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

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

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

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

Harry & Meghan "will become bit players" like Wallis & Edward

'It may seem far from now, but it will happen. What will happen to Harry and Meghan ten years from now?...Edward and Wallis faded into obscurity, eventually turning into 'bit players' and 'awkward guests' at dinner parties in New York."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 602September 16, 2021 6:05 PM

There won't be a Harry and Meghan ten years from now. The divorce.

by Anonymousreply 1August 29, 2021 8:38 PM

The plump Yorkies will fade from view as well, unless they get involved in grifting scandals like both their parents.

by Anonymousreply 2August 29, 2021 8:42 PM

Better make hay while the sun shines and rake in those dollahs!

Or, just divorce Harry and take his inheritance.

Either will work.

by Anonymousreply 3August 29, 2021 8:47 PM

Megs, you're welcome back here anytime! We love and miss you!

by Anonymousreply 4August 29, 2021 8:50 PM

He'll divorce her, make peace with his brother and be welcomed back into to the fold.

Megan on the other hand will have to very careful. She could become a pariah if she doesn't play her cards right, especially when it comes to how she handles the shared custody of their children. Any hint of her using the kids as pawns and they'll eat her alive.

by Anonymousreply 5August 29, 2021 9:00 PM

Nah, r5. She's got the protection of her mother being part black. The media in the US would rather eat their own shit with a knife and fork than turn on someone with that heritage.

He, on the other hand....

by Anonymousreply 6August 29, 2021 9:06 PM

Wallis and Edward, Margaret and Tony, Andrew and Fergie. They will join them as second tier celebrities and grifters. Harry could survive if he ditches her as the foolish young man fooled by love. I think there is still some affection for him.

by Anonymousreply 7August 29, 2021 9:08 PM

Surely, a legion of would-be Truman Capotes are keeping tabs on those two out in California.

by Anonymousreply 8August 29, 2021 9:11 PM

Harry is pushing 40, r7.

Also, I think the idea that there is "Still some affection for him" after he called the entire UK populace "racist" and called the BRF "racist" is close to nil, except among the anti-monarchists who are hoping he will succeed in bringing the whole institution down.

by Anonymousreply 9August 29, 2021 9:12 PM

Divorce....drama over the brats...megs ends up as a bag lady after becoming the pariah she is...harry dies from the drink 20 yrs from now....liilbitch becomes the new madonna

by Anonymousreply 10August 29, 2021 9:16 PM

Look at how no one in the BRF met Archie more than once or twice, and she left him in Canada when he was only a few months old in order to make sure that he never would step foot in the UK ever again.

I'm not as certain as everyone else that they will divorce, because Meghan's entire status hinges on her association with Harry, and she loves her status only slightly less than she loves money.

However, if they do ever divorce, it's clear from her history that she will go scorched earth on Harry, claiming he abuses drugs and is violent with her and especially with the kids, and will get full custody. He will see his kids only marginally more than his family has seen his kids.

by Anonymousreply 11August 29, 2021 9:23 PM

Well, yeah, I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to predict that in 10 years time, the media will really begin to focus on William's kids even more so than they do now. At that point, George will be 18 Then. it will be one right after another joining him in the spotlight.

by Anonymousreply 12August 29, 2021 9:30 PM

every fucking day the daily mail has these bullshit articles

harry and meghan don't do anything. They don't say anything either. I bet they don't even think of England

Meanwhile, charles is in trouble again. He was caught selling access to himself to billionaires. He used a "broker" to do these deals and he found out the broker was taking a cut and he's pissed off and is going to have an investigation. As if the broker is the bad person in this situation

JFC. This whole shitty family sells access to themselves. Greedy, grasping grifters

by Anonymousreply 13August 29, 2021 9:33 PM

Ever since they weren't invited to their heroes the Obama's massive shindig, it's been clear that actual A-listers are distancing themselves from the Harkles.

Anybody seen George and Amal? Or Ellen, who was one of the first celebs to see Archie when she visited Frogmore? Now that the Harkles live down the road from her, you would think that she'd be round all the time.

To say nothing of Oprah...

by Anonymousreply 14August 29, 2021 9:36 PM

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor only dropped out of the Jet Set because of age and illness.

by Anonymousreply 15August 29, 2021 9:38 PM

The fabulous thing about Megsy is that she will fight obscurity with every fiber of her being. Grab the popcorn!

by Anonymousreply 16August 29, 2021 9:41 PM

r15 That is true. And they were known to be incredible hosts. Apparently Wallace's greatest talents, aside from throwing a mean blowjob, lay in her ability to throw the best dinner parties, with the best food and the best conversation in all of Paris. No mean feat in that city at that time.

Incidentally, she was also known for running her house to absolute perfection, and spent around 4 or 5 hours every day inspecting and instructing the servants. It was apparently the "fastidiously clean" house as well as the one with the most sought-after guest list:

"In the fall of 1963, on assignment for Vogue, the photographer Horst P. Horst and his life partner, British diplomat turned writer Valentine Lawford, visited the Windsors’ house at 4 route du Champ d’Éntraînement...Lawford was especially stunned by the fastidious housekeeping. “It is hard to believe that there can ever have been an interior more surpassingly clean,” he marveled, “where crystal was more genuinely scintillating and porcelain more luminous, or where wood and leather, polished to the consistency of precious stone, could more truthfully be said to shine.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17August 29, 2021 9:58 PM

^^^ Wallis, not Wallace

by Anonymousreply 18August 29, 2021 9:59 PM

That anyone thinks Harry will leave his new mother is ridiculous. Will would have to implicate himself a lot and Will isn't the type. Maybe they will split when they are old and irrelevant. I doubt Harry has any desire to return to those damp palaces with the uptight family. He is in California, free and with enough money. In his feeble mind Meghan is a guru/mom who saved him and opened his eyes. Those two are lifers in terms of the marriage. As for obscurity...in this day and age, there are PR people to advise them.

by Anonymousreply 19August 29, 2021 10:19 PM

[quote]liilbitch becomes the new madonna

That to me is the only risk. Imagine her raising well behaved, well adjusted children. They will be Grimaldi in their antics. Say what you will about the York girls, the worst you can say is they were freeloaders and took too many holidays. But they never had an Instagram to rival Madonna's. I'm not sure you can expect the same level of decorum from children raised by Meghan Markle.

by Anonymousreply 20August 29, 2021 10:22 PM

"There are PR people to advise them."

Really? Could have fooled me.

Their PR people have already earned the moniker of "Worst PR people in the History of PR" and it's only been 2 years since they signed with them.

by Anonymousreply 21August 29, 2021 10:25 PM

Unfortunately there not seem to functioning ears to hear them.

by Anonymousreply 22August 29, 2021 10:27 PM

It sounds like Wallis actually knew how to throw a good party (interesting guests, a beautiful home etc.). I don't believe Meghan has it in her - she would invite the people she owes favours to, all of them as grasping and fundamentally self-interested (i.e. boring, terrible conversationalists) as she is. The only thing inviting about the house isn't the house at all, it's the grounds and the coastal California setting, so perhaps it would be pleasant to stand outside at just the right time in the evening, as long as you didn't have to interact with any other guests?

by Anonymousreply 23August 29, 2021 10:39 PM

Or the hostess.

by Anonymousreply 24August 29, 2021 10:40 PM

You know how declasse Meghan is when you read these articles and realise . . . she's no Wallis Simpson.

by Anonymousreply 25August 29, 2021 10:43 PM

Wallis is more relevant than the queen mother, so this would be good outcome for them.

by Anonymousreply 26August 29, 2021 10:46 PM

Wallis had the most important characteristics in a great hostess: being both charming and ruthless in her insistence that her guests be charming as well:

"...art historian John Pope-Hennessy (no fan of “the woman I love”) did allow [she] was “An American Woman par excellence . . . the great giglamp smile, the wide, wide open eyes … wildly good-natured and friendly.”


"Nothing was left to chance in the Windsors' obsessively ordered, unquestionably chic world, dinner guests included. After spending what appeared to be a delightful evening at the house, one gentleman, who had been on his very best, unremarkable behavior, was startled to discover why he’d never been invited again: The duchess pronounced him dull. “Nobody,” she told a friend, “has the right to come to a party and sit there like a piece of furniture.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27August 29, 2021 10:49 PM

R26 = Pss. Eugenie

by Anonymousreply 28August 29, 2021 10:57 PM

Imagine that: Meghan's innate and overwhelming awfulness has not only succeeded in making the rest of the BRF look positively lovely by comparison, but she has now also succeeded in making the infamous, dread Mrs. Simpson look fantastic by comparison.

You have to be one hell of a first class, weapons-grade asshole in order to do that. But somehow our Megsy has managed it!

by Anonymousreply 29August 29, 2021 10:59 PM

Meghan wishes, this is not the own he thinks it is.

by Anonymousreply 30August 29, 2021 11:09 PM

Well, Wallis and Harry's first wife are total opposites. To one degree or another, Wallis wanted to be the wife. This one seems to rather see being wife as a means to an end. I think Wallis, amazingly, seemed to also understand what she had done and had the dignity and shrewdness to keep her bitching largely out of media. Again, this one seems to see bitching in the media as a means to an end.

by Anonymousreply 31August 29, 2021 11:10 PM

Wallis Simpson came to a creepy end. Actually we don’t know, because her lawyer caretaker didn’t allow anyone to see her.

by Anonymousreply 32August 29, 2021 11:11 PM

Meghan wishes to "become a bit player", r30?

I somehow doubt that very much.

Although, I think if they were still alive today, Obama would have invited the Windsors to his party, which is more than Smug and her Mug can say.

by Anonymousreply 33August 29, 2021 11:11 PM

R29, they all should thank Meghan for making them look so good.

by Anonymousreply 34August 29, 2021 11:12 PM

If Wallace had been a lesser Kardashian, she still would have outshone Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 35August 29, 2021 11:12 PM

In 20 years, when people finally come to their senses, I suspect Harry and Meghan's full-throated embrace of wokeness will make them as popular as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's full-throated embrace of Nazism.

by Anonymousreply 36August 29, 2021 11:20 PM

Does Meghan have an entire color named ofter her?

I think NOT.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37August 29, 2021 11:27 PM

Nailed it, R29. I'm not sure if the latest 'just jellus' troll is still here (I block these things as soon as they appear) but they're truly missing out on some good gossip. Yeah, Meghan Markle is both richer and better looking than me. So are a lot of celebrities - that's normal and expected and not a thing I would imagine anyone truly worries about. It's the "weapons-grade asshole" that makes Meg so fascinating to watch. I'm glued to this because it's a real-life soap opera and the star is so hilariously off-putting that we can't wait to be entertained by what she (and her idiot husband) do next. They're lurching from disaster to disaster and it's mesmerizing tbh.

Not getting an invite to the Obama birthday party was...a big deal. How did they screw up so badly? Meghan can't help herself. She really can't. And she made the terrible mistake of marrying a man who is in no way capable of being anything other than a surrogate child. He certainly isn't capable of leading or advising in any useful way.

by Anonymousreply 38August 29, 2021 11:28 PM

Edward and Wallis were never obscure…they were popular or at least interesting until the day they died. They never lacked funds or invitations and at the time, they were romanticized in the minds of most people. H&M, or the York’s will never achieve anything close to the enduring allure that Edward and Wallis did

by Anonymousreply 39August 29, 2021 11:31 PM

Compare the rooms at R37 to what we've seen of the beige-phemera that is the Monteshitto Mansion. You can't even say Meghan has bad taste. She doesn't. She has no taste at all. She is a taste void. Where her taste should be (bad or good) there is just a pale earth-toned nothingness.

by Anonymousreply 40August 29, 2021 11:32 PM

I am one of the few DLers who sees nothing nefarious in the Duchess, and in the Duke I only see his mother’s son who realizes that once the family has gotten all it can from you, you cease to be of value to the institution.

But do not think the Sussexes will become bit players, mirroring the Windsors. While not central to the ceremonial aspect of the BRF, their continued presence “out there” will haunt the family. Even after Windsor died in 1972 the Royal Family spent over a dozen years trying to make sure that Wallis’s jewelry (many pieces were from Queen Alexandra) would return to the Crown. Dickie Mountbatten made this his life’s work until he died. P & Pss Michael of Kent are bit players, the other Kents and the Gloucesters are now marginal, and the Harewoods and Fifes are not even tangential at this point.

But the Sussexes, like the Windsors, will be a shadow on the Palace for a very long time.

by Anonymousreply 41August 29, 2021 11:41 PM

The article in R37 is pretty poorly written and researched, and does have an anti-Windsor slant. But it’s interesting.

[quite] …the almost King Edward VIII

There was nothing “almost” King about him. He became King the moment his father was declared dead. You can make a point and still be factually correct.

by Anonymousreply 42August 29, 2021 11:41 PM

The Queen saw all this coming a mile away:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43August 29, 2021 11:45 PM

The Windsors were forced into exile abroad.

The Sussexes found it an escape route abroad.

Now they should start giving Hollywood power dinners and make their home the new San Simeon...

by Anonymousreply 44August 29, 2021 11:46 PM

Who on the Hollywood "power list" is going to attend their dinners, even if Meghan actuall knew the first thing about being a fabulous hostess?

They might get a few b-listers, but they are quickly becoming the Hollywood High Society version of "Box Office Poison".

by Anonymousreply 45August 29, 2021 11:49 PM

R41 = Queen MARY!!

by Anonymousreply 46August 29, 2021 11:49 PM

Wrong, r41.

The Harkles are already essentially "bit players", not because the media is unwilling to cover them, but because whenever they are covered the world winces in disgust, and the high society people the Harkles aspire to mix with the most have publicly rejected them.

Meanwhile, even after the Windsors married, all of Parisian society was clamoring to have them at their parties and clamouring for an invite to 4 rue du Champ d’Éntraînement, and that remained the case even after the war. The BRF hated Wallis, but it took much longer for her to become hated by the British public, who initially wanted her to be Queen because they didn't want to lose their wildly popular and publicly beloved King.

by Anonymousreply 47August 30, 2021 12:01 AM


Duchess of Windsor did not receive or otherwise acquire any of Queen Alexandra's jewels.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48August 30, 2021 12:09 AM

Nearly all of Wallis Simpson's jewels were "modern" pieces that her first lover (then Prince of Wales), later husband and commissioned or otherwise purchased.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 49August 30, 2021 12:12 AM

There were a few pieces with BRF providence. Queen Mary had bequeathed a pearl necklace to her son, Edward VIII later Duke of Windsor, who in turn gave it to Wallis Simpson.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50August 30, 2021 12:14 AM

The Sussexes may be bit players now, but when Harry is the brother of the King of England (I know)...

by Anonymousreply 51August 30, 2021 12:17 AM

OK, I’ll take my licks but I guess I will never understand the rage against this couple (“the world wincing in disgust”?). As for bit players, well they’ve removed themselves from being players of any sort, haven’t they?

I thought I had read long ago that Q Alexandra left jewels (not just the emeralds) for David’s future wife, fully expecting her to become queen. I know there were many modern pieces in her collection too, but not exclusively. It made sense that the Windsors existed in a rarefied atmosphere because high society really meant something in those days.

by Anonymousreply 52August 30, 2021 12:22 AM

Yes, but that was not what the "fued" was over, r50.

Louis Mountbatten heard that David had taken two valuable decorative boxes with him when he left, and after David's death took it upon himself to pester the Duchess to get them back as they were never gifted to David and Mountbatten believed they belonged to the Crown.

He started his writing campaign to the Duchess too late, however, because by that time sleazy, corrupt lawyer Suzanne Blum was already controlling every aspect of Wallis' life, and Suzanne Blum had no intention of not keeping items as valuable as those boxes for herself, (as she did so with many other items from the Windsor's house in Paris) so she never responded to Mountbatten's letters.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53August 30, 2021 12:23 AM

r52, Wallis and David did not marry until after they were in France. So he was never given access to whatever jewels were put aside for his future wife, because when he was in the UK, he was single.

by Anonymousreply 54August 30, 2021 12:26 AM

I don’t think there is a comparison between the Windsors and HaM. David was a king who abdicated his throne. Harry is sixth in line to the throne and was never going to be king.

I believe it is that role as a former king that kept the Windsors in society. It’s incomparable, for a number of reasons.

by Anonymousreply 55August 30, 2021 12:27 AM

Meghan would LOVE to be as highly-regarded as the stylish, charming, witty Duchess of Windsor.

That's why she intentionally attempted to echo a very famous image of Wallis in her Oprah interview:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 56August 30, 2021 12:32 AM

R55 nails things down exactly.

Duke and Duchess of Windsor was a post WWI "love story" of a king who gave up his throne for *love* . Given the horrors that had ravaged Europe in just previous years (including wholesale murder or deposing of various crowned heads of Europe and their families), that story for various reasons resonated with certain people.

Keep in mind many saw then Prince of Wales as something fresh, young and different than his stodgy old world father George V. Much of the old older had been swept away during WWI by forces really that began building before first shot was ever fired.

Main reason Prince Harry gathers level of attention that he does rests largely with the tragic life and death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.

by Anonymousreply 57August 30, 2021 12:37 AM

Meghan isn't fit to touch the hem of Wallis's shabbiest outfit or to shine even the most worn of Wallis's crocodile pumps.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 58August 30, 2021 12:44 AM

R5 et al

Prince Harry will never put away or otherwise leave the Markle woman. It's not ever going to happen so put that thought right out of your minds.

Duke of Sussex has far too much invested emotionally in his wife and marriage. Where things to hit the rocks or MM otherwise decides to pack up and eave Prince Harry would be gutted. So much so that real doubts about him retaining any sort of sanity are very real to point of harming or offing himself. Yes, that is what one has said and others hint along same lines as well.

PH is a very emotionally fragile man, much of it likely having to do with the death of his poor mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. There are many reasons why other young women ran a mile when Prince Harry made offers of marriage, but one is they saw something wanting in his nature. Not every woman wants to be saddled for life with an emotionally needy man. Wallis Simpson did it with Duke of Windsor, but we know know she was an ice cold bitch to him at times. Prince Harry's marriage may have a bit of his uncle's life as well.

Anyway you slice things, if PH leaves MM, or MM leaves the duke of Sussex it would put PH in a very bad positon. All those fingers and tongues wagging saying "we told you so"..... It would be more than PH could endure I shouldn't wonder.

More so if such things happened after HM's time and there are few to nil sympathetic arms welcoming a divorced or whatever PH back into the fold. Press coverage (especially in the dailies) would be unmerciful.

Finally and more to the point what would be the good of putting away MM? What would a divorced PH do then? He wasn't happy in GB long before his marriage, and that likely wouldn't change upon any return. Ladies weren't lining up to marry PH either. So what would be left? Another sad reproduction of Prince Andrew's life only more pathetic?

Prince Harry has made his bed, and now must lie in it, period. Mistakes on such a level simply must be lived with best way possible.

by Anonymousreply 59August 30, 2021 12:54 AM

I put more probability in Catherine leaving Wills. She saw the pay-out that Diana got.

by Anonymousreply 60August 30, 2021 1:01 AM

As post WWII years wore on it was really only a certain demographic of old well off or wealthy white Americans who bothered with Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Maybe a few scattered about Europe, but they were getting on or dying off as well.

Of the two it mainly was the duke many wanted to be around (everyone loves an ex-king). As evidenced that as a widow Wallis Simpson's social calendar began to shrink.

Keep in mind also the D and Dss of Windors were spongers of highest order. They largely never went anywhere unless their hosts were footing some or all of the bills. Cunard finally put their foot down and told the Duke and his duchess no more free travel. That made all those voyages with mountains of luggage rather expensive.

Duke of Windsor even as prince of Wales was famously tight fisted. He was far from destitute after abdicating, but you'd never have known. It was said by those who knew "David" he always would leave the table or otherwise excuse himself when dining out before the cheque arrived.

by Anonymousreply 61August 30, 2021 1:01 AM


Not going to happen either.

First and foremost because Katherine Middleton set her cap for Prince William not long after clapping eyes on him at college. From that moment on "Waity Katy" was just that, constantly plotting, scheming and even putting her life on hold just to be around or with Prince William.

After Will and the airline hostess's daughter had their famous break-up, upon reconciliation both were sat down and spoken to expressly and at great length about marriage. No one wanted a repeat of Charles and Diana, so both separately and individually Prince William and certainly Katherine Middleton were told to make absolutely sure about things.

Having endured the snubs, chidings, and often cruel jokes from Prince William's friends and others, Waity Katy isn't going to give anyone a chance also to say "we told you so..." either.

by Anonymousreply 62August 30, 2021 1:08 AM

It's ironic how so many moan about Prince Harry and MM threads on DL when one of the reoccurring adverts for this site is about that couple.

by Anonymousreply 63August 30, 2021 1:10 AM

The ads on the site are determined by your own internet searches, r63.

You must be a particularly obssessed Sussex stan.

by Anonymousreply 64August 30, 2021 1:12 AM

Sorry, but no, can't true.

First of all don't search for MM, PH or any member of BRF unless researching something to post in response to a thread.

Two, use VPN and clear all cookies/cache when leaving DL. Also browser is set not to allow Google or any other third party to set cookies.

That advert for PH and MM (or rather script) runs soon as one logs into DL even before looking at or responding to posts.

So think on....

by Anonymousreply 65August 30, 2021 1:16 AM

R41 And then. Like the Windsors, the Sussexes will get old and die and people won't remember them - and the monarchy will go on.

The other problem for the Susdexes is that they actually think they "mean something". They keep putting their foot in it. Overreach is thei real title.

The Windsors retreated into cafe society and the jet set. The Sussexes can't do that, they have to keep justifying themselves on some moral level.

The public is already tiring of them and they're already becoming parodies of themselves.

They try too hard. The Windsors never did. They knew who they were.

The Sussexes don't. They have some large pitfalls ahead of them.

That "shadow" is so gauzy you can see right through it.

by Anonymousreply 66August 30, 2021 1:18 AM

I don’t get any HaM ads here.

by Anonymousreply 67August 30, 2021 1:21 AM


There was then, and still is a segment of French society that are devoted monarchists. You only have to read Point de Vue and other similar publications or whatever to know this...

As such yes, certain persons fawned over Duke and Duchess of Windsor. These are same people who fawn over remaining Bourbon or Napoleon dynasty members. They also still are largely divided over those are descendants of the "regicides" (those who voted in favor of killing Louis XVI).

by Anonymousreply 68August 30, 2021 1:21 AM

Neither do I, r67.

by Anonymousreply 69August 30, 2021 1:27 AM

Next great show for the "Harry and Meghan Show" will be HM's demise and state funeral.

They will be invited back of course, but kept on a very tight lead. Once things are done and various family matters settled, Duke and his duchess will be packed off back to America. Highly doubt PH will have much to do with run up to his father's coronation, but do believe again HRH will be brought back to take his rightful place in things. But again PH will be kept on a tight lead and warned off making any trouble.

Once that all dies down next big thing will be Prince William's investiture as Prince of Wales. PH likely won't be brought back for that event.

In space of those short years Prince Harry and his family will drop in relevance. Attention will largely focus not just on new monarch, but Prince of Wales and his family.

Personally believe many are going to be shocked and surprised that Kate Middleton hits things out of the park as pss of Wales. In that role she has far more trump cards can play against MM, and the latter knows it. It also helps that KM is a damn fine looking woman who will look lovely in all those jewels.

by Anonymousreply 70August 30, 2021 1:31 AM

Why in Great God's name would anyone want to be like Wallis? Had affairs w. Nazis, pictured enthralled to meet them. Praised Hitler. And one of her all time hits, "I don't mind Jews as long as they're rich." Antisemtic cunt! Yeah, what a role model. What a fabulous, arresting, fascinating life she chose to live, spending 4 hours a day instructing staff how to make the crystal shine & leather upholstery glisten. Now that's what I call exciting, creative, fulfilling. Yeah, she must have been a real brain trust to spend her time like that. Let's not even get into how she treated her dolt of a husband, fucking her lovers right in their apts. Read some of the bios of her. She was utter trash. Is Dopey part of the gene pool of the BRF dopey Harry & dopey David. He sure didn't look brimming over with happiness in any photos after the marriage.

by Anonymousreply 71August 30, 2021 1:35 AM

[quote] PH is a very emotionally fragile man, much of it likely having to do with the death of his poor mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.[quote]

Oh, my sides.

by Anonymousreply 72August 30, 2021 1:57 AM

Duke of Windsor was far more famous than Harry will ever be. He was the King, Harry's only a spare, a Prince Andrew.

by Anonymousreply 73August 30, 2021 2:04 AM

Prince Andrew had that brief but fab, moment of real hotness..Harry never. Now he is gross.

by Anonymousreply 74August 30, 2021 2:18 AM

It doesn’t sound as though Wallis cared about the public adoring her and thinking she was swell. She wasn’t trying for universal adoration. She doesn’t strike me as the type who’d ever come across as desperate.

And I’m not sure Harry is as obsessed and subservient as David was. Maybe he is. Harry has a mean and rebellious streak that entirely-whipped David didn’t have.

by Anonymousreply 75August 30, 2021 2:21 AM

Can't happen soon enough - cancel, cancel.

by Anonymousreply 76August 30, 2021 2:21 AM

If Dim and his Duchess were truly interested in being movers and shakers in the A-List Hollywood world, they certainly went about it the wrong way. Shooting their wad with the Oprah interview right off the bat was incredibly dumb and incredibly amateurish.

by Anonymousreply 77August 30, 2021 2:26 AM

It certainly was, r77.

I suspect that the reason they did it the way they did was because, from the moment that bullying complaint letter was written by Jason Knauf to William's chief of staff (while the Harkles were in Australia), the couple got very aggressive with the family and has essentially been attempting to extort the BRF in retaliartion and to attempt to make sure the bullying story never came out.

I suspect from then on it was "We will LEAVE if you don't give us Archie a title, give us more money and never breathe a word of the bullying."

Then, after no title, they leave, and resume "negotiations" along the lines of "We will TALK TO OPRAH and call you RACIST if you don't give Archie a title and pay us off and never breathe a word etc"

Then, after the Times got hold of the bullying story, they felt the need to make good on their private threat to talk to Oprah, dying Prince Philip or not.

Then, after they get on Oprah, say the family are racist and that's why Archie doesn't have a title and that's why Charles cut them off financially, they bitched through their media reps Scobie and Gayle that the BRF was STILL not "addressing their concerns" by giving them what they were demanding, and having both Scobie and Gayle pointedly mention that "unless the family adresses their concerns there will be more leaks" from the couple.

Their whole bizarre trajectory makes the most sense within the context of their having embarked on an ongoing, constantly updated extortion scheme.

by Anonymousreply 78August 30, 2021 2:38 AM

There is now no way the bullying investigation can be suppressed. Plus, think the RF have a nice clean way to have them really skewered. If the Hazmats say any shit about the staff who accuse them Hazmat can get sued. Harry hates the first amendment. Very annoyed he couldn't do his sue thing to suppress people in the US. Now the staff in the UK can use the hammer he likes so much on him.

God the drugs they must be using to make the reality of the shit show they have created go away, must be potent. Whose supplying it? Would need to be on the down-low, since US/Cali. staff will sing for their supper for sure. Phone & recording devices soo handy. Wonder if its Soho house, douchebag? Doubt pot from that pot farm near them will do the trick. They will really need something good & strong to make the world go away.

by Anonymousreply 79August 30, 2021 2:55 AM

His deepest need was that people should like him. An admirable trait that; in a spaniel. Or a whore.

by Anonymousreply 80August 30, 2021 2:56 AM

If Harry starts losing a lot of his hair, all bets are off.

by Anonymousreply 81August 30, 2021 2:59 AM


Wot do you mean "starts"?

PH's hair has been thinning for years now.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 82August 30, 2021 3:03 AM

It's thinning but not shiny bald pate like his older brother. So far.

by Anonymousreply 83August 30, 2021 3:06 AM

Things have accelerated as of late, and at rate things are going Prince Harry's son will have more hair on his head then the father.

Sadly for both of Diana's sons while they got their ginger coloring from Spencer side of family, those Windsor baldness genes are working overtime.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 84August 30, 2021 3:07 AM

[quote]I am one of the few DLers who sees nothing nefarious in the Duchess, and in the Duke I only see his mother’s son who realizes that once the family has gotten all it can from you, you cease to be of value to the institution.

What....once the family has gotten all it can from a person, it no longer considers that person valuable? Are you aware of the long list of friends, partners, and family members that Meghan has dropped over the years when they couldn't further her agenda?

by Anonymousreply 85August 30, 2021 3:17 AM

Not certain it’s a Windsor gene, r84. George VI wasn’t bald. Charles isn’t bald, nor is Andrew. It may have come from either of their grandfathers.

by Anonymousreply 86August 30, 2021 3:19 AM

What, exactly has the BRF "extracted" from Harry?

He seemed cheery and very happy back when his life was doing whatever he wanted and showing up every couple of months to some military event.

He only seemed to appear constantly drained and snappy after she moved in with him.

by Anonymousreply 87August 30, 2021 3:20 AM


Prince Phillip maybe?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 88August 30, 2021 4:56 AM

Prince Charles has kept more of his hair than his father Prince Phillip. Same for Prince Andrew, however Prince Edward is another matter.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89August 30, 2021 4:58 AM

Meghan wants to be The Kardashians mixed with Beyonce and Jay-Z.

The only problem is they really hold no appeal besides people taking their side in this Royal drama. And they’re too “proper” to make the type of content the Kardashians and The Carters can do to keep people entertained.

No one wants to listen to charity shit or self motivation shit from them. Or talking about overcoming depression. That stuff is so boring. The TV series she’s creating sound boring too.

by Anonymousreply 90August 30, 2021 5:10 AM

I can't believe that Kensington Palace village idiot Harry has wound up with a typical hollywood z-list basic bitch - the most cliched basic bitch who ever basic bitched - and a vicious, psychotic one at that.

There's so little to recommend her - she can't even look put together when she's given over 1 million dollars cash a year to spend on clothes. Can you imagine what Wallis would have been able to do with that?

This whole thing is completely unbelievable.

by Anonymousreply 91August 30, 2021 5:29 AM

They're idiots. They could have had so much influence if they had stayed and put in the work to get to a place of respect and understanding of how to truly make change. But they had to have it NOW. Just like selfish children.

Quite frankly a world without these fools with their terrible values influencing anyone is a better place. If they don't have good judgement now at this age they never will.

by Anonymousreply 92August 30, 2021 5:38 AM

Block the loon at r62. As usual, quite a few posts disappear. Meghan is also ugly, like her husband. In that, they are evenly matched.

by Anonymousreply 93August 30, 2021 5:54 AM

Meghan was one hell of a lot uglier before she had her teeth replaced, her hair replaced, and had surgeries on her nose, jaw and cheeks. She's now in danger of getting pillow face from all the fillers on display in her most recent piece of self-promotion.

Meanwhile Harry had a moment of hotness for about a year back there.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94August 30, 2021 6:00 AM

More like "shit players", but okay.

by Anonymousreply 95August 30, 2021 6:06 AM

She can't get rid of that nose and jaw though. She less homely than she was as a child, but still homely.

by Anonymousreply 96August 30, 2021 6:08 AM

Her surgeon gave her a pointy ski-jump nose that looks like a fake version of Harry's natural ski jump nose.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 97August 30, 2021 6:12 AM

There is nothing more common in H'wood than a nose job.

by Anonymousreply 98August 30, 2021 6:45 AM

R84, you think William has ginger coloring? I think he’s blond.

by Anonymousreply 99August 30, 2021 8:57 AM

William has Diana's coloring and a lot of her facial features. Harry has Diana's father's coloring, and a face which crosses Charles' most unattractive features with a bit of Prince Philip, who was undeniably handsome, but who Harry is looking less and less like every year.

by Anonymousreply 100August 30, 2021 9:10 AM

They have become toxic bit players now. No more calls from Beyoncé, the Clooneys, the Obamas, Serena, etc., or even Oprah, after she heard a nasty tidbit about sMEGs from Michelle.

by Anonymousreply 101August 30, 2021 9:22 AM

Someone upthread wrote about them being too “proper” to make entertaining content. That was spot-on. I think titillation is what really grabs mass viewers and drives clicks and views.

I think it’s sad and hilarious that they want their brand to be about uplifting and compassion and environmental conservation. When you look at their actions in their personal lives, they are 180 degrees away from thar. Bullying staff, alienating family and consuming alarming amounts of resources.

It’s breathtaking.

by Anonymousreply 102August 30, 2021 9:39 AM

R33 - yeah I doubt Obama would've invited openly racist people to his party. However, Meghan is smart and if Harry does enough anti-racism activism he may get an invite some day.

by Anonymousreply 103August 30, 2021 9:57 AM

I'm sorry to break this to you, but there were openly racist people at Obama's party, r103. Even people who have praised Hitler:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104August 30, 2021 10:02 AM

R104 - but they are black racists. Obama, if you read his memoir, struggled a lot with race...to the point it kind of ruled his life. He explains why as well and you can understand how it scarred him. Michelle as well...for obvious reasons. The part's guest list is a reflection of that. But such white racists? No. In fact, I feel as if Obama and Michelle have kind of sealed themselves off as much as possible from us. On the one hand, it's not a good look since anti-racist whites like us have been their biggest supporters and fans. On the other hand, considering the way they were mocked for their color, it's understandable that they wouldn't trust a white person ever again. Also, his grandfather and mother were VERY pro-black so...he grew up with a mom who took him to see films showing Africans as the "noble savages" (that was the time) and whites as the oppressors. His grandfather took him to black music venues and had a black best friend who warned him "ALWAYS be on your guard with white people...your grandfather sleeps comfortably around me but if anything happens to him in my house, it will be on me because I am a black man".

by Anonymousreply 105August 30, 2021 10:22 AM

So the Obamas didn’t invite them because they’re a 3/4-white couple? I don’t get it.

by Anonymousreply 106August 30, 2021 10:45 AM

No, r106. I said that the Obamas would invite the Windsors (if they were around) before the would invite the Sussexes, and r103 said he didn't think they would because the Windsors were "openly racist", so I pointed out that many guests at the party were openly racist, including one who also defended Hitler, and r105 responded as you see above.

My underlying point is that that the Windsors did was far less offensive to normal people who appreciate discretion and family than what the Sussexes have done. The Sussexes have really crossed a line and cannot ever come back, and the lack of the invitation to Obama's party really underscores that - especially because the party was so large. It seemed like the invited everyone BUT the Sussexes.

by Anonymousreply 107August 30, 2021 10:55 AM

R107 - how the hell did the Sussexes behave worse than the Windsors? Hello, Wallis was the mistress of Von Ribbentrop and both met and shook hands with Hitler. Are you nuts?

by Anonymousreply 108August 30, 2021 11:00 AM

I don't believe that she slept with von Ribbentrop, r108. As for the Hitler handshake, that is inexcusable - I completely forgot about that, I admit.

by Anonymousreply 109August 30, 2021 11:15 AM

R107, thanks for the explanation. Not sure I agree, but I get it now. If Harry had married a different woman, would they have invited him? Probably. I do agree that Harry and Barack had a cordial professional relationship (not a true friendship as someone here insists). The young royals would have been welcome, I’m sure.

by Anonymousreply 110August 30, 2021 11:35 AM

I mean, honestly, who copies Soho House for style? Could anything say I know nothing more than I modelled my home after a restaurant?

by Anonymousreply 111August 30, 2021 11:42 AM

Wallis and Edward became pathetic, he because of his puppy dog dependence on her, and she because of her bitterness over being stuck with him for life. It must have been hard for them to accept that people were in the end pleased he abdicated because it meant a decent king and queen during wartime and a highly capable heir who has enormous respect in the UK and abroad.

by Anonymousreply 112August 30, 2021 11:49 AM

Can anyone recommend a quality biography of Wallis and Edward? I'd like to read a book about them and their empty lives in cafe and jet set society of the mid 20th century.

by Anonymousreply 113August 30, 2021 11:58 AM

Finally, the Waity Kaity contingent returns.

by Anonymousreply 114August 30, 2021 12:25 PM

Allegedly David's dying words, "What a waste."

Also, supposedly Wallis got hers. After he died all the invites & comps dried up. Her lawyer drugged her up, held her prisoner till she died & he got all her stuff.

by Anonymousreply 115August 30, 2021 12:29 PM

R115, and no one cared. Isn’t that a pity. At least there are people genuinely concerned for Richard Simmons, to the point of pestering him. Who rang Wallis’s doorbell to see if she was okay?

by Anonymousreply 116August 30, 2021 12:41 PM

Yes, PH has ginger coloring, just like his mother did when she was young (and before she started with that bottle), and of course Prince William as well.

Ginger runs in the Spencer family, though will give you it does lighten as they get older.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117August 30, 2021 12:44 PM

I think there's a significant difference or two between the Windsors and the Sussexes.

First, the Windsors kept a comparatively low profile, living mostly in Europe. The times were markedly different but you never got the sense Wallis courted publicity. She seemed to want attention in real time, from people in the moment, at the parties, rather than the imagination of the public after the fact. She also seemed to understand her moment of interest had passed and for most of their lives they were just a curiosity, as discards and used to be's. Compare the publicity events of the Windsors married lives to the Sussexes. Architectural Digest, Vogue vs Omud Scabies.

Second, they were semi-dignified in their exile. They both wrote books but neither was a tell all in a dish the dirt sense. Again, the conventions of the times constrained them and the press. They actually descended into a pretty louche lifestyle, surrounded more by the then version of the same people Meagain is increasingly surrounded by today (Soho House = Jimmy Donahue.) But the press didn't report that for what it was, if it reported it or reflected it at all. All you got then was probably a photograph of them dressed to the nines. The English aristocracy wasn't going to welcome them and the American version of the upper class didn't seem to appeal to them. They - her? - needed flash, stimulation, a place to show off those clothes and jewels. But again, the coverage at the time, was still fairly deferential so they didn't look louche.

The Sussexes don't have the brains, amusingly, to style themselves. Everything is measured in clicks. You look at her track record and her main talent is wanting, followed by a shrewd ability to figure out how to realize that want. She's not stupid but she plainly only understands her world. But Harry was a huge mistake. British royalty wasn't going to get her the kind of fame she sought, because it's the wrong route to it. People don't want royalty in Soho House. You don't see the Obamas at Soho House. You don't see Oprah at Soho House. You see wannabes at Soho House. Or A list people slumming from time to time. Harry was a strategic failure, unless she dumps him, which she probably will. But, she's not getting any younger and the user skepticism now dogs her. She didn't get fame, she got infamy and her third and fourth husbands will have to be the kind of men who don't mind her reputation.

Separately, for all her taste and style, I thought WS's jewels were pretty horrible. Bold, couldn't be missed, but without any classical elegance. A lot of jewelled representations of tigers and other cats.

by Anonymousreply 118August 30, 2021 12:45 PM

Lord Louis Spencer is ginger as well.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119August 30, 2021 12:50 PM

Lord Louis, Prince Harry and MM.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120August 30, 2021 12:51 PM

R120..Is it me or is that look in Harry's eye..Please fuck her & let me watch & maybe lick your nuts as you go at it?? KnowI'm cynical..but think I've seen that look before.

by Anonymousreply 121August 30, 2021 1:00 PM

Perhaps you imagined it before?

by Anonymousreply 122August 30, 2021 1:02 PM

Maybe..or maybe not..??? Oldie here, been around the block waaay too many times.

by Anonymousreply 123August 30, 2021 1:04 PM

NFW. harry and meg are just starting. They are dynamic entrepreneurs.

They're the opposite of wallis and edward who continued to feed from the brf trough.

by Anonymousreply 124August 30, 2021 1:09 PM

Dynamic entrepreneurs? Except for one podcast the only thing they've sold is their whining.

by Anonymousreply 125August 30, 2021 1:11 PM

It has to be remembered that when the Windsors became an "issue", Europe was on the brink of WWII and the government was rather glad to see the back of them - they didn't trust Edward. A great deal that was successfully kept from the public in the 1930s isn't possible to keep under wraps today.

The UK press hid the emerging crisis of Edward's marriage and relationship with Mrs Simpson for quite some time, much as the American press corps hid JFK's, shall we say, robust nonmarital sex life - everyone in the WH press corps (mostly male at the time) knew, but abided by the "gentleman's agreement" to keep it private.

The Windsors may have been world famous from then on, but they were still irrelevant. They made their bed on the Continent as sophisticated denizens of cafe society just as they had in Britain. In a way, their life after the Abdication was more honest - Edward hated the burdens of royalty, he only valued its wealth and status - they became a permanent part of cafe society, the denizens of nightclubs and dinner parties and cruises, just as they had been before. It was, really, the arena both were fundamentally suited to.

You also have to remember how grim a place Britain was in the 1930s and the very present memories of WWI, not even 20 years in the rear-view mirror - "the thin-faced thirties" as someone, perhaps Chips Channon, put it. The sense of betrayal in the public was profound.

The Sussexes are in a different position. Like the Simpsons, they're really both only cut out for celebrity - Meghan especially. But things are different today, and waving bye-bye merrily and taking a nice settlement with them and luxuriating in the life of celebrity wasn't something they could get away with. They both knew that without the cloak of royalty, they would be trashed by a now far more intrusive press. Harry also knew it was a matter of time before he became a second-tier royal, despite being a future King's son.

So Harry, egged on by Meghan, decided to try to carve out a new form of relevance to the monarchy: loud, incessant, active enmity under cover of modern "progressivism", whilst trying to preserve his membership in it at all costs. This is a tactic could only work for a limited time; it is already backfiring. As it becomes increasingly clear that their public profiles are built on a fundamental disconnect, PARTICULARLY with regard to Harry's family, they have placed themselves in an impossible situation that will erode further over time.

The Windsors never tried to be anything other than who they were: slack, shallow, self-indulgent, somewhat aimless and rootless and, therefore, needing entertainment constantly. Purpose is what would have given their lives gravitas, but that was only to be found inside the monarchy, and that's the very thing Edward hated.

Harry is ostensibly trying to avoid the fate of his great-great Uncle by charity work and one cause after another. But it isn't working, because his real passion is his rage at his family. In truth, especially given Meghan's taste for celebrity, they might have been happier and better off if, like the Windsors, they'd embraced their irrelevancy outside the monarchy, enjoyed their celebrity, and stopped trying to fight reality: their only real relevance lay in the thing they rejected.

by Anonymousreply 126August 30, 2021 1:19 PM

Harry was devilishly cute as a teenager when his hair was longer and redder and he did well when it was the three of them going around but once he met MM, he lost his spark trying to match her Save the World with Platitudes demeanor. He looks morose now.

I think Hollywood recognizes MM as a basic striver because that’s what they all are but she would be tolerated and invited just because her plus one is a Royal. The problem is Harry is no Duke of Windsor. He’s lost his charm and he’s a bore when he parrots MM’s schtick. If he were a fun and entertaining dinner partner, well they’d be swamped with invitations. But he’s a lump with a grudge.

And he needs to shave that beard and do something about his feathery hair.

by Anonymousreply 127August 30, 2021 1:24 PM

R113 It’s not a straight-up biography, but Windsor Style by Suzy Menkes is a fabulous book with lots of pictures and it goes in depth about their lifestyle. It’s one of my favorites I return back to. It has loads of details about the glitz and (shallow) glamour of their life. But it used off Amazon— I think it’s no longer in print.

Anne Sebba wrote a book on the Duchess (called That Woman, I believe) that’s pretty good.

The Last of the Duchess by Caroline Blackwood contains all of the details about the shifty moves her doctor and lawyer pulled after the Duke died and the Duchess’ health declined.

Diana Mitford, who was her neighbor in France, wrote a biography on her. It’s a little more dry than the others listed, but interesting in that it was written by someone who actually knew her.

by Anonymousreply 128August 30, 2021 1:42 PM

R113 Also this documentary about them is really good.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 129August 30, 2021 1:44 PM

[quote] Bullying staff, alienating family and consuming alarming amounts of resources.

If the stories about her bullying are true you can bet someone had their phone out to record it. The second a video of Meghan bullying someone comes out she's finished.

Harry will be fine because they'll end up divorced in not so distant future. He'll return home and Meghan will marry someone else soon after, this time a properly wealthy individual. There are enough filthy rich oligarchs and criminals who don't care she's a gold digger because they'll keep her under control. Then again it's very well possible she'll be stopped by the BRF before managing to do that.

by Anonymousreply 130August 30, 2021 1:44 PM

I’m fascinated to see whether or not they’ll attend the Met Gala and who would dress Meghan....

by Anonymousreply 131August 30, 2021 1:48 PM

I can't imagine that any fabulously wealthy oligarch would want her. She's not especially beautiful, glamorous, or stylish. Plus, she's 40 with two kids. She's well past the age of trophy wife.

by Anonymousreply 132August 30, 2021 1:49 PM

R132, trust me there are enough nouveau riche oligarchs and such who see her being glamorous for having such a close connection to the royal family. But then again it's true that you'd have to be a total idiot not to understand how dangerous she is, and especially how dangerous that connection to the BRF is. However that's part of the charm. She's like a poisonous snake and some people will find great pleasure being in control of such a creature. She'd just be another thing they own.

by Anonymousreply 133August 30, 2021 2:00 PM

That will be a test... The Met Gala. You know there's a hard lobby underway. Wintour must be savouring the make or break power.

by Anonymousreply 134August 30, 2021 2:03 PM

R59, nobody thinks Harry will leave Meghan, but everybody thinks she will leave him as soon as what she deems a better alternative presents himself. Of course, her deeming hasn't been exactly spot-on in the past.

by Anonymousreply 135August 30, 2021 2:08 PM

R130 - I'm not sure I agree about the video. Those offices in BP and KP are small places, this wasn't a huge staff, and anyone holding up a phone would have been noticed immediately. And if one does exist, I'm not sure at all that it would be legal to release it - I'm not even sure BP would appreciate it as a tactic (much as it would like Meghan to be permanently discredited). It would only invite invasion of privacy screams and put BP on the defence again.

What there are, hopefully, are careful records of incidents kept by staff, and included in formal complaints to HR and Knauf, who also, hopefully, retained them and used them as a basis for his email to HR - especially the reference to the harsh of one individual, who I personally think was either Sarah Cohen or Amy Pickerill.

The investigation was concluded at least a couple of months ago; the question is, has a report been written and sent to BP and its HR director?

And if the report exists and has been forwarded, how much detail does it contain?

If the report is fairly anodyne, e.g., that BP's HR department failed to respond to "credible" complaints of a damaging work environment, and in future must do better to ensure that its employees' concerns are taken seriously and addressed by BP HR, the damage to Meghan will be modest - she will, of course, scream that she is being smeared by people hiding behind a report that was clearly biased and she has a right to face her accusers and tell her, er, truth. These shrieks will be only performative, as her lawyers will have told her that this was a private investigation and she has no legal right to anything in it.

If the report outlines in some detail the sorts of behaviour that staff reported to HR and to other senior staff, like Knauf, then it will have more impact on eroding Meghan's public face. The level of detail will determine how reliable the report is in the eyes of the public.

And, there is still no guarantee that the BRF will allow the report to be leaked. The report can only be leaked by them, and they will come under fire for leaking it, especially in light of the Platinum Jubilee coming up. They'll want the waters as smooth as possible for that.

On the other hand, if Omid Scobie keeps opening his pie-hole about the dastardly BRF in order to up sales of his retread of FF, he may just give the BRF enough reason to leak the report and finish Meghan off - keeping the waters smooth may, eventually, turn out to be more trouble than it's worth.

And speaking of Omid - he went awfully quiet after those first headlines about the "new" chapters in FF and the family racists and how Harry and Meghan talked about shelving the Oprah interview when it became clear Philip was circling the drain, but didn't because Oprah's company, Harpo, wouldn't let them - suddenly, the Queen was "lawyering up", Afghanistan blew those FF headlines off the front page of the DM like lightning, and the Sussexes are frantic to distance themselves from the book.

by Anonymousreply 136August 30, 2021 2:11 PM

^*harsh treatment of one individual

by Anonymousreply 137August 30, 2021 2:12 PM

The brf will never again be the same. Meg and harry have shown future generations there are choices that can be made.

by Anonymousreply 138August 30, 2021 2:15 PM

The guest list for the Met Gala was released last week. Meghan isn't on it. Doesn't mean someone couldn't be persuaded to revise it later, but it was billed as the final guest list.

by Anonymousreply 139August 30, 2021 2:30 PM

I would imagine that Meghan is too busy mentoring to be bothered with a silly fashion parade.

by Anonymousreply 140August 30, 2021 2:39 PM

And we thank them for their contribution, R138, even as we consign it to the dustbin of history.

I prefer the choice between the Vladimir and the Cambridge Knot.

by Anonymousreply 141August 30, 2021 2:39 PM

Huh. At first I thought Anna Wintour would not include them because she was still angling for one of those honors that the queen bestows. The documentary, The September Issue, made her seem insecure because her siblings were more accomplished and she was a mere fashion editor. Then I read that she did get some kind of honor a few years ago but it’s not the big one where she can call herself a Dame.

At any rate, if they’re not on the guest list, I expect we’ll be hearing allusions that the Met Gala is for shallow people, not serious do-gooders like themselves. When is the White House Press Association dinner?

by Anonymousreply 142August 30, 2021 2:42 PM

Surely Meghan must want to go to the Met? She strikes me as someone who imagines herself to have style and great fashion sense...to not be invited...I bet that stung if true.

She’s had no opportunity to ‘see and be seen’, to get glammed up in all her designer labels, be the red carpet royalty she thought she would be.

I mean, don’t tell me that she moved to LA, out of all the places in the world, to just hide away at home. How disappointing this must all be...

by Anonymousreply 143August 30, 2021 2:57 PM

R140, great news! Meg's mentoring commitment is limited to 40 minutes only, so she's free for the Met Ball after all!

by Anonymousreply 144August 30, 2021 3:10 PM

[ 138] yeah right 138 , really stupid choices.

by Anonymousreply 145August 30, 2021 3:21 PM

Are Pete and chasten on the list?

by Anonymousreply 146August 30, 2021 3:32 PM

R138 You mean like Princess Anne who chose for her children to remain untitled and work for a living? Like Edward and Sophie who tried half in half out before them, even producing documentaries? Like the Yorks who work and actually do have more access to the perks that the Harkles desperately want?

No one was forcing Harry to be a working royal. He could have stayed in the Army at least another decade but he threw his toys out of the pram when he was told he had to do a desk job. He is also on camera complaining that someone suggested Meghan actually get a JOB (heavens!).

All Harry and Meghan have currently succeeded at doing is creating a global brand complaining about his family whilst reminding everyone they're real royals at every interval and putting out pathetic press releases that are all about them for every tragedy. They're desperate to be America's Royals to the point where they hire photographers to take photos of their pretend events. How is that making amazing choices?

by Anonymousreply 147August 30, 2021 3:33 PM

Thoroughly Modern (ise the Monarchy) Meggie: Our plucky heroine foregoes her internationally acclaimed acting career and steps bravely into the media spotlight as a shy new girlfriend on the cover of Vanity Fair before anyone even knows her. She declares her intention to be a team player as she hits the ground running. (I should have been a golfer, or at least stuck with Rory McIlroy she sighs). Those darn weddings and all the rellies, let me modernise she cries! Thus all Markle and Ragland families are swiftly banished ( bar Mother) and all the celebs are welcome. So modern. So much to do and so little time.She must introduce homeless prostitutes to fresh fruit and the joys of platitudes , also hug people a lot even if they resist ( American!!) Sports are good she shrieks, and thus she has 100 spectators quietly removed from their seats at tennis so she can endorse physical activity with two of her sloth friends.If only those poor South Africans had been more appreciative, she would've been a STAR.

by Anonymousreply 148August 30, 2021 4:45 PM

R138, royals have been making choices for generations. Princess Patricia chose to give up her title to marry a commoner. Princess Margaret chose to stay in the royal family rather than give up her position to marry a divorced man. Edward and Sophie decided to give up their private work to work to support the Queen. What's different about Harry and Meghan is that they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too: they tried to get a "half-in, half-out" arrangement by which they could keep the trappings of being royal while making money on the outside and leading their lives partly in North America. Well, it cannot work that way. Members of the royal family serve the state and, in turn, the state support them. The Queen was completely right to say that they were either in or out, so they chose out. In the end, it's a good thing because, had they stayed in, they would have been obviously inauthentic and resentful. Now, they can live on their own terms and, yes, pay for their own upkeep. As someone the nation supported all his life -- and cheered for -- the Brits will probably never forgive him.

by Anonymousreply 149August 30, 2021 5:01 PM

r149, Yes he's done now in the UK, apart from a few dianamaniacs . Same way E8 was done after his nazism. I get some old money NY types could still love the Windsors after ther war because rich old anti semitic racists stick together.Into the 70's they were tired old things to be pitied really.

by Anonymousreply 150August 30, 2021 5:25 PM

[Quote]What there are, hopefully, are careful records of incidents kept by staff, and included in formal complaints to HR and Knauf, who also, hopefully, retained them and used them as a basis for his email to HR

I suspect there are. There have to be, if only an electronic trail of Meghan's e-mail responses. I don't know what employment law is like in the UK, but if there's any grievance concerning toxic work environment, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, etc., the first bit of advice you'd get from an employment lawyer is document, document, document. We're a litigious society -- I'm sure Jason Knauf told the (allegedly) bullied parties to do so. Sara Latham, too, for that matter.

As far as recording goes, small cameras could have been discreetly set up around the offices...

by Anonymousreply 151August 30, 2021 6:19 PM

The difference is that we live in a social media era. If you start out big, you can remain big. There will never be a time where these two can't get endorsement deals, create and sell their own products, etc. They are household names and (maybe former?) royalty. They're attractive. They will be fine.

by Anonymousreply 152August 30, 2021 6:44 PM

Racist Tory Corgi Cosplay Masturbation Fodder Thread #5,166,295

by Anonymousreply 153August 30, 2021 6:47 PM

^^^^^^ Annnnnd blocked

by Anonymousreply 154August 30, 2021 6:48 PM

Thanks R128 for the book recommendations

by Anonymousreply 155August 30, 2021 6:57 PM

Yes, because the “spare” stepping back from dreary Royal duties because of the fire hose of venomous racism and bigotry pointed at his wife, and a reigning king abdicating to marry, are completely and absolutely the identical thing!

by Anonymousreply 156August 30, 2021 7:04 PM

"fire hose of venomous racism and bigotry"? Where is this? if you mean twatter then they know all that is crap.

If you mean British media then all there are is the stupid DM headline "Almost straight outa comptom"but that was just usual classism to UK readers as we don't know regions of LA only that was a song or something.

Danny Baker on his own twatter, put a pic of F Scott Fitzgerald with his pet chimp and I totally agree that that was intentionally rascist. He lost his job on BBC radio the next day.

Rachel Johnson called her exotic in her opinion column in the DM, That I believe was racist too ( knowing how she is). 3 actual items I can think of , but only 2 in print media. There were hundreds of positive articles during this time.

by Anonymousreply 157August 30, 2021 7:37 PM

Speaking of Edward VIII, Kate and Wills are rumored to be moving to Windsor, and the two most likely possibilities are Edward VIII's former house Fort Belvedere (8 bedrooms)


Frogmore House (18 bedrooms)

Can you imagine the RAGE in Monteshitto if the Cambridges choose Frogmore House?


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 158August 30, 2021 7:38 PM

Frogmore House and Gardens, which is presently open to the public one day a week in Summer and is occasionally used for events, such as Meghan and Harry's wedding reception, for those interested in what it looks like:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 159August 30, 2021 8:45 PM

It's a nice house from the back. Crap from the front. Looks like Clarence House's plain sister.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 160August 30, 2021 8:51 PM

It needs a refurb. Which I suspect Wills and Kate can afford.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161August 30, 2021 8:58 PM

This will all change next week when we see "Escaping the Palace". Everyone will understand things from Harry and Meghan's point of view and they will become heroes, sought after by all society.

by Anonymousreply 162August 30, 2021 9:13 PM

Too early to pick out a second wife for Harry? Who are the obvious choices (or what kind of woman)?

by Anonymousreply 163August 30, 2021 9:14 PM

As someone above has pointed out, there is no way Harry is leaving his New Mommy.

Especially after New Mommy has successfully isolated him from his family, his friends, and even his country.

He's now got nowhere to go. Just as she intended.

by Anonymousreply 164August 30, 2021 9:17 PM

R163, I think mute and stupid would be a good start.

by Anonymousreply 165August 30, 2021 9:29 PM

From The Telegraph.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 166August 31, 2021 7:41 AM

Meghan is a homely untalented grasping idiot. She got extremely lucky with dummy Harry. No one is interested in her. No rich men for sure. She is firmly back on the z list, where those of us who saw through her from day one always expected.

by Anonymousreply 167August 31, 2021 9:53 AM

Bad link at R166

by Anonymousreply 168August 31, 2021 11:00 AM

Granted rich guys might take a spin at plowing her ass raw just to say they had rammed where a prince had been. However, any oligarch who might marry her, would be the type that if she even farted above a whisper, much lesseven threatened to spill any dirt..she would..As my Italian grandmother used to say..."wind up with her head in the trunk of a car if she shoots off her mouth."

The law of the jungle is simple..as you spiral down the waters are filled w. BiIG mean sharks.

Wonder, if it still feels like they are really finding their freedom

by Anonymousreply 169August 31, 2021 12:42 PM

[quote] If the stories about her bullying are true you can bet someone had their phone out to record it. [quote]

Eh, not necessarily. Why are there no recordings of other bullies, then? Epstein, DeGeneres, Trump, Cuomo; where are the recordings of their bullying?

by Anonymousreply 170August 31, 2021 12:49 PM

As damaged goods go, is she really that badly damaged? I can never tell. I think she's much to be regretted but surely somebody not too awful will want her? I have the impression she's fairly charismatic privately, when she wants to be. I mean, Crazegelina and Pitt fell in love and everybody knew about her track record... is it beyond the pale she could do better than some vulgar tier-two oligarch? (I assume tier ones only want younger with bigger tits.)

by Anonymousreply 171August 31, 2021 12:50 PM

I agree that he won’t ever initiate a split.

But given her pattern of ghosting those who are no longer useful, I’d say there’s a chance she’ll find something better at some point. She’s a rolling stone, and she is NOT getting what she wants right now.

by Anonymousreply 172August 31, 2021 12:52 PM

I agree she must be miserable. Nothing is going to plan and she must have to be on eggshells all the time... she'll be canny enough to know there's only so far she can push on the your-awful-family angle before some lingering reflex prompts a 'well, but...' from him. The frustrated desire will be her biggest risk, because that's when she starts bitch biting him. She cannot be a happy person right now. Trapped by COVID, brand failing and rotting. Again, more ambition than brains.

by Anonymousreply 173August 31, 2021 12:55 PM

R48 I heard that Harry inherited his mother's taint-piercing jewels.

by Anonymousreply 174August 31, 2021 1:13 PM

[quote]I agree she must be miserable. Nothing is going to plan and she must have to be on eggshells all the time

Plus she's got those two godawful brats to put up with. Or at least that's probably how she thinks.

by Anonymousreply 175August 31, 2021 1:17 PM

R171, I might agree with you. After all, men are men, whether rich or poor. Some of them want a bossy bitch who’ll ride them and run their lives.

And men being men, there will be those who think they can prevail where a prince has failed, and tame that shrew. Who knows.

by Anonymousreply 176August 31, 2021 1:33 PM

R166 - Thanks for posting the Telegraph article, as the paywall keeps most of us here from subscribing. It's an excellent article. Too bad the Sussexes will ignore it.

To poster upthread: of course, Meghan and Harry will be "fine". Translation: they'll always be much richer and living much better than 99% of the rest of the world. But I don't agree that they'll always be sought after as A-listers. They're already showing signs of wearing out the welcome: many of their former A-list "friends" have been increasingly silent: the Obamas, most glaringly; the Clooneys; Serena Williams; Elton John - they have all distanced themselves already. The 40x40 initiative attracted a list with a few big names, and the whole thing then faded like dewdrops - the public simply aren't interested in that aspect of the Sussex's lives.

I suspect that the initiative was intended to form as the basis for one of their Spotify podcasts, with women talking about how wonderful their 40-minute conversation with Steinem or Adele or Pss. Eugenie was for them . . .

And then the public will forget that, too.

The fact is, they're still stuck in the corner the Telegraph column so clearly describes: as long as they're dependent on the trappings of royalty to sell their celebrity, they're frauds: their silly "projects", which don't put them on anything like the level of the Gates, Rockefellers, Hewetts, Carnegies, Prince's Trust, etc., beg the question of the elephant in the room: if you're so fucking progressive, and you hated the institution of monarchy so much that you left it behind and have never missed an opportunity to trash it and your family . . . WHY are you still clinging to its trappings, starting with those archaic titles?

They aren't A- Listers in and of themselves. They aren't sought after dinner guests. They couldn't get an invite to Obama's 60th (you KNOW she would have hitch-hiked there if she had to), and they aren't even invited to an increasingly déclassé Met Gala.

They'll be "fine" enough. They'll always have money, they'll keep getting themselves onto the tabloid front pages (you know, those papers they said they never again work with, leaving stories unconfirmed, etc.?), they'll always be a cadre of insane adherents believing they are the Second Coming of King Arthur and Guinevere . . . but if they haven't achieved the flaming Jolie-Pitt, George and Amal, Barack and Michelle A-List level we all know they were aiming for by now . . . they aren't likely to do so in the future.

They showed their hand too soon, got too overexposed, got caught in too many lies, and willy-nilly . . . the future King William and Queen Catherine are still the bigger prizes, and as time goes on, their status will increase exponentially.

Meghan and Harry will become more and more parodies of who they think thought they were, but aren't.

by Anonymousreply 177August 31, 2021 1:51 PM

When is it going to dawn on Harry that he could’ve retired from public life, gone to live on that farm on the Wales border and still been able to hang out with his buddies? Show up for a couple big balcony events but otherwise live privately. And then maybe he’d have found a wife who was happy to avoid the scrutiny of being a full time Royal.

by Anonymousreply 178August 31, 2021 2:02 PM

Its never going to dawn on those two idiots.any regular person would be embarressed, they aren't even sharp enough to be embarressed.

by Anonymousreply 179August 31, 2021 2:10 PM

"Meanwhile, charles is in trouble again. He was caught selling access to himself to billionaires. He used a "broker" to do these deals and he found out the broker was taking a cut and he's pissed off and is going to have an investigation. As if the broker is the bad person in this situation"

R13 - I cannot wait to see how this one turns out.

by Anonymousreply 180August 31, 2021 2:23 PM

R178 - It will only dawn on him if he moves through his "acting out" phase, which has basically been ongoing since his late childhood. If he hasn't moved through it by now, he isn't likely to in the future. He got a wife who turbo-charged his resentment, rage, sense of victimhood, and unresolved issues with his mother to further her own agenda. Her agenda didn't include a comfy life as a second-tier royal. She only saw its comparisons to the A-List Royal Couple, not its advantages. Meghan is straight out of Milton's "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" description of Lucifer's views on occupational status.

Harry doesn't seem capable of the kind of honest self-examination that gets someone out of the loop he's in. And Meghan won't be any help at all.

If she leaves him one day, it might force him off the loop, but that isn't happening any time soon. And the older she gets, the less likely it is. No one is going to be interested in her at 50.

And unless Bill Gates proposes to her, and he won't, she most certainly won't leave Harry until the Queen dies and Charles is on the throne, to see if her kids get HRHs and Harry gets a piece of Charles' extensive estate.

I wonder if they even thought that far ahead. Charles is worth, personally, anywhere from $200 million-$400 million, depending on where you read it. His investment portfolio is probably worth $100 million at least, and then there's the land holdings, homes, private art he's undoubtedly collected, antique cars, etc. When the Queen dies, Balmoral (and the homes on its estate, like Birkhall), and Sandringham (and the homes on its estate, like York Cottage and Anmer Hall), will pass to him personally. Those aren't part of the Crown Estate lot.

So, antagonising Charles was stupid beyond belief, and a classic symptom of acting out, which almost always results in "slicing off the nose to spite the face".

The updated "Finding Freedom" is published today, but unless I missed it, that bottom-feeder, Omid Scobie, has been either silent or very subdued. One would think he'd be shouting it from the rooftops and promising readers new and exciting smears of the British Royal Family.

Anyone heard anything?

by Anonymousreply 181August 31, 2021 2:23 PM

I would imagine that the D & D of Discord are counting on Charles' overwhelming guilt where his sons are concerned to not do anything harsh when it comes to bequests in his will. Though Charles making a point to be away from London when Harry was there last should have given them pause.

by Anonymousreply 182August 31, 2021 2:30 PM

And the difference between is now and "will" is?

by Anonymousreply 183August 31, 2021 2:30 PM

"Not getting an invite to the Obama birthday party was...a big deal."

R38 - How do you know they were not invited? Did you personally see the guest list?

by Anonymousreply 184August 31, 2021 2:31 PM

Why would Harry get any meaningful part of Charles' estate? The tradition is to pass the lion's share in tact to the eldest son/heir - plus, bequests from sovereign to sovereign avoid tax. She has no legal claim on Charles' wealth in his lifetime and none after his death. Even Diana only got 17 M pounds or whatever it was. Nice but not massive. In fact I'm sure I read that settlement wiped him out, in terms of liquid cash (no doubt long since recouped.) The point is, Charles' wealth is not really in play for her. Though I have no doubt they'd be tacky enough to launch another lawsuit to try to get their hands on it, I just don't think there's any precedent for a lawsuit producing anything.

by Anonymousreply 185August 31, 2021 2:32 PM

I'm not sure Harry was ever interested in an estate in Herefordshire R178 even though it would have been all paid for by Charles, they would probably have been able to swing security and an allowance and possibly balcony events and other things that are so important to them.

If they'd said they wanted to retire to the country for a few years to work on their mental health and raise their son in private it almost certainly would have been allowed. They could have started a Vegan farm and raised rescue animals there, done a couple of TV documentaries to show their work if they had to. But that's not what they wanted.

They wanted to make a lot of money and certainly don't want privacy. All they want to do is to control the narrative, which is impossible. And lets face it, every time we see him he looks and sounds worse so any therapy he's having isn't working.

He along with Meghan seems to have brought into his own hype that he was special because of himself personally, not because of his position or being his mother's son. That fuels a lot of need to constantly get praise and adulation. I doubt he can sit in his own head for very long either. The place Charles had picked out was pretty far from their Soho Farm mates as well.

R180 Charles is allowed to have dinner with people in order to secure a donation *to his charities* it's the way these things are done. He is in trouble if he and others took a personal cut of the money though.

by Anonymousreply 186August 31, 2021 2:33 PM

It doesn't look good, though, if he's selling access in the Fergie style and it doesn't look good when he sells it to dodgy people. That's how the Epsteins of the world get close and I think we can all agree on how that turned out.

by Anonymousreply 187August 31, 2021 2:35 PM

R158 - Frogmore House is more of a museum than a home, and is open to tourists in the summer. I doubt highly that the Cambridges would be given it.

The "move" rumours are rather stupid. KP was renovated to the tune of four million quid on the Sovereign Grant. It was understood and the pubic were told that it would be the Cambridge's home until William came to the throne. The adjoining apartment is being renovated to contain their offices and reception rooms. KP will continue to be their official base.

Any more will really be from Anmer Hall on the Sandringham estate, as their "nonurban" home. Windsor is more of a suburb than anything else, but its advantage is that it's only a half hour from London, whilst Sandringham is two hours or so.

So they may be simply moving their "country" getaway to closer to London.

Fort Belvedere is a ridiculous place, I can't see it as suitable for a young family.

Frogmore House is a nonstarter, and as we all know, Pss. Eugenie and her family are using Frogmore Cottage as their non-urban place.

That leaves . . . Royal Lodge, the only really logical place for the Cambridges at Windsor.

And that will open quite a can of worms, as it would mean booting out Andrew (and, of course, Fergie, living there for free for the last 20 years). Royal Lodge has been traditionally the residence of the second son, who is also traditionally the Duke of York. Andrew spent about a million of his own money to renovate it in return for the sweetheart lease he got on it.

But it is a Crown Estate property, and the Queen can boot out and assign it to anyone she likes.

I wonder if one of the side stories to this is that the Queen would repay Andrew for what he spent on the renovations, in return for him leaving. That would give him a nice financial boost, and somewhat ease the optics of the Cambridges moving in so they can be closer to the Queen as the boatman of the River Styx floats ever closer.

And, it would ease some other optics - namely, Andy and Fergie living in luxury having both exhibited little to no regard for how their actions impact the monarchy.

But it will also cement the enmity between the Yorks and Charles and the Cambridges.

by Anonymousreply 188August 31, 2021 2:36 PM

R186 - Charles took no personal cut of the funds, states he was unaware of the arrangements, and has already cut ties with the middlement.

by Anonymousreply 189August 31, 2021 2:38 PM

Does anyone honestly believe that if they had been invited to the Obama party that the Sussexes wouldn't have mentioned it? Discretion is not exactly part of their MO.

by Anonymousreply 190August 31, 2021 2:39 PM

Funnily enough R185 I saw a couple of commentators semi seriously suggest we might see the Harkles sue for access to the Duchy of Cornwall funds when William inherits. They haven't a chance of winning of course but they might hope to cause enough of a fuss that William gives them some money to go away. Of course that hasn't worked well so far. They will think Charles's mnoey should be in play.

If they had been given an invite to the Obamas party then we'd have been buried under a mountain of press releases about how they couldn't go but were excited to work with the Obama Foundation on a big new project and a million more about how the Obamas are party of the Sussex Squad and Michelle is Meghan's new best friend and mentor.

by Anonymousreply 191August 31, 2021 2:42 PM

I wouldn't put anything past them lawsuit wise. And of course there's always the threat of a first-person tell-all.

by Anonymousreply 192August 31, 2021 2:45 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 193August 31, 2021 2:52 PM

"We will LEAVE if you don't give us Archie a title"

R78 - You do not know what you are talking about. Archie has a "title" as the eldest son of a Duke but this courtesy "title" is not used.

What Archie does not have is the "style" of HRH. Archie will have the "style" of HRH the day QEII dies as we will be the grandson in the male line of the monarch.

by Anonymousreply 194August 31, 2021 3:01 PM

The Met gala is rumored to be a shit fest this year - full of "influencers" and unknown but "diverse" woke young people. Supposedly major celebrities/actors are avoiding it like the plague.

by Anonymousreply 195August 31, 2021 3:17 PM

No lawyer would take the suit on. The Duchy of Cornwall's revenues go the heir to the throne and no one else is entitled to them or any part of them, by law. Whoever pur the story out there is either non-English or a complete moron.

Charles does not "own" the Duchy, and he can neither sell it nor rearrange how its revenues are distributed.

If Charles cut Harry and his family out of his will altogether, Harry could theoretically contest the will. But claiming a share of the Duchy's revenues? They'd be laughed out of the solicitor's waiting room. They haven't a legal right to a brass farthing of it.

Harry wouldn't have a leg to stand on, anyway, contesting Charles leaving him little. After broadcasting his anger and resentment to the world, throwing his father and family under the bus, and leaking stories if their deteriorating relationship, on what would Harry base such a claim? Undue influence?! After those interviews and the smears everyone knows they put into FF?!

No, this is another instance of the Suusexs overplaying their hand, and cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Laughed out of court is an understatement.

by Anonymousreply 196August 31, 2021 3:52 PM

R194, in the Oprah interview, Meghan specifically complained--indeed, complained in some detail--about Charles not wanting Archie to be titled a Prince when he, Charles, became King.

by Anonymousreply 197August 31, 2021 3:54 PM

You don't name future Princes "Archie". dumb bitch

by Anonymousreply 198August 31, 2021 3:57 PM

I would add that leaving a potential disgruntled heir something but nothing impressive is one tactic solicitors often advise to head off a challenge.

Charles doesn't have to leave Harry nothing to make his feelings clear, he just has to leave him a token amount, say, 100,000 quid, or leave the 2 Sussex kids 200,000 each as the basis of a trust fund.

No one has a legal right to an inheritance. It is solely the right of the owner of the estate to decide where his or her assets go after death.

by Anonymousreply 199August 31, 2021 3:58 PM

R197 Yes, she did. But she slanted it slightly. Harry has known all his adult life that Charles intended to slim down the monarchy and the Sussexes were likely told before she even got pregnant what the score would be.

When the Queen didn't issue LPs making Archie an HRH, the message was clear that the Queen concurred. The Sussexes are just pretending to hurt surprise.

Not to mention that by the time Archie was born, the whole senior core of royals and their staff knew that the Sussexes had one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel. Why give the kid an HRH?

by Anonymousreply 200August 31, 2021 4:05 PM

Again with Prince Harry's sprogs not getting HRH.....

Prince Harry and MM *assumed* their firstborn was going to receive same treatment as Prince William's children. They were gobsmacked with news that wasn't going to be the case, and both (mostly MM) have been ticked off ever since.

Prince William is second in line to inherit, his son and heir is third, those were important reasons enough for HM to give Duke of Cambridge children the HRH.

Prince Harry is sixth in line, and neither the Duke of Sussex nor his heirs will ever inherit the throne. More to the point Prince Harry's children will become royals moment their grandfather (Prince Charles) becomes king. HM, the Prince of Wales and everyone else get this, but for some reason Prince Harry and his fancy woman don't.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 201August 31, 2021 5:17 PM

Meghan thought marrying Harry she was finally on the A list and going to get the respect she never did on the D list.

by Anonymousreply 202August 31, 2021 5:20 PM

R197 - You are correct.

However, as it stands today with regards to the current 1917 Letters Patent, Archie will be an HRH on the day QEII dies and Charles becomes King.

by Anonymousreply 203August 31, 2021 5:22 PM

Who cares, r203? It doesn't mean anything that he'll be an HRH and Archie will have even fewer opportunities to be addressed as HRH than his parents have had.

by Anonymousreply 204August 31, 2021 5:27 PM

[quote] Wallis is more relevant than the queen mother,

By what possible standard? You'll have to defend that.

The Queen Mother was first the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom, and then after her husband's death a councillor of state throughout her life. She also often acted in the Queen's place when the Queen was away. She was given a full ceremonial funeral. She died as she lived, hugely beloved by the British people. There are statues to memorialize her throughout the UK in civic public spaces.

The Duchess of Windsor was none of those things. She had no official role. The British people mostly despised her or thought her irrelevant after she married the former king. She had a small private funeral and was not actually mourned by pretty much anyone when she died. She spent almost the entirety of her adult life as what William Styron would call "café society trash."

by Anonymousreply 205August 31, 2021 5:30 PM

The Royal Lodge looks hideous (from the outside).

On topic: Any bets on when they announce they are leaving Montecito Mansion? I am not even sure they really do live there. If they do, they cannot have enough funds to sustain that property given they cannot seem to honor their reported obligations. I am also curious as to what face-saving excuse they use for leaving.

by Anonymousreply 206August 31, 2021 5:35 PM

[quote]When the Queen didn't issue LPs making Archie an HRH, the message was clear that the Queen concurred.

Not necessarily. Since the early twentieth century, the law has been that only the children of the male heirs of the monarch (and the great-grandchild who is in the absolute direct line of succession--in this case, Prince George) have the HRH title. They changed the law when Charlotte was born so that all of William's children were born royal since one day they will almost certainly be the children of a king. The law was not changed to include all the grandchildren of the heir apparent because they almost certainly will never be the children of a king.

by Anonymousreply 207August 31, 2021 5:38 PM

R206 - if they leave their Montecito mansion, they will say it's because of "security concerns". These two are paranoid about their safety.

by Anonymousreply 208August 31, 2021 5:38 PM

Montecito is an odd base for them. The kind of people they want to socialize with don’t live there year- round.

by Anonymousreply 209August 31, 2021 5:40 PM

I'd bet the Queen rectifies the matter in a new LP in the next few years, so Charles doesn't officially have to wear it. Or "decided in consultation with the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge." It might even be a platinum jubilee gift for the Harkles. It makes sense for the evolved Royal Family to shoot straight down the line of immediate heirs of the sovereign and then dilute from there. So Charlotte and Louis would be HRH and princely but their children would be junior titles if any at all. Charlotte presumably marries someone untitled, unless successful in her plot of head the line of succession, at any cost.

by Anonymousreply 210August 31, 2021 5:46 PM

R204 - No one really cares. However, this is the DataLounge and getting things explained correctly seems to be the rule around these parts.

by Anonymousreply 211August 31, 2021 6:04 PM

I am curious to see what the Sussexes try next in their ongoing vain attempts at relevance. They've pretty much shot their wad at this point, and if Harry's memoir tries to deliver any more bombshells, they'll hurt the BRF but only make their own relationship to the Queen and Charles even more tenuous, which will make them even more irrelevant.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the more they age, the less interesting to the public they become. Since Harry will never inherit the throne, they have only a very limited shelf-life anyway in terms of claiming public interest. There are few things less interesting to the public than a middle-aged royal who is no longer likely to inherit the throne. Look how famous and popular Andrew and Fergie were in the mid-80s when they were young and attractive, and now no one cares about them--their slide into obscurity started well before the Jeffrey Epstein scandal happened.

by Anonymousreply 212August 31, 2021 6:05 PM

"given they cannot seem to honor their reported obligations"

R206 - what obligations are you referring too?

by Anonymousreply 213August 31, 2021 6:06 PM

[Quote] There won't be a Harry and Meghan ten years from now. The divorce.

A lot of people have been saying this for years now and it has not been the case. I wonder what the excuses/explanations are going to be in ten years if they are still together.

by Anonymousreply 214August 31, 2021 6:15 PM

Scooby is back with another nonsensical statement that Harry & Meghan have made "very little progress" in reconciling with the Royal Family. WTF?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215August 31, 2021 6:16 PM

Darling R214, you have the most generous definition of "years." They only got married in 2018. Enduring isn't the first word that defines a stretch of three years and a few months, no matter how emotionally long and torturous they may have been.

by Anonymousreply 216August 31, 2021 6:29 PM

'It's not that they want to disappear or not be seen."

At long last, something from Scabies that no one will dispute.

by Anonymousreply 217August 31, 2021 6:31 PM

Heaven forbid the world go a day without Dim and D-list telling us how we should be living our lives. Will they be purchasing private jets for all of us?

by Anonymousreply 218August 31, 2021 6:37 PM

Not unless we can get the money from Dad.

by Anonymousreply 219August 31, 2021 6:39 PM

That poster is American r205, they're fucking clueless.

by Anonymousreply 220August 31, 2021 6:39 PM

Q: How do you make the Duchess of Sussex change her mind?

A: Thomas Markle wins $345 million Powerball jackpot!

by Anonymousreply 221August 31, 2021 6:40 PM

[quote] Scooby is back with another nonsensical statement that Harry & Meghan have made "very little progress" in reconciling with the Royal Family.

In the article, Scobie explains that for progress to be made, the BRF have to admit Harry and Meghan were treated badly and their complaints are legitimate, which is pretty funny, since the palace has already said, "Recollections may vary."

What cards do Harry and Meghan think they hold that makes them think they can get the palace to admit they were right? If they attack the palace further, they risk losing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles altogether and never being allowed back for any family functions.

p.s.--What I will be most happy about regarding their further slide into disgrace is when Scobie disappears altogether. How I hate looking at his creepy waxen androgynous plastic surgery.

by Anonymousreply 222August 31, 2021 6:46 PM

I don't believe she's got the balls to go to another family function. She'll probably play the victim as excuse - Oh, the Royal Family would be too mean to her! The public would be too mean to her! The media will be too mean to her!

She was half a world away when they made their original run for it. She seems brazen, but not brave.

by Anonymousreply 223August 31, 2021 6:54 PM

Prince Harry and his duchess *are* bit players already far as BRF is concerned. That status was further driven home when they removed themselves from UK and set up shop in United States.

Absent constant media (including internet and apps) attention either launched by Prince Harry and his fancy woman, there wouldn't be much said about them at all. Well that and celebrity obsessed American media like People magazine

by Anonymousreply 224August 31, 2021 6:55 PM

r222 Scobie is their unofficial spokesman. He keeps repeating that the BRF "has not addressed the Sussexes concerns" over and over. In previous interviews he has punctuated that with "if the BRF does not address them soon, there will be more leaks" from the Sussexes.

It's part of the Harkle extortion plot.

Even mild-mannered and extremely measured Royal reporter Richard Eden is now simply calling it "blackmail":

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 225August 31, 2021 6:57 PM

[quote]I don't believe she's got the balls to go to another family function

Which is odd, given she's always got a pair in her purse.

by Anonymousreply 226August 31, 2021 6:58 PM

[quote] A lot of people have been saying this for years now and it has not been the case.

"for years now" is an exaggeration.

This has only been a prevalent sentiment people have said since they left the BRF in January of 2020.

by Anonymousreply 227August 31, 2021 7:24 PM

I wonder if the Santa Barbara police are still being called out to their home all the time like they were. That situation was never really explained.

by Anonymousreply 228August 31, 2021 7:37 PM

[R38] don't be daft

by Anonymousreply 229August 31, 2021 7:47 PM

I meant poster 184

by Anonymousreply 230August 31, 2021 8:08 PM

If they'd be invited she'd have asked the Daily Mail to deliver her by helicopter.

by Anonymousreply 231August 31, 2021 8:18 PM

Also, the net would have been flooded with photos of her in various ill fitting outfits. Lots of comments. They didn't dare for a moment to say, the were invited & refused, or asked not to be invited. Mich. would have snipped her tounge at the root.

by Anonymousreply 232August 31, 2021 9:19 PM

Harry and Meagan have fulfilled their role, which was to distract the public from prince Andrew's connection to Epstein.

by Anonymousreply 233August 31, 2021 9:22 PM

I wonder if they would ever consider going out and finding nine-to-five jobs? If they are stepping down from being royals, then they should actually work for a living.

by Anonymousreply 234August 31, 2021 9:28 PM

R233 lol

by Anonymousreply 235August 31, 2021 9:43 PM

Yep. Those kids aren't getting any elevated titles or HRH. Especially not after all that has happened. It is NOT automatic and Charles is not making an exception for them.

by Anonymousreply 236August 31, 2021 9:54 PM

They live in the US. We don't have titles here.

by Anonymousreply 237August 31, 2021 10:13 PM

They are citizens of the World. Sent to help all you poor, shuffling mooks. Bow Down! Bow Down!. Do't you remember she clearly publicaly stated, They are royal. Listen up plebs.

by Anonymousreply 238August 31, 2021 10:28 PM

They were never going to be anything else.

by Anonymousreply 239August 31, 2021 10:41 PM


Sorry to disappoint you dearie, but yes it is automatic; as sons of male line heirs of monarch legal issue of Prince William and Prince Harry get the HRH moment HM dies and PC becomes king. Duke of Cambridge's brood are already sorted, that just leaves Harry's sprogs....

Now a "king" Charles could issue letters patent taking away what are as of now birthright of Prince Harry's children. That however might be seen as petty, but who knows.

In any event even if Archie does finally come into "HRH", it dies with him as cannot be passed onto his male heirs. Assuming dukedom of Sussex and subsidiary titles were created in normal way, Prince Harry's male heirs will cop that lot, but that's all.

Clearing up something that appears in many discussions on this subject, nothing in USC nor laws prevents Archie or his sister from holding royal styles or titles. USC only speaks to state governments conferring such honors upon anyone. That however is not a blanket ban. Anyone with a royal title or whatever cannot hold public office, but don't think we need worry about Archie Sussex running for POTUS or even senator.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 240August 31, 2021 10:48 PM

Perhaps the rules will be changed such that members of the royal family who reside outside the UK may not serve as Regent or Counselor of State, hold military titles, or use any titles of styles in their adopted country. That would take the burden off of the Queen or Prince Charles in denying the HRH to Archie and Lilibet which they are currently entitled to when Charles becomes king. Currently, there is an ambiguity about Harry's status as a possible regent or Counselor of State given that he does not reside in the UK. This change would clarify matters.

by Anonymousreply 241August 31, 2021 10:55 PM

R236 R237 it is automatical. The moment the Queen dies, as grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line, Archie and Lily are entitled to the style and title of HRH and Prince and Princess. The only way to prevent that is for either the Queen before she dies, or Charles the moment he acceded, to issue LPs amending the Titles Act of 1917, limiting HRHs only to children of direct heirs, beginning with the current generation.

The Queen clearly isn't willing to do it. Charles may chicken out when the time comes. If those LPs never materialise, expect PRINCE ARCHIE AND PRINCESS LILIBET in 18pt. type on the front page of the DM.

by Anonymousreply 242August 31, 2021 11:01 PM

R241 The rules are already there. You cannot serve as a Counsellor of State if you live outside Britain for more than half the year. Harry is already disqualified. Military honours are a moot point. No one will give them to someone not serving the monarchy. As to serving as Regent, they are probably working on an amendment now to ensure that Harry never comes near that.

by Anonymousreply 243August 31, 2021 11:06 PM

If that happens, it happens.

But the point of Charles' whole life is to slim down the monarchy. He has wanted to do that since long before even William and Harry were born--he wants to be remembered as the king who did that if nothing else, since he won't have long on the throne to do much else momentous, given his age and how long his mother keeps living.

by Anonymousreply 244August 31, 2021 11:07 PM

The blackmail clearly isn't working.

by Anonymousreply 245August 31, 2021 11:08 PM

I was responding to r242 -- sorry I was not more clear.

by Anonymousreply 246August 31, 2021 11:09 PM

I would bet good money they never get prince/princess titles. William holds a lot of sway in things that will affect his future don't forget.

by Anonymousreply 247August 31, 2021 11:17 PM

Whatever we disagree on, surely we can all agree if there's one feeling that floods the royal family it's an intense dislike of Meghan Markel. Anybody who thinks her kids are going to get anywhere near Prince or Princess has zircons in their tiara.

by Anonymousreply 248August 31, 2021 11:31 PM

Temporarily rewinding back to [R50] jewelry post .... that platinum/white gold panther with yellow diamond eyes, encrusted in white diamonds and sapphire cabochons, gripped a 152 karat star sapphire moon. Sold in the 1980s auction back to its maker Cartier for £633,000+, the overall auction made over £50Mil+ (Liz Taylor got the Prince of Wales feathers brooch, besting the Prince of Wales, who wanted it for Diana).

Based on the jewelry and 100 other reasons, Prince Dim and his little friend cannot remotely be compared to the Windsors.

by Anonymousreply 249August 31, 2021 11:32 PM

The Queen or the next monarch can change the Letters Patent at will. I think, by naming their children Archie and Lilibet, Harry and Meghan have almost ensured that the children will not be Prince or Princess or use the style of HRH.

by Anonymousreply 250August 31, 2021 11:37 PM

R19 he doesn't look happy much!

by Anonymousreply 251August 31, 2021 11:38 PM

He is blissfully happy. What is wrong with you? Why can't you see that? Just because he look disheveled, burgeoning big gut, dirty, angry, confused, & behaves bizarrely. Check out Oprah interview, Dax podcast, Philip's funeral, Diana's statue unveiling. Yeah, if this happy, I'm missingit.

by Anonymousreply 252September 1, 2021 12:10 AM


Just what does Prince William gain by keeping his brother down?

Duke of Cambridge will in time cop the entire lot; princedom of Wales (and all that goes with it), and then onto monarch. HRH has produced three heirs from his duchess, thus direct succession is more than assured.

In due time world will be just as fascinated with Prince George and his sibling as they were with Prince Charles and rest of HM's children.

Unless MM pulls a fast one and sends her children to school in UK or something, Archie and his sister will inhabit an entirely different world than the Cambridge brood.

by Anonymousreply 253September 1, 2021 12:29 AM

There's not bad odds the Sussex kids will be embarrassments as it is. The moe separate they are from the monarchy, the better.

by Anonymousreply 254September 1, 2021 12:40 AM

R252 - Nailed it. That's what is so interesting about this saga: they LOOK unhappy; they LOOK mental; they LOOK untrustworthy: they LOOK intensely unlikable.

It's like "The Purloined Letter": who and what they are is right there in plain sight.

And, yet, so many either don't see it, or pretend they don't.

by Anonymousreply 255September 1, 2021 12:45 PM

[quote]In due time world will be just as fascinated with Prince George and his sibling as they were with Prince Charles and rest of HM's children.

What do you mean, R453, "in due time"? What a cheek!

by Anonymousreply 256September 1, 2021 2:25 PM

R234. Are you forgetting that Harry is a wealthy man, with his inheritances from Diana AND Prince Phillip AND the Queen Mum?

Rich people don't work 9-5. They live off investments and capitol gains.

Sadly, you are not rich and hence need to toil away.

by Anonymousreply 257September 1, 2021 3:37 PM

His inheritance from his mother was half of around 17 M pounds, so 8.5 M. Factor in a US exchange rate of about .50 on the pound and let's say he got 13 M. Now there would be an increase on the value during the period it was held in trust, as it rolled out in phases. He got the last of it at thirty. So let's assume in that time the value increased (a very generous) 25%. So that's roughly 3.25 M, assuming he spent nothing. So he's got about 16.25 M USD.

Montecito cost... 14M? I know Charles was forking over too but the point is, on maybe, let's guess 6 - 10 M a year capital after the house, assuming a generous return of 10% before tax, he's bring in 600 to 1 M a year - before tax.

by Anonymousreply 258September 1, 2021 3:45 PM

R258 it already emerged they have a $10 million mortgage on that house. And Harry has probably already spent a large chunk of his inheritance on hookers in Las Vegas.

by Anonymousreply 259September 1, 2021 4:10 PM

r257, There is zero evidence of any inheritance from the Queen Mother. She lived way beyond her means and was several times bailed out of debt by the Queen. If she did have millions salted away to put in trusts, why on earth would she skip her own grandchildren the Chattos in favour of Harry? That story never made sense. She would not know how many great grands she might ultimately have, but yes sure H would be the most important..

by Anonymousreply 260September 1, 2021 4:29 PM

I meant the Snowden kids at r260

by Anonymousreply 261September 1, 2021 4:31 PM

For the last time... from the monarchy hating Guardian.. she put the bulk of her cash fortune in trust for her great grandchildren.

I don't know why people persist in insisting she didn't. She did.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 262September 1, 2021 4:33 PM

There isn't a single source in that Guardian article r262, never mind a reputable one. It reads as Harry PR and solely that. Who the heck gambles at aged 94 that they will live fore another 7 years? `Total crap.

by Anonymousreply 263September 1, 2021 4:45 PM

Also r262, Guardian have the agenda of filthy royals avoiding tax ( as do all the rich and probably the paper's owner).

by Anonymousreply 264September 1, 2021 4:54 PM

The BBC reported it too. You're a fantasist.

by Anonymousreply 265September 1, 2021 5:01 PM

Of course the monarchy-hating Guardian would inflate the royal family's personal wealth, r262. That article doesn't prove anything. If Harry received anything from the Queen Mum, he would most likely have frittered it away in his teens and 20s.

"The Queen Mother's longevity has cost the taxpayer millions in lost inheritance tax revenue, it was becoming clear yesterday." - Well, she should have died years earlier then!

by Anonymousreply 266September 1, 2021 5:17 PM

Let’s not squabble.

Even IF Harry has millions of dollars, they’ve been SPENDING. It costs a lot of money to maintain that house. Mortgage aside, there are taxes (CA taxes, helloooo!), insurance, utilities, staff salaries, landscaping/pool, their 24/7 security, furnishings. And everyone here who owns a house knows that there are a million little things that need to be replaced: HVAC, windows, pipes, leaks in the roof, etc.

That’s not counting all the other expenses they have: kids, transportation, PR, clothing/grooming, food and beverage, entertainment, administrative staff.

by Anonymousreply 267September 1, 2021 5:18 PM

Fuck, seriously, people like you are insane. Why do you reject clear reported fact, from an accepted and credible newspaper, with this insistence that things that plainly happened did not happen and then baseless speculation about where the money would have gone? Heard of a trust, moron? Harry and William's money was in phased trusts for years. But you seem to insist on otherwise on this obscure point. You don't have to answer. I'm not a psychiatrist and you've got your own reality, rejecting established and credible fact... I've got you on block. You are fucking weird, though.

by Anonymousreply 268September 1, 2021 5:19 PM

Will of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Published 17 May 2002


Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother has bequeathed her entire estate (which mainly comprises the contents of her houses) to The Queen.

In her will, she asked The Queen to make certain bequests to members of her staff, and these bequests will be subject to Inheritance Tax in the normal way.

The Queen has decided that the most important of Queen Elizabeth's pictures and works of art should be transferred to the Royal Collection.

Some of these items, including works by Monet, Nash and Carl Fabergé, from Queen Elizabeth's collection will be on display in the 'Royal Treasures' exhibition, which is due to open at the new Queen's Gallery, Buckingham Palace, on 22 May.

It is expected that The Prince of Wales will move from St James's Palace to Clarence House, which will become The Prince of Wales's office and official London residence.

Since fire safety and refurbishment work will be required at Clarence House before this move takes place, it is expected that the majority of the costs of this work will be met from the Property Services Grant-in-aid.

It is intended that the ground floor of Clarence House will be opened to the public during August and September in future years, once the fire safety and refurbishment work has been completed.

Subject to discussions with the Crown Estate, The Duke of York is planning to dispose of his lease of Sunninghill Park and move to Royal Lodge. Extensive refurbishment will be required, and this will be paid for by The Duke of York, either directly or as part of the rent, if he moves to the house.

Birkhall is a residence on The Queen's private Balmoral Estate, which The Queen had made available to Queen Elizabeth as well as The Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales will continue to make use of the house.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 269September 1, 2021 5:20 PM

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother has bequeathed her entire estate [bold](which mainly comprises the contents of her houses) [/bold] to The Queen.

The money was gone. Because it went into trust in 1994. It is entirely consistent with the BBC and Guardian reporting. In the UK, with its 40% inheritance tax, anything gifted seven years prior to the death of the grantor is exempted from tax. Poshies do it all the time.

by Anonymousreply 270September 1, 2021 5:25 PM

There is no clear, reported fact in that article, r268, and the Guardian is not at all credible on certain issues, the royal family being one of them.

That article is full of "probably", "may", "likely", "worth anything up to", "apparently", "it is said", "some estimates", "some of", "undoubtedly", "reported".

by Anonymousreply 271September 1, 2021 5:25 PM

I won't debate this. The earth is not flat. You're oddly nuts on this point.

by Anonymousreply 272September 1, 2021 5:26 PM

The Sussex lawyers claimed a few months ago that any reports saying Harry had millions from the Queen Mum were false. Because the papers saying that he had several million from his great grandmother as well as his mother but claiming he was cut off from the Bank of Dad as a 36 year old was making him look terrible.

How true that is is obviously seriously up for debate.

Even if he had the reported £30ish million it's not a lot for the people who they're desperate to keep up with. A-listers can make more than that per movie (yes tax, agents etc) and it would be small potatoes to the billionaires they have bragged about spending time with or that their supporters keep telling the media they're becoming any day now.

by Anonymousreply 273September 1, 2021 5:29 PM

Whatever he was left by whomever, they're also burning cash. I look forward to the Johnny Depp-esque rants where he blames his financial advisors for not stopping him.

by Anonymousreply 274September 1, 2021 5:31 PM

I admit it amuses me they're feeling frustrated on 30 million.

by Anonymousreply 275September 1, 2021 5:33 PM

R275 me too

by Anonymousreply 276September 1, 2021 5:40 PM

A representative of Harry himself finally came out and denied publicly that any such trust funds had been left to him, nor is their THE slightest financial trail or record of same, as there is for the other trust funds because income and revenue from trust funds are subject to taxation and have to be reported. The Queen Mother was broke had no liquid assets, her daughter had to pay off her debts repeatedly and take care of the remaining debt when the Queen Mother died. The story was widely circulated but was never EVER supported by a shred of evidence. The Guardian and a zillion other papers print shit backed up by nothing more than the ubiquitous "It is reported that" or "Sources have said" Or "It is claimed" without ever following it up and then saying, "Ooops - sorry, looks like this wasn't real!"

Harry was left a 7 million pound trust fund by his mother a quarter of a century ago. It was carefully invested and at the time he was able to access it, which was when he turned 30, it was about 30 million, or $40 million USD. That is apart from the seven-figure stipend he'd been getting from the Bank of Papa when he became a "working royal", which was increased when he married, just as it was for William when he married.

The Sussexes are carrying close to a $10 million mortgage unless someone has made them a gift of paying it off for them, which is unlikely, as they're still trying to blackmail Charles into paying up more, plus California property taxes, maintenance, house and grounds staff, and, of course, their "personal" staff and the staff for the foundation. They undoubtedly received modest seven-figure advances for their Netflix and Spotify contracts, and for their "books". Beyond that, we have no idea if they are pulling in salaries for running their "foundation", too; even the least rigorous forms of incorporation require a Form 990 filing every year with the gifts given, to whom, how much, who the five highest paid members of the organisation are, and the names of Boards of Directors.

Those Form 990s are a matter of public record. Archewell has yet to file one.

Harry is a rich boy. He isn't the richest boy on the planet, and in fact neither is his brother. They aren't even particularly wealthy in England (although William one day will be), where the 30 year old Duke of Westminster could buy and sell Charles, and probably nearly the Queen herself.

But Harry has lived very richly for his entire life without real cash, without having really earned a penny of it. Now, he's trying to earn cash to support his lifestyle, something he has, at 37, never had to do before.

That he can look the world in the face and complain is testament to how warped his character is.

by Anonymousreply 277September 1, 2021 5:44 PM

^* nor is THERE (not their)

Other poster beat me to it: Harry's own lawyers denied the story. Helping the Sussexes lie about whether a story about whether or not he talked to the Queen about what he named his daughter is one thing.

Lying about financial matters publicly is 1) quite another, and 2) there is always a financial trail left to follow, and there is NONE here.

by Anonymousreply 278September 1, 2021 5:46 PM

Or perhaps there just wasn't that much money to start with, r270, and of course the contents of several royal residences filled with Monets and Faberge eggs and the suchlike are going to be worth more than a bank account. Perhaps the Queen Mother did create a trust fund for her great-grandchildren, although the only source appears to be the Guardian article, which does not itself provide a source. And so what if she did? That's an entirely reasonable thing for a great grand-parent to do.

But even though the amount of money is vague, it's actually not that large an amount when shared out amongst all those grandchildren and great-grandchildren. 20 years ago Harry may have got something over 3 million pounds and he's expected to get another at least 4 million pounds when he turns 40. A lot of money for us mere mortals, but not really that much for his lifestyle, even if he did also get some money from his mother as well.

According to the Guardian article, the money from the purported trust fund was to go to her great-grandchildren from daughter Elizabeth and her grandchildren from her daughter Margaret. Why not her great-grandchildren from her daughter Margaret as well?

by Anonymousreply 279September 1, 2021 5:49 PM

Well, maybe because in 1994 neither of the Snowdon kids had any. Again, they were playing beat the clock to beat the inheritance tax.

And as to the ludicrous assertion she had no money to begin with... she was married to the King of England. You really think he left her short? Don't answer. You probably do.

by Anonymousreply 280September 1, 2021 5:53 PM

[quote] Contrary to published reports, a representative confirms he was not a beneficiary of any of the nearly $100 million (£70 million) fortune left by his great-grandmother, the Queen Mother.

This comes from a Forbes article earlier this year.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 281September 1, 2021 5:56 PM

Yes, Forbes who called Kylie Jenner a self-made "billionaire" and then retracted their error. About as trustworthy as The Guardian it seems.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282September 1, 2021 6:00 PM

R280, being married to the king of England does not entail a huge personal fortune. If that were the case then Prince Philip should have left 100s of millions, given he was married to the monarch for 73 years while the Queen Mother was only married to the monarch for 16 years, and at a time when there were far fewer opportunities for multiple income streams.

R281, in the Guardian article linked at r262, which is apparently the gospel truth, the Queen Mother's alleged trust fund on her death in 2002 was worth "an estimated £19m".

by Anonymousreply 283September 1, 2021 6:36 PM

r283, yes, and not forgetting George VI had to empty the coffers to buy back Balmoral and Sandringham from EdwardVIII. He didn't have decades of savings from the Duchy of Cornwall as E8 had scarpered with those too.

by Anonymousreply 284September 1, 2021 6:43 PM

Well, they’d better abandon their “paternal leave” then, huh?

by Anonymousreply 285September 1, 2021 7:20 PM

The 70 million was property, left to the Queen. I really don't know what is so hard to grasp about the evident truth.

by Anonymousreply 286September 1, 2021 7:34 PM

For Americans who are unfamiliar with the British press, The Guardian (or The Grauniad as it is known to Private Eye) is a lefty, anti-monarchist paper which has recently turned into a vanity publisher for any leftwing Bernie supporting American shills willing to pay them to print it up. As such, they have lost credibility dramatically. The once-great socialist Guardian has fallen mightily.

Also for Americans unfamiliar with the Murdoch press in the UK: Murdoch despises the royals, he holds a grudge against them about his father. The Times (the only broadsheet he owns now) is subtlely anti-monarchy. His only tab - The Sun - since his News of the World (aka News of the Screws) got destroyed with their phone hacking scandal) is also anti-monarchy - not overtly like the Guardian, but insidiously. Anything they can find to cast aspersions on the royals is good for their bottom line.

by Anonymousreply 287September 1, 2021 7:40 PM

I've never seen this pic before - did he consider himself a gangsta at one point?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288September 1, 2021 8:08 PM

R288 Harry is an asshole.

by Anonymousreply 289September 1, 2021 8:10 PM

[quotewhile the Queen ]Mother was only married to the monarch for 16 years

She was Queen Consort for the 16 years he was King but they were married from 1923 until his death in 1952.

by Anonymousreply 290September 1, 2021 8:20 PM

The Queen Mother did get a hefty annual allowance from the Civil List as the queen dowager for many, many years.

by Anonymousreply 291September 1, 2021 8:32 PM

“Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.'

by Anonymousreply 292September 1, 2021 10:08 PM

Re: r288’s photo of Gangsta Harry. So he always wore hippie bracelets? That is the funniest thing.

by Anonymousreply 293September 2, 2021 1:41 AM


by Anonymousreply 294September 2, 2021 1:43 AM

Ahh Harry. Rebel without a clue.

by Anonymousreply 295September 2, 2021 1:47 AM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 296September 2, 2021 2:01 AM

HAHAHA. Sure Jan @ r296.

by Anonymousreply 297September 2, 2021 2:03 AM

All these raving lunatic, obese, homophobic frauen fans of Markle come from Celebitchy?

by Anonymousreply 298September 2, 2021 2:37 AM

There was no inheritance from the Queen mother. This is the same poster on every thread writing novels about how Meghan can still be a "success".

by Anonymousreply 299September 2, 2021 5:53 AM

Why would the employees rescind their complaints in 2018? That’s kind of weird. The Sussexes were still around, so maybe the employees were afraid of retribution.

by Anonymousreply 300September 2, 2021 6:01 AM

That actually makes more sense to me than anyone rescinding anything now, R300. In 2018 they were likely still under the impression that the institution, which had already been covering for Meghan, would throw them under the bus or push them out without a good reference.

by Anonymousreply 301September 2, 2021 6:12 AM

Yes, r301. If someone is a bully at work, and their victim complains to HR, there’s a very real and significant possibility that working conditions will deteriorate, once the bully finds out they’ve complained. “You went over my head? Why did you have to get me in trouble? Why wouldn’t you just say it to me yourself? That was very sneaky, going behind my back. No one likes a snitch.”

by Anonymousreply 302September 2, 2021 6:23 AM

R296 This is just a rerun of the tactic Scobie tried in March. Yes, staffers were upset their names had been officially used by Knauf in his 2018 email because they were still working there and they were worried about their jobs. This was later proven wise when Melissa Toubati "left" and Meghan's mouthpieces told everyone that she was a terrible employee in public.

Valentine Low who broke the bullying story wrote a rebuttal with his sources saying that in 2021 now the Sussexes are no longer working for the BRF, it's time for everyone to have their say about Meghan's behaviour.

The Bullying Investigation interviewed a lot more than two staffers.

by Anonymousreply 303September 2, 2021 6:41 AM

Ugh. We've been arguing about the Queen Mother's nonexistent bequest to Harry for years now. There was none. Can we please move on.

by Anonymousreply 304September 2, 2021 8:41 AM

No, No. They inherited 100kajillin $$ from the queen mum. The people of Sussex gave them 50 jillion, Dumbarton another 100billion. Hazmat are the richest people in the world. And, besides, They are totally royal, Both of them, by birth. Cambridge University is completing the highly scientific research to conclusively prove that Meghan is in fact that rightful Kween of England. Beyonce's portrait of Meghan with her crown on, is part of this proof as well.

What is wrong with you people who can't see all this..OH wait. Racissst, White Privilege.

by Anonymousreply 305September 2, 2021 2:16 PM

R304 - Chance would be a fine thing.

by Anonymousreply 306September 2, 2021 2:26 PM

R304 when it comes to these two, the same few things get debated endlessly. Waiting for the Titles Troll to start that discussion AGAIN.

As I said at R274, whatever he was left, whoever left it to him, he's burning cash like his wife burns bridges.

by Anonymousreply 307September 2, 2021 5:50 PM

They sure didn't think out their plan to conquer the world. They'll be divorced within a year. They fucked this up.... royally.

by Anonymousreply 308September 2, 2021 6:28 PM

R308, I can’t make up my mind about when the divorce will happen. If roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, that’s already a strike against them. Finances are another cause of divorce; I don’t think they are swimming in cash and sticking to a budget. Past failed marriages are another predictor. Adding children to the mix? Yup. Discord from extended family and in-laws? Yup.

But totally agree they keep fucking everything up

They failed to look before they leaped.

by Anonymousreply 309September 2, 2021 7:20 PM

They also have the strike against them of both being children of divorce.

by Anonymousreply 310September 2, 2021 7:44 PM

R309 most marriages break up at 3 years when the novelty has worn off. So any day now.

by Anonymousreply 311September 2, 2021 7:55 PM


You need to go fuck yourself.

there are several regular posters on British royalty and nobility on this forum who know what they're talking about. Yet you by some method unknown to rest of us are certain it is one person alone.

by Anonymousreply 312September 3, 2021 12:02 AM

Post OFCOM conceding that PIers Morgan was within his rights to say he does not believe Meghan and Harry's obvious bullshit, the media went in on Harry's hypocrisy today after his speech at the GQ awards:

"Harry and Meghan hate the 'news' media because, unlike their simpering social media fan club, its nasty journalists will insist on questioning what they say and do and pointing out the inconsistencies.

Why, as recently as last month, the British Press had the temerity to accuse Harry of hypocrisy for giving censorious lectures about carbon emissions before flying back from a charity polo match on a private jet.

When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit Britain, they insisted that they wanted to regain their privacy in a location free from media intrusion.

So they moved to 'celeb central' California, staged a global tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, and then broadcast endless revelations about their most personal feelings and family relationships.

It is now obvious that what they really want is not privacy, but PR – the 'freedom' to tell 'their truth' without the fear of being questioned or contradicted by journalists. And woe betide those who fail to play their PR game."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 313September 3, 2021 2:37 AM


by Anonymousreply 314September 3, 2021 6:22 AM

Now the blackmail has gone to "Harry's book will go after Camilla" and "he may reveal the 'racist' in the family."

That came from former butler to Diana, Paul Burrell, no stranger to sleaze and dodgy doings himself. I wonder if he's become friendly with Scoobydoo?

If Harry goes after Camilla just as Charles is determined to make her his Queen Consort, Charles will re-write those Letters Patent faster than Harry's wife can merch a tacky necklace.

In other royals news today, Fergie opened "an aesthetics clinic" in Poland. There's a lovely photo of her cutting the ribbon.

by Anonymousreply 315September 3, 2021 6:27 AM

Next up in Warsaw...Fergie dancing to ,"Roll out the barrel, we'll have a barrel of fun" & She's too fat, she's too fat for me..Heh!..anything for a buck

by Anonymousreply 316September 3, 2021 12:45 PM

Does Andrew make her pay room and board because shilling for a Polish botox clinic is a characteristically sorry state of affairs.

At this point you have to figure adult diapers are not so many years away.

"We don't all face humiliating headlines but we all run the risk of the bottom falling out of our... day."

by Anonymousreply 317September 3, 2021 1:08 PM

Me thinks eugenie is playing both sides. Stupid girl !

by Anonymousreply 318September 3, 2021 1:08 PM

R318, I think the York girls are playing both sides, too. Dumb.

by Anonymousreply 319September 3, 2021 1:18 PM

I saw the new Cinderella tonight (the woke one that's a Hamilton rip-off, with Billy Porter as the godmother). It was pretty terrible, and clearly inspired by a starry-eyed view of the Harkles.

But I did enjoy one thing: read onto the next generation it had the accepted DL trajectory of Princess Charlotte down pat.

by Anonymousreply 320September 3, 2021 2:15 PM

YouGov's new polling will have the crockery smashing tonight in Monteshitto:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 321September 4, 2021 12:03 AM

I think they are now pretty much seen as blah in the US. Notice few Hollywood folk are being political, hectoring the little folk these days. Most realize people are onto their faux activist shit. Not sure if any except Fonda &Jolie has said anything about Afghanistan. Think some of the California retards actually are now listening to their PR folk, unlike Dunk & Duchess Dunce.

by Anonymousreply 322September 4, 2021 2:13 AM

I just thought of the perfect 2.0 arrangement: Meghan, Princess of Monaco. It's perfect. He's loaded and no one really cares how the Grimaldis behave. Plus she can ditch the Diana costumes and play Princess Grace.

by Anonymousreply 323September 4, 2021 12:29 PM

Will it be Merchiebet or Merchie who drives her off a cliff?

by Anonymousreply 324September 4, 2021 12:47 PM

[quote] I saw the new Cinderella tonight (the woke one that's a Hamilton rip-off, with Billy Porter as the godmother). It was pretty terrible, and clearly inspired by a starry-eyed view of the Harkles.

I watched it yesterday and quite frankly I liked it, although mostly due to the songs. I generally dislike musicals but hearing pop songs in this context feels so fresh. And I must say Megan and Harry didn't come to mind even once. Now that you mention it there might be some correlation, though, but I very much doubt the makers would want people to think there is. The prince might be slightly like Harry but besides being career girls Ella and Meghan have little in common. In fact Meghan is practically opposite of Ella in many ways.

by Anonymousreply 325September 4, 2021 1:29 PM

This fella shoots down the hero Harry bull. He is coming from a place to say so as well.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 326September 4, 2021 6:12 PM

R326, I can’t believe people actually think he was an actual soldier. As if the Queen’s grandson was going to ever be in a moment’s danger. He wasn’t going to be put to any trouble or test, like real plebes are, in basic training/boot camp, either. Did his commanders call him “pussy” or “little worm” while making him do a hundred pushups?

by Anonymousreply 327September 5, 2021 1:57 AM

His stans keep saying he is a qualified helicopter pilot like his brother. He's allowed to sit in the co-pilot's seat as long as there's a qualified pilot in the first seat.

by Anonymousreply 328September 5, 2021 2:26 AM

Even then he says it scares HIM.

by Anonymousreply 329September 5, 2021 2:39 AM

[quote] Now that you mention it there might be some correlation, though, but I very much doubt the makers would want people to think there is. The prince might be slightly like Harry but besides being career girls Ella and Meghan have little in common.

Ella is a "smart, funny" "you mean mouthy" woman of color from an indeterminate socioeconomic group, but in any case far below Royalty, who is intent on having her personal "creative" and feminist dreams come true. Her family are totally mean to her and ostracize her. After five minutes with her the Prince decides he has to leave his family and all his responsibilities and travel the world with her so she can pursue these dreams. He's too dim to have any of his own. I said it was a starry-eyed view of the Harkles, but -

What part of this can you not recognise?

by Anonymousreply 330September 5, 2021 3:02 AM

R330, Meghan is a sociopathic gold digger, unlike Ella who's pretty much the opposite of that. If you want to act like the story created around Meghan somehow served as the only inspiration for the movie then be my guest. Do people really give that much credit to Meghan in the States? I wouldn't be surprised to hear she partly inspired the storylines but like I said I doubt the makers would really want anyone currently to think that was the case. And no, Meghan most certainly is not in the top 50 of feminist heroines in history.

by Anonymousreply 331September 5, 2021 1:57 PM

No, we do not give Muggins credit for anything in tbe States.

by Anonymousreply 332September 6, 2021 3:08 AM

She's a notoriously bad credit risk.

by Anonymousreply 333September 6, 2021 3:17 AM

Many Americans knew her for the basic trashy LA grifter bitch that she is when it first was going down. I think some in the US were amazed that the Brits weren't on to her from jump street. I was more amazed at what a low grade moron Hapless Harry is. BRF pr really created such a persona for that feckless jerk..Amazing.

I think William & Kate sussed her out pretty quick. I doubt Charles gives a rat's. Like Di. trouble, unfun crazy person. Still wonder if he is Charles. Often wonder if this my influence some of Hapless's anger

by Anonymousreply 334September 6, 2021 3:48 AM

R334 - Oh ffs, this again?!

Of course he's Charles'. Di may have been crazy but she wasn't stupid, he looks more like the worst of Charles and Philip every day, and you have to know both those babies were given DNA tests the minute they saw the light.

Harry's anger is that he wasn't born first, he inherited his mother's serious mental issues, and he's always felt inferior to William, and he's been acting out since he was a kid. The BRF simply hid from the public what loose cannon he was.

His mother was a loose cannon. He's a loose cannon. And ironically, of the two boys, it's William who looks like Diana and Harry who looks more like the Mountbatten side - and yet, just because he has red hair, everyone questions his DNA, and not William's.

by Anonymousreply 335September 6, 2021 12:53 PM

No, she WAS also stupid. Even she thought so. But Harry is still Charles's.

by Anonymousreply 336September 6, 2021 12:55 PM

They’re sitting on their bench, wondering how they’ll pay to keep the lights on.

by Anonymousreply 337September 6, 2021 1:42 PM

They probably have plenty of money, just not the kind of money it takes to hang with the crowd Meghan thinks they belong to.

by Anonymousreply 338September 6, 2021 1:55 PM

William is portrayed as the villain in the US TV film "Escaping The Palace". Hasn't William talked about racism in sport in the past?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 339September 6, 2021 2:03 PM

R339 William has made a documentary on racism and it's impact on mental health and in football among other things. He had a track record speaking against it before Harry even met Meghan. But because he doesn't publicly back up his brother and sister in law's claims - most of which have been proven false or he said, she said, he's painted as a villain by some.

by Anonymousreply 340September 6, 2021 3:22 PM

No, I think she fooled Charles at first. Gazing into his face as he nattered on about some dull subject. He’s always been insecure about women. Camilla would’ve sussed her out immediately. I don’t think she had to dissuade him though, once reports started coming through about troubles, he’d be very quick to protect the crown.

by Anonymousreply 341September 6, 2021 4:55 PM

Problem for Meghan is she wants to live a flashy, nouveau-riche billionaire's lifestyle. With what Harry inherited, they could live the comfortable lives of wealthy people but it isn't enough for her.

by Anonymousreply 342September 6, 2021 5:05 PM

William and Kate could fund a cure for cancer and give it away free on street corners and the stans and shit Lifetime script writers would still paint the Cambridges as villains, because Meghan and Harry NEED villains to give them a story.

Did Harry or Invictus acknowledge the 500,000 donation?

Will anyone point out to the Lifetime people William's stand against racism, especially in sport?

Let's see if the DM, at least, slams the show with the truth afterward.

by Anonymousreply 343September 6, 2021 5:38 PM

They don't seem to have acknowledged the donation R343

I wonder if William's lawyers are going to issue anything over Lifetime saying he was the alleged "royal racist"? Or if they're just going to ignore it as fantasy and hope only a handful of people watch it like last time.

They'll want to be weary of the Streisand Effect.

by Anonymousreply 344September 6, 2021 5:49 PM

So, if they did DNA immediately after Harry was born(if they had any accurate testing then, not sure) & he wasn't Chars. what would have been the outcome? Would Di have gone to tower to be beheaded shortly? Harry flung into the Thames with or without the Moses rush basket? They would have to suck it up, not matter what. Like they would publically acknowledge that the future King had been cuckolded? Charles was already mocked for being a dog face when young, like they would be saying..yup he got cheated on & some schmuck's son is now in the line of succession. Yup BRF would want that shit on the front page.

by Anonymousreply 345September 6, 2021 5:49 PM

[QUOTE] Will it be Merchiebet or Merchie who drives her off a cliff?

Merchibet? She's over 3 months old and not a single photo of her exists in the public realm. How is that merching?

by Anonymousreply 346September 7, 2021 10:34 AM

R345 - I doubt anyone supposed there was a need for a Plan B if the DNA test proved, er, aberrant. It's a good question in the abstract, but as Diana undoubtedly knew that paternity could be proven so simply, she'd hardly have been so careless whilst she and her husband were busy ensuring the succession.

It's also a straw man argument. Hewett's manager's attempt to fuel the theory to make his pathetic client more interesting notwithstanding, Diana didn't meet Hewett till after Harry was born. The marriage, although shredded, was still intact enough for them to do what they had to do to make sure the Heir and Spare were in place. In fact, I'd bet anything that Charles would have tried for a third to get the daughter he wanted so badly when Harry turned up.

As for what they would have done in the highly unlikely event that Harry could be proved to be not Charles'? Well, fair play to Charles that he seemed to have loved the boy, anyway, and tried his best for him. Do you think they really could have kept that from William - who appears to have loved his brother profoundly and did his best in that role?

Perhaps they'd have done just what they did do: make sure William married the right girl and suggested that he put three kids instead of just two between Harry and the throne, and made sure that Harry's kids didn't get HRHs . . .

Oh, wait, they haven't deprived those "non-issue of the Prince" kids of their titles, have they?

The theory holds no water whatsoever, let alone as Harry looks more like the Mountbatten Windsors every day, whilst William got Diana's face and expressions and his daughter, who resembles her father more every day after looking like the Queen in infancy, seems already to have inherited her Gran's spectacular legs, and is likely to look far more like Diana than any of pathetic Harry's kids.

It never fails to amaze me how badly Harry cocked it up. He's many deplorable things - but being James Hewett's son isn't one of them.

by Anonymousreply 347September 7, 2021 12:42 PM

Its mind boggling that he thought the awkward, homely, painfully obvious and insecure Meghan Markle was something to bring home and marry. His friends were probably all WTF???

by Anonymousreply 348September 7, 2021 1:01 PM

Well, they don't know it, but they are already bit players. And always will be.

by Anonymousreply 349September 7, 2021 1:01 PM

R346 - Why would anyone want to release a picture of their daughter just to have nasty comments about the picture posted on the DataLounge?

I think the Sussexes learned their lesson when they release pictures of Archie.

by Anonymousreply 350September 7, 2021 1:16 PM

You're right, R350. I think they take into account the reaction of Datalounge before they do most anything.

by Anonymousreply 351September 7, 2021 1:27 PM

R351 - Does not everyone take into account the reaction of Datalounge before they do most anything? I thought this was the law of the land!!!

by Anonymousreply 352September 7, 2021 2:53 PM

I know I do.

by Anonymousreply 353September 7, 2021 3:05 PM

WWDL do?

by Anonymousreply 354September 7, 2021 3:10 PM

I think we can safely assume Harry married la Markle because no other woman would have him. Chelsy dumped him, Cressida dumped him. I guess even the hookers in Vegas said 'no thanks'. It took a desperate over-the-hill D list actress to be willing to fuck him despite the ginger pubes.

by Anonymousreply 355September 7, 2021 4:18 PM

When George was a baby, the Cambridges released maybe one picture of him a year, and they didn't take him to public places where he'd be papped. That first family photo, a casual outdoors shot with the newborn and the dog, was snapped by Kate's dad, and it looked very awkward. William seems to be an introvert, and it's believable that the wanted to protect his kids' (and his own) privacy.

MM is keeping the children hidden so that photos of them will be in high demand. Then when she does finally trot out the kids as toddlers, she's hoping that demand will be so high to see her kids, that the photos will "break the Internet". Or, at least, if she debuts the kids at a royal event, then the paps will abandon the Queen and the Cambridges to snap her brood instead.

by Anonymousreply 356September 7, 2021 5:27 PM

R356 - Meghan and Harry do not want nasty comments posted about their children like the nasty comments posted about Archie on the DataLounge and the Daily Mail online.

by Anonymousreply 357September 7, 2021 5:47 PM

R357 if you insist on living in the public eye - and they certainly do - you can't avoid having trolls on social media trashing you.

by Anonymousreply 358September 7, 2021 7:44 PM

R 358 Especially when you have your PR & ass licking lap dog Scabies post shit day after day after day. Thought Duke of Dumb wanted to protect Cuntess of Cunt from the same fate as Mommy..Why would you court & tease the paps day after day. Didn't workkout too well for mommy, did it when she started that game with the paps?

by Anonymousreply 359September 7, 2021 7:51 PM

R347 is right. First of all, the chances that Diana would have been having unprotected sex with a man who was not Charles whilst she and Charles were trying for an heir is unthinkable. Not because she would never (she obviously would...and later did - as did he) but because Diana will have known that to do so would be to risk absolutely everything - her marriage, her standing, her reputation, her baby's entire public image before they were even born, all of it.

And if Diana HAD done something so deeply stupid? I don't think the BRF would have swept that under the rug. That would have been a big enough deal (a 100%-known-to-be-illegitimate child in the succession? in 4th place? no.) that I think it would have ended there. They may have tried to hide the reason but the marriage would have ended immediately, and the public would soon have guessed the reasons when William stayed with Charles and the BRF and Harry went to live with Diana, who would not have been given a KP apartment at that point in time but probably shipped off to some OK-ish royal property in the middle of goddamned nowhere and explicitly told she risked even that if she tried to play media games.

by Anonymousreply 360September 7, 2021 8:01 PM

R357 They released photos and videos of Archie long after they quit being working royals. They made his "first words" part of their podcast and at one point constantly claimed that they all Zoomed Liz as a family so she could talk to her favourite grandson and great grandson.

They announced Lili's gender on Oprah and named her after two of the most famous women in the world. They want people to take notice of her.

I think they're holding her in reserve so they can create the most impact, possibly to coincide with a jubilee event whether they're invited or not. This is especially true if they can claim she's the spitting image of either Diana or Lilibet as a baby or a shade or two darker than her brother for maximum impact.

by Anonymousreply 361September 7, 2021 8:04 PM

R 360, you're assuming that Di was somewhat sane. There are reports that she cheated first. She went from Big poofy wedding dress, Big wedding at St. Paul's, Honeymoon..directly to Therapy. Didn't pass go, or get 200 dollars..Right to therapy. Think girl might have been coo coo? Even she admitted she was not well. She never balked at being in therapy. She even talked about Harry's issues in early childhood w. her therapist. There's upset, depressed, jilted wife syndrome & then there's Crazy. Given her actions, I'd say Crazy. And what helps the most when you have a cheating spouse & you feel unwanted, less than ..you cheat..feels good in the moment.

As to Hewitt not being in her service. Like she never saw him, said, umm I'll have a bit of that, I'll show that bastard Charles.. Liked it, then had him assigned to her household.

by Anonymousreply 362September 7, 2021 8:27 PM

R362 Whereas you sound perfectly sane and balanced🙄

by Anonymousreply 363September 8, 2021 5:37 AM

R 363..Stop. the Di. screaming. " You nasty, crazy person don't you dare attack our Diana." Your People's Princess is dead. So much has emerged over time about her insanity. Calling her fucks 100's of time. Even harassing their wives. Pause as we wait for the next Di. scream. You're the crazy one to attack our Princess..she touched gay men with aids(on camera)

by Anonymousreply 364September 8, 2021 12:53 PM

Diana was a future Queen. Harry was a future irrelevance. They were still struggling with the marriage, it was only 4 years in. Charles didn't go back to Camilla till after Harry was born. It's pretty much obvious that Harey was their last gasp.

And ffs, Harry except for the red hair looks nothing like Hewett. Jesus, that nose and the close-set eyes are pure Mountbatten, Harry looks more like Charles and Philip with every year.

It's bullshit from the top down.

Poor Harry: didn't get his idolised Mum's looks, favour, and was born as the marriage went into its death spiral, after being born to second place. William got first place in the hierarchy, his mother's looks, and her favour, and e joyed the last bits of whatever was still hopeful and fresh about the marriage. All Harry got was the worst of the Mountbatten looks, his mother's mental issues, and the crumbs (although many of us would gladly have taken those "crumbs") doled out to the Spare.

No wonder that underneath it all Harry hates the guts of the brother that he also, agonisingly, loves, as well.

by Anonymousreply 365September 8, 2021 1:11 PM

H. G. Tudor's recent.

He uses 3 videos of Harry's wife and her reaction to other people and provides analysis.

1. Pushing the hand away of the man who tried to help her exit the car on the wedding day.

2. Her rifling someone's car and being challenged by a couple of people.

3. The famous "Scarfing" video in slow motion. (I never before noticed that while scarfing, William was slowly but surely moving away from MM. Very noticeable here.)

Tudor cracks me up.

And, so DL fans, where was that and what was the occasion where she was rifling that car? Whose car was it? What was she after?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 366September 8, 2021 6:03 PM

There was supposedly a TMZ scoop about the surrogate she used. They put a title up and took it down later. Anybody know if that's true?

by Anonymousreply 367September 8, 2021 7:30 PM

R367 - Nothing about the Sussexes and surrogate(s) has any truth whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 368September 8, 2021 7:40 PM

R368, I hope there were no surrogates because then the children would be automatically out of the line of succession, which goes to the "heirs of the body of Princess Sophia..."

by Anonymousreply 369September 8, 2021 7:47 PM

r366 what was she doing in the car? It was obviously not hers and she wasn't supposed to be snooping around in there as the two guys went over to see what she was doing. I'm guessing it's William's. Meghan may not be more complicated than she has a terrible lech for him, married the ugly dumb brother to get close to him thinking he'd dump his wife for her, didn't work out.

by Anonymousreply 370September 8, 2021 8:11 PM

Wasn't it at that polo match William and Harry were playing where she showed up unexpectedly with Archie, wearing that green army tent?

by Anonymousreply 371September 8, 2021 8:22 PM

^*No. It was a pre-engagement polo match. She was rummaging in the boot of Harry's car.

by Anonymousreply 372September 8, 2021 8:33 PM

R372 why would she back off when the 2 guys came up to her then?

by Anonymousreply 373September 8, 2021 8:33 PM

Army tent indeed. I remember Catherine having to swoop in suddenly when Meghan got too close to George.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 374September 8, 2021 8:34 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 375September 8, 2021 8:35 PM

R367 The TMZ story was actually someone else's story that TMZ ran as a screenshot of someone else's claim. It wasn't really sourced by TMZ and, I suspect, bullshit, like all the surrogacy stories.

You don't run shit like that unless you've got enough proof to sink the Queen Mary. They don't have any. No one does.

by Anonymousreply 376September 8, 2021 8:38 PM

[qupte]^*No. It was a pre-engagement polo match. She was rummaging in the boot of Harry's car.

Right match but it was after the wedding unless Archie was born out of wedlock. She was holding him in her arms. See the pics above.

by Anonymousreply 377September 8, 2021 8:40 PM

No, it’s a different time, from before their marriage r377.

by Anonymousreply 378September 8, 2021 8:54 PM

R366 - Meghan is wearing a different outfit at the polo match in the video @R366 (white dress/hat) than she did with the Cambridges in the photos above (green tent dress with Archie).

by Anonymousreply 379September 8, 2021 8:58 PM

She doesn't seem to know how to hold a baby, or is highly uncomfortable doing so.

by Anonymousreply 380September 8, 2021 9:01 PM

If Meghan was secretly aiming to score with William, that would explain why she's so jealous of Kate.

by Anonymousreply 381September 8, 2021 9:04 PM

I love how in the video at R366 after she is challenged the second time, she backs away so that she is hidden by what looks like a canvas tent.

If she was supposed to be doing what she was doing, I don't think she would have stopped and backed away.

This is not the day of the ugly green tent dress. She is wearing that white fedora she seemed so fond of.

by Anonymousreply 382September 8, 2021 9:14 PM

God, how I would love to know what she was searching for in that car. What was so key that you would expose yourself to looking like a common thief & called out for it? I would absolutely pay her $$ to tell me what she was looking for. Love, love, love that there is footage of it. Funny thing is, looking at the 2 dudes who confronted her, Mr. & Mr. 'All biz. All the time', you think she would have known better than to fuck w. the fam. RF don't play.

by Anonymousreply 383September 9, 2021 12:37 PM

R383 there were stories Meghan was photographing rooms in Will's house and taking surreptitious pictures of his kids. She's creepy.

by Anonymousreply 384September 9, 2021 4:04 PM

My favorite is pre-engagement when she was on the make and went to Wimbledon. The other attendees demanded to see her ticket/pass because she was so out of place.

The look on her face was priceless. The whole episode showed exactly what she was, it was delicious.

by Anonymousreply 385September 9, 2021 4:40 PM

She was out of place, literally. She had snagged some sort of low level entry pass and promptly worked herself into a VIP section and took a seat. There's a classic photo of her being forced by the other attendees to show her pass that used to be all over the net but google can't find it now.

by Anonymousreply 386September 9, 2021 4:51 PM

Let's see that photo/footage of her being asked to show her pass. I've never seen it and I've been snarking on this narc since the beginning.

Also, re: the car rummaging - I don't see it. She just looks like she's looking for something in the boot (which is normal) and her body language doesn't look "caught" at all when the first guy rolls up. They seem to be talking about something, Meg gestures with her thumb and they all seem to be on their way somewhere/leaving. To me that interaction looked like Dude #1 rolls up, asks her if she's coming with, she's like no I have to find X and he's like oh, so and so has X and then they go off to meet up with X. Who knows if that's what was said but the interaction looks 100% normal to me. I see no tension, no fleeing.

You all should be more careful with what you believe because Meghan gives us more than enough actual fuckwittery to laugh at. We just look OTT making up weird shit like acting like she was thieving/snooping at a polo event etc.

by Anonymousreply 387September 9, 2021 4:58 PM

Here's a photo of the event. There used to be more photos, ones where they asked for her pass/ticket and she grudgingly showed it to them.

This photo must have been taken afterwards on that day. She's prominently displaying the Lauren Napa bag and she has a face that looks like thunder so that's the right year (2016). They were all posted and widely discussed here on the DL.

by Anonymousreply 388September 9, 2021 5:42 PM

R 387. They key words in you 'share' are that its your opinion. Now opinions are like assholes..everybody's got one & they all smell. I say look again. She don't look happy being caught & appears to be motioning trying to get 1st dude to leave. Bigger guy in ball cap moves in. Ball cap ain't moving till she out of the car boot & she slinks off. She ain't happen at being told to bugger off.

by Anonymousreply 389September 9, 2021 5:52 PM

I’ve heard about this video, but haven’t seen it until now. Hhhahahahaha. She’s out and out BUSTED. She scampers off with a quickness.

by Anonymousreply 390September 9, 2021 8:12 PM

Yes, my opinion could be wrong R389. So could yours. I've watched the brief interaction probably 10+ times over the course of my Meghan snarking and I just don't see what you see in it. And unless Meghan (actually no, because she would lie either way) or one of those dudes comes here to give us the truth, we'll never know.

If I see anything in her body language there it's a slight insecurity or discomfort, which I believe she always tries to hide but which I think I saw a lot of - especially when she was still one of the royals. There's something self-consciously breezy about her in that short video, I bet those men were Harry's friends and M was still trying desperately for the acceptance she never got (which was her own fault). This is a person trying to hang and be cool with a crowd she actually very much wants to impress and feels inferior to. As it turned out, she was inferior - but not for the reasons she thought (race, sex, class).

by Anonymousreply 391September 9, 2021 8:13 PM

They should be thrilled! They won't have the awful burden of being remembered forever in human history as the monarch and his consort, as Wills and I will,. Instead, they will helpfully stay in history's shadows.

In fact, while they're alive, their irresponsible behavior will just continue to cast the future King William V and his consort Queen Catherine (moi!) in a more favorable light! They have their little part to play too, even if it is minor and largely negative.

by Anonymousreply 392September 9, 2021 8:19 PM

[quote] Here's a photo of the event.

Where? You forgot to post it.

by Anonymousreply 393September 9, 2021 8:20 PM

Also, a single photo take after an event is...not proof of the event. Come on, a photo of Meghan looking unhappy really, seriously is not enough to justify some random story of why she momentarily looked unhappy. There's too much of this "oh I would post it but it was scrubbed from the internet!" going around. Post video or accept that no one has to buy that Meghan was somehow asked to show her pass (which in itself would be a very rude thing to do to anyone at a public event) by randoms who likely didn't give a single fuck about the presence of another C-lister.

by Anonymousreply 394September 9, 2021 8:25 PM

R394 In fairness, I also have seen the photo of Meghan at Wimbledon in her pre-Harry days showing her pass with an unmistakable look of fury on her face. And, I also cannot seem to find it. But I DID see it. She clearly looks angry and defiant.

I'll take another stab at digging it up, but I did see it.

Meghan doesn't seem to do any better at high profile tennis appearances than she does at extended families.

by Anonymousreply 395September 9, 2021 9:14 PM

R395, I know the photos you’re talking about. There’s a series of them.

by Anonymousreply 396September 9, 2021 9:27 PM

Someone must be new here and because they haven't seen the Wimbledon photos of Meghan therefore it's not true. Really? People who have been here since the Dangling Tendrils threads have them countless times. Find them on the fucking Internet yourself if we can't convince you. We don't have anything to prove.

by Anonymousreply 397September 9, 2021 9:31 PM

^ have SEEN them

by Anonymousreply 398September 9, 2021 9:51 PM

Here's a single photo from that day. It's after and she's all pissed off.

It's not random, lots of people here on the Datalounge saw them and remember them. They appeared in more than one thread over the years. If you choose to pretend they don't exist, I don't know what to tell you.

Wimbledon. 2016. Merching for Ralph Lauren.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 399September 9, 2021 10:00 PM

Never mind, I actually found an old DL thread and that's the only place I can find a photo. I haven't gone deep enough into the thread to see if the video is also there.

Here's the proof - the future Mrs. Mountbatten Windsor is showing her pass/ticket to another spectator who demanded to see it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 400September 9, 2021 10:34 PM

And one of the infamous Dangling Tendrils threads.

You know, these threads were fucking great. We should bring them back.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 401September 9, 2021 10:35 PM

R 391. et. al. low grade/down market PR shills perhaps?? Now, its Poor Megs, she's just sooo insecure..Its the feel sorry card now. Pump a bit harder 391 et. al..Someone somewhere might believe you.

by Anonymousreply 402September 9, 2021 10:40 PM

why would they ask for her ticket? did she take somebody else's seat? she looks furious

by Anonymousreply 403September 9, 2021 11:11 PM

R391 here. Been here for months now. Meghan Markle is a personality disordered monster human. I actually believe that. Not because of her race or sex or because I fancy her husband (the squad really needs to get a more believable explanation because ol' ginge hasn't been hot for a decade+ - if he ever was). But as anyone who has also been here in this general internet space knows, our side is not without its batshit faction. I don't actually mind if people think MM used a surrogate or that Archie is a doll etc. I don't believe it, but others are free to. Same with these Wimbledon pics - no one is obliged to provide proof, but the fact that I *have* looked and have never found anything - certainly not video - leads me to be very suspicious. I'm not even saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I've never seen proof. And no one here has to give me any.

And yes, I do think underneath a lot of her behaviour is a massive inferiority complex (this is the case with a lot of cluster Bs). It's not an excuse - nor did i present it as one. Once again, she really is a laughably terrible person without having to rely on a single dodgy fact. There are so many real, completely documented ones out there. Her clearing those seats at Wimbledon is much worse than any "she was asked to show her ticket by random spectators" story.

by Anonymousreply 404September 9, 2021 11:15 PM

[quote]What exactly does this Kensington palace split mean?

Oh wow, vintage gossip! (reply 4 from R401s linked thread). Who knew it would be 2021 before we found out it was William who straight booted them out of KP? It was this year we got that info, wasn't it? It feels like it may have been within the past few months. Also like it didn't cause as much of a splash as it maybe could have. Imagine how enraged the internet would have been if it came out back then that William kicked them out? Good for him for having the sack to do it - none of the other senior royals seem to.

by Anonymousreply 405September 9, 2021 11:20 PM

She crashed a VIP section of the most prominent of Old English Aristocracy. They took one look at her and knew not only was she dressed wrong but had the wrong bearing and demeanor to be there. They didn't try to get her kicked out after seeing her Ralph Lauren staff ID but they all giggled at her gaucherie and pretension. And didn't forget.

by Anonymousreply 406September 9, 2021 11:26 PM

R400 That's the one. Jesus, the other one with her legs in magazine alignment- that woman hasn't had a natural unforced uncalculated thought or impulse since the day she snatched the crown off a little girl's head at the girl's birthday party and put it on her own head. She might have been seven or so.

by Anonymousreply 407September 9, 2021 11:34 PM

The funniest thing about that pic is Olivia Lovibond right below her.

R405 Well technically all sources agree by late 2018 the situation was untenable. It's just that the specific decision to split the households because of the bullying dossier that is fairly new info.

The Sussexes position on it was that after the Australia, NZ and Pacific tour was that everyone was too jealous of Meghan to see that they should be allowed to do whatever they wanted and everyone else should not just let them but actively acknowledge that.

by Anonymousreply 408September 9, 2021 11:45 PM

Interesting article on Meghan's ancestry. I'm particularly impressed that she is related to Roy Rogers.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 409September 10, 2021 12:51 AM

There you go. She is royal...HM will be abdicating shortly. Meghan is the rightful Kween. Get ready UK here she comes..she all ways knew it!!

by Anonymousreply 410September 10, 2021 12:58 AM

WE the greatest "Love Story" that never was.

by Anonymousreply 411September 10, 2021 1:08 AM

R406 Who do you think attends Wimbledon? Solely the "Old English Aristocracy?" Because that is not the case. Do you see the man in the blue shirt sitting 2 seats to Meghan's right (far left in the image itself)? That's Jim Chapman, failed D-list "influencer" formerly married to co-failed D-list influencer Tanya Burr and brother to 2 make-up artists with a once-semi-popular Youtube channel. He is there for the same reason and in the same capacity Meghan is there: to be seen to be there (and to post the evidence on a famewhoring social media account) and to represent a brand (again, a brand that for some reason has judged that these people will get them some attention on their somewhat successful social media accounts/The Tig). Meghan and Jim are not seated in the Royal Box, which is where you *will* find various A-listers, VIPs and very old, very posh people (and as far as I know she only ever made it into the Royal Box when she was a guest of Kate Middleton). She hasn't "crashed" anything in these photos, she is sitting with the other not-really-recognizable semi- or barely-famous people in whatever section has been set aside for them.

And there is no way the other spectators asked to see her pass. For one thing, why the hell would they? That's not a thing that people do in the audience, minor-VIP/brand-sponsored section or not. It's certainly, since you appear to be speaking for the Old English Aristocracy, not anything any of them would ever, ever dream of doing. It would be gauche and very offensive even in Meg's little hazbeens/never-weres section. It simply isn't the job of spectators to police their respective sections. I'm linking a photo of the woman sitting next to her - they look pretty friendly in this shot, no?

Come on. She was there in her capacity as a Ralph Lauren social media whore, nothing more, nothing less. No one questioned her right to be there - not because Meghan is so unquestionable (so please don't go there) but because it just isn't something that would happen.

You can keep accusing me of being a secret stan but the truth is this is another conspiracy theory that never had any proof behind it. "Wrong bearing and demeanor" my ass. She was there all primped and snotty-looking just like the rest of those wannabes around her were. She's not fuming in that photo, she's feeling herself, enjoying not being in the peasant section and dreaming of moving up. If it makes you feel any better the chances that Meghan Markle will ever again grace the Royal Box are about zero.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 412September 10, 2021 2:34 AM

This is the blonde showing Meghan something on her phone. Minor socialite, employee of foreign editions of Tatler magazine, another one who we won't be seeing in the royal box.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 413September 10, 2021 2:37 AM

Possibly of-note: Daily Mail coverage of Meghan's attendance at Wimbledon 2016, directly claiming that she met Harry during this time, and a few days before she was photographed sitting close to Anna Wintour (on a different day to the one we're discussing) in what I think is Serena Williams player's box?

Also, if you Google image search Wimbledon Meghan Markle 2016 you get photos that appear to be taken on multiple different days (she's seated in different seats - again, never in the Royal Box) but seems to be wearing that black (Ralph Lauren, I assume) black dress in all of them.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 414September 10, 2021 2:40 AM

If we all block the belligerent psycho, it will have no one to argue with. I suggest we all do it immediately.

by Anonymousreply 415September 10, 2021 3:58 AM

As I recall from when the story and these pictures first appeared on DL, the story was that she was there (and her credentials reflected that) as a model or such for Ralph Lauren, not as a spectator with a spectator's ticket.

That was the story and it could account for her attire and her appearing in different seats.

by Anonymousreply 416September 10, 2021 4:08 AM

All right, all right. I'll stipulate that one photo in which she appeared to be angry and displaying her pass could have been taken put of context.

But she does seem to have bad luck with tennis appearances.

The outfit she wore with the long trousers dragging on the ground was awful; then there was the Imperial Duchess appearance surrounded by empty seats; and then insisting in lying to MY to see her "friend" Serena Williams lose. And that time clearly being given the cold shoulder by William's family. At one point she can be seen using a trick she's employed before: talking animatedly and gesturing to no one to make it appear in photos as if the other party was really engaged with her.

She should start playing golf.

by Anonymousreply 417September 10, 2021 10:23 AM

^* flying (not lying) to New York

by Anonymousreply 418September 10, 2021 10:25 AM

Thank you, r412.

And a fair reading of that Wimbledon pic where Markle is holding what looks like a pass, I see her reading the pass, not showing it to the fellow in front of her. He's reacting to the two women on Markle's left who are reacting to him.

"She was asked to show her pass" nonsense earns her haters legitimate derision.

Now, on the other hand, the "scarfing" video : Markle knew that cameras were on all of them as they exited that church service.

I think it's plausible, if not probable, that she wanted a video which captured a moment where William, Duke of Cambridge, deigned to interact with her, even if it was an obligatory, brief smile from him to her. That's why she initiated the gesture, knowing he was physically close to her.

I think William knew that was her goal and he deliberately, knowingly, denied her that moment. He also knows, from years of emerging from church services on holidays and seeing cameras, that they are capturing every moment and position of the BRF, and he wasn't gonna play.

I think William just does not like Markle. Not based upon bigotry. Not based upon wanting to deny his brother happiness. Simply - he does not like her.

I actually feel sorry for her when it comes to William. Not now. Stupidly, the Sussexes pushed all their chips in with that ill-advised Oprah debacle and they have earned their pariah status with the immediate and extended BRF.

I mean back then when she was still in the UK. It had to be terribly uncomfortable for her to be around William. I imagine he wasn't overtly mean or rude to her. No; worse: A chilly blast of silent distance.

I don't care who you are, that would make anybody's hair stand on end.

by Anonymousreply 419September 10, 2021 12:44 PM

The Oprah interview didn't go down well at the recent National Television Awards show.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 420September 10, 2021 12:50 PM

Archewell hires a COO.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 421September 10, 2021 12:57 PM

Harry's popularity nosedive adds to his anger.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 422September 10, 2021 1:05 PM

Were the Wimbledon photos in 2016 taken on the same day? She seems to be wearing the same black dress but is seated at different locations. Could she have just strolled into Wintour's box as a lowly Ralph Lauren model or whatever she was? The black dress is so odd for Wimbledon in the middle of summer.

by Anonymousreply 423September 10, 2021 2:34 PM

She was after harrys phone, probably to check to see who harry was talking to. Harry was playing in a polo match and his things were in the car. Isnt she a nasty little piece of work .

by Anonymousreply 424September 10, 2021 2:37 PM

R423 I mentioned this upthread but if you google image search "Meghan Markle Wimbledon 2016" you get results that appear to indicate she attended multiple days during that year's tournament - but also that she wore the same black dress on most/all of those days. Most likely explanation is the dress was Ralph Lauren and she was contracted to wear it, I suppose?

Also, in the DM article I linked above, she appears to be seated close (but not next) to Anna Wintour in Serena Williams' players box (i.e. a small section reserved for friends/family/invitees of a player) on one of those days. You don't "crash" a players box - I assume at that point she and Serena were friends (or "friends" as I should say, because this is Meg we're talking about) and that was how she got in. The Daily Mail mentions a story that Anna W was seen to loan Meghan her sweater when it got chilly which, given our 2021 perspective, has got to be some legitimate Old Timey Meghan PR, right? It's actually entertaining to go back and read a lot f this older coverage from our current POV.

by Anonymousreply 425September 10, 2021 6:48 PM

I agree R419. The 'asked to show her pass' story is BS (I lean towards the photo being 'shopped - it's very low-res and would be very easy to photoshop, I also couldn't find a single legitimate source for it online. Again, people are free to believe what they like, but that's what I believe). The scarfing, however? 100% real and 100% delicious. William knew exactly what he was doing there, which is precisely why it's so entertaining. He snubbed her straight to her face on camera and...I enjoyed it immensely. William is good at cold-shouldering. He did it to Harry at a Remembrance Day wreath-laying (in 2019, iirc?) and he did it multiple times during the Diana status unveiling (also to Harry).

And yes, I believe William had Meghan's number very early on. He appears to be one of those people who just gets a read on others quite quickly. I could technically feel sorry for Meghan (because I understand the icy blast from someone you desperately want to impress would be awful) but the thing is I think William was/is right about her. He spotted her for the shark-eyed grifter she is and his reaction was the correct one. Meghan's problem is the people who buy her schtick aren't generally the ones that matter (although Harry bought it and he's really all she needed) and the schtick itself (that fake, faux, smiley, oh l'il ol' me! bullshit) is easily spotted by people who know how to spot wolves in sheeps' clothing - which William apparently does.

by Anonymousreply 426September 10, 2021 6:58 PM

The story at R420 is significant They were roundly and loudly booed, jeered and laughed and this has been confirmed by multiple sources. No internet conspiracy theorizing here. Terrible look for the Harkles. Really bad. I can't imagine she's too happy that this is starting to get picked up by the US media, either.

by Anonymousreply 427September 10, 2021 7:00 PM


[quote]...The scarfing, however? 100% real and 100% delicious. William knew exactly what he was doing there, which is precisely why it's so entertaining. He snubbed her straight to her face on camera and...I enjoyed it immensely.

I always thought that she had her eye on William. And if he picked up on that, his extreme avoidance technique would make perfect sense. He would not want any, ANY pictures or video that could be used to give an impression that he was interested. The best way to prevent that ever happening is to just refuse to look at her, refuse to engage, refuse to even be near her. Although I have seen the scarfing video before, I never noticed until this time, his careful, deliberate, slowly but surely moving away to clear the spot for Catherine to take the position next to MM.

I have to now rank William's technique here with Princess Anne's "Not a Chance, Back Off" maneuver on the BP balcony for Trooping the Colour, which was designed clearly to stop MM from positioning herself directly over the Queen's shoulder so that she (MM) would be in all video and pictures of the event.

Consider those pictures of her with Serena Williams' husband that surfaced not long ago. Wasn't it reported after those surfaced that he thought MM was coming on to him? William was not going to fall for any such tricks.

by Anonymousreply 428September 10, 2021 10:09 PM

I never thought of the scarfing in quite that way. I bet she would have been just *thrilled* to have at least rumors that William was hot for her, that makes sense to me. Even better if they actually had an affair. That would also explain her obvious ratcheted up hatred for Kate, she feels humiliated.

Well played, William!

by Anonymousreply 429September 11, 2021 2:39 AM

Ooww..What will they do next?? COO of Archwell, wow that's interesting, like watching paint dry. Who can they hint is racist? Harry must now remember there is someone else as well. 2 or even more racists. They were just holding back the others, for the good of the family. Megs had more miscarriages because of how badly she was treated but they didn't like to say. Harry was abused by someone in RF whois also a racist . One of the RF tried to rape Megs. They've got to come up w. something There 5 minutes of fame is going.. .Maybe ball-less boy can juggle his temporarily freed testes again.

by Anonymousreply 430September 11, 2021 3:05 AM

Once you've made up a suicide attempt, how much lower can you go?

by Anonymousreply 431September 11, 2021 3:16 AM

Tudor's latest video is hilarious.

He uses 2 video clips featuring the Sussex duo at public events when they were still "working".

First is the "Lion King" premiere, with captions (which I had never seen) and his comments regarding Bob Iger's facial expressions in response to "the pitch" is great fun.

But the second clip (which I've never seen before) is an encounter of MM & Harry and a group of small children, with 2 toddlers supposed to present small bouquets of flowers to Harry's wife. The encounters do not go as planned with Tudor giving commentary as to what the children appear to be thinking and why they are doing what they do. Good for some laughs.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 432September 11, 2021 3:34 AM

Sorry Della, that Wimbledon video CLEARLY shows her with a humiliated and angry look on her face showing her pass to the others. She wasn't "sharing" it, she was asked for it. Its very obvious. I know you have a soft spot for her, Lord knows why, but in this case she was clearly being asked to show it.

by Anonymousreply 433September 11, 2021 4:04 AM

I thought she looked pissed because everyone was chatting with each other and ignoring her.

by Anonymousreply 434September 11, 2021 4:52 AM

What I CLEARLY have, r433 is reading comprehension skills (r412's post) and two eyes.

I comprehended r412's credibility ( the poster identifies the name of a person sitting there- that's what is fairly considered a "fact") and the ring of knowledge on their part, based upon what that poster wrote, of the pecking order and behavior, and more pertinently what behavior IS NOT going to be engaged- "Hey, I'd like to see your pass" of those who attend Wimbledon.

And my two eyes see what I posted at the beginning of my post at r419 about the pic at r400.

r433, merely asserting "...that Wimbledon video CLEARLY shows her with a humiliated and angry look on her face showing her pass to the others." isn't persuasive and r412's post is.

You refer to a video. I'm looking at the pic at r400.

As for a "soft spot" for Markle, I'm more disappointed in both Sussexes.

While watching their wedding, I assumed, and hoped, that they had maturity, sophistication and shrewdness to take an inventory of their positions, or lack thereof compared to the Cambridges, and turn it to their advantage as working members of the immediate BRF by their presence providing an interesting, positive contrast to the Cambridges.

by Anonymousreply 435September 11, 2021 12:40 PM

The "bit players" will do anything to stay relevant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 436September 11, 2021 1:37 PM

R436 Looks like somebody’s figured out how to make a black background.

by Anonymousreply 437September 11, 2021 2:32 PM

How pompous and presumptuous of them. Yet another cheap stunt, like last year's Remembrance Day.

by Anonymousreply 438September 11, 2021 2:43 PM

Why on Earth wasn't Meghan Markle invited to speak at Ground Zero? what an oversight!

by Anonymousreply 439September 11, 2021 4:02 PM

[quote]Once you've made up a suicide attempt, how much lower can you go?

That was when I transitioned from disliking her for her flagrant (fragrant) grifting and realized she is a terrible, terrible person.

Even if it is true - and who knows? - she has a child. And someday that child will read and learn that his mother thought about taking their own lives.

Even if it is true - for the sake of that child - that was a piece of truth that should never have seen the light of day.

And at that point you realize: unfit mother.

If either of those kids avoid arrest or rehab, I won't know how.

by Anonymousreply 440September 11, 2021 4:12 PM

[quote]...that Wimbledon video CLEARLY shows her with a humiliated and angry look on her face showing her pass to the others.

There is no video of this. There is only a single extremely low-res image that doesn't appear on any media or photo agency websites or anywhere online except Tumblr.

by Anonymousreply 441September 11, 2021 4:36 PM

Thankfully, we don't need Meghan to have been questioned by her fellow C and D listers in the sponsored seats at Wimbledon (and even if that did happen it would probably make me feel sorry for her more than anything else - she was basically unknown at that point), or to be shadily rummaging in a car boot at the polo (which I also don't believe she was doing - shadily - because there are a whole lot of other non-shady reasons for a woman to be looking in a car boot on a day out) because we have actual established facts like the one R440 posted.

She went on international TV to claim she was suicidal during pregnancy. Even if she was telling the truth (and I personally don't believe she was) it is now out there for her son to read someday that she considered ending her life and his. Harry talks a lot about ending the cycle of dysfunction or abuse or whatever the fuck bollocks he's always on about and yet they're out here using information that will likely cause their son significant distress one day to try to get the public to side with them and not the Evil BRF. It's really messed up and the fact that neither parent sees it (or they do and don't care) bodes ill for both of those kids. Lili was sucked into family drama within hours of birth, ffs, with that ridiculous name debacle.

I believe the Sussex children will be very likely to make it out of that house and into adulthood without major issues. Meghan and Harry have their fucked-ness on full display most of the time. We really don't need to make anything up. The facts are already more than enough.

by Anonymousreply 442September 11, 2021 4:46 PM

"very lucky" not "very likely"

by Anonymousreply 443September 11, 2021 4:48 PM

Fortunately for those kids, I would imagine that Dim and his Duchess have very little real interaction with them and are likely being raised by nannies.

by Anonymousreply 444September 11, 2021 5:29 PM

Well, for once, let's hope so.

by Anonymousreply 445September 11, 2021 5:58 PM

Meghan affects me as being as maternal as a black widow spider.

by Anonymousreply 446September 11, 2021 7:01 PM

Have you seen how she holds her children?

by Anonymousreply 447September 11, 2021 7:05 PM

Megsie views all relationships as transactional. If those kids don't get and maintain HRHs that she can merch, they're doomed.

by Anonymousreply 448September 11, 2021 7:30 PM

[quote]Have you seen how she holds her children?

That's subscription content, isn't it?

by Anonymousreply 449September 11, 2021 7:31 PM

R437 gets the top prize for that comment.

by Anonymousreply 450September 11, 2021 7:34 PM

If they only had a brain! 67 UK citizens died in the attack. A nice touch would have been to highlight them in some way. Would have been a nice way to begin an amends. But, that would take a brain & a heart. What am I expecting? He couldn't even figure out what his name was for Lilimerch's birth certificate. So, forget the brain. And, miss all heart let the citizens of ole' Blighty pay for that overblown wedding, then called them racist, too dangerous a place to rise her spawn. Yeah, she's all heart. Why am I expecting them to do something nice, sensitive & heartfelt.

God, have they waste tons of money on thei PR. Any decent PR would have mentioned the UK deaths to them. & come up w. a plan. Oh, right they probably just ignored them if they suggested. The black & white bit was the way to go...Klassy

by Anonymousreply 451September 11, 2021 9:53 PM

No one asked how 9/11 effected ME!

by Anonymousreply 452September 11, 2021 10:02 PM

I'm certain that at this point Sunshine Sachs cashes the checks, listens patiently to whatever batshit "plan" Megs has come up with today and then carries it out. They've learned she doesn't take advice and thinks she knows everything, so they're happy to just keep taking her money and phoning it in. The fact that they don't have intelligent, qualified advisors is very obvious.

by Anonymousreply 453September 12, 2021 3:20 AM

If that’s the case, do these PR people ever write books later? Or even gossip about this while it’s happening?

by Anonymousreply 454September 12, 2021 12:29 PM

R454 they will eventually

by Anonymousreply 455September 12, 2021 3:43 PM

Wallis & Edward did not have 24/7 celebrity news following their every royal fart.

by Anonymousreply 456September 12, 2021 3:54 PM

Wallis & Edward also appeared 'exclusive'/high society. Harry and Meghan come off as desperate for attention. Spilling your guts to Dax Shepard? How declasse.

by Anonymousreply 457September 12, 2021 4:00 PM

So the now infamous Oprah "bombshell" interview failed to win the Emmy last night. Pipped to the post by Stanley Tucci's "Finding Italy" food programme.

I wonder if the Netflix and Spotify folk are nothing the downward spiral that the rest of us are seeing?

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them

by Anonymousreply 458September 13, 2021 11:12 AM

I guess they'll be a million and one fluff pieces about Harry "working with" Jill Biden since it's the closest thing to an official engagement he's had in the US to bury any bad news and "prove" to Netflix that they're still important. Even though since everything's been cancelled because of Delta it's just another zoom call.

by Anonymousreply 459September 13, 2021 11:40 AM

Here is the press release of the virtual event.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 460September 13, 2021 12:19 PM

Who's playing Harry in this one? Imagine him in the real having to go off script. It's even hard for him to read a cue card. Without Momager Meg. to give wrist pressure, back touch cues he's going to be sunk. Jill luckily has dealt with Joe so hopefully she can pick up the slack for this slacker as well.

by Anonymousreply 461September 13, 2021 12:27 PM

R461 -yes, because of course Harry and the President have the same intelligence and responsibilities.

by Anonymousreply 462September 13, 2021 12:34 PM

Has Harry ever once acknowledged that he got the idea for the Invictus Games from the Warrior Games?


Thought not.

by Anonymousreply 463September 13, 2021 12:54 PM

I'd like to know who came up with the name, because Harry and Latin seem unlikely to be familiar.

by Anonymousreply 464September 13, 2021 1:47 PM

Edward Lane Fox basically came up with the idea of Harry "creating" the games. He was Harry and William's private secretary at the time and tasked with coming up with a way of turning Harry's PR around from Vegas stripper orgy to "Hero Harry". He was the one who packed off Harry to the Warrior Games so he could "become inspired". And this part has never been mentioned by Harry at all.

The title comes from the poem Invictus: by William Earnest Henley about having an unconquered spirit, frequently quoted by Mandela and the title of film about the 1994 Rugby world cup and Mandela's involvement in it. If Harry had ever heard it before it was probably only because he'd seen the movie.

by Anonymousreply 465September 13, 2021 1:59 PM

Is Doctor Jill also a client of SS?

by Anonymousreply 466September 13, 2021 3:11 PM

Harry must have seen the Matt Damon movie Invictus.

by Anonymousreply 467September 13, 2021 3:57 PM

Will American vets appreciate the deserter Harry, who deserted his own British fellow soldiers when he turned his back on his veteran activities and fled to the US to become a celebrity?

by Anonymousreply 468September 13, 2021 4:51 PM

The senile pResident is on the same mentality level r462. The fraud is real.

by Anonymousreply 469September 13, 2021 4:54 PM

President Biden is not senile just because you dislike him.

First Lady Dr Jill Biden is not a client of Sunshine Sachs.

Harry is a moron.

by Anonymousreply 470September 13, 2021 6:10 PM

Is jill senile?

by Anonymousreply 471September 14, 2021 12:19 PM

The ginger is a "bit player" making a "bit appearance". The blonde lady is First Lady Jill Biden.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 472September 14, 2021 1:10 PM

Why wasn't Meagain invited? Is she OK?

by Anonymousreply 473September 14, 2021 1:20 PM

Harry seems to be the one more people want to work with, which makes sense given his nearly 40 years in the public eye vs Meghan not even managing 2 years in the royal family.

The projects she seems to do are either complete vanity projects or ones that even the organisers admit that she cold called and asked to be included - 19th Summit.

Though even this thing with the first lady was all about what was set up for him in his previous life by aides and not what he's started in his oh, so humanitarian new life.

Oprah was 80% Meghan so she could launch herself in her new saint/humanitarian/A-lister/global superstar role and so far it doesn't seem like opportunities are throwing themselves at her.

by Anonymousreply 474September 14, 2021 1:43 PM

Were they invited to the Met Gala, or did they "decline?"

by Anonymousreply 475September 14, 2021 6:41 PM

R475 - Why would anyone in their right mind want to go to the Met Gala.

by Anonymousreply 476September 14, 2021 7:09 PM

Why is the first lady of the USA promoting a UK military charity? Does the original US charity not want her? Is she not aware she is the first lady of the US? Psst..Jill FYI UK doesn't have a first lady? Is she not aware that the US charity was the one that the UK based their's on?

by Anonymousreply 477September 14, 2021 7:17 PM

They won't divorce - Meghan would only leave her titles if she landed a billionaire, but now she's over 40 with 2 kids, not sexy and despised globally I can't see that happening. He'll never leave her because she's his "mummy" figure and he has nobody else left.

Pity, because I would enjoy seeing her go full Angelina on his stupid arse.

by Anonymousreply 478September 14, 2021 9:02 PM

[quote]It's ironic how so many moan about Prince Harry and MM threads on DL when one of the reoccurring adverts for this site is about that couple.

People who actually pay a subscription here don't see that ads, so not really.

by Anonymousreply 479September 14, 2021 9:20 PM

If they'd been invited to the Met Gala, there's no way Meghan would have "declined". If for some reason she had to, she would have had SS and Scobie plant stories everywhere that she was unable to make it, but DEFINITELY invited.

by Anonymousreply 480September 14, 2021 10:51 PM

I'd be surprised if Wintour would have approved Markle and Harry attending.

I conjecture that between QE II, Charles, Camilla and the Cambridges v. the Sussexes, Wintour, for business, social and personal reasons, has chosen a side, and it ain't with the Sussexes.

Wintour hosted Q E II at a front row fashion event in London and sat next to her. She's going to be careful about staying out of any perception that's she's partial to the Sussexes. She also may return to the UK either for visits and social reasons or to live.

Wintour knows where her social bread is buttered and it ain't with the Sussexes. In fact, I'd bet she LOVE it if Kate agreed to attend the Met Gala.

by Anonymousreply 481September 14, 2021 10:52 PM

I agree with Della.

Oprah made a terrible social mistake in throwing her hat in with Meghan and Harry: Charles and Camilla and William and Kate will treat her as persona non grata for the rest of her life. Anna Wintour is much more calculating.

by Anonymousreply 482September 14, 2021 10:58 PM

Imagine the fury at Montishitto. Seeing all minor, 'influencers' prancing on the red carpet, bulbs flashing & her ass sitting w. Duke Dopey & screaming kids, chickens. Wouldn't want to be them. Best part totally diverse, so bitch can't even scream Racissssm. Ha Ha

by Anonymousreply 483September 14, 2021 11:01 PM

Thanks r482.

The only thing I would gently disagree with you on is that I think it's possible Oprah genuinely doesn't care whether she made a "terrible social mistake in throwing her hat in with Meghan and Harry:"

A billion dollars and world-wide, individual stardom in your own right - two things Oprah has and Wintour doesn't- buys you a lot of "Fuck You" position. Unlike Wintour, Oprah isn't dependent on the approval of the BRF.

Again pure conjecture on my part, but I think it's entirely possible that the Sussexes themselves didn't seek to go to the Met Gala as a pre-emptive save-face maneuver because they didn't want to risk hearing from Wintour herself that she could not approve their attendance, thus sparing all 3 an awkward conversation.

by Anonymousreply 484September 14, 2021 11:27 PM

R484 I think the Sussexes are too ego driven to save their face or avoid an awkward discussion. If they have learned that, they'll be a lot more boring in the future.

by Anonymousreply 485September 14, 2021 11:38 PM

You really think Oprah doesn't care about her image? If she had zero fucks to give, was just floating the upper stratosphere on clouds of her cash from one fabulous pad to the next, why is she still looking for the next big gig to make her #1 again? Wouldn't she stop w. this lifelong bearding w. Stedman & just live her life as fluidly as say Latifa, if she didn't care? Would she have taken over WW just to wreck a food program for weight loss & promote healthy acceptance of fat, because of her own her fat? Betcha bitch trolls every word said about her. Bet loads of her dough goes for fixers, lawyers, PR. She does dodgy shit all the time & never gets called out for it. Even daily mail didn't pursue that suit against her for slander, bet she lawyered up big time on that one.

by Anonymousreply 486September 14, 2021 11:38 PM

Oprah has a billion dollars, but she does not really have "world-wide stardom,"--she is only a huge star in the USA. She's basically only known overseas for the Harry & Meghan interview.

by Anonymousreply 487September 14, 2021 11:41 PM

Even here in the U.S. Oprah is a has-been. Especially since her longtime friendship with Harvey Weinstein was exposed. Nobody gives two fucks about her and she and Gayle look like fools and desperados chasing after the Harkles. Anna is at least held in high esteem which is something Oprah cannot claim.

by Anonymousreply 488September 14, 2021 11:49 PM

The interview with Meghan and Harry was the first time I'd heard of Oprah in several years.

by Anonymousreply 489September 14, 2021 11:55 PM

Tomorrow is Harry's 37th birthday; I wonder what he'll do for it? The DM was saying that, if he gives a speech, he needs to be careful about criticizing President Biden, but I can't imagine why he'd do that anyway.

by Anonymousreply 490September 14, 2021 11:58 PM

Has Oprah ever gone to the Met Gala?

She threw her lot in with Megs and Harry. Didn’t quite work out and hearing all the criticism of her interview technique probably pissed her off because that’s her thing. She’s moved on now.

by Anonymousreply 491September 15, 2021 12:36 AM

She's moved on to a giant ice cream sundae to help her smother her feelings

by Anonymousreply 492September 15, 2021 1:27 AM

[quote]Why would anyone in their right mind want to go to the Met Gala.

And your point is...?

by Anonymousreply 493September 15, 2021 5:27 AM

R484 is a real idiot if she thinks Anna Wintour is dependent on the approval of the British royal family.

by Anonymousreply 494September 15, 2021 5:49 AM

[quote][R484] is a real idiot if she thinks Anna Wintour is dependent on the approval of the British royal family.

r484 is Della, so . . . yeah.

by Anonymousreply 495September 15, 2021 6:17 AM

Happy Birthday Darling Grandson Harry. I have seen the error of my ways. I am stepping aside for you & darling majestic Megan to take the throne. I am so sorry for all I have done...Please forgive me. Please accept ALL my personal wealth, as well..

Then Harry woke up

by Anonymousreply 496September 15, 2021 1:15 PM

Congrats to Sunshine Sachs for getting Harry and Meghan airbrushed on the Time magazine cover as they are among the world's 100 most influential people? WTF? Influential at ghosting people, whining, lying etc... Oh, Time mag has lost its way.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 497September 15, 2021 1:22 PM

Yeah, I was a bit surprised by the Time thing. I guess it's time to stop taking Time seriously.

by Anonymousreply 498September 15, 2021 1:28 PM

Obviously, Time Mag. having some financial worries. Why would you do that since they are not selling mags in the US? Sounds like Time went for the quick bucks, knowing the mag. won't sell. Wonder how many dablons were paid to make this shit happen. Sad. I'm old enough to remember when Time had standing, espect & some cred. Gone now completely, the way of the dinosaur. It has been a slow slide for now they are officially no longer circling the toilet bowl. They're about to hit the sewer..

by Anonymousreply 499September 15, 2021 1:29 PM

Yeah, yeah we get it Meg. You're the yoga goddess leader of this cult of two. He's just your royal side kick clinging on to his mommy wife for dear life.

Too bad that most legit people don't want to work with either of you and those that do would actually rather work with the ginger minger who was famous for more than 5 minutes.

The write up was hilarious:

"In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don’t know, the duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don’t know. They don’t just opine. They run toward the struggle."

Yup that is definitely them, They definitely don't ever release random word salad press releases and zoom calls about whatever they see on the news and do nothing else. They're all about doing, not saying!

by Anonymousreply 500September 15, 2021 1:34 PM

[quote]"They don’t just opine. They run toward the struggle."

In a world of WTFs that was my first genuine WTF? in a long time.

by Anonymousreply 501September 15, 2021 1:41 PM

They haven't run anywhere. They've been hiding in their Monteshitto mansion.

by Anonymousreply 502September 15, 2021 1:43 PM

Clearly a condition of Meghan's was being able to write the copy. Sounds just like her. Also - the cover is airbrushed to death, yet she still has a gap in her blouse. That's our Meg, always botching the details!

by Anonymousreply 503September 15, 2021 2:10 PM

Oh my. swipe to see the other photos in Time. Meghan's boxy body is on display and pleated pants won't help her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 504September 15, 2021 2:12 PM

Was going to say, that copy came directly from Megsie, or from SS with her approval.

by Anonymousreply 505September 15, 2021 2:16 PM

R504 - Meghan only recently had a baby and she is slow to lose baby weight. The exact same thing happened with Archie.

Give her another 9 months and she will look ok.

by Anonymousreply 506September 15, 2021 2:27 PM

Except for her character, R506. She can't diet that into shape.

by Anonymousreply 507September 15, 2021 2:41 PM

And released, oh so coincidentally, on the very day Kate emerges from holiday to meet with military personnel and families of same who are back from serving in Afghanistan.

Will wonders never cease.

They're amongst the most influential people in the world, only her book flopped, the film about them flopped, their poll ratings are in the toilet, and every time they open their mouths, especially hers, they sound like hypocritical clowns.

by Anonymousreply 508September 15, 2021 2:56 PM

^ LOL. Brand closed.

by Anonymousreply 509September 15, 2021 3:00 PM

Anyone who thinks those giant headlines on the DM announcing Harry and Meghan as Influential Royals emerged on exactly the day Kate meets with Afghan evacuation military personnel is living on Mars.

The timing was planned as a direct hit at the Cambridges. The Sussexes are still playing their Pipped You To The Post game with the Cambridges.

The photos are quite nice, for them, and the DM, true to form, announces in the giant headlines that the photos are VERY airbrushed.

Here's Kate today looking casually elegant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 510September 15, 2021 3:02 PM

And here's the DM's familiarly back-handed acknowledgement of Harry's and Meghan's best coup in months.

"Chef José Andrés said: 'The duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don't know'"

They just don't have any for people they do know.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 511September 15, 2021 3:04 PM

We reads Time? I don't think many have in over 20 years. It is what you have to flip through while waiting for a root canal.

by Anonymousreply 512September 15, 2021 3:05 PM

Time's100 has been a joke for years. The New Yorker once did a very funny bit about it. "Janet Yellen and Matthew McConaughey couldn't stop hugging each other after making Time's 100! "We made it!" they screamed as tears streamed down their faces."

by Anonymousreply 513September 15, 2021 3:23 PM

Is it a really good coup R511? It's generating talk I suppose which was probably the main goal but like 40x40 it will be forgotten by this time next month.

by Anonymousreply 514September 15, 2021 3:38 PM

Most of the people on the list made it individually. Wonder if it bugs them that neither one would make it on their own?

by Anonymousreply 515September 15, 2021 3:54 PM

Time Magazine has gone to shit ever since it was bought out by Meredith Corporation. Meredith Corporation owns a slow of entertainment magazines including: Entertainment Weekly and People (both of which are shills for Sunshine Sachs.)

by Anonymousreply 516September 15, 2021 3:59 PM

The comments on Time's twitter feed are hilarious and overwhelmingly negative.

by Anonymousreply 517September 15, 2021 4:14 PM

Those pictures are hilarious, reminiscent of Trump's uncanny valley oil painting of himself.

Anyhoo, Time hasn't been relevant for years and only their soppy fans think of these two as virtuous philanthropists.

by Anonymousreply 518September 15, 2021 5:05 PM

The Twitter comments are savage.

“He looks like a pirate parrot on her shoulder”

That one cracked me up.

There are many that reference their mistreatment of their families. People really don’t like that.

by Anonymousreply 519September 15, 2021 5:17 PM

Can you link to the page of twitter comments?

by Anonymousreply 520September 15, 2021 5:18 PM

Their proportions in that photo are odd. They look like midgets. We all know that Harry is substantially taller than Meghan, but the photos are composed to make them the same height.

But she looks very wide and hefty.

by Anonymousreply 521September 15, 2021 5:19 PM

R520, just click r504’s link.

by Anonymousreply 522September 15, 2021 5:20 PM

The more these two seek publicity the more people are getting turned off by them. Honestly, if you're still buying what they're selling you're an idiot LOL.

by Anonymousreply 523September 15, 2021 5:43 PM

The cover photos says all we need to know ... Meghan placing herself front and center.

by Anonymousreply 524September 15, 2021 6:07 PM

Harry looks like a dwarf in that cover photo.

by Anonymousreply 525September 15, 2021 6:20 PM

OMG have ya'll read the extracts from the article?! I literally almost wet myself laughing so hard. It sounds like an SNL skit but this is truly how H&M see themselves. Running towards danger (they haven't left their 15 bedroom mansion in nearly two years), full of compassion for people they haven't met (but treat their respective families and many former friends like shit).

by Anonymousreply 526September 15, 2021 6:20 PM

"Giving voice to the voiceless"... I'm not a Harry and Meg hater but Time must really think we're stupid.

These two rich people from California and the UK can hardly claim to speak for people living in poverty or abused women or the like.

by Anonymousreply 527September 15, 2021 6:27 PM

R527 This is why it's so funny! It's such clear PR bullshit written either by Meghan herself or approved by her. Time clearly just took the money and let them do whatever they wanted with it.

by Anonymousreply 528September 15, 2021 6:31 PM

"Meghan said their focus right now is being of service, and that attending glitzy events like the MET Gala is wasted time and energy that could be put to good use towards those suffering and in need", the source added."

So she's pissed she didn't get an invite to the Met gala LOL

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 529September 15, 2021 6:47 PM

R529 Anna Wintour is a monarchist and no longer gives the Sussexes the time of day.

by Anonymousreply 530September 15, 2021 6:50 PM

Interesting in her intense focus on humanity she thought to specifically mention the Met Ball.

by Anonymousreply 531September 15, 2021 6:51 PM

Anna Wintour may not "need" the Queen, but no way is she going to cross the Queen. Anyone with a brain realises siding against the Queen isn't betting on the right horse. Especially if one would like to become a Dame or similar.

The whole statement about "H and M don't need no stinking Met Ball, they want to be of service" calls us back to the whole stroppy SERVICE IS UNIVERSAL so SUCK IT GRANNY melt down of months yore.

by Anonymousreply 532September 15, 2021 6:54 PM

“ attending glitzy events like the MET Gala is wasted time and energy that could be put to good use towards those suffering and in need”

Says the pair on “paternity leave” in their 16-bathroom mansion in Montecito with celebrity neighbors who spend all their time organizing food drives and vaccination sites.

by Anonymousreply 533September 15, 2021 7:02 PM

The boatloads of cash they’re shovelling into their PR is mind blowing. All to seem relevant and important - oh, and, of course, to make even more boatloads of cash!!

by Anonymousreply 534September 15, 2021 7:02 PM

Supposedly it was written by the chef of One World Kitchen which does pretty amazing work feeding people. H&M’s foundation gives him money so I guess he felt obligated.

by Anonymousreply 535September 15, 2021 7:05 PM

I don't know, it's so bad I think they've fired SS with an NDA and they're doing it themselves. "They don’t just opine. They run toward the struggle." Sounds like the kind of thing gets written on a Bench.

by Anonymousreply 536September 15, 2021 7:05 PM

“Vax Live” wasn’t glitzy at all.

by Anonymousreply 537September 15, 2021 7:07 PM

Look up Dumb Bitch in the Dictionary & there is a picture of Markle. Did she not notice how diverse the event was? So, now she shit on rich POC, Politicians (AOC), POC influencers as well as the fashion industry, film industry, social media savvy influencers. Talk about pissing your own pants & hoping the people you are mad it feel it. Her dumbness is astounding even me..

by Anonymousreply 538September 15, 2021 7:09 PM

R536, I’d almost agree, except I don’t think she pulled off the TIME cover on her own. Maybe.

Lord knows she’s got nothing else to do. Did I read that “Pearl” was not going forward? Where’s the podcast?

by Anonymousreply 539September 15, 2021 7:10 PM

All that hair in that picture. Is it real? She looks worse than usual. But, I'm fair, at least her clothes seem to fit. For once. And no bird poop dress.

by Anonymousreply 540September 15, 2021 7:13 PM

R143 It explains the rumors that she'd like a place in NYC. Having discovered that Hollywood isn't open to her after all, and she's tucked away up in Montecito, she may be supposing that the geographically smaller world of Manhattan will allow her to rub elbows more frequently with the set to which she'd like to belong.

by Anonymousreply 541September 15, 2021 8:12 PM

Nothing says lowkey like putting out a press release about an intimate dinner. I don't see anyone that desperate for headlines except the Kardashians

by Anonymousreply 542September 15, 2021 8:15 PM

R152 - Sure, but it won't be the level of luxury such as Brangelina's brand ambassadorship for Louis Vuitton (which is what she'd love). No, it will be like Fergie shilling for Weight Watchers, or maybe a private label collection for Target to rival Martha Stewart's line for K Mart.

by Anonymousreply 543September 15, 2021 8:24 PM

That leg pose is hilarious. Angelina style.

by Anonymousreply 544September 15, 2021 8:29 PM

This looks like Harry is her hairdresser and he’s looking into the mirror explaining what he did to her layers.

-read on twitter

by Anonymousreply 545September 15, 2021 8:30 PM

The stylist must hate her - perhaps she did the shoot out of vengeance, because putting fat Meghan in pleated pants is a true "revenge" moment.

by Anonymousreply 546September 15, 2021 8:35 PM

They send out "sources" to tell the press that all their birthdays and every single holiday is going to be low-key and that they don't need glitzy events. They really love people to know that they just don't need all the elite events that they never get invited to. Yet they fork over money to brag about how awesome they are on the cover of TIME.

by Anonymousreply 547September 15, 2021 8:51 PM

In that one photo she looks like she's about to crouch and take a crap. Lol.

by Anonymousreply 548September 15, 2021 9:34 PM

R194 Incorrect. He doesn't use his title Earl of Dumbarton because his parents were afraid he'd be made fun of due to the "dumb" in Dumbarton. (Btw, the county of Dumbarton is not amused). His parents wanted him to be a prince (contradicting their earlier statement that they did not want him to be a prince) supposedly because they wanted protection. However, in theory they could have protection paid for, which is a separate ask really from being titled a prince.

Previously, it was supposed that on Charles' ascension to the throne Archie would automatically become a prince, however Prince Charles has made it clear that it will not occur as it does not align with his idea of a slimmed down monarchy. IOW, Archie will never be a prince. He can be an earl or nothing at all. Finally, he is no more entitled to the style of HRH than his parents are. Notice that Meghan and Harry are not allowed to call themselves HRH and therefore neither is Archie - with or without Charles sitting upon the throne.

by Anonymousreply 549September 15, 2021 9:51 PM

The pleated pants are awful, and she looks like the side of a barn in the coat in the last photo. She really should have retained one of the Suits stylists who was better at flattering her body type. In the cover he DOES look like her hairdresser and in the 2nd they look like real estate salespeople.

Lol, best laugh of the day was reading the Insta comments.

by Anonymousreply 550September 15, 2021 10:09 PM

Why are so many commented grayed/lined out with a sig line below in red [ troll 5892 ]??

by Anonymousreply 551September 15, 2021 10:13 PM

I'm shocked she hasn't attempted her own fashion line.

by Anonymousreply 552September 15, 2021 10:16 PM

Does the write-up mention all the good they have supposedly done?

by Anonymousreply 553September 15, 2021 10:18 PM

Like all their previous endeavours, this seems to have gone horribly wrong. The NYPost piece is SCATHING.

As for their not-so-subtle dig at the Met Gala, it seems like they have accepted that they are unlikely to ever be invited to anything else again (if not, they have ensured that now).

by Anonymousreply 554September 15, 2021 10:26 PM

i thought the post was a mouthpiece for them?

by Anonymousreply 555September 15, 2021 10:27 PM

Like usual, they're just letting us know how amazing they are. They don't actually provide proof.

by Anonymousreply 556September 15, 2021 10:28 PM

^The Post piece indicates pretty definitively that the mainstream press is *done* with them, fully sees through them as grifters. They better be getting that deluxe treehouse over in Tanzania up and running, toot sweet. The colonies, you know...where they'll be spending the rest of their days, "on safari."

by Anonymousreply 557September 15, 2021 10:35 PM

Somebody please find the real photo they no doubt tried to copy.

by Anonymousreply 558September 15, 2021 10:39 PM

If the Post is correct and Spotify is demanding content before the end of 2021, we can expect another saccharine, wishy-washy self-promotion piece relatively soon. The big problem will be how they get any celebrity guest stars now they're being ghosted.

Maybe that's why Megan was wearing puffy pants and looked to be shitting herself during the photoshoot

by Anonymousreply 559September 15, 2021 10:44 PM

The poster who remarked that Harry looks like her hairdresser in that picture was absolutely correct. And hilarious.

She really is fixated on that long hair, isn't she?

by Anonymousreply 560September 16, 2021 12:24 AM

She's worth it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 561September 16, 2021 12:30 AM

90% of California is in drought. Harry and Meghan live in a house with 16 bathrooms and extensive plantings. For a family of four.

The only danger they've confronted since they left was losing their titles.

by Anonymousreply 562September 16, 2021 12:33 AM

Here's how it works. Sunshine Sachs (or whichever PR agency a given celeb is working with) has connections with various media outlets. They place positive stories about their clients in these outlets as part of their job promoting and image-managing. Page Six is very much friendly with Sunshine Sachs but unlike a smaller mouthpiece/outlet - like Omid Scobie, who would be very badly screwed if he published negative stories about the Sussexes - Page 6/the NY Post has the simple clout to publish the critical pieces (and both from today are deliciously bitchy) *and* still get the placed pieces from SS. It's entirely about who has more power. Page 6 has power, so they can't be bullied or manipulated. Omid doesn't have power, his career would likely be over without the stories the Sussexes give him (and the income from the book Meghan chose him to publish, which puts him in a position of owing her).

I confess I'm enjoying the Harkles studiously pretending like they don't see the NY Post ripping them to shreds on a pretty regular basis. It's also a lot harder to sue for libel in the US, which is another reason we're not hearing so many rumblings of lawsuits.

TL;DR You can only push people around if they're smaller than you.

by Anonymousreply 563September 16, 2021 12:35 AM

She looks bowlegged in one of the photos.

by Anonymousreply 564September 16, 2021 12:41 AM

Not sure the article mentioned has been linked?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 565September 16, 2021 1:13 AM

[quote] The magazine released the cover picture of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on Wednesday, in which they appear with eerily glowing smooth skin, creepy bright eyes and, in Harry’s case, suspiciously fuller hair.


[quote] “Jesus I thought this was a parody account with a clearly photoshopped creepy cover. Then I noticed the blue tick. Wow has @TIME fallen. Hard,” someone else tweeted.

by Anonymousreply 566September 16, 2021 1:15 AM

This photo reminds me of the Angelina Jolie photo where she stuck her leg way out through the slit in her evening gown.

So preposterous and those involved don't get that they appear ridiculous.

And once people start laughing AT you, they never forget the joke.

by Anonymousreply 567September 16, 2021 2:05 AM

It's being suggested by people in the publishing sector that this cost them $1.5 million.

by Anonymousreply 568September 16, 2021 2:07 AM

I believe it r568.

by Anonymousreply 569September 16, 2021 2:43 AM

How much were the elephants supposed to get (reportedly they never received the money)?

by Anonymousreply 570September 16, 2021 4:47 AM

That meme at R561 is hilarious. I'm going to leave it open and return to it all day for a laugh.

This is why I love them. Their ridiculousness never stops.

by Anonymousreply 571September 16, 2021 5:21 AM

Meghan is seriously fat. That's why she's hiding.

by Anonymousreply 572September 16, 2021 6:23 AM

The Aussie Media is literally laughing at them.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 573September 16, 2021 6:56 AM

What we're seeing play out in real time is the old line 'being powerful is like being a lady.... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't.'

These two haven't done anything to be whatever it is they think they want to be - they just announce things that tend not to happen, generally by making it all about themselves. They don't have the experience or intelligence of, say, the Obamas or the (probably long depleted) public affection (plus money) of an Oprah - who whatever enormous irrelevance she's become was once upon a time quiet beloved. They are just wannabes and they don't fool anyone except themselves.

And who the hell uses the word 'opine'?

by Anonymousreply 574September 16, 2021 12:45 PM

Why is she posed like that with one leg cocked off to the side? In the pleated pants (is this part of her 90s fixation?) it looks even more unflattering.

by Anonymousreply 575September 16, 2021 12:55 PM

As the video states, if Megsie is wearing clothes from The Row, she's dropping serious money for casual wear. They may not be quite bankrupt yet!

by Anonymousreply 576September 16, 2021 12:55 PM

I doubt she paid for it. Charity begins at home.

by Anonymousreply 577September 16, 2021 12:56 PM

I have to look great for Archewell!

by Anonymousreply 578September 16, 2021 1:04 PM

The Australians HATE those two.

by Anonymousreply 579September 16, 2021 1:07 PM

She does not even look GOOD in those clothes, R576, mystifying.

by Anonymousreply 580September 16, 2021 1:15 PM

Pathetic. Run towards the struggle?! When was this? That dig about not attending The Met Ball was especially bitch, apparently they have too much important humanitarian work to do.

Actually you know all they did on that evening was Meghan plotting their next schemes on her mind map app and Harry getting drunk and farting up a stink in his man cave.

by Anonymousreply 581September 16, 2021 1:30 PM

The “run towards” is a blatant rip-off of the legend of 9/11 first responders; as people were fleeing the scene, the first responders were running toward the disaster.

For them to compare themselves to THAT kind of selfless service makes me want to puke my guts up.

That’s some fucking hubris.

by Anonymousreply 582September 16, 2021 1:46 PM

^^ actually, calling it “legend” isn’t accurate, because that is exactly what happened. No hyperbole needed.

by Anonymousreply 583September 16, 2021 1:48 PM

R549 - You do not know what you are talking about or you are just making up and posting falsehoods.

by Anonymousreply 584September 16, 2021 1:54 PM

Pleated pants are for tall, thin people.

I’m surprised she didn’t pair them with some horizontal stripes.

by Anonymousreply 585September 16, 2021 1:58 PM

His brother used the exact words "you ran towards danger and went above and beyond" when praising health care workers for an award he was giving out. Health care workers NOT people who sit in mansions and send out press releases and complain about their very privileged lives.

I wondered if that was a coincidence or the wording was added last minute to the ego stroking exercise that was that hilarious write up.

by Anonymousreply 586September 16, 2021 2:00 PM

[quote]"In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don’t know, the duke and duchess have compassion for the people they don’t know. They don’t just opine. They run toward the struggle."

And what a waste of time it is! Not one of those starving African bastard kids asked me if I was OK.

by Anonymousreply 587September 16, 2021 2:20 PM

In that clip from Australian TV I notice Kate has grown her hair several inches longer. Spiteful bitch.

by Anonymousreply 588September 16, 2021 2:34 PM

Matching outfits?

The best thing they did for the monarchy (and probably their marriage) was to step away.

Still, as someone rightly posted here..."undeserved privilege and unearned wealth."

Influential? To whom? ROTFLMAO!!!

by Anonymousreply 589September 16, 2021 2:48 PM

Does Harry genuinely believe people take him seriously as an intellect and thinker?

by Anonymousreply 590September 16, 2021 2:51 PM

Talk about flinging steaming lumps at the wall to see what sticks. God, to have so little self respect...Yikes. Must be awesome drug cocktails they are ingesting. Must be powerful to so make the world go away. You know they read everything written about them. Harry admitted it. God, what a life.

The idea that she wants to move to NY & be a mover there..CRAZY!. Page 6 will eat her lunch for days. Look at the pics they get of Wendy W. DM paps got nothing on NYC paps. She'll sell papers like nobodies biznesss.

Actually could work.Supposed to a cold winter. Will be fireside fodder. I need a new popcorn maker.

by Anonymousreply 591September 16, 2021 3:29 PM

[quote]Does Harry genuinely believe people take him seriously as an intellect and thinker?

I caught about five minutes of the Escape Lifetime movie and they had Harry arguing with William (where they seemed to for once find an actor less attractive than the character he was portraying) and Harry was arguing something about race in a very formal, detailed way that sounded like he was reciting someone's dissertation. The next scene had some lady associated with "the firm" that looked like she was a classic Disney villainess as she was eyeing Meghan. It would not have surprised me if she would have given her a poison apple and Harry would then have to wake her up with true love's kiss and then carry her out of the palace as he rescued her from his evil family. However, I turned it off before that happened.

by Anonymousreply 592September 16, 2021 3:48 PM

R574 certainly not Chef Jose whose English is limited but who allegedly wrote the article which Meghan herself wrote of course.

by Anonymousreply 593September 16, 2021 4:15 PM

So this is why Harry and Meghan were put on this list......it's always who you know.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 594September 16, 2021 4:42 PM

Harry is a senior executive for Salesforce? I thought he was the chief publicist for some tele-mental health thing.

by Anonymousreply 595September 16, 2021 4:45 PM

You don't need "dot-joining" from a Twitter loon. They were put on the list and the cover because it is hoped that they will sell magazines.

by Anonymousreply 596September 16, 2021 4:50 PM

But that doesn't make much sense either as it's been reported the sector understands they don't sell.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 597September 16, 2021 5:07 PM


"If by “run towards the struggle” Andrés means making nearly every great human tragedy about themselves — from staging Remembrance Day photos at a California cemetery to their Afghanistan statement (lecturing us all to “alleviate suffering”) to turning their website black on 9/11 — then yeah, sure."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 598September 16, 2021 5:09 PM

R591, I would love for her to come to New York. She’d have her work cut out for her.

by Anonymousreply 599September 16, 2021 5:29 PM

Harry looks like his wife's little bitch in the Time photos.

by Anonymousreply 600September 16, 2021 5:36 PM

R597 - The Sussexes may not sell magazines in the UK but they do sell magazines in the USA.

by Anonymousreply 601September 16, 2021 5:38 PM

I was very disappointed to see Chef Jose Andres lend his name to that piece of puffery. He and his organization World Kitchen do incredible, crucial work feeding people after natural and man made disasters across the globe. A very worthy charity and one can easily observe what they do with their resources. Jose Andres is a very busy man (I think he still owns restaurants) to keep up with the Harkle's scams. He's part of the charity community. PR probably shoved the memo under his nose to sign for a nice contribution to World Kitchen. If a cover costs $1.5 M, this cost them, too.

by Anonymousreply 602September 16, 2021 6:05 PM
Need more help? Click Here.

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


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