Queen Is Reportedly "Deeply Upset" with Harry's Latest Comments

Stay out of tunnels with ‘drunk’ French drivers, Harry.

As well she should. She's let the clerks and various other employees of the Monarchy run the show and ruin lives for decades. She should be ashamed.

ohhhh this old Queen again?!?

for real the monarchy is in its last gasp-however they have enough offshore funds and Nazi gold to last them generations.

stop nibbling off the dole with those wretched teeth get Prince George to start working at Tesco and everyone else as influencers. Kate Middleton doing a Smirnoff sponsored shot contest with DJ Khalid while Charlotte hawks SkinnyTea

Absolutely R2. She’s been quite content to let others do the dirty work.

Where are our Monarchists?

Why is this such a soap opera? Who cares about either side!

I strongly doubt she cares much, either way. Her position is more than consolidated and she has left a fabulous fortune to her descendants, made through centuries of tithes, piracy, regime change wars, slavery and the exploitation of the working classes. If people truly think that those at the top are worrying about what we little serfs believe, they're in for a nasty surprise. After all, the BRF are EXTREMELY well connected and utterly amoral - thus, I am sure that they have not only a plan B, but many other contingencies arranged in order to deal with every potential crisis imaginable.

Harry is never going to be king and thus, he has been allowed to do whatever he wants without having to face any consequences (which is how things have always been for him), and he needs to sell melodramatic sob stories in order to keep the money pouring in, as he cannot work in anything and has found a meal ticket in his wife's political aspirations. As for the rest of the royals, they couldn't give any less of a damn about anything as long as they keep living in luxury and looking down on the rest of humanity. In fact, most of the time they are the ones who plant stories in the media in order to keep themselves relevant and stir up a storm among their partidaries and detractors.

The rest is nothing more than conjecture made by stupid people who venerate an institution to which they will never belong, and sees them as little more than random objects.

Even if she wasn't upset, someone would say she was and the tabloids would print it.

R7 - if you have such irrational hatred for the Royal Family, why do you post a novel on a thread about the Queen? Why waste your time and ours?

"In Style" is a tabloid???

Get a fucking life OP

So it’s becoming quite obvious that whatever platform Harry is given, he will use it to air the Royal Family’s dirty laundry.

Good going, Red. You’re a vapid waste of space.

Harry should be required to remove his Gordonstoun alumni jacket before saying Prince Charles didn't try to be a better parent.

There is no dirty laundry, R12, in what Red is saying, except what his wife and he shit on and then blame on family members for financial gain and "clicks"

The duchess loves them clickseses.

They are low, self-absorbed fabulists, and she is an adventuress.

It's a shame that this cycle will likely be how Liz's final years plays out: Harry pushes buttons, Liz and/or the rest of the family back in Britain is upset, Harry (presumably) doesn't feel any better after pushing buttons, so repeat. And on and on and on it goes.

Adventuress, R14.

Is that what they’re calling manipulative grifters these days?

I’m more surprised that In Style is still a current publication. I don’t even see it in my dentist office anymore.

R15 Oh, and don't forget what worry that sex-trafficking son of hers must cause her! Perhaps this son causes her far more worry than her grandson, one would imagine!

[quote] There is no dirty laundry, [R12], in what Red is saying, except what his wife and he shit on and then blame on family members for financial gain and "clicks"

What a pathetic, droolingly regarded BRF stan you are. Do you masturbate onto a photo of the Cambridges every night before bed, then squat in the shower weeping uncontrollably?

Retarded^^^

She's a spry old gal, but do you think she's still strong enough to take Harry over her knee and give him a sound thrashing?

[quote]I strongly doubt she cares much, either way.

Yes, why would she care that her grandson publicly accused her of being a terrible mother to Charles and starting a cycle of suffering because of her total indifference toward the well-being of her children? You idiot.

Harry's a pathetic little whiner. Probably most of the planet has some issues with their parents, it's part of family life. Notice how he only started to make Charles his target when Charles wouldn't bankroll him?

R22 Well, she was a terrible mother.

In light of Philip’s death, is the Queen’s birthday celebration still on for June 12th?

If so, is Red planning to attend?

I think QE does care. This is a chink in the armor (no racial slur intended), showing one's ass.

I'm more touchy-feely than the average DLer. Also, I'm interested in people's unresolved childhood traumas, more than the normal DLer. But, somehow, I'm sick of Harry's complaints.

I'm still puzzled as to why / how Andrew was allowed to show his ass on that interview. Maybe QE was not anticipating those types of "revelations." Seems like Andrew really was a favorite and QE was completely out of touch with his Epstein ties & "secret" shit he (Andrew) was doing. Seems like she was giving Andrew the benefit of the doubt, way past what was prudent. Why? Because he was a favorite of QE.

I doubt she was a terrible mother. Two of her children are perfectly normal (Anne and Edward). I think Charles is sensitive and spoiled but I don’t think he is a bad person. If anything, she indulged her children.

Does she imagine she was a good mother to Charles? Has she seen The Crown?

IMO, QE seems like she would have been a cold mother. She seems like the type of person who can get closer to her dogs than her children.

Is anyone making money off these near daily "revelations"? I don't see how Harry can continue to monetize his complaining. Sooner rather than later, Oprah and Netflix or whoever will drop him.

He'll probably fuck off to a country in Africa like Uganda to shill ecotourism or some shit. There is no way any of this complaining is lucrative. He literally has nothing to say other than "poor me."

How exactly is it complaining when Harry talks about his life? That's a weird point of view on DL where posters bitch about their lives non-stop. If you've had trauma, what are you supposed to do? Pretend everything and everyone was A-OK so you don't bother anyone with the truth? Maybe Harry values being his genuine self more than he cares about the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Mary on DL.

Its finally hit the point for me that I hope he is mental, retarded, being manipulated by cults, or pussy possessed.

I can't bear the thought that he is just fundamentally evil.

I know evil exists. There are evil people.

Harry is doing what they do..

Sad..really sad...Those poor kids..

His facts have changed so often that he’s not believable, r32.

R32 - Hapless Harry can get his shit together, get therapy, take medication, do whatever he has to do to make a life for himself. He doesn't have to air EVERY fucking personal grievance against his family in front of the world. If you have problems with some members of your family, you hash it out - privately. It's time to move on so he doesn't make his own children's life all about HIM and his problems. He needs to grow up and stop blaming everyone else (family, the press) for all his shortcomings.

You do realize the difference with between Harry and the people on DL complaining about their lives, don't you? We're ANONYMOUS.

The gossip blind item from another thread that portrays MM as a velociraptor and H as her prey, and then chronicles all that she has gotten him to admit publicly that could be used against him in divorce proceedings, in addition to alienating him from his family and friends, almost makes one feel sad for him...

[quote]How exactly is it complaining when he talks about his life?

It’s because he made a big show of coming here to settle, and all he ever does is complain.

R32 - if Harry doesn't care about what people say about him, why does he read the comments, why does he sue newspapers, why does he call the American First Amendment "bonkers"???

[quote]If you've had trauma, what are you supposed to do?

Harry has never experienced trauma. The DSM-5 does not consider losing your mother at age 12 what they define as a major traumatic event that could genuinely cause PTSD.

He certainly has undergone major emotional and mental distress. But that is not the same thing as genuine trauma.

Why would I give a fuck?

r39, how does the book say having Di as your mom would categorize you?

You know way too much about these categories.

That’s what you get for having an heir and a spare.

[quote]I strongly doubt she cares much, either way.

On a personal level, she probably does care in the sense she likely tried to give Harry a wider berth than her sister had so he could have a happier life...and this how he repays her. As it's been stated before, Harry is not a moody teen - he's a middle aged man who appears to be having some sort of public meltdown. I think any family member that really loved you & had an investment in your happiness would be troubled by that.

Post #1,253,444 of an ongoing series of obsessive-compulsive Royal Family posts?

Oh happy fucking day.

Not for Harry...

My father committed suicide in front of me when I was 10 years-old. That impacted for better or worse, every aspect, ever major decision of my life from that point on.

I may have hosted a pity party or two for me, myself and I in the years that followed, but that has been the extent of it. I never used what happened as a means to gain attention or sympathy, and certainly never for profit.

I can count on the fingers of one hand how many people in my personal life know what happened, and have three fingers left over.

[quote]As well she should. She's let the clerks and various other employees of the Monarchy run the show and ruin lives for decades. She should be ashamed.

This is the part these idiots who live to hate those two always forget. We're not talking about a family of Disney characters who live in some enchanted castle. The BRF is a business and has maintained influence through ruthless means throughout its history. They have undoubtedly done some awful things.

Hate those two, I don't care, but if it's based in some ridiculous, G-rated, children's story you've created regarding the BRF, then you're an imbecile.

[quote]r22 her grandson publicly accused her of being a terrible mother

Didn't The Crown already do that? It's not like we don't already know. Must be harsher when it comes from your own family.

[quote]I doubt she was a terrible mother. Two of her children are perfectly normal (Anne and Edward).

Idiotic argument. No parent is the same to every single one of their children. People react differently too.

How many children have you raised royal 49?

Terrible mothers are uniformly terrible.

Harry's a narcissistic, crybaby little shit with a Buckingham Palace sized sense of entitlement. I'm now wondering if the Firm he claims to loathe hasn't been protecting him from himself for 20 years. He's obviously mentally ill. The marriage to the "actress" will self-destruct in the next year and then what's he going to do?

R9, I am merely giving my opinion. If you cannot take anyone challenging your personal points of view, maybe you shouldn't leave your pram - it's a harsh world out there for little children.

The BRF (as every other royal family) are not there for being nice and compassionate, and stating the truth doesn't mean that I have an irrational hatred for them. Still, being so emotionally invested in these people who don't give a flying fuck about you, is what's truly irrational.

Please, seek help and do grow up.

Oh, she takes the babe and leaves him and then we get Hunter Biden-esque pics.

I'm all for that.

Harry aside, it’s an interesting show. The boxing chick with the OCD - 😦

She shouldn’t be so upset. She should console herself with the thought that Harry’s kids will do the same thing to Harry and Meghan. When you become a parent, things become clearer. Of course, Archie is just a baby and they think they’ve got this parenting down pat.

Trust me when I tell you: Harry and Meghan will experience the “sharper than a serpent’s tooth”

[quote]I doubt she was a terrible mother. Two of her children are perfectly normal (Anne and Edward).

I doubt she was a mother at all.

I don't give a shit what the Queen or Harry feel. But people who are citing the Crown as evidence of something.....you do know that it's a TV show right? It's fiction inspired by true events. Even the creator admits he's made shit up for dramatic affect.

The royal family is dysfunctional like about 99.9% families on the planet. Of course Harry is milking this for the money because by ultra-celebrity standards he's poor. I think he's only worth about $40 million.

The Queen was very much a mother of her generation and her class. It doesn't mean she didn't care for her children but she was a distant mother. Boo hoo. My grandparents who were the same generation were also not very affectionate people. That's just how it was.

[quote]My father committed suicide in front of me when I was 10 years-old.

My God. I'm so sorry.

Who are the Meghan Markle stans on here? She's a run-of-the-mill unknown D list actress with no talent, average looks, aging out of her modest 'career' who married one guy to get acting jobs as opposed to yachting, had another boyfriend to launch her career as a 'foodie influencer' and finally the hapless Harry to get rich and famous. A gay icon she ain't. Average golddigger.

Sorry I have to laugh at the people who are like "I hate the royals" or "I hate Meghan and Harry" but then proceed to fill an entire thread about it. The more you talk about them the more they're going to be in the public eye.

R46, but with all due respect, you were allowed to grieve in private. You said people don't know, but the entire world knows what happened to Harry's mother and the world saw him walking behind her casket. Your situation is not the same as his in that you weren't essentially forced to have the world watch your pain.

"The Queen was very much a mother of her generation and her class."

Yes, then explain why the Queen Mum was a more affectionate mother, yet a generation BEFORE...

Thank you, R58. You learn to pick yourself up and do what needs to be done.

QEII doesn't care what's happening with Harry; she delegated that to Charles long ago. She continues living her life, enjoying riding her pony, having Sunday dinner with Wessexes, visiting with Andrew, etc. She's probably relieved Phillip is gone; he was openly living separately and had all that baggage with the mistress. Elizabeth did not look broken up at the funeral, nor did she have an extended mourning period. Everything the Palace tells us about a special picture in her purse or wearing a significant brooch is just PR.

Charles is the cause of the problem with Harry. Yes, William is doing fine. His wife is completely under control, receiving baubles and ribbons when his peccadillos surface. He officially blames Bashir for feeding his mother's paranoia and destroying his parent's relationship; he just walked off his Mother's death in the wilds of Balmoral and "got on with it."

But Harry? Why didn't Charles give him enough to shut the fuck up? Charles has too much dirty laundry, and Harry can much damage. And, the other brother would prefer to be crowned sooner rather than later.

Harry needs to start winery or an AirBnB or get a job.

R61 so Harry suffered more than William, did he? Bullshit. Harry the Malcontent started when the star of Deal or No Deal thought she was going to be the Queen Bee in the royal family and discovered she was one of a cast of thousands.

R64 Marie aka demented Markle stan.

Fingers crossed that Harry and Megs discover Scientology and disappear into its bowels.

They can invest in a Benches R Us franchise

R66, why are you so obsessed with that woman? And why do you think if some of us point it out, we're some fan? I don't see a thing about those two except on here. I've never watched interviews, but what I do notice is how obsessed you are with hating her and thinking she's a friggin witch or something that you even blame her for how an almost 40 yo man reacts. Like she cast a spell.

Maybe he's always been angry and resentful about his mother's death and now feels he can speak up. Everyone handles their own personal hell differently. Just because William handles it one way, doesn't mean his brother will. You seem to accept that Andrew and Edward are different people. One fucks teen girls and the other probably doesn't.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Harry comparing what happened to him and the Duche$$ of $u$$ex with what happened to Diana and Dodi Fayed is a bit of a stretch.

Ya'll are crazier than they are.

Carry on.

👑

sMEGStan R70 seems rabidly triggered by all the criticisms regarding the friggingly mentally unhinged JUST HARRY.

Let us entertain her more. hahahahahaha

Maybe so R73, or maybe we’re just bored.

Yikes, R74. Seriously. I'm actually sad for you.

Much respect, R63. I hope you have been able to find peace.

The Platinum Jubilee in 2022 will be the epitaph for QEII's reign and it will be pretty spectacular.

Harry looks a bit scary in the photo at R71. She is gonna take his kids and money and bounce.

It's very un-American to embarrass your family like this for money. We don't wash our dirty laundry in public.

"Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."

Re: the article at r71. That is quiiiite the stretch. So NOW, not only did the Men In The Grey Suits kill Diana, but they did it because Dodi is a POC?

How much more paranoid and crazy is he going to get?

She needs to get the fuck over it. One could argue if her courtiers truly cared, they wouldn't run to her everytime Harry says something.

They certainly showed restraint when her son was having sex with underage girls!!!

Clear why making corp speeches for $ did not work out. From another thread.

"Do you remember when Harry gave a speech about his mental health issues at an event organized by Goldman Sachs? One of the attendees, speaking anonymously, said it reminded him of a maudlin drunk sitting at the end of the bar, morosely telling everyone within earshot how everyone in his life had done him wrong."

R16, yes, just as when Queen Mary called Wallis Simpson "an adventuress."

You would think that Mrs. Betty Windsor would be more upset about the probability that she would be paying foreign property tax on Balmoral Castle.

I'm a great admirer of Queen Mary. I particularly envy her jewel acquisition skills.

'Harry should be required to remove his Gordonstoun alumni jacket before saying Prince Charles didn't try to be a better parent.'

Harry went to Eton not Gordonstoun, you spaz.

'if you have such irrational hatred for the Royal Family, why do you post a novel on a thread about the Queen? Why waste your time and ours?'

And why are YOU here writing thousands of words a day about why you hate Meghan Markle? No hatred for that family of extortionists, racists, slave owners and pedophiles is 'irrational'.

Harry, you lying motherfucking dumb shit douchebag, the paparazzi were not chasing Diana because Dodi Fayed wasn't white. The paparazzi were not right in what they did, but they were chasing Diana with or without Dodi because she was the most hunted woman in the world because she sold newspapers. No one discussed whether or not Dodi was white in 1997. They talked about Dodi because he was Muslim, but his skin color was not the reason.

And the paparazzi are not chasing you, Harry, because you married a "person of color." They are reporting about you because you're nothing but a trouble maker, a member of the world's most famous family, you and your wife are lying grifters and you're Diana's son. Other than that, no one give shit about you or your wife.

There is no correlation between Dodi or Markle's skin color and the respective relationships. And by the way, Egyptian's are not considered 'people of color,' at least not in the sense that blacks or Asians are--and they certainly weren't considered such in 1997. You're stretching and looking for an issue where there isn't one.

Which of the Harkles is more delusional, destructive and mentally ill? She is a bunny boiler and he is one for the books as well. His repeatedly asking Dax Sheppard to go drive dune buggies with him was beyond pathetic.

Harry has never been right in the head, thus no one wanted to marry him but a grifter. There are a lot of ugly stories about both him and his 1st wife that will shock many.

'They are low, self-absorbed fabulists, and she is an adventuress.'

And you are probably 90 years old, with your antiquated vocabulary.

Loony Meg

[quote] [R64] Marie aka demented Markle stan.

R67 - I didn't Meghan once in my post. My point is simply that Charles has never managed unhappy members of his family well.

With Diana, he could have stepped back and let her swan about like Jackie Kennedy. Sure, Di would still resent Camilla, but even the affair could have been finessed instead of throwing it in her face. Eventually, her looks would fade and so would her popularity. Do you think that 50-something Diana could compete with Will, Kate, and the wonder kids? Instead, he made a mess of the whole thing, got into a battle of wills with a person who had a lot of tea to spill.

During Diana's divorce, poor Charles explained he didn't have so much money because he was contributing a significant amount to a trust for Harry, given that William would inherit everything. Moreover, many assumed that Harry would get Highgrove.

If they took away meaningless honorary titles, they took away the money and house. Harry could have kept that with strings attached.

Did I mention that for the first time, William has expressed an interest in gardening?

Evidently R70 sMEGStan stays here 24/7, responding to every comment. She answered my comment in 5 minutes.

How pathetic her sad, lonely life must be. Fat, old, ugly cunt never goes out. hahahahaha

[quote] one would imagine!

[quote] almost makes one feel sad for him

Only in these idiotic Harry and Meghan threads do posters write "one" for third person pronouns instead of the more casual and natural second person "you." I bet these are the same people who think "The Crown" is highbrow, prestige tv.

Yes he just hated the whole "show" yet continued for years and now continues to want center stage and the spotlight with his various revelations.

[quote]Do you think that 50-something Diana could compete with Will, Kate, and the wonder kids?

Yes. You think she would have disappeared into the woodwork and stopped doing charity work, appearances, magazine covers? She'd still be considered a saint. She was already more popular than him. There's no reason to think that ever would have changed. Part of the reason Will, Kate and the Wonder Kids are as famous as they are is because Will grew up without a mother and now we get to watch him with a family of his own. Tabloids still mention 52 year old Jennifer Aniston's previous relationship with Brad Pitt because he left her for another woman eons ago. They would have still be talking about Diana getting screwed over by Charles for Camilla and to top it off she'd still be much younger than them both!

Harry should be ashamed of himself

"I think Harry is just trying to cash in on his mother. Specifically, his mother in the days after her death, when the British public seemed to go bonkers and compelled the BRF to reverse course. He is using her. He's not out here talking about real shit. He's out here trying to make a buck."

[quote]Harry went to Eton not Gordonstoun, you spaz.

Go back and read that again and try to pretend to have some minimum level of DLintelligence you fookin' loosah.

I'd think the grifting sex pest of a son and being manipulated by the corrupt Torys would be a more pressing concern for her r15.

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

The French were right.

[quote] You would think that Mrs. Betty Windsor would be more upset about the probability that she would be paying foreign property tax on Balmoral Castle.

Even if Scotland secedes from the rest of the United Kingdom, she would still be the Queen of Scotland.

[quote] I doubt she was a terrible mother. Two of her children are perfectly normal (Anne and Edward). I think Charles is sensitive and spoiled but I don’t think he is a bad person. If anything, she indulged her children.

I have multiple siblings; we all grew up in the same household, same mother, same father. When I talk with each of them, sometimes it does feel like Rashomon. Our experiences of the "same" thing are all described differently.

R62 The Queen Mum saw her daughters about an hour a day when they were children as was the custom of the era.

That's what Cousin Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham said. One *full* hour per day!

I hear the Queen is upset. Would she like to talk to me about it?

[quote] [R62] The Queen Mum saw her daughters about an hour a day when they were children as was the custom of the era.

No, that's not true.

That is indeed how often Queen Mary and George V saw their children, but their second son Bertie (later the Duke of York, and then later George VI) swore he would never do that with his own children because he felt he suffered from that treatment. (Like all of his siblings, he found his mother cold and his father terrifying, and both of them quite distant.)

He and his wife, the Queen Mother, were famous for being hands-on parents in an era when aristocrats and royals were not--they never wanted to be separated from their daughters, .

The Queen only shares her inner thoughts with her stuffed Corgis and her gin bottle.

r18 Prince Andrew has never been accused of sex trafficking.Be careful how you choose your words especially putting easily disproved malicious information on a public forum.

r24 None of her other three children would agree with that and Charles has not said she was a terrible mother.He has not used that term.

R107 The Queen Mum was not a "hands on" mother by any stretch. She was more active in her daughter's lives than the standards of the time but the Queen and Princess Margaret were largely raised by their nanny Marion Crawford. According to Crawford, Elizabeth and Margaret would spend an hour with their parents at breakfast than they usually saw them for a bit before bed. George VI often read them a bedtime story.

r61 If having the world watch your pain as you dramatically put it for emotive impact is a problem for Harry what on earth is he doing on a show with Oprah discussing all of his pain?? Little good will come of that.Now high quality private therapy and counselling were there is no monetary gain for the patient and no branding to very much build a career for the patient...well thats quite a different matter.

Nutso at R109 - are you threatening me, with - what exactly?

This is an anonymous board and we can say that Andrew is a participant in sex trafficking if we want. We are not worried about. you and your crazy, "SurvivingAngel".

The First Amendment is not " bonkers" - check it out!

r78 No I think her 100th birthday in 2026 is likely to be that although the platinum jubilee will be a strong second I am sure.

r113 No I am not threatening you .I am urging you towards accuracy .You can say you reckon he did that or that you think the chances are high that he did but you can just state it as a fact without challenge.Me challenging you is me using my freedom of speech.

I have never read anywhere or heard in the media anywhere that Andrew has been accused of sex trafficking. Pointing out the inaccurate nature of your post is perfectly reasonable.

your statement is about as accurate as me saying Dolly Parton is a convicted serial killer, bananas are pink and Jimmy Carter gave birth to triplets.All are untrue and all should be challenged.

Actually, we could care less.

Listen, nutso, if you have sex with a trafficked woman, you are guilty of participating in sex trafficking.

Understand it now, you apologist for Pedo Prince?

r57 How much is 40 million dollars in pounds?

r117 Your first point has not been proven and the second half of your first sentence is legally inaccurate. The crimes of organising sex trafficking and being a person who ends up having sex with a trafficked person are legally and morally distinct crimes , acts and offences.

I am no fan of Prince Andrew but i am a fan of accuracy and not stating opinion as a factual claim.

R117 -- Well, said.

We were having a civil discussion with posters airing different viewpoints. A few did not agree with my points; I didn't get upset about it.

But you fly in your heavenly wings, trumpet loudly and threaten a poster in an effort to shot all discussion.

Threatened much?

R118 I think it would be 20 million pounds

I love that word "adventuress." It's so Becky Sharp.

r120 And I was giving my viewpoint?? So you are contradicting yourself? I extol the value of being accurate and measured. Even the worst publicly known accusations against Prince Andrew have not claimed he has been accused of sex trafficking which is a specific offence distincly different from the known accusation of having sex with someone knowingly who was trafficked.

Making up facts is NOT the same as having a different viewpoint and challenging an inaccurate careless statement is not the same as making a threat.

People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts .Bit trumpian Kelly anne Conway to suggest otherwise.

r121 Thank you .I would like that kind of money but in terms of the celebrity world they wish to be part of that is well down the pecking order.

R121: Closer to $30,000,000: 28,283,200.00 pounds sterling presently at the London exchange rate.

Can any of you imagine going on TV ( or whatever the hell we call it theses days) to bitch about your parents? If you were sexually/physically abused...maybe. But to whine about whatever these privileged fools whine about? Blows my mind.

No, R126, and his grandfather JUST died too. They are sociopathic.

It is mind-blowing R126. They flee a posh lifestyle in the UK to live here as millionaires. Then they go on tv to complain to a billionaire.

All during a pandemic when people have lost jobs and are fighting to keep their homes. And then they expect sympathy???

All this nonsense about The Queen caring about any of this crap. Have any of you known an 90+ people? They are so beyond our bullshit.

Well she's at least complicit in the death of Harry's mother, so who the fuck cares?

(Apart from the racist geriatric crown-worshipping poofs of DL)

Harry is willfully lying here, or a stupid, gullible, easily manipulated idiot.

I’m leaning towards the latter.

She is not complicit in Diana’s death. Diana was complicit in her death. Dodi Fayad was complicit in Diana’s death. The drunk driver was complicit in Diana’s death.

[quote]She is not complicit in Diana’s death.

As the head of the royal family she's absolutely complicit. Too bad if that ruffles your delicate Tory sensibilities.

Who was Prince Philip’s mistress?

She didn’t put Diana in that car, r133. That was Diana’s decision.

You can fuck off with your comments about my “sensibilities”. You don’t know me, how I live, or what I like.

[quote]Who was Prince Philip’s mistress?

Which one? What time frame?

At some point someone's going to say the quiet part out loud:

The people of the US who clamored for pics of Diana (and created the market that caused the paparazzi frenzy) are complicit in her death and poor Harry's miserable, mental life.

If Her Majesty is indeed "deeply upset," this is coded language for anyone who follows TRF. It means he is never going to be welcomed back home or resume his former status in the family or the nation. If the reports are true, he's not going to be killed but he's now dead meat at home. Thing's have gotten so bad they can't be repaired.

[quote]The people of the US who clamored for pics of Diana (and created the market that caused the paparazzi frenzy) are complicit in her death and poor Harry's miserable, mental life.

Yeahhhh, you're not going to put that one on the US.

[Quote]How much more paranoid and crazy is he going to get?

Considering his circumstances, the sky's the limit. He is cut off and isolated from normalizing forces and countervailing research or views about mental health from actual professionals. Harry doesn't seem remotely capable, let alone intellectually curious enough to research mental health issues relying instead on "literature" given to him by self-appointed mental health professionals like his wife.

Isolation, whether it's self-imposed or if another is its architect, is a hallmark of paranoia. The closed feedback loop keeps reinforcing the opinion that the paranoia is justified and correct. His former friends, his former surroundings, the staff hired by the Queen and Charles to protect Harry from himself or at least protect Harry's image are now gone. The staff also acted as gatekeepers that restricted access of users and grifters to all members of the BRF. Now Harry has to rely on his wife for all these functions. And of course who in L.A. doesn't have Harry's best interest at heart?

[quote] The people of the US who clamored for pics of Diana (and created the market that caused the paparazzi frenzy) are complicit in her death and poor Harry's miserable, mental life.

People in the U.S. were content with official photos of Diana and photos of her dressed up at social occasions. It’s the British people who paid to see photos of her coming out of somewhere in gym clothes or looking distressed..

Charles presumably didn’t pamper Harry as much as Diana did, so that could be cause for resentment. Has Harry stated yet how exactly Charles made him suffer? It’s bound to be a type of suffering that only the most privileged people in the lap of luxury experience..

This is being reported elsewhere than just In style--it's in the In dependent and the Daily beast and Page Six.

Guess Harry's really hurt his elderly grandma's feelings.

As mentioned above "deeply upset" coming from HM and Charles is coded language and *if true*, Harry should realize he's gone beyond the pale and is in deep shit. As in Dead Meat. Persona Non Grata.

As someone who is not a fan of their parents, I could see throwing your dad under the bus. However, I would never say anything against my grandparents. The Queen probably served a greater role in Harry's life because he lost he mother at such a young age. Didn't he come over to Windsor all the time from Eaton to hang with her because he was unhappy there. She did that cute skit with him and the Obama's for Invictus.

Harry should just think back to happier times when Diana threw herself down the stairs in an attempt to abort William. See, Harry, she really does love you best. They say that Charles and Diana were in a really happy place for a short time around the birth of Harry. Or was it William.

It could come out that Harry is the sex pest. It was alluded in a recent BG that Meghan knows that the family went back and cleaned up the mess with all the hookers Harry beat up. If she spills that it would be big trouble for Harry and the Royals. The Epstein girl was 17.5, which is legal in the UK and she was a whore, darlin' with agency. She wasn't a trafficked child. They are both bad, but extreme frightening brutality of sex workers if worse, I think.

[Quote]They say that Charles and Diana were in a really happy place for a short time around the birth of Harry. Or was it William.

William probably. In Tina Brown's bio of Diana, she stated that the princess thought Harry was something of a miracle baby given the state if the Wales' relations at the time.

IMO Harry & Meghan's lives won't be more settled and happy, and their reputations restored until the Queen dies. There's too much adoration for her and too little sympathy for anyone in the family who would dare not want to live a life of misery because of dedication to her. Some people fail to understand she's just a person who happened to born into a particular family. She's not a deity as some seem to think she is. She's basically a fancy human bauble on the shiny necklace around the UK's neck.

The Queen doesn't leak how she feels. The headline quoting yet more royal experts and insiders is nothing more than a good guess.

Like, Duh, as you lot would say.

And the end of the Windsors has been predicted with every generation. Their polls are being pushed up by the Sussex attacks. Young people age, and when they do, tend to become more conservative.

It's a very good guess that Harry's personal attacks are being taken personally. It's also likely that unlike the public, the BRF have known for most of his life that Harry was a train wreck waiting to happen. And now it has.

So far, thanks to the Queen restraining them from feeding the whingeing brat, the BRF has handled this brilliantly.

Time passeth. The monarchy will move on, always out of reach, going about its business while Harry and Meghan still try to pretend they matter. Harry and Meghan will continue to court notoriety through their connection to an entity they are no longer part of. Eventually, the public, like the BRF, will stop responding and the Suusex efforts will become more and more extreme, until they immolate themselves on their stupid obsession.

They can't move on. Royalty is all they have to market.

Which, in itself, doesn't exactly point to the imminent demise of the institution. Quite the contrary.

Women will be fighting to hook Prince George just the way they did William.

And by then, Harry will be, if he's still alive, about as relevant as his Uncle Andrew.

And if Charles has the brains and balls to step aside for William, the monarchy will do even better.

As much as people like to pretend The Queen is devastated by anything Harry does, they'd be wise to read up on her own childrens' actions over the years.

At least he isn't telling a married woman he wants to be reincarnated as her tampon!

R251 You have a strange sense of priorities.

Harry and Meghan have been personally attacking the institution itself and blaming the entire family for all his problems, and using sleazy tv personalities to try to blackmail the institution into giving them whatever they want.

The "at least" should be on the other royal foot.

At least Charles was only making himself look silly.

Harry had the balls to get out. He knew that being on the Royal dole makes you a prisoner with little control over your own life, and he didn't want that. Anyone who blames him for that is a fool.

I don't blame him but I'm not here like the stans to praise him, either, R153. He's mentally ill and could have left quietly for the "privacy" he said he wanted.

He didn't and has spent the time since he left trashing his family. That seldom ends well.

[quote] He's mentally ill

You sound like a fool. You don't even know the man. You don't know one damn thing about his mental condition.

Of course HM is upset with the constant media attention given to her mentally ill grandson who seeks to undermine her family.

R155 Er, didn’t he just debut a TV series about it?

r155, considering Harry is making a career of talking about being mentally ill, it’s hard to avoid knowing about it.

The article makes it much more implausible that the Sussex's attempts to seem close will be believed "We zoom with the Queen all the time!" etc.

Addiction is a mental illness...

Why do you insurance companies(who hate to pay for anything) pay for de-tox & rehab.??

Why are Suboxone scripts paid for by insurance Co...

I Know, I know you could say its so you can look like Matt. Perry & do that superb new dance called the Suboxone Shuffle..but its to treat a MI..Drug addition.

[quote] considering Harry is making a career of talking about being mentally ill

He has never claimed he was mentally ill. He simply said that one reason they left was to protect their mental health. God knows, being around that bunch of Royals long enough will drive most people crazy. I think he'd be the first to say he has some long standing emotional trauma, but that certainly doesn't make him mentally ill. Most everyone you come into contact with these days has some sort of emotional trauma.

^^ how many times has he talked about getting help? E ven now.

[QUOTE] means he is never going to be welcomed back home or resume his former status in the family or the nation

That would be his idea of a nightmare, you moron. He doesn't ever intend to go back to hanging around Kensington playing second fiddle to William's family.

He WILL attend the Queen's funeral and Charles' coronation with Meghan, so you can look forward to that.

He is a terrible advertisment for mental health inteventions - YEARS of treatments by GPs, therapists and alternative practitioners and he keeps getting WORSE by any metric. Shut up Hazbean.

The only charge made against Prince Andrew is having sex with Virginia Giuffre when she was 17. That's the age of consent in the UK so he couldn't even be extradited from the UK for what the US would consider statutory rape - sorry Matt Gaetz.

One thing the uber-feminists are overlooking with Epstein is most of the girls he associated with had already been hooking before meeting him despite their young age. Watch the Netflix documentary. They interview several of the - now - women.

Borderline's rare in men but I'm thinking Harry's a borderline like Diana: running burning hot and ice-cold on people in his entourage - he has now cut off and alienated all his family and friends in the UK - just like Diana did. And he is suddenly enthralled by people who indulge him: Meghan, fake psychotherapists, Oprah, like Diana did with her astrologers and 'clairvoyants'. Harry will turn on Meghan, etc. soon and then he'll be totally isolated.

R153, he didn’t have the balls to get out. His wife did. If he hadn’t met her, he’d still be playing polo and partying.

I’ll give her credit: she sure shook his butt loose.

I seem to remember Charles participating in a revealing interview 20 to 25 years ago. I think it was in response to Diana's interviews. He criticized his parents' upbringing of him. So, he can't be judgmental about Harry doing the same.

Philip Larkin wrote, "They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do." Charles wasn't a perfect parent. But neither was Diana, even though Harry is giving her a free pass.

r161 He's got out but can't stop talking about them , clings to titles and being royal adjacent and doesn't voluntarily take himself out of the line of succession. All options and choices open to him yet he won't despite the claim being connected to the royal system damages his mental health. He can't move on. What else contradicts your claim is the half in half out arrangement he asked for and not totally leaving the royal family to protect his mental health. They do seem to want us to forget they originally asked for half in half out. He would not keep talking about the royal family in public or have some expectation of royal family finances and titles if he was truly moving on and protecting his mental health.

r168 You got your timeline and narrative all wrong. For a start Charles interview was 1994 Diana's 1995. If you can't get basic facts right then you are definitely overpaid !

[quote] He's mentally ill

[quote] You sound like a fool. You don't even know the man. You don't know one damn thing about his mental condition.

He has REPEATEDLY STATED PUBLICLY he suffers from mental illness.

WTF is wrong with you???

Harry's repeated admissions of his mental health struggles:

All Harry has to sell is his connection to the Royal family and of course he has to trash them to get the sympathy nobody would normally give a spoiled brat pushing 40 with a massive sense of entitlement and his golddigger frau.

Harry keeps melodramatically revising his past in order to garner sympathy.

Despite claiming both to Oprah and to Dax Shepherd that he never had the chance to be taken out on a bicycle by his father when growing up, there are photos and photos and photos (many at the link) of Charles doing exactly that: bicycling with Harry, even pulling him in a wagon around in a bicycle.

Harry can't stop lying. Also typical of personality disorders.

The original Oprah interview, O1 I'll call it, Harry was very angry and appalled when he talked about being financially cut off by his father. This is the crux of all of this. It's to market himself under the guise of "mental health" while merely selling family secrets of his deeply private family, and revenge for being cut off.

He is off the reservation.

He is named as an exec producer (LOL) on O1 and the Apple series, so I imagine it is lucrative. That said, with every round of this, fewer are going to be interested in working or socializing with the Narkles. Hope it will have been worth it. I do think they thought there would be an outpouring of public sentiment and support, like his mother, which speaks to their narcissism and shared delusions.

[quote]That’s what you get for having an heir and a spare.

They probably should have thought of this, gritted their teeth, and had a third child, so there wouldn't be just one chosen one and one pointless one. With a third child, there would be two non-throneward-bound kids to relate to each other and figure life out together.

r173, it is his connection to his non-royal mother that gives him importance.

R179 he's exploiting that connection shamelessly to make money. Diana used to ignore him - she was obsessed with William who looked just like her. Harry was an ugly ginger.

Just the opposite r180, she knew that Wills would be taken care of for the rest of his life. Harry was the one SHE protected.

She was often visibly exasperated with Harry in public, complained that he was always getting into fights and she relied heavily on William for emotional support.

R123 How stupid are you? IF YOU FUCK A WOMAN WHO IS A VICTIM OF SEX TRAFFICKING THEN YOU ARE GUILTY OF CRIMES RELATED TO SEX TRAFFICKING.

You silly sod - there is photographic evidence of an intimate relationship between the victim who has SWORN UNDER OATH that she was sex trafficked on multiple occasions to Pedo Prince.

Just the facts, nutso, just the facts.

R151 sez "You don't know one damn thing about his mental condition."

Judging both by his own words and the comments subsequent to your's here, you appear to know even less than that.

That was not the law more than a decade ago, r183, nor is it the law everywhere.

R185. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Andrew fucked a victim of sex trafficking in Florida. FLO REE DA!! AS IN A STATE IN THE US. Pedo Prince broke US law.

Who gives a fuck about UK and EU's backwards views towards children and sex. In France, pedos like Roman Polanski can roam around, give sedatives to 13 year olds and sodomize them. Not in the US.

Nutso, you are the most vociferous advocate for the Pedo Prince. Why is that??

No, he reportedly had sex with her in NYC, London, and a Caribbean island. She was 17, which is the age of consent in London and New York.

I am not defending Andrew in any way. He is sleazy and a middle aged man screwing a 17 year old, whether or not she is trafficked, is morally wrong. But you can’t change facts.

PS. I have never discussed Andrew, let alone defended him , you fucking moron.

At the time Andrew was using Epstein's house as a crash pad, Epstein was already a convicted sex offender (convicted & served 13 months in prison). This was a big problem and it was something that Andrew admitted to doing. Why is a prince, with all his resources, sleeping over at Epstein's house - Andrew said it was "a convenient place."

I suspect he was getting money from Epstein.

BTW, Einstein @r286, the Florida statute was first introduced years after Andrew had sex with Giuffre, by her account. You may not be aware of this, but one cannot face charges under a statute retroactively.

[quote] Why is a prince, with all his resources, sleeping over at Epstein's house - Andrew said it was "a convenient place."

No mystery there. Because it is the largest mansion in Manhattan, it was done up all posh, it's centrally located, and it was offered for free. And its privacy meant Andrew would not have to worry about gawking tourists asking for his autograph.

Fergie borrowed money from Epstein for debts, this has all been covered on Andrew threads, pls ignore the Sunshine Sucks poster who is trolling.

R191. Yes, a stay with Epstein was far more "comfortable" , with his bevy of underage sex trafficked girls residing with him, than a stay at the Four Seasons, the WA, or the Plaza - all equal in luxury to anything Epstein could offer - sans the underage trafficked girls.

[quote]I have never read anywhere or heard in the media anywhere that Andrew has been accused of sex trafficking. Pointing out the inaccurate nature of your post is perfectly reasonable.

He's been accused of having sex with girls who have been trafficked. I don't understand why you're freaking out.

Another dolt at R190. Sex trafficking is a FEDERAL CRIME. We don't give a shit about "Florida statutes". What Pedo Prince did is illegal according to federal law WHICH SUPERCEDES STATE LAWS.

FEDERAL CRIME and do the time.

Aslo, dolt R190, surely you aware that the FBI really, really wants to have a chat with Pedo Prince. Not the Florida State Police, not the Miami police department. THE FEDS. Cause it was a federal crime.

R196 you're not a gay man - what are you doing on here? Go back to Lipstick Alley.

R197. Oh, and you are a hot masc top lol. Go fuck yourself you sad store bottom.

R198 you're a sexually frustrated obese middle-aged black woman, n'est-ce pas?

Re Epstein, from what I understand he, like Weinstein, was a popular social figure, knew all the celebrities, was active in charity work which brought him into contact with people like Clinton.

It may have been a federal crime r196, but it wasn't pedophilia (and the Feds may want to talk to Andrew but they can't think he's committed much of a crime if they're not seeking his extradition). Also, from what Andrew knew, the young woman (who was over the age of consent) was interested in him and hence the sex was consensual. She wasn't and it wasn't, but he is a prince and at the time was relatively handsome and probably had women throwing themselves all over him, so why wouldn't he believe she like him? In the infamous photo of the two of them together with Gizzle, she is smiling and has her arm around him.

Andrew was the best looking royal. He has aged badly but was still decent looking when he was hanging around with Epstein - certainly better looking than Epstein, Trump, Bill Gates, etc. He would have been the pick of the litter for those girls.

R198: Were you a gay man, you'd know it's "shop bottom" not "store bottom."

Piss off, Narkle tool.

[quote] He [Andrew] would have been the pick of the litter for those girls.

If Epstein really was trafficking girls, then I don't think they would have been thrilled to fuck any of these fat, wrinkled scumbags.

I might be confused, please correct me if I am.

Epstein first got popped in Fla. ,when the girl that they tried to lure w. the free phone crap told her mom & POPO.

Fla. POPO nailed her right away.

Now, if this girl could tell someone & not be enslaved how did Virginia Giuffre get enslaved?

Was she a little girl when she was enslaved, so couldn't escape?

Was her family held hostage so she wouldn't escape?

Seem to remember photos of her opening the door at Epstein's NY home, smiling etc.

If she was a sex slave couldn't she have run out that door screaming for help?

Didn't see shackles & chains on her leg to keep her in the house.

Not sure how & why she couldn't get away, if she wanted to.

'Nutso, you are the most vociferous advocate for the Pedo Prince. Why is that??'

The poster you're talking about - Surviving Angel - IS a pedophile and also the leader of the racist Klan Grannies. He will defend other pedos like Andrew and Epstein to the death.

[quote]The Queen was very much a mother of her generation and her class. It doesn't mean she didn't care for her children but she was a distant mother. Boo hoo. My grandparents who were the same generation were also not very affectionate people. That's just how it was.

It's weird how a lot of people don't seem to take this into account. People from the Greatest Generation/WW II Generation were not touchy-feely parents. They were often pretty distant, and their lives didn't revolve around their kids like later generations of parents. That's just how it was. The Queen was actually pretty typical of her generation.

Take it to another thread, R204. Stop derailing this one.

R204 watch the Netflix documentary on Epstein. I had previously thought the girls were prisoners or something. Epstein sexually harassed some women/girls who weren't interested but most of the girls were teen hustlers.

Go read that law, r195 r196. Andrew could not be charged with anything at the time under the federal law.

You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the law you suggest be applied. Perhaps you should stick to things you actually understand, although based on your frau posts here, that’s probably an exceptionally short list.

Giuffre used to flit between her mother’s home and Epstein’s. I do believe she was abused by Epstein, but she was free to leave, physically, at anytime. Epstein’s hold on her was psychological n

Not an Andrew thread, go start one.

This thread is not about Andrew and Epstein; it is about the Queen and Harry.

Blocked yet another account of the Medusa stan. Always screeching about "PEDO ANDREW!!! " as if that in anyway changes what a repulsive cunt the " I wanna be chased by the paparazzi and die in a car crash like the beloved Diana but I am unattractive and old and boring and no one gives a fuck about what I am doing" is.

How long is Harry going to do the tales of woe about his family and how horribly they mistreated him? He can't dine out on that forever, he's going to need a new angle to keep the public interested in him.

208. Thanks, good to know there is some documentation re: this.

As a former hustler, I strongly smelt some BS. in all this victim, victim, victim!

Too many really happy faces, no bruises, no eyes filled w. fear, no cuff marks on wrists or ankles.

R214-It is just trauma porn and people are really tired of all celebs inflicting this on the public. We have all had enough trauma of our own to deal with, especially the these last 5 years, and this is why celebrities are less popular than ever. Another issue with these two is that they have lost all credibility b/c they are pathological liars. We suffer with trauma and so many can not afford even competent mental health. I do my know how many more of these he is planning on doing , but on my Twitter feed they are being dragged mercilessly.

@R216- I do not know how many , sorry for the typo.

R216- ETA - That includes OW as well. She has lost any respect she ever had. I was really surprised at how negative people are about her involvement with this.

The only thing Queen Elizabeth II is upset about is the fact that after 80 years, she’s had to take matters into her own hands now that her big-dicked consort is dead.

Oprah has really tarnished her reputation with a lot of people because of this.

Before this Harry shit I had not heard of Oprah in years - since before Obama was elected.

It’s almost like they’re all making fun of H, like, let’s see what else we can make/get him to do...

The great/WWII generation might not have been good parents but they were wonderful grandparents.

Lady C says the BRF are seeing Harry as an enemy and they want him to suspend his titles. One reason is so MM can't use the Duchess title in perpetuity after she divorces him.

If the BRF is going to suspend his titles, now is the time. Oprah interview 1.0, the BRF was nuked and were unprepared. Americans love entertainment and feeling outraged about things until they forget about them in the next weeks news cycle. Harry's story is old news. If they suspend the titles, nobody will care. Do it before Diana 2.0 gets here and the Susses get some positive coverage.

HAHA r224. Sort of like Lady C’s title (and I post that as a fan)

Lady C is very clear that the BRF wants Harry to agree to the suspension of his titles. The Family doesn't want to go through the formalities which would create more drama and embarrassment. They want Harry to willingly let go.

The S's will only consent with a hefty payout, but this may be the only opportunity for the RF to truly stymie their activities and what they may or may not say, happily muzzling Harry since he believes the 1st Amendment is bonkers and such. He'd be blindsided by his own ignorance and may not even yet connect the dots.

If its true they made secret recordings of the royal family and aired them I think the vast majority of British people would support stripping them of their titles.

Exactly r222. It's so obvious that they're exploiting and manipulating Harry. Just as his late mother, may have initially wanted to "tell her story" to Martin Bashir, when the people helping you to tell your story are solely interested in using you for a good "scoop" and care nothing about your personal needs, then they are not giving you the right advice and it will only make things worse for you in the long run.

There are also diplomatic/political dimensions to this. When Charles is the head of state of the UK, are Oprah, Apple, Netflix, etc. going to carry on encouraging Harry to trash his father on their platforms? That could be damaging for US-UK relations. Certainly the British people won't be very happy.

R228 a payout to stop the stories from Montecito would be money wasted.

I doubt that whatever was expected of the Harkles (silence) will be forthcoming once the RF’s check clears because they’ll have the money and after that his family will have zero influence on them. Until they need more money, I suppose.

[quote]Lady C is very clear that the BRF wants Harry to agree to the suspension of his titles. The Family doesn't want to go through the formalities which would create more drama and embarrassment. They want Harry to willingly let go.

Hmm, I always assumed they'd never take his title because they know he's a fragile person, but if they want Smegs to lose the Duchess title when she (inevitably) divorces Harry, that makes sense. Further, the Harkles are likely looking for a big payout from Chuck, but the more Harry blathers on, what else does he have to sell really? Plus, he'll increasingly become toxic as people will realize he's a mentally ill guy, totally out of his depth, being manipulated by others.

Tactics - Harry talks about them, how bizarre! but the Palace uses them...

That article is a bit bonkers r233. William was in Scotland for his new role as Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Of course he's going to talk about Scotland warmly, it's nothing to do with Harry.

The article clearly says he could have done his duty there without adding in all the descriptions of a lovely childhood that was opposite from the picture Harry has just painted of those poor boys' wretched upbringing.

You must not have read the article or missed the point. It was a subtle one. Maybe read it again after coffee.

As for Harry's bullshit in that interview about wanting out of the royal family from his early 20s, he could easily have taken a low-key role or no role at all if he wanted. He could have followed a path like his cousins, Anne and Andrew's kids. They have their own lives and their own families and are able to pursue their own interests. No one forced him into doing something he didn't want to do. For a start, he could have had a much smaller wedding.

"They" also didn't do anything to his mum. She had a marriage that didn't work out, just like many marriages don't work out.

Notice how his claims of not wanting to be part of the royal family and do "this job" only arose when it was clear he was prevented from monetising his royal connections and his dad stopped throwing money at him? Now he's reduced to infantile threats. Even though he's fully responsible for the path he's now chosen, I'm pretty sure he's being influenced by others to say a lot of the crap he's saying.

Meant that for R234, not you, R235. You got the point.

QEII has more grace and style to be upset. She's not a gay

The article is some nonsense from New Zealand r235, quite clueless.

In a 1543 word speech, 41 were about childhood memories and a mention of his father. Considering that it's well known that he spent a lot of time at Balmoral as a child, there don't need to be any ulterior motives to his making a very brief mention of his memories of Scotland. He also mentioned his memories of his grandfather in Scotland too - which is entirely reasonable right now, unless you think that's about Harry too.

[quote] there don't need to be any ulterior motives

or do there?

I wonder if all or most of Harry's behavior is bc he is truly that jealous of William. We know he is jealous, of course, but is that really 99% of his motivation for all of this? It is so difficult to wrap your mind around allowing that to ruin your life and happiness, especially given the astounding privileged life he has had. Could he also really be that in love with/ jealous that William has Catherine? I am so addicted to this drama! LoL.

R240, he put out a counter narrative. Clearly you do not agree, which is fine but it does not make the author or those who agree with the point "clueless."

I'll never stop trashing them.

This is funny and the language parallels are interesting.

I think Harry is pathologically jealous of William and George. As his mother was of Charles and Camilla.

I think Meg is terrified re: the results of the bullying investigation.

R245- Yes, how many times has Harry brought that up? She must have been criminally abusive, such as the hot tea incident. If it is true that she is sadistic enough to super glue a fellow students eyelids shut, ffs, can you imagine what she was capable of after marrying a Prince and getting all of that power? I think she at least pinched Charlotte as well. She is fucking insanely sadistic , imo.

[quote]As for Harry's bullshit in that interview about wanting out of the royal family from his early 20s, he could easily have taken a low-key role or no role at all if he wanted. He could have followed a path like his cousins, Anne and Andrew's kids.

He's not one of Anne or Andrew's children.

They have never been as popular as Charles' children.

Furthermore, when Harry was in his early 20s, Will wasn't even married yet so he was still close in the line of succession. They most certainly wouldn't have allowed him to run off and do what he wanted or take too much of a backseat. He was very much still "the spare."

Bash the guy all you want but he didn't completely pull that out of his arse.

R247, neither Harry nor William were even performing that many official appointments in their 20s. Harry could have carved out his life as he wished. Harry's 20s were fantastic, he had an amazing time - with as much privacy as he wanted. I was watching an interview with William the other day when he talked about how it had taken him a while to fully take on royal appointments and his grandmother understood because she knows he's a family man who wanted to spend some time with his kids before he fully threw himself into a life of engagements. It was after George and Charlotte were born that William took up his duties full time. If Harry really wanted less of an engaged life, he could easily have negotiated one - the royal family would prefer that to the situation we have now.

Harry is just throwing around generalised accusations and grievances and because he's talking to Americans who never followed him that closely and don't really understand what the royal family does. He can come out with crap like "my father and brother are trapped" to Americans because they don't understand as a British person does what complete cack that is.

For some reason People sends me email updates. Today they sent me one with the headline "Harry said Meghan cried and cried before the Oprah interview". This is news. For fuck's sake, their publicists exhaust themselves inventing 'news'. They'll be announcing what her daily bowel movements are like next.

We already heard about those, R249, on their safari.

[quote]They'll be announcing what her daily bowel movements are like next.

Breaking: Someone had corn last night! Omid Scobie has been examining this latest release closely from Casa Harkle and has all the latest!

R251 Carol Channing lives on through Markle's digestive tract!!

[quote]Harry's 20s were fantastic, he had an amazing time

Running drunk and naked around marbled Las Vegas hotel suites, if I recall correctly, chasing hos.

^a cry for help

what's wrong with hos? the rf is full of them.

Any lawyers able to comment?

R255 it's a shame Harry never went yachting. He could have met Meghan years before and she could have already saved him back then!

There was a story that one of his friends had met her that way...

Duche$$-in-waiting for $ale

R259 well, well, well

I hope Diana 2.0 gets the best of both their features and is a gorgeous cunt who gives her mother hell. A wild druggy, party slut like her dad. Looks wise, I'd love her to a be a shade lighter than Meghan, but in a gorgeous sun kissed kind of way, with blue eyes, a wavy coppery, color hair similar to Kate's. She hates her mother because she would have appreciated being loyal and fucks everyone in the Balmoral Village in the summers.

R3 I guffawed

[quote] Looks wise, I'd love her to a be a shade lighter than Meghan, but in a gorgeous sun kissed kind of way,

Thanks for weighing in, Princess Anne, but in 2021 it's considered inappropriate to have hopes for the baby's skin color.

You just know there are high hopes in the beauty/charisma department for a mixed-race Diana.

Now you tell me!

R263 Come to think of it, that accusation did end up sinking like a stone, didn’t it.

Diana must have had some weak genes because NONE of her grandkids look like her. I can't see a trace of her in any of their faces. The Cambridge kids appear to be 75% Middleton. The 25 percent paternal genes seem to come straight from the Queen.

R267 Sometimes you see a hint of little Diana in a certain impish expression that Charlotte has. If she were blonde, it would be more obvious. And George has the Spencer upward gaze. He looks like Diana’s brother Charles. Louis is the total Middleton.

Scroll through, Charlotte looks a bit like everybody.

George is the only one I can see Diana in. Louis changes so quickly. He was pure Mike Middleton as a toddler, but the Windsor genes are kicking in and he is starting to look more like George. Charlotte looks like the queen from some angles, but she doesn't look as much like here as when she was a toddler, around the time Meghan beat her.

[quote]You just know there are high hopes in the beauty/charisma department for a mixed-race Diana.

Barring that, fingers crossed for an upmarket "condition" such as sensory disorder that we can be paid for, er, raise money for.

R267 Are you blind? George looks startlingly like the Duke of Windsor as a boy. Charlotte looks more like her father every day, and he looks like Diana. AND she already looks like she got Diana"s legs. Only Louis looks like a Middleton. Those kids look like a judicious mixture of Windsor, Spencer, and Middleton.

R272 Yes true, George to me is a mixture of the Duke of Windsor and Charles Spencer.

Kate has better legs than Diana as her thighs are slimmer so let's hope Charlotte has inherited those. None of the Cambridge kids look like either Will or Kate.

Charlotte looks uncannily like the Queen. Maybe she was cloned.

Poor unfortunate Charlotte looks like the Queen aged 40, not the queen as a child.

[quote]Charlotte looks uncannily like the Queen. Maybe she was cloned.

Maybe the Queen Mum and Bertie put one of their extra eggs on ice after Elizabeth and Margaret were produced, and it was only discovered a few years ago. Like Charles's empathic twin who they kept in the attic all those years.

Regardless who George, Charlotte and Louis wind up resembling, I’m sure they have a better chance of growing up to be happy and well adjusted adults unlike poor little Archie and little whatever-her-name.

The should all be relieved that their kids didn't get the jug head ears that Charles got

I know anyone can look bad in a photo, but these faces are not that great even in good photographs. Why do people worship royals? It's a phony concept. Some distant asshole robbed a bunch of people, probably killed a lot more, and from then on his descendants had more money than sense. I prefer to admire people for their contribution to human welfare.

To be kind, the Daily Mail had an article a few weeks ago about the bridesmaids and grooms at Prince William's wedding and it showed an up-to-date pic of that little girl Grace van Cutsom. She looked totally normal now (thank goodness).

The Bidens will meet with the Queen.

.....

Lol!

The Cambridges at a drive in movie, their PR is doing a great job

Lily, Chipping norton, United Kingdom, 27 minutes ago

When Harry & Megan first started dating, I read somewhere she was a plant to destroy the monarchy. Interesting but a bit far fetched, I thought at the time.

Wadye, Hllu, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago

the fact that they embarked on such a vicious and incessant attack on the 94-year old woman who loved Harry dearly and is their children's close family is sickening and it show how cruel Meghan truly is and Harry super stupid and entitled (it is all about his anger about Charles refusing to support them financially so that Meghan could rule the world at his expense). They talk about mental health yet abuse others for their own personal gail,for money. They have sold their soul. Vile people.

My sister Violet, Room for a Pony, United States, 2 hours ago

Well, if they don't go back to the UK, can they at least get out of here? We have enough of that Cali-Wokery stuff going on. Never seen so much whole-grain/vegan/finding myself/virtue-signaling since the 1970s.

When are we going to see the Las Vegas nude photos.

Love it, R285. They arrived in Prince Philip’s Vintage Land Rover for a special screening of Cruella for the National Health Service staff, to thank them for their efforts during the pandemic.

r286 They are clearly both tryiny that game but they have flopped and wont succeed.The law of diminishing returns and less and less shock value will plague all of their future 'revelations'.

Great link r285. Kinda undermines everything Harry is saying now about mental health and his family.

[quote]The Cambridges at a drive in movie, their PR is doing a great job

Not only did they show up in Philip's old ride (thanks Granny!), Kate had on an amazing tartan dress; yes, whoever is handling their PR now should be getting a bonus

It's not that much of a brainwave to wear tartan in Scotland.

R282-- Many thanks for that link, lol! I enjoyed that so much. Yikes!

Kate Merchington and Bald continue their grand merching tour of Scotland. Here they are merching a chip shop. Full name and address given.

I wonder if Charles will also meet Biden, it would make sense.

The President usually meets the Queen or Charles if the President is in London or they are in DC.

R295 - ah, your ignorance and hatred is showing. This is the very same chip shop that Kate and Will used to go to when they were at St Andrews University.

Down memory lane for the Cambridges...down in the gutter for you.

Is r295 really saying that the heir to the throne is merching for a fish and chip shop?

R299 - yes, sad isn't it?

Of course, DL will drop them long before they look like this.

Where is that pic from, r284, and any idea of the context?

Of r295? Yes, r300.

The royals don't merch, they grant Royal Warrants.

It was at the Inskip wedding in Jamaica, R302.

Story went, Haz took a break, she had previously been invited and turned up anyway. She treats servers like shit. She had demanded no cameras so may have thought she was free to let her true self fly.

I think it's so cute that a bunch of middle-aged obese black ladies suddenly are experts on the history of the British Royal Family and the day-to-day work they actually do!

I think it's so noteable when the sugars show how RACIST they truly are. Often HOMOPHOBES too. GTFO.

r307 sounds triggered.

What's a sugar?

From the article about Tom Inskip at the link

Prince Harry’s once best friend Thomas Inskip reportedly said ‘we’ve lost him’ the day after Harry’s wedding to Meghan Markle.

Harry and Thomas, known by his friends as ‘Skippy’, were said to be the best of friends for years.

He reportedly served as a protective figure throughout the Prince‘s teen years.

And he was even at his side on Harry’s now infamous Las Vegas holiday in 2012.

The English aristocrat met Harry when they attended the elite Eton College together.

But the pair’s friendship allegedly strained once Meghan Markle came into the picture.

In the book Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand – the authors point out that Skippy wasn’t invited to Harry and Meghan’s wedding reception.

While he attended the church service at St. George’s Chapel, he wasn’t on the guest list for the evening shindig.

[quote]Is [R295] really saying that the heir to the throne is merching for a fish and chip shop?

Why not? It's his right in the fookin' Magna Carta.

This PR onslaught from Kate Merchington and Bald is fun to watch. The fish shop must have paid them plenty to feature in their tour video.

Block the KGT and don't engage, Muriel is clear re: the policy and recs re: trolls.

Rrrright Meghan William & Kate need to merch for a chip shop.

Too much something, Megs. Don't type when you are high.

Learn from your mate from the Suitcases. She's quiet now, since Twitter plucked out her tounge.

Those beasts, R295.

What nerve they have giving a boost to a local business.

I assume it’s either trolling or sarcasm, r313. No one can be that stupid.

The difference between merching and visiting a place you used to frequent in college is different.

The fish and chips shop didn’t pay the Future King. He doesn’t need the money, either.

Muriel might be more concerned about the racist tone and content of this thread.

Not being a monarchy-booster and royal boot-licker hasn't been deplorable or actionable since the 1770s.

R318 I'd say Muriel would be more concerned about the invasion of the DL by a bunch of homophobic stans of a D list actress no gay man has any interest in whatsoever.

The latest quote from Oprah never going to therapy seems to explain it all.

She disclosed years ago about her traumatic childhood w. loads of sexual abuse. Trying to heal herself with 'guest experts', cults, but no real personalized one on one help. Really pathetic. All that money & resources & never getting any real help. Whew! No wonder she could never stop eating her feelings. No wonder there is never enough money, fame, real estate stuff to fill that huge well of fear that lives inside her.

Dreadful that now she is advocating others do the same. Reject real help.

She truly isthe Poster Child for 'Hurt People hurt people.'

Well said, R320.

Bringing this post over from elsewhere, really encapsulates the issues well 1/ --------------------------------------- This is not about being a working royal. This is about who is the "star" of the family and who gets the media spotlight. That is most assuredly what Harry meant and was talking about. Princess Anne has not "faded away". She continues with a full working royal schedule and she is seventy. She also has her life - her kids, her grandkids, her horses. There is nothing unfair about "fading" as a star as this is inevitable. Harry did not want to be a Princess Anne or a Prince Edward. He wanted to continue being what he thought was a "superstar" and he wanted to create a platform for this before George and Charlotte took over lion's share of attention from the media and from the public. Nobody's "fading out" or getting kicked to the side. They're just not being fawned over, the focus of every article, and getting a hundred media features on them every year, which is what Harry did not want to lose. Princess Margaret was 71 when she died. She was still a working royal in her fifties and if not for her wrecked health could have been a working royal at 71.

Harry's problem was that someone who is Prince of Wales, next heir, or monarch has an inherent star position and is automatically the highest ranking person in the room no matter what their age or appearance. It is an age-proof situation. The tabs and the public may not be fascinated by you but they HAVE to cover you due to your position, and he envied that too.

The "system" does not position people like Harry to fade away into the wilderness homeless. They can live on Crown properties fully staffed until death or their wealthier relative purchases a home for them. The Queen (and she was queen, not heir) purchased homes for Anne and for Andrew and gave Prince Edward a life lease in Bagshot park. When Princess Margaret's health faded she was not wandering the globe relying on the kindness of strangers.

Do not forget Harry had a large network of friends and extended family. He had all the advantages. He didn't need to cry himself to sleep at night cause he only had Crown property to live on, a bolt hole in one of the London Palaces, and a country estate purchased for him by his dad. I mean where's his getaway in the Seychelles or Capetown?

While this is outside the system and probably would not have changed his favorable treatment, Harry inherited millions from his mother. It's on him if it's gone. That's an unusual resource.

He was in the military and the expectation was he would remain there until he was 40 at least. He certainly enjoyed and benefitted from the hero narrative created for him and the tons and tons of media attention he received for what we now know was a lamentable military career. He quit because he didn't want to sit for the written test to become major, and there was no system in place to give him a bye. Although granny did make him an "honorary" major which just shows how tough the poor lad's life is.

Harry ASKED to be a "working" royal. I believe all along he wanted to do SOMETHING to ensure he'd be a star for life and bided his time.

It's clear his family knew all along he was a massive problem. If he had ever wanted to do something - almost ANYTHING - else, the family would have bent over backwards. Unfortunately what he wanted was 1) star treatment 2) freedom from responsibility and accountability 3) all the money 4) freedom from the system that made him subordinate to his brother when working within it 5) all the perks, entitlements and status he saw as his birthright.

Anything less filled him with resentment and fury.

2/2

He couldn't stand that his position was going to be at the level of Edward, Andrew, Anne and Margaret, not to mention the other siblings of King George VI not named David Windsor. He didn't want to find something else to do, he wanted to be in the spotlight. He felt competitive with those at the top. That was his problem. Harry is not unique.

Lastly, if he were not a working royal and had ANY work ethic, even a royal level work ethic, which is not the highest, he could have lived an extremely comfortable Eugenie, Beatrice or even Zara Tindall type life where it is the best of both worlds. NO, you cannot merchandise your TITLE but as long as you are not a working royal you can accept positions and engage in commercial endeavors everybody knows comes your way based on your own name (not the royal shit) and your recognizable public profile. Zara makes a great living profiting off her love of horses. The York girls are more city types and each has a "job" in a status corporation that does not require punching a clock, we can be sure pays extremely well, and carries nice prestigious titles and vague responsibilities. They're hired for their connections.

Unfortunately Harry wanted to be Beatrice and Eugenie AND a working royal with the full range of perks and entitlements AND he wanted to do fuck all for any of it AND he wanted to be able to merch his titles.

I'm sure glad no gay man is so interested in every freckle on Meghan Markle that he trashes her 24/7 from one end of DL to the other, even on threads that are about cooking and movies. Because that would be pathetic.

Lest we forget, Oprah's idea of a psychotherapist is Dr. Phil and her idea of a reliable physician is Dr. Oz.

Many of the most rabid posters don't understand themselves. They need to get therapy or, for a start, read this article from a respected publication.

R326 - nobody likes a golddigger

What if you don’t read UK tabloids and still dislike them, r326?

What's the London Economic? a website? never heard of it.

"a respected publication" - no one's heard of that publication r326 and even fewer respect it.

give yourself a swanky name= respected to us plebs. r330

isn't .com rather than .uk a thing? as in where webs are based.

R284 - Ah, that photo is from Tom Inskip's wedding in Jamaica, which Harry attended alone after a breakup with Meghan. She followed him there to retrieve him, basically crashing the wedding (she really has the balls of a brass primate, which is how she got where she is today, poor little shrinking violet victim) and some of the photos are, shall we say, the most authentic ones regarding the relationship between the two if them. She reeled him back in short order. The photos are actually quite disturbing.

Everything after that was PR.

People don't "worship" royals because they're pretty - or smart - or great humanitarians - or special in any other way EXCEPT for being royal.

It's what socialists call a "reified" concept - that is, it has no intrinsic worth except what humans project onto it, which any socialist will tell you is exactly the label they place on currency. A paper dollar or metal coin or a diamond for that matter, is worth nothing except what humans have projected onto it.

Occasionally, they are attractive, just like the rest of humanity. But the only exceptional thing about them for the most party is their royalty - something Harry and Meghan understand quite well.

As it happens, Diana was unusually attractive, the Queen was quite lovely in her salad days, especially in person, and so was the Queen Mother, whose looks were not aligned with out standards today but were aligned with what was valued back then: beautiful skin, daintiness, big blue eyes . . . they weren't into perfect teeth and how one looked in a bikini back then. They liked women with flowery faces and charm and petiteness, and the Queen Mother had those to spare.

So it's kind of an era thing. Autre temps, autre mores.

But it's useless to state that royalty is a fake or stupid concept - it's not more stupid or fake than, say, the Kardashians getting rich off being celebrities for being celebrities. Royalty, however, especially in countries like Britain and Denmark and Japan where the actions and fates of Kings and Emperors shaped the fates of nations for centuries, has a cachet of its own.

Hence, the fasciation.

The bottom line is, the Great Unwashed have always worshipped the Washed. It's seems to be part of the human condition.

Arriving at Royal Albert Hall:

The Queen Mother as she was when Prince Albert, later Duke of York and then King George VI, fell madly in love with her.

"Winsome, all I am is winsome/winsome is the one thing I can dooooooo"

R333 speaks truth.

The KGT is in quite a lather so early in the day, they must fear the show tonight going over like a lead balloon.

R334 I think the fascination with royals also speaks to something.....tribal? Generational? Genetic? (to borrow from Harry). People want to be part of an ongoing history and tradition, an idea of country.

If you go to about 2 mins on this, she was quite fashionable in white mourning ( for her mum) , on a trip to France. She was rounder than 1920's and 30's fashion dictated but probably similar to her daughters corseted 1950's figures.

Anyone who followed Mila with her picture in Hold Still and the phone call, she met her pink princess yesterday.

TMZ re: Harry, odd story

R341, why wouldn’t the police be called if they couldn’t reach Harry by phone? Who else would they send? Someone from the embassy in LA?

They’d just keep trying until he answered? The Palace wouldn’t have let him find out from Good Morning America. We’d never hear the end of it: “I only found out from the news, they didn’t even tell me personally!

Having worked for decades either on call or standby ico a major incident, this would be off behaviour for anyone I work with. However, unemployed slob ex princes are entitled to switch off their phone if they so desire. Not a great look if a family member is ill and police have to wastetime..but this is mister dickforbrains

[Quote]People want to be part of an ongoing history and tradition, an idea of country.

However the history is nothing more than brutal wars, killing and pilfering to attain and sustain power over others. This is how royalty and the aristocracy around the world were established. Ain't nothing special in the blood.

Remember the dramatic pronouncement that he had a private jet on standby in case he needed to fly back? But could not answer his phone?

He also claimed to be "quarrantining" in case he needed to go to UK, that was before the arranged photos on the beach with his dog, chatting in close proximity with people.

If a Narkle says the sky is blue, verify.

R344 - And your point is that most of humanity doesn't carry around this same fund of cruelty, barbarism, power lust, etc., deep within it? That's partly why the nonroyals identify with the royals. You seem to think the royals were some sort of separate species in, for example, the 14th and15th centuries, but somehow the plebs were made of more tender stuff. They weren't, and they still aren't. That's really the point.

R299 - Yes, she is. That's our KGT and you can see how desperate she is to smear the Cambridges.

She actually came out and said that Kate was "merching" the pearl necklace that Kate wore to Philip's funeral. Which, of course, turned out to be the Queen's People of Japan necklace, which isn't merchable, as there are no others. The necklace was made from fine quality cultured pearls that were a gift of the people of Japan, to which the Queen added the semi-circular diamond clasp. Diana also was leant it a couple of times.

You'd think the idiot would look something up before making a fool of herself yet again by making a claim completely at odds with reality.

R339 - What's notable about that tour is the shade it throws at Harry for whingeing about being "sent" to Nepal. The then Queen Elizabeth had recently lost her mother and was in mourning, but the tour could not be cancelled. It was 1938 and everyone knew the storm clouds of war were gathering over Europe. Does anyone think the King and Queen, barely 18 months into their reign and still finding their feet, wanted to do a high-profile trip to France to promote unity and cooperation?!

But the Queen was in mourning, and it was Normal Hartnell's idea to turn the entire wardrobe for the part of the tour on French soil into white, which is also an acceptable colour for royal mourning (in fact, it is the colour of mourning in Japan). In a remarkably short time, he had the entire wardrobe he had designed for the tour dyed white.

And King George and Queen Elizabeth went out and did what they knew they had to do, despite private feelings - and did it superbly.

In contrast, their great-grandson is a disgrace to their legacy of duty.

"King George and Queen Elizabeth went out and did what...the had to do"

So did all the people of Britain who lived through the blitz, flew in the RAF, etc. Get over it--the so-called royals are just a VERY rich family who have to justify their dull existences. They are 'trapped ' and can't get off the squirrel wheel. Who would care about them if they did?

r348 = fingers herself while sobbing and watching The Crown

r345 I wouldnt be shocked if he was puffing away on something that was helping him dream of castles in the sky!!

In truth his phone would have been on and answered if he really cared.

How do you dye something white, r348?

[Quote]You seem to think the royals were some sort of separate species in, for example, the 14th and15th centuries, but somehow the plebs were made of more tender stuff.

What? My point is that royals are nothing special except for their bloody conquests. Fuck them. The aristocracy as well. The French got it nearly right however they forgot to take down the latter.

It reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to.

R353 doesn't know much about history, aside from a few simplistic and mostly grossly inaccurate cliches.

R349 - Except that they didn't have to put on a smile and cement international relations whilst doing their bit. What do you think the other royal families in Europe are: paupers?!

R352 - I dunno. That's what I read - the whole line had been got ready in advance of the tour, which was considered to be of major importance in cementing relationships that everyone knew would be critical once Hitler got what he was clearly aiming for (war), despite half the government and the cabinet at the time pretending to themselves that it could be avoided - but that's another story.

Then the Queen's mother died, and the state visit was too important to be cancelled, or be undertaken alone by the King, who was not only lost without the Queen, but who didn't speak a word of French, whilst she spoke it fluently. Queen Elizabeth, by the way, loved France, just as Queen Mary loved Italy. As on the American tour to cement ties with the Roosevelt administration, the Queen was a critical factor in public response, which was extremely warm.

So, the text I read said that Hartnell had the brilliant idea of white for mourning, and [I quote] "waved his magic wand and turned the whole line white". I can't imagine that he produced two lines of the same clothes (presumably the originals were in the pastel shades that the Queen favoured, so maybe it wasn't that hard), which included state banquet ball gowns, ready in 8 weeks.

R353 - Look, if you're antimonarchist, what are you doing on these threads? How fucking simplistic a view of history. Their bloody wars? Remember how England turned into a leading Protestant country? You need to get out of your little shrieking bubble and read up on what ELSE, say, Henry II did as he turned England from a group of tribal thugs into a unified country that became a European power. And left an administrative code on which English law is now based.

". . . the changes Henry introduced during his long rule had long-term consequences. Henry's legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for the English Common Law, while his intervention in Brittany, Wales, and Scotland shaped the development of their societies and governmental systems . . . . Henry was a driving force in the creation of a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain."

You can make arguments for no monarchy, and arguments against a monarchy, but reducing the whole of English monarchy (or any of the other monarchies of Europe) into just bloody ward is so ignorant it beggars description.

You know nothing of English history.

^*You can make arguments FOR a monarchy and arguments against a monarchy . . ."

Someone who praises both the Beatles and Quincy Jones's opinions at the same time must be really confused, considering that Quincy panned the Beatles.

^ Whoops, wrong thread.

[Quote]Look, if you're antimonarchist, what are you doing on these threads?

To hisss, royal boot-licker.

R361, how do you believe the British head of state should be selected?

R361 said: To hisss, royal boot-licker.

To manically respond to almost everyone of 362 posts.

Fify

Their latest narrative

R362 what's bizarre is the French. They got rid of their King but they still have a President AND a Prime Minister. So do the Irish. It is actually a good thing to have a constitutional monarch and a prime minister: the monarch unites the country either avoiding politics or both-sidings (William meeting with Nicola Sturgeon and Gordon Brown) and a prime minister being the partisan popular choice, dividing the country.

Looking at what Trump did to this fucking country, you can more easily see why dividing up the roles of Head of State and Head of Government are appealing.

We're on these threads because you won't stay in your lane and continue to post anti-Sussex crap on a bunch of threads NOT remotely about them. And keep posting transparently-racist threads that purport to be white-glove examinations of royal behavior, but devolve into the opposite.

Who’s we^^^?....

R351 - I lick the boots of actual history rather than bullshit spouted by someone too adolescent to recognise that history is more nuanced than his two-dimensional adolescent rants. And you're blocked.

R366 - These threads ARE about the Sussexes, or weren't you able to read the title of this one and the 20 others that those two pyscho grifters generate with every whingeing interview?

The only racists here are you and your stan bros who resent any criticism whatsoever of Meghan Markle because her Mum is black.

She could boil bunnies for brekkers in front of Lil' Archie and you'd accuse people condemning it of racism. And you're blocked, too.

What happened in the Harry/Oprah show last night? Not a word in the Daily Mail at all. Nothing here, either.

Look at the loons who don't recognize one can be anti monarchy and anti Harkle.

R68 said: She could boil bunnies for brekkers in front of Lil' Archie and you'd accuse people condemning it of racism. And you're blocked, too.

No, the truth is that she could boil babies in front you and you would defend her, probably by calling the people appalled by the murder of innocent little babies RACIST! YOU ONLY CRITICIZE HER FOR BURNING BABIES ALIVE BECAUSE YOU ARE RACIST! You are most tiresome, predicable, one note ,unintelligent, RACIST cunt. Be gone, you are pathetic.

I saw a clip of Harry doing something weird which I assume is the current variation on Primal Scream therapy or some such fake psychotherapy. That boy's headed to Scientology! They have to be licking their lips. Only problem is Scientology won't have enough of his secrets to keep him in line: Harry literally cannot shut the fuck up.

Aren't they already in the Agape cult? The one Doria has been in for years and OW had been associated with as well? The Agape cult closely mirrors Scientology, such as rejection of professional therapy ( except by their unqualified people, of course. The better to blackmail you with , my dear)

There are blinds that Haz is receiving therapy "through a church" R373.

The founder of the Agape cult wrote the book "The Secret." You can see the influence on Meghan, from the manifesting to banishing reality checks as "negativity."

R374: banishing reality checks as "negativity."

Yes and banishing any and all criticism as well.

Don’t tell me not to live, just sit and putter. Life’s candy, and the sun’s a ball of butter. Don’t bring around a cloud to rain on my parade!

Oh, go drown in a puddle, and take Ginger-boy with you.

R371 - Yawn. You need a thesaurus.

R371 - Er, R68 actually said something quite different. Your reading comprehension limitations are scandalous.

And your reply to the actual "boil bunnies for breakfast" quote is incomprehensible, too.

They're not going to be scientologists. Now that she has control of Harry, no way is she going to hand the steering wheel over to Miscavige. Besides, Scientology is the wrong fit for them. Scientologists are against psychology...and thus, therapy. Harry seems to be trying to make a career out of being some therapy guru. Without a formal degree in psychology, counseling, or social work, he'll be some glorified "life coach" (like Oprah or Iyanla, perhaps) who recommends therapy for the stuff his fluffy advice can't fix.

I wonder what things are like behind closed doors. In public, she's always glomming on to him, acting like they're lovestruck teenagers who can't keep their hands off each other. It seems so contrived, though. Away from he cameras, she probably gets annoyed with everything he says. She considers herself sophisticated and probably likes men who can talk about arts and public events. Harry is a bit naive, because he grew up sheltered and spoilt. Even a couple long-term partners his own age grew tired of him and left him, in spite of all his money. I can't imagine what they ever had in common to talk about from the start. Now, "everyone is out to get us". In a couple of years when she does the post-divorce interview with Oprah, I imagine her telling Oprah, "He wasn't my "type", but he was endearing. There was something broken about him, and I thought I could fix it. But I couldn't, and when it threatened to break me too, I had to pull myself away...for the sake of my children." Then perhaps she'll describe how she fell for her next billionaire husband.

Meghan is stupid and I hate her! If Harry were mine, I'd treat him right!

[quote] If Harry were mine, I'd treat him right!

If I were a doctor at a psych hospital and Harry were my patient, I’d treat him right too.

R380 - On the Down Under tour, staff in Admiralty House reported that they were constantly fighting and she was constantly berating him. In fact, in the early part of the tour, someone asked how she and Harry were doing (but not if they were OK), and Meghan laughingly replied, "Oh, wonderful, although I scream at him all day . . ."

That one got buried quickly.

Saint Diana was screaming at Charles all day from the moment they got back from the honeymoon and went up to Balmoral for the second half of the honeymoon, where Diana did a complete volte face from the sweet, pliable, adaptable, adorable young English Rose aristocrat she had costumed herself in the year before whilst "auditioning" for the part of Princess of Wales up at Balmoral exactly one year earlier.

She berated him for serving his grandmother and his mother drinks before her at afternoon cocktails, she expected him to stay home with her day after day, she berated him for going hunting instead of staying with her, and she glowered silently at formal dinners when the Queen usually had guests. The shocked family quickly sent her back to London for psychiatric help (so much for the family refusing help because it would be "bad for the institution" - a complete fabrication on Meghan's part - and we're talking about the Heir's wife and future Queen Consort here, not the d-list actress turned wife of the sixth in line). When asked by a journo who caught her happily back on the streets of London going in and out of chic shops why she left Balmoral, Diana answered: "Boring. Raining."

She was by then pregnant with William, whom she credits with "saving her life" - Diana, too, threatened suicide with that little roll downstairs whilst in her first trimester, which the Queen Mother witnessed.

It's the same playbook Meghan Markle is using - the (actually empty) manipulative lame suicide threat while pregnant with the first baby, and everything else.

It's rather frightening. That's where history is repeating itself, Harry, dear. Your mother had no intention of offing herself and neither did your wife.

You really ARE that dumb.

I wonder when Meghan's baby is due. She looked quite heavily pregnant by the time she filmed the Oprah interview.

People have said she had the baby already for a couple of weeks. It was just speculation by a Daily Mirror writer who usually has pretty good intel. I think Archie had been born a while before he was unveiled.

[quote]"He wasn't my "type", but he was endearing. There was something broken about him, and I thought I could fix it. But I couldn't, and when it threatened to break me too, I had to pull myself away...for the sake of my children."

I think you nailed it, though I think there's got to be some shade thrown about how it was Charles & Will's fault that Harry was a broken man...

Anybody else think she may have actually given birth to Archie but this one's strictly a surrogate job. In California the Royal family would have no way of knowing if she gave birth or a surrogate did the job for her which would exclude Princess Diana the Sequel from the line of succession.

I don't believe Meghan was ever suicidal. She just saw The Crown episode where Diana throws herself down the stairs and decided to appropriate that for herself.

[quote]I don't believe Meghan was ever suicidal. She just saw The Crown episode where Diana throws herself down the stairs and decided to appropriate that for herself.

Me neither; I think the suicide card was a way to manipulate Harry, who was probably wavering about fully jumping ship

Has this been discussed?

Lol, does changing 1 word count as an original thought?

As Harry founded with William and Kate a mental health charity years ago and Harry had talked at the time about how William talked him into going into therapy for his mental health problems, the whole Meghan couldn't get access to a therapist and Harry couldn't help her, is such total bullshit.

They probably talked with Oprah about how a couple of entitled rich people could get sympathy and she said claim to be mentally ill, suicidal and accuse them of racism - and you're untouchable. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

I recall how Oprah - at the height of her fame - was desperately trying to get interviews with Diana and Charles and she got the cold shoulder which diminished her claim to be the Queen of the World. This whole Oprah/Harry bullshit must be her idea of revenge for getting snubbed.

r389 WOW .It certainly sounds like something major is brewing in the background and there is more drama going on than we realise.

It does not really matter who the poster is, the AOC cannot be in Windsor officiating at a christening and at an all day church meeting in a completely different part of the country AT THE SAME TIME. Just like the OB put down as delivering sprog could not have done so when her and her husband's SM had them out of the country on a holiday on that day.

Considering he was an illegitimate child with no blood ties to the throne - he's awfully fucking cavalier and ungrateful. Ginger Cunt.

R392 - I very much doubt it. The Harkles didn't help themselves with the mystery with which they chose to surround Archie's birth, but it is extremely doubtful that the BRF colluded with The Portland Hospital and Britain's birth registration laws regarding the Queen's great-grandson.

R394 - That is bullshit. Harry was conceived before Diana even met Hewitt, and he increasingly looks like Prince Philip only with red hair - Harry looks far more like Philip with the same beady close-set eyes and bony nose, and he also has his father's and grandfather's very nice voice (so does William). And, by the way, even if Hewitt had been his father, Harry would still be legally "legitimate". He was born within the bonds of wedlock whilst his biological mother was married to his legal father.

To be "illegitimate", Harry would have had to have been born to a woman that his father wasn't married to - the wrong side of the blanket, as they used to put it. As long as Harry was born to the woman to whom his father was married at the time, and who gave Harry his name, Harry, no matter who is biological father is, is legally "legitimate".

But no matter how many times it is pointed out that Diana didn't even meet Hewitt till after Harry was born, people still keep spouting this nonsense.

There is no surrogate - if there were, it would go much farther toward ending the monarchy than any petulant accusations by the Harkles, because it would mean that the Queen had colluded in a massive deception on the British public. It is abundantly clear that the Queen, of all people, takes her job far too seriously to have done any such thing.

Nor is it possible that Meghan could have fooled all those around her with a moon bump, least of all her sister-in-law, who was pregnant with her third child when Meghan entered the scene. The Queen also carried four children to term, and Princess Anne, two. You really think Meghan could have fooled all those women?!

Lastly, the same rumours were floated about Kate - despite the fact that a distinguished team of OB-GYN doctors signed the announcement.

People just believe what they want to believe.

There is no surrogate. If anything is churning behind the scenes, it surrounds titles, the succession, and Charles' will.

Perhaps R395 doth protest TOO much?

I recall no such rumors re: a surrogate re: Catherine, she was known to be hospitalized with HG with 2 of them.

We may never know who Harry’s real father is. Did Diana have any red-haired servants at the time with hereditary mental issues?

The Spencer aggression and instability were sufficient, R397.

R397 William is the spitting image of Diana but Harry doesn't look like either parent. It happens but I've never entirely discounted the possibility Hewitt is his father.

I think Meghan did give birth to Archie but I'm convinced the new one is a surrogate job.

If you replace Harry's red hair with dark brown hair, he'd look just like his dad. He has the same beady eyes and separated by the same skinny nose bridge. The older he gets, the more he looks like Charles.

Harry looks like Charles, to me.

But I disagree with the person who said he has a very nice voice. He sounds like one of Jim Henson’s Muppets, to me.

His voice reminds me of Dauber on the old sitcom “Coach.”

People who say Harry is Hewett's son are so annoying.

1. Harry was already two years old when Hewett was first assigned to her. They may have well been banging each other resulting in his transfer but he wasn't Harry's father.

2. The Spencer's are famous if not notorious for the amount of redheads in the family. The genes for both hair color and baldness are carried by females in a family, not the males. It would have been surprising if Diana hadn't had at least one reheaded child. When Diana's brother Charles, the current Earl Spencer, was young he was flamingly carrot topped although for years it has been turning white.

R403 Hewitt being Harry’s father is the kind of thing know-nothings say to sound in-the-know.

Kind of like Ronan and Sinatra. I suppose that one’s more debatable, but I doubt it.

[quote] We may never know who Harry’s real father is. Did Diana have any red-haired servants at the time with hereditary mental issues?

Sigh.

Once again, for the millionth time: red hair is a famous Spencer family characteristic. Diana's father Johnny Spencer had red hair, and her brother and both her sisters have red hair, as does Harry.

Diana and her mother were blonde, as is William.

Harry even looks like a young Charles.

R396 - Oh, yes, it was floated about Kate, too.

And I'm prone to longer posts, and as for protesting too much, why the fuck would I? I'm on record as despising the Harkles profoundly.

But I do have a respect for the truth and an equally profound distaste for people who keep refusing to apply logic when it's staring them in the face.

That goes double for the still active bullshit about the trust funds left to the Wales boys by their Gran, the late Queen Mother, despite the fact that a representative of the estate finally came out and publicly stated there were no such trust funds left to the two boys. There is not a single reliable trace of any such, the boys' incomes relate directly to the funds left by Diana and their increases since the funds were set up, and every news article on the existence of such funds only says, "it is reported" or "it is claimed" . . .

Yet, everyone on DL goes on stating that at forty (despite not a single shred of evidence) Harry is going to get his hands on this trust fund.

It makes me want to bite.

Here you go, R396 - just google Kate Middleton and surrogate and see how many hits you get.

Cheers, R395

Didn't The Queen Mum die 10 million pounds in debt, which Elizabeth paid off?

Of course that would only be liquid debt. Her wealth in jewelry, real estate and works of art would have been staggering.

I'm asking, not claiming.

Oh for god's sake, red-headed servants?! Her fucking middle sister was a natural redhead - the Spencers are known for producing ginges, are you fucking blind or just too lazy to do a bit of research?!

Harry not only looks increasingly like Charles, but except for the hair colour, increasingly like his recently deceased grandfather, Prince Philip, as Philip aged.

The fact remains that Diana didn't even meet Hewitt till Harry was two years old. We know who Harry's father is.

I thought her estate went to the Queen, R409.

Now there are rumored funds left to Haz by Philip, held until he is older to try to keep them from being spent by MeGain. Guess we will know in time.

I do feel bad for Harry about the Hewitt nonsense. Imagine at a young age to have the world idly speculating. He probably took some shit from schoolmates as well. Not only does it make you question your own origins, but it’s an excruciating thought to have about your mother.

r410, see r403 and r405.

R412, I don't, not after the games played around his own child, asking "is it mine" more than once in Oz, the games around the announcement of the birth, etc. Sick fucker that Haz.

R409 - Yes, she died millions in debt, and overspent for most of her life as a widow, continually bailed out by the Queen. As for her nonliquid assets: those are notoriously hard to turn into cash. She left her entire estate to the Queen, with a few bequests to old friends and loyal retainers. The artwork probably went into the royal collection, ditto the jewellery (the tiara Princess Eugenie wore on her wedding day was part of the Greville bequest of enormous amounts of fantastic jewellery left to the Queen Mother when she was Duchess of York by Maggie Greville), and her real estate holdings were minimal - the Castle of Mey was hers outright but now exists under a Trust overseen by the Prince of Wales. Her London home, Clarence House, is part of the Crown Estates, and Birkhall on the Balmoral estate is owned personally by the Queen. Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, St. James Palace, Kensington Palace, the Frogmore Estate (house and cottage) . . . all part of the Crown Estates. They cannot be sold, any revenue they produce reverts to the Crown Estates to replenish the Sovereign Grant.

She lived a very wealthy life but was hardly the very rich woman her daughter was, just as William lives a very rich life, but has only a fraction of the real income his father has. That will change once Charles becomes King and William inherits the Duchy of Cornwall.

Thanks, r415. Appreciated.

R392 - Oh, there's far more going on in the background, all right - that's a given - but it doesn't involve the Harkles' playing some huge blackmail card. They've shot their wad. If they had more, they'd have used it to get what they really wanted.

What's likely going on behind the scenes are in-depth discussions of how to blunt the Harkles without too much blowback on the BRF, the titles issue, and I would guess that Charles is revamping distribution of his personal wealth after his death. His son's betrayals crossed a line that would render the relationship between father and son irredeemable. As for leaving money to the grandchildren: Charles has no relationship with Harry's children. Every time Meghan's mouthpieces leaked stories of Zoom calls with Archie, it was only the Queen who was mentioned, but Archie's actual granddad never was.

Of course, at that point in time, the Queen didn't know that the Harkles were going to throw her parenting under the bus, as well.

I would guess that with his last spewing of emotional revenge porn, Harry has forfeited any consideration by the family at all.

I'm waiting to see if the family even acknowledge the birth of Diana 2.1 shortly. Re this, the BRF is in an awkward position: if they remain utterly silent, they will make it obvious how deep the rift is, and if they do acknowledge it with their usual lame "delighted at the news", they'll seem transparently insincere, as they'll have even less first-hand connection with this child than her older brother.

Lady C's petition advocating that Harry ask the Queen to put ALL of his titles in abeyance meaning he and his wife would be Mr. & Mrs. Wales or Mountbatten Windsor is heading towards 50k signatures. All can sign, from any country.

R418 - Yes, that's the one. It's meaningless. A petition with tens of thousands of signatures has already once been sent to Parliament, which hastily punted back to HM, saying that such matters were in the purview of the Queen.

She'll do nothing unless and until she can point to so egregious a rift that she can do so without screams of racism so loud they can be heard in Outer Space.

It is a PR tactic, R419. Broaden your thinking. Of course Parliment is not going to get involved. This meets the Narkles on their own favored field of PR. The focus is on Haz, not the Queen taking action, that would only feed their victimhood. I suggest that you read the text as you seem to lack familiarity with it and the intention.

R417 Oh god, of course they'll recognize the child. It's the right thing to do.

R419, it is a PR tactic aimed at HARRY, not the Queen or Parliment. It would free him from the distress he claims to feel so those who support the couple and those who wish they would adopt that private life they claim to want can ALL support the petition.

Invitation to Prince Harry to request that The Queen put his titles into abeyance

The purpose is to invite Prince Harry to voluntarily ask The Queen to put his royal style, titles and rank into abeyance, thereby freeing him from the diplomatic, political and constitutional constraints that are an inevitable part of royal rank, and further freeing him from the constitutional conflicts which his beliefs are creating, with all their implications at home and abroad, in particular in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where his articulated beliefs are in open conflict with the accepted tenets of both the United Kingdom and American Constitutions. As a purely private citizen, with no royal rank, style or title, he will be able to indulge his personal beliefs, as is the right of all private citizens, without the consequential possibility of damaging the institution of the Monarchy or relations between Friendly Powers, and will be free to articulate beliefs, no matter how objectionable, without the fallout that is otherwise inevitable as long as he possesses royal status. His invitation to The Sovereign, being of his own accord, will resolve conflicts that would otherwise be inevitable, and will permit him to enjoy the credit of having put both national and international interests above his own, personal ones, in the process gaining him respect that he otherwise will not enjoy.

Agree, R421, cannot imagine that they would not. Taking the high road has served the Queen well.

Look who is blaming Haznobrain about possibly losing her title that means nothing, yet she holds onto it with a death grip.

Interesting, R424. She defo has him set up and out front taking the hits. Setting up the plucky waif single mom narrative?

New from River

[quote]"She's told Harry that they need to tone down the attacks on the royal family - she's afraid they'll take away their royal titles, which would be a PR disaster.

It's already started...he's become a liability to her

Wtf did they expect? Really would love to know the answer to that. Was a ratified life living in the upmost luxury just too hard a road to walk on? These fucking spoiled people make me nauseous.

I'm sorry but this mental health thing among high profile attention seekers is fast becoming the new "I'm going to rehab".

The idea that dingbat attention whores Harry and Oprah can help anybody with their mental health is the ultimate joke.

Harry and Meghan's constant attacks on the Royal family are attacks on the Head of State of a US ally with which we have - and always have had - a "Special Relationship". They are so far out of their depth and I can't imagine the US State Department isn't at some point going to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Sucking Oprah's dick only goes so far.

If they go to rehab, the focus is on them, for Dim, the focus is on hectoring US.

r430 Agree they are well out of their depth and entering dangerous waters and even moreso if the rumours and fears that they have recorded stuff in order to blackmail the royal family in the future are true. A prominent youtuber who regularly discusses the couple expressed this fear only 2 days ago.

I think the State Department may intervene at some point. They can expulse Harry if need be and then where would they go? Letting Harry and Meghan shoot their mouths off is harmful to US-UK relations and the State dept could give a shit about a whining princeling and his cable TV show wife.

They're really stupid those two.

[quote] They can expulse Harry if need be

Oh, [italic]dear.[/italic]

'expulse' is more energetic and befittting of how annoying he is, as would be 'eject'

r433 Totally agree but I bet if the state department does intervene the entitled pair will be mightily pi**ed off at Biden and the administration for not stopping it.

It's Platinum Jubilee time, luvs!

Next year’s #PlatinumJubilee celebrations will include:

Woman guard Trooping the Colour. Fire Lighting of Platinum Jubilee Beacons. Church Service of Thanksgiving @StPaulsLondon

Charlotte to the Harkles: YOU'RE NOT COMING

r437 And a four day public holiday!!!

Let's seeeeee . . . Joe Biden considering whether to champion a pair of celebrity morons or piss off one of America's most important and long-standing allies in the First World?

"Britain's Head of State - the Harkles (looks right)

Britain's Head of State - the Harkles (looks left)

Britain's Head of State - the Harkles (looks right again)

Let me think.

Britain's Head of State!"

I'm sorry, people genuinely believe that Biden is going to throw the Narkles out of the US where Megs is a citizen on WHAT legal basis?

R427 - You have to remember these are tabloid headlines, and they make shit up citing "royal experts" and "royal sources" and "a source close to the couple" and "royal insiders", and the tabs know that for the most part, no one is going to come out on the doorstep every damn day and wearily tell the public that it just ain't so.

The story is probably a direct response to the rising tide of petitions and even broadsheets mentioning the hypocrisy of the Harkles in throwing the BRF and the institution of monarchy whilst clinging with naked greed and desperation to the title that gives them their only real marketability.

Meghan's poodle, Omid Scobie, called the institution on SM right after the Big Interview, "archaic, rotten, and racist" - he evidently forgot that his handler wants to keep that archaic title that the rotten racist institution got her. He's been, er, quieter lately.

The MIRROR story is probably just another routine effort to keep the Harkle pot boiling, now that Harry and Meghan have shot their wad and shut the fuck up for five minutes.

It also more or less directly accuses Meghan said hypocrisy.

So I doubt it's a leak from Meghan's PR, despite it containing an image of a frantic Meghan warning Harry to dial back attacks on the BRF. That's won't garner sympathy either from the public or the BRF.

You'll know something's cooking behind Palace walls, and that the Harkles have got wind of its, when the PR leak trumpets that Meghan and Harry couldn't care less about titles. - just the way they did right before Archie was born, when they realised the Queen wasn't going to make Archie an HRH, and they announced that they didn't want a title for him (although, in fact, he has one), because they wanted him to have a "normal" (a highly privileged, very wealthy, insular, sheltered level of "normal") life.

And just the way they did when they realised that they weren't getting a grand London flat in Kensington Palace, and only Frogmore Cottage was on offer, they got in front of the story and announced that they didn't want their kid brought in "the goldfish bowl of Kensington Palace" and Frogmore Cottage was exactly what they wanted.

They get in front of stories to make it look like it's their decision, not the Queen's. It doesn't persuade anyone (Martians know that Meghan desperately wanted HRHs for her kids at birth, like Kate's, and that she hated Frogmore Cottage and resented its inferiority to Kate's digs, and that she also wants Kate's hair . . . she can't even let one of Kate's kids have a birthday without trying to shove her kid in front of it), but I suppose the Harkles figure it saves face.

When the Harkles announce they want to live in a classless society and Harry is considering giving up his titles, then you'll know that they've gotten wind of the Queen is out of patience and drafting the Letters Patent.

.....

The Obamas definitely sided with the Queen. Haven't heard any support whatsoever from them for the Harkles. They can't stand Oprah either so I imagine if the US does anything to shut them up, it'll be Obama delivering the coup de grace.

I doubt the State Department will get involved, even peripherally, in this distasteful family feud.

At least HaM have shut up for now.

His town hall JUST aired on Friday, before the holiday weekend. I would not overstate their "silence."

Agree, R444. The US govt will ignore the Narkles, just like the UK govt and the BRF. Eventually the public will do so as well. They are already losing interest.

This isn't a family feud. It's an attack on the Head of State of our closest ally. H & M better shut up and they'll be shut up.

No one is taking them as seriously as you are, R447.

Harry is coasting on the good will he receives as Diana's son & clearly a pretty troubled guy, but the more he talks, the more radioactive he'll become as no entertainment person will want to be perceived as attacking the Queen. Charles is one thing, but the Queen...not so much. Not only that, if its' really as terrible as he says, the last thing he should want for his kids is an HRH, which is clearly what they both desperately want

And when Charles is king very few will be willing to indulge Harry and Meghan in their attacks on the British head of state.

What they are doing is repulsive to everyone. He was given everything anyone could dream of. But they also loved him. He was given tons of love and support. To turn so viciously on your loving family and to do it publicly while literally blackmailing them is too much for most people to stomach. Harry can never be redeemed now.

Fewer and fewer remember or care that much about Diana by the year. He has overegged the pudding for sure.

A whole new generation has discovered her through The Crown, r452. Or, rather, they've discovered a completely fictional and bullshit version of her story. The fact that Harry is trying to excuse The Crown - no doubt because it unfairly shows his father in a bad light with its fictional spin and because he's hoping to make lots of money from Netflx - simply underlines what a little shit he is.

Harry might have improved if he'd married a Kate type, understanding and low-key. But marrying attention whore Meghan will destroy him. She's encouraging his worst tendencies and you wonder if she isn't setting him up as mentally ill with terrible anger issues to get a better deal with the divorce. By which time he'll be so totally alienated from his family and friends, she will have isolated him to totally dominate the situation.

She already has, R454. But, she also claimed to be suicidal while pregnant and no treatment beyond a cuddle was obtained. Either of them would give a family court judge pause, but, many parents are less than ideal. I do not think either really wants to be involved in raising children, they want to BE the spiteful children. She will go for custody for the attached support however. Her mental illness will be a one off while I am sure Markus and Doria and real or staged evidence will paint him as a recent and present danger re: anger, mental health and subtances. Bet on it.

What does she hope to get at this point? Trf do not have her one cent and as much as they must despise her I do not think they will. He has probably burned through his inheritance.

R454, I never thought it was true, but your choice of spouse/life partner has a huge impact on your life. I think we can all think of disastrous matches and mutually advantageous ones. It’s interesting to think about.

These two make me think of the disastrous ones. Chris Watts, most of all.

SS placing the made up stories

Great look that’d be, slinking back to the family they trashed. Will their fans feel a little betrayed?

Narcs are chaos vectors so x2...

It's not sense, R459, but, with these 2, who knows?

After FF 2.0 and Harry's book, seems there is nothing left to come but the IG rehash, a reality show and a messy split.

SS is spinning the money meter today

Placed stories GALORE!

Oh there they go, manifesting again! Putting out those stories about what she wants to happen, framing it as a fait accompli.

Once you know, you can spot it easily.

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

The Agape cult and "The Secret" clearly had a profound impact on MeGain, she was raised in it, even went to summer camp there. Doesn't seem to be working well.

If on the one hand one believes them that the BRF are evil and racist, why take your children around them, having had to flee to another country to escape?

If on the other one believes they are elder abusing grifters and extortionists, in the media, how would this be in the realm of possibility?

I believe the one where he said HE ALONE wanted to attend.

[quote] No one is taking them as seriously as you are, [R447].

GO TO HELL FOR SAYING THAT!

NAFF OFF!

As a wealthy retiree, I have less and less to spend my funds on. So every time someone disses Harry or his bride on DL, I'm going to send the Sussexes an anonymous check for $1,000. Just for fun and to read the apoplectic responses of the nuts on this thread.

Lol, R466, that I have been made to agree with Piers about anything fills me with horror.

R467 = Meghan trying to encourage people to fill her overdrawn bank account.

So deep, R344

....

r455 apparently according to some media reports on mainland Europe Doria is team Harry and not team Meghan and understands how difficult and controlling her daughter can be.

Now here this...

R471, re H&M “calling the shots” - AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

R474, yeah, that’s another of Meghan’s wishes that she’s presenting as fact.

[quote] As a wealthy retiree, I have less and less to spend my funds on. So every time someone disses Harry or his bride on DL, I'm going to send the Sussexes an anonymous check for $1,000. Just for fun and to read the apoplectic responses of the nuts on this thread.

Oh, we all believe you!

This may be the reason is called Deer Park in Windsor. Tick alert!!!

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

The Wessexes will be promoted to Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh soon.

[quote] apparently according to some media reports on mainland Europe Doria is team Harry and not team Meghan and understands how difficult and controlling her daughter can be.

This tracks to me. Or at the very least, I don't believe that Doria and Meghan are all that close. I think it really was her dad who she was closest with, who paid the bills, sent her to private schools, etc. Even at the height of Meghan's popularity, I often thought if I was Doria, I would have spend more time in the UK, indulged in all the luxuries of being royal. It was always the opposite. Doria would fly in for a photo op or to for an occasion that requires a mom to be present and she was out of there just as fast. I don't believe Meghan and Doria are that close.

Not until after the Queen's death, R480.

R478, royals giving interviews is not "PR".

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

It's amazing that Meghan's stans are suddenly discovering the work the Royal family does.

oops, ^R479

They truly seem to lack ANY sense of shame with their grifting and manifesting.

[quote] The Wessexes will be promoted to Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh soon.

It depends on what you mean by "soon."

It won't happen until the Queen's death, and that may not happen for another ten years.

She is 95, no, R487? 105 might be a stretch, esp with the stress caused by her sociopathic grandson and his wife.

I just hope that the Queen lives long enough to beat everyone else to become the longest reigning monarch EVER! The longest reign was King Louis XIV of France at 72 years 110 days.

SHE CAN DO IT!!!

Louis XIV; apres moi, le deluge!

Reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?

Meghan is Madame Defarge, hellbent on trying to destroy the Evrémondes (Windsors) and Lucie (Kate) and her child. The BRF needs a Miss Pross.

I do hope the Markles aren't making the Queen's heart go "pump-pump"!

"Après moi, le déluge" is attributed to Louis XV.

Harry is being slowly pushed out into oblivion.

R494 merci

Is the Queen "inviting them for the Platinum Jubilee Celebrations 2022" publicly through palace sources a stall tactic? Is this public invitation saying all should be forgiven a way to preventively explain or plant the seed to the public as to why Harry and Megs won't be at any Royal occasions summer 2021. They have the Diana 2.0 excuse but I have been reading that Kate might step in for Harry to support Wills for the unveiling. I can't imagine Harry missing that.

Harry's an attention whore like the little woman but unlike her, he's mentally ill and after Phil's funeral he may have lost his nerve to go back.

If they do ANYTHING with that RACIST family, that would be.....er.....racist? Help me out....

R499, I don’t know what you’d call it. Hypocritical?

That little PR thing that claims that H&M are “calling the shots”? That’s exactly what they’re doing. “We won’t be seeing you this summer. But we’ll come to the Platinum Jubilee next year. We’ll let you know about Christmas...”

Meanwhile, the BRF is just going about their business, ignoring it all.

[quote]Harry and Meghan's baby daughter is due on Thursday, June 10, on what would have been Prince Phillip's birthday, according to reports.

That's cause for amusement. Of course she is. And if not, get ready for induced labor or a C-section to make the deadline.

[quote]The expectant parents are considering naming her after the late Duke, the Queen or Princess Diana, The Sun reported on Saturday.

I wonder if they realize that Pippa Middleton's full given name is Philippa? If they name the baby for Philip, Meghan will look even more like Vairst Letty to Kate's Michelle Obama.

Megan is nothing if not fantastically predictable. Schedule c-section on Philips birthday. Names considered are: Pip, Lily, or Diana. I would not want name my kids after the racist monsters who raised my horrific father and stuck him an institution for which he can not escape.

[QUOTE] Was a ratified life living in the upmost luxury just too hard a road to walk on?

Oh, dear! Klan Grannies can barely spell! Illiterate imbeciles.

I think they may have been trying to get ahead of this

R504 - Ahead of that, and ahead of the fact that Lilibet or no Lilibet, they were dropped below the Wessexes, Princess Anne, AND the Duke of York in the rollout last week of the BRF's "royal family" section of its website, making it clear that the Wessexes were replacing them in the pantheon of important royals, and that the Wessexes were allowed to give that lengthy cover interview for the Sunday TELEGRAPH in which Prince Edward confirmed that he would at some point in the future inherit his father's title, Duke of Edinburgh . . .

Maybe they looked at each other and said, "Golly, maybe we went too far, what if this whole California thing goes tits up in a year or so?! I know: LILIBET!!!!!!!"

Babies don’t fix ANYTHING. If a relationship is fucked (and I don’t just mean a marriage or romantic relationship; this goes for parent/child relationships), introducing a child into it will not “heal” anything.

Often, it makes things worse.

Naming their child after the Queen isn’t anything special.

And it doesn’t magically wipe away the things they have done for the past few years.

They hope they can postpone their day of reckoning by trying to take advantage of the queen’s good nature.

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

^ cartoon above has the caption: "Thanks for sharing, Archie - tell me your truth about being upstaged by baby Lilibet".

Lol, thanks R509/R510.

I think the name was a poor choice. The book is getting very bad reviews. If they spend so much money on expert PR, why do they seem to put every foot wrong? Do they just not LISTEN? As was said to be the case re: palace aides?

R511 - I think H & M are both attention whores so ANY type of publicity is like oxygen to them.

.....

The name is pure attention. Nothing else.

They gave birth in the US because they think she'll be President one day. I guarantee that's part of their truly idiotic thinking.