Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

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.

Kensington Palace Blasts Magazine’s Kate Middleton Cover Story In Rare Statement

Tatler, which published the story for its July/August issue, says it stands behind its reporting.

“Tatler’s Editor-in-Chief Richard Dennen stands behind the reporting of Anna Pasternak and her sources,” said a spokesperson for the publication. “Kensington Palace knew we were running the ‘Catherine the Great’ cover months ago and we asked them to work together on it. The fact they are denying they ever knew is categorically false.”

In the piece, Tatler says it spoke with royal courtiers, friends close to Kate, and palace staff ― all of whom are anonymous in the piece ― to delve into the relationship between the Duchess of Cambridge and other members of the royal family, including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20306/30/2020

Here is the "Tatler" story:

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is crowned Catherine the Great on the July/August cover

Kate Middleton's star is going stratospheric as the country looks to the monarchy for morale. Anna Pasternak charts her ascent

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105/27/2020

Why don’t they just say no comment. Never apologize or compromise. The Queen would’ve just shrugged this nonsense off.

by Anonymousreply 205/27/2020

Yes. We know.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 305/27/2020

That's a Megstan thread, r3. It doesn't count. This is the real thread.

by Anonymousreply 405/27/2020

Tatler's response to KP's unusual denial statement is in itself weird. KP said that none of the "friend's quotes" claiming Kate is upset were fact checked with them, so they were not given a chance to deny it before publication, so the usual journalistic practice was not followed.

Tatler responded to that by saying "KP knew the story was coming out and would be a cover story."

But Tatler neatly sidesteps what KP actually said in their complaint, and in doing so, is basically confirming that no one at Tatler ever fact-checked those quotes in their cover story.

by Anonymousreply 505/27/2020

Also the "Friends of Kate" quoted in Tatler use Americanisms such as "stepped up to the plate". Even if Kate *did* have friends who talk to the press (she never has for these last 19 years), no one in her circle would use an American baseball reference. Also the term "Thrown under the bus" is never used in Britain. Another Americanism amid the "quotes from Kate's friends".

Considering the author Pasternak is a close friend of that Mulroney woman... I suspect these quotes are coming straight from Meghan, albeit indirectly.

This article is a hit job dressed up as praise. And it has Meghan's fingerprints all over it.

by Anonymousreply 605/27/2020

Precisely, R6. Thank you.

by Anonymousreply 705/27/2020

She suffered the indignity of the ‘doors to manual’ jibe (a reference to her mother Carole’s former role as an air hostess) and needles about her ‘common’ family background – Carole being ‘NQOCD’ (Not Quite Our Class, Darling) for having been born in a council flat in Southall and descended from Durham coal-mining stock.

by Anonymousreply 805/27/2020

It’s true that when she speaks, in her carefully modulated voice (coached with the help of the late Anthony Gordon Lennox, Old Etonian nephew of the Duke of Richmond – friends say that Kate’s accent became ‘posher’ at Marlborough and that now she sounds ‘even more plummy than William’), she says all the right things, and more often prefers to be called Catherine. But where is the passion?

by Anonymousreply 905/27/2020

"Where's the passion?"

r9, "passion" is exactly what we do no want to see in our Queen. Calm, considerate, stoic, graceful: all those things are good in a Queen, but "passionate", not so much.

by Anonymousreply 1005/27/2020

If Kate is a gold-digger or social climber, she's one of the best! Because the secret of the absolute best gold-diggers and social climbers, what separates them from the average throwaway ho, is to live up to whatever bargain they've made with their target. And if that means stepping up and acting like THE queen when you're a stewardess's daughter who has young kids to look after, then you bloody well step up and be as royal as if you were born to it!

Meghan should have treated Kate like her zen master, learned from her instead of being fool enough to treat her as a rival.

by Anonymousreply 1105/27/2020

Ask Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard r9.

by Anonymousreply 1205/28/2020

She also threatened legal action when the tabs gossiped about her Botox. Whatever happened to “Never complain, never explain?”

by Anonymousreply 1306/03/2020

Fuck that stupid social climbing bitch!

by Anonymousreply 1406/03/2020

"Maybe this is a defence against appearing like Diana, Princess of Wales, who put The Firm’s backs up by being over-emotional, volatile, vulnerable and skittishly complex."

Diana didn't put their backs up. They loathed her, and it wasn't because she was "skittishly complex", it was because she was not only a total narcissist like Meghan, but batshit crazy along with it. She wasn't loved by the public for any of her "complex behaviour". She was loved because she was a style icon, beyond glamorous, and like many narcs was fantastic in public at presenting the image of someone who'd be great fun to be with.

Catherine and Princess Mary of Denmark are working from the same playbook, and are probably big confidantes behind the scenes because their similarity of approach is too noticeable to be unconnected. Both of them are going to be "power behind the throne" queens, and each of them is currently cherished by her present Queen because she knows this. You won't see articles like this talking about that, though, because neither of them has a publicist dropping gems about it to terrible reporters like this one, who couldn't find out a damn thing and blamed the subject for her own inadequacy.

Kate is not one iota like Princess Diana, and I'm quite sure William likes it like that. Even if he does screw around on her, he's about as likely to leave her as Bill was to leave Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 1506/03/2020

Fleet Street on fire!

by Anonymousreply 1606/03/2020

Please don't compare Kate to Hillary Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 1706/03/2020

So is Kate really what we would call "white trash" over here in America?

by Anonymousreply 1806/03/2020

Oh God no, she's jumped-up middle class!

But a superb social jumper, the absolute best. You have to admire that kind of expertise.

by Anonymousreply 1906/03/2020

R18 - Oh, yes: Bucklebury is just one large trailer trash campsite.

". . . she was enrolled aged four at St Andrew's School, a private school near Pangbourne in Berkshire. She boarded part-weekly at St Andrew's in her later years. She studied at Downe House School. She was a boarder at Marlborough College, a co-educational independent boarding school in Wiltshire, and graduated in 2005 from the University of St Andrews in Fife, Scotland, with an undergraduate MA (2:1 Hons) in the history of art. Before university, during a gap year, she travelled to Chile to participate in a Raleigh International programme, and studied at the British Institute of Florence in Italy."

Total white trash.

by Anonymousreply 2006/03/2020

They actually actually acknowledged "Black Lives Matter" today. I wasn't expecting that. I didn't know they could talk about things like that.

Is that normal?

by Anonymousreply 2106/03/2020

R14 is too stupid to realize that Meghan supporter Nicole Cliffe made up those rumors about Prince William and admitted it on her social media. How incredibly embarrassing for you.

by Anonymousreply 2206/03/2020

They really should sue Nicole Cliffe. If not the Cambs, then Rose and her husband.

by Anonymousreply 2306/03/2020

Isn't it interesting that calling Meghan's nose job bad is hate speech but referring to Kate's weight isn't? That TATLER article contained more misogyny than I've seen in one place in a long time. But as we know, as long as the misogyny is directed at white women, it's perfectly all right.

Meanwhile, one sees that Meghan waited for the most optimum moment to address George Floyd's death - a virytual speech to her old school, Immaculate Heart.

It's full of her usual self-referential style. And she should really stop using those face filters on the videos, because one day she's going to have to appear in public again and will look nothing like she did on the videos.

by Anonymousreply 2406/04/2020

[quote]That TATLER article contained more misogyny than I've seen in one place in a long time

... really?

by Anonymousreply 2506/04/2020

I really hope that Meg isn't behind all this but things look pretty bad.

As pointed out up thread, the American terms/slang used in the quotes are hard to ignore.

Looks like it's true. Meg is kinda evil and poor Harry is just dumb.

by Anonymousreply 2606/04/2020

R20, The aristocracy does consider Kate and her family "white trash" and therein lies the problem. She maybe part of the royal family but in their eyes she and her family will never be one of the them and on their level. The article describes how the aristocracy really feels about the Middleton clan. What's the point in suing the magazine? It just means more tea about Kate and Carol will be spilled by the media. All these years and still treated like the help...

R26, You really think this about Meghan? Well, it's not! It's about Kate being reminded of her station by the aristrocracy. Kate doesn't have friends, but only frenemies.

by Anonymousreply 2706/04/2020

They shouldn’t have dignified that with a response.

by Anonymousreply 2806/04/2020

R28, Kate and Carole should have left it alone, but it tells you how sensitive they are to how they are still perceived by the upper classes. Imagine you marry into the royal family and you try to do everything to prove yourself to a small group of people and it still never enough. The British class system will never be truly understood by Americans. It is so entrenched...

by Anonymousreply 2906/04/2020

R29, being an American, I don’t fully understand, but I have an idea. It seems unfair *shrugs*.

by Anonymousreply 3006/04/2020

R29 - I agree that the sensible thing to do would have been to leave it alone, and I very much doubt that a full-fledged lawsuit will result. But there is also some argument that saying nothing would have encouraged more vicious attacks. William is well known for being extremely tough when e it comes to his family, and for holding grudges.

It's also clear that this is part of Meghan's rehabilitation PR programme, which ipso facto has to include slinging mud at the Windsors, especially Kate and, by extension, William. And one thing William is well-known for is holding a grudge. As the old saying has it, revenge is a dish best served cold.

But it doesn't change the fact that the long game is going to the Cambridges, that the overload of spite in the piece caused a backlash in the other direction, AND pointed a finger at possible indirect involvement by Meghan, who is already deeply suspected of same in the PEOPLE Magazine fiasco, which also didn't get her, long-term, anything but raised eyebrows and accusations of extravagant self-aggrandisement, and later on, suspicion of outright perjury re her involvement.

The aristocracy also made fun of Queen Mary because she'd been born a Serene rather than Royal Highness. Mary had the last laugh in the end.

But the article wasn't even fun. It's intent was too obvious, it didn't tell us anything we didn't know, and there were too many unbelievable stretches, the one about Pippa feeling a bit lost being the most egregious. Tina Brown's "The Mouse that Roared" was the model, but this piece fell far short of the deliciousness in Brown's piece. Brown is also a much better writer.

I should feel as lost as Pippa Middleton Matthews . . .

by Anonymousreply 3106/04/2020

What does a "very Buckinghamshire" interior look like?

by Anonymousreply 3206/04/2020

R31, you make a good argument. Dog knows I’ve held my tongue for a good long time, only to lose my shit when someone hits a sore spot. It happens.

And I agree that this is a roundabout smack from the surprisingly long arm of Meghan.

Not that the BRF should be critic-proof, but this was just dumb of Tatler.

by Anonymousreply 3306/04/2020

Kate is in a similar position as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, who was not "up there" and was subject to rumors on her actual parentage (the cook's daughter by her father was the rumor David and Wallis loves to share). Of course Kate is lower, but things also have shifted.

Remember, too, that much of what's being said here is guessing. The "nobility" is largely Kate's age who have had years of being around her with William, some nasties who do what they do and say what they say, and the old guard who are part of the system and play their entitlement in full recognition of discretion and support for the system.

Kate will outlive most of the older types, and in her role as Princess of Wales and eventual queen she will then take the same prominence as the Bowes-Lyon did as Queen Consort. If she outlives King William, she will be Queen Mother and be able to do whatever she wants and everyone will have to bless her for it.

by Anonymousreply 3406/04/2020

King Mother, R34. I got pinged for the same mistake.

by Anonymousreply 3506/04/2020

You people seem to have forgotten how horribly I was treated by my husband's family and the media.

by Anonymousreply 3606/04/2020

I agree with R34. This is part and parcel of the baggage and, like Queens Mary and Elizabeth, Kate will blow past this to her eventual destiny.

Princess Marina of Greece called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon whilst she was still Duchess of York "that common little Scottish girl" - mind, the daughter of an Earl! But Marina was a blood princess. However, come the Abdication, and suddenly the "common little Scottish girl" is Queen Consort of Great Britain, and Empress of India (the very last one), and Marina quickly lined up behind the new King and Queen as most of the old-time nobility did. Everyone who counted now knew on which side of society the bread was buttered.

Wallis, like Meghan, continued after her exile to make snide remarks about Elizabeth ("that fat Scottish cook") and the British monarchy ("a split-level matriarchy" Wallis called it, with Queen Mary and the new Queen Elizabeth the real powers) throughout her life.

And it didn't make a damned bit of difference. Elizabeth Bowed-Lyon ended her life adored by the public, credited with having helped save the monarchy and of exemplary behaviour throughout the war, surrounded by children, grandchilldren, and great-grandchildren.

Kate is likely on the same path.

by Anonymousreply 3706/04/2020

^*Bowes-Lyon (not Bowed)

by Anonymousreply 3806/04/2020

Whoever is behind this article, Kate and Will can play it to their advantage.

If Meg's behind it, she looks like a trashy, envious, spiteful, Mean Girl, who's trying everything she can to drive her husband's family apart.

If the aristocracy is striking a blow against a jumped-up middle class gal becoming queen, it's even better! It really does make Kate look like the Real People's Princess, a regular gal who's growing into her role as future queen during a national crisis, whether the aristocracy likes it or not!

by Anonymousreply 3906/04/2020

[Quote]"a split-level matriarchy" Wallis called it,

Which worked out quite well for the nation. That is until dithering Loony Charles, would-be businessman, the rapey grotesque Randy Andy, and would-be entertainment mogul Dockyard Doris Edward came along.

by Anonymousreply 4006/04/2020

I just read it and I don’t think it painted Meghan in a good light. Would a “friend of a friend” write about her like that - The staff hating her and William and Kate worrying about the Queen because of what she’s been put through.

by Anonymousreply 4106/04/2020

Every single member of the aristocracy in about 15 years will be bending the knee to Queen Catherine. Jealousy is never a good look.

by Anonymousreply 4206/04/2020

The Tatler piece is so over the top in places I wonder if it was meant as a comic piece of sarcasm and hype but the author just didn't have the talent to pull it off.

by Anonymousreply 4306/04/2020

I finally read the whole article, they are really cuntish to her. I think she should just start spitting them in their eyes.

by Anonymousreply 4406/04/2020

Nevermind the publisher. The author sounds on, um, the dubious side. I thought the name Anna Pasternak sounded familiar.

She sounds as much of a self-promoter as Meghan.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4506/04/2020

[quote] The Tatler piece is so over the top in places I wonder if it was meant as a comic piece of sarcasm and hype but the author just didn't have the talent to pull it off.

Oh, it’s absolutely a condescending hatchet job. Kate likely thought it would positive, like her Vogue cover. Tatler is essentially a gossip mag for the upper classes. No one said the British press is nice.

by Anonymousreply 4606/04/2020

Looks like Kate is still being meangirl'd to death by the spiteful British aristos. If it were me, I'd be plotting some ferocious future payback.

by Anonymousreply 4706/04/2020

The remnants of the British aristocracy love Kate and the royals, just because a shitty hatchet job is published in the Tatler, doesn't mean it's representative of their views.

The Tatler editor was at university with William and Kate. I can imagine that he was desperate to be part of their circle but they weren't interested and he's been bitter and fuming ever since. This is why he's reheating nearly 20-year-old bullshit, because he's still stuck in that period, when he was "snubbed".

He's obviously got a huge grudge and this was just the opening salvo of his campaign against them. They know this, which is why they want to nip it in the bud.

by Anonymousreply 4806/04/2020

I commented weeks ago that the courtiers and whoever else was advising the Cambridge's had fucked up. I have very very good sources. Making Meghan the Biracial antichrist backfired. It was picked up in tweet analysis. The tide has tuned in regards to the BRF. The BLM movement has also changed everything in regards to what people will accept and not accept. Anti Meghan blogs that are very pro Kate are now being focused on after someone shared some of their chat in regards to Doria. Threads on LSA are also being discussed in regards to digital blackface. Comparing Black people's noses to a character that had a pig snout was the last straw in regards to the particular in thread on LSA that is very pro Kate. The Daily mail reporter that was at a protest in England had to leave because of they were getting called racist. A protest outside one of the BRF residences. And lastly the Tatler article. The mood has changed. Ignoring that fact won't work this time.

by Anonymousreply 4906/05/2020

R33 careful you don't fall over from all that reaching you're doing.

It's cute to imagine that Meghan has any influence whatsoever over a venerable UK aristo gossip mag, but of course it all makes sense in the diseased hive mind of anti-Meghan freaks.

It's more shocking how Kate has gotten so used to all the closing coverage that she falls to pieces over the one article that tries to be a bit more balanced in its reporting, namely by not licking her hairy vag at every opportunity. Her reaction, through the Palace, is over the top and ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 5006/05/2020

What won't work r49 and what does some meme about Doria have to do with the BRF? Who gives a shit about LSA? The BRF aren't celebs vying for online popularity, they're a central part of the British constitution.

What the past few days have exposed is that Meghan's bullshit excuse that she had to leave the UK because it is so racist and flee to the open-minded safety of the US is a lie. The US is the most racist country in the world.

by Anonymousreply 5106/05/2020

[Quote]I have very very good sources.

Oh my. How many times has Trump said this over the course of the last decade?😂

by Anonymousreply 5206/05/2020

[quote]The US is the most racist country in the world.

You've obviously never visited Asia.

by Anonymousreply 5306/05/2020

India is absolutely obsessed with skin shade and class. Ffs, their entire religion is based on "caste" levels, and it was developed long before the West got there. It was outlawed years ago but, like dowries and kitchen deaths and a truly savage rape culture, the castes system persists. The Untouchables at the bottom caste are all really dark and the Brahmin caste are all fair-skinned.

People obsessed with the sins of the First World should get out more and see what it's like to be born a woman in Somalia (as opposed to, say, Denmark), or the Republic of Congo, or in rural China - which, by the way, is also obsessed with fairer skin. Personals ads in China (yes, they do them there, too) are filled with people using code words for "fair complected".

But hey, don't let all that spoil your fun.

by Anonymousreply 5406/05/2020

The point is, r53, that the US is not some kind of anti-racist paradise, it is in fact way more racist than the UK. So, to leave the UK because it is supposedly so racist to go to the US is hardly a credible excuse.

by Anonymousreply 5506/05/2020

Pasternak wouldn't have gotten a foot in any literary door without her last name. She can't write to save her life.

I read Tina Brown's "The Mouse that Roared" and her biography of Diana, and they were both Grade A gossip, written with a pen in one hand and a rapier in the other, honed to a fineness and going for the jugulars of everyone in sight. Now, THAT was fun!

This was just distasteful b.s. dressed up as gossip.

by Anonymousreply 5606/05/2020

[quote]The Tatler editor was at university with William and Kate. I can imagine that he was desperate to be part of their circle but they weren't interested and he's been bitter and fuming ever since.

Richard Dennan has been on holiday with Kate. They are friendly. The assumption that this article is personal is wrong. Bitchy articles about the royals is nothing new.

The press have made fun of Princess Margaret, Fergie, Diana, Charles, Edward... it's just cycled back to Kate again. Even the Queen got column inches about her dowdy hair, love of Barbara Cartland, philistinism and lack of intellect - in that case it was in a "she's like everyone's favourite Granny, bless her heart!".

Yeah, it's no fun hearing that your country house is furnished like that of a footballer's wife in Bucks and you don't do as many events as others but it's not that big of a deal to sue over. It's a mistake of the people advising Kate and William that they are immune.

What is actually more noticeable is that none of the press will touch Andrew. The Queen won't let them.

by Anonymousreply 5706/05/2020

[quote] The US is the most racist country in the world.

Decreed by someone without any experience in or knowledge of the world.

by Anonymousreply 5806/05/2020

Don't worry, r58, that was likely written by Laurence Fox

by Anonymousreply 5906/05/2020

R57, Richard Dennan has been on holiday with Kate - was it just him, her and a couple of other friends? When you're a student you end up doing all sorts of things with all sorts of people who aren't necessarily close friends.

But, let's say they were close friends in their St Andrew's days - they're obviously not now, and that would be another source for Dennan's bitterness.

by Anonymousreply 6006/05/2020

R58, in your opinion, is the UK or the US more racist? How many black people have the British police killed in the past few years, and in a similar way to the way American police do it?

by Anonymousreply 6106/05/2020

The thing is, r60, Denman is not actually bitter and this isn’t about Kate. That article was written not because of anything she did or did not do, but because that’s what Tatler (and the British press, high and low) do.

by Anonymousreply 6206/05/2020

And just in from the TIMES (IK) - Meghan's lawyers have dropped the charge that the newspapers "exploited" her father from the Complaint. The newly submitted Amended Complaint omits the charge.

The TIMES has a paywall, so am unable to read the full article to see if the Amended Complaint still leaves in all the other stuff Mr Justice Warby struck out.

by Anonymousreply 6306/05/2020

Further on the Markle Amended Complaint, submitted yesterday, from The SUN:

". . . Lawyers deleted the allegation the paper "harassed and humiliated" her father and "manipulated this vulnerable man into giving interviews".

Also removed are "irrelevant" parts including accusations the paper published "misleading information in relation to Frogmore" where the couple lived at Windsor before quitting for California.

Meghan is also not able to rely on her claims that the paper "deliberately manipulated and exploited a vulnerable and fragile individual".

And lawyers struck out her claim the paper engineered the fall-out between Meghan and her father.

They cut out her argument the paper "created a dispute which it (falsely) claims gave rise to legitimate reason to publish the detailed content of the letter".

I'm most interested in the bits that were struck out about Frogmore.

by Anonymousreply 6406/05/2020

The article is fawning over Kate, idk why anybody is mad

by Anonymousreply 6506/05/2020

Maybe post that in the Meghan thread, r64.

by Anonymousreply 6606/05/2020

Does the bit about Frogmore mean they really did spend five grand on a copper bathtub?

by Anonymousreply 6706/05/2020

I don't think they ever lived in Frogmore or that the place has had substantial renovation.

Can anyone link to a single photo of them there, inside or out?

by Anonymousreply 6806/05/2020

It isn’t fawning r64. It’s Brit speak.

So what do posters think of this? I think it’s somewhat snotty.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6906/05/2020

From R69's link

[quote] Since the dark day that Charlton Heston hung up his wig, no man in Hollywood has held more guns than Prince Harry. Meghan’s husband is — or was, until she had a word — a habitual hunter of furry animals. He also served two tours as a helicopter gunner in Afghanistan. Prince Harry probably fired more rounds at people of color than the combined police departments of America have over the last week. But Meghan bravely soldiers on.

by Anonymousreply 7006/05/2020

R69 - I am R64 and my post didn't mention "fawning" so I think your post might have been meant for someone else?

And I am British.

by Anonymousreply 7106/05/2020

R69 - Of course, the piece is "somewhat snotty".

It's a tone the Speccie cultivates for evisceration. Douglas Murray, who writes for them, is particularly adept at it.

But the snottiness is richly earned by the Harkles.

by Anonymousreply 7206/05/2020

Yes, I meant r65, R71. Sorry. 🤷‍♀️

by Anonymousreply 7306/05/2020

[quote] [R20], The aristocracy does consider Kate and her family "white trash" and therein lies the problem.

That's inaccurate. It's really not much of a problem at all.

Princess Margaret married a commoner (his mother eventually became the Countess of Rosse, but he was born common and remained so until he married Margaret). Prince Charles's first wife was the daughter of an earl, but his second wife was a commoner, and all three of his siblings married commoners. So there's [italic]plenty[/italic] of precedent for Kate at this point among the royal family.

What the aristocrats think doesn't matter much to the royal family, since they're out of the royal family. And by her marriage Kate outranks every aristocrat in the nation: she is a member of the royal family and is a royal duchess, which means she outranks every duchess in the country who is non-royal.

Who could be snobby to her in the current royal family then? The Queen, Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie, and Princess Alexandra were all born royal, but none of them are snobs. Sophie Wessex and Fergie and Meghan Sussex were born as common as she was (and Fergie is common again).

Plus she's got plenty of international precedent for being a royal born a commoner. The current queens of Spain, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands are all born common; so is the current empress of Japan. The crown princess of Sweden is married to a commoner, and so are the crown princes of Denmark and Norway.

Finally, no aristocrat with an ounce of intelligence is the UK is going to be snobby to Kate now she's the Duchess of Cambridge. She will certainly be queen some day (probably within the next 20-30 years), and they would be idiots to antagonize her. I can guarantee you she has not heard "doors to manual" since her engagement, and she never will again.

by Anonymousreply 7406/05/2020

A former King of England became engaged to and later married a twice divorced American. You can't get much lower than that.

by Anonymousreply 7506/05/2020

R74 you forgot this

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7606/05/2020

R35, there is no such thing as a King Mother. Typically, the mother of a king or queen-regnant, if she herself was once a queen-consort, is referred to as the Queen Mother. The term was used as far back as the seventeenth century (Henrietta Maria, mother of King Charles II; Anne of Austria, mother of King Louis XIV of France). No one has ever been called the King Mother.

by Anonymousreply 7706/05/2020

The most recent Queen Mother was known as such because she had the same name as her daughter, otherwise she would just have been known as Queen Elizabeth. In the same way as her mother-in-law was Queen Mary, whose mother-in-law was Queen Alexandra. Queens both regnant and consort are referred to as “The Queen” until they’re either dead or widowed, and in the latter case they are known as “Queen FirstName” to distinguish themselves from their successor.

by Anonymousreply 7806/05/2020

Clarification on the commoner business: anyone who isn't royal is considered a commoner, including aristocrats. Diana was technically a commoner, so was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when she married Prince Albert, Duke of York (later George VI) - that's why Princess Marina of Greece, born a princess of the blood, snootily referred to the Duchess as "that common little Scottish girl". That ended swiftly when it became clear that the common little Scottish girl was going to be Queen.

A commoner is anyone who isn't royal, no matter what aristocratic title they hold. The aristocracy, of course, has its own levels and permutations of rank, with aristos like the Norfolks and Westminsters at the top.

But without that HRH, they are all commoners. Which is why Meghan was so furious at being deprived of hers when she pulled Harry off HMS Windsor with her.

Oooohhh that HRH: so very UnWoke and yet so very . . . entrancing.

by Anonymousreply 7906/05/2020

If this is true this proves what a complete psycho Rachel is.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8006/05/2020

[quote] Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie ... were all born royal, but none of them are snobs.

Nice one, bro!

by Anonymousreply 8106/05/2020

There's a new megsy blind today too.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8206/05/2020

Has there ever been a Queen or King Emeritus? I rather like the sound of it.

by Anonymousreply 8306/05/2020

It's known that the Meghan stalkers feed the blind gossip sites blinds. They mention it on their blogs. The stalkers like that both the blind gossip sites are rightwing. They are known to target left wing celebrities. Qanon overan the CDAN comments section for a reason. They found a nice accommodating site that feeds their rightwing ideology. This is basic knowledge. Anybody who links and believes blinds is gullible as fuck.

by Anonymousreply 8406/05/2020

Damn!!!!!! Go to Byline Investigates. Juicy juicy info has just been revealed

by Anonymousreply 8506/05/2020

The Dutch are practical that way, Queen Beatrix abdicated in 2013 and is now Princess Beatrix. So her son didn't have to spend his life simultaneously loving his mother and anticipating her death.

by Anonymousreply 8606/06/2020

Could have, Would have, Should have.

Look at the Black Lives Matter protests in London. I think the Duchess of Sussex has.

If she and the Duke of Sussex had played the long game, played their cards right, stayed in the fold of the BRF, the DoS possibly could have, with Q E II's approval, deftly signaled from the BRF support of the BLM movement. The DoS would have been the conduit.

She could have been, with skillfully chosen words, delicately signaling the support of the BRF, while not straying into political waters.

I'm convinced, if done right, her message would have been positively received and as a result, she'd have what she wants- to be a Superstar.

And what a positive contrast from Kate she would present and I write that as a fan of Kate who is very restricted because of her position now and what it will be in the future.

If only.

*Sigh*- Could Have, Would Have, Should Have

by Anonymousreply 8706/06/2020

R77 Margaret Beaufort mother of Henry VII was known as King Mother.

by Anonymousreply 8806/06/2020

More American ignorance and fantasy from Della. Believe it or not, Black Lives Matter is not that big a thing in the UK and members of the royal family are not meant to get involved in political issues. Are you suggesting that the Queen or the Duchess of Cambridge should align themselves with a movement that is critical of the police force - and not just the British police but law enforcement in another country?

And the royal family should be interested in helping to make Meghan an international superstar just why, exactly?

As loads of the BLM advocates are screaming at everyone online - educate yourself.

And, as a Londoner, I'm very concerned at how the BLM demo here violated lockdown rules, rules on social distancing and rules on gatherings. I hope there isn't a spike in coronavirus infections as a result of it.

by Anonymousreply 8906/06/2020

The fact that Kensington Palace felt the need to issue an extremely rare response to the Tatler article is proof in itself that this isn't typical Tatler or British tabloid cover of the royals and if Kate was ever friendly with the Tatler editor, she isn't anymore.

by Anonymousreply 9006/06/2020

[quote] Are you suggesting that the Queen or the Duchess of Cambridge should align themselves with a movement that is critical of the police force - and not just the British police but law enforcement in another country?

Way to completely, deliberately misconstrue what I wrote. Do you need the words "delicately", "carefully" and "deftly" defined for you? Go look them up.

And don't tell me that the BRF and its staff don't know how to write skillful, diplomatic, messages that manage to get a point across while not offending anybody or anything.

They invented that.

And if the BLM movement isn't "a big thing" in London, I'll take your word for it or I can look at CNN where it's covering the London protests.

by Anonymousreply 9106/06/2020

[quote[ And don't tell me that the BRF and its staff don't know how to write skillful, diplomatic, messages that manage to get a point across while not offending anybody or anything.

You fundamentally misunderstand the role of the British monarchy. It is not to get involved in domestic or foreign political issues. Ever.

[quote] And if the BLM movement isn't "a big thing" in London, I'll take your word for it or I can look at CNN where it's covering the London protests.

The problem with Americans it that Americans view the world through the lens of American tv.

by Anonymousreply 9206/06/2020

R90 I think it’s less about Kate - her laziness and hatred of Meghan Markle has been reported on a million times - and more about the potshots at Carole. Tatler made fun of her in a big way - they literally call her Hyacinth Bucket - and paint her as a craven social climber in a way that would be really upsetting to a daughter.

by Anonymousreply 9306/06/2020

Furthermore, r89, I never suggested that the BRF "help" Meghan become a superstar. They provided a stage for her; one she wanted at the time.

I've consistently argued here over the past few years, since their marriage that, it's now on the Duchess of Sussex to shrewdly, smartly play her cards well. I wanted to see her lay low, not put a foot wrong, and soak up form the palace staff and Kate everything she could learn.

But she didn't. She screwed up, starting with that spectacular, gigantic mistake of that NY City, Show Folk, vulgar baby shower.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex screw-ups are theirs, not the BRFs.

by Anonymousreply 9406/06/2020

Once in awhile, blinds accidentally hit a bullseye, but by the time they do, it's what most suspected from enough decent leaks. I would view them with caution - they print anything they like.

The only story that has veracity is the basic one: a narcissistic, grasping, aiming for global fame but unable to get it on her own merits and running out of time at 36, snags one of the most high-profile boys on the planet, who has numerous emotional problems, is notoriously immature and dim, and gets a title, an HRH, a free home, a million dollar wardrobe, a $30 million wedding, a rich father-in-law, and the much longed for global fame and attention.

Instead of a shrewd appraisal of the benefits of the long game, the narc, unable to accept "second place" despite its massive perks and advantages, goes into a frenzy of competition with the future King and Queen (both sets, actually), but especially focuses her envious hatred on the One Day To Be Queen, better-looking sister in law with the long, glossy locks the narc is obsessed with, and sets out to make as much trouble as possible for her and for the family from whom she got so much, but that the narc feels still isn't enough.

By the time she's been married six months and is safely pregnant with her anchor baby and negotiating tool, the narc makes it clear that she's planning to bail, as well as revealing a few other nasty character traits. Underneath it all, no matter what they said publicly, the family were likely relieved to find out that the endlessly whingeing, bitchy diva wanted out, because they'd got the narc's number quickly and realised she was more trouble than she was worth. The question was how to do it with as little damage to all concerned as possible.

But in this, as well, the narc refused to listen to reason and she so often does, made faulty assumptions about being able to bully the Queen into giving her what she wanted by publishing her "manifesto" before negotiations were complete. She found out that the Queen wasn't that easily bullied, and herself and the Not As Rich As She Thought hubby more or less booted off the island without their HRHs and SussexRoyal, and in not given the half-in, half-out, cherry-picking role the narc thought she would get automatically, just because she said so.

The rest is history: Charles' money spent on all that trademarking and web site development down the crapper, no HRH use, and a pandemic that keeps the narc penned in during a crucial period when she needed to be out there taking advantage of interest that is already waning. She loses the first battle in a lawsuit that will be ultimately damaging even if she wins it because of what will come out as it proceeds. Her lawyers don't even bother trying to make better arguments for the charges the court ordered dropped, but submits the amended complaint without them, and thus focuses the case on an issue that will bring the PEOPLE Magazine article into play in a way the narc and her "friends" won't like.

The narc continues from afar to try to damage the family, who now know that they can never welcome back their prodigal son whilst he is still attached to the nasty spiteful bitch he married. William and Kate would probably, rightfully, refuse ever to be in a room with the narc again barring Philip's and HM's funerals. The narc helpfully burned all her husband's bridges for hubby. That includes the TATLER piece, which by now everyone knows has the narc's fingerprints on it at a third remove.

The narc will continue to annoy them for the rest of her life. Serves them right for not having the balls to tell Harry to head off to America with her right away, instead of giving her the platform she wanted, and giving her enough status to be a thorn in their sides for another 30 years.

The rest of the story, the leaks and rumours (true or not) are just sidebars to the fundamental family tragedy the Windsors brought on themselves through a long cultivated risk-averse policy.

If you lie down with dogs, you shall get up with fleas.

by Anonymousreply 9506/06/2020


by Anonymousreply 9606/06/2020

r96 is correct.

by Anonymousreply 9706/06/2020

R69, it's a bit too bitter for my taste, but the writer does have MM's number. I especially liked the pointing up of the hypocrisy of being woke and also marrying into the BRF: "Since ... Charlton Heston, no man in Hollywood has held more guns than Prince Harry. Meghan’s husband is — or was, until she had a word — a habitual hunter of furry animals. He also served two tours as a helicopter gunner in Afghanistan. Prince Harry probably fired more rounds at people of color than the combined police departments of America have over the last week."

by Anonymousreply 9806/06/2020

Move over, boys! If you want a style icon from Royalty today, look to HM Queen Letizia of Spain. And if you desire a paragon of beauty, dignity, and the common touch look to HM Mathilde, Queen of the Belgians!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9906/06/2020

R89, I'd be curious to know of instances during her lifetime when Lady Margaret Beaufort was called King Mother. She was certainly the king's mother, but I am unaware of instances when she was referred to as King Mother.

by Anonymousreply 10006/06/2020

R100 - I would also like some source material on that. Henry of Richmond's Mum was called many things, but I don't remember ever seeing King Mother in the histories.

by Anonymousreply 10106/06/2020

She was called My Lady the King's Mother

by Anonymousreply 10206/06/2020

R102 - Well, that makes much more sense.

by Anonymousreply 10306/06/2020

R83 King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain are now referred to King and Queen Emeritus after he abdicated in favor of his hot son.

by Anonymousreply 10406/06/2020

R85, Byline has been reporting the truth on Murdoch, Wooton, Kensington Place and the rest of their cronies. It's a long article, but the rest is at the link for those who are interested. Harry is coming for Murdoch, Wooton and his brother...

ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry’s Legal Move Over ‘Cash-for-Briefings’ Claims at The Sun – The Story Murdoch Tried to Bury June 5, 2020 Byline Investigates Article updated 06-06-20, with additional comment from Christian Jones included at foot

PRINCE Harry is threatening to sue The Sun newspaper alleging it paid the partner of a Royal aide for sensitive briefings.

TOP editor Dan Wootton is named in the legal challenge, which has developed from ‘new whistle-blower information’.

WOOTTON and publisher News UK have vowed to sue this website if we report on a ‘Letter Before Action’ setting out allegations by the Duke of Sussex, which they both deny

ROYAL Communications Secretary Christian Jones has categorically denied being the source, and continues to work for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as:

WE decline to be bowed by legal threats from billionaire news oligarchs and highly-paid celebrity journalists for doing our job.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10506/06/2020

Byline Investigates is a well-known pot stirrer. They don't have a particularly clean rep nor are they "impartial".

And no one has asked the obvious question: where is all this money from for all these high-priced barristers coming from to support the Sussex's legal bills? How many million-pound legal fronts are they fighting on and who is footing the bill?

Jones, the person in the employ of the Cambridges, also worked for the Sussexes until they bailed and let their staff go, several of whom ended up finding positions with the Cambridges. It is likely, therefore, that Jones, as well as Sarah Latham, have a good deal of dirt about the Sussexes under their fingernails, and as Team Sussex continues its vendetta against Team Cambridge, more lawsuits will likely result in more leaks of not very attractive materiel about the Sussexes, as the Cambridges obligingly feed the stuff to Jones and thence to Wootton.

The Sussexes are already fighting a million-pound+ lawsuit with the MoS, actually Associated Papers, and they're already out 120,000 on just that one because they lost the first round and had to pay the MoS's fees as well as their own.

What is Harry doing? Bankrupting his trust fund whilst expecting the Bank of Dad to make up for it for the foreseeable future? Don't they have enough on their plates already as they try to get back to centre-stage to make all that money so they can be "financially independent" and start operating their "foundation"?

I would take with caution anything Byline Investigates puts up, just as I would any of BlindGossip's and CDAN's BIs.

Meanwhile, it's hardly news that most of today's media outlets have "sources" and "channels" to particular celebrities.

Wootton's piece on the Sussex decision to stand down was sent to them ten days prior to release for confirmation/correction. The Sussexes, oddly, didn't respond, and let the piece drop, then cried "Foul!" They allowed the piece do drop so they could drop their little bomb and defy the Queen and see if the tactic worked to get them what they wanted.

There are no clean hands in this game.

by Anonymousreply 10606/07/2020

Holy Toad in the hole, [R105]!

by Anonymousreply 10706/07/2020

First thing that sprang to my mind when I read R105 is how on earth are they paying for their attorneys' fees and costs? Not only that, but if they receive an unfavorable judgement in their suit against the MoS, they will on the hook for MoS's legal fees. From what I gather reading across these threads it's not looking particularly good for the Sussexes.

by Anonymousreply 10806/07/2020

r108 Well, it's the Principle of the matter why they launched this lawsuit - undue harrassment, racism, etc. - not whether they win or lose. IF!

by Anonymousreply 10906/07/2020

There is a revision to the original byline posting.

I can't find the link.


by Anonymousreply 11006/07/2020

Apparently Dan Wootten also went to Uni the same year and shared a class or two with Jason Knauff who is also a high ranking member of the Cambridge's staff. Byline investigates has a good reputation. They are very good at getting receipts for their info and sources. They also back that up with very experienced media lawyers. They are targeted by the people who they write to articles on.

by Anonymousreply 11106/07/2020

White supremacists linking Jack Posobeic an alt-right White supremacist on a LSA in the unpopular Meghan thread today that also has as members allegedly UK reporters and prominent Anti Markle Bloggers and paid trolls that are so obvious that they are called out in threads before they are shutdown is another can of worms about to be opened. Every single post is screen shot and stored before they get told off and have to delete. Way too late.

by Anonymousreply 11206/07/2020

R112 = Paranoid psychotic raving about nothing

by Anonymousreply 11306/07/2020

I mean how do we *know MM is a conniving, backstabbing bitch who was hated by Kate for hogging the limelight? Did any of them say so? Or allude to it? Or do anything?

by Anonymousreply 11406/07/2020

R112 is a fascist paid by Markle's PR to shut down any criticism or negative opinions about her. She pretends to be about "justice" but what she really is anti-free speech - unless, of course, it's directed at Kate Middleton.

Fuck off R112 but I'm sure you'll continue to keep us posted on the arrest, arraignment, trial, and eventual imprisonment in the Gulag of anyone who doesn't hold an opinion you approve about that greedy two-faced grifter who put Caucasian on her CV, joined a white sorority, only married white men, and whose baby is so white Meghan probably creams in her expensive lingerie every time she looks at him.

Of course, now she's in L.A. and it's BLM time so maybe she'll rediscover the advantages of being blacker rather than whiter.

She's nothing if not "adaptable".

Fuck off. We're not afraid of you we don't give a flying fuck what they're saying on LSA or whatever that other blog is you're constantly whingeing about, this is still a country where opinions are legal.

by Anonymousreply 11506/08/2020

Muriel, you paywalled all threads with Meghan Markle in the title but the racist bitches have revived an old Kate thread. Please paywall this too.

by Anonymousreply 11606/09/2020

[quote]I've consistently argued here over the past few years, since their marriage that, it's now on the Duchess of Sussex to shrewdly, smartly play her cards well. I wanted to see her lay low, not put a foot wrong, and soak up form the palace staff and Kate everything she could learn.

I'm sorry Della at r94 but it's laughable to refer to Meghan as the Duchess of Sussex, especially in such reverential tones. She's not interested in serving as a member of the royal family so there's no need to keep using her royal title when referring to her.

I'm not really sure what cards she has or what she should be aiming for as she plays them. There was no way they were going to monetise the royal connection and now, with Covid-19, lockdown, the police killing of George Floyd, BLM demonstrations (mainly in the US), what exactly does a privileged (yes she is, the only interest in what she says is because of her marriage) celebrity talking in anodyne terms about the environment or saying the same things that 1000s of other people are already saying at BLM have to offer? It's not really clear to me why we should care about what she and Harry have to say just because they are famous.

by Anonymousreply 11706/09/2020

Byline Investigates is not that trustworthy. They actually reference Lainey in one of their screeds - a gossip blogger who's been gunning hard for the Cambridges and BRF.

They seem to be making a big leap in linking Jones and his then-partner to the big Megxit reveal in January, which was scooped by Wootton and the Sun in a major news coup. They seem to have uncovered some kind of trail of small payments (4k pounds) for some small leaks re the Sussex nanny issues and other minor stories from the Summer of 2019. But no linkage to the Jan 2020 drop - where is the big link to what would be a major, large payment for that inside scoop?

Also not explored: Jones's partner Callum Stephens is a well-known celeb publicist, who has previously worked with the Weinstein Company, Naomi Campbell, presenter Emma Willis, and diver Tom Daley as well as the doomed recent Love Island show. Who's to say the payments that were allegedly made to him last summer weren't for info on some of these other connections of his?

Until there is more confirmed details, BI is blowing a lot of smoke around, hoping to find a fire.

by Anonymousreply 11806/09/2020

R118 No Byline investigates is getting out into the open what both the tabloids and the BRF want to stay hidden. That's why they get targeted by people like you. These threads all end up being used to promote negative Sussex and positive tabloid and BRF ideas. They are used to push certain tabloids articles and are full of trolls. Even a generic BRF thread ends up being used for that purpose. The trouble the trolls have now is everybody knows it.

by Anonymousreply 11906/09/2020

No, Byline Investigates isn't a pro-Meghan, anti-Kate gossip blog.

It very specifically reports on media and the law, such as injunctions, the hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry. The reason Meghan and Harry are mentioned at all is because of The Sun which is a Murdoch tabloid. Byline is showing that methods they use for their showbiz "exclusives" borders on blackmail, cf Phillip Schofield.

by Anonymousreply 12006/09/2020

It's scary that there are people out there who think like r119. Because Meghan suing the Mail on Sunday was so successful, right? And Harry was so well-advised when he complained about the photo of the elephant.

Byline Investigates doesn't seem to understand what a whistle-blower is. Tabloid pays for gossip - earth-shattering. And it might not even be true.

by Anonymousreply 12106/09/2020

Lol, look at this Byline Investigates headline and story from 20 April. We all know how Meghan's case against the Mail on Sunday turned out.

BREAKING: Meghan Markle Batters Mail on Sunday ‘Defence’ Over Private Letter to Her Father




THE Duchess of Sussex has taken a wrecking ball to the Mail on Sunday’s Defence in her unprecedented legal action over the controversial tabloid’s publication of a private letter she sent her father Thomas Markle.

The 33-page document pushes back strongly to the newspaper’s publisher’s own 44-page case which seeks to justify allegations of misuse of the Duchess’s private information, breach of Data Protection Rights and infringement of copyright.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12206/09/2020

[quote]No, Byline Investigates isn't a pro-Meghan, anti-Kate gossip blog.

No but they clearly quote and cite Lainey of Lainey Gossip, who absolutely is. Damages their credibility a bit imo.

[quote]It very specifically reports on media and the law, such as injunctions, the hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry. The reason Meghan and Harry are mentioned at all is because of The Sun which is a Murdoch tabloid. Byline is showing that methods they use for their showbiz "exclusives" borders on blackmail, cf Phillip Schofield.

No one here is saying Wootton and the Sun are the worst of yellow journalism lol. The Sun has always been crooked, nothing shocks re them at this point. What's being discussed is the thin trail of evidence "linking" the January 2020 scoop on "Megxit" by Wooton to this Callum Stephens, who has some kind of tenuous link to KP Comms guy Jones (are they, or were they, even really a couple? Even this isn't confirmed). Where is the firm evidence that he's the actual source for any Sussex info, never mind the Jan scoop?

by Anonymousreply 12306/09/2020

I feel Byline whopped up to shut down the free press after the Guardian exposed Trafigura for poisoning people in the Ivory Coast. Useful idiots come along, like Max Mosely, outraged by his sexual proclivities being exposed,he and Hugh Grant etc campaign for a press clampdown. I cannot find now who is behind Byline. I did read it was a Chinese billionaire that wanted government controlled press. Google now only give positive stories for Byline.

I believe hacked off/byline are paying the sussex legal bills.

by Anonymousreply 12406/09/2020

Buckingham Palace's birthday photo features him and the Queen awkwardly superimposed onto Windsor Castle.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12506/09/2020

Weird Photoshop @ r125. The queen’s hands look off. They both look zombified.

by Anonymousreply 12606/09/2020

Yeah, well, Philip's entire person looks zombified!

I don't blame photoshop.

by Anonymousreply 12706/09/2020

r123 should read "No one here is saying Wootton and the Sun AREN'T the worst of yellow journalism lol."

by Anonymousreply 12806/09/2020

The photo is shopped, it's just taken with them in front of a strongly backlit castle, so they appear a bit darker in the foreground.

The Duke actually looks pretty good for 99. Standing straight upright, ramrod. Impressive.

by Anonymousreply 12906/09/2020

R125 - One thing the BRF have always had access to is superlative portrait photographers. It's interesting that they should do so poor a job with this one for Philip's 99th.

by Anonymousreply 13006/10/2020

[quote]I believe hacked off/byline are paying the sussex legal bills.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13106/10/2020

R130 They’re living in “HMS Bubble” at Windsor, isolated with a skeleton staff so no superlative (or any other, judging from the result) photographers allowed.

by Anonymousreply 13206/10/2020

R132 - But photogs can keep their distance, especially out of doors.

I wonder if there's more to it - such as, e.g., that Philip is no longer even ambulatory without help, has to use a walker or something . . .

by Anonymousreply 13306/10/2020

The Queen and Prince Philip both look in that photo like people looking for the "Leave" button after a Zoom meeting.

by Anonymousreply 13406/10/2020

Alas, the TATLER story is already wrapping fish and ships whilst Meghan and Harry first try BLM to get themselves into the Relevant Lane and then hastily reshift to Climate Change and Invictus when Meghan's bestie gets into trouble with BLM.

It's all one can do to keep up these days.

by Anonymousreply 13506/12/2020

^*Damn it all - "wrapping fish and chips" (not ships)

by Anonymousreply 13606/12/2020

Kate talks about kindness with the Oak National Academy school.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13706/18/2020

Will moves nicely.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13806/18/2020

It's Tiara Time...swipe for Queen Victoria's Strawberry Leaf Tiara.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13906/18/2020

Truer words!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14006/18/2020

[quote] and like many narcs was fantastic in public at presenting the image of someone who'd be great fun to be with.

Diana was an undercover narcotics agent?

by Anonymousreply 14106/18/2020

Poor Philip has had those hideous red bags under his eyes for years and years now.

by Anonymousreply 14206/18/2020

Interesting history on the Strawberry Leaf Tiara, thanks.

I must admit I don't particularly care for it when worn close to the front as its wearers usually seemed to do, but like it much better when worn on the top of the head, where it comes close to looking more like an actual crown than a tiara . . .

by Anonymousreply 14306/19/2020

Spotlight on small businesses ....Kate at a garden center and Will visits a local bakery.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14406/19/2020

Eugenie and Jack step out in London.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14506/19/2020

I'm in love with Kate's man face. LOL.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14606/19/2020

Another one of the male Kate.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14706/19/2020

Are those marijuana leaves on Eugenie’s dress? I’m cracking up. Is she trying to tell us something?

by Anonymousreply 14806/20/2020

Nice article in Vogue about Meghan

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14906/20/2020

Loved the photos Kate took of William for his 37th birthday which this year also fell on Father's Day.

Look at how girly Charlotte is with her knees turned in looking out from under her lashes, and it's already clear she's going to have long beautiful legs. She is going to be a beauty. So is Louis, that boy has killer charm. George is going to be the serious one but he's also going to be tall and fair and I suspect at 16 look the way William did.

Kate gave William a beautiful brood.

by Anonymousreply 15006/21/2020

^*38th birthday (not 37th)

by Anonymousreply 15106/21/2020

This is random: Ghanaian fans of the English football club Aston Villa sing a song for Prince William's birthday

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15206/21/2020

Will and the kids. These Father's Day photos were taken by Kate.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15306/21/2020

Will and Charles and Kate with her father.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15406/21/2020

Today is also Will's 38th birthday.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15506/21/2020

They are attractive children. I've always said that Charlotte will be a beauty. Louis will be a dreamboat for sure.

by Anonymousreply 15606/21/2020

The Vogue article at R149 reads like it was PR ghost-written.

by Anonymousreply 15706/21/2020

The article at R149 answers its own question: No, this is not the new dawn of Meghan Markle.

She's incapable of being a spokesman for anything but herself, and she does that poorly.

by Anonymousreply 15806/21/2020

I am sure African Americans are just desperate for a white prince from Britain to come and speak for them. What a fucking moron.

by Anonymousreply 15906/21/2020

Good Lord, I think it looks as if Charlotte might have inherited Diana's legendary legs!

by Anonymousreply 16006/21/2020

They seem like a very well-bonded family. What a contrast to pictures from Charles' and Anne's childhoods.

by Anonymousreply 16106/21/2020

I commented the other day that a media source told me that their would be a sustained attack on Meghan and Harry this week. On pro Cambridge threads. Right again. It's becoming so obvious that other media is now sniffing around. BLM means the sustained and aggressive trolling has engaged a whole new group of people who are very interested in who is funding this attack. It also nullifies all the good Cambridge PR.

by Anonymousreply 16206/21/2020

Whatever are you going on about? The tone of the Meghan/Harry threads here has not changed ( unless I missed a new thread).

by Anonymousreply 16306/21/2020

That Vogue article is, of course, PR-written. Poor Meghan, still “suppressed”. By whom? She’s free of her royal duties, in the land of free speech again and she’s had her little speeches publicized all over the place. Everyone saw her “graduation address”. She has favorable articles written about her in Vogue, even!

She can use Twitter and Insta and put a blog on the goddamn internet just like you and I can. She can say or do whatever she wants.

Isn’t that why they left the Royal Family?

by Anonymousreply 16406/22/2020

Prince William is an Aston Villa fan, r152.

by Anonymousreply 16506/22/2020

R162 is whacko.

by Anonymousreply 16606/22/2020

The Wiliam & Harry Rift.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16706/22/2020

God, they all look fucking miserable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16806/22/2020

God, they all look fucking miserable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16906/22/2020

R168 - except Meghan had a Cheshire cat grin on her face throughout most of the ceremony that day.

by Anonymousreply 17006/22/2020

Fake smile, plastered on for the cameras, r170.

by Anonymousreply 17106/22/2020

That bitch always knows where to look for the camera.

by Anonymousreply 17206/22/2020

R163 - Of course the tone hasn't changed one bit. That's our Tik-Tok (owned by China in case no one knew) Sunshine Sachs paid operative trying to stir the shitpot.

She also said several months ago that a media campaign against Doria was about to descend. Needless to say, one didn't.

The operative's game here is to suggest that other operatives are at work - because, after all, no sane person would remotely look at Meghan Markle and think she's anything but perfect, right?

Anyone seeing a bitchy narcissist who played the BRF and the UK taxpayer false and for a great deal of money and who doesn't like the way she dresses and her incredible verbal pretentiousness is obviously a paid operative of . . . Kensington Palace.

Really. Go home, pet. I know you have to earn those fat cheques from Ken Sunshine but it should be clear by now that you're either a really lousy operative or DLers are just too smart to fall for your tired line.

by Anonymousreply 17306/22/2020

Someone in the other thread before it got closed posted what William would look like as a woman. She came out looking like the lovechild of Lady Gaga, Mayim Bialik, Bonnie Aarons, Rossy De Palma and Naomi Grossman.

by Anonymousreply 17406/22/2020

Kate and Camilla get together for a joint video call to their hospice patronages.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17506/23/2020

Charlotte resembles about four people.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17606/24/2020

She looks more like Lady Sarah Chatto than anyone, but those pictures of Charlotte and Diana show she's developing The Look. Which should be setting alarm bells ringing at the Palace.

by Anonymousreply 17706/24/2020

For royal fashionistas...swipe for some stylish looks (and not) from Princess Margaret over the years.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17806/24/2020

Kate is on the cover of People magazine next week.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17906/24/2020

Will visits an Oxford lab working on a Covid-19 vaccine.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18006/25/2020

It's Tiara Time...swipe for the George VI Sapphire & Diamond Tiara.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18106/26/2020

Some of the fashions worn through the years by the Queen's cousin, Princess Alexandra of Kent.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18206/26/2020

That's not really surprising r176, considering she's related to all of them. I have no doubt that she will develop the Windsor jowl as she gets older.

by Anonymousreply 18306/26/2020

I should've known Meghan would know where to find the cameras and tabloids.

by Anonymousreply 18406/26/2020

Mutt is a term racists use when describing biracial people especially half black ones. sylvieslylvie just described Meghan as a mutt on the unpopular thread on LSA. Every single post on that thread is screenshot and logged. White supremacists also love to use it. It is found in most of their online chats when describing half black people. On a site specifically dedicated for black people white Karen's are calling biracial people mutts. Go check it out before it gets wiped.

by Anonymousreply 18506/26/2020

R185 Isn't mutt short for mulatto?

by Anonymousreply 18606/26/2020

R186, it’s short for “muttonhead” — mutt originally meant “idiot.” Now, of course, it has eugenics overtones.

by Anonymousreply 18706/26/2020

[quote] On a site specifically dedicated for black people white Karen's are calling biracial people mutts.

White Karen's what?

by Anonymousreply 18806/26/2020

Who gives a fuck about the apostrophe? Give a fuck about R185's lunacy. Then FF her.

by Anonymousreply 18906/26/2020

R181 - I don't know why but I simply cannot warm to that sapphire tiara. Something about it just isn't proportionally beautiful. The centre is too high and the extra stick up bits add nothing. With all due respect, HM even looks a bit silly in it.

The necklace and earrings, however . . . ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

by Anonymousreply 19006/27/2020

R188 - Oh, don't mind her, that's our Klan Grannie Troll referring to the women on LSA who don't like Meghan Markle. I've been reading LSA lately, thanks to the KGT alerting me to its existence. I haven't seen the word "mutt" anywhere yet. Of course, that particular thread on LSA is now about 4,400 pages long despite the KGT's efforts to get it shut down (just as she does here), but without success.

Why, if she didn't put in an appearance once in awhile here, we'd actually miss her. She's our comic relief.

But do FF her and/or block her if she deflects too much attention from tiaras and fun facts, such as that that little bitch Charlotte has clearly inherited her grandmother's legendary legs - you can tell already. It's outrageous, it really is.

by Anonymousreply 19106/27/2020

There is a new General Royals thread up. As discussion of the TATLER piece is long since wrapping fish and chips in, can we move discussions of tiaras and new events and photos, as well as about other royals, to that thread?

It's called Royals Royals Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink . . .

by Anonymousreply 19206/27/2020

R178's post does rather remind me of Chanel's advice, that before you go out you should inspect the jewellery you're wearing and take one piece off.

by Anonymousreply 19306/27/2020

The Queen sends a message of thanks on Armed Forces Day.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19406/27/2020

Do you think the Queen will ever make live appearances again? It seems as if they will just keep her quarantined. She can put out statements and make tv. appearances. That kind of thing.

by Anonymousreply 19506/27/2020

R195 - I think when it's safer to do so, the Queen will make some public appearances. However, these events will look very different. No handshakes or walkabouts and social distancing will be the rule of the day. It's a shame that her long reign will end like that.

by Anonymousreply 19606/27/2020

Camilla has been named patron of a domestic abuse charity SafeLives.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19706/27/2020

A soldier's charity is another patronage for Camilla.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19806/27/2020

Obama once referred to himself as a mutt at a public event.

by Anonymousreply 19906/27/2020

Eugenie and her scar.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20006/27/2020

Princess Eugenie really is into being a princess. And why not, there aren't many people who could accurately call themselves princess in their Instagram handle and post of profile pic of them wearing a tiara.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20106/27/2020

Kate in the garden. She thanks children's hospice staff.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20206/28/2020

The Queen has about four more years to go and then she'll be the longest reigning monarch EVER.

If she lives as long as Prince Philip, she'll succeed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20306/30/2020
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. 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!