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

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

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

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

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

Harry finally gone native in California Part Four

Part 3 is nearly full up so here is the sequel!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 599Last Thursday at 7:41 AM

There was a guy from Los Angeles I caught on SKY NEWS in the UK this morning who made a claim that there are now no big hollywood stars and icons under the age of 40 but Prince Harry now seemed to be filling that void or niche in the celebrity market in terms of impact, prestige star power etc. I think the presenter Steve Dixon was struggling to stop himself from laughing!

by Anonymousreply 105/28/2021

Harry can't be helping himself with all this mental health interview stuff. I made the mistake of clicking on a snippet of his interview with Oprah and he was going on about his fears of history repeating itself, parallels between Diana dating a man of color and his being with Meghan; an ominous "they" are not going to quit until she's dead.

Willingly displaying such disordered thinking and paranoia can at best win him some performative empathy and twitter validation, but not the real recognition and affirmation he seems to crave.

by Anonymousreply 205/28/2021

I love these threads. They point out exactly what the Brf are worried about. We now know thanks to comment number two that it's the " They won't quit until she's dead" comment. We then get the requisite derogatory Harry and mental health comments. Yawn. Face it. It's out there now on the big wide web that the firm worked with the media till a half black woman wanted to kill herself. Everybody knows it. And the Brf look like psychos.

by Anonymousreply 305/28/2021

r2 I can't see it being viable behaviour much longer

by Anonymousreply 405/29/2021

Philip was dying, does anyone seriously believe that the Royals gave a shit about Meghan's mental health? Poor Harry is delusional and his behavior is becoming more and more bizarre. Oprah is cruel to allow this travesty to continue - and she is actively "partnering" with Harry. Meghan is really stretching it with the race card. She has too much white blood to pass as black and has not ever suffered discrimination except perhaps for not getting anywhere career wise due to lack of talent. I am sick sick of hearing about these two losers.

by Anonymousreply 505/29/2021

Part of the rationale and timing of the latest Whingefest was to put Harry front and centre. Up to now, it's been joint appearances in which Meghan clearly was the dominant party. This project was all Harry's.

It also means Harry totally owns the blowback, not just from incessant and questionable attacks on a family he knows won't publicly reply, but from even more questionable opinions and quasi-expert suggestions to others. Not to mention having to own extremely unwise disclosure of just how mentally unsound, tone-deaf, and angry he is.

The big question for those watching this debacle unfold and it must be supposed for the Harkles themselves, is how long they can continue to beat the drum of Harry's family, Harry's mental health, and Harry's Mum?

The public is already tiring rapidly.

by Anonymousreply 605/29/2021

But, really, were there any particular truth bombs? The Maul got nuffink today.

by Anonymousreply 705/29/2021

r7 Precisely. It seems their genuine ammunition is low.

by Anonymousreply 805/29/2021

^ I don't know whether that's worrisome or a relief.

by Anonymousreply 905/29/2021

R7 I cannot believe it!! Op here.

This thread is the gift that keeps giving. Thanks for keeping it going.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1005/29/2021

Is Meghan's popularity declining?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1105/29/2021

S A R A H Honeybee @honeybee_zz · May 28 Replying to @DailyMailUK I think many many people out there have felt suicidal especially since the outbreak of COVID and if they’ve lost family, friends, colleagues or jobs and livelihoods. But no ones had it worse than this pair and we must have it rammed down our throat every day

by Anonymousreply 1205/29/2021

Sarah, let me help you by telling you how horrible my life of living in palaces, having my indiscretions covered up, having no worries about how I will pay bills, no concerns over a career, and having to put on a suit and tie have been for me. You're welcome.

by Anonymousreply 1305/29/2021

R10, photo of Princess Tinymeat.

by Anonymousreply 1405/29/2021

R11 - Depends where you look. In Britain, Harry and Meghan are toast and the Queen, William, and Kate hold the top three spots in terms of royal popularity. Even Charles, who trails his heir and daughter-in-law, saw an increase in the polls to well over 50%, where it hasn't been in years, thanks to the Harkles' attacks.

In America, it may be different (or indifferent), I think only a self-selected group are paying attention in America. At any rate, ten days after the first interview, Newsweek did a poll and found that even in America, the Queen, William, and Kate, were the most popular royals, with Harry running below them, and Meghan well below them.

Go figure.

My guess is that people who pay attention to the royals want them to be . . . royal. The Harkles' Achilles Heel has, from the beginning, been that they're frantically trying to be royal without being royal - bit of sleight of hand that may have worked for a few moments, but will increasingly become less and less effective.

And, they are seriously overexposed at this point - not just broadly but specifically re the BRF. They need a calling card that is equally compelling, and I'm not at all sure that there is one. I suspect they want to make as much money as possible whilst that card still works for them.

As time goes on, and their The Windsors Ate My Baby theme finally runs dry, especially as the Queen, Kate, and William become more and more visible as actual royals as the pandemic restrictions end. Kate is on the DM today getting her first COVID jab, just as William did last week ,showing his manly muscled arm as he did so LOL. That's the problem, see - the Cambridges and the Queen are going around being real royals, whilst Harry and Meghan drift ever further from being real royals except for the titles and their incessant attacks. The law of diminishing returns begins to apply here for the Harkles.

Harry's Me You Can't See was decidedly less appealing than than William's and Kate's The Us You Can See.

The long game was always going to the Cambridges, but, in Britain especially, so is the short game.

The Queen was right to stop Charles from striking back with point by point rebuttals.

by Anonymousreply 1505/29/2021

Where does Harry becoming Diana leave MeGain?

"She's becoming the woman who accompanied prince Harry to Montecito." Can't take credit for that one but no one puts Megsy in the corner! How might she react?

by Anonymousreply 1605/29/2021

More sermons from the great "expert"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1705/29/2021

Harry: Climate change is one of the world's two 'most pressing issues'.

The other one is us.

by Anonymousreply 1805/29/2021

They could have done everything they are doing without slagging the royal family. They could have made an organised, arranged, respectful exit to pursue their goals, priorities and projects. They did not have to sell themselves, just their ideas. They could have ignored the criticism, as the royal family has been doing for decades. They could have tried to do with dignity and true focus on the work. Instead, this. Which is why they will just become discredited, discarded sideshow performers, less and less relevant, more and more distasteful, year over year.

by Anonymousreply 1905/29/2021

Only someone who has no idea what it's like to work for a living would list mental health as one of the two most pressing issues facing the world.

Especially as he's living richly in the country with the most income inequality in the First World - with his native country bringing up a close second. University education increasingly beyond the reach of the middle-class in America, never mind the working-class, the fall in economic viability compared to most people's parents' generation, the slowing of upward mobility . . . good God, do these two people ever look beyond themselves??!!

Their tone-deafness and use of self-referentiality as measures of Fact Based Truth are truly extraordinary.

by Anonymousreply 2005/29/2021

Are we finally getting into the divorce leaking stage of their PR? It always starts as drips from these kookier outlets. Even way back in the beginning, all the rumors are being confirmed as true. Makes sense she's pushing the Harry is crazy spin.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2105/29/2021

[quote]Face it. It's out there now on the big wide web that the firm worked with the media till a half black woman wanted to kill herself.

"The Firm" has better things to do than do anything to a half-white in-law married to one so far down the line of succession she literally doesn't matter. They have a thousand year-old monarchy to maintain, little old Megs isn't even a speck of dust in the scheme of things.

Besides, she never wanted to kill herself. Puh-leeze. That was clearly something she laid on her dimwit husband to further manipulate him and keep him under thumb. And even if she was suicidal, what did the BRF have to do with it? Look at who she's married to, look at her crazy family.

The Queen wasn't sitting around torturing her - to the contrary, she authorized millions of pounds spent on her wedding, housing, servants and security.

by Anonymousreply 2205/29/2021

And they've now behaved so badly and so obviously, they've destroyed their own victim narrative.

by Anonymousreply 2305/29/2021

Lady C's latest.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2405/29/2021

People who are truly interested in the Royals and support the institution don't want then to be confused with 'celebrities' or have them featured in the tabloid press.

by Anonymousreply 2505/29/2021

Anyone with a functioning neuron can tell that the suicide story is completely fabricated.

by Anonymousreply 2605/29/2021

In the picture at R10, it looks like someone gave them a bouquet of weeds.

by Anonymousreply 2705/29/2021

Yea for sure r26. Did anyone really believe that? The clincher, no follow-up questions from Oprah (at least with any real substance)

by Anonymousreply 2805/29/2021

Haven’t seen as many screaming headlines about Harry and Oprah’s second episode. Was there anything juicy in it?

by Anonymousreply 2905/29/2021

R21 - Not a snowball's. It's true that occasionally the tabloids and rags like New Idea (which makes the DM look like the TIMES) do break stories early that the broadsheets won't touch, but not in this case.

Meghan has to have Diana 2.1, they have to get the ecstatic new parents PR bounce, and it is way too early for Meghan to lose that title, which she will in a divorce.

And remember: the moment the Queen dies and Charles becomes King, little Archie and Diana become blood princes and princesses, with their titles in front of their first names. Meghan will go nowhere until that happens. And, once that happens, the BRF are far less likely to take her title away in a divorce, as it would be unseemly for Meghan to have no title whilst her children carry the titles of Prince and Princess of the Blood. She has to make sure that she at least has what Fergie had, which is the right to call herself Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, until Domesday.

They are still in the early stages of their financial strategies.

Only when Meghan knows there is no more she can wring out of Harry, his title, and the BRF will she her little Prince and Princess and huff off. They aren't nearly there yet.

by Anonymousreply 3005/29/2021

She may be playing a false waiting game, because the Queen (or Charles, once he's King) can issue orders restricting the HRH and Prince/Princess titles from the Sussex children. This could be accomplished before the Queen passes, or immediately thereafter.

This^ is why its so head-scratching that H&M spend so much time busting Charles and the BRF. He holds the key the literal one main thing that keeps Meghan around at all: her and her children's titles.

by Anonymousreply 3105/29/2021

Another point about the possible attachment of titles to their children is the choice the Sussex pair made to attach suspicion to the birth of both Archie and the new baby.

The restriction "of the body" may yet be called into play because of all the rumors swirling about their children and to whether either of them were born "of the body". Questions about whether either or both of the Sussex pair are capable of actually having children.

All the suspicion was created by the Sussex pair themselves with the bizarre way they CHOSE to handle details surrounding Archie's birth. And those suspicions continue. If there is no truth to the rumors, the pair still have only themselves to blame.

by Anonymousreply 3205/29/2021

They know that Charles holds the keys and that's why they have instituted the bullying and guilting of him to hold him in line. Despicable, loathsome people.

by Anonymousreply 3305/29/2021

Naughty r18 !!That made me chuckle!😆😁

by Anonymousreply 3405/29/2021

I wonder how many people saw Harry and Oprah on AppleTV. I suspect most people saw clips elsewhere. Very few people watch AppleTV anymore, only people with free subscriptions on their Apple iPhones.

by Anonymousreply 3505/29/2021

The guy they hired for Archewell owns the rights to a film with this theme. I would guess it will be made before a divorce. That is the nuclear card but now this is out there. What guesses do people have as to the timeline?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3605/29/2021

R2, Harry is looking at the scenarios all wrong. Who was dating the "person of color" in the Diana-Dodi relationship? Who was the royal?

And now, who is with the "person of color" and who is the royal?

The one at risk in Harry's made up scenario is actually him, not Meghan... OMG! Harry may end up deceased after the paparazzi swarm and chase him/ his car, driven by a drunk bodyguard, in a Parisian tunnel! At night!

by Anonymousreply 3705/29/2021

Lol, R37. Yet, flying into PARIS does not trigger PTSD whereas LONDON does? So much drama, mixed up stories to spur convo/chatter is a SS tactic. The Harkles are a bit exhausting.

Curious that Haz had 1/2 the money for the Diana statue transferred to his control. Wonder if he will go in July? Seems like we have Ariel, FF 2.0, Haz's book and ???coming up?

by Anonymousreply 3805/29/2021

Just dropping a touch of beauty to the thread. I’ve always thought Diana was at the peak of her loveliness around 1985. The big hair years.

One thing that Kate does share with Diana is, there is a warmth to their faces.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3905/29/2021

[quote] an ominous "they" are not going to quit until she's dead.

If only!

by Anonymousreply 4005/29/2021

The problem with Dodi was he was a person off colour.

by Anonymousreply 4105/29/2021

Which one is the mastermind?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4205/29/2021

The problem with Dodi was that he was a sleazy coke addict who was engaged to someone else when his crooked father pimped him out to Diana at the start of that summer.

His colour was the least of his problems.

by Anonymousreply 4305/29/2021

Harry has always been a problem

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4405/29/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4505/29/2021

I got a free subscription to Apple tv and watched Ted Lasso. There wasn't anything else worth watching. Total crap.

by Anonymousreply 4605/29/2021

[quote]Harry: Climate change is one of the world's two 'most pressing issues'.

It's like he reads an old issue of Scientific American and spouts the headlines! All of which are relevant, but really, yesterday's debate. Is he waking up from a coma?

by Anonymousreply 4705/29/2021

Plus, Charles has been speaking about these issues for decades.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4805/29/2021

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4905/29/2021

I was FORCED to go riding with my brother and dad on that HUGE estate!!!

by Anonymousreply 5005/29/2021

I heard nothing about the subsequent Oprah things on Apple, is it all over? Sounds like Harry ran out of things to lie about.

by Anonymousreply 5105/29/2021

Widow seems to be a role that suits many, Courtney Love comes to mind.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5205/29/2021

Don't mix benzos and booze kiddies. Could that be the reason no one could hear their phone or the cops banging on the doors?

by Anonymousreply 5305/29/2021

Some delightful snark from The Telegraph, where a columnist wonders if the UK has now passed peak woke.

His closing arguments, our beloveds...

"Yet nothing has done more to make people to rise up against this totalitarian attempt at social brainwashing than the incessant posturing and bleating of the Crown Prince and Princess of Woke, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Their titanic self-regard, vacuous and self-pitying pronouncements, and consequent rudeness to the most admired person in Britain, Her Majesty the Queen, have bred ridicule and contempt.

The Duke, whose public credibility has sunk below that of Donald Duck, dropped another of his pompously so-called “truth bombs” with Oprah Winfrey. The programme aimed to answer the question: “Where do we go from here?” The British public’s reply is increasingly obvious: as far away from us as possible. Whining with self-pity from their Californian parallel universe, the pair have succeeded in driving home to all rational people the sheer irrelevance and presumptuousness of the woke view of life – and the lack of intelligence and character of those who make a career out of trying to manipulate others into obeying its rules.

The Duke fails to see that the fastest way now for the British public to be turned off anything is for him and his wife to start arguing for it; itself a clear sign that this campaign of bullying and brainwashing has been rumbled and rejected."

by Anonymousreply 5405/29/2021

I saw a bunch of TV commercials for Harry and Oprah's cryfest. I'm guessing that means it hasn't been a success. It sounds totally depressing, a bunch of people sitting around feeling sorry for themselves.

by Anonymousreply 5505/29/2021

As much as I like to rip those two fools (three if you count Orca), R55, I had the same impression: a gaggle of celebrities, sitting on their couches, crying.

Sounds fun.

by Anonymousreply 5605/29/2021

Charles had the Queen Mum to show him real affection in an otherwise bleak and even neglectful environment. That small amount of real love probably went a long way in making him half decent. I'm not sure Harry had even that.

by Anonymousreply 5705/29/2021

He had his sainted mother, by his description, for more 2/3 of his childhood, R57.

by Anonymousreply 5805/29/2021

Christ, he's pink. I'm not sure one of the whitest bred gingers on the planet can move to Southern California at almost 40 and just drive right in.

Maybe he should advocate for SPF 100.

by Anonymousreply 5905/29/2021

R55, a bunch of RICH people whining.

Poor people don’t even feel sorry for themselves as much as these assclowns do. What a shame to have all that, and not even able to appreciate it.

That is the depressing part.

by Anonymousreply 6005/29/2021

They believe in all that “manifesting” stuff, so are they trying to manifest more loss and trauma and chaos with all the things they’re saying?

by Anonymousreply 6105/29/2021

Maybe, R61, mo problems for y'all, mo $ for moi?

by Anonymousreply 6205/29/2021

R55 - All in all, what in the Sixties would have been called "a real downer".

Which is what Harry and Meghan are. Everything is from the negative, hectoring, lecturing, warning, accusing, joyless column.

For people whose circumstances millions would exchange their hope of Heaven in an eyeblink, they sure don't give off happy vibes, do they?

There's been something so "off" about them from the get-go, as if the entire relationship, the wedding, the attempts to function as a senior working royal couple, their insistence in turning their kid's birth into something akin to What Happened to Atlantis?, were a giant panto.

Nothing about any of this ever rang true.

by Anonymousreply 6305/30/2021

The comments are gold.

gauloise zinza • 8 days ago Her mother abandoned her and her siblings when they were children. She was broken and disordered before she ever met Charles.

I find it kind of interesting that Harry went on to marry a Cluster B woman who was also abandoned by her mother in childhood and raised by her father.

Resting_Bitch_Face gauloise • 8 days ago Very well said. My dad died when I was five. It very rarely comes up in conversation & I don't trot out the sad tale for sympathy & attention. I think it's disgusting & low that Harry is trying to profit off his mother's demise by making it a trivial talking point to cash in with millionaires. It's just as shameful to watch him throw the rest of his family under the bus. If he really cared about mental health & helping people, this isn't the way to go about it. He seems more interested in inflating his ego & lining his pockets.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6405/30/2021

R64 - Re that BI from CDAN - aye, that's the question on everyone's lips: how long can these two callous opportunists go on using this factually disprovable view of the perfect, hunted Saint Diana as their path to riches?

Are we taking wagers? I'm giving even odds on one more year before the public simply turns its back.

And what happens THEN?

by Anonymousreply 6505/30/2021

Not sure it will take that long, R65. With summer here and things opening back up, interest in these 2 angry, negative people is plummeting.

by Anonymousreply 6605/30/2021

If Harry was facing his problems truthfully, he would be placing some of the blame for mistakes that were made with his upbringing on his mother.

But she apparently is untouchable.

by Anonymousreply 6705/30/2021

I just saw the latest pictures of Archie that Harry released (how is this keeping in line with their privacy desires?) and he looks just like his grandpa Markle.

by Anonymousreply 6805/30/2021

In case you're interesting in discussing titles, coronets and the like, here's a thread specially designed to do so.

Already greyed out by the obnoxious Markle stans, very likely because it being a thread NOT necessarily dealing with Duchess Diva and Duke Dim.

by Anonymousreply 6905/30/2021

*[...] titles, coronets, and the like

In my first language (German, that is), there wouldn't be a comma after "coronets", so sorry for having messed up.

Of course you may discuss crowns and tiaras, too.

by Anonymousreply 7005/30/2021

AND OF COURSE it's " in case you're INTERESTED", ffs.

by Anonymousreply 7105/30/2021

Here's the thread, ffs.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7205/30/2021

Harry and Mez's numbers have fallen about 10% each in the US since their peak following the Oprah Interview:

In a YouGov/Economist Poll:

54% have very or somewhat positive impression of Harry 26% have a very or somewhat negative impression of Harry giving him a net score of 28

48% have a very or somewhat positive impression of Meghan 33% have a very or somewhat negative impression of Meghan giving her a net score of 15

61% support the couples decision to step back from royal life but only 31% feel sympathy for the couple.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7305/30/2021

Of course most people support their decision to step back. Love 'em or hate 'em, it's clear the Sussexes are not cut out for Royal duties.

by Anonymousreply 7405/30/2021

drip drip drip. Meghan's obsession with Kate is clear in an old Q&A from 2014.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7505/30/2021

WHY does she think the tendrils are attractive?

by Anonymousreply 7605/30/2021

R75 she's a compulsive liar - looks like the Aussie media now has her number. Posing with a cheap tabloid to promote it? Well, well, well.

by Anonymousreply 7705/30/2021

Everyone knows Meghan's "I didn't know!" story is bullshit. That line flew for Diana in the early 80s because Diana was a sheltered teenager growing up in a time when the inner workings of the BRF weren't well-known. Also, nobody expected her to become as famous as she did.

Meghan was a teenager in the 90s, when Diana's saga was literally everywhere. People working on remote research stations in the Antarctic probably knew all about it. The idea that a hip teenager living in the most media-saturated city on the planet wouldn't know is ludicrous.

by Anonymousreply 7805/30/2021

Yup Harrys wife definitely knew who he was.

Also some more tea: she was in Toronto wanting to land a rich British man back when she was dating and living with Corey Vitiello (who is a very sweet guy). Matt Cardle admitted she messaged him for dates in 2015. Side note: she was dating Corey from 2014 - 2016.

Around May 2016 Gingernuts ends up in Toronto for Invictus and thats how they met. Corey later accuses her of cheating with Harry and they broke up. She ditches Corey and her dogs for Throne Meal Ticket #6. The tabloids originally ran stories saying H & M met around May but later changed it to July 2016. You can find both versions online.

by Anonymousreply 7905/30/2021

Corey dodged a bullet there.

by Anonymousreply 8005/30/2021

The parallels between Diana and Meghan are non-existent: On the one hand, an undereducated, virginal, sheltered teenager in early 80s Britain and a college-educated, divorced, thirtysomething actress in 2010s LA and Toronto. Meghan has been pushing the lamb-to-slaughter story since she convinced Harry to send that letter to the media all the way back in 2016, and it Just. Doesn't. Work.

by Anonymousreply 8105/30/2021

Do men find her attractive?

by Anonymousreply 8205/30/2021

Meghan Markle is an asshole. And so is Harry.

by Anonymousreply 8305/30/2021

R81 - The parallels between Diana's and Meghan's pedigrees, ages, races, and looks are non-existent.

The parallels between their emotional and psychological landscapes are myriad, beginning with narcissism bordering on obsessional in its need for adoration and affirmation 24/7, a penchant not only for lying without compunction but believing their own lies as they rewrite history; paranoia; a history of cutting people off suddenly without a word; and successfully hiding those qualities as they pursue a mark.

For Morton's, "Diana: Her True Story", cf. Scobie's fawning "Finding Freedom". For Diana's disastrous "Panorama" moment, see the Harkles & Oprah, spouting lies, rewriting history - all on the eve of Prince Philip's death. For Diana's lame "suicide" attempt whilst newly pregnant with William, see Meghan's (by all odds) phony "suicide" threat whilst pregnant with Archie.

For Diana's attacks on Charles and her attempts to paint him as unsuited to kingship, see Meghan's encouragement for Harry to do the same publicly, inadvertently making it clear that Charles was no longer going to support the Harkles financially, or they'd never have attacked him and the Queen.

Diana later admitted that the Morton book and the Panorama interview were amongst the biggest mistakes of her life. Meghan is finding out via the polls that those interviews may not have done quite what she expected for her and Harry, either.

Diana, Harry, and Meghan all operate(d) from a similar emotional place: EVERYTHING is someone else's fault - the classic hallmark of extreme narcissism. Are there differences? Yes, some. Diana was an English aristocrat and because it was her children's primary patrimony, respected the Queen and the monarchy as an institution. Her quarrel was with Charles - she had no problem undermining his suitability for kingship because all that meant, in her fantasy, was that her son might get to be King sooner. And, Diana put in ten years of work first - Meghan got out as soon as she could, after doing less than 80 days' work. And as Meghan's husband and son have no shot at the throne, she's happy to burn it all down.

And, Diana had closer ties with her own family than Meghan had. Diana adored her father - despite the fact that he beat her mother, Frances' real reason for leaving. He was absolutely brutal to Frances, including forcing her to undergo painful tests when she produced three daughters - this, in the latter half of the 20th century when everyone knew it is the father who determines the sex of the child. Yet, Diana fell out with her mother on occasion but never her father. The irony, as Diana later championed shelters for abused women! And, she remained on mostly good terms with her sisters and her brother.

Meghan and Diana exhibit the same imperviousness to the beam in their own eyes, and externalise all blame. And because that quality engenders tunnel vision and an inability to read a room accurately, Meghan will go on making the same mistakes she's made up to now.

Practically speaking, Meghan still came out with a great deal more than she came in with. But whether it adds up to any more authentic happiness than Diana ever achieved is doubtful (all Diana's relationships with men were disastrous) - both women were attracted to trendy psychobabble as solutions.

And both women are incapable of change.

by Anonymousreply 8405/31/2021

Unpopular opinion that I've expressed here before, and for which I always get swiftly corrected: Sometimes in Meghan's face I see a hint of something very "Diana." A certain wistful (?) expression. Of course I can't find an example right now. All I know is, if I see that, you can be sure Harry does, too.

by Anonymousreply 8505/31/2021

Diana was the daughter of a courtier growing up in part on the Sandringham estate. The idea she knew little about the workings of the BRF seems unlikely.

by Anonymousreply 8605/31/2021

R85 - Doe eyes looking up through the eyelashes. It was a look Diana perfected during the pre-engagement months.

by Anonymousreply 8705/31/2021

R87 something around the mouth too. I can’t explain it.

by Anonymousreply 8805/31/2021

R88 - you can't explain because it doesn't exist.

by Anonymousreply 8905/31/2021

R89 right on cue

by Anonymousreply 9005/31/2021

I think R63 has it right. Something has been "off" about Meghan and Harry as a couple from the start. And in the Oprah interview, Meghan conflated titles and security to serve her own purpose. Her obvious contradiction between wanting a title for Archie and not wanting one reveals she's trying get sympathy for him being denied a title and simultaneously super-democratic for not wanting one. Does she think we're stupid? Funnily enough, Archie does have a title, Earl of Dumbarton. However, that's not the same as "prince," which is evidently what she really wants for him. In my experience, narcissists often think they're smarter and less obvious than others, and they're wrong.

by Anonymousreply 9105/31/2021

Agree, R91.

by Anonymousreply 9205/31/2021

The Dunning-Kruger Effect.....DJT also has it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9305/31/2021

In the O interview Meghan was harping about Archie not being declared a prince because she's nothing but a butthurt, vindictive cunt.

Plus, Archie and baby Diana Ariella being a prince, a princess respectively would make it less likely for Megahn and her idiot husband to be stripped from their very own titles.

by Anonymousreply 9405/31/2021

If MeGAIN has any look that is remotely reminiscent of Diana, you can bet that it took countless hours of practice in front of a mirror to achieve it.

by Anonymousreply 9505/31/2021

[quote]Diana was the daughter of a courtier growing up in part on the Sandringham estate. The idea she knew little about the workings of the BRF seems unlikely.

Diana's grandmother was a Lady in Waiting to the Queen Mother. Her brother-in-law worked at Buckingham Palace. By Diana's own admission, she sometimes played with Andrew and Edward as children and went to the Royal Christmas party every year. It's amazing how the BRF got the press to perpetuate the myth that Diana was a young commoner. Her whole life, she was Royal adjacent.

by Anonymousreply 9605/31/2021

Narcs ALL revise history

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9705/31/2021

r84 - I really, really wanted to upvote you at first, but you became increasingly tedious and angry, so no. One likes sentiments, but not left with a bad taste - from what one hears (or tastes).

by Anonymousreply 9805/31/2021

Diana did grow up Royal adjacent, but her day-to-day life was very sheltered. Her father and stepmother didn't entertain much, and when they did, the kids weren't around. Half the time she was at undemanding boarding schools, anyway. The only time she was out and about on her own was that very brief period after she moved to London and worked as a kindergarten assistant/part-time nanny.

The BRF assumed that Diana, daughter of an Earl, would know how to handle formal dinner parties and conversing with bright, successful people, and she just didn't. When she first married Charles, she'd either sit silent at the table or only talk to her dinner partner about children. When it was a family dinner only, such as at Balmoral, she'd sometimes show up to the table wearing a Walkman. Her lack of education made all of this worse, of course: She literally knew nothing.

Sarah Spencer, she of seven 0-levels who had lived and worked in London for a longer period of time (I believe she was an assistant at Vogue), would probably have made a better partner for Charles. Despite her battle with anorexia as a young woman, she's proven more emotionally stable than Diana overall. Both of the older Spencer girls missed a lot of the worst drama of their parents' marriage, as the marriage was relatively happy when they were small and didn't break up until they were teenagers at boarding school.

Sarah also doesn't have Diana's star quality, so it's much less likely she'd have overshadowed her husband. Of course, she made the grave mistake of giving a press interview early in her relationship with Charles, and that doomed the match. Charles should have been less fussy--the irony of breaking up with one sister for giving a short interview, and marrying the younger sister who would go on to spill her guts to the world multiple times!

by Anonymousreply 9905/31/2021

R84 you nailed it. But I suspect both Diana and Meghan were/are borderlines.

by Anonymousreply 10005/31/2021

A bit more on Diana... her father was an equerry for four years, ending in 1954.

He inherited in 1975 and the family moved to Althorp, so Diana was fourteen.

by Anonymousreply 10105/31/2021

Mocking the Harkles.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10205/31/2021

Excellent points at r99. I'd not thought of Charles's relationship with Sarah Spencer in that way, but it makes total sense.

by Anonymousreply 10305/31/2021

[quote]Charles should have been less fussy

While I think he's been unfairly and purposely maligned of late, I think that's at the root of most of his difficulties in life.

The sight of Camilla doesn't rile me, though the whole mess still isn't worth thinking about, since you're apt to choose sides and slander the other.

But I will say this. Thank God Charles wasn't allowed to marry her - I mean, neither one of them are oil paintings and the mugs on Camilla's kids are diabolical - although the first husband wasn't really a looker either. So if that's anything to go by, the faces of whatever she and Charles produced would have been the end of the British monarchy.

Who wants to look at that down the generations?

by Anonymousreply 10405/31/2021

One doesn't say off with their heads, but covering up those faces might not be a bad idea.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10505/31/2021

Camilla didn't marry Charles because she was madly in love with Parker Bowles. Never bought that she had any attraction to Charles, she just allowed herself to be loved by him when Parker Bowles was screwing around.

by Anonymousreply 10605/31/2021

[quote]she just allowed herself to be loved by him when Parker Bowles was screwing around

But he was screwing around with Princess Anne.

by Anonymousreply 10705/31/2021

Sarah Spencer wasn't the stunner Diana was in her youth, but she was quite cute in a very Spencerian way (Diana is the spitting image of her American great-grandmother, Frances Work). Had Charles married Sarah, it seems likely that BOTH of his sons would have been ginger.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10805/31/2021

Sally Bedell Smith's biography of Diana makes it sounds like Sarah dodged a bullet by being dumped:

[quote]According to the book Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess by Sally Bedell Smith, Neil was a wealthy gentleman farmer. A friend of the Spencer family described Sarah's husband as "solid, very steady, private, quiet, with a good sense of humor." Smith noted that he was pretty much the "opposite of Sarah, who was ebullient and enterprising, with an unpredictable streak."

That's probably the very sort of man Diana should have married. If she had, she'd likely be alive today, enjoying life with her kids and grandkids.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10905/31/2021

Lady Sarah Spencer.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11005/31/2021

Given that Chuck dumped Sarah for being indiscreet, I wonder what his reaction was to Meghan's magazine cover 5 minutes after she met Harry.

And a key difference between Di and Meg (someone correct me if I'm wrong), Diana didn't chase the press in the beginning. They hounded her and she eventually learned how to use them right back. Meg was chasing press long before she had a ring.

by Anonymousreply 11105/31/2021

My favorite of Charles' girlfriends was sexy blonde Davina Sheffield.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11205/31/2021

Davina looks like a hot version of Camilla--which means she looks a bit like Diana. Charles seems to go for big eyes, big teeth, big boobs, doesn't he?

by Anonymousreply 11305/31/2021

Some amusing content...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11405/31/2021

Camilla could have never married Charles the first time around. She wouldn't have passed the virginity exam.

by Anonymousreply 11505/31/2021

Charles' best bet would likely have been Amanda Knatchbull, his second cousin and daughter of Dickie Mountbatten. Uncle Dickie had been slowly maneuvering the two young people together for years, and Amanda was not averse to the idea until the IRA blew up her grandfather. That gave her a horror of publicity and royal life. Mountbatten's death also left Charles vulnerable to doe-eyed, pseudo-sympathetic teenage Diana.

If Mountbatten hadn't been assassinated, Amanda would be our Princess of Wales and all the drama of the 1980s and 90s wouldn't have happened. Well, not to Charles, anyway: Andrew and Fergie might still have crashed into each other.

by Anonymousreply 11605/31/2021

*granddaughter of Dickie Mountbatten

by Anonymousreply 11705/31/2021

This popular Youtube commentator on the Harry and Meghan saga is convinced that Meghan has recorded something that she is planning to use to try and blackmail the royal family with in future at a strategically chosen time in the future.

I am not saying she is right but she has a strong sense of foreboding and seems to be quite friendly with Lady C who seems to be well sourced and in the know. It is an interesting watch.

By the way does anyone know why the last recollections may vary thread has vanished please?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11805/31/2021

Sometimes SS seems to get one deleted, there was that Philip thread that got nuked. Not sure what was going on on it that may have been contentious this evening. Was that the one with a post of River's latest vid?

by Anonymousreply 11905/31/2021

This one is still around but one vanished this evening

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12005/31/2021

r119 Yes the one with the river video in.Do you think that was part of the reason possibly? I wasnt aware River was seen as a controversial figure on here?

by Anonymousreply 12105/31/2021

I don't think that was it. Were there other posts after that that SS would F&F to oblivion?

by Anonymousreply 12205/31/2021

r122 I dont know as I was elsewhere on the internet .I was hoping someone knew ..

It is unhealthy that sugars are so keen to shut down criticism.

by Anonymousreply 12305/31/2021

I thought the whole wedding had a blackmail vibe and since March it has not been hidden, extortion is pretty descriptive. Guess we will see in due time. The idea that attempts were made to set up/entrap various members of the BRF recently is also notable.

by Anonymousreply 12405/31/2021

R123, SS has to manage social media accounts to earn their pay after all.

by Anonymousreply 12505/31/2021

Yes r124 Lady C highlighted that and stated the royal family has now been forced to regard Harry and Meghan as real enemies of the royal family regardless of any love they have for him.They have to for reasons of self preservation.

r125 Well overall they are failing as the royal pairs reputation is worse than ever!

by Anonymousreply 12605/31/2021

r124 Lets put it this way they are now behaving in such a way that is putting themselves on the radar of active interest of the intelligence services in both the UK and the USA. I think effectively trying to blackmail the head of state of a country or key alley or bring down part of the UKs governance is a huge concern both countries would take VERY seriously.

by Anonymousreply 12705/31/2021

After they finally get the Diana statue thing over with, you won't see Harry invited to any BRF events for a long time. Even if you could stand his whining and forgive his betrayals, who could trust someone very likely to have a hidden camera or microphone on him? The smart family members won't say more than 'hello' and 'goodbye.'

by Anonymousreply 12805/31/2021

The Queen is head of state. Harry and Meghan are nobodies and the UK is the US's strongest ally. I wouldn't be surprised if the Biden admin started moving in on them, telling them to shut up or they'll deport Harry (who has no reason to legally live here).

by Anonymousreply 12905/31/2021

Speaking of hair colours in the BRF: What a lot of people tend to forget (or probably haven't even known in the first place) is that Diana was NOT a real blonde herself. She used to dye her hair. Her real hair colour was strawberry blonde, a subtle sort of red being visible depending on incidence of light.

In fact, Prince George has got strawberry blonde hair as well.

by Anonymousreply 13006/01/2021

I thought Diana was more of a mousy brownette.

by Anonymousreply 13106/01/2021

R131, I thought so, too - until I got to see a pic of her aged approx. 16 where you could see quite some reddish-tangerine flick of hair. In case find the pic online, I'll post it here.

Btw, for Prince George to have become strawberry blonde, there also must be at least a couple of redhair genes in Kate Middleton's family, otherwise George ending up with strawberry blonde hair would've been VERY unlikely.

by Anonymousreply 13206/01/2021

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13306/01/2021

I guess this is also why Megh wants to present Archie as a redhead (remember that Christmas card?!?) ... not necessarily because of his father being ginger, but because of Diana having had strawberry blonde hair.

by Anonymousreply 13406/01/2021

It's interesting that the Harkles seem to keep forgetting that the Queen is Britain's Head of State and therefore an arm of the machinery of state, the other arm of which is the government, which still has a vested interest in using the monarchy for distasteful jobs that government doesn't want to be seen doing - like honouring dictators and autocrats whose nations, nevertheless, are important to Britain's geopolitical interests.

Of course, we're talking about a great-great grandson of George V, who looked so much like the last Tsar of Russia that they could have passed for twin brothers - and of whose reign one of two major scandals was George's failure to get his cousins out of Russia before they were massacred in that cellar - but who didn't know he was related to the Romanovs.

So, hardly surprising. I would guess poster upthread is correct, that at this point, the Harkles are being quietly tracked by security services.

As for trying to blackmail the BRF, I don't buy it. If they had anything worthwhile, the Harkles would have gotten what they wanted - a half-in, half-out position where they could do what they liked, make millions off monetising their positions, and leave all the heavy lifting to the Cambridges, the Wessexes, and Princess Anne.

I don't think the Queen scares that easily. I doubt William does, either. I'm not sure of Charles, who carries an enormous burden of guilt where Harry is concerned - not the guilt that Harry keeps trying to saddle him with, which, ironically, is probably eroding what guilt Charles does feel and replacing it with indignation - but the guilt Charles feels for having married not only the wrong woman, but a woman he now knows suffered from congenital mental issues that she bequeathed to one of her sons. The failed marriage is what anchors Charles' sense of guilt. In all other respects, Charles and the family sent Harry to counseling, covered up his peccadilloes, pulled strings for him at school and in the military, and allowed him to marry a woman that everyone in the BRF knew had red flags all over her - it was only Meghan's mixed race card, and Harry's distance from the throne, that got her in the door.

by Anonymousreply 13506/01/2021

It was a terrible idea to procreate with a woman who needed to have a psychiatrist summoned on the honeymoon!

by Anonymousreply 13606/01/2021

Have Harry and Megs set up an interview with Naomi Osaka yet, or would that be stepping on Oprah's turf? Novice grifters better step to it!

by Anonymousreply 13706/01/2021

R128- I do not believe we will EVER see Harry at any royal or public event again. He went way, way too far and is irredeemable.

by Anonymousreply 13806/01/2021

Have they been seen or heard lately? Isn't is strange that they have basically gone into hiding after assaulting us daily with media oversaturation? Anyone else find that as strange as I do?

by Anonymousreply 13906/01/2021

r139 It is very curious. What do you think the explanation might be?

by Anonymousreply 14006/01/2021

R140, a new baby probably. But they will draaaaagggg that one out too so we'll never really know when Di Jr was born.

by Anonymousreply 14106/01/2021

R140- They are either scared about something, what I do not know, or they FINALLY see that their whining and oversaturation of media has ruined them and made the public dislike them intensely. Did they just drop the planned follow-up mental health interview?

by Anonymousreply 14206/01/2021

R141- They will use the new baby as an excuse, but this is not like them at all, no matter what events take place the daily media PR hasn't stopped since they arrived here.

by Anonymousreply 14306/01/2021

Eta: Until now.

by Anonymousreply 14406/01/2021

Once the pandemic seems truly under control and Meghan has her figure back, they'll turn up very glamorously at some gala.

by Anonymousreply 14506/01/2021

R145- How will they do that when no one will invite them or want them there? It is now The Queen vs. Harry. If they are seen inviting Harry and Hag to events and supporting him, they will been understood to be with him and against the Queen. Harry has pushed it to this point. He is also seen as an elder abusing family blackmailer. Both of them are. No A Lister wants to be seen with them. They are poison.

by Anonymousreply 14606/01/2021

In dynastic struggles in the past where members of the royal family revolted against the crown it's usually ascribed to mere desire for power. I wonder if we've underplayed mental illness.

Anyway the early Hanovers ( the Georges) had a long tradition of sons pitting themselves against their fathers, setting up rival courts, befriending leaders of the parties out of power.

by Anonymousreply 14706/01/2021

Harry and Meghan will be invited to events they absolutely have to be invited to, such as the statue unveiling and family funerals. That way the BRF can't be accused of cutting them off entirely. They won't be invited to the more regular events like Trooping the Color, Ascot, Remembrance Day, etc.

by Anonymousreply 14806/01/2021

I could see them at LA events like Heal the Bay, etc.

by Anonymousreply 14906/01/2021

R142, do you mean the Town Hall? That aired and was discussed on this board.

by Anonymousreply 15006/01/2021

The Town Hall aired THREE DAYS ago. Pretty recent to claim they have "gone quiet." It was a holiday weekend. SS got a thread here deleted last night, they have not ceased their grasping.

by Anonymousreply 15106/01/2021

Is Meghan okay?

by Anonymousreply 15206/01/2021

For the start of Pride month: A reminder that William has long been a vocal ally of the LGBTQ+ community , whereas Harry has made a joke or two about "going gay" he's never really supported LGBTQ+ causes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15306/01/2021

R152, teacher says, every time that question gets asked, a publicist gets a leftover gift bag.

by Anonymousreply 15406/01/2021

R151- That thread got deleted bc of the number of active royal threads already posted. SS did not get jackshit deleted, lol.

by Anonymousreply 15506/01/2021

R152- one hopes not

by Anonymousreply 15606/01/2021

They have done it before, R155, the KGT boasts of it.

by Anonymousreply 15706/01/2021

The KGT is a racist liar and mentally defective and has a sick MN sexual fetish. Just block the sick fuck. It has screeched that the FBI are about to kick the doors down in our homes and throw us in Gitmo for daring to post about it's sexual fetish for 3 years now.

by Anonymousreply 15806/01/2021

R153, Harry's coming out as pan this month.

by Anonymousreply 15906/01/2021

Edit: MM. Mental defect.

by Anonymousreply 16006/01/2021

The KGT may even be the Hag. Only she is that thin skinned and delusional.

by Anonymousreply 16106/01/2021

Some things to mull over.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16206/01/2021

R138 - I agree. They've engaged in way too much bridge-burning ever to be front and centre again, including at the Queen's Platinum Juiblee - likely her last such celebration, and also likely to be quite a bit less extravagant than the Silver, Gold, and Diamond ones. The whole family would have to put on a game face so at odds with reality that it would be counterproductive.

It's over. And that was Meghan's Plan B all along: if they couldn't get their cherry-picked positions, there was, for her, nothing to be gained by playing nice any longer. In the absence of more practical gains, it was psychologically more to Meghan's advantage to see that Harry was completely cut off from his blood family.

The emotional revenge porn makes it clear that the BRF were no more use to Meghan or she'd have made Harry dial it back a bit. I don't think we're going to be getting any more "leaks" about how Meghan calls up the Queen regularly with Archie in tow so the Queen can get to know Archie.

Harry may still be getting his emotional rocks off by throwing his family under the bus, but for Meghan, everything is transactional. The BRF's sole remaining use is as the source for the titles her marriage got her.

It's clear from the BRF's frigid silence that there's nothing more either of them can get from Charles or the Queen. Hence the Full Speed Ahead emotional revenge porn.

And that has a limited shelf life.

by Anonymousreply 16306/01/2021

COAT OF ARMS OF HRH PRINCE WILLIAM:

"Prince William was granted a personal coat of arms on his 18th birthday. It is based on the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, with a white (or silver) label with three points, the centre point bearing a red clam shell (an "escallop"), to distinguish it from the arms of other members of the Royal Family. The escallop is drawn from the Spencer coat of arms, a reference to his mother, who was the daughter of the Earl Spencer.

Adopted 21 June 2000"

Helm Upon a coronet of the children of the Heir Apparent, the royal helm Or"

Yeah, William was born a commoner and only became "royal" the day he married another commoner.

by Anonymousreply 16406/01/2021

R163- So limited that it has already reached its expiration date, imo.

by Anonymousreply 16506/01/2021

The latest video from Lady Colin Campbell - was Meghan tried for a misdemeanor in 2001?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16606/01/2021

R166 there'd be records. And a tabloid would've dug them up.

by Anonymousreply 16706/01/2021

R167 - someone sent Lady C. a court document. Of course, there could be another Meghan Markle in California.

by Anonymousreply 16806/01/2021

We do not know what trf may have had scrubbed from the net for her. Drip, drip, drip. Tick tock, bitch.

by Anonymousreply 16906/01/2021

R168 but what are the odds that a tabloid wouldn't have dug that up? It's a juicy story

by Anonymousreply 17006/01/2021

Slightly different spelling, would take more digging to determine whether or not it is the same person.

by Anonymousreply 17106/01/2021

The slightly different spelling may be why it was missed. Perhaps there will be further investigation and clarification.

by Anonymousreply 17206/01/2021

The record, a copy of which was sent to Lady C by a viewer, listed the name as spelled "Megan Markle". So, Lady C is careful to mention that the person on the record could have been a different MM. The record was for Marin County.

by Anonymousreply 17306/01/2021

R3 has been here for five minutes, clearly. You sound like a deranged frau, dear. Now kindly fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 17406/01/2021

Lady C shows the document at the end of the video - the 47:48 mark.

by Anonymousreply 17506/01/2021

R174-- Shh! It's busy manifesting again.

by Anonymousreply 17606/01/2021

MMs real name is Rachel Meghan Markle so I dont think its the same person in the document

by Anonymousreply 17706/01/2021

I'm wondering if the Obamas may privately intervene with Harry. They've made their support for the Queen obvious. Harry and Meghan tried to ride their coatttails and it hasn't worked. They've gotten the brush-off. If the Obamas make public their disdain for Montecito Royalty, all their support goes down the drain.

by Anonymousreply 17806/01/2021

Gotta build the brand!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17906/01/2021

R179 "Hey bro, I know I've publicly insulted you, dad, our grandparents, your wife, your in-laws, basically everybody you care about except your kids but...can I get a photo op?"

by Anonymousreply 18006/01/2021

His wife insulted his kids.

by Anonymousreply 18106/01/2021

[quote] Have they been seen or heard lately? Isn't is strange that they have basically gone into hiding after assaulting us daily with media oversaturation? Anyone else find that as strange as I do?

Wish I could remember where I read this rumor: that Meghan has moved out of their mansion and is in some luxury hotel somewhere, after a big fight or break-up.

Could have been a comment on a tabloid site or message board or something - I dismissed it. But now that they're so quiet, I wonder...

by Anonymousreply 18206/01/2021

It could also be that she just had or is about to have Little Diana...

by Anonymousreply 18306/01/2021

Sure R182 Jan

by Anonymousreply 18406/01/2021

Yeah, I'm guessing she's either very gravid or newly post-partum. There will be a big publicity blitz in late June/early July to show off the new baby and coincide with the Diana statue unveiling. It's anybody's guess what their marquee event will be after those events--they've pretty much ridden the victim horse as far as it will go. Maybe the reality show?

by Anonymousreply 18506/01/2021

R183- You mean her surrogate is about to or has given birth? Lol. No way do I believe she is pregnant this time.

by Anonymousreply 18606/01/2021

Nah, she birthed both those kids. Harry's type is BIG on legit heirs of the body. He wouldn't be so attached and protective of her if she wouldn't even carry his babies.

by Anonymousreply 18706/01/2021

All the haters and anti-Sussex poster seem to forget just how unimportant Harry is being 6th in the line of succession.

by Anonymousreply 18806/01/2021

somebody should remind Harry himself of that.

by Anonymousreply 18906/01/2021

All the controversy around the birth of the children and the pregnancies was deliberately created by Dim, Duch and their team.

by Anonymousreply 19006/01/2021

They are hiding out in Montecito, obsessively scanning the press for “Where are Harry and Meghan?” headlines.

by Anonymousreply 19106/01/2021

Feminist Meghan is terrified she'll lose her titles. Allegedly "She's told Harry that they need to tone down the attacks on the royal family".....sure, sure, sure.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19206/01/2021

R192- Oh, classic narcissist behavior! Backtrack and blame everyone else!

by Anonymousreply 19306/01/2021

OMG now she's policing his speech (more than before)

Run, run, run, Harry. Go live with Andrew. The kids lives are hopeless and maybe she'll get sick of them and ship them over to you to deal with, IF you don't make it a custody battle.

by Anonymousreply 19406/01/2021

r191 I could well believe that!!

by Anonymousreply 19506/01/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19606/01/2021

r196 That was a brilliant read but some of the replies of Harry supporters are dumb and immature in the extreme.Both funny and frustrating to read the replies!

Thanks for posting!

by Anonymousreply 19706/01/2021

What I love about that article is that it scarcely mentions Meghan and then only ib passing.

by Anonymousreply 19806/01/2021

Megaloon looks like an acorn in that video in R196.

by Anonymousreply 19906/02/2021

R199 Oh. That's Meghan's now famous Dog Poop hat. A more controversial description at the time was a reference to a famous American candy by Hershey that comes in small bits. individually wrapped in shiny paper, whose name references an affectionate gesture. I will forbear naming the candy, as what Meghan looked like in the hat, as I would risk waking the KGT from her afternoon nap

by Anonymousreply 20006/02/2021

A megaloon journo turning on Dim? Hmmmm.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20106/02/2021

It appears this timeline may actually be in play with the exit being set up this spring. Time will tell.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20206/02/2021

From the Buzzfeed piece, our Megs is described as, "his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex" while the future Queen Consort is "Kate Middleton." Not subtle the Megaloons. But, it appears that Harry may be about to be Markled.

by Anonymousreply 20306/02/2021

The town hall broadcast generated little media coverage, wonder what is next for our Haz?

by Anonymousreply 20406/02/2021

R204, what town hall broadcast? So little interest, I haven’t even heard of it.

by Anonymousreply 20506/02/2021

R205, aired last Friday per this article

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20606/02/2021

I feel like Glenn Close made her image problems worse by participating in this sob fest.

by Anonymousreply 20706/02/2021

The Dangling Tendrils threads were so much fun. Since the ill advised " no one asked me if I was okay "speech, the threads have been angrier. Too bad, these two are perfect targets for satire since they take themselves so seriously and overestimate their importance. The DL book club thread in Finding Freedom was hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 20806/02/2021

I must have missed that one, R208, will search for a link.

Upcoming: arrival of Ariel, statue, FF update, Harry's book, ???

Likely: reality show, divorce

Am I missing anything?

by Anonymousreply 20906/02/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21006/02/2021

That house is so over-the-top beyond their station and means. Not saying they shouldn’t live well or securely, but for a couple at their stage of life it just looks vulgar, especially given their do-gooder aspirations.

by Anonymousreply 21106/02/2021

With increasing focus on theirs Harry told on the mental health broadcasts (just as happened on the first Oprah interview), Sussex spokespeople are coming out to officially "clarfy" Harry's complete rewrite of history, removing any mention of how William supported him in his emotional struggles, and shifting all the credit to Meghan.

They are so blinkered they can't even keep their stories straight. The clarifications sound so lame that they make Harry look even worse and William like Harry's victim.

Good God, don't these two ever learn from experience?

How effective could Harry's therapy have been if the outcome is to rewrite publicly stated fa ys zo he can get the boot into his brother and Simonize his wife?

Was it the Feel Better By Lying school of psycothetapy?!

by Anonymousreply 21206/02/2021

Follow the thread of influence of Agape in what they preach as well.

by Anonymousreply 21306/02/2021

^^*focus on the lies

R212

by Anonymousreply 21406/02/2021

I think the YT pontificators going on about the Narkles and US/UK relations are just short on material. The Narkles are irrelevant on that level. The US govt is not going to engage with them, expel them, etc. Ridiculous speculation by ladies making money off broadcasting from the spare bedroom.

by Anonymousreply 21506/02/2021

That’s right, there is money to be made from YouTube, isn’t there. Not everyone is Lady C, however.

by Anonymousreply 21606/02/2021

[quote]That house is so over-the-top beyond their station and means.

Just remember that the house is owned by a Russian oligarch, and things will become clearer.

by Anonymousreply 21706/02/2021

How ironic “native” and now they have found that his house in Cali is basically on an old Native American burial site

by Anonymousreply 21806/02/2021

This year will probably be the last one that they're of real interest to the public: They'll have shot their wad with the Oprah interview, the second baby, the FF re-release, the Apple TV show, etc. If they want to generate any interest after that, they'll have to go for a messy divorce. I don't even think a reality show will be of much interest since it will just be more of the same bullshit--LA charity events, shots of the Russian-owned house in Montecito, Harry whining about this family.

Nope, divorce is the only option. Look for that in 2022 or 2023.

by Anonymousreply 21906/02/2021

Don't see MeGAIN divorcing Dim unless she's sure she can make bank. Her child-support demands alone will be record setting.

by Anonymousreply 22006/02/2021

I thought they were putting together a doc that includes recordings they made. At least that was the rumor a few weeks ago.

by Anonymousreply 22106/02/2021

R172 or anyone who knows would not an arrest record use her legal name of Rachel?

by Anonymousreply 22206/02/2021

Mistakes are made, people give the name they go by, who knows, R222. Without further investigation there is absolutely no way to know if it is about our Megs or not. Probably not, but without investigation, cannot be 100% certain, can we?

by Anonymousreply 22306/02/2021

Every time the Brf fucks up you trolls come out and start commenting. Interesting that. There has been a lull in Meghan trolling. No Dlisted threads. No daily heil articles, no multiple anti Meghan Datalounge threads. It's been noticed. Very quiet this week. The Guardian just dropped an article that confirms that the BRF has a policy in place that bans coloreds and ethnic minorities from important Brf Staff positions. They can be house servants though. It's still active as of today. I've linked it. Now watch how vicious the anti Sussex trolls become starting today. Black twitter is going to be.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 22406/02/2021

Interesting that story came out about Meghan not wanting to lose her title and now there does seem to be some slight backtracking in their claims. Apparently Camp Sussex confirmed to BuzzFeed (after BuzzFeed posted a story questioning Harry's claims about not going to therapy until Meghan) that Harry actually did seek therapy over seven years ago after being encouraged by members of his family.

by Anonymousreply 22506/02/2021

Nothing interesting about that. Just more trying to make something out of nothing. The above article is what interesting. It's what's trending globally. If you look at a person and think that they are unemployable because they are ethnic then you are disgusting. It also backs up the Sussex claims that racism played a part in their treatment from the Brf. Go to twitter read the comments. People think it's absolutely disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 22606/02/2021

R224, that story is about the past (the 1960s, actually), not the present. Apparently, they did not want immigrants or foreigners working in the Palace, but that was dropped for immigrants long ago. The staff of the palaces is very integrated, as you can easily see when you go there. Also, take a look at the people who drive directly into the palace on their way to work -- you see more people of color in white collar jobs that you would in most British government offices. This is the Guardian trying to stir up anti-monarchical sentiment. The 1960s were half a century ago.

by Anonymousreply 22706/02/2021

"banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race."

Gee...the 1960s. What a shock.

by Anonymousreply 22806/02/2021

The "spokesperson" (Meghan's John Barron, anyone?) basically said that Harry was unable to find an effective therapist for years until he finally struck gold with her guidance. Imagine that, she's new to London but was able to navigate the psychotherapy community effectively to find just the right one for Harry. When the time came for Harry to return the favor and save her from the throes of suicidal ideation, he just stood around with arms dangling?

Do they not have enough awareness to realize they're twisting themselves into pretzels? Harry cant remember emphatic statements he made 5 years ago? Ay, ay, ay.

by Anonymousreply 22906/02/2021

From R202 link [quote] “The word among Prince Harry’s more suspicious friends is that Meghan wants two children from him,” the insider reveals, adding that Prince Harry’s “closest pals” are even afraid that Markle would “consider filing for divorce once the second baby is born.”

If they're really pals, they should be "afraid" that she WON'T file for divorce. The longer with a malignant narcissist, the worse the damage. He's really fucked up this time (to the point of no return?) At least Uncle Andrew knew how to have fun while he was fucking up - this one's a pathetic masochist who looks about as happy as a deathrow prisoner.

by Anonymousreply 23006/02/2021

r229, that is so well put.

by Anonymousreply 23106/02/2021

R223 That story was not about Meghan, someone on LSA whose husband is a lawyer found the record and the woman was born in 1961 or the case was 1961. I despise Meghan and it would have been juicy, but Lady C should be flogged for even putting that out there without doing everything she could to research it. It totally undermines her already questionable credibility.

Meghan may be a vicious cunt, but that doesn't excuse this kind of outrageous attempt to smear. Yes. I know she issued a disclaimer first that there was no proof it was our own dear Megs, but Lady C should know how that kind of thing gets legs and runs away.

Gossip is one thing. This. In my view, goes beyond it.

by Anonymousreply 23206/02/2021

R232 and let's be real, the world media has been digging into her past since she snagged Harry. But only this old cunt found the record? SUUUURE.

by Anonymousreply 23306/02/2021

You were bemoaning the QUIET? Hardly.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23406/02/2021

Another

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23506/02/2021

Yet more

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23606/02/2021

Still more

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23706/02/2021

Was this ever discussed? Not only does he abuse animals, but this is longstanding elder abuse of frail people in their 90s. Disgusting.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23806/02/2021

According to Scobie’s source, Meghan wrote,

...Scobie's source IS Meghan

by Anonymousreply 23906/02/2021

A lot of banning went on 50+ years ago. Not just racial minorities but women. Women didn’t get the right to vote in federal elections in Switzerland until 1971. But I don’t see the Guardian or Twitter SJWs haranguing Switzerland for being misogynistic. There are also American institutions which banned outright or indirectly racial minorities, but times have changed for the better. What’s the point of dredging up 50+ years ago and applying past institutional wrongs to private people associated with said institutions? It’s called reaching, and it trivializes real challenges in equality that still need to be accomplished today.

by Anonymousreply 24006/02/2021

What exactly did Scooby Don't do to her face? It's so...off.

by Anonymousreply 24106/02/2021

R240 does MegStan think black people were working in the White House in the 60s beyond domestic staff? I recall the controversy LBJ created when he hired a black secretary. No black person had ever worked for a President before as anything other than a servant.

by Anonymousreply 24206/02/2021

R236 it's funny seeing Meghan defended by women who could NEVER pass for white or latina like she does

by Anonymousreply 24306/02/2021

r220 But he may choose to divorce her...

by Anonymousreply 24406/02/2021

r223 I think the Megan Markle misdemeanour thing brought up as a possibility by Lady C more serves as a warning shot that there is real dirt of substance that could be revealed. The Megan concerned in the Lady C video is probably in all likelihood not her but I believe it is a response to attempts or threats by Meghan and 4to blackmail the royal family. A remainder if they want to use those tactics that they are not the only ones with top or ace cards to play. Lady C is well sourced and in the know and there is definitely more serious stuff going on in the background.

by Anonymousreply 24506/02/2021

R245 why the fuck would they go through a nobody fake aristocrat and not leak something credible through a reputable tabloid?

by Anonymousreply 24606/02/2021

Shocker!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24706/02/2021

r246 Tabloids are easier to dismiss

by Anonymousreply 24806/02/2021

R248 I said reputable. And yes, MUCH easier to dismiss than some random old hag

by Anonymousreply 24906/02/2021

She has written several books on the royal family, it is not like she is some rando in his mother's basement, R249.

In the interview of the 3 of them, above, Charles relates an anecdote where he was knocked unconscious playing polo and Harry joked "papa is snoring." Reminded me of that tiem at Trooping when the elderly man passed out and fell off his horse, landing on his head on the pavement. Catherine looked horrified, Meg and Dim both laughed. Sociopathy will out.

by Anonymousreply 25006/02/2021

r249 It's a subtle tactic not a wallop you in the face tactic.

by Anonymousreply 25106/02/2021

Exactly, R251, and it is now being covered by the tabs in a will he or won't he series of stories, so, full circle.

by Anonymousreply 25206/02/2021

The email bit is quite amusing given that it totally omits to mention that Kate was barely two weeks out of giving birth in the week before the wedding and shouldn't even have been involved but had no choice.

My guess is that this is being leaked now partly to counteract what turned out to be a great deal of blowback toward Harry's performance on Appletv.

Here comes Meghan the victim again.

It's alsova naked attempt to get ahead of the staff bullying story, and paint the Palace as willing to see Meghan smeared by the press.

The Palace of course was right: once they get into "correcting" every piece of bile the tabloids vomit up, they'll be doing nothing else.

by Anonymousreply 25306/02/2021

This was a review from the 2nd to last poster in DL Book Club thread about Finding Freedom. Oh, how this has been plotted and mapped out for so long and *yet* they manage fumble the execution so, so amateurishly and badly.

[Quote]Meghan is FANTASTIC, amazing at everything she is and does. Harry is a supporting player - always either frustrated, angry, or otherwise emotional. The Royal Family don't give them no respect, and leave the couple perpetually "bruised and vulnerable." The end.

At least Meghan is setting up the narrative of Harry's emotional lability and gotten him to admit actual (not threatened) self-destructive behavior that the Palace had succeeded in covering up. This is the only ammo she'd need for a divorce besides a few of her diary entries and statements from Doria and Markus regarding current drug or alcohol abuse. The RF does not want a protracted court battle in CA that will rival the Jolie-Pitt proceedings. Settlement with NDA. One way or another the family is going to pay for Harry's poor judgement. This is stellar gaslighting.

by Anonymousreply 25406/02/2021

Great post, R254.

From the vid of Charles with his 2 sons the sense that Harry has always been the problem child is strong. Charles actually seemed more patient with him than Diana. Shame there was not better intervention for learning disabilities and emotional regulation issues when he was young, the low self esteem and lashing out in anger have been there all his life. He may now be misled to beleve his family somehow DESERVED that reaction but a lot is neurological and kind of snowballs. Even the stories of constant fights in school are very typical. He was in an ideal situation to cover for his weaknesses, but those bridges are ash now.

by Anonymousreply 25506/02/2021

It's been well documented that William was both Charles AND Diana's favourite. Diana even stated that William was her only true friend. Harry was a handful even before Diana died, but I think her death tipped him over the edge.

by Anonymousreply 25606/02/2021

Diana favored William who looked just like her. Harry was the ugly duckling she ignored.

by Anonymousreply 25706/02/2021

I’m all for unearthing truths about Megaloon, but, if it indeed IS her on the court docket info that Lady C brought up in her recent video, who the HECK cares about a Misdemeanor!! Plenty of people get those. Isn’t it a misdemeanor even when I get a speeding ticket?!

by Anonymousreply 25806/02/2021

[quote]Go to twitter read the comments. People think it's absolutely disgusting.

Most of us don't live on Twitter dear. And aren't influenced by the endless jabber-jawing that goes on there. We don't care.

by Anonymousreply 25906/02/2021

Am I the only person to take a few minutes and try to find that record on that court's online database? I couldn't find it. Don't know if it ever was or that it has been deleted.

by Anonymousreply 26006/02/2021

R258, maybe it was for something more interesting than a speeding ticket. Hopefully someone will do some sleuthing and share with the class. May need to be researched at the court since it is that old.

by Anonymousreply 26106/02/2021

[quote]Hopefully someone will do some sleuthing

This sounds like a good case for the Hardly Boys! The Duchess and the Mysterious Misdemeanor.

by Anonymousreply 26206/02/2021

Found this on LSA, prob not our Rach.

"I live in Marin County and my husband is an attorney and I made him look it up. It’s case number CR119545A. It’s under a lady named MEGAN Markle and was born May 1961. Recent address is from Yolo County. Sorry, ladies. Though it would’ve been juicy…I was disappointed…bummer"

by Anonymousreply 26306/02/2021

If they divorce , what does Meghan even have to gain ? Harry is rich but he isn't filthy rich . He doesn't own any property except their shared Montecito mansion and who knows how much money is even left from his inheritance.

by Anonymousreply 26406/02/2021

R250 That was the moment it became completely clean H and M were garbage covered in glitter.

by Anonymousreply 26506/02/2021

[quote] If they divorce , what does Meghan even have to gain ?

If she's what I think she is - she'll order him to do something, he'll refuse, and she'll get furious and start divorce proceedings as revenge. Then she'll start with her next victim, if she hasn't already, at that point. Movie star? Moneybags techie?

Narcissists/sociopaths get bored very easily and crave chaos and excitement. Anything to stir the tabloids up, get attention, get a lot of people upset, rince repeat...

by Anonymousreply 26606/02/2021

* rinse

And would you want to be stuck with boring dimwit Harry?

by Anonymousreply 26706/02/2021

Meghan won't jump until she has another, richer prospect. She knows that if she and Harry were to divorce now, the public would lose interest in her quickly. She's nothing without a higher-status man, and she's jumped up the ladder from man to man all her life. Who knows if she'll be able to leap up another rung--she's 40 soon and has two kids. Maybe some aspie tech billionaire she can control and use to fund her 'charitable' efforts.

by Anonymousreply 26806/02/2021

She's pushing 40, will have 2 kids, and is completely incapable of not talking to the press. What rich man would want her? Most of them value their privacy.

by Anonymousreply 26906/02/2021

The way it shies away from him, wonder if he has been abusive to it in the past as he has been with other polo ponies? And remember the story of dark triad Meg leaving a dog in Canada b/c it did not like Haz? They do say that animals are good judges of character after all...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27006/02/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27106/02/2021

[quote]However, the insider claimed Harry had included only himself in his request to be part of the momentous occasion. They said the duke's wish meant royal staff are having to grapple with how to incorporate the former working royal into the agenda. An insider said: “Harry wants to be there. It is already causing a headache and is going to be very awkward. “Where will they be positioned if they turn up? What events can they attend?

There seems to be a really simple solution to the dilemma explained in that Express article above. Harry gets to go to the same Jubilee events that non-working Royal family members do. He sits in the back with Zara and Mike and Peter and the like. Anything that's just the working royals he is excluded from. If they don't want Harry on the balcony, only put the Queen, Charles, Camilla, Kate, William, Anne, Edward, and Sophie on the balcony. No non-working royals need apply. Problem solved.

by Anonymousreply 27206/02/2021

Oprah better keep her eye on Steadman or Meghan will have him too.

by Anonymousreply 27306/02/2021

Nah, Steadman's black. Meghan only goes for white guys.

by Anonymousreply 27406/02/2021

Sorry, the Express article I was talking about was linked on the other BRF thread:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27506/02/2021

The tabs have sure got a lot of use out of those pics of Meghan in the green Dynasty villain get-up, haven't they?

by Anonymousreply 27606/02/2021

'What you have done sir is quite frankly despicable': An open letter to Prince Harry

Sir, I am an ordinary citizen of the United Kingdom, a loyal and patriotic subject of Her Majesty the Queen of England.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27706/02/2021

That letter is fantastic. I love it. Harry is a piece of shit. Never mind not coming back from this with his family, I don’t know how he can ever come back from this with the general public. He is more loathed with the passage of every week. Imagine what his reputation will be a year from now.

His only hope is a grovelling apology tour after the divorce and he has dumped the potato children.

by Anonymousreply 27806/02/2021

Meghan's a borderline and like her sister borderline Angelina Jolie - that divorce will be toxic. But she won't remarry - she'd lose her title. And at 40+ she's no billionaire's idea of a trophy wife.

It will be the law of diminishing returns for her.

by Anonymousreply 27906/02/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28006/03/2021

The letter at R277 really says it well. People are done with the Narkles, it did not take long. Go away now.

by Anonymousreply 28106/03/2021

If the Queen actually yanked his titles, how would the BRF actually enforce that? Do they send men in gray suits to beat Harry up if he doesn’t comply?

by Anonymousreply 28206/03/2021

Exactly, R282 and they do not comply with anything. It is a childish desire for the grownups to hold naughty Haz accountable, overly simplistic, and as you point out, likely unworkable IRL.

The petition to ask HARRY to ask for ALL his titles to be put in abeyance is a PR tactic that may yet bear fruit.

by Anonymousreply 28306/03/2021

If he doesn't comply r282, the main outcome will be total ridicule of him, for using titles and honors that he no longer has.

It's akin to going around calling yourself "John Jones", when in fact you were born and named "John Brown". You can call yourself whatever you wish, but it doesn't make it true or official.

r283: the Queen can remove his HRH honorific and princely title anytime she wishes, it's her sole right to do so. Wish I could say the same re the Sussex dukedom, as that's a greyer area. That may take some outside help or support.

by Anonymousreply 28406/03/2021

R256 If indeed Diana called William "my only true friend", then she was a shite Mum who exploited a vulnerable son. A child isn't supposed to be Mum's best friend; the Mum is supposed to be the child's protector and reflector.

It is emblematic of how cruel family members are to each other: Diana made her young son her emotional support and therefore made her younger son feel less than; but it's Diana who is lauded as the "affectionate hand's-on Mum" and Charles who is pilloried as a parent.

It is ironic that it's Harry who idoloises this not only far from perfect, but in some ways actively destructive, needy mother, and vilifies the father who was probably helpless to counteract Diana's failings and doomed to lose in the highly manipulated court of public opinion.

And there Harry is, continuing his mother's war against his father without the slightest vestige of understanding that the real story is more complex and nuanced, still angry at his brother for something William is not responsible for, enmeshed in a web of anger, retribution, and clearly unable to stop himself.

In Alice Miller's book "The Drama of the Gifted Child and the Search for the Self", she wrote (paraphrasing somewhat here) that for many, in adulthood, they think that by changing the title, the venue, the cast, etc., they can change the play - but when the curtain goes up, the same psychological props are visible onstage. In this case, the Sainted Mum, the Uncaring Dad, the Preferred Brother, the Neglected Me.

That's what we're seeing here. Meghan was just the catalyst, not for real emotional change, but to externalise the old drama for the world to see, demanding pity, sympathy, and retribution for the unfairness of it all - a rage still rooted in adolescence that Harry simply cannot find his way out of. He won't get real help from his wife, because it is in her interest to keep that rage alive.

Very few people have the guts finally not only to change out the props, but to close the theatre.

The Express has a piece up about citing statements by Cressida Bonas that eventually it became clear to her that Harry was an angry and damaged man, and that he ranted about the press and the paps even when they weren't there.

I can just imagine what it was like being with him as Harry got older. Meghan must have zeroed in on the mental bullseye on his back like an Olympic level archer.

Chelsy probably got the best of Harry, when he was still capable of fun and youthful romance could offset his simmering rage.

by Anonymousreply 28506/03/2021

Ridiculing him/them, as is, without giving grist to their victimhood, seems to be working just fine.

by Anonymousreply 28606/03/2021

Grasping like the Narkles, R284, is not going to spur action by any govt or the BRF. The current situation is working in their favor. No one thinks Dim is a threat to international relations but people trying to monetize their YT channels.

by Anonymousreply 28706/03/2021

No one need take any action for Haz's hypocrisy to be on full display. The BRF has gotten on with their "work" as have the US and UK governments. Haz is humiliating himself just fine w/o anyone lowering themselves to his level.

I do think this is who he is and always has been. The papa's snoring comment when his older father was knocked unconscious is that of a sociopath who feels no true bond or affection for other humans. He and his wife are a pair that way. Harry has always been a problem, but, now, by his own actions, less and less of one, except on a familial level. And their love for him seems to have sparked no human feeling in return. Some people are like that, the Eskimos push them out on ice as they are dangerous in human society.

by Anonymousreply 28806/03/2021

r287 It wasn't grasping they said was a threat but attempting blackmail from possible covert recordings.

by Anonymousreply 28906/03/2021

That has been known about for quite some time, R289, Meghan was caught recording in more than one family home. The documentary will be dealt with. Separate issue than the titles. They have openly attempted to extort the family for months now, sky has not fallen yet. The BRF has done well by taking the high road. No govt takes Haz & wife seriously. The drama around that is to drive YT links and clicks on opinion pieces. His irrelevance becomes more clear all the time. Don't interrupt your enemy when he is destroying himself or words to that effect.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29006/03/2021

I always thought Mark Dyer was Harry's real dad. Especially with how 'close' they are. Harry's godfath. to one of Dyer's kids. Dyer godfath. to Archie. Dyer first person he introduced Meghan to.

Thought it was kind & loving for Charles who felt loads of guilt about the Diana mess, to allow this, even to encourage this closeness.

Thou' still might be James Hewitt. OK, so he wasn't 'assigned' to palace till after Harry was born. Diana tipped out with Freddie Mercury to gay clubs. If she pulled that off she could have seen Hewitt before he came to the palace.& said..umm let me get some of that & 'torn off a piece', then got dickmatized & got him assigned so she could get some more.

Just in case you haven't noticed..Women can be sluts & love dick. Duhh..who invented the 'oldest profession in the world'

All this the Spencer's are ginger, shite. The ginger sister looks like heavy hand on the Henna, ala I Love Lucy. Brother was ginger & now'isn't'.?? Faded. Rrright Harry's still ginger, it hasn't faded. And puhlease w. Strawberry blonde of Diana, William's kids..They're blonde, different shades in different light of the photo.

And stop w. all this. "He looks more & more like Charles, Pphilip as he ages. Next up, I'm waiting for the apologists to say how much he looks like Henry8, so he MUST be Charles son.

Of course Harry got bullied over the obvious...anyone w. eyes & a brain know he isn't of Charles.

by Anonymousreply 29106/03/2021

Savage Queen 1 week ago he turned mental health into mental wealth. i don't believe a word he says

by Anonymousreply 29206/03/2021

Harry has been the family fuck up all his life. Anyone paying attention could see it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29306/03/2021

Harry has always lived like his mother was doing in her last year. The only difference now is excellent PR is no longer deflecting. This may not end well. Might go better if he focused on character development and growing up rather than blaming all around him for his life frustrations and life long tantrums and displays of anger, before his parents split, before his mother died, this was who he was.

by Anonymousreply 29406/03/2021

R291, do you REALLY think there has been no paternity tests performed? Of course the BRF has made sure Harry is Charles's spawn. The redhead gene runs in the Spencer family, and, despite to a much lesser extent, in the Windsor family as well. Prince Harry having ginger hair is nothing but simple genetics, there's no need for a ginger bloke having fathered him.

And like it or not, Prince George is strawberry blonde. So was Diana - although to a lesser extent than her first grandchild, before she started to hit the dye bottle. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 29506/03/2021

Even Kate has said George's hair is strawberry blonde.

I guess his mother does know better than some random bloke aka R291.

by Anonymousreply 29606/03/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29706/03/2021

Of course the RF know Harry isn't of Charles. They weren't & aren't going to say anything. He was born of a legal marriage. She was legally married to Charles when he was born. She wasn't married to Henry8, so no off w. 'er head. Plus w. all the 'Diana Screams' after her death(that this site keeps churning out) that had to forever keep mum.

Strawberry Blonde ain't ginger. Harry is FULL ging. Not ish, sorta, kinda.

Where is full ging in Spencers or Windsors. And don't show me the pics of Diana sis who thinks Lucille Ball Red is the way to go.

by Anonymousreply 29806/03/2021

Harry resembles Charles - strongly in many shots and as he ages. He is definitely a full blood Windsor and there is 0% chance Diana would have been having unprotected/potential baby-making sex with anyone other than her husband at that stage of their marriage. She would have understood what a life-destroying scandal (for herself and her baby) would have been. Nope, Harry is Charles' kid.

by Anonymousreply 29906/03/2021

Please stop waffling R298, educate yourself when it comes to genetics.

You don't need a redhaired father to end up with a redhaired child - the redhead gene needs to run in BOTH families to result in a child having red hair as the redhead gene is a recessive one.

by Anonymousreply 30006/03/2021

[quote]Meghan was just the catalyst, not for real emotional change, but to externalise the old drama for the world to see, demanding pity, sympathy, and retribution for the unfairness of it all - a rage still rooted in adolescence that Harry simply cannot find his way out of. He won't get real help from his wife, because it is in her interest to keep that rage alive.

Excellent post R285 - and you hit on one of the real, tragic (for Harry and Meghan) truths of this situation at the end there. It won't get better for either of them, because both, for their own psychological reasons, actually NEED the other one to stay in their fucked up place. It's the only way they (each of them) can keep getting the screwed up emotional sustenance they crave from their spouses - it's also what attracted them to each other in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 30106/03/2021

Harry is the spitting image of a young Philip and as Harry ages he resembles Charles more and more.

by Anonymousreply 30206/03/2021

Some speculated that it was an arranged PR rx aimed at damage control and image repair, R285. Neither seemed all that attached. Harry has been angry and mental since he was a tiny child. Those problems do not magically fix themselves with age, esp when substances sub in for emotional regulation skills.

As an attendee at his well paid corp speech said, Haz was like an old drunk at the end of the bar rambling to anyone in earshot about how everyone in his life done him wrong. Easy to see how his career in corp speaking (one where Bruce Jenner made a fortune) did NOT take off.

by Anonymousreply 30306/03/2021

The latest video from Lady Colin Campbell.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30406/03/2021

What I find very interesting is that for a female celeb, MM has zero sex appeal. Even her fans who think she is beautiful, never ever express sexual thoughts or interest in her. And from day one, MM has had topless beach photos taken with some female friends and absolutely nobody talks or speculates about them Even though they are easily available online. Even for people who think she has a pretty face, she seems to be unfuckable. The only interest in her sexual history is insofar as it goes with the social climbing story.

Her hamburger sexy commercial is grotesquely unsexy and embarrassing,

What I find puzzling about those who like her is that they can’t see what a mean-looking face she very often has, with obviously fake smiles and unkind eyes. She has a pretty face, but she is obviously mean and you can even see it in still photography.

by Anonymousreply 30506/03/2021

[quote]Even her fans

Even her Bots

by Anonymousreply 30606/03/2021

R305 - correct. She is attractive and pretty but there is something off about her that makes her not sexy. She cant suck dick either if this video is real (it may be, look at the long bunion-y feet).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30706/03/2021

River has a winning personality

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30806/03/2021

Full ging?

Lady Sarah Spencer.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30906/03/2021

How fucking dare you call her hamburger promo video unsexy! She sucked her fingers to perfection!

by Anonymousreply 31006/03/2021

She was suggestively waving a hamburger around as if she was about to fuck it. I'm guessing this was her generic Carl's Jr ad.

by Anonymousreply 31106/03/2021

R307, I don’t think that’s MM. But I agree, whoever it is, she’s inept at giving a bj.

by Anonymousreply 31206/03/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31306/04/2021

Most who are not hired bots agree

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31406/04/2021

She isn't sexy because as with everything else she puts out (so to speak), her sex vibe presents as manufactured and studied. That might work for third-porn, but the difference between actors who can do sex onscreen is exactly that.

She's just not a good enough actress to hide the endless calculations.

And nothing is less sexually compelling than a human calculating machine.

by Anonymousreply 31506/04/2021

Yikes R298 that you think you need a parent to have a certain feature, for kids to have said features 🤦🏻‍♂️ He has red hair for the same reasons brown eyed parents can have blue eyed children: just the presence of recessive genes are needed. Your logic reminds me of those delusional parentage battles on trashy talk shows "those aren't my [features]!" (Yeah, but only need to be in the family line once!) Just like black parents having a white baby, or white parents having a black baby, all because ONE instance of interracial mixing in their ancestral history.

Learn something about genetics; it can be interesting: "The gene for red hair is recessive, so a person needs two copies of that gene for it to show up or be expressed. That means even if both parents carry the gene, just 1:4 of their children are likely to turn out to be a redhead. AS A RESULT, FAMILIES WITH NO REHEADS FOR DECADES CAN SUDDENLY DISCOVER A CARROTTOP IN THEIR MIDST. Families can carry a variant for generations, and when one carrier has children with another carrier, A REDHEADED BABY CAN APPEAR SEEMINGLY OUT OF NOWHERE." Wilson said."

Meaning if both parents had EVEN ONE REDHEAD amongst their ancestors, they have a chance at having redhead offspring. It could be just 1 great great great, etc grandparent the parents had.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31606/04/2021

As far as shading goes R298, that's not any indication of what shade will be passed down either. A different red being present in other relatives, wont necessarily indicate shade in other members. Having the MC1R gene, is having the MC1R gene, regardless of what shade.

Even if you don’t have red hair, you can pass down red hair! Since red hair is recessive, you could carry instructions for making it in your DNA -- aka a carrier. Carriers don’t have to have red hair to pass it along. If you have red in your family, there's a good chance you are a carrier.

It turns out THERE ISN'T JUST 1 GENE that controls hair color. Hair gets its color from a type of pigment, called melanin. You have two types of melanin in your hair: eumelanin and pheomelanin. Eumelanin is a brown pigment. It colors hair and skin shades of brown and is responsible for skin tanning. On the other hand, pheomelanin has a reddish color and is present in the lips, nipples and genitals.

All humans have small amounts of pheomelanin in their hair. But if there’s a lot of eumelanin, THE BROWN PIGMENT CAN DROWN OUT RED COLORING [i.e., Diana's sister, still a MC1R carrier!]. However, if someone has very little to no eumelanin, their hair appears red. The lack of eumelanin also causes fair skin. SHADE ALL DEPENDS ON COMBOS of eumelanin and pheomelanin, each redheaded person has.

Skin and hair color depend on many diff. genes working together. There are DOZENS OF GENES KNOWN TO AFFECT HAIR COLOR and HUNDREDS of genes for skin color. If that wasn’t enough, there are some EXTERNAL FACTORS that can change the way genes work. Hormones can cause blonde hair to get darker as children get older. Some other factors can lead the hair color to fade, including stress, sunlight, smoking, a poor diet… All of that means that EVEN IF 2 PEOPLE HAVE THE EXACT SAME COMBO OF GENES... THEY MIGHT STILL HAVE DIFFERENT HAIR COLOR!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31706/04/2021

I think that petition was created with the full understanding that the outcome wouldn't actually be have the titles removed, rather than point out his absolute hypocrisy in still wanting to use them.

by Anonymousreply 31806/04/2021

Meghan gifts her children's book to a pal and he plugs it on Instagram. That's how it's done.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31906/04/2021

'Meghan Markle, 39' - ha!

by Anonymousreply 32006/04/2021

Jan Moir on the bandwagon the Harkles launched so they could market their revenge porn.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32106/04/2021

Dr. Ramani, psychologist and YTer who posts daily videos about narcissism now has a disclaimer on her channel that states her videos should not be linked or re-posted to support allegations that any particular person is a narcissist.

I wonder if her videos were being constantly linked in MegaPain and Haz articles, LOL.

Her video today is: "Hope dies last in narcissistic relationships".

by Anonymousreply 32206/04/2021

Heartily agree with Jan Moir. The reckless discussions of suicide but not interventions, even in the context of a pregnant woman, are so irresponsible by Oprah, Harry and Meghan. There was not even a hotline number provided, as I understand Oprah has provided in the past. Normalizing, and almost glamorizing and a bit trivializing of a very serious topic. What should be promoted is resilience and the benefits of MAINTAINED social relationships with other flawed humans.

by Anonymousreply 32306/04/2021

If there ARE “secret tapes and recordings” by the Dim Duo, wouldn’t their release be seen as a grave issue of British national security?! This would be seen as espionage against the State. Very serious issue.

by Anonymousreply 32406/04/2021

Huge security issues posed with private residences made public as well.

by Anonymousreply 32506/04/2021

If I bumped into Harry in the fruit and vegetables section at some California supermarket …would I be meeting English Royalty …..or has he lost his credentials?

by Anonymousreply 32606/04/2021

Wait, I thought that they were "manifesting" an appearance with the spawn on the balcony at the Jubilee?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32706/04/2021

She doesn't have secret recordings and videos. That's another of the stories she and her PR circulated to see if they could scare the BRF into giving the Montecito Medusa whatever she wanted.

She has good lawyers. They'll be the first to tell her that she'd land in court and LOSE so fast it would make her dizzy AND give the BRF the right to take every last vestige of styles and titles the Harkles had left as well as take whatever money they'd earned in damages. It would make the ANL v. Sussex case look like moot court by comparison. They'd be pariahs in the entertainment industry and Netflix and Spotify and Oprah and Gayle and just possibly even Scobie (if his little cock survived the journey behind dragged behind Meg's wagon) would run for cover.

What is it likely she got: inane convos at Louis' christening, on the balcony twice at the Trooping the Colour, or the Christmas Walk at Sandringham?! Do you really suppose they'd let anything drop around her? She probably never set foot in Clarence House, and we know they never went to Balmoral, Meghan ended that the first summer after their marriage.

She was up at Sandringham exactly twice, and at BP all she did was hang out with the others behind the glass doors before they all went out on the balcony, which she did exactly three times: the RAF 100th anniversary (where she wore that absurd Rich Widow dress clearly thinking she looked like Audrey Hepburn in "Sabrina" in it), and two Trooping the Colours.

Where do you think she hid her "recording device"?

Don't tell me: her vadge.

by Anonymousreply 32806/04/2021

If she has recordings, it makes her look like she was spying on her in-laws which is downright creepy.

If any of Harry's relatives asked what any future progeniture might look like, they were probably thinking Meghan could breed that redhead gene out of his descendants.

by Anonymousreply 32906/04/2021

Look at them and look at her: she looks like she's dressed for a funeral or secret afternoon cocktails with her lothario lover.

She might as well have hung a sign around her neck: "I have no intention of fitting in, fuck 'em."

Note how polite everyone was to her, though. Ohhhhhh, she was just soooooooo badly mistreated.

That was a Dior by the way. And as it was "bespoke" there wasn't a price listed.

Oh poor Meghan, they just treated her sooooooooooooooo badly!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33006/04/2021

R328, it has been reported for some time that she took photos at CH and AH and of the children. I believe she was even caught doing so at CH before the wedding.

by Anonymousreply 33106/04/2021

I imagine she used her phone, not a "secret pen" or some such. There were articles in the past about her doing so. So, if she took photos in private areas, audio recordings are certainly possible. Whether a doc would be released or blocked remains to be seen.

by Anonymousreply 33206/04/2021

Even if they somehow managed to get it released (or leaked, more likely), it would ruin the Sussexes. Secretly recording your new family members and then weaponizing the footage later is creepy and abusive. The general public, already sick of them, would turn on them en masse.

by Anonymousreply 33306/04/2021

They’re just telling their truth. So brave.

by Anonymousreply 33406/04/2021

She was caught red handed trying to take pictures of one if the Cambridge children ON HER VERY FIRST VISIT! Imagine! Does anyone think a member of trf ever said one word of anything important in her direction after that? They nothing. Nada. Zilch.

by Anonymousreply 33506/04/2021

R106, I got a sense that it was timing. when he was available she was involved with someone and vice versa. They get along very well and she's good with his children and grandchildren. Despite the public hatred stirred up by Diana, the royal family got along well with her. If there had not been some strong connection, she would not have stuck around so long. She had other option and she was constantly harangued in the press.

by Anonymousreply 33606/04/2021

Camilla is quite marvelous.

by Anonymousreply 33706/04/2021

If Harry had had any sense, the incident with taking pictures of the Cambridge children would have been the end of his relationship with Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 33806/04/2021

They only objected to the photos because she's a black woman!

by Anonymousreply 33906/04/2021

That must be it!

by Anonymousreply 34006/04/2021

Wait, one of the Yorks had to delete an Insta post of a private area of her father's home, security reasons and all. But, she's WHITE. Sorry, Haz, your theory/go to excuse does not hold up.

by Anonymousreply 34106/04/2021

When my niece was a baby, my sister was trying to hire a babysitter to come in and help while my sister worked from home.

She hired one young woman who on her very first day took a picture of my niece sleeping snd posted it on her Facebook page. We only found out because a family friend happened to be facebook friends with the woman.

And she did this shit WHILE MY SISTER WAS THERE IN THE HOUSE! What the hell goes on when the parents aren’t around?

Anyway, it was quite eye-opening for her to realize just how little common sense and basic manners some people have.

I’m sure MM is similar. Probably has no idea what constitutes basic manners and consideration. Hence, the photos.

by Anonymousreply 34206/04/2021

Um, well, my family objected to the photos because my wife reminds everyone of my mother! And they want her dead! Yeah, that’s it.

by Anonymousreply 34306/04/2021

No, R342, that was not her reason.

by Anonymousreply 34406/04/2021

R246, reputable tabloid is an oxymoron. She is no less credible than the tabloids.

by Anonymousreply 34506/04/2021

She planned to sell the pics. Duh.

by Anonymousreply 34606/04/2021

Yes, R346. And also perhaps to use in a future plot like the threatened documentary.

by Anonymousreply 34706/04/2021

Chelsy and Cressida knew why they didn't want to marry Harry. La Markle was the only one venal enough to want to exploit a dumb mental patient to get famous and rich.

by Anonymousreply 34806/04/2021

Harry is both dumb and mental but he was far from kind or charitable re: his family, well before she was on the scene. She was what he was looking for.

by Anonymousreply 34906/04/2021

I now think Harry was complicit in everything she did, including the attempt to take those pictures of the Cambridge child. ( I do not remember which child it was) He literally hates those children. Harry is a slithering viper. Incapable of love and loyalty, much less gratitude. A vicious, disgusting excuse for a man. Trf will justifiably never take him back, unless it is to hide him away for life on a distant property, never allowing him into their inner sanctum again.

by Anonymousreply 35006/04/2021

The photographer, Gray Malin, who promoted the bench book... is also a Sunshine Sachs client.

What a surprise.

by Anonymousreply 35106/04/2021

R351 Well, there you go. I see from the Mail article that she’s still doing that adolescent “calligraphy.” Surprised she doesn’t dot her i’s with little hearts.

by Anonymousreply 35206/04/2021

She is reduced to giving her sickening book away as certainly no one will buy it. She markled the publishing company as well. This bitch has some dark aura that follows her and by extension everything she touches. Evil. Everyone of her photos has a dark aura about them. She can be photographed in blindingly bright sunshiny weather and everyone else's image/picture will look bright, but not morticia. She will be the lone dark one everytime. Bitch is cursed. If I were Orca Whale I would be burning sage, bathing in Holy Water, and rushing off to a religious retreat.

by Anonymousreply 35306/04/2021

R353, it really is uncanny, how everything she touches turns to shit. And their timing is always off.

by Anonymousreply 35406/04/2021

R353, post of the day

R354, 1st runner up

by Anonymousreply 35506/04/2021

She’s got photos, I’m sure. She spent time at Clarence House pre-wedding although not overnight. She may sit on them for a few decades. Reminds me of the photos taken by Paul Burrell of Diana’s apartment at KP. It was dark outside the windows so he was clearly sneaking around right after she died. I’m sure he has photos of Diana’s bed, the bath, etc. but he wouldn’t dare release them.

by Anonymousreply 35606/04/2021

R354- We have posting about people who get involved with her being " markled" for two years as a joke, but damn! Everyone of them have been. What are the odds of that?

by Anonymousreply 35706/04/2021

R356- I remember reading his book and he described sitting all night with her body when she was brought back from Paris. It was so very creepy. He described taking to her, the flowers, candles around the casket in such detail that the thought hit me that he took photos of her. Honestly, he hit such a disturbing level that it wouldn't surprise if he did more than that. He was obsessed. Could he have being fantasizing? Was he really allowed to sit alone with her body for a full night?

by Anonymousreply 35806/04/2021

I loathe her. Can anyone link to a story actually claiming or asserting she took photos? Believe me, I can't wait til she's back in the discredited obscurity she so richly deserves, but fair is fair. I think the she took pictures stuff is internet legend. She's bad enough in truth without making shit up.

I cannot believe I'm trying to be fair Megalomaniac Markle, first wife of Prince Harried.

by Anonymousreply 35906/04/2021

R359

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36006/04/2021

Wonderful interview with Edward and Sophie by DL favourite Camilla Tominey. They briefly touch upon the Oprah interview in which they both cast some light shade on Oprah's lack of celebrity in the UK.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36106/04/2021

R361 Part 1

Sophie, Countess of Wessex, is advising me on how best to treat my blighted box hedges as her husband, Prince Edward, pours from an elegant black and white china teapot.

‘Ignore the dogs,’ insists the Queen’s youngest son as he fills my matching teacup. ‘They’re completely mad,’ he chuckles as Mole, their exuberant working cocker spaniel, jumps on to his lap and Teal, their black Labrador, chews on a ball at my feet.

It is little over a month since the Duke of Edinburgh died and while the couple are on relaxed form as they host me in their verdant conservatory – overlooking the sprawling grounds of Bagshot House, their 120-room Surrey home – their grief is still visibly raw. Wearing a casual white shirt with blue stripes and a pair of well-worn corduroy trousers, Prince Edward smiles warmly as he ushers me towards the seat opposite his wife, dressed in an elegant navy-blue pleated dress.

The Countess’s eyes prick with tears as she recalls the exact moment during Prince Philip’s funeral ‘when everything stopped’. ‘It was when the order was given to the soldiers to invert their weaponry,’ she says, referring to the poignant moment when military personnel on the Quadrangle at Windsor Castle bowed their heads and reversed their rifles in advance of the arrival of the Duke’s customised Land Rover hearse.

‘Everything went still.’ Seeing her husband of nearly 22 years walking behind his father’s coffin was also ‘a real, “Oh my goodness” moment,’ she adds. ‘I think the fact that there were so few of us only served to raise the intensity of it.’

The Earl’s own sharp intake of breath came when the procession entered the Duke’s final resting place. ‘It was extraordinarily odd walking into St George’s Chapel and finding the nave completely empty. Coronavirus guidelines limiting the guest list to just 30 people meant the Queen was forced to sit two metres from her family – and well-wishers, banned from paying their respects in person, had no choice but to watch on television.

‘It’s always difficult with these kinds of things because you’re in the middle of it, so you’ve got no idea what it necessarily looks like from the outside. It became really poignant to be there because it was suddenly so very intimate,’ says the Earl. Although the Countess insists, ‘You don’t actually think about lots of people watching, because it becomes so personal,’ it seems she was as conscious of the face-masked Queen’s sense of isolation as the rest of us. ‘To see Her Majesty on her own; it was very poignant.’

It was only when the couple watched the 50-minute ceremony on the television afterwards that they truly came to realise the connection felt by ‘many other families who have had to bury loved ones, with only very few people’. The Countess adds: ‘There we all were, doing exactly the same as them.

‘I really felt for friends and family, as well as people from the Duke’s organisations who were devastated that they couldn’t pay their respects. But it would have been the same for every other family everywhere else.’ She pauses, thoughtfully: ‘It was his service, and I think it was done beautifully. Minimum fuss – it’s what he would have wanted.’

The Duke of Sussex had flown in from Los Angeles to attend the service. While reluctant to get drawn into the ongoing tensions between him and the Duke of Cambridge, the Countess is careful to point out how ‘nice’ it was to have a lengthy chat with Harry at Windsor Castle after the service.

Did they watch the Oprah Winfrey interview? I inquire sheepishly.

They look at each other as if to dare the other to speak first.

by Anonymousreply 36206/04/2021

R361 Part 2

‘Oprah who?’ smiles the Earl, feigning ignorance.

‘Yes, what interview?’ chuckles his wife.

While I’m certain they know exactly who and what I am talking about, I share an anecdote about the Archbishop of Canterbury apparently having a long conversation with Winfrey at Harry and Meghan’s wedding in 2018 without having a clue who she was. The Countess leaps to the Most Reverend Justin Welby’s defence: ‘You know, if you’re not into chat shows, there’s no reason why you should know who she is. Certainly not in this country, anyway.’

It soon becomes clear that the couple have not gained a reputation as the Royal family’s ‘safest pairs of hands’ for nothing. As we chat for an hour at their Grade II listed mansion, before they collect their children Lady Louise Windsor, 17, and James, Viscount Severn, 13, from school, they tell me how they keep expecting to see ‘Grandpa’ arrive in his green Land Rover Freelander. As regular visitors to Windsor Castle, which is just 15 minutes from Bagshot, the Wessexes have spent many weekends whiling away the hours riding through Windsor Great Park under the gimlet eye of its former Ranger.

This Thursday marks what would have been the Duke’s 100th birthday and the couple are clearly keen to keep his legacy alive, both through their charity work and their children.

Indeed, it’s clear that the apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree when it comes to their daughter’s inherited love of carriage driving. ‘Louise went out training the other day and I was standing there, expecting the Duke to turn up and give her a few tips or just ask her how things were going,’ the Countess tells me. The teenager, who made her carriage-driving debut at the Royal Windsor Horse Show in 2017, is the reigning young driver national champion, although has not been able to compete for the past year because of the pandemic.

The Earl and Countess have come together for this interview to pay tribute to the Duke. It is the first time they have done a major interview as a couple and also the first time they have spoken about Prince Philip since two days after his death, when they shared heartfelt memories with the media outside The Royal Chapel of All Saints in Windsor Great Park.

‘The thing that really surprised people was just what a rough start he had in life,’ the Earl reflects. ‘He really came to this country almost as a refugee.’ After the Duke’s father, Prince Andrew of Greece, was banished from his home country following the GrecoTurkish war, a then seven-year-old Philip arrived in Britain alone, having been separated from the rest of his family. He found his salvation at Gordonstoun, his boarding school in Moray, Scotland, and later, the Royal Navy, where he was mentioned in dispatches during the Second World War.

‘I think that’s where people look at Gordonstoun and his military career and suddenly go, “Oh, now that makes sense,” says the 57-year-old, still patting the dog on his lap. ‘People didn’t know the tragedy that had happened in those early days. So much of what happens later and the values that he demonstrated suddenly begin to slot into place.’

In the wake of the Duke’s death – and Harry and Meghan’s departure – much has been made of the Earl and Countess, who were married at Windsor Castle in June 1999, ‘stepping up’, although as the Countess points out, tongue firmly in cheek, ‘What did people think we were doing beforehand?’

by Anonymousreply 36306/04/2021

R361 Part 3

Having quietly spent the past 22 years serving the public with little fanfare, carrying out more than 500 royal engagements between them a year, talk of the Prince of Wales leading a ‘slimmed-down monarchy’ when the time comes has unexpectedly shone the spotlight back on the Wessexes. And now, after the Duke of York stepped back from public life in November 2019 over his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the couple are under more pressure than ever to bridge the gap. In 2019, the Earl carried out more public duties than the Queen, while the Countess’s workload was heavier than that of Prince William, his wife Catherine and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

So how do the monarchy’s most underappreciated troopers feel about the prospect of a bit more prominence? ‘Well, we’re flattered is probably the best way of putting it,’ insists the Earl, who stood down from Ardent, his television production company, to devote his life to full-time royal duties in 2002, as his wife also agreed to relinquish her successful career in public relations. ‘Inevitably the spotlight and the focus falls on younger members as time goes on,’ the Countess admits. ‘We’ve plodded along doing what we’re doing, hopefully doing it well. And then all of a sudden there’s a bit of a hiatus and things have changed a bit.

‘Naturally, the media are looking for people to fill the so-called void. But you know, we have been doing this for what feels like a pretty long time!

‘If people want to pay more attention to what we’re doing then great, because actually, that’s got to be good for our organisations and the work that we are trying to carry out.’ Acknowledging that his mother’s job is ‘not one you can walk away from’, the Earl adds, ‘It just carries on relentlessly. So yes the support is important, that we’re there.’

It is a burden that the Earl does not carry lightly – not least when he is the one who will inherit his father’s title, the Duke of Edinburgh, when his eldest brother takes the throne. The Countess recalls the time when, two days after their engagement, Prince Philip popped round to ask his youngest (and, some say, favourite) son if he would be willing to become the next Duke of Edinburgh. ‘We sat there slightly stunned. He literally came straight in and said: “Right. I’d like it very much if you would consider that.”’

The Earl is almost apologetic as he admits that ‘theoretically’ the title should go to the Duke of York. ‘It’s a very bittersweet role to take on because the only way the title can come to me is after both my parents have actually passed away,’ he explains. ‘It has to go back to the Crown first. ‘My father was very keen that the title should continue, but he didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew, so it was us who he eventually had the conversation with. It was a lovely idea; a lovely thought.’ The Duke of Edinburgh was absent for the birth of his first three children, but when the Queen became pregnant for a fourth time, she insisted he be at her bedside – and hold her hand throughout the delivery. Little wonder, then, that Edward, the ‘baby’ of the Royal family, has always shared a special bond with both his mother and father.

According to Ingrid Seward’s 2017 book, My Husband and I: The Inside Story of 70 Years of Royal Marriage, the Duke was the most ‘sympathetic’ when the Earl left the Royal Marines in 1987 – contrary to media reports that he had ‘reduced his son to prolonged tears’. She wrote: ‘He understood his son’s decision, which he considered a brave one, and supported him fully. Many in their circle know that each has a personal preference for one son over the others. For the Queen, Andrew will always be her favourite, while for the Duke it is Edward.’

by Anonymousreply 36406/04/2021

R361 Part 4

When the Cambridge-educated Prince started dating Sophie Rhys-Jones, then a PR exec with her own firm, in 1993, his parents were delighted. The Queen took an immediate shine to the sales director’s daughter from Kent, who won plaudits in the press for her down-to-earth ‘girl next door’ image and work ethic. Despite often being compared to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, who died two years before they married, the Countess largely kept her head down and quickly became the Queen’s go-to girl.

Yet she has not shied away from ‘gritty’ subject matters over the years, such as her work on gender-based violence in conflict, and trips to ‘difficult areas’, such as South Sudan and Sierra Leone.

I once asked a royal aide why the Queen was so fond of her daughter-in-law. ‘I think it’s because she never makes any demands of HM,’ they replied. ‘When the Queen appears, even for private family gatherings, she will quickly find a crowd gathered around her. The Countess always stands back and I think the Queen appreciates that.’

Her Majesty must also see some of herself in her daughter-in-law. Listing all the volunteering she has done during lockdown, from batch cooking for NHS staff to helping out at the local vaccination centre, which is still ongoing, the Countess declares, ‘I’m no good at sitting still and doing nothing – I’m useless.’

Both have taken great comfort from the fact that the Queen remains similarly occupied, which, as the Earl points out, ‘Doesn’t really give her very much time to dwell on anything for too long.’ He says the pandemic was ‘staggeringly difficult’ for his parents, who were locked down for months together at Windsor Castle. ‘For them, life is so much about contact, it’s so much about people and then suddenly that all stops.’

Unable to enter ‘HMS Bubble’, like many families the Wessexes were reduced to socially distanced meetings with the Queen and the Duke in the castle grounds. ‘We used to see them stand on the balcony, which was about 20 feet up in the air,’ explains the Countess. ‘We’d see them waving. We’d shout at them and they’d shout back at us. It always seemed to be windy, so we could barely hear each other.’

They are also grateful for the distraction provided by two relatively new additions to the Royal household – a corgi called Muick and a dorgi (a corgi-dachshund cross) called Fergus – although after we spoke, Fergus sadly died. ‘She said for ages that she didn’t want any more dogs,’ reveals the Countess. ‘She was absolutely adamant about it.’ The Earl chimes in with the observation that dogs have helped a lot of families through lockdown, including his own. ‘Dogs that have to be exercised are always a good motivator. It forces you to go outside.’

Not that the outdoorsy Wessexes appear to need much persuading. ‘Look out of the window,’ the Countess implores. ‘We are very fortunate and we can’t complain.’ She insists there weren’t any family rows during lockdown, even with two teenagers in the house. ‘If things were kicking off inside, right from the year dot, I’d say: “Right… outside!” You come back in again and the mood is entirely different.

Louise would take herself off on her bike, and James is very self-motivated to get out, so actually, it was never a struggle. There were certainly moments when I think we all felt a bit low. But then you have to sit there and go, hang on – look at our wonderful surroundings, we are very, very lucky, and so many other people are not in that situation. Had we been sitting in an apartment, you know in a tenement block… My heart goes out to people in that situation.’

Despite everything initially ‘disappearing’ from the diary – the work did continue, albeit remotely, with the couple undertaking countless engagements and meetings via Zoom.

by Anonymousreply 36506/04/2021

R361 Part 5

The Countess believes that ‘the virtual thing is now here to stay’, arguing that it will be easier for royals to connect with organisations that have international elements without necessarily having to fly anywhere in a costly helicopter. ‘My view is that why not make use of the technology and keep that going? Where necessary, we can save money and be creative with it.’

But having always tended to avoid ‘letterhead’ patronages in favour of a more hands-on approach, both make no bones about the fact that royal engagements are best carried out in person. ‘There are an awful lot of relationships that have to be rebuilt now,’ cautions the Earl. ‘The virtual environment works very well where you have an existing relationship. But online, it’s quite difficult to develop a new relationship. So we will have to get back to doing that and it’s just trying to sort out the priorities of who and where and how.

As the last of the restrictions continue to be lifted, the couple’s main focus will be on the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, having taken over many responsibilities from Prince Philip when he retired from public life in 2017. Both are UK trustees of the charity founded by the Duke in 1956 to help young people to develop skills for life and work.

The Earl completed his gold award in 1986, while the Countess went one stage further in 2016 by cycling 445 miles from the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh to Buckingham Palace, as part of the scheme’s Diamond Challenge. Louise will complete her gold-award expedition next summer, when she has finished her A levels at St Mary’s School in Ascot, while James will embark on his bronze award next year after he turns 14 this December.

Taking part has made Louise more confident, the Earl says. ‘It’s just broadened her horizons. I think she’s probably got a little focused on, especially at the school she is at, just on the academics but…’

The Countess jumps in: ‘She’s loved it, it’s really pushed her into doing things that she’s had to schedule into her routine. She’s quite a committed person anyway. This is the kind of thing that really ticks the boxes for her. But in terms of confidence, it’s given her a huge amount. She’s taken up fencing again as her skill, which she has really loved.’

Although their children more than embody the stereotype that the award is for ‘white middle-class achievers’ (the Countess’s words, not mine), both agree that the beauty of the award scheme is that it has actually always been ‘for everyone’.

‘Percentage-wise, it’s now in many more state schools than it is in public schools,’ says the Countess. ‘Another perception was it’s only for people who haven’t done well in life. That’s not true either. The greatest thing about it is it’s not competitive. The participants are challenging themselves. They own it completely.

The Earl is equally untroubled by suggestions youngsters only do it to put it on their university and job applications. ‘So many people used to get aggravated when young people used to say… (he mimics a stroppy teenager): ‘I did it because it looks good on the CV.’ But if that’s what they think, that’s what we ought to try to do. If we can make it look good then employers will recognise it better.

So we’ve turned what appeared to be a sort of backhanded compliment into something positive. Continuing to make sure that it is open to all is by far the biggest challenge that my father has left, and that’s something that I spend an awful lot of time trying to reinforce. We’ve got to provide the resources in order to be able to make sure that it is affordable and it is accessible to anyone who wants to do it.’

by Anonymousreply 36606/04/2021

R361 Part 6 (final)

I put it to the couple that, being much younger than the likes of Princes William and Harry, who grew up at a time when the Queen and the Duke would spend months overseas, Louise and James arguably got to spend the most time with Granny and Grandpa of all the grandchildren. ‘The poor Queen has had to put up with us staying on much longer than anybody else in Scotland and Norfolk,’ the Countess concedes.

It was while holidaying in the Scottish Highlands in 2003 that she took a remarkable photograph of the Queen and the Duke, relaxing on the grass at the Coyles of Muick, a beauty spot near the town of Ballater in Aberdeenshire, which was published on the morning of his funeral. ‘I remember both the place and the time,’ says the Earl, roaring with laughter as his wife admits, ‘I think I must have been the only photographer that His Royal Highness didn’t tell to get a bloody move on!’

Reflecting on happy times spent together, the Countess concludes: ‘Proximity certainly helped. Windsor is 15 minutes down the road for us, so it’s not difficult, and of course because the children were interested in ponies and things – it was a natural draw for us to be there.’

She smiles at her husband and surmises with genuine sincerity: ‘We were very lucky that the children did have so much contact.’

After a pause and with a hint of sadness, seemingly reflecting on one of the most difficult years the House of Windsor has ever had to endure, she adds: ‘We are still a family no matter what happens, we always will be.’

by Anonymousreply 36706/04/2021

I like that Sophie acknowledges how privileged they are and that they were not to feel sorry for themselves during lockdown.

Unlike some.

by Anonymousreply 36806/04/2021

Thanks for posting this! The Palace PR team need to get Edward & Sophie in the spotlight more.

by Anonymousreply 36906/04/2021

Wow, what a brilliant piece of PR. I say that admiringly.

I believe this is the first time the BRF has ever confirmed that Edward is to get the Duke of Edinburgh title. It's been rumored for decades but neither the Palace nor the family has ever addressed it publicly.

by Anonymousreply 37006/04/2021

They appear to be normal human beings unlike the attention whore Harkles. Their daughter was born with disabilities so her accomplishments are that much more impressive.

by Anonymousreply 37106/04/2021

They are extremely likable, the complete opposite of some. (You know who) How refreshing to see gratitude & service to others instead of whinging and complaining. Night & day.

by Anonymousreply 37206/04/2021

@R362- Thanks for posting that interview. It was a very nice read.

by Anonymousreply 37306/04/2021

So the Harkles are making a documentary about royal life - that they left? OK. Do they really not have anything else to offer? What messes.

by Anonymousreply 37406/04/2021

R374- Yes! That tortuous, racist, imprisoning institution! The one that makes pregnant women suicidal, snatches their passport, makes them meet with POOR PEOPLE, FFS!? Tl The horrors! But let us tell you about a magic place.......... 🤡🤡🤡🤡

by Anonymousreply 37506/04/2021

What else have they got to sell? An expose on yachtgirls?

by Anonymousreply 37606/04/2021

R376- That would more interesting than their non-stop whining. They are out of things to sell, aren't they?

by Anonymousreply 37706/04/2021

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37806/04/2021

I'm exhausted listening to the Sussexes whine. I'd much rather read articles like the ones above.

by Anonymousreply 37906/04/2021

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38006/04/2021

[quote] What else have they got to sell?

Bananagrams!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38106/04/2021

Borrowing from another board:

"I figure the whole "Kate is trying to reunite William and Harry" was a PR strategy because for all we know Kate could have politely told Harry to fuck off during the funeral and stood back while William told Harry he has nothing to say to either him or Meghan. Charles sure did get out of the area real fast.

Biggest mistake Harry and Meghan did was the Oprah interview. Second, was telling Gayle about the phone call. It's just been down hill from there.

IMO, I still think both Harry and Meghan needs to read and understand Art of War. The royals are doing their PR strategy beautifully. I still believe, in the end, it will be Harry who leaves Meghan. Maybe not in the "I hate her guts" kind of way...could be in a "I'm leaving her to protect her from the media" kind of way. If the royals play their cards right, Harry will go right back like the snake he is and live life like a royal with or without his kids.

And I'll take this a bit further. I said before and I'll say it again, the next woman Harry either dates or marry will be the one the royals will use PR wise to revamp Harry's royal image. It will be very similar to the "Kate the peacemaker" PR stunt. Wife #2 will turn frog Harry into a Prince with the help of the royal PR machine."

by Anonymousreply 38206/04/2021

Blind Item #6​ Several months ago, this north of the border celebrity mentioned to the alliterate one that the alliterate one should publicly put it out to the world that she was trying to be a peacemaker, but the other side was being unreasonable. Even if she didn't mean it, the north of the border celebrity said, at least it would put the other side in a no win situation. The alliterate one decided to go with burning bridges. The other side now though is using the peacemaker strategy and using language that which shows if the alliterate one doesn't accept the peace offering then, it really isn't about mental health, but just playing whatever cards will make them the most money.

Posted by ent lawyer at 8:00 AM 21 Comments

(Comment: This explains all those Kate 'rises above' stories lately)

by Anonymousreply 38306/04/2021

If they could find a lovely, polished, educated, British woman of color to be Harry's second wife, it would be a masterstroke. But what woman who fits that description would want Harry?

by Anonymousreply 38406/04/2021

Nobody will want Harry anymore. Especially given Meghan is going to take all his money in the divorce. Being rich is the only thing he has going on for him now. Nobody would associate with a pariah unless there is something else in it for them.

by Anonymousreply 38506/04/2021

Omid Scobie is going after Sophie claiming that Sophie said she didn't know who Oprah is. Of course that's now what Sophie said at all, she was defending the Archbishop of Canterbury who didn't know who Oprah was because he doesn't watch chat shows. Oprah is nowhere near as famous in the UK as she is in the US.

by Anonymousreply 38606/04/2021

I love that Sophie's comment obviously sent Meghan into a rage

by Anonymousreply 38706/04/2021

R386 yeah the Harkle sugars are trying to play it like Oprah is a huge star in the UK when she really isn't. Of course she is known in the UK, but more as a chat show host and not this mega philanthropist. Oprah has never toured Europe and there's a reason for that.

by Anonymousreply 38806/04/2021

So now it's racist not to know who Oprah is? Fucking hell.

by Anonymousreply 38906/04/2021

Lack of empathy makes it very hard to see things through another person's eyes. So for Meghan, duh, of course you know who Oprah is. I do! So you do! In some weird brain dysfunction, they can't imagine other people's points of view. Not that they'd give a damn if they could.

by Anonymousreply 39006/05/2021

Following on that train of thought... it's why they make appalling parents. They never (or can't?) stop and think, what does a child of this age need? I don't need play-dates, why should they? They're here to fit into MY life and supply me with my needs - I don't understand that they have their own. Like whaaa??? If it makes ME look good, I'll do it for my child - like dress them well. If it doesn't help me, I'll ignore them (or rage at them)

Poor little Harkles.

by Anonymousreply 39106/05/2021

R370 I agree. We can take this interview with the Wessexes and its acknowledgement that Edward will inherit his father's ducal title as a signal.

Neither would have done it without Palace approval. It signals that, yes, the future Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are being moved closer to centre stage, and replacing the Sussexes.

They are being held up as the antithesis of the Sussexes: warm, unpretentious, and most tellingly, grateful for their good luck in life.

That "Look out the window. We are so fortunate." by Sophie was a masterstroke of shade.

I imagine this is one aspect of the PR srategy the Palace have been working out behind the scenes as they kept shtum publicly.

I think River is likely right that William is keen to bar the Sussexes from any official appearances for the Platinum Jubilee. I'm not so sure he's right about pushback from Charles and the Queen on that.

At this point, it would look like sheer stupidity, especially given how disliked they are in Britain. I don't see a Happy Families mirage being persuasive.

Not after interviews like this putting two fingers up to Meghan and Harry and even Oprah.

They're in a state of open warfare. It's time for the Windsors to behave as if they know it.

by Anonymousreply 39206/05/2021

After trashing the monarchy, the queen, and the RF in general, the Harkles have no business being there. They only want to be there to PR the hell out of the event to show that they still "in." Plus, you know that MeGAIN will use Diana Jr. at every opportunity to upstage the queen.

by Anonymousreply 39306/05/2021

Great minds think alike r393 on this occasion as River said this exact thing in his latest YouTube video! It was also interesting what he said about Doria.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39406/05/2021

Sophie is looking good. I remember reading a comment on here perhaps two years ago, noting that she had gained a little weight. I guess she saw it too because she did something about it, by golly.

by Anonymousreply 39506/05/2021

So Meghan has a new target: Sophie Wessex. Jealousy is Meghan's prime motivation.

by Anonymousreply 39606/05/2021

Sophie was giving Megs the look of death way back at their final appearance in the UK. Meg hates the whole family.

by Anonymousreply 39706/05/2021

Wow, Bagshot Park has 120 rooms? Surely they're only using a few (dozen) of them.

by Anonymousreply 39806/05/2021

Most of it is closed off, R398. Heating costs alone would be prohibitive.

by Anonymousreply 39906/05/2021

Yes, from what I hear, they only use part of Bagshot Park.

The BRF has made it clear that the Wessexes are in and the Sussexes are OUT. Of course Meghan is melting down. That Oprah interview burned the last bridge back and now their golden thread of connection to the only thing that made them interesting is well and truly snapped.

After everything the Sussexes have done and are likely to do over the next year (more whining interviews, the FF rerelease, the inevitable reality show), it would be dumb to invite them to the Jubilee. The Happy Families shtick just doesn't work anymore. We all saw the body language at Philip's funeral.

by Anonymousreply 40006/05/2021

My favorite quote from the article on the Wessexes:

[quote]I once asked a royal aide why the Queen was so fond of her daughter-in-law. ‘I think it’s because she never makes any demands of HM,’ they replied. ‘When the Queen appears, even for private family gatherings, she will quickly find a crowd gathered around her. The Countess always stands back and I think the Queen appreciates that.’

As opposed to the Sussexes, who ALWAYS have their hands out. You know the inclusion of that quote was not accidental.

by Anonymousreply 40106/05/2021

The Sussexes have been DEMOTED.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40206/05/2021

And so it begins. It seems that the Apple interview really WAS the last straw. The palace drawbridge is up, and there is no way back. Enjoy hustling in California, Sussexes.

by Anonymousreply 40306/05/2021

Interesting reference to Andrew in the article at R402:

[quote]The reports come as royal experts predicted the Duke of York was 'trying to rehabilitate himself' and get back into the royal fold - despite his brother Prince Charles pushing plans for a slimmed-down monarchy. Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams told MailOnline that Andrew would 'obviously like to be rehabilitated', but must first answer FBI questions on his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

Andrew is an idiot if he doesn't realize that he's DONE. His only hope was to talk to the FBI years ago and not do that disastrous interview. Especially with Sussex stans constantly bringing Andrew up as a reason why Harry and Meghan shouldn't be summarily booted out of the family, the BRF has no choice but to leave Andrew in mothballs. Charles doesn't really want him around, anyway.

by Anonymousreply 40406/05/2021

Sophie, like Kate, committed herself to learning the game. Meghan, in a very Hollywood/American way, thought I'll just walk in here and be loved. That's not how it works in Britain. The British are more distrustful of "me orientated" celebrity particularly when it comes to Royals. Being a working royal is not supposed to be about self-promotion, it's about being seen but not often heard (e.g. not talking about me, me, me). Sophie has gone about her work (typically unseen and unsung) for nearly 20 years. After that fallout with her PR company, she stood back and ensured she was never seen as craving the spotlight. The best royals learn that the institution doesn't work for them, they work for it. Royals like Duke of Windsor, Prince Andrew, Harry and Meghan clearly didn't see it that way and there's a reason why the public hated them.

by Anonymousreply 40506/05/2021

I don't think Andrew is done but it's going to take three things: 1) official exoneration 2) some kind of penitence for getting anywhere near the whole mess 3) Fergie's got to keep her yap shut and not try to help make things better.

I doubt 1) can be achieved in any meaningful way, but if he is exonerated (or at least guilty only of having the worst friends in the world), keeps his nose clean going forward and shuts up the gushing lunatic wife of his, he might - might - get the old man stay out of opprobrium free card.

Not defending him, he's an ass, but cleared of the creepiness around this mess time might mellow the ick factor. I mean, who really got worked up over Prince Michael's recent brush with Russia? Age and time might work in his favour.

Then again, whatever happens - and I don't think he's going to jail or anything - maybe he will just slink off into retirement and obscurity. He better marry Fergie again. Who'll feed her otherwise?

by Anonymousreply 40606/05/2021

To R405's point it boils down to this in my view: success as royalty is making it about other people. They get in trouble when they're caught indulging themselves. Some trouble is worse than others, but always, when they make it about me, not you, trouble starts. People may not know what they want from monarchy in 2020, but they certainly know what they don't want.

by Anonymousreply 40706/05/2021

Yes, self-effacement, at least in public, is the name of the game. Meghan, from the land of self-promotion, was never going to get that.

by Anonymousreply 40806/05/2021

Remarrying Fergie might at least shift the narrative somewhat. Anything is possible.

by Anonymousreply 40906/05/2021

R405 & R407 While there are questions about how the royals stay relevant (this isn't a new questions despite the media acting like it is), the public do not like royals who are seen to be extravagant, self-aggrandizing, or opinionated (e.g. expressing a point of view that can be interpreted as political). I think people want royals who are seen as being "amongst the people" but still somewhat mysterious, who are dutiful (e.g. a good value for money) but can also put on a good bit of pomp and ceremony, they want royals, the want the monarch to be a bit dull and uncontroversial (the glamour and excitement often comes from younger royals). The Queen has been hugely successful because she embodies a lot of this. She is not an exciting figure, she's never expressed controversial opinions but keeps up with the times but never ahead of them, she is remarkably humble and shy, she seems to get that without being Queen she would be nothing special, and she is mysterious to a degree because we know very little about her besides the fact that she loves horses, dogs, and Philip.

by Anonymousreply 41006/05/2021

That is hilarious, R402. Guess the manifesting is not going so well?

by Anonymousreply 41106/05/2021

Harry!!! Bring me the axe!!!

by Anonymousreply 41206/05/2021

R401, I doubt HM's ego is that big, Kate presents well, helps William present well and adds value to the BRF. It is about a lot more than standing back at private gatherings. Kate earned her respect by sucking it up when the tabloids called her Waity Katey and the rest of that crap, arguing that commoner Kate was doing nothing and just married William for the fame. Other than the very rare error early on, she consistently handled herself and situations well. The Queen trusts her, knowing she doesn't have to worry about her like she did about Diana's meltdowns and Sarah Ferguson's scandals. Kate provided sufficient heirs and now represents the BRF well. Plus, Kate came from a normal family herself and having that kind of stable environment for William and the great grandchildren is a big deal as well. Those kids will grow up well grounded and not embarrass their grandpa or father as sovereigns. When it comes to Kate, the Queen likely doesn't lose a wink of sleep.

by Anonymousreply 41306/05/2021

All good points, R413, but that article refers to Sophie, not Kate.

by Anonymousreply 41406/05/2021

Meghan said her baby girl was due in summer so that would be AFTER June 21. However, now people are saying that the baby is due on Prince Philip's birthday June 10th. Is she lying again?

Favorite names are Philippa nn Pip or Pippa (doubtful as it's the name of Kate's sister), Lily after the Queen and of course, Diana.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41506/05/2021

It seems more likely that Meghan would go for an induced delivery on July 1st (Diana's birthday). Harry would have to rush back and miss Diana's statue unveiling.

by Anonymousreply 41606/05/2021

[quote] After everything the Sussexes have done and are likely to do over the next year (more whining interviews, the FF rerelease, the inevitable reality show), it would be dumb to invite them to the Jubilee.

The Sussexes have already been invited back for the Jubilee, and have accepted.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41706/05/2021

on twitter the demented MegStans are having a hissy fit when non-Americans explain that Oprah is unknown outside of the US and is only marginally known in other English-speaking countries.

They thought Oprah was the Kween!

by Anonymousreply 41806/05/2021

The article says "....as reported by Page Six". Isn't NY Post one of the diabolical duo's personal outlets? If so, I'd take it with a grain of salt that they've been invited to the Jubilee. Probably just another tactic to back the BRF into a corner and make it appear a done deal.

by Anonymousreply 41906/05/2021

They'll be divorced and in the midst of the nastiest custody battle since Angelina Jolie before the Queen's Jubilee.

by Anonymousreply 42006/05/2021

Meghan's people always announce what she wants as if it is fact. If they had any sense, they'd stay away from the Jubilee. They'll likely be booed and the family will freeze them out. It won't highlight their royal connection: It will show that the connection has been severed.

by Anonymousreply 42106/05/2021

Page Six is on Sunshine Sachs' PR list so yeah, this is coming from their camp. That being said, I actually think inviting the Sussexes to the events during the main weekend like the concert or the service of thanksgiving is the right move only because it deflates H&M's narrative of the royals being cold and cutting him off.

by Anonymousreply 42206/05/2021

My guess is they'll get invited just like any other minor royal would be, but they won't get the good seats and they won't appear on the balcony. The balcony will be reserved for the new "Firm of Eight": HM, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Anne, Edward, and Sophie.

by Anonymousreply 42306/05/2021

Remember when it was announced that Doria had been invited to Christmas at Sandringham? She hadn't been invited and so naturally never showed. It was a typical Markle ploy to get Doria invited. It didn't work. The RF has always been one step ahead and I think only very recently have the Markles finally realized their actual situation despite their machinations. And it's not a pretty place to be.

by Anonymousreply 42406/05/2021

Like Trump, the Harkles will get more and more desperate. And consequently they will make even more strategic and tactical mistakes.

by Anonymousreply 42506/05/2021

I'm nauseous.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 42606/05/2021

Pump pump? ewwww What grown woman speaks like that?

by Anonymousreply 42706/05/2021

Point taken, R414. The Wessex family is not overexposed either.

by Anonymousreply 42806/05/2021

Why is the boy in Meghan's book blond?

by Anonymousreply 42906/05/2021

This has probably already been mentioned somewhere, but I remember back to the Diana death scandal when the Queen's reaction seemed insufficient to the public. The Queen was seen as insensitive. And the reaction was those ever growing piles of flower bouquets, a symbol that the family could not erase, despite the fact that they were cleared away regularly.. I think this was the basis for the Harkle's strategy. If they could convince the British public that the BRF were insensitive, then they thought they could name their price.

They failed to take into account that Diana was very popular with the British people and so was the Queen, who had decades of good will to bring her through this. The Queen understood that she had made a mistake in her reaction and worked to appear more sensitive. Charles flew to France, IIRC, to accompany Diana's body back to England. They shut up about the flowers. Charles was photographed spending a lot more time with the boys.The people immediately responded positively to the BRF. The Queen remains popular, especially as the Diamond Jubilee comes closer. Charles, an early environmentalist and organic farmer, looks ahead of his time, while the Cambridges add the youth popularity themselves and through their children. Meanwhile, it turns out Harry was never really that popular and Meghan has come off like the Ugly American. Thus, any notion the the BRF or the Queen look insensitive was a nonstarter. There was a big push by some in the UK and by US media people like Oprah and Gayle, which created a bit of a boomlet, but it was not sustainable, because the whole premise was false. At this point the BRF just needs to keep doing what its been doing as the Harkles sink deeper in public opinion. I agree with the person who posted that if the Obamas signal to Oprah and Gayle that the Harkles are bogus, both will quietly drop them. Even Netflix could decide to write them off, maybe paying them but not letting any projects get to the screen. We'll see whether Oprah ends up the godmother to this new baby. She may as one of several, but I will be surprised if she does it as the only godmother.

by Anonymousreply 43006/05/2021

The Netflix deal is not as big as it sounds. The $150 million includes all production costs. If Harry and Meghan don't produce, they'll get nothing like that much. A few million at most.

by Anonymousreply 43106/05/2021

Context for the Wessex interview

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43206/05/2021

Red hot mama

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43306/05/2021

There is NOTHING sexy about Markle. Oddest thing.

by Anonymousreply 43406/05/2021

The waistband on that skirt looks like it is cutting into her torso and gives the illusion of a spare tire. Flat chested, not much ass, crack whore face. This was obviously a time when she couldn't afford lip injections.

Markle's poor little hamburger promo.

by Anonymousreply 43506/05/2021

Her remade face is rather pretty, but the body is lumpen and she lacks much of a chest.

by Anonymousreply 43606/05/2021

Did she have implants during Deal or No Deal? If so she took them out. Maybe falsies? Her father got her that gig, Trevor got her Suits. Seems to be spinning now, everything she touches seems to go wrong. She has some bad karma/energy around her for sure. The way she looks at the Cambs and luring a toddler into a room to photograph her is creepy AF.

by Anonymousreply 43706/05/2021

Was this discussed today?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43806/05/2021

r424 And what do you think the Markles have now reluctantly understood and now concluded about their situation and predicament?

by Anonymousreply 43906/05/2021

R424, and also the fuckery about which property the Queen was going to give them as a wedding present. After a few fruitless leads, they wound up with Froggy Bottom. And they spent as little time there as humanly possible (some say they didn’t ever live there at all).

by Anonymousreply 44006/05/2021

Isn’t the Jubilee taking place a year from now? Why would anyone be announcing an invitation to Harry and Meghan at this juncture? Is the BRF in the habit of announcing that family members will be invited to a family event that’s a year away? Are they trying to secure the bag already?

What a stupid move.

by Anonymousreply 44106/05/2021

R441 it's bullshit - somebody inventing this to get some media attention for the Harkles. The Harkles will be divorced before the Jubilee.

by Anonymousreply 44206/05/2021

R440 “Ummmmm? ...it’s okay. For now. Maybe.”

by Anonymousreply 44306/05/2021

The idea of the Harkles announcing their non-existent invitation themselves is the height of desperation. And incredibly hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 44406/05/2021

R444, it IS hilarious.

It reminds me of John Barron’s phone calls and Rachel with the Hotmail. Totally transparent.

by Anonymousreply 44506/05/2021

Markle has no tits, no waist, and no ass.

Plus a man jaw.

She’s the opposite of sexy.

by Anonymousreply 44606/05/2021

Meghan is in that group of women who are admittedly attractive but have no sex appeal. Another example of this would be Mariah Carey.

by Anonymousreply 44706/05/2021

The BRF may have invited them already to head off a year long public controversy and public complaints by H and M about not being invited.

by Anonymousreply 44806/06/2021

The plans were announced to the public this week, thus the focus by SS pr.

by Anonymousreply 44906/06/2021

R442 - As delicious as that would be, I very much doubt any divorce is in the pipeline for at least three years, if not five. Meghan needs that title, she needs to milk her motherhood of the new Diana, they have contracts to fulfill with Netflix and Spotify that will be worthless if they aren't still a couple, they simply cannot afford to move through another major crises after the last year.

She'll wait till she's established a family with him. She needs at least two-three more years for that.

Meanwhile, the last three moves by the Palace state baldly that they aren't being cowed by the Harkles' attempts at emotional blackmail: giving the Wessexes air time through a major interview in a major broadsheet; in the newly rolled out royal family section of the royal website listing the Sussexes below not only the Wessexes and Princess Anne, but even below the Duke of York, who ranks behind Harry in the line of succession and is now no more a working royal than the Sussexes; and insisting that the card displayed beneath the new exhibition of Diana's dresses in Kensington Palace list William as HRH The Duke of Cambridge but Harry as The Duke of Sussex - minus the HRH.

The original card acknowledging the sons' permission for the exhibition listed both with HRHs. The card was quickly taken away due to an "administrative error" and replaced with the one listing only William as HRH.

The listing still has the old verbiage about the Sussexes planning to "split" their time between North America and the UK, and Frogmore Cottage still being their UK home (well, that answers that question, I suppose), and the two continuing to work with organisations in the UK with which they have personal relationships (i.e., not their former royal patronages).

I find it curious that they're still spouting that verbiage, given that Meghan, particularly, hates Britain and is intensely disliked here, and knows it, but I suppose not stating that would have let too much of the cat out of the bag for comfort.

Just the same, these signals confirm that the Wessexes are going to replace the Sussexes in the royal ranks, and that Edward will inherit Philip's ducal title, at which time his children may very well step up to using their HRHs . . .

All of which is bound to infuriate further Meghan and Harry - who of course have managed to brand themselves as massive hypocrites by leaking that Diana 2.1 is due on Thursday, which would have been Philip's 100th birthday, and coincidentally, if the baby does arrive then, it will be just in time to make the early Friday 13 June headlines and overshadow Biden't visit with the Queen, scheduled to include Charles and Camilla, and William and Kate.

They are so incredibly predictable.

by Anonymousreply 45006/06/2021

Aren’t Bea and Jack living at Frogmore Cottage now? Or is that merely a rumor? It’s not as if Harry and Meghan would stay there, anyway, if they made a trip back to England for some reason. Why does it appear that it’s their home but another family is living there at their largess?

by Anonymousreply 45106/06/2021

^^ largesse. Autocorrect, wtf?

by Anonymousreply 45206/06/2021

R451 - It's Eug and Jack. It's been reported that they've been staying at Frogmore Cottage.

by Anonymousreply 45306/06/2021

This seems like big news

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45406/06/2021

I think Harry married Meghan for cover…it’s just so obvious that he’s one of us….Harry should drop the bitch and make the switch

by Anonymousreply 45506/06/2021

[quote] Just the same, these signals confirm that the Wessexes are going to replace the Sussexes in the royal ranks, and that Edward will inherit Philip's ducal title, at which time his children may very well step up to using their HRHs . . .

Very interesting, R450, though I admit I barely know who's Duke of What... Are you saying that because Edward will inherit Philip's ducal title, Edward's two children can then use "HRH" -- but Harry, Charles' son, cannot? Nor can Harry's children or Anne's or Andrew's - only Edward's (and I assume, Prince William's)

I find that rather shocking, unless I've got it all wrong.

by Anonymousreply 45606/06/2021

what is ducal title….is that like that stuff that makes you shit…what is it called..Dulcolax

by Anonymousreply 45706/06/2021

You did get it wrong, R456.

Harry's children will not have an HRH until/unless they are the grandchildren of the monarch, so until Charles takes the throne. Right now they are great grandchildren so do not qualify. If Charles passes before his mother then they will not become HRH. This was all in the Letters Patent from the early 1900s that MeGain discussed with Oprah.

As has been discussed to death on these threads, Anne and her husband did not want their children to have titles and she was not in the male line of succession anyway. Edward and Sophie felt the same. Their children may become styled as HRH after age 18, or not, it will be a choice.

Edward will get the ducal title once Charles becomes king. His children being styled HRH has nothing to do with it.

by Anonymousreply 45806/06/2021

R456, you are mixing apples, oranges and plums.

Harry, grandchild of the monarch, has an HRH title that he agreed not to use as part of Mexit. His children are great grandchildren of the monarch so do not have an HRH title. They will get that designation when/if Charles becomes king.

Edward IS in the male line of succession and his children, like Harry, are grandchildren of the monarch. They would have been styled HRH but their parents chose otherwise. They may begin using the HRH at age 18 by choice.

Harry's children are not in the same position as Edward's children, they are NOT the grandchildren of the monarch.

Phillip's title reverts to the crown. It can be bestowed on Edward after the Queen passes by the monarch who succeeds her. Edward's children are already the grandchildren of the monarch, changes to his titles have no impact on their future use of HRH.

by Anonymousreply 45906/06/2021

OMG. This is like trying to learn the rules of cricket. Think I'll take a pass and just call them by their first names. I'm not a subject so I think that's allowed.

by Anonymousreply 46006/06/2021

Not really, R460. Only the grandchildren of the monarch can be HRH. Great grandchildren like Archie do not qualify. Has bee the same rules for over 100 years. Markle understands it well but it is in the interests of their victimhood stance to try to muddy the waters and claim some special abuse. If Charles becomes king their status will change. If he does not, it will not. Louise and James are grandchildren of the monarch, so are William and Harry. Unlike Archie and Ariel.

by Anonymousreply 46106/06/2021

In Touch is claiming Harry is spilling the beans on how the Queen got Diana murdered! Are the Harkles going to be suing In Touch on behalf of the Queen?

by Anonymousreply 46206/06/2021

I need 'Royalty for Dummies.' What is "HRH" anyway? Just something you're allowed to be called by other people?

I guess I'm an anti-monarchist. Even when someone who's been give some title by the queen is called "Dame Helen" or "Sir Mick" or whatever, I almost feel like throwing up.

Like, "Now I'm officially better than you common worthless lot, so there!"

by Anonymousreply 46306/06/2021

The Duke of Edinburgh title is now one of those held by Prince Charles. The title descends to the eldest son, so it passed from Philip to Charles. All Charles' titles revert to the Crown upon his accession at which point he can grant it to his brother, as intended.

The same goes for the state of the current letters patent, he could change that too. The Queen did for extending HRHs to William's children. So Charles could theoretically issue one that indicates who can lay claim to what.

by Anonymousreply 46406/06/2021

If it makes you feel better, R463, titles are not meant to say anybody is better than anyone else but to mark the distinction of the holder. The announcements are made on the Honours List - and that's the key word, often missed: honour. The award - and any title or form of address - is granted in the modern sense to honour the accomplishments of the recipient. (Titles were awarded when they wrote with feathers for loyalty to the crown.) It's the same thing as 'Academy Award winner Glenn Close died today', it's just culturally more commonly used in the UK. And even then more by the Daily Mail than anything else.

by Anonymousreply 46506/06/2021

Oh dear!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46606/06/2021

R457, it doesn’t make you go; it makes it easier for you to go.

by Anonymousreply 46706/06/2021

Isn't that the day when Megsie supposedly told Haz she couldn't be left alone?

by Anonymousreply 46806/06/2021

The Sussex baby girl has been born. It's Lilibet Diana!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46906/06/2021

LOL named after the Queen, who heads the monarchy they claim to hate. Those two are beyond shameless.

by Anonymousreply 47006/06/2021

He gave his daughter his grandmother's childhood nickname? Holy shit! That's laying it on THICK. Takes some balls doing after the distress he's caused her.

by Anonymousreply 47106/06/2021

You are fucking kidding me….

by Anonymousreply 47206/06/2021

They are utterly ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 47306/06/2021

Tasteless cunts who are not reading the room. Lilibet is the Queen's personal nickname unique to her. Elizabeth would have been a more appropriate choice frankly.

by Anonymousreply 47406/06/2021

If I were the queen I would be cringing so hard. Princess Margaret’s head must be exploding somewhere in the afterlife.

by Anonymousreply 47506/06/2021

Am I the only one thinking it's a bit odd they would give their child a name so connected to the Royal Family they're so desperate to distance themselves from?

by Anonymousreply 47606/06/2021

William and Kate's eyerolls can probably be seen from space.

by Anonymousreply 47706/06/2021

I'll say this, it takes balls to name your child after your grandmother whom you claimed was a bad mother whom you allege is surrounded by a racist family and the head of an institution you say abandoned you and didn't care about your mental health

by Anonymousreply 47806/06/2021

Daily Mail readers collective head explosion will be heard 'round the world.

Now they're trying flattery but look obsequious instead. Tone deaf doesn't cover it. There are no words beyond ridiculous.

She's named after the matriarch of a family she'll only be nominally connected to. Her parents have created such a gulf with them, it's not likely she'll enjoy any relationship with them. It's surreal. Farcical.

by Anonymousreply 47906/06/2021

I'm guessing this was a suggestion by Sunshine Sachs for maximum PR potential.

by Anonymousreply 48006/06/2021

Baby Lillibet is HERE now

by Anonymousreply 48106/06/2021

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48206/06/2021

R481 the real Lilibet is a 95 year old woman and head of state (or symbolic head of the commonwealth) for nearly a quarter of the world's population. The imposter Lilibet in LA is a cheap attempt to drum up good PR and be monetized to the hilt by her fame whoring parents.

by Anonymousreply 48306/06/2021

Interesting it's been announced today but not subsequent retweets or reflections on the web page of the British monarchy or Twitter feed or from the Wales and Cambridges. It's just going six in the UK, granted on a Sunday, but somebody's on call.

by Anonymousreply 48406/06/2021

They're all probably laughing their heads off at this brazenly ham-handed PR grab of a name.

by Anonymousreply 48506/06/2021

Let's get real, Harry thinks it's a loving tribute to his granny. Meghan sees dollar signs. Both are idiots.

by Anonymousreply 48606/06/2021

[quote] Isn’t the Jubilee taking place a year from now? Why would anyone be announcing an invitation to Harry and Meghan at this juncture? Is the BRF in the habit of announcing that family members will be invited to a family event that’s a year away? Are they trying to secure the bag already?

I think this is actually a preemptive strike from the palace. Remember, the palace is all about the future and reward or punishing behavior based on set windows of time like the whole Megxit review. This announcement serves 2 purposes. 1. It allows the public to look to the future, not the present. The present being that Meghan and Harry either won't be coming to the UK this summer for Trouping and the unveiling or they are not invited or both. The palace can say that "it's a pity the much loved Sussexes could not attend this summers festivities, but we cannot wait to see them next year for the truly big events. 2. It gives them another mile marker to either fuck up or try to rehabilitate themselves. When they fuck up, they quietly lose small, but important privileges. We haven't seen the succeed yet, but if they shut up and stayed out of the media for a year, I'm sure it would go a long way with the Queen.

by Anonymousreply 48706/06/2021

Neither of their kids have been given proper names.

by Anonymousreply 48806/06/2021

[quote] It's the same thing as 'Academy Award winner Glenn Close died today',

Oh, my sides!

by Anonymousreply 48906/06/2021

The name = an attempt to use the popularity of the Queen and Diana to bolster their falling numbers.

by Anonymousreply 49006/06/2021

Which one of you bi - never mind.

by Anonymousreply 49106/06/2021

I think they should fly to the Jubilee - with Gwen Shamblin.

by Anonymousreply 49206/06/2021

Only trash give their kids nicknames as first names.

by Anonymousreply 49306/06/2021

Not only did they give that poor innocent baby a nickname, but it seems as though they’ll be calling her “Lili” which is a nickname of that nickname.

How meta.

by Anonymousreply 49406/06/2021

Well, they stole George's nickname "Archie" for their son, and now they've stolen the Queen's nickname "Lilibet" for their daughter. WTF, Sussexes?

by Anonymousreply 49506/06/2021

Let's also consider the fact that after Philip's death, there is probably nobody alive who calls the Queen 'Lilibet' anymore. Naming her estranged grandson's unseen daughter after that name would be more painful than pleasant.

by Anonymousreply 49606/06/2021

Princess Alexandra, the Queen of Denmark, the Kents....

by Anonymousreply 49706/06/2021

Will Duchess Dive depict Lilibitch as a redhead just like used to do with Merchie in that weird Christmas card?

by Anonymousreply 49806/06/2021

Oh no, R498. She'll be depicted as a blonde like her famous grandmother.

by Anonymousreply 49906/06/2021

I actually think R466's post is the bigger news, although likely Palace officials have been aware all along. This is a new tweet calling attention to the fact that the day Meghan claimed she was feeling suicidal and Harry said there was no one to help, they were actually attending a workshop on mental health put on by mental health professionals. This court circular catches the both of them in a bald-faced lie. They can try the excuse that she just got the days mixed up due to emotional upset, but that won't wash. The fact that both were too stupid to sort out the lie before telling it makes them easy to dismiss generally. And once the Obamas and others realize this really was a lie, they will back off. Let's see if Oprah really will be the godmother to this poor newborn.

by Anonymousreply 50006/06/2021

With a great granddaughter named after the queen, they won't DARE not invite us to the Jubilee and place us on the balcony!!!

by Anonymousreply 50106/06/2021

They need a portrait of the two Lilibets together.

by Anonymousreply 50206/06/2021

They should not have insulted the entire family then.

by Anonymousreply 50306/06/2021

I predict the merching of Lili's first birthday at the Jubilee next June. That will be their angle for trying to steal the spotlight.

by Anonymousreply 50406/06/2021

R504 I think they will change tack now. They’ll be “good,” not insult the family in the coming year, and brazenly turn up at the Jubilee, kids in tow, like nothing ever happened. The poster who said something about Lilibet not being denied a place on the balcony made a good point.

by Anonymousreply 50506/06/2021

I bet Kate is behind this :)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50606/06/2021

R506 do you detect shade?

by Anonymousreply 50706/06/2021

You may be correct, R504.

[quote] Britain will celebrate Queen Elizabeth II's 70 years on the throne with four days of festivities beginning with her ceremonial birthday parade on June 2, 2022. Buckingham Palace on Wednesday announced the schedule of public events and community activities to mark the 95-year-old monarch's Platinum Jubilee, which will be celebrated over a special four-day holiday weekend next year.

by Anonymousreply 50806/06/2021

I don't think the namesake thing will guarantee them a spot on the balcony. HM has plenty of namesakes.

by Anonymousreply 50906/06/2021

The Cambridges have been using the Sussexes' titles in such communications in the past, haven't they?

by Anonymousreply 51006/06/2021

Isn't the celebration of Diana's statue on July 1? Harry can't be dis-invited as he and William started the project. And if he is allowed, she will have to be allowed as well, if she chooses to attend. This will give a sense of how things will go over the next year. But they've both lied and insulted the family.

by Anonymousreply 51106/06/2021

I think The DuchAss is getting nipped/tucked atm in order to attend the Diana statue unveiling.

Last time, after her pregnancy with Archie, she looked like a beached whale for quite a while. She won't let this happen again.

by Anonymousreply 51206/06/2021

All the plastic surgery in the world won't make her skinny by July 1st. She'd be better off skipping the statue unveiling, which is a private ceremony anyway, and concentrating on the Jubilee. In a year, she can be back in great shape. Also, she and Harry can justify leaving the kids in California with a trusted nanny in a year. Not so much in 4 weeks, and there is no way in hell Meghan is taking her kids back to the UK anytime soon.

by Anonymousreply 51306/06/2021

Oh the kids will definitely be at the Jubilee and MegaPain will make it all about Lili Diana's first birthday.

Archie is probably already receiving lessons on how to elbow his cousins out of the way for photo ops from Chief Impact Officer Haz.

They will return with a whole new set of fabricated grievances to report to Oprah or Gayle: she could taste the egg in Lili Diana's birthday cake the palace chef made, no one fawned over their children, Charlotte shoved Archie, George flung a booger at Lili, etc.

by Anonymousreply 51406/06/2021

Statue is a guaranteed invitation. Is Harry going to skip his own project, when he's just named his daughter after his mother? They don't have an invitation to the Jubilee and if some fences aren't sufficiently mended, there will be no invitation.

by Anonymousreply 51506/06/2021

[quote]Oh the kids will definitely be at the Jubilee and MegaPain will make it all about Lili Diana's first birthday.

I'd bet money and horses we'll only see body parts of the dual coverage until she is debuted on the balcony in her sainted mother's arms. Or that will be the plan. Until it's shut down. And then just leak it for another failed bid at the sympathy vote.

by Anonymousreply 51606/06/2021

Racist royal family shuns Meghan's baby at Queen's Jubilee

by Anonymousreply 51706/06/2021

We won't see pictures of Lili (thanks, Pete Townsend) unless the Sussexes are offered a big, fat check. It's what they wanted to do with Archie and were shut down.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51806/06/2021

The Santa Barbara "cottage" hospital where the blessed event allegedly took place is a small non-profit.

Makes one wonder if a small non-profit would be more amicable to a sizeable donation in exchange for discretion regarding WHO, what, when, where, why, etc.....

by Anonymousreply 51906/06/2021

R519 I liked that the described the hospital staff with the threatening 'trusted'.

If they were going to give their kids nicknames as first names, why didn't they give them black names? What's wrong with LaToya and D'Shawn?

by Anonymousreply 52006/06/2021

THEY SHOULD HAVE NAMED HER MARSHA P. DIANA MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR!!1!

by Anonymousreply 52106/06/2021

[quote]Edward IS in the male line of succession and his children, like Harry, are grandchildren of the monarch. They would have been styled HRH but their parents chose otherwise. They may begin using the HRH at age 18 by choice.

Actually Louise and James may use HRH at anytime (not just at age 18) but by the monarch's choice, not their own.

It was their grandmother The Queen's decision, with input from Edward and Sophie back in 1999, to have future Wessex children styled as children of a Earl, and eschew the HRH and Prince/ss titles they normally would have been accorded under the LP of 1917. It will be TQ's (or King Charles's) decision if and when they ever begin to use the HRH and other titles.

Could go either way, but the trend is downsizing the BRF and number of royal title holders these days.

by Anonymousreply 52206/06/2021

I swear I read the Wessex HRH debates every 48 hours on DL

by Anonymousreply 52306/06/2021

I think Santa Barbara is a cool place to be born in - it's quite beautiful. I would think it would be desirable among the rich to have their designer babies born in chic places.

by Anonymousreply 52406/06/2021

What a bunch of cunts. I'm not babysitting ever again.

by Anonymousreply 52506/06/2021

Lilibet DIANA's parents are taking "parental leave" from their jobs.

Can someone please splain to me exactly what their jobs are?

TIA!

by Anonymousreply 52606/06/2021

Their jobs appear to be lying, merching their titles, and harassing the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 52706/06/2021

Everything they do, including the name and the “parental leave,“ is literally the most outrageous, obnoxious thing they can think of to do. They’re laughing at the family, and at us. Assholes.

by Anonymousreply 52806/06/2021

I pity the poor medical staff having to deal with "her Grace."

by Anonymousreply 52906/06/2021

r477 And probably so can their plans to have a fourth child!

by Anonymousreply 53006/06/2021

r486 I honestly dont see how they can merch much money out of the baby name?Do we mean Lilibet baby bips or Lilibet toys or something?? I cant see it being a big money spinner?

by Anonymousreply 53106/06/2021

r524 Designer baby? You think Meghan and Harry had the embryo screened especially for non medical reasons? I am not sure the medical technology or knowledge is quite there yet.

by Anonymousreply 53206/06/2021

Someone on Twitter just discovered that Lilibetdiana.com was registered on June 4th (the day the baby was born)........

by Anonymousreply 53306/06/2021

Do you have a link please r533 ?

by Anonymousreply 53406/06/2021

This was posted by Murky Meg

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53506/06/2021

r535 Thanks

But who is GoDaddy and when are those other things listed as prohibted?

by Anonymousreply 53606/06/2021

R536 GoDaddy is a dominion host. Basically, you purchase your dominion name (your URL) through them and it is hosted on their server.

by Anonymousreply 53706/06/2021

R524, I had my daughter at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital 8 years ago. It was quite lovely. And my daughter’s name is... Margaret.

by Anonymousreply 53806/06/2021

r537 Thank you

by Anonymousreply 53906/06/2021

Hopefully somebody else bought the domain, like when somebody bought sussexroyal and put up the music video for 'gold-digger'.

by Anonymousreply 54006/06/2021

I'm still trying to decide what the motivation for this Lilibet things was beyond PR.

1) Was it actually a slap in the face to the Queen

2) Was in an attempt to honour the Queen

3) An attempt to get back into the royal's good books (for PR & continued relevance)

by Anonymousreply 54106/06/2021

If it was really a conciliatory gesture, they'd have named her Lily or given her Elizabeth as a middle name: The Queen has a daughter, 3 granddaughters, and 3 great-granddaughters with Elizabeth as a middle name: It's a nice and accepted gesture to the monarch. But the Sussexes, as always, could not, would not follow the rules.

Using a private family nickname that was famously used by the Queen's recently deceased husband of 73 years--a husband the Sussexes helped hound to death--is ridiculously tone-deaf, especially when you add in the inevitable merching of this private name that the Sussexes will commit now that they 'own' it. Nobody is THAT clueless, not even Harry and Meghan.

It was not a conciliatory, accidentally ham-handed gesture: It was a greedy, selfish, and slyly vindictive gesture.

by Anonymousreply 54206/06/2021

Imagine dreaming up a child’s name with spiteful intent.

I think the last time I saw such public acting out against a parent was “Mommie Dearest”. Oh. Wait. Dylan Farrow.

by Anonymousreply 54306/06/2021

[Quote]Lilibet DIANA's parents are taking "parental leave" from their jobs. Can someone please splain to me exactly what their jobs are?

I guess theoretically it means they will cease all PR activities, but that would be like cutting off their oxygen supply. Practically speaking, I guess it means that their Spotify content is further delayed and Harry won't participate in the weekly Zoom meetings with the creators of the Invictus games. (An aside, Despite getting production credit s, does he know what a producer does?)

by Anonymousreply 54406/06/2021

I knew this story was coming ..............................These two are nothing if not predictable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54506/06/2021

My prediction: there will be significant steps towards a reconciliation, at least on a superficial level, between all parties between now and the Jubilee. Why? It's better for the Harkles brand if they are seen as the "forgivers" it will ensure them headlines during the jubilee e.g. "Reunited for the Jubilee." It's better for the image of the monarchy if the family appears to be on united footing and it will quiet the allegations of racism. It will also cause the Sussex Sugars' heads to explode too. I doubt H&M will return to a public role in the UK, I think they love the celebrity live style of LA way too much.

by Anonymousreply 54606/06/2021

If Scotland is still part of the UK in 20 years that's where a single Harry will end up. In some castle up there and largely unheard of.

by Anonymousreply 547Last Monday at 2:12 AM

R546 ‘Fraid so.

by Anonymousreply 548Last Monday at 3:30 AM

I think the Sussex's motivation for naming the child Lilibet was to show the world that, although they have been grossly mistreated, they rise above it and want to name the child after the woman everyone adores, the Queen, but, because they must be seen to be marching to a different, more woke drummer, they use Lilibet instead of Elizabeth. And Diana is added to make sure that no one forgets for a moment their connection to the most glamorous woman of the late 20th century. It's all very deliberate but also desperate.

by Anonymousreply 549Last Monday at 3:32 AM

[quote]It was not a conciliatory, accidentally ham-handed gesture: It was a greedy, selfish, and slyly vindictive gesture.

About which they are totally clueless. One thing I am sure of, they live in an intellectual and moral parallel universe.

by Anonymousreply 550Last Monday at 3:34 AM

[quote]I think they love the celebrity live style of LA way too much.

And wait until COVID really resolves and madame is free range, meeting and shopping and lunching. Nannies at the ready!

by Anonymousreply 551Last Monday at 3:35 AM

I think she will find her biz and socializing prospects fairly limited, we shall see.

by Anonymousreply 552Last Monday at 3:39 AM

So manipulative. They're that person who acts like a cunt, but then decides it's in their best interest to be on good terms, so abruptly shifts to all sweetness and light, throws you a party! You're supposed to just.....adjust. I wish the Queen had said NO to "Lilibet."

Give her credit, Meghan has balls of tungsten, she really does. Her every move seems to say, "I'm doing it, and who's gonna check me?" Yes I know Harry's in on it, too, but we know who's really in charge.

by Anonymousreply 553Last Monday at 3:52 AM

Honestly, you have to ask yourself, was it worth it? Do they ever know actual happiness?

by Anonymousreply 554Last Monday at 4:01 AM

Narcs are never happy, R554.

I am not convinced the Queen knew of the name plan.

Outside of the SS orbit, what opportunities does MeGain have? The book is out soon. Already discounted.

You KNOW she wants an Angelina style People cover. Will there be interest? If they got one, who would buy it?

by Anonymousreply 555Last Monday at 4:11 AM

Narcs are never happy, R554.

I am not convinced the Queen knew of the name plan.

Outside of the SS orbit, what opportunities does MeGain have? The book is out soon. Already discounted.

You KNOW she wants an Angelina style People cover. Will there be interest? If they got one, who would buy it?

by Anonymousreply 556Last Monday at 4:11 AM

Sorry for double post, no idea why that happens sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 557Last Monday at 4:18 AM

My guess? They sweetly presented the name to the Queen as a fait accompli. "And Granny, we're very excited to tell you that the name we've chosen – in your honor! – is Lilibet.."

by Anonymousreply 558Last Monday at 4:20 AM

I do not believe there is actually much contact, R558, esp with the 95 yr old Queen, who is in mourning. The stories implying there is are SS pr pieces, etc. Harry claimed that they zoomed with Philip but the family said he could only be reached by landline. If a Narkle says it or pays someone to say it, it is suss.

by Anonymousreply 559Last Monday at 4:51 AM

Interesting. In the naming of both their children, the Harkles have failed to honor Meghan's side of the family. You'd think she'd be keen to pay tribute to her African-American heritage that she's so "proud" of.

by Anonymousreply 560Last Monday at 6:21 AM

Right, R560, that is why she put "Caucasian" on her cv.

by Anonymousreply 561Last Monday at 6:51 AM

R559 There is hardly any communication going on IMO. In his James Corden appearance, Harry said he talked to Prince Philip by Zoom regularly. We later learned after Philip's death that he actually never used Zoom cause he hated it and could only be reached by his private telephone line. I think if they do communicate with the Queen it's only because she really wants to try and get H&M back on side (which sadly won't ever happen at least not to the degree the Queen would like).

by Anonymousreply 562Last Monday at 8:51 AM

Andrew Lawrence's Faux Harry strikes again.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 563Last Monday at 10:28 AM

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 564Last Monday at 10:39 AM

Someone dug up an old interview with one of Meghan's (now ex) friends. Meghan threatened suicide when her relationships with her then boyfriend (later first husband) nearly left her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 565Last Monday at 10:42 AM

Wanna piss Megz off, vote for Catherine as the most beautiful woman of 2021. She is currently 49 on this list

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 566Last Monday at 11:38 AM

This is coming from Russell Myers so I tend to believe this is true.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 567Last Monday at 2:03 PM

Catherine is now number 1, R566.

Lots of talk about how the Queen did not know about the name.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 568Last Monday at 2:05 PM

Oh dear!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 569Last Monday at 2:26 PM

The Queen is sticking to the high road.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 570Last Monday at 2:33 PM

I can’t think of any Polish women who would want to be Haz’s wife, R384.

by Anonymousreply 571Last Monday at 3:25 PM

R579 I think Harry believes it's a tribute, I think Megz and her PR advisors see $$$. Playing off the Queen's popularity is all they have left really. Pretend to play nice with people you hate, that's the Hollywood way.

R570 Frankly, what other choice does she have? It's disgusting that a 95 year old woman who has served her country with unwavering dedication her whole adult life is being forced to broker peace with two brats who have done nothing but stab her and her family in the back while she grieves her husband, all for the sake of the monarchy that just a few short months ago was on track for Charles to effectively take over. The reality is, the allegations of racism Megz threw at the royal no matter how indirect is troubling at a time when the UK is becoming hyper-racially aware. The "woke" minority presents the biggest threat to the monarchy since Diana died. It would be in the best interest of the monarchy to have H&M appear to be on good terms with them.

by Anonymousreply 572Last Monday at 3:38 PM

R57 Alas....'tis so. Hopefully they've gotten some of the poison out of their systems for a while. Accomplished their first mission, establishing their woke credentials. Now on to the next storyline.

by Anonymousreply 573Last Monday at 4:15 PM

I believe the Harkles' claims of racism as much as I believe the suicide story.

by Anonymousreply 574Last Monday at 4:54 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 575Last Monday at 5:17 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 576Last Monday at 5:20 PM

Mean little jibe for $200 pls.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 577Last Monday at 5:42 PM

r567 Yup Russell does have quality sources so I tend to be inclined to believe him. He sounds very well informed on the weekly royal podcast Pod save the Queen.

by Anonymousreply 578Last Monday at 6:17 PM

R578 I've heard Russell has strong sources within the Cambridge Camp

by Anonymousreply 579Last Monday at 10:24 PM

R578 & R579 Off topic but what do we know about Russell Myers? I've seen him on Lorraine several times and he's rather cute and no wedding ring that I could see.......

by Anonymousreply 580Last Tuesday at 8:13 AM

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 581Last Tuesday at 8:27 AM

What say DL? More Sunshine Sachs PR or truth?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 582Last Tuesday at 11:25 AM

I read the article. Sounds like bullshit to me. If anything, it was the mischief of anti-Markle Antoinetters.

by Anonymousreply 583Last Tuesday at 11:29 AM

For that to be true, it would mean that Megs is admitting defeat - which we know would. It happen. Also, why the hell would Kate trust the lying bitch?

by Anonymousreply 584Last Tuesday at 12:02 PM

I don't know about in the US but in the UK Meghan's book has been moved to the bargain bins already.

by Anonymousreply 585Last Tuesday at 12:07 PM

r584 What would defeat look like?

by Anonymousreply 586Last Tuesday at 1:03 PM

Gee going through Kate, a woman Megs trashed, to curry favor with the BRF seems like defeat to me

by Anonymousreply 587Last Tuesday at 1:15 PM

Ooh r587 I hadnt realised that had happened? gosh that would be a bitter pill to swallow.

by Anonymousreply 588Last Tuesday at 5:46 PM

Meghan's book was sitting at 100 on Amazon.com for most of the day then suddenly in the last hour it shot to #3..................................someone just bought up a ton of copies.

by Anonymousreply 589Last Tuesday at 6:25 PM

BBC is reporting that Palace sources have confirmed that Queen didn't know the couple was going to name their child Lilibet, they also casting doubt that the Queen has met Lili via Zoom.

by Anonymousreply 590Last Tuesday at 10:50 PM

Quite interesting, R590. The book, out for a day, has been heavily discounted already. Not much of a PR bounce on Twitter re: the new kid or the book.

It really does seem like elder abuse. Harry must be a spath or have hated his family for decades to act this way.

by Anonymousreply 591Last Wednesday at 4:10 AM

Well, well. This is going to make the Harkles consider a change in strategy. They've always counted on the BRF not countering their lies. I fear for all the crockery in their Montecito headquarters.

by Anonymousreply 592Last Wednesday at 4:58 AM

Let's face it, she's the brains behind the operation, so if this book is any indication of the kind of talent they're bringing to their many podcasts and documentaries, they'd best hope there's no refund clause in the contracts.

I bet the drivers of those deals on the corporate side are contacting their headhunters.

by Anonymousreply 593Last Wednesday at 5:26 AM

BTW, when do we see the next of the many podcasts and documentaries? They must have been so busy getting stuff in the pipeline before they took alternity leave. An example to us all, really.

by Anonymousreply 594Last Wednesday at 5:36 AM

Their full-time jobs are merching and attacking the BRF. How do you expect them to have time for anything else?

by Anonymousreply 595Last Wednesday at 5:48 AM

R580 The only details on Russell Myers that are out there is that he's somewhere around 40 years old & he has/had a wife. About a year or so ago he stopped wearing his wedding ring, lost some weight and is more in shape.

by Anonymousreply 596Last Wednesday at 11:34 AM

R597 I follow him on IG and there are pictures from his wedding 5 or 6 years ago but nothing about the wife for some time so I'm thinking they might be separated? A few weeks ago in his IG story, he had a video with his neighbours who are a gay couple raising a child with Downs Syndrome.

by Anonymousreply 597Last Wednesday at 11:56 AM

Link to part 5 as this part is nearly full!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 598Last Wednesday at 12:03 PM

Ginger and Whinger 😂

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 599Last Thursday at 7:41 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

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

×

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