The Royal Family is thriving without Harry and Meghan- Part Two

No shit? Those two were always dead weight. The M bitch is a con and fallen role model. Can you imagine the conversations. "Sir Harry, If you wish a familial audience with the queen, you must sign the new confidentiality agreement and be cavity searched for wires. No cell phones or electronics of any kind will be allowed.

She makes every other woman in the RF look like Mother Theresa. Well done Meghan, thanks for bigging us up!!

r1 I think he has forfeited the familys trust forever.Stupid boy.

She’s such an asshole and always will be.

The Wyoming cosplay is weird. Never a straight answer about anything with them.

r5 Whats happened in Wyoming?

You Klan gals should join Tattle Life. Threads about Meghan are far more fast moving, just as malicious (they call her a cunt just like you do) and they don't allow positive comments about Meghan & Harry. It's free to join.

R6 - Not r5, but -- They went to a 4th of July parade amongst crowds there. Wyoming is one of the top three states with highest per capita gun deaths. About 60% of the adult population own guns. It is a conc al and carry state -- no regulations.

The thriving topic sure petered out fast.

r8 Her interest clearly fickle, shallow and self serving.

Wait, you're saying she can't visit a place with lax gun laws? C'mon, she didn't move there.

That photo is either manipulated to death or that is not her. Compare below.

They love to play these games.

Her feet shrunk and she now has silky hair.

The broad shoulders are gone too.

I’m not onboard with the “body double” business, but the photo of Harry sitting on the curb did not look like him. Some weird underbite and the nose was wrong. Also, is he really that hairy?

Meghan is a cunt, r7.

The Wyoming display was about more than its gun record. Archie was wa ing an American flag. It was a 4 July celebration of America's independence from England.

And whoever took them, clearly with consent, as the child's face wasn't blurred out, sold the photos to the DM.

Which ran them as an Exclusive under the heading, AN ALL-AMERICAN FAMILY!

Only a blind person could miss the message.

On the eve of a hearing on Harry's case for forcing the UK taxpayer to shoulder the cost for the same level of armed, 24/7 protection his brother gets when he visits Britain.

One of his arguments being that Britain will always be his home.

You couldn't make it up.

In other BRF news, YouGov just published its 2nd quarter royal popularity poll.

Kate surpassed William for the first time and is now in second place right behind the Queen, with William third.

Charles' rating sank further but his wife had an uptick and is now ahead of him, a first. But both remain well below 50% approval, let alone Kate's 68% and William's 64%

Harry and Meghan got a slight up tick. She all the way up to . . . 25% approval, and Harry up to a meager 34%.

Yes, the BRF is doing all right

But it would do quite a bit better if Charles were to keep o er suddenly from a massive heart attack.

Read 'em and weep, Charles.

[quote] Read 'em and weep, Charles.

I think it's as likely as Read 'em and be Relieved, Charles.

There's no getting around it. That pay-for-access and titles scandal is just plain corrupt and stupid. I surmise Charles, who's survived a scandal or two, is beside himself over it. Why can't he properly vet his close aides?

Still, at his age, he too, is looking at the popularity of William and Kate and has to be enormously relieved and proud. At his age, while it's nice to be popular, he knows his position, place and future.

Can you blame them? I think most people have a family member or two who bring nothing but drama so any family event turns into a course on how to walk on eggshells. Now with the two brats gone everyone can exhale and get on with business.

R10 No, she didn't. Shr doesn't live in Wyoming. She lives in blue California.

So why "visit" red Wyoming for the apparently sole purpose of getting herself, her royal British husband, and her soon to royal prince son photographed at a 4 July parade with said royal son, christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, holding an American flag?

No Independence Day parades in all of California? Montecito?

Come on. The Harkles never send subtle signals. It's always semaphore in giant letters with a translation in red below for the civvies.

The hypocritical DUCHESS criticized the SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade but happily let her son wave an American flag in a “trigger” state that will make abortion totally illegal by the end of this month.

What an absolute cunt of the highest order. Seriously.

r20 She is totally self serving and synthetic.

Meghan is merching a “Woman Power” necklace.

Bitch better stay off my territory.

Where can you pre-order Tom Bower’s book on Meghan?

Nothing says “woman power” like flying to a trigger state and using a title you got from your husband’s racist country.

Poor RBG. Her necklace makes her look like Harry Truman.

Nowhere until November 1st r23.

“Poor RBG”, my fat fanny. She doesn’t have to live in a country where abortion rights and gay rights are being dismantled. Nooooo. She had to show everyone how brave she was by dying in her boots.

Jackson Hole is a super wealthy area. They're staying with rich friends, battening off the oligarchs again. Get it, Meghan!

Funny that they can't go to London which has extreme gun control measures because they're too scared but they can go to Wyoming where I would not set foot. Did you watch the debate with Liz Cheney? Nutcases one and all. There is a rumor they stayed at the mansion of a Russian oligarch. They sure seem to have a lot of ties to Russian oligarchs. And they flew there by private jet. So their war against climate change isn't going well.

Do my eyes deceive me, or did Kate take my advice and ditch the horrible bright colors for Wimbledon AND slip on . . .

SPECTATOR PUMPS!!!!!

To go with her blue and white dress?!

At last!!!!!

r29 There is a claim on a gossip post online which claims to be a leak from an insiderthat both Harry and Meghan have cheated on each other several times and that she is now stalking a billionaire who was visiting Wyoming, in the same way it is said she stalked Harry at Soho House, by using charity work as the pseudo reason why the billionaire should meet her. It seems that Meghan is looking for husband number three if this is true!

R31 Meghan's past her sell-by date for a billionaire.

r32 How old is Bezos girlfriend? I do tend to think your right but that wouldn't stop Meghan being deluded about it. Afterall this is a person who couldn't handle royal duties and lasted less than two years and is struggling to produce a podcast but apparently believes she can be the leader of the free world. So yes she has a strong capacity for delusion.

So in an attempt to her get her sister's lawsuit against her dismissed, Meghan lawyers are now arguing that "The Duchess statements" on Oprah were "personal perspectives and not factually based."

Isn’t there a billionaires junket going on in Jackson Hole or somewhere similar? The stalking story makes sense. Or they are trying to look like they were invited.

r35 I don't if there is a junket there but there seems to be a lot of billionaires that live there according to this link. I wonder which one Meghan is hoping to open her legs for?!

This is what I was thinking of. Not very near Wyoming.

r37 Thanks

Did Lauren Sanchez pilot her own helicopter in as she fingered herself to Bezos, that garden gnome who occasionally pretends to be human?

interestingly according to the link at r37 Meghans 'friend' Gayle King was at that event.

They didn’t invite the Prince and the Showgirl? RUDE.

Might it be that they didn’t want any secret recordings made?

R31 SA, I’m curious to know the source. Do you have a link to the post?

R42, a few comments were posted to the IG account “marklenews1”. It could be completely fake gossip (I find it plausible but unproven), but that’s where I’ve seen it.

Here’s one.

The insider rumours we shall have always with us, along with the Law of Unintended Condquences. I don't think there are any reliable sources for rumours like those.

What I do find interesting is something factual: in her motion to dismiss her sister's libel suit, Meghan's papers stated that what she said on Oprah were "opinions not facts".

That is what should be top of the page at the DM in 18pt type.

That Ginger Limey Wastrel best not have been waving an American flag at our parade!!!! That would literally be the end of irony. The absolute death.

Please please, if it's so, if he is pathetically sitting on a dirty street curb, with his dollar store celebrity wife who defamed his family on TV, waving a tiny American flag, in fucking WYOMING, I will make the picture into a flag and fly it every day.

Claim by one of the more reliable youtubers who has a good recoed in his insider information claims turning out to be true-he is an ex british military guy who is well connected says that the UK government at the behest of the military and security services hace slapped a D notice ban on Harrys book because it reveals information that compromises national security.It will stay inplace indefinitely unless removed but if removed will make his book very bland and a dud to sell. Worth a watch its only a five minute video.

Well, that Trevor Coult tidbit sounds plausible. That book must be the bane of Penguin RandomHouse’s existence. What did I just read about the President (or some exec) being chummy with Harry. Bet he’s not bragging about it anymore, haha.

They are NEVER going to recoup that fifty billion dollars they paid those shifty grifters.

It’s like being robbed by a trick.

Fifty billion!!!! r48

Surviving Angel, yeah I know it wasn’t fifty billion, but everyone pretends it was. The number bandied about was $25million for the four-book deal. I read five for Harry and one for Moehringer. Who knows if it’s true, and how much the advance was.

I’m sure it’s all spent, whatever those dopes paid the Sussexes. “Break out the champagne! Guess who I just signed?”

Hahahaha, SUCKAH!

Over on Reddit someone is posting excerpts from the Finding Freedom book. It is ludicrously overwrought but as favorable as it is to Megs, some true indications slip in, like how the wedding gospel choir arrangements were nixed ‘nearly a dozen times’ by the couple until Prince Charles had the director, five singers and a keyboardist come in person to sing and then finally this simple arrangement was approved. “Which is what they wanted all along” but somehow could not articulate.

There’s another vomit-inducing description of her baby shower in NYC and how the Duchess lowered herself to “crash” at a mere Greenwich Village duplex for a couple nights before moving into the penthouse that Serena rented for her..

I read some of those excerpts of FF: it’s hard to imagine anyone could read that book and take it seriously. It reads like the biggest parody. The Harkles come off like 2 nitwit teenagers.

^^The book read like something out of Woman's Day.

That's the thing about the Harkles: they are like caricatures, but of themselves.

I don't buy any "insider" stuff about D Notice warnings, cheating, divorce, et al.

No one who really knew from the inside would publish it - in itself, this would be a breach of the sub rosa nature of such security.

And, really, what the hell could Harry know about national security?! It's not as if he was privy to anything being discussed by MI-5 and MI-6.

Why would those agencies tell Harry anything?!

The only thing Harry could be trying to insert into his book re security is with regard to the security arrangements for his father, grandmother, and brother. And, of course, references to Diana's death.

The arrangements re the security for the Queen, Charles/Camilla, and the Cambridges aren't exactly rocket science. And they can be changed at a moment's notice - so whatever Harry puts into his book is likely only as valid as what is wrapping last week's chips.

I just don't buy it.

I think Harry is waiting for legal advice, yes; to update the book after the Jubly fiasco; also awaiting the decisions in his cases against ANL and the Home Office; and, frankly, hoping the Queen will die before it is released.

Bower's book was probably delayed for similar reasons, and not just to make it into all our Christmas stockings. Updates from the Jubly, Harry's and Meghan's legal issues, etc.

r53 The video explains it. It is not about Harry knowing the ins and outs of national security issues but that he is going to reveal sensitive information about two future head of states. It's not illegal in the UK to publicly speculate or claim there are D notices in effect as long as the detailed claims covered by the D notice aren't made public. Journalists and others openly discussed Tony Blair having D notices in operation in relation to personal matters, the Iraq War and members of his cabinet being caught up in a police investigation.

r50 Oh I agree! I too am very low on sympathy for Netflix and Spotify for any losses or reputational damage they might experience. They should have been smarter than Harry and Meghans hype. They gambled and lost. Its on them.

What the actual fuck?! The white British Prince is going to speak at this event....ummmmmmmmmmmmm

r56 Be interesting if sunshine sachs, the democratic party or both had a role in engineering this? It wouldn't happen organically just as their bought award several months ago didn't happen organically. Then again Prince Harry did say in the phone call with the girl pretending to be Greta Thurnberg that there's lots of money to be made in charity work and he wants a piece of that action for himself.

R56 seriously a man who is the embodiment of white privilege is the best they could get at this event?!

So was their visit to Oprah to beg to be included in this Nelson Mandela event? I believe she is speaking as well.....

R56...

Why?

Harry Mountbatten-Windsor is a scion of a family neck high in an imperialist legacy that nourished racism. Why would anyone with half a brain think he would be an ideal speaker at an event to honor a man who ended a system Harry Mountbatten-Windsor's forebears helped to facilitate?

Besides photo ops with African children and meetings with Desmond Tutu...what qualifies Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to speak about Mandela's legacy to the world?

r58 r59 I don't think it's true. No other credible news source is carrying the story.

r60 No other news story is reporting it. No mainstream news source. I think the story is BS.

Meanwhile, Page Six is reporting that publication of Harry’s book is going ahead for the fall, despite claims that it’s been held over till next year. ‘Multiple sources’ say there is lots of ‘juicy’ stuff that will make the BRF ‘nervous.’

Those two news items don't seem to coalesce.

Will the speech end up being all about him and the wife? Will he pretend to cry again?

"And did you even KNOW who was the Queen of the Conmonwealth all of those years while Mr. Mandela wasted away in prison?!? ... no, let me tell you! I actually learned this today!"

So this appears to be PR spin, Harry is not addressing the UN, it's an informal commemoration of Nelson Mandela Day. The UN assembly is in recess until September 15.

Is this like when Smeg claimed she had lunch with Michelle Obama?

If you look at the UN Schedule for 18 July, it mentions an informal plenary honoring Mandela, and a meeting at 3pm

It does not mention Harry and Meghan or a "keynote address".

Doesn't mean it won't occur in some form, but it is odd that there's no mention of the two or a keynote address and it is listed as an informal meeting, not some grand huge Thing with all the traffic rerouted.

As for the Palace running scared about another interview or Harry's book: we heard that before the ridiculous Finding Freedom, the Oprah interview that backfired so badly, and now this.

I'm sure the publishers are delighted. This is the same old tired bellow of terrified BRF we hear every single time.

The BRF seem to have managed their terror quite well.

r69 If the royal family were geniunely terrified of them and what they would put in a book they would have put on a more friendly act towards them at the platinum jubilee.The reality is the royal family believe they dont have information that could cause serious harm and their not terrified.Irritated , annoyed, peed off? Yes.But terrified.No. I dont think any future revelations from Harry or Meghan are going to have the impact they hope and expect.Most people have moved on, moving on is what they said at the end of the Oprah interview they were going to do but clearly have not. It is an obvious type of blackmail and financial shakedown-a tantrum and implied threats that they must be given their own way. Sadly for them the royal family is not going to give in to them,

We are living in very troubled times, many people suffering badly with economic woes.It is a conceit and delusion on their part to think many people will give a crap about them not getting everything out of the royal family that they want.Only the emotionally challenged idiots in small numbers will be truly outraged on their behalf. Frankly I think most people are not interested in their first world 1% woes and damaged egos or think they should move the hell on and find the bitter attitude and accusations tiresome. Meghan has now been out of the royal family longer than she was in it.The world and the royal family owe her nothing.

The royal family also has enough proof of how truly awful and disgusting those two are to bury them.

Even if Harry is speaking in front of 2 people, it’s bad optics to have a rich white man with zero connection to the honoree speak at Nelson Mandela Day.

Their MO is to pay to be included or to "recieve" awards, paaaathetic

Let me tell you about those two and the Seth Effricans: Harry and Meghan had a fleet of specially-kitted Land Rovers shipped to SA because the armored vehicles in Johannesburg weren’t sufficient (really).

On the same day they met Mandela’s widow, Meghan told Bradby “Thank you for asking. Not many people have asked if I’m okay.”

Those are facts. There have been rumors about their rude behavior in SA which are not proven.

I’m surprised he’s got the nerve to show his ugly ginger mug.

r74 He is as entitled as they come. Nobody should believe his meaningless spiel about how he won't rest until the world is equal. Someone clinging so angrily to titles like he and his wife are not about equality.

r74 He is as entitled as they come. Nobody should believe his meaningless spiel about how he won't rest until the world is equal. Someone clinging so angrily to titles like he and his wife are not about equality.

You haters are a field day with this thread.

The official word, confirmed by the South African Mission, is that Harry will make A SPEECH amongst others at an informal plenary meeting to honour Mandela's birthday.

The South African Mission is where the Harkles managed to get some photo ops on their last trip to NYC. They tried for the Secretary General and to get into the Big House but were turned back when, allegedly, they tried to record the meeting. They were shown out, with thunderous faces, and got the photo op only with the head of the South African Mission to the UN.

In other words, this is another attempt to make it look as if they are Big Players, when they will be bit players along with the others also making comments at the session about the world hunger crisis stemming from fuel costs, climate change, etc.

Their desperation is pathetic.

The Sussex lifestyle and their two kids are probably using more resources than the entire continent of Africa.

Do we all think that Meghan will be writing Harry's speech?

One more word salad for the world to endure.

Someone needs to tell Harry not to use the word “taco” in his speech. Apparently, some people think it’s offensive.

Who knew that she wouldn't let him go by himself?

Meg always has an annihilating effect on very old people. I just realize that she killed Desmond Tutu too before she killed Prince Philips. What a horrifying creature she is!!!

R82 Tutu probably went into shock when he saw the baby she was presenting to him as a "child of colour".

What he didn't know was that the colour was white.

The Queen and Prince Charles awarded the George Cross to the NHS.

She's shrinking before our eyes.

Yikes, look at those bruised legs again. Unforgiveable. Don't her dressers know about leg make up? Does HM walk into furniture all day long?

R84 It's likely a result of muscle loss from her mobility issues. Muscle fades fast when you're old and if she's not walking very much she's going to "shrink."

Tom Daley was awarded an OBE by Prince Charles today for services to athletics and activism within the LGBTQ+ community.

So Harry speaking at the Mandela event at the UN is getting a lot of social media push back. In the UK #Harryisaracist is trending lol. Whatever you think of Harry (and yes he did do charity work in SA), it's just terrible optics to have a white wealthy prince be the keynote speaker. It's not like Harry even knew Mandela that well. Arguably, the Queen and Charles knew him as a personal friend.

I don't like Harry - but this is just poor judgment from all involved. He is a terrible selection. His people must hate him at this point not to tell him otherwise (unless, he did not listen).

This was mentioned on the other thread, but it appears Oprah wasn't at home when Harry and Meghan were photographed driving to her house. Apparently Oprah has been in Texas with her dying father for weeks.

R90 Sorry Tennessee not Texas.

Maybe they just went over to feed the cat.

Is "The cat" some codeword for Oprah's pussy?

Why all this talk about Gayle?

I’m sure Oprah appreciated being used for fake news by those two while her father was dying. Who doesn’t like to be Markled once a year or so?

Tom bowers new book is out for prepurchase at book depository. Ordered mine its out in 8 days. Meghan harry and the war between the windsors

"Yikes, look at those bruised legs again. Unforgiveable. Don't her dressers know about leg make up?"

If the queen is bruising easily, a likely reason is that she's on blood-thinning medications. Old folks on anti-coagulants bruise if you look at them too hard.

R97, if you'd ever actually been around people in their mid-90s, you'd know that the condition of darkening marks and "bruises" often exist with no relation to "blood-thinning medications" (sic).

Looks like all the other books on the same topic that have come out in the last year or two.

I'm disappointed I thought it was going to be a serious in-depth bio of Meghan.

It's just another lengthy tabloid article dressed up as a serious book, with maybe a bit more nasty shit about Meghan than the others.

Really too bad. I expected something more interesting from Bower.

We'll end up skimming through it to find the few bits that savvy DLers didn't already know or correctly surmise.

The book isn't out yet,. r99, how do you know what's in it?

Meghan is living rent free in all your whackjob minds. So pathetic, Klan grannies

R99 Bower’s book isn’t out yet.

You can preorder now at Book Depository. R99 sounds unhinged. This book is full of drama. Hold on to your wigs, ladies.

Sewage squad in the house!

#stupidsquad

R100 One look at the cover. the title, AND the seller's blurb told the story.

Another War of the Windsors, War of the Brothers tome, and using as its carrot promising a few thi gs that did6make it into the DM.

How does the title REVENGE and the subheading and the cover photos look like an in-depth bio of Meghan?

Ffs, the title tells you this is another WE GOT THE REAL TEA ON THE WINDSOR FEUD rehash.

All along, the book was talked up as about Meghan.

I suppose one could argue that its turning out to be about THEM again is just proof of the belief that apart from THEM, Meghan can't sell a peel to a banana.

But I was hoping Bower was going to delve back many years and give some psychological insight into why Meghan urned into the lying, vindictive, self-obsessed, shallow, empty-souled bitch she became.

The only thing this book is selling is people Meghan kicked on her way up getting a chance to stick it to her in print. It's selling that as a good enough reason to go over terrain already covered by Morton, Brown, Lacey, the DM, et al.

I mean, really, REVENGE?!

WTF? You thought this was a MM bio? Gurrl...

R99 - ALL of the books on the Sussexes are nothing but rearrangement and reprint of all the stories dreamed-up and ran by the Daily Mail.

Sounds like you've read them r108 ? If not your opinion is based on what?

R107 Yes, I did. You know, like his bios of Maxwell and the rest.

All right, I got it wrong.

I just didn't expect the cover to have photos of all the usual suspects.

I wonder if there's a risk of buyers taking one look at the cover and thinking, "Oh, no, not another one!"

His tea had better be piping hot and spiked with 100 year old scotch if it's to make Yet Another One sell.

I suppose the early reviews will tell the tale.

R109 - I have wasted TOO MUCH money on hardback books about the Sussexes which really say nothing that I have not already read at The Daily Mail Online.

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

Not just one, but TWO DUIs. 😂 Does this guy drive Archie to pre-school, too?

But that's OK because H believes his mother was killed by a vast conspiracy involving Prince Philip, the MI agencies, a mickey-slipping bartender, and shadowy French paps.

^^ "Head of Security" . . . a family of four private citizens living in Montecito, CA, a community made of mostly gated homes inhabited 99.8% by rich white celebrities, with much MUCH bigger estates.

This is more of the Dress for the Job You Want, Not The Job You Have

Funny, neither Harry nor Meaghan know how to behave like wealthy Americans. They're both new.

[quote] The only thing this book is selling is people Meghan kicked on her way up getting a chance to stick it to her in print.

That’s exactly what I want to read about, sis. If I wanted to read treacle-covered bullshit about how wonderful she is, I’d read People Magazine.

Wait a minute!! What happened to Harry's big job with BetterUP or BeBEST or whatever the fuck it is? He's a hard-charging, influential business executive, NOT just some pathetic, HENPECKED househusband?!!! Oh Harry, she CHOPPED yer balls right off, innit??

Daily Beast is her PR go-to site. Nobody is really calling her that lol. That's the last thing anyone is calling this heaux.

R118 if you bother to read the article you’ll see that the “Princess” nickname isn’t meant to be complimentary.

“lol” indeed.

I also thought Bower's book would be an autobiography given his past releases. I'll still read it though.

I ordered it but I was disappointed by the title. We’ll see.

WTF?

“He’s up at the crack of dawn getting the kids fed, washed and dressed. Meghan’s often very busy on business Zoom calls, or nipping into L.A. for meetings, which Harry often chauffeurs her to. Then he’s back to the kids as soon as possible because he doesn’t like leaving them with nannies."

[quote]“He’s up at the crack of dawn getting the kids fed, washed and dressed. Meghan’s often very busy on business Zoom calls, or nipping into L.A. for meetings, which Harry often chauffeurs her to. Then he’s back to the kids as soon as possible because he doesn’t like leaving them with nannies."

I'm seriously doubting a lot of this circle jerk reporting.

LOL what is she taking meetings on? Begging for voice over work? So Harry, the Brit, who grew up being driven everywhere, gets behind the wheel and chauffeurs Megsie down to LA and then turns around drives back home? Does he then drive back down to LA to pick her up? That is such BS. That would be like six hours of driving.

Poor overworked Harry won't have to worry about chauffeuring Meghan to L.A. all the time if this rumor is true (that they're leasing a house in BelAir)

Does Meghan not know how to drive?

[quote]they're leasing a house in BelAir

and so the marriage breakdown begins. As in "honey, its been a long day, I'm just going to stay here tonight".

They are overdoing the puff pieces because of the book.

What on Earth is she doing during these business meetings? Discussing the amount of puff pieces to put out this week?

What a fecking joke.

Why in the hell does she need a fancy hotel to work on a podcast?

Meghan Markle ‘secretly booking Pink Palace in Beverly Hills Hotel’ as work continues on new podcast. Markle allegedly enjoys conducting work meetings at the “five star Beverly Hills Hotel” opposed to her nine-bedroom palatial home, as she works on her podcast project… With their home “large enough to host most of her business meetings”, the Duchess of Sussex is said to prefer to frequent the opulent hotel, which was favoured by the likes of Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack in the 1950s.”

Who's going to hoof it to Montecito for her pocast? She needs an LA spot to live host her D list celeb guests.

Kate is moving, so I’m going to one-up her and move too.

There is so much bullshit being floated now. It’s mania-scented.

Harry’s driving her back and forth to LA for business meetings at her secret hotel suite? AND getting up at the crack of dawn to diaper and feed and bathe the babies? Doesn’t he have contracts to fulfill for Netflix and Spotify and Random House?

r133 Not spotify it seems she has taken 'ownership' of that contract now or its responsibilities.

I dont believe these stories-it is clearly a PR blitz by desperate wannabees.

Oh no, this is cover for separate living arrangements... veddy bad news.

Can someone who's used to being chauffeured around London's mean streets or driving in country settings negotiate L.A. traffic? Especially when he's hung over...

R136, don’t forget about falling off a horse. That probably caused a bit of brain damage.

How long does it take to put together a fucking podcast? Seems more likely that she's meeting someone there to fuck than to do any work. It's not like there is any lack of luxury hotels in SB if she needed to escape her dreary Montecito mansion and her kids.

Who would want to fvck her?

I suspect the issue with the delayed podcast is that she's probably not a very good hostess and lacks the emotional intelligence and social skills necessary to keep a discussion flowing naturally and come across with ease and some warmth. Isn't the idea that a podcast should come off as a free-flowing conversation not an interrogation to fit a checklist of agenda items?

If her performance in her engagement interview is any indication, she may come off as ungenuine and off-putting to producers in pilot podcasts. Did she cut interviewed off and monopolize? Then there's the voice... These are things that can be addressed with training and practice -- there are professionals who can help. But if Meghan thinks she ain't broke and has nothing to fix, well, no expert can help her. And we know her track record. Imagine working with this. Netflix cartoon people got off easy.

She is embarrassing obvious, oh my and she doesnt realuze it , what a joke of a person or thing.

Can't wait for Lady Colin's critique of M's first pocast.

R142, you’ll be waiting a looooong time. Does it really take two years to make a podcast? They’ve hired a production company to DO THAT.

No exaggeration, but I could fill hours just interviewing regular people chosen at random. No script, ad lib. People are interested. Even archetypes are interesting if you’re not trying to lecture people and appear superior.

Is she just lazy or is it because she really believes that people should pay her to be associated with her name?

R144, she’s the hooker who takes the money up front and then calls the cops and says you tried to rape her.

Is the dumb Dailybeast "reporting" a (lame) attempt at depicting Harry as the doting father and dutiful husband, contrary to Meghan being the busy famewhore?

ffs, R146 was sent too soon ...

That dumb piece sounds like preparing some sort of Harry atonement --- Harry's such a good guy, taking care of his kids and catering to his famewhore wife's demands, and yet she doesn't give a fuck about him and the kids at all.

Tbf, I wouldn't be too surprised if them separating is imminent.

R146, well, that could backfire on Meghan. If there’s a divorce and a custody battle…

R148, that's exactly what I was alluding to.

I smell a Jussie-style stunt in the near future, after the Tom Bower book comes out. Kidnap attempt, cancer scare, miscarriage, death threats are almost guaranteed.

Patsy gets a nod! Absolutely Fabulous!

^She looks divine.

Good on you, Sweetie.

For everyone in this thready (except for the Sussex shit squad looming), here's a question:

Can Charles, upon becoming king, give his son another title and at the same time rescind the Duke of Sussex one?

I know he can create him another style like Duke of Wherever or Earl of Whothefuckcares additionally to Duke of Sussex (that's what HMTQ did with Edward who was created Earl of Forfar additionally to Earl of Wessex a while ago), but can the Duke of Sussex style be rescinded and replaced with another title available.

Joanna Lumley was just made a Dame? She deserved it 20 years ago. She’s 76, she won’t have long to enjoy it.

R153 - King Charles II cannot rescind the Duke of Sussex title/peerage.

It would take an act to Parliament rescind the Duke of Sussex title/peerage.

[quote] Does it really take two years to make a podcast?

Well your average poddy is what... thirty minutes? So if your host is someone talking complete bollocks 90% of the time yet unable to shut up, it could easily take more than two years to extract something vaguely useful.

If Charles II can do anything then I will believe in miracles. I thought he died in 1685.

Charles II was my favorite King. He was known as Old Rowley. He had dozens of mistresses and illegitimate kids but not a single legitimate one from his legal wife who was barren. He could have divorced her but never did. Which was a shame because after him, the monarchy wound up after a couple of his useless nieces, with the Germans.

He was also Uber smart, did not make the same errors that cost his dear old dad his head!

Harry isn't as important as he thinks.

sMEGs already did miscarriage, suicide attempt, mental illness, etc. Not sure she has many options left to shock the world. Maybe a fake Gone-Girl death?

Did you not hear about the Beckhams? Smeg is going report that someone tried to "kidnap" her children.

This may be upthread in part, but I looked up all the stats for the popularity of the royal family in the second quarter of 2022 (YouGov):

Elizabeth 75%; Catherine 68%; William 66%; Philip 64%; Anne 53%; Zara 49%; Charles 42%; Camilla 40%; Sophie 37%; Edward 35%; Harry 34%; Eugenie 31%; Beatrice 28%; Meghan 25%; Andrew 11%.

Wow, Andrew. I don't think everyone is believing his story about the picture of his arm around the girl being photo-shopped and he was just, like, a golfing buddy of Epstein, and he knows he was dropping his daughter off at a pizza party "that night"

Well, sorry, that's not everybody but it's what I found when I googled it.

What the hell has Edward done to score so low in popularity with the British public?

R164 I don't think the British people have ever really forgiven him for It's A Royal Knockout.

R164, I think it's more a case of what has Edward done to score higher? Not much. He's just kind of wallpaper in the background. Sophie does the heavy lifting.

R164, I imagine there was an option that suggested indifference rather than just positive or negative. Edward isn’t disliked; he just isn’t terribly interesting to most people.

I'm surprised Sophie didn't rate higher. She seems to be very hardworking.

That Closer article sounds like a desperate attempt to tip off the paps to where Meghan usually is so that she can feel hounded and famous.

Sophie is a jewel in the crown. My brother met her at a disability centre where he worked, and she was absolutely lovely. No press (other than permission for the centre to use her presence to promote their work, which they did - it trended on social media and the local councillor started supporting them with fundraising) and there was no rushing around. She was genuinely interested, kind, and had tea with the residents.

Why is Philip still rated? He’s been dead more than a year. Do they still rate the Queen Mother?

R171 I think it was sentiment, but it will fade. I don't think this kind of polling was going on when the Queen Mother died. At least I don't remember seeing it.

Edward's position, I agree, reflects indifference, not hostility.

Edward does a fair amount more quietly, focused on the work around Philip's foundation, which he now leads. Sophie has the more varied and more public portfolio.

It is astonishing in retrospect to see how easy it would have been for the Harkles to avoid all the negative views they generated. Including re their decision to leave. It all could have been done amiably, foregoing the cringe-inducing whingeing, the provable lies, the truly awful misjudgment shown in those Zoom videos, photo ops, word salad pronouncements, etc

She couldn't even stop herself from being caught sullying a polo match prize giving, putting herself in the centre and managing to get her husband hands on the trophy that the other team had actually won.

One can only imagine the shock of Netflix and Spotify when they found out what she was really like to work with.

And it was all avoidable, theoretically.

But it appears Heraclitus was right: character is destiny.

R31 Sounds juicy, SA. Care to share the name of the site?

R31 - With respect, SA, although we share the same view of the two, I would distrust all rumours of this kind. It is unlikely that either of them would be so careless as to be caught at serial cheating at this juncture. The likelihood of those rumours having "legs" is slim to none.

Just as with the rumours about William last year, no one has ever presented anything but unfounded rumour.

This is the stuff, like the surrogacy theories, that should go in the dustbin.

Meghan, especially, would be canny enough to know that she cannot take any chances of losing that title, which she would instantly in a divorce. She isn't Diana, he isn't a future King, and the rules were changed after the Wales and York debacles so that the wife automatically loses the title in the event of a divorce.

Meghan's short of serious cards right now, with Netflix and Spotify baying for blood or else . . . the Bower book, the Valentine Low book, the threat of the bullying report "falling into the wrong hands" at some point . . .

Getting caught as an adulteress would finish off her public image and make a large settlement and retention of the title impossible.

I doubt she'd be that stupid at this point. Harry might not be quite as aware of the pitfalls of stepping out, but then, the title is his: he won't lose it in a divorce, all he'd worry about is money.

So, really, I think those rumours are bullshit.

So those two have been fucking only each other for the past four/five years? I guess it’s possible.

The Queen opens a hospice accompanied by Princess Anne.

The Queen is using her cane but she still walks pretty good for 96.

I'd argue the indifference to Edward is also a lack of visibility. He works a lot but it's very low key and doesn't get much press. Same with Sophie. I think it's more out of sight, out of mind at play. Plus, they are today what sort of Kents and Gloucester stars in the firmament... not the Queen or the heir or the Cambridges.... they're never going to be the stars of the show. I'm not sure Anne would rank as highly except she annually clocks stratospheric levels of activity and people respect that. Nonetheless, the Wessexes are quiet high value parts of the big picture.

R177: she's moving.

Sad day for DL's resident black crows. Sorry, guys, likely not soon soon.

Re: Edward and Sophie's popularity: I don't think their low scores are due to being disliked, rather, they have a low profile and people don't really know them very well. If they had a higher profile, their numbers would likely be higher. Sophie is very likeable and down to earth and it's rather disappointing that she is often shoved into the background. It's sad Charles and Edward don't get on very well and with his plans to slim down the monarchy, he's keeping Edward and Sophie in the background.

In other news, Meghan and Harry seem to have lost yet another staff member.

And the "Communications Manager" left in May.

Maybe they got out ahead of the Bowers book.

The Times has published its first excerpt from Bowers’s book. TL:DR: she lies about everything. The title should have been “Fake.”

R183 the Bower thread has more:

Allegedly Vanity Fair editors said they would never work with Meghan again after they had to rewrite so much of her article due to lies.

More about the bullying and even a joke that she wanted to fuck Prince William by KP staff.

Again, she's not getting any "large settlement". The surrogacy rumor has very strong legs. Also, both of them are known serial cheaters.

[quote]sMEGs already did miscarriage, suicide attempt, mental illness, etc. Not sure she has many options left to shock the world.

Don't be ridiculous, she hasn't even trotted out the much loved and overused fading starlet canard "I WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED AS A CHILD BY A FAMILY MEMBER!!!"

Always held as an ace in the hand when a career is on life support.

The Queen is such a cute little old lady. Glad to see her using her cane--wish my mother would allow herself to use one.

R187, I shared your comment with Her Majesty.

She said, "Really" with just a small note of exasperation. She is not unaware, of course, that sexist, ageist creatures such as you exist, but she deplores such objectifying, especially when the speaker is so evidently.... Well, she would say "unhelpful and common," but we here in palace refer to such as you as silly cunts.

The Times has more:

To comply with Covid restrictions she would grieve alone inside the chapel. “Thank goodness Meghan is not coming,” the monarch said in a clear voice to her trusted aides. Buckingham Palace declined to comment last night.

Bowers:

The Sussexes organised a Lilibet website before their daughter was born. Harry’s daughter was born at Santa Barbara’s Cottage Hospital on June 4. On the same day, but two days before the birth was announced, Meghan’s lawyers registered the lilibetdiana.com website.

Once the BBC broadcast that report, the Sussexes’ PR machine was activated. Meghan’s spokeswoman claimed that Harry would not have chosen the name if the Queen had not been “supportive”. Fired up by the Sussexes’ anger, their lawyers Schillings announced that unless the BBC apologised and withdrew that report, the Sussexes would sue for defamation. Seemingly pitching Harry against the Queen, the Palace supported the BBC. The Sussexes retreated. Schillings’ threat evaporated. The Sussexes were defeated.

The obstacles for Meghan and Harry to appear centre-stage were considerable — not least because their presence was opposed by Charles. Charles preferred that the Sussexes, as private citizens, were not invited on to the balcony or to ride in a royal carriage. Instead, they would be confined to the VIP enclosures. In Meghan’s view those optics were unsatisfactory, partly because her value to Netflix was to stand near the Queen.

Wow from the VF story:

"Over the next few days Kashner called those who Meghan had recommended as her friends. The tennis player Serena Williams denied she was Meghan’s friend but just an acquaintance. "

"Unknown to Kashner, Thomas Markle knew Clinton and P&G had not replied to Meghan. The success of her “campaign” was fictitious, invented by an adoring father."

Sounds like Meg was trying to use her "charms" on the VF interviewer

Does Meg know Rupert Murdoch is back on the market? If she doesn't smoke like Jerry Hall then she has a chance! Rupert will kick the bucket long before Harry and Megs is not known for her patience and playing the long game so a geezer might be right up her alley.

R185 - Will you please give that up? The rumour has no legs at all, or the kids would never have been listed in the line of succession. They would have received private written proof.

She won't get a large settlement that involves the BRF because 1) the family isn't going to help Harry the way it helped Andrew, 2) she can't touch anything he acquired before the marriage, only after it.

But she'll no doubt come out of it with a good deal more than she came in with, just the same. The house, their joint earnings and possessions, etc.

How much that will add up to is anyone's guess. But she'll still be quite a bit better off than most of us.

That revelation about the P+G story threw me for a loop. I always thought it sounded like they were making too big a deal of whatever she accomplished, but it's not even true? I've never been her fan, but that is really bad.

Same thing about pretending Serena was her friend. Meghan probably did think she was, though; she may not have the character to understand what a friendship actually is--i.e., a friend is not just someone who you want to know and would be useful to you.

Oh, they're thriving, all right.

You KNOW Kate got an advance copy somehow and packed it into her suitcase as the Cambridges set off on hols.

She and William must be howling as they relax from all their Jubly duties.

These revelations—Meghan is desperately vain, cruel, and dishonest, the Queen doesn’t like her, Harry is vile—are probably just the first shot. Bower hasn’t addressed the bullying yet.

R197 the revelation that allegedly the Queen doesn't like Meghan is a huge hit to their brand. They've been building up how close they are to the Queen and remember Meghan saying in the Oprah interview that she called the Queen up the moment she heard about Philip being ill............HAHAHA another lie most likely.

Friendship lies. Lasting memory of their wedding is of the Clooneys and Oprah, invited seemingly to represent Meghan’s side. As they made their entrance with other invitees, all running the gauntlet of cameras present, these seasoned media performers looked awkward and out of place. Like they knew they weren’t convincing anyone they were friends of the bride as they didn’t believe it themselves. Would many in Hollywoodland have said ‘no’ if their agent had got them an invite from a PR group?

Reece Witherspoon said no. She said she didn't know why she received the invitation because she didn't even know them.

R200 new found respect for Reese

So there's Buckingham, Windsor, Kensington, Balmoral, Sandringham? How many palaces or castles or whatever they are are there?

R202 - Balmoral and Sandringham are privately owned by the monarch. Charles owns Highgrove.

The rest (Buckingham, Windsor and Kensington) are in trust/owned for the nation.

Thank you R203.

And now I read about the Castle of Mey, the Queen Mother’s former home in Caithness, in the newest excerpt from Bower's book. Real estate tycoons indeed - but quite a step up from our homegrown one who headed our country, much to our eternal shame.

Sandringham and Balmoral were purchased and built in the mid 1860s. The Castle of Mey was purchased while the Queen Mother was newly widowed in the 1950s. Hardly real estate tycoons.

I may be misconstruing the meaning - but the dictionary says a tycoon is a wealthy, powerful person in business or industry.

I would assume, at a minimum, that the monarch is a wealthy person in terms of real estate, no? Powerful in the sense of getting to choose who gets to live in which properties, like Frogmore or whatever she just gave Beatrice that I haven't followed up on - maybe she didn't give her anything ??

R206, the title of "Real Estate Tycoon" would indicate someone whose primary interests were in real estate, not someone whose fortune includes real estate investments. Every filthy rich person has investments in real estate, but like the queen, most don't take an active interest in buying and selling those investments.

As for power, a Head Of State outranks a Real Estate Tycoon by a factor of several billion.

There are a ton of smaller residences owned by the family or the nation that the public rarely hears of. For example, the lovely, two story cottage that is Charles' official residence in Wales.

R204 - She purchased it as a wreck, restored it, and a few years before her death transferred it into the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust.

The Trust is overseen by Charles.

"The Castle of Mey Trust was established by a Deed of Trust executed on 11 June 1996. Its president was The Prince of Wales. The Trust would manage the property; its mandate was "to secure the future of the building, advance historical and architectural education, to develop the native breeds of Aberdeen Angus and Cheviot sheep and to undertake projects for the benefit of the local community", according to one report. After 2002, the Trust opened the castle for five months each summer to generate revenue that would sustain the property. In 2018, nearly 30,000 visits were recorded."

The Queen Mother restored the Castle's original name, brought in electricity and water, and hung portraits of the original owner, the Earl of Caithness. Painting, plastering, and other renovations went on till 2018.

People forget that the Queen Mother was close to her Scottish roots. The family seat was Glamis Castle - yes, that Glamis Castle.

So it is no longer a personal residence, although Charles puts in a week there once a year in the summer.

Yes, r208, that's why after strong rumors of H&M being offered Adelaide Cottage or York Cottage, they were finally offered the servants' quarters in Frogmore, the family graveyard. There were so many nicer properties HM could have offered if she had wanted. Those two must have been really outrageous behind the scenes.

R210 "Servants quarters" is a bit of a misnomer.

It was ". . . a Grade II Listed home . . . used as a personal retreat by Queen Charlotte, wife of George III. A personal secretary of Queen Victoria's, Abdul Karim, moved to Frogmore Cottage in 1897 with his wife and father. Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna in exile from her native Russia after the Russian Revolution stayed there in the 1920s. In the early 21st century, the cottage was a series of five separate units housing Windsor estate workers."

Other distinguished guests have also stayed there on occasion. Calling it "servants' quarters" puts a spin on it that isn't quite fair.

That said, had the Sussexes not made it so clear so early in the game that they were hostile, self-entitled, probably wouldn't stay the course, livid with envy of the Cambridges, and intent on forcing the institution to give Meghan some sort of starring role because she didn't like finding herself 6th on the Call Sheet again . . .

The Queen might have given them something a tad more "royal".

Of course, who knows: Meghan might have turned her nose up at Adelaide Cottage, too - after all, it only has four bedrooms.

R210, one thing the excerpts make clear is how early the two burned through their welcome. We knew Harry was outraged when the Queen gave a televised address from a room that conspicuously omitted any pictures of the Sussexes. A trivial detail? According to Bower, the Palace really WAS sending a message, specifically, “we’ve had enough of you.”

#meghanmarkleisanarcissist Trending on Twitter

[quote]According to Bower, the Palace really WAS sending a message, specifically, “we’ve had enough of you.”

I interpreted it more as if you're not going to be on the team, you're not shown on the team. I struggle to imagine anybody in the Palace ranks trying to game Bower. There's no upside except to agitate the misfits and they're enough nuisance under their own steam.

r209

The truth...

Thread closed

oh shit YAHOO comments are back open again. I was surprised on the article about the Queen saying GOOD that Meghan wasn't coming to Philip's funeral so many said it wasn't true. But then again the YAHOO commenters seem to be more conservative so maybe they are saying that to stick up for the Queen.

R217. OK, we get it. You don’t want us gloating over the spectacular failure that is the Harkles. How’s that working out for you?

Maybe the Queen said thank goodness Meghan's not coming because she was worried about her health - she was seven months pregnant.

Maybe De-Facto is sad troll.

I’m sorry, is someone wondering why the queen might have said that? Are you all joking? She doesn’t like Meghan and was glad that she wouldn’t be stunting and cunting at her husband’s funeral!

Would YOU?

Adelaide Cottage looks beautiful…

R220. Did the Queen miscarry?

Oh I'm not a sugar - I just don't think the Queen would like it being reported that she said that. I could be wrong of course....

But it's perfectly reasonable that a grandma would not want her granddaughter-in-law to make a 5400-mile trip at that point.

So why assume she meant it in the ugliest way possible? (and make the Queen look bad to at least some of her subjects - amazingly, 25% of people in the YouGov poll for this Spring still have a positive opinion about Meghan. Let's hope she gets down closer to Andrew's level, at 11%. It's what she deserves.)

* should have said POSSIBLY look bad to at least some of her subjects...

I'm sure many of them would not hold it against her. Her husband had just died and Meghan would have made it more of a mess, considering all that had happened.

I agree wholly r225, however it is being interpreted by the average casual reader that The Queen does not hold Meghan in high regard, which will have delightful ramifications.

Does anyone actually think that QEII likes Meghan?

R226 remember she did make it about herself again --- have you forgotten about the funeral wreath merching?

I'd forgotten about that, R229 (I'm not R226), and now I feel embarrassed for her all over again.

At least people are writing down all her shit, so it can be documented for eternity.

Did Halfwit Harry and The Duchess of Doritos wish Camilla a happy birthday?

R231 Oh, they don't have social media any longer, remember?

No, R231, just like they couldn't be arsed to wish Louis and Charlotte a happy birthday while the BRF did wish Archie and Lilibet well.

Thursday can't come fast enough. I need that book!

So, after hearing Harry tolerate repeated slurs against women and minorities, Meghan concludes he is definitely the man to father her children.

On the other hand, after learning of an ambiguous comment about the color of her future children, which was apparently so inconsequential at the time that neither remembers when or in what context it was said, she concludes that the monarchy is an institution she can’t tolerate.

Right, R235. I mean, Enlightened Harry dressed up as a Nazi for laughs and was recorded spewing racial slurs - again, just for fun. Big laughs!

That's who she married, yet we're supposed to believe she's oh so sensitive and enlightened? Please.

Like all successful wives in long lasting marriages, she was going to change him.

Because that works. Everybody knows that.

R203 - Charles does NOT own Highgrove. The Duchy of Cornwall owns Highgrove.

^^^^ Responding R203 not R209. Sorry!

"Like all successful wives in long lasting marriages, she was going to change him. Because that works."

Haven't you seen straight men actively looking for women to change them? It's a thing, some straight men think that if they realize they're messes, or that they're unhappy with their lives, they think that going to therapy is unmanly... but letting a woman take over their lives and "fix" them is okay. And this is why some straight men will seek out meddling, domineering women who'll take over their lives, it's because they're unhappy with their lives and aren't together enough to change things on their own.

It's not a common dynamic but it happens, and I can see it happening with the Harkles when it did. Harry was out of the army and didn't like being a full-time royal, he didn't like his life but wasn't together enough to change things on his own... and a meddling, domineering woman came along. And she told him that she could help him leave the Royals and live a life of idle luxury financed by social media famewhoring, and she'd help him with his mental health issues you poor baby...

R238 But Charles owns the Duchy of Cornwall. Technically it will pass to William when Charles inherits the Duchy of Lancaster but I suspect there is a provision that Highgrove will stay with Charles. It’s kind of sweet Charles likes his petite Georgian manor when he had access to many much grander residences.

I don't understand this. Is the Duchy of Cornwall a "territory" (bunch of land)? Does Charles own all the people who live on it? Or are they his tenants or "serfs"? WTF?

I looked the word up trying to figure it out:

A duchy, also called a dukedom, is a medieval country, territory, fief, or domain ruled by a duke or duchess, a ruler hierarchically second to the king or queen in Western European tradition. There once existed an important difference between "sovereign dukes" and dukes who were ordinary noblemen throughout Europe.

Question from an American know nothing: What percentage of British people think this system is antiquated and by its nature, extremely unfair? I get that wealthy people pass down their wealth - like the Rockefellers or DuPonts or whatever - but somebody way back earned the money from a business or graft or whatever, and then they willed it to their children etc. Even that seems less antiquated and intrinsically revolting than this hereditary titles, "duchies" etc.

Harry looked so red faced with scruffy hair during his UN diatribe. As he ages those close set eyes are becoming menacing looking. He seems untrustworthy.

R242, it’s the same principle, though—hereditary wealth is hereditary wealth. But I think a fair number of people with titles don’t have property, or have a hard time maintaining their drafty old houses. There are dukes and earls with no land; their titles are just historical artifacts. As to the Duchy of Cornwall, as I understand it, Charles doesn’t actually own it—as Prince of Wales, he manages it and gets the income from it (through rent and investments), but he can’t sell it. The income, though, is very nice.

R243– I agree— those beady little eyes look a bit crazed, too. Unlike his mother, he has zero charm and can’t fake affability.

R242 Do you seriously believe that, in 2022, there is any system in the UK where anyone can “own” someone else? What is wrong with you?

The Duchy of Cornwall is an estate - land and buildings. It was put together in the middle ages to provide an income for the heir to the throne.

The estate has tenants in some of the buildings who pay rent. They have as many rights (far more than any US tenants, btw) as anyone else.

The Duchy also generates income from farming & produce. That income is used by Charles for his expenses as PoW, his charitable endeavours - which are many - and his private life.

Do I think it’s fair to have such a system? Of course. We are a constitutional monarchy - none of those born in to it chose the life we force them to lead and there’s no question they have a great many expenses to pay while doing their job. Where else are they going to get the money? Shifts in a chip shop?

The Duchy is the same as the Crown Estates…used for the expenses of the BRF but ultimately owned by the state….which is me and all other citizens of the UK.

These are not “hereditary” estates as they are not passed down from person to person, but rather to the next person doing the job. And HM & Charles do not own the Crown Estates or the Duchy so inheritance doesn’t come into it.

Do you think the family will be convening a book club this Thursday?

R241 Charles does not own the Duchy of Cornwall…he has use of it while he’s PoW.

R241 - Charles does not "own" the Duchy of Cornwall, He cannot sell it, for example. He is, as the Prince of Wales and the male heir to the throne, entitles to its revenues. That is why it was set up: to ensure that the Heir had an independent income, and would not therefore be tempted to betray his country for wealth. It was set up in 1385 or so for this purpose.

The Prince of Wales is the Duchy's steward, not its owner. William will "inherit" it, but not because Charles "left it to him".

Highgrove was purchased by the Duchy for Charles and is now managed as a Trust, like the Castle of Mey. Charles, by all accounts, has been an attentive and dutiful steward, supporting the generation of cottage industries such as jams, honey, all organically produced. William has been in training to take over what is essentially a land management concern for years, against the day when the Duchy passes to him as steward.

Only the revenues are outright owned by the Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales, whoever he is. The Duchy revenues are not taxed directly, but a sizable chunk of its revenues are given voluntarily to the Treasury each year. This is also true of the Duchy of Lancaster, a similar setup that ensures that the Sovereign has an independent income, as s/he cannot have any other way to earn money, and within a few years of the Duchy of Cornwall model.

The Queen is titled Duke of Lancaster, not Duchess, because "Duchess" is the name of a woman married to a Duke: it is the Duke in any of these setups who is the titular head of the duchy.

[quote]Question from an American know nothing: What percentage of British people think this system is antiquated and by its nature, extremely unfair? I get that wealthy people pass down their wealth - like the Rockefellers or DuPonts or whatever - but somebody way back earned the money from a business or graft or whatever, and then they willed it to their children etc. Even that seems less antiquated and intrinsically revolting than this hereditary titles, "duchies" etc.

First, I admire how self aware you are.

Secondly, the monarchy is not a dynasty, though various dynasties have over the centuries served as successive monarchs. So while the line was broken, the crown has endured (though Cromwell broke it briefly too.) The point being there was a time, back in the day, that kings actually ruled the country, led the government, led the military, sometimes into battle. Which might be close enough to 'somebody way back earned the money from a business or graft or whatever' to satisfy your requirements?

“Dynasty” was the superior nighttime drama.

A sneak peak of the new exhibition at Buckingham Palace.

^OMG! The Cambridge emeralds and George IV/Victoria Diadem!!!!

I didn't see the Fringe, though.

Or the Sapphire Suite George VI gave Princess Elizabeth as a wedding present.

I'd go but I'm afraid I'll try to break the glass on one of the exhibits and end up with an ASBO.

Oh my god there you are TT. Missed you.

The Vladimir with the emeralds!!!

I would love to see that exhibit.

Got my tickets for September -- bookings are wide open at the mo. The exhibit is thoughtfully set up, with official portraits alongside the jewels. I've written before about seeing The Queen's Hats exhibit at KP some years ago, with the same scenario of photos or movies of the Queen wearing the millinery alongside the specimens. Well done.

Harry’s little bombshell was detonated early! Will this push his little memoir back again? Maybe it’ll come out when Archie graduates from college.

Now that more people are beginning to see that H is as much a liar as his wife, I can't see how any memoir he "writes" can do damage.

Let's not forget that this arsehole wore his Nazi joke uniform,did he personally apologize? Did he fuck, he got the palace staff to say he was sorry " to people he may have offended". Note how the inference is on people who took offence, not his heinous action.

r259 I have been saying for a while Harry is like depleted uranium- his book is not going to have the devastating impact he fantasies about.He is discredited in the eyes of many and a declining force.

I've disliked him since he was an evil eyed little scrote of a teenager. Markle was never going to make me like either of them.

The Harry worship was always mental.

How can Netflix get any of their money back unless they do a hit job on the Harkles?

Bearking: Harry won the right to take his case forward against the Home Office's ruling.

The court, however, only gave permission for it to proceed on some points raised, but not others, 8ncluding the rather important one that RAVEC had the right to make independent decisions in su h matters, and commented rather drily that agreeing that Harry might have an "arguable" case to be heard was "very far" from suggesting he had a winnable one.

Which is what happened to ANL: they were told they had an arguable case and were therefore allowed to appeal, it then lost the case on appeal.

Stay tuned.

Yes, having an arguable case is very different than having one that’s sure to win.

If he wins, what does he get? The British people pay for all security for all of the Sussexes in perpetuity? Or just when they’re in England??

No, R264 - not necessarily.

He’s requested a judicial review…he’s not suing anyone.

A judicial review is held to decide whether rules were applied correctly. The courts have no power to instruct RAVEC to do anything other than go back and review a previous decision if they believe there may have been error.

Steady drip, drip, drip of stupidity on their end. This reads as greed, childish, petulant. He will never be welcomed back in the UK. If all goes pear shaped, they will have to go to live in his spiritual home Africa. With money tight in the UK no one wants to give a farthing to this useless prat & his nasty grasping wifey.

In case anyone’s not sure what a judicial review is, it’s something along these lines:

HARRY: I’m entitled, under the rules, to full security while in the UK

RAVEC: No, you’re not

HARRY: Let’s ask a judge (get a judicial review)

JUDGE(S): We’ve looked at the rules as per the law and RAVEC are right, so fuck off, Harry

OR

JUDGE(S): We’ve looked at the rules as per the law and we think you’ve failed to follow them correctly, RAVEC…so go back and look at it again

Then, either

RAVEC: Sorry, Harry, you were right…we didn’t take xyz into account. Have your 24/7 security

OR

RAVEC: OK, we looked again, taking into account the things the judge told us to and we still don’t think you’re entitled.

That’s the nutshell version of a judicial review.

R267 Well, you know the old joke, You can lead a whoretoculture, but you can't make her think.

The troll opened a thread on this exhibiting not the foggiest understanding about the reality of the decision.

And if the JR did kick it back to the Home Office, I would love to take wagers on the likelihood of a beleaguered Tory government facing its worst poll standings in years telling even more beleaguered UK taxpayers that they can now also start paying for the armed security of two of the most hated members of the royal family, whi live 5,000 miles away, and trashed Britain, its monarchy, and its five senior royals with lies.

I can hear Keir Starmer at the PMQs now, pointing to Tory promises of a Britain that works for everyone - especially rich royals.

Even Priti Patel couldn't be that stupid. It would be a horrible look for the government and the monarchy.

My bet: if it gets kicked back to the HO, RACEC will.make a polite show of reviewing the request, and come to the same conclusion.

Then Harry will bring his next case, and by the time that rolls around, Labour may well be in power, and let's see it try to sell THAT to the redwall voters it just got back.

^*RAVEC

Prince George turns 9 years old today! This photo has been released.

R270 Gorgeous photo of George. And, in it, it's clear his look is evolving again, and suddenly he looks far more like his father than he did before - which means, of course, that you can also see more of Diana in him, because it is William who looks like Diana, not Harry.

George also looks more like his sister in that photo than he used to. A perfect blend of Windsor and Spencer. Another ten years, and he will be THE hot catch of Europe.

Yes, but Archie will have Veronica & Jughead, so there, you haters!!

R271: and far more Windsor in that those enormous family chompers seem to have emerged.

The Queen will miss the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. Charles and Camilla will attend in her place.

The Queen has now traveled to Balmoral for the summer.

She'll be getting her tits tanned in the Highlands

George is in dire need of dental braces to fix the mess in his mouth. Do royals not believe in this kind of thing?

R277 - if his teeth don't straighten naturally, he probably will be getting braces.

Kids usually don't get braces at this age.

R279 - What is the normal age for braces??? 12-14 years old?????

Maybe the Judge is toying with Harry, increasing his legal bills till he ultimately loses.

George's mouth still is managing adult teeth and child teeth at the same time. They'll provide braces, of course. Even dear Prince Edward had braces (Andrew led the others in calling him "Jaws," as in Richard Kiel with his steel choppers in Roger Moore Bond movies.

Also, his childhood dentition is much like his father's, and William's prominent incisors are a family trait.

Victoria, after all, could bite the rind off a melon if she thought someone had tucked ice cream inside.

I doubt Keir Starmer would make critical comments about any royals, r268. In any case, the Tory-run Home Office told Harry to get lost.

There may be some misunderstanding over the court case. Since the right to working royal level security while in the U.K. was removed, Harry wanted to pay for same level. He was told ‘no’ that this public security is not a service that can be bought and paid for. He is contesting the right to pay for (from his own funds) the same level of security afforded to the senior working royals.He insists that he needs this for his family to ‘feel safe’.

R284 - I have always thought the Buckingham Palace courtiers ,aka grey men at the palace, put pressure on the Home office to say no to Harry's security request (and request to pay the Home Office privately with his own funds for said security) so that they could control his movements if and when he comes to the UK.

If it were me, I would just stay away from the UK.

You can't have people paying for private public protection from the police, its a public service

You're talking out of your arse, r285.

R284 No government in it's right mind would agree to set a precedent for wealthy people to hire public service employees for their personal service.

Those badly needed police officers would be pulled off the street where they belong in order to feed the ego of an enranged man using the courts to pursue his family, the monarchy, and Britain.

There would be riots.

The court in my opinion knows perfectly well what the outcome of this will be well down the road. It's assent to take selected elements forward seems to me a shrug of the judicial shoulders. The Court is covering its arse so Harry can't say he didn't get a hearing or his day court.

The judge's wry comment that permission to try it on as "arguable" is "very far from calling it winnable", tells you the real lay of the land.

Everyone knew ANL would lose on Appeal. But the Appeal Court still accepted the Appeal and agreed to hear it.

No sane government would set the precedent that Harry is trying to force here.

But they'll sure let him go on with the farce.

^* two of those It's should be its.

Fucking autocorrect.

[quote]No government in it's right mind would agree to set a precedent for wealthy people to hire public service employees for their personal service.

But he's not just a wealthy person, he is royalty. I'm not saying he should get his way, but I think his team is trying to make the point that he's royalty, which is different than being wealthy landed gentry.

R290 - he's not WORKING royalty.

Sorry to be dense - but what is "ANL"? TIA

R292, it’s the publisher of the Daily Mail. It’s Harry’s turn to sue them for defamation.

Thank you R293! Where would we be without the DM - they get details on our mass shooters before we know their names.

"He is contesting the right to pay for (from his own funds) the same level of security afforded to the senior working royals.He insists that he needs this for his family to ‘feel safe’."

Did he really say "FEEL safe" in legal documents, rather than "BE safe"? Like not even his lawyers could come up with any genuine justification for that kind of security?

As if the British taxpayers were responsible for making him feel happy and safe!

r285 no it has always been the law of the land that you cant privately hire the met polices royal protection squad.Nothing was changed to spite or control Harry.His legal action is a ruse because if he were to win then his lawyers would say arr you concede in effect our client is an IPP -internationally protected person and requires security so he must now be given his IPP status back.That would then mean whatever country they go to in the world they would be given free high level security and paid for accomodation.For US taxpayers that will be a lot of money but it will also mean thy start flying all over the world preaching in different countries all on the taxpayers of each country they visit. The initial legal case is as I say a ruse- a devious ruse and the UK authorities know it.There is no such thing as a divine right in law to have royal protection for the rest of your life even if you do no official duties.

R285 - That is a complete myth. The Palace courtiers don't tell the government what to do: it's the other way round.

The fact is, Harry ditched his job, left the country, trashed it and its institutions, and then turned around and insisted he should be treated just like his father and brother - who work for the monarchy and the nation.

Why the fuck would someone who lives 5,000 miles away, doesn't lift a finger to represent the nation or the monarchy, think he's entitled to extravagantly costly protection?!

It is illegal to hire public employees for personal use. His offer to pay is a red herring: the court and RAVEC and the Home Office know it would set a horrible precedent: more police for those who can afford to pay for them. Meanwhile, those police are pulled off public duty, despite being the public's employees, to feed Harry's petulant ego.

Harry has known for a long time that he can't waltz in and "hire" the police for himself and his family. Yet, he's pursuing the case, knowing full well that if RAVEC agreed to change his status to someone who merited 24/7 armed protection whenever he visited Britain, rather than set such a precedent, the bill would fall on to the already heavily pressured UK taxpayer.

Whilst he bleats about striving for a "more equal world". Just not where HE is concerned.

The hypocrisy, rage, and breathtaking self-entitlement on display are beyond cringeworthy.

The Home Office can't set a precedent allowing the wealthy to siphon off public services for themselves at will; and, it can't cave in and stick the taxpayers with this kind of bill.

Harry was told when he left that he'd forfeit his taxpayer funded armed security. What he's doing now is more of the old Have My Cake And Eat It Too game the Harkles have been trying to play since they left.

We're for a more equal world (only, one in which we're somewhat more than equal than the rest of you)!

There is always a liaison from the Palace to RAVEC - how else are the two channels supposed to communicate about who is working and how much and where?! The Wessexes and Princess Anne only get that level of security when on official business representing the monarchy. The rest of the time, they're on their own.

The only people who get round the clock, 24/7, armed protection on the taxpayer's pound are the Queen, Charles and Camilla, and the Cambridges, for obvious reasons.

And that's what Harry wants: a nonworking, nonresident, and loud critic of his family, country, and the monarchy . . . but to be treated like the Sovereign and the next two Kings. A man who will end his life around 13th in line for the throne.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, R296. This has nothing to do with being recognised as an ‘IPP” abroad. It is entirely about publicly funded security (ie, the met police) while Harry & his family are in the UK.

He is arguing that RAVEC have not followed the correct procedures when assessing his needs. The high court will decide - based on their reading of the rules - whether this is true or not.

While I agree, R297, with the gist of what you’re saying…again, he is not arguing (because he’s not entitled to) that the rules should be changed for him. He is arguing that the rules and procedures as laid out in law have been applied incorrectly. It’s a judicial review…review being the operative word.

r298 Im afraid i do know what I am talking about.Once he is given security by royal status in the UK a principle is established that lawyers will exploit. Harry said in his manifesto when he left that they would still get IPP status and was miffed when it was denied.He also complained about it on Oprah.This legal case is a means to an end based on second order or secondary reasons.Once the secondary reasons are established the legal goalposts will be moved. Any senior UK lawyer or even half decent lawyer will tell you this.

R299 No, you don’t…and you’ve just proved that even further.

What Harry wrote in his manifesto is completely irrelevant & nothing about this review will establish a “principle”. It is a “review”, not the establishment of a new law.

Slowly….

This is a judicial review to decide whether RAVEC properly assessed Harry & his family when determining whether their needs reached the required threshold for 24/7 armed royal protection while they are in the UK.

RAVEC say they followed the procedures and rules as set out in the relevant laws. Harry says they did not.

The very best that could happen for Harry is that the high court agree that RAVEC erred somehow, send it back to them for another assessment and RAVEC accept their mistake and provide the security they’ve previously denied.

That’s it. This will have NO BEARING on anything other than security for when he is in the UK. His lawyers will not suddenly have the ability to argue that other governments provide the same security which is what an “IPP” status confers. He is not even arguing in his case that he should be given an IPP status.

Now, sit down and be quiet you silly old woman.

To be very, very clear…a judicial review is MERELY about checking whether actual, established legal procedures have been followed correctly.

It cannot establish a new law. It cannot tell RAVEC what to do (other than reassess). It cannot “change a legal goalpost”.

It is a review. That is all.

r300 I am well aware it is a judicial review and that Harry will likely fail 99% certainty by the end of it. You are being arrogant.You have offered an alternative opinion to mine not facts versus fiction. Deluded Harry is trying to play a longer term game- if he were to win (in his mind) then he could come back to the UK months at a time and get paid security.That will then be the foundation to ask for more in law. Harry isnt burning with anger because he wants a review of the way the committee procedurally made the decision but rather to get to the endpoint of a changed decision. I never said his manifesto had legal implications but rather indicated what his intent and wishes are.I never said they will be realised but that his aim is to get back IPP status. He was very happy to get his security paid for him on IPP status basis in Canada until there was a backlash.It is what he is after . r301 I understand ALL of that.It is not the review that is key but what he wants the review to decide differently.I agree they wont chance the decision but Harry seems to think they will.He isnt spending millions just for a correct procedural checklist.

If the committee did change its decision THEN his lawyer can move the goalposts or try to. For the record I dont believe his silly antics will change the original decision but the implications are potentially significant if they did.

Girls...girls! You're both pretentious whores :(

I am not being “arrogant” - I am right and you are wrong.

When you go for a judicial review it’s to challenge the legality of a decision based on whether or not the correct procedures were followed. It’s not challenging the “rightness” of the decision as such. If he wanted to do that he could appeal the decison via the high court. Has he done that? No.

Who gives a fuck what he “wants”? Either RAVEC implemented existing laws correctly or they did not. If it’s found that they did not then they’ll reassess and apply the law correctky. That DOES NOT MEAN he’ll automatically get a different decision - he may or he may not.

Since I am 100% sure you have no idea what the law says or how RAVEC go about determining the threshold that’s to be met for 24/7 security, then fuck knows how you know who is going to win.

But the important thing to note - that you can’t seem to understand - is that no law will be changed and no legal goalposts moved. Nothing will change. If Harry wants to be declared an IPP he’d have to be directly challenging the DECISION and that’s a whole different legal ball game - and he’s not doing that.

Understand? I doubt it.

R303 No, I’m not pretentious. This is my fucking job, something that menopausal old cow up there doesn’t have.

Oh, and it won’t be costing “millions”. It’s not a major trial.

You are being a dick about it, R304.

[quote]Understand? I doubt it.

That's a dickish thing to say. And SA is speculating about Harry's reasons for seeking a JR, not what a JR is.

Thank you r306

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the Royal Residences this week!

Re the legal wrangle, unless I read the decision wrongly, and the legal eagle above might be able to help here, Mr Justice Swift more or less refused to allow Harry to proceed on what looked like the ones Harry would have seen as having more gravitas, for lack if a better word.

Swift refused a challenge to RAVEC's right to come to its decision independently, and on Harry's offer to "pay", and on Harry's position in the line of succession, did he not?

Swift left Harry's challenge to how the law wascapplued in his case on Harry nor being properly informed of the "rules" and how RAVEC reached its decision.

Unless I misread or misunderstood, Swift left Harry free to pursue a JR of how the law was applied on the, er, at least to the naked eye, challenges less likely to end in what Harry is after underneath it all: proof that he's still an important member of the royal family. That's a psychological assessment, not a legal one.

So, what I'm wondering is, whether the court know this, and, unwilling to throw him out entirely, whi h ibthink they could have, and figured it's better to let him have the narrowest possible shot at getting a JR that the court knows won't, in the end, get Harry what he wants: confirmation that he was a victim deprived of his royal privileges with the collusion of the Palace.

Does the court sometimes operate this way?

R309 here again: te changing the law, itcwas leaked a cou9le of weeks ago that Harry and his legal team are preparing a challenge to the law itself, i.e., that public services such as the Met cannot be "hired" by private individuals ifvsaid individuals are willing to reimburse the taxpayer

The problem, of course, isn't just cost: it means fewer of said services available to the public that they are legally created to serve.

Is Harry also going to pay for extra police on the streets of London during his stay here to take up the slack created by him pulling police off the street to serve him personally because he can pay?

If the leak on this was legit, it does suggest that whilst SA .ight have been wrong narrowly as to what the instant case centers on, she may not be entirely wrong in assessing what it is Harry is really aiming at down the road: wrenching the law around tovserve his (in my opinion) at this point lethally mental rage.

Harry has honevafter the monarchy a f now he's going after the British government.

It's clownish viewed from one perspective, but increasingly dangerous from another.

Sooner or later, if Harry persists in his ruthless pursuit if vengeance and affirmation, the Palace AND the government may finally realise that it5time nonstop him through a removal of his royal status altogether. He's making the case for it.

One other legal question: if Harry does fikeva suit that the law on private hire of publi c services is wrong and should be changed, can the court refuse to hear it? If so, on what grounds?

TIA

^*apologies for the typos: I'm in a moving vehicle using a mobile, and have arthritic hands, but you get the gist.

"Speculating" being very much the operative word there, r306.

I thought he was trying to get IPP status so he and his fake wife can go anywhere in the world and get free armed security.

[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.]

r310 I don't think any future british government or any part of the state or officialdom in the UK will ever regard Harry as anything other than a liability in the future. Definitely not an asset. But you are right he is skating on thin ice but the reality of his decision and behaviour dies not seem to be penetrative his mind. Stuck in the victim mode of he is being wronged.

R292 - Associated Newspaper Limited; The holding and publishing company of the Daily Mail, Mail online and The Mail on Sunday; owned and controlled by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere.

"so he and his fake wife can go anywhere"

R313 - Are you saying that they are not married??? Meghan may be a "fake" personality but she is not a "fake wife".

@FinanciallySpkn

@ThePerezHilton was on the @deuxmoiworld podcast this week and he said he saw the trailer for the MM PH @netflix docuseries. He said it was boring. But looks like it’s really going to happen.

Oh, well, there's someone who is nothing but reliable, beaming down from a Kardashian platform.

#princeharryisatraitor

is trending on Twitter now.

And, in the wake of the "leak" (probably by Sunshine & Co.) that the Queen has invited the Sussexes to Balmoral (but not when any other members of the family are around), the Express has quickly reversed itself after "soneone" got a look at the Balmoral guest list . . . And, blow me down . . .

The Sussexes are NOT on it.

Right shock, that.

I suspect that when either the leak (by way of a suggestion to HM), or another story made up by the media to keep the pot boiling occurred, the Palace did what it did with the Of Course I Discussed Using Lilibet With Gran First! lie that Harry told:

It put the rumour out of its misery by quietly exposing the truth a couple of days later. In the former case, the Queen refused to back up Harry's claim and a Palace insider confided that there had been no video after the baby was born. End of claim, end of Harry's legal threats.

In the instant case, the Palace swiftly made the Balmoral guest list available.

I think the Palace is now more keen to put these "olive branch" stories.

Even HM has lost patience with the Sussexes and their bullshit.

Olive branches? After more politicisation of his title at the UN re the SCOTUS decision? Harry's upcoming nasty memoir in the pipeline? How they behaved at the Jubly? Harry taking HM's government to court for more toyal privilege? Harry claiming to be protecting the Queen from the people around her?

One thinks not.

It's too bad: Meghan in a tartan skirt would likely have been a memorable sight.

I would not believe anything printed in "the Express" without receipts.

R321: bagpipes doing a handstand.

R322 the Express is trash, a Daily Mail knock-off. DM at least actually sources its stories. However, The Sun and the Page Six are also reporting that the Sussexes were never invited. They're trashy but they both belong to Murdoch like The Times which actually has reliable sources.

Funny how we always read from some anonymous source that they’ve been invited but they never attend.

I find it hard to believe anybody saw the guest list. That doesn't ring true to me.

R326, everything that the Queen does is carefully planned; lots of staff are involved. It’s very likely that a number of people have seen the guest list.

R327 - True, but why would those staff people talk to The Mail (The Fail), The Express (The Slow) or The Sun (The Scum or The Dim)????

R328, “someone” put out a false story about the Sussexes being invited to see the Queen. A staff member was authorized to refute that story.

"#princeharryisatraitor is trending on Twitter now."

Tell me, what do those twats on Twitter think Harry's done?

R330 - I have asked the same question many times.

R330, interesting you're wondering and complaining about some tweets while you probably don't have a problem with Sussex Squad shit tweet tags like KateMiddletonIsA...[insert dumb insult] . . .

Denying the story wouldn't take proof, just a word from the inside. It's not exactly contentious.

R332, I'm not on Twitter. Too many damn fools taking it too seriously.

So no, I don't bitch about every stupid thing that gets posted there.

Have I missed the question of who on DL has had Omid Scobie?

Nobody would admit to that r335

R135, you might as well ask if someone has fucked an empty plastic bottle.

Because that's what I imagine what it's like to fuck that guy.

R337 was in reply to R335, obviously. Sorry.

What size paper bag would he have to wear over that melting plastic face,is the burning question. Imagine waking up next to that face. If that didn't scare you clean & sober I don't know what would.

[R335] here. I guess Datalounge has some standards.

R340 Not many. But even we have our limits.

Oh I wouldn't go THAT far, R340.

"Princess Rachel del Palazzo Montecito".

Lady C is on fire today.

Sure sounds like fire..

Lady C shouldn't give any cover to MM's megalomania by referring to her, even in jest, as Princess Rachel or Princess Meghan. She is not a princess in her own right, she can only be known as Princess Henry.

Lady C's mocking Meghan-speak as she says ... "I'm Prinsesss RA-chel del Palazzo Montecito, doncha know? And I have klassss."

She's a tedious idiot with horrible grating speaking voice, beloved by fraus.

R347, agreed --- Meghan IS a tedious idiot with horrible grating speaking voice, beloved by fraus.

I'm a big Mo and the husbear and I smoke weed and watch Lady C knowing she's a complete and utter fraud. We mock her as she mocks others. She does amuse.

R345 Lor' bless you for mentioning it, but it's a lost cause. Lady C and everyone else one earth still calls Diana "Princess Diana" - including the UK media.

[quote] the husbear and I smoke weed and watch Lady C

You watch Lady C while smoking weed?!? LOL ... I just picture the scenery in my mind: Both of you stoned in front of the screen, giggling while Lady C does her weird cackling.

r343 Why whats Lady C saying ??!!

She just takes so fucking long to get to the point, which is amusing spite but not that amusing and probably bullshit.

r353 And what was her point please? I have taken a long pause from watching her since she become too political for my liking a while aback.

R354/SA: no clue. Can't endure her: Wheeze, cackle, squeal....

MeMe and LCC, two tedious gravelly cunts.

Thanks to a tip from DL some time back, I put Lady C on 1.5 speed. Still completely understandable, but faster.

That's hilarious, R349. You paint quite picture. DL version of Gogglebox.

That was more fake PR saying the Queen invited them for the Balmoral summer break. They were never invited.

This is a strange report - but a big part of it is this robot-like guy reading a "Page Six" article (that H&M were not invited to Balmoral despite the report that they were.)

But the first part of the tacky little report, and I assume they got it from somewhere, is there was a big fight and Harry said something like he'd rather be with the dogs than Meghan? And that she was staying at an expensive hotel so much that locals wondered if she was living there? I guess nearby to Montecito.

I know these things have been reported on one of these threads but this little blurb pulls together the big angry fights that H&M are having at their home - Meghan being gone much of time (without the children) - Harry staying home with the children (and dogs?)

Oh and in the beginning, it says that Harry was invited to Balmoral (by himself) but she wasn't - and that caused a big fight as well.

Sorry to bring this junk over but it all rings to damned true! Compared to the bullshit PR that comes out of Montecito all the time. God I hope this joke of a marriage will soon be over. He needs to go home and move on. She needs to get on Housewives of Santa Barbara or whatever latest con-artistry she has up her sleeve at one of her new homes, whether it's the hotel they're talking about or the house in Bel Air that they/she has leased.'

No wonder Netflix and Penguin have reconsidered and are forging ahead instead of delaying on the docuseries and his book - assuming there are snippets of truth in the discord - the fights, her staying elsewhere, etc.

No you're not sorry to dump garbage here, you happily publicize it. The supposed chaos is a PR slant.

I doubt Harry was invited by himself for any reason other than to discuss some matters that the Queen would know better than to include Meghan in.

Otherwise, the Queen would know very well that an ordinary invite that didn't include Meghan and the kids would be declined by Harry.

So either they weren't invited at all, or the Queen invited Harry alone for "discussions" and either Meghan wouldn't allow that, or neither wanted that.

I think rumours of TIP may have some legs if that horrifying footage from the UN appearance is anything to go by.

I can't see them trying to provoke either one of those two. It only makes sense to invite them when no one else is around. If Tindall really did refer to Harry as a bell end, they're over, if not entirely out.

R362, it’s entirely possible that Harry was invited for a discussion and he said “whatever you want to say to me, you can say in front of my wife!” (as those types of hostages do).

Or it was Meghan manifesting again.

When the Family held a power summit over Megxit -- HM, Charles, William, Harry and a few trusted aides at Sandringham -- Meghan said she was too sick to travel and demandedt to attend over Zoom. She was told NO in no uncertain terms because everyone was convinced she wanted to record the private family meeting.

Was she in England at the time, R365?

She was too pregnant to travel for Prince Philip's funeral (April) before giving birth in June but not too pregnant to travel to her glamby shower in February before giving birth in May.

babyshower February 20th 2019

child born 6 May 2019

difference: 75 days

Duke's funeral 17 April 2021

child born 4 June 2021

difference 48 days

R366, no, she was in Canada.

She records everything. She saw that Beyonce does this, literally archives everything. She thinks she’s an historical figure and everything needs to be preserved for posterity.

Beyonce preserves everything for Posteriority. You know that.

linky stinky, r360

Well of course they're fighting, R360, it's sinking in that Plan A isn't working and it's not like two dimwits who never listen to advice would have an easy time agreeing on a Plan B. But I doubt this will end the marriage, because neither of them have anywhere else to go, that they want to go. Without Harry, Meg is just another Hollywood ex-wife, and without Meg, Harry has no place to go but back to his family. And Harry won't go back to his family until the alternative is suicide, and even then he'll have a tough time deciding.

So they'll stay together long after things have gone to hell, and stay tuned for one to be hospitalized with "exhaustion".

Maybe... but Narcs are so dumb and illogical. She probably thinks she can do better - and if she's disgusted or tired with him, she probably isn't willing to have sex with him, so... well, I'd still bet on a divorce in the next year or two.

A divorce, or as I've said before, a Mayerling type ending.

I wonder... Narcs are insanely jealous - of just about everybody. Trump was famously envious of a homeless guy who wasn't facing court challenges and bankruptsies like poor widdle Don Don.

I wonder if she's watching Lady C in Castle Goring... and coming around to thinking "the Princess Henry" or whatever title she can keep post-divorce doesn't sound too bad, and she can have a castle/mansion, servants, lots of male admirers, and princessy soirees and balls.

But maybe she'll hunker down and stay the course. Some NPD's do, but she strikes me as more towards the sociopathic side of the spectrum and the one thing they can't stand is boredom.

R376, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" will be her denomination after the divorce. Which is why she already uses that denomination --- to get people get used to it.

Like Countess Luann de Lesseps? Clinging on ….

Clinging on, definitely, but not like a countess, like something else.

Like a lamprey eel?….

There's a good chance she calls herself that because she likes how it sounds and doesn't know or care that it's not her proper title. After all, she's the one who thought it was an insult that her kids didn't get HRHs.

Wow, Clooney is a complete douche. But we've always known that.

He's like her but with a better career and bigger vocabulary.

r382 Why whats he done?

[quote]Beyonce preserves everything for Posteriority. You know that.

I've read about this. She's a RELENTLESS scrapbooker, but she is barely literate to caption her accomplishments, and cannot write simple Subject-Verb-Object captions.

Have her people taught her to read, at least?

I think she's just going to fuck around on him (if she isn't already), but if HE cheats, there will be a narc meltdown. He's too weak to leave or do anything about her affairs.

I don't feel sorry for him if this is his future - he's just as much of an arsehole as she is.

The Queen has signed a Commonwealth message that will be read at the Opening games in Birmingham.

She still signs her signature with lots of energy!

This is her message.

^ Sorry that was Edward's message.

I saw that on Instagram today, R387, but the video of her signing it is from last year. The message then traveled around the Commonwealth and is being made public today.

Charles and Camilla arrive in style for the opening of the Commonwealth Games. Love the old cars. Charles' Aston Martin has been converted to clean energy.

I do adore Camilla. She's just so real about everything that Royal life drags her in to. Always with low-key sense of befuddlement and humour about herself.

R392 I rather like her, as well. The characteristic that most separates Camilla from both Diana and Meghan, is that she takes the work seriously, but not herself. I would also posit that that is the most striking characteristic that separates Kate from both Diana and Meghan.

Charles, and then William, eventually managed to disentangle themselves from the women obsessed with themselves, either as wives or mothers. William, certainly, found himself as a child forced to cope with his mother's unhappiness, an unfair burden for any young child. Small wonder that he ran in the opposite direction when he married.

Harry, on the other hand, ran right back to the narcissistic mother. I imagine that Charles and William understand, and have for some time, Harry's attraction for her, because of their experiences with Diana.

Unfortunately, whilst Charles and William were, due to a range of different circumstances and personal decisions, were able to learn from the mistake.

Harry, still obsessed with the lost mother, still doesn't believe he made a mistake.

Thus, "healed rifts" are unlikely.

[quote]The characteristic that most separates Camilla from both Diana and Meghan, is that she takes the work seriously, but not herself.

Throwing Fergie into this addition as well: Camilla never mugs for the camera. Neither does the Queen or Sophie or Anne or Kate or the rest of them.

Is that true for Beatrice and Eugenie, R394? (never mugging or embarassing the family?)

" William, certainly, found himself as a child forced to cope with his mother's unhappiness, an unfair burden for any young child. Small wonder that he ran in the opposite direction when he married. Harry, on the other hand, ran right back to the narcissistic mother"

In situation where one child believes everything an unbalanced parent says and another sees through their bullshit, the child who believes everything the parent says will think their skeptical sibling is disloyal, unloving, a threat to family harmony, ungrateful, and is just a horrible human being. And now that I've said that, I'm wondering if the former closeness between the two brothers was ever anything but a carefully crafted illusion.

They'll never be close again, of course, not as long as Harry resents the unfairness of the Primogeniture system. Yeah, Harry, it's completely unfair, but it's not like being given a personal fortune and the freedom to do what one wants with one's life is a bad deal.

r396 Harrys love for his mother is immature love-putting her on a saint like pedestal. Eternally wronged.always the victim never the wrongdoer .William seems to love his mum in a much healthier way emotionally-warts and all accepting her faults.

r394 Are you saying Fergie does or does not mug for the camera and does or does not taker herself too seriously but takes the work seriously?

R398/SA: She's Jim Carrey in a tiara.

LOL... the content is probably crap but the images say it all....

r399 Harsh lol!!

Sorry, wrong thread. How does that happen?

Kate is on the People cover.

Somebody won't like that.

R404, someone is already doing some manifesting again by planting rumors she'll be on the next Vogue cover.

[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 really hasn't been the best start for Meghan's new year lol.

Isn't / wasn't Tatler firmly Team Meghan?! What's happened? Have they finally realised they're backing the wrong horse?

FYI - Some of you on DL may be interested in this book.

R409 Many of us are already aware if Low's upcoming book.

He's the TIMES reporter who broke the bullying story, as well as some other royal stories. He despises the Sussexes and their minions.

So, whilst not ostensibly about the Sussexes, it is likely quite a few episodes of the book will involve handling of difficult situations for the monarchy. The list may include, without limitation, the Wallis Edward affair, Princess Margaret, Diana, and then the Sussexes and Megxit.

r410 I think his book is going to be an excellent read.

R411 I agree. Low is well above the pay grade of writers like Bower, never mind Omid Scabies. The book is likely to be far better written than Bower's.

And it is very likely that the people who gave Low the bullying story also have him prima facie evidence about why the story had legs.

I put this in the other thread but better here, sorry.

Pics of Adelaide Cottage that show a much different and bigger house than you might imagine.

I hope that William and Kate will move into Windsor Castle when he becomes Prince of Wales. Charles apparently wants to continue to call Clarence House his primary residence during his reign, so when TQ passes away, who better to live there but the Cambridges/future Prince and Princess of Wales.

Charles has said he's going to BP.

The Prince of Wales will move into Buckingham Palace when he becomes king because of the importance of living in “the flat above the shop”, it has been reported.

There has been speculation in recent years that Charles would not live at the palace but would stay at his present residence at Clarence House. One report suggested that he hoped to use the palace as an office or turn it into a museum with no members of the royal family in residence.

However, a source told the Daily Mail that the prince was “firmly of the view that it’s the visible symbol of the monarchy in the nation’s capital and therefore must be his home”.

Haven't heard a thing about anticipated move of the Cambridges to Adelaide Cottage.

I wonder if that was another yarn spun by the media to keep the Pot Royale stirring?

Adelaide Cottage was one of the residences that was rumored to be a wedding gift from Queen Elizabeth to the Sussexes. York Cottage as well.

The story kept changing (as it will when it’s planted by Manifesting Meghan), so who knows. They wound up being given Frogmore Cottage, which we all know they just LOVED.

[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.]

Another cover for Kate. She's found her VOICE. Hmmm, reminds me of someone who said she lost hers while in the same family.

[quote]Charity Commission figures show that the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge received at total of £19.95 million in donations and legacies, and spent £15.13 million on charitable activities.

[quote]Previous figures from UK Companies showed that the now-defunct Sussex Royal charity had US$380,000 (£280,624) in its accounts in 2020 and spent at least US$55,600 (£41,084) on attorneys.

well now, while the Harkle's popularity is continuously pilloried, the Cambridge's popularity shoots up into the stratosphere!

Camilla smells like gin and regret.

Better than cheap wine and cigarettes.

R422 looks more like a woman every time I see him.

Looks like Harry and Meghan lied when they said they want to pay for their own security in the UK and pay to hire the police.

It seems legal paperwork from their side states they are seeking public funded security.All the rest was manipulative PR spin.

I figured as much, SA. When the Met said they’d never received an offer for him to pay, I believe that. Flinty cheap-ass motherfucker.

Bower claims that Meghan was provided with some sort of security detail when they were only “dating”, and she’s PISSED that she doesn’t have that anymore. She’s furious to be just another stay-at-home suburban mommy.

All that impotent rage. My god.

Why the fuck does Harry have such a bug up his ass about security?

Is it an ego thing? Or are Megan's fans THAT scary? Or like every famous douche, is he afraid that other douches will decide to have a go at him for the hell of it?

r427 He is notoriously stingey with his money.Why should I pay when they can pay seems to be his mindset.He wants IPP status back-Internationally protected person, so that whatever country they go to accomodation and top security is paid for them by the host country per diplomatic custom.That would mean US taxpayers would be on the hook when they are in the US. His whole public argument about this is a ruse to get closer to getting his IPP status back.Once it were conceded he is a special case and can hire the met police then the lawyers can simply say Arrr you admit our client has special and unique circumstances! Then you are admitting they qualify for IPP status.That is the game and the british authorities know it and it is doubtful in the extreme Harry will win this case.

The talk about him offering to pay was always dishonest and insincere.

^definitely the douche factor, plus the imagined prestige and bypassing annoying motor traffic.

I suspect Meghan is the one with a bee in her bonnet about security more so than Harry. She wants every single perk that the senior Royals have, in every respect. That's all it is. Empress Meghan wants the SUV convoys, the protection officers, the hustle and bustle as she arrives at her destinations, the ability to point a figure at someone and say, "Get them away from me, they're too close," and watch in satisfaction as a prole gets pushed off the sidewalk. It's proof that she is as important as Kate. It makes her feel special, important, above the grubby commoners.

What she doesn't give a fig about is, you know, actual security. At the Jubilee she was being ferried in a Range Rover with dark tinted windows, perfectly safe from prying eyes and would-be assassins so of course she lowered them so the little people could see her as she went by. The look on Harry's face as he stared at her, like WTF are you doing???? was almost as good as the look he gave her with the affirmation bananas.

[quote]He is notoriously stingey with his money.

I remember reading that when he took out both Chelsy and Cressida, he insisted they all pay their own way, that they went Dutch. They were all incredibly wealthy and it struck both girls as incredibly cheap. He invited one of them to go to a friend's wedding with him but made her pay her own airfare. Have you ever heard of such a cheapskate?

They probably had him on an allowance haha...

Chelsy was filthy rich. I don't believe Cressida was. Cressida was certainly not poor, but Chelsey's father was one of the biggest landowners in Zimbabwe, worth somewhere around $600,000,000USD, on paper, at least. I.e., about as rich as Harry's Gran, and richer than Harry's Papa.

He was a fool not to marry her.

In and of himself, Harry is no more entitled to off-duty 24/7 security of the kind his brother gets than I am.

As a working royal, which he once was, when carrying out official duties, he was always doing so, technically, as a representative of the Queen and Britain. Internationally, the royals go where the Foreign Office tells them to go in the geopolitical interests of the country.

The Cambridges didn't decide to head to Pakistan for a week two years ago. They were sent there to smooth over some rough edges.

So in these sorts of events and visits, a royal represents the country, the government, and the monarchy.

And on that basis, the Harkles received the kind of security Harry is trying to claw back, but whilst representing no one but himself and his very existence.

That's why Meghan's behaviour in her three foreign visits as a working royal (Down Under, Morocco, and Africa) was so heinous. It showed she hadn't the slightest ability to grasp what those visits meant vis-a-vis her new roke.

She is incapable of that kind of non-egoistic functioning.

Andrew is no longer a working royal, but bis home, Royal Lodge, is in Windsor, not far from the Queen. The security at Windsor is, needless to say, higher and tighter all around. So it is likely he still gets some protection, but I wonder if it's the same all around that he got 30 years ago as a 4th in line working royal.

The irony of the Sussexes leaving Windsor, one of the most carefully protected spots in Britain, is rich.

They betrayed everything they touched: country, monarchy, government- and these two petulant, toxic creatures want wretched taxpayers to shell out so Harry can feel important again.

In its shocking but not surprising ruthlessness, you couldn't make it up.

Cressida didn't have much money and Harry wanted her to pay for her own plane ticket to Guy Pelly's wedding in Tennessee. She is also reported to have said he was rough in bed.

But I am of the view that she only dated him to increase her exposure for her career.

He cheated on Chelsy repeatedly and they were known to have screaming rows.

^Well, I looked it up and apparently RAVEC did allow Andrew to retain his taxpayer supported bodyguards. The Telegraph broke the story a couple of days ago.

This is another stupid move on both the monarchy's and the government's part, and may give Harry's case for Judicial Review of the original decision more chance of success, although it is not mentioned as an affirmative cause if action. But it cam be brought up, I think, in the hearing to show the law was unfairly or wrongly applied in Harry's case.

It doesn't mean that the HO will change its mind after review.

The Queen is well able to afford to pay for PRIVATE security for her son, and the rest of the security at Windsor and around the Queen should have been enough.

The monarchy not seeing how bad it looks for Andrew to receive taxpayer security in these awful economic times is a piece of massive stupidity.

Sometimes I think they deserve the Sussexes.

R435 what’s so funny about all of this is that it’s a family of grifters being grifted by one of their own. The BRF and the Harkles should try living like normal people for awhile. They’d never survive.

The married-ins like Kate or Mike Tindall would.

The BRF and BRF-adjacent are not impossible to integrate. Kate, Autumn Phillips, Mike Tindall, Sophie Winkelmann, Sophie Wessex, Anne's two husbands. Cressida and Chelsy were apparently well-liked.

I think Camilla could survive anything. That woman is a survivor to her core.

Yes, but Cressida and Chelsy failed to give Harry what he wanted—someone to cosplay Diana, and someone to constantly tell him that he's as important as his brother and deserves all the same perks and more.

Sometimes I feel sorry for Charles as the Queen's favoritism of Andrew is so blatant. I know I shouldn't feel sorry for someone who is so privileged and is a shit himself, but it's hard to deal with the insanity that is parental favoritism.

Andrew should have been banished to some cabin in the Shetland Islands long ago.

[quote] He was a fool not to marry her. (Chelsy- and what a kre8iv spelling!)

It was not a unilateral decision. She didn’t want to marry that petulant man-child.

[quote]Empress Meghan wants the SUV convoys, the protection officers, the hustle and bustle as she arrives at her destinations, the ability to point a figure at someone and say, "Get them away from me, they're too close," and watch in satisfaction as a prole gets pushed off the sidewalk.

That's probably another thing she doesn't understand. British royals are (I think) well protected but it's a pretty low key level of protection. Look at this video of the Queen arriving at an engagement in an urban centre. The evidence of security around her is very low key.

Departing... again, head of state with an outrider, a back up Range Rover and a then a people carrier. There's probably more but would it be flash enough for certain temperaments?

Meghan is pointing to the Salman Rushdie news and saying “SEE?! We’re NEXT, Harry! They’re going to steal our babies and stab me in the neck, Harry!”

To be comparable to Salman Rushdie in any way, wouldn't she actually have to complete a book first?

Clearly you missed her worldwide bestseller, The Bench.

R447 hahaha!

I don’t think Harry cares about security. I think for him, the bigger issue is the ease with which that security allows him to travel in London’s centre. There is no waiting in traffic when police escorts clear the way.

It's just like with the paps they pay to get papped and whose camera lenses Duchess Diva never fails to miss: These two tossers want more security to feel more important. Remember them driving to Oprah with a bunch of security guys in tow driving in the car behind them? That was hilariously pathetic.

British media wont use pap photos of off duty royals if it has no public interest. Meg never understood that.

"He was a fool not to marry her."

Well Chelsy would have been a fool to marry him!

If Harry had any sense, he'd have looked for the daughter of an oil baron or a Russian oligarch who was used to being treated like dirt. Harry is no prize in private, but there's worse out there, and face it. Harry has expensive tastes and the only way he was ever going to get the kind of money he wants was to marry it.

If I remember correctly, it was leaked at the time that Harry proposed and Chelsy declined.

Interesting articles coming out now about how homesick Harry is, how Meghan is fearful he wants to go back to the UK where he will be (gasp) under the influence of the Royal family. Meghan doesn't want the competition. She's like Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda. "Don't go near him! He's mine!" And yet the angle about it being a matter of whose sphere of influence will keep Harry in thrall would indicate she's the source. Trying to publicly guilt Harry? Warning him his evil family will stop at nothing to control him? Oh, that's rich.

Daily Beast has an article today about Harry "researching" Di's death for his book. Which seems a little late in the day if the book is supposed to come out soon. Also, there's some bodyguard they dug up that I never heard of claiming Di confided tons of shit in him. Yeah, sure.

R455 Will that ginger turd let his mother rest in peace? He also said something stupid about her having head trauma (which she didn't) after the crash.

As much as she loved him we all know William was her favorite. I wonder if that makes him seethe?

"Daily Beast has an article today about Harry "researching" Di's death for his book."

If true, betcha that's because his publishers have told him to come up with a shocker on that front, or the deal is off.

Harry has admitted he doesn't remember that much about Diana. Researching Diana's death, ha! I doubt he'll accept that she put herself in an unsafe situation while showboating with a summer romance. Refusing Royal protection officers, trusting unhinged Mohammed Fayed, not wearing a seatbelt, reliant on a Fayed minion who was driving drunk, at every step she made the wrong choice. He's inherited her recklessness, addiction to drama, and bad judgement. Played like a fiddle by Meghan, sending him over the edge mentally and emotionally. He'll end up in the loony bin by the time she's done fucking with his head about Diana.

There was speculation at one point that he was going to accuse the royal family of murdering Diana. I wonder if he'll actually go ahead and do that in a roundabout way, not so much "they arranged the accident with the security services" but "they drove her to the situation whereby she was spending her time drifting around Europe on the arm of a sleazy playboy."

With Harry, Meghan has surely filled his head with all the conspiracy theories floating around about Diana's death, convincing Mr. Disinformation Bad that it's all true. Harry is quite credulous when it comes to his mother. If he and his idiot wife want to make a big splash in the media without considering the long-term fallout, they will "go there" or claim something equally outrageous. Just like with the Oprah interview Meghan will have her fleeting moment of triumph with all the headlines, then it will turn to shit for them. I'm actually hoping for this as it will be another nail in the Sussex coffin.

R459 But that's old news, the "they drove her into the arms of a sleazy playboy and she died" meme. People have been saying that for years. If that's the best Harry's got on that front, everyone will yawn.

And if he even questions whether there might be some truth in an organised attempt on her life, the Palace will be on him like a terrier on a rat.

If anyone gave it five minutes' worth of thought: the odds that Henri Paul would drink enough to be incapacitated as a driver, the odds that MI-6 would know which route Paul would take through Paris and how fast he might go, advance knowledge that Fayed would at the last minute change plans and leave through the back door . . . not to mention the fact that a car accident in a large city is not by any means guaranteed to result in death.

It's mental. If that was the best MI-6 could do for a plan to get rid of Diana, one trembles for the security of the nation.

^Not to mention knowing in advance that Diana would not use a seat belt . . .

They will be doing "The same plan to assassinate Meghan is being put in place by the RF that was used on Di." play You know it's coming. Could be a Hallmark play of the week.

He has been using that "The same thing will happen to my wife!!!" crap before.

Whenever I try to anticipate how low they'll go they always manage to surprise me with just how low they will truly go. Like choosing Lilibet, a knife in the back to the Queen while claiming it's a tribute to her. The book is Meghan's memoir about Harry's experiences. Her voice, her slant, her vicious attitude towards his family.

If anybody murdered Diana, it was the French junior doctor who insisted the ambulance not immediately take her to the hospital but claimed he tried to 'stabilize' her by keeping the ambulance immobile for over an hour. Had the ambulance taken her immediately to an ER she might have lived.

R465 - Have you read the book yet?

And your medical expertise amounts to what R466? You give away your ignorance with your use of the word “claimed”. Are you saying he was lying?

French medicine is the best in the world, and stabilising a catastrophically wounded patient before rushing them through traffic is common. She died multiple times in the ambulance & they kept having to bring her back.

Diana’s heart was misplaced within her chest and her pulmonary artery was ruptured. She was unlikely to survive that. Very unlikely.

No one murdered her. She got in a car with a drunk driver and didn’t put on her seat belt. End of.

I agree about the questions around care she received, she was effectively bleeding internally for hours before her heart gave out. They didn't know she had a tear until she was at the hospital.

In the UK they would have raced her to hospital.

"No one murdered her. She got in a car with a drunk driver and didn’t put on her seat belt. End of."

R468 - THANK YOU!!!

"Dr John Ochsner, a former president of the International Soc­iety for Cardiovascular Sur­gery, said: “Given that she was still alive after nearly two hours, had they got her there in an hour they could have saved her.”

She was still alive because of all the times they resuscitated her in the ambulance. Most ambulances stop when they need to do that.

But what’s the actual alternative, brainiacs? That a doctor who never knew her decided to murder her?

Grow the fuck up.

Let’s not forget that during WW2, Liz worked as a mechanic. She knows her way around a cut brake line.

R472 no one is suggesting the Doctors purposefully murdered her you twit, we are recognising that she had a (small) chance of surviving if they had uncovered the internal tear and operated a lot sooner. There are articles from leading medics arguing this was a (slim) possibility

You can't rush someone with a pulmonary rupture anyway, any bump on the road being driven over in a rush can result in death. They kept resusciating her and tried their best. She was rather young, too --- if she hadn't been that young but, say 70, they would've stopped resusciating her after about an hour and called it a day. There are guidelines as to the length of trying to save someone's life depending on the state of the patient but also on their age.

*You can't rush someone with a pulmonary rupture anyWHERE

She would probably have been disfigured and chronically physically compromised both internally and mobility-wise. She likely would have preferred to go quickly rather than be a burden to others for the rest of her life. I know I would.

[quote]The book is Meghan's memoir about Harry's experiences.

Or as one of the Palace courtiers was heard to quip - "HARRY, MY LIFE STORY - as told by Meghan Markle".

R474 Go back and read R466. The implication is clear.

All trauma victims have a “slim” chance of survival. So what?

At the time, the French medical protocol was to stabilise seriously injured patients in the ambulance. Their ambulances were set up for that and were more high tech than British ones for this very reason.

R477 she wasn't disfigured in the crash, Diana has a small cut on her face that was reported. If they had been able to fix her heart (requiring great skill) there's no reason to think she would have been disabled

I saw something about it on the news. Very dramatic. These medical teams fly all over the place taking hearts and kidneys and who knows what else. And you know the thing that impressed me the most? They carry those organs in beer coolers.

[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.]

Ok this is weird. She would've easily got accepted into Cambridge, so why go to St Andrews for ENGLISH when you can go to Cambridge.

Maybe her friends are going to St. Andrews? Or, maybe she was encouraged to go to St. Andrews as a demonstration of strengthening ties with Scotland?

Never underestimate Liz. The more people say “Saint Andrew” the more people will be brainwashed into believing it.

She may be an old lady, but she knows how to slip in the propaganda.

Oh Marie-Christine, we all know how you got your Princess title.

Certainly not by studying hard.

;-)

R484 - I doubt that the relationship with Scotland has anything to do with it. St Andrews is a highly respected university, but it is also one where upper-class youth go to mingle with other upper-class youth, and from whence a great many upper-class matings emerge. It looks a great choice for a quiet young woman from a famous family to study yet avoid the increasingly toxic atmosphere and stain of over-privilege still attached to Oxbridge.

I wonder if Lady Louise will have much scope to show off her carriage driving prowess at St Andrews.

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

Harry’s a little bitch.

I watched the Diana doc on HBO. It included a clip of the gays who went nuts when CNN announced her death! An all-time DL fave! Nothing new in it if you were alive when Di was, but it did accentuate how the paps hounded her and then she also sought them out. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. Her courtship of the paps when she was in France with Dodi, probably to make Dr. Khan jealous, was really her undoing.

One of my employees, a young gay man, called me several times the night Diana died. He was distraught, asked for time off for her funeral, flew to England. He was there in the crowds in the streets, got lots of pics including some of her casket as it passed by. He felt like he had to go, so he did.

r492 Fun fact there are people in existence, new generations that will flow from that because of Dianas death and the huge event of her funeral.I recall reading in a number of british newspapers about people who met each other either the night before or the night of the funeral and hooked up having sex in the parks, back alleys , maybe if they were lucky some hotel rooms-because many arrived the day before to make sure they had a good view of the event.Well babies were conceived that night between strangers and in some cases relationships were formed that later resulted in children.None of whom would have existed if it had not been for Dianas sad death and huge funeral.. Kind of strange when you think about it , the different ripples of fate an event or incident etc can have.

What a stupid comment, R493. You can say that about absolutely anything. People hook up randomly because they went to the same Burger King one night. “Fun fact”? Not really.

Unless you’re a middle-aged hag pretending to be gay, of course.

r494 of course it is applicable in a general sense but I am talking about numerous people not just one couple and I am talking about people from opposite ends of the country kind of thing, maybe even different social classes .People who would never have met each other otherwise.I never claimed fate and serendipity was limited to this one situation.

My posting history does not support your pathetic snark that I am a woman.

In defense of SurvivingAngel's post, remember that there was media reporting that all kinds of strangers hooking up in the immediate days following the 911 tragedy...

r494 I have just briefly experimented with the block button and the amount of times you post on royal threads makes it laughable you accuse others of being middle aged women!

r489 Louise is highly likely to turn out to be a very grounded , well balanced adult who treats others well and not with a what Meghan wants Meghan gets kind of ego and attitude.

r496 Yes i remember that too.I just found it interesting from a human interest point of view.I wasnt making out it was the most spectacular thing in the world! But if in 100 years someone goes through their family tree and history and finds out they only exist because an ancestor/ great grandparents met at the funeral of one of the biggest celebrities of 20th century it would be quite a nice and intriguing tale to have in your family history.

The Spencer tiara.

Harry had his PR out there boasting that he was co-hosting a US delegation to Mozambique. Sounds great.

Wait up, he travelled thousands of miles to play the role of local dignitary welcoming the important people. Sad fucker.

And his name is mentioned exactly zero times in the US Embassy's press release on the visit:

Quite rightly r501, he was a greeter not a participant.

Send him to cocktail college.

Can't decide if it's more hilarious or more pathetic that Harry is trying to pass off the event as something he's hosing.

Oh, he’s hosing them all right.

It's too bad no one had the balls to issue a public statement that Harry is not the host of this event, but one of varied participants and guests.

At this point in time, if Harry or Meghan or Omid or one of their other desperate puppets told me the sun rises in the east, I'd set my alarm for dawn to check for myself.

Omid scobie posted that renovations to Adelaide Cottage would raise some eyebrows. The Express ou led up the story and ran a pill asking if teadets readers supported taxpayer funded renovations to the place.

In fact, no renovations all are planned, as it was updated in 2018, and that's one of the reasons it was selected.

Omid Scobie knows this. So does the Expreas.

But that didn't stop either from attempting to smear the Cambridges with a totally false implied story. Dozens of commenters called the Express out on this

And this is exactly how Meghan's pals got the Rose Affair out.

They are completely amoral, all whilst bleating about what victims they are.

When it becomes apparent that no renovations at all ate being carried out, the story will die. But that won't embarrass the vicious liar, Scobie.

Then he's indignant about people hating the Harkles, whose spokesman Scobie is. People naturally assume that Scobie's remit is to damage the Cambridges, the monarchy, and Charles by any means to hand.

Including, without limitation, circulating blatantly false stories

^*the Express ran a poll (not a pill)

I wonder what he gets out of the association? Because from the outside this isn't working out very well for him. He's surely damaged by the association. It's not like the Harkles are heading in the right direction, so far as public perception is concerned. But then again on the surface, he's not the sort you'd expect to have gotten any prominence in life to begin with.

Re Omid Scobie and the stupid stories he keeps comin up with:

In German,there's a nice saying, "Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert, lebt es sich ganz ungeniert", which roughly corresponds to "You live freely if you haven't a reputation to lose", although the German proverb specifically points out that once you've lost your reputation, there's no need to give a fuck about your reputation and your credibility any longer since both are lost anyway.

That German proverb characterizes Omid to a fucking T.

He strikes me as a Paul Burrell type.

He tried a brief flier into porn. No takers. In fact, they asked him for money just to look at his pics...So he had to go the Harkle route. Doubt he's make much on his knees or bent over in the coittaging loos on the Heath.

The Cambridge move to Windsor.

[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.]

^ My post above was erased. I typed: maybe the Cambridges are getting smart about traveling all together. Kate took Charlotte and Louis with the nanny on a commercial flight to Scotland. George and Will may have taken another flight.

R513- George and William are exactly the two who shouldn't be travelling together: two heirs on the same flight at this point in George's life isn't smart.

Perhaps the security is more stringent for the two heirs. After all, Kate took an economy level commercial flight to Aberdeen. It may be that William and George will follow on a private flight that offers more security than a regular commercial flight. That would make more sense.

r505 The irony of the Harkles and some of their idiot supporters proclaiming their opposition to disinformation.

R515 - There is so much disinformation on both sides that the "Royal Threads" are no longer entertaining let alone fun to participate in.

If William and George died in a plane crash, wouldn't Charlotte and Louis move up to take their places, right after Charles?

R517 - yes, Charlotte would be next in line after Charles if something happened to William and George. Louis would be third in sucession.

^ succession.

[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.]

^ William is doing things differently than his father when it comes to his family.

They used to say the Queen Mother was the last Edwardian, but I wonder if it wasn't Charles? I'm not sure he was a bad man so much as taught to think about life vin way that was applicable to a way of life long dead. Charles perhaps thinks he's royal, whereas William seems to understand he occupies a role that's royal. Though W can probably be as grand as the next Windsor when the moment calls for it.

R517

Queen Charlotte has a nice ring to it.

I can't imagine Char settling for less than the restoration of Empire. And possibly the Romanov throne just for I told ya so.

Charles was largely raised by the Queen Mum, not by his mother. So he is the last Edwardian.

Charlotte will be attending the Finsbury Park Secretarial College.

Who do you bitches think is begging William and George to travel together, hmm?

A quarter of a century after her death, Diana is still a cover girl.

R529 You can really see how much William looked like Diana in that cover - no wonder Harry hates his brother.

But it must be said that you can see in that PEOPLE cover photo that the once dewy English Rose so winsome in her twenties was on her way to becoming what we English respectfully call "a handsome woman" in middle age, with a large nose and small sharp chin, and a thick middle but retaining those splendid racehorse legs.

The woman on that cover is a far cry from this one . . .

Princess Diana would have aged beautifully, R530. Sure, she would no longer be a dewy English rose, she'd have been more handsome than beautiful, but she'd have been so elegant that any touch of manliness or horsiness that revealed itself with age would have just made her read as... aristocratic.

Diana would be wearing a fedora like her cane-faced sister.

Harry really looks absolutely nothing like Diana whereas William is her spitting image. Must be one reason why Harry's so jealous of William.

Diana's mother aged pretty well... life got harder for her later on so no idea what she looked like at the end.

Diana had fabulous legs.

Had she lived, imagine the leggy display of her thin pins she could have featured in, courtesy of the Daily Mail!

Flaunting her ample assets, R536.

And her pert derriere.

And glowing skin!

With a smokey eye and messy updo!

While proudly presenting her ample cleavage.

While showing off her full luscious lips

R542 - Er, what? Diana had a small mouth and average lips.

But it didn't matter. The gorgeous skin, hair, eyes, and legs were quite enough to go on with.

R543 I meant she would likely have fillers now if she was still here

R533 - Harry is the "spittin' image" of Prince Philip.

R544 Ah, I see. Apologies.

Harry does have some of Philip, but I don’t think he’s Philip’s spitting image. Philip was far more handsome.

Philip was very handsome when young. Harry's ugly, always has been. He's got the face of a ferret. Those close-set beady eyes.

Harry needs to take his face for a shit

I couldn’t bear to listen to the podcast. Is the gist of it that Congress needs to include appliance malfunctions in the parental leave law?

Harry has Charles' eyes... the rest is Spencer, particularly Sarah.

On this day 50 years ago, Prince William of Gloucester died at the age of 30. He was quite handsome for the British royal family.

^ "for the royal family"?!

That face would have been "handsome" to any stratum of society you can name.

His mother, Princess Alice, was beautiful when young. He looks just like her. How someone so interesting and beautiful ended up with that cypher, Prince Henry, is a mystery.

^I saw live footage of her after she joined the WRAF as Air Chief after it was formed in 1918. She was quietly gorgeous. one of those women you'd might have seen in Private Lives or early Hitchcock or Mrs Miniver. It's amazing how much William looks like her. Talk of seeming to have it all and then . . . handsome, athletic, heir to a royal dukedom. Probably could have had his of aristocratic lades as a bride. The younger son, Prince Richard, had to give up a career as an architect to take on the dukedom and start working for the royal family, instead.

r554 alice is to date the longest lived british royal dying at 103 or a few months short of it.

Trevor Coult MC says that Harry has a new blonde girlfriend and that's why Meghan has moved her mother back in with her and the kids.

Yet most rumors have Meghan as the one with a new squeeze. I 'think' this guy's often right about things - he has 72K followers, so I guess we'll see. The recent trips alone to Africa and Aspen do suggest something's changed.

Oh, and H G Tudor's main youtube channel has been restored (it had been taken down due to copyright issues over him covering Bower's book.) He thanked Trevor and River for standing up to him.

Sorry to spam with all this youtube stuff for those who hate it - but our latest royal nightmare may be coming to an end! God I hope so. I hate watching these two together - and good for Doria for coming back to be a grandma. Let's see how long that lasts.

Meghan's "royal portrait"

And it looks like there's no wedding rings?

To be fair, r547, the viewer can’t see the ring finger. But It’s probably not an accident.

Cheating doesn't mean the marriage is over, neither does mutual cheating.

ALL the royal marriages have involved cheating, even Elizabeth and Phillip both got some the side, and it's accepted within limits. All the royals hesitate to divorce over cheating because they all work for the "family firm" and getting a divorce would mean someone losing their job as well as a spouse, and it's the same for Meg and Harry, They're business partners as well as spouses, united in the business of money-grubbing and famewhoring, a field where neither of them can get anything done without the other.

Agreed, R559. As I said on the other thread all the royals cheat on each other and it takes a long time for cheating to lead to divorce, as they're all in the "family business" and don't want to give up jobs or business partners along with their cheating spouse. And Harry and Meg are in business together, neither can make any ground in the field of famewhoring-and-money-grubbing without the other.

I don't expect a divorce, until one of them is absolutely sure they've landed someone richer, and that won't happen.

I don’t believe HMQ cheated on Phillip.

Phillip once said if he had cheated with every woman alleged to have been one of his mistresses, he would have had no time for anything else.

Without actual receipts, they’re only allegations.

The rumors about the Queen were always about her racing manager Lord Porchester because Andrew does look like him.

Why shouldn't HM have cheated on Phillip back in the day, R561? She married a cheater when she was 21, and once the heir and spare were on the ground, why shouldn't she do what most neglected aristocratic wives did, have a little private fun?

Phillip wasn't going to leave her if she paid him back a bit of his own, or tell the press. So what if Andrew resembled one of her equerries...

HM is down the line from Queen Vic., who openly liked a bit of dick(see all the kids). Albert had to invent the Prince Albert to conceal his abundant meat in those tight pants of the time. Also HM's dad supposedly corrected Phil for making comments in public about HM's sexual appetite. Hell, HM defied her family & advisors after she saw Phil & said, that's mine folks, suck it up. Hell, if I was queen I'd have whoever the hell I fancied. Wny not?

Lord Porchester, later the 7th Earl of Carnarvon, was hardly an equerry.

R556 I never heard of Coult, and I don't know where he purports to get his information, but as it's obvious from this nasty, vicious, and characteristically dishonest rant from Meghan in The Cut, the Sussexes are still united on their war on the British royal family. Even Omid Scobie must have been alarmed at the onslaught of insult Meghan just unleashed on the source of her royalty. Scabies made a hilarious stab at trying to walk back Meghan's revelation that Harry told her "[he'd] lost his father in this process", insisting that Meghan related the story wrongly, she was really talking about having lost her father. Lame doesn't begin to describe his pathetic attempt to save her from herself, as her language quite clearly stated otherwise.

Harry's quoted phrases in the interview don't exactly presage imminent splitsville. He has yet again aided and abetted his lawfully consecrated helpmeet in an outrageously bitter, spiteful pack of lies that make at least one thing clear: they know they're done in Britain and that no one, including Charles, will ever lower that drawbridge again. Word is that Meghan cleaned out the last of their belongings in June when they came for the Jubly. Presumably they left a couple of mattresses on the bedroom floors and some plastic tableware in the kitchen so they can, er, survive.

And in the discussions about "real life princesses" and the fit Meghan threw when the magazine listed her as Meghan Markle rather than the Duchess of Sussex (they deleted it online and replaced it with the appropriate honorific), one also wonders if the extraordinary venom she just spewed at the BRF indicates that she knows something is up re the titles. And thus no longer cares about risking the Queen's Wrath.

The truth is out there:

Harry and Meghan are still joined together in Holy Acrimony.

[quote]The publication adds that Williams will around 100 guests on hand, comprising of family and friends, to watch her in action.

The tribute to Serena is tonight, win or lose.

Will be interesting to see if Me-again is there as one of her friends. If not, then it would likely be safe to say that they simply have a PR generated commercial relationship. And if she is there, then was it SS that demanded Megan appear? Tit-for-tat ... bitch, I did your idiotic podcast, now get your ass in a seat at Arthur Ashe by 7:00 o'clock; and no goddam grandiose late arrival, bitch!

Slightly OT, but Lord Porchester's family home was Highclere Castle, which was used as the exterior of Downton Abby in the the famous TV series. No wonder Elizabeth was said to have loved watching it.

Why are we taking about infidelity among actual kings and queens of the past? The question is whether Harry and Meghan are cheating on each other in California right now.

Although, considering what cheating whores all of their parents were, it’s not as if they had good role models for fidelity and marital stability.

Marital stability? Is that really necessary? I must say....

R557 That's her right hand to the fore, isn't it? The left hand isn't visible, so how you can tell there's no wedding rings?

The photo is horrible. She looks like a caricature of a woman trying to look haughty and important and intensely glamourous.

Instead she looks like a Latina high school girl from L.A. who got this for the prom and thinks she looks like JLo in it.

"Why are we taking about infidelity among actual kings and queens of the past?"

Because it has a bearing on whether a modern prince and his wife will divorce over cheating, or just keep quietly cheating like all their ancestors and relatives have done. His parents cheated on each other, his paternal grandparents cheated on each other, I think the last person in his family who was faithful to a spouse was Prince Albert.

And Meg comes from Hollywood, where sexual fidelity just isn't the thing.

R563, I understand HMQ is quite religious. As in, truly religious, not conveniently religious.

I also see Phillip in Andrew, although he favours HMQ’s family. No way is anyone else Andrew’s father.

[quote]I understand HMQ is quite religious. As in, truly religious, not conveniently religious.

Good lord, She is The Supreme Governor of the Church of England

Lots of church rulers were not particularly religious. I don’t believe Charles, the next SG of the Church of England is.

Elilzabeth and Philip were cousins twice over. They were third cousins by their mutual direct descent from Victoria and separately they were second cousins once removed by their mutual direct descent from Christian IX of Denmark.

Which was no big deal when they married - in those days royals married royals, Catholic royals married Catholic royals, Protestant royals married Protestant royals. As they were all descended from a couple of people it was no big deal that they would marry close relatives.

This practice pretty much died out in the Fifties.

"I don’t believe HMQ cheated on Phillip"

R561 - The Earl of Carnarvon.

It seems terribly important to some of you to insist the Queen in particular was having an affair. Why? We can't know but some of post as if you had hidden cams.

We don't know of course , it's just that Andrew doesn't look like a Mountbatten or a Windsor (or his siblings) and he does bear a resemblance to Lord Porchester.

Andrew and Edward have resemblances. Those giant chompers, for one thing. Andrew and Charles have the same brow and heavy eyebrows.

Anything's possible but I just don't buy, for all sorts of practical reasons (and her deep faith) the Queen had an extramarital affair and let herself get pregnant. Possible but not probable as I see it.

Andrew's facial features are those of Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentish who was the mother of Queen Mum, and of Claude Bowes Lyon, Queen Mum's paternal grandfather.

Charles, however, has got the Bowes Lyon close-set eyes.

Andrew is a carbon copy of Claude Bowes Lyon, father of Queen Mum, albeit with a more plump face and minus the 'stache.

Andrew actually looks a lot like Prince Philip's father (also named Andrew) so the rumours he's not Philip's child are ridiculous.

Andrew also has got Battenberg facial featues. Here's Louis Alexander of Battenberg (Mountbatten), father of Louis Mountbatten and maternal grandfather of Prince Philip.

There are certain key rumours/themes people can't seem to live without: Andrew's parentage, Philip's infidelity, they're German in the sense they're somehow not British (the last foreign born queen was Alexandra and she was Danish. Philip was technically of German descent but he was kind of from nowhere.... he was born in Corfu, his father was born in Greece and his mother at Windsor Castle.)

You mean to tell me that ALL these people just don’t care that their spouses sleep around? Sure, in some marriages of convenience. But if someone married for love (it happens, believe it or not), they’re not so unbothered about their spouse fucking someone else. If marital fidelity didn’t matter, everyone would just stay married forever. Instead, a good number of marriages end because of it.

So you’re telling me that Diana didn’t give a toss that Charles was still listing after Camilla? That Meghan doesn’t care if Harry bangs the nanny? That he doesn’t care if she has a millionaire side piece in LA?

Sexual jealousy is such a powerful human emotion that people KILL for it. But, eh, it’s no biggie.

Judging from the numerous French movies I watched in my youth, affairs after marriage are to be expected and only a bourgy would be jealous. The contract, the family is the important thing.

So you know movies are fiction?

R580 Knock it off, already. He had other relatives besides the Windsors and Mountbattens. He looks like his maternal grandmother's family, right down to the colouring, jawline, and feral incisors the Queen Mother had.

The Queen is deeply religious, as her mother was.

We do know. He looks like a Bowes-Lyon.

I don't care who had affairs with whom - but how do we know that the Queen is deeply religious? Of course she has to ACT like it - she's the head of the church! You'd have to get inside her head to see how much she really means it - or believes it.

Her depth of faith and love of horses are the thing most widely said about the private Queen.

R591 Exactly what do you want, an EEG of her soul?! It's like asking if the head of the armed forces is really patriotic, because of course he has to act like it . . .

The Queen's basic affect for her entire life has been characterised by modest bearing, taking her job but not herself seriously, deep-seated love of country, and voiced support for Christian values. Cecil Beaton when he came to photograph the newborn Princess Anne noted that she was meek but not humble. She has always exhibited a humility and reluctance to pull rank that make the Sussex's ugly behaviour toward her all the more ugly.

If anything demonstrates her belief in those values, it is the extraordinary forbearance she has shown the Sussexes. Someone else (e.g., her son and heir) might have ruthlessly engaged in a return scorched earth police: taking titles, HRHs, pushing for removal from the line of succession. The steps she did take were the minimum. She could have done far worse.

She considered her coronation in the way of a sacrament, a covenant with the nation.

We can't give you an EEG of her soul. Believe what you will.

I adore The Queen.

Only Parliament can "attain" Harry's title or remove him from the line of succession. No matter how much you may wish it, QEII, Charles and William cannot do this.

Harry is so far "down the line" from the Crown that Parliament would not waste any time whatsoever on this matter.

Though I will say I'm with the Queen about William flying the family in helicopters.

Parliament would abolish the monarchy before you'd see Harry on the throne.

Latest YouGov.uk poll out today asks, From what you have read and heard, how much sympathy, if any, do you have for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (the Duke and Duchess of Sussex)?

None at all - 43%

Not very much - 22%

A fair amount - 15%

A lot - 7%

Don't know - 13%

And people who have affairs routinely throw over their spouses to marry the new piece. It’s just sex on the side and keeping the family together — until the kids go off to college. I’m 50, and there are couples my age, divorcing all over the place. And I’m in sophisticated Manhattan, where everyone’s above the provincial values of the proletariat. Affairs of the genitals become affairs of the heart and people want to spend all their time with the new piece.

The divorce rate is what, 50%?

I’m sure none of those are because someone fell for someone they were fucking. Not everyone is Will and Jada, and down with cuckolding.

I think that assumes that people in other countries have the same values as the US - based on religion and earnest-ness and "self-actualization." Sometimes a lay is just a lay, and everybody understands that and enjoys it for what it is. And they know that within several years, ALL infatuations fade, so why risk anything, let alone a place in royalty or aristocracy, for - well, a few fun fucks?