Prince Harry & Meghan Uninvited To Pre-Funeral Reception At The Palace

Enough! FF and delete... Bye!

You should be livid, mein Lord Protector, for starting a duplicate thread.

This is why PT is kicking in so often.

It in the H&M train, but if this is true…pretty shitty

The reception is for working royals. That no longer includes the Harkles.

Take a valium

They're not uninvited. They weren't invited to start with as this is an official state function, therefore only representatives of the state, i.e. working royals can be there. Harry and Meghan being present would be like when Ivanka Trump went to a G20 event she should never have been antwhere near and tried to butt into a conversation between the French president, British and Canadian prime ministers and, head of the IMF.

They are probably afraid they will merch it. They are not working royals. There is no need for them to be there.

Why bump a shitty duplicate thread? For fuck's sake people, learn how DL works.

If they came to the reception then it would make the rest of the family feel awkward because they wouldn’t have anything to talk about.

R10, exactly! Now that they were uninvited. The entire world has something to talk about. Charles and his team are already doing a fantastic job by messing everything up royally!

Watching the stans try to manifest this mourning period as a disaster for the monarchy has been highly entertaining. "If we say it enough times, it'll be true!"

As stated more than once in this thread, non-working members are not invited.

Do you think the other guests want to be in the company of two blabbermouths with access to Gayle, Oprah, Dax Shepard, Omid Scobie and Hoda? And who are also desperate to find relevance, plus material for their Spotify and Netflix contracts?

That the Harkles leaked their "reactions" to the fact that they'd been invited and then disinvited is utterly appalling and proof they have no place at a state event.

They need to get over it and so do you, OP.

They were never invited, but it is being spun to look like they were "cast out." This is just ugly. I guess no one wants us to think abut how great Harry looked today with William both in their uniforms, and Harry with a bunch of medals he fucking EARNED.

The Markles were NOT invited in the first place. This is a state reception for heads of state and and working royals. They are neither.

It would be odd and wrong if they were there. This event is not for them, and they rightfully should not be included.

Grifters routed! Something to celebrate in this sorrowful time!

Apparently they were invited by accident. The Foreign Office was working with an old list provided by the Queen.

Troll number 5.007.

Blood has ne t to nothing to do with it. The royals attending are formally representing the British monarchy and national in welcoming foreign dignitaries

Harry forfeited that right. He no longer formally represents the monarchy or the nation.

He left so he wouldn't have to do this kind of thing any longer.

Now he wants the photo OP to big himself up.

Too fucking bad.

It's a state occasion, so Anne Edward, Sophie, Camilla, William and Catherine will be with The King. Period. No Andrew, none of the extended family of cousins.

Oh, and they were likely never invited, as the Palace would have known this was an occasion on which the royals present would be carrying out an official event on behalf of the country. The Palace said from the get-go that

Either they're getting their media pals to leak a lie so they could continue their campaign of media attention grabbing and victimhood, or they THOUGHT they'd naturally be invited and assumed it and THEN were told they weren't.

The BRF will be glad to see the back of them after this is over.

Their ruthless attention seeking should assure Charles he's doing the right thing waving buh-bye to them "overseas".

No, r14. Most of those medals were awarded by HMQ, not for military service/accomplishments.

Whatever any Prime Minister, King, President, Ambassador said to la Markle, she'd be on the phone to Gayle King 5 minutes later! This is a problem when you have a big mouth and like to trash famous people in interviews. You don't get invited anymore.

I'm not sorry for them. Why?

I won't link but the DM says today they did receive an invitation by mistake but found out they weren't invited in press reports. As much as I hate them, that's ridicously bad planning to the point of being insulting.

In order to be UNINVITED, one must be INVITED.

Unless someone means they were not-invited.

And they were not invited to a reception. They are invited to the actual funeral. LOL.

Harry and Andrew set to be removed as Councillors of State. As Parliament set to amend the law.

After months of slagging off the the BRF, the monarchy and Britain, I can't believe that someone at the Palace would be so stupid and/or incompetent enough to invite the Sussex Clowns to a STATE event when they haven't been working royals for awhile now. It just beyond belief.

Charles needs to elevate Beatrice to a working royal. Eugenie too, but at least Bea. She's great. Represents the monarchy well. There's never been a scandal about Bea or Eug.

Yes, Charles wants to slim down the monarchy, but he needs new blood and new faces with Andrew, Harry and Markle out. Bea is perfect.

R27, if it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true.

Why are you outraged OP? This is not the funeral or wake and it is not a family get together.

r28 I totally agree. Realistically the work of the British monarchy is too much for 7 main working royals , three of whom are in their seventies and the other elderly cousins of the Queen who at some point will do less. By all accounts Beatrice and Eugenie are happy to be working royals.

R3, Per Webster's "a" historic is just fine and more frequently used than "an", but either is correct.

[quote]Either they're getting their media pals to leak a lie so they could continue their campaign of media attention grabbing and victimhood, or they THOUGHT they'd naturally be invited and assumed it and THEN were told they weren't.

Yes, that was their plan because psychos like you have no life and they felt sorry for you so they themselves released this info to keep you busy. They decided to put out the story that they were uninvited knowing full-well other relatives would also not be there - they didn't count on you knowing that part. I'm sure they were 100% counting on "hollywoodlife.com" to pick up on the story.

When Andrew remarries Sarah, Duchess of York, make her a working royal again. She loves that stuff. He can stay home.

2000 fucking people are set to attend the reception and for some reason they can't invite her own grandson...who gives a rats ass if he isn't a working royal. So odd to me that people compare him with Andrew. Andrew raped an underage girl...Harry moved to California. Maybe in the UK they are equally bad.

Honest question, does anyone really want to meet second tier Royals? Not sure how Bea and Eugenie are viewed, but if say Anne, Sophie or Edward visited, I can’t imagine people really caring that much. I know this is not the best place to get an honest answer.

r35 It's not a party. Harry has talked of royal life and work as a burden. So what's the problem? It is effectively a work event for a workplace he quit.

r35 Link to news confirming Andrew raped somebody please?

R35 You have GOT to be Anerican.

Are you really that dumb?!

The reception isn't a cocktail party.

IT IS THE FORMAL WELCOME OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY TO VISITING DIGNITARIES AND IF HARRY AND MEGHAN WERE THERE CHALRES WOULD BE TELLING THE WORLD THE TWO BASTARDS ARE BACK REPRESENTING THE MONARCHY AND THE FUCKING COUNTRY.

Andrew is the Queen's FUCKING SON and he isnt going to be there, either

Just like neither of them were there to officially welcome Commonwealth dignitaries today.

Harry and Meghan said Fuck You we don't want to do this boring shit any more . . .

Except when it's really big and they can feel important.

This isn't about blood. It's about who has the right to officially and formally represent the country and the monarchy.

Both of which the Sussexes have spent two years trashing.

Does this clear it up for you?

It's so offensive to us working royals, who slave away, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, all in hopes of a cup of gruel in return occasionally.

The BRF has to make sure a clear line is drawn between those who can officially represent the monarchy and the country, because funding from the Sovereign Grant is allocated on that basis.

Andrew's daughters are the Queen's grandchildren, too. So are Anne's. But you didn't see them at the Commonwealth reception today nor will you see them at the reception tomorrow night.

Why the fuck does everyone think that somehow because Meghan and Harry keep stirring the shit pot that they somehow, as the Queen's grandchildren, should be invited but not the York daughters or the Tindalls?!

The Sussexes do not now nor will ever again represent the monarchy. They threw that right away when they LEFT OF THEIR OWN VOLITION to make money on their royal connections but not have to do the routine boring work. And, they've spent two years stabbing the Queen and Charles and William and Kate in the back, spreading lies about them, and painting themselves as victims.

They are no longer working as representatives of the Crown. Therefore, they have no more right to be at that reception than the York girls do.

This is an OFFICIAL event on behalf of the monarchy and the nation. The Sussexes no longer fill that bill.

And not for nothing, but Harry is suing the UK government to claw back hugely expensive privileges re his "security" when he deigns to visit. This expense would fall on UK taxpayers' backs.

For Harry and Meghan to appear AT AN OFFICIAL EVENT would lend weight to his claim that he is owed taxpayer money because he's important enough to appear to represent the monarchy.

IF an invitation was extended, and we have no one's word for it but Omid Scobie's, the Telegraph's, and the DM's, based on nothing but a mysterious "it has been said", but no one is really saying who SAID it, then it was an error.

The Palace said from the start that ONLY working royals would attend this reception. Someone on staff got it wrong? Possibly.

But the Palace made it abundantly clear who was supposed to attend.

It would not be surprising if the Sussexes, dying to get photographed with Joe Biden and Macron and Queen Margrethe of Denmark et al., leaked the story to see if they could bully the Palace into allowing them to attend.

It wouldn't be the first time they've done it, either.

But no matter how you slice it, the Palace knows that once that line is blurred, people who no longer taxpayer support could end up getting some.

It's how the thing works, which Harry well knows. He knew it when he left. He's been trying to have it both ways ever since.

He can't.

Oh, and how do you think the rest of those Crowned Heads view Meghan and Harry, hmmmm? They're there to pay their respects to Queen Elizabeth II, and they're supposed to be polite to a couple of people who would be their own worst nightmare (I mean, smearing them on fucking ORPAH?!) and whose behaviour they all think a horrible insult to another Crowned Head?!

Did you see, OP, the looks on the faces of the people in St Paul's in June when Harry and Meghan managed to saunter down the aisle alone through being 20 minutes late for the bus they were actually supposed to be on? There wasn't one smile.

They are loathed by the people who matter, and for very good reasons.

The other European royals don't want anything to do with Harry and Markle.

The loyalties of other European royals is to the British monarchy and stability (and stability to their own monarchies at home)--not to two ingrates who give tell-all interviews, trash the royal family and want all the perks and none of the work of serving the people.

Markle leaked a private conversation between Harry and Charles to Gayle Fucking King. She signed her death warrant with that one.

R38, could you tell us what Andrew did then to get him kicked out of the royal family? Reception/Party/Bachelor Party-what a joke....I only called it a reception because that is what the news organizations have called it and that is what OP has in his title. If 2000 people are attending, is Charlie and Willie going to suck them all off or just the one's providing money for Charlie's foundations/pockets?

r45 It is a simple question I asked you.Im not after smoke and mirrors and innuendo.If Andrew had been confirmed as raping a teenager or as a pedo then many respectable news sources would have reported it.I cant find it anywhere.Can you help?

Im not keen on Andrew at all but its wrong to be sloppy and casual about the meanings of words- especially when throwing around serious allegations. What is known is that Virginnia the woman he settled the lawsuit with has been in actual trouble with the criminal law because she helped pimp women or rather girls younger than her for Epstein and Maxwell.To me that casts doubt on her cultivated victim persona.

If she was geniune she should never have settled for money- and it was actually a civil not criminal case.Again the distinction is important.

2000 invites. Every monarch/president/prime minister/head of state around the world will be there, almost 200 in total. Who gets access to the president in your country? Think about that almost 200 more times.

Then include all members of parliament (1000+), the King’s privy council (over 700 of them), all the British ambassadors around the world, all the ambassadors from every one of these countries….

This isn’t a casual cocktail party. There is a large expectation of formality and ritual, including all the toasts.

Meghan could have brought sandwiches!

The Foreign Office screwed up the invites.

Look at this article: Danish Princess Mary was supposed to attend but the British Foreign Office screwed up the invitations and she's been uninvited, too.

The palace doesn't issue invitations, the Foreign Office does.

Countdown to a lot of people ignoring this post.

R45, you win, not debating with someone who thinks Andrew did nothing wrong and thinks these woman are at fault. Please block me or whatever you do to make yourself feel good.

r50 I did not say Andrew did nothing wrong.You surely agree that an older woman pimping out younger women is a terrible thing? Because if you dont you have a very selective moral compass. There is lots of good reasons to attack Andrew without gilding and spicing up existing allegations.

Latest news is that Harry and Meghan have been given a formal invitation in person with apologies so they will be attending...

It's half what it is established Andrew did - hanging out with criminals and half what people have decided he did, due process need not apply because Twitter says.

r52 Link please?

It's not a dinner, there will be no speeches. It's a bigger version of the Realms and Commonwealth reception earlier today.

Telegraph: The palace reception is a formal occasion for all presidents and prime ministers, foreign royals, governors-general and ambassadors who have travelled to London for the funeral on Monday.

They will be driven into the gates of Buckingham Palace in the early evening and will be greeted by the King and Queen Consort before mingling in the picture gallery and state apartments.

Despite the grandeur of their surroundings, the hour-long reception will be a muted affair, with guests asked to wear lounge suits or morning dress, with no hats or decorations. Drinks and canapes will be served.

R55 be careful, you can't call it a reception or they will go crazy and they don't mingle they observe who is there and take notes...if anyone not considered royal they will be very upset...the horror

I don't quite follow you, R56, but pretty sure if you look behind you there's the chip that's been on your shoulder this thread.

If there are screw-ups at the Foreign Office, please note the new Foreign Secretary is James Cleverley. A black guy.

I want to see them naked him with a boner her with a boner.

The DM article from earlier this evening said explicitly that they had been invited, so this was not a fake invitation made up by Scobie.

I'm not seeing anything about them being re-invited, though.

A chilly reception met the Duke and Duchess. Interlocking conversations among world leaders suddenly evaporated as the salon doors swung open to reveal the Sussexes in subdued formal wear. Dead silence filled the room. Overcome by the electrified moment, the wife of a dignitary sought the comfort of a priceless 16th century fainting couch. The Princess of Wales focused a laser gaze upon the Duchess as the couple entered the room. "I won't forget this" was the transmitted signal from her eyes, and the Duchess received the signal instantly, then averted her eyes away to inspect the assembled gentry filling the room, and soldiered forth. A look of disdain blended with a smirk of mild amusement escaped from the Prince of Wales' face towards his younger brother the Duke, who deflected any eye contact. The Duchess led him around the room by hand. Dumbfounded, the new King stood agog while the Queen Consort rolled her eyes away and odered a double martini for herself, a triple for His Majesty. The Queen Consort, Princess of Wales and The Princess Royal instinctively formed a task force to rekindle the various conversations among the dignitaries. The murmur of conversations returned. The guest of honor, the reason for this unprecedented gathering, lay peacefully in Westminster Hall.

Harry is a dumb cunt, he won't even be able to talk to these world leaders.

Why would they be invited? They're not working royals, and no VIPs will want to be stuck talking to these two leaking, lying, extorting granny abusers at an event to celebrate the life of the Granny they abused. Hell, no VIP would so much as want to be SEEN talking to these two. If for some reason they do attend, guests will give them wide berth.

R40. It’s offensive to the country, not the royals. They aren’t working royals. I have as much right to be at that reception as they do.

[quote]R41 The Sussexes do not now nor will ever again represent the monarchy. They threw that right away when they LEFT OF THEIR OWN VOLITION

I don’t want anyone to die, but it would be HILARIOUS if somehow everyone ahead of him in succession blew up in an accident or something and Harry was suddenly offered the crown.

Aaaaawkward. Can you IMAGINE the klan granny revolt???

Yes. Because he has all the qualities of a head of state except for his black family.

Harry will never be "offered the Crown ". No one in the UK would ever assent to that. And not for his American kid either.

The UK will never, ever, ever allow that to happen and will do whatever it takes to avoid it.

When Britain doesn't like the person who inherited the Crown they chop that person's head off.

And they don't like Harry. They really, really, really don't like Harry.

I didn’t know The People had a say in who their monarch is.

You don't vote for kings!

R69. Tell that to the thousands of descendants of Catholics who technically precede Charles in the line of succession

Oh, do shut up, OP.

So r67 and R68 are saying that while there’s an established line of succession now, it’s really up to The People if the next person in line is crowned or not.

That’s interesting. Much more democratic than I imagined!

R13 this is perfectly stated:

"Do you think the other guests want to be in the company of two blabbermouths with access to Gayle, Oprah, Dax Shepard, Omid Scobie and Hoda? And who are also desperate to find relevance, plus material for their Spotify and Netflix contracts?

That the Harkles leaked their "reactions" to the fact that they'd been invited and then disinvited is utterly appalling and proof they have no place at a state event.

They need to get over it and so do you, OP."

[quote]That the Harkles leaked their "reactions"

They didn't. The only thing that was said was that their staff were "baffled." That was in the Mail.

I'm guessing r75 IS r13, since all they did was copy and paste r13's comment.

R74. Well, the UK is a democracy, believe it or not, and parliament ultimately decides who is in the line of succession. Neither of the extremes of American myths about the monarchy is true. The succession isn’t changed just because somebody’s poll numbers are low. Nor is the monarchy a divine right monarchy with an inexorable line of succession. Charles is only king today because Parliament bypassed a number of people (more than a hundred, I believe) with more legitimate claims to the throne a few centuries ago. Today those claimants must have thousands of descendants.

Of course, Parliament would only alter the line of succession today if there were a serious reason. The prospect of Harry and Meghan coming to the throne could be a sufficiently serious reason in this day and age. In the past, there was enough deference to the monarchy that it could survive the reign of an unfit monarch, but there would be much less tolerance for that today. Although it was absurd to think Charles would ever be passed over simply because of the failure of his marriage or his relatively low poll numbers, it is hard to believe the citizens of the UK would sit out a decades-long reign by a monarch with a very overt agenda of profiteering from and politicising the positon, who has publicly lied about the institution, and who has said he finds the job a drag. Action would likely be taken to remove him from the throne, but the outright abolition of the monarchy would of course be another likely outcome.

[quote]r78 Of course, Parliament would only alter the line of succession today if there were a serious reason… it is hard to believe the citizens of the UK would sit out a decades-long reign [of Harry]

So it’s not The People who would decide directly at all, but rather Parliament, fearing backlash from The People.

Well that doesn’t sound very Divine Right. I thought that was why the monarch was the head of the church.

Nice way of rephrasing it to save yourself. No the people don’t do it directly. There is no Survivor style television show to determine the next monarch, but the people do ultimately decide the laws in the UK, just as they do in the US, even though the US also does not use direct democracy at the national level.

It is definitely not divine right. I’m doubtful that there is any divine right monarchy in the western world today. Yes, he is the head of the church, which is unrelated.

Just to acknowledge that the UK does exceptionally hold a national referendum, unlike the US.

R60, you don't have to provide a link, but can you at least quote what the DM said, because all I've seen in the papers regarding this event and those two idiots are phrases along the lines of "sources say" and "we understand that", i.e. none of this is verified or comes from an official source.

[quote]R80 There is no Survivor style television show to determine the next monarch

Entertaining as that might be!

[quote]R80 Yes, he is the head of the church, which is unrelated.

But wasn’t the monarch originally the head of the church because they (supposedly) ruled by divine right?

I wonder what would happen if a sitting monarch in the UK decided they were atheist or agnostic, or suddenly converted to Judaism/whatever. Would they be removed as monarch, or just as head of the church?

They may well have been claiming to reign by divine right at the time Henry VIII took control of the church, but that had nothing to do with it since his predecessors were not heads of the church. Protestant monarchs were often heads of their national churches.

I could see The Harkles attending the reception and trying to slither up to the heads of state that they think would support their woke agenda. No one wants that.

“Have you heard about our foundation?”

They could pitch themselves as alternative heads of the church!!

Harry wouldn’t need to be offered the crown in the event of a catastrophe that took out William and all three Wales children, it would simply pass to him by right as the next in line. There’s no offering.

For all the decades long planning, there seems to be lots of errors and last minute changes.

All those tired grey queens who barely work? As a BRF fan, they are not doing a very good job.

[quote]R88 It would simply pass to him by right as the next in line. There’s no offering.

But if Harry did not accept it and sign paperwork, take pledges/vows/what-have-you, wouldn’t it be reduced to a (rejected) offer?

H&M complaining about not being invited to this is like if the the Kardashians complained they weren’t invited. Neither are welcome or relevant.

[quote]R91 H&M complaining about not being invited to this is like

But they were invited. Then disinvited. And there’s no record of them “complaining.” They and their staff were simply left confused. Of course anyone would feel slighted by having a formal invitation rescinded, but have they SAID they feel slighted? No.

"But wasn’t the monarch originally the head of the church because they (supposedly) ruled by divine right?" - No, r84, it's because England broke away from Rome and the Catholic Church, aligned with Protestantism and established the Church of England.

There's no actual record that they were invited, r92. Their mouthpiece Scobie made the claim that they were invited. The papers are just running with a "good" story of a mix-up. How did Scobie mouthpiece even know they were allegedly invited?

Leaks coming out that Harry was very upset about the uniform he was given to wear. They stripped it of it's ER initials on the shoulders. He is now "very upset" and "heartbroken" by this:

"However, the Duke of Sussex is understood to have been devastated to find his grandmother's initials had been stripped from the shoulder of his uniform, The Sunday Times reports. The initials were not removed from Prince William's uniform.

Harry's despair is understood to largely centre around Prince Andrew, who is also no longer a working royal, having retained the initials on his vice-admiral’s uniform as the Queen's children held a vigil on Friday night.

The Duke of Sussex was a Personal Aide de Camp of the Queen and, as a result, had previously worn the cypher. But it was among the posts he resigned when he stepped down from royal duties and moved to California.

The 'ER' initials are traditionally only worn by those 'in service' of the monarch, and so the absence of the cypher is thought to be down to dress regulations as opposed to a direct snub of the prince.

But such was his despair, Harry is said to have considered wearing a morning suit as they were leaving in order to avoid the embarrassment last night.

A friend told the newspaper: 'He is heartbroken. To remove his grandmother’s initials feels very intentional.'"

He bitched all week long about (titles and) uniforms, finally GOT the uniform, and even having got it what he wanted, he can't stop bitching and complaining and pretendig to be a victim.

Good God he must be exhausting.

Harry’s life must be pure hell. How does he bear all the hardship?

[quote] Whatever any Prime Minister, King, President, Ambassador said to la Markle, she'd be on the phone to Gayle King 5 minutes later!

She proclaims her innocence but it appears she was caught wearing some square device under her dress. A battery for a microphone I'd guess.

Now after all that about wearing his unifrom he's now saying he's going to wear a morning suit? THE DRAMA

[quote] r97 She proclaims her innocence but it appears she was caught wearing some square device under her dress. A battery for a microphone I'd guess.

An actress would know that the most unobtrusive place to wear an electronic device is in the small of the back.

Well then what is it? It's unmissable at her waist in those photos, shaped like a rectangle

The looks on their faces...lol

Who knows? Maybe it’s a medical device that releases hormones every 10 minutes. I personally don’t usually ask women what they’re wearing under their clothes.

Maybe she stole the dress, and it’s one of those plastic, anti-shoplifting device tags??

[quote] "However, the Duke of Sussex is understood to have been devastated to find his grandmother's initials had been stripped from the shoulder of his uniform, The Sunday Times reports. The initials were not removed from Prince William's uniform. Harry's despair is understood to largely centre around Prince Andrew, who is also no longer a working royal, having retained the initials on his vice-admiral’s uniform as the Queen's children held a vigil on Friday night.

[quote]The Duke of Sussex was a Personal Aide de Camp of the Queen and, as a result, had previously worn the cypher. But it was among the posts he resigned when he stepped down from royal duties and moved to California.

JFC. If you're here trying to convince us that the Sussexes are as blissfully happy as they constantly and endlessly tell us they are in various media (and I agree with you - their life SHOULD make them very happy and it's insane and telling that it doesn't), what do you have to say about shit like this appearing in the Sunday Times? This is obviously from Harry's team, no one else has any reason to leak this signature and deeply petty shit except him, and the Sunday Times doesn't make shit up.

HOW are people who think they're liberal/progressive weeping tears of blood over a literal Duke and Duchess going to national newspapers with tales of woe about *missing shoulder patches?!* Christ. His grandmother just died and the biggest funeral in history is about to take place and he's crying, AGAIN, about meaningless shit.

[quote] Maybe it’s a medical device that releases hormones

Of the different methods of hormone release only one is square, and that is flat like a bandaid.. No raised borders poking through a dress.

It's not completely outside the realm of possibility that she's wearing the microphone from Netfix. No doubt they had them with them because they were originally over here filming one of their fake-Royal tours for Netflix.

And obviously, they are so scummy and self-centred that they would never pass up an opportunity to use the family's grief for their show if they could get away with it.

R88 As has been exhaustively mentioned, if William and his 3 children were abducted by aliens tomorrow morning, Parliament would have the succession reordered by the next day.

These days, the monarch serves at the pleasure of the people.

The Sussexes are detested in Britain. They would never be allowed to bbn take the throne.

We kicked out a sitting King in 1936, remember? If he had been allowed to keep his crown and his whore, he'd have stayed on.

It was the GOVERNMENT that refused permission.

Older brother OUT. Younger brother IN.

Assuming Parliament wanted to see the monatchy survive, it would exercise its right to reorder the succession, very likely passing over Harry, his children, Andrew and his children, and move on to Prince Edward. Annecwpuld at 72 likely refuse and doesn't want it for her children. Who, at any rate, have been private citizens for far too long, anyway.

No, if it happened next week, the unlikely bit oddly brst choice would be the unassuming Edward, his much like wife, and their two young-ish children.

Or, the abolition of the monarchy. No one in his right mind would let aman who has technically committed high treason and a wife at whom eggs would be thrown, take the throne

Think Henry VII and Margaret of Anjou.

Or Edward and Queen Wallis.

It simply won't do.

I found this through Google. Size of a paperclip. If anybody wanted to record conversations, they'd find something to make sure the internet couldn't tell through photographs. I am no fan. Her presence at this event, her place in history, is revolting to me. She gets to be a footnote in this. High yuck factor.

It's astounding, and quite telling that on the eve of his grandmother's funeral, who he supposedly adored, Haz is whining and moaning about what he gets to wear. But of course this fits into the Sussex narrative of how they are so "mistreated" by the RF.

R108, yeah, I agree. They could have put that out after it's over, but no, all about now. It's now a phase where trust is shattered and the royal family would be stupid not to be wary of them. They haven't changed a bit.

R75 here. I am not r13 but what r13 posted is absolutely 100% spot-on.

R13, I may repost it on Twitter using one of my anonymous accounts.

That story at R95 is very odd. It makes Harry and the BRF look equally terrible. Harry, for caring at all, much less to the point of heartbreak and despair, and the BRF for being so incredibly petty and for favoring a criminal like Andrew over a dimwit like Harry.

So where did it come from?

Totally disagree, R110. Heads of state (in democratic countries) are used to public scrutiny. Why on earth would they be particularly worried about two lightweights overhearing something they said at an event that is in their course of duties? They aren’t cutting loose and blowing off steam at a private party.

I think they're trying to spare the various Heads of State from being hit up for work by the Harkles.

R112, because it's in the company of [italic]peers[/italic] that you are most inclined to speak plainly, with the expectation you are under some version of in chambers or Chatham House rules.

And after Oprah and with books pending, you'd be nuts not to worry about those two.

When somebody shows you who they are...

The scummy British media love to make up lies like this, making it look like they were initially invited, then uninvited, just to make Harry & Meghan look bad on the world stage. I don't know how long it will take but I am fairly confident that H&M will come out on top in the long run. I think more and more people are beginning to see just why he didn't want to stay a slave to the Monarchy.

Firstly, does Harry normally carry his own uniform when he's traveling in Europe doing his business? Remember the Queen died suddenly when H & M were in England. Does he have his old uniform at Frogmore Cottage or did he have someone from California bring it to him?

Could the uniform he wore at the Vigil not be his own? The uniform could have been hastily borrowed and was in the process of getting the ERII changed to CRIII.

On top of what, R115, just so we're clear?

UNINVITED !

Harry and Andrew are in different positions.lyhe fact that matter how many times it's explained, Americans can't seem to absorb it, is not the BRF'S problem.

Let's try again, shall we?

Andrew is the Queen's son, not her grandson.

Andrew is retired military. Harry quit.

Andrew remained in Britain. Harry left.

Andrew lost all his military honours as well as his HRH, just like Harry. And was also forced off the public stage. No Andrew at the reception tonight. No Harry.

Harry left to take up residence in a foreign country.

Andrew remains an English resident.

Harry is no longer an Aide de Camp to the Queen (I mean, really, from LaCa?!).

Andrew is. Hence the EIIR on the uniform.

Lastly. whilst Andrew brought shame to the monarchy, HARRY HAS SPENT TWO YEARS PUBLICLY TRASHING IT INCLUDING THE USE OF OUTRIGHT LIES.

Harry has, in fact, committed High Treason.

Andrew has not.

Does this help clear the fog in your brain?

Also, Andrew still has his Vice Admiralty in the Navy. No idea why, but he does, and as a consequence he can wear the uniform [italic]if[/italic] invited to participate in royal events which, this once in consideration of many things including being the late Queen's son, he was invited to to - once.

R115, Please, please, please encourage your hero & heroine to live their own best lives, OUTSIDE of the UK & not come back, even to visit, lest they become enslaved again.

Encourage & nuture them so they don't come to the coronation of any other funerals or any other events

Maybe watch 12 Years a Slave with them & explain it is a cautionary tale. I think you can get Harry a coloring book of the book.

H & M will come out on top based on...? Their talents? Innate likability?

[quote] These days, the monarch serves at the pleasure of the people.

If that was the case, William would be King now and not Charles.

No, he wouldn't r123. We want the order of succession.

[quote] Who knows? Maybe it’s a medical device that releases hormones every 10 minutes. I personally don’t usually ask women what they’re wearing under their clothes.

[quote]Maybe she stole the dress, and it’s one of those plastic, anti-shoplifting device tags??

That’s a good possibility, not that she stole it, but they forgot to remove the security tags. The dress was probably a last minute rush job. It could also be a diabetes meter.

No, R119. Those seem like plausible rationales to justify allowing Andrew to wear a uniform, but not Harry. They don’t seem like good reasons to tell Harry he CAN wear a uniform and then, last minute, present him with one that has been altered to something he didn’t expect and did not wear previously. That seems like something only a petty asshole would do. Just because Harry doesn’t deserve good treatment doesn’t make it ok for people to go out of their way to be spiteful. What kind of people sit around thinking stuff like that up?

Well, it may seem that way, R126, and you certainly seem determined to ignore facts and rationalize your view, so let's just say the kind of people doing the kind of things you seem to imagine they've done are probably the kind of people who are alot like you.

If the event is for working Royals then noone except WIliam and Catherin, Sophie and Edward, Princess Anne and her husband, and The King and Queen Consort should be there. They are the hosts. This is an official state reception. But please spare me your misguided outrage about the calibre of people we're talking about. No one grifts better than Charles. And except for Charles we're not talking about a brain trust here. None of the so-clle "workking Royals" will set the world on fire with their scinitillating conversation. And finally, WTF do you think happens at these events? The networking and deal making are 90% of the reason for showing up. Do you think people walk around admiring the furnishings? Do yu think they want to spend two hours talking abouot how much they'll miss Her Majesty? Please. Grow the fuck up and stop acting like you never left Momma's basement. When you have world leaders and politicians in a room, they network and make deals and arrange to meet to discuss issues of mutual interest.

What exactly is r128's point?

For them to be living in California, did Meghan have to file with INS for a spousal green card? Or, is he here on some royal Pooh-Bah "only the Little People do that!" status?

Harry can live in the US purely on the basis that he is married to an American. Don't you know anything?

Does that automatically give him a green card, r131?

r128 I think you are forgetting the Kents and the Gloucesters and Princess Anne's husband.

r126 Maybe the problem is Harrys unrealistic, unreasonable expectations and sense of exceptionalism rather than anyone being allegedly petty?

My father worked for immigration, so if course I know that, R131. I wondered if he has some sort of "waiver" for the tedious process others must file?

[quote]ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! This better not be true. I’m livid.

Why? Were you planning to go with them?

I don't trust or believe these tabloids most of which are owned by Extreme Right big shots. I think Harry and Meghan were never invited at all, and some media person contact the palace leaker and asked if they were coming and got some sarcastic answer. So they started some shit. Now, Harry and Meghan are not stupid. THey know they opted out of being working Royals. SO they should not have expected to be part of a state event with working Royals. Now the truth is that maybe Harry thought his status was changed because his father is King. But I think the passive aggressive Charlle's enjoys toying with their emotions. Harry reminds him too much of Diana.

[quote] did Meghan have to file with INS for a spousal green card? Or, is he here on some royal Pooh-Bah "only the Little People do that!" status?

Harry crossed the border at Nogales in a truck carrying 41 Colombians, 18 Guatemalans, and and 35 kilos of meth all hidden behind crates of frozen chicken. Once across the border he was given a free phone, food vouchers, and a border patrol Gulfstream jet to transport him to his destination of choice. Martha's Vineyard Airport (MVY) was closed so he had to settle for Montecito by Santa Barbara (SBA)

The invitation saga is hilarious because the sugars were bragging that Harry got to wear an uniform for the vigil ONLY because "the public" loves Harry and their outrage bullied the Firm into giving him permission...then not 24 hours later the Firm is shutting down reports of Harry going to the historic state dinner, apparently heedless of upsetting Harry's "public". Get a grip, sugars.

R124, maybe you do, but not the majority. You can’t have it both ways. In the highly unlikely event William and his kids are wiped out, Harry would be King. What is the point of Harry and his kids still being in the line of succession, if what you said was true? The would’ve been removed already. No amount of public outcry (I suspect there wouldn’t be much judging by the reception he got on the walkabout) is going to change that. You better hope the Wales start traveling separately. Lol

The uniform bit was enforced by the Queen at Philip's funeral. I think this time they realised that for 15 minutes it was stupid.

The media, for once, get more blame from me than either the Sussexes or the BRF.

The shit stirring has been obscene. Harry was either mentally deficient (which is highly likely) or high as a kite (which is possible) if he was shocked to see that as no longer an ADC, he should be wearing the ADC's aiguillettes.

He really does seem to live in some fairyland, aided and abetted by his wife, Omid Scobie, the sugars, and at times the media, where ditching the job and trashing the company shouldn't matter at all when it comes to pensions and perks.

The Palace gave in on the uniform because it was 15 minutes and the Queen's lying in state with the other grandchildren.

It didn't give in on the invitation because that would really have put the cat amongst the pigeons: it would virtually have announced that Harry and Meghan were representing the monarchy and the country.

It's obvious from this that KCIII has no intention of letting them back in.

And tomorrow, Meghan Markle will be walking BEHIND Princess Charlotte and Prince George, both of whom outrank her.

Let's see her give little Charlotte a shove THIS time.

Did you read it on the internet, OP?

R141 You don't seem to understand that these issues co-exist. Harry and his kids are in the line of succession because the government is reasonably certain that addressing his unpopularity will become necessary.

But if it were necessary, Parliament would do it. Harry would become King, but he wouldn't stay King.

During the Abdication crisis in 1936, Stanley Baldwin's Cabinet seriously considered bypassing Prince Albert, Duke of York, because he was shy, stammered when he spoke in public, had no appetite for the job, AND had "only" daughters. He had two younger brothers, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Prince George, Duke of Kent. Both already had male heirs. But Henry was so dull and uninspiring, and his wife, Princess Alice, shy, that he was deemed an even worse choice to reclaim the monarchy.

Prince George of Kent, the youngest brother, however, was handsome, charming, and had married the beautiful and chic Princess Marine of Greece. He, too, had male heirs. Unfortunately, he had a checquered louche past, composed of bisexuality and drug use.

In the end, they came back to the unexceptional but dutiful Prince Albert, who had a charismatic and charming wife. And, the public adored the Two Little Princesses. So they went with the natural order of succession. And, of course, they were right: the Yorks, as King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, did valiantly leading the country through WWII.

But they didn't HAVE to do so. If Parliament had said, "We think it best to skip Albert and Henry and go with George . . . that's the way it would have gone.

No one is suggesting it wouldn't cause a furor if Parliament removed Harry; but it would cause less and the fuss would die down fairly quickly. But Harry on the throne? A man who committed High Treason, trashed the family and the institute, and whose wife perjured herself in court and threatened the family with "dirt" three weeks before the beloved QEII died?

I think not.

But your point, I believe, supports the calls to remove Harry and his kids from the line of succession BEFORE "anything happens".

I have always wondered if one reason the BRF have grey-rocked the Sussex smear campaigns for so long is that they're building their case.

I would bet that if Harry's book does turn out to be another scorched earth Dirty Laundry epic, the case will be made. In short, the BRF are letting the Sussexes weave enough rope to hang themselves.

It's one thing to throw mud at the Future King. It's quite another to throw mud at the Actual King and his Queen Consort AND his brother who is now the Prince of Wales.

But absent that, no one really believes that William, George, Charlotte, and Louis will all be "wiped out", and so aren't worried about it, viewing Harry's place in the line as more of a formality.

But don't think for a moment that if the unthinkable occurred, and the government and people wanted to maintain the monarchy, that they wouldn't get rid of King Harry and Queen Meghan, and fast. There would be riots in the streets if they tried it on.

Parliament can do anything it likes. Just ask Wallis Simpson.

^*reasonably believes that addressing his unpopularity will NOT become necessary.

^^*Princess Marina (not Marine) of Greece.

R139, you're an idiot. There was no "state dinner", it was a reception.

Just repeating that the Foreign Secretary did not make a mistake. Harry was never invited, per BP.

Also Danish Princess Mary is in London today, showing respect, unlike HM's little grandson Harry.

I am going to ask some questions and don't want to be slammed by the haters.

1. Why do you call them Harkles?

2. This week has been a mess since the day the Queen died with crazy stories of Meg/Harry...doesn't this feed into what they were saying all along...the firm supports Will/Kate....but doesn't come out and support Meg/Harry? For example...at first it was Meghan HAD to go to Balmoral and Kate HAD to stay behind and take care of the kids. Yet we haven't really heard the truth. The were invited, they weren't invited....I agree with some of the posters who have said Harry would have to be a complete idiot not to know what is going on and why he isn't at certain events...if he didn't know...don't they all have handlers to assist them.

3. Serious question....do they not talk to each other...does Charles really not talk with Harry or send someone to talk to him explaining the week? They obviously were prepped on how to behave when marching into the Queens casket and standing guard.

4. Deep down, do you think they are all jealous of Harry because he left and started a new life rather than staying and attending the shit they have to attend everyday?

R148, so this whole drama about H and M being "invited", started with Scobie, who also referred to them as senior royals at the same time in the tweet I saw?

I don't blame SS PR for bailing. Between Scobie plus all the leaks about Harry being so upset about uniforms (despite his public statement claiming to be okay with not wearing one), these two must be unworkable. SA gave a good post referencing among other things Harry's entitlement (my word, not SA's but the same jist)

R75, glad you'd like to tweet my post. To those who say we're the same person, look us up and you'll see we are not.

R111, all one of these high powered invitees would have to do or say is something innocuous with H and M nearby and it would be relayed to Gayle, without mentioning all the handlers working hard to keep H and M from their bosses.

MM proved what a name-dropper she was regarding her claim Ellen told her to adopt rescue dog Bogart. The same Bogart who she claimed at 5 years of age was too old to live in the UK, but who was actually jettisoned because he didn't like Harry. Incidentally, nobody has seen Bogart since. Youtuber Ibble Dibble did a series about the Bower Revenge book and wondered if he had been put down.

I think Harry and his wife are bone-crushingly jealous of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

At this time, with their horrid behavior and lies in the most public ways possible, the RF has no reason to "support" the Sussexes. Support them in what, exactly? Netflix? Spotify? Fake pseudo-royal "tours" to nowhere? Maybe if they shut their fucking mouths and stopped trashing the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and every other member of the RF for five minutes the RF wouldn't be so angry with them.

Did you read "The Cut" interview? Did you see those wretched podcasts? Did you hear Harry's "evaluation" of his father's parenting and his Grandmother's parenting of his father? Did you see all the lies and attacks on the monarchy in the Oprah interview? If I were King I'd throw them in the Tower until they'd learned to behave and then exile them from Great Britain. Like "Uncle David" and Wallis Simpson, they would only be allowed to enter the country at the King's invitation for specific reasons, primarily funerals.

Bitching about the EIIR on the shoulders of his uniform is DUMB. The uniform was probably provided by the Army. They have *rules* that are very specific about insignia. Harry resigned as an Aide de Camp to HMTQ when he quit the whole thing and moved to America. He only had them because he was serving as ADC to Her Majesty, they had to be removed over two years ago when he gave that up. Harry KNOWS this, only stupid people don't know it.

They couldn't be bothered to visit the Queen at Balmoral this Summer, although she asked and Charles asked too. But no no no, too "busy" doing nothing and too mean to give the old girl a visit.

The Harkles (we call them that to be rude to them and because it suits them pretty well) are nothing but nasty, lying, troublemakers and although their popularity in America is sinking like a stone, it's past time for them to come home and shut the hell up.

^^yes, the "uninvited" BS started wifh Plastic Face. He also, just before HM's death, made a cryptic post threatening to reveal a "dark event" that Will is unwilling to "unpack." Scobie's credential before becoming a royal reporter for Elle and Yahoo was fangurling for k-pop groups and as an empty vessel for Musty Meg's musings.

Until the Palace or one of their trusted allies reports that the Harkles were EVER invited in the first place, I don't believe it. Omid Scoobydoo is a Harkle source and the DM (dubious at best) was quoting him.

They received no invitation, nor should they have received one. Awful people, the Harkles, thank God they're leaving.

You look at the pattern. There's been a flurry of grievance stories bubbling up over the weekend.

How fitting they should abandon ship and, their choice being honored, proceed to throw tantrums about cosplay.

Some of the things we are characterizing as "leaks" are simply rumors that keep Harry and Meghan in the news in a negative way, and allow the Daily Mail which is fast becoming a Fascist Rag, to gain a lot more traffic. Harry generates traffic. Every rag and tabloid publication is desperate to profit from the Queen's death. And Honestly, once they say she died, there isn't much news. She was an old lady. No scandals attach to her. Charles and Camilla shook hands with the public, they went to church, they held a reception . Charles and Camilla went to Cardiff, or Belfast, or Edinburgh. WTF.

So they turn to their standard reliable predictable William and Harry and conflict and shit stirring. Catherine will get all the jewelry, Andrew got the Corgis. Now the latest shit is who's going to get what? "Will Harry have to give up Frogmore? Will Catherine and William move into Clarence House?" You have to remember. The tabloids market test various people, and storylines. They know what attracts attention and a negative "insider" story, gossip, totally unsubstantiated, always gets attention.

They would not bother with it if it wasn't profitable. So as you read things and post tweets, please keep that in mind. What we characterize as "leaks" 90% of the time, are not leaks, they are rumor, hearsay, gossip and designed to insure Harry is viewed negatively in contrast to William, and Meghan is viewed negatively in contrast to Catherine. Or should I say, "St. Catherine?" Because they need to set up this competitive relationship. Years ago, it was Andrew vs. Charles.

r156 I would class the Oprah interview,Dax Shepherd interview, The Cut interview and others as major shit stirring and your attempt to rewrite the situation and blame everything on the evil tabloids as very amateur cliched and the kind of argument that is at the student politics level of understanding.

R157 I actually agree with you about the interviews. But that is much different from what we are experiencing in the here and now and I was remarking on the here and now with all the bullshit attendant to the Queen's death. The Tabloids are evil. Period. Anyone who defends them needs to get their head examined.

R131 certainly not. A friend is American and has been married to a British man for 30 years. They had always lived in the UK. When they wanted to retire and move to the US, she had to apply for a green card for him. It took over a year and cost over $5,000 which has always made me wonder how any poor immigrants could ever find the time and the money to go through the process which is very complicated. He could not be in the US when he made his official application and had to have his medical examination in the US before he could be approved for a green card.

The US is one of the very few countries in the world where a spouse does not have right of abode. I would be very doubtful Harry had followed the proper channels to get a green card so he is using (or misusing) a diplomatic passport which may go a long way toward explaining why he keeps harping on 'security' i.e. he wants his International Protected Person status back. He may, in fact, be in trouble with the USCIS. Be funny if he gets deported.

oops - "he could NOT be in the US for his medical exam.." This has to be carried out in the country of origin, i.e. the UK - I don't believe they followed the proper channels to get Harry a Green Card. No doubt they thought he would always be an IPP and didn't have to worry about laws affecting the little people

Hey R149. I'll answer your questions. Firstly, maybe you could address people who don't like the same celebrities as you as something less inflammatory than "haters?" I don't *hate* Harry and Meghan. I don't want anything bad to happen to them. I was entertained and baffled by them in lockdown and it's my first experience really following a famous person/people and has been interesting on many different levels. Now, I certainly don't want to be friends with Meghan or take life advice from Harry but "hate?" No.

1. For me, 'Harkles' is one of those silly celeb couple names like Bennifer or Brangelina etc. It's Harry + Markle. It's also quicker to say/type than "Harry and Meghan" or "the Sussexes."

2. I don't believe the royal family really supports the Sussexes at all these days, so I guess we agree there. I probably differ from you in thinking they went out of their way to welcome Meghan, to offer her support and help etc. and had it thrown in their face by Megxit and the Oprah interview. Meghan insinuated in that interview, if you remember, that the royal family is racist. She has to this day not offered any proof or even named anyone (which puts them all under a cloud of suspicion). She said they drove her to wanting to end her life and then deliberately sought to prevent her from accessing care. She said they withheld a title from her son because he was mixed race. And there's a lot more than that. These are very serious, extremely damaging allegations for the royal family. How would you have reacted if a family member accused you of such things publicly? Again, if she has proof or is willing to give details, I'll listen. So far it's been silence.

3. I don't get the feeling Harry and Charles talk very often, no. Charles is busy and also the PoW/now King. He's surrounded by staff who have probably been instructed to keep Harry at a distance. I understand this must be frustrating for Harry but I also understand why Charles has done it.

4. No I don't think any of them are jealous of Harry. Quite the opposite, as someone above said. It's the Sussexes who can't let go, who can't stop going back to the UK, can't stop cosplaying royalty (if they're so free of royal drudgery now, why do they keep doing insane faux-royal tours, EXACTLY the shit they did as part of the BRF?), can't stop talking about the royal family. They tell us they're happy and content and never better but they don't ever stop whining about the BRF. It makes me think they're protesting way too much about their own contentment and it makes me dislike them. They have all the ingredients necessary for happiness: money, a beautiful home, healthy children, none of the worries regular people have around healthcare or education etc. They SHOULD be happy. And yet they both come off as super bitter and angry and it's weird as hell.

I also don't buy that the royal family is some big trap for its members, who all secretly wish they could leave and be free. Nothing's stopping them. It's not illegal for them to give up their titles and ditch out. And yet none of them ever do. Interesting.

Two did leave, Diana and Fergie.

[quote]R149 Deep down, do you think they are all jealous of Harry because he left and started a new life rather than staying and attending the shit they have to attend everyday?

I would wager that’s a factor. And they’re repelled he chose an American.

There’s also the fact Harry married a free spirited beauty who comes across as a bit “wicked” (ie, is probably great in bed.) Charles and William surely dream about that kind of passionate union, but to look at their partners you can guess those unions are kind of perfunctory at this point. (Though Charles did want to be Camilla’s tampon at one point. Which is fairly complimentary.)

I've always had a soft spot for Prince Harry. Diana had issues, but did her best as a mother. She did attempt to show the boys some semblance of what regular folks do. They didn't end up nerds like Charles.

Charles was a lousy father, and complained about his own parents. I think there is plenty of blame to go around with this group.

The backstabbing and intrigue has been going on for decades, fueled by courtiers and more recently, the press.

Meghan, most likely preyed on Harry's insecurities. I'm sure there is no going back now. Harry inherited $10 million from the Queen Mother, or will on his 40th birthday.

They may as well release their books and whatever else they intend to do, because they aren't trusted by the BRF anymore .

Charles has many unappealing characteristics but his neediness is one of his virtues. I really don’t think Harry is an improvement over Charles. Ten million (where did that figure coke from) will not go very far at all given how they live.

Not by choice, R162. Diana regretted the interview she gave that led to the divorce and her de-HRH-ing. She very much wanted her son William to become King.

R149 Get fucked you troll. Those aren't "serious" questions and you know it.

Go back to Celebitchy where you belong.

r158 Well if the tabloids are evil why have Meghan and Harry paid a PR firm for the past two years to make sure they appear in the tabloids several times a week every week?

r162 And Fergie stayed on good enough terms with the Queen to be invited to her funeral.

Is it just me or did both Harry and Meghan not sing God Save the King? I don't like them, but I want to be fair. Maybe my eyes played tricks?

R161, thanks for answering the questions...FYI, I didn't mean haters in the sense of people who hate M and H, but anytime someone makes a miss step on this thread, they get slammed...I am not an expert on the BRF and look from afar at the craziness of what happens...it will be interesting to see how things go in the next few months with the BRF and H/M. I for one can't understand why they just don't disappear and live a life of polo and babies...but I assume money must be made and the addiction to fame fed. R149

I think Harry was smart to leave. I read a piece a while ago that said Harry was always going to leave, because of the way things just are in the RF. William was always going to be elevated as the heir. And Harry saw Andrew, and he knew what happened to margaret, and he was one spare that decided nope. Because he had Zara Phillips and Peter Phillips and his other cousins who had stepped away and decided on a private life. Even Princess Anne supported his desire not to be a working member. I think the only reasons Beatrice and Eugenie fought it for a while is because of $$$ and they were pushed to see being part of the working they realized they had to f ind a way to survive on their own.Royals was good for them. Staus etc. But once Charles cut them off

I still don't personally think it started with Scobie, r150, because I think the Telegraph and the Daily Mail would have reported that Meghan's biographer got something wrong (again) and caused all sorts of trouble. That's the kind of story they live for.

Since Crown Princess Mary of Denmark was also accidentally invited to the funeral and then later uninvited, which irked a lot of people in Denmark off, apparently, I think it's possible that the Foreign Office issued an invitation for Harry and Meghan on accident. I don't think Harry would have ever expected to go to a state reception.

All the talk on here about how Harry said this or complained about that is either a complete fabrication, or based on some tabloid that said "sources close to the Sussexes" which they've assumed means "Harry or Meghan."

[quote]Because he had Zara Phillips and Peter Phillips and his other cousins who had stepped away and decided on a private life.

They never stepped away. Charles never cut anyone off. He's been King for about a week.

[quote]Because he had Zara Phillips and Peter Phillips and his other cousins who had stepped away and decided on a private life.

Zara and Peter never 'stepped away.' They were never working royals, nor do they have titles.

As for Harry being so much happier in America? I've never seen two such happy people bitch about petty grievances that happened going on 3-4 years ago. Harry and Meghan were working royals for 18 months and yet they've been complaining about those 18 months for almost 3 years.

Fergie was the biggest embarrassment of all time. A grifter and a drunk, enabled by Andrew.

And she stepped back, r176. Meghan wants to remain front and centre.

A national Weight Watchers campaign is “stepping back”?

WHat I meant was Harry 's desire to step back was re enforced by seeing that Zara and Peter Phillips did it and did well. AS for the Yorkies, Charles certainly did cut them off. His mother was still living but had delegated a lot to him and downsizing was one thing she allowed him to do.

^ bullshit. Source it or stop making things up.

Was she trying to create a rival dynasty, like Meghan r177?

When did Fergie step back? Commercials, multiple books. Now she's just a broke old hag with pit stained, horrid outfits.

r182 She never expected to be invited to royal work functions to hobnob after she left the royal family.

The Royal Family were pretty good to her. She was among the ranks. I thought she'd get far less stature than that.

r184 She was never malicious towards the Queen. That was rembered even by her critics in royal circles.

Still, the Queen seemed to be her last friend and, to the best of my knowledge, the Queen has been dead for some time.

In all the family drama, it seemed like Phillip was more involved (not sure if that’s the right word). Like I remember hearing he hated Fergie and banned her from things, even with Diana there was more about him regarding the situation than hers. Not sure about the Meghan stuff, but even with her it’s more about William. The Queen stayed in the shadows, at least with her real thoughts.

I offered a fresh alternative to the kind of stuffiness we witnessed today but the British people were too racist to accept it.

R170 Others noticed it, too. They also noticed that Harry kept looking over at William during the Abbey service. And that Bea at one point gave a really nasty look over at Meghan.

You have to remember what all this signifies to Harry: is brother is now Prince of Wales and the heir of a man who is 74 years old. There is no guarantee that he will live to his mother's age. Harry knows now that William and his children are the most important people in the family.

They are no longer each royal dukes. William has gone ahead, and Kate has gone ahead of Meghan, and that's what her outfit screams: Don't fuck with me, I'm no mere duchess now.

I'd give a great deal to know what's going on behind the scenes.

I think Harry was well aware of the pecking order, R189, and that’s why he left. Kate always dresses the same way too. You are a reading way too much into it all.

R190 Kate has for most of her royal life so far, excepting evening wear, worn minimal jewellery daywear. She does not dress like this for usual day events. That choker has only been worn by her at two funerals and evening gowns.

In my opinion, this is the most beautiful outfit Kate wore in the last year, and it is emblematic of her real style., the height of restrained but elegant daywear.

^That is Royal Ascot which is a much dressier "daywear" occasion.

Y'all, if you want to extort money and favors out of your relatives, trashing them in the media is counterproductive. Harry and Meghan are dumb as shit.

So what r182, did you expect her to disappear off the face of the earth? She did some things that have no bearing on the royal family. Meghan is trying to set herself up as a rival queen.

Fergie now has a good life. Her daughters are settled, she has grandkids, she lives in royal accommodation, she's even inherited the Queen's corgis.

Finally watched the funeral last night on the BBC, I think the goal of the firm on and the Queen was to kill King Charles with exhaustion by making him walk behind the coffin all week....my god he must be so chap between his legs they are bleeding...and Cammy must be laughing the whole time she is in the car.

You really get the impression Queen is a job Camilla didn't want. She looks miserable. I bet she'll find excuses to avoid all sorts of events forcing Kate to do the heavy lifting.

Interesting that Harry is giving interviews and writing a book airing dirty laundry. Where did he see that before? His mother and father.

Harry is stuck now. He bitched and lied himself into a corner. He can't be happy in California: he needs to be with his mates going to the pub. He's a fish out of water and his wife has isolated him from everything and everybody to dominate him. He'll reach breaking point sooner rather than later. He's a dumb guy, uneducated and needs to hang around with other dumb posh people. He's lost.

R180, This has been rolling around for a few years. And he cut off their security too which had Andrew livid. Or so the story goes. It was common knowledge they had to find alternatives to their former allowance lving quarters and eventually their security. It was one of the reasons Harry lost his too. Andrew was pissed and insisted Harry didn't deserve security if Bea and Huge didn't have any. Of course everything was coming out of Andrew's pocket at that point. I cluding the rent they were paying.

How many old pensioners like Princess Michael of Kunt are currently squatting at Kensington Palace? Won’t some units open up over there when they kick?

^His father gave an interview only after Diana did. But Charles never wrote a memoir of any sort. That was all Diana and Andrew Morton.

And, in fact, Charles told the truth: he went back to Camilla when it became clear his marriage had completely broken down.

Diana admitted her affair with Hewlett, but mentioned nothing about her serial adulteries with married men.

Charles, when mated with the right woman, managed to carve out a happy domestic life for himself.

Diana went on pursuing hopelessly unsuitable or married or sleazy men. She virtually stalked art dealer Oliver Hoare, at one point calling him 200 times in a couple of days. She had to issue a public apology.

The truth is, there is not an absolute equivalency between Diana's airing of dirty laundry to spite the BRF and her husband, and doing so through a tabloid reporter and a BBC journalist who lied his face off and played on her paranoia to get the interview. Bashir is partly responsible for Diana dismissing her RPOs, and, therefore, for her death.

Charles spoke with a respectable journalist, didn't write a counter-memoir, and admitted one affair with a woman who became his wife and who has kept her mouth shut, her head down, taken on his behalf years of public scorn, and supported him through what has, in some ways, been a family nightmare.

Diana ended her life in the arms of a sleazy playboy who had recently become engaged to another woman who was parked on a yacht not too far from his father's.

I would say Harry's behaviour far more reflects what he saw of Diana than of Charles.

R201 - didn't Charles collaborate on a book by the same man who interviewed him? Was it Dimbleby or something like that?

R200, the Court Pysician will be visiting them "at the appropriate time..."

Charles is shady. Andrew is too, but he got caught because of his predilections.

How many lovers or whores did Charles fuck before Diana?

Charles was her first lover. Do you expect a beautiful and healthy woman to only fuck one man for the rest of her life?! You are only young once. She should have fucked all the hot, young studs available to her.

[quote] ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! This better not be true.

Or what, dear? Will you fly to the United Kingdom and subject Charles III to a vicious face-slapping?

r205 What makes you certain Charles was her first lover??

Has William had extramarital affairs? Wasn’t there talk of someone named Rose?

R202 An authorised biography, which is what Dimbleby wrote, isn't the same as the tabloid creation Andrew Morton wrote.

In it, Charles did not do what Diana did.

And, frankly, I do believe Diana was a virgin when she married Charles. But stating that because she was young and beautiful she shouldn't have had any compunctions about fucking other women's husbands seems a curious sort of moral equivalency to me.

I don't hold lovers against her, but the men she took on and the men she pursued do rather speak to her issues with men. She never once had a long, reasonably healthy relationship with one.

And whilst Charles did indeed have a long string of girlfriends, they really were girlfriends . . . whores? Really? Got proof?

I for one, was rooting for Davina Sheffield.

But the fact remains that Diana had troubled relationships with all the men in her family. She leaned on William, she neglected Harry, and she made Charles' life miserable.

In her choices, Diana reminded me somewhat of Princess Margaret, who disdained truly decent men like Johnny Dalkeith, certainly a catch in his own right, who were 100 times the better man than that faithless, slimy photographer she opted for.

Snowdon was a creep. So was Dodi Fayed.

You can't blame Fayed on youthful naivete.

The only purpose Fayed served was to make Dr. Khan jealous.

Oh jebus - I just googled “Rose Hanbury”

English girls can sure look very… unfortunate.

With a face like that, no wonder she was up for anal and pegging

^ I don’t understand why William would hit that but plenty of men cheat with hideous creatures while having pretty wives or girlfriends.

William doesn't hit that. It's a story made up by Meghan and her Loons.

It wasn't made up by Meghan. Several in Kate 's circle confirmed the affair.

Oh, rubbish. Several? Who? When?

R215 - are you spreading lies again, Meghan?

Who are these so called friends of Kate?

All lies. Meghan's biggest motivator in life is her jealousy of Kate. Typical borderline.

R207, Diana had to be checked out by a doctor. to make sure she was a virgin!

When crazy Mohammed Al-Fayed was claiming Di was pregnant by Dodi and that's why she was murdered by the royal family, Di's friend Rosa Monckton who had just been on holiday with Di the week before her death, told Richard Kay Di had her period during their holiday.

R215 Only you can't name them or link to their actual comments confirming the affair. NO ONE in Kate's circle would have done any such thing. Giles Coren said he was drunk when he put the tweet up and took it down quickly. Nicole Swifte was a friend of Meghan's. There is not one shred of proof.

Go back to Celebitchy. We see you, troll.

That's one thing I find so weird about Meghan's trolls. Nothing is beneath them. They are aggressive, angry and dishonest. Granted, we pass time dissecting this freakshow, but how empty their lives must be to be to come here and lie in a fury. They don't know her. Would she even give them the time of day? It's one thing to be suckered, but to sucker yourself? Pathetic.

The Harkles were never invited to the Diplomatic Reception.

Try again, losers.

The defenders are bot (I hope). If they are really this pathetic..I will light a candle & pray for themm

Meghan's fangirls are reality TV addicts, Meghan, the Real Housewives, all the same to them. Famous for being famous with no accomplishments.

Whoa that pic of Rose. I know I'm a gay man. But that face is a bone killer, if I've ever seen one. I heard her hubby is family & lives openly with his boyfriend in France much of the time.

And she was supposedly a model - of what, I have not idea.

She must have got an awful lot of testosterone in the womb.

I just did a DuckDuckGo search for “Rose Hanbury” and clicked “images” and the first seven photos were of her gay husband.

Kate must be intolerably awful for William to be driven to cheat with THAT.

R228 Spirit Halloween model.

FWIW, the Vice-President's step daughter is a model and her facial hair can't seem to make up its mind, so modelling does not necessarily equate with anything.

Except thin.

For now.

I looked up some pictures of Rose and she is not photogenic with that big honker on her face, at best she is homely.

She is thin but not sexy at all in her stills she seems to come across as asexual without a hint of spark.

Sounds like a lot of models to me.

Rose does things Catherine won't do.....

Rose isn't only not photogenic, she's a really boring topic,

Meanwhile, the Queen's former Press Secretary, said that there isn't a bridge big enough to fix the chasm between Meghan Markle and the rest of the royal family.

And Ben Goldsmith, challenged by someone who said he didn't know anything about Meghan's character, got this response:

"Maybe I know some of the people she bullied?"

Ben Goldsmith is massively connected in high society circles, including the ones Meghan tried to insert herself into.

And, like Meghan, he hasn't signed any NDAs, either.

[quote]r237 Rose isn't only not photogenic, she's a really boring topic.

Her strap-on sessions with Wills are BORING?

Oh. I see. It’s much more fun to pick on the black girl.

She is thin but not sexy at all in her stills she seems to come across as asexual without a hint of spark.

Catherine is too perfect. She's always busy. She schedules everything and does everything right. Public appearances, smiling and looking happy, and then cooking with the kids and being all athletic, and it's really really frustrating. Rose loves her G&T. She only ever does Yoga, and she LISTENS to me. She isn't all busy busy busy and she never cooks.

The idiot who keeps trying to make this fake Rose affair rumour happen clearly has no idea how completely fucking stupid he sounds.

Charles and William have a type: the skinny, mannish woman. Uncle Eddie the Abdicator did as well.

R240 it's not a he. It's an obese, middle-aged black woman casting aspersions on the rival to her whitish idol la Markle.

There is more than one poster. Not everyone worships at the feet of Kate or Meghan.

Re [bold]Rose Hanbury[/bold]

she looks like one of those basically plain girls who dive into anorexia as the only way they can compete. But it leads to dry, brittle hair and slack skin, amongst its other drawbacks.

It is very weird that William would choose her as a mistress, but I guess she was local (and therefore handy.)

If Philip and Charles cheated, Wills is just carrying on the family tradition. Didn't Philip and Mountbatten share a mistress?

If he really was fucking that ugly bitch, then I'm sure kate approves, coz he didn't pick someone prettier etc.

I was hoping Ben Goldsmith had put the fear of God into the Harkles, because after making it clear that he knew some of the women Meghan bullied, Meghan also knows that those women have been talking outside the Palace.

Which means anything could accidentally land in the DM's lap.

They've probably already offered six figures for the names of the women he spoke to, or for "anonymous" repetitions of what they told him.

Unfortunately for the tabloids, Goldsmith doesn't need their money.

The tabloids probably already know who Goldsmith knew in the household.

R248 Well, put to it, we could probably come up with several names here on DL. (Tabouti, Pickerell, Cohen, Latham . . .)

But as to which of them he knows, and getting him to give an interview in which he relates what they told him . . .

Never happen, which is too bad.

I keep hoping that if Harry and Meghan go back to playing hard ball with the memoir and podcasts and all that shit, the Palace, now with shorter-tempered Charles in, somehow gets some of that material out . . .

I've noticed Samantha Cohen who was the Queen's aide before the Queen assigned her to Meghan to show her the ropes - and things blew up with Meghan and Cohen exited - is being quoted a lot in the media with her reminiscences about the Queen.

MI5 is supposed to protect the royal family. Harry thinks that means forcing the Met to give him bodyguards he can send on errands and organize traffic in streets or at airports so he isn't stuck with the hoi polloi. Unfortunately for Harry that means investigating people who get in close proximity to the royals. If Meghan was a yacht girl aka prostitute, MI5 know it. Harry should watch his step.

As Ben Goldsmith's cousin is also Camilla's niece, I'm sure he's heard it all indirectly from Camilla.

I am still hoping to get some real juicy stuff about Pimp Daddy Markus & the low rent brothel Soho House. I love that the Hoor House is called Soho House. Soho has been the sleazy area of London for a long time. How appropriate for Home of sleazy sex & drugs is called Soho Hoe House. Such a clever code.

MI5 must have 20" thick dossiers on Murky Markus & Co.

Wonder how much MI5 &6 have about Dirty Russian & other nefarious money Markus & the Harkles.

r238 Which black girl??If you mean Meghan who identified as white previously then you are really infantilising her referring to her as a girl.It is patronizing and disrespectful to any 41 year old woman to refer to her as a girl.No female aged 41 is a girl.

Funny Meghan joined a white sorority at Northwestern instead of a black one as she's a proud black woman.

Realistically, the Black Experience has a great deal to do with how one is perceived by others, and treated.

It wasn’t so very long ago that if you were just 1/8 black you were legally classified as black.

There is a thread open now on the Low book, THE COURTIERS, first excerpt out in the TIMES (UK - and Low's paper. It was Low who broke the bullying story and stood by it).

That first excerpt is all about how horribly Meghan treated her staff, and how badly things went downhill so quickly.

Thread has a link to the first excerpt.

Take comments on the Low book and what is, essentially, the bullying report without needing to see the thing itself, because they all talked to Low, and they are named.

Please don't open new threads on the Low book or the TIMES excerpt: there is a thread open on it NOW.

Link to the tread on Low's book.

Thanks r256

R257, this is the thread with the traction tonight.