Recollections May Vary XIII

I don't think HM The Queen has attended a Christening since Princess Charlotte in 2015?

She attended the heir christening (including creating the momentous four monarchs pic) and the spare christening. She did not attend Louis's christening but Duke Dim and Duchess Diva got that Archie being presented to her and Prince Philip at Windsor Castle pic. Weird.

No, she hasn't.

The big story right now, speaking of varied recollections, is Tom Bower revealed as the source for the assertion that Charles plans to deny Edward the DoE title that Philip promised Edward on his wedding day, and that Edward spoke about in a t ed cent interview after Philip's death.

Most of the coverage cited "a source close to Charles". That excludes Bower, whose reputation for going for the jugular in his biographies precedes him. And no actual intimate of Charles would talk to Bower, either. So it's likely a source who is on the Fringe but wanted to show off and sold the bit to Bower. Bower is writing a bio of dear Meghan and has likely been given a huge advance with which to, er, carry out research on the royals. This is probably meant also to establish his creds with his publisher as The Real Deal.

Even if this is what Charles intends (and if it is, he's even more of a fool than I thought), there is no way he would have leaked this so soon after his father's death, never mind in a year of personal family bashing that has left considerable tarnish on the family as a family, publicly humiliating his brother after the Wessex's years loyal service.

The public don't care f.a. about one extra royal dukedom. They'll forget about it the minute it's announced.

They do care about an 80 year old Sovereign who is already not too popular showing himself to be a horse's arse fussily obsessed with titles after lifetime of privilege so vast most of us can't even imagine it.

Really, is this a story Charles needed 3 months after being seen gutted at his father's funeral? And being trashed by his son on more television interviews during the same period?!

If Charles has any sense, he'll issue some statement on the story and leave Bower and Wootton and the TIMES with egg on their faces, stating that press stories that any such decision has been made are false, and that the last thing he wishes to do is insult his father's memory.

If the story is absolutely true, and that's why no such statement has been issued, then it is more apparent (so to speak) than ever that Charles needs either to die before the Queen dies, or be forced to step aside for William. Because this kind of behaviour is a danger to the very institution he wants to salvage.

I suppose the Queen could yet again lend a hand. For one thing, she should get on the stick and issue those LPs keeping the Sussex kids from getting HRHs, that should slim down things!

And if the Edinburgh story is true, do an end run around him, dig up an equally senior ducal title, and bestow it on Edward as part of the Jubilee celebrations.

As the Tony Blair character in "The Queen" exclaimed, "Will no one save these people from themselves?!"

Please God r3 go back to your old women's forums where this kind of ridiculous rambling and nonsense might be appreciated. Your comments on Bower are just foolish.

In the last Stir the Pot thread, now paywalled, someone said that if the Sussexes had any real dirt on the BRF, they'd have gotten everything they wanted by now. I think that's true. The biggest piece of ammo they had was the alleged query by an unspecified relative about future children's skin colour. And it failed, first because it is likely just a fabrication, and second, speculating as to how children will look is pretty common in families. Even the queen, when she first saw William, said, 'Luckily he hasn't got his father's ears.'

R4 Really? Now, I'd be politely interested in your views on Bower. And the "ramblings" concern a major news story that was broken by the TIMES and then carried by the LES, Mail, Express and then internationally.

If you think you have more coherent comments on the story, please do share them.

Meanwhile, you aren't Head Boy here and you don't get to shoo people out of the room.

Skip the posts if you don't like them.

Otherwise, no one appointed you gatekeeper.

And learn some rules of civil discourse.

There would be very good reasons to both not create any further hereditary peerages beyond the line of succession (there have not been any other hereditary titles created since 1984) and to keep Edinburgh, the best established Scottish royal title, in house. Not giving Edinburgh to Eddie, but perhaps keeping it for George, would be sensible, while bumping Wessex up to a dukedom, if he really has to have the ducal title, would be compensation.

Oh, the other thread has been paywalled. Someone’s busy getting this one greyed out, too.

R5 agreed. One thing I've noticed about the Idiots in Montecito is their complete lack of patience or of playing the long game. Any big bombs have LONG been detonated

The simple solution would be for HM to make Edward the Duke of Wessex now. Why she didn't do this 20 years ago I'll never know. That way, Edinburgh would always have been saved for a future son of the king. William might even have gotten it instead of Cambridge, effectively keeping it in the Royal bailiwick for years to come.

Royal dukedoms given to younger sons are almost inevitably lost unless you end up with a York situation of no male heirs. If Edinburgh were saved for Louis, it would be lost when Louis dies and his non-royal son gets it in 70 years or so. The BRF should either quit giving Royal dukedoms to younger sons or resign themselves to losing them.

Edward may still get the title if it's already been decided.

Formal complaint made to big tech by cyber tech company about anti Sussex troll accounts. Proof given of bot accounts and sock puppet accounts. There are thousands in a new batch claiming Meghan stole crown jewels. The tech crew has given proof and has also given details of origin. And it's a reputable tech company. Whoever dispatched this latest batch of trolls made it too obvious.

Actually R13 you're talking bollocks. The people who use bots and have been called out on it are the Sussex Squad.

Edinburgh isn't the senior Scottish title since it was only recreated in 1947. The Senior title is Rothsay which Charles already uses in Scotland. IF any of this is true about him wanting to deny Edward Edinburgh then it would be personal (petty) reasons. Even if he wanted to keep it for Louis then it's likely to pass out of the BRF after his death and George is currently set to have a lifetime of bigger titles.

Yes, royal dukedoms should only go to those who will inevitably become king or queen (unless they die first), so the eldest grandchild, or great-grandchild, if that ever happened.. No more from now on.

Edward has already been promised the title Duke of Edinburgh.

Edinburgh is the senior available Scottish title, R14. Rothesay traditionally goes to the heir apparent and Albany, the oldest of them all, is in abeyance like Cumberland, as it is technically held by one of the German branches.

The younger sons don't need Royal dukedoms, especially if King Charles III's slimmed-down family comes to pass. Not even George needs one: Make him Prince of Wales when the time comes, but before that he could just be Prince George. It's bullshit anyway for the boys to get something and Charlotte to get nothing.

Leave them all children of the monarch, the heir, or the heir's heir Princes and Princesses by courtesy titles, and the wives of Princes can be Princess Louis or whatever. It will help keep the title-seekers and golddiggers away. The children of Charlotte and Louis can just be Mr. and Ms. That way, there's no more bickering over titles once the current generation passes.

Angela Levin a Royal Reporter just made a tweet. Alleging the Emmy nomination for the Oprah interview was "interesting" because they applied after the cutoff date of the 17th. She retweeted this fact from a hate account Murky Meg. They are wrong it's not the cutoff date. One Google search confirms this. So false tweet. But watch it do the rounds and be reblogged and splashed on UK tabloids. Question? Why are Royal Reporters using hate accounts as sources of factual information. Do they not check the facts before posting

I don't care about the Emmy nom, personally. It won't even go to the Sussexes: It's for the producers of the program.

The producers who failed to fact check over 18 statements, and who intentionally published falsified newspaper headlines in order to make a point they knew was not true (if they actively had to go to all the trouble of falsifying the headlines to make them look "Racist", then they already knew that there were no "Racist" headlines to begin with).

Those producers?

I didn't say they deserved it, R21. I just said that this award, should they win it, won't go on the Sussex bookshelf.

I doubt it will win, anyway.

R13 pipes up every now and then with their distinctive “voice”. It’s like a little Gladys Kravitz plus Tracy Flick plus Unabomber.

R13 - Hi, Pet. How's the LSA "lawsuit" coming along? CIA knocked at their doors yet?

It's the Sussex Squad that lost their Twitter account, remember, for violent threats against other members of the BRF?

And the only police involvement in anything related to the Harkles is the threat by one of your pals to stab Camilla Tominey and her three children.

But do go on entertaining us with your empty threats and bellowing . . . it serves as comic relief here.

R18 - Actually, Princes of Wales comes with a royal dukedom: he inherits the Duchy of Cornwall and becomes, ipso facto, Duke of Cornwall. Then he gets another Scottish dukedom (Charles is Duke of Cornwall AND Duke of Rothesay). William is Prince William AND Duke of Cambridge.

Charlotte will remain Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Louis will get a royal dukedom, York if Andrew dies before Louis marries, something else if Andrew is still alive.

The problem is the children of Louis and Charlotte. Charlotte, if she marries a commoner, even an aristo, will not be HRHs unless William issues LPs to make them such. As you all know, I intend Charlotte to marry Prince Christian, next heir to the throne of Denmark, and to really stick it to everyone (just think of THAT royal wedding!).

No one has heard William talking about slimming down the monarchy, only about Charles wanting to, and not once has Charles uttered a word publicly about this.

Frankly, it would be supremely hypocritical for Charles to want the monarchy slimmed down if that is what he really wants, but to allow Harry's kids, being raised as Americans by disgraced parents who are intensely disliked in Britain. to have their HRHs.

One royal dukedom more or less isn't the issue, really. It's how many working royals on are on the Sovereign Grant and supporting royal and other patronages.

No one cares about the Earl of St. Andrews inheriting his father's title of Duke of Kent one day. In another generation or two, it will become an ordinary (Your Grace) rather than royal (Your Royal Highness) title, anyway.

No one would care if the Wessexes get the DoE title, either, as they've been working steadily for the monarchy for the last 20 years and have at least another ten years ahead of them as the Cambridge kids grow up.

If Charles really doesn't want Edward to have that title, it's for other reasons. They're already part of the working monarchy, how would giving Edward the title change anything? So what if Edward's son inherits it one day?

So either it's another bullshit story and the title really is going to Edward, or Charles is being a piss-pot.

No wonder the Queen refuses to die. She's trying to keep the throne out of her her older son's hands as long as possible, to make sure his reign is as short as possible, and the Cambridges can step up as soon as possible.

R10 - There is no such things as the "Duke" of Wessex. The earldom stands alone as a creation, and has been recreated three times, each time ONLY as an earldom. The Queen just can't turn it into a dukedom.

There are lists of available ducal titles that have been dormant or in abeyance to choose from. The Sussex title was one of those when the Queen selected it for Harry.

Actually, the Wessex earldom is an extremely old and historically distinguished one going back to the 11th century. It's more distinguished than many of the much later ducal titles. "Seniority" of the title counts as to desirability.

The link below will give you the names of extinct as well as suspended and vacant dukedoms. It is from this list that the Queen selected Sussex and from which William could select one for Louis if Andrew hasn't done the decent thing and pegged out early, relieving the family and Britain of his useless and sleazy presence.

R25 Christian of Denmark is 15 or 16 - him marrying Charlotte would be like Charles & Diana, ffs.

Charlotte should marry DL fave Prince Oskar of Sweden.

[quote] Christian of Denmark is 15 or 16 - him marrying Charlotte would be like Charles & Diana, ffs.

Yea, but is he cute? And size please.

The Queen COULD turn Earl of Wessex into Duke of Wessex--as the fount of all honors, she can do as she likes. She can make a title out of thin air, as she did with Tony Snowdon's earldom. But given how traditional she is, she probably won't.

Of course the Queen or Charles eventually could upgrade Wessex, as R29 says. It has happened repeatedly in the past, an earldom turned into a marquisate or dukedom. All those royal titles got created out of nothing at some point. Or give him Clarence - these days no-one knows what that refers to either.

R28

Christian has got a younger brother, Vincent, born in 2011. Charlotte was born in 2015. Now that would be a nice match.

But it's not meant to be as we've established that Charlotte and Oskar of Sweden will be the future power couple of evil. <3

R29 Then it would turn from a very distinguished senior earldom into a very junior dukedom.

I always respected Edward for requesting this particular earldom. It shows he knows his history. Especially if he could expect the Edinburgh dukedom later on.

Charles apparently thought if exchanging his Scottish ducal title, Rothesay, for the Edinburgh one, but realised that the Rothesay title was senior.

This kind of shit counts in these circles. At events like coronations and entering the HoL, things are arranged by this kind of seniority.

In fact, so are monarchs at events like royal weddings. The Danish monarchy is the oldest in Europe. Thus, Queen Margrethe takes precedence at these kinds of events.

Style of thing.

Yes, the earldom of Wessex was so important, it wasn't used from 1071 till 1991. You may as well call the 'earldom of Mercia' a senior peerage - they are both titles from different ages.

Now you're just inventing stuff wholesale, R33. Royal precedence since the Congress of Vienna goes by length of tenure, not age of monarchy. Anyway, while there is no categoric rule, the British monarchy is always held to include the English crown, with its rights and privileges, and it predated Denmark.

Duke of Mercia is a neat-sounding title.

R28 Turning out tall and handsome, blue eyes, dark hair. Having some complexion issues this year but once that passes he'll be worth a look.

[quote]Charlotte will remain Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Louis will get a royal dukedom, York if Andrew dies before Louis marries, something else if Andrew is still alive. The problem is the children of Louis and Charlotte. Charlotte, if she marries a commoner, even an aristo, will not be HRHs unless William issues LPs to make them such.

Well, so? Her kids don't need to be titled, they won't be in direct line of succession so they don't need to be. Look at Princess Anne's children. The BRF are used to this by now. Same with Prince Louis, his kids will be likely way down the line, they are fine with being styled non-HRH children of a Duke or Earl.

Exactly R38 there is no reason for Charlotte or Louis' future kids to have titles. If someone happens with George and they move up, they can add them. But unless you're going to be the child of a monarch, there's no reason for you to have a title. Anne got that. Edward got that. SHOCKING: Andrew and Harry don't.

Charlotte will be styled as the Princess Royal once Anne passes away.

I would be wary of Prince Frederick's genetic line. Isn't he known to be a bigger partier than Harry? I recall reading he was out clubbing the night before the christening of one his children and looked very haggard and hung over at the ceremony.

I hope Princess Charlotte marries a nice, normal bloke and has a life outside the BRF crap.

Why wasn't Princess Anne made a duchess in her own right, with succession to her son? Seems better than just being a "Princess Royal".

Princess Royal is an honorary title. No guarantee that Charlotte will be granted that title.

Because "Dukedome" titles are only handed to males, no matter. No meritocratic leanings, at all.

Though, Anne's duty should have handed her the keys to the kingdom, she's still 2nd, 3rd, 4th to her less distinguished and broadly more controversial, idiot brothers.

Anne should be the next Monarch, not that weird and diffident Charles who gave us freaking "Harry" who likes to talk smack about "little Pakis" and "Ragheads" right in his own regiment, deriding his fellow soldiers ON FOREIGN ASSIGNMENT.

[Quote]No guarantee that Charlotte will be granted that title.

And William would deny his daughter because...?

Historically the titles went to the sons or, if necessary, the daughters' husbands (though they were usually expected to have their own). There's no actual reason why a princess shouldn't get her own title, other than custom. Actually, if they want to use titles, they should just make them lifetime grants. Again, there is nothing to actually stop this - the monarch can do what they like. Way back when, peerage titles were initially job-like positions held at the pleasure of the king.

People here often act like there are clear rules about monarchs and titles, when there aren't. There doesn't have to be a Princess Royal and it doesn't automatically go to eldest or only daughter. Anne didn't get it till over 20 years after the death of the previous Princess Royal, her great-aunt Mary.

Are you suggesting it is or isn't a "meritocratic" title, r47?

The Queen should just make Edward the Duke of Clarence...it's silly to not use a title because of it being "bad luck".

I mean, are they going to retire the York title because Andrew is a nasty little bugger?

I don't know why Charles would want to save Edinburgh for future use...the man is over 70 and since they don't tend to give out ducal titles until marriage, it's not super likely Chuck will be AT George or Louis's wedding to give either one of them the title in 20 years.

I'm not suggesting anything. The monarch appoints when they want to, but there isn't automatically a Princess Royal, just because there's someone who could have the title. In Anne's case, there does seem to have been a sense that at a certain point she had 'earned' it.

R49, I've no idea what their plans or intentions are, but Edinburgh is a good title for, say, George, once Charles is King, or down the line, a son of George, once William is king - it references the capital of Scotland, a big deal these days, and would mean Scotland had a front-page title, instead of a 'second' one like Rothesay or Dumbarton. If it goes to a junior brother, it's lost indefinitely. Anyway, my feeling is Charles's slim-line monarchy plan doesn't involve royal dukes at all, outside the line of succession - the titles serve no purpose.

Hasn't Edward essentially taken over duties for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards with a heavy administrative role beyond his father's prior reach?

Titles don't serve any purpose but since the entire British Royal Family is built on a bedrock of existence solely based on having meaningless titles, they're probably not going to do away with them entirely.

And, really, the only one in the future who will need a title will be Louis. By the time George marries, it's probable that Grandpa Charles will be dead so William will be king and George will be Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall. And, once William is king, the Cambridge dukedom will merge with the crown so Louis could have his choice of being Duke of Cambridge, Edinburgh, and possibly even York if Uncle Andrew is dead though I think it likely that the York title might be kept on ice for a few years after Andrew bites the dust to let the tarnish fade away. They'll probably save York for one of George's kids.

George will only need a ducal title if he marries before Charles dies.

Could the titles troll please give it a rest?

R54 Are you on the right thread? Because the current discussion is rather focused on titles (for the moment) and it's not just one person so...

Stay out of our wigs, honey.

Wanting a slim-line monarchy, as pretty much everyone says Charles does, and scattering titles to younger children don't seem to go together. Giving titles to Andrew and Harry has hardly proved an advantageous step - why would Charles or William risk a rerun? There's no need to award hereditary titles. The modern monarchy doesn't need to be linked to the peerage - royals can just be princes or princesses, unless they're the heir apparent.

R52 Yes. And made a fine thing of it. Philip's wishes were made very clear in handing this on to Edward. For Charles even to think about brutally keeping it from Edward when it would not have the slightest negative impact on his slimmed down monarchy as the Wessexes have been, and still are. Crucisl senior working royals shows just how bad Charles' judgement is.

That is, IF the story is true.

[quote]Hasn't Edward essentially taken over duties for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards with a heavy administrative role beyond his father's prior reach?

Yup. Philip lent his title, and his enthusiastic support, to the DofE scheme, but over the years he grew a bit tetchy about being so closely identified with it. He said in at least one interview that he wished people would stop asking him about it, and put their focus on the kids who were participating in the scheme, and the adults who made it work. Edward has been involved in the scheme for decades, but has preferred to keep himself in mostly the background. I imagine that he probably shares his father's opinion, or at least he respects it.

My very small claim to fame is that, when I was 16, my DofE Gold Award was presented to me by Prince Philip at Buckingham Palace.

R39 Depends who Charlotte marries. Louis' children will have titles because their father does. If Louis gets a royal dukedom upon his marriage, which he most certainly will, his son will have whatever subsidiary earl's title came with that ducal title Louis got upon his marriage. His is daughter will be Lady Something Mountbatten-Windsor.

If William is King when Louis' and Charlotte's children are born, they will also be grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line. Unless the Titles act enacted by George V is amended, they are entitled to HRHs.

If Charles is still on the throne by then, William's grandchildren will not be automatic HRHs. Then, if Charlotte marries a commoner, as Anne and Margaret did, her children will be plain Mr Ms, unless her spouse accepts one from Charles or she marries an aristocratic with one (say, another duke or earl). Louis' children, however, as noted will have the honorific of Earl and/or Lady, as he will get that royal dukedom as a gift upon his marriage.

William's children are great-grandchildren of the Sovereign and were not entitled to HRHS. The Queen issued LPs to make them HRHs because they were the children of the next heir and in the direct line. The LP also equalized Charlotte's position with her brothers.

That was the source of Meghan's resentment. Her kids are also great-grandchildren of the Sovereign, but no LPs were issued making them HRHs. They each have an aristocratic honorific, bit that just wasn't good enough for the former Suitcase Girl on Deal or No Deal. She thought her 7th and 8th in l I'll be treated like the 3rd-5th.

Harry knew all this before he got married. Meghan acting shocked and hurt was nothing but an act to build her case for ditching the gig as soon as she could when she figured she'd nailed the fame and money.

This stuff is second nature to the royals. Everyone knows the rules and customs.

Including Harry.

R40 Prince Christian's genetic line includes his extremely sensible mother's, and all bad behaviour on the part of heirs to crowns isn't genetic.

So far, Prince Christian seems to be growing up quite nicely. Mary, like Kate, has been a hands-on mother, the family seems close-knit, at least amongst siblings and parents. Mary has worked far harder than Frederik (he was always a bit of a slacker), and earned the respect of the Danes and set a higher standard. He looks like her, too, except for the blue eyes.

Rather unfair to tar the boy with his father's flaws, when he has a mother as well, and allegedly a very strong one, and hasn't even entered uni yet.

^*I still want Christian for Charlotte. Can you imagine the furore and grandness of the wedding, and how it would burn Meghan's ass so badly she would need skin grafts?!

Slacker or not - I'd hit it. <3

Me too, r62.

I don’t think Charles will withhold or take away that title from his brother. It seems to be a little grenade thrown from a short distance. The Harkles may not be the only people who want to sow discord among Elizabeth’s children.

I doubt any future husband of Charlotte's would be offered a title upon marriage. If he has his own title going in, fine, but the BRF hasn't created a title for a husband marrying in since Snowdon. They did offer one to Anne's first husband, but he wisely turned it down.

Lol, R40– No one believes that the Bogan has an ounce of sense in her Prada-loving noggin.

They won't be offering titles or creating peerages for marry-ins anymore (lone exception: the husband of a female direct heir). That practice is effectively dead, and will be literally dead when the Queen passes.

There will be changes under King Charles III (yes I believe he will use his given name and not a regnal one). Not granting peerages for family members, both born family and married in, is one. I think he's re-thinking the entire role of the "spares" (non-heirs) and is mulling ending the grant of dukedoms to royal sons - this would be a natural outcome of the recent grief produced by the antics of his wayward offspring and next-younger brother. It simplifies expectations and streamlines the BRF at the same time.

I believe this may be the seed of the recent rumbling re Edward's receipt of the Edinburgh dukedom.

He will also issue a new LP limiting the granting of HRHs to only those children born to the heir, that heir's first born. If this revision could occur before the current Queen passes, thereby clarifying the titles of the Sussex children, all the better. But if not done, Charles will effectuate it.

I liked the idea upthread of granting life peerages to younger sons who are working Royals. Heck, give them to younger daughters who are working royals, too. But their children will not be titled nor have HRHs. Those grandchildren of the monarch will be free to live their own lives free of the burdens and expectations of titles in the manner of Princess Anne's children.

Make Louis Duke of York for life, make Charlotte Duchess of Clarence for life, provided they take up Royal duties. Their children will be plain Mr. and Ms. unless Charlotte marries a titled man. Easy-peasy.

That idea would also preserve historical Royal dukedoms from turning into ordinary dukedoms which the UK does not need. Kent and Gloucester are lost, but there is still time to preserve Edinburgh and York.

The title Princess Royal is stupid and redundant. If I were Anne I'd be pissed. No wonder she declined titles for her kids.

R69 she was almost 40 when she was name Princess Royal. If she didn't want the title, I doubt it would've been forced on her

R65 Dear me, fo we see the nasty face of class snobbery raised here?

Mary holds a dual university degree. Her father was a university maths professor. She's no more a "bogan" than Kate Middleton was a barmaid.As for "sense", she had enough sense to snag and stick it out with that lazy drinker and succeed at it. She loves Prada? Oh, no!!!!!!

Why, she must be the ONLY future Queen Consort in Europe who likes luxury clothes!

Meanwhile, she did a great job fitting in, works much harder than her husband in all those nice clothes that her fucking future subjects expect her to look nice in, her children seem quite nice and natural, and her mother-in-law is said to be relieved at the way Mary has handled her less than staggeringly inspiring heir.

She succeeded better than Meghan Markle ever could have hoped to, worked harder than Kate including learning Danish late in life, and remains immensely popular with the Danes.

I'd say "sensible" is an understatement where Mary is concerned.

For those who don't know, "bogan" is an Aussie term for a working-class chav sort.

Not a dual law-business uni degree woman who supported herself in real estate so she could rent in Bondi Beach with a father who taught maths at university level.

But, hey she likes being royal and wearing Prada. Clearly, she must be a boganesque slag, right?

R69 It's not, actually. It's meant to draw a distinction between the arrivistes and the Sovreign's blood Princess, horn to the purple not just having gotten lucky in the marriage stakes.

The Queen's aunt, Princess Mary, also held the title, and in fact in her youth the Queen strongly resembled the previous Princess Royal. It's neither redundant nor silly.

Why on earth would Anne have wanted any other sort of title?! Anne lived her life blending private wishes with royal perks better than her brothers. She did exactly as she pleased for her entire life.

She's quite savvy enough to know how lucky she was to be placed as she was. Anne needed other titles like she needed a longer nose or bigger teeth.

She's done fine.

^*born (not horn) to the purple.

R67 They don't give royal peerage to women, and even if they did, "Clarence" would likely be a nonstarter. It was the ducal title given to Prince Edward, Edward VII's heir, dissolute, frail, sexually suspect, into drugs...who fortunately died young, passing the throne (and his fiancee, Mary if Teck), down to his younger brother, George, a much more solid and reliable sort.

And then there is that other famous Duke of Clarence, the traitorous George drowned in a bitter of malmsey in the tower in the Wats of the Rose's, the execution often blamed on Richerd Iii (still Duke of Gloucester at the time), but in fact likely engineered by his exasperated brother, King Edward, and his Queen, Elizabeth Woodville.

No, no Clarence.

^*butt (not bitter) of malmsey.

If we can't get a fucking edit button, could someone at least send the autocorrect to uni and improve its vocabulary?

R67 You don't seem to understand how royal peerage work. They come with sibsidiary titles. If Louis is made Duke of York, his son will be earl this and his daughter Lady that, IF Charles is King. If William is King, those grandchildren will be HRHs.

It is only with great-grandchildren that you can start thinning the branches. That's why Archie didn't get an HRH. But for children in the direct line only a few places from the throne, it's different. Until that next heir makes it alive to the throne, they need the gravitas of royal titles. Call it worst case scenario planning.

Charlotte alone cannot pass on her HRH. But her brothers can if William is King. It remains a fact that women and children take their peerage and royal rank from their husbands and fathers.

Given R74's ingenuities, Charlotte being The Duchess of Clarence would be just right.

Particularly if she married DL fave Prince Oskar of Sweden and he became the Duke of Clarence upon marriage.

I know it doesn't work that way, but it'd be hilarious.

^^*Wars (not Wats) of the Roses

It was widely reported that Jack was offered but declined a courtesy title when he married Eugenie.

^ Earl of Whiskeyx would've been pretty fitting.

I doubt there'd be an issue with using Clarence because of previous holders - it's not like the Dukes of Gloucester or York were a sterling bunch. The problem with Clarence in the name - it was created for one of Edward III's sons, Lionel, who inherited through his wife as his main landed estate a big chunk of the Clare lands of the old earls of Gloucester, which the title reflects. Clare itself is a small place in East Anglia, so the title is even more meaningless than most of them.

@R74: Duke of Clarence, the traitorous George drowned in a bitter of malmsey in the tower in the Wats of the Rose's, the execution often blamed on Richerd Iii (still Duke of Gloucester at the time), but in fact likely engineered by his exasperated brother, King Edward, and his Queen, Elizabeth Woodville. This sent me down a rabbit hole, 😆. Thanks!

[quote]It was widely reported that Jack was offered but declined a courtesy title when he married Eugenie.

No, it was not widely reported and this absolutely did not happen. Not an iota of possibility.

R82 - Ah, the Wars of the Roses: the historical gift that goes on giving!

Well, dears, if we though recollections may vary before, just wait till Harry's "completely truthful" recollections are published next year.

It's so nice to know that if all other topics magically disappeared, DL would still be a hoppin' place because of the Harkles and the Windsors.

Harry is a dick for brains, many people will remember his punching paps and his nazi and nakedness,all that will be regurgitated if he even tries.

Punching paps?

And do we think Harry actually wrote this memoir by himself? I get the impression it will be lots of "recollections may vary" tripe, along with "he got a real bicycle and I only got a trike".

He apparently was assigned a first-class ghost writer, the same man who ghost-wrote Andre Agassi's autobiography - which was very well received for its juicy and entertaining style. What they call in the trade, very "readable".

Of more interest are the rumours floating about that the book is being used as a platform to support what has been Harry's real aim all along: to finally get distributed the They Killed Diana film owned by on ed of the Archwell staff he and the missus hired this year.

The owner of the film tried to get it launched in, I think, 2011, but the distributor's legal team required 87 cuts to avoid litigation. The filmmaker, now on staff with Archwell's video arm, refused to make the cuts and has been waiting to get the film put there.

And last but not least, the film was financed by none other than (wait for it) . . .

Mohammed al-Fayed, Dodi's Dad.

Who has tried to shift the blame for Diana's and Dodi's deaths for decades off the back of his own staff drunk driver and no one wearingsrat belts, onto the backs of the BRF, specifically Philip and MI-6/MI-5.

Harry Markle Wordpress has a column up on it.

The boy really is mental, isn't he?

Does the publisher pay for the ghostwriter, or is it part of the advance/proceeds?.

I don't see how the book would get the film released. One pack of lies supporting another pack of lies wouldn't stop any lawsuits from the BRF.

It depends where the lies stop. You can frame lies as speculation with caveats carefully inserted and get away with it.

The book will serve as a backdrop to the film, which the Sussexes know they will need for more money because they're always going to need a Next Thing.

And their only real moneymakers are Diana and the Windsors.

No one gives a tinker's curse about Pearl's adventures in Girl Power Land, or Harry's CHIMPO lectures or Archwell's charity partnerships.

They all know it, from baby Lilibet to the CEOs of Netflix and Penguin Random House.

The two cynical, hate -filled grifters are going to milk their Windsor connection for the last dollar it can buy them.

They've moved like programmed bots from the leaked nasty stories inside, to the silly Scobie "tell-all", to the bombshell Oprah interview, on to the Dax Shepherd My Father Passed On His Genetic Pain to Me sessions, now comes the memoir, and then the film.

You could have seen the trajectory from Jupiter.

Unless you were the Queen and Charles, still living in Hopeful of Happy Families Again One Day Cloud Cuckooland,

And leaving Wiliam and Kate to retrieve the damaged goods.

Character is destiny. They knew who Meghan was from the get-go, and they knew Harry was a train wreck waiting to happen.

Meghan was just the match Harry threw onto the pool of petrol at his feet.

Containment was never going to work with these two because of WHO THEY ARE.

The Queen, of all people, 18 years old when WWII ended, should have remembered the lesson.

No idea what the BRF's options are now, but they'd better think of ones a bit more effective than grey rocking and a few hand slaps here and there.

R92 I don't see what the BRF could have done? If they'd taken their titles all that would have done is "confirm" their story and given then something else to whine about. Not to mention having a parliamentary debate on it wouldn't look good during a year of crisis. Taking their patronages and stopping their funding (after a large lump sum to help) was part of the catalyst for doing Oprah right then.

They were going to do sensationalist lying "tell alls" whatever the BRF did because it's the only thing anyone is interested in from them, unless they paid them continuing ginormous sums of money and gave them whatever they wanted. And some people (definitely not me) are saying they should have done just that.

They should have paid Meghan to go away while she and Harry were still courting. It would have been cheaper and easier in the long run.

R93 There would have been no Parliamentary debate whatsoever about taking their titles. The government stated publicly that the titles were strictly a matter for the Queen. ONLY if the succession comes into it does Parliament get involved.

But to your point, that IS the point. What they've done is make her look like a patsy. She may as well have taken the heat then, because taking them now looks even more punitive. Payback for the interviews.

She should have taken the punitive hit then when it made sense. His ducal title was given in the expectation that he and his wife would be serving the monarchy for the test of their lives. They decided not to. Take the ducal title away.

Now, it's full-blown war with the yeo of them gleefully brandishing their Sussex title for money with seeming impunity.

In my view, it's a worse look.

There’s not much you can do when a ruthless toxic person has you in their crosshairs. I know it’s politically incorrect (to those ignorant of its actual meaning) to use this term but: the BRF wound up having to hold a tar baby.

But taking their titles wouldn't have stopped them starting this war and using them at every opportunity actually makes them look like huge hypocrites, even some of their supporters are questioning why "Duke of Sussex HRH" keeps saying terrible things about his family but can't stop reminding everyone he's a Prince. Or why Meghan's such a progressive ultra liberal feminist but uses her title in huge letters to talk about how "equal" everyone is. And how much they want their son to have a royal title growing up in California.

Parliament does have to get involved with legally removing a Peer's title. HM could have legally stripped them of HRH with LPs instead of just telling them not to use it but it was extremely unpopular when she did that to Diana and she was only a married in who got divorced.

Hell let them on the balcony during the jubilee and then re issue the photograph as a rebuttal of Harry's book when it's published a few months later. "I hate my royal life and my evil family but I deserve to be front and centre of everything to do with being royal!"

They should have listened to Philip. He said to take the titles when the Sussexes left.

r82, I think recollections varied at 3am

oops meant r87 above

I do like the quote from the Express that Harry "rarely lifted a finger unless it's to feel up a cheap tart in a nightclub". He really is his mother's son.

I think Camilla would have to DO something to turn public opinion against her. She’s earned a neutral acceptance, as far as I can tell. She took her lumps decades ago, and weathered it.

They’re taking their sticks to an empty piñata.

Lie-fest memoirs can be a great read,(David Niven is brilliant), I just don't see H ever having any humour about himself. A woe is me book is not going to entertain anybody.

R97 - No, Parliament does not. Presented with petitions numbering over 100,000 to remove Harry's ducal title, Parliament issued a statement that such matters were entirely in the purview of the Queen. Whatever she has the power to give (she didn't have to ask Parliament to create him Duke of Sussex), she has the power to take back. She allegedly considered it when they left, and then decided it was enough to suspend the HRHs and deprive them of the use of the term SussexRoyal.

They might have gone on doing their revenge porn shit anyway, but they wouldn't now be ingrained in the public mind as the Sussexes, she wouldn't have been able to plaster her name all over her book and articles for the TIMES, etc. They would have had to stop using Sussex immediately, That, at least, would have been something. If they went on doing the Prince and Princess Henry thing, so what. They should have lost Sussex immediately come hell or high water.

Now, she won't even have the excuse that they clearly chose not to offer the monarchy and the nation what that ducal title was in exchange for. Too much time has gone by.

They were always going to put the boot in, and Harry's family has known for years that he's filled with anger and envy of his brother and too loose a cannon to trust.

They should have known better and done the bit that they could when they could.

Now, of course, I doubt the old lady will even have the spine to issue LPs ensuring his kids don't get HRHs, and the Sussex's rout will be complete.

Rewards for bad behaviour. It's a bad look. It makes the public into fools, too. Why revere something that can't even do the bare minimum to see that its own pay some price for disrespecting it?!

The world takes you at your own valuation. The Queen has made it look like disrespecting Crown and Country is just a well-paying game for shitty people.

No price, no value.

^*the Sussex's rout of the BRF will be complete . . .

It has not been denied, R57.

All this titles shit has been oddly back in the news recently. Tony Benn wanted his title Viscount abolished but the Queen refused to issue letters patent.Now his oldest son has revived it and taken a seat in the House of Lords as one of the hereditary peers who have the vote for who takes a vacancy.We really need to reform this system. It all comes down to the monarch though on advice of government.

R106 - Yes, I know it hasn't been denied. But then, the Palace only rarely bothers with such denials, even when the story isn't true, for just that reason: once they start with denials, it is assumed that when they don't deny it, the story is true, although it isn't, necessarily.

The Queen must have been livid at that Lilibet fiasco to be willing to make a monkey out of Harry over it.

[quote]No, Parliament does not. Presented with petitions numbering over 100,000 to remove Harry's ducal title, Parliament issued a statement that such matters were entirely in the purview of the Queen. Whatever she has the power to give (she didn't have to ask Parliament to create him Duke of Sussex), she has the power to take back.

Not quite. In the Buckhurst Peerage Case (1876) the House of Lords ruled that although a person can be prevented from assuming a title, they cannot - once bestowed - be deprived of it short of an Act of Parliament. This case follows on from earlier cases, e.g. Wensleydale (1876), which established the precedent that Parliament can only consider the removal of a title if directed to do so by the Crown. This is still good law.

In statute, the process for removing a title for treason is found in the Titles Deprivation Act (1917). This statute made provision for the Crown to direct the Privy Council to consider the removal of noble titles and to make recommendations to both Houses of Parliament. Rejections of the recommendations by either House would cancel the action, but if no rejection was received within 40 days the title was considered to have been abolished. This legislation fell into desuetude after WWI, and would need to be reactivated by another enabling act before it could be used.

So the statement by Parliament is technically correct (the best kind of correct), but does not tell the whole picture. The decision to begin an action to remove a title is indeed reserved to the Sovereign, but the mechanism of that action must be authorised by Parliament.

^*Well, Parliament clearly hopes no one like you is around when they politely tell petitioners to fuck if and take it to the Queen.

But your information does answer some pesky questions. Viz. to wit: why the Queen may have been reluctant to start this ball rolling.

If indeed Parliament has to sign off on it, and they'd hardly like to say, NO, she may believe she needs more than just pique as a reason, hence giving Harry enough rope to hang himself with, even if it takes a few years.

Devious, very devious, deliciously so. Quite the battle of wits: Harry trying to stay on one side of a line and the BRF tempting him through limp action to creep ever closer to that line.

Stay tuned, darlings, this may turn out to be more interesting than expected.

Obliged to the poster above, filled with arcane knowledge, who brought this little cat and mouse game to our attention!

New photo of Prince George has been released for his 8th birthday tomorrow.

It is interesting, R110. Those who would like to see Harry w/o titles should sign Lady C's petition, helps indicate public will if nothing else. It is linked on her YT channel or searchable on Change.org.

George is getting so big. Wonder if they will send him away for school in the fall. Seems so odd to Americans, although I know people here who went to boarding school at young ages, but they were from wealthy yet extremely dysfunctional families, it is not widespread.

Titles are up to Queenie, read up on Anthony Wedgewood Benn (not calling himself Viscout Stansgate).

Boarding school is mostly for secondary education. I went, and know many people who send their kids for high school. I don’t know one single family who’s sent a younger child.

I'd be surprised if they send George to boarding school before he's 13. At that point he'll probably go to Eton like his father.

George is a cutie, but he got those Windsor teeth.

William an Harry boarded at Ludgrove school. I don't know if they went at 8 when pupils usually start. I read that the Cambridges were looking for a place in Berkshire anticipating George and Charlotte enrolling outside of London. I can see Catherine having s hard time with this as she was a day student. William who knows. Boarding away from his parents may have been respite for him.

I read somewhere that Charles wanted Harry and Wills to be day students but Diana insisted on boarding them for reasons known only to her. No idea if that's true or not.

Especially given the current state of the word re: the pandemic, I think it would be foolish to send away the future monarch to any kind of boarding school at present.

*state of the world

It's not surprising that Charles wouldn't want them at boarding school considering his miserable years at Gordonstoun. I don't know what Diana's motives may have been. Tradition? Or maybe she had a good experience when her own parents' marriage was unraveling? She had to have some insight that the marital discord could affect her sons.

[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.]

Not so fast r120. Unfortunately its not their sole decision. Eden is not fully correct; they don't have a foolproof legal entitlement to the HRH or princely standing. The Queen still controls use of these honorifics and titles, LPs notwithstanding.

From the article:

[quote]Sophie made clear in an interview last year that it would be up to Lady Louise and her brother, James, who currently has the title Viscount Severn, how they styled themselves in future.

Wrong. It's up to the MONARCH how any BRF member is styled. The Monarch can make any decision they'd like about that. They can override the existing 1917 LP at anytime, simply by making their wishes openly known.

If Louise and James start styling themselves as HRHs, you know its with the full consent of Her Maj.

Louise will reach the age of majority during the Queen's lifetime. If she lets her grandmother know she wishes to be styled HRH Princess Louise, I can't see the Queen denying her.

R122, Louise looks like a nice gal. I hope she gets to be called a Princess. (Although “Lady Louise” sounds better, IMO.)

I think it's wiser for the Wessex kids to stay as they are. Princess Anne's children seem much happier and freer in life than the York girls. When there's a microscoping chance of you inheriting the throne, a title is more a burden than anything.

absolutely r124, Princess has been a giant burden for Bea and Yuge in terms of intrusion. Then again it may have helped them to get jobs they may not otherwise have got.

George is starting to look like William, ie, the lower part of his face.

Sophie's interview last year did say that her kids can choose when they turn 18 and that they technically already had them, which was a surprise to many royal watchers.

[“Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but it’s highly unlikely.”]

Of course they would almost certainly need The Queen's permission to actually start using them, and I don't think they'd risk alienating her just to stick two fingers up at Charles if she didn't agree.

I don't think they will, they're better off not using them and getting the perks but less of the media complaining about being a spare Princess. Their family doesn't seem like they want all the fuss into their private lives that would cause.

On the boarding school topic, I think one reason the Waleses were sent to Ludgrove at 8 was the shits how that was their parents' marriage and the fact that both weren't around a lot of the time anyway. It actually gave them more stability than home would have done.

You miss the entire point, r124.

So Edward's kids are eligible for HRHs and to be called prince and princess, but Harry's are not...

R129 Yes because Edward is the son of the current monarch. When Charles becomes King then Harry's kids are currently eligible to become Prince and Princess but Charles is likely to want to change that to slim down the monarchy and to limit the HRH to working royals, which Archie and Lili won't be. Just like Louise and James won't be. Eden is claiming that Edward and Sophie want to have Louise start using her titles in revenge because it ruins Charles's future plans. I don't think it's likely to happen but it's fun gossip not related to the gruesome twosome.

Being like Peter and Zara or Lady Amelia Windsor is better than being a Beatrice or Eugenie. All the perks and connections and none of the "Useless, ugly step sister Princess" media narrative.

R129 Yes.

The Wessex kids are the GRANDCHILDREN of the current monarch. They are 1st cousins to William and Harry and Eugenie and Beatrice and Anne's kids.

The Sussex kids are the GREAT Grandchildren of the current monarch. They're not entitled to the Prince and Princess titles. The only reason the Cambridge kids get to have them NOW is because the Queen authorized them to have those titles since they're in the line of direct succession being the children of William the eldest son of Charles who is the Prince of Wales and the first in line to the throne.

Got it?

Yes, I "got it." But it seems likely that the Sussex kids will not have the same option as the Wessex children, when their grandfather takes the throne. No doubt because they're black, according Harry and MM..

R129

[Quote]the Sussex kids will not have the same option as the Wessex children

Can you point out, besides the drawn race card, which one of these things is not like the other and why it doesn't belong?

The Queen can't deny Louise something she was born with. Edward's children technically were born HRHs. Their father may be going about using the one step lower honorific he chose as his "add on wedding gift", but it's preceded by HRH Prince Edward.

I can't imagine the Wessex kids really wanting it, but, hey, if they decide to start formally using their birthright style and title, why would the Queen generate another round of headlines over whether yet another couple of kids can do so?

She clearly isn't going to take the Sussex title, she clearly isn't going to issue LPs to ensure that the Sussex kids don't get the HRHs they are entitled to when Charles becomes King, and she adores Sophie. Lady Louise seems a charming (and increasingly, after a very long Ugly Duckling phase, strikingly attractive) young woman with country interests like the Queen's.

Why leave the American-raised children of the traitorous Sussexes their HRHs, but try to stop Louise from using hers?

r122 it's not about denying her anything. The Queen has the ultimate say, and she will do what's best for the monarchy longterm and as a whole, whether it's good for Louise or not. That's always been her MO.

She may let her grandmother know she wishes to be styled as HRH. I'm sure her grandmother will listen, and consider her thoughts. But any decision made in that area will be with an eye toward the long-term health of The Monarchy, and what benefits it.

r134 you forget the Queen already made her decision known re the titles of the Wessex children back in 1999 when their parents married. A strong and carefully crafted official statement was released, stating they would be styled as children of an Earl. Full stop, no other statements about when their 18th birthdays or other milestones. That statement still holds today. Louise's upcoming birthday holds no weight in changing it, unless her grandmother says so.

You (and many others as well) over-emphasize the standing of the 1917 LP. It generally defines how certain BRF members are styled from birth, but it doesn't confer "legal birthright" to anything. It can be overruled by any declaration, public or private, of the sitting monarch. They are the Fount of All Honor and as such have full control over BRF honorifics and stylings. Letters Patent (LPs) are but one means of communicating their wishes - the most official means perhaps, but not the only method. They can be superseded at will.

They are the grandchildren of the monarch, R129. Harry's children will not be until and unless Charles takes the throne. Unless he or his mother issues LP in the meantime changing it. He has spoken of slimming down the monarchy so it is a possibility. Others have done the same, such as Spain. The Queen issued LP so that the oldest Cambridge, even if a girl, would reign and to put the sibs on equal footing re: titles. Harry's children are not in that category either. Had they acted differently it would have been more likely that they would automatically have become Prince/Princess upon Charles' becoming king, you know, if they were a positive part of the BRF instead of trying to burn it down.

Archie and Lili aren't black, anyway. Their heritage is mostly caucasian (Meghan AND Doria are both mixed-race), they don't look black, and they won't have black friends unless those friends are the children of famous millionaires or billionaires. The privileges they won't get are due to the behavior of their grifting parents, not the 15% of their DNA that is of African descent.

R139 - I don't know who you were looking at, but Doria absolutely looks black. Like most American blacks, she probably has Caucasian DNA, but her daughter absolutely looks mixed race and barely black, but Doria is unmistakably black.

As for Meghan's kids, Archie barely looked black as a baby, although we haven't seen him in some time, and we haven't seen a photo of the other baby, yet. But given that both children are 75% Caucasian at least, the odds are they look even less black than Meghan does - something that she's privately thrilled about but would never admit to publicly.

It's certainly possible that any child the Harkles have could, at conception, get more of Meghan's black DNA than another child, you never know how the chromosomal cards are going to fall, but the odds are - those kids' "black" quotient will be very, very low.

They are technically mixed race, but practically speaking - white adjacent for lack of a better term.

Or as one courtier put it to Desdemona's father in "Othello", "far more fair than black" (although he was talking about the eponymous protagonist's character, not his skin).

I bet Megdusa would be THRILLED if Merchibet looked like Doria. Any perceived slight or honor denied them would be attributed to skin color. Years and years of Oprah "BRF so Racist" specials would keep the cash and attention flowing.

r136, thank you and that should be a pinned post for all the numpties here.

I never said that Doria doesn't look black. She does, but her heritage is almost certainly part-caucasian as she is an American black woman. Even if it's a low percentage, that would mean that Meghan probably has 40% African heritage at most, and that Archie and Lili are at least 80% of caucasian heritage. They will not look black or experience blackness as children of greater African heritage would. They will live in white communities, have white friends, and probably date/marry white people. They are also allied by blood to one of the whitest and most privileged families on the planet.

Had their parents behaved better, they would have grown up and lived as white British royals. The only reason their mixed-race heritage is an issue is that the Sussexes and their stans have made it one. The BRF was ready to embrace a mixed-race Duchess and her progeny, but the Sussexes' ridiculous demands and terrible behavior made a biracial working Royal Duchess an impossibility at present. Perhaps one of the Cambridge kids will marry a sane person of mixed-race heritage--it would be a nice coda to this whole mess.

Uppity Negress Obsessive-Compulsive Hategasm #5,154,255

Oti Mabuse, Nicola Adams succed and do well without the crazy American one drop rule.Stop putting your rules on everyone else USA.

Doria looks like a black woman. Meghan looked like a biracial child but looks like a white or Italian woman.

I’m assuming the children will look quite white. Time will tell.

And none of it matters, anyway, except in her head.

It’s still a big taboo, the distinction between varying shades of black skin color and the relationship between prejudice they encounter. I don’t know if Megan ever really felt black, but I’ve always doubted she faced much overt prejudice because she just doesn’t look black. Some have said she looks black and it may be they can recognize certain things but I don’t think the average person on the street would know. .She’s a beautiful woman so generally the world would have treated her pretty well.

She's about as remote from a beautiful woman as I am, (speaking as a 6 foot yorkshireman). r146

DNA is a funny bitch. Tamera Mowry is half black and white, married a white man. Her kids have 3 white grandparents. Time will tell with Merchie and Lilibucks.

MM isn’t beautiful but she is attractive, particularly after the nose job. She looked more biracial as a child because of her hair.

She had gorgeous hair in young pictures, but I learned early not to talk with girls about hair.

When Meghan was on "Suits" she hit a peak of attractiveness - well-groomed, made the post of her small-boned if badly proportioned figure, stayed slim, hair nicely cut, shaped, tinted . . . she managed very attractive but hardly beautiful in any classic sense. But it all seemed to evaporate when she married royalty. It's as if the trappings of royalty only exposed instead of further simonised what coarse material she was basically made of. The absurd Morticia Addams hair, the ill-fitting designer clothes that she simply couldn't carry off, the badly balanced shoes, the too tight or too voluminous fits, the penchant for wide belts that only emphasised her lack of a waist. I have never understood why, with Charles generously funding both Kate's and Meghan's wardrobe, she got it so badly wrong so often, after being dressed so well in her "Suits" days. Once in awhile she looked really nice (a black cocktail dress in Ireland, e.g., very nice simply tailored looks of black trousers and white silk blouses - the simply lines really did best for her), but mostly she always looked like she was trying too hard.

The's because MeGain made her clothing decisions based solely on price tag.

Good points, R151. I could not understand her lack of self-awareness regarding her appearance, especially with things like the too-tight clothes that showed off every lump and bulge, the awful witch-like hair, the silhouettes that emphasised her figure flaws, the greasy metalic bronzer, etc etc.

I think MM’s clothes sense had a hard time adjusting mentally from her actress persona (thrusting, sexy, hot chick) to the staid, self-effacing, boringly tasteful British royal persona where all eyes are upon you just because of who you are, not what you’re wearing. She was too used to competing for the spotlight with a thousand other attractive women for scarce jobs. Now she’s got a position where she has unlimited funds but she also has bad instincts and terrible taste. Even something simple like know what colors look best on you. She would wear awful muddy colors that made her look sallow.

But the biggest mystery to me is the fit: all the too tight or too big clothes before she was pregnant. I know everyone said she was merching freebies. I’m not sure I believe it because that is not permitted in the BRF and someone would’ve informed Prince Charles pretty quickly.

On Suits other people were dressing her; as a royal she appears to have done her own thing, hence the difference.

She would have had feedback on her appearance in the form of a barrage of online criticism, which she apparently read enough to want to kill herself. So it's not like she was uninformed.

She made a point of having a "Sayonara, Zara" party, a celebration where she gave away her High Street clothes to mark her entry into the world of haute couture. Kate makes a point of wearing Zara, as does Queen Letizia, and they both make it look chic and elegant.

R154 Both Diana and Kate managed to navigate the royal fashion minefield and arrive at a point where they carried off respectable with fun. That lilac form fitting sheath dress Kate wore recently was hardly staid and boring. Nor was that off the shoulder white chiffon ghb own she wore the BAFTAS a couple of years ago. Remember Diana on th he black and red evening gown with one red and one black long evening glove?

Meghan never had a clear idea of what it means to be royal, so it's hardly surprising her clothes didn't, either.

Even that elegant grey Roland Mouret dress she wore in Ireland - I thought it quite nice even if grey isn't her best colour, but she ruined the look by buying it with a too tight fit on top and then wearing a strapless bra (under an autumnal long-sleeved dress?) whose outline could be clearly seen..

Displaying her foundation garments was a habit she had. Most royals have had the windy skirt embarrassment a couple of times, including Princess Anne, but with Meghan, the unbuttoned tops, too large armholes, tight bodies showing her bursting at the seams, that ghastly transparent skirt she wore Down Under . . . It was like she never got out of the secondary school girl's ide ac of sexy.

And she often wore bizarrely out of season numbers, like that sprigged tiny sleeved dress she wore in winter to the pensioners' home, or that tropical dress she wore to the Albert Hall.

The truth is, Meghan was totally out of her depth in that arena, and she knew it. That was probably a major factor in bailing so soon. She thought it was just another part she could learn. But she couldn't. She just didn't have the talent.

Diana was actually a much better actress.

[Quote]She made a point of having a "Sayonara, Zara" party, a celebration where she gave away her High Street clothes to mark her entry into the world of haute couture.

I read about a party to give unwanted clothes away before she moved. However, the brands you mention...🤔 Yes, give away Zara, but other High St. fashion? Could you link about giving away British High Street brands, please? It sounds not just excessively generous, but self defeating for a Duchess of the United Kingdom then to go on exclusively wearing ill-fitting, non-British designs.

[quote]I think MM’s clothes sense had a hard time adjusting mentally from her actress persona (thrusting, sexy, hot chick) to the staid, self-effacing, boringly tasteful British royal persona where all eyes are upon you just because of who you are, not what you’re wearing.

This, and the entire paragraph, are the best reflection I've read so far on Meghan's styling issues, if not her entire audition as a British Royal.

I think Meghan intentionally wore clothes that would court media criticism once she decided she wanted to leave and falsely lay the blame on how "racist" the UK media (and people and Royal Family) all supposedly are.

In the Times bullying expose, one of the courtiers said that she "actively wanted to be a victim" and that many of her actions were designed to attract negative attention with the goal of being able to point to said criticism later and say how hard done by she was.

R160 - that's interesting - I hadn't read that one, but it makes sense.

I can't believe she wasn't offered help in learning how to dress. I'm sure every stylist in Britain would have been eager to give her advice as well. I agree that she wore those inappropriate, ill-fitting garments in order to stand out and get more attention (often negative) which she used for her own purposes.

I do not agree. i read she hated how fat she looked next to Kate. It's impossible to imagine she wanted to make herself look fatter and frumpier than she already did.

Did Meghan not realize that with fame comes criticism? Had she realized her early dream of being an A-list actress, people would have picked over her performances and appearance in excruciating detail. You don't get the attention without also getting the critique.

Yes, Diana was a fashion icon in the 80s and 90s. She set trends and she wore clothes well. Most of it now looks dated, even though the 80s have cycled around again, at least once.

Kate has really improved in the last four or so years. She’s doing the opposite of trendy. You know how they photograph the kids wearing piped collars and sweater and shorts sets and smocked dresses for Charlotte (same as Diana did with William and Harry) so the kids have that timeless upper class look? Kate is doing something similar with her coat dresses and matching hat and shoes…like the queen has worn for the last thirty years. Other times she wears a waisted coat with a velvet headband or fascinator which is an update of a 1940s look, you know, when the Royal Family was *hugely* popular. And of course, immaculately fitted. Even her high street brands are taken apart and altered. I don’t know why MM couldn’t figure this out.

She did not want to fit in, R165, quite the opposite. And to use criticism to build her victim brand.

[quote]I read she hated how fat she looked next to Kate.

She wasn’t fat before her pregnancy, she had a very trim figure. Yes, she had flaws. (Kate does too, she is shortwaisted but disguises it well) Everyone has flaws, that’s why you learn about proportions. MM and/or her advisors couldn’t seem to figure that out. Pants were too long and dragged in the mud on a rainy walkabout. Wrap winter coats with a sash tie were too large and looked sloppy (although I tend to think that was deliberate, part of her “poor little me, must cling to Harry with both hands” persona). The bedspread gown made for a taller woman. The Audrey Hepburn mid-century styles that were too formal for the occasion, worn with yoga hair…. You know who also loved wearing foreign designer gowns badly? Fergie (“From Catwalk to Fatwalk”)…

All those years on Suits should have taught her about what looks good on her: Well-fitted, classic styles in saturated colors. She'd have had to watch hemlines and necklines as a Royal, but any woman approaching 40 should be doing that anyway.

Kate looks fantastic in most of her clothes, but when she wears a strapless or off the shoulder evening gown, you see how broad and masculine her shoulders are. Her hands are also quite large and masculine.

But MM looks like Humpty Dumpty.

Kate is a tall woman with a large frame. Back in her college days, she was quite athletic-looking and even now has a lot of muscle tone in her legs. She is only a slender as she is because of a strict diet, exercise, and possibly smoking. Personally, I think 10-15 pounds would look wonderful on her, but she obviously feels differently. Diana had a similar build but never got terribly skinny after that initial drastic weight loss during her first year married to Charles: Like many bulimics, she was usually a very normal-looking weight.

Given their genetics, the Cambridge kids should be tall and strapping adults.

Meghan is short and apple-shaped. That's no crime, but it's a build that requires careful styling. Fit, proportion, and silhouette have to be spot-on or you look like a dumpling. Sample sizes will never fit you, and most trendy cuts will look stupid. My mom and sister both have that build, and the only clothes that look really good on them are tailored classic styles.

Even at her thinnest weight and professionally styled, Meghan has an awkward build, though. Look at her proportions in the picture below.

Fergie, Princess Anne, and Camilla all look like little girls stuffed into a gown by their mom. They’re wearing it because fighting not to takes too much focus. I kind of dig that lack of vanity.

But Meghan reminds me of every girl I knew in college: dressing “up” to play-act sophistication—like trying on a role.

Harry and Meghan’s remaining belongings removed from Frogmore today. I hope he talks about the Frogmore debacle in his book - and Meghan’s reaction when she got booted to the suburbs.

Of course they're going to give up Frogmore in April. I doubt they have a choice about it after news of the tell-all leaked out.

It seems that Harry was hoping to keep it secret for a good while, perhaps long enough to get Lili a Windsor christening and him and Meghan a Jubilee balcony appearance, but that's not going to happen now.

It's so weird that Harry wants to be treated like a Royal prince even while he spits on his family and bewails the demands of royal life. But he wants the houses, the patronages, the palace weddings and christenings, etc. Is he so stupid that he really can't see the irony?

^In a word, Yes.

It’s the security issue that just amazes me (from the Oprah interview). MM is: protect ma baaaby!! Harry is: I had this all my life, no fair!! Like they’re both whining about not having RPOs when 1) they don’t work for the BRF anymore 2) they don’t live IN the UK and 3) it’s well known that he had a trust fund from Diana… so just pay for private security if you’re so fussed!

For both of them to actually complain about this out loud, when they went to so much effort to set up the interview, got softball questions from a sympathetic interviewer, to then blow it up by giving such an easily refutable answer. Just amazingly DUMB.

Due to the circumstances of his birth, and because he lost his mother at a young age, Harry obviously feels entitled to everything he wants and to behave in any manner he wants.

[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.]

[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.]

People will pay for raw gossip from these nitwits, but no one is counting on their “expertise” in any other arena. This is a one -and-done situation, except for post divorce tomes

More blackmail attempts. I hope the BRF stays strong about this. If I were them, I'd start playing hardball with the Sussexes.

Perhaps they have: Harry is moving the last of his stuff out of Frogmore, and I've heard no response from the Palace about any Windsor christening for Lilibet.

Surely they've realized that there is absolutely no way to appease the Gruesome Twosome. They'll never be satisfied so why even try?

If you’re waiting for your grandmother to DIE before you do something, so she won’t have to witness you doing it…

THAT THING IS WRONG.

what vile people they are.

Doing it while she is alive would also spark more of a backlash against Harry.

Frogmore cottage now stripped of the last of Harry and Meghans belongings.

r184 Giving in to their blacmail is pointless because they are so proven to be untrustworthy they would break any agreement anyway. Morality wise despite preaching compassion they have no floor.

What kind of advert for compassion, mental health awareness and therapy is someone who behaves like this with a clear jealousy and revenge obsession?

Why is Fergie popping up now of all times?

She's writing a royal bodice ripper. Apparently she said how much she loves Oprah - the person not the interview.

r190 Yes next month her first adult novel comes out doesn't it?

Lady C

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

And the Sussexes weren't invited?? LOL

Isn't Trevor very happily remarried to a billionaire's daughter?

r195 Yes

r194 They probably wanted to invite William but knew it would cause a problem of they invited one but not the other so made the sensible choice to invite neither? Pure conjecture on my part.

Better to be an old man's darling than a young man's plaything. Good for Kitty. She'll pop out two more babies for him and even if the marriage doesn't last, she'll be set for life.

All those Spencer kids except Louis the heir have to make their own way: The Spencers aren't spectacularly rich and Althorp requires a lot of care and money to keep going. Charles Spencer said in a documentary on Althorp that the children all know Louis has to get most of the money because he'll be responsible for Althorp one day.

Of course, Charles could have aided the situation by not having seven children, but it probably never occurred to him to deny himself.

[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.]

Harry is going to keep going until he destroys himself, isn't he? You know his chums have REAL dirt on him, and they have no reason not to spill it if he tells their dirty secrets in his memoir. Charles and William may not be able to fight fire with fire, but Tom Inskip certainly can.

Someone's going to punch him in the face at a fancy party in LA or on the streets of London if he shows up. Nothing life threatening but humiliating. He'll be booed if he ever shows his face in the UK again. It's worse than with David.

[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.]

.....

R193 - Lady Kitty was walked down the aisle by her brother and half brother.

A look at Lady Kitty Spencer's wedding dress.

Charles Spencer is a douche but he made some good-looking kids.

I wonder why he wasn't at Kitty's wedding?

[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.]

Sam Aitken and his half-brother Edmund Spencer (Charles Spencer's son by his second wife) are almost the exact same age. It's interesting that Edmund doesn't appear to have been at the wedding.

Most of the good looks came from Victoria Lockwood, Spencer's first wife. Her sharp features translated especially well to her sons.

The Spencers were all fairly plain except for Diana, who took after her mother's side of the family. Her sisters and her brother were decent-looking as young people (as most young people are), but Diana was the only stunner.

So no Earl Spencer at his eldest daughter's wedding, to a billionaire no less? He doesn't give her away. Wonder what's going on there. The Spencer dysfunctional family parade marches on, I guess.

The wedding gown is gorgeous, I wasn't expecting much from D&G but it looks like they acquitted themselves here. Very gallant of brother Louis to hold her bouquet while walking her down the aisle (see r203).

Sam Aitken and Edmund Spencer aren't half-brothers r207. They aren't related at all, they just share a set of elder half-siblings, including the bride Kitty. Although I agree, both are good-looking.

I LOVED Victoria’s fur-trimmed wedding dress.

Me too r211!! It was so audacious. Sadly, she seems to be a very fragile person.

Kitty had that "Kate bust thing" going on in her wedding dress.

Fair enough, R210, but Edmund Spencer IS Kitty's brother, so it's odd that he wasn't at her wedding.

Wait, Kitty had FIVE wedding gowns?

A video of Kitty's dresses. Last one is the wedding gown.

I think Kitty's twin sisters Eliza and Amelia are prettier and more natural looking. Kitty is a bit plastic.

Maybe this is what Lady C was hinting at?

She is a bit unreal looking. To me, with her complexion and figure, she looks luscious, ripe. Like a peach.

Lewis is Jewish. Lady Kitty is alleged to have converted to marry him so that their children will be Jewish. Perhaps that's the reason her father did not appear. He may also have simply disapproved of the match altogether given the groom's age.

I thought Victoria Lockwood downright ugly. How she got to be a model is beyond my comprehension.

Those beautiful blonde daughters got the same packet of Spencer DNA that Diana did. None of those girls look like that sallow, bony-faced, stringy Mum. They all got that gorgeous English Rose look and beautiful skin that Diana got. Just luck.

Were either of Diana's sisters there?

I wasn’t sure if it was the filter or not, but Lady Kitty has the most gorgeous complexion.

Whoa - from Tatler, re Kitty's wedding:

[quote]Opting not to wear the Spencer Tiara, which many royal fans speculated she may borrow to follow in the footsteps of her mother Victoria Lockwood who wore it on her wedding day, Spencer still managed to nod to her ever-chic lineage of societal style icons when working on the design.

"Opted not to wear" = Dad didn't allow her to wear it, he didn't bring it to her in Rome for the ceremony. And he wasn't present for this major family event. Someone has fallen out with Dad, or vice versa.

I wonder if he was upset that she didn't marry at Althorp, or in the UK? It's hard to tell with this family, they always seem to be falling out with each other.

Those luscious blonde looks aren't Spencer, they're Fermoy. Diana's mother was very pretty as a young woman, and Diana resembled her American great-grandmother, Frances Work.

Her Dad can be a cunt about the tiara, but Kitty's new husband can buy her as many tiaras as she wants. Kitty's smart to make hubby happy instead of her petulant father. She's not getting any of Daddy's money anyway--it's all going to Louis.

All of Victoria's children have wonderful bone structure, and they got that from their mum, not pudding-faced Charles. They do have the Fermoy fairness (blonde instead of ruddy like the Spencers), so it was a happy mixture of genes. Victoria's second husband is also dishy, so it's not surprising that their one son Samuel is a hottie.

The Daily Mail noted that the Spencer family's social media has been uncharacteristically quiet. Charles posted about the Althorp gardens on Friday and the sisters posted nothing for a few weeks. DM also had excerpts from an interview with Kitty where she describes how close to her heart Althorp is. All underscoring that something's amiss.

R223 - You're right, Diana did look like Frances Work - the beautiful English Rose stuff does come from the Fermoys. Pity the two older girls missed out on it. But obviously it filtered down to Spencer's three daughters with Lockwood.

Sorry, though, I still can't agree on Lockwood's looks. Yes, she has nice bone structure, but that's it. Those eyes places at nearly opposite ends of her head, like a fish, always creeped me out. Boring colouring and not particularly captivating features.

None of them had what Diana had. Even Kitty and her two sisters, beautiful as they are, have a certain . . . unreal look to them, especially Kitty. Like wax dolls so cunningly made you can't tell they aren't real.

And oh my god those gowns Kitty Spencer wore for her wedding . . . stunning as they are, the whole thing kind of screamed EuroTrash. Very high grade, though.

Kitty will pop out two kids, I'm sure there is a generous prenup in place, including trust funds for any children born of the marriage, they'll go ten years or so until Lewis starts looking less like a vigorous Youthful Senior and more like an Old Man, they'll be an amicable divorce, and the still-gorgeous Kitty, just in her early forties, will head into the sunset with a hot younger stud of 30 or so.

What a life.

The only Spenser's there were the bride’s full siblings— no one else. NVM any of the Windsor cousins

Very odd that the elder Spencers didn't bother to show face and keep up pretenses in the very least so people don't talk and speculate. It's a very bad look.

Her half brother gave her away with Louis Spencer. Her mother was probably there. The photos of the rest of the guests will trickle out over the next few days.

The Spencers have always been melodramatic and the infighting and family malice has gone on for years, and generations. This situation is par for the course for them.

Something must have gone down for Kitty - the eldest daughter of the current Earl, and first to wed - to not wear the infamous Spencer tiara at this event.

The Spencers have always been infamous for their red hair and melodramatic infighting and public grandstanding.

Hi, Harry!

R231, I apologize, you said what I posted with more detail. I didn't see your post until after I posted.

No worries, post away. It just emphasizes that our sentiments are mostly on point and true. They are a difficult clan.

Oh, Harry is SUCH a Spencer. The only things he got from his father were close-set eyes and a crippling sense of self-pity.

R227, I agree that Lockwood isn't a raving beauty, but her lovely bone structure combined with the Fermoy English rose genes did create some pretty kids.

R236 - Yes, it's interesting how that occurs, isn't it? Lady DNA always seems to have some surprising cards to play . . .

Charles Spencer's ire over the wedding is easy to figure out: His oldest daughter married a sixty-year-old Jewish man and converted to Judaism herself, meaning that his first grandchildren will also be Jewish. The British upper classes have long been anti-semitic and Spencer is probably no exception.

Kitty's younger sister, one of the twins, just got engaged and is due to wed next. I don't believe her fiancee is Jewish but haven't checked....let's see if she gets to wear the tiara or not, and if dear old Dad attends her nuptials.

The British upper classes engage in a sort of reflexive antisemitism that reeks more of class contempt than the other variety now seething in Britain, which involves the far left and the Muslim community, which is of a far more dangerous and vicious vareity.

When George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood (a grandson of George V and Queen Mary) married accomplished Jewish pianist Marion Stein, the family sniffed and Queen Mary made clear her disapproval of the marriage, which required royal permission. Eventually, permission as given, By the time Lascelle dumped Stein after three children for Patricia Tuckwell, the sister of famed horn player Barry Tuckwell, with whom he'd already had a son, the family sided with Stein, whom they had come to like and admire and who had behaved with discretion and dignity. They thought Lascelles had behaved like a shite and no one took his side.

That's a bit different from the shit going on in Britain now, with "recognisable" Jews being attacked on public transport.

To be honest, I rather share Spencer's dislike (if that's what it is, this is all just gossip and conjecture) of the marriage. Not because she married for money, that's par for the course for the daughters who can't inherit peerages, but because the money was flashed about so gaudily.

I thought the wedding absolutely horrible, the bride's actual wedding gown horrible (good God, with all that money and that face and figure, and they make her look like a scrofulous wedding cake with a corset?!), and the whole thing an exhibition of conspicuous consumption that more or less trumpeted how much money the groom had so that no one was in any doubt about why she married him.

Ffs, Princess Beatrice's lovely little surprise country wedding surpassed it for touching, romantic, and an aura of love and happiness that the opulence of the Spencer wedding totally lacked.

It's almost as if Lewis was screaming to the world, "See how much youth and beauty I bought with my money?"

Were I Lady Kitty's father, I think I might have felt similarly disgusted.

Because, as any aristo worth his peerage knows, you can't by class.

This had infinitely more charm.

The groom is 5 years older than the bride's father. I can't imagine anyone would be thrilled about that.

And she's a beautiful woman. She couldn't find a guy close to her age with a pile of money?

The tackiness of the match is no reason to skip the wedding. Lots of people don't like their children's spouses but they suck it up and go to the ceremony. Charles Spencer has had plenty of drama in his personal life himself, so he really shouldn't judge. Kitty is 30 years old and has a master's degree. If she wants to marry a rich old man, that's her right.

It's assuming Dad was even invited

There is a story up at the Daily Mail saying that Earl Spencer's relationship has cooled and has become distant since he's married his present wife. I wonder what's going on there?

^ I meant the Earl's relationship with his daughter Lady Kitty.

He's been married to the third wife for 10 years. That's a long estrangement.

I'm confused. Did Kitty get married or did she just appear as a model in a D & G ad?

[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.]

No one asked me if I wanted to be a model.

Charles Spencer missed the point at which a parent-child relationship changes. When kids are little and young adults, the parents hold the power and set the tone for the relationship. At some point, this reverses and the children hold all the power (how close will we be; how often will you see me and or the grandkids/will we spend holidays with you?). Many disagreements between parents and their adult children are because (in my experience) the parent is still trying to dictate terms of the relationship. Spencer hasn’t caught up yet.

And unlike many aristocratic parents, he has no power over his children since he's leaving almost everything to Louis so that his heir can take care of Althorp. He can't manipulate the others using the purse strings. Only Louis will have to maintain something of a good relationship with his father if Charles acts like a controlling dick.

@R2: Quote - "Oh, Harry is SUCH a Spencer. The only things he got from his father were close-set eyes and a crippling sense of self-pity."

True, but he also got a stunning sense of entitlement as well. That bit of DNA probably is inherited from both gene pools, to be fair. I remember reading that Charles has his bed moved with him everywhere he travels. Actually I believe it is his entire bedroom. Think of the cost of that. Ask much as he travels, that alone must cost quite a lot of money per year. Spoiled rotten, supreme entitlement, self-pity. Oh, yes indeed! Harry is a lot like his father. Charles isn't as cruel and disloyal, nor as vicious, that I know of. I do think he has empathy and a conscience, unlike his youngest son. Last but not least, Charles isn't as stupid as Harry. What Harry has done, and is still doing, is stunning in it's cruelty and pathological greed and revenge. Does Harry not think he will ever need them again? For money, shelter? If so, who is paying them enough to retire on? Is he so filled with hate and jealously that he is determined to burn it all down anyway, no matter if it does harm to him as far as family and finances? These answers I would really like to know, but then don't we all, lol?

Charles also travels with his white leather toilet seat, R253.

Beat me to it, r254.

Face it, the boy is mental.

He drew all the worst mental cards from both parents. Narcissism and paranoia from Mum, self-entitled petulance from Papa.

William drew the longer straws all the way down the line. The self-entitlement leavened by responsibility, none of the paranoia and instability, taller, better-looking, born first, and, ironically, looks like and was the favourite of the Mum Harry has turned into the adored touchstone of his emotional being.

Good thing there was so much money, eh, Harry?

The most hilarious news right now is that the "updated" edition of "Finding Freedom", due out of course on 31 August (remind us again what happened that day?!), is that it will contain the Harkles' "heartbreak" at the death of Prince Philip.

I'm betting that the Harkles won't release any images of Lilybucks Diana until a date they can tie to a Diana Anniversary.

Scobey Doo tweeted a day or two ago that despite recent press reports, the paperback of Finding Freebies will have no new chapters.

I think Lady Kitty is a tacky thing. Not sure why I expected her to be any different, but five dresses on her wedding day, merching galore, egregious and flagrant gold-digging… she’s behaving like some Eastern European lingerie model instead of a British aristocrat.

She has gorgeous skin, though.

[quote]Scobey Doo tweeted a day or two ago that despite recent press reports, the paperback of Finding Freebies will have no new chapters.

I see what he did there. No new "chapters", but that doesn't mean it won't have lots of new additional information and drama in it.

^I'll believe that when I see it.

Imagine...forty years ago today this disaster happened. I remember getting up at about five o'clock in the morning to watch it.

^I know. Unbelievable, isn't it, looking back on it?

[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.]

R264 - Do you think the show would have seen the light of day if Prince George were mixed race?

Where are all the hypocrites screaming about attacks on a child when it's Meghan's kid?

This is a great historical post with aa slew of links

R266 The post won't load. Any chance of a cut and paste?

R267 If you go to Reddit and search by username lesetoilles it will come up under posts. DL will not allow pasting due to length and links.

Thank you for posting that, r266. I'm surprised that the post is still up after 10 hrs.

Charles is wearing a kilt in Scotland today.

.....

Here are the latest two videos from the divine Lady Colin Campbell and gosh the top tier of uk society are united against him for his treacherous behaviour.

And here is the latest from today.

Who wants to work for Megs, and report back to us?

My boyfriend knows one of the actors on suits and everything on that reddit post is correct. I heard the same stuff about her years ago. The fact that she was able to fool everybody means she is either the most masterful manipulator of all time, or Harry is literally the dumbest, most gullible, damaged person on Earth. Probably both.

[quote] Pearl, a CG heartfelt adventure comedy series. Pearl comes from the mind of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex

Three actresses who played the Queen in the series "The Crown".

They should have gotten Emily Watson for the middle-aged Queen, not Olivia Colman. Watson and Staunton look like mother and daughter.

[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.]

[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.]

r279 The media are being silly promoting this possibility. Harry and his wife are basic very basic mediocre at best people given artificial prominence of a kind because of royalty. Nothing in their resume qualifies them for high public office and given Prince Harry claims he gets traumatised by camera flashlights how on earth could he be the spouse of such a high ranking politician??

r280 I am so glad I have never had Netflix and I am not contrivmbuting towards their disgraceful support and promotion of the malicious Harkles. The fact the Harkles are hiring all these producers and overseers of creativity just reenforces the fact they bring no creative talent of note to the table and their only talent is their name recognition.

If Meghan were serious about a political career, she'd start at the local level or at least at the state representative level. But I suppose Trump's success makes other C-listers think anything is possible.

I didn't read the DM article on MM's presidential aspirations as I thought it was clickbait. Every time I think the Sussexes have settled down they drop a bomb. Perhaps they will produce interesting content for Netflix, but I am skeptical.

Just what America needs! Another clinical narcissist who's never held political office in the White House!

What could possibly go wrong?!

The Diana, Will and Charlotte resemblance.

Charlotte is going to be a beautiful young woman.

Imho, George looks more like Diana. A mixture of his paternal grandmother and his maternal grandfather, to be precise.

Charlotte is a mini-Queen with some bits of her maternal grandmother. Her smile does look like Diana's though.

Louis is a carbon copy of Michael Middleton, even more than George.

Charlotte is going to have the endless legs Meghan with her fugly chicken-like legs is dreaming of.

Poor Lilibet if she ends up with Meghan's legs. Meghan is going to hate the kid for not having glorious legs resembling the ones Diana used to have.

In fact Meghan is going to hate the poor kid anyway in case Lilibet will turn out looking nothing like Diana.

"Murica" is not electing a biracial woman with no political experience to the Presidency

I didn't read it either but r279 posted a DM article which is clearly a piss take just from the look of the thing.

Can anyone Imagine Michelle O writing "you are special","you are loved " on bananas ( the most racist trope in Britain), for street prostitutes ,to apparently cheer them up and be honoured by her attention!

World respected and admired MO just like MM? Only in the minds of the deranged.

^^ the banana would be the equivalent to US watermelon I think? 291

I just always thought MM was trolling.spooning bananas, banana bread and prostitute bananas.

Sorry,3rd post now and I'll shut up!

Charles The Red likes his tipple. He's busting out all over.

He's properly going for Charles II without the wigs isn't he? Bring on the Merry Monarch mark 2.

I think he will surprise people. Edward VII was hated as PoW, then a very popular monarch. Such a shame he died as he had some control over Wilhelm.

Also, Queen was not much popular all the decades of my life, then Queen Mother died and suddenly she was National Granny. Same will happen for Charles.

The latest video from Lady Colin Campbell.

I doubt Meghan would have the balls to undertake a political campaign, given the many skeletons in her closet.

A political campaign isn't like an Oprah interview. The many people she's fucked over, lied about, and ghosted would be out of the woodwork before you can say Jack Robinson.

And there is the little matter of her title. She could not possible campaign for office carrying a royal title granted by a foreign government.

It's another bullshit story.

When the DM headlines scream in 18pt type that Harry has asked the Queen to start the ball rolling on removing both his titles, and removing him from the line of succession, wake me up.

Then I'll believe in political ambitions.

[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.]

Jack and the Italian both have grifter vibes. Not so nice for the wife. Smacks of Fergie's antics.

Can Jack not afford a body hair trimmer or at a bare minimum, a razor? I can only imagine how bad his ass and balls are.

Why, R300? He’s a man with a man’s body and hair growth. Don’t be such a priss.

.....

Kate is taking over Harry's rugby patronages and now the rumor is that Anne is going to be the first female to be Captain General of the Royal Marines. It's supposedly the wish of Prince Philip.

Haz is gonna flip over that one, R303.

Well, Anne’s dick IS the biggest.

.....

It's fairly certain that Princess Anne will never bail on one of her military charities to go to a movie premiere and beg Disney executives for work.

You have to take all royal articles in the Express with a huge spadeful of salt. They run at least half a dozen pieces a day, which quite hilariously often contradict each other, often using for headlines old news that people have heard 50 times over the last 20 years, and all based on what some "royal expert", "source close to the couple" or "Palace insider" said or wrote.

Sometimes I look at the Express homepage and am filled with wonder and admiration at the ingenuity of its royal beat writers as they wash, rinse, and recycle every last iota of rumour and news about the Windsors as something new, most of it piggy-backing onto stories first run by other papers, six or seven times a day. It must take quite a bit of imagination to dig up stuff 10 years old about Kate and William and Harry and Anne and the Queen and the now-dead Philip and put it out there as if it just happened.

The Express makes the SUN, MIRROR, and DM look like the Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to the royals.

Quite ironic, if true.

My memory's a little fuzzy (blame the gin) but I seem to remember that the Express used to be THE paper for genuine royal news, but they committed an awful balls-up some years ago and breached a very significant confidence. As a result, no actual, real, "official royal sources" will speak to any journalist who works for the paper.

[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.]

Dang. I went down a rabbit hole in that SaintMeghanMarkle subreddit. Lots of interesting stuff including a couple of videos, one where the mask came off at Doria at a Grenfell cookbook event.

Vanity Fair royal correspondent says she thinks once the Harkles media deals are enacted that they will have no currency left and could be seen as having nothing left to offer.

Just how fucking many "royal experts" are there?

As for the claims in Vanity Fair: any one of us on DL could have, and has, predicted the same. Their calling card has a sell-by date because they are fundamentally boring in and of themselves, their charity work gets one day's mention and mostly yawns, and so far nothing they have produced beyond their feud with the BRF has gotten anything but lukewarm responses - in fact, dire responses if you count Meghan's ill-judged, badly written first attempt at a book.

All they've got is their royal-adjacent status, and it's becoming more "adjacent" with every passing year. They're gone from the UK, gone from Frogmore Cottage, and the polite birthday wishes from the RF for Meghan's 40th are transparently arse-covering gestures so no one can accuse the RF of being mean, just in case the RF needs to lower the boom later on when it "leaks" the bullying report, and when Harry again trashes the family in his next outing as The Me Who Can't Stop Talking About Meself And Me Dead Mum And Just Remember I'm Still A Prince!

The fact that the Sussexes weren't invited to Obama's 60th bash on Martha's Vineyard says it all. They aren't A-listers amongst the people who really count.

Meghan tried hard to attach Michelle Obama, and failed because she made the mistake of crashing Mrs O backstage at an event, and then lying about having lunch with her when Meghan was really just reading Mrs O's emailed responses to some questions for the VOGUE issue whilst Meghan was eating lunch alone.

That kind of shit doesn't go down well with someone as savvy as Mrs O, and she swiftly disabused Meghan of the idea that she could get away with it. And, the Obamas have met, know, and liked the Queen and the Cambridges, which I'm sure has burned Meghan's arse all this time.

Sooner or later, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Sussexes really haven't anything original or compelling to offer and they keep putting their feet in their mouths. They'll still end up richer than most of the rest of us, but the classy respect they also want to attach?

They threw that out with the other toys in the pram when the turned their noses up at a life of royal service, cachet, dignity, and massive perks.

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

The latest from Lady Colin Campbell and she has a few things to say about Fergie too!!😁

Who has the Queen Mum attitude to life? Hands up!!!

Pippa looks like someone else.

After the obligatory congrats to officially middle-aged Meghan, Charles moved on to salute what would have been the 121st birthday of his adored grandmother, the late Queen Mother, nee Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon and thence Duchess of York before being thrown onto the throne, as it were.

Sarah Vine Porter in the DM this evening reflected on Meghan's tiresomely predictable birthday self-promotion and nailed it as nothing but expert PR management perfectly. The piece oozes contempt and shade.

Good on you, Sarah.

R318, Pippa is haggard. She should've eaten something instead of starving herself rail thin.

Now it's too late - even if she gained a few pounds now, these pounds would only show up in her midriff section, so she might as well stay rail thin (and have a prematurely aging face).

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

The latest from Lady Colin Campbell.