British Royal Family Gossip: Part 60

[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.]

Princess Charlene always looks well turned out and dressed for her age.

Maybe because 'sophiticated' isn't a word, R1.

R1 Why can't you look in a dictionary?

Ugh! What in hillbilly hell is Kate wearing at R1?

It is a flower show, all the women were in florals.

She could have worn some better shit than that.

Hideous!

It's amazing that the Queen wore her H&M's wedding outfit, one day after their anniversary, but this time to Kate's big garden event.

Her outfit choices are never made by accident. The Queen's dresser and team store each outfit with a note attached re when it was last worn, and a list of occasions for which the color or style might be most appropriate (ie if the colour is green, the notes include any Ireland-related occasions), and photos of which accessories go well. There's apparently a cross-referencing system that is checked before any outfit is approved. She meant to send a message.

Kate looks batshit in these photos. Smiling makes her look demented. No upper lip and all teeth. When she was interviewed, she kept talking about ‘the kiddies’ in her piss elegant accent. Who says ‘kiddies’, these days? She looks and sounds ancient. William looked like he could barely stand being near his kids. Loiuis was looking at him like he was a stranger. These two are every bit as annoying as MM and Harry, just in a different way.

The Queen looks so displeased at Kate at R1.

Kate looks like she's trying way too hard to act happy. She did the same thing at Louis's christening. She had a gigantic fake rictus grin on her face and stared at the baby the whole time. And when I say the WHOLE time, I mean the WHOLE time. She didn't look at William at all. I think the rumors of his cheating were true

This dress looks like a bathrobe. But at least it wasn't those super tight jeans she wore yesterday. And if I worked as hard as she does at starving myself, I'd want to show off how thin I was, but tight jeans look so cheap

[quote]When she was interviewed, she kept talking about ‘the kiddies’ in her piss elegant accent. Who says ‘kiddies’, these days?

She does. That's her thing. I've read a few interviews where she uses the term. It always comes off as stupid

She needs to eat and quit smoking. Wrinkled like a 50 year old hag.

Princess Michael is so grand. Love her.

Princess Michael grew up in Sydney in a two bedroom flat over her mother’s hairdressing shop. She tends to downplay that time of her life (i.e. the first twenty years of it) along with her switch in accent from upper middle Australian to the vaguely middle European which she affected on arriving in London after living in Australia from the age of one.

Her classmates at Kincoppal convent in Sydney’s Rose Bay called her Schnitzel for her Austrian-Hungarian hauteur.

R16. Minor details. She's still the most regal of them all.

Hi boys. Did you miss me? See ya 'round. I'm off to the wedding.

Charles has somehow been prevailed upon to host Trump for tea at Clarence House in June.

He was obviously persuaded against all his instincts to do it for the good of his country - for Anglo-American relations.

It had to have been a long tortuous session of persuasion though between top equerries and diplomats. ('Ultimately for the good of your people, Sir.') Oh to have been a fly on that wall.

Was Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley at the wedding or at Kate's garden opening in Chelsea?

Very disappointing. Why in the hell are the allowing Trump back?

*the = they

People here are convinced that Kate's title after William becomes king will be Queen Catherine, such is their delusion.

R20, Rose is very attractive. She looks like a younger version of Kate with much bigger eyes. Kate always had those dark eye bags which are so ageing. She passed them on to all three of her 'kiddies'.

I imagine Britain wants to secure a trade partnership with the U.S. in the midst of the Brexit disarray, hence Britons are being are subjected to a Trump State visit. It was unthinkable two years ago when he only got to review the troops with the Queen after both Charles and William refused to meet him. He had HM waiting, standing on her feet for 15 minutes as he was running late and then, like Meghan, broke protocol and stepped in front of the queen with his back to her. I for one cannot wait for the spectacle and inevitable faux pas our vulgarian president will commit. The entertainment value will be immeasurable. Too bad Meghan will still be on maternity leave. Imagine the both of them attempting to negotiate the intricacies of a state dinner...

R24 LOL.

Is it me or does the first child look like Louie Anderson?

R19, Especially since Charles has always been a fervent environmentalist, a Brit who knows the importance of NATO, a critic of modern skyscrapers, a believer in physical fitness, and, Diana notwithstanding, a man who loves and laughs with his current wife.

What will he and Trump discuss?

R23, And why should that not be her title?

R28, it won't be. Henry Viii's wives weren't called queens either. The Duke of Edinburgh isn't called King Philip, is he?

r29 Philip is not called King Philip because a King outranks a Queen. The Queen is the monarch and we can't have her outranked by her husband.

[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.]

More Awkward moments of Duchess Meghan.

Didn't Michelle Obama put her arm? I doubt Trump will top that.

R28 I see another Megastan has crawled out of a hole somewhere.

All of Henry VIII wives were Queens of England, not all crowned though and yes Kate will be Queen Catherine probably styled as Her Majesty as other Queen consorts have in the past.

I guess all the positive press for the Cambridges has really dialled up the crazy amongst the MM fans. So the usual spin of Kate never being Queen and the whole Rose stuff is popping up again. Sad and predictable. You could almost hear the screams from Froghollow when the cute pictures and videos of the Cambridge children were released.

I have dark bags under my eyes like Kate and her children. All it takes is a good concealer and wearing the right colours to hide them, whether you're male or female.

MeGa really shouldn't have screwed with the Sun. She is clearly in their sights now. Two days in a row stories about her personal life and looking for rich / famous men. They've not said it but made it very clear she was in a relationship at the time. Looking forward to what comes next. I wonder if they can convince the DM to open it's vault on her. Haha.

Did anyone manage to sit through the Gayle King special? I DVRed it and finally got around to it this evening. I could only make it through the opening montage that featured shots of a Ladurée macaron tower (I kid you not), floral arrangements, a fashion maven saying that the sales of some denim had gone up 2,374%(!!!) since being worn by Meghan, the boo hooing make up artist, Meghan in the most ridiculously large sunglasses doing the pap walk at the Mark, and various ladies extolling her virtues. Harry was mentioned as a complete afterthought. I FFed through the rest and it appears that the make up artist breaks down on at least two occasions.

I feel like Kate (whose team I'm solidly on) was the anti-Meghan today. The demure, flowered dress, the evident lack of concern over weathered skin, the beautiful garden, the rock solid family. Talk about sending a message. Well done, Duchess.

[quote]I see another Megastan has crawled out of a hole somewhere.

Nah. It's an old troll I've had on ignore for at least a couple of days. About a quarter of this thread is troll content.

One day he was living in a council house, struggling to make ends meet, the next he was living on his new estate learning all about his aristocratic roots.

R34, I think you refer to r29, unless you are addressing me, r28, ABOUT r29!

So many insisting that the history of British monarchy somehow does not include any male monarchs whose wives were designated as queens!

Such is your fucking stupidity, R23.

R34, nope. Kate's video of the kids has less than 2m views, Meghan's over 6m. Victory screams only from the Windsor court

Concealer hides pigment anomalies, not bags. The only way to get rid of eye bags is to have this minor surgical procedure:

Blepharoplasty is the plastic surgery operation for correcting defects, deformities, and disfigurations of the eyelids; and for aesthetically modifying the eye region of the face.

Ugly William with his 55 year old face should know better than to commit adultery. Kate won't stick around for the dubious privilege of being able to call herself queen when she's 70 if William is going to cheat on her.

I am fucking QUEEN MARY r23 and don’t you ever forget it.

I'm astonished that Mug isn't out and about flaunting her post partum body and showing all the other hos how it's done. After all, she practices yoga, so I'm assuming she's rebounding quickly! For her to be out of the public eye so long is completely unlike her.

So why did HM were that lime green suit? And is she critical of Kate? She was scowling but it was only 1 picture?

Don't know what message she was sending, but she looked good in that color. Interesting how she can wear so many different bright colors; I never would have thought she'd look great in neon orange but she does.

I wonder, too, r48. The Queen lucked out with someone like Kate, yet, she always looks like she can barely tolerate her. I like the Queen, but she's as damaged as the rest of the Windsors.

QEII can be seen "scowling" in many photos. I think it's just that the musculature on her face has been subject to gravity for 92 years and isn't as controllable as it once was.

I think she wore the small floral pattern to coordinate with the pattern on Kate's dress. The last time they did a joint public engagement, they also seemed to coordinate colors (pink, gray, and black.)

From previous thread: Where was MM’s garden- a combo African and solar powered garden that was going to be better than Kate’s boring traditional one.

I hope so, r51. Perhaps Kate is family enough that the Queen doesn't feel like she has to put on an act as she does for everyone else. However her demeanor, it was clear that the family came out in force to support her garden.

Which Kate wore it better, Kent or Cambridge?

R41 My apologies! I was referring to R29

Out of the three I honestly like the old lady's look the best.

I think she loves Kate.

In the Alastair Bruce documentary on the Coronation, the Queen mostly looks sternly at him and grimaces a lot. Turns out he was chosen by her to do the hour long documentary because he's been a longtime favourite of hers. I think she just regards smiling in front cameras as something not to be done casually. Also she supposedly has a very dry sense of humour, and dry humour needs a serious face to come off properly.

The Queen is ancient and gravity ensures that, unless smiling, she has permanent resting bitch face.

I didn't like Kate's long prairie dress and if MM had worn something as messy as that, you would all be screeching your scorn.

MM has made one appearance in the last few months. She's enjoying being at home with her first child.

Pearls and plimsols with a crossbody bag. Kate Kent is fashion forward.

R58 = Bitter Meghan Markle has arrived.

Why use a walker or a cane when a firm young body offers so much more support?

R 51 is educating y‘all. Old people who‘ve had no work done seem to scowl a lot.

Me too R56. I hope I've still got it like that at 86.

R58 has spoken!! The rest of you know nothings can go get drunk.

My new signature look

Comfy shoes ✔️

Loose trousers ✔️

Crossbody bag ✔️

Firm young body to lean on ✔️

Did the old lady always dress with such flair?

The Duchess of Kent has been a real inspiration to me over the years. She's had a painful life, but overcomes quietly and never complains. She's chosen to live very simply and she's really developed into her own woman but never shoves it in anyone's face that she's 'different'. She's wonderful.

Kate looked fine at the garden opening. She’s the anti MM. Yes obviously MM has pissed off the British press 2 separate stories in a row about her hoeing or ghosting. Bet they’re itching to open the vaults.

Are the Meg stans taking over this thread. There are a lot more nasty comments about Kate these days.

"Call me Mrs. Kent," The inspiring secret life of the Duchess of Kent

Block them, r69, they're all insane and have never add anything worthwhile to the conversation

I think so, R69. I recognize them from their...unique writing style.

MM stans have an impossible job. Pandora’s box is slowly opening. Yeah I block them 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.]

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

It's actually a big deal for the Queen to allow the second in line to host a POTUS

Poor Chuck looks fucked. Can’t they cover that up with makeup?

[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.]

Ella Windsor isn't attractive. Too much neck and her eyes are too small.

[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 UK is fated to have ugly, aging monarchs on the throne forever, it seems. Once Charles dies in his 90s, Wills will be in 60s and 30 years later, George will be too. What a prospect.

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

The Queen probably doesn't want to deal with Trump herself, so she's letting Charles do it.

It's cool, R79. The groom has enough pulchritude for both of them.

In the previous thread someone quoted a blog written by a WOC but they didn't provide a link.

[quote] Harry – your wife had no problem tossing some guy’s salad on camera and you’re more worried about the fact people know what shape your dining table is? If I were you, I’d be saving my pennies for the court case when THAT material is released.

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

I'm sure it's true that the Queen doesn't want to deal with Trump, r83 but this is an add-on meeting, not a replacement one. She's still meeting Trump and hosting a State Banquet for him. She extended the invitation via Theresa May, when the latter was the first foreign leader to visit Trump, so this visit has been planned for two years.

Also, the DM article says Charles went to meet Trump in 2005 in NYC? Why would he do that? Anyone know?

r85 I think it is this one.

R87 - I wondering if Theresa May will even bey the British Prime Minister by the time Trump arrives.

You can't really pretend to still be head of state royalty and then refuse to meet heads of states that hurt your feelings. Especially when that country accounts for your military readiness and massive % of your economy.

it's pathetic af to bring out personal issues against that, and speaks against them as legitimate 'leaders' since they would prioritize virtue signaling to peers/public over just doing it.

R87 It says they met in NYC, not that Charles went to NYC to meet Donald. It could have been at an event where they were both in attendance.

Trump is a bumbling and much hated fool but we shouldn't assume that the Queen has a moral objection to spending time with him. They have hosted Saudi royals and other leaders who have an horrific human rights record, and I believe they also have a less formal relationship with the Saudi royal family too - shared business interests, possibly horses.

It's all very nice that Charles has pet projects and pretends to be 'frugal' because his tailor saves cut-off fabric from is suits to use again or something (lol), but I don't think we should underestimate their massive capacity for moral compromise, or overestimate the extent to which they give a fuck about poor people suffering.

Good question, r87. She well might not be. Then it will be either Corbyn and Trump (entertaining) or Boris Johnson and Trump ( verrrry entertaining)

[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.]

r90 is directly on point

Ah thanks r91. Makes far more sense.

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

The Queen has odd tastes at times, r92. She loved the firebrand preacher Billy Graham and also the unkempt pedophile Jimmy Savile. So who knows?

^ be

I remember watching Jimmy Saville's children's show in the 1980s R98, he hid in plain sight for so long with his 'wacky' personality. I still can't get over the fact that he was such a monster underneath it all - there seemed to be no type of vulnerable person he didn't target, even going into morgues to sexually assault dead people. It is so bizarre and awful.

I know, me too, r100,

"Jim'll fix it"

Makes my stomach churn

The Queen will be attending a Buckingham Palace garden party today. I wonder who will show up? Minder Andrew will probably be there.

Ella's wedding made the cover of French mag Point de Vue.

Actually The Windsors predicted the Charles-Trump meeting (and hosting) years ago. If you watch the later episodes with Meghan in it, it’s hilarious. She repeats “as I am a woman” several times to get her way with anything. They seemed to know her accurately from the get go!

Love the Windsors. Am so disappointed C4 is stopping the series. So good.

R39 - Yes, it's wearisome constantly blocking the nonsense that Megastan troll posts about Kate. However, not having to see the posts does make the thread more enjoyable.

And the news about Meghan looking for "a famous British man" isn't really news, that came out a couple of years ago but was quietly buried. I'm glad to see it re-emerge - perhaps Harry will take note of it.

Piers Morgan may be a bottom feeder but his column today calling A Plague On Both Your Houses! on the Sussex-Cambridge PR wars is spot on. Piers points out that Charles and Camilla just completed a highly successful tour of Germany that the press virtually ignored, along with the fifty or so other engagements they've done as the media focussed only on the sixth in line, his image-control obsessed, grifter wife, the birth of the seventh in line, and the Cambridges upping their game.

Charles is notoriously prickly about being eclipsed. I wonder if the penny's dropped re the incessant need for media attention of his recently minted daughter-in-law.

I wonder what happend to the Get Thee To Africa Plan. I suspect they floated the idea to see if the public would rise up in protest or yawn and go back to sleep, preferring of course the latter result, which is what seemed to occur after a few days.

These threads fill up incredibly fast.

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

I wonder if the Ella and Tom heard any frogs while posing outside Frogmore House?

Diana in a tiara.

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

Why does Smugkle's nose look so different in r110's profile pic? In the engagement video its a full blown ski-jump.

A Royal fan got a reply and photo of Louis.

I thought she was living with the chef in Toronto for several years prior to Harry?

She was living with the chef DURING the beginning of Harry, r113

Sophie smelling the flowers at Chelsea.

She was hoeing around on the chef with other males then met Harry and the rest is history.

Princess Alexandra of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent and the Duchess of Gloucester at Chelsea.

R110 - anyone with half a brain cell had Meghan's number from the beginning. They were NOT set up on the blind date. She had one of her friends arrange a meeting with Harry. She knew WHO she was meeting and it was all planned. Harry was really dim if he couldn't spot the game she was playing.

Photos of William today at the launch of the "Safer Thames" campaign.

"Harry was really dim"...

NO, R118!! Now what on EARTH would make you think a thing like that?

I have a terrible urge to pinch those cheeks. LOL.

William has located his sexy.

I wonder what Princess Alexandra thinks of Meghan Markle?

What indeed, r123.....

This Megastan is hilarious.

Call the queer eye guy, R77.

She must be so proud to have fans like that, R125.

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

Why are so many people having delusions?

The Sunday Times weighs in.

It's merely an opinion, R128. No need to start a cunt session just because you disagree!

Everyone must be confused about Frogmore. I noticed it's mentioned in R130's link. Either they're saying Dumb and Dumber are living there because they honestly believe it, or they have no idea and simply don't know what else to say.

I don't think they're there. Duchess Dumpy would never, NEVER live in such a place. It's just a mirage, like everything else she's involved in.

The post at R128 is also clearly an opinion R131. No need to be a humourless dick about it.

Okay, R133. I apologize for being an asshole just because I think William is sexy again. Now, go get laid and chill out.

Harry has an engagement coming up on May 30.

Harry clearly is mentally ill, PTSD. Mrs. Harkle knew this and capitalized on it beautifully, for a sociopathic narcissist. No wonder she looked so smug at the wedding and the first year but the smug is wiped off her face now.

OMFG, I SO agree, R136. Definitely PTSD.

I agree that William is looking hotter these days. The glow of growing power and influence suits him.

He and Kate both seem happier and more confident since the birth of Louis. I wonder if Kate's pregnancies wore on them both, either due to her health issues or something else. I'd be surprised if they went for any more kids. They don't really need to: Even Louis was surplus to requirements.

R118, thought they met at IG in Toronto, the chef she lived with did some catering and she tagged along.

[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.]

R132, I don’t think they’re living there, either. No idea where they are, but I don’t see Meghan just capitulating and settling in dutifully.

It’s a comedown, a demotion, a slap in the face and she won’t accept it. I think (based on people I know IRL who are just like her) that, even IF she’d had her pick of residences, she’d be renovating and complaining and it would never be good enough for her.

I can almost guarantee that she can’t live at Frogmore because it’s too drafty for the baby or they need to repaint with organic paint because the fumes and they need to soundproof the nursery or somesuch.

She’s probably at the Clooney mansion.

He's very ...rosy... isn't he

R138, I think Louis was an accident. No reason for them to have #3, especially with her severe morning sickness.

R139 - that's the trouble. We don't know the WHO, WHAT or WHERE of their meeting. The stories keep changing.

Tumblr brings more receipts of MM's twitter stalking ways. Appparently she was following a bunch of footballers (the well heeled variety) and when the Sun asked KP about it, she suddenly shut down her twitter account.

Everything you said is spot on r141, but she's not telling Harry it's not organic enough, she's telling Harry that their LIVES ARE IN DANGER, HARRY at FrogHo because one quarter inch of it can be seen from the road, and that he must PROTECT THEM, or he's a bad man, father, husband. And that's why she's refusing to leave Amal's.

R118, r139, isn’t it too bad that Sunshine Sachs couldn’t nail down their “meet-cute” story. I’ve seen various versions; they met at a SoHo House and it was because she was friendly with Beatrice’s crowd. Another version has a male friend of Harry’s introducing them, because Harry thought she was “hot” while watching “Suits”.

All I know is, there’s one story about how I met my life partner, and, since it’s the truth, it is crystal clear and never changes.

I think she engineered the meeting. She was catting around SoHo and came highly recommended for her salad-tossing skills.

Her pimp Markus A. introduced her to Harry...

[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.]

R146, excellent point. She would play that angle. And it’s perfect because Harry already hates the paps.

I do wonder, actually, if she’s not having a mental health crisis of her own. Postpartum hormones can be a real bitch. Sometimes those Type A’s can get paranoid and irrational. And they’re too controlling to give up the care for the baby to anyone. I’m not even being mean. It’s real, and if she’s struggling as so many women do, I hope she’s getting whatever help she needs. She’s an asshole, but I hope she’s not having a bad time in that regard.

That woman is 86, r149. She looks AMAZING for 86 and was wearing that dress before the designer had even released it to the public. A pretty on-point 86, I'd say.

And here is the woman r149 was mocking, at her own royal wedding

Does anyone think its hilarious ella and Thomas posed at frogmore HOUSE and not COTTAGE.

I really do wonder about the griftier members of the family. They must have had MM’s number immediately. Marie-Christine, Randy Andy, and the newest: Edo.

It’s fun to imagine it as “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”.

R152 - Thank you for posting. I love old video's like this one. I've always liked Katherine, the Duchess of Kent.

Some tidbits I noticed in the video:

Gorgeous York Cathedral was the setting. Why? Because the bride Katherine Worsley was/is a Yorkshire girl.

The Queen Mother adjusting her bra as the bridal party make their appearance.

Young Prince Charles' ears were quite prominent even then.

Princess Anne was the girl who took the bridal bouquet.

The groom looked quite solemn and stuck up but the Duke of Kent has always had this problem.

The Duke racing around the car like he's in a hurry to get to the airport.

The flower girls were adorable with the pom poms in their hair.

How many people it took to get the bride's train and veil in order? Four or five people.

Thank you for the video, R152.

Lovely.

The Queen looked great!

And, once again, the cameras are careful to photograph that iconic curtsy and bow to the Queen after the ceremony.

And once again, I am reminded of how there is no such footage from the Harry & Sparkle wedding. Oh yes, from above, where the cameras mysteriously shifted just in time to miss the moment. And once again, I repeat I do not think it was an accident that there is no video of that moment for the Sussex wedding.

Hmmmm.

R153 - what's hilarious about it? Frogmore House is a venue used for things such as conferences and receptions. Frogmore Cottage is the Sussex residence. Why would they pose at Harry and Meghan's cottage when Frogmore House is the gorgeous location of their wedding reception? I suspect that since the weather held up and the sun was out, they wanted some outdoor photos. No big deal.

r155 and r156, you're welcome. I love these old videos too.

R153 - Why is that hilarious? Frogmore House is where the reception is and it is a beautiful landmark building. Why wouldn't they pose there? Frogmore Cottage is a private residence and somewhat underwhelming. Why would they have posed there?

R156 why do you think that is? Genuine question. A lot of people had talked about that.

R144 They keep changing because they are trying to hide the fact that Meghan started seeing Harry on the side while still in a relationship with the chef.

The Queen arrives at Garden Party

I think the Chef introduced Dim and Skank.

She tagged along with Chef when he was cooking for some do where Harry was a guest.

Pretty tawdry stuff.

R162 - Queen Victoria certainly knew how to make an entrance, didn't she? Turning up at a garden party with horses and carriage. She probably used that mode of transportation because she was so fat she couldn't walk very well. LOL.

Doesn't sound tawdry to me. I'd do the same thing.

Kate has worn a lot of floral prints. Click on the link below and swipe for her outfits.

R164 I saw some of Victoria’s later-life black dresses at an exhibition in London, she wasn’t really all that fat by today’s standards. Short and pudgy yes, but not some monstrous behemoth.

Speculation alert: I think the point of not telling how Meg and Harry met is to keep people guessing. It generates conversation and they seem to like being a topic of conversation.

It could be as prosaic as being introduced by a friend/acquaintance or as tawdry as a Cory-Meghan-Harry love triangle. The point seems to be to keep people guessing.

In the age of Tinder and Grindr, is a love triangle really tawdry though?

Rolling my eyes at R80's photo. Disgraceful. This is what happens when I am not included in a wedding party.

More on Katherine of Kent's wedding. Very solemn procession, very impressive cathedral. The announcer referred ti her as a Yorkshire lass and a squire's daughter and then you see the pile where she grew up, lol. Gorgeous gown. At the end, a bevy of nannies in uniform escorting the flower girls.

My absolute favorite part was the couple walking back down the aisle to Widor's Toccata and then the bells.

Yesterday I read a report that what made Kate cry during Meghan's wedding preparations was the way Meghan spoke TO Charlotte. Whoa.

You in danger, gurl.

R160

I have a couple theories of my own, but no proof whatsoever.

We will most likely never know.

But I do not believe it was an accident. As I've said before on these threads that the bow & curtsy moment is an iconic moment in those royal weddings. Youtube is filled with videos of Royal Weddings and those videos (with the exception I mentioned) always show the bow and curtsy.

There is no video of the wedding of the Queen and Prince Philip but there is audio and even the audio mentions the bow & curtsy.

Besides the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Kent (linked above) , you can find it on Youtube videos of the weddings of Princess Alexandra and Angus Ogilvy, Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon, Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, Prince Charles and Diana, Prince Andrew and Fergie, Prince Edward and Sophie, Prince William and Catherine, Princess Eugenie and Jack Brookbanks,

But for the Sussex wedding - no such video moment.

No. Not an accident.

I saw what they did.

Story was, R171, that Sparkle said....

[quote] That kid is going to ruin my wedding...

And story also was that it was Charlotte who first told William about the incident. Not Kate.

Kids do not forget people who made their mother cry.

If that story is true, Sparkle made one currently small but soon not so small, enemy.

I can't imagine the non-curtsy shot being deliberate. Meghan has gotten every other "iconic" moment, what's different about this one.

R072 - but WHY would they not film it? What's your theory?

Sorry. My question @R175 was for R172.

You can see a Meghan's little lame curtsey here from above.

Calling on my fan-fiction powers, trying to imagine the Meghan-Charlotte dustup.

Charlotte is being a typical three-year-old, fussing and fidgeting around the fashion designer's studio/dressing room. Picture her stomping her little feet like she did at the airport. It's a hectic scene; Miss Markle, a perfectionist, is stressed over the wedding preparations. Kate is chatting to the designer, momentarily ignoring Charlotte's antics. Meghan has had it, swoops in, firmly grasps Charlotte's little arm.

M [hissing] Charlotte. Stop it. You need to behave.

C: Aaaah. Mummy!

Kate breaks away from her conversation, scurries over to comfort a crying Charlotte.

K: What, what? Darling, what's the trouble?

C: She hurt me!

M: I did not hurt her. I simply told her she has to settle down and behave. We don't want her acting up and ruining the wedding.

K: Well, you've made her cry! [Scoops Charlotte up into her arms. Her own eyes tear up, out of suppressed anger and dislike of Meghan in general.]

All dialogue guaranteed imagined. But it could have been something as simple as that.

If something like that made Kate cry, she better buck up.

It is far more likely that Meghan was stomping HER little feet and Charlotte was rolling her eyes at her.

Actually, R178, I wonder if Charlotte, who was already an experienced bridesmaid, took one look at that cheaply made dress that she was being asked to wear and she recoiled.

The bridesmaids dresses for that wedding were poorly made. Compare the pictures of the 3 weddings where Charlotte was a bridesmaid: Pippa's, Harry's and Eugenie's. 2 of the dresses were beautiful and well made. 1 was not. Guess which.

Fanfic, cont.

Later, back at KP, William dandles little Charlotte on his knee as he enjoys a gin and tonic.

W: Well then, sausage, did you have a good time today? Did you put on a lovely dress?

C [with extreme sulky seriousness]: Yes, but that lady hurt me. And she made Mummy cry.

Will, incensed, to Kate: What's this about?

Etc.

I'm imaging little Charlotte made a comment about how different the dresses were from previous weddings, they were obviously far cheaper/more quickly put together. Precocious little girls with opinions aren't rare.

That + hormones post-birth and I can see.

Even the scenario of your fan fiction made me cringe. MM has no right to speak to, much less handle, a Princess of the blood like that. In your scenario she has no idea where she is or what's expected of her.

Markle belongs in Vegas, with all the other tawdry showgirls.

The Queen hosted a Buckingham Palace garden party today with the Cambridges and Gloucesters in attendance. So nice to see the Queen's pale blue and Kate's pink outfits complementing each other.

The fanfic at R182 might be too elaborate. I envisage this opener that evening:

Daddy, can we still send people to the Tower?

Kate looked elegant.

Indeed R184, but to be sure, it's purely an imagined scenario, so Meghan might not have done anything untoward.

Anyone else care to write the scene?

Will and Kate.

A perfect outfit for a Buckingham Palace garden party.

[quote] Meghan has gotten every other "iconic" moment, what's different about this one.

IT'S NOT THERE.

They look splendid. Especially Will.

Agree it seems to be a deliberate omission, but I don’t get the significance. Is it anti-Meghan?

Black Meghan didn’t want to be captured in a submissive pose to a white woman?

Or

The BRF is excluding Meghan from a family tradition?

Hmmm the picture at r190 makes me wonder if Kate is pregnant? Yesterday's dress and today's coat both look ...roomy...on her.

Meghan is making a mistake, antagonizing the females of the family. They have more power than she supposes.

I'm no fan of any of these people but did you really write 'princess of the blood' R184? Oh dear. You know these people are not genetically different or any better than you don't you? a four year old girls is not special because she is the great-grandaughter of someone we call a queen, although she is treated like she is.

This is why we in Britian need to get rid of the monarchy - whichever way you look at it it rests on the idea that some people are better than other not because of what they do but because of what family they belong to, and that is fucked up.

Yes, that's right, r193. It's all about race....

(except it isn't, is it? It's about the fact that Meghan is crap and a whore and everyone knows it but Harry)

r196 , You don't even know what the term "Princess of the Blood" means, do you?

Didn't people guess one time kate was pregnant because of her new haircut? Maybe if she changes her hair up.

I remember this really ridiculous photo of meghan at the garden party last year, where shes laughing at something charles said and had her hand on her chest in such a fake way.

great majority of people in Britain quite like the monarchy

r200 Yes, they survive by virtue of a) not rocking the boat and b) being more popular than politicians. Even Charles. Look at the complete shower we have in the two main parties. Don't get me started on those idiots in "Change UK / TIG / Whatever the new name is today" who want to change nothing and seem incapable of organising a piss up in brewery.

R193 I have wracked my brain, and the only possibility I can come up with - purest speculation - is Meghan expressed that as an American and a WOC she was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of an image of prostrating herself before this symbol of colonialism? All right then, we'll tell the camera to pull away. It's all I can come up with. Can't imagine them denying it to her.

R199 Kate does wave her hands around a lot when she talks. She should stifle that.

[quote]I can almost guarantee that she can’t live at Frogmore because it’s too drafty for the baby or they need to repaint with organic paint because the fumes

Actually, she can't use the paint excuse. Of course, it's a foregone conclusion that she insisted on it. We had a discussion about the organic paint at Frogmire a number of threads ago.

Considering the rumours of how messy the planning for the wedding was, and how the palace basically had to step in last minute to make sure it actually happened, I doubt she'd have been able to dictate shit in terms of filming terms.

She isn't that fucking important.

R202 - that was my first thought too: the curtsey wasn't shown because she was an American and Americans aren't required to bow and curtsey.

The other possibility is that BBC or whoever filmed the wedding really screwed up.

She wouldn't have to dictate, really. All she would have to do is say to Harry, "Ummmmm. To be perfectly honest? I'm not entirely comfortable with that?" I do think they would have bent over backwards to avoid "offending" her on that particular hot-button issue. Just my 2c.

I tend to agree, R207. Occam's razor.

Ooh, is it finally going to happen? Is this what the Sun is leading up to. brb grabbing my popcorn.

Wrong r206. Americans do not curtsy or bow, but the point at which the bride does this is after she has signed documents in the Vestry declaring her loyalty to the Queen.

She would have had no reason not to curtsy to the Queen once she came out of the Vestry.

It's not about her confidence or comfort-level. You marry into the family, then you are to swear loyalty to the sovereign. It's not about her as an individual anymore, it's about her place in a system with rules.

americans need to fucking stop.

From the blind item - "Managed to exceed her won [sic] expectations." That's funny.

R212 Technically we're talking not about doing the curtsey itself, but about capturing an image of it. And we're just speculating. I think it was just a massive camera screwup. But H&M do lend themselves to conspiracy theories, so we may as well have a little fun with it.

Didn't Harry say during the engagement interview that he loved Meghan and "I THINK she loves me" or something to that effect??? If he didn't fucking KNOW for sure that she loved him, why the fuck did he take and chance and marry her? Was he that desperate to settle down and start a family?

I'm loving her jaunty hat.

Listening to Will.

Nah r215 that's just English false modesty speak. He thinks she loves him. It;s just the rest of the world who can see she doesn't.

Wasn't Harry known for getting more and more desperate to get a girl to marry him, since princes aren't that much of a catch for quality english girls and he was known to be a messy cheat?

The pastel Queen with cool shades. Like many elderly, I think the sun bothers her eyes a lot more.

Harry had - and still has- his choice of many suitable girls, all of whom were nearly bred to marry him. He chose the showgirl because she stalked him for years, knowing that he was a virtue-signalling prat who swanned around Africa doing 'noblesse oblige'. She knew he was someone who would relish being able to repel any accusation of racism with "But I married her!"

I'm willing to be their engagement was preceded by at least one "You're only breaking up with me because you're RACIST!!!" Which would have sealed the deal for Dim.

[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.]

"Hello DL. Just wanted to drop in to see how you all are doing. Carry on."

Kate is a smart girl. She likely knew in advance the Queen would be wearing a soft pastel blue. Therefore, she wouldn't want to appear in a brighter shade.

R196 - It's not that we don't see the logic in your statement, but the fact is, this is a thread about the BRF, which still exists in Britain, so you're likely not to enjoy it much given your sentiments. In fact, "Princess of the Blood" is a term used to distinguish those born royal (like Anne, Charles, Andrew, Edward, Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, William, and now William's kids) from those who are royal only by marriage.

That's why the Queen gave her only daughter, Anne, the title of Princess Royal in the early days of the Diana/Fergie era: to point out the difference between Anne and the arrivistes who were getting all the media coverage.

In the Order of Precedence, technically, Kate and Meghan have to curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie if Kate and Meghan are not accompanied by their husbands. I doubt it's ever happened that Kate has run into Bea in a corridor and done it, but the Order of Precedence was altered to reflect the difference between a Born Royal and a Married In Possible Temp Royal.

Charlotte is a Princess of the Blood and technically, she outranks Meghan - whose title, by the way, is only a courtesy as she is still an American citizen. She has no real right to it until she becomes a UK citizen.

If Harry divorced her next week, she would lose all claim to that title without even getting to barter it in the divorce negotiations.

R219 the rumor is that for their social class William and Harry were seen as not being catches - Harry especially because he couldn't offer his bride the perk of becoming a Queen. The brothers have too much emotional baggage to make a decent husband, plus their money and fame and status come with major strings attached. It's no coincidence both men married outside their social circle.

Would you really want to live your life getting bossed around by your husband's grandmother if there were other men with titles and money interested in marrying you?

Thank you, r225. A very good explanation .

'Kids do not forget people who made their mother cry.

If that story is true, Sparkle made one currently small but soon not so small, enemy.'

Eh, Charlotte is to George what Harry is to William. A spare who will move further and further down the line of succession. Plus Charl was TWO years old then and definitely won't remember it. And what kind of weak milksop is Kate if she cried so easily?

Another of the R222 picture. Color saturation is sometimes misleading through a lens. A video might give a better idea?

The image at R229 has either been poorly manipulated, or Wills has a developed a terrible case of rosacea.

Charlotte is a savant if she supposedly knew a dress was cheaply made at 2.

R224 - I believe the Queen's staff sends on a message to the royal ladies who will be with her at something like this about what colour she is planning to wear, and whether she is wearing a hat (which is most of the time), so that they can coordinate gracefully.

'I wonder if Charlotte, who was already an experienced bridesmaid, took one look at that cheaply made dress that she was being asked to wear and she recoiled.'

Charlotte. Was. Two. Years. Old.

This whole thread stinks nationalism. All this repulsive prissy shit about 'princess of the blood'. Some of you sound as if your values got stuck in the 1950s.

Cams inspecting mill works in Ireland.

'I wonder if Charlotte, who was already an experienced bridesmaid, took one look at that cheaply made dress that she was being asked to wear and she recoiled.'

Charlotte. Was. Two. Years. Old.

This whole thread stinks of nationalism. All this repulsive prissy shit about 'princess of the blood'. Some of you sound as if your values got stuck in the 1950s.

The Cambridges were in good spirits.

someone got angry that not everyone worships an american

R230, he has rosacea just like his father. William is the ugliest 36 year old in England. Poor Kate. She should be the one having the affair - maybe with handsome Edo.

Kate and Will.

R231, thank you for noticing my genius. I'm on my way to MENSA, baby!

Chuck and Cams watching a jig. They do not look impressed.

Sadly, Lottie has inherited William's bloodhound jowls, not Kate's defined jawline.

The Cambridges are giants!

R229 - I love the McQueen coat-dress and the way the slightly military cut is offset by the very feminine hat. She and William are looking very royal these days. But I do wish she would stand up straight. She can't be that sensitive to being tall any longer in this day and age, it's nonsense, and she's got herself a very tall husband.

Hopefully, Charlotte won't inherit Kate's wizened skin.

R226 - How do you know William isn't a decent husband? And do you know many men without lots of baggage?

The Cambridges are giants I say (part deux).

Or her eyebags, R246. She'd give Heathrow Baggage Reclaim a run for its money.

I love a man all decked out.

R226 - Far from being "bossed around" by the Queen, HM is notoriously reluctant to interfere in her relations' private lives - in fact, she's been criticised for being averse to confrontation and not bringing them to heel when she should have. That includes her sister.

I hate those flying saucer hats.

This lady introduced her husband to Will and Kate.

R251 I know. They can be fun, but they feel played out. Whatever happened to pretty picture hats, or even Lucy Ricardo-style small hats?

Or no hats. It's ridiculous that women are still obliged to wear them.

Oh no, I'm glad for the hats. They're delightful. I just wish this cockeyed fascinator trend would pass.

When is it correct for a woman to wear a hat for social reasons?

R255 - Didn't they ban those fascinators someplace last year? Ascot? Can't remember.

The Queen's cousin, Princess Alexandra of Kent, is still elegant in her 80's.

Where's Waldo, I mean William, Kate and the Queen?

Tabloid activity pages are fun for the whole family.

Totally agree r258 She looks fabulous in that picture. Was it taken today at the garden party?

R260 - it was taken last year at the horse races.

Not my favorite Kate dress. Looks baggy. Didn’t love the pants From the garden show the other day either. If she is pregnant won’t that be a hoot. I would what picture of Archie would get posted on Instagram the day Kate announced

Arr right thank you r261

I wonder if Princess Alexandra will partake in any of the official garden parties this year?

R263 - Princess Alexandra was at the garden party today looking as elegant as usual in a flower outfit (swipe to the last photo).

LOL Meghan the feminist who tells media "friends" to find her a famous/ wealthy man who'll keep her. The more she puts out positive spin in the media via friend-mouthpieces, the more her past will come back to bite her. If she'd just kept her mouth shut or be less conspicuous in portraying herself as an independent, feminist humanitarian, the less likely that her former friends, whom she'd ghosted, would be now speaking out in brutally honest ways about the Real Meghan.

How did you do at R259?

Good GOD the stans are a struggle trying to make it happen that Queenie was coding a tribute to the Harkle anniversary. Does everybody get a fucking email in the morning?

[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.]

R265 as long as shes the only one talked about she won't give a shit. Then her and harry can play victim, compare her even more to Diana and she'll be sat there with a shit eating grin.

Cheers r264 To me Princess Alexandra has a slightly colourful and camp way of dressing. I've seen her wear a number of great multi coloured outfits.

These people wear the same thing to a garden party as they do to a wedding. The queen looks the same other than a different color hat and coat. Kate looks the same. William is wearing a formal morning coat, just about the same thing he wore to Eugenie's wedding.

It seems Meghan is in the papers again. What was that, writing notes to reality TV cast members and footballers? Poor dear.

R198 It's incredibly obvious what princess of the blood means. Even if someone had never come across that phrase before they would know it from the context. I just find your attitude about it disgusting. And before you say anything, I'm not a Meghan 'stan', I don't particularly care for her, I am a British person who is not 'less than' a two year old because she was born to a royal family. Their blood isn't any different to ours.

This is a very interesting twitter thread - have people found the elusive proof of MeGain's rumoured first wedding? I'm hearing that Yosemite Sam has retweeted this picture...

I’ve said it before, but I’m always fascinated when seemingly intelligent and average looking women decide to try to fuck their way into a particular lifestyle.

Sparkle is not ugly, but she has a very squat, boyish figure and she is not sexy at all. So where did she get the idea she is some sexy femme fatale?

Pa Markle and his sidekick Sam have been uncharacteristically absent....is this the quiet before the storm?

Don’t the BRF care about it more than anyone else R273? All that nonsense when Kate married in because some commoner can’t possibly take precedence over Anne or Eugenie. Status within the family seems to matter to them all a lot, even if no one else cares.

R141, I've never heard an American besides myself complain of a draft, and I only starting noticing the draft after having lived in Europe for years.

R147, I choose to believe the "Harry requested a date" version because I think he's dim enough to have been watching Suits.

I also think she is hiding in the Clooney house in Berkshire with Doria .

R150, I can also imagine her struggling right now. Not only is she Type-A, but also an older mother, set in her ways and used to curating her life. It can be very hard. I was a huge mess as a new mom.

I

I think Meghan perpetuated the victimhood status upon herself to preemptively deal with shit that she knew would eventually come out about her shady past in husband-hunting more so than dealings as an actress. She was never in the Hollywood milieu/ scene, she had a supporting role in a Canadian soap seen on basic cable. More like small fish in a small pond as opposed to small fish in a big pond. She's actually lucky in this regard because had she been a player in Hollywood, even a minor one, there would've been shit coming out about her sooner. I also think the people who are speaking out about 'the real Meghan' now are doing so because they're sick of seeing the person portrayed now, they personally know how fake that bitch is being. I bet that many of them were in the same boat as Meghan at one time, she wasn't any better than they were but now they see that she's painting herself to be this saintly figure who's talking to Archbishop Justin Welby on a regular basis. C'mon, wouldn't that make anyone puke, particularly if they personally knew her back in her thirsty days out hunting for rich/ famous husband?

R281 Type-A, rich moms are the fucking worst. They get so frazzled if things aren't done or tailored to their own ways, they're a nightmare to deal with and be around. I pity the nannies and close family members more than anything. The rich ones are also entitled and they think nothing of ordering people around under the guise of being a devoted mother. If you don't acquiesce to their cray, unreasonable demands then they see you as trying to undermine their abilities to be a good mother.

She will only push with the poshest

I'm sure that it is meaningful to them R277, because that is essentially all that they have. The very idea of royalty is a big charade, a performance, that nevertheless has meaning for people precisely because they buy into it. For many I think it's almost a willing suspension of disbelief, or something that is so ingrained in UK culture that most people don't really question it.

But if you stop and think about it, the whole thing is based on the idea that these people are better than us just because of the family they belong to.

I think that is why anyone marrying in has to go through a period of adjustment in public perception because we have known them to be an ordinary person who is suddenly 'royal' and in a way that disrupts the whole pretence. Maybe Meghan joining has helped Kate in this regard as she is now seen as more 'royal' than Meghan, even though we know that she is no different to any of us.

It is all so strange, a big pretence that, through pretence comes to be real and meaningful for people, but that is ultimately founded on an offensive system of relative value through blood, which I find pernicious, and which, ultimately, I don't think is good for the people of this country. So bizarre.

R279 - you can believe it if you want but I think Harry is on the record stating that he didn't know who Meghan was before he met her. Oops.

R276 Sam is on twitter and she's not silent there. Keep up.

R283, luckily I'm only type-A and not rich and had my saintly mother around to balance out my crazy.

I love to snark about Meghan (and the rest of them), but for the baby's sake I hope she's not going full-on perfect mom and is instead an on-brand, yogic, enlightened mother.

Kate's garden party hats through the years.

I don't know if I should look at the hat or lick it? LOL.

"You bitches think the Iron Throne was melted by a dragon? You better think again. It's all mine".

Saw this on another forum (Credit, Houseplant):

With a year of Markle in the royal fold, what has been most outstanding? Here are some responses:

• Announcing her pregnancy on The Day of Recognition of Miscarriage and Baby Loss at Eugenie's wedding

• Marie Antoinette levels of spending

• Using individuals - and situations - to social climb, then ghosting said individuals, patronages, organisations, etc.

• Ceaseless bellycupping and the normalisation of such public, official behaviour

• PR antics that ensnare people and shatter ethical norms

• Doxxing of internet and personal critics

• Instigating chaos and confusion to provoke or conceal behaviour and untoward situations

• Demanding privacy, then revealing intimacies to push/pull the public and press

• Pavlovian pda manoeuvres towards her husband to direct/steer/emasculate during British Royal Events

• Questionable pre-marriage history; stories of behaviour on yachts, with men, at Soho House, etc.

• Brief tenure and loss of royal staff affiliated with Meghan

This initially began as a Top Ten list, but there are more that were listed.

Would be interested in hearing others.

Not on Twitter, but #MarkleTopTen.....could be a thing, eh?

[quote]The Queen probably doesn't want to deal with Trump herself, so she's letting Charles do it.

The poor old girl will need to sit next to him at the State Banquet. (Maybe they'll serve KFC in his honour.) That's an ordeal no-one deserves, especially not at 93.

Whatever happened to her media/PR director before Sarah Latham? He and Meghan were papped going to some restaurant for a "business lunch." He disappeared as quickly as he came on the scene. Was he retained at BP when the brothers split their offices?

R274, the plot thickens! I don’t know about her first husband being Goldman-Giuliano, though. He went to Northeastern, not Northwestern. I do find it plausible - and even likely - that there was a husband before the chef dude. I believe that she was married twice before Harry.

He remained with the Cambridges

R280 I wonder how desperate the clooneys are to let the world know Meghan is with them, if she is. Throughout the last two decades I have never ever understood how he became a big deal. I really think in his mind he thought he and amal would've been bigger than they are and the saviors of the world. He was totally unmissed from the movies the last few years.

His new angle is the royal family (they both looked smug at the royal wedding) and now his new angle will be meghan and Harry's protector. I know better, everyone else is wrong about her etc etc. I'd love to see william, the queen and especially Lord giedt stand up to him. He really believes himself to be a God.

Children of divorced parents with a selfish, unfaithful father, a beautiful unstable needy mother, permanently locked into a career they don't necessarily want, with endless public scrutiny and criticism -- and oh yeah Mom suddenly died when they were teens.

Nope, no emotional baggage here at all.

Can somebody please fill me in on the yachting rumors? I must have missed them.

yatching is how actresses make the bills during off season, and there's no way she was paying for her pr/travels/hotels without doing something extra on the side. even if she was expensing a fuckton to soho

R292-I'll add to your list: Helming a cookbook for the Grenfell fire victims only to have it come out that the kitchen where the women were cooking was affiliated with a known charity organization. Having her friends do an absurd People Magazine interview spread that claimed she was a woman of god who's tight with the Archbishop of Canterbury Releasing the tearful poor, pitiful, victim me letter to her father begging him to stop hurting - written, naturally, in her laughably amateurish calligraphy Writing motivational sayings on bananas to be given to sex workers

Anyone else?

And my bullet points in R301 disappeared, so apologies.

R292-add to the list Tiara Gate - aka "What Meghan Wants, Meghan Gets" - demanding air fresheners in the chapel at Windsor and making Kate cry over Charlotte's flower girl dress.

Doria is already back in L.A. per DM photo. That was quick.

Which charity is the Hubb Kitchen premises affliated with?

R305-sorry-that should have read terrorist organization, not charity. Weird Freudian slip.

Dangling Pricetag

Not curtseying to Tonga Queen, not following RPOs directions, a bridal shower w pap walk, overpriced clothes, lots of staff departures due to alleged abusive behaviour, not wearing British designers

Life imitating art

'...and making Kate cry over Charlotte's flower girl dress.'

Do people really believe this? I think Kate is made of sterner stuff than that.

R310-the palace never denied some of the morsels that spilled after the wedding, so yeah, it's a solid chance it happened.

'..yatching is how actresses make the bills during off season,'

This is misogynist nonsense. And it's 'yachting', spelling champ.

Saying "oh fuck" in the Royal carriage after the wedding. Allegedly throwing tea at staff during the Australia tour necessitating apologies by Harry. Meghan's got quite a list.

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

R310 I never thought Kate boo-hooed. I picture her more trembling with rage and frustration, to the point of tears in her eyes. That sort of crying.

R314 Ah, but see, I think that's the Meghan Harry loves.

Not inviting Harry's family to wedding due to stuffing church w celebrities. Promoting high end yoga retreats via her royal IG. Using her title but not using titles when addressing her family on IG. Ghosting dad even though he paid for expensive education. Not inviting uncle to wedding although he supported her internship in Brazil.

Harry is ex military and most likely swears profusely himself.

The palace rarely issue denials. Never complain, never explain is their motto. They're not about to issue a statement saying she didn't request air fresheners in WC.

R318-No doubt Harry swears himself. But you know you're being filmed live for millions of viewers who are watching your wedding and you can't control your mouth? This is the British Royal Family. Seriously? You can't muster enough class to hold back an f-bomb?

R319, you have 200 posts on this thread and probably wrote half of the other 59, too .

Get a life, you desperate woman. You are a monomaniac, obsessed with Meghan Markle.

Charles' country gardens at Highgrove are now open to the public. All proceeds go to the Princes' Trust.

R317 - The uncle did more than support the internship: Meghan failed the test one had to take for it and he pulled strings to get her approved, anyway. It was only three months during which, as with so many of these decorative internships, she photocopied documents, got coffee, and hung out as much as possible in cafes and clubs.

Did anyone mention Egg-Gate?

Fuck off, R320. You don't run the board.

R298 - No one suggested they had no emotional baggage, but you did forget to mention the enormous cushion of wealth and social status they had. Ffs, I knew equally bad parents (not mine) who were also alcoholics, abused their son physically, and gave him not the slightest nurturing; the only thing right they did was not have another child. The man, with whom I'm still good friends decades on, did the sensible thing and left home as soon as possible. He was a grown man on his own at 17, and managed to acquire an education, marry a decent girl, have a family of his own, and move past his baggage to form the kind of life he wanted.

I'm not diminishing William's and Harry's issues: they're rather well-known. But there are far worse out there, and needy mothers and selfish fathers are hardly an anomaly in this world.

Using that parcel to asset neither of them had the stuff to make a decent husband or choose a decent wife is absurd. We've all got a past and most families have a dark side.

William, for what it's worth, seems to have chosen the right wife and avoided his parental past; Harry, for his part, chose a wife who nearly dooms him to that parental past.

There is always a mystery to personality; one can't "explain" everything by a quick laundry list of parental woes.

By all odds, my friend should have ended up a drunk or a drug addict who beat women up. He didn't.

Harry is choosing to let his baggage rule him. William seems not to be doing so.

Although I'm sceptical about many of the anti-Meghan stories in the press, I suspect the one about her making Kate cry may be true. Harry and Meghan got married three weeks after Kate gave birth to Louis. When Charlotte was trying on her bridesmaid dress, Kate must either have been heavily pregnant or very newly post-partum. In either case, her hormones would have been all over the place. It's hardly far-fetched that Meghan (who, I don't think, had much experience with children before Archie was born) may have been a bit short with Charlotte, and that Kate would get upset over that. If it happened, it was probably a storm in the teacup, but it may have ended up impacting Kate and Meghan's relationship in the long-term.

It is important to point out that the purpose of the visit of the President of the US to the UK in June of this year is to pay tribute to the 75th anniversary of the great Normandy Invasion of the continent of Europe known as D-Day and to honor the thousands of young men of several nations who were a part of the endeavor.

Whether any member of the UK government or the Royal Family dislikes or disapproves of the person who currently holds the Chief Executive office in the US is meaningless. Because, like him or not, he currently is the President and he is there to represent the USA in the tributes that are so deserved by those involved in the planning and execution of D-Day.

Any insults to the President during these tributes would be seen as insults to those people who are being honored.

I am reminded of an event that happened in our city years ago.

The First Lady of the USA was paying our city a visit. She was the wife of a man who was of a different political party than our Mayor and, indeed, of the entire political apparatus of our town. Not only that, but her husband was a much disliked individual by his political opponents.

On the day of the First Lady's arrival, our Mayor traveled to the airport to greet her as she arrived and cordially escorted her back to the city.

When asked by some how he could do that, given who her husband was, the Mayor replied.... You must always remember the difference between the man and the Office.

What's kind of sad is that I'm down for the state visit because that means the vault opens and we get to see tiaras, updos, gowns and jewels. Will Kate wear the Cambridge Lover's Knot or will the Queen let her shake it up and borrow something else? Plus, Kate will have her new fancy award from HM to wear.

Henry VI remembered every 21st May at the Tower

Charles asked for a meeting with Trump because he needs money. Meg has bled him try. And Chuck needs lots of dineros to supply fossil fuels for the various estates, mansions and palaces he and his family inhabit. And for their hiring of private jets and limousines, of course.

Meghan and Harry’s wedding was really just a fancy minstrel show. That is to say, a black entertainment conceived and directed by white people. It was reported that Prince Charles choreographed the part about the preacher and the gospel choir. Meg would never have requested that. After all, there was no celebration of African culture at her previous Jewish wedding. Meghan allowed herself to be introduced to the world and welcomed into the royal family as the token black. Too bad.

R331, Meghan knew the preacher as a friend back in the US.

That weird preacher was a joke, basically every single person there had their face stuck in :| or D: over it. That just wasn't appropriate for a damn wedding, especially not upper-class brits

The preacher did not know the couple.

[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.]

^^Spellcheck calls her Doris.

Doria appears to have her own life.

And she probably knows her daughter well enough to get out of Dodge ASAP.

Doria abandoned Meghan but apparently isn't willing to do the same to her dogs.

R330 - Charles may want money for causes or a chance to shoot his mouth off, but the idea that he is "out of money" is ludicrous, and Meghan hasn't bled him dry of anything except possibly fatuous self-serving illusions and patience. Charles is personally worth about $400 million, and gets $22 million annually from the Duchy of Cornwall. You were either being ironic or you live on Saturn.

The photo credits for Doria are curious. We have MEGA who are clearly a celebrity news outfit who like tips. However which APEX are they talking about? There is an APEX corporate photography based in the UK who don't appear to do pap work. Apex Studio's in LA don't seem to be paps either, although they will supply photographers for locations shoots. Very curious.

How long will the Clooneys be out of the UK?

If Sparkle and Dim and baby are living in luxury at the Clooney abode, being waited on by their servants, etc. will the Clooney duo be happy to have them as permanent guests?

I wonder how the Clooney staff like being ordered around by the charming Sparkle?

R330, Bwahahaha!

R334, I read that the preacher was Charles’ suggestion, but who knows exactly what got said originally versus what happened.

R293, The Queen should serve Trump cold, wrapped fast-food.

R330, does Charles think Dump will give him some money? Talk about dim...

A bit of an explanation for our British posters. It's tradition in the U.S. for championship teams in professional sports and college athletics to visit the White House at some point to be congratulated by the POTUS. This custom like many others has become skewed with either entire teams or numerous members boycotting .R344 is alluding to Trump's habit of putting out crap fast food as a "banquet spread," Imagine all that unappetizing congealed grease. YUM!!!

R346...are you new? Why do you actually think you'd have to explain that POTUS invites winning athletes to the White House? Have you actually ventured outside of this echo chamber of a thread? DL has some of the most informed posters around, from the globe over. There have been active threads mocking Trump's idiocy re: providing fast food to world-class athletes.

Some of the posters in this thread need to take a breather, switch off their Scentsy burners and chill. There are some raging lunatics on both sides in this thread. Either way, neither William or Harry will look at your adoringly for defending their respective wives' honor.

Can we get more gist about the original Duchess of Grift, Sarah Ferguson? It's almost as if they're grooming poor Beatrice to be a spinster/future caregiver.

Nah, Beatrice isn't down for that. She'll marry her shady Italian and have a couple of kids ASAP. Even if the marriage doesn't work out, being a mom will get her off the hook for taking care of Fergie. That's going to be Andrew's job as they move into their dotage.

R347-after seeing several links here posted of The Windsors, I'm finally watching it. Why do I get the feeling the characterization of Fergie isn't that far off?

What I love about the Windsors characterization of Fergie is that she's terribly likable, in a pathetic sort of way.

I also love the way Wills and Eugenie torture their vowel sounds into near-incomprehensible RP slurry.

Drinkie poos seem to have a bad effect on you, R347. The Queen Mother held her liquor better.

R350- I get the sense that the reason the show works so incredibly well is that there is a kernel of truth for each person Charles' being completely out of touch and so desperately wanting to be king, Andrew being obnoxious, Edward feeling useless, William badly wanting to do the right thing, Kate being naive but good-hearted, Pippa being jealous of big sis, Harry being incredibly dim, Eugenie and Beatrice being cheerily useless, Fergie - well, being Fergie. Hopefully, though, Camilla's portrayal is indeed far from reality. I haven't gotten to Anne yet. I'm looking forward to what they do with her.

Anne's characterization on the Windsors is a hoot. My favorite bits are the incredibly profane letters from Grandpa Philip.

R353-Grandpa Philip's letters are classic!

Anyone who hasn't seen this short Webisode with the actresses who play Bea and Euge is missing a treat.

Sadly, I must conclude that the “wedding” photo of Meg doesn’t seem to be her.

It looks like her, but I don’t think it is. Those other women are not her... “brand”.

Kate's handwriting/scrawl.

How come we don't know where they're living? Don't the photographers follow them around at all times? Wouldn't they know if they had moved into and are actually living in that toad cabin or not?

cause royal reporters are absolutely useless

R285 Totally disagree, for a start the UK isn't the only monarchy in the world. I assume you are American, if so I get that you would find the whole system odd coming from a different engrained form of governance where " all men are created equal" The reality of course is that America does have gross inequalities and you can't tell me they don't have a ruling class who's wealth and power is perpetuated through the generations by inheritance.

I think you also forget that Britain isn't an absolute monarchy, it is a constitutional democratic monarchy and as such is a very stable system of governance not only for Britain but many European and commonwealth countries.

R346 Thank you for the explanation, not sure why the other poster was so rude to you for offering it up.

[quote]The reality of course is that America does have gross inequalities and you can't tell me they don't have a ruling class who's wealth and power is perpetuated through the generations by inheritance.

Oh, nooooooo.

With amused disdain,

The Kennedys, the Bushes, the Rockefellers, the Forbes, the Hearsts and in due course, the Clintons.

[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.]

R360 I'm not sure why you would assume I'm American when I referred to Britain as 'this country' in my post? I also said I was British in an earlier one but you may not have seen that part of the conversation.

I fully understand how my country is run and the fact that all countries in the world have inequalities, that isn't confusing. Also, I'm not sure why you think that the fact that other countries have monarchies is relevant?

The point is that I'm objecting to those inequalities that are founded on nothing but birth. Everyone ought to have a decent standard of living and any relative inequalities should be based on merit.

We are a long long way from that now but the royal family, although it may afford some stability, is an affront to even the principle of meritocracy and holder of an immense amount of symbolic value within what Bourdieu calls a system of misrecognition, as the very injustice is itself normalised so that it seems an entirely natural thing - which is just how you see it.

We can't get away from horrible injustices where some people and lives are seen to be innately more worthy than other people and lives, unless we get rid of the monarchy or massively reform it. It may seem like a sacrifice because that is all that we've known for hundreds of years, but it is part of a system of privilege that distorts this countries perception of it's own people, and the people's perception of themselves.

Am hoping with this State Banquet Catherine will have an opportunity to take a different tiara out for a spin. I would love to see one with emeralds. But which that would befit her station? The Greville Emerald Kokoshnik at least for a generation will be associated with Eugenie and therefore probably destined back into the vaults for the foreseeable. Maybe sapphires then? The Maria Feodorovna’s Sapphire Bandeau could maybe be a contender. Princess Margaret wore it. Unfortunately I could not find a picture in color.

Here someone did a photoshop of it.

It's almost like there are various types of people in one country, all of which holding differing views on the legitimacy of various forms of governance. No single view gets to go 'we are absolutely correct, you cannot disagree, and it must be done my way'

Some people quite like the history, tradition and stability that the monarchy represents and others want everyone to turn into the american method of governance.

Kate probably dreads wearing those tacky, heavy tiaras.

The tiara that would get my vote is the Queen Victoria’s Sapphire Coronet; but it being a "coronet" does it preclude being worn by anyone other than a sovereign?

R360 I think you’ve completely misunderstood every word R285 said.

S/he is absolutely right. The monarchy works because we (Brits) are willing to suspend disbelief and fool ourselves that these people are “special”.

They are not. They are no more “special” than any other human being on the planet, they just got (un)lucky in the DNA stakes.

There’s no such thing as “royal”. It’s pure invention - fantasy.

That it currently works well as a check & balance on the government (preventing it, theoretically from having ultimate power) is down to us being able to trust HM to not abuse the powers she has. Having a constitutional monarchy (not sure why you stuck “democratic” in there) does work well currently, that’s why we still have them.

One of the reasons many people in the UK resent the monarchy is because it perpetuates a “them and us” narrative. Some people are born better than others. This is undeniable. Many people consider this problematic.

America has created a ruling class by making getting elected all about money. So the “ruling class” are rich.

That’s not quite the same as the UK where you can be Prime Minister even if you’e a pauper. Unfortunately, we have little social mobility so MPs are more often than not white, privately educated men with private wealth but we are trying to address that. Having some balding coke-head worshipped as a demi-god, given a title and bowed to because of who his grandmother is does not promote social mobility - he was just “better born” than us plebs. Which is, on every level, outrageous.

But, as you say, it works politically and adds to our stability so it’ll probably be here for a while yet.

But R285 is spot on - without the willing suspension of disbelief that allows a botoxed, salad tossing former actress to be curtseyed to, the monarchy couldn’t possibly work.

Reducing british class issues to 'rich white guys' is laughably american-centric terminology.

R367 I'm not sure why you are being a bit sarcastic about us having different views yet being from the same country, since it was because of those views that you assumed I was American.

I agree that the system works at the moment in order to give us stability - I actually said that, and if you remember, I added the possibility of reform as well as abolishment. As R370 pointed out, constitutional monarchy only works now because the queen doesn't abuse it, I really feel that Charles might abuse it, even in some small way.

Nevertheless, whether you agree with me or not on the future of the monarchy, the way it works is only through a system of misrecognition as I said. We may all to continue to suspend our disbelief for the stability that it brings but it is certainly a trade-off and not a healthy one.

You completely get it R70, thanks.

How about rubies and the Oriental Circlet for a change of pace? Kate has worn rubies before, most notably the Queen's Ruby and Diamond Floral Bandeau Necklace at the State Banquet for King Felipe and Queen Letizia in 2017.

R370 Here's the thing, you are obviously not British for various reasons, the most glaring one is a British person would never refer to themselves as a "Brit" or say we "Brits".

Secondly you use all the usual bullshit diatribe that Americans use about old white men ruling the country, oddly you seem to forget our current Prime Minister, Theresa May and Sadiq Khan the London Mayor. You forget because you are not British or a Brit as you like to say, which FYI is a bit of a derogatory term.

If you were British you would know a little of our history of past Prime Ministers and know that many of them were not from wealthy backgrounds. You would know for example that Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer, that Edward Heath's father was a carpenter, that many former PM's and famous politicians are from the working classes.

Did you not read earlier, R369, that Queen Vic's coronet is on exhibit at the V&A, on this very day?

It is quite small and almost childlike. The emeralds would be better.

Kate in the Queen's Ruby and Diamond Floral Bandeau Necklace, I would love to see her in a tiara she has never worn many something with emeralds

^^^^mainly

Sexy pic of Di. Who got those earrings?

Kate looks good in emeralds

And we’re supposed to believe that she didn’t have any involvement or give anyone permission to be involved in gayle’s special? Is she going to cut the makeup artist out since he’s sharing her texts with the world? Or no, that’s just her father with her letters

R378 They are so beautiful, I would love to see Kate in these beauties. Wonder who is really in charge of Diana's jewels?

I don’t think saying “Brits” is the cast iron indicator of a non-British person you seem to think it is, R374. I wouldn’t use it in conversation but it’s easy shorthand online.

R382 Wrong no British person calls themselves a "Brit" just like no British person would call anyone who isn't British "non-British. You are just digging a bigger non-British hole for yourself. Also writing (Brits) isn't some shorthand, it's the same amount of keys used as British.

Another British citizen here who has, I'm almost sure, referred to myself as a "Brit" online (it just seems to be the word used?) and may even have done it irl, don't know. With all due respect, R383, why do you even feel the need to Britpolice us? And don't accuse all of us of being the same poster (do that blocking trick of blocking a person and seeing whose posts disappear - this is my first comment on this subject).

It's perfectly fine (if slightly laughable) if you think the UK is a paradise of social mobility, not ruled by upper class white men for the most part. But you are aware that there are people, who live on UK soil and carry UK passports, who disagree with you, are you not? And that R370 appears to be one of them?

(btw R370 - that was a great post)

All of the British Royals’ teeth are 20 to 25 percent too big for their faces. It’s gonna take a lot of out breading to fix.

Royal teeth and "out breading"...

LOL

R384 I wasn't aware that I said anywhere that living in Britain was some sort of utopian paradise LOL I said that a constitutional monarchy was a stable form of governance and that some of our former PM's were working class. How on earth did you infer it was a paradise?

I still stand by Brit as a term I have never heard used by British people in Britain, I have heard it used as a derogatory term in N.Ireland during the troubles and when abroad by other expats.

More importantly why the fuck are you on a British Royal Family gossip forum when you and R370 are anti-monarchists? seriously would you be better on a more erudite forum discussing politics and systems of governance or celebitchy?

How's the air up there on the high hobby horse.

Don't forget the US made huge progress when they elected Barack Obama (Harvard but not rich) as President for 8 years, but then got scared and elected a 70 year old billionaire fascist. People in the UK have never made that kind of horror show error in modern history.

Can we please stop with the British vs American high horse-ing? Neither country is exactly a great model of egalitarianism.

R384, I'm also British, and yes, I do refer to myself as a Brit on online forums. Increasingly, it's said irl too by people under 30. It's a bit of an outdated cliche that it's never said, same as the cliche that we never say 'the UK'.

If you want nationality verificatia, check my posting history and you'll see all my many contribtions to the EastEnders/FugEnders threads.

I know I'm in the minority, but I believe the Queen was chosen by God. And she is better than everyone else.

EUGENIE IS PREGNANT!!!!!

If anyone wants a laugh, genuine Skippies have invaded the Skippies vs Sugars thread and are linking to Toronto Paper and Drip Drop. I told them they were comedy gold and they're so thick that they took it as a compliment. They think that MM's failure to turn up for royal duties two weeks after the birth means she is sectioned or imprisoned.

See, that is the point about MM...people very logically come to the conclusion that not only are the members of the BRF no better than anyone else, some of them are considerably worse. The British taxpayers have overlooked a lot, although how Andy's behaviour was overlooked is beyond me, but MM is a bridge too far. That is why she truly represents a danger to the monarchy. Most people give the queen a pass due to her long service and freedom from scandal (although she was in fact implicated in Panama Gate), but Charles and Camilla are low in the popularity stakes. Harry and MM may well be the loose brick in the wall that brings the whole thing down.

If that whore Fergie didn't collapse the BRF, nothing will.

Yes, but Fergie and Diana were divorced out of the BRF. They didn't/do not represent them. Just as the BRF will recover once MM is frogmarched back to the US.

Fergie was representing the family, until her what? 20th scandal. She makes MM look like Queen Mary.

Kate should wear the Vladimir for shits and giggles.

NM has yet to do anything close to Fergie's level. She has an expensive wardrobe, big deal. Harry is still the most popular royal and everyone can see that MM makes him happy. She's going nowhere. In two years' time, they'll probably have another baby.

R399 Yes definitely and swap in the emeralds. I bet MM would just love it

Hmm..I think if the rumours of yachting prove to be true, MM will have topped Fergie.

The Skippies can get back to me when MM has an affair and is papped making out with her lover by the pool.

R402 Definitely, fucking old dudes for money trumps some sleazy dude sucking your toes.

R402, there is zero evidence that M was a yacht prostitute, so it will forever remain alleged. And even then, ONLY alleged on forums and in blind items (which cater to CTers like yourself). No reputable media source has ever mentioned it.

Meanwhile, Fergie's adulterous antics were all over the tabloids in screaming colour.

LOL @ R402 if you believe that.

I think the yachting story is BS, but if it were true, it's before she got married and could be spun to be "youthful indiscretion" or "a woman in touch with her sexual appetite." The only thing that could top Fergie is if they have receipts of Meghan being paid for sex after she got married.

For what it's worth, I don't think Fergie would have been forced to divorce if that happened today. They could have spun it as a moral failing that the Yorks were working on their marriage. That's basically what's happened to them over the last 25 years anyway.

Seriously who gives a toss about Fergie, no one has paid any attention to her since the divorce in 1996. She's still a bit of a joke though she looks like an angel in comparison to MM. Maybe that's why she's been allowed back to a few family occasions.

It's true that Fergie's day was pre-internet, but I don't recall her angering people as MM has with her outrageous spending and showboating in a time when people are struggling, eg the closure of the Honda factory in Swindon the day of the NYC baby shower.

You fat obnoxious cunts so should go die in a greasefire!

Kate seems to really like the Lovers Knot and it was Diana's favourite too. I love the Lotus Flower but would love to see her in a tiara we have never seen her in before.

R408

1. No news outlet was reporting on the spending of the royal family in Fergie's day.

2. The baby shower in NYC would not have happened. Even if it did, nobody would have expected that a pregnant royal would have known or had any control over a plant closure in Swindon.

The baby shower was tacky AF but it's not totally Meghan's doing. She set a thing in motion of which she doesn't have full control. The paps are like hounds and she has unleashed them. They would have reported on that baby shower if it had been in a cave in the dead of night.

Diana was spending a shit tonne of money while 11-thousand miners were being arrested under Thatcher. Nobody blames her for that or says she should have worn fewer haute couture pieces because those families were facing difficult times.

R411 Actually you are wrong, Diana was criticised a lot for her spending in the newspapers, people tend to only remember the press Diana received after her death but if you lived in Britain during her early days up until her divorce , her press wasn't that favourable all the time. Neither was her behaviour.

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

It's not high-horsing R390, the opposite really. It's because a poster keeps rejecting other people's criticism of royalty and the way royalty functions by accusing them of being Americans who don't understand the British system, which isn't true.

That poster seems to have a very black and white approach to things and also seems to keep misunderstanding the point of the posts s/he's replying to.

R374 I am British and refer to myself as a Brit quite often online. What else should I say? A citizen of the United Kingdom? I am English, as it happens.

I said “more often than not” with regard to who makes up our MPs, who are still overwhelmingly privately educated white men. That does not mean we don’t have some women, some people of colour, some people who went to state schools etc.

This is a gossip thread - so you have to be a rabid pro-monarchist to take part? Why? Anyway, I am not anti-monarchy as such - it works at the moment.

You know, if you cannot bear to be disagreed with, perhaps you should stop sharing your views online. Throwing your toys out of the pram is not a good look.

R362, Did you read the quote you posted?

'This is a gossip thread - so you have to be a rabid pro-monarchist to take part.'

Yes, and not only that, you have to worship at the feet of 'Princess Catherine' and 'Princess Charlotte,' who are both so much more intelligent and regal than Meghan Markle. One rabid poster is determined to force her snobby 1950s values down everyone's throats.

R415 I think we do pretty well in Britain in regards to political representation in comparison to other countries. We have 210 women out of 650 in the House of Commons, 32%, I wouldn't call it overwhelmingly white male dominance, once again that is more of a problem in the USA. The sitting members of the Labour Party are 55% female, once again hardly overwhelming white male. Yes the 45% of Conservatives were privately educated but only 14% of the Labour Party are. How come as British person you don't know these facts? It is endlessly discussed by British people and in the press.

Nobody said you have to be rabidly pro monarchist to be on here but it is odd that anyone who was so anti monarchy would be interested in a BRF gossip website, certainly none of the anti-monarchists I know are interested in any of their activities except their expenses.

The megastans are trying so hard to be sophisticated, political and intellectual, it's so obvious and boring. Back to the jewels please, so much more interesting.

I'm sorry R418 but you really are missing the point that people are making about the issues with royalty, again. It's not about any of the things that you listed.

Also, it is well known among people who study these things that social mobility in this country is the lowest it has been for decades (look at the work of Danny Dorling if you are interested).

Love that Randy Andy is the Queen's new bodyguard. He looks might fine though I wish we could see more of him at this Garden Party.

The Gloucesters seem to be getting a higher profile of late, not that they don't work hard but they seem more visible as do Edward and Sophie.

Oh get real, R418. You googled those figures. Don’t pretend you discuss them so often they were at the forefront of your mind.

But good. Things are changing. That’s what I meant when I said it was something we are trying to address.

But you are embarrassing yourself a bit now. You misunderstood the post you originally objected to & had a shit fit at having that pointed out. Rather than converse sensibly you’re trying to order people off the thread or engaging in childish irrelevancies such as “you’re not really British”.

“Megstan’ is the cherry on the cupcake. What’s the matter with you? You sound about 14.

This is all too tedious for words, tbh - and for the sake of everyone else, I won’t respond to you further.

R422 - Yes, please do NOT respond. You and your distractors are all becoming tedious.

All of you please get a fucking grip on yourselves - what happened to people having a different opinion than you?

This is verging off topic, but I fail to see the issue in having the great majority of parliament being 'white'. It is so incredibly insulting to reduce the entirety of our history to 'lol all you guys are white so same difference'

Fuck you and your incredibly simplistic mindset, be it foreign or 'academic'.

Back to the Royals - the Queen popped into Sainsbury's today to celebrate their 150th anniversary.

Just to lighten the mood, the Cambridge children again. Charlotte really reminds me so much of William when he was little and fiesty too.

The Queen has been very busy lately. I'm hopeful that it's a good sign she's feeling healthy and energetic.

R425 Thank you, the Queen always looks incredible, Angela Kelly is such a wonderful dresser and apparently a great friend too.

This is for you Randy Andy Stan - Prince Andrew with children at the Cambridge Science Centre.

R429 Thank you! He looks wonderful as always.

Louis getting into the swing of things. The look he gives his father is priceless.

R431 Little Louis is very cute and looks a lot cuter in the recent videos than the photos taken by Kate for his birthday. They seem like a very close knit family.

The Queen is worried about customers "cheating" when the self-service checkout at Sainsbury's was explained to her.

In this video, I couldn't help but notice that the Queen's lady-in-waiting seems to be almost as ancient as she is. LOL.

R422 Me and my detractors? What? I am fine with people having a different opinion. I am not fine with people ordering others off the thread for having it.

But get the fuck over yourself. You have no more right than the other cunt to direct conversation. Obviously boring middle-aged woman twaddle about jewels, hats & toddlers (sychophantic drivel that is not “gossip”) is more your intellectual level, so go for it. Just don’t force other people to climb down to your level.

R424 (Probably the same moron) That is possibly the stupidest remark I have read in a long time. Go back to Corrie & Emmerdale, you thoughtless prat.

[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.]

R435 wow calm down, this isn't the House of Commons debate on extension of Article 50. Go somewhere else if you don't like trivial talk of jewels etc

Was this HM's first visit to a supermarket?

R436 I wonder does he see any of his old friends, he seems to be held hostage by MM and just allowed out on day release for a few hours then back to her.

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

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

I can only imagine how the women in Harry's old circle sneer at MM behind her back. And the men make lewd jokes..

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

The Queen factoid that blows my mind is that she's only ever dined out at ONE restaurant in London. Am I right about that?

Ohhh there's the purple fairy dress!

I assumed the 'academic' was directed at me R423/424 - not sure why you used quotations marks though. I never said anything about race, my point was purely about class and symbolic value.

As for 'people having a different opinion to you', that was where you came in in the first place - objecting to my post discussing the role of the royal family and what they represent. You misunderstood the post, told me I was wrong in what you thought it meant, and assumed I was 'foreign' because you thought you knew better than me.

Never mind, this conversation is very much a case of diminishing returns at this point.

r433 I have noticed that recently Sainsbury's have added cameras to the self service checkouts with a nice big screen for you and someone behind you, to see what you are doing. So I suspect they are concerned about "cheating" as well. I recall one very famous celebrity chef who was caught "cheating" at another supermarket whilst using their self-check out.

R411 and R412 are correct: it was AFTER some years of looking like the little girl let loose in a sweet shop and getting slammed for her expensive shopping habit that Diana starting shifting her image to The Caring Princess. You younger folk know Diana mostly through the lens of the hagiography that followed the last years of her life, not the early years when she followed demurely in the wake of her husband, outshining him with her winsome ways, instinct for the cameras and the media, beauty, youth, and (by the standards of the time) gorgeous designer wardrobe. As the wife of the Heir Apparent, she was catapulted into a far more public role with a far heavier agenda than Fergie, Kate, or Meghan immediately. She hadn't a clue what she was about, but learned quickly, and whilst doing so, leant heavily on the glamour star aspect.

The fact remains that in a constitutional monarchy, the monarchy is constrained to remain politically neutral so that they do not only seem to "represent" the adherents of whoever is in political power or whatever social "trend" dominates in any decade. The whole point of a traditional monarchy is that while politicians come and go, and the fortunes of political power swing back and forth, and social trends come and go - the monarchy remains a point of cultural stability and links to the nation's past and future. As Winston Churchill once said slily, "It's a great system: if you lose the battle, you fire the generals. If you win, you head to Buckingham Palace to cheer the King."

The perks of being a senior member of the BRF are huge; the cost is that you cannot be yourself on your own terms, because you risk making it only too clear that you really only represent the "woke" population, or Labourites in London but not Conservatives in Essex - urbanites in Birmingham but not overwhelmingly white Cornwall. The point of the monarchy is that it either serves everyone or no one.

Charles has, alarmingly, stepped over this line a few times; the late Duke of Windsor tried it on, as well; and Meghan thinks she can do it, too - take the perks and ignore the costs.

I will say only this on the tiresome Britain v. America posts (please, open a new thread for that, we'll be happy to participate with you there): the two countries, from what I have read, have the highest levels of income inequality in the First World. A spread of varied income levels is natural and not the sign of unhealthy economic systems - but a huge gap between the very top and the bottom, as the middle empties and the bottom gets heavier and heavier, which is what the phrasee "high levels of income inequality" means, is not. And neither nation is doing well on that score at this point, and in Britain's case, it isn't because of its monarchy, but its government (very broadly).

There are plenty of arguments against retaining a monarchy in the modern era. But believe us, the pandering of governments to vast corporate interests has been far more damaging than old leftover monarchies in Europe and Japan. Technology and a few advances in democracy has seen the serfs somewhat better off than they used to be, but the veneer of democracy these days is alarmingly thin - hence the ries of populism, as the serfs see the shades of the prison house. And there is a thread on populism, too.

Harry is a fool and Meghan Markle is using the BRF as a stepping-stone for her personal ambitions, and she's too stupid to conceal it, whilst greedily taking its enormous advantages. That is the bottom line for many Brits defending the monarchy here.

I think a yachting background wasn’t a big deal in itself. We have seen that in Sweden as well. It would have been controversial pre-wedding but would have been become a non issue over time. However the problem was the virtue signalling coupled with this background. A complete lack of humility and a recognition of UK customs. Pointing fingers at racism rather than at her own behaviour. As if none of the problems were her own but those of the people of the UK.

R448 - Well said.

[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.]

R435 - Oh do please stop acting like Head Boy at a famous public school. If we can discuss figure skaters, arses, and camp film classics, I don't see why jewels, designer clothes, and royal dynasties should be off the table, let alone on a gossip site. Take the poster's advice, turn on the telly, and watch the debate in Parliament today of the PM's latest attempt to get her Withdrawal Bill through and save her political arse. That should satisfy your thirst for substance. Frankly, after an hour of the surreal spectacle this morning of a moribund government and a PM with the Grim Reaper standing behind her, a bit of royal gossip is a relief.

R450 - this was posted @R443. Don't you read the thread before posting duplicates?

Great post R447, especially the bit about the need to represent everyone or it is useless. It isn't like anything else in that regard.

I'm the person who started this whole thing upthread by talking about the need to suspend disbelief etc. Just to be clear, I don't think inequality is caused by the monarchy but my issue is that the symbolic power they wield, their 'specialness' for want of a better word, coupled with their vast wealth, is symptomtic of a vastly unequal society and of people's acceptance of this. There is just something wrong about the principle behind being better through blood (which is what kicked it all off).

However, as I said before, I do understand what the monarchy brings to us in terms of stability, but it is a trade-off in terms of the other issues I mentioned, which is why it needs discussing. Although I agree that this thread was maybe not the place to do that.

The American vs Britain thing was a complete red-herring - another poster kept making comparisons with America because they assumed anyone who was critical of the monarchy must be American and that they must be making negative comparisons with America.

Far from being a case of one up-manship, as far I can see everyone in the conversation criticizing the role of the monarchy is British, so that's a non-issue.

Yes, the existence of the monarchy effectively serves to institutionalise societal inequality. It sends a strong yet subtle message to the masses: some people deserve more than others, merely by accident of birth.

This may work to some extent if the RF are able to maintain their mystique, but when a second-rate cable TV actress is able to marry into the institution and expect to be bowed and curtseyed to... the entire edifice begins to look rather wobbly.

MM is the least of the BRF's problems. There's an adjustment period in every marriage and they didn't wait to start a family. Factor in differences in upbringing, culture, etc. and it's going to be bumpy. Harry married an actress that knows the game, is competitive enough yo see winning at all costs as the right course of action. She's had multiple missteps (the pregnancy announcement at the wedding is unforgivable and baby bump cradling was excessive but it was her first baby, so whatevs).

What is glaring is the obvious painting of Megan as some she-demon. Most of it isn't race based but a nice portion of it is. What makes it so hard to notice is that MM, like most people, has flaws. (Obligatory 'quelle suprise!') It's some of the same signalling used with Obama (don't come at me...they're different people but the rhetoric is alarmingly similar). It's disgusting and creepy how someone even created a fake dialogue re: why postpartum Kate would be teary...just fucking crazy. Or how a little girl will grow up to hate her aunt. Or, how one set of children is less than another set.

The lot with that thinking are the types of terrible cunts DL usually lampoons but here they are with their seething nastiness disguised as gossip. You'd think they'd be selling their essential oils, fighting to get a manager to override an expired coupon or making sure angels Brayden and Jayden don't bully the other kids on their street. Fucking cunts.

I hope the Queen can improve my local Sainsbury's, it's dreadful.

R455, MM is the most *visible* of the BRF’s problems. Her behavior hasn’t helped.

R454, I agree completely.

It’s just been discussed ad nauseam on this thread that one set of children IS less than the other by virtue of being royal. And in the other set of children, two are less than the first one, again, it’s the nature of monarchy. If MM’s fans feel uncomfortable with that, they should blame their idol for marrying into that family in the first place.

I don't think it's racism. When Harry was dating Cressida, the comments about her on the DM were absolutely vicious. Kate Middleton also attracted a lot of malice, especially due to her 'social-climbing' mother and drug-dealing, tattooed uncle Gary.

The only difference is, Kate quietly demonstrated her suitability for the role. If she had behaved in the same way MM has, she would have attracted the same amount of contempt.

It’s racism only because, as it has been mentioned earlier, other royal brides received their share of vitriol, but when Meghan and Harry started dating, places like Celebitchy immediately adopted zero tolerance policy regarding comments on her, because people of colour are always NICE, don’t you know it.

Just imagine if our lovely Meghan had gone through even 5% of what Kate had to deal with pre-marriage and early post-marriage, the woman would have had her Hollywood friends decrying the massive racism of the press.

The reality is that crying racism/sexism gets some people whatever they want right now and of course people will use it to bully others into being quiet. Gets right old tho, seeing people far wealthier and more privileged than you bash you over the head with that shit while you can barely make rent

Tiara talk is much better talk.

I'm no Meghan far R58, but I am one of the people talking about the institution of the monarchy critically. Your point that 'one set of children IS less than the other' really is the crux of it - if you thought about it for a minute could you not see how disturbing that is? to say that one child 'IS less' than another because of who their parents are and what their birth order is?

I can agree that one set of children is treated as less important because of the artificial system of monarchy that we have created, but it is that system that is the issue - that's what we are talking about.

If it took someone new marrying into the heart of it for the first time in a few years, and someone that, for whatever reasons people had animosity towards, to bring these opinions to the fore then that is another matter. It is the distinctions that are being made between Meghan and a (at the time) two year old child who was said to be inherently better than her, or one set of children being better than another, that I just can't stomach.

That press release Harry put out pre-wedding was the biggest mistake in all this and set the tone to this never-ending defensive behaviour from them

R462 but you have no problem stomaching the idea that a certain five year old child is inherently better than the said “at the time two year old” child? Maybe you should stop and think for a minute why.

Harry and Meghan get very little right.

This wasn't an arranged marriage or a bright-eyed naive teenager, this was a divorced mid-thirties working woman that voluntarily entered a union. Meghan knew exactly what she was marrying into, you don't get to be an outside waltzing into what is essentially an ancient family business and then crying foul when it doesn't pander to delicate modern californian sensibilities.

She knew exactly what her status would be, chose to say yes, and then you have people crying and bitching around when she can't change it to fit her ego.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about R464, you have very much misundestood something I've said it seems, or confused me with another poster maybe? Who is the five year old child? George? (is he five?) I have no idea why you would think I think any child is better than any other child.

I will spell it out for you, R467. If you have no problem with George getting preferential treatment (= “being inherently better than”) over Charlotte, or William over Harry, or Charles over Anne, and it’s just Meghan and Charlotte distinction that sets your pulse racing, then it must be because Meghan is a shade darker than Charlotte and all that matters is the colour of her skin, which means that you may be just ever so slightly racist.

I thought I knew everything in my early 20s. I probably could have fallen into the “let’s shake things up!” trap had I married into the royal family when I was young.

But Markle, in her mid thirties, apparently had years of real world experience, professional challenges, etc to show her she might not know everything. Yet she still flounces around like a 15-year-old know it all.

Both she and Harry seem to have extreme arrested development.

Okay, why don't you go and read my comment again R468, the one that you were originally responding to? You seem so confused, and I don't mean that nastily, it's just that you're interpreting what I'm saying in complete opposition to what was actually written.

My point was that this issue with Meghan and the little girl, and the girl being better than her because of 'blood', illuminates and speaks to a far bigger issue, which is the thing I have the problem with. I don't care about Meghan, I care about the fact that one person is treated better than the other because of the family they were born into or birth order. That was literally the point of my post, that I am AGAINST that.

I find it very surprising that you can say that I'm okay with George getting preferential treatment over charlotte or William over Harry when my issue with all of that was precisely the argument that you were replying to and, indeed, it was the point in all of my posts in the larger conversation about this. That is the thing I've been trying to get across all along.

I feel like you probably half read my post and also projected your own assumptions about the world onto me. Is George's or William's precedence by birth so naturalized to you that you can't conceive of anyone arguing against it, so you flip the conversation round and accuse them of being for it? I could not have been clearer in my point, really.

There's a couple of people making very good points on this thread about this whole issue, but there's no point you and me carrying on this conversation if you won't at least try and respond to what I said rather than what I didn't say.

I blame Harry more. He's his mother's son in the worst way and wants to be exactly like that. Provocative, confrontational, controversial and attention seeking.

We don’t have any control over who our parents are, or the circumstances of our birth. Love her or hate her, Meghan moved far beyond her circumstances. I’m sure that was very appealing to Harry. For all his advantages, he’s a bit stuck.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens.

R472 Hmm, astute observation.

R471 I agree and also think he got some of his father's worse traits too.

I wonder what the nation would have thought of Diana now if she had lived? she's been sanctified in death but if she had another twenty years of press attention as a thorn in the royal families side (and all her previous mistakes had not been wiped out by her death), then it would have been entirely another matter I think.

R471/R462 you (mis)quoted my post at R458 about “one set of children” being better than the other, and you seem to have misread it as well. The point I was making is that birthright is exactly what monarchy is all about, and no, we don’t need Meghan to highlight that. Furthermore, the difference between the George/Charlotte and Meghan/Charlotte situations is that Meghan, unlike Charlotte, was not born into it, she (rather eagerly, ready to “hit the ground running”) CHOSE to marry into it. Certainly privately-educated, Ivy-League-graduate, successful-Hollywood-actress/feminist/philanthropist Meghan knew what she was getting into and most importantly, had other choices, yet she chose to do that with her eyes open. She seems to have no problem with monarchy and its inherent inequality, as long as it keeps her in Givenchy, so don’t break her heart with calls to abolish monarchy or any such nonsense.

You're conflating two poster R476, I am R462 but not R471. I don't think I misunderstood (or misquoted?) your post. I know that is what monarchy is about, and that is the issue that I have with it.

We're coming at this from two very different angles - you have strong views on Meghan and that's fine, I don't care whether she has strong views on monarchy, whether she cares about inequality, or whether she is upset. I don't care that she chose to marry into it.

My issue is that, as a British citizen 'I' have strong views on it and I hate the idea of merit or value as accorded by birth. I came here for idle chat but when I saw someone making a point about 'princess of the blood' that made me reflect on all of this. It happens to be the presence of Meghan that prompted this discussion but it isn't about her, it is about that faults in the system that have been brought to the fore by conversations about her.

Really, I literally couldn't care less about Meghan herself.

If Meghan had any issues with the concept of monarchy she should have refused to marry into the institution. She was well old enough to understand the concept. Her complaints are meaningless because she entered into this marriage to increase her fame. She doesn't care about the institution and she is not trying to fit in. The complaints she is making vis-a-vis her "friends" are only to solidify her reputation after she leaves the BFR. She is only upset at this point because, while she has achieved world-wide fame, she is not beloved except for a small subset of people. She has achieved notoriety, but she is not popular.

Her mistake was believing that people would champion her behavior. But people can smell the desperation on her and it repels them.

R476 Why are you obsessed with a 4 year old little girl just because she was born a Princess? Are you obsessed with all the other young European Princesses that will be the respective Queens of Spain, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Belgium who are a higher rank than Charlotte in the scheme of things.

BTW you were mildly credible until you announced that MM was an Ivy League educated, successful Hollywood actress, she is neither of those.

One can have problems with a system and still be part of the system R478. The monarch used to be considered a person ordained by God. That's no longer the case. The institution has changed as have the "subjects." The UK may keep the monarchy as a system of government without attaching some of the mystique that used to be associated with it. Meghan marrying Harry, or Kate marrying William doesn't mean they endorse every and all parts of what the monarchy means in the UK and the wider Commonwealth.

My point still stands, R477. As a British citizen, you lived your whole life with monarchy. It wasn’t until today that you noticed that a monarch inherits his/her throne and that primogeniture plays a role in it? You needed Meghan to finally notice that egualité was not among the spices in the British stew?

Again, she has no problems with the monarchy. She is upset because she is not beloved, even despised in some corners. This isn't an issue with her disagreeing with the system of monarchy, she is just using it as an excuse to explain away why she is not popular.

Stay out of the adult conversation, R480. If you learned to read, you would notice that I was replying to the poster who brought her up furst.

Northwestern is Ivy League?

Meghan seems to be backed into a corner, at the moment.

Dear lord kaiser actually said the reason for the story about meghan and the British guys is because she's black and they're racist. I'm not even kidding. They are saying so what if she's a social climber. Don't they obliterate kate for the same thing. Some hint the bad meghan stories are to divert from Williams affairs and Kate is being insulted for her clothes at the garden party.

I really want to know where they are living!

Surely the Fail could write some coded article letting us know? Like, “Markle frequently sported spending time in (location.) etc

I haven't seen any criticism of Gabriella for wearing an Italian designer. I'm partly chit stirring and partly curious. Is the consensus that the senior royals should wear British designers but if you're 52nd in line, nobody gives a toss what you wear? Where is the line for that? Is it that Betty, Cam, Kate and Meg should buy British but everyone else gets a pass because we probably won't notice them anyway?

Gabriella is not a working royal. She does not represent the head of state and has no responsibility to promote British labels.

R482 Well you know a lot about me don't you? do you really imagine I hadn't thought about and considered these things before? for goodness sake, do you really believe that?

When I said that this caused me to 'reflect on' I meant that it brought to mind things that I had clearly already been considering for some time and prompted me to talk about them within the context of the thread. ie someone said something so egregious that it couldn't be ignored.

As for Meghan prompting the conversation - I was literally responding to a post in a conversation about her, introducing a theme that other people were interested in, about the artificial and unequal nature of royalty. Her joining the royal family seems to have disrupted some people and therefore may have brought to the fore in the minds of others the artifice, and prompted conversation about it that may not otherwise have happened.

I was not responding to Meghan per se but conversations about Meghan, that prompted this very topic, therefore 'exposing' (I believe that was the word I used) these issues for wider reflection.

I had no idea I was replying to someone who was so very literal. People like you are exhausting.

Also, even if everything you supposed about me were true your point still wouldn't stand because you have accepted that I believe the opposite of what you thought I believed.

Just to repeat since you still seem to be confused. This isn't about Meghan, this is about the royal family as an institution (I feel that you're still not getting this).

R487 Maybe the Sussexes live at Frogmore and you should stop believing the prognostications of random posters on DL and Tumblr.

R489 But she was getting a much higher profile wedding than if she weren't royal. Plus Betty was attending so she could have promoted the home side.

You can't hide living in Windsor/Frogmore, especially not at the edge of the property like it is. They are most definitely not living in a building with broken windows and a shit roof.

Gabriella's wedding was only higher profile because the weddings that preceded hers sparked interest, particularly in her guest list. Had there been no weddings last year, this wedding would have barely made a blip except for the most ardent royalists.

I just applied to be the Queen's digital marketing officer. The vacancy is open until midnight GMT if any of the rest of you want to try your luck!

[quote] broken windows and a shit roof.

Show me those receipts!

I am only an hour away, I will take it upon myself to go stalk Froghouse if you like..

Oh please do R497 ! TIA

DLers have been promising that for weeks R497. I want to see the broken windows and dilapidated roof.

r434 I believe that is the Duchess of Grafton who is nearly 100 and has been close to the Queen for decades. So older than the Queen as born 1920.

They're not at FC. Someone would have papped them at this point or tweeted it or what have you. I don't think they're at NottCott either as the Cambridges have probably banished them from there.

R488 - Gabriella is a private citizen, not a "working royal" - as she isn't supported by monies from the UK taxpayer through the Sovereign Grant or revenues from the Crown Estates, she can wear designers from Mars with impunity. She is not accountable to the British nation or its taxpayers. That goes, by the way, for Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, who are also "nonworking" royals not supported by public monies.

Meghan Markle IS a working senior royal (until the Cambridge children start to breed) and knew she would be one when she married Harry - that's what, in fact, she married him for: a high-profile, very visible platform from which to build her "brand". Yet she still chose to wear a wedding dress made by Givenchy, a foreign firm. The designer and head of Givenchy may be British, but the revenues of the design house do not benefit British workers.

It's not unknown for soon to be minted Princesses and Queens to select foreign designers for the wedding gowns: Maxima's gown was by Valentino - the Dutch care less about that stuff. Princess Mary's gown was by a Danish designer but his firm is based in Rome.

Letizia gown was by a Spanish designer (Pertegaz, and I thought it a beautiful gown but totally unsuited to her tiny figure, which was swamped by it, and the rounded train curled up under itself as she walked).

In Britain, this is seen as mattering more to a home industry. Meghan's choice of Givenchy was stupid and was followed up by more stupidity as the bulk of her wardrobe was 1) by non-British designers, and 2) astronomically expensive.

Meghan showed from the start that she was in it for herself and didn't give fuck all about anything or anyone else.

R501 - Have you seen Kate papped coming and going out of KP? It's right in the middle of London. You haven't seen pap photos of Charles and Camilla coming and going at Clarence House, either.

I haven't seen photos of broken windows or shit roofing at FC but allegedly a great deal of money was spent (at the taxpayers' expense) to improve security for the Sussexes, just as was done at Anmer Hall in Norfolk for the Cambridges, which is also close to a public road. Yet Kate and William have not been papped coming and going.

I assume that the Sussexes are not coming and going from the side of the house facing the road, and that not too visible barriers exist to keep most people far enough away so ordinary snaps can't be taken, and that plainclothes RPOs are on hand to keep the paps away or seize their cameras. Telephoto lens are not exactly easy to conceal about one's person.

Windsor, because of the Queen's residence there, is one of the most highly secure areas in England. You are underestimating that security and ignoring the likely presence of plainclothes officers who are there to see that no photos are taken.

The idea that they aren't living there after three million quid of taxpayer money was spent renovating it would be a story that the DM, SUN, Express, and even the TIMES would sink their teeth into like a terrier into a rat. They have deep enough pockets to find something like that out. If they haven't broken that story, it's because it has no legs.

R29 I’m late to this particular party, but it sounds as though you were never late to history class. You just didn’t show up. All Henry VIII’s wives were Queens of England, and I’m sure someone with more brains than you has corrected your previous dumb assertion regarding Catherine’s title when William becomes King. Now sod off.

You're all so exhausting and you're making this thread tedious to read.

The monarchy was/is and will always be hierarchical and someone's place in it is due to an accident of birth. Whether you like it or not, those are the rules folks! Thankfully, the monarchy does make adjustments (albeit more slowly than society as a whole) and now the first one in order of succession is the ELDEST CHILD (regardless of gender) instead of ELDEST SON. It took hundreds of years but it happened. Hooray!

As far as I can tell, society has always had inequalities on many fronts and probably always will have them. We don't live in an ideal world where everyone is equal. Some people have titles, some people are rich and some are famous. I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago. Do I like the status quo of haves and have nots? No. Can I change it? No, I'm only one person.

If someone people here can't accept the way things are, that's your problem. If you don't like the monarchy and what it represents, fine. But don't come on a thread about the "British Royal Family" and start whining on and on about how horrid they are. You're not gaining any converts if that is your mission. In fact, I question your motive as to why you're wasting your own time - and ours - by posing on this thread at all. Feel free to make your own thread about any subject you fancy.

Can we all fucking agree to move on from this shit. This thread used to be enjoyable but I'm not finding the arguing back and forth very enlightening or informative.

Photos of Edward, Sophie and Eugenie at Buckingham Palace for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. Eugenie has put on weight since her wedding so hopefully there will be a pregnancy announcement soon.

R505 parts of this thread seem to have been invaded by the fish Celeb Fest rejected.

FFS, Kate has been papped to and from KP so much that one, there is absolutely no doubt she lives there; and two, you can only take the same pics of her coming in and out. Here is an article just from March of this year going on about how Kate is seen either driving herself or taking strolls around Kensington Palace.

This is another one from the express last month of Kate pictured driving and going in and out from Kensington Palace. Really, the stupidity of the poster at R503...

We've seen that twelve year old kid driving himself around on Windsor grounds, it's not too far-fetched that if they were actually there we'd have at least one picture.

Uh, oh. Is that Meghan's fedora Edward is holding? Should we expect an article in In Style, Cosmo or whichever fawning publication yakking on about how Meghan has even influenced royal men's fashions?

And just for good measure because a poster here is very slowwwwwwwww.... This is from February this year, and I remember the flurry of IG posts of members in the public who saw Kate strolling with Prince Louis around the park at Kensington and stopping at the pond to look at the ducks.

R29 - Good Lord - you cannot be serious in stating in a public arena that Henry VIII's wives weren't titled as Queens.

Kate will be Queen Catherine when William becomes King.

Philip isn't called King because the gender titling doesn't work in reverse. There is such a thing as a Queen Consort, there is no such thing in reality of a King Consort.

Here's a little poem to keep Henry's wives straight in your either disordered or weak mind - most British schoolchildren see it at some point or other in their Kings and Queens of England classes (or used to):

"Henry the Eight to six spouses was wedded/One died, one survived, two divorced, two beheaded."

Died-Queen Jane (nee Seymour) who gave Henry his much longed-for son, Edward; she died after giving birth to him.

Survived-Queen Catherine (nee Parr), who was the last one and survived Henry, his only widow

Two divorced: Queen Catherine of Aragon (Henry's first wife and mother of his daughter, Mary) and Queen Anne of Cleves (short-lived, he was physically repelled by her, but she left quietly and he was most grateful and she lived in comfort in England after the divorce on the grounds of non-consummation)

Two beheaded: Queen Anne (nee Boleyn) when she was unable to give Henry the son he wanted so desperately, and Queen Catherine (nee Howard - too young and frisky for her own good, executed for treason based on infidelity).

Every single one was Queen [fill in the blank] . . .

Just as Princess Mary of Teck became Queen Mary when her husband, George ascended the throne as George V

And Elizabeth, Duchess of York, became Queen Elizabeth when her husband, Albert, ascended the throne as George VI

And Princess Alexandra became Queen Alexandra, when her husband, Edward, ascended the throne as Edward VII

And so forth and so on.

r475 Diana wasn't popular when she died. The public had tired of her antics and the press was beginning to turn. If she had lived any longer she would have been broken down by the press. I suspect even though people don't like to admit it that sympathy would have turned to Charles and he would have remarried much sooner than he did.

R512 - The park around KP is a PUBLIC PARK. She has been papped strolling in the PARK outside KP with the kid.

She has NOT been papped coming and going in and out of her home, getting into and out of cars, etc., just as Meghan and Harry haven't.

I repeat: that park is a PUBLIC space. Read what is says: :"A London Park".

The actual grounds of KP inside the fences are not public spaces and she hasn't been papped there.

Diana's preference for Muslim men may not have been viewed kindly post 9/11.

Some people say dumb shit on the Internet. Please don’t feed trolls.

Oh FFS, she has repeatedly been seen driving in and out of the gates to Kensington Palace, but you are going to quibble that people were more excited to see her at the park than where she may have come in and out of? You think in your blunted critical thought she would make a point to brave London traffic with a small toddler in tow to stroll the park that happens to be right outside the gates? You've no idea the concept of preponderance of evidence do you R515? In which case, continue with your earth is flat arguments. Reason eludes your brain.

R482 it wasn’t that overexposed and underwhelming Markle woman who was responsible for the end of the primogeniture laws in the British Succession, but the collective Parliaments of The Commonwealth Realms.

R487 I couldn’t give a flying fandango where those two live. They can bugger off to Bognor for all I care.

Then why are you on this thread, dumbass?

R518 - That park is right outside KP. Kate doesn't NEED to brave London traffic with a toddler in tow to get to the park, which is, I repeat, despite being around KP, a PUBLIC park where anyone in the park could have seen and photographed her.

Please provide us flat-earth types with pap shots of Kate and William going about their private family lives INSIDE the grounds of KP.

This is sort of off-topic, but sort of related: Remember when Melania disappeared from public view for a month?

Anyway, we’ve received our explanation as to why we don’t see Her Royal Highness, Princess of the United Kingdom. She’s in her Asian-inspired “confinement”! Doria sent her the book, remember? ““As modern mothers are pushed to prematurely bounce back after delivering their babies, and are often left alone to face the physical and emotional challenges of this new stage of their lives, the First Forty days provide a lifeline-a source of connection, nourishment, and guidance.”

She’s going to have to be photographed around Frogmore eventually.

I think she’s at the Clooney estate, personally.

R509 - That photograph is OUTSIDE the grounds of KP and already on the route to Buckingham Palace. Kate has been photographed more than once driving INTO BP to use the pool.

Do, as I asked, provide us with actual photos of Kate WITHIN the grounds of KP proving that she "lives" there the way the real flat-earth types are insisting we should also have of the Sussexes living their private lives at FC.

[quote]Remember when Melania disappeared from public view for a month?

Oh yeah! Do you think she’s getting surgically rebuilt ... er, I mean bonding with the baby?

Re all that "London traffic" Kate is alleged to have "braved" to take her kid to a park that is . . .

"Kensington Palace is a royal palace overlooking the Round Pond in Kensington garden located on the north side of Kensington Gardens near Lancaster Gate."

That park and the Round Pond are virtually outside her door.

Any more interesting firsthand knowledge of London and its parks you'd like to share?

Am as pale and stale as they come. But if I publicly rejected and continually humiliated the elderly man who raised me, lovingly (and helped pay for my frightfully expensive destination wedding), the world would hate me, too. Can’t get away with violating social taboos. Sorry, she’s “marked”, and so are the royals who abetted her. The courtiers have been saying as much, sotto voce.

It's true. If you want a prediction as to how a person might treat you in future, take a look at how they treated people in the past. Few people think MM would have married PH for love alone, minus his position. When Mr More Right comes along, she will flush Harry away like a used tampon.

It’s so odd to think of the Sussexes basically floating around homeless with an infant in tow.

They wait until their late thirties to have a kid, and STILL can’t muster a normal, stable life?

Just goes to show mentally unwell people seem to crave a certain amount of chaos in their lives. It’s a hallmark of a trashy background.

R529, you’re right. Harry is just a rung on the ladder. When he’s outlived his usefulness, he’ll be persona non grata, too.

R528 - I don't doubt the more seasoned courtiers are appalled by Meghan's behaviour and how little regard she has for the institution they serve, but how do you know that the courtiers have been saying she's "marked" (so to speak) sotto voce? Where would you have heard that as it allegedly is sotto voce? Do you have inside tea? If so, do be more specific . . .

Eugenie posts blooms from the Chelsea Flower Show.

At this rate, this topic will hit 100 threads by the time Archie is christened. Is that some sort of record, does anyone know?

Eugenie knows HOW to address people in her family unlike someone else who I won't mention. She even capitalizing UNCLE and AUNT.

For those who love jewels...here is a video showing the delicate work that goes into transforming a tiara into a necklace.

There is no evidence that the Sussexes are

[quote] basically floating around homeless with an infant in tow

The official position is that the Sussexes moved into Frogmore Cottage sometime around April 4 and they gave it as their home address on Archie's birth certificate. They may have visited the Clooneys or other people (I don't know or care). To claim they aren't living at Frogmore at all because it's rundown. ie has broken windows and roofing issues, is a pretty bold statement.

The posters claiming that Frogmore is a dump should show their receipts!

There was a papped pic of the Cambridges inside the grounds of KP walking towards a Helicopter recently. FC is really weird, how is it that nobody has seen the Sussexes going in and out? It is by a public road and not surround by extensive grounds like KP. Or deliveries going in and out - some kind of evidence someone is living there. And then there is MM herself who seems to be somthing of an invisible woman except when her paid paps are around. How is nobody - no member of the public has seen her out and about? Windsor is not that big. She hasn't even been papped in London or been seen going shopping or anything. Very strange.

The Meghan haters are furious that these threads have been taken over by people debating the pros and cons of the monarchy.

Meghan is on maternity leave, as she was for many weeks prior to Archie's birth. His birth certificate listed her address as FC, and that's where she is. FC is a sprawling house. The Mail weeks ago posted one window boarded up and one small part of the roof looking a bit delapidated. Meghan detractors here took it to mean the entire property was in disrepair and swore that MM would not live there, forgetting the 3m renovations, and how spacious FC would seem after living in the two bedroom Notts Cottage for a year.

Pic of Frogmore from 19th April. Roof still appears to have missing tiles, despite the extensive renovations. Not clear if the window has been fixed due to the foliage that has grown up since February.

Here's a thought. Instead of everyone getting their knickers in a twist on whether the Sussex family are inhabiting Frogmore Cottage, why don't we let the person who lives nearby and offered to check it out report back to us and let us know what he sees?

I suppose the concept of plainclothes security and RPOs patrolling the grounds near FC is too outlandish a reason for not seeing daily photos of the Sussexes going about their daily lives?

And, like the poster upthread, I'd like to see receipts from RECENT photos of FC with broken windows and crumbling roofing.

R538, they will be going in and out in cars with opaque windows. Nobody wants to buy a pic like that, so you're not seeing them. Obviously Doria left to go to the airport and you didn't see that, so movement is going on.

Will appears to be leading Kate astray. LOL.

I'm not beyond thinking it beyond possibility that the Palace lies - recently, they issued a denial that Meghan had had anything to do with the Gayle King special and didn't talk to her friends and coach them, as assertion that no one, not even the fraus on Celebitchy, believe for a moment (shades of Diana at first denying she had anything to do with the Morton book-why is it that so much of what occurs with the Sussexes reflects so much of what happened with the Wales's?!).

But trying to cover up that the Prince of Wales's second son and his wife took £3 million of taxpayer money to renovate a home for themselves and then abandoned the place runs only second to the theory that said son and wife faked a public pregnancy whilst using a surrogate.

Blue eyed Diana looked people right in the eyes.

R544, the way he has grabbed her wrist isn't very nice. A photo like that of M and H would mean they were divorcing.

Of course the Palace PR lies, Meghan is just the one dumb enough to play her part properly enough so everyone starts to see it.

I'm hoping R540 isn't saying that image shows a house that is uninhabitable due to roof damage and therefore this is his/her proof that the Sussexes don't live there.

R545 Where is "Harry was trying to activate a reborn baby named Darren during the photocall" in your grading system?

I do seem to recall that the Palace publicly stated that an accounting of the costs of the FC renovation would be posted "in due time" when the annual report on the uses of the Sovereign Grant are published. After all, the costs for the refurbishment of the Cambridge's apartment in KP were published (over £4 million).

I wonder when that accounting is due? If costs for the renovation are listed, as they should be, the Sussexes would have quite a bit of explaining to do if they abandoned the place after the renovations. The entire BRF would know how bad the optics are.

As Sherlock famously said, "When you have eliminated all other solutions to a problem, the one that remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Either the Palace lied through its teeth or the Sussexes are living at FC and have been smart and resourced with security enough to evade public gaze.

Really, earthlings, I believe Sherlock would incline to the latter solution.

Speaking of Frogmore, there's a new People article out with news from friends of the Sussexes. The cottage is "cute and warm" and has better "energy" than KP. The following quote is interesting given the recent articles stating that Harry's friends dislike Meghan.

[quote] There’s a custom kitchen and dining room, where Harry plans to “do some entertaining.” Said one pal, “He likes having his friends around him.”

There is also speculation that the couple might escape to Rome next week because Frogmore House is opening for public tours.

I like Kate and live the garden project. But she sounds borderline retarded babbling about the kiddies and nature. She basically said the same sentence five time in a row like a Stepford wife with a chip malfunction.

Is she really that dim?

R551 - "The cottage is "cute and warm" and has better "energy" than KP. "

Because Meghan's friends have all been to Kensington Palace with Energy Level Readers.

Jesus, and they wonder why Meghan is increasingly disliked.

R552 - yes, she is that dim. Meghan is far more articulate.

If she's a hands-on parent, Kate spends a fair amount of time talking to people aged 5 and younger. It's understandable if her language is skewed towards that demographic.

R552 - I don't think Kate is dim by a long shot. I do, however, think she is profoundly introverted and only barely comfortable with public life. She looks more comfortable than she ever has before but she's no Queen Mum, who seemed born for public life and royal show.

I also wonder occasionally if far from being threatened by Meghan (after all, Kate's popularity has soared in the wake of Meghan's blunders, Meghan made Kate look golden), she has seen what happened to Meghan and is riddled with anxiety about making the same mistakes. I think sometimes that Kate is terrified of saying the wrong thing. She and Meghan are polar opposites, but a more comfortable spot for both of them would be somewhere between those poles.

R549 - Oh, my error: I suppose we'll have to give the Activating the Reborn Darren top spot, bump the Surrogate Theory into second place, and the Abandoned Cottage into third.

R541 Yes I am planning to visit (stalk) Frogmore next week and possibly attend the Open Day. Looks like MM will be away next week though (Rome? Como?)

I will share whatever pics I can find.

R558 - Harry is playing polo in Rome but I'd be surprised if Meghan and Baby follow him there.

Charles and Camilla in Northern Ireland.

Ella's wedding dress designer Luisa Beccaria is featured in Hello mag.

Yes, the palace lies if their feet are to the fire, but I think they’d rather not.

Now that the baby nurse is back in LA, Harry must step up his efforts in the child care department. Oh what’s that you say? Hands-On Harry is traveling to Rome to play polo? Brave Meghan will be changing diapers and doing night feeding all alone? No nannies, you know.

the video at r536 is wonderful but that's the Queen's diamond fringe tiara, and not the diamond Kokoshnik as labelled. Surprised KP would make a mistake like that.

Want to make a comment about the snippet taken from the UK Times from April, posted at r130. Why the heck would Harry - or anyone in the BRF for that matter - get upset with William for FINALLY taking up his mantle as heir and begin to 'reach out' to senior members of the UK media - ? I mean, after years of prevaricating on his job, and being fairly openly lazy (as said by some) about his duties, the fact that he is finally taking some responsibility and reaching out to the very group he needs to do his job, is a bother to some people?

I'm flummoxed. If Haz is upset with the UK media for their coverage of the ongoing Markle family dramas, that's fine. There has been some overboard there - but why would you expect your brother - future King - to stop his needed dealings with the media b/c you're currently unhappy about stories re your wife's father?

And btw, how are H&M begin 'cut adrift' by moving to Frog Cott? Don't these two finally realize what pole position they occupy on the hierarchy there? They aren't central to the main monarchy and at this point are moving further down the ladder every day. It's just weird how they seem to view themselves, as opposed to the reality of the situation.

You just described every millennial, ever r564. They are all the center of the universe.

I agree, R556. Plenty of intelligent people are anxious public speakers. Meghan is comfortable speaking publicly but she's no great orator either.

This is a thread about the BRF. Why are people still (after 60 threads) coming into a discussion about a hierarchical structure and questioning the inherent 'unfairness' of that structure? It's by nature 'unfair' - all players are NOT made equal.

No one in the BRF privately treats the children any differently. George is not treated better than Charlotte, or Archie, or Lena Tindall. I'm sure the Queen loves all of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren equally and treats them as such behind closed doors, I'm sure Charles and Cam do the same. It's the public status, the level of attention that will be different, and for good reason. In the birth-based hierarchical monarchy, the heirs rule.

The entire family knows this and is appraised of this fact from birth, it's the nature of the game. Think of it as a billion-$ family privately held corporation, where the rules state that rulership is birth-based, with all other members supporting this, working for the same goals and all benefiting personally and financially from the ongoing success and stability of this firm.

Harry fancied himself the most popular royal, and he was for a while (mostly due to palace pr), and probably chased after actresses with the mindset that he would 'overcome' his spot.

r549, no that's not what I'm saying. I was just pointing out the roof didn't appear to have been fixed as late as April. You spend £3.5million (reportedly) on renovating a house and you don't fix the roof tiles? It's odd. I don't think a few roof tiles missing make a house uninhabitable but if you're fixing a house anyway and money is apparently no object, isn't it something you would fix? Just another strange thing to add to the strangeness around this pair.

Jessica Mulroney arrived when Doria left, so Meghan (and the nanny) will have company while Harry plays in Rome.

I'm surprised Mulroney hasn't heralded her own arrival in London like she did for her Australia trip. Her last IG post was less than a day ago was a photo of her with some very attractive guy at a bar.

I see the idiots have grayed out this thread. Jealousy.

And there's another idiot going mad posting W&Ws on Part 58 - I've had about 16 in a row.

This is from the Observer (is that a tabloid?) November 5, 2018:

“Prince Harry and Markle have been spending plenty of time in the Cotswolds, as they reportedly signed a two-year lease for a mansion, WestfieldLarge, located on the 4,000-acre Great Tew Estate in Oxfordshire earlier this year. But that’s only temporary, as they are apparently refurbishing a much larger place nearby. Their future six-bedroom home, known as Beggars Lodge (oh, the irony), will contain three reception rooms, staff rooms, media and family rooms and all the other fancy amenities fit for royalty, including Charles & Co. designs.”

What happened to “Beggars Lodge”?

“Now that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expecting their first child, perhaps they’ll be given a country home at Sandringham as well. They are, after all, about to be neighbors with Prince William and Middleton at Kensington Palace.”

Sandringham, LOL.

The money used to renovate the Cottage will likely not be enough. These renovations are notorious for being severely overblown in terms of budget. Either way, they'll figure it out and make it work so inquiring minds can rest and go over the financials involved.

Seriously, you harpies are feeding directly into MM 'diabolical' plan to be labeled 'hounded by the press': while she's serenely living her life and being a new mother, she's occupying space in your mind rent-fucking-free, having some of your perform mental gymnastics and practically foaming at the mouth. It would be hilarious but it seems some of you have children and that's especially sad. I can imagine the paragons of understanding and compassion you will someday unleash on the planet.

The other members of the BRF are doing things: Eugenie may be pregnant...let's hope and pray we get to see the Duke of York and his perpetual barnacle at their best. Kate is still doing the best mannequin impression I've seen in ages and QEII is getting ready to host the Buffoon-In-Chief. There's some good juice out there to savor.

Side note: does anyone think the performance of Charles III may have an atom of truth to it? It's like people forget that he's still around and in the line of succession.

“Must jet off to play polo in Rome, Meggsy! Royal duty and all that. Kiss the sprig for me, won’t you?”

*tires screeching*

Let's take a drive....

R574 - If Eugenie is up the duff, she isn't showing yet. Pix in the DM of her at some do in a silk dress with a cinched belt.

That girl is PLUMP - Meghan and Kate wouldn't be seen dead in those arms. It's rather endearing, actually - if only she would dress them better. Eugenie is quite pretty but her mind-length hair is awful. With that jaw she needs to go short or shoulder length but not between.

Interesting pose for Diana.

Once this (rather tedious) iteration ends, Part 61 is available

^*mid-length hair.

[quote] Eugenie is quite pretty but her mind-length hair is awful.

Eugenie is quite pretty but her thin, over-processed and fly-away mid-length hair is awful. TFIFY

r573 The Observer is a Broadsheet, published on Sunday. Its in the same stable as the Guardian.

The cheek of people saying Meghan is fat when Lady Lard Fugenie is out there looking super plump.

R573 - As R582 states, the Observer is not a tabloid. It was also, as we know by now, wrong.

Occasionally, the tabs get it right when the Palace lies and the broadsheets oblige the establishment by agreeing with it.

The tabs were talking about TIP (Trouble in Paradise) for the Wales's before the TIMES or other broadsheets would touch it.

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

R576 - If I remember correctly, I believe the gray building on the right hand side is the Royal Garden Hotel in Kensington (just before the 2:00 minute mark in the video). My sister and I stayed there about 15 years ago and our window overlooked Kensington Palace and Gardens. I also stayed at another hotel near Kensington High Street about 10 years ago. It was a pretty good area to walk around (Hyde Park is nearby as are the Victoria & Albert, Harrods etc...). The Holland Park area is within walking distance too. I loved walking in parks as well as enjoying the architecture in the Kensington area.

[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.]

Her plasters are to cover WARTS.

R587 - if she's not pregnant then she's put on a lot of weight since she married.

Didn't Fergie catch warts from Diana's shoes? Perhaps they're still being spread round the family.

I hope Bea gets married soon just for the wedding dress LOLs. Her dress sense is even worse than her sister's, though Eugenie pulled it out all right at her ceremony.

The Queen's cousin, Princess Alexandra of Kent.

[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.]

Eugenie has always been on the bigger side and lost a lot of weight for her wedding. It's always possible she's not pregnant and just enjoying married life. Time will tell, anyway.

What the hell was Princess Michael of Kent wearing to Ella's second (or third?) reception. Her pashmina looks like a tent.

That dress would work better if it were shorter and had little cap sleeves.

R593 - Granny would be appalled at her see-through number. Tsk tsk.

Princess Michael was wearing seriously baggy clothes for the entire wedding. I wonder if she's on meds that are making her bloat?

One of the best things about the Queen's wardrobe is how nicely fitted all her clothes are.

It's remarkable how much Gabriella resembles her aunt Princess Alexandra. Very handsome women.

Pippa in pink with a ghastly belt. Color is all wrong.

There are a lot of good looks in the Kent clan. Marina and Prince George were both lookers, and they passed down fair faces to their descendants.

R590 made me LOL.

I wonder if Kate does a lot of cooking for her family. Probably not, eh? I cook a lot and always have little nicks and burns.

R602 - Kate used to cook a lot when Will was a helicopter pilot in Wales. I don't know if she does very much any more with three kids and more engagements.

Who's that guy with Pippa? - he looks like what we used to call a B movie actor.

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

I'm sure K&W have cooks.

[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.]

R567 If you think the discussion was about 'unfairness' or that any of the critics cared about how the less prominent members of the royal family felt then you really have missed the point.

All the people in what was quite an interesting discussion were British and we don't need you to explain how the monarchy works as a business, we know, it's the symbolic effects of that on the wider British society we object to. But if you don't get that by now then you really never will.

[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.]

R468, You're being weird.