Prince Harry: GIVE ME SOME SECURITY IN THE U.K. Or Else I'm Going to Court!!! Pt 2

Well, they did win their last lawsuit.

R1 and what a great "win" THAT was, hahahahaha

Former thread:

It's a bummer he's struggling with his mental health again. Get well soon, Harry!

Is petulant brattiness and jealous classified as a mental illness?

Ask your doctor?

She never was suicidal. I'm with R585 on this. I even don't believe she ever had a real miscarriage. She probably had hypermenorrhea and told idiot Harry she had been pregnant.

^ more Klan Granny “wisdom”

5 When it interferes with your quality of life and has a negative impact on work and relationships, yes.

This is all just to give them something to hide behind so they don't have to come and be booed and second class during the Jubilee. Think of it: Oh, Harry, it's not safe... you go to the Jubilee, you go to the funeral, you go to the coronation. The UK has served its purpose. Plain as day and more vile with each passing complaint.

Hi Meghan @ R8.

Busy searching for your name on the internet again?

If only they had the very best mental health experts and resources available to them.

Aren't we due for the crying makeup artist to pop up with a report of how happy the Harkles are?

Delusions of grandeur at R11.

R13, hahaha, THIS!

The previous posters who thought this latest drama was really about a diminished/non existent role during the Jubilee with security as an excuse not to go is probably right. Though somewhere, Andrew & the Yorkies are breathing a sigh of relief that the Harkles changed the subject from that unpleasant "we don't know him" press release QEII sent out on Friday

She wasn't suicidal when pregnant. She saw the Princess Di melodramatically throwing herself down the stairs in front of the Queen episode on The Crown and thought she wants one of those! She may only be a meagre Duchess but she's also a Drama Queen!

Yes, R14, Meghan's delusions of grandeur are obvious, thanks for pointing that out.

Seens to be en vogue that people use the cover of “mental illness” for atrocious behaviour.

If you are ill: get help.

Do NOT go about spreading your illness and attacking everyone and everything in sight.

It is similar to a criminal: if a criminal truly admits to a crime you don’t coddle them (unless you are George Gasçon or the Manhattan DA) and enable them to run around to continue committing criminal activity.

No pity for The Harkles.* They cause chaos and trauma whether they go. It just continues.

* They did commit perjury.

We are talking about a woman who emptied out an entire section at Wimbledon for herself and two friends. Just a few years earlier, she had been hustling herself into the VIP sections. There is even a photo out there of people demanding to see her pass and Markle looking downright enraged.

I completely believe that they wanted the same treatment as William or they were not budging.

All this foot stomping, so childish & ridicule inducing.

Harry should look with pride to one of the great Uk bards. Bobbie Burns: O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us. (O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.) & take this advice for sure.

[quote] 5 When it interferes with your quality of life and has a negative impact on work and relationships, yes.

But back to your narcissism and sociopathy, Meghan.

This isn’t only about YOU. There are billions of others in this world and your issues have an impact on them (most notably your children and family, not to mention the British taxpayers....or Wimbledon ticket holders......or people who work for you...or others you encounter.)

If you don’t seek treatment of your own accord, then thems the breaks, as they say.

Put up or shut up.

Huge temper tantrum.

Thinking about this- were meant to watch Meghan (suicidal ideation while pregnant) and Harry (stated mental health issues), the Kardashians (obvious body dysmorphia), Britney (I won't venture a guess) and even Trump (sociopathy, horrifyingly elected as President), as celebrities.

Our culture is an absolute Freak Show. We shouldn't gawk at, mock, and idolize these people. They should be in care.

Meghan was never suicidal. She was using to manipulate Harry behind the scenes and then to manipulate viewers of the Oprah interview. She, as she has a propensity for doing, was stealing a page from Diana's book. As gay men, many of us have dealt with suicidal ideation in our own lives. Serious thoughts of killing yourself are not a one off thing that you just get over (which was Meghan's DANGEROUS message in the Oprah interview). It can take therapy or other medical intervention to move on, and years of getting into a better head space. Let's not forget she was also pregnant at the time which is even more scary if it's true she wanted to off herself and her unborn child. If Meghan has a mental health issue, it's narcissism and a narcissistic person would never kill themselves.

Now, Harry clearly has mental health (and probably addiction problems) issues coupled with emotional problems and very limited intelligence. This is a recipe for disaster. While I don't think it's fair to blame Meghan for everything Harry has done, someone behind the scenes is clearly stoking his paranoia.

You forgot all the dysfunction paraded out every week on every reality show for our enjoyment.

R26, is that why we accept this? I know that the writer's strike way back in - what, 2006? - led to the rise and total takeover of trash reality. Did reality tv desensitize us to all of this mental illness on display and rob us of our humanity?

Agree she wasn’t a single tiny bit “suicidal”. Pffft.

She was cured by Harry holding her!!! Megs didn't need no stinking therapy!

R25 Here, here! Problem is the media is scared shitless to even remotely question her mental health claims because we live in a time where we can hide behind mental health as a shield for bad behaviour.

Joan Rivers once joked (shortly before her death) that we live in a time when we'd have to forgive Hilter if it were claimed he were bipolar.

That’s good, because her husband wouldn’t have been able to find one.

Allegedly Harry is begging Charles for money.

We all know Harry has magic hands. Remember the head & body tapping bit. Will he be teaching that on better up performance? He can heal anyone who is suicidal for sure, with just his touch

Harry should open a practice. He can hold me and make all my anxiety go away.

Mental illness does not excuse you from the repercussions of your actions.

^ This.

As stated above, it is not some kind of shield to deflect or deny bad behaviour.

Meghan is too vindictive to ever consider suicide. She'll see everyone dead before she kills herself.

R35, maybe where you live. But here is NY the MI may be arrested, but are quickly set free to reoffend, usually a worse offense.

It really is like Joan Rivers said. Hitler would have got a pass if he said he was Bi-Polar.

The manuals are very clear that narcussism and psychopathy are NOT illnesses but personality disorders. A person carries no responsibility for the effects of their illnesses, but they absolutely DO carry responsibility for yheir actions with personality disorders.

Not in NY!

The shit show rolls on. Harry seems to be a mentally ill bulldog on the security issue -- I believe the rumor they're on the phone searching for mentions of themselves 20 hours a day.

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

Wow. She was really thin.

Serves Rajan right.

Jubilee year will be very hard for Harry, one imagines. So many things happening where he won't be part.

I’ll take “Things I Should Have Thought About Before Alienating My Family” for $400, Alex.

You picked a loser Harry. Are you realizing that yet?

Harry's not a huge prize, either.

They are floundering, hope win the lottery or their world will come crashing down.

What was the expectation exactly? Did they think they were going to be elevated to legendary status upon arrival to CA? I don't understand. Did she want to act again?

Re the Tom Bowers book.

I'm hoping to get some tea about the alleged high school stories and the supposed sorority hazing story.

Much more interesting than the husband.

Oh, and the supposed first husband story as well.

She thought this marriage would make her A list and that she could come back to Hollywood and show up everyone who ignored her previously. She really thought she would get big acting roles. It's just conical!

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

What happened was that they seriously miscalculated with the Oprah interview. Had it been focused on their exciting new start in California with little Archie, their hopes and goals it would have set them on a positive path and gained them a lot of support. Instead is was a whine fest chock full of easily exposed lies. They've never recovered.

How come Chelsy was at the wedding? Seems like Meghan would have put a stop to that.

This is a ruse .A legal ruse and very insincere.In order to get what he is asking for he would have to have his status as an international important protected person reinstated .Once that happens he will via his lawyers move the goalposts and say if such and such a special protected international person gets their top class security free then why shouldnt I? Thats prejudiced and unfair i am going to appeal.They will bill him and he wont pay. Any top tier lawyer will see through this ruse from the start.

Once he has international protected person status again he will be able to go to any country in the world and according to established international protocol have his protection and accomodation paid for during the visit.This I believe is their real game because they have money problems and cant or wont pay to travel and promote themselves globally.

When the queen for example visits say Denmark or Peru because of her special international protected person status the host country will pay for her security and accomodation as courtesy under the protocol.That is what Harry and his wife want mark my words Harry saying he is willing to pay is PR and not sincere

The Royal family can't bail them out, the real money is tied into Trust funds, Duchy's and Dukedoms.

Charles had to borrow Diana's divorce settlement from The Queen.

Agree 100%, SurvingAngel.

If they push so aggressively on this subject they may continue to inflame and catch the attention of those who typically pay them no heed....not to mention those that have already lost their patience with the duo.

Add to this the potential judicial case against the government, and the (finally!) swiftness with which Andrew was defenestrated, perhaps there is a slight chance that Everyone will become SO fed up that parliament become involved and will remove their titles?

They are so bizarre. A shit storm is engulfing the Yorks (and Boris for that matter) and he comes out threatening to sue and the next day she's complaining about the BBC. It's like they want to be linked with bad timing. Really bizarre.

Chelsy got to come to the wedding and look upon the glory of Meghan on her wedding day. She got to come to the day reception where she was nice enough to give Meghan a hug. She was NOT invited to the private evening reception, and Harry even called her and asked her not to try to gatecrash, which astonished her.

r58 Thank you! There are press rumours that both Prince andrew and Prince Harry are going to be removed as counsellors of state later this year when parliament takes a vote on some legislation.Interesting times ahead!

Is it true that Andrew still has police-provided security? Charles, Camilla and the Cambridges we’ve talked about. Anne, full time or only when she’s on royal duty? Ed & Sophie, who knows. Bea & Eugenie have private, paid for by Andrew, but Andrew himself…no royal duties but apparently up to now still has MET protection.

I'm beginning to think the issue with Chelsy is that she genuinely values her privacy and would not have aided Harry in his bizarre need to pull attention from his brother and get revenge on his family for all of their supposed slights. If he had quit the royal life and lived with her quietly (albeit luxuriously), that wouldn't have fed his Spencerian need for drama drama drama.

They better find the money. The Duchess, and mother to the 7th and 8th in line, needs a new wardrobe and a fucking Dior bag.

Thanks for posting that video of Trevor's "bachelor" party prior to his new marriage.

He has more black friends than wife number 1. A lot more.

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

Unless the unthinkable happened and William and the kids are raptured, Harry and Andy aren't going anywhere, as far as the line goes. Once you start picking and choosing who is "deserving" of their place in the succession, the whole thing falls apart. They won't set that precedent.

Who is #9?

It should be easy to remove Harry. Counsellors of state have to be domiciled in the UK. Andrew is trickier, but I'm sure they'll think of something.

For the five thousandth time, nobody is doing anything to the line of succession. Parliament isn't getting involved in that hornet's nest. This isn't the Middle Ages: The Cambridge children are not going to die of the plague. They can leave Andrew and Harry where the fuck they are because they're as dynastically irrelevant as Lord Freddy Windsor at this point.

If his legal situation gets much direr, Andrew is going to die of a sudden heart attack or stroke. MI-5 doesn't fuck around in matters like this.

They can simply pass a law that allows for the appointment of Counsellors of State at the discretion of the Sovereign. It has nothing to do with line of succession.

That would make a lot more sense. The Counsellors of state should be Charles, William, Anne, and Edward. The born royals who are doing work on behalf of the crown and aren't total jackasses.

They need to establish a precedent for royal wives, too. Once Charles is on the throne, Kate can be a Counsellor.

As if Harry would be allowed anywhere near the throne if the Cambridge family died en masse.

I'm surprised we haven't heard from the the-York-girls-are-so-nice troll.

R55, Meghan probably wanted Chelsy to witness her (in her mind) victory. Meghan got the ring and married the prince — not the rich blonde.

That Chelsy didn’t actually want to marry Harry was irrelevant to Meghan.

Contemplating the Queen's weekus suckedatlotus:

"At which point, Prince Harry, sucking on his CBD-infused iced matcha latte on a poolside recliner in the grounds of his £11million Montecito home, thought to himself: “I know what I’ll do! I’ll sue the UK government – Her Majesty’s government – over its decision to remove my police security… in a country I have visited twice in the past two years. Because now just feels like the right time, you know?”

No, Harry, I don’t. In fact, outside the Californian A-list bubble that specialises in promoting altruism to others while indulging in the most searingly selfish behaviour themselves, nobody will understand or condone this move – at this particular moment.

But with the Sussexes’ self-absorption and narcissism now flagrant enough to be tiresome even to their most tireless critics, I’m more interested in a few choice lines of the legal statement issued by a representative on Saturday. One which reminds people, among other things, that “while his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal family has not” and warns that: “In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

Here you go R68.

[quote]“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

If Harry truly thinks anybody cares if he comes to the UK or not, he's really delusional. Nobody wants him there except, maybe, Charles. Even the Queen seems done.

[quote]But with the Sussexes’ self-absorption and narcissism now flagrant enough to be tiresome even to their most tireless critics

That is what they are now, tiresome. Not shocking, not angering, not treacherous, not grifting, not interesting, not relevant. Just tiresome.

The ridiculous part is that Harry and Meghan wouldn't need much security anywhere at all if they didn't quite shoving themselves into the spotlight. If they'd truly retired to lovely Montecito to live as private rich people a year ago, nobody would be thinking about them now. That said, I doubt they need anything like the security they employ in Montecito.

The anonymous "legal representative" writes suspiciously like MM in tone and style. I particularly like the claim that H formerly held public office. Hahahahaha. Every time over exagerating to comedy levels.

I found that but thank you for being so helpful. I was rather disturbed to see #9 is Andrew. I hate the thought of the young ones potentially being thrust on the throne with such a piecemeal support system for them.

Who’s welcoming Harry back to England?

R84 MARY!!!!!!

The Cambridge children have their parents to support them. The security services take excellent care of the Cambridges. However, someone needs to tell William to quit piling his entire family into helicopters--that's the only security issue I see.

Brits, what are the chances that parliament would pull their titles if they continue to anger and grift them....which they were warned not to do?

It's 5 am in the UK.

Thanks, R89.

I think it’s almost sinister that he wanted his security people to have access to British intel. Mary me all you want.

Also, r83, I thought the same. Who is the Sussex “legal spokesperson”? Does this person have a name? Are they an actual lawyer? Like, someone who works at a law firm and is practicing with a valid California license? Or does “legal spokesperson” mean some unnamed “spokesperson who isn’t illegal”?

According to the Sussex announcement, unless quotes come from Archewell, they are not legitimate. There will be no “anonymous sources” speaking for them. That’s what they said. Otherwise, it’s misinformation.

[bold]FUCKING HELL WOULD YOU BITCHES FIND YOURSELF A REAL HOBBY.[/bold]

Crochet or rugby or crack cocaine. I don't fucking care.

Get a fucking life.

Yeah, they fail to even keep up with their own mandates. The “legal statement” sounds suspiciously Marklesque: long-winded and full of pompous praise like something out of an autocrat’s regime. Yet according to their own words from a short while ago, we are to disregard it as it did not come from Archewell.

They really are the 3(-1) stooges.

I think the Archewell thing is going to be quickly forgotten, like all their other bullshit initiatives. They foot from one thing to the next.

Here I was thinking that they would appear in some home magazine, giving a tour of their new home. Megs showing off her closet full of ill-fitting designer duds. Harry showing off his home office. Instead, we get the fucking chicken coop with Harry miserably feeding chickens.

Has Authenticated Poster Della peeped or porked yet about her unfortunate blunders?

No sign of sanctimonious Della here yet.

I saw photos of the kitchen. Major upgrades are needed.

Where's this home tour with Harry feeding chickens? Can someone please post the video?

It was part of the Oprah interview. Smeg was going on and on about feeling like she was the little mermaid, having had her voice taken away (barf), while H sat there miserable with the chickens. No joke.

R99, the vid is from the Oprah interview. Here’s a captured still of Haz. Sitting ‘lone (haha) looking dejected in a chicken coop.

Lol. The wife is squatting with her moonbump rising into her neck. Rumor has it this was when Oprah's production team found out about the moon bump.

Harry has never been hot but now he is downright ugly. Also, why do the sugars hate Kate so much? And how much is SS paying Celebitchy to gird the fraus into Cambridge hatred?

Harry isn't very smart, either

Oh great, now the “moon bump” pregnancy truthers have arrived. It’s just a thread full of freaks.

No one asked you to stick around, R105.

Am I the only one who thinks that Oprah is a horrible person who supports horrible people for popularity? She's incredibly phony and hypocritical in my opinion.

My theory r103. The older Diana loons see themselves as pseudo parents to "the boys" and non titled Kate was just not good enough. The women Kates age who fancied Will also hated the fact he chose a non aristo and without warning them so they could compete! These 2 groups joined with the Meg nutters who wanted Meg in Kate's role of next Princess of Wales and quite a sizeable hate group formed.

This is just the impression I get from comments over the years.

Smeg sees other women as competition and treats them accordingly.

R109, well that's the Hollywood/sorority ethos she knows. Not her fault. Women are only competition in those milieux.

Hey, I'm an older Diana loon who has never liked bratty Prince Harry as a child or an adult. I started paying attention again after William started dating Kate. Took a break after Diana died. I have always thought William chose very well.

Call her a Wisteria sister or not, Kate was an excellent choice. She really wanted the job and works hard, and she grows more regal as she gets older. She also knows how to handle the press without outshining her husband, a balancing act Diana never learned. Having a non-aristo wife actually works for William in this new day of ours, too, and it means that George is the most thoroughly British heir to the throne in centuries. Nicely done, William.

R108 exactly . A large part of the Sussex stans HATED Kate before they even knew a Meghan Markle existed somewhere . Kaiser on Celebitchy has hated Kate for a decade plus . It's not that they actually like Meghan , they figured they could use her as a tool to beat Kate with . Problem is , their Superduchess fucked off to California instead of showing up Waity as planned and took Good King Harry with her which forces the stans into more and more irrational mental gymnastics to keep stanning them,

Meg grows more regal as she gets older ,too.

Yes, R114. Yes, she does

R115 will nothing ever fit that square body? Marilyn looked a million times better in a potato sack than Megz in Dior.

It's easy to see the fashions that would work on Meghan's difficult figure: Look at how they dressed her on Suits. Classic, tailored fashions that lengthened her legs and gave her the illusion of a waist. It's not that hard to dress an apple figure--there are millions of women shaped like that. First, though, you have to admit that you are apple-shaped and can't wear long, flowing garments without looking like a keg on legs.

How many pounds ago was Suits?

This whole security thing stinks of Meghan's self-importance and playing off of Harry's paranoia. Meghan has a history of calling police claiming there is paparazzi (or sinister) intrusion. When she lived in Toronto, she called the cops numerous times and each time the police couldn't find a single shred of evidence that anyone had been on or near her property. Also as someone who lives in Toronto, the paparazzi aren't even a thing here. The only time you ever see photographers about is when the Film Festival is happening. But in Meghan's mind she is the most important person on Earth.

R107 Most people with a rational mind think this about Oprah. I was a big fan of hers back in the 90s, watching her show after school was one of my first "obviously gay" traits. But once she started peddling people like Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil it was increasingly clear she was a snake oils salesperson. I mean Kathy Griffin got it right when she said that Oprah thinks she's jesus. Oprah bought into her own fame, and will do anything to remain relevant. Her post-talkshow career has been less than stellar.

The essence of regal, yes.

I say Oprah is the classic example of a person who knows they've got problems to solve but won't do the hard work to understand the problems, and so jumps at easy answers... like Dr. Phil. I think she wanted the interview to get the interview. All that gang - Oprah, Gayle... they seem to have gone quiet on them. Even Ellen made a fool of her. You think that was an accident? No, she treated her consistent with her reputation.

R114. Absolutely!

Harry most likely watched the Lifetime movie about them, and thinks its telling of things to come. He needs to become a IPP again to save his wife, who is as hunted by the paparazzi as Diana was!

So regal!!!

The fact that Meghan wanted Oprah to do the interview shows you how stuck in the 90s she is.

Oprah has jumped the shark.

That mess of an “interview” she did with Meg & Co. will not stand the test of time. It already has been viewed as a mistake. The turning point for many in the perception of H&M as well as Oprah, herself.

They were warned not to do the interview. Yet they did not listen.

If you watch the clip of them at the event they attended on the same day she told Harry she was suicidal, Harry looks like total shit and super anxious but Meghan looks like the cat that got the cream. I don't believe it for a second.

She’s an atrocious actress*, R127, so I’d agree that was another one of her mistruths.

Harry may be another story.

She looks very distraught! You can just tell she was crying her eyes out in the car like she claimed.

Hilarious how she piles on tons of bronzer every time she wants to look more "black" on purpose.

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

This is why you do not piss off the press. Slow news day? Let's dig up some dirt on Harry and Meghan!

This latest move of Harry's is quite a bit more Machiavellan than previous moves, because he is really trying to move the goalposts with it.

The previous lawsuit is irrelevant. The Mail was on the wrong side of the letter of the law and the court, somewhat predictably, went with the letter of the law. That the case also revealed that Harry and Meghan lied to the press and public, and she lied to the court in sword statements, was not unimportant, but was irrelevant to the privacy issue.

In the security case, the letter of the law is also clear: 1) Harry is a nonworking, nonresident royal, and the only royals entitled to round the clock protection by public employees are the Queen, the Wales', and the Cambridges - even Princess Anne and the Wessexes, who are working royals, don't get round the clock protection - they only get it whilst carrying our their formal royal roles; the Home Office makes the distinction clear. 2) Active duty officers of the police, including Scotland Yard, are not legally available for hire, rent, lease, or other privately funded use by individuals.

As Harry wouldn't be allowed to "pay for them" legally, anyway, which would set a terrible precedent, and he and Schillings are well aware of this, what is his real game?

Twofold: 1) get the government to change the law so that he's recognised as important enough to warrant the protection. If the government does that, it becomes absurd for them to insist he pay for something they've agreed he needs especially when they've kept bawling that public employees aren't available for individual hire.

The other aim is to see if the threat of another ugly Harry and Meghan PR Special will bamboozle a grandmother and/or father into paying privately, of course assuring the public that it will not come out of public monies.

But what the public will see is two people they loathe getting special treatment because Harry was able to leverage his family connections to get special treatment, although he and his wife have done everything they can to insult the country and institution that made Harry and Meghan special in the first place.

And, it is of course also a demonic dig at the grandmother he pretends to revere but whose guts he probably hates for not treating him and Meghan as if they were Kate and William, for taking the HRH, for not making Archie and Lilibet HRHs at birth, for allowing Knauf to expose them as liars, etc., etc., ad nauseam ad infinitum.

The government operates in the name of the Sovereign. It is Her Majesty's Government (HMG in informal office talk).

So, Harry is yet again picking a fight on behalf of his status, his chequebook, and to put the boot into Gran again, only this time by going through the government.

If either the government or the BRF cave in to Harry on this one, I think a line will have been crossed that neither entity will ever be able to recover from.

^*sworn (not sword) statements.

There's no way they'll cave to his demands. He has no legal grounds to win this and the RF's PR team will have advised them against it for reasons of self-preservation (the public would be outraged). Harry is again going to fail at this. Like he fails at everything.

R129, damn she's so good and poised and graceful there!

... BUT I notice she is saying "nice to meet you" when greeting people, not "how do you do" or "how are you?" which even middle class Americans know to do, and I'm sure she was trained in the proper etiquette ...

I am still sad it didn't work out. She WAS good! Better than most American actresses would have been in that situation. What a shame.

Why wouldn't one say "nice to meet you"?

R136, what’s wrong with saying “Nice to meet you” or “it’s a pleasure to meet you”? I have never (or rarely) heard anyone say “How do you do?” when introduced to someone in New York. Is that a regional thing?

"How do you do" = making it about the person you meet

"Nice to meet you" = putting the focus more on yourself, less the person you meet, therefore being regarded as less polite

You say "how are you/how do you do" when you meet someone.

You say "nice to meet you/have met you" at the END of your conversation. It's a bit old fashioned, but it's very important in certain environments and something people like Royals, socialites, businesspeople etc. tend to follow. She would have been instructed in this, I'm sure.

They might have given an interview and spent their time talking about their plans for the future. They spent 100% of their time bitching about the royals. If it had just been bitching, sour grapes, ok. But they told lies which were easily shown to be lies. Why? It was like Meghan couldn't stop fantasizing about her perceived victimhood. She's definitely a borderline. That's borderline behavior. Diana was also a borderline. Maybe that's what attracted Harry to her. Borderlines cannot maintain family relationships, love relationships, friendships. They either adore you or despise you and they can turn on a dime which is why borderlines should always be kept at arm's length. My sister was a borderline. Absolute hell.

You don’t say “nice to meet you” when you first meet someone because you can’t possibly know - they may be a sociopath (although I think that Meghan has cornered that market) or just a genuinely awful person.

In the English class system, saying “nice to meet you” is also a dead giveaway that someone is NQOCD.

Regal woman!

Rock those fakies, Your Royal Highness!

Which one of her menfolk got her this job?

Meg grows more fattish as she gets older ,too.

Fixed it for you, R114.

It’s ironic to me that on that night at Cirque du Soleil, she looked the best she ever did (despite being suicidal [sic]). Sleek chignon, no messy tendrils. Heavy makeup, true, but it looks good from a distance and it’s one of the rare times she wears a true red lipstick. The navy sequins look good with her coloring although the gown had her usual fault, being too tight. She should have tugged it down after getting out of the car. Harry seems underdressed in comparison. She has no sense of style and can’t figure out how to compensate for her figure flaws but on this night, she—or someone— managed to get it right.

Her Dad got her the Deal or No Deal gig. Her ex-husband got her some D list acting jobs. Harry got her a voiceover.

I agree R147, it was one of her better looks. She never can truly nail an outfit, there is always an of element. In my opinion the yellow dress is Australia was the best one overall.

Agree, R149, re the dress. Her shoes don't fit, though. Why did none of her shoes fit the first year or so of her on the scene? They were sometimes clownishly oversized (and frequently dirty, too). Just one of her many oddities I will never understand.

Will add, I don't miss Meghan - but I miss parsing the WTF-ness of her clothing choices.

[quote] Sleek chignon, no messy tendrils. Heavy makeup, true, but it looks good from a distance and it’s one of the rare times she wears a true red lipstick. The navy sequins look good with her coloring although the gown had her usual fault, being too tight. She should have tugged it down after getting out of the car.

Co-sign this appearance, R147.

One of a handful of times since 2017 I perceived her to look decent.

Every appearance since Megxit, she’s looked completely unfortunate. Adds to the theory that everything is not coming up roses.

The yellow dress looked good because she was very slim during that period. I don't think that is her natural build though. She looked filled out in Suits.

Speaking of Suits, was she never promoted to series regular? Seven seasons and never evolved past secondary love interest?

R153 she was always a series regular, just a secondary character.

[quote] just a secondary character.

Story of her entire life.

Apparently she sized up her shoes due to bunions. Her shoes fit nowadays, so she must have had them corrected on the BRF dime.

She did have bunion surgery. The daily fail put up pictures of the scars on her feet. The duchess was not happy at all.

How does one get bunions? Eating at buffets?

women who wear high heels that are too tight to make their feet look smaller

One of the reasons for Megsie's ill-fitting wardrobe is that she's probably wearing samples (to merch) that she can't have altered unless she wants to pay for them.

R135 - Chance would be a fine thing. The royals are notorious for ignoring the advice of the first-class people they hire to advise them.

And, you have to remember that Charles is a wet mess as well as riddled with guilt and regret about Harry.

The government can tell Harry to fuck off because this time the law is on their side, not the Sussex's. Caving in to Harry's demand to have his status changed and either paying or even allowing him to pay for active police officers to take care of him and Meghan with crime rising exponentially in the public's own front streets? You'd have to be mad not to see the pitchforks and torches heading your way.

But the BRF - they're capable of anything right now to spare the Queen another ugly fracas just as the Jubilee opens, Andrew's legal woes are heating up, and the first anniversary of Philip's death rolls around.

Harry's blast at just this time is the PR version of Hitler at Munich in 1939: he didn't want peace, he wanted a fight. Chamberlain gave him what he wanted, and he didn't get the war he wanted, so throwing up his hands in disgust, he invaded Poland.

So they got WWII, anyway.

This is Harry's Munich: he doesn't care about the money, not really. He wants a war. This is his invasion of Poland.

Who makes samples in her size?

R69 - This keeps getting missed so glad you mentioned it. In order to serve as a Counsellor of State you have to live in the UK at least 180 days, or six months of the year. Harry hasn't lived here in two years, let alone for six months. So, Harry is already ineligible. Why the fuck don't the media to any research on this shit?! It is, as you say, Andrew who is the problem. They would have to pass over him for Beatrice. If they can amend the law, which they may be able to do, they could even pass over the York girls straight to Edward and Anne, so that the current four are Charles, William, Edward, and Anne.

The line of succession stuff is also off the table. No one is going to go there. The Queen should be grateful to Kate for having three kids instead of two.

Although, I must say, in attacking the Queen through the government, I wonder if Harry isn't skating a little close to some thin ice on that score.

[quote]Harry's blast at just this time is the PR version of Hitler at Munich in 1939: he didn't want peace, he wanted a fight. Chamberlain gave him what he wanted, and he didn't get the war he wanted, so throwing up his hands in disgust, he invaded Poland.

[quote] So they got WWII, anyway.

[quote] This is Harry's Munich: he doesn't care about the money, not really. He wants a war. This is his invasion of Poland.

I do think this may be the case, R161. Haz keeps pushing those boundaries as he and Megs seem wont to do.

[quote] If either the government or the BRF cave in to Harry on this one, I think a line will have been crossed that neither entity will ever be able to recover from.

Co-sign this, R133. Do believe it is important for the government and BRF to realize the significance of this. As noted above, the duo keep crossing boundaries internationally (US, Canada, Australia and in the BRF). If they capitulate to Harry and Meghan, there may be no turning back from this.

(I don’t find Charles the most kingly of all potentialities. If Elizabeth is able to hang on for several more years, I have more faith in William.)

If Charles can't stand up to his wayward son over this, he has no business being king. This is an easy decision with full government backing.

Are they doing some shady shit with these companies in Delaware?

This has nothing to do with The Royal family despite Harry's delusions.

It's a decision made by the RPO and the Home Secretary.

[quote] It's a decision made by the RPO and the Home Secretary.

Yes. But correct me if I am wrong, it is the Queen’s Government, no? IF Charles feels strongly about supporting his boy, as heir, he’d likely have pull with Mum and her government, no?

Just throwing this out there because Charles has recently lauded his second son as being an environment champ (which sounds completely like utter rubbish to me given everything that’s transpired since Megxit) and has reportedly offered Haz an olive branch.

I’ve always believed Harry is to Charles as Andrew to HMTQ. A favored, spoiled son.

Would one say "how do you do" upon first meeting TQ or are we to assume she's a potential sociopath as well?

The samples were never the right size. The black blazer she wore when she flashed her cooch on stage was so small that it fit her like a bolero jacket. Her arms looked like stuffed sausages.

R168 I doubt any Monarch would create a constitutional crisis over the Montecito twats.

They can't anyhow, it's not how a constitutional Monarchy works.

“How do you do?” is perfectly acceptable R169. I’m assuming that reading comprehension isn’t your core competency.

However you may not get the best response if you refer to Her Majesty as “TQ”.

I think Delaware just has some favorable tax laws for corporations. So, if you can legally incorporate in Delaware, why not.

So regal even during a toilet paper blunder.

Klan thread - please f & f these putrid old women.

[QUOTE] Harry has never been hot but now he is downright ugly. Also, why do the sugars hate Kate so much? And how much is SS paying Celebitchy to gird the fraus into Cambridge hatred?

I can't believe Datalounge allows this kind of Tumblr woman to post. All the infantile jargon and conspiracy theories.

R169 You would be right, I'm dyslexic. Which not only jumbles letters but abstract ideas. I meant to ask should one not say "nice to meet you" to HM, assuming she may be a sociopath. I also sometimes say tomorrow instead of yesterday and boy instead of girl and vice versa. And whatever you do, dont ask me for directions.

No! Carole Middleton said "nice to meet you" when she first met the Queen and it was a SCANDAL! The press went crazy: she was a middle class frau- she broke protocol, she was CLEARLY INSTRUCTED to say "how do you do" when she curtsied to Her Majesty! But she was extremely nervous.

Jesus, do you guys even BRF?!?

Meghan got so many freebies. It's actually very funny.

[quote] I’ve always believed Harry is to Charles as Andrew to HMTQ. A favored, spoiled son.

Not favoured, just spoilt rotten due to guilt feelings.

[quote] The Queen should be grateful to Kate for having three kids instead of two.

Tbh, I'd lol so hard if Kate had another one -- princely baby no 4 would piss off Meghan so much.

Victoria Elizabeth Mary!

KLAN WHORES

They're actually following the Queen's pattern: boy, girl, boy... which might make Louis the Prince Andrew of the 2040s...

Kate, at age 40 with a history of difficult pregnancies, won't have a fourth child. It WOULD be funny, though.

If Kate were to have another baby, I can just imagine the increased shade from the Sussexes. They already made that snarky comment about two children being enough considering we have an overcrowded planet.

With the exception of their lunatic stans, who'd give a fuck as to what these hypocritical tossers say about anything?

Delaware is to the corporate and financial services in America Lichtenstein is to billionaires the world over.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it ethical.

Taxes are for the little people.

The First Amendment is bonkers.

No, you can’t see my tax returns.

guns are cool though . I'm throwing a tantrum because I want my armed police back

Kate - is - not - having - another - baby.

She just turned 40; the Queen is standing on the edge of a crater which means that "Princess of Wales" with all the attendant rise in expectations and duties is probably around the corner; the criticism re the planet would be deafening; and, just in case Charles follows the Queen unexpectedly soon, it's time to 1) make sure the black ensembles are clean, pressed, and ready to hand, and 2) she can hit the ground running (first stop: the jewellery vault).

Meanwhile, I notice that journalists are picking this story up and framing it as a sign that Harry wants to come home, but only on his own terms. Celia Ward has a column on it up on the Telegraph, with a mountain of shade thrown in, but still, it's a Thing that's bubbling to the surface.

Both the government and the BRF need to put a stop to this and fast.

^*I can't get the Ward column on the Tellygraph because it's paywalled.

[quote] Meanwhile, I notice that journalists are picking this story up and framing it as a sign that Harry wants to come home

We ALL knew it was only at matter of time, but the question was how long. After only two years...

The guy IS intellectually challenged, but he did not have to prove everyone (except himself and grifter wife) correct.

The Maul has double header stories claiming they will use the security deprivation as rationale not to attend Prince Philip's memorial in April (?) and have or will decline an invitation from Prince Charles to come visit.

Megsie will never step foot in the UK again.

I agree, nor will she willingly let her kids go there. Her paranoia and inflated sense of importance make her think the BRF would keep Archie and Lili.

If she and Harry divorce, she'll fight like hell to keep Harry from having partial custody unless he stays in California where she can keep an eye on him.

R192 - LOL.

It's a good point, though. You would think that someone who wanted back in would be out to prove himself sorry for what he did to his family, offering "olive branches" of his own, and making it clear that if he does come home, he intends to be a good boy from now on . . .

Instead he picks yet another fight with Gran through her government, makes a huge deal about his status, and ensures that the UK public despise him even more.

I don't think he wants to come back. I think he wants to come back when he feels like it and to enjoy the privileges he was used to as a senior working royal.

Coming back with Meghan is a nonstarter. The public hate her.

I think this is Harry stating his boundaries: either you treat me like the Prince I Was Born when I'm here, or I'm never coming back, and I don't care which of you lot, the government or Papa, make sure I get what's I'm entitled to, but if I don't get it, I'm outta here for good.

Accepting it isn't beyond reasonable to think he's not very smart and has emotional health issues, does he stay with her forever or eventually does something dawn on him? And if it does, what? Or does he just become so bored and frustrated with the aimlessness of life in California that rose coloured glasses set in and the UK and royal life starts to seem not that bad and then he has to find someone to blame? I don't know where either of them go. Their A list ambitions are dead, their newsworthiness has a fixed shelf life and already seems to be focused on what a couple of jerks stories. At 45 or 50, what's she got to offer the world she wants to be a part of? I used to think this ended with him waking up and getting his divorce and going home. Now I have no idea.

Anyone who has a subscription to The Telegraph, please post the Celia Ward story.

Meanwhile the New York Times is throwing shade at Andrew and comparing the Royals to the Corleones

Could someone at least post a link to the Ward column?

Do you mean Celia Walden?

Bored Harry is trying to tell us he wants to come home – I bet we’ll welcome him with open arms

Far from having exiled himself forever, the Duke of Sussex sees a future here... he just needs to stop throwing his toys out of the pram

Are there any toys left in Prince Harry’s pram? Seems to me they’ve all been thrown out. And the timing of the latest to have been hurled aloft with petulant rage is regrettable, to say the least.

Still reeling from the death of her beloved husband, the bleakness of her first Christmas alone and a year in which she has been forced to deal with dirty laundry-airing of the most deliberately damaging kind, the Queen was last week forced to make one of the most painful decisions of her long life and strip her “favourite son” of his HRH title and honorary military titles, in the wake of a US judge allowing a civil sexual abuse case involving the Duke of York to move to trial.

At which point, Prince Harry, sucking on his CBD-infused iced matcha latte on a poolside recliner in the grounds of his £11million Montecito home, thought to himself: “I know what I’ll do! I’ll sue the UK government – Her Majesty’s government – over its decision to remove my police security… in a country I have visited twice in the past two years. Because now just feels like the right time, you know?”

No, Harry, I don’t. In fact, outside the Californian A-list bubble that specialises in promoting altruism to others while indulging in the most searingly selfish behaviour themselves, nobody will understand or condone this move – at this particular moment.

But with the Sussexes’ self-absorption and narcissism now flagrant enough to be tiresome even to their most tireless critics, I’m more interested in a few choice lines of the legal statement issued by a representative on Saturday. One which reminds people, among other things, that “while his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal family has not” and warns that: “In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

Actually, it’s not a line but a word that recurs three times in that brief statement that intrigues me: “home”. Because this is the biggest indication that the Duke still considers the UK his home since he stepped down from royal duties two years ago to pursue a private life in the US – in the full glare of Oprah and Netflix’s cameras, on stadium stages across the country and at lucrative JP Morgan summits, when he’s not writing “tell-all” memoirs.

Far from having exiled himself forever, Harry (whisper it) still envisages a future here; still wants a future here. He’ll be back.

As much as our peevish Prince has portrayed this country as antagonistic, archaic, racist and dangerous to live in, his legal statement seems at pains to remind us of his birthright – “he remains sixth in line to the throne” – and that he didn’t simply represent the UK for many years but fought for it, serving “two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan”. Reading between the lines, I’d go further. I’d say that he misses his country. And who can blame him?

As golden as Harry’s life in Californian exile looks from the outside, I always suspected that the reality would prove different. That a place where you’re judged not on who you once were or even what you accomplished last week but your currency at that precise moment in time might quickly start to lose its appeal.

Sure enough, his primatologist friend Dr Jane Goodall admitted back in the summer of 2020 that Harry was already “finding life a bit challenging”, while others have since claimed that he has been “struggling” and “at a loss, without any structure in his life”. Before Christmas, one close source confirmed to me that “he has lost touch with many of his friends in the UK”.

I’ve spent enough time out in California and interviewed enough Citizen Kane-like celebrities in luxurious gated communities to know that unless you find like-minded people to engage in “inappropriate” banter with over “inappropriate” drinks in the nearest thing you can find to a pub, it can be one of the loneliest places on earth.

But as Harry lies back by that Montecito pool thinking of England and the hostilities he might encounter there on future visits during the year of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, he should remember that the place he calls “home” would most likely still welcome him back with open arms. That rightly or wrongly, the love we feel for our monarchy isn’t too far off the kind parents feel for their children – with a few notable exceptions. Because it’s not quite unconditional. So no more toy-throwing, OK?

I'd post the New York Times story, but I'm in a time out. Not sure who I offended as I'm pretty mild with my posts.

No, he’s putting out a face-saving reason not to attend the Jubilee.

MM clearly not welcome so it’s embarrassing to come on his own or she’s spinning it as disloyal or disrespectful of her if he goes solo. So he demands police protection when he knows he’s not eligible and being denied that, he can say he wanted to come for dear old Gran but was not allowed.

The DM got ahold of the story and gleefully published it. I read he’d made this demand last September; they released it now so the focus would shift off the Andrew news. Not because they care about him, they don’t, but because they knew a new MM/Harry controversy would infuriate Sussex supporters who would complain that once again MM/Harry are being used as a distraction by the BRF.

[quote] Kate - is - not - having - another - baby.

I agree -- the Cambridges having another baby is pretty unlikely.

Buuuuuuuuuut it would be just hilarious. Imagine Harry and Meghan's reaction to the news that Kate is expecting Prince/Princess no 4 while their own potato-head spawn remain Joe and Jane Doe.

Is Celia Ward a Harry stan? She seems to mildly gloss over all that’s occurred. She sounds like what I imagine Charles to be saying:

“Oh, he’s had a few temper tantrums. All boys do. It’s over now and he’s coming back so all’s right with him and us and England.”

Meanwhile, Haz is suing his family’s government and in the midst of writing a BRF expose.

By the way, where does Meghan go from here?

Harry still has a sliver of a chance to be able to come home, but only solo. The public will never accept Meghan now. He'll only achieve redemption by blaming it all on Meghan, and he still seems in thrall to her. I don't see him being a working royal anytime again soon.

You're welcome, R198.

Has Amol Rajan or the BBC commented about Meghan's complaint? Or are they forbidden to until there's some inquiry.

Well, they're probably stumped. They would have been on her side, spiritually, and were still complained about.

Harry has to be homesick as hell. My partner is Scottish. He's lived in the States for 5 years now. The first 3 years he was kind of enthralled with the differences, now he constantly criticizes the States and just downright hates it. I've told him if Trump gets reelected, we are out of here and back in the UK. Harry's a dumb guy whose social life revolved around hanging out with friends he'd known for years, going to shooting parties, playing polo and going down to the pub with his mates. He's got to be missing that life and Meghan's got to be giving him claustrophobia.

[quote]Actually, it’s not a line but a word that recurs three times in that brief statement that intrigues me: “home”.

I hadn't read the statement. Well, this certainly speaks volumes.

I suspect that Harry, at first, loved the California informality and very laid back approach (outside of the entertainment industry, that is), thinking it was breath of fresh air (or something like that). But I suspect he's grown to resent it and wants the deference he received in the UK, because, after all, he's a coddled Prince of the Blood. How many "Don't they know who they're talking to?" moments has he had and has he managed to squelch haughty responses?

I also think he's been blind-sided by actually having to be in charge of himself, particularly the finances. He's dim to begin with and everything used to be taken care of for him, magically it would seem. He never had to think of how much the electricity, gas, water, sewer, maintenance, staff, and taxes cost and whether there's income coming in to cover them, extracurriculars (polo ponies) and basic necessities like public relations firms and lawyers. If Harry is as bad at taking sound advice as the rest of his family, imagine what it must be like when he sits down with his accountant and is told to rein in his spending? Bonkers.

Eugenie outed as royal mole?

"Home" is mentioned in that statement just to suck up to the British taxpayer, who, quelle surprise, would have to foot the bill for Mr 6's sojourns in the UK in case Mr 6 decides to crawl back into the BRF's cosy fold.

Eugenie is Markle's hapless flying monkey. Sad.

I wonder who planted that story and why. Was it supposed to be a warning to Huge that she's being used? And I thought it was all tiara wars and wedding focus pull between those two? Story is geoblocked for me.

Well, that's it for Eug and any real access to Wills and Kate.

The members of the royal family are proving themselves to not be very smart, aren't they? Harry is dim, Andrew is deluded and stupid, and now Eug? You should've invested more in education, Lilibet.

Back at Kate's Christmas thing, the Cambridges' reservedness towards Eug was pretty obvious. They were much warmer towards Bea and her husband, though.

Here's a link to the Ward article in the Telegraph. I think her assertion in the heading is just a tad out of touch with reality.

And here is Michael Deacon in the Telegraph throwing massive shade at Meghan.

The entire York family is a disaster at reading people. Maybe not Bay-triss, but the other three...

For those without a subscription

It's all at R201, R202.

The archive is for the Deacon column.

Yes, realized that too late. Cheers.

I doubt Euge really cares at this point. That is, about access to the Cambridges. She's known for a long time that the long game is going to them. She's tenth in line, a private citizen, and unless she really needs one of those Crown Estates properties desperately, she and her husband can get along quite fine. Euge has a modest seven figure trust fund, and Jack's family is well to do. She's unlikely to "need" the Cambridges by the time they get to the top.

With the papers bawling about how it was really William and Charles that persuaded HM to put the knife into Andrew's back, and Charles' decades of contempt for her mother and rebuffing of Andrew's late attempts to get his daughters onto the royal gravy train just after William married, it's not surprising that Euge feels vicious toward Charles and William, and sympathetic to Meghan and Harry.

It's interesting how people only see things from out their own arseholes. I wonder if it ever really sank in that her father brought this on himself, and so did Harry and Meghan?

R218 - The Queen had no say whatsoever in the education of Andrew's daughters; she's their grandmother, not their parents. Euge has a university degree, by the way.

Harry has his mother's mental instability. No amount of education would have fixed that. Charles should have invested in a more intelligent and stable wife, is more like.

Andrew was spoilt rotten. Education wouldn't have done much in that quarter, either.

Anne, Edward, and Charles, and William, are all from the same branch. And they seem to be quite different to Harry and Euge and Andrew.

It's character - more brains would have helped, I admit, but I think not much.

Eug isn't thinking clearly, then. As noted above, her father dug his own grave. William just did what he had to do to shore up the institution he'll lead one day. What's more, the Sussexes have shown zero loyalty to those who help them while Will and Kate have. She's risking her relationship with the important, loyal cousin to help the unimportant, disloyal cousin out of resentment over a situation created by her pervy dad. Stupid move.

r229 - Don't disagree with any of that. That's how things go, though: it's much easier to be angry at the powerful cousins than have to admit to yourself that your father is a sleazy dirty old man.

And the really galling bit is, if Andrew hadn't been what, by the time the Cambridges married, was well known to be a train wreck waiting to happen, ditto Fergie who was already a train wreck that had happened, the two York girls might have been in line to fill the gap left by Harry and Meghan.

Were I Bea and Euge, I'd be furious with my parents for making it impossible for me to have taken advantage of a fall of the cards no one could have predicted.

They could have been senior working royals after the Sussex debacle, if not for their loud-mouthed fool of a mother and sleazy father.

But they'll blame others, instead.

So the Deacon column said Markle's complaint against the BBC was upheld and they had to issue a clarification.

What cracks me up is that either the Markles or one of their minions tasked to do it are listening to an obscure podcast for potential "slights" they can complain about even if they're essentially 99.5% true. God it must be exhausting to be gossamer-skinned.

I believe the BBC chose to issue a clarification. But really, it doesn’t change the nature of what MM did, and people know that.

Not their first apology. From September 2019::

[quote] The BBC has apologized to Prince Harry after the taxpayer-funded network published an image from a neo-Nazi social media group that labeled the royal a “race traitor” for his marriage to Meghan Markle.

[quote]The Guardian reported on Wednesday that the image, which was broadcast and published online in December of last year, depicted the 35-year-old with a gun pointed at his head and included blood splatter and a swastika. The image was captioned: “See ya later race traitor. #racetraitor."

Jesus. I’m sure the BBC was using it as an barometer of the animosity that the marriage incurred so it was actually supportive of Harry and Meghan. Still, republishing it was controversial. This was a tough call.

[QUOTE] Kate, at age 40 with a history of difficult pregnancies, won't have a fourth child. It WOULD be funny, though.

It WOULD be hilarious if the silly cunt died in childbirth.

R234 is yet another of the KGT’s sock puppets.

It’s your use of “cunt” and your general lunacy that give you away, KGT.

Also the gleeful wishes that someone he doesn't like must die. We love to hate but the KGT takes it too far.

Agreed, R235 & R236. Regarding Meghan, we love to do quite a bit of snark, but we'd never wish her to die. These rabid Meghan fanfish are mentally disturbed.

Someone’s trying to get this thread shit down, too. I’m guessing it’s the person who is wishing death on the Cambridges.

R238, it's always her. This person needs help. And a longer stay at the nuthouse.

I don't know what is is about the BRF that brings out the loons. I enjoy their antics and while I certainly don't want anything bad to happen to them (though I do things are going to get worse for Haz if he doesn't return to the mother ship in the not so distant future), I don't really care much one way or the other. I suspect most people feel that way, but these thread are catnip to a small but rabid group of zealots.

R240 I'm sure there's another Sam Heughan thread out there for you. The ice skating threads are also hor right now, with itheir own set of hysterical loons moaning about the inevitability of Kalieva taking the gold in Beijing, and, of course, there's the priceless Do Other Vultures [sic] Approve of Farting and Burping thread. You'll like that one: you have to dig for the subtle sociopolitical subtext, but it's rewarding if you stick with it.

This is a gossip site. The Sussexes have been a major story since they got married. They've gone on Oprah and trashed Britain's Head of State, and the glaringly emotionally damaged prince (the son of one of the 20th century's major icons), and his blatantly opportunistic wife who parlayed a nearly nonexistent talent into global fame and wealth, are the alpha and omega of gossip.

The thing is, you can always count on Harry and Meghan to start stirring the pot again, justnwhen you thought it was safe to ho back to the latest "Let's Be" thread.

The actual loons are Harry and Meghan.

^*apologies for the types. I'm typing on a phone on a bus.

^^*Did I mention the Blow Jobs Tips thread?

The more I hear about Harry and Andrew (see link below and its description of behaviours of Andrew's), the more I see connections between them.

This stuff goes beyond immaturity and pomposity. This is an expression of primate testosterone totem pole rage.

It also raises the question of the Queen's huge failures in addressing behaviours that should have made her blush with shame.

Whilst not absolving individuals of their personal responsibilities for their decisions and actions, in this particular arena, the Queen had enough power to threaten bad behaviour with the removal of patronages, military honours, supplemental funding, and, later, trust funds.

She raised Andrew, and not only did she close her eyes, as she probably did to Philip's affairs, but is still refusing to take either man's ducal title after those have been besmirched beyond belief.

Now, she confronts the spectre of her enraged, mentally unstable grandson crossing yet another Rubicon in his search for vengeance and validation. She closed her eyes to what Max Hastings called the train wreck waiting to happen where Harry was concerned, as well, as did Harry's hapless father.

These are the Queen's failures. You cannot any longer divide her reign up into public success but private, personal failures, because the latter are now tarnishing the former.

If the monarchy falls with Charles, the Queen's inability to deal out tough love to her rogue relatives will have proved the tipping point.

Margaret - shitty spare

Andrew - shitty spare

Harry - shitty spare

I think Kate and William may break the spare curse by having a close, stable family life and insisting their kids get decent educations.

I read the preview at r244 and thought asking for room temperature water and an ironing board at a hotel isn't outrageous. Then I read about the Teddy bears and plushies. 😂

Agree R241. Everytime I think the Sussexes have finally gotten the message that their behavior and pronouncements are unpopular, they pull some wild shit like suing the UK for police protection. I wonder if they pay for PR to think up the most bizarre ways to get attention.

R230 - It seems like there might be a difference in the sisters' reaction to there father's piggery. It appears that Beatrice is closer to the situation and more affected than Eugenie. Back when PA gave the Pizza Express interview, I read that Bea was on the team that helped him "prepare" for the interview. If so, she was likely privvy to the information about her father that her sister is not. More importantly, she was able to observe her father in a pressure situation that probably elicited not only defensiveness, but the worst in him. I don't think he could suppress his inner raging asshole.

And in a recent Andrew or Ghislaine thread there was a linked article that said Beatrice was upset (I think "devastated" was the word used) that her 18th birthday party featured a trifecta of sexual abusers: Maxwell, Epstein, and Weinstein, all captured on film, including a shot of Epstein and Maxwell sitting in the throne room on those chairs.

Beatrice is said to enjoy friendlier relations with the Cambridges. Perhaps it's because she's more understanding of the situation her father selfishly thrust the York family into. Some kids do have a painful awareness of their parents' defects of character.

A holocaust survivor who spoke at Eton when William and Harry were students there, just totally shat all over Harry LOL.

R250 the same guy who wore a Nazi uniform for fun, right?

R250, quelle surprise ...

If you complain about media coverage are you a kind of Karen?

Harry IS Prince Karen!

William wearing glasses is hot.

Harry is ... ahem, well, how to put it politely?

it was Beatrice (and Fergie) who urged Andrew NOT to do that disastrous interview.

Bea seems to have common sense and content with what she has got. She's probably glad she is now married with children (I guess she will have at least another one), living a comfortable life out of the constant (and merciless) spotlight without having to worry about anything (with the exception of her mother's antics and her father's shady dealings). She poses certainly no treat to the monarchy, to the future monarch (William, that is) in particular.

Bea is really the Lady Edith of the whole York drama.

The low-drama Bea was apparently a favorite of Philip's and is still a favorite of the Queen's. I suspected as much when I saw that granny lent her a gown AND her own wedding tiara for Bea's nuptials. I don't think that was just because Bea agreed to a scaled-down ceremony.

Reusing the dress as a wedding gown was a nice idea, but nothing more. But that Bea got to wear the very tiara HM wore at her own wedding was indeed significant.

[QUOTE] If the monarchy falls with Charles, the Queen's inability to deal out tough love to her rogue relatives will have proved the tipping point.

She should have dealt tough love to Charles and cut him from the line of succession for adultery and divorce. The monarchy should die with Elizabeth.

"You're NOT coming".

Auntie Meghan made mum cry.

Once I'm Queen, I'll make sure she'll regret that.

^ creepy post

Also a boring post - that Princess Charlotte schtick was never funny to begin with.

Ok, R265. Oh, btw, you're NOT coming either.

[quote]William wearing glasses is hot.

I was thinking that too; it makes him look smart & kind of distracts from the chrome dome. Hair loss notwithstanding, he really is a handsome guy

Those glasses make him look sophisticated and smart.

And I love smart guys.

I’m not sure you can entirely blame the queen for Andrew’s faults. Remember when she and Phil got married, he was touchy about giving up his naval commission and knowing he’d always rank lower so he was tasked with managing the family. I wonder how Andrew and Phillip got along, did Phillip see Andrew as part of the boys club, Jack the lad? Especially compared to Charles who was so awkward. Andrew was brash and good looking (at the time) and liked to party.

[quote]to what Max Hastings called the train wreck waiting to happen where Harry was concerned

Link please? This isn't a challenge, I want to read about it!

The thesis of The Crown is a pretty smart one, which is that the institution warps the people and family in it in ways good and bad. I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that “the spare” of the past three generations ends up with some kind of addiction or dependency (booze, sex, booze/substances). And it’s also not inherent or personal to the heir if that role pushes them to step up their game and take on responsibility.

R270, The article is in the 1/25/20 issue of Airmail.news. That's Grayson Carter's latest effort and you need a subscription.

R272 it's een posted at last three times on different DL BRF threads I'll see if I can find it.

Poster should try Part I of this topic. It might have been posted there.

Found it and it's so good I'm going to cut and paste it (the Max Hastings article) here because it's behind a paywall. This was published in Jan. 2020, right around the time Megxit was announced and the Sussexes were in Canada. I'd love to hear what Hastings has to say now - at the time I agreed with him and was quite worried the BRF was screwing up and the public would turn on them. Turns out Harry and Meghan were determined to fuck up (over and over and over again)!

Anyway, cutting and pasting now...

The divorce of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from Britain’s royal family has been negotiated with a speed that may prove ill-advised. However impulsive, even crass, the couple’s behavior, given their global popularity there was a case for the monarch to be seen to show forbearance, to keep talking. As with all soap operas, it is rash to kill off cast members without considering the possible impact on the ratings.

It is interesting to speculate about how much advice the Queen and her heirs sought before embarking on the course that led to last weekend’s announcement of the removal of the couple’s cash drip and H.R.H. titles. Precedent suggests not much. Members of the royal family sometimes solicit the views of friends, courtiers, lawyers, and even of journalists. Very seldom, however, do they heed the counsel of outsiders, unless it coincides with their own instincts.

As a newspaper editor in the 1990s, I was a privileged spectator during the last series of Family crises, meeting all the principals. I can boast that my own advice—to say as little as possible publicly about their split—was dismissed by both the Prince and Princess of Wales. Diana nodded attentively and fluttered those famous eyelashes when I urged discretion—“Yes, Max, absolutely, Max”—during a 1995 luncheon à deux at Kensington Palace. Unbeknownst to silly me, however, that very afternoon cameras were setting up next door for her “tell-all” BBC TV interview in which she laid bare her every love—and hate.

One evening, a year or so earlier, I had dinner at St. James’s Palace with the Prince of Wales and our mutual friend Nicholas Soames, a member of Parliament and Winston Churchill’s grandson. It was a few months after the Prince’s separation from his wife, and he treated his two guests to a howl of self-pity, the familiar cry that nobody understood him.

After an hour or more of royal monologue, I suggested that he was quite wrong in supposing that nobody was on his side. Both he and Diana commanded tremendous public sympathy. All three of us around the table had suffered broken marriages ourselves. I urged, however, that the Prince should not lose sight of the fact that he remained an immensely privileged person.

Charles, unmoved, banged his fist on the table, rattling the silver and crystal. “Nobody but me,” he said, “can understand how perfectly bloody it is to be Prince of Wales!” Soames, to his undying credit in my eyes, said, “No, sir, Max is absolutely right. We must box on, sir! We must box on!”

That conversation was the last I have ever had with the heir to the throne, though there were plenty more with Diana and Palace staff, such as they held with several other editors and journalists. Going through the mail one morning, I opened a letter from the Princess of Wales, which began, “Dear Max, I read the Editorial about me in today’s Telegraph with interest (as you might imagine!). Though in many ways a model of good sense, I feel it suffers for being based inevitably on incomplete knowledge. I wonder if you might find it useful to come and talk to me privately at Kensington Palace. Your next pronouncement on the subject might then be even more authoritative! Yours Sincerely, Diana.”

Those exchanges left me with abiding reflections. First, members of the royal family perceive themselves as different from the rest of us to a degree that renders them exempt from the rules which govern ordinary human behavior.

This helps to explain an egoism which afflicts even the Queen, and even in conversation with those whom she considers personal friends. Beyond “Have you come far?,” she, like other royals—with the notable exception of Princess Alexandra—finds it difficult to show the sort of interest in others that, among lesser mortals, passes for good manners. I say that as an admirer of the monarch.

It is hard to overstate the difficulties the Family experience in communicating with each other in good times, never mind bad. On returning from accompanying a royal tour—of India, I think—Britain’s former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd recounted to me a long conversation he’d had with the Queen. They discussed courses for the monarchy’s future, prompting her to say more than once, “But I don’t know how Charles will feel about that.” Douglas said that he yearned to respond, though did not dare, “Why don’t you ask him, ma’am?”

One day in 1994, I was lunching with a senior Palace official, to whom I suggested that the forthcoming divorce between Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles and his wife Camilla would pose problems. He gaped, and demanded, “What Parker Bowles divorce?”

I told him it was common gossip that the couple’s separation was about to be formalized, freeing Camilla to establish a public relationship with Prince Charles. My friend was both shocked and disbelieving. He rang me two days later, to apologize. He said that he was now fully briefed about the divorce, which came as news not only to him but also to his employer. Extraordinary as it might seem, the Prince of Wales had not warned his mother about a development with momentous implications for both her and the monarchy.

All this happened a generation ago, but some of its lessons still seem relevant. Britain’s monarchy cannot survive and prosper without more disciplined management. It is impossible to expect that the natural inclinations of all members of the Family will lead them to pursue wise courses. They need to follow the practice of every commercial family enterprise that passes from generation to generation, even multi-billion-dollar ones. While retaining ownership or dominant shareholdings, the inheritors appoint bright people with authority to manage and protect their interests.

Some royal private secretaries have had clout. As the Queen has grown older and some of her children wayward, however, it has become progressively more difficult for any mere functionary to exercise influence over the extended family. Christopher Geidt was an outstanding private secretary, and during his tenure (2007–17) he sought to impose some discipline and direction. For his pains, he was brutally evicted from his job at the behest of an unusual alliance of Princes Charles and Andrew. The latter especially resented Geidt’s resistance to conceding royal privileges to his two daughters. The former, meanwhile, bridled at any attempt by Geidt’s office to infringe—as the Prince of Wales saw it—his authority as heir to the throne, and to influence the running of his household.

Both princes were conspicuously absent from Geidt’s farewell party at Buckingham Palace, an occasion attended by the rest of the royal family, who valued the private secretary as he deserved. What Geidt understood is that much of the grief which periodically besets the monarchy derives from the refusal of some members of “the Firm” to recognize their own limitations, and to accept the counsel of advisers who have a better grasp of the outside world than they do.

A related issue is money. The royal family does not receive sufficient income to keep its humbler members in the style to which, quite wrongly, they think themselves entitled. The consequence is that they accept hospitality from unlovely people, and cash from folk whom it is wise to count one’s fingers after shaking hands with. Even the Prince of Wales has been guilty of the former practice: remember the borrowing of yachts from Greek shipping tycoon John Latsis.

Some lesser royals accept largesse from socially ambitious people whom they repay by inviting them to the Royal Box at Wimbledon, the Queen’s afternoon at the Chelsea Flower Show, or—in the case of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, as guests of Prince Andrew—parties at Windsor Castle and Sandringham.

Family members are unwilling to acknowledge a truth obvious to everybody else, that any yacht-owner eager to lend them his gin palace is, ipso facto, somebody whom it is rash for them to be indebted to. That they will do so anyway is one near certainty about the Sussexes’ future in North America. The earnings that royals or ex-royals can generate from their talents, as distinct from their celebrity, would scarcely cover the services of Meghan’s manicurist.

Once again, the keyword is “discipline”: the need for somebody acting as chief executive—even if no monarch would countenance conceding that title—to establish and set before the Family a template of conduct, especially financial conduct, for all those who wish to remain royal.

The Queen herself has seldom, if ever, mishandled money matters—hence the jokes about her using every postage stamp twice. Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, may not have been born royal, but she has not put a foot—or, more important, a word—wrong since marrying Prince William, and indeed is perhaps the best thing to have happened to the Family in this century. Almost all the rest of the tribe, however, have false-stepped in various degrees, tarnishing the Crown.

Ah, you now say, but what if a new, disciplined regime is imposed, and a prince or princess kicks against the pricks, rejecting advice or instructions from whomsoever it comes? It is a good question. The Prince of Wales has a history of dispensing with the counsel and, indeed, friendship of people who dare to say boo to him, even though the rest of us know that the most important people in our lives are those who offer tough love. The Sussex train wreck has been only a matter of time ever since Prince Harry unwisely quit the army, which provided some much-needed structure. It would nonetheless be a start if somebody within the Family established guidelines, set rules for the royal game, as the Queen has never done.

Some readers may suggest that the above strictures show a lack of compassion for the royal predicament. I am reminded of a conversation with the theater director Trevor Nunn, to whom I once moaned about the appalling behavior of some film stars at an awards ceremony I chaired. He said, “Unless you have experienced the extremities of fame, it is hard to imagine what it does to you.”

That is supremely true for those related to a Crown. Anyone who has witnessed the fawning servility which otherwise intelligent and sensible commoners can display on encountering royal persons will comprehend what receiving such treatment can do to not-very-bright princes and princesses, especially when compounded by media frenzies.

Almost 70 years ago my mother, herself a journalist, was asked on the BBC radio chat show Any Questions? who she would like to be, if not herself. She replied unhesitatingly, “The Queen.” She was soliciting a studio-audience laugh, but in those days it was an understandable dream for a humble subject: to win a role in a royal fairy tale, ride in a glass coach. Today, by contrast, which of us with any sort of decent life would aspire to gilded bondage? If a child or grandchild of mine started dating a royal, I would have them rushed into counseling.

So, yes, one feels a profound sympathy for the Family, and especially for the Queen, who deserves none of the current Sussex melodrama—or, for that matter, the horror story of Prince Andrew—at the age of 93. The British columnist Matthew Parris observed recently that the succession poses greater perils than some people understand, because among the British people there are more Elizabethites than monarchists.

I agree. Some of us who care passionately about the survival of the institution believe that unless or until some of the royal family’s foremost members can learn to take advice, acquire discipline, and reduce their financial expectations, its future beyond the second Elizabethan age looks precarious indeed.

Thank you R272 and R273, I hope it's not annoying that I've posted it here again, it's one of the best pieces I've read on the royals. There are some delicious insights in there. How about this sentence, from 2 whole years ago?

[quote]The earnings that royals or ex-royals can generate from their talents, as distinct from their celebrity, would scarcely cover the services of Meghan’s manicurist.

One of the main points of the article is the allergy to good advice seen in many senior royals, and how true that sentence above, which could have helped Harry and Meghan make better choices, is.

And the preceding, as well:

[quote]Family members are unwilling to acknowledge a truth obvious to everybody else, that any yacht-owner eager to lend them his gin palace is, ipso facto, somebody whom it is rash for them to be indebted to. That they will do so anyway is one near certainty about the Sussexes’ future in North America.

They made this mistake right away (and continue to do so), immediately accepting the loan of Tyler Perry's mansion, via Oprah, who only ever had her own interests at heart throughout her courtship of the Sussexes. They were so, so stupid not to see it. Max Hastings called it 100%.

I can understand why Harry couldn't see it, but Meghan should have been savvier than that.

Wow. That is some article. Self-pitying, arrogant, entitled, oblivious royals and then there’s Kate.

One question, Christopher Geist. Am I mixing him up with another private secretary? Because I remember reading that (a younger) William and Harry felt they were being used to make Charles look good after Diana died and they managed to get that one fired.

^Geidt

Both of them saw it, but they thought (and still think) they're smarter than anybody else.

[quote] among the British people there are more Elizabethites than monarchists.

Well put. Charles always manages to come across as absolutely awful in any personal account by people who interact with him.

Meghan is the absolute queen of transactional relationships. Of course she knew. What she has to offer now is not so valuable.

R286 - Hence, my tiresome repetition of the obvious: Charles' moment in the sun has passed, and to save the monarchy, he has to take himself out of the equation and let William succeed the Queen.

I think Mark Bolland is the secretary to Charles that Harry and William disliked. One of them arranged for tabloids to be present when Charles was taking Harry for counseling after Harry got caught smoking pot, to leverage it to (falsely) show Charles was an attentive father.

Excellent article. I'd never read that. Greed and jealousy seem to be at the basis of so much of the behavior of minor royals like Andrew and Harry. The issue is primogeniture. It's odd that changes were made to the succession to leapfrog Charlotte over Louis but the same isn't true for the aristocracy. Though I suppose younger members of aristocratic families are relieved they don't have to find the money to put a new roof on the family pile and it's the oldest brother and or oldest male relative in the line of succession who has to do it.

And crucially, Charles seems to see those offering wise advice as being against him, which is precisely the wrong way to view wise advice from people with the best interests of the institution you will one day head. It's not like characters like Geidt were secretly plotting against the monarchy or had it in for Charles. I can't remember which thread it was that someone recently commented re: the Queen's children reflecting badly on her (and Philip), but I agree: they do.

R283 I'm fairly new to royal watching so I'll wait and see if anyone corrects me but I don't think Geidt worked for Charles, specifically. I think he was more of a general advisor/advisor to the Queen. The fact that he was able to stand up to Charles, and to put the institution ahead of Charles' personal, ego-related needs is why Charles had it (stupidly) in for him. The BRF is adrift since Geidt left, and the article, above, makes clear that the monarch eschews good advice at some peril. Tellingly, Anne and Edward are both said to have liked Geidt and were opposed to his leaving.

Tyler Perry didn't pose a threat or betray or exploit the Sussexes, did he? Oprah and that whole situation was either a mutual assured destruction or Oprah getting upper hand on their thirstiness, but they jumped in feet first.

The Russian house in Canada was sketch. But California is just white trash Hollywood grift- I don't think there are catastrophic geopolitical implications like Andrew's malarkey.

Charles seems to have Spare Syndrome himself, oddly enough, maybe because he’s spent so long waiting.

Tyler Perry seems like a legitimately kind person, from everything I’ve read about him. Oprah is not shady so much as doing her job, which they should have known.

R286 - Can you post examples? Because a fair number of people have described him as intelligent, dedicated, and earnest.

I mean, "everyone who has ever interacted with him"?

That's really a lot of people.

And no matter how less than perfect he is, his younger son and daughter in law put him in the shade in the Awful Person contest.

The Hastings article illustrates one of the reasons I scorn those who content Charles won't move into Buckingham Palace or he loves sweet little Clarence House. Charles loves being Prince of Wales, Charles thinks he's suffered so as Prince of Wales and Charles plainly wants every inch of ermine he can get his mysteriously swollen fingers on. So if it's a trapping of the sovereign, count of Charlie to want it. There is nothing in his behaviour or choices (particularly in sycophants) over the past fifty years that would indicate otherwise.

He won't though, R288. I don't know if I agree with you (I have no crystal ball, and a shitty but short kingship before William takes over may actually be good for William) but Charles would never do that. I dislike harry and Meghan very much and they're why I'm on these threads but Charles seems very unsuited to the role he will soon inherit. Shockingly unsuited, actually. The Telegraph published a bit of an explainer about his recent trouble with the cash for access business and ended one of the articles with a quote from someone I don't remember. It was something along the lines of: "You're going to be the King soon - what the fuck are you doing?!"

That echoes my feelings on Charles exactly.

You can read an example in the column posted just a few comments above yours, R295, which is what prompted my reflection. Am I going to direct you to everything negative I’ve read about Charles during my lifetime? No.

R2922 - Perry is alleged to have booted them out of his house because of how Meghan treated his staff. He's been gentlemanly about not broadcasting it, but it's been frequently leaked.

Maybe Charles thinks he'll be an Earth King eco warrior, 60s throw back Hippie king... someone Linda McCartney would bow to. And bring Harry and Meghan back; maybe he has a plan.

R292 the house in Montecito was bought from a Russian "oligarch" aka mafioso. Now, it does seem questionable if they actually bought it, were just renting it or what. As Meghan kept the earrings given by good old bloodthirsty axe murderer MbS, she obviously isn't overly concerned by ethics.

Hastings: [quote] The earnings that royals or ex-royals can generate from their talents, as distinct from their celebrity, would scarcely cover the services of Meghan’s manicurist.

Delightful!

Hastings: [quote]However impulsive, even crass, the couple’s behavior, given their global popularity there was a case for the monarch to be seen to show forbearance, to keep talking. As with all soap operas, it is rash to kill off cast members without considering the possible impact on the ratings.

This is the one thing I think he got wrong. They are tiresome now to all but a blind few.

[quote]I can understand why Harry couldn't see it, but Meghan should have been savvier than that.

I'd argue her track record shows she has no talent but wanting... she is not saavy or shrewd or strategic or anything. She just wants and she found a dupe or a dope to enable some of that.

R292 - but Tyler Perry was obviously an Oprah proxy and she will have been the one who facilitated the Sussexes staying at his mansion. He's probably a decent person (I have no idea) but Harry and Meghan knew they owed Oprah for that favour, as much as TP himself.

Wasn't there a story he gave them the boot for treating the staff poorly?

He did get that wrong, R302, but who at the time could have guessed it would be mostly the Sussexes fucking things up for themselves? I still think their actions since a few months before Megxit up to now are an epic morality tale warnings of the dangers of hubris and impulsivity. it's why I'm actually confused by the people who constantly come to these threads to profess how boring they are - they're really not! This is better than the most scandalous night time soap.

[quote]I'd argue her track record shows she has no talent but wanting... she is not saavy or shrewd or strategic or anything.

COMPLETELY agree. I think Meghan has had a lot of positive qualities ascribed to her (often by well-meaning people) without any proof of their existence. "No talent but wanting" - 1000%. I've wondered if Harry himself has started to wonder if his obvious acceptance of her as some kind of media genius and savant-level fame-handler was perhaps misguided, given the results of almost everything they do (and his own plummeting popularity).

'she is not saavy or shrewd or strategic or anything.'

I would say she is. To a point. But then she has spent all her cunning getting to that point and having exhausted herself in that endeavor she becomes sloppy and gives in to her worst instincts. Now she makes blunder after blunder and being in for a penny she is in for a pound. And Harry's laziness and stupidity is certainly giving his uncle's a run for the money at the same age. He is still relatively young and the world can look forward to decades of his selfishness and greed tarnishing his father's and brother's reigns keeping everyone who enjoys the continuing spectacle of the royal circus imploding happy.

It’s silly to say someone who got to where Meghan is has no talent. You may not like the talents she has, but she must have some.

Now, someone born into the royal family, who didn’t do anything to get there, is a different matter.

Meghan's talent is to whore herself through life.

Meghan got jobs with walk-ons from TV game shows through her father pulling strings. She got modest acting roles and a supporting role on a C list cable show through her ex-husband pulling strings. Evidently, she dumped him because she figured out Suits was a dead end and she was past her sell-by date and he couldn't get her a better job. It's not like she has any acting talent and her looks are run-of-the-mill.

Meghan's worst trait (and one she shares with her entire family) is her inability to strategize long-term. She thinks one step ahead every. single. time. It's actually quite baffling in its insanity.

R307 - Oh, she does have one MAJOR talent: opportunism, self-promotion, and a life lived with an eye to the main chance.

She fucked her way to where she is now, too. I suppose that speaks to some talent.

As for the Windsors: their talent is survival.

And some of them, like the Queen Mother, were born with a talent for being royal.

Maybe it's pretty transparent, cliched really. Girl from a broken home (albeit middle class stature), with access to the dream factory, wants what she sees others have. Like most people who try to climb the greasy pole she doesn't have the strategic smarts to get to the top. What is baffling is the odds of her luck in landing that particular husband. Talk about one epic lucky break. Still, she'll never be loved by the masses nor trusted, now, by the A list. She's so obvious. And she picked a fight with the Queen, of all people. Who chooses to appear to cause unhappiness for the Queen at this stage of game? Duh.

She has a talent for bold, brazen lying. Who goes on national television and says with studied sincerity that she knew nothing about the royal family or Prince Harry? One of the most well-known people on the planet?

Or that ludicrous nonsense about getting married three days prior to the "event wedding ceremony".

Or that claptrap about the "royal racist" and the eviiiiiiiil BRF who wouldn't style her spawn Prince, resulting in him not getting security (WTF)

[quote]What is baffling is the odds of her luck in landing that particular husband.

Yup. I'm not saying Meghan was entirely without talents of any kind, I just think most of them related to taking a very pretty but not entirely standout woman and turning her into a real, genuine hottie. She also appears to be able to charm certain people very quickly upon meeting them (although this perhaps seemed matched by her ability to turn others off almost immediately). But what Meghan mainly is/was, other than very attractive, is, as you said: lucky,

1000 other rich/privileged/aristocratic men would have seen her coming miles away (hell, we have tales of footballers and minor popstars who didn't go for her). William certainly did. But she crossed paths with Harry, with a man who makes other spoilt, aimless young aristocrats look wise and interesting. And I think this is where I believe her one main talent lies: she very quickly intuited exactly what it was Harry was looking for. An attractive woman? Yes, obviously. He's seen a lot of those, though. Meghan got under his skin. She sensed what he needed (a mommy to mother him, and a mommy/princess to save) and set about making herself exactly that in his eyes. The swiftness with which she figured him out and got him wrapped around her little finger is the one thing Meghan has ever done that impresses me.

Now he's got his Diana wires and his Meghan wires all crossed and is 100% her bitch. I have no idea if he'll ever see the light but if he does the split will be fucking epic.

[quote]She also appears to be able to charm certain people very quickly upon meeting them

Classic narcissist speciality

Only one person is ending that marriage and it isn't Harry.

I'm telling you- gold diggers like her, who get so above their heads in wealth/class think they've secured a tremendous prize and their egos get blown out of proportion to their abilities. They never realize that their prize is defective and that's WHY he's with the wife who is so beneath his station. She didn't win; he's a giant loser. See: Melania and Trump.

R316 lost me at "very attractive."

I knew i was gonna get shit for that R320. I can't stand Meghan (and have the multiple klan granny accusations to prove it) but I do think she's very pretty. She's had good work done and improved already-above-average looks. I will say the last year or so she's started to veer slightly into Real Housewives territory, though.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Meghan, but she’s pretty undeniably physically attractive.

You made it further than I did R320. I was out at “real, genuine hottie”.

The Most Frenzy Inducing Order of the Klan Granny.

Earn it, own it, rock it.

Did Bob Hope leave her his nose in his will, or did she purchase it at auction?

^^ She didn’t stop to think why the aristo girls in Harry’s orbit weren’t interested in marrying him. Her eye was on the prize: a wedding televised internationally. How many people can say that?? Not even princesses in Norway or Denmark can say that.

After that, she figured the combination of Harry’s royalty and her articulated wokeness would have them on every magazine cover and at the top of every popularity poll. I don’t think that would’ve happened even if Covid hadn’t intervened. She’s attractive but not charismatic; her platitudes come out sounding like hectoring. Harry has lost his looks and without the palace courtiers stage managing his life, he’s shown to be dim. It’s possible they could win over people by putting the kids on show, supermarket magazine covers, spreads in People, but they strangely avoided that surefire route. I wonder why. Harry because it reminds him of his childhood? or Meghan in a fit of pique because she should be on the cover herself, not just because people want to see the kids.

I think Meghan's unhinged like Trump. She thinks she can lie about anything - even things that are ridiculous to lie about - she never Googled Harry, knew nothing about the royal family (despite being pictured as a teen posing in front of Buckingham Palace), they got married 3 days early. I don't think she's stupid but I do think she's crazy.

She's very attractive by some criteria but not by Hollywood criteria. If she were a talented actress she might be able to skate by on better-than-average looks and talent but she has no talent so she's skating along on Pretty in Boise looks. She's not pretty by London or Paris standards either. Maybe Toronto. It's a very small pond.

This "she's pretty" vs "no, she's fug" has to happen every couple of weeks, doesn't it? Like the 'Charles should abdicate' vs 'no you cunty cunt cunt cunt he would never' squabble. We have to do it. I do have to say that Team She's Fug better be careful cuz y'alls gonna summon Della back in here with that. Meghan is very pretty and has at times been beautiful. She's also a personality disordered fucking nightmare whose almost unbelievably shitty personality keeps me from feeling sorry for her as we all watch her methodically ruining her own life.

I cannot envision her aging as well as her mother. Doria seems like a kind person without any affectation or pretense.

God don’t like ugly. That’s ugly on the inside, Nutmeg.

What shall be our adornments, btw? Our colours? Fabrics? I want robes woven from ribbons of the finest tabloids.

And walking sticks carved from Oprah-approved lawn furniture (all grannies need walking sticks).

well, white, obviously, for the robes. We can save the planet by using the ones we already have. The ribbons should resemble dangling tendrils.

Can't we just sew hair weave extensions into our hoods? We need to save the ribbons for our orders of chivalry.

It has to be a real stark 1980s prom dress white, too.

I think fascinators or tiaras are in order?

The insignia should incorporate a vent stitch.

EMERALD tiaras R335.

Meghan was a D-list grifter who got one big shot at a giant fish and, through sheer luck and brazenness, landed him. She then proceeded to completely fuck up the golden opportunity she had, access to a life of wealth, fame, and security forever. All she had to do was accept that she wouldn't be Princess of Wales or Queen, but she WOULD be the first biracial member of the BRF. She could have made much of that with the right attitude, especially as a Commonwealth ambassador. But Meghan could never stop acting like the D-lister she was, so now she's back in California, rapidly sinking back to her former level again.

The real climbers, the masters, not only take advantage of opportunities but learn to act like they're to the manor born. They're chameleons as well as grifters, and once they ascend they don't look back. Meghan never could truly become a Duchess instead of an ordinary little LA hustler, and for that reason, her royal dream is dying fast.

I'm a sucker for attractive narcissists. Low self esteem and all that.

“Manner” not “manor”, R338.

R338 thank you so much!

Though the 'manner' version came first, both are currently accepted.

I think it would have been impossible for Meghan to tone down her ambition and settle into life in the royal family. She must have been terribly frustrated to be unable to land any big roles in movies or TV. She's Eve Harrington. She couldn't bear to continue her life as a second banana.

How can anyone look at that photo and think Meghan is attractive? How ugly are you that you think this is "above average"?? Doria is fug as hell as is her daughter. Meghan has NEVER been hot. She's a 5 at best in her prime. If she were even moderately pretty she would have gotten much further. Look at her level of men! No hotties! Seriously, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you think a homely woman is " hot". Although to be fair, Harry is fug as all hell too.

R329 = fug ass like Meghan

Until reading that article starting at R275, I never considered the extent to which $$ likely factored into Harry's decision to leave the BRF; not having enough, not having what he felt like he deserved, etc. Meghan must've made LA sound like the land of milk & honey where they can live like royalty (the rich kind, not the penny pinching kind) just on their connections alone. It must be a sobering reality two years that life outside the garden walls is harder & crueler than he expected

She's not that good. H is just really stupid.

Meghan was relatively attractive depending on location in her younger years. She's a 9 in Tulsa while an L.A. 7, and, at best, and a Miami 4.

Look at her in this picture, standing next to her female Suits costars. Her costars would only be considered "network TV hot" in the industry, and, yet, they look like supermodels compared to Meghan. No wonder she has a inferiority complex. She's lucky she got as far as she did.

Meghan has narrow-set, crossed eyes, a sloped nose, a protruding forehead and chin and her skin looks weathered. Her body is boxy and getting worse as middle age sets in. She looks ghastly in profile. She also insists on parting her hair in the middle which does her (and most others with asymmetrical facial features) no favors.

She looks "okay" when well put together, but nothing more.

She's not boxy, she just Oprahxian.

And she can still squat reasonably well.

She's not ugly but she is just average. Being super thin, having advice and access to flattering clothing and styling is what made her 'above average'. Now she has none of those things it's apparent that she is nothing special.

It's shocking how being styled well can make such a difference. I can't see her ever being able to get back to being thin - she's naturally dumpy and has lost the fight against dna.

The sins of the father...

R348

Link doesn't work.

I'd be curious to see a picture of Thomas Markle as a young man.

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

From The Royalist today: Harry and Charles’ secret talks” to heal rift Prince Harry and Prince Charles are reportedly holding “secret talks”—now not-so-secret—in a bid to heal their fractured relationship ahead of the queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

“There has been a definite thaw in relations between Harry and Charles,” a source revealed in the Sun on Sunday. “They are on much better terms and have been having friendly chats and video calls. “It has been suggested to Harry he may live to regret any lingering family bitterness, and he has taken that on board. There is a feeling he is coming back more into the fold and wants to be closer to his family.”

The Sun says Harry may return for the celebrations in June, but likely not with wife Meghan Markle, and children Archie and Lilibet. It is unknown if he will return for Prince Philip’s memorial service, scheduled for earlier in the spring.

News of the talks follow other reports of Charles reaching out to Harry and Meghan to invite them to stay, and Harry claiming not to feel safe enough to return to the U.K. without adequate Metropolitan Police protection (which he has offered to pay for himself, he says). Harry is also threatening legal action against the U.K. government over the issue.

The U.K. Home Office is pushing back against Harry this weekend. A senior source told the Mail on Sunday: “I’ve not seen anything in writing that suggests this is about whether or not he pays for it. It’s about whether or not the security is granted here that is the issue.”

A security source said: “When Harry left The Firm the terms of his divorce were clear. Like other members of the public, he and his wife are not able to hire armed cops at will—no matter how much they offer to pay.”

Protective security was “based on role and risk,” the role added, what Harry and Meghan enjoy in terms of protection in the U.S. could not be mirrored in the U.K. because “we don’t allow people to wonder the street with guns here.”

“Other minor Royals manage to function in normal life without armed guards. The Home Office is refusing to blink,” the source added.

Stupid Charles still has no idea Harry will never forgive him for the death of his mother and no matter how much he misses his royal privileges will always be a big headache for Charles.

Harry will always be a headache. And an even bigger one while he's married to MM

At best they may come to an agreement where he goes back for family events and his first wife stays home.

R356– Please. Charles is playing a PR game masterfully, nothing else

New poll out by The Times on Sunday shows 70% believe the monarchy should continue after the Queen dies, only 20% favour becoming a republic........

Charles would be inept as a neighborhood grocer let alone king. I guess everyone is waiting for William who might be a combination of the Queen and his mother with the steeliness of Philip.