British Royal Family Gossip Part 93

Oh the fraus on CB are soooo happy! They think this is some sort of major coup, like the now forgotten cookbook, and suddenly the quote is "important to work with local communities" . . . her new PR team finally figured out that her very obvious focus beyond Britain's shores wasn't playing well with the taxpayers here who helped renovate her fucking "cottage" for $4 million.

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

She looks MUCH better, like she dropped 10 lbs since the weekend. Still atrocious fashion sense though. The belt and shoes are the wrong color and the entire outfit says “let me show you to your table.”

Swipe for some Sussex bad acting - preening, grinning and putting on a show. Her pants are NOT a good fit.

Meghan's speech. Her mannerisms and voice are irritating.

R3, I will never wear a white shirt and black pants together, for that reason. You wind up looking like staff.

The Duchess of Sussex has CREATED a fashion line. Just her. No one else had anything to do with it. It's all about ME ME. Snort.

Swipe for photos of Princess Anne in Edinburgh.

So are the proceeds from the sale of the clothing donated to the charity? Or are these supposed to be affordable pieces?

I’ll give them credit for being simple pieces that are appropriate for a professional setting, and uncontroversial. But £125 for a cheap-looking white shirt is stupid. H&M does the same thing for a fraction.

Again, it's all about HER.

Kate will be on the cover of People magazine.

Every photo has her shirt buttons holding on for dear life.

For the love of dog, why can this woman NOT find clothing that fits? It’s a basic tenet of dressing: dress the biggest part of you, and tailor the rest. I’m pretty sure they have tailors in London. Jesus Christ.

We are doing our damnedest!!

She looks terrific...sophisticated and understated

I can see where she was going with the concept, and it’s fine. She doesn’t have the body for it, at the moment. Accentuating her waist (or lack thereof) was a misstep.

But yes, it’s appropriate and simple. She gets points for that.

I don't usually comment on the appearance of others, but since it was brought to the fore as a topic in this thread:

Her face and neck are orange when looking at her arms. (Is she modelling someone "who shall not be named" who happens to reside in her country of origin?)

Her hair is stringy and as usual her hands are playing with it at public appearances. (Does she shake hands and touch others as part of her "job" after continually combing her hands through her hair?)

Her arms and legs appear thin, but torso and face are oddly plump. Body habitus inconsistent.

Once again, her clothes appear ill-fitting: note all the winkles and creases in her white shirt and black pants as she actively walks.

I would love to know about the row Andrew had with "high level" palace staff that was so bad Charles intervened and ordered his brother to apologize. Andrew seems like a prize ass. That's the tell all I'm waiting for.

I think it's a reasonable outfit, and not a perfect fit, but at this point she can't win for losing on the clothes end. I also think it's a somewhat good project, especially if "fashion" is her thing like "gardening" is Kate's thing. The camera-ready poses are kind of annoying, with the hands clasped in awe over the mouth, as is the, "I've got to get back to the baby--it's feeding time!" which seems to be both virtue-signaling and a little TMI for a Royal.

That's my two cents, anyhow.

Oh and also saying her speech was "unscripted" seems a bit generous--doesn't that mean more impromptu, rather than just not reading off a piece of paper?

Re-examing Kate's outing from earlier this week, I do think she seems more natural and spontaneous in front of the camera and less obviously posed, but that might be my own anti-Meghan bias speaking and/or the fact that Kate's been doing this forever.

It was a nice and decent outfit, I'll give her that. But she' still fat. Sorry, but it's the truth.

And her narc mannerisms are just about as persistent as is the baby weight.

R9, I think how it works is when a woman buys one of the items in the collection, an item also gets donated. And the sizing goes up pretty high. It’s easy to sneer, but poor women are more frequently overweight and it is more difficult for them to obtain professional clothing, whether they are trying to purchase appropriate, inexpensive items or receiving donated clothes.

MM made some comment about how it’s not really charity when you just give away crap you don’t want anymore anyway. She has a point, but it’s not a point SHE should be making. She has no place criticizing the charitable efforts of the average Jane. But she’s right.

Except for that minor quibble, I think this is a win. I think it’s a fantastic idea. Women buy these uniform-like items, and they aren’t fantastic, but they are OK. And maybe it’s a little overpriced for what you get, but another woman in need gets the same item, just as good. New and in her size. It’s brilliant.

Except I haven’t seen it explicitly stated that it’s the SAME item. If someone buys a pricier item, like The blazer, does the woman getting the freebie also get the blazer, but in her size? Is it 1:1?

She should lay low for a while now. Nothing high profile, just the most boring public appearances possible. Old folks homes and the like. And release some photos for Christmas with Archie. Not the LA version of artsy, either. Sears portrait studio-type family photos. She can wear a holiday sweater.

R22

Why was the collection not made for larger sizes, then?

Why are most so expensive?

Also, could it be possible that Markle use her platform to call for the clothing SHE deemed needed by Smart Works? By putting out a clarion call for say, black jackets in size 18 or whatever, companies could donate stock or individuals "gently-used" fine items.

Much more environmentally sound to upcycle rather than create new, expensive polyester items. Isn't the Sussex brand supposed to be all for the environment?

R8 - Give that woman a large brimmed hat with a bent peak and a cloak for God's sake, so Prof. McGonagall can at last stop pretending to be Pss. Anne. The poor witch must be exhausted.

R22 - She can't "lay low", her trip to Africa (which I think will be all of ten days) is coming up rapidly.

R20 - I think the difference is that Kate gives the cameras as much as she knows they need but doesn't give off the aura of "performing" for them that Meghan does.

The project is a perfectly nice one, but most of the coverage I've seen is, willy nilly, all about the DoS and how very involved she was and how concerned she is for local communities in the UK.

And as for the "be yourself" mantra: coming from a woman lacking authenticity to the degree MM does, it is comical.

And "being yourself" on a job interview, especially a low-level office job, is misleading. You also have to be who the job description describes. This is more vague claptrap that Meghan Markle spews so easily, but when was the last time she interviewed for a job as an administrative assistant at a housing corp.?

They DID make them in larger sizes. And they aren’t cheap because it’s really the price for two. It’s not perfect, what is?

Ridiculous prices for the suit. You can get a much better one that actually looks better fitted at Topshop for about 80 quid. Primark has cheaper suits as does ASOS. The whole one for one is strange too. So Jigsaw, M&S, JL and her friend get to sell these clothes for a profit plus the enormous free publicity but how does the donation of the same thing go? I assume they are given without the mark up at cost price. Wouldn't it have been better to give the profits of sale to the charity to say coach women for interviews. It's not like smart works doesn't have decent donated clothes from all the upper class fancy bitches in London.

The Olive Garden server outfit is....unmistakable.

[quote]They DID make them in larger sizes.

Perhaps I was misinformed, but I thought I read that the largest size was a 12. Given as you remarked earlier, plus sizes might be very important for the community target, no?

[quote] And they aren’t cheap because it’s really the price for two. It’s not perfect, what is?

Not asking for perfection here. Just a bit of vision and foresight. The idea that this "deal" Markle brokered, is only applicable for 2 weeks (according to a royal reporter), brings forth some concern. 14 days only?

Also, as mentioned above, there are other alternatives that might be more economical and eco-conscious.

The idea that this was hyped to the max (promo "behind the scenes" videos and as well as countdown), with a very small, "curated" (not even design partnership!) with a less-than-one-hour working engagement raises red flags.

Did you listen to her "off-the-cuff" speech? Pretty remarkable how many times she mentioned herself....while simultaneously hyping Sussex Royal 2020.

I don't get a genuine sense of engagement with those affiliated with Smart Works. Unfortunately this seems more about enRICHment for ME-Gain and her partners.....

Ohhhh, was she wearing the clothing they designed? Is that why her outfit looked so cheap and ill-fitting?

I cannot UNDERSTAND how she could wear that shirt. I can’t understand how it stayed buttoned. The pants didn’t fit, and looked like cheap stiff polyester. Her shoes didn’t fit, either! (But they’re nice.)

The message of buttons straining to stay closed is “I gained weight and I can’t afford to buy new clothing” or “my tits are so huge and wild, they can’t be tamed. You might get a peek!” Either way, that’s not an appropriate message from a Princess of the United Kingdom”.

Unless she was trying to be relatable to her down-market subjects.

From the Telegraph...

[quote]The clothes will come in size six to 24, and are available from 2pm online and in stores.

UK size 24 is the equivalent of a US 20. For reference, these shorts are size 20. A lot of women will be left out.

Neither here nor there, but are MM’s black trousers giving anyone else a flashback to the security footage of our soft butch sous chef walking through the hotel?

R32 gave me a big chuckle.

It’s been said here that Kate takes clothing from high street shops and has them tailored or subtly reconstructed to look great on her.

Why can’t Meghan do that?

The "styles" created are not flattering for full- figured women, nor are the best for mature gals. The selections are very, very limited.fAnd of course, the accessories shown on the models (and Meghan) are way out of range for their clientele. Not that these clothes are cheap, they just look it.

Less expensive and very nice leather totes are available all over the internet as well. They're really not as useful as a well-designed purse or the purse-backpacks.

Nice tax write-off the companies involved, along with the publicity.

Sorry, I think the whole thing is stupid.

How many women is this actually going to benefit? Those clothes won’t exactly fly off the shelves...they’re not interesting enough. And it’s only for two weeks anyway.

But worse...she’s decided on a uniform for women who can’t afford charity shop clothes to wear to interviews. She’s taken away choice. “Look at all this shit people donate. I know better...this is what you shall wear”.

Women are not all anxious to dress like that big arsed bint, believe it or not. Increasing the amount of donations would increase choice - which allows women to be individuals rather than robots in Markle curated clothes.

How fucking arrogant she is.

And it’s hardly good for the environment, is it? Far, far better to repurpose donated clothes than make more.

Why can’t she just fuck off with her ratty wig and bad nose job? She turns my stomach.

As will I, R11.

Because she can’t afford it, R33.

Iman sells the same Ponte pants on HSN.

Apparently, Markle likes white Oxford shirts.

R33, I do recall one evening dress that Kate wore and there were some differences to the original. Kate had changed it to an empire waist for one thing and her version was an improvement on the original.

I think it would be important to have a good idea of what designs work or don't work for you if you are someone so in the public eye.

Given some of the horrors that Sparkle has worn, even high end designs, it seems that she doesn't have an eye for what looks good on herself.

I want to see her wear here sunglasses and Panama hat to the next Royal wedding.

R14 - Because it's so sophisticated to wear a top that fits so badly the buttons look like they're going to pop off and blind a bystander at any moment?

Please.

R41 - "I want to see her wear here sunglasses and Panama hat to the next Royal wedding."

Well, maybe she can get Bea and Edo to have a summer rather than spring wedding.

Of course, by then, she'll probably be up the duff again and can wear a suspiciously tent-like floral coat over a non-existent bump and take another pot shot at the Yorks.

I'd love for Kate and William to go full petty and shady and do like a skit a la Olympics queen with movie people that meghan wants to associate with.

I genuinely think her Harry and her gang want to harm the entire Cambridge family and I hope some. Serious action is taken to shut mulroney, Marcus, oprah Beyonce etc up.

Funny that Markle isn't pointing out that he didn't design any of the garments. That shift dress has been on sale in M&S for twelve months. She's just added the "Smart Set" label to the black and blue one.

Whoops, she, not he....although....

R22 - If I buy the Jigsaw suit in a US size 6 or 8 then Smart Works receives an identical suit in what ever size they request at no charge to be given to one of their participants.

"Apparently, Markle likes white Oxford shirts."

R39 - I like white Oxford shirts. What is wrong with w white Oxford shirt?

Is Markle wearing a wig?

So it’s a similar model as Tom’s shoes or Bombas socks. (Except those companies have been doing it for years as a fundamental tenet, not a limited effort.)

I can’t knock it, because every little bit helps. But the self-aggrandizing and logrolling kind of puts me off.

The irony is delicious of a woman extolling the "be yourself" mantra who has spent most of her life reinventing herself for public consumption, and ghosting people who are no longer useful to that reinvented persona, including the father whom she loved to bits whilst he was still useful to her, and that she dumped the moment she started dating the high-value catch she wanted to snag so badly she could taste it.

It looks like she had her Botox refreshed while in NYC. That was probably the purpose of the trip - tennis was a convenient excuse.

Cannot wait for the next series of The Windsors!

Those pants look very “Gap 2002.”

Those pants look like she's stuffed baby Archie down the front of them.

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

Comment on the DM article:

“The damage Andrew has done to his reputation is well nigh irreparable. It wasn't a particularly good reputation in the first place either.”

I am so hoping Andrew goes out with a bang - a giant scandal from which there is no coming back.

R22-I'd argue it is charity for women to donate clothes they no longer wear. I know a lot of women who sell or trade their clothes to consignment stores now.

Meg's hair looks awful. She's becoming a Demi Moore/Morticia Addams parody. If she really wants to break the internet, she should let her hair go natural. The lily-white upper crusters would have a fit of the vapors at the site of a mixed royal with a fro. And she would look gorgeous.

I agree with you, Meghan’s hair would look really pretty in a more relaxed style. (And yes - it would cause some peoples heads to explode which would be an additional benefit.)

Swipe for photos of Queen Mary with her granddaughter, Princess Elizabeth of York (the current Queen).

Video of Prince Edward in Sydney.

I'm team kate and will and I wish they would come out harder in pushing against the sussexes. Play them but better. For meghan if celebs start liking the Cambridges then that's a win for them.

The budget Flybe flight to Scotland was a hard push against the Sussexes' 4 private jet flights in 11 days, as was the Cambs' appearance at Balmoral. It's clear the Sussexes either were not invited or they snubbed TQ's invitation. The pics of Charlotte's first day at school were a reminder of the Sussexes' demands for privacy. The Cambs are indeed pushing back. Soon Kate will be at some royal evening event, looking immaculate and wearing the serious jewels. MM will be shown in ripped jeans and a bf shirt with slutty stilettoes.

It's the Hollywood connection though. Meghan thinks she's winning because Ellen, the clooneys et al are sticking up for her and not talking about Kate. That's why I think Will and Kate should at attack at what Lady megbeth thinks is her wheelhouse. Maybe they'll have to start playing the Diana card full on.

For instance they were those rumours that harry had it bad for jen aniston and meghan wanted a friendship group like hers. I would love it if jen during a casual conversation mentioned she loves will and Kate and says complimentary things about them and no mention of Harry and meghan

Or at the next bafta event or prince's trust event, the Cambridges flat out snub the clooneys or wintour or other Meg ass lickers. Just ignore and dismiss them even when they are trying to talk to them.

R60 - Ah, but you see the problem is, that isn't how Meghan wants to explode people's heads. She wants to be one of those whose heads would explode if she went natural with her hair. Hence, the ridiculously fake long straight hair that isn't even layered properly.

She really wants to play both ends against the middle: defiance, individualism, rock the boat down and dirty . . . but holding onto the Ruling Class's privileges.

The losers in this silly contradiction are the British public and Meghan's hair.

[quote]another woman in need gets the same item, just as good.

I don’t think it’s “just as good” - I read that the donated items will be cheaper versions of the clothing that’s for sale.

R69, that shit looks cheap enough as is.

Sorry. I’m a quality snob. I’d rather have one good cashmere sweater from a thrift shop than a dozen acrylic sweaters from H&M.

R69 - The donated items are identical to those that are sold retail.

Well well well....no wonder there are reviews of the dresses going back months.

[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.]

Living under the Heathrow flight path will most likely put a crimp in any planned outdoor entertaining. ( I speak as someone who lives near the flight path into a major US airport.) The noise will interrupt conversations.

In addition, pollution from the aircraft exhaust could have a negative impact on any vegetables from their garden.

That's not a bad price for a good barbecue area.

R72-the shit will hit the fan if the press starts reporting on that. Very interesting - and damning.

R72 oh, that is juicy! I hope someone can verify that and make it public.

The dress being a past season style, I think that's already been mentioned in the press. Maybe the colors are new? This "collection" is confusing though. Different pieces are being sold in different stores. The white blouse is technically a new design but very basic and costs over £ 100. Same with the trousers. The only piece I like is the jacket with the nipped in waist, also £££.

So, random clothes from different designers pulled together as a collection and for two weeks, and only two weeks, each store sale results in a duplicate garment sent to the charity. Seems convoluted.

Hmm - but MM made a big deal the SHE designed the clothes.

Surprised those black pants aren't on fire.

[quote] So, random clothes from different designers pulled together as a collection and for two weeks, and only two weeks, each store sale results in a duplicate garment sent to the charity. Seems convoluted.

Seems much is convoluted with the sussexes. Nothing is as it seems, really.

Think they use convoluted schemes to hide shady practices and smokescreens: 1) Megs DID NOT design anything in "HER capsule collection". Instead picked up old designs from M&S and the 2017 "husband shirt" from Mischa. 2) The collection is limited as is the amount of time the BOGO (buy one, get one) benefit applies....now 13 days. 3) The Harvey Weinstein-affiliated PR firm they utilise, hyped this event to the max...wherein she stayed at the actual launch event less than an hour and gave an unscripted speech where she mentioned herself no less than 36 times, included her past accomplishments and plugged her upcoming Sussex Foundation 2020 while simultaneously denigrating the Smart Works charity for having used and non-matching clothing. (Also. why does a BRF couple necessitate a sleazy American PR firm??)

"Friend of an acquaintance was about to go riding with HMQ. Was given v firm advice. 'Talk about anything except one subject.' Brexit? 'No. The Sussexes.'"

Meg has a fat ass. Little wonder she gets on so well with Serena “Wide Load” Williams.

[quote] Oh the fraus on CB are soooo happy!

Thank you for letting us know. Please keep us informed about the mood of the fraus on Celebitchy as we all care very much.

Subjects,

I shall now endeavor to subsume oneself within the work-product of my sole doing, that being my own invention; my very own bodily fluid and aura.

For you, I shall materialize a “Blog” in the voice of that baby. For you. All for you. I know no bitterness. The full heart has no room for such things.

Yea, I shall return to my Blog-O-Sphere — the very one created by mine own 12-year-old, vituperatively tiny, bird-boned hand, so boldly delicate yet so diaphanously unwavering as it pecked out letter upon letter on an anciently old and desiccated keyboard found deep within an unctuous trash-heap by my sainted mama as she lugubriously trudged home to our hovel, feet all a’blood, after her third job of that very day.

These self-referential acts, this most exhausting emotional labour, she performed tirelessly whilst battling the wrath of The Fates whilst struggling to serve as both mother and father to my wraithlike self, a veritable half-orphan!

“Mama, I shall call my invention “The Blog” and whence you see it forever forth, heretofore from hence and ever after, you shall secrete a sole tear of thanks — a sole tear as briny as a seductively smooth schmear of French butter rolling in delectably torpid rivulets down the hilariously dead visage of a flame-lapped luau pigling, knowing that your baby girl succeeded in MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!”

Namaste to all the moms,

HRH TigTotMom

[quote]The Duchess’s business manager Andrew Meyer filed documents in the US using a company called Frim Fram to keep rights to the name until at least 2021.

[quote]It raises the prospect Meghan, 38, could relaunch the platform, where she shared stories about her favourite food, places, fashion and inspiring women.

[quote]There is also a website listed under Frim Fram named Tigtots, which could be a version aimed at parents.

R84, that’s her exit plan, I guess. Bless her for having so many balls in the air.

Look at that HAIR in r84. Did she have sweatpants and flip-flops on?

Little docu if anyone fancies an hour out on this fine Saturday.

"Kate: The Making Of A Modern Queen (British Royal Family Documentary) | Timeline"

R80, 43 times.....43 times.

Best comment in the latest Daily Fail article:

[quote]Harry needs to purchase a 3D printer and print himself out a pair of balls and a brain.

You can smell her funkham from across the Atlantic.

R81 - Nonsense. No friend of the Queen would report such a conversation.

Nor does the comment seem in character for a woman notorious for not letting on what she thinks or feels.

The Express has a piece up called "Haters Gonna Hate" in which it manages, like the DM, to pretend to be shocked, but to talk extensively about how many times Meghan referred to herself in the speech (43 according to the DE).

She always, always, always ends by being the centre-piece of any work she does. She can't help it. Narcissism and self-regard and the need for applause and praise appear as a cloud around her, rather like the cloud of dirt that follows around the Charlie Brown cartoon character, Pigpen.

R91 That tweet doesn’t say anything about a “friend of the Queen” & she is not The Sphinx, is she? I am pretty sure she talks about things that bother her all the time...just not in public.

And that is a perfect description of Markle”s narcissism. Just like an ever present cloud around her, you’re right.

Subscribe to our IG so you can stay assailed by my (our) latest unctuous offerings.

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

I think we are using different definitions of “install” and mine is incorrect. I’ve had a lot of appliances delivered, but it’s never been a straight switch out. There is always some plumbing, electric, cabinetry, etc. For something like hooking up a washer and dryer (not a gas dryer), I wasn’t thinking of that as installing, because anyone can do it. But yes, it is installing. Still, it’s very common for appliances a to be delivered and not immediately installed.

Oops!

And now the solid gold toilet that the Trumps turned down, is placed in a British palace and somebody steals it!

The Sussex morons got themselves a bathtub made of copper, so one might look for that gold crapper in the Sussexes' crib ...

R84 is why I still visit these threads. Truly hilarious.

R94 - Annes granddaughters look beautiful. Her son is quite handsome and Autumn is pretty, so hardly a surprise there.

R84 “a veritable half-orphan”

I can't understand why anyone would make a solid-gold toilet in the first place.

[QUOTE] He is also in charge of a £370 million, ten-year re-fit of the Queen’s official London residence...

And this is why nobody in the BRF is bothered about the paltry £4m spent on Frogmore Cottage.

R102, well I do.

Totally tremendous idea, absolutely fantastic.

Maybe it's warmer on the bottom R102? I've just tried sitting on my wedding band but I'm not getting any effect that I could put forward as scientific proof. For fun, I looked to see if it had any healing properties that would benefit the body mid-dump, and I found....

The 7 Surprising Powers of Gold Gold has divine connotations. The Incas called gold the “the tears of the sun” and the Egyptians believed gold was a divine metal associated with the sun god. ... It exudes healing vibes. ... It's the color of victory. ... It keeps you beautiful. ... Gold was a royal pain reliever. ... It's an energy magnet. ... Gold delivers a rush.

So there you go.....it's a royal pain reliever, gives you a rush and keeps you beautiful, amongst other things.

I think I would like one, too.

r65, Harry never goes to Balmoral, ever. Iirc he’s only been once or twice in his entire adult life. So no “snubbing” on either side.

Here in the UK William’s cheesy “lets have two planes flown across the country by an airline that can magically accommodate my entire family and massive staff at less than a day’s notice just to make my brother look bad” pap stunt was regarded very poorly. A huge PR own goal there.

Still it keeps people from talking about his wandering dick.

R106 - The two planes weren't William's fault or idea. When they decided to take the budget flight, no other planes were available. And as far as a PR own goal goes, this particular one was lost in the glare of Harry's and Meghan's massive hypocrisy, compounded by Harry's attending the carbon emission fest at the Google Camp glitterati love-in, and stating he was only going to have two kids to help the planet when the next day it was announced that Britain's birth rate was falling alarmingly.

The PR battle on that front was totally lost by Harry and Meghan.

As for Balmoral, I think that field is one the Sussexes yielded to the Cambridges without even attempting to get a corner of it. The place doesn't remotely interest Meghan, and neither, of course, does the Queen, now that she's given Meghan what Meghan wanted: the high-profile British hubby she wanted, a title, high social status, a luxurious home paid for by other people (that is to say, Charles and the UK taxpayer - oh, maybe Harry bought a few pieces of furniture with his actual limited cash income after taxes), and now she can ignore the Qouueen and the Cambridges at will.

Of course, they could have brought the baby up to be seen by, and paid their respects to the grandfather Harry should know is at death's door, showing a little forbearance and love (I doubt William and Kate are thrilled with weekends up at Balmoral, either, by now), but hey, that would mean looking like you appreciated the opportunity you were given. And Gran is 93, too. Jesus, they could have spared them both 48 hours out of their terribly Woke lives.y

They want to be on their own with as little to do with the family that put them both at the top of the pyramid, they are making that clear.

Every good optic the Sussexes try for is always offset by two bad ones of their own making.

Agree that Meghan would not be interested in Balmoral it self or hanging out with the family, but she would kill to have the paps take a shot at her riding in the car with the Queen going to church. I really do not think she was invited as they have finally learned that they cannot trust her not to leak private information about the family. When the Tindall's latest kid was baptized, someone (ahem) called the paps on the private christening. There was Meghan, looking like the cat who swallowed the canary. I think the Queen is done with personally interacting with Meghan or giving her the opportunity to get a pap shot looking as if the two of them looking cozy. That is a perk she only uses to show whom she favors. The balcony shots of Andrew and Anne flanking her at the Trooping the Color are hilarious - no Queen for you today, Meghan.

What will be interesting to see is if they show up for the walk at Sandringham this Christmas. George is probably old enough now to participate in the walk. If so, there will be no "fab four" (yuck) pairing this year. Harry and Meghan will be relegated behind the Cambridges and they will be practically ignored given the novelty of George's first walk. If Charlotte is allowed, as well, they might as well be invisible. If that is the case they will probably make other plans in order to have an excuse not to attend.

I think they will be at Sandringham only because they have nowhere else to go. Unless Meagain makes them stay home for festive tofu nut loaf.

It would be wonderful if the Cambridge kids started participating in the walk. The sooner they can start sidelining the Sussexes, the better.

Maybe they'll say they are going to stay with Doria so she can see her grandkid, r110? That would at least be plausible and acceptable to the public. But they are so tone deaf they'll probably leak that they are on a yacht with some of their celeb "friends".

R106 You are such a liar, are you even in the UK?

[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.]

They show Archie when it suits them.

She must die when she hears shit like Drag Race. It's just what she wants but to get it she has to take repetitional shit kicking. So close she can taste it but she has to figure out how. Just divorce him, lady, before you're too old and the "opportunities" dry up.

The Archie photo @ R115.

Oh ffs, these two degenerates actually suit eachother, lmao.

"Courtney Love says the Prince knocked on the door of her LA pad looking for sex in the early hours of the morning"

The Royals really need to stick with their own kind (the British posh etc.) Better odds stories like this don't get out. I mean, it seems comparatively innocent enough. Can't be the first time some guy has showed up at her house looking to get laid.

Wonder whether Prince Charming was high as a kite? Sounds like he could have been.

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

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

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

[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.]

R117 - That photo looks doctored, especially where Meghan's profile is concerned. It looks like that the doctoring gave her a completely new nose, with the bulk shaved off and an elegant sharp bridge and tip, instead of the bulbous ski-jump one she has. It doesn't even look like her.

Why it's almost as if . . . she reinvented herself (again).

R109 - Was wondering the same about the Sandringham Happy Families Christmas Walk this year. My guess is that the Sussexes can't NOT show up, it would be like announcing they really have left the BRF, and would reinforce the growing perception that their focus is outside Britain - now that Meghan has her title and her global celebrity, she no longer needs the BRF for anything except Charles's continued financial support.

My guess is that if both couples attend, they will walk separately rather than even trying to present what the public by now knows is a completely false narrative, and you'll see the Cambridges up front with HM, then Andrew and Anne behind to serve as a barrier, and then the Sussexes.

Then there's the Remembrance Day commemoration not too far off.

I'm also betting on another pregnancy announcement by the Sussexes in spring 2020.

I still can't get over that stupid name. Can you imagine being 40 or 50 and being like "Yeah my name is Archie?" And his middle name is literally "Harry's son".

R127, you're being provincial. "Archie" is not as uncommon as all that outside your 'hood, and it sounds a lot better at any age than the usual full name of "Archibald."

What's your name, after the "Princess" part?

[quote] Can you imagine being 40 or 50 and being like "Yeah my name is Archie?"

[QUOTE] R114 Ru Paul wants Mega on the UK Drag Race panel. Noooo....

To be fair at least one Royal has done a panel show in the past, Princess Anne was on 'A Question of Sport' in 1987. She did quite a lot to raise her media presence around that time, even appearing on Talk Shows.

I think it was a bit of a response to Diana Mania

Princess Anne on the Wogan Show.

Princess Anne on Parkinson.

Princess Anne looks miles better with short hair than long.

If Andrew can go galavanting around the world raping teens, who cares if Markle puts up a harmless blog.

The problem with the topic of Prince Andrew is that everyone agrees that he’s awful, his behavior has been criminal, and that he should be removed from the official line of succession. There’s nothing much to discuss.

R128 inhabits the land of Sebastians and as.

Actually, I know two Sebastians and one a. And I worked with an Archer. I’m nearly 50 and have never met a human named Archie. (Knew a Yorkshire terrier in the East Village named Archibald - after Cary Grant!)

R117’s photo is heavily doctored. (“It’s the lighting!”)

It looks like fan art. (“It took me like three hours to finish the shading on your jawline...”)

Anyone on DL live near Frogmore? Anyone?

Some making comments on other sites have posted they live near Windsor and walk their dogs in the park. These locals are calling Frogmore, "Fraudmore".

They report no activity surrounding the house. Apparently it's crickets....or frogs.

Some earlier work on the house months ago, but no "'toing or 'froing" at all. And apparently the press camped out there around the time of Archie's birth, and there was NO activity.

Anyone live near there? How come the press continues with the stories on Frogmore?

After seeing R129’s post, I wonder if the choice of Archie was some kind of unconscious homage to her dad. Maybe she feels guilty!

R138, I’ve been saying it all along. The Harkles don’t live there, because that smug twat doesn’t want to.

Don’t expect to see her at Balmoral or Sandringham or Dumbarton or anywhere else, either.

So..where are they living?

Will gives support to HIV rugby player Gareth Thomas.

[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.]

A Royal for every Zodiac sign.

R144 - except the Sagittarius corgi. LOL

R144, I knew that Charles was a fellow Scorpio, and Meghan a Leo. Never an easy match.

Yes, where do they live?

It appears that the Quentin Letts story about the Queen telling a riding companion not to raise the subject of the Sussexes is now being carried by, amongst others, Marie-Claire and the Daily Express.

If it is hitting mainstream media, the Palace will have to come out and deny it and leave egg all over Letts' face, otherwise it looks as if the Palace don't care about the public putting the logical spin on the story: the BRF, including the Queen, hate Meghan Markle.

I still call bullshit on this story and Letts has considerable cheek in putting it about, as he risks being contradicted by the Palace and eroding what is left of his credibility, and costing the source quoted by the friend of the source any semblance of friendship with the Queen.

The DE and MC are carrying a story with no visible legs whatsoever, from a man who clearly doesn't care whether his story has legs or not.

I also note that the original "Haters Gonna Hate" story in the DE about attacks on MM for self-checking her name 43 times in the speech the other day, now goes by a different title - Meghan Attacked for Self-Checking Herself . . ."

I suppose they figured out that a good number of those "haters" were their own readers.

I expect the Palace to come out with a statement denying the event ever happened, and that throws Letts squarely under the bus.

Otherwise, the public will draw the only conclusion possible: Letts' story is true and the Queen is past caring if the public know that she hates Meghan Markle.

And if by some chance it IS true (although I suspect we'll never kow the truth), this would be another family relationship of Harry's that Meghan has managed to destroy in her paranoid insistence on owning him completely so she can be sure of never losing him.

The palace never denies such stories.

OK to be clear, the Queen did not say that.

The exact tweet was: Friend of an acquaintance was about to go riding with HMQ. Was given v firm advice. 'Talk about anything except one subject.' Brexit? 'No. The Sussexes.'

It might be possible. But I struggle to imagine anyone close to the Queen betraying that. Unless everybody's getting that advice these days.

'Was wondering the same about the Sandringham Happy Families Christmas Walk this year. '

You really do have an empty life, don't you?

Harry looks weird too at R117. Look at his ear and his whiskers.

[QUOTE] I’ve been saying it all along. The Harkles don’t live there, because that smug twat doesn’t want to. Don’t expect to see her at Balmoral or Sandringham or Dumbarton or anywhere else, either.'

Didn't you also say they'd never get married and the baby was a doll?

Nowhere does it state that the advice came from someone close to HMQ, let alone her ‘friend,’ or am I reading it wrong? The way it’s worded (was given v firm advice),it could be anyone, e.g. someone handling the horses.

Maybe the person about to encounter the Queen was a bumbling American, and they were being briefed. I’m sure some people would want to be prepared. And someone who’s clueless - some might actually BELIEVE the PR that the Queen adores Meghan - would think it polite to ask about her newest great-grandchild.

I don’t think it’s scandalous at all.

I was thinking along the same lines as r154 and r155. I have know idea how the royal marching is run, I just read the gossip. Would everyone employed in any capacity know not to make any offhandedly comments? If were employed in her stable I could see making a “joke” to a nervous visitor. I’m stupid that way, but so are a lot of people. Even if it happened this wasn’t necessarily a real briefing.

Where do they live? They probably don’t live *anywhere* - they way we do. Just trotting around the globe, yachts, country houses, hotels and tennis matches, no real home. So if HRH considers Froggy Hollow a banishment and gloomy tomb, she can just spend time elsewhere, performing her magnanimity and scheduling renovations for the times she’s supposed to be “home”.

It’s not a conspiracy, just scheduling so she doesn’t have to be there more than a week per month.

If it happened it wasn't somebody lower on the totem pole. They wouldn't know it to be true and wouldn't run the risk of speaking out of turn. It's still pretty Downton Abbey in the royal household. You wouldn't go borrowing trouble by speaking out of turn about the Queen or her family.

And come to think of it, maybe it is true and here's why: this sounds like classic QEII. Something unpleasant? Ignore it. Look at how long Charles and Diana dragged out, in no small part because the Queen kept ignoring it, counselling delay, etc. She may well be doing an ostrich here too, knowing it's not good but not fatal and for Charles to sort out. They won't kill the monarchy being the idiots they are, basically they've been politely isolated... she may be taking the position it is doomed to failure so you wait it out through gritted teeth until she goes back to where she came from. Never complain, never explain.

Ignoring something is the Queen's MO, for sure. But what is Charles' excuse? He could step in to mitigate some of the damage. Perhaps he has. He wasn't featured in the happy birthday Harry montage yesterday. Perhaps he has said something to them or pulled their funding?

They seem to beg for things through the media. The latest this weekend was articles linking them once a gain to the Cambridges, including an article claiming Kate and Meghan are becoming closer. I hope the Cambridges continue to give them a wide berth.

"If Andrew can go gallivanting around the world raping teens, who cares if Markle puts up a harmless blog."

R134 - You are so correct. Most of this Megan nonsense is made of Fan fiction or Hater fiction. The real problem is pedo Andy because pedophilia is a real problem and a real crime that the public has to deal with. Megan is just tabloid selling and click bait tittle-tattle.

Soooo, because of Andy no one can talk about Meghan? Who made you the thread dictator?

R160 - We don't need hall monitors here. This is a gossip site, not the nation's paper of record.

A paedophile is someone interested in sex with children under the age of 12. The woman in question was 17, which wouldn't even leave Andrew open to charges of sex with a minor in New York, as 17 is the age of sexual consent there. The charge of forced sex was laid against Epstein.

Andrew is unquestionably a man of low character and bad judgement.

Meghan Markle, on the other hand, is merely extremely distasteful - but as she's living off the public purse to a large extent, I fail to see why her glaring character flaws are "nonesense" - such a narcissism so profound that she is unable to hide that she saw the BRF as "marks" rather than people, and is now treating them with the contempt that most narcissists extend to marks once they get what they want from them.

Presumably, she still needs a few things from Harry, whom she has managed in one year to separate from his entire blood family, and making him completely dependent upon her for intimacy and connection, and therefore is still treating him reasonably nicely. After all, she still wants the perks of the title the Queen gifted her with, and the support of the public purse, and a second child as extra insurance should the marriage go tits up.

You are at liberty to focus solely upon Andrew.

The rest of us will continue enjoy the specatable of a particularly crass grifter sticking it to the monarchy that was foolish enough to let her in.

^*spectacle

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

Can’t say that I blame her. Would you want to talk about an ugly, preventable but now-unfixable mess in your family that you let happen if you were going out on a nice ride in the countryside?

Diana knew what her job was. I'm not sure Meghan does.

I saw the DM article on the latest Sussex story, which the tabs are gleefully using to erase whatever positive PR Meghan got from her latest humanitarian project.

The DM article contains some caveats, such as people naturally wanting to talk about Meghan and Harry given their high profile, and aides politely heading off strangers or mere acquaintences from asking the Queen questions about her own family, but they always come back to the tone of Letts' original post, which clearly implies that the Queen is so angry and upset about the Sussexes that she doesn't even want them mentioned in the Presence.

So this is now runnling like wildfire on the wires, just before Meghan and Harry take off for a couple of weeks in Africa. Left uncorrected by the Palace, either by some hastily arranged photo op or story (Meghan, Harry, and Archie Travel to Balmoral to say Goodbye to the Queen Before Heading Off to Africa!), or an outright announcement, it will linger in the public's mind as true: Meghan and Harry are on the outs with the most senior level royalty and are carving out a life and identity separate from the BRF (although not from the privileges of such membership), which doesn't bode well for them once HM is gone, Charles is on the throne, and the public begin looking over his shoulder at the new Prince and Princess of Wales.

There is also an article up on the DM from a source who insists Kate is pregnant again.

I do hope it's true, as the Cambridges can claim to be helping Britain's alarmingly low birth rate, whilst Harry helps the "plaent" by only having two, and pokes a silent stick in the eye of his pious hypocrisy.

With any luck Kate is, as it will move the Sussexes back down the line of succession, and with greater luck it would be twins, turning Harry into 8th and Archie into 9th in the line, and begging questions about why people so far down the line are being supported by the Sovereign grant for vanity projects the public cares nothing about, let alone work "abroad".

And, it would cause apoplexy on CB, as it would undoubtedly coincide with Meghan's second pregnancy and render it anticlimactic (possibly Eugenie's as well), and whilst Kate appears graciously on the the steps of the Lindo Wing for five minutes smiling and waving at the plebs with her little bundle in her arms, Meghan sneaks off again into the shadows with her exceedingly irrelevant little bundle but manages to make it look more important with a strictly monitored photocall in the nearest palace so she can look more royal even if she isn't.

I think people don't care about the Andy situation because it is a finite matter. Once the Queen is dead, Andy will be "retired" and disappear. Harry and Meghan will be around for decades unless one of them meets an untimely. This is so even if they are no longer in the BRF as you know she will always find a way in the press.

R168 - Spot on. There was never much love lost between Charles and Andrew, and Charles cares about the monarchy itself, for obvious reasons. Once HM is raptured, Andrew will be put out to pasture as a working royal, with his daughters, perhaps, brought more forward to represent the York contingent. There just isn't much left to this story.

What Charles can do about the Sussexes is another story. Harry is, after all, his son, which even subtle disciplining difficult.

It will be the increasing spotlight on Charles's heir and his family once they step up to Pc. and Pss. of Wales that will help diminsih the Sussexes.

I do feel for HM, who at 93 is looking at a damaged family as well as a damaged institution that she has spent nearly seven decades safeguarding, instead of at a securely placed institution and a large, stronger family. She must also be feeling some personal responsibility for the latter - she spoilt Andrew, refused to intervene in her relations' private lives at times when she should have.

Charles is probably limited in what he can do with Harry for fear that Harry will spill the goods on him. Don't get me wrong, I think Harry is a spoiled brat who has no clue how good he has it compared to the masses. All the same, Charles seems like he was shit father who threw his sons under the bus when it suited him. He treated their mother like crap. No matter her issues, he was older, knew the game, and could have handled the whole situation so much more graciously. Had he done so, they might still be married and have an "arrangement" that suited both of them. What does Harry know about Charles that he could spill to the press (should Charles give him an ultimatum)?

Harry and Meghan may be around for decades, but they will never be relevant, except to the fangirls who seem to populate these threads. If they're too extravagant they can be cut off from the public purse without affecting anything except themselves.

I'm sure HM is unhappy about Andrew's present situation, but it's not going to damage the institution because he's nowhere near the core of the Brand. Charles appears keen to be king, and the Cambridges, right down to Charlotte (Louis remaining an unknown quantity), seem like solid gold succession material. She could hardly wish for better. In other words, the Queen has less to worry about than you seem to think, R169. Besides, she's probably seen enough in her lifetime to realise that Harry will get sick of Meghan's histrionics in time, and settle down with a nice suitable girl who won't cause him ulcers and won't rock the boat.

I hope so, r171. I hope people get bored with the Sussexes, and soon!

I know I am.

It would be extremely inconvenient to not have a semi-permanent base of operations with an infant. Where would the nanny show up to for work? Plus, Meghan seems inexperienced with infants. I bet she has every piece of infant paraphernalia out there, since she wouldn’t know ahead of time what was really needed. Which is very, very common these days since people don’t hire inexperienced teenage girls to babysit infants as frequently as in the past.

I am so very gratified by the last several posts. The very reason I started posting on DL (before MM was known to any of us) was because the discussion regarding the British Royals was intelligent and educated. I've been embarrassed by the turn of the discussion, and would like to resume to polite chat. You Brits will always put me in my place, but I don't mind that at all.

Someone on one of these threads mentioned that the gossip in London was that they were staying somewhere in Mayfair, r174. Obviously, that could be unfounded, so who is to say. It just goes to show that they do have the ability to keep a low profile if they choose.

A video of William's speech at the opening of the BAFTA Piccadilly exhibition.

Swipe for Prince Edward's continuing tour in Australia.

R174, I’m not disagreeing, but SHE isn’t the one packing the diaper bag or doing the actual care of the baby. It doesn’t affect her because she has staff to worry about the details.

Even if Frogmore is their home base, it doesn’t seem as if it’s their home. As wonderful as her lifestyle may be on some ways, it seems very sad in others. Maybe she doesn’t want it any other way.

She seems to be a rolling stone.

The only way another Sussex spawn will raise interest is the baby being a girl as it's very likely a girl will be called Diana.

Nobody (except for some deluded Meg stans) will give a fuck if Her Royal Heavyness gives birth to another boy.

I hope kate is pregnant and I hope they're twins. The bit is named Thomas or Philip and the girl is named Diana. And I fucking hope to god these celebs stop defending her or even mentioning her. That will hurt megsy the most.

R161 & R162 - I did not make myself clear. I was only stating my own opinion. Talking about pedo Andy is serious business because he is alleged to have committed crimes and was known to hang with a convicted sex offender. I hope the New York Times and the Washington Posts talks about on the front page until charges are brought against the pedo.

Meghan & Harry are nothing but mindless entertaining gossip. Meghan's harmless blog does not concern me and I could not care less about her blog.

This is the DataLounge so you can talk about whatever you want.

[quote]Meghan & Harry are nothing but mindless entertaining gossip. Meghan's harmless blog does not concern me and I could not care less about her blog.

Ah, hold on there!

Brits are becoming increasingly incensed by the "mindless" spending and behaviour of Haz and Megs: 6 figure coture! private jets! millions of dollars of renovations on not-used Frogmore! clearing paid patrons from their seats so a private viewing at British tennis can occur! private NYC baby showers!

Their actions may be "mindless", but the result of those actions are most certainly not.

Increasing calls for a Republic? Cutting back on taxpayer allowances for the monarchy? Getting rid of the BRF?

Not so outlandish for the people that support them. With Andrew's bad behaviour and the increasing profligacy of the Sussexes, that may be enough to show them the door.

I don't think William and Kate would name another daughter Diana as it's already one of Charlotte's middle names. On the other hand, Louis already was one of George's middle names but this didn't stop them to use that particular name as a first name for their second son, so who knows.

As for another son, I've frankly got no idea what name they'd pick. Albert? Philip as a tribute if Prince Pips will have bitten the dust by then? I'd love them to choose a 'less royal' nevertheless very traditional name, for example Michael (tribute to Kate's dad), David (patron saint of Wales), Victor, Anthony, Christian and the like.

If anyone reads/subscribes to the Daily Telegraph, this may be something to check out. Hmmm, I wonder to whom he is referring?

Another horrendous side effect of meghan markle is fucking jameela jamil. God that woman is annoyingm

I take these blinds with a pound a salt, but...this is feasible.

r187. And they use the term "crown jewel" . What a grasping trashbag....

R184 Giving a new princess the first name of Diana is a massive amount of baggage that W&K would probably rather avoid. If they wanted to do it, they would've done it the first time they had a Princess

Blind Gossip is so stupid. They take something already being rumored, make it 10% vague and VOILA!

R185 - God, I love Douglas Murray. I've been reading him for years on The Spectator (UK).

R189 - It just might be worth the triumph for Kate to have another daughter before Meghan does and name it Diana, depriving Meghan of a major PR coup.

Because, remember, if it's the Cambridge's child, it will be the second PRINCESS Diana. If it's the Sussexes, it will only be Lady Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.

My guess, though, is that you're right, the baggage would be very heavy on the bearer of the name. But twins would be fantastic, wouldn't they?

Princess Diana and Prince Michael.

Maybe they will have two (identical) girls. Although they still could make it work as Princess Diana and Princess Michael, I suppose.

I just love it when people who say they hate publicity and press coverage are hiring PR firms and consulting/ consorting with Hollywood celebs for projects. It totally helps support their public declarations of wanting privacy instead of seeking fame. I also love how truly charitable people set up a foundation that is not a registered non-profit but a foundation with murky structure and Hollywood people running it. No, it totally supports their public declarations of wanting to do good work instead of seeking money to support crass celebrity lifestyle.

HM doesn't want to talk about it

I know it's a bag of crap, but it still looks like M&H are being nasty to an old woman in r194. Is that US PR?

^^^ Who is Quentin Letts? How is it US PR when the article quotes the Sun and the Daily Mail? If that's what Meghan is paying for from her American publicists, she's not getting value for money.

"This report comes off a tweet from journalist Quentin Letts, who wrote “Friend of an acquaintance was about to go riding with HMQ [Her Majesty the Queen]. Was given v firm advice. ‘Talk about anything except one subject.’ ‘Brexit?’ ‘No. The Sussexes.’”

[quote] I just love it when people who say they hate publicity and press coverage are hiring PR firms and consulting/ consorting with Hollywood celebs for projects. It totally helps support their public declarations of wanting privacy instead of seeking fame. I also love how truly charitable people set up a foundation that is not a registered non-profit but a foundation with murky structure and Hollywood people running it. No, it totally supports their public declarations of wanting to do good work instead of seeking money to support crass celebrity lifestyle.

And a "feminist", who marries and uses her husband and his family to social climb. And a "humanitarian", who denies her father and all former family members (save one) and ghosts many former friends. And an "environmentalist" that luxuriates in private jet flights for exhorbitant baby showers and holidays and work. And a " kind, caring" person who reportedly demands tiaras and 5am staff meetings and throws tea at people when angry (and thus has much staff turnover.) And a "down-to-earth" person who has a royal title by proxy (i.e. no citizenship yet), but repeatedly writes as "HRH The Duchess" in all public communications...And a "loving Mum" who displays awkward and uncomfortable body language in the only non-posed appearance with her baby.....And......And

Great summary, R197.

[quote]Harry will get sick of Meghan's histrionics in time, and settle down with a nice suitable girl who won't cause him ulcers and won't rock the boat.

Exactly like his father.

Prince Charles guest edited an edition of Country Life magazine which features his favorite recipe, pheasant crumble pie.

Yes, well, who doesn't love home-cooked pheasant, especially if one has recently shot it oneself, on one's own estate?

I have always wanted to try pheasant (and grouse).

[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.]

If Wills and Kate have a daughter called Diana, she will be the first true Princess Diana.

The last one was called that by the press and public, but her real title was HRH Diana, Princess of Wales, and a generation earlier, or if she were less the fairytale princess, or less determined to upstage her husband, she'd have been rigorously referred to as "The Princess of Wales", with no name attached. The Prince of Wales is called Prince Charles because he was born a prince, not because he holds that title.

"Princess Diana" was the same contortion that it would be to call Kate "Duchess Catherine". She's the Duchess of Cambridge, until she's crowned Queen Catherine.

Except that Charles felt pushed into his marriage to Diana and, thus, abandoned any commitment to her fairly early on. Quite the opposite, dimwit Harry forced Meghan on his family (and the world) through his own volition. He may already be tired of her histrionics, but leaving her will be admitting he made a mistake. We may have to wait until she leaves him, because his ego won't allow him to do otherwise.

She won't leave him because she knows he's not as rich as she initially thought and will now never sever her connection to the public financial teat. She will just make his and the rest of the family's lives miserable as punishment.

I had cream of pheasant soup once at the White Horse pub in Shere, which is opposite the Bridget Jones church. I still remember it. Very rich, very cosy.

I would guess Harry is her emotional prisoner. He's besotted. He had a comfortable young life, but not an easy one: divorce, death, media. Traumas + stupid = here for the duration.

Lucky Madame Thenardier. She can loot til she's worn out.

You just know she reads her press. If she ate meat, she'd be eating her liver out over this Queen story.

Good.

Agree that she's not likely to find a better deal. However, her history shows that she can't stay in place (or with one person) for long and that she thinks she is smarter than everyone else.

By chance I came across what looked like an article about the odds on a divorce between the Sussexes, that turned out to be rather broader, based on research that included information on genetic tendencies as well as family history. Its conclusion is that it's not a question of whether, but when.

If you google "Evolutionary Psychology Says Meghan and Harry Will Divorce", you will find it. Here are some excerpts:

". . . given the psychological and strongly genetic factors that predict divorce, this whole marriage is “trouble.” A “super-forecaster” acquaintance–whose meal ticket is his ability to make correct predictions—reckons about three years to separation, five or six years to divorce.

In the case of the marriage of Harry’s brother Prince William to Kate Middleton, only one of them is from a broken home. Prince Charles and two of his three siblings are divorced. Princess Diana’s parents divorced when she was 8, and her brother, the Earl Spencer, has two failed marriages behind him . . . . so [the successful union] becomes much more unlikely with Harry and the former Suits starlet. Markle’s father has been divorced twice. Her mother has been divorced once. Her half-sister has contracted two failed marriages. And then there’s her half-brother, a divorced alcoholic . . . .

Markle herself was already divorced at 32, after just 23 months of marriage, sending her ring back to her ex-husband via registered mail. . . . Her divorce and her ruthless treatment of her ex imply low altruism and low impulse control, both key predictors of marital breakdown [Personality traits and mental divorce. Fani & Kheirabadi, Proceedia, 2011, 30:671-5].

. . . . The key predictors of success in the world of acting are altruism, extraversion, mental instability and being something of a fantasist who can escape into an imaginary world, a trait known as ‘Openness’ in psychology. [Psychological profiles of professional actors, by Daniel Nettle, Personality & Individual Differences, January 2006]

. . . . it’s already clear that Markle is low in altruism, so her success must be down to her extraversion (which predicts risk taking) and mental instability, which predicts a very rocky relationship. Naturally, these two traits also predict divorce—see Fani and Kheirabadi, above—which explains why Hollywood is so liberally peppered with multiple marriages.

Harry, of course, has shown himself to be an embarrassing risk-taker: the nude photos, the drug taking, the Nazi uniform worn to a costume party when he was 20 . . .

Markle’s father has been divorced twice. Her mother has been divorced once. Her half-sister has contracted two failed marriages. . . .

Harry, of course, has shown himself to be an embarrassing risk-taker: the nude photos, the drug taking, the Nazi uniform worn to a costume party when he was 20. People from broken homes are prone to risk taking. Their childhoods have been unstable in a key way.

. . . . It seems clear that Meghan is not especially close to either parent and doesn’t see them very much. It follows that both Meghan Markle and Prince Harry–by virtue of contracting a mixed-race marriage at all–are fast LH strategists who are thus high in the personality traits which lead to divorce.

. . . . And the whole basis of their relationship seems to be purely physical; unsurprising considering Meghan has dated a porn star and she’s so shallow that she’d rather invite celebrities (whom she hardly knows) to her wedding than the perfectly respectable diplomat uncle who gave Meghan her first job . . . ."

. . .. Harry has never had to worry about money. But there is an extent to which his life hasn’t been easy: The spare, not the heir, losing his mom at a vulnerable age, combat in Afghanistan . . . even rumors about his true paternity.

This manifestly doomed marriage will make it even worse for him in the long run. She’ll tire of him.

But we can’t say so. The bride is half-black, so the “will to believe” will be too strong . . . right up until day the inevitable split engrosses the UK tabloids."

^*apologies for the two repeated paragraphs . . .

R211

NB: While I'm not sure I subscribe to every assertion, especially genetic ones, in the article, there was enough there that I do agree with to share it. And the amazing thing is, exactly the same article could have beeny written about Charles and Diana, with some tweaks re the genetic/mixed race component, which is why I questioned those parts of the article.

Said before, will repeat: Harry has married a woman who shares his mother's most destructive personality traits: extraversion, narcissism, a strong bent towars fantasism, emotional instability combined with emotional ruthlessness, and low inhibition control.

You would think Charles, after his experience with Diana, would have recognised the signs immediately and told his son that if he married Meghan and the marriage went tits up, not one penny of Charles's or the BRF's would be forthcoming to meet her financial settlement demands.

R212, perhaps Charles did issue that threat. And the two lovebirds called his bluff.

Is it confirmed that Meghan dated a porn star?! Who?

Simon Rex, AKA Dirt Nasty, R214

Harry is not going to saddle their daughter with the doomed Diana as a first name. They'll go with something like Rosie or Daisy, which are in the same vein as Archie - popular names amongst the British middle class. Diana will be her second name. If she inherits Diana's huge sapphire eyes and hair, only dark instead of blonde, she has the potential to be exquisite, far prettier than Charlotte, princess of eye bags.

Erna has a magazine now, R211? "[Personality traits and mental divorce. Fani & Kheirabadi, [bold]Proceedia[/bold], 2011, 30:671-5]."

Anything to keep her off the streets, I guess...

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit Birkenhead on Thursday 26th September to attend the naming ceremony of the UK’s new polar research ship, the #RRSSirDavidAttenborough. — Kensington Palace

[QUOTE] Said before, will repeat: Harry has married a woman who shares his mother's most destructive personality traits: extraversion, narcissism, a strong bent towars fantasism, emotional instability combined with emotional ruthlessness, and low inhibition control.

This is badly written. What is 'extraversion'? What is 'low inhibition control'? Do you mean poor impulse control?

If MM was this much of a nightmare, she'd never have worked solidly on Suits for seven years. She would have been fired.

The amateur psychologists on this thread are hilarious. They get so much wrong.

R191 - Archie and any future children of the Duke of Sussex will become an HRH & Prince or Princess when Charles ascends the throne as they will be male-line grandchildren of the monarch.

What is a 'fast LH strategist?'

R219, I imagine Meghan behaved almost impeccably on the “Suits” set. She was probably professional and well-mannered. I also imagine her to be subtly condescending to the lowly people and sweetness and light to anyone above her in the pecking order.

I can also imagine her ego swelling in her new position, though. She married a prince. I’m not sure that even I would remain grounded and humble if I had managed that coup.

R222 Well said, I too would probably become a bit insufferable. I certainly would be pinching myself and EXULTING every day. And if I were Meghan, I'd be quite full of my own superior sense of what today's generation wants to see in a so-called royal. I would secretly consider myself the real "Kween."

Actually, Diana had that delusion of grandeur - "I want to be Queen of People's Hearts." Imagine how amused/frosted Her Majesty must have been to hear THAT!

Now that I'm old, I've learned to appreciate tradition and stability, and would be most dutiful to crown and country.

[quote] If she inherits Diana's huge sapphire eyes and hair, only dark instead of blonde, she has the potential to be exquisite, far prettier than Charlotte, princess of eye bags.

R216 and she will also get the Markle fatness genes, so she'll have the ass size of her mother.

The size of a house, that is.

R220, says who? Charles would be well-advised if he decided to give the HRH titles to the heir's offspring only.

Him handing out HRHs would be too similar to Andrew's daughters getting HRHs despite not being in direct line to the throne. It would be history repeated. People would not approve an Andrew 2.0 situation.

"says who? Charles would be well-advised if he decided to give the HRH titles to the heir's offspring only."

R225 - See The Royal Letters Patent of 1917 issued by George V. This document spells out in detail who is and is not entitled to an HRH before their name.

Harry is a hothead, it fits also with his personality of holding grudges and seeing himself as victim. This profile makes him prone to doing things that are rash and then regretting it later. Much like his marriage, and though I think he might harbor some regret about it, fatherhood/ Archie has been able to take the edge off of it for now. Key is how much of a grudge he holds and towards whom? Who can he blame for his failing marriage 2-3 years from now? The disillusionment about Meghan, chasing fame will begin to wear on him, and will he rashly cheat on Meghan if he blames her for rushing him into marriage? Or will he blame William for not pushing harder against him marrying Meghan? Or will he blame entire BRF for what he perceive as not welcoming the Sussexes' wish to transform royalty biz into show biz? I suspect it'll be a combination of all three factors that will drive him away from staying in the marriage. Unless Meghan compromises and lets him take a mistress on the down low, only to set him up to be caddish Charles 2.0 while she plans for the divorce and post-divorce blitz in order to sustain fame and garner sympathy.

When the marriage ends, it'll be on both of them instead of just one aggrieved party. Meghan will be pushing his buttons to try to get him to instigate caddish behavior that she could then spin into victimhood. She can't just mail back her ring this time, Harry is a public figure more famous than Trevor, so any such callous behavior on her part will not serve her well. Fame seeking narcissist want to be viewed as admirable and her following her normal pattern of tossing people aside won't be viewed favorable.

Meghan barely has any boobs.

Yes, she's got form...she will have to approach this with a different tactic.

R226, so? We've had profound changes before, for example the one in the line of succession regarding females not being booted in favour of a younger brother. There will be other changes to be made in order to please the public.

I remember when that story came out last year.

Harry will never divorce Meghan. Won't happen.

Just like Charles never divorced Diana, eh?

R232, but will Meghan divorce Harry?

She has a habit of discarding people who are no longer useful.

Oprah Winfrey-Prince Harry Apple Docuseries Assembles Creative Team

'Daily Show' veteran Kahane Cooperman will serve as showrunner on the mental health series, and Dawn Porter and Asif Kapadia will direct and executive produce.

I think Harry will blame his unwelcoming family and the hostility of the press and public. And MM would as well. I can't say I'd blame them.

There is no doubt that they read their press and comments from the public; that is why they hired Sarah Latham and the PR firm Sunshine Sachs.

Please. Under no circumstances is Meghan returning any royal jewelry.

Ed's kids are entitled to HRH, but they don't have it. I think it's 50/50, but honestly, if they wanted Archie to be a Prince, they should've done it from the start.

And Will is not going to give a hypothetical second daughter the first name Diana. That's way too much baggage.

R237 Agreed - those family pieces are gone forever. Meghan will NOT be giving them back under any circumstances.

[quote]I'd love them to choose a 'less royal' nevertheless very traditional name

I’ve always been partial to “Jermajesty.”

R204 You got the title part slightly wrong. Diana was “HRH The Princess of Wales” from her marriage in 1981 until her divorce, after which she was “Diana, Princess of Wales”.

R220 - Actually, if that were true, Edward's kids would be HRHs today no matter what they started out calling themselves at birth.

But practically, the way you start out is usually the way you continue. And having made such a public thing of not even having Archie use his father's subsidiary title, Earl Dumbarton, they'd look like the world's biggest hypocrites if they suddenly presented him as HRH Prince Archie.

All Charles has to do is issue a statement that Archie will, as his dear Woke parents expressly wished, to continue in the style and title of either Earl Dumbarton or Mr Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

And, of course, if Charles is raptured before the Queen, even the shadow of HRH Prince Archie will go up in smoke.

But as I said, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and James, Viscount Severn would be walking around with HRHs today if the automatic thing was that automatic.

But having publicly announced that they want their kids to have "normal" lives and not use titles, Archie's and Diana's HRHs aren't likely to evolve.

R213 - They may have ignored his threat, but that doesn't mean Charles won't make good on it if the divorce occurs, and force Harry to pay up according to his own resources.

Charles had to liquidate almost all his personal holdings to pay Diana's settlement. But Fergie got much, much, much less. Even so, the BRF kicked in some - which I suppose means the Queen and revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster.

I can just imagine the family conference in which each one side, "Not out of my share, you're not!"

[quote] Under no circumstances is Meghan returning any royal jewelry.

What "royal jewelry" does she have?

The only time she wore a tiara was at her wedding and that was borrowed (not given) from the Queen.

There was some comment early on about her wearing some earrings that belonged to Diana, but closer inspection of the pictures indicated they resembled Diana's but were not the same.

Please post pictures of Sparkle wearing other "royal jewelry"?

Meghan doesn't "have" any jewellery from the royal collection. Nor does Kate. Nor did Diana. Nor did Fergie. The married-ins are "leant" items from the collection on occasion but sometimes permanently for their lifetimes (e.g., the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara, which Kate now wears and won't be worn by anyone else except, perhaps, Charlotte at her own wedding, until Kate dies, just as no one wore it whilst Diana was alive).

Meghan, except for the tiara she wore at her wedding, so far as I can tell hasn't been leant any. The stuff Meghan is wearing is either part of Diana's personal collection (such as the huge aquamarine ring Diana wore after her divorce, to replace the sapphire) that Harry inherited or stuff that Harry and/or Charles have bought for her, or that she has bought herself with Harry's or Charles's money.

Diana did have some major personal jewellery, notably the sapphire parure she got from the Saudis.

Then there are some things she was given as a wedding present that might have gone back into the royal collection, like the huge oval sapphire brooch surrounded by diamonds that the Queen Mother gave her, and that Diana had strung as the centrepiece on a four-strand pearl choker. Technically, it was a wedding present, but as the brooch was part of the Queen Mother's collection, the BRF might have clawed it back.

Kate has sported some magnificent emerald pieces, some of which look like they come from the collection, but one of which, a major necklace, looks very modern, and all the Palace would say was that it was "privately purchased" - which means it was either a wedding present from someone the Palace would rather not name, or a major wedding gift from the BRF that Kate could keep for herself apart from loans from the royal collection.

That emerald necklace that a pregnant Kate wore to the Baftas when she was wearing a dark green gown - ---- WOW!

Did everyone see that the Sussexes have put up a quote by the Dalai Lama about compassion on the their IG account?

Do they really, really not know how pompous and out of touch they appear with this shit?

R246 The emeralds and diamonds are spectacular! Kate has done well with in the jewellery department.

MM really got the dregs, a pair of nondescript butterfly earrings and an ugly 80's gold bracelet.

I know this is old news. Someone told People mag that Archie has “tufts of reddish hair.” I don’t know much about babies, does their hair come in in “tufts”? When I think of tufts of hair I think of that mangled doll from the “Rugrats.”

I think, just like with “Harrison,” Meghan is trying a little too hard to convince the world that it’s really her husband’s kid.

R247 It's just like when awful people disguise themselves as religious/ pious people as a way of hiding behind their true, ugly personas. Like I'd posed many times before, when you are truly good and charitable person you just do your deeds, you don't blast your "goodness" in public for all to hear/ see.

Ok ok, so she doesn't have any of the Crown Jewels - yet! I just meant she ain't never mailing back Diana's diamonds. Trevor's little ring was another matter. The days of giving jewelry back are over!

Legally, the Wessex children are a prince and princess and entitled to the HRH under 1917. The Queen simply announced (by press release) that they would be known by lesser titles. But no action was taken to strip them of their legal entitlement. However they can't just decide to revert to the higher title. As the fount of honour, the sovereign decides.

The jewellery will be negotiated in the divorce and safe in the right hands before that carpetbaggess ever sees a dime. Or 10p, in this case.

Another occasion with emeralds and diamonds for Kate.

This time long earrings and a bracelet.

R246 - That's the one that the Palace said was "privately purchased".

I do believe Kate has worn the earrings (emerald drops with a diamond upper piece) that contain some of the "Cambridge" emeralds and that the Queen often wears with the Vladimir.

The the BAFTA set was new to everyone. Either it's been in the private collection for a long time without being worn, or it was bought for Kate and she hasn't worn it till that night.

R254 - Those are Art Deco pieces and I think those were in the private collection and have been worn by the Queen.

Wait - it appears that the earrings Kate wore to the BAFTAS whilst pregnant were actually the detachable tops of those shoulder duster Art Deco diamond and emerald earrings in the other photo R24 posted.

There goes YOUR knighthood, R216!

I love this bracelet too

What, the Queen had to wait for her mother to die to inherit "a vast collection of jewellery"? That's harsh.

MM should take note that the longevity gene might keep her from a lot she has her eye on.

I don't usually read their instagram but I checked out the Dalai Lama post and 99% of the comments are negative. Hope Meghan reads them all and smashes crockery in subsequent rages.

Must say, the PR firm is doing a crap job. Every attempt to talk up MM, eg, how she is modern with her hugging as opposed to stiff, old-fashioned Kate, her Dalai Lama post about compassion, etc, just backfires. Commenters respond by telling her to show some compassion and go hug her old, sick dad.

Foresuch that an ennobled Citizen of the World such as I should endeavour to envelop within my own giving-arms an étranger holding the dearth of sanguinely Falstaffian girths — girths which pour forth a literal minging cacophony of stale Tecate Light, KFC gravy, and olde foreskin, 'tis true! — how might that envelopment be duly monetized, penultimately second only of course to materializing one's utmost #goal of The Philanthropies of Public Compassion??

Whereupon and whence a member of your filthy, surfeited peasantry shall actualize unto me a concrete plan, only then shall my blessedly singular SELF begin the beginnings of the fleeting consideration of the painstaking process of the endeavourment to "hug [my] olde, sick dad." Until then...

Sailed, is that ship.

We've just had a series of posts about the Royal family's jewelry. Whenever we chat about that (Tiara Time included) we get a lot of people who become indignant as such "trivialities". They're not trivial. Jewelry at that level isn't trivial, or fungible. I collect semi-precious gem-stones, and have managed to acquire a few precious gem-stones over the years. They simply can't compare to any of those gorgeous stones that are trotted out like that. Those really fine emeralds (and sapphires, rubies and diamonds) are very valuable, and treasured, and kept in inventories. There is a reason that there are historians who keep track of them. Kate wears some really important stones, and does it very well. I'm much older than her, and I think I'd be quivering to go out in public wearing some of them.

[QUOTE] Charles had to liquidate almost all his personal holdings to pay Diana's settlement. But Fergie got much, much, much less.

Will you fuck off? You haven't a clue what happened, yet act like you work in the KP accounts department.

Oh good grief, I guess they're pivoting towards being "normal". Can they just give it a rest for a while? If I was their PR I would tell them to go away for a long while except for official engagements. They are over-saturated at this point.

[quote]You haven't a clue what happened, yet act like you work in the KP accounts department.

Actually, that stuff is pretty common knowledge.

R216 - Jesus, Charlotte is four years old, get a grip.

Yeah, some kid of Megan Markle's is going to inherit Diana's "huge sapphire eyes". You don't mind if I don't put cash on that eventuality, do you?

And Diana wasn't a natural blonde after her platinum childhood dresses turned mousey brown in adolescence. It was bleach and highlighting that turned her blonde later on . . . at times, wincingly over-blonded so that dark roots showed.

We know you hate the Cambridges, their children, their higher rank, their richer prospects, and their white skin. But do try keeping yourself under control.

A four year old the "Queen of the Eye Bag." Christ Almighty.

I suppose a four year old's undereye look is the best the fanatic fan of the No Waist Toothpick Legs Fake Hair Moley Skin Meghan Markle can do.

Can you write your idol and ask her to get her hairdresser to integrate the layers of what's left of her natural hair and the underlying weaves better, bring the line up, and let some of her natural kinkiness out so she looks 1) prettier, and 2) less obviously like she wants the hair Charlotte's Mum was born with?

The Queen has hery own "vast collection of jewellery" long before her mother died. She also inherited a good bit from her grandmother, Queen Mary.

When the Queen Mother died, HM's collection simply got . . . vaster.

R268, you’re addressing the Welp Troll Accuser, aka the Troll Troll.

He or she is obsessed with “defending” Markle while insulting everyone else, including small children. I can’t imagine it’s a gay man, so I’m not sure why it’s here.

It’s the same poster who complains about tiara posts in a thread about the British royal family. Loopy.

R270 - Always worth being reminded, thanks.

R266 Judging from the pictures, the only other people eating in that pub appear to be security. And Harry is making eye contact with the camera in the first photo.

R266 Judging from the pictures, the only other people eating in that pub appear to be security. And Harry is making eye contact with the camera in the first photo.

Are pubs usually so empty, r272?

[QUOTE] And Diana wasn't a natural blonde after her platinum childhood dresses turned mousey brown in adolescence. It was bleach and highlighting that turned her blonde later on . . . at times, wincingly over-blonded so that dark roots showed. We know you hate the Cambridges, their children, their higher rank, their richer prospects, and their white skin. But do try keeping yourself under control.

Ooh, your hood is showing, Miss KKK! You contradicted yourself, you Alzheimized OAP. I liked Diana's large blue eyes - why would I like an Aryan feature like that if I hated 'white skin', you dunderhead?

And I didn't like Di's dyed blonde hair. I actually think Replikate has the best hair in the BRF, although I don't like its current ginger incarnation.

Charlotte has small, mean, hooded eyes and eye bags. She has a large jaw and is unlikely to grow up a beauty.

[QUOTE] I can’t imagine it’s a gay man, so I’m not sure why it’s here. Obsessed with insulting small children...

Oh, the irony! This, coming from one of the ugly fuckers who say Archie looks as if he has Downs and is the spitting image of obese Thomas Markle. Or worse, that he's a doll!

ALL of you despicable bitches are women. Not a gay man on the thread, except to call you out.

Can we please stop criticizing the looks of a four-year-old?

[quote]This, coming from one of the ugly fuckers who say Archie looks as if he has Downs and is the spitting image of obese Thomas Markle.

More bullshit. I’ve never commented on the baby’s looks; how could I when nobody ever sees him?

Meghan’s annoying but her rabid supporters really take it to the next level.

Further evidence that the rich are different from you and me: Prince Charles lets red squirrels run around inside his country house.

[QUOTE] Can we please stop criticizing the looks of a four-year-old?

Nope! You set the precedent by criticising the looks of a FOUR DAY year old, bitch. Charlotte is fair game.

I’m sure that the people in this thread who are criticizing the physical attractiveness of small children are all drop dead gorgeous themselves.

R264 I for one love tiara time bring on more tiaras I say and fuck off to those who don't like it

R281 If the content of this thread is not to your liking, you have the ability to ignore it. Otherwise, take the content monitor shit elsewhere, cunt!

Those who criticise Charlotte are MM's insane fans who are so dumb and unsophisticated. Oh and then they say all of us have criticised Archie's looks which isn't true because none of us have seen the fucking kid. There was one lunatic on here who was saying mean things about him but I have my suspicions that it was a MM fanatic pretending to say outrageous things to get the thread shut down.

The one that got away makes an appearance in Downton Abbey.

We all know MM had her beady little eyes on this one too and I must say it would have looked good with her wedding dress. You just know she wanted a big pop of sparkly green emerald to lift the plain dress.

[quote]Prince Charles lets red squirrels run around inside his country house.

That's adorable.

[QUOTE] We all know MM had her beady little eyes on this one too ...

Evidence?

All of you attacked Archie's looks. The silly bitch who keeps saying Markle fans started the Archie is Downs thread was one of the worst offenders, but Trolldar reveals that the weirdo who corrects everyone's English and spazzes on about people being 'raptured' was actually the author of the Downs thread.

MM had stories put out after the Inskip wedding that Harry was about to propose and would probably use the stones from the Queen Mary Emerald Choker (that Diana once used as a headband) to make the ring, as Markle "loved emeralds".

Silly woman didn't realise, obviously, that it was put back into the RC , it wasn't Diana's to keep and pass on to her sons.

'MM had stories put out after the Inskip wedding that Harry was about to propose and would probably use the stones from the Queen Mary'

So, no evidence then except tabloid speculation.

R291, the tabloids would know it wasn't Harry's to rip apart....it was through her many US puff pieces that were trying to sell her to the UK public.

Girl was after emeralds as her signature stone from Day One.

R292, Markle never mentioned any of the royal jewels, so it was all media speculation. People here talk as if she had the tiara on her Amazon Wishlist.

R293, Rachel hasn't been a girl for a long time.

R264, please share more. I’be become fascinated by jewelry because it combines art, fashion, history, finance (obviously the metals are commodities, but there is is a commodity aspect to the stones as well), and even geology.

Is it true that sapphires photograph dark? I’m always underwhelmed by the photos of Diana’s sapphires, but the emeralds shown on Kate in this thread are spectacular. How dark are sapphires supposed to be? A lot of them seem too dark to be translucent. Are Diana’s sapphires the ideal color? And is that color as dark as they appear on photos?

She probably would have if she could have, R294. But she does it another way. Her requests are put out via her PR. It makes the RF look like arl arses, but she doesn't care.

R297-It makes her look like an arse as she never gets what she wants. No emerald tiara, no mom for Christmas, no special fawning letter of appreciation from the Queen, no birthday party thrown by the Queen-on and on.

The story about Sparkle throwing a fit about the tiara choices she was offered for her wedding indicates that she already had scoped out the royal jewelry and had decided which tiara she wanted to wear. And threw a fit because it was not one of the tiaras she was offered.

Someone who knew nothing about the royal jewelry would have simply selected one from those presented.

^^^ And been grateful for it.

Too bad she’s so dead set on emeralds. I think rubies would be fantastic on her.

Since she’s determined to define herself as everything Kate is not, it would be perfect.

You would think she would have learned by now, r298. She is so bad at all of this. Had she just taken another tack or handled herself differently, she could have had everything she wanted.

[quote]... the weirdo who corrects everyone's English ...

You think there’s only one poster who does that? Is this your first visit to DL?

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

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

Eugenie and James Blunt at a charity ride.

R299. “Someone *with manners* would have simply selected one from those presented.”

A more accurate description.

No idea why Nutmeg seems to be so obsessed with emeralds as green is simply not 'her' colour. As mentioned upthread, rubies would look really good on her, or garnets. Or amethysts.

Green just doesn't suit her complexion.

So, the tabloids decided she wanted the emerald tiara. You decide that MM 'placed' this horrendous story in the papers, even though it makes her look grasping and avaricious. You then talk about it as if it is confirmed fact over 100 threads. Small wonder you morons love Danja Zone.

Why are you here then R309?

[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.]

R308, I also think pearls would glow against her skin, but they seem to be regarded as “old-ladyish” now. If she wanted to do flex her influence and reignite a classic, she should start wearing pearls.

You’re a scamp, r311.

That bag looks like vinyl.

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

Well, she is trying to be like Anne Boleyn R312.

I know R313, lol.

"But as I said, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and James, Viscount Severn would be walking around with HRHs today if the automatic thing was that automatic."

R242 - You need to check out the Wikipedia article "British Prince" which explains all. Louise & James are HRHs but by request of their parents and with the approval of QEII are styled as children of an Earl. This will all change when the children are adults if they Louise & James want it to change. No one took HRH away from them, there parents just choose not to use it and QEII agreed.

It is NOT adorable, R287. A couple of tiny bats got into my country house and they shat and pissed everywhere. Take a look at the current raccoon thread to see the damage a raccoon can do to a house. I bet a bunch of squirrels would not be less destructive

Agree, r318. They’re rodents, FFS.

The Queen's cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, carried out a day of engagements in County Durham. Swipe for photos.

'Why are you here then [R309]?'

To bitch about Replikate and Baldie, and to debunk some of these ridiculous rumours you crones discuss as if they were facts.

'Well, she is trying to be like Anne Boleyn'

Of course, her role model is a woman who literally lost her head aged 28. Make it make sense, you bitter old hoes.

She was probably hoping for some Saudi gifted emerald suites, like the RF hierarchy.......bless.

Know your place, ya little ratbag.

I'm one of the people who reported having trouble with raccoons on that other thread. There is no way I would welcome squirrels inside my house, even if they were named Daryl. But apparently the Queen has a colony of pipistrelle bats at Balmoral, and she enjoys them, and used to help her staff catch them to release them. I like animals, but I can't see me doing that.

It's not like Charles is cleaning up after squirrels. Wonder what his staff's feelings are towards those little rodents?

Actually R322, Anne Boleyn was 35 when she was executed and not 28. The art historian Hugh Paget successfully demonstrated that a letter Anne had written in 1513 from Brussels when she was a maid of honour in that court (a position which was only open to a 12-13 year old) and her hand writing was not that of a 6 year old. I suggest you unglue yourself away from your computer screen and actually do some research from an actual book before you start trying to act like an expert.

R322, a few facts for you to learn.

Henry VIII was king.

Thanks to William and Kate having enough intercourse, resulting in having successfully propagated three times by now, Harry very likely never will.

Pretty hard to believe Charles lets squirrels run around Highgrove. Apparently Camilla could only see her young grandchildren at her own house because Highgrove is like a pristine museum stuffed with priceless antiques.

Pretty hard to believe Charles lets squirrels run around Highgrove. Apparently Camilla could only see her young grandchildren at her own house because Highgrove is like a pristine museum stuffed with priceless antiques.

That's right R328 lol.

Charles seems just fine with Cammy's grandkids.

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

That pub photo was so obviously set up it's pathetic. This occurred literally the moment the Sussexes returned from their PR disaster of a holiday using private jets.

Hey, look at us, just one of the plebs, heading down to the local for some roast beef and Yorkshire pudding - oh dear, there's Meghan gagging on all that red meat - Hi! You! Don't take a picture of THAT!

Try the Scotch egg with chips, luv. And here's a lime shandy to wash it down . . .

When we discuss some of the gemstones, we need to remember that many of them have their own biographies, as it were. Individually, they're pieces of history. They have provenance. The Delhi Durbar Tiara has been mentioned previously. Camilla wore it, in one of her first Royal outings, Please take in the whole idea or concept of the Delhi Durbar. An American like me can't comment on the history that is displayed here. I'm neither British nor Indian, so it would be impolitic. The posts on these threads about the BRF's jewels are relevant, I think.

Since DL tends to know this stuff - what's the consensus on the origins of Andrew and Edward's respective marriages? Did they marry for love or, as royals so often do, for convenience? They both married commoners. Neither of them were directly in the line of succession, so presumably they had more freedom in choosing their wives than Charles did. I've heard rumours that Edward is closeted but never anything to back them up.

Andrew and Sarah were definitely a love match, which made the outcome all the sadder. Never been sure about Edward, although rumours about him have abounded forever. If he did marry for, er, practical reasons, he chose well.

Where Charles and Diana were concerned, it was a shock, but to many, not a surprise. There were many who grasped how ill-matched they were from the start.

But Andrew and Sarah were the real love match amongst the three brothers. It's ironic, if Edward married for practical reasons with enough affection thrown in to make it work, that his is the marriage that succeeded. Anne's first, remember, also ended in divorce.

The largest diamond the world has ever known is Cullinan I. It has its own history. The British Royals own it. 'Granny's Chips' are only fragments of it. The Queen wears them, often.

I was watching this video on Roman makeup and noticed the model has a strong resemblance to Meghan. I scrolled down to the comments and found out she actually works as a Meghan Markle look-a-like. At the end you can see what she would look like with short hair and pearls.

Yes, R339 that's pretty much what I pictured - like an Andie MacDowell in Four Weddings look. Loosen the waves up just a bit and Meghan would have herself a great, distinctive look.

I'd like to see MM in a full-on Angela Davis 'fro. It's not like she'll ever have to accommodate a tiara on it.

[quote]Why are you here then [R309]?

[quote]To bitch about Replikate and Baldie, and to debunk some of these ridiculous rumours you crones discuss as if they were facts.

R321 (plus all the too-numerous-posts to mention) is also here to demonstrate their:

1) Abusive and Foul Posts

2) Ceaseless Defense of Sussexes and Denigration of Others (in BRF and those on DL who have differing perspectives)

3) Being The Welp Troll

4) Being The Troll Troll

5) Rabid Venality and Excessive Anger

If Harry and Meghan want privacy I don't get why they went for lunch in a commoner's pub, surely we're all beneath them idiots?

Was Meghan in Glee?

R344, If she had been, I might have had a reason to like her. I actually liked 'Glee', even though DL told me I was trash for doing that. I actually don't actively dislike her. I just don't understand why I'm expected to like her. She's just a very ordinary actress. I can't think of any distinguishing feature. If she were a great singer (not) a great dancer (not) or torn up the screen with one of her scenes (not) I'd be thrilled to see her. And, now that she's a Duchess, there probably aren't more opportunities to see her performing arts credits. In effect, she shot her load.

Meghan singing. She's okay. i sure as hell wouldn't be mad at her for this.

R309 - It wasn't the tabloids. The tiara story was published, without challenge, in Jobson's authorised biography of Charles on his 70th birthday last year, including the bit about the Queen having to take Harry aside and tell that his intended's attitude needed adjusting, and Harry running about screaming, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!" like the twat he is. Charles cooperated on the biography. That's where the papers got the story. And by the way, it was carried in the TIMES, which isn't a tabloid.

Sorry about that, mate.

And as for Baldy and Replikate - oddly, the UK public seem to prefer them to the L.A. grifter who can't make a speech without referring to herself fifty times, could only be bothered to support British fashion once in awhile, and who can't stop pompously lecturing the rest of us through her IG account.

Oh, and as far as Replicates go . . . I think Meghan's naked hunger for hair like Kate's, which has gotten completely out of control, puts Meghan well ahead in the Not Real Department.

By the way, speaking of Not Real - did you see how Meghan had her nose totally redone in the most recent photo from the christening she put up for Harry's birthday? It's been noted by many across the internet: bulblous bottom all gone, ski jump gone, and in their place a knife-straight bridge and narrow tip - ya know, like a white person's?

Kate out and about today in an unannounced visit to a children's centre, looking elegant but very approachable for kids in black wide-legged black trousers and a polka-dot blouse. Charming photos, showing how relaxed she is with children. In these types of events, Kate does the smart thing and dresses like a slightly upgraded primary school teacher.

And doing what the British public expect her to do and looking the way they expect a royal duchess to look whilst doing it, instead of making a huge deal about a celebrity-connected project that gets her own name out there over and over again.

R347, You're braver than me! Bravo!

Speaking of royal divorces; if three out of four of Queen E’s children have divorced, why does everyone doubt Harry and Meghan could? There’s precedent, and they have tremendous pressure on their marriage.

Then again, in real life, if both spouses are from broken homes, they make an effort not to put their children through what they’ve experienced.

I don't think anyone with half a brain doubts it, R350. Where are you getting any other impression?

Historians are still in disagreement as to whether Anne Boleyn was 35 or 29 when she died, but of course the arrogant Raptured Troll knows differently.

Well of course, R352 - they were there.

And posting here ever since.

[QUOTE] Oh, and as far as Replicates go . . . I think Meghan's naked hunger for hair like Kate's, which has gotten completely out of control, puts Meghan well ahead in the Not Real...

So a biracial woman isn't permitted to straighten her hair, despite wearing it like that for decades? And unless it looks exactly like Kate's, Meghan is rabidly jealous? Despite being surrounded by actresses much more beautiful than Kate in LA, and managing somehow to control her envy, and work alongside them? Kate's face isn't even that attractive. She has more wrinkles around her saggy, deep set eyes than many 60 year olds.

Only white ladies are allowed to have long hair and biracial ones should have short, curly, unfashionable styles like a 1980s actress?

Wow, the Klan must love you. You're a racist cunt.

[quote]Kate's face isn't even that attractive. She has more wrinkles around her saggy, deep set eyes than many 60 year olds.

Troll Troll, you’re obsessed. Seek help.

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

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

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

[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.]

R352 first you said that Anne Boleyn was 28 when she died and now you're saying that historians are in disagreement that she was 35 or 29, do make up your mind..

Did they fly by private jet again R358?

Oh now it’s Misha Nonoo who introduced them? Can’t they get at least their origin story straight?

Why don’t y’all ask this lady about Anne Boleyn R352, R353, R360

Ah, yes, the Sussexes are off to another Big Celebrithy Do.

In between they post inspirational sayings by the Dalai Lama.

That hurricane heading our way is actually Meghan's sigh of relief as Old Blighty disappears as the jet heads south.

"Kate's face isn't even that attractive. She has more wrinkles around her saggy, deep set eyes than many 60 year olds."

Of course she does, dear. Not like divine Meghan's moley, bumpy skin.

I think I hear the med trolley coming down the hall. Now, take your compazine, there's a good girl.

It’ll be fun to watch the fuckery unfold between these two cunts. Misha is as much a use-and- discard climber as Meghan is.

I'd say Kate and Meghan are both attractive in their own ways

R367, I’d agree.

'[R352] first you said that Anne Boleyn was 28 when she died and now you're saying that historians are in disagreement that she was 35 or 29, do make up your mind..'

I did some research and revised my position, stupid Raptured Troll. As should you.

'I think I hear the med trolley coming down the hall'

Of course you do. Time for your afternoon dose of Lithium, as you've already started to hallucinate emerald tiaras, reborn dolls and Down Syndrome babies.

Not long now before you're raptured yourself.

Stop WWing your own posts, R369 / R370

“Of course they were there” R353, yes idiots will always say that when they know Jack shit about a subject and can’t even come up with a proper argument about the facts. As for you R369, you did your research? Really? Was that research taken from “Horrible Histories” or “Sesame Street”? What a twat you are. I love how you just keep calling me names like “an arrogant, raptured troll” because you clearly know nothing about the Tudors and feel the need to retaliate with name calling, that’s real mature. As I’ve said before, unglue yourself away from your computer, pad or smartphone screen, open up a proper history book and learn said history before you start spouting off to complete strangers on the Internet. Have a good day!

R352, R353 are the same person who is having a conversation with themselves and pretending they are right and everyone else is wrong. To me they just sound like one confused person.

No, R373, they're not.

[QUOTE] Eh, Harry could just have easily been hiding out with Adam, he was looking dapper at the polo.

The absurd Welp Troll genuinely thinks Harry is gay.

R372, Boleyn's two chief biographers disagree about her age. Shame you haven't consulted a range of sources. Even her Wikipedia has a range of ages, but of course, you know best. Hopefully, you'll be raptured soon and take your elitist attitude with you. Tudor history isn't exactly an esoteric subject, you pompous tosser.

I'm a gay man, so I'm not even going to comment on whether Kate or Meghan is more attractive. I don't see the logic in that kind of cage fight. I think Kate dresses better, but that's only a matter of personal taste. No one will ever claim the Queen is fashion forward, but she has a sort of uniform that is perfect for the image she chooses to convey.

This all started because I replied to R312’s comment about Markle wearing pearls and so I said she is trying to be like Anne Boleyn who was known to have worn a pearl “B” choker in her lifetime and Markle is ambitious like Anne Boleyn was. There are a few similarities between Markle and Anne Boleyn and that is why I said she’s trying to be like her, obviously not to have her head chopped off (although knowing the history of the royals and how ruthless they all are even to this day, Diana anyone?” but her ambition. If you can’t see that Markle is heading towards the fate of Diana then you are blind as well as stupid. The royals are notorious for protecting one another’s backs, just look at Prince Andrew, it’s quite obvious he’s going to get away with his crimes because he is above the law. Anyway, all I meant is that Markle is playing with fire therefore should watch her back before she ends up going the same way as Anne Boleyn.

R352, R369, R370, R375, raptured troll, is that all you’ve got? Do you know any other words other than “raptured”? If anything you’re the “raptured troll” and not the others here that you are trying so hard to insult.

R377 That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on DL. OMG, she wore a pearl necklace! Only the second woman in history ever.

Another blind

[QUOTE] If you can’t see that Markle is heading towards the fate of Diana then you are blind as well as stupid.

This thread is pure comedy gold, every single day. Meghan is heading towards the fate of being a rich, idle minor royal with two children. That's it.

The blind is about Priyanka Chopra (or whatever her name is), she's in Milan, at Fashion Week...but obvs angling for an invite. So many press pieces on her...like *I'm heeeere! I'm in Italeeeee! Invite meeeee! ".

Prince Andrew isn't above the law. He is not a paedophile. The girl was at the age of consent. Unless there is enough proof (real proof, not the allegation of one side made years later who would have brought out proofs if she had them) to get an indictment from a grand jury in the State of New York in the United States, there is no D.A. on the planet who would take the case. He's not going to jail or to trial because there is no indictment because there isn't enough proof of an A felony to get an indictment.

He is absolutely being shielded from some messy public jeering, but he is NOT not going to jail because he's "above the law". His public repuration will never recover and he's made life more difficult once more for his two blameless daughters, but he is not a free man because he's "above the law".

In this case, it is precisely the "law" and what it outlines on the proofs necessary to rise to the level of proof for rape that are keeping Andrew safe, not his mother.

People need to stop throwing terms around whose actual meaning and context they don't understand. You cannot accuse someone of rape without police reports, hosptial reports, witness accounts, etc. And the plaintiff was 17 at the time. Paedophilia refers to children under12. 17 is the age of sexual consent in New York, where the alleged incident took place and where the complaint was filed. There is statutory rape, there is no sex with a minor charge possible, there is no proof of force on Andrew's part.

He's off the hook because of the law, not his mother. He's undoublted being cloaked from personal disgust by his mother, but that's all.

Yes, I’m here to entertain.

R383, that is pure bullshit. That family get away with literal murder because of who they are. They have power, just like the government, presidents, mayors etc. It has always been that way, throughout history. The rich have power, money, friends in high places but the working class people don’t stand a chance. No matter how wrong a man may be they always find the fallen one guilty.

No, it definitely sounds like Markle:

[quote]Meeting with a world leader? No!

[quote]Vacationing with the matriarch of her new family? No!

[quote]Attending a film premiere? Yes!

[quote]Flying to spectate at athletic events? Yes!

[quote]Attending a wedding with lots of socialites and celebrities? Yes!

R385 - You are completely missing the point. Legally, there is no case against Andrew that any D.A. would bring, that's just a legal fact. It may coincide with the BRF's influence in high circles, but that doesn't mean they have pulled strings and gotten him off some legal hook that he was never on.

Two concepts really can exist simultaneously. I worked in the legal arena. Yes, Andrew is a creep, and, Yes, he comes from a powerful and influenctial family. But that's not why he's off the legal hook. HE CANNOT BE TRIED FOR RAPE UNLESS A GRAND JURY INDICTS HIM IN NEW YORK, THE SITE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME, AND THE PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO PROOFS WHATSOEVER OF SAME SUFFICIENT FOR AN INDICTMENT.

A complaint has to be PROVED in court. No proof, the D.A.'s office (what we call here the CPS, Crown Prosecution Service) won't take the case because it knows full well it can't get an indictment.

And yet again, for the millionth time, the girl was not considered a sexual minor at the time, so no charge of paedophilia is possible.

And while the BRF certainly isn't without influence, money, and friends in high places, the Queen really isn't Vladimir Putin.

R386, read the blind again. There are two actresses mentioned. Chopra is the first one, the one who is angling to go to Nonoo's wedding, and the second actress is MM who is at the wedding.

R387, what does Virginia Roberts have to gain by accusing Prince Andrew of misdeeds?

Why the arguments about Boleyn and Markle? Who cares as one has been dead for quite a long time. Please move on.

r389 and r387. I see it as she was coerced to have sex with Epstein's mates. Andrew is high profile and she has proof she met him. There is no suggestion Andrew knew she was coerced and not really into him, yet if he admitted sex with her it would bolster her case . I have no legal knowledge , just my take on it.

I'm not privy to what Virginia Roberts is thinking or feeling. Certainly her primary target was Epstein, the architect of this sexual kingdom. She may be bitter about the number of men (and some women) who played in it now and then, but in terms of legal force and justice, it was really Epstein who had to be taken down. Prince Andrew is a big name, but that doesn't mean he was a major player, like Epstein's wife.

She has something to be gained by pointing out the number of Big Names who indulged themselves occasionally, but all she said about Andrew is that "He knows what he saw." If she had more, she'd have provided it, e.g., if he had tied her to a bed and raped her and then bragged about it to a circle of friends.

Undoubtedly, her Complaint was lodged after a great deal of consultation with high-level legal assistance, who looked at everything she had and advised her on who the really viable legal targets were. Thus, Epstein arrested, jailed, and we know the rest.

The law is shaped to ensure that vigilante justice based on hearsay is avoided. Within that structure, guilty people sometimes go unpunished, the higher the crime, the higher the level of proof has to be, and the courts don't jail someone for having a shitty character and low inhibition threshold.

So, from afar, she had nothing much to gain by going after Andrew except some low-level revenge by shredding what is left of his reputation - her lawyers probably told her that there just wasn't enough to on and to pursue the bigger fish.

Andrew has also agreed to talk to the FBI.

I don't get this idea that the royal family are above the law. Princess Anne got done for her nasty dogs .

The Queen cannot be prosecuted for a crime in the UK as she would be prosecuting herself. If she did commit a serious crime she would be forced off the throne and then face justice.

Not sure where all these literal murders come from. r385

[QUOTE] The rich have power, money, friends in high places but the working class people don’t stand a chance. No matter how wrong a man may be they always find the fallen one guilty...

Are you 12? Prisons have plenty of wealthy men who have commited white collar crimes. You seem to be one of those galaxy brained people who believe every conspiracy out there, including Danja Zone.

R385 cannot accept the fact that in a nation of laws, Andrew was the beneficiary of laws passed in America so that people like him couldn't hang a man on Virginai Robert's assertion that He Was There and she had sex with him upon Epstein's orders. She offered no proof that Andrew knew that, no proof that Andrew raped her, and no proof that he had sex with her whilst she was under the age of consent.

Rejecting all readily available knowledge of how the law works, including the age of sexual consent in New York and the necessity for an indictment from a New York Grand Jury before moving on to prosecute someone for First Degree Rape, a Class B felony (it is a Class A felony if the victim is under 12, or 14 in some states), it is somehow clear to R385 that the ONLY reason Andrew isn't on trial for rape of a child is that the Queen called in MI6 and told them to see to things.

Despite the fact that Roberts' Complaint is unsealed, and any reading of it along with the level of proof required to prosecute for a First Degree Rape Class B Felony, makes it clear why the New York District Attorney's office isn't going after Prince Andrew.

R388, you’re right. The blind(s) was written in a confusing way. I had been wondering why the Bea had been invited but not Misha’s good friend and sometime-business partner. And why “new” husband. Got it.

I really don't understand this class of sexual crimes, the case against Epstein, Andrew and even Harvey Weinstein. Clearly, rape - forced sex - is against the law. Sex with minors is a crime. But surely there has to be proof, ie, a complaint made to the police, medical reports at or close to the time. And I also do not understand this notion of victimisation, ie, the MeToo movement. Unless the women (or men) were physically forced into having unwanted sex or were held captive with no means of going to the authorities, then they were complicit.

r397,I think that is a HUGE conversation.

There is the manipulation or grooming of teens that has gone on forever, coercing them using drugs/alcohol/religion to have sex or fight wars. All this is appalling. The use of sex to obtain/withhold promotion in a work place. Get out and report..happened to me,I am sure it has to many people. The truly most heinous of crimes, the sexual abuse of young children by paedophiles. Bastards should be locked up for life IMO. Probably needs debating elsewhere though.

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

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

Can someone tell me why Misha Nonoo is a thing?

I mean, what did she do besides being a failed designer?

Harry and Meghan flew commercial to Italy. They're having some downtime (eye roll) before their African "tour" which begins on Monday.

My prediction: they will be hawling out baby Archie out for a photocall to offset the bad publicity they've received recently. The baby will be "used" when he's needed.

^ hauling

Andrew was friends with a person who was an obvious sleezebag. It appears that Epstein wanted to impress fellow sleezebags by loaning out these very young women to them. Maybe 16 is legal age in Britain, but this young woman at the time was only 2 or 3 years older than his own daughter.

But here's what's most important. If Epstein did "loan out" this 16-year-old to Andrew, and Andrew accepted the offer, then did the same thing happen with even younger girls?

I find it interesting that they have now been on three commercial flights but have not been seen by the public?

Black and dangling tendrils at Misha's wedding.

New engagement for Will and Kate.

r404 if he shagged a 17 yr old when he was 45 so pissing what if he thought she was willing. There is no evidence at all that he was a kiddie fiddler so people need to knock the paedo shit on the head. It is tedious.

Getting into the spirit of things, Sophie Wessex in Africa.

r404, Yes super secret PUBLIC flights?? Can't go anywhere near proper people because of safety and privacy but these times we did HONEST !! Bollocks . private for her NY and private to Rome IMO,

I would love press to ignore the Africa holitour but sadly unlikely.

Tacky ear-'rings'. Still fat - which is why she wears black, thinking black is slimming.

Why do I have to refresh this thread 100 times to get to the bottom?

R412, because the DL bottom is insatiable.

What is the BRF’s obsession with Africa? There’s a whole former empire to visit. Why don’t they go to India?

This is a serious question.

It's Harry who is obsessed with Africa. He likes to play White Savior.

r414, I think obviously the Empire connection. Diana was a dick for brains however,so a lot of that was passed to her sons. Megs and Hal are stuck in the 80's white saviour groove.

R414, William and Kate went to India and Bhutan in April 2016.

With them being the future king and his spouse, them doing such a tour is much more relevant than the sixth in line and his wife doing such a tour.

Also.

r414, Will and Kate are off to Pakistan in October.

R412 Try clicking the number in the black circle next to the number of replies in the header. That should take you to unread posts.

oop r417 we clashed!

Jared Kushner has quite the elaborate combover. Hilarious. Ivanka looks like she’s going to some other event; the gown was a bit much but gorgeous.

There were so many photos of dumpy Katy Perry and two of double-wide Meghan.

Also, Misha Nonoo looks 41, not 31.

Thank you for the serious responses. I wondered it was more exploitable because of the relative instability of the various governments and natural resources. I’m woefully ignorant of all the variables and general world history. If you asked me, I’d say that Britain had a stronger hand in India, and that other countries had more in Africa (French, Dutch). Anyway, the photo of Sophie Wessex made me wonder.

It does feel like White Savior Syndrome.

Actually we didn't, R420. I had no idea they're about to go to Pakistan.

R406, I don’t understand why people would wear black to a wedding? Black is for a funeral, the colour of mourning. Colours are for weddings, happy occasions.

She was 17, you were allowed to have sex over the age of 16 in England. But, she claims he also gave her alcohol in some nightclub and she was definitely underage for that because in England to be allowed to drink alcohol you have to be over 18.

She's one of these idiots thinking black is always a slimming colour.

And let's face it, she does need slimming clothes these days.

Not black ones though.

There have been rumours about Andrew’s love of younger women for years. I remember it being talked about in the 80’s.

I’m not defending Markle but can I ask why everyone is going on about her weight? I’m no skinny Minnie and am a size 12 in clothes, does that mean I’m also huge and disgusting?

[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.]

R428, the Markle genes have kicked in mercilessly. Or the pregnancy might have fucked up her metabolism. Either way, no reason to ridicule her.

I like ridiculing her though because of her stans here having insisted she'll be super slim again by September.

r425. To be served alcohol you need to be 18. I haven't watched the video

Because Markle is a horrible woman and doesn’t deserve anything nice to be said about her. Beauty isn’t always on the outside, you need to have a beautiful personality to be beautiful all over. R428

I know R431, that’s what I said. :)

R424, I thought it was generally accepted that wearing a funereal color at a wedding (depending on the culture) is poor form.

But this is the woman who wore a maternity coat at her husband’s cousin’s wedding when she was 8 weeks pregnant. And stalked Harry to Skippy’s wedding and had a little tantrum there, so, you know...

Fuck other people’s wedding etiquette.

If anyone outshone the bride at Misha Nonoo’s wedding, though, it was Ivanka and her Wonder Woman belt. Say what you will, she stood out.

[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.]

Exactly, r436. LOL.

R425 R431 You can drink alcohol from 5 years old in the UK at home or on other private premises. From 16 (beer, wine or cider) on licensed premises if you are having a meal with someone over 18.

It's only buying it when you are under 18 that is illegal, and not very well enforced.

R386, sorry, I meant the first part of the blind.

R404 - she was 17, not 16. Having a sleazebag for a friend is not a crime, nor is being discussed during an interview, in which I note that Ms Robers was careful to avoid anything resembling an outright accusation against Andrew of rape or staturory rape.

The grooming scandal referred to above concerned girls well under 14. It went on for years because most of the men were of Muslim/Arab/Pakistani background and the local politicians and police were afraid of accusations of racism.

You cannot have a trial without evidence. It's that simple, let alone a Class B felony that could result in decades of imprisonment. That's why the bar is set high for the evidentiary part of a trial: to make sure no one is metaphorically hanged by hearsay.

For this kind of crime, you - need - evidence.

Meghan looks absolutely appalling in that Valentino dress. Absolutely appalling. Like an overbaked meringue with gold sprinkles on top.

For the price tag, that dress rises to the level of a Class B felony.

Well, fancy having your friend Omid Scobie RELEASE A BIG SECRET during your BFF's wedding. Just before he boards his (paid for ) flight to Capetown.

Can't stand that caterpillar eyebrowed cunt. And yes, I've met him,. More than the once.

If ever a dress were made for a tall slender woman with a defined waist and slender arms, that Valentino number is that dress. It looks like something Myrna Loy would have worn.

I can't see what Eugenie is wearing, but from so much as I saw of her, she looks pretty.

9000 quid for this piece of cloth shit? Did Duchess Spenderella raid one of the Sussexes' 'charity' bank accounts?

So they donated money for a pool, big whoop. It’s not even their money.

Harry will never be like William. They’re like chalk and cheese. Complete opposites.

Horrid dress. Valentino should be ashamed of himself.

Valentino no longer designs for Valentino and hasn’t been at the company for about ten years or so.

Harry is aging - rapidly.

R448 - that explains a lot. He wouldn't sell this shitty dress. The seams, the cheap embroidery etc...

It’s not my cup of tea, either. The dress brings to mind the old Frederick’s of Hollywood ads at the back of my mother’s True Confessions magazines from the 1960s. (Yes, I know I’m dating myself.)

It also doesn’t suit a squat body type — it needs a tall, willowy body to carry it off.

Valentino as a design house tends to give celebrities not the dress that they want, but the dress they deserve (see Angelina Jolie’s wedding gown for one example). Agreed that someone built like Karlie Kloss could have worn that dress with ease, but not someone who is 5’4” and still losing the last of the baby weight. Maybe MM should’ve been nicer to the staff at the couture house.

Are Valentino and Valentino Garavani different?

The dress is awful R450, they sell prettier dresses in Primark and at a reasonable price too.

R451, Kate would look better in that dress to be honest.

I still don’t understand how Markle has such skinny legs and huge feet. What is that about?

That is actually very funny, r442. Future fishermen in a beachside African town would never learn how to swim if not for the generous Baby Archie. How did they ever survive in that town before they got their swimming pool?

And whoopsie, it was supposed to be hush-hush! Shhhh! Cat’s out of the bag and ran to Bazaar Magazine to blab about their magnanimity.

We haven’t seen a full-body photo of Meghan in that funeral confection. I wonder why.

Look at the difference between the color of his teeth and hers. Get some WhiteStrips, Harry. They’re available everywhere, and they’re not that expensive.

You mean FUNEREAL, not funeral. "Confection" doesn't really go with the modifier "funereal," but at least it's a noun.

Meghan does well distancing herself and her son from that family. She probably knows a lot of dirty stuff that’s being kept under wraps and knows that it’s all going to come out when TQ is raptured. She knows that the monarchy is on its last legs and is already positioning herself not to be drugged in in the mess when it all starts coming out (and for a successful career when she exits left). We now know about Andrew; we know about William‘ affair; there will be plenty more plus the sleazy inlaws like the Middletons and Beatrices beau. At least the way Meghan acts noone can later accuse her of being complicit in all their depravity.

R453, Valentino Garavani and his partner sold the company in the late 90s but Valentino stayed on as creative director until 2007. Pierpaolo Piccioli has held the position since 2008.

If the dress looks like this on a model, one can only imagine what the full-length photos are going to look like...

[quote] Ivanka looks like she’s going to some other event; the gown was a bit much but gorgeous.

A totally inappropriate dress to wear to a wedding, especially with that cleavage. Leave it to trashy Ivanka to try to upstage the bride by wearing a thirsty Oscar gown.

Yes, I did mean “Funereal”, and autocorrect didn’t like it. Oh, dear, fucker.

Is it so odd to call a sheer gown trimmed with rhinestones a “confection”? Merriam-Webster: “c : a work of fine or elaborate craftsmanship.” Not the primary definition, but acceptable in the case of a couture Valentino gown.

r459, Her teeth came out of a box...

R461, if she wanted to distance herself from scummy people why was she lounging on a yacht with Ghislaine Maxwell? And going to parties with Trumps and Kushners and Hesses? The most upstanding and not at all shady citizens!

Oh great, the raptured Boleyn troll is back, let’s rejoice.

Harry, just 8 years ago. 8....

He looks like he's aged two decades.

He looks dumber then if that's possible. And Pippa looks like the 1936 version of the Duchess of Windsor - hard.

This is Misha's second marriage btw. She had an equally elaborate first wedding.

R471, birds of a feather... I’m sure Ivanka’s will be, too.

The whole wedding shindig seemed more like some Hollywood event than a wedding. As much as it pains me to say, Ivanka looked really good: just not appropriate for a wedding, with her tits on display. And Meghan: No! Just No! Instead of spending all that money on designer outfits, why not spend some money on a gifted stylist, to help emphasize your best features? I've got some talents, but I have an excellent doctor, and pay for a trustworthy financial advisor, accountant and lawyer. A person needs to know when they need professional help.

I've mentioned before, I don't think there would be the same level of resentment on her clothing allowance if she LOOKED GOOD!

Found an old article on Misha and her first husband. She is a huge climber like MM, no wonder they bonded. Looks like she dumped the first husband when she got to where she wanted. I can't wait for a falling out between her and MM because you know it will eventually happen.

I see Misha's ex Alexander still has the wedding video on Vimeo. It sucks to be hoodwinked by a high level narcissist like Misha and MM

Subscribe to my channel.

It looks like Edo arrived with Harry and MM, can't see his face but it looks like him walking behind them

I can’t make sense of the Misha-Meghan-Eugenie dynamic. If Misha and Eugenie are good, longtime friends (sounds like it - E was even at her first wedding), you’d think Misha would stay away from Meghan, either out of loyalty to E or because she’s heard the dirt on her. I have to stop watching so much 90210.

What sort of name is Nonoo? It sounds like the Teletubbies hoover.

When Markle first came into public consciousness, she was appearing on Suits and hustling PR events. She appeared small in size and fairly well-groomed. I considered her not beautiful, but attractive.

Since joining the BRF, like Harry, her looks have transformed quickly. What's fascinating is that the transformation as a duchess has moved into unkempt, unattractive territory. For all the funds that are spent on her clothing choices, she increasingly looks less and less well-dressed. Her weight gain especially emphasises her unusual body habitus. Combined with shoddy hair pieces along with poor skin and make-up, the effect is really now unattractive.

All cannot be well behind the scenes, if she and her husband have physically deteriorated so quickly since their marriage.

I can't recall a bad photo of MM before her marriage, apart from the suitcase girl ones. Yet most of her post-marriage ones look either borderline or bad. The witchy hair looks especially bad.

When was MM pictured on a yacht with Ghislaine Maxwell? If true, what does that imply?

R481, R481, Yes, that's exactly it! I certainly had no idea who she was when she first arrived on the scene. I heard her name a couple of times, and then she was on the cover of Vanity Fair. But I thought she was an attractive, stylish woman, and thought it would be interesting seeing her adapt to such a conservative institution. It's been amazing watching her (apparently) spending huge sums of money, but ending up looking shabby and disheveled. Her outfits never seem to fit. I mean, really, has she been cast to the wolves? I ask that, with genuine interest, since I've never seen anything like it. Lord knows, the York sisters have had an epic string of fashion blunders, but they seem to have improved recently. And they've been raised in the Royal Family.

The Queen actually likes Meghan and has asked her to introduce her to the Clooneys. Expect a low-key visit to one of the Queen's lesser castles later this year.

R483, Thank you for my first belly laugh of the day! Seriously! Providence will deliver whatever it does, and we can only sit back and watch.

And why not? There's a lot of talk about Prince Andrew and Epstein but it was actually the Queen who asked to meet him. The Queen is shy about it but she enjoys being close to celebrities just like the rest of us.

R483, That would be a delight, if it happened. I grew up near the Clooneys. They're local celebrities. I bumped into George in my younger, disco days, and his father was a respected local broadcaster. I've always thought of them as ordinary people, not celebrities. I'm open to all sorts of possibilities.

R483

Being Queen (and what, 93?) I can understand why HM might not have done a lot of table-hopping at the reception, but couldn't someone have brought George and Amal over to say "hello?"

MM still looks pretty fat in that $14,000 get-up, even from the back. Dangling tendrils and falling-down bun as well.

Meghan Halloween costume: https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7508559/meghan-markle-halloween-costume-features-bodycon-white-bridal-dress-and-deal-or-no-deal-suitcase-for-38/

I wouldn’t assume these women are “working”, since they all seem a little old. But it’s interesting.

Those birds in R490's pic are waiting for their next customers to cum ... ahem, come ... ahem, arrive.

Is that MM and Maxwell on the ends?

I like the Valentino dress, but not for a short (currently squatish) woman, and not for a wedding.

R461, I was with you on MM doing well to distance herself from the family as regards Andrew, but then you go off the deep end. In what world are extra-marital affairs considered "depravity"?

R486 - You do know your leg was being pulled, right? I doubt the Queen is even speaking to Meghan any longer, let alone asking to be introduced to the Clooneys. The proper response is, "Gawn, pull the other one!"

By the way: Charles already knows the Clooneys, HM doesn't need Meghan for that. Charles gave that expert social climber Amal a nice high-level spot in one of his charities for what must have been quite a hefty donation.

And exactly what is a "lesser castle"? Buck House, Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral - on the Balmoral estate you have Birkhall (that's a country house, not a castle) and then there's the Castle of Mey that belonged to the Queen Mum but is now stewarded by Charles's Prince's Foundation.

So, what "lesser castle" did the poster have in mind for a visit by the Clooneys to see HM?

R494 - You're wasting your breath. That troll exists in a desperate bid to hold back the tide and force the sun to rise in the west rather than the east.

She's a mole planted by Kaiser of Celebitchy fame to try to counteract the negative view of Meghan and Harry here.

Can't wait to see the Meghanstans on CB tomorrow gulping at the sight of that ghastly dress and how fat and silly Meghan looks in it, and its eye-watering price tag, and insisting that Meghan actually looks adorable and who cares, anyway, Kate's clothes are just as expensive!

I wonder what the people who are fans of Meghan's politics make of her jet-setting around Europe all summer and attending an oil heir's wedding on global climate strike day? Shouldn't she and the hubby have been joining in march in their local area, carrying baby A. and a sign instead of hobnobbing with the Trump/Kushners?

R492 - OMG, that has to be MM on the end, because there is the Telltale Fedora!

My my my, out yachting with Epstein's vicious pimp.

Why isn't that up on the DM?

R496, you sound internet addicted and genuinely mentally ill, with your hyperfixation on Celebitchy and your terror of some random called Kaiser.

(T)roll Call

Celebitchy Troll

Welp Troll

Raptured Troll

Fat Shaming Troll

Provenance Troll

BRF Accounts Dept Troll

Andrew is an Innocent Man Troll

The biggest troll of all, the one who does a roll call of trolls.....now fuck off

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

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

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

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

Most gingers look awful in black, and Fergie is a great example of this. Unfortunately she wears it constantly.

[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.]

(T)roll Call Update

The Irrelevant Thread Gobbling Old Photos Troll

This thread is where all the homophobic, incontinent, menopausal fraus on DL convene. A coven full of scaly bitches with thinning hair all screeching 'MEGHAN IS FAT'!

Harry continues to be besotted with her, regardless.

Sometimes Prince Charles looks as old as his mother The Queen.

R495, I was thinking that, but I didn't want to be rude. I thought the absurdity was too much, even for this thread. But we have that horrible troll-accuser troll stalking us, constantly (she's actually the most active poster on this thread), and figured I'd just have a larf and move on.

Apparently, the Troll Accuser has already started Part 94. What a tiresome beast.

R498, that's not Ghislaine Maxwell.

R505, that's just... wow.

I wonder if Meghan and Ivanka interacted at all. You know, considering they’re both ambitious American girls and Meghan has such respect for Ivanka’s father? Didn’t Meghan kind of like Ivanka on her blog at one point? They probably did some phony hiiiieeeee how are you you look amazing air kiss thing

The Cullinan Diamond was the largest gem-quality rough diamond ever found. It was cut back in 1908. Cullinan I (The Great Star of Africa) is one of the crown jewels, mounted in the Scepter. Cullinan II (The Second Star of Africa) is mounted in the Imperial State Crown, and is also a crown jewel. Cullinan III and IV are owned privately by the Queen. She inherited them from Queen Mary. She often wears them as a brooch, and they're usually referred to as 'Granny's Chips'.

R508, that's very moving.

R517, wouldn't you have thought they'd have put a coin or something in the photo of the original to give an idea of the size? 3,000 carats is hard to get your head around.

R519, Yes, I agree. This little clip will give you a better idea of the individual gemstones after the original stone was cut.

Very confused with all these threads. Anyway, I posted this in Thread 94, thought I'd share it here as well. It's from around 1992 and delightful. Guest appearances by all our old faves - Di, Queen Mum, even Princess Mike.

R521, Apparently this thread became paywalled, which is why Part 94 was begun. I'm a subscriber, so I never notice the paywalls that other people complain about.

So this is the elite, exclusive thread!

Why was William with Granny, alone, in the car on the way to church at Balmoral? Kate and the kids stayed home.

What were they talking about?

Where was Andrew?

Oops

R524, Since Charles and Camilla were also there, you have the future of the monarchy in one spot. I would imagine they have to consider what needs to be done about Andrew, who is wisely laying low. I've read a rumor that Kate may be pregnant again, but I wouldn't place money on that. But she's always had difficulties with her pregnancies. I think it's sad that Bea may be planning to get married, but now has to consider bringing attention to Andrew at a time like this.

He was said to be there for an end of season ball held for staff. It is said that he has historically attended the event, alone. So, seems to be a non-event re: any other members of the family.

He was said to be there for an end of season ball held for staff. It is said that he has historically attended the event, alone. So, seems to be a non-event re: any other members of the family.