Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Prince Charles Cutting Down Working Royals

[quote]Heir to the throne Charles, 71, has long been reported to want to reduce the monarchy to a core group when the Queen dies and he becomes King.

[quote]He is said to want to trim the number of working royals down to a bare minimum – consisting of just his own family, their wives and their children.

Obviously he hasn't thought this through. He and Camilla are too old to carry a full load. Kate has always been a bit work shy. And, in case he hasn't notices, Harry and Meghan are headed to LA to be movie stars. That leaves poor Wills to shoulder the entire burden.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 602December 23, 2019 6:12 AM

That FACE.

by Anonymousreply 1December 2, 2019 6:06 PM

He'd be a fool to give Anne the boot.

by Anonymousreply 2December 2, 2019 6:07 PM

They dont need to be at every supermarket opening. They could stand to be a bit more selective.

by Anonymousreply 3December 2, 2019 6:11 PM

[quote]They dont need to be at every supermarket opening. They could stand to be a bit more selective.

They're desperately trying to justify their existence. People are tired of paying their salary. I think as more Muslims take hold in the UK and produce children, they will eventually bring the Royal Family to an end.

by Anonymousreply 4December 2, 2019 6:16 PM

As has been noted previously Prince Andrew (who now has his own worries) long has been aware of his brother's plans, and isn't having any of it.

Hence his pushing to get any and everything from HM (Mother Dear) before she leaves this earth; this included pushing for full royal weddings for both his daughters.

The two York princesses are surely to be cut as part of "king" Charles restructuring of RF.

If Prince William continues to make use of his duchess, Cambridge children alone might push out Archie and any other heirs of Prince Harry.

Above post is correct, the BRF doesn't need to be at every shop opening in some far off part of realm.

by Anonymousreply 5December 2, 2019 6:55 PM

The Queen has cut things down, in the past, as well. I think she saved a couple favorites who are hard workers, like Princess Michael of Kent, while cutting most of her cousins loose. I guess you have to do that, if your family is fruitful.

The siblings of the King would normally stay on the list, I should think.

by Anonymousreply 6December 2, 2019 11:32 PM

Working royals?? You mean the second cousin of the third nephew gets a salary to be a working royal???

Fuck that shit

by Anonymousreply 7December 3, 2019 12:31 AM

As long as Princess Michael of Kent sticks around, I'm fine with it.

by Anonymousreply 8December 3, 2019 12:34 AM

[quote] I think she saved a couple favorites who are hard workers, like Princess Michael of Kent, while cutting most of her cousins loose.

I have to do the Queen's bidding so that I don't get thrown out into the street. The old bat makes me work harder because I live in Kensington Palace. If it were up to me, I would just retire and continue writing my interior design and history books.

by Anonymousreply 9December 3, 2019 12:57 AM

I hope Princess Alexandra knows how to busk!

by Anonymousreply 10December 3, 2019 12:59 AM

How anyone could think Harry isn't Charles's son obviously hasn't taken a good look at his face. They look so much alike.

by Anonymousreply 11December 3, 2019 1:02 AM

"Working"

by Anonymousreply 12December 3, 2019 1:03 AM

There is going to be a sea change when Elizabeth II exits this world. HM has been the only UK monarch several generations of Britons have known, much less entire world for that matter.

Prince Charles will be lucky to get ten to perhaps near twenty years on throne I'm afraid. At 71 he's already spent longer waiting than any heir in past, and his mother seems in excellent health. More to the point Hanoverian women tend to be rather long lived. thus it could still be five or more years before PC finally inherits.

Once the succession does happen, it is usual and not uncommon for attention to be turned to the younger generation that has moved up in place; to wit Prince William and Prince Harry along with their duchesses and children.

Kate Middleton is going to make a grand princess of Wales, and even greater queen consort in fullness of time. Prince Harry and MM had better pull their socks up and decide just what they want to do with themselves. PH has gone on record as being keen continuing to be of service to that nation, but that will mean a bit less drama.

by Anonymousreply 13December 3, 2019 3:40 AM

Charles should use Beatrice and Eugenia. They're young and willing, and there is never a scandal with them at all. They seem like very nice girls. They would do quite well with royal duties. Charles is mistaken if he thinks Will, Kate, Harry and Markle are going to take on everything. The article also mentioned. "and their children." If Charles hadn't noticed, the children are still very young children and will be for many years to come.

Supposedly, Andrew was a patron for up to 200 charities. Even if only half of those charities are deemed worthwhile, that still leave a hell of a lot of engagements. Those charities should be divided between Beatrice and Eugenie. Put them to work. They seem very happy to do it.

by Anonymousreply 14December 3, 2019 3:51 AM

"Working out of Windsor"

by Anonymousreply 15December 3, 2019 4:02 AM

[quote]Charles should use Beatrice and Eugenia. They're young and willing, and there is never a scandal with them at all.

But both of them are butt ugly. And they may seem nice, but they have grifter genes from both parents. It's bound to come out sooner or later.

And wasn't one of them given knighting duties one time and nicked somebody on the side of the face because the sword was too heavy for them to handle?

by Anonymousreply 16December 3, 2019 4:30 PM

He'd better be very careful not to stand behind Anne if he gives her the boot. That ol' mule will rear up and give him 2 hooves right to his ass.

by Anonymousreply 17December 3, 2019 4:44 PM

If he used Beatrice and Eugenia they would have to agree that their father and/or mother does not ever join them in their Royal duties. Tough spot to be put in but that's the only way it could work.

by Anonymousreply 18December 3, 2019 4:46 PM

Eugenia?

by Anonymousreply 19December 3, 2019 4:55 PM

[quote]Eugenia? —Eugenie

She's so boring that nobody can even remember her name.

by Anonymousreply 20December 3, 2019 4:58 PM

Have feeling Princess Anne is safe, HRH almost from word go has gone over and above in being of service to the nation.

Much of this "shrinking" will come by attrition as Grim Reaper takes out members of BRF like Prince Michael of Kent who is a younger son and was only royal because were sons or grandsons of then monarch; Gloucester and Kent come to mind.

Eldest sons of those families will inherit dukedoms, but not HRH. The younger sons again take their royal status to grave along with princely titles. Again these largely came as result of 1917 Letters Patent regarding members of RF.

That will leave Princess Anne and her children, Prince Edward & Countess of Wessex (and their children) plus Prince Andrew (ditto) as children and grand children of (by then once PC inherits) previous monarch.

Prince Charles has two heirs and four grand children, through Archie does not have a royal title atm; he will become a royal prince the moment his grandfather becomes king. This will devolve via terms of 1917 Letters Patent, and no, don't believe Prince Harry and MM pulled a Nicholas II of Russia, and fore swore their son's birth rights.

There is talk in certain circles how much of the Commonwealth will remain intact after HM's time. Would or could Canada or Australia leave?

by Anonymousreply 21December 3, 2019 7:05 PM

OP, your title is misleading. He hasn't done this yet; the article says he MAY do this.

by Anonymousreply 22December 3, 2019 7:08 PM

Times are bad for the Royals. There's not enough grazing pasture for all of them and the weaker livestock has to be culled. They can use the meat from the old tough ones to feed the younger ones they decide to keep.

by Anonymousreply 23December 3, 2019 7:08 PM

R22

PC (as noted in OP linked article) has been making noises about reducing RF for some time now; it obviously is enough of a threat that Prince Andrew has taken notice, and acted accordingly.

Prince Charles won't have a long reign, so he'll have to make his mark quickly; reducing size of RF is something that can be easily accomplished, and fits in with various demographic changes shaping the UK.

Not since WWI was there such a threat to the RF until Diana and her hot mess of madness came along. It was only the great love for HM that prevented full scale war on the Windsors IMHO during that crisis.

by Anonymousreply 24December 3, 2019 7:16 PM

If Elizabeth retires from active duties soon, he and Camilla are not yet too young. They seem very healthy, despite tabloid reports she's always dying of cancer.

Harry and Meghan are not going to Hollywood anytime soon. Expect for the two of them to have been given a very serious talking to by Charles and William about duty and responsibility. We will see fewer banana-grams and guest editorships, and there will be more Tesco openings in their future once Archie is a little older.

by Anonymousreply 25December 3, 2019 7:22 PM

Prince Harry is never going to LA or anywhere else in USA. They'd have to get a huge property with enough land that can be secured against all sorts. That alone will cost money to buy and maintain.

Then consider USA has no deference to BRF or any other royal for that matter. MM may welcome being among the people all the time, but PH has his ways.

You cannot sue or otherwise prevent American media from covering stories; a tact famous Britons (such as Elton John) and RF have used extensively of late.

South Africa would be another matter; as a former colonial outpost there UK/British still do have some pull. PH and family could decamp down there for a while, but again USA is simply out of the question

by Anonymousreply 26December 3, 2019 7:32 PM

Oh, Sparkle and Dimmy may well live in the US for a bit, if they want to be celebrities above all and live the celebrity lifestyle, they'll want to give it a go!

Until they realize that not only do they have no control over the US press, they can't afford to live like celebrities unless they take money, and orders, from Charles.

by Anonymousreply 27December 3, 2019 7:34 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28December 3, 2019 7:51 PM

I wonder if this culling of the herd is less about the future of the monarchy and more about a power play to get rid of Andrew & his brood - and sending a message to Harkles to shape up or ship out. OP is right is that Charles & Cammy are old & clearly not in the best health and while the BRF doesn't need to be at every senior center opening, they need to have an active presence or people will increasingly question their existence and relevance.

While the Eug & Bea don't seem like bad people, they (appear to) have a poor reputation & carry the Andrew & Fergie baggage, which doesn't help their case.

by Anonymousreply 29December 3, 2019 7:53 PM

No, Charles has been talking about doing this for years.

by Anonymousreply 30December 3, 2019 7:55 PM

IMO all Royals other than the Monarch and her or his heir(s) presumptive should be forced to retire at whatever the normal retirement age in the UK is. They should have a retirement plan just like anyone else. The Monarchy is little more than a business anyway. QEII calls it "the firm". It should be run like a business.

by Anonymousreply 31December 3, 2019 7:58 PM

Catherine is “work shy?” She has three young children and had very difficult pregnancies

Prince Charles has wanted to trim down for a very long time. Andrew just made it easier to cull his herd.

by Anonymousreply 32December 3, 2019 8:04 PM

They need to get rid of the whole lot. Or at least make them pay completely for themselves and their upkeep. How about they get to be royalty until they've run out of their own money?

by Anonymousreply 33December 3, 2019 8:10 PM

Now that Andrew has been pulled from working duties, he's no longer any sort of treat to the future of the BRF. The bigger problem is still Harry since he and Meghan are supposed to still be working royals, and should be until at least George is out of college and the armed forces (he will have to do a stint, as will his brother). Until that time, Harry and Meghan are going to be the big star attractions after the monarch and his wife and then the heir to the throne and his wife.

I would be surprised if Beatrice and Eugenie are completely downgraded and lost their HRH titles. They are disliked among Dataloungers, but they're very popular among the BRF themselves: they think they're nice and polite girls (very unlike their arrogant father and their pathetic mother). they may still be of use to The Firm while they are adults, and their reputation will not suffer that much because of their father since they're adults and no longer live with their parents.

They don't need as many royals working as they've had (in the 21st century, people just don;t need a royal to open every supermarket or de-salination plant anymore--just the big things, like museums).

by Anonymousreply 34December 3, 2019 8:11 PM

Kate is totally workshy, she basically sat around waiting for Will to marry her for ten years. And both she and her husband have a terrible record of not showing up to events, showing up to events unprepared, and leaving events early to go shopping.

Most women with kids work, and she had three nannies and a massive household staff. It’s embarrassing how lazy she and Will are.

by Anonymousreply 35December 3, 2019 8:17 PM

York princesses as grand-daughters of a British monarch are royal for life; no one is taking that away. Since both are marrying (dead) commoners they also will continue to be known as "princess" as neither husband has a superior (or any) title.

by Anonymousreply 36December 3, 2019 8:19 PM

Plenty of upper crust people don't work whilst they sit around and wait to marry well, which is what Middleton did. It drives the peasants mad. SHE DIDN'T EVEN WORK, they moan. Her kind never do, darling. Now head on back to the factory, you've got a job to do.

by Anonymousreply 37December 3, 2019 8:23 PM

[quote] York princesses as grand-daughters of a British monarch are royal for life; no one is taking that away.

It's unlikely that it will be taken away, but it COULD be taken away.

All titles stem from the current monarch, and with the vote of parliament, he/she can remove titles. It was done in WWI with the Duke of Albany,, the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, and the Duke of Brunswick, who were all germany supporters in the war: they all lost their HRH status and were no longer Princes of the United Kingdom, which they had been since birth.

by Anonymousreply 38December 3, 2019 8:25 PM

I'm sorry, what "upper crust" did Kate "Waity" Middleton belong? Her mother was an airline hostess, and Middleton fortune derives from a mail order business.

While Middletons and by extension KM have some money, hardly would consider them "upper crust".

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39December 3, 2019 8:28 PM

R38

Yes, am aware of that; but those were specific situations that warranted action; neither of the York girls has committed offences any where near on same scale.

Again no one is going to strip either princess of their rank merely because they married commoners and or to save on RF expenses. As they are females their titles go with them at death, so it isn't as if there is any danger of future prince or princess of York unless or until after title merges back to crown is used again elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 40December 3, 2019 8:31 PM

To the Windsors, no: Kate would be considered wealthy middle-class. The same would be true for many of the members of the aristocracy (at least those who are still wealthy). But more and more in the UK in the 20th and now the 21st centuries, you don't have to be born to titled family to be considered upper-crust. Most Britons would think the Middletons are upper-crust because they live in an extremely large house and have millions of dollars.

It's no longer 1901.

by Anonymousreply 41December 3, 2019 8:32 PM

No, r41, it isn't 1901, but only one family produces Kings and Queens of England.

by Anonymousreply 42December 3, 2019 8:40 PM

R36 One is the son of a baronet, the other is the son of a Count. Let's not pretend they're common common.

by Anonymousreply 43December 3, 2019 9:33 PM

Too funny the assertion that suitable security and residence for Prince Dimwit is just not possible in LA.

DO IT HAZ BREAK FREE OF THOSE ROYAL CHAINS.

by Anonymousreply 44December 3, 2019 9:44 PM

Compared to dirty, slovenly Americans, Kate is practically nobility.

by Anonymousreply 45December 3, 2019 9:55 PM

Donald Trump left Prince Charles waiting to have tea for an hour! Trump was an hour late! Incredibly disrespectful!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46December 3, 2019 10:13 PM

Why the fuck are Charles and Camilla even meeting with the Trumps? Donald and Melanoma are having dinner with the Queen later this week, so really no other royals need to spend time with the Trumps until then. It's bad enough Prince Pervert has further sullied the royal family, now they are cozying up to the Trumps!

And this kiss-kiss between Melania and Camilla is gag inducing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 47December 3, 2019 10:21 PM

What the hell is Melania wearing? She looks like a seasick bat.

by Anonymousreply 48December 3, 2019 10:30 PM

Melania looks ridiculous! Camilla will have a laugh for the entire evening.

by Anonymousreply 49December 3, 2019 10:31 PM

Melania's fondness for dramatic capes is so strange. She looks like a supervillain.

by Anonymousreply 50December 3, 2019 10:36 PM

[quote] And this kiss-kiss between Melania and Camilla is gag inducing.

That's not a kiss. Camilla is trying to rip the cape off Melania's back. She thinks it will make a great Christmas gift for Meghan Markle, her daughter-in-law.

by Anonymousreply 51December 3, 2019 10:48 PM

Melania looks like a school crossing guard in a yellow rain slicker.

by Anonymousreply 52December 3, 2019 10:52 PM

Since both Melania and Camilla were home-wrecking whores, I'm sure they have a great deal to talk about.

by Anonymousreply 53December 3, 2019 10:54 PM

R43

Baronets aren't even members of the peerage, and are barely a step up from knights. Suppose it is better than being dead common, but only just. They aren't even addressed as "lords" nor sat in House of Lords as hereditary peers.

by Anonymousreply 54December 3, 2019 11:10 PM

Wait what have the Sussexs done that’s been damaging to the Monarchy? I’ve heard from people that don’t like them on a personal level, but when they are at events the seem to do the job with class and empathy. Meghan is still new, so she has things to learn.

Kate and William have a ton of staff. There was no excuse, beyond laziness or indifference when it came to their tepid embrace of “Royal Duties”. Before Meghan, Kate was rightfully called out for being rather lazy. Even if any of them work, it’s only a couple of hours in your day. Their staff make it as easy and comfortable as possible.

Beyond Kate, I think a William is the worst of the lot when it comes to engagements. He doesn’t naturally connect with people, and like his cousins he loves long trips away, family be damned.

I do agree, Kate will make a wonderful consent.

by Anonymousreply 55December 4, 2019 12:01 AM

Always good to hear from you Lainey

by Anonymousreply 56December 4, 2019 12:30 AM

r55 Prince William is beloved in NZ, where he came across as a really good bloke.

by Anonymousreply 57December 4, 2019 1:26 AM

I like how they would cull some of them like it's an overstaffed McDonald's.

by Anonymousreply 58December 4, 2019 1:40 AM

[quote] If Charles hadn't noticed, the children are still very young children and will be for many years to come.

Get me a liberal clothing allowance for some fabulous outfits and my own secretary, and I’m ready to go!

by Anonymousreply 59December 4, 2019 1:54 AM

R57, Not to put pressure on you, but may I ask a question (for DL in general?) I thought I had read that Jacinda Ardern was an anti-Monarchist. Yet she seemed to have had a very friendly meeting with Prince Charles. I've tried Googling (of course) and I'm getting more and more confused by what I've been reading. I really do wonder how many of HM's 'Realms' (that a difficult term for someone like me to use), when London Bridge comes about. I know there are stirrings in Australia and Canada.

by Anonymousreply 60December 4, 2019 1:58 AM

Amazing R54 - someone who doesn’t understand the use of “sat” versus “seated” or “sitting” pontificating about class distinctions.

by Anonymousreply 61December 4, 2019 2:09 AM

Due to trade relations, wouldn't the PM sort of have to be nice to the representative, for that tour, of the UK's Head of State? It's like when the US sends our VP. Whatever one's personal feelings, it's a good idea to play nice so that you don't harm business or political relations.

by Anonymousreply 62December 4, 2019 2:10 AM

Princess Ann is very wealthy and is going to be 70 this year. Her fortune comes from a trust that was set up by her late grandfather, King George VI, as well as an annual stipend she gets from her mother. When Prince Philip dies he will probably leave her a good chunk of his own personal fortune. She's his favorite. He probably won't give Charles. dime, if only because Charles will get so much when the Queen dies and he has an amazing income of his own.

Maybe she'll be happy to step down from public duties once Charles is king. Does she do the work because of a sense of duty to mother or because she's in love with the work? Who knows.

by Anonymousreply 63December 4, 2019 3:10 AM

I wonder if he's not so much talking about Bea and Eugenia and some of the other less prominent royals.

Edward and his kids, Margaret's kids, etc.

Are there more royals we don't hear about? It used to be that all grandchildren of a monarch would be taken care of for life.

by Anonymousreply 64December 4, 2019 3:34 AM

R54 Lol, like any American is going to notice.

by Anonymousreply 65December 4, 2019 3:48 AM

As a professional with a serious job... I'm okay with Katie not working, or "working" much, even by the lax standards of royalty. Her real job is to breed the next royal family and make sure they don't turn into a new generation of Andrews, and if she wants to put the kids ahead of public appearances then she has her priorities in orders.

William, on the other hand, will be THE monarch, and he really does need to learn how to do his duty with style.

by Anonymousreply 66December 4, 2019 5:59 AM

[quote] Amazing [R54] - someone who doesn’t understand the use of “sat” versus “seated” or “sitting” pontificating about class distinctions.

MARY!

You just read her TO FILTH!!!

by Anonymousreply 67December 4, 2019 6:10 AM

They need to start with that dreadful creature, Camilla. Nobody wants to see it.

by Anonymousreply 68December 4, 2019 7:10 AM

I’ve met both Meghan and Kate several times (grandfather is a duke), Kate is perfectly nice but exceptionally dim. Meghan is a fascinating woman and properly lovely, but I can see how she would come across as aggressively American to certain types.

Oh and my family history is far more aristocratic than Kate’s (my family were given our castle and title by William the Conquerer’s son, though the castle was destroyed a few centuries ago and what remains is now a hotel), and I’ve always worked and am now fairly well known in the arts industry in my own right. Obviously I’m very fortunate to have the connections I have, but I’ve worked damn hard to build my career. Some middle class gold digger never working is just embarrassing.

by Anonymousreply 69December 4, 2019 7:14 AM

R69 If you really are who you say that you are, you wouldn’t feel the need to explain your background. Nor would you be so lacking in self confidence that you’d need to tell us that you’re “fairly well known in the arts”.

0/10

by Anonymousreply 70December 4, 2019 7:22 AM

I find it weird that you never hear anything about Prince Edward, his wife and kids. Literally nothing, I have no idea what the kids are even called.

by Anonymousreply 71December 4, 2019 8:57 AM

r69 Can you give us more details about Kate and Meghan? Does Meghan come off as full of herself or attention hungry?

by Anonymousreply 72December 4, 2019 9:04 AM

William the conqueror, castle as hotel, former family seat. Grandson moderately successful in arts. Shouldn’t be hard to work out who this duke is. If he exists.

Moreover it’s unlikely a true toff would make an aristocratic comparison between Burke’s Peerage poshies and the Middletons. There is nothing aristocratic about either side. This types like a Megastan playing dress up.

by Anonymousreply 73December 4, 2019 9:12 AM

Well, they're going to lose a lot of them anyway, simply do to age...all of those Gloucesters and Kents are old and ready to retire and their kids/grandkids aren't on the Royal payroll anyway.

Margaret's kids aren't "working Royals".

That just leaves the Queen's kids. Andrew is done and his two girls don't do official royal duties. Anne is the work horse who does the brunt of the heavy lifting but I don't think her kids really do official events. Edward and Sophie do quite a lot, especially Sophie but their kids are still kids.

So, is Charles going to "fire" Anne, Edward and Sophie? Seems unlikely.

by Anonymousreply 74December 4, 2019 9:13 AM

‘My family history is far more aristocratic than Kate’s’. Sure it is, Lainey.

by Anonymousreply 75December 4, 2019 9:56 AM

You might not hear about Edward and "his wife" but Sophie works a lot, particularly around women's issues and trafficking etc. She speaks at UN and travels a lot, including to the US last month. Edward is going to be brought forward now that Andy is toast.

by Anonymousreply 76December 4, 2019 11:13 AM

[quote] I do agree, Kate will make a wonderful consent.

Does that mean she'll consent to be the consort?

LOL Sorry, but it just had to be done.

by Anonymousreply 77December 4, 2019 11:25 AM

Meghan is lovely in person.

Kate is thick as two short planks, and her family are not remotely aristocratic.

(It’s only my family on my dad’s side who are upper class English - my mum is the grandchild of Jewish eastern European refugees so I’m hardly a snob about it! But if you’re going to play the posh card I’ll play it right back. Don’t know why I’m even bothering, I doubt there’s a single other British person on this thread.)

by Anonymousreply 78December 4, 2019 4:09 PM

Has anyone heard anything recently about the mental health documentary that Harry was supposed to do with Oprah in 2020? This article says she will be making a doc on sexual assault in the music industry and mentions nothing about her previously-announced venture with Harry. You would think that this article would make note of her doc with Harry IF it was still on. has Oprah given the Sussexes the heave ho?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79December 4, 2019 4:59 PM

Edward has his day to be the black sheep. I think he was the first of Liz's children to get work outside of the Firm. He did an internship at Andrew Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group and then produced a few British tourism videos which he hosted. It was a bit of a scandal that a Royal would lower theirself to intern for Andrew Lloyd Webber. And to doubly piss everyone off, he called himself Edward Wessex.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80December 4, 2019 5:17 PM

They'll all be replaced by machines!

by Anonymousreply 81December 4, 2019 5:32 PM

"The upper crust is a bunch of crumbs held together by dough."

by Anonymousreply 82December 4, 2019 5:44 PM

Why is Charles’ face so red?

by Anonymousreply 83December 4, 2019 5:45 PM

[quote]Why is Charles’ face so red?

Too much booze. And he probably doesn't eat very healthy.

by Anonymousreply 84December 4, 2019 5:52 PM

What makes you think Beatrice and Eugenie even care ? One was recently married, the other is engaged. They've got other things on their mind. Not everyone wants to be Queen.

by Anonymousreply 85December 4, 2019 6:01 PM

r60 Jacinda Ardern knows that there is no pressure in NZ to dump the royal family, so she will go along with it and keep good relations. They are really just vague sort of c list celebrities to us, they seem rather harmless and it's an interesting history. However, I have no doubt we will form a republic in the next few years. In the past, things such as Prince Andrew's scandal were covered up - there weren't cellphones to capture things, or the internet to spread what these spoiled fuckers get up to.

I also think NZ will start to turn on the 'they are white people who are 'better' than us so deserve our fawning and tax money' as now 25% of kiwis were born in other countries and don't buy that shit.

Basically, the feeling is: Princess Anne is seen as a good reliable old stick, Prince Charles is a bumbling greenie perv ('tampon'), Camilla is a horsey drunk, Harry is a fool, William is beloved, Edward is queer and had to repress it, and once the Queen goes it's all going to turn to shit.

by Anonymousreply 86December 5, 2019 4:02 AM

R86, Thank you.

by Anonymousreply 87December 5, 2019 4:08 AM

I'm surprised to hear William called "beloved", R86.

In fact, that's about the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to anyone having any sort of strong feelings about him!

by Anonymousreply 88December 5, 2019 4:10 AM

R60

Don't see Jacinda Ardern starting or doing anything about making NZ a republic in foreseeable future. PM has said as much in recent interviews. It just really isn't high on most New Zealanders minds atm, and the PM has a wish list of other things she wants to push that rank far higher.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89December 5, 2019 8:51 AM

Re. William as beloved, as I recall he flew out after one, maybe two, major earthquakes in New Zealand.

by Anonymousreply 90December 5, 2019 10:02 AM

William is the only one who seems "normal" (except maybe Anne) and carries himself well. The rest all present as weirdos of one stripe or another.

by Anonymousreply 91December 5, 2019 10:16 AM

I don't believe *beloved. Appreciated maybe, compared to the rest of the incompetents in his family.

by Anonymousreply 92December 5, 2019 12:04 PM

Does Canada want to become a republic? I get the feeling that many Anglo-Canadians want to keep it as a way to differentiate themselves from the USA. But then again there are so many non-white immigrants in Canada who probably don't want it and want it ended. Any Canadians here care to enlighten us?

by Anonymousreply 93December 5, 2019 2:01 PM

How did the rumors of Edward being gay begin?

by Anonymousreply 94December 5, 2019 2:08 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 95December 5, 2019 2:17 PM

[quote]Charles brought Andrew to the family estate for a summit on what to do about the burgeoning scandal.

I wonder if the sitcom "The Windsors" is brave enough to deal with this subject. They're supposed to be releasing a third season.

by Anonymousreply 96December 5, 2019 2:31 PM

As an American I only pay intermittent attention to the 21st century versions of aristocracy (a couple years ago I was working for a week in Denmark, the great "democratic socialist" model, and was surprised how reasonable Danes still have affection for Queen Margrethe). But these "dynasties" have literally been "landed gentry" for centuries. Wealthy. Shouldn't they have been making investments, doesn't their "land' still produce income? If the BRF no longer get a "salary" from the government, wouldn't they still be very wealthy?

Also, with Brexit, and increasing nativist "English nationalism", it's pretty possible that Scotland, even Wales, may spin off into independence. Scotland especially to remain part of (or return to) the EU. I'd 'guess that the Scots support the royals less than the English? Other than losing Balmoral, would that firm up support for the Royals? All those old English middle class grannies who are pissed off at the Polish products in the shops on High St.....

by Anonymousreply 97December 5, 2019 2:37 PM

[quote]Also, with Brexit, and increasing nativist "English nationalism", it's pretty possible that Scotland, even Wales, may spin off into independence. Scotland especially to remain part of (or return to) the EU.

I think everyone is a bit shy because of the Irish problem. Nobody wants to return to the Troubles that Ireland had in seeking their independence.

by Anonymousreply 98December 5, 2019 2:46 PM

There's quite a funny sketch from the Kids In The Hall in which the Queen reminds Canadians that without the monarchy and the French, they're just.... Americans.

by Anonymousreply 99December 5, 2019 2:46 PM

Based on that photograph, I'd say Charles also needs to cut down on the drinking.

by Anonymousreply 100December 5, 2019 3:12 PM

But who will be left to do the postbox openings? Camilla?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101December 5, 2019 3:36 PM

[quote] Other than losing Balmoral

They wouldn't lose Balmoral if Scotland gained independence. Plenty people own residences in foreign countries.

by Anonymousreply 102December 5, 2019 4:56 PM

[quote]Shouldn't they have been making investments, doesn't their "land' still produce income? If the BRF no longer get a "salary" from the government, wouldn't they still be very wealthy?

I read (2015 Daily Telegraph) that the Queen's private wealth - the actual family fortune - was then about 277 million pounds. There are several Dukes worth far more. Westminster and Cadogan are billionaires. She does not make the Bloomberg Billionaires List. At death, bequests from sovereign to sovereign are tax exempt.

Nobody's land produces vast amounts of income. The aristocracy thrived in the days of no to limited taxation. It all started going south over war, tax, rising wages and social change.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 103December 5, 2019 5:41 PM

The Duchy Of Cornwall makes over £20 million every year. When Charles ascends the Duchy passes to William. They don't own the land privately, but the Duke Of Cornwall reaps all the financial benefits from it. William will become Duke Of Cornwall once Charles is King. As long as there is a male heir to the throne the Duchy will always go to him. If the time comes there is no male heir the Duchy goes to the Crown.

by Anonymousreply 104December 5, 2019 6:52 PM

R97 and others who are interested recommend a good read; the The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy, by David Cannadine.

"At the outset of the 1870s, the British aristocracy could rightly consider themselves the most fortunate people on earth: they held the lion's share of land, wealth, and power in the world's greatest empire. By the end of the 1930s they had lost not only a generation of sons in the First World War, but also much of their prosperity, prestige, and political significance."

Repeal of Corn Laws in 1846 was one of first salvos over the bow if you will; then came WWI, increased taxation (on land, death duties, etc....), and end of fee entail. By 1920's or so the wealthy in GB were paying some of the highest taxes they had ever known. So much so many simply could afford to keep things up and began selling up bits of their estates if not entire family piles (seats). If no one would buy they simply took roofs off those stately homes and let nature and time do demolition for them.

Much of damage caused to various noble families was caused by themselves. Besides often being rather dull, they still often hung onto a class system that believed a "gentleman" or "lady" did not work or engage in any sort of trade. Their income was largely all passive (investments, rents or whatever from land), and often not managed very well.

When the new heir Matthew Crawley arrives at Downton Abbey and begins getting involved with the estate he's shocked at how badly things are being run. Here the current earl is moaning about how he's strapped and might have to sell up, but Matthew discovers waste, inefficiencies, and other issues that were contributing to heavy losses. Attempting to touch subject with his wife and FIL he got same response that would have come from real life aristocrats; "you don't understand our ways, the estate was never meant to be run as a for profit business......".

Fiction is rich of examples as well; when the common and grasping Rex Mottram tells Charles Ryder that the Flyte family is "wealthy as such people are", but that they "are in for a jolt if they don't watch out", CR dismisses it as more of RM's lower class origins and his scheming social climbing.

Of current nobility who are worth millions or billions it is largely because of good investments, but also that happily they "own" some of the most high priced real estate in England. Duke of Westminister owns more land than the Queen, and this includes 300 acres of prime central London land in Mayfair and Belgravia .

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105December 5, 2019 8:59 PM

Furthermore, for those unfamiliar with GB properties, unlike say New York or much of United States leasehold is far more common than buying property freehold. Thus people like Duke of Westminster rake in "rents" on lands they (or rather family) has held for generations if not centuries.

That being said there are more than a few commercial or residential properties (including a good number of co-op buildings) in NYC at least that sit on leased land, but no where near numbers you find across the ocean.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 106December 5, 2019 9:32 PM

[quote]That being said there are more than a few commercial or residential properties (including a good number of co-op buildings) in NYC at least that sit on leased land, but no where near numbers you find across the ocean.

Yeah. Half of NYC is owned by Trinity Church.

by Anonymousreply 107December 5, 2019 9:43 PM

R106

Indeed they do; though current land holdings are down from previous highs, Trinity Church is still a major player in NYC real estate market.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108December 5, 2019 10:12 PM

That being said Columbia University and NYU both have Trinity Church beat in terms of overall land holdings IIRC.

NYU seems to own almost all of Manhattan at or below 14th street stretching down to FiDi. *LOL*

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109December 5, 2019 10:15 PM

Another tag on...

Long before the Jews and a few others took over, one of the wealthiest land owning families of NYC were a name you've likely never heard of; the Wendels.

How much prime NYC land did the Wendel family own?

"In their heyday, the Wendels paid more real estate taxes in New York than anyone, surname Rockefeller included. John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Building at 26 Broadway, which still stands sentry in all its limestone glory at the tip of Manhattan, was built partially on leased Wendel land. The massive UPS trucking depot on Greenwich Street in SoHo was once Wendel property. The Wendels owned the land under the Time-Life Building at 1271 Avenue of the Americas, as well as the ground beneath the office skyscraper at 1211 Avenue of the Americas. The land under another skyscraper, 1407 Broadway, as well as nearly the entire two blocks surrounding it, belonged to the Wendels. So did the land where the luxury condominium at 386 Columbus Avenue now looks across at the Museum of Natural History."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110December 5, 2019 10:46 PM

Hard to believe Kate is "thick"... thanks for the insight.

by Anonymousreply 111December 5, 2019 11:05 PM

Oh, I can believe she's thick, it's just a pity if she really is. The royals really do need some IQ points in the gene pool, and too bad if she didn't bring any into the marriage.

by Anonymousreply 112December 5, 2019 11:17 PM

I don't believe any published accounts of how much the Queen has. She and her forbears didn't pay taxes until very recently, and untaxed millions pile up fast. I'd bet she and Charles both have tons of funds stashed in overseas bank accounts that nobody except those in the very immediate circle knows about.

by Anonymousreply 113December 5, 2019 11:20 PM

What exactly does a queen consort need much intelligence for anyway? Her primary function is to breed children; once they've arrived their handling and education can be done by others.

It isn't as if Kate Middleton has to balance family check book, cut a recipe down or scale one up, decide if laundry "A" is giving more value for money than laundry "B" or any other various decisions an average UMC housewife would need to make.

Kate Middleton went to college and not only took a "Mrs. Degree" but nabbed summa cum laude in catching Prince William. That sort of intelligence doesn't come from books.

by Anonymousreply 114December 5, 2019 11:24 PM

You really have to dig hard to find reasons to criticize Catherine, other than being 'boring'. That's sort of the point. She's supposed to represent the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth. The Cambridges' visit to Pakistan was very successful, and she dressed entirely appropriately for the country they were visiting. When you go on an overseas visit, you're representing your nation, and honoring your host nation: it's not about you and your inflated ego. Prince Charles just had a successful visit to New Zealand and the Solomon Islands. HM is still the Queen of both nations: it's 'soft diplomacy', which tries to cement international relations. That's why the recent NATO visit was so humiliating and embarrassing. It had exactly the opposite effect.

by Anonymousreply 115December 5, 2019 11:35 PM

The endless pageantry of their work would kill me. I don't think being a working royal is anything great. This time last year, they had Markle singing Christmas caroles at an old folks' home. I gather that wasn't the sort of thing she thought she'd signed up for.

by Anonymousreply 116December 6, 2019 4:51 AM

Smile to the people, wave to them; let them see that we are happy. That is why we are here!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117December 6, 2019 5:05 AM

If that's what Meghan didn't think she signed up for, R116, she is amazingly dumb. Just spending an afternoon researching what the Royals actually do throughout the year would have caught her up to speed. For every glittering BAFTA event there is trying to coax small children into picking out a Christmas tree. I think Meghan's knowledge of the BRF stopped with reading People Magazines featuring Diana in the 1990s. She thought she'd show up to glam events wearing couture and getting papped, all the while having glowing articles written. Shame on Harry for not properly preparing her. Maybe he did, and she just didn't listen.

by Anonymousreply 118December 6, 2019 1:04 PM

R116, was she doing it alone? I hope not.

by Anonymousreply 119December 6, 2019 1:32 PM

Apparently the private wealth of the Dutch monarchy is much larger than the British.

by Anonymousreply 120December 6, 2019 1:38 PM

Coming at this from a completely different angle: I am a democratic socialist, amazed that "working monarchies" still exist. Was baffled that Spain actually restored theirs. Even with all the constitutional limits and "figurehead only" roles. But think about Trump, and his destructive impact on the US, with potential long-term damage to our norms, values etc etc. What if the US were a monarchy? What if Queen Carolyn of the House of Kennedy required Trump to present things to her (even pro forma)? I'd think there'd be a greater sense of stability than we have now. Weird.

by Anonymousreply 121December 6, 2019 2:11 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 122December 6, 2019 2:17 PM

[quote]The endless pageantry of their work would kill me. I don't think being a working royal is anything great.

It's a tradeoff. On the plus side, you lack for nothing. You will always be housed in deluxe accommodations. You will never go hungry and will eat the best. You will get the best medical treatment. Yes, the personal time can be very boring (I'm sure Christmas at Balmoral or Sandringham is dull) but bring a few good books and movies and get internet access and you're all set.

And all you have to do is smile and wave at people? Show up at a few supermarket openings, take a tour of a soap opera set, cheer up a few old folks?

by Anonymousreply 123December 6, 2019 3:49 PM

Yeah, I think I'd be down with that, R123. If you have imagination, you would have so much time to pursue interests that impassion you. That works for people like Sophie Wessex, who are fascinated with military history. It's said she and the Queen bond over looking through Windsor Castle's archives. Or look at Anne. She was able to compete in the 1976 Olympics as an equestrian. But it's a detriment to the dimwitted boors like Andy. Look what he's gotten up to his entire damn life.

by Anonymousreply 124December 6, 2019 3:53 PM

R121, I agree.

by Anonymousreply 125December 6, 2019 4:11 PM

Except you really can't ever NOT be in the public eye. You don't have freedom to just do ANYTHING you want to do. You can't really express opinions. You can't just DO things you might want to do....and, if you do, there are always repercussions.

And, having to constantly be "nice" and bland and "on" all the time and guarded about what you say or do or how you react...would be stressful and exhausting.

As for the "easy" life they lead "cutting ribbons"....that shit ain't easy. It's a chore, for many of the reasons listed above.

If you get anything wrong...don't smile at the right time (or smile at the wrong time) or wear something a bit off or say something that doesn't come across correctly, you're immediately chastised by the press, the public and bitches on DL.

It sounds like a horrible life.

by Anonymousreply 126December 6, 2019 8:05 PM

R126,, I've thought about that, too. We often hear that Catherine is "work-shy". But it's well-known that she struggled when she first entered public life: the head of one the her charities mentioned how she's grown into the role: she used to practically hide behind her hair, and was clearly shy about meeting the public and speaking. The fear of speaking in public is very common, and it's not that easy to overcome. I mentioned on some other thread that, if I know I have a meeting coming up where I need to speak, I try to prepare by reading out loud, in private, to be sure I can project my voice. We've heard stories that Will occasionally 'drops' insignificant stories, and checks to see if they make it into the press. He tests people to know who he can trust to keep their mouths shut, and apparently, it's rather rare. What a bizarre life to lead, despite the perks and privileges.

by Anonymousreply 127December 6, 2019 8:30 PM

The whole "Will & Kate are lazy" thing was always ridiculous to me. When they first got married,he had his air ambulance job and her job was to HAVE BABIES AND RAISE THEM! They didn't get to "choose" to be "lazy"...they did the jobs they were assigned by the Crown.

by Anonymousreply 128December 6, 2019 8:39 PM

That is one argument in favor of a constitutional monarchy, R121. Have a monarch, just so the head of state has someone who outranks him.

Not that being outranked would keep an ego like Trump's in check, but he'd have to go through the forms anyway.

by Anonymousreply 129December 6, 2019 8:51 PM

It's really just one troll who posts over and over again that William & Kate don't do enough.

Kate has one major job to do, and that's her children. her entire point as the wife to the heir to the heir to the throne is to have babies and raise them so they don't turn out to be complete messes like the Duke of Windsor. Anne and Edward and Sophie can open the Tescos: she has more important things to do in raising the children.

William was fully involved in his job with the helicopter ambulancing, and that was a very important job for the BRF: the British people need to see the heir to the heir to the throne involved in the Armed Services and helping people. George will have to do this when he is of age too.

Now that William has stopped it with the armed forces, he can pick up his uncle's slack by doing more public appearances. But the idea that he and Kate weren't doing enough in the past was pretty stupid. They were doing the jobs set out for them.

by Anonymousreply 130December 6, 2019 8:59 PM

[quote] They wouldn't lose Balmoral if Scotland gained independence. Plenty people own residences in foreign countries.

Moreover, if Scotland becomes independent, she is fully expected to remain Queen of Scotland as well as Queen of the United Kingdom of England, wales, and Northern Ireland. She is the legitimate heir of James VI of Scotland (who was also James I of England), so she is fully expected to rule there.

Moreover, Balmoral is not a property of the Crown. It is privately owned by the Queen.

by Anonymousreply 131December 6, 2019 9:03 PM

Agree, R130. It's irksome that the majority of "Kate is lazy!" trolls tend to be self-identifying feminists. They decry Kate because she doesn't have a career. The whole point of feminism is that women get to choose what roles they have. If a woman wants to stay home and raise her children, they have zero ground to criticize.

by Anonymousreply 132December 6, 2019 9:07 PM

[quote]she has more important things to do in raising the children.

What raising? She carries the child around for nine months, spends a few hours in labor and then hands the child over to the Firm's approved team of nannies, teachers and private schools. Kate nor Wills are raising the children.

by Anonymousreply 133December 6, 2019 9:09 PM

The real verdict on Kate's job performance won't be known until the kids are adults. Whether they become solid people or the next Yorks.

What they should do is only allow HRH's to the children of direct heirs. Hypothetically, there's no reason for Charlotte or Louis' children to be Princes or Princesses. They can be Lord and Ladies, and if by some twist of fate Charlotte or Louis ends up as a direct heir, they can be bumped up.

by Anonymousreply 134December 6, 2019 9:12 PM

Kate is more hands-on than many would care to admit, R133. She's regularly spotted on the grounds of KP with the kids. There was a recent Twitter post of a woman who spotted Kate at lunchtime taking Louis and Lupo out for a walk on the grounds. There are numerous reports like that quite frequently. What's somewhat surprising is there haven't been any sightings at Windsor of Meghan or Harry with a pram. That's a bit odd.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 135December 6, 2019 9:26 PM

If Kate wants to spend more time with her kids than opening supermarkets or appearing at charity galas, then she's doing her job right, her REAL job. And if William had the sense to marry a woman who'd rather stay home with the kids than make public appearances or party, then he's doing what's right for the monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 136December 6, 2019 9:38 PM

That's an excellent point, R124, a life of wealth and luxury only suits people with some self-direction and the capacity to be interested in things outside themselves. If a person who doesn't have to work is serious about a hobby like horses or history (or microbiology, like the Japanese royals), it gives structure to their days and personal goals to pursue, and gives them something to live for besides partying. I mean, what do you get when you give a person who's interested in nothing but themselves all the money in the world? You get Christina Onassis! Or Prince Andrew!

Sadly, the Sussexes don't seem to be interested in anything but being fabulous and famous. It'll be all downhill for them, or at least for Harry. Meghan at least has her social mountaineering to give her life goals and structure, Harry doesn't seem to care about anything but his next drink.

by Anonymousreply 137December 6, 2019 9:53 PM

R124

[quote] time to pursue interests that impassion you. That works for people like Sophie Wessex, who are fascinated with military history. It's said she and the Queen bond over looking through Windsor Castle's archives.

I didn't know that about Sophie. Lucky her.

I love history and the opportunity to have access to the archives at WINDSOR CASTLE!!!

Imagine.

by Anonymousreply 138December 6, 2019 10:21 PM

Has Sophie written any books or papers about her historical findings?

Anyway, the life of a royal seems extremely tedious to me, so yeah, if I'd been born royal I'd literally go out of my mind if I didn't have a serious hobby. And BTW, I know some horse people, and yes, that's a great, absorbing, life-changing hobby for those that can afford it. It's one of those hobbies that provides relationships with someone who isn't interested in your money or status, and by that, I mean both the horses themselves and the other obsessive horse people. It gives goals to work for, difficult goals that can take years, it gives your day structure, and includes responsibilities that can't be avoided - making sure your innocent horse is clean, fed, exercised, gand housed properly, and given medical care. IMHO that's a big reason that Athina Onassis isn't a mess like her mother.

by Anonymousreply 139December 6, 2019 10:27 PM

I love British history, old houses, and antiques. If I married into that family, they'd never be able to pry me out of the archives and the attics and anywhere else they had cool bric-a-brac stashed away.

by Anonymousreply 140December 6, 2019 10:59 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 141December 7, 2019 2:40 AM

Wow-check out the comments on that article. People hated - I mean HATED - Kate. I've said it before, but Meghan Markle is the best thing that could have happened to the Duchess of Cambridge. Markle thinks she has it bad? She should go back and read old comments about her sister-in-law.

by Anonymousreply 142December 7, 2019 2:46 AM

R134

As per letters patent children of "Sons of the Sovereign" are entitled to HRH; that let out Princess Anne's children for obvious reasons.

Thanks to advances in healthcare, nutrition, and so forth leading to longer lifespans and decreased infant mortality rates HM faced an usual situation; children direct line heirs were going to be commoners thanks to same letters patent.

HM could have done nothing and waited until fullness of time (her demise and Prince Charles becoming king) which would correct things as Prince William (who would become Prince of Wales) moves up to second from third place in order of succession, and his children would move up to grand children of living sovereign ( again Children of Sons of Sovereign), and thus become royal highness as birth right. Obviously this did not happen and HM issued letters patent altering previous 1917 issued in extending HRH to the children of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Similarly regardless of what Prince Harry and MM turned down at time of birth; Archie will become "HRH" and "prince" moment his great-grandmother passes on and either is grand -father or father becomes king. This is the birth right of all Sussex children unless letters patent or other actions are taken to strip them of such title and rank.

Stripping Diana of her HRH meant she was back to being a commoner, and would have to bow curtsy to her sons, and every other member of BRF even the York princesses.

Queen Mary OTOH only bowed a curtsy at least once to her first son; that was after George V breathed his last (helped along by a heavy dose of morphine), when the dowager turned to now Edward VIII, bowed, kissed his hand, then left her deceased husband's bedroom. There may have been other occasions however..

As things stand Archie will have to crane his neck in presence of his cousins (the Cambridge children), aunts, uncles, and every other royal both within UK and Europe. He may be the son of a royal duke and prince, but as things stand Archie is a commoner.

Similarly HM issued orders that Kate Middleton must curtsy to the York princesses unless she is accompanied by Prince William. York girls are royal princesses by birth; KM is only one via marriage. Am sure same applies to MM, which may or may not get up her nose when encountering other members of BRF.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 143December 7, 2019 2:58 AM

R142

Thought of daughter of a former airline hostess inline to becoming princess of Wales and queen consort was just simply more than many could endure. There was much gashing of teeth, and nasty vitriol directed towards Kate Middleton from certain circles. Hence the "waity" nickname which continues to be used despite duchess of Cambridge settling down rather nicely into her roles.

Aside from her dead common background, general consensus from the drawing rooms of London was that KM "caught" PW via a well organized, effective and efficient campaign, that was anything but subtle.

by Anonymousreply 144December 7, 2019 3:05 AM

R131 I'd have to believe that if Scotland finally did decide to secede from the UK there wouldn't be much interest in continuing to allow the lineage of James VI to have any role. Especially if the House of Windsor still was grifting in London.

by Anonymousreply 145December 7, 2019 3:14 AM

Oh I don't know..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 146December 7, 2019 6:51 AM

Prince Williams friends would blurt out "'doors to manual", upon seeing Kate Middleton (before marriage obviously), in reference to her mother's airline hostess background. They do say some continued long after engagement and marriage, though under their breath or out of ear shot of the duke.

by Anonymousreply 147December 7, 2019 7:38 AM

So this is where the trolls are, polishing their pitchforks.

by Anonymousreply 148December 7, 2019 8:34 AM

The putrid, schizophrenic Welp Troll is so tedious, addressing everyone who makes a negative comment about dim Kate as 'Lainey'.

by Anonymousreply 149December 7, 2019 8:55 AM

r130 I'll give Kate and Meghan a break since they probably spend time recovering from pregnancies, or whatever Kate's doing, but their husbands have an unimpressive resume. Perhaps the engagements build as the patronage increase. BRF might want to reserve their most popular younger members, which includes Meghan and Harry, despite the groans of DL. IDK, I'd love to spend my time making people's days a bit brighter by my appearance.

The Royal Family’s workload from most to least hardworking:

Princess Anne: 137

Prince Charles: 131

Queen Elizabeth II: 122

Prince Andrew: 105

Prince Edward: 78

The Duke of Kent: 76

Prince Harry: 69

Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall: 69

The Duke of Gloucester: 66

Prince William: 66

Sophie, Countess of Wessex: 60

Kate Middleton: 41

Princess Alexandra: 32

The Duchess of Gloucester: 30

Meghan Markle: 25

by Anonymousreply 150December 7, 2019 9:34 AM

r137, just stop. The Sussex's are still figuring things out right now. Kate and William did the same thing their first couple of years. Getting used to their lifestyle is an adjustment, add a child and it becomes twice as hard. Get am Americans and you have another layer of things to work through. Oh, and she's half-black, well that's a whole other thing to think about. William and Kate were more media shy, but that's how they operate. Both camps love to use their respective PR teams to plant stories about the other and cause drama. Obviously, the Cambridges and Sussex's have time on their hands to play with the media. Neither camp is innocent about causing negative headlines for the BRF. Things will eventually calm down.

But to say all Meghan and Harry care about is fame, really ignores Harry's genuine work with wounded vets and the various causes Meghan was involved in prior to meeting Harry.

by Anonymousreply 151December 7, 2019 9:43 AM

R147, If that's true, that's pretty tragic. Catherine has only had a few mis-steos, and has been a huge credit to the monarchy. I've actually been attacked, here on DL, as a "Kate-stan", and that's really strange for me. I can't recall ever stanning on anyone other than Carol Burnett and Charo. I know, sometimes, I too innocent to wander into DL.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 152December 7, 2019 11:21 AM

R151-I'm more cynical than you. Meghan has used charity work as a way to worm herself into the upper echelons of society. That's why she went with Sunshine Sachs-they were able to get her to the UN to give speeches and USO gigs. It was all about raising her profile and padding her resume. Edward Lane Fox engineered Sentebale and Invictus following Harry's disastrous outings in Nazi cos-play and naked billiards as a way to rehabilitate his image. He's just a figurehead for both who shows up, plays polo, gives a speech and that's it. It's all about image.

by Anonymousreply 153December 7, 2019 12:32 PM

Interesting, r150. It looks like QEII’s immediate children are at the top, which I expect them to be. I think once Charles assumes the throne, both William and Harry should step up... but they’re taking the load of five people if there are thoughts of “downsizing”. Meghan was on pregnancy leave last year, but I think the year before she did a fair amount of engagements. I give Kate a pass, too—no doubt she has nannies, etc., but she did not come from a background of being raised by nannies, so she might actually love and enjoy being around and raising her kids.

by Anonymousreply 154December 7, 2019 1:04 PM

Get rid of the fat. Give the rest less work. Charles is on the right track.

by Anonymousreply 155December 7, 2019 1:07 PM

Oh please. No one works in that family. The BRF do have to go the way of the Spanish Royals in that there's only the immediate family as Royals and that's it.

by Anonymousreply 156December 7, 2019 1:10 PM

R151, the whole Hero Harry persona was created by his now departed minder Edward Lane Fox who did a fabulous job in rehabilitating his image from cad to military lad. It's unclear how much longer Invictus will continue as Harry was hard pressed to spend much time with the organization during the last Games. Likewise, Sentabale may founder as they have lost their largest donor, Audi. They pulled out of their sponsorship of the annual polo match after Harry and Meghan demanded the company donate $1m to the Royal Foundation along with all the other costs they pay for the match. Audi held a conciliatory concert in Italy as a parting gesture, but have otherwise retreated.

Interestingly, it was immediately following this debacle that KP floated that the "Fab Four" was no more and that Harry and Meghan would no longer be housed under KP nor have involvement in the Royal Foundation. William, or his courtiers, had no intention of letting Harry sully the reputation of the Royal Foundation by making it into their own personal slush fund (which is no doubt the purpose of the Sussex Foundation. What have the Sussex Foundation spent their donations - including the sizable donation from Disney - on? What is funding their massive PR operation?).

Harry is a PR creation who has damaged his reputation. He may be able to partly regain his reputation if he and Meghan divorce. But as long as he remains married to her she will drag him down like dead weight. Her polling numbers are abysmal and will not be overcome. Given public sentiment, they don't have time to turn things around. Charles has to cut them loose. They've made enemies of the press who would only be too happy to report on their financial machinations via their Foundation.

by Anonymousreply 157December 7, 2019 1:12 PM

Maybe the "6-week break" is for Harry to go to rehab. The video of him stumbling onto the stage in S.A. was concerning.

by Anonymousreply 158December 7, 2019 1:49 PM

Six weeks is also enough time to sufficiently recover from a nip and tuck.

by Anonymousreply 159December 7, 2019 1:58 PM

R159, I’d believe that first. I don’t think Meghan looks bad, but I’m sure she’s noticing she’s having a tough time losing the last few pounds from her pregnancy. Maybe Harry is joining her and getting hair plugs. I’m really surprised they haven’t been seen once while they’re in the US.

by Anonymousreply 160December 7, 2019 2:21 PM

If they plan on having another child soon, it wouldn't make sense for her to have a nip tuck now.

by Anonymousreply 161December 7, 2019 2:26 PM

Six weeks is ample time for rehab, IVF and hair plugs.

by Anonymousreply 162December 7, 2019 5:22 PM

Spazzy Kate works just 40 days a year! Lazy bitch. And people here really think idle William and his spouse would be pleased if Harry and Meghan left, leaving 110 engagements to be filled by them. Their departure is the very last thing K and W want.

by Anonymousreply 163December 7, 2019 6:54 PM

'Edward Lane Fox engineered Sentebale and Invictus following Harry's disastrous outings in Nazi cos-play and naked billiards as a way to rehabilitate his image;

You PR obsessed idiot, Harry would never have been able to create those charities with any credibility if he hadn't built up so much credibility and popularity through his two tours of Afghanistan, while weedy William flew helicopters in Wales.

Meghan too could have lived an easy life just filming her show and still appealed to Harry or other rich men, but she didn't. And you can't just hire PR and have them wave a magic wand. She was already personable and appealing, a good public speaker and a good writer.

by Anonymousreply 164December 7, 2019 6:59 PM

'I’m really surprised they haven’t been seen once while they’re in the US.'

Of course you are, because it doesn't sit with your theory of her as a desperate grifting narc who has to be in the headlines every day. She disappeared in March and April too. She probably won't be seen until January and I fully expect her to have lost all the baby weight. Harry won't have hair plugs anymore than William will.

by Anonymousreply 165December 7, 2019 7:01 PM

[quote] Given public sentiment, they don't have time to turn things around. Charles has to cut them loose.

You're talking about them like they're simply employees he can terminate at will.

They're his son and his daughter-in-law, and even were he so cold-hearted as to want to get rid of them, they both have HRH status, which cannot be taken away without an act of Parliament.

by Anonymousreply 166December 7, 2019 7:04 PM

[quote]They're his son and his daughter-in-law, and even were he so cold-hearted as to want to get rid of them, they both have HRH status, which cannot be taken away without an act of Parliament.

And you saw how fast Liz showed Andrew the door when things got out of control and messy. You won't see Andrew around for years.

by Anonymousreply 167December 7, 2019 7:08 PM

[quote] Prince Williams friends blurt out "'doors to manual", upon seeing Kate Middleton (before marriage obviously), in reference to her mother's airline hostess background. They do say some continued long after engagement and marriage, though under their breath or out of ear shot of the duke.

I heard they did this when they were kids in (and just out of) university, but I've never once heard before this they did it as adults after William and Kate got back together again.

I highly doubt they did it as older men.

by Anonymousreply 168December 7, 2019 7:10 PM

Charles won't cut Sparkle and Dimmy loose without a long struggle first. Harry is his son, and Harry used to be incredibly popular, it'll take years of scandal and idiocy before Charles will give up the hope of Harry returning to the fold and his former popularity. There will also be years of hoping he'll divorce the little climber.

And no, Liz didn't show Andrew the door "fast", she showed him the door after DECADES of misbehavior. It was only when genuine criminal behavior came to light that the Palace gave up.

by Anonymousreply 169December 7, 2019 7:10 PM

It's not like they're going to starve. He really doesn't have much choice at this point. It's doubtful the Foreign Office will use them for tours after the South Africa fiasco. It's also doubtful that any organizations are clamoring for their patronage. If they stay Charles will have a hard time putting them to use.

by Anonymousreply 170December 7, 2019 7:28 PM

WE don't need no stinking patronage. We will make our own organizations. I will get patronage by selling access to Harry who is too dim to realize he's being used.

by Anonymousreply 171December 7, 2019 7:34 PM

What does this even mean that Charles would ever "cut them loose"? Even as King, he would need an act of Parliament to take away the HRH status from harry (and thus Meghan and Archie too), and that has only been done when there has been gross dereliction of duty (such as supporting Germany during a World war or abdicating).

Remember that there was never the slightest talk sat the Palace of cutting Princess Margaret loose, no matter how badly she behaved. Even though "The Crown" suggested the Queen told Margaret she would lose her HRH status and her money if she married Peter Townsend, that was not the case at all in real life (documents have shown that the Palace had decided that if she married him she would have retained both title and money). And even Andrew has yet to lose his HRH status, his title, or his palace.

I think this is all a lot of big talk from Dataloungers who like to pretend the BRF are the Carringtons or the Colbys.

by Anonymousreply 172December 7, 2019 7:43 PM

Good lord, Harry will never lose his HRH status. He was born with it. Meghan will if she divorces, but she retains her title. The only way I can see her losing it is if the divorce occurs before she becomes a citizen. Then there may be some rationale for stripping it. How would it look if both Diana and Fergie got to keep their titles, and the biracial woman didn't? The BRF will not go there. If she's still a US citizen, they may get away with it. And Charles won't cut Harry and Meghan loose. If he axes other, older royals, there simply won't be enough family members to carry out all the crown's work. Harry may be dim and Meghan a social climber, but he'll need them. I suspect they're being brought up short with promises to cut their allowances if they don't start behaving. Realpolitik, bitches.

by Anonymousreply 173December 7, 2019 8:02 PM

Where is it coming from that Harry is unpopular? He's still the second most popular royal according to yougov polling in 2019.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 174December 7, 2019 8:03 PM

Harry might keep his HRH but cease to be a working royal. "Cutting loose" doesn't necessarily mean going nuclear. Bea and Eug are HRH's and they aren't really working royals. It's quite possible that Harry could remain HRH the Duke of Sussex but cease taking money from the Sovereign Grant or engaging in work on behalf of the British government.

by Anonymousreply 175December 7, 2019 8:44 PM

Anyone who believes Prince Harry will be "cut loose" is off their meds.

Half of what is in the media (if not more) cannot nor should not be trusted as gospel. Both Wales princes know their lot and thus far have shown no aversion to doing their duty overall. Yes, there may be a kick now and then, but all young people go through a phase sorting themselves out about family business.

Prince Charles only has the two heirs, so unlike his mother's day when there were four to divide things up, upon succession of "king" Charles the immediate BRF will be (then) HM, the queen consort, the two princes, their duchesses and children. We're talking about a sum of about ten persons versus how many today?

When it comes the shock of HM passing and subsequent succession of Prince Charles (along with elevation of Prince William) will likely hit home to not just the princes, but their wives and everyone else. Am more than unusally sure this was drummed into Kate Middleton and MM prior to their marriages telling each if they wanted out, the door is that way. No one in BRF or elsewhere in GB wants or wanted a repeat of Diana, and again that was surely in some ways made clear to KM and MM.

Only way can see PH being removed or whatever from royal duties is if his rumored (slightly) delicate mental health finally cracks. Not saying the duke of Sussex is mad, but he was very affected by his mother's demise and they do say effects linger on even today.

by Anonymousreply 176December 7, 2019 8:54 PM

Question: Is the amount received by a "working royal" dependent on the number and type of engagements they perform?

In the past I have checked the calendar of engagements for The Duke of Gloucester for example, and his list is usually quite long. And, as has been suggested, Princess Anne is always very busy.

So, does each working royal get the same amount? If clothes are paid for, is there a limit? (Because Sparkle was spending up a storm for her duds.)

Here is a link to the engagements and one can specify a specific person to see their list. Of course, given the holiday season, there are fewer engagements and the list for 2020 only shows a few for the beginning of January, so the current list is not representative of the usual.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 177December 7, 2019 9:05 PM

R177

This should answer your questions:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 178December 7, 2019 9:33 PM

He can certainly include his siblings, the actual children of a monarch, including the actually well-liked Princess Anne. It's all the nieces and nephews and cousins he needs to get rid of.

by Anonymousreply 179December 7, 2019 9:36 PM

Or this:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 180December 7, 2019 9:37 PM

R168 William's friend's were always snobby to Kate and looked down on her. That's why after K & W married, she didn't attend some of those friend's weddings. William either didn't go to the weddings either or he would go on his own or with Harry

by Anonymousreply 181December 7, 2019 9:39 PM

[quote] You really have to dig hard to find reasons to criticize Catherine, other than being 'boring'. That's sort of the point. She's supposed to represent the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth. The Cambridges' visit to Pakistan was very successful, and she dressed entirely appropriately for the country they were visiting.

Well, that was definitely a first for her. I remember her not wearing underwear and her love of letting her dress fly up on a few on her overseas tours. Of course the British media censored the pictures or refused to report on it. But the rest of the world's media were happy to report on it

by Anonymousreply 182December 7, 2019 9:41 PM

MM's wardrobe spending comes out of either her own money, or Prince Harry's (one has some the other buckets). Besides Prince Harry's own fortune his other source of income is Prince Charles who funds various activities related to his children (just like any other father) via his own income (Duchy of Cornwall, etc....).

Prince Charles pays or has paid wardrobe bills for Kate Middleton, MM, and one assumes Prince Harry and William as it relates to their royal duties. Again this comes form his own income.

HM pays for travel by Prince William, Prince Harry and their wives/families when they undertake royal engagements, just as she does for any member of RF. Though again Prince Charles may foot his own travel expenses via his own income.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 183December 7, 2019 9:44 PM

I don't see how anyone can be pissed at Princess Kate, really. And I'm not a big fan. I actually kinda like Markle, just cause she's a little different. More fun. But of the two, she is definitely the more problematic. Kate is fine. No complaints are honest.

by Anonymousreply 184December 7, 2019 9:44 PM

Then you have this:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 185December 7, 2019 9:45 PM

R173

Via letters patent issued post divorce of Diana and Sarah (IIRC) HM made it quite clear divorces spouses of BRF lose their royal status (the HRH) , period.

At the time HM was inclined to allow Diana to keep her royal status, but Prince Charles put his foot down and was determined. This was quite a blow to Diana and upon being informed it came as a shock. Reportedly Prince William sad "don't worry mommy, when I'm king I'll get it back for your..." or words to that effect.

Loss of her royal status meant that Diana would have to curtsy to her own sons, their wives, and any other member of BRF. Diana went from being third highest woman of the land (after HM, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother), to second (Princess of Wales) back down to mere daughter of an earl.

by Anonymousreply 186December 7, 2019 9:55 PM

R184

Kate Middleton by virtue of being British at least has a clue; MM knows nothing other than what she's read in books or been told. Both of which are vastly different than having to lead life of a royal.

by Anonymousreply 187December 7, 2019 9:58 PM

Diana fucked herself on that one, R173. The BRF offered her the title HRH Princess Diana, which would have made her a princess in her own right (rather than just the wife of a prince) and let her keep the title even if she remarried. This was to coax her into letting go of the Princess of Wales title. She was attached to that title, though, and fought for it. While they were still negotiating the matter, negotiations that were supposed to be private until an agreement was reached, Diana jumped the gun and announced to the press that she would now be known as Diana, Princess of Wales. Her announcement did NOT specify that she would be known as an HRH. She assumed she would be, but those clever cusses at the Palace took her at her word and let her stay Diana, Princess of Wales, sans HRH.

by Anonymousreply 188December 7, 2019 10:00 PM

Sorry, I meant R186.

by Anonymousreply 189December 7, 2019 10:00 PM

Growing up British, and growing up Royal are two very different things r187. Again, I will say that Kate seems fine adapting to the NEW routine, and Markle, well, doesn't, but it's silly to say that every Brit just knows how to act. Diana did not, and struggled every day with that stuff. I still like Meghan, but she definitely needs to get her act together, try to figure out how to be herself without completely screwing up in her new role.

by Anonymousreply 190December 7, 2019 10:02 PM

R189

Yes one understands, but at least Kate Middleton had (or has) an awareness of the BRF by being British herself. "Waity" obviously knew full well who Prince William was, and his family when she clapped eyes upon him freshman year at college then proceeded to make becoming his wife her life's work.

by Anonymousreply 191December 7, 2019 10:16 PM

well now I have no idea who one is talking to or what exactly one understands.

by Anonymousreply 192December 7, 2019 10:21 PM

And I can throw Fergie in there as well. Just being British, hell, just growing up WITH THE BRF is no guarantee that if and when the time comes, when you are actually part of that weirdly difficult life, you will know what the hell you are supposed to do, or be able to do it.

by Anonymousreply 193December 7, 2019 10:24 PM

R189

I'm sorry? Diana Spencer knew very well "how to act", she simply chose to ignore convention for her own purposes.

As daughter of a peer of the realm, Diana Spencer was far more intimately aware and connected to court than Kate Middleton and certainly MM could ever have been.

Diana wasn't a case of "the new Mrs. de Winter" from a dead common background suddenly having to adjust to being a grand chatelaine .

The Queen Mother and other senior royal ladies along with trusted ladies at court all took Diana in hand (and or were dispatched) to help Diana cope with transition and "educate" (if that is the proper word) her on her new role . IIRC even HM sent one of her most senior and trusted ladies to Diana in aide of this effort.

Diana Spencer was a spoiled young girl who grew into a scheming and conniving woman. She damn well knew how the game was played (as she should being daughter of a bolter and then there was that step-mother, piled onto earl Spencer), but chose a different path for her own reasons.

by Anonymousreply 194December 7, 2019 10:27 PM

I'm not sure she really, truly did, r194. I think she thought she was getting into an actual marriage, and did not know it was actually a fake marriage. I never met her, so obviously could be wrong, but I think she really did NOT know what the hell was going on. And knowing how to act, and being a constant subject of scrutiny are two very different things. I think a lot of people can imagine being movie stars and loving the idea. Actually living every day knowing that there are cameras on you constantly and that every move you make, everything you wear, every person you are seen with will be analysed to death, well, I think that is different.

by Anonymousreply 195December 7, 2019 10:33 PM

R193

Again, but sorry that is incorrect.

Sarah Ferguson knew the RF very well and had been around court nearly since being born thanks to her father's position. No, she didn't live with RF or whatever, but damn well knew more than say some waitress in Bayswater.

Pity for SF was that she allowed herself to be egged on by her then SIL Diana; the pair of them then seemed intent on going their own ways and subbing noses at establishment. In particular annoying HM, their husbands and the BRF at large. At first it was all very "refreshing", but then as things went on and at least on Diana's side intent became clear, warning shots were fired over the bow.

SF knew very well Prince Andrew was in the forces and that was his life at the time. You don't marry a military man expecting him to give all that up and become a homebody keeping you company. But pulling another page from Diana's book Fergie pulled the "lonely wife" act to justify some pretty shameful behavior. This included that infamous toe sucking incident.

Don't pretend to be an expert on royal marriages, but am pretty sure being caught with some oily git lapping at one's toes, then kissing one on mouth (in full presence of a young royal princess) is simply just not done.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 196December 7, 2019 10:39 PM

I honestly think everyone is missing the point here. I am not saying that Diana or Fergie or Meghan are/were acting fine and they are great. The problem is that the BRF is not something anyone else is used to. You do not know what the hell you are doing, what the hell you are even supposed to be doing unless you grow up in it, and even then, it's probably a huge pain in the ass and a huge adjustment. Some are going to struggle with it. They don't bother me that much. They are making their way in a very weird and difficult way. THAT is why Meghan Markle is not the devil. She may be making some mistakes along the way (again, I think Kate is doing all of this shit better), but I don't hate her for it. Does Meghan Markle really bother you?

by Anonymousreply 197December 7, 2019 10:46 PM

Diana IMO had an issue with Camilla who usurped her role of ‘wife’ without any of the duties. I believe as she said publicly she would have accepted mistresses as she was friendly with Charles’ other mistresses but Camilla was Charles’ confidant and had a hold over him which made it untenable. The proof is is in the damn video of him walking down the aisle mooning at Camilla. He had no respect for Diana and on the contrary was jealous of her as he probably is jealous of his mother and his sons. They were completely miss matched and shouldn’t have married but Charles as the much older man should have stayed away. Also the whole William the air ambulance driver contrivance. It was a joke then and it’s still lampooned on The Windsors. They fudged all the rules to accommodate him and he didn’t fulfill his requirements. He used it as an excuse to bow out of Royal Duties and would instead be found vacationing. I don’t blame Kate for not working when it seems to stem from William’s reticence.

by Anonymousreply 198December 7, 2019 10:46 PM

R195

You really ought to do some research my dear.

Diana got full confirmation weeks before her wedding (finding a set of cuff links gifted to Prince Charles from CPB), that things might not be quite over between Prince of Wales and his fancy woman. Diana went crying to her sisters and anyone else who would listen saying she didn't think could go on with the marriage. Their response was "too late, your name is on the tea towels already", and that was that.

Earl Spencer damn well knew (as did much of court and London) about Prince Charles and CPB. HM only got full wind of things later on, and was not amused, but boys will be boys...... It was a a disaster waiting to play out in slow motion; and it did.

Diana was slotted in to play a role she either wanted no part of, and or grew to resent for various reasons. It is a foolish and stupid girl or woman that doesn't know why a man is marrying her; and while PC did genuinely appear to be "in love" with young Diana at first; it was her love of babies, youth, background, and promise of fertility that sealed the deal.

Flipping things around CPB knew fully well what life inside RF was like, and what being princess of Wales entailed, and as such at first married elsewhere .

by Anonymousreply 199December 7, 2019 10:48 PM

so my darling, Diana consciously walked into a fake marriage and then lost her shit when she realized it was a fake marriage? You honestly think that is what happened there? Really?

here, sweetcheeks, this makes more sense: Diana thought she was in a fairy tale. She wasn't. It was all kind of a fake. When she discovered that, she lost her ever living shizzle. The rest is history, and a lot of Vogue and Vanity Fair cover stories.

by Anonymousreply 200December 7, 2019 10:55 PM

R198

Again all of London knew PC and CPB were "soul mates" if you will, even during periods when the other side of their relationship had stopped.

Prince Charles wanted Camilla from start, but was told she wouldn't do and to look elsewhere.

Would make an interesting rewrite of history if Camllia put aside her own quibbles and told PC if asked she would accept; *and* the Prince of Wales pulled a Nicholas II and told his mother "see here, it's Camillia or no one else, if you decline permission I'll wait until becoming king and do as I like".

You must remember though decades ago by then, the abdication crisis caused by Duke of Windsor was very much still on many minds in RF and elsewhere. Everyone wanted a suitable match that produced a line of heirs without fuss or bother. Prince Charles was getting on and told numerous times to pull his socks up and marry.

Irony isn't lost upon HM, and RF that for all their meddling and Victorian ideals about marriage market, Prince Charles has ended up with his first choice after all, and is supremely happy. More to the point world has not come to an end. sun still rises in east, God is in his heavens, and HM on her throne.

by Anonymousreply 201December 7, 2019 11:00 PM

R201 I’m not the previous poster and nowhere did I mention love or a loving marriage. Diana was a fool she thought she would be adored by the world and in return she would be respected and adored by Charles when her success as Princess only made him sullen and more devoted to Camilla. Diana was taking orders not only from the Queen but also form Camilla who had more respect and influence over Charles and that’s what drove her crazy. Her excuse is she was a child when she married and Charles and Camilla were full grown. They should have been allowed to marry but they were also too selfish to abdicate or insist on marrying nobody is innocent in this I stand by what I said Charles was a man and should have bowed out.

by Anonymousreply 202December 7, 2019 11:10 PM

Diana, ill-educated, traumatized by her parents' divorce, and with a head full of romance novels, wanted happily ever after with a fairy-tale prince. Instead she got world-wide fame and a complicated relationship with an emotionally stunted, fallible man. She didn't handle the shattering of her illusions very well. A stronger, smarter, more stable woman might have settled in and made the best of things. Diana acted out--and out--and out, until she was out of the BRF and into her grave at Althorp.

by Anonymousreply 203December 7, 2019 11:13 PM

R200

Wouldn't call it a "fake" marriage per se; but that unique invention often called an "English marriage".

Sort of thing where two persons marry who get on well enough, but may not be the sort of madly gaga over each other like school children sort of thing. It is a marriage born of various reasons (family and or personal avarice, desire for a woman to be free of her family and or gain money, status, etc..., a man in need of a wife and heirs...., etc...)

People marry, produce heirs, get on well enough in public by keeping up appearances, but often there are dalliances (of all sorts) on both sides.

Even without the extracurricular activities you had marriages where couples simply inhabited two different worlds under one roof. But at heart of things you have two people on some level that need each other or at least wish to be together. Harold Nicolson and Vita SackVille-West come to mind.

British media is full of various comedy of manners based upon this theme, book then later television film "A Rather English Marriage" is one example.

Tragedy of Diana Spencer's marriage was everyone (including her own family) expected her to behave like Princess Alexandra; ignoring, condoning, turning a blind eye, or whatever to her husband's other interests while busying herself with running houses, children, etc.... Diana however had other plans.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 204December 7, 2019 11:22 PM

Let's twist things around; with only weeks before the largest royal event since HM's coronation (and nearly as highly anticipated), Diana finding out about Prince Charles and CPB (to whatever extent things were going on), and does a runner. What would have happened then?

Spencer family could attempt to pull an " Alva Vanderbilt" literally forcing Diana down that aisle (which they did pretty much anyway), but the optics would have been very damaging.

Even if Diana had succeeded from extracting herself from that entanglement, she likely would have become a piranha socially and perhaps within her own family as well. Bolting from the Prince of Wales is not something that would have been easily lived down. Earl Spencer likely would have been livid and may have been rather severe with his daughter. Not physically of course, but there were other ways....

In my mind think Diana looked around, summed things up and realized letting everyone down wasn't an option. Despite reservations best go ahead with things and make best of hand as dealt. And for those first years things did seem to hold together, but sadly it was only temporary.

by Anonymousreply 205December 7, 2019 11:33 PM

R203

Exactly!

A woman along lines of say the fictional Rebecca deWinter wouldn't have cared one wit what Prince Charles got up to on his own time. A seriously experienced woman would have done her duty (cranking out an heir and spare), then promptly telling PC he could do what he liked elsewhere, but she had better things to do. Appearances would be kept up of course, and there wouldn't have been a grander princess of Wales or queen consort far as world at large was concerned.....

by Anonymousreply 206December 7, 2019 11:38 PM

I think also there was a weird dynamic between Diana and Charles due to their ages and life experiences. Diana wanted to party, to be seen around town, to attend gala balls. Charles had grown up doing all that and wanted a nice, quiet "country" life.

I wouldn't have wanted to be in service at their residence, the night that Diana got up onstage and danced with Wayne Sleep. Charles was furious at her for doing that. She wanted to be seen, he wanted a quiet life.

by Anonymousreply 207December 7, 2019 11:50 PM

Ages ago, and maybe still today for all I know there were young men (straight or gay) known as "walkers".

These were men who escorted wives of the rich and whatever to various events, balls, parties, etc.. while their husbands were busy elsewhere, and or simply didn't want to be bothered.

Yes, some were gigolos who did more than their job description; others were so exclusively gay husbands weren't least bit threatened or worried.

Point is that older men have been marrying younger women for ages, and usually as you say older men don't want to spend their nights out at parties, balls, the opera or whatever, but their young wives needed airings on a routine basis.

Once a man had a heir and spare safely in the bag, more than a few turned a blind eye to what their wives got up to; that is weren't fooled least bit by the tennis or golf pro, young man from a good family but with limited resources and others where up to with their wives. Long as things were kept discrete and appearances were kept up....

Preying upon bored but wealthy wives isn't a bad way to earn a living I suppose.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 208December 8, 2019 12:25 AM

Oh and before anyone starts going on about no self respecting attractive gay man would go around with some old woman, may I present exhibit "A"; Jack Wrangler and his wife Margaret Whiting.

JW would have had no problems finding a wealthy power gay (even if closted) man (or two) that would have comfortably set him up for life; but instead.......

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 209December 8, 2019 12:35 AM

Bump

by Anonymousreply 210December 8, 2019 4:15 AM

For the love of god:

The plural of “Sussex” is “Sussexes”. For example: “The Sussexes are a car crash from which I cannot avert my eyes”.

The possessive of “Sussexes” is “Sussexes’”. For example: “The Sussexes’ copper bath tub is a bugger to clean”.

by Anonymousreply 211December 8, 2019 4:36 AM

[QUOTE] extracting herself from that entanglement, she likely would have become a piranha socially and perhaps within her own family as well.

Oh, dear! You mean a 'pariah', not a 'piranha', you silly illiterate fool.

by Anonymousreply 212December 8, 2019 4:40 AM

Speaking of people who must be "fun at parties" you old English Lit dinosaurs must have your books full of invites to parties. Your nasty, insulting and quite honestly vulgar grammar and usage checking must make you so in demand socially.

There is an entire chapter in book "How To Win Friends and Influence People" devoted to your type, suggest you pick up a copy and spend an hour or so improving yourselves. It will do you a world of good.

by Anonymousreply 213December 8, 2019 4:48 AM

When Charles is king, parliament should make it so that only children of the monarch, and in the case of a long-lived monarch, grandchildren and great grandchildren via the direct heir get HRHs. There’s no reason for the York girls to have an HRH, similarly as to how Edward declined to have them for his kids, as there is almost no chance of them ascending. There is no reason for Archie or the future children of Charlotte and Louis to have an HRH. They can be lords and ladies like the Wessex kids. If fate intervenes with the succession as she has before, give it to them. But cousins and so on are not necessary. When the Queens royal cousins pass, their kids don’t need titles.

by Anonymousreply 214December 8, 2019 4:52 AM

R49 What the hell is Mel wearing? I know that could be it's own thread here. But she looks like a banana. I have the opening song for "New Zoo Revue" stuck in my head from looking at this.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215December 8, 2019 5:00 AM

R213 Did we miss Paxil Day? I think we did.

by Anonymousreply 216December 8, 2019 5:01 AM

[quote]R1 That FACE.

Is he an alcoholic, or does he have rosacea?

by Anonymousreply 217December 8, 2019 5:12 AM

[quote]r14 Those charities should be divided between Beatrice and Eugenie. Put them to work. They seem very happy to do it.

With Andrew having to keep a low profile close to home, their hands (etc.) will be full as they’re pressed into service being Daddy’s Little Whores.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 218December 8, 2019 5:25 AM

R214

Again you just aren't listening.

Much of what you've said already is happening and or will happen.

HRH, the Duke of Gloucester (Prince Henry), son of George V and Queen Mary

HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, son of Prince Henry (above) inherited dukedom because his elder brother Prince William died. As the son of a son (grandson) of a monarch (George V) he is royal. However Prince Richard's children are not royal, but have titles based upon being children of a duke. The son uses courtesy title Earl of Ulster, and two daughters use "Lady" before heir Christian names. In short they are all commoners because neither their father nor grandfather (or grandmother in this case) are sovereigns. They also aren't "princes" or "princesses" for same reason.

Same will happen (or has happened) to the Kent branch as well. Prince Michael is a younger son who is only royal because his grand-father was George V, so it is pretty much same as with Gloucester. Prince Michael's children aren't HRH, nor princes/princesses. When PM dies there is nothing for his eldest son to inherit as his title, rank and style came from being a grandchild of a monarch (again that sons of a monarch's sons thing...).

HRH is less of an issue with princesses because the thing cannot be transmitted down female lines. Children of the York princesses will be commoners, so that is end of that. In past most princesses married other royalty so their children would take their rank from the father. If worse came to worse (a princess marrying a commoner), the monarch could raise him up so his children would benefit.

As discussed numerous times in this thread and elsewhere, time and attrition will do what is intended by the 1917 letters patent; shrink down size of royal family. More so since Prince Charles only had a heir and spare, and unless Prince William or Prince Harry make further use of their duchesses there are only four grand children. Yes, know Archie is not "HRH now, but he is the son of a prince and grandson of a future monarch. Soon as HM buys the farm, Archie becomes son of the sovereign's son, and thus a royal prince of GB.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 219December 8, 2019 5:30 AM

You insist Archie will definitely be a prince and an HRH, but that is not certain. Edward's children are entitled to be HRHs, but they aren't. He may be, or he might not. Good luck to anyone who tries to say Prince Archie with a straight face.

by Anonymousreply 220December 8, 2019 5:43 AM

R219

Please read above links again *carefully*!

In one instance HM (upon application by Prince Edward) acted to prevent a thing from happening. The other HM acted to make something happen (with permission and or request from Prince William) that otherwise would not occur until much later. In third instance the Queen did nothing and Prince Harry's children are what letters patent of 1917 made them, commoners.

George V's Letters Patent of 1917 made all children monarch and children of sons of monarch princes and princesses with HRH. Prince Edward *is* the son of a monarch, and thus his children had not HM acted would have been HRH "p" or "pss" automatically upon birth. In essence Prince Edward asked HM to deprive his children of their birthrights.

By same documents HRH Prince William is just that (because he is son of a monarch's son), OTOH great-grandchildren were not mentioned nor are covered by same LP, so the Duke of Cambridge's children would have been commoners unless one of two things happened; current monarch (HM) rose them up, or waited until the Queen dies, at which point as children of a son of monarch (Prince Charles) they automatically become HRH and princes or princesses. HM chose the former and issued letters patent making all children of eldest son of the Prince of Wales HRH princes and princesses.

HM made no such arrangements for Prince Harry's children, but that does not alter letters patent issued in 1917. When Duke of Sussex becomes son of a monarch (Prince Charles inherits) then his children are same as what would have happened to Prince Edward's, automatic rising up.

Fly in ointment is if (God forbid) Prince Charles predeceases his mother and Prince William goes straight to the throne. Then Prince Harry's child or children will remain as they are, commoners unless "king" William offers to raise them up.

Nothing has been issued by HM specifically overturning 1917 letters patent and permanently removing HRH and royal titles from Prince Harry's children. A decision was made simply not to give Archie anything at this time. Mind you the Queen like any other monarch of UK can do what she likes in respect to RF. This includes turning around some time before her death and making Archie a royal prince regardless of what duke and duchess of Sussex feel about it. Unlikely to happen, but never the less that option is out there.

by Anonymousreply 221December 8, 2019 7:00 AM

It is doubtful Archie gets a title upon HM's death. Regardless of Charles' past propensity for indulging Harry, no one in the BRF appears interested in publicizing Archie as even part of the family. One gets the sense he could vanish into the ether and it would make no impression at all upon the rest of them.

by Anonymousreply 222December 8, 2019 11:43 AM

It's like talking to bricks

Unless HM or "king" Charles issues letters patent to contrary Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become HRH the Prince Archie moment his grandfather becomes sovereign.

God you lot are thick.

Only complicating matter is that AMW is both a citizen of UK and United States. USC strictly forbids Americans from holding foreign titles, so if and when this prince thing happens at some point a decision would have to be made. There is also fact just as with MM soon as AMW has any income that qualifies he will have to file US income taxes with IRS.

From BBC news:

"Is the baby a US citizen?

Yes. As Meghan is still a US citizen, the royal baby is one as well.

Any American who has lived in the US for five years automatically passes on their citizenship to their offspring.

Harry and Meghan’s child to pay US taxes? As her child has been born outside the US, Meghan will have to register the birth with the American embassy in London.

Prince Harry is obviously British, so the new royal would have dual citizenship.

Meghan is expected to apply for UK citizenship, but that process takes time - she needs to live in the UK for at least five years.

Once she is a UK citizen, the duchess could renounce her US citizenship, but her child would have to wait until he or she was at least 16.

End quote

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 223December 8, 2019 12:12 PM

Archie will automatically be HRH when the Queen dies, but it's quite possible that Harry will do what Edward did, and in essence deprive Archie of his birthright HRH, asking that his son remain styled Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor (right now, they don't even use Earl Dumbarton for the boy). It would be the best course of action, as Archie will probably never ascend the throne. Given his mother's ambitions for the family in the US, he might not even be a working Royal. Why tie that HRH and all its expectations and obligations to him? It would do more harm than good, as it has in the case of Bea and Eug.

by Anonymousreply 224December 8, 2019 12:41 PM

R223

There has to be something going on behind the scenes; it would have been far easier if PH not only turned down the HRH and title for his child at the time, but asked his grandmother (HM) to do another "Prince Edward" and settle matter once and for all; that is deprive all Sussex children of royal rank and titles, but allow them children of a duke.

It isn't as if everyone doesn't know what will happen when HM pegs out. Well MM may need to be sat down and have things explained, but certainly PC, PW and rest of RF have a clue. Bad enough AMW will be saddled with making a choice regarding citizenship (unless he and or financial advisors will be happy forking over sums from various inheritances and other income to IRS).

In any event it would be far better for the child to grow up not a royal prince from start and remain. This as opposed to being a commoner, becoming a royal prince (when his great grandmother dies), then having to make a decision. This or Archie gets older and understands things having his father go to HM then and ask his child lose their birthrights.

No, there has to be a reason why things are being done this way.

by Anonymousreply 225December 8, 2019 1:05 PM

Forget the titles. Let Archie pick a new name when Charles becomes king at age 153. Actually isn't picking a name kind of a Royal habit also. Don't they all have about 17 names at birth?

by Anonymousreply 226December 8, 2019 2:33 PM

Oh god the pedantic title trolls are back.

by Anonymousreply 227December 8, 2019 2:42 PM

So is there actual money with the HRH or are those things negotiated separately?

by Anonymousreply 228December 8, 2019 2:45 PM

First thing Charles should do is take a sword and cut off MM's head. That'll do some culling!

by Anonymousreply 229December 8, 2019 2:56 PM

r167 it took over a decade to throw Andrew overboard and it's only because he publicly acted ignorant about his convicted pedo friend and couldn't even act like he cared about the victims. By the Andrew measure, Harry has a LOT of rope. Again, all of Harry and Meghan's crimes against the family are such minor things, that the media and DL members love to blow out of proportion. I am sure that any charity that kisses the asses of BRF would be thrilled to have Harry come for a visit. He is still popular. After Kate's wedding, the media attacked her as well. She's had to slowly build up her popularity, but it didn't happen in two years. Meghan will get her barring and the media will slow down on the attacks.

by Anonymousreply 230December 8, 2019 3:56 PM

yup to r230. Meghan's sins, and Harry's are so damn minor. Come on. Meghan's fucked up on a number of occasions, but the idea that she is some huge problem that the BRF needs to resolve, please. Yes, Harry wore a stupid costume to some Halloween party, and we're all supposed to sit home and sob about that to the end of time? Really?

by Anonymousreply 231December 8, 2019 4:16 PM

The clothes are a minor issue. It's the high profile fuck-ups like the disastrous tours, half-million-dollar baby showers rubbed in the public's face, and the whiny documentary about how two of the most privileged people on the planet don't feel loved enough.

by Anonymousreply 232December 8, 2019 4:46 PM

r232 I think it is a matter of perspective. If you had as much hate thrown at you that Meghan had, especially coupled with post-pregnancy hormones, you'd feel like it's you and your husband against the world. I took it to mean that they were affected by all of the hate and backstabbing. Her family tried to destroy here since her romance with harry started. Harry's family would rather plant anti Sussex stories, to cover for William's infidelity stories, that has to hurt. Privilege doesn't protect you from normal human emotions. I'm sure harry and William didn't feel very privileged when they were forced to do a parade walk behind their mother in front of millions of people around the world. The children of the worlds wealthy are usually the most emotionally scared.

by Anonymousreply 233December 8, 2019 4:55 PM

I doubt that Markle really wants to get her "barring" with the BRF. The loathing is mutual all around to the point where it is expected that she will disrespect the queen whenever she has a chance. And the media that the Harkles are unilaterally suing are not about to "slow down," they are just niding their time before they really get to work on Nazi Haz and his Mummy Wife.

by Anonymousreply 234December 8, 2019 6:00 PM

First, Diana's been dead for nearly a quarter-century. The sell-by date on Harry's pass with the public should have expired long ago. Second, there's absolutely no proof that the Meghan and Harry stories were pushed to cover up for William. His so-called affair was shakily sourced to begin with, and may have actually started with one of Meghan's buddies' blogs. As for the rest, Harry and Meghan are entitled to their feelings. Where the shoe pinches is when they broadcast those feelings to the world, particularly when their privileged lifestyle is paid for by the hard-pressed British taxpayer. Shut the fuck up, smile for the cameras, and bitch to your shrink in private: It's what anyone with the sense God gave a goat would do.

by Anonymousreply 235December 8, 2019 6:12 PM

Someone needs to get rid of MM!

by Anonymousreply 236December 8, 2019 8:06 PM

[quote] having to constantly be "nice" and bland

I was NEVER nice and nor was I ever bland.

by Anonymousreply 237December 8, 2019 8:19 PM

The Klan are here with their greasy lips, enjoying their Sunday roast.

Harry will never leave Invictus or his African charities. He did more engagements than idle William this year. When Liz dies he will be the most popular royal of all. There haven't been any 'disastrous tours', that's in your racist minds. The Frogmore renovation and shower are long forgotten.

Pregnant Megan and lazy Kate did the same amount of engagements this year: 40/45

by Anonymousreply 238December 8, 2019 8:21 PM

I've been avoiding mentioning the Sussexes at all lately, but more and more, I'm beginning to think that the real culprit is their PR firm, which I think isn't able to read the temperature in the room, and understand that, in their case, less is more.

by Anonymousreply 239December 8, 2019 8:31 PM

As HRH, why haven't Beatrice and Eugenie been used beyond a few functions and garden parties as is the case now? I'm not talking about stepping into the hornet's nest that resulted from Andrew's disastrous interview. I'm talking about using the princesses the past few years more than they have been used and paying them out of Andrew's royal allotment so as to not incur more money from the taxpayers. I would have thought that the royal family would have wanted more of the younger generation out there especially while Harry was single and he and the princesses were around his age.

I realize it's a thorny issue now, although at least some of Andrew's charities could be passed to Bea and Eug, but why haven't they been used for the past five years or so when they came of age as seemingly nice girls who were ready, willing and able...at least for a few functions? Why does Charles always want to bitch and ice them out when he could have use them on occasion?

by Anonymousreply 240December 8, 2019 9:23 PM

R240, They're not really on the payroll, so to speak, and Charles has made it clear he wants to streamline the monarchy. My own opinion is they should reconsider their decision to cut them off on their own. They're actually very good with the public speaking and engagements. Especially when HM's generation starts dropping off (it's inevitable), I think they really may need to add some more people for all the public engagements. And Bea and Eugenie are well-liked among their family.

by Anonymousreply 241December 8, 2019 9:57 PM

I don’t believe Harry and MM’s animosity with the press is driven by MM. I believe it’s all Harry. He’s a spoiled, petulant, dimwitted arse.

by Anonymousreply 242December 8, 2019 11:32 PM

R242. I think it's both Harry and Markle. Can't blame it all on one person. She's the one didn't wear British designers in almost every appearance when by wearing British it could have smoothed over a lot. She's the who wrote those stupid, inappropriate messages on bananas for women down on their luck, homeless and abused. Markle is the one who showed up at Wimbledon and sat there with no one else surrounding her except for a couple of unknown friends. It was at least half her who refused to simply announce the name of the godparents and then just get on with it, but instead she made a huge deal of keeping it a secret which just pissed off everyone. She was at least some of the cause of the rift between Will, Kate, Harry and herself.

Once you get a home remodeled for $4 million, you might have to show some gratitude. She doesn't appear to do much. For someone supposedly so savvy in public image, she's not very good.

by Anonymousreply 243December 8, 2019 11:44 PM

[quote] "Is the baby a US citizen? Yes. As Meghan is still a US citizen, the royal baby is one as well.

[quote] Any American who has lived in the US for five years automatically passes on their citizenship to their offspring.

This is not true. I give zero fucks if this is from the BBC or wikipedia, it's still FALSE. The parents have to apply for citizenship. Providing the parents meet special requirements the child will be able to acquire U.S citizenship. Nothing is automatic

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 244December 9, 2019 1:54 AM

Semantics, r244. By rights, the child is a citizen. Yes they have to show proof, just like a baby born in a US hospital must have proof that its parents are citizens. The parents only meet the”special requirements” of showing proof.

by Anonymousreply 245December 9, 2019 2:11 AM

[quote]But cousins and so on are not necessary. When the Queens royal cousins pass, their kids don’t need titles.

As explained above, they already don't have royal titles. The previously "royal" dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent will become non-royal, regular peerages with the death of TQ's 1st cousins. Their heirs will become non-royal peers.

[quote]You insist Archie will definitely be a prince and an HRH, but that is not certain. Edward's children are entitled to be HRHs, but they aren't.

They actually are in effect HRH, not just entitled to it. They are simply styled as non-HRH, at the request of their parents at the time of their marriage. They had TQ issue a statement that their children would not use their HRH, and only be called "Lord/Lady X". It's a matter of preference.

by Anonymousreply 246December 9, 2019 2:25 AM

[quote]When Liz dies he will be the most popular royal of all.

There is currently one slim percentage point between William and Harry in the You Gov poll, and two slim pts between Harry and Kate. You think that slim difference is going to hold or even widen? Wouldn't place bets.

[quote]There haven't been any 'disastrous tours', that's in your racist minds.

They've actually done ok on the tours. The SA tour was thought to be a great success - it was actually, UNTIL the disastrous final day and the utterly tone deaf specter of both Sussexes loudly whining about their sad lot in life, how no one ever asks how they're doing and how awful it is to have millions of $ in clothes, housing, jewels, private protection and airfare around the globe all on the taxpayer dime.

That isn't a vision from racist minds; that's actual disastrous pr coming from the minds of the spoiled Haz & Meg and their clueless fawning entourage.

by Anonymousreply 247December 9, 2019 2:43 AM

R225

Sovereigns choose name they will be known by upon succession, for most part other royals keep and use their own Christian names.

Then princess Elizabeth was on tour abroad when news arrived her father was dead, and she was monarch. Next after various formalities HM was asked what name she was to be know as; her reply was "my own...".

Usually what happens is a new sovergien will use only one of their Christian names;

Princess Alexandrina Victoria = Queen Victoria

Prince Albert Edward - Edward VII

Prince Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David (commonly called just "David" within RF) - Edward VIII

Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George - George VI

Yes, members of C of E like Catholics tend to have several middle names; but this is also more about accommodating their various imperial or royal godparents than various saints.

by Anonymousreply 248December 9, 2019 8:08 AM

For those interested BP has moved very much with the times and Court Circular is online with archives easily researched.

Even before their marriage/engagement the York princesses hardly appear; they aren't even listed in major name list, you have to choose "All Members of Royal Family", and then use either of the girl's names as keywords.

This tells me at least neither of the York girls are "on the payroll" as it were, they haven't taken down Prince Andrews name yet either.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 249December 9, 2019 9:55 AM

I just have to roll my eyes at the "Harry is more popular than William" troll. It doesn't fucking matter if he's more popular than the entire lot of them. He's a member of a hereditary monarchy not a participant in a middle school popularity contest. And my bet is that William's popularity will skyrocket when he becomes Prince of Wales. But again, that's really neither here nor there. The SA tour was becoming a solid success. That's why it's utterly mind boggling the Sussexes torched it with not one but two scandals. That requires a special kind of incompetence. They are their own worst enemies.

by Anonymousreply 250December 9, 2019 11:46 AM

R247, Yes, they're their own worst enemies. Lots of people would actually like to be happy for them, but they get so invested in feeling sorry for themselves that it never seems to work. And the Meghan Loons really amp up the dislike for them.

by Anonymousreply 251December 9, 2019 11:51 AM

That's what the Meghan loons don't get, R251. The majority of people were happy for Harry (as happy as you can be for a stranger., I suppose.) When I saw Meghan's background, I thought, "Crikey-he really has found the perfect person: an actress used to media attention who also has background in philanthropy." I was rooting for those two crazy kids. Crazy and kids, sadly, became the defining words. They've behaved like mentally ill teenagers. It's such a pity in that there was so much good will, and all of it squandered. Still, Charles can't cut them loose. He needs them, unless, of course, he relents and brings on the York sisters, who have their own baggage thanks to Andrew. Fingers crossed the Harkles have had the holy hell scared into them and are ready to "hit the ground running" by representing the Firm like professionals and not two attention-seeking narcs who want to establish their own court. 2020 ought to be interesting.

by Anonymousreply 252December 9, 2019 4:41 PM

If Charles is determined to cut the official Royal Family down to the closest relatives of the actual monarch, then he won't want to use the York Princesses no matter now much they need jobs.

Sadly, Andrew is more likely to use them in his attempts to rehabilitation than Charles is to use them as royal functionaries. They're blameless in this so far, but if Andrew tries to use them to his benefit, their reputations are bound to suffer.

by Anonymousreply 253December 9, 2019 4:47 PM

Charles will need them, though, if Harry and Meghan decide to leave the BRF for greener pastures. With the older relatives aging out soon, there just won't be enough people to carry out all the engagements-unless Charles decides to curtail what the BRF does significantly. And then one wonders if the public will think they're worth maintaining. Harry's an idiot, but he's a useful one.

by Anonymousreply 254December 9, 2019 4:49 PM

I think whether they leave or not is mostly up to Meghan, and whether she thinks she and Harry can really make a go of things outside the BRF. She knows that their window is the next 10-15 years. After that, the Cambridges really will have center stage. Is her time better spent inside or outside the Firm? Because in 2034, she won't have anything like the opportunities she has now, as a Duchess OR as an influencer. I'm sure she's spending this 6 weeks pondering all of that.

by Anonymousreply 255December 9, 2019 6:29 PM

That seems to be the conundrum, R255. Most likely whatever offers they had in the making have most likely withered away given their fall in popularity, particularly Meghan's. A couple of years ago they probably thought the world will be their oyster at this point. Instead, they may be realizing that staying with the BRF is their only viable option.

by Anonymousreply 256December 9, 2019 7:02 PM

Some of these comments just crack me up.

PW and his duchess aren't going anywhere. His grace will be prince of Wales, and in fullness of time king; that is unless God deems otherwise and Prince William goes straight to monarch. That is his destiny, he's embraced and accepted it; so has Kate Middleton who after all basically pushed her way in by going after PW. Duchess of Cambridge split from PW once, and could have said "thank you, but no...". Once again after the fiasco that was Diana, all sides both BRF and Middleton sat PW and KM down for a cards on table talk. Unlike Prince Charles there was zero pressure on PW to marry at that time, he could have put things off, but a choice was made.......

Prince Harry and his unfortunate choice of a wife aren't going anywhere either. Same as above and likely with a heavier dose of talking to given MM's age, background, marital history, etc....This and yes, she's an American no one knew anything about, nor she regarding their lives.

Unlike their father, uncles and aunt who came up during still conservative immediate post war UK, Prince William and Prince Harry are very much creatures of their generation. Prince William will inherit in a world vastly different from his great grandmother, this includes a kingdom/realms, etc... surely much different as well.

As both princes and their duchesses begin their "careers" of service there are bound to be gaffes. That being said no sane person believes half the rubbish put about in media or elsewhere. PW and PH aren't at each other's throat, nor is PH and his duchess going to decamp for USA or some distant reaches of realm.

Job of the heir is to wait; second sons OTOH have always had to sort themselves out. Prince Andrew found himself with the military, Prince Harry sooner or later will settle down into something as well. HM and BRF learned quite a bit from how Princess Margaret was handled; and she was a "second daughter"; one suspects decisions regarding PH or whatever are clouded by those memories.

by Anonymousreply 257December 9, 2019 7:33 PM

"Most women with kids work, and she had three nannies and a massive household staff. It’s embarrassing how lazy she and Will are."

R35 - I could not have stated it better myself.

by Anonymousreply 258December 9, 2019 7:46 PM

R254

Am guessing yourself and others going on about how the Cambridges are on top or whatever aren't in UK. If you were then you'd know from very reliable polling sources Prince Harry beats his brother and KM in popularity (as of today) by a hair. Prince Harry is the second most popular royal after his great-grand mother the Queen.

While same polling puts MM much further down she is only a member of BRF by marriage, and as made perfectly clear in this forum along with elsewhere a certain demographic is going to hate duchess of Sussex regardless. She is an older African American woman who married their good Prince Harry, and for that sin she will never be forgiven by some.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 259December 9, 2019 7:47 PM

[quote] His grace will be prince of Wales, and in fullness of time king;

Mary!

by Anonymousreply 260December 9, 2019 7:59 PM

Sparkle showed the RF who she was and what she was interested in before the wedding.

Tiaragate alone would have been a huge red flag.

For one, it showed that Sparkle had already been checking out the Royal jewelry collection even before her marriage. How else would she have decided which tiara should be "hers"?

And second, throwing a fit upon being offered ANY of the Queen's tiaras because the selection did not meet her approval was truly outlandishly bad mannered behavior, not to mention ignorant beyond belief as to what was expected of her. It would have without doubt shown Her Majesty, The Princess Royal, and other high level members of the Royal Family what Harry's future wife was about.

To claim that any dislike was based on her nationality or DNA rather than a genuine concern after Sparkle let her mask slip with Tiaragate might be the PR claim, but Sparkle's behavior was what it was. Nationality and DNA had nothing to do with ignorant bad manners to the grandmother of your future husband, who also happens to be the Queen of the country you will be living in.

by Anonymousreply 261December 9, 2019 8:04 PM

Prince William isn't styled "His Grace," as if he were a non-royal duke; his styling is still "His Royal Highness."

by Anonymousreply 262December 9, 2019 8:07 PM

The Queen is the GRANDMOTHER of William and Harry.

Posters calling Elizabeth II their "great-grandmother" appear to be working from the same script.

by Anonymousreply 263December 9, 2019 8:12 PM

R257-The problem is Andrew never did sort himself out, did he? Else he wouldn't be in the mess he currently finds himself. R259, you can post polls until the cows and sheep come home. It doesn't matter if Harry is more popular than the Queen herself. The BRF is not a popularity contest. What people like you don't understand is that it's Meghan's actions over and over again that invite ridicule. Kate was rightly lambasted for years for her lazy attitude. Meghan is being dragged over the coals for her overreaching. Kate sorted herself out. I hope Meghan is using this six weeks as a way to "hit the ground running" by being a team play. If she treats her role like a professional, she really could be an asset. Given her behavior, though, people are skeptical.

by Anonymousreply 264December 9, 2019 8:13 PM

They will never learn their lesson. Prince Andrew will take part in the Christmas walk. I don't care if it is a "family" event as opposed to a "public" event. It's poor optics and very much a "let them eat cake" attitude on their part. Also, there is an article out today that the Sussexes have hired a publicist for their slush fund, er, Foundation, in order to bring in "millions and millions" of dollars. With everything that has come out about Andrew's financial escapades you would think that they would have put an end to the Foundation nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 265December 9, 2019 8:15 PM

I am baffled at the content, detail, and energy in all the comments (many very long and complex) in this thread. Are there that many Brits in Datalounge threads? Does British royal matters really appeal to gay folk? Does the BRF invite celeb-addiction like the Kardashians etc? Reality TV dating from when before there was electricity? Seriously interested in where all this interest and expertise comes from.

by Anonymousreply 266December 10, 2019 12:27 AM

r266 there has always been a decently sized gay contingent on DL that loves talking about the royals, esp the BRF. Diana was a huge gay icon for one, with her death a lot of interest transferred to her sons and the rest of the lot of them. They are also so soapy and dysfunctional at times, the make for great real life gossip.

by Anonymousreply 267December 10, 2019 12:56 AM

[quote]I hope Meghan is using this six weeks as a way to "hit the ground running" by being a team play. If she treats her role like a professional, she really could be an asset. Given her behavior, though, people are skeptical.

As noted above, goss out in the UK tabs today is that she's been spending much of her break time in the US with her PR rep from Sunshine Sachs, quickly building out the Sussex Royal Foundation to be up and running by spring to quickly raise millions of immediate $ for "charity". What's the rush? And why such a focus on the American branch of their foundation.

All the other royals (Cambridges, PoW) also have US branches of their respective foundations. But they don't emphasize them over their main UK orgs, and they don't work to pour "millions" into them. I'm very intrigued by what House Sussex is planning to do with all this, and where they will put the $ raised. Are they going to be spending the majority of their time in the US raising this.

by Anonymousreply 268December 10, 2019 1:01 AM

She's planning her big leap is what she's doing. She's concluded that she's gotten all she's going to get out of the BRF, and now is the time to take advantage of the plum opportunities coming her way. Looked at from a purely mercenary perspective, she's doing the right thing.

by Anonymousreply 269December 10, 2019 1:05 AM

'Nationality and DNA had nothing to do with ignorant bad manners to the grandmother of your future husband, who also happens to be the Queen of the country you will be living in.'

Oh, fuck off, Klan leader. Meghan hasn't been bad mannered to the tragic queen. She has toed the line for three years and gone to the staid Sandringham for Xmas but she's American so she deserves a year off to spend Christmas in the US. Nothing she has done has affected her popularity or Harry's in the YouGov polls. The idea of Charles disowning his younger son for spending money on his house or his wife's wardrobe is evidence of pure racism on your part, and nothing else, as are the vile names you call her.

And stop saying those pathetic York girls should be wheeled on to replace Harry. Their popularity is right down in the low 20s, despite Eugenie's lavish wedding. They both have jobs so they can't just take off to cut ribbons at supermarkets. You act as if everyone in the world is just dying to join the royals, when nobody suitable wanted to marry the Duke of Bald except Kate.

by Anonymousreply 270December 10, 2019 1:08 AM

[quote]Meghan hasn't been bad mannered to the tragic queen. She has toed the line for three years and gone to the staid Sandringham for Xmas but she's American so she deserves a year off to spend Christmas in the US.

Spending this Christmas in the US is fine, she just had her 1st child and wants to be with her mother. But - she is not "American" in any real sense anymore except technically on paper. She's married into the family of the hereditary Head of State in the UK and is supposed to be reaching for UK citizenship, as well as represent that country alone and its interests and citizens. She's supported wholly by their tax dollars as a working Royal.

[quote]the idea of Charles disowning his younger son for spending money on his house or his wife's wardrobe is evidence of pure racism on your part,

Charles will never 'disown' Harry and the vast majority of critical Sussex posters here have said this repeatedly. Stop taking one poster's silly pov and painting everyone with it, or use it for repeated racism baiting. Charles loves his son and his family and will always support them no matter what happens.

And what is happening even today is H & M are making very specific types of plans to do at the least a high % of their work and fundraising in the US (see above). Charles will not disown Harry, but the thought won't even be necessary if the Sussexes end up de-camping to the US on their own. Which his a REAL possibility, despite you and others insisting it isn't. We will wait and see shall we.

[quote] and nothing else, as are the vile names you call her.

Link, please.

by Anonymousreply 271December 10, 2019 1:19 AM

The Queen was named in the Panama Papers. All of them have off shore ‘funny money’ hidden away. Andrew was just vulgar and indiscreet so of course he’s going to Christmas. They think it will all blow over.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272December 10, 2019 1:37 AM

'But - she is not "American" in any real sense anymore except technically on paper.'

She is legally an American citizen, hoe. Not any other kind of citizen. She is AMERICAN. And yes, she married into that stupid fusty family, but why she should spend every Christmas with the boring queen I have no clue. The queen has plenty of other people to fawn over her. Let's hope Meg has started a tradition of spending every other Christmas away from the queen and Charles.

by Anonymousreply 273December 10, 2019 1:55 AM

R272, so the vile queen is as corrupt as all the others. They need to cut all of them off. Meghan can go back to acting but God help Kate, she has no career experience at all.

by Anonymousreply 274December 10, 2019 1:57 AM

[quote]She is AMERICAN.

She is only FOR NOW. She is married to a BRITISH prince and is working toward UK citizenship: the country she resides in, represents, and whose citizens PAY HER BILLS.

She may retain US citizenship, but will become fully British in every sense eventually.

[quote]And yes, she married into that stupid fusty family, but why she should spend every Christmas with the boring queen I have no clue.

Well ummm, maybe because she PAYS HER BILLS. And currently EMPLOYS her. It's a family firm. She will spend at least most Christmases (not every holiday) with TQ and eventually King Charles.. It's a way to show support for the monarch she SERVES. As does the rest of the working BRF.

[quote]Let's hope Meg has started a tradition of spending every other Christmas away from the queen and Charles.

Won't happen as long as she plans to be a working Royal. They have to heed The Boss, as do we all. If she and wayward Haz choose to leave the working BRF as paid royals - something that is very possible despite your wild protestations to the contrary, and looking more likely - they can spend their holidays any old way they please then. They will be private citizens and free as the breeze.

by Anonymousreply 275December 10, 2019 2:12 AM

Do shut up, R274. All the Panama papers revealed was that the Queen had the audacity to invest money in funds based abroad and then pay all necessary tax in the UK.

by Anonymousreply 276December 10, 2019 2:42 AM

[quote]She is legally an American citizen, hoe.

Oh Dear.

by Anonymousreply 277December 10, 2019 2:47 AM

Calling someone a garden implement isn't much of an insult. Except here in the weird world of DL, home of the subliterate.

by Anonymousreply 278December 10, 2019 2:48 AM

[QUOTE] Tiaragate alone would have been a huge red flag.

Except it only happened in your imagination.

by Anonymousreply 279December 10, 2019 3:12 AM

[QUOTE] Calling someone a garden implement isn't much of an insult. Except here in the weird world of DL, home of the subliterate.

Bitch, you're stuck in 2010. The accepted form now is 'hoe', NOT 'ho'.

by Anonymousreply 280December 10, 2019 3:14 AM

Yes, R278, I keep waiting for someone to call me a hedge-clipper.

by Anonymousreply 281December 10, 2019 3:14 AM

[QUOTE] She is only FOR NOW. She is married to a BRITISH prince and is working toward UK citizenship: the country she resides in, represents, and whose citizens PAY HER BILLS.

You utter dunderhead. Working in the UK, getting a UK salary and marrying a British guy doesn't change your nationality. Your IQ got stuck at 100, didn't it?

by Anonymousreply 282December 10, 2019 3:17 AM

[QUOTE] As noted above, goss out in the UK tabs today is that she's been spending much of her break time in the US with her PR rep from Sunshine Sachs, quickly building out the Sussex Royal Foundation to be up and running by spring to quickly raise millions of immediate $ for "charity". What's the rush? And why such a focus on the American branch of their foundation

And here we have the brainless, PR fixated Welp Troll.

by Anonymousreply 283December 10, 2019 3:21 AM

[quote]r265 They will never learn their lesson. Prince Andrew will take part in the Christmas walk. I don't care if it is a "family" event as opposed to a "public" event. It's poor optics and very much a "let them eat cake" attitude on their part.

And that's what's going to cause their undoing.

Though it really doesn't matter on either side. The public certainly doesn't need them, and the family's bilked the public for over a century and has squirreled away enough blood money and property to live like kings even if some day they suddenly aren't.

by Anonymousreply 284December 10, 2019 3:56 AM

Those that think MM is going to come back from her 6 weeks free, ready to get to work for the BRF are delusional. She's all about herself. And she's never hidden that.

by Anonymousreply 285December 10, 2019 5:07 AM

Then she won't be royal for very much longer, r285.

When it comes to a battle of wills, the Crown always wins... as Wallis Simpson, Lady Diana Spencer, and Sarah Ferguson each learned.

by Anonymousreply 286December 10, 2019 5:11 AM

"But - she is not "American" in any real sense anymore except technically on paper. She's married into the family of the hereditary Head of State in the UK and is supposed to be reaching for UK citizenship, as well as represent that country alone and its interests and citizens."

No, she's going to stay AMERICAN for life, even if she takes dual citizenship and accepts that working for the BRF is her lifetime job. Even so, she's still going to be an American, because people do retain most of the attitudes, the language, and the preferences of their home country, as well as their relationships with the old folks at home, if they emigrate as adults. She will, at best, become an ex-pat royal!

And as such, she's not going to behave like the princesses of old who moved to new countries and completely adapted to their husbands worlds because they could never go home again, it's the 21st century and she can call home to the with the phone in her purse. She's going to stay in touch with her home country and her family, and she's never going to accept that you have to spend every single damn holiday with your in-laws, because that's not how she's used to doing things.

by Anonymousreply 287December 10, 2019 6:28 AM

Kate is NOT a princess.

Titles Troll: Triggered

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288December 10, 2019 8:31 AM

What family is she going to stay in touch with? The mother she trots out for photo ops once a year?

by Anonymousreply 289December 10, 2019 12:47 PM

"And here we have the brainless, PR fixated Welp Troll."

What happened to the "Musical Troll", that use to skip from thread the thread singing Pet Shop Boy's tunes. I miss that dude!

by Anonymousreply 290December 10, 2019 3:10 PM

I bought you drinks, I brought you flowers

I read your posts and trolled for hours

Every day, so many drinks

Such pretty flowers, so tell me

What have I, what have I, what have I done to deserve this?

What have I, what have I, what have I done to deserve this?

by Anonymousreply 291December 10, 2019 10:33 PM

R290. That's like saying "Candyman' three times.

by Anonymousreply 292December 10, 2019 10:50 PM

[quote] Their popularity is right down in the low 20s,

That's meaningless to the BRF. They do not follow the individual members' Q ratings.

by Anonymousreply 293December 11, 2019 12:10 AM

[quote]Bitch, you're stuck in 2010. The accepted form now is 'hoe', NOT 'ho'.

Only on a DL royal thread do posters argue about acceptable spellings of sexist slang.

by Anonymousreply 294December 11, 2019 1:05 AM

[quote]You utter dunderhead. Working in the UK, getting a UK salary and marrying a British guy doesn't change your nationality. Your IQ got stuck at 100, didn't it?

Dumbcunt, listen up: she's not a factory worker in Burnley, a civilian American emigre working the line then going home to her poor sod of a hubs to whip up bangers and mash. She married a senior member of the British Royal Family, the son of the future King. She's PAID millions of $ of UK taxpayer money to WORK for THEM, represent them and meet their ideal of what a royal British princess would do. She HAS to earn UK citizenship, it's de facto required of her job (yes, dipshit, it's a JOB, not just a dumb role they can shed whimsically when they please).

She will earn UK citizenship (even if she keeps US joint), she WILL take on British nationality as she continues to live and represent THAT country. The citizens there, and the BRF, aren't paying her to Yank it up and promote herself as American for much longer. Those days are fast ending (that is, unless she and Haz hightail it back to the Bu as rumored).

by Anonymousreply 295December 11, 2019 1:17 AM

[quote] The accepted form now is 'hoe', NOT 'ho'.

No.

I'm not the person with whom you're arguing, but it's still spelled "ho" despite your fantasies to the contrary. I checked.

Merriam-Webster (far more of an authority than you) lists "US slang, often offensive: whore sense 1" as the second definition for "ho." There is no listing of a possible definition for "prostitute" or "whore" under the Merriam-Webster listing for "hoe."

You lose!

by Anonymousreply 296December 11, 2019 1:25 AM

Here's the Merriam-Webster listing:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 297December 11, 2019 1:25 AM

Oh what the hell, this thread is going down in flames anyway...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 298December 11, 2019 7:51 AM

r287

Don't see point of link or indeed actual article contained therein.

Everyone who knew anything about GB, monarchy and or BRF knew the Spencer family was not royal, thus no such person as "Princess Diana" ever existed. BRF and others tried their best but when you have NYT, AP, and other media who presumably know better continue to perpetuate "Princess Diana" what can one do? You can't fix stupid.

Notice it hasn't happened again; and no it isn't because Kate Middleton (or MM for that matter) are being snubbed.

by Anonymousreply 299December 11, 2019 7:57 AM

She's on a break but leaking stories about herself every day. People would like her better if she stopped being so fucking desperate.

by Anonymousreply 300December 11, 2019 8:13 AM

I've had to block the tedious Titles Troll.

by Anonymousreply 301December 12, 2019 2:44 AM

R300 - Meghan is not leaking anything. Why are you making up shit? Do you work of the Daily Fail?

by Anonymousreply 302December 12, 2019 6:58 PM

[quote] Meghan is not leaking anything. Why are you making up shit? Do you work of the Daily Fail?

No one is making anything up. There's a high likelihood she leaks, esp to known friendly journos like Omid Scobie. Please don't be naive.

They all leak: Charles, William, Andrew, the Mids. Diana, even Fergie, did it for years. Diana had her fave reporters on speed dial right up to her death. They ALL play the pr game, and the DoS is no different. She'd be stupid, actually, not to be selectively leaking.

by Anonymousreply 303December 12, 2019 11:41 PM

An editor at a tabloid confessed Meghan used to give them scoops. I think it was The Sun. So yes, we know for a fact Meghan leaks. And as someone else said, they all do.

by Anonymousreply 304December 13, 2019 12:21 AM

Will Markle make at least temporary amends with her father and privately arrange to see him (without the media knowing) while she's in the U.S.? Would it kill her to say hello to the old man and show him the kid? Is she going to spend the whole time scheming with her Sunshine Sachs pr buddy and nonexistent friends and not see her father at all?

If she goes back to the UK without seeing her father, then it will be quite a long time before she comes back. Regarding Harry and coming from a family with a deep sense of family and duty, doesn't he think it might the right thing to see his father-in-law just once...or it that only reserved for unknowns in Africa for a Sussex photo opp? Doesn't Markle think she owes her father at least a slight bit of courtesy and decency for one afternoon while she's visiting? Does a 75-year old man deserve to be ghosted by his daughter even if he did make a mistake? Because so did she.

by Anonymousreply 305December 13, 2019 12:24 AM

[quote]Does a 75-year old man deserve to be ghosted by his daughter even if he did make a mistake?

You see, many DLers hate these threads, and complain about them and FF them. But the whole idea of being ashamed of one's family and origins is a common thread for many of us. Just daily soap opera drama. I mentioned on another thread that my older (straight) brother is my greatest protector. So the rift between Harry and Wills actually sort of hurts me, even though I'll never meet or know them.. It just resonates with me. I've had some sketchy relatives, but I can do a polite meet and greet with them, without having a deeper relationship.

by Anonymousreply 306December 13, 2019 12:52 AM

Muriel - please paywall this STAT.

by Anonymousreply 307December 13, 2019 12:54 AM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 308December 13, 2019 1:07 AM

WM, please troll-tag r307 STAT.

by Anonymousreply 309December 13, 2019 1:10 AM

Meghan isn't leaking any of these stories which paint her in a poor light. The Narc Troll on here cannot cope with Meghan going off the radar for over a month as it doesn't tally with the Troll's idea of her as a hopeless publicity addict.

by Anonymousreply 310December 13, 2019 1:46 AM

Meghan has no place in the BRF as many on this board agree. She is a nappy-headed uppity woman who does not know her place. She is neither demure and subservient like Kate Middleton, nor kind and compassionate like Princess Anne. Her wrongdoings are far worse than her teen-raping uncle in law. Unlike those hard working - and employed!- York Princesses, Meghan wants to be pampered and go on vacations constantly. With her strange nappy hair and uppity manners, as well as her un-British fashion sense, she is to be shunned and ridiculed as she in no way represents a true English Rose. The thought that this mulatto could represent the English people is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 311December 13, 2019 1:47 AM

R311, You've just been FFed, I hope to oblivion.

by Anonymousreply 312December 13, 2019 1:52 AM

I agree R311. This mixed-race American is so unsuited for royal life. She grew up in a poor black ghetto and her mother spent much of Meghan's childhood in prison. It is outrageous that she is allowed to be near our most gracious Queen, given her sordid past and low standing. As many on this board agree, I hope the Queen and Prince Charles send this poorly-bred creature back to the black ghetto she came from. She can merch and narc all she wants there.

by Anonymousreply 313December 13, 2019 1:52 AM

Meghan is trash, as is her family. I am not racist - I think both the black side (felon mother) and white side are all trash. Prince Harry should have married someone like Kate, who has solid British values and who knows her place. London is full of gypsy/Muslim trash and we don't need trash from America.

by Anonymousreply 314December 13, 2019 2:02 AM

And you guys say you're not racist lmfaooooooooooooo

You are so racist. Literally Klan leaders and followers.

by Anonymousreply 315December 13, 2019 2:44 AM

R311, r313 and r314 are all the same person. Block them and you’ll see.

by Anonymousreply 316December 13, 2019 2:57 AM

Muriel - the racist MM loonies are back - please take this down.

by Anonymousreply 317December 13, 2019 3:01 AM

Editor, punish people, PLEASE!

by Anonymousreply 318December 13, 2019 4:15 AM

"'It's her job to be Harry's wife, not change the royal dynamic.' "

And that's why the royal family is having such a bitch of a time finding spouses for their younger members, the idea that anyone who marries into the BRF must... Know. Their. Place.

Modern Britons don't believe in knowing their place, but Christ in a bucket of snails - someone from an African-American background would find the very idea offensive. And of course, Harry wouldn't have a clue.

by Anonymousreply 319December 13, 2019 5:37 AM

I think Stefanie Powers just become a Patron Saint of DL with those snatchy comments!

by Anonymousreply 320December 13, 2019 6:04 AM

Poor Kate Wrinkleton is being trolled.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 321December 13, 2019 8:49 AM

R316, I hope the WM will finally ban this poster.

by Anonymousreply 322December 13, 2019 12:50 PM

I have to chuckle. It's obvious the above Meghan fan is coming out with incendiary racial comments with the goal of shutting down the thread. She's upset with the Stefanie Powers interview that said exactly what we all have. The move was juvenile and transparent. Muriel's too smart for that,

by Anonymousreply 323December 13, 2019 12:58 PM

What's really interesting about the Powers interview is that she's a friend of Charles. Did he give the okay for this? If so, wow.

by Anonymousreply 324December 13, 2019 1:00 PM

LOL at R317, who calls her own posts out as racist. Oops.

by Anonymousreply 325December 13, 2019 1:05 PM

R6 = Princess Michael of Kent isn't one of the Queen's "favourites" - you're mixing her up with Princess Alexandra of Kent, who is the Queen's first cousin, and who has worked hard and uncomplainingly all her life for the monarchhy.

The Queen loathes Pss. Michael, who is NOT a working royal, she is NOT on the Sovereign Grant payroll, she is a private citizen with a royal title.

by Anonymousreply 326December 13, 2019 1:10 PM

R308 - How refreshing to hear someone in show biz call out Meghan for what she really is: a grubby famewhore.

by Anonymousreply 327December 13, 2019 1:12 PM

Holly Lynch, the MP who wrote that risible letter criticizing the press on Meghan's behalf - the one that was then endorsed by a group of fellow female MPs - lost her reelection bid. LOL. People on her Twitter account have been saying that stunt cost her the election.

by Anonymousreply 328December 13, 2019 1:15 PM

No, she didn't, R328. She hung on by a thread. But it was close.

by Anonymousreply 329December 13, 2019 1:25 PM

R325 is the notorious DL Spaz Troll. F and F

by Anonymousreply 330December 13, 2019 6:49 PM

R329 - She wasn't the only one. Even in seats formerly considered safe Labour, quite a few only held their seats by a thread, with greatly reduced majorities. That went to the reduced vote share overall.

Perhaps some of those working-class types who went blue for the first time in their lives didn't welcome her world-publicised "standing with" proclamation for a whingeing American made rich and famous by the BRF and making rude noises about said BRF and British character because it just wasn't all as perfect as she wanted it to be . . . perhaps they wondered why that signed letter wasn't about conditions in their front streets instead of Poor Meghan Markle's $3,000,000 cottage.

by Anonymousreply 331December 13, 2019 8:26 PM

The Prince Michaels ARE working royals, or at least "part time" ones though he has a "consulting firm".

by Anonymousreply 332December 13, 2019 10:39 PM

R332 = "Working royals" mean that they are used to represent the monarchy and therefore Britain in an official capacity, for which they are compensated through funds from the Sovereign Grant. Neither Prince nor Princess Michael go on tours representing the monarchy, open hospitals, visit schools and senior centers, etc., etc., etc. They are not "working royals" even if they work on their own for themselves. Just as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals, nor are Princess Anne's children "working royals" although they do plenty of work for themselves.

If you take a look at the royan engagements, you'll see who the working royals are: the Queen, the Cambridges, the Sussexes, Charles and Camiila, Anne, Edward and Sophie, Princess Alexandra, and the Dukes and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester.

Prince Michael once in a great while represents the monarchy abroad in Commonwealth realms. Princess Michael may or may not accompany him to these, but the occasions are rare and they are not considered working royals.

He is 48th in line for the throne. No one that far down the line is supported by the Sovereign Grant. Therefore, he is not a working royal.

by Anonymousreply 333December 13, 2019 11:08 PM

[quote] The Queen loathes Pss. Michael,

That's simply not true.

Prince Philip and the Queen like her quite a bit, and refer to her fondly among themselves and other members of the royal family as "Our Val" (meaning "Our Valkyrie").

by Anonymousreply 334December 13, 2019 11:09 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 335December 13, 2019 11:55 PM

R334 - I don't know where you got the idea that that "Our Val" was affectionate, but it isn't borne out by anything ever written about Pss. Michael's relationship with the royal family. In fact, the Queen was once quoted as saying drily, "She's much too grand for us."

by Anonymousreply 336December 14, 2019 12:51 AM

R319-you're wrong. It's not that the married-ins must know their place. It's that the married-ins who choose to be working Royals must know their place. Meghan could have chosen to remain a private citizen and rejected the HRH. Then she could have done exactly as she pleased, and none of us would have had any right to criticize her. But she chose to be a working member of the British Royal Family - and receive the money, perks and privileges that accompany that work. I repeat, she chose that life. And she has done her job horribly. Flouting protocol isn't just flouting some quaint little tradition. It's flouting the rules that go along with her job. If you work, I'm sure you don't flout the rules of your workplace. Do you cut in front of senior members of your workplace? Commandeer social media so that it upstages others whose projects are currently in the limelight and are supposed to be benefitting your company? Do you upstage superiors? Do you make meetings all about you and your accomplishments? Chances are you don't. Why? Because you know your place.

by Anonymousreply 337December 14, 2019 2:20 AM

R311, R313 and R314 are all obviously anti-royal threaders deliberately trying to get discussion shut down. Block please! and tag this troll (who turned around and asked for the thread to be deleted after posting race-baiting statements on purpose).

Only a troll-baiter would gleefully state the York girls are 'gainfully employed'. Please. We all know better.

by Anonymousreply 338December 14, 2019 2:23 AM

[quote]And you guys say you're not racist lmfaooooooooooooo

We're actually not. But nice try by the troll to try to deliberately paint things as such. A transparent bald attempt to get threads shut down.

by Anonymousreply 339December 14, 2019 2:25 AM

TQ, Philip and the rest of the BRF like Prince Michael and his kids, and so tolerate Marie-Christine and her grandiose personality and ego for family unity's sake. Prince Michael is the youngest of the royal cousins of QEII, his father died in WWII just before his birth so there's always been a protective sense towards him.

Pushy's worst (and funniest) moment was when she gave an interview re some kind of organic preserves she was either producing, or shilling. She told a journo to 'please try my line, not those horrible Duchy Originals (Charles's line) - they're all made in a factory!" Needless to say Buck Palace wasn't impressed.

by Anonymousreply 340December 14, 2019 2:29 AM

You must be really "in" personally with all of the BRF, r340, since you refer to them all by nicknames!

by Anonymousreply 341December 14, 2019 2:45 AM

They are well known nicknames. Anyone who's occasionally read the UK tabs the past two decades knows them.

by Anonymousreply 342December 14, 2019 2:52 AM

R341, you must be new here.

by Anonymousreply 343December 14, 2019 3:52 AM

Holy shit R328 , you are a royal family lunatic. A real freak. I can't believe you posted all this shit on these royal threads. Get some help

You are obsessed

by Anonymousreply 344December 15, 2019 1:29 PM

The only freaks here are the Meghan loons.

by Anonymousreply 345December 15, 2019 1:58 PM

Royal threads tend to have posts about the royal family, R344.

by Anonymousreply 346December 15, 2019 1:59 PM

Where's that old bitch who pretended to know that Replikate was pregnant? No announcement.

by Anonymousreply 347December 15, 2019 4:48 PM

George and Charlotte are doing their first Christmas walk this year. Andrew will not walk, Wise move. The PR optics are great. The future of the BRF is with the adorable Cambo kids. That's what the public needs to se,

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 348December 16, 2019 9:42 AM

That story in The SUN is another "a royal source claimed", so I would take it with a grain of salt. The BRF doesn't share those sorts of plans with anyone prior to the event, not least for security purposes. As it's not so far-fetched an idea that the BRF would pull in at least Prince George to reinforce the Happy Families-Future of the Monarchy, The SUN figures it has a 50-50 chance of being right, and it won't much care if it's wrong.

This is another of those tabloid Made Up Out Of Whole Cloth On A Dull Day stories. No one in the know would have talked to anyone at The SUN this far in advance.

In addition, on the off chance that there are demonstrators or hecklers waiting to ambush Andrew or even HM herself for enabling him, bringing the kids could be a double-edged sword.

On its face, especially with the glaring absence of the Harkles, bringing George and/or Charlotte would absolutely send a few messages: we're the ones that matter, the absence of the Sussexes is meaningless and, in fact, rather restful, we dutiful low-drama types are the real future of the monarchy, so no worries!

I think the Harkles made another long-term strategic error in not showing up this time, given that it would have made it look like they were part of and being supported by, the BRF.

Instead, they've made it clear that both assumptions are false, they are no longer part of it and they aren't being supported by it.

It's also clear that apart from the editors of the tabloids and the Worshipful Company of Meghanstans on Celebitchy, no one, but no one, in the general public misses the Sussexes or gives a tinker's curse where they are or what they're doing.

They've left the field wide open for the Cambridges. Maybe they finally saw the handwriting on the wall re the hereditary pecking order and gave up trying after the family's frosty reception of that god-awful whingeing documentary.

by Anonymousreply 349December 16, 2019 7:32 PM

I hope the Sussexes are enjoying Christmas in sunny LA, because that's where they'll probably be for many Christmases to come. I doubt any more Sandringham invitations will be forthcoming.

by Anonymousreply 350December 16, 2019 9:17 PM

R333 The Michaels of Kent HAVE repped the Queen at events over the years.

And, she paid the rent for them for decades.

by Anonymousreply 351December 17, 2019 3:09 AM

A Grace and Favour residence is not the same as being on the Soverign Grant. That's what a working royal means. Prince Michael does very little and Pss. Michael even less. They are occasional reps not active working ones - the SG pays not a penny toward their staff, home, wardrobe, travel, etc. The Queen can give them whatever she likes at her own discretion. But they are not the recipients of public support like the Cambridges, Sussexes, the Dukes and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra, or the Wessexes, or Princess Anne.

A search for 12 months on the Royal Engagements Calendar showed not one single "official" engagement for either Prince or Princess Michael.

by Anonymousreply 352December 17, 2019 4:07 AM

Fuck off, R352. Nobody cares!!!

by Anonymousreply 353December 17, 2019 4:16 AM

The Michaels of Kent HAVE repped the Queen at events over the decades. And, she paid the rent for them for decades, but the Kents got cut off the gravy train and eventually had to sell their country home to maintain their KP digs once they were told their rent wouldn't be covered. This was in 2006. Can you imagine how much they'd knocked themselves about the head knowing how much this property would be worth a decade later? Thirty-six acres and a manor house nowadays?

[quote]PRINCE and Princess Michael of Kent have finally sold their country mansion for £5.75 million following a drop in the asking price a year after it went on the market. The sale of Nether [bold]Lypiatt Manor, which sits in 36 acres of rolling Cotswold countryside[/bold], came after the Queen told the couple she would not pay the rent on their London apartment beyond 2009.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 354December 17, 2019 5:34 AM

So the Duchess of Success is apparently using her six weeks to launch the Success Royal Foundation in America. So it's nice she's planning for post divorce life. I wonder if she'll find she's a little less illustrious without the big brand behind her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 355December 17, 2019 10:37 AM

I wonder how many of the Hollywood types with money to contribute share Stefanie Powers' opinion of Sparkle?

Would you trust your money to go to a good cause if you contributed it to an organization that is being run by a former lowly middling cable show actress who...

[quote] ... is said to be “taking the reins” on the forthcoming foundation launch and insisting on maintaining complete creative control.

by Anonymousreply 356December 17, 2019 4:34 PM

Would you trust Prince Harry with your money?

by Anonymousreply 357December 17, 2019 4:53 PM

Harry will find some bimbo Barbie / porn star with triple D boobs and get caught fucking her. That will be the end of that.

by Anonymousreply 358December 17, 2019 5:02 PM

So if Success Royal (or whatever they're calling it) registers as a non-profit in he U.S., will its financial records need to be open to public inspection? That would be interesting.

by Anonymousreply 359December 17, 2019 8:05 PM

LOL the SHADE

"The PR consultants, who have reportedly worked with Harvey Weinstein and the Michael Jackson estate, will be involved in the US launch of Travelyst next year, which will also fall under the Sussex Royal umbrella."

by Anonymousreply 360December 17, 2019 9:42 PM

God, this Sussex branding thing is going downmarket so, so fast. You know as soon as reality hits Harry square in his overbred face he'll run screaming back to the BRF fold. Meghan will be left to land on her feet as best she can. The only bargaining chip she'll have is Archie. That poor fucking kid.

by Anonymousreply 361December 17, 2019 10:05 PM

Dynastically Archie is irrelevant. Diana had a bargaining chip as mother of the direct heir. Meg has as much power as Fergie did with Bea and E. God that name will never not make my eye roll.

by Anonymousreply 362December 17, 2019 10:15 PM

"You know as soon as reality hits Harry square in his overbred face he'll run screaming back to the BRF fold. "

Harry isn't the brightest bulb in the antique chandelier, it'll take him a few years to realize that none of Meghan's plans for fabulous independence and wealth are working. I give it 5-10 before he catches on.

by Anonymousreply 363December 17, 2019 10:21 PM

[quote]both the Duke and the Duchess described their struggles with life in the public eye, raising concerns about their mental health.

Even though we admit to being batshit crazy, you should give us money for our foundation. We'll spend it properly, we promise.

by Anonymousreply 364December 17, 2019 10:41 PM

I wonder what kind of reputation Sparkle's father had/has in Hollywood.

Didn't I read that Nancy Lee Grahn had nothing but good to say about him from her work experience with him?

If he had a long career and a good working reputation, wouldn't those who knew and respected him be less likely to put funds in the Sparkle and Dim fund?

by Anonymousreply 365December 17, 2019 11:30 PM

Meg's father wasn't working on the same level as who she is targeting for funds. She's going after Oprah and George Clooney. Her father was never working on that high star wattage level.

by Anonymousreply 366December 18, 2019 2:05 AM

[quote] Prince Michael does very little and Pss. Michael even less.

They do a lot of private paid work in Russia and have done that for decades. The russians love them

by Anonymousreply 367December 18, 2019 2:18 AM

R366

Nevertheless, gossip crosses all lines.

And respect for behind the scenes professionals does exist from people at high levels.

It would be foolish to think that people at higher levels wouldn't possibly know of her father's reputation after his daughter marries into the RF. Especially with Sparkle ghosting her father and refusing to have him at her wedding. After praising her father over and over on her own social media, to then ghost him when she hooked the RF fish. I find it entirely possible that questions to colleagues might have been asked about the father by people with money to contribute. Such behavior speaks to the trustworthiness of those asking for money.

by Anonymousreply 368December 18, 2019 2:26 AM

Sparkle's father isn't going to have any sort of pull left in Hollywood. Hollywood has a damn short memory, and forgets all about mid-level worker bees who have since retired and moved to Nowherita, Mexico.

So maybe there are a few crew members who remember him fondly, but when the rest of Hollywood weighs the social or media usefulness of a Princess against that of a retired TV cinematographer, the camera-hungry Royal wins.

by Anonymousreply 369December 18, 2019 3:47 AM

People on here have been driven insane through hate. As if the billionaires M and H are working with care about some lighting director from years ago.

[QUOTE] You know as soon as reality hits Harry square in his overbred face he'll run screaming back to the BRF fold.

He's been with her for four years and they have a child. There's no 'reality' he hasn't already seen, and he's still there.

by Anonymousreply 370December 18, 2019 9:31 AM

R367

Quite right!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 371December 18, 2019 9:54 AM

Prince and Princess Michael earn most of their money in Russia. He's on the board of a company or two (or used to be) and they both get hired to give speeches. They both had Russian lovers until hers got murdered

by Anonymousreply 372December 18, 2019 10:38 AM

Speaking of ballet - what was Diana thinking? Charles must have wanted to be swallowed by a black hole.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 373December 18, 2019 11:27 AM

Harry and Meghan have only been together full-time for 2 years. Their time thus far has been filled with exciting events like getting engaged, planning a wedding, getting married, getting pregnant and having a newborn. The real test of their compatability starts now that life is settling into a routine.

by Anonymousreply 374December 18, 2019 12:54 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 375December 18, 2019 1:21 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 376December 18, 2019 1:23 PM

The world really wants Charles to start with himself.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 377December 18, 2019 2:03 PM

R373 - That notorious performance was the hallmark of Diana's narcissism and craving for adulatation. It didn't matter whether she was good or not, it mattered that she was the Princess of Wales and a future Queen Consort, and what was on display wasn't so much her flesh (which it really wasn't) or her talent (which was negligible at best) but her incredible inability to grasp the inappropriateness of the stunt.

Charles was alleged privately to have been furious with her although he was gracious publicly, which sums up the glaring disconnnect in the Wales' marriage: Diana was constantly trying to get his attention and "prove" to him how attractive she was, but in all the wrong ways, as Charles wasn't interested in a sexy stage star, but a comforting yet sensual Mum who could handle him and who didn't need his attention 24/7.

Two needy people add up to disaster, eventually. Charles and Camilla work because he's needy and she isn't. Kate and William work because he's needy and she isn't.

Harry and Meghan are both extremely needy. Remains to be seen how long their marriage stands up under that sort of pressure, which in my view dwarfs their other "pressures".

by Anonymousreply 378December 18, 2019 2:40 PM

^*adulation

by Anonymousreply 379December 18, 2019 2:40 PM

Diana's fantasies about being a dancer (she quit ballet as soon as the steps became really difficult, and of course she was well over regulation height at the time) are not unlike her fantasies about being a Princess. Both roles involve playing on a large stand and crowds ooohing and ahhhing.

by Anonymousreply 380December 18, 2019 2:46 PM

Diana's problem was lack of follow-through. Whether it came from laziness or poor self-image, as soon as anything got hard, she fell apart. That's why she didn't get a single 0-level, that's why she melted down when the reality of being Princess of Wales became known to her, it's why she could never sustain a romantic relationship. She was apparently a decent mother, but how much behind-the-scenes help did she get from nurses, nannies, and boarding schools? Probably a lot.

by Anonymousreply 381December 18, 2019 2:49 PM

^^*on a large stage (not "stand")

by Anonymousreply 382December 18, 2019 2:52 PM

But of course, R381, what kind of decent mother sobs in a bathroom while her barely teen son shoves tissues under a door to comfort her? It makes me wonder too what degree the very public outings at places like McDonald's and Disney Land were just attention-seeking photo ops for her. William and Harry both speak of her in hagiographic terms, but I wonder if that's because she died so prematurely. One wonders if they'd be less laudatory if she were still among us.

by Anonymousreply 383December 18, 2019 3:59 PM

So the whole family will gather at some time during the Christmas Holiday - go/walk to church on Christmas Day - and everyone will be there but Harry and Meghan? That's sad. Where do they gather?

by Anonymousreply 384December 18, 2019 4:40 PM

Your guess is as good as anyone else's, R384. People have complained at the unfair double standard of criticizing the Sussexes for skipping Christmas early on in their marriage. But the Queen and Phil were much younger then, the Cambridges were a stone's throw at Amner so could join the BRF for Boxing Day, and of course they took part in the annual Christmas luncheon at Buckingham Palace. This could well and truly be Phil's last Christmas. I'm gobsmacked at Harry's stubborn petulance. If Phil does die this year, Harry will never live it down that he ditched his grandfather's last

by Anonymousreply 385December 18, 2019 5:25 PM

yeah R383, and she also manipulated him into regifting a box of chocolates to her, she was really over the top. I’m surprised William isn’t the one with emotional issues, rather than Hapless Harry.

by Anonymousreply 386December 18, 2019 5:39 PM

Yes it was quite different for the Cambridges to be about 150 miles away, as opposed to on a different continent. Plus, Kate is close to her family and Meg has..her mom and...uh...uh....uh...

There's no reason (that's been shared publicly) why Doria couldn't come to the UK for Christmas.

by Anonymousreply 387December 18, 2019 5:45 PM

[quote]Kate and William work because he's needy and she isn't.

William is needy? It seems like he was one of his mother's caretakers, creating the mold for future behavior.

by Anonymousreply 388December 18, 2019 5:51 PM

What's the story with the chocolates, R386? William may come off as distant and reserved at times publicly (although the Mary Berry Christas special certainly dispelled a lot of that), but I think his steady dependability is down to Kate and the Middletons. They were all mocked mercilessly in the beginning by press and public alike, but they gave William the normal, stable environment he needed. I suspect he's incredibly loyal to his in-laws.

by Anonymousreply 389December 18, 2019 6:02 PM

Too late for Charles to cut down anything - Prince William is being crowned King next year!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 390December 18, 2019 6:06 PM

Diana tearfully said on camera (mascara making her eyes buggy) that after a big row with Charles, Diana cried in the bathroom and then William passed her a box of chocolates and said something like “mummy, I think someone has hurt you terribly”

by Anonymousreply 391December 18, 2019 6:08 PM

[quote]William may come off as distant and reserved at times

I think he's probably a shy person. When he gets to know people, he opens up, but with new people, I think he probably tends to hang back.

by Anonymousreply 392December 18, 2019 6:11 PM

It's a miracle that he is only a bit reserved. I am old enough to remember his 'heart-throb' days where he would be greeted in public by screaming middle-aged women, just red-faced, sweaty, maniacal, deranged-looking women. It was horrifying to observe, much less experience. That was just his public experience. There's no telling how much palace intrigue and maneuverings he's witnessed in his lifetime. Nor early on he had to learn that so many only wanted to be associated with him in order to use him.

by Anonymousreply 393December 18, 2019 6:27 PM

God, no wonder he planted stories with people close to him to see who would leak.

by Anonymousreply 394December 18, 2019 7:48 PM

[bold]Regarding Stephanie Powers', a friend of Charles', remarks, it sounds ominous for H&M. [/bold] As I posted in the other thread --

[quote]I thought Stephanie Powers' outspoken criticism telling. Essentially, it reminded Meghan of her true role, the limited expectations of her, as well as stating that Andrew's depraved behavior is not casting her in a better light. Her best move right now is to stay out of sight until she has viable working plan.

[quote]Let's face it, without real BRF cachet - children with HRH titles, luxury apt in Kensington, country estate, own press office and access to jewels, Meghan starts looking shabby. The people she hopes to attract to her circle won't be interested.

[quote]Meghan didn't realize her future was to be Will & Kate's Sophie. Don't want to go, send Harry and Meghan. Considering what we have seen of Meghan aspirations, that is a boring, miserable role. My guess is the Meghan is trying to figure out a secure place for herself and immediate family b/c the BRF is going to continue cutting her. In ways great and small.

r348

[quote] George and Charlotte are doing their first Christmas walk this year.

Note this also precludes the Harkles from walking next to Will & Kate. Who knows where they'd be placed. Maybe far back in the pack with Princess Anne.

r387

[quote] There's no reason (that's been shared publicly) why Doria couldn't come to the UK for Christmas.

I don't believe she was invited. The Middletons were invited once and there was kerfuffle about Pippa entering the Church before the Yorkies. The BRF lives by protocol and any deviation causes a mess that wouldn't exist in regular life.

r366

[quote] Meg's father wasn't working on the same level as who she is targeting for funds.

That is Meghan's problem. She has no cachet other than being a member of the BRF. They control her and can determine if her future is nice or not.

by Anonymousreply 395December 18, 2019 7:51 PM

It also may be why he has a reputation now for being a bit cold and ruthless. What else could he be, given his upbringing?

by Anonymousreply 396December 18, 2019 7:52 PM

R388 - Exactly. Having had to prop up his mother, William did the opposite of Harry, and chose a mate who was interested in propping him up. As the next Heir, William needed a wife who would put him and home and hearth first, and that's what he got in Kate.

Why siblings raised in the same family drama take different paths is a mystery. Some of it is termperament, some birth order, and maybe some just dumb luck.

by Anonymousreply 397December 18, 2019 8:15 PM

If Diana had died even a couple of years later, Harry would have been old enough to have a more balanced perspective on his mother. But he was just shy of 13, and had probably been shielded from a lot of the realities of Diana's personality and behaviors. Dying when she did, she'll forever be enshrined in his memory as the saintly mummy oppressed by the Firm and killed by the press. It really explains much of his behavior now.

by Anonymousreply 398December 18, 2019 8:43 PM

William was just old enough when his mother died to understand (and be embarrassed by) his parents' behavior. Harry was probably still too emotionally and mentally immature to grasp what was going on and has forever cast Diana as the un-erring victim. William is probably more clear-eyed and sees his mother as a flawed human.

I don't begrudge them any anger they have at their father or the rest of the BRF. They've probably seen so much more behind closed doors. With everything that has came to light about Andrew and seeing Harry go so far off the rails, it is no wonder that you only see William and Kate spending personal time with Anne's (relatively) scandal-free kids and their families.

by Anonymousreply 399December 18, 2019 8:44 PM

Harry, much like his mother, must be enjoying the drama. If he didn't, he'd be happily married to Chelsy Davy and spending half his year in Zimbabwe and the other half on that lovely estate near the Welsh border that Charles hand-picked for him. True privacy, rather than the fake kind he and his wife are constantly demanding.

by Anonymousreply 400December 18, 2019 8:48 PM

[quote]It's a miracle that he is only a bit reserved. I am old enough to remember his 'heart-throb' days where he would be greeted in public by screaming middle-aged women, just red-faced, sweaty, maniacal, deranged-looking women.

Not to mention the grief porn he had to suffer. Whenever someone dies, there is always one person who carries the grief way beyond what is appropriate. Sometimes it's during the normal period of mourning and sometimes it goes way beyond normalcy. I bet both William and Harry had to put up with multiple people expressing their grief about losing Diana. It probably still goes on today to some extent. And I'm sure that some of the women r393 talks about probably tried to pull William to their heaving breasts in show of solidarity about the mother he lost.

by Anonymousreply 401December 18, 2019 8:49 PM

How many times do you all repeat the same trite observations? It ruins every damn thread about the British Royal Family.

by Anonymousreply 402December 18, 2019 8:51 PM

Yes, if Meghan wanted to see her own family at Christmas like a normal person, and the only family member she's still speaking to is her mother, it'd be jolly decent of the queen to invite Ms. Doria to the BRF Christmas.

Which would probably be an excruciating nightmare for a middle-class American. Talk about feeling out of place! And God knows what Prince Philip would say, after he's had a snootful.

by Anonymousreply 403December 18, 2019 8:53 PM

[How many times do you all repeat the same trite observations?]

These trite observations will end once Harry quits living his life like a damn Greek tragedy. Until then, people are going to keep discussing the reasons for his current state.

by Anonymousreply 404December 18, 2019 9:03 PM

Dear lord, Harry is not living his life as a Greek tragedy. In spite of the gossip that leaks out, we know very little about what kind of life he leads. Lots of people have fraught relationships with their families. Lots of people lose a parent at a young age. Neither is remarkable or particularly interesting. This thread reads like the most boring, deluded fan fiction ever.

by Anonymousreply 405December 18, 2019 9:48 PM

Harry is the comic-relief character in a tragedy. He’ll end up a Falstaffian figure as he gets older.

by Anonymousreply 406December 18, 2019 9:54 PM

Doesn't Frogmore have multiple guest bedrooms? If Meghan wanted her mother there for Christmas, they could have done a variation on what the Cambridges did: Spend Christmas Day with Doria at Frogmore, but show up for the Christmas lunch at BP and at Sandringham on Boxing Day. Even without an explicit invite for Doria (which the Middletons rarely get either), Harry and Meghan could have organized a Christmas where they got to see everyone. If they were interested in seeing everyone, which they are not.

by Anonymousreply 407December 18, 2019 10:02 PM

There's many incidents regarding Meghan that I don't believe b/c alternative explanations make more sense. For example, Meghan being unbearably, exceptionally rude to the staff. I'm not saying she's not, but I think the royal press has exaggerated the stories. Let's take a look:

1) Other members of the BRF are considered terrors by the staff. Andrew almost came to blows with one and seeded his PAs in audiences where he was speaking to clap and take iPhone pics. He insisted on his own cheering section.

2) Edward has told his chauffer to avoid looking at him. Sophie is also guilty mistreating servants although her misdemeanors are unspecified.

3) There are no rumors of Meghan being difficult to the support staff on Suits.

4) Staff of the BRF are often aristocratic or aristo-adjacent themselves. Perhaps they didn't like taking orders from black woman, especially one going through some bridezilla moments.

5) Finally, one of the easiest ways of turning people against someone in the public eye is accusing them of mistreating those who work for them.

Think how when Hollywood wants to rid itself of someone - out come the stories of horrible behavior. Yet, they put with worse from those they want to keep.

by Anonymousreply 408December 18, 2019 10:14 PM

I truly don't think they were invited. They've gone against the Crown in word and deed. As we saw with Andy, the BRF will cover over quite a bit so long as you toe the line. What Harry and Meghan did was unforgivable in their eyes and can never be walked back. Oh, they'll take Harry back and clean him up if he leaves Meghan. But he will never be "in" with them again. He will just be someone to warily regard.

by Anonymousreply 409December 18, 2019 10:16 PM

R408, Meghan is rumored to have leaked all sorts of info about the BRF, William and Kate in particular. If that's true, then she is stupid. Royals can snipe at each other in the press, but not married-ins. Sophie may have been rude to staff, but she keeps the family secrets.

by Anonymousreply 410December 18, 2019 10:23 PM

[quote] If Meghan wanted her mother there for Christmas, they could have done a variation on what the Cambridges did: Spend Christmas Day with Doria at Frogmore, but show up for the Christmas lunch at BP and at Sandringham on Boxing Day. Even without an explicit invite for Doria

Why is it that the black woman always has to go to the white people? Why can't the white people come to the black woman? Miss Doria don't want to travel 6,000 miles just to spend a few hours with her daughter and then have her daughter up and go to the white devil's home.

by Anonymousreply 411December 18, 2019 10:27 PM

The rules within the family are pretty simple: Do your job, know your place, keep your mouth shut. If you can manage that, the money, property, jewels, and titles will roll on in. They don't care how many servants you're cunty to.

by Anonymousreply 412December 18, 2019 10:29 PM

Under normal circumstances, of course, Miss Doria. But your daughter married into a family of incredibly rich, famous, and powerful white people who live 8000 miles away from you. Grandma Queen isn't going to sleep on the pullout in your living room.

by Anonymousreply 413December 18, 2019 10:30 PM

The departure of Melissa Tabouti upon her return from the Harkles' first tour Down Under should give the lie to the press exaggerating Meghan's dealings with staff. BP rushed to put out a press release on Tabouti's rapid departure praising her experience and not saying one word denying the abuse she took from Meghan on that tour. You have to know that that press release was the price for Tabouti signing an NDA and not spilling what she'd seen, heard, and taken from Meghan on that tour.

by Anonymousreply 414December 18, 2019 10:47 PM

One of these days, one of the put upon staff is going to aim a phone at Meghan and not give a fuck what they outcome means. It's more likely to happen in America, the alleged Sussex decampment for their "foundation/charity", than it will in the confines of royal homes or offices in the UK.

[quote]Spend Christmas Day with Doria at Frogmore, but show up for the Christmas lunch at BP and at Sandringham on Boxing Day.

Christmas day at Frogmore would be 25th, 150 miles away from Sandringham on the 26th. , Christmas lunch at BP was today the 18th. Please tell us more about your proposal to coordinate these disparate travel plans, please? With MiL in tow?

by Anonymousreply 415December 18, 2019 10:59 PM

Christmas in sunny LA is a far better idea than Christmas in cold, unfriendly UK.

It would be grand if next year Meghan and Henry are asked to be the Hollywood Christmas Parade Grand Marshals.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 416December 18, 2019 11:24 PM

Kate and William spent at least two Christmases with her family when they were first married

Doria has a job and can't just take off whenever she wants. She only gets something like 2 weeks vacation a year

by Anonymousreply 417December 19, 2019 12:03 AM

Maybe it's like when the President of the US gives the State of the Union and one of the important people has to sit it out in case there's a disaster and all the leaders die, there will be someone to assume control. Maybe Harry is the designated royal who can't be at the celebration in case they need someone to assume command if all the others die.

Picture it: Prince Philip gets rip roaring drunk. He then decides he wants to drive the estate one last time before he croaks. He gets into the Range Rover, mistakenly puts it in reverse, rams the Range Rover through the wall and mows down the entire Royal Family as they are eating their egg & cress sandwiches. Harry will now have to assume the role of King of England.

by Anonymousreply 418December 19, 2019 12:09 AM

[quote]Doria has a job and can't just take off whenever she wants. She only gets something like 2 weeks vacation a year

Could you please tell us a little more about the benefits Doria gets from her yoga instructor's position? If you're assuming yoga instructors, hairdressers, nail techs, make up artists, etc. in L.A. are on salary or get definite benefits, guess again. Think independent contractors at various salons, which means it's not necessarily a steady job, nor that Doria has definite benefits afforded by usual W-4 employment. How do you know she's not a consultant setting her own hours and vacation breaks? C'mon, have you not lived away from hourly or salaried positions where continuous presence is make or break for employment?

by Anonymousreply 419December 19, 2019 12:10 AM

Are you British, R415? 150 miles is nothing, particularly when you're talking about people with that much money. And if the luncheon at BP is that much earlier, it makes the scheduling even simpler.

by Anonymousreply 420December 19, 2019 12:13 AM

[quote]150 miles is nothing, particularly when you're talking about people with that much money.

Not these days, unless you want an "Air Miles Andy" accusation following you. Especially after the private chartered jets fiasco the Sussexes unthinkingly walked into during their anti-poverty and climate change crusades. (but Elton payed for the carbon footprints!) Especially, when you're talking about people with THAT much money and even less awareness or compunction, right?

by Anonymousreply 421December 19, 2019 12:19 AM

[quote] Could you please tell us a little more about the benefits Doria gets from her yoga instructor's position? If you're assuming yoga instructors, hairdressers, nail techs, make up artists, etc. in L.A. are on salary or get definite benefits, guess again. Think independent contractors at various salons, which means it's not necessarily a steady job, nor that Doria has definite benefits afforded by usual W-4 employment. How do you know she's not a consultant setting her own hours and vacation breaks? C'mon, have you not lived away from hourly or salaried positions where continuous presence is make or break for employment?

Are you done spewing massive amounts of shit out of your mouth? She's a geriatric social worker. She may teach some yoga lessons, but she is a geriatric social worker too

by Anonymousreply 422December 19, 2019 12:27 AM

[quote]She's a geriatric social worker.

No need to be ageist. Just calling her a social worker will do.

by Anonymousreply 423December 19, 2019 12:33 AM

R401 What do you mean?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 424December 19, 2019 12:34 AM

R416 It's cold as fuck here right now. Not as bad as the Northeast, etc but plenty chilly.

by Anonymousreply 425December 19, 2019 12:35 AM

The point of Markle’s need for a time-out was not to visit her mother or have her mother come to London. The point of this time-out was to establish her foundation and to lay the foundation to make millions for her charity work. Who knows if this charity will have legs with a steady cash flow from the Hollywood elite and American wealthy class. Markle isn’t exactly elite herself.

Speaking of visiting family, has it occurred to Markle and Harry that they should visit her father for a private afternoon. Doesn’t grandpa have a right to see his grandson? Doesn’t Harry think he has an obligation to meet his father-in-law? What’s wrong with these people, have they no decency to rise above petty differences for one afternoon?

by Anonymousreply 426December 19, 2019 12:35 AM

A 150-mile drive (which is about 2 1/2 hours by car) does not equate with a private jet trip. There are probably even trains from Windsor to Sandringham that they could take.

by Anonymousreply 427December 19, 2019 12:38 AM

[QUOTE] been together full-time for 2 years. Their time thus far has been filled with exciting events like getting engaged, planning a wedding, getting married, getting pregnant and having a newborn. The real test of their compatability starts now that life is settling into a routine.

They have been living together for 3 years. A baby is THE test, and how 'routine' can their lives of glamorous engagements and tours ever be? They're clearly happy together. He went off to the US with her for six weeks without looking back once.

by Anonymousreply 428December 19, 2019 4:59 AM

[QUOTE] There are probably even trains from Windsor to Sandringham that they could take.

Proof you are not British. There are no trains running on Christmas or Boxing Day.

by Anonymousreply 429December 19, 2019 5:19 AM

Meghan really has confounded you Klanners by going ghost for over six weeks, hasn't she? Not a single pap shot from this woman you thought you had pegged as a narc and a grifter.

by Anonymousreply 430December 19, 2019 5:21 AM

[quote]A 150-mile drive (which is about 2 1/2 hours by car) does not equate with a private jet trip. There are probably even trains from Windsor to Sandringham that they could take.

Of course, not. That's helicopter distance, silly, which entitled royals believe is their due. Do you really think a 3 hour plus road trip (think country roads up north and traffic in Metro area, plus foggy conditions) at the end of Christmas Day (or Christmas Eve) is something they would subject baby Archie to? He had to be taken via private jets prior to this for his security. Would he be safe on a slippery road somewhere?

[quote]Prince Andrew 'spent £3,000 on helicopter ride to royal appointment' Travelling from London to Norfolk by train and chauffeur-driven car costs £68 combined

Once Meghan Markle takes the cheapie route, just like the Queen has taken up to Sadringham, I will be convinced. However, her history. Well, you know how past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

by Anonymousreply 431December 19, 2019 5:40 AM

As to Harry's behaviour - I think he is just spoiled and entitled, because he has gotten away with doing whatever he wanted all his life and still had public support. Now people are speaking up and judging him and he doesn't like it one bit. It's like a child who is spoiled and coddled at home who finds things are very different when he enters school and learns there are rules he must follow. It's also very painful when people criticise someone you love, so there's that as well.

With MM, I think she reached a point where she felt she'd encounter unfair disapproval no matter what she did, so she just gave up. Also, I think she (and Harry) are pretty resentful about the perks they have been denied compared to the Cambs; houses, clothing, jewels. Now she does whatever she thinks is best for her and she can get away with - merching, leaking, scamming, blabbing to the media.

Oh, and as to Thomas Markle being deprived of contact with his infant grandson - he doesn't see his other grandchildren either, and that is his choice.

by Anonymousreply 432December 19, 2019 6:40 AM

[QUOTE] Do you really think a 3 hour plus road trip (think country roads up north and traffic in Metro area, plus foggy conditions)

Sandringham is in Norfolk, a county which isn't considered 'up north'. You can get to it from Windsor in 2 hrs 30 on the A47, a motorway. No slippery roads or fog. You're living in a Philippa Gregory novel.

by Anonymousreply 433December 19, 2019 6:51 AM

Pounds to sixpence, there will be helicopter trips involved for the Cambridges this Christmas. As per usual...

by Anonymousreply 434December 19, 2019 6:56 AM

[quote]With MM, I think she reached a point where she felt she'd encounter unfair disapproval no matter what she did, so she just gave up. Also, I think she (and Harry) are pretty resentful about the perks they have been denied compared to the Cambs; houses, clothing, jewels. Now she does whatever she thinks is best for her and she can get away with - merching, leaking, scamming, blabbing to the media.

Her disapproval stems from not knowing her place. Contrast MM to Kate who is cautious to the extreme. Just in tiaras, Kate wore the smallest tiara on her wedding day, then another small one, the Lotus Flower. She didn't get the Lover's Knot until much later. Same with the huge diamond necklace. Yet, MM wanted a special one for herself.

Her role is not to be glamorous or a star, but to be another Sophie. Remember Sophie's shabby tiara at her wedding made from pieces of an artifact lying around. Sophie does not have incredible jewels, does not have a profile, does not live the jet set life.

At this point, the BRF has denied her an apt in Kensington, a suitable country home, HRH for children (IMO, this would have been appropriate as Charles will be King, and Archie would the first biracial prince of the blood), a suite of jewelry dedicated to her - she doesn't even have to Diana's jewelry anymore. Please don't tell MM rejected those.

She has some thinking to do. The Sussex foundation won't have legs if she and Harry lose their luster. The BRF can undercut them there, too. Say they line up a joint-venture with Apple TV - suddenly Will goes to Apple and offers a better deal - access to Cambridge Royal Tours. Their Apple TV venture will wither on the vine.

Melissa Tabouti's departure - MM doesn't know the difference b/t staff that's more aristo than she is and are more "lady-in-waiting" types than the chauffer or the PAs. Regardless, Melissa's departure could very well have been manipulated, we don't know what happened.

by Anonymousreply 435December 19, 2019 11:28 AM

There is no rush to make Archie royalty until the lad grows up and decides which country to claim citizenship. No point in making "HRH Prince Archie" only to have him forced to give it up in becoming an American citizen only.

Besides in keeping with a smaller BRF there is no need for the Sussex children to be royal. Archie and any siblings will be children of a prince, and grand children of a monarch ("king" Charles...). Thus am assuming like Lady Patrica Ramsey will still be treated as royalty when it relates to family regardless.

As duly noted over course of this thread, when Prince Charles becomes king, Archie and any other children of Prince Harry and his duchess automatically will become royal princes or princesses. In the meanwhile it gives Prince Harry and MM time to sort themselves out as to what they plan to do with rest of their lives.

by Anonymousreply 436December 19, 2019 11:38 AM

Yes, we do know what happened with Tabouti, the shifting Christian Jones, and the rest of them. Also Edward Lane Fox, Harry's brain. Good luck Harkles!

by Anonymousreply 437December 19, 2019 11:40 AM

Yes, we do know what happened with Tabouti, the shifting Christian Jones, and the rest of them. Also Edward Lane Fox, Harry's brain. Good luck Harkles!

by Anonymousreply 438December 19, 2019 11:40 AM

[QUOTE] Doesn’t grandpa have a right to see his grandson? Doesn’t Harry think he has an obligation to meet his father-in-law?

No such right exists. Unless removed from the oarents, the parents have the authority to determine who has access to the child.

by Anonymousreply 439December 19, 2019 12:13 PM

R431, you and I are in agreement about what kind of transportation they would WANT to take. That fits in with my point that Christmas at Frogmore and Boxing Day at Windsor is totally doable. If they WANTED to do it, which they do not. I think Meghan at this point has realized she's gotten all she's going to get out of the BRF (and she's not impressed with the payoff). She'll stay with Harry for now, but her sights are set on returning to LA and leveraging her fame into something better than forever standing on the secondary balcony wearing secondary jewels.

by Anonymousreply 440December 19, 2019 1:20 PM

R440-which just would go to show that MM never loved Harry to begin with. She loved the idea of Harry. The question is, how much of her cachet will she lose when she ditches? Some will buy the "poor Meghan never would have been accepted" narrative - whether it's because of racism, misogyny, whatever. But many more just see through her. She may well end up worse off than Fergie.

by Anonymousreply 441December 19, 2019 1:34 PM

He walks with her, not behind her. He is holding her hand. Has he done this before? They look equal down the aisle and in their grand chairs. She looks tired and frail to me. It certainly looks like a grand and beautiful ceremony. Nobody does pomp like the British.

Can't post link for some reason.

by Anonymousreply 442December 19, 2019 1:53 PM

That "automatic" HRH isn't going to happen. It's not as automatic as all that. Archie is seventh in line and his parents emphatically insisted that they don't want titles for their children so they can live "normal" (extremely privieleged normal) lives. They are even declining calling him Earl Dumbarton (probably wisely). Edward's children are also automatic HRHs - he accepted an earldom to avoid that.

Those changes almost never occur well after birth. They go on as they begin, and all Charles has to do is issue Letters Patent decreeing that beginning with Prince William, HRHs will be restricted only to children born in the direct line of succession. Archie is seventh in line, the direct line comes through William, not Harry.

There will be no "Prince Archie".

And we do know what happened with Melissa Tabouti. That press release was transparently a defensive move to prevent Tabouti from spreading about what she'd taken from Meghan on that tour. She was experienced and there was no suggestion that she had ever been anything but a valued professional.

Meghan started sticking two fingers up to the BRF early on. She didn't "give up" because she thought no matter what she did they wouldn't approve, she started out behaving that way, being rude to servants (the issue with the chef preparing her wedding banquet and the Queen having to take her aside and tell her "We don't talk to people that way here."). She stuck two fingers up to the Foreign Office on that African tour AND undermined the Cambridges whilst they were on their tour of Pakistant, and her "camp" managed to leak three negative stories during their "break", one of which was rude about Kate, at a time when the BRF was in crisis.

She's a hard-arsed maniuplating bitch and she neither respects nor cares about the monarchy or the BRF, nor did she bother to hide it.

End of.

by Anonymousreply 443December 19, 2019 1:56 PM

I don't know if they asked to take a break, if they were forced to take a break or if Harry needed rehab. Regardless, they've proved they can live privately for long periods of time. No more boo-hooing about that.

I'm sure Meghan will return to the public eye with a new plan to "break the internet." I also believe she'll bolt, with or without Harry, as soon as she figures out a way to make enough money outside of the BRF. Her life as HRH Duchess of Sussex, wife of the 6th in line, isn't the endless stream of glamorous parties, exotic tours and adoring crowds that she imagined.

by Anonymousreply 444December 19, 2019 2:19 PM

R444-whoever said that Meghan should have looked to Sophie for what her role would be was exactly right. If that role wasn't for her and if (big if) she really loved Harry, she could have declined the title and HRH and instead opted to be a private citizen. That was never going to happen, though. That HRH is MM's oxygen.

by Anonymousreply 445December 19, 2019 2:25 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 446December 19, 2019 2:35 PM

R408 - Thank you for your post. Meghan and Harry are not going anywhere. I am so glad that Harry and Meghan will be around in the future because Bill & Cathy are just plain boring and plain sad.

by Anonymousreply 447December 19, 2019 5:24 PM

r447. Will and Kate are popular and will be Prince and Princess of Wales in not too many years. Number 6 and his wife are irrelevant. I am glad you think they are staying in their cottage and quite agree on that point.

by Anonymousreply 448December 19, 2019 7:19 PM

Harry and Meghan make for good gossip. Will they be able to top their stunningly self-pitying, tone-deaf South Africa documentary? Stay tuned.

by Anonymousreply 449December 19, 2019 8:26 PM

They have up to a certain point but the novelty is wearing away. Their "Foundation" tour should be interesting...

by Anonymousreply 450December 19, 2019 8:52 PM

R443

You don't know what you're blathering on about, and obviously don't have a clue as to how peerage, rank and titles work.

Prince Edward's children were deprived of being called "HRH" via letters patent issued by HM at request of himself and spouse.

The long held custom of making royal princes dukes either when they came of age or at least at marriage was broken for Prince Edward. It had nothing to do with his children or whatever else you've worked out that feverish mind of yours. Edward will get (in theory) his father's dukedom (Edinburgh) via a complicated promise that calls for "king" Charles to grant it after both HM and Prince Phillip are dead.

Peerages, the crown, titles, etc... all happen at instant of death, unless something or device either prevents prior or takes away afterwards. If you are the eldest son of a duke, you become one moment your father dies.

Letters Patent of 1917 make clear all children of sons of sovereign are royal princes or princesses. Again this happens at once, not later and will do so unless HM or "king" Charles acts differently.

Again as has been repeatedly gone over again and again in this thread HM could have issued specifically issued letters patent (as she did with Prince Edward's children) stating Archie and all subsequent issue of Prince Harry and his duchess would not be HRH or princes/princesses; this did not happen. Anyone who follows royalty or even knows their way round Debrett 's understood the difference. Indeed if Prince Harry and the Markle woman so desperately wanted their children to grow up dead common, it would have been far easier to simply nip things in bud as with Prince Edward.

Only way Archie does not become a royal prince automatically at this point is if HM (or her successor) specifically issues letters patent otherwise, or Prince Charles predeceases his mother and Prince William goes straight to the throne. In latter instance Archie would only be the nephew of a sovereign and thus not covered by 1917 letters patent.

Finally if/when Archie does become a royal prince he can easily request of sovereign (as with Lady Patricia Ramsey) to drop both.

As for the child not even being called "Earl Dumbarton", likely there is a very good reason as in Archie holds dual American and UK citizenship for time being. USC forbids royal titles, rank and styles, so there isn't any huge immediate benefit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 451December 19, 2019 9:26 PM

R445, I dont follow your "... if she really loved Harry" thinking.

by Anonymousreply 452December 19, 2019 9:52 PM

In the current climate, Edward and Sophie did exactly right by not having those titles on their children. Beatrice and Eug had to grow up in the limelight as if they were important when they aren't. Anne's children flourished without burdens of title ( and yes I know, not entittled but rich as hell.), Sarah Chatto seems much happier than Harry. Maybe if Arch takes the title as an adult, which I doubt, but I don;t think Harry want's his kids growing up with it ..jmo

by Anonymousreply 453December 20, 2019 12:27 AM

Don't think Prince Harry knows exactly what he wants at this stage, and his duchess isn't helping.

Duke of Sussex seems to like being a royal prince when it suits; but not when it doesn't.

by Anonymousreply 454December 20, 2019 12:31 AM

r454, Well indeed, Another Royal Dukedom wa a bad mistake of the Queen.

by Anonymousreply 455December 20, 2019 12:37 AM

Big sucks on Prince Edward that he must wait until both his parents are dead, then hope Prince Charles (then king) keeps his word to get a dukedom.

Meanwhile nephew got his dukedom the old fashioned way, at time of marriage free and clear.

Of course it could be argued Harry was son of the heir. But Edward is the son of current monarch, so that doesn't hold much water IMHO.

Story out of BP for some time now in keeping with shrinking of hereditary peers, no new dukedoms would be created outside RF. Only serious offer was to Winston Churchill in 1945 by George VI, and again in 1955 by Elizabeth II. They do say that HM made the offer in part out of assurances Churchill would most certainly decline for second time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 456December 20, 2019 12:55 AM

One will get you twenty that when Charles ascends, Archie, though legally a prince like his cousins the Wessexes, won't be styled a prince. He'll never be known as Prince Archie to the palace, press, or public, so what the letters patent say in this case means fuck-all. It's all about the branding. Hell, we're still calling HRH the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton half the time.

by Anonymousreply 457December 20, 2019 12:57 AM

R456, What point are you trying to make? We have been trying to do away with hereditary peerages for a century. At least under Blair we restricted membership of the Lords. Are you saying Archie can go into the house of Lords, or Edward??

by Anonymousreply 458December 20, 2019 1:11 AM

R457

Again you just don't have a clue.

Royal consorts long have been called by their maiden names; it just so happens for much of recent history they were all royal princesses in their own right; Princess Mary, Princess Alexandra, etc...

Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle besides being dead common like many other modern women had lives prior to marriage (certainly the latter) and see no need to follow old ways of relinquishing maiden names. Just as you don't find every woman suddenly calling herself "Mrs. Stephen Haines" upon marriage Kate Middleton likely objects (as she should) being called nothing but "the Princess William" or Kate, Duchess of Cambridge.

In any event current situation is streets better than the jumped up media created "princess Diana" that continues to this day. No such person ever existed, and this may be why so many are quite happy with current arrangements.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 459December 20, 2019 1:15 AM

R458

Merely responding to fact plan to limit creation of dukes seems rather random as pointed out in R455

by Anonymousreply 460December 20, 2019 1:19 AM

r460, oh my I am both oth those but getting ina muddle now...55 and 58... it was 56 that confused me!! hahahhaa....I have done gin

by Anonymousreply 461December 20, 2019 1:25 AM

Here's something else for you girls to wrap your heads around. Dukedom of Sussex was created as all others; hereditary remainders male. Meaning in fullness of time Archie will inherit his father's titles, as will his sons, etc....

Peerage Act of 1963 allows hereditary peers to renounce their titles for life, but do not believe it touches rights of heirs (sons).

If one has this correct, and believe one does; Archie Mountbatten-Windsor could renounce his peerage (all but required if he ops for American citizenship exclusively), but his heirs male (if any) may choose for themselves. Long as there are males in Sussex line those titles won't go extinct per se.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 462December 20, 2019 1:36 AM

Archie will become the People's Prince and won't need any royal titles.

by Anonymousreply 463December 20, 2019 1:41 AM

[quote]Big sucks on Prince Edward that he must wait until both his parents are dead, then hope Prince Charles (then king) keeps his word to get a dukedom.

He only needs to wait until his father Philip dies - while his mother is still alive - to get his dukedom. The Edinburgh dukedom merges with the Crown when Philip dies, the monarch can then re-create it and give it to Edward, to whom it was promised some time ago. It's why he took the lower "Earl of Wessex" title and rank when he married, to leave room to gain the Edinburgh dukedom held by his father.

If Philip outlives the Queen, King Charles will then re-create the dukedom and grant it to Edward. I see no reason why Charles would renege on a father-to-son promise made to his younger brother, simply because of optics. It would look worse if he denied him after all these years of waiting.

by Anonymousreply 464December 20, 2019 1:42 AM

The Dukedom wil continue, not the HRH nor any seat in the House. The Duke of Sussex owns no Stately Home and land in England.

It will be like all those ex titled cheap Euros that got with Hollywood Stars....could be fun!!!

by Anonymousreply 465December 20, 2019 1:43 AM

Jesus fucking Christ you're dense, R456. Kate Middleton has never objected to being called HRH the Duchess of Cambridge. It's the press and public who continue to call her Kate Middleton (when it's been said repeatedly that she prefers Catherine). But Kate Middleton is the name under which she became famous, and rebranding is a tricky business. As for Meghan Markle, she delights in using the Duchess of Sussex title every chance she gets.

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be known to the press and public by that name. Not Earl Dumbarton, and not HRH Prince Archie, even if legally he one day assumes that title. For the same reason, Charles can pick a new regnal name if he likes, but to the public he'll always be Charles.

If Meghan and Harry wanted their son to be publicly branded as Lord Archie, they would have had him styled as that from birth. But they didn't. If they'd wanted him to be Prince Archie, well, they should have behaved themselves better. As it is, they've established a precedent just like Edward and Sophie did, and whatever title he's legally entitled to in the future, it won't be his public identity. The only way they'll ever try to rebrand him as Prince Archie is if the Cambridges all go down in a fiery crash and he gets much nearer to the throne.

by Anonymousreply 466December 20, 2019 1:45 AM

r464, Yes, nobody would begrudge that to Edward, that would be different.

by Anonymousreply 467December 20, 2019 1:46 AM

Charles wouldn't risk the backlash of denying his brother the title of Duke of Edinburgh. He'd have to hate Edward to try that on, and there's never been any indication that he does.

by Anonymousreply 468December 20, 2019 1:47 AM

What benefits will the Wessexes accrue following upgraded titles?

by Anonymousreply 469December 20, 2019 1:55 AM

I hope Charles and Camilla both get crowned together. I think it would be a bad stat if he were compared to George IV

by Anonymousreply 470December 20, 2019 1:59 AM

The only reason he might want to jettison Charles is that it's rather a hard-luck name in the BRF. Not as bad as John, perhaps, but the first Charles was beheaded and the second died without legitimate heirs.

by Anonymousreply 471December 20, 2019 2:00 AM

R451 - Next time you decide to impart information, try doing so civilly. The result of your tone is that I don't really care what you have to say, and simply blocked you.

BTW, I looked it up: the Queen consented to Edward's and Sophie's wish not to have their children styled HRHs.

"It also announced that The Queen decided, with the consent of both Edward and Sophie, that any children the couple might have together would not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but instead be styled as children of an Earl."

No Letters Patent were issued. Only a press release by Buckingham Palace:

"She is styled as "Lady Louise Windsor", although letters patent issued in 1917, and still in force, assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all children of a monarch's sons. Consequently Lady Louise would have been entitled to be styled as "Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex". However, when her parents married, THE QUEEN VIA A BUCKINGHAM PALACE PRESS RELEASE, announced that their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as prince or princess. Thus, court communications refer to her as Lady Louise Windsor."

She doesn't have to issue Letters Patent to accede to parents' wishes in this regard.

How the parents start the kid out is how the kid remains. Once it became clear that the Queen was NOT going to issue Letters Patent to make Archie an HRH, the Sussexes put it about that they never wanted it for their kids, just the way they put it about that they didn't want their kids living in the "goldfish bowl" of Kensginton Palace when it became clear that all they were getting was Frogmore Cottage.

Next time, keep a fucking civil tongue in your rude fillthy mouth.

And, as I said, you're blocked.

by Anonymousreply 472December 20, 2019 2:07 AM

None r469. Their daughter would still be styled Lady Louise, their son James might have a slightly different courtesy title with his father as a Duke (he's currently Viscount Severn), but it won't change his life.

Edward and Sophie are still HRHs, but will be Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

The holdout for the dukedom isn't about benefits or rank, it's really a sentimental father-to-son hand down that means something to the participants. Edward is close to Philip and wants to have the title most associated with him, his to hand down.

by Anonymousreply 473December 20, 2019 2:08 AM

If I may add on to r472, TQ can't issue an LP to deprive Archie of his HRH status due to him once she passes. He is automatically an HRH from that point on, it would take Parliament to deprive or legally change that.

She could I believe however issue an LP to 'style' him as Lord Archie, plain Archie or a non-HRH. This could be done without permission of his parents, as TQ is the font of all honours. When he turns legal age, there is some dispute about whether a grown Archie could decide to call himself HRH as is his legal right per the 1917 LP.

There was plenty talk in the many Andrew scandal threads as to whether Andrew could be stripped of his HRH. The consensus was he could not, not without a Act of Parliament. He could be stripped of his York Dukedom though, by TQ or monarch.

by Anonymousreply 474December 20, 2019 2:17 AM

^^ should clarify above: KING CHARLES can't issue an LP to deprive Archie of his HRH status due to him once TQ passes. He is automatically an HRH from that point on, it would then take Parliament to deprive or legally change that.

TQ could issue LP to keep Archie from becoming HRH at her death if this is issued *prior* to her passing. If I'm wrong here (and I well could be), someone will correct me.

by Anonymousreply 475December 20, 2019 2:19 AM

Thread title, It is not about individuals it is about we need less of them and not more. If they disdain public opinion, then there will be more support for republicanism

by Anonymousreply 476December 20, 2019 2:40 AM

The pedantic title troll returns!

by Anonymousreply 477December 20, 2019 6:08 AM

TITLES TROLL, you ghastly, incontinent old woman, please shut the fuck up. You seem to have some sort of OCD which compels you to post the same tedious shit about Archie automatically being given an HRH when Charles becomes king over and over and over and OVER again.

Styled this, letters patent that - NOBODY cares. You must be the most boring, repetitive poster on this entire website.

by Anonymousreply 478December 20, 2019 8:00 AM

Jesus Christ on a cracker. How swiftly did this thread become dead dull with the "discussion" about titles, letters patents, and who gets named a meaningless title devised to confer some sort of dignity, grace or solemnity on those who possess none of those qualities.

by Anonymousreply 479December 20, 2019 8:19 AM

If (returning to the topic of the thread) Charles really wants to cut down working royals, he does have a strategic issue to resolve: how to fill the gap till the Cambridge kids get older if the Sussexes are booted out/"leave".

The workhorse Wessexes will be there for another ten years at least, but the third-tier royals, Pss. Alexandra and the Dukes and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, and Pss. Anne, are older than the Wessexes and less tham compelling. Andrew is, of course, now hors de combat, as the French say.

William and Kate are increasing their pubilc work rapidly with Kate's childbearing over and the older two kids in school, but they can't do it all.

But the Sussexes present a problem, as well: they're increasingly unpopular within Britain, and they are now clearly on the outs with the entire rest of the core BRF, especially the Cambridges and the Queen, whose hostility is more important than, say, Pss. Anne's.

I wonder if the outcome of the election, with the Tories in and BREXIT (which I'm sure Meghan Markle, a dedciated Woke Urban Celebrity Liberal with no interest in Britain's working classes unless they are minority and based in and around London, opposes), would influence the Sussex's decision to stay or go?

by Anonymousreply 480December 20, 2019 11:38 AM

[quote] he does have a strategic issue to resolve: how to fill the gap till the Cambridge kids get older if the Sussexes are booted out/"leave".

I was wondering what if Charlotte and Louis don't want to be public royals? If they want to study botany, or whatever, and become just private people, could that even be possible?

by Anonymousreply 481December 20, 2019 12:02 PM

R451 - They can probably study botany or whatever and carry out some public duties. But lool what happened to the Duke of Gloucester: the second son, happily pursuing a career as an architect - suddenly William, his older brother, dies in a car accident, and Richard has to give up the career and take over the dukedom.

So three times in the last 100 years the younger son has had to take over from the older one in the BRF: George V (older brother dies), George VI (older brother abdicates), Duke of Gloucester (older brother dies in accident).

The BRFI as well as most of Europe's monarchies, I magine. has this stufff in mind, and younger kids are encouraged to have a path of their own but also have to accept being groomed for any eventuality.

by Anonymousreply 482December 20, 2019 12:27 PM

How much more can I charge for arranging a virgin for my Eton mates to bust?

by Anonymousreply 483December 20, 2019 1:49 PM

Andy never went to Eton.

by Anonymousreply 484December 20, 2019 1:51 PM

r480, she did that before the wedding

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 485December 20, 2019 2:34 PM

[bold]I WANT a HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, the Half-Blood Prince[/bold]. Think of the wit, the cutting remarks, the ironic asides; it will keep the DL BRF threads going for next 50 years. If H&M have [bold] a daughter, there is no better name HRH Princess Precious of Sussex. [/bold]

Like Anne before her, she can become an Olympic athlete, in her case Track & Field. Special points if a filly named Precious wins the Grand National.

Please...in the name all that is gay

by Anonymousreply 486December 20, 2019 2:38 PM

R11 I agree, it always irritates me when people insist that other guy is Harry's dad, and they always act so knowing and full of themselves about it, too. Ronan Farrow, though, I dunno....I fail to see a glimmer of Woody in him, other than maybe the intellect.

by Anonymousreply 487December 20, 2019 2:46 PM

But what do a lot of these third-tier Royals do, exactly? Are the patronages all that important, or is it make-work to justify their presence on the sovereign grant? Does anybody really care if the Duke of Gloucester comes to their senior center? I'm not trying to be sarcastic: I really wonder if anybody would miss these so-called duties if the present lesser Royals retired and nobody took their place.

by Anonymousreply 488December 20, 2019 2:58 PM

Buckingham Palace has announced the hospitalization of Prince Philip as a "precautionary measure". How vague can they get?

by Anonymousreply 489December 20, 2019 3:03 PM

PP in hospital and Queenie took the train to Norfolk

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 490December 20, 2019 3:12 PM

Archie a "Half-Blood Prince", R486?

More like a 1/32th blood prince.

by Anonymousreply 491December 20, 2019 3:28 PM

"suddenly William, his older brother, dies in a car accident, and Richard has to give up the career and take over the dukedom."

R482 - It was a plane crash accident not a car crash accident.

by Anonymousreply 492December 20, 2019 3:51 PM

If the Sussex, York, and Wessex (second generation) branches are pruned off the family tree as working Royals, then all 3 Cambridge children will probably be needed to pick up the slack as adults. There's no point then in Charlotte and Louis pursuing careers.

by Anonymousreply 493December 20, 2019 3:57 PM

R493 - I suspect the Wessexes will hold on for at least 15 years. Charles won't prune them, certainly not if the Sussexes leave, which remains to be seen. It's the elder Kents and Gloucesters who will be pruned first. I don't think he dare prune his indefatigable sister, but she IS 70 this year, isn't she? And the fracas around Andrew will die down in a few years if he minds his ps and qs and stays out of sight - which might encourage slowly bringing at least one of the York girls forward (Eugenie, preferably).

Probably pursuing "careers" isn't quite what it would amount to, but pursuing some primary interest that wouldn't necessarily take a job from some ordinary person who needs it would be advisable.

Architecture, photography, science.

What we shouldn't see is Charlotte turning into the next generation's Lady Kitty Spencer.

I'm still pushing for Charlotte to be groomed as a future bride for Prince Christian of Denmark - he's turning up terribly handsome, is nearly as tall as his mother already, and will one day be Crown Prince when Margrethe is raptured, and his dad, Frederik, becomes King, which given Margrethe's lifetime of smoking and her age (nearly 80) might be sooner rather than later.

I would love to live to see THAT royal wedding on the telly!

You can bet the farm that if Meghan has a daughter next, she'll be grooming the kid to go after Christian from birth.

by Anonymousreply 494December 20, 2019 10:45 PM

The Queen Mother smoked and lived to 101.

Odds are if you make it to 80 without any smoking related illness (as a smoker) you aren't genetically predisposed to lung cancers or COPD etc.

by Anonymousreply 495December 20, 2019 11:02 PM

Word of advice to Charles: Use Beatrice and Eugenie for royal duties. They're young, ready, willing and able. And they're HRH. Why not use them? Why ignore them? Charles is just being spiteful. The older third-tier royals can't do everything, and the Wessexes shouldn't have to do everything. The Sussexes are unreliable. Harry might tow the line, but Markle has no intention of slogging through nursing home and kindergarten openings

by Anonymousreply 496December 20, 2019 11:12 PM

No photo of the Queen Mother smoking has ever been seen, nor have I ever seen it mentioned even in her most critical biographies (that would be Penelope Mortimer's), so where did you find that fact? That she loved her food and drink was well-known, but I'd be curious to know where you found out that she smoked all her life, especially given how antithetical it seems to the kind of young girl that King George and Queen Mary were so enthused about as a bride for their younger son.

by Anonymousreply 497December 21, 2019 12:44 AM

I agree about the Wessexes, R493. I was thinking of Louise and James, who are clearly not being groomed for Royal life. The Sussexes are obviously heading for the exits, and the Yorks . . . well, as you say, if they can behave themselves for a few years, perhaps they'll get on the sovereign grant eventually and pick up the slack from Harry and Meghan. But in the long run, I think the BRF will need all 3 Cambridge children. Of course, it would be nice if Charlotte and Louis were properly educated and did something with themselves other than cutting ribbons.

by Anonymousreply 498December 21, 2019 12:56 AM

I think the York sisters would be great assets to the BRF once the older Royals age out. They do very well in public appearances, and speak very well in their speeches and interviews. They can't help having such horrors as parents.

by Anonymousreply 499December 21, 2019 1:19 AM

'I think the York sisters would be great assets to the BRF once the older Royals age out. They do very well in public appearances, and speak very well in their speeches and interviews. They can't help having such horrors as parents.'

They are tainted forever by what Andrew has done. Bea can't even have a public wedding because it would mean televising the Pedo walking her down the aisle. They are best left getting on with their jobs.

Charles and William had better hope that Harry returns from the US in the frame of mind to work for the BRF again, otherwise the backlash against both of them will be huge. Harry is the most popular BRF member next to TQ. Forcing him out would be one of the worst things they could do.

by Anonymousreply 500December 21, 2019 2:03 AM

The Invictus Games are next year and Harry is heavily involved in that. He also has plenty of other engagements already in the calendar.

by Anonymousreply 501December 21, 2019 2:05 AM

[quote]They are tainted forever by what Andrew has done.

I don't think that's really true. They'll keep a low profile for a while, but they won't disappear forever.

In the year 2019, not many people blame children for the sins of their parents.

by Anonymousreply 502December 21, 2019 2:19 AM

Harry isn't "heavily involved" with the Invictus Games. He doesn't organize them or do the heavy lifting. He shows up, makes speeches and shakes hands, just like all the royals do for their charities and patronages. When he and Meghan toured Australia, he was roundly criticized for putting in the bare minimum.

by Anonymousreply 503December 21, 2019 2:36 AM

Charles is on excellent terms with H and M. Last year he asked W and K to holiday with him in Scotland. They refused but H and M did go and spent a happy week with him.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 504December 21, 2019 2:44 AM

[quote]Jesus Christ on a cracker. How swiftly did this thread become dead dull with the "discussion" about titles, letters patents, and who gets named a meaningless title devised to confer some sort of dignity, grace or solemnity on those who possess none of those qualities.

You mean, how did this thread become talk about working ROYALS (those with meaningless titles devised to confer dignity and grace on those possessing none of these things...).

by Anonymousreply 505December 21, 2019 3:09 AM

[quote]Does anybody really care if the Duke of Gloucester comes to their senior center? I'm not trying to be sarcastic: I really wonder if anybody would miss these so-called duties if the present lesser Royals retired and nobody took their place.

Yes actually many care that a lesser royal or dignitary would travel all the way out to their new hospital, library or senior center to 'cut the ribbon' to open it. It brings needed pr, shine and attention to an otherwise potentially ignored event.

The work of the BRF isn't all jewels, carriages, and the grand Opening of Parliament. A lot of it is the grinding boring work of meeting and greeting the subjects, the general citizenry and public they're supposed to serve. They do that by traveling as much a possible outside the capital to the further regions of Britain to see and be seen.

by Anonymousreply 506December 21, 2019 3:15 AM

In other words, R505, a stultifying end to the thread except for a couple of technocrats having chubbies?

by Anonymousreply 507December 21, 2019 3:16 AM

Markle's thirst has officially become a fucking joke. Photos of her during her high school prom have inexplicably and bizarrely been released to her favorite UK tabloid. What a tool.

by Anonymousreply 508December 21, 2019 3:53 AM

R488

[quote] But what do a lot of these third-tier Royals do, exactly? Are the patronages all that important, or is it make-work to justify their presence on the sovereign grant? Does anybody really care if the Duke of Gloucester comes to their senior center?

It's a lot more than that.

The Duke of Gloucester made an official visit to Thailand a year ago,

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 509December 21, 2019 5:04 AM

Bea and Eug are not tainted because of Andrew. Yes, it's temporarily embarrassing for them. It will be embarrassing for Andrew for a long time to come. However, time heals all, and while it will take much longer for Andrew to be even slightly forgiven, Bea and Eug will be looked upon favorably much sooner. If anything, the public feels sorry for Bea and Eug and don't feel they should be punished.

There has never been any scandal with the York girls ever. Andrew and Sarah have had their challenges, but their daughters are very nice representatives of the monarchy. Within two three years, Elizabeth may be not up to the task, Philip will be dead and Charles will be king. Put Bea and Eug to work for the family. That's what they were meant to do.

by Anonymousreply 510December 21, 2019 6:01 AM

Unpopular opinion follows!!

There are 320,000 Britons known to be homeless in 2019, although the number is likely to be much higher, due to the existence of 'hidden homeless', people who live in their cars or sleep on friends' sofas. Every winter people die from sleeping rough.

I really do not see why we have to keep this very ordinary family in palaces, jewels and designer clothes whilst such real suffering takes place on our shores.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 511December 21, 2019 7:07 AM

If you google Royal Engagements you'll find the calendar, where you will see that the Kents and Gloucesters, along with Pss. Anne and the Wessexes, are the workhorses of the BRF. Whether you think that work valuable or not is a matter of perspective, but they are out and about representing the BRF week in and week out, doing all the lesser known boring patronage work that Charles and Camilla, and Kate and William, and Harry and Meghan, don't do, reserving the more high-profile patronages for themselves.

That's where the real pruning will come in - they will be pruning those patronages as well as the second- and third-tier royals who cover them.

Meanwhile, the confirmation that the Harkles are in Canada came from a "spokeswoman" for the couple, presumably from their own mouthpiece, not BP. In classic contradiction, the statement claimed that the Harkles had "hardly set foot outside while enjoying family time" and then added, "They are enjoying the warmth of the Canadian people [sic, as opposed to those cold, stiff upper lip Brits] and the beautiful landscape" . . .

All while hardly setting foot outside?

Typical Sussex mouthpiece claptrap. You know BP would never have put that verbiage together.

They can't even make a modest statement about holiday without managing to cast a not too subtle dig at Britain, the British, and by extension, the British monarchy.

Jesus, I really am curious to see how they manage to slide back into the hated Britain and the hated British monarchy so they can keep getting the perks whilst making their contempt for the source of the perks perfectly obvious.

by Anonymousreply 512December 21, 2019 2:55 PM

It's funny to think of Meghan the wordsmith, crafting those statements. "Let's see. Their Royal Highnesses are...."

by Anonymousreply 513December 21, 2019 3:05 PM

They should stay in Canada and find jobs commensurate with their talents.

by Anonymousreply 514December 21, 2019 3:06 PM

If Sparkle and Dimmy have "hardly set foot outside", then at least one of them has had plastic surgery.

Finally getting rid of that baby weight and bald spot, you two?

by Anonymousreply 515December 21, 2019 5:18 PM

But according to them, they're also enjoying the warmth of the Canadian people and the beautiful Canadian landscape. So which is it? They're holed up inside or out and about?

by Anonymousreply 516December 21, 2019 5:31 PM

Maybe they just feel welcomed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 517December 21, 2019 5:43 PM

Geez just because they compliment the people of a country they’re visiting, they hate Great Britain?

by Anonymousreply 518December 21, 2019 5:51 PM

Given that they openly criticized the British for their stiff upper lips, specifically lauding the Canadians for their warmth reads that way, R518. It comes across as petty and passive aggressive.

by Anonymousreply 519December 21, 2019 5:56 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 520December 21, 2019 6:00 PM

And when did they do that, r519?

by Anonymousreply 521December 21, 2019 6:07 PM

The article also said that they were using Canada as their "base", implying that they have not been there the entire time. So many contractions.

by Anonymousreply 522December 21, 2019 6:16 PM

^contradictions. Sigh.

by Anonymousreply 523December 21, 2019 6:17 PM

[quote] The decision to base themselves in Canada reflects the importance of this Commonwealth country to them both,” reads a statement from the couple's rep.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 524December 21, 2019 6:19 PM

R521, Meghan said in the SA documentary that adopting the British stiff-upper lip is "internally damaging."

by Anonymousreply 525December 21, 2019 6:27 PM

Harry's Wikipedia page was recently altered to suggest that he should be made monarch of Canada and Australia. Coincidence? Or was Meghan frantically typing the change from her undisclosed location in Canada? "I'll always be second to Kate in England-but just watch I'll be Queen of Canada!"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 526December 21, 2019 6:44 PM

R526 - well, whoever the nutjob is who wrote that in Wikipedia sure doesn't know squat.

The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, there Queen of Canada and Australia. Charles will be next and then William.

Hello, earth to Wikipedia. Are you ok?

by Anonymousreply 527December 21, 2019 6:56 PM

^ therefore

by Anonymousreply 528December 21, 2019 6:57 PM

Somebody better check with the Canadians and Australians.

by Anonymousreply 529December 21, 2019 7:04 PM

[quote] Suggested as monarch of Commonwealth realms It has been suggested that Prince Harry should become resident monarch of either Australia or Canada, should those countries decide to have their own resident monarchs.[194][195][196]

Hahahaha HAHAHAHAHA OMFG

by Anonymousreply 530December 21, 2019 7:13 PM

It has also been suggested that Harry is a petulant, spoiled hypocrite who should relinquish his royal privileges. Too many sources to cite.

by Anonymousreply 531December 21, 2019 7:30 PM

Hey DLers - Meghan didn't compliment Canada, Trudeau welcomed them, telling them "they were among friends."

by Anonymousreply 532December 21, 2019 7:35 PM

Carole is the fun gan-gan. And also marching where a lady's gotta merch because Party Pieces is still her job.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 533December 21, 2019 7:40 PM

Sparkle and Dim cannot bear to be out of the public eye.

If they really wanted the privacy they claim they do, they would not have released their location.

Reminds me of the famous acting pair of years back who married privately and swore their witnesses and everyone else to secrecy. And then went home and read the papers and were chagrined that there was nothing in the news about the event. That they had, in fact, not been noticed.

by Anonymousreply 534December 21, 2019 7:52 PM

'Given that they openly criticized the British for their stiff upper lips, specifically lauding the Canadians for their warmth reads that way, [R518]. It comes across as petty and passive aggressive.'

Fuck off, you cretinous, dessicated bitch. They have said nice things about the UK plenty of times. Put your hood on and go off to your Klan meeting. Your racist perspective isn't wanted here. I just used Trolldar and you're on the Rihanna thread saying she has 'no talent whatsoever.'

by Anonymousreply 535December 21, 2019 9:25 PM

'Sparkle and Dim cannot bear to be out of the public eye.'

Of course not, you venal motherfucker. That's why they have been OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE for the last six weeks, much to your despair. It's Replikate and Bald who need attention every few days. Always updating Kensington Royal. Kate loves flouncing about like Lady Bountiful in her dusty peasant frocks.

by Anonymousreply 536December 21, 2019 9:27 PM

Monarch of Canada and Australia . . .. Now THAT takes the biscuit for sheer comedy. Some dim troll edited the Wiki page without the slightest knowledge of either country ir their constitutions.

Meanwhile, Omid Scobie, Meghan Markle's personal mouthpiece, has proclaimed to the Daily Express that KP has put the press on alert that the Cambridges will be making a "surprise" important announcement about the future over Christmas.

Because we all know that 1) the Cambridges would call a private press meeting to put the press on alert before making an important surprise announcement, and 2) Omid Scobie, well-known as Meghan's Mouthpiece, would be first on their list of invitees to such a gathering.

by Anonymousreply 537December 21, 2019 9:35 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 538December 21, 2019 9:56 PM

[QUOTE] It has also been suggested that Harry is a petulant, spoiled hypocrite who should relinquish his royal privileges. Too many sources to cite.

Find just one that isn't a gossip site, you scabrous prostitute.

by Anonymousreply 539December 21, 2019 10:51 PM

R519 The British 'Stiff Upper Lip' thing is much exaggerated. We just aren't impressed if you whine on about the thousands of miles that you have traveled to visit the UK.

Most Brits fly a couple of thousand miles a year on each vacation. (and we have lots of them).

by Anonymousreply 540December 21, 2019 11:08 PM

R534 The normal, dignified thing to do - if they HAD to leave the UK - would be to let it be known beforehand that they'd be holidaying in Canada at a private location.. Not all this drama and secrecy, but obviously that's their thing. Of course Justin Trudeau is involved, that's their crowd.

That photo of the four monarchs is sweet, and poignant. I wonder if the Queen looks at little innocent George and thinks to herself, god only knows what he'll inherit. Heavy is the head, etc.

by Anonymousreply 541December 22, 2019 1:16 AM

What is R481 smoking?

by Anonymousreply 542December 22, 2019 2:24 AM

'Harry isn't "heavily involved" with the Invictus Games. He doesn't organize them or do the heavy lifting. He shows up, makes speeches and shakes hands, just like all the royals do for their charities and patronages. '

He'll still be doing that in 2020, not sitting in LA or Canada taking pictures of Meghan for her new influencer career, as you idiots seem to think he will be. She was already a fucking merching influencer, doing quite well. Why you psychotic crones think she wants to go back to that, I have no clue.

by Anonymousreply 543December 22, 2019 10:41 AM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 544December 22, 2019 3:25 PM

Caption the look on William's face in the very same pic.^^

by Anonymousreply 545December 22, 2019 3:28 PM

R544-George reminds me of his great uncle David in that pic. The Windsor genes are strong.

by Anonymousreply 546December 22, 2019 3:29 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 547December 22, 2019 4:02 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 548December 22, 2019 4:03 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 549December 22, 2019 4:05 PM

The four generations have been photographed together a couple of times before.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 550December 22, 2019 4:11 PM

What the fuck was Robert De Niro doing at Bea's engagement party? He sure likes to go out..

by Anonymousreply 551December 22, 2019 4:17 PM

George has dead eyes and resembles Kate's father.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 552December 22, 2019 4:19 PM

Charles with hair.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 553December 22, 2019 4:23 PM

Imagine if the Queen began her Christmas message with these words. LOL.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 554December 22, 2019 4:30 PM

Charles with heir

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 555December 22, 2019 4:31 PM

George has the Diana upward "gaze." He looks like Charles Spencer to me. Speaking of Earl Spencer, he was a character and cad in his day, wasn't he? Seems to have calmed down.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 556December 22, 2019 4:34 PM

[quote] 'I think the York sisters would be great assets to the BRF once the older Royals age out.

How many times are you going to natter on about this? Enough of this bullshit. The girls hang around trash and wherever they go, their lunatic mother, who is so proud to make a drunken spectacle of herself is not far behind. Fergie is a money grubbing grifter. That is why the sisters need to stay in the background. We've all been over this 100 times, and you persist on posting this nonsense

Just stop

by Anonymousreply 557December 22, 2019 4:51 PM

[quote] 'Harry isn't "heavily involved" with the Invictus Games. He doesn't organize them or do the heavy lifting. He shows up, makes speeches and shakes hands, just like all the royals do for their charities and patronages. '

Then he's the same as any other rich person with a charity. Do you think Charles organizes or does heavy lifting for his charity? No he does not. Except Charles hosts dinners for very shady people and hits them up for big donations to his charity

by Anonymousreply 558December 22, 2019 4:56 PM

R552, bringing her delightful wit to the BRF threads.

by Anonymousreply 559December 22, 2019 5:11 PM

That was the point of the comment, R558. But thanks for making it again.

by Anonymousreply 560December 22, 2019 5:14 PM

Swipe for the history of Windsor Castle - Part One.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 561December 22, 2019 5:51 PM

Prince Charles as a boy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 562December 22, 2019 6:55 PM

Prince Charles presenting a hitherto unknown life form.

And a chameleon.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 563December 22, 2019 7:07 PM

R547 - read the article again. It said that the repairs to Clarence House will be paid out of the Sovereign Grant, which this year is set at £86 million.

You have to be careful with the DM an the Express and SUN and Mirror: they print deliberately misleadingly worded headlines, and only when you read the article do you see the real details.

You could build two new Clarence Houses for £86 million. The actual renovation figure isn't mentioned, only the amount of the total Sovereign Grant this year.

by Anonymousreply 564December 22, 2019 7:12 PM

I just finished watching the documentary The Windsors on Netflix. It really showed just how long Edward's abdication continued to hang over the family. It also highlighted how horrible a match for Charles Diana was. He really did need a nurturing mother figure, and Cams has happily given that to him. Charles and Diana both came off as sympathetic. They each needed someone so polar opposite from what they married. William chose very wisely-choosing a steady, stable, normal, no drama wife with no desire to outshine him. That seems to be critical if the Princes of Wales are to have any success at all in their roles.

by Anonymousreply 565December 22, 2019 7:13 PM

r557. yep. we need less royals and not more if they are to survive. Extraneous royals are an endangered species.

by Anonymousreply 566December 22, 2019 7:14 PM

Listed buildings require a ton of work to remain habitable, and the work has to be done carefully by craftsmen with expertise in historical restoration. That's why owning one as a private citizen is an exercise in frustration unless one has lots of time and deep pockets.

by Anonymousreply 567December 22, 2019 7:15 PM

r567, No you are wrong. Many 2 bed terrace houses are listed that were saved from demollition in the 70's. Really it is no big deal to have a grade 2. No plastic windows but otherwise ok. We all had modern extensions to give us a bathroom .

by Anonymousreply 568December 22, 2019 7:20 PM

Yes, but Clarence House is Grade I. It also depends on the council where you live: I've seen a couple of Grand Designs episodes where the local councils gave the owners hell about the changes they wanted to make. The one for the Bath area is particularly strict.

by Anonymousreply 569December 22, 2019 7:23 PM

to add, for example

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 570December 22, 2019 7:29 PM

Grade 1 is a whole different thing, I was mainly getting peed off with the Sussex apologists for the silly amount of money there.

by Anonymousreply 571December 22, 2019 7:33 PM

R571, the Sussexs have nothing on Kate and William when it comes to spending a fortune on refurbishments. Kate had a brand new $60,000 kitchen ripped out and replaced with a $100,000 kitchen in her Norfolk home. Several fortunes were spent redoing Kensington Palace for them

by Anonymousreply 572December 22, 2019 8:07 PM

r572. Sandringham is not on the public purse, so if that is true we didn't pay for it. As stated above , a grade 1 is different. And if you look it is a large place, not just the part where one family live. Kensington palace

by Anonymousreply 573December 22, 2019 8:18 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 574December 22, 2019 8:22 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 575December 22, 2019 8:25 PM

Good aricles there then to show how Kate was also treat bad by the tabloids

by Anonymousreply 576December 22, 2019 8:27 PM

I wouldn't have minded the cost of Frogmore if the Sussexes actually spent substantial time there, but they don't.

by Anonymousreply 577December 22, 2019 8:29 PM

Agree, R577. They really could have made Frogmore into a "cool" base and come across as the lower key Royals, but it's another opportunity the Sussexes have squandered. People would have loved seeing Meghan pushing Archie in a pram on Windsor's grounds. Kate does it all the time at Kensington Palace, and no one bothers her, so Meghan can't claim "privacy!" I just don't get it. It's like they're trying to fuck up. Everything they touch is a disaster.

by Anonymousreply 578December 22, 2019 8:39 PM

That's because what they want is antithetical to the BRFs purpose and plans. Harry and Meghan want to be globe-trotting superstars making a fortune off of speeches, appearances, and merchandising deals. This flies in the face of everything their titles are supposed to mean and their duties are supposed to be. Unless they give up the dream, they'll never fit into The Firm.

by Anonymousreply 579December 22, 2019 9:01 PM

I kind of hope Harry and Meghan do give it all up. It would be interesting to see if a no longer needed spare could survive outside the Firm.

by Anonymousreply 580December 22, 2019 9:51 PM

Hey, if they can make it without BRF money and support, more power to them. But it's unlikely they can, as all of their fame is linked to an institution they could give a fuck about. Take away the institution, and I doubt they'll be able to achieve much in the long-term.

by Anonymousreply 581December 22, 2019 9:54 PM

[quote]Unless they give up the dream, they'll never fit into The Firm.

They nothing. This is her con. He's the mark.

by Anonymousreply 582December 22, 2019 9:56 PM

I haven't commented much on the British royal family and I always liked Markle on Suits, but if they are spending Christmas in Canada, then I suspect Harry's disagreement with William is serious. It also appears that Harry is easily led and Markle may be causing him more problems, because she doesn't understand the culture. She appears to be encouraging more of an estrangement.

Charles won't take kindly to this conduct. Andrew has caused increasing embarrassment to the family and Charles is less popular than his mother. He can't afford to have a lot of nonsense as he shifts to becoming monarch. He worked at being close to his sons after Diana's death but he can be crotchety and if he is forced to choose sides, he will side with the successor to the throne. Who knows, maybe Harry will end up like Edward VIII or Princess Margaret and travel the world, partying and doing whatever he and his wife decide to do? Even if Charles or William cuts him off, he has his own money and title, so he would be welcome virtually anywhere.

by Anonymousreply 583December 22, 2019 10:20 PM

[quote] ...he has his own money

It would be fun to see Harry try to live off "his own money".

I'd love it.

He wouldn't.

And neither would his wife. Big Time.

by Anonymousreply 584December 22, 2019 10:23 PM

It's rumored Harry has already got through the majority of his money from Diana, so who knows. He probably does not have near the wealth Meghan expected. That had to have been a shocker. If he only had 15-20 million pounds, that wouldn't finance their lifestyle for long.

by Anonymousreply 585December 22, 2019 10:37 PM

But he will soon be king of Canada!

by Anonymousreply 586December 22, 2019 10:40 PM

I don't know how the British put up with this family, I'd be raising hell if my tax dollars went to funding them while I toiled away all day only to come home to some shitty old row-house with a mini-fridge and clothes hanging from radiators to dry. The royal family nonsense should end once Elizabeth dies, enough of these entitled, inbred German grifters.

by Anonymousreply 587December 22, 2019 10:41 PM

[quote] It's rumored Harry has already got through the majority of his money from Diana, so who knows. He probably does not have near the wealth Meghan expected. That had to have been a shocker. If he only had 15-20 million pounds, that wouldn't finance their lifestyle for long.

I've read reports he still gets quite a bit of money from the Duchy of Cornwall, and he will almost certainly inherit money when his grandmother and grandfather die.

Harry will never go broke.

by Anonymousreply 588December 22, 2019 10:44 PM

R588 - Sandringham and the country estaste the Queen gave the Cambridges, Anmer Hall are the Queen's personal property. Therefore, no public funds go to renovations and upkeep there.

Harry and William each get a supplemental stipend (which is probably in the mid-6 fo flat 7 figures) from their father, who of course is passing it on from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, out of which he keeps a large amount after making a "voluntary" contribution to the Exchequer.

Their personal cash incomme from their trust funds is about 300,000 each year, and that is subject to standard Inland Revenue tax. The SG is only supposed to cover costs associated with their official duties, including their wives' wardrobes, aides, secretaries, security, travel.

So that supplement is really important to both princes. If Harry really left the BRF, there would be considerable public pressure to ensure that Charles covered him out of personal funds, and eventually Harry and Meghan would know that if they want real wealth, the day will come when they have to create it themselvs.

They may figure it's easier to stay in than do that, the question is, on what terms given the obvious hostility and contempt they have both exhibitied toward the family in the last year?

Is it conceivable that the BRF would let them do their own thing whilst taking taxpayer funding via a familial relationship that in reality no longer exists?

by Anonymousreply 589December 22, 2019 10:56 PM

R582, if Megs is indeed a con artist, then it's Chalres who is the "mark", not Harry. Harry us what she uses to get money out of the primary source, which is Charles.

Bug I dong think she's a con artist, I think she's a top- flight climber! Who's found out that the BRF isnt what she'd hoped it would be, and eho is apparently planning to set out on a new course of social mountaineering, dragging Harry behind her as she tackles the world of the ultra-rich. Let's hope she does a better job of it than Andrew.! Well, it's not like she could do worse.

by Anonymousreply 590December 22, 2019 11:24 PM

[quote] Bug I dong think she's a con artist,

How mysterious!

by Anonymousreply 591December 22, 2019 11:58 PM

r589, None of it is ever made plain. I always supposed that Anne and others that did more "work", were just doing it it as more appearances equal more money. Hence the "poorer" royals are the more hard working. I equate it to those of us who do more on call and thus get paid more.

by Anonymousreply 592December 23, 2019 12:01 AM

Given the current hard feelings between the RF and the Sussex duo, I wouldn't be surprised if whatever money is left to Harry when the Queen and/or Charles dies will be tied up tight in trusts which only dole out a certain amount per year. I doubt they would trust Harry, not to mention his wife, with any large amounts without some restrictions.

by Anonymousreply 593December 23, 2019 12:10 AM

I agree that HM and Charles aren't going to take a chance that the "married ins" have any claim to the money, so it will all be in trust. The question is when and how much access will Will and Harry have to the trust principal.

by Anonymousreply 594December 23, 2019 2:54 AM

William doesn't need to worry about access to his principal trust. Why would he as heir to the Duchy of Cornwall?

by Anonymousreply 595December 23, 2019 3:03 AM

The trumps were welcomes to the palace because they are working very hard to keep Andrew out of the clutches of the FBI.

by Anonymousreply 596December 23, 2019 3:25 AM

Oh, Jesus Dumb Fuck, R596? Seriously?!?!

by Anonymousreply 597December 23, 2019 3:28 AM

In just about every photo of MM, she is showing off her Hollywood veneers for dear life as if she were in a Miss America pageant, even when not a single other person is smiling at all. She counts on people buying her act because she's always been successful at it. I'd bet some of the BRF have said really cutting, unforgivable things to her to show their contempt and put her in her place. You couldn't blame them; she's brought them all into disrepute and threatened their position and livelihood. Harry's feelings and pride would be very stung by this. Her 'wokeness' derives from her working class roots, something that is utterly alien to the BRF. All you're seeing now is MM fleeing from contact with them, avoiding public exposure which would unleash the vicious DM commenters, and trying to cobble together a Plan B behind the scenes so she can escape as soon as possible.

by Anonymousreply 598December 23, 2019 5:14 AM

Her father was a successful Hollywood cinematographer making a decent living. Sparkle isn't exactly "working class".

by Anonymousreply 599December 23, 2019 5:18 AM

R599. Markle’s father was a lighting tech/designer for the TV sitcom, “Married With Children.” He was not a cinematographer.

by Anonymousreply 600December 23, 2019 5:59 AM

R585 MM wants a Kardashian level lifestyle and wealth, and freedom. Being in the BRF is going to give her that. Being apart of that family comes with very conservative restrictions.

She basically wants to be Kim Kardashian, but she won't get that as long as she's apart of the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 601December 23, 2019 6:10 AM

^^^^^^ I mean being in the BRF isn't going to give her that freedom, wealth or lifestyle she desperately wants.

by Anonymousreply 602December 23, 2019 6:12 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!