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

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

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

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

Harry and Meghan Called Charles’ Bluff Over Princess Lilibet—and Won

Losing control of the narrative is anathema to royalty. The great ship of state is supposed to sail serenely on despite the weather, not get tossed about on the ocean’s waves.

Harry and Meghan know this well. And so, no doubt, they knew exactly how disruptive it would be for the royals when they unilaterally declared Wednesday that their daughter Lilibet was a princess. They causally tucked her new title into a christening announcement delivered to People magazine—as opposed to the more traditional easel outside Buckingham Palace.

The article also took a dig at the royals’ absence, with a source saying Charles, Camilla, Kate, and William had all been invited to the affair, which featured a ten-piece choir brought by Tyler Perry, but didn’t show up.

After an hour of two of startled silence, the royal rabbit removed itself from Harry and Meghan’s headlights, and journalists were briefed that the palace had no issue with the move and had, indeed, been expecting it all along and would shortly be updating their website to reflect the new titles, and that the hold-up had only been a matter of Harry and Meghan getting on and announcing it. (The royal website now shows Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex as sixth and seventh in line to the throne.)

Harry and Meghan said in a statement that the decision to use Lilibet’s princely title was “settled in alignment” (note: not “approved,” the Sussexes’ point being that their kids were entitled to the titles as a matter of law and nobody’s permission was required) with Buckingham Palace.

But the timing and manner of the big reveal made it look rather like the Palace, and many courtiers, had, if not been blindsided, certainly been caught off guard.

The bulletin to People was about as far from a co-ordinated joint announcement as you can get and has fueled suspicion that Harry and Meghan, tired of Charles’ refusal to officially declare their kids prince and princess (which he could easily have done at any point from his accession address onwards), decided to put it up to the royals.

The timing was certainly exquisite: the king was hardly going to be anything other than accepting when he is widely thought to be on the point of securing the couple’s attendance at the coronation. The Daily Mail reported Thursday that officials tasked with planning the event are actively making plans for Harry and Meghan to attend, with one source saying, “Harry and Meghan are being factored into all of the planning.... the cars, the seating plans, dining arrangements, everything.”

Friends and allies of King Charles and Prince William told The Daily Beast that the king would be “pleased” that Harry and Meghan had decided to use Prince and Princess titles for their children, and that it showed they had never been discriminated against, contrary to Meghan’s claim in the Oprah interview that Archie was unfairly denied the title “Prince” at birth, suggesting this was down to racial prejudice.

She said she was aghast at the “idea that the first member of color in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be.”

As constitutionalists were at pains to point out at the time, the rules (known as letters patent), issued by George V in 1917, made it clear that their children would not be prince or princess until their grandfather was monarch.

A friend of Charles’ told The Daily Beast: “Meghan said on her Oprah interview that the royals had blocked Archie from becoming a prince, but it was always just a matter of convention. When the queen was alive they were great-grandchildren of the monarch so they were not entitled to the titles. Now they are grandchildren of the monarch, so they are.”

The friend tried to put a pro-Charles spin on this week’s turn of events, presenting it as a victory for the values of traditionalists, saying: “Charles will of course be pleased that [Harry and Meghan] clearly want the children to inherit their royal titles.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 399March 26, 2023 4:25 PM

A friend of William’s, asked about the developments, also referred back to the Oprah interview, and told The Daily Beast: “Meghan made out there was some dastardly plot to favor William’s kids over Harry’s. That really hurt William. Now everyone can see that was never the case.”

Well, maybe.

An alternative interpretation of the week’s action and reaction is that despite the readiness of the Palace to accept the titles, and there is no doubt that they acted quickly to update their website and made all the right noises this week, this does not obscure the fact that Charles failed to declare the children prince and princess soon after the death of the queen. Would it have been so hard for his accession address which paid tribute to Harry and Meghan to mention “Prince and Princess Archie and Lilibet,” for example?

In failing to do so, and in leaving the question hanging, some would say Charles left an open goal, and, this week, the Sussexes scored.

Christopher Andersen, New York Times bestselling author of a new biography of Charles, The King, told The Daily Beast: “Since Queen Elizabeth’s death, Charles’ silence on this matter has been deafening. There were many occasions when the king, in an effort to heal the rift between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family, could have made the grand gesture and bestowed titles on Archie and Lilibet, but Charles clearly chose not to.”

“Harry and Meghan forced the Palace’s hand. Rather than continue to wait around to see if King Charles would bend and finally bestow them on the Sussex children, Harry and Meghan took the bull by the horns and did it themselves. You have to admire their audacity. It’s really very American of them.”

While some observers might consider it hypocritical to be garlanding your children in titles bestowed by an institution you claim drove you out of the U.K. in fear of your life, the latest move by the Sussexes definitively answers the question of whether or not Harry and Meghan will ever relinquish their own titles. They won’t. Nor will the Palace ever try to strip them.

This week’s move by the Sussexes cannot be seen in isolation from the frenzied blur of activity by both sides in recent months. The Netflix films may feel to those following the royal story like they happened a lifetime ago, but in fact the second tranche of them only came out on Dec. 15 —less than three months ago.

Since then we have had the reverberating bombshell of Harry’s book and the drama around the Sussexes’ eviction from Frogmore Cottage, not to mention the ongoing will-they-won’t-they around their coronation invites.

But if anyone needed proof of the disastrous collapse in relations between the two sides, it is surely evident in the fact that the news of the princely status of the Sussex children was broadcast not in a joint statement, accompanied by a photocall with grandpa and a dignified reminder that these adorable mites are sixth and seventh in line to the throne, but in a negative story, ripe with anonymous briefings to People magazine.

by Anonymousreply 1March 10, 2023 8:12 PM

There aren't half a dozen related threads you could have posted this on? I can only assume you want a glut of royal threads so Muriel goes on a deletion frenzy.

by Anonymousreply 2March 10, 2023 8:18 PM

I don't understand this , those kids had the titles the moment the Queen popped her clogs . They are now in the same position as Prince Edward's kids , the grandchildren of the monarch in male line. The issue those two had was that the Queen didn't offer them the titles before their time like she did for all of William's kids . And that was done to avoid the awkwardness of having a firstborn girl, no longer replacable by a younger brother be called Lady XY while the younger brother would be HRH Prince XY . Because the rules only gave the title of prince to the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales . So as usual Just Harry and Meghan threw a tantrum and decided that their kids (in this case it was only Archie ) wouldn't even use the title they legally had . Now they've decided that they want to use the titles (in America of all places) and are trying to sell it as some sort of victory .

by Anonymousreply 3March 10, 2023 8:28 PM

When Archie was born, he HAD a title - Harry's secondary title - of "Earl of Dumbarton". The Sussex pair rejected this title because they said the boy would be bullied by the term "Dumb".

Meghan's claim that her child had or would have no title was another of her lies.

by Anonymousreply 4March 10, 2023 8:35 PM

So let me get this straight. These people left the royal family and moved to North America to "carve their own path" or whatever. They've produced documentaries and podcasts; sat for interviews and written books detailing how damaging life in the royal fishbowl is. Yet somehow, after all that's been said and done, they have no qualms about their American-raised children bearing these meaningless titles? The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 5March 10, 2023 9:26 PM

They're getting rightly mocked mercilessly for this ridiculous PR article as well as the inappropriate titles. William will set it right.

by Anonymousreply 6March 11, 2023 6:16 AM

Yesterday was then the perfect time to announce Edward’s promotion in a dignified and official royal post on his 59th birthday. People magazine announcement vs. royal statement. The crown excels at throwing shade in the best way, making their feelings known without a direct statement. Charles looks like a kind and indulgent father and a loyal older brother. The Sussex’s look like a bunch of grasping idiots. Again.

by Anonymousreply 7March 11, 2023 6:39 AM

Ugh, have at it Harkles, lol, you greedy, grasping grifters.

These kids will be US-based and will probably have very little to do with the BRF. Americans don't give a rat's ass about titles, so the whole charade is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 8March 11, 2023 6:46 AM

[quote] “Prince and Princess Archie and Lilibet,”

Those sound like names straight out of some kind of fairytale book. Surely when they get to school the other kids will tear the piss out of them something awful? You know how kind kids can be.

by Anonymousreply 9March 11, 2023 7:16 AM

If you block r10 you'll find pro-Meghan, anti-white comments about the Royal family and claims that Camilla has Syphilis.

Another fat diabetic Megstan moron here from LSA or Celebitchy trying to get the thread shut down by posting racist stuff no normal DLer would ever post.

by Anonymousreply 11March 11, 2023 7:44 AM

[quote]But the timing and manner of the big reveal made it look rather like the Palace, and many courtiers, had, if not been blindsided, certainly been caught off guard.

I honestly didn't think it looked like the Palace was caught off guard, especially when we heard Edward got the Duke of Edinburgh title a day or two later. It really sounds to me like the Palace realized how awful they had been looking lately and decided to give out some titles that they had been withholding, knowing it would be a good PR move just before the coronation.

Honestly, both things are the smartest things Charles has done, so far. The titles are mostly meaningless in this day and age, but most in the public see the issue as a father/brother withholding them from his grandchildren/hard-working brother and sister-in-law, so giving them the titles is a simple solution.

by Anonymousreply 12March 11, 2023 7:48 AM

Someone should let Meghan know that neither she nor her two offspring are the first “persons of color” in the British Royal Family. That statement ignores Gary Lewis - a New Zealander of Maori descent who married Lady Davina Windsor, the daughter of the Duke of Gloucester in 2004. They have since divorced but had a daughter and son together and Davina and her daughter were at the late Queen’s funeral sitting just near the Sussexes.

When Gary married Davina there was no fuss, drama or accusations of institutional Windsor racism, just a nice low key wedding and (IIRC) a nice flat in Kensington Palace, her childhood home.

by Anonymousreply 13March 11, 2023 7:56 AM

[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.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14March 11, 2023 8:02 AM

Interesting, R13.

He's handsome.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15March 11, 2023 8:03 AM

Very handsome. And here’s Davina heading into the Abbey with their daughter.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16March 11, 2023 8:07 AM

The royals are so very tedious.

by Anonymousreply 17March 11, 2023 8:18 AM

The Daily Beast is a Meghan and Herry publicity outlet. This weird, nonsensical take from them presumes that Charles ever intended to withhold titles, for which there is zero proof. Meghan was the only person who claimed that, and the fact that he never issued new letters patent 6 months ago proves she was, as usual, lying.

by Anonymousreply 18March 11, 2023 8:25 AM

Does this mean all Lilbet’s future baby daddies will be called Prince by their respective parole officers and Food Stamp Case managers?

It’s PRINCE ain’t paid child support in three months, got ten parole violations, and an accessory to murder to you, white man.

by Anonymousreply 19March 11, 2023 9:24 AM

[quote] Harry's secondary title - of "Earl of Dumbarton". The Sussex pair rejected this title because they said the boy would be bullied by the term "Dumb".

Bullying would be the least of Archie's worries. Those poor kids don't have a chance in hell of anything that passes for a normal life. Between the very public antics, pronouncements, declarations and woefully empty-headed decisions of their parents, their mother's monumental control issues and both parents' raging narcissism, it will be a miracle if either of those kids sees their 21st birthday.

by Anonymousreply 20March 11, 2023 9:56 AM

[quote]The Sussex pair rejected this title because they said the boy would be bullied by the term "Dumb".

Did they or did tabloid "sources" say this? Because I think it was probably tabloid "sources" and not actually the parents.

by Anonymousreply 21March 11, 2023 10:15 AM

[quote]It’s PRINCE ain’t paid child support in three months, got ten parole violations, and an accessory to murder to you, white man.

This shit again.

Some obsessive Meghan hating nutball posts something really racist, someone points it out, then the nutball gets on with one of their sockpuppets and insists that they're the victim of a conspiracy! Meghan stans are pretending to be racists to make the innocent nutballs look bad! It's so unfair!

How do you people stand doing the same things day in and day out, for years on end?

by Anonymousreply 22March 11, 2023 10:18 AM

It's plain as day that they love the idea of titles for their children, so the story that they did not to use Archie's original title because it includes the word Dumb stands up to the known facts.

After all, these title-lovers could have been calling him the Earl of Dumbarton all this time, and yet did not.

However, you can bet your sweet ass they'll be calling him "Prince" every time they mention him from here on out.

by Anonymousreply 23March 11, 2023 10:22 AM

[quote]the latest move by the Sussexes definitively answers the question of whether or not Harry and Meghan will ever relinquish their own titles. They won’t. Nor will the Palace ever try to strip them.

Have you consulted William about that?

"Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet" sounds exactly the same to me as "Prince Michael Jackson". Like, my kid hasn't got a title so I'll just christen them with one. I'm sure sounds like that to the Palace too.

by Anonymousreply 24March 11, 2023 10:33 AM

William could become King in 5 or 10 years. Not likely, but possible. And when he does he can issue Letters Patent and be done with the whole Harry and his family titles issue. It's not as if a move like that would make him unpopular. The people of the UK hate the Harkles as much, if not more, than he does.

by Anonymousreply 25March 11, 2023 10:43 AM

Fine, they're using their princely titles now, and didn't want Archie to be the Earl of Dumb. I've asked this before, but why wasn't he Archie, Baron Kilkeel (Harold's other subsidiary title)?

by Anonymousreply 26March 11, 2023 10:47 AM

The best way for William to be done with Harry and Meghan is simply to ignore them, r25. Stripping them of their titles is a bizarre suggestion and will only cause more trouble. The Harkles would never be out of the media then. With time, Harry and Meghan will become increasingly irrelevant if left to their own devices.

by Anonymousreply 27March 11, 2023 10:50 AM

Harry was Earl of Dumbarton? Really?

So he’s the Earl of Dumb. He earned that title.

by Anonymousreply 28March 11, 2023 10:53 AM

They're not going to go to the effort of withdrawing his titles all it does is draw more attention to them which is what they thrive on. Its easier (and apparently more effective) just to let them sit in their corner crying about injustice each time with less effect and more ridicule.

by Anonymousreply 29March 11, 2023 10:54 AM

[quote] It's not as if a move like that would make him unpopular


Would you like to make a bet on that?

William is not popular, as it stands right now.

A dick move like that would absolutely sink him.

by Anonymousreply 30March 11, 2023 10:56 AM

It would make him HUGELY popular to take their titles. People all over the UK have been clamouring for that for YEARS now.

by Anonymousreply 31March 11, 2023 11:00 AM

In even five or ten years' time nobody will remember the Harkles. William could strip their titles on a big news day and it'd be lucky to rate a comment in a women's magazine.

by Anonymousreply 32March 11, 2023 11:04 AM

One thing this whole brouhaha has shown me is that the relationship between Harry & his father & brother has not been all sugar and roses since Diana's death, as the media has made it look. This whole family breakup has happened far too quickly. I believe Harry has harbored ill feelings toward his father since his mother was killed, and very likely William and Charles' public relationship is one big farce as well. The media has made it look like William and Harry were quite fond of Camilla all this time when we now know they both can't stand the woman, and who could blame them. I believe this break has been a long time coming and the Royal's less than welcoming treatment of Meghan (at least behind the scenes) was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I also believe that most of the trouble making in the Royal Family is and always has been instigated by the staff. The courtiers and personal staff members to the various Royals have notoriously started trouble and kept the flames fanned forever. I've read about all the infighting that goes on between that lot. They're all very poorly paid and gaining some sense of power is all they have. It's upstairs/downstairs to the max. One Royal's staff hates another Royal's staff and thinks they're higher up on the totem pole because their boss has a higher Royal ranking than another. The various Royals are fed all the gossip by their higher up staff members. And face it, most of the Royals are not known for their intelligence or their maturity. They believe whatever gossip they're fed by their staff that sounds the best. The whole setup is tailor made to invite subterfuge & back stabbing by the servants.

by Anonymousreply 33March 11, 2023 11:18 AM

I could not agree with you more R33. On everything you wrote.

I think you're absolutely spot-on.

[quote] I also believe that most of the trouble making in the Royal Family is and always has been instigated by the staff. The courtiers and personal staff members to the various Royals have notoriously started trouble and kept the flames fanned forever.

I believe this 100% and I think it's the root of all the trouble in their family.

by Anonymousreply 34March 11, 2023 11:28 AM

The Dumbarton title would only be a bullying issue in the US. Dumbarton is a well-known place-name in the UK and people wouldn't think of 'dumb' any more than they think of 'bolt' when Bolton is mentioned, say, or any of a thousand other such names (if he was Earl of Ramsbottom, it might be different). Plus, 'dumb' in Britain doesn't mean the same as in the US: it is still primarily understood to mean unable to speak. Where an American would say 'dumb', a Brit would say 'stupid', 'thick' or any of a range of other such terms.

by Anonymousreply 35March 11, 2023 11:38 AM

What is R30 talking about? William is very popular currently.

by Anonymousreply 36March 11, 2023 11:39 AM

The Windsors are above all survivors. Charlie will stand on that balcony hugging Harry. Camilla will be seen holding Archie in her lap. Katie and Megs will be "caught" exchanging child rearing tips. Why? Not because it's real but because it's theatre and royalty in the 21st century is just another episode of The Crown with worse actors. Charlie heard the boos and felt the eggs whiz by his head. Ratings were plummeting. The series may not get picked up!. Bloody hell! What to do? Call in the show runners! Rewrite. Give those supporting players their proper credits above the title if need be! Blue pages ! It's the reboot of The Firm and if it's what the audience demands that's what we'll give em. Charlie's Mum The Queen bowed to the coffin of Diana a woman she despised. Her son the King will kiss the hand of Meghan Markle a woman he despises. It's the price this hoary old sit com pays for being renewed for another season. The Windsors have proven they are nothing if not adaptable. They will make nice nice during the coronation in a well choreographed PR blitz. Sorry to disappoint you mean girl deranged frauen. In May you'll see The Reconciliation Episode and weep bitter tears. When the cast is all holding hands and singing Kumbaya on the balcony .The studio audience chants KISS! KISS! They will.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37March 11, 2023 11:48 AM

^ We want more then a kiss.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38March 11, 2023 11:52 AM

Agree. R30's post is wishful Sugar thinking. In this Q4 2022 YouGov poll, he's 3rd most popular after his wife and QEII

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39March 11, 2023 12:03 PM

R37 and r38 are the same poster, talking to themselves.

Also, if you think anyone is going to welcome him with open arms, you've got another think coming, sugar. No one wants to be within a country mile of him or his skank wife.

by Anonymousreply 40March 11, 2023 12:05 PM

Queen Skanksort

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41March 11, 2023 12:10 PM

As insane as the world has been, Good Lord, Harry could be King someday, and Meghan crowned Queen. War breaks out in Europe, a nuclear weapon destroys London, and, it's frightening.

by Anonymousreply 42March 11, 2023 12:19 PM

Whatever happened, you have to wonder if it didn't include a calculation that if we're going to get these titles (which are bullshit in America, but so are we), we better move fast because of Spare and whatever fictional, drive-by spite is the next book.

by Anonymousreply 43March 11, 2023 12:21 PM

So the LSA and Celebitchy diabetics are now reduced to posting porn in support of Meghan Markle.

This isn't working out very well for them, is it?

by Anonymousreply 44March 11, 2023 12:23 PM

[quote]The Dumbarton title would only be a bullying issue in the US. Dumbarton is a well-known place-name in the UK and people wouldn't think of 'dumb' any more than they think of 'bolt' when Bolton is mentioned, say, or any of a thousand other such names

Which suggests that it wasn't "the couple" who objected to the title, only just the 'dumb' American cunt half of it. Smoked you out again, Smegs!

by Anonymousreply 45March 11, 2023 12:25 PM

The Windsors are obsolete POS as are the lickspittles who grovel to them. At least Diana's sisters showed some real majesty by flying out for the christening.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46March 11, 2023 12:29 PM

Weird I sorta like the fact that Camilla looks like a normal old English country and horse woman like at R41’s photo. She’s turning into my favorite royal.

by Anonymousreply 47March 11, 2023 12:31 PM

Yes, you'll be seeing a lot of obsolete on May 6th. Moron.

by Anonymousreply 48March 11, 2023 12:33 PM

I agree, r47. She seems like a sound, cool woman. She's becoming my favourite too.

by Anonymousreply 49March 11, 2023 12:39 PM

R45. Yes. Harry and Meghan are obsolete pieces of shit. Expecting titles with no expectation of public service, using their birth for political influence, living in a foreign country while holding titles, expecting vast privileges as their birth right. They truly are a relic of the 18th century.

by Anonymousreply 50March 11, 2023 12:45 PM

[quote]As insane as the world has been, Good Lord, Harry could be King someday, and Meghan crowned Queen. War breaks out in Europe, a nuclear weapon destroys London, and, it's frightening.

Yes, if a nuclear bomb were dropped on London, this would be at the top of the list of things to worry about.

by Anonymousreply 51March 11, 2023 12:58 PM

Exactly, r50. It's hilarious how the Harkles stans attack the royal family for supposedly being all about privilege, rank, superficial titles, a bizarre concept of birth right, etc., when it's Harry who embodies that view. The actual royal family get on with the job of public service, believe that their role exists only due to the fact they are of public benefit, and use titles sparingly and in conjunction with public service and constitutional function. Hence why Anne and Edward's kids have either no titles or HRH and are not prince/princess respectively, because there is no expectation they will perform public or constitutional duties. Harry, on the other hand, goes on about his kids' birth right and demands that they are called prince and princess, even though they are not even being raised in the UK and will never perform public service here. Their titles sound completely stupid in the US.

As for attending Princess's baptism, Charles and William, who actually perform public and constitutional duties, can't just drop everything to fly out for a comical ceremony. Charles had an important assembly for community and civic groups on Thursday, for example. Did Harry even invite them and would they even be welcome in his house?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 52March 11, 2023 1:02 PM

Harry will never by king, r42.

by Anonymousreply 53March 11, 2023 1:03 PM

No matter what happens, Harry and his children will never become the monarch. The public will abolish the monarchy before they allow that to happen, but they won't have to. All that will happen is that they will pressure their representatives to use parliament to skip them, and parliament will happily do it. Nearly everyone in Britain hates the Harkles, rich, poor, black, white, Christians, Muslims, left, right. It's probably the only thing they can all agree on.

by Anonymousreply 54March 11, 2023 1:05 PM

Even setting aside that Harry and Meghan deserve to be spat upon by their family and the event they organised was so cringe-inducing that it would be unseemly for the royal family to attend, when you move far away from your family, it means you can’t expect your family to attend all your family events. It’s silly how Harry flies over for a day or two to attend events in the UK. It would be similarly silly for his family to fly over to America.

That daily beat article is a typical piece of American stupidity. In no way is this a triumph for Harry and Meghan. At best it went unnoticed. At worst, it’s viewed as embarrassing and pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 55March 11, 2023 1:36 PM

What did Margaret ever do to earn her keep as an HRH? It seems like part of the bargain of having a Royal Family is that you’re going to have layabouts with titles along with those “hard working” Royals. A title is either your birthright or it isn’t.

by Anonymousreply 56March 11, 2023 1:41 PM


They have quite a surprise coming to them in the future.

by Anonymousreply 57March 11, 2023 1:41 PM

To be fair to Margaret, she was was pretty active where she was a patron, until the unfortunate bath accident of course.

by Anonymousreply 58March 11, 2023 2:02 PM

R56. Margaret wasn’t the best example of royal duty, but she did have patronages and showed up for events. She was also rightly criticised for being an embarrassment at times, just as Harry and a Meghan. should be. Harry and Meghan do nothing at all. It was also 90 years ago when she was given a title. Who knows how her situation would be handled today.

by Anonymousreply 59March 11, 2023 2:03 PM

[quote] the big reveal

How sad.

by Anonymousreply 60March 11, 2023 2:05 PM

It was smart move by RF to give the kids titles. H/M will appear even most demented to use them in the US.

by Anonymousreply 61March 11, 2023 2:22 PM

For R56: short answer, not nothing. Your ignorance has embarrassed you yet again:

"Princess Margaret took a full share in the Royal Family's many public activities and showed particular interest in the broad field of welfare work. Many of the 80-plus organisations of which she was Patron or President are concerned with activities for young people, children's well-being and caring for sick people.

She was President of the National Society and of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Formerly Commandant-in-Chief of the Ambulance and Nursing Cadets of the St. John Ambulance Brigade, she later became Grand President of the St John Ambulance Brigade and Colonel-in-Chief of Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.

Princess Margaret made many official overseas visits, representing The Queen on numerous important occasions. She also opened British fairs and trade promotions, besides making other less formal visits. The Princess's first Commonwealth visit alone was to the Caribbean in 1955.

In the arts, two of Princess Margaret's great enthusiasms were music and ballet. In 1957, the same year that she was made an Honorary Doctor of Music of London University, she became the first President of the Royal Ballet, The Queen serving as Patron; she was also President of the Sadler's Wells Foundation.

Honours and appointments

Princess Margaret was Colonel-in-Chief of a number of military units, including the 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars and The Royal Highland Fusiliers, taking a personal interest in their history and activities and making a point of being posted with their latest news. She had special relationships with HMS Illustrious and HMS Norfolk. She was Honorary Air Commodore of RAF Coningsby. Apart from British regiments, Princess Margaret was also Colonel-in-Chief of foreign units including the Highland Fusiliers of Canada and The Bermuda Regiment. A full list follows:

Royal Navy and Royal Marines Special Relationships HMS Illustrious HMS Norfolk

Army (and Commonwealth Armies) Colonel-in-Chief 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment) Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps The Highland Fusiliers of Canada The Princess Louise Fusiliers (of Canada) The Royal Newfoundland Regiment The Bermuda Regiment

Deputy Colonel-in-Chief The Royal Anglian Regiment

Royal Air Force Honorary Air Commodore Royal Air Force Coningsby

Princess Margaret was Honorary Fellow of several learned societies, received Honorary Doctorates from the Universities of Cambridge and Keele, and was a Master of the Bench of Lincoln's Inn.

In December 1957 she was made an Honorary Doctor of Music of London University (the degree being conferred on her by her mother who was then Chancellor of the University). She was especially interested in the ballet and was Patron of the Sadler's Wells Foundation. When, in 1957, the two companies and the school received their charter as the Royal Ballet, she became the first President (The Queen being Patron)."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 62March 11, 2023 2:24 PM

Nice PR piece but no one is changing their minds about these grifters

by Anonymousreply 63March 11, 2023 2:26 PM

To the best of my knowledge Princess Margaret was never photographed wandering around a cemetery holding a pretendy veteran's tribute, she was never attended a gala at the Indianapolis Marriott and - and I know this for a fact - she never comforted sex workers by writing meaningful things on fruit.

So, yeah, total fail.

by Anonymousreply 64March 11, 2023 2:30 PM

The crown is undermining the Sussexes ability to play the victim. The kids have titles, they were invited to the coronation - two things they can't whine about in the press anymore.

I imagine H&M were somewhat disappointed to be invited to the coronation - how are they supposed to go on TV and whine about how they weren't invited due to racism now? Now they have to go or they look like the bad guys.

by Anonymousreply 65March 11, 2023 2:30 PM

Now they will go and whine about how cold everyone was.

by Anonymousreply 66March 11, 2023 2:31 PM

He’ll go.

She won’t.

I thought she would, but, on 2nd thought, she doesn’t have the balls of an Alexis Carrington. She’s too basic for that gesture.

by Anonymousreply 67March 11, 2023 2:46 PM

Princess Margaret was bored by royal duties, she was an intelligent woman who deserved a more meaningful role in life.

by Anonymousreply 68March 11, 2023 3:04 PM

I love the idea that The King and Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales were supposed to pop on a flight to LA, just weeks after The Dumbartons trashed them for a second time on a Netflix series and then by publishing a book in which (alongside the Ginger Whinger’s epic, olympic-level display of antipathy and narcissism) basically sold his whole family’s privacy for cash. Harry is no better than the journalists he hates so much. In fact, he’s worse, because the journalists never pretend that they will keep your secrets.

Obviously, the invitation was given, in an attempt to make The Royals look bad when they refused. Ultimately though, the Harkles have used up another item of their rapidly depleting arsenal. The titles are now settled, but the Sussexes remain remote from all the trappings which give royalty its aura. In America, they are just two middle-aged celebs who used to be important.

He may or may not appear for the Coronation. No-one in The UK cares much whether they do or not, and even if they turn up, does anyone seriously think they will be welcomed by their family? No Windsor has as openly (and self-interestedly) attacked and exposed theFamily in the way that Harry has, and conversations with anyone but Eugenie are unlikely to ever progress beyond the unseasonable weather and what time of day it is.

by Anonymousreply 69March 11, 2023 3:06 PM

Oh she’ll go, wear ill fitting clothes, look awkward and out of place, leak like a sieve about Kate not offering her a ride, and upon returning do a pointed interview about how she prefers hugging trees barefoot to pomp and circumstance.

Or maybe they could be unfashionably late, and then go around Westminster Abbey banging on the closed doors à la Queen Caroline.

by Anonymousreply 70March 11, 2023 3:07 PM

They knew good damn and well that their kids were going to get those titles. All those lies they told on Oprah about the RF not wanting Archie to have the Prince title was such an outright lie. Both of them are unbelievable in anything they say. They've got it made now for sure though, she'll ride those kids titles for the rest of her life.

by Anonymousreply 71March 11, 2023 3:59 PM

Well, she'll try, but at some point she won't command any attention at all, even as whiny used to be. Unless she actually is Fergie2.0 and will stoop to anything.

by Anonymousreply 72March 11, 2023 4:01 PM

and they lived happily ever after😁

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 73March 11, 2023 4:06 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 74March 11, 2023 4:08 PM

Shit R72, she'll stoop to anything. After all the furor over Harry's book, and South Park and the Coronation pass, she'll introduce her 2nd act. Harry will roll right with it too. He's already shown what a spoiled bitch he is and he's 'Will Smith' like, when it comes to her.

by Anonymousreply 75March 11, 2023 4:12 PM

[QUOTE]Margaret wasn’t the best example of royal duty,

After she and Snowden took a two week tour of the U.S. in '65 during which there was a lot of partying, drinking, entitlement, expense, and hassle, the Foreign Office basically said "Never again."

by Anonymousreply 76March 11, 2023 4:36 PM

I guess that's why she and Snowdon toured Canada together in 1967, 1971 and 1974.

And then she came solo in 1980, 81, 86, 88, 93 and 96.

by Anonymousreply 77March 11, 2023 4:55 PM

I thought they gave up the royal drag. Why do they even care about titles?

by Anonymousreply 78March 11, 2023 5:07 PM

Is that your passive aggressive way of asking for link, r77? It's so much easier to be direct.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79March 11, 2023 5:13 PM

I'd rather see Harry Styles declared a princess - you know he'd dress for it.

by Anonymousreply 80March 11, 2023 5:15 PM

Do they inherit any lands with these fancy titles? Any jewels? Art?

by Anonymousreply 81March 11, 2023 5:57 PM

If she stays behind, is there any danger that Megs will be a special guest commentator on Gayle's special morning broadcast of the coronation? It's only a few hours in the very early morning leaving plenty of time for Archie's birthday party. She could command a very large fee.

by Anonymousreply 82March 11, 2023 6:14 PM

The author refers to the children as mites. Accurate description. The Sussex family is a bunch of tiresome cunts. Not interested in the BRF.

by Anonymousreply 83March 11, 2023 6:26 PM

Why don’t these people JUST FUCKING GO AWAY?

by Anonymousreply 84March 11, 2023 6:26 PM

Harry was interesting when he was young, pretty, and fucking his fellow soldiers in Vegas, but not since then.

by Anonymousreply 85March 11, 2023 7:08 PM

About that Christening

Not that the invitation would've been accepted anyway, but, wouldn't it have been an issue if KC, as Head of the Church of England would've attended that Christening and therefore would have been seen to have give his imprimatur to an Episcopalian Los Angeles Church?

Yes, I know he and William have attended mosques and synagogues, what have you, but still.

by Anonymousreply 86March 11, 2023 7:20 PM

And they lived happily ever after..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87March 11, 2023 11:44 PM

IMO there's a bit of a Lull in the drama with the Sussexes. The scene now shifts to Royal Lodge where Andrew is weeping in his ale because Charles has refused to approves a payment from the Civil list money to pay for Andrew's personal Guru. A Shaman who chants with him gives him massages and otherwise deals with wholistic remedies and spiritual shit. This is not a a joke. The guy even stays over at the Royal Lodge from time to time. Now Elizabeth apparently approved the costs, but Charles is saying no way. We're talking about $38,000 pounds annually, I think. And Charles said no. This tidbit not only portrays Charles being an ass, but Andrew's life style at the Lodge. That little Pedo fucker.

by Anonymousreply 88March 12, 2023 12:20 AM

We see you Willy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89March 12, 2023 1:07 AM

Meghan will go if Harry goes! She will hate every fucking minute of seeing the pomp and circumstance from the second row, she'll hate the constant snubs that will happen when forced to socialize with Harry's family, she'll suspect that every word or look from the royal courtiers conceals menace, and most of all she'll loathe seeing Camilla and Kate wearing half the royal jewel vault and being the center of attention! She'll seethe with jealous bitterness when the Kohinoor is placed on Camilla's head, and it will be all she can do to keep a polite smile on her face, when she wants to stick a hatpin into Harry's neck and hit Kate in the face with a stiletto!

But she'll go if Harry does. It's too important to her brand to miss.

by Anonymousreply 90March 12, 2023 1:22 AM

Yeah but ain't nobody in America doing that bowing down to those mansion livin California people.

Ain't calling em nothing fancy either. Media people might. But we ain't!

This ain't old blighty and yer titles ain't shit in our eyes. Just made up words on a paper.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 91March 12, 2023 1:33 AM

Charles is getting criticized because apparently The Queen "for tax purposes" left all her wealth, estimated at about $778 Million, to Chuck. Apparently no taxes are paid at all if the money is transferred from Sovereign to Sovereign. But Charles has not shared the wealth. Has not given his siblings and others their share, and "resentments are building..." especially with Andrew, who is now considering (threatening to) doing another big interview on TV. No wonder Chuck was eager to make peace with Harry. LOL! But honestly I do think that Charles will definitely gift everyone who should get some, and maybe attempting to set up some kind of trusts to avoid as much taxas possible.

by Anonymousreply 92March 12, 2023 1:39 AM

I don't believe that information, r92.

by Anonymousreply 93March 12, 2023 1:56 AM

Harry and Markle are disgusting pieces of shit.

However, who knew that we would discover that Harry is such as asshole? He's just not a nice person, and we all used to think he was such a good guy. Harry is whiney, bratty, vindictive, jealous, disruptive, put upon, greedy, a grifter, dishonest, a liar and cruel. Plus, he's as dumb as a box of rocks. What the fuck happened to him? I am a huge Diana fan, but it's so hard to believe that all these horrible qualities were inside of Harry because his mother died two weeks before he turned 13.

by Anonymousreply 94March 12, 2023 1:58 AM

So the effusive crying and complaining that children titles were withheld because racism....was a LIE? I am floored that the winner of the RFK Racism Fighting Award might bend the truth like this.

by Anonymousreply 95March 12, 2023 2:03 AM

[quote] She'll seethe with jealous bitterness when the Kohinoor is placed on Camilla's head,

She won't have to. They've already announced the Koh-i-Noor will not be Camilla's coronation crown.

by Anonymousreply 96March 12, 2023 2:24 AM

Charles knows that Andrew has millions in overseas bank accounts from his years of shady transactions during his roving ambassador role in the Middle East and various Eastern Europe countries or whatever the hell that was. Financial impropriety not sexual was the real reason he had to step down. It’s just a sex scandal is more palatable to the general public, sad as that is to say.

by Anonymousreply 97March 12, 2023 4:26 AM

"What the fuck happened to him? I am a huge Diana fan, but it's so hard to believe that all these horrible qualities were inside of Harry because his mother died two weeks before he turned 13."

I read Harry's dreadful book, and came away thinking that there's a LOT more wrong with him than the obvious - the obvious being stupidity, mother loss, and that awful combination of being spoiled and neglected that makes so many rich kids into assholes.

I actually came away wondering if he's a sociopath, which I admit is a stretch and probably wrong, or if he's just an "affluenza" case who's so spoiled and self-centered that he doesn't give a rat's ass about anything or anyone but himself. Because the book is totally full of that, Harry looking at other people or the world and failing to understand about it, or care about anything much, or to realize that caring would be appropriate. Is that what the classic feeling of emptiness and "clinical lack of empathy" feels like from the inside?

by Anonymousreply 98March 12, 2023 4:56 AM

^ Google : Sociopath

"Do you mean R98 ?"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99March 12, 2023 5:25 AM

Thank God we have this dynamic duo. In a decade they will be ready to rule over us.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100March 12, 2023 5:29 AM

R93 Of course you don't.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101March 12, 2023 5:35 AM

Happy people don't throw everything away in front of the entire world, spend their entire life together complaining, and getting reamed by talk shows and cartoons r73.

by Anonymousreply 102March 12, 2023 7:01 AM

Who is the old dyke standing behind H&M in R87's link?

by Anonymousreply 103March 12, 2023 1:35 PM

Unless QEII stipulated in her will that a portion of the money she left Charles had to be distributed among other family members after her death Charles can do whatever he wants.

by Anonymousreply 104March 12, 2023 1:39 PM

[quote]Who is the old dyke standing behind H&M in [R87]'s link?

Diana’s sisters and Meghan’s mother.

by Anonymousreply 105March 12, 2023 1:44 PM

That's Jane Fellowes and to this day I cannot come up with a decent explanation for that particular hat.

by Anonymousreply 106March 12, 2023 1:49 PM

I hate to qu0te them, but the DM had a rather intelligent article explaining how it works. R104 is correct. However, as it was explained, they're saying that when the Queen Mother died she left everything to Elizabeth II, and also specified which friends and family members were to get something. She was specific on the amount of $$ or maybe some gift of art or keepsake.

by Anonymousreply 107March 12, 2023 2:14 PM

Forgot to say, that it's assumed ER2 did the same thing and left instructions on how her estate was t o be distributed. Now according to their laws, it is assumed he will live another 7 years, and if he gifts people now, and distributes it within 7 years there are no taxes on the gift from the sovereign's estate.

by Anonymousreply 108March 12, 2023 2:17 PM

Two words: South Park.

by Anonymousreply 109March 12, 2023 2:31 PM

They won nothing, except looking like petty, spiteful narcissists.

by Anonymousreply 110March 12, 2023 3:08 PM

It's probably that photo with Diana's sisters at Archie's christening that has led to rumours that they went to LA for Princess's baptism.

by Anonymousreply 111March 12, 2023 3:15 PM

Archie and Lilibet were always going to have their "Prince and Princess" titles. They became and prince and princess when Charles ascended to the throne. This was all just the Harkles throwing a fit, stomping their feet, and throwing their toys out of the pram because their kids did not get what Will's kids did. Also, I think the Queen had an idea that Dimwit being too close to the throne was a really bad idea. She did the letters patent that made all of Will's kids in line to the throne before Harry. I think she, and to a large extent Prince Philip, got the gist of what Dimwit was about and found him lacking.

by Anonymousreply 112March 12, 2023 3:33 PM

Re. my R106, I just did! She forgot her intended hat at home and her husband's straw fedora was in the car.

Only possible explanation other than exceptional modesty.

by Anonymousreply 113March 12, 2023 3:40 PM

[QUOTE]She did the letters patent that made all of Will's kids in line to the throne before Harry.

Letters patent has nothing to do with the line of succession, just titles. Each time one of the Cambridge kids was born, Harry was bumped down the LoS. In other words, they were ahead of Harry the moment Kate whelped.

by Anonymousreply 114March 12, 2023 3:43 PM

Maybe she just wanted a jaunty look. Or she was shading Meghan's fedora. Remember that hat?

by Anonymousreply 115March 12, 2023 3:46 PM

Succession is determined by parliamentary statute.

by Anonymousreply 116March 12, 2023 3:47 PM

Thanks r114. I thought George was in line of succession and the Queen had to issue a letters patent for Charlotte and Louis. I was wrong! Fifty lashes with drained pasta noodles for me!

by Anonymousreply 117March 12, 2023 3:51 PM

Harry's problem is toxic narcissism, which can look an awful lot like sociopathy and shade into it. He literally feels the world revolves around him, and nobody else's feelings matter one iota. Even his love for his wife and kids is mediated by the idea that he sees them as extensions of himself. Meghan has the same issue but tempers it for Harry because he is her meal ticket.

It can't be said enough: Those poor fucking children.

by Anonymousreply 118March 12, 2023 3:51 PM

She looks like a pensioner departing on a photo safari holiday. Or a visit to Longleat.

by Anonymousreply 119March 12, 2023 3:51 PM

These two latest moves have effectively declawed the Sussexes. They got Coronation invites and titles for their kids. Once the Coronation is over, what will they have left to whine about? I think they must have seen that the security issue is a non-starter. They'll have to merch those titles as best they can, I guess.

by Anonymousreply 120March 12, 2023 3:52 PM

As if they'd go to the UK if they had all the security they go on about.

by Anonymousreply 121March 12, 2023 3:54 PM

They'll complain endlessly about cold shoulders, seating arrangements, etc. Anything to bolster their victimhood credentials.

by Anonymousreply 122March 12, 2023 4:14 PM

If the late Queen had given in and let them move to California, monetize their titles and status, and still do a few glamorous royal duties per year (the half-in, half-out deal they wanted), the Sussexes would have deigned to come back a few times a year--assuming, of course, they'd also gotten a glamorous London apartment and a beautiful country house, and all the security of a sitting monarch.

In other words, if they'd been treated on par with Kate and William while doing 1/10th of the work, they would have graced the UK with their occasional presence. But nobody but delusional Harry and Meghan ever thought that was going to happen.

by Anonymousreply 123March 12, 2023 4:17 PM

[quote] That's Jane Fellowes and to this day I cannot come up with a decent explanation for that particular hat.

Unsuccessfully trying to usurp my position as arbiter of fashion that makes a statement.

by Anonymousreply 124March 12, 2023 4:38 PM

R107, I read that as "some gift card or keepsake" and was shocked, but then recollected that she was Scottish.

by Anonymousreply 125March 12, 2023 4:46 PM

And they lived happily ever after...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126March 12, 2023 5:19 PM

Polar opposites, Princess, that's for sure!

by Anonymousreply 127March 12, 2023 5:23 PM

Word of advice. Don’t let the Princess title go to the little harlot’s head.

by Anonymousreply 128March 12, 2023 5:49 PM

I'm repeating myself here, but again, once the Coronation is over, the UK is done for H&M. There are no more big events until CIII's funeral. This is their last royal-adjacent hurrah for a very very long time. No way in hell they are missing it. At this stage I wouldn't be surprised if they shoved the kids in Charles and Camilla's arms while they were walking down the aisle just to make sure they got the kids photos in there! Even though the kids aren't even invited, I'm sure they will find a way to do something outrageous with them. The family must so, so exhausted of them.

by Anonymousreply 129March 12, 2023 5:56 PM

R126 nobody in love forces tries so hard to force the idea of love onto complete strangers.

She's in love with her jackpot, not him.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 130March 12, 2023 7:28 PM

R123 The US government would've raised a fuss about the half-in/half-out plan.

"Working Members" of a sitting royal family are given a detail of Diplomatic Security Service agents when on American soil, as a courtesy supplement to their existing security. The Queen got it when she came to America. Diana got it on her trips to Disney World and Harlem. And Ginge and the Whinge would've gotten it during their "stay" in Montecito. Of course, most royal visits are brief, and these people aren't meant to actually LIVE here. The State Department isn't set up to provide ongoing security for visiting VIPs who never leave. We would've sent a bill for the expense, and or complained to the British embassy, and it would've caused a fuss our two countries don't need.

Let them stay in Canada, where they're actually THE royal family and a formal part of that country's government. That country would gladly eat the security costs without a peep.

by Anonymousreply 131March 12, 2023 8:15 PM

^ Huh, smoke some more.

Our constitution covers the sovereign and his heirs and successors. They visit, they don't stay. The government was not inclined to pay their costs as Vancouver Island dragged on. Thank God for her plan all along.

by Anonymousreply 132March 12, 2023 8:18 PM

"Even his love for his wife and kids is mediated by the idea that he sees them as extensions of himself."

R118, IMHO Harry's love for his wife and kids is mediated by the idea that they're fixing him!

Which obviously isn't true, he's a mess who still has people arguing over which Cluster B personality disorder he has, and he's going to freak out when he realizes his wife has manipulated him and his kids don't understand how the hell they're supposed to fix a parent... and he isn't actually fixed. Honestly, he's SUCH a mess that his only hope for happiness is to live like the Duke of Windsor, staying with the one person on Earth who is willing to put up with his shit and telling himself he's happy, because he's too limited a person to ever figure out an actual path to happiness. But of course, that's conditional on Meg being willing to put up with his shit for a lifetime, and I don't think that's happening.

by Anonymousreply 133March 12, 2023 8:26 PM

You can't fix a personality disorder. He's going to be like this forever. Better to just cut him off completely and consider him dead (which I'm sure is the attitude of most of the RF now, who probably listen to advice from ACTUAL experts on mental health issues, rather than quack yes-men).

by Anonymousreply 134March 12, 2023 8:47 PM

The recent bestowal of Duke of Edinburgh on Edward as a life peerage shows how the BRF will handle things in the future. No more important titles will escape the Royal fold and end up in the hands of non-direct heirs. Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York, and Duke of Cambridge will stay safely within the Royal bailiwick and be returned when the monarch's children die. The monarch's grandchildren will make do with Lord and Lady unless they are the children of the direct heir, and even then, the brothers and sisters of the heir will have to be content with life peerages.

Archie Sussex and James Wessex are likely the last BRF offspring who will get to enjoy any kind of non-life peerage unless they are the heir or the heir's heir. And that's no problem, because Wessex was kind of a made-up title to begin with, and nobody is going to want the tainted Sussex brand after this.

by Anonymousreply 135March 12, 2023 8:59 PM

R133 Maybe his slow mental collapse will finally shed an honest light on how BOTH of his parents were truly fucked-up. We already know Charles is warped, but society (especially American society) still lionizes the dead Lady Di like she was some innocent victim. The chippy was a hot mess long before Charles bagged her, and she was the original Dr. Drew Special. Abandonment issues, bulimia and self-harm, Borderline Personality Disorder, and on and on.

He's as crazy as his momma! Goes to show it's in the genes!

by Anonymousreply 136March 12, 2023 9:02 PM

The Spencers have had a long history of nasty behavior and ferocious tempers. Letting those genes back into the BRF was a huge mistake.

by Anonymousreply 137March 12, 2023 9:03 PM

[quote]nobody is going to want the tainted Sussex brand after this

And that is a shame R135, since Her Late Majesty revived the title specifically because of Meghan. The previous Duke of Sussex, in the early 19th century, was an outspoken opponent of slavery and worked to eliminate it in the British Empire. Bestowing this title was a way of honoring Meghan's racial heritage and offering her a symbolic platform to espouse diversity. The dumb prince's stupid bitch wife had other ideas, of course, and quickly shat all over the queen's generosity and thoughtfulness.

by Anonymousreply 138March 12, 2023 9:06 PM

The Windsors need about half-a-dozen Royal dukedoms in hand to cover the monarch's children and the heir's children. York, Cambridge, and now Edinburgh are secured. Sussex, Kent, and Gloucester are lost unless King Charles or William starts stripping titles, which is unlikely.

There aren't a lot of good dukedoms left--Cumberland is disputed because it was stripped from the German heir during WWII, and nobody will ever want Duke of Windsor again. Even Duke of Clarence has some unsavory associations.

They'll have to look at some more obscure ideas, like Duke of Kendal or even Duke of London, until they have a safe half-dozen titles that can be endlessly bestowed as life peerages and then scooped up again.

If Gloucester or Kent ever peter out without male heirs, those would be ripe for reclamation, but with today's fertility treatments, is that likely?

by Anonymousreply 139March 12, 2023 9:12 PM

R138 You sell more books on OWN when you accuse your in-laws of racism than when you accept their earnest gifts.

Graciousness isn't profitable. MeAgain learned that on the set of "Suits."

by Anonymousreply 140March 12, 2023 9:12 PM

Where is that guy who posts hardcore gay porn gifs to scare the frau grannies away when you need him...

by Anonymousreply 141March 12, 2023 9:14 PM

At least they salvaged York and Edinburgh, but Kent is lost for at least the next half-century, as the Duke of Kent has a grandson. Lord Downpatrick is Roman Catholic so can't ever inherit the throne (not that he'd be likely to), but he can keep the dukedom. He's a fashion designer and unmarried at 34, though, so he may be Family and not produce any legit heirs.

The Duke of Gloucester has a grandson who is only 16, so I guess we'll have to see how he turns out.

by Anonymousreply 142March 12, 2023 9:18 PM

[quote] Maybe his slow mental collapse will finally shed an honest light on how BOTH of his parents were truly fucked-up.

Hasn't seemed to affect William, R136.

by Anonymousreply 143March 12, 2023 9:18 PM

William has a lot of Mountbatten in him. Like Prince Philip, he doesn't put up with much. Harry better squeeze all he can out of Charles because he's not getting shit from his older brother. It's going to be Charles and Andrew all over again.

by Anonymousreply 144March 12, 2023 9:21 PM

What crap. The Daily Beast needs better writers. Harry and Meghan didn't force anyone's hand, they didn't 'refuse to relinquish' anything, re their children's titles. They were finally given the go-ahead to use them, clearly without the HRH honorfic, by Charles. Or at least told in advance at what timepoint they would be given the go-ahead, and they beat the Palace to the punch in announcing it (typical).

Note that the christening announcement was nearly 6 months to the day of QEII's passing. They were clearly given a 6-month waiting period, to publicly use the titles for the kids. They complied with what they were told to do.

Only King Charles has the power to allow or disallow usage of the Prince/Princess titles, for whatever reason. He can snatch them away without notice, anytime, with a statement saying so. The Sussexes KNOW this - they wouldn't have dared cross a line with the titles, they only went public with them when allowed to do so. Of course, this is all very predictable - I would have predicted that Charles would eventually allow his grandkids to be Prince/Princess, he clearly wasn't going to punish them for the sins of their parents. Fully in keeping with how he's moderated things so far.

by Anonymousreply 145March 12, 2023 9:22 PM

R142 But the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester will cease to be "royal" titles after the current generation. The kids have jobs and don't undertake any royal duties, so they'd hold the title in a "His Grace" manner.

Kind of like how Christopher Guest has his father's title of the Barony of Haden-Guest. He doesn't use it, and people forget he even holds it.

by Anonymousreply 146March 12, 2023 9:23 PM

[quote]At least they salvaged York and Edinburgh, but Kent is lost for at least the next half-century, as the Duke of Kent has a grandson. Lord Downpatrick is Roman Catholic so can't ever inherit the throne (not that he'd be likely to), but he can keep the dukedom. He's a fashion designer and unmarried at 34, though, so he may be Family and not produce any legit heirs.

If Eddy Downpatrick (the future Duke of Kent) dies without male heirs, he has a passel of male cousins in line to inherit the dukedom. Nicholas Windsor as a couple of sons.

by Anonymousreply 147March 12, 2023 9:24 PM

They'll be Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, for all the good it does them. They'll grow up with no knowledge of the country or family which gave them the titles, and strangers to the public service which give the titles meaning. The whole thing will be faker than an Instagram filter, and all it will do is give them lifelong media attention they may not even want.

by Anonymousreply 148March 12, 2023 9:24 PM

r145 and r147 are me.

by Anonymousreply 149March 12, 2023 9:24 PM

Well, that is a shame about the permanent loss of Kent and Gloucester. They'll cease to be royal dukedoms and the heirs will just be ordinary aristocrats. The Windsors need to figure out a few more dukedoms, though, given how long they tend to live. Three won't be enough to cover the monarch's generation and the heir's generation.

I like Duke of Kendal, myself.

by Anonymousreply 150March 12, 2023 9:26 PM
by Anonymousreply 151March 12, 2023 9:35 PM

This change to life peerages also suggests that the offspring of the monarch's younger children will not be Prince/Princess with future generations, even if they are male-line heirs. Louis' kids will be Lord or Lady so-and-so, not Prince/Princess. Archie and Lilibet were also the last of that.

by Anonymousreply 152March 12, 2023 9:39 PM

Charles will probably create letters patent to that effect soon, possibly even before the coronation. Louis is only 5 and won't remember when things were different, so he's unlikely to raise a fuss in 30 years or so.

by Anonymousreply 153March 12, 2023 9:40 PM


Will believe story far as KC3 inheriting the lot from his mother upon QE II's demise. Bit about taxation between sovereigns is true; it is why bulk if not all of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother estate went to Elizabeth II. As for KC3 not doling out money to siblings or others in BRF, who knows?

by Anonymousreply 154March 12, 2023 9:42 PM

Slimmed-down monarchy?

But who will cut all those ribbons and ask all those disaster victims "And what do YOU do for a living" after their village is swept away in a firestorm or a rising sea?

The family should try to find a way to add meritocracy and choice to some of this shit. Instead of saying "You fell out of the right crotch, so you're going to be cutting ribbons and waving all your life," and "You're too far away from the Royal Gash, so you have to go get a job," Why not let people pick some of this on their own? Maybe it can be a hybrid model.

What happens when George (who is likely already being brainwashed like his brother was at that age) or Charlotte decides they want to be an actor or an astronaut? They'll feel trapped in this bullshit. What happens when a true social talent, like Sophie or Freddie Windsor, gets shoved aside from royal duties because they're too far from the main line? The family loses a valuable asset who enjoys doing this "work."

by Anonymousreply 155March 12, 2023 9:43 PM

They could revive any of the dormant dukedoms. Nobody gives a fuck. The last Duke of Clarence has been dead for 141 years. The Duke of Windsor has been dead for 51 years and Windsor, as the family name, might benefit from a happier recreation. Cumberland has living claimants. Or they can make up any title they want. Duke of Scotland, Duke of Balmoral, Duke of Sandringham, Duke of Dorset, Duke of Kensington & Chelsea.

by Anonymousreply 156March 12, 2023 9:44 PM

Shit. Brainwashed like his FATHER was.

by Anonymousreply 157March 12, 2023 9:44 PM

Because once you pick and choose who does what, the whole idea of a hereditary monarchy starts to look absurd. Which it IS, but the BRF doesn't want us thinking too hard about that.

by Anonymousreply 158March 12, 2023 9:48 PM

It's the family business. It isn't unusual for several siblings to work in it. But, if people in the immediate line of succession don't want to, they should leave quietly and with dignity, surrendering all senior titles and prefixes and hold minor titles if any, or the courtesy title of their father prior to accession to his most senior role (i.e. Louis needn't be a prince any more but rather Lord Louis... Windsor I guess when William is king, Mountbatten-Windsor if prior to accession.)

by Anonymousreply 159March 12, 2023 9:57 PM

R155. Are these activities less ridiculous and pointless when performed by elected heads of state of a First Lady?

Also, who is Prince George’s older brother?

by Anonymousreply 160March 12, 2023 10:22 PM

If one believes tittle tattle in media dukedom of Edinburgh will be hurling about BRF for generations after Prince Edward's time; perhaps that was one reason making it a life peerage instead of remainder to males via primogeniture.

Of course a future "king" William could simply change thing and make his uncle's new peerage hereditary, or give it to the son after his father's time.

This being said making Prince Edward a duke only for his life does fit in with KC3's long held view of slimming down the BRF. Something that is a long held plan in other parts of government as well.

Prince Edward never was going to inherit even before Prince Charles married and bred children. Once those two events occurred and now that monarch has grandchildren there is less or nil need for yet another hereditary royal dukedom.

York will go with Prince Andrew unless he marries again and begets sons (not very likely). Historically dukedom of York goes to second sons of monarch but as PH already has Sussex it is likely York won't be used again until Prince of Wales inherits throne. His eldest son will become POW while youngest can get the dukedom of York.

Prince Edward seems happy with peer for life arrangement. If he isn't then tough cheddar; should have taken up his mother's offer when a dukedom was on offer instead of pfaffing about with Wessex.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161March 12, 2023 10:22 PM

What Windsor toxicity did to his Uncle a. Harry dodged a bullet escaping that lot of vile gargoyles.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 162March 12, 2023 11:12 PM

R155 Spot on. Harry says in Spare it was not a gilded cage but a prison museum. Where a 33yo man. A decorated Army Captain with three tours of combat in Afghanistan had to ask his Granny if he could marry the woman he loved .Any sane person would wonder how he stayed in that freak show as long as he did.

by Anonymousreply 163March 12, 2023 11:18 PM

I liked his sanity when he was thinking of his mother while rubbing moisturiser on his sceptre. And his wife was really great when she talked about that non existent actor who said South Africa danced in the streets at her marriage.

Much to admire. I to thank God they got out.

by Anonymousreply 164March 12, 2023 11:31 PM

Harry writes that seeking the Queens approval for his marriage he managed to get her alone as she was throwing dead birds from the days shoot into her land rover. He nervously blurted out he wanted to marry Meghan and had been told by the ":grey men" he needed her approval. Granny looked him up and down an said "WelI I suppose I have to say yes." Turned and flung some more bird carcasses into the boot. Got in and drove away. This is her grandson. Elizabeth may have been a good monarch but as a human being she was a royal piece of shite.

by Anonymousreply 165March 13, 2023 3:05 AM

She was being SARCASTIC r165. You idiot. Do you really think she would ever have refused any of her grandchildren's requests to wed their person of choice? It was an official requirement only, a holdover from older times. Her comment was meant purely in jest - an inside joke.

by Anonymousreply 166March 13, 2023 3:11 AM

The Queen knew Meghan is a golddigger and Harry is a spoiled narcissist. She knew the marriage would be a shitshow. Of course she didn't seem thrilled.

by Anonymousreply 167March 13, 2023 3:42 AM

Geeez. She could have made an address to the nation and declared a national holiday to celebrate this love affair of the century, and Harold would have found something to whine and complain about.

by Anonymousreply 168March 13, 2023 4:11 AM

She looks deformed in that pic at r126. Such a homely creature. Desperately jealous and chock full of envy.

by Anonymousreply 169March 13, 2023 4:43 AM

Just like Meghan and Doris r136. That's where she got her crazy from.

by Anonymousreply 170March 13, 2023 4:46 AM

Elizabeth was a sadist. She nixed her own sister's marriage to the man she loved. Which set Margot off to become the slut of all time for 30 years. She gladly approved the marriage of her gay son Edward no problem there. Don't even go to Anne and Andrew's fiascos. Man Baby Charlies matrimonial shit storm is the stuff of legend.Elizabeth's own marriage was far from ideal but at least she got to marry her true love. But her grandson wanting to marry for love was a bridge too far for this nasty baggage. Lilibet was a withholding old cunt who lived too long and left the monarchy where it is today... An obsolete hypocritical laughing stock only supported by delusional gits and racist deranged old bats like the posters on these threads.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 171March 13, 2023 5:01 AM

Yes Diana was relatable and seemed sincere even if she had problems.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 172March 13, 2023 5:14 AM

Block the loon at r171.

by Anonymousreply 173March 13, 2023 5:39 AM

The BRF and the Fleet Street tabs that live off of them are in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. In his book Spare Harry lays it all out. The" Never complain never explain" motto" is 100% rubbish. Charles and especially Camilla and her apparatchiks at the palace leak stories to their favorite tab and reporters. Pa and his Side -Piece ruthlessly promote their own brand at the expense of all other family members. At one point Camilla suggested Catherine change the spelling of her name to Katherine with a K so the C in Camilla's new royal cypher would not be "confused" with Catherine's. When Willy and Cate had an appearance at Wimbledon on the same date as Charles & Camilla. Camilla demanded they cancel it. When that was not possible the palace told Cate in no uncertain terms she was not to be photographed holding a tennis racket as this would drive Charles and Camilla off the front pages of the tabs. A Queen Cuntsort indeed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 174March 13, 2023 5:53 AM

Drunk again, R171?

by Anonymousreply 175March 13, 2023 6:12 AM

And drunk again, R174? Because you and R171 are the same lunatic.

by Anonymousreply 176March 13, 2023 6:14 AM

R171 and R174 is also the “Hyacinth troll”, the “And they lived happily ever after” troll and the “Derangers” troll. Put it on block and most of the lunacy disappears.

by Anonymousreply 177March 13, 2023 6:18 AM

That's funny, r176, because I have the absolute lunatic r171 on block and I can see r174's very sensible comment very clearly.

by Anonymousreply 178March 13, 2023 7:41 AM

^^^^ I was wrong I was wrong I was wrong - r174 is also a psycho lunatic - possibly the same one as r171. Mea culpa I mixed up the numbers. I thought I was backing r176!

by Anonymousreply 179March 13, 2023 7:44 AM

No worries, R179. It’s been a long day so I double-checked myself.

by Anonymousreply 180March 13, 2023 7:47 AM

Thanks, darling r180. I think I'd better be off to bed!

by Anonymousreply 181March 13, 2023 7:59 AM

I think Andrew was meant to be the last of that, r152 (Edward's kids aren't prince/princess) but Harry insisted his American kids get the titles and Charles is worried about his mental health and so acquiesced.

by Anonymousreply 182March 13, 2023 8:21 AM

R174 is so American.

by Anonymousreply 183March 13, 2023 8:22 AM

You should learn history somewhere other than the Crown, r171. Parliament had to approve Margaret’s marriage, and Churchill stated he couldn’t get that. Elizabeth never forbade it. Had she renounced her place in succession, Margaret could have married Townsend. She refused to do that.

by Anonymousreply 184March 13, 2023 8:25 AM

R182 I think it's right to worry about Harry's mental health (and Andrew's).

But maybe it makes things exciting - a new lease on life for KCII, who seems pretty boring otherwise. These 3D chess games will be fun to watch play out, especially with fools opposing Charles. Isn't there a "fool's gambit"? I'd bet on Harry to carry that out.

by Anonymousreply 185March 13, 2023 8:28 AM

* Sorry, KCIII. I can't keep all these titles and ordinals straight.

by Anonymousreply 186March 13, 2023 8:28 AM

r184 is entirely correct, and leaves out the bit that Margaret was indeed allowed to marry him, as a normal, untitled woman.

Margaret HERSELF chose her titles, her housing and her money over her so-called "love of her life:".

Margaret, when put with this choice, turned the "love of her life " down.

by Anonymousreply 187March 13, 2023 8:57 AM

Just followed your advice, R177, and 9 of 17 new posts disappeared. That IS one sugary nutter posting repeatedly!

by Anonymousreply 188March 13, 2023 9:02 AM

I suspect that thing might be slightly more than the regular LSA/Celebitchy troll. I thin kthat thing may be a 4chan autogynophile MtF.

Ther is a relatively old internet saying: Scratch a troon, see an incel's blood.


by Anonymousreply 189March 13, 2023 9:11 AM

Good. I want to see Hollywood die.

Pustulent, infectious, and poisonous.

Unlike the zenith

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 190March 13, 2023 9:37 AM

Peter Townsend was 15 years older than Margaret. He was married with two children when their relationship started. It would have been an absolute disaster if they had married and no one would have advised her to marry him. A few years later, when Townsend was 45, he married a 20-year-old woman - he was more than twice her age.

Margaret was well shot of him and he was a pos for proposing to her and putting her in a predicament. The idea that he was the great love of her life or whatever is nonsense. He was more like a manipulative creep trying to wheedle his way into the royal family.

by Anonymousreply 191March 13, 2023 9:55 AM


Who is this "Harold" you keep referring to?

Prince Harry's Christian name is "Henry", as in the king with those six wives.

by Anonymousreply 192March 13, 2023 10:17 AM

R192, I'm guessing you don't know much about the contents of "Spare" then? Harold and Willy?

by Anonymousreply 193March 13, 2023 10:26 AM


No, wouldn't touch that tripe with a barge pole but just looked up "Harold and Willy".

Got it.

Pardon my interruption and carry on.

by Anonymousreply 194March 13, 2023 10:30 AM

R187, Margaret was allowed to marry Townsend AND keep her titles as long as she waited till she was 25. She did, at which point she decided she didn't want him after all.

Yes, the family sent him away so they were separated for the last couple of those years, but that turned out to be a good thing because when he came back she found she wasn't so keen. I agree with R191 that nobody would have advised her it was a good idea to marry him, even had she been free to do so. I'm not sure he was a creep, but they were very ill-matched.

by Anonymousreply 195March 13, 2023 12:50 PM

R191. Whatever you think of the age difference, the marriage lasted until his death.

by Anonymousreply 196March 13, 2023 12:52 PM

R194 Ignorant and proud of it . A vile quality deplorables and derangers share.

by Anonymousreply 197March 13, 2023 1:10 PM

Swan among crows.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 198March 13, 2023 1:54 PM

Princess of Wales knocked it out of the ballpark for late Elizabeth II's funeral. In that picture above she out classes both Camilla and the Markle woman by miles.

She's coming into her own is our Kate. HRH is sorting out herself, the world, her place in it and in process each day becoming more sure of herself.

Kate Middleton is going to be a grand queen.

by Anonymousreply 199March 13, 2023 3:16 PM

Margaret had crap taste in men--she went from Townsend to Tony Armstrong-Jones, who was even more of a disaster than Townsend would have been.

The sensible route would have been to marry one of the very rich men from her circle, like Johnny Dalkeith (George VI's choice for her) or Billy Wallace. They understood how things worked, and while they might not have been faithful, they would have treated her with a lot more respect than Snowdon ever did (they wouldn't have expected perfect fidelity from her, either). In particular, marrying Dalkeith and becoming Duchess of Buccleuch would have given her an identity separate from being Elizabeth's little sister and the former spare, and that position would have come with expectations and duties that would have given her a focus for her energies.

George VI understood his youngest daughter very well, and probably would have made the Dalkeith marriage happen had he not, alas, died too soon.

by Anonymousreply 200March 13, 2023 3:24 PM

Even creepier is that the woman Townsend eventually married looked a great deal like Margaret and also came from a rich and influential family. He was a gold digger who preyed on young women, and Margaret was well shut of him. Too bad she found an even worse gold digger in Armstrong-Jones, though.

by Anonymousreply 201March 13, 2023 3:26 PM

Harry's best option would have been to treat Chelsy Davy like gold, marry her, and eschew royal duties to be rich as fuck in Africa. But he wasn't smart enough to value what he had when he had it.

by Anonymousreply 202March 13, 2023 3:28 PM

Her father's early death really screwed Margaret up--she was his darling, and was never really stable after she lost him. Had he lived another 10 years, her life would have turned out very differently.

by Anonymousreply 203March 13, 2023 3:29 PM

Miss Davy was well out of it; she like many other young women saw the Windsor clan for what it was and just wasn't that interested in joining up. Had PH been an ordinary bloke things might have ended differently.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 204March 13, 2023 3:34 PM

Prince Harry blaming other people for his own screw-ups again: He married Meghan despite the Queen not being thrilled about it. The truth is, Chelsy dumped him because of his unstable temperament and careless treatment of her. It's his own fault that the carefree billionaire's daughter got away from him.

by Anonymousreply 205March 13, 2023 3:37 PM

Do people on this board have information that’s not in the public domain? I’d never heard anything sinister about Townsend.

His first wife was having an affair and married another man so that marriage ended. His second marriage was not known to have been a bad marriage and lasted until his death. He also acquitted himself well during the war. What is the information to support the claim he was a bad man?

by Anonymousreply 206March 13, 2023 4:23 PM

Townsend's tendency to romance rich young women half his age speaks for itself, I think.

by Anonymousreply 207March 13, 2023 4:28 PM

Wasn’t he from a well-to-do family himself?

by Anonymousreply 208March 13, 2023 4:40 PM

Looks like Charlie & his Cuntsort are still wowing em .

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 209March 13, 2023 4:48 PM

I think they were solidly middle-class. His father was an army officer in India.

by Anonymousreply 210March 13, 2023 4:51 PM

R206 Do people on this board have information that’s not in the public domain?

Yes. Me mum has a todger.

by Anonymousreply 211March 13, 2023 4:58 PM

Could we please make a concerted effort to F&F R171. Enough is enough. Diabetics with jpegs are too much.

by Anonymousreply 212March 13, 2023 5:06 PM

I never noticed this before, but Chelsy has Camilla teeth at r204. Maybe her treated her badly because she reminded him of his stepmother. She isn't the prettiest girl.

by Anonymousreply 213March 13, 2023 6:00 PM

R171 and its other identities (hyacinth troll, deranger troll, happy ever after troll etc) is one of those trolls for whom I save up my F&Fs which I can then use judiciously. It can be quite effective.

by Anonymousreply 214March 13, 2023 8:10 PM

Chelsy does have the same jolly blowsy quality as Camilla. She and Harry were together for years, so there was clearly a real attachment there. It's ironic that Chelsy apparently broke up with Harry because she didn't want to be a working royal, and then Harry walks away from the life anyway.

by Anonymousreply 215March 13, 2023 8:43 PM

That's the thing about Chelsy, she really could have done what Meg is currently failing to do, offer Harry a way out of the royal family where he'd be able to live like a billionaire! If he'd had the sense to treat her right and get her to the altar, he could have left years earlier and gone to Africa to play at saving wildlife!

But well, he's too stupid to see where his own interests lie.

by Anonymousreply 216March 13, 2023 10:22 PM

As Prince of Wales KC3 was loaded.

During his long period of waiting Prince of Wales turned the Duchy of Cornwall into a major billion dollar enterprise.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 217March 13, 2023 11:34 PM

Says it all.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 218March 14, 2023 1:31 AM

Saw a loot of photos from today on Instagram which was COmmonwealth Day and everyone turned out. Sophie and Edward, William and Katherine, and Anne, Charles and Camilla. Sophie Edward Anne and Catherine looked t he most relaxed and comfortable, and William looked so uncomfortable and stiff I wanted to tell him to just go home and relax. Charles and Camilla were trying hard to be Regal.

by Anonymousreply 219March 14, 2023 3:04 AM

And the crowd goes wild.... again😂

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 220March 14, 2023 3:06 AM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 221March 14, 2023 3:07 AM

If he isn't, who is? They're suggesting it's somebody.

by Anonymousreply 222March 14, 2023 3:18 AM

R221 is the “Let’s be a middle aged white man” troll who gets its kicks from continuously posting that sad meme and calling other posters “whitey” and “cracker”.

Use your F&Fs judiciously for this fucking unhinged racist.

by Anonymousreply 223March 14, 2023 3:25 AM

Nice weave she has superglued in there R221 - I can smell it from here.

by Anonymousreply 224March 14, 2023 3:27 AM

I’m amazed that there are actually people here who seem to think it’s amazing that Britain’s republican minority are motivated to protest in the run-up to the Coronation. What did you think they would do?

For years, the Republican movement was fairly silent because Queen Elizabeth II was viewed as unassailable. It always expected that its best chance would come when Charles was the figurehead.

Of course they are protesting. It’s what happens in a democracy. Ultimately though, there is no decisive movement of opinion away from the monarchy, not even in Australia, which was always seen as the most likely to move to a Republic after the death of the late Queen. After decades of predictions that the public disliked Charles and would never, ever accept Queen Camilla, and despite the best efforts of the Ginger Whinger, events are moving smoothly, and in less than two months they will depart from the Abbey with their crowns firmly in place.

by Anonymousreply 225March 14, 2023 4:38 AM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 226March 14, 2023 5:43 AM

R221, Britain is a free country and those who oppose the monarchy are welcome to protest and campaign against it. What's really funny about these protests, however, is just how few people they attract. A tiny handful of irrelevant middle-class, middle-aged lefties.

by Anonymousreply 227March 14, 2023 8:58 AM

I think in his book, Harry says HE broke up with Chelsy? Or maybe he was talking about Cressida. Does anyone remember?

by Anonymousreply 228March 14, 2023 12:08 PM

I wonder what affect that had on Margaret and Anne, to see their older siblings get the power simply because they were born first.

Elizabeth wouldn't have been Queen unless her Uncle Edward abdicated to marry the American Wallace Simpson.

It actually all quite random and weird. The concept of 'birthright' is actually a little off and wrong. Wasn't it historically tied to divinity?

Maybe that's why the press felt they had a right to heckle these tax payer supported lot. The royal family would read their press every morning. The whole thing seems archaic and filled with 'scandal' but it's not really scandalous compared to what goes on with everyday people.

I don't think it's going to last very long after William and Kate become Queen and King.

by Anonymousreply 229March 14, 2023 1:02 PM

Oh, darling.

by Anonymousreply 230March 14, 2023 2:18 PM

I'm sure they were fine with it, r229. Anne doesn't seem to have any problems at all. Elizabeth almost 100% would have become Queen if her Uncle Edward hadn't abdicated, because he didn't have any children, wasn't married and didn't appear to be about to marry a suitable woman who could give him children.

George VI by all accounts was quite happy being the so-called "spare" growing up and as a young man.

by Anonymousreply 231March 14, 2023 2:40 PM

They get it. It's how it works. No point fighting it.

by Anonymousreply 232March 14, 2023 2:44 PM

Pretty sure I read that Elilzabeth believed her father died young (56) because being king stressed him out so much.

by Anonymousreply 233March 14, 2023 3:15 PM

Andrew resented Charles.

by Anonymousreply 234March 14, 2023 3:19 PM

When did Andrew resent Charles, r234? Charles is 11 years older than Andrew. They didn't grow up close enough in years for Andrew to have any concept of supposedly being in Charles' shadow.

by Anonymousreply 235March 14, 2023 3:30 PM

r233 - it was the Queen Mother Elizabeth who loathed the Windsors. She believed their abdication and subsequent stress placed on her sensitive husband George VI, who was no remotely equipped for statesmanship, led to his premature death, despite his cigarette habit.

by Anonymousreply 236March 14, 2023 3:38 PM

R229. No one gets power in the royal family. It’s a question of who becomes figurehead.

Harry is the only spare who is known positively to resent his secondary position. But only because he is a spoiled idiot. He bitches endlessly about the light royal duties he used to perform and the limited press criticism he received. If he spent one week in his grandmother’s or fathers’ position, it would destroy him. The spares of reasonable intelligence feel grateful they are spared the top job.

Birthright advantages have existed in every current or past society, and, yes the British people do believe in free expression, as does the royal family, with the exception of Harry and Meghan.

by Anonymousreply 237March 14, 2023 3:54 PM

R237 Anne would've made a fantastic queen, albeit a little bit mean.

But you can tell she's eternally grateful she was spared that kind of pressure and spotlight.

by Anonymousreply 238March 14, 2023 4:46 PM

The Queen/King certainly has some kind of power. They meet with leaders of the world and can make statements to the press. They have influence. Charles got the entire near billion inheritance. None of his siblings did.

So the oldest controls the purse strings? What an odd position to be in. To have to kneel to your sibling just because they are the oldest. You have the same exact parents but they're 'the chosen one.'

by Anonymousreply 239March 14, 2023 4:56 PM

R239 that makes absolutely no sense. Thanks for trying to contribute, though.

by Anonymousreply 240March 14, 2023 5:09 PM

We know what a slur "middle class" is to the Duchess of Krispy Kreme R227

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 241March 14, 2023 5:19 PM

Monarchy has always been a hierarchy. The eldest son gets the most. Is it fair? No. But that's the way it is. The good thing going forward is...it will be the eldest CHILD regardless of gender who will get the prize. The Windsors move with the times but much more slowly.

by Anonymousreply 242March 14, 2023 6:12 PM

Insane Sarah Ferguson, perhaps the highest functioning idiot on planet earth, having proclaimed earlier this week that she didn't know Meagain all that well has today announced:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 243March 14, 2023 7:16 PM

Suck it, Sarah.

by Anonymousreply 244March 14, 2023 8:06 PM

R228, he's a fantasist and a liar and would have written that you back up him telling Markle that.

R213, Dimbo is downright ugly, as shown in that photo. And his own teeth are terrible, despite having work braces. Guess there's only so much to be done. Only surprise is Markle hasn't pushed him to get veneers and hair plugs (and a nosejob).

by Anonymousreply 245March 14, 2023 9:27 PM

^I believe he has had some dental intervention, eye work and hair grafts. None helped.

by Anonymousreply 246March 14, 2023 9:49 PM

Why couldn't Joel just tell her the truth? "They were going to kill you! They were going to cut your skull open and remove your brain. I had to stop them from killing you, and when I tried to stop them they tried to kill me. They were fanatics."

by Anonymousreply 247March 14, 2023 10:11 PM

Sorry, wrong thread. THis was for The Last of Us.

by Anonymousreply 248March 14, 2023 10:14 PM

In the game doesn't he tell her and she has a complete meltdown because she wanted the surgery even if it killed her?

Anyway, back to the royals.

by Anonymousreply 249March 14, 2023 10:59 PM

She can still think that Meghan gives Harry a love that he has never known before without knowing Meghan well, r243.

by Anonymousreply 250March 15, 2023 12:10 AM

Thanks for coming out, R250.

by Anonymousreply 251March 15, 2023 12:12 AM

[quote] So the oldest controls the purse strings? What an odd position to be in. To have to kneel to your sibling just because they are the oldest. You have the same exact parents but they're 'the chosen one.'

R239, by passing on The Queen’s wealth directly to the next sovereign, the Royal Family legally avoid having to pay 40% inheritance tax. The Queen’s personal wealth was estimated to be in the region of £650million, so by making Charles “the chosen one”, the Family avoids paying £260million to the Exchequer. The rest of the family (who also benefit from various trusts set up over generations) see the benefit of this, apart from Andrew who is a simpleton.

by Anonymousreply 252March 15, 2023 12:18 AM

The inference I got was Charles gets two things: all the money and marching orders about certain bequests his mother wished. It stays tax free to the recipient if he lives another seven years after following orders.

by Anonymousreply 253March 15, 2023 12:23 AM

Peers and other wealthy families largely once could do pretty much same via fee entail, but Parliament got shot of that sort of trust back in early 1920's

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 254March 15, 2023 3:09 AM

The seven year gifting still applies. Plus there's all kinds of options.

"The Grosvenors' property fortune is estimated at £9bn. Yet the death of Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, the sixth Duke of Westminster, and the inheritance of his title by his son Hugh, is not expected to trigger vast death duties.

"The trustees are legal owners but not 'beneficial owners'," explained Hugi Clarke of estate planning firm Foresight. "As legal owners the trustees can do anything an ordinary owner can do, in terms of selling and trading the assets within the trust.

"But they do not have 'beneficial access' or absolute rights as individuals to the assets," Mr Clark said. In essence that means they can't claim the assets for themselves or sell them and keep the proceeds.

The assets are therefore not inside their individual estates for inheritance tax purposes.

According to the Grosvenor Estate's own description of its structure, the six trustees (of whom the late Duke was chairman) "hold the assets of the group for the benefit of current and future members of the Grosvenor family".

Income and other benefits can be paid out to beneficiaries, who may or may not include the trustees, and who will be taxed on them as normal.

Peter Legg, a chartered tax adviser and founder of IHT Planning Matters, said: "Here it would appear that shares in the businesses are owned by family members as trustees, not as individuals." This puts the assets at arms' length and effectively eludes death duties."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 255March 15, 2023 2:01 PM

R249 No what you see in the series is pretty much what happens in the game.

She does find out in the part 2 what really happened.

The mom was played by the girl that played Ellie in the video game.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 256March 15, 2023 2:10 PM

Ah thanks, I couldn't quite remember when it happened - I played the games back to back so I got lost a bit in recalling it. Love that game so much so very happy with the series.

by Anonymousreply 257March 15, 2023 11:32 PM

Harry was very kind to Charles in his horrid book, showing him as hard-working, affectionate, and dedicated to doing good... if rather out of touch on a personal level. Which IMHO means that Harry is still expecting a very large inheritance, or pre-inheritance gift.

Which won't last, he's going to let all his rage at Charles out in another book before long, probably when he discovers that his inheritance will be much smaller than William's. And if this is before Charles's death, he's going to cost himself the disappointing inheritance.

by Anonymousreply 258March 15, 2023 11:53 PM

Charles has other problems. Andrew is getting ready to do a tell all interview. When he realized that Harry and Meghan were getting paid to go public, he is shopping around to see if there's interest. And you know someone will be interested. He is blackmailing Charles about the inheritance. And everything else. Andrew has nursed his resentments for years. Apparently it runs in the family. BEcause Charles soes it, William does it, HArry certainly does it and I think Margaret did as well.

by Anonymousreply 259March 16, 2023 2:09 AM

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

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 260March 16, 2023 9:42 PM

That article has so many errors. First, the Duchy of Lancaster is not inheritable. Like the Duchy of Cornwall for the Prince of Wales, it exists to provide an income for the beneficiary, which is taxed normally. It cannot be sold or inherited in the usual sense. The working royals don't get a handout from the Sovereign Grant. That money is paid to support their work on behalf of the Crown.

The Queen's private fortune, handed down generation to generation and protected by preferential tax provisions, is somewhere between the 350M and 550M pound mark. I learned something this time... that the bulk passes to the next sovereign and bequests are essentially distributed on the late sovereign's behalf as gifts by the new sovereign. So long as the gift is made seven years prior to the giver's death, it escapes tax. Odds favour that. The money can also be put into trust to protect it from tax, like the Westminster billions. That's what happened with the another example that is well known on this board, but I won't cite it because that's like saying Beetlejuice.

by Anonymousreply 261March 16, 2023 10:46 PM

I can't figure out why it bothers me so much to hear the monarchy gets such tax breaks (or goes out of its way to manage the money to avoid taxes).

Is that what the King wants all the people to do? Hire tax accountants and shield their wealth?

Especially when it's his known plan to "slim down the monarchy." So why not slim down the hundreds of millions ?? Especially when the poors are struggling to pay their heating bills.

by Anonymousreply 262March 17, 2023 12:20 AM

R262: In exchange for this public support, The King surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 263March 17, 2023 12:59 AM

Glad to hear it - but how did they get "The Crown Estate" in the first place? Probably the biggest psychopath killed and cheated his way to the top and just grabbed it up. I realize it was eons ago but still... It makes me feel sick.

I also hate the inherited wealth of the robber barons and such - Rockefellers, DuPonts, etc. There ought to be a steep wealth tax!

by Anonymousreply 264March 17, 2023 1:11 AM

For context, R262, the King (and the late Queen) weren't even in the Top 250 of the annual Times Rich List - which chronicles the thousand wealthiest people in the UK. The wealthiest person is worth 28.5 billion. The monarch's wealth is about 370M. Tax wise, barring the agreement with the government about inheritance tax sovereign to sovereign, there is no privilege for the royal family that any other wealthy person couldn't take advantage of. And many do. Link upthread about how the Dukes of Westminster escape inheritance tax through trust structures. If you've got money and accountants there's ways around taxes. So your bother is more about UK tax policy than about the royal family avoiding it, because it generates more for the treasury than it avoids through the Crown Estate and pay income tax on their private incomes (subject to the magic of their accountants, which anybody with money can summon. I do and I'm not worth .00001% of a real rich person.)

And if it makes you feel any better, in the UK, "The top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues: a higher share than at any time in past twenty years. In other words, three in every ten pounds that the government receives in income tax is paid by just over 300,000 individuals. "

How do the rich largely avoid big taxes? Because government tax policy (the world over) is far more generous to capital gains than income. So if I'm a multimillionaire and I invested 1M pounds in stocks at 1 pound a share and sold those million shares at 5 pounds a share I have a capital gain of 4 M pounds and my tax on it will be far, far less (20%) than if it was taxed as income (45%).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265March 17, 2023 1:20 AM

Are we sure Meghan didn't hack the royal web site herself and change the titles?

by Anonymousreply 266March 17, 2023 1:51 AM

"Probably the biggest psychopath killed and cheated his way to the top and just grabbed it up." - Is this the American imagining of how kingdoms were founded and developed, r264? How weird and completely unrelated to historical events.

by Anonymousreply 267March 17, 2023 8:28 AM

Tell it to the American Indians.

by Anonymousreply 268March 17, 2023 3:20 PM

Oh yes - But we didn't take the lead genocidal warlord and make him and his sons kings in perpetuity.

by Anonymousreply 269March 17, 2023 3:50 PM

We merely estblished that straight Christian white men would rule the land, in perpetuity.

by Anonymousreply 270March 17, 2023 4:27 PM

In your spare time, read about John of Gaunt.

by Anonymousreply 271March 17, 2023 5:11 PM

William and Catherine attended the St. Patrick’s Day Parade at Mons Barracks in Aldershot, on 17th March 2023. The parade ended with a march-past where The Princess took the salute.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272March 17, 2023 7:54 PM

That whole bit of theatre was so silly. William is the outgoing colonel and Katherine the incoming. And if you go to the Royal Family Instagram, they had the Gloucesters doing church duties in small towns. Guy looks pretty good for 82.

by Anonymousreply 273March 17, 2023 8:05 PM

It's funny how Americans think the only relevant aspect of the over-1000-year British royal history is how they imagine it affected their country, and even then they don't get it right.

by Anonymousreply 274March 17, 2023 8:24 PM

Some of us are not that ignorant r274. Quite a few of us took modern world history over U.S.history at school because we found it far more interesting.

by Anonymousreply 275March 20, 2023 6:33 AM

Not that many of you, R275, based on many of the responses that I see on the DL.

by Anonymousreply 276March 20, 2023 7:02 AM

R272 Just another irrelevant ritual in the Sacred Duchy Of Grand Fenwick

by Anonymousreply 277March 20, 2023 2:35 PM

On her way to the crypt the Queen made sure her filthy lucre was secure. Lilibet was nothing if not sharp with her quid.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 278March 20, 2023 2:42 PM

'Help ! I've fallen and I can't get up!"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 279March 20, 2023 2:51 PM

The new king will be crowned in a few weeks, r279. The succession from the much-honoured and long-serving late Queen has gone very smoothly. In a few days, the new king will be making his first state visits as head of state to France and Germany, where he will represent the nation. His heir is solid, decent, respectable, dependable and popular, with a wonderful family, and the second-in-line to the throne looks set to be the same. I'd say the Windsor monarchy is doing very well.

by Anonymousreply 280March 21, 2023 8:10 AM

Can you imagine the chaos right now if dim, petulant and self-indulgent Harry had been born first? It would be akin to another George IV scenario, and that really *would* put the institution at risk.

As it is, William was born first, and the institution looks solid for decades upon decades to come.

by Anonymousreply 281March 21, 2023 9:25 AM

SkyNews.- The Royal Family “bowing down” to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s demands is causing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to feel “more entitled”, according to The Spectator writer Kara Kennedy.

“They are incredibly entitled, they have a lot of demands but also I think the issue is that a lot of their demands are actually being met,” she told Sky News host Rita Panahi.

“Like being given titles to their children, like having a place to stay when they come back to Britain as if these royal palaces can just be handed out like an Airbnb.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282March 21, 2023 9:44 AM

Who cares, r282? This is the kind of shit only Australian Sky News would have.

by Anonymousreply 283March 21, 2023 10:04 AM

r283 is mad because Aussie news was onto her from nearly the beginning.

And they've been right at almost every turn.

by Anonymousreply 284March 21, 2023 10:06 AM

Gossiping about Meghan isn't news, r284.

by Anonymousreply 285March 21, 2023 11:24 AM

Of course it is, r285.

Are you now attempting to claim that your ultra-thirsty idol has not, all of this time, been attempting to become NEWS?

Liar. Just like all of Harry and Meghan's fans, you resort to easily disprovable lies.

Does it ever occur to you that if you must resort to lies, there might be something wrong?

by Anonymousreply 286March 21, 2023 11:30 AM

R280 the 15.6% has spoken.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 287March 21, 2023 2:58 PM

R281 Google: dim, petulant and self-indulgent

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 288March 21, 2023 3:01 PM

People call Mitch McConnell a turtle, but Charles reminds me of a turtle. And he sure looks mean when he loses his temper.

by Anonymousreply 289March 21, 2023 3:23 PM

[quote]because Wessex was kind of a made-up title to begin with,

All titles bestowed since the days of feudalism are made-up titles to begin with. "Earl of Wessex" is no more real nor false than "Duke of York."

by Anonymousreply 290March 21, 2023 3:27 PM

Funny how you never get that nonsense on Sky News UK, r286.

by Anonymousreply 291March 21, 2023 3:28 PM

I'm not sure that "demands" are really being met. The children have a right to those titles under the 1917 Letters Patent now they are grandchildren of the sovereign, and Charles knows it would look bad if he invited them to attend the Coronation and did not offer them lodging.

Apartments in Buckingham Palace are not prestigious among the BRF. The palace is considered cold and drafty.

Their rumored demand that the other royals have to be nice to them is unenforceable.

by Anonymousreply 292March 21, 2023 3:34 PM

What mean "offer lodging"?" The dreadful Sussexes have had their rent-free house Frog Holler "lease" extended to August

by Anonymousreply 293March 21, 2023 3:38 PM

[quote] What mean "offer lodging"?"

It mean offer place to stay London during coronation. Frog Holler away from heap big festivities.

by Anonymousreply 294March 21, 2023 3:41 PM

Nope r292.. They weren't BORN grandchildren of the sovereign. They are not entitled and William will repair that.

by Anonymousreply 295March 21, 2023 3:52 PM

[quote] Nope [R292].. They weren't BORN grandchildren of the sovereign.

is there anything in the Letters Patent about having to be BORN grandchildren of the sovereign? I don't think so.

by Anonymousreply 296March 21, 2023 4:04 PM

Nor is there any history of the titles being retroactive r296. People not in the LOS don't typically get title upgrades dear.

by Anonymousreply 297March 21, 2023 4:25 PM

I don't think Frogmore is "rent-free." They pay the mortgage, I understood.

by Anonymousreply 298March 21, 2023 4:43 PM

Or, I guess, the lease. No?

by Anonymousreply 299March 21, 2023 4:44 PM

[quote]People not in the LOS don't typically get title upgrades dear.

Both Archie and Lillibet are in the line of succession: Archie is 6th in line to the throne and Lillibet is 7th.

And people in the LOS typically DO get title upgrades all the time. William has gone from being just Prince William of Wales to becoming Duke of Cambridge and then to Prince of Wales, for example.

by Anonymousreply 300March 21, 2023 4:52 PM

Frogmore is mortgaged? LOL

by Anonymousreply 301March 21, 2023 5:21 PM

There was a report in one of the reputable newspapers that they aren't paying rent... by some formula, the amount they spent on upgrades counts toward their rent... they might even have been due a refund when the lease was terminated.

by Anonymousreply 302March 21, 2023 6:14 PM

Back to the "who made who cry" issue again, the NYT has an article today about hyperemisis gravidarum, from which we know Kate suffered for all three pregnancies. Among other things it said, "A 2022 study found that hyperemesis is one of the main predictors for postpartum depression."

Kate had had Louis only weeks before preps for the Harkle wedding started, yet MeAgain could not take into account that she was not only just postpartum, but had had this horrible disease to contend with throughout.

by Anonymousreply 303March 22, 2023 6:06 AM

[quote]And people in the LOS typically DO get title upgrades all the time. William has gone from being just Prince William of Wales to becoming Duke of Cambridge and then to Prince of Wales, for example.

In most professions, to get a promotion you need to do at least some work. Additionally whistleblowers, whether legit or not, are rarely rewarded by the company they're whistling about.

by Anonymousreply 304March 22, 2023 6:07 AM

It's pretty apparent that there has been an attempt in the past couple of decades to limit the titles of prince/princess and HRH to those grandchildren of the monarch that are the children of the direct heir. This explains why Edward's children are not prince and princess and why Archie and Lilibet weren't until some agreement was reached between Harry and Charles. The Letters Patent issued by the Queen before the birth of George, making all William's children automatically prince and princess at birth even though they were not born grandchildren of the monarch underline both the aim to restrict these titles to the children of direct successors (the heir to the heir) and that it is not considered desirable for these titles to be given retrospectively.

I know Meghan's an idiot, but even she can understand an explanation such as "when Harry's dad is king then your kids will become prince/princess and be called HRH". That she made such a big fuss about it indicates that she had been told her kids would not become prince/princess retrospectively.

I don't particularly blame Charles for allowing his grandchildren from his second son to have these titles, but the fact Meghan made such a big deal about it to Oprah of all people, the cringe announcement of the baptism of Princess Lilibet Diana, as though Princess is a first name, the granting of these titles retrospectively and the fact that Archie and Lilibet live in the US where these titles have no meaning does devalue them somewhat.

I wouldn't be surprised if Charlotte and Louis' kids are not given the titles prince/princess, even though it's very likely that their father will be king by the time they have kids.

by Anonymousreply 305March 22, 2023 10:46 AM

Edward's kids are Charles' niece and nephew.

by Anonymousreply 306March 22, 2023 1:49 PM

Frosty and Meagain have now back a charity to challenge gender norms around boys. I suppose the prince and princess titles were withheld so as not to stereotype or misgender the little Sussexes but rather let them stand on their own character and intellect, which given their parents of course one would immediately do.

by Anonymousreply 307March 22, 2023 1:54 PM

Edward's kids are the late Queen's grandchildren, r306, born while she was still alive and their father was an active working royal.

by Anonymousreply 308March 22, 2023 2:57 PM

And not just their father but their mother too, Sophie, former Countess of Wessex and now Duchess of Edinburgh, an active and highly respected working royal who was close to the Queen yet who never insisted that her children be called princess, prince and HRH or whined about it to a chat show host.

by Anonymousreply 309March 22, 2023 3:01 PM

Oh, no one cares about Edward. He's not good looking anymore. And this is something more women should have paid attention to. All the Windsor men look like shit eventually. Charles never had much to work with, but Andrew and Edward made us optimistic for handsome men. Alas.And then you look at William who will not age well, and gods know Harry , like his father doesn't have a lot to work with. He peaked at 15. And think about this too. Who's a closeted Gay? We all believe it's Edward. But could it be someone else? Because I have a feeling about William. Watch him. Look at his photos.

by Anonymousreply 310March 22, 2023 3:25 PM

[quote] Who's a closeted Gay? We all believe it's Edward. But could it be someone else? Because I have a feeling about William. Watch him. Look at his photos.

True gay men do not have three children. Two were required. He didn’t need to have a third. He may be bisexual, but he’s not gay.

by Anonymousreply 311March 22, 2023 4:22 PM

Edward and Sophie are the new Kents/Gloucesters/Alexandra, now that that group have all passed 80.

They're reliable full-time "working" royals who are fit to cut ribbons and represent the crown at minor overseas functions, but they still leave audiences wishing they could've met someone bigger.

They're the Royal Family's equivalent of renting a Chevy Malibu on vacation.

by Anonymousreply 312March 22, 2023 4:33 PM

We may need a new thread for this but I believe Camilla is unwell. Seriously. I was watching her doing an interview with some guy promoting poetry, and she was shaking. I'm wondering if it's early stages of Parkinson's. Keep your eyes on her. Her schedule, etc. I think they are being very careful about not tiring her out, or over taxing her. Something is up.

by Anonymousreply 313March 22, 2023 4:52 PM

"And this is something more women should have paid attention to. All the Windsor men look like shit eventually"

Women don't marry the Windsor men for their looks!

But William is IMHO the only one who's aging well. H's not aging spectacularly, no bald man is, but he's the only one who's staying fit in middle age. So even if he's bald, and isn't handsome, he's still tall, elegant, fit, and self-confident enough to qualify as an attractive man overall. And well, filthy rich always adds a couple of points.

by Anonymousreply 314March 22, 2023 5:07 PM

William is in Poland meeting with Ukrainian refugees and "thanking the Polish...But he is a really crap pubic speaker.

by Anonymousreply 315March 22, 2023 7:59 PM

I meant he's a crap PUBLIC speaker. Not a"Pubic" speaker. I wouldn't know how one would perform pubic speaking...

by Anonymousreply 316March 22, 2023 7:59 PM

[quote] In most professions, to get a promotion you need to do at least some work.

The monarchy is absolutely nothing like "most companies." What a bullshit argument.

by Anonymousreply 317March 22, 2023 8:02 PM

*Sorry: it is absolutely nothing like "most professions."

by Anonymousreply 318March 22, 2023 8:03 PM

[quote] I wouldn't be surprised if Charlotte and Louis' kids are not given the titles prince/princess,

They already have them. the palace has acknowledged they can use these titles.

At this point it would take the issuing of new Letters Patent to remove them, which can certainly be done but has not happened yet.

by Anonymousreply 319March 22, 2023 8:05 PM

Neither does Kate, R316.

by Anonymousreply 320March 22, 2023 9:00 PM

Garbage R312. Sophie's area is trafficking of women, which I guess is a "minor overseas" effort to cretins.

by Anonymousreply 321March 22, 2023 10:36 PM

R313, there's something called an essential tremor, and a lot of people have it. It's pretty benign, though bothersome (sometimes severely so), and not related to Parkinson's.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 322March 23, 2023 12:52 AM

R321 Talk to full-time social workers about human trafficking. Talk to the United Nations about it. Hell, talk to the VICTIMS of it.

But don't give me the part-time activism of a middle-aged aristocrat who hands out ribbons to HT volunteers four times a year, then goes home to get tarted up for a fancy dress ball, at which she wears a tiara studded with jewels almost certainly mined by slave labor in a country once violently colonized by her husbands German-English ancestors.

It's not her life's work. It's not even her full day's work. She gives it lip service as "patron," just as she does for the fifty other causes she's honorary patron over - topics ranging from menopause to women in the workplace, vision disorders, organic dairies, and wheelchair basketball. Are we to take her as an expert on all of these topics as well?

by Anonymousreply 323March 23, 2023 1:29 AM

And how do you suppose attention gets drawn to issues? Every bit helps, moron.

by Anonymousreply 324March 23, 2023 1:37 AM

Name me ONE issue that no one in Britain was working on, coping with, or sending money to before this pack of chiselers picked it up as a pet cause for their punch card.

Camilla turned heads when she started talking about rape and osteoporosis, but she was merely the first ROYAL to say it aloud. Everyone else had been dealing with it all along.

Diana hugged a kid with AIDS. It made for a moving photograph, but that virus was already the biggest news item of the decade, and already on people's minds.

Anne joined the London Olympic Organizing Committee, which had dozens of trained planners and marketers onboard already making the case for London in 2012.

Harry loves to talk about wounded veterans, and he organized the Invictus Games for them. But royals have been serving in combat since the Middle Ages, and leaving bridal wreaths at the Cenotaph since the 1920s.

Ordinary Britons advance these causes through hard work, donations, and lived experiences. Getting a cheery visit from the Walking Tourist Attraction is a charming addition, but it's no substitute for real work.

I will give credit for the rare royal who actually gets their hands dirty - or risks their life - for a cause. Princess Anne has been digging in to Africa and Asia for Save the Children. Diana walked through an active minefield. That shit matters, and I'll admit to it.

by Anonymousreply 325March 23, 2023 1:52 AM

Right now everyone is just bullshitting. This includes so called "royal watchers" down through media and those panting at every latest bit of so called "news".

Truth is only PH, MM and the Palace know what's going on behind scenes with these so called "negotiations" (or rather shake down demands) from Duke of Sussex.

As someone else posted on DL it's all at this point just a bunch of chatter in aid of promoting clicks or otherwise increasing viewership.

by Anonymousreply 326March 23, 2023 2:02 AM

I wonder how many charities r325 visits or raises money for or - gasp - volunteers with?

by Anonymousreply 327March 23, 2023 2:26 AM

[quote]Getting a cheery visit from the Walking Tourist Attraction is a charming addition, but it's no substitute for real work.

Who's claiming it is? They have a part to play and they play it. If it's meaningless and of no valuable to the causes and charities and services that have these relationships, why are they forming them instead of blowing hard like you, R325? Why do they do it? What is the axe you're grinding anyway?

by Anonymousreply 328March 23, 2023 2:31 AM

Look,R325, the volunteers and staff work hard, and they ought to be acknowledged and the rest of the country benefits from being made aware of how these ordinary people do wonderful things. And a Royal patron's visit calls attention to their knowledges it on behalf of the country, and perhaps motivates others to get involved. No one expects Sophie or anyone else in the RF to work a shift.

by Anonymousreply 329March 23, 2023 3:36 AM

Volunteers and staff and public services are recognized, through the honours system. OBE, MBE, CBE, D/KBE, GBE, Companions of Honour, BEM, the Order of Merit, Royal Red Cross (for nursing), the King's Police Medal, the King's Fire Service Medal, the King's Ambulance Service Medal.

These are presented at Investitures, by one of the Walking Tourist Attractions, at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle or some such disreputable place where no one ever wants to go.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 330March 23, 2023 4:00 AM

See how unhappy this unknown looks as she tries to escape the King's wicked grasp, he having dragged her here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 331March 23, 2023 4:01 AM

The terror, the shame. Look at that forced smile as he is paraded before the media.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 332March 23, 2023 4:03 AM

I'm sorry, in R331 I said the King, I meant Walking Tourist Attraction.

by Anonymousreply 333March 23, 2023 4:04 AM

Which kids of Charlotte and Louis are you referring to, r319? They're 7 and 4 respectively. It would be miraculous if they had kids already.

by Anonymousreply 334March 23, 2023 8:17 AM

Lol r323, the UN works with the royal family on issues of violence against women. The monarch is a head of state, which puts the work that the royal family do on a different level from that of charities and activists.

In fact, the event at Buckingham Palace that Ngozi Fulani, aka Marlene Headley, tried to disrupt was within the framework of the United Nations 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, which brought together activists from women's organisations who campaign against violence against women.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 335March 23, 2023 10:00 AM

Queen Elizabeth II: ‘Reassuring presence’ throughout decades of ‘sweeping change’

8 September 2022 UN Affairs

Secretary-General António Guterres expressed on Thursday, his deep sadness at the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the UK’s longest-lived and longest-reigning Head of State, the 96-year-old Queen was widely admired for her “grace, dignity, and dedication around the world,” he said in a statement.

“She was a reassuring presence throughout decades of sweeping change, including the decolonization of Africa and Asia and the evolution of the Commonwealth”.

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom addresses the United Nations General Assembly in October 1957.

‘Good friend’ to Organization

Queen Elizabeth II was “a good friend of the United Nations”, he said, recalling that she had visited New York Headquarters twice, more than fifty years apart.

“She was deeply committed to many charitable and environmental causes and spoke movingly to delegates at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow,” recalled the UN chief.

“I would like to pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II for her unwavering, lifelong dedication to serving her people”.

Children present Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom with a bouquet of flowers as she concludes her visit at UN Headquarters, New York.

‘Devotion and leadership’

Mr. Guterres extended his sincere condolences to her bereaved family, the Government and people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the wider Commonwealth of Nations.

“The world will long remember her devotion and leadership,” he concluded.

Queen Elizabeth II has died: UK’s longest reigning monarch & world’s longest serving head of state

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 336March 23, 2023 10:10 AM

Queen Elizabeth II: ‘Reassuring presence’ throughout decades of ‘sweeping change’

8 September 2022 UN Affairs

Secretary-General António Guterres expressed on Thursday, his deep sadness at the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the UK’s longest-lived and longest-reigning Head of State, the 96-year-old Queen was widely admired for her “grace, dignity, and dedication around the world,” he said in a statement.

“She was a reassuring presence throughout decades of sweeping change, including the decolonization of Africa and Asia and the evolution of the Commonwealth”.

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom addresses the United Nations General Assembly in October 1957.

‘Good friend’ to Organization

Queen Elizabeth II was “a good friend of the United Nations”, he said, recalling that she had visited New York Headquarters twice, more than fifty years apart.

“She was deeply committed to many charitable and environmental causes and spoke movingly to delegates at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow,” recalled the UN chief.

“I would like to pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II for her unwavering, lifelong dedication to serving her people”.

Children present Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom with a bouquet of flowers as she concludes her visit at UN Headquarters, New York.

‘Devotion and leadership’

Mr. Guterres extended his sincere condolences to her bereaved family, the Government and people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the wider Commonwealth of Nations.

“The world will long remember her devotion and leadership,” he concluded.

Queen Elizabeth II has died: UK’s longest reigning monarch & world’s longest serving head of state

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 337March 23, 2023 10:10 AM

[Sophie working alongside the UK Foreign Office Commonwealth & Development Office to combat violence against women in Congo. Excerpts from an article on the UK government website]

Royal visit to Democratic Republic of Congo shows urgent need to tackle sexual violence in conflict

Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex joins Lord Ahmad on a visit to Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to show urgent need to tackle sexual violence in conflict.

4 October 2022

Lord Ahmad and HRH The Countess of Wessex meeting the First Lady of the DRC Denise Tshisekedi.

Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex, accompanied by FCDO Minister of State, Lord (Tariq) Ahmad of Wimbledon, the UK Prime Minister’s Special Representative for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict (PSVI), visits a ground-breaking foundation for survivors run by Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Denis Mukwege

this is the first visit by a member of the Royal family to DRC

the visit comes ahead of a major global conference on PSVI being hosted in London in November by the UK government, which Her Royal Highness will attend

The Countess of Wessex is visiting the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), accompanied by Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office Minister of State Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, to raise awareness of the urgent need to tackle sexual violence in conflict in the DRC and around the world.

For Her Royal Highness, the visit is part of a long-standing commitment to championing this issue.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Dr Denis Mukwege welcomed them to his groundbreaking foundation in Bukavu. The Panzi Foundation has transformed the lives of thousands of women who have suffered sexual violence in the armed conflict and violence in DRC. The Foundation provides medical care, legal assistance, psychological support and economic programmes to offer a holistic model of care for survivors of these horrific crimes.

The Countess of Wessex and Lord Ahmad saw first-hand the difference the Panzi Foundation has made to women’s lives during the first ever visit by a member of the Royal family to DRC.

Since 2012, we have committed over £50 million to support projects around the world that help prevent conflict-related sexual violence, including in the DRC. This includes providing £2.7 million to the Global Survivors Fund, whose projects in the DRC have supported over 1,000 survivors.

Dr Mukwege, Founder of the Panzi Hospital and Foundation, and President of the Global Survivors Fund, said:

My staff and I are grateful for the visit of Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex and Lord Tariq Ahmad. Too often, the world turns a blind eye towards the suffering of survivors, especially here in DRC. Their visit will highlight the ongoing critical work to end conflict-related sexual violence, both in this country and around the globe.

During the visit to eastern DRC, The Countess of Wessex and Lord Ahmad met with survivors of sexual violence, and civil society organisations in Bukavu to gain an understanding of the challenges they face.

In Kinshasa, Her Royal Highness and Lord Ahmad will also meet President Felix Tshisekedi and First Lady Denise Tshisekedi, the Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Christophe Lutundula, and other Ministers, for discussions on sexual violence in conflict, the UK’s international conference, and other important issues such as climate change.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 338March 23, 2023 10:17 AM

The investiture process should have ended when one of the York sisters cut the face of the recipient with the sword.

by Anonymousreply 339March 23, 2023 11:52 AM

Two points on that, R339: 1) It wasn't an actual investiture. 2) It was Ed Sheeran, so who cares?

But yeah, maybe Bea should stick to smaller blades.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 340March 23, 2023 2:36 PM

Safe to say R323 and R325 lost the argument?

by Anonymousreply 341March 23, 2023 2:47 PM

"Ed Sheeran told me to go and FUCK myself!"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 342March 23, 2023 4:43 PM

R341 Not at all. But I do work for a living, so coming back here isn't at the top of my list of constant priorities.

I'm so glad the rest of you jumped to the defense of this ludicrous little system of baubles and throwback titles as a reward for doing humanitarian work. It must mean SO MUCH to ordinary people to have their decades of sacrifice recognized by ten seconds of conversation with a royal in a funny hat.

And as to those knighthoods, honours, and peerages: None of them holds any real value anymore. When Judi Dench and the guy who invented that fancy vacuum cleaner can be given the nation's highest award, you know you've come a long way from the era of gallantry and genuine physical sacrifice.

Hell, the highest honour they can give - the Order of the Garter - is given to pretty much every living adult in the BRF, and then to many reigning European monarchs, and then to dusty old politicians, and then to no one else. They save the highest award for their own goddamn children and cousins, so what's that tell you about the honours system?

by Anonymousreply 343March 23, 2023 4:50 PM

Look R343, stop beating the horse. It's dead and clearly while you are entitled to your opinion, others do not necessarily share it. It says a lot about you that you choose to belittle people. Other posters included. People who toil regularly in these non profit efforts like to be acknowledged, and the fact that someone from the RF shows up attaches some significance to their work. It's like saying, "We are aware of what you do, it is important, it is valued, and we want the public to know. You are seen!"

by Anonymousreply 344March 23, 2023 5:40 PM

Charles opened the new headquarters of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London today. Is this the kind of ribbon-cutting r312 was referring to?

[quote]The EBRD was founded in 1991 at the end of the Cold War to build open market economies and promote private enterprise in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

[quote]As Prince of Wales, the King inaugurated the Bank’s previous headquarters in Bishopsgate in March 1993, nearly 30 years ago to the day. At the time he noted the EBRD’s important role in ‘generating and sustaining the right momentum’.

[quote]The Bank has since expanded into new regions and is now active in 36 economies across three continents. Since its creation it has invested over €180 billion in more than 6,600 projects.

[quote]The EBRD is also the largest institutional investor in Ukraine. Last year, under wartime conditions and responding to the country’s urgent needs, it deployed €1.7 billion there, plus almost €200 million more from partner banks.

[quote]EBRD staff last year donated €313,000 to local charities in Ukraine and other countries affected by the war. The Bank’s Community Initiative has matched that sum with nearly €482,000 of its own.

[quote]Some of the Bank’s Turkish members of staff were also able to meet His Majesty during his visit. The EBRD recently announced plans to invest up to €1.5 billion in Türkiye’s south-east over the next two years to address the impact of last month’s earthquakes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 345March 23, 2023 6:11 PM

Loud applause for King Charles at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development today.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 346March 23, 2023 6:14 PM

[quote] Edward and Sophie are the new Kents/Gloucesters/Alexandra, now that that group have all passed 80.

Not really, The Kents and Gloucesters were part of a much bigger extended family. Even amongst themselves, in the second rank of the royal family, they shared duties and honours amongst a much larger group: Duke and Duchess of Kent, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra and Angus Ogilvie, Prince and Princess Michael. At one time Edward, Andrew and even Anne could have been expected to be relegated to that state as Charles’ children took the spotlight.

However, given the advanced age at which Charles has come to the throne, the disgrace of Andrew and the departure of Harry, it’s clear that Edward and Sophie are part of the (much reduced) inner circle, and are likely to remain so until William’s children are out of school.

Edward and Sophie are a benefit to the family because they are much younger than Charles and Anne, and Sophie in particular is a great favourite of those she works with and those she meets. The Edinburghs are also well-liked by William and Kate, which counts for a lot these days.

The big question is what role Edward and Sophie’s children will play. The Royal Family is going to look pretty ancient over the next decade or so, as Anne, Charles and Camilla head towards their 80th birthdays. The temptation to enlist a few younger members until William’s children reach adulthood will be strong.

by Anonymousreply 347March 23, 2023 6:35 PM

R347 But how would that work in a practical sense? The Edinburgh/Wessex kids don't have titles, and are still teenagers themselves. Would they be given independent duties, or sent along in a supporting role with a parent each?

I'm imagining the plaques being unveiled with words like "Inaugurated on this date by James, Viscount Severn," or "Representing the King at the Jamaican Republic Handover Ceremony: Lady Louise Windsor and Ms. Tracey Ullman."

It just doesn't pack the same punch.

by Anonymousreply 348March 23, 2023 6:42 PM

I have a prince and princess available! For a fee, of course.

by Anonymousreply 349March 23, 2023 7:05 PM

R438, it’s all pure speculation of course, but Charles could grant them extra titles at any moment. I’m not sure that’s at all likely but it’s possible.

My main point is that the Royal Family is facing a situation where there are not going to be any active younger members (William’s children) for at least a decade, and more likely 15 to 20 years. By that time, 5 of the 7 working Royals will be well over 70. Charles and William might be happy with that, but it wouldn’t take many negative poll results from the young to make it advantageous to have a few younger twentysomething family members in the spotlight. In that case, there are not too many to choose from!

by Anonymousreply 350March 23, 2023 7:08 PM

The dumbo at r312 can't comprehend that Edward is the monarch's child, who was born and lived for almost 60 years while she was on the throne, while the Kents and Gloucesters are grandchildren of the monarch, and by monarch I mean George V who died in 1936. Edward is also the brother of the current king, while the Kents and Gloucesters were cousins of the Queen.

In response to r347, Edward and Sophie's children are clearly not expected to play any official role, which is why they were never given the titles princess/prince and HRH. They will be like Peter Philips and Zara Tindall. Even Beatrice and Eugenie aren't expected to play any significant official role. Beatrice is a Counsellor of State but it's unlikely she will do much in that role.

R350 is another dimbim who thinks the royals are celebrities and their existence is dependent on popularity polls and that only twentysomethings are popular. In any case, the royal family is filled with people of all generations, from tots and kiddies to teens to 30somethings and just turned 40somethings with young families. Zara, Beatrice, Louise, etc. don't have to perform official duties to be admired by the public and to give the royal family a positive image.

by Anonymousreply 351March 23, 2023 8:46 PM

It would be very easy for Louise or James to start using the Prince/Princess title if they started doing official engagements. It's doubtful they will, though.

by Anonymousreply 352March 23, 2023 9:13 PM

The Prince of Wales surprised Polish diners on Wednesday night when he inadvertently visited a LGBT-friendly restaurant in the centre of Warsaw.

The heir to the throne was pictured eating a £7.50 pulled pork sandwich and fries while making a surprise visit to the country.

Butero Bistro in Warsaw advertises itself as “your queerspace with comfort food”, while its logo is made up of the colours of the rainbow.

It is understood that Kensington Palace staff booked the table for themselves and were unaware that it was an LGBT-friendly restaurant but that were very happy with their choice.

It was not intended as a political statement, The Telegraph understands.

A source told the Mail Online that William, 40, had asked to join the palace staff for dinner at the local restaurant.

“The team from Kensington Palace booked a local restaurant near where they were working and the Prince decided to join them,” the source said.

“He asked them what they were doing and then asked to come along. It was a great night by all accounts.”

William was pictured at the restaurant by a local who posted the photo on Instagram saying: “Warsaw can surprise. I ate dinner today with the Prince.”

The local added that it was “valuable that he supported the community so abused by the current authorities in Poland”, in a reference to the government’s crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights.

- A lot of detail about all these coincidences. I wonder if he actually did intend to make a statement.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 353March 23, 2023 9:19 PM

Harry must be happy tonight... he's damaged everybody.

The Royal family’s approval rating has slumped to its lowest level for 12 months following the publication of the Duke of Sussex’s memoir, Spare.

The latest Ipsos poll suggests that all senior royals have been affected by the fallout.

While the Prince of Wales remains the most popular royal, his rating has slipped by 10 percentage points to 59 per cent since December.

The Duke took particular aim at his brother in his book, describing decades of simmering resentment and rivalry.

He accused the Prince of pushing him to the floor and causing physical injuries during a row and of lunging at him after the late Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral.

William is closely followed in the ratings by his aunt, the Princess Royal, and his wife, the Princess of Wales.

But both women’s popularity has dropped since December, by seven and 11 points respectively.

Overall, the Royal family’s approval rating has fallen to 47 per cent, down six points since the start of the year and the lowest figure recorded by Ipsos UK over the last 12 months.

However, the institution still has a positive net favourability rating of +21, with 26 per cent of adults unfavourable and 25 per cent neither favourable nor unfavourable.

This time last year, the family’s rating was +29, rising to +37 in September after the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not immune from the plunge in public opinion following the book’s release. They remain the least popular members of the family, aside from the Duke of York.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 354March 23, 2023 9:21 PM

That was Harry's big moment. Everything he publishes after it won't have the same impact. He made some money, but it came at the price of the entire world he grew up in.

Hope it was worth it, because there won't be any coming back from it.

by Anonymousreply 355March 23, 2023 9:26 PM

It hasn't come at the price of the entire world he grew up in, r355. The world he grew up in is just fine and will continue as it always has. With the years, however, Harry will become as irrelevant and disregarded as the Duke of Windsor.

by Anonymousreply 356March 23, 2023 9:45 PM

He deserves it. There was a malice in his actions that Windsor never gad.

by Anonymousreply 357March 23, 2023 9:51 PM

R350 Charlie Boy spent a decade bitching about a "Slimmed Down" royal family, and this is what he gets.

R352 It would be tough to draw up papers to grant them titles at this point. When they were born, they were male-line grandchildren of the sitting sovereign, which would've entitled them to lifetime use of an HRH Prince/Princess title. Their parents declined it at the time. Today, they're no longer the grandchildren of a monarch - merely the niece and nephew of one.

But more importantly, it cuts against the aforementioned "slimmed down" concept. Andrew's sloane daughters knew they'd have no role as princesses, so they sought careers of their own. Edward's kids were probably planning to do the same. Anne's kids were never working royals, and can't be now. Apparently, Charles never planned on his asshole brother imploding, or his fuckwit son marrying an asshole of his own and fucking off to California to moan about his oh-so-tough life. His plans now have two gaping holes in them, and he's scrambling to find any unemployed and vital relative to fill them.

by Anonymousreply 358March 23, 2023 11:27 PM

No longer grandchildren of a reigning monarch.

by Anonymousreply 359March 23, 2023 11:44 PM

R357 doesn't regard the Duke of Windsor's spying for the Germans and working with them during WW 2 as "malice." Harry talking about racism is.

by Anonymousreply 360March 24, 2023 12:10 AM

I don't get why r358 is so angry or just what this problem that he is so concerned about is. First of all, r358, did you ever hear Charles say the words "slimmed down monarchy", let alone bitch about one?

Also r358, it's not relevant that their monarch grandmother is no longer alive because Louise and James were born grandchildren of the monarch. Even if they had been born after their grandmother had died, they would still be entitled to the titles of prince/princess. The fact they don't use those titles indicates that it was never intended for them to use them.

I'm not sure why you imagine there are two gaping holes anywhere. Andrew was hardly a particularly active royal and Harry didn't do that much either. The main job is for the monarch and his or her heir and their spouses. The others are just extras, who mostly shape their activities around their interests. It's not as though the royal family will collapse if its members "only" support 300 charities and not 576.

by Anonymousreply 361March 24, 2023 12:18 AM

The only thing Harry said about racism, r360, is that the royal family aren't racist.

by Anonymousreply 362March 24, 2023 12:19 AM

It's OK R360. We understand you're at the point you've got to make things up. How's the GED coming?

by Anonymousreply 363March 24, 2023 12:35 AM

I sense that The York Girls Are Very Nice Troll is hovering.

by Anonymousreply 364March 24, 2023 12:37 AM

[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.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 365March 24, 2023 12:41 AM

These kids will end up 50th in line one day. They are equal to Edwards kids r300. Even if there was a mass tragedt, nobody from Harry's line, including himself would be allowed anywhere near the throne. You cam get your house on that.

by Anonymousreply 366March 24, 2023 6:39 AM

It's telling that r50 doesn't understand why William was upgraded to Prince of Wales and thinks that this means Harry's kids will also get future upgrades.

by Anonymousreply 367March 24, 2023 7:48 AM

Charles caught in the thick of global politics! His state visit to France has been cancelled because of the riots against the pensions reforms. He's 74 and still working hard and - like his mother - will until the day he dies. And the French are outraged that they will have to work until the age of 64!

by Anonymousreply 368March 24, 2023 11:27 AM

A correction to r358, Charles' state visit to France has been postponed by the French government, not cancelled. He will still go to Germany.

by Anonymousreply 369March 24, 2023 11:30 AM

I wonder what the Sussexes will do for their next act? Every timd I think they're done and will fade away, there's a podcast, a "documentary" and a book.

by Anonymousreply 370March 24, 2023 4:06 PM

Meghan is supposedly re-starting her lifestyle/beauty/fashion blog the "Tig"

Like Trump, Madonna, and countless other narcissists, she'll keep trying to stay "relevant" (i.e., in the limelight). Just please please please keep her out of politics.

by Anonymousreply 371March 24, 2023 4:28 PM

And isn't she part of the multi-book deal - set to follow "Spare" with her own memoir?

by Anonymousreply 372March 24, 2023 4:29 PM

R370 you will be "wondering" for a long time. And as long as there a re enough people like you, "wondering" they will not fade away, because the media will keep things going.

by Anonymousreply 373March 24, 2023 5:08 PM

[quote]Meghan is supposedly re-starting her lifestyle/beauty/fashion blog the "Tig"

I despise her but I'd back that and wish her luck. If she'd just make her piles of money and sell tasteful things and, please God, shut the fuck up because it's evident she's stupid and has nothing to say you can't find on a mug at a purposeful life gift shop, I'd be pleased as punch. Honestly, success as a lifestyle maven could be the best thing that ever happened to everybody. Except her diabetic bathwater drinkers. They couldn't afford anything she'd sell in a marvellous slap of irony.

I'm not optimistic though. There's nothing to say she has any taste of her own, based on her clothes and their fit and the vent stitches. If Soho house style was high neo-Victoriana, that's what her house would look like. Martha Stewart, I think, had a hand in her own brand. I'm sure Goop stuffed those eggs up her own vagina once or twice. But I can't see Meghan having a clue about a look and I can't see her managing a team effectively to pretend she did. Still, she likes money, so maybe she'd learn to shut up about that, too. Her problem is, she seems to want fame as well and every time she opens her mouth, it seems to move further into the distance.

by Anonymousreply 374March 24, 2023 5:18 PM

I'm just watching the HBO thing on Diana.... Princess or The Princess or something... it's interesting because there's no narration... just talking heads or reporting. But LOL the Princess Diana scream figures prominently and at length... probably old news but I'd never heard it.

by Anonymousreply 375March 24, 2023 6:56 PM

I just can't stand Meghan's personality AFTER Harry. It's so fake and perfectionist try hard.

She was much more likeable and real as an actress before she met Harry.

Harry seems like a bit of a sanctimonious psychobabble twat.

by Anonymousreply 376March 24, 2023 7:24 PM

Meghan coming off as "likable" would be the best acting of her life.

by Anonymousreply 377March 24, 2023 8:39 PM

Too late for that performance.

by Anonymousreply 378March 24, 2023 9:18 PM

Seriously, how does she put up with him? He's so stupid he thought she was some kind of genius for reading Eat, Pray, Love. Shows what his own reading selection is like - if he reads at all apart from stalking the DM comments section. Between the whining, his fixation on his brother and the Mummy issues, she's living up to that famous maxim: people who marry for money usually end up earning every cent.

"Willy broke my necklace! Wa wa wa!" Nobody actually finds someone like that sexy or attractive.

by Anonymousreply 379March 24, 2023 11:06 PM

But she did read Eat, Pray, Love. (Or was it Pray, Love, Eat?)

I don't think she's got a lot more going on upstairs than he does. And no doubt she loves the attention when it reaffirms her grievances.

by Anonymousreply 380March 24, 2023 11:12 PM

Reading R229, it's interesting to contemplate the Queen's reign had her uncle not abdicated and everything pretty much remained the same. He remained childless. She would have acceded in 1972, at the age of 46, well into middle age and without the benefit of 20 years experience. Her reign would have been 50 years - not nothing, but thirteen years shy of Queen Victoria's. Her mother would have only been Duchess of York her whole life. She would have been Duchess of Edinburgh. Would it have made a difference in any way? Or would it have even survived Edward VIIIl, given his disposition toward much more than just schnitzel in things German. Would he have been a good constitutional monarch? What a different experience it would have been.

by Anonymousreply 381March 24, 2023 11:24 PM

Everything they do is full of contradiction.

They say they want privacy, but they do interviews, make documentaries and write books about their lives.

They leave the Royal Family and quit royal duties, but make a big thing about their son and daughter being a Prince and Princess respectively.

Given Archie and Lilibet are being raised in America, far apart from any of their father's family, they won't give a fuck about royal titles. Unless Meghan drills it into them that they should care. Maybe she's got a Kardashians style documentary in the works and feels said titles can be used as part of the promotion.

by Anonymousreply 382March 24, 2023 11:45 PM

Deranger Thread Fumigant

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 383March 25, 2023 2:39 AM

Final proof the William affair is bullshit. You don't restore problem poshies to visible positions:

"When the Marquess of Cholmondeley was replaced as Lord Great Chamberlain after the death of Queen Elizabeth last September, it looked like he was losing his intimate connection with the monarchy.

But I now hear that King Charles has handed the Marquess, aka film-maker David Rocksavage, a new position that will see him and his wife, the bohemian former model Rose Hanbury, returning to the heart of the royal court.

Charles has appointed the Marquess, 62, as his Lord-in-Waiting — a prestigious position that will see him attend important state and royal occasions, as well as being called upon to represent His Majesty at various events."

by Anonymousreply 384March 25, 2023 3:18 AM

[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.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 385March 25, 2023 3:19 AM

Harry's first book was their big move. They better invest that money well, because nothing they do after this will have as much impact. Certainly nothing Meghan does--the public has made it very clear that Harry is the one they are interested in, not her.

by Anonymousreply 386March 25, 2023 4:28 PM

R381, Elizabeth's marriage to Philip would have been different, as he would have had 20 years of the naval career they both wanted him to have. They might not have had their marital troubles in the 50s and would have completed their family much sooner. We might still have had Princes Andrew and Edward, but they would have been born 10 years earlier and been different people. Also, being raised out of the spotlight might have made Andrew far less of an entitled twat, and he might not have been Mummy's favorite, as the existing Andrew was her reconciliation baby with Philip.

Charles might also have led a less pressured existence, as he wouldn't have been Prince of Wales quite so soon, and might have made a wiser choice of mate. Who knows? The Mountbatten assassination might not have happened, and Mountbatten might have pulled off his desired match of his granddaughter Amanda Knatchbull to Charles. Amanda was older than Diana, college-educated, and emotionally stable, with an interest in social work and other good causes.

This would have probably had Princes William and Harry, but they, too, would have been different people. They might have even had siblings, as Charles always wanted a daughter, but the breakdown of his marriage to Diana early on meant no more babies for him.

So yes, Queen Elizabeth ascending 20 years later might have changed many, many things.

by Anonymousreply 387March 25, 2023 4:35 PM

If the Queen had ascended in 1972, Diana Spencer would be alive and probably on her second or third marriage to various Hooray Harrys. Nobody would ever have heard of her outside of aristocratic circles. Kate Middleton would probably be married to an anonymous aristocrat herself, and Meghan Markle would be living in Toronto and married to her celebrity chef.

by Anonymousreply 388March 25, 2023 4:38 PM

Where is Major Johnny Thompson these days? He's the only one I want to see any more.

by Anonymousreply 389March 25, 2023 4:39 PM

R387, without Charles marrying Diana Spencer, there would have been no william and Harry. Not with Amanda Knatchbull.

by Anonymousreply 390March 25, 2023 4:39 PM

Well, there might have been princes named William and Harry, but no, they wouldn't be the current versions.

by Anonymousreply 391March 25, 2023 4:40 PM

"Harry, Just, sit!"

I loved that scene.

by Anonymousreply 392March 25, 2023 7:18 PM

If Elizabeth had ascended to the throne 20 years later not much would have been different, other than the UK having to endure a horrific king. In any case, if Edward hadn't stood down George VI might never have been king. Or he may have lived longer (although doubtful) and still have succeeded his brother. Edward was totally unsuited to being king. If he hadn't stood down when he did, he would have stood down later. These counterfactuals are all nonsense because they don't change the essence of things.

by Anonymousreply 393March 26, 2023 6:59 AM

[quote]Diana hugged a kid with AIDS. It made for a moving photograph, but that virus was already the biggest news item of the decade, and already on people's minds.

The above quote was a long way up the thread but I've only just read it and I can't let it go uncorrected. I think Diana was crazycakes and Meghan 1.0, so I carry no card for her, but this is a ridiculous dismissal of what she did in relation to AIDS.

She did not "hug a kid with AIDS". (She may have done that at some point, but it is not what she was remembered for.) What she did was visit a full-on AIDS ward and she sat with, held hands with, laughed with and I think in one case even hugged, a succession of very sick gay men. She was there for quite a long time in terms of Royal visits. And most importantly, she didn't wear gloves.

People had heard of AIDS, sure, and at this point the general public were still batshit terrified of catching it. You must remember that when the virus was first discovered even the doctors didn't know how it was transmitted. When they worked it out, it was not clearly explained to the public because conservatives objected to all this detailed talk of sexual practices, so a lot of people thought for years you could get AIDS from shaking hands, being coughed on, swimming in the same pool, etc.

Diana's confidence that she wouldn't catch it, even at such close proximity with people who were demonstrably very sick with it, made people have to re-think. This made life a bit easier for gay men, who were having plenty of problems without being treated like lepers in everyday life. It was perhaps the most important press coverage of her life, and is one thing that should never be glossed over or sneered at on the DL.

by Anonymousreply 394March 26, 2023 12:43 PM

All the American Moms want their kids to be friends with the prince and princess. The other kids will beat them to a pulp for being entitlted assholes.

by Anonymousreply 395March 26, 2023 1:03 PM

I can't find it now, but there was an article about a Californian landscaper that was going to do their garden, All these stupid bills would have added up. The Crown Estate would have paid for asbestos removal and the basics of returning it to a family home, They needed to pay all the extra to make it s SoHo hideous shitville themselves'

by Anonymousreply 396March 26, 2023 1:10 PM

r307. Do yo remember back in the day of their Sussex Royal thing? They " supported" Mermaids . That very contreversial charity, Oh and let's not forget Althea Bernstein and did she ever turn ip to help kids in Wisconsin :that might have been a good honest conversation

by Anonymousreply 397March 26, 2023 1:17 PM

Diana had a close friend, Adrian Ward-Jackson, who died of Aids. She knew him through one of her patronages, I think the Royal Ballet. That was how her involvement began.

by Anonymousreply 398March 26, 2023 1:58 PM

Daily Deranger Thread Fumigation

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 399March 26, 2023 4:25 PM
Need more help? Click Here.

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


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