[quote]Senior palace source tells BBC the couple did not consult monarch about using her childhood nickname - despite Sussex camp telling the world they DID
Uh-oh.... so much for healing the breach...
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.
[quote]Senior palace source tells BBC the couple did not consult monarch about using her childhood nickname - despite Sussex camp telling the world they DID
Uh-oh.... so much for healing the breach...
|by Anonymous||reply 476||8 hours ago|
They shouldn't have to. It's their kid.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||Last Tuesday at 11:00 PM|
The palace briefing does rather undermine the idea that this was an olive branch to the Queen. Some may think it strengthens the argument that this was a cynical ploy by a couple keen to cement their royal brand, the one thing that makes them marketable to commercial clients.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||Last Tuesday at 11:00 PM|
R1 I don't think it's so much that needed the Queen's permission (I doubt she cares that much) but I think this is Palace basically serving some tea that all these leaked stories about how close H&M still are to the Queen and how this was attempt to honour her are complete fiction. This was a PR exercise by Harry and Megham to make them still seem connect to the royal family as R2 said to be more marketable.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||Last Tuesday at 11:04 PM|
R3 okay I understand.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||Last Tuesday at 11:06 PM|
So basically the use of Lilibet was meant as middle finger to the Queen for not letting Meghan and Harry keep their patronages and use of the word "Royal." Whatever happens in the US, they are now officially done in the UK.
I suspect this leak from the Palace was intention because the Queen has finally had enough of all the fake spin coming from Camp Sussex.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||Last Tuesday at 11:13 PM|
I'm assuming if they'd actually asked the queen if its ok for them to name their daughter after a former nickname of hers that probably hasn't been used since the 50s she'd ask if Harry had been spending too long in the sun.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||Last Tuesday at 11:24 PM|
OP has linked to the Daily Mail but the BBC broke this a couple of hours ago, referencing a direct "royal source." Odds of the Beeb publishing something they cannot 100% confirm as true? Close to nil. Which not only means it's as close as you're ever going to get to a straight up "fuck you" from the Queen of England, but that it was intended to be seen as such.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||Last Tuesday at 11:34 PM|
So why should we believe the palace source? They’re fucking liars.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||Last Tuesday at 11:37 PM|
You actually don't have to believe them. I do, but whether or not it's true the actual big deal here is the palace briefing the BBC against Harry and Meghan. That is an unmistakable message, especially after days of "the wound is healing!" type PR from the Harkles themselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||Last Tuesday at 11:43 PM|
R8 is beyond stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||Last Tuesday at 11:43 PM|
Did Philip still call her Lilibet? I thought that was his affectionate name for her throughout their marriage.
They obviously don't need my permission, but I think using cute nicknames for first names is awful, especially if you are hoping for a title.
Archie and Lilibet are childhood monikers, too informal for an adult. It's like naming your kid Prince Timmy or something.
And yeah, I know Archie is a common name for a man, but those men aren't supposed royalty.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||Last Tuesday at 11:43 PM|
[quote]So why should we believe the palace source? They’re fucking liars.
The article posted even says, "Those close to Prince Harry confirm that he spoke to close family before the announcement so perhaps this report highlights just how far removed aides within the institution (who learned of the baby news alongside the rest of the world) now are from the Sussexes’ private matters." So it's possible there's a disconnect there. It's possible he did mention it to her directly and they had no clue. It's possible they didn't. It would just be odd, even with the turmoil between them all, that if he had the opportunity he wouldn't have mentioned it to her, even in brief. She's the one they go out of their way not to piss off. Charles on the other hand ...
|by Anonymous||reply 12||Last Tuesday at 11:49 PM|
All this is more proof that Meghan is a social climber from head to toe. She didn’t even bother to name her baby girl after her own mother.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||Last Tuesday at 11:51 PM|
[QUOTE]She's the one they go out of their way not to piss off.
By attacking the institution she has dedicated her life to, you mean? Or coming for both of her heirs? Implying their racists? Implying they prevented a suicidal pregnant woman from receiving care? Fucking hell. Stop taking PR (from both sides) at face value. There is no way the Queen hasn't wanted to put her foot up Harry's arse for months.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||Last Tuesday at 11:53 PM|
[quote]She didn’t even bother to name her baby girl after her own mother.
Diana is dead. Elizabeth is 95. Doria is off doing yoga somewhere. It makes sense they'd pay tribute to the first two. Doria will be babysitting occasionally.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||Last Tuesday at 11:54 PM|
The Palace really know how to play the PR game much better than Baron and Baroness Killkeel. Everytime the preachy pair make a pronouncement, there is a pause and then it is refuted in a very low-key way. It is destroying their credibility with the press too. By the time Charles accedes to the throne, no one will care tuppence for Harry’s thoughts. Even though the Harkles are eager to seem to keep the Queen on side, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that she and the Palace are fighting this fight now because they know her public position in the UK is unassailable.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||Last Tuesday at 11:56 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 17||Last Wednesday at 12:00 AM|
Omg it's after midnight in California and they've already pushed back. You can tell from the tone of this Telegraph article that the writer doesn't believe a goddamn word of it lol.
[QUOTE]The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have hit back at suggestions the Queen had not been asked about using her nickname Lilibet to name their daughter. - A source close to the Sussexes insisted that the Duke did discuss his daughter’s name with his grandmother and would never have used it had she not been supportive. - But a Palace source has given a different account of events to the BBC, telling the corporation the Queen was "never asked" about its use. - A source for the couple told The Telegraph: "The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called." - "During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name." - It is not clear whether or not the conversation between Prince Harry and the Queen happened before the birth or between the birth and the announcement.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||Last Wednesday at 12:11 AM|
They moved to LA to start their private life...
|by Anonymous||reply 19||Last Wednesday at 12:26 AM|
That's an interesting insight that the BRF is looking to undercut their credibility and distance themselves from the pair, since the logical choice for the BRF would be just to ignore the whole thing & not give the Harkles more oxygen/attention
|by Anonymous||reply 20||Last Wednesday at 12:54 AM|
Archie and Lilibet sound like the names of children on EastEnders.
Maybe that was the point.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||Last Wednesday at 12:57 AM|
Something's up behind the scenes. BRF seems to smell blood, this is a strategic move from them. Also, Harkle PR has been particularly desperate over the past couple of days, and weirdly conciliatory towards the RF. I wonder if they've been told the titles are in real jeopardy - or something equally devastating to them? I see they've already predictably - and rashly - fired back, which is likely exactly what the Palace PR expected.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||Last Wednesday at 1:00 AM|
The "source" "hitting back" for the couple is the usual suspect, Omid Scobie, whose word on anything related to the Sussexes is immediately tainted. If Meghan told him to tell the world she could make the sun rise in the west and set in the east, he would.
But the fact that the Palace told the fucking BBC that the Harkles are just lying means something. It means the Palace aren't going to take the Harkles' endless lies lying down any longer. And, it also throws shade on all Meghan's merry tales of how she just calls the Queen regularly and Zooms with her all the time with little Archie and now Lili in tow.
No one believes the Queen was thrilled with the name. No one believes the Harkles did it because they love HM so much.
No one but her rabid sugars believes Omid Scobie.
Everyone knows the Sussexes "update" their "truth" when convenient.
They don't need her permission. That is true.
But they want to cloak themselves in her royalty. They need to keep the illusion going that they are SO intimate with her and still so much a part of the family they both hate and resent.
Their sheer clumsiness is so glaring it can be seen from Outer Space.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||Last Wednesday at 1:28 AM|
R11, yes, ‘Lilibet’ was not a “former” nickname, it was the one Philip used for her. She placed a letter in his casket that was signed with that name. So using ‘Lilibet’ as the name for the new Sussex was widely seen as simply cruel. All of the Instagram notes of congratulations from various royals avoided using the name; they called the child Lili.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||Last Wednesday at 1:38 AM|
Wasn't it the name Margaret used when she was a little girl because she couldn't pronounce Elizabeth or did others use it as well?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||Last Wednesday at 1:39 AM|
Recollections may vary, r18.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||Last Wednesday at 1:41 AM|
All these two sociopaths ever do is lie!
|by Anonymous||reply 27||Last Wednesday at 1:43 AM|
On a certain forum geared towards Black women, they think Meghan is an innocent sweetheart and that the BRF is just a nasty, racist family. Yet they totally ignore all the bullshit she pulls.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||Last Wednesday at 1:48 AM|
I wonder if the Harkles ever considered just announcing the name and then going low profile. That would be much more mysterious and ultimately get them more and no doubt better press.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||Last Wednesday at 1:51 AM|
It’s the name used by her intimate friends and family. Because of her great age, there aren’t many contemporaries left amongst her friends. However in her extended family, including other royals, it is used. For example the King of Spain, who is related to both HM and the Duke of Edinburgh, wrote a letter of condolence addressed to “Dear Aunt Lilibet” on the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.
The ex-King of Greece has been captured on video calling HM by that name.
Presumably those of her Royal close relatives, including the Monarchs of Denmark, Norway and Sweden refer to her as such.
So it wasn’t just Philip’s name for her, but definitely the name that only those closest to her would use. I doubt that the Harkles could be considered as such.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||Last Wednesday at 1:56 AM|
I remember utterly freezing up when they announced the name for Archie. I couldn’t wrap my brain around it.
But Lilibet really takes the cake.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||Last Wednesday at 2:01 AM|
I wonder how much cash each one of the tabloid’s ridiculous stories generates.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||Last Wednesday at 2:30 AM|
R32, only an idiot could believe that they had the Queen's blessing to name their kid - whom the Queen may never meet - after her private, affectionate nickname.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||Last Wednesday at 2:37 AM|
Of course they didn’t ask her if she could be named Lilibet. It is such an incredible violation if you know anything about the Queen’s life. I have said it before, but Markle will be the toilet paper attached to the shoe of the Royal Family forever. Fergie looks unbelievably appropriate and regal in comparison. What are the Royals going to do? Seriously. What are they going to do? This cunt is only 40 yrs old. She has another 40 years to troll them and blackmail them. I don’t know why people will say she will move on to a better husband. Who on earth would want her with everything known to date? You think Bill Gates or some rich guy wants that psycho?
Seriously, guys. What can the royals do? They can’t kill her: it is too obvious.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||Last Wednesday at 2:38 AM|
Who cares? Who. The. Fuck. Gives. A. Shit?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||Last Wednesday at 2:40 AM|
They can just ignore her, r34. Time is on the royal family's side, not Harry and Meghan's. The Queen will pass and Charles will become king. Harry may try to keep on sniping at him, but Charles will be the head of state of a close US ally and not simply Harry's dad. Then it will be William's turn. In a few years his own children will be older and have more of a role to play. At some point, the Harkles will have to decide what relationship their own kids are going to have with their dad's side of the family. Unless the Harkles maintain a connection to the royal family, they will have no selling point.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||Last Wednesday at 2:46 AM|
Philip's nickname for Elizabeth was Cabbage.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||Last Wednesday at 3:01 AM|
Now the two grifters are accusing the BBC of libel. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that the Queen would approve of this name. Harry may have mentioned it to her, but that's not the same as her agreeing or being happy about it.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have accused the BBC of libel over a report that they did not consult the Queen about naming their daughter Lilibet.
The couple’s lawyers Schillings today issued a letter to the broadcaster, warning that the story is “false and defamatory”.
It came after the BBC, citing a Buckingham Palace source, reported that the Queen was not asked about the baby name by Harry and Meghan.
A statement issued on behalf of the Sussexes today said that the duke had called the Queen ahead of the birth and she was supportive of him naming his daughter Lilibet, a family nickname the monarch had since her childhood.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||Last Wednesday at 3:01 AM|
All this at about 3.30 in the morning, California time.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||Last Wednesday at 3:02 AM|
R37. CABBAGE! Because of the farting, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||Last Wednesday at 3:06 AM|
No one knows, R40.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||Last Wednesday at 3:13 AM|
"Mon petit chou" is a French term of endearment that translates to "my little cabbage." Maybe that's why.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||Last Wednesday at 3:15 AM|
"Lilibet" came about when the Queen was a baby and her parents were attempting to teach her to say her own name. Obviously, the child had trouble with the correct pronunciation, so "Lilibet" is what she stated in response. Every family intimate called her "Lilibet" for her entire life. Margot's kids call her "Aunt Lilibet." Cabbage? "IT" smells like cabbage - 😜
|by Anonymous||reply 43||Last Wednesday at 3:16 AM|
So they’ve sent the BBC a legal letter claiming defamation.
How interesting...because they didn’t nothing of the sort when the Times made the even more damaging claim that Markle was a vile, abusive bully.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||Last Wednesday at 3:22 AM|
The courtiers at Buckingham Palace are well known to be consummate liars, meddlers, and obstructionists. Most of them think because they work so closely to the Monarch they are somehow Royal themselves and are entitled to meddle in family affairs. That's the Queen's fault. She has allowed this to continue for centuries. I think Prince Charles long ago had enough of it and when he ascends he will very likely clean house of a lot of the malicious sorts currently skulking the halls of Buckingham Palace looking for something that's not their business to get into.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||Last Wednesday at 3:57 AM|
This is a theater of the absurd. When I saw the first DL post about Lilibet Diana, I assumed it was an Onion headline, but no.
Now they're firing off warnings at 4:00 a..m. CA time? They like creating chaos, don't they?
Is the Queen going to be put in a position of having to affirm or deny? Is this what the Sussexes were aiming for all along? They took what was closest to her hoping to provoke a reaction and keep their machinations alive...
|by Anonymous||reply 46||Last Wednesday at 4:09 AM|
R41 - "You silly cabbage" is a known English endearment, if a bit old-fashioned.
The List doesn't know what it's talking about and got the idea that it was some sort of "unusual" nickname Philip came up with from the film, "The Queen", which got so much wrong it was depressing. E.g., I was surprised at Mirren not doing more than a bit of cosmetic mimicking of hair and accent and glasses, because one thing Mirren got glaringly wrong was the Queen's walk: which is a peculiar slightly pigeon-toed glide that she got from her mother - and absolutely nothing like the swinging arms, toes outward, authoritative walk Mirren used. I thought better of Mirren than that.
The late Paul Ritter called his mother "You silly cabbage" in his role in "The Game". It's not unusual and fairly common amongst a certain generation in England.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||Last Wednesday at 4:10 AM|
Poor old Queen, she doesn't need all this shit. Sounds like she was put on the spot.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||Last Wednesday at 4:15 AM|
If a Narkle says the sky is blue, go outside to check.
If you have ever known narcs or spaths IRL you know well that they lie compulsively and continually, even about things that do not matter. Very likely in the case of things that do. Sunshine Shite clearly has no ethics or compunctions @ lying either.
Get the popcorn ready. When the do not get the PR bounce from the spawn or the book, they will become even more desperate. Will the publisher of Finding Dollars go ahead with the "update" later this summer? Does the public really want more shared private convos from his grandfather's funeral? Likely not. Will Haz go to the statue unveiling?
If they did not tell her @ the name I assume all these, we are going to the UK asap stories are bunk as well. The Suckses are well and truly out. Maybe he will show re: the statue, maybe he will be included in funerals. Not sure what else.
Re: Eugenie and her "dear cousins" - isn't she the one who has significantly boosted her paid pr to get a higher profile of late? Perhaps working with Sunshine Shite as well?
|by Anonymous||reply 49||Last Wednesday at 4:16 AM|
You need to read the BBC report carefully. At no point are any of Harry's and Meghan's friends (and note that in the BBC report, the word 'friends' is in quotes) flatly state that the couple mentioned the name "Lilibet" to the Queen, only that they discussed naming the baby after her and that Harry "would have" mentioned the name - not that he actually DID. In fact, the Harkles' assertions are carefully hedged.
As for a defamation claim: the BBC is reporting what someone else said, not making the assertion itself, and is therefore inured against the claim. That's how the thing works: the Harkles, instead of calling up the Queen and insisting that she back them up, are flailing at the only target they have to bolster their claim.
After all, they figure, Great Unwashed will say to itself, If the Harkles weren't telling the truth why would they threaten a defamation suit?
Why? Because they can send any letters they like, just the way their legal team sent a letter "demanding" to see the texts and emails relating to the bullying charges - the law firm engaged to carry out the investigation and the Palace ignored the demand, which everyone involved, including Meghan's legal team knew they didn't have the slightest legal right to see. It was just public posturing.
Which is what a defamation charge in this case is - legally, without legs. The BBC will stand by its story, claiming it came from a reputable source. and it was reporting what someone else said, not making the assertion itself. The source will be unnamed, so the Harkles can't go after the source. And they can't sue the Palace.
So they are, yet again, making jackasses of themselves again.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||Last Wednesday at 4:23 AM|
Q E II saw this coming from a mile away, months back.
She seen how these two operate over the last 5 or so years. She's taken their measure and isn't one bit surprised by this name. And while I can't know what's in her head, I do think she would have preferred that they not have done it, but it's not something she didn't see coming.
It would have been a ballsy, resepctable move by the Sussexes (and, I dare surmise, Q E II would agree) if the Sussexes named their daughter a variation of Doria, avoided "Diana", and, as middle name, chosen Frances or Spencer.
Why Frances and/or Spencer?
As most of you know, but I'll type it anyway, Diana, Princess of Wales birth name was Diana Frances Spencer.
Man, the Sussexes SUCK public relations. They're thier own worst enemy.
If they had done what I wrote here, instead of everybody pointing out the true and obvous- they're familiarizing what was an intimate, affectionate, private name for Q E II and applying it to thier daughter's name for their own selfish reasons, instead, we'd be commenting on how they're not trying to have it both ways.
Sussexes- ZEEE-RO ( Again)
|by Anonymous||reply 51||Last Wednesday at 4:27 AM|
I'm still waiting for the Harkles' supposedly ambitious humanitarian and charitable enterprises to reach my village. Instead, they're up their own arses, only consumed with petty media disputes.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||Last Wednesday at 4:29 AM|
Just another way to keep the PR going, R50, so it works on several levels. For Narkles, no publicity is bad publicity. What they fear most is being ignored. The grey rocking of the BRF whilst taking the high road publicly is the most effective and really only way to deal with narcs.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||Last Wednesday at 4:30 AM|
Oops, sorry 'bout the typos in my post at r51.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||Last Wednesday at 4:32 AM|
I think "Spencer Margaret" would have been a lovely and appropriate name!
|by Anonymous||reply 55||Last Wednesday at 4:33 AM|
Get in line, R52, the elephants never saw a PENNY of the THREE MIL from Disney that was paid to "Harry's charity" per Bob Iger. Remember how Harry told fake Greta that there is money to be had in "philanthropy." Archewell per the laws of DE is only required to spend 5% on do gooding. Global Citizen, a charity they like working with, has similar stats.
Doing WELL by APPEARING to do good is where it is at when you have nothing of substance to offer the world and your greed knows no bounds. Harry demanded that 1/2 of the money for the Diana statue be transferred to his control, wonder where IT went?
|by Anonymous||reply 56||Last Wednesday at 4:33 AM|
Even Scobie says “Those close to Prince Harry confirm that he spoke to close family before the announcement" - all that suggests is that Harry told someone in the family (not even necessarily the Queen) that they planned to call the baby Lilibet. That doesn't equate with getting the Queen's approval and it's clear that they were going to call the kid Lilibet whatever the Queen said.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||Last Wednesday at 4:34 AM|
I can absolutely imagine Mr Megs telling the Queen (his formerly beloved grandmother) that he wanted to call his daughter after her. To any reasonable person, that would have meant calling the baby Elizabeth. I doubt there would have been any objection.
Instead, they have used a name which is (was?) uniquely linked to The Queen, and tried to turn it into their daughter’s brand. How long will it be until we learn that the Lilibet trademark is now no longer an affectionate name used for the Queen by her father and husband, but rather is henceforth to be the property of The Duke and Duchess of California?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||Last Wednesday at 4:34 AM|
I bet they'll be trademarking the name real soon. Like when Beyonce and Jay-Z filed for "Rumi and Sir" within days of the birth.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||Last Wednesday at 4:35 AM|
who fucking cares
|by Anonymous||reply 60||Last Wednesday at 4:37 AM|
Seems a real FU for having their "Sussex Royal" brand quashed and Mexit shot down by the Queen. Charles was said to be in favor of the half in/half out proposal. That does not bode well for the BRF. He also wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal of O1. Hazbean is the WORST of BOTH of his parents - crazy and dramatic like his mother and consumed with self pity like his father, gross.
The name was trademarked on 6/4 when the baby was born, R59. The birth was announced on 6/6.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||Last Wednesday at 4:37 AM|
This sentiment has widespread global support - go away now!
|by Anonymous||reply 62||Last Wednesday at 4:39 AM|
Don't you just love posters like R60? Always so fresh, original and enlightening. And so unpredictable!
|by Anonymous||reply 63||Last Wednesday at 4:39 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 64||Last Wednesday at 4:40 AM|
The DM jumps in, comments are gold
|by Anonymous||reply 65||Last Wednesday at 4:41 AM|
"Lillibet" brand all-natural fabric baby and children's clothing, select home products, elite nursery schools, and specialty food items WILL be our next conquest of America, the UK, Europe, and Asia!"
|by Anonymous||reply 66||Last Wednesday at 4:41 AM|
ITV has weighed in on the story with one in which it actually says that someone in Harry's and Megham's office told ITV that Harry didn't ask the Queen for permission to use "Lilibet". And the BBC has slightly amended its story to reference the divergent stories, but is standing by its story and the reporter who was contacted by the Palace source.
". . . . But a Palace source is not denying a BBC story that the Queen was actually “never asked” by her grandson and his wife about naming their daughter Lilibet.
After an acrimonious year in which the Sussexes have accused Harry’s family of racism, ignoring pleas for help for Meghan’s mental health, cutting them off financially, and being bad parents – to mention just a few - Harry saw his family face-to-face at the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral in Windsor.
Some reports suggested he spoke to the Queen then about using Lilibet – but we’ve been told by a source in Harry and Meghan’s office that it isn’t true."
ITV stating that a source in the SUSSEX OFFICE told ITV that it was NOT true that Harry spoke to the Queen about using Lilibet!
So, where is the legal threat to ITV?
Those self-regarding morons. There isn't anything they can't fuck up, is there?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||Last Wednesday at 4:42 AM|
No worry, r54 Della. My CPAP mask was leaking and I am late arising. Otherwise, I would have quickly scolded you.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||Last Wednesday at 4:46 AM|
[quote]Now they're firing off warnings at 4:00 a..m. CA time? They like creating chaos, don't they?
Its very Trump-like isn't it; can you imagine Harry on twitter: "Only #BuckHouse losers say I didn't get QEII's permission! Fake News Wills & Kate are at it again! QEII says I am in the bestest grandson ever! "
|by Anonymous||reply 69||Last Wednesday at 4:55 AM|
This latest fracas represents a golden opportunity for the Palace to get the boot in without lifting a finger. All they have to do is refuse to comment on the story, which will, of course, suggest that the story is true: the Harkles are lying about having asked the Queen's permission to use her private, family, childhood nickname for their daughter.
IF the Palace authorised the leak, and I cannot imagine anyone in the upper tiers would have done it without a green light, they would know very well that it would make the Harkles look bad. The Queen herself would be protected from involvement by the source serving as a layer between her and the story.
And IF the Palace authorised the leak, knowing the mess that would ensue, and planning to refuse to comment on it, and let the Harkles take the credibility hit, it was a brilliant stragety on the Palace's part.
It would be a silent but deadly strike at the Harkles for the lies they've told about the Queen and her family over the last three months, for their crass opportunism in naming the baby Lilibet, and then for lying about the Queen being "supportive" of the name.
The Palace doesn't have to deny or confirm. All it has to do is state demurely that it does not feel it appropriate to drag the Queen into this unseemly gossip.
It will be interesting watching this play out.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||Last Wednesday at 4:58 AM|
R66, Lilibet reminds me of my favourite tampon brand, Lil-lets
|by Anonymous||reply 71||Last Wednesday at 4:59 AM|
R28 - That same forum has a nearly 8,600 page thread that is hugely unfavourable to Meghan. In fact, it's called: Unpopular Opinions Meghan Markle. Our very own KGT tried and tried to get it shut down, and claimed that murderous posters on it were being "reported" to the "authorities" (which included the FBI, the police, a "powerful black lobbying group" and varied other entities), and kept telling us all that "the net is closing in!" And, of course, it was all empty air, and what's closing in, is the thread reaching 9,000 pages. And it's Part Two.
Are you there, Pet?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||Last Wednesday at 5:06 AM|
[quote] So basically the use of Lilibet was meant as middle finger to the Queen
|by Anonymous||reply 73||Last Wednesday at 5:12 AM|
Too right r73, considering they've shown her no respect whatsoever, have shat all over her family and are metaphorically sticking their middle finger up at her all the time.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||Last Wednesday at 5:15 AM|
YEAH!!! Oh hang on a mo, r74, I just dropped the paper cup filled with clozapine I’m supposed to swallow
|by Anonymous||reply 75||Last Wednesday at 5:18 AM|
It would be a common courtesy to run by your family members what you are planning to name your child, especially if it is going to be named in honor of one of them.
Markle is an attention whore. I give it 12 months before she claims at some point she was raped at some point.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||Last Wednesday at 5:18 AM|
At some point I agree with you!
|by Anonymous||reply 77||Last Wednesday at 5:20 AM|
R70 Harry has already confirmed that they didn’t get the queen’s permission.
His statement is very, very caredully worded but simply says he “shared his hope” with the queen that they would be able to name the baby after her.
That is NOT asking for and receiving permission. If that had been true they’d have said that.
Harry, Meghan and Scobie are barefaced liars.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||Last Wednesday at 5:27 AM|
R76 She’ll leak photos of her “bruised” face to the media when she divorces dickhead.
Bruises that her creepy make up artist friend painted on.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||Last Wednesday at 5:29 AM|
IF the Harkles did ask for the Queen's blessing to honor her with their baby's name, she would probably have thought they would name her Elizabeth. I suspect that Lilibet NEVER came up in the conversation.
So both statements COULD be correct: H&M did inform the Queen but they didn't tell her the ACTUAL moniker they were thinking of using.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||Last Wednesday at 5:29 AM|
R80 That’s a reach.
The issue is whether they specifically asked whether they could use “Lilibet” or not. I think it’s pretty clear they did not.
They may well have simply said “We’re going to name her after you” but they’re using that to disguise the fact that they lacked the manners to ask whether they could use a private, personal nickname.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||Last Wednesday at 5:33 AM|
Harry's press statement is very carefully worded. It says that they spoke to the Queen but not that they asked and received permission. It sounds more like they informed her of their decision to use the name, and she was "supportive" of that decision. What being "supportive" means is anyone's guess.
[quote] Notice of the legal action was followed by a carefully-worded statement that raised more questions than answers over whether the Queen did give permission or if the couple simply informed her of their intentions in a fait accompli.
[quote] 'The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.
[quote] 'During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honour. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.'
The article also says the Queen was almost certainly aware of the briefing made to the BBC.
[quote] The aide behind the Palace leak to the BBC is unknown, though it is thought to be a senior official. It's also unclear if the Queen was aware of the comment, though it is considered almost unprecedented for the monarch not to sign off on quotes from senior officials, even if they are anonymous briefings.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||Last Wednesday at 5:36 AM|
R57 that’s very interesting. ITV helping the BBC, which would never publish this story without iron strong sources.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||Last Wednesday at 5:43 AM|
R83 is for R67
|by Anonymous||reply 84||Last Wednesday at 5:44 AM|
Please, let me resume this entire soap opera into a single phrase: who gives a damn?
It's a name, for God's sake - and a rather tacky one, by the way. Who cares? There are far more important things to pay attention to both in the UK and the US, and these desperate famewhores' repetitive antics got stale over 6 months ago.
By the way, you're fighting over the BRF and these two clowns, but they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||Last Wednesday at 5:49 AM|
The story provides cheap and amusing entertainment. It is possible to pay attention to "more important things" and to enjoy the latest episode is the saga of the British royal family.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||Last Wednesday at 5:53 AM|
It’s just bizarre to me how the BRF feels compelled to refute every single thing H & M do. Why? Just don’t talk about them any more. Quit giving them oxygen. They can’t push back if there’s nothing to push back against.
After decades of the BRF’s policy to just not reply to remarks about personal affairs, now they have to respond to these two constantly? That can’t be the Queen, she’s never done that before. And it’s not the BRF’s tradition to do that. Is it William?
And why aren’t they just making bland, noncommittal comments about them? That’s the custom. Some particular individual has a bug up their butt about these two, and I doubt it’s the Queen. Very old people don’t give a shit about this stuff any more. They’ve seen everything.
This kind of “I must respond to every single incident” attitude is from young people, not a very old person. Old people just say, “that’s their problem” and dismiss it. Young people are the ones filled with endless outrage and scandalized.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||Last Wednesday at 5:58 AM|
The royal family does not respond to everything the Harkles say or do, r87 far from it. But, when they straight-up lie, the royal family is right to wish to set the record straight.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||Last Wednesday at 6:02 AM|
She's allowed it go on for centuries, R45? Just how old do you think she is?
|by Anonymous||reply 89||Last Wednesday at 6:03 AM|
R6, it was a nickname her recently deceased husband called her, in addition to her family of origen and childhood friends. A note on his coffin was signed Lilibet at his recent funeral.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||Last Wednesday at 6:11 AM|
I haven’t been paying attention for a few days and thought Lilibet was a joke. It’s such a dopey name. They can call her Lily or Betty instead, Lilibet is quite a mouthful and sounds like the French aperitif. What’s wrong with naming the baby Elizabeth?
|by Anonymous||reply 91||Last Wednesday at 6:12 AM|
LOL all this drama over a child's name. Just another day in Harkle World!
|by Anonymous||reply 92||Last Wednesday at 6:12 AM|
R11, see link
|by Anonymous||reply 93||Last Wednesday at 6:14 AM|
R1 Yes, technically they don’t have to because it’s their kid. However, as with everything this couple has done, their motives often directly contradict their actions and statements that are geared toward self-promotion. Also, stunt naming is giving middle finger to the Queen and the institution that she represents. The Sussexes are basically saying take away our titles which give us our relevance and fame? We’ll name our daughter after the Queen’s pet name and merch off of the name because it’s also our daughter’s name now. Harry of all people should know how much his grandmother treasures privacy. From the linked article: “So I believe she has earned the right to whatever modicum of privacy she can carve out for herself. Something that doesn't include her grandson's appropriating her childhood nickname, one of the very few private things she possesses.”
R87 the BRF haven’t been responding to the privacy-wishing couple’s public announcements and media leaks because there have been so many of them. It’s clear as night and day that Harry and Meghan lie when they say they want privacy and hate press intrusions. What they mean is that they love the media when they’re portrayed as environmentalist-humanitarians, not when their own words and actions are criticized as hypocritical. Just like stunt-naming, they want to he seen as doing something nice but in reality there’s always an angle to it.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||Last Wednesday at 6:20 AM|
R88, I was not referring to whether they had a right to reply or not. I was referring to the fact that very old people don’t care what others think of them. Just don’t care.
My grandparents lived into their nineties and hundreds. People get to a certain age and their energy is very limited. It’s not like being seventy or even eighty. They limit their social contacts to only the people they enjoy, they can be rude or avoid family or friends they don’t care for. You get to ninety, and it’s all, honey badger just don’t care.
My thought is that the Queen has retired from some duties, Charles has taken over a lot, but I don’t think Charles would think it wise to continually respond to the black sheep of the family. He may be disappointed by it, but parents don’t generally want to alienate their grown children, even if things aren’t going well. Charles knows Harry’s temperament very well, he’s always been over-emotional. None of this is much of a surprise at this point. He’s always acted out, long before MM came along. He found a wife with a similar temperament, which in his case is unfortunate but understandable. One does want to have a meeting of the minds with one’s own wife. The better response would be to distance themselves and overlook public comments that are ill considered. Just continually make comments that, “we wish them well,” no matter what they say. People will get the point and they haven’t made themselves look bad.
William, on the other hand, is younger, Harry is his generation and they grew up together. He’s the one to take it personally, not his father or grandmother. It certainly doesn’t harm them. But considering he will one day be king, it’s petty and divisive and he should learn to discuss his private feelings privately, not in the press. It’s childish. Combined with the gossip about his affairs, it makes him seem mean and cold hearted. That’s not helpful long term.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||Last Wednesday at 6:23 AM|
LOL riiiiight. All of this really is William's fault.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||Last Wednesday at 6:28 AM|
Stunt naming, stunt critiquing - birds of a feather.....
|by Anonymous||reply 97||Last Wednesday at 6:28 AM|
Y’know, Spencer would’ve been a good name to choose. Sucking up to the wrong side of the family maybe? or building a bridge to them who after all are cousins with babies and Kitty is about to marry some mega-rich old guy.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||Last Wednesday at 6:28 AM|
R95, unlike the quick-tempered Harry, the royal family don't care about personal attacks on them as individuals. What they do mind about, on the rare occasions that they clap back, is when straight-up lies are told, particularly about things that have broader implications. So, if Harry straight up lies and alleges that the Queen gave her seal of approval to the Harkles naming their daughter Lilibet, then there will be a response from the palace, not least because the purpose of claiming this alleged thumbs up from the Queen is so they can continue their royal branding.
Recollections may vary, after all.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||Last Wednesday at 6:29 AM|
R87 weak SS intern. The BRF responded to the Harkles' vague claims of vague racism by noting that Recollections May Vary. Other than that they have paid them dust. This time the Queen herself has said her grandson is a liar. Period.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||Last Wednesday at 6:36 AM|
R96, that is not what I was saying at all and you know it. This is not about whose “fault” this is. It’s about perception, not fact. The BRF exists on perception alone. It’s an antiquated institution that isn’t necessary but it continues as a positive influence. They survive on popularity and a sense that they are above controversy.
If they want to act like Alexis Carrington’s family on Dynasty in public, squabbling publicly continually and throwing drinks in each others’ faces, they have a right to. But the BRF isn’t going to survive lowering themselves to that level. Many wealthy families have a black sheep who seems to exist to embarrass the rest of the family. Look up Billy Carter, President Carter’s brother, for example. The correct response isn’t to continually act horrified every time that person opens their mouth. You keep making bland comments about how you love them no matter what, and either they subside or become irrelevant. You let outsiders make the judgement that you’re the reasonable one.
The BRF can attempt to win every battle, but they’re going to lose the war of public opinion if they keep it up. Every other family has some sort of jackass in it. Many overlook it at Christmas and so forth, and ignore it the rest of the time. People have done it in their own families, and they’re sympathetic. Nobody’s family is perfect. Harry is on the other side of the planet. Ignore him.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||Last Wednesday at 6:40 AM|
[quote] It would be a common courtesy to run by your family members what you are planning to name your child,
A literally batshit insane statement.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||Last Wednesday at 6:43 AM|
R101, if the royal family isn't necessary, then how do you propose the British head of state is selected?
|by Anonymous||reply 103||Last Wednesday at 6:44 AM|
Actually, r102, it's a very valid statement when you are planning to use your famous grandmother's private family name for your new daughter, with all the implications that has. After all, Harry and Meghan are adamant that they did run it by family members first.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||Last Wednesday at 6:45 AM|
Didn't Charles warn Hazbean that the trouble with dramatic people is that they are ALWAYS dramatic? Or words to that effect. The Narkles are moving from exhausting or repugnant to boring and uninteresting. Their predictable Sunshine Shite tactics of putting out oodles of placed pr so as to drive chatter re: the conflicts is lame AF.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||Last Wednesday at 6:46 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 106||Last Wednesday at 6:47 AM|
R101, how often has the BRF directly rebutted the Sussexes? There was “recollections may vary” and this. They “constantly” respond to the Sussexes only in the Sussexes’ dreams.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||Last Wednesday at 6:47 AM|
Scobie's wording "shared the couple's hope" does not = "asking permission"
|by Anonymous||reply 108||Last Wednesday at 6:48 AM|
If they weren't trashing "the family she never had" and suing and exploiting their children the Suckses would have NO sources of income. Oh dear!
|by Anonymous||reply 109||Last Wednesday at 6:49 AM|
As expected, thin-skinned Harry and Meghan (through their mouthpiece Scobie) are now full-fledged brownshirt members of cancel culture where anyone who dares to publicly make fun of the (potential) naming of their kid, is labeled as racist and should be canceled. Apparently “Doprah”, a combination of Doria and Oprah, is now considered a racist offense that deserves the writer to be canceled. She hasn’t been but another writer who was targeted by Scobie has been let go by The Telegraph for suggesting they should’ve named their daughter after George Floyd.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||Last Wednesday at 6:55 AM|
R103, Have a Prime Minister as head of state, like half the planet does. Many countries exist without a Royal family. It’s not impossible. Even former monarchies.
R105, that is my point exactly. The Royals have no control whatsoever about what comes out of H & M’s mouths. All they can control is their response. They already know, if H & M say something and they disagree, H & M will response to their disagreement. Stop responding! Stop talking! Look up the Grey Rock method and apply it. So much of H & M’s comments are about grievances, real or imagined. Stop giving them more things to talk about.
H & M are narcissists. The BRF need to read a few books about narcissism and apply what they learn. You can never, ever win an argument with a narcissist. Nothing is their fault. Everything is your fault. The Grey Rock method is the correct way to deal with these people. They can’t fight if nobody will fight with them. If the attitude of the BRF is, “we must fight and fight until we win,” this will never stop and it will get more and more adversarial and unflattering for all concerned.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||Last Wednesday at 6:55 AM|
It really is a shame, I do think the family loved and protected Haz. He said they would be the family Megs never had. Instead she pulled her scorched earth tactics as she did with both sides of her family, Trevor, Corey, etc. He loved his family in 2017 with these statements....
There is no way the Narkles will win against the BRF and the public has already turned against them. No one likes whingers and perpetual victims. The book is a disaster like everything else they touch, it seems. Maybe they should save some of that Sunshine Shite money for living expenses?
The views for the Apple town hall were way down. They have shot their wad, all they can do is become uglier. We all know, "the BRF killed my mother" is coming.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||Last Wednesday at 6:56 AM|
It was very stupid and ill judged for the BRF to cut them off financially. They have no leverage over them at all. They could have paid them to shut up. They did that with the Duke of Windsor to some extent. Now H & M have to whore themselves out to the highest bidder to support themselves because they are idiots, especially Harry, who knows nothing about working for a living. This was predictable.
They should have given them an allowance in return for shutting up about the BRF. It would have been well worth the money.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||Last Wednesday at 7:00 AM|
The Narkles are disgusting trash. If she actually did have a miscarriage and it was not feigned for PR and victimhood, you would think they would be settling in, extra grateful for a healthy newborn. Of course not. The are not going to win @ the BRF. They have no genuine positive skills to generate income yet squander a King's ransom on lawyers and PR that they do not listen to. Go away Narkles.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||Last Wednesday at 7:05 AM|
H&M can't even enjoy the birth of their daughter without threatening someone who doesn't buy their shit. They DO NOT sound like a happy pair.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||Last Wednesday at 7:09 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 116||Last Wednesday at 7:10 AM|
Narcs DO NOT LIKE being held to account. At all.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||Last Wednesday at 7:11 AM|
Lol r111, a prime minister is NOT a head of state. A prime minister is the head of *government*. We have a prime minister, he's called Boris Johnson. Haven't you heard of him?
Of course we can exist with a ceremonial president as head of state, but that would be an absolutely nightmare scenario to establish and there is very little desire for that in the UK. We have a constitutional arrangement that serves the needs of the country and represents its history and culture. Sure, the monarchy can and must be made smaller and less bloated, but it is a functional system that embodies the country and its people and which has existed for a millennium. Within the country itself - the stuff people like you don't get to hear about and you think it's all Harry and Meghan drama - the royal family does a lot of very good work, with charities, disadvantaged groups, businesses, the youth, etc.
It's no surprise that Americans are completely ignorant of other types of constitutions and political systems. Did you know, for example, that Japan doesn't just have a king, it has an emperor? He doesn't run the government, though.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||Last Wednesday at 7:13 AM|
[quote]William, on the other hand, is younger, Harry is his generation and they grew up together. He’s the one to take it personally, not his father or grandmother. It certainly doesn’t harm them. But considering he will one day be king, it’s petty and divisive and he should learn to discuss his private feelings privately, not in the press
You mean like when he privately called Harry after about his unhappiness over the Oprah interview, and then the next day Gayle King announced it to thr world on national news?
No, that doesn't work with the Sussexes, as you know that very well. They've already started playing the game of leaking everything to the press to garner public support.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||Last Wednesday at 7:13 AM|
Harry looks like hell.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||Last Wednesday at 7:17 AM|
I thought they were taking 5 months of leave? To what, focus on intensifying their PR?
|by Anonymous||reply 121||Last Wednesday at 7:18 AM|
There are people out there who are swallowing the Markle BS, of course. But most of us who’ve dealt with these types know what’s really going on.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||Last Wednesday at 7:27 AM|
Meghan and Harry never ask permission and they never apologize. I may be overlooking an instance where they have, so if anyone can show me where they’ve ever done, I’m willing to concede.
And it’s interesting that there was a bunch of hooey surrounding Archie’s birth, too. These people cannot do anything without cloaking it in manufactured mystery and chaos. Nothing is ever straight-forward with them.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||Last Wednesday at 7:30 AM|
R120, looks like he got plugs, no?
|by Anonymous||reply 125||Last Wednesday at 7:33 AM|
Their long parental leave includes threats to sue the BBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||Last Wednesday at 7:33 AM|
R85 It’s a wildly entertaining soap opera, makes for delicious gossip. But there are deeper issues at play, heavy ones about contemporary society and the monarchy as an institution.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||Last Wednesday at 7:33 AM|
R101 This fucking stupid idea that the monarchy isn’t “necessary” is only heard from clueless Americans.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy. The fact of it is woven into every area of our national life. There’s a REASON the PM of the day has a weekly meeting with HMQ, and it’s not politeness.
In a consitutional monarchy having a monarch is, at the very, very least, “necessary”.
Don’t talk about things you don’t understand.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||Last Wednesday at 7:38 AM|
R105 “But Papa, I am an emotional, hotheaded ginger. I LOVE drama. Reminds me of Mummy.”
|by Anonymous||reply 129||Last Wednesday at 7:38 AM|
R124, it is typical tactics of Sunshine Shite, they have used same approach re: other clients on this very board. Manufactured drama, intrigue, controversy, whatever it takes to drive convo and they like to have a zillion different narratives going, they probably max out their billing that way. The brand does seem to be tanking, it has been poorly managed, but the Suckses are known to not listen, so maybe SS did have better ideas. Talk @ dark triad types - the Suckses, Scoobie Doo and Sunshine Shite and our very own KGT.
Now that summer is here and things are re-opening, can't imagine they will be much of a draw going forward. No one likes the negativity. Putting private convos from his grandfather's funeral in a book is literally disgusting, no one wants to read that unless they are sick and disordered too. IRL you would cut off people like this.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||Last Wednesday at 7:38 AM|
It looks like the Sunshine Sachs trolls, narcissist trolls and the stupid nickname trolls have waddled into this thread and started gurgling their nonsense. Now is the time to FF and ignore.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||Last Wednesday at 7:47 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 132||Last Wednesday at 7:52 AM|
The Sussexes’ lawyers have sent threatening letters to various British media outlets telling them that they shouldn’t “repeat” on the allegations in the BBC story, i.e., they shouldn’t report on the story.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||Last Wednesday at 7:58 AM|
Along time ago a Romanov friend, who had grown up at Windsor with his grandmother Grand Duchess Ksenia and his great-grandmother the Dowager Empress, told me stories about Lilibet and what it was like to grow up there. I think he lived at Wilderness House. He and his siblings used to play with Elisabeth and called her by that name. They also played with Margaret. They were instructed to let Elizabeth and Margaret win at board games or cards they played. They also had to allow them to hit them or run into them with bikes without protesting. He also called her Lilibet. That's all they called her. When the Queen was in California on her yacht she invited him to visit him on the ship.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||Last Wednesday at 7:59 AM|
[quote] I remember utterly freezing up when they announced the name for Archie. I couldn’t wrap my brain around it.
MARY! I guess it must be hard to wrap when you have only three brain cells.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||Last Wednesday at 8:00 AM|
"But there are deeper issues at play, heavy ones about contemporary society and the monarchy as an institution." - Not at all, r127. There are no particular issues with the monarchy as an institution in the UK and whatever ignorant nonsense Americans are spouting about the monarchy as an institution is infantile bullshit that is completely irrelevant.
Sure, the monarchy could do with a little tidying up around the edges, but that's what you get when there's been one incumbent for so many decades. There will be some streamlining when Charles ascends to the throne, but as an institution the monarchy's position is secure.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||Last Wednesday at 8:03 AM|
R136 Hope you’re right.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||Last Wednesday at 8:18 AM|
R101 - I don't know where you've been throughout this, but not lowering themselves to "this level" is exactly what the BRF have done. Except for the quietly suggestive "recollections may vary", the BRF have remained excruciatingly silent in the face of repeated grenades lobbed at them by their own flesh and blood. Charles wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal after the first Oprah interview - the Queen stopped him. Except for William the next day, accompanying the wife who had also been thrown under the bus the night before, saying quietly, "We are not a racist family, " there has not been a single denial or contradtion of press stories or counteraccusations from the BRF through, what is it, four interviews in two months in which the family was attacked, the Queen's and Philip's parenting being responsible for Harry's current issues - all just a few weeks after the Queen buried her husband.
If using her private, intimate, family nickname for the new baby and Harry's and Meghan 's lies about having discussed it with her and gotten her support, and their continued stories about how despite how viciously they have treated the Queen and her family she still loves them to bits and hasn't remotely held them accountable for their actions, was the last straw, who can blame them for reacting? And for dropping a discreet little barb suggesting that the two were, yet again, lying . Correcting - for ONCE - their willingness to take advantage of her habit of silence does NOT put the Queen in the Alexis Carrington School of Combat.
If you appease, you encourage. There comes a point where silence equals acquiescence.
Either the Queen comes out and backs up the Sussexes, or remains silent, basically letting the obvious stand.
And even that is hardly the sort of aggressive tactic the Sussexes are so prone to.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||Last Wednesday at 8:23 AM|
R133 - Too little, too late. The Mail, Express, BBC, and ITV have all carried the story.
This is more of the Sussex War On A Free Press.
I don't believe they have a legal leg to stand on.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||Last Wednesday at 8:26 AM|
Bang on, R138. Bang on.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||Last Wednesday at 8:31 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 141||Last Wednesday at 8:32 AM|
The Harry statement reads so vaguely that various interpretations are possible. Maybe he told her "We want to name her after you" and she assumed Elizabeth as a first or middle name, or she assumed "Lilibet" would be the middle or 3rd name. Or maybe he clearly said "We want her first name to be Lilibet" and she grimaced and rang for her gin and tonic, which was interpreted as "supportive."
|by Anonymous||reply 142||Last Wednesday at 8:41 AM|
I have to say I love the Australian Media. Unlike the British Media (and the sycophantic US Media), they have had no qualms with calling H&M out from day one of Megxit.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||Last Wednesday at 8:46 AM|
Since they are no longer officially royal they don’t need anyone’s permission on whose names they can give their children.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||Last Wednesday at 8:54 AM|
In the UK, popular opinion will likely land with the Queen. Outside of the young woke crowd, most people have had enough of H&M and just groan when we hear their names. Personally, I don't think the Queen gives a shit what the baby was named. Unlike her grandson, the Queen doesn't believe in playing the victim. I also believe Harry mentioned it was intention to name a daughter after her, though I suspect he didn't say they'd use Lilibet and that she assume Elizabeth as all her other grand kids have done.
I think it is the Palace staff who've had enough of H&M's constant BS PR stories about how close they are to the Queen or how Meg is reaching out an olive branch to Kate etc. etc. Given the fact that it's pretty much certain Meghan was a bitch to work for. They are not any closer to the Queen than any other member of the family (in fact they are much less so), they do not zoom with the Queen regularly (she hates Zoom and was reluctant to embrace it, she prefers the phone). Kate ain't taking Meghan's calls. This was not an olive branch, this as was an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of a 95 year old woman and a dead mother. And I think that's what pissed the staff off the most. For a couple that claimed they wanted to get a way from the "toxicity" they sure love playing up their royal connections.
Also of course H&M didn't need "permission." But I think why some people are upset is that Lilibet was such a personal name to the Queen, some felt it would have been kind to signal to the Queen they'd like to use it.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||Last Wednesday at 9:01 AM|
Hard to tell whether r144 is genuinely missing the very obvious point or deliberately being stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||Last Wednesday at 9:04 AM|
No one is as stupid as the Harry and Meghan haters like yourself r146.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||Last Wednesday at 9:07 AM|
Dymond's tweets are still up as is a vid
@JonnyDymond 10 hrs ago UPDATE: A source close to Prince Harry tells BBC that he shared desire of naming his daughter ‘Lilibet’ with the Queen ahead of the announcement and ‘had she not been supportive they would not have used the name’. Palace source told BBC earlier that the Queen was ‘never asked’.
@JonnyDymond · 11h BREAKING Palace source tells BBC that the Queen was not asked by Meghan and Harry over the use of her childhood nickname; reports suggested Harry had sought permission from Queen to call newborn ‘Lilibet’; but Palace source says the Queen was ‘never asked’
|by Anonymous||reply 148||Last Wednesday at 9:09 AM|
And the whole family needs their titles snatched from under their cunts.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||Last Wednesday at 9:09 AM|
The Queen has had enough of the Sussex Shit Stirrers.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||Last Wednesday at 9:11 AM|
H&M actually suing the BBC is as likely as most of DLers suddenly deciding they love pussy. They won't sue the BBC like they didn't sue The Times about the bullying allegations.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||Last Wednesday at 9:14 AM|
R147 No one with an age or IQ higher than 15 uses the word “haters”.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||Last Wednesday at 9:16 AM|
Take your tranquilizers, cunt at r152. So tiresome. You’re a walking argument for lobotomies.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||Last Wednesday at 9:18 AM|
OPs thread tittle tells you how backwards the Royal Family really is...
Ask for permission? This is America sweetheart. You name your kid however you want.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||Last Wednesday at 9:19 AM|
R151 - Some information on the UK Defamation Act 2013.
"The act introduced a new threshold requirement to defamation claims that the claimant has suffered “serious harm” to his or her reputation. In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the act brought about “a new threshold of serious harm which did not previously exist”.
In order to succeed in a defamation claim in the UK, a claimant now needs to establish: (i) the “publication” of a statement, (ii) that the statement was about the claimant, (iii) that the statement was defamatory to the claimant, and (iv) that the defamatory statement met the threshold of “serious harm”, that is, that publication of the statement has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
An additional limb to the “serious harm” test applies where the claimant is a body that trades for profit. Defamation laws in the UK allow not only living individuals but also legal entities to bring claims for the harm caused to their reputation. When such an entity trades for profit, the legislation provides that “serious harm” will only be caused, or be likely to be caused, if the body suffers serious financial loss."
As the Harkles function as both financial entities and personal ones, they would have their work cut out for them trying to prove defamation by the BBC or any other newspaper for1) serious harm to personal reputation, and 2) loss of income due to damage to their reputation.
If Netflix or Spotify or BetterUP came out tomorrow and said that on the basis of the suggestion that their contracted partners lied about discussing their newborn daughter's name with Queen Elizabeth II, they were cancelling their contracts with said partners, the Sussexes might have a leg to stand on.
This isn't like the ANL case, where the Mail handled Meghan's letter to her father really stupidly.
This is the BBC simply reporting what it was told by a reporter who claims to have heard it from a Palace source.
If the Palace doesn't deny the source's information, the Sussexes, by pursuing such a case, keep in the forefront of the public mind the fact that they were likely lying. Nor can they prove serious harm to their personal reputations without bringing in evidence of same: headlines screaming SUSSEX LIARS! and the like.
As always, the smart thing to do would have been to ignore the stories, which would have faded within a couple of days, and publish some beautiful photos of Adorable Archie and Lovely Lili, and shrug and say, What can you do? They publish rot all the time.
But their instinct is always to go for the jugular. In this case, the jugular is more likely to be theirs .
They never, ever do the smart thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||Last Wednesday at 9:28 AM|
Oh, ouch R153. That’s just so deeply cutting and wounding. I am going to cry all night because a moron in a trailer sent me a feeble & uninspiring “insult”.
Not an Ivy Leaguer, are you dear? That’s fine...Meghan’s fans never are.
|by Anonymous||reply 156||Last Wednesday at 9:29 AM|
Can they just get that name annulled and start over?
|by Anonymous||reply 157||Last Wednesday at 9:29 AM|
I think that r156 will cry. They probably are right now.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||Last Wednesday at 9:32 AM|
The stupid little Megstan at r147, r153, etc. is really quite pathetic but at least performs the service of showing how vacuous her supporters are.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||Last Wednesday at 9:53 AM|
Keep it up r159...but why do you get so angry? So pissed. 😆
|by Anonymous||reply 160||Last Wednesday at 9:56 AM|
The “but she didn’t say we couldn’t” absolutely reeks of “malicious compliance”.
Come to think of it, it’s not even *compliance*, because no one asked them to do anything. I’m not sure what to label that behavior. But it’s malicious and disingenuous.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||Last Wednesday at 9:57 AM|
R145 technically of course not. But you know you’re doing something wrong when you argument is based upon a technicality. Also if they don’t care about being royal then why not renounce their titles? Instead they make it a point to style themselves that way every chance they get, especially Meghan who’s technically worked as a royal for a mere 4 months. She clings on to a title from a place in hated England, somewhere she’s not even set foot to, but hey they love technicalities.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||Last Wednesday at 10:01 AM|
Golly, Harry & the Megster just can't stop telling whoppers and they rely on the Royal Family's 'never complain, never explain' mantra to get away with it. Oops.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||Last Wednesday at 10:01 AM|
CNN just announced a special 'Harry and Meghan's Revolution in the Monarchy'! first of all, people who live in the US are not royals. So those two grifters need to drop the titles and the pretension. They're just two more reality TV celebs and we don't have any vacancies.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||Last Wednesday at 10:05 AM|
It's been discussed that palace staff want Meghan and Harry stripped of their titles but the Queen and Charles are reluctant to do so. A petition asking Harry to voluntarily give up his titles has picked up steam as well. I think they see the use of Lilibet as being advantageous rather than a tribute and felt the Queen was being attacked.
I mean there is only so long you can expect the Palace to sit back and let you spin all these fake stories about the special bond with the Queen.
|by Anonymous||reply 165||Last Wednesday at 10:07 AM|
In French, the most popular term of endearment is "chou" - cabbage. Both Phil and Liz spoke French.
The only reason the princeling and the starlet named their kid Lilibet was to merch her to the max and give the finger to Granny and Daddy. Granny and Daddy have had enough of the princeling and the starlet and their antics.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||Last Wednesday at 10:12 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 167||Last Wednesday at 10:31 AM|
These two entitled fucks can’t even do stunt-naming correctly. They should’ve pulled a Kim K and do something totally fucked up insane like North West. But no, they had to highjack a private nickname from a private woman, one that they’d branded a bad mother and head of a racist family no less.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||Last Wednesday at 10:41 AM|
Has Meghan’s bestie and dirt nap wisher Chrissy Teigen publicly congratulated her yet?
|by Anonymous||reply 169||Last Wednesday at 10:44 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 170||Last Wednesday at 10:45 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 171||Last Wednesday at 10:48 AM|
Of course they would register a domain name Lilidiana, and do it before they announce to the world. I bet their lawyers knew about the name before the Queen, who was likely informed after the fact. How can anyone defend this sort of unrepentant, commercialized cuntiness?
|by Anonymous||reply 172||Last Wednesday at 10:57 AM|
Lilidiana.com was trademarked 5/31 before the child arrived. Harry himself says he called the Queen after the birth and DURING that convo he raised "hopes" of naming her in the Queen's honor. So it was a done deal before she even knew.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||Last Wednesday at 11:04 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 174||Last Wednesday at 11:04 AM|
So Harry the royal dolt sets his attacking lawyers on the British press for reporting that he didn’t consult with granny about the stunt-naming? Does Harry know the difference between consulting and informing? Apparently not since he’s not the royal dolt for nothing. This is a man who goes on about genetic pain when he clearly meant generational pain.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||Last Wednesday at 11:12 AM|
As if the Queen could say no to them. She knows the minute she did the Markles would cry racism again. Markle is one cunning, mean bitch.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||Last Wednesday at 11:26 AM|
It’s always interesting to see which hills they pick to die on.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||Last Wednesday at 11:26 AM|
They may call their child any name they want, including Lilibet. There would be no reason for them to lie about having the Queen's permission, yet they did lie. They seem compelled to lie even when there isn't a sane reason to lie.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||Last Wednesday at 11:40 AM|
DL Fav Camilla Tominey has the details:
Amid the briefing war that has broken out between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Buckingham Palace and the BBC, what the Queen actually thinks about Harry and Meghan naming their newborn daughter Lilibet has become rather a secondary issue.
The palace’s refusal to deny BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond’s report that Her Majesty was "never asked" her opinion on the couple’s decision to name the baby after her childhood nickname speaks volumes about the ongoing disconnect between the institution and the Sussexes’ stateside operation.
Royal aides have become increasingly vexed by Harry and Meghan’s representatives - both official and self-appointed - claiming to speak for the 95-year-old monarch when they are in no position to do so. They are increasingly concerned the couple are attempting to draw a distinction between the Queen and the institution she represents
Claiming the couple would not have called their second child Lilibet without the Queen’s backing, their LA-based "global press secretary" Toya Holness told The Telegraph: "The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.
"During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name."
Yet despite the Sussexes' lawyers, Schillings, accusing the BBC of defamation, the statement does not contradict the thrust of Mr Dymond’s report that the Queen was told, rather than asked, about the baby’s name.
The suggestion that she might have voiced disapproval when presented with the news of the arrival of her eleventh great-grandchild has understandably raised eyebrows behind palace gates.
Not only is the great-grandmother renowned for her tendency to avoid conflict, but there is also the small matter of her actively trying to bridge the gap between the monarchy and its former "much loved" members.
As such, the general consensus appears to be that while she probably would have felt "uncomfortable" about the royal couple appropriating her late husband’s pet name for her - after everything that has happened since Harry and Meghan dropped their Megxit bombshell in January 2020 - she would hardly have been minded to rock the boat.
|by Anonymous||reply 179||Last Wednesday at 11:40 AM|
Harry and Meghan have been noticeably careful to heap praise on the sovereign, as she prepares for her Platinum Jubilee next year, while voicing criticism of "The Firm" in general.
Yet as the head of the Royal family, not to mention the Commonwealth, insiders have long argued the Queen and the monarchy are one and the same thing.
Royal aides were similarly frustrated when Harry "blamed the staff" for blocking meetings with his grandmother and father in the run up to their departure, pointing out that "that is what courtiers are paid to do".
As one put it at the time: "It’s all very well blaming the staff when you haven’t got what you want. They are working for the boss, first and foremost."
Equally problematic are the couple’s frequent public references to "conversations" with the Queen, which would ordinarily remain private.
From confiding in James Corden that "granny" bought Archie, their two-year-old son, a waffle maker for Christmas, to the revelation they "spoke to the Queen to express their sympathies" in the wake of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death in April, there is a sense of cynicism around the couple repeatedly name-checking the monarch amid briefings that calls with other members of the Royal family have been "unproductive".
This perhaps explains why sources close to the Prince of Wales have been so keen to brief this week that he is in "regular contact" with his son - in the absence of such information emanating from across the pond.
Curiously, the Sussexes tend to shy away from discussing private exchanges - unless they involve HM. It is therefore understandable that the palace may be minded to intervene when, to coin a phrase, "recollections may differ".
|by Anonymous||reply 180||Last Wednesday at 11:41 AM|
Peep this one, R178! Harry, per Scoobie Doo, called the Queen first after the birth. The birth was Friday. The copyrights were filed Friday or 5/31. The Queen was not informed until SUNDAY, 15 min before the news went to press.
People like this lie about EVERYTHING, things that matter and things that don't. And if they are called on ANY of it they go NUCLEAR. Soon to come - Granny killed my mom! And the film the Archewell guy owns the right too, incoming.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||Last Wednesday at 12:19 PM|
Lady Colin Campbell started this petition to The public The purpose is to invite Prince Harry to voluntarily ask The Queen to put his royal style, titles and rank into abeyance, thereby freeing him from the diplomatic, political and constitutional constraints that are an inevitable part of royal rank, and further freeing him from the constitutional conflicts which his beliefs are creating, with all their implications at home and abroad, in particular in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where his articulated beliefs are in open conflict with the accepted tenets of both the United Kingdom and American Constitutions. As a purely private citizen, with no royal rank, style or title, he will be able to indulge his personal beliefs, as is the right of all private citizens, without the consequential possibility of damaging the institution of the Monarchy or relations between Friendly Powers, and will be free to articulate beliefs, no matter how objectionable, without the fallout that is otherwise inevitable as long as he possesses royal status. His invitation to The Sovereign, being of his own accord, will resolve conflicts that would otherwise be inevitable, and will permit him to enjoy the credit of having put both national and international interests above his own, personal ones, in the process gaining him respect that he otherwise will not enjoy.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||Last Wednesday at 12:27 PM|
Lady C got it right yesterday. She is often correct which is why she drives Sunshine Shite (and our own KGT) round the bend. she has a large audience too.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||Last Wednesday at 12:32 PM|
Oh dear, fibbing again?
|by Anonymous||reply 184||Last Wednesday at 12:34 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 185||Last Wednesday at 12:39 PM|
Harry is three children away plus two from being relevant to the Queen or British.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||Last Wednesday at 12:41 PM|
I still think there will be a reality show before a split.
|by Anonymous||reply 187||Last Wednesday at 12:42 PM|
So they're threatening to sue the BBC now? They're certainly a litigious pair of little grifters.
|by Anonymous||reply 188||Last Wednesday at 12:48 PM|
There was a piece in The Times over the weekend that the Queen was "informed" re: the name. Anyone with a subscription wo could post the text, pretty pls? Seems to support the BBC story.
|by Anonymous||reply 189||Last Wednesday at 12:51 PM|
R188 It's laughingly predictable. If anyone published a story they don't like, they go straight to the legal action.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||Last Wednesday at 12:51 PM|
Narcs simply cannot TOLERATE the slightest bit of criticism w/o going NUCLEAR. So predictable.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||Last Wednesday at 12:53 PM|
The domain PrincessLilibet.com was registered to someone on May 31........
|by Anonymous||reply 192||Last Wednesday at 12:58 PM|
He did not speak to the Queen until 15 min before the announcement went to press on Sunday, WELL AFTER 5/31.
|by Anonymous||reply 193||Last Wednesday at 1:00 PM|
Can anyone paste the text of this piece from The Times? It reportedly stated that the Queen was "informed" re: the name. If the paperwork had been filed 5/31, it was a done deal by 6/6.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||Last Wednesday at 1:16 PM|
The Harkles make the Kardashians look hard-working and classy.
|by Anonymous||reply 195||Last Wednesday at 1:17 PM|
The Queen, in response, informed him that his actual name is "Henry."
|by Anonymous||reply 196||Last Wednesday at 1:18 PM|
Per The Times
"It is understood that the Queen was informed by the duke that her 11th great-grandchild would be named after her."
Does not sound like he asked her permission or if she would be comfortable, does it? And of course if all the paperwork had been filed re the names on 5/31 and 6/4, it was moot by 6/6 The Queen was told 15 min before the news went to press. They like to box people in then claim to be the victims themselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||Last Wednesday at 1:19 PM|
It really is elder abuse, look how tiny and frail she is at 95. Had it not been for O1, Philip may well have been here to celebrate his birthday tomorrow. What can you expect from someone who abuses animals but abuse of the vulnerable. Harry is trash, like his grifter 1st wife.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||Last Wednesday at 1:23 PM|
R189 Harry doesn’t understand the difference between the words informed and consulted. I’d imagine he fired the missives to his lawyers today, and bow the lawyers are having eggs on their face and talking to Harry about just exactly what he meant by letting the Queen know. When/ how/ and which name?
PrincessLilibet.com and PrincessLilibetDiana.com. Not only tacky as fuck but blatant signaling of intent to commercialize off of the Queen and royal association. There you go folks, anyone who’s left that are defending and giving these two cunts the benefit of doubt in this and in every shitty lies that they’ve been telling.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||Last Wednesday at 1:25 PM|
A cartoon that says it all.
|by Anonymous||reply 200||Last Wednesday at 1:29 PM|
Thanks for posting the Camilla Tominey article, R179. It sounds like HM is at the end of her rope and wants Harry to know it.
I still can't believe he named the baby Lilibet without asking the Queen if she would be ok with it first, or that he would do something so sure to cloud his daughter's birth. What's wrong with him?
|by Anonymous||reply 201||Last Wednesday at 1:38 PM|
Meanwhile, despite Harry's legal threats, both BBC and ITV still have the story up, and it's late evening here. The Telegraph has coveted the story, with the text pasted above (thanks to that poster!).
What that means is that Harry's defamation threat is a toothless feint, and everyone knows it.
And, the Palace has not issued a statement in the 8 hours since the story broke.
All signs point so far to the Sussexes this time getting quietly screwed by the Palace and the press.
Well, as Scarlett said, "Tomorrow is another day."
|by Anonymous||reply 202||Last Wednesday at 1:40 PM|
Harry and Meghan announce birth of daughter Lilibet Diana
Ben Hoyle, Los Angeles | Valentine Low
Monday June 07 2021, 7.00am BST, The Times
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced the birth of their second child, naming her after the Queen and Diana, Princess of Wales.
Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor was born on Friday in the southern Californian city of Santa Barbara, close to her parents’ home in Montecito.
It is understood that the Queen was informed by the duke that her 11th great-grandchild would be named after her.
The newborn is eighth in line to the throne with a position immediately behind her father and her brother, Archie.
“Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home,” the couple said in a statement released last night. “Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty the Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet.
“Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor [sic] her beloved late grandmother, the Princess of Wales.”
Buckingham Palace appeared to have been caught off guard by the announcement, issued under the couple’s royal cypher, which shows their initials interwoven and topped with a crown. Some time after the news broke, but before they had time to offer congratulations, the palace posted news about the Princess Royal travelling to Dorset for the anniversary of the 13th Signal Regiment.
A statement from Buckingham Palace said: “The Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news.”
The official Twitter account of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall posted: “Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana. Wishing them all well at this special time.”
The Duke and Duchess and Cambridge said: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili.”
Boris Johnson sent his “many congratulations” to the couple and Sir Keir Starmer welcomed the “wonderful news”.
As with every move that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made since emigrating to America early last year, the thought process behind the naming of their second child will be raked over. It is likely to confirm perceptions of the pair among their fanatical supporters and equally committed critics.
In a little over a year the couple have broken away from the royal family, plunged the monarchy into crisis and reinvented themselves as entertainment moguls. Now by naming their daughter after both the Queen and the late Diana, Princess of Wales, the couple have emphasised their affection for the head of the House of Windsor and simultaneously invoked the legacy of the last person to engineer a comparable global debate over the values of the royal family. Or they have just honoured a beloved grandmother and mother.
“Lilibet” dates back to George V, who called his granddaughter, the future Elizabeth II, that in imitation of her efforts to pronounce her own name when she was a toddler.
The Duke of Edinburgh then called his wife by her nickname. After their wedding he wrote to his mother-in-law that: “Lilibet is the only ‘thing’ in the world which is absolutely real to me.”
At the duke’s funeral in April the Queen is said to have left a handwritten note on top of his coffin signed: “Lilibet”.
The Duke of Sussex is understood to have spoken to his grandmother before the announcement yesterday. He and his wife spoke fondly of the Queen during the otherwise incendiary interview that they gave to Oprah Winfrey in March.
They stressed then that they remained in contact with her. The duke, 36, said that he had “spoken to my grandmother more this past year than I have in many years”.
He denied he had blindsided her by stepping back from an active royal role last year. “I’ve never blindsided my grandmother,” he said. “I have too much respect for her.”
|by Anonymous||reply 203||Last Wednesday at 1:54 PM|
Times article cont.
Although the couple levelled accusations of cruelty and racism against the institution of the royal household, the duchess, 39, specified that “the Queen has always been wonderful to me”. She recalled that her first meeting with her had been “lovely and easy” and described sharing a blanket with her to keep warm on their first public engagement together, adding “I really loved being in her company”.
She added that she had recently telephoned the Queen when the Duke of Edinburgh was unwell.
The influence of Diana on her younger son has always been evident but the duke discussed the pain of losing her in unprecedented detail with Winfrey in the documentary series that they made together or Apple TV+, which began streaming last month.
Diana died in a car crash in 1997 when Prince Harry was 12. She would have been 60 on July 1.
The duke told Winfrey that he used drink and drugs to deal with his trauma and added it was only after embarking on a relationship with Meghan that he realised he had to “deal with my past”.
Later he feared that he was seeing “history repeating itself” in what he regarded as media harassment of his biracial wife. “My mother was chased to her death when she was in a relationship with someone who wasn’t white, and now look what’s happened,” he said. “They’re not going to stop until she dies.”
He explained that fear of losing his wife, who has said that she contemplated suicide, “was one of the biggest reasons to leave” the UK.
Friends in high places
Boris Johnson: “Many congratulations to The Duke & Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their daughter.”
Sir Keir Starmer: “Wonderful news! Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”
Misan Harriman, a photographer friend of Meghan: “Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor. Welcome to the world. Lilibet has arrived! Congratulations to my brave friend and her lovely family!”
Invictus Games Foundation: "Congratulations to our Patron The Duke of Sussex and to the Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their second child! Welcome to the Invictus family Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor!"
Ellen DeGeneres, the comedienne and actress, who is a friend of the couple, tweeted: “Congratulations Meghan, Harry and Archie. Welcome to the world Lilibet! I am more than a Lilibet excited to meet you.”
|by Anonymous||reply 204||Last Wednesday at 1:55 PM|
I expect the BRF are not looking forward to the day when Lilibet emerges from rehab or is photographed making out with some guy, covered in tattoos. I would be horrified if I were one of the BRF.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||Last Wednesday at 2:05 PM|
Tomorrow would have been Philip's birthday. As always, they have the worst possible timing. Of course, had they not done the O1 interview, he may well have been here. The call put him in the hospital within 24 hours. Sick, cruel people those Sussexes. Harry is as much of a spath as she is. His family means nothing to him other than serving as an ATM and an object of rage.
Granny killed my mother is incoming, no doubt.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||Last Wednesday at 2:17 PM|
How long before Chief Impact Officer Haz and Heather Mills 2.0 start throwing out Postpartum Depression claims brought on by the stress of Lilibetgate?
|by Anonymous||reply 207||Last Wednesday at 2:19 PM|
By then, r205, it will be very clear that Lilibet has very little to do with the royal family.
|by Anonymous||reply 208||Last Wednesday at 2:20 PM|
The story is slowly morphing from Did He or Didn't He? to The Palace is Refusing to Intervene (i.e., comment).
Because that is the really big story: the Palace is refusing (assuming it remains silent) to back the Harkles up - proving yet again what a deadly weapon saying nothing can be.
If the Palace remains silent, it means that, as noted above, it has seized the opportunity to discredit the Harkles without lifting a finger (except, possibly, a thumbs-up to the source who contacted the BBC's Dymond).
It means the Queen is pissed off at the Harkles;' and unwilling to let them go on making her look like a loving fool who doesn't care about what they did to her.
It means the Queen doesn't like the Sussexes using a private intimate family nickname to further their We Are Royal! brand and she knows exactly what they're doing.
It means she dislikes and distrusts them and this time found a way to pay them out for yet another attempt to blindside her and then look like the victims.
Go ahead, Harry: sue us.
|by Anonymous||reply 209||Last Wednesday at 2:40 PM|
A new baby SHOULD be a happy occasion. Not if your brand is victimhood and litigation is a primary income stream I suppose. Such disordered and malicious people.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||Last Wednesday at 2:46 PM|
I seriously think Markle is Dark Triad.
|by Anonymous||reply 211||Last Wednesday at 3:02 PM|
Harry is not better. When the elderly man passed out in the heat at Trooping and fell off his horse, landing on his head, both of the Narkles laughed. Haz did something similar when Charles was knocked unconscious. They are spaths. He never loved or valued his family, he may have hated them for years, in fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 212||Last Wednesday at 3:37 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 213||Last Wednesday at 3:38 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 214||Last Wednesday at 3:40 PM|
R211, I seriously think so, too.
And I hate to invoke his name, but the very public goading they’re doing reminds me of a former orange president. She’s going full tilt against the family and the Queen herself.
What is there to gain? There won’t be billions of dollars in it. There won’t be healing of their damaged psyches. It’s just to destroy and wound and upset.
It’s really fucked up, and I can hardly believe how public it is.
|by Anonymous||reply 215||Last Wednesday at 3:40 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 216||Last Wednesday at 3:43 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 217||Last Wednesday at 3:45 PM|
I named my dog in honor of my grandma...but it was because I loved her more than anyone. And she was dead so didn’t need permission.
These nitwits...lying about asking for permission; obviously naming the kid not out of love but for PR; and doing it after ripping apart their family on global TV for petty gripes.
Just hope their kids have a good therapist eventually.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||Last Wednesday at 3:52 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 219||Last Wednesday at 4:07 PM|
Everyone wants PR, lol
|by Anonymous||reply 220||Last Wednesday at 4:10 PM|
Someone at BBC is quoted, I think in the Telegraph article, as stating that after the Bashir/Diana Panorama scandal, coverage of the royals is handled with "excruciating" care and "everything is triple-checked".
And that's why they're standing by their story and why Harry's legal threats are hot air. He had to know that if the BBC and the Palace aren't backing down, it's just possible the Sussexes have met their Waterloo, and the Queen might just submit an affidavit through her solicitors stating that the BBC story was factual.
And put paid to Meghan's little stories about how matey she and Betty are.
|by Anonymous||reply 221||Last Wednesday at 4:27 PM|
I'm surprised they didn't name the child "Queenie".
|by Anonymous||reply 222||Last Wednesday at 5:02 PM|
grammy mitchell 1 hour ago Duke and duchess of Deception always turn what is supposed to be a happy time into misery
|by Anonymous||reply 223||Last Wednesday at 5:02 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 224||Last Wednesday at 5:09 PM|
I think the press is focused on the wrong angle here. The press should be highlighting the fact that 2 domain names were set up in Lilibet’s name before the birth was announced.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||Last Wednesday at 5:16 PM|
Excellent point, R225, one way back in May. If the Queen was informed of the name on 6/6, clearly that was well after 5/31.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||Last Wednesday at 5:19 PM|
R225 - yep merching premeditation
|by Anonymous||reply 227||Last Wednesday at 5:21 PM|
R227 and R226 It means the cunty Sussexes’ lawyers knew of the name before granny. Something in the Sussexes’ timeline smells like rotting, sour milk
|by Anonymous||reply 228||Last Wednesday at 5:27 PM|
They constantly have to create chaos, upset and hurt feelings. So much negativity in the environment of this tiny baby.
|by Anonymous||reply 229||Last Wednesday at 5:40 PM|
The Queen is hosting the G7 and so the Harkle grifters start this shit up just before that? Truly, they are scum.
|by Anonymous||reply 230||Last Wednesday at 5:42 PM|
And the day before what would have been Philip's 100th bday.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||Last Wednesday at 5:54 PM|
This is a good catch
|by Anonymous||reply 232||Last Wednesday at 6:04 PM|
Loath as I am to play devil’s advocate for those two assholes, do we know who purchased those domain names? Is it possible that someone got wind of the name and beat them to it? Someone might want to hold those names for ransom.
Or it could be that they did it preemptively. It’s easy to believe they had this planned for a while.
|by Anonymous||reply 233||Last Wednesday at 6:11 PM|
R233 the owner is allegedy from AZ if the info in that picture is correct, but people can fake their information.
|by Anonymous||reply 234||Last Wednesday at 6:33 PM|
Sunshine Sachs probably bought it for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 235||Last Wednesday at 6:44 PM|
Or their lawyer or other minions, R235.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||Last Wednesday at 7:05 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 237||Last Wednesday at 7:36 PM|
R233 - I was wondering that as well. It could be anyone who is familiar enough with the royal family and Sussex crassness venturing a wild guess in hopes it would turn out to be the name to sell to the couple. What names and odds were betting agencies listing?
|by Anonymous||reply 238||Last Wednesday at 8:06 PM|
Lilly was one name in play, no one had speculated about Lilibet.
|by Anonymous||reply 239||Last Wednesday at 8:16 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 240||Last Wednesday at 8:24 PM|
The Camilla Tominey article at R179 is good--she's my favorite royal reporter.
She rightly highlights their PR strategy of portraying themselves as having a chummy relationship with the Queen, divulging private tidbits, while otherwise besmirching the monarchy, other royals, and the Queen herself, indirectly.
|by Anonymous||reply 241||Last Wednesday at 10:34 PM|
The weird thing is that they keep trying to act like the Queen is personally a little ol' sweetie-pie on whom they dote, but that the institution she embodies is corrupt and corrosive. They don't understand why that wouldn't sell well with the Quen.
I see why Meghan doesn't understand this (she just fundamentally doesn't understand how the monarchy works), but I remain surprised Harry doesn't get it.
I am so curious as to what the Queen thinks of all this. She must be so puzzled, and think they're such fools. But she probably realized when he was in childhood that Harry was one.
|by Anonymous||reply 242||Last Wednesday at 10:47 PM|
In an interview with CNN about his late father, Prince Edward touches - when asked - about the Harry and Meghan saga. Good answers.
Headlines probing the relationship between the Sussexes and the rest of the family have been frequent since the couple relinquished their roles as working royals last year and relocated to California. Responding to a question about current family tensions, the Earl says the situation is "very sad."
"Listen, weirdly we've all been there before -- we've all had excessive intrusion and attention in our lives. And we've all dealt with it in slightly different ways, and listen, we wish them the very best of luck. It's a really hard decision," Edward says.
Harry and Meghan have often spoken about the pressures of royal life and being constantly scrutinized by the media. In a bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey in March, the Duke said the relentless scrutiny was one of the deciding factors in the family's move to the United States. In her discussion with Winfrey, the Duchess also revealed she had contemplated suicide during her first pregnancy and that there had been questions over the skin color of their then-unborn son, Archie.
Edward says he hopes the couple are happy before returning to the subject of the rift, suggesting disagreements happen in every family.
"It's difficult for everyone but that's families for you," he says.
For several reasons, it's been a challenging few months for Britain's royal family, who are still mourning the loss of their patriarch in April. Due to Covid-19 measures at the time, the funeral arrangements were considerably scaled back by royal standards, and the number of attendees limited to just 30 people.
"It was an experience that so many other families have had to go through during this past year or 18 months and so in that sense, it was particularly poignant," says Edward. "There are an awful lot of people who haven't been able to express the respect that they would like to have done. I think many people would have liked to have been there to support the Queen."
[...] What the pair will discuss is anyone's guess, including his. The fact that conversations with the monarch stay private in this day and age "is a bit strange," Edward says.
"People really do respect the fact that this is a genuinely private, off-the-record conversation so they really can talk about things and get to the heart of things and in a very genuine fashion, because they know it's not going to come out."
|by Anonymous||reply 243||Last Thursday at 2:47 AM|
The Times has a better transcript. The headline, contained in the URL, is a distortion though - Edward said that media intrusion is difficult for everyone, not the rift with Harry and Meghan.
On what would have been his father the Duke of Edinburgh’s 100th birthday, Prince Edward commented publicly on the tensions in the family, saying that the “safest” thing to do was to “stay well out of it”.
All senior royals had faced “excessive” media intrusion over the years, he said, adding: “We’ve all dealt with it in slightly different ways.”
Asked by the American news network CNN about the “family rift which is undeniably there”, Edward laughingly replied: “Are you euphemistically referring to Harry and Meghan?” He described the situation that prompted the couple to step back as senior royals as “very sad”, adding: “We’ve all been there.”
“It’s very sad, weirdly we’ve all been there before — we’ve all had excessive intrusion and attention in our lives,” he said. “We’ve all dealt with it in slightly different ways and, listen, we wish them the very best of luck. It’s a really hard decision.
“[It’s] fantastic news about the baby, that’s great. I hope they will be very happy and it’s just ... families are families, aren’t they, really?”
Asked how his mother the Queen was coping with the split on top of losing her husband, Edward said: “It’s difficult for everyone, but, as I said, that’s families for you.”
In a separate interview with the BBC, Edward was asked how he was coping with the rift. He replied: “I stay well out of it. It’s much the safest place to be.”
Asked whether he felt “any sadness” about how the situation had played out, he said: “Of course. There are all sorts of issues and circumstances there, but we’ve all been through there.
“We’ve all had that same spotlight shone on our lives, we’ve all been subjected to massive intrusion and all the rest of it, and we all deal with it in different ways.”
Referring to the birth of the Sussexes’ daughter, he added: “We just wish them all happiness, it’s fantastic news, and, absolutely, [we] hope they are very happy.”
|by Anonymous||reply 244||Last Thursday at 2:50 AM|
The Telegraph has a second article up today:
"Palace Tefuses to Back Up Sussexes" . . .
This is the hallmark of how fucking shortsighted and self-destructive the Harkles are.
They went too far this time, and after burning so many bridges and building so much ill will in the family they clearly desperately want to remain connected to, the Palace went through the door that the Sussex arrogance left open.
The Palace has branded the Sussexes liars without ever mentioning the word.
After this, no one will believe anything the Suusex mouthpieces say about Meghan's zoom calls with the Queen.
The warrior who lifts his arm for the fatal blow, exposes his heart.
You have to know angry the Queen is at these two vipers to allow this strike at the thing they value most: their credibility as still inty with the BRF.
And the BBC is vindicated and those legal threats exposed for the empty posturing of an enraged child.
|by Anonymous||reply 245||Last Thursday at 3:09 AM|
It’s really amazing that Prince Edward has risen so far in the pecking order now. And the tone of his comments is remarkable. He basically makes it clear that Harry and Meghan are now separated from the Royal Family. There is no pretence of unity there, and the fact that he feels able to be so direct suggests that there has been a big shift in attitude on the part of The Queen and/or Prince Charles. Either they are so angry that the no longer care to conceal the fact, or they are simply no longer afraid of antagonising the Harkles.
I think appropriating the name Lilibet, trivial as it may seem to some, might be the biggest mistake in a long line of mistakes.
|by Anonymous||reply 246||Last Thursday at 4:14 AM|
I understand MM wanting to give the child a distinctive name. (It will be funny if her fans started naming their kids Lilibet.) “Lilydiana” or “Lilidiana” would’ve been a perfectly lovely and defensible portmanteau name.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||Last Thursday at 4:57 AM|
^ forgot to add: Lilydiana has a nice flow to it. Lilibet, aside from its family overtones, is rather a harsh sounding name.
|by Anonymous||reply 248||Last Thursday at 5:00 AM|
Forgive me R247 but - ew.
|by Anonymous||reply 249||Last Thursday at 5:03 AM|
This may be one of the reasons that Meghan's children's book sales shot up so suddenly. A grifter has to merch.
To mark the release of The Duchess of Sussex's first children’s book “The Bench”, Archewell is teaming up with First Book - a social enterprise to distribute 2,000 copies of the Duchess' book to libraries, community centers, schools, and non profits across the U.S.
|by Anonymous||reply 250||Last Thursday at 5:08 AM|
It’s remarkable how relentlessly tone deaf Markle is.
She just never, ever, ever gets it.
Is this from lack of upbringing or a narcissist thing? Though I guess those are interrelated.
She reminds me of my father’s second wife. Her behavior has been totally erratic for the entire 35 years we’ve known her. It’s like she’s an alien impersonating a human being. I’ve never had a single normal conversation or interaction with her.
She’ll do things like swoop into someone else’s house for a party and round up all the alcohol and hide it, saying: “Your uncle (insert name person she barely knows) is going to be here. He’s an alcoholic, so we need to hide the alcohol.”
That’s wrong on about 4 different levels. The kind of shit where you are just like, “where on earth did you learn to behave this way?”
Anyway, that’s what Markle reminds me of. But I can’t tell if it’s lack of upbringing, lack of intelligence, or some personality disorder / pathology.
|by Anonymous||reply 251||Last Thursday at 5:47 AM|
LOL, r250. That reminds me of a Scientology program that sends public and university libraries unsolicited copies of Dianetics which are promptly recycled.
R247 - How about Liliana? It actually is a real pre-existing name that could have covered all the grans without raising suspicion. It also gives the little girl a little more autonomous identity rather that being weighted down with the names of two iconic, larger-than-life women.
|by Anonymous||reply 252||Last Thursday at 5:47 AM|
R246 I think that’s wishful thinking, tbh. “It’s sad..but that’s families for you” is about as benign and neutral as it gets. I genuinely don’t understand why anyone would think his comments are “remarkable”.
Of far, far more significance is the queen giving her blessing to a direct condradiction of the Sussex narrative re: the baby name. I think she’s genuinel offended by them and doesn’t care who knows it.
|by Anonymous||reply 253||Last Thursday at 5:48 AM|
What about the waffle iron the Queen supposedly sent Archie?
Can we get receipts from Duchess Pump Pump about that? Perhaps a black and white photo of Archie's hands pouring batter into it with the packaging it was delivered in in the background with postmark visible?
|by Anonymous||reply 254||Last Thursday at 5:53 AM|
Narcs are going to rage back, they always do, R245. Can you imagine the dread around Haz going to the UK in July?
Granny killed my mum! is coming, mark my words. It will proceed the inevitable divorce so MeGain can get a cut.
The buying up of copies of The Bench was noted when it suddenly went from #200 to #3, briefly, on the evening after it was released. Common trick. It really is remarkable how all she attempts turns out so badly. Is Sunshine Sacks THIS inept or do they not listen at all?
|by Anonymous||reply 255||Last Thursday at 5:58 AM|
R238 sure, there’s always an off chance that it’s someone not connected to the Sussexes or their lawyers. But is it probable or likely? No, not in the context of timeline and Lilibet wasn’t on anyone’s radar, let alone the order of the two names. Not Diana Lilibet but Lilibet Diana 🤔.
Their lawyers could’ve anticipated backlash, thus set up the domain name in this manner in order to put some separation between the Sussexes and blatant commercialization of the Queen’s private, very personal name.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||Last Thursday at 5:59 AM|
The book is already sinking.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||Last Thursday at 6:01 AM|
If I just met Markle in everyday life, I’d feel sorry for her. She practically radiates “damaged and desperate.”
But she’s apparently also very mean to underlings. That’s not acceptable. Be a bitch all you want to anyone who’s mistreating you or who is a peer, but kicking down is for losers.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||Last Thursday at 6:06 AM|
She allegedly superglued a girl's eyelids shut in a sorority hazing stunt, almost blinding her, R258. She and Haz have been damaged spaths all their lives. When the elderly gentleman fainted in the heat and fell off his horse, landing on the pavement on his head at Trooping, Catherine reacted with horror, the Gruesome Twosome both LAUGHED.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||Last Thursday at 6:09 AM|
R252, good point.
|by Anonymous||reply 260||Last Thursday at 6:18 AM|
R253, “It’s sad... but that’s families for you” is remarkable. With one phrase, which absolutely everyone in the world can identify with, Edward minimises all Harry and Meghan's whining complaints while at the same time making it clear that these are private family matters that every family has and the royal family is not going to get into a public argument about them.
The questions about Harry and Meghan's alleged sufferings he diverts into being about media intrusion, and says we've all had to deal with that nonsense, thus showing that this is nothing unique to Harry and Meghan (indeed, he and Sophie have had some real crap from the media), it's not the fault of the royal family and it's not about race.
And he keeps saying how wonderful the birth of the new baby is, without using her name, thus drawing her into the sphere of the royal family but on the royal family's terms, not the terms of the game Harry and Meghan are trying to play.
|by Anonymous||reply 261||Last Thursday at 6:48 AM|
Very deft, R261, the BRF has excellent PR.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||Last Thursday at 6:50 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 263||Last Thursday at 6:51 AM|
Right, R261. But that’s not what your original comment said. You claimed it was a message saying there was no unity between the Sussexes & the BRF, and that PC & HM must either be furious or no longer care. That’s ridiculous & unwarranted. Nothing he said implies fhat, although I hope it’s true nonetheless.
It was indeed intended to minimise & make it into a private family matter, which is precisely what the BRF have been seeking to do from day one. What’s so “remarkable” about that?
I can’t abide H&M but I do find discussions about them frustrating. People read so much into everything, as you did.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||Last Thursday at 6:54 AM|
Lady C weighs in
|by Anonymous||reply 265||Last Thursday at 7:02 AM|
Regarding the domain name registration. Legally the Sussexes do not have to register for the domain names by using their own contact information. Most cases it is considered bad faith hence jeopardizing the domain website’s legal claims if the owners do not use their real names and contact information. However, the way to skirt around the rule is to do what’s known as a private registration.
Private registration allows the proprietors to still maintain a good faith agreement not subjected to legal challenges. All you do is you register the domain site through a registrar that offers private registration. You do have to use your real name and contact information with the registrar. However, the registrar keeps that information secret e.g. out of public records.
|by Anonymous||reply 266||Last Thursday at 7:12 AM|
R262 it is deft. Edward’s comment is eminently relatable. Everyone can hear it and think, “that’s just like my sister-in-law!”
|by Anonymous||reply 267||Last Thursday at 7:20 AM|
If you do not have a SIIL like MeGain, thank your good fortune, these people are malicious, vindictive and chaos vectors. Pity the children.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||Last Thursday at 7:28 AM|
I'm a different poster from the one you're disagreeing with, r264.
|by Anonymous||reply 269||Last Thursday at 7:28 AM|
Another call the Queen would not take, lol. The call re: O1 literally landed Philip in the hospital in less than 24 hours with a heart condition. The family connected the dots as did much of the public. Talk about continued elder abuse and hypocrisy and using the Queen for tawdry PR.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||Last Thursday at 7:32 AM|
Perhaps recollections are varying again?
|by Anonymous||reply 271||Last Thursday at 7:34 AM|
Some more takeaways from Edward's interview.
He avoided any discussion of the new baby's name, even when asked directly about her, and just says it's "fantastic news", thus making it clear that the Queen did not give her blessing to this name.
Any attempts by Harry and Meghan to drag the royals into a tit-for-tat argument will be met with the reply "well, that's families" (if there is any reply at all).
The royal family does not see a rift between them and Harry, this is just something that happens in families, they want us all to know that they still love him and will welcome him and his family back.
|by Anonymous||reply 272||Last Thursday at 7:39 AM|
Interesting and related thread
|by Anonymous||reply 273||Last Thursday at 7:50 AM|
Narkles have patterns
|by Anonymous||reply 274||Last Thursday at 7:53 AM|
Disordered people misuse power over others, do not value relationships and love chaos. Some cultures have had a zero tolerance policy for narcs and spaths.
|by Anonymous||reply 275||Last Thursday at 7:55 AM|
I am sure the words were carefully chosen and vetted.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||Last Thursday at 8:01 AM|
R253, I said Edward’s comments were remarkable because I think the tone has shifted. Previously, the Royal Family issued one statement which was very restrained, and emphasised that the Harkles were “much loved” members of the family. In hat statement, and since then, there has been little recognition that there is a problem. Even just his comment “It’s sad...” is a departure from that approach, and recognises that there is an issue.
I think there is also a dismissiveness inherent in “but that’s families for you”. It minimises the seriousness to be given to any claims made by Harry and Meghan and implies that they are the difficult members, which every family has, rather than the poor victims of a plot against them.
Put it this way: if you went to your parents with a problem, and then you heard that they had commented to someone else “it’s sad... but that’s families for you”, would you think they thought you had a valid problem?
|by Anonymous||reply 277||Last Thursday at 8:01 AM|
This is sad. It is overwhelmingly likely that the Narkle children will one day be estranged from their parents, following patterns. A "Mommie Dearest" will also follow the pattern set by the duo.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||Last Thursday at 8:18 AM|
Narc and Narkles, they are not like you and me
|by Anonymous||reply 279||Last Thursday at 8:31 AM|
Agree, R277, and it was carefully crafted to signal a shift, as you noted.
|by Anonymous||reply 280||Last Thursday at 8:32 AM|
As the Harkles are uber-woke, why didn't they give a gender neutral name to the kid? Prince or Princess Kim, Dominique, Chris, Kerry, Evelyn... the possibilities are endless and when Kim transitions, he can keep his name and not have to order new coronet-headed stationery, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 281||Last Thursday at 8:36 AM|
And what about when "Lilibet" gets older, R66? Lilibet gets her lips done, Lilibet dates rapper SkidMark, Lilibet's new tatt, Lilibet goes up a few cup sizes, Lilibet has an OnlyFans. Imagine the headlines!
I think the Harkles have realized, despite the Oprah interview drama, that no one really GAF about them. Naming the kid Lilibet isn't a tribute, it's a desperate ploy to hang on to a royal association, however tenuous or unseemly, by any means possible. Clueless, classless, venal grifters.
|by Anonymous||reply 282||Last Thursday at 8:40 AM|
R277, great minds think alike!
|by Anonymous||reply 283||Last Thursday at 8:55 AM|
I should have been named Ma'Khia in tribute to that poor black girl slaughtered by the cops when she tried to stab another black girl. - formerly known as Lilibet
|by Anonymous||reply 284||Last Thursday at 9:07 AM|
Many are making bank off the antics of the Narkles. Teachings about narcissists are a public service.
|by Anonymous||reply 285||Last Thursday at 9:13 AM|
[bold]An apparent miscommunication[/bold]
As we know, the Queen approves the names of children in some direct succession to the Crown. In George's case, Will & Kate wanted to name him Alexander, but Elizabeth overruled them. In a stratified environment, like a Royal Household, approval for names probably goes through official channels, with the Queen giving the final sign-off. So, IMHO, it's possible the Harkles purposely avoided protocol and asked the Queen directly, put on the spot, she probably said, "Of course, please submit it," knowing it would never get to her.
The Harkles took it as a 'yes' and intended to avoid official channels where the name Lilibet would indeed have been turned down.
Slicker than slick. NOT
|by Anonymous||reply 286||Last Thursday at 9:18 AM|
I doubt they wanted to call George Alexander. Who the fuck is Alexander in the royal family? As soon as I heard it was a boy I knew they were going to call him George. It's obvious and shows continuity. William isn't into innovations for the sake of them and this kind of tradition and continuity is exactly what he likes, as well as honouring his grandmother by naming his son after her father.
|by Anonymous||reply 287||Last Thursday at 9:23 AM|
R286, she was informed 15 min before the press embargo was to lift on Sunday. Not much to be done at that point, as was meant to be the case.
|by Anonymous||reply 288||Last Thursday at 9:55 AM|
What will Harry do? Can you imagine the consternation when the word of Scoobie Doo did not prevail and the lawyer's letter did not get the story quashed? Narcs so hate losing the sense of control.
Hope a nanny is focused on the baby and all given that the parents seem to prioritize elder abuse and greed.
|by Anonymous||reply 289||Last Thursday at 10:03 AM|
You racists had better leave my 1/8th African-American daughter alone or you'll be hearing from my lawyer.
|by Anonymous||reply 290||Last Thursday at 10:24 AM|
R287 There are plenty of Alexanders in the British and other royal families and family trees, including the son of the Duke of Gloucester, the Crown Prince of Serbia, the grandson of the King of Sweden and at least three from around the time of the name change of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to House of Windsor.
|by Anonymous||reply 291||Last Thursday at 10:58 AM|
The Sussex “well, she didn’t say we couldn’t” is the most weaselly bullshit ever. Anyone who has kids, or has been one, knows that line of rebuttal.
“Well, Dad never said I couldn’t make napalm in the garage”
“Well, the teacher never said anything about spitballs made from newspaper”
“Technically, I didn’t SLEEP with him. We fucked but I went home to sleep”
|by Anonymous||reply 292||Last Thursday at 11:07 AM|
R277 If I went to my parents? That’s not a valid analogy at all.
A better one would be what might my parents say to the neighbours if there was an estrangement between us. “It’s sad...but that’s families for you” would not be terrible and certainly wouldn’t imply they (my parents) hated my guts.
But we’re not goimg to agree, I think. IMO Edward was just continuing with the party line & I wouldn’t have expected him to say anything different.
As I said earlier, I think the mega news of the week is HMQ’s decisive “FARK ORF” to the Sussexes over the name. That’s huge - and very humiliating for the dickhead duo given how desperately they’ve been sucking up to her since March. If they really were “beloved family members” she’d have grumbled privately but stayed publicly silent. She elected not to and I think that says a lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||Last Thursday at 11:33 AM|
It's obvious now the Wessexes are replacing Harry & moll in the hierarchy. Must be galling to Princess Markle. And they have 2 teenage kids who will soon be of greater interest to the Brit media.
|by Anonymous||reply 294||Last Thursday at 11:37 AM|
Robert Taylor's TELEGRAPH article on the Palace not backing the Sussexes. One is clearly angry.
|by Anonymous||reply 295||Last Thursday at 12:08 PM|
What really matters here is that it is THE QUEEN who has struck this silent but deadly blow at the Sussexes. It is THE QUEEN who is furious.
She's boxed them into a very tight corner and called their bluff, because they KNOW if they come out and call the Queen a liar, or one of their mouthpieces does (and they won't be able to hide behind Scobie because everyone knows he says what the Sussexes tell him to say), they'll be finished for real - she'll take Harry's titles faster than he can say Mr Harry Windsor.
One more step, one more lie, one more attack, and they will lose their last shreds of pretend royal connection. FFS, she can cancel their lease on Frogmore Cottage: Crown Estate properties are hers to dispose of as she pleases, although she cannot earn revenue from them, rent and other revenue go back into the Crown Estates and helps replenish the Sovereign Grant.
Lovely interview with Prince Edward, so unpretentious and kind - the Wessexes being bumped up whilst the Sussexes are bumped down on the website . . .
The votes are counted: the Sussexes are OUT. The Wessexes (in the near future to be the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh) are IN. The Cambridges are GOLDEN.
And that last must be driving Meghan crazy - yet again, her handling of The Birthing Of Diana's Grandchildren comes across as histrionic and cynical, whilst demure Kate gladly puts up with the Lindo Wing Swing so the plebs can see the baby . . . everyone's perfect Royal Baby Mama . . . with nice, correct, royal names . . .
Every time Meghan takes a step, she makes Kate look ever more perfect.
|by Anonymous||reply 296||Last Thursday at 12:21 PM|
R293 You're either not British or not a long time royal watcher or both. That's not intended as an insult but R277 is right and what Edward said in the interview is 100% a dismissive comment regarding the Harkles and their drama. The interview itself is also part of a wider overall BRF PR strategy to handle Meghan and Harry, and none of the answers (or the questions, which any decent advisor will have known would be asked) were in any way spontaneous. I actually think Edward and Sophie's two recent appearances in the media have been masterful examples of royal family PR, absolutely note perfect in every way.
|by Anonymous||reply 297||Last Thursday at 12:28 PM|
Where do you see this going next, R296? What about the film the Archewell guy owns the rights to?
|by Anonymous||reply 298||Last Thursday at 12:29 PM|
R297 Oh, give it a fucking rest. I disagree....so?
I am British. Born in Surrey, now live in Chichester.
“I can’t cope with you disagreeing with me, therefore I have to belittle you”. How very Meghan of you.
|by Anonymous||reply 299||Last Thursday at 12:32 PM|
Alexander is not a name for British kings, r291 and just because the son of a second cousin who is about 30th in line to the throne has it, that doesn't make it a typical name in the British royal family, at least not in the direct line of succession.
Even in the hypothetical event that for some reason William and Kate were deeply committed to the random name of Alexander as the first name of their first-born son, the name he would ascend to the throne with, the Queen wouldn't veto it.
Alexander is, however, George's second name - just as Alexandra is the Queen's second name.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||Last Thursday at 12:34 PM|
R236, I am not a lawyer and I'm nobody's minion.
|by Anonymous||reply 301||Last Thursday at 12:42 PM|
R300, Alexander I, Alexander II and Alexander III of Scotland (of whom the Queen is a direct descendant) may disagree. It may not be a name of monarch of the whole of Britain, but it would have been a fine choice to give a Scottish name to an heir to the British throne at the time of George’s birth, less than a year before the vote on Scottish independence.
However, in William’s place, I would have opted for Phillip as the name of the heir.
|by Anonymous||reply 302||Last Thursday at 12:44 PM|
Prince Alexander of Teck - later Earl of Athlone was Queen Mary’s brother. The current Queen’s great uncle.
Prince Alexander of Battenberg - later Marquess of Carisbrooke was son in law of Queen Victoria and father of the Queen of Spain.
|by Anonymous||reply 303||Last Thursday at 12:57 PM|
"Not British" and "not a longtime royal watcher" are not insults to me, R299, and I went out of my way to be clear I wasn't using them as such. There are a lot of non-brits and non longtime royals watchers following this drama with the Harkles, after all. I thought you might be one of them and am mildly surprised a British person doesn't recognize the dismissiveness of Edward's comments. As it is, I am entirely OK being disagreed with, and open to the possibility of being wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 304||Last Thursday at 1:00 PM|
Meghan and Harry are spiteful pigs.
End of discussion.
|by Anonymous||reply 305||Last Thursday at 1:04 PM|
All these posters with an intimate, sure understanding of the royal families motives and actions are really fascinating reads. It’s like grown up fairy tale time about the adventures of a Queen one might read about as a child.
|by Anonymous||reply 306||Last Thursday at 1:11 PM|
At the time of George's birth announcement, I read about the Queen torpedoing Alexander. (BTW, Alec deserves a comeback). Read it again during Louis' birth announcement.
|by Anonymous||reply 307||Last Thursday at 1:40 PM|
R306 all MegherStans saw The Crown. They're experts!
|by Anonymous||reply 308||Last Thursday at 2:10 PM|
What you read r307 was probably made up. It's probably along the lines of "Andrew is the Queen's favourite son" type of "fact".
|by Anonymous||reply 309||Last Thursday at 2:11 PM|
[quote] I doubt they wanted to call George Alexander. Who the fuck is Alexander in the royal family?
The Queen's full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. William and Kate wanted to honor the Queen by naming their son after her, and since there is no male form of "Elizabeth," they wanted to name him "Alexander."
Currently (and at the time when George was born), the rules are that the monarch has to approve of the first six in live for the throne. All three of William's children had to have their names pre-approved by the Queen. This is why she made Andrew and Fergie re-name their first child after "Annabel" had been announced as her name because she was then fifth in line to the throne and the name had no precedent--they had to choose "Beatrice," instead, which was the name of Queen Victoria's youngest daughter.) The Queen apparently does not want names for those close to the throne unless they have direct English royal precedent, so as to assert continuity with the past if by chance they inherit the throne. I would have thought "Alexander" would have been good enough since it would not only be after the queen's middle name but her own namesake, her great-grandmother Queen Alexandra, but apparently it wasn't.
Interestingly both "Andrew" and "Louis" do not have royal precedents among the direct line of English royalty (although there have been Scottish kings, from before the time of James I, named Andrew). But those are Mountbatten first names chosen to honor Philip's family (his father and his uncle), the Mountbattens. Moreover, the patron saint of Scotland is St. Andrew, so of course that would justify a "King Andrew I."
|by Anonymous||reply 310||Last Thursday at 2:26 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 311||Last Thursday at 2:31 PM|
"William and Kate wanted to honor the Queen by naming their son after her" - Did they tell you that, romanticising clueless American at r310? The best way to honour the Queen would have been to name their son after her father and have a direct name continuity from him - which is exactly what they did.
|by Anonymous||reply 312||Last Thursday at 3:01 PM|
R310 Edward VII wasn't named Edward. His name was David.
|by Anonymous||reply 313||Last Thursday at 3:04 PM|
R312 George VI wasn’t named George. His name was Albert.
|by Anonymous||reply 314||Last Thursday at 3:08 PM|
[R310] Edward VII wasn't named Edward. His name was David.
No, r310: Edward VII was christened the full name of Albert Edward. he was called Bertie his entire life, and his mother Queen Victoria expected him to reign as King Albert Edward I, but he chose instead to reign as Edward VII. And edward was inded one of his names, so he was indeed "named Edward."
You're thinking instead of Edward VIII. His full name was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, and his family and closest friends called him "David." He chose to rule as Edward VIII 9for less than year," but even he was still "named Edward" since Edward was one of his names.
As for George VI, r314: his full name was Albert Frederick Arthur George. His family and close friends called him Bertie. He was willing to reign as Albert I, but both the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, and his friend, Sir Winston Churchill, persuaded him to reign as George VI so as to assert continuity with the reign of his father George V after the crisis of the abdication. And he was indeed "named George," since George was one of his names.
|by Anonymous||reply 315||Last Thursday at 3:17 PM|
Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince George can by custom choose among any of their christened names to be their regnal name.
Charles's full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. Although most people think he would reign as Charles III, it has long been rumored by some that he intends to reign as George VII. He could also reign as King Philip I or King Arthur I.
William's full name is William Arthur Philip Louis. He would be William V if he chose that name, but he could also be Arthur I or Philip I (unless his father goes by either of those names) or Louis I.
George's full name is George Alexander Louis. He would most likely be George VII (unless his grandfather chooses George as his regnal name), Alexander I, or Louis I (unless his father decides to go as Louis I).
|by Anonymous||reply 316||Last Thursday at 3:24 PM|
And yet she didn’t name her son and heir apparent as George. He got that as his fourth name. The last King Charles reigned in the 16th century.
Maybe it was less important to HM than it seems to be for you, R315.
|by Anonymous||reply 317||Last Thursday at 3:55 PM|
You must not have read my post at 316, r317. She did indeed name him George--it is the fourth among his four names.
|by Anonymous||reply 318||Last Thursday at 3:58 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 319||Last Thursday at 4:41 PM|
R313 I think you meant Edward VIII and his first name WAS Edward. But as often occurred, he was called by one of his other names by intimates.
Davis was one of his long strings of other names.
The heir to the British throne was NOT Prince David. The David was a nod to Wales, as St David is Wales' patron saint, and eventually Prince Edward would become Prince of Wales.
|by Anonymous||reply 320||Last Thursday at 4:43 PM|
R298 Who knows with these two psycho clowns?
If they have any sense, they'll shut the fuck up, disappear for awhile into parental leave, start leaking charming family photos, and lay off trying to milk the BRF for PR.
Of course, there's the little matter of the unveiling of Diana's statue coming up quickly. I'm taking wagers on how that goes:
Harry shows up for one day without Meghan and he and William do the grim faced necessary?
Harry bottles it citing new parenthood and William and Kate and their flawlessly named brood do the necessary?
Harry and Meghan tough it out and show up with the kids, refusing to cede an inch of critical spotlight and pretending everything is fine?
Longer term: I think Taylor in the Telegraph is right and the Harkles now know the days of tolerance are over, and they need to move on with their lives in America. That is, if America will still have them. They've had a serious public takedown.
Any more bullshit and they will lose the title, watch the Platinum Jubilee from their living room in Montecito, get a notice saying their lease on the FtogCott is cancelled, and see an announcement on the BBC that HM has issued Letters Patent stating that henceforth the style of HRH will be restricted only to direct heirs of the first or second in the line of succession.
Goodbye Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.
|by Anonymous||reply 321||Last Thursday at 4:58 PM|
And you obviously didn’t read my post, R318 - “he got that (George) as his fourth name”.
|by Anonymous||reply 322||Last Thursday at 5:36 PM|
I cannot imagine that happening, R321. They seem literally incapable of de-escalating or behaving in a strategic manner. The statue thing is in 3ish weeks, really soon.
I think she may try to force him to go alone to build the brand. I can't imagine her going or allowing the kids to go, she is chickenshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 323||Last Thursday at 5:38 PM|
The opening of lines of this say everything that people really ought to know why the Queen is allegedly upset by this:
"During a life devoted to public service and being on almost permanent display, Lilibet was the one thing the Queen had that was entirely her own.
It was hers, and hers alone."
|by Anonymous||reply 324||Last Thursday at 6:29 PM|
Eh, her grandson and his 1st wife are dark triads/spaths, this is what they do, R202.
I think they will really act out tomorrow to pull attention from the G-7. I think a lawsuit will be filed, another Oprah interview announced, something. But, increasingly, no one cares about the Narkles.
It was mean and vindictive, they had such plans for Sussex Royal. It was timed just after the death of her husband and right before his birthday and the G-7. It was shitty, cynical and grasping for $$$ for their brand.
However much she demanded to leave before the wedding, seems like a bargain now.
|by Anonymous||reply 325||Last Thursday at 6:40 PM|
Didn't the Swedish Royal family downsize and yank HRHs and stipends from grandchildren not in line recently?
A precedence has been set or at the very least an idea sparked. Seems like the perfect time to follow suit.
|by Anonymous||reply 326||Last Thursday at 6:57 PM|
R326 Yes. The King of Sweden removed the HRH titles from all his grandchildren except Crown Princess Victoria two kids since they are in the line of success. The reason the King did was because the Swedish Constitution outlines that anyone with an HRH title is automatically entitled to public funds. There has been growing critism about the fact that the King's sisters and his youngest daughter Princess Madeline (who no longer lives in Sweden) still get taxpayer funding. Since there is no expectation these grandchildren will ever perform royal duties, he took the HRH away but they kept their Prince/Princess status. I believe Charles will follow suit but it won't be retroactive. So while Archie and the daughter won't get HRH, anyone with an HRH at the moment will keep them. Charlotte and Louis children will not get HRH.
|by Anonymous||reply 327||Last Thursday at 7:40 PM|
I really think this is the one step too far. Russel Myer is a reliable source and ally to the Cambridges. What he said today was that Harry has asked the Queen years ago, before Meghan, if he could name his first born after her. She said of course. I'm sure it literally never occurred to Harry to name her Lilibet, especially before she was even in the picture. That is a pure Meghan fuck you delivered directly at the Queen. It is shocking that she was savvy enough to be a royal yet decided to give up her A-game so quickly. She must feel untouchable because I just don't think she is dumb or purposefully self destructive.
The gravitas of using Lilibet is deeply offensive. This has been mentioned several times, but putting a note from "Lilibet" on Philip's coffin was the most personal and emotional thing that we have seen from the Queen, ever!!!!!
God save the Queen! The Mirror and a lot of people are commenting on how frail the Queen looked yesterday at the rose planting for philip's bday. She was wearing very casual light summer dress so maybe she just looked thinner than usual. I hope all this drama doesn't do her in earlier than otherwise. Part of me hopes that she is somewhat shielded and she has passed the baton. I remember that when Philip died she told the staff that only topics can be horses and corgis for a week, which I totally get. I am hoping it's just horses and corgis all day, every day and this is all Charles. The Queen Mother lived into her 100's and she had Diana and her her daughter in her late 90's and still carried on.
One final though b/c I want to get this in before this paywalled. Had Meghan had everything abolsutely the same, nothing different at all in terms of her actions, her background, career, and she was white - could you imagine? Meghan would have been evicerated and chased out with a broom. Her race is probably the only thing that got her to the finish line.
|by Anonymous||reply 328||Last Thursday at 7:58 PM|
This entire thing is a setup so they can say "Well, recollections may vary" about whether or not the Queen approved.
|by Anonymous||reply 329||Last Thursday at 8:08 PM|
Well now the Queen will be hosting the G-7, I'm sure that will get teeth grinding in Montecito.
Meghan wanted HER merched wreath to be on the coffin, instead it was a wreath and note signed Lilibet from his wife. Of course, it is a red flag to a narc. A blank envelop might have been more strategic.
Whatever the amount she asked for to bounce prior to the wedding, bet it looks like a bargain now.
Of course Harry is a spath too and clearly has hated his family, perhaps his whole life. All of the smiles and laughs were a foil for his true feelings. When Charles was knocked unconscious playing polo, Harry made a joke. He stripped naked and streaked at Charles' 50th bday. These are the actions of a profoundly antisocial person. They are birds of a feather the Narkles.
|by Anonymous||reply 330||Last Thursday at 8:11 PM|
'He stripped naked and streaked at Charles' 50th birthday.'
|by Anonymous||reply 331||Last Thursday at 8:37 PM|
Pretty sure you had to be there, R331.
If you have known such disordered people in real life you know that they will go to any length to become the focus of attention on special occasions, when someone else is vulnerable or ill, etc, as the Harkles did while Philip was ill and around the funeral. William and Harry planned the party for Charles, who was humiliated and upset by Harry's behavior. Even as a very young child he was never right in the head, before the divorce and before his mother's death. She reportedly spoke of his anger as a very young age to her own psychiatrist. Procreating with someone so unstable and who had anger issues running in her family was unwise. The BRF summoned a psychiatrist for her on the honeymoon. Harry had great palace PR but he is eerily similar to his 1st wife.
|by Anonymous||reply 332||Last Thursday at 8:48 PM|
[quote] I think there is also a dismissiveness inherent in “but that’s families for you”. It minimises the seriousness to be given to any claims made by Harry and Meghan and implies that they are the difficult members, which every family has, rather than the poor victims of a plot against them
Edward's interview was very savvy. I agree with whoever I am quoting. It's very clear that Edward was coached on exactly what to say, how to deliver it, and who to deliver it to. When CNN is taking a sympathetic tone to the BRF vs. Meghan, you know you have just scored a win. I think they have done the make over and now in the last week or so as these "truth bombs" have dropped with the documentary and now the baby scandal, Edward and Sohpie's voices are now ready to be heard as "the everyday Joe royals" which is a brilliant mover. Charles and William have to be cautious and regal, the Queen is the Queen, but Edward and Sophie can be the normal ones. "That's family for you. WE wish THEM all the the best" Honestly, that should have been the line given to Meghan to explain away her trash heap of a family - Samantha and Dad -" you know how families are/" It totally makes them sound like those awful trashy family members you don't want to acknowledge but unfortunately they are what they are. Great PR strategy.
|by Anonymous||reply 333||Last Thursday at 8:48 PM|
Sophie had her own PR shop, no? And the palace PR is top notch, look at what they did for Harry's image for years.
It really was a masterful reframing and timed right before the G-7.
|by Anonymous||reply 334||Last Thursday at 8:51 PM|
WHO is paying the Sunshine Shite bill? They are in a frenzy.
|by Anonymous||reply 335||Last Thursday at 8:54 PM|
I hope the Queen and Joe Biden get along so well that he offers to take care of any "problems" she may be having that are originating in America.
Do, it Joe !!
|by Anonymous||reply 336||Last Thursday at 10:18 PM|
Why would Edward have had to be "coached" in what to say in those interviews, r333? The royal family has been around for 1000 years and he's been doing this job all his life. In his own younger years he too had similar issues to Harry, struggling greatly with the media and trying to find his own role in life. He's 57 now, he knows exactly what the royal family's values are, how to defend it and how to present it in public. This stuff isn't all PR.
|by Anonymous||reply 337||Last Thursday at 11:05 PM|
I think it's extremely planned and coordinated. You have to prepare. He delivers it organically, but I have no doubt he is being coached. Just as Sophie was making jokes about, "Oprah, who"? The role for the Wessexes was established when M & H left they firm, but now the function they serve has been crystallized. I imagine we'll be hearing more from them both, saying nothing and everything for those who are listening and know the ways of BRF.
Andrew is an example of going rogue, not prepping or following his PR advice. If he had skipped that interview, things would be different for him.
|by Anonymous||reply 338||Last Thursday at 11:11 PM|
Jill Biden and Kate will hold a seminar on female empowerment together. William and Kate will attend events with G7, EU and other world leaders. I'm sure Meghan is jealous that she won't be there too. Maybe she's starting to think that Harry misrepresented things to her a little and that by leaving the royal family she hasn't got the best deal either for herself or for her kids. What an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 339||Last Thursday at 11:15 PM|
Will Kate be addressing her as Dr. Jill Biden?
|by Anonymous||reply 340||Last Thursday at 11:38 PM|
R340, I would think that’s what she would call her, as that is her name.
|by Anonymous||reply 341||Last Friday at 12:10 AM|
[quote]God save the Queen! The Mirror and a lot of people are commenting on how frail the Queen looked yesterday at the rose planting for philip's bday.
I was thinking that too, though we're used to seeing her in hats & coats. But I was struck by how *old* she looked in that picture.
|by Anonymous||reply 342||Last Friday at 12:35 AM|
For a 95 year old, she looks fabulous. But, yes, people need to get used to the fact that she won't be around for much longer.
|by Anonymous||reply 343||Last Friday at 2:22 AM|
If the Q E II & Biden meeting lasts for more than a photo-op, or, athe most, a 1/2 hour, I'd be surprised.
Those two are old, war-horse professionals when it comes to being on the world stage and they've met before.
It's "been here, done this" for both of them. Not that their won't be genuine friendliness, but when you're their age, you don't need the attention from each other or by others.
|by Anonymous||reply 344||Last Friday at 4:14 AM|
Kate & Jill will be talking about female empowerment.
Meanwhile, in Montecito.....
|by Anonymous||reply 345||Last Friday at 4:27 AM|
OK, DLers: Let’s wager on the date of a separation announcement of Dimwit and Lady MacBeth! I predict April 2022, just in time to steal the spotlight from the Jubilee.
Meghan isn’t an idiot. She knows she’s done with the RF and British public... and losing traction in the US now, too. There’s no repairing that. Being seen as the aggressor destroys her strategy to be viewed as the perpetual victim.
So she’ll pivot to divorcing Dimmy (Dummy + Dimwit!) and reclaiming the victim mantle.
|by Anonymous||reply 346||Last Friday at 4:33 AM|
Yeah, R346 I’m with you. In about a year is my guess.
|by Anonymous||reply 347||Last Friday at 4:42 AM|
Kate and Jill Biden visiting a school.
|by Anonymous||reply 348||Last Friday at 4:49 AM|
I don't think it's going to be a year; if anything, the Harkles seem to operate on an accelerated schedule. Particularly if the Queen's health starts to fail and their business ventures don't really take off, I completely see Harry unraveling by Labor Day, Megs sending him to rehab (with Chuck trying to pick up the pieces) & daily updates from Scobie/Gayle about "how Meghan is coping" by Thanksgiving/Christmas
|by Anonymous||reply 349||Last Friday at 4:54 AM|
How long did Kim K and Kanye last? I'd put it thereabouts.
|by Anonymous||reply 350||Last Friday at 5:21 AM|
R350 About seven years. Sounds right. The "itch" and all....
|by Anonymous||reply 351||Last Friday at 5:26 AM|
R313 - For the record, Edward VIII, which is who you were really referring to, was christened "Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David". The last four names represent the patron saints of, respectively, England (and also the name of his father, George V), Scotland, Ireland, and Wales - he became informally known by the very last one, David. His first three names were a grandfather and two great-grandfathers, including Christian of Denmark, father of Edward VII's Queen, Alexandra of Denmark.
His father, who was Edward VII, was christened Albert Edward and known informally as Bertie, but as King used his second name, Edward.
|by Anonymous||reply 352||Last Friday at 5:34 AM|
^*his GRANDFATHER was christened Albert Edward . . . (not father, his father was George V)
|by Anonymous||reply 353||Last Friday at 5:36 AM|
I still think we will get a reality show and the Diana murdered film the Archewell guy owns the rights too before a split. But I do not think it will be long.
We know there is the statue thing, FF 2.0 and Harry's book whingefest all coming soon.
They are still hemorrhaging a King's ransom for PR, to no seeming end re building viable biz ventures. Wonder when that tap will begin to be turned down a bit?
Interesting that Kate said the Cambridges had not "met" the baby via Zoom yet, she was born a full week ago. The Cambridges and Wessexes and Queen are all singing from the same songbook - saying lovely things while drawing a line under there being no relationship.
With the Chrissy Teigen cancelling fresh, is Megs gonna go for a mommy brand? Who would buy it? She is clearly a mean girl, and a bridge burner whose kid showed no attachment to her. When is that bullying report due? That one has her running scared. That clumsy HR/suicide paper trail was an attempt to quash it. Rumors are their treatment of staff in CA is no better than Oz or the UK. The OZ press pulls no punches re: the Narkles, the stories of staff abuse and tea throwing were likely true. We have seen the elder abuse and animal abuse, it is a pattern of a sociopathic personality type.
|by Anonymous||reply 354||Last Friday at 5:53 AM|
Of course Harry and Meghan didn’t ASK and SPECIFICALLY say it was Lilibet, not Elizabeth that they’re naming their spawn. If this had been the case then their lawyers wouldn’t have just sent a threat against the BBC, lawsuit would’ve been filed by now. Remember, the is the same BBC that dimwit Harry blames for causing his mom’s death.
The Sussexes don’t care whose private, pet name they take for their own financial gain and publicity. Look at the shit they’re pulling on Archewell. They’re soliciting the public to submit their own stories of compassion, with possibility of their stories being featured in Archewell-produced programs. Caveat being once you agree to have your stories used by the Sussexes’ money-making platforms, you lose all rights to your own stories. You you don’t and can’t make any money off of the stories, you have no say in how the stories are promoted/ retold/ resold for profit.
Meanwhile the privacy-loving Meghan has her friends talk to People magazine and offer private details and thoughts of the birth. Why aren’t these articles considered by Meghan and Harry to be intrusive? Oh yeah, they’re PR pieces designed to make them “happen” as big time American celebs. But all these articles and magazine covers do is make them look try-too-hard and hypocritically NOT privacy seekers.
|by Anonymous||reply 355||Last Friday at 6:36 AM|
My predictions for the future:
Markle will have another bash at a kids book....this one about mothers and daughters. It will be equally shit and bomb again. That will be the last kids book she writes. (Unless she hires a ghost writer).
She’ll write a cook book - feeding toddlers, or something. Might do OK. If it does she could launch an organic baby food line. She tries very hard to push her “foodie” image, so I’m surprised she hasn’t tried this already. 1 cent from every jar sold will go to some worthy cause & she’ll boast endlessly about that. Of course.
They’ll be released from their Netflix contract....”creative differences”.
That weird app Harry is head chimp for will crash & burn.
One of their CA domestic staff will sue them for abusive behaviour. With any luck, it’ll be a female person of colour and it’ll emerge that Markle tried to silence her.
Their separation/divorce will come suddenly amd unexpectedly. They will get 50/50 custody and Harry will divide his time between CA and UK. It’ll take another 5 years before Harry becomes a working royal again, and which point Harry will already have remarried.
|by Anonymous||reply 356||Last Friday at 6:55 AM|
I could see it, R356.
She would have to hire someone, she had a writer for The Tig and cribbed the "foodie" personal from chef Corey.
WHO would marry Harry?
|by Anonymous||reply 357||Last Friday at 7:00 AM|
R357 God knows, but I can see him desperate to find someone in order to avoid the “poor lonely Harry missing Meghan” narrative.
|by Anonymous||reply 358||Last Friday at 7:06 AM|
Maybe they can hire someone to act as a handler, R358. I do not see him ever being a working royal again however.
The ship has sailed on anyone thinking he had genuine empathy or interest in people after recent comments.
Many families have one of these not right, n'er do well, angry and bitter all their lives types. Unlike many, Haz is unlikely to end up under a bridge. He has long been a problem and a concern to the family on a family and biz level. I think the hope was that he would grow up a bit but instead he wallows in anger, victimhood and vindictiveness. And the masterfully crafted image of cheeky laddish Haz who feels so much for people, like his mother, is irretrievably broken.
|by Anonymous||reply 359||Last Friday at 7:14 AM|
Any number of starlets or thirsty influencers in LA would happily go with Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 360||Last Friday at 7:16 AM|
Yeah. I’ve never understood the “Harry couldn’t get anyone else” stuff. Of course he could. Probably not someone of quality but there are plenty of Meghan Markles around who’ll fuck/marry anyone for worldwide fame.
Whether Harry will ever be a working royal again....hmmm. My jury is out on that but I suspect he will. The Meghan & Harry royal roadshow is certainly over, but after the divorce the UK narrative may well be “Poor Harry...emotionally abused by a narcissistic cunt. Thank god he’s free....” We’re halfway there already.
Admittedly, this is misogynistic...he’s every bit as bad as her....but that could well be how it pans out, and the BRF won’t push back because they probably agree with it.
It’s not in their best interests to have yet another pariah prince making headlines for all the wrong reasons so if they can rehabilitate him I think they will.
But...who knows? Interesting times ahead, huh?
|by Anonymous||reply 361||Last Friday at 7:52 AM|
I have to say again how deeply I loathe her. And who knew that he really was a bastard behind the alcoholic party boy image. His dumping the Sentebale charity and the African wildlife campaigns during a time of mass extinction is totally despicable. That is a deep look at his character. The rugby charities are bullshit, but those two are so desperately important. Cooking with LA gang members is bullshit in comparison.
|by Anonymous||reply 362||Last Friday at 8:10 AM|
[quoteTheir separation/divorce will come suddenly amd unexpectedly. They will get 50/50 custody and Harry will divide his time between CA and UK. It’ll take another 5 years before Harry becomes a working royal again, and which point Harry will already have remarried.
I'm with you on the divorce part, but I think Harry will never go back to the UK; I think he'll live in Canada to be close to his kids. Having Megs as an ex will make Brad & Angelina look like a love match. I think he will "royal adjacent" no one will trust him enough to do anything important, but he'll get to show up on big occasions & strut around in his own military uniform, but he'll never be a working royal. The kids will be like the Jolie brood - go out looking kind of feral while they're constantly papped with their mother, desperately merching whatever
|by Anonymous||reply 363||Last Friday at 8:58 AM|
R363 If they do divorce, it's going to be MESSY! Meghan is going to want to come out as the victim and win the battle of popular opinion. I think she'll allege Harry was abusive due to his anger management issues and she will try and get custody of the children.
|by Anonymous||reply 364||Last Friday at 9:06 AM|
Remember in the James Corden interview when Harry told him that he couldn't call him "Haz" because only his wife could call him that.......guess that same rule doesn't ably to the name his grandfather used to call his grandmother.
|by Anonymous||reply 365||Last Friday at 9:09 AM|
When I say that I think they may try to rehabilitate Harry back into the BRF that’s on the (probably shaky) assumption that something unforgivable doesn’t emerge....beating up prostitutes or proven verbal abuse of staff etc. If that happens, he is done. Really done. And I don’t think he’ll come back to the UK under those circumstances.
|by Anonymous||reply 366||Last Friday at 9:12 AM|
Problems were noted in both as children, they were not "right in the head." Not all troubled, angry kids become spaths. The Spencer family had well known anger issues and Diana was unstable without a strong core self. Much like Harry. Doria seems unemotional and told Flower to dump people who were not of use, so, not a lot of pro-social behavior and empathy there.
|by Anonymous||reply 367||Last Friday at 9:19 AM|
R365 here we go
|by Anonymous||reply 368||Last Friday at 9:26 AM|
“The Cambridges and Wessexes and Queen are all singing from the same songbook - saying lovely things while drawing a line under there being no relationship.”
We call this “The Mimi”
|by Anonymous||reply 369||Last Friday at 9:55 AM|
The Fabulous Five are together at the G7 summit.
|by Anonymous||reply 370||Last Friday at 9:59 AM|
The Queen looks in fine form tonight :)
|by Anonymous||reply 371||Last Friday at 10:21 AM|
The Eden Project looks lovely.
All of this really underscores the irrelevance of the tantrums and chaos of the Harkles.
|by Anonymous||reply 372||Last Friday at 10:23 AM|
Love HMQ’s dress. Very pretty.
|by Anonymous||reply 373||Last Friday at 10:25 AM|
HM's dress is esp lovely given the garden setting of The Eden Project. Despite the unnecessary stress of the week re: her grandson, and the grief of Philip's bday, she rises to the occasion.
|by Anonymous||reply 374||Last Friday at 10:27 AM|
I predict Harry will be end up with someone famous and unexpected. Like…I dunno, take your pick. FKA Twigs. Dakota Johnson. It’ll be weird.
|by Anonymous||reply 375||Last Friday at 10:28 AM|
Jill and Camilla have a similar style.
|by Anonymous||reply 376||Last Friday at 10:41 AM|
R375- No one decent wanted him before, no one certainly will now. I do not think either one of them can get anyone else. They are unattractive, middle aged, malignant narcissists. They have publicly outed their selves as repulsive, toxic people with no loyalty to anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 377||Last Friday at 10:54 AM|
R377 If you say so. Child murderers on death row can find people willing to marry them but a prince of the UK, world famous and not short of a few bob...not a chance!
|by Anonymous||reply 378||Last Friday at 11:01 AM|
I think you overlooked the word "decent" perhaps, R378. Mentally ill grifters are different.
|by Anonymous||reply 379||Last Friday at 11:04 AM|
R327 Charlotte and Louis will keep the HRHs they were given at birth by the Queen. They will be working royals even before they marry and breed. Charles and William will not follow the lead of King Carl Gustaf in Sweden.
In 30 years, maybe, their children, as opposed to George's, may not get them, but for now, they are the spares. Until George has heirs, Charlotte and Louis remain HRHs.
|by Anonymous||reply 380||Last Friday at 11:12 AM|
R379 And you’ve overlooked that my original comment said “....probably nobody of quality” 🤷♂️
|by Anonymous||reply 381||Last Friday at 11:21 AM|
R380 - HRH's can be removed unless there is a good cause (eg. Diana lost hers when she divorced Charles). Just because George has heirs, doesn't mean that Charlotte and Louis lose their HRH titles. They will slip down the line of succession as George has a family but they'll still be royal. If Charlotte marries a commoner named John Smith, her new moniker will be HRH Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith. Prince Louis' children will probably be Lord and Lady unless the rules change.
|by Anonymous||reply 382||Last Friday at 11:23 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 383||Last Friday at 11:24 AM|
[quote] Many families have one of these not right, n'er do well, angry and bitter all their lives types. Unlike many, Haz is unlikely to end up under a bridge.
With a slight shrug, "that's families for you!"
I do believe Harry will be Royal again. The Brits hate Meghan. Even if Harry ended up smacking her around a little bit, I don't think the Brits will care after he has done his penance. Maybe he will actually go live in Botswana, which was "his and Meghan's dream" when they first met. From what we have seen, Meghan and Harry do not seem like these amazing parents. Meghan has looked completely wrong holding Archie the 2 times she was photographed - the polo match with Kate and on Louis' third birthday. I don't think Harry is as attached as the narrative portrays. The Queen passed down some some genetic pain that is there for good.
As for American opinion, who cares once Harry is gone. Just like we do within our own gay community, we collectively as a nation dispose of women over 40. Angelina Jolie, who? The bitter shrew trying to make poor Brad's life miserable. Ah, yes that cunt. Meghan, look to your future! Meghan will totally get to emulate Diana. The only one who will want her is a sleazy, status obsessed Arab with money.
|by Anonymous||reply 384||Last Friday at 5:42 PM|
Has David Foster commented on the birth of LilDi? David is "like a father" to Haz per Sunshine Sucks as directed by Rachel.
|by Anonymous||reply 385||Last Friday at 6:06 PM|
I predict trouble in the marriage and eventual divorce not to a timeline but to an event: the slowing of the Sussex Machine. There is a reason for the never-ending tumult and it is that it needs to continue, the story needs new developments and villains and storylines and outrages because Meghan and Harry NEED there to be. Meghan especially, who I believe on some instinctive level understands that Harry needs to be kept in constant (psychological, emotional) motion, needs new objects and events upon which to project his Alpha Protective Husband And Father Saviour Of The Beautiful And Vulnerable Princess persona, knows this.
I don't think either of them are conscious of it but this is what the neverending placed stories and leaks and briefings are about. They can't slow down. Meghan cannot allow Harry to slow down. He's dumb as shit but it would still be a risk, if things ever went quiet for long enough in Montecito, that Harry might start to wonder about exactly what he's given up, why, and for what/whom. I do not believe either of them are happy, and Harry needs to be prevented from thinking about why that is. Meghan is a grifter and a survivor and is wealthier and more famous than she could ever have dreamed. Harry has lost almost all the esteem (from the public and his own family) he ever had, and is a laughingstock, openly mocked for being neutered ad dominated by his wife. He'll be the weak link. It'll be him, not her, that ends the marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 386||Last Friday at 6:16 PM|
I don’t think he will ever leave her. She is the one who is cruel enough to leave him behind, with absolutely nothing left of his identity.
|by Anonymous||reply 387||Last Friday at 6:34 PM|
That is my guess too, R384, or a Russian. The houses in CA and Canada were both owned by Russian oligarchs, but Russian or Saudi seems most likely.
I do not think either will want to raise children, esp if they are not beautiful and esp accomplished so as to provide narc supply. Boarding schools may save them yet.
I see the point about motion but the PR bills must be STAGGERING. For just one period they had been estimated at 7 million pounds. They do not genuinely have the kind of income stream to support that and most importantly, TO WHAT END? They wanted to "best" the Cambridges in a rival court but it does not seem that is going to happen. She wanted an "A lister" action franchise or to do voice overs, nope, not happening either. So the tsunami of stories that all contradict one another so as to drive engagement and chatter, what is the end goal?
It does not feel like this is going to hold much longer. Thomas Markle is being interviewed on Sunday and Trooping is tomorrow. The statue unveiling is in a few weeks. Can't imagine as summer really gets into swing and things fully open up that people will be very interested in their trumped up grievances and drama. Narcs are exhausting and ultimately quite boring.
She was very cruel and isolating of Corey and Trevor as well. She acts contemptuous of Haz. Were they at the G7 she would be pulling him out of the way and thrusting herself forward. They are both loathesome.
|by Anonymous||reply 388||Last Friday at 6:44 PM|
As an American who lived abroad for many years, you get homesick no matter how long you live in another country even one you like. The novelty eventually wears off. Harry has no friends in Hollywood, no family. He's totally isolated with the Megamonster. Infatuation only lasts 3 years and they've reached that.
He'll be out of there before the end of the year. Or he'll be in a psychiatric hospital somewhere doing fingerpainting.
|by Anonymous||reply 389||Last Friday at 7:48 PM|
I don't know, even if he is miserable he may double down and stay with Meghan just to prove they were right.
|by Anonymous||reply 390||Last Friday at 8:24 PM|
R381- Yes,I should have said that she will never get another famous, rich man.
|by Anonymous||reply 391||Last Friday at 8:31 PM|
There's no way Harry will be welcome back EVER, not even without Meghan. The public despises him as much as her now and he has shown that he never really cared about any of the causes he was involved in. Whinging that he didn't want to go to Nepal after the earthquake has done a lot of damage - how can the Royal Family send him somewhere on official business again, when everyone will assume he doesn't want to go there?
After the inevitable divorce, he will stay in America. He'll have to because there's no way Meghan will make any custody battle fair and easy. It's Angelina & Brad 2.0
|by Anonymous||reply 392||Last Friday at 8:59 PM|
Jill Biden and Kate have just published an op ed together on CNN's website.
|by Anonymous||reply 393||Last Friday at 9:54 PM|
What is that sound, coming from the west? Is it - is something breaking? It sounds like... breaking glass? What is that?
|by Anonymous||reply 394||Last Friday at 10:01 PM|
[quote] If Charlotte marries a commoner named John Smith, her new moniker will be HRH Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith.
I expect by that time Anne will be dead and William with be king, so she may well by that time be HRH The Princess Royal.
|by Anonymous||reply 395||Last Friday at 10:04 PM|
R395 I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by the time Charlotte marries, her husband (or wife) will be given HRH status as we move towards more gender equality. I know in Sweden there is growing talk that when Crown Princess Victoria becomes Queen Regent, Prince Daniel (her husband) may actually become a newly created HM the King Consort.
|by Anonymous||reply 396||Last Friday at 10:07 PM|
I don't know, R396, after Meghan, the BRF might take their toe out of the woke pond for a while and go back to basics. Going against better judgment was a bad idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 397||Last Friday at 10:43 PM|
I'd bet that Meghan is in a full-on narc rage right now smashing every tv in their tacky mansion
|by Anonymous||reply 398||Last Friday at 10:57 PM|
Charlotte's spouse may be given a peerage of some sort, like Margaret's husband was. I know Anne doesn't like peerages or titles for her kids, so perhaps she didn't want her husbands to be have them either.
But, prior to being made the Princess Royal, Anne was known as "Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips", so perhaps Charlotte will be known as something along those lines.
|by Anonymous||reply 399||Last Friday at 11:57 PM|
Serious question: if the Harkles were still back in the fold, would they even *be* at the G-7?
|by Anonymous||reply 400||Yesterday at 1:47 AM|
No. Too far down the totem pole, which is why they really left.
|by Anonymous||reply 401||Yesterday at 2:49 AM|
When it comes to Shade, don't give me the Queens in, say, "Paris is Burning"
I'm convinced the British Royal Family invented it.
That CNN joint FLOTUS & Duchess of Cambridge essay, and the images of them both at the grade school, I have no doubt are sincere, heartfelt and public service at it best.
It's also, by the way, Genius -level, subtle shade ( the best kind: a stilletto is known for its silence) deployed effectively at both Melainia Trump and the Duchess of Sussex.
This and, the images of both of them at the grade school, are saying, in silent neon, "Melania, Kate would have NEVER had agreed to any of this with you" and "Meghan, eat your heart out".
|by Anonymous||reply 402||Yesterday at 3:28 AM|
R402, fock you! I still being best always for what is being for best children and I write essays for Donald explain right way for trowsers on body!
|by Anonymous||reply 403||Yesterday at 3:37 AM|
Probably not at that particular event, r400, but just the fact that this is the context in which the royals operate would have provided the Harkles with so many opportunities to do good works, if good works are what they really want to do.
And there are plenty of opportunities to meet political leaders for the royals who aren't in direct line of succession. Remember the NATO event when the Queen was calling Princess Anne to come and say hello to Trump and Anne stayed put?
|by Anonymous||reply 404||Yesterday at 5:28 AM|
Melanie looks ridiculous in that caped dress. It almost seems like a footman forgot to offer to take her outerwear.
[Quote]One of their CA domestic staff will sue them for abusive behaviour. With any luck, it’ll be a female person of colour and it’ll emerge that Markle tried to silence her.
It probably never occurred to Meghan that one of the perks of being in the RF is being insulated from this sort of thing legally and practically with few if any consequences for poor behavior. The Palace buried reports to HR about her cruelty to staff until Jason Knauf exposed it. Would any employee dream of suing the palace? Has it ever happened? Payoffs and NDAs before anything reaches that point. She's not a strategic thinker as has been pointed out over and over.
|by Anonymous||reply 405||Yesterday at 6:07 AM|
Harry was included in some events for the Trump visit, R401, he acted out then too. He really always been a loose cannon.
|by Anonymous||reply 406||Yesterday at 6:30 AM|
Pls take all the Trump references to another thread, he is gone and this is a Meg and Hazbeen thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 407||Yesterday at 6:31 AM|
They NEVER wanted to do good works, R404, merely make money and hoover up narc supply and character traits as "humanitarians." Narcs lack empathy and have contempt for others after all. Dim explained to fake Greta Thunberg how there was MONEY in the charity circuit, even he gets it and is too dumb to do much to hide his venal aims.
|by Anonymous||reply 408||Yesterday at 6:34 AM|
crazy Trump idolizes the Queen "she liked me more than other Presidents'" - the photos of Liz laughing with the Bidens is turning the knife in his guts!
|by Anonymous||reply 409||Yesterday at 8:18 AM|
It's like that had H&M stayed as working royals that, yes, they would have participated in the G7. It was always intended that H&M would be part of the senior firm of royals until W&K's kids were adults.
|by Anonymous||reply 410||Yesterday at 8:40 AM|
R410 I’m not so sure. The fact that Edward & Sophie weren’t there suggests that only the very top tier (the monarch and direct heirs) were needed.
|by Anonymous||reply 411||Yesterday at 9:04 AM|
Didn't Prince Charles tell the Megster to leave the Buck House garden party after she started bitching she was bored? They wouldn't have been invited even if they were still working royals.
|by Anonymous||reply 412||Yesterday at 9:08 AM|
[quote] The fact that Edward & Sophie weren’t there suggests that only the very top tier (the monarch and direct heirs) were needed.
That doesn't explain why Anne is at G7s.
|by Anonymous||reply 413||Yesterday at 9:08 AM|
I’m sure the G7 would have let Meghan make a speech about black women. She did speak at the UN and the BRF would have used her to say, “See, we’re not racist.”
I think why Meghan really left the UK was that she was beat at her own game. The BRF was going to use her as much as she was going to use them.
|by Anonymous||reply 414||Yesterday at 9:09 AM|
'The BRF was going to use her as much as she was going to use them.'
Surely she knew this. Her race was her calling card. The problem was she realized playing princess was tiresome and would play the race card to get out. Though I have no doubt courtiers and other staff members were condescending to her though surely she knew this would be the case going in. Simply being an American would be enough for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 415||Yesterday at 9:16 AM|
Actually had Harry married a black Brit, there wouldn't have been a problem. No, he married a divorced D list American actress. Wallis Simpson had nothing on Meghan.
|by Anonymous||reply 416||Yesterday at 9:18 AM|
[quote] a stilletto is known for its silence
Is it though? I'm not trying to be a contrarian but are stilettos noisy with their click clack. Aren't women supposed to take them off before walking around their apartments as to not annoy the neighbors below?
|by Anonymous||reply 417||Yesterday at 9:18 AM|
[quote] I'm not trying to be a contrarian but are stilettos noisy with their click clack.
It’s one of the things people at NBC complained about Katie Couric. You could always hear her coming from far off.
|by Anonymous||reply 418||Yesterday at 9:23 AM|
I’ve seen no mention of Anne at tbis G7. Was she there?
|by Anonymous||reply 419||Yesterday at 9:33 AM|
I love Anne! She'll probably be present when the Bidens have tea with the Queen at Windsor.
|by Anonymous||reply 420||Yesterday at 9:36 AM|
I've not seen Anne at the G7. Just the FIVE top royals.
|by Anonymous||reply 421||Yesterday at 9:36 AM|
The Queen was cute at the 'family photo' where they were all seated at a safe distance. She asked "are we supposed to look like we're enjoying ourselves?"
|by Anonymous||reply 422||Yesterday at 9:42 AM|
[quote]I think why Meghan really left the UK was that she was beat at her own game. The BRF was going to use her as much as she was going to use them.
Someone posted the video from the Trooping the Colour (the first and presumably last one Megs attended) and she looked so out of place on the balcony; the others were just milling around and she's preening, trying to talk to Harry, who looks annoyed with her and giving Kate some side eye. That's in addition to when she laughed when the old guy fell of the horse. Aside from the million other reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam, I think she was so out of place in that world & wasn't willing to try to fit in
|by Anonymous||reply 423||Yesterday at 10:22 AM|
Notice in this picture from Louis' christening who is the only one that disregarded the color scheme for the day...
|by Anonymous||reply 424||Yesterday at 10:52 AM|
When in the UK she acted like a mentally ill teen with ODD, yet she was a lower ranked member of the cast on Suits. However did she cope with being "B Team" there, and lower in the rest of her life, one wonders, R424? Of course the brand being conceived as "shaking things up" was a driver too.
Meghan is mentally ill and likely personality disordered too. Her spath actions have occurred over a lifetime, as have odd behaviors like speaking to herself in public. The consistent spotlight of the BRF, expected pro-family and pro-Firm behavior, and the watchful eyes of the courtiers and family threw her bizarre and mean behaviors into relief. When she was relatively anonymous and a bitch to underlings (staff or sorority pledges) the picture was more disparate. When she began the photos in family homes and bullying of family members including toddlers, even before the ring, what they were dealing with was clear. She allegedly offered to leave for a price, bet it seems like a bargain now.
|by Anonymous||reply 425||Yesterday at 11:18 AM|
R417 and R418 a stiletto is a very sharp knife (the heel of the shoe is named for its resemblance to said knife).
|by Anonymous||reply 426||Yesterday at 11:27 AM|
Anne's been at the NATO summit. Remember when she and some of the world leaders mocked Trump?
|by Anonymous||reply 427||Yesterday at 11:54 AM|
I would not be surprised to hear they are running out of money. Their monthly expenses are HUGE - $4 million a month or more I'll bet. They only have around $5 million left. Thy will be shaking the trees again for cash.
|by Anonymous||reply 428||Yesterday at 1:40 PM|
The real Lilibet has had enough!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 429||Yesterday at 2:28 PM|
Oh wow, R429. I still wonder WHO is paying the Sunshine Sucks staggering bills? And to what end?
|by Anonymous||reply 430||Yesterday at 3:18 PM|
R429 So basically according to this article, the breaking point was not the name but the fact Team Sussex leaked a story claiming they introduced Lili to the Queen when in fact that never happened. This reminds me of the time Meghan claimed to have had lunch with Michelle Obama (Chicken tacos) and we later learned that in fact the lunch never happened that Megz emailed Michelle some questions while Meghan was eating chicken tacos for lunch.
|by Anonymous||reply 431||a day ago|
R431, my takeaway was that the Palace/the Queen was tired of Harry and Meghan publicly misrepresenting private conversations with the Queen, and that included both the naming story and the non-existent Zoom call. (I keep forgetting the chicken tacos story. She really does have a pattern).
|by Anonymous||reply 432||a day ago|
Prince Charles apparently prepared a point-by-point denial (with proof) of their lies to Oprah and the Queen told him to drop it. Looks like Lilibet was the straw that broke the monarch's back. Fuck off Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 433||a day ago|
I want to know if OG Lilibet really sent Archie a waffle iron?
|by Anonymous||reply 434||a day ago|
You honestly believe a mother of 4 with numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren sent a baby a waffle iron as a gift? Going with "unlikely" and "consider the source."
|by Anonymous||reply 435||a day ago|
Oh, deah deah deah deah deah . . . the shit has really and truly hit the fan!
If this is true, as we suspected, the refusal to back Harry's lies about the Queen being asked about use of the name Lilibet is a message to the Harkles that the gloves are off.
The article also makes clear that there was no video call "introducing" the baby to the Queen - which also means that Meghan's many claims about her Zoom calls with the Queen were also bald-faced lies.
Things could get even juicier.
|by Anonymous||reply 436||a day ago|
The Queen should continue to be dignified as n silence and only let the palace communications team issue terse statements on her behalf or leak to BBC. This way she and the amRF by extension don’t get dragged to the Sussexes’ gutter level. People will get sick of their baiting the RF to get attention, Americans aren’t enamored of them as they don’t have established record of actually doing anything of note. All of their incessant badmouthing of family comes across as tacky and cruel.
|by Anonymous||reply 437||a day ago|
In that christening photo, Harry matched the rest of the men so he was still going along at that point.
|by Anonymous||reply 438||a day ago|
That slapdown is also aimed at Scobie too, I think. A great deal of this shit is channeled through him.
Serves the creepy weirdo right.
|by Anonymous||reply 439||a day ago|
Chicken tacos? I thought she was a vegetarian/ vegan and made Harry convert as well!
|by Anonymous||reply 440||a day ago|
What a wretched colored dress, R424!
|by Anonymous||reply 441||a day ago|
They constantly put out contradictory stories, R440, anything to keep people talking. He supposedly proposed while they were roasting a chicken. Who knows what the truth may be, it is not likely that the Narkles have even a passing acquaintance with it.
|by Anonymous||reply 442||a day ago|
So now all the fake stories put out by Sunshine Shite will not be able to reference the BRF or they will be smacked down, am I understanding correctly?
|by Anonymous||reply 443||a day ago|
R443 Evidently, yes. They’ve already demolished the “introduced Lilibet to the queen in a video call” crap. Didn’t happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 444||a day ago|
Almost all those "video call" stories are false which is another reason why the RF has had enough of the lies and aren't putting up with them anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 445||a day ago|
Remember how the Queen purportedly hopped on a Zoom call with MeGain and a toddler immediately before her husband's funeral? Totes plausible, esp since them Gruesome Twosome calling about O1 put Philip in the hospital with a heart condition not 24 hours later. Oh, and MeMeMe claimed that the family's worry over Philip's poor health was an attempt to "muzzle" her. Sugars believed that the Queen jumped right on a call with her despite them making his final weeks a misery with their extortion, never mind possibly hastening him to his death. He may well have been here for his hundreth, but for the actions of his grandson, who he had treated with love.
|by Anonymous||reply 446||a day ago|
The Queen's got 7 other grandchildren - all of whom are nicer to her than Harry. She's busy with the G7 and I bet she doesn't give that much of a shit anymore about Harry's temper tantrums. He's made himself irrelevant.
|by Anonymous||reply 447||a day ago|
Doria has always been quite manipulative.
|by Anonymous||reply 448||a day ago|
Part 2, grain of salt, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 449||a day ago|
I feel bad for Doria, a private citizen who didn’t ask for any of this. I wish people would leave her alone.
|by Anonymous||reply 450||a day ago|
Rolls eyes at R450. Yes, por, innocent Doria, lol!
|by Anonymous||reply 451||a day ago|
I think The Queen is going to use her remaining energy and years trying to hand over a stable throne to Charles, and that means dealing with Harry’s outbursts. Her position in British public life is unassailable, and it will be much easier for her to confront and contextualise the Harkles’ recollections/lies than it would be for Charles.
Charles is a less sympathetic character than his mother, and obviously is much more emotionally impacted by Harry’s behaviour. And I bet both The Queen and Charles recognise that Harry’s behaviour needs to be addressed now, because otherwise it will only escalate when Charles accedes to the throne and William becomes Prince of Wales.
I wonder how much of this change of approach has been caused by the Lilibet incident, and how much it is part of a long-term media strategy by the Palace. In the past few days, it has been made extremely clear that the Royal Family was finding it difficult to maintain the fiction that Harry and Meghan were much-love family members, even as they hurled insults and innuendo at their relatives. Edward’s interview represented a change of tone, but I think the change in the Palace’s approach may have more to do with the excruciating questions Kate faced about whether she had met baby Lilibet. Everyone knew she hadn’t, but questions help frame the family dispute as a public soap opera. I doubt the Royals want to play that game, so they have decided to finally admit that there is a divide, and have also decided to make it known that they will no longer just soak up the abuse hurled at them from the royal clique in California.
|by Anonymous||reply 452||21 hours ago|
It’s a good thing Meghan didn’t claim to have FaceTimed with Kate (did she?), otherwise Kate would have had to either publicly call Meg a liar or lie herself. So yeah, enough already, it’s time for everyone to be on the same page – namely, the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 453||21 hours ago|
R452 I don't think the royal family have ever played down that there's a rift with H&M, but they have been trying to settle things down behind closed doors. But in recent weeks Harry has been attacking his family but then we keep getting leaks from "sources close to the Sussexes" about ongoing communications with the Queen and the name being an olive branch etc. etc. H&M are clearly trying to keep feet in both camps: we hate the royals, but we're also on great terms with them.
Camilla Tominey pointed out in The Telegraph the other day that Palace Aides feel that H&M are overemphasizing their connection to the Queen (e.g. trying to use some of her popularity to solidify their own) but not leaking details about their conversations with other royals like Charles. Tominey has confirmed with people close to Charles that he and Harry have been in contact over the past few weeks since the second Oprah series., but that's nothing.
R453 Actually it was only the Queen that alleged" got a Zoom call. They said that Harry phoned Charles and William. But I do believe the idea that Meghan has reached out to Kate is utter BS.
PS wasn't it salmon tacos Meghan had while emailing Michelle...I mean having lunch with her?
Also I doubt the Queen even knows what a waffle iron is, so that didn't happen. Finally, remember when Harry said he Zoomed Prince Philip several times and we later learned form Edward that Philip never used Zoom.
|by Anonymous||reply 454||21 hours ago|
I prefer Cabbage Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.
|by Anonymous||reply 455||20 hours ago|
R454: “ So, over a casual lunch of chicken tacos and my ever-burgeoning bump, I asked Michelle if she would help me with this secret project.”
— HRH The Duchess of Sussex interviews Michelle Obama (notice how one woman is called by the title she acquired by marriage and the other one is not?)
|by Anonymous||reply 456||20 hours ago|
I thought the Queen sent Archie an instapot.
|by Anonymous||reply 457||20 hours ago|
R456's old quote is the hilarious Meghan I love: humble-braggy, self-centered, trite, and awkwardly written (is she eating tacos and her bump, too?)
|by Anonymous||reply 458||17 hours ago|
I'm guessing that the PR strategy has been in the works since the first Oprah interview, and that the Queen's tactic of not engaging in a tit for that rebuttal at once was nothing short of brilliant.
It lulled the Harkles into overconfidence and encouraged them to build her case for her. She probably knew they wouldn't stop. Sure enough, Harry mounted more attacks on his mental health interviews.
She still held her hand, making herself and the BRF look wearily and incredibly patient and restrained.
And then the Morons of Montecito crossed a line by taking her intimate family nickname for their newborn without asking if she minded, then lying about having done so.
They finally finished weaving the rope she was giving them to hang themselves with.
It will be a great deal harder fro them to scream racism now when she takes Harry's ducal title, and in one fell swoop has undermine the credibility of everything they have claimed.
The claims that Harry and Charles have been in contact are likely true. But the nature of those talks is what no one knows.
And I agree with the poster upthread saying that the Queen knows she has to clean up this mess before Charles takes over. As Harry's father, Charles is too conflicted to do what's necessary. And Charles would have gone into point by point rebuttal if she hadn't stopped him. Her strategy of waiting for, as Caprain Jack Sparrow would have out it, the opportune moment, was far better. It accrued the most public sympathy before finally striking.
She probably also knew that she didn't have much time left with Philip, and had to wait for that axe to fall before dealing with the Sussexes. All in all, my admiration for HM's canniness has increased exponentially.
|by Anonymous||reply 459||16 hours ago|
Obvious PR tactic has been to throw everyone in the RF under the proverbial bus except for the woman who’s universally respected. The Sussexes henceforth must be seen as having close relationship with her in order to be viewed favorably by extension.
But dumbfuck, diarrhea mouth Harry went overboard in throwing his family under the bus with the Apple TV debacle, The Queen not only did not escape unscathed but branded a bad mother. Then the scramble to mitigate the fallout by “honoring” the Queen with having her private pet name splashed out as potential (and likely) commercial fodder.
Not satisfied with that, the two fucktards spun a fanciful story straight from their depraved minds. Why, the Queen not only was asked but she gave her blessing. When palace sources challenged this false narrative, the typical reaction of doubling down on lies and threatening the press played out again. Also usual ploy of having friends, paid media, and public mouthpieces report gushing details about the Sussexes private lives. Meghan serenely giving birth and Lilibet 2.0 already great-granny’s favorite great-grandchild. It must be known that Meghan gave birth better than most women. Instead of being serenaded by birds in Africa, Meghan’s cunt shot out serene rays of 🌈 along with baby Lil’ Moneypot.
|by Anonymous||reply 460||14 hours ago|
No, r457, it was an air fryer.
|by Anonymous||reply 461||14 hours ago|
Doria really has flown under the radar through this whole melodrama her daughter is writing, producing and starring in.
She deserves to be thrown under the bus by the media just like all the rest of the supporting cast as she apparently modeled and encouraged Princess Pushy's behavior.
|by Anonymous||reply 462||12 hours ago|
R455 "ever-burgeoning bump" - that is so Meghan's writing style.
|by Anonymous||reply 463||12 hours ago|
The Sussexes are running scared after the Palace has confirmed not one, but two lies, the second one being the assertion that the Queen has already met the baby through a video call. "There was no video call," the Palace source said.
This afternoon's headline in the DM is an obvious PR leak that the Harkles don't "regret" their interview (of course, forbearing to mention the two Harry did afterward trashing the family AND the Queen's parenting after the first one), but want to retain a "good relationship" with the royal family and "keep the peace" . . . a bit of illogic so twisted as to beggar description. It is abundantly clear that they now realise that the lines they stepped over in the last months as Philip lay dying may just have given the Queen all the material she needs to take their titles with far less chance of cries of "racisim".
The piece even goes so far as mentioning that the thing the Harkles are most afraid of is losing their royal status and titles - but who would have known that from their vicious behaviour?!
It is a sign of how disoredered and detached from reality the two are, that they really thought that there would never be any real consequences for their traitorous, vengeful behaviour, and that the TQ would never have the guts to get the boot in.
I believe that the Queen knew Philip hadn't long to live early in the year, and made him her first priority, preferring to let his death and mourning pass before dealing full-on with the Harkles. Now the dust has settled from Philip's death, and I doubt very much that she's forgotten how the two behaved during that time.
This piece, an undoubted leak by their own PR, is a signal that after this week, the Harkles have heard the penny drop: the Palace gloves are off.
|by Anonymous||reply 464||12 hours ago|
In my personal experience, even when narcs appear to be understanding the error of their ways, they really don't.
In one sentence or action they appear to be seeking to make amends and then in the very next sentence or action, they revert right back to their machinations. It's part of the crazy making environment they create that keeps their victims off balance.
|by Anonymous||reply 465||12 hours ago|
Guess the Queen wielding a sword the other day was somewhat symbolic.
|by Anonymous||reply 466||12 hours ago|
Insta pot with air fryer optional lid is what I heard.
No teddy bear for HRH Prince Archie, oh wait...
|by Anonymous||reply 467||11 hours ago|
While I was having lunch with my laptop, I psychotically pretended to be having lunch with Michelle O...
|by Anonymous||reply 468||11 hours ago|
Exactly, R465, their disordered thinking is a persistent feature of their nature. Thus, the need to undermine their credibility overall and reframe them as "those" family members we all suffer and roll our eyes at.
|by Anonymous||reply 469||11 hours ago|
The Michelle Obama intro is hilarious. She could have just focused on Michelle and not mentioned herself at all. She could have said something like "Michelle Obama is widely admired for both her confidence and humanity on the world stage, but let's take a more intimate look at how she leads her family." But NO. Meghan has to remind everyone about MY PREGNANCY. MY HOBNOBBING with the former First Lady. She made it about herself instead of "shining a light" on someone else. But she does that all the time.
|by Anonymous||reply 470||9 hours ago|
I'm stunned that the Queen let it leak out that she's going to start correcting misleading publicity that references her. She's never defended herself publicly. Ever. Even when her family was involved. Harry and Meghan were counting on that to continue.
But now, at the age of 90+ and newly widowed, she's not going to take it anymore, and she's going to start correcting misleading "truth bombs". (Where did that word come from? Was it Harry's word...or the DM's word?) And what finally made her take that stand? Not the press, not some world leader, but her grown-ass grandchild. Ironically, it's the same grandchild who's always whining about the press carrying untrue statements about himself.
Yet, she can still love and support a sleazeball son and a greedy former daughter-in-law who keeps making embarrassing public mistakes. But then, in spite of their missteps, they have still been kind and loyal to her. She doesn't expect or ask for much.
She has stated her boundaries. DM commenters are ecstatically in support of her. If she's finally willing to go this far for the first time in her life, what else might she consider doing uncharacteristically? Removing titles? Harry and Meghan better STFU right now.
|by Anonymous||reply 471||8 hours ago|
OG Lilibet has had sufficient.
|by Anonymous||reply 472||8 hours ago|
But she WASN'T hobnobbing, she was emailing her questions while she was eating lunch and deliberately created the impression that they were lunching together.
|by Anonymous||reply 473||8 hours ago|
R473, the point was, whether her humblebragged activities were real or fake, she couldn't stop talking about HERSELF while she was introducing Michelle.
|by Anonymous||reply 474||8 hours ago|
Well, yes, R474, that is what narcs do. "They also lie compulsively. Bit more mental to brag about something that NEVER HAPPENED. She Markled Michelle O just like the Queen and everyone else. She also crashed Michelle O's book signing in London and tried to play that off as a genuine relationship. Markle is cray and has unmistakable patterns of behavior.
|by Anonymous||reply 475||8 hours ago|
Harry and the starlet are basically both narcissistic teenagers: pretentious and whiny. Interesting that Markle never managed to get a job for herself. First her daddy had to get her jobs and then her husbands. Such a feminist role model.
|by Anonymous||reply 476||8 hours ago|
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!