Carry on.
British Royal Family Gossip Part 90
by Anonymous | reply 424 | September 2, 2019 11:24 PM |
Loved you fawning over the Kate US cover Sparkles. It is so typical .
by Anonymous | reply 1 | August 14, 2019 7:51 PM |
According to the Spanish blog, Cotilleando, Harry and Meghan are in Ibiza on vacation.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | August 14, 2019 8:52 PM |
Were, R2, they are back, now.
by Anonymous | reply 3 | August 15, 2019 9:39 AM |
This thread will be closed around 400 posts by TPTB, so it would be nice if it didn't get spammed with 5678 photos of the queen as a child or Princess Anne on a horse in 1975.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | August 17, 2019 5:59 PM |
The net is closing around Pedo Andrew as the FBI investigate Epstein's private Caribbean island home.
by Anonymous | reply 5 | August 17, 2019 6:00 PM |
From Thread 89:
[QUOTE] Andrew may very well be an immoral piece of shit, but if he had sex with a 17 year old then he is not a paedophile. Paedophiles target pre-pubescent children. This continual misuse of the word to make everything seem more dramatic is not only ignorant but it’s also diluting the seriousness of actual paedophilia.
There is also a 15 yr old girl mentioned in the charges. Plus, these girls were all trafficked sex slaves, not groupies.
Andrew should be stripped of his dukedom and the title of prince.
by Anonymous | reply 7 | August 17, 2019 6:11 PM |
Can you post a link r7? I haven't heard anything other than the 17 year old in relation to PA.
by Anonymous | reply 8 | August 18, 2019 6:04 AM |
I hope this doesn't derail Andrew and Sarah getting remarried.
by Anonymous | reply 9 | August 18, 2019 7:59 AM |
Two jets in a week
I guess you think you're pretty clever,
Don't you, boy?
by Anonymous | reply 10 | August 18, 2019 12:00 PM |
I'm too stupid to calculate their carbon tonnes with taking four private jets in two weeks.
Can some of you Megstans help me out?
I suspect it's over one hundred times the Carbon Tonnes that would be used by a normal family flying the same distance, at the the same time.
by Anonymous | reply 11 | August 18, 2019 12:24 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 12 | August 18, 2019 6:45 PM |
Does the DM know how to throw shade or what? Love the article describing the "royal eco-warriors'" Ibiza hideaway. prices included.
by Anonymous | reply 13 | August 18, 2019 7:03 PM |
The Harkles just keep at it, no?
Truly, their actions seem like the plot for a really poor SNL skit. Just a FEW examples:
1) Haz discussing HAZards of social media, then promptly setting up a Sussex Instagram account
2) Sparkles Epic $$$$$ NYC baby shower while simultaneously her tax-supporting adopted countrymen/women are laid off from jobs
3) Demands of privacy while taunting Instagram and Celebrity appearances
4) Sparkles self-proclamations of humanitarianism yet demonstrating deplorable behaviour to family, "friends" and those that "serve"
5) Haz's ranting for environmentalist behaviour from others while flagrantly flaunting obscenely opposite behaviour himself: private jets, villas, rich retreats, etc.
With this and Randy Andy's escapades, it's over. I no longer respect the queen.
That's it:
The. British. Monarchy. Must .Go.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | August 18, 2019 7:06 PM |
Do try to keep up. The Sussex Shitstorm is now in Nice, France.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | August 18, 2019 7:10 PM |
R16 = Hapless Harry in baseball cap and glasses carrying a blankie. Megastar Meg holding onto her son for dear life with a big hat to hide her face.
They want PRIVACY. PRIVACY we say!
by Anonymous | reply 17 | August 18, 2019 7:14 PM |
[quote] Haz discussing HAZards of social media, then promptly setting up a Sussex Instagram account
Please, stop using Haz. You come of as extremely stupid when you do that.
by Anonymous | reply 18 | August 18, 2019 7:15 PM |
Photos of the Queen today at church in Scotland.
by Anonymous | reply 19 | August 18, 2019 7:17 PM |
Who is paying for all these flights and expensive trips. He doesn't have enough money to pay for these types of things
They have to be guests of someone very wealthy (and probably sketchy)
Between the Sussex's and Andrew, I think the end is near for this family. I can't believe Charles doesn't say something to Harry
by Anonymous | reply 20 | August 18, 2019 7:18 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 21 | August 18, 2019 7:26 PM |
[quote] Please, stop using Haz. You come of as extremely stupid when you do that.
Merely reiterating the term Markles has used in public for her husband, R18.
Yes, and they've moved on from merely menaces to hazards...
by Anonymous | reply 22 | August 18, 2019 7:37 PM |
Prince Charles at his mother's coronation in 1953.
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret beside him.
by Anonymous | reply 23 | August 18, 2019 7:41 PM |
[quote]. Please, stop using Haz. You come OF as extremely stupid when you do that.
Ahem R8.
Believe the word you were looking for is OFF.
Speaking of "extremely stupid"!
by Anonymous | reply 24 | August 18, 2019 9:38 PM |
To expand on R12's post.
[quote]Long before she met Prince Harry, Meghan Markle posed holding a magazine cover featuring her future sister-in-law Kate Middleton. Royal fans uncovered the incredible photo from 2014 – which was even more eye-catching thanks to the headline stating Kate was incorrectly expecting “TWINS”. The Duchess of Sussex, 38, who was an actress in Suits at the time, can be seen beaming as she proudly shows off Kate on the front of U Magazine next to the deputy editor. Meghan had contributed to the magazine she was holding, and had shared inside how her favouite sunglasses were her Ray Ban aviators. The photo was taken a few years before Meghan Markle starting dating Prince Harry in 2016, and little did she know that Kate was soon to become her sister-in-law. Kate wasn’t expecting twins, however, and gave birth to her only daughter Princess Charlotte in May the following year. In the same year as the magazine photo, Meghan also wrote about Kate on her now-defunct blog The Tig, and spoke about wanting to be a princess. She said: “Grown women seem to retain this childhood fantasy. Just look at the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royal wedding and endless conversation about Princess Kate.”
One of the DM commenters on R12's article: [quote]BenedictArnold, Camden Town, United Kingdom, 3 days ago Lying Megs, Liar, Liar, crOtchless p*nties on fire.
by Anonymous | reply 25 | August 18, 2019 9:52 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 26 | August 18, 2019 10:08 PM |
Isn't Heather W escaping?
by Anonymous | reply 27 | August 18, 2019 10:09 PM |
Either her dream team is doing a terrible job, or HazBean is just beyond help.
by Anonymous | reply 28 | August 18, 2019 10:13 PM |
On August 15th, Fergie and Andrew arrived in Spain by a "private jet" for a holiday to get away from the Epstein scandal and Prince Philip who had arrived early at Balmoral.
by Anonymous | reply 29 | August 18, 2019 11:09 PM |
^^^I think private jets should only be used to escape from scandals and the wrath of Prince Philip.
by Anonymous | reply 30 | August 18, 2019 11:15 PM |
Interesting that the “three wise women” have political experience, two of them with US Presidents. No doubt now, that Meghan (like her pal Clooney) is itching for a political career.
So she gets in bed with a bunch of fucking monarchs.
You can’t make this shit UP.
by Anonymous | reply 31 | August 19, 2019 2:24 AM |
She really loves that white fedora, doesn’t she? Is that her “signature” piece?
by Anonymous | reply 32 | August 19, 2019 2:28 AM |
She looks so damn stupid in that hat its cringeworthy. That photo of her with the Kate magazine was from 2014 so juat two years before she stalked and set up Harry, not a "few".
by Anonymous | reply 33 | August 19, 2019 5:07 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 34 | August 19, 2019 5:45 AM |
She's still using the kid to hide her hugeness. So much better to take the kid off the plane safely strapped in to a baby-carrier, to lessen the disruption to him of putting him in the car etc, but instead, she needs to awkwardly hold the kid as she goes down the tiny plane steps because she needs the kid as a fat-shield.
by Anonymous | reply 35 | August 19, 2019 5:51 AM |
I see Cressida Bonas is to marry someone who looks like he could be her brother. They will have some beautiful children.
by Anonymous | reply 36 | August 19, 2019 7:30 AM |
Yes, and they look natural, and happy, and in love and not trying to "message" anything or trying to advise the public on how they ought to live their lives.
Good for Cressida. She clearly dodged a bullet.
by Anonymous | reply 37 | August 19, 2019 7:40 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 38 | August 19, 2019 8:19 AM |
This pic in the Sun of Cressida and her man at a party last autumn (I say autumn because they're wearing poppies) is so gentle and lovely.
by Anonymous | reply 39 | August 19, 2019 8:35 AM |
I don't understand why they would hire these PR people at R26's link and then do what ever they want to anyway
Either the people are doing a horrible job advising them, or they are not listening to them
After these 3 vacations on private jets (and I don't care if they were a friend's jet), nothing will surprise me. Do they not know the optics of these things?
by Anonymous | reply 40 | August 19, 2019 8:40 AM |
[quote] His gorgeous ex has moved on with a kind-eyed rich man
Harry is devastated the man has "kind eyes"
Some of you are so stupid. Where do you get this shit? It sounds EXACTLY something meghan would say
by Anonymous | reply 41 | August 19, 2019 8:42 AM |
No r40, they hire the PR people SO that they can do what they want anyway.
It's just that even the best PR in the world cannot hide or spin the Horrific Harkles.
by Anonymous | reply 42 | August 19, 2019 8:44 AM |
[quote] I see Cressida Bonas is to marry someone who looks like he could be her brother. They will have some beautiful children.
ewwwwwwwww. It seems like that creepy congressman Steve King posts here
by Anonymous | reply 43 | August 19, 2019 8:45 AM |
Agreed, r41, the word "kind" has been polluted by the Markle stank.
What I was trying to express was that his eyes express that he seems easy and happy with CB, unlike how Harry appears with MM.
Have you Had Sufficient?
by Anonymous | reply 44 | August 19, 2019 8:48 AM |
Can't have been a "friend's" private jet, it's quite clearly part of a fleet owned by a company. It's a service, not a singularly owned plane
by Anonymous | reply 45 | August 19, 2019 9:45 AM |
No idea who Steve King is, R43. I simply posted that Cressida and her fiancé look very much alike, and being both attractive, they are likely to have beautiful offspring. So you can get the stick out of your ass.
by Anonymous | reply 46 | August 19, 2019 10:13 AM |
R46 Agree. Some scientists suggest that we are attracted to people who look like us. I think Harry and Meghan too - their facial similarities and same type "duck" noses. Perhaps this is true love, unfortunately for Harry and the monarchy.
by Anonymous | reply 47 | August 19, 2019 11:16 AM |
In R47's picture you can see how deformed her head is.
The shape of the nose (powered by plastic surgery) doesn't help.
by Anonymous | reply 48 | August 19, 2019 11:22 AM |
I wonder what it’s like to fly private. Tomorrow I’m taking a flight on Spirit Airlines - am allowed one super tiny bag (18x14x8 inches) as a carry-on, The rows of seats are so close together that my knees brush the back of the seat in front of me (at least the seats do not recline, a small blessing).
On the outbound flight I sat next to someone who looked like she had a serious skin disease - she had dozens of bumps and lumps all over her face and neck. They looked like small tumors. I’ve never seen anything like it before.
How can Harry and Meghan afford three trips by private jet in the space of two weeks when Harry only earns 300,000 pounds a year? Who is paying for this stuff?
by Anonymous | reply 49 | August 19, 2019 1:09 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 50 | August 19, 2019 1:20 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 51 | August 19, 2019 1:22 PM |
Elizabeth and Margaret playing with their dogs.
by Anonymous | reply 54 | August 19, 2019 3:03 PM |
That child is huge. No way he is 3 months. I just looked at pictures from my son at that age and he's always been around the 80th percentile for height. Archie looks like a 6 months old.
by Anonymous | reply 56 | August 19, 2019 4:02 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 58 | August 19, 2019 5:12 PM |
R14 = Welp Troll
by Anonymous | reply 59 | August 19, 2019 5:45 PM |
In R58's pic, you can see she's still pretty fat.
Where's the Meg moron incessantly telling us she'd be thin again by September?
by Anonymous | reply 60 | August 19, 2019 5:48 PM |
[QUOTE] Yes, and they look natural, and happy, and in love and not trying to "message" anything or trying to advise the public on how they ought to live their lives.
MARY!
[QUOTE] His gorgeous ex has moved on with a kind-eyed rich man who clearly loves her.
MARY!
You sentimental fraus must think Harry is some kind of spaz. He doesn't give a fuck about Cressida or Chelsy. He ditched those hoes years ago.
by Anonymous | reply 61 | August 19, 2019 5:55 PM |
What does a donation to a climate change charity exactly do? Can they hire a massive vacuum cleaner to suck up the toxic fumes?
by Anonymous | reply 62 | August 19, 2019 6:17 PM |
I offset my private jet to Mustique by planting a garden!
by Anonymous | reply 63 | August 19, 2019 6:24 PM |
Wow. The Megstans are out in force today. Something must have upset them
by Anonymous | reply 64 | August 19, 2019 6:26 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 65 | August 19, 2019 6:30 PM |
It’s nice of Elton John to stick up for his friends, but in this particular case I don’t think he’s helping any.
“Never complain, never explain” was the Queen Mother’s motto for a reason.
by Anonymous | reply 66 | August 19, 2019 6:35 PM |
hey weren't lucky enough to get their Little Diana last time around, so it's pretty safe to say they are shagging their brains out on their jolly vacationing trips. She probably told him that she'll for sure get rid of the pregnancy fat after the second pregnancy.
by Anonymous | reply 67 | August 19, 2019 7:02 PM |
What about this DM comment? Please educate me, I confess to know nothing about this particular rule.
[quote] So you just confirmed that they DO breach royal protocol, by accepting trip as a gift: from Royal.UK The fundamental principle governing the acceptance of gifts by Members of The Royal Family is that no gifts, including hospitality or services, should be accepted which would, or might appear to, place the Member of The Royal Family under any obligation to the donor.
by Anonymous | reply 68 | August 19, 2019 7:08 PM |
Is it just me or has Mr Rocketman just made the entire affair even more delicate?
by Anonymous | reply 69 | August 19, 2019 7:13 PM |
If I were a working-class UK person, I'd be more angry about Elton claiming that "after a hectic year continuing their hard work and dedication to charity," Meg/Harry needed a holiday in his luxury Nice mansion.
Off with their heads.
by Anonymous | reply 70 | August 19, 2019 7:15 PM |
Elton opening his gob on how he gifted them the trip, and how it's ok if the rich fly in private jets because they can buy themselves Green papal indulgences just made the whole thing so much worse. This is hilarious.
by Anonymous | reply 71 | August 19, 2019 7:22 PM |
r71, great comparison! and whoops here goes the dead diana card yet again!
by Anonymous | reply 72 | August 19, 2019 7:25 PM |
Elton sticking up for Harry and Meghan makes it worse. Not only are they "hypocrites" but they're also "freeloaders" who accept gifts from people.
by Anonymous | reply 73 | August 19, 2019 7:29 PM |
Is not accepting gifts really Royal protocol?
I remember when the ‘Harry Naked in Vegas’ photos were published, it emerged that Harry had been comped the luxury hotel suite which rented for $5000 a night. So Harry accepting free swag has been happening for a long time now.
by Anonymous | reply 74 | August 19, 2019 7:45 PM |
Yes, r74 taking expensive gifted trips is definitely a huge no-no in Royal protocol. The reason it was reported that Harry got comped in Vegas is because Harry is not supposed to get comped. At the time it was excused as youthful foolishness on his part, like the Nazi uniform.
by Anonymous | reply 75 | August 19, 2019 7:48 PM |
R68, royals are not supposed to take any gifts. It can lead to the appearance of favoritism or quid pro quo.
by Anonymous | reply 76 | August 19, 2019 8:04 PM |
Elton is another who believes his own hype. I remember him being "edgy" in the '70's as bisexual. Thatcher gets in power and Mr arse licker to the establishment becomes straight married man. Hideous creep and toady to St Di
by Anonymous | reply 77 | August 19, 2019 9:19 PM |
You KNOW that the Horrid Harkles called Elton and asked him to make this statement. Hell, they probably wrote it and emailed it to him to publish.
Just one PR disaster after another after another. It's actually incredible.
They are such morons.
by Anonymous | reply 78 | August 19, 2019 9:27 PM |
I know, right? All I try to do is make the world better, and I get attacked for everything I do. It's all so relatable.
by Anonymous | reply 80 | August 19, 2019 10:00 PM |
I'm on my angry box . but can anyone explain why Elton was Mr Closet but gets a free pass? Was it just because he had ingratiated himself into the royal family?
by Anonymous | reply 81 | August 19, 2019 11:30 PM |
Having all these celebrities pipe up in the Harkle's defence is the very worst PR strategy imaginable under the present circumstances. The fact that Meghan and Harry seem more interested in being "celebrities" than they seem interested in serving the country that is paying for them is part of what rankles the British public so much.
So while this story started out just being about the Harkles' eco-hypocrisy, it's now got the added element of highlighting how celebrity-centric they are too.
Total PR fail.
Are these celebrity statements Latham's idea? If so she needs to be fired. It's making people in the UK hate them more than ever.
by Anonymous | reply 82 | August 19, 2019 11:43 PM |
Both Elton and Ellen can fuck right off.
by Anonymous | reply 83 | August 19, 2019 11:44 PM |
That's actually the speech Ellen makes to her staff and crew every time they're on the verge of revolt.
by Anonymous | reply 84 | August 20, 2019 1:26 AM |
[quote] What about this DM comment? Please educate me, I confess to know nothing about this particular rule.
[quote] So you just confirmed that they DO breach royal protocol, by accepting trip as a gift: from Royal.UK The fundamental principle governing the acceptance of gifts by Members of The Royal Family is that no gifts, including hospitality or services, should be accepted which would, or might appear to, place the Member of The Royal Family under any obligation to the donor.
Is reading a problem for you? They took this trip, it was paid for by Elton John. As long as they didn't promise anything or are obliged to do anything for him, it's okay
Charles has parties for the express purpose of hitting up people (especially celebs and shady rich people) for donations to his charity.
Andrew rents out Buckingham Palace to rich fools and probably rents out other homes the Queen lives in. He also sells access to himself - using fergie as the middleman as well as selling access to the Queen and doing quid pro quo favors for rich despots/dictators
Markle and Harry have nothing on the rest of their family (except kate and will)
who knows what the york girls do, but they hang around a lot of super shady people including lots of russian oligarchs and disgraced business people
Sophie used to sell access to the Queen too - until she got busted
by Anonymous | reply 85 | August 20, 2019 2:10 AM |
You are full of shit, r85
Soliciting donations to charities is not against protocol.
Andy's scandal was for using Royal transport too freely (hence his name "Airmiles Andy") not for "renting out Buckingham Palace" (you just invented that out of thin air)
Sophie was busted GOSSIPING about the Queen to a reporter posing as a potential PR client. She wasn't selling access.
Sarah was busted selling access to ANDY not to the Queen, and this was long after she'd been kicked out of the BRF and lost her HRH.
The York girls are very well-behaved and outside of some dodgy taste in hats, have never really put a foot wrong.
None of them have behaved the way that Smugs and her half-wit Prince have behaved, the spending, the ostentation, the political comments, the cat-and-mouse games, and the playing at being celebrities. Hence the sense of public outrage at the Harkles and constant comments calling for them to be stripped of their titles and taken off the Sovereign Grant.
There have never been such hated members of the monarchy since the Abdication crisis. Sorry if you don't like it, but it's true (Unlike everything you just wrote above).
by Anonymous | reply 86 | August 20, 2019 2:45 AM |
Most hated member of the monarchy since the abdication? You need a strong martini, r86
by Anonymous | reply 87 | August 20, 2019 2:52 AM |
I don’t know if r86 is a troll or a drama queen.
1. Queen Elizabeth II—72%
2. Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex—71%
3. Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge—69%
4. Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge—64%
5. Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh—54%
6. Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex—49%
7. Prince Charles, the Duke of Cornwall— 48%
8. Princess Anne—46%
9. Zara Phillips—42%
10. Sophie, the Countess of Wessex—29%
11. Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall—29%
12. Prince Edward—26 %
13. Princess Eugenie—25%
14. Princess Beatrice—24%
15. Prince Andrew—21%
by Anonymous | reply 88 | August 20, 2019 4:10 AM |
I'm neither, r88.
That poll was taken in May and published last week.
The public mood has shifted dramatically since May. The hatred for the Harkles is palpable now.
Also, Meghan had a 46% approval in May. That means she came in sixth just after the baby was born. Traditionally royal babies make approval rates for the parents soar, so we can see from this low number at that particular time, that trouble was already brewing for them in terms of public approval.
The next poll her number will be lower still, to say nothing of how far Harry's going to drop down that list. Just wait.
by Anonymous | reply 89 | August 20, 2019 4:22 AM |
r88, yougov polls are for people who register and get a few pennies back for their trouble so not reliable . (hence they got the EU ref wrong). Probably skewed to the low income/student demographic.
by Anonymous | reply 90 | August 20, 2019 4:28 AM |
Whatever you say, r89... still a far cry from the craziness of the abdication so... i still recommend many martinis, as you’re quite “excited”.
by Anonymous | reply 91 | August 20, 2019 4:31 AM |
Ok, r91, but you're in for a rude surprise. They are going down. Just wait and see.
by Anonymous | reply 92 | August 20, 2019 5:03 AM |
From R89's link: [quote]In an unsurprising turn of events, the Duke of Sussex follows closely behind courtesy of his "humorous" and "fun-loving" persona. Although the new father has been bumped down a spot, as he was named the most popular royal in last year's poll.
[quote]In at number four is the Duchess of Cambridge followed by the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Duchess of Sussex - who has suffered a six percent drop, from a 55% to 49% positive rating, in comparison to last year's survey.
So they've both lost popularity. If the poll was done in May, one can only imagine the results if it were done again right now.
by Anonymous | reply 93 | August 20, 2019 7:47 AM |
Cressida’s man is fucking hot. And has a full head of hair.
by Anonymous | reply 94 | August 20, 2019 9:15 AM |
Yeah, R94. She totally dodged the bullet. Wise girl.
by Anonymous | reply 95 | August 20, 2019 9:44 AM |
I recall reading that Cressida was never serious about Harry - she only hooked up with him to gain exposure for her career.
by Anonymous | reply 96 | August 20, 2019 10:15 AM |
Ellen is a Pink Sunshine Sachs client. Not sure about Pink.
by Anonymous | reply 98 | August 20, 2019 11:15 AM |
They live the life of Riley while they can. And their despicable antics will be pretty helpful when it comes to the payoff - they will demand A LOT of cash in exchange for Harry and Archie to renounce their claimes to the throne and leaving the royal family.
by Anonymous | reply 99 | August 20, 2019 11:24 AM |
I don’t give a shit, r92, I just like pointing out the hysterical bitches on this thread. In fact, I hope they all go down.
by Anonymous | reply 100 | August 20, 2019 11:39 AM |
R98 have you also see the reports that were FOIA'ed from The State Department regarding Ellen and conversations with her and Hiliary about promoting her for presidency?
There was a clear Quid Pro Quo back and forth about how Ellen could elevate her platform in return for greater Hiliary coverage. Down to the nuts and bolts.
I'm not into the politics (outside the U.S.), but thought the clear back and forth exchange was.....interesting.
Sense there's a bottom line with Ellen et al and the Harkles. Perhaps promoting Ellen and her show and the Harkle's new foundation. Wouldn't it be interesting if it was based on animals (which Is Ellen's platform) and the environment?
Environmentalism. Haha.
by Anonymous | reply 101 | August 20, 2019 12:03 PM |
[QUOTE] They live the life of Riley while they can. And their despicable antics will be pretty helpful when it comes to the payoff - they will demand A LOT of cash in exchange for Harry and Archie to renounce their claimes to the throne and leaving the royal family.
Seroquel would help soothe your hallucinations, Mary. As if this scenario would ever play out. It would be a million times more scandalous than anything Meghan and Harry have done.
by Anonymous | reply 102 | August 20, 2019 1:54 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 103 | August 20, 2019 2:09 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 104 | August 20, 2019 2:11 PM |
Videos of the Queen Mother's visit to NYC in the 1950's.
by Anonymous | reply 105 | August 20, 2019 2:32 PM |
r105, thanks for the link. I was surprised they held a "Commonwealth Ball" in New York. Also funny the comment calling her low key sexy! haha
by Anonymous | reply 106 | August 20, 2019 4:55 PM |
Do we suppose Edo is at all vexed about the current unpleasantness with his future father-in-law?
by Anonymous | reply 107 | August 20, 2019 5:12 PM |
maybe r107, but he has known the family all his life and the statement from the girl/friendship with Epstein have been reported on for years.
by Anonymous | reply 108 | August 20, 2019 5:35 PM |
I wonder how much of Dave Clark's decision to bail on Bea was based on not wanting to be tied to the York mast.
by Anonymous | reply 109 | August 20, 2019 6:00 PM |
No idea what Seroquel is, R102, but go tell me, you seem to be quite an expert.
by Anonymous | reply 111 | August 20, 2019 6:45 PM |
The Cambridges have been named "most socially significant" by Tatler magazine.
by Anonymous | reply 112 | August 20, 2019 7:39 PM |
Does anyone else watch those “Secrets of” documentaries on Amazon Prime? Secrets of Westminster, Secrets of Althorp, etc.
One of the episodes was hosted by a Duke, maybe it was the Duke of Marlborough.
He was explaining how the British system of primogeniture where the eldest son gets almost everything and the younger brothers are left to largely shift for themselves as 1) incredibly successful at preserving these vast country Estates, and 2) incredibly damaging for family relationships.
It was an interesting point: how primogeniture is incredibly successful at preserving family wealth and perpetuating huge country estates but at the cost of good relations between brothers.
I had never thought of the emotional damage and family unhappiness that a system like that would cause. The children start out together sharing a nursery and a nanny, then thirty years later one of them has everything and the other one is expected to join the military and/or marry well.
by Anonymous | reply 113 | August 20, 2019 7:43 PM |
Does anyone else watch those “Secrets of” documentaries on Amazon Prime? Secrets of Westminster, Secrets of Althorp, etc.
One of the episodes was hosted by a Duke, maybe it was the Duke of Marlborough.
He was explaining how the British system of primogeniture where the eldest son gets almost everything and the younger brothers are left to largely shift for themselves as 1) incredibly successful at preserving these vast country Estates, and 2) incredibly damaging for family relationships.
It was an interesting point: how primogeniture is incredibly successful at preserving family wealth and perpetuating huge country estates but at the cost of good relations between brothers.
I had never thought of the emotional damage and family unhappiness that a system like that would cause. The children start out together sharing a nursery and a nanny, then thirty years later one of them has everything and the other one is expected to join the military and/or marry well.
by Anonymous | reply 114 | August 20, 2019 7:43 PM |
'It was an interesting point: how primogeniture is incredibly successful at preserving family wealth and perpetuating huge country estates but at the cost of good relations between brothers.
Most families draw up a separate will to make sure the other kids get plenty and Harry will get his. Just not the Duchy of Cornwall and all the hassle of being monarch.
by Anonymous | reply 115 | August 20, 2019 7:57 PM |
Why should the British taxpayers support Rapist Andrew?
If the useless BRF continues to protect Rapist Andrew, it's time to get rid of the BRF.
by Anonymous | reply 116 | August 20, 2019 9:01 PM |
r116, At this point he is guilty of having a criminal friend and being photographed with a girl who was above the age of consent. If and when he is charged or convicted of any crime then there will be huge repercussions but I would not be holding my breath. All those rich men will have been of the mindset that girls were gagging to sleep with them. so I doubt that anyone of them thought that there was coercion involved.
by Anonymous | reply 117 | August 20, 2019 9:45 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 118 | August 20, 2019 10:25 PM |
Epsrein was a revolting shit, but like all of those types he cultivated friendships. Katie Couric was with him, I hardly think she was raping children,
by Anonymous | reply 119 | August 20, 2019 11:36 PM |
R119 Katie Couric was not partying with Epstein and topless teenage girls like Andrew did.
by Anonymous | reply 120 | August 20, 2019 11:46 PM |
She was fawning over him and Andrew at a dinner hosted by Woody Allen, R120. As was Georgie S. Both parents of young daughters. Were there no young girls or boys present? We cannot say, as we were not there. Perhaps, perhaps not.
by Anonymous | reply 121 | August 20, 2019 11:55 PM |
r120, and do you know that woman's age? the one andrew is not looking at? I won't defend someone that s a child molestor but this is stupid.
by Anonymous | reply 122 | August 20, 2019 11:55 PM |
Do topless women make Americans faint or something? It is pretty normal on beaches in the south of Europe.
by Anonymous | reply 123 | August 21, 2019 12:05 AM |
R122 She looks pretty young to me.
by Anonymous | reply 124 | August 21, 2019 12:09 AM |
r124,well she is not pre pubescent
by Anonymous | reply 125 | August 21, 2019 12:13 AM |
ANDY HANDY Prince Andrew ‘went to Jeffrey Epstein’s naked pool parties and was massaged by adolescent girls’, ex-employee of paedo’ financier claims.
by Anonymous | reply 126 | August 21, 2019 12:20 AM |
Somewhat off topic, but in my first year at uni, we were invitedd to this big party in London. Drove there, and some man offfered to get me a flat in Chelsea and work as a model.I went back to college but he kept writing to me for ages. ( we had kissed and he asked for my address). Point being, it is easy to be seduced into these situations.
by Anonymous | reply 127 | August 21, 2019 12:25 AM |
Well, Jessica Mulroney has taken to Instagram, declaring:
"When someone faces unfair criticism, you call it out. When that person is your friend and your family, you call those critics what they truly are. Shame on you, you racist bullies."
Groan. Meghan and Harry's defenders are going them no good. What I find interesting is her choice of the word "family." Is she implying she's one of Archie's godparents or something?
by Anonymous | reply 128 | August 21, 2019 12:35 AM |
So is she actually bringing American race politics to the UK? Cheap.
by Anonymous | reply 129 | August 21, 2019 1:17 AM |
The Andrew apologists on this thread are hilarious. The Pedo Prince was consorting with trafficked teens but OMG ME-GAIN TRAVELS BY PRIVATE JET!
by Anonymous | reply 130 | August 21, 2019 1:54 AM |
It’s not that she travels by private jet. It’s that she and especially Harry have made all sorts of pronouncements on the environment, yet aren’t walking the talk.
I doubt they’d face this criticism had they flown commercial. Personally, I believe all private plans, other than for government travel, should be banned.
by Anonymous | reply 131 | August 21, 2019 2:02 AM |
Oh the fattened frauen are enraged a wealthy man (inherited $25 million) is doing what rich people do - taking his family on vacation.
Oh the fattened frauen are enraged that Sir Elton is flying the wealthy son of one of his best friends to stay in his villa in the South of France.
The fattened frauen are so enraged they need to take to the streets outside of Buckingham Palace and demonstrate a la Hong Kong. I hope none of the fattened frauen get their eyes shot out like in Hong Kong.
by Anonymous | reply 132 | August 21, 2019 2:08 AM |
Andrew has his very own thread, r130
by Anonymous | reply 133 | August 21, 2019 2:13 AM |
traveling from one country to another to have sex with an underage girl is a serious, serious crime, especially when the girl is a sex slave
by Anonymous | reply 134 | August 21, 2019 2:18 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 135 | August 21, 2019 2:19 AM |
17 is not underage, r134.
by Anonymous | reply 136 | August 21, 2019 2:30 AM |
R133 This is a BRF thread. Isn't Andrew still part of the BRF?
by Anonymous | reply 137 | August 21, 2019 2:32 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 138 | August 21, 2019 4:22 AM |
Three nannies in three months. I wonder what the problem is? Hmmm.
by Anonymous | reply 139 | August 21, 2019 9:49 AM |
I know someone who has gone through several nannies. This woman honestly thinks she’s a great employer, and doesn’t understand why it doesn’t work out. Most have quit, she’s fired a few.
by Anonymous | reply 140 | August 21, 2019 12:23 PM |
R139 They are the problem. MeAgain and her delusions of grandeur.
by Anonymous | reply 141 | August 21, 2019 2:03 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 142 | August 21, 2019 2:13 PM |
Recently watched a long time friendship fall apart. It was between two women who have been through graduate school and post docs together - but now that one of them has been offered a tenure-track job at Harvard and the other one is on soft money at a less prestigious school, the friendship is broken. It was the less successful friend who broke it off.
Wondering if there might be a bit of the same dynamic of jealousy, hurt, and a sense of lost opportunities between William and Harry.
by Anonymous | reply 143 | August 21, 2019 2:32 PM |
On this day in 1930, the Queen's late sister Princess Margaret Rose was born.
by Anonymous | reply 145 | August 21, 2019 2:51 PM |
Prince Andrew feeding his baby brother Edward in 1964.
by Anonymous | reply 147 | August 21, 2019 2:53 PM |
Question about BRF succession - regarding that scene in the crown where Prince Philip is flying with Charles back from Gordonstoun and they hit severe turbulence. What if that plane had crashed and they both died?
Would Princess Anne have become the next in line to the throne, or would it have passed to Andrew?
by Anonymous | reply 148 | August 21, 2019 2:53 PM |
R148 - Andrew would be next in line. The sucession rules weren't changed until recently. It's now "ORDER OF BIRTH" regardless of gender.
by Anonymous | reply 149 | August 21, 2019 3:04 PM |
Oof, poor Princess Anne. The smartest and toughest of the lot, yet excluded from succession.
No wonder she insisted on not having titles for her children.
by Anonymous | reply 150 | August 21, 2019 3:55 PM |
Pity Anne's popularity is measured so low when most people who take an interest know she's consistently "the hardest working Royal". I guess she comes off a bit brusque and aloof though and is very much her own person rather than a people person.
Still, I can't imagine her taking her own bed and art works along when she travels though. Or demanding staff stand up when she walks into a room unannounced.
Does anyone know if Anne was always so conscientious or did something happen at one point to light a fire under her?
by Anonymous | reply 151 | August 21, 2019 5:20 PM |
R150 - Princess Anne was NOT excluded from succession entirely. Even though she was born second, she was knocked down to fourth place AFTER her three brothers. If the Queen had her four children NOW with the new law, Anne would be second in line to the throne after the first born Charles.
by Anonymous | reply 152 | August 21, 2019 5:45 PM |
R132 - The fattened frauen are enraged because the wealthy man recently lectured them about saving the planet, and then indulged himself without regard for that very same planet. His wealthy older brother, by comparison, refrains from moralising and passing himself off as holier than thou, and so doesn't comein for the wrath of enraged frauen.
by Anonymous | reply 153 | August 21, 2019 5:47 PM |
Anne doesn't have the right temprement to be Queen
by Anonymous | reply 154 | August 21, 2019 5:48 PM |
Swipe for videos of the Queen Mother and Margaret attending the ballet in 1959. My, they did get dressed up for a dance performance, didn't they?
by Anonymous | reply 155 | August 21, 2019 5:49 PM |
The dressing up continued for a film premiere. The lady knew how to put on a show.
by Anonymous | reply 156 | August 21, 2019 5:50 PM |
R116 - why don't you start a thread on getting rid of the BRF?
Meanwhile, as the girl was at the age of sexual consent at the time (17 is the age of sexual consent in New York), there is no statutory rape charge possible, and there is no evidence that Andrew forced the girl to have sex with him. So calling him "rapist Andrew" is without substance. Nasty, dirty, selfish, and thoughtless - yes.
Most families protect their own. It's human nature. The BRF is no different although it's likely privately Andrew has come in for quite a bit fury from his older brother and his mother.
But if you were expecting the Queen to throw him out of Royal Lodge and refuse ever to be seen with him again . . . please. Grow up. Andrew's daughters are the Queen's grandchildren.
There are arguments for getting rid of Britain's constitutional monarcy and they would make a lively and interesting thread, I'm sure.
But the Queen not throwing her oldest son on a pyre isn't one of them.
by Anonymous | reply 157 | August 21, 2019 5:55 PM |
^*second oldest son on a pyre . . .
R157
by Anonymous | reply 158 | August 21, 2019 5:56 PM |
Doesn't Randy have a small pecker?
by Anonymous | reply 159 | August 21, 2019 5:58 PM |
I've been re-reading Kitty Kelley's dishy bio of the Royals, and it's amazing how much the press coverage of Meghan today echoes that of Sarah Ferguson in the late 80s: entitled, rude, grasping for handouts, poorly dressed, refusing to follow Royal etiquette, weight problems--the press barbecued Fergie for the same things Meghan is being accused of now. I'm not saying Meghan deserves it or DOESN'T deserve it, but it's amazing how these patterns repeat themselves. It will be interesting to see where Meghan is 30 years from now (when she'll be pushing 70!).
by Anonymous | reply 160 | August 21, 2019 6:08 PM |
R154 - No, she doesn't. She doesn't suffer fools gladly and lacks, at the distance that exists between Sovereign and the masses, the aura of graciousness and warmth, but without effusiveness, that is key to the Queen's success in the role. She's very much like her father, who was much better suited to Prince Consort than King in this era. And as it was, Philip got into trouble even as Prince Consort. Anne once said that she was absolutely delighted not to have had a sister, and I believe she was being honest about that. She's had a great life in the sphere she exists in.
by Anonymous | reply 161 | August 21, 2019 6:10 PM |
For the poster on BRF 89 who mentioned that BRF thread 90 was already up even though 89 was not yet filled, the reason is that as soon as one of the BRF threads reach 500 posts or so, nonsubscribers become excluded from posting for the next 100 or so posts. Frustrated nonsubscribers are forced to start a new thread if they want to continue the discussion, but don't want to be forced to pay for it. After all, it's hard to make contributions to a thread's interest only to be excluded because the thread got too interesting.
Are we planning a party for BRFG Part100?
I do think some sort of anniversary celebration should be held when we reach that mark.
Perhaps private jets to Ibiza all around?
by Anonymous | reply 162 | August 21, 2019 6:16 PM |
[QUOTE] There are arguments for getting rid of Britain's constitutional monarcy and they would make a lively and interesting thread, I'm sure. But the Queen not throwing her oldest son on a pyre isn't one of them.
But you're also the person who suggests that William will send his brother and his wife into exile in America when he gets the throne? Or Charles will remove his son from the line of succession?
Please make sense, OAP.
by Anonymous | reply 163 | August 21, 2019 7:15 PM |
The pedo prince had sex with sex slaves. Coercive sex = rape. This is a million times worse than giving speeches about climate change and travelling by private jet (Charles has been doing both for years).
by Anonymous | reply 164 | August 21, 2019 7:17 PM |
There was a lengthy blind item posted in the previous thread that suggested the British royal family has had far more extensive connections and collaborations with the Israeli intelligence services than had previously been known, and that this was the real reason they were so concerned about Epstein’s connection to Prince Andrew.
I found this puzzling. What sorts of things would the Mossad be doing for the British royal family?
by Anonymous | reply 165 | August 21, 2019 7:29 PM |
Someone here's obsessed with Andrew as well as with deflecting from Megsy and Harry's antics ...
by Anonymous | reply 166 | August 21, 2019 7:30 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 167 | August 21, 2019 8:13 PM |
R166 Not everyone is obsessed with Meghan like you. Some people care more about the injustice of human trafficking.
by Anonymous | reply 168 | August 21, 2019 8:18 PM |
A "surprise" photo shoot? Nothing to do with trying to distract from the furore over their taking four private jets in 11 days...
by Anonymous | reply 170 | August 21, 2019 9:07 PM |
R157 I'm allowed to express my disgust for the BRF just like the haters who are obsessed with Meghan. Why don't you start a seperate thread about Meghan before the thread gets closed or made subscribers only? It's the crazy Meghan haters that are causing the threads to be shutted down or made subscribers only.
By the way, sex trafficking is human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, including sexual slavery. A victim is forced, in one of a variety of ways, into a situation of dependency on their trafficker and then used by said trafficker to give sexual services to customers. Sex trafficking is one of the biggest criminal businesses in the world.
The victims of sex trafficking could be either women or children. An ignorant person like you doesn't seem to understand that.
It's illegal to have sex with a trafficked woman.
by Anonymous | reply 171 | August 21, 2019 9:16 PM |
Her arse and her midriff section are still fat. LOL at her sky-high heels, she's desperately trying to add height in order to make her look slimmer.
It doesn't work.
by Anonymous | reply 172 | August 21, 2019 9:17 PM |
I think it’s a given that Andrew is guilty of something, and it’s many somethings and they are bad. “He’s a dumb, immoral, sick fuck” just isn’t fun gossip. I doubt people think he s a better person than Meghan. Some may think she’s potentially just as bad, but her actions certainly don’t equal his. It’s sillly even to compare them. But people gossip for entertainment. It’s not a moral failing to give greater attention to lesser offenses.
by Anonymous | reply 173 | August 21, 2019 9:44 PM |
The hypocrisy in the BRF runs deep. Andrew was friends with convicted sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. Princess Eugenie founded The Anti-Slavery Collection to help fight sex trafficking which is a horrific crime against women and children.
The following negative comments from other Instagram posters are found on Eugenie's Instagram post.
disco_dancer_2000 You care about anti-human trafficking 😂 what do you take the public for, morons? Go talk to your Papa and ask him what the hell was he doing playing the smirking butler at #jeffreyepstein NYC home, while young girls were coming in and out, one of them looking cold, miserable & in near-tears. You lot are hideous on the inside as on the outside and just as gross!
kriskielywin I would love to hear the princess’s stance on her fathers alleged involvement with under age women and keeping company such as Jeffrey Epstein. That was human trafficking at its finest.
by Anonymous | reply 174 | August 21, 2019 10:34 PM |
I would agree that it’s silly to even compare them. Being a selfish, self-centered hypocrite in the great grand scheme of things is not that big of a deal (unless of course you’re lecturing other people about the environment while you take multiple trips on private plans). Preening hypocrites make for good gossip.
Somebody who willfully engages with criminals, dictators, and human traffickers over many years - and who profits substantially to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from those relationships - is on another level entirely.
by Anonymous | reply 175 | August 21, 2019 10:36 PM |
The Queen engages with dictators, many of whom are criminals and who are complicit in human trafficking in their countries. She has her photo taken with them all the time. So does Charles.
So did Diana.
by Anonymous | reply 176 | August 21, 2019 11:03 PM |
I think Meghan has much more in common with Wallis Simpson than Sarah Ferguson.
Wallis stayed thin, though.
by Anonymous | reply 177 | August 21, 2019 11:04 PM |
Well, one good side effect of the insanity of the Megstans' willingness take up any cause at all if they think it will make their fake Duchess look good, is that they are all now talking non-stop about human trafficking.
I mean, they didn't give a shit about human trafficking before, and wouldn't care about it now except that they can use it to 'help' Meghan by using it to distract from her ridiculousness, but at least they care about it for the moment -until the next thing they can use to help her comes along.
So that's good.
by Anonymous | reply 178 | August 21, 2019 11:07 PM |
R178 Some of us do care about human trafficking, you cold-hearted bitch.
Not everyone is obsessed with Meghan like you.
by Anonymous | reply 179 | August 21, 2019 11:21 PM |
No you don't, you fucking moron. Otherwise you'd treat it seriously, and not like the latest bandwagon to jump on in your endless and pointless quest to make everyone love your idol.
by Anonymous | reply 180 | August 21, 2019 11:27 PM |
R180 You don't know anything about me, you stupid, immoral loser.
by Anonymous | reply 181 | August 21, 2019 11:34 PM |
R177 I had much better jewels too
by Anonymous | reply 182 | August 21, 2019 11:44 PM |
R180 Did I offend you when I talk about your immoral idol, Andrew? This thread is about BRF so I can talk about him all I want.
by Anonymous | reply 183 | August 21, 2019 11:54 PM |
The Duke of Windsor really gave her some nice baubles
by Anonymous | reply 184 | August 22, 2019 12:09 AM |
I loathe Andrew. I hope he goes to jail.
But the irony of a bunch of racist Megstans, who never cared a bit about human trafficking until they saw it as a cudgel to attempt to use to make Meghan look better, is ridiculous.
Meghan was a frequent guest on megayachts, and at SoHo Houses all over the world. She must have seen a fair bit of trafficked humanity in her time but I don't ever remember hearing of her complaining to the authorities about it because the traffickers were people she was cozying up to.
But yes, try to use your newfound horror at human trafficking, you racist, immoral and hypocritical Megstan, to try to convince us all that because the scumbag Andrew is in the BRF, Meghan is a wonderful addition to the family.
by Anonymous | reply 185 | August 22, 2019 12:10 AM |
R185 How am I immoral? Your stupid comments don't even make sense. I don't even care about Meghan. She's boring and mediocre. You sound like a white racist.
If you are so offended by my comments about your immoral Andie, maybe you can start your own Meghan thread.
by Anonymous | reply 186 | August 22, 2019 12:32 AM |
Meghan is skinny again, bitches, so you hoes who said she was now permanently plump were wrong.
F and f the Welp Troll, Photos Troll, Adderall Troll and Megstans Accuser Troll.
by Anonymous | reply 187 | August 22, 2019 12:38 AM |
Nah, she’s still fat r187. But I give her a pass, she’s only three months postpartum.
by Anonymous | reply 188 | August 22, 2019 1:23 AM |
Archie has messed up her metabolism. Or she's just a typical frau who starved herself halfway to death in order to look good and in order to get herself a husband but used the excuse of pregnancy to let herself go.
Or she's completely delusional, thinking she's thin again. (Just about as delusional as her moronic fans here are.)
by Anonymous | reply 189 | August 22, 2019 5:12 AM |
R174, did it ever occur to you that Eugenie founded her charity [italics]because[/italics] she either knew about or suspected her father's activities? At the very least, she would have known he was a friend of Epstein's and she could have heard the rumors about him.
It's not as if she could have stopped Andrew, but she could do something of her own as a kind of offset.
See how that's not hypocrisy, because Eugenie isn't responsible for bad things her father does?
by Anonymous | reply 190 | August 22, 2019 5:36 AM |
OK, I give up on trying to extract italics from this site!!!
by Anonymous | reply 191 | August 22, 2019 5:37 AM |
Andrew is a sociopathic degenerate who should be put on trial for raping teenagers. They should place him in the Tower and include him in the Tower tour.
His daughters are losers. No wealthy man in England wanted to marry either of those girls, despite their royal provenance. So one married a tequila brand boy and the other is to marry a small scale "property developer" with a toddler child. Very tawdry. Neither of these men and their families are wealthy. These two misshapen misfits will need to maintain their father's relationship with the despotic leaders of Kazakhstan in order to fund their lives. Prince Charles has made it clear: no Civil List for these layabouts.
by Anonymous | reply 192 | August 22, 2019 6:08 AM |
Sorry, R192, I didn't realise I was arguing with God. You just carry on.
by Anonymous | reply 193 | August 22, 2019 6:13 AM |
R193 put the moron on ignore. His (?) ramblings are just a feeble attempt at deflecting from Megsy and Harry's antics. Prior to his Andrew ramblings he (?) used to waffle endlessly about William, Kate, that Rose bird and the ugly (!) Cambridge children. This bloke (?) is totally unhinged, just like all the die-hard Meg fanatics are.
by Anonymous | reply 194 | August 22, 2019 6:21 AM |
I forgot to mention the Meg moron's diatribes against Beatrice and Eugenie.
by Anonymous | reply 195 | August 22, 2019 6:23 AM |
R193 Apples fall close to the tree. Rotten apples fall the closest to the tree.
Eugenie is funded by her parents' grifting from despots and pedophiles. If Eugenie had a moral compass, she would have refused to accept blood money and found a way to live on her meager income.
by Anonymous | reply 196 | August 22, 2019 6:53 AM |
Can't wait for the next series of The Windsors. Bound to be hilarious.
by Anonymous | reply 197 | August 22, 2019 7:07 AM |
R67 They can shag themselves silly, but it won’t make a scrap of difference. The Cambridges have a little Diana already, so child no 2 will also have to have Diana as a middle name, if a girl. Unless they call her something like Diana Meggieskid.
by Anonymous | reply 198 | August 22, 2019 9:44 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 199 | August 22, 2019 11:07 AM |
I see what you did there, r198
by Anonymous | reply 200 | August 22, 2019 11:09 AM |
Small scale "property developer" ?
by Anonymous | reply 201 | August 22, 2019 11:22 AM |
[quote]Count Edoardo Alessandro Mapelli-Mozzi, dear.
Titles are a dime a dozen in Europe. He's Euro-trash. Long on title, short on cash.
by Anonymous | reply 202 | August 22, 2019 11:28 AM |
R184 Thanks for the link! Gorgeous jewelry. That diamond and ruby necklace in particular was stunning.
by Anonymous | reply 203 | August 22, 2019 11:54 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 204 | August 22, 2019 12:09 PM |
What the DM failed to mention was that they walked up the stairs to be seen getting on the plane. Then walked off the plane using an exit door on the opposite side of the plane and onto a private jet.
by Anonymous | reply 205 | August 22, 2019 12:15 PM |
R168 - Oh fuck off and take your moralistic crap with you. This is a gossip site, and just as we don't need to be lectured by Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor on how to have virtuous souls, we don't need you to lecture us on what we should or should not enjoy talking about here.
Prince Andrew has a whole thread to himself right now. Head there.
by Anonymous | reply 206 | August 22, 2019 12:29 PM |
R205 - LOL.
However, in the spirit of continuing the Wallis 2.0 scenario, it is rather startling that one of the things that turned the Scots sour on Edward VIII was that he cited Other Business in turning down an invitation to open an infirmary or something up north, instead deputising his younger brother, the Duke of York (later King George VI) to take it on - Edward was then seen on the day picking up Mrs Simpson at the Aberdeen train station. The Scots never forgave him.
And here we have the increasingly golden Cambridges, seen arriving in Aberdeen by budget flight, whilst Harry and Meghan are seen in the flesh pots of Europe taking private jets hither and yon, further tarnishing what's left of their integrity as royals.
One of the worst optics in the runup to the Abdication was the Nahlin cruise in the Baltics with the then Prince of Wales and Mrs Simpson. The Nahlin cruise, according to royal biographer Robert Lacey, "beggared description" in its unwisdom and the photos that emerged from it.
I do think it fascinating how all this is repeating itself, only with the birth orders reversed: it's the spare, not the heir, taking on the role of the fatuous Duke of Windsor, being led around by his cock by a clever grifter looking for a place at the top table.
And it's that reversal of birth order in this sorry spectacle that's saving Harry and Meghan. Ultimately, the BRF care less than they would have if she had gotten her claws into William instead of Harry. That's the only reason she got the wedding ring and the HRH.
Whether the BRF will allow this to continue is anyone's guess.
With the Cambridges up at Balmoral now, it's unlikely the Sussexes will appear at the same time and August is nearly over. Which means that, unless they put in a very late appearance in September just as they are getting ready to head for Africa in October, again the Sussexes will not have made the obligatory trip to Balmoral to be snapped heading dutifully to Craithie Church with HM, as Kate and William undoubtedly will this Sunday.
by Anonymous | reply 208 | August 22, 2019 12:41 PM |
Now, that was tasty, r208.
Speculative, fun to read observations, aka as "gossip", based upon actual, real-life, documented happenings.
No "Meghan was spotted on the grassy knoll" nonsense accompanied by the faintest, yet unmistakable whiff of bigotry that SOME of her haters pull out of their ass and post.
by Anonymous | reply 209 | August 22, 2019 12:49 PM |
So much fabulous shade.
WE can get on a budget flight with the hoi-polloi AND our THREE children (even though we know our third child Louis offends your delicate eco-sensibilities) and we still manage to corral them and are NOT afraid to mingle with the public.
See, scummy trailer-park Meg? THIS is how it's done.
So much hilarious shade.
by Anonymous | reply 210 | August 22, 2019 12:53 PM |
Tasty indeed R208. I've posted on another thread that if I were a believer in reincarnation, I would say that Mrs. Simpson is back to have another go at vexing the BRF.
by Anonymous | reply 211 | August 22, 2019 1:08 PM |
Adding insult to injury to Jet-Setting MegAntoinette, Kate, while walking to the cheap flight, is wearing low pumps and a loose skirt, rather than Meghan's favourite Kardashinite spandex bump-coverers matched with 4 inchers.
Kate has nothing to prove, and so, wins again.
by Anonymous | reply 212 | August 22, 2019 1:10 PM |
It remains to be seem if Me-Gain, Dim and that poor child will be able to at least briefly project the kind of relaxed, normal family vibe of the Cambs. Love it! I do hope that Archie will be able to socialize with his cousins - the Cambs, Tindalls, etc. Poor mite will need all of his family to offset unhinged Mumsy and Druggy Dim.
by Anonymous | reply 213 | August 22, 2019 1:11 PM |
Kate is still Carole's daughter. She's sensible and she sees what's happening. She will keep her children - especially George - as far away from the Harkles and their progeny as humanly possible.
by Anonymous | reply 214 | August 22, 2019 1:18 PM |
My brass balls that Ginger ends up sneaking off during the Africa tour for a bit of auld lang syne with Chelsy. Expect Megs to be even more imperious and commanding once she's discovered the sneak.
by Anonymous | reply 215 | August 22, 2019 1:18 PM |
No, that would be bad optics. Harry married the Harridan because optics, and any of Harry's affairs (of which there will be many) will be "optical" too.
by Anonymous | reply 216 | August 22, 2019 1:21 PM |
R209 - It has always been the historical and family patterns that interested me about this, Della. I hang with Tolstoy on the "All happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" observation, and as one biographer of King George V observed, "The Windsors make terrible parents: like ducks, they trample on their young."y
Some of the racism is unavoidable, but I think you would find among most DLers great admiration for, e.g., that stellar addition to the British aristocracy, the Countess of Weymouth, future Marchioness of Bath, whose mother-in-law was so viciously (and, I might add, vulgarly) abusive to her beautiful, accomplished, mixed race daughter-in-law.
The actual racists I truly do believe are in the minority.
by Anonymous | reply 217 | August 22, 2019 1:21 PM |
Eh, they were literally stood right next to Mexit and Arch at the polo. No direct interaction though, which actually is strange AF. George and Louis were curious but wise Charlotte learned to keep her distance after Me-Gain went off about her. Monstrous Meg should be off to Africa soon, tick tock. Wonder if the attempts to sell time with her will come off?
by Anonymous | reply 218 | August 22, 2019 1:22 PM |
Can we have more posts like that of R208, please? Fun gossip, analysis and speculation instead of this incessant "you're a troll" and "you're a stan" hen bickering?
The flight was truly a slick move by Will. The destination makes it all the better. Still, all the royals have got to be frosted that the Sussexes have ruined the private plane habit for them. They'll have to be careful about it, at least for a little while.
by Anonymous | reply 219 | August 22, 2019 1:28 PM |
If you want posts like that, r219, why don't you post them?
by Anonymous | reply 220 | August 22, 2019 1:36 PM |
Has the list of countries they’ll be visiting in Africa been released yet?
Presumably it will all be Commonwealth nations. If Harry and Meghan go to Cameroon there are plenty of rich people there who would pay a fucking fortune for a one-on-one meeting/photo op with her.
by Anonymous | reply 221 | August 22, 2019 1:46 PM |
I wonder if Harry will show up at his ex-gf Cressida's wedding? Will he go solo or take Meghan? Would she dare leave him alone for fear his eyes would wander too far?
by Anonymous | reply 222 | August 22, 2019 1:56 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 223 | August 22, 2019 2:09 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 224 | August 22, 2019 2:10 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 225 | August 22, 2019 2:11 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 226 | August 22, 2019 2:14 PM |
R227 - my favorite lines.
Harry and Meghan "continue to move around the fleshpots of Europe like two fugitives on a witness protection programme".
"We had a garden party to celebrate Harry and Meghan’s wedding,’ a Daily Mail reader wrote to me recently. ‘Now I wouldn’t go to the end of the street to see them."
by Anonymous | reply 228 | August 22, 2019 2:26 PM |
It's strange but the Cambridges don't share the same concerns as the Sussex pair. They don't seem worried about security or being photographed when they travel. Will and George even carry their own bags. Checkmate, Cambridge.
by Anonymous | reply 231 | August 22, 2019 2:41 PM |
"(you know, the direct in line heirs)"
That got me thinking. Remember when you couldn't have two in the direct line of succession on the same plane? I remember concerns when Diana insisted on bringing baby William to Australia, on the same flight as his father.
I get the blow dealt the Sussexes, and good on the Cambridges for that, but is it really a great idea to have both of the generations meant to succeed Charles travelling on the same budget airline flight? I mean if, God forbid and all that - wouldn't we be back at Harry?
by Anonymous | reply 232 | August 22, 2019 2:46 PM |
R232 - they should bring back that rule. It's not wise to have ALL of the Cambridge family on the same plane.
by Anonymous | reply 233 | August 22, 2019 2:52 PM |
Damn! They've figured it out!
by Anonymous | reply 234 | August 22, 2019 2:55 PM |
[QUOTE] they should bring back that rule. It's not wise to have ALL of the Cambridge family on the same plane.
I hope they all go on the same Easyjet to get one over on the Harkles, and smash into the Med, drowning all on board. Then Harry can be king and Meghan queen.
by Anonymous | reply 235 | August 22, 2019 3:07 PM |
R235 = Meghan. The empathy is almost as overwhelming as the grasp of geography. (They're going to Scotland, pet.)
by Anonymous | reply 236 | August 22, 2019 3:10 PM |
R236, clearly they intend to travel by commercial airlines for the forseeable future, and as Kate loves her vacations, they'll be heading off to the Med soon. Probably Sardinia, Corsica or the south of France.
by Anonymous | reply 237 | August 22, 2019 3:12 PM |
R235 Much like Edward VIII, Ginger doesn't want to be King. He said as much when he publicly stated "No one in the the royal family wants to be king or queen". We all know that insufferable Megs would be beyond insufferable if she became Queen Consort. But not to worry. Megs will be long gone, having landed a much bigger mark for her voracious grifting.
by Anonymous | reply 238 | August 22, 2019 3:14 PM |
"No one in the the royal family wants to be king or queen".
Speak for yourself, nitwit.
by Anonymous | reply 239 | August 22, 2019 3:24 PM |
Inspirational cupcakes brought to you by Sussex Royal. Does everyone feel better now or do they just make you think of bananas? LOL.
by Anonymous | reply 240 | August 22, 2019 4:03 PM |
The recently minted Mrs Elba (and good luck to her trying to get him to keep his trousers zipped( has displayed her total ignorance here, as even when taking commercial flights, the royals go through VIP routes in the airport. No one will be taking "selfies" as Meghan and Harry plod through security.
The celebrities defending Meghan are simply making things worse for her - their excuses sound tinny and petulant as they ask for sympathy for a woman who clawed her way to the top of the social pyramid and is now living off the fat of the land. They simply make her look more and more like the Darling of the Celebrity Crowd instead of a serious royal.
They should shut up.
by Anonymous | reply 241 | August 22, 2019 4:20 PM |
Oh the Canny Cambridges - taking a budget flight up north and sticking it to the Harkles without a single word!
Don't complain, Megs - this is what we call in Britain and "own goal".
by Anonymous | reply 242 | August 22, 2019 4:23 PM |
^* an own goal
by Anonymous | reply 243 | August 22, 2019 4:24 PM |
R240 Oh barf: Cupcakes and affirmations. Shining a light. Meg-written text.
by Anonymous | reply 244 | August 22, 2019 4:30 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 245 | August 22, 2019 4:31 PM |
For what it's worth, Edward's father, King George V, knew better than anyone how alarmingly ill-suited to kingship his heir was. Below are three choice statements he made to and about Edward:
"You look like a cad. You dress like a cad. You ARE a cad! Get out!"
"After I am gone, the boy will ruin himself within 12 months" (Edward's reign lasted just about exactly that time.)
"I pray that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the Throne." (Bertie being Prince Albert, Duke of York, later George VI after Edward abdicated. "Lilibet" was the pet name for her sister that Margaret came up with when she was unable to fully pronounce "Elizabeth" when very young.)
I doubt quite that level of disdain was operating re Harry before his marriage, but I imagine that the momentum of same is gathering apace.
They need a visit up north so the Queen can once more in the name of solidarity throw her cloak of respetability over them with a few snaps.
But what if HM is tired of protecting people damaging everything she has worked to preserve for the last 68 years?
by Anonymous | reply 246 | August 22, 2019 4:37 PM |
^*respectability
R208 and R246
by Anonymous | reply 247 | August 22, 2019 4:39 PM |
R232 Agree. Now that the point has been made, I hope they don't feel the need to do that again.
Wouldn't it be fun to take the train down from Scotland? It's a nice ride.
by Anonymous | reply 250 | August 22, 2019 5:40 PM |
That coat of arms is hilarious. And just perfect when it comes to these two tosspots.
(I know the article already got posted - just take a look at the coat of arms.)
by Anonymous | reply 251 | August 22, 2019 5:43 PM |
Genius R251 hahahaha
by Anonymous | reply 252 | August 22, 2019 5:47 PM |
I read somewhere that George can fly with his parents until he turns 12. After that, he'll have to take a separate plane from William. I suppose at age 12 they feel he's old enough to fly without parents (though clearly he'll have an entourage with him).
by Anonymous | reply 253 | August 22, 2019 6:05 PM |
R248/R249 Refresh my dim memory - who are these two again?
by Anonymous | reply 254 | August 22, 2019 6:06 PM |
That fucking fedora does not make you look snazzy. You look ridiculous.
by Anonymous | reply 255 | August 22, 2019 7:02 PM |
What are the odds on Jan Moir and yours truly using the word "fleshpots" oblivious of the other doing so in one 24 hour period about the same people?!
by Anonymous | reply 256 | August 22, 2019 8:44 PM |
OMG the Cambridges are fucking KILLING IT in the optics game. I bet those two have the daily mail as their homepage and base their plans on that.
Next up: The Cambridges take their kids to some soccer game in Bumfuckshire Northen England and sit among the Poors in the cheap seats, and then are seen enjoying some fish and chips at some cheap ass diner thing.
Reminds me of the scene of Scheming Camilla in The Windsors where she has Kate go Up North and the ebola-infested Kate vomits on the ground as soon as she steps out of her Range Rover and then Camilla pulls up in the equivalent of 1980s Honda Accord and opens up the trunk which is packed with chip butties.
by Anonymous | reply 257 | August 22, 2019 9:23 PM |
The Windsors was hilarious. I wish they'd make another season.
by Anonymous | reply 258 | August 22, 2019 9:25 PM |
R249 Sara Latham and Natalie Campbell resigned today! Wow.
by Anonymous | reply 259 | August 22, 2019 9:35 PM |
R248 & R249 - Sussex staff are dropping like flies. Oh to be buzzing around the walls of Frogmore right now. Have they just resigned from the Foundation or their jobs completely? Did Sara and Natalie work for the Sussex pair only or are they paid by the Queen and/or Charles? Imagine, Sara could bear the cutthroat political scene with Hillary Clinton but couldn't take these two clowns. Things must be even worse than we thought.
by Anonymous | reply 260 | August 22, 2019 9:40 PM |
Did these two definitely resign (ie quit) or is this part of the reorganization/restructuring of the two foundations?
by Anonymous | reply 261 | August 22, 2019 9:44 PM |
Did Latham really resign? I'm not seeing it in the news. If true, that's juicy as hell.
by Anonymous | reply 262 | August 22, 2019 9:46 PM |
DM comments are pushing them to cover it. The pubic are more woke than the faux woke, interesting to see Latham's next move.....resign from primary post?
by Anonymous | reply 264 | August 22, 2019 9:56 PM |
Old videos of the Queen opening Canadian parliament in 1957.
by Anonymous | reply 265 | August 22, 2019 9:56 PM |
Public not pubic. Mary!
by Anonymous | reply 266 | August 22, 2019 9:57 PM |
Photos of the six children of King George V and Queen Mary. Two kings, a Princess Royal and two Dukes. The youngest, Prince John, was sickly and died young.
by Anonymous | reply 267 | August 22, 2019 9:58 PM |
R258......currently filming it, now.
by Anonymous | reply 268 | August 22, 2019 10:00 PM |
Lady Pamela Hicks' book "Daughter Of Empire: My Life As A Mountbatten " is a must read according to this lady on Instagram. Has anyone read it yet?
by Anonymous | reply 269 | August 22, 2019 10:03 PM |
Bet the Suckie's money has been cut off....
by Anonymous | reply 270 | August 22, 2019 10:06 PM |
Oh the Sussexes are knee deep in it aren' they. Think of the sort of overt, classist fuckery that you have to pull in order to make your brother's family going on regular family trip to see grandma seem like an affront against your lifestyle.
by Anonymous | reply 271 | August 22, 2019 10:17 PM |
Before we all get excited...they’ve resigned as directors of the Sussex Foundation, not necessarily their jobs.
I don’t know how it all works but it may be that when you set up a company you need a certain amount of directors - and those two were there holding the places until other directors are appointed.
I hope they’ve gone off in a huff...but we wouldn’t be that lucky, would we? Let’s wait and see.
by Anonymous | reply 272 | August 22, 2019 10:28 PM |
Page Six is saying that the Out To Africa plan is now back on
by Anonymous | reply 273 | August 23, 2019 12:49 AM |
I still just can't believe he married her.
by Anonymous | reply 274 | August 23, 2019 2:25 AM |
R246 raises an interesting point.
George V, who was positively abusive to his immediate family, absolutely adored the present QEII, and saw her as Queen material right from her childhood. That comment ("I pray that nothing will stand between Bertie and Lillibet and the throne") was really a vote of confidence in her. Everybody knew Bertie, whose spirit had been broken in childhood by his father, was desperately ill-equipped for the job in every way but morally.
by Anonymous | reply 275 | August 23, 2019 2:36 AM |
Since we visit the Daily Mail so often on these threads, has anyone else noticed what an utter mess that site has become? It was always busy, but now it's near impossible to navigate, crap popping up all over the place.
by Anonymous | reply 276 | August 23, 2019 2:47 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 277 | August 23, 2019 5:42 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 278 | August 23, 2019 5:46 AM |
"Before we all get excited...they’ve resigned as directors of the Sussex Foundation, not necessarily their jobs." In Campbell's case, that WAS her job.....the Sucksexes poached her from W&K's foundation.
by Anonymous | reply 279 | August 23, 2019 10:21 AM |
That is fucking brilliant, r280
by Anonymous | reply 281 | August 23, 2019 10:33 AM |
[quote] In Campbell's case, that WAS her job.....the Sucksexes poached her from W&K's foundation.
She still has her job working for the foundation, she’s just not listed as a director now.
It’s an admin thing, they are both still in their jobs.
by Anonymous | reply 282 | August 23, 2019 10:44 AM |
Could anybody with an Instagram account PLEASE post R280's pic on the SuckAss instagram?
by Anonymous | reply 283 | August 23, 2019 10:53 AM |
r283's request seconded, r280
by Anonymous | reply 284 | August 23, 2019 10:58 AM |
Harry and Meghan according to the Daily Express have turned off comments on their IG account after putting up images of those ridiculous cupcakes from the Luminary Bakery Meghan "supports". Apparently, their own followers were slamming them over the private jets AND the silly cupcakes.
Those cupcakes sum up Meghan and Harry so perfectly.
How those two could have put those cupcakes up after the private jet debacle is beyond comprehension.
Is it true Latham has resigned already?
by Anonymous | reply 285 | August 23, 2019 11:38 AM |
I always knew exactly what HazBean wanted to do - have lots of photo ops of themselves doing philanthropic things and the rest of the time live a jet set life. I didn't figure on the British public's reaction. I believe they could have had that life, but they went too far and now whatever they do is doomed to fail.
It could have been different had they reined in the celeb showboating, worn British designers, didn't demand privacy over essentially trivial things and cooled it a bit on the spending. It would have helped, too, had they silenced MM's messy family early on. It wouldn't have killed them to include her father.
Now it is too late. The public want them GONE. Harry may be allowed to slink back with his tail between his legs, after a suitable amount of time.
by Anonymous | reply 286 | August 23, 2019 11:42 AM |
R275 - Indeed. Hence the quote (and I'm not sure whose it was) about the Windsors making bad parents. Interestingly, he also adored the Queen Mother, Bertie's wife, proving helpless against her legendary charm. When George V died, the then Duchess of York wrote to a friend that, "Unlike his own children, I was never afraid of him, and in twelve years of having me as a daughter-in-law, he never spoke one unkind or abrupt word to me."
Bertie came out stronger than one might have supposed, however. He was smart enough to choose a wife far more charismatic than he, andy who gave him the decent family life he had always craved; she was also the one who found the specialist who helped him cope with the stammer. When everything ground to a halt during the Abdication Crisis and the government actually considered passing the throne over Bertie to one of his younger brothers, it was Bertie's wife, about whose capabilities no one was in doubt, along with his blameless personal life and clear values, that tipped the balance back to the legitimate successor.
So whilst Bertie suffered terribly under his father's harshness, I think he came out of it better than his older brother did.
George V is alleged once to have said, "My father was afraid of his father, I was afraid of my father, and I'm going to make damned sure that my children are afraid of me." Little help was to be had from George's consort, Queen Mary, who solemnly intoned, "I have always to remember that their father is also their King."
Dear, dear. Things appear to have changed for the better from those Edwardian views, but somehow the Windsors are still producing a couple of idiots in every generation: Margaret, Andrew, and now Harry.
Each one suffering from the same disease - put it on a cupcake:
YOU ARE IMPORTANT!
by Anonymous | reply 287 | August 23, 2019 11:49 AM |
I've looked around but cannot find any stories about Latham and Campbell resigning from the Sussex PR office. I can't imagine the DM wouldn't be all over it if it were confirmed, as it would allow them gleefully to heap another bundle of sticks on the pyre of the Sussexes' public image.
by Anonymous | reply 288 | August 23, 2019 12:02 PM |
For the poster upthread who asked: Latham's salary, a handsome £140,000 p.a., was shared between the Queen and Charles. The rest of the Sussexes' PR staff, like that of the Cambridges, the Wales's, etc., are paid out of the Sovereign Grant (i.e., the British taxpayers), as it is assumed that a PR and Communications staff are part of royals' "official duties" and therefore a "work expense".
Latham is allegedly supposed to report to the Queen's Communications Chief, and not function entirely independently, as the Sussexes wished, and the Sussex PR and other household staff are housed in BP, again allegedly under the eye of the Queen and Lord Geidt.
However, those eyes have either been gazing elsewhere, or the "reporting" bar was set so low it may as well not have been there.
The BRF come out of all this looking only slightly less appalling than their cock-up of a relation and his disaster of a wife.
by Anonymous | reply 289 | August 23, 2019 12:12 PM |
I can't find anything in the news about those two resignations. Seems hard to believe that we DL-ers would see the resignations on Companies House before the press would? Something strange..... And agree R260, it must be absolute chaos in their offices and home.
by Anonymous | reply 291 | August 23, 2019 12:40 PM |
It is deeply gratifying watching Kaiser and the fraus on CB twist in the wind as they indignantly accuse the Cambridges of throwing the Sussexes under the bus by taking a budget flight to Aberdeen from, what is it, Norfolk right now?! They are so off the deep end at this point that it's borderline alarming - they're accusing Carole Middleton of taking the snaps at the airport and sending it in to the tabloids . . .
That anyone with the sense God gave a goat, seeing the fallout from the latest Sussex PR gaffe, would have done the sao me thing doesn't seem to occur.
Of course, when Harry annnounced publicly that he was only having two children to help save the planet, thereby inferring that his selfish brother and sister-in-law were harming the planet by having three, no one on CB accused Harry of trying to throw the Cambridges under the bus . . . noooooooooo!
At this point, one can only wait in fascination to see if the Queen will order another "Happy Families" photo op in a lame attempt to convince the public that its perception that Charles's two sons and their wives can't stand each other and don't want to be in the same castle together, never mind the same photo op, is wrong.
Ah, what do we have next? Right - Remembrance Day Balcony ops, and then . . . the Sandringham Christmas Church Walk Photo Op.
Perhaps Harry and Meghan can be persuaded to spend it in L.A. with Doria; or better yet, the Cambridges, relieved as hell, at Anmer Hall or with the Middletons and Matthews at Carole's and Michael's cheerful home.
by Anonymous | reply 292 | August 23, 2019 12:47 PM |
I cannot find a single story or headline out there about Latham resigning. If she had, it would be all over the tabloids. It isn't. Therefore, I'm assuming it was misinformation.
by Anonymous | reply 293 | August 23, 2019 1:10 PM |
Latham hasn’t resigned from her job - she has resigned as a director of the Sussex Foundation, which is probably an administrative thing.
Companies need directors so she probably place filled until they could appoint others.
by Anonymous | reply 294 | August 23, 2019 1:43 PM |
William will participate in a mental health documentary.
by Anonymous | reply 295 | August 23, 2019 2:10 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 296 | August 23, 2019 2:12 PM |
Prince Philip painted the Queen at breakfast.
by Anonymous | reply 297 | August 23, 2019 2:41 PM |
Videos of another royal film premiere, this time it's in the 1960's.
by Anonymous | reply 298 | August 23, 2019 2:43 PM |
Peter Phillips getting a little frisky with his wife Autumn.
by Anonymous | reply 299 | August 23, 2019 2:45 PM |
R297, That's really very lovely.
by Anonymous | reply 301 | August 23, 2019 2:59 PM |
The Guardian is of course late to the whole fuck-up and only now addresses it with an opinion piece instead of factual coverage. But this being The Guardian of course the piece is excusing the Sussexes' brand of posh hypocrisy. However as is often the case with the readers' comments, most are not having it and disagree with the opinion espoused by the Guardian. I remember last year the readership was still giving the Sussexes particularly Meghan a pass but not anymore.
by Anonymous | reply 302 | August 23, 2019 4:44 PM |
R297 Thanks so much for posting, I really enjoyed that. Lovely scene, I like Philip's style. Had no idea he painted.
by Anonymous | reply 303 | August 23, 2019 6:37 PM |
Harry and Meghan certainly make it hard for their woke admirers – the ones with integrity, anyway – to defend them.
by Anonymous | reply 304 | August 23, 2019 6:39 PM |
What happened to all the headlines about Meggy Sharp spending her birthday at Balmoral with the Queen. LOL. Meggy's PR people sure are absurd, surprised they didn't put it out there that HM "begged" her but Meggy just couldn't pencil her in.
by Anonymous | reply 305 | August 23, 2019 6:51 PM |
BUlLSHIT! the Guardian says to the pedo prince. Wow, Marina Hyde went IN on Andrew. Meghan who? This eclipses all the Harkle hoeing.
by Anonymous | reply 306 | August 23, 2019 8:59 PM |
BUlLSHIT! the Guardian says to the pedo prince. Wow, Marina Hyde went IN on Andrew. Meghan who? This eclipses all the Harkle hoeing.
by Anonymous | reply 307 | August 23, 2019 8:59 PM |
^ Welcome back, Harkles Deflection Moron!
by Anonymous | reply 308 | August 23, 2019 9:09 PM |
DM has a story that the Sussexes will make a pilgrimage to Diana's grave. IF true, I ask you, how does the DM get that information?
Let's see....I'm picturing Instagram, a single rose at the foot of a monument, maybe a tiny hand reaching out to it.....black-and-white of course. Hint of "Tilt Shift" in the editing. A new group of nine of Diana's favorite charities followed.
Look, it IS poignant, but they've trained us to expect melodrama.
by Anonymous | reply 309 | August 23, 2019 9:45 PM |
R304 The thing is with this recent overt condemnation of any criticism of Sussexes' hypocrisy as racism, the veil is starting to lift from people's eyes. Even their own fans are not agreeing with the blatant hypocrisy, and then to be told that it amounts to racism? Now they're finally waking up to the tactics that have been used to silence people from criticizing the Sussexes, it's all racism and nothing else. Of course it's racism since Meghan has done nothing that gives off the impression that she'd rather be a celebrity than a working royal. The let-them-eat-cake moment at Wimbledon was the beginning and it's continued since then at a comical pace. It's like she wants to invite criticism so that she can make the excuse that people are racist for criticizing her.
by Anonymous | reply 310 | August 23, 2019 9:47 PM |
R235 if that eventuates, I’d be betting that as soon as that happened, the Government would do a repeat of 1936, and find a way to ‘abdicate’ Harry. At least that would be my fervent hope. That and - alas, Andrew.
by Anonymous | reply 311 | August 24, 2019 2:38 AM |
Exactly, r311. There is no way the British public would accept Harry as King. In the past they certainly would have, but not now. He has done irreparable harm to his image in Britain because his missteps are all seen as evidence of his elitism and dislike of the hoi-polloi. A complete 180 from how he was perceived a few years ago, as a "good lad" who mucked in with his Army pals. Now he's seen a wanna-be celebrity and hectoring hypocrite living in untold luxury and showing disdain at every turn for the public (hiding Archie, commanding eco-measures that he won't take himself if it interferes with his luxurious lifestyle). That's a seriously bad look for someone in his position.
I realise that the last yougov poll has him still high up the popularity, but that data was collected in May. The next yougov poll will reflect the fact that his popularity has been dropping like a stone. Remarkably fast, actually. He's becoming the most resented Royal - along of course, with his wife.
by Anonymous | reply 312 | August 24, 2019 2:49 AM |
The Harkles PR has leaked that they are going to taking Archie on a heartfelt pilgrimage to Diana's grave.
Yet another PR misstep it seems because all the comments are dragging them for not taking him to see his living grandfather
Also, how cringe to make this public? Just visit the grave and let it be reported later - don't virtue signal it ahead of time to emphasise your connection to Diana. So much cringe.
by Anonymous | reply 313 | August 24, 2019 3:23 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 314 | August 24, 2019 3:25 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 315 | August 24, 2019 3:27 AM |
No, it's not going away. r315. Andrew should go down. Both he and Harry need to relinquish their titles and stop living off the public. And if Andrew committed crimes he needs to be tried for them.
by Anonymous | reply 316 | August 24, 2019 3:31 AM |
R300, Eek! What happened to my legs?!?
by Anonymous | reply 317 | August 24, 2019 6:15 AM |
Harury has no chance of being King unless the entire Cambridge family is wiped out by Bubonic Plague. William's three children stand in the way.
In the meantime, although Harry remains popular in the polls, he has slipped a bit - he used always to come out #1 followed by the Queen; now, he comes in at #2 and there are only 3 percentage points between him and his brother, and Meghan has slipped even further, from fifth to sixth place, with under 50% approval ratings, and even further behind her sister-in-law than she was last year. The most recent poll showed the Queen first, then Harry, then William, then Kate, then Philip, and then Meghan.
Whatever she's doing, it's not working, that should be clear to her PR staff, who seem to be doubling down rather than reassessing. (Of course, it can be hard to reassess when your boss won't listen and insists on doing as she pleases.)
In my view, things seem to be coming to a head for both Andrew and the Harkles. It cannot possibly have escaped HM's notice that both branches of the family are in varied stages of crisis.
The Harkles aren't deflecting attention from Andrew: the tabs are too smart for that. They're simply juggling both stories.
Andrew needs to make a public statement of contrition for having used bad judgement in choosing friends and committing to a private life in which he will no longer represent the country and will be removed from support from the Sovereign Grant.
The Harkles need to be read the riot act, and Harry confronted with the Queen's and Charles's displeasure and suggestions that he and his wife might be happier outside the BRF and outside the UK. But they can't live outside the UK and still take taxpayer funding.
Either their titles and his and his childrens' places in the line of succession, and with them, taxpayer funding, have to go OR they regroup and accept the restrictions the system that endowed both with so many advantages.
If the Queen and Charles don't act soon, they can look forward to years of negative press. The rage of the Cambridges at being forced to see them and their children's patrimony damaged can only be imagined.
by Anonymous | reply 318 | August 24, 2019 12:27 PM |
R305 - "What happened to all the headlines about Meggy Sharp spending her birthday at Balmoral with the Queen."
I imagine it went back into the black hole of imagination from whence came the story a few months ago that the Queen was so filled with admiration for Meghan that she was going to sit right down and write Meghan an adoring letter.
by Anonymous | reply 319 | August 24, 2019 12:31 PM |
R297 - Thanks for putting that up, I had no idea of this side of the Duke of Edinburgh. Perhaps that's where Charles gets his interest in painting from. Looks like a watercolour.
by Anonymous | reply 320 | August 24, 2019 12:34 PM |
While QEII is alive, Andrew is inviolate. However, once she goes, all bets are off.
by Anonymous | reply 321 | August 24, 2019 12:38 PM |
Poor Queen, she may have all that wealth and adoration but her family really have put her through the ringer over the years. I hope 2019 doesn't turn into another annus horribilis for her.
by Anonymous | reply 322 | August 24, 2019 1:01 PM |
There’s an article by Penny Junor in the Mail talking about PA, Zara & the Smugs - and she says at least no marriages are “officially” on the rocks.
“Officially”? Why use that word?
That made me wonder. Could be talking about Mike & Zara - but I would personally bet a large sum of money that Harry is getting more miserable by the minute.
I agree entirely with those who say he’s as much to blame - of course that’s true, and I’m not giving him a pass - but I really don’t think he ever imagined life with Meghan being anything like this. The clues were there but he ignored them, and now he’s stuck with a profligate, dictatorial bitch who embarrasses him almost every time she sets foot outside the house. And if she’s treating staff like shit as well, then there’s no escape for him.
I expect the trouble in paradise stories to start by Christmas
by Anonymous | reply 323 | August 24, 2019 1:30 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 324 | August 24, 2019 1:36 PM |
There was a funny Mitchell and Webb miniseries called Ambassadors a few years ago. Tom Hollander played an Andrew clone called Prince Mark. Overbearing, stupid, caused all sorts of diplomatic problems although in the end he did do something to save the day. It was a fantasy ending. Worth watching.
by Anonymous | reply 325 | August 24, 2019 1:36 PM |
I am enjoying all the clever nicknames: Smug and Mug, Dutch and Dim, Minge and Cringe.
by Anonymous | reply 326 | August 24, 2019 1:40 PM |
I am enjoying all the clever nicknames: Smug and Mug, Dutch and Dim, Minge and Cringe.
by Anonymous | reply 327 | August 24, 2019 1:40 PM |
I just love Mr Common and Mrs Wealth, hahaha
by Anonymous | reply 328 | August 24, 2019 1:45 PM |
Will the Sussexes be immersed in a celebrity world or a royal one? It's impossible to choose both
by Anonymous | reply 329 | August 24, 2019 1:56 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 330 | August 24, 2019 1:57 PM |
R323 Howard Stern of all people said something decades ago about celebrity divorces that stuck with me. He said that when things go wrong in a self-centered celebrity’s life/career, they look to the people around them, never to themselves. That’s who they blame, and often jettison.
by Anonymous | reply 331 | August 24, 2019 2:08 PM |
I can't believe he has actually put a smart suit on and brushed his hair for the cup final. ( live on tv so no link yet). He shook hands with the kids ans didn't grab them which was a shocker. Amusing that he was standing with the busty cheerleaders for the national anthem, hope sparkle didn't see him do a quick double take.
by Anonymous | reply 332 | August 24, 2019 2:22 PM |
Harry's a fucking useless loser.
by Anonymous | reply 333 | August 24, 2019 3:50 PM |
Someone on DM comments came up with “Woke & Broke” which is excellent.
by Anonymous | reply 334 | August 24, 2019 4:52 PM |
[QUOTE] am enjoying all the clever nicknames: Smug and Mug, Dutch and Dim, Minge and Cringe.
Clever? Are you ten years old?
by Anonymous | reply 336 | August 24, 2019 6:18 PM |
[QUOTE] am enjoying all the clever nicknames: Smug and Mug, Dutch and Dim, Minge and Cringe.
Clever? Are you ten years old?
by Anonymous | reply 337 | August 24, 2019 6:18 PM |
R288 and R291, et al: My mistake. Latham resigned as director of the foundation, not as PR head (unless that also happened overnight) but the timing was incredible. Another poster had a link to the foundation directors info and I assumed that they had resigned fully after the jet debacle.
by Anonymous | reply 339 | August 24, 2019 8:03 PM |
'I assumed that they had resigned fully after the jet debacle.'
Hardly a debacle. The members of the BRF take private jets every week.
by Anonymous | reply 340 | August 24, 2019 9:48 PM |
R321 - Andrew will probably be legally untouchable forever, but in terms of blowback from the rest of the BRF, yes, I agree, as long as HM is alive, he'll be all right. But there was never much love lost between him and Charles, so once the Queen is raptured, Charles will turn on Andrew like a viper in burrow.
by Anonymous | reply 341 | August 24, 2019 9:48 PM |
That foundation seems like something you do not want to have legal ties to or fiduciary responsibilities for. Latham is no idiot and this is not her first rodeo.
by Anonymous | reply 342 | August 24, 2019 9:56 PM |
R340 Debacle in the sense that the DM has covered their jet trips in numerous articles.
by Anonymous | reply 343 | August 24, 2019 10:17 PM |
Yes but no one else lectures the poors about their carbon footprint and virtue signals so hard it can be seen from out of space. THAT is what has created a debacle. Quite agree with R343.
by Anonymous | reply 344 | August 24, 2019 10:25 PM |
Andrew did not just socialize with JE in NY and London but also at Zorro Ranch. Creepy place. Lots of entertaining took place there - politicians, celebrities and good pal, Woody Allen.
by Anonymous | reply 345 | August 24, 2019 10:43 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 346 | August 24, 2019 11:21 PM |
These people. That's all I have to say. They provide some entertainment, but the "let them eat cake" stuff is getting a little too blatant.
by Anonymous | reply 347 | August 24, 2019 11:27 PM |
Suspect they are angling for a payment to bounce, R347. Question is, who is fronting the $ for things like her bday abode? They do not have it.
by Anonymous | reply 348 | August 24, 2019 11:32 PM |
Man, I was just reading about the high-priced Ibiza "birthday villa" Harry and Meghan stayed at. Call it jealousy, I guess, but I can't helping imagining the levels of emotional ecstasy Meghan has reached in the last two years, going from a little-known, aging actress with an uncertain future to THIS!
Castles! The Queen's tiara! Diana's jewels! The Clooneys! Guest-editing Vogue! Elton John's plane! I mean, she must, in her private moments, just swoon and revel and pinch herself. I sure would.
by Anonymous | reply 349 | August 25, 2019 1:06 AM |
And her own chef, which they flew in with them on the private jet to the 100,000 a week villa.
Meanwhile her PR used to love to claim that she does all the cooking "for Harry". It was more lies, apparently.
by Anonymous | reply 350 | August 25, 2019 1:50 AM |
Harry and Meghan reportedly only hired a nanny and more recently a housekeeper when they moved to Frogmore. I wonder what the truth of it is.
by Anonymous | reply 351 | August 25, 2019 2:14 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 352 | August 25, 2019 9:12 AM |
Nice to see Harry doing what he does best, meeting and greeting.
When he and his wife's antics finally force a referendum for a Republic, his CV should get him a job at any ASDA in the country.
by Anonymous | reply 353 | August 25, 2019 10:11 AM |
[quote] Charles will turn on Andrew like a viper in burrow.
R341 Don't believe that will happen either. By the time QEII goes, the masses will have long forgotten about Andrew, the media having been quietly warned off. If Andrew does again become an unwelcome distraction, Charles will simply ship him off to Coventry as it were, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa, far from the media/legal reach.
by Anonymous | reply 354 | August 25, 2019 10:25 AM |
[quote]Question is, who is fronting the $ for things like her bday abode? They do not have it.
Rent a Royal from Royal Whoredom! We'll pay for your birthday abode or private jet or yacht cruise if we and some of our mates can tag along, get a PR snap or two together. Fergie got caught doing just that, charging lots of pounds for meetings with Andrew. Cash-poor Royals often engage in paid appearances made to look like weekends in Sardinia or yachting trips or charity galas.
by Anonymous | reply 355 | August 25, 2019 10:41 AM |
If you owned an expensive-to-the-point-of unrentable Ibiza villa would you not put out feelers to the greatest whores the world has known?
And then offer for quarter price? (Free is not possible because they have to be able to tell the Queen's accountants that they DID pay an amount that meets the value)
Problem is for the Frogmore Whores is that everyone is watching their every move now.
This is the price of bad behaviour.
Ah, well.
by Anonymous | reply 356 | August 25, 2019 11:13 AM |
All previous BRF commenters: USweekly now allows comments on the MH debacle
by Anonymous | reply 357 | August 25, 2019 11:32 AM |
Leech and Preach
Why yes, I am ten.
by Anonymous | reply 358 | August 25, 2019 12:25 PM |
Even 25,000 pounds a week - along with bringing a nanny and a chef - seems outside their budget. Harry’s income is 300,000 pounds a year.
Doesn’t Harry also keep two polo ponies? And now in addition to the nanny we learn about the personal chef - even if the chef is just part time (I doubt it), those two salaries will add up to 100,000 a year including benefits.
A full time nanny, a personal chef, polo ponies, private jets everywhere - all while lecturing the great unwashed about having fewer children and traveling less.
The public pays for their security details, Harry’s father pays for Meghan’s couture clothing, and grandma provides the free luxury housing. Are these two grifters paying for anything?
by Anonymous | reply 359 | August 25, 2019 12:26 PM |
R354 - Where Andrew is concerned, I think the masses have longer memories than you do. The real issue isn't their memory, but of what they actually care about beyond a few obligatory Tsk Tsks at the headlines. I'm not sure they care that much even now, whilst the story iy s fresh. For all the tabs' pot-stirring, people still aren't getting out of bed thinking about all this.
But Charles' memory is quite a bit more vivid. He has always disliked Andrew, and Andrew's lame attempts to push his daughters forward after William married, as Andrew realised that Bea and Yuge were on the their way down the road to royal oblivion, wasn't lost on Charles, whose patrimony is vested in his son and grandchildren, not his brothers and their children. Andrew's fury that at the last celebration of the Queen's reign when only those in the direct line were asked out onto the balcony, making a very clear point, was circulated with some hilarity.
Charles may like to seem very modern, but where his privileges and standing are concerned, don't think for a moment he isn't exactly the Edwardian he is by nature and upbringing. Andrew trying to get a piece of it won't sit well with Charles.
Charles knows Andrew for exactly what he is: a man of low character, shallow, rude, self-entitled, and pompous. Now that Andrew has blotted his copybook so badly, Charles as King will make sure that Andrew is kept as far out of the public eye (and from public funding) as possible, and put him out to pasture.
I wonder if Charles is beginning to see the similarities between his second son and his mother's second son. The petulance, the pomposity unleashed, the hypocrisy, the lacklustre military career, the too-frisky, ill-chosen wife who hasn't a clue how to play the game she's in whilst unable to hide how delicious she finds the perks . . . If it is beginning to dawn on Charles, I imagine he would feel both angry and spiteful and look for ways to off-load his own guilt in the matter.
Legal cases in America can take years to wind through the courts, and the plaintiff has the option of civil suits, where the burden of proof is lower, if her case in the criminal courts fail. The sooner Andrew is eased out of the public eye, except for tender moments with his daughters and his Mum, the better.
Spares do seem to have a rough time of it. The spare in the Belgian royal family has turned out to be a huge headache, as well. The Swedish and Danish Spares have done much better.
It's a good thing the Cambridges had three - the difference between Heir and one other isn't so stark, and as the only daughter amongst three, Charlotte will enjoy her own special category - especially as she seems to have inherited her Great-Aunt Anne's temperament. At two places away, Louis won't have nearly as rough a time as he would have if it were just George The Heir and Louis The Spare.
All that said . . .
by Anonymous | reply 360 | August 25, 2019 12:40 PM |
The new private secretary was one of the UK's youngest ambassadors, at age 35 she was ambassador to Albania. To go from that to babysitting a pair of spoiled children is either a demotion or a waste of talent.
by Anonymous | reply 361 | August 25, 2019 12:53 PM |
The new private secretary was one of the UK's youngest ambassadors, at age 35 she was ambassador to Albania. To go from that to babysitting a pair of spoiled children is either a demotion or a waste of talent.
by Anonymous | reply 362 | August 25, 2019 12:53 PM |
I cant help thinking that if Beatrice and Eugenie were better looking and better put together there would be more public interest in them and they would have been able to use their more prominent public profiles to forge more significant roles within the BRF.
Since Charles had only sons, they could have been the female counterparts until William’s marriage. William didn’t marry that young, so they had plenty of time to establish themselves.
But I am in the US and don’t claim to understand the British perspective. Would thin versions of Beatrice and Eugenie with subtle cosmetic surgery and a good stylist have become the Kardashian sisters of the UK (minus the golden showers, probably). I guess the timing was off. By the time it became apparent that in an Instagram world looks (at least in photos) were everything, everybody already know what B&E looked like. Oddly, I only just now remembered the character in The Windsors.
by Anonymous | reply 363 | August 25, 2019 1:53 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 364 | August 25, 2019 2:39 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 365 | August 25, 2019 3:20 PM |
One would certainly think so, R349, but if so, why does MM seems so provocatively ungrateful in all her behaviour, as if nothing is good enough? Even if she can never be Kate Middleton, she has certainly gotten more than she ever could have hoped to in her wildest dreams
by Anonymous | reply 366 | August 25, 2019 3:26 PM |
Meghan need to order a new maternity coat tout suite.
by Anonymous | reply 367 | August 25, 2019 3:56 PM |
^needs
by Anonymous | reply 368 | August 25, 2019 3:56 PM |
R366 I imagine it’s some combination of rapidly becoming accustomed to the high life, and then this New Age idea of “sky’s the limit, I’m worth more, go for it.” And let’s face it she’s gotten a lot for herself. Why NOT demand more?
by Anonymous | reply 369 | August 25, 2019 4:58 PM |
R366 I imagine it’s some combination of rapidly becoming accustomed to the high life, and then this New Age idea of “sky’s the limit, I’m worth more, go for it.” And let’s face it she’s gotten a lot for herself. Why NOT demand more?
by Anonymous | reply 370 | August 25, 2019 4:58 PM |
Sorry for the double post, dammit!
by Anonymous | reply 371 | August 25, 2019 4:59 PM |
R371 “Why NOT demand more?” Er....because the platform she’s using to get all of this is the British Royal Family. That’s why.
Do you understand the point of them at all?
by Anonymous | reply 372 | August 25, 2019 5:08 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 373 | August 25, 2019 5:35 PM |
R372, you don't really pick up on sarcasm, do you?
by Anonymous | reply 374 | August 25, 2019 5:44 PM |
Didn’t come across as sarcasm to me - but words on a screen aren’t always great at delivering tone. Apols.
by Anonymous | reply 375 | August 25, 2019 6:15 PM |
Yes but she has got almost immediate blowback for each misjudged demand and action, and the vitriol from the public and the press has got to sting. It has also been counter-productive because there has been payback - you'll never convince me that Frogmore Cottage was the residence of choice, no good jewellery, no title for her kid, back row placement at events etc etc. The only thing that makes sense is that they are angling for a big pay-out to leave.
by Anonymous | reply 376 | August 25, 2019 6:28 PM |
R349-I doubt Markle pinches herself because she believes she's entitles to everything and more, more, more. For her it's not nearly enough - and it never will be.
by Anonymous | reply 377 | August 25, 2019 8:55 PM |
I have difficulty believing the "they are angling for a big payout when they leave" theory. They aren't going to get any more of a payout than Sarah Ferguson did. Harry isn't the Prince of Wales and Meghan Markle, whatever she imagines in that fogged in space she calls her brain, isn't Diana Spencer.
by Anonymous | reply 378 | August 25, 2019 9:51 PM |
The only angle they are going for is destroying the monarchy as they leave. MM didn't get the adulation she expected nor she didn't get to appear better than Kate, which is what she really wanted. So if MM can't have that then no one can. She will drag them down, she never wants Kate to be Queen so she will try to tarnish the whole institution on purpose. Typical classic moves from the narc playbook only it is alarming to watch her play out all her fantasies and revenge in the public eye.
by Anonymous | reply 379 | August 25, 2019 11:43 PM |
Agree, R379. And depending how long the Queen reigns, who knows, she/they might do irreparable harm.
by Anonymous | reply 380 | August 26, 2019 12:24 AM |
But did you not all notice the that Hairy got no cuddle moments at the Challenge Cup? We Rugby league fans are a caring bunch but we don't go in for bullshit. I felt proud at the stoic kids that were there for their wonderful experience at a cup final and weren't impressed with Ginge. If he took his patronage seriously, then he would have stayed on for the second cup final , first year of the 1895 cup.
by Anonymous | reply 381 | August 26, 2019 1:44 AM |
just to add, not that he would have been wanted., and Tony Adams did great giving out all the medals and the Lance Todd Trophy, Ginge looked gormless not knowing what to do.
by Anonymous | reply 382 | August 26, 2019 1:50 AM |
Yes, but 379, is that really what she/they want? Would they be better off if the monarchy were abolished? No palaces, no sovereign grant, no tiaras... They's still be aristos, true, but without land or much income.
by Anonymous | reply 383 | August 26, 2019 2:03 AM |
I don’t think Meghan ever appreciated the monarchy the way some of us elders do. To her, the monarchy began with Diana and all that drama. Clothes, celebrity, etc.
by Anonymous | reply 384 | August 26, 2019 2:55 AM |
They know they won't come close to destroying a thousand old institution, please don't grant them that power. There are some hyperbole lovers on this thread.
by Anonymous | reply 385 | August 26, 2019 6:04 AM |
On the contrary, r385. The Monarchy is always in a precarious position, and the fact that the much-respected and loved Queen is not long for this world puts them in an exceptionally precarious position. It was always going to be a tricky time for them when the less respected Charles came to the throne.
So it's during a vulnerable time that Meghan and Harry come in and start acting like ostentatious celebrities. It was a huge mistake for them to redocorate their house for 3 million of taxpayer funds and for her to spend a million pounds on clothes in her first year. They attract negative attention to where taxpayer money is going, and are making even life-long Royalists begin to wonder "What's the point? We already have celebrities, and we don't have to pay for their upkeep".
It's entirely conceivable that after the Queen dies, the calls for taking the Monarchy off taxpayer funding will reach a fever pitch. And if they are taken off taxpayer funding, they will cease to perform any duties, and then the bond to the public is gone. And should that happen, it will be a matter of years before they are just another landed family.
Don't think it can't happen. It can happen, and if The Harkles keep throwing their obscene spending in the public's face, it damn well might happen.
by Anonymous | reply 386 | August 26, 2019 6:41 AM |
[quote] The monarchy is always in a precarious position
No, it’s not. It maintains high support, even when crisis hits. It’s not all about affection for the Queen - there’s also our heritage & the need for a HoS separate from the government. Few people like the idea of an elected president.
You can’t “take the monarchy off taxpayer funding”. We don’t give the Queen money for fun. It’s used to cover the costs of her many, many duties as HoS. No one would expect her to pay for any of that herself. That’s like expecting Donald Trump to pay for running the White House on his own money.
There possibly will be an increase for calls for a republic when she dies...but not necessarily. Her funeral then Charles’s coronation will be massive events and may well renew interest. And people like William & Kate more & more and want them to be King & Queen so will be less ready to dump the lot.
“Take them off taxpayer funding”. Jeez.
by Anonymous | reply 387 | August 26, 2019 7:14 AM |
What is being noticed now, r387, is how much taxpayer money is going to items that are non-essential to being head of state. Such as a 3 million pound house refurbishment for minor royals. A refurbishment that is more than the market value for the property itself.
You are free to doubt, but I see a huge change coming, courtesy of The Harkles' "Let them eat cake" attitude.
by Anonymous | reply 388 | August 26, 2019 7:26 AM |
Part of this is behind a paywall but the part that is not has TERRIBLE optics. The idea that their RPOs keep them out of compromising situations has really been blown by Dim and Randy. I do feel a bit sorry for the Queen, at her age, but Helen Keller could see these situations snowballing for years.
by Anonymous | reply 390 | August 26, 2019 11:15 AM |
Why does the sixth in line to the throne need to "boost online presence"?
What this means are more paid bots like the ones who pop up on here to tell us we're all racist if we so much as dare to notice that thy're destroying the monarchy.
by Anonymous | reply 391 | August 26, 2019 12:17 PM |
No, that’s fine, R387....I am sure you, as an American has far more insight than an actual Brit does.
by Anonymous | reply 392 | August 26, 2019 3:30 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 393 | August 26, 2019 4:16 PM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 394 | August 26, 2019 4:18 PM |
R385 R386 - I beliieve there are grains of truth in both your posts. It is true that the BRF has shown remarkable resilience in times of crisis (the two biggest being the Abidcation and the Charles/Diana debacle and divorce) - the idea of Harry and Meghan taking it down all by themselves is, on its face, unlikely.
But as R386 points out, it's not impossible that a few years of cumulative bad optics and PR leading up the Queen's exit can erode a structure more fragile than it looks so that when the changeover occurs, republicans in Parliament can make more of a case for abolishing it.
There is always a dangerous transition period to be bridged when a new regime takes over, and, as the Queen's reign has been so long and admired, the next one up will have a job persuading the public that under him the monarchy is as necessary as ever and as worthy of its support as ever.
The Sussexes are helping to tarnish the brand and erode the case for maintaining it, something, at this point, that none of the senior royals can possibly be in doubt about. Whether they plan to do anything about it is another story.
With Charles never having recovered a top spot ater his divorce, Diana's death, and remarriage, his transition to monarch will beg more questions than it answers. He may have to get quite harsh to shore up the image of the kind of steward his mother was, and that will likely mean not good news for the Sussexes.
The Cambridges, of course, have been made to look like stellar candidates for the throne by the absurd mistakes of the Sussexes, and are more popular by far than Charles and Camilla.
And that, I'm sure, hasn't been lost on the Queen, the courtiers, their handlers, or Parliament.
I can think of several scenarios if the Queen seems to hang on for as long as her 100th birthday without showing signs of mental or physical deterioration, but I'm not sure I'd put hard cash on any of them except Charles doggedly waiting it out so that he becomes King at 80 - something I think would be a piece of serious selfishness on his part, dooming the monarchy to another 20 years of an old monarch instead of passing it on to the younger, fresher more admired William and Kate with their attractive young brood.
If the Queen reaches 95, and then 96, and then 98, Charles would be a fool not to give it up and pass the sceptre to his son.
And if that were to happen, the Sussexes would probably be out at speed, knowing full well that they will not get the tolerance from King William and Queen Cathereine that they got from QEII and Harry's indulgent (and guilt-ridden) Papa.
But if the Court has any sense, it will try to get the Sussexes out before then. However, on that, I wouldn't hold my breath.
by Anonymous | reply 395 | August 26, 2019 4:35 PM |
Not that I know him personally, but I just cannot see Prince Charles declining to take the throne after waiting for it for over 50 years. The more plausible scenario is Charles waiting until William is 50 and then abdicating.
by Anonymous | reply 396 | August 26, 2019 4:41 PM |
Princess Anne cut a jaunty figure in her youth. I especially love her sixties style.
by Anonymous | reply 398 | August 26, 2019 4:54 PM |
Princess Anne with her first husband, Mark Phillips.
by Anonymous | reply 399 | August 26, 2019 4:55 PM |
Swipe for a summary of Kate's outfit from yesterday's church service with the Queen.
by Anonymous | reply 400 | August 26, 2019 4:59 PM |
R396 - I more or less agree, as I stated in my longer post. Charles has waited too long to have the realism and nobility to hand the throne on to William at once. Perhaps he also believes that as they will still be the parents of young-ish children in five years time, he's doing the Cambridges a favour by not doing so right away.
But I think a strong argument can be made for doing so. I just don't think Charles is capable of putting anyone else first. Another twenty years of an old monarch on the throne will not, I believe, do the institution any favours. I do think tradition a good thing, but in this case, the throne passing from a 98 year old to an 80 year old isn't conducive to the institution's favourability.
If HM makes it to 95, Charles should give it up and announce that he is surrendering his place in the line of succession so that younger people can assume the burden and responsibilities. He can retain the title and privileges of Prince of Wales until he dies as a trade-off, as Prince George will be way too young to assume it.
Lor', that announcement would put the fear of God into the Sussexes . . .
by Anonymous | reply 402 | August 26, 2019 5:04 PM |
The Queen's cousin, Richard, the Duke of Gloucester is 75 years old today. He still is active and attends public events on behalf of the monarch.
by Anonymous | reply 403 | August 26, 2019 5:05 PM |
R402 - Charles WILL not give up the throne. He's waited too long and he definitely would want Camilla to be Queen Consort to stick up his finger at everyone who didn't support them as a couple. The throne would be Camilla's reward for her loyalty.
by Anonymous | reply 404 | August 26, 2019 5:07 PM |
Both Zara Tindall and Fergie were recently exposed as being on the payroll of billionaire businessman Johnny Hon to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. After from the initial exposure, there has been no outcry or denunciation of either. Yet if it had been revealed that the Sussexes were similarly "employed," you can bet your last tiara they would have been run out of town on a rail.
Yes, Zara and Fergie are not on the Sovereign Grant. But surely their involvement with Hon stinks to high heaven.
by Anonymous | reply 405 | August 26, 2019 5:16 PM |
Zara is not on the payroll so she's held to a lower standard, and really isn't her situation not that different from celebrity offsprings trading in on their parents' connections in order to get gigs in the industry?
by Anonymous | reply 406 | August 26, 2019 7:48 PM |
How much does security for the British royal family cost each year? Is there a breakdown provided?
I read that security for Eugenie and Beatrice was ended in 2011. Presumably that means that Zara doesn’t get a security detail and neither does Fergie.
by Anonymous | reply 407 | August 26, 2019 10:44 PM |
[QUOTE] Such as a 3 million pound house refurbishment for minor royals. A refurbishment that...
You must be new here. The Express, Mail and Sun have ALWAYS roasted the royals for overspending. William spent 1m resurfacing the KP drive just this year. 3m for FC is nothing.
by Anonymous | reply 408 | August 27, 2019 1:42 AM |
KP is a palace, and Prince William is heir to the throne. It's understood the palaces will cost for upkeep.
The sixth in line spending 3 million pounds of taxpayer money on anything, much less a private residence, is seen as being completely out of line.
by Anonymous | reply 409 | August 27, 2019 5:24 AM |
BREXIT is going to be a disaster, the £ will fall, food and medicine shortages due to transport queues, etc. and it won't be over in a month or two, it will take a couple years to settle and England's economy won't recover. Scotland will possibly break away. The queen dies in the midst of this? There would be a huge funeral but holding a grand coronation ceremony for Charles? the public won't stand for the expense. Then the idea that he'd only reign for a few years before he too dies and William becomes king, another funeral ceremony, another coronation. The taxpayers will revolt.
It's not the BRF's fault, they are not responsible for BREXIT. But voters never blame themselves, they will lash out and the BRF are an easy, expensive target. The residual good will/apathy will vanish when the queen dies. Charles will slim down the monarchy, sell off a few residences/donate them to the National Trust and hunker down. Controversial outliers like Andrew and MM and Harry will be gone.
by Anonymous | reply 410 | August 27, 2019 11:14 AM |
BREXIT is going to be a disaster, the £ will fall, food and medicine shortages due to transport queues, etc. and it won't be over in a month or two, it will take a couple years to settle and England's economy won't recover. Scotland will possibly break away. The queen dies in the midst of this? There would be a huge funeral but holding a grand coronation ceremony for Charles? the public won't stand for the expense. Then the idea that he'd only reign for a few years before he too dies and William becomes king, another funeral ceremony, another coronation. The taxpayers will revolt.
It's not the BRF's fault, they are not responsible for BREXIT. But voters never blame themselves, they will lash out and the BRF are an easy, expensive target. The residual good will/apathy will vanish when the queen dies. Charles will slim down the monarchy, sell off a few residences/donate them to the National Trust and hunker down. Controversial outliers like Andrew and MM and Harry will be gone.
by Anonymous | reply 411 | August 27, 2019 11:14 AM |
Scotland will only break away if they are guaranteed as much money from the EU as they get now from the English tax base. I think that's highly unlikely.
by Anonymous | reply 412 | August 27, 2019 11:18 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 413 | August 27, 2019 5:58 PM |
I think Little George is going to end up looking like his great uncle Earl Spencer.
by Anonymous | reply 414 | August 28, 2019 12:57 AM |
Yoo-hoo, Andrew! This isn't going away anytime soon.
by Anonymous | reply 415 | August 28, 2019 1:15 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 416 | August 28, 2019 3:36 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 417 | August 28, 2019 11:39 AM |
[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.]
by Anonymous | reply 418 | August 28, 2019 11:41 AM |
R417 Her PR is getting desperate now, what a joke
by Anonymous | reply 419 | August 28, 2019 11:55 AM |
Meghan drank water instead of beer, she’s either trying for baby #2 or on a strict diet to lose weight.
by Anonymous | reply 420 | August 28, 2019 5:02 PM |
RIP Diana and all that, but I was watching the Panorama clip where she goes, “I’d like to be Queen of people’s hearts.” I’d seen it many times, of course, but today it really struck me as quite egotistical and batshit. It was so obviously rehearsed, too, as if she was serving up a big “QUEEN OF HEARTS” headline for the tabs next day. Guess she wanted that to be her “King of Pop” self-chosen nickname. Well, she got “People’s Princess” instead, which is pretty good, not that she got to enjoy it. Just think, she’d be pushing 60.
by Anonymous | reply 421 | August 31, 2019 9:36 PM |
I hope they move to L.A. and it'll be the end of fawning press for them and for their marriage. Harry is going to be bored out of his ADHD mind if he comes here, all of a sudden he's going to be part of the schmoozing L.A. celebrity crowd? He'll be so out of his league. Meghan is playing for a divorce settlement which includes a nice house in Malibu and $$$ from the favorable laws here in California.
by Anonymous | reply 422 | September 1, 2019 9:21 PM |
I think Harry will enjoy it for a while. But then it will start to get ridiculous. Since I live in LA I hope they come here so I can spot them sometime. I wish I could afford Nobu more than once a year maybe, if that. Because you can be sure that will be a hangout. Maybe also Craigs.
by Anonymous | reply 423 | September 2, 2019 12:15 AM |
Daily Mail headline:
"Duke and Duchess of Sussex share an inspirational Nelson Mandela quote encouraging people to 'make peace and build' - a day after Meghan 'cut all ties' with her father Thomas Markle"
JFC. She haaaates her father! It's shameful. I mean- embarrassing parents, believe me I get it. But what she's doing, humiliating him on the world stage, is just so harsh and cold and reflects so poorly on her. Surely there's a better way to deal with him, or at least give him minimal respect. It's not like he was some deadbeat who was seldom in her life.
She don't play. Poor Harry - I hope he's taking note of what she's like when crossed. Not that he has a chance in any case.
by Anonymous | reply 424 | September 2, 2019 11:24 PM |