Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals Part Deux

And, an interesting new bit from the DM in the wee hours - it appears that the Harkles removed from their new web site the phrase indicating that they were "internationally protected people" and were therefore entitled to security wherever they went:

"Harry and Meghan withdraw line on website claiming they are 'internationally protected people' and entitled to bodyguards wherever they go

Harry and Meghan were forced to withdraw a claim they were 'internationally protected people' entitled to bodyguards wherever they go, it emerged yesterday.

There has been a growing row about who will pick up the couple's annual security bill as they split their time between the UK and Canada.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made the claim on their website Sussexroyal.com when it launched last Wednesday.

But the phrase was deleted hours later.

Yesterday a legal expert said the couple made a mistake in presuming they would get protection wherever they live if they are no longer carrying out royal duties.

Dai Davies, a former chief superintendent who led the Metropolitan Police's royalty protection unit, added: 'Their naivety beggars belief. I have never heard of the phrase 'internationally protected people'.

As far as I can see there is no such thing when you are no longer performing royal duties.'"

I wonder how many other bad assumptions Dimwit and Nutmeg made as they planned this out?

By this time year this couple will have crashed and burned. It will be Harry and Meghan who. What will people do with their out of date china? So many questions.

R2 - I'm on the fence, frankly, about whether the Harkles are as cunning as it initially seems and will end up merching billionaires, or if they really are as dumb and insular as many of us suspected, and will end up falling on their own swords because they fuck everything up because they live in a fantasy land where all the cards fall their way.

You know what it says in Ecclesiaster: "For the heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth."

And, yes, that's where the title of Edith Wharton's famous novel about the feckless Lily Bart is drawn from.

^*damn it all - Ecclesiastes.

The new talking point has been handed down from Meghan's PR: Anyone who is against taxpayer funds paying for their security as private individuals is cheap

^What? That must be a mistake. Everything is about race. Are they already veering off script?

KLAN THREAD

I'd bet real money that Meggles is going to start receiving "racially motivated death threats", if there's any more talk of having her pay for her own security.

The whore is trying to repair her image. She visited a women's shelter today.

So many fat sour crones posting here, all jealous of Meghan's youth and beauty.

R9 Did Megs hand out empowering bananas?

[quote] jealous of Meghan's youth and beauty.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHA

R10 is projecting lol

R9 - Yes, she visited a women's shelter in Vancouver knowing the coverage would hit the papers on the exact same day as William and Kate make a high-profile visit together to Bradford, one of Britain's more economically deprived and most diverse areas. A coincidence, I'm sure [sic]. She really is a bitch of the first order; no wonder William hates her guts.

R13 - R10 is actually twelve years old. Just block him.

Gosh - youth and beauty! I dunno, last time I checked, Meghann was leanging heavily on 40, has hair like Morticia Addams, was wearing false eyelashes an inch long that she clearly displayed in the limo, and went out with sweat stains under her armpits on a public outing.

And last time I checked, "youth" stoped at about 18.

Golly gee - maybe 80 really IS the new 50!

[quote]Ecclesiaster

My new drag name.

R16 - Actually, Ecclesiastes is from the Greek and means "one who convenes or addresses an assembly".

Which is, of course, what we're doing here . . .

Well, back to the H&M story, it appears that Thomas Markle, Sr., is planning to stick it to dear little Megs - he will be the MoS's star witness in her ridiculous lawsuit, and has handed over emals and texts describing his deteriorating relationship with his daughter.

Even more interesting, Meggie's bestie, Jessica Mulroney, is being pulled into the fracas, as Father Markle has provided evidence that Mulroney tried to "fix" a popular press article for Meghan. I'm guessing that article is the now notorious PEOPLE Magazine article in which five "anonymous" friends made Meghan out to be a combination of Harriet Tubman and St. Theresa of Avila (but with much nicer clothes), during which The Letter was discussed - making it clear that Meghan had "approved" the letter being referenced in public as long as it was complimentary to her, and that therefore there was no "invasion of privacy".

That PEOPLE article was typical of Meghan's ongoing inability to take the long view, instead always going for the short money and landing tactical, short-lived blows that end up making her look worse.

Which I suspect is what she's still doing.

Some people never learn.

Anyway, the upcoming trial will have the BRF thanking God that "it's nothing to do with us anymore!"

When will the media drop its racist pretense and profile Doria? Megs has TWO parents, both of whom contributed to making her the narcissistic grifter she is.

I don't get why women in a women's shelter would be interested in having Meghan pop in by seaplane for a visit. How does she enliven their day or make things better? Wouldn't a fat check, some groceries, or a more compelling celeb be better? At least Celine could sing a few songs. I guess she'll solicit donations on IG.

Doria is a real mystery. Makes me think there is some juicy stuff in her background. But she has gone this long without stepping a foot wrong or blabbing, so I think she deserves her privacy.

Isn’t EVERYONE entitled to security? Some just need more than others. Celebs pay bodyguards for extra security, but largely to avoid hassle and to be able to move about more freely. Airports accommodate celebrities. Police do extra drive-bys for average citizens facing a credible threat. Civilized, first world countries don’t just say, “you’re your own!!” At least I don’t think they do.

Obviously, there are limits and it’s unreasonable for H&M to expect the same level of security outside of the U.K. when they are not traveling in some official capacity. They should have to supplement their security or curtail their activities. And, longer term, if they are engaging in profit-sealing activities that draw attention to them and result in greater security requirements, that’s on them.

I’ve seen 60O,000 pounds thrown around as the cost of their security. That actually seems pretty low. Is that accurate?

That number is just baseline salaries – including travel, Perdiem, etc. it’s been costing the UK government over 1,000,000 pounds per year.

I read that they had 10 protection officers when they were on vacation for 6 weeks.

[quote]But she has gone this long without stepping a foot wrong or blabbing, so I think she deserves her privacy.

There's no way to know what was or is really going on with Doria, as the media certainly will not pursue her.

Doria is by far the most interesting character in this whole extended soap opera.

It’s been four years now and she’s the only person involved who has yet to embarrass her self or set a foot wrong. She and her daughter are two of the most different people imaginable. Would love to smoke a joint with her over a cup of tea.

They should find a passion project. Scrapbooking maybe.

But I don't think Doria is a "saint" either....Really her (dad raised Meghan- where was Doria? I bet now that the gloves are off, we will be hearing the Doria backstory soon.

They the media will not touch Doria.

So a woman not in custody of her child is something other than saintly? Perhaps she stepped aside so her daughter could go to a private school and because the ex' lives closer to that school, she lived with him.

That's how I understand it. Their current relationship would indicate that there is nothing to your implications that there was some 'trouble' with Doria.

Yet another indication that we have a long way to go in this country.

Thomas Markle has proven what he is, over and over and over again. Doria has been nothing but lovely in every interaction I've seen. Shove your bullshit aspersions up your twat, R27

I get the impression that Doria just had no interest in being a mother. She only has one child and seems to do the bare minimum. She’s like a society walker. Shows up and looks good.

But if there was any really horrible dirt on her Samantha Markle would have made sure the world knew.

[quote]Doria has been nothing but lovely in every interaction I've seen.

And then there's reality . . .

Which neither you nor anyone else is aware of due to media disinclination to do its job.

Harry has had no experience outside the royal enclosure.....he has always been catered to and pampered and had NO idea what the world is like.

This is a bad idea for him......of course he is a famous millionaire, but that is not the real world....and it is certainly not the world of royalty.

Culture shock.

If Doria had any serious dirt in her background the international news media would have dug it up by now. She just seems so low key and emotionally self-contained, the complete opposite of her daughter.

[quote]The new talking point has been handed down from Meghan's PR: Anyone who is against taxpayer funds paying for their security as private individuals is cheap

Because Princess Diana's private security worked out so well for her...

[quote]Harry has had no experience outside the royal enclosure.....he has always been catered to and pampered and had NO idea what the world is like.

Really? And how long have YOU spent in Afghanistan?

[quote]And how long have YOU spent in Afghanistan?

Ginger's two tours of duty were photo ops. No one, especially the senior staff, wanted him there due to the risk he posed to his fellow officers. He was far more protected than active.

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

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

Harry isn't gonna like his new life. He hates the paps. The paps are controlled in the UK, not in Canada or USA. It's gonna be very bad for his "privacy" which they value so much, not more than money it seems...

I will not shed a tear. Fuck him and it's about time he stops taking his daddy's money. He's fucking 35, still acting like 12.

I believe the church cult version of the Doria story. Like CoS, she chose "church" over child and that's why Bean was with Dad.

Swipe for the history of St. James' Palace.

[r27] Thomas Markle did not "raise" Meghan. Where the fuck did you get this from? She lived primarily with her mother, but had a close relationship with her dad growing up. He was in her life and provided financial and emotional support - as any good father should do. But he definitely was not Meghan's primary caretaker.

Some things never change. Meghan is still looking sloppy in clothes that don't fit her.

Do Canadians drink tea in wine glasses?

R42 And then she ghosted him. Classy.

R40, I think there is something there, too. As someone else said, Doria has been quiet and perfectly well-behaved, so I wouldn’t like to see her exposed maliciously. She’s in a terrible position through no fault of her own (unless you blame her for her daughter’s NPD, which I don’t).

Kate looked good today in Bradford.

R8, you called it. It may also take form as a threat against Archie, too.

Will and Kate in Bradford.

It's Tiara Time...swipe for the Princess Alexandra of Kent's Ogilvy Tiara.

With their usual gift for breathtaking hypocrisy, the fraus on Celebitchy have accused the DM of "shaping a narrative" about Meghan simply by virtue of reporting what every other paper reported yesterday and today: that Markle, Sr. turned over evidence to the MoS's lawyers to support the lawsuit they are defending against Meghan's assertion that they violted her privacy by publishing a letter she had already allowed others to reference in a published article. Apparently, Markle, Sr. also turned over medical records proving that he had, indeed, had a heart attack.

The TIMES reported on it, the Telegraph reported on it, the Express reported on it, and The Guardian reported on it. But, somehow, the DM reporting is "shaping a narrative".

And, in another display of their detachment from reality, said fraus conveniently overlooked the fact that Meghan's meaningless trip to that women's shelter in Canada produced a photo that (amazingly!) hit the media on JUST the day the Cambridges visited Bradford and made their first appearance since the 'Sussex, "We're quitting but we want to stay royal and live in the home y'all so kindly renovated for us at such time as we deign to set foot in this shitole toxic country again and don't forget to pay those security expenses for we 'internationally protected' people!"

Had the official event shoe been on the other foot, and Kate had decided to make an unscheduled humanitarian gesture on the VERY DAY that Harry and Meghan stepped out together on a higher profile appearance . . . there isn't a frau on the CB site that wouldn't have skewered Kate for trying to steal some of Meghan's thunder.

But - when Meghan does it? Not a word.

Meghan knew precisely what she was doing, and despite the flummery, it's clear she can't break herself of the habit of trying to stick it to Harry's brother and sister-in-law.

As with the lawsuit (which even if she wins it will disclose more material than she would ever have wanted out there), her petty kicks end up putting the boot in her own arse.

The DM does, however, have articles up about Harry's friends having been cut off from or by him by the time Meghan was six months pregnant, and also mentions as fact that Charlie von Straubenzee is one of Archie's godfathers.

And, another article about how the bosses at the NT were furious that Meghan appeared, had a meeting with them about potential events and dates throughout the coming year for her to support her "patronage" of the NT - six hours before the "bombshell announcement".

I really do think the two of them are mental, they really are. They are, unfortunately, being destructively mental to the monarchy, which doesn't seem, even now, to understand the abyss of humiliation, bad decisions, and public contempt opening before it.

R42 - She lived with him during her adolescence, and he put her through school at considerable expense so she wouldn't graduate with loans, he spoiled her, he most certainly helped to raise her, her mother appears to have been startlingly out of the picture during those years, and the identical MOMENT Meghan began dating royalty . . . she ghosted him. Harry never met his father in law at any time during their relationship, long before the issues around the wedding arose.

She kept them far apart. For one thing, the old fat slob was no longer "on brand", and for another, he knew too much about her and his indiscreet mouth might have let something out that she didn't want Harry to know.

It started with Meghan ghostind her Dad the moment she began dating Harry. There isn't a person on the planet that she wouldn't sell out if it got her to the next rung, including the dimwitted Harry, whom she has managed to isolate from family, friends, and country in less than two years on the job.

She's a ruthless cunt and it shows.

R50 - Nice photos of Pss. Alexandra. I don't think she was pretty, but attractive in the way the British call "handsome" . . . a handsome woman, and like many other women in the family, she inherited the beautiful complexion and keen blue eyes handed down by Queens Victoria, Alexandra, and Mary.

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

The Cambridges did indeed carry this one off beautifully, you did not see a hint of the strain they must have been under in the last couple of months.

Kate has got the formula down: reassuring, warm, pretty but not glamourous, she and the husband working well together - that's what you want in royals.

Look what happened to the Charisma Champs - Edward VIII? Diana? Princess Margaret?

[quote]The TIMES reported on it, the Telegraph reported on it, the Express reported on it, and The Guardian reported on it. But, somehow, the DM reporting is "shaping a narrative".

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that 95% of the anti-Meghan trolls here are actually British tabloid "journalists". All they do is parrot made-up stories from the papers, never offering any unique insight let alone personal knowledge of what's going on.

R56, and the other half are Sunshine Sachs interns, LOL.

Sunshine Sachs confirmed last week that they don't work for them anymore and haven't for months. So, you're going to have to find someone else to blame, r57.

BASTA!

Thread Closed.

Meghan looks great in her skinny jeans. Glad she can be casual instead of trussed up in ugly date Kate type clothes.

Only on Datalounge are people aged 38 considered too old to be attractive.

'Harry has had no experience outside the royal enclosure.....he has always been catered to and pampered and had NO idea what the world is like.'

He did two tours of Afghanistan, you decrepit frau.

R57 is the stupid Welp Troll. He's obsessed with Sunshine Sachs and will find the news that they are no longer Meghan's PR VERY hard to swallow.

It's early January and it's already Christmas at the DM - first they get Meghxit and then they get a lawsuit where Sparkle's own FATHER is likely to testify against her. She clearly came by her flair for drama from him, so there's bound to be crying and "what have I done to deserve this treatment!" hysteria!

I have to say, Kate & Wills really turned it up today in Bradford - you can tell that interacting with people typically really isn't their thing, which is clearly the role the Harkles could've played if they'd been willing to be second violin. But they put on a good face, smiled, gave hugs, and did all the kind of stuff that makes the Brits still love them, in spite of their craziness. Even the DM was impressed (or at least turned down the snark!)

R53, I think the word ‘lovely’ about covers it...

So long as losers like OP and r2 are around, people will always be interested in the Sussexes. Obsessing over the most minuscule aspects of their lives, like the sorry stalkers they are.

One of the heads of Sunshine Sachs is doing the Dumbartons' PR. I can think of a few reasons they broke it apart this way to be able to say they are not involved at this time.

I'd like to know why Harry claimed his family would be "the family she never had" if they are so toxic and bullying?

Meghan has managed to treat ‘the family she never had’ exactly like the family that she did have.

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

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

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

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

[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.]

How very juvenile of them to include he song with pointed lyrics. Angtsy teens screaming "I'll show you!" as they stomp out of the room slamming the door behind them. Cringe worthy immaturity.

What's Harry going to do without full time access to his polo ponies, shooting weekends with the aristo set, the all night parties? I guess they'll always have Soho House Toronto.

I’m r57 and I was being facetious. Each side accuses the other of some ridiculous thing. If you criticize Meghan, you’re a Klan member. If you say something nice about her, you’re Sunshine Sachs.

My goodness.

Kate is a natural with children. I love the photos of her with this toddler.

Swipe for the huge sugar high display for Will and Kate.

A wrap up of the Bradford visit.

Harry's beard has some gray hair in it.

Father and Son.

What's the significance of this photo shop fail?

The cover of Hello Canada magazine.

The late Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in her coronation robe.

Harry looks so much like Charles in R71's thumbnail.

[quote] With their usual gift for breathtaking hypocrisy, the fraus on Celebitchy have accused the DM of "shaping a narrative" about Meghan simply by virtue of reporting what every other paper reported yesterday and today: that Markle, Sr. turned over evidence to the MoS's lawyers to support the lawsuit they are defending against Meghan's assertion that they violted her privacy by publishing a letter she had already allowed others to reference in a published article

You are missing a big piece of this. Aside from them violating her copywrite, she also asserts that they edited the letter by taking out paragraphs and sentences here and there and then published the "altered version" as if it were her version word for word

Of course her piece of shit dad will be more than happy to testify against her. Anything for a buck. Now you know where she gets that from. The markle's (dad, half sister, half brother and nephews) are pure trash

The whole family is pure trash.

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

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

Princess Anne's granddaughter Mia Tindall is 6 years old today.

For British royal history buffs...swipe for the wives of King Henry VIII.

Swipe for the Prince Albert Brooch.

One of my favorite photos of the Queen.

Swipe for Queen Victoria's small diamond crown.

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

The family won't do anything drastic, r95.

They will make an announcement that says the pair of extortionists will get whatever they want....subject to change in the future. The BRF will want to establish leverage over them and think there will be a divorce in a few years , so the Harkles will get what they want, on the condition they behave , as in, give no interviews telling incendiary lies about the BRF.

Maybe the announcement will be that they're gonna pay back the renovation costs. Daddy Charles will have to pay once again...but it will be written as if Harry and Meghan will foot the bill.

Frogmore was scheduled for renovations anyway. Money from the sovereign grant had previously been earmarked for BP and Frogmore renovations. The place was in serious disrepair. Not sure why people think it should be paid back. Now, if the furnishings were paid for by taxpayers then that's another story, but it sould like either Charles or H&M paid.

r98, If you believe that 2.4 million GBP was 'already earmarked' to be spent on Frogmore cottage when only 1.4 was spent refurbishing the far more ornate Apt 1A at Kensington Palace (a Grade 1 listed property), I have a bridge to sell you.

Meg and Harry either skimmed off the top or did ridiculously insane unnecessary work on that building. Knocking down interior walls, putting in a new heating system, touching up the roof and triple glazing the windows on a 19th century Grade II listed house does not even cost 240,000 GBP, much less 2.4 million GBP.

Yes, r99, I do believe that. Frogmore was in very bad shape and I think hadn't been renovated since the 70s. The place was essentially gutted and would have needed rewiring, plumbing, windows and roof regardless of who lived there.

Oh, and r99, Kensington Palace cost 4.5 million pounds and not 1 million.

Swipe for the Cartier Halo Tiara.

r101 I specified apt 1A Kensington PAlace, which had roof and electricl done. As a Grade 1 listed, costs are the highest in the entirety of the UK. Apt 1A was refurbished for 1.4 million GBP.

The article you cite says that the stable block being turned into a first-rate family home or the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester cost $400,000 to renovate. That is a full gutting and refurbishment, installing heat, plumbing, new roof, the works. That is more in line with what a 100% makeover on a Grade II listed building should cost.

How did Meghan and Harry manage to "spend" FIVE TIMES that on a place already basically plumbed and roofed etc? There is something really off about the Frogmore renovation bill they presented to the public.

^^^ The article you cite at r101 refers to Kate and Willam's double apt in Kensington Palace, which is two massive Grade 1 apts knocked together. That is two apts which would roughly add up to about the size of Anmer Hall. About 4 times the size of Frogmore. And Frogmore is Grade II, so refurbishments are not even half the cost they would be on a Grade 1 building. 2.4 million is extortionate for even extensive work on a grade 2.

R104, your bitterness is showing. There's a world of difference between KP which has been in continual use with regular upkeep vs. a property that has largely been forgotten. Try buying a house that's been lived in and one that has been abandoned and has had no upkeep for 40 years and see what will cost more.

Staff had been living at Frogmore cottage continuously over the decades, r105. It was never "abandoned". You have no idea what you are talking about.

That's not true that it was in continous use, r106. In addition to the link provided, the BBC had said that it was belived to have been used by staff at one point but they couldn't find anyone who did so recently.

And given that the repairs included rotted floor and roof joists, it's extremely doubtful anyone has lived there in years since doing so would be unsafe.

And, I take it you didn't read the Hello article becuse they are talking specifically about KP 1A. It seems like you're confusing it with renovations at Anmer.

That's not true that it was in continous use, r106. In addition to the link provided, the BBC had said that it was belived to have been used by staff at one point but they couldn't find anyone who did so recently.

And given that the repairs included rotted floor and roof joists, it's extremely doubtful anyone has lived there in years since doing so would be unsafe.

And, I take it you didn't read the Hello article becuse they are talking specifically about KP 1A. It seems like you're confusing it with renovations at Anmer.

There may have been asbestos removal in some of these buildings.

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

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

[quote] Meghan and Harry renovated a 21 room apt at KP - and you are correct it was Apt 1

[quote] Apt 1 was Harry's.

No.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were in Apt 1 until not long ago.

I believe Sparkle and Dim were already in Frogmore by the time the Gloucesters left Apt 1.

While I suspect Harry may have expected to get Apt 1, but it was never "His".

Wrong, r112.

Read the article at r110. The Gloucesters moved out of Apt 1 so that Harry and Megan could have it. That is why Apt 1 was being redone for 1.4 GBP - in preparation for Meghan and Harry, who oversaw the renovations. It's all mentioned in the article. The Gloucesters moved out of Apt 1 and into the former stable block they fully gutted and turned into a family home for 400,000 GBP. This was already referred to above in a separate post.

Yeah, I have no idea what that poster keeps going on about, r112. The Hello article linked upthread is pretty clear about what renovations were done for whom and for how much.

R113 the Glousters moved out of KP apartment 1 in September 2019 -- two months before the Sussexes left for Canada.

No, R113.

The article you linked at R113 is from October of 2018.

Stories about moving vans to move the Gloucesters from Apt 1 are dated September 2019.

The Sussex moved to Frogmore in the Spring of 2019.

So, Apt 1 was not being renovated until after the Gloucester moved and that was after the Sussex family were already in Frogmore Cottage.

Apt 1 was never the Sussex's.

I wonder who kept the books and receipts? I would like to see them. Also who did the work?

I read reports that the cost of Frogmore was even more than revealed, Charles paid more on top of what was disclosed.

These 2 are ungrateful cunts, no matter what they say.

According to multiple news sources, including Vogue, Apt 1 was indeed being renovated for Harry and Meghan:

By Elise Taylor, October 5th, 2018 "Last year, it came to light that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would move into Apartment 1, a 21-bedroom mansion on the west side of Kensington Palace. Not without some work, however: Scaffolding soon encapsulated the space, where it remained for months on end while the royal couple continued to live in the two-bedroom Nottingham Cottage on the compound grounds.

But now it looks like moving day might be just around the corner.

A new report says that Apartment 1 is finally ready for the couple to live in. This comes after an alleged $1.8 million renovation during which the roof and windows were repaired and other updates were made."

And there were stories that the KP1 would be converted to offices for the Cambridges.

^^^^ We all know that Meghan threw a major strop in October 2018 and demanded to live away from the Cambridges rather than next door. So, after having refurbished it, the couple turned it down and the Gloucesters delayed their own move.

The Sussexes never turned Apt 1 down, that story was bullshit and part of the Sussex's attempt to get in front of the truth: they weren't offered Apt 1. It's just the way they said they never wanted titles for their kids, after it became clear that the Queen wasn't going to give the kid an HRH.

FrogCott would have been at the bottom of any list of Meghan's. It was a dump compared to what Kate and William had: the huge apartment in the historic palace in central London AND the beautiful country estate in Norfolk, courtesy of the Queen. The Sussexes apparently lobbied for an entire living suite in Windsor Castle, but were turned down for that, too.

The fact was, Meghan alienated William very quickly, from the engagement on; William got Meghan's number early and didn't want the Sussexes next door. In addition, Apt. 1 was already being talked about as "reception rooms" for the Cambridges - including staff offices, so that their personal and official lives could be conveniently placed but distinctly separate.

The idea that Meghan Markle preferred that undistinguished mess in a pretty but boring suburb of London instead of a grand flat in the capital plus a beautiful country estate, is mental.

She did herself out of a great deal by indulging herself in lots of petty behaviour long before autumn 2018 and "pregnancy announcement" at Eugenie's wedding.

There were nicer places the Queen either personally or through the Crown Estates could have given the Sussexes - York Cottage on the Sandringham was mentioned, and that wouldn't have been down to taxpayers as it belongs personally to the Queen, but that meant also giving them a suite of rooms in town at BP or St. James Palace, as Sandringham is much farther from London than Windsor.

FrogCott was only a half hour from London, could be made luxurious if not grand, the taxpayers would pay, and it was within view of Windsor Castle and Frogmore House, so hardly a slum.

It was, in fact, exactly the thing a sixth in line and a wife already raising alarms would be offered. The rest, as they say, is history.

If he'd married Cressida Bonas or Chelsy Davy, he'd have gotten the flat in London and a pretty country estate - especially Chelsy, who is much, much richer than Harry.

You know that even if the queen cancels out the Sussex title, people are still going to call her Princess Meghan or Duchess Meghan.

Just like Diana continues to be Princess Diana.

People who use nicknames for the pair should be automatically banned. If I see "Dimwit," "Harkle," "Sparkle," "Me-again" or any other stupid name, I immediately skip the comment. You sound retarded and the dumb nicknames dilute whatever point you wanted to make.

R123 And you sound fragile and unstable. Blocked.

If Fergie is still a Duchess, then the titles remain. The American did nothing to deserve disgrace or attacks. Shame on all of you who believe she did. I never say her naked ass or tits while she had the title. Anything she did before, like the rest of them, is off the table for criticism.

She tried, it didn't work and you've all got what you wanted, and so did they. What's the problem here?

R125 She didn’t get “attacked”. She was criticised. For some odd reason, she (and evidently, you) thought she should have been immune.

And why was she (and Harry) criticised?

For gleefully accepting a £35m wedding and £3m house from the public then treating us like nosy lepers when she gave birth to the 6th in line.

For instructing photographers to come and capture her being showered with gifts by her millionaire friends while her husband stayed home lecturing the rest of us about poor, hungry children.

For visiting a charity for women who can’t afford even second-hand clothes while dressed head-to-toe in bespoke Oscar De La Renta.

For making pronouncements about our carbon footprints while using 4 private jets in 2 weeks.

For going to a country to meet girls who have to take boxing classes to avoid being raped but only feeling moved enough to talk about HERSELF and how hard HER life is.

The problem, you clueless dickhead, is that she has now declared she wants to “step back” from royal duties (ie: not bother to do them) while still accepting 95% of the entirely unearned income she did before, all of the 24/7 security and the house and the title - and have the right to only give info to the few sychophantic “journalists” that still like her.

She and Harry were (are) public servants, not Kardashian style self-made celebs. What part of that are you struggling with?

Oh, forgot the best bit...

On top of keeping everything they currently have in return for doing nothing that they currently do they want the right to use the title of Duke & Duchess of Sussex (a gift from the Queen and therefore the people of the UK) to make money.

She’s a cunt. And yes, I do think this is all her and Prince Prat is going to be back in Nott Cott a year from now broke & divorced while she makes eyes at Jeff Bezos.

(Man...think of the wonky eyed brats those two would produce!)

Bill Maher took the Sussexes and the entire BRF and institution to task tonight, LOL.

Klaaaaaaaaaaan Thread

Saying nicknames are stupid is not a sign of "fragility."

To RF experts - I read that the staff from Frogmore Cottage are getting the axe.

Will they get other jobs within the RF system or are they out of luck and out on the street?

The staff at Frogmore Cottage are being re-assigned to other RF staff positions.

Wasn't part of the Sussex "announcement" from last week that they planned to maintain a residence at Frogmore Cottage?

R126 = vile, obese, 82 year old female Klan leader.

They didn’t spend five months in Frogmore Cottage before pulling a runner.

Three million pounds, and they only lived there for maybe a hundred and fifty days. How much does that work out to per night?

3,000,000.00 divided by 150 nights is 20,000.00 per night, r135

For that price they could have bypassed Frogmore completely and just stayed in the Corinthia Hotel's Royal Penthouse Suite every night they were in the country.

The Sun also has this gem on its front page today:

MUGXIT: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle take a bashing as Sussex Brand souvenirs are dumped in bargain bins

R128, Maher's right about the inherent contradiction between their being progressive and their wanting to stay royal (and M's willingness to marry into it).

The part about ditching your family is iffy. Obviously there are cases (abuse, eg) where severing ties makes sense. But otherwise, learning how to handle one's own and others' faults is a part of good mental health. I'm a natural loner/introvert, but I recognise that humans need communities and one's family is one of them.

I'm wary of people who use the term "toxic" to describe their families.

What I want to know is, is Doria an orphan whose parents were both orphans? There are no siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents popping up from Meghan's maternal side of the family...what's that all about?

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

I'm sure that Meghan has asked her mother's side of the family not to grant interviews. They respected MM's request while the Markle Klan didn't.

R140 The racist media believes that only White people should be subject to media scrutiny.

R142 That photo in R141 was "shared" by Megs uncle. So he's one of the Klan as well.

They’ve sold quite a lot of photos, R142. Oops. I’d be embarrassed for you if you weren’t such an abhorrent, race-baiting cunt.

The uncle has had a couple of interviews and showed photos. He speaks highly of MM unlike the Markle trash. It has nothing to do with skin color, you asshole R142. I'm not race-baiting.

The Ragland side has class. The Markle side does not.

Copyrighting all the possible Sussex Royal tat is a diversion. First, it's a clumsy moniker, "Royal Sussex" sounds better, more fluid but some other entity has that designation.

I've always thought that they copyrighted to prevent commercial use by others. (No matter, the Chinese can drop ship a container of copyright-infringing crap and sell it out before any authorities manage to impound it). Designing, producing, importing, warehousing, and selling branded items is a big undertaking and a LOT of work. I don't think they want to get into all that.

But if they do, and are prevented from using "Sussex Royal", they can pivot to another one. Something gooey like "Harry loves Meghan" or something uplifting and affirmative like a variation of "Thrive" or "Strive".

But that takes time so they'll sign on with a speaker's bureau and do motivational speeches. There will be companies that will pay them to sit on their board. A book, not a tell-all but something empowering, How to Make a Difference! MM will be driving all this, dragging Harry along behind her. I think he'd be happy being a house husband, raising Archie, puttering around. But she needs him out there, reminding people. He'll take to drink. Living outside the bubble is going to be a shock.

Can you imagine how the media would react if the black side of Meghan's family behaved the way the Markles do? Seriously. Just imagine.

[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.]

R142 - Oh, you're sure?

You must have missed the article on the DM last week quoting her maternal step-grandmother.

She ditched them all after launching herself into showbiz, although her father held on till she started dating Harry.

You're delusional. Not one relative from her mother's side at the wedding? Not ONE?

Please. She's cut herself off from her entire blood family, with Pop the last to go, because Meghan is about nothing if not self-reinvention, and in order to do that you have to cut yourself off from your past.

Megs wasn't "reinventing" herself. To be successful, a grifter must keep her marks as far apart as possible, so they can't compare notes, potentially exposing the grifter and her grift.

Doria’s family has the good sense to keep their mouths shut (but their photo album open). The Markles are loudmouths.

I try not to judge too hard when people cut off contact. Sometimes it really is necessary. But I’d never create a family with someone who came from that place.

It’s no surprise that Meghan would accept a gift worth $1,500. It’s her due, after all, as a highly klassy royal personage.

What surprises me is that the charity in question would lavish their funds on her in this way. Did the money to purchase the necklace in the first place come from the charity’s public donations? From government funding? Wouldn’t that $1,500 have been better spent on their cause — justice for girls — as opposed to a bit of tat for a multimillionairess?

I think her media strategy is misguided. She should have stepped out of the limelight for a spell, then make a limited number of appearances at charity events. No social media. That's what the Obamas did. Of course the Obamas have a lot more class and credibility, but everyone says she's using them and the Clooneys as a model. Even the Clooneys limit their exposure. She's diluting and cheapening their brand before they even get started on their own.

I'm not mentioning Harry because he's still in the UK but the same applies to him. They both need to disappear for a while if they want to be able to capitalize on their brand.

Go ahead, call me a KKK member.

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

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

40 years ago today, photographer Cecil Beaton died. He photographed members of the Royal Family for years. Here he is taking photos of the Queen. Swipe for the end result.

It's Tiara Time...swipe for the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara.

For history buffs, swipe for the life of King Henry VIII - Part One.

Swipe for Queen Victoria's sapphire coronet.

You know, in that set of photos on the Vladimir that, allegedly, Meghan was in her delusional mind hoping to wear, is one of HM wearing it without either emeralds or pearls in the circlets, and it looks rather odd that way.

It is certainly magnificent, but to me lacks charm - I rather like the necklace with the Cambridge emeralds in it better.

R159 - It is remarkable how much the young Elizabeth (and her father) resembled Mary the Princess Royal, her aunt (and his sister).

Princess Mary lived a quiet life and was married to Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl Harewood, and I assume that the sapphire coronet is now held by that branch of the family. Shame, as it would have looked tremendous on Diana with her huge blue eyes.

Harry and Meghan are losing their titles and public funds.

They're not "losing" their titles. They're just agreeing not to use them. Unless HM issues Letters Patent stripping Harry of his HRH, they remain, technically, TRH Prince and Princess Henry, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

It's still a demotion, but it affects Meghan more than Harry, because she wasn't born royal and in the event of a divorce without UK citizenship, she loses it all, but Harry still remains HRH Prince Henry Charles Albert David, which is probably why HM did not issue the Letters Patent.

It's still more than either of them deserve. I'm disappointed that the Queen is playing make-believe with this "not going to use" bit.

I'm reading different opinions about the HRH issue? CNN said they lose it.

Washington Post headline:

Britain Prince Harry and Meghan to surrender their 'royal highness' titles

They are no longer HRH! FUCK THEM CUNTS!

They have to payback the renovation costs. I guess Charles is the loser in all of this, he has to pay soo much!

Breaking news in CNN.

They will no longer use royal highness titles.

They will still be Duke and Duchess, why weren't those titles taken? If they need a title, knock them down ro Baron. Make Harry pay for their security.

"But that takes time so they'll sign on with a speaker's bureau and do motivational speeches. "

I'd dearly love to see Harry's idea of a motivational speech!

"... and if you work hard and believe in yourself, YOU TOO can be born wealthy and famous and whine about having to do a few days work a year in return for your privileges and blow it all off! Are we done here? RIght, someone get me a drink."

I sincerely hope this HRH deal involves those two paying for their own security from now on.

Because their attempts to earn money are going to be so very very funny...

He still gets Diana and the Queen Mothers money. And Charles can give money from private funds. Right? The one thing I will say for Meghan is she's willing to work hard. They are going to be good. I just hope Americans don't make fools of themselves over them.

Any mention of security?

They won't take public funds so no security. They have to pay for themselves or maybe canada has to pay LOL!

Was the Queen responsible for cutting off Diana's security? That didn't go so well and they sure had to regret doing so.

I hope Prince Andrew isn't knocking on the Palace door suggesting he can take over some of these duties.

R152, you seem to labor under the delusion that charities spend their money helping people.

Most of them don’t.

The cost of these two shitheads has been transferred from the U.K. taxpayer to Prince Charles. He’s got a lot of dough, but not enough for Meghan. She’s gonna bleed those soft-cocked idiots DRY.

And good for her, if they’re dumb enough to pay her.

False fact #1 - the Queen Mother's alleged trust funds for those two was a rumour that was never confirmed. She died broke. The only trust funds for which there are records and proof are the ones Diana left each son.

False fact #2 - The Queen didn't take away Diana's security - Diana airily dismissed them, saying she didn't need them, after all, Dodi had bodyguards. She did, however, at Charles' insistence, take away Diana's HRH.

False fact #3 - They have not "lost" their titles; they have simply agreed not to use them. Unless the Queen issues Letters Patent announcing that Harry is no longer an HRH, which anyone with half a brain knew she wouldn't do and predicted she wouldn't do, he remains HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and his wife remains HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex. No Letters Patent, no loss of HRH - just a gracious agreement with HM not to use them.

They haven't lost anything except a slate of onerous duties and responsibilities that neither of them wanted.

But that means they will not be selling “Sussex Royal” items, which may be the point of it.

"They won't take public funds so no security. "

I'd bet my 401K that they're willing to use Charles' funds for security.

At least, until they decide they're financially independent enough to pay for it themselves, which will never happen.

H&M certainly have brass, I’ll grant them that. I’m trying to picture what my employer would do if I told him I’m quitting and I want a generous severance package. I suspect I’d be laughed out of the building on my arse.

R178, if you worked for your doting grandma, it would happen.

R178 I've worked with a couple of blackmailing people who did that and were successful (and they didn't work for their grandma). It was cheaper than a big lawsuit.

Harry will never ever fall off the public radar. I believe he'd be welcome in CA. The cold Prince Charles is coming across like a warm doting rich dad, similarly with HRH. She has come across in all this sounding like a loving, worried grandma. I don't think Harry will really pay anything. His dad will always be covereing for him....because - Harry.

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

This is Meghan's revenge on the Hollywood pezzonovantes who snubbed her back in the day.

They're avoiding discussing the security issue which probably means the government is going to pick it up but unofficially.

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

The criticism that Meghan ddn't meet with the 500 women served by the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre is unfounded. If you look at their website, it says that work with 250+ service providers.

Women who are fleeing domestic have to be protected against the men they are fleeing. In almost all cases, the locations of the shelters themselves, are kept secret. Otherwise, the violent men would come and try to hurt their women and the kids. The people and courts know that interceding in cases of domestic violence is a very dangerous, volatile situation. The most dangerous time for a women is the time when they leave their abuser.

The paparazzi follow MM. The secret location(s) of the shelters would be revealed and be very dangerous for the women. Most probably the pffice she visited does not a shelter at that location.

70% of the women served by the centre are indigenous. Indigenous women have the highest level of violence directed against them than any other froup.

I think people making a big deal over the voiceover comments is petty and mean-spirited (but, no, not RACIST). Im not saying R182 is doing that. R182 is just conveying information.

They were joking around and making party small talk. Yes, there might have been a grain of truth in it and their conscious or unconscious minds impelled them to put it out there, but so what?

Beyoncé’s body language in that clip is hilarious. She looks SO uncomfortable, scratching her nose and looking desperately around like “wow this is embarrassing”.

Harry will have the time now to get this laser treatment for his bald head.

Meghan needs to sign up with a talent agency and let them look for work for her. Harry knows nothing about how that works, of course, but why isn’t she doing it?

Oh, God, please keep me alive until the divorce and I will donate a tenth of my pension to the RSPCA annually.

I bet the Royals watching the video are cringing! Stooping to a new low...

Royals fancy themselves as high class...begging like that is something frowned upon.

[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.]

R191 Unless you're in the final throes of something terminal, you'll be around for the divorce. We all will.

(But give a couple of quid to the doggies anyway.)

R193 - In this sense, the Queen has played it somewhat cagily. The optics say, "I've been magnanimous to the wayward grandson and the hustler wife who took taxpayer monies knowing they were on their way out, stabbed William and Kate, and Us in the back, and who will still have a luxurious lifestyle funded by Charles. I've left them their HRHs and said nice things about the bitch who clearly never intended to keep on with the drudgery of royal duty if she could get out with the perks. I can, therefore, also show magnanimity to the wayward son who, by the way, hasn't been convicted of anything."

Did anyone think that HM was never going to be seen in public again with her son?! His daughter is getting married in the spring, one day in the near future he'll become a grandfather and the Queen and Charles and the Cambridges will come to the christenings . . . family life goes on.

The expectation that HM would forgive Harry and Meghan publicly for virtually taking a wrecking ball to family relationships and the integrity of the monarchy, but never be seen with Andrew again, let along carrying out their Christian observances, was always, shall we say, unrealistic.

Perhaps HM wasn't as much of a patsy as we thought.

R187, we're definitely petty in enjoying the gossip, and they make it so easy.

Even in the first video with Iger it was clear that Harry wasn't joking, but that he followed it up with another pitch to Jon Favreau should make it clear to you, too. Harry is dumb. Meghan, who may have put the bee in his bonnet, is smart and knew how crass it was in that situation and thus joked about them being there for the pitch.

I'm sure we'll have a lot more gaffes from Harry now that he's been released into the wild.

It's Tiara Time...swipe for George IV's Diamond Diadem.

A cartoon of the Sussexes with PM Trudeau.

^^ Meghan with her original jawline.

R195 I agree, this was the perfect time for the Queen to trot out Andrew. She can play the "in your face" game just as well as Meghan.

The best things that H&M should do ASAP are:

1. Reimburse the $3.4 million spent to renovate Frogmore Cottage

2. Have a forensic accountant figure out how much Thomas Markle spent on MM since her birth. Pay the mofo off! I doubt that they can get Thomas Markle to sign a non-disclosure agreement beause he is narcissistic , lying nut.

3. MM and Archie should join Harry in England and spend a week with the Queen and Prince Philip. Can they all go to Balmoral or has it been closed for the season? Then, they should spend time visiting all of the RF relatives, including play dates with William's kids. All talk of Megxit is off-limits. Try to repair the damage between Willam, Harry, MM and Kate.

4. I'm not sure if they should drop the Sunday Mirror lawsuit or try to win it. If they win, they need to give ALL of the money to charity.

5. Get Bogart the dog back, if he's still alive.

6. MM shouldn't renounce her US citizenship. It sounds like she'll need it for tax reasons.

7.It is good that she is wearing laid-back clothes that are already in her wardrobe.

8. They should rent or buy a house in Toronto and rent a vacation house whenever they vacationand mix it up with the locations.

9. Buy or rent a house in Malibu, so they can be close to Doria.

10. Re-connect with the Raglands and have them meet Archie.

11.Cut all ties with the awful Markles, except maybe the pot-grower guy.

R193 It is really bad that Andrew is welcomed back into the fold publicly. The Queen just can't ever say no to her favorite, Andy.

I wonder if this was done to try to help Beatrice 's wedding, by hoping that the furor will have died down by her big day.

Andrew really is a spoiled brat. Seeing how much Elizabeth favors him makes me feel kind of bad for Charles.

Ann comes off as a bitch, but I think she's witty. I wish she'd change that helmet hairdo.

Lady Chatto and Princess Alexandra are lovely royals.

Was there any criticism of Beatrice and Edo attending the 5 million Pound wedding of Starvos Niarchos in St.Moritz?

Today, the headlines are saying that it was "a sweet reason" why MM changed her "outfit" during the visits to the 2 women's and girl's places. The day before yesterday, the headlines called it "bizarre" that MM changed her "outfit."Now that reporters know that the whale necklace was a gift from the second place, they've changed their tune. It shows that Meghan & Harry can never win.

I just think it’s absurd that she set up a charity visit and then once she was there accepted an expensive gift from THEM.

Should she have thrown it back in their face, R206? Whatever she does or doesn't do, someone is going to twist it to be negative.

She can politely decline the expensive gift and request that the money spent on it be channelled back into the charity in question. Think of how selfless and magnanimous that would look.

R207-- Unless the gift was given with the thought that her wearing it would be publicity to the charity

I can just imagine the Hollywood types at the Lion King debut, thinking they were going to participate in one of those "royal" movie events like those found on Youtube (see link below). You know, everyone dressed up as the royals move down the receiving line, with bowing and curtsying by the Show Biz group, and friendly chatting by the royals.

Instead they are hit up by the low class branch of the RF with an arm twisting attempt at a job search.

Imagine having your Royal receiving line anticipation dashed by the crass reality of what really happened.

I bet the stories were winging across the Atlantic bare minutes after the event.

Not the "Royal Film Performance" that was anticipated and not like what they pictured.

She could also auction the necklace off and give ALL of the proceeds to the women's shelter.

You see, there are many ways she could have made it a more positive story. But she took the necklace and ran away with it. It's simply not in her nature to be altruistic. She uses her charity visits to promote herself and her brand.

R206 The necklace was designed by a First Nations artist, Hollie Bartlett. It was a nice gift, welcoming MM to Canada. It helps Barlett and the gallery that sells her work. It cost $1700 USD retail and was seen by more people than any ad would have been seen. The ad probably would have cost more than $1700 USD.

R208 To reject the gift would have been highly insulting.

I wish that H&M would have worn the hats, which had been given to them earlier by Australia Governor Cosgrove, when they visited the farmers for lunch and were out in the hot sun. It would also have be nice to see Archie with the plush Kangaroo that was a gift for him when MM was pregnant.

Go to 2:55 minutes in.

I would hope that H&M conduct some sort of fundraiser for the bushfire damage and injured animals.

The closet of the Duke of Windsor. Shoes, glorious shoes!

R207 She should have reimbursed them for it so that it wasn’t a gift, and then placed a link about the artist on her website.

But we both know that she would never do that because she’s not going to get a cut of any future sales.

Some of the nasty headlines that Kate has endured over the years.

R193 It hasn’t even been two months since that interview. The Queen is completely out of touch with what her people. FFS, keep that pig on lockdown for at least the next year or two.

The director of the shelter commented on the fact MM didn’t meet with any women, r186.

Well the actual abused women are at a secret location where they're safe from whoever it is that abused them, of course the press-seeking Duchess didn't go visit them! If she did and put their pictures in the media, it'd endanger everyone there.

So there's nothing wrong with a duchess visiting the staff of a women's shelter to thank them for their good work, but SHE should have been the one handing out gifts and donations when she was there, not accepting them as if she were the center of the universe. I guess she doesn't really get this Lady Bountiful thing.

She doesn't want to be Lady Bountiful, she wants to be seen! She wants photos of her in a positive environment with poor, unserved people.....she can smile and look gracious. And come off looking like a savior.

Now we're learning she probably grifts off the charities too.

They will be fine. Netflix is interested. They'll present documentaries on various issues and be paid exceptionally well.

From the Guardian:

Netflix is among global companies already eyeing them up. The streaming giant’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, said of working with the couple: “Who wouldn’t be interested? Yes, sure.”

Their soon-to-be new status as non-working royals could see them following the example of former US first couple, Barack and Michelle Obama, who agreed a production deal with Netflix to make TV and film projects.

The couple were unwilling to subject themselves to any financial scrutiny or review in future contracts they struck. The trade-off was they could not use their HRH styles, though they retain them.

The UK is my home and a place that I love. That will never change.

"I have grown up feeling support from so many of you, and I watched as you welcomed Meghan with open arms as you saw me find the love and happiness that I had hoped for all my life. Finally, the second son of Diana got hitched, hurray!

"I also know you've come to know me well enough over all these years to trust that the woman I chose as my wife upholds the same values as I do. And she does, and she's the same woman I fell in love with

In retrospect, the downgrade from KP to Frogmore was the beginning of the “this isn’t working for me” exit strategy. The whole thing is still bizarre and I don’t believe this end result is what MM really wanted. She’s nothing if not media savvy and she’s smart enough to know her star power is strongest as a full member of the BRF. The doors that were opened will start to shut. The best course is to keep to the agreement, be shown doing only good works and after TQ dies, renegotiate with the new king to return on their terms.

R215 You are ridiculous.

R206 The necklace probably was purchased by a rich patron of Justice for Girls. I doubt that it came from their operating budget. They would have wanted that money spent on their girls' programs.

R219 The necklace came from Justice for Girls, which was MM's second stop. It did not come from her first stop at the office of the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, which helps women who are victims of domestic violence.

R201 - Balmoral in January? Not! It's never "closed" or "open" - it's a private residence of the Queen, she owns it personally, on about 40,000 acres of the richest land in Scotland, and it's always staffed and maintained. It's only a question of is HM is residence or not, which is almost always during the summer months.

As just last week Meghan managed to try to steal a bit of Kate's and William's thunder during their visit up to Bradford by arranging a photo op at a women's center that she knew would land on the front pages the same day as the Bradford visit, I wouldn't count on any "repairing" of the relationships with William and Kate, who know perfectly well that they are dealing with a vicious bitch who can't be trusted as far as she's thrown. They may wish to heal some of the breach with Harry, but unless forced to, William probably will do anything he can to avoid being in a room with Meghan again, and, frankly, I can't blame him.

Meghan is suing the Mail on Sunday, primarily. That's the big case where her father may be called as a witness and the Mulroney climber, who is probably prancing in her tanning salon about having "backed the right horse", as they say.

No one really cares about Bogard.

MM doesn't have to renounce her US citizenship - the UK and America have dual-citizenship agreements. If anything, dropping her application for UK citizenship is a better idea, including for tax reasons and she probably would if it weren't for the little matter of nailing her title down legally (right now, it's just a courtesy extended to her).

She'll wear whatever the fuck she pleases, which is what she did when a "real" royal. As soon as she gets invited to something grand, she'll appear in something grand again.

Rent or buy? When they have billionaires offering them grand homes for free" Would you?!

She doesn't care about being close to Doria, and Doria keeps careful distance from her endlessly needy and controlling daughter. Vancouver and L.A. aren't exactly far apart.

Reconnect with the Raglands? Why?! What makes you think they haven't pegged her for the user she is and decline to be part of her image reinvention? She only chases white dick, has had two white husbands, and Archie looks about as black as Marilyn Monroe. He'll stick out like a sore thumb. If I were the Raglands, I wouldn't even take her call.

The only Markle she should come to terms with is the father who loved her, spoiled her, busted his arse to get her through an expensive university without emerging loaded with student debt, got his brother to pull strings and get her than internship in Argentina after she flunked the exam, and then got tossed to the kerb the moment she began dating royalty.

That citizenship application has been misplaced (read circular filed) per a quiet word in Brit Immigration's ear. It's the last carrot the BRF have, a means to save themselves a shitload of money and aggro when the divorce happens. A dang furriner has far less leverage than a Brit citizen.

Kate is on the cover of Hello magazine.

Today is Sophie's birthday.

Swipe for royal orders and regalia.

R223, there’s a story there.

In the beginning, there was a story about the property Queen Elizabeth have Harry and Meg as a wedding present. Then another, about a different property. And then Frogmore was announced. These stories came out over a few months.

Now, I don’t know the Queen personally, so maybe she does change her mind often, about the gifts she publicly bestows. Maybe she’s fickle and indecisive, and takes things back a lot. As I said, I don’t know her.

But my guess is that Meghan didn’t want York Lodge, or Amelia Cottage, or whatever. And finally the Queen put her foot down.

A straight acquaintance referred to Harry as “the artist formerly known as Prince Harry”, which was a bit surprising because he’s not the type to pay attention to this news. I asked him what he thought and he called Harry “a sucker” and said Meghan was manipulative.

HELLO is not stupid. Royalty, movie stars, and famous athletes are the magazine's bread and butter.

As could be predicted, the nexus of royal status is now William and Kate - the Queen has rather cocked it up by letting the Sussexes get away with so much bad behaviour, Charles and Camilla are already old folk.

Just as they did in the Wallis Simpson debacle, and here history repeats itself again, the great landed aristocracy and untitled but important gentry of Britain know where that nexus is and have no intention of abandoning it for a couple of Kardashian wannabes who left the fold for filthy lucre and stuck a knife in the ribs of the Queen and the next two Kings.

Rose Astor (that would be Rose Nancy Langhorne Astor, daughter of David Waldorf Astor, grandson of Waldorf Astor, 2nd Viscount Astor and Clare Pamela St. John), was the first of the lot to come out mocking Meghan's "It's not working for me" bleat' her post was subsequently deleted. Hugh van Cutsem is one of William's and Harry's set of close childhood friends. Hugh's and Rose's daughter, Grace, was a bridesmaid at the Cambridge wedding. Her cousin, Florence, daughter of Hugh's brother Nicholas, was a bridesmaid at the Harkles' wedding. Florence is also Harry's goddaughter. The late Hugh, Sr., was a close friend of Charles' at Cambridge.

Meghan probably thinks, good riddance to bad rubbish where the English aristocracy is concerned, but these are Harry's "peeps", his brother's peeps, and his father's peeps. In the long run, Harry may find himself missing them as he tries to fit in with the L.A. set.

If these types have to choose between the future King and Queen Consort of Great Britain, where they all live, and a forlorn Harry trailing along in his wife's crass, eager, celebrity wake . . . . I don't think it will be much of a contest.

HELLO would be nothing if not cognizant of these realities. That cover and the mention of a "class" act, with a photo of Meghan in the RH corner, are not accidental.

Kate was a lady in red tonight.

New engagement for Will and Kate.

[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.]

Kate's dress tonight.

That hair!

Touchy feeling.

Let's try again.

A young Anne with very BIG hair.

The Queen has the unique perspective of being one of the few people still alive on earth who knows exactly what was discussed about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor’s arrangements, what they thought about it, and how it affected the rest of the family, including her own father and her own family. She’s got a good idea of how this affects William and Kate, Harry and Meghan, and age probably has some good ideas about how to prevent it from being the mess it was with the Windsors. People forget that.

The difference between Vancouver and Los Angeles is 1275 miles. That’s about 2,051 km. It’s not next door.

About the women’s shelter, I donate to one frequently and they know my face. They are very high security. You have to be buzzed in. When I make two trips to the car, I have to be buzzed in two separate times. There is a guard present at all times. There is a camera by the door and they buzz you in by camera, then there’s another locked door inside and you have to be buzzed in to get in there. That’s just to donate a teddy bear and not actually talk to anybody. They’re not kidding in there.

I don’t even know where the actual shelter is and I’ve been going there for years. When you want to donate or interact with staff, it’s a secondary location. There’s no way to call the shelter or visit it or even be told where it is. And forget about taking pictures with the women who live there. They’re afraid for their lives and being revealed is their worst nightmare. So of course she didn’t see them. I can’t even see them and I’ve cleared out almost an entire house and donated it to them. I’ve had a relationship with them for years. She may well have wanted to visit the women and was told no. I can guarantee they would never discuss that with the press.

My local women’s shelter is very underfunded and they were probably damn glad to get any attention at all. Her visit probably inspired others to donate and they constantly need money. It’s a good cause.

Kate is smart, distract from all those frightful Sussex headlines by cutting bangs and wearing red.

R243 - Fair points. Just the same, you have overlooked that Meghan timed that visit so the photo op would land on the front pages on the same day the Cambridges undertook their high profile visit to Bradford. It may not mean much that she didn't go in and meet any of the clients, but the fact is, she did it to be bitchy. It's her nature.

Meanwhile, Kate looked good tonight, Sophie looked dreadful. No one with arms like Sophie's should wear that length sleeve. She looks cheerful but dowdy. Even Anne, unusually, looks better.

The family are setting to work to make it clear that the BRF doesn't need the Sussexes, and, indeed, it does not. The idea that Britain will go into mourning and remember the day next year with Big Ben tolling it out, is the delusion of the CB fraus.

My guess is the BRF is using their connections to get the tabloids to say nice things about Kate.

Look at the headlines above. They specifically say she and William are discussing babies and family, as if no proper woman would have any other idea in her head, work is bad, and Kate is incapable of discussing charity or anything else she is legitimately involved in. They’re describing her as a headless brood mare. That’s a Victorian era description of a lady, not a modern description.

Those headlines seem to be implying Meghan is evil because any woman that wants to have a job must be evil or crazy, and a proper lady only thinks of her vagina and what falls out of it, nothing else. That’s not flattering to Kate either.

Wait until this all dies down. When Meghan and Harry are out of the spotlight, they’ve still got to attack somebody. Kate won’t have her black sheep sister in law to distract the tabloids, so she may find herself on the chopping block with them again.

R245, do you think the shelter is sorry they got publicity all over the world, because the press wanted a picture of Meghan doing anything, just at that moment? That’s like a hundred years of publicity for them.

Shelters operate on a shoestring. It’s like winning the lotto.

Jesus, the unlimited power of the BRF - HELLO isn't a tabloid, for one thing. Maybe someone ASKED Kate a question about babies. In the meantime, the woman is quite obviously hosting an important fucking reception that included the PM marking an important relationship between Britain and Africa.

The headlines in HELLO are the sugary stuff that HELLO makes its bread and butter off and always has. What did you expect? A dissertation on woman's place in the public sphere?

In the meantime, what the photos show is a highly placed woman who will in probably the near future turn into Princess of Wales and then Queen Consort of England, doing her job and doing it well.

^*Queen Consort of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (apologies to Scotland, Wales, and NI)

R248, so why didn’t they describe Kate as hosting an important reception? There’s nothing offensive about that and anybody would say she’s doing her job. It makes her sound smart and hardworking.

My point is, if some of these reporters have such exceptionally narrow views about what women are supposed to do, the day may come when Kate wants to be acknowledged as more than an inanimate body part. I know she’s happy doing what she’s doing, but everybody likes to get credit for what they’re doing. That headline about “babies” is cringe. She isn’t pregnant and her kids aren’t tiny infants at this time. She is more that a baby oven. The others are described as people, with personalities. The only worker bee in the family isn’t William, accompanied by a headless body.

It’s not improper to describe Kate as a human.

[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.]

R250 - Why? Because it's fucking HELLO Magazine - their readers have an emotional age of ten. You'd go into a diabetic coma if you so much as picked up the paper version. There should be a warning on the magazine's cover.

If you actually READ the captions below the photos on the DM, actually, yes, they do MENTION that she and William were hosting an important event.

But apart from all that, HELLO and the tabloids aren't here to educate the public about women's place in the public arena.

I think Helen Lewis just published a piece on that in The "Atlantic". Try it: you'll love it.

Why, imagine that! An impromptu pap shot of a beaming Meghan Markle with baby and dog in tow JUST on the day the Cambridges host their big reception!

What a coinkydink!

And it must have been a coinkydink that her women's shelter photo hit the papers just as the Cambridges headed up to Bradford!

Will wonders never cease.

Hello! magazine’s mandate is to publish only positive things about celebrities. It’s in the mission statement.

[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.]

Listen, I'm sorry, that baby looks like 12 months, not 8 months. He's always looked significantly larger for his age and he is, actually way too big to be carried in that sling that way at this point. He should be in a stroller. There's always been something strange about his size relative to his age. Harry and William are big boys, it's true, but something about Archie looks . . . unnaturally large for how old they say he is.

At two days old, his face wasn't even squishy or reddened and he looked six weeks old.

I have never been able to shake that something really fishy went on with that birth.

R256, shame you are such a tedious, cliched tinhat of a woman. Larries also say that Freddie Tomlinson looks a year older than his real age, so he must be fake. You saw Archie aged a few days old, so do you think he was a year old then? Or four months old? He is a big child, carried by a small woman. When Harry holds him, he looks tiny. People said exactly the same thing about Elizabeth Hurley's son when he was a baby/toddler.

I think the baby is on formula, she's not breast feeding. Maybe they put all kind of vitamins and shit in the milk and they all grow so fast and big.

Why all this talk about a domestic violence shelter? I thought it was a regular women and children shelter, you know, for poor women and their children. Has nothing to do with running away from violent domestic partners, just a regular ass women's shelter (children included).

That looks like a fake baby Meghan's carrying.

Let's be honest, this is probably an accurate representation of Piers Morgan's life:

OK, I admit it, I clicked on the recent Canada pictures.

That poor baby.

Archie is once again being held like a sack of potatoes with his face pressed up against his mother's coat. HE CAN"T SEE ANYTHING.

These pictures show once again that MM seems to have no interest and no connection to that baby.

At that size, he should be in a back carrier so that he can look at the world around him, not have his face jammed against her front.

I find this very troubling.

And, yes, even new mothers can learn how to hold their babies and that the baby needs to observe the world around them.

This picture is only about her. Not the baby at all.

Shame on her.

And I defy the Markle lovers to defend this. behavior. It is just plain wrong.

I don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theories about Archie, but he is HUGE. What a baby Huey! And why is he all limp and falling out sideways? Is he too big for the carrier? That photo is bizarre.

Meghan is reverting to who she was when Harry first fell in love with her.

The kid is way too big for a carrier, that's for infants. He's stroller size now, but she's showing off. And he's uncomfortable.

He’s too big for that carrier, and unless he’s asleep, it’s mean to mush his face against her so he can’t see. Babies that age want to see everything and experience the world.

And he IS big. I don’t think it’s the formula. Harry is tall, and if formula makes bigger babies, I know a bunch of puny little kids who were cheated.

I had to laugh at the photo of triumphant Meg looking straight at the camera. It’s uncanny.

Now that her husband isn’t there to gripe about it, and she’s in the land of the free, she can do all the pap walks she wants. It must feel like heaven.

Has Meghan ever held a child before? She has a 9 month old baby smooshed against her chest with legs dangling wouldn't the baby prefer to see out? Smiling ear to ear, she loves the attention.

The baby is off-kilter. It looks like it’s nearly half her height. Is it going to be like Barron Trump — taller than her when it’s 11?!

Of for fuck's sake, you trolls are so ignorant! She knew there was a strong chance of being papped, so she is hiding Archie's face.

r270 why hide his face? He's a baby, big deal let him get his picture taken.

"Listen, I'm sorry, that baby looks like 12 months, not 8 months. He's always looked significantly larger for his age "

Oh for fuck's sake, Harry is a big man, and Meghan is an eensy little woman who barely comes up to his shoulder when she's wearing 5' heels. Any baby would look outsize when photographed with her, a baby who takes after a large father more so. Find something else to bitch about.

Well yeah, R268, of course he'd prefer to face out, but then people wouldn't be looking at Meghan's face.

Get with the program.

The agreement that they will stop using the HRHs, without Letters Patent being issued, is clearly a ploy so that Harry can resume his after she leaves him, while Meghan's can be quietly (but legally) binned.

[quote]while Meghan's can be quietly (but legally) binned.

The same bin that contains her application for Brit citizenship.

R274 - You may be right. The whole style and title thing for Meghan hinges on obtaining UK citizenship. It's unknown at this point whether she's willing to stay in the UK for long enough each year over the next three-four years to keep the application alive. If she isn't, it lapses, and then, in the event of a divorce, she doesn't even have it legally to use as a bargaining chip, whilst Harry retains his without effort.

The BRF also probably have other procedural issues to consider around this. If Harry, also, is out of the country for long enough each year, title/style or not, he can no longer function as a Counsellor of State, and his suitability as a potential Regent for Prince George comes into play, in which case Harry may as well just give up the ghost and resign his place in the line of succession.

So, although it looks as if the Queen went easy on them, she may have done so aware of more things than are apparent to the public.

I wonder if Meghan is furious at how much Harry agreed to, as he was the negotiator, and it was really only Harry who had the power to agree or not. They hoped, clearly, to keep their titles, use their HRHs to commercialise their brand, keep Frogmore Cottage for free, and remain half in and half out to keep their feet in the royal pond and some of the more prestigious patronages (e.g., Meghan and the National Theatre).

In the event, they had to cease all royal representation, can't use their HRHs, must repay the expenses of renovating Frogmore, at least in the public eye (meaning, Charles will do it for them, which was probably part of the bargain), may or may not have to pay rent on it, and will lose all patronages, including Harry's military ones, that were given by the Queen.

Charles' money was probably one of the threats held over Harry's head, as well as an unpublicised but privately expressed insistence that he and Meghan get out of Dodge and make themselves scarce for a very long time . . .

I'll be curious to see if they show up at the Trooping the Colour in June. There's no reason for them not to, as nonworking royals such as the York girls and Pss. Michael and the Phillips have, but it will also yet again throw the spotlight on the Susssexes and away from the rest of the family.

There’s something fishy about the Frogmore cottage arrangement. If they are repaying the renovation costs, why should they have to pay market rent? That’s a landlord expense.

Frogmore seems to be a disaster all around. The publicity around the reno costs was a disaster, and it really isn’t a great property. I don’t think H&M have handled things very well, but Frogmore was a slap in the face and a very stupid move by the Queen. Meghan may not have been a movie star, but she was reasonably successful and it’s understandable that she would have the expectation of really great digs as the wife of a British Prince, the son and brother of future kings. I don’t know the area outside London at all, but Frogmore looks about equivalent to a $4-5 million dollar house in Rye. The house of a yoga mom whose husband “does well” on Wall Street or a mom who is a lawyer married to a doctor. Why put up with all that shit to live at Frogmore?

But maybe the property has fantastic aspects I am missing?

Royals getting affectionate last night.

It's Anne's turn.

Will's speech last night.

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

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

Swipe for the Imperial State Crown.

If any of you want to live in royal residence, there is a part of Richmond Palace for sale!

Swipe for the life of King Henry VIII - Part Two.

yes I agree with the poster above, the baby is held in such a way so he isn't blocking her face, so the paps can see her full face, if she had carried the big baby the "right" way, her face wouldn't be visible 100% and that just won't do for a selfish cunt like her!

She's got the baby the wrong way around so that she can raise the fee for pictures of his face.

Q: How did you decide to enter the film industry and which genres most appeal to you?

Q: Why did you decide to make your debut film a comedy and why did you base it in the tech industry?

Q: How long did it take to film and how did you manage to secure the cast and locations?

Q: How did you find a production company to work with?

Q: What’s your favorite part of the movie and why?

Q: What’s the most memorable behind-the-scenes story you have?

Q: What other films have you written and what are they about?

Q: What are your ultimate career goals?

Q: What projects are coming up for you soon? Also, what plots might you like to explore in your next film?

Q: Is there anything else that you would like to talk about?

Every time I hear another comment about Camilla the homewrecker or poor Harry lost his mum, my eyes roll back into my head.

That marriage was doomed with or without Camilla. I can't think of a pair less suited to each other.

The ginger has access to every possible mental health avenue on the planet. If mommy's death is still a daily trauma after 25 years...get help.

R277 - That is not "landlord's expense". Frogmore has no real landlord per se - it is part of the Crown Estates, explained at least several times on these threads. It is jointly the property of the government and the Crown and as such falls into a murky area.

The "landlord" in this case was the UK taxpayer, who cannot use, sell, or gain by selling, owning, or renting the property, but IS on the hook for maintenance through the Sovereign Grant and the Grant-in-Aid. The taxpayer was told that senior royals are entitled to have the State pay for their "permanent home bases". The excuse given for the expense spent on Frogmore was that it would be the Sussex's "permanent home base" as they fulfilled their obligations to the monarchy and the nation.

They lived in it for all of one year. So, yes, they should pay back the taxpayer AND they should then pay a fair rent for it. That rent doesn't go to the Queen, but is put back into the coffers of the Crown Estates, whose revenues are used to add to the resources of the Sovereign Grant.

The Sussexes laid out virtually nothing here, but were afforded a luxurious five-bedroom home whose structural renovations were paid by the UK taxpayer, and whose furnishings and fixings Harry's father paid for.

In the event, they stuck it to both the taxpayer and Charles. They owe if they want to "retain" Frogmore as their "home base in the UK".

R289 for the win.

Swipe for the relationship of Mr. & Mrs. Brooksbank.

What's with the beanies? Hate that look.

Peter Phillips isn't a "royal" although the media call anyone with any blood ties to a royal family, "royal".

He's a private citizen. He has no title, no "style" of address other than Mr and is not funded by the Sovereign Grant or the UK taxpayer. He and his wife are free to make money any way they choose without worrying about violating royal boundaries. They took 500,000 from HELLO Magazine for exclusive coverage of their wedding. The Queen was allegedly displeased by that, but it didn't stop them.

He is not a royal or royal. He is 15th in line for the throne. He can do as he pleases without asking permission or forgiveness.

Harry and Meghan are in entirely different positions: taking money from the taxpayer, obligated to represent Queen and country in return, six placed from the throne, and accorded the rank of Prince and Princess.

Peter Phillips could run for office if he wished. He is a private citizen whose grandmother happens to be Queen.

That makes no sense R290. If I own a dump, I can get a modest rent for it, or I can fix it up at my expense and get a higher rent. I can’t make a tenant pay to fix it up AND charge the higher rent.

Sure, there’s some possible exceptions, like if they insisted on very specific modification that were expensive and don’t improve the marketability of the property. But there is no reason to expect them to cover the entire expense of bringing a run down property that had basically been used as a dormitory up to high standards and than pay the market rate for a property in excellent condition

They are playing a shell game with the funds in order to placate the public. Probably to distract from their security expenses. No way the rent AND the renos are coming out of Markle’s pocket.

R295 - You're missing the point: no one "owns" Frogmore Cottage outright. You may own that mythical dump, but the Crown Estates aren't owned outright by either the monarchy or the government. There is no outright "owner", only "managers".

But you are correct that the Sussexes, on their own, without Charles, could never pay back the reno bill or the commercial rent; to do the former, Harry would have to liquidate $3 million from his trust fund, and Charles won't let him do that.

By the way, also included in the Crown Estates are Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, and Clarence House - all royal residences whose renovations and upkeep are also paid out of the Sovereign Grant. The renovations to the Cambridge apartments in Kensington Palace were over £4 million.

No one "owns" those, but the taxpayer is paying for their upkeep and maintenance. They are, as the quaint saying has it, "vested in the state". But the "state" doesn't get to live in them - only the royals do.

But those renovations are done on the understanding that the resident royals will be there for many years. Kate and William agreed to remain in their digs in Kensington Palace for many years - until such time their "circumstances" change. That is, the Queen dies, Charles becomes King, has to make his London residence in Buckingham Palace, and the Cambridges take over Clarence House - which is also about undergo maintenance renovations, the last round of which Charles did support with money of his own.

So you see how it goes. In fact, Charles loves Clarence House and they all hate Buckingham Palace - Charles may well decide to have only official offices at BP and remain in his beloved Clarence House, and the Cambridges remain in KP for decades to come - in which case, the taxpayer won't be so ticked off as they were at Harry and Meghan for taking the money for extensive renovations, and then leaving the place in a year.

My guess is that rent won't be an issue because at the rate they're going, the Sussexes won't be in England long enough to justify retaining it. They'll end up using a suite of rooms in Buckingham Palace or St. James Palace, the way other Lesser Royals do when they need to stay in London.

R287 is sweet. I'm sure that's the minor motivation.

Below is some info on the Crown Estate:

"The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the territories of England, Wales and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate. The sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, and exercises only very limited control of its affairs. Instead, the estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right". The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government. These revenues thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury, for the benefit of the British nation. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, where it is legally mandated to make an annual report to the sovereign, a copy of which is forwarded to the House of Commons."

So you see, it's not a straightforward owner/manager/landlord situation.

The Frogmore estate comprises the main house, recently renovated and open to tourists in the summer, beautiful grounds and some outbuildings, one of which was Frogmore Cottage, a Grade II listed building. The Queen offered this to the Sussexes as a "grace and favour" residence on the assumption that they would be full-time working royals for the rest of their lives, and after renovations, would remain there. Their "service" to the monarchy and the nation would be their "rent".

But having ditched their roles and declared that the place would no longer be their permanent home base except when they deigned to visit the UK, the Sussexes forfeited their right to retain the place "rent free".

Other royals who do not work for the monarchy also have "grace and favour" residences and pay rent for them: these include Pss. Eugenie and her husband in Ivy Cottage, and Prince and Pss. Michael of Kent, who also have an apartment in Kensington Palace.

I hope this makes it clear why the Sussexes should be paying rent if they wish to retain Frogmore Cottage, even if the renovation bill is repaid to the coffers of the Crown Estate.

'Harry and Meghan are in entirely different positions: taking money from the taxpayer, obligated to represent Queen and country in return, six placed from the throne, and accorded the rank of Prince and Princess.'

Nope. They're not representing the queen anymore and they haven't got titles. They aren't taking money from the tax payer either. Have you been in a coma for the past two weeks? You seem out of date.

There used to be a number of older Aunts of the Queen living in Kensington Palace. I think it was Edward VIII that called it "The Aunt Heap".

When the demand was made that rent be paid for these apartments, the Queen picked up the costs of what would be the rent for these older ladies.

Some of these ladies were quite elderly and had lived in their apartments for many years.

I'm sure some one of the DL RF experts could provide a list of those inhabiting "The Aunt Heap".

R299 do catch up

R301 - I have not only been actively participating in these threads since their Dangling Tendrils days, I'm perfectly well aware what the Sussex's current situation is.

In point of fact, Harry still IS six places from the throne, he still IS a Prince of the Blood and an HRH (even if he isn't using the HRH), things Peter Phillips never ever was, and that does put Phillips - nonroyal, a private citizen, never been on the Sovereign Grant, and not likely to cheapen a brand he actually never possessed - doing product ads for money in a different category from the Sussexes.

Harry and Meghan ARE in a different position - they were taking money from the taxpayers up until five minutes ago, they are still royal, Harry's father is the next King . . . and they're still hoping to take taxpayers in two countries to the cleaners for their "security" costs. When they do product ads for money, it's different.

They wanted to retain Frogmore rent-free and tried to do that by being "half-royals" and the Queen said, NO.

They had it rent-free when their service to Crown and Country was full-time.

Now they aren't full-time working royals, which my posts made abundantly clear, so if they want to retain it as nonworking royals, they have to pay up. All of which was made clear in my posts on the Crown Estate.

It's you who haven't kept up. The difference to the monarchy even of the now nonworking Sussexes still six places from the throne and retaining their HRHs doing product ads for money, and Mr Peter Phillips doing so, should be manifestly obvious . . .

even to you.

R300 - I think it was Charles who came up with the "Aunt Heap" and one of them, at least, was his Aunt Margaret.

It was Edward VIII who coined the term "Aunt Heap' for KP because several of his actual great-aunts did live there. Two of the daughters of Queen Victoria, Louise and Beatrice, lived there n their dotage and I believe died there.

Prince Philip's maternal grandmother, Victoria Marchioness of Milford-Haven (granddaughter of QV) also lived and died there, in the 1950s. Later on Princess Margaret lived there, well into her elder years, and of course a post-divorce Diana.

No, R303, Wikipedia is your friend.

It was Edward VIII who coined the phrase "The Aunt Heap"

And the name stuck and was used for decades by others in the RF.

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

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

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

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

Clarence House mentions the electric car but not the private jet. Tsk, tsk.

Charles meets Greta Thunberg in Davos.

A video of Kate & the 5BigQuestions campaign.

This week, The Countess of Wessex is visiting Sierra Leone to learn more about the important work being done to support survivors of sexual violence in conflict.

Charles looks worst than his mother The Queen.

It's true, Charles isn't aging nearly as well as his Mum.

My recurring idle fantasy: Charles is raptured suddenly next month, and William is not only suddenly Prince of Wales, but, therefore, the leading royal in charge of "reviewing" the "deal" the Sussexes struck with the Queen.

Harry and Meghan will be getting their royal P45s, or will hasten to send in their REAL letters of resignation and jump before William pushes them.

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

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

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

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

I can see a little resemblance of Queen Mary in Princess Margaret here.

And we know how quickly in the elderly (very elderly in this case) those colds can turn to bronchitis and then pneumonia . . . that, in fact, was what finished off HM's mother at 101 when it seemed as if the Queen Mother might live forever.

Wouldn't that be a shocker? As soon as H&M are out the door Her Maj is raptured, Charles steps up, no longer able to indulge them with quite the lack of accountability the Sussexes might like - and William is Prince of Wales, controlling the funding from the Duchy, and itching to finish them off because of how Harry's wife is STILL treating his wife and the monarchy.

I can just see the funeral now: Harry and Meghan a little way back, trying to look subdued, and William and Kate, with NEXT UP stamped invisibly on their foreheads making it obvious that they are trying to evade contact with the Sussexes, including the occasional baleful glance toward Meghan from William, and Charles trying to look like an effective patriarch despite Cain and Abel right there in the pews in front of him.

Actually, I'd take wagers Meghan won't even come to the funeral, it will be just Harry, who will, with William, have to make up two of the four military guards around HM's casket as the public file by.

"The Queen cancels annual visit due to a "cold". "

There's a nasty, nasty cold going around. Sniffles and sneezing and fever and a sore throat don't sound like much, but the fact is it took me an hour and heroic effort to get out of bed and made tea this morning. Even lifting the fucking mug of tea is a strain! I wouldn't wish this on a 90-something, not even my worst 90-something enemy.

Maybe she’s trying to avoid the cold germs herself, rather than having one. At her age, anything like that can finish a person off.

R321, the "duchy" in question, with all the money, is Cornwall. Not sure it comes in a package with Wales? Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall, isn't she? so that'd be awkward.

R321-- It comes in a package with Wales-sometimes. The Duchy of Cornwall is intended to fund the Monarch's eldest son, the Prince of Wales. Camilla is the Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke of Cornwall.

The Duchy of Cornwall is a problematic one as it can only be awarded to the Monarch's eldest son AND heir. So, if Charles dies before his mother, William will be the heir (and can be created Prince of Wales) but he will not be the Duke of Cornwall and will not have access to the Duchy funds.

Furthermore, The Duke of Cornwall must be the Monarch's eldest son who reached the age of majority. So in the unthinkable situation that something happened to the entire Cambridge family, Harry would be Prince of Wales (once Charles accedes to the throne or dies before his mother) but cannot be Duke of Cornwall (because William as the eldest son reached the age of majority) and will not have access to the Duchy funds. He would not have access to the funds even when he becomes king because at that time, the Duchy of Cornwall (and its money) would legally belong to Archie as Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales.

From yesterday's Guardian. Ella Lui works on Lainey Gossip and as a Canadian TV presenter.

For now, the public speaking circuit is an obviously lucrative path for them both. Lui says Harry will have his pick of boards to sit on, and could potentially head a company’s philanthropic arm. She sees particular opportunity in North America, liberated from the “institutions and traditions” that make royalty distinct from celebrity.

The importance of royalty to Harry and Meghan’s popularity has been overstated, says Lui. “If anything, the Duke and Duchess are even more famous and intriguing to people now than they were six months ago.” Princess Diana was also without a title, she says – “and it didn’t stop her from maintaining her status as the most famous woman in the world”.

Undoubtedly, Harry and Meghan won’t be free to accept every offer of #spon – but nor would they want to. The revelation on Tuesday that the Queen’s grandson Peter Phillips plugs milk for state-owned dairy farms in China as a “British royal family member” is a further indication of which way the winds are blowing.

It is an influencers’ world, more than it is a royals’. The family you were born into matters less than how many people are paying attention to you – and Meghan and Harry have the world transfixed. “There’s so much opportunity there, they don’t need the title,” says Lui. “From the very moment that they revealed their relationship, they have been a worldwide obsession, and the only way that we collectively and culturally become bored by an obsession is when they become boring. And when, in the last two years, have they been boring?”

Attention isn't the same as popularity, R326.

They are fucking dreaming...

Harry is a dumb cunt, what can he offer? It's all superficial and BS. No substance...

Sure, you petty bitches know better than Disney t and the head of content at Netflix. Harry and Meghan are two of the biggest celebrities on the planet. Their name recognition alone is huge, even if they called their brand Harry and Meghan.

Good to see SussexRoyal is now on 11m, same as Bald and Cuntherine's IG. It will soon overtake them.

"Princess Diana was also without a title, she says –..."

does anyone else see see the incongruity in that sentence?

R325 is just pulling shit out of their ass...

Via Wikipedia: Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues will pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown.[10]

So, an heir might not be the Duke of Cornwall, but they still get the revenue as they are the heir apparent. And, if there is no "eldest son heir" to get the title and revenue, the title goes into storage and the revenue revert to the monarch until there is a legitimate "eldest son heir". I mean, do you think all that income just vanished from the time George VI took the throne in 1936 until he died in 1952 and Elizabeth became Queen and Charles automatically became "eldest son/heir and the one to inherit Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall titles?

Yesterday's New York Times Daily podcast featured a news guy who was pressed into covering the Harry-Meghan story. His hot take was that it was Brexit voters who drove them away, but it is they (the Brexit voters) who are now suffering because the whole thing has weakened the monarchy, which they (the Brexit voters) revere. And racism.

Oh God the Blame BREXIT For It Brigade.

The truth is most people in Old Blighty didn't give a fine, flying fuck about the Meghan and Harry one way or the other and still don't - they may care more about the Queen and the Cambridges as the next Throne Couple if they stop to think about it, but mostly they don't - you can't go by the tabloid comments below the line - that's a self-selected group. Harry;s and Meghan's wedding got the lowest ratings of any royal wedding in the UK to date (globally is another story) and a shockingly low number of applications for licences for street closings for parties to "celebrate" - lower even than the Wessex wedding.

This is what we mean when we say Americans, including American reporters, have little grasp of the real social and political landscape of Britain, but pull assumptions out of their own arseholes that fit with the political agendas of the NY TIMES and CNN.

"All BREXIT votes are racists, and Meghan left Britain because of racism, therefore, Meghan and Harry left the royal family because of BREXIT.:

Never mind that Harry has shown doubts about his role for years as well as some mental health issues. Never mind that Meghan has a long history of tossing people out of her life once she doesn't need them any longer. Never mind that Meghan may have completely deceived herself in her fantasies about what royal life and its constraints entailed. Never mind that she couldn't even be bothered to head up to Balmoral to pay a courtesy visit to the Queen a few months after the wedding . . . never mind all the mistakes Meghan Markle made . . .

It was really BREXIT that made the two entitled brats, for whom a five-bedroom, rent-free home at Windsor after a $3 million makeover wasn't good enough . . .

Really?! REALLY?!

And, the story is already wrapping fish and chips and do please remember that it was Meghan who thought she could control the narrative when she opened the war with the UK press a year before becoming engaged to Harry.

Somehow, none of these issues ever make it into American news media stories about The Persecution of Meghan Markle at the Hands of the British Monarchy (still supporting them financially) and the Racist Bigots in Sunderland . . .

No one, really, at bottom cared.

Meghan was totally unsuited to royal life, something a blind man could have discerned.

And Harry is a whingeing immature idiot, as practically every word out of his mouth in the last couple of years has demonstrated.

That's why they're gone.

I can’t see a public company putting Harry on the board of directors. He’s too widely known as a complete idiot. Shareholders would be pissed.

R334 - Well, in fairness, it wouldn't be the first time in history a dolt figurehead was put on the company letterhead to attract investors. Privately, the shareholders would be assured that the operations of the firm were being handled by the CFO/CEO, whatever.

^and that's why it was so important to the Sussexes that the Queen leave them their titles (Duke and Duchess of Sussex), and not remove their styles of HRH even if they were precluded from using them.

That letterhead won't do jack in attracting investors if it says, Harry Mountbatten-Windsor and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

The Queen really could have fucked them "royally" if she'd done what she allegedly considered doing. No Sussex, therefore no Duke and Duchess, no HRH - at most they'd have been left with Prince and Princess Henry Mountbatten-Windsor which is pretty but, especially to American ears, odd.

R335

Given their high profile and higher drama, I can't imagine anyone with a functioning brain cell wanting to be involved in any enterprise with their name on it.

One thing I don't get - who would ever want to listen to them? How can anyone think they have anything worthwhile to say, given their hypocrisy, self-righteousness and massive sense of entitlement, which have been on display for all the world to see?

why would anyone put Harry on a board of anything?! He is only worth 40 million. He ain't no chelsea clinton, he didn't even go to university. At least Chelsea is smart and her parents actually did something.

[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.]

R335, shareholders of public companies don’t get assured “privately.” Well, I’m sure some large shareholders do, but it’s illegal. There are rules as to how information can be disseminated.

Swipe for Anne's public events in Lancashire and Cumbria.

Louis at the National History Museum with his nanny. Too cute!

Swipe for Prince Charles' visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Charles in Bethlehem.

New engagement for Kate on Jan 28.

[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.]

At my Whole Foods, there’s a magazine called “Meghan and Kate”, with photos of the BFFs all over the cover.

Seriously.

R347 - "The BAFTAs are coming up for Will and Kate"

So they are - I hope Kate rocks the gown and rocks the rocks. (Kate: wear the emeralds.)

The Cambridges have official engagements coming on 27 January - attending the UK Holocaust Memorial Day Commemorative service in Westminster Abbey (oh, dear, Meghan, let's see you get yourself on the front pages to fog THAT one!)

Kate has something on the 28th

William has something on the 30th

And both will be at the BAFTAS on 2 February.

Deah deah, I expect we can look forward to a slew of Meghan Promotionals on each of those days - we could probably make bank wagering on at least the BAFTAS and Kate's event on the 28th.

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

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

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

The interview with Ellen has been denied, by HELLO and PEOPLE - the latter, Meghan's reliable mouthpiece.

The photos of Meghan and India were taken by her own photographer on trips set up by an agency that specialises in helping celebrities establish humanitarian creds.

The now nearly incessant drumbeat of self-promotion is doing nothing for Meghan but making her look determined to beat the public over the head with ab I Am Good I Am Important I Will Not Go Away club.

The news about Fergie's "Duchess" line of tatty goods coming on the heels of the Sussex Merching dream should stimulate another coughing fit back at Sandringham. And there's still the lawsuit to go with all the ugly shit that will come out both about Charles' son's wife and her father . . .

The Queen and Charles and William must be tearing their hair out. I stand vindicated when I asserted that Meghan is uncontrollable, has not a grateful bone in her body, that the more her marks oblige her, the more ruthlessly she'll treat them . . .

If the BRF want to survive into the next century, they'd better figure out a way to cut the ties between themselves and the Sussexes. They may not legally be able to stop her from making a jackass of Charles' son and chasing money, but they aren't legally obliged to smooth her path as she does it by leaving her her title, style, and floating her financially as she does everything she can to cut their throats - especially William's and Kate's.

Charles has an ugly choice in front of him: indulge the son who is allowing his wife to damage what Charles' entire life, and his other son's future, is built upon, or be responsible for that damage, which will be permanent.

Fergie has been living off the royal and public purses since her divorce, living rent free with Andrew at Royal Lodge and flitting about in clothes she can't pay for, living a jet set life on someone else's money and over the years continuing to embarrass herself, her daughters, and the BRF. They should have taken her Duchess title away, too. If they had, she wouldn't have gone around all these years using it, and now using it to make money.

If the BRF want anything resembling a monarchy that retains its dignity, they have to figure out a way to cut the cord for real, and start playing real hardball.

It's beginning to look like it's them or Harry.

We shall see if this turns out to be true - extortion?

Narcs do NOT like to be shown up.

The original source of the $90 million extortion story is this week's National Enquirer....

^I wouldn't put any stock in anything that publication prints - they make stuff up as all those outlets do.

Anyway, it's a safe bet MI5 and the BRF have enough on Meghan and Harry to make it really not worth their while to do a "Panorama, Part 2" interview. It got Diana the boot, forced a divorce she claimed never to have wanted ("What about the children?! Diana cried indignantly, when asked about the divorce - clearly, she wasn't thinking about the children when she gleefully spilled it all to Andrew Morton), and lost her the HRH that she did wanted to keep.

Patrick Jephson, Diana's private secretary, talked about that interview later to London’s Mail on Sunday: “I think the scales fell from her eyes and suddenly what had been rather a subversive or daring scheme — or however they (the BBC) had dressed it up for her — it suddenly in the cold light of day didn’t look like such a good idea.

“I knew from her general demeanour, her fidgeting, that she was not at all confident about what she had done and that the full implications were dawning on her. So you had this mixture of anxiety and defiance.

“I think by the time of the broadcast, she deeply regretted it, not least because it did nothing to advance her cause.”"

Something about this sounds terribly au courant - I wonder if the scales are at all slipping from Harry's eyes yet.

Not Meghan's, though. She never learns from her own mistakes, let alone someone else's.

Harry has been wanting to slip the shackles of royal life for years - Meghan was just his excuse. Even if they divorce, he won't return to live in a country he doesn't even like.

The Queen has appointed Prince William as Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year.

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

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

Harry's life as a popular member of the BRF is the only one he's ever known. Once he fully experiences life on the "outside", he may miss it. All of it, including his birth country and the culture there.

Everyone focuses on Harry, but William is the one left holding the bag. He must feel abandoned by his brother.

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

It's Tiara Time...swipe for Queen Mary's Fringe Tiara.

Tiara No# 2 - Queen Victoria's Diamond and Emerald Tiara.

Tiara No# 2 - swipe for The Oriental Circlet Tiara.

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

[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.]

R357- He will return once he discovers that the rest of the world isn’t going to pay bills for a divorced, bald ginger just because he’s Royal

r350 one positive thing is she hates Trump

That hardly distinguishes her, r369. It's like saying "One positive thing is she has two feet"

This is funny.

Prince Charles is interviewed.

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

It's Tiara Time...swipe for The Fife Tiara.

There's a new Times on Sunday article about "vulnerable" Harry and Meghan. Is anyone willing to share or summarize?

Swipe for the life of the Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.

From r367: “ It was this big, crazy NDA’d thing, that’s how we knew Meghan was involved from the off,’”

Hahahahaha. That’s hilarious. She’s getting quite a reputation.

Also hilarious that they knocked down a fountain to make room for more tables, and then she stood them up. At least it wasn’t a multi-million-dollar renovation like the one at Frogmore.

There’s a lot to be learned in this little article.

HAHAHAHAHA

Better start packing for LA!

That is perfect, r378. What will their woke friends make of the fact that they are supporting theft from indigineous peoples?

And yes that is a very telling detail from that article r377. For the owner of the Ivy, which is London's celeb central, to say "we knew it was Meg because of the NDA craziness" speaks incredible volumes about how she conducts herself. What he means is "we have celebs in here morning noon and night, and no normal celebrity acts like this with us, and no Royal has ever acted like this with us" until, that is, Meg came along.

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

The fact that the baby was left in Canada after a 6 week vacation and missing Christmas with the 93 y o queen is astounding. Will Liz ever see this baby again?

Swipe for the Queen's wedding bracelet. It was given to her by Prince Philip.

Meghan will never wear a tiara again, r383. Start a Tiara thread or a general BRF thread if you want to talk tiaras. This is a Harry and Meghan thread and your attempts to derail it are not appreciated.

Of course Meghan will wear a tiara again!

She'll get them on loan from Harry Winston, like every famewhore who ever hit a formal red carpet.

What is this about?!

Preparing for the inevitable Sussex divorce, r386, but the BRF and their courtiers can't very well say "We want to make sure Harry feels like he can come home to us". So, they have to say "We want to make sure they both feel like they can come home to us".

Kate has photographed two Holocaust survivors.

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

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

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

Will holds an umbrella for Kate today as they arrive for the Holocaust memorial.

Black & gray wins the day!

The cover of Hello magazine.

It's Tiara Time...swipe for the Cartier Halo Tiara.

Harry will never leave Meghan – it would be too much of an admission of failure and of bad decision-making, plus he’ll only get to see that kid a few times a year.

On the other hand she will get sick of him once he starts drinking heavily out of boredom and regret and will boot him probably within three years.

We’ll know once she hires a hot nanny.

[quote]Harry will never leave Meghan – it would be too much of an admission of failure and of bad decision-making

Ginger does it look at his fuck-ups as "failure or bad decision-making". His view, repeated over and over, is "It sounded like a good idea at the time".

I don't think he will leave either. He's the type who will make the other person leave, like have affairs, drunken fights, all kinds of shit.

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

She’ll do what Jude Law’s ex-wife did to torpedo his new relationship – hire a bubbly 22-year-old as the nanny and send her on her merry way.

Kate looks wonderful in those photos. She has great legs...

"I don't think he will leave either. He's the type who will make the other person leave, like have affairs, drunken fights, all kinds of shit. "

I've said before that he won't want to admit he's made a mistake and leave, and for her part, she won't be able to replace him easily, not pushing forty and with a kid. So IMHO the marriage will last longer than most people think it will, certainly it'll outlast their feelings for each other

I don't think Harry will go crawling back to the royal family when the marriage finally breathes its last gasp, I think he'll finish the job of becoming Andrew 2.0 without the Palace around to hush it up.

Tiara Talk is certainly relevant to the topic. Just scroll on by if it's a worry.

It's hard to believe that William once looked like this.

Camilla at Auschwitz today.

Assuming that the DM story about Meghan and Harry having been offered royal life without titles or having to work the patronage line is true (and with these tabloid folk you can never assume that they are), then the betrayal of the two is even worse. It signals a bone-deep cynicism and bad faith from the start, which many sensed in Meghan, for sure, the moment she was out of the starting gate.

She didn't "regret" giving up her career because her career was about to flicker out - she was 35, no great shakes as an actress, and not a raving beauty. She didn't "regret" anything. She got what she came for and THEN pretended to have made the wrong decision, and THEN expected the BRF to fix it for her. But why should they have done so when it was entirely her decision?

IF this is true then the Queen went way too easy on them. Maybe it is about Archie, and the Queen and Charles figured if they roiled the waters too much, they'd never see the kid again.

What they keep seeming to miss is that indulgence never matters to Meghan - they could still never see the kid again, or more than once a year.

How Harry is capable of colluding in that is incomprehensible. It leaves his kid with one grandparent, no aunts, uncles, or cousins, and no ties except his name to the "royal tradition into which he was born".

Doesn’t look like they will see the kid again anyway...

"It leaves his kid with one grandparent, no aunts, uncles, or cousins, and no ties except his name to the "royal tradition into which he was born". "

I want someone, hopefully Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, to remake "Kind Hearts and Coronets". And put it in a modern setting with a throne at stake rather than a Dukedom, and have the hero be called "Archie".

For a very good read from a first-hand perspective about the BRF's perennial dysfunction and refusal to follow advise, this piece by Max Hastings, a journalist and historian who socialised with the Charles, Diana, Nicholas Soames, and Christopher Geidt set, this article is priceless and many grades above the shit being turned out by Andrew Morton, Kay, Palmer, Junor, Arbiter, Jephson, and the rest of the lot.

https airmail.news issues 2020-1-25 an-open-letter-to-harry-and-meghan

It's at once amusing, exasperated, sad, and probably completely on the mark.

R409, that was a good read. Thank you.

Thanks R409. It's refreshing to read an article that offers some real insight.

R411 - Pleasure. I believe Hastings has hit the nail on the head throughout. I'm surprised he was as forthright as he was about Charles' self-absorption; Diana and Charles - what a perfect match: a self-absorbed twat and a clinical narcissist!. No wonder the earthy, motherly, emotionally self-sufficient Camilla was the right woman for him.

I was also interested in Hastings' comment that the Harry train wreck was predictable as soon as Harry so unwisely quit the army - I wish Hastings had fleshed that out a bit more, although some guesses are obvious.

And last but not least, one shouldn't miss Hastings' belief that Kate is the best thing to happen to the monarchy in a century or more. I suspect this opinion is now shared by the courtiers now, and the Queen and Charles.

If the Windsors can really pull the Sussex thorn out of its side, and let William and Kate step ever more forward, the Cambridges may just save the monarchy for George.

Charles sounds unbearable. No wonder Camilla likes her gin and tonics!

Word of the week: Sussex Royal Andy Shaw 24 JANUARY 2020

Definition The trademarked, collective name of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Revenue-generating adjective).

Derivation Prince Harry and Meghan Markle resigned from the British Royal Family to turn themselves into a celebrity brand – the ‘Sussex RoyalTM’. The brand has been carefully crafted to encapsulate their deeply felt personal values of high self-worth and privilege encased in something known as ‘social awareness’. It is understood that the couple will launch a range of charities with associated revenue-generating enterprises. Opportunities include: a private jet business to tackle climate change; an organic food range to raise awareness of world hunger and a clothing line to end the oppression of female actors. There is no truth in the rumour that plans include a Sussex RoyalTM potato to compliment the Jersey Royal and the ‘abdication spud’, officially known as the King Edward.

The Queen has insisted that the couple must not use the title ‘HRH’ within their product range and rumours that the couple tried to negotiate the use of a title once popular in the Royal household – The House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-GlücksburgTM. – are entirely false. The Sussex Royal TM brand is estimated to be potentially worth $400 million. This far exceeds the value realised by a similar brand coined for a previous power couple, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt – ‘Brangelina’. It is to be hoped that the Sussex Royal brand also survives for longer.

Use “Fish and Sussex Royal chips please, wrapped and ready to go.”

[quote}Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie likely to step into Harry and Meghan's roles, says royal biographer Robert Lacey.

Many of you have been predicting this move, but we'll have to wait and see.

R414 - Ah, a hilarious take from The Speccie - thanks for posting.

Meanwhile, for what it's wort, YouGov.uk ("What the world thinks") has just released its newest poll on the relative standings with the populace of the royals:

The Queen, William, and Kate now hold the top three places, the first time Kate has sped by Harry, who has sunk from 1st, then to 2nd, and now to 4th place. These four are followed by Philip, Anne, and Charles (in a rather ominously bad 7th place), and bringing up the rear at 8th . . . Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Meghan was unquestionably the best thing to happen to Kate Middleton since William popped the question. Kate came out, in the UK, the undisputed winner of the Princess Sweepstakes.

The fraus on CB are still pretending to themselves that Kate is a disaster for the royal family and should be "fired", and that everyone really misses Harry and Meghan.

^* what it's wortH

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

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

Swipe for Queen Alexandra's Necklace.

They should let Bea and Eug take over, since it’s too awful for Harry and Meghan.

A little boy took a beautifu Polaroid picture of Kate. Scroll down to see it.

CB has taken a very dark turn lately. Kaiser encourages and allows the lunatic fringe to run rampant. I rarely visit anymore because it's more unpleasant than amusing or informative, but I can imagine Kaiser will either ignore the poll results or twist them to fit her sick narrative.

WTF are CB and Kaiser?

Sorry, R424, I was responding to R416.

^CB is the website Celebitchy and Kaiser is one of the writers there.

R423 - Yes, it has. Their blazing hatred of Kate and William is palpable, and they ignore the reality before them: the Cambridges won this, in terms of public approval AND the BRF's future.

The stuff I sometimes catch there is mind-boggling in its refusal to face reality: Meghan and Harry are the tarnished also-rans in terms of royal Britain, and they helped make Kate and William look golden.

R426 - Kaiser is the primary writer on Celebitchy.

I think there is an ENTY Blind out as of 20 January stating that Meghan wants to withdraw the lawsuit, but the MoS won't agree, it wants its days in court so it can embarrass the shit out of her.

She'd be a fool not to withdraw it. No one, but no one, will care one jot by the time it comes to trial what the outcome is, but what will hit the headlines about her from witnesses called by the defence will stick to her like mud till the end of the chapter.

R412 "And last but not least, one shouldn't miss Hastings' belief that Kate is the best thing to happen to the monarchy in a century or more. I suspect this opinion is now shared by the courtiers now, and the Queen and Charles."

That comment strikes me as poignant because of another one I read on the CasualUK subreddit. There was a nice post featuring a clip of William using sign language to present an award to a man for his services to the deaf community. People were saying complimentary things, and one person stated that she hoped all was well with W&K because she has a close friend who works at a posh hotel in London and Kate has been living there almost full time since last summer. Yes, the story could be factitious but it was striking because of its offhand tone - the person didn't seem to have any axe to grind.

Kind of supports those rumors about a superinjunction being in place about the couple, which I had previously dismissed.

R429, even if Will and Kate were on the outs, I HIGHLY doubt she would be living in a hotel, posh or not. There are too many risks for leaks. No way would she be living anywhere without her children and the children would be seen coming and going from the hotel for school, etc. If they were separated, the BRF has many places one or the other could go and live comfortably with complete privacy. I don't buy it for one second.

I don't believe W & K are living apart. I do however believe that maybe 10 years from now we will learn that they have been living separate lives for many years.

R429 - What a load of bullshit. Yeah, Kate is living apart from William in a posh hotel where staff could set themselves up for life selling the story.

They're quite obviously fine, and yeah, the story COULD be "fictitious" but that's immaterial since all you want to do is deflect attention from the total mess the Sussexes made of things in less than two years.

Jesus. Talk about transparent.

Did you actually read the article, R432? Or were you too busy dealing with your personality disorder?

Yeah, if Kate were living apart from William, it'd be with the nannies and kids. Who knows, maybe she keeps a hotel suite as a pied de terre or she has a man there, but if she had a man on the side surely she'd be more discrete than parading him in front of the hotel maids.

But the fact is that however Will and Kate are getting along in private, she's hustling the "good princess" act in public and doing her bit for the family firm!

There's no reason why the York girls can't be 'brought forward' to take on official royal duties. That is, if they want to do it at this point, since they've both built up private lives. Their husbands would have to be on board with it, esp if it meant any junior foreign tours or travel abroad.

The one condition for this to begin to happen would be that their father (Andrew) would have to stay far in the background. No official return to BRF work. low profile even at personal family events, etc. Ditto for Fergie.

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

That post doesn’t make sense...^

R437, we had just discussed the possibility of Will and Kate living separately. I was just pointing out that they had both been photographed coming and going from Kensington Palace. That doesn't prove there might not be a rift. I just don't think there's much evidence for that, but I've been surprised before.

Fantastic outfit on Kate posted on R418. She looks cool and modern when she wears a suit and often looks frumpy in dresses. I think because of the full skirts. If she wore sheath-style dresses, she'd look great.

However privately disappointed Kate may be in her marriage, you can be very sure she'll never rock the boat. She's dedicated herself to this role for the last 20 years of her life.

Thank you, R437! I thought it was just me.

Someone on one of these threads mentioned that Celebitchy was going to a "very dark place" where the Cambridges were concerned. Or perhaps it was bannedfromcelebitchy, I cannot remember.

At any rate, Kate has done three engagements consecutively this week, two of them involving visits to children, one a children's hospital, the other a school. The school she visited today was mostly black, so the photos of her are engaging with the children, something Kate does spectacularly well, and that Meghan notoriously did NOT.

Turn to CB, and Kaiser indeed has an article up about it, and the ENTIRE comment thread below is seething indignation accusing Kate of "using black children as props" and insinuating that she does this all the time - despite the fact that the day before there were large photos of her with a little blonde girl at the children's hospital.

I have to say, CB is beginning to acquire a reputation as a lunatic hate speech forum.

These ARE British children - are they not as entitled to visits from their future Queen as white children are?!

But lastly, it is a foregone conclusion that if Kate were to have been photographed only with white children at white schools, you can bet your arse that the comments thread would jeer at her for only caring about her "own".

The level to which the pathological hatred of Kate plunges on this site, aided and abetted by a petty, hypocritical woman feeding it to retain the clicks and ads supported by a set if women angry that the mixed race American cocked it up so badly and so quickly, and was so glaringly unfit to do the work that white English Kate seems to do effortlessly, is staggering.

It's the Angry SJW White Woman's version of Stormfront.

I shouldn't have been shocked, but I was.

"Props" - the Duchess of Cambridge is using black kids as props as she goes about her work of patronage. She should ignore them and stick to white kids.

But no one, of course, would ever dream of suggesting that Meghan Markle was using black kids as props in Africa - no, indeed not.

R441, have you never heard of confirmation bias?

A casual Kate visits another school today.

Royal job ad: anyone in the UK interested in working as Princess Alexandra's private secretary?

[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.]

Camilla held a reception for hospice staff.

Swipe for the life of Henry VIII's first wife, Katherine of Aragon. She was the mother of Catholic Mary I.

It's Tiara Time...Alexandra's Wedding Diadem Tiara.

The Queen's cousins, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Alexandra of Kent attended a concert together.

By 2050, there will be more people over the age of 60 than under 14 for the first time in human history (WHO). Today, The Duchess of Cornwall visited age-friendly Banbury.

Sophie Wessex opens a new university facility. I like the "Hello, my name is Sophie" badge.

Princess Anne fills in for The Queen.

Tiara Time continues...swipe for Queen Alexandra Maltese Cross Tiara. It's now worn by the Norwegian royal family.

Yes, the "Tiara Time" posts are relevant. They show what Meghan is not going to ever be able to borrow again!

Of course she'd probably rather borrow from Harry Winston than QEII.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2020 Blind Item #5 The alliterate actress turned royal turned whatever it is she is now wants to drop her lawsuit, but the tabloid isn't letting her off the hook. They don't even care if they lose at this point. They want their days in court and the spectacle of the trial.

Well, they all seem to be doing spectacularly well in the absence of the Sussexes, who went back to business as usual today by announcing their support for a mental health charity.

Obviously, neither Meghan nor Harry have availed themselves of its services.

Given Fish Lips Mulroney's "pretty pictures" swipe at Kate, Meghan must be pea green with envy with all the attention the Cambridges (and other royals) have received. The trains didn't stop running because the Sussexes left town and that must drive her mad. Those that even cared about this mess a bit have moved on to Kobe, impeachment, corona virus, etc.

I hope the BRF shuts down their "royal" Instagram on March 31 just to pour salt in their wounds.

R441, I’m largely indifferent to both Kate and MM, but I think had MM wanted to, she could have evolved to the same level of engagement as Kate.

I do think MM likely is not a “natural” with children, using the way she hold her own baby as a guide.

I suspect MM didn’t want to be bound by the rules and restrictions of royalty. At the same time, she didn’t really give them a chance.

The tiara thing is extremely creepy at this point.

R455, I take that with a grain of salt. A plaintiff can’t be forced to litigate. However, in the U.K., she would likely would have to pay some of the defendant’s legal costs.

So sick of the random tiara photos and the other old pics. They just make the thread move quickly for no reason and that makes it more vulnerable to being paywalled or closed.

The Tiara Troll is too dumb to contribute to the discussion, so derails it instead with autistic posting of ancient crappy photos.

R457 - Mulroney's husband has come out [sic] insisting that his wife's tweets was referring to a fund to help the survivors of the plane that went down in Ukraine recently, not Kate's photos.

One of the responders to Ben Mulroney's defence of his wife said, "We all know your wife is MM's lapdog. If she wasn't shading Kate, what was she doing?!"

I'm assuming that Charles had a little talk with Harry about what the fallout would be if his wife kept posting photo ops of herself on days when he and other royals were announcing or engaging in high profile events. So Meghan got her lapdog, Jessica Mulroney, to do it for her.

The BRF sooner or later is going to have to realise that the scorpion isn't going to stop stinging - it's her nature. Either they pull that stinger out and take away the titles, HRHs, Sussex name, refuse to float them with Charles' money, or deal with the ongoing trouble she's going to cause for them for the next few years - that is, until the public has caught on to Meghan's game and is tired of her.

The woman is completely mental. I really think she and Harry recently had mutual emotional breakdowns.

Of course, Mulroney was shading Kate's photos of the Holocaust survivors, and of course she was doing so at Meghan's request.

And Mulroney is Jewish, to boot.

The problem with people like Meghan and Jessica is that they think everyone has the mental age of 7 like them. Jessica better be a saint because the media will sink her now

You mean Mulroney’s gay husband...

I personally love the Tiara Time posts, and the others about the jewelry and regalia. Gives us all a break from the endless repetitive Sussex talk. Keep them coming please.

Yes I know this is an H&M post but it also serves as a general current BRF post.

[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.]

Another vote for the tiara et al posts. Without the tiaras and musty history related to all this gossip, it would just be another round of Justin and Selena or Kardashians v Taylor Swift, and I wouldn't be here.

There was recently quite an ugly tiara (that Maltese cross thing) but usually the tiaras are pretty to look at, plus I like seeing the changes that were made to them over the years.

Yes that Maltese Cross tiara is quite ugly. Note that they moved them to center front which is slightly better. The best look is taking them off entirely.

Agree, there is something "clunky" about the Maltese Cross tiara.

Meghan has gone very quiet since Harry's come back. It making me nervous.

Maybe she's noticed that the public isn't buying her shit.

R471 - Oh, not that quiet. They did the big IG post about supporting Bell Canada (as close to Kate's Five Under Five Survey as they dared), her pals are leaking rumours every day about how happy she is, how she's looking an agent to see if she can get back into acting (look in the mirror, sweetie, you don't look like Rachel Zane any more and you couldn't act your way out of a paper bag then), and, of course, she got Jessica Mulroney to throw that appallingly misjudged bit of shade at Kate for her photos of Holocaust survivors.

Predictably, the shade backfired and made both Meghan and Mulroney look incredibly but lamely spiteful, and moreover, like Mulroney was doing MM's dirty work for her - which she was.

No to worry - like the bad penny, Meghan will keep turning up.

Swipe for the life of Sophie Wessex.

R462, R466 & R473 - I don't know to which photos of the Ukraine victims Ben Mulroney is referring??? His defense of Jennifer seems lame. Why would you attack anyone for taking photos of anything. That's how you publicize any fund to raise money. Personally, I think people are smart enough to know what photos his wife is posting about on Instagram (Kate's Holocaust photos). Now, Jennifer is hiding behind her Jewish religion to defend herself. These people are tiresome.

Will at an engagement today.

I can see the color of Diana's eyes here.

A laugh for today.

This week The Duchess of Gloucester attended the Army Families Federation 2020 Vision Event.

My post @ R475 should read Jessica not Jennifer. Duh.

Jessica Mulroney creeps me out - in looks, behavior, and values. Very shallow and fake. A perfect match for the former royal.

Lovely photo of Princess Margaret by Cecil Beaton.

[quote] I can see the color of Diana's eyes here.

But he may have actually inherited them from his grandmother, who also has pretty blue eyes.

R483 - And his great-grandmother, who had even more startling, huge blue eyes.

Margaret got them, as well. Beautiful eyes, beautiful lips, beautiful skin offset the long Hanoverian nose and the very short stature.

The Emerald tiara (THE most emeraldy one - I can’t be bothered to scroll up for its name) is the best and most lush tiara of all.

[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.]

R485 - You mean the Vladimir, I presume.

Sometimes it's almost too lush.

Lawd, the day Kate comes out wearing that we'll hear the screams from Malibu in outer space.

Either one, R486 and R487. If there are more emerald tiaras to be had, throw them in the pile, too. Lol, to both of you. And thus was born the petulant plot to flounce away from the Royals, nevermore to be a Royal themself. I’ll show YOU!!

Either one, R486 and R487. If there are more emerald tiaras to be had, throw them in the pile, too. Lol, to both of you. And thus was born the petulant plot to flounce away from the Royals, nevermore to be a Royal themself. I’ll show YOU!!

As the seminal thread on the Harkles' exit inches toward 500 posts, this loyal poster has another milestone to report:

Cruising the online front page of the DM's website: there was not a single Meghan Markle story.

Unless my eyes have deceived me - NOT ONE.

The fever may be abating.

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

It's Tiara Time...Queen Victoria's Diamond and Pearl Tiara.

I see I spoke too soon re the disappearance of HazBean headlines in the DM . . . now, they're moving to Los Angeles (why, there's a right shock, who'd a thunk it?!). And photos of a young Megs hanging out with her A-list friends (most of whom are, as she was, c-listers) and trumpeting loudly that now she can go "back" to her former glamourous life (translation: she was never royal material but celebrity trash and here's the proof).

The collective rocks and pearls in those family photos in the Tiara Time post are staggering. It's enough to turn you into a socialist. Or an anarchist.

So, who is on the hook for the security costs in LA?

City of LA? State of California? Malibu?

I understand there was a recent posting on Quora giving details on the backstage events during the Sussex Australia tour.

Did anyone read this? Was it posted somewhere?

Details, please!

What, leaving so soon? Buh-bye, then, have a nice life. Don’t let the door hit you etc.

The Queen has offered Buckingham Palace as a location for Beatrice's wedding reception. She'll probably be married somewhere in London.

It's Tiara Time...swipe for Queen Mary's Tiaras - Part One.

That Vladimir is the living end . . .

However, my personal favourite is the Alexandra Kokoshnik.

In one photo the Queen is wearing one Fringe tiara on her head and the Queen Adelaide former fringe tiara as a necklace at the same time.

R497 - The Guards Chapel was mentioned, but Andrew is a Guards Captain or something and the Guards might take offence at the low character of Bea's intended.

It is definitely a step down from St. George's Chapel at Windsor. For one thing, it is smaller, decidedly less grand, and as the Guards Chapel was hit by the blitz during the war, everything is modern construction except the Byzantine apse behind the altar. The grounds are beautiful, it's not that this isn't a distinguished venue, but for the Queen's granddaughter not to get St. George's, when even their Kent cousin, Lady Ella, was married there, must be rather a let-down.

I'm not sure Bea cares, but her pompous father most definitely will, and he has no one but himself to blame.

Why don't they have a summer wedding, head up to Balmoral where privacy is easier to come by, have an intimate service historic Craithie church and a grand reception at the castle with everyone dancing reels?

I think a small historic place in a grand country setting better than a downgraded city chapel, even if Buck House is where the reception is held.

R495, here you are:

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

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

Where did Zara marry her rugby husband? Wasn’t it in Scotland?

Bea and Edo ought to do something like that - just get out of London completely and avoid comparisons to other cousins’ weddings.

Thank you, R501.

I remember there were a few rumblings about Sparkle being a bitch to staff in Australia at the time and I remember the story about her throwing the cup of tea back at a member of their staff and swearing.

These details certainly expand the details.

Wow!

Thanks again.

^^ That signature should have been R495.

Fraus here who think Meghan wanted to wear the same emerald tiara as Fugenie are fucking stupid. Why would she?

Thanks also r501. Wow, she sounds like a ranting foul-mouthed lunatic. You could start a whole other thread with these accounts. Harry isn't like that , I hope. Poor Archie.

Thanks also r501. Wow, she sounds like a ranting foul-mouthed lunatic. You could start a whole other thread with these accounts. Harry isn't like that , I hope. Poor Archie.

Wasn't Eugenie's wedding pushed back a couple months so Harry and Megs could get married first?

Because her wedding was first, R507. And it is independently known she chucked a fit about not being allowed to wear a tiara with emeralds in it. We all guess it was the Vladimir, which only HMQ ever wears, but the only alternative is the one Eugenie wore. Meghan would want it if she thought Eugenie did, just because.

R510, Yes, her wedding had to be postponed for Harry and Meghan. And the Sussexes had apparently announced their pregnancy to their family, right before Eugenie's wedding, which supposedly left Eugenie feeling overshadowed. But it was Meghan's 'reveal' of her non-existent baby bump at Eugenie's wedding that most people saw as the final mean girl stunt. Sarah Ferguson was tweeting furiously trying to get the focus back on the wedding. There's a consistent pattern of the Sussexes finding a way to grab the spotlight when anyone else is getting positive attention. And yet, Eugenie and Jack had supposedly asked Meghan for advice when they were planning their wedding, and Eugenie was among the first to welcome the Sussexes to Instagram.

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

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

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

It's Tiara Time...swipe for Queen Mary's Fringe Tiara.

Anne Of The Big Hair.

The Baftas are tonight so here are Kate's four gowns of past awards. The green maternity dress was lovely as was last year's one shoulder white floral dress.

Kate is wearing a white embroidered gown.

Kate's gown.

Will and Kate.

Kate has worn this dress in the past.

First worn in 2012. After having had three babies, she can still wear this gown. Wow.

The jewellery looks kind of weird though. Is it something George or Charlotte made for her? If so, nice. If not, meh.

Agree about the necklace, it adds nothing. And this dress doesn't work for her; her chest is far too sun-damaged. Some laser or IPL would help.

Horrible dress, and doing nothing at all for her.

Wasn't the this year's Bafta fashion theme about "recycling" or something to that effect? Women were asked to wear used clothes instead of buying a new dress.

The dress is OK but there is no "WOW" quality about it.

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

A short video of the Cambridge arrival.

A summary of Kate's Bafta outfit.

Kate's hairstyle.

Kate's dress is very pretty and she looks "good". But she looked stunning last year - agree with poster upthread that this dress lacks the WOW factor that last year's had. Tonight's dress was appropriate and nice enough (I'd hardly call it ugly, I can think of only two gowns I thought ugly on her, one was by Erdem), but she looked a total goddess last year.

Yes, Eugenie was "asked" to move her wedding from May to October so the Sussexes could get married first, even though Eugenie had gotten first dibs. It was sheer rank: Harry is sixth in line, Eugenie 9th.

And then, the ever-grateful Meghan used a (completely unnecessary) maternity coat to broadcast her pregnancy non-verbally before it was announced by the Palace . . . at Eugenie's televised wedding, helping herself to a goodly portion of the spotlight of the day that belonged to the bride.

What I find so astonishing about Andrew, even more than his truly off the charts shallow entitled arrogant pompous twathood, is his stupidity in not concealing it better.

If you watch the video you can see how beautifully the material moves, and it does do nice things for her bosom and waist. The hair is gorgeous at the back, and I like the jewellery. In stills, you sometimes miss the additional factor of the material's quality. I found this when I went to the exhibition of Diana's dresses when they were put up for auction. Dresses I hadn't liked that much in still photos changed and went up in my estimation when I came close to the materials and so how fine they were.

Just the same, last year was Kate's BAFTA dress so far, in my view.

Kate's dress isn't new and she's wearing semi-precious accessories (citrine and mother of pearl). She and her stylist must have been given firm instructions to go out looking elegant but thrifty! Not too ostentatious right now, not when everyone's comparing you to the greedy little famewhore!

And she's done what's right for the BRF's image, and done it well. I have no idea how William feels about her in his heart of hearts, but he's done his duty to his position, and found a wife that can play the games she needs to play.

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

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

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

The Queen is on the cover of Hello magazine with Kate. No Meghan.

It's Tiara Time...featuring the Cambridge Sapphire Parure Tiara.

Swipe for photographs of Princess Marina of Greece (aka the Duchess of Kent) by Cecil Beaton.

New joint engagement announcement:

The Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall & Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Feb 11, will visit the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre. Prince William was Patron of the @DNRCOfficial appeal, an initiative from their family friend the late 6th Duke of Westminster.

So that sapphire tiara went to the Kents, obviously. As it's named the "Cambridge Tiara" you know who should get it now.

Princess Alexandra has her mother's side-tilted mouth and aristocratic look, but isn't quite as beautiful. That photo of Marina in the black dress and white hat with the long veil is stunning. Marina had real presence. Cecil Beaton photographed Marina shortly after the death of the Duke of Kent and mentioned her "apricot skin" and elegance.

A double-event with the Cornwalls will, of course, also send a not to subtle message of who really counts (and who doesn't).

Meghan and Harry made decisions much, much too quickly - which seems to be the way they approach everything. I suppose no one every whispered the phrase "acting out" to either one of them.

I wonder if Meghan is alright?...

R143 - I know you were being sarcastic, but in truth . . . I would be surprised if Meghan were alright.

She and Harry are probably only now absorbing the reality of their jump. Once the ecstasy wears off, and the reality sets in, especially with a pair like this, who get excited about the idea of a thing, think they've thought it through realistically, and then findue out that they weren't, the reaction can be quite bad. Harry, especially, seems to have had reservations about the move, and thought he would be doing so under the conditions he and Meghan laid out, before finding out (as the Queen begged and then ordered them to do) what the real plan would turn out to be after negotiations.

I suspect Meghan is dealing with a morose, agonisingly self-doubting husband, under enormous pressure to make him happy, reassure him that all will be well, and, as the moving force in all this, keep working at it, all while attending to a baby nearing toddlerhood needing her attention, as well.

Harry and Meghan both operate on a fantasist level, and thus are always gobsmacked by the reality. The Queen won't play ball, Charles is furious, goodbye HRHs, no half-in, half-out positions that allow them to hold on to their bennies and not pay for them . . . Canadians don't worship them and won't pay for their security guards, UK citizens outraged at being stuck with the bill not only for nonworking royals, but ones who live abroad and have insulted the country and the Queen . . .

Still getting bad PR at "home", lots of rude cartoons out there painting Harry as a dim lapdog being led along by Meghan, Mulroney cocking it up with her first unfortunate stab at Kate, Harry loses the first of his suits against the press, and Meghan's suit looks fair to be extremely embarrassing . . .

And most of all, Hollywood not lining up to lay out a red carpet.

Enjoying the peace and quiet in Canada, are we, Megs, dear? No interest in you, no magazine covers with your face on them, the tedious business of building connections to produce money, and every time you turn around, there's the increasingly admired Kate.

We're free, We're free, We're freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Eh, what?

"Harry and Meghan both operate on a fantasist level, and thus are always gobsmacked by the reality. "

I think that's true. They always seem shocked by other people's reactions to their stunts.

Princess Marina represented the Queen at Ghana's independence ceremonies. Here she is dancing with Kwame Nkrumah.