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

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

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

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

King Charles Slammed for Brutal Christmas Rejection of Prince Harry

Harry who?

King Charles’ has been criticized for not acknowledging his son Prince Harry, his wife Meghan Markle, or their two children in a Christmas address, which focused on how the holiday was “a chance for family and friends to come together.”

The closest Charles came to acknowledging his family in California was when he spoke about the need to protect and safeguard the environment “for the sake of our children’s children,” however, no direct reference was made to Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

By contrast, multiple images were shown of his son, Prince William, and his wife, Kate Middleton, and their three children, Princess Charlotte, Prince George and Prince Louis.

The refusal to acknowledge Harry’s family went almost entirely unremarked in largely fawning accounts of the annual televised speech in the British media but was criticized on social media.

The king’s failure to acknowledge Harry was made less obvious by the decision not to film the speech from his desk, thereby avoiding critics analyzing photographs and portraits in the shot for clues about who was in or out of royal favor.

The Daily Beast has been told that Charles would like to reconcile with Harry but is being blocked from bringing him back into the family by William, who is implacably opposed to any such move.

The elder son believes Harry’s betrayal of the family in his books and interviews, in which he accused a member of the family, later revealed to be Kate, of racism, has put him beyond the pale. William’s consent is needed because Charles, who is sick with cancer, feels he cannot bequeath his heir a settlement with Harry that William cannot live with.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 182January 12, 2025 6:45 AM

The only evidence they can find of outrage is one post with 400 likes by someone called SussexSquad (I did enjoy the part about Charles making them homeless though. Pity them they have to subsist in only one modest sized California mcmansion.

by Anonymousreply 1December 29, 2024 12:34 PM

It's extremely hypocritical for Charles to talk about “a chance for family and friends to come together," when he has completely snubbed one of his own sons and that son's wife and kids.

I mean, it's GLARINGLY obvious that his own family is broken apart.

As the saying goes, "Physician, HEAL THYSELF."

by Anonymousreply 2December 29, 2024 12:38 PM

I like the sound of his voice it’s ridiculous and cartoonish and I’ve only ever heard Morrissey go after him and Moz is a cunt. As an American god I consider Brits to be like a goofy malformed stepchild. I say he’s the greatest long live His Majesty King Charles.

by Anonymousreply 3December 29, 2024 12:49 PM

Yeah, he’s the last person who should be lecturing anyone about family (for several known reasons). But these people have no shame whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 4December 29, 2024 12:52 PM

Haha clickbait for fools

by Anonymousreply 5December 29, 2024 12:53 PM

I always looked out for Prince Charles, as a fellow Scorpio. But I never saw him as a King until I saw him walk Meghan and her mother down the aisle at her wedding. That was truly regal. I don't believe he is to blame for the estrangement from Harry and Meghan: I think they asked for it.

by Anonymousreply 6December 29, 2024 1:25 PM

I always look to thedailybeast for accurate, well-informed stories about the Royal Family that aren't just completely made-up.

by Anonymousreply 7December 29, 2024 1:31 PM

thedailybeasts obsession with the royals the last year is quite impressive. They may be outdoing the Mail.

by Anonymousreply 8December 29, 2024 1:33 PM

The Mail (website) is geared toward the American audience where they get huge numbers. DL is so strange in that the (American) Royal obsessives always quote from sites no Brit would ever quote from. I don't think a single British person exists who's ever heard of she knows.com and no-one in the UK has even thought about yahoo.com in about 20 years.

by Anonymousreply 9December 29, 2024 1:40 PM

The UK will never be great until they get rid of the monarchy. They cling onto ancient Dark Age beliefs that a invisible guy in the sky chose a person and his progeny to rule over everyone? Really? We gonna do voodoo and witchcraft too?

Brits haven't really evolved in a thousand years in that regard. Hey, but what a gig of you can get it!

by Anonymousreply 10December 29, 2024 1:53 PM

Harry will mend things will his dad as his dad's health goes downhill. Charles will want to see him and Harry will want his inheritance.

by Anonymousreply 11December 29, 2024 1:53 PM

R10 You're not very intelligent.

The Divine Right of Kings hasn't existed since the 1600s. You might want to brush up on your counting skills.

by Anonymousreply 12December 29, 2024 1:58 PM

I cannot blame Charles for the estrangement from Harry. Harry married a woman who is expert at alienating her mate from his family. With all their talk about the importance of families, Meghan only allows contact with her mother. She has cut Harry off from his family and his friends. She saw her prey and she went for it. It's tragic on many levels. William losing his brother. Charles losing his son and his grandchildren. And even tragic for hapless Harry.

by Anonymousreply 13December 29, 2024 2:00 PM

Are they really so broken up about the lack of Harold's physical presence? He has been a pain and embarrassment since he was a child, and were I William I would be happy to see the back of him., honestly. His wife hates her family too, so they are a good match that way.

The stupid daily beast seems to be unaware, despite King Charles making a statement, that the respective litigants cannot fraternize with each other during ongoing lawsuits. What a opportune relief for the King.

by Anonymousreply 14December 29, 2024 2:13 PM

R12 The belief persists. Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Coronation and other royal ceremonies have strong religious overtones. The monarchy is is embedded in the Church of England, and vice versa.

Americans used to believe in separation of church and state, but then they elected Trump.

by Anonymousreply 15December 29, 2024 2:16 PM

Harry’s reconciliation with his family won’t happen until he apologizes to them for his treacherous behavior. He hasn’t so the stand-off continues while Harry continues to dig his own grave in the media.

by Anonymousreply 16December 29, 2024 2:18 PM

It is impossible for me to imagine a greater divide than that between church and Trump.

by Anonymousreply 17December 29, 2024 2:19 PM

[quote] The Daily Beast has been told that Charles would like to reconcile with Harry but is being blocked from bringing him back into the family by William, who is implacably opposed to any such move.

WHAT A CROCK OF MADE UP trashrag MEDIA SHYTE! The Prince Of Wales is telling the fucking KING what he can and can't do? Yeah right.

by Anonymousreply 18December 29, 2024 2:20 PM

R17

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19December 29, 2024 2:29 PM

The Daily Beast should bear in mind that Harry has put Charles in an untenable position regarding Harry's demands for protection. Harry is suing the Government -- of a nation in which Charles is Head of State. The courts are the King's Courts. Harry apparently is demanding that Charles interfere with a government decision (to give him protection only on an "as needed" basis), something Charles absolutely cannot do. The monarch is obliged to stay out of government business -- that is the tacit agreement that allows monarchy to continue. In any event, why should Harry get something (automatic security) that no other citizen gets when he made a conscious decision to step down as a working member of the royal family? If he feels that he should get security just because he's the king's son, he should read the room -- why would the British people want to pay for security for a person who does nothing for the state? Does he think he could come back to Britain and play video games and the nation would have to pay for his protection, just because he's the king's son? What a dope.

by Anonymousreply 20December 29, 2024 2:31 PM

What exactly do the “working royals” do to earn the millions spent on their security? Make a few appearances a year?

by Anonymousreply 21December 29, 2024 3:29 PM

It costs a lot to stand guard over those inbreds when they cut the ribbon to open a new Tesco.

by Anonymousreply 22December 29, 2024 3:41 PM

R14 HAROLD? Prince Harry's full name is Henry Charles Albert David.

by Anonymousreply 23December 29, 2024 3:41 PM

R21, What exactly do you produce, other than bile? Meeting hundreds of people is very hard work. One of the greatest fears is the fear of public speaking. You expect that to overcome that is to come from a public school education?

by Anonymousreply 24December 29, 2024 3:44 PM

Sometimes, family has to let toxic members go. Particularly, when the family member keeps doubling down on his toxicity. It is not one mistake but continuing ones on the Sussex’s part. Harry has created his situation and continued to aggravate it. He will just have to cope with the wealthy Hollywood life he has chosen.

by Anonymousreply 25December 29, 2024 3:45 PM

R23, "Harold" was William's nickname for Harry. Just like Harry called William "Willy". This is all documented in Harold's blockbuster shitfest "Spare".

by Anonymousreply 26December 29, 2024 3:52 PM

So, Harry doesn't get that spending over five years trashing, lying and leaking information about his family results in them not wanting to spend time with him?

by Anonymousreply 27December 29, 2024 3:57 PM

Prince Harry is firmly within the FAFO - Fuck Around and Find Out framework. He made his choices and needs to accept the consequences.

by Anonymousreply 28December 29, 2024 3:59 PM

Harry rejected his father and his brother and with his wife are still the villains of the story. However, I believe he would still be welcomed back as the Prodigal Son if he would humble himself and give a full honest confession recanting all the lies he and his wife have told.

Harry wants only the benefits of being a royal with none of the requirements and is too invested in the lies the Sussexes made up.

by Anonymousreply 29December 29, 2024 4:00 PM

I'm probably slow. But its only just occurred to me why they picked Harold for a nickname.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30December 29, 2024 4:01 PM

No, "Harold" is not Prince Harry's official nickname, but it has been used humorously in some contexts. For example, during the release of his memoir Spare, his brother, Prince William, reportedly referred to him as "Harold" in a lighthearted or teasing manner. However, Harry is most commonly referred to by his given nickname, "Harry," which is a traditional diminutive of Henry.

by Anonymousreply 31December 29, 2024 4:05 PM

Harry asked for this when he took his grievances to the public at the behest of his poisonous wife. I read that book "Spare" and he sounded like a big baby. Charles probably doest have a choice in this now because of William. William can't trust him and won't take a chance bringing Harry back into the fold. Sad, but true that two brothers won't ever be close. I'd hate to be in Charles' position. Harry and Meghan fucked everything up. However it's not hard to believe that she faced a lot of bullshit from that family. But, they shouldn't have made everything public in a media blitz that has backfired on them. She's no match for the Royals Press Advisors who are very, very good at playing the media. Harry must be stupid. What did he think was gonna happen?

by Anonymousreply 32December 29, 2024 4:11 PM

[Quote] Sometimes, family has to let toxic members go.

Exactly. We've all been there. Harry can never be trusted again. What he did was unforgivable in their circles.

Even the Hollywood elite circled their wagons when he blabbed about his family in his book, assuming that he would do the same to whomever accepted them into their inner sanctum. His anecdote about drugs in Courtney Cox' fridge is proof of this. And no one will be seen photographed with his wife (she was actively avoided at a function she attended recently where Goop and other A Listers were in attendance).

Whatever reconciliation occurs would have to be btwn Harry and KC and out of the public eye.

by Anonymousreply 33December 29, 2024 4:11 PM

R12 doesn’t understand that the concept of divine right is different from monarch as head of a church.

by Anonymousreply 34December 29, 2024 4:15 PM

What proven bullshit did Meghan have to put up with? Other than being expected to follow established rules and protocols? She was given the option to continue acting (ha!) She chose not to. She was expected to perform and behave as a working royal. She didn't like that. So really, what were they to do with her?

by Anonymousreply 35December 29, 2024 4:17 PM

Brutal?

by Anonymousreply 36December 29, 2024 4:18 PM

[quote] he feels that he should get security just because he's the king's son, he should read the room -- why would the British people want to pay for security for a person who does nothing for the state? Does he think he could come back to Britain and play video games and the nation would have to pay for his protection, just because he's the king's son? What a dope.

Exactly!

by Anonymousreply 37December 29, 2024 4:22 PM

Joy! Rapture! As we wind down 2024, yet another opportunity to comment on the lives of a dimwitted prince and his navel-gazing wife...

Screw Mr. and Mrs. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor of Montecito, CA, USA and their minions! Why should this back-stabbing and grifting duo be mentioned at all by Charles III in his Christmas Speech to the UK. By their own volition, they no longer take part in the official service and duties other members of that dynasty perform. Charles should highlight the cancer treatment he and the Princess of Wales underwent to showcase their continued commitment to service and duty, to thank those who dedicate their lives to helping others, and display empathy and solidarity with those suffering from life-threatening illness.

What hardships did Mr. and Mrs. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor of Montecito, CA, USA experience in 2024? A flop of a documentary about an ultra-elite sport? The failure of her becoming the next Martha Stewart/Gwyneth Paltrow influencer? Please, cry me a river!

by Anonymousreply 38December 29, 2024 4:31 PM

Let's get real here, Harry & Meghan are passe! They were yesterday's news and only people obsessed with them are still talking about them.

As for Charles not acknowledging Harry in his speech...why would he? He didn't mention any other member of the family (except Camilla briefly), so why would he mention Harry? Also, it's his job to speak in generalities and kind platitudes. He's not going to be like "fuck family, particularly little shit sons."

by Anonymousreply 39December 29, 2024 5:26 PM

Harry and Meghan ousted themselves. She didn't like what she signed up for and he seemingly felt guilty for having roped her in and hence fled with her.

Not sure what Charles was meant to do...

by Anonymousreply 40December 29, 2024 5:46 PM

[quote] The belief persists. Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Coronation and other royal ceremonies have strong religious overtones. The monarchy is is embedded in the Church of England, and vice versa.

Do you have a brain? Bring head of a church does not mean in any way that you rule by divine right.

by Anonymousreply 41December 29, 2024 5:47 PM

[quote] It costs a lot to stand guard over those inbreds when they cut the ribbon to open a new Tesco.

This is brilliant! I hope you find the time to post more often!

by Anonymousreply 42December 29, 2024 5:51 PM

R41 it was the other poster who assumed the post you quoted was a reference to divine right. They are all screwed up on this point …better to let it go.

Divine right=absolute power, without any rights to the people or any parliament.

Monarch as Head of the Church=the ordinary constitutional monarch fully subject to the rights of a parliament.

The End.

by Anonymousreply 43December 29, 2024 5:54 PM

The lost I was responding to cited Charles’ being head of the church as evidence that the belief persists that Charles rules by divine right

by Anonymousreply 44December 29, 2024 5:58 PM

Well R34 explain it to us, please. I'd be interested in what you say.

by Anonymousreply 45December 29, 2024 6:00 PM

The boy brought it on himself! First, all that fucking around with his troops, and then marrying that colorful person and turning on the family.

by Anonymousreply 46December 29, 2024 6:10 PM

Nothing will change until Chuckie dies and Wills finds himself alone without family. Aunt Annie is not eternal.

by Anonymousreply 47December 29, 2024 6:14 PM

[quote] It's calories, exercise and portion control. Eat when you're hungry and stop when your full. Gradually, you'll lose weight

Do my you honestly want to be so open about this intellectual struggle?

To assist your brain you might want to Google a list of heads of current churches and religions and confirm that they universally claim to hold the position by divine right of birth or divine right in general. Ordinarily, that would help. In this case, I’m not so sure.

by Anonymousreply 48December 29, 2024 6:21 PM

[QUOTE]You expect that to overcome that is to come from a public school education?

Huh? What kind of education did you get?

by Anonymousreply 49December 29, 2024 6:26 PM

So well put R38. Charles has cancer and he's still doing what's required of him. Harry, will never be that kind of man. " his navel gazing wife" lol, I loved that!

by Anonymousreply 50December 29, 2024 6:47 PM

Sadly, Prince Harry lacks depth; he lacks character. When he was our happy-go-lucky prince, the scamp, the lad, many people loved him. He was superficial, but he was fun. Then, when he met Meghan, he started taking himself too seriously. He became irritating, entirely full of recriminations, easily manipulated by his narcissistic wife who was desperate to climb the ladder of fame and importance. What he doesn't understand is that royalty should not take themselves seriously. Yes, they are lionized and placed at the center of every event they attend, but not because they have anything really to offer. When they understand that they are merely ciphers, they succeed. Charles almost made that mistake, as well, thinking that his points of view were important; they weren't. He has come to understand his role.

by Anonymousreply 51December 29, 2024 7:06 PM

Re: the headline, this is just stupid. He didn't really mention anyone by name but there was video running of the family members in action. I saw a lot of the Waleses, and some of Anne, Sophie and Edward, and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. The Sussexes do nothing on behalf of the royal family, so what could they have shown of them? It's silly.

by Anonymousreply 52December 29, 2024 7:11 PM

Thought he was dead already? tick, tick, tick...........

by Anonymousreply 53December 29, 2024 7:18 PM

The shit who works for The Daily Beast, Tom Sykes, is a Harkle apologist who simply arranges his stories for clicks, and if he possible can he'll frame them to make Charles and William look like offenders rather than the people who rather deserve a bit of understanding.

Fuck Sykes. He's why I dropped the DB subscription. If you're going to play gossip, play gossip, and don't act like you have the moral high-ground or that a family mess somehow is the fault of the people a rotten couple are making money from by libeling.

If they're all rotten, fine. Say so. But only Andrew and his ex-wife are on the same low level as Harry and his cunt. Both being the spoiled second sons who want the gravy, one can see the pattern.

by Anonymousreply 54December 29, 2024 7:21 PM

R45 see R43

by Anonymousreply 55December 29, 2024 7:59 PM

It’s an official address, not a family video. He should only mention the family members that have decided to retain a role in national life.

by Anonymousreply 56December 29, 2024 8:07 PM

He cheated on his first wife, he is throwing his brother out on the street and neither of his sons wants anything to do with him.

by Anonymousreply 57December 29, 2024 8:08 PM

His first wife cheated on him as well and with the husbands of other wives.

I don’t think anybody is crying about Andrew.

by Anonymousreply 58December 29, 2024 8:12 PM

[QUOTE]The Daily Beast has been told that Charles would like to reconcile with Harry but is being blocked from bringing him back into the family by William, who is implacably opposed to any such move.

Gee, I wonder who told them that?

by Anonymousreply 59December 29, 2024 8:16 PM

[quote] Harry is most commonly referred to by his given nickname, "Harry," which is a traditional diminutive of Henry.

But they both have five letters.

Henry. Harry.

So Harry cannot be the "diminutive" of Henry, because they're equal.

by Anonymousreply 60December 29, 2024 8:37 PM

[quote]So Harry cannot be the "diminutive" of Henry, because they're equal.

You're joking, right?

by Anonymousreply 61December 29, 2024 8:40 PM

I don’t blame him at all and it’s all MEGHAN. You just can’t be nice to grifters/liars like that. She may have fooled a foolish prince but no one else. I don’t believe her suicidal shit-just lies to control her husband and the situation. Charles is old and sick and he wants a peaceful holiday-same as me-fuck these treasonous Relatives/Inlaws.

by Anonymousreply 62December 29, 2024 8:53 PM

It ain’t cuz she black it cuz she conniving cunt.

by Anonymousreply 63December 29, 2024 9:02 PM

They say she was married and divorced.

by Anonymousreply 64December 29, 2024 9:04 PM

[quote] Nothing will change until Chuckie dies and Wills finds himself alone without family.

The change will be that William will do the right thing and strip Harry and Meghan and their offspring of all their titles, finally.

by Anonymousreply 65December 29, 2024 9:05 PM

Prince Harry Still Has the Duke of Sussex Title, But He Says He Offered to Give It Up

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 66December 29, 2024 9:08 PM

[quote] But they both have five letters. Henry. Harry. So Harry cannot be the "diminutive" of Henry, because they're equal.

Huh?

by Anonymousreply 67December 29, 2024 9:17 PM

There are some very drunken Englishman on here who can't write English.

by Anonymousreply 68December 29, 2024 9:33 PM

For R67.

"Harry" is not shorter than "Henry."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69December 29, 2024 9:39 PM

R41 I never said it did, you filthy, stupid cunt.

by Anonymousreply 70December 29, 2024 9:47 PM

R69 by definition, within the family, you ARE wrong. He was christened Henry, and they nicknamed him Harry. Why you linked to an outdated online US dictionary makes no sense—the family is as the family does.

by Anonymousreply 71December 29, 2024 9:52 PM

^ NB— diminutive has nothing to do with the number of letters

by Anonymousreply 72December 29, 2024 9:53 PM

Your post makes no sense in any respect, R71. What point are you responding to?

And M-W dictionary is continually updated and is a widely accepted source for spellings and definitions among reference publishers.

by Anonymousreply 73December 29, 2024 9:54 PM

Diminutive means small.

by Anonymousreply 74December 29, 2024 9:55 PM

Which has nothing to do with the number of letters. Duh. Read the damn definition.

by Anonymousreply 75December 29, 2024 9:56 PM

Read some Shakespeare, if you dare.

A diminutive is also defined as a nickname.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 76December 29, 2024 9:59 PM

R75, you are dense. I POSTED that definition.

R76, there's nothing about diminutives in that article.

To clarify my point, "Hal" is a diminutive for "Harold." "Harry" is not one for "Henry." A diminutive is a shorter nickname, not any nickname.

by Anonymousreply 77December 29, 2024 10:17 PM

How is the fact that Harry was not mentioned in the address "brutal"? This is one reason why so few trust anything that comes out of the media. They exaggerate everything. If the news isn't bad enough they'll just make up something to make it look worse than it really is.

by Anonymousreply 78December 29, 2024 10:17 PM

OP lost me at "Yahoo.com".

by Anonymousreply 79December 29, 2024 10:18 PM

“A diminutive is a shorter nickname, not any nickname.”

That’s not just dense, that’s outright stupidity.

by Anonymousreply 80December 29, 2024 10:47 PM

R77 is too stupid for Shakespeare; Hal is a name for Henry.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 81December 29, 2024 10:50 PM

R77 continues to embarrass himself:

…Diminutives are often employed as nicknames and pet names…

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 82December 29, 2024 10:55 PM

R46, fun! Yeah, she sure be that!

by Anonymousreply 83December 29, 2024 11:04 PM

Did an American start this thread? Because there is absolutely no connection with how Brits actually feel about Harry. I was wondering of the King’s Christmas broadcast, would it be from his office, with identifiable family photos about. Turns out best done the way it was. The King has a jobm call it if you will The Firm. Harry left the firm, left his duty to the country and his family as second son to The King. He should not be celebrated for it. Now as King, Charles’ duty is to his country and direct three heirs, William, Charlotte, George. Harry is out of the picture. A “healing” between father and son will be done out of the public eye. Harry caused the estrangement. And really, is fearful of his public safety? Somehow Anne and all her family, Edward and his, and even Andrew leaving all duty for a private life, and his two daughters and their families, ALL function without crying to the public press about safety, living quarters and family affairs. Harry is hapless.

by Anonymousreply 84December 29, 2024 11:07 PM

He’s rapidly morphing into his mother.

by Anonymousreply 85December 29, 2024 11:07 PM

Actually, his mother displayed more dignity, at least outwardly. And she inspired respect, something he and Meghan are both incapable of doing.

by Anonymousreply 86December 29, 2024 11:27 PM

[quote] …Diminutives are often employed as nicknames and pet names…

Yes, but the WORD diminutive implies something smaller, or shorter.

That's why a nickname is considered a diminutive. Because it's supposed to be a "shortcut" of a longer name.

Chas = Charles

Jim = James

Dick = Richard

So the Harry = Henry is not a diminutive.

It's merely just another name to which Prince Henry is referred. But it's NOT a diminutive.

by Anonymousreply 87December 29, 2024 11:33 PM

I stepped away for a bit. Did we resolve whether Harry is a diminutive or not?

by Anonymousreply 88December 29, 2024 11:35 PM

Careful, R84 - American royal obsessives don't take kindly to being presented with the facts.

by Anonymousreply 89December 29, 2024 11:38 PM

R2 I suggest you live in reality. In reality, it was the Sussexes who left, violated their families privacy in interviews, articles and books. Told lies. It was the Sussexes who created drama over every invitation. Will they or won’t they come. When they did attend they were upset over seating arrangements and left early.

The RF cannot trust that every conversation will be leaked, sold and embellished with lies.

The Sussexes thrive on chaos, drama and dysfunction. They both appear mentally ill and we know of one who abuses substances.

The RF have two members recently diagnosed with cancer. They don’t need the stress of the Sussexes.

by Anonymousreply 90December 29, 2024 11:40 PM

Diminutives don't necessarily have fewer letters.

Charles => Charlie, Charley, Chuck

David => Dave, Davey

James => Jamie, Jim, Jimmy, Jimbo

Paul => Pauly, Pauley

Robert =>Rob, Bob, Bobby, Robbie

Stop doubling down on this bullshit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 91December 29, 2024 11:45 PM

Are there any British people on here? If so, how do British and Commonwealth people mostly feel about Harry, Meghan and Andrew and Fergie? Do the people look forward to the future King William and Queen Catherine?

by Anonymousreply 92December 30, 2024 12:01 AM

Are you headless r92?

by Anonymousreply 93December 30, 2024 12:06 AM

No, dammit I'm not R93. I was just curious.

by Anonymousreply 94December 30, 2024 12:10 AM

[QUOTE]OP lost me at "Yahoo.com".

Wrong thread?

by Anonymousreply 95December 30, 2024 12:15 AM

R48 How is your weight loss journey part of this?

by Anonymousreply 96December 30, 2024 12:30 AM

Ginge and Whinge will be begging to get into Canada but will have to give up the holier-than-thou victim attitude or they won’t last long there either.

by Anonymousreply 97December 30, 2024 12:34 AM

Dumbest post of the thread: It's merely just another name to which Prince Henry is referred. But it's NOT a diminutive.

And that’s on on thread full of dumb posts.

by Anonymousreply 98December 30, 2024 12:58 AM

Deport them!!

by Anonymousreply 99December 30, 2024 1:12 AM

Families fight. No big deal.

by Anonymousreply 100December 30, 2024 1:23 AM

Diminutive has nothing to do with the number of letters. For example, Marie Antoinette. Her real first two names were Maria Antonia. The "-ette" is what made it a diminutive.

by Anonymousreply 101December 30, 2024 4:17 AM

R66 Funny because when Anderson Cooper asked Harry why he didn't just give his titles up, Harry said: "And what difference would that make?"

by Anonymousreply 102December 30, 2024 5:04 AM

R101. No—one was her given name in German, and the other was her name in French.

by Anonymousreply 103December 30, 2024 9:05 AM

I had no idea that her given name was Antonia. Wow you learn something every day here.

by Anonymousreply 104December 30, 2024 12:52 PM

Or not.

by Anonymousreply 105December 30, 2024 12:55 PM

R57 deserved to have children, but would have taken hormones of some kind.

by Anonymousreply 106December 30, 2024 12:59 PM

R104 she was an Austrian archduchess—why would her birth name be French? The name change was part of the deal at the French court.

Antoinette was not a diminutive, it was part of her full fame.

by Anonymousreply 107December 30, 2024 1:02 PM

Regardless of Harry and Meaghan’s misguided attempts at remaining relevant, they’re still members of the BRF and parents to the King’s grandchildren.

One would think his bout with cancer would remind Charles how limited our time on Earth is. Instead, he’s just reminding everyone what a petulant and inherently selfish POS he is.

by Anonymousreply 108December 30, 2024 1:09 PM

[quote] Regardless of Harry and Meaghan’s misguided attempts at remaining relevant, they’re still members of the BRF and parents to the King’s grandchildren.

You can’t just pick out two of the facts and say these are the only two that matter. The fact that the pair betrayed Elizabeth, Charles, William, Catherine, and others is as important a fact, if not more so, than the ones you stated. Also, the fact that Harry and Meghan have never apologized for all they have said and done, nor confessed to lying, must be taken into account.

by Anonymousreply 109December 30, 2024 1:18 PM

Perhaps his bout with cancer has reminded Charles that he has more important things to do than indulge his younger son's incessant whining and tantrums.

by Anonymousreply 110December 30, 2024 1:27 PM

The son trashes his fsther., brother, sister in law, stepmother, claims his privacy is being invaded, yet writes 2 books about himself. His freeloading whore of a wife keeps the jewellery and title yet refuses to work. Frankly I'm surprised his father has not had him terminated. Fool.me once, shame on you etc,

by Anonymousreply 111December 30, 2024 1:35 PM

R109, R110, and R111 really need to get the fuck over it.

Holding grudges will KILL YOU.

by Anonymousreply 112December 30, 2024 2:44 PM

[quote] Holding grudges will KILL YOU.

You’re implying that that the actions by Harry and Meghan are only in the past, whereas the truth is that their attack on Harry’s family and their other terrible actions have been never-ending.

by Anonymousreply 113December 30, 2024 2:52 PM

R112, Harry and Meaghan's actions are far beyond grudge status. Incident after incident, it will never end. The only path Harry has to earn his way back into the BRF is to divorce M and fall on his sword for what he's said and done. Cancer survivor here -- making an effort to keep extremely toxic relationships in your life will kill you. Life is too short. Flush them.

by Anonymousreply 114December 30, 2024 2:57 PM

The royal family seemed somewhat open minded and welcoming to the Harry/Meghan marriage but It looked like Meghan was too arrogant-never satisfied-playing the race card and lying to the public. Ginge & Whinge can’t believe the billions aren’t pouring in everyday.

by Anonymousreply 115December 30, 2024 3:02 PM

[quote] Regardless of Harry and Meaghan’s misguided attempts at remaining relevant, they’re still members of the BRF and parents to the King’s grandchildren.

In a modern constitutional monarchy, the royal family has to serve the public. This pair stepped away from public life. They have no relevance in an address to the nation.

This was the the key misunderstanding of Harry and Meghan. They think we stil live in the 16th century and believe they are important regardless of whether they fo anything for the country or not.

by Anonymousreply 116December 30, 2024 3:04 PM

If that's true, R112, Harry and his wife must be on life support by now.

by Anonymousreply 117December 30, 2024 3:15 PM

I call bullshit on Harry's "attempt" to give back his Duke title. Meghan would never want to give up her Duchess bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 118December 30, 2024 3:27 PM

oh no ANYWAY

by Anonymousreply 119December 30, 2024 3:36 PM

[quote]The RF cannot trust that every conversation will be leaked, sold and embellished with lies.

That's the problem and will always be the problem, so long as he's married. There might be a way to manage him after a divorce but she evidently won't come back to the UK on a full time basis even if she had the balls to do it. And who can blame her? In addition to having achieved pariah status, the weather would be hard for anybody from California. They either stay together there or split and he comes home as an option. If there's a third way I can't see it because in the end, they can't be trusted. He could probably be trusted, if he's on his own again. They could rehabilitate his image if everybody wanted that. People are suckers for a happy ending.

by Anonymousreply 120December 30, 2024 3:50 PM

Nah, nobody wants to see his scowling doughy face. Let him stay in the US.

by Anonymousreply 121December 30, 2024 3:55 PM

[quote] Careful, R84 - American royal obsessives don't take kindly to being presented with the facts.

We wondered when you'd weigh in on this thread with your anti-American hatred, BRF Troll.

by Anonymousreply 122December 30, 2024 3:58 PM

Some of you are blaming everything about Harry on Meghan. Yes, he is easily manipulated. But this is his core personality that's coming to light.

by Anonymousreply 123December 30, 2024 4:13 PM

I'm with you R90. Spot on!

by Anonymousreply 124December 30, 2024 4:16 PM

R92, long one coming... 1/2 Canadian here and constitutionally Charles is our king and head of state.

There's a small core group of monarchists still in the country. Arguably I'm one, but I'm not in thrall to the personalities, more I am comfortable with the government structure of constitutional monarchy and the separation of the head of state function from the vulgarity of politics. The majority of people are split between indifference and a desire to quit the monarchy and have a homegrown head of state.

The way the Constitution is written it is a very, very difficult task to make a change and fraught with risk because once it's open, opportunistic politicians (I'm looking at you, Quebec and Alberta) could say while we're under the hood, what we want in addition is... (because Quebec thinks it's a country and Alberta thinks its Texas.) It is likeliest from those two provinces but the risk could come from anywhere. I don't think there's a passionate, emotional desire to get rid of the monarchy, it's just indifference, so balancing the risk of opening the Constitution with the idea of getting rid of the monarchy, the politicians opt to soldier on and leave everything as it is.

Trudeau has, I think, taken effective advantage of this. One thing that is interesting is the total neglect of the Crown's presence in Canada under the ten years of the Trudeau government. There's barely been an invitation for an official visit, which used to happen quite regularly. (Even Australia has already managed a visit from C3.) Putting on my tinhat, I think two things happened. First, Trudeau has an outsize ego that is huge even for a politician, so he probably preferred to position himself as star of the show (though he was always happy to enlarge his carbon footprint and collection of photographs by flying over to the UK to be with them at any opportunity.) Second, I bet when we're all dead and cabinet secrets are no longer under embargo, I wouldn't be surprised if the official view of the government was to ignore the monarchy with the expectation public opinion would shift increasingly toward change to an extent the risk of Constitutional crisis was sufficiently low. So let it wither and die.) Pure theory on my part, but Trudeau's willingness to go there while not having them here is obvious.

With regard to your question about Andrew and Fergie, they were always supporting cast. They're so discredited as individuals now they don't arouse much emotion reaction beyond a kind of contemptuous curiosity for him. She just seems like a circus act that never escaped the Oprah era of self-examination, so she's goofy and still playing at it, but inconsequential. Kind of a cross between Norma Desmond and a Labrador Retriever.

by Anonymousreply 125December 30, 2024 4:20 PM

2/2. Final point: I think William will accidentally kill the monarchy in the Commonwealth and in the UK. He's clawing back visibility and narrowing focus heavily. He's got his narrow range of interests, Kate has hers... but it's not like the old days when the Crown was everywhere. A big part of the success of monarchy is its link to the past, to tradition, to ceremony. They have, as a couple, a clear plan for what they will do and where they will be. It isn't terribly visible. I think William's making bad calls that are undermining support for it everywhere, albeit very, very gradually.

I don't think he's doing this on purpose. I think the death of his mother profoundly affected how he sees the world too and, between resentment and his interpretation of how she did royal work and how the system screwed her, he's made his plan. I think he will be surprised one day to find public opinion quietly tipped away from him and can't be clawed back. You can introduce informality and warmth into it - that's great - but when you make it all about you, which he seems to do with his emphasis on certain areas of work and his determination to drive his kids home from school - maybe at some point it says this is tired and ineffective. It's not a part time job. I don't think he's lazy, or she is, but I think they're trying to have it all on their terms and it might not work.

Obviously it has been a weird year with her illness. Obviously we know far less about how sick she was or how sick C3 is. But the whole thing seems steeped in suffering and what they can't do, less than what they can. Back in the day, yes, there was weirdness around Charles and Diana and to a lesser extent Fergie and Andrew. But at the top of it all, above it all, was the remote, unknown dutiful, sincere Queen, sturdy (and healthy.) There's nobody sturdy or healthy at the helm. I think the monarchy is the most fragile its ever been.

by Anonymousreply 126December 30, 2024 4:20 PM

[quote] I think William will accidentally kill the monarchy in the Commonwealth and in the UK.

Keep in mind though that it’s Harry, not William, who is the mentally ill one and who makes nothing but bad decisions. As long as Harry and Meghan are kept far away from the monarchy, it will do fine and continue to survive under William’s leadership.

by Anonymousreply 127December 30, 2024 5:18 PM

I wish I was sure, R127, I would prefer it (R125/R126) - I like the concept of head of state as above politics. But in this day and age, it is tricky to sustain and William seems to be making every decision on his own terms. A little less Ich, a little more Dein, if you ask me.

(And to be honest, that matchy, matchy at Christmas strikes me as Hallmarky and creepy. Kate really is middle class at heart.)

by Anonymousreply 128December 30, 2024 5:34 PM

Perfectly proving my point, R122,

Who is “we”, btw? Have you adopted the royal plural?

by Anonymousreply 129December 30, 2024 5:37 PM

[quote] Nah, nobody wants to see his scowling doughy face

You're talking about WILLIAM, right?

ROFL.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 130December 30, 2024 5:40 PM

[quote] Do you have a brain? Bring head of a church does not mean in any way that you rule by divine right.

Except he wasn’t made head of the Church by virtue of his learning, leadership, and accomplishments was he? No. He is head of the Church by birth. That kind of suggests some kind of divine right.

by Anonymousreply 131December 30, 2024 5:44 PM

Having Trump as President brings home the wisdom of separating the head of state from the government.

by Anonymousreply 132December 30, 2024 5:50 PM

[quote] Except he wasn’t made head of the Church by virtue of his learning, leadership, and accomplishments was he? No. He is head of the Church by birth. That kind of suggests some kind of divine right.

He is made head by act of parliament that does not cite divine right. So the suggestion is entirely in your mind.

by Anonymousreply 133December 30, 2024 6:08 PM

R131 No it doesn't. The Divine Right you're talking about hasn't existed for hundreds of years. The King or Queen is anointed by an Archbishop of the Church of England. The only reason that still continues is it's symbolic of the break with Rome - The King or Queen is anointed by one of their own rather than a representative of the Catholic Church. It's not evidence of a belief in the Divine Right of Kings.

You obviously have a limited grasp of British history. If the Divine Right existed among the public and government imagination we wouldn't have had such a zig-zagging line of succession over the years since it was done away with.

by Anonymousreply 134December 30, 2024 6:25 PM

I believe that Camilla is a grudge made manifest in the flesh.

by Anonymousreply 135December 30, 2024 6:38 PM

R128 is too funny. At least the Middletons earned their way …ahem.

by Anonymousreply 136December 30, 2024 6:48 PM

During the coronation, the monarch swears an oath to maintain and uphold the Protestant religion and the Church of England. This reflects the constitutional link between the monarchy and the Church, which is embedded in British law and tradition.

by Anonymousreply 137December 30, 2024 7:04 PM

The Church of England remains the established church in England, meaning it is officially recognized and has certain privileges, such as the ability to have bishops in the House of Lords.

by Anonymousreply 138December 30, 2024 7:06 PM

For dense R81.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 139December 30, 2024 7:08 PM

I have all crap PR types blocked. They must be gearing up for Harold's 4-day grilling at the court next week. POOR HAL DADDY KISS HAL

by Anonymousreply 140December 30, 2024 7:13 PM

[quote] Except he wasn’t made head of the Church by virtue of his learning, leadership, and accomplishments was he?

This is Alsace very frequently true of people who obtain the US presidency, but almost no one is fantasising that they rule by divine right

by Anonymousreply 141December 30, 2024 7:22 PM

[quote] This is also very frequently true of people who obtain the US presidency, but almost no one is fantasizing that they rule by divine right

If God does cause one of the presidential candidates to win, I believe that’s a different concept than the divine right of kings.

by Anonymousreply 142December 30, 2024 7:25 PM

Yes. That is exactly what was said in the original post.

by Anonymousreply 143December 30, 2024 7:54 PM

[quote] I have all crap PR types blocked. They must be gearing up for Harold's 4-day grilling at the court next week. POOR HAL DADDY KISS HAL

R140 is on a bender.

Have some coffee, Hun.

by Anonymousreply 144December 30, 2024 9:35 PM

R103, R107 etc.

"Antoinette is a given name, that is a diminutive feminine form of Antoine and Antonia (from Latin Antonius)"

My mother's name was Maria Antonia. She was known to everyone as Antonietta (The Italian form of Antoinette).

From Wikipedia.it - "È un diminutivo di Antonia, forma femminile di Antonio, nome che deriva dall'antico gentilizio e poi personale latino Antonius, di origine probabilmente etrusca e di significato ignoto[1][3]."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 145December 30, 2024 10:57 PM

Antoinette is a given name, that is a diminutive feminine form of Antoine and Antonia.

The given name in this case was Antonia. Her own name wasn’t a diminutive by your own statement. The French equivalent was Antoinette. Funny how your link fails to mention her…that’s because her name wasn’t a diminutive —it was a French transliteration.

by Anonymousreply 146December 30, 2024 11:06 PM

The son of artist Fra Filippo Lippi was named Filippino ('little Filippo') Lippi.

by Anonymousreply 147December 31, 2024 3:13 AM

What this thread lacks is an exhaustive discussion of diminutives.

by Anonymousreply 148December 31, 2024 3:15 AM

Marie Antoinette isn't the subject. Antoinette is a diminutive form of Antonia. The translation of the Italian wiki is "Antonietta...is a diminutive of Antonia."

Antonietta has more letters than Antonia. It can be a given name or a nickname. Either way, it's a diminutive form of a name that has more letters than the original form

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

by Anonymousreply 149December 31, 2024 3:45 AM

FFS NOBODY CARES! Start a new thread for you diminuitive obsessives.

by Anonymousreply 150December 31, 2024 3:58 AM

I never realized how close-set his eyes are.

by Anonymousreply 151December 31, 2024 4:22 AM

Whose eyes, R151?

by Anonymousreply 152December 31, 2024 6:11 AM

Harry and charles both have close set eyes

by Anonymousreply 153December 31, 2024 6:20 AM

R124 Thank you.

by Anonymousreply 154December 31, 2024 7:00 AM

I think that this family’s “Firm” works out of Buckingham Palace as a highly polished and extremely discreet escort service. And Camilla is the Madame and Charles its pimp.

by Anonymousreply 155December 31, 2024 7:31 AM

The next time you're wondering why you don't get laid, it's not just your age.... make space for Marie Antoinette.

by Anonymousreply 156December 31, 2024 12:08 PM

So Maria Antoinette was not very tall?

by Anonymousreply 157December 31, 2024 1:00 PM

I just spent the last 3 days on the coast in East Sussex. Guess who nobody was talking about?

by Anonymousreply 158December 31, 2024 3:19 PM

R158 Marie Antoinette?

by Anonymousreply 159January 2, 2025 3:56 AM

Perhaps they were referring to her only by dimunitives and so you didn't catch on.

by Anonymousreply 160January 2, 2025 4:08 AM

[quote]r24 Meeting hundreds of people is very hard work.

Not for narcissists who were raised to believe their power and riches were ordained by God.

They enjoy the bowing and scraping.

by Anonymousreply 161January 2, 2025 4:35 AM

Enjoyed reading your posts r125, r126 andr128.

lol, r148.

I could not see it more differently than you, r161.

[quote] Meeting hundreds of people is very hard work.

r24 is correct.

To acknowledge that doesn't mean the one can't note the reality that us human beings, so far, have not figured how to, and probably don't desire to, distribute wealth, status, position, and fame equally.

I wish we would and could. If that makes me a fire-eating Marxist, I'll cop to it.

And, of course, arguably, there is no family on Earth whose existence encompasses wealth, status, position, and fame more than the families of King Charles, Camilla and the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Yet, I marvel at the perception some have that what C3, Camilla, William and Kate do with regard to public duty isn't labor.

It most certainly is.

Mentally, emotionally, and educationally preparing for polished, documented, engaged, attentive public appearances call for engaging in that old 4 letter word: W.O.R.K.

And I write this as one who knows hard work. I've been paid to clean toilets at a bar, front-line service work and on to professional desk jobs.

True, I didn't have the staff that they have but then again, my every facial movement and word isn't documented when I'm out running my errands.

I watched a video of Kate at one of those Buckingham Palace Charity Garden Parties at which they must host, appear and speak to dozens of people. She stood there in high heels, head bowed to every person who approached her, who probably said the same thing to her as the previous one hundred people did.

But she smiled, spoke to each one, looked attentive and engaged, and I thought to myself, "Oh girl, you're pouring it on. And you accepted this life when you said yes to Prince William."

I wouldn't trade my life among the poor and obscure for their existence, no way, no how.

I'd take the financial wealth, though.

by Anonymousreply 162January 2, 2025 12:28 PM

I think of any of you were thrust tomorrow into the existence Charles III or Elizabeth II had, you’d probably want to slit your wrists.

You can question the utility of what they or any ceremonial head of state does, but it’s a very busy, stressful life of limited privacy.

by Anonymousreply 163January 2, 2025 2:41 PM

[quote] Princess Eugenie Skipped Royal Christmas as Show of Loyalty: Andrew and Sussexes Are ‘a Big Wedge’

Princess Eugenie skipped Princess Kate’s royal Christmas celebration, "Together At Christmas" carol service, as a show of loyalty toward her father Prince Andrew and the exiled Sussexes, according to an insider who exclusively tells In Touch the move has landed her in a tricky place with sister Beatrice, who made a last-minute change of plans to make sure she could attend the celebrations.

“Officially, Eugenie stayed behind to be with her mom and dad, but truth be told, she wasn't very welcome,” the source says of the 34-year-old princess.

Eugenie’s shamed father Prince Andrew is still persona non grata among the royal cadre, despite his daughters lobbying King Charles to thaw out their frozen relations. “The two princesses have spoken to their uncle, asking him to forgive Andrew and for the two brothers to mend fences,” a second source previously dished to In Touch about the situation.

Just over three years ago, the wayward prince brought horrible shame – and bad press – to The Firm after a scandal involving his alleged friendship with Jeffrey Epstein made headlines. In response to a lawsuit brought against the red-faced royal accusing him of abusing a teenager, Andrew settled in August 2021, paying his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, an estimated $12 million — despite still insisting he’s done no wrong.

“The queen and Charles were both shocked over the allegations against Andrew,” that source said. “And although the prince still insists he was not guilty, Charles and the queen stripped him of some of his honors, and he is no longer a working royal.”

The first source says Eugenie “believes that her dad's getting a raw deal,” and the other royals know it – “so it’s not like she’s really even trying to fit in at this point.”

The sisters’ efforts still haven’t paid off as Andrew remains completely iced out of royal life, but they have been making inroads with another one of their causes: getting their family to welcome Harry and Meghan back into the royal fold.

The Sussexes even recently bought a vacation home in Portugal near where Beatrice and her husband spend their summers. The relationship between Harry, 40, and his cousins hasn’t taken a hit, despite the red-headed prince and his wife, 43, walking away from their official duties and jetting off to live in North America.

“People are still very suspicious of her association with the Sussexes,” the insider continues, “the fact that she’s been so loyal towards them has put a big wedge between her and the rest of the family.”

“Beatrice on the other hand is making a big effort not to rock the boat and has stayed very neutral when it comes to Meghan and Harry. Eugenie and Beatrice have very different views on the Sussexes in particular, which has caused a bit of tension and put them in a tough spot.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 164January 3, 2025 11:16 AM

Beatrice is pregnant and there was a story that she got medical advice not to fly to Italy for Christmas with her husband's family so she stayed in the UK. Instead, she went to Sandringham, rather than Windsor, where her parents remained. Now either Andrew was smuggled in to Sandringham and never seen publicly or Beatrice made quite a choice.

by Anonymousreply 165January 3, 2025 3:30 PM

Fabulous update from that bastion of investigative journalism - Intouchweekly! You must be very chuffed at finding this scoop, R164!

Funny how the royal insiders quoted all speak in American idiom and vernacular and are quoted with American spelling. It’s almost as though Intouchweekly made it all up!

Intouchweekly has gotten their York princesses confused - it’s Eugenie who has the house in Portugal, not Beatrice. Never mind - they’re obviously interchangeable.

Intouchweekly has Bea and Euge joining forces to bring the Sussexes back into the royal fold but two paragraphs later their differing views on the Sussexes are causing tension between them.

There is no “Princess Kate” - never was, never will be.

by Anonymousreply 166January 3, 2025 4:08 PM

InTouch is a Sussex mouthpiece

by Anonymousreply 167January 3, 2025 6:10 PM

Anything pro-Harry is a "Sussex Mouthpiece," right R167?

You're going to be running out of media sources to accuse, because they're all starting to print favorable stories about Harry and Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 168January 3, 2025 6:15 PM

All of them? Sure, Jan. People and InTouch are well-known Sussex PR outlets

by Anonymousreply 169January 3, 2025 6:18 PM

Link, please. R168.

by Anonymousreply 170January 3, 2025 6:57 PM

R168 is the KGT - best not to feed it.

by Anonymousreply 171January 3, 2025 9:28 PM

R163 So very true. It sounds like a horrible life but I believe that they can bear it because I'm sure God knew what he was doing when He chose Them.

by Anonymousreply 172January 3, 2025 10:02 PM

I’m sure your stupidity is a burden in life, too, but I’m confident God knew what he was doing when he made you that way.

by Anonymousreply 173January 3, 2025 10:32 PM

Eugenie is smart enough to see that if the Sussexes remain a thing, then they will be the most mocked, instead of her and her sister. It’s like standing near a fat person to make yourself appear relatively better, like Beatrice would do.

by Anonymousreply 174January 4, 2025 12:20 AM

Has Rose Hanbury born William any children? Even if they are illegitimate, I feel Charles should acknowledge them in such addresses.

Has anyone asked him his feelings on this?

by Anonymousreply 175January 4, 2025 4:53 AM

Is he on the Delta 8? Why’s he so red in the eyes? Almost thought I was watching MediasTouch.

by Anonymousreply 176January 4, 2025 5:16 AM

R173

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 177January 4, 2025 5:20 AM

[quote] God knew what he was doing when He chose Them.

MARY.

by Anonymousreply 178January 4, 2025 5:36 AM

Still can’t quite manage to spell “Cholmondeley”, can you, R175?

by Anonymousreply 179January 4, 2025 6:41 AM

Still can't quite manage to find a new act, either.

by Anonymousreply 180January 4, 2025 2:15 PM

R168 Are you delusional? Check out the comments on Meghan’s new cooking show trailer (YouTube) for Netflix.

by Anonymousreply 181January 9, 2025 6:35 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 182January 12, 2025 6:45 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!