Harry&Meghan: Our 'service' comment was taken out of context!!

Too late for sorry! It's OVAH, bitches!

So Harry woke up at around 10, saw what his dominatrix-wife wrote and published at 4:30 am California time (in response to his beloved 94 year old Grandmother whose husband, Harry's beloved 99 year old grandfather, is hospitalized) ... and panicked... and called his friend to get him to make a statement 'explaining' the 'context'.

As if that will help.

Harry is fucking pathetic.

Once again, they seek publicity and celebrity but only the good, flattering kind. It doesn’t work that way and their more civilian status may only increase the negative comment and the traps for anything they say.

I love that they are apologizing for it (albeit cowardly PR-style).

Having said that, they should apologize for it. What a slap in the face to a family who literally gave her ten times in her first year than they gave Kate [see: Meghan's 1.4 million dollar 2018 wardrobe - just 2018, mind you]

Service is universal. Brilliant. This couple is doing fiiiiine!

I’m not much of a royalist, but I must say that it is so generous of Harry and Meg to take the time to teach The Queen a lesson about public service, a mere 74 years after she made her own vow to devote herself to the UK and Commonwealth.

I love that these two are sticking it to the Royals. It's about damn time someone put them in their place and leave it to the little colored girl from LA to do it

You go, girl :)

All for this

For people who have mega-dollar deals with Netflix and Spotify to create content, they sure aren't very good at communicating, are they?

The timing and wording of their statement can only be read as "we're mad and, for your information, we can be filthy rich Californians AND do good works!" She really must be doing her own PR, I can't imagine a paid professional having had a hand in that statement.

In any case, the friend of Harry was properly briefed and delivered the lols: "They can still be in that public limelight but obviously always giving back. What the couple is extremely passionate about is philanthropy. And I'm very excited about what their Archewell foundation is going to be getting involved with."

They continue to be gossip gold.

She can't believe her luck

Her mouth is WIIIDE when it's open.

Is that what she meant by "service"?

No, r10 the timing and the wording of their statement can only be read one way:

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By "service", we didn't mean actually "work"

"Service is universal".

What stupidity to include those words.

There can be no getting around it. The Sussexes publicly sassed Q E II.

And no, r7, while you may be caught up in the shallow image of Harry and Meghan, like it or not, and one may hold sincere, principled opposition to the existence of a British Royal Family or any other monarchical family, nevertheless, Q E II is one of the most popular and respected persons on planet Earth.

Prince Harry, immature as he is, must know deep in his heart that with those foolish 3 words, they've crossed a line, and there is no going back.

Anger, ego and an inflated sense of their importance have clouded their judgment.

You let the Queen of England have the fucking Last Word.

They're cooked.

I wouldn't be surprised if Oprah wishes she didn't have to bother with that interview. She's mature enough, old enough, has seen it all, and can read the room. Now, Oprah knows she can milk this for the drama only for the rift; a rift where one side is Q E II and the other is a down the line Royal in exile and his "C" List wife.

I would bet now that, secretly, Oprah wishes she would have stayed out of this.

[quote] I would bet now that, secretly, Oprah wishes she would have stayed out of this.

Nah, I see it differently. Now that Barbara Walters is no longer a contender, Oprah wants to fill that spot and get all the celebrity scoops. Plus, Oprah has always been a "sistah" and part of me thinks that she will enjoy poking at the rich white people that make up the BRF.

They must be so relieved. The BRF too. It must be awkward having a black girl from LA force them to look at themselves.

Oprah is probably thrilled by this. She’s going to throw more gasoline on the fire. She’s a drama queen who will do anything for headlines.

It’s the timing that tells the tale. Their statement was posted 4 MINUTES after the queen’s, so it HAD to be written in haste and in a fit of pique. In addition, if it was posted at 4:30 am, that speaks to a certain madness regarding monitoring the utterances from the palace...

How would a 2/3 white and 1/3 black ancient crone "force the BRF to "look at themselves"?

Through the multiple Spanish intermarriage connections alone, the BRF has more black blood than Meghan could ever wish for on her 'Blackest' day.

[Quote] Through the multiple Spanish intermarriage connections alone, the BRF has more black blood than Meghan could ever wish for on her 'Blackest' day.

Maybe so. But no black identity like Meghan..

r17, I suspect you're trolling but I'll respond anyway.

I have always maintained that anybody who would deny that Markle had to endure real, ugly, bigotry isn't to be taken seriously. It makes my hair stand on end contemplating what she had to endure from the British tabloids and behind the scenes from some Palace staff and even from some members of the BRF and their set/court.

I also saw, too , that Prince Harrys immediate family, mostly Q E II, weren't bigoted about her, saw her as a fresh, new presence among them that brought them into the 21st century, etc..

I do think Prince William was foolish to open his yap to Harry about "taking it slow", but I don't believe Prince William was motivated by bigotry when he did so.

Still, it is sheer, reckless stupidity by the Sussexes to not let the words of Q E II be the last said. And then let their own self-proclaimed acts of service and philanthropy speak for them.

But no. They contradicted and sassed, publicly, the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms; a person whose popularity and respect for, far exceeds theirs.

One day, in the future, the Sussexes are both going to regret that they did not appreciate what lasts.

The Moors and their royalty are nothing to dismiss, r21. They were powerful players, and intermarried into all the royal families of Europe.

Meghan thinks she's special? She's not.

^^^^(Wait until she finds out about the breadth and depth of the Moorish slave trade! No BLM going on there, I can tell you)

But Meghan isn't BLM at ALL - Meghan is Use White Guys to get up every ladder.

The often-absurd notions of "service" that the RF have developed into their defense for existence is one thing. Yes, cutting ribbons and have lunch at nursing homes is "service," but only because we've been trained to think of the definition in their terms.

However, it is quite another matter for the deluded duo to think that scheduling PR sessions twice a week while trying to set up a dynamo money machine can be called service, rather than "the usual fake Hollywood photo ops."

These two need a fast car through a baffling underpass. The are irredeemable and have lapsed into "enemies of the Crown."

[quote]Through the multiple Spanish intermarriage connections alone, the BRF has more black blood than Meghan could ever wish for on her 'Blackest' day.

The Spanish don't have as much African blood as you'd think.

Yeh r26 - I'm sure Sir Tom Moore's family would fully agree with your undereducated idea of what it means to be honored by the Queen.

Maybe pick up the odd book now and then?

Just a thought.

r27, the Moors occupied Spain for 800 years.

Eight HUNDRED years. Not Eight, not Eighty, but EIGHT HUNDRED.

Meghan is nothing - not even a speck - under the weight of this history.

The Moors were a ruling class, they didn't mix much with the locals. Think the British in India.

So true R6. How did the Queen ever get through the past 74 years without the serene guidance of Meggity Meg? Such a blessing to everyone she meets.

The article is platinum! Some cheesy guy who Harry knows says all of this will bring the brothers closer together. Aw

How are they allowed to use a crown in the logo?

Not at all, r30. It was nothing at all like British India. If you think that is true then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Full disclosure: I'm doing my PHD on the Rule of the Moors right now.

The Moors subjugated (often to the point of destruction) any non-believers and basically tried to drive non-believers out of their lands using not just scarring humiliation techniques and impoverishing taxation, but also torture and death.

Is that the Raj? No. It was not.

But r33 the question was Spanish being mixed-race. Most of the Moorish population did not mix with the locals.

r32 They're not, Rose.

But they will anyway because they love biting the hand that feeds them. It gives them a high.

r34, You'd be surprised. My research shows a very reasonably high amount of mixing.

Well r36 there wasn't a very high amount of mixing. DNA results have shown about a 10% admixture in the entire population. And Northern Spain has hardly any at all.

^^^^^ That should have read "a reasonably to high"

What's annoying about Della isn't that she has no fucking clue what she's talking about when she spouts on about the British royal family - that's par for the course with Americans - but she blabbers on in a pompous style as though she's an expert, when she knows jack shit.

Northern Spain was never occupied by the Moors, r37.

And the data is not remotely complete regarding the Moorish part of Spain, so - what is your source?

Because I know that it is not one that is reliable.

You've got to love (or hate) the DL when it careens from a reduced role for the Sussexes to the genetic makeup of Al Andalus.

R41 You're probably one of a small handful of posters who would have a fucking clue in hell what Al Andalus is.

[quote]And the data is not remotely complete regarding the Moorish part of Spain, so - what is your source?

Here, for starters. Not as much North African admixture as you would think.....

r42 it was Moorish Spain

R7 proves my contention that there is an audience for these antics. An idiotic one, but an audience.

You know who was so excited about all this coverage last night that she had to get up to pee three times.

R44 I'm well aware that Al Andalus was the Arabic name for Muslim conquered area of Spain. I'm simply surprised that R42 mentioned it.

^^^ R41, not R41^^^

Oh for fuck's sake!! R41, not R42

Megs is beautiful but she takes after her white trash family, she has no class.

Don't ever discount people who are "less educated" than you are. There is always something to learn - their oral histories have been very helpful to me whenever I've tried to put together missing pieces.

r50, you are praising plasticness, not beauty

R22 Respectfully, Della, what horrors did she have to “endure”? All celebrities get dragged one way or another. I’m aware of one awful headline (“straight outta Compton”) that only a clueless English journalist could have thought was clever, but she mostly got a lot of love at the start.

Awkward looking kids grow up to be attractive adults. The opposite is also true.

[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 think Meghan's psychosis comes from her experience of her early, pre-plastic surgeon face.

She isn't psychotic, she has no class and her striving is painfully obvious.

Harry the nipple twister looks unusually animated in R55's example.

R7- SS PR. Hello! We see you!

I would respectfully disagree, r57.

I think she is a classic psychotic. She had books about the Royal Family in her teenage bedroom and later wrote a post about Kate. She was photographed in front of Buckingham Palace with a friend (who said she loved the BRF) and later tried to claim that photo was photoshopped.

She then isolates Harry (who deserves it) and snipes at the Queen when she doesn't need to.

She's psychotic.

[quote] Once again, they seek publicity and celebrity but only the good, flattering kind.

Why would anyone seek any other kind of publicity or celebrity, unless they were serial killers? There are hundreds of thousands of famous airheads, child molesting PR agents, sex-pest producers, reality tv stars pumped full of steroids and fillers gracing the pages of Rupert Murdoch publications. But these two are the only ones consistently taunted & humiliated by the Murdoch press. Murdoch shrieks at their celebrity while making money off their celebrity status. Ok boomers.

Many girls fantasize about being married to a prince, Kate did the same. This is not psychotic, it's a common fantasy. But Kate has class and was raised in the same class as the BRF. Megs has an extended white trash grifter family and takes after their grifting ways.

I've enjoyed reading these comments about the most recent exchange between the Duke and Duchess and the British Royal Family. Here, the majority seem to think that the Windsors aren't particularly racist and that the Duchess has made a mistake is her most recent remarks. But, other websites who are firmly in her camp no matter what ever she might do, feel that she again is the complete victim.

I guess even with today's almost complete access to information, people will still put spin on anything to make it suit their preferred narrative.

And yet, r61, Meghan wants to be a part of the group you outline.....

No.

She wants to be a princess.

A common fantasy for girls.

No.

She wants to be a princess.

A common fantasy for

She wants to be the Queen. FIFY

R66 And SOME boys- thank you very much!!!

Queen is out of reach for H and M, he is the second born and the Queen actually works to be an HRH.

Megs is a stunt queen. Pretty but classless.

R60- Totally agree. Meghan is a malignant narcissist, just like Former45. We see the damage he did. They have no conscious. They are pretty, vengeful, thin-skinned tyrants. They are also sadistic. She is most certainly is not harmless or normal. The thought of her having children is chilling.

Muscular Harry looks positively puny compared to James Haskell. How did that happen?

@r59, "[R7]- SS PR. Hello! We see you!"

Nope, just a regular Data Lounger who rarely gets involved in royal threads, but after 4 years of seeing Americans screwed by republicans, I'm just proud of our little colored girl for sticking to the family who's been sticking it to the world for the last 1000 years

Meghan's "service" to the world is to keep doing what she is doing. I have the utmost respect for the Queen, but watching Meghan take on the Palace is so entertaining and it just provides endlessly fun articles and threads. This is the only thing I am here for when it comes to M & H. I don't care about all their gobbledy goo Archewell, faux woke bullshit. This is gold and I do admire how completely fearless Meghan is. She represents the absolute best and worst of striving American values. I worry that the Queen has now said her piece, the Megxit deal is done, and Meghan is about to blow her load with Oprah's "tell all". After this, I don't know what other bits of ammo Meghan will have left in her arsenal to keep us interested. That secret diary she kept? Much of that was in Finding Freedom. She probably has one more nuclear button left if she really wants to spill the dirt, but that will be post divorce, I would imagine, after she loses her titles. The titles will stay until a divorce. Harry isn't nearly as interesting. I see maybe rehab or a substance abuse problem is Harry's future.

She is a female trump. Nothing funny or entertaining about ppl like that. They are posion.

Hear, hear R72! It’s the entertainment -bingo.

R22 oh some of us respect the Sussexes more than the queen. I don't mind them having the last word. They are independent now, remember?

I wouldn't say that.

Prince Charles

Oh yes? Why, r75.

List it for us. Go on.

(You won't of course)

It is frightening that some ppl respect ppl such as her. She has hurt and betrayed everyone who loved and supported her. This one thing that is scary and sad today. That ruthless, cold-blooded people are admired instead of shunned. Very disturbing.

@r73, "She is a female trump"

Hahaha! She's the anti-Trump, but is smart enough to see through Great Britain's version of the Trump family. A grifter with class is still a grifter

And yet no one may gainsay her simply because she 1/3 black

When she is one of the most ridiculous people on the planet.

She had a nose job, just like 99% of actresses. She is still pretty.

r75 , independent my ass. Their whole existence is running on being Royal-adjacent. Everything they do is about being Royal-adjacent, including being offered business deals, because, you know, they're Royal-adjacent.

There isn't a independent bone in their body, and now their trying to become Oprah-adjacent. Because they have nothing going on for themselves.

They're just carnies now.

Meghan has 3 shots left in the PR locker: 1) Tell-all with Oprah 2) Baby Diana 3) High-profile divorce. She'll have used up all #1 and #2 by midsummer, and #3 will be coming in the next couple of years. If she hasn't established her own brand by then, she's really fucked.

I don't believe that for a second. They look at the statement and analyzed everything...

they knew what they were doing.

They want to shift blame to the press...

What does she do next?

R79- BULLSHIT!

R83- If she does that with her baby, the backlash will be brutal. Ppl are already nauseous at their shameless exploitation of Diana. Just let her try to exploit Diana's grandchild.

Meghan has ONE AIM

and that is to isolate Harry.

Isolate, then lovebomb with But Archie!! But bump!!

Think of all their public statements in that light, and it all makes a kind of sense.

she's gonna be a typical frau. Squeeze out as many kids as possible, have a successful blog like Goop, and all that boring housewife shite.

Yes Archie is definitely a love bomb.

The Harkles are a blessing.

So long as the Queen stands by them , they've made all Royalists Reassess

I agree with you, R26, about the idea that most of what the royal family does is "public service." I'm not a devoted anti-royalist, and I find their doings interesting (and I sure would have played it better than Harry and Meg), but most of what they do is either unnecessary or more properly termed "patronage."

No one needs them to stop into a care home and ask some polite questions, or to cut a ribbon or pull a curtain on a plaque, or do Zoom chats with teachers about the challenges they face. Service is work--work that helps people and groups accomplish things. It's not providing money or publicity.

I may not have the whole picture of what they do as "public service," and perhaps there's more behind the scenes. If so, I'm happy to learn about it. But when the Queen talks about public service, what exactly is it that she does--or did, pre-COVID and pre-old age?

[quote]But Kate has class and was raised in the same class as the BRF.

Untrue. The Middletons are a middle-class family. Perhaps you weren't around to see the commentary on that before Catherine and Prince Egghead were married. (And before his head turned into an egg.)

Kate has something almost above.

The magic that comes from knowing your place.

R92, I think it's more than the ribbon cutting. The Queen is some kind of head of state and serves a ceremonial function. Many countries have two different people for this--a prime minister for the politics and a monarch or president for symbolic/ceremonial functions. (In the US, the president carries out both roles.) For me, the Queen's service is having accepted that accident of birth dealt her this card and carrying out this role almost her entire life. It's a position that brought great wealth and privilege, but also considerable personal constraints.

I don’t generally care what these two are at but what does annoy me it the press covering them takes the focus off Harry’s gobshite, paedophile uncle. I wish they would just live their lives quietly so someone who deserves the harassment would get it.

The Queen is a bipartisan diplomatic island.

R96- Why do some people always bring Andrew into the conversation? Why do you want people to always associate the two? Apples and Oranges. Both are vile, except Andrew isn't in our faces everyday through media. If the only good thing you can say about her is at least she isn't Andrew, you are doing her no favors.

If Andrew hadn't fucked up so badly, Meghan and Harry would have already lost the HRH entirely, not just had it put on ice.

True, R99.

The Queen will never take away Meghan's titles. She didn't take away the titles of her uncle and his wife (whom she blamed for her father falling into the stressful position of monarch). And she didn't take away Andrew's title after his well-publicized issues. And in the best comparison to Meghan's situation, she didn't take away Sarah Ferguson's title after Sarah was photographed having her toes sucked, became a shill for Weight Watchers, and later tried to sell access to Prince Andrew.

Meghan hasn't really done anything worse than what Sarah did. Like Sarah, she's selling access to Harry and herself, but she's being completely transparent about it. Like Sarah she has made some business deals to generate income.

The Queen took away the HRH, but they had stopped using that designation anyway over the past year, so they haven't really lost much. You can argue that Harry lost his military status, but it was ridiculous for him to think he could hold onto that role when he lived across an ocean and a continent.

[quote] she's gonna be a typical frau. Squeeze out as many kids as possible, have a successful blog like Goop, and all that boring housewife shite.

I believe Meghan turns 40 this summer, so this will be her last kid I would guess. Meghan does not seem excessively maternal just based on the very limited shots of her holding him early on. I've always thought that Meghan would secretly be fine with Harry taking the kids back to the UK with him in a post divorce and Meghan could get on with whatever endeavor she has planned next. That would kill her single mother of color raising royal children alone in the US narrative. At least they are not boring. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

The one thing I am really curious about is what Harry is thinking. We can guess but none of us truly know. Is he happy in CA, living the life that Diana had dreamed about living around the time that she passed? He seemed like a Brit's Brit, but there are a lot of British people who have immigrated to CA and love it. Does he miss his family or did he truly feel oppressed? He seemed happy during the days when it was Will, Kate and Harry doing their jobs, but he said he felt like a third wheel. Does he really love Meghan? It would be interesting to know the real truth with him. For better or worse, Meghan wears her naked ambition on her sleeve and has done so going to back to her high school years. There is not much mystery about her.

R102- I think they have a straight-up business relationship. Jmo.

If Harry is as dim as claimed, he's probably happy as long as his needs are attended to and he has a strong personality telling him what to do. He may be quite happy living under Meghan's thumb. There is a tradition in the Windsor clan of its men being contentedly cossetted and managed by their wives: This was true of George V, George VI, and even Charles (once he married Camilla). It's not always true of course, as Philip and William certainly haven't lived under anyone's thumb, but Harry may be part of the family pattern.

[quote]Meghan has 3 shots left in the PR locker: 1) Tell-all with Oprah 2) Baby Diana 3) High-profile divorce.

Has she already used every celebrities favorite canard: "I was abused as a child"? If so, I must have missed when she played that card. I suppose that she might be hanging on to that one until post-divorce, as it usually is played when a celebrity's profile is sun-setting.

I think he's very much in love with her. I think he's a Type B person who enjoys being with someone with a strong personality who will make decisions for him.

But those in-love "limerence" hormones usually last for about two years. When the hormones dissipate, people wake up to their partner's imperfections, which they had previously overlooked. If he didn't help write or approve the "service is universal" comment, then he should be having a major WTF moment right now.

How can saying that service is universal be touted as some kind of “stinging rebuke”?

It happens to be the truth.

If his grandparents both go this year, that could be one motherfucker of a wake-up call for Harry. He'll attend the funerals of course, but the family will be making preparations to move on without him. That will sting, no matter how stupid one might be. The death of Philip will also fuck up the Oprah interview: Any revelations about the Royals will be blunted by the outpouring of support for the widowed Queen and would be taken as the Sussexes kicking the old lady while she is down.

Sadly, if he and Meghan could have stuck it out for just another year or two, their fortunes might have vastly improved under King Charles III. More money, more interesting work, a residence other than Frogmore: The child of a reigning monarch always gets a lot of extra perks. But they've burned so many bridges back to the UK that Charles won't be able to do much for the exiled Sussexes for risk of starting a backlash when his reign is still quite new. Given that he'll probably only reign for about ten years, that means that by the time he'd be feeling secure enough to do something, his reign will be over. We all know King William won't do a goddamn thing for the Sussexes.

To sum up: Harry and Meghan have bloody terrible timing.

Meghan will save "I was abused as a child" until her father is safely dead. Since Thomas Markle is in poor health, she may be able to trot that out at any time.

I think that after she establishes herself as a "philanthropist", she's going to run for office.

She and Harry have enough money that after fulfill their end of their Netflix deal, they could invest their money and never have to work again. Then, they could live completely quiet and private lives dedicated to raising their kids. Most people would be thrilled with that. But I don't think it's what they want. I think they want to be publicly admired. They want us to know that they rub shoulders with the rich and powerful people. They want us to know that their lives are "perfect".

R22 = TLDR

Her Majesty ought to perform one last act of public service and strip these two self-aggrandizing motherfuckers: Strip Harry and Markle of the HRH styles. Granted they cannot use the HRH style, but they still have it. Strip HRH from them even if she can't or won't strip them of the Duke and Duchess titles.

Harry wants to outshine his brother. It's clear now that he's always resented William's position as the heir. He will sign onto any scheme of Meghan's which allows him a chance of doing that. Meghan, of course, has had the knives out for Kate all along. What a poisonous atmosphere they must have brought to Kensington Palace! No wonder William had them banished to Frogmore.

Why was yet a THIRD thread opened AGAIN on this topic when not one, but two perfectly serviceable others existed?!

The Queen can't take the HRH titles without stirring up the Andrew ruckus again. She may not give a fuck about Meghan or even about Harry at this point, but Andrew is her favorite child and she will protect him until her dying day. The Harkles are safe as long as Andrew and the Queen are around.

Nothing was taken out of context. The Harkles issued a statement that was printed in its entirety in response to the queen stripping them of their patronages. The Harkles words and context are perfectly intact. They said it. Everyone understood it as is.

The queen is not amused.

[quote]R108 the family will be making preparations to move on without him. That will sting, no matter how stupid one might be.

Why do some people here assume being a working royal is some enjoyable lifestyle? Maybe some Brits on the outside looking in see it as glamorous, especially if they aren’t wealthy, but I’d much prefer to live a rich life in the California sun with a beautiful spouse and our children.

Harry already lived that strictly regimented life for decades. It’s natural he should enjoy living away from all that.

Who wouldn’t, as long as you’ve got more than ample means?

[quote]R115 The Queen...may not give a fuck about Meghan or even about Harry at this point, but Andrew is her favorite child

That says a lot about the old bat, doesn’t it?

"Service is Universal" ...

.. and talk is cheap. A pretentious stroll through a graveyard with her in high heels and him in pretentious regalia, with a personal photographer in tow no less(!), hardly cuts it as 'Service' to anyone other than themselves.

[quote]R116 The Harkles words and context are perfectly intact. They said it. Everyone understood it as is. The queen is not amused.

Can you please explain what’s offensive about opining that “service is universal”?

Harry's new life in California may be more comfortable in many ways, but regardless of that, he was born, raised, and lived as a Prince of the UK for the first 34 years of his life. A visit back home, experiencing the pomp and circumstance and public grief of Royal funerals, particularly the funerals of the two people who have loomed so large over his entire existence, is sure to shake him. To realize that his father is preparing to be King and his brother is preparing to be Prince of Wales, knowing everything that means in terms of tradition and history and public service. . . well. It might make a sunny shallow life in Montecito look rather pallid by contrast.

Harry didn't leave because he hated being Royal. He left because he hated being a SECONDARY Royal. Had he been born first, he'd still be living the life for all it's worth. And NOT married to Meghan Markle, that's for sure.

R117, if the Southern California lifestyle is better than royal duties, then why does Harry keep trying to do royal duties? Why does he pay a videographer to capture him visiting a graveyard where he performed some pseudo royal ceremony? Why does he pop up to charity events just for a day--with his photographer--when, let's face it, he could help that charity out a lot more by just writing them a check. (But writing a check doesn't produce a photo op.)

What "public service" has Harry and Markle done? They have been together for nearly three years: a year dating and almost two years married. What have they done together? Granted, Harry has worked in the Invictus Games for disabled military members. But what have they done together except plot their escape since even before their marriage? Yes, they have been somewhat busy plotting their escape, bitching and complaining, moving to Canada and then to the U.S., but what have they done together regarding public service other than talk about it a lot?

[quote] To sum up: Harry and Meghan have bloody terrible timing.

Isn't that the truth? Call it fate, karma, or just terrible timing, every bomb shell they drop seems to be followed by nature's counter attack of something massive and completely out of everyone's control. Megxit 2020 - Covid. Oprah tell all/clapping back at The Queen - Prince Phillip in life threatening ill health. Would Oprah hold the March 7th airing if Prince Phillip dies?

R124, well in December they announced that Archewell's first financial donation would go to World Kitchen. Oddly, they didn't say when they would make the donation or what the amount of the donation will be.

It would make much more sense for them to have a social media account where they could ask their "fans" to donate money DIRECTLY to World Kitchen. But nope, they want to be the middleman. Instead, people and corporations can donate money to Archewell, and then Archewell can dole it out, after taking a cut of the money to compensate for their "administrative fees". Fuck that, donate money directly to the organizations who are doing the work on the ground.

I think Phillip's death will be particularly hard on Harry. Phillip defended Harry's decision to not want to walk behind Diana's casket. When there was no other choice, Phillip said he would be there for him and be walking right next to him, side by side. This has been documented many times.

[quote]Would Oprah hold the March 7th airing if Prince Phillip dies?

bwhahaha ... only if it means higher ratings to be shown at a later date.

[quote]nstead, people and corporations can donate money to Archewell, and then Archewell can dole it out, after taking a cut of the money to compensate for their "administrative fees".

A fleecing scheme as old as time itself.

Maybe they can April 21 and air the interview on the Queen's birthday.

Hilarious that they get absolutely annihilated on every utterly transparent and self-serving move they make.

Moors = euphemism for Islamic conquest, Islamic colonization and Islamic slave trade, amongst many other Islamic atrocities ordered and sanctioned ;y allah.

Harry & Meghan, I know exactly how you feel. When I wore my Blackamoor brooch, it was taken out of context. The gutter press is simply revolting.

[quote] Service is universal.

So is fucking.

What is the supposed etymology of "Archewell"? Was it coined just for the sound of it? Does it incorporate a reference to Archie? So strange.

The Harkles will never learn the old-school maxim of public relations: “sometimes less is more”.

They also never learned about taking the high road. A gracious statement would have made them look well-meaning and thrown a harsh light on the Palace's stance. By being petulant, they've made the Palace look justified and themselves look like twats.

[quote] Can you please explain what’s offensive about opining that “service is universal”?

It was a slam towards the BRF who are (by tradition) performing public service for Britain and the Commonwealth. "Service is universal" = "Big deal. Anyone can do it anywhere without being royal."

Unfortunately, Meghan's definition of 'service' means 'shameless self-promotion, financial and material gain, and feeding one's own ego'.

In terms of service, what does this mean for M&H in terms of formal royal family events - Trooping the Colo(u)r, funerals, etc. Will the only difference be that Harry will no longer be able to wear the military uniforms, but will still be on the balcony? Meghan has balls, but she would truly have balls of steel if she did show up to these events. I might have more respect for her if she does. It would be like turning yourself in after committing a crime. She would get the public lashings and boos, but it would be the right thing to show up.

Give them a break. An Oprah interview and a photo op to promote the next baby drop counts as service.

Can't stand the fact that they actually are making on their own, unlike the DL basement dwellers ?

I don't see them crawling back to the Queen Mother and asking for a hot meal and a place to stay.

They took the plunge and landed on their feet, much to the dismay of DataLoungeLizards.

And you'll never get over it . . . . . . . . . . 🤓 !

I always see Octomom when I see that photo.^^ Two L.A. crazies separated at birth

I will admit they are making it on their own when I see them launching a successful project that is totally independent of their connection to the BRF and involves them actually doing something worthwhile. Until then, they're still suspect.

At least we are not dealing with the Reign of Terror and the inevitable fallout of the U.S. Dictator known as Donald J. Trump.

Meghan reminds me of Jody Arias, in every way. Wonky eye, dark hair, personality, psycho bitches. It is truly like they are twins separated at birth.

Trump's a far bigger threat to your country than Markle's ever been to ours. And he still is a very real threat.

Trump's not over until Fat Daughter Tiffany sings.

R82 aren't we all adjacent something or the other? Whether is our university label or the color of our skin or family business connections, we all use what we have.

So Harry and Meghan have the BRF and their new non-BRF. They can't escape it, which is what non-celebrities won't understand. It's a part of their brand.

[quote]R121 It might make a sunny shallow life in Montecito look rather pallid by contrast.

The royals, on the other hand, live “deep” lives?

It’s a wonder Harry left if it’s all so hypnotic, stimulating, and deeply fulfilling.

[quote] I don't see them crawling back to the Queen Mother and asking for a hot meal and a place to stay.

Clearly an expert on the BRF here.

[quote]R138 It was a slam towards the BRF who are (by tradition) performing public service for Britain and the Commonwealth. "Service is universal" = "Big deal. Anyone can do it anywhere without being royal."

But that’s true. Is the BRF so arrogant they think they’re the ONLY ones serving the UK, or humanity in general?? Jesus.

How ridiculous.

It appears that most every effort these two attempt at PR turns to shit almost immediately.

R152 it doesn't have to be but she loves that spotlight and can't shut up

They face the world now, not inward looking at Britain only. What a radical, brave move.

The Queen won't strip them of their HRH's.

That would leave her and Charles without any leavers to pull if Harry and Meghan do something really, really bad.

I also think they are leaving Harry the HRH because they really would like him to come back. If he and Meghan divorce, and that's likely, he can return to the UK, take the HRH out of mothballs, marry again, and have his old life back. If the HRH were stripped, that would be much harder to do, optics-wise.

R156 are you one of Harry's old girlfriends?

[Quote] If he and Meghan divorce, and that's likely, he can return to the UK, take the HRH out of mothballs, marry again

Meghan and Harry are both children of divorce, and Meghan is divorced herself. Even disregarding the pressures this marriage is under, statistically, they are more than likely to split up.

Unfortunately for the couple, there’s no Professor Higgins who could ever turn Meghan into a lady.

R101 The Queen wasn’t in a position to give or take away titles of her Uncle David at the time of the abdication, being a ten year old princess at the time.

The Queen did take away Fergie’s title - she was HRH The Duchess of York and on her divorce was named Sarah, Duchess of York. Ditto Diana upon her divorce - she was HRH The Princess of Wales and then was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales.

I assume that the Harkles still have the (not to be used) HRHs because after the inevitable divorce Harry will still be HRH The Duke of Sussex while Meghan would become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Meghan won't even be that if she's not a UK citizen.

Harry will become a US citizen. Mark my words.

Oh blimy!

She'd want to go back to Meghan Markle on divorce. I can't see her wanting to be called Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

If Harry becomes a US citizen, they'll lose the titles anyway.

if they had a shred of decency they would renounce their titles, every last one. But of course, no chance of that, ka-ching!

He'll retain his British passport and keep his titles.

Or does he have to give up his British passport on being naturalised in America?

Dual citizenship.

Wouldn't the taxes kill him if he took dual citizenship?

Ahhh so he won't lose his HRH or his Dukedom then.

I’d love to see Meghan’s reaction if he remarries having retained his style and title as his new wife would be the new HRH The Duchess of Sussex.

It would make Mia's ongoing vendetta against Woody Allen look like gentle joshing by contrast.

[quote] Ahhh so he won't lose his HRH or his Dukedom then.

The HRH is his by law. The dukedom was given to him by his grandmother. She cannot change either. If she wanted him stripped of his HRH and of his peerage, she would have to as the Prime Minister to put it to a vote in Parliament. Parliament is unlikely to remove his HRH, his title of Prince or his dukedom unless he (or his wife) begins to meddle in politics, particularly if their political views are contrary to the UK government in power. If Harry becomes a dual citizen, he could be asked by the US government to relinquish his titles as a condition of citizenship. Americans are not permitted to have titles. At best, he might be forbidden to use his British titles at any time while in America or traveling on an American passport. Meghan's titles depend solely on Harry's. If his go, so do hers.

Should Harry officially give up his, title and peerage, he could not try to reclaim them in the future. He would have to be re-created a prince, duke, and given the style of HRH by new letters patent by whoever happens to be sovereign at the time. He cannot give up the dukedom on behalf of his heirs. His eldest living son would become Duke of Sussex upon Harry's death. Whether Harry's children become HRHs and Prince/Princess of the UK as grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line, would be up for debate. Edward Wessex did not want royal status for his daughter and son, so they are known as Viscount Severn and Lady Louise. They are still a prince and princess legally and once they each turn 18, they could if they wanted, use their HRHs and royal titles. Only an act of parliament could force them to not use them. In accordance with the wishes of their parents and the Queen, Louise and James are unlikely to press for the use of royal titles once they are older, but the titles are still available for their use.

[quote] He'll retain his British passport

Why do British people reference having a passport instead of using the word citizenship? Do you mean he’ll keep his UK citizenship? A person can be a citizen of a country without having a passport.

The only thing out of context was Meghan Markle attempting to seem like royalty.

Harry and Meghan are trying to set up a rival court, as absurd as that is. I truly believe they are. I also truly believe they are on drugs. They both are narcissist and entitled. Harry never even had to wipe his own ass, he has to be told what to do because he has no clue. Spoiled and entitled are ugly traits. But both have a pathological jealousy towards William and Kate. It may sound crazy , but I believe that is what they are doing. A rival court. Here. Insane.

R173 Thank you for that.

What about the peers who are American citizens. Joanna Shields and Christopher Guest come to mind. Do they have to drop their titles?

R149 well, the royal inbreds that are not the Sussexes also aren’t out there pontificating hypocritically about how much better they are as environmentalists than us plebs. While they get chauffeured in a gas guzzling luxury SUV and travel on private jets and live on estate requiring more water/ electricity than necessary.

R173 - Your comment is out of date on several points. A petition was sent to Parliament to strip Harry of his title. Parliament punted back to the monarchy stating publicly that this was strictly a matter for the Queen.

Parliament is the only entity that can change the Order of Succession.

Technically, whatever it was within the Queen's power to give, she can take back, and that includes Harry's ducal title.

She can also take his HRH by issuing Letters Patent just the way her father deprived Wallis Simpson of one. Customarily, wives take their rank from their husbands. Wallis wasn't allowed to.

The Queen allegedly considered taking their HRHs, but instead only suspended them. But the fact is, as she can grant HRHs without going to Parliament, which she did in the case of the Cambridge children (who were not entitled to it at birth) why do you think she'd have to go to Parliament to take one away?

Harry was born an HRH, as you rightly point out. That is the result of George V's amendment to the Marriages Act. And Archie isn't royal today (that is, he's minus the HRH Meghan wanted for him so badly) BECAUSE the Queen didn't issue Letters Patent granting him one.

All she has to do is issue Letters Patent stating that henceforth all titles belonging to Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten Windsor, Duke of Sussex, will not carry the style (HRH is the style of address, NOT a title) of HRH. And, presto, Harry becomes Your Grace the Duke of Sussex rather than Your Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex.

She can, she thought about it, and she should have.

Removal of titles pursuant to the Titles Act of 1917 was to ensure that minor German relatives carrying HRHs who fought on Germany's side in WWI (traitors) didn't get to keep their HRHs.

The ducal title isn't, really, the important one. It's that bloody HRH they all want, which is why Harry and Meghan turned up their noses at the title Archie really was entitled to, Earl Dumbarton. "If Archie can't have what George and Charlotte and Louis have, fuck you and that stupid title, too!" Never mind that her little brat was 7th in line whilst William's kids are now the direct line of succession.

Yes, the Queen can take back whatever it was in her power to give. She can create HRHs, as seen with the Cambridges, without so much as a phone call to the PM, and she can uncreate them, too.

It's more custom than law, really. She could have made Archie an HRH. She chose not to, which is why Meghan really hates the old bitch's guts.

Parliament wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot cock. They punted back to the Queen re the titles, publicly stating it's in her hands, and they'll ONLY get involved if Harry decides to remove himself from the line of succession, which I suspect he may do one of these years.

Meghan has got to be the only woman with a 24 inch waist and 32 inch hips who gets told by racist lunatics that she has a 'boxy body like a tank'.

R120 Because it's like saying to your very old and universally (heh) beloved grandmother, in front of everyone, "Bitch, you're not the only do-gooder around here. What makes you think you're so special?" At the very moment the old woman might lose her husband, no less. What kind of person doesn't get how outrageously disrespectful that was?

Foreign titles granted to American citizens aren't recognised in American law.

However, if you file for American citizenship and have a foreign title, you won't get that citizenship unless you renounce those titles.

I fully expect Harry to file for American citizenship within two years and then the whole title thing will go away. Going around talking about equality and how you want to bring your kid up in a classless society whilst you hang on to the least democratic and unequal descriptive on the planet will sooner or later become more trouble than it's worth.

Further to my comment above, I won't say it wouldn't be a headache to take those HRHs given the furore and shrieks of racism whilst Andy retains his, but she was able to force them not to use the HRHs, so asserting she can't take them away won't wash.

R179

HM has had her life upended by undutiful family members since she was 10 years old. I'm guessing she's going to punt on this one and let Charles and William be the ones to hand out real consequences to Harry at some future point. That point WILL get here, as Harry is controlled by Meghan, and Meghan won't ever stop stirring up trouble for the family who didn't give her everything she thought she deserved.

I agree. I think The Queen has done all she's prepared to.

It'll be over to Charles and William to weald the axe if necessary.

[quote]Ditto Diana upon her divorce - she was HRH The Princess of Wales and then was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales.

It is well documented that the Queen wanted to leave Diana's HRH in place because she felt that as the mother of the future King, she shouldn't have to be bowing to Harry and her grandchildren. However, in the divorce proceedings, Diana got greedy and demanded that she keep the Princess title, so the Queen got pissed off and said, "As you wish" and removed the HRH. If Diana had lived, she would have been required to bow to her grandchildren, the York girls and pretty much anyone else who was born royal because the HRH was removed.

It wasn't the Princess title that was the problem. It was the Princess of WALES title. HM offered Di the title "HRH Princess Diana." It would be hers in her own right and she could keep it if she remarried. But she wanted to stay Princess of Wales and announced prematurely that she and the Palace had agreed she could keep it. They responded by stripping her HRH.

Strip these ungrateful motherfuckers of the HRH. They don't deserve the style of HRH. They are now living in a democratic republic halfway around the world where they cannot perform any service for a British charitable organization. And this "service is universal" punk ass statement by Markle no less is rude, disrespectful and classless to the queen who for the past three years has supplied Markle with a million dollar annual clothing budget and a $3 million renovated house in which to live. They chose to leave it; no one forced them out.

Harry and Markle who said "service is universal" are not doing a fucking thing to offer service to anyone at the moment. And even if they do, if it's not for a British charitable organization, then the service does not entitle them to "HRH" which is a style bestowed upon a member of the royal family who is working for Britain, not for any charity Harry and Markle decide to name while living in California having nothing to do with the UK.

I hope that Harry keeps the address of the British embassy in his wallet. One day, he may have to grab his children and run to claim asylum. It won't be long before Meghan hits menopause and if she's such a wreck now, she's going to be a monster during the pause.

It'll be the Consul General's office in LA I'm guessing he'll head to.

Lovely house in Hancock Park.

As an American, I understand that the queen always has the last word, but what’s so terrible about saying anyone can live a life of service? I don’t understand how that’s so ungrateful and terrible.

It sounded to me like the queen was trying to insult them by saying working for the crown was the only kind of real service there is, if you’re a nun or work for the Red Cross or something you’re just an amateur. Only the BRF can really “live a life of service.” That’s so untrue it just sounded like a deliberate snub to me. Not necessarily team M&H, it just sounded tone deaf. Anybody care to translate this to American?

[quote] but what’s so terrible about saying anyone can live a life of service? I don’t understand how that’s so ungrateful and terrible.

She should have clarified it by saying "a life of service to the British people." After all, her point was that they couldn't live in California and continue with their patronages.

R190. Don't be so dumb. The queen was referring to being senior members of the British Royal Family. Yes, of course, people all over the world can offer service to others. Harry and Markle are losing their patronages because they have stepped away from royal life and no longer reside in Britain. Therefore they cannot serve the patronages established by the British monarchy.

Yes, Harry and Markle can do their own thing, but not in a royal capacity for the monarchy. They are no longer senior royals. The queen was being kind by only stripping them of their patronages. She should have stripped them of the His/Her Royal Highness styles. As it is, they retain the style for now but cannot use it.

And yes, Markle's pissy, disrespectful comment of "service is universal" was a fuck-you to the queen because the queen won't allow this "half-in/half-out" way of life that the Harkles wanted. With the queen, you're either in or you're out, but you don't get to pick and choose while doing the fun part of the job with its perks and benefits and toss aside the part of the job you don't want. No one gets to do that in any job, do you?

R176 I truly believe you are a moron.

I know you are a cunt. R193

R191, thanks for replying. But that wasn’t what it sounded like, and the thing is, the queen is a veteran diplomat that has communicated with people around the world for decades. She’s not a person that would just casually say something that could be easily misconstrued. She’s not a novice and she knew what she said would be heard around the world, not just in the UK.

Joe Biden has been living a life of service since he entered Congress at age 30. He spent 36 years in Congress, 8 as VP and now he’s President. That’s about 45 years. It’s not unreasonable to call that a life of service, at least in the political realm. You could also call serving in the military or working for charity a lifetime of service. Even missionaries in third world countries could be said to be living a life of service. Or some healthcare workers.

The expression “service is universal” doesn’t imply only working for the BRF only in England. It’s more general than that. A person could move to the U.S., and work for any number of worthwhile causes. The BRF isn’t the only service oriented industry there is. I understand Harry is not getting he can’t go back and forth, but “service is universal” doesn’t imply that either.

[quote] Can you please explain what’s offensive about opining that “service is universal”?

No. Only that this is Datalounge and that remark is attributed to a mixed-race woman who is reviled for her presumed good fortune at marrying a member of the BRF.

I do agree that it would have been better to let the BRF have the last word -- if you're over them, be over them and keep it moving. It did have the sound of a retort and that's a bad look.

Oh stop. If she had been a ditzy blonde actress who made that retort - picture Amber Heard, for example - she’d get the same scorn for displaying a pissy attitude. Anyone would.

R190, The Queen’s idea of public service is that it comes with a sense of self-sacrifice, and that your own wishes must be secondary to a perceived greater good. Holding a party for a charity you are interested in, or chatting abstractly about kindness on a podcast isn’t enough. It means turning up, regardless of your own wishes, because you know it helps others. It means that, if you believe that monarchy serves the national interest, then you devote your life to it: to a job your father never wanted, and which you believe killed him, and which at times makes you unhappy. It means holding the Commonwealth together, even when it seems that everyone else thinks the idea is ridiculous.

Harry and Meghan have clearly rejected that life. They want to make cash and lead independent lives where they can pick and choose what they do. They may decide to help some charitable causes, but they will do it in the way that many wealthy, idle people do. They will step off private planes, or attend swanky conferences of the great and the good, but they won’t do a thing that they don’t want to. It’s philanthropy with a glass of champagne

That’s not the Queen’s idea of service. And when Harry and Meghan equate their activities with 75 years of The Queen always putting her ideals first, then it is a calculated, intentional insult.

R196 Ratchie dated and married white men, listed race as white for her acting CV, and her college sorority was as white as could be. She did not identify as black until recently when it suited the narrative. Ratchie comes across as a control freak who’s highly thin-skinned when it comes to criticism and coverage deemed as not 100% fawning.

She’s disliked because of these and many other traits/ things she’s done. The only mitigating factor is that she comes from a shady family including both parents and half-siblings. If she had been raised well maybe she wouldn’t have become such a wannabe famewhore, thirsty climber, and user of people.

Most DL’ers generally hate on famewhores who are fake or have no redeeming quality, Ratchie fits both categories. If she was an interesting or talented person instead of a basic frau who hit the jackpot by marrying dimwit Harry, many of us would be rooting for her. But no, she’s a try-too-hard frau and comes off transparently as one.

I like that Big Liz thinks she’s doing society a favor by having the public bow and scrape to her, and shower money, homes and jewels on her head!

That truly is the noblest of services.

R28, apparently your inability to process written text is matched by your hubris in drawing false and irrelevant conclusions.

Don't drink when posting. And if you're not drinking, please have someone test you for dementia. We wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself further here.

r108 Most of what you say sounds right and credible except the timeline.I believe the Queen will live at least as long as her mother.I believe she will pass away around 2030.

[quote]The Queen did take away Fergie’s title - she was HRH The Duchess of York and on her divorce was named Sarah, Duchess of York. Ditto Diana upon her divorce - she was HRH The Princess of Wales and then was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales.

Losing the HRH did Diana a favour, then. What Meghan can't get through her head was that, once established in the public eye, Diana didn't need any titles. She was "Diana", and by the time she divorced, that word on its own attracted more attention than the "Princess" beside it. This will never be true of Sparkles.

I too think they're leaving the HRHs in place this time because they want Harry back when Meghan snares some billionaire Aspie nerd. (Doubtful other billionaires would want her.) They just need to find a domineering woman of the British upper classes to marry him and keep him in his place. He'll like that.

r122 Nail hits head! Got it perfectly.You are a shrewd insightful person.

A very jejeune approach.

[R127] It was William who didn’t want to walk behind Diana’s casket. Philip talked to him and stated he would be right with him.

The Mail is saying that Harry and Meghan taped the interview with Oprah right as the final decisions on Megxit were being made:

[quote]A source said: 'They had kept the interview totally secret. The Queen was not told, the Palace was not told. 'It seems clear from the sequence of events that they wanted and needed to know the final outcome [of the Queen's decision] before they taped Oprah.' The couple recorded their tell-all sit down with the American chat show host on Wednesday and Thursday this week - just hours before the couple issued their parting shot [the 'service is universal' thing]. It has also emerged that Oprah had been with the Sussexes immediately before their riposte was released, having taken her £50 milllion Gulfstream jet to Santa Barbara - where she owns a second home a short drive from the pair.

If they taped the interview while still angry about Megxit, they may have said some things they will very soon regret, particularly if Philip is dying. Even if he isn't, it's never a good idea to shoot your mouth off while upset. Harry, especially, might not want to burn that final bridge back to Windsor Castle.

[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.]

Shmegs is a cheap floozy in r8

"You can't tell us what to do" seems to be Harry & Meghan's mantra. Their 'service' comment is very much in the same vein as their public response when The Monarchy ordered them to stop using the Sussex Royal brand. They grudgingly agreed to this request, but only after making it clear that The Monarchy has no jurisdiction over the use of the word "royal" overseas.

I wonder if Meghan is trying to get HM to yank the titles and the HRH. The newly minted Mountbatten Windsors would get months and months of publicity off the victim tour. The Queen is smart not to play that game. She's sticking to the letter of the agreement they made a year ago, and then moving on.

Man, MM is one messy bitch.

It could have been handled more diplomatically on both sides. TQ could have said, "..a life of public service to the British people." The Sussexes could have replied, "We will always treasure our time serving the the British public and it is our dearest hope to be of service in the world in the future."

To understand MM, all you have to do is look at the trashy celebrity culture where she grew up. The Kardashians, Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, et al. People who sprang from nowhere and became rich and famous. MM thought, I am as pretty, sexy, intelligent and ambitious as they are, so why not me? She didn't understand how truly incompatible that is with marrying a senior member of the BRF and how it could not be a launching pad to fulfill her dream of celebrity.

If Kate divorced William, she might be very rich, but would she be a celebrity? No.

I don't hate them, but they really need to just go away. They aren't going to have some public life, where they accomplish things and are well known for their philanthropic endeavors. No matter what they do, it will always be compared, contrasted (to the royal family) and complained about. They are never going to win

If they took a vow of poverty and pledged to work the entire rest of their lives in the slums of Calcutta, people would still complain. The sooner meghan and harry realize it, the better off they'll be. I don't think Harry really cares. I think he'd be perfectly happy living a completely private life. His wife is going to play this until it all crashes and burns and the royal family has to disown them. Reminds me of donald trump

All you not understanding what the Queen means by a "life of public service"--have you not watched The Crown? Do you not understand the difference between public service and philanthropy?

The Queen became queen at a quite young age. Her life has been spent fulfilling the requirements of that role--like meetings with PMs and receiving whatever visitors the foreign office invites. She had no choice (except to abdicate). Harry and Meghan needn't meet up with Trump and family at their home; the Queen had to because affairs of state required it.

You can think whatever you like of the monarchy and it's suitability in 2021; you can recognize that the BRF live a life of ridiculous luxury. But you must see that their lives are much different from the lives of wealthy people who can lead their lives exactly as they wish.

>>But you must see that their lives are much different from the lives of wealthy people who can lead their lives exactly as they wish.

"Ya, must suck to be you, Kate."

[quote] Losing the HRH did Diana a favour, then. What Meghan can't get through her head was that, once established in the public eye, Diana didn't need any titles. She was "Diana", and by the time she divorced, that word on its own attracted more attention than the "Princess" beside it.

Diana had 17 years of charity work behind her. But in the end, things were going badly for her. She faced a lot of bad press in the last year of her life. Everyone seems to have forgotten that.

Had she lived, the rest of her life would have been hell. She would have faced such criticism for everything she did. She wouldn't have had a moments peace.

[QUOTE] But you must see that their lives are much different from the lives of wealthy people who can lead their lives exactly as they wish.

Exactly! And they never get to retire, but are stuck doing official duties until they drop dead, literally. Meghan and Harry are looking forward to a life of leisure in their 70s and beyond while Kate and Wills will still be working.

R210 The similarly bitchy phrasing “service is universal” and “no one has jurisdiction over the word royal“ is 100% Meghan through and through. You can tell she impulsively composed both invectives. She just can’t help herself, a cunt to the bone.

[quote] But you must see that their lives are much different from the lives of wealthy people who can lead their lives exactly as they wish.

The government wants the royal family to remain status quo. They don't want a shake up. Any kind of shake up could bring about talk, "do we still need the monarchy"?

And they don't need it

How long do you really think the monarchy will continue? The real monarchists will be gone in 20 years maximum. I don't think the Cambridges will be the least bit sorry. At last they could be like other immensely rich people and live their lives free of obligation, protocol and constraint.

R222, the UK is going through a lot of change at the moment due to covid and Brexit. It may not even exist in its current form in 20 years, if Scotland leaves.

However, I wouldn’t bet against the monarchy. People have been writing it off for 350 years, at least. But it really does have a knack for evolution and survival. Republicanism seemed inevitable not just in the era of Cromwell, but in the reign of George IV (immensely unpopular, his obituary in The Times read: “ There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow? ... If he ever had a friend – a devoted friend in any rank of life – we protest that the name of him or her never reached us".). Even Victoria was resented in the middle of her reign when she retreated from public life as The Widow of Windsor.

What people outside the UK don’t seem to understand is that most people in the UK are not flag-waving, emotionally invested monarchists, but there is a general acceptance that it is a fairly efficient constitutional mechanism.

[quote]I wouldn't be surprised if Oprah wishes she didn't have to bother with that interview.

I was kind of thinking that too; Oprah is very shrewd about where & how she uses her brand & it's hard to imagine Oprah wanting to be part of what basically boils down to a family feud with the most famous family in the world. And sticking her finger in the eye of the QEII out of spite isn't like her.

Oprah probably wanted to help Harry establish his own life to keep him from turning into another Andrew, but it will be interesting to see what if any involvement she was with these two going forward.

It will be something if Prince Philip were to die when the Oprah interview is released. Meghan’s despicable attacks on the queen and her husband, with the emasculated Harry nodding in agreement, shown on split screen with Philip’s coffin will be the tide that turns and finally washes Meghan away.

R225- This interview is set to air March 7th. Meghan has never had anything except bad luck with timing. Mo matter when it airs , it will backfire. It is 90 minutes long . Can you imagine her talking for ninty minutes?

Same day as NBA All-Star game hehe...dumb ugly cunt never learns!

Yes r218, it's forgotten how controversial Diana was in the final years. I suspect, had she lived, there would have been a few more torrid years and then things would have settled down, perhaps if she remarried and as the boys grew older and started taking on more royal duties.

What's also forgotten about Diana is that although she did not have a great relationship with individual members of the royal family, she cared for much about the royal family as an institution and was very dedicated to raising William to be a future king.

The other reason why Diana and Meghan cannot be compared (aside from that Diana was British and Meghan has no fucking clue what it means to be British) is that Diana had been married to the future king and her son is also a future king. This will never be the case for Meghan.

It seemed like Diana was lost after the divorce. It was sad. That interview really helped to destroy her I feel. This one will do the same to Meghan.

Diana forgot (and Meghan never really learned) that royal mystique and self-preservation depend on bringing people close, but never too close. Before Diana gave her interview, she was an almost saintly figure, a doer of good works and a wronged wife. The interview broke the spell a little, and suddenly she was a middle-aged divorcee with a messy love life. It fuelled the press interest in digging more and more into her life. Her mystique was restored only by her shocking death.

By contrast, The Queen and Anne both mastered the art of keeping people just far enough away to remain a little unknowable. Anne uses a dry wit to deflect interest in her private thoughts, and the Queen’s social interactions are tightly regimented. She does walkabouts, public engagements and speeches, but she is always in control of how much she gives away about herself. Only their work ethic gives any indication of what kind of people they really are. They remain to a certain extent blank canvases which allow them to be painted as others wish them to be.

Correct. Never let daylight into the magic. The press were doing something they previously only rarely did, mocking her. There was a scathing magazine article scheduled to be released the day after her death, which was obviously dropped because she died. She had mentioned it to William the last time they spoke.

[quote] the Queen’s social interactions are tightly regimented. She does walkabouts, public engagements and speeches, but she is always in control of how much she gives away about herself.

R230, I was just watching The Godfather, and this reminded me of the Don, after a meeting that didn't go well, pushing Sonny against a wall and saying, "Don't you EVER tell anyone outside the family what you're thinking again!" It's true, the Royals share that sentiment with the Mafia. Because in both cases, the family is both a real thing and the business brand.

R223 ÷Exactly. It also serves as a useful channel for national feeling that the divisiveness of politics can't create. And, the Queen's handling of her job over nearly 70 years has also generated respect at a minimum and deep affection at the other end of the scale.

r17 How has a "black girl from LA" forced the BRF to look at themselves?

Children today we are going to learn a new word, "Petulant". As an example we will be reviewing H & M's response to THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND's announcement.

Forget the Sussexes. Oprah's role in that 90 minutes interview intrigues me way more than they ever could.

In fairness to the Sussexes, however, 90 minutes of any famous celebrity is more than I want or need, including Oprah, but I'm with r224.

I think it's reasonable speculation to wonder if Oprah now is saying to herself, "Oh, shit. I'm going to be perceived as taking a side; the wrong one".

For example, I remember and enjoyed the pix and video footage of Streisand, Kidman, Steven Speilberg, JLo, Tom Hanks, among others, attending that British Academy of Film and Television Arts dinner at L.A.'s Belasco Theatre to meet and greet William and Kate who were making their first post-wedding trip to Los Angeles.

Oprah's Assistant: "Oprah, it's the British Consul in LA. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wonder if you'd honor them by attending...

Oprah's Assistant: "Oprah, Harry and Meghan phoned. They're having a party for Archie. You're invited. But it's the same night as the gala hosted by the Cambridges."

Oprah- "Send Archie a gift".

Of course, now that playful scenario I posted is potentially a NEVER. It's reasonable to speculate that Oprah is persona non grata with the BRF. Of course, she has her own wealth and fame, but still, that's gotta sting a bit.

What fun. Seriously. This topic is flat-out entertaining.

But, that's also the problem. The Sussexes themselves just ain't all it. But their reckless stupidity is a thing of amazement. It's as though I'm immobilized by wonder, even while I want to flee in horror at what they wreaked upon themselves.

I pulled for the Sussexes. When their marriage happened I wanted to see how Meghan played the hand of cards she was dealt and so strived for. I wanted to see her carve out a role as working member of the BRF, not in competition to Kate; there is no competing with the future Queen Consort to the King of England, but in CONTRAST to her, given her unique qualities.

And Harry is equally to blame. Stop putting this all on Markle.

R235 - That's the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, thank you.

LOL. The "black girl from L.A." is half-white, put Caucasian on her show-biz CV, and it was actually the British Royal Family who put her on the map. She hasn't forced them to look at themselves: they bent over backward for her, treated her generously, made her far richer and more famous than she could have been on her own merits, and the fact is, it's her vicious treatment of those who extended good faith to her that is showing a reflection.

But the reflection is Meghan's, not the BRF's. And it's an ugly one.

Oprah knows her audience, and is probably betting on the societal paradigm shift we seem to be undergoing. Out: Royalty. In: Global Changemakers.

Valid point well-taken, r239.

Still, r240, I know it's all subjective, but I don't see the Sussexes as having the charisma, compelling interest, or, quite honestly, the dough-ray-mee, to be "Global Changemakers".

Their fame depended entirely on being Royals. Well, they ain't anymore.

Monarchy is an inherently ridiculous thing, and perhaps it should be banished, but as of now, it's still here.

Monarchy has been the default way of organising political culture for millennia, where-ever complex societies evolved. It still has a role in a significant number of states, You can not oppose or reject it, but to call it 'inherently ridiculous' is stupid.

Sorry 'can', not can not'

[quote] You can not oppose or reject it, but to call it 'inherently ridiculous' is stupid.

With the exception of these words I'm typing, r242, I'll pass over your insult of referring to me as "stupid" with the silence it deserves and only point out that some reasonable minds, including mine, would find it ridiculous that a person is "divinely" appointed; God's chosen one over other human beings.

I love that the BRF exists. I adore that old war horse Q E II and wish she could live forever.

Still, the whole thing is inherently ridiculous, but is, nevertheless what suits the people of the UK. Apparently, the citizens of the UK believe the BRF serves a purpose for them.

Forgot to add, r242, you wrote:

[quote] Monarchy has been the default way of organising political culture for millennia, where-ever complex societies evolved.

So was, and some would argue it still is here, slavery.

I like the monarchy because it adds a sense of tradition, stability and most importantly glamour.

R241 Della, no they don’t have the charisma nor talent to carry them to the A-list status they so desperately crave. Also the shifting paradigm on how royalty is viewed doesn’t favor them. Diana wouldn’t be the major “star” now if her story had unfolded today. There are too many competing interests and SM savvy, self-manufactured celebs like Kartrashians stay in their tacky lane for the most part. What Harry and Meghan are after is respectability, A-list status, AND breaking the internet SM fame. That is a lot to wish for and they ain’t gonna come close to it even with a dedicated team of 6 PR experts being employed by them. They come off as too desperate for fame which contradicts the very reason for which they said they left the RF. At least the Kartrashians don’t fake behind noble goals when they famewhore their way to the top. They also started when they were in their 20s. The Sussexes are a couple of soon to be 40 year-olds whining about their privileged lives. It won’t play well here.

Would have. Could have. Should have.

Too bad they didn't stick it out. Paradoxically, if they now were working Royals, with the unique niche they would have among them, they actually would be now A-List status.

At this point I’m going to be disappointed if Philip _doesn’t_ die the day before the interview is broadcast.

r249 I think ON the day of the interview would be better. lol

[quote] I can't see her wanting to be called Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Are you kidding? She LOVES her title.

Yes I agree she loved to title. She probably wants the help to call her duchess or Your Highness, a la Countess Luann

*loves the title

[quote]R216 The Queen became queen at a quite young age. Her life has been spent fulfilling the requirements of that role--like meetings with PMs and receiving whatever visitors the foreign office invites.

It beats working in a factory.

[quote]R238 they bent over backward for her

Yes. You have to do a lot of searching to find a blackamoor brooch these days.

So one idiotic move cancels everything? Yeah, you're really smart and a great debater.

Princess Michael of Kent is not a Mountbatten-Windsor, r255. HMQ has remarked that Princess Michael is “too grand for us”.

Someone once posted a good article about the history of blackamoor jewelry

Someone upthread said royalty has been replaced by social media. I disagree. I don’t think , for the most part, the BRF ever attempted to influence people. Charles and his sons have spoken about the environment. But I don’t recall ever hearing Queen Elizabeth pontificate on anything political or social. That’s not their role. Comments on the environment are fairly safe, though from Charles, William, and Harry, those comments can be hypocritical.

[quote] "Oprah, it's the British Consul in LA. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wonder if you'd honor them by attending...

This needs a little more thought. There's no way a member of the British royal family would phrase it as an "honor," and I doubt they would issue an invitation by phone. But you're right; Oprah would be in quite a spot now if she did, in fact, want to get in with the BRF. I actually doubt she does, however. Her stock in trade is what the Megs are selling, not old-world tradition and pomp. It's bizarre to me to think of the worlds of Oprah Winfrey and the royal family intersecting in any natural way.

Talk about convention is one thing, expressing a preference is another. That always seems to be the dividing line. Charles does seem to advocate too often though he vows he won't as King. The key to successfully adopting an issue as a royal seems to be to latch on to it but let others do the talking. So the royal draws the spotlight but the expert or issue speaks for itself. That's what that wife of Harry's can't figure out. She cannot be adjacent. Which is such an arrogant joke really because who the hell granted her any particular expertise?

Although I don't like Markle (or Harry) as I find their constant holier than thou preaching super hypocritical, I had previously considered her extremely savvy and intelligent, at least in terms of social climbing: what a meteoric rise! That's why I find the way that this has all played out so puzzling. To me it seems as if she may be quite trigger happy behind the scenes. Instead of maintaining a certain mystery and thinking things through, or taking advice from royal advisers (!) she seems to react impulsively via her constant oversharing pr blitzes, lawsuits, dumping friends, making enemies of people. The wedding alone was so overblown for a couple of their age/a late 30's divorcee! I felt embarrassed for them tbh. One can't help but feel that if it was all for love it would have been far more intimate and modest (in royal terms I suppose that means a 5 million dollar wedding instead of a 30 million dollar one? Ugh!)

I wonder if she has ever really studied the trajectory of Wallis and Edward? Many parallels can be drawn between the two couples. This interview in particular is so sad to me, particularly in terms of body language. Yes they were still a wealthy and famous couple, but their sadness and regret totally shines through to me. If I were Megan I'd think hard about what that means.

What meteoric rise? She was a yacht girl and a member of the very shady Soho House, where Harry is also a member. He was desperate to get married and had already been passed up by all those in his circle who knew him for what he was and is. MM said all the right things and no doubt gave a killer blowjob and the rest is history, as they say.

R261, my view of her is this... she is desirous, rather than ambitious; tactical, rather than strategic. She wants and she acts to get, but that's why it's going wrong.... she does not know what to do with what she's got. She just wants more. I don't mean to say she's unintelligent but she would never think to study Wallis because again she does not have an ambition to [italic]do[/italic] so much as a desire to [italic]be.[/italic]

It's evident. There's no substance to this creature. Look at the Africa interview. Rich gal standing in a poor country bleating about no one asking her if she's OK. "You know what, babe, no matter what's going on with you, you're OK." < Darfur Orphan

Yet another own goal because she cannot think about anything except her own wants and her own self. Look at the own goal about service... because petulance was satisfied by sniping at the 94-year old Queen of England with a 99-year old husband in hospital. She just wants, for herself. at best she is a spoiled child and the apt descriptions get worse from there.

R198 ‘s post should be engraved in bronze and hung over the mantel. Bravo. Should be re-everywhere.

For anyone interested in such things, one of my all time favorite books is The Last of The Duchess, a fascinating book on the ailing Wallis by Lady Caroline Blackwood, who was an heiress to the Guinness fortune. She was also married to painter Lucien Freud in her youth, and later to poet Robert Lowell. Her background gave her a lot of inside info on the royals. It is a book that is simultaneously funny (hilarious takedown of Michael bloch, the guy who would later establish himself as the 'expert' on w&e) and deeply sad. I really recommend it. It was later adapted for the stage, to less success I believe.

Caroline herself is also well worth reading about. The juxtaposition of unimaginable privilege and deep depression and sadness in life is so compelling, I think.

^the late Lindy Guinness's sister-in-law, r265, who had her own wild life story and privileged background. The entire family is fascinating.

R266 yes! They really are. It's sad, I think Caroline could have done much more in terms of a literary career if she hadn't succumbed so badly to the bottle. We should probably start a whole thread for that family,they are much more interesting than Harry and Megan .

R263 very well-put. Agree that Meghan is a driven person, trouble is she’s the type of driven person who always wants more and more. A Trump-like personality who is very status-conscious yet unlike Trump, she’s aware enough of social conventions to want to appear to others as a caring person. In this regard she’s more fake and devious than the megalomaniac Trump. Another Trumpian quality that Meghan has is that she appears to be very reactive to any perceived criticism or less than flattering coverage. It goes back to wanting control over the narrative.

One wonders why she wanted to pursue being famous at all knowing the downsides of celebrityhood. She lied about cooperating with Omid on Finding Freedom when it clearly included passages that she’d written. Hell, she may be deranged enough to believe her own lies. That’s the kind of cuckoo for cocoa puffs crazy she may very well be , if she’s this crazy in public can you imagine how she’s like in private?

R249 - "At this point I’m going to be disappointed if Philip _doesn’t_ die the day before the interview is broadcast."

At this point, I think the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and Edward and Sophie Wessex will be equally disappointed.

R268... she sees fame as an accomplishment, not the outcome of accomplishment. She's the essence of Andy Warhol's fifteen minutes, with a determination to overstay her welcome.

[quote]One wonders why she wanted to pursue being famous at all knowing the downsides of celebrityhood.

Because she is disordered in some mental or emotional sense. It's probably not even particularly interesting or original.. the damaged child of divorce cliche. She seeks fame for itself. It fills a need. She does not have an overriding goal that caused her to be famous, her desire is fame. She did not become a social worker or a medical researcher. She became an actress. None of the actual great humanitarians went into acting for the purpose of humanitarianism.

It seems to me that a political office for her would be the key to the image/lifestyle they appear to want. It would solidify her as an important person in her own right and not just because of being Royal adjacent, and it would present them as more of a true power couple...

Why do you say that, R269?

Funny she's supposed to be anti-hunting, when you consider her showing up in London for... what purpose was it?

R265/r267: there was either a short thread or posts here on the Guinnesses and Dufferin-Avas last year when Lindy died. Fascinating families, the last of the high-living, intensely creative aristos whose tragic lives and deaths make for great discussion.

R261 I’ve heard the audio of that interview, but never seen the filmed version— its fascinating! The glances they give each other and the body language is so telling. Thank you for sharing.

R272 - Because, if Philip really is dying, anyway, he may as well finish the job at a time when the event makes the Harkles look as bad as possible.

I am wondering if Philip is in something of a hospice situation in the hospital, which might explain why, if he was just feeling "unwell", he's been kept there so long, with only vague murmurings about leaving sometime "next week". For that long a stay, something other than observation must be occurring.

Lady Colin Campbell insists that he has pancreatic cancer. How she'd know that, I cannot fathom and I tend to take with a grain of salt.

Philip may be many objectionable things, but a coward isn't one of things. If he is really that ill, he may have opted to refuse food and drink in a hospice situation, which hurries things along, It's quite common in hospice situations, if there is no doctor willing to up the morphine to "make Mum/Dad more 'comfortable'".

And he may have felt it too hard on his wife to do it in-house as it were, and it would have raised even more alarms if his children began trooping in at intervals, suddenly.

It might explain the extended stay, Charles' sudden visit, and look of emotional distress after the visit.

If my guess is correct, Philip certainly won't last till 6 March. And, if correct, when the news leaks out that this is what the family were going through when the Sussexes threw their petty little barbs around, Meghan and Harry will have mud all over their faces.

I don't think Markle wants political office. Then you're accountable to constituents, the office, fund-raising, putting in the work on policy.

She sees that as beneath her.

I've always thought Markle's model for the type fame she wants for herself is the one held by Angelina Jolie. "Humanitarian" good works, however substantive those are, or aren't, and the occasional prestige role in a Hollywood mega-project.

You can think Jolie's role in Marvel's "The Eternals" isn't prestige, but it is. Robert Redford took a Marvel role. Al Pacino is rumored to be the big cameo coming up in "WandaVision."

Markle, however, lacks two things Jolie has in abundance - charismatic star presence and beauty.

Man, those two screwed the pooch. I'll watch the Oprah thingy (90 minutes?!) outta sheer curiosity, but still, I can't see what these two have to offer other than that.

When you’re Phillip’s age you don’t need to have cancer to finish you off. Just a simple cold or flu or even a fall could kill you. Frailty due to old age does that to you. If he doesn’t die with this hospitalization, he’s obviously on a quick, downward trajectory and my guess is he’ll die at home as opposed to the hospital in the very near future. We’re talking about weeks and months.

R278 - You may be right. I was speculating, of course. But there was something in Charles' face when he left that signalled - well, something. The visit, according to hospital protocol in the pandemic, was one only allowed under "extraordinary circumstances".

That's really the source of my conjectures. But I could be wrong.

But if it is the truth, how awful for the Queen and the other children and grandchildren simply to have to wait for the news, or to have him sent back when the doctors know death is imminent instead of days away.

I suppose we'll know soon enough.

Cannot wait for them to dish all the dirt on the disgusting parasitic Queen, Charles and especially bully William. They have so much to say that we haven't heard yet.

The UK tabloids are getting called Racist on twitter. Why. They quoted the cost of Oprah's jet in an article relating to the upcoming Sussex interview. Someone pointed out that the only time they mention how much something costs is when the article features a Black person. People are now screenshotting all the articles. It's true. It is proof that it's about race. Why do independently wealthy black people whenever they feature in UK tabloids have what they own and the monetary value in the tabloid heading.

'Because, if Philip really is dying, anyway, he may as well finish the job at a time when the event makes the Harkles look as bad as possible.'

Jesus Christ, you mentally ill racist cunt - you are OBSESSED with that couple. You're the fat fuck who started the Kate Is Stunning thread, which Muriel deleted today. This one should be next.

[quote]You're the fat fuck who started the Kate Is Stunning thread, which Muriel deleted today.

It's still up.

I am sure I read that Philip has recurring urinary infection.

[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.]

UTIs in the elderly are nothing to play with. They can quickly escalate into serious infection and even sepsis. I don't doubt that's why Philip has been hospitalized this long, if in fact that's what his diagnosis is.

They are dangerous even in those younger than Philip - the late Charlie's Angels actress Tanya Roberts recently died of a UTI that had escalated into full blown sepsis.

I think the queen will retire from public duties if PP does make it out of hospital.

Two things: The Queen wanted to make a dignified joint statement with the Harkles, which of course they refused to do, so she proceeded along.

Secondly, the Harkles are claiming they had NO IDEA they would lose their patronages, NONE AT ALL, so they now insist on doing their little interview over. Meanwhile Oprah is on her private plane to Hawaii.

R263 - Markle IS ambitious. She has said so herself. In the past, she has stated that she shares TWO things with her Suits character, Rachel Zane: she's ambitious and has a love of shoes. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Of course she is ambitious. Too ambitious and intelligent to stay in a role that involved mundane, repetitive work which required her to stay silent and wave. That kind of thing is for the servile Kate Middletons of this world. Meghan wants more challenge than that.

The Queen is right to wash her hands of the Sussexes. She stuck to the exact terms of the deal which was struck a year ago. In the ensuing year, the Harkles did nothing to make her think that she should change her mind. They've been grasping and petulant, and their nasty response to her statement makes it clear she made exactly the right move.

[quote]It's quite common in hospice situations, if there is no doctor willing to up the morphine to "make Mum/Dad more 'comfortable'".

Oh, honey... there's been doctors around the Royal Family willing to do that since George V, let's not worry about that.

[quote]But there was something in Charles' face when he left that signalled - well, something.

Maybe nobody's asked him if he's OK.

Charles didn't look like he had been crying - he looked massively hungover to me.

If the BRF is "mundane and repetitive" why are Dim and Dimmer screaming and crying that their patronages have been stripped? I hear today that Will is stepping up to the Rugby patronage. Haha Friar Tuck.

I love too that megbots are so incensed by Kate despite the fact that IT'S OVER. Move on now

R263 I agree, you put it much better than I could have. Basically a famewhore (literally!), with a totally immature inability to actually listen to people who are older and wiser/more experienced in the milieu she found herself in.

The oddest part is that if she had exhibited slightly more sense and had just watched and waited and performed as the role required for a few years she may have been able to pull off whatever the hell it is that she is aiming for. Perhaps her age has been a factor since she isn't exactly an innocent Diana figure at 39. Heck, she wasn't even young at the wedding, naivete can't be used as an excuse in this situation! It all really comes off as so greedy and vulgar; who on earth marries into the royal family and immediately begins to make enemies of them all?? Quite cringeworthy.

[quote]Why do independently wealthy black people whenever they feature in UK tabloids have what they own and the monetary value in the tabloid heading.

White people do too. Brad Pitt just got ripped for taking a private jet to collect an award. It's hypocritical types that get ripped regardless of color of their skin.

I find the isolation aspect of their relationship fascinating because it's almost textbook. Harry has been successfully isolated from all his family and most of his friends (he has 'new' friends in California like Adele, but only because Meghan approves of friendships with stars as a means of raising her own profile to that of "star).

Here is an essay on the pattern of an isolating relationship. It lists the signs as

"Isolation is toxic behavior, and often an early warning sign of potential abuse. Before you can confront it, however, you need to admit how this intentional act of social isolation is impacting your life and your relationship.

Throwing a fit

Does your partner throw a fit or always find a way to create drama with you when you hang out with your friends, or spend time with your family? Do they stomp around the house? Pick little arguments or otherwise act abrasive and irrational? This throwing a fit is meant to cause conflict in your outside relationships and also make you feel guilty and ashamed for finding enjoyment outside of your partnership. Think of it like a child throwing a fit when all the spotlight isn’t on them. It’s a means of taking you away from your friends.

Criticizing endlessly

Criticism is a subtle tactic which manipulators use to slowly erode your connections and your sense of self-worth. Your partner may not outright forbid you from seeing your family and friends. They might, however, run them down (and run you down too). They will attempt to decrease their worth in your eyes, so that you pull away of your own free will. Likewise, they can insinuate that you are somehow less of a person for associating with those they don’t deem “worthy”.

Personal attacks

Personal attacks often come on the back of endless criticisms. The partner or spouse who wants to isolate you may make you feel like a bad person for seeing your friends or family. They may make you doubt your ability as a parent or a partner; make it seem as though you are low for enjoying your time with them. Thy can also attack your character and make accusations like cheating or infidelity in order to push you away from the people who can see them for who they really are.

Uncomfortable experiences (This last one seems particularly applicable to Meghan)

Not all isolation attempts are focused on the other person in the equation. Sometimes our partners and spouses can focus their attentions on our outside relationships themselves in order to sabotage them. They may make it too uncomfortable any time your friends or family come around, in an effort to get them to leave and pull away (rather than pushing them away). Maybe they’re nasty to them in person, or kick off conflicts and confrontations that make it impossible to find peace as a group.

[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.]

And speaking of service, in a final Fuck you, Meghan, the Queen is broadcasting a special message the night the interview is aired to mark Commonwealth Day on 8 March, the next day, as they can't hold the usual service in the Abbey. It will be a special programme, and of course will involve participation of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and Sophie.

I doubt this will mean much in America, but the Queen is making the point: this is what matters in Britain, which is where the status and royalty you still want is located.

This would have been a major Look I'm A British Royal moment for Meghan if she hadn't cocked it up so badly.

Instead, she'll be on air whingeing about service whilst the Real Royals show her up by talking about something besides themselves.

Ironically, the second consecutive year in which the BRF sticks it to Meghan via the Commowealth - the Commonwealth that the Harkles have just been shut out of representing.

Up till now, the Harkles have been handled with care but with their attempted double-dealing on the interview, it's gloves off for the Windsors, too. This is just the beginning.

Where's the poster who said it never gets juicy?

Is she really,r300?

Aww I do LOVE the QUEEN.

[quote] And speaking of service, in a final Fuck you, Meghan, the Queen is broadcasting a special message the night the interview is aired to mark Commonwealth Day on 8 March, the next day, as they can't hold the usual service in the Abbey. It will be a special programme, and of course will involve participation of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and Sophie.

It will be an event displaying dignity and class and will be a huge contrast to the usual clownish Meghan spectacle.

The consensus has been that the pandemic has prevented the Sussexes from launching substantive charitable efforts and attending to the royal half of their lives in the U.K. I'm starting to believe that the pandemic has been a godsend to them. I think those two would still manage to make a mess of it and alienate even more people when presented with more choices.

R261 My guess is, Meghan's view of royalty was entirely informed by the Diana melodrama: glamour, fashion, saintly good works, a strong, independent woman bravely fighting for empowerment against the evil establishment that sought to silence her voice, etc etc. Maybe she had a little knowledge of Wallis Simpson as the heroine of an epic love story the same evil establishment tried to thwart. I imagine that, as an actress, she sees herself in that kind of role.

R300 I'm here, eating my hat.

R305 - Enjoy!

R300

This was a good piece-

In any family argument there are words best avoided: every household knows which theirs are. In the exchange between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the head of the family, the trigger word was “service”.

The palace cited “the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service”. It echoed down the decades: in 1947 an Elizabeth far younger than today’s rebel prince made a public dedication: “It is very simple. I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.” She stuck to it and got her restlessly energetic husband to do the same.

I doubt it was easy. But from ceremonials and red boxes to workaday ribbon-cutting, swallowing personal opinions and moments of humiliating unpopularity, the Queen has a particular meaning for the S-word. But it triggered her grandson and his wife: three minutes later, via the Twitter account of their helpful American biographer Omid Scobie, came the riposte: “We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.”

The word has power. Almost all human beings need to believe themselves to be useful. It can narrow down into family first or parish pump, or widen into campaigning. One of the fears of aged infirmity is “being a burden”. Few happily accept the idea of being parasitic or even neutral. Volunteers leapt forward to the government’s Covid appeal or flocked to be vaccination guinea pigs.

Sometimes a desire for obvious service is the main motive for choosing a job. It is ironically pleasing that applications for student nursing places have shot up by a third, despite a year in which every news bulletin portrayed nurses as overworked, exhausted, weepy, traumatised and becoming mentally unwell.

The Instagram generation isn’t daft and can see that when it comes to usefulness one Kate Bingham beats a thousand Kardashians. Entertainers, broadcasters and celebrities certainly like to donate their time, fame and sometimes money. So do big companies or rich hedge-funders nursing a streak of guilt. Sometimes such “service” is about image-polishing but not always. Sometimes, less attractively, in performers and comedians it turns into mere preaching (you know who you are!) But nobody wants to be seen as dodging the duty to serve humanity somehow. So the word was a trigger. (continued)

Let’s not bash the Sussexes: new parents often do pull up the drawbridge for a bit, focus inwards and grow deaf to outsiders’ needs. Moreover, it was diabolical bad luck that their flight across the Atlantic was immediately followed by a pandemic, preventing any flitting back to mend fences and show willing.

The old Harry would have been joshing with Captain Tom, joining army comrades at the Nightingale hospitals and vaccination centres, making us laugh. Instead we got this remote, querulous screen figure in a distant mansion, managed by tone-deaf American publicists, either signing media deals or enjoining us to be raindrops.

The couple probably genuinely want to “serve” in a way that suits their lifestyle and freedom. But the clash over the word raises bigger themes. One is this innate universal wish not to be useless; but the other is the unique weirdness of the royal function once it spreads beyond the monarch’s constitutional duty to “encourage, be consulted, and warn”.

It makes family members into living totems, representatives and reflections of a benign Crown, apolitical rallying points for national identity. I felt it when queues filed past the coffin of the late Queen Mother; on the face of it just a privileged old lady who liked a gin and probably held some unfashionable views. Yet the soldiers, still and solemn at the four corners, represented the nation: “us” now, in the past and in the future. The prime minister, Tony Blair, was apparently informed quite firmly that he would not be central in this public mourning. He was temporary. He was not Britannia.

Republicans may scoff but are still a minority (17 per cent in the last Ipsos Mori survey). The royal rota has a function and is not something any of us would enjoy. It carries endless, dull, official duties and a ban on political self-expression. The Queen can movingly encourage us with “We will meet again”, but can’t voice an opinion on lockdown. She can only unite, not divide. It must be hard sometimes.

One day I suspect young royals at 21 will be asked to commit: in or out? Be a working royal and stay in the line of succession, or a self-supporting private individual with opinions, whose only duty is not to be gratuitously embarrassing. Princess Anne, for instance, cannily refused titles for her children while herself accepting the royal job with intelligent interest.

Interviewing her once about the Mission to Seafarers, I asked what her actual function as patron was. Cue a tone of withering scorn I can still hear: “Fi-gure-head!” Yet to this often ignored charity and many others she is a regular visitor, well-informed encourager and publicist. Useful.

Royal service is not the same as celebrity virtue or billionaire philanthropy. It’s a benevolent eccentricity, accepting personal restriction in order to throw non-controversial lustre over other people’s unglamorous good works.

That the Queen’s grandson can’t see that is surprising. That his American duchess and advisers don’t is less so, because it is bafflingly British. But it works, and those who do it dutifully deserve respect.

What I really don't get is her saying the Oprah interview will give her back her voice. She's said exactly what she wanted to say for the last year.

Oh, it'll give her back her voice all right...

Trouble is, fewer and fewer people want to hear her.

Here is another good article in HMQ’s vs HaM’s view of service:

They don’t know what service means. Here’s the difference: the Meghans of this world primarily serve themselves, always seeking new opportunities for self-expression, virtuous preening, ‘emotional growth’. The queen, in contrast, serves the crown. She has negated the self. She suppresses her self-expression, her political views and her emotions, to the end of submitting to something bigger than herself: the crown, the monarchy, the constitution. Now, we can discuss whether the crown is good or bad – I’m a republican, so I’m not a fan. But it is clear that Meghan and Elizabeth II have unbridgeably different understandings of ‘service’. Meghan’s idea of service always involves her expressing herself and revealing herself and reminding us how virtuous she is; the queen’s idea of service is to hide the self, to fold it into a larger, apparently more important project. The queen is about service, Meghan is about self-service.

R309-Yet she has nothing of any importance to say. It is all about her, her, her. Her narcissism renders her incapable of putting a much needed spotlight on any charity issue or organization. Empty hypocrisy is all they vomit up, that is when she allows Harry two minutes in her precious spotlight, even though HE is the reason anyone bothers to give her the time of day. She is so in love with herself and the sound her own voice that she is even incapable of sharing her child with the public , least one second of attention is taken from her . That is unless she needs to merch the poor child for money or attention in order to draw in views to one of her ego driven endeavors. She is sickening to watch, unbearable, just like #tumor45. One must mute the sound when she speaks. Even her voice is too revolting to endure. She is repulsive, insincere, self serving, horrible at even faking the slightest charm or credibility. No matter how she wishes to hide her true self and true motives, they are glaringly obvious. Hideous creature. She can not hide how remarkably grotesque she is. Just like Trump, one can not find one redeeming quality in her, no how you try . Monster.

@R312- Edit: No matter how you try.

R308 - That piece of massive shade in the TIMES is fabulous.

Her bloody voice. Give us a break. She shot her mouth off everywhere she went, including Botswana.

If she wanted a fucking "voice" she should have gone into politics ten years and climbed her way up through grass roots work.

You don't marry into the British Royal Family to get a "voice". The first thing you lose upon entry is a "voice" and she fucking well knew that.

She went in to get the celebrity that would get her whingeing "voice" attention when she bailed, which it was clear she was going to do by the wedding.

The Queen should have told Harry to take her back to Vegas with him and marry her in an Elvis Chapel. That would have been the right level of "royalty" for her.

Nobody wants to hear what SHE has to say. Who is she? What has she accomplished, what insight, would she have to share? She's nobody, married to a Prince. If anyone should be speaking it should be Harry, at least he has witnessed SERVICE in action. Meghan wouldn't know what that was if it hit upside the head. Who the fuck is this woman to have any platform at all? Oprah should be ashamed, although you know she isn't.

Oprah doesn't do stairs and Oprah is never ashamed.

R312 - You're right of course that neither have anything important to say but they can't help themselves from speaking. They really NEED to be heard.

Her voice was suppose to be used to shine attention and light on worthy causes, not whinge about her elite , privileged life. This is why she fails at everything and will continue to fail. This is what makes her unbearably revolting.

Repugnant. Utterly repugnant.

R317- It is gone, lol. Would you tell us what it read? Tia.

R320 - Let's try the Hello mag post instead.

R321- Thanks. He looks miserable, her mouth is open as usual,🙄.

Pretentious pontificating

[quote] Meghan's view of royalty was entirely informed by the Diana melodrama: glamour, fashion, saintly good works, a strong, independent woman bravely fighting for empowerment

If any of those were true of Meghan, things might be different.

So many buzzwords: conversation, community, elevate, voices, stories, share, vulnerabilities. (Where was “kindness”?)

I particularly dislike the phrase “telling stories,” which is so trendy right now. It sounds like spinning fairytales.

Jesus, she dropped in for a little video in a $2,500 dress. Oooohhhh how she cares!

R325 - "It sounds like spinning fairytales."

In Meghan's case, mate, it's nail on head.

They're just running as fast as they can to get in front of all the bad PR they got with their insult to the Queen.

Piss the Queen off any more and maybe the old lady will finally take those HRHs and titles.

R325- Just for spite towards The Queen, their next woke/spite words will be universal service.

Good God, just the one sentence you can see without clicking on the video is nausea-inducing.

Meghan, dear, Do - something - about -that - atrocious - fake - hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Mail's headline on the article about the Spotify video was a true DM gem: "Singing for their Supper".

[quote] Just for spite towards The Queen, their next woke/spite words will be universal service.

The Queen should issue a proclamation that defines universal service as picking up trash and cleaning public toilets, and then we can see if Meghan is still into it.

R332 - Let's not get carried away with this, shall we?

I think a big part of this is none of these people understand each other, or want to. Meghan has the attitude of a typical African American black woman. She may not look like one, but she has the attitude. “How dare you tell me what to do. Do you think I’m a slave or something? I refuse to bow down to you. I am a queen.”

Harry has the attitude, “I am traumatized by all the shit my mother went through and I’m still not over it. I blame the press and the Royal Family for having to go through this. I’m still angry and resentful and I need more therapy. Oh look! Here is a woman who says I don’t have to put up with it any more and I can do whatever I want. Yay! She must be just wanting to protect me and putting my welfare above being a member of the BRF. What a selfless gal!”

Queen: “What a disrespectful bitch Meghan is! Doesn’t she know she’s supposed to marry and then disappear into being a broodmare with duct tape over her mouth for the rest of her life? That’s what I expect from her. And she won’t do it after several chances to come back and grovel, so I’m done being nice. And I blame Harry for marrying her.”

William: “But what about me?! I am going to be the king, so Harry is wrong and I am right! I must tell everyone about his wrongness and my rightness at every opportunity, leaked through staff. I am quite angry and want to drag out the public condemnation of these two as long as possible! But at the same time, I want to reconcile someday, after taking every possible opportunity to bash them in the press, first. Then when I’m King, I will snap my fingers and they will come running like Grandma’s Corgis. I’m sure Meghan will eventually learn to enjoy ridicule and humiliation and find that to be no problem, just like my wife has. And Harry won’t mind being attacked by the press, after he left for being attacked by the press. I’m handling this all so astutely!”

Phillip: “Thank God I’m going to die soon.”

r334, your assessment appears to let the villainess of the story, Meghan, off the hook.

R334 - Oh, yes, they do. Your characterisations are caricatures. In point of fact, there's a good reason for the duct tape: the royal have to represent an entire nation. In point of fact, Meghan not only doesn't look like a black woman, she's made it clear throughout her adult life that she doesn't FEEL like one, either - hence the white friends, the two white husbands, the lure of the Great White Privilege Family, and her white as milk baby and looonnngggg straiighhhhttt hair.

She has no more use for blackness than Ivory Soap. But she'll milk it when it's profitable to do so.

The royal family, au contraire, got her number fast. They know EXACTLY what she's about - but she put them in a corner with the race card and they were forced to gulp, let her in, and hope for the best.

She was planning the Sussexes exit within months of the wedding.

It must have been child's play for her to nail Harry.

But she wasn't able to nail William or Kate or, eventually, the Queen.

Contrary to your story, everyone knew exactly who everyone else was in this little farce.

Except Harry, of course.

^*Sussex's exit

R344- Hello psycho Smegs. 🙋‍♀️ No one has to humiliate you, you do a stunningly effective job of that yourself. You are so thin-skinned and vengeful. The world isn't Daddy. You are not special in any way, Flower. Daddy lied to you.

In the UK 'telling stories' just means lying.

'And speaking of service, in a final Fuck you, Meghan, the Queen is broadcasting a special message the night the interview is aired to mark Commonwealth Day on 8 March, the next day, as they can't hold the usual service in the Abbey. It will be a special programme, and of course will involve participation of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and Sophie. I doubt this will mean much in America, but the Queen is making the point: this is what matters in Britain, which is where the status and royalty you still want is located.'

What a bitter cunt the Queen is. Can't have Meghan and Harry shine - she needs to deliver a robotic speech too. Who knew old Liz was so petty? Definitely the Klan Glanny in Chief.

What a brilliant post, R334.

'All you not understanding what the Queen means by a "life of public service"--have you not watched The Crown? '

This says it all about the Klan Grannies. Fed a fake story of somebody who abnegated her life to service when it reality the Queen is as bitchy and nasty as it gets. Loves her jewels, loved her massive 'yacht' and can't bring herself to abdicate in her 90s because she's so power crazed.

'No they don’t have the charisma nor talent to carry them to the A-list status they so desperately crave'

Harry has been A list since he was born and Meghan since her marriage to him. You don't get much more A list than the King's son and his wife. Sorry, Klanner.

He's not the king's son. He's the second son of the Prince of Wales. Who knows if Charles will ever become king?

BTW, the most reasonable explanation why the queen isn't abdicating is not because she's "power-crazed." She's clearly not "crazed" by anything. It's because, as quoted above, she pledged, upon her accession, to devote her whole life to her job, whether it be short or long.

'Who knows if Charles will ever become king?'

The queen is 94 so he'll be king in the next five years and if he dies before then, Harry will be the King of England's ONLY BROTHER which is an even closer relation. He'll always be right at the top of the A list. William has no other siblings.

So long as Meghan is in the picture, William will want absolutely nothing to do with Harry, brother or no.

Meghan is a viper and is dangerous to be around.

Doesn't matter, Harry will still be the KING'S BROTHER. I know it galls you. That will always boost him right up to A list in WASP society and Meghan being biracial boosts them up to A list in black society. They've got BOTH bases covered in a way white cunt Kate and Bully Bald never could.

I guess the KGT doesn't know how to use the quote feature.

Again, predict away, but he's not the king's son. That was the substance of my correction.

Dream on. They are about as welcome as a case of the clap by all decent society.

Only the tackiest sort of people will want to associate with them.

'Only the tackiest sort of people will want to associate with them.'

You mean like Oprah, Klan whore? Showed your true RACIST colours there. Netflix and Spotify bosses disagree with you too.

Oprah is tacky as fuck.

'Oprah is tacky as fuck.' Only to a Klan whore like you.

No. She's the embodiment of 'tacky'.

She's only "stylish" to Low-End American Fraus like you, r353, and like Meghan.

I'm still chuckling at the complaint that the comment was "taken out of context" when their statement was printed in full, by themselves.

I guess they want to put out their side of the story before her step sister's book comes out

[quote]... from ceremonials and red boxes to workaday ribbon-cutting, swallowing personal opinions and moments of humiliating unpopularity, the Queen has a particular meaning for the S-word. But it triggered her grandson and his wife: three minutes later, via the Twitter account of their helpful American biographer Omid Scobie, came the riposte: “We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.”

Is this true, their statement came out THREE minutes after the queen's? That's nuts. And kind of aggressive. Even if she weren't the queen, she's his 90-something-year-old grandmother, they shouldn't be back-talking her in public like that.

Oprah is an old whore, she is not above grabbing the money and fame where she can get it. Hope she gets burned by the interview. She shills for WW while not losing a pound, she is shameless.

The "Klan Granny" troll got triggered again. Must be exhausting trying to excuse MM's stupidity.

She’s MM’s half sister, r356, and her book is already available. It’s self published.

[quote] She’s MM’s half sister, [R356], and her book is already available. It’s self published.

That's hilarious. It must not have any new scandals about the Duchess

Her half sister is a con artist, grifter too. The whole family is

Oprah’s influential with middle-aged and older fraus. They’re not going to get breaking the internet buzz nor the desirable youth demographics crucial to career as influencers. The type of demographics that would be Oprah’s if Oprah was active today, those groups are now following the likes of Chrissy Tiegen and GOOP, the latter more for shits and giggles.

Gone are the days when social taste/influence trickle top-down. No longer would a member of the BRF automatically command awe, respect, and coveted spot at the top of American society. In Hollywood it is less about status than how much money you can make for me. It’s a easy to get the deals and interviews, it’s much harder to churn out products that people want, to justify those big deals. The Sussexes are just not relevant to the American people, even those who have not been following the Sussexes’ grift and who are generally sympathetic to them. They’re just not that interesting.

[QUOTE] They’re not going to get breaking the internet buzz nor the desirable youth demographics crucial to career as influencers.

They don't want to be fucking influencers, you imbecile. They haven't used Instagram for a year.

^They want to be upscale influencers, the money coming not from flogging diet lollipops but from producing content for Netflix/Spotify. (IMO, Meghan wants to be a rich lady and the philanthropy is a cover; Harry needs something to justify his existence, too.)

As R362 points out, beyond their ties to the BRF, there's nothing compelling about them. Michelle Obama has just brought out a food show for kids, and Barack Obama and Bruce Springsteen have just announced a podcast. These are people who command a following based on past accomplishments. M&H have nothing but residual royal glamour, past drama and buzzwords.

"We'll always be royal. Harry and Archie have royal blood."

I think that's the problem. MM's ideas about her status are based on fairy tales and Lord of the Rings.

What r362 and r364 said.

Their marriage and being working Royals, not in competition to the Cambridges, but providing an interesting contrast to them within the BRF, would have made them interesting, if not compelling.

This will end in tears, divorce, perhaps a Defcon 1 children custody, placement, citizenship transnational legal battle between the two.

I already feel some sympathy for Markle.

Prince Harry, the Prodigal Royal Prince, will be welcomed back to the UK, not without enduring, of course, a spell of chilly distance from his "close brother", so William can, silently, drive the point home of just who is boss.

Markle will settle back to where gravity had her in the first place before meeting Prince Harry- a lower-tier, ex-actor, now divorced California Single Mom.

R364 - Nail on head.

I can just hear the Queen speaking when she read their comment:

"We have had sufficient."

R360

Lady Colin Campbell has been reviewing Samantha's book with some of her videos concentrating on the book alone rather than answering questions.

Here is the first video on the book.

[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 more you know, the less you like. Sound like anyone we know?

[bold]Why do narcissists lose popularity over time?[/bold]

"Narcissism has been something of a mystery to psychologists. With narcissists, things tend to be extreme: the good is really good, and the bad is really bad. Narcissism expert W. Keith Campbell compares interacting with narcissists to eating chococate cake: “When I eat chococlate cake, 20 minutes later I'm under my desk wanting to die. When I eat broccoli, in 20 minutes I feel good. But given the choice I always eat the cake.”

On the one hand, the narcissist’s charisma and self-confidence can be highly alluring. Psychologists Mitja Back and colleagues found that narcissists are indeed more popular at first acquaintance, and its due to four particular cues that make up their “charismatic air”*:

Attractiveness (flashy, neat attire)

Competence (self-assured behavior)

Interpersonal Warmth (charming glances at strangers)

Humor (witty verbal expressions)

On the other hand, research shows that the initial popularity of narcissists at the early stages of interpersonal interactions depends on the behavioral pathway that is triggered: expressive and dominant behaviors are associated with a positive evaluation, whereas arrogant and combative behaviors are associated with a negative evaluation. According to this research, narcissists may be more popular at first acquaintance because they are more likely to display behaviors that trigger a positive pathway, perhaps because they are trying to make a good first impression....

* Most troubling, the facet of narcissism that most strongly predicted popularity at first acquaintance was “exploitativeness/entitlement”. This facet was the strongest correlate of all four cues, and was most strongly related to popularity. What’s more, those high in exploitativeness/entitlement were the most likely to dislike everyone else, even though they themselves were rated as the most popular!

R369 - I listened to the Lady Colin review of Samantha Markle's book and DL has been right about some things

Meghan was spoiled by her father and was mostly raised by her father. He paid for ALL of her education (shock, horror, Meghan lied).

Meghan is a jealous, entitled, arrogant narcissist who was spoiled by her father and "coached" by her mother.

Meghan cheated on her first husband with someone in Canada (the chef?).

Doria was a pot smoker, "disappeared" for great lengths of time during her marriage to Thomas. An interesting tidbit: Samantha found "incriminating" photos of Doria when she rifled through her drawers looking for evidence. Nude photos? Was she in a cult?

I don't remember anything else at the moment.

Part 2 of Lady C's comments on Samantha's book.

Harry will only be about 40 when the inevitable divorce happens. He'll do what many divorced men do, marry again and start a second family. Meghan will get to keep their two kids. He'll marry a much less dramatic woman the second time around and have 2-3 more kids. The Duke of Sussex title will pass down through Archie, but the kids from the second wife will be the real aristos because they'll have been raised in that environment. Archie may never use the title at all.

The second wife had better have some money of her own. Harry isn't rich by aristocratic standards, and he'll be supporting two families.

Harry will be forced to live in the US for the rest of his life, divorce or no divorce. He loves Archie, and won't want to be far from him or the next kid, and in the UK is completely, roundly loathed.

If the Palace PR flacks get to work, they could rehab Harry's image by sinking Meghan's even further. Harry might miss Archie and Diana, but a lot of men have the knack of starting over from scratch when one family unit doesn't work out.

Is there a chance that Harry had nothing to do with the statement? If the palace made the announcement in early afternoon, it would be 4 or 5 on the Pacific coast. This is around the time Meghan is known to fire off emails to her staff. Harry was probably fast asleep slumbering off the previous night's bender. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she wrote that thing in a narcissistic rage and smugly hit send as her husband dozed nearby until 9 or 10 just in time to see the fan dispersing the shit to all corners of Montecito.

R373 - the best tidbit from Part Two of Lady Colin's video is the fact about the infamous photos of Meghan's father Thomas that were taken about a week before the wedding getting fitted for a suit.

That photographer, according to Samantha was known to Meghan and she believes that Meghan set her own father up so he would look bad. What better excuse for your father not attending your wedding than if he was cooperating with the tabloids and cashing in? How vulgar.

Everyone should watch Lady Colin's last bit about Meghan's "Look At Me" (last five minutes or so of the video). She has her number as did many on DL.

r378 I think that's exactly what happened. She took the PR scripted response planned, and then added the 'service' references in a narc rage at 4:30 am. And then Harry woke up later, panicked at what he saw she'd said, realizing how rude it was given the Queen's devotion to public service, and immediately contacted his friend to talk to the press claiming the 'service' comments were taken out of context.

I would give a great deal, after watching the video, to know what it is Lady C says she knows but can't talk about.

Maybe a DL contingent could kidnap her and administer sodium pentathol?

MM does not have neat presentation (I assume physical). She is usually sloppily dressed in ill fitting clothes and shoes.

Meghan's clothes never fit well. The only time I've seen her in well-fitted clothing was when she worked on Suits. It's as if she's in denial about her real size and shape.

R380, that response came after HaM were lambasted in the press.

I have no doubt the statement was MM’s, but I doubt it caught Harry by surprise.

She wears the wrong undergarments for her too-tight dresses, and chooses awful colors

Yes, r385. She’s a hot mess.

She did it again with the Green dress, the tightness emphasized her ill-fitting bra and pulled in the wrong places, and the color was at least three shades too bright.

[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.]

R385 What sort of bra is a woman supposed to wear with a neckline like that?

Also, that green ensemble is a hoot. Perfect "villainess" costume.

For both dresses the trick would be a structured, 50s style bra that rises high above the breasts to smooth out the armpit fat. Also in both pics her bra is too small.

Should it be strapless? It would have to be, no?

It would have to be strapless for the grey dress, but not for the green dress. Both dresses need to be let out on the bodices so that they skim, rather than pinch.

The green dress would have been so much more suitable if it has not been in shiny satin as well. Better bra, skimming fit, more muted color, and non-glossy fabric would have improved Meghan's kermit look so much.

Meghan often seems to have a problem with the top of her bra either ruining the fit or just showing through too much.

Here are three of her looks - the blue could have been saved by structured undergarments, the red is significantly better but the top of her strapless bra is still clearly visible, and in the white she gets it right (although I still think it could have been even better looking if it skimmed, rather than clung).

For the blue and the green dresses, this kind of undergarment would have gone a long way to smooth out the lines.

I do miss the public events, no new fashions to critique.

Lady C is back again today - not on the book, but on the Oprah interview, the lead up, the Queen's statement, etc.

I could never understand how she practically always got it wrong with her clothes

For such expensive clothes, they always looked off the rack, department store clothes that ALWAYS fit horribly

Even the messy hair, I used to think, doesn't she even skim the newspapers and see how messy her hair looks?

[Quote]For such expensive clothes, they always looked off the rack, department store clothes that ALWAYS fit horribly

Why do you need to insult the 99.9% of women who don't wear couture and can only afford department store clothes that actually fit their female bodies quite nicely and well? Meghan is an entitled cunt, but you, "sir" are quite another creature. Why can't you stuff a designer muffler down your cunty throat until we can hear the rasps and death rattle? That's how horrific you are.

99% of women don't spend 1.4 MILLION dollars on one year's worth of wardrobe, r399. And if they did, most of them would look better in it than she managed to look.

So you are saying such a death rattle from Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, is justified?

LCC is a vile predatory old cunt. She reminds me of Lady Havisham. I find the sound of her cackling voice unbearable. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to confide in her or even associate with her.

[QUOTE] Why can't you stuff a designer muffler down your cunty throat until we can hear the rasps and death rattle? That's how horrific you are.

What a fantastic insult. These Klan fuckers are revolting snobs. MM's dresses are tight because she wants them tight. Not because she the dressmaker made the wrong size.

[QUOTE] For such expensive clothes, they always looked off the rack, department store clothes that ALWAYS fit horriby

And yet your fave white cunt Kate is out there proudly wearing Top Shop and Zara!

And looking fabulous in them, r404.

Because she has them properly tailored, and because she wears the correct undergarments.

I read that the reason Kate's clothes always look good is that she has them tailored to fit, even High Street ones. In the beginning, she did not do this and her look was sometimes ruined by things like coat sleeves or jean legs being too short.

MM's unkempt post-Suits appearance is baffling. How can she not see the lumps and bulges from her ill-fitting knit dresses?

Narcissists are incapable of seeing themselves in anything but the most flattering of light. Meghan looks at the photos and sighs to herself with pleasure.

[QUOTE] Because she has them properly tailored, and because she wears the correct undergarments.

You can't have cheap trashy Topshop clothes 'tailored', you utter dunderhead. And 'undergarments'? Kate wears a thong - we've seen her bare ass cheeks when she flashed various dignitaries a few times. The whore couldn't even be arsed to wear weights in her hems a la Royal protocol.

A video containing several clips of trashy whore Kate flashing her bare ass and upper thighs to the world on official occasions. Disgusting.

Mmm hmm.

No proof they were Meghan. What the fuck was trashy Kate thinking of, showing her bare buttocks on an official visit? So low class.

R411, Meghan's face is in every photo. You don't consider that proof?

It's not her but a younger woman. Otherwise there would have been a huge outcry and scandal. No mistaking slutty Kate though.

That's her setting up the camera for that topless pic she took with her moo cow fattie friends. She looks comically fug and that body! Hehe...Harry got himself a DUD. There's more out there of her. These are REAL.

*sigh*

Bell rung and the Kate v. Meghan rumblers emerge from their corners to the center ring for their Trolldown.

Well, this thread as fun while it lasted.

was fun while it lasted

“Weights in her hems”? Oh really. That would cause the hem of the dress to hang unevenly and then permanently sag. What you are referring to is a quote by Chanel in which she talks about sewing a fine chain into the hems of her suits so they hang better. These are straight skirts or a-line skirts and yes they hangmbetter but it’s not to prevent gusts of wind from blowing them around.

First of all, a tweed skirt isn’t going to blow around. Secondly, note that in these photos, Kate is wearing full skirts from lightweight material AND the wind is very gusty. The weight of chain in her hem in these instances would need to be ludicrously heavy, enough to really hurt. So WEIGHTS IN THE HEMS is a complete non-starter. What you need to feebly suggest, is that she stick to straight skirts that don’t have the meterage to fly about. NOW note how often she bends over to talk to children, even crouching down to get on their level. Easier to do in a full skirt than a straight skirt. Getting the picture now? Not so easy is it?

It was fun until you turned up, Della.

Kate could have worn a lightweight slip.

Pet, you already opened a thread on this. Stay in your lane, dear, especially given that it's a really lonely one and this little bit of fluff on Kate is not going to change a thing.

Or would you like me to add into this thread, too, the existence of a sex tape with Meghan given a rim job to some man for gain?

^*giving (not given)

Kate benefits from appearing much more noble in actions and in demeanor when compared to Meghan. It’s given Kate a boost.

R386- Does she have body dismorphia? She dresses as if she had a long, thin body. Weird. Never have I seen anyone dress as badly. It makes one wonder what reflection that women sees in the mirror when she dresses.

R397 - tidbit from Lady Colin - Harry has an interest in a West Indies gambling venture??? Oh dear.

R423, I can just see her doing Brendad Ickson moves in front of her mirror in that ghastly green get-up.

R321 - I saw the lemon print dress and it reminded me of something. I couldn't think of it at the time. Then today I sneezed and went to get a Kleenex and voila - there it was right in front of me. The print is almost exactly the same as the one on my tissue box. LOL.

We must always remember.

Another post from The Ghost of Sussex on Instagram.

Meghan vs. Wallis.

I really like the silk lemon tree print dress, but not $3500 worth.

It looks like a plastic table cloth.

I don;t get twatbag moaning on about his military shit. He was never a RoyalMarine nor RAF or RN he damn well knows they were only honary positions so why does he keep complaining? It just makes him look even more of an arse if that is even possible.

Kate is Tiffany & Co. and on a good day, Meghan is Kmart; otherwise Big Lots.

[quote] And yet your fave white cunt Kate is out there proudly wearing Top Shop and Zara!

She also wears very expensive clothes. The idiotic public eats it up when she wears some low priced piece of clothing or "recycles an outfit". They act like she cured cancer. She gets clothes from top designers, straight from the runway and has them altered or varied. She employs a stylist. But she's smart, she doesn't flaunt it. I can't understand why meghan didn't hire a stylist after her first two fashion disasters. Instead she used, her friend, jessica mulrooney, who always looks cheap

[quote] “Weights in her hems”? Oh really. That would cause the hem of the dress to hang unevenly and then permanently sag. What you are referring to is a quote by Chanel in which she talks about sewing a fine chain into the hems of her suits so they hang better. These are straight skirts or a-line skirts and yes they hangmbetter but it’s not to prevent gusts of wind from blowing them around.

No, you're wrong. The Queen and the other female members of the royal family (except kate) have weights sewn into their dresses. The press has reported on that for over 50 years

Permanently sag? They wear their dresses once, maybe twice. And that's super rare

I’d love to know the status of the Mulroney friendship.

Pretty much like all of her other former friends, R436: over.

Meghan treats people like Kleenex. Once they're used, they're discarded.

Mulroney got her the entree into Toronto society, which enabled her to meet the celeb chef boyfriend, which gave her the ability to meet Harry at one of her then-boyfriend's events.

Mulroney had served her purpose, and was poised to be Markled with or without the stupid twitter spat with that influencer.

Meghan has never maintained a relationship that does not benefit her in some way. The second Harry ceases to benefit her, she'll file for divorce.

r439 Do you have a particular guess timeline wise for that? Before 2025 or before 2030 say? I think the Queen will live to around 104 and I cannot see them still being married when she dies is my feeling.

R440, Meghan needs the majority of her 40s to try to be the new Oprah. My guess is she'll jettison Harry within the next couple of years. A Very Sussex divorce will provide the last big media blitz she'll need to launch the Solo Meghan Brand. She'll keep the house in Montecito (which she'll sell--she never lives anywhere long) and the kids. The kids will be raised by nannies as Meghan will be busy, but no way in hell will she ever give them up--she needs them for her Wounded but Strong Single Mother Schtick (copyright 2016 Angelina Jolie).

Harry will slink back to the UK, marry again, and he and the new wife will become what he and his wife were always meant to be, the necessary secondary support to the Cambridges. Their 2-3 kids will be the Sussex offspring that the BRF actually knows. If Harry shows sufficient penitence (and blames all his shenanigans on Meghan), and his second wife makes a real effort to get along and play the game, they'll get plenty of the standard perks--properties, titles, jewelry, etc.

It may take a while for Palace PR to fully rehab his image, but his family and, I think, the UK public would like to have Harry back. It will shock you how completely and thoroughly the Palace will be able to shove the Meghan debacle behind them, especially once Harry suitably remarries and has more children. Cute royal babies are an eternal trump card.

r441 Thank you for your detailed reply! I hadnt actually strongly considered that Harry might remarry, not sure why, but you could well be right.

Harry couldn't find a suitable and eligible partner willing to take the role before Meghan, so I don't see how he'll do any better now after this whole fiasco.

Chelsy, et al, were all to sensible to say yes to that one.

Why does anyone take "Lady" CC at face value? She doesn't know shit.

He may have a difficult time finding a second wife, or perhaps an older, wiser Harry will be a better boyfriend/husband than he was before he met Meghan. In any case, he'll need a new wife eventually, as he and Meghan will probably not be married by the time Harry is 40.

All of TQ's children and grandchildren except Charles married down; Harry, spectacularly so. Even ordinary middle-class American parents wouldn't want MM as a d-i-l.

There's probably a few medically-lobotomized toffs that will be presented to Harry when the time is right. Sweet, pretty, not to sharp and into nice frocks. I'm sure Pippa knows a few.

[QUOTE] Harry will slink back to the UK, marry again, and he and the new wife will become what he and his wife were always meant to be, the necessary secondary support to the Cambridges.

Why are you such a bad judge of character and intention?

1. He dislikes the UK so why would he want to go back, especially as his children would be based in LA?

2. He absolutely detested playing second fiddle to William so why would he want to do that ever again?

3. He was described in GQ as the most eligible bachelor on the planet and there were plenty of docile Kate types who wanted to marry him. He chose fiery Meghan the famous actress and if they ever split he'd choose another person like her, never a nobody like Kate and Pippa.

>>>>He absolutely detested playing second fiddle to William so why would he want to do that ever again?

What else can he do once MM decides he's surplus to requirements?

[quote] fiery Meghan the famous actress

Oh, my sides

[QUOTE] What else can he do once MM decides he's surplus to requirements?

So in your dunce's brain, there are only two alternatives for this very wealthy man: cutting ribbons or being with Meghan? More likely he would remain in LA to share custody of his children and eventually marry another American.

The trouble with Klan Grannies is that you're all in thrall to the royal lifestyle yourselves, which means you fail to understand why Harry loathed it.

Harry won't be wealthy by the time Meghan's done with him. Everyone but you can see that a mile away.

His country of origin loathes him with the fire of a thousand suns.

His formerly loving family - his only real asset in the high-end marriage market -now want him out of their picture.

Post-Meghan, he can marry another starlet, and sink his name further, or he can marry a Chinese/Russian oligarch's daughter, and be owned by her corrupt father. No one else will want to touch his baggage - can you imagine being the second wife, with loudmouth unscrupulous Meghan as his vicious ex, in possession of his children?

Harry is now damaged goods.

Ok, R51, so what kind of work would Harry do in the US? Would he continue with his present occupation, lecturing the rest of us on how to live?

[Quote]What else can he do once MM decides he's surplus to requirements?

This question remains unanswered. What skills does Harry have that enable him to do what sort of a "job?"

Hmm.

Towel boy?

Manny?

Bald-Men's Support Group Icon?

R455- Walmart greeter. They would be much better off just disappearing. They are both unlikable, and oversaturating the media was very worst move for them. The fact that they pay massive sums for such poor PR mystifies me.

R447 - Actually, Harry's two last serious girlfriends seemed anything but lobotomised. I can picture Cressida and Chelsy now, congratulating themselves on the bullet they dodged, as Meghan Markle reduces Harry to a useful appendage that, when it dries up, she'll put out of its misery with a sharp knife.

You seem to forget how many of those "toffs" turned him down before he turned into the sorry-arse emasculated creature he is now.

And, I think you underestimate the BRF's primary loyalty: to the institution on which their futures rest. They didn't take Edward VIII back in and they won't take Harry back. It's not as if he went off quietly to party and live the aimless high life that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did. At any rate, I doubt any such divorce will occur within the next five years.

He deliberately attempted to undermine and damage his blood family. Within five years, the Queen will have died, Charles will be, for all practical intents and purposes, an Interim Sovereign given his age, and all eyes will be focussed on William and Kate, the people Harry and his wife tried hardest to harm.

If such a divorce occurs five years from now, Harry will be e a mid-forties, bald, failure, not a returning youthful hero. Britain doesn't miss him now, and will miss him even less as the years go by. They aren't hot to have him back, and although his guilt-ridden father may cherish those fantasies, the rift Meghan managed to create between Harry and his brother will force William to choose between Harry and the monarchy's future, which is William's children's patrimony. If you think it would even be a photo-finish, you're deluded.

Harry doesn't look like someone who learns from experience. He's never progressed emotionally beyond the age of fourteen. If his marriage to Meghan goes south (and it only will if and when she says so), he won't slink back to Britain: he'll pick up another Hollywood wannabee starlet.

Harry is a classic case of someone whose emotional capital is spent on acting out; in that sense, no matter where on the planet he goes, his emotional engine is still his resentment of his blood family. Meghan was a weapon for him, just as Harry was a stepping-stone for Meghan.

It'll work as long as it works. But if you think there won't be a heavy price to pay when this nearly Atreidiain tragedy is played out, think again.

Think of Meghan as Clyaetemnestra, slaughtering Agamemnon in the bath, and Harry as Orestes, being pursued by the Furies after killing his mother. Only in his case, it's his father, brother, and Gran.

Harry is more Aegisthus - the useless weedy one who ends up as collateral damage while the big beasts fight.

I would never have agreed that Harry wouldn't be missed by the U.K. a few months ago, but there's palpable irritation at Harry for swanning off to California when we're still struggling with coronavirus, our Queen is - quite frankly - an ancient great-grandmother and her husband of 74 years is seriously ill in hospital. I'm sensing the tide is turning on a more permanent basis, and it's not in Harry's favour.

He is already wealthy enough not to ever need to work again and will be even richer after Charles' death.

Meghan has no plans for divorce. She knows their value as a pair. Neflix signed them up as a pair. Your Klan fantasies about her marrying a billionaire are unrealistic because she wouldn't be able to make and star in shows if she did that. She loves showbiz.

[QUOTE] I'm sensing the tide is turning on a more permanent basis, and it's not in Harry's favour.

You think he cares?

r457 I think you are wrong to predict so confidently that the Queen will be dead in 5 years. Her mother lead a more unhealthy and alcohol drenched lifestyle and lived to 101. I think the Queen is set to live longer than her mother.

R462 - But her mother wasn't still Head of State and Sovereign. I find it difficult to believe that the 100-year-old Queen Elizabeth II will be able to lead and oversee. She's barely doing it now - much of her public work was already being dialed back before the pandemic, and, increasingly Charles and Camilla, and William and Kate, are shouldering the lion's share of the public face of the monarchy.

And, the Queen is likely to lose her husband this year. When one partner goes after so long a marriage, something, often curiously, goes out like a light in the other. The Queen Mother was widowed in her fifties. She was widowed longer than she was married.

The Queen and Philip have been married for 74 years. We will have to agree to disagree here. There are limits even to what diet and wholesome food and exercise can do.

And if the Queen does outlive her mother. how long, really could that extension be? Two years? Three years?

And what of Charles, doddering onto the throne at eighty, and sticking Britain with half a century of Very Old Sovereigns?

If Charles gives a rat's arse about the monarchy, he will ask to remain Prince of Wales for the rest of his life, and that his son William be named Heir Apparent, so the monarchy can have fresher and younger blood infused into it. Charles will be relieved of the agony of constantly choosing between the good of the monarchy and his two sons, would be freer to try to retrieve his private relationship with Harry without fear of being seen to undermine the next Sovereign, and William, of course, will be taken care of via his father's income and then take over the Duchy of Lancaster when the Queen dies.

The worst thing Charles can do is refuse to see the handwriting on the wall, specially if the Queen after Philip dies DOES hit 96, 97, 98 . . . and give it up. It would be the sensible thing to do.

Which means that it probably won't be done.

R463 - Charles has waited practically ALL his life to take over the throne so I don't think he would give it up.

I hope the Queen can live long enough to beat the longest reigning monarch, King Louis X1V of France. He ruled for 72 years 110 days. She's very close to Prince Johann of Liechtenstein's record of 70 years 91 days and then it's the late King of Thailand's 70 years 126 days. That would be awesome to see in our lifetime.

^ XIV

r463 The Queen was on a zoom call today with medics discussing the vaccine and she was more mentally and physically vital than her mother was at 94.

The Queen will not abdicate but if duties need to be lessened Charles will be made crown regent and do some of her duties for her as a designated proxy

Also r463 if The Queen outlived her mum by 3 years then that takes us to 2030. That is a lot longer before she dies than you said in your original post.

It would be better for the country if Charles let William become Queen after HM dies. Then the Windsors could set up a precedent where the monarch retires in their 70s. That would make Georgie the King in HIS 40s, he could retire after 30 years and give it to his heir, lather, rinse, repeat. That would stop the throne gridlock and the prospect of crowning octogenarian monarchs. It would also allow monarchs to gracefully retire and enjoy their dotage.

Ha! I meant let William become KING, of course. What an odd slip that was.

[quote] This question remains unanswered. What skills does Harry have that enable him to do what sort of a "job?"

Why are you even asking such a stupid question? He doesn't need to work. Why would you even think that

[quote] but there's palpable irritation at Harry for swanning off to California when we're still struggling with coronavirus,

Except he left before Corona virus hit

What you really mean, is how could he leave? England owns him.

You think Harry should be an indentured servant (slave) to England. His grandmother took an oath, that was her choice. He didn't

You also seem to forget that he pretty much lived a very private life before he met Meghan. The only time people saw him was at the Invictus Games or major events. He wasn't making appearances like the Queen, Sophie, Anne and Charles

No. Harry isn't 'owned' by Great Britain (not 'England', you rube), but if he wants to keep his titles he is, by the nature of titles, beholden to the Queen.

Relinquish the titles, and he will be free of all obligation to the Crown.

It's incredibly simple, but Harry won't do it. Why?

r472 He likes to have his cake and eat it?

William is in no rush to get to the big chair. At the very least, I think he hopes his father lives long enough for the children to be grown up.

The Queen is a selfish, ambitious bitch who most definitely wants to be the longest serving monarch ever and doesn't care who she hurts in the process. Having said that, the idea of an adulterer like Charles on the throne is a repulsive one. William at least has the morals expected of a monarch, if not the charm, looks and charisma.

[QUOTE] If such a divorce occurs five years from now, Harry will be a a mid-forties, bald, failure,

Doubt it. He doesn't have to abide by archaic BRF rules anymore so can get himself hair plugs. It's poot bald ugly Wills who isn't allowed to do anything about his hair loss. No wonder he always looks miserable and angry.

If Harry gets divorced in his mid 40s he'll in effect take early retirement and the world won't see much of him. He won't return to a country he hates or marry the kind of servile Kate Middleton type he rejected in his 30s when he was considered the world's most eligible bachelor.

[quote] The Queen is a selfish, ambitious bitch who most definitely wants to be the longest serving monarch ever and doesn't care who she hurts in the process.

Yeah, fuck that selfish bitch for not thinking of her heirs by refusing to die.

R477, she doesn't have to die - just abdicate on grounds of old age in favour of Charles.

Meanwhile TQ is exhorting everyone to get a Covid-19 vaccine for the benefit of others. But she's wrong, because someone who's been vaccinated can still spread the virus.

[Quote]. It's poot bald ugly Wills

Could someone please explain "poot" to both Britons and Americans, please and TIA.

Abdication doesn't exactly reinforce the institution of Monarchy. It's strength comes from continuity and permanence - you don't want to give the populace the impression they can start picking and choosing their monarch out of choice or convenience.

R481, she's 94 not 54. Her abdication on grounds of age related infirmity would be received with sympathy, not suspicion.

Harry & his friend Dean Stott need to fuck, and film it for our pleasure.

If the Queen goes senile or infirm, that's what the Counsellors Of State are for.

No need to push her off the throne. That would just create unnecessary controversy.

Is Harry still a Counsellor of State?

If he is, he shouldn't be.

Harry talking to James Corden. His life is about service.

He’ll be singing in the car him any day now.

So far, all the fridge-magnet’s philosopher’s service has been to himself. And to the detriment of his family.

[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.]

r486, Harry sang the "Fresh Prince" theme with Corden.

Slap your granny once more, Harry.

You've become so good at it.

It isn't the first time the Harkles have planned a PR event timed to upstage the other royals.

The Queen comes out with an important public message, and actually has the balls to tell people to think about someone other than themselves . . . and out come Harry and Meghan painting themselves as victims yet again, talking about their lives of service, Archie's first word, preening and showing off unmercifully, and sure enough, that rotten old Daily Mail they hate so much puts Harry in HUGE headlines at the top whilst the Queen's message goes below the fold.

Do the people on the Platinum Jubilee thread advocating for an invite to the Sussexes to the celebration still ithink that stands a snowball's of happening?!

Every time these two open their mouths, they manage to offend the people whose name they're still monetising.

Do these two fucking opportunist, self-absorbed grifters EVER SHUT UP and stop talking about themselves and whingeing about how ill done by they are?!

The Queen made a huge mistake not taking their titles and HRHs when they left. Then Harry would get what "down", not "back" really means.

They're hanging on to the "royal" identity for dear life. The Queen should have made it impossible.

By the way, doesn't this interview rather cut some of the floor from under Oprah's "exclusive"? Or was this one intended to give Harry more time so he doesn't come across like the lapdog he is on the Oprah show, which will give Meghan most of the air time?

I wonder how long it took for the penny to drop on this issue?

R488 - It wasn't "bad" timing: it was perfect timing, according to the Sussex's view. They're still pissed off at the Queen for doing an end run around them re the patronages and military appointments, and for not letting them have their cake and eat it, too, and this is part of their petulant, adolescent fury.

They are, in fact, exactly the types of people the Queen was referring to: people who think of no one but themselves.

He rapped the theme to the Fresh Prince? How very cringe worthy.

Cordon's on CBS, the same network that's airing the Oprah interview. Did they hype the Oprah interview? You'd think that would be one reason for this appearance. But if you want to promote the 90 min exclusive with Meghan, wouldn't you do it closer to the broadcast day of March 7? Makes the timing even more suspicious. How far in advance was it known the Queen's message would air?

Harry can no longer serve as a Counsellor of State. A CoS must live in Britain at least 180 days, or half the year. Harry, quite obviously, does not.

Harry and Meghan must have been furious when the Palace issued the statement reiterating that the original deal would be adhered to: No half-in, half-out policies, and the Sussexes must give up their patronages if they wish to live in America and pursue their own interests. It came out soon after that the Oprah interview had to be heavily edited due to this announcement, as apparently half the interview was taken up with them talking about their 'work' on behalf of the BRF.

That was part and parcel of the Sussex PR pattern: Pretend that their wishes are actually reality, and hope that this causes reality to catch up. When HM delivered a huge dose of cold reality and ruined all those warm and fuzzy dreams, that must have really put them (Meghan in particular) on the warpath. The whining over this will go on for months, if not forever.

Pretty sad what Harry has become - a caricature. Still whining about the toxic environment in Britain, sipping tea on top of a double decker bus just like a true Brit, playing pretend soldiers, ensuring his wife gets her mug on the show etc...He also had the nerve to say that "we just wanted to step back from royal duties, not step down". That's his way of saying: it's all Granny Queen's fault!!!

They keep doing shit like this and they will become the new Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

They're already there: shallow, spoiled, entitled, and surplus to requirements. The Palace has stripped them of everything except the Sussex title--even the HRHs can't be used unless they are acting as Royals in England, which is equivalent to not having them at all. In years to come, Duke of Sussex will be as empty a title as Duke of Windsor.

People who want to step back from Royal duties don't move 8000 miles away and spend the review year pursuing Hollywood dreams. I don't know what's stupider: The lie or Harry thinking that anyone will believe the lie.

The Sussexes are doing the same PR war tactics that Diana tried on 25 years ago. I doubt it will work out any better for the Sussexes than it did for Diana--even before she met her end in Paris, the tabloids were tearing her to bits.

What Harry and Meghan can't seem to understand is if they ever want to define themselves apart from their status as ex-Royals, they have to quit bitching about the BRF. They have to quit trying to perform BRF-type duties (like the disastrous cemetery shoot). Harry and Meghan should wish the BRF and the UK well and then shut the fuck up about that situation. Instead, concentrate on their deals with Netflix and Spotify and actually produce some interesting content that people might want to consume. If they were really brave, they'd ditch the Sussex titles and just be Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. Nothing would signal a true wish for independence better than that.

But making it in Hollywood as the Mountbatten-Windsors would take courage, it would take self-awareness, and it would take a helluva lot of hard work. Not qualities the Sussexes have demonstrated so far.

The only question Oprah or Corden should be asking is "Why do you retain your titles now that The Queen has rescinded all of your patronages and put the HRH's into back in to storage?

Would love to hear the vapid and convoluted rationale of their answers.

Make the squirm!

Barbara Walters would have, R499.

r500 Barbara was brilliant as a grand inquisitor.

Hapless Harry will never be happy. This sentence is really sad.

Well, if nothing else, it's nice that Harry is still on speaking terms with his grandmother (she asked him what Archie wanted for Christmas and sent a waffle maker).

Right, toddler Archie wanted a fucking waffle iron.

"poot" seems an obvious typo for "poor." "Poor bald William."

I see Prince Harry is lining up with his new Netflix masters.

He's such a bottom.

[QUOTE] Harry sang the "Fresh Prince" theme with Corden. Slap your granny once more, Harry.

YES! One good whack and she'll keel over dead.

[QUOTE] isn't the first time the Harkles have planned a PR event timed to upstage the other royals.

Love the way they do this and always manage to get the attention onto them and away from TQ, Fugenie, Bald, Slut et al. Pissing off the Pet Troll and the other Klan gals is a huge bonus too.

Queen Elizadeath

The Zombie of Edinburgh

The Duke of Baldbridge

The Slutchess of Cambridge

The Pedo of York

Fugenie

Charlantern Jaw Giantess

[QUOTE] People who want to step back from Royal duties don't move 8000 miles away and spend the review year pursuing Hollywood dreams. I don't know what's stupider: The lie or Harry thinking that anyone will believe the lie.

The most stupid is YOU for thinking there are 8000 miles between London and Montecito. Try 5000, Maths champ.

Slut Middleton spent a summer servicing the rich aboard yachts in the Solent.

I think William is very handsome and charismatic. I don't mind bald! And much more attractive than Harry.

Just like his crazy supporters here, the problem with the Hankles is they couldn't stop comparing themselves with William and Kate. Who is the most attractive couple is irrelevant. William is the future king by succession, if he is bald and if Kate is naked underneath her clothes doesn't change that fact. H&M could take that reality and left. They are nothing but sore losers, and make no sense because this was a fact before Harry ever born, but make sense if he married a social climber who wanted to change a old institution just by being pushy and got nothing, now she is punishing them by taking Harry and his kids far away from them.

R452- That is a very low bar. All three of them are unwashed narcissists. Never could stand that self serving bitch Orca. Now I know why, so big fail, SS. Cue post about how at least Malignant Meghan isn't Prince Andrew in 3,2,1........

Jesus. What's with the immaturity meltdown and the unfunny nicknames? This is Datalounge, hon. You need to step it up with the wit and humor and stop sounding like a junior schooler with a grudge and lack of creativity. You sound like the BRF stole your first and only boyfriend.

^junior high schooler

Unwashed narcissist?

They all look as if they do not bathe. Take your own advice, then fuck right off. You do not tell people here wtf they can and can't say. If you do not like a post or person, you have an option to ignore them. She is a malignant narcissist. Textbook. It has not one thing to do with race. These people are devoid of compassion and empathy for others. The fact that a person such as this would preach compassion and charity to others is vomit inducing. All H&M do with their " charity" is pad their bank accounts and use it for publicly.

I can't believe the Obamas are friends with these two low life famewhores.

They're not. Meghan would LIKE to be friends with the Obamas but it appears they think they're radioactive and have wisely kept their distance.

R514 Somehow, apart from the natural feelings any grandparent or great grandparent would have for the child, if Meghan is punishing the BRF by taking Harry and his kids far away from them it doesn't seem to be working. They were told the gig was up if things didn't change and it is. It was supposed to be a year but with them pushing to get it settled (in other words, get what they could) before then without having mentioned they'd be answering Oprah's questions on TV, the expected happened: they're out.

And if Harry's grandfather dies in the next week or so and that interview is shown, they're toast. Burnt toast.

They hang out together and seem very chummy. Even before Meghan, it was pretty well known Harry was dumb and an idiot.

R514 - Saddening as it may be on a personal level, my guess is that the entire BRF is relieved to have the Harkles out of the way and out of Britain. Harry was always a problem, always making messes that had to be cleaned up by those same "suits" they complain about, never happy, always angry, and always a pain in the arse. His choice of a wife encouraged rather than alleviated Harry's issues, and I can only imagine the family's relief when Meghan got on that plane to Canada last March and their hope that they would never see her again.

Rough passage, but better for everyone in the longer-term. Meghan and Harry can go on whingeing and selling themselves to the highest bidders in America; William and Kate will increasingly become ever more important in Britain as the Queen and Charles age and the glare of the throne throws an ever brighter light on the Cambridges; the world will move on; and, eventually, the Harkle Divorce will ignite the headlines again as Meghan has enough money, a TV show of her own, and no longer has to suck Harry's cock to keep the thing going.

I can't help thinking that Sparkle & Dim see Harry as the poorly done by also-ran son of a mogul who has bestowed complete control of the corporation to the other son. Sort of a soap opera story. Ignoring the fact that the die was cast simply because William was born first.

No backstage deals. No quid pro quo. Simply an accident of birth. And written in stone because of centuries of history and tradition.

Can't you image the scripts that Sparkle has been writing in her head of how the scenes of that overwrought drama would proceed?

Could that be the script she is working from?

I'll bet she loved Dynasty and sees herself as the angry Alexis and now has her very own Krystle in the form of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Destined to be not only Queen, but the mother of the King.

Everything there except Alexis's intelligence, talent, timing, style, and great wardrobe,

That green revenge ensemble was pure Alexis.

Alexis would have worn the right bra.

R527 - LOL.

Actually, I thought the dress more Cruella de Ville (who also probably would have worn the bright bra).

She looked like a circus clown in that green get-up she wore when she swanned in to Westminster Abbey trying to be all 'large and in charge' with the naive Dim at her side.

All those god-awful caped dresses! She looked like a lunatic in that green horror. I'm sure Kate was inwardly vomiting.

Meghan is TOTALLY living this as a nighttime soap. But I doubt she sees herself as Alexis. At worst, she is Amanda from Melrose Place: beautiful, smart, and tough. She'd cast Kate as Alison, the mealy-mouthed, passive aggressive good girl. Meghan seems perpetually stuck in the 90s, so MP fits better than Dynasty.

I guess Harry is Jake? Or maybe Peter?

I see MM more as Sydney.

She wore the green caped horror to stand out from the rest of the royal women who traditionally wear red or blue for the Commonwealth service. Stood out she did.

[quote]she asked him what Archie wanted for Christmas and sent a waffle maker

Unfortunately, it was on UK currency and Harry electrocuted himself trying to plug it into an American outlet.

MM may see herself as Amanda Woodward, but she is Sydney at best. At worst, she's Amy Locane's character, written off early and never to be heard from again.