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.

Who will get hurt the most by a Brit royal family boycott of BBC?

I suspect Fergie and Edward.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25November 28, 2021 1:01 PM

After Lilibet kicks the whole greedy lot many have to work for a living. The only chance they have is delete King Charles and Queen Camilla and fast forward to Wills and Cate. If they don't want to end up on the ash bin of history.

by Anonymousreply 1November 22, 2021 9:24 AM

Why would the royal family boycott Big Black Cock? We will take whatever they don’t want. Nothing wrong with sloppy seconds, just ask Kim

by Anonymousreply 2November 22, 2021 9:46 AM

The BBC will be hurt most but then the BBC is on it's last legs and will hopefully be no more.

by Anonymousreply 3November 22, 2021 10:03 AM

The FIrm needs the press more than the press needs the Firm.

by Anonymousreply 4November 22, 2021 10:08 AM

Give Sarah, Duchess of York a role in the queen's 70th Jubilee. Don't leave her out. They both like each other.

by Anonymousreply 5November 22, 2021 11:02 AM

What’s with Will & Harry balding so young? Both Charles and Earl Spencer had more hair.

by Anonymousreply 6November 22, 2021 11:08 AM

How much BBC were they getting to begin with? I think BBC was already boycotting them.

by Anonymousreply 7November 22, 2021 11:23 AM

It depends on how B the BBC is.

by Anonymousreply 8November 22, 2021 4:13 PM

are we going to be able to see this in the U.S. It should be required viewing for DLers (except for the spoilsports who insist on cancelling these threads).

by Anonymousreply 9November 22, 2021 4:27 PM

This thread is useless without BBC pix.

by Anonymousreply 10November 22, 2021 4:48 PM

Honestly I'd love chess pieces carved with their faces, such bone structure, at least on Harry. William drowns his sorrows with treacle tarts. He's still a cutie.

by Anonymousreply 11November 22, 2021 4:57 PM

Who cares? This whole family has proven time and again how white trash they are.

by Anonymousreply 12November 22, 2021 4:59 PM

I find this behind-the-scenes stuff endlessly interesting. It seems much likelier that all of Charles, William, and Harry’s camps are hustling to make their principals look good (and the others look bad) than the black-and-white tale of evil Harry (aka evil Meghan) vs kindly Prince Charles and hunky Prince William.

Most interesting of all to me is that the Queen’s people seem to just stay out of this? Or perhaps they’re just more subtle and less likely to be caught out when spinning.

by Anonymousreply 13November 23, 2021 1:13 PM

Harry is rapidly losing his hair and soon his looks. How long will M tolerate that?

by Anonymousreply 14November 23, 2021 1:21 PM

Here’s my theorizing:

Robert Lacey’s book Battle of Brothers details how Prince Charles was a largely absent figure when William and Harry were in their teens, leading to Harry’s pot-smoking wildness and piss poor judgment in wearing the Nazi costume. The book asserts that William was just as, if not more, wild and made similar poor choices, but because the palace wanted to prevent damaging information coming out about a future King, it couldn’t have Charles looking like an absent father or William looking like a pothead. Instead, Harry was sacrificed, with the drug stories spun to be about Charles being a good father who took his son to drug counseling and no mention of William.

This obviously led to simmering resentment in Harry, as did the general idea that the family members more directly in line for throne should be prioritized for good coverage and kept away from scandal. You could tell during the Megxit drama that Harry resented the position this rule put him in.

Fast forward years later to when Harry meets Meghan and gets upset by the racist press coverage. He lashes out and publicly tells the press to cut it out, but that angers Charles because it overshadows attention Charles planned to get for a diplomatic trip (and Charles hates being overshadowed), and maybe angers William because it makes Harry and Meghan the focus of attention the spare is not supposed to have. Thus, when Harry had his little tirade about “Meghan gets what Meghan wants” and there was a Kate vs Meghan showdown over wedding preparations, there are plenty of people in Charles’s and William’s camps willing to share this with the papers to try and take Harry down a notch.

(Whether William was also motivated to share dirt on Harry to distract from the Rose Hanbury affair story is a valid theory, IMO.)

Harry knew this was what was happening, and Meghan was angry about getting bad press (because she, like the rest of these people, has no tolerance for critique), which sent his camp into a briefing war with William and Charles. This is how we were getting so many conflicting stories about Harry and Meghan being either evil or angels on earth.

The most interesting aspect of all of this, to me, is how/whether this led to the Tatler feature story from last year that greatly embarrassed William and Kate. With a straight face, it told the country that William used psychics, Kate had an eating disorder and new-money taste in decor, William preferred the Middletons to his own family, and Kate was the real power behind the throne. It said all of this in the official news source for the aristos, until William insisted on it being withdrawn and much of those details removed. How the heck did that happen?

by Anonymousreply 15November 23, 2021 1:37 PM

^I began to read with interest, then tedium set in abruptly

by Anonymousreply 16November 24, 2021 7:23 AM

I don't think the scales are balanced quite the way people think it is, and the monarchy has an off way of outlasting entities like Omid Scobie, Jenny Afia, and the journalist whose water the BBC chose to carry.

Omid Scobie just out out Tweet that he did this interview in November of last year- in other words, before it emerged that his pay mistress was a perjurer. Ditto Jenny Afiia.

If the Summary judgement is overturned, and I have an increasing hunch that it will be, all the people who keep carrying Meghan's water for her, and this now includes the public perception of the BBC, will again be left with egg on their faces.

Scobie's statement that he did this interview before Meghan had to admit she lied to the courts is, make no mistake, a CYA legal move advised by his lawyers.

Schillings should have known better.

When those two stories break, all anyone will remember is that the BBC promoted a platform for a known perjurer and her water carriers.

And the monarchy will look vindicated.

ITV got a nice bit of change out of it with the Christmas concert hosted by one of the monarch's most popular members and its future Queen, and if things really go south with the ANL case and the bullying report, ITV will be grateful not to have run that documentary. It will be sitting in the Winner's Corner.

by Anonymousreply 17November 24, 2021 1:59 PM

^*odd (not off) way

by Anonymousreply 18November 24, 2021 2:01 PM

R15 - The TATLER story was a revenge hatchet job on Kate. Anna Pasternak is a joke: she's the one who wrote the "roman a clef" about Diana's affair with Hewlett. As far as the Lacey book goes, it basically put it out there that William should have stood in for his father where Harry was concerned - as if a 15 year old was supposed to bring up a13 year old. It came down harder on William as if he was somehow responsible for taking on Charles' duties as a father. And, Harry had shown some "issues" as a child, long before Diana died - she called him her "wild child" and mentioned her concerns to the psychiatrist she was seeing. Everyone had known for some time that Harry was a loose cannon, and everyone knew when he quite the military, as Max Hastings said, that Harry was a train wreck waiting to happen.

William was only two years older than Harry and going through his own issues of loss and adolescence. As it was, Diana had leaned on William far too heavily for any young son. The book was considered to be a bit kinder to the Sussexes than later emerging info warranted, and Lacey began to realise that might have come across as a bit of a fool and not really on the inside as he'd like people to think.

So, when the real shit about the Sussexes started to hit the fan last spring with all the lies Meghan and Harry told in the ghastly Oprah interview whilst Philip was dying, Lacey issued an "updated" (read: re-edited) on the original book with a more warty picture of Meghan and Harry, including the incident where Meghan left that food market in Fiji after five minutes. Lacey's "new" edition of the book was excerpted in the TIMES (UK) and the last column contained that incident. Meghan filed a press complaint about the article - which went nowhere. The TIMES left the story up till it was time to take it down.

The aristo set do tend to run a bit wild in their teens - it's a laddish culture. But it was totally untrue that the Palace covered up for William and not Harry: the Palace covered up endlessly for Harry, hiding his drug abuse, his cruelty (he beat up sex workers in San Diego whilst on shore leave there), and instead crafted the public facade of the cheeky, carefree, impish soldier boy.

William and Harry threw a 50th birthday party for Charles - during the festivities, the 14 year old Harry suddenly stripped to his skin, ran around the room starkers, and then ran out, leaving his father and brother mortified, and the guests hugely embarrassed.

Harry and Meghan are both mentally ill. William may have his problems, and so may Charles - most humans do, and all families have shadows in the corners.

But the Sussexes are much closer to the line separating "troubled" from "mentally ill".

And they have only themselves to blame for prying open the lid of the Pandora's Box of their respective psyches.

by Anonymousreply 19November 24, 2021 6:51 PM

R13 - Don't kid yourself. The Queen is like the Don: layers and layers of capos and button men between her and the world, but don't think for a moment she doesn't know what's going on.

The BBC were fools to run this just as Meghan got outed as a perjurer. This was all done in fall 2020, before the Oprah interview, the Dax Shepherd interviews, the Lilibet name fiasco, and Harry and Meghan sending in Gayle King and Omid Scobie to tell the public that phone calls between Charles and Harry, and William and Harry, weren't going well, and to try to blackmail the BRF by threatening "more dirt" if the BRF didn't "address" the "concerns" of poor wittle H and M.

But now all out there for the world to see are the interviews and the lies and the Lilibet fiasco and worst of all, the materials showing that Harry and Meghan tried to deceive not only the press and public, but the courts, about their involvement in Scobie's book and Knauf's involvement in "crafting" that letter.

When the rest of it comes out, everyone will forget the petty shit in that "documentary" and only remember what a lying conniving perjuring bitch Meghan is, and how much hate Harry has for his family buried in his petulant, sour, whingeing heart.

Meghan and Harry are, in the end, both intensely unlikable, and that's the real difference between them and the Cambridges.

by Anonymousreply 20November 24, 2021 7:01 PM

I'm glad I don't pay my TV licence, 86% of which funds the BBC. I never watch their awful programs. I stopped paying when they scrapped the exemption for pensioners.

by Anonymousreply 21November 24, 2021 7:31 PM

1/10, R15.

by Anonymousreply 22November 26, 2021 5:00 AM

So, the latest on the "documentary" is that, at Harry's insistence, in Part 2, the term "Megxit" will be ditched for the term "Sussexit".

I arsk you all, friends and countrymen: is this not a noble feminist gesture from the prince who roughed up sex workers in San Diego whilst a serving member of HM's armed forces, and who once had to be stopped by his brother on the polo field from abusing the poor animal said prince was riding?

by Anonymousreply 23November 28, 2021 12:29 PM

Edward has had more BBC than any of them

And he still can't give it up

by Anonymousreply 24November 28, 2021 12:44 PM

[quote]Who will get hurt the most by a Brit royal family boycott of BBC?

Clearly, the Datalounge.

by Anonymousreply 25November 28, 2021 1:01 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!