Guess who's getting Frogmore?

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

Good for Eugenie and Jack. It's all renovated and remodeled and ready to move in.

Drafty old royal dump or an 11 million dollar California mansion, hmmm...how WILL they go on?

So where will Markles stay when they make a it pit stop to the UK every five years or so?

Who are they, I don’t follow the fringe BRF?

One of the other grandkids R5. Quite homely. Royal lineage and such being what it is.

Oh Harry . You really are cutting your own nose off to spite your face.

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

I have a few old ebony items I could lend you, Eugenie. And some leopard prints.

It would be good to show respect for the history of the house. That six-month history. You know. The one from Canadia. Which I gather is somewhere dark.

Did they ever do any landscaping with that dump Frogmore?

Landscaping? They were too busy racing inside to get away from the aircraft noise.

Well, touche Andrew! You succeeded in keeping your daughters on the Royal Dole! Your move, Prince Charles.

Eugenie's husband has major gay face. Has anyone hear him speak? Do Prada purses fall out of his mouth?

I read on the DM that Meghan and Harry are looking for a place of their own to buy in the Cotswolds, which is where Meghan had wanted to be, It's on the same land as the SoHo House.

"It's all renovated and remodeled and ready to move in"

Um, no luv. We're gutting it. I'm sure Brits would want us to be comfortable.

Let's see. $11mil 16 bathroom Mcmansion and Kat McPhee or starter house by Windsor Castle and the Queen. Kat or Betty Kat or Betty. Hmm

The Harkles were never going to get within spitting distance of Kensington Palace, something Sparkles confirmed just this week in her court papers.

Hahaha so many good decisions made by Peghen and her little roasted chicken Haz.

Klan Granny thread. Blocked and deleted.

R17 thinks she's ALL POWERFUL - sorry Mary, you're a nobody, even here.

Go pound sand up your ass, R17.

Good luck to Eugenie and Jack. This move was predicted right here on DL, as was Eug and Bea taking up some official Royal work..

What's even more delicious is that when the Eugenie Baby is born it will be an immediate favorite, supplanting Archie. All of this is Andrew's revenge on Charles.

[quote] The Harkles were never going to get within spitting distance of Kensington Palace, something Sparkles confirmed just this week in her court papers.

These legal papers are a revelation for what is authentic in regards to Markle and Co. These lawsuits they’ve enacted have demonstrated straight up inaccuracies and lies. And as discovery continues, further information may be revealed. Wow.

(The shady aspect of The Harkles reminds me of Trump and Company.)

[quote] Hahaha so many good decisions made by Peghen and her little roasted chicken Haz.

So you came across the same reveal by the person who explained what transpired at SoHo Toronto too, R16?

The Roast chicken (specifically mentioned by “vegan” Markle during the engagement interview) was a tell when viewed in retrospect.

Is there a link to Markle's comments about Kensington Palace apartment? How was it mentioned in the court papers?

People is claiming Frogmore is store the home of the Sussex duo.

[quote] “Frogmore is a private residence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and any arrangements is a matter for them," a Buckingham Palace spokesperson tells PEOPLE. Frogmore Cottage remains Meghan and Harry's U.K. residence.

[quote]A source stresses that the home remains Meghan and Harry's U.K. home and that they are happy for it to be occupied by Harry's first cousin Eugenie, who is expecting her first child early next year, and Jack.

[quote]"Frogmore Cottage continues to be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s residence in the U.K.," says the source, "and they are delighted to be able to open up their home to Princess Eugenie and Jack as they start their own family."

My, don't Sparkle and Dim sound so munificent.

This new couple, regardless of who they are or know, is still paying rent to the crown right?

Yes. It is Crown Estate property.

This arrangement is between The Crown and the Princess of York/her husband.

Likely this is a face-saving deal for Markle and Haz. (Especially given the brouhaha involving monies, the taxpayers and Froggie Cottage as per its original renovated occupants.)

Due to complaints several years ago about RF family members living in Crown Properties for free, rents were set that are supposed to be comparative to other properties in the same area.

For example, there used to be several elderly relatives (mainly female) of the Queen living in Kensington Palace. (KP's nickname was "The Aunt Heap".

There are rents paid on all Crown Properties now.

It is thought that The Queen herself picked up the tab for some of her older relatives.

So, someone is paying rent on Frogmore Cottage.

R27 Philip as landlord must need to come around with his tools every so often and give the old pipes a once over right?

"People is claiming Frogmore is store the home"

Okay.

Just a step to the York sisters co-regency in case E II, Charles and William die.

Much ado about nothing. The place was newly renovated. It is sitting empty. Harry & Meghan BOUGHT a house in California. The Royal Family has SO many properties and estates and apartments that if and when they return for a visit, and they will, I am sure his father will find a place for them. Why not let someone else have it. Elizabeth spends so much time at Windsor it's nice Eugenie and her family will be near by. And doesn't Andrew also live on the Windsor estate somewhere?

[quote]Just a step to the York sisters co-regency in case E II, Charles and William die.

Just let them try. They'll have to get past me!

Everyone knows that Fred and Gladys prefer to stay at Highgrove House.

If and when the Sussexes visit, staying at Clearance House would be no big deal.

I tend to think of their California home as Frogmore West.

Plus the Yorkies are on borrowed time till Lady G, Princess Royal-II and Loui-loui take the stage.

[quote] If and when the Sussexes visit, staying at Clearance House would be no big deal.

Charles may be a complete sop, but likely Camilla won’t let traitorous Markle and Haz within 25km.

I totes disagee. I believe that the Susexiest couple left because of Phli's racism.

CIII, and especially Wills, will need Hank back after Forth Bridge drops.

It’s disgusting that Harry and Meghan were forced to pay for essential structural repairs to a listed property that the Queen is not only legally obligated to maintain in decent condition, but which the Queen actually receives public money to maintain.

Harry and Meghan paid for everything except essential work upfront (they paid for all the design work) then we’re forced into paying the % of the work that was solely structural too.

If any other landlord forced a tenant to pay for essential work for a property they didn’t even live in, people would call them a slum landlord.

So what is Eugenie’s claim to fame? Apart from being a leech. There are better ways to use that property that could serve to benefit the people.

[quote] CIII, and especially Wills, will need Hank back after Forth Bridge drops.

Hank and family are gone,gone, gone.

His stunt of the manifesto claiming to “cooperate” with Her Maj did not work out. He’s part of the BRF but is out of the line of Succession and/or Regency.

Also he was booted from his military posts: both due to the Royal Family fiasco AND displeasure from the British Military themselves.

Lastly, Commonwealth countries (18 of them) bristled in response to the Harkles’ entitlement of being Senior Royals and made noise about leaving the Commonwealth due to financial responsibilities associated with them. I know this as a fact as a senior diplomat from one of said 18 countries is known to me and signed the document which was sent to the British Government and Royal Family.

A big todo was not made of this document, but its results were twofold: Patel of the foreign office immediately cancelled funding for Harry and Family Security and other associated costs. Secondly, the first country to leave the Commonwealth, Barbados began rolling the ball following Hank and Company’s denouement.

Harry and Co. have caused BIG issues for the Brits and Commonwealth countries.

Australia STILL remains angry over their tour (or lack, thereof).

[quote] Everyone knows that Fred and Gladys prefer to stay at Highgrove House

Camilla doesn't live with Charles. She has her own home about 10 -15 miles away

^^^^pipin' hot tea! Between you and Christian Jones all over Quora talking about the actual meeting of Sparkles and Dim, Soho House, and confirming Haz is embarrassed about being bisexual, it's party time people!

They are still listed as Pres and VP of the QCT so it will be fun watching those positions slide right into the ocean.

[quote]Go pound sand up your ass

These alt-right Markle hater trolls are always homophobic.

Last night there was some guy trolling the political threads who posted this exact "fuck you in the ass" homophobic shit, and he'd been posting racist stuff in Markle threads and more homophobic stuff in trans threads, and a weird threat toward all "Datalounge liberals" in a political thread.

I don't know why they flock to Markle and trans issues on here but they're always obvious. They'll probably now spend 50 posts screaming that I'm the REAL homophobe for quoting the homophobe or something.

R36, the BRF wants to retain Harry and Meghan as scapegoats, and they very obviously planned for the money "owed" for Frogmore to be a great talking point for them when they leaked to the tabloid press. You could tell that their plans were somewhat derailed when the Queen was paid all in one lump sum and that the payment made the news.

I wouldn't be surprised if the home being given to Eugenie isn't supposed to send the same pro-pedo Andrew, anti-Meghan message they've been sending for two years. It almost comes across as the BRF purposely doing something they know will get tabloid attention.

Harry and his wife are just about history as far as the BRF is concerned. He claims to be very happy about it -- "Finding Freedom" and all of that.

Aren’t there wealthy rock stars, movie stars or even royal hangers on who would pay over the top rents just to say they are living in a royal cottage? I don’t think the BRF are properly marketing their real estate and getting an advantage pricing that they could and make a killing on it. At the very least it should be made into a reality TV show and anyone who lives there taped 24/7 and broadcast live by subscription service.

^^The Sussex Court is already doing something like that, including photo ops at graves.

[quote]He claims to be very happy about that - “Find Freedom” and all of that.

Then why does Harry physically look so poorly: thin, wan, massive hair loss and with vacant, blank expressions? He doesn’t even look like the same person pre-2017. When one is purportedly happy, they look good; not much WORSE.

[quote] Harry and his wife are just about history as far as the BRF is concerned.

Their court cases against the press have revealed some fascinating levels of duplicity on Harry and Meghan’s part. The discovery phase of their case is going to be VERY interesting.

And yes, all they have managed to do is inflame people: the BRF, Markle’s family, their friends, Hollywood, the British military, the British public, taxpayers of England and other countries and those that reject their hypocritical preaching. The BRF would be inconsiderably foolish to give them public shelter.

Speaking of which, notice that these threads involving Harry and Meg are ALWAYS greyed out when interesting information is revealed.

The Sunshine Sachs (or SS/Gestapo) people jump into to downvote and temper the Harkle threads.

This is discussed in a current active thread about PR intrusions on these forums.

^^^^Here’s the link to PR Trolling

I read yesterday that when Harry & Meghan repaid all the renovation monies they also prepaid the rent on the house for a period of time. There was no period for the rent payment listed, but the article made it seem like they prepaid the rent for a good long while.

You think Megs is going to stay in a royal residence (which I don't think she'll ever visit the UK again)? They'll board up at the Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park.

Report that Sparkle and Dim are house hunting in Washington, D.C.

Frog Princess. Appropriate.

Will Biden appoint her as head of the USO?

He could appoint her Special Envoy to the United Nations High Commissioner like Jolie.

Guess who's getting frogmarched off the board?

Who's paying for the DC place? Have they got that $150m from Netflix yet or are they expecting yet more largesse from the BRF?

[quote] Report that Sparkle and Dim are house hunting in Washington, D.C.

Could be. Although this is the spurious OK Magazine, so all bets are off. But this would be true to Markle form: when things aren’t the delusional reality preferred, CUT AND RUN.

We’ve seen it before: LA—->Toronto——>London——->Vancouver——->LA———>Montecito

What’s next? D.C? Markle lobbying for some governmental post now that Hollywood has rejected them? If that’s the case, see Harry as soon-to-be-dead-weight.

March of 2021 when the BRF decides on the one-year-reassessment will be interesting. (Note they have actively defied the rules of their probationary status: using their titles for political purposes, embroiling others in controversy, setting up spurious engagements which draw attention from the BRF, etc.....)

[quote] Will Biden appoint her as head of the USO?

Pfffffffft.

Meghan’s association with the USO:

Is there a good place to read about what has been revealed about their duplicity in the court case?

It's all over the Fail R58. For them she's the grift that just keeps on giving.

I wish the Meghan and Harry obsessives would stop referring to them by weird nicknames.

It just makes them seem even creepier, like they are pretending they are somehow intimate with them.

[quote] Is there a good place to read about what has been revealed about their duplicity in the court case?

Yeah, the Markle-filed court documents.

Admittedly, I went down a rabbit hole to read them. But, I began on a tumblr site I follow. I won’t link it here (due to trolls and SS PR Gestapo), but look up “tIarAs and HoUsePlAnTS”.

Went over the docs and it is quite damning for Markle. She’s either incredibly bull-headed or foolish to pursue this lawsuit (remember, it’s English law).

That can provide a beginning point, if you are so interested, R58.

Anyone got a cliffnotes?

Why does everyone say Oh Harry looks depressed and a mess? He always had a flat affect except when lit with drugs or alcohol. He routinely treated women like crap and is a pretentious bullshitter right in front of everybody. If anything he is more manic now, not depressed.

[quote] If anything he is more manic now, not depressed.

Sorry,R63. Don’t see the mania: high, laughing, ebullience, etc.

Do see hyperactivity and anhedonia, though.

Nothing is quite as bad as when he was touting for business on the red carpet with that Disney exec.

Well. it worked....she got the job!

Mazel tov to Eugenie & Jack for getting a new house close the Queen; Andrew must be chuckling that his daughter is reaping the benefits of the Harkle disaster.

[quote] Well. it worked....she got the job!

Indeed she did.

Then look what happened: the doco flailed as a result of her narration.

Who was it that said,

Awfully generous of Harry and Meghan to allow Eugenie and Jack to live in their Windsor home! Such magnanimity!

They must be just rolling in dough, to be looking to purchase properties in Washington DC and the Cotswolds. Busy busy busy!

What will our little mice do next?

I had forgotten the Cotswolds angle. They'll get as much money from Charles as they can to buy real estate; when the portfolio is bulging she'll divorce Haz who'll move into a bedsit in Earls Court.

This makes a lot of sense. Eugenie really loves her grandmother and so probably wants to be near her, but she probably won't want it permanently--after the Queen dies in the next ten years, she will not necessarily want to be near Charles and Camilla. And for now both she and Jack can get to their jobs in London fairly easily from Windsor.

Harry and Meghan probably want to keep it for now so as to keep their own options open for again when Charles inherits the throne.

Who OP? Rupert Everett? Danny Dong?

[quote] Awfully generous of Harry and Meghan to allow Eugenie and Jack to live in their Windsor home! Such magnanimity!

Yes. Lest we not forget, Froggie Cottage is a Crown Estate property: essentially the property of British taxpayers. So Megs and Harry don’t own the property: it was simply lent to them on behalf of The Queen’s grace and favour.

Now that the property was “renovated” for the Sussexes, it has been turned over to One York Family. The specifics of this transition remain unclear. As does the amount of time the Sussex Family actually resided in Froggie Cottage.

Things become seriously murky here as local residents (and the press at the time of Archie’s birth) do not report evidence of the duo actually living at Frog Cot.

Who knows what is truly going down at this residence.

It does seem that Eugenie will be closer to her Father and the Queen at FC.

And that Megs and Harry now do not have a specifically identified UK residence.

[quote] Froggie Cottage

We've reached the absolute nadir here of cutesy-poo nicknames used by the Sussex obsessives.

[quote]Haz who'll move into a bedsit in Earls Court.

Isn't Earl's Court full of prostitutes and Australians?

[quote] Isn't Earl's Court full of prostitutes and Australians?

Perhaps that’s the point, R75?

I still have no idea who these upstart royals are?

I see the same poster who tried to paint the Queen as a bad Owner/Landlord and H&M victims of her greed and poor maintenance, despite being informed on another thread that the Frogmore Estate in toto belongs to the Crown Estates, the Queen dose not own it nor can she sell it, and that any rents paid are not paid to her but to the Crown Estate coffers which in turn flow back into the Sovereign Grant to recompense the taxpayers.

Both the government and the monarchy share oversight of the Crown Estates, and any rents paid are not paid to the Queen, but to the Crown Estates.

The Queen has the disposition of the properties, granting permission to live in them as she chooses, but she is not the owner and doesn't get the rent.

Harry and Meghan between them didn't have the money for those sorts of "refurbishments". The money they used was Charles': the huge stipend he gives each son out of revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall so they can live like the rich boys they're supposed to resemble. In reality, neither has any money of his own besides the revenue from the trust funds Diana left them.

The stipend is supposed to cover staff, home maintenance, cars, polo ponies, private travel, their wives' wardrobes - everything not associated with their "work".

So don't whinge about poor dear Meghan and Harry having had to -gasp! - pay for furniture, paint, appliances . . . you know, like any other couple in a new home?

In addition, they were allowed to select for the walls of their dreadful five-bedroom home a half-mile from Windsor Castle art from HM's personal art collection.

Next time you try to put that post up again about Bad Owner Landlady Queenie Taking Rent From Poor Victim Sussexes Forced (forced, I tell you!) to pay something toward their home furnishings, remember that there are other people around who actually KNOW the Queen doesn't get that rent, doesn't "own" the house, and that as the wife of someone who will die probably 13th or 14th in line, and who used to be a Suitcase Girl on Deal or No Deal - she should have been on her knees thanking God.

R76 - Earl's Court used to be a sleazy neighbourhood and in the 1960s did include a lot of Australians, NZ, and white South Africans, becoming known for awhile as "Kangaroo Alley". But gentrification has been going on for some time, and before COVID struck, rapidly rising property prices pushed that along.

Meghan has something of a legal problem: in order to bring a suit in English courts, one must have some connection via residence to the jurisdiction in which the suit is filed.

It's fairly obvious that Meghan and Harry have no intention of ever living at FC again and that their permanent home is now in Santa Barbara, California, USA. I wonder if some potential jurisdictional issues arose around Meghan's lawsuit against ANL?

The Queen decides who can and cannot use a Grace and Favour residence. Leaving the property empty after all that fracas probably wasn't a good look for the monarchy, either. So, in with Eugenie and Jack, whilst the Palace ensures that the public know the place is still Harry and Meghan's "home" and they and the Brooksbanks have come to an "arrangement" of sorts.

My guess is that the minute the lawsuit ends, Meghan's and Harry's interest in FC as their "UK home" will, too.

Brooksbank is a rich man, and Eugenie also has a seven-figure trust fund. They can live anywhere they like and buy themselves a more than upmarket home, anywhere they want.

The proximity to Windsor and Royal Lodge makes it all look nice and reasonable. It's Yuge and Jack who are really doing the BRF a favour: the house doesn't stand empty, the announcement that somehow the Harkles have the disposition of the house makes it look the Sussexes still are attached to a permanent address in the UK, and H&M continue to live their lives anywhere but Frogmore Cottage.

With the Brooksbanks installed and all the Sussex's belonging in California, does anyone really believe FC is still their UK home?

Any rent Yuge and Jack pay isn't going to the Harkles, but to the Crown Estates, unless H&M are still paying to the Crown Estates and thus pocketing rent from Yute and Jack to make the money up privately.

It's all done with smoke and mirrors to pretend H&M still have a royal-adjacent home in England, when in fact they left it last March and haven't returned since.

This Quora link?

I'm in Earls Court A LOT - I don't notice any hookers. It's not a nice part of London. It has a bad vibe.

[quote] Earl's Court used to be a sleazy neighbourhood and in the 1960s did include a lot of Australians, NZ, and white South Africans,

Don't forget prostitutes.

R71 - Charles offered the two brats a beautiful country estate on the Welsh border, in Hereforshire, not too far from Gloucestershire. They turned it down.

They hate Frogmore Cottage. Meghan thought she would be living like Kate when she married in - a grand flat in a historic Palace in the heart of the capitol, and a grand country estate like the one the Queen gave the Cambridges.

When Kensington Palace became unworkable, Frogmore Cottage was what the Sussexes were offered. They pretended it was just what they wanted, but they were planning their "exit" by early May when Archie was born, having spent all of two months in the place. They fled to Canada in November, returned briefly for a few days in January to drop their little bombshell, returned for a couple of weeks in March, and left before 1 April, never to return.

Keep their options open until Charles becomes King?! What options? The Queen decides what their options are where Grace and Favour residences are concerned. If FC becomes the permanent home of Princess Eugenie and her family, the Sussexes aren't getting it back.

They can buy themselves a flat in London and a country home in the Cotswolds with all the millions they're alleged to be making through Netflix. That gives them plenty of options.

^*Herefordshire

[quote] Meghan has something of a legal problem: in order to bring a suit in English courts, one must have some connection via residence to the jurisdiction in which the suit is filed.

Except for family proceedings, that is balderdash.

The Quora link is very good. Even if it's not true. Meghan approached Harry at the SoHo House bar and met him that way. She was friends with Markus the club manager who is bi. They had a 3-way b/c apparently there is an open roomer that Harry is bi and likes to be "roast chickened" which I'm interpreting as British for spit roasted? Meghan used the term roast chicken to shock Harry during the engagement interview and the whole match/private dinner/blind date was to make it seem more romantic than Meghan using her bar manager, gay ("bi) friend to approach him in a bar. All these other SoHo House employees are back the story so I guess I could see it.

[quote] I'm in Earls Court A LOT - I don't notice any hookers. It's not a nice part of London. It has a bad vibe.

It's where the last gay brothel in London is to be found. I went there in Dec 2019. The hookers are not on the streets; they are to be found online with Earls Court addresses. The Auzzies have gone. Princess Di lived there in the late 80s, early 90: she was in Coleherne Court which is definitely Earls Court and definitely not Knightsbridge or Chelsea despite the what the linked article says.

^ late 70s, early 80s

R88 That last part sound very Eddie and “It’s Holland Park!” like.

[quote]Princess Di lived there in the late 80s, early 90: she was in Coleherne Court which is definitely Earls Court and definitely not Knightsbridge or Chelsea despite the what the linked article says.

My mother lived in that block (building) as a child - her mother used to call it South Kensington (LOL)

It might be said to be Gloucester Road or Fulham, but really it's Earls Court, very gay-friendly. There was another gay brothel there years ago where I fucked a very nice Irish kid but they closed and now there is just the one brothel left where the standards seem to be slipping without the competition. The old one was in Kenway Road: anyone else knew it? I went there once; if I had been more supportive, perhaps they'd still be open!

[quote] It's all done with smoke and mirrors to pretend H&M still have a royal-adjacent home in England, when in fact they left it last March and haven't returned since.

Yes. It is all Smoke and Mirrors. Bottom Line, Eugenia and Jack are now Frog Cotters to begin their family. Proximal to Eugenie’s older family. Nice move for them.

And it nicely rounds out the issues involving Meg and Harry and $$$$$, and renovations and issues of them actually paying for it and residing there. It seems the Sussex duo were not enamoured of the place: preferring Kensington, Windsor or the more sumptuous Frogmore palaces.

So this is one less tether for the Sussex family to the British way of life. When they first left, it was stated they would keep (and pay for, ha!) Frog Cott. That is now no longer the case.

Will be interesting to see how the rest of the story unfolds. Think it unlikely Meg will ever return for more than brief periods. The question remains, will Harry?

[quote] Will be interesting to see how the rest of the story unfolds.

Meghz is house-hunting in DC and the Cotswolds.

[quote] Even if it's not true. Meghan approached Harry at the SoHo House bar and met him that way. She was friends with Markus the club manager who is bi. They had a 3-way b/c apparently there is an open roomer that Harry is bi and likes to be "roast chickened" which I'm interpreting as British for spit roasted? Meghan used the term roast chicken to shock Harry during the engagement interview and the whole match/private dinner/blind date was to make it seem more romantic than Meghan using her bar manager, gay ("bi) friend to approach him in a bar.

This could also explain the odd photos taken of Harry (and Meghan & Markus & Doria) at the Toronto Invictus Games.

Meghan/Markus & Doris showed up at the Games and Harry looked stressed beyond belief. It was odd how Meghan and Markus gathered ‘round Harry later as revealed in pap photos. Surprisingly, Harry’s body language screamed “anxious” rather than joyful or happy to be in the presence of his purported girlfriend.

Also, what was really odd, was the body language of Meghan and Markus in these photos: they were VERY close...as in intimate. And gathered their body space all around Harry. (An earlier photo of Cory, Meghan and Markus together revealed micro expressions and body language that suggested Markus and Meghan were closer/more intimate than Cory and Meghan. This now comes together as Meghan broke up with Cory shortly thereafter and continued on with Markus....only to get together with Harry.)

So the Meghan-Markus-Harry thing does not seem so very far fetched.

[quote] Meghz is house-hunting in DC and the Cotswolds.

Have you read or heard anything about this besides the OK! Mag source, R94?

[quote]It might be said to be Gloucester Road or Fulham,

No it would not.

[quote] but really it's Earls Court, very gay-friendly.

There are no gays in Earl's Ct anymore - they all went to Soho.

You need to shut the fuck up. You're spouting nonsense.

[quote] There was another gay brothel there years ago where I fucked a very nice Irish kid but they closed and now there is just the one brothel left where the standards seem to be slipping without the competition. The old one was in Kenway Road: anyone else knew it? I went there once; if I had been more supportive, perhaps they'd still be open!

Yes. They were all too young for me.

Gosh, R97 was turned down by hookers as being too old. Bummer (or perhaps not!).

No, I turned them down. I walked away.

You're so annoying even I'm sounding like a moron now.

The prostitutes/Australians in Earl's Court is a line that Margaret says in The Crown.

Great gossipy thread

Anytime anything leaks abut the York princesses it is coming through Fergie. That's why the press loves her. She sells information.and her most fervent wish is that the world sees her daughters as "close to The Queen" and getting special perks and attention. Leaking out that Eugenie is getting Frogmore, no matter what the private business arrangements are, is seen by Fergie as a feather in their caps. Both she and Andrew are odious creatures.

[quote] The prostitutes/Australians in Earl's Court is a line that Margaret says in The Crown.

What?

I've only had three prostitutes in Earls Court. One was Irish (funny man); one was Latvian (lovely guy); one was ... I am not sure, but not Ozzie.

Which Margaret: princess or PM?

Good Lord. "Brothel."

There are four very good trade houses and three smaller establishments that are okay in central London. There are none outside the central area, although some of the parties of the said enterprises host around the Home Counties, at an increased price. No outcalls - the rule keeps things clean, controlled, managed and reliable. Not to mention secure. Two of the best houses are connected. I don't know if they're now owned by the same people or if management cooperates. I noticed the same fellow at them, walking by (not someone I engaged).

Abbot's Manor, Pimlico, Eaton Sq., South Ken. The first two seem to have a more international clientele, although there's little mixing of clients. That's a loss from the old days, but privacy and security are primary now. MPs, embassy staffs and corporate types don't hold to the old understandings and cell phones ruin everything.

Well, most things.

Wishful thinking but no R105 your so called trade houses are in your imagination only.

[quote]Which Margaret: princess or PM?

In one of the early episodes of Season 4, it's mentioned that Diana lives in Earl's Court and Princess Margaret makes a comment about only prostitutes and Australians live there.

Earl's Court is now an extension of Chelsea and you'll find more young "Sloane Rangers" there now than you will in actual Sloane Square. Chelsea and especially Knightsbridge is predominately wealthy Arabs and half the properties are vacant as they were a used as tax shelter at least a few years ago. I wouldn't look down on Diana for the flat she shared with her friends prior to getting married. There was one gay bar in Chelsea that closed just a few years ago that was off the Kings Rd called The Queens Head.

There was a gay disco across from Diana's called "Bromptons" I believe.

The Queens Head off King's Road was ghastly. Full of very assertive entitled bossy queenly bottoms. No wonder it closed. I went there once only, in 1999.

R107, yes princess M did in the show. I am trying to work out who Ruth, Lady Fermoy is (a grandma lady in waiting; was she Irish?).

She was Dame Ruth Fermoy, Lady Fermoy.

Not Ruth, Lady Fermoy.

R110 have you heard of Google? Christ

I don't bother with Google. I have DL.

Ruth, Lady Fermoy was Diana's grandmother: her mother's mother. She was also a close friend and lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother.

She was so rigidly against divorce that she turned on her own daughter for cheating on her husband and gave evidence against her at the divorce trial. As a result, Diana and her brother grew up living with their father rather than their mother.

[quote] [R110] have you heard of Google? Christ

In life, they tell you there are no stupid questions.

According to Datalounge, however, ALL questions can be (and often are) considered stupid.

Take a Midol, r110 honey.

* Sorry, I meant "Take a Midol, [R112] honey. "

What's Midol R116 and have you had many this evening?

Didn’t they just “buy” that giant mansion in Montecito? And now they’re looking at a home on the other coast and one abroad?

Just how much DID Netflix pay them? Do they not have a child to raise? Does she have ants in her pants? Can they not live in one place for more than a few months?

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

R118 types whorehouse madam from Marseille.

I'm not buying the article at r119. Eugenie is not going to do anything to piss off the Queen. She probably asked permission of the Queen to discuss the matter with Harry.

Agree - if they had rented it out to anyone else, I would believe it. It makes perfect sense for Euge to take the house and I'm sure the Queen was all for it.

I bet Eugenie asked the Queen if she could have the house. And Meghan is just planting rumors that the Queen wasn't involved in the negotiations.

^ Think this is just a face saving way of showing what most can perceive: the Team Sussex are gone from their former royal life. Now it remains to be seen what they make of their current life. And where. And how.

how you people think they are broke is beyond comprehension or rationale.

R125, how much money do you think they have? They just laid out a chunk of change on that pile in CA. I won’t bother detailing the monthly expenses they must have. You think Charles is paying for ALL that?

R120, do you have any answers for Madame’s question??

I thought not.

[quote] Didn’t they just “buy” that giant mansion in Montecito? And now they’re looking at a home on the other coast and one abroad? Just how much DID Netflix pay them? Do they not have a child to raise? Does she have ants in her pants? Can they not live in one place for more than a few months?

As another poster up thread mentioned, things with Meghan and Harry are not often what they seem; heaps of smoke and mirrors.

Meghan is a PR addict. It’s all about the optics; regardless of the actual circumstances.

And since the BRF “never complains nor ever explains”, a certain perception seems to be required to suss out what is occurring.

That said, the next 5 months will enable intimations for what is authentically transpiring. The press court case legal filings can continue to reveal truths: the summary judgment and attendant legal documents relating to discovery should provide further info.

Also, the BRF’s March review of H & M may provide further clues as to the status of the Sussex titles and their standing as it relates to England and the Commonwealth.

Lastly, the actions - or lack thereof - of H & M may demonstrate hints of what’s happening: engagements, topics and popularity in the USA and abroad will show themselves.

But as we have discovered, generally accepting PR releases about H & M is likely to be fraught with distortions, inaccuracies and straight out lies.

more money than you, r126.

R129, you may be right; you may not be.

How much money do you think they have in their checking account right now? How much debt do you think they have?

Gimme a number. And then I’ll tell you if they have more than I do.

yeah...lol

you tell us, dumbass.

They nust keep moving or their brains will freeze up.

[quote]the status of the Sussex titles and their standing as it relates to England and the Commonwealth.

It will be interested to see what happens if they become American citizens. US law is strict about zero titles for citizens. British law is equally stict for foreign titles. No foreign royalty or aristocrats, if British citizens, are permitted to be legally recognised under their foreign titles. It's an old law that actually dates back to Elizabeth I. There used to be a very short list of exceptions (such as the dutch barony of Bentinck, the descendant of the gay lover of King William), but the British Government ruled a few decades ago that those exceptions would only last the lifetime of their current holders.

R134 Meghan is a US Citizen, you dope.

Yeah right, nobody believes that "Harry struck a deal" for the house. Since it's the Harkles we're talking about, the truth is the opposite. The constant money talk makes me think they never paid rent and got the boot. And in any event, there'll be no house sharing when they're in town. Come on.

R134 - "They"? Meghan IS an American citizen. She initially filed an application for UK citizenship as soon as they became engaged, but Megxit put paid to that. She has been out of the UK for way longer than the application allows, and it's fairly clear that she intends her permanent home to be in the US, and this "split their time between the UK and North America" attempt has failed. That was part of their "half in-half out" plan, and that failed.

So, it's likely that it's now only Harry's citizenship that is a (it must be said, purely speculative) issue. There are serious tax consequences for both of them given that Harry is liable now for taxes on both sides of the Pond given his permanent home is there and he is earning money there. Unless he's managed to wangle a privileged "diplomatic visa" I don't see how he can escape that.

Given that they burnt so many bridges in the UK, built up so much unpopularity both inside the BRF and amongst the hoi polloi, there's little to no choice they could be reintroduced as working royals back in the UK, the smart thing to do would be for Harry to draw a line under his obvious commitment to the California life he chose with Meghan.

Neither Britain nor the BRF need the Sussexes. The Sussexes, of course, may still need the BRF to keep their "status" in front of the American public, but they should have thought of that before the lawsuit, dragging the BRF in "Finding Freedom" (no one, anywhere, except their most sociopathic stans, doesn't believe they fully colluded with Meghan's lapdog, Omid Scobie, on the book), leaking ugly stories about the "toxic environment" of the royal family and Britain . . .

With the Netflix deal, the purchase of the ginormous in-your-face 16-bathroom "forever home" in Montecito, and the easing out of Frogmore Cottage, which is what I think the Out with the Sussexes, In with the Brooksbanks move is, it should be obvious that Harry is hanging on to the last threads of his relationship with the Crown (as opposed to his blood relationships, which of course remain).

The SUN story that the Harkles and Brooksbanks did this "behind senior royals' backs" is ludicrous. Only the monarch has control of the disposition of who lives in Grace and Favour residences.

As for Omid Scobie insisting that FC remains the UK home of the Sussexes: that's pure PR. What are they going to do, decide they want back in a year or so from now and send the Brooksbanks packing?!

Princess Eugenie's husband looks a bit like the young Earl Snowdon

I could see this going full circle, with Harry someday returning back to the UK newly single and back in his little on cottage at KP. Didn't Euge and her husband live there before heading to Frogmore. She's getting the hand me downs. Speaking of, would Harry (and Meghan) automatically get Royal Lodge when Andrew passes? Isn't that the home for the spare heir?

Harry will never divorce Meghan.

[quote] Harry will never divorce Meghan. —clarification

Marriages like that last forever.

You might be right, R140. But the billion dollar question, will Meghan divorce Harry?

Exactly r26. I'm not sure how people imagine Harry and Meghan "gave" Frogmore to Eugenie and Jack without anyone knowing or without the transfer having been okayed by the Crown estate, even if the Markles tried to engineer some scam (as is likely).

But Harry isn't the spare heir anymore, R139. Princess Charlotte is.

[quote] get Royal Lodge when Andrew passes? Isn't that the home for the spare heir?

No, , it isn't.

I guessed Danny Dong gets Frogmore. Was I right or not?

Andrew signed a ridiculously long lease on Royal Lodge (something like 80 years) at a very favorable rate. I'm pretty sure the lease passes on so Eugenie and Beatrice will likely get dibs.

I forgot about Charlotte. Anne has a pretty amazing house herself.

When she’s done with him, he’ll be discarded. I mean, you’ve seen what she does to everyone and everything else.

He’s not a good provider.

She’s always on the move, always looking for the next step up. Harry is a finite utility.

So how come neither Trevor nor Cory have spilled any beans?

When Charlotte finds out that there can only be one Princess Royal at a time, she will be old enough to cut a bitch.

Perhaps they’re gentlemen, R152. A gentleman does not kiss and tell.

On one of the Tendrils threads from a while back, someone posted a video of Trevor's bachelor party weekend. He was with a group of guys at a restaurant. and some of them started dissing the Duchess. He smiled and looked a little embarrassed, but said nothing. I can't recall what they said. Interestingly, the group was racially diverse. Trevor has more black friends than Meghan.

The only people who engineer scams are the royal family.

Trevor and I have a number of mutual FB friends. He doesn't update much. There's an old pic of him and Meg from their wedding that he never deleted/cared to.

Two things: If I had an ex that became globally (in)famous, I'd probably keep my head down too and focus on my own life, especially if I didn't need the money, a la her relatives.

The other, I can't believe he and his new wife named their daughter FORD.

R106, you know or you don't.

I see why you don't.

But be happy. There's someone out there for you. Even at a reduced price.

[quote] Meghan and Harry strike deal to hand over Frogmore w/o senior royals knowledge

R119, this is another rubbish PR article from The Harkles.

[quote] Frogmore Cottage is a Crown Estate property. Harry can't enter any agreement in secret about it. The Crown Estate and The Lord Chamberlain's office would have to be involved and approve any arrangements about it and final say would be Queen. Methinks they were evicted. The news that FC was being prepared for Harry last month was actually prepping for Eugenie to move in.

This likely explains which Harry threw a tantrum around the time of the Remembrance ceremony. He and Megs were being evicted from FrogCott and losing their UK hold: to claim inclusion in royalty and hang onto their 🇬🇧 nominal charities.

Eugenie and Jack were living in Ivy Cottage on the Kensington Palace grounds, not Nottingham Cottage where Harry lived and Meghan moved into after they became engaged. KP is a great rabbit-warren of dwellings and apartments.

Andrew does have something like a 99 year lease on Royal Lodge, and to be fair, he pumped seven figures of his own money into renovations.

Royal Lodge is traditionally associated with the York name. It is likely that if Andrew were raptured sometime in the near future, Royal Lodge would go probably to Bea and her family, first. She's the elder sister, and up to now has been living in her husband's rather palatial place.

But in fact, the next Duke of York is Prince Louis, and eventually, Royal Lodge will naturally come to him and his family. By then, of course, Andrew's descendants will probably have moved on.

Royal Lodge is where Elizabeth's parents, the Duke and Duchess of York (later to become King George VI and Queen Elzabeth after the Abdication), lived, going back and forth between it and their stately townhome in Bruton Street in London.

So, it's association with the York title is old.

R159 - I agree. The idea that the Sussexes could make any arrangements they pleased with a CE property without alerting HM and the Lord Chamberlain's office is derisory. You cannot "sublet" a Crown Estate property, any more than you can sell it.

Ivy Cottage is a three-bedroom home and is very pretty - plenty of room for a couple with one baby. It is quite near to Nottingham Cottage where Harry lived. It may be that in the midst of the pandemic, a place in the heart of London wasn't safe enough for a new mother and baby, and the Brooksbanks were looking for a place nearer Royal Lodge but not too far from London. In that case, FC makes sense.

If the Harkles are paying rent, it is also possible that the Harkles thought making this private arrangement with HM's consent suspends the rent for a bit. The money would come from the Brooksbanks and go to the CE, not the Harkles. Yuge and Jack probably got a private guarantee of at least a year in the place, plenty of time for the pandemic to ease due to the vaccines, and Meghan isn't expected back until October 2021 for her court case.

The argument against those reasonable possibilities is the removal of all the Sussex's possession and their shipping to CA. If it's just for a year or so and the Harkles want to retain access to it, why remove all their stuff?

So, I believe there's possibly some grain of current truth in this "arrangement" (although none in the assertion it was done on the down low), but I also believe it may be one of those "steps" the Harkles and the BRF are taking to ease the public into the fact that Harry ran away from home and isn't coming back.

Thanks for the laugh, R161

[quote] the fact that Harry ran away from home

R160, actually, It might not be Louis. If he gets married in his 20’s, Andrew might still be alive and in his 80’s. So Charles may give him some other Dukedom. You could argue that Charles might give him DoY post-wedding day, but I don’t know if that would ever happen outside of special Dukedoms (eg Cornwall automatically goes to the eldest son of the Sovereign).

If Andy lives long enough, it might be George’s second son who gets it.

Harry has a connection with Jill Biden due to Biden's org for vets and Harry's Invictus games.

Don't be surprised if Harry and Megs are seen in D.C.

R161 - If I remember correctly, the Queen's cousin Richard, Duke of Gloucester and his Danish-born wife have downsized by moving from Kensington Palace to Harry's old place Nottingham Cottage.

[quote] Harry has a connection with Jill Biden due to Biden's org for vets and Harry's Invictus games.

Perhaps.

Yet now the Harkles are radioactive: the BRF, public and military are slagging them off.

Harry’s blown off Invictus. (See: Australia tour for more examples of this).

The Biden Admin has their work cut out for them. If they are smart, they would not touch, Harry, Meghan or anything related to the Harkles.

At all.

Right r38 because (and I'm a Caribbean citizen) Barbados would only ever leave the Commonwealth because of Harry and Meghan, not because of wanting to be free from a monarchy head that does absolutely nothing for it: commonwealth countries do not get, by default, British passports, nor are their citizens able to enter the UK and work freely, or have exclusive trade agreements (see the WTO fiasco with behemoth Chiquita squeazing out Caribbean banana farmers from a special trade deal with the UK), etc.; but NO it's because of Harry and Meghan.

"Harry's Invictus games....." Do you mean the organization that Harry spectacularly blew off, and whose benefit event is still up in the air as a result? There are many people who do the real work, so they only need a figurehead -- Sir Tom Moore has been suggested, and I think that's a fantastic idea at this moment in time. IOW buzz off Harry.

You are correct, R167, Barbados leaving the Commonwealth had virtually nothing to to with H&M.

Likely all the factors you mention, though I cannot speak of knowledge to them or obviously your experiences.

What I CAN speak of is knowledge from an influential Commonwealth diplomat. And the rumbling from other LARGER Commonwealth countries who felt a negative impact as a result of their unfavourable experiences with the Sussexes (Canada, Oz, NZ) put forth paperwork and dreaded talks to Britain for countries to leave the Commonwealth (such as Barbados).

Barbados merely jumped on the bandwagon and used the situation to their advantage.

The fact that this occurred, made the Brits sit up and take notice; more so than if a country had NOT left the CW.

Thus Barbados received a benefit from timing and talk amongst dissatisfied CW countries.

It’s ludicrous to tie H & M’s actions directly to Barbados, but there are reverberations where there seem to be no connections.

So you can save your eye roll and outrage for some other issue you have with other people....or other countries, R167.

The Royals always show favor and disfavor three ways: via titles, jewelry, and property. Meghan was denied access to the Queen's jewels early on in her tenure as Duchess. Their son Archie was not given an HRH at birth. The Sussexes were denied the tony KP apartment and a country place like York Cottage and instead got one home, Frogmore Cottage, in the suburbs. Once they left the UK, they lost the right to use the HRHs, and now their UK home has been given to Eugenie.

Every time they misbehave in a major way, the BRF takes something away. All that now remains is the Sussex title. One more fuck-up, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that goes in March.

Lol, Harry worked his arse off with Invictus. Big deal that he missed one single event. Kate had multiple patronage that she’s literally never visited once since she was appointed, and she has a history of cancelling events at the last minute or being a no-show (eg the EACH Gala), and of course the infamous snubbing of the Irish Guards for no reason than “because Kate doesn’t want to create the expectation she does it every year.”

Workshy Will is even worse.

If Harry was lazy and selfish one single time, it’s because he learned from the masters.

That Christopher Jones on Quora sure has a lot of dirt on her. He spills in the comments too.

“Their son Archie was not given an HRH at birth.”

Would love to know the full story on that one.

R173, there's no "full story" here. This article explains it, and it involves nothing underhanded or unexpected. He's not in line or the child of someone in line, and he's the gr-grandchild of the monarch. Once Charles is king his situation changes.

I think George V’s 1917 letters patent established (or re-confirmed from previous directives) that only the sons and male-line grandsons were granted HRH, except for the prince of Wales. But that only applies to his eldest son, ie the person likely to become king. Of course this would all changed once Harry becomes the son of the sobering...but that hasn’t happened yet.

So, officially, Archie is owed no royal style until he becomes a male-line grandchild of the sovereign.

*Harry becomes the son of the sovereign...

“So, officially, Archie is owed no royal style until he becomes a male-line grandchild of the sovereign.”

Is that the plan though? Because the original announcement made it seem like Archie’s lack of a title was a permanent choice instead of a temporary circumstance.

I doubt the Royal Family is stupid enough to single out a partly Black member for special discrimination. R177. In today's climate?

Charlotte and Louis weren't owed the style either, but HM gave it to them so they would feel more equal with their older brother.

Since Archie would have a right to the HRH once Charles is King, it would have been a nice gesture to go ahead and give it to him at birth so he and his parents didn't feel snubbed in favor of the Cambridges. The fact that HRH didn't do that speaks volumes about how she felt. Again, Archie is entitled to the HRH when Charles is King, so what would be the harm in giving it to him early?

It was a pointed and deliberate snub. It seems that it was done deliberately in response to something Meghan and Harry did--perhaps the tiara tantrum or the pregnancy coat at Eugenie's wedding or something else that never leaked. Again, if you want to see who is in favor, look at the titles, the jewelry, and the property. If the Sussexes had been in favor, Archie would have had his HRH.

The Sussexes spun the no-HRH for Archie as them choosing not to have Archie use a title at all, but it must have stung. Now that Meghan is settled in the US and has her sights set on either Hollywood or DC, I doubt she cares about the HRH. But it will rankle Harry forever.

R179, I think you meant in your second paragraph, “...the fact that HM didn’t do that...”

R161 gets extra points for "derisory."

R179 How is style hereditary?

Yep, R181, I did.

I hope Archie grows up to be like this one.

OMFG. Do you know how much sage Eugie's witchdoctor-psychic will have to burn to vanquish any trace of Markle's toxic imprint on that place?

As for why haven't Markle's exes talked...that bitch is so toxic you leave and you never, ever look back.

R178 oh please like they care. You have that German Nazi Philip making fun of Asians' slitted eyes in public, farless what he says in private circles. You have that bitch married to Prince Michael of Kent trekking a table of black fingers to go back to the colonies. You have stories of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret being unapologetic racists... Even Harry was wearing a Nazi costume in his drunken haze. That family doesn't care, which is partly why i believe Meghan left. Did Meghan have self benefiting intentions? Yeah i believe it, who wouldn't? No one can truly love a Royal only for themselves, be real and honest. Do they love each other, especially after having a kid together? Yes, I believe it. Leave Meghan the fuck alone, there are a lot worse people in that family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, oops, I mean Windsor

R169 your “influential Commonwealth diplomat” (whatever that means) got it wrong, at least about Australia. Most people here couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Sussexes. They came here, travelled around a bit, spouted some platitudes, had a couple of photo opps then jumped on a plane for New Zealand.

All financed by we taxpayers, of course, but we’re used to that. I’d be thrilled if their visit had generated a groundswell of support for the Australian Republican Movement, of which I’m a member, but it didn’t. They’re completely unimportant, except as the source of some fun gossip, which is why I’m here.

Of course if I were a British taxpayer I’d have a much stronger view of them.

The addition of a biracial British prince would have made a lot of people happy and cost the family nothing. They weren't making a new prince out of thin air--Archie will be entitled to be one when Charles is King. There had to be a reason why HM didn't make the gesture. It could have been that they didn't think Meghan would stay the course and would take herself and her son back to America. A member of the family who will never be a working royal (like Louise and James Wessex) has no need of the HRH.

It seems unlikely now that Archie will ever use the title, even once Charles ascends the throne.

Is there a divorce already and they’re dividing up the assets?

[Quote]You have that bitch married to Prince Michael of Kent trekking a table of black fingers to go back to the colonies

🤣 Oh, the imagery of sherpa Princess Tenzing Michael with a table laden with severed black fingers strapped to her back as she trudges across the dark continent is too much. (She left the Blackamoor brooch at home for safety and security purposes.)

I think they are trying to streamline the main line, to prevent a future Beatrice and Eugenie situation where HRH’s are not in the main succession. Andrew’s moaning and complaining about the blood princesses’ rights and wanting them to be fully supported working royals isn’t something anyone wants repeated 20 years down the line with Harry and Megan. Sophie and Edward decided to address their kids as children of a peer, not a prince and I don’t believe it was really their wish, just done in a way to let them save face. So it’s realistic that TQ wouldn’t issue the title early for Archie, since they really don’t ever expect him to use it.

At this point, HM may as well issue new letters patent which explicitly state that HRHs will not be granted to the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the monarch unless the children are those of the heir or heir's heir. It would save a lot of confusion and hurt feelings.

R190, it seems like you’re reaching a bit, alleging that the absence of an exception to existing statute is proof of the fact that HM hates Meghan Markle. Surely it’s more probable that HM was just keeping to the statute and may hate Meghan Markle for different reasons.

r167/9, Barbados is becoming a Republic, quite rightly, but nowhere I can see have they said that they are leaving the Commonwealth. You know realms are different right? Why anyone would think Prince number 6 was a factor in a longstanding debate escapes me also.

I'd agree with you R195 if an exception hadn't recently been made for Charlotte and Louis.

All these laws come with the expectation of the Monarch popping off at a sensible age, say around 70. If she had had the decency there would be less confusion!

So, a new letters patent was needed to coincide withe the change of the rules re gender. I f Charlotte had been born first and then George, she would be future Queen under the new law but only titled Lady Charlotte. Next in line George would still have been Prince. In the event that that might happen, all Williams children became entitled to be prince/princess under the new LP.

Well, Charlotte and Louis are a tricky situation. I can understand why it’s best to have all siblings with the same style and title. And they are in the direct line currently. They will both eventually feel the chill of moving further from the throne, as George marries and has his own family. If Louis is the next Duke of York, his daughters will likely be styled Lady and not Princess.

Yes, Charlotte and Louis should be HRH Prince(ss), but unless something happens with George and having heirs, there's no reason for their children to be HRH. Edward was right to pass on it for his children, Anne was right to decline a title for her husband, and Andrew should have declined it for his girls, but...ego. Only the children of the monarch and the direct heir should be a prince or princess. If something happens and you get moved up the line, add the title. But what purpose does the title have for Bea and E? Andrew must be having a fit that his grandchildren will be commoners.

Meghan’s exes have all been very positive about her, and her ex boyfriend’s mum also publicly praised her and said what a wonderful person she is.

Literally the only people who don’t like her are racist trolls and delusional Tumblr fangirls.

My Gawd, take note, Americans on DL and my dearest Brits who moved to LA years ago, DL has been taken over by monarchist ass kissers!

No, Barbados is not leaving the Commonwealth! They announced their republic status 15 years ago and will get that done soon maybe.

There was no "behind the scenes" stuff around Archie not getting a title. Automatic HRHs stop with the grandsons of the Sovereign in the male line. Hence, the Queen's three sons' children were HRHs, her daughter's children were not. The only way Anne's children could have had titles is if their father had accepted one from the Queen (it was on offer). Both Anne and Mark Phillips declined - thus, their children are Mr and Miss Phillips (the latter now Mrs Tindall).

Neither William's nor Harry's children, as GREAT-grandchildren, were entitled to HRHs. William's were granted them by the Queen because they are now the direct line of succession.

Archie, as a grandchild born 7th in line and likely to end his life far far down the line, was not granted one precisely to stop the endless littering of the royal landscape with meaningless HRHs.

If the Queen had not granted the Cambridge kids HRHs, George would be Earl this, Louis Viscount that, and Charlotte the Hon. Lady Charlotte Cambridge.

Archi HAS a title: Earl Dumbarton. If Harry is raptured whilst still carrying his ducal title, Archie will become HRH the Duke of Sussex.

The fact that wasn't enough for Meghan Markle, who took it as a personal insult that her 7th in line son wasn't treated the way the first in line's kids were, shows you that all she wanted from the BRF was status, and whatever status she had wasn't enough of an upgrade from Suitcase Girl on Deal or No Deal.

You didn't hear the Wessex kids or parents bawling about their kids, duly entitled to HRHs, not using them, or Anne's kids . . .

Meghan was never remotely interested in royal life, only in royal status. She never grasped that not sticking to some sort structure simply degraded the meaning of the whole thing.

It's the way it works. Only Meghan thinks it should have worked differently for her.

^*Archie, as a GREAT grandchild (not as a grandchild)

R204, I think George V’s 1917 Letters Patent would have taken care of Prince George though. It lists a single exception for great grandkids...the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. The rest of the great grands would’ve been left out without HM’s new letters patent.

[quote]Yes, Charlotte and Louis should be HRH Prince(ss), but unless something happens with George and having heirs, there's no reason for their children to be HRH.

But they do it so they know who bows to whom. Charlotte and Louis are blood royals and they need the distinction so that if someone lesser than a blood royal enters their presence, they will know to bow to Charlotte and Louis. Maybe when William ascends to the throne, he will do away with all that palace protocol, but the HRH titles are for bowing. By the time Edward's children came along, they knew there would be very little bowing to them, so he didn't bother.

Of course the order of precedence is a thing. But practically speaking, I don’t think anyone bows to anyone except to the monarch and any living consorts.

I’ve at least never seen a member of the royal family publicly bow to another member of the royal family who wasn’t a monarch or consort.

Can anyone post examples of this inter-family bowing?

[quote]Can anyone post examples of this inter-family bowing?

Princess Margaret always demanded that people bow to her.

The 1917 Letters Patent should at least be amended so the eldest living CHILD of the eldest living CHILD of the Prince of Wales is entitled to the HRH. Since they did away with male-favored primogeniture, this is an issue that could come up repeatedly.

Bowing, the family that plays string instruments together, stays together!

Wrong, R204 - if HM hadn’t issued Letters Patent regarding the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, they would have been styled HRH Prince George of Cambridge (as eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales), Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor. The latter two have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor, not Cambridge, and would have been styled as the daughter and younger son of a Duke. It’s not possible to be the Hon Lady Charlotte anything as “Lady” outranks “Hon”.

On the death of the Queen the two youngest would have been elevated to “HRH Prince/ss” and all three would be “of Wales” once their father is created Prince of Wales.

My guess is that Charles will issue new Letters Patent when he becomes King which further streamlines the granting of HRH titles: the heir's children and the heir of the heir's children get the HRH, but nobody else. That way there won't be any Beatrice and Eugenie situations in the future. That said, it's looking like Bea and Eug will end up working royals, so that worked out in the end.

R212 - You are only half right. Had William and Harry not been created royal Dukes on their wedding days, which each carry a string of subsidiary titles at each tier (earl, viscount, baron . . .), without the HRHs the Queen granted the Cambridge kids (which she did, by the way, the moment Kate was safely past the first trimester, so that whether or not the child was male, it would be an HRH), then Lord and Lady M-B would have been the option.

If you google snapshots of the Cambridge kids' birth registrations, you will not see "Mountbatten-Windsor" as the surname: you will see "Cambridge" because of that ducal title.

M-B is the "House" name, available if wished. But the fact is, the children of those HRH's use their father's titles as surnames: Harry and William used "Wales" as their surnames prior to getting their ducal titles. Archie has, as an option, the Duke of Sussex's subsidiary title, Earl Dumbarton, only his parents refused to use it and announced he would use M-B (probably in a fit of anger at not getting the coveted HRH, the name lends itself to mean-spirited jokes, and they already knew by then they were headed for America, where "Earl Dumbarton" probably wouldn't go down so well).

Edward turned down the royal dukedom upon his marriage. So his kids are Lady Louise M-B, and his son carries the next tier title down from Earl, Viscount. He is James Viscount Severn.

So, if the Queen hadn't designated before the first one was even born that ALL the Cambridge kids were to carry the style and title of HRH, but still gifted William with the royal Cambridge dukedom, George would have taken the subsidiary earl's title, Charlotte would have been Lady Charlotte Cambridge, and Louis would have been Viscount whatever.

The birth registrations have been posted on DL in earlier tiresome discussions of titles. Cambridge is listed as the surname on William's kids registration.

Harry was Captain Wales in the military, not Captain M-W. Wales, their father's title, was used throughout the two boys' schooling.

M-B is the general House name available for use. But in cases where the father's royal title exists, they take their surnames from that.

Here you go, the birth certificate of Prince George.

Do you see Mountbatten-Windsor anywhere?

No: you see His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge. You see Cambridge listed as his father's name and his mother's married name.

Nowhere is there the remotest mention of M-B.

The "House" is now the House of Mountbatten-Windsor". Anne used it knowing full well that her children wouldn't have titles, and that she herself had no surname beyond M-B.

Anne's case is somewhat interesting. As the daughter of the Sovereign, she was automatically a blood princess, but her father also had a royal ducal title, and she could have called herself HRH The Princess Anne of Edinburgh. But after her mother added Philip's surname to the House name, she didn't need to: the Mountbatten was already built in, and that is how she signed her Marriage Certificate.

Here are the subsidiary titles carried by the Cambridge one the Queen: Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus.

The outside looks like shit. They should have just torn the whole thing down and started over rather than wasting all that money on “renovations” for something that didn’t even have a nice exterior in the first place.

^^Take it up with the Historical Trust rather than getting so bothered aboot it.

R81 Quora link is really interesting. I watched the engagement interview embedded in it and noted that they were both careful to “respect the privacy” of the person who introduced them on “the blind date.”

Meghan’s nonsense of not really knowing who Harry was before the blind date always struck me as complete bullshit. I mean, come on! It’s such a lame, easily exposed lie. But I never doubted the blind date story until now. I just assumed she pressured someone to set them up.

I am skeptical about the threesome part. But completely believe Meghan instigating an introduction. Which, frankly, is fine. He apparently welcomed it and they got married.

If it wasn’t for her hamhanded way to spin things to make herself look good constantly, I’d admire her moxie. That’s the key difference between Meghan and Diana: Diana was a nut, but seemed genuine and, largely, owned her flaws. Made fun of herself often after merrily getting herself into hot water. Meghan would be far more likable if she dropped the saintly/ victim role and just came out swinging.

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

The DM is really trying to stretch it with those photos of a moving van outside of Windsor Castle. It's not pictured anywhere near Frog Cot.

Maybe they can't get any closer. I welcome all stories, however retreaded, about Harkles' former residence. It's substantial news, all in all.

Do you think the Sussex duo had their copper bathtub disconnected and removed from Frogmore and shipped off to Rattlesnake/Mudslide Ridge for installation in one of their 19 bathrooms?

No R215, you’re wrong. The House is the House of Windsor. The family name for those of HM’s descendants who are in need of a family name (I.e. those without the style and title of “HRH Prince/ss” is Mountbatten-Windsor.

If any of you disagree you might want to let HM know that she was mistaken when she issued the change to the family name while retaining the House name on 8th February 1960 - it’s all there in the linked document. Section 1A - House of Windsor 1960.

Just because it wasn’t covered in The Crown doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.

If Charles makes HRH only for THE sovereign, the children and the grandchildren of the sovereign, that would remove the HRH from the Yorks, Anne, the Wessexes, and his mother’s beloved cousins Kents and Gloucester. They’re children or grandchildren of ‘A’ sovereign, but not of ‘THE’ sovereign. That’s a VERY dramatic action to take, especially since his mother has been rewarding the Kents and Gloucesters for their service since the 1960s. I doubt that would happen. Perhaps he’d resurrect the HH title though, it’s still used in some countries. I believe Queen Margrethe’s grandchildren from her second son Joachim are HHs. Also, outside of Norway Princess Astrid uses HH (but not IN Norway) and also The King’s grandson Prince Sverre Magnus is HH outside of Norway.

How much of a fortune is it to ship furniture to the US? Maybe they are storing it somewhere for their new UK property in the Cotswold? That's the rumor that they are looking there. Lol. Not sure I buy it. Perfectly good boarding schools in US for Master Archie since we know neither wants FT childcare responsibilities as that would interfere with their "work". No, no. Much too busy for that.

They've been showing this video on my DC PBS-UK station for ages now in between shows. Intermission I guess. It's the royal family at Frogmore House for the Queen's 39th birthday - 1965.

This is the house not the servant's cottage. Sniff.

That is Frogmore House r227, correct.

[quote]But in fact, the next Duke of York is Prince Louis, and eventually, Royal Lodge will naturally come to him and his family. By then, of course, Andrew's descendants will probably have moved on.

I believe that Andrew has something like a 75-yr lease, which he is about 20 yrs or so into. That leaves many decades left on the lease, which is inheritable by his heirs (Bea and Eug). By the time the lease is fully up, Louis will be well near 60 years old and not likely to move in.

It's not naturally given that Louis would live there anyway, it's not specifically entailed to the York dukedom, or in fact any BRF member.

I think that Charlotte will find a way to become Duke of York.

Ask the Duke of Lancaster.

[Quote]This is the house not the servant's cottage. Sniff

How can someone be so willfully ignorant and goddamn stupid after the differences between Frogmore House and Frogmore Cottage have been delineated a thousand and a fucking half times already?

Stop being such a willfully stupid cunt, JMac. And, no, you're not an "expert" in American militias or hate groups either.

Just read a little and make a sincere attempt at comprehension before trying to leave your decidedly undistinguished mark on DL.

[quote]So, if the Queen hadn't designated before the first one was even born that ALL the Cambridge kids were to carry the style and title of HRH, but still gifted William with the royal Cambridge dukedom, George would have taken the subsidiary earl's title, Charlotte would have been Lady Charlotte Cambridge, and Louis would have been Viscount whatever.

Not sure that's correct, that they would have had the Cambridge surname. They'd be styled as son/daughter of a non-royal Duke, and those individuals usually use the given family surname. See: Lady Charlotte Wellesley (Daughter, Duke of Wellington), Lady Violet Manners (Duke of Rutland) etc.

Reference Archie - he is not “Lord Archie Sussex”. He is, technically, Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. As he is also the son of an HRH/Royal Duke, so it serves to say that Charlotte and Louis would also use the M-W surname as well, if similarly non-HRHd.

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

I don't want to make it a long post, but reading on here, just wanted to check if I'm required to be over-the-top bitchy to post on this thread?

R225, all Charles would have to do is make the new HRH rule apply to royals born after the Letters Patent were issued. Existing HRH royals get to keep their titles. Problem solved.

You are right and I am wrong about the "House" name, I checked up, but the rest of my post is correct: the name M-W is available but generally not used whose father's have royal titles that those descendants more commonly use. Hence, even without the Queen making them all HRHs before the first one was born, the Cambridge kids would be using Cambridge, not M-W, just as William and Harry used "Wales" before receiving ducal titles in their own rights, as their own birth registrations attest. Archie is only using M-W because his parents refuse to let him use the courtesy title that is his by birth: Earl Dumbarton.

Frogmore HOUSE is one of the loveliest stately homes in Britain, and was used by the Sussexes for their wedding reception (paid for by Charles), as well as for the wedding reception of Peter Phillips.

Frogmore COTTAGE is on the estate and I would agree is, outwardly uninspiring, especially to eyes looking toward Kensington Palace, Anmer House, Clarence House, Windsor Castle, Highgrove, and Gatcombe Park, and therefore a step down. That said, the five-bedroom inside was probably beautifully redone, no expense spared, the area is very lovely, and the sight of Windsor Castle's turrets not too far away might have thrilled anyone who wasn't the resentful newly minted duchess not too far removed from Suitcase Girl who thought she deserved what the next heir to the throne got without proving herself first, and after managing to piss off the Queen, the Queen's dresser and confidante, the Yorks, and William and Kate, a future King and Queen.

By the day of the wedding, probably most of the family really didn't like Meghan. She and Harry cocked it up from the start.

Personally, I would love to have found myself living rent-free in Frogmore Cottage in exchange for a bit of ribbon-cutting, glad-handing, smiling and chatting to OAPs, children in hospitals, and doing the occasional tour abroad. Not to mention the wardrobe.

Attitude is everything, and after that, perception.

R234 - We welcome all levels of bitchery here on DL, from the blushingly modest to the, er, Klan Granny Troll. So, find your own level and try it on, dear.

R225 - That makes no sense at all. Eventually every "The Sovereign" becomes a former "A Sovereign". The cessation of automatic HRHs with the grandsons of ANY Sovereign in the male line does the trick and accomplishes what George V set out to do: stop the proliferation of HRHs everywhere 100 places down the line.

The system works fine. Then, when it comes to the next Heir's children, i.e., great-grandchildren in the male line (like George, Charlotte, and Louis), Letters Patent are issued and the adjacents (i.e., Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie are the last in those branches to carry the HRH and their children don't get them). It works perfectly.

Harry and Meghan taking it personally was absurd, especially Harry, who knew perfectly well that it was unlikely his son's 7th in line adjacent rather than direct position made it unlikely the Queen would grant an HRH. As it is, if Charles takes over after the Queen, Archie technically is entitled to use HRH, anyway, just as Edward's children are now - and, of course, may technically choose to do so when they come of age.

If by some chance Charles dies without ever becoming King, Archie will never in his life see that HRH.

Are there any pictures of inside Shitmore Cottage? It looks ugly on the outside.

A R232 Archie is technically Earl of Dumbarton but Haz and Megs were to woke to let him use it. Not too woke to reject their own titles, of course.

R238, Sparkle probably photographed and filmed the whole place before she left.

Could she saving those pictures for a rainy day. Perhaps waiting until after Eugenie and Jack move in. Or for a Netflix bonanza.

I still think they should amend it to where only the children of the heir and heir's heir are automatic HRH. Edward was right to decline the style for his children, and it's absurd that Andrew didn't. What's more, granting the HRH to male-line grandchildren only is incredibly sexist.

[quote]You are right and I am wrong about the "House" name, I checked up, but the rest of my post is correct: the name M-W is available but generally not used whose father's have royal titles that those descendants more commonly use. Hence, even without the Queen making them all HRHs before the first one was born, the Cambridge kids would be using Cambridge, not M-W, just as William and Harry used "Wales" before receiving ducal titles in their own rights, as their own birth registrations attest. Archie is only using M-W because his parents refuse to let him use the courtesy title that is his by birth: Earl Dumbarton.

Again, not sure about that. I believe you are confusing use of a courtesy title - such as Earl Dumbarton - with a surname for non-royal daughters and younger sons of dukes. You use William and Harry as examples, as they often used "Wales" as a surname before obtaining their own dukedoms. But their primary titles at that time were HRH Prince of the UK, hence their use of that Wales styling. Bea and Eugenie would also sign off as "Beatrice York", etc, being as they are HRH Princesses.

NON-ROYAL younger children of royal dukes (which is the hypothetical under discussion) use a surname. The Duke of Kent's younger son, the non-royal Nicholas, is "Lord Nicholas Windsor". The Earl of Wessex's non-HRH daughter is styled "Lady Louise Windsor". You get the gist.

Non-HRH younger children of William and Kate, if no LP had been issued, would be "Lady Charlotte M-W" and Lord Louis M-W. Someone mentioned above that Louis would be a "viscount or whatever" - no he wouldn't, not as a younger son. He would always be simply "Lord Louis" or "HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge" until a potential peerage is awarded to him later in life.

It's true Archie is called M-W because his parents refuse to let him use the courtesy title (Earl Dumbarton), but he is still not "Master Archie Sussex". He is Master Archie M-W. If Meghan gives birth to a 2nd son soon, before TQ passes away, he will be "Lord XX M-W" by rights, not "Lord XX Sussex".

R231, what crawled up your ass? I guess I should have typed LOL! rather than Sniff so you were able to get the joke. Begging your pardon.

People who try too hard to read imaginary meanings into other posters' comments have issues. If you don't like my posts then scroll on by. Deal with your sexist anger.

Will Muriel ever reduce the character limit for posts? No one reads more than 10 lines MAX. So, long posters, you might as well be pissing into the wind.

Some long posts are illustrative r244.

Nothing prevents you from scrolling on.

JMac immediately WWed his own post after demonstrating ignorance. I am HEAVILY loling. 😆 Run along to your safe space not provided by the SPLC.

What is this recent prejudice against long posts? I've seen it come up in multiple threads.

I don't mind them as I can scroll on by if I'm not interested. My only quarrel is when they seem to be interesting but are rendered unreadable because of a lack of paragraph breaks.

Just as I expected:

Yet again another moral nadir for the Duchess of Sucksex. She just HAD to conflate her alleged miscarriage with covid, George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. All tied together neatly with the phrase “Are you OK?” Self-congratulatory verbal sewage, trying to desperately justify her South African disaster, while pandering to the frau brigade with her “pregnancy.”

AACK!

This kind of puts paid to the 'we must have privacy' angle, doesn't it?

Princess Diana had a miscarriage between William and Harry, when she was well on her way to becoming the most famous woman in the world. She never wrote a New York Times editorial about it.

Am I the only person who clicked on the link and saw “By Meghan, Thee Duchess of Sussex”?

Chrissy Teigen was in her early 3rd trimester when the baby died. She had to deliver. There was a pic of John holding the tiny baby with a little blue cap all bundled. Chrissy's situation and Markle's are not remotely comparable.

Oops! Wrong thread!

And how neatly do the "We are delighted to open our home to Eugenie and Jack!" and the "My Grief My Grief My Grief" stories jump ahead of the L.A. Remembrance Day fiasco and the admission that she lied in her original legal papers and did, indeed, collude with the Scobie book?

Calling it now: new pregnancy announcement on Christmas Day (to one-up the BRF attending their varied Christmas services separately) or, even better, on 9 January, Kate's birthday. Last year, they dropped their little "We're leaving!" bombshell on the eve of Kate's birthday.

Frogmore Cottage does not "belong" to the Sussexes. It belongs to the Crown Estates. It is only "their" home conditionally, and my guess is whatever lease they had would have terminated at the end of the "one-year review" period on 31 March. They do not have the freedom to "sublet" it.

With their belongings removed and Eugenie's and Jack's moved in, the idea that this is some sort of temporary arrangement is ludicrous. It's obvious H&M's permanent home is in America, as it their future, and they're just hanging on to the last threads of their connection to the BRF and the UK for other reasons.

Not the least of which is that Harry, for tax reasons, needs a permanent address in the UK.

I'm sure it was all worked out with mutual understanding on all sides, with the Queen gracefully stepping aside to make it look like she had nothing to do with it. She did - her approval is required where G&F residences are concerned.

Equally ludicrous is the idea that Pss. Eugenie would have "gone behind" her beloved Gran's back.

The two couples may have worked out the details themselves, but the switch would never have occurred without the Queen's knowledge and consent.

exactly R256, the Queen (or the Queen’s handlers) would have been well aware of the Frogmore deal and would have had to sign off for any of it. Megs didn’t just hand it over. More likely Andrew and Sarah pressed The Queen for it and she agreed.

That miscarriage story was probably burning a hole in her PR pocket. Why she spent it when she did is not clear to me. Was it a diversion or an upstage? (It’s always one of the two.)

And it may not be well-known among gay men (why would it be?), but miscarriage happens to about 25% of pregnancies. It always tickles me a bit when common things happen to people who think they’re exceptional. Mother Nature doesn’t give a flying fuck who you think you are. (Neither does Father Time...)

That so-called miscarriage could have been the size of an apple seed for all we know.

R259, it probably was. Many times, fertilized eggs get expelled in the monthly effluvium. Little potential fetuses just flushed away, it must be so distressing to the fundamentalists. ABORTIONISTAS!

But seriously. I can’t believe she sat on that victim story for three whole months.

Well, she wore a maternity coat when Archie was the size of an apple seed, so apparently making a big deal over six-week fetuses is a thing with her.

Does she cry when she swallows?

I have no problem with grieving over loss of a six-week-old foetus. It you wanted the baby, I'm sure it's still a cause for sorrow. I have a problem with someone asserting there is some sort of taboo or stigma attached to it (there isn't), and presenting herself as some sort of "pioneer" encouraging the already far too ubiquitous idea that living your private life in public is a Good Thing when it is clear that she gladly parades her private life if she thinks it will improve her public image, and conflating a fairly common if unhappy experience with the murder of two adults by police. There is a lack of perspective here that the TIMES should be ashamed to allow.

I also take exception to Meghan, yet again, painting herself as somehow taken advantage of on that last tour. Tours are tiring and they are what working royals are supposed to do, and as she outline her "exhaustion" for ten days' worth of work, after which she could come home and take a month off in her five-bedroom home renovated at someone else's cost, and forgetting to mention that whilst on tour, she had a full staff to sustain her, including a nanny.

Anyone would think she'd been cooking, cleaning, shopping for groceries, as well as doing what is expected of all royals in exchange for their cushy lives and, oh yes, she had a baby with her. Charles and Diana took William on their first (and far longer and more exhausting) tour of Australia. You didn't hear Diana complaining of how tired she was from wearing all those beautiful clothes, waving to those immense adoring crowds, accepting all those bouquets from children, whilst going home at night to a 12-mont-old first child.

Meghan and Harry are shameless, as well as dishonest. Everything she said is a lie: the stigma doesn't exist, Britain has a Baby Loss Remembrance Week, other royals have gone on more demanding tours than that second-tier 10-day one (it didn't include a single state dinner involving gowns, toasts, tiaras, etc.), including with young children at home, and her miscarriage in the first trimester, whilst sad, is not a loss on a par with two adults murdered by police brutality.

I cannot get past her resurrecting that tour ending in one of the poorest countries in the world whilst a rich, privileged woman with a staff behind her and a nice long stay in a large home in a beautiful suburb a half-mile from Windsor Castle and a million or so worth of designer clothes in her closet complained about her lot in life.

The people of Botswana really don't have a choice. Meghan Markle actively and eagerly pursued a high-profile husband as she faced, at 35, professional oblivion. She got what she wanted, and then trashed it because it wasn't perfect, as if she were some sort of victim.

No wonder the BRF despise her.

I’m the law student intern who drew the short straw. I have to tell HRH The Duchess that her lawsuit against the fertility clinic has no real merit.

NO NEGATIVITY, r264!

John Mulaney, who can be very funny, did a very unfunny piece on the Seth Meyers show which shows he's one of us Klan Grannies--kind of slagging off Meghan and Harry for leaving when she must've known what she was getting into. He seemed very close to calling them out for what they are. Alas, the piece must've been recorded just before the "please pity me" NYT article; I expect for months to come any, however subtle, criticism of them will be off-limits.