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.

Prince of Wales gave Duke and Duchess of Sussex a ‘substantial sum’ to start new life

When the Duke of Sussex told Oprah Winfrey that his family had “literally” cut him off financially, sources close to the Prince of Wales could not hide their surprise.

The bank statements, they said, told a different story.

It has now emerged that the Prince of Wales gave the Duke and Duchess a “substantial sum” when they stepped back from their official roles, apparently contradicting Prince Harry’s claim that they had only been able to afford their new life in California because of his inheritance from his mother.

The Clarence House annual review revealed that Prince Charles gave a total of £4.5 million to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during the last financial year, down from £5.6 million the previous year.

A Clarence House spokesperson confirmed that it included a "substantial sum" to help the Sussexes following their departure from royal life, payments that ended last summer.

“As we'll all remember in January 2020 when the Duke and Duchess announced that they were going to move away from the working Royal family, the Duke said that they would work towards becoming financially independent,” the spokesperson said.

“The Prince of Wales … allocated a substantial sum to support them with this transition.”

He described the couple's departure from the working Royal family as "a matter of enormous sadness to the family,” but added: “The Prince wanted to help make this work.

“I betray no confidence when I say they've been very successful in becoming financially independent.”

It also emerged that the investigation into alleged bullying by the Duchess of Sussex, which is being conducted by an external law firm, is being paid for privately.

Buckingham Palace declined to confirm which member of the Royal family was footing the bill but said no taxpayers’ money was being spent on the probe.

Details of the review were expected to be included in the annual report, but it has not yet been completed and aides declined to reveal when its conclusions might be published.

A spokesperson for the Sussexes insisted that there was no contradiction on timings and that it was “inaccurate” to suggest otherwise.

“The Duke’s comments during the Oprah interview were in reference to the first quarter of the fiscal reporting period in the UK, which starts annually in April,” she said.

“This is the same date that the ‘transitional year’ of the Sandringham agreement began and is aligned with the timeline that Clarence House referenced.”

In the interview, the Duke told Oprah: “my family literally cut me off financially… in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.”

Buckingham Palace has also admitted it was failing in its efforts to improve diversity as it published staffing figures for the first time, in the wake of the Sussexes’ racism allegations.

The Sovereign Grant report, published on Thursday, revealed that 8.5 per cent of employees at the palace are from an ethnic minority background. Aides said they hoped to increase that figure to 10 per cent by the end of 2022.

A senior palace source acknowledged they “must do more” to improve diversity, adding: “We are not where we would like to be despite our efforts.”

The aide said the figures had been published so there could be “no place to hide” and they could be held accountable if no progress was made.

Clarence House revealed that eight per cent of its staff were from ethnic minority backgrounds, which it also admitted was "not where we need to be".

It comes just months after the Sussexes accused the Royal family of racism, claiming that concerns had been raised about the colour of their unborn son’s skin tone.

In the UK, around 13 per cent of the UK population is from a minority ethnic background.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 81June 29, 2021 3:31 PM

The report revealed that the palace diversity strategy, agreed in 2017-18, was adapted in early 2020, shortly after the Sussexes moved abroad, to “actively emphasise the importance of inclusion” although plans to appoint a diversity tsar have been put on ice.

It also disclosed a significant black hole in palace finances, with annual income supplementing the Sovereign Grant plummeting from £20.2 million to £9.4 million.

The royal household had previously estimated that £15 million over three years would be lost in income from the Royal Collection Trust but that figure is now expected to be £18 million.

The reduction was partially offset by the £2.4 million received from the Sussexes to reimburse the public purse for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage.

The lump sum was considered sufficient to also cover the couple’s rental costs for the property for 18 months until March 2022, when the annual licence on the property is due to be renewed.

The accounts show the monarchy cost the taxpayer £87.5 million during the last financial year, an increase of £18.1 million on the previous year.

Property maintenance costs soared by £11.2 million to £49.5 million as the 10-year project to renovate Buckingham Palace continued.

Sir Michael Stevens, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “In the year covered by this report, we actually spent more than our grant and the supplementary income we earned, with total net expenditure of £87.5 million, a 26 per cent increase on the previous year.

“This was largely driven by a significant increase in the reservicing spend from £21.2 million to £38.8 million, an 83 per cent increase on the year.”

The overspend of £2.3 million was met from funds drawn from the Sovereign Grant reserve.

by Anonymousreply 1June 24, 2021 9:18 PM

BUSTED!

Again.

Smh.

by Anonymousreply 2June 24, 2021 9:22 PM

No amount of my father-in-law's reparation money (strong dollars, not weak pounds) can heal the wounds my husband and I have suffered!

by Anonymousreply 3June 24, 2021 9:26 PM

So, do I just not appreciate English suit styles? Or does he look weird and cheap all the time? The colors and fabrics he chooses seem iffy.

by Anonymousreply 4June 24, 2021 10:42 PM

And she is ripe for a pie in the face. Has been for quite some time.

by Anonymousreply 5June 24, 2021 10:44 PM

Was ANYTHING these two said in that interview the truth?

The list of disproved claims is getting very long indeed.

by Anonymousreply 6June 24, 2021 10:48 PM

Narc, narc, narc, tiara, Narkles, klan grannies, narc, klan grannies, tiara, Hazbeen, Sunshine Sachs, Narkles, OMG think of THE QUEEN!, tiara, tampon, tiara, narc, tampon, tampon, sex trafficking, 1 % rule, narc.

This is a summary of all threads related to the BRF. No need to add anything further.

by Anonymousreply 7June 24, 2021 11:47 PM

There already was a perfectly serviceable thread on this, there was no need for yet another one.

We all know by now that they're both pathological liars.

A better thread would be on the new baby's birth certificate, obtained by TMZ, on which Megs insisted only by her normal full American name (Rachel Meghan Markle), but Harry is listed as (wait for it . . .)

First name: The Duke of Sussex

Last name: His Royal Highness.

Someone fucked summat up somewhere.

by Anonymousreply 8June 25, 2021 9:53 AM

^* Megs is listed as (not insisted)

by Anonymousreply 9June 25, 2021 9:54 AM

Harry’s probably only used to writing in crayons.

by Anonymousreply 10June 25, 2021 9:56 AM

Probablt the Kook and the Cuntess of Montecito got about $3 million which doesn't even cover 1 month of sportswear for the Cuntess!!!! What a pittance!!!

by Anonymousreply 11June 25, 2021 10:20 AM

NB: Meghan probably didn't use her title on the birth certificate because she is an American citizen and America doesn't recognise foreign titles. Harry is still a UK citizen, and therefore using his title is legitimate, but his title is not his "name". His name is HRH Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex.

Duke of Sussex isn't his name: it's his title, and His Royal Highness isn't his surname, it's the style of address he is technically entitled to in Britain. He was either drunk or high when he gave the hospital representative the information for the certificate, or the representative was even dumber than Harry and mixed it all up.

His first name is Henry Charles Albert David, and his surname is either Mountbatten Windsor (ya know, like that of his two kids?), or HRH The Duke of Sussex.

Christ, even their kids' birth certificate end up a farce and the butt of jokes. What the fuck is wrong with these two people?! Archie's birth certificate came in for issues, as well, with Meghan's actual name being removed (she SAID by an administrative error on her staff's part), and HRH The Duchess of Sussex being put in, instead without the "Rachel Meghan".

They can't seem to set foot out the door without slipping on a banana peel.

Either

by Anonymousreply 12June 25, 2021 12:35 PM

^*kid's not kids'

Either one of the above modes would have been better than "Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness"

The jokes are already flooding in.

by Anonymousreply 13June 25, 2021 12:37 PM

[quote]Prince Charles gave a total of £4.5 million to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during the last financial year

Because the Sussexes didn't leave until March 31, 2020 and the fiscal year ends in April, that means they were there for 11 of the 12 months in the fiscal year.

They received £5.9M the previous fiscal year, so that £4.5M is a reduction of £1.4M, plus it paid for nearly the full fiscal year.

There isn't much that could have been left over to make this "substantial sum" that's supposed to indicate that Harry is a liar. Besides, Harry said that they cut him off in the first fiscal quarter, which is exactly what this article says.

We sure are getting a lot of misleading "news" and rumors passed on as truth these last few weeks.

by Anonymousreply 14June 25, 2021 1:38 PM

.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15June 25, 2021 3:04 PM

Vanity Fair has been firmly in the Harkle camp from the Wild About Harry article onwards...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16June 25, 2021 3:05 PM

I'm confused with all of your timeline information, R14.

So is it pro-Sussex or pro-BRF?

by Anonymousreply 17June 25, 2021 5:42 PM

Seems like it's pro-BRF, R17.

by Anonymousreply 18June 25, 2021 8:33 PM

Now that Harry has arrived in the UK, he has to self-isolate for at least five days and is not allowed any visitors, yet the loons on LSA think the Queen is rushing to visit him because, in their opinion, he's her favourite grandson. It's illegal for her to visit him and if she was so eager to see him why did she obviously not set aside any special time for him when he was last in the country?

Even if she does meet up with him, that would be - aside from the fact that they're family and it's good for family to visit each other (a value Harry knows little about) - most probably because she wants him to hear a few things from her. Let's see how long Harry spends in the country and if he dedicates any time to his 95-year-old gran.

by Anonymousreply 19June 25, 2021 9:46 PM

The March 31 2020 cut off was only the institution, which stopped funding for "Royal duties".

The Express' Richard Palmer says that Charles personally kept funding them after that from the Clarence House family funds designated for the brothers.

So yes, Harry was lying when he said his "father cut him off". Instead, his father gave him millions just to help him move countries.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20June 25, 2021 9:55 PM

No wonder Charles hates him, R20.

by Anonymousreply 21June 26, 2021 6:30 AM

The Queen never did fuck all for anyone . . .

Except turn a fading pushing middle aged d-list divorced American actress into a rich royal duchess. And give said nobody the status and fame said nobody had been hungering for all her life but failed to get on her own merits.

After which she kicked the old lady in the teeth and then screamed about how I'll done by she was.

They hate her because shes a lying, spiteful, greedy, sly bitch with no principles and not a little touch of the sociopath.

Think of Harry as Mordred and Meghan as his half-sister, Morgan.

As the Windsors found out too late.

by Anonymousreply 22June 26, 2021 9:57 AM

^*ill done by.

Damn this fucking autocorrect.

by Anonymousreply 23June 26, 2021 9:59 AM

Very cute r17, but it's just pro fact. I don't like either the Sussexes or the BRF, but I have long been tired of the obsessives coming to Datalounge to post weird fantasies and lies about whatever topic they're obsessing about, usually true crime or celebrities. It's been going on with tons of topics since well before Meghan and Harry started dating.

Per what we actually know the royal family has officially stated they stopped paying the Sussexes on March 31, 2020. That jibes with what Harry said in the Oprah interview.

There were reports at the time that Charles was helping them financially in their move to California and he may well have done so, and per multiple news articles the last two days, he stopped helping them financially by summer 2020.

Note that Harry never said Charles never gave him any money. What he said is that the family did not give him any money after the first quarter of 2020.

The truth is that the BRF cut him off on March 31, 2020 and Charles seems to have given him some more money after that, which ended sometime in the summer. No date has been provided.

That means the worst thing you can say about this is that Harry was either mistaken, lied, or just didn't know when the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year is. If you think he lied maliciously, you'd have to ask yourself why it would even be worth it for him to say that he didn't get any money after March 31st when the actual cut-off date was two or maybe three months later. Why lie about that three months?

That's why I have a problem with these articles, because they imply massive lies and fraud on the part of the Sussexes. The problem is that there is far too much information missing. When did Charles stop funding them? When the news says H&M got funding "for some time" after the March 31st cut off, how long do they mean? What is the "substantial sum," anyway? We don't know.

If we had all the facts, it would kill the drama. Sussex PR has said that there were two different timelines, the BRF cut-off and then the private money from family. They're right. But no one invested in this story wants them to be right, they want drama.

by Anonymousreply 24June 26, 2021 10:47 AM

R14 is a dimwit who has fallen for Scobie's bullshit tweet. There is no such thing as a "fiscal year" in the UK. The UK has a tax year, which begins in April, but it's not measured in consecutively numbered quarters - there is no such thing as Q1 or Q2 of the tax year in the UK. The tax year is also a very specific thing which has no meaning in any other context aside from taxation - it has nothing to do with financial support from parents.

Q1, or first quarter, in the UK absolutely means the first quarter of the calendar year, i.e. January to March, and it is especially used to refer to the economy. If the bullshit Scobie alleges is true, then January to March would be the last quarter of the year!

Harry even initially said "first half" and then "corrected" himself to "first quarter" because he knew that first half means January to June, and he wants people to believe that he - 36 years old and extremely wealthy in his own right - was "cut off" by his family by March.

by Anonymousreply 25June 26, 2021 11:01 AM

The official British definition of Quarter 1 from the Office for National Statistics:

[quote]Q1 refers to Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar), Q2 refers to Quarter 2 (Apr to June), Q3 refers to Quarter 3 (July to Sept) and Q4 refers to Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26June 26, 2021 11:02 AM

[quote] you'd have to ask yourself why it would even be worth it for him to say that he didn't get any money after March 31st when the actual cut-off date was two or maybe three months later. Why lie about that three months?

Because this was an extortion bid. They were trying to publicly force Charles into giving them MORE private funds, as well as titles for the kids and possibly to get Harry's military titles back. That's why they spent the whole thing talking about how abused they were and why theey communicated through Gail King and Scobie after the interview that they would tell more "dirt". It was to get the family to cough up.

Extortion is what the whole Oprah interview was about.

by Anonymousreply 27June 26, 2021 11:30 AM

Perhaps R25, when not insulting others with terms such as "dimwit", can carry out a forensic financial assessment of payments to Prince Harry and get back to us with it's report.

by Anonymousreply 28June 26, 2021 1:39 PM

Q1 does not under any circumstances mean April to May in the UK. Only a dimwit or a manipulative paid-for liar such as Omid Scobie addressing naive Americans who want justifications for their irrational hatred of the BRF would ever say such a thing.

by Anonymousreply 29June 26, 2021 1:50 PM

You know how angry Charles is at Harry that Charles took off for Scotland to avoid his son. Lacey and the tabs keep trying to make this about William and Harry, but Charles is far more important.

The real problem for the Sussexes now is Charles. He was still somewhat on the hook via dome parental guilt.

But after the genetic pain crack, leaking the "future head of state" racism attempt at further blackmail through Scobie, and the insult to the Queen re the baby's name and then getting caught lying about it. I think even Charles has had enough.

It's Charles who holds any further purse strings, Charles's estate Harry wants a piece of, and Charles who, if angry enough, may be moved to those HRHs away from Harry's kids the minute he's king.

People see Charles as weak, but he also has extreme reactions to wounded pride and the capacity to hold a grudge.

Baiting Charles was foolish on the part of the Sussexes. Perhaps they didn't care because they already know he plans to take the HRHs and just wanted to pay him out. If so, it was still stupid if Harry wanted another trust fund left to him.

So, in my view, Charles taking off in order not to be around Harry is the much more significant story than the William and Harry one.

by Anonymousreply 30June 26, 2021 8:15 PM

^* some (not dome) parental guilt

by Anonymousreply 31June 26, 2021 8:16 PM

Charles apparently gave Harry over 4 million POUNDS from the Clarence House private fund for the boys to "Start a new life".

That Harry has the temerity to say even ONE WORD of criticism, much less his demanding MORE is so intensely sick that it beggars belief.

by Anonymousreply 32June 26, 2021 8:30 PM

Queen's going out of her way to make nice to Harry. She drove over to Frogmore today to visit, and she already invited him to the Plat Jub.

by Anonymousreply 33June 26, 2021 9:24 PM

Sources, R33, please. Did HM tell you?

by Anonymousreply 34June 26, 2021 9:35 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35June 26, 2021 9:39 PM

Why would the most important 95 year old in the world risk her health and therefore her life to visit her scumtastic traitorous grandson who called her a racist and a bad mother to his father?

It's clear that she was just walking her dogs at Frogmore House gardens, like she does every day.

by Anonymousreply 36June 26, 2021 9:45 PM

R33, if the Queen drove to Frogmore to visit Harry then she broke the law because he is quarantining and is not permitted to have visitors.

Your link is about something else. Inviting Harry to the Platinum Jubilee is not her going out of her way to be nice to him, it's a formal event that he as her grandson should be at. Do you think Meghan will come too?

by Anonymousreply 37June 26, 2021 9:53 PM

If Meghan shows up at the Jubilee then anyone within 50 feet of her better open their umbrellas because the rotten eggs will be a-flyin from the crowds.

by Anonymousreply 38June 26, 2021 9:57 PM

R33 HM may have been seen in the locality of Frogmore, which is in Windsor Great Park (HM’s backyard at Windsor).

Frogmore Cottage is in Frogmore, as is the considerably grander Frogmore House.

The Harkles were granted Frogmore Cottage upon their marriage.

by Anonymousreply 39June 26, 2021 11:41 PM

Frogmore is an entire section of Windsor Great Park, not merely the area immediately around Frogmore House or around the Harkle's cottage, which sits on the far northern tip of the area. To drive the loop around the entire Frogmore section would take over 25 minutes.

The Queen drives to Frogmore Lake to walk her dogs every day. That lake is near Frogmore House, but not near Frogmore Cottage.

by Anonymousreply 40June 27, 2021 3:54 AM

By the by, Frogmore Cottage was built in 1801 for Queen Charlotte, Britain's first Queen of mixed race heritage. It's either a coincidence or a nice hat-tip to Meghan's heritage that Meghan and Harry got to live there.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41June 27, 2021 4:04 AM

It's very unlikely that Charlotte was mixed race, r41.

by Anonymousreply 42June 27, 2021 7:13 AM

I thought all the Queen's corgis died, and now all she has is the tiny puppy given to her by Pedo Prince to replace the puppy that died. So what dogs is she walking in Frogmore?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43June 27, 2021 9:24 AM

[quote] It's very unlikely that Charlotte was mixed race, R41

Is it, r42?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44June 27, 2021 9:29 AM

Is it, r42?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45June 27, 2021 9:31 AM

Is it, r42?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46June 27, 2021 9:33 AM

Fuck Queen Charlotte, shes been done to death on DL.

The more important story is the possible I vote to the traitorous Harkles to the Trooping the Colour as spart of the Platinum Jubilee.

I'm not sure I believe it, because that would mean the balcony of BP. The article is careful not th o mention the word "Palace" in tandem with "source"

It is understood is one of those phrases that they use when they need to cover their arses.

If the story is true, then the Fall of the House of Windsor is imminent and the Queen needs to die before the Jubilee rolls around.

Because no one who did to this family and publicly what these two DC sociopaths did should ever set foot on that balcony again.

Were I the rest of the family, I would revolt and refuse to appear with them.

Can you imagine the booing from the crowd?

They are deeply disliked in Britain.

It would be an insult to the British people. And to the Cambridges, who have endured the brunt of the Harkles' psychotic jealousy and spite.

by Anonymousreply 47June 27, 2021 10:41 AM

^* possible invite (not I vote)

by Anonymousreply 48June 27, 2021 10:42 AM

[quote] Darling. I love you. We all love you. But you simply MUST put the Pina Colada DOWN!

by Anonymousreply 49June 27, 2021 11:34 AM

Yes, r44, r45 and r46. It is very unlikely and what is this desperate attempt to make Europeans of several centuries ago non-white?

If Charlotte were mixed race surely her siblings, a parent, a grandparent would also have been, but there's very little said about them being mixed race. There is also a lack of any documented evidence for this theory. Putting your own interpretation onto portraits is not evidence.

There would have been a whole mixed-race ruling family in the Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz if Charlotte had been mixed race. But there never was. Her supposedly black ancestress - for whom there is no evidence that she was black - lived about four centuries before her. I know physical features can jump generations, but I didn't know they could jump centuries too.

by Anonymousreply 50June 27, 2021 11:40 AM

Meggers isn't the first biracial / mixed-race person in the British Royal Family.

Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 51June 27, 2021 5:31 PM

No one gives a shit whether she is or not r51. In the UK it was never an issue for us, it's only in America that there's this unhinged obsession with race. There is an issue, however, when people totally make things up and falsify history and why on earth are black/mixed-race people so desperate to make a historical claim to white European institutions? Why build an identity based on lies and ignorance?

by Anonymousreply 52June 27, 2021 6:16 PM

I actually want Meggers (and her deluded stans) to know that her biraciality (something she seems to have been ashamed of before it came in handy to her) is nothing special within the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 53June 27, 2021 6:24 PM

Obviously NOT R52, but R51.

by Anonymousreply 54June 27, 2021 6:26 PM

One of my favorite videos - the Queen, Philip, Charles, Diana and Anne dancing at Balmoral.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55June 27, 2021 6:42 PM

See if this link works.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 56June 27, 2021 6:44 PM

So what is Tampax boy up to these days?

by Anonymousreply 57June 28, 2021 1:40 AM

I'm up for adoption.

by Anonymousreply 58June 28, 2021 1:53 AM

The tampon comment criticism is unwarranted - he was making a joke and saying how horrified he'd be to be a tampon, not that he wanted to be a tampon.

by Anonymousreply 59June 28, 2021 4:47 AM

And it's not even his blood relative.

by Anonymousreply 60June 28, 2021 5:08 AM

Has Oprah dropped Meghan? CDAN says yes. Also that they never called the Queen and lied about it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61June 28, 2021 5:33 AM

I don't know where to post this because there are so many threads but here goes...

The Scottish tour has begun...The Queen and Prince William visit a factory today.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 62June 28, 2021 12:42 PM

The Queen and William attend the Ceremony of the Keys at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 63June 28, 2021 2:32 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 64June 28, 2021 2:57 PM

Note that the Queen, savvy as ever when it comes to anything but her family, is wearing the colour of the Saltire, or Scottish flag. She looks fantastic.

Polls for independence have taken a deep dive from a high of 57% to now almost back to where they were shortly before the first Indy/ref 1: around 48%.

Sturgeon missed her moment. She knows she needs 60% or so to make it persuasive to the Scots who vote NO. BREXIT and the pandemic were her best shots. BREXIT hasn't caused the UK to sink into the Atlantic, the EU hasn't exactly done itself proud in the pandemic, and things have shifted yet again.

It's no accident that the Queen and William (I believe Charles is also in Scotland, but privately, mostly in a clear message to Harry that he doesn't even want to see his face) are doing this now.

As always, in politics a month is a lifetime, a year a millenium.

by Anonymousreply 65June 28, 2021 3:08 PM

[quote] The Queen and Prince William visit a factory today.

Not just any factory, the Irn Bru factory! #BringBackOldIrnBru

by Anonymousreply 66June 28, 2021 3:53 PM

[quote] Sturgeon missed her moment. She knows she needs 60% or so to make it persuasive to the Scots who vote NO. BREXIT and the pandemic were her best shots.

She’s a mongo who cares more about pronouns than independence. Not sure why she’s SNP at all.

by Anonymousreply 67June 28, 2021 3:55 PM

R67 - I don't know, it was always my impression that she cared about nothing but independence, and that was what has been getting her out of bed in the morning since she's 16 or so.

She clearly doesn't give a damn about the Scottish economy, Scotland's national debt, Scottish education . . . I assumed the pronouns and Woke shit is just cover.

Although, you may have a good point about the SNP: without the mirage of independence on the horizon, what's the point of being SNP at all? If it was the best vehicle available for her political career, that may have been part of her fanatical dedication to it.

But I do think she's sincere (as much as a politician can be, that is) in it. There is a touch of the fanatic about her. I think she hates England and the English in a manner that makes her sound for all the world like a Jacobite rebel trying to get Bonnie Prince Charlie back on the throne . . .

She probably has an extravagantly brimmed hat with a white rose stuck in it somewhere in the attic.

by Anonymousreply 68June 28, 2021 4:12 PM

The Queen is a badass. Imagine touring a huge factory at 95. In the video, you can see she walks fast for a 95 year old, too.

All that standing can't be too easy, but there she is, smiling brightly. I love her.

by Anonymousreply 69June 28, 2021 8:20 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 70June 28, 2021 8:37 PM

Megs is a head case

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 71June 28, 2021 8:41 PM

[quote]Although, you may have a good point about the SNP: without the mirage of independence on the horizon, what's the point of being SNP at all?

She may have been a true believer when she started out, but I think now she and a lot of other SNP politicians are too comfortable with their cushy gigs and aren't going to shake things up. They'll just keep feeding "Indy is right around the corner" stories to The National every week or two.

by Anonymousreply 72June 29, 2021 12:39 AM

Speaking of Sturgeon...The Queen met with her today in Scotland.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 73June 29, 2021 12:31 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 74June 29, 2021 1:55 PM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 75June 29, 2021 1:58 PM

I could believe his manipulative wife could cue him to SAY that for connections and $$$, do I think he would ever feel genuine remorse or change? After putting his grandfather in the hospital with news of the interview, literally hounding him to his grave and stunting/merching AT the funeral? Watch what people DO don't be confused by what they SAY is a good motto with these types.

by Anonymousreply 76June 29, 2021 2:09 PM

This particular writer seems to try to have everything every which way, no coherent narrative.

Would be funny if a source close to William put this out to paint Meg negatively, what is Harry going to say?

by Anonymousreply 77June 29, 2021 2:15 PM

Wonder what Mr. Lacey thinks William has to "concede?"

How could Markle back off her position, she would literally say she lied about it all.

by Anonymousreply 78June 29, 2021 2:18 PM

Comment from DM

BraddockS, Dallas, United States, moments ago

We are seeing first hand exactly why Harry is the way he is. Everyone else must concede to him. Everyone else must excuse HIS bad behavior. Everyone else must forgive HIM after he acts horribly. Harry is this way because for some unknown reason Harry is the center of the family. Why a future king must concede to a spare that is pushed so far down the line is unbelievable? Harry is this way because he was MADE to be this way. The idea that his brother, who will wear the crown, owes him everything and must concede.

by Anonymousreply 79June 29, 2021 2:25 PM

There have been reports that Will and Kate will bring their children to see the Diana statue BEFORE the official unveiling. Now, this is info that seems believable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80June 29, 2021 3:01 PM

For you royal jewel enthusiasts, here is Queen Mary's crown. Scroll to the last photo to see the three Queen Consort crowns. I think I prefer the proportions of the Queen Mum's crown. Alexandra's was too flat and wide and Mary's was too big and tall.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 81June 29, 2021 3:31 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

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

×

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