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

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

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

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

Starting Next Week, Meghan and Harry Might Get New Last Names

From March 31, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will no longer be senior members of the royal family. Though they'll keep their Sussex titles, they're losing their HRH titles—which means that, for the first time in his life, Harry will take on an official last name. Though he went by "Harry Wales" at school, HRH title holders are not legally required to have a last name (although modern royals often choose to use Mountbatten-Windsor, a combination of the Queen's and Prince Philip's names). As for Meghan, she's still referred to using both her maiden last name and her Duchess of Sussex title, and she could continue to use both.

The most obvious choice for the family is to collectively adopt the last name Mountbatten-Windsor, which has been used since the '70s. The Queen is, of course, a member of the royal House of Windsor, and Prince Phillip's naturalized last name is Mountbatten. Per the royal family's website: "For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."

That said, both William and Harry went by "Wales" at school. That's because Charles' title is Prince of Wales, and the stand-in last name for royal family members is often the title of their parent. That tradition carried on to William's family: At school, Prince George is known as "George Cambridge," because his father's title is the Duke of Cambridge. So, even though their last name is technically Mountbatten-Windsor, their informal last name is Cambridge.

But the plot thickens! When Harry and Meghan's son, Archie, was born, they did not give him royal titles—perhaps in a nod to events to come; perhaps because they wanted him to have a more normal life—which meant that the baby needed a surname. Enter Mountbatten-Windsor, which is formally and informally Archie Harrison's last name. It sounds very formal, but it's actually a rebellious move—if Harry had followed in William's footsteps and stuck rigidly to royal tradition, Archie would have taken on his title (the Earl of Dumbarton) and been known as Archie Dumbarton.

Fast-forward to now, when Harry, Meghan, and Archie have essentially opted out of being senior royals and therefore need last names. Archie is already set—he's Mountbatten-Windsor, in a nod to his great-grandparents. But then there's Meghan, who is still known by her maiden name, Markle—although since she married Harry, she's stopped signing her last name "Markle"—and who also goes by the Duchess of Sussex (a title she'll maintain), and therefore doesn't have one set last name. She might choose to go by the last name Mountbatten-Windsor, Sussex, Markle, or something completely different (which would be a break from tradition, but when you've already walked away from an entire institution, what's the big deal?).

Either way, Meghan "Markle" differs from the last names of both Harry and Archie right now, and she may want to keep the same last name as her family. Harry doesn't actually have a clear last name right now—again, it's technically Mountbatten-Windsor, but he's used "Wales" when he's had to use a last name throughout his life. He's going to have to determine once and for all what his official last name may be, which may spur Meghan to take the same one. And that name could be anything—Sussex and Mountbatten-Windsor are the most likely options (and the latter, of course, would be a link to Archie), but they could also take Markle or a completely different name of their choice. (This is Harry and Meghan, after all.)

Along with being Sussexes, the couple are also the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton, and The Baron and Baroness Kilkeel, so let's throw Dumbarton and Kilkeel in the mix as potential last names. They may have considered a break from senior royal lineage through giving their new family a new last name, but Archie's last name is already Mountbatten-Windsor, so...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 131April 4, 2020 12:57 AM

I think the hyphenated Dumb- Fuck might be nice.

by Anonymousreply 1March 27, 2020 12:21 PM

Fascinating.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2March 27, 2020 12:22 PM

Long last names don't work on Driver Licenses.

by Anonymousreply 3March 27, 2020 12:23 PM

Just go with Sussex.

Everyone refers to them by that name anyway, and it's also part of their branding.

Plus, they can also spell it $U$$EX.

by Anonymousreply 4March 27, 2020 12:30 PM

Mountbatten is such an awful name. Windsor is much nicer.

by Anonymousreply 5March 27, 2020 12:46 PM

Is it any wonder they walked away from a family that can make hash out of something as straightforward as a name. The family name wasn't even Windsor until they renamed themselves after a castle, get chrissakes.

He should call himself Harry Spencer. Diana, up in heaven, would get a good laugh when Charles' head exploded upon hearing that news.

by Anonymousreply 6March 27, 2020 12:59 PM

What was the Windsor name before they changed it?

by Anonymousreply 7March 27, 2020 1:51 PM

His drag name is Ginger Mystique.

by Anonymousreply 8March 27, 2020 1:51 PM

R7 If only there was a way to find that answer.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9March 27, 2020 1:55 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10March 27, 2020 1:56 PM

Indeed, R9.

For example...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11March 27, 2020 1:58 PM

Markle -Sparklebright--UltrawhiteSmile®

Combining the necessity for a new name with the necessity for branding opportunitie$(£€¥)

by Anonymousreply 12March 27, 2020 2:01 PM

Harry Mongrel.

by Anonymousreply 13March 27, 2020 2:04 PM

[quote]The family name wasn't even Windsor until they renamed themselves after a castle, get chrissakes.

I believe the kaiser also had something to do with this.

by Anonymousreply 14March 27, 2020 2:04 PM

[R14], your post made me think of this: the first couple of paragraphs deal with the accident (sic). The rest is fairly interesting history, if one has the time to read it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15March 27, 2020 2:09 PM

Legally you can call yourself anything you want. You don’t even have to file papers.

They should choose Angel. Meghan Markle-Angel, Harry Angel, and Archie Angel.

by Anonymousreply 16March 27, 2020 2:11 PM

I like Dumb-Sex - a real eye catcher and easy to remember....

by Anonymousreply 17March 27, 2020 2:13 PM

Anything but that horrible hyphenated one.

Ain’t nobody got time for that.

by Anonymousreply 18March 27, 2020 2:15 PM

Anything but Dumbarton.

Can you imagine?

Here come the Dumbartons!

by Anonymousreply 19March 27, 2020 2:16 PM

Sex-Covid

by Anonymousreply 20March 27, 2020 2:32 PM

"The Dumbartons" would be a great name for a sitcom.

by Anonymousreply 21March 27, 2020 2:32 PM

R5 - It was changed from the original, Battenberg, in the wake of WWI. It's a literal translation from the German.

Actually, I'm not sure this story has legs, UNLESS the Sussexes already know that the Queen is going to pull Sussex and their HRHs for real this year. Their son's surname is already Mountbatten-Windsor, in the absence of an HRH or his use of his father's subsidiary title, Earl Dumbarton, which is unfortunate, to say the least. If the kid is going to be raised in the environs of Hollywood, Earl Dumbarton is NOT in his best interests.

There is no reason for them to use Mountbatten-Windsor UNLESS they are getting in front of the real story: the Queen is rescinding Harry's ducal title of Sussex and their HRHs, per her long meeting with Harry when he returned to the UK briefly. In that case, Harry does become Prince Henry of Wales until his father ascends the throne; then William is Prince of Wales, and Wales no longer applies to Harry. If he'd stayed in the BRF, Harry and Meghan would have gone on using Sussex, just as Fergie was called "Sarah York" when she was still married to Andrew.

But with their exit, and minus Sussex and their HRHs, they are Prince and Princess Henry of Wales or Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor if they so choose.

I wonder if Harry during that lunch made it plain to his Gran that he ain't a comin' home and is willing to give up Sussex and the HRH to get shet of any complications or blurred boundaries. Or if Gran made it plain that continuing to be HRH the Duke of Sussex even as a technicality was plainly unworkable if he was off to LaCa forever, and the agreement is that Harry and Meghan will announce they are voluntarily giving it all up so they can live "normal" lives and save face when the Queen issues her Letters Patent to that effect.

Because it's plain as a pikestaff that the die is cast for the Harkles, America and "freedom" always was their ultimate goal, and the idea that the rest of the BRF want them back, after that scene in the Abbey, is just plain stupid. The British public don't want them back, either.

So unless a discussion has gone on about a final cutoff of Sussex and HRH, I call bullshit on this story.

by Anonymousreply 22March 27, 2020 2:36 PM

Harry Bloggs and Meghan Markle-Bloggs.

by Anonymousreply 23March 27, 2020 2:41 PM

R6 completely misunderstanding the point (part of which being that this article is sensationalist nonsense).

by Anonymousreply 24March 27, 2020 2:43 PM

Prince Charles revealed that he tested positive for coronavirus yesterday, and there’s understandably a concern amongst his family. The prince, who has “mild symptoms,” has reportedly been in touch with both of his sons, but it doesn’t look like Harry will be returning to England at this time. It makes sense—pretty much the entire world is social distancing right now, and flying to England would only put more people at risk.

According to a source who spoke with Daily Mail, Meghan Markle made it clear to Harry that “under no circumstances is she okay with him traveling anywhere right now,” which yeah, understandable. The source also confirmed that “Meghan said Harry’s been in touch with his dad....Of course, he’s frustrated. She said they both are frustrated because they are doers and want to do so much more to help.”

Meghan and Harry were able to spend time with the royal family before returning to Canada, and a source previously told Daily Mail that “Meghan told her inner circle of friends that Harry has been communicating with Prince William and the queen on a pretty consistent basis. She said this world crisis has actually brought them all closer together, especially Harry and his brother. Harry has made it very clear to them that he will do whatever he can to help from Canada. Meghan said they are grateful, especially Harry, that they could spend time with his family before all this insanity began.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25March 29, 2020 5:53 AM

Harry should have pulled this stunt 10 years ago when he was young and charming. Now he is nearing 40 and his dimness is not cute or charming and he his looks are fading fast.

by Anonymousreply 26March 29, 2020 5:56 AM

Can't we just call them the "Cunt and the Pussy"?

by Anonymousreply 27March 29, 2020 6:14 AM

The Cunt and the Pussy went to LA In a beautiful big great-coat They took the cunt's honey and plenty of money Wrapped up in a roadkill stoat

by Anonymousreply 28March 29, 2020 6:27 AM

Pssst! It’s really Battenburg.

by Anonymousreply 29March 29, 2020 6:28 AM

Someone on this board referred to Markle as "that roach of a wife." I don't like her but even I thought that was harsh.

by Anonymousreply 30March 29, 2020 6:38 AM

R25

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31March 29, 2020 6:47 AM

Earl and Countess of Dumbarton seems very, very apt. As does Markle- Mountbatten- Cunt. In any case, it's known that behind closed doors Meghan refers to herself as The Duchess of Success.

by Anonymousreply 32March 29, 2020 6:53 AM

People who's ancestors tricked uneducated peasants into believing they were special, the next generation.

Like sands through the hour glass, these are the days of our lives...

by Anonymousreply 33March 29, 2020 7:00 AM

Dumbarton. But it's fucking obvious their new last names (both Harry & Meghan) will be Mountbatten-Windsor. This is not really a cliff-hanger.

by Anonymousreply 34March 29, 2020 7:07 AM

Their are so many inane, stupid rules with this family. It's George Cambridge informally, but George Mountbatten-Windsor? Or is it George Windsor, because he's a direct heir? Lol, the bullshit charade of this "institution" is hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 35March 29, 2020 7:19 AM

They should go by Mr. and Mrs. Markle, it's more apt.

by Anonymousreply 36March 29, 2020 8:10 AM

Most of them can call themselves whatever they like as the usual rules or guidelines are mostly out the window now. When Prince Edward had his own production company, during office hours, he was known as Edward Windsor and his staff and associates called him by his first name, something he would never allow when he was being HRH Prince Edward. After her marriage, his wife used the name Sophie Wessex professionally at her PR company. This is the standard practice for the wives of peers without royal status.

Harry's birth record states Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. Because he is a British prince, he would only sign himself as "Harry" as the others do, using their first names only. He could go by Harry Sussex or just Sussex in keeping with regular peers. Meghan would then be Meghan Sussex, in the way of wives of peers. Because their son is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, it would seem likely they would use the same last name as he.

HRH The Duchess of Kent gave up official royal life several years ago. Officially, she is still HRH The Duchess of Kent, but prefers to be known day to day as Kate Kent, not as Kate Windsor.

When Princess Anne was professionally involved in equestrian competitions, she signed herself as Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. She signs herself as Anne or as Anne, Princess Royal. She's never used Anne Phillips (her first mother-in-law's name) and neither has she used Anne Laurence

[quote] George Mountbatten-Windsor? Or is it George Windsor, because he's a direct heir?

He's George Mountbatten-Windsor because that is what was recorded at the time of his birth. Somewhere along the line, an unofficial compromise was made that the last name of the British Royal family would be Mountbatten-Windsor, but that the House name would remain Windsor. A precedent for this was established hundreds of years ago when English monarchs belonged to the House of Plantagenet, the House Lancaster, and the House of York, but their last names were all still Plantagenet.

If he were the eldest son of an ordinary peer or the son of a prince, but not a prince himself, he would be George (Earl of) Strathearn taking the secondary title of his father by courtesy in the same way the eldest sons of HRH the Duke of Gloucester and HRH the Duke of Kent are the Earl of Ulster and Earl of St. Andrew's, respectively.

by Anonymousreply 37March 29, 2020 8:59 AM

She will always be Meghan Markle.

by Anonymousreply 38March 29, 2020 9:15 AM

'who's ancestors tricked uneducated peasants'

WHO'S exactly uneducated? Oh, the irony.

by Anonymousreply 39March 29, 2020 9:18 AM

'Their are so many inane, stupid rules with this family'

Clearly you don't like rules, especially the grammatical kind.

by Anonymousreply 40March 29, 2020 9:20 AM

The British royal family’s real last name is the German “Saxon Coburg-Gotha.” It was changed to Windsor during World War I so that the family’s surname would sound and appear British

Prince Philip’s family surname was Battenberg even though he was born a member of the Greek royal family.

Just as Saxon Coburg-Gotha became Windsor, “Battenberg” became Mountbatten to make it appear British. These people are all German, not British.

“The House of Windsor” remains. It is not called The House of Mountbatten-Windsor. Queen Elizabeth was coronated in 1952 and continued The House of Windsor. She only agreed in 1960 that Mountbatten-Windsor be used as the last name (if needed) for male children of the sovereign.

by Anonymousreply 41March 29, 2020 9:21 AM

It's Saxe, not Saxon.

by Anonymousreply 42March 29, 2020 9:25 AM

r41 A person is crowned, not coronated. “Coronate” is improperly derived from “coronation'. She was crowned in 1953, not 52. And it's Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not Saxon.

by Anonymousreply 43March 29, 2020 9:26 AM

The TWATs. Ginger Dimwit Twat and MEGain Selfie Twat

by Anonymousreply 44March 29, 2020 9:30 AM

It's hilarious listening to Americans who think they know anything about the British royal family.

by Anonymousreply 45March 29, 2020 9:30 AM

It's Mountbatten- Windsor because Prince Philip cracked the shits that he was the only man in Britain who had to take his wife's surname.

by Anonymousreply 46March 29, 2020 9:32 AM

r41 is Meghan Markle

by Anonymousreply 47March 29, 2020 9:39 AM

R45 It may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who actually read books about the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 48March 29, 2020 9:40 AM

Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born in Mon Repos on the Greek island of Corfu on 10 June 1921, the only son and fifth and final child of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark and Princess Alice of Battenberg. A member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, itself a branch of the House of Oldenburg, he was a prince of both Greece and Denmark by virtue of his patrilineal descent from George I of Greece and Christian IX of Denmark, and he was from birth in the line of succession to both thrones; the 1953 Succession Act removed his family branch's succession rights in Denmark. Philip's four elder sisters were Margarita, Theodora, Cecilie, and Sophie. He was baptised in the Greek Orthodox rite at St. George's Church in the Old Fortress in Corfu.

Shortly after Philip's birth, his maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenberg, then known as Louis Mountbatten, Marquess of Milford Haven, died in London. Louis was a naturalised British citizen, who, after a career in the Royal Navy, had renounced his German titles and adopted the surname Mountbatten—an Anglicised version of Battenberg—during the First World War, owing to anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom

by Anonymousreply 49March 29, 2020 9:43 AM

r48. Sure, just no one around here, clearly.

by Anonymousreply 50March 29, 2020 9:44 AM

At the unemployment office you're required to provide a last name when you fill out the form.

by Anonymousreply 51March 29, 2020 9:46 AM

R48 Speak for yourself.

by Anonymousreply 52March 29, 2020 9:47 AM

R37 So for the Most Royal House of Windsor, if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit. Got it, thank you so much!

by Anonymousreply 53March 29, 2020 9:48 AM

I love the way Brits subjugate themselves to certain people, as long as they were a twinkle in the right man's eye or slid out of the right woman's cunt. It's so archaic, so quaint, so peasant-like. I love the way they honor, sorry honour (must offer respect to the Norman conquerors) feudalism, the commitment is a sight to be seen!

by Anonymousreply 54March 29, 2020 9:54 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if the pics of the royals in their palaces during this epidemic, plus the Sussexes' antics and excesses are the finals nails in the coffin of the BRF after the queen's death.

by Anonymousreply 55March 29, 2020 10:02 AM

R55 One can only hope the Brits wise up and take after their older brothers, the French. The Normans brought civility to Britain after the Romans failed. Had the fools not been so insecure, they could have learned from their cultural superior and overthrown their monarchy long before it was nothing more than the sham it is now. I guess they like paying for the escapades of pedophiles and philanders. Brits insist their Princes fuck little girls on only the finest of private islands.

by Anonymousreply 56March 29, 2020 10:10 AM

R47, I believe you’re right.

by Anonymousreply 57March 29, 2020 10:11 AM

I love Andrew, he's my baby boy! Can I tell you a secret? Sometimes, when Philip and I are feeling kinky, I pretend I'm underage and he's Andrew. I know, it's weird, but it makes me so wet. I'll always protect my baby boy, and his proclivities.

by Anonymousreply 58March 29, 2020 10:25 AM

R37 Nowhere on my birth certificate does it say anything about Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor. Its His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge for you, you plebs.

by Anonymousreply 59March 29, 2020 10:32 AM

The royal family has no impact on everyday life in the UK unless you want it to. Some Americans seem to think we live in a mediaeval fayre. The reality is that they are window dressing for politicians. The royal family is the epitome of bread and circuses. They can be relied on to have a wedding or a baby in order to divert the media and public from reality.

They have no real power, and their influence is waning due to their tendency to believe they are still important. Charles lobbying Cabinet ministers for his causes, Andrew doing god knows what and getting away with it, Harry and Meghan’s petulant refusal to accept that they are not celebrities.

The really powerful person in the UK is the Prime Minister who has vast powers (The Royal Prerogative), which were surrendered by the monarch when we became a constitutional monarchy. Boris Johnson has more power than some dictators. That is a lot more worrying than whether minor royals are willing to play the game in return for a free ride for life.

You can probably tell by now that I would prefer a republic. It will never happen in the UK. The politicians have too much to lose.

by Anonymousreply 60March 29, 2020 10:32 AM

[quote] Can't we just call them the "Cunt and the Pussy"?

Sorry, but that name was taken by William and Kate, the day they got married.

by Anonymousreply 61March 29, 2020 10:36 AM

R60 I respect your wishes for a republic, but I think you misunderstand Americans and their relationship with the British monarchy. We are fully aware they have no power, and that most of you can go about your lives without thinking about them, unless you get caught in traffic when the Queen restricts traffic for the nonsense of opening parliament.

We love the pomp and circumstances, it's a medieval fairytale. We fully understand it's nonsense, that's why we appreciate it. We're a republic, we are subject to no one and that is how we have always live our lives. The British Monarchy is nothing more than a nostalgic reminder of Belle, Aurora, Snow White, Cinerella, and Princess Jasmine.

by Anonymousreply 62March 29, 2020 10:44 AM

I prefer Home and Away to this soap, the guys are hotter.

by Anonymousreply 63March 29, 2020 10:59 AM

I love the way Brits subjugate themselves to certain people, as long as they were a twinkle in the right man's eye or slid out of the right woman's cunt.

You mean just like the Trump, Kennedy and Bush children?

by Anonymousreply 64March 29, 2020 11:03 AM

R64 Lol, is that supposed to be a comparison? Trump, Kennedy and the Bush children are a failure of our political system. The British Monarchy and it's nepotism is, apparently, a feature.

by Anonymousreply 65March 29, 2020 11:09 AM

Let me be more clear, we're not proud of the Bush Children, the lesser Kennedys or Trump and his ilk. Andrew is still an HRH.

by Anonymousreply 66March 29, 2020 11:14 AM

Come 20th January 2021, Trump will be gone. Elizabeth will still be sitting in the corner, rubbing her fingers across her clitoris as she watches her son rape an underage girl.

by Anonymousreply 67March 29, 2020 11:18 AM

Boy, you are ANGRY R67.

And vile. And disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 68March 29, 2020 11:21 AM

How about: Harry Formerly Known as Prince

by Anonymousreply 69March 29, 2020 11:23 AM

R68 I hope I can be vile and disgusting enough to reach the heights of the Queen Elizabeth II herself!

by Anonymousreply 70March 29, 2020 11:24 AM

r67 I think that is the most disgusting thing I've ever read on DL. And that's saying something. I don't know whether to condemn you or congratulate you, but I'm inclined to the former.

by Anonymousreply 71March 29, 2020 12:17 PM

It's so sad, I wish underage girls had more respect for the man they were servicing. Elizabeth Regina expects only the best for her sons. Tight lips are a must, in every sense. Don't they know how important our family is, how we do not have to play be the commoners' ideas of morality!

by Anonymousreply 72March 29, 2020 12:18 PM

Dumb and Dumber of Dumbarton

by Anonymousreply 73March 29, 2020 12:26 PM

R67 It's so sad, what I wrote upsets you more than what Andrew actually did. I want to believe you are disgusted, but I fear you still support his enabler, Queen Elizabeth II. Your post comes off more as indignation, rather than actually caring about the victims of Andrew's abuse. I hope you understand my post was designed to wake you up, to make you realize the scum the house of Windsor harbors.

by Anonymousreply 74March 29, 2020 12:38 PM

R74 you're the sad one, with the elaborate writing about abuse as if it's a joke. Like you even care. The victims are just props for you to bitch about a family without power.

I say good for Brits keeping them. They bring in the gravy and sometimes do charity. The one poster was right; Americans are just as bad with idol worship and forgiving the pigs abusing the system. If we Americans really gave AF about Trump or all the other morons that have a grip on us, we would've revolted by now -- but we don't.

I'm not going to mock a tradition when we don't have one here, yet we still play along with it.

by Anonymousreply 75March 29, 2020 12:46 PM

[quote]Their son's surname is already Mountbatten-Windsor

Lots of kids have hyphenated names now.

Each parent should pick one of those, and their child’s surname is a combo of that.

Harry Windsor and Meghan Mountbatten

by Anonymousreply 76March 29, 2020 12:55 PM

R75 Yes, me drawing attention to Andrew's atrocities and his mother's enabling means I don't care. Try again, babe. I look forward to your enabler nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 77March 29, 2020 12:56 PM

R75 = I don't have a response, I'll try to shame them. Sadly, in my poor attempt to shame them, I defend pedophilia.

by Anonymousreply 78March 29, 2020 1:05 PM

I suggest "Lipschitz" or something to recognize Meg's heritage, like "Chukwunyelu."

by Anonymousreply 79March 29, 2020 1:27 PM

Long live Queen Megan! May her American sensibilities forever rid the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of it's affliction!

by Anonymousreply 80March 29, 2020 1:34 PM

Queen Elizabeth deserves to die, doo da doo da, Queen Elizabeth deserves to die, she enabled her rapist son...

by Anonymousreply 81March 29, 2020 1:36 PM

She’s always wanted a hyphenated name. Because she’s stuck in the 90s, she thinks it’s *classy* and different.

Just like the name “Archie Harrison” (Harry’s son; get it?)

by Anonymousreply 82March 29, 2020 1:37 PM

It's Meghan's fans who hate the royals. It's kind of funny because Meghan really wanted to hold on to those titles.

by Anonymousreply 83March 29, 2020 1:40 PM

Elizabeth Windsor allows her sons to rape girls. She does it through inaction, she does it with a paradoxical blind, yet all knowing eye. She pretends to know nothing, yet she knows everything. The head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, allows those of her womb to use children as sexual objects.

by Anonymousreply 84March 29, 2020 1:45 PM

Omid, get over yourself.

by Anonymousreply 85March 29, 2020 2:04 PM

Queen Elizabeth II, enabler of the pedophiles, patroness of sexual objectification

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86March 29, 2020 2:05 PM

R86 you’ve written 20 posts in this thread, what’s with the obsession?

by Anonymousreply 87March 29, 2020 2:09 PM

Listen cunts, I'm old and don't have time to fuck around.

My oldest son wants to be a tampon in his whore's pussy.

My other son likes to diddle underage pussy.

My house caught on fire. My grandson is getting all up my grill.

I'm pissed off!

by Anonymousreply 88March 29, 2020 2:12 PM

R86 I only hope to rid the British of their oppressors.

by Anonymousreply 89March 29, 2020 2:16 PM

Meghan is really sore because the Queen didn't let her get her way. She should be happy she's back with her own people, the tacky Hollywood celebrities.

by Anonymousreply 90March 29, 2020 2:20 PM

Sorry R86, my last post was in response to you. I hope that the great people of Britain understand that they do n to need the house of Windsor, that they do not need to be subjects of pedophiles or their enablers. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a proud Kingdom, composed of proud countries. You deserve a better Head of State than a pedophile enabler.

by Anonymousreply 91March 29, 2020 2:20 PM

R91 Well, that's up to them, isn't it? You are not going to get rid of them by writing hateful posts on gossip forums.

by Anonymousreply 92March 29, 2020 2:25 PM

R33 One is special.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 93March 29, 2020 2:32 PM

I like Mountgrifterson-Markymark. But whatever helps them maintain their selective privacy and keep getting checks?

by Anonymousreply 94March 29, 2020 2:38 PM

R93 Lol, Downton Abbey is a wish, what insufferable Brits think there system was. Feel free to throw around Maggie Smith, I'm sorry, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, around as though it means something. Are the pitiful aspirations of serfs all you Brits have left?

by Anonymousreply 95March 29, 2020 2:39 PM

R93 Your post is so typically self-referential. The dowager countess's worth comes from her name, nothing more. Just Like Lizzes Winds, and all the insufferable you Brits worship as gods.

by Anonymousreply 96March 29, 2020 2:41 PM

Wow, it's just one loon writing all the anti-royal posts. I just blocked the last one and the negative posts went away.

by Anonymousreply 97March 29, 2020 2:46 PM

R33 How sad, the rest of the Commonwealth has agency. They have a Governor-General, you have a Queen. They have distance from the absurdity, you have to absorb every inch of it. You have to pretend that your Queen doesn't enable child rape, they can point to their republicans. I hope you realize your Queen, your monarch, you're nation's supreme, the women who speaks as though God is her peer, We, would rather enable child rape than be a leader.

by Anonymousreply 98March 29, 2020 2:48 PM

Queen Elizabeth II raise a child rapist, and enables him to this day. She knows nothing of Christ, her nation is lost.

by Anonymousreply 99March 29, 2020 2:51 PM

The Most Royal House of Windsor knows nothing of Christ, they are false leaders.

by Anonymousreply 100March 29, 2020 2:54 PM

Sussex would be fine, if they're still allowed to use it when the dust settles.

by Anonymousreply 101March 29, 2020 2:58 PM

R100, my experience is that few people of any rank who travel about under the public mantle of Christ know much of his teachings or live his principles.

by Anonymousreply 102March 29, 2020 2:59 PM

R100 True, and yet the Brits still choose to follow known rapists.

by Anonymousreply 103March 29, 2020 3:05 PM

Enough of this shit, R103; you've made your point, over and over. Andrew did not rape any children.

by Anonymousreply 104March 29, 2020 3:11 PM

If there's grass on the field play cricket.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105March 29, 2020 3:14 PM

They are going nuts because time is running out for the Duke and Duchess.

by Anonymousreply 106March 29, 2020 3:15 PM

I love how much we get for so little from the Brits. All we have to do is say our relationship is special. It doesn't matter that Canada and Mexico are much more important partners, or even that Germany is a much stronger strategic ally. As long as we use the world special, the brits think it actually means something. They left the friggin EU like we would save them, it's so said and yet so funny!

by Anonymousreply 107March 29, 2020 3:26 PM

The obsessive schizo literally posted 30 times in this thread. We got the point after the second post. All he's managed to do is get himself blocked by multiple people. Since no one will read his posts, all his typing is just a waste of times.

by Anonymousreply 108March 29, 2020 3:31 PM

R108 And yet you respond, fulfilling his need.

by Anonymousreply 109March 29, 2020 3:42 PM

R108 I love how insecure I make you, I hope you realize how tiny your world really is.

by Anonymousreply 110March 29, 2020 3:48 PM

I never ever block people, but had to ignore that one weirdo. It’s just not fun when someone gets really serious and vicious.

by Anonymousreply 111March 29, 2020 3:51 PM

Drop the last name and just go by Smirk and Scowl.

by Anonymousreply 112March 29, 2020 3:52 PM

why is the original post all struck through? what’s so bad about the story?

by Anonymousreply 113March 29, 2020 3:55 PM

The rape/pedo obsessed troll in this thread is Poo Shoes, it’s one of her favorite topics

by Anonymousreply 114March 29, 2020 3:59 PM

R113, somebody doesn’t want anyone talking about the Sussexes unless it’s ass-licking praise.

by Anonymousreply 115March 29, 2020 3:59 PM

R111 I feed off of your contempt. Whether you block me or not, the brits will still cling to their institutions as their world crumbles around their feet.

by Anonymousreply 116March 29, 2020 4:25 PM

How did a religious nut psycho end up taking over this thread?

by Anonymousreply 117March 29, 2020 10:41 PM

R37 - I just googled Prince George Birth Record Image . . . it came up immediately. Prince George's name is listed, handwritten, thusly:

"His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge"

The name "Mountatten-Windsor" does not appear.

What birth record were you looking at?

by Anonymousreply 118March 29, 2020 10:51 PM

R37 - "He's George Mountbatten-Windsor because that is what was recorded at the time of his birth. "

You're wrong. As stated above, what was recorded on his birth record was "His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge"

Prince William's birth record is also easily available - he isn't listed as William Mountbatten-Windsor. He's listed as His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis"

And as his father was the Prince of Wales, if any surname was used, it would have been Wales, just as they put Cambridge on the Cambridge childrens' birth records.

Again, nowhere is Mountbatten-Windsor mentioned.

by Anonymousreply 119March 29, 2020 10:59 PM

Nowhere on my birth certificate does it say anything about Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor. Its His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge for you, you plebs.

—George VII

And yet, Prince George is NOT George VII. If Prince Charles is ever going to be king, he is going to call himself George VII in honor of his grandfather. You've no idea what George will call himself if he is ever king. He may be George VII if Charles is never king, or he might reign under a completely different name.

by Anonymousreply 120March 30, 2020 2:15 AM

[quote] You've no idea what George will call himself

Queen Mary, most likely.

by Anonymousreply 121March 30, 2020 2:19 AM

r121 Queen MARY!

by Anonymousreply 122March 30, 2020 2:59 AM

R121 'Eenie meenie miney mo, catch a nigger by the toe

by Anonymousreply 123March 30, 2020 3:02 AM

[R45] We know that at this point they're a fucking joke.

by Anonymousreply 124March 30, 2020 3:06 AM

And I thought the gays were supposed to be witty, Georgie/R123.

Apparently not.

by Anonymousreply 125March 30, 2020 3:13 AM

There’s no way Charles is going to adopt a different regnal name. Grandfather or no, we live in different times. He’s been known in international media as Charles since he was born. His grandfather wouldn’t have been a blip on anyone’s radar, the newspapers didn’t cover royalty the same way then as now. Suddenly calling him George would be very odd, it’s not going to happen.

by Anonymousreply 126March 30, 2020 4:37 AM

R124 - Then why is your country now going to be the launch pad for their work, based only on the fact that they are attached to that fucking joke - without which, no one would know who they are?

What America thinks of the monarchy is irrelevant. Brits still support it by clear margins.

And if they're such a fucking joke, what are you doing here eagerly following discussions about them?

by Anonymousreply 127March 30, 2020 2:35 PM

R120, yeah, he’ll likely ditch ‘George’ and reign as Alexander or Louis, because those are regnal names traditionally associated with good luck *rolling my eyes as I type*

by Anonymousreply 128March 31, 2020 9:44 AM

Why do they need last names at all? Especially if they are going to be living in Los Angeles. Cher is Cher. Meghan is obviously Meghan and everyone will know who Harry is.

Done.

by Anonymousreply 129April 3, 2020 12:58 PM

[quote] There’s no way Charles is going to adopt a different regnal name. Grandfather or no, we live in different times. He’s been known in international media as Charles since he was born. His grandfather wouldn’t have been a blip on anyone’s radar, the newspapers didn’t cover royalty the same way then as now. Suddenly calling him George would be very odd, it’s not going to happen.

But, Charles promised me. That lying little shit.

by Anonymousreply 130April 3, 2020 11:50 PM

Well, it doesn't matter what he calls himself. Charles isn't really king material anyway.

by Anonymousreply 131April 4, 2020 12:57 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!