British Royal Family Gossip Part 53

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

Well, I was just over at DM taking a look around, and those two have just slid right down the page. As in buried. Which seems rather unusual to me; is it the price they're paying for yanking the media's chain regarding the birth?

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

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

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

Bea looks good, for her. It's all too much the Harkles f'ed up seriously this time and the Brit press are pissed. This is gonna be GOOD!

I think it's as predicted, R2. Now that Baby Archie is here, we've seen him and know his full name, there's not much to talk about, Sussex-wise. I suppose when she releases the official pics on her Instagram or whatever there may be a little flurry, but she's going to have to get knocked up again or run off with Bea's beau or snatch Kate's tiara or something if Meghan really wants to grab more headlines.

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

[quote] she's going to have to get knocked up again or run off with Bea's beau or snatch Kate's tiara or something

I am here for that.

I'm really hoping Harry gets Meghan her very own emerald tiara as a push present. The backlash will be hilarious.

Meghan's going to have to cook up something good if she wants to stay in the headlines. Babies aren't really that interesting once the name and pictures have bene released. I'm betting the Africa trip will be the next big controversy: How long will the trip be? Where will they stay? Was this their idea or are they being banished? Stay tuned!

More likely, Meghan is angling for Diana's famous emerald choker.

R12-that looks like a dog collar for an obnoxious poodle.

It was, for this obnoxious poodle, R13.

Did Her Majesty have a hand in choosing Archie's middle name?

Meghan's neck isn't long enough to wear chokers well IMO.

Charles seems to have an affinity for pedophiles and I'm not talking about Jimmy Savile. The writermLaurens Van der Post was a good friend and mentor to Charles. A friend of his asked that he watch over his daughter while she was studying ballet in London. She lived in his home, IIRC. She was impregnated by him at 14.

[quote]One was Sir Laurens van der Post (1906-96). Storyteller, J.D.F. Jones's biography of this erstwhile guru, informs us that his numerous sexual liasons were conducted with little apparent regard for the feelings of the women concerned. More than once, it seems, an unwanted pregnancy was the signal for Laurens to decamp hurriedly and disappear. But the most startling episode of the kind occurred when, at the age of 43, he seduced and made pregnant a 14-year-old South African girl who had been placed in his care. This event, which would have ruined Laurens if it had become known in his lifetime, was not revealed until after his death

Hapless Harry looking wary.

Never mind the choker, open r14's pic to see the tallest tiara I have ever seen - that must be at least six inches high all round. Couldn't have been terribly comfortable, but imagine how it must have glittered in candlelight.

In all of the tiara threads and discussions we've had here, I've never seen the one Queen Mary is wearing at R14

Anne's hat caught my eye.

I think the famous Windsor horse face originated with Queen Mary.

R1 but we're supposed to believe meghan is the most evil witch in that family?

The Delhi Durbar Tiara, I think.

Photos of Charles and Camilla in Germany.

Charles is getting REDDER by the day! Camilla really NEEDS a drink! LOL.

Prince Edward visits a zoo.

Camilla in The Delhi Durbar Tiara.

The restoration of Buckingham Palace continues....the old boilers have been replaced.

Thank you r24 and r27. What an amazing tiara. Camilla carries it off decently too.

Any kind of choker would look awful on Meghan. She has a very short and thick neck that's set on square, broad shoulders for someone her size. The broad shoulders would be fine if it's balanced out by slim torso with a definitive waist, but she doesn't have that either. No choker for her, she'd be wise to go with matinee length necklace.

Apparently it has only been worn twice, since 1947. R29. I'm guessing that Camilla gave it a whirl when the Queen loaned it to her as she has the good head of hair that it can position on. I don't think she has worn it again, though.

The Queen and her late sister Princess Margaret out for a walk.

I guess Archie should be thankful that mom Meghan's old cat wasn't named Tigger.

Oh, HELLO's front page is covered with Baby Sussex articles that sound a tad desperate, and there are a sprinkling on the Express and even the DM still has a few up but they're below the more important EU/BREXIT stuff.

As for the discussion of titles, no, if Meghan and Harry divorce BEFORE she becomes a UK citizen, she goes back to being plain old Meghan Markle. She doesn't get to be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex unless the Queen agrees. She only gets to be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex as a non-UK citizen in the event of death or divorce if the BRF lets her again as a courtesy. Fergie turned into Sarah, Duchess of York with no HRH and Diana turned into Diana, Princess of Wales but their HRHs were revoked.

Why this concept is so hard to grasp I don't know. I'll say it one more time: if Williiam got killed tomorrow, Kate wouldn't suddenly be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge with no HRH. She'd still be HRH the Duchess of Cambridge, carrying the rank of Princess of the United Kingdom. If Harry died tomorrow, Meghan would go back to being Meghan Markle absent a decree by the Queen that she can go call herself Meghan, Duchess of Sussex - without the HRH. That would only not be the case if Harry died AFTER she became a UK citizen. Then Meghan would go on being HRH the Duchess of Sussex, just like Kate.

May I add I despise the phrase "push present"? Insulting, materialistic, paternalistic, condescending. The baby is the push present, bitch.

^^^I've heard only basic fraus who watch Oprah and Lifetime Channel movies use that term, and use it to talk about the gifts that they're going to get for birthing a baby. It's the most asinine sort of conversation you'll ever hear. But I agree with you it's tacky and materialistic as fuck.

I wonder if at this moment Pa Markle or Sammy or both are out negotiating interviews to run simultaneously with Gayle King's special. Now that would be some business savvy right there, they could command a nice sum for that. Maybe Piers is on it.

Oh god I cannot stand that phrase, but it is rife, unfortunately. Getting Russian hair extensions seems to be a popular push present where I'm from *vom*

It looks very different on Camilla. I wonder if it's simply too heavy to be worn for engagements and once was enough. Didn't the Spencer tiara give Diana a massive headache on her wedding day? It's smaller.

The Delhi Durbar is a really staggering piece. It's relieved from absurdity by the delicacy of the work. I think the Russian Kokoshnik is heavier and more impressive in its way.

The statue of Queen Victoria shows her wearing a necklace of diamonds the size of small plums, which has a pear shaped diamond drop pendant that can be detached. The Queen Mother wore it in some of her earliest photos as the new Queen in 1936-1937 and I think either she or the Queen wore it in 1953 at the Coronation. With all the amazing stuff they have, that necklace I think ranks at the top.

R14-did Kept Mary steal that or was it legit hers?

I went on the celebitchy homepage and saw the title for hm saying their communications team pulled off the announcement and reveal flawlessly. I didn't bother reading the whole thing. I'm almost 100% sure kaiser wrote how terrible will and Kate and their comms team is and how perfect Harry and meghan are and they should be king and queen blah blah blah.

R14-should have read Klepto Mary.

The Delhi Durbar Necklace and Pendant, I'm sure there is more of a full set, too. I'm sure our Tiara fans can help us out.

MM has had her beady little rodent eyes on anything emerald for quite some time. You just know she's been after Queen Mary’s Art Deco Emerald Choker plus she has the added jealousy of seeing Kate at the BAFTA'S in her fabulous emeralds

It was Omid Scobie, Meghan's Mouthpiece, who trumpeted the flawless reveal of Baby Archie. Naturally, Kaiser and the Sussex fraus are all skipping over any questions about why the seventh in line should have had to have a "flawless reveal". Everything about this made Kate's few moments on the steps of the Lindo Wing seem humble and natural and pretentious. And Kate was carrying a future King in her arms.

And that's why I despise Meghan Markle. Her pretentiousness is boundless. At the risk of being struck by lightning, I hope Charles dies suddenly and unexpectedly before his mother, removing the slightest chance of Archie becoming an HRH, bumping up William and Kate to Prince and Princess of Wales and hugely increased influence and status, one step from the Throne behind a doddering 96 year old Queen, and Meghan and Harry no longer have a protective buffer in Charles, William starts to give work and patronages to Eugenie and Beatrice, and thehandwriting on the wall for the Sussexes gets much clearer.

Queen Mary really did take the cake for grabbing jewels, especially from poorer relatives

^*humble and natural and UNpretentious. . . .

Kate's are amazing. I've seen her wear the drop earrings as studs, too. So without the drop.

R49 Does anyone know anything about Kate's emerald necklace and earrings? where they came from?

The problem with people here is framing the argument.

Meghan is not in competition with Catherine. There is no competition with a future queen; she has too many resources.

The real competition is Sophie. HM LOVES Sophie.

And as another commoner, Sophie will cut a bitch.

Speaking of baby reveals, I can't wait for this one. The Queen will have a coronary.

Don't they seem to understand that keeping private and mysterious and not being a celeb is what makes the royal family work. And that's what kate and William are doing.

The emerald and diamond necklance and earrings Kate wore to the BAFTAS were not the Cambridge emerald set that you see on Queen Mary in the photo above. These are modern pieces that were probably wedding presents that were not debuted immediately. The Palace would only say that they were "privately purchased" (which is what they said about Meghan Markle's ridiculous Russo engagement photo gown). So these belong to Kate, not the Crown.

I believe, though, that Kate was allowed to wear the earrings made from the Cambridge emeralds.

Has SHE acquired a slight British accent?

Archie gets an Hello cover with his parents.

R52 Well I guess she's flashed her cooch so why not her sad tits.

R52 breastfeeding in public has already been normalized. Bitch is stupid and an attention whore.

Yes, Kate's were privately purchased. No other details have ever been given. They are exquisite.

R54 R59 Thank you for the information, yes they are exquisite and she wears them well, they really suit her colouring.

I wish the queen or someone would put a stop to the oprah thing. Its really bothering me that heads together and the mental health is all Kates idea and Harry and especially meghan are taking ownership of it. I find it extremely rude.

R20 I believe that’s the Delhi Durbar tiara, which was worn once by Camilla.

Have you seen Sussex Royal at ig ? There is an initative launched today by the Cambridges and the Sussexes . Harry is all about how Meghan and he are the driving force after it and not a word of his brother who launched it today . William was so gracious to mention these two !

"Privately purchased" must be the new shorthand for "purchased by Middle Eastern potentate with dubious human rights record." Who else could afford a gift like that? (besides Russian oligarchs, but I don't think the RF would accept presents from them)

R63 oh I'm not surprised at all. I just want it to become more obvious to the majority at large and they get publically called out on it. I hope when kate unveils her school project and more things for the early years initiative and the the next things for the royal foundation she doesn't mention Harry at all. It really gets to me. I hate injustice and people getting away with nasty behavior!

I'd love it if William kicked Harry and meghan out the royal foundation. Even better if after kicking them out, WK start a new princess Diana Trust with the other two having no part of it.. Megsy can continue to kiss Charles ass with the princes trust.

I simply can't imagine how anyone could go out to present their new baby to the entire world's press, and then to the Queen herself, with rattail-ends. That Hello cover makes my hands itch with the urge to come at MeAgain with scissors, if only to make her presentable.

R66 Agree. Meghan can look good. See Suits styling! But her rat tails make me cringe. The baby reveal photo of her and Harry walking away with the babe and her ratty hair was cringe. Why does she think this is a look? Honestly asking. She makes Kate's sausage curls look good.

R56 - Meghan's hair is quite tragic. She looks like she just rolled out of bed. WTF? Couldn't she wash it, curl it or better still, hire a hairstylist to work their magic? For someone who was in show biz, she's quite clueless.

Not ONE photo of the two people who began the mental health issue. It's all about THEM.

Prince Andrew at the Royal Windsor Horse Show last night.

I am quite sure Meghan is not competing with any of the BRF wives. I am sure other than Kate who will be Queen she considers their existence dull. Meghan probably wants out of Britain and back to North America. She and Harry just want a little allowance to do so.

R65 MM is a horrible narcissist who I suspect has been seething with jealousy about Kate since she married Will. The first clue to her obsession was the mention of Kate in her Tig blog. For those of us who know how the really bad narc works they will understand that when they fixate on someone they usually want everything they have and then set about to destroy them. Their envy is pathological and all consuming, they are like single white female. MM obviously wants to take over the charity because Kate was mentioned as the one who had the idea. It is sickening to see what MM is doing, I just hope that the some in the RF can see through her though Will and Camilla can. If MM and Harry's marriage fails she will be determined to take down the monarchy if she can through any means. In her head if they don't want her well they can stop existing.

Is that shade Hello is subtly throwing with their cover? Meghan looks bedraggled, which could be forgiven even lauded if this were mere hours post delivery on the steps of the Lindo. But... she had a couple days to be presentable and this is what she came up with??? That picture will not date well AT ALL--and dare I say is going to cause MM much consternation in future each time she looks back.

Anyone got pictures of Randy Andy astride his steed practising for the trooping of the colour?

What did she say about Kate on tig?

To me it seems clear that Meghan was Harry's way out of the BRF. Everything she does is diametrically opposed to their (amazingly successful) formula of letting in just enough daylight to connect with the public, but not so much as to cheapen the brand. They had a near-miss with Diana, who, like Meghan, managed to make it all about her rather than them, then they had a decade or so of relative calm, and then found themselves with a Diana wannabee doing the same thing: making it about her, and by extension, about Harry, who is probably overjoyed at getting what he thinks is the chance to overshadow his brother. But PR isn't rank and one day they'll be a boring middle-aged couple, one half of which is a wife still embarrassingly wrapped up in her own image. As William and Kate come closer and closer to the Throne, the bottom of the exaggerated Sussex brand will start to sag.

Which is why I think that all these roads will intersect at this point: the birth of the obligatory second Sussex kid, the death of the Queen, the glare of the Throne increasingly lighting up the Cambridges ( by then the Wales's), Charles's brief reign - and a signpost for the Sussexes saying, "EXIT HERE".

Harry and Meghan will have gotten what they wanted: global profiles, however shallow, all the perks and titles, and a convenient exit when it buecomes clear that the Cambridges as the ascend are going to kick the Sussexes to the side of the road.

That's the only reason I can think of for Kate to have another kid - to push the Sussexes and any kids farther to the margins. With any luck, Kate would have twins fourth time around, and put Meghan and her offspring far into the shade.

R74 - this is as close as you'll get.

R41, the story of the Cambridge emeralds and Delhi Durbar Parure is really interesting. I'll link the full story below, but to put it briefly, the Cambridge emeralds were, sort of, lifted by Magpie May.

They originally were inherited by her brother after the death of their mother, whose own mother, the original Duchess of Cambridge, won the 30-40 loose cabochon emeralds in a raffle (some raffle!) in Frankfurt. Mother Adelaide had some of them made into jewelry, which brother Adolphus passed on to his favorite mistress, Ellen Constance, Countess of Kilmorey. After her brother's sudden death, Queen May hightailed it over to the mistress's house and demanded the family emeralds back. It's possible she had to buy them back, or she may have threatened the Countess with social ostracism, but get them back she did. They became the basis of the parure.

We now know why Prince Philip looks like the Grim Reaper with the dark circles under his eyes. His mother Alice had the same issue. She used to be quite pretty (second photo).

[In a 2014 post on the now-archived blog, Meghan interviewed Princess Alia Al-Senussi, a descendant of the Libyan royal family, where they discussed an obsession with royalty carrying into adulthood. "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," Markle wrote. "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." Despite encouraging readers to focus on Al-Senussi’s achievements rather than her royal status, in the blog post Markle admits she had "a bit of a 'pinch-myself-I’m-emailing-with-a-princess' moment. ]

Projection much? the only one in this conversation who has retained the childhood fantasy of being a Princess is MM. Though in fairness to her she really did see it though. My take is she is around the age of William and believe it or not he really was a huge heartthrob all over the world especially America, it wouldn't surprise me if she had a crush on him back then

^^ sorry quotes never work for me

[quote]Harry and Meghan will have gotten what they wanted: global profiles, however shallow, all the perks and titles, and a convenient exit when it buecomes clear that the Cambridges as the ascend are going to kick the Sussexes to the side of the road.

Agreed, R79. Meghan has a five (or possibly ten) year plan, and it ends with her and Harry absconding to LA with as much fame and money as they can grift out of the BRF, and then living the good life in LA. Only it probably won't be as good as they think, with no direct connection to the BRF anymore. They really are David and Wallis 2.0.

Thank you for posting important tidbits like this, it’s why I keep coming back to these threads. I’m serious. Always wondered why Phil looks like the crypt keeper in his old age.

R77. Thank you! Andrew still looks good, if he lost some weight he'd look better. I love his haughty arrogance and he can really ride a horse well

Prince Philip was an astonishingly symmetrical baby.

R84 I was thinking Andrew is looking a little less porkie these days. Maybe he’s dieting.

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

Phillip really introduced the ugly gene into the family or maybe enhanced it as him and Lilibet are 3rd cousins

Are you kidding, R88? Philip was amazingly hot as a young man.

Also, Philip and Elizabeth are cousins two different ways: they are second cousins once removed through Christian IX and also third cousins as they are both great-great-grandchildren of Victoria.

You call it gifting the BRF; I call it cashing in. Harry was born as a spare heir. Once he was no longer needed, he was of no use to them. He has to pout and fight just to enjoy his military service. He was not trained to do any meaningful work where he could earn that life style he was born into. Why shouldn't his family give him a small allowance and allow Meghan and him to live in the US trading on his being a Prince? It is the only thing of value he has.

Lilibet looks like a troll.

If Harry was really serious about the military, he would have sat for his officer's exams. He pouts and whines and acts hard-done-by, when he's never worked for anything in his life. Even this new lifeplan is masterminded and executed by his wife, not Harry. Typical Spare Syndrome.

Meghan indeed does have a 10 year plan but doubt it includes Harry. The kids will be her insurance policy and the BRF will be her cachet - her goal is a billionaire.

I like Meghan but she is a bit long in the tooth to think she can trade up in 10 years. She is in this for the long haul.

R93, I agree! She’s not loyal enough to be Wallis 2.0. She’ll be more like Jackie O.

R79, thanks for that. Was his mother a NUN? Although I suppose that might be the Greek widow thing, eh?

Enjoying the return to talk of jewels and tiaras!

R82. So true, I don't think Dim and MM realise that without the BRF they really lose their appeal plus Harry is way down on the royal hierarchy list. Sparkles forgets she was really a nobody in Hollywood before she married Harry she's not like Grace Kelly who was a star before her marriage

I think MM honestly believes she is the new Diana. Problem with that is the British public don't really like her unlike Diana who was loved. Secondly Diana put in 15 years as Princess of Wales, doing all the charity work including the boring shit . She also championed British fashion and behaved properly until the last few years. Unfortunately MM hasn't done the hard yards nor behaved.

I agree, R96. I'd much rather talk about those. One of my favorite Datalounge threads ever was the one about ugly tiaras.

If Markle wants to be as beloved as Diana, she’ll have to die first.

R96 Yes I love it too and I love that there are people on here who know so much. I love the stories about Queen Mary and her jewels! I wish we could see more jewels loaned out to the women in the family, I'm sure there are so many pieces that haven't been seen for so long. Queenie isn't as generous in her loaning as the ex Queen Bea in The Netherlands, she really opened the vault for Maxima. Now there's a woman who can wear a tiara.

I could see the queen outliving Charles.

Doesn’t harry have a boatload of his own money from Diana?

R64 I was just thinking that. Betty's horse friends, including the now-demoted Prince Talal (he attending W&K's wedding with his exquisite now-ex wife, Princess Ameera.

Yes, R97, and Diana was English to the core: More English than her husband, AND the mother of a future King. Grace Kelly was a Hollywood icon with an Oscar AND married to the Crown Prince of Monaco. Gwyneth Paltrow, for all her posturing, is a Hollywood insider with a long list of leading roles in A-list films, who also has an Oscar. All of these people spent years creating an authentic position for themselves that served as a basis for their permanent, world-wide fame. Of course they had connections helping them all the way, but they did put in the time and embody the role.

Meghan's laser-like focus on the next rung up the ladder means she never really establishes herself anywhere before moving on to the next big thing. Her current fame is borrowed from her husband and his family. If she breaks with the BRF too soon, she'll fade away into obscurity. She needs to put in a solid 10 years as the Duchess of Sussex, slowly building her own separate fame and profile, before she can risk leaving. We'll see if she has the patience to do that.

R102, if he does, MM will blow through it in record time.

But that’s all I know about that.

Harry's estimated income is 300,000 a year (not sure if that's dollars or pounds). It's also possible he inherited money from his great-grandmother, the Queen Mum, who allegedly left trusts to her descendants as a way of avoiding the taxman, though the truth of that is disputed.

Even if he has some money from the Queen Mum, he still probably doesn't have more than a million a year free and clear on his own, IF that. That seems like a lot to us, but not for people who move in the circles Meghan wants to move in. That's tip money to them.

R101 well that is possible, she looks healthier than Charles and she could live another 9 years like her mother.

R106 Plus all the staff they have to employ including really expensive PR. They would chew through his annual trust fund in about 3 months

It's amazing just how much bling Queen Elizabeth has stashed away--look at Eugenie and Meghan's royal tiaras. Gorgeous pieces that hadn't been worn in decades, and why? They didn't need to be. The Queen, The Queen Mum, and Princess Margaret had other favorites. Diana and Fergie didn't stick around long enough to get access to the good stuff: It seems that with those who marry in, it's about 10 years before they really get the good stuff, and both those marriages were in the toilet by then.

I hope if Kate sticks it out, we'll see more historic jewels on her. Also, possibly, Beatrice and Eugenie, if they ever become official working royals. I think the reasons we don't see more of the family's jewel collection is that the family runs to boys, the boys of the previous generation had marriages that didn't work out, so there aren't as many women to wear the jewels. Unless Meghan or Kate birth more daughters, this dearth of tiara-wearers could last into the next generation. We'll see if the boys can make long-term stable marriages.

I meant, Eugenie and Meghan's WEDDING tiaras. Goddamn, we need an edit button.

R101, I can see that happening. Charles does not look well.

R106, if it’s dollars, that’s not much in their world. Meghan spent nearly twice that on clothing, allegedly. I know people who earn that per year here in NYC and they’re living in regular apartments, not Park Avenue. Maybe private school, a couple of nice vacations, that’s it. It not jet-set money. That’s not much in a world-class city like London.

Wait till Charlotte starts growing up a little. Hopefully she'll put meghan and Harry to hell for constantly hurting her mother.

R76, Agreed but for one point: Even if Charles does not ascend the throne until he's 76 (he will be 71 in November), given his parentage he might reign for 20 years!

Oh dear we have to endure H and M for ten years . Hopefully it will not last too long . I can manage another year of that circus but not 10 years .

Here’s the breakdown of Dian’s estate.

If Harry has capital of £40m, a good return on that would be 10% = £400,000 a year. After tax (higher rate) he’d have £18,000 a month.

For us plebs, that’s a fortune. For Markle, it’s chicken feed. Marriage to a hedge fund manager would bring her more than that.

I read somewhere that Kate gets a personal allowance from the Queen, sort of a salary for being a working royal. Anyone know if that’s true? If so, how much do we reckon?

R109 Kate will stick it out and then fingers crossed will get to see the spectacular stuff especially when she become Princess of Wales. I think Charles may be better at opening the vault than the Queen. I wonder who will get "Granny's Chips"

It appears that Charles has a poorly-controlled skin condition that is no doubt worsened by alcohol use. Rosacea, perhaps?

I'm betting Camilla will get Granny's Chips. As a rule, the Windsors give the biggest jewels to the oldest women. It's thought younger women have their beauty to decorate them and don't need the best bling. Of course, by the time the Queen dies Kate could be pushing 50, so she may get more then.

Well, you can tell I didn’t do well in maths, right.

10% of £40m in £4m.

So, let’s try again.

£4m a year = £177,000 a month.

Blimey.

(Sorry for uneducated previous post).

This Newsweek article estimates Harry gets about $450,000 a year. That's $37,500/month: not sure if that's before or after taxes. Even if it's after, that's money that will let you live well by upper-middle-class standards in most major cities. But not by Royal standards.

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

The dire economy post-Brexit may mean that the BRF keep a lot of their jewels under wraps permanently, so as not to be seen as showing off. Between bequests, gifts from Saudis, and Queen May's magpie ways, I bet the true contents of HM's jewel vault would astonish even dedicated Royal watchers.

I would give anything to take a tour of the queen’s jewel vault, if only to see how it’s all organized. By stone? By category? By date? And is there a ledger that keeps track of who wore what? Is there a library card-like system? The mystery of it all!

A few threads ago posters were saying the £3.5M shared by Eugenie and Beatrice, plus their working income, was more than enough to fund their royal lifestyle (whatever that means), and now you're saying Harry's £40M is only good enough for upper middle-class? Which is it?

Oh good more talk about the Diana estate! Its a good thing it was never touched on in any of the 53 threads! Does anyone know what The Queen mother left?

Amazingly enough, R125, not every poster says the same thing on these threads.

Harry's personal fortune is estimated at 25-40 million, but a lot of that is tied up in trusts he can't touch. The agreed upon figure for him is usually about $450,000/300,000 pounds per year. IDK what Beatrice and Eugenie have: I never posted about them.

Oh Good Lord, let's not resurrect the Queen Mum Anti-Trust Troll. He gets really, really upset when you mention the possibility that the old bag left money to her great-grandkids.

Didn't the Panama Papers reveal that the Queen and Charles had money stashed overseas away from prying eyes?

Let’s put it this way: whatever Harry’s income, it won’t be enough for Meghan and she’ll spend every bit of it.

I was looking through pictures, and what it interesting is our current princess royal looks a lot the the previous holder of the tile. There was a poster on this, and another baby related thread, that mentioned about the royals having a lot of common things in their birth charts when he was comparing them. He mentioned starting a thread on it, but it would be nice to post it here. New topics are good topics.

R95 - Prince Philip's mother Princess Alice of Battenberg founded an Orthodox nursing order of nuns known as the Christian Sisterhood of Martha and Mary. Here's a little of her interesting - and hard at times - life.

R132 - don't know why the story has a photo of Alice of Gloucester.

Hugo Vickers wrote a book on Alice.

This new mental health support program by -SHOUT-sponsored by William, Kate, Harry and Meghan is pretty remarkable. Because it's them behind it, I think more people will reach out for help. They will be calming supported and redirected to where to find support personally. This video by William is well done. I'm usually a skeptic but mental health is a huge problem that is mostly being ignored.

I like it when any celebrity puts/fame money and their name behind a cause like this. Diana would be proud of this. This kind of surprised me.

I'm trying to link to the video but the link is too long. I will look for another way.

I wonder if it annoyed the Queen annoyed her mum when she named one of her sons Edward. Uncle Edward caused her dad quite a bit of hassle.

This coloured version leans more Zara in looks. I wonder what tiara that is on her head.

That is the Harewood Scroll tiara, R137. Belonged to her husband's family. Fun fact: Henry Lascelles, Earl of Harewood, was a cousin of that fabulous bitch Tommy Lascelles.

Apologies: I read too quickly. The Harewood Scroll was a wedding present to Princess Mary, not the original property of the Harewoods. Sadly, it was sold after heer death in 1965 and has disappeared.

Global News uploaded a version of the photo call and edited out Harry's 'two weeks' thing. Give credence to the whole subject rather than just a mistake taken out of context.

Camilla The Pretzel Maker. Don't give up your day job, Duchess!

The Queen and the ruler of Bahrain.

R132, thank you for that!

And thank you all for shifting the focus back to all royals, not just the Markles.

Weird how Harry wont be rich until Prince Charles dies. So he may have been glad to know that MM knows how to hustle

Despite who is visiting the country ( I don't want to even touch politics with my tip toe in this thread! ) I am looking forward to seeing some some tiaras and beautiful gowns for the state banquet.

!some some....! lol, I'm a bit excited, or it's because I'm slurping the cooking wine, haha.

Even with Charles dying, it depends on how he splits his estate

Charles could leave the entirety of his estate to Camilla. What an interesting twist that would be.

The Duchy of Cornwall income must go to the new Prince of Wales: Charles can't leave that to anyone but William, just as the Duchy of Lancaster money must go to the new sovereign.

As to whatever money Charles has squirreled away in various boltholes around the world, that's anyone's guess.

Harry won't be inheriting MORE than William. William is the HEIR. Harry is the spare. The Royals always keep most of the wealth, property, jewels, art etc... in the main line of succession. Harry will inherit something and he won't have to worry but it will be nothing compared to the wealth of his brother. The same goes for Camilla. She will inherit enough to be quite comfortable for the rest of her life but the main benefactor will be William and his family. The women who marry into the family will get squat compared to the male heirs. Camilla would probably retire to her country house with a nice annual pension. Her two children and grandchildren would probably be left some money too.

Side-by-side comparison of Queen Mary and Camilla in the Delhi Durbar tiara. The emeralds in Mary's version ended up in the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara.

I like the DD tiara better without the emeralds.

William talks male mental health with footballers.

Grand Duchess Vladimir. Can be worn with emeralds, pearls, or nothing. I like it best with nothing.

The Vladimir tiara without extra jewels.

I'm sure Camilla's widow's jointure was worked out when she and Charles married. He seems fond of her, whatever his other extracurriculars, so I'm sure he took care of her.

Damn, the Vladimir is something. Here's an interesting game-pair known jewels in the Royal collection with our main cast if characters. What would go best with whom?

Vladimir looks weird without the drop pearls or emeralds. Exposed sockets aren’t a good look, Queen Fabiola tried this with the diamond spikes in the Belgian house’s Nine Provinces tiara to the same effect. You can totally tell something meant to be there is missing.

1. Prince Philip's mother hid Jews from the Nazis during WWII and was honored for that.

2. Princess Mary, the Queen's aunt, who held the title of Princess Royal before Princess Anne, was the sister of the Queen's father, as well as the Duke of Windsor and the other brothers.

Mary remained close to The Duke of Windsor.

Gossip was that she refused to attend Princess Margaret's wedding because the Duke of Windsor was not invited.

I only found out about her after finding her name on a ship's manifest while I was doing some research. She was listed on the manifest as "The Princess Royal".

I would put Meghan in the oriental circlet tiara. The rubies would look very nice with her dark eyes and hair.

Though it belongs to Princess Anne, I think the Meander tiara would suit Princess Eugenie.

The delicate Lotus Flower tiara for Beatrice.

I would keep Kate in the Cambridge Lover's Knot. It really suits her.

The Greville Tiara (not the emerald one) looks fantastic on Camilla. It should be her go-to piece.

Ooh-I've never seen the oriental circlet. That's stunning. What about necklaces? Bracelets? Rings don't seem as much fun, but prove me wrong. I'm enjoying this education in the Royal jewels.

The Queen has an amazing ruby parure. I think Meghan would be better off making rubies her thing rather than emeralds. They suit dark Autumn coloring much better.

And there is another ruby tiara in the vault: The Burmese Ruby.

[QUOTE] The Queen has an amazing ruby parure. I think Meghan would be better off making rubies her thing rather than emeralds. They suit dark Autumn coloring much better.

Agreed. It was fun to see Euge wearing the emeralds but they didn’t really suit her coloring.

Three queens in the Oriental Circlet. Originally commissioned by Albert for the petite Victoria, it suits a smaller woman's proportions.

But HM’s rubies are signature pieces, she’d never let Smegs have them.

The Devonshire Diamond Tiara Made for Louise, Duchess of Devonshire in 1893. Louise passed on the tiara to Evelyn, wife of the 9th Duke of Devonshire, who then gave it to her daughter-in-law, Mary. It was last worn by her daughter-in-law, Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire. This is a whopper - 1,900 diamonds set in gold and silver, 1,041 of which were taken from other family pieces. The late Debo Devonshire used to wear it out partying. 'It never occurred to me that it might not be a good idea to stand alone in the street, long after midnight, with a load of diamonds round my neck and nineteen hundred more glittering above my head ".

Garnets would also work for a dark Autumn. Here is the Countess Rosenborg Kokoshnik garnet tiara. Belonged to Princess Margaretha of Denmark at one point, but it was passed down to various family members and eventually sold at auction. The top row of jewels can be removed and worn as a necklace. I love the delicate garnets and pink pearls.

Does Charles still get buggered by his footman?

That is one tall tiara, R170.

My favorite tiara of all time is the Fife tiara, made for Victoria's granddaughter Princess Louise. She was apparently irretrievably stupid, but that is a fabulous piece. However, it's very heavy, makes a lot of noise because of the dangling diamonds, and is so fragile now that it can't be worn.

I meant to type "I wonder if the Queen annoyed her mum..." at R136. I shouldn't type with one eye on the TV.

Say what you will about Camilla, I personally like her. However, no matter your feelings... ol' broad can really pull of the big jewels.

I'm a huge fan of Camilla. As I am of Anne. Maybe I have a theme running here, I don't know. But I think thy are both wonderful women.

And yes, Camilla can carry those jewels!

Photos of a very happy Queen at the Windsor Horse Show. Horses really bring out the best in her.

It's about having big tiara hair. Camilla's hair just works with big jewels. Princess Margaret did the same thing with the Poltimore at her wedding, but I don't think the big fake bun really worked on her.

I used to dislike Camilla, but the more I read about Diana, the more I understand why Charles ran back to his old girlfriend.

R180-Agree. I used to adore Diana, but now I see her for the complicated woman she was. She and Charles were woefully unsuited to one another, and if sausage fingers is happy with Camilla, more power to him. And despite all the years of negative press, Camilla really does seem like an alright sort of person.

The late 50s through the 80s were a fabulous time for big hair, which look amazing with a tiara. This gals 60s updo below is begging for a tiara.

Fabulous hair! I bet they didn't use a big chunk of the end of a loaf of bread, like my mother, lol!!

R183-did she wrap her hair around it? Resourceful! You have to admire the ability to say, I want the look but all I have is a heel of bread. Fuck it, I'm using that.

We could say that R183 's mother was "well heeled" in the hair department.

Haha, yes! Cut the ends off fresh baker's bread, and her and her friends used to wrap and pin eachother's hair around it. She's from Liverpool. Apparently it was quite common there. And cheaper than Knightsbridge, lol.

Hi Randy Andy fan -- your man looks good astride that horse.

Ooh cheeky, I do don't I.

Fucking hell those teeth!

R159 - gorgeous! What beautiful tiara choices, the Royals should be so lucky to have you style them.

R188 appalling dentition.

He should ask the King of Bahrain (in town for the horse show) for some money to get those fixed.

Is he kind, R191? I could slip in first....not for teeth, but some privately bought sparklers?

R159 Yes! With a towering updo.

'And despite all the years of negative press, Camilla really does seem like an alright sort of person'

I don't like the hatchet faced one at all, but as soon as he was able to be with her publicly, all the rumours of affairs around him died down and he became respectable, if never, ever beloved.

William and Kate are very popular and Charles should allow William to accede rather than subject Britain to another two decades of an ancient monarch.

All this talk re Royal finances, yet I see no one has bothered to mention the four million pounds per year which has been divided between William, Harry, and Kate for years now. I am assuming that Meghan now gets and equal share. I think that I read somewhere a while back that the sum is slated "for wardrobe." Charles is said to have acquired a personal fortune of 100 million, and I am supposing that the bulk of that will be added to the Sovereign's personal net worth at this death, currently at 550 million. Whatever the case may be, it's always been a Cardinal rule of the wealthy that one must never touch the capital - they're all about the INCOME generated by the capital. Suffice it all to say that they all have several streams of income from various sources, and any talk of money woes among any of them is complete and utter bullshit! Do we forget that pre WWII, it was the British Empire (the greatest the world has ever known) which was THE Super-power of the world. God only knows how much they've REALLY got.

Agree, R195.

They also have various properties scattered around the globe that they own outright, the vast majority of which we don't know about.

[quote] William and Kate are very popular and Charles should allow William to accede rather than subject Britain to another two decades of an ancient monarch.

Why do people say stuff like this?

It’s a hereditary monarchy, not a popularity contest.

And it’s succeed, not accede.

R196 If you don’t know about these properties, how do you know they exist?

I'll be needing my tiara too.

The Panama Papers gave a limited glimpse into what the Queen is doing with her money.

'It’s a hereditary monarchy, not a popularity contest. '

Sadly, if they become too unpopular, they won't exist anymore. So having William on the throne with his good looking wife and cute kids would make a big difference to their image and longevity. It's not a given that they're always there and always funded.

R199, well here's one

R199, over the centuries they have acquired and been gifted land and properties we know nothing about. I know they can't accept gifts now, but in the past they accepted plenty.

Sorry, here's the article - Queen's NYC apartment

Thanks, R205.

Personally I find it jarring and sometimes comical to see such stupendous jewels on plain or downright unattractive women - Victoria, Anne, the queen mother, the queen, and Camilla. The only women who have some claim to beauty so as to showcase the jewels are Alexandra, Pss Michael, Margaret, Diana, and Kate. MM could do them justice if she didn't screw it up with bad hair, makeup and clothes.

Accede means to assume an office or position. Look it up, vocabulary queen.

"Elizabeth I acceded to the throne in 1558"

'MM could do them justice if she didn't screw it up with bad hair, makeup and clothes. '

It's not bad hair, it's black hair. If she straightened the life out of it to make it like Kate's, a lot of it would fall out and she would have to get a weave. I guess you'd prefer that?

Good to see that all the f and f-ing of the Skippies has worked and they're on a temporary ban again.

I can just hear the conversation from the Queen's main money man.....

"Your Majesty, we seem to have found an errant eight million pounds after reviewing the Royal finances. It is advised that your Majesty would be well served to use this "chump change" to purchase a New York apartment as the values for such apartments are projected to skyrocket over the next decade or so."

"That will be fine, Kelvington. Do you suppose there might be enough left over to purchase a few squeak toys for the Royal Corgis?"

Bad hair, meaning messy, bits falling down. Kate wears an ultra-light net over her chignon, no tendrils.

The people on this thread are mentally ill. SERIOUSLY. The outlandish projections into the mindsets of others you don't know is INSANE.

R207 broke the rule: NEVER discuss a black woman’s hair. Unless you’re a black woman. Not even to compliment it.

It’s a touchy subject, no pun intended.

R213 Get our of here. Blocked.

If you don't come to the DL without wearing your humorous side on your sleeve, then you are definitely in the wrong place, R213!!

r205 The article says at the bottom it was bought by the New Zealand Ministry for Foreign Affairs not the Queen.

Too bad, R214, MM is a slob! Muddy shoes, laddered tights, dangling pricetags, wrong-sized clothes and shoes. The ratty hair is just part of it.

Blind item sites and trash mags like the Globe are pandering to Skippies by posting rubbish. Tinhats are the blind sites' bread and butter, but the tinhats don't realise it's up there to clickbait them and think the media actually believe their insane conspiracy theories.

[quote]Bug Eyed Bea presents a children's book award.

Big love to my BEAUTIFUL Bea who's now reading on her own!!!! So moved I could gush for days!!!! ALL EYES ON YOU, DARLING!!!!! xoxoxo0x0ox0

R218, no, I know. And I agree. Her hair is usually a mess (dangling tendrils!). But it triggered r209, who leapt to the usual conclusion. And reminded me of The Rule.

I understand that celeb gossip isn't for everyone, but this "gossiping about PEOPLE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW mean you're MENTALLY INSANE AND ILL" types, who seem to pop up everywhere gossip pops up - I mean, you've got to wonder about them. You're literally projecting serious illnesses onto strangers you know nothing about. And for those who find projecting onto strangers = MENTAL ILLNESS AND INSANITY, I mean...irony, much?

I think she can cope with her hair as she'd like. What I'd prefer is never to see her again. But I suppose neither's gonna happen.

R222, I suppose the clinical diagnosis would be less dire if we were gossiping along the lines Dr. Crankypanks would prescribe.

If I were picking Charlotte's tiara, it would the one long favored by the Windsors as A Girl's First Tiara. First given as an 18th birthday gift to Queen Elizabeth, and also worn by a young Princess Anne AND as a wedding tiara by Kate Middleton.

The beautiful, delicate, Cartier Halo.

LMAO @ "Dr Crankypants"

Serious question, R187: Did the young Liverpool ladies who used bread as a hair bump ever get attacked by birds? That seems like something that could happen.

I saw a photo of Bea in her early 20s the other day. She's never been a looker, and the eyes have always been buggy, but she was much better looking then. The curse of the Windsor aging gene seems to apply equally to both genders. Perhaps slightly exaggerated by the obviousness of rapid balding in the men.

Speaking of the Yorkies, it is rumoured that Yuge is the most socially adept, kind, friendly and charming of the royals. I wonder if it's true?

The irony, R222, is that you just described YOURSELF, dumb-dumb

So Eug not only looks like the Queen Mum, but she inherited the Queen Mum's famous charm? What a nice idea, R228.

R196, I'm sure the Windsors have billions. Wealth builds wealth, and think of all the decades they didn't even pay taxes. Billions and billions and billions.

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

Thank you, R190. I would adore being the Windsors' Official Royal Jewel Stylist. I also find discussions of tiaras and trinkets to be a fun ad harmless topic.

Agreed R231. No one in that family, including Harry, is ever, ever, ever going to have to worry about money. I bet they've got multiples fortunes stashed away in various forms (property, jewels, investments) that no one but them knows a thing about.

R229 - so which is it - OK to snark on strangers on the internet or not OK? Pick one, and whilst picking, keep in mind that you're doing it with your every post here. Which would seem to indicate that you're OK with it. Have I got that right?

R232, meet 152.

What they really mean is “you’re saying something I don’t like” R222.

Sorry, my brutha - you've got to get your OWN. This stuff doesn't last nearly long enough.....

What's interesting about the Cartier Halo is that Elizabeth has never worn it in public. By the time she started regularly wearing tiaras, she was Queen and had the entire collection to choose from. Margaret and Anne wore it, Kate wore it, and that's it. A waste of a lovely piece, I think.

Some MM supporters are salty that she hasnt worn a tiara since her wedding.

At first glance, it doesnt seem that she has done very well for herself. No tiara or fabulous jewels, plain frogmore cottage residence, plus endless scrutiny of every breath she takes and vitriol from the public and press. she must really love harry, lol.

You're right, R236. Sometimes I just wonder if they see understand that or not.

R233 What I would like is a modern royal who is really INTO jewelry. Not one who rolls out the bling at state dinners but one who is having pieces commissioned and being very involved in the design etc. It's not that I don't covet or admire these ping pong ball sized diamonds, but some of these pieces are dated looking. Many of those tiaras deserve further airings, as well.

The Queen is being spanked by the grauniad for chilling with a despot.

They had to keep her away from Saudis as people are still quite upset about Kashoggi being butchered by the Crown Prince's pals.

R197 try telling kaiser, lainey, oprah and megstans.

HM deserves that spanking. It's one thing for Vulgaress Markle to prance around like a show pony on her couture. It's quite another to publicly be seen hanging out with murderers.

Speaking of vulgarity and murder, am I correct to assume that Harry's (and Meg's) presence isn't required at state dinners and that we will therefore be denied footage of the two of them having to make nice with Cheeto Mussolini?

Yes, somebody needs to give these tiaras more outings.

I love the Cartier Halo, but it doesn't seem to be grand enough for the Windsor Women. According to the blog, it was designed for the Duchess of York from her husband (the future King George VI) before she became Queen Elizabeth and then the Queen Mum. She never wore it much, either, before regifting it to Liz.

The blog has some interesting insights to the choice of it by Kate for her wedding:

[quote]it was originally bought for a commoner that became a Duchess, and then a Queen; the same ultimate outcome we expect from Catherine. And its origins are with one of the only women that have managed to make that transition successfully, both with the country and at home, in the last century. Additionally, a tiara that once belonged to a Scottish girl is perhaps a nice nod to the Scottish beginnings of William and Kate.

The Windsors always signal such interesting things with titles and tiaras. It's really worth paying attention to who gets what.

Do any of the women wear this neck bling these days?

Thank you, R244, I love all the backstory. I think I've seen it mentioned on here that it probably wasn't an accident that HM wore a brooch (was it a brooch?) gifted to her by the Obamas during the first Trump visit, but there was also the Snowflake brooch gifted to her by Canada that she wore on the second day of said visit, which took place during one of the times Trump was breathing cheeseburger-scented fire at Canada.

Camilla wore one of the Queen Mum's big diamond necklaces.

Does HM have any brooches that look like a wee man behind bars for tax evasion? That would be a good look for the next Trump visit.

Camilla got the hook up from King Abdullah

Fucking hell, Camilla must be getting a workout wearing that many carats. She's pulling it off, though.

I agree with the poster who said they found the Cartier halo tiara pretty but somewhat underwhelming when compared to other tiaras. Surely we are coming to the time when Kate can be seen in the serious hardware, aren't we? The question is will she want to be. I feel like her whole 'thing' (smartly, imo, but not good for us bling watchers) is being demure and quiet. C'mon Kate. It's not like we don't know the fam has those sparklies.

I suppose one of the boys have Diana's sapphire suite which was a wedding gift from the Saudis. Did Kate get it?

I agree the Oriental Circlet tiara with rubies would suit MM better, especially the spikey bits. Eugenia looks better in emeralds because her skin tone is blue-white and the emeralds pick that up.

Now the pink pearl and garnet tiara @ r171 would be perfect for Charlotte when she gets old enough. It's young, delicate, and princessy.

It's a shame the Windsors no longer own the Poltimore. Someone with Kate's height and hair could pull it off, and that was a serious piece of jewelry.

Sadly, it was sold after Margaret's death, and who knows where it is now.

The garnet and diamond tiara at R171 is larger than you would think. I'm not sure it would work on Charlotte unless she inherits her mother's height and her great-aunt Margot's attitude.

More on the Rosenborg Kokoshnik

[quote] The kokoshnik was made by Danish court jeweler Dragsted in the 1930s on the order of Prince Viggo, Count of Rosenborg (1893-1970), a grandson of King Christian IX of Denmark. He commissioned it for his American-born wife, Princess Viggo (1895-1966, née Eleanor Green). Prince and Princess Viggo had no children of their own, and the tiara was inherited by Viggo’s sister-in-law Princess Margaretha (1899-1977). Margaretha was a Swedish royal who married Prince Axel of Denmark. The tiara was then used by Countess Ruth of Rosenborg (1924-2010), wife of Margaretha and Axel’s son, Flemming. She wore it for several notable Scandinavian royal events, but following her death, it was offered for sale at a 2012 auction. The estimated value was placed at more than $200,000, but it did not sell.

Well, I would have bought it, if I'd had an extra 200K lying around.

Queen Victoria's mini crown

Now THERE'S one for Princess Charlotte.

Does anyone know when or why it became de rigueur for royal brides to wear tiaras? While poking around earlier, I noticed that neither the Queen Mother nor Queen Mary before her wore tiaras for their nuptials. The pictures' quality wasn't the best, but I couldn't spot hardware And, of course, Victoria didn't either, wearing myrtle and orange blossoms. It went from that to QEII allegedly putting the kibosh on Kate's ideas to wear a flowers in lieu.

R149 - Charles can't "leave" the Duchy of Cornwall to anyone, it isn't his to bestow. It goes to the eldest male heir of the Sovereign, which will be William when Charles becomes King. Each eldest male heir is the steward of the Duchy, not its owner. The revenues from its immense land management and holdings will accrue to William as soon as Charles becomes King, just as the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster will begin to accrue to Charles as soon as becomes King.

Harry will I am sure get another trust from his father upon his death, which could be 25 years from now. In the meantime, the investment income from his £40 milllion trust is subject to normal Inland Revenue taxes; William has the same trust, and ditto re the taxes. That's why Charles supplements each son's annual income with a lump sum from the renveues from the Duchy of Cornwall.

But no matter how it's sliced, the end result is that William as time goes on wil become much richer and more important than his brother - no matter what PR stunts Harry's wife pulls.

Queen Mary is wearing a Kokoshnik tiara in this wedding portrait (it's hidden behind the flower crown). You are right that the Duchess of York was not. Perhaps she wasn't thought important enough at the time to be required to wear one? Or maybe they were just so happy she said yes to poor stuttering Bertie that they let her do what she wanted.

Queen May's mother, the Duchess of Teck, AKA "Fat Mary." What an interesting wee tiara she has on.

The Cartier Halo is so pretty, but it does seem like something a younger woman would wear. The more serious pieces are for older women. Like Miss Dior vs. Chanel No. 5.

I guess you're right, it's hard to judge the size of these thing s r254. I like that it's more of a standing up tiara, almost like a tudor headpiece. It could be copied and the height reduced, keeping the open, airy look but that not going to happen.

Who is buying these tiaras when they g o up for auction and disappear from public view? Are they dismantled for the stones?

Some of them are dismantled, but I've heard that a lot of them end up in China or the Middle East.

Princess Alexandra did not wear a tiara on her wedding day, just a flower crown. The tiara on the Royal bride thing must be a 20th Century invention.

R260 - I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about tiaras at weddings. The Queen Mother's family actually had its own, the Strathmore, which is quite beautiful but is reported to be in such fragile condition it's been put away. Her wedding dress in 1923 was very simple. Fergie wore flowers down the aisle and a tiara back up the aisle after she'd been turned into Duchess of York. Diana and the Queen Mother were from the exact same social stratum (daughters of earls) but Diana did weare the Spencer tiara at her wedding.

People forget that Queen Mary started out as a "Serene Highness" which is a step below a "Royal Highness" and her in-laws never let her forget it, even after via her marriage she not only became an HRH but a future Princess of Wales and Queen.

QEII bears a remarkable resemblance to her aunt, Mary the Princess Royal.

Insisting that William's commoner bride wear a tiara might have been a bow to optics: making her appear as regal as possible despite the fact that she's descended from coal miners and the daughter of marketers of party tat. Not a dig on Kate: the Grey men of the palace WOULD think that way.

R253 - It was likely sold to pay death duty taxes on Margaret's estate, and as it was extremeley unlikely her grandchildren were ever going to need it, what was the point of keeping it? Also, it wasn't a historic piece but was bought for Margaret as a wedding present in 1960, so there was no family connection. I believe it can be taken off its frame and used as a necklace.

The Strathmore tiara is lovely: It was bought as a wedding present for the soon-to-be Duchess of York by her father, though it wasn't new, and dates from the 19th Century.

R267 - I don't know that anyone "insisted" that Kate wear a tiara; given she was marrying the second in line, however, it was probably one of those things that "went without saying". As it was, she chose a very modest one. The Cartier Halo is very pretty, I think. If Kate chose it, it shows her good judgement: it marked the transition from commoner to royal, but withgout screaming the message from the rooftops.

It was indeed sold to pay taxes, R268. I think it's a shame because it's a lovely piece which will probably never be publicly displayed again, assuming it hasn't been broken up into lots of jewels and sold for parts. It's too bad the Queen couldn't have bought it back from Margaret's children.

Though they did make bank on it: Margaret bought it for 5500 pounds and her children sold it for 1.7 million dollars. Even with inflation and currency conversion, that's quite a return on investment.

I am in accord with those above who are fans of the Fife Tiara.

R269 - Thanks so much for the imformative piece on the Strathmore tiara!

R271 - That ROI was undboubtedly due to Margaret wearing it on her wedding day. Even accounting for the intrinsic worth of the jewels.

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

The Fife tiara is gorgeous. Those pivoting diamonds might make it noisy and heavy, but they are also what make it stunning.

I always liked the State Diadem but assume is reserved for a reigning Queen or a Queen Consort.

On herself.

I think Meghan and Harry would do quite well in the US trading on his title. Especially if she is able supplement their income merching

Always liked the look of the Vladimir as well, which can be worn with or without pearls or emeralds.

Post baby work out video?

Curious about one thing as I go through the tiara pics (thanks all)! The settings look a bit drab, as in dark or black. Is it the photos, or are people hesitant to clean the settings so they don’t damage the tiaras? I’m surprised a bit that the jewels were encased in settings that looked like they needed cleaning. Otherwise, I wouldn’t turn up my nose if someone offered me one!

r277, did you catch the Queens rare interview where she swept the Imperial State Crown aside and talked about the four Elizabeth Tudor pear shaped pearls that drop from the center arch? One of her few connections to the first Elizabeth. Kind of touching.

Then she picked up the George IV Diadem and was quite a bit disgusted that a MAN would have had this made up for HIM.

It was subconsciously HILARIOUS.

GO BETTY!

Queen Mary, in the wedding portrait posted above, has a bit of Anne Dudek about her (Francine from Mad men - Betty's best friend). Anne is prettier but there's a facial similarity.

Made in 1852, Queen Victoria wears her Collet diamond necklace and earrings. QE would wear the set to her Coronation nearly 100 years later.

....

....

....

Just an aside that has just a little to do with the royal family— it must be odd to deal with QEII as a grandmom. My grandmom held me and was like a surrogate mom. These kids (William and Kate included) won’t have any of that.

I hate to pull the thread back to this, but I went down a tiara rabbit hole, and came across Queen Victoria's emerald tiara. It went on display at Kensington Palace, along with the Fife tiara in March 2018 . I really do think this is the one Meghan had her eye on pre-marriage. It could be she saw it, and figured she felt it was within her newly acquired rights to ask for it. That makes more sense than her combing through the vaults for one.

R277 - Not even a Queen Consort - that is Queen Victoria's Diadem and is only worn by a Queen Regnant.

Wow... that is fucking spectacular. You might be right, r291. My feeling is, wear them or lose them. Why hide them away? Either sell them and give the money to the state, or wear them and figure out what to say.

It's a good question as to how she came up with the tiara she wanted, whatever it was. Could be Google... could be she went through the stones on offer and asked Hapless to ask Granny if there were any emeralds kicking around.

Of course when one is Queen Mary, why wear one collect diamond necklace when one can wear five?

R279 - I stand corrected - Queen Consorts have worn it.

Her mother in law was no slouch in that department either.

One of my favourite quotes of Queen Mary: “Thank god I’m not the kind of woman who looks vulgar in diamonds”.

I pray that it’s not apocryphal.

Alexandra did not wear a tiara at her wedding... but looky... she still sported some enduring sparklers...

Kate recently wore Alexandra's wedding necklace with the Cambridge tiara.

It is a pity that Charles broke with tradition and did not marry a minor Euro-princess,

R284... that was that doc about the Coronation... on Youtube.... somebody linked in an earlier iteration of this thread.

I thought she was charming, too. I loved that she handled them without thought.... as is her right and only her's. Pure right of kings.

What I also loved was how knowledgeable she was about history. So certain. They say she isn't educated, and she wasn't. But she's not stupid.

My favourite moment was the business about the Crown Jewels at Windsor in the biscuit tin during the war (sounds like Clue). Bad quality audio but just watch the wheels turning... she's a delight..

And here’s Kate wearing the same necklace. I love seeing these famous pieces being worn though successive generations. This loaner from the Queen was a very big deal.

R299 - That is the necklace the Queen leant Kate for the Dutch State Banquet.

People have to remember that the Victorian and even more, the Edwardian era were ones of excess at the top. Seven course meals, ormolu, knick-knacks everywhere - from jewels to furnishings, cramming every nook and draping every part of the body - for them as could - was the mark of the era.

Good catch, R303.... it is exactly that. Isn't it funny, how things look different on different women in different eras and yet somehow it works. It's still a fussy, period piece yet somehow it works with Kate's look which is sort of transitional contemporary there.

The interesting thing is Camilla, who should have first dibs, seems to confine herself to a very few pieces she prefers, including that honker tiara that was the Queen Mother's.... can't remember what it is called.

[quote]knick-knacks everywhere

Young man, in my time we called them bibelots

R306 - LOL.

I see even the NY TIMES is carryng the story about Charles using his position to shield a paedoohile Anglican priest. As I said in a previous thread, one of the Queen's reasons for not abdicating in Charles's favour is behaviour like this. She just doesn't trust him to observe the boundaries of his position. Never mind his hero Laurens van der Post!

I hope the Queen hangs on till 100 and Charles has as brief a reign as possible - he'll be nearly 80 and everyone will be looking toward William and Kate. Maybe by that point, Charles will even see the advantages of stepping aside in favour of his son.

r307, as in...Queen Mary would usually pinch, pocket or palm the bibelots herself without word or recourse from their surprised donors, or on occasion, she would have footmen simply show up to take possession of appropriated meubles.

May of Teck, The Velcro Consort.

So, what I want to know is how this works. Do you ring the Queen and say I am wearing this outfit and could I borrow??????????????

R309 - I think Queen Mary's avarice was due to being raised to feel like a second-class citizen in royal circles due to the Serene Highness title. She was far from wealthy and her mother's extravagtance put young May, as she was called, in the position of having to watch her mother and the household finances carefully. She must have felt like the proverbial little girl let loose in the sweet shop when she got to the top.

Her mother-in-law, Queen Alexandra, was considered a great beauty and held onto her looks into old age - Mary was always being unfavourably compared to her, despite having beautiful skin, keen blue eyes, and regal posture. Alexandra and her daughters did not make life easy for May, despite knowing she was going to be Queen one day.

Perhaps that contributed to Mary's, er, passion for collecting.

And don't forget Charles' political meddling with the black spider memos.

No wonder the Queen has her concerns.

r310, No. Your lady of the State crapfest calls your lady of the State crapfest attire and tells other members of the royal families' lady of the crapfest that they need to coordinate jewels. Eventually, Catherine, Meggs, Milla and Soph all have a sleepover.

I imagine his inevitably short reign will follow the plot of King Charles III.

R283, I believe it's a lot of trouble and expense to restore an antique tiara. A lot of families probably don't bother for something that is worn once a decade.

[QUOTE] Ooh cheeky, I do don't I.

Imagine his breath. He and Sarah must be heavy smokers.

Fuck me. How is creaming over ugly, ostentatious jewellery “gossip?

These threads are either infested by nutters or fat old women in housecoats.

Bore off.

[quote]These threads are

able to be blocked and ignored rather than trolling in them and complaining.

It amuses me that posters in these threads are accused of being mental when we gossip about the BRF, and also called nutters when we don't. Make up your minds, trolls.

Hello tiara lovers. I am watching the documentary "Welcome the Queen" (1954), about Elizabeth and Phil's six-month tour of the Commonwealth. After touring Fiji and New Zealand, they roll into Sydney Harbor on their ship, with roaring crowds all around. Next day they are driven to a ceremony in a long sedan open in back, accompanied by military horses and throngs of onlookers. Elizabeth alights to display a lovely soft full length gown and compkete jewelry including TIARA, in the daylight hours, and Philip was stunning in his white officer's uniform. It was a splendid showing; in 1954 Australia loved them.

Why are the ladies in today's BRF forbidden to wear red lipstick? QE2 sported some bright red lips back in her day. Why is it frowned upon for today's royals to wear it now? Why always the nude or pink lips today?

Great thread wonderful photos of tiaras reads very smooth with all the stans & bots that I've blocked.

And yet, R317, you read through 200 posts of this thread before deciding to get in a state about the content, then read through 100 more before posting your comment? So you’re ok with a discussion of something as anachronistic, unfair and biased to the top end of the hierarchy as the British Royal Family, just not with any discussion of the provenance of something as historic, interesting and beautiful as its jewelry collection?

I’m curious, so humour me - why didn’t you just skip on to the next lightweight Datalounge thread instead of indulging in this orgy of self-torture by reading about a subject that you find so objectionable before posting your reductive comment?

One thing I don’t understand is why Margaret was ever considered a beauty. I could maybe understand it with Anne, people were conditioned by Disney to associate “princess” with “beautiful” and she was the only princess in her generation. And was forgotten immediately when a real beauty (Diana) came along. But looking at the old photos, the Queen always looked prettier than Margaret (although neither was a great beauty), so where is the catch?

Any guesses which tiara will grace Lady Gabriella's fair tresses? I imagine Marie Christine carrying a significant opinion on the matter. This will be as much her showcase in her gradiose mind. The Kent branch have their own bag of jewels to choose from but I suspect it to be the London Fringe tiara that was worn by both her mother on her wedding day to Prince Michael as well as Prince Michael's sister Princess Alexandra for her nuptials (pictured here with said tiara).

BTW, Gabriella's wedding is one week from now... and HMTQ will be attending.

R324 - Not sure why Margaret was considered a "great" beauty and HM wasn't (?) but, in photos at least, Margaret radiates a kind of sexiness I have rarely seen in pics of HM. Maybe that had something to do with it?

Hopefully some of the younger royals will also be attending that weeding next weekend, too. I want more pics!

Good to see a civilised discussion of tiaras, with the Skippies F and F-ed so they can't come on the thread!

R324 I was mostly replying to R207 post which classifies the Queen as “plain, or downright unattractive” and Margaret as “having some beauty,” but I’ve seen the same sentiment expressed many times on previous threads. I agree that the Queen never went for sexy look while Margaret tried, but imo her attempts looked rather comical, especially if you compare her to the true sexbombs of those times - MM, BB, Sophia Loren, Gina Lollobrigida, etc.

The Queen had a classical beauty. All the short, curly styles of the 50s were immensely unflattering, but she had a long neck, pretty blue eyes and a slim figure.

r245 QEII wore the full complement of necklaces just last year, at the Dutch State Dinner at BP (the same event where Queen Maxima wore her enormous Stuart Tiara, replete with top diamond). Scroll down to the 2nd pic:

The Stuart Tiara is magnificent! I'd imagine that would be a heavy tiara but Maxima carries it off so well with her height and hair. All the royal women had amazing jewels for Dutch Visit.

As someone else said it really is a big deal that Kate was given one of the Queen Mother's favourite necklaces, it shows what she thinks of Kate. I love how the Queen really conveys her emotions with her jewels, every piece of jewellery she wears in public is purposeful. If you want to know what the Queen really thinks of a person she is meeting or an event look at her jewels. They say Angela Kelly plays a part in picking the jewellery out too.

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

The broach the Queen is wearing at R331 known as "Granny's Chips" are actually the leftovers from The Cullinan diamond that was cut up and made into various pieces, and placed into the Crown Jewels

R131 that's because they are all the same people switching bodies as soon as the old body dies. It's ancient black magic.

None of the tiaras or other jewelry discussed here look like beautiful jewelry. Tacky. A shiny glitter show for peasants.

R250, I think Kate is just as PR attuned as MM and works hard at the "royals--they're just like us" angle. So big bling saved for state occasions.

R317, well, they're the BRF, so the jewellery is part of the gossip. Tampon phone calls don't get leaked very often, after all.

Much prefer the tiara talk to the asinine Skippy/surrogate posts. All the pictures remind me of a favorite Truman Capote line from Breakfast at T's:

“... it’s tacky to wear diamonds before you’re forty; and even that’s risky. They only look right on the really old girls. .... Wrinkles and bones, white hair and diamonds. I can’t wait.”

R335 You would think they could use that old black magic to get better looks! Most of them have lucked out.

While we’re on tiaras - there hasn’t been any really nice ones come through since the days of Queen Mary. Victoria had some beauties, courtesy of Albert, particularly the emerald. I don’t get the hype over the Vladimir. It’s heavy and ugly, even with the emeralds of dubious provenance. The Girls tiara is perhaps the most flattering on Her Maj. along with the George IV Diadem. The Brazilian Aquamarine is gaudy and unattractive despite the staggering gems, while the ruby and sapphire pieces aren’t much better. Probably the best still in use is the Cambridge, along with the Girls.

"She knows that, if the Royal Family is to survive and prosper in the 21st century, it must adapt. Fate has offered it a chance to do so in the shape of Archie, the son of an American whose mother is black."

This quote illustrates one of the biggest misunderstandings of those who comment, baffled-like, on the polarizing nature of MM and her marriage to Harry. Are there some racists out there for whom the nature of her 1/2-1/4 blackness is the sole problem? Yes. But there are also a lot of people out there like myself - solid leftie types who hate Trump and were, back when no one knew who she was, perfectly willing to see MM marry into the firm. Indeed, back then I was even enthused about it. An American! Older than Harry and from a regular background. How refreshing! Yay!

And then I saw a few clips of that talk show appearance, and various speeches she'd made and her social media posts etc., and started to get a bit of an 'ehhh' feeling about her. Then followed the Vanity Fair cover, the couture engagement gown, the weird fiasco with her father, and, post-wedding, all the BS we're already all familiar with.

In one way, MM can be said to be something new to the RF. American, mixed race, older, divorced, worked for a living etc. etc. But she is also new in ways that aren't positive. Her need for attention, her blatant courting of the media, and her ongoing and apparent lack of understanding that her new role is more than her old role just with a lot of extra fame and money on top. And then in other ways, she's a throwback. And by that I solely mean her extravagance. That's exactly what the RF has been trying to move away from. We all know they have billions and vaults full of diamonds. But the deal is you don't rub that shit in the peasant's faces, especially during tough times. MM doesn't seem to grasp that her flashy, spendy ways are already making her deeply unpopular with people who were very willing, at one point, to welcome her with open arms.

If the Queen is truly taking a "fuck it, let them do whatever, it's modern" attitude (and who knows if she is, all I know is she hasn't necessarily always showed the best judgment when it comes to younger female married-ins), I think there's a possibility that could backfire very badly on the RF.

I wonder what's going on with Prince Charles and his paedo friends. Can he really not know? Maybe paedos are good manipulators of clueless royals? Whatever is behind this trend, it's creepy.

R342, that's the sort of thoughtful comment that originally drew me to these threads.

And, friends, I think we may have discovered the trick to driving off the pedo ring/surrogate/fake baby trolls*: simply change the subject to historical jewels!

@R342 which is exactly why Lord Overlord was brought back into the fold.

I liked the way Kate at the start of her marriage wore cute £28 outfits from Top Shop , but she hasn't done that for years, although she does rewear things. Me-gain should follow her example.

R343, nobody knew about pedo Saville so PC wasn't alone in liking him.

How beautiful that Rosenberg Kokoshnik tiara is . Very pretty indeed . I love the bandeaus with their Art Deco feeling too I don’t like the big tiara’s . Camilla is the only one who can wear them without looking like a fool .

I love the ruby and dragonfly tiara.

This Lalique tiara is unusual and very beautiful.

Sometimes, the stories of 'lesser known ' members of the British Royal Family that are so absorbing! Rather than reading about whatever tiresome shit some American actress is up to, here's the life story of Princess Alexandra AKA Princess Arthur of Connaught, 2nd Duchess of Fife granddaughter of King Edward VII and great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Her whole life is interesting but her nursing career in particular is really something... Link to Wikipedia below:

We don’t see Princess Alexandra much these days . Is she still doing royal public events . She looks like a nice lady . Isn’t she a cousin of the queen ?

When I see Camilla in tiaras and necklaces, I cringe. Their beauty doesn't enhance her appearance; the jewels just provide a stark contrast to her aged and unattractive appearance. "Lipstick on a pig" doesn't even begin to cover it. I really wonder whether old women like the queen or queen mother, or unattractive women like Anne look in the mirror when they are wearing the jewels and think "I look so pretty now." Or if they are just a mark of status, like a super-expensive watch on a rich old man.

I don’t agree with you ! Camilla and the queen are the only ones who can wear these tiara’s . And they look good with them .

I see it the same way as R342. Knowing her first just from the pics in the tabloids when they were dating, I assumed she would be a straightforward, all-American, up-from-her-bootstraps gal who'd happily leave her minor success on a cable nighttime soap for a life of outdoor fun and indoor carousing with Harry. (What other kind of person would fall in love with Harry?) Then came that engagement interview.

It's so much more fun this way, though.

Or is it because M can’t have them ? Is she beautiful enough in your mind as in the only one who can wear them ?

R353, I guess it depends on what one sees as beauty. Of course those women aren't conventionally attractive, but I do think they carry the jewels well. And with age, different standards apply anyway.

When I see someone of advanced age with a face all plumped up and altered, styled like a 20-year old, I wonder what they see when they look in the mirror. Do they think they're as attractive as a young person?

They want Hollywood woman who want to look like they are 20 years and complete with their daughters for male attention . Woman like Jane Fonda who is 80 and still do plastic surgery . I’m glad there are woman who want to age gracefully and don’t want to look like a 20 year old .

R352 Princess Alexandra of Kent, daughter of the Queen's uncle, the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina is indeed the first cousin of the Queen . She is 82 now and still very elegant and lovely. Her latest engagement, according to the Court Circular seems to be this one: "3 May 2019 Buckingham Palace The Queen, Sovereign of the Order, accompanied by The Princess Royal, Grand Master, was present this morning at a Service of the Royal Victorian Order held in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence were also present" A search on the Court Circular is always interesting and I've linked it here for you :)

R265 Another modern day royal who looks like her ancestor with the same name is Princess Alexandra of Kent .

R351 Her life is fascinating, and she made something out of it. At the risk of making odious comparisons, the lives of the lower hanging fruit on the Windsor Oak are fairly much wasted, which is really almost tragic. Not having a purpose or achievements must contribute to low self esteem, despite the gilded surroundings. No wonder Margaret fell victim to it. I hope that future monarchs encourage and promote the education of the younger members of the family, not just to satisfy Government regulations, but to give them something tangible to aspire to.

R353 maybe because wearing a tiara is not the exclusive province of the young and beautiful. They aren’t worn to enhance beauty, but as a sign of the woman’s place in the hierarchy. Can’t have the oldies looking good, can we?

R361 , it's R352 here. Thank you, I'm glad you thought the same! I totally agree with your comment and have often wondered about what someone like Princess Margaret could have done with her life had she had some kind of vocation or desire to use her intelligence or skills in a different way. I really love reading or finding out about people in the Royal Family like Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, who used their abilities. In a more modern times we still have members of the Royal Family that you don't see splashed all over the tabloids who live useful lives. For example , the current Earl Of Ulster, son of the Queen;s cousin The Duke Of Gloucester. An ex army officer and rather handsome man , who's married to a consultant paediatrician .

Just my opinion - jewels enhance the beauty of someone attractive and contrast with someone plain or unattractive. Diana and Alexandra wore them the best. Kate looks well in them. Pcss Michael, 70+, also wears them well. She is still a beautiful and elegant woman. MM looked good in her wedding tiara.

For the rest of them; they are just status symbols, hierarchical markers, if you like.

The point about great and priceless jewelry, r364, is that they enhance the wearer, one way or another. That is why they've been favoured for thousands of years.

That was a bandeau R364 .

Markle's bandeau was the wrong shape for her face, wide and low, with the billowing wide veil over the poorly fit dress. When I saw that outfit I knew we were in for an unpleasant sartorial ride.

R342, I agree. And that’s why the really strident “you’re a racist if you don’t like Meghan” accusations are grating. It’s not racism.

She squandered all the goodwill she started out with.

R194, You are completely ignorant of modern British history if you think the current heir to the throne will ABDICATE it!

r368 She more than squandered the great goodwill she had at the start. People were really excited about her, about their beloved Harry having found someone he loved, and especially about her being half-black, because it was thought that would be a great positive to the make-up of the Royal Family. I mean, imagine if Harry had brought home Missandei from GOT. Lovely, wonderful, elegant, genuine, completely fitting in to protocol, and on top of all that different and interesting. That's what people hoped for and expected of Meghan.

Now? Now she'll be lucky if she's not booed in the streets. And that's just for starters. People in the UK really, really dislike her. I've never seen a member of the RF so intensely disliked. Won't end well for the RF if they keep giving her free rein to behave like a haughty version of the Kardashians. It really won't end well at all.

Oh and Harry? Harry, for whom everyone was so happy on his wedding day, has now squandered the lifetime of goodwill he has been always afforded by the people. They really loved him.

Now? Now he'll be booed alongside his Meghantionette.

In a single year, an amazing reversal.

I am a leftie as well and was truly excited by the potential for modernising the BRF. Unfortunately it’s become a freak show with no benefits to modern British society. What I dislike the most is the racism card being so over-used. As someone who has actually been at the end of racism on a regular basis (not so much in the UK), I don’t get why any of this is racist. If MM’s dress is awful or if she tries to merch inappropriately or her Insta post has bad grammar, we should be able to call it out. I was active on a popular UK forum and every thread that so much as said - her dress doesn’t fit - got shut down due to “racist” remarks. I never understood this.

[quote] I mean, imagine if Harry had brought home Missandei from GOT. Lovely, wonderful, elegant, genuine, completely fitting in to protocol, and on top of all that different and interesting. That's what people hoped for and expected of Meghan.

As if any black person would want to be Missandei. Good Lord.

Yes, jewellery is supposed to enhance the wearer. But just like too-youthful or too-revealing clothes or hairstyle can backfire on the wearer, so too can eyecatching jewels. A showstopping necklace on an elderly, sun-damaged woman only draws attention to her crepey, freckled neck and chest.

I refer to the features of Missandei's character, not to her history in the GOT universe.

I understand what you're saying, r374 , but my point is that great pieces can enhance in more ways than in terms of strict beauty. No matter how wrinkly Camilla looks, the quality of jewels she now wears enhance her by creating an aura of Ultra-Grande Dame.

My point is that a set of dazzling jewels can work in more ways than one to enhance the wearer.

Thanks, R363. Just my thoughts again, but the more relevant way to transform the monarchy isn’t to import Americans, but to work with the existing members and encourage them to set an example of working and studying and finding suitable professions, rather than being dilettantes. That’s what will transform the monarchy. The Queen was reportedly not impressed with Kate’s not having a job, but that’s a bit Pot/Kettlish when you see the Yorks with their token ‘jobs’, and Harry not at all. He has no real purpose now, so he should have been steered towards a more useful occupation.

I think a grand old lady can really rock good jewelry, but the Queen's always looks like it's put on higgledy-piggledy. A brooch stuck here, a jeweled order there, and sometimes the pieces don't quite work well together. Perhaps because the jewelry IS only symbolic to her, not a true ornament. Contrast that with the way her grandmother Queen Mary wore jewelry: She piled it on, but it all worked together, somehow. Even Camilla does better on that score, and Kate certainly does. To see the differences, look at the pictures in R331.

That Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife link is really interesting. I admire her career, but I'm amused at her personal life: She wanted to marry one of her first cousins (once removed), a Greek prince, but the engagement was called off due to parental disapproval. So she married another first cousin (once removed), an English prince. And her bridesmaids were named Mary, Mary, May, and Maud, all cousins.

I know all modern royals in Europe are distantly related too (mostly due to Victoria and Christian IX), but I think their connections pale in comparison to how it must have been for royals 100 years ago, when literally everyone you met, befriended, or married was a cousin of some sort. No wonder the babies had hemophilia: I'm surprised they didn't have flippers.

Did Harry ever have either the intelligence or the perseverance for an occupation? It seems clear now he never did. Doubtful their PR machine will ever be able to build him back up into any sort of respectable royal. They need to slowly fade him out over this next year.

I liked the Queen Mary bandeau itself, but not how MM chose to wear it at her wedding. I suppose she parted her hair in order to match the center stone; however, that is a terrible hairstyle for her. Plus, her hair completely lacked volume which made the bandeau appear to sit heavily on her head.

Zara Phillips wore the Meander tiara (which has a center stone) with a side part at her wedding and she looked lovely. Mike wore his face with a side part to less pleasant results...

Nicely said, R377. As I've said before, if you want to know how the Firm feels about someone, look at the titles, the jewelry, and the property.

Harry and Meghan's son was not given an HRH. Sure, he'll be entitled to one when the Queen dies, but at that point everyone will know him as Archie Windsor, so the branding will never be the same even if they take the title. (Also they'd look like hypocrites at that point, as they spurned Earl of Dumbarton.) Meghan so far has been lent very little of the good jewelry--even her wedding tiara wasn't the one she wanted. They were not given a fancy London address but the cottage at Frogmore in the 'burbs.

By all accounts, the Sussexes were originally supposed to get Apartment 1 at Kensington Palace, so Frogmore was a shock, to say the least. The Queen could easily have issued letters patent to make Harry's son an HRH--I doubt most people would have minded, IF he and Meghan were popular. If they were popular, they might have been invited to a few more glitzy Royal dinners and events where Meghan could show off the family bling. But they haven't been.

This isn't racism, and I don't even think it's the BRF maintaining hierarchy. It's a response to the Sussexes irresponsible behavior. The BRF can't get rid of Meghan right now, but they can certainly make their displeasure known using their traditional weapons: titles, jewelry, and property.

To which her PR responds -- racist, racist, racist, we are WITH you! R381.

That is why the photo with the queen AND Phillip was quite strategic.

They will keep doing things in the oddest or most provocative way just to keep people talking.

I do hope they are shuffled off to Africa, she may just succeed in bringing the monarchy down.

Harry is such a PR creation and hypocrite. He recently appeared with Kate, all laughing and fellow well met, but allows his wife to go after her and her children. He purportedly was the one who considered Cath the sister he never had and who would not hear a word against her in his presence. Not sure who is faker, Dim or Me-Gain.

..........and we see indisputably that if Meghan Markle single handedly saved the entire world and all the humanity and life therein, certainly she would be abjectly criticized for the way she saved it.

It can't all be blamed on Meghan. Harry CHOSE her. I don't think he's so dumb that he doesn't know who and what she is. I think he inherited his mother's slyness and also her terminal butthurt. He feels hard-done-by, and his choice of wife and actions since then are all part of his plan to say FU to his family.

Oh please, R383. To paraphrase the Sopranos, Meghan doesn't do acts of heroism. She only does acts of Meghan.

I love those bandeau tiaras--the Queen Mary, the Greville Emerald, the Meander. They suit many different types of faces and are just blingy enough without being too much.

The Sapphire Bandeau tiara is another Windsor stunner. I couldn't find a recent picture of it, so I don't know where it currently is. Kate should make a play for it if it's still in the Windsor vault: Would go wonderfully with her other sapphires.

If Meghan sticks around long enough to get her hands on the good jewelry, she ought to try for the Oriental Circlet. That tiara was made for a dark-eyed brunette with defined bone structure.

The Queen will attend the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day Landings on June 5 at Portsmouth.

William has an engagement on May 14th.

I would like to hear more about the gossip regarding Charles being bisexual, please.

What's interesting to me is that I've heard bisexual rumors attached to many a male royal: the Duke of Clarence, Edward VIII, Princes Edward, Andrew, and Charles, but I've never heard any such rumor about a female royal. Are there no royal women who like to play with the ladies? Or are they just more discreet?

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

The Oriental Circlet tiara has a long and fascinating history, which you can read about at the link.

It was a favorite tiara of the Queen Mother's, but Elizabeth has only worn it once, in 2005. She prefers the Burmese Ruby tiara when wearing the other Royal rubies. It's probably one that a younger female Royal could lay claim to eventually, if she had the patience to wait for the good jewelry.

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

In that pic above of Margaret in the Oriental tiara, she is indeed lovely.

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

Something very peculiar has happened on the Court Circular. When you tap on the " All Members of the Royal Family " box, to scroll through members and find there future engagements....the baby is listed there, under the Queen. And above the Duke of Edinburgh. Say what?

Photos of the Queen's cousin, Princess Alexandra of Kent.

If anyone needs a laugh...LOL.

Lady Louise resembles her father Prince Edward a lot.

"Hey you there. Yes, I'm talking to you."

Another possibility for choosing Archie.

Fergie was in the US and looking a little rough.

R325 - The spiky fringe would be my guess, as welll, if she wears one at all, which she might not. When Queen Mary died, she made sure in her will to distribute judicious bits of her collection amongst the Kents and Gloucesters, although the lion's share went to her granddaughter, the Queen. Mary died, I believe, only three months after Elizabeth's coronation. I think Wallis Simpson left some stuff to Pss. Michael, who Wallis believed was sympathetic to her. So Pss. Michael has some very striking pieces, including a tiara with spikes atop which are diamond florettes. My guess is that Gabriella will aim for the look that Meghan tried for but didn't pull off: a very simple gown but with a far mor striking tiara. Especiallly, as the Queen will be in attendance.

Odd isn’t it R396 ? He doesn’t do royal events . How come he is beneath her majesty and above prince Philip . Some megstan on the court circular ?

What is it with the Yorks? Do bras not exist in their world?

R387 - Meghan will wear the Oriental Tiara when hell freezes over. For one thing, the Queen still wears it, and when Charles takes the throne, either Camilla or Kate will wear it. Meghan will only get smaller stuff to wear, like Queen Mary's Bandear that she had to settle for at her wedding or the Greek Key or one of the other less grand ones. And Meghan doesn't have "defined bone structure" - she has chipmunk cheeks that she tries very hard to disguise with heavy blush and contouring.

I don't know if Meghan will ever get the Oriental Circlet or not, but it's certainly not a favorite of the Queen's. She's only worn it once, 14 years ago.

R404 R396 Very Strange to have a 5 day old baby listed on the Court Circular especially since it makes out he is the heir to the throne after the Queen. Did MM and Sara Latham find the admin password for www.royal.uk?

R384 - Second alll of that.

I think PH chose MM because she told him she knew how he could escape his life of royal mediocrity into a world of glittering new possibilities of celebrity. She made him think there was a way out for him, and he was desperate enough to believe her.

Be sure she has told him how he would be king and the most favorite prince in the entire world and that you can make money from social media . That he was a ROCKSTAR and everyone else was beneath him . She whispered many lies in his ears so she could become his wife . He forgot that he is a balding guy that will rapidly become 40 and fat . After the glow of the birth of his son he will be drinking and be on drugs again . No sex between these two . Just a business agreement . Hence no honeymoon and all of that .

Rockstar? Trash.

Kartrashian wannabe.

Not only does she make Kate and the Yorks look better, she even elevates Kim and Kanye. Kim is working on justice issues and studying law. Me-Gain is studying how to dress like Kim. Such a joke.

If it was a film, she would be a plant to take down the BRF. In real life, she might just manage it.

WTF is Pure Wow? Clearly a website for placed stories.

Clearly the source of inspo for clothes and PR.

Oh, and odd baby names.

Oh hey, I'm back.

"Pretty in Pink". Diana in Italy, 1985, wears a double twisted pearl necklace with large pearls.

They are not very nice to outsiders in that family, aren’t they? First, when Kate marries in, the Queen very pointedly updates the curtseying order, making sure Kate has to bob up and down left and right, curtseying to everyone, lest the Yorkies feel insignificant. Now that Meghan is in, the old girl starts showering Kate with jewels and other signs of distinction. She’s even attending the wedding of some third-tier royal just to show Meghan that the family she never had is the family she never will have and it sticks together.

R416-right, the 93-year-old Queen is going to attend a wedding just to stick it to Meghan. That will put the social climber in her place, I'll attend a wedding! FFS.

OTOH, the BRF rewards patience and loyalty. Look at Sophie Wessex. She had one colossal screw-up early on, but since then she hasn't put a foot wrong. Kate made plenty of errors in the early years, especially with her fly-up dresses and all. Neither daughter-in-law was treated particularly well at first, but they've both settled down and embodied their roles, and they get nice places to live and some epic jewelry (love Sophie's aquamarine tiara--so much better than the ugly thing they gave her for her wedding).

If Meghan showed she really cared about doing well in her new role and dressed/acted accordingly, after a few years and a couple of heirs, doors and jewel vaults would start to unlock for her. But I don't think she's interested in all of that--she doesn't WANT to be Sophie Wessex or even Kate Cambridge. She wants to grab as much as she can, get as famous as she can, and GTFO. It will be interesting to see if Harry is part of her exit strategy. I don't think he is.

Sophie Wessex' aquamarine tiara. Not as big as HM's aquamarine tiara, but I like this one better. Love the Art Deco look of it.

"she is a plant to take down rhe BRF"

Ookay.The only thing markle is taking down is her knickers.

That thing at the Court Circular is really weird, especially since no other Royal children are listed there (obvs., since they don't have official engagements). I suspect some kind of hacking.

Hierarchy in Hollywood is based on being the hot young thing. Hiearchy in the BRF is based on being the furthest up a ladder that was built hundreds of years ago. The spoils go not to the hot young thing, but to the old cold thing. Meghan's refusal to understand that will be her undoing with the BRF, but since she's only using them to grab headlines until she can jump to the nearest billionaire, I don't think she cares.

She is not young nor hot but cold she has been all her life.

That poor kid with those 2 as parents.

Meghan "no jewels for YOU!" Markle - Imagine if you will 6-8 people with a dozen or so extra large pizzas between them, but alone sits one poorly individual who has to sit and watch all the others devour all this pizza without the benefit of even one meazly slice - that's the Queen and Meghan's jewel situation - the Queen is a mean girl! haha

If she wants to take the kid to CA/keep the kid in CA, I do not really see the BRF mounting some effective strategy, based on their behavior and actions so far. I think that could sent Dim into a possibly fatal tailspin.

Curious if locals see signs that FrogCot is occupied?

She/they continue to go after Kate with that instagram. Lord Doom does not seem to be making much headway. Many of the carrots and sticks they hold are of NO interest to her. She wants notoriety. WHO is paying the PR bill? Charles seems flattered by her, creepy old fool with his paedo mates.

Any SM contact with her former bestie and rumored lover, Jess? Has ABC dumped her yet? Her connection did not pay off well for the network.

R425-former bestie Jess has yet to issue a congratulations. Perhaps she's been ghosted. If so, bring on the tell-all!

R416, that’s the way it is in most families. A woman marrying into a family is usually tested and evaluated and goes through a probation period.

Doesn’t matter how enlightened and liberal we think we are, we are still clannish. And as much power as men have, women have their own spheres of influence.

Ask any woman who’s married into a family. The existing women can accept you into the fold immediately (the exception, not the rule!), after you’ve proven yourself to be worthy, or not at all.

I’m sure the psychology and dynamics of women isn’t a popular topic here, but I find it fascinating.

Kate weathered the trials and endured her years of hazing. She’s in, and she’s reaping the benefits. Meghan came in like gangbusters and is not welcome.

Keep Calm...

^^What a sweet picture :)

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

She already has a kid from someone else?

R430, whoa. That woman hesitated a lot before she dropped “she’s multi-racial” and “she’s already had a kid with someone else”. She thought about what she was saying and how to say it and decided on “multi-racial”. Maybe she was too focused on that part, and slipped when she talked about a “kid”?

We need The Investiture Video Analysts on the case, right now! The Deal or No Deal girls sound like they were escorting at the event, too? Wouldn't surprise me.

R431 and R432, the woman obviously was just fuzzy about the facts on the former hostess/caddy. It doesn't mean that MM has a child.

I'm more curious than ever why BFF Jess is mute on IG about baby Archie. Are the two BFFs staying low key about merching baby items e.g. making deals in private, or are did Meg ghost her? It makes more sense for the latter, even if she didn't ghost her it's likely that they're no longer close. Meghan is someone who's very aware of how she wants to be viewed and who she'd like to be associated with as a consequence. Jessica is small fish in a big pond in US media now that Oprah has taken her under her wings. GMA shitty stylist vs. frau-est of of frau media maven? Embarrassing photos, among other crass ones, of Jessica with filler-lips that look like swollen vagina probably makes Meghan cringe to be associated as her BFF.

R430, I love it. She's so nice about MM's big come up, but it comes cross as so shady the way she keeps saying "good for her!"

R433, that what it seems like to me. Although to be fair, she seemed high as fuck and couldn’t string a coherent sentence together.

And what a nasty piece of work that woman was, though. “My No Deal or No Deal girls”, “my celebrities”, “my tournament”.

I don't think Mattel Mulroney has been ghosted. She's got what she wants for as long as it lasts (ABC). I think she is shrewd enough to realize she's smarter to keep her mouth shut about MM. She was seen at the shower... she probably gets one or two photos a year to prove she's still in favour.

I think her husband ( of the time ) was a producer on Deal or No Deal. So he supplied them? Looking through 'tinterweb she's hosted a good few annual tournaments for charity.

Who's to say Megantoinette even wants to keep the kid come the divorce? Might suit her narrative to be deprived of custody... free to be her... free to whine about being the victim. Privately though.

Re r430, I had to look up Paula Trickey because I had no idea who she was. (She was on a show I never heard of 20 years ago).

R440, whatever happens, Meg will spin it to her advantage.

R370, perhaps the reason why she wants out of England is that hatred you write of. But internationally she is well liked by young women especially those of color. I read their comments online and I think she and Harry could build some life of celebrity here in the States. I personally believe she deserves better than the English people and I hope she and Harry make the escape they want on their terms.

I can't help wondering if Harry is genuinely stupid or just lazy.

Did he have to have people take his tests for him because he just didn't want to study? Felt "Why bother?".

I think the "Poor Harry; He just stupid." lets him off the hook.

We are supposed to believe he couldn't find something of use to do with his life besides party?

I never knew Harry struggled in school and didn't face up to his army exams. It must be painful to have so many people deriding him now as stupid.

I actually admire Markle for not being broken like one of Camilla's horses. She is person with her own mind and ideas who refuses to be a mouth piece to a family that does not value her, her husband or child beyond their potential to kiss the ass crack of the A-list members of the BRF. You all admire folks like Prince Michael but I see a lazy bitch that basically sings for her supper like a court jester to maintain the favor of the hump back old troll you all call a Queen.

Cuz kissing the ass crack (or tossing the salad of) Clooneys and Oprahs is so much more meaningful?

Kartrashian wanna be psychopathic bitch is a more apt description.

Her bills are being paid for by the public, there is of course going to be requirements that go along with it. Bitch can go back to her day job if she wants to be a free bird.

R442 - Would that be the same "English People" whose taxes renovated her home, pay for part of her astronomically expensive wardrobe, and curtsy to her in public?

I can never work out if MM is a patient, cunning strategist playing a long game, or if she is just plain dumb. If, say, you took on a job as a stepping stone to a better one, wouldn't you do everything you could to fit in, not rock the boat and just bide your time til the next deal came your way? The only thing I can think of that makes sense is that MM deliberately chooses to cause as much disruption as possible with the aim of getting a big pay-off to leave.

What we see as disruption she sees as building her brand. Fitting in wouldn't build her the global, independent fame she wants, nor would it bring in merching dollars. She'll stay put until she's sure she can be a celebrity in her own right without the Royal family, in the tradition of Diana, and then she'll jump.

Of course, Diana was having trouble maintaining her access and contacts after the divorce, but Meghan probably thinks she'll do better. We'll see.

She's been hustling for so long she prob isn't capable of going down a notch, it's actually pretty common in people that have been focused on making it for so long.

Add in her yatching past and the rumours of a soho debt, I wonder where she sees herself ending up.

How is she "building her brand" by not dressing appropriately, not following the protocol, not wearing British designers, leaking damaging stories about her in-laws, and spending taxpayers' money like a drunken sailor?

What will be interesting is to see where Meghan is in 20 years. She won't be as interesting in her 50s, and the new shiny pretty young things will knock her from her perch no matter how big she gets in the next 5 years or so. It will be fascinating to watch unfold.

I'm beginning to wonder if Tumblr isn't so crazy after all when they say the Harkles aren't living in Frogmore. The Press were in Windsor for weeks, yet no one saw them coming and going, particuarly when she had the baby?

She is already too old for the young people . In 2 years she will be 40 and in young people eyes you are standing with one foot in your grave . Because she is married to a prince she is famous with the young crowd for now . But after the divorce and without a title not soo much . She really thinks she is the high priestess of social media but she is not .

She acts like she invented social media.

Yeah I read some of skippys manifestos here on the BRF threads . Some things are not that farfetched as everyone thinks . Everyone is saying they are tinhatters but wit MM everything is possible .

There's no way they are at Frogmore, they prob never left Nott Cottage at KP.

Let's break it down here. Where people have a problem with Meghan, and with other celebs people love to trash, is when self-importance/ hubris and self-promotion are disproportionate to talent. Secondly, since Meghan was a (small-time) celeb and clearly is intent on becoming a bigger celeb instead of a 2nd-tier member of BRF, the hate is magnified by the British taxpaying public who resent having to pay for an outsider's fame whoring ways. Third, people hate hypocrites, especially a feminist vegan who marries into patriarchal/ hierarchical institution and who abandoned her dog, eats roasted chicken while not giving any fucks that her husband is a big game hunter. Furthermore, being preached to is not something that endears you to people. This goes for preaching against Fortnite, labeling previous generations as racists who need to die off, giving trite speeches (that only echo words of other speakers) at women's conferences, so on and so forth. Also, misappropriating the term mental health to mean bullshit, feel-good wellness endeavors that lead to participation in Oprah specials, or to promote for-profit yoga ventures, and also as means to talk about themselves while not giving due credit to mental health organizations they "patron" . Lastly, screaming about privacy while doing exact opposite to garner even more publicity if they had just done things in low key manners. And I'm not even including Meghan's personal history of troubled interrelationships e.g. ghosting, lying about family etc....

Well-done [459]. The name “Archie Harrison” seals the fate of these bimbos in my mind. I do believe they chose Archie as an almost-anagram of Rachel, and of course “Harrison”, means Harry’s son. This sounds to me like something immature high-schoolers from exurban America would cook up. How cutesie. Also, using a last name as a first name is “in” among the aspiring middling sort, hence, all the Madisons and Morgans. But we should keep in mind that the second name might be homage to our two presidents named Harrison, or maybe to a suburb in chi-chi Westchester County, NY :) I don’t know why we have to listen to these two mediocrities. Feels like an imposition to me. And the liberal press is uncritically positive about Meghan and Harry, including the NYT, New Yorker, WaPo, VF, Daily Beast. Not to mention the Guardian. They never mention any of Meg’s misbehaviors. Race makes it a taboo to criticize anything. But I was gratified to see a backlash by NY Times and WaPo commenters. The article in the times celebrated “Blackness as a Badge”. Not exactly what MLK had in mind.

R454, I think she is steadfastly refusing to live at Frogmore. It’s a comedown and reproach and she won’t accept it. Pig will fly before she makes Froggy Hollow her home.

The

Premature posting ^^

The "poor Meghan, I understand it if she wants to leave the ungrateful English behind because they're so mean to her" types a)miss the point that loads of broadsheet columnists and professionally woke people still fawn over her to an embarrassing extent, including ones who have repeatedly portrayed themselves as above forelock-tugging-type behaviours when it comes to all non-MM royals (coughMarinaHydecough) and b)notably NEVER have a response to "but the English people are footing the bill for her extravagant lifestyle."

Americans who love Meghan, I invite you to compare your idol to Kim K. Kim K of the giant ass and the ridiculous pretensions to being someone other than a chick whose own mother parlayed a tape of her being fucked in said giant ass into global fame. There's a lot of hate for Kim K out there. I can't say I feel any affection for her myself. But she's probably done more good in the world than Meghan, especially recently with her work on the prison reform issue and the helping to free people imprisoned for low level drug crimes. Like, hate Kim or not, and I kind of do, she DID that. She's also more woke than I ever expected, publicly supporting Hilary etc. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying the leftie types fawning all over Megs whilst disdaining Kim are kinda showing their asses.

Now, American Kim haters. Imagine she wasn't actually doing any of that prison reform stuff. Imagine she was just saying that imprisoning low level drug offenders is bad on her social media. And maybe linking to some for-profit organizations run by personal friends. And wearing a lot of outrageously expensive couture, traveling everywhere with a heavy security detail etc. etc. AND THEN imagine that instead of funding it herself via her empire built on getting ass-fucked, that you the taxpayer were footing the bills for all of it.

They'd be able to hear the howls of outrage in Antarctica, is all I'm saying. So you can fuck right off with your 'oh the British are so mean to poor Meghan of course she should leave them!' whingeing.

The brand Meghan is building is the Anti-Kate, R452. What we see as grasping, disrespectful behavior and general messiness is seen by some as 'the breath of fresh air' the stuffy Royals need: a woman who worked for a living, a woman who doesn't care about titles and etiquette, a woman with a PAST. Someone who can shake things up for the stick-in-the-mud, stuck-in-the-past Royal Family.

They said the exact same things about Sarah Ferguson in 1986. See how well that worked out for her.

A huge chunk of the Meghan “haters” are non-white, FYI.

Simon Armitage has just become the new poet laureate. He will not write a poem for Archie's birth as he feels he has "missed the boat a bit". This isn't surprising, as his predecessor did not write poems for the births of any of the Cambridge children (although she did write ones for the Cambridge and Sussex weddings).

R460 - you bashed the Guardian in your post before I bashed Marina Hyde in mine. There's something extra laughable about the Guardian going full in on the Meghan Markle love train. The Guardian, with their oh so right-on anti-monarchism and their calculated refusal to write about the royal family in anything other than the most ridiculing haughty tones. WHICH IS FINE. As long as you don't then turn around and specifically begin to fawn over one of them for the sole reason that she has a very slightly darker skin tone than the rest of them. FFS.

R460 I posted the litany of offenses that make both Meghan and Harry unlikable in the eyes of many people. That list contains no personal attributes/ traits (god know they have personal issues) that can be misconstrued attacks by Meghan loons. It's basically a run down of things that they've done to invite scorn and hate. I think if people present reasons why they can't stand the two in similar ways (in addition to personal bitchiness but not at the expense of it), then I it's likely to open a lot of people's minds so that they can see facts instead of feeling like Meghan is being unfairly targeted.

People are simply getting tired of being told that they aren't allowed to criticize some foreigner who wants to ~change things~, and it turns out that silencing people over and over really fucking ticks taxpayers off.

let them be free to pay their own fucking bills in LA, nobody needs to care for a worthless idiotic spare that despises people that pay for his everything

R469-that's key. Harry despises the people and the press and yet wants every single privilege allotted to him by virtue of his birth.

A recent yougov poll has Meghan behind Catherine in popularity in both the UK and the US. She's always below her. Meghan is just not popular here, or globally. The media pretends she is, but numerous commentors, blogs and websites prove different. Lipstick alley, a forum for women of color has a Meghan Markle unpopular opinions thread that has over 1,000 pages with tens of thousands of negative comments. Meghans followers are very vocal, but also a very small minority. She is widely disliked and rightfully so.

A Buckingham Palace reply.

They should boot these two out of RF . If they don’t want to play along the rules well then they can sod of to LA . But then they have to use their own money arent they ?

r467 The Guardian is really rather a sneery racist tome these days. It is far more dangerous than the Mail because it actually believes it is not racist. The only reason they are raving about MM is because she as a white adjacent biracial. who is socially white and is just black enough for them to support. She looks like them, so they can identify with her more so than some dark skinned black woman. I couldn't believe it when the Guardian was waxing lyrical about how this was a huge change for British race relations - as if a white man marrying a white looking woman was something novel or contentious. Or you know, new. The Harkles and their white baby have changed nothing about race relations in my black life.

If i am writing to a royal, r472, I ask a question and I usually send a 100 pound donation (equivalent) to one of the royal's charities. I am a stationery and engraving freak. The thank you from an equerry is usually more personal and on better stationary. So far, the best were from the Queen Mum. [Well she was a daughter of the Earl of Strathmore...]

R475, can you write to Her Royal Highness Duchess of Sussex and see if anyone replies?

She’s gone from fucking random strangers, to shafting an entire population #The Markle Effect.

How quickly a party girl from LA who simulated sex acts for a living suddenly can represent the Head of State. smh.

r476, I'd rather HRH, Prince Henry. His stationery has his royal crest and would be more interesting than the lozenge of his wife.

Would be better sending a letter to Our 'Milla. She has Chuck's lozenge.

I found a nice picture of Charles and Diana on their wedding day.

Secrets of The Royal Wardrobe is on Channel 5, right now, then +5, if anyone in the UK is interested.

The Queen looks adorable here. She looks impish.

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

Thanks, R481. I had no idea that Diana was responsible for the design of the dress she wore to the opening of Parliament in 1982. Good that she didn't make a habit of it, I guess.

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

What????

What is up with the seaming in Diana's dress at R484? Did she sew it herself, too?

Okay, NOW I'm starting to think there's something weird about Archie Windsor's birth.

Birth certificates are public records in the UK.

[quote] According to section 30 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, “Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes at any time when the General Register Office is open for that purpose, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies, on payment to the Registrar General.”

Also from Secrets of the Royal Wardrobe — Fergie wanted helicopters incorporated into the embroidery/beading of her wedding dress.

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

US media don't care about Archie.

R486, that article is an unintentional comic masterpiece! Especially the part about the Sussex’s views on privacy.

How can a so-called reporter write that with a straight face?

R492 Paywall. So whats the reason?

I was curious about the baby, but now that it's been born, I've abruptly lost any real interest.

I enjoy Meghan's shenanigans, though, so hopefully she'll pull a stunt soon.

Do you think the Sussex couple realizes they went through multiple years worth of checkpoints in one year?

Don't worry R495 Trooping The Color is coming up. I am sure she will cook something up.

Won't release the birth certificate, huh? Well, I assume every media outlet in the UK will pay for a copy from the Registrar General (?) as soon as they can. The real question is, will it then be available as it it properly required to be or have they taken extra steps to actually conceal it?

Still don't think any of the surrogacy rumours are true, but damn is this "but their privacy!!1!" line getting very, very old. MM especially seems like someone who might actually die from lack of attention if she ever gets afforded the privacy we are being repeatedly told means so much to her.

These two don't want privacy. They want fawning praise and nothing else.

R493 Pretty sure the British-style shade in that Telegraph article is fully intended.

"Privacy" in Hollywood speak means 'FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY!!! PAY ATTENTION TO MEEE!!!

What’s the point of saying they want the certificate private if it’s going to be publicly available anyway?

Why does the wee Harkle need more privacy than an ordinary British citizen? Or you know even a future King (all of the royals birth certificates to date have been release)? The Harkles are just making themselves look guilty now. Nowt wrong with surrogacy until you try to hide it so your offspring can inherit or remain in the line of succession.

Not releasing the certificate teases the drama. They have 42 days within which to register. They can choose to do it at a point, within that time, that works best for them from a PR point of view.

I assume the first picture of Archie without the hat will also be timed for maximum media effect.

People who want privacy don't become actresses or start lifestyle blogs. Nor do they marry one of the most famous men in the world when that man only has his fame to recommend him. Harry is not handsome or intelligent or artistic or witty or ambitious or dedicated or even, according to the stories here, kind. None of the women in his own circle wanted him because they DID want their privacy, and Harry was not the sort of man to overcome their reluctance through his charm and personality. Only a desperate famewhore would want him, and that is exactly who married and reproduced with him.

This 'but my privacy' shtick is their way of getting even MORE attention, just like the clusterfuck of the baby's birth was. This poor kid, being used as a prop when he isn't even a month old.

Well, those of you waiting for Meghan's next stunt--here it is, kids. Refusing to share a birth certificate that will be publicly available in a few weeks. SMH.

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

Can’t link at the moment, but two delicious articles in the Mail.

First one calling Markle out on linking to her friend’s yoga retreat on IG. “It’s just wrong”.

Second one very juicy - concern that Harry won’t be able to have the private life he longs for (apparently) while married to Markle. And “insiders” saying that Buckingham Palace have very serious concerns about Meghan and have had to go up against her but “the palace always wins”. Angela Levin wrote that and she’s actually very well connected.

Oversized never works on short, dumpy women.

Ooh, that is one shady article at the mail.

[quote] Proudly self-reliant, she has been fortunate with good looks, drive and brains. Climbing the slippery slope of fame, however, has required her to be tough, ruthless even, and one consequence is the perception that she is willing to leave behind those she feels are no longer useful. If fatherhood will be the making of Harry, the bigger question is: how will motherhood fit with Meghan's seemingly limitless desire to prove herself?

[quote]Another Royal insider confirmed: 'The intention is to ensure what they do is co-ordinated with the rest of the household so you don't get an Independent State of Frogmore [the Sussex's Windsor cottage]. 'The Royal Family is a very hierarchical organisation. It's the Queen, Prince Charles, the Cambridges, the Sussexes in that order. As the fourth household you have to respect that chain of command.'

[quote]The farce surrounding the announcement of Archie's birth has caused dismay within an organisation used to operating with the most certain touch. One Palace insider told me he was in no doubt that Meghan and Harry had pulled the strings. 'The way the birth was handled was a huge cock-up and left a very confusing picture,' he said. 'The Sussexes were determined to get what they wanted. But the Palace machine is a force to be reckoned with.'

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

Trevor's suit looks like something out of The Great Gatsby. Or something a Ken doll would wear. Good luck to him and his new wife, though.

Choosing not to release the birth certificate for the sake of Archie's privacy is just daft. There'll be nothing on the birth certificate that we don't already know! It'll just be his name, date and place of birth (plus his parents' places of birth and occupations).

r512, but if there are discrepancies...

All right, I though I was done with British Royal Family threads, but they keep pulling me back in!

... there will be conspiracy theories.

Archie was born in the American Embassy and is a full American citizen!

The birth certificate is their typical way to get people talking about and paying attention to them. FFS,

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

R514 I think that's the Sussex plan.

The DM article re MM's yoga pal (linked at r517) who got the Sussex Ig nod has some real other goodies in it, beside the main story. There is sidebar halfway down, written by alleged MM pal Charlotte Wace, that the Sussexes are being given a 'layover pad' at BP to use when they need to stay over in London. A suite of rooms, ready to move into by year's end, similar to those used by Princes Andrew and Edward. Interesting - we'll see.

It also says shockingly that 'senior royal sources' claim that it was the medical staff themselves - and not H & M - that requested privacy and that their names NOT be noted publicly as those who delivered baby Archie. Oh really? I found this fascinating here. How many lies or twisties are they going to put out there before it all blows up at them?

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

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

Watch the crazies got it right the whole time, and we have to have to wear tin hats as penance.

R517 thanks for linking the article, fuck yes finally public scrutiny over bullshit promoting of yoga/ wellness business as being on par with actual mental health initiatives. I've been hoping a major paper will call Meghan and Harry out on it. and now will see if the two merching idiots will delete the link. Shit like that bugs those of us working in mental health to no end.

Guess great minds think alike r520, posted about the Glover article seconds after you did. Same conclusion: posh yet shady.

[quote] the crazies got it right the whole time

Which part R522? The treason, tax evasion, financial fraud, the surrogate, the plot to kill the Cambridge children, the pillow baby, the international paedophile ring, the political backers working out of Soho House, the blackmail using private pictures from within Buckingham Palace, the stalking, Meghan and Harry living at two different addresses and never ever having had sex, the drug ring, the bearding, Meghan's two previous marriages and multiple previous children, the pretend royal wedding or the arrest and interrogation inside Windsor Castle.

Which one?

I simply cannot imagine whose PR planted this?

Kate as a foe or as a foil, rinse & repeat.

Nobody’s PR planted it. It’s an excerpt from a book about Kate.

The Daily Mail article today, so soon after the ooohs and ahhhhs of the birth, is so loaded with shade the sun can't penetrate. It does a bit of sugarcoating but not enough to obscure the obvious theme: Meghan Markle married Harry for personal advancement and nothing else and won't let anyone stop her from continuing to use her marriage for personal advancement no matter what the Palace thinks. The article goes on to say, however, that in this game there is only ever one winner: the Palace. So it will be interesting to see if the writer is correct, how long it takes, and what form it takes.

All of it Brown Velvet Lady. All of it, honey.

the media going in on them so quickly is interesting, usually a new baby gives leads to people getting a slight honeymoon 2.0

they really ticked them off by going for us-focused pr and that weird announcement

From the Angela Levin DM piece today. They (BP and senior staff) are onto her, and not afraid to publicly talk about it:

[quote]Indeed, insiders are laying last week's PR fiasco around Archie's birth at her (Meghan's) door.....

[quote]...But getting it right is another matter altogether. The farce surrounding the announcement of Archie's birth has caused dismay within an organisation used to operating with the most certain touch.

[quote]One Palace insider told me he was in no doubt that Meghan and Harry had pulled the strings. 'The way the birth was handled was a huge cock-up and left a very confusing picture,' he said.

So then it appears that MM's carefully orchestrated attempts at self promotion are back-firing one attempt after another. Leo women are notoriously stubborn, bull-headed, and self-centered among other similar traits. These traits can either work for them or against them. The deciding factor is intelligence/good sense. And here we arrive once again at the impasse being that the Duchess continues to strenuously hurl her star into the minds and consciousness of the people even though it has already been there for over a year now. She's fucking it all up by trying to fix what was never broken.

BP has had enough apparently. Their concern goes back to the engagement, and all the statements re Thomas Markle that came from KP (and actually, H & M):

[quote]Others in the Royal set-up have been concerned to find that, several times, public appearances by Meghan and Harry have clashed with scheduled engagements for more senior Royals, including Prince Charles.

[quot]Buckingham Palace, I can reveal, has concluded that this can't go on and has already put its foot down.

[quote]The recent announcement that the Sussexes are to move their offices from Kensington Palace to Buckingham Palace was interpreted as a sign that Harry and Meghan wished to go their separate way from William and Kate, who remain at the offices they used to share.

[quote]But a senior source told me this move was meant as a tactful yet firm way of working more closely with both the Duchess and her husband, who seems, for the moment at least, determined to follow her lead. The decision was made before his wedding when Kensington Palace began issuing daily statements about Meghan Markle's father,' I was told.

[quote]Buckingham Palace was horrified. A key part of being Royal is that you don't say anything about that sort of thing. The Palace abides by its mantra, 'When in doubt, never speak out.' '

[quote]Meghan, however, has been keen to drive public discussion as she thinks best. Take that Manhattan baby shower. Had Buckingham Palace known in advance, I was told, they would have prevented it.

[quote]Just as significant as the move of offices is the fact that Sara Latham, the couple's new communications director, will come under the direct control of the Queen's communications secretary, Donal McCabe.

[quote]And the Queen's staff will keep a close eye on the Sussexes' diary. 'They decide what to put in front of the senior Royals,' said my source. 'It's a bit like the civil service. Engagements are scheduled by committee. Diaries are cross-referenced to ensure there isn't a clash and they decide if an event is suitable.'

[quote]Another Royal insider confirmed: 'The intention is to ensure what they do is co-ordinated with the rest of the household so you don't get an Independent State of Frogmore [the Sussex's Windsor cottage]. 'The Royal Family is a very hierarchical organisation. It's the Queen, Prince Charles, the Cambridges, the Sussexes in that order. As the fourth household you have to respect that chain of command.'

[quote]Insiders also say the new structure gives Ms Latham an excuse in case she needs to say 'no' to Harry and Meghan.

[quote]'If there's a difficult conversation to be had, she can say it's Donal McCabe blocking this, not me,' said the source. 'This isn't control in the sense of limitation. The Sussexes are well-liked. The message is simply: don't let the good you do obscure that of others.'

R529 Yes!

[quote] May the god of vengeance now yield me his place to punish the wicked.

The Telegraph story about 'not releasing the birth certificate' will fuel surrogacy rumours. For a bit of fun and to run with this, if the story is fact, then it could be being used as a delaying tactic. As posted upthread, UK birth registers are accessible to public search and English births must be registered within 42 days. This is law. In the case of an agreed surrogacy it is the surrogate mother who must first register the birth. She can give her surname for the baby. The Parental Order is then applied for - it can take as little as 6 weeks but must be done within 6 months. The agreed new parents then re-register the birth with their own details including their chosen names for the baby. This is the birth entry that is made available for public search with the original being 'sealed' and inaccessible to general search.There is no reference on the new birth certificate to the previous entry or to any changes. There is nothing on it to suggest surrogacy. That there is only vague information available on the Archie baby's place, date and time of birth is unusual. With this and if his is indeed a case of surrogacy and a different name is given by the birth mother then the entry would be impossible to find on current searches of the birth registers. Most recent royal births have been registered within the first week or so. In the case of well-connected parents with the very best legal advisors a surrogacy re-registration could possibly be done at or around or just after the 42 day period. Late but not so late that any suspicions could be confirmed? Hmm.

The DM also now has a piece up discussing the Sussexes IG account linking to websites for friends' commercial ventures:

"Visitors to the Sussexes' Instagram page are encouraged to follow 48-year-old Taryn Toomey (left, centre practising yoga), whose profile includes a link to her website. Once there, they are only four clicks away from booking a £3,600 four-night retreat that she hosts at one of the finest hotels in the Caribbean (top right, bottom right). One Royal expert warned last night that endorsing a friend's commercial venture so publicly put the couple on 'dangerous ground'. Last night, a spokesman for Mrs Toomey's company, based in the US tax haven state of Delaware, declined to explain how her business improves mental wellbeing. A spokeswoman for the Duke and Duchess (inset with baby Archie) pointed out that Harry frequently spoke about the importance of mental fitness and said that the couple were using their Instagram account to 'shine a light on several Instagram accounts that promote mental well-being, mental fitness, body positivity, self-care and the importance of human connection.'"

I would say "dangerous ground" is an understatement, but clearly the BRF either doesn't agree or has thrown in the towel where these two are concerned. Yet another article states that Meghan and Harry will be given a suite of rooms in BP for use when they have to stay in London - this, of course, was predictable after they were booted out of KP and into the Windsor burbs.

And last, a bit of other royal-adjacent gossip - who knew that Lady Kitty Spencer was dating the 60 year old Whistles fashion tycoon? They were spotted leavin (what else?) that very same Mark Hotel in Manhattan were Meghan held her infamous baby shower.

The cups runneth over.

What in God's name is the BRF thinking in not stopping these two?!

R537-a Whistles fashion tycoon? I am flabbergasted, flummoxed and thoroughly fascinated. How, just how, did the Whistles generate that kind of wealth?

R537, the BRF is giving Harry and Meghan enough rope to hang themselves.

Fascinating, R536.

Poor Archie is going to be followed by those surrogacy rumors for the rest of his life, thanks to his asshat parents.

'The life of the Duchess of Sussex could be made very difficult and awkward if she doesn't conform". Heavy words, from BP sources this weekend.

It seems that now the pregnancy is over, the gloves are coming off quickly. BP and the senior courtiers are opening up (as we'd thought they would, eventually) to the press via trusted journalists (Levin, Glover) to put the word out: no more shenanigans, going off the beaten track, or skiing off-piste as they say for Haz and Bean.

The Levin piece basically calls into question the sustainability of the entire marriage. Harry's a homebody, craving 'normalcy' for himself and his family; his new wife diametrically opposite, craving fame, wealth, and adulation that her BRF membership springboards her towards. Like a moving trainwreck playing out on an international stage. Does anyone working behind the scenes think this relationship will last, and if so will it last without damaging everything around it -?

Laughed out loud at the tipsy golf chick who said MM had a kid in the video posted way above then corrected herself. She seemed pretty authentic to me. She also basically called MM a ho.

[quote] who knew that Lady Kitty Spencer was dating the 60 year old Whistles fashion tycoon? They were spotted leaving (what else?) that very same Mark Hotel in Manhattan were Meghan held her infamous baby shower.

Can she seal the deal this time, or will she again invest 4 years and lose the investment?

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

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

R539 - "the BRF is giving Harry and Meghan enough rope to hang themselves."

I used to believe that, but I'm not sure I do any longer. I think they haven't a clue what to do about them and don't dare give Harry and ultimatum.

Harry just got back in the country and he is at a horse show?!

Those who thought his love and devotion to the spawn would be a game changer in this mess guessed wrong, methinks.

I agree R546 - there's something very Trumpian about this, albeit in a less likely to have actual consequences for global politics kind of way. MM is, like Trump, so utterly shameless and impervious to all advice, friendly hints, tips, instructions etc. that it looks very much like the RF has no idea what to do other than have senior courtiers leak bitchery to the tabs.

Not that I think this will go on forever - everyone who says the RF always wins is, in my opinion, correct. It's as slow and painful as turning around a fully loaded oil tanker, but she and H better watch out when it does get turned around.

Related and interesting quote from one of those DM articles:

"A spokeswoman for the Duke and Duchess pointed out that Harry frequently spoke about the importance of mental fitness and said that the couple were using their Instagram account to ‘shine a light on several Instagram accounts that promote mental well-being, mental fitness, body positivity, self-care and the importance of human connection.’"

I mean, there it is right there. There is not one single millimeter of backing down going on there. Quite the opposite - that's brazen defiance, even in softened PR language. Is the link to the friend's commercial service still up on their ig? I hope someone is keeping track of that, because I want to know exactly when (and if, lol) they take it down. This is public now. There's a highly critical article about it in the DM, with sources quoted from insiders straight up saying it's a terrible look to be seen to endorse friend's for-profit business under the guise of mental health charity. Hazbean cannot in any way be said to be unaware that this is causing controversy. And Hazbean are doubling down. That's what that PR quote is. A big extended middle finger. To say I'm looking forward to the upcoming shenanigans would be an understatement, fellow gossip freaks.

R547, I never bought that. Men who are truly besotted with fatherhood are very few and far between. Because he carried the baby and held it for their press call, people are saying he’s “over the moon”. Ha. Party boy doesn’t want to sit and coddle a baby.

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

With regards to the offices/London accommodation reported in the same DM article, what I'm taking from that is the typical 'read between the lines' story of the tabloid press. It's not really news that Hazbean will need somewhere to sleep over in London. What IS news is that place will not be KP. They already had a place at KP, remember? And it seemed almost a given that they would be given a grand apartment. Instead they aren't returning even as a temporary/visiting London bolthole. That's the real story there. It's sometimes difficult to know what's actually going on (duh) but I think the Sussex-Cambridge feud is very real, and my based on nothing suspicion is that it's mostly Will vs Harry and Megs. Kate knows better than to appear anything other than friendly and smiley at all times. Will is the future King and do whatever the fuck he wants, and it appears he might be coming to know it. Alpha Dick William, yes please.

Regarding the birth, I bet she just doesn't want it getting out that it was in a hospital and possibly a C-section. She's obviously given birth, but I don't think it was the primal, earthmotherly experience of squatting in the dew-laden grass surrounded by friendly woodland animals that she badly wanted. MM is exactly the type of woman who gets competitive about birth, and then needs counseling afterwards for failing to live up to her own impossible standards. Fucking ridiculous twat.

That "I'm not supposed to say anything" quote from that doctor close to confirms it, doesn't it? That she was the doctor, I mean?

[quote] When approached by The Mail on Sunday on Friday at her home in North London, a smiling Miss Yoon said: ‘I’m not meant to make any comment at all, sorry. I’m not allowed to say anything at all.’

That sounds like YES!

The DM is doorstepping gynaecologists now?

R551, I think you’re absolutely right on every count.

R552, that sounded like a circumspect admission.

And they are not living at Froggy Mansion. Nope. Never will. Mark my words.

....

Can somebody please post the telegraph article? Pay wall

C Section for sure -surrogate no way . She seemed bloated and dazed at the photo call.

@558 surrogate for sure - c section no way since she wasn't pregnant. She seemed medicated and flossing that fake bump.

If they are not living at FrogCot, where are they? Soho?

Why, WHY are they fueling rumors with all this fuckery? Just when people want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I bet she'll be "pregnant" (whatever that means) again asap.

R390 Queen Anne was rumoured to have been fond of the ladies, but she never got as much traction as the big guns - Liz 1, Victoria and of course, the present Queen, until the movie was made. Queen Vic, of course couldn’t stomach the idea of women loving women, so that was never an offence.

Because she wants attention, per William.

Another word is notoriety.

The possibility of a surrogate lends an interesting angle to Archie's lack of a title, doesn't it?

It does, @564

R561

Very good question. Unless it is all for attention

Dumbelina the Fake Baby Troll is back at R565, still incapable of addressing other posters correctly, let alone any kind of rational thought process.

'And they are not living at Froggy Mansion. Nope. Never will. Mark my words.'

Hi Skippy! Nobody is marking your words because you belong in a mental hospital. But just out of interest, where do you think they're staying?

That's an interesting angle r564.

Its still doubtful she didn't carry him, but they are making a lot of waves about it aren't they? So much fuss and going against the grain, for what.

Kate will definitely have a fourth baby after all this craziness. Just to show the contrasts if nothing else.

And if Kate does, R570, you can bet that Markle will take it personally.

r557 Tumblr has helpfully has screenshots (sorry for linking to skippy but the crazies always have receipts even if their conclusions are sometimes dubioius)

Has someone set up Part 54 yet? We are blowing through these threads like Prince Philip on one of his crazy wild carriage rides in Great Windsor Park.

I don't understand how you can say the Queen signed it when a main point of contention is that nobody signed the easel announcement

I feel sorry for this kid. These rumors are going to follow him no matter what the truth is.

The Queen has never signed the royal birth announcement.

It is very curious why the telegraph is saying the Queen signed the announcement when anyone can see that she didn't.

No way she used a surrogate. She really seemed post partum at the photo call.

R578, you have posted multiple times saying you believe she gave birth. You could be correct, or could be wrong. The padding was unmistakable since Oz which would be even stranger if she was, in fact, pregnant. Not sure we will ever know one way or another. But given that Harry had rumors about his parentage, I would have thought he would be more sensitive. This using the kid to create needless drama is certainly not KIND. Bet we can both agree on that. My interest at this point is primarily in how they get rid of her and contain the damage to the viability of the RF. If you have ever known someone like this in person, you know to not underestimate them. Bet Harry did not envision co-parenting with someone who has a long record of indifference and cruelty to family. Poor baby.

Where are they living? Where did she give birth? How did they meet? Who introduced them? Why the secrecy around the birth certificate?

Why the fuck are they being so coy and secretive? I’m not saying there’s some nefarious conspiracy, rather, it seems like they’re creating a mystery because it’s all they have. If there’s no drama, there’s no anything.

[quote]This using the kid to create needless drama is certainly not KIND.

This ^^. I can't understand why they would do this to the baby. Its one thing to famewhore themselves, or pull stunts involving themselves for pr or attention. But to cast shadows on a newborn child? to even play into the public perception that there was something shady about his birth. Just cruel.

Pretty much, R580.

It tracks with her spoiling the pictures at the Investiture.

The Diana fixation is carrying through with the PR this week - her sibs being notified first (although not close to Harry previously) her relatives visiting baby before Cambridges or Charles, etc. Again, without those stories about similar outfits, etc, what is there to write in the placed stories?

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

[quote]it seems like they’re creating a mystery because it’s all they have. If there’s no drama, there’s no anything.

The hallmarks of a cluster-B narcissist: drama, drama, drama. Endless amounts of it. They can't live without it, if its not happening naturally they will go out of their way to create it.

We all knew she was cruel, look at how she has treated her own family.

Harry is too, remember him literally knocking the heads of small boys together at an appearance?

There have never been any indications of any genuine relationship with his nephews and niece, not a single photo.

Like any narcs, they see the kid as a prop/means to an end or an extension of self.

If you have never known anyone like this, it is constant chaos, drama. lying about things that do not even matter just to create more chaos and drama, etc. Harry is as nutty as his mother and MeMe is starting to seem sociopathic.

I am recalling the quote attributed to Prince Charles (pre wedding) while talking to Harry about marrying Sparkle...

[quote] The problem with people who are dramatic is that the drama never ends.

Whoa R686 have not heard that warning was actually issued to Harry.

I am the one who is suspicious of the surrogacy but suspect she was padding during the pregnancy.

But if I were more of a tinhatter, the baby looked fake in the photo call.

I just want to know how the BRF will manage this drama queen.

People who believe in faked pregnancies in real life need to stop watching soaps.

You are addicted to plot devices.

Everyone knows that Meghan has an Identical twin...hahahahahahaha

I recall it as something like -- they are dramatic ALL THE TIME.

Which, we have seen.

Chuck had personal experience but seems receptive to her flattery and fawning. He was almost apologetic at the Investature, when no one else acknowledged her. He is weak and has poor judgment. MeMe shows what a farce it all is. So much for all the PR rolled out to give Charles gravitas and make him seem like a doting grandfather. He is just another old fool who is easily played.

R583 - British tabs often Brit-ify quotes from non-Brits. Sister Sam almost certainly didn't say "sat in traffic."

I'll say this for the Melodramatic Markles, though, they do love phrases involving daggers being stabbed through hearts. I'm pretty sure MM herself used exactly those words in her "private" handwritten to her father that she definitely did not ever intend to be shown in public.

Feel sorry for Papa Markle. Yeah he fucked up, but it doesn't seem like he fucked up bad enough, pre-wedding, to warrant being totally cut off after Megs herself had testified repeatedly to his being a great dad. Now he's this bumbling, lonely old man figure looking at pictures in the media of this daughter he raised and the grandchild he'll never meet. Harry should have insisted on meeting him before they got engaged and the fact that he didn't reflects poorly on his character.

I think he may have woken up r589. Camilla certainly isn't the pushover sort, and I'm sure that between her and William he's been persuaded to see things as realistically as he's able.

The endless drama and pr opps will continue unabated it seems, unhindered by the presence of newborn Master Archie. You wonder what will crop up next. And what BP and the BRF courtiers have planned to counter it all.

@578 oh dear. They definitely used a surrogate that's why they're not releasing the birth record. Really, I could GAF but their shenanigans insult the intelligence of the public.

I was firmly in the camp of she was pregnant but padding because she's an attention whore, but the refusal to release the birth certificate has even me wondering if they used a surrogate. She is such a fucking nutcase. That poor kid will be haunted by this the rest of his life. Harry is an asshole.

R590 If it's not a direct quote, it shouldn't have quotation marks. It's a damning claim to accuse the British press of routinely misquoting interviewees. The Mirror uses the same quote and more.

[quote] "And poor Master Archie is not getting to know a creative, loving person.”

Master Archie?

I can imagine Sam in her Dame Edna Christmas cardigan when she said this.

ok where is Part 54. Someone please put it up and post a link before we max out in a few.

Part 54 Here, replete with spelling error made by me. Enjoy, bitches

Well thanks r596. We're blowing through these BRF threads faster than the Mueller Report ones.

Closing

this

out

William approves the thread closed.