asked me to thank you for your card of 19th October and for enclosing a copy of your book, What Pretty Girls Are Made Of,” the letter read.
“Her Royal Highness was very touched that you should think of her in this way and sends you her best wishes.”
The author captioned the Tweet at the time, “Thank you #KateMiddleton! You are what #prettyis. Can’t stop smiling!”
The novel in question follows a fictional television star heroine as she juggles her love life, family, and careers – sound familiar?
Many believe that the novel’s central character is based on the author’s long-term best friend, Megan Markle.
The best friends first met at Northwestern University in Illinois when they took a Toni Morrison literature class together.
|by Anonymous||reply 304||Last Tuesday at 1:08 PM|
But MM didn't follow royalty and had no idea who Harry was.
|by Anonymous||reply 305||Last Tuesday at 1:10 PM|
R302 - That piece should be put up on a billboard at Kensington Palace so the British taxpayer can see what a lying, self-promoting, hypocritical bitch Meghan Markle is.
When the time came for her to turn into a princess and have a royal wedding commanding world attention, it didn't bother her THEN, did it?!
|by Anonymous||reply 306||Last Tuesday at 1:26 PM|
Re r302. It’s uncanny that Meghan gets to grind her ax in person.
What are the odds?
|by Anonymous||reply 307||Last Tuesday at 1:36 PM|
A romance novel based on Doria.
|by Anonymous||reply 308||Last Tuesday at 1:44 PM|
So which is it now? Private suite in poshest birthing center in the UK where Amal gave birth, or home birth like QE2, or water birth like the dim new age whore that she is? Dissing the NHS and British doctors now too? This is not how a normal person behaves, Kate didn't behave this way, probably was hoping for a healthy, uneventful birth for each of her children. Not Meg, no she has to make sure she stays in the news with multiple birthing plans. Her skin looks awful by the way, within one year she's aged dramatically, I'm guessing due to slapping on the paint in order to look as picture perfect as she can. Makeup can be very damaging and aging to the skin. Kate has let up on her black-rimmed eyeliners which makes her eyes smaller. Meghan needs to follow suit and go easy on the foundation and blusher, her skin looks really bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 309||Last Tuesday at 1:56 PM|
It should be remembered that whilst the Queen technically had a "home birth", an entire ob/gyn delivery room had been set up and first-class physicians were on hand in case anything went wrong. The Queen herself was born at home, and so were Queen Victoria's children - in point of fact, up to rather recently in the mid-20th century, most kids were born at home.
The Queen had home births because she could, with little fear of a dash for a hospital if something went wrong, because they turned a suite in Buckingham Palace into a delivery room. She was also, what, a young healthy girl of 22 when she had Charles? Meghan's is a first time "geriatric" pregnancy and birth at 38.
The Queen's childbirths were less a production than a sixth in line's wife's. So were Anne's, so were Kate's and so, for that matter, were Diana's.
But Meghan Markle always, always, always, has to make a production out of everything. Heaven forbid that she should just have the fucking baby without having ten columns written about how she might and might not do it depending on what the latest trend in birthing is.
|by Anonymous||reply 310||Last Tuesday at 2:34 PM|
Today's historical lesson: Gay Kings of England
|by Anonymous||reply 311||Last Tuesday at 2:37 PM|
Why can't she be quiet and make a connection with her unborn baby? Why is she constantly pushing PR? Why has she not disappeared into maternity leave? Stinks of rotten fish. There, I've said it. It is getting ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 312||Last Tuesday at 2:44 PM|
R297 Maybe Clarence House haven't selected 'British English' in their spell check options.
Realize is regarded as an alternate British spelling for Realise anyhow ( unlike Colour v Color )
|by Anonymous||reply 313||Last Tuesday at 2:44 PM|
R312 - Isn't it amazing how she has managed to disappear physically but not psychologically into maternity leave?
Why it's just as if . . . she never left.
|by Anonymous||reply 314||Last Tuesday at 2:52 PM|
R310 This perpetual need for attention makes me believe with certainty that she has NPD/BPD if you want to pathologize it or simply a fucking attention whore exhibitionist if you want to use street terms for it. Every step of hers is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
|by Anonymous||reply 315||Last Tuesday at 3:45 PM|
She doesn't have a mental disorder. She's just a shallow idiot from Southern California. She doesn't have the brain cells to have a mental disorder. Harry's just stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 316||Last Tuesday at 4:22 PM|
Thank you, R265...
[quote] I'm reminded of a story about Queen Mary, which I've told here before but will repeat: she once went to tour a hospital with a few junior-grade members of the royal family. After an hour or so, one of the younger members complained that she was tired, and besides, she hated hospitals. Queen Mary levelled her with one of her fabled cold stares and said, "You are a member of the British Royal Family: we are never tired, and we all love hospitals."
I remember reading that when the Queen was little, she was at some big event with her grandmother, Queen Mary.
Queen Mary noticed that her little granddaughter was enjoying the attention and cheers directed at herself too much and immediately took her home. A clear object lesson that THAT is not the reason that RF exists.
Quite the opposite of Sparkle. The Queen has surely noticed.
|by Anonymous||reply 317||Last Tuesday at 4:36 PM|
She is not wrong, NHS is utter shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 318||Last Tuesday at 4:37 PM|
Hmm Markle essentially saying the NHS is utter shit is about the stupidest thing she could possibly insinuate at this point.
|by Anonymous||reply 319||Last Tuesday at 4:45 PM|
No, the real issue is that Meghan Markle was never going to use the NHS, any more than any of the other royals do. They all use private medical care, like every other rich person in Britain. The NHS has quite a few problems, is underfunded, and doing a much worse job than it was doing 40 years ago.
It's a straw man. Meghan Markle married Harry to become rich and privileged and do the things that rich people do: wear expensive clothing, live in expensive homes, hobnob with other rich privileged people, and access the best of everything as rich people everywhere do and nonrich people dream about doing - such as top notch private medical care without worries about cost. And that's what she's getting behind the scenes.
What's annoying about Meghan Markle is that whilst enjoying the life of the rich and privileged that she's hungered to join all her life, she pretends to be someone else: an earthy humanitarian who despises doctors who wear suits when they aren't treating people.
She might like to take a look at what Jonas Salk and a few other researchers and doctors were wearing when they came up with weapons against diseases that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
She is the fucking most pretentious, shallow twat in existence.
|by Anonymous||reply 320||Last Tuesday at 5:02 PM|
Of course she is shallow and fake, she's a fucking actress ffs. What do you expect?
|by Anonymous||reply 321||Last Tuesday at 5:11 PM|
R317 - That's a telling anecdote as well.
Well, surely the Queen has notice, I agree. The problem is, the Queen gave her consent to the marriage, and has no power to rectify her error. Refusing the Sussexes an independent court so they could develop their own "brand", and insisting that their PR Chief report to the Queen's PR Director, and at this point, it's clear, denying the Sussex kid an HRH, sounded good on paper, but I'll wager will turn out to be toothless gestures. Meghan will do what she wants anyway, merrily using her Instagram to build her brand, and using Sara Latham now to leak negative stories about the Cambridges.
The Queen is not only old and tired and probably soon to be widowed, but Harry is her grandson, not her son. She probably can't go around Charles although I'd be surprised if she hasn't spoken to him about Meghan, and he's quietly told her to lay off his son.
She's also watching an increasingly culturally, socially, and politically splintered Britain go to pieces, and having to accept the dissolution and loss of many things she held dear - including reverence for what she worked so hard to preserve. I wouldn't much blame her if she were looking on stolidly in the knowledge that it's out of her hands.
I also wouldn't be surprised if she feels sorry for the petuant, self-absorbed, spoilt lot of them, for William and Harry's generation of royals, and grateful that she lived and reigned when she did.
|by Anonymous||reply 322||Last Tuesday at 5:18 PM|
R316 - Stupid people are now eligible for personality disorders, too. They lifted the IQ limit years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 323||Last Tuesday at 5:24 PM|
Yes, she's crazy....crazy about herself!
|by Anonymous||reply 324||Last Tuesday at 5:27 PM|
Meghan is trying to use this as a "teachable" moment to highlight the problems of NHS while enhancing her profile as an advocate for mothers and all women across the globe. The truth, of course, is that no matter where she gives birth, she'll enjoy the best of care. I doubt she's personally worried at all. It's simply another opportunity to target her "audience" with what they want to hear. Any and every PR person/firm today recommends highlighting social concerns and connecting personally with your audience to deliver your message. It's the latest way to get people to buy what you're selling. One of the things I find most troubling about it is that some intelligent, young people are falling for it and believe it's authentic. In reality, it's the same old, same old, but packaged for today's "socially conscious" young adults.
|by Anonymous||reply 325||Last Tuesday at 5:31 PM|
The PR is non-stop. I bet she wants a "Manny" because, well, Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 326||Last Tuesday at 5:38 PM|
People like MeMe constantly create chaos to keep attention focused on them. Like a toddler, if positive attention is not forthcoming, negative will do fine. Esp, as she is building her brand on shaking things up. Like a toddler, she seems to lack any sense of self awareness. Most people do not act like this as they do not wish to be seen as mental or as an arse. As long as someone is thinking, talking or writing about her, she is good.
WHO is paying for this veritable PR tsunami?! If the campaign was not so expansive some of the more ridiculous placed pr might be dialed back a bit, but there is a lot of online space to fill it seems.
|by Anonymous||reply 327||Last Tuesday at 5:58 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 328||Last Tuesday at 6:13 PM|
That story, R328, has been debunked in the video "Reinventing the Royals".
Charles had a PR guy whose job was to make Camilla more popular. His method was to make other royals more unpopular.
It is true that Prince Edward's film crew was there after the appointed time. But it was not true that they were photographing William. The crew was getting other town shots for the documentary they were doing.
This scenario was only one of the "attacks" that the PR guy used. The result here was that Edward had to give up the whole film business he was working on.
Eventually, after the PR guy went after other royals - William and Harry too - that the Queen called Charles in and reminded him that the RF were supposed to support each other not attack some to make themselves look better. She insisted that Charles get rid of the PR guy.
Well worth seeing "Reinventing the Royals" - 2 part documentary on Youtube.
|by Anonymous||reply 329||Last Tuesday at 6:21 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 330||Last Tuesday at 6:22 PM|
If I were. MM, then why not just promote myself. If she gets dumped , then there is no nest egg for her. And the RF members are vipers.
|by Anonymous||reply 331||Last Tuesday at 6:23 PM|
Has the DM written about the helicopter pilot quitting due to MeMe and Harry?
I could see her planting this story to deflect from the surrogacy rumors (true or not) and to feed the need Harry seems to have to be her white knight. Not sure she would think this is a negative at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 332||Last Tuesday at 6:55 PM|
Edward is Earl of Wessex because (as I just looked it up) the Queen wants him to be Duke of Edinburgh when that title "reverts to the crown" (when Phillip is dead). It would make little sense for him to be Duke something something now and then switch off to Duke of Edinburgh after his father's death. Don't even know if that's a thing that's done.
|by Anonymous||reply 333||Last Tuesday at 7:43 PM|
I think that Camilla is a good sort as that crowd goes - a better sort than Diana, in fact, and I believe her popularity has increased. But I'm curious about something. If Camilla were beautiful and glamorous - closer to Diana's age, maybe more along the lines of Anna "Whiplash" Wallace, one of Charles several prior girlfriends who all conformed to type (generously be-besomed blondes or near blondes) - would she have been more hated or more liked. Were people pissed off that Charles was (supposedly) shunning the "beautiful" Diana for the battleaxe Camilla, or would it have been worse if Camilla were MORE beautiful than Diana?
Here's the best known picture of Anna Wallace. She was his last girlfriend before he married Diana. I'll post another of her more in party mode.
|by Anonymous||reply 334||Last Tuesday at 7:50 PM|
Anna Wallace on the dance floor, I guess.
They broke up apparently because she was 25 and oh my God had previous lovers. I am so tired of reading this about Charles and his bride hunt back in the day since he waited til his thirties to marry after a string of girlfriends. I don't think enough is made if this bullshit from back then.
They broke up on a personal level because they were at a party and Charles spent the entire party dancing with Camilla.
|by Anonymous||reply 335||Last Tuesday at 7:52 PM|
r334 We don't know how the British public takes to a Queen Camilla. The Brits are strange that way, they ignore things until it's right in their face, they muddle through, they get into war accidentally, etc. BTW, the Commonwealth nations - the key ones - Canada, Australia and NZ do not want a King Charles. In one Canadian documentary, he is referred to a "deeply weird man."
I do not believe the British public cares about Camilla's looks. Whether they will put up with her as Queen is another thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 336||Last Tuesday at 8:03 PM|
R322 there is no such thing as a spare having his own court. It was Prince Charles who decided William and Harry should have their own budget and operate independently out of KP, which they have not been doing for all that long. Since - 2012? maybe. . It was a stupid move and IMO was just another way to make William "in charge" of the Harry problem. Once William (or William along with the Queen and Prince Charles) decided it should be only him at KP, it was time for Harry to go to BP, where he was always going to go. He is a servant of the crown. He is not acting in his own agenda, or he should not be, so there is no need for him to have a "court" funded. He gets staff - now he shares it with the others, and what assistants are required for the job. Meghan and Harry requesting it in the first place took a huge amount of hubris and showed that Meghan is ignorant of how it all works and I guess Harry decided to ride her coattails and pretend, see what gall could get them. While there's no doubt Meghan and Harry showing themselves to be more of a liability to the Cambridges than an asset hastened things along, William was never going to share offices with his brother for all that long. His grandmother the sovereign in in her nineties, his father is seventy, more and more we read official reports that William is having meetings re the Duchy of Cornwall. It could be that if the rumors are true that Charles has pretty much taken over behind the scenes, that William is taking over the Duchy behind the scenes. William going to Israel last year is another example of something that wouldn't have happened awhile ago - that is more a Prince of Wales level assignment. Harry was always going to get the demotion. The fact that he shared the KP offices with William was probably a function of them both living there as well as that "Three Muskateers" crap the BRF was promoting after Will married Kate. IMO it was probably never a good idea and just set Harry up to feel hard done by - as usual - when the time came for him to separate. Now he probably feels entitled to his own offices when he was never entitled in the first place to even share with William.
|by Anonymous||reply 337||Last Tuesday at 8:03 PM|
Well R334, I'm talking more of the reaction to Camilla at the time. I remember reading some journalists saying the public simply could not understand why Charles preferred horse face to this beautiful young thing. It made him appear to be even more bizarre, and of course was devastating to Diana because her supposed advantages and attributes meant nothing to her husband, so how much of a loser must she be? This was the narrative - the impact on Diana's morale not just due to the cheating, but her "rival"'s age and attractiveness. So I was wondering if Charles had cheated with an ex-girlfriend who equalled Diana in glamour and looks if the public would have reacted the same AT THE TIME, back then, or if they would have been more, "Well, can't blame the guy -she's hot stuff."
BTW here's Charles with Tricia Nixon. Story goes when Charles came to America Richard Nixon very embarrassingly foisted his daughters upon him, to where Charles made remarks. Something similar occurred when the inevitable sizing up between Caroline of Monaco and Prince Charles took place. He told people he didn't think she had good skin.
Lastly, and speaking of PR, the BRF went all out to show Charles as action man with a string of gorgeous women. The women certainly were gorgeous and glamorous and nobody who would have looked at him twice if he weren't prince of wales. I mean outclassed by fathoms. And lord, the hairline, the eyes, the ears, the chinless! It took a lot of stones to promote him as sexy.
|by Anonymous||reply 338||Last Tuesday at 8:10 PM|
I find Sparkle to be irritating looking. I don’t know any other way to put it.
It’s the blank, immobile, mouth hanging open to catch a dick look she always has in her face.
And all this blow up doll nonsense is accompanied by the body of a flat-assed, 12-year-old boy! Talk about a lose-lose.
|by Anonymous||reply 339||Last Tuesday at 9:00 PM|
I think the public felt that Charles was causing a massive problem only to end up with a lot less than what he had to begin with, as if he were trading filet mignon for a hot dog.
|by Anonymous||reply 340||Last Wednesday at 12:20 AM|
Although I think MM is prettier and softer looking than Kate, I hate her constant camera ready smile. It's so practised, like a flight attendant from the past or a high class prostitute.
|by Anonymous||reply 341||Last Wednesday at 12:23 AM|
Really R341 ? MM needs warpaint on her face to look a bit decent . Her hair is a wig and she has chicken legs . Give me Kate anyday ! Kate is too thin I agree on that . But she has a pretty face and lucious hair and a tall figure .
|by Anonymous||reply 342||Last Wednesday at 1:05 AM|
How did I miss @sussexroyal's first Tig Thought?
Lower-case italic is the new pink.
|by Anonymous||reply 343||Last Wednesday at 1:07 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 344||Last Wednesday at 1:07 AM|
Camilla’s friends and family branded Charles an “absolute pig”.
|by Anonymous||reply 345||Last Wednesday at 1:27 AM|
Emily Nash, another mouthpiece for MeGain , turning it into a competition between Markle and a 3 year old. Bloody disgusting. The headline alone reeks of Markle "Meghan Markle's baby will have MORE of a 'global impact' than Princess Charlotte". Global impact my arse. What this woman is doing to the BRF is sickening. I'm getting sick of this shitshow. Sorry for the rant, but what I've been watching before my eyes makes me glad my elders aren't here to witness it. And saying that is bittersweet.
|by Anonymous||reply 346||Last Wednesday at 2:17 AM|
Queen Mary would have wrenched the pillow out by now.
|by Anonymous||reply 347||Last Wednesday at 2:50 AM|
Well this is interesting, someone has done some digging into Sparkle#s family tree, and it appears that Doria's grandmother and grandfather were half siblings. They both had the same mother.
|by Anonymous||reply 348||Last Wednesday at 3:09 AM|
I hope they give her the booth after the birth .
|by Anonymous||reply 349||Last Wednesday at 3:10 AM|
Sugar sugar ah honey honey..
|by Anonymous||reply 350||Last Wednesday at 3:12 AM|
You do realiZe we are living in changing times here in our new Western CiviliZation
|by Anonymous||reply 351||Last Wednesday at 3:14 AM|
The "helicopter pilot quits because he has to do late night food-craving runs for MM" story is ludicrous but I want to track down the Tig entry that Hello dug up in which she commented on the excessive publicity surrounding William and Kate's wedding and that becoming a princess should not be anyone's goal in this day and age and personally, her princess goal was to be She-Ra.
I was surprised that Hello would publish something that reflects poorly (when you think about it) on MM. They did not link to the Tig entry. This was on LSA a few days ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 352||Last Wednesday at 3:26 AM|
You can find The Tig archived using the WayBack Machine site.
|by Anonymous||reply 353||Last Wednesday at 3:38 AM|
The Mirror isn't holding back.
|by Anonymous||reply 354||Last Wednesday at 3:39 AM|
Okay, everyone, non-psychotic DL users are convinced: you all DON'T want the ginger prince to be your boyfriend. You are all just mentally ill fraus.
|by Anonymous||reply 355||Last Wednesday at 3:44 AM|
Goodness, R355, it's like being back at school. Are you handing out detentions too?
|by Anonymous||reply 356||Last Wednesday at 3:47 AM|
Oh do fuck off r355, there’s a dear.
|by Anonymous||reply 357||Last Wednesday at 3:49 AM|
Far from it R355. I'm a British taxpayer, a sole trader of a small business. And I'm fed up with the gross and obscene display in front of me, by someone who is not yet a British citizen. And that is of no disrespect to anyone here. at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 358||Last Wednesday at 3:50 AM|
Prediction: Sohobebe comes out looking like the spitting image of Tom Markle snr.
|by Anonymous||reply 359||Last Wednesday at 3:53 AM|
I hope the baby won’t look like Tom Sr.
|by Anonymous||reply 360||Last Wednesday at 3:56 AM|
Wouldn’t it be funny if it ended up the image of Samantha?
|by Anonymous||reply 361||Last Wednesday at 4:35 AM|
None of that I think . It will look white I can guarantee you that . If its only the surrogate and PH sperm with ivf it will be white . The horror it will be for Megantoinette to have a black baby . She erased her black heritage as much as she could .
|by Anonymous||reply 362||Last Wednesday at 4:51 AM|
R337 - Nailed that in toto. It's the bottom line: Harry is sixth in line, and thanks to his moron of a wife, really somehow believes that he and she are an equal footing with William and Kate. They aren't, they never will be.
One has a pretty good idea of what the Queen must think as she watches the American grifter egg Harry on, but I'm curious as to what Charles thinks. Having benefitted from and enjoyed the perks of what the principle of birth order gave him, it seems odd that he wouldn't grasp its importance to the institution going forward.
|by Anonymous||reply 363||Last Wednesday at 4:51 AM|
R297 R351 Prince Charles has used American spellings since at least 2014.
Meghan's been subliminally writing his correspondence all this time.
|by Anonymous||reply 364||Last Wednesday at 5:01 AM|
In fact, the Duchess of Sussex will “fill up” Frogmore Cottage with nannies, but will also most likely “butt heads” with them, according to Samantha.
|by Anonymous||reply 365||Last Wednesday at 5:27 AM|
Ok DL. Anyone have a green thumb and wouldn't mind living at Buckingham Palace on 69 pounds a day? Here's your chance.
|by Anonymous||reply 366||Last Wednesday at 5:38 AM|
Yvonne, pardon me, Samantha has a new stylist. This is such an improvement on the "Mrs Doubtfire Dragged Through a Hedge Backwards" look she was sporting at Christmas.
|by Anonymous||reply 367||Last Wednesday at 5:44 AM|
Sam is an attention-hungry grifter like the rest of her family, but everything she say in that interview is common sense from everything we've seen. Meghan is jealous of Kate and does not seem to understand the concept of hierarchy. She's treated the rest of her staff like carp, so the nannies will be no different. Rinse, repeat.
|by Anonymous||reply 368||Last Wednesday at 5:46 AM|
The Queen and Philip with Charles and Anne.
|by Anonymous||reply 369||Last Wednesday at 5:48 AM|
Genetics are a funny thing...what the Sohobébé will look like?
|by Anonymous||reply 370||Last Wednesday at 5:50 AM|
'Carp' typo' at r368 seems apt - so many fishy goings on.
|by Anonymous||reply 371||Last Wednesday at 5:51 AM|
This is a great read....
|by Anonymous||reply 372||Last Wednesday at 5:57 AM|
It's this kind of photo where she's so obviously posing her leg that is a WTF. There are a million sexy poses. She skips all of them and goes straight to porn star. He's my leg. Just past it, you can find my vagina!
|by Anonymous||reply 373||Last Wednesday at 5:58 AM|
Here she's lifted her entire leg off the seat.
She's making like they're staying there (vacation with Jessica Mulroney) but it's a famous hotel balcony that allows tourists to take pictures on it. There are no other pics of them at the hotel except for the balcony.
|by Anonymous||reply 374||Last Wednesday at 6:02 AM|
Goodness R355, so your position is that anyone who DOESN'T fancy Prince Harry is lying? Do you fancy him? What is it about him you find most attractive? What is it about him you think OTHERS find appealing?
|by Anonymous||reply 375||Last Wednesday at 6:03 AM|
R346 I called it in a previous thread after the William affair smear came up. I said so far Meghan's pr and her allies in the media have taken after everything Kate has - her marriage, her family's business and the security it provides her, and her marriage. Then it took after her mother. All in the classic "turn it around style." Whatever criticism there had been of Meghan, whatever rumors, became, no it's KATE and her stuff. I said the kids would be next. And here it is.
|by Anonymous||reply 376||Last Wednesday at 6:14 AM|
Prediction: This baby won't look like either of its parents. It will resemble them the way Michael Jackson's kids resemble him.
|by Anonymous||reply 377||Last Wednesday at 6:16 AM|
I remember that R376, you predicted the Cambridge kids would be next. And now we have it. She couldn't stand the article about the Cambridges, the Tindalls and all the kids dominating the press the other day, either, so what does she do? Make headlines by referring to " Baby Sussex" on her simpering Instagram.
|by Anonymous||reply 378||Last Wednesday at 6:22 AM|
“People are delighted that Meghan is doing things differently,” royal author Ingrid Seward tells PEOPLE in this week’s issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 379||Last Wednesday at 6:24 AM|
The Sun picks up the story about Meghan's Tig post on Kate.
|by Anonymous||reply 380||Last Wednesday at 6:27 AM|
She doesn't have to do things the same way but where the fuck is her OBGYN? Doesn't she have one, and doesn't that doctor have a hospital affiliation? She's still shopping - what has she been doing for obstetric care in the 13 months she's been "pregnant". How come in all these PR leaks it's never said, "Meghan's obstetrician, so and so, thinks the duchess is well able to have a home birth." Or, after consulting with her obgyn, Meghan and Harry have "taken the decision." But it's like there's no doctor there.
If she were faking and there was a surrogate, I think she thought she could just bring in some fraud pretending to be an American doctor, the details would be "private", they'd cook up a magical birth story, and voila. I think the struggle here now is they actually have to have somebody British and BRF affiliated sign off that it came out the same route it supposedly went in, and she's feeling trapped.
|by Anonymous||reply 381||Last Wednesday at 6:28 AM|
Little Omid could put on a white coat and a stethoscope and pretend for her
|by Anonymous||reply 382||Last Wednesday at 6:31 AM|
This would suit me
|by Anonymous||reply 383||Last Wednesday at 6:34 AM|
I think Sara Latham wrote Prince Charles' message. MM would have shown Harry to get his praise and he would have had her correct the American spellings.
|by Anonymous||reply 384||Last Wednesday at 6:35 AM|
Little Omid's got his own birthing chair. Jobs a good 'un.
|by Anonymous||reply 385||Last Wednesday at 6:37 AM|
r384 Charles has form for using antiquated (now primarily american) british spellings. Unfortunately for him, the British Public is now paying more attention to the BRF since they let in MeGain. I don't think he will like people thinking MM is writing his letters.
|by Anonymous||reply 386||Last Wednesday at 6:39 AM|
R376, yes. She went after the kids. She threw a gauntlet that’ll be hard for the family to ignore. I hope the BRF can maintain a dignified silence in the face of this latest provocation.
|by Anonymous||reply 387||Last Wednesday at 6:46 AM|
It feels like Meghan's been pregnant for years! I can't believe the announcement (and Eugenie's wedding) was only six months ago. Maybe it feels like longer because there's been so much drama in the British press (mostly Brexit-related) since then.
|by Anonymous||reply 388||Last Wednesday at 6:47 AM|
I do like the story of the helicopter pilot being sent to fetch for Meghan. There is no defense for that kind of nonsense.
But I have a question. Was he being dispatched via car? Or was he using the heli to pick up a curry for Her Royal Highness? And don’t they have personal assistants for that kind of thing?
It’s a delicious story, though. If true, it highlights her particular sadism - sending a highly-skilled and well-paid person to do a menial task. Just because she can. What the kids call “flexing”.
|by Anonymous||reply 389||Last Wednesday at 6:54 AM|
while we await the second coming - this guy is funny
|by Anonymous||reply 390||Last Wednesday at 7:05 AM|
If the birth supposedly occurs on April 21st as betting odds heavily predict (to coincide with holy Easter AND Queen Elizabeth's birthday), only MEgain's stains will buy into the farce it wasn't premeditated. Those nutcases will rub their last two working brain cells to proclaim it was foreordained because of how "special" IS the Sussex pillow baby.
|by Anonymous||reply 391||Last Wednesday at 7:34 AM|
Is the helicopter pilot story getting picked up anywhere else? Because it sounds unbelievable. He was stationed down near the coast.
She wrote: "Little girls dream of being princesses. I, for one, was all about She-Ra, Princess of Power.
"For those of you unfamiliar with the '80s cartoon reference, She-Ra is the twin sister of He-Man, and a sword-wielding royal rebel known for her strength. We're definitely not talking about Cinderella here.
"Grown women seem to retain this childhood fantasy. Just look at the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royal wedding and endless conversation about Princess Kate."
|by Anonymous||reply 392||Last Wednesday at 7:35 AM|
Fergie tried it with Beatrice who was born at 18 minutes past 8 on 8 / 8/88 and pretended it was a miraculous occurrence and not at all studied or induced. The hollow laughter was deafening. She doesn't realise the British have been here before
|by Anonymous||reply 393||Last Wednesday at 7:37 AM|
Re R392 In the last sentence of her post, she actually sounds jealous of the "endless conversation" about Kate. And it's almost as though she's talking about herself, not other grown women.
|by Anonymous||reply 394||Last Wednesday at 7:39 AM|
She’s such a terrible writer. Just cringe inducing.
It makes you wonder how she ever got the idea to write a blog.
It’s like someone who got “Ds” in math their whole life deciding to become an engineer.
|by Anonymous||reply 395||Last Wednesday at 7:40 AM|
Would narcissistic Meghan want her baby to share a birthday with the Queen or another royal?
|by Anonymous||reply 396||Last Wednesday at 7:41 AM|
I think she will go for Louis’s birthday. That would really chap William’s ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 397||Last Wednesday at 7:42 AM|
All I know is that when I mentioned MONTHS ago that I was waiting for someone to create a meme showing the Duchess full bellied with some Joker's head positioned in front of said full belly covering his mouth with hand while holding a large stick pin, EVERYBODY JUMPED ON MY ASS FOR IT! Now, the idea doesn't seem so far-fetched after all, eh? Chick was never pregnant!
|by Anonymous||reply 398||Last Wednesday at 7:43 AM|
That Nanny looks like a Manny to me.
|by Anonymous||reply 399||Last Wednesday at 7:45 AM|
R398 That's still as nutso today as it was however months ago you may have mentioned it.
|by Anonymous||reply 400||Last Wednesday at 7:48 AM|
There has been an advert for a new heli pilot , for the royal family. So it's either true, or Radar have made a story up, surrounding the job vacancy. I'll go with the former.
|by Anonymous||reply 401||Last Wednesday at 7:54 AM|
Treating “the help” like shit is a clear class marker— specifically, it show that someone is lower class.
Someone raised without help will behave one of two ways— overly tentative / chummy with the help (middle class people) or rude and imperious (gutter trash people.)
Im guessing the pilot was a victim of dear Sparkle.
|by Anonymous||reply 402||Last Wednesday at 8:03 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 403||Last Wednesday at 8:04 AM|
R348 Ewww.....gross. So if true, Meghan's great-grandparents on her mom's side were two people too dumb to know they're not supposed to be fucking, or they knew but just didn't care. Fucking messed up genes on both sides of her family.
|by Anonymous||reply 404||Last Wednesday at 8:48 AM|
Can there be any doubt it will be a revolving door of nannies for the Sussexes? People don't seem to like working for the cunt very long. So will we see American nannies? I doubt it. Celebs tend to favor third world nationals (cuz cheap). Or will there be mannies for Smegs to brandish her gender nonconforming woke credentials and be papped taking him out to lunch because she is such a great boss?
|by Anonymous||reply 405||Last Wednesday at 9:21 AM|
WTF? Is this Dim's idea of a joke or is he just a fucking asshole with shit for brains?
|by Anonymous||reply 406||Last Wednesday at 10:01 AM|
He should be pointing it at himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 407||Last Wednesday at 10:04 AM|
Two videos of Meghan's trip to India before she married Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 408||Last Wednesday at 10:16 AM|
[quote]it appears that Doria's grandmother and grandfather were half siblings
Finally, an explanation for her left leg.
|by Anonymous||reply 409||Last Wednesday at 10:21 AM|
R376 - are you talking about me?
|by Anonymous||reply 410||Last Wednesday at 10:23 AM|
Some stories from Charles and Diana's chef.
|by Anonymous||reply 411||Last Wednesday at 10:26 AM|
Camilla really loves smelling flowers. LOL.
|by Anonymous||reply 412||Last Wednesday at 10:28 AM|
Charles and Diana with the boys on holiday. They were visiting the Spanish Royals.
|by Anonymous||reply 413||Last Wednesday at 10:30 AM|
R412 it looks like a feed bag.
|by Anonymous||reply 414||Last Wednesday at 10:36 AM|
Just imagine if George VI had "funded a court" for Margaret while Elizabeth was heir. Margaret was the SPARE. You don't have rival sub-courts in the same court. Or even cooperative courts. There's ONE court.
Naturally there's speculation about the future. Alrighty, the queen is queening right now, and here are her closest advisors. Her elderly son has his own advisors that he'll put into those positions when his mom passes, and even now they have a good deal of influence in planning for the day. William comes after Charles, and has his own friends and close advisors who it is speculated will be relied upon when he is king. And maybe in matters of mutual interest to all three parties there is some jostling as to whose view prevails, although of course in the end, the queen must do.
But there's no non-successor "courts" around funded by the crown and setting up their own independent shop where they determine the agenda. But Harry and Meghan thought they were an exception because her being a biracial American D-lister elevated them to "global" level. They continually try to make that claim. She was on Suits! She's biracial! She lived in Toronto and globe-trotted on the Soho House dime! We're GLOBAL!
So courtwise, In Harry and Meghan's case their agenda would be - how do we use nebulous humanitarian concerns crossed with social media to amplify our global profile to where it eclipses William and the rest of these wankers. And if they don't whip out those check books, we will caution them that they are risking not having having us and our blazing celebrity around. Won't they be sorry! We have global impact!
That was the argument. Why didn't PC and Queenie funnel funds their way immediately? It's a puzzlement.
|by Anonymous||reply 415||Last Wednesday at 10:40 AM|
In Search of Lost Time...
[quote]When I think of Halloween, I think of pumpkins – but not of the jack o’ lantern iteration we’ve all carved into shapes ranging from eerie to pedestrian – of spooky faces aglow on neighborhood porches. Instead, I think very vividly of the pumpkin costume my mom made for me when I was about six years old. A costume she stuffed with crumbled newspaper because we didn’t have enough pillows or cotton stuffing. I remember the crunch sound of the LA Times shoved all around me, the impossibility of sitting down, and the smell of ink – of coupon pages, and OP-eds pressed against my black leotard. And by some miracle – I have zero aversion to pumpkin. As a matter of fact, it remains one of my favorite things to roast up when autumn hits.
|by Anonymous||reply 416||Last Wednesday at 10:50 AM|
She's been taking style tips from Amal Clooney R414
|by Anonymous||reply 417||Last Wednesday at 10:56 AM|
Flawless, R416. This is the reason I read DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 418||Last Wednesday at 11:11 AM|
WHere was the douchey pic of Harry taken? He seems like a real asshole!
|by Anonymous||reply 419||Last Wednesday at 11:15 AM|
Would it ever occur to M that when the baby’s birthday is on the same day as HM it would be overshadowed by it
|by Anonymous||reply 420||Last Wednesday at 11:24 AM|
I think they’ll go for Louis’s birthday to (1) annoy Will and Kate but also (2) connect the kids and put forth an image of happy cousins growing up together.
|by Anonymous||reply 421||Last Wednesday at 11:28 AM|
HOWLING R146 ! lol lol
|by Anonymous||reply 422||Last Wednesday at 11:44 AM|
Omg I mean R416, that's how bad I am right now...on the fucking floor.
|by Anonymous||reply 423||Last Wednesday at 11:45 AM|
R420, nobody puts baby in the corner.
But seriously, anyone who goes after a 4-year old girl doesn’t care about some old lady, either.
|by Anonymous||reply 424||Last Wednesday at 11:54 AM|
I take it she was going for "crumpled" but her introspection is trite; therefore, crumbled was close enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 425||Last Wednesday at 11:56 AM|
I take it she was going for "crumpled" but her introspection is trite; therefore, crumbled was close enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 426||Last Wednesday at 11:57 AM|
R416 "Markle Proust and the pumpkin and lentil soup"
R416 For the win today!
|by Anonymous||reply 427||Last Wednesday at 12:08 PM|
Your signature cracked me up, R416. Out loud.
|by Anonymous||reply 428||Last Wednesday at 12:19 PM|
I'm still pissed about what MM did to Eugenie. She got married on a Friday. For once, all the press was about her. Yes, there were a few stories about "Is MM wearing a pregancy jacket (even though she's very thin?)", but overall, all the press was about Eug, and it was all good. Saturday, there were more pics and stories. On Sunday, the pics and stories continued. Why wouldn't people celebrate? Eug is the Queen's granddaughter, and in spite of who her parents are, she's reportedly a nice young woman, and there are no stories about her being unkind to anyone. Then on Monday, it was like someone decided that there was no more room for Eug in the tabloids anymore, because they dropped a bombshell announcement that started a new frenzy.
|by Anonymous||reply 429||Last Wednesday at 12:20 PM|
If MM actually had her 12-week scan before the wedding as she claimed, that puts her around 13 weeks at the wedding.
Which puts her a little over 40 weeks now.
Is she gestating an elephant?
|by Anonymous||reply 430||Last Wednesday at 12:25 PM|
If the prat and his twat are sincere about privacy, why did they choose to announce her pregnancy so early?
It's not like in the case of Catherine where she suffers from hyperemesis gravidarum and therefore an explanation had to be given why she had retreated from the public eye.
The HazBeans are fucking hypocrites.
|by Anonymous||reply 431||Last Wednesday at 12:26 PM|
Her writing is atrociously shallow trying to pass as deeply introspective. She's so self-centered that she writes fatuous vignettes and extrapolate them into greater meaning of life. For Meghan it's always about herself as in HER feelings are universal, HER thoughts are too good not to share with the world, HER emotions are the truths no matter what the truths actually say.
|by Anonymous||reply 432||Last Wednesday at 12:30 PM|
R431 The early announcement generated much press for the tour, and allowed her to skip any appearance she didn't fancy, and look frumpy whenever she likes. It's a handy excuse for anything, and makes every event about her.
|by Anonymous||reply 433||Last Wednesday at 12:31 PM|
She probably already had the baby a couple of days ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 434||Last Wednesday at 12:36 PM|
Yes R434 , the surrogates probs had the baby, and it's a girl. Because Sparkle has got Diana practically resurrected and speaking in her latest puff piece.
|by Anonymous||reply 435||Last Wednesday at 12:40 PM|
Sorry for the bad grammar above, I'm multitasking.
|by Anonymous||reply 436||Last Wednesday at 12:42 PM|
R433 nailed it. She has a built-in excuse for EVERYTHING, being pregnant. And then it’ll be post-partum whatever and then “she’s a new mum, cut her some slack”. And she also has the race and woman card.
FULL DECK TO PLAY
|by Anonymous||reply 437||Last Wednesday at 12:55 PM|
R435 - I would take anything Diana says about Charles in "rewrite" with a handful of salt. And frankly, if even some sympathetic bios are to be believed, Diana couldn't take the pressure about anything involving royal life once she got her fantasy man. Descriptions of her behaviour up at Balmoral shortly after the wedding show a far different persona from the one she displayed the August before when she was trying to impress everyone with what a perfect wife she would make Charles.
Charles, if anything, has favoured his younger son emotionally. That hasn't worked out so well for Harry, in my view.
The odd thing is, George VI adored both his daughters, but spoilt Margaret shamefully, perhaps to redress the balance of power when Elizabeth became Heir Presumptive at ten years old.
And here we have it again - royal father spoiling younger child. Come to it, the Queen spoilt Andrew, as well, in a way she never did Charles.
But in the end the spoilt younger siblings didn't come out of it so well - witness Margaret and Andrew.
|by Anonymous||reply 438||Last Wednesday at 1:08 PM|
Truth Machine Meghan, writing in usual asinine style: Upon gazing at the collection of royal jewels that will never adorn me, I licked my internal wounds, they tasted salty like crumbled Blue d'Auvergne cheese on thin crackers. Then I remember I had some avocados that Harry and I ordered helicopter pilot to get for me when I had one of my food cravings. Perfection. The balance of creamy and saltiness hits all the right notes, my taste buds savoring the melodic symphony of flavors bursting forth. At that moment, I'm reminded that we should all strive in seeking balance in life. By balance I mean big bank balances hidden in multiple bank accounts.
|by Anonymous||reply 439||Last Wednesday at 1:08 PM|
R439 - Last two lines are uproariously funny!
|by Anonymous||reply 440||Last Wednesday at 1:12 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 441||Last Wednesday at 1:14 PM|
What was Diana's behavior at Balmoral like right after the wedding? That she behaved badly has been mentioned a few times here but no details....would love to know more. Thank you.
|by Anonymous||reply 442||Last Wednesday at 1:17 PM|
So the Cambridges are doing pap strolls now? Hmmm.
|by Anonymous||reply 443||Last Wednesday at 2:00 PM|
R442 - You can check out both Sally Bedell Smith's bio of Diana or the more acidic Tina Brown's. Both describe Diana's volte-face at coming back to Balmoral for the last part of the honeymoon. She refused to talk to guests placed on either side of her at dinners but sat glowering into space, clearly bored and angry, was constantly reprimanding Charles for not paying enough attention to her. She apparently resented that at the pre-supper drinks, Charles quite properly served his 90-something (and still an anointed Queen) grandmother first, and then his mother, and then his wife. Diana took umbrage at this and said she thought "the wife should come first", a piece of nonsense - she would have known the drill quite well. The Queen was shocked by the change in Diana, and none too pleased at her behaviour.
Things between the couple got so bad so fast, that they sent Diana back to London and to see a psychiatrist for counseling. When she was asked why she wasn't up in Scotland with the rest of the family, Diana replied, "Boring. Raining."
Like most clinical narcissists, both Diana and Meghan are capable of sustained periods of a laserlike charm in pursuit of a person or goal. But once obtained, the narcissist cannot keep it up, and when disappointment sets in, the narcissist's true obsessional need for constant adoration, special treatment, and reassurance of her value emerges.
Very few knew how bad things got between Charles and Diana, so early. Rumours floated but as Diana's stardom began to skyrocket, and of course with a baby on the way almost immediately, the cracks got papered over quickly.
Doesn't the trajectory sound familiar? A short-ish relationship timeframe, the man the prize, the woman fiercely determined to nail him and playing every card she's got, and the moment she gets into the Golden Circle, she starts showing alarming signs of not being quite who everyone thought, and gets herself In the Club as soon as possible.
I'd give a good deal to know if Harry is as miserable as his father was in the aftermath of the wedding. It's unlikely that Meghan treats him any better than she does the aides, the PR assistants who chose to remain with the Cambridges, the helicopter pilot, her father, Princess Eugenie - and the Queen.
It must feel like Groundhog Day to the BRF.
|by Anonymous||reply 444||Last Wednesday at 2:37 PM|
[quote]When I think of Halloween, I think of pumpkins
One embodies a propense disappointment in one's self when one realizes — five years foreshadowed beyond the date of the initially scribed outpouring of one's most innermost ponderings of pumpkins past — that one neglected to pen the prerequisite high-comma betwixt the "e" and "e" of Hallowe'en.
Regrets, a few I've had.
|by Anonymous||reply 445||Last Wednesday at 2:38 PM|
She probably alternates between rage-filled tantrums, cool condescension and clinging charm (when she feels him pulling away), r444. His pride probably won't let him admit he's unhappy, especially since everyone he knows reportedly warned him against this marriage. Question is, how long will he go before he can't stand it anymore?
|by Anonymous||reply 446||Last Wednesday at 3:31 PM|
If you notice the Cambridge's are not seen interacting with one another. I think there is real trouble in their marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 447||Last Wednesday at 3:36 PM|
R447 I believe it. Infidelity is usually a horrific stress on a marriage. The scenario at the amusement park was uncomfortable to watch. There was no indication at all that these were two people supposedly in love with each other.
|by Anonymous||reply 448||Last Wednesday at 3:45 PM|
All I can say is, Thank God for Meghan Markle! She is the best thing to happen in a loong time!!
|by Anonymous||reply 449||Last Wednesday at 3:48 PM|
R448 I agree. If that was PR to show their love and solidarity it was a massive failure. Im curious to know how things will play out between them. Kate hasnt looked happy in awhile and Wills looks like he would rather be standing next to Pol Pot than his wife. Maybe he and Rose fell in love.
|by Anonymous||reply 450||Last Wednesday at 3:52 PM|
It's the rare marriage that doesn't encounter problems that can permanently fracture a union. Whether they repair those cracks and be stronger for it remains to be seen.
|by Anonymous||reply 451||Last Wednesday at 3:56 PM|
Very relieved that Markle doesn’t appear on the Time 100 Most Influential People of 2019 list.
Not that the list seems very sensible anyway, but it would be worse if fish lips were on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 452||Last Wednesday at 4:03 PM|
Wow R447 - you seem very perceptive regarding the state of the marriage of two people who you will never get near, let alone meet.
Based on a picture in the Daily fucking Mail.
From somebody who thinks that the plural of “Cambridge” is “Cambridge’s”.
You’re a genius, R447!
|by Anonymous||reply 453||Last Wednesday at 4:06 PM|
Aw what'z da madder Azzhole ? Need to feel superior because yur dick iz smol?
|by Anonymous||reply 454||Last Wednesday at 4:16 PM|
R453 we have fucking eyes and a brain. Apparently you have neither.
|by Anonymous||reply 455||Last Wednesday at 4:20 PM|
If this story about Markle rejecting the NHS is true then fuck her. She doesn’t mind spending £30m of public funds on her tacky-as-shit wedding with it’s vanity carriage ride, but then turns her nose up at a health service which is struggling because of a lack of funding?
Just can’t stand this cunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 456||Last Wednesday at 4:36 PM|
[quote]Maybe he and Rose fell in love.
Interesting. Quite plausible. And the thing Carole Middleton has no control over: Wills' heart and his dick's lusty search for other females.
|by Anonymous||reply 457||Last Wednesday at 4:55 PM|
To be fair, r456, if I were pregnant and had the money and option to have a private birth, I would do it. We’re talking about a baby here. I would do what I can to have the best care possible. NHS is great but people who are wealthy can luckily get better care, and they do.
|by Anonymous||reply 458||Last Wednesday at 5:03 PM|
Oh you’re a clever one, aren’t you R454?
|by Anonymous||reply 459||Last Wednesday at 5:10 PM|
R411, Boy, Chuck and Di were eatin’ good.
|by Anonymous||reply 460||Last Wednesday at 5:22 PM|
R458 Not the point I was making at all. It’s her complaining after gleefully spending public funds.
And, anyway, the doctors she would get privately are the exact same ones you get on the NHS. Most consultants work for both...something Americans don’t really understand. Going privately in the UK gets you shorter waiting lists (for non-urgent issues), a better room and nicer food. The medical care is identical.
We don’t just pay lip service to equality in healthcare in the UK.
|by Anonymous||reply 461||Last Wednesday at 5:37 PM|
“We’re talking about a baby here”
What a fucking stupid thing to say. Childbirth is a natural process, dear, and is not an illness. You’re making out it’s more in need of expert care than other medical treatments...like heart transplants or cancer treatment.
|by Anonymous||reply 462||Last Wednesday at 5:42 PM|
R462 I really, really, don’t want to see the shape your kids are in. Don’t have them, by the way, if you already haven’t. Moron isn’t the right word for you. Despicable cretin is a better description.
|by Anonymous||reply 463||Last Wednesday at 6:09 PM|
Seriously, I have to justify why a parent would want the best possible health care when they’re giving birth? I know millions of women do it under dire circumstances. Do you think they like it? Do you think they wouldn’t want great healthcare support if they could get it? Moron yourself, r462.
|by Anonymous||reply 464||Last Wednesday at 6:12 PM|
[quote]If MM actually had her 12-week scan before the wedding as she claimed, that puts her around 13 weeks at the wedding. Which puts her a little over 40 weeks now. Is she gestating an elephant?
|by Anonymous||reply 465||Last Wednesday at 6:31 PM|
To the moo at r463 and r464, go back to iVillage or wherever you came from. Nobody gives a shit that you shit out some kids.
|by Anonymous||reply 466||Last Wednesday at 6:43 PM|
Human gestation is 40 weeks and it is typical for first babies to be born at up to 42 weeks according to Wiki. So, not unduly long and due any time now.
|by Anonymous||reply 467||Last Wednesday at 6:50 PM|
It seems people are getting testy, awaiting the arrival of Baby Sussex. The never-ending onslaught of PR articles is a bit much. I, for one, can't wait until she has the darned baby. After all, it's just going to be a baby, like any other baby.
|by Anonymous||reply 468||Last Wednesday at 6:52 PM|
How angry is Meghan that she's not on the Times 100 list?
|by Anonymous||reply 469||Last Wednesday at 6:56 PM|
R466 the thing is, your hatred of everything MM caused some of you to go completely looney tunes, losing any capability for logic because you must argue that whatever she decides to do must be, by definition, the worst thing possible. So we who think with our heads have to point that out. Presenting an argument that MM doesn’t have to obtain the best possible medical care and privacy she can afford during childbirth makes you look incredibly stupid. I mean, Who does that? No one; everyone pretty much strives to get the best medical they can afford, including you probably.
|by Anonymous||reply 470||Last Wednesday at 7:12 PM|
and to the moron at 466, not only have I not popped out a few kids, I never felt the need to. I’m just kind of sympathetic to women having your fucking babies, but you get to prattle on in judgment about how they should have them
|by Anonymous||reply 471||Last Wednesday at 7:18 PM|
Wait. Women are having fucking babies for Dataloungers?
I've not yet been offered this service.
|by Anonymous||reply 472||Last Wednesday at 7:38 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 473||Last Wednesday at 7:47 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 474||Last Wednesday at 7:52 PM|
I do wonder if r466 is a trans woman. I don’t know of any other kind of person who gets so absolutely triggered by talk of childbirth. Some people get squicked out, but not so... angry.
Relax, gorgeous. If you’ve ever taken a giant and difficult shit, you’ve had approximately the same experience.
|by Anonymous||reply 475||Last Wednesday at 8:12 PM|
R475, I've heard that childbirth is the worst pain you can sustain without fainting. I wouldn't put a difficult bowel movement in that category.
|by Anonymous||reply 476||Last Wednesday at 9:07 PM|
[quote]She’s such a terrible writer. Just cringe inducing.
Can’t believe she got into Northwestern.
|by Anonymous||reply 477||Last Wednesday at 10:14 PM|
To the cunt with multiple posts who started with the moronic bleat that “this is a baby we’re talking about” please at least try to understand the objection to your stupid statement.
Markle can have whatever healthcare she chooses in the UK. Everyone (with the funds) has that right. Anyone with money is likely to go private because the rooms are better & the food nicer etc. It’s also more private. The consultants, equipment & expertise will be identical, however.
“This is a baby we’re talking about” is pompous & irrelevant. Any medical proceedure is not without risks & everyone will want the best no matter. If I had £20k to donate and had to pick between a labouring woman and a person in need of a new heart, guess where I’d send the cheque? That’s someone’s LIFE we’re talking about.
But this is academic anyway. You were too stupid to understand the original point & that is that she’s apparently complaining that underfunded public services are not good enough for her while spending mammoth amounts of public money making herself look important.
So she needs to shut her fucking mouth...as do you with your spiteful and cowardly “I hope you’re childless”, you sad old twat.
|by Anonymous||reply 478||Last Thursday at 12:21 AM|
R476 Tell that to Elvis.
|by Anonymous||reply 479||Last Thursday at 12:23 AM|
Yes, and there was a German king who "died of his exertions in his water closet."
|by Anonymous||reply 480||Last Thursday at 1:33 AM|
r461 and if there is an emergency with private healthcare they dial 999 and call the NHS to bail them out because most private hospitals are not equipped to deal with emergencies. The patient is probably even billed for that phone call.
I must say I find Sparkle's various birth narratives quite curious. Surely she would be under the care of a doctor for the duration of her pregnancy and the arrangements of where she was giving birth would have been already made? The only thing this secrecy helps is to keep the spotlight on her and to convince people maybe the surrogacy conspiracy theorists aren't so crazy after all.
|by Anonymous||reply 481||Last Thursday at 1:55 AM|
R481 Exactly. There seems to be an assumption that private & NHS are vastly different. They’re not, actually.
Steak for dinner instead of cottage pie & cabbage...nurses & doctors with time to talk....maid service in single use rooms. All nice, but that’s all you’re paying for.
Duke & dustman get the same level of healthcare in the UK...and that is something that we should be very proud of.
And yes...she must have been seeing doctors since the pregnancy was confirmed. Blood pressure and wee tests will need to be done monthly, then weekly as due date nears. A birth plan will have been drawn up and if she’s going to hospital she’ll have been booked in for a while.
I wouldn’t blame them for wanting to keep the birth underwraps...except they don’t, do they? Alerting the press when she’s in labour, then keeping everyone hanging till they are ready to announce is predictably attention-seeking. Quite pathetic.
The kid won’t go anywhere near the throne, so there is really no need for anything other than an announcement that s/he has been born and some pics on their IG.
|by Anonymous||reply 482||Last Thursday at 3:19 AM|
Well we will see don’t we ? And if its a surrogate she will do If she is the mother and birthed it . I so hope no one will be standing outside when they do the Fotocall .
|by Anonymous||reply 483||Last Thursday at 3:28 AM|
Easter 2019: Liz looks lovely and Eugenie looks like a putrid garden vomited on her.
|by Anonymous||reply 484||Last Thursday at 4:59 AM|
Eugenie is really becoming more prominent, recently, I think to avert from the shitshow.
|by Anonymous||reply 485||Last Thursday at 5:14 AM|
It seems pretty plain that Eugenie is moving into a more important and visible role.
Need more young royals WHO KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE for public engagements, the Queen's granddaughter can fill this role quite well.
If stories are true that Andrew has been urging a bigger role for his daughters for quite some time, perhaps their time has come.
Sparkle's disinterest in fulfilling her role in the RF and her continually ignoring even the most obvious behavioral advice after a year of marriage would have made to plain that Harry's wife (and probably Harry as well) is interested only in her own profile, not in supporting the RF.
The Queen must like having someone with her that she can trust when she makes these appearances. Because by now they all know that Sparkle is not to be trusted.
|by Anonymous||reply 486||Last Thursday at 5:22 AM|
Yes, MM's arrival has done wonders for a number of people in the BRF who now shine more brightly in comparison - Kate, Eugenie, Beatrice, Andrew. They should all thank her warmly.
|by Anonymous||reply 487||Last Thursday at 5:34 AM|
Is it possible for Eugenie to be a part-time working royal, or does one have to be all-in?
|by Anonymous||reply 488||Last Thursday at 5:37 AM|
I agree that MM has been a fun addition. She does make everyone else look better by comparison, and she is endlessly entertaining. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near her disordered ass, but it’s fun to watch from afar. I feel a bit sorry for her victims.
Especially Charlotte. It seems to me she has a special axe to grind with Kate and Charlotte. Resenting a little girl for having the life she always wanted...
|by Anonymous||reply 489||Last Thursday at 5:39 AM|
And if Meghan has a baby girl, it won't be Princess Sussex. Meghan's children will eventually have to curtsy/bow to Kate's. Take that, She-Ra.
|by Anonymous||reply 490||Last Thursday at 5:44 AM|
I wouldn't worry about Charlotte.
Sparkle blotted her copybook with Charlotte when she made Kate cry while complaining about Charlotte's "misbehaving" at the fitting of Charlotte's dress for the wedding.
I written this before, but it bears repeating.
Kids do not ever forget these kinds of nastiness to their mother.
I was once talking to an older cousin about his paternal grandmother, who I remembered seeing, but never knew. His expression hardened and he said "She made my mother cry."
His grandmother was long dead and my cousin was an older man.
But after all those years, that was the main memory of his grandmother that he held.
Kids never forget.
And if the story is true, it was Charlotte, not Kate who told William about the events.
Sparkle has made an enemy of Charlotte. Yes, she is just a little girl. But she won't forget.
|by Anonymous||reply 491||Last Thursday at 5:50 AM|
"According to diamond expert and gemologist Grant Mobley, Queen Elizabeth II will most likely pass down her special Botswana Flower brooch."
|by Anonymous||reply 492||Last Thursday at 6:10 AM|
Oh my! Will is not only having an affair, he's losing friends left and right and hitting the bottle. Sadly, he and Kate are living separate lives and are headed for divorce.
|by Anonymous||reply 493||Last Thursday at 6:19 AM|
^correct link for R493
|by Anonymous||reply 494||Last Thursday at 6:20 AM|
I have a need for speed. I'm 97 so fuck off if you don't like it
|by Anonymous||reply 495||Last Thursday at 6:29 AM|
R492 Like the priceless pieces from her art collection that she was going to send to Frogwhore Cottage as a moving in present? But Dorito is bringing over Sparkle's old posters , instead? Dream on , Mega, you really cannot force HM's hand by using such obvious PR. Don't forget, Dorito STILL didn't get the Christmas invite to Sandringham....and HM was PISSED about that PR piece.
|by Anonymous||reply 496||Last Thursday at 6:31 AM|
William is running half a world away to get away from....
his troubles, his mistress, his wife, his screaming children
|by Anonymous||reply 497||Last Thursday at 6:36 AM|
Will is friendly with fellow parents at George's school.
|by Anonymous||reply 498||Last Thursday at 6:52 AM|
Kate's stylist and George's godfather have some explaining to do.
|by Anonymous||reply 499||Last Thursday at 6:54 AM|
That doesn't look like Philip at R495's link.
|by Anonymous||reply 500||Last Thursday at 6:56 AM|
What the hell has happened to William's reputation in just two weeks time. He appears to be a family man who's always craved his privacy. (He barely releases pictures of his kids, and the first official photo of William and Kate with baby George was taken by Kate's dad.) He's made sure that both he and Kate have plenty of time to bond with their kids before they have to assume a heavy workload. And now, out of nowhere, we're supposed to believe he's a cheater, all because of a rumor. And the source of the rumor isn't clear. Has this rumor appeared in DM or the other tabloids? It seems like an Internet-based thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 501||Last Thursday at 6:57 AM|
Don’t you think its odd now all of a sudden its all over William s so-called affair with that Rose . It all comes from Hollywood Gossip . An American gossip tabloid . Me thinks someone is after William and Kate . Meghanantoinette has been busy in her Frog Cottage . All she wants to do is destroy W and K so she and Harry will be triomfant . All these attacks come from one source and that source is Meghan .
|by Anonymous||reply 502||Last Thursday at 7:02 AM|
R486, I hope so. I think Eugenie would be great at taking on more royal responsibilities. By all accounts, she's polite, warm, kind, and charming. She knows all the rules and protocols; she grew up with them. And most importantly, she's loyal to the queen, and will behave in such a way as to obtain her grandmother's approval. She is comfortable with playing a supporting role and doesn't have an overwhelming need to be the center of attention.
|by Anonymous||reply 503||Last Thursday at 7:04 AM|
The Queen in sunny yellow.
|by Anonymous||reply 504||Last Thursday at 7:09 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 505||Last Thursday at 7:10 AM|
I can see a bit of Andrew in the Queen's expression here.
|by Anonymous||reply 506||Last Thursday at 7:11 AM|
A lovely photo of then Princess Elizabeth with Philip.
|by Anonymous||reply 507||Last Thursday at 7:12 AM|
While Will is Down Under, Kate will attend Anzac Service at Westminster Abbey.
|by Anonymous||reply 508||Last Thursday at 7:18 AM|
Kate, George and Charlotte are on the cover of Hello Canada.
|by Anonymous||reply 509||Last Thursday at 7:19 AM|
R472, is there fate crueller than being raised by a DLer?
|by Anonymous||reply 510||Last Thursday at 7:30 AM|
Poor old Meghan has had to scrape the barrel for the story at R499 as it is from 2007 . Presumably the DM wouldn't accept the Turnip stories from her any more.
|by Anonymous||reply 511||Last Thursday at 7:59 AM|
If Meghan is behind any of these stories about Will, she is certainly putting herself in a risky situation. Undermining the future POW/king is something I doubt even the Queen would ignore.
|by Anonymous||reply 512||Last Thursday at 8:04 AM|
So...any negative stories about any member of the BRF is now automatically from Meghan?
How infantile some of you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 513||Last Thursday at 8:35 AM|
I agree R513!
|by Anonymous||reply 514||Last Thursday at 8:45 AM|
The Guardian weighs in on the Sussex baby.
|by Anonymous||reply 515||Last Thursday at 9:00 AM|
People are actually believing that MM will allow a former NANNY to be the child’s godmother?! As if.
I would think that Meghan wouldn’t want anything so conventional and booooring as GODparents. She will blaze a new feminist trail and name a “cohort of goddesses” to The Second Coming. Oprah, Amal, Serena, whoever is most useful...
|by Anonymous||reply 516||Last Thursday at 9:14 AM|
Harry and ME are following the exact same game Diana played. Attract the press with relentless showboating and papped photo ops but then cry privacy once you've pulled everyone's attention to you in a bid to sound sympathetic. The Sussexes are what they sow.
|by Anonymous||reply 517||Last Thursday at 9:14 AM|
R517, a little bit of history repeating...
|by Anonymous||reply 518||Last Thursday at 9:38 AM|
I love Marina Hyde, I’m sorry to see her defend Smegs but it is the Graun so you know ...
|by Anonymous||reply 519||Last Thursday at 9:38 AM|
I couldnt finish her twaddle. Did Hyde mention anything about the pens of paps that were summoned at the phony $500,000 baby shower? Can't have it both ways, even at the Guardian, dear.
|by Anonymous||reply 520||Last Thursday at 9:52 AM|
Is the blessed event upon us?
|by Anonymous||reply 521||Last Thursday at 10:10 AM|
R501 has been living under a rock. Poor thing. Let's catch you up.
This Turnip au gratin mess is definitely not an internet-based thing, it didn't magically materialize in the last two weeks and it's not simply tabloid fodder.
The Cholmondeley Affair has been everywhere and back. It started at Eden Confidential in the DM, The Sun threw a grenade at it in it's Saturday edition and it exploded all over the place. Multiple papers had journalists working on the story. The Times (a newspaper of record) carried a thinly veiled article about a "rural rival" and a "falling out". Some hard news people (non-Brits) were trying to figure it out on Twitter and then Giles Coren at the Times translated toff for the masses by tweeting
[quote] Yes, it is an affair. I haven’t read the piece but I know about the affair. Everyone knows about the affair, darling.
Coren has deleted the tweet but I actually read it while the situation was unfolding. Make of that what you will. Richard Kay at the DM says there have been rumours about Will and Rose since 2018 and that the Cambridges had considered legal action. That would be like driving an oil tanker into a house fire. We'll see how that goes.
Now you're all caught up.
|by Anonymous||reply 522||Last Thursday at 10:32 AM|
This video from Sky News tells me all that I need to know about the anti-MM/Harry trolls:
|by Anonymous||reply 523||Last Thursday at 10:32 AM|
One thing I don’t understand: why people (or is it the same person) keep saying that getting lawyers involved confirms the affair? I imagine if William did nothing, then people would say, well there must be an affair, otherwise he would sue.
|by Anonymous||reply 524||Last Thursday at 10:41 AM|
It's only one shady PR shill talking to himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 525||Last Thursday at 10:43 AM|
You don't need to sue for truly fake news because there's no evidence. The BRF sue or threaten to do so when there is real news that they want to categorize as "private."
|by Anonymous||reply 526||Last Thursday at 10:45 AM|
I suspect that the reports of the Queen's reactions to recent goings-on are greatly exaggerated. It's very hard to believe she has an active role in all the maneuverings right now. I think that Charles has been calling the shots for a while.
|by Anonymous||reply 527||Last Thursday at 10:52 AM|
Those were cases of photos taken with a hidden camera, or former servants selling their stories to papers. This is different, as there is no source and no evidence. Besides, it probably depends on the story. Is adultery a ground for divorce in the UK?
|by Anonymous||reply 528||Last Thursday at 10:56 AM|
There's a reason William went from a guy from whom we barely heard anything new other than what's up with the kids, that Kate went from the same to suddenly "feuding" with a neighbor, and that there has been nothing about Carole Middleton as a boss in the more than a decade she's been William's mother-in-law. The press could get nothing negative about her running of party pieces in all these years but along comes Meg and suddenly Carole is a terrible boss. Meg defines a narc's tactics - whatever is said about her or her allies her PR turns around and says it's really the truth about someone else. And now she's taking off after Charlotte. No conincidence it's Charlotte. How low can you go. "My kid is going to have more impact than Charlotte." She truly sucks, and she's a liar, and her PR, from William to Kate to Carole to Charlotte - is lies. And that goes double for Harry who has weaponized his wife against his brother.
|by Anonymous||reply 529||Last Thursday at 11:29 AM|
^^^ yup. Lyin' liars.
|by Anonymous||reply 530||Last Thursday at 11:33 AM|
Suits castmembers Gabriel Macht (with wife Jacinda Barrett), Patrick Adams, Sarah Rafferty, Abigail Spencer, Gina Torres and showrunner Aaron Korsh will pile into the pews at St. George's Chapel, as will NBCUniversal cable entertainment group chair and Markle mentor Bonnie Hammer and the royal fiancee's key reps: Gersh's Nick Collins, attorney Rick Genow, business manager Andrew Meyer and Sunshine Sachs' Keleigh Thomas Morgan. Pal Priyanka Chopra also is attending, as is Serena Williams. (Markle's father, Thomas, a onetime TV lighting director who was to walk her down the aisle, no longer will attend after apparently staging photos with paparazzi.)
|by Anonymous||reply 531||Last Thursday at 12:01 PM|
If The Cholmondeley Affair is Meghan's doing, she has managed to get the British press so firmly on her side in the last 18 months that they would turn on the man who would be king. If this story had only appeared in the DM I would brush it aside but the Times carried it. I find it hard to believe that Meghan is that powerful or influential but 38 threads on this topic seem to believe she is.
|by Anonymous||reply 532||Last Thursday at 12:02 PM|
I know how to get what I want.
|by Anonymous||reply 533||Last Thursday at 12:05 PM|
Sunshine Sachs seems pretty cozy with the Hollywood Reporter.
Brooke Blumberg, VP, Sunshine Sachs, is listed as a participant in THR’s mentorship program for young women. (A mentorship program! Because, you know, there’s no better way to destroy a smart, promising young woman than to lure her into that shithole known as Hollywood!)
Can you imagine the field trip to the SS offices....
“Ladies, today we will show you how to elevate your client by smearing a four-year-old!”
|by Anonymous||reply 534||Last Thursday at 12:17 PM|
>suspect that the reports of the Queen's reactions to recent goings-on are greatly exaggerated.
So, true. All the Queen talked to, the Queen laid down the law, the Queen refused to, the Queen remarked that … are all false. Charles calls some of the shots, the ones that interest him, but BRF floats rudderless on choppy seas now. BTW, no turbulent seas, no rogue waves - the BRF has survived worse than this.
|by Anonymous||reply 535||Last Thursday at 1:09 PM|
Christ, the Sunshine Sachs trolls are insane.
|by Anonymous||reply 536||Last Thursday at 1:12 PM|
Sunshine seems like a real fine place to work, in other words, a slimy pit of lies and manipulation. Sarah Latham seems to fit in perfectly with them, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 537||Last Thursday at 1:27 PM|
The younger royals need to take a page from Queen Mary's playbook.
|by Anonymous||reply 538||Last Thursday at 2:16 PM|
I am ambivalent about Markle. But no way is she to blame about Willy’s bad press.
And if I were Markle and no family money to fall back on, then I sure as hell would put ME first and not the BRF. As soon as Harry tires of her. Then she is out w very little funds. I would do what I could to set myself up as a pseudo lifestyle guru after I were divorced
|by Anonymous||reply 539||Last Thursday at 2:51 PM|
R486 - I agree, the sudden presence of Pss. Eugenie by the Queen's side and Eugenie's recent outings including with her father, indicate that Yuge has been invited to take a more public role. I think Yuge looks quite nice in her Easter-ish floral dress. One can only make guesses, and one of mine is that the Queen now wants to push her own blood forward after seeing the nasty chaos the foreign grifter has wrought, and her lovely, newly married granddaughter, a Princess of the Blood, with colouring so like the Queen's and the Queen's mother's, is just the ticket.
R539 - The problem with your perspective is that, as Meghan owes everything that gives her any interest to her newly royal status, ignoring the BRF puts her at risk of losing that, and her assumption that she'll be able to carry that interest beyond the BRF is, in my view, a stupid one. If she were interesting in her own, she'd have gotten farther in the 15 years she tried everything she could to turn into an A-Lister.
Your suggestion is exactly the kind of thinking that has been Markle's downfall all along. The thing to do if you know that it's your royal status that's giving you your advantage, is to be a good little Duchess, fit yourself into the family, make the marriage work - and really ensure your future.
Using the BRF as she has more or less announces to the BRF that she's just using them, and doesn't expect to die as Harry's wife. The Queen, at least, isn't that stupid.
Hence, enter Pss. Eugenie stage left, ready to remnd the British public what REAL princesses look like. Meghan Markle is, as I always said, a good short-term in-fighter, but poor at long-term strategies.
She's let her teeth show way too early in the game, putting the lionkeepers on their guard. She may have fooled Charles, but she sure as hell hasn't fooled Charles's heir, or the current Queen, or most of the rest of the family.
|by Anonymous||reply 540||Last Thursday at 2:59 PM|
“Princess of the Blood” is indicative of everything that is wrong with the concept of the BRF. Reminds me of full blood and half blood stuff from Harry Potter. Really despicable.
|by Anonymous||reply 541||Last Thursday at 3:02 PM|
R541 - Oh, please. Eugenie's mother is a commoner. Magical powers and the concept of royalty aren't an equivalency. When royalty loses the distinction that gave it its mojo in the first place, it isn't royalty any longer. This has been discussed here before. What the fuck do you think very initials "HRH" mean?! Your Royal HIGHNESS - that is to say, higher than everyone else. If any concept is bankrupt, that one is. But if you're going to have it, you have to see that it goes on meaning something besides Some Girl Who Was In The Right Place At The Right Time.
The dilemma all European royalty faces in the modern era is how to go on using terms like HRH whilst pretending to be terribly modern and democratic. There's nothing democratic about the initials HRH in the first instance.
There's a reason that Eugenie was born with the initials HRH in front of her name, and Kate's and Meghan's are only courtesy titles. No one can "de-Princess" Eugenie but they can bloody well "de-HRH" women like Diana, Fergie, Kate, and Meghan.
It wasn't what's wrong with the BRF: it's what's wrong with the very concept of monarchy.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, although Europe's royal families are trying to do just that. Yes: there's a difference between Kate and Meghan, and Eugenie. That's how monarchy works. All monarchy - otherwise, they're just a house of playing cards.
|by Anonymous||reply 542||Last Thursday at 3:31 PM|
Thanks for proving my point, r542.
|by Anonymous||reply 543||Last Thursday at 3:36 PM|
Any recent sightings of brown velvet lady? If I were clever enough with photoshop and had the time, I'd produce a series of BVL photos depicting her in various royal family scenes: in a carriage at Ascot, at a Balmoral BBQ, peering over a shoulder on the Buckingham Palace balcony, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 544||Last Thursday at 4:16 PM|
I think she sometimes switches to Blue Velvet.
|by Anonymous||reply 545||Last Thursday at 4:28 PM|
R540 for the win! Agree that the sudden prominence of Princess Eugenie is to counteract Me-Again. It's a bit funny than HazBean are trying to align themselves with the 'woke youth' as they themselves are rapidly approaching middle-age, especially hapless Haz with his balding head.
|by Anonymous||reply 546||Last Thursday at 5:13 PM|
Princess Eugenie, at 29 years old, is nearly a decade younger than Meghan. She's fairly savvy with her use of social media (for a royal), knows how to conduct herself appropriately on behalf of the BRF and is beloved by the Queen. Hmmm...
|by Anonymous||reply 547||Last Thursday at 5:21 PM|
R540, but the problem with your theory is if she plays good girl, then when , and not if, Harry dumps her, then she will have a career. I just can understand the wacky strategy she is taking.
Note that I am not a fan but I see the predicament she feels that she is in.
|by Anonymous||reply 548||Last Thursday at 5:31 PM|
“a Princess of the Blood, with colouring so like the Queen's and the Queen's mother...”
Colouring, huh? Could you be more explicit r540? MM isn’t the right “colouring”. Why bring it up at all? Should it matter what “colouring” they are? You know it does, otherwise why mention it?
And now you’ll cry that you’re not racist!
|by Anonymous||reply 549||Last Thursday at 5:35 PM|
[quote]Any recent sightings of brown velvet lady?
She was last seen in camouflage velvet, carrying a large duffle bag, creeping in the direction of the frog pond.
|by Anonymous||reply 550||Last Thursday at 5:44 PM|
R544 I am so here for that.
More Brown Velvet Lady. R55 or R107 are there new visuals? Where will she pop up next?
|by Anonymous||reply 551||Last Thursday at 5:48 PM|
Does anyone have a link to whatever Me-Gain said about Charlotte this week?
|by Anonymous||reply 552||Last Thursday at 5:50 PM|
[quote]Meghan Markle's baby will have MORE of a 'global impact' than Princess Charlotte
|by Anonymous||reply 553||Last Thursday at 6:06 PM|
R549 - Pss. Eugenie IS the Queen's flesh and blood and LOOKS LIKE her. It's not that complicated. The Queen did the same thing when Diana and Fergie began saturating the headlines, and Diana was a blonde, blue-eyed aristocrat and Fergie was a red-headed freckled fringe arista. Suddenly, the Queen conferred the title of Princess Royal on Anne - it was a clear move to differentiate the blood princess from the arrivistes.
And as Meghan Markle has made it all too clear that whilst she's delighted to take the perks, status, wealth, and global platform the BRF gave her, she really doesn't feel she should return the favour by even pretending she gets the concept of constitutional monarchy.
She doesn't fit because she's mixed race, she doesn't fit because she doesn't want to. Only they're the only reason anyone is paying the slightest attention to her.
If she acted more like a "real" princess", maybe the Queen wouldn't be at pains to show the public a real one.
|by Anonymous||reply 554||Last Thursday at 6:09 PM|
But what makes us think this is MM’s PR?
|by Anonymous||reply 555||Last Thursday at 6:09 PM|
Kensington Palace has gained Instagram followers since the Sussexes have their been split off.
|by Anonymous||reply 556||Last Thursday at 6:11 PM|
How does a baby or small child have a global impact? Any child shouldn't really be doing anything except going to school and playing.
|by Anonymous||reply 557||Last Thursday at 6:13 PM|
The article talked about the economic impact - for example interest in the clothes the child wears, toys, that sort of thing. Me-Gain will be actively merching the kid on a global basis to be sure. In that sense, the fact that there may be more interest in America/Canada due to the origins of Sparky/where she lived for work, kind of makes sense.
This was not some quote made by Me-Gain, although perhaps a point made on her behalf.
|by Anonymous||reply 558||Last Thursday at 6:25 PM|
>>>>The thing to do if you know that it's your royal status that's giving you your advantage, is to be a good little Duchess, fit yourself into the family, make the marriage work - and really ensure your future.
MM has seen the future and it is Sophie Wessex (in) and Fergie (out).
|by Anonymous||reply 559||Last Thursday at 6:29 PM|
How long before we see MM hunting for landmines?
|by Anonymous||reply 560||Last Thursday at 6:30 PM|
[quote]The younger royals need to take a page from Queen Mary's playbook.
You mean, become a frigid, emotionally unavailable kleptomaniac??? Yeah, that worked out well for her.
|by Anonymous||reply 561||Last Thursday at 6:31 PM|
[quote] But what makes us think this is MM’s PR?
Nothing. These theories are the work of delusional, sheltered fraus who have limited common sense or knowledge of the ways of the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 562||Last Thursday at 6:34 PM|
I am rather enjoying not having to see MEghan's fat face mugging for the cameras, flicking her coat, and batting her over-glued fake lashes whilst attending an official engagement. Such a shame it won't last.
|by Anonymous||reply 563||Last Thursday at 7:05 PM|
I love the idea of “Princess of the Blood.” Otherwise, what’s the point of the monarchy?
|by Anonymous||reply 564||Last Thursday at 7:43 PM|
I havent been following the royal news at all, so is the new baby getting prince/princess title? Sorry if thats a dumb question
|by Anonymous||reply 565||Last Thursday at 8:11 PM|
Not sure why the article at r553 is provoking outrage. It’s a true assessment.
Charlotte = UK royal
SohoBebe = Hollywood royalty (Not deservedly but it’s been anointed by Clooney/Oprah/etc.)
US celebrities are beloved worldwide. Hollywood is global. Someone can be the most beloved star in the Philippines and still be completely unknown outside their country and fandom. The biggest star in the US is an international presence.
Charlotte could become a great scientist, win the Nobel Prize. Still won’t be as much of a household name, ad revenue generator as someone like North West is going to be.
Doesn’t mean better and isn’t an insult. It’s a factual observation of celebrity culture, particularly US based celebrity.
|by Anonymous||reply 566||Last Thursday at 8:25 PM|
R565, No. unless the Queen were to issue a Letters Patent.
|by Anonymous||reply 567||Last Thursday at 8:27 PM|
Speaking only for myself, I am hoping that SohoBébé is comically ugly, combining the worst features of both parents.
|by Anonymous||reply 568||Last Thursday at 8:30 PM|
I am puzzled by the posters who seem irate when it's mentioned that the Queen likes doing appearances with her granddaughter. The idea that the Queen is enjoying having a family member, someone she has known since birth, someone she has seen grow up, someone she loves and trusts, someone who clearly understands the role she is supposed to play when representing the Royal Family - this idea appears to have triggered some fans of Sparkle who see ugly motives for the Queen's enjoying Eugenie's company.
WTF is wrong with you?
|by Anonymous||reply 569||Last Thursday at 8:39 PM|
The link at R553 said:
[quote]Her brother Prince George and Prince Louis are generating an estimated £110 each.
Think they left out a “million” there?
|by Anonymous||reply 570||Last Thursday at 8:44 PM|
The idea of something called "Hollywood royalty" is ridiculous enough. But when a poster of DL actually asserts that members of the so-called "Hollywood royalty" includes the spawn of the nutcase Kanye and his famewhore wife - said poster has taken a wrong turn, wandered around and stumbled and found their way to DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 571||Last Thursday at 8:44 PM|
I am the only "Hollywood Royalty" around these parts R566.
|by Anonymous||reply 572||Last Thursday at 10:06 PM|
“US celebrities are beloved worldwide”.
Known worldwide, yes. Beloved? Hardly.
And Markle’s baby will be British. It may have a US passport/dual nationality - but it will be British. It’s only family (other than St. Doria) will be British since Markle doesn’t stoop to speak to any other member of her birth family.
Born in Britain. Schooled in Britain. Supported by British taxpayers. Will speak with an English accent. And yet, according to R566, it’ll be an American zeleb?
And, by the way, the most famous living person...known everywhere...is HM. That kind of royalty is infintely superior to anything America inflicts on the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 573||Last Thursday at 10:07 PM|
As much as I think MM is a basic dumb slut, I do get what she's doing. She doesn't have any long-term close r'ships with friends, family, or partners, so she doesn't have the expectation or probably even the hope it will last with Harry, especially given his character and limitations. So she's paving the way for the next phase of her life in the only way she knows.
Too bad she's tarnishing the family she's just joined, but hey, they are just collateral damage.
|by Anonymous||reply 574||Last Thursday at 10:18 PM|
It is done. Brown Velvet made the drop. Now it's just a matter of making sure SohoBébé is ready for xyr closeup in a few days.
The fat will be managed with a very, very, very tight swaddle and the neonatal acne is expected to vanish under the lightest, most gossamer veil of toner, essence, serum, moisturizer, eye cream, sunscreen, self-tanner, mattifier, primer, tone corrector, foundation, concealer, blush, kinderbronzer, highlighter, contour, translucent powder, and setting mist.
All babies are beautiful. Bless.
|by Anonymous||reply 575||Last Thursday at 11:20 PM|
R575 You’re forgetting the hair. If s/he has the same type that the “mother” did as a baby, then the iron will be coming out.
Shame no doctor will perform a nose job on an infant - I bet Markle enquired, though.
|by Anonymous||reply 576||Last Thursday at 11:58 PM|
Why would Wills have an affair after just 8 years of marriage . He is far to busy now with a bigger workload,as Charles took over more from HM . I don’t think he has time for an affair even If he wanted too . . Goldman Sachs PR is all over this one or Sarah Latham . The attack on the Cambridges begon when Latham began her work for M and H . Just a coincedence you think ?
|by Anonymous||reply 577||Last Friday at 12:52 AM|
Yes, 8 years of marriage but they've been together 15 years. Will has expressed a few times he does not relish the future responsibilities awaiting him. Kate has had all the life and joy sucked out of her over the years. What they and all the other royals except the queen, and Charles (who would love to interfere in politics), would prefer is to just be like their rich pals and be free to do whatever they fancied, be it managing an estate, investing in deals, or just going on holidays.
|by Anonymous||reply 578||Last Friday at 1:44 AM|
R577 So you think that a brand new BRF member of staff decides that her first project will be to libel the grandson of her employer? Table this idea at her first staff meeting, did she?
Maybe PW had an affair, maybe he didn’t. Maybe he got pissed at a party and Rose gave him a blowie. Maybe nothing happened. But “Oh, he wouldn’t have an affair after only 8 years so it must be Cruella Markle whispering to the tabs” is pathetic and desperate. Take it back to Royal Gossip and keep it there, idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 579||Last Friday at 2:16 AM|
They have to deflect from the surrogate . And what better way to do that than beginning a smear campaign. Now everyone is talking about the affair ! And it wouldn’t be the first smear campaign coming from Cuntessa de Ville .
|by Anonymous||reply 580||Last Friday at 2:26 AM|
R569 because that’s not what the poster said. She/He specifically said Beatrice had the same “colouring” as the queen, then backtracked and said it’s because they look similar. No twit, you said “colouring.”
|by Anonymous||reply 581||Last Friday at 2:49 AM|
It’s ridiculous r580. William will be king one day. Even if MM is playing the short game, you don’t thing William has the resources to play total hardball when it comes to money if MM and Harry break up? You all speak out of both sides of your mouth, either she’s a manipulative genius or an idiot who doesn’t know what she says doing. That’s why I don’t buy any of the bs.
|by Anonymous||reply 582||Last Friday at 2:57 AM|
I think you mean Sunshine Sachs, her PR firm.
Goldman Sachs is an investment bank.
She has been a client of Sunshine Sachs since before Harry. They were hired to help her raise her profile by setting up faux humanitarian PR opportunities. Many of her purported friends are actually also fellow clients of SS, Beyonce, Amal, Serina, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 583||Last Friday at 3:01 AM|
Yes, I’m sure it was the Cambridges, or the Queen herself, pushing the “Baby Sussex will have more global impact than Charlotte” line.
Who the hell is even thinking about a child’s “global impact” (whatever that is)? The only one who speaks that kind of woke language is Meghan.
God, even the Kardashians don’t set their fug babies against each other.
|by Anonymous||reply 584||Last Friday at 3:03 AM|
Why is anyone comparing the Sussex child with *Charlotte*? Is the Sussex brat a girl?
If you’re comparing kids from the two families, wouldn’t George be the first target? He would be the first of that generation to ascend the throne.
Why is anyone going after Charlotte, who’s insignificant?
|by Anonymous||reply 585||Last Friday at 3:10 AM|
Not "anyone," phony feminists Markle and Latham.
|by Anonymous||reply 586||Last Friday at 3:23 AM|
R484 Or how about none of them are pushing the “Charlotte line”? Maybe it’s just yet another journalist scratching around for a story. Considered that, have you?
Do you idiots truly believe that every single story written by the media comes directly from a member of the BRF? All the royal desk staff do all day is sit with their feet up waiting for whispered calls from (or on behalf of) Meghan/The Middletons/The Cambridges?
Of course the various press offices have favoured reporters...Scabies and the like...who they drop things to. But the British Press is not actually one enormous PR deive for the BRF. And anyone who thinks that is an ill-informed moron.
|by Anonymous||reply 587||Last Friday at 3:25 AM|
“deive” = drive.
|by Anonymous||reply 588||Last Friday at 3:26 AM|
Speaking of Scabies, he's now telling us that the camera flash loving Duchess suffers from nerves. ( video in the article ).
|by Anonymous||reply 589||Last Friday at 3:28 AM|
The feminist Duchess has always seemed to have it in for Charlotte and her mother, since the early days.
|by Anonymous||reply 590||Last Friday at 3:30 AM|
Since way before the early days. She spoke disparagingly of Catherine in the little Tig blog.
|by Anonymous||reply 591||Last Friday at 3:43 AM|
This is a good read.
|by Anonymous||reply 592||Last Friday at 4:16 AM|
And here is another one.
|by Anonymous||reply 593||Last Friday at 4:19 AM|
Supposedly, the child was observed kicking.
|by Anonymous||reply 594||Last Friday at 4:26 AM|
By keeping people in the dark h&m are actually stoking the public's curiosity....
Good read? Is that what passes as journalism in Australia? They make TMZ's writing style seem deft. Also, the premise....uh no. People are not stoked. The Bald family are like the Kardashians, life was just better before they entered.
|by Anonymous||reply 595||Last Friday at 4:29 AM|
M would love it that the Cambridges would divorce . Always stokiing in their marriage She always had her eye on William . That’s why she married dimwit .William has the money and is the future heir to the Throne . She really thinks that she is the second coming and that she will be queen .
|by Anonymous||reply 596||Last Friday at 4:37 AM|
Yep, I'm not suggested the journalism is necessarily a good read, but the points raised are.
|by Anonymous||reply 597||Last Friday at 4:39 AM|
Are we not allowed to mention “coloring” among family members now? We can’t talk about Harry’s gingerness and William’s faded blond/blue?
|by Anonymous||reply 598||Last Friday at 4:58 AM|
I think people have fondness for the queen the way they think of the Greatest Generation. She was part of a group of people who got us through perhaps the most challenging and trying time in our history (whether that’s true or not). The problem today is times have changed dramatically. The royals are a benign bunch of people who only make visits to schools, etc. but live an incredibly opulent lifestyle on the backs of the taxpayers. They are trying to remold themselves as many European royals are, but everyone should be aware it’s just all branding.
|by Anonymous||reply 599||Last Friday at 5:02 AM|
R598 It's fraught now, and this is yet another unfortunate byproduct of the new wokeness surrounding the BRF. Just great, isn't it?
|by Anonymous||reply 600||Last Friday at 5:02 AM|
Re R589, I believe this, even coming from Scobie. If Meghan is a control freak as has been reported, the uncontrollable nature of childbirth is surely causing her high anxiety. It may not go well and she doesn't know if she'll be able to bounce back figure-wise as soon as she wants. Once the baby arrives, if it is a colicky or otherwise difficult one, the nervousness will soon turn to frustration and SohoNanny will take over much of the baby's care (under Meghan's constant direction) while Meghan throws herself into regaining her pre-baby body.
|by Anonymous||reply 601||Last Friday at 5:10 AM|
The York sisters attended a baby shower.
|by Anonymous||reply 602||Last Friday at 6:34 AM|
Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.