The Queen attends double Christening at Windsor

I feel vaguely relieved.

I am so delighted my joy today is captured on television and transmitted to the world! People as far away as... why, California!.. need to see just what a happy day it is for me, as the whole royal family gathers and I bestow blessings on the infant offspring of two of my most beloved grandchildren!

Holy shit, Jack Brooksbank is aging rapidly and badly. He was kind of hot before. Maybe Eugenie is sucking the life out of him.

How old is he? Thirty is around when Irish and British men all suddenly turn into trolls. Money helps, but can only do so much.

R2 you are obsessed.

I love that they invited Harry's former girlfriend Cressida Bonas and her husband... just to turn the knife, I suppose.

R4 or because she's a friend of the family.

It seems Bonas picked the right Harry.

[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.]

She's probably a god parent. She and Huge are friends. I think Huge introduced her to Harry or they met through the mutual connection.

Do the babies have those horrible pop eyes?

I’d have those seen to first.

Well, this is a smaller, family event. I'm sure it's less taxing on QE to attend this type of thing than a national remembrance event.

Is that a body double I spy?

Well, good to see her out & about if if she doesn't look thrilled to be attending

Did they feed those poor babies? Did the Queen give them some Granny candy? I simply won't be able to sleep for worrying about those little urchins' painful hunger pangs.

"Do the babies have those horrible pop eyes? "

Guess who...

Hehehe double BURN to the medusa of monteshitshow.

She walked so she could take a shortcut through the backyard of Frogmore House and take a shit on the lawn.

Where is Sarah, Duchess of York? Surely she was there. Oh yeah, Andrew too. They weren't shown in any of the Daily Mail photos.

Jack Brooksbank looks good, even more mature and better looking than when he got married.

I like Beatrice and Eugenie. They seem like lovely, well-behaved, no-drama girls. For all the coverage their parents have received over the years, Bea and Eug seemed to have turned out quite well and refined with no scandals surrounding them.

I wonder if Eugenie and Zara are close.

The Daily Mail only had photos of people approaching in their cars. The Royal Chapel of All Saints is on the grounds of the The Royal Lodge , where Andrew and Fergie live in Windsor Great Park. They probably walked.

Eugenie and Zara are said to be close.

^ Andrew walked from the Lodge to the Chapel when Beatrice and Edo were married there.

R16 They lived in Frogmore Cottage on the Frogmore estate. Not Frogmore House.

Megghan ould never have left if she'd gotten Frogmore HOUSE.

The tragic story of Harry’s ex-girlfriend’s husband’s younger brother

Eugenie is reportedly close with all of her cousins.

She seems to have inherited her mother's friendliness without (fortunately) her mother's extreme neediness or either of her parents' terrible judgment. She was one of Philip's favorites, supposedly, despite his dislike for her mother.

R13 Knock ot off, D.O. There are rich people and rich people's kids everywhere. In fact, even richer kids than these two, who, by the way . . .

AREN'T ROYAL. Plain Mr August Brooksbank and Mr Lucas Tindall.

It's getting stale.

That is so sad r24.

Was Harry’s ex-girlfriend’s half brother Jacobi Richard Penn Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe there?

The Chapel was originally inside the Lodge. In the early 19th century the Lodge was extensively rebuilt and parts of it were demolished, including the part containing the Chapel. It was decided to keep the Chapel and it was rebuilt were it was with its own exterior walls and windows. So the two buildings are just feet or yards from each other.

The thought of grandma Anne and grandma Fergie chatting to at the reception... Maybe they got tipsy and had a grand old time.

Anne inherited Philip's brass knuckles. Fergie gets it. Nothing need be said.

One major advantage of holding the service at this venue is that Royal Lodge is Andrew's home. He undoubtedly attended the christening of his first grandchild, but didn't have to sneak in through back doors, as he did at Bea's wedding. It's on his property and he didn't even have to drive in.

And because it's private property, Fergie can bound around off leash.

Is his world gonna come tumbling down when Big Liz croaks?

Bea was married at the same Chapel on his property for probably the same reason. Are you thinking about Eugenie?

I thought Bea was married at St. Mary's in Windsor. That's a church, not a chapel. Eugenie was married in St George's Chapel. Windsor, the grander venue, televised, and also where Harry and Meghan were married. Ditto the Wessexes.

Nope, Royal Chapel of all Saints for Bea's wedding.

How many churches/chapels are on the property? Don’t they need just one?

I made a mistake above when I posted that the Chapel had originally been part of the Royal Lodge itself. It was originally part of the much smaller Porter's Lodge but it was extensively rebuilt at the same time the main lodge was and became a stand alone building. It is just yards away though.

R37 - Thanks. I could have sworn it was St. Mary's at Windsor, but all right.

It turns out that Brooksbanks' father died a few days before the christening, of residual effects from COVID. I thought he looked sombre in the photos of them arriving in the car. This explains it. And they were smart not to let the news out before the christening.

Still wondering about the presence of Cressida.

Any guesses on how big Mike Tindall's dick is? You just know Zara would never settle for small or average. That slag needs to be filled up to the brim.

Cressida was friends with the York sisters before she met Harry and they've remained friends.

[quote]. I thought he looked sombre in the photos of them arriving in the car.

Me too It was such a contrast as he always looked jovial at family gatherings. DL being what it is had declared he'd lost his looks (English aging like milk and such)

R41 -

Mike is tasty.

I wonder if they've ever swung with any of his rugby mates.

Liz looks bad. Piled-on makeup.

But no blackamoor pin, thankfully. But maybe those are just reserved for greeting guests of color?

I’m assuming Cressida is one of the godmothers?

I wondered that too, r49.

I completely respect the desire for the minor members of the royal family to keep their children out of limelight but this trend of elbows and back of heads and other bits and pieces is stupid and obvious. If you want to keep your child private, you should absolutely do so - and absolutely do so. 100%. This little game reflects poorly on the players. Look at me - look at me!

No, [R51], look at ME! - Meghan, the Duch...

You just know megabitch is throwing a bitchy fit !

[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.]

I'm sure Jack was grim because he knows the Queen is dying.

Was her father an antivaxer?

(THE father, not her father.)

The r54 sentence below the headline should be worded in such a way as to not imply he died at the chapel, as it does now.

Well, it is The Mail, R58!

What a mean and not even funny comment about Brooksbank's father.

^^ in reply to who?

R51 - privatizing children makes them even more and more valuable when a Hello! comes a knockin'!

ATTENTION. ATTENTION, PLEASE. I MIGHT BE PREGNANT AGAIN, SO ALL EYES AND THOUGHTS ON ME.

I in no way would put it past her to get knocked up again and play it off as an "oops, I'm just so fertile!" when people questioned the previous 'we're only having 2 because anything more is planet murder' statements. Kate has 3 and I have a feeling Meghan has a very unhealthy competition going on (in her head) with Kate.

The Queen is continuing the tradition of inviting the future kings to tea for a chat - first it was William and now it's George.

That's sweet, R65. Makes me miss my Nana. We never had tea together but we made cookies (after which, I smelled each batch!) and had informative chats.

“The monarch” 😂

It is interesting — the extent to which the hatred of Meghan has colonized the brains of the Brits when in comes to the royal family.

She has nothing to do with this story whatsoever.

I usually play the little game of going down the comments to see when she’ll be invoked. It was only two in this one. It’s quite poignant, actually.

[quote]I usually play the little game of going down the comments to see when she’ll be invoked.

How very sophisticated and above it all you are, R68. At least I admit I'm here for the goss!

….. gossamer?

More like loathing for Haz, Rose.

R63 R64 If the appeal is granted, don't think for a moment Meghan wouldn't get herself up the duff and use it either as the excuse to withdraw the suit, or to demand a long extension for trial, coting the danger of all that stress as she already had one miscarriage. . .

^*citing (not coting)

Prince Louis will attend the Sandringham Christmas Day service for the first time. It will be George and Charlotte's second time.

The thing I find distasteful about William is that he went from being a typical young guy to acting like he was a paragon of virtue almost overnight. Once the Queen decided it was time for him to start his training for the role of King, and getting married, he completely changed his public persona. Remember this scene, the day they were all on the balcony at Buck House and he squatted to talk to one of the kids and Granny fisted him in the shoulder with a nasty look on her face motioning for him stand his ass up. That was all part of his indoctrination in how to act in front of the public.

Ain't buyin' it. His whole thing is one big act trying to look Kingly. And I'm sure most of the British public are buying it hook, line, and sinker.

R75 - it may be called "maturity". He's accepted his fate and he intends to make the most of it.

Of course it is r75. It’s all an act. Looking kingly is the only requirement since he has no actual power.

R76 one doesn't mature like that overnight. That takes many years. What he's displaying is fake maturity. I'm quite sure he's a very different person in private. The whole family (except Harry to an extent) are living the big lie where the public is concerned. I can see why Harry decided he couldn't live like that for the rest of his life and got out.

[quote] I can see why Harry decided he couldn't live like that for the rest of his life and got out.

Harry "couldn't live like that" because, as his behavior has consistently illustrated, he's an immature boy with personal issues, who has gravitated from one lie to the next most of his life.

R75 - your post is lame. Try again and try harder, Harry lover.

Harry and memememe are the boils on the butt of the royal family

I see the idiot obsessed with Harry is back, LOL.

And I see the bigger idiots who are consumed with pathological queer envy over someone they think doesn't deserve what he has are back. Sorry girls, Harry will always have more than you could ever dream of having.

R75 The Queen was right to tell him to stand the fuck up!

Yes, but the way she did it made her look like an old nasty tempered crone.

R83 - I'm mature enough not to care how much Harry has. I mean really...how bloody young are you to post something like that? Jealousy is a sign of immaturity. You and Harry have it in spades.

Oh shut it R86. You protest too much.

Fact is, every member of the British Royal Family is a calculating, hard handed person who would fuck you over in a heartbeat and not bat an eye if it suited their purposes. These are not gentle, kindly people. The Monarchy is a big business and QEII runs it like most every CEO of a big business. It's all about profit and loss with them and nothing, and I mean NOTHING, will be allowed to get in the way of their profits.

R87 I don't disagree that the royals put the interest of the monarchy ahead of virtually everything else. However, survival at all costs can likely be applied to every person in public life. As for profits, I take it you're American? The royals don't make money doing royal engagements. They have private wealth yes, but it is against the law for any member of the royal family to pocket state funds the recieved for carrying out their activities. Only the Queen is funded directly by the state (though she passes along some of the Sovereign Grant to support the activities of minor royals). Charles and William are funded by the royal duchies.

[quote][R63] [R64] If the appeal is granted, don't think for a moment Meghan wouldn't get herself up the duff and use it either as the excuse to withdraw the suit, or to demand a long extension for trial, coting the danger of all that stress as she already had one miscarriage. . .

Her attorneys have tried numerous times to withdraw the suit but under British law, ANL has to agree to let her and they've refused permission every time. I'm sure she filed her action as a nuisance suit expecting a quick payout settlement.

QEII is a renowned skinflint. Years ago I was reading about her complaining of the water bill in some of her residences. She had signs put up in all the WCs that said "NO PULL FOR A PEE". She didn't want people flushing every time they took a piss. Royal Palaces with loos stinking of fetid piss.

R89 - I don't they tried to withdraw the suit: I think they tried to settle the suit before filing it, and ANL refused. When ANL refused to "settle" out of court, Meghan, on her lawyer's advice, rushed to file before Warby rotated off the bench in that particular quarter. They filed just as that South African tour was ending and the suit completely wiped out any focus on the tour itself, which infuriated the hosts.

After the suit was filed, no one heard anything about Meghan attempting to "withdraw" the suit. The cost management and other pretrial hearings went forward, and Meghan won a few rounds and ANL won a few rounds.

The "Palace Four" stuff didn't come out either till late December/early January, and then Meghan's attorneys asked for Summary Judgement and got it.

Withdrawing was never a serious option after filing the suit, and then they got Summary Judgement, winning on all fronts.

It was only after ANL, somewhat surprisingly, was granted the right to file an appeal, that some warning clouds of What if? gathered on the horizon. Then Knauf dropped his bombs.

If the appeal isn't granted, the Summary Judgement stands and Meghan breathes a sigh of relief but has to start rebuilding her public image after being outed as a perjurer.

If the appeal is granted, those warning clouds turn into bona fide thunder clouds, and she'd be a right fool not to push to settle, and ANL would be a right fool not to let her. They'd have their victory in all but name, recoup a goodly portion of their legal expenses, and not have to risk losing at full trial.

If the appeal is granted, she will try to withdraw, and ANL this time, its point having been made, crow for a week or so, and then everyone can move on.

Apparently Cessida’s mother in law in a Mountbatten by Marriage.

The Queen is not the only royal directly funded by the Sovereign Grant. The monarchy as a whole entity is given an annual grant, and that grant is used to cover all expenses related to work for the state, whether it be hers or the Wales' or the Cambridges' or the Wessexes. Secretaries, P.A.'s, special wardrobe requirements for visiting places where certain customs have to be observed, and, of course, travel. If staff positions (e.g., nannies, chefs, chauffeurs, etc.) are used both for personal and public life, their salaries are shared between the SG and the personal income of the grantee.

Charles is directly funded by the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; he voluntarily gives about half to the Treasury, but the rest is his to use as he pleases. He gave each of his sons a seven-figure stipend to support their households, as well as a generous wardrobe allowance for his two daughters-in-law. That is how expenses that are incurred for both private and public use are paid for by William and Kate.

Now, of course, Charles no longer funds the Sussexes, so only William gets the stipend, alleged to be about three million quid.

The Sovereign Grant is a large packet out of which the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William, Princess Anne, and Prince Edward get a cut based upon their work for the State.

The Queen was supposed to have been keeping up repairs at BP with some of that, but she didn't, and the place is crumbling. That's a report I would really like to see - why didn't she?

^*PAs, not P.A.'s

Hey Harry idiot, sorry for breaking it to you:

Your hero is an idiot.

Just like you are. :-)

Hi Harry @R83!

Nice you've joined a gay forum. Does Meghan know? Or has she told you to join as she's rumoured to check SM all day for getting mentioned anywhere on the internet?

Anyway, have fun! I'm sure you'll enjoy the place, particularly the threads dealing with hot blokes and huge cocks.

[quote]The Queen was supposed to have been keeping up repairs at BP with some of that, but she didn't, and the place is crumbling. That's a report I would really like to see - why didn't she?

Rubbish. The Sovereign Grant was created to replace the Civil List in 2011. At that time it was recognized the Civil List was not sufficient to fund the monarchy and to maintain the occupied royal palaces in good order, buildings that are the property of the state not the private property of the monarch. The repairs to Buckingham Palace aren't due to finish until 2027 and will run about 370 M L. The Civil List was 7.9 M L annually - for the whole shooting match, not just building maintenance. Whatever wasn't done wasn't done for lack of funds.

I think Harry and William were both ill brought up (I know there are some who will think it an impossibility for children of their social status to be ill brought up - I am not one of those people) and I think it affected both of them. Some of William's transformation is PR, sure. Some of it is real - he does appear to have finally accepted that he will be the king, and he's got 3 children now. Children are often the factor that pushes an overgrown emotional adolescent into adulthood.

The real difference between them, though, is the women they married. Kate is everything the Windsor brothers are not. She was raised in a warm, loving, emotionally supportive and intact family and it shows. She is the provider of that same warmth and stability not only to her children but to her husband. She is the cool head and the smarter of the two.

Harry married someone as bad for him as Kate is good for William. If I'm going to be called a misogynist now I believe Meghan did the same (marry someone very, very bad for her). Due to inherent traits and childhood environment, both brothers were deeply in need of quality wives. William found his. Harry didn't. And Meghan will be the breaking of him just as Kate will be/already is the making of William.

Interesting assessment, R98.

I hope Eugenie and Zara protected their sons from being mutilated.

You mean having their pop eyes corrected?

Zara doesn’t have pop eyes. Nor does Eugenie.

Kate visits the Fabergé exhibit at the V & A Museum today.

The Queen is such a badass.

[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.]

R105 Honestly, I'm team William on this one. If Harry was my brother I wouldn't want anything to do with him either.

R106 Second that. And I sure as fuck wouldn't want him and that viper whose pet human he is anywhere near my wife and children.

Will is second to the Queen. Kate is in third place. The once popular Harry has wasted the goodwill he had. His wife is in the dumps where she should be.

Here's the Q3 2021 rankings of popular figures in the U.S. from the same pollster, though the US wing.

Prince Harry is 15th.

His first wife is 50th. She is preceded by leading figures like Melania Trump, Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush and helpful anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Junior.

The Queen ranks 5th. Prince William 31st.

William and Catherine will travel to the US Fall 2022 for the 2nd Earthshot Prize awards. A bounty for Royal watchers!

R110 Shit!

Surprised Charles's popularity increased by so much in such a short time.

R112 - Charles has Harry and Meghan to thank for that. He's 73 years old and his son lied about him to paint himself and his grifter wife as victims. The sympathy was with the father that everyone knows really tried. The pair made themselves look disgusting and the people they trashed look good.

Meghan was the best thing to happen to Kate since William slipped that huge sapphire onto her finger.

No matter how they try to ingratiate themselves with the public, the Sussexes cannot hide how incredibly unlikable they are.

Their atrocious behaviour just ricocheted.

One of the unfortunate things about getting so old like the Queen is seeing family, friends and loyal staff die off at an alarming rate. Now, the Queen has lost her old Mistress of The Robes (one of my favorite titles).

The accomplished Aristocrat who was a Justice of Peace, and the Queen’s Mistress of the Robes for over 50 years, Fortune FitzRoy, the Dowager Duchess of Grafton, who has passed away at the age of 101. She was pretty in her youth.

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

^What a name to be born with, Fortune FitzRoy. You'd laugh if you saw it in novel.

For those who may not know, "Fitz" as the first part of a name indicates being born on "the wrong side of the blanket", i.e., outside marriage. FtizRoy, literally, mean illegitimate offspring of the King.

She was quite lovely. Ah, old age is heartbreaking.

^*FitzRoy, not Ftizroy

R68 Well, you're here, so that’s that.

Don't judgements like R68 just crush you?

I know I'm going to reflect deeply on what a terrible, terrible person I am. Manipulative, a bully, a discarder of others, a user, with faulty memory... yes, I shall think deeply about these flaws in my character. Thank you, R68, thank you for being you.

The Queen received The Ruth Bader Ginsburg Women of Leadership Award.

If I saw this guy walking by, I wouldn't give him a second look.

Charles pays tribute to gay actor Sir Antony Sher.

So William managed to produce a podcast before Harry did.

R123 William's podcast is actually really good. I'll admit I'm not his biggest fan but he came across very charmingly and he was open and honest without ever falling into playing the victim. Harry should take note.

[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.]

Fergie’s right. They were gleefully vicious to her.

R124 is exactly right. The difference between the two of them is William seems to appreciate his situation and make the most of it, while Harry is out for vengeance. He'd do better to pursue less joy until he's pursued intensive therapy because Humpty Dumbo still hasn't been put back together again. Harry hectors and scolds and complains and finds fault. William was realistically upbeat. I enjoyed it. He handled it properly without sucking up or selling his soul.

R126 I think that "honour" should go to Camilla if we're being perfectly honest.

Whenever Fergie gives yet another interview with yet the same array of self indulgences and complaints, I often wonder how it was people talked about how stupid Diana was supposed to be. Because Fergie's an idiot. A total fucking idiot.

Congratulations to the Queen on receiving the RBG Leadership Award. Were her ungrateful backstabbing grandson and his wife in attendance at the ceremony?

R130 Nope, they were not invited.

R130 - " I don't know them".

Kate credited with the return of the glitter gown.

R230. I have nothing against the Queen, but what really qualifies her for this award? Is it for women who remain in public positions longer than their health allows?

I think it's women with reading and comprehension skills.

R134 It's clear you have no idea what the Queen has been doing for the past 70 years, or the place of the monarchy in the UK. What an education you've had.

And it’s a shame you have no education whatsoever. She’s done the role admirably but you no must not have learned she is a hereditary constitutional monarch. She’s respected because she doesn’t presume to lead anything and has always recognised that, although she has done a great deal to deserve the position, she did nothing to earn it, unlike Ginsburg. Are you at all familiar with the British constitution and her approuvable to her reign?

Her approach to her reign

Well, she went to her great-grandsons’ christening and I think that’s lovely.

R137 - the Queen leads by example. Dignity and dedication to duty, the nation and the Commonwealth.

All those traits are admirable, but it’s really a stretch to characterise any of them as leadership. If they were handing out awards for dignity or devotion to duty, it would certainly make sense to give the Queen one, but the very existence of this award, much less conferring it in the Queen, is absurd.

It’s absurd to begin with that every recently deceased person must have an award or scholarship in his or her honour. And if Ginsburg absolutely must be honored, why on earth is she being honored for leadership.? To the extent she distinguished herself, she did so through her scholarship and her advocacy. She was not in any sense even a leader of the nine people on the Supreme Court, of which she was not even Chief Justice

In summary, we have yet another meaningless award for leadership named in honour of a lawyer and bestowed on a hereditary figurehead.

Like Ginsberg, she seems determined to die in the saddle. Unlike Ginsburg that won't fuck her country.

Sarah, Beatrice and Eugenie are my favorites. I like them.

From The Telegraph: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be joined by other members of the Royal family at a Christmas carol concert featuring performances by singers Ellie Goulding and Leona Lewis, at Westminster Abbey.

The Together At Christmas event, hosted by the Duchess, will be broadcast on ITV on Christmas Eve, and will include readings by Prince William and Kate Garraway.

While the Queen sat alone during her husband's funeral, Boris The Bastard and his Conservative colleagues were partying.

I don't particularly admire Keir Starmer but he had a great line on Twitter: We have a Prime Minister who is socially distanced from the truth.

I used to be a real fan of Boris Johnson. I believed him to be fundamentally centrist and really optimistic about the prospects for the UK.

For many, many reasons, I now think he's a total, irredeemable idiot. The Prince Harry of politics, from the clueless self indulgence to the odious, domineering wife wearing the pants.

I don't think Boris survives much more than three months. Worse, I think he'll probably be replaced after the Shakespearian machinations of Michael Gove, in whom seems to dwell all at once every objectionable quality of every deplorable Briton you can imagine.

Oh, well, as somebody said to me once: the UK is a third world country with a fresh coat of paint.

I'd argue the monarchy is one of the few things it still gets right.

R141 - You are missing the point of the award. "Leadership" is really not the point literally. What the award IS pointing out is women who have succeeded in what has, for centuries, been considered a position that only males are really suited to. Law, medicine, monarchy. The Queen stands alone in her position, setting an example, and, by the way, quietly doing away with male primogeniture in the line of succession at the stroke of a pen.

It was the Queen who decreed when Kate was first pregnant that regardless of the sex of Kate's firstborn, s/he would be first in the line of succession.

Literally, millenia of tradition and law favouring males were blown away. It is astonishing that the Queen gets so little credit for this, and that, instead, Meghan Markle goes around boasting about "changing the monarchy".

And, it is typical of the Queen's diffidence that she didn't make a fuss of it or keep calling attention to it.

She did this alone. In places like Denmark and Sweden and Belgium, it had to be done by legislation. In fact, in Denmark, the law still holds that whilst females may inherit the throne, they may only do so if they have no brothers.

The Leadership Award doesn't mean, literally, someone who led a company or an army into battle. It means someone who led the way forward to a greater understanding of the capabilities of women.

The Queen didn’t and couldn’t change the rules of succession. She has no role in deciding who succeeds her. The change did require legislation—-the Succession to the Crown Act of 3013. Most countries have changed the rules of succession and did so before the UK. The need to change the rules in the UK had been discussed by many people for many years.

It’s fine to honour her for the good she has done with the role she was allotted in life, but leadership is something she hasn’t exercised and something she hasn’t earned. It’s patronising to honour women who obtained their roles through their relationship to men (e her father). It is fine to honour the fact that she performed the role she was handed in an exemplary fashion.

R121, that's a great photo of him. He looks tall and lean. Plus the background is wonderful. I wouldn't mind having those spaces for walks.

[quote]If I saw this guy walking by, I wouldn't give him a second look.

More fool you.

I don't know if this is true but if it is...a princess has been born at18 years old.

The Queen at Windsor today.

Younger royals attended the Christmas Concert.

Kate wore a red version of the dress she wore at Prince Philip's funeral.

In this short video of the mini family reunion between Will and Kate, the Yorks, the Tindalls and Sophie, you will notice Will was pretty cool with everyone especially Eugenie. Kate gave her a bear hug and Will gave her a lukewarm side hug and pat.

The Middletons were there!

Is there any feeling of family among these people?

R157, they look like family to me. Family show up for one another, as they have done for Kate at her carol concert.

The York daughters are fugly, ugly and dangerous to know.

Do they see each other at any time other than "events?"

^^Try google for your questions.

I do feel sorry for the Californian royal children. They will grow up with no extended family except for Doria. Alone with two tricky parents who have themselves not shown a great ability to get on with those closest to them. Their royal status will make them always slightly different from the people around them, while at the same time they will never be as rich as children of the talented people their unqualified parents aspire to count as their equals. It’s not a future I would want for children of mine.

R155, I gotta agree. The body language between William and Huge looked... awkward. Kate, on the other hand, is rocking her role these days.

I adore the Royal family

The queen in the photo at R152 looks like she’s lost a good deal of weight.

^^She could afford to lose some. The tailor needs to alter some of her dresses now.

And Boris will face absolutely no consequences, R145. The British public keep letting him get away with murder. In fairness, this is partly Labour's fault, because they're too fractured to provide any real opposition.

R148 Yes, we all know she can't decide who can succeed her a la Henry II.

That's not quite the same thing as doing away with male primogeniture, which is broadly applied, not an attempt to reorder things according to personal preference.

And, yes, Parliament did to the necessary.

But do you really think she had nothing to do with this?!

R167 - Not quite getting away with it as easily as all that. The polls for the Tories compared to where they were in 2019 are dire, and Labour are catching up.

As someone said on SKY News this evening, it's the government that loses elections, not the opposition that win them.

Starmer is hardly inspiring, but with Johnson exhibiting the hubris that is always the downfall of an initially successful man, Starmer's aura, especially as he's shaking up his front bench, may get a bit of a polish.

"Pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction."

The red wall folk who deserted Labour cannot be assumed to continue to give the Tories more chances. indefinitely

R169, I hope you're right.

Back to the topic at hand - or almost . . . as we haven't heard anything to the contrary, we may assume Lady Louise Windsor, who turned 18 in November, and may now opt to adopt the style and title of HRH Princess Louise, didn't. Surely, we'd have heard about it if she had. There would have been some announcement of some kind.

Too bad, she's turned into a quite lovely and dignified young woman. And it would sooooo burn Meghan's arse.

R170 - Eh, style of thing. The pendulum never stands still. When it doesn't, you have an autocracy. When it does, you get driven mad.

That's why the royals are so refreshing - they're neither, not any longer.

Kate looked ravishing tonight hosting the Christmas concert in Westminster Abbey that will be broadcast on Christmas Eve . . . by ITV instead of BBC, wink wink.

Although red is one of her best colours, and I love the dress, so perfect for the occasion, I do think the earrings are more suited to full evening dress, i.e., a long gown.

Factoid on the dress for those not inclined to read the article: it is the same model dress she wore to Philip's funeral, only she also has it in red.

Couldn't the Queen have leant her some less chandelier-like ruby earrings to go with the dress?

Her hair looks gorgeous, and she looks extremely confident, happy, and natural.

They had deer with antlers and Christmas garlands at the Abbey to greet them, as well as carolers.

I don't know who in the video looked more startled, the deer or the Cambridges.

The Queen is also powerless to decide the kinds of people who succeed her. She can’t, for example, decide that a catholic can succeed her.

In summary, she is getting a leadership award for a decision that had been proposed by many people publicly, that had been adopted in many other countries, and that she could not and would not oppose, but that we assume, on no real evidence, she advanced on her own. It still doesn’t seem much like leadership to me.

Her Majesty lent Kate those earrings to wear to the Abby. They had belonged to her mother, The Queen Mum. Kate might have not have felt it polite to say no thanks.

^ I'll Oh, dear myself. Abbey!

Oh ffs. We all know as noted above that she has no power. But she does have influence. Why in hell wouldn't she quietly encourage such a change? She has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn. She meets the PM every week. She sees sensitive state papers every day. She leads by example. She's done her job for 70 years when it often meant setting her own feelings aside. She"s been Britain's Head of State for 7 decades. You think she LIKED welcoming Trump and corrupt African and Middle Eastern leaders on behalf of Britain's geopolitical interests?!

She's the antithesis of the incressingly self-absorbed, narcissistic culture of the West. That in itself is worth an award for leading by example.

I liked Beatrice's coat very much. It was flattering and in that gold vein her cousin-in-law wore a little while he ago. Poor Eugenie's face I don't recall a public persona whose facial appearance has been so altered.

R176. Apparently people don’t know. Why do you make these posts? No one is criticising the Queen. She has admirable qualities but she doesn’t deserve a leadership award any more than she deserves an award for literature or science

As always, I marvel at how long Kate continues to grow her hair. Soon it will be down to her ass. I’m convinced she’s doing it to troll Meghan.

And I wonder if the Sussexes will be putting out a holiday card. Will we get to see mysterious baby Lilibet, about whom nobody seems particularly curious?

R178 No, why are YOU putting up posts insisting that character and dedication don't deserve the label?

Tell you what, why don't you write the RBG award committee and complain?

And no one suggested she was the equivalent of Marie Curie or George Eliot.

They have NOBEL prizes for that kind of thing.

R179 - in the past, the Sussexes sent a Christmas photo to one of their charities ( I can't remember which one) and the charity releases it to the public. I don't know if they'll change that habit.

R180. I already said the award was silly in itself and honors a quality that RBG herself did not exemplify.

The Queen stood firmly against apartheid and I believe Mandela recognized her support for him.

The Queen's stand against racism.

Gotta say, I love the old girl!

I think there is an Atlantic divide about what leadership means. I think Americans see leadership and power as being synonymous. This is because national life in America is almost entirely centered on politics. The President is seen as a leader because he is the head of the political system. In the UK (and many other countries), leadership and power aren't seen as being one and the same. The Queen is the head of the British State, though a figurehead, and for 70 years has been a beacon of stability, continuity and duty. I think because she lives in Palaces and has had a great deal of privilege, people forget that she is effectively the world's longest serving civil servant.

I see her “leadership” as being more of a role model. Being devoted to her country, steady in her habits and gracious in her demeanor. She is (publicly) serene and unflappable; she doesn’t raise her voice and stamp her foot. She’s reassuring.

I don’t think a person needs to be fire and brimstone to be a leader.

Monarchy is meant to be a focal point for the nation, at big moments in national life, and focus attention on the nation in the quiet times by where they go and what they do. I would reckon if you took the people who dislike the Queen or the monarchy, on principle, and put them on one end of a see saw, and then took the people who dislike Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer and put 'em on the other, the thrust would propel the Queen past Jeff Bezos' spaceship at some point.

Kate has cut her hair on occasion. but she does seem to be going in for a spot of Naiad Princess lately.

Well, she has glorious hair and she turns 40 in a month, maybe she's making the most of it whilst she can lay claim to the last vestiges of pre-middle age.

Her hair, her height, and her slenderness are also the foundation of her look. That may outweigh all other considerations.

That said, cutting some of it wouldn't lessen its contribution to that look.

Bet she trims it for her fortieth in January.

She could use a good trim but nothing drastic. Gotta keep those long strands for the tiara updos.

Lots of hair flaunting in this photo series

Thanks to these threads, I had a very bizarre dream last night involving a party with college classmates (from over 30 years ago) that was attended by the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Sussex. Early in the party I offended Kate by saying I didn't remember her in our class and thought "Oh, no I hope this doesn't ruin my reputation." Shortly afterwards, I was seated next to Meghan at dinner wondering out loud what she should have for dinner and proceeded to rattle off her favorite dishes. I turned her and said "How about some humble pie?" and felt very self satisfied. Afterwards I went to find Kate, who turned out to be the hostess. I found her in the kitchen whining to catering staff that they forgot to out one of the courses.

The End

R192, cool story, bro.

Please elaborate.

Preferably while burning in a grease fire.

You seem nice.

[quote] I turned her and said "How about some humble pie?"

🙂 Bravo!

Argh, at r192 it should read

"...Meghan at dinner WHO was wondering..."

She was doing all the talking.

Come on, Willie, give Eug a hug!

They all look good. I especially liked the looks of Beatrice and Eugenie.

In Wills' younger days, he was very good looking. Then in his later 20s through mid-30s, he hit a wall and became rather unattractive. But now in the past year or so, he's starting to look good again...not handsome like he was in his younger days, but an almost 40-year old fairly good-looking man. Maybe his stature and new-found confidence is helping.

You look at all the younger royals and you wonder, "What the hell are Hazbeen and Markle so goddamn angry about? It's all manufactured and lying bullshit. And for what? So unnecessary and destructive. There must have been another way to stay...or leave. But instead, they did it all the wrong way.

It's all Markle, R200, with her playing his sense of entitlement and exorbitant self-worth against his "second-son" lack of ultimate status, and convincing him that she is the embodiment of his dead mother - the saintly martyr-victim of the establishment and his family. Her "suicidal thoughts" mocking Diana's dramatics, her "race" mocking actual race issues, her "they don't love me" games mocking Diana's frictions with the family, and on and on.

I was, in a detached way, a supporter of theirs, delighted at the marriage, her early appearance before I realized she is nothing but a cunning construction), the prospect of two brothers and their families forming a kind of normality in the abnormal situation of a monarchy.

But after the constant, focused, tactical attacks at the monarchy, all because they can't have it - it is as treasonous as the Windsors' games with Hitler and WWII. They lie and stand for nothing but their own bottomless hunger for money and social power.

And nothing is going to change it. They will be the shit in the corner at every critical moment of the British passage through the next 40 years, barring the unwanted solution of something drastic.

Can the monarchy, if that's what the nation(s) truly want. But don't empower these two sniping Lilliputians to be the agents of the process.

For me, one of the most cynical things she did was complain to Oprah that the royals kept her from getting a shrink. That was a dog whistle: “As a woman of color, I was denied access to healthcare!” She knew that’s how some would interpret it. Such bullshit.

R202 Meghan is basically the female Jussie Smollett. All this racism stuff and her suicidal mental break down never fucking happened. As someone who as legit suicidal in my 20s, it's not something you just get over without treatment yet just months after that alleged night she wanted to die, she is totally normal....please!

Her story about being isolated, too, was debunked by, of all people, the French Ambassador!

His residence (along with those of other high level diplomats) is adjacent to Kensington Palace.

When Harry & his wife left for greener pastures at Frogmore Cottage, he was quoted as saying that in a way he would miss them because it had been so lively with them living there, with all the parties and fireworks, etc.

She played the mental health and race cards to damage the royal family and to deflect any critism away from herself. She knows we live in a time when race, gender, and emotional health is more important than someone's character.

[quote]Meghan is basically the female Jussie Smollett.

Ouch!

I think the 2 of them should team up to do a talk show.

Now that would be a train wreck.

Two narcissists competing for the most screen time. No guests necessary.

Actually, there was only one photo of her touching her hair. The rest were all jus shots from the event. that the hair is front and centre is because of . . . the hair.

God, she is looking good these days. Not just good, but far more relaxed under the public gaze. She looks sleeker and happier, and her clothes are still very tailored, but up a notch toward something more.

Although, I still think the earrings were wrong. Those pearl and diamond earrings of Diana's would have been a better fit.

Sapphires aren't really her stone, even though she wears blue quite well. Emeralds are her real stone.

Patience, patience, Kate. Once HM is gone, more of those emeralds will come your way. They aren't Camilla's stone, at all.

Meghan really must gnash her teeth seeing Kate these days.

Meghan's arrival turned Kate into a goddess. Meghan's departure, albeit accompanied by some annoying bumps, cemented the transformation.

The long game is still going to the Cambridges. The Sussexes are noise that will die when they do.

The Cambridges are Britain's history.

Christ, Meghan, what a pair of short-sighted petulant fools you and Harry are.

Sometimes the resemblance between mother and son is noticeable.

[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.]

A close up of Louis.

Charlotte is ready for her close up.

George is at the awkward teeth phase. He'll get better.

Notice the hands, please. And A Happy Christmas to all!

Charlotte's going to be a stunner when she grows up.

Um William should wear shorts more often..nice legs!!!

Charles and Camilla's card ...

William has a very nice body. He looks very hapy, fit and healthy. I suppose the money helps, but I think he’s also just managed to find a balance between public and private life.

R217 - A very strange card for Christmas. I know Charles is trying to help Camilla put on her mask but one part of my brain thought he was trying to snuff her out. I know I'm awful.

And we await the Sussexes releasing their Christmas card in 2-3-1.

Harry & Meghan, take note.

^ That's a mistake they'd never want to make.

This is likely BS but funny none the less....

R223 let me oh dear myself...that should be "nonetheless"

[quote]she is effectively the world's longest serving civil servant.

That explains why I hade to wait FIVE HOURS to get my driver's license!!!

HM doesn't have a driver's license. They are issued in her name so it's considered redundant/unnecessary for her to, in effect, issue one to herself.

Oh well, my joke failed.

If Harry were to take his kids (and Meghan, if she deigned to) over to visit Her Majesty for Christmas, would this be good or bad for Her Majesty?

R228 - I don't think it will happen for various reasons.

1) the pandemic is getting worse with the new variant so traveling with small children isn't advisable at this time.

2) they weren't invited nor would the family want to give them an excuse to christen Lilibet at Windsor

3) it may be good for the Queen to see the children in person (if the parents behaved) but Charles would have a coronary and Will would be in a rage.

The only reason why H&M would want Lilibet to meet the Queen is for the photo op and since the royals will not let that happen, they ain't visiting.

Mark my words...Louis is going to be a heart breaker when he grows up.

R223 - it's BS. I already looked up her birth record on Ancestry.com and what is published is correct, she is 40.

It's nice that Kate got the chance to bring her husband and children to Jordan where she spent some time as a child.

So it wouldn't be possible for Her Majesty to see her great grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet, just because she's their great grandma and they're her great grandchildren and for no other reason? - Disregarding all the royalty crap and celebrity crap and family politics crap - purely from the standpoint of them veing hwr biological family. And nobody knows if this will be Her Majesty's last Christmas. What if she wants to see Harry and Archie and Lilibet in person and they want to see her? And all necessary safety precautions are taken. Doesn't the family tie matter? Does it matter if the other family members want to prevent it from happening? Who are they to stop it? She's both their Queen and the matriarch of their family.

R215 - Yes, looks it already, doesn't she? Look how she's holding herself - looks as though she's got her mother's abundant hair, from the Father's Day photo last year it's clear she has Diana's legs. She's going to be tall and tawny. She looks like a blend of the Queen and William. George looks a Windsor, and Louis, a Middleton.

Very attractive family.

R234 What if? What if? What if?

At this point, Charles has only met his grandson twice, and Archie and Lilibet are complete strangers to the Queen. It's hard to miss children with whom you have absolutely no relationship.

It's also possible she doesn't want ever again to be in a room with a smirking Meghan and a defensive Harry. It's also possible she wants as peaceful a Christmas as possible, given it may be her last, surrounded by the people who have been loyal to her.

It's also possible that the Sussex's only reason for bringing the kids to see a great-grandmother neither will ever remember or have a relationship with, is to get themselves photo ops with Gan-Gan so they can remind the world of their royalty.

And the Queen isn't going to let them use her to re-plate themselves in gold using her as the alloy.

Meghan doesn't want to see the Queen, or Charles, or Camilla, or William, or Kate. She knows perfectly well how they feel about her. And she knows they don't want to see her.

If they aren't offering her photo ops, she ain't a-comin'. No Meghan: no Harry. No Meghan and Harry: no kids.

It will be years before the Sussexes realise what they did to their children by depriving them of the Windsors as an extended family.

Right now, Meghan, especially, is the one who doesn't have any fucks to give as to whether the Queen sees Archie and Lilibet or not. If Meghan can't get any advantage out of it, there's no point in doing it.

The Queen isn't being pushed around by the "rest of the family". Not yet. If she were, she'd have taken their title after the Oprah interview..

Harry just threw his father under the bus again this week, remember?

So who is really making sure those bridges stay burnt, eh? It's not the Queen.

[quote]3) it may be good for the Queen to see the children in person (if the parents behaved) but Charles would have a coronary and Will would be in a rage.

Why would the Queen seeing her great grand children upset them? Do they think the Sussexes will walk out with a big, fat check from 'ol softie Gan Gan? Guess again .

I read this morning that Harry and Charles are speaking again. It's not great, but it sounded like they're being civil to each other. Who knows if it will last.

Why is anyone in the family getting friendly with these Monteshitto, California grifters? When Harry's book comes out in 2022, they are all going to be enemies once again--and during the queen's 70th jubilee no less. And for what?! What the hell are H&M so goddamn angry about anyway?

Aside from Covid and traveling aggravations, one of the main reasons the Markles won't be visiting the UK this winter is that once they arrive and go through an afternoon of forced pleasantries and photos, the Markles really have nowhere to stay. Oh yes, the royal family has houses all over the place and plenty of room, but none of the royal family wants to host the Markles or hang out with them. With everyone having their own families now, no one has any desire to make time for the lying grifters. No one trusts H&M. Basically, the Markles would be there without anything to do because no one likes them.

So again, once a possible afternoon of pleasantries and photos are over, no one likes H&M enough to spent any time with them. It would be a useless trip. It would garner a whole lot of publicity, but it would only serve to highlight that H&M are very much disliked. And after not seeing Archie and Lili for so long or not at all--no one cares whether or not they see kids they don't know and who don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The details of everyone being unfriendly toward them would just end up in Harry's book or in an scandalous interview. It would be bad all around.

They would be given a set of rooms at St. James palace or Buckingham.

They could put them up at Sandringham. It's a big house. Loads of people stay over the holidays and that's where the Queen is through Feb. 6 each year. But the point is moot. I agree no one wants to see them and they don't want to see anybody.

[quote]Meghan doesn't want to see the Queen, or Charles, or Camilla, or William, or Kate. She knows perfectly well how they feel about her. And she knows they don't want to see her.

And everybody, including her, knows what she's done.

R240 “Could”, not necessarily “would”.

I think Meghan's boohoo Oprah interview was done so that the BRF would apologize and the Sussexes could save face and return to the good life of royalty.

But the BRF didn't apologize and now they're screwed.

Lovely Christmas cards. When will we see the Potato Head Family's?

But what does Her Majesty want? With regards to Harry, Archie and Lilibet. Does she want to see them?

R240. It's not a question of finding them a place to stay. There is plenty of room at all the different palaces. However, no one wants to see them so it would be a pointless trip. And the media would cover it relentlessly only to highlight once again that no one wants to see them.

Why did they do this to themselves? R243 makes a good point. There must have been an easier way to stay within the royal family or step back and leave. But instead, H&M chose to do every which way they could think of that was wrong and screw it up for everyone including themselves.

I’ll double christen ya, queenie! Geddovah here.

[quote]But what does Her Majesty want? With regards to Harry, Archie and Lilibet. Does she want to see them?

R245. There is a good chance the queen would want to see them, but as it was pointed out earlier, after the obligatory afternoon pleasantries and a few photos, what would the Markles do...hang out with the queen for the next four or five days? No. She doesn't have that kind of time, desire or energy to have them around all day. And no one else in the family wants to see them. It would be a very lonely trip for the Markles and not particularly friendly for anyone involved. If they were around the family, the tension would be too thick to handle. They all have their separate lives and families. Why internationally step into a hornet's nest when it's easier to just avoid it especially during the holidays.

And William is not going to allow them to be around the queen all that time. H&M cannot be trusted. If they want to show off the kids, they can do it via Zoom, which is not ideal, but again, H&M cannot be trusted. Or they could fly in for two days, say hello, spend some time with the queen and then fly back to California without seeing the rest of the family. Charles and William are not going to make themselves vulnerable over two liars who are looking to cash in.

They both thought they were more important and more interesting than they are. They thought they had more to offer and that people in La La Land would jump at the chance to "work" with them.

Remember early on, how a story was floated how MM wanted to work with A list directors?

The fact is that if they moved to California, settled in a place not as extravagant as they did, and flew under the radar, they might have been accepted and courted and included more.

But they exposed themselves for who they are and spit on the very institution that had made them famous. Their mouthpieces (Oprah and Gayle) revealed how duplicitous and untrustworthy they are. Not to mention the ever growing list of lies that they told.

I was one who was getting a shrieking alarm from my BS detector at the mere snippets I watched from the engagement interview. And here we are, so much later, where those who were delighted at that interview have had the scales dropped from their eyes.

The more the pair of them appear whether in person, video or print, the more negative the impression they leave.

Just playing along here…putting them up in one of the palaces if they visited. The Queen is at Sandringham with Kate and Will nearby. No, they wouldn’t put them there. Either Buckingham Palace or Windsor. The first is not very comfortable as well as giving the “stuck in town while everyone else is away” vibe. Windsor might be more logical as they used to live nearby. But it just opens up the potential liability for “we were made to feel unwelcome” or “the staff was watching us like a hawk”. Why give them more ammunition?

No one wants to see them and certainly they can’t be trusted not to snoop around their host’s medicine cabinet and desk drawers. Even if the Queen would want to see them, I’m doubtful they’d be allowed to. No one wants her subjected to emotional blackmail and terrible scenes. At this point, she’s in a protective cocoon until she reaches the big milestone.

R243 I think that as well. They over estimated their importance and believed by hurling allegations of racism and emotionally cruelty, the royals would bend over backwards and grovel to get them back on side. Problem is, if there is anything true about the Windsors is piss them off and they close ranks forever. As the Duke of Windsor once said "with my family you never truly know if your in, but by god when you're out, you're out."

Not sure why the future monarch has his legs out on the Christmas card, but I'm not mad about it, either.

The Middleton genes are very strong. Though Charlotte still takes after the Queen somewhat, all three kids have that Pippa Middleton flat face. They all look cute now, but on men, the Anthony Andrews boyish look doesn't age well.

From day one I knew she was bad news r249. One look at her social media told me all that I needed to know.

What was on her social media?

Bloody hell then. I'll just get drunk for Christmas Eve then.

Sorry great gramma. I wanted to come see you. I love you.

R257 shut up and pray for Doria's health. She's the only non-parental relative you're ever gonna get

I have absolutely no problem with William’s man spreading and shorts on their Christmas card. He’s in great shape.

They jumped head first into the 2020 woke/grievance trend, which is tiresome now. They’re stuck with it, though.

[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.]

So the BRF now has RBF.

I find William to be quite attractive and I love his alpha demeanor.

R250 - Why the hell would they bother to be "put up" if they visited?! They still hold the lease on Frogmore Cottage, which is a half-mile from Windsor Castle. That was their public announcement, wasn't it, when Euge and her husband took it over? That the Sussexes were happy to "open our home" to the Brooksbanks, but would be expected to let the Sussexes stay when visiting? Didn't Harry "quarantine" their when he came in for Philip's funeral?

Buckingham Palace? The Queen doesn't even live there. She lives at Windsor now, where the Sussexes allegedly have a place to live. Sandringham has plenty of room. The Cambridges' country home, Anmer Hall, is on the grounds of the Sandringham estate, so they don't have to be put up in the big house.

It has nothing to do with anything so mundane as where they'll stay. It has to do with the fact that they have completely betrayed the Queen and her family, and Britain, and done their best to damage all three. Ffs, Meghan was just exposed as a bloody perjurer!

You really think the Queen is just aching to see two kids she has zero connection to?! She has eleven other great-grandchildren handy. Or is it 12 now with Bea's new baby?

And the point you keep missing is, Harry and Meghan don't give a tinker's curse about the old lady and what she might like. The only thing those two are interested in is what THEY might like, and that's based upon, What's in it for us?

The Queen isn't going to give them nice photo ops so they can parade their We're Still Royal Windsors, See? creds.

And without those, the Sussexes aren't going to bother.

The Sussexes are being frozen out,. The BRF put the boot in by greenlighting Knauf to go ahead and spill it to ANL, with the result that Meghan was exposed as lying under oath, despite winning her case tecnically.

None of these people want to see each other. Harry just tried to damage his father again.

If you think the Queen is that invested in those two strange kids she doesn't know, rather than in freezing out the grandson clearly bent on being as destructive as possible to everything she holds dear, think again.

She's not the adoring Gran, either. She rarely sees the other 13 grandkids. She isn't crying herself to sleep about Harry's two.

^*quarantine there (not their)

Good Lord, please take a nap.

I agree that the rest of her family and the BRF staff is trying to make the Queen's life as easy and pleasant as possible. They really want her to be there in June for her greatest and final Jubilee (I suppose it's technically possible she could make 75 years on the throne, but highly unlikely). Stressful scenes with Harry and Meghan in person, not to mention what Harry and Meghan might say after the trip, would just put more pressure on someone who is already in fragile health.

The BRF gains nothing from a Sussex visit: not pleasant family time, not good PR, nothing.

It's a fair point. Anybody's great grandchildren must be more of a novelty than a concern.

The Cambridge family made a trip to Jordan and there was no publicity and the public had no idea until they (recently) release their Christmas card.

If the Sussex pair were really concerned about visiting the Queen, they could have done it privately.

But then, privacy is something H & M have shown they are not really interested in.

[quote]She lives at Windsor now, where the Sussexes allegedly have a place to live.

I don't think so. I read that when their future residence was being decided, Harry suggested they live at Windsor Castle. The Queen was said to be taken aback. Married royals are supposed to have their own residences. Of course, in retrospect, it was Meghan's scheming to position herself closer to the Queen. Oh, the grandiosity. Imagine how she would have spun it if they were granted a suite there.

Good find, R184. Those instances outlined where HM went against Thatcher's advice to weigh in and be involved in opposition to apartheid in those two countries were excellent examples of the kind of leadership that qualifies her for the award

Dog whistle, R202?? For those who looked up the details of this situation, Meghan and Harry were actually attending a mental health event that day for one of the charities. It was filled with professionals who could have referred her on the spot if not treated her if it were truly a crisis. It was a bald-faced lie that, had Oprah fact checked, would have told her immediately that she was interviewing charlatans. Of course she had to go ahead with the broadcast, but after that, she should have immediately distanced herself. And if Oprah had any guts, she would have shared the fact checks as commentary for the broadcast, possibly at the end.

Get over it, R234. They walked away. The Queen has likely had regrets about various circumstances in her long life, but then she moves on. And after the way they treated Charles in the interviews and the lies/drama about skin color comments during Meghan's pregnancy, it would be similar to any disruptive relatives that would just ruin any family event they attended. No one wants them around..

Thank you, R271.

The Sussex family will not be invited to visit the Queen now or anytime soon. Remember they travel with a camera crew......and even if they let the crew stay back in a hotel, they could be wearing a wire.

I imagine the Queen cares greatly about those children, in the abstract. To her mind, members of her family are out there in California, growing up in who knows what kind of environment.

R270 - Frogmore Cottage is IN Windsor. "Their UK home" as the website still puts it, is a half-mile from Windsor Castle. The Queen lives in Windsor. That's where the Sussex "home" is. Therefore, there is no need for the Sussexes to need a place to stay to visit Gan-Gan. They can stay in the house she bloody gave them.

Everyone knows they tried to get her to let them live INSIDE the castle.

They were probably already dreaming of providing Netflix with footage of their Life At Home With The Queen.

R276 And I imagine the Queen is far more taken up with her impending mortality and worries about whether the whole thing will collapse if Charles takes over. And grief for her husband. And the realisation of how many that were close to her are gone. And how tired she is.

She's looking over her shoulder at the Reaper. And she needs to get through this year of the Platinum Jubilee. And the shit that her pompous twat of a second son landed her in.

In her situation, your batteries are running low and you only have so much mental as well as physical energy.

She has lots more important things in 2022 for which she's going to need every last ounce of neuronal power she has left. I'd wager she never gives those kids a thought.

I guess Megh, being humility in person, wanted to be given Frogmore House.

She probably said "I want Frogmore!!!"

So HMTQ, reminding that what Meghan wants Meghan gets, gave Meghan what she wanted.

She gave her Frogmore.

Frogmore Cottage.

LOL.

[quote]Therefore, there is no need for the Sussexes to need a place to stay to visit Gan-Gan. They can stay in the house she bloody gave them.

R277. Eugenie, Jack and baby August now live at Frogmore Cottage, which is no longer the Markles' house. And Eugenie is politically smart enough not to have the Markles bunk in with her at Frogmore Cottage. Eugenie is not going to be seen aiding and abetting the deserter Harry and his grifting wife. Yes, Harry may have stayed at Frogmore Cottage when Prince Phillip died--but that was Harry only, not the wife and kids. Plus Covid was much more rampant then, and it was easier just to have Harry stay there isolated on his own. Plus, I'm sure it was sanctioned by the family due to the death of Phillip.

Additionally, whether or not H&M still hold the lease or the rights to Frogmore Cottage or that the Cottage is somehow technically still theirs doesn't matter at this point. H&M gave it up, and visiting now is not because of a family member's death. Visiting now is supposedly just a friendly visit to see Granny and pretend they have all made up with hugs, kisses or at least polite handshakes. But that hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen anytime soon. The bottom line remains: H&M are not invited, and nobody wants them. The whole ordeal is just too complicated and not worth screwing up the holidays and stressing out the 95-year old queen. H&M have also held back and secretly shielded their kids far too long by overplaying their hand.

So if H&M are wondering if the BRF wants to see the kids, the answer is NO--or perhaps, 'not really.' It doesn't matter any longer. And the BRF will only see Harry and family on the BRF's terms--not on Markle's terms while she schemes to get video footage for Netflix. The BRF don't play those games. The BRF don't need publicity. That's for commoners like H&M.

Agree with those who say that the Queen isn’t interested in Archie or Lilibet beyond a distant kind of warm feeling. It’s good PR for the “Queen Sad to Miss Lilibet’s First Christmas” kind of stories because it makes her seem relatable but that’s it. She wasn’t ever into babies, so why start now? Charles though probably does feel sad at the distance with his grandchildren.

All this maudlin rhetoric about the TQ being all sentimental about not seeing the Harkle great grandchildren!

I don't buy it for a minute. Harry is Charles son, and as such I'm quite sure TQ is not about to meddle with his children, for good or for bad. Grandchildren are often 'amusing and taken in small doses' to grandparents. Nothing more. Yes, of course she has a vested interest in the succession of her position with William, and yeah, a certain fondness for Harry no doubt, but entirely diminished by his recent actions and behaviour. As a family matriarch, I'm sure she has concern for Charles' predicament with his son, but I expect she has inferred to Charles that it's basically his family crisis to deal with. As it should be. I'm guessing she has vague interest in Harry and Meghan's nonsense, but that is overridden by a firm line-in-the-sand to any threat to the integrity of her life's work, the Monarchy. Business first I'm guessing, without even having to succinctly express it.

She's concerned of course, but not burdened by not seeing those California kids. Nor should she be.

R277 - please do read. They wanted an apartment INSIDE WINDSOR CASTLE, not on the vast grounds.

[quote] Anybody's great grandchildren must be more of a novelty than a concern.

Not in my family. Speak for yourself.

What would things be like now if the Sussexes had remained in England, at Frogmore Cottage, and Harry had kept his position and duties in the Royal Family?

Do you remember the tantrum the Harkles threw when they were banned from using sussexroyal? That childish response about everyone knowing that Harry is the favorite? They are so embarrassing.

Well, the Markles are not going to London for Christmas.

So the next big question is: Will they be invited to the queen's 70th jubilee in 2022?

And will the be invited onto the balcony?

R287 With Harry’s book coming out next year and the dirt he’ll have to include to justify his payment, I think it’s unlikely.

Harry is a candyass and Meg has a meal with her salad.

[R201], and they're just one plane crash away from being yesterday's news. Would that it were...

I am amazed nobody took R65's bait.

[quote]Her Majesty has a very special visitor for tea each Sunday afternoon and it has been a boost for her especially since losing PP back in April. Neil Sean says that Prince George joins The Queen for the afternoon where they have fun talking about mutual interests.

Come on, DL, what are their mutual interests?

Of course not r287. The thought is ludicrous.

R283 - YES, he said tiredly, we KNOW that. But if they returned for a visit, they don't have to be "put up" somewhere" in "one of the palaces" because they HAVE a fucking home of their own, still, a half mile from the only palace that counts in terms of visiting the Queen privately.

That was my point. They don't need to be "put up" anywhere. They have a home still listed on the royal website as their UK home. And it's virtually adjacent to the Queen's home. If the Sussexes really wanted to bring the kids to see Gan-Gan, there is no issue of where they'll stay.

The issue is that no one wants them the fuck around.

Please go back to Mumsnet r293.

^Amen. A bit invested.

Candy ass. Now there’s an epithet you don’t hear too much anymore. I like it. Let’s bring it back!

Yes, they have a home…that another family is renting. A family with an infant. You think it’s easy for them to pack up and move to dad’s house down the road for a week? A week when there’s going to be numerous public appearances and important dinners so all outfits and accessories have to be planned for and packed. A myriad of baby gear. Not to mention that the returning landlords are known to be curious. Wouldn’t want them opening the drawer where the sex aids are stashed.

Have you ever lived in an apartment? Did your landlord ask you to move out for a couple days so he could come back for a visit?

They still have a home and the website says the same way "But the palace said, rather cryptically, that Princess Diana will continue to be "regarded as a member of the royal family" and "will from time to time receive invitations to state and national public occasions" at the invitation "of the sovereign or the Government."

No wonder Meghan didn't want Harry or his family to meet her father. He's blunt and perfectly willing to call out her bullshit, which could have doomed her pursuit of the prince. I actually have some sympathy for her. My dear departed mother was like that, always saying embarrassing things in front of my friends, which I probably deserved but still.

So I guess I won't be seeing Grandpa Thomas either...

Again I ask: won't someone think of the children?

No, Christmas is a tool to be used for emotional punishment of those who transgress. It's right there in the Royal Family Employee Manual.

In 10-12 years, Harry and Meghan won't matter. They'll be in their fifties, and the public's attention will have turned to the Prince and Princess of Wales and their gorgeous teenage children. The Sussexes know this, which is why they are flailing desperately to stay relevant.

Won't happen.

I'm not a Meghan hater...but she seems totally isolated. Only her mother attended the wedding, she does not get along with all her other relatives. That's very unusual.

And now under her influence Harry is being pulled in the same direction.

I've said before multiple times that Meghan not getting her father under control was one of her biggest mistakes. As embarrassing as he might be, throwing a little cash his way (finding him a nicer place to live or upgrading his current home, saying some nice things about him) would've gone a long way. By ghosting him, she left him open for Samantha to swoop in (by some reports, they were estranged until Meghan became Harry's Girl). If she'd taken Papa under her wing, he'd be defending her in the press, not shouting at her with her crazy sister.

^ And it's exactly this that shows what a short-sighted idiot she actually is.

R306 - Well, she could have started by introducing her serious squeeze to her father before they were even engaged, never mind afterwards.

Meghan had nothing but nice things to say about her father - until she started dating UP brilliantly. With that kind of alliance at stake, Meghan was taking no chances. That alone should have been a huge red flag.

Who knows what sob story she told Harry.

The bottom line is that all relationships for Meghan are transactional: when her father became a hindrance (she thought) rather than a help, out he went.

Jessica Mulroney, her childhood friend, her black family (oh, they went out the door way early, probably as soon as she straightened the hair and got the nose job), the Windsors, and, one day, Scobie and Lainey and, one day . . . Harry himself.

And, yes, in ten years no one will care. The Queen will be gone, and either Charles or William will be on the throne, and either way, all eyes will be on the Cambridge/Wales children. George will be a tall, elegant 18, Charlotte a tall beauty of 15, and Louis at 12 already taking up the cheeky mantle that Harry shat all over.

As stated earlier: the Cambridges are British history; the Sussexes are a footnote in that history, and only relevant in their own time. Their noise will die with them. But the Cambridge heirs will continue the line of history.

Harry and Meghan already seemed to have faded from public consciousness, other than the occasional blip. They don't seem to generate natural interest. Even the snarkers and the haters have fallen by the wayside, bored with story.

[quote]Come on, DL, what are their mutual interests?

Repeal of Magna Carta, immediate installation of absolute monarchy. Duh.

Trying on tiaras.

What is family, Daddy?

Maghen will be "pregnant" again at the time of the Big 70 and will be told by her physician that travel is "inadvisable." Harry will be worried and stay with her to lend support.

And then they will find a nice Downy of Color up for a secret adoption and cash some more pity chips before the kid is handed over to "qualified professionals."

I'm sorry, kids. Mommy threw Grandma under the Prius.

What colour am I, Daddy? Mommy says I'm black but all I see is pink and blond curls.

Blond curls? M wishes. We would have seen those curls crowning had that been the case.

Where is my other Grandma, Daddy? Your mommy.

We know Lily is not a pretty child or we'd have seen her already.

What I find curious is that the woman who read a boring, unappealingly illustrated children's story to a very uninterested Archie (with FULL DIAPER LOAD) as he clambered about and showed his face fully for the duration of his boredom, suddenly became "concerned," as in Susan Collins likes to blather.

It really boggles that she let herself be filmed with an uncomfortable toddler in a heavily weighted diaper with so many squirmy, decidedly not interested shots. Did she not know what a full diaper is like? I suspect the kid was handed off to her by a besieged nanny who had fucking had it with the Duchess, much like that red dress with the hanging tag was given to her by frazzled, bullied staff on the Australia tour.

So, the next Archie appearance was the chicken coop shot that was heavily colored and cartooned to look like that Swedish band A-ha that did in their same type of graphic for "Take on Me" from Diana's time.

I wouldn't say Meghan and Harry have faded into irrelevance, but they did destroy their royal mystique. There's just no way to come back from that baby bottle stunt on Ellen. The stardust is gone.

Charlotte looks so much like young William.

WHAT COLOR IS THE GIRL, HARRY?!!!

"I wanted to dress up as The Grinch Who Stole Christmas but Mother Dearest wouldn't let me. This is the next best thing. Merry Christmas to all of you Queens!"

Meghan and Harry only generate interest where it concerns their relationship (or lack thereof) with the royal family. That interest has waned considerably as the royals wisely choose not to respond to their antics and feed the fire. All of their non-royal PR-generated initiatives sink like a lead balloon. 2022 will be the year that a lot of their "partners" quietly slink away from their sinking ship.

At this point, they have less public interest and/or cache than Paris Hilton. Paris was(is) a joke. But she's a hustler who can get still get a show because she stays true to her brand/persona/the times.

[quote]And, yes, in ten years no one will care. The Queen will be gone, and either Charles or William will be on the throne, and either way, all eyes will be on the Cambridge/Wales children. George will be a tall, elegant 18, Charlotte a tall beauty of 15, and Louis at 12 already taking up the cheeky mantle that Harry shat all over.

This is so fucking creepy.

It's Tiara Time...this is the City of London Fringe Tiara worn by the Kent side of the family.

When Harry's documentary about the Invictus Games debuts in the spring 2022, the Markles will reemerge and be back in the spotlight. The Invictus Games take place later in the spring. The documentary is due earlier in the spring.

When Harry's book comes out in late 2022, the interest in these two Monteshitto grifters will be sky high.

When MMarkle's animated series, "Pearl" debuts in 2022, interest will surge again.

When and if they ever do a podcast, interest will surge once again. Is Spotify paying them for nothing?!

Whether or not any of these projects will be successful is another matter. But unfortunately, these two assholes will be in everyone's faces in 2022.

The Markles cannot stay at Frogmore Cottage if they were to visit. Eugenie, Jack and baby August live there now. And even if there is room to have them stay in a separate wing of the house, Eugenie is not going to self-sabotage herself by aiding and abetting the deserting H&M and alienate her family from the BRF by having the Markles stay with her. She's not stupid. If Charles and William sanction the Markles staying with Eugenie, it may be allowed. Otherwise, forget it.

Harry only stayed at Frogmore Cottage when Prince Philip died because he was alone, and there was a death in the family. It was just easier to put Harry at Frogmore Cottage while Harry was there for the funeral. But Eugenie is not going to host the entire Montecito clan.

Why is anyone attempting to reconcile with H&M? Nobody in the BRF wants them there. Besides, 2022 is the year of the queen's 70th Jubilee. While most of the Jubilee activities will fall between the spring and June when Trooping the Colour happens on 11 June and possibly some Jubilee activities surrounding Ascot 14-18 June. And then perhaps Jubilee activities drawing to a close in July since the queen goes to Balmoral in August.

Having said all that, Harry's "memoir" is due out around October 2022. If there is possibly any goodwill with the entire BRF and the Markles earlier in the year, it is all going to fall apart when the book comes out. The mood will turn into a hornet's nest if Harry throws a a few bombs in his book. Does anyone really think there will be a reconciliation in early 2022? The BRF knows this book is coming later in the year, and as a result, the BRF is likely going to keep their distance from the Markles throughout all of 2022. The Markles cannot be trusted.

R325 - And you're so fucking HERE for it.

sMEGs will give birth again in June/July 2022 to avoid returning to the UK.

R326 - Where have you been, Tiara Troll darling?

The Queen has a City of London Fringe Necklace, doesn't she?

The fringe is pretty, but, as with all fringe tiaras . . . it has a TOOTHY look that bothers me.

I like the Kokoshnik better.

Does Harry already know that Meghsy needs another kid to deflect from the bullying allegations?

Didn't he say having more than two kids is unethical? ...

LOL

Remember when Meghan's half brother sent a letter to Harry shortly before the wedding, advising him not to marry her and if he did to make sure she was never left alone with animals or small children?

R334 those kids weren't royal so they didn't matter to her. Her own spawn is her meal ticket and her eternal connection to the BRF, so they're useful to her.

R333. I hope the investigation regarding the bullying claims against Markle are made public; however, the BRF could keep the results private and simply reprimand Markle behind close doors. I hope that doesn't happen because I would like to see Markle humiliated, but we may never the results. Unless there are leaks.

On the other hand, I read that H&M are preparing a detailed dossier to emphatically respond to any public accusation results. It could get nasty.

[quote] ... I read that H&M are preparing a detailed dossier to emphatically respond to any public accusation results

But who would believe H&M?

R336, I have heard that, but how could they prepare “a detailed dossier” if no bullying happened? Clearly they know there were highly questionable incidents.

That's old news, that about the dossier. When the bullying story was first leaked, Meghan's legal team demanded to see the texts and emails, etc. Of course, they were told to fuck off, as Meghan had no legal right whatsoever to the materials involved in a private, as opposed to legal, investigation.

Then the Sussexes leaked that they had prepared a thirty-page list of "rebuttals" showing that staff were [fill in the blank]: incompetent, unable to meet her high standards, insubordinate, etc.

The leak was rather stupid, because it made it clear that Meghan had a good idea what behaviours to what staff members would be on the bucket list. So it couldn't have come as a surprise to her, which begs questions itself.

The investigation was framed as a private one carried out by an independent law firm to determine whether BP's HR department had failed to investigate properly reports of bullying of the Sussex staff - in other words, shifting the look of the thing to improving HR at BP if HR had been at fault.

Of course, everyone knows that in order to make such a determination, the report will have to delve into the staff's claims, evidence, records, witnesses, etc.

Meghan's solicitor, Jenny Afia, could not possible have been witness to a single such encounter between Meghan and her staff. Therefore, Afia's assertion that there was absolutely no truth to the rumours is unfortunate, because it means that her only source of information is Meghan herself - whom everyone knows to be a proven liar.

I'll be interested to see if the Palace leaks the report. I wonder if it's waiting to see what Harry's "memoir" looks like, keeping the report, as it were, in reserve.

I would be even more interested to know if Tom Bower gets a look at it. I doubt he could have interviewed any of the staff involved whilst an investigation was ongoing. But I suppose he could have interviewed staff not involved with the investigation, but witness to some of Meghan's horrible behaviour.

The Palace can lift those NDAs any time it wants.

I wish we could come up with a word other than "bullying." It makes me think of some 1930s street kid named Spike or Biff or Sluggo: "Yeah, see?"

The first time I noticed "bullying" being seriously flung around in a contemporary context was by Kelly Bensimon on the Real Housewives. I remember thinking it was odd. Did Andy make her do that, to start some sort of movement?

[quote] I wish we could come up with a word other than "bullying."

Undue influence.

R327 Interest in MM will skyrocket when Tom Bower's book comes out. Is it still scheduled for 2022?

Seeing the pictures from the Christmas carol thing, Eug seems to be having trouble losing the baby weight. She was wearing a loose coat and her face seemed bloated. She's never going to fit into that wedding dress again (not that she'll have to). Bea, however, seems to be coming along nicely with dropping the baby weight.

I think Bea has a better success rate for dropping the pounds. She knows how to do it. Eug looked seriously obese right after giving birth. She looks better, but she’s got a tough road ahead.

Bea is eating light Milanese fare with her little Italian husband.

R344 - Rough road in more ways than one. Kate embraced Bea warmly in the video I saw of the family all arriving at the Abbey, but she ignored Euge, who glanced over and carefully stepped away. Once the Sussexes are finally finished, and they already are in Britain, and the Queen's influence is gone and William is one step closer to the throne, Euge is going to be frozen out, too, for her support for the two vipers, even after the Oprah interview. I think Euge hates Charles and William and Kate. Bea wasn't interested in all that shit. She got her wealthy handsome husband, her wedding, her baby, that's all she ever wanted..

But Euge I think has harboured resentment against Charles on behalf of her parents, and the Cambridges by extension.

She ought to know better, coming from those levels of society, to whom the long game is going.

And, notice Brooksbank wasn't in attendance, at least I didn't see him. His father died just a few weeks ago, perhaps that's why.

Tiara troll is back! Tiara troll is back! Tiara troll is back! Yaaaaaayyyy!

just looked back at that video. nobody knows quite what to do with Huge. i wonder if it was one of those invite her but she won't come things.

There never was any stardust r320. They were a mismatch from day one.

R332 - this one is for you. Here is Queen Alexandra's Russian Kokoshnik Tiara worn by Alexandra, Mary and of course, Her Majesty.

R347 - ah, bless your heart! Merry Christmas!

The Queen held two virtual audiences with new Ambassadors today.

This was just dug up on Twitter.

Elizabeth Thorp is a VP at Sunshine-Sachs (H&M's PR company). This Tweet dates to Jan 2020 likely before SS took H&M on as clients, but interesting that this has not been deleted.

Well then, Megsy must be disappointed to now discover that she couldn't even attract the same crowd as the local dogcatcher would at an opening of a CVS Pharmacy in America.

January 2020. They be were still holed up in Canada in the Russian billionaire's mansion at that time, weren't they?

I suspect Meghan would take the QVS comment as an insult, but at least the heavy weights know her limited value.

Charltes knighted race car champion Lewis Hamilton.

The Queen has a couple of visitors to Windsor.

Kate at 40 is on the People cover.

The Queen's family Christmas lunch is still on.

[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.]

Once Philip is dead for a year, I bet Fergie and Andrew announce a remarriage within the following year. Jubilee will be over before. I bet money on a quiet little ceremony late summer when TQ is up at Balmoral and it can be done there.

R350 Ta!!

That thing is so magisterial. Love the close-set platinum bars.

R332

R358 Given that the Queen had to sit alone at her husband's funeral while government staff were holding parties, I don't begrudge her for wanting to keep going with her holiday plans but I hope she doesn't catch anything and I hope people don't turn around and use this against her given that in some parts of the country you're not supposed to mix with more than one other household.

Wow. Two ugly babies at one christening.

Wow R363. One idiot poster who has no fucking idea.

Has the daughter of the couple in Montecito been christened yet? If not, what are they waiting for? Or do the parents intend to raise the great granddaughter of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England -- named after her nickname -- a heathen?

Not to worry, as I too am a great-granddaughter of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England; fully baptized and already on the world stage. I've got this!

For the love of all that's holy, Fergie is way too old for that long, stringy hair. Maybe a nice bob and tone down the the makeup and brassy hair color.

R364.

Pot.kettle.black.

Cunt.

I worry for her, going about her business with Omni on a tear.

[quote]Omni

Oh, DEAR!

[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.]

R371, she seems to have lost quite a bit of weight.

Well she is 95 after all. She's only human.

She looks best in the jewel tones. White washes her out. And he's lost weight... everything needs altering.

One has so many great-granddaughters. How can one keep track of them all?

r371/r372 - My first thought upon seeing the photo is that she looks well and content. Then I noticed how her face wasn't as filled out as usual.

There have been many trying days for her in these past couple of years, and it's always worrisome when someone of her age loses weight that's noticeable in an otherwise "plump" face.

In the very least, her face has never belied her attitude. She still looks radiant

It’s odd to see the Queen’s ears in a photo. We never see the Queen’s ears.

She cancelled the (resumed) annual extended family lunch, which had been moved to Windsor Castle this year. Trying to set an example and preserve the holiday.

[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.]

R377 The Queen is disappearing before our eyes. Her face looks entirely different. She looks as if she has lost half herself since last winter, which in some way is true.

It is as if her outward appearance is mirroring her inner emotional loss.

^*She cancelled the family Christmas lunch, mindful of the latest government warnings re Omicron.

If you really look at her, the fact that whilst her very being seems to be melting away, pushing 96,she goes on doing the job, smiling, welcoming dignitaries, presumably still the centre around which the family revolves . . .

Harry and Meghan will be harshly judged by history for putting the boot into this woman at just this time, and preparing to do it again with Harry's little "memoir", because, you know, life just hasn't treated them quite as well as they feel they deserve.

R381 Oh you are a funny one. This woman is a tough bird and nothing can faze her. Her son is a pedophilic disgrace and that is her biggest concern, as it is Pedo Prince who can bring down the BRF. The Queen must be quite perturbed by her shameful money-grubbing Epstein loving former daughter in law.

I knew someone would blame this on Harry and Meghan 🙄🙄🙄🙄.

You call an accurate and objective posit creepy, [R325]. Those of us not suffering from mental illness and personality disorders don't need to call it anything at all.

Turnabout is fair play, [R383]. They've been blaming everything on everybody else whilst lying, perjuring, manipulating facts, deceiving and colluding since before they left England. They can go fuck. And they only thing Harry is going to know about mental health is when a 5150 is called on him.

Yep the Queen is spending big bucks to keep her pedo son off the hook for having nonconsensual sex. Remember, victims of sex trafficking cannot give consent, regardless of age.

Her weight loss may be partly due to age and partly due to everything that has gone on this year. It may also be due to her cutting back on alcohol. Apparently, she was drinking up to 4 cocktails a day. Cutting out the booze will make you drop the pounds pretty quickly.

Holy hell. PW looks exactly like Diana in r379 photo.

How is Andrew a "pedo"? The only women we know of his having had sex with are all above the age of consent. Dignified? No. Pedophile? No.

They were forced into having sex with that rutting hog!

[quote] One has so many great-granddaughters. How can one keep track of them all?

By color?

What is a rutting hog?

I hope Eugenie smooths things over with Will and Kate. Whatever is going on, it's not good for Eug to be on the outs with the future top dogs. If Eug is friendly with the Markles, she needs to cool it. That friendship is a dead end--and deadly. And I hope Beatrice is on good terms with Will and Kate.

Eugenie married down and has to live with that.

Everybody in the family likes Bea. Eugenie seems to have inherited her mother's pointless drama gene. She'll pay for that down the line, but she's probably too up herself to see it now.

The Yorks (except Bea) always seem to have had it in for Kate. Remember when Andrew made that big fuss over his daughters having to curtsey to Kate and they changed the curtsey rules? Three generations from the mine or not, Kate is a future queen and they should have been smart enough to play nice. If there is some odd Sussex/York alliance, hatred of Kate and her children is at the heart of it.

The York girls treated Kate like shit when Kate first married in. I mean, who did that commoner think she was when they had Royal blood in their veins? There is video of the two of them physically shoving Kate out of the way as they left the Sandringham Christmas service years ago.

But who has the last laugh now and can afford to be gracious if she wants to be?

Kate should have them exiled to Guernsey when she becomes Queen.

Find the video, r397.

I saw a BBC documentary (YouTube, sorry, I can't find the exact video) about the royals. Supposedly, Princess Eugenie went overboard with her wedding (she got married b/f P. Beatrice). The type of wedding she had was seen as something reserved for the children in more direct line to the throne. I didn't realize this.

R400 it was extravagant, but why the hell not? They can afford it.

R401, I just thought it was interesting that some British people thought they went too far. Also, the comparisons with Princess Anne's children; P. Anne declined titles (e.g., Princess) for them. I think the criticism (about Eugenie's wedding) is more a criticism of Prince Andrew, who's really turned out to be an embarrassment, to say the least.

QE cancels "pre-Christmas gathering." I guess it's a tradition.

It will be interesting to see if Bea's marriage lasts. I have nothing against her as a person, but it looks like she saw her little sister get married (to a guy who was beaming throughout the ceremony) and grabbed the first guy that would say yes.

Charlotte really does look like the Queen. And William does look like his mother. It’s very interesting.

Archie looks like Thomas, poor little mite.

R402 not be a Titles Troll, but the only way Anne's children would've become prince and princess is if her brothers all died childless.

^ Yes. They would have been the children of an Earl, based on precedent.

Archie looks like Thomas?

R406, I thought that Anne had the option. Seems like it's sort of automatic for the males who had children, but discretionary for females who had children. QE did offer, apparently.

[quote] Archaic royal rules mean only the offspring of male royal heirs could pass on their honours, making them princes or princesses. As such, the Princess Royal's children did not automatically inherit titles. However, the Queen did make her daughter an offer.

Also not to be the titles troll but there were no titles for Anne to decline for her children.

It is believed that she and her then husband Mark Phillips declined the Queen’s offer of an earldom so at most she declined the chance for her children to be Viscount Gatcombe (or whatever) and Lady Zara Phillips.

There was never a chance of there being a Prince Peter and Princess Zara unless, as R406 points out, there were no other heirs amongst the Queen’s grandchildren. Royal titles are passed on through the male line only, which is what Princess Margaret’s, Princes Alexandra’s and in the previous generation Princess Mary’s children derived their status from their fathers.

Exactly. When Margaret married a commoner, he was made an Earl, so their children have titles. It is assumed a similar offer was made to Anne's first husband and they declined, hence no titles. There's no titles for Eug and Bea's kids either. Having a Princess as a mom only helps your trust fund.

R406 They'd still be commoners, with a father without a title no matter how far up the line th er 6 moved. The Queen would have to issue Letters Patent making the HRHs or forcingl their father to accept a royal ducal title.

You get your rank from your father, not your place in the line. No royal title for Dad, no HRHs for kids. No matter where they are in the line.

R400 I thought it was Andrew who went overboard on Eugenie’s wedding. Was pissed that it wouldn’t be televised (eventually it was). Probably pissed that it was postponed several months to make way for MM and Harry’s wedding. There was a clip of him fussing around when she arrived at the church and Fergie was very much not in sight.

R413 probably. Much like his red-haired nephew, he's VERY bitter about being the spare

R413, yes, that was part of the BBC documentary. Andrew had a hissy fit over Eugenie's wedding being televised or not. Except, I thought BBC did not televise (but maybe iTV did).

Also, Eugenie's wedding reportedly did cost the taxpayers $2.5 million.

The world changed a lot between 1960 and 1973. Anne was smart to turn down the title for her husband and children. Peter and Zara have been able to make their own choices and enjoy a lot more privacy than the Yorkies. Of course, so have Edward's children, and they are Lord/Lady.

It's the HRH Prince/Princess thing that really gets you maximum attention.

I have got to see that shoving video.

Who would want to be a "Viscount," anyway? It sounds like the name of a vampire, and it's too similar to "discount."

I imagine that they have the best nutrition in the royal family. Why are Andrew's girls thick? Everyone else is thin.

[quote]It will be interesting to see if Bea's marriage lasts. I have nothing against her as a person, but it looks like she saw her little sister get married (to a guy who was beaming throughout the ceremony) and grabbed the first guy that would say yes.

Bea and Edo have known each other since childhood. They both knew exactly what they were getting into with their marriage. There were pluses on both sides for each of them.

Meanwhile, Eug was supposed to have had a spring wedding but you know who stole the date. You know who also tried to steal the emerald tiara but Eug hung onto that and the hot bridegroom, so she did OK.

Eug paid the price for not relinquishing that tiara. Her wedding day became all about someone else.

Have you seen their parents, R419?

They have the option of having all meals prepared so that they never gain weight. They can have personal trainers. There is no excuse.

Remember, the Hanovers were squat little fatties. Remember Victoria? Also, the Queen Mother was small and dumpy, and then there's Fergie. The Queen kept her weight down until she was quite old, but Margaret's weight always went up and down. Lots of fatty genes in the family: They can't all take after Philip.

Not really r421 her wedding totally blew Harry's away. That glass coach was the icing on the cake.

Except no one watched her wedding- BBC refused to broadcast into.

Peter and Zara Phillips might not have the titles but they both do plenty of lapping at the trough of royal connections to cash in.

Poor Peter- peddling milk in China.

I’ll just use this thread to say, Kate’s hair is ridiculous, and not in a good way. She’s 40 ffs what is it with this stupid hairdo? Trolling Meghan? We get it, Your Royal Highness, your hair is long, thick and wavy. At this rate she’ll soon be in Crystal Gayle territory.

R429, I agree. It does seem sort of a flex. It doesn’t even look good. Needs a cut.

And heavily channeling Diana in the red sweater.

Oh, fie. Catherine has done her job brilliantly and well. Took her time to learn the ropes but worked hard, took advice and learned. She deserves her current praise many times over. She's earned it.

Not all commoners who marry in take the trouble, if you know who I mean.

Kate's hair is part of her trademark. She has trimmed it up occassionally and let it grow occasionally, but, either way, her luxuriant glossy locks are one of her few claims to beauty. Kate is a nice enough looking woman with neat but unexceptional features.

But her hair, height, and slender pretty figure are her best attributes. She's cultivated an identifiable "look" which is extremely smart in her position. In this particular case, she'd be foolish to change it no matter what the calendar says. Maybe her husband adores it, as well.

The problem Meghan has is that her hair isn't thick and glossy like Kate's. On Meghan, the hair just hangs. It's only about having the long, straight hair she's wanted since she was a kid.

She doesn't have Kate's height, legs, or hair texture. Kate can carry the hair. Meghan, who lied on her CV about her height, is 5'5" at best and I think really 5'4".

Meghan should move the focus to her shape face, petitenese (which requires losing the weight), and colouring.

VOGUE persuaded the young Diana to stop trying to give herself the waist she didn't have, and move the emphasis to the spectacular legs she did have.

Meghan needs to do the same and move the eye somewhere else, and not keep it on the bair that on her looks horrible.

Kate can work it. Meghan can't.

No matter how hard Meghan tries, she cannot turn herself into a tall, slim white girl with thick glossy hair that doesn't need four weaves and brutal hair destroying chemical treatments.

Meghan's hair, like Meghan herself, always screams, Tryong Too Hard!

[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.]

And yes, I remember that photo showing the Beasts pushing Beauty out of the way. She's all but 100 lbs and those two probably had a combined weight of 500lbs.

I hate that hair on any woman, let alone a woman approaching a certain age. It's just too much hair, period.

Year by year Meghan's father's genes assert themselves. Revenge is a dish best served XL.

Eug has the "hot husband?" Uhhh no

Eugene has a husband whose face and body are showing the effects of copious tequila use, and he is poor as well. At his age, peddling tequila, quite sad.

The hair is very Game of Thrones.

[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.]

Kate could do with a chic shoulder-length cut, and so could Meghan. They are both too old for the look, and Meghan's hair is much longer than Kate's and artificial.

Meghan has pretty features, lovely coloring, and big dark eyes. She should definitely lean into those things and draw the eye away from her lack of a waist and very skinny legs--classic apple shape.

For r392:

Rutting: when species (such as a deer or other mammal) engage in the rut or annual period of sexual activity. "researchers say the deer are rutting earlier" DEROGATORY engage in promiscuous or indiscriminate sexual activity. "if you want to smoke and cuss and rut and get completely drunk, then go for it"

I loathe Meghan Markle but agree she is pretty and would benefit at her age from giving up on the trend chasing and finding a new look of her own that sets a trend. She's a nice looking person, on the surface.

Kate's long hair is OK because it looks so brilliant when she puts it up and when it's straight and loose or ponytailed she carries it off. But that crimped I'm a Housewife look is cheap on her. Leave it Markle, missing the style mark is her forte.

Both of them are shapeless.

I guarantee there have at least been times when Peter and Zara were mad at their mother for not giving them titles (by allowing their father to have one). It's only natural. I mean, they are the grandchildren of the Queen and everyone else got titles.

Did the putative Lord Peter and Lady Zara say that to you personally then? r446

I guess “the young people” like the long hair.

If they were given titles, wouldn't they have been obligated to become working royals? Without them, they were free to pursue their own interests and were able to cash in on their royal adjacent status.

When you're far enough from the throne that it would take a pile of bodies for you to inherit, what's the point of the title?

Are there any REAL advantages that Bea & Eug have that Zara doesn't?

I don't think a non-HRH title obligates you to the royal life, as in the case of Louise and James. Hell, Bea and Eug are HRH Princesses and not official working royals.

R448, straight men like long hair, regardless of whether or not it works for the particular woman. I don’t get it, but there you have it. There must be some evolutionary reason.

R452, It's women thing. In the early decades of the 20th century , women cut their hair shorter ( symbolic of emancipation etc). Fashion and rebellion made it the thing to have shorter hair.. My mum is in her 80's and has always had short hair, her Auntie who alwys lived with us had long her, she was born an Edwardian. Women my age born to have their bloody heads cropped, some keep it long innit!

Long thick hair is a sign of fertility, like clear skin and an hourglass figure. It appeals to straight men's primal instincts.

R452 and R454 make a good point. I suspect her husband likes it. She could easily take half a foot off and still have long hair. The lower part is somewhat bleached out. I find the darker hair more attractive on her.

R449 No. Having a title doesn't mean you must ne a working royal, just as Euge and Bea don't.

But the ducal title handed out to the boys within 6 places of the throne on their wedding day IS given in expectation of working for the monarchy and representing the nation.

That's what makes Harry and Meghan such a pair of hypocrites. They should have given up the ducal titles when they left.

So it's the HRHs that prevent the Yorkies from accepting money for commercial work like Peter and Zara or their mother? Zara is paid something like £1M per year by a Thai billionaire to attend a couple of business events per year and a couple of other simple tasks. I can't recall her title and she makes quite a bit through equestrian lifestyle endorsement deals. And Sarah's poking in every corner for income.

R447 - yes, Peter told me that personally when I was sucking his dick one time.

I tried to get her on Weight Watchers. I had cases and cases of it.

Good Lord, where do Bea and Euge buy their clothes?

R457 - NO. The York girls' HRHs are meaningless. They are PRIVATE CITIZENS. They can take money from whomever they please.

It is the working royals representing the monarchy as an institution, the current Sovereign, and the British nation nation, who are constrained from earning money or favour that benefits them PERSONALLY on the basis of their royal status.

If the Saudi royal family gives a royal bride a fortune in a sapphire and diamond parure, that's acceptable.

If the Saudi royal family tries to hire Prince Charles as a consultant on royal etiquette at a salary of $1 million a year - that's not acceptable.

The rule is, you can't run with the fox and hunt with the hounds IF you are a core working royal.

If you're just a private citizen taking no public funding who happens to have an HRH you can do as you please.

I agree, I think Waity Katy--and I just hate when others call her by that name--could use a good haircut. She would look so much happier like my husband and me.

Does a crown look good on a woman with the long straight hairstyle? It makes me think of so many Miss America and Miss Universe winners with the dreaded crooked crown because it had nothing to grab onto on their head. Does it look best with a powdered wig?

R463 hun, there's no need for you to think about these things ... as you will never wear a crown anyway.

Over my dead body, sis.

^^While you two fight, I swoop in...

What was Meghan's excuse, [R400]? Oh, that's right, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets."

Nope. She didn't get whatever she wanted. That's why she's a raging angry asshole out for blood.

What would make her happy?

Everything that was on their half in half out manifesto, public apologies and groveling from TRF, titles for the kids, money.

As the queen said, "Recollections may vary."

I watched it live in the U.S. r426. ITV had it.

Well, you were in good company with the other 10 or so people who watched it. Two ugly people marching about in frumpy clothes - hard pass.

Actually several million watched. If you watched Harry's wedding, you saw two ugly people in ill fitting clothes.

It was Andrew who went around hawking Euge's wedding. The BBC didn't so much decline as never having planned to broadcast it. Eugenie was 8th in line at the time with divorced parents. When Andrew found out BBC hadn't even considered it he kicked up a fuss, THEN BBC told him to fuck off, and he went to ITV.

It actually did attract several million viewers, and I do give Euge fair play for her dress, skipping the veil, and a fantastic choice of tiara. Given how badly she dresses most of the time, she surprised everyone by knocking it out of the park.

But I thought Bea's wedding more romantic and rather touching.

But

Bea's wedding was spot on. Whichever Palace PR person hit upon the small venue, the recycled dress, the emphasis on the Queen and Philip, should have gotten a raise.

Bea's wedding decisions were affected by Covid (restrictions on large gatherings), but agree that it turned out nice.

The Sussex wedding was farcical and it wasn't hard to see the red flags that had probably been visible to the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Anne, and Sophie from the beginning. It had a not to subtle aura of people with their fingers crossed fervently behind their backs. The bride with no family but her mother, a guest list full of celebrities who'd never even met the bride but who were needed to add "colour", the bride wearing a veil that was totally inappropriate for a 36 year old divorcee, an ill-fitting dress . . . it all screamed, yet again, trying too hard.

The recycled dress was the killer addition. COVID or not, she could have had a new couture dress if she wanted. Using one of the Queen's old dresses made her look thrifty (though I'm sure those wedding flowers cost a small fortune), and it was also a mark of favor from her grandmother. She was also the only one of the granddaughters to get the Queen's wedding tiara.

The real problem with the Sussex wedding is that all of the touches that were meant to include Meghan were so clearly false. The black preacher she barely knew, the celebrities she didn't know at all, the black choir she endlessly tortured with needless changes to the performance, the OTT dress and veil for a second-time bride. They all have the marks of someone desperately trying to create a fake image.

She'd have been better off including her fat dad, her trashy relatives, wearing a small tiara and no veil, etc. The Royals would have certainly thought more of her for that.

Anne wore the same tiara (QE, Beatrice), too.

[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 poverty rate in Montecito happens to exceed both Beverly Hills and Malibu, R482. That donation of Christmas cheer is saving lives in this season of despair.

Eugenie is wearing a lot of rouge

The Queen probably had so much fun helping Bea pick one of old gowns…granny has dozens to choose from.

I thought Kate looked beautiful at the Sussex wedding with a few leftover pregnancy pounds on her.

Compare Kate the future queen insisting on doing her own makeup and having to be talked into wearing a tiara (and choosing one of the smaller ones) to MM tiaragate, Dior makeup artist, French hairdresser. Yea, quite a few fingers were crossed.

[quote]The poverty rate in Montecito happens to exceed both Beverly Hills and Malibu

Well then maybe all those astonishingly and undeservedly rich people that live in the area could pay their undocumented house-slaves more each week than the insultingly paltry amounts that they currently do.

R480, I agree that the veil was a bit OTT, but I'd say the opposite about the dress. The dress was understated to the point of being boring. I wouldn't bat an eyelid at a second-time bride wearing that.

[quote]What would make her happy?

We all know the answer to that. William leaving Kate and marrying MeAgain (more importantly, making her the future Queen) appears to have been The Dream all along.

R487 - I don't think the dress' concept was the issue: it was how poorly fitted it was. That said, the whole thing looked and smelled like a panto.

I know this will sound silly, but I thought the dresses the little girls wore and that wedding were very poorly made. Seemed to have little fabric and the fit was bad. And the kids with bare legs and feet stuck in shoes also looked very tacky.

I remember reading that MM's "gift" to the bridesmaids was the shoes they wore.

One of DL's classic responses to that was that Charlotte probably tossed those shoes out of the car window as soon as the Cambridge family drove away.

^ should be "at that wedding"

Meg's wedding dress was BORING. It looked like something you would find on sale at David's Bridal.

I never liked her, but I thought at least she'd wear something INTERESTING.

R490 - see the tea below. Allegations are that the ill fitting dresses and lack of tights for the little girls was Meghan's doing. Also the reason for her shitty plain dress which didnt fit right was due to her constantly changing her mind until the last minute.

I like the British tradition of having little kids (vs. adults) in the wedding party. Yes, you can still become Bridezilla, but I think it cuts down on the agony of having adults (schedules, expense, etc.) in the wedding party.

[quote]the reason for her shitty plain dress which didnt fit right was due to her constantly changing her mind until the last minute.

This is what I suspected once stories about her "perfectionism" started to come out. Her continuous belittling of staff ("not coddling" them -- her words), sending critiques about the wedding choir's performances and musical arrangements back to the U.S. 11 times (the choir director made a slightly exasperated comment about about it post-nuptials), keeping Australian Admiralty House up all night baking banana bread because early batches weren't good enough,. shoving a cup of tea back at staff because it wasn't up to her standards. And this is only what's been reported.

My God, all these details are horrifying.

Where was Harry in all this? Why didn't he try to put some constraints on her? Or at least slip a propranolol into her breakfast or something. Or is he that pussy-whipped?

Harry married her because she's a ballbuster. His actions make it clear that he's hated his family for a long time: Meghan is the perfect weapon.

Latest rumor is the Queen has asked William to stop flying his whole family in helicopters between Anmer and Kensington Palace because one stuck gear and, you know…line of succession falls to…

William maybe flies his family but am 100% sure he’s just the co-pilot. Still, no matter who’s flying, it’s probably time to travel separately, at least from George.

R498 If the worst were to happen and the Cambridge's were gone, the monarchy would be finished. No way the people of the UK would want Harry anywhere near the throne at this point. I agree with the Queen here. Apparently there has been at least two close calls with royals in helicopters in the last few years and the Queen is rightfully worried.

R498 - DLers across threads for have been alarmed at the Cambridge family's use of singular helicopter flights without giving any acknowledgement to the possibility of a catastrophic accident. The entire Cambridge family in a helicopter? Helicopters don't glide into a death of differing outcomes, they plunge occupants to their certain deaths.

There's a reason for Air force One, Two and backups.

Harry would simply be skipped, as would Andrew.

Even if that were possible, that would lead to Queen Beatrice, unless Harry’s descendants weren’t skipped, in which case, step right up King Archie!

They’d better keep that chopper in tip top shape.

The potato children would most definitely be skipped.

[quote] Even if that were possible, that would lead to Queen Beatrice, unless Harry’s descendants weren’t skipped, in which case, step right up King Archie!

If the Cambridges were to go en masse, the Sussexes would be next in line, not the Yorks. Just a few years ago, Megs was reported to have said "I am just a plane crash away from being the Queen of England."

HM probably and wisely took her seriously. She's been around She's seen things.

Harry becoming king would be the end of the UK monarchy. There would be uprisings etc

As much as I like William and Kate for making sure their kids can grow up comparatively normal, it's about time they stop travelling together. George is old enough to understand and so is Charlotte, I guess.

I am surprised because I always thought the rule was to not fly together for this reason.

I think Harry would want to abdicate if it was given to him. Hes like a puppy that just discovered his balls and doesnt know what to do with them. Of course Meegain wouldnt let him do that. Can you imagine the spending and insufferable word salad Christmas speeches if she were Queen?

R496 - Yes, he is that pussy-whipped.

Two mental cases with money and visibility bigging themselves up as gurus and leaders and style setters.

You couldn't make it up.

My understood the rule is George could fly with his parents up to a certain age (6?) and after that he had to fly separately.

Yes, the problem with this liking your family thing, never before heard of in the immediate line of succession, is that the Cambridges seem unhealthily attached to keeping the family together at all times. It is extremely ill-advised. You don't see the Swedish Royal Family trying to take Oskar on helicopters with them. (Though there could be more to that.)

[quote] You don't see the Swedish Royal Family trying to take Oskar on helicopters with them. (Though there could be more to that.)

LOLOLOLOL

[quote] Of course Meegain wouldnt let him do that. Can you imagine the spending and insufferable word salad Christmas speeches if she were Queen?

"We're one plane crash away from the Throne"

(c) Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex

[quote]"We're one plane crash away from the Throne"

I believe she reads Archie and Mehitabet inspiring bedtime stories about Diana's car crash, ending with, "And if you're good, something just like that could happen to your cousins. Sleep tight, now!"

The "omg helicopter might crash" chatter is frau debris taken up by SS intetns still trying to link Sparkles with the royals, and still failing.

George, at age 8, is old enough to understand why he needs to fly separately from his father. I agree that they should send him with his PPOs in a separate vehicle.

Abolish the monarchy. At least this one.

R515, no.

Harry and Meghan would be skipped. Parliament would make sure of it. It would never, ever happen. Period.

Brand and model number of that helicopter?

If Harry had married a sane woman and stayed in England, William and his family would have a bit more freedom. Worse come to worse, you'd have the Sussex family ready to step in if something happened to the Cambridges. As it is, they ought to send all three Cambridge kids in separate vehicles just to make damn sure Harry never gets near the throne.

Dibs on the golden carriage.

Harry will never get anywhere near the throne. Even if William and his entire family were wiped out. He is unfit and would be passed over.

No worries. Prince Dim and his wife won't be coming back to the UK any time soon. wE HaaVe TaaBloIDs here (unlike the US).

R521 has quite obviously never heard of a thing called line of succession.

To help R521, a British law passed in 1701 called the Act of Settlement defines the line of succession. If William and his children were to die, the next heir after Charles by law would be Harry, followed by his son and then his daughter. To alter the line of succession, the Parliament of the United Kingdom would have to pass a law, which would also have to be passed in all of the other countries of which the Queen is monarch, and then given the royal assent by the Queen. The Act of Settlement confers the Crown on the legitimate, non-adopted descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. They cannot be Roman Catholics.

When Harry and Meghan stepped down as working members of the Royal Family, did that affect Harry's standing in the line of succession? You would think saying to them, "We're not doing this any more" would include stuff like being King.

R525 no. That would require an act of Parliament.

How long until Meghan dumps Sunshine Sacks? While Sunshine Sacks has been working for the Harkles their brand has only diminished and, since that certainly can't be because of any of Harry or Meghan's actions, the company must be at fault. I hear the clock ticking.

The Queen is remaining at Windsor for Christmas.

She's really ill. There is no other explanation for her skipping Christmas at Sandringham. It's a private family house: The COVID exposure risk would be nil.

^ Idiot -- haven't you noticed what's going on in the UK, Covid-wise?

Idiot, did you read the last part of my post?

R531 The whole of the UK (including Norfolk where Sandringham is located) is dealing with massive surges in omicron cases. The Queen is likely safer remaining in her bubble at Windsor.

Fair enough, R532. I'm fine with a civil explanation of why I'm mistaken.

[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.]

I'm very familiar with that r523. However if you honestly believe that Harry and his grifter would ever be given the throne under any circumstances, then you are extremely naive.

Notwithstanding the biblical tragedy that could cause this upset, the difficulty is Harry is objectionable - unacceptable - but next in line is Prince Andrew and his big gals. Plus the prospect of Queen Fergie. Something does seem lost in rearranging the deck chairs... I'd be it either would go forward under a Cambridge or it would be over. Either way, Parliament's call.

The really frightening thing is neither Harry nor Andrew would have the character to refuse the throne.

[quote] The stupidity is astounding

Says of all people here the bloke who has obviously never heard of the line of succession.

But I agree -- if Duke Dim and Duchess Diva ever got to ascend the throne, the monarchy would be over. People in the UK would revolt.

Once William is crowned, then Harry drops off the list, correct? No possibility?

[R469], absolutely nothing. Look at what's been handed to her since 2016. And she still bitches, moans and complains about the WAY it was handed to her. It wasn't up to her standards, it was this, it wasn't that.

She distorts everything. Nothing is her fault. It's always the racists. It's always the Royal Family. It's always the Mail on Sunday. It's never her. If it is her fault, and she's backed into a corner, she 'forgets.' Goody Two Shoes is going to slip one of these days.

All of this talk about lines of succession is totally the reason the monarchy should be eliminated.

^^^???? It's just low level royal gossip, as has gone on for hundreds of years. Totally.

She's staying at Windsor to do her duty and set an example, and not necessarily to enhance her health protections. As stated upthread, Sandringham is isolated and perfectly safe for her. But it would be a terrible look to be hosting a large fancy family holiday gathering when everyone else is in lockdown.

Bear in mind that the Queen doesn't travel by herself. A large staff travels with her. With regard to the succession, when William becomes king, Harry does not drop off the line of succession. He simply follows William's children. Hopefully, they will marry young and reproduce, moving Harry farther and farther down the line of succession (not to mention Andrew).

I am a subject of the Crown and don’t want the monarchy abolished. I would if Harry were to be king. The Americans suggesting the monarchy should be abolished should STFU. I don’t comment on who should be your president, and no one cares about your opinions on the status of the monarchy. Gossip about them is another matter.

Most Americans who complain about The Monarchy don't have a clue about its purpose. They think it's a celebrity contest.

I am British and I prefer the monarchy to having a president, but if Harry were to become king, I'd advocate becoming a republic.

Will and Kate need to drive their kids to Amner Hall if they all want to travel together. Knock off all flying by anyone immediately. Period. End of this stupid transportation situation.

The Markles are unsuitable, unqualified, unprepared and unwanted to assume monarchy duties.

You realize that driving is way more hazardous than flying, r547.

They will hopefully start to do what the Wales family did once William reached the age of 7 - Charles traveled with Harry and Diana with William. There were exceptions but these needed the Queen’s approval.

Fuck you, r513.

[quote]All of this talk about lines of succession is totally the reason the monarchy should be eliminated.

In that case perhaps you should run along then to one of the Trump threads and celebrate the joys of republicanism.

R551, really? I’m against the monarchy and I’m a Republican? What is it, upside-down day?

R552, in the UK, a “republican” is someone who believes that the monarchy should be abolished.

Let's take the Royal Train!

R553, while that may be true, r551 specifically mentioned Dump. So apparently he didn’t get the message.

[quote]However if you honestly believe that Harry and his grifter would ever be given the throne

There is no "given" about it, though - which is precisely the problem. The moment the helicopter carrying the Cambridges explodes and falls out of the sky (witnesses swear they spotted a large object in the sky and an American-accented cry of "RIIIIIIIIIGHT?" just before the impact), Harry becomes the rightful heir. He wouldn't be "given" the throne, it would become his by right (after his grandmother and father die). That's why the Cambridges traveling together seems to needlessly risky.

What R549 outlines sounds like the best idea - have Kate travel with George and Charlotte and have William travel with Louis (ot some other arrangement whereby William never travels with all 3 of his children). If the reports are true and they regularly travel by helicopter together I'm actually kind of shocked. Of all the families who know how fate can intervene...

I don't think there is a Royal Train anymore.

Isn't there a Royal train-car though? Do they just hitch it to an engine with some other cars that carry her luggage and staff and purses and stuff?

There is still a Royal Train.

Charles likes it and William & Catherine used it on their UK tour in December 2020..

It was also used at the G7 meeting this year.

Like Her Majesty, I too shed a discreet tear when HMY Britannia was stolen from her by the politicians.

OMG. If a tragedy befell the Cambridges and Harry became king after Charles's death, imagine how cringeworthy his Christmas speeches would be. You just know he and Meghan would deliver them together and try to be all "quirky" and "charming".

OMG stupidity

[quote]have Kate travel with George and Charlotte

It might be safer if Kate travels with George and Louis, while Charlotte is in a one-to-one situation with the parental eagle eye.

Charlotte will ride across the country at the head of the Household Cavalry, stern and commanding, rallying the people as she goes. Sort of a Stations of the I'm Cross.

I like trains.

The ones on dresses.

Harry isn't the only one in the family with a book coming out next year.

Harry isn't the only one in the family with a book coming out next year.

^Sorry for the double post. This site is stalling again ...DL at its best.

No one "drops off the list". Harry will remain 6th in line until William's first grandchild is born, and so forth and so on.

But it is true that changing the order of succession is in Parliament's power. Should the unthinkable occur, given the Sussex's huge unpopularity in Britain, the line would be changed, and my guess would be that if it occurred whilst Charles was still with us, Parliament would move on to Prince Edward. Anne would likely decline, and she is already over 70. Andrew and his daughters are out of the question. But Edward, who with his wife has spent decades serving the monarchy as working royals, and thus know the ropes, would be the logical choice.

His marriage has survived into stability, his wife is well-liked, and his two children appear to be growing up nicely.

I mean, really, Andrew? Apart from the Epstein scandal, with that bipolar crazed creature grinning and waving and shooting her mouth off as they ride into BP?

I don't think so.

Edward is the only viable choice.

Harry and Meghan can scream unfair racism to the skies. It won't matter.

[quote] Andrew and his daughters are out of the question.

I agree about Andrew - but his daughters are eligible to the throne. Bea and her daughter would come first.

[quote]Anne would likely decline, and she is already over 70.

I don't see it that way. I think Anne would readily accept; she has always been about family, and duty to the Crown. Her mother's resolve of "I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong" surely sets the example for her. I think she would absolutely be the best place-holder, and even seeing it continue down her line - although she's probably choke at seeing her son and daughter get dragged in to the whole Royal production, but it would be thrilling if they did so!

You know she thinks she would do a better job at it than her brothers, who I'm quite sure she privately considers to be complete dolts.

R571 - Yes, that's the thing: her children and grandchildren would be dragged into it, and then there's that cipher of a husband of hers - and whilst she may have contempt for Charles and Andrew, I don't think she feels that way about Edward. Edward has a relatively young family compared to Anne, and the last thing the country needs is another old monarchy holding on into her 80s with a husband who would rather never be seen and children and grandchildren without titles.

Edward makes more sense, and given how sensible Anne is, I would wager she would agree.

Edward still comes before Anne in the line of succession, doesn't he?

Yes, he does. The change to the primogeniture rule doesn't apply to Elizabeth's children.

The interesting question would be if Lady Louise or Lord James would inherit the throne first.

LoS after Andrew:

Beatrice Sienna (Beatrice's daughter) Eugenie August (Eugenie's son) Edward James (Edward's son) Louise (Edward's daughter)

Andrew's offspring couldn't be skipped.

ffs ...

Beatrice, Sienna (Beatrice's daughter), Eugenie, August (Eugenie's son), Edward, James (Edward's son), Louise (Edward's daughter)

R574, it's James who would inherit first since the Perth agreement isn't retroactive.

Thanks, R577.

I don't think the succession thing would come up if the Cambridges were gone. The monarchy would probably be abolished and all the rest of the royals would be out of a job. That would also mean the end of HRH for everyone.

R579 - please refrain from subjects of which you have no clue. You really don't know what you're talking about. It's embarrassing.

I agree with r579. R580, if something happened to the Cambridges en mass, I guarantee you it would result in a clusterfuck of massive proportions. For you to be so cavalier about that says a lot about your having no clue either.

R556 - Harry only takes the throne if Parliament doesn't change the order of succession. Technically, you're right: if the Cambridges are wiped out in some horrible cataclysm, Harry becomes second in line after his father. But that fact that he automatically leaps into second place doesn't mean Parliament can't introduce legislation, probably a formality after a bi-party committee hammers it out, that skips over him. The idea that someone who behaved as Harry has, never mind his hated wife, decamped to America, lied about and purposely tried to damage the monarchy, would be allowed to become the next heir is ludicrous.

Parliament has stronger rights than Harry does. The day some referendum returns a 70%+ vote to end the monarchy, Parliament will finish it off and no member of the BRF will have a right to a damned thing. If they're lucky, they'll have their money in Swiss bank accounts and get out with all that personal real estate, art, jewellery, etc., and go off to live blissfully private and very wealthy lives elsewhere. William and then George will be courted by corporations and organisations to sit on their Boards, etc., etc.

But that referendum is a long way from happening. Parliament retains its power to reorder the succession if if chooses to do so in the interests of the nation.

Harry and Meghan stand no chance WHATSOEVER of taking on the mantle of direct heir in the event of a tragic accident. Trying it on would be the end of the monarchy. Parliament would have that bill drafted and passed within 48 hours.

Meghan's little quip about being one plane crash from the throne might have been true if the Sussexes had stayed the course and behaved themselves.

How ironic would it be that having flounced out because they couldn't be first, the tragic accident occurs, and they still can't be first because they behaved so badly and left because they couldn't be first?

R582, I agree, no way Harry ever takes the throne. But who’s in line after? No one who’s remotely qualified. You’re getting down to Edward by then, and then I bet people will go, “what’s the point?” Mediocrity abounds in this family.

In a couple of decades I will save the day and produce the requisite heir and a spare.

Didn't the UK Government skip around 70 Catholics to make The Electress the heir presumptive.

Knocking the Markle's and the York's out os the succession is easy in comparison.

∅ of the succession ∅

Actually, it was 55 Catholics who were omitted from the line of succession in 1701. If Parliament (and the Parliaments of the other countries of which the Queen is monarch) passed a law omitting Harry because he had abandoned the UK (as Parliament declared that James II had left the throne vacant by fleeing to France), they would have a tough time overlooking Archie. They would have to identify a Regent, which under current law would be the next adult in line, i.e., Andrew. If the law specifically removed Andrew as an heir, that would leave Beatrice as Regent. The solution is: don't let the Cambridges fly together and get those Cambridge kids married and reproducing ASAP.

To go skipping around in the heir pool like that undermines the pillars upon which the whole structure is built. They had a close call in 1937; in these enlightened times, the House of Windsor wouldn't stand a chance if something happened to William and William's children. Harry has alienated too many people in his home country to ever be king, and those behind him are not popular enough to stand against the tide of Republicanism that would sweep the country. Even if Edward was found acceptable, there have been rumors that his son James is on the autism spectrum. Do we skip ANOTHER heir and nominate Louise? At that point, you may as well hold a reality show competition for the next monarch.

The Powers that Be had better take very good care of the Cambridges.

Kate's decision to have a third baby is looking wiser and wiser--if those in power want a monarchy in 100 years, it's going to have to go through one of William's children's lines.

Harry would never let Archie be king if HE couldn't be king. What would the British government do, take the little boy and his sister by force? Far easier to disinherit his entire line, skip over Andrew, and make Beatrice queen. People like Bea well enough, though Sienna would have to figure out a regnal name. Queen Sienna doesn't work at all.

To secure the reign of Queen Mary William of Orange was invited to invade the UK.

He did with an army the size of a very small soccer crowd and became King.

[quote]You know she thinks she would do a better job at it than her brothers, who I'm quite sure she privately considers to be complete dolts.

Sing it, sister!

King Archie is black and would rule the world.

The Maul reporting that Princess Anne's husband, Tim Laurence, has tested positive for COVID. No Sandringham, killer relations... she can't catch a Christmas break.

Uh oh, Princess Anne's husband has tested positive for COVID.