The Coronation is a FLOP

More people tuned in for an hour long funeral that shut down the entire country where the only other thing to do or watch was the Emoji movie on Channel 5 than did a long winded 4 hour religious ceremony held on a Saturday morning when the pubs and shops were still open? I too am shocked.

What did you expect? OLDE King Tampon and the Adultering Whore, NO ONE CARES!!

Now if it was "KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN CATHERINE" WATCH THOSE RATINGS!!

On the day of the Queen's funeral everywhere was closed.

Saturday morning/afternoon everywhere was open. It was quiet, hardly anyone around, but there were people out.

It also seems to happen at midnight US time

He looks like fucking King Vitamin from the cereal box

Liz & Phil were a cute, young couple, Liz's uterus could spit out babies.

Chuck & Man O' War are sad, old drunks with one foot in the grave.

Never mind, his own funeral will be a ratings bonanza.

Too bad they were the only stars they had.

Contrarians gonna be cunts, as usual. The whole affair was a raging success.

No Meghan, no ratings

So what? At the end of the day, they are King and Queen.

@r8 Every time I see a picture of Chuckles and Cammie I think what school would elect these two Homecoming King and Queen?

Then I think of an old Imperial Margarine ad... "Fit for a King"

[quote] No Meghan, no ratings

That wasn’t even true during her TV career.

The weather was so cloudy that day. But I still had to wear sunglasses.

Charles and Camilla are much too old for anyone to give a shit.

It’s the Ishtar of coronations.

In other words, it’s the most-viewed event of the year in the UK.

I like the way he lets the gray hair grow out in tufts to cover his Dumbo ears.

I had no idea it was on until I saw the thread on DL that morning.

Elizabeth had a fully scripted Coronation by the BBC. It was filmed and edited. It was tight.

Chuckie Three's was covered like the Macy's Day Thanksgiving Parade. Blanket coverage from first fart to t last. It was tedious and reduced the majestic to the inconsequential.

My two takeaways were that there is LOTS of ratty recycled ermine in London and Anne's feather stole the show. Also, did they remove the Koh-i-Noor from Milla's crown? Every British diamond is a blood diamond. I hope it returns for Cathey.

I’m surprised there were that many.

Ratings would have been higher if Meghan was there and you all know it.

Most people watched it via streaming.

There is no way to tell how many hundreds of millions.

For comparison...

"Part one of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Netflix documentary debuted with 81.55 million hours viewed – making it the highest viewed documentary premiere for the streaming platform. Netflix says 28 million households have viewed the show so far"

Boring meghan, you are the Boring one. The coronation was wonderful.

What a laughably absurd comparison.

Of couse, QEII's funeral would garner much more viewers than his coronation. While I can imagine HIM being butthurt over it, no sane person could possibly think that the funeral for a monarch that was as popular as she was who reigned for as long as she did would have fewer viewers.

What a silly thing to even mention.

^^^ also, while it lags significantly behind her funeral, it's almost double the next closest thing.

If you're going to criticize, there are dozens of other things to hit in that clown show.

Cosplay doesn't garner the reverence it used to.

He looks hilarious in that crown. Like a Monty Python sketch.

The only reason anything Meghan gets ratings, is because people love train wrecks. That's all it is. We want to see drama and scandal. It's certainly not because she is so popular and beloved.

[quote]No Meghan, no ratings

To some degree it's true. Why do you think all those British Tabloids run story after story after story about Harry and Meghan. That's where the money is. The BRF is like Dynasty Season 1 before Alexis.

And if Megan is a train wreck, then this world needs a lot more train wrecks.

[quote] Also, did they remove the Koh-i-Noor from Milla's crown?

Where have you been? It was announced weeks ago her crown would not have the Koh-i-Noor in it.

[quote]I’m surprised there were that many

My Dad mentioned this morning to me, that it was on "every fucking channel" (he was not interested).

When I really thought about it though, I would imagine that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, AND INDIA could be considered kind of UK royalty "adjacent", and have interest.

R22, she only attracts attention so people can enjoy laugh at her outfits, watching her being booed/openly snubbed by the crowd or glared at by Catherine.

OP trolls us and you all reward the TROLL. Bravo!

They are just two of the most revolting people on Earth. People can’t even rightfully hide their sustain. The sooner he kicks the bucket the better chance the monarchy has to survive.

r32, I do not read crap about the BRF. I simply watched the tedious event and remarked about the missing biggest blood diamond. Since then, I have found out they aren't giving it back and simply archiving it in the Crown Jewels.

I do hope Catherine wears it.

Rewards the troll, how R35?

Do you honestly think anything here translates to anything meaningful in the “real world”?

Do you think anyone gives a shit? I post here and I don’t.

Rewards. What a stupid thing to say.

Hate to break it to some of you , but Harry & Meghan's wedding was watched by 16 million in the UK. Aside from QEII's funeral, the coronation was the most watched royal event since William and Catherine's wedding 2011.

Can you give us a list for royal events r39?

I saw a video of someone who attended. She said it was huge even larger than the Queen’s Jubilee.

20 million viewers is huge for the UK, especially since lost of people have taken the bank holiday weekend for a holiday getaway

The sad part is this is the absolute high point of Charles reign. The rest is just watching him become more and more irrelevant . His next burst of recognition will be when he croaks. The scary part is his dad and mum lived into their 90's. That's nearly 20 more years of senility and decrepitude. Willie biting his nails checking his ulcer and shaging any of Katie's besties that present themselves. It's like the slow motion death of the a geriatric obsolete institution represented by two old gits. Good luck Formerly Great Britain 2053 is a long way off.

^^ You're American that's all we can say in response. (thought I'd get that out of the way)

R43 you're also dumb with a poor command of the English language, don't let the door hit your big smelly ass on the way out X

^ Your a Limey Wanker aren't you?

so what are you Brits doing on your holiday tomorrow (I guess it's Mon. already there)?

* you're

R45 thanks for reinforcing my point, thunder-thighs! X

Foresee something happening to Charles like happened to George III. He'll slip into drooling dementia in his 80's and Willie will have to be appointed Regent. Camilla will protest vehemently but they'll just pack her off to the Tower or perhaps Katie will arrange to send her on a one way trip thru a Paris tunnel.. That would be poetic justice.

I know for a fact the Coronation had the greatest audience ever! Greater than the moon landing and the second coming of Christ combined. And why not? Why just look at them! You'd have to be a wog or a stupid American not to be enchanted by our Dynamic Duo!

[quote]SurvivingAnal

hahahahahahahaha

I know who was watching- and who wasn't.

Do they not realize except for a few demented old duffers like them, the modern world is laughing at them? Probably not as self awareness has never been their strong suit.

[quote] I do not read crap about the BRF. I simply watched the tedious event

You're saying you do not read histrorical information about them from NPR because it's '"crap,";and yet you were willing to watch the actual event on TV?

Oh, hon...

I watched. It was fabulous. I love the pomp, pageantry and ceremony. But still, I am team Diana forever.

Charles and Camilla abused Diana from the early days and through her marriage. Charles and Camilla may be somewhat likable now that they are seniors in their '70s, but 30-40 years ago they were abusive, destructive and mean people to Diana, her sons and to the monarchy in general. Just in case you were wondering where Harry gets his vindictive, arrogant personality--look no further than his father, Charles.

I mean, Diana cheated first, with multiple men, and would scream and freak out at Charles constantly. She did not know how to regulate her emotions or behave like a mature adult behind closed doors.

But go off.

When the coronation coverage started on BBC and ITV, I Iaughed when I saw Channel 4 was counter-programming with reruns of "The King of Queens."

Their M’s showed up on American Idol tonight. Muttering something.

If the ceremony had been a tight one hour, it could’ve been deemed a success. Instead it was overly long and at times, unbelievably corny.

The only ones who look the part.

Honey, please face the facts: they don't give a rat's ass about what you consider "unbelievably corny."

They are not trying to entertain you in the USA.

As an old Gen Xer I find the return of the word corny rather, well, corny.

[quote]I mean, Diana cheated first

R55. Believe that if you want to continue being delusional. And no, Diana did not cheat first. Charles and Camilla were together with each other before Diana's marriage ever took place. They were in touch with each nights before the Diana's wedding. Charles and Camilla were exchanging gifts with each before the wedding. Charles was on the phone with Camilla from the royal yacht Britannica while he was on his honeymoon with Diana. Camilla would not leave Diana's marriage, and Charles didn't want Camilla to leave. Charles and Camilla set up house together at Highgrove House in the country where Charles would escape from his marriage. Charles and Camilla never stopped seeing each other before and during Diana's marriage. Yes, Diana cheated too, but it wasn't until it was hopeless that Charles was not going to stop seeing Camilla.

^ I think it's kind of far out that a groovy word like "corny" is cool again. Neato! 😜

R4 what does the coronation happening in US time have to do with the viewing ratings IN THE UK? Can you read?

And also, what does any of this have to do with the USA?

[quote] That wasn’t even true during her TV career.

Oh yes, thanks for the reminder she became a celebrity on her own, not by “birthright.”

[quote] And also, what does any of this have to do with the USA?

Silly person. The UK is essentially a client state of the US at this point.

No R66 - you are falling for the usual clueless American trap of thinking that the British monarchy is there for the entertainment of the US public, rather than the system of government in the UK.

Who’s the silly person now, R66?

I wonder if more people are going to tune into Eurovision this week. Now that would be humiliating.

[quote]I simply watched the tedious event and remarked about the missing biggest blood diamond.

The Kohinoor diamond is not a "blood diamond."

Yes, R67. British monarchs only have ceremonial roles but they're so vital to the British system of government 🙄. It would be impossible to come up with a new system of government without them.

You do realise that the U.S. has five times the population of Britain. Good TV ratings in the U.S. would be helpful.

If the royal family wanted to generate serious revenue, they would have cage matches between Meghan and Kate, and William and Harry. It would be the most watched TV show in Britain's history.

Why does this...

Remind people of this?... 😂

[quote]Charles and Camilla may be somewhat likable now that they are seniors in their '70s, but 30-40 years ago they were abusive, destructive and mean people to Diana, her sons and to the monarchy in general.

Where do you people get this stuff? I followed the Diana story closely right from the courtship, and I never saw any such story. The idea that they were abusive to the kids, in particular, is entirely ridiculous, and Charles would never in a million years slight the monarchy.

If they had been abusive and mean to Diana it would have been well and truly deserved -- she was a nightmare -- but I know of absolutely zero evidence that Camilla gave Diana a second thought, let alone was mean to her, and Charles, although annoyed she upstaged him at Royal events, was more perplexed about how to deal with her than anything. If you were a serious man in his 30s, how would YOU deal with a confessed airhead who complained all day she was bored, but could provide no information about what she wanted to do that would be constructive and interesting?

The fact that Charles and Camilla remained in touch with each other in the early years of Charles's marriage means nothing. She was one of several older, married female friends he had always used for personal counsel. She had a much coveted husband, WHOM SHE HAD ONLY RECENTLY CHOSEN TO MARRY, and was busy raising small children.

Please stop watching The Crown if, like Diana, you can't tell the difference between romantic fiction and reality.

I bet Charles and Cams are having wild, tawdry sex tonight!

R68, ALL colonial diamonds are blood diamonds.

India, please meet Rhodesia.

Oh, are you saying it's like the Elgin Marbles?

Bloody Elgin Marbles.

^ Well, that's a start...

1. Koh-i-Noor

2. The Ring of Tipu Sultan

3. Wine Cup of Shah Jahan

4. Rosetta Stone

5. Seeds of Hevea Brasiliensis

6. Benin Bronzes

7. Ethiopian Manuscripts

8. Elgin Marbles 9. Amaravati Marbles

Well done Royals...let those tourist dollars flow!

[quote] Oh yes, thanks for the reminder she became a celebrity on her own, not by “birthright.”

There is nothing at all wrong with “birthright”, as I frequently tell Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

Gotta laugh at the Royalists in here who are all “what’s it got to do with Americans”? LMAO. Please, do you think Charles et al. don’t love and crave favorable American press as much as they crave it from the UK? Darlings, would you have us believe that your government spends 250 million pounds (or whatever) parading Chuckles & his jumped-up mistress around in blood diamonds, ermine & gold carriages because you DON’T want American tourists flocking to take pictures in front of Buckingham Palace?

Unfortunately for your tourist income, Americans never actually cared about the Royal Family. We were interested in one thing and one thing alone — Diana and her kids. Willie’s been crushed by and lost to the system and Harry’s with us now, generating income and taxes for the U.S., so, suck it. Hope y’all enjoyed the party & the accompanying bill!

R60: I missed the part where Edward II had a lame ass gospel choir as centuries of tradition required.

I found it a major letdown. It simply didn't have the mystique that his mother's coronation had. QEII's coronation was magical. Charles' coronation looked more like something staged by some Hollywood movie company. It was a prime example that modern day Royalty simply can't hold up to the way things were back in the day.

And Charles looked like he was clinically depressed through the whole thing.

Oh please, R75. Charles and Cammie haven't had sex for years.

@r82, You get 10 👍 😂

R82 is amusingly wrong

Another silly American trying to explain away the treachery of Harold. When will they realize they are not entitled to speak out on our beloved Royal Family?

^ Stop blaming "Harold" for all your many problems, GB. It's your tabloid newspapers and your lousy Tory government that will be your downfall and it's coming sooner rather than later

I don't believe people when they say the monarchy is going away. I think it will last and continue on in some form for some time. But, I think the institution is in a weird, strange place right now. There is never going to be another Elizabeth and she built up good will, and the institution is still riding on the fumes of that good will and all the tradition.

I think a lot of people were looking forward to King William, but I don't understand what has happened to him. He never seems happy and even he seems over it. Maybe it's the weight of knowing that he has to take on all of this eventually. Say what you want about Charles, but he did seem like he was having fun.

R89 I'm laughing at that dumb little arse-licker using words he doesn't understand

^ Me too! 😂🤣

[quote]The whole affair was a raging success.

What exactly defines it as a success? And don't come back with some claptrap about "bringing the nation together." What metrics are you defining success by? And what would constitute "failure" for you? Because I suspect anything short of an assassination that sparks a revolution would be "success" in your eyes. Royalists are endlessly sycophantic. Their blessed "monarch" shits and they declare a bank holiday.

Weren't half the entertainers American? And bottom of the barrel, Lionel Ritchie? Katy Perry?!? Lol.

R80 Dimwit. The Louvre is the #1 tourist attraction in the EU. It generated €100 million plus in revenue. Despite King Louis XXXV not being there to take tickets. Shite for brains.

R96 it's a disgrace those Frenchies charge admission. All our great museums and galleries are free here in the UK, for the enjoyment of the people

The royal family still generates tourist dollars, R96, eg tourists touring Buckingham Palace in the summer when the royals are out of town, royals drumming up business for shops with royal warrants, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. were a big market for royal memorabilia --- well, maybe not coffee mugs with Chuck and Cammie, but Kate and Wills are probably popular.

R97 a deluded sack of shite but then all Royalists lickspittles are .

Yeah but aren't the British Museum, the Natural History Museum and the National Gallery in London free?

[quote]Unfortunately for your tourist income, Americans never actually cared about the Royal Family.

Yes, that's why American media ignored Harry and Meghan, the royal weddings, the Queen's funeral and this weekend's Coronation.

R91 It's the weight of knowing he has to hang around for 20 years waiting for his prisspot Pa to kick. Pretending to be useful while chained to an anorexic bitch . Willy sees his future in his fathers past and it makes him angry. No wonder he's violently jealous of Harry. Billy the Basher is one frustrated pissed off bloke.

Oi R99 calm down love. I was referring to our top tourist attractions such as

The British Museum

The National Gallery

National Portrait Gallery

Tate Britain

Tate Modern

National Maritime Museum

Imperial War Museum

Natural History Museum

Victoria & Albert Museum

and many more, all across the UK, all free.

What's next for their Majesties judging AMERICAN Idol? A gig's a gig even if it's doing schtick for Yanks.😂

[quote]I found it a major letdown. It simply didn't have the mystique that his mother's coronation had. QEII's coronation was magical. Charles' coronation looked more like something staged by some Hollywood movie company. It was a prime example that modern day Royalty simply can't hold up to the way things were back in the day.

How old are you? My 79 year old mother was 9 years old when she watched the Coronation on a black and white TV in a neighbour's house.

The 1953 Coronation is mystical and magical because most people alive have only witnessed it through heavily edited footage.

If it looked like a movie, it's because of the Coronations ceremonies you've seen in movies and The Crown.

R103 You know damn well they are free to MEMBERS of which most Brits are not. Fail doll.

R106 no I don't know that. Being a Brit and having visited these places many times I know you do not need to be a member of any one of these amazing places to have access to them.

I don't know. It looks like the National Gallery is free for everyone, R106.

R108 I've lived in London for years, trust me the list at R103 is all free, plus many more. The art and other curios were bequeathed to the nation by multiple benefactors (and some Government money) on condition they were always free to the public.

Thanks, R109.

R105 You must be American. It was "magical" because people had respect for the young dignified Queen Elizabeth. It was an exciting time .Post war the start of a new Elizabethan Age. These two worn out old pensioners could barely make it up the steps. The entertainers were all Yanks. Whatever you're trying to sell we aren't buying luv.

R110 why don't ya come over and see us sometime?

[quote][R105] You must be American. It was "magical" because people had respect for the young dignified Queen Elizabeth. It was an exciting time .Post war the start of a new Elizabethan Age. These two worn out old pensioners could barely make it up the steps. The entertainers were all Yanks. Whatever you're trying to sell we aren't buying luv.

No I'm British and pointing out that people comparing an event with one 70 years ago that they are only aware of through heavily edited footage is a ridiculous comparison.

R109 Sure Hyacinth. Charlie takes all major credit cards. 😂😂😂

Yep R106 is taking pure shite.

All the museums and galleries are free to the public and have been since 2001 thanks to the Blair government's commitment to the arts.

They do have special exhibitions that charge for access but entrance to most of the exhibits remains free

[quote]R110 why don't ya come over and see us sometime?

I'd love to, R109, but I don't have much disposable income 😆. Maybe some day. Thanks for the invitation.

R69 Correct. Blood diamonds are bought and sold. The Koh-i-Noor was stolen.

R113 The only thing ridiculous is you cultists trying to make your geriatric sows ears into silk purses. Charlie and Cowmilla will never be respected or as popular as Elizabeth and Philip at their coronation and no amount of your apologist spin will change that. You just make yourself look disingenuous and doltish. Give it up luv.

R91 — Harry’s book made clear that what happened to Wills is the exact same thing that happened to Charles: the simultaneously ego-inflating and emasculating, dehumanizing mindfuck of being raised to believe you are the most important person on the planet, while at the same time you have absolutely no control over your own life. Can’t do what you want, can’t marry who you want, mommy/daddy hold the purse strings, can’t get too much press coverage, can’t wear what you want, can’t even grow a beard for fuck’s sake. It’s fucked them both up forever (as well as most of the rest of their kin) and Harry is blessed for having been able to escape it.

R119 My Eyes!

R113 Are you blind as well as stupid?

I loved the snips of the Coronation thst I saw. Everyone looked beautiful. Didn't see the concert but loved William's speech: he has a good gig gping

LOL This is your King. Can any of you lickspittles imagine Queen Elizabeth ever behaving this way in public? Much less on the biggest day of her life? " IT'S SO BORING!" Pathetic eternally whining Charlie. You nitwit Brits have to pay for this 74yo manbaby. Positively Trumpian. Only more boring.

Elizabeth & Phillip were The Greatest Generation . Charlie & Cowmilla are Boomers. Explains everything.

^ Actually not. At least with Phillip who was notoriously rude and cranky in public though out his life. We had an exceptional and rare Lady in Queen Elizabeth. She had a sphinx like demeanor and uncanny self control. It gave her a public dignity and gravitas that was unique to her. It was part of Elizabeth's mystique. We shall not see her like again. Certainly not with her son and his current wife.

[quote] Billy the Basher is one frustrated pissed off bloke.

William is basically just a low class thug. He gets mad because his brother isn't doing things exactly as he wants him to so he immediately resorts to violence. And don't think for one second he hasn't raised his hand to Kate.

Lol R128 what a fool who believes everything Harold spews. You'd get angry too if someone you'd bent over backwards for was trying to pull things apart

You mean to tell me your Billionare King charges you £30.00 per taxpayer for you to vist Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.? Yet you pay to keep his lights on. You English really are a dumb people. The White House tour is free.

Hey titwank at R130 who do you think pays for all the upkeep, security and sundry at the White House and other political buildings. Dumbass

Let's not turn this into some kind of William v. Harry thing. William seems unhappy to me and forced. Don't know why and I hope he figures things out. Charles, at least to me, seemed like he was having a good time, even when he wasn't. Now he's crotchety and rude, but that just comes with age - I guess. Harry is in a different world. He's the second son and was rendered unnecessary the minute George was born. People angry at Harry are silly to me. Did they want him to become Andrew? Harry chose a different path. No one was betrayed. The world didn't burst into flames. The monarchy didn't crumble. And Harry's main goal of bringing down the tabloids has just made everybody dig their heels in more.

[quote] Who’s the silly person now, [R66]?

You still are, if you think your monarchy is anything but a doily on our table. Hell, we purchased it almost a century ago.

But r131 we don’t get charged to enter the building we are paying for. And we choose who lives in there, every four years.

Catching on yet?

The British love all this pomp and regalia, as they can then continue to pretend they still matter.

R134 no, not really. We British taxpayers pay £1.20 ($1.60) per person per year for the RF.

Can someone who understands British culture explain why they (and William, apparently) think calling Harry “Harold” is an insult?

I mean, it’s weird because it’s not his name, but I don’t understand why they think it’s shade

[quote]The British love all this pomp and regalia, as they can then continue to pretend they still matter.

All G7 countries matter. Well, maybe not Canada. They were just invited by the U.S. because all the Europeans kept trying to gang up on the Americans.

R137 it wasn't an I sult, it's silly nicknames they probably had for one another since they were kids. Willy & Harold are fussy, old-man names

R136 Well you're not getting your monies worth. Wouldn't give ya a tube token for the whole scrounger lot.

R137 same when they called William Billy the Basher in school.

"You English really are dumb people"

I rest my case R131

R140 well lucky for you we Brits aren't asking for your money. The amount you have to pay for healthcare and government in the US is where your focus should be.

You're probably also unaware that the Crown estates, money made from visits to palaces and other revenue get donated to government each year

R143 Sure Hyacinth. The Windsor's have been playing that shell game for decades. It's not fooling anyone but Royalass apologists. Watch how Charlie screams bloody murder when the Torys are kicked out and the new government demands cuts in the Civil List and reduces the tit the royals suckle on The Sovereign Grant. The only time the old harridan Elizabeth shed a tear was when Major retired her yacht. It tells the taxpayers everything you need to know about the "working Windsors" and their faux munificence. Belt tightenings coming luv.

^ You must be an American because you understand basic economics.

@r105, I'm American and honestly we only think of the BRF in passing, but my 94 year old mother likes to tell the story that she went into labor with my older sister during the Coronation and said watching it was the only thing that kept her mind off the contractions 😂

Listen, if the Royalists are happy with only paying a mere thruppence to support and house a whiny manbaby and his wife who’s so insecure she won’t let anyone wear a tiara in her presence, the manbaby’s pedophile brother, and the manbaby’s son who spends most of his days glowering, ignoring his children & getting pegged by the Marquess of Chumsley (or however y’all spell it), feel free

All we’re saying is if Harry & Meghan aren’t there, we don’t care. They were what would have made this family culturally relevant to anyone besides the racist old biddies who chased them out of the UK to begin with

R147 To sum it up that succinctly you must be American.

I'm shocked and appalled, R147. It's Marchioness. A marquess is a man.

Much of the various UK governments indulgence of the monarchy was due to the personal respect they knew the majority of voters had for Queen Elizabeth. Charles does not have this same "Teflon" coating. Afraid that decades of simmering resentment against the fundamental inequity of a monarchy will boil over. Without Mummy to protect him Sonny is going to get burned.

Maybe its just me but I would love to be the Spare. There is no way I would want the pressures of being future King (or Queen).

R144 there hasn't been a "Civil list" for over 10 years you silly little bugger

Nobody tuned in to watch weapons-grade white entitlement on display?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

"If Harold and Sparkles aren't there, we don't care." There's no we, bitch. Fortunately it's easy to avoid these two poseurs.

R152 Google: Silly Buggers

R148 What clued you in? lol

R149 Forgive me…we haven’t needed to learn to spell it since 1776

R156 take a look at your own country before you devote so much time to critiques of other Heads Of State. At least the UK is fairly moderate

Harry's ghostwriter hated working with him.....

R157 I never said that U.S. politics weren’t a flaming toxic dumpyard fire, although I’d hardly call shooting yourselves in the foot by leaving the EU in a wave of anti-immigrant nationalism “moderate”.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about whether the Coronation was a flop

it wasn't a "flop." OP is a dusty Harkleite who seethed all the way through it. And is still seething

R158 Egads! Well that settles hit . Harold is a monster ! A ginger Jeffery Dahmer!

[quote]But [R131] we don’t get charged to enter the building we are paying for. And we choose who lives in there, every four years. Catching on yet?

As quaint as the US electoral system is, I'd much prefer for the UK to stick with a parliamentary democracy with devolved assemblies, an independent judiciary and a hereditary monarch with no legislative powers.

R158, did you read the actual article? Because I just did.

"Dusty," R160?

Really? You're doing that in 2023?

We see you, scumbag. And we see you for exactly what you are.

R160 not seething ...seething never seething.. total non seether

R162 That's why you're a Royalasst dolt dear.

[quote][R162] That's why you're a Royalasst dolt dear.

Wow, someone defending a President elected on the electoral college system, who has the power to appoint judges to overturn the most basic human rights legislation.

Looking at OP’s picture, Charles’ ears suddenly make sense.

R167 I agree! American politicians all should have to wear silly hats, fabulous jewels and dress in drag.

I think the King Charles is a nice bloke but perhaps he gets a bit cross having to wear all those heavy crowns and what not.He's no spring chicken. Not as nice as his mum the late Queen who was very nice indeed. The small tykes George and sweet little Charlotte were so precious. You can tell Catherine is a good mum to her brood. She works so hard raising that family all by herself with Prince William away so often. He must miss her dearly. Fortunate to have her chum Rosie to accompany him taking his short hand and dictation. Good luck that. I hear the family were late because sweet little Louis got fussy . The best laid plans they say. So like us. Just regular folk. I'm sure Pa did not mind. He would not get peevish about a wee lad like Master Louie. I wish our new King God's speed in his task. Pray for him daily. Have to run ,me Coronation Street is on tele and I never miss it. Oh before I forget:

Camilla is a cunt.

My but the Klan Grannies are earning their titles today!

R84 To get that element of mystique of QEII's coronation, maybe they should have broadcast it in black and white.

R158, you obviously didn’t read the article. It says nothing of the sort, in fact Harry and Meghan come off quite well.

R171, it appears prime time has been lifted.

[quote] Weren't half the entertainers American? And bottom of the barrel, Lionel Ritchie? Katy Perry?!? Lol.

I'll have you know the Osmond Brothers would have come instead had they only not been previously booked for the Peoria Lyceum.

Which one of these is not like the other?

It’s funny that the British are always laughing about how sensitive Americans are. Some teasing going on in this thread and they rise to the bait every time.

r176 Windsor men looking worse than the women in the coronation portrait is a bit of a tradition

Actually George V and Edward VII looked OK so it must be something that came in with Queen Mary's lot

It must have something to do with the man.

Some men are just born regal.

It merely has to do with the skill of the artist or photographer. A great one can make anyone look regal .Cecil Beaton made the dumpy Queen Mum look glamorous. George V looks majestically imposing in his portrait. In actuality he was a unremarkable bug eyed little man whose wife towered over him . Everyone who saw them in the flesh agree Queen Mary was far more "regal" than her husband. Charlie just doesn't have a decerning eye, after all he selected that portrait. Perhaps his wife selected it as petty revenge.

In all fairness this photographer didn't have anything to work with. Charles is one of the homeliest men of his generation.

^ Hit every branch on the ugly tree.

Megan looks ready for her role at the Medieval Times Dinner Theatre in Buena Park.

Charles got his wish. He didn't really need to slim down the monarchy; it slimmed itself down. It's now basically him, Camilla, William & Kate & their kids, Anne, and Edward & Sophie.

R185 Which makes her more regal than this crone.

Whatever "IT" is they ain't got it.

British people are so ugly. I don't know what it is about that country. They all look inbred.

Nah, Keira Knightley is very pretty. Cocaine Kate has an intriguing look about her.

R189 way to generalise much you big sweaty hog?

The Dutch royal family is beautiful and glamorous. I only like the royal families for the glamour, tiaras, etc. Bleh the British royal family, they are old and stuffy with seriously ratty old clothes (except Kate). I love Princess Madeleine, much more fun and glamour, without the seething rage and racism.

R191 The vast majority are and you know it. One of the countries with the highest percentage of fuggos. Ugly teeth and weird misshapen facial features.

Yeah, 'cause there are no misshapen facial features on anyone over 40 in the US!

Lovely official corrie pics out, showing details on the gowns and eye popping jewelry. Well done three day celebration. Loved the horses and military aspect, too.

R121, while I think it is a fucked up situation being a spare to an heir, Harry is a hypocrite. Instead of walking away with his held held high, he expected his father to pay for his house, his bodyguards, give titles to his kids. He and his wife definitely love publicity. He is a moron who only the gullible believe.

The truth is both sides need each other because otherwise no one fucking cares. When Meghan and Harry aren’t stirring things up, the RF is boring. The DM literally ran a ridiculous amount of stories about Harry during the run up and afterward. He literally was in England for only 28 hours. Look at the amount of H&M threads on this very board. OTOH, if M &H aren’t talking about the Royal family, nobody is interested in them. They should’ve sucked it up and stayed in the UK. Their popularity had already eclipsed Kate and William and were seen as being more modern and relatable.

Absurd family.

Look at are beautiful youthful Queen Camilla. So regal! Meghan couldn't hold a candle to this vision of loveliness and grace!

Just because she did her best work in bed does that mean she has to wear it?

@r196, Stop beating that dead horse. No one's buying the crap you're selling

The Markkes shockingly horribly fumbled their bag with no clear program beyond getting paid to complain about his family.. It's funny when you think about it. You're wrong that "nobody is interested" in the British head of state just because the tabs write less garbage about them.

People would’ve hate watched it Meaghan was there. It’s true.

Charles looks so depleted and miserable in that pic

The lickspittle ROTA line for the last 4 years is "Look how Harry & Meghan are shamelessly exploiting their children to the media! " Now this? Royalassts are pathetically ridiculous.

R200 Actually everyone is buying what they're selling you flippin cow.

Camilla is especially graceful, R198 and R199.

Saturday, I loved watching the Coronation. Made such a change from mass shootings and desperate migrants crawling through razor wire.

^ Go to Disneyland old girl it's cheaper.

R84 It's the glorious HD, it demystifies everything it touches.

Also, things just in general seem more magical when you're younger.

R208 what the fuck are you talking about?

Harry aka Harold is so intellectually challenged that he is the remedial prince: socially, mentally and emotionally.

Meghan is the sociopathic, enzymatic prompter who coupled with the dim duke of sussex to create the couple from hell.

I truly pity the invisible children they purport to have: “wherever they may be.”

I got a laugh out of Meghan issuing a press release because she baked a cake. WTF?

The ROTA accuse the Sussexes of being blatantly commercial. Next Willy & Katie on Dancing With The Stars? My sides.

Richie & Perry were part of a deal in return for the King & Queen making a cameo on American Idol. The British press are calling this a “surprise cameo”…because it’s an obviously pre-planned arrangement which somehow feels like a bad deal for everyone.”

On the one hand can see where KC3 and Prince of Wales (who was heavily involved) were going with this coronation.

Britain today is not like it was 70 years ago when Elizabeth II was crowned. As Prince of Wales HM worked on "inclusion" and "equality" as has Prince William; both see Britain for what it has become and evolving towards. Both seem less keen on preserving whole of the old guard if you will, but rather embracing a Britain that sees everyone having value regardless of birth, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

Elizabeth II's coronation was old guard on display right to the ground. C of E, peers and peeresses in ermine and crimson with royal and noble ladies dripping in jewels often centuries old.

It was all a bit of God’s in His heaven, the king is on his throne and the farmer is in his fields; all is right with the world. That is an old Britain where birth largely determined ones lot and certain families or persons were above others.

KC3 doesn't have much time to make his mark upon world as king. If anything HM is going to devote much time to making all sorts of changes to the monarchy, BRF and even society that will make things relevant to all British. This includes a large and growing population who aren't white, C of E (or Christian at all for that matter), well of and so on.

R214 Is this the new "modern" BRF.? Alexa get me KC3 and POW at BH ASAP. Lets SKYPE OCC ( Old Cow Camilla) for a G & T ASAP

^ LMFAO

R211 Toll free 24/7

R209 No dear it's them.

Hope British treasury is saving up because in ten or maybe less than twenty we'll be doing this all over again with funeral of KC3 and coronation of King William V.

Though going by last Saturday's events William's coronation will likely be an even more bare bones affair

What a snooze fest. Harry should have stayed home with his family, but at least he got the hell out of there when the coronation was over.

R220

PH had no choice, MM had given her husband frim marching orders. Duke of Sussex was only given leave to attend coronation ceremony only with clear understanding HRH would be on first thing smoking back to L.A. afterwards.

If PH did not get back to California on schedule there would have been hell to pay.

Will Camiller get the full royal funeral now that she's queen? Same pomp as Charles will get for his?

Saddest looking king at his coronation

Have you seen any other kings at their coronation, r223? It's a solemn moment, it's not for grinning and smiling.

The coronation weekend was great, with street parties up and down the country and lots of fun things happening (my local bakery made some excellent Coronation ginger biscuits).

Harry had no choice but to go, or see headlines in the British tabloids about, “Harry ignores his father on his most important day!!!!” or “Meghan won’t let Harry go to his father’s coronation because she’s a bitch!” There was nothing he could do that would please everyone.

Charles has a lot of nerve complaining about Harry leaving early, he deliberately set the coronation for Archie’s birthday, knowing the entire family is not welcome there and William is not speaking to Harry. He didn’t have to do that, it’s not like Archie changed his birthday to spite him. He could have made it for some other day, and if he wanted to see the kids, he could have asked them to come when there wouldn’t be such a heavily covered public event at the same time. Or, God forbid, go to America and look at his grandchildren in private. Or maybe picked up a phone and FaceTimed them so they know who the hell he is. We have picture phones now.

If any of this had happened when the Queen was younger, she would have called all the parties in, told them their feud was over and they were going to start being civil in public, and that would be the end of it. Charles apparently doesn’t know he’s King and he can tell his family members to knock it off. Or that someone can be a non-working royal and still a family member. And yet Camilla’s kids are not royals and still family members.

Or maybe the rumors about Camilla leaking to the bottom feeding tabloids to stir up shit and promote her non-royal children are true, and he has to do as he’s told, or at least never contradict her. I’m tired of looking at that hideous, vindictive troll he married. His taste is inexplicable.

R226 ever think that an old man just wants peace and not the unending drama his younger son seems to bring? We've all met people who are never satisfied and will always try to make out they are blameless victims no matter how hard we try to get them to see our perspective. And no, Charles can't just call his son in and tell him to behave, he's spent a lifetime indulging Harry and becoming a tough cop isn't going to work, unless Harry runs out of money.

R224, I have seen pictures of the Queen at her coronation, and by no means did she look like she was at her own funeral. Charles looked like he was in mourning. There were many comments about his defeated, tragic look. He should have made the effort to school his facial expressions, knowing he was being photographed and filmed every minute. It’s one day.

Make some effort to at least look confident and self assured at your own coronation. This “poor me” nonsense looks like whiny self pity. No, the Queen did not grin like a fool, she looked properly serious, but she also understood her demeanor signaled to many what the future with her as Queen would be like. And she looked confident and happy, grin or not.

While I do think the idea of a monarchy is outdated at this point, I sort of feel bad for Charles. He married the “suitable” wife out of duty and waited an ungodly amount of time to ascend to the throne only to be treated as somewhat of a joke. He looks unwell too. The Queen should’ve stepped down 20 years ago when Charles was younger and society was more respectful of the monarchy. She would’ve been there as an anchor too. Now, you have egg throwers, his son betraying him, and just the woke and weird times we live in. Timing for him becoming King was off. He seems like a man who always comes up a little short.

R227, the idea that Harry has to apologize for existing while William goes on being rude to him in public at every possible opportunity is ridiculous. If there is ever a restoration of their relationship, it will not be achieved by calling Harry on the carpet to berate him, while William continues to act like an outraged old lady every time they’re in the same room. Apparently you’ve never heard of people exhibiting self-control in public, which is ridiculous, considering these people were raised in the spotlight since birth. I’m not saying they have to love each other, what they have to do is be civil. Which William is not doing. People may not be able to control their feelings, but they can control their behavior.

The time to focus on Harry was when he was a young boy growing up without a mother. Didn't anyone notice that this was a child struggling to survive?

Guess not.

R230 what are you wittering in about you dopey old tart? I didn't say he needed to apologise. And if your family member whom you were always there for and invited into your home when he was single and you became a dad started selling personal stories and trying to paint you as a horrible person, would you feel inspired to be cordial with them in public?

Harry is like a passive-aggressive scold who probably delights in riling William up, then acting innocent when he gets a response.

The one thing I have found fascinating is learning from Harry that this idea that he and William were some united duo and that he, William and Kate were some solid trio was a myth. I read that and thought, they're like every other family. They put on a façade for public consumption, but the truth was far different.

I believe that Harry is not fond of William, because William is not a nice guy and more recently I think the issue is that William has not treated Kate well. But he needs to get over that because Kate is where Kate wants to be. She'll put up with anything now that the ultimate prize in sight.

Harry also does not like Camilla and I believe him when he says that she is the ultimate mastermind and manipulator and uses the British press to push agendas.

I think Charles is in the middle of all this. In the middle between Harry and William and in the middle between Harry and Camilla. And Charles has no choice but to choose his heir and his wife.

People don't like Harry's wife, but Harry's wife is not the problem. She just gets the blame, because that is the better storyline for the British tabloids. This has been simmering for a long, long time way longer than before Harry ever heard the name Meghan Markle. This goes back to 1997 and it's always going back there.

R233 lol where's your evidence William is not a nice guy? Harry is just trying to protect Kate? By letting his wife tell stories about her in public? You must be nuts to accept Harry's version of events.

They are literally not speaking, so I don’t think he is riling William up, R232.

It’s been pointed out in the U.S. that Harry and Megan are being written about in the British tabloids as if they are commenting on and reacting to everything that happens, when in reality, they aren’t making many comments about anything. The British tabloids keep writing about them as if they are making daily comments when they aren’t. The tabloids are promoting disunity for the sake of selling issues.

Meanwhile, there were many coronation related comments about Rose Hanbury, her wearing shoes identical to Kate’s, and a lot of speculation about whether William will divorce Kate and marry Rose. Kate seemed to have a forced smile in many official portrait pictures and at events. Others looked happy, she looked like she was forcing herself to smile, but the smile did not reach her eyes. There is even speculation about whether a rose’s daughter could be William’s child. Kate must be aware of this gossip and I can’t imagine it pleases her.

Now that William is next in line to the throne, if he is unhappy with Kate, he would likely have to do something about it before his father’s death. And his own father set the precedent that Kings can be divorced if they’re unhappy.

If he married Rose, the scandal could be well over before he ascends to King. Charles did the same with Camilla. It seems that being head of the Church of England no longer requires that a person is not divorced.

The coronation itself was interesting with traditions thousand years old.

I also remember reading that they weren’t close. So when they started to appear together and the press was saying they are best friends I thought a lot must have changed.

If someone aired dirty laundry about me in a book and documentary and whatever else, I wouldn’t speak to them either. There is probably a lot of truth to what Harry said in the book. However, you can’t bite the hand that feeds you and continue to expect to be fed.

Kate looked horribly thin, her very small sized clothing hung on her. Pictures of her next to other fit ladies showed her to be half their width. Particularly in the family group picture on the steps, she looked like a wraith. It was especially noticeable because all the ladies wore white, similar dresses, and she stood out as a very different size. I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it, or will she continue to reduce her size until she ends up in the hospital or dies.

I read braindead posts like R195 and all I see is a drooling moron decked out in union jacks blathering like an idiot. "Dresses and horses, oh myyyyyyy!"

Is this really your country, Brits? A bunch of idiots who go all agog over some "pageantry" and "ritual" nonsense? I can't fucking believe a whole country came to a stand still to watch a man in a dress put a crown on another man in a dress, invoking "God" the whole time, in a church no less. What a load of medieval, superstitious hokum. You could've burned a witch at the stake and it would have looked equally modern and logical.

Complete fucking morons.

Sometimes one's children don't live up to one's expectations...

But that nasty slag {shudder) wearing the jewels and robes...

[quote]If someone aired dirty laundry about me in a book and documentary and whatever else, I wouldn’t speak to them either.

I 100% believe Harry when he said that the family traded stories on him to protect William. Hey, here's a story about Harry fucking up, so you won't print this story about William fucking up. I have no problem with Harry getting his version of the story out there. This is the monster they created.

R239 go suck a dick you miserable shite, if it annoys you so much then put your attention elsewhere. I think it's rather nice that we come together as a country for these sort of occasions which don't involve politics or sport, even if you don't believe in the monarchy you could still join in and feel part of a national identity and be civil to one another even if we disagree.

Go fuck yourself, R242. And take your homophobia with you, asshole. This is a gay website, not a royalist one. I will suck a dick and be just fine, but you'll still be a stupid git from a moronic country who gets all afluster at seeing two men in dresses play "Coronation."

R242 proves that within every royalist there's a bigot who can't control themselves.

R243 there's nothing wrong with sucking a dick, it was my way of telling you to chill out and do something more fun than complain about something you can't change. I'm not a Royalist per se, they simply don't bother me, and I don't give two hoots if I pay £1.30 per year of my traces to find their state events.

*taxes to fund

It’s crazy that people scrutinized everything to the extent they noticed Rose Hanbury wore the same shoes as Kate.

The worst thing about being the spare is that your brother IS the boss of you. For the rest of your lives.

Charles and Camilla, such a splendid pair to lead the Church of England.

The Coronation has been the one event I have been looking to most in my life (MARY!!! me I know...). The whole ceremony was moving and a beautiful display of pomp and pageantry.

NOBODY wants to see a revolting creature like Horsemilla as Queen. Most are hoping Charles has a short reign, so we won't be subjected to her tortureous sight for long!

Speak for yourself R251...

But Kate's horsey phase has already begun and will only get worse.

People would be happy to celebrate a man getting dressed up in fancy costumes and paraded around if he looked like he was happy about it, and if he’d been able to do the literal one job he has in this life — producing a family that wants to serve in the same role — without all of them hating each other.

They don’t even want to be throwing this circus & people can tell. The only person who wanted this parade was Camilla, and Charles still can’t tell her no, I hope she’s happy, at least.

Meghan Markle's Fangirls need to find something else to obsess about. Has she given out the recipe for her delicious lemon birthday cake yet??

There are a lot of comments on Twitter and Instagram that are very negative towards Charles and Camilla. I was surprised at the ferocity of some of it.

R256 Those folk need to be marched to the Tower of London and EXECUTED!!!

Here’s another:

I’m not sure why anyone is surprised that the coronation was met with mostly unenthusiasm. The DailyMail wouldn’t publish them but there were polls taken in the lead up where it showed the majority of the UK didn’t care about it. Comments saying they are booking it out of the UK and even the announcers at the event saying the energy was different from the Jubilee. I always thought Charles’ reign would be met with apathy. They are Heads of State in name only, they make no policy and only have soft power. Celebrity/popularity is their key to relevancy. The days are gone where you could just show up, wave and remain relevant and popular.

William and Kate don’t evoke much more excitement either. The only hope is if their kids grow into charismatic and attractive teens to adults, especially George since they need to attract younger support for the monarchy. George seems rigid already and could go either way look wise. If he’s bland and looks like Ed Sheeran or Lewis Capaldi and/or sheltered away, they are royally fucked.

That is because William and Kate are boring and bland as fuck. William takes after Charles, not Diana!

George's only hope is to decline into a Neronian sybarite à la the fourth king of his name. His upbringing will have stifled the last scintilla of charisma.

I see Meghan's troll farm is almost as active on here as they are on Twitter. Wonder how much she pays.

R262, you think both sides don’t have troll farms? Are you just discovering the internet?

r262, spoken like a true racist Torey cunt.

`[quote]George's only hope is to decline into a Neronian sybarite à la the fourth king of his name. His upbringing will have stifled the last scintilla of charisma.

R261 , was that English? Did you have a stroke? Do we need to call the Eldergay ambulance?

Gotta love the knee-jerk lashing out at "Meghan fans." Christ you idiots are fixated!

The only people mentioning MM in this thread are the BRF stans. They can't understand that people exist who hate MONARCHY. ALL OF IT. Their stupid heads are so far up their stupid asses that they literally cannot fathom any other reason for not wanting to worship this stupid fucking family -- ALL OF THEM.

Could not possibly care less about MM. So tired of hearing about her, too.

The coronation was a dud. No one except the Brits wants to pretend we're living 500 years in the past.

Quoting the great Bette Midler: "When it's three o'clock in New York, it's still 1938 in London."

OP, are you Donald Trump, squealing like a pig about "ratings"?

And thanks for telling us you don't care about someone you had to mention in three times with two different iterations of the cunt's name.

But there's drool on the top of your tee shirt.

Many years ago now the Suits worried about too much daylight being shone upon magic. This came up during coronation of Elizabeth II when televising event to nation was brought up. It's been off to the races ever since with succeeding decades bringing more and more media coverage of the BRF.

People just know far too much about the monarch and BRF to point they seem quite common.

Elizabeth II was a different time, matter and place for UK and world for that matter. A young princess becoming monarch as GB (and much of Europe) was coming out of horrors of WWII (Britain was still on rationing for example).

As R214 eluded to above Britain has changed in many ways over seventy years since Elizabeth II was crowned. HM devoting her life and reign to service and duty was very much a part of old British society. This was something you found not just among BRF but nobility often right down to dead commoners. Much of that has simply vanished.

Three of Elizabeth II's children had failed marriages. In another time and place Prince Charles, Princess Anne and Prince Andrew along with their respective spouses would have been told to suck it up; there are certain things people like themselves do not do and one of them is divorce. Now carrying on with others on side is another matter; long as was done with discretion and largely restricted to the gentlemen.

You knew the game was up when force of public opinion forced Elizabeth II and her family who were holed up elsewhere back to London. There they were forced into a walkabout publicly giving witness to grief over Diana's death.

[quote]Charles has a lot of nerve complaining about Harry leaving early, he deliberately set the coronation for Archie’s birthday

What a silly claim to make. You really think that Charles chose (in reality, the government and the Palace chose) the date of one of the most significant ceremonies in living memory to conflict with a small child's birthday, and did it out of spite?

R264 it's "Tory" not "Torey" and I'm an American gay man. Whereas you are some rabid obese middle-aged black woman desperate to suck Markle's clit.

The Stan Grannues still can't figure out the BRF relation to the British gov. Oh well Granniez, stay stupid!

What happened to tbe threads dedicated to Markle? She is rapidly getting to the point of mostly irrelevant, and only pops up when desperately clinging to the family she hates so very much.

[quote] In another time and place Prince Charles, Princess Anne and Prince Andrew along with their respective spouses would have been told to suck it up; there are certain things people like themselves do not do and one of them is divorce.

Which time and place are you thinking of, R269?

The Ratty Ermine Coronation of Chuckie Threes

Actually things went along those lines R274 until rather recently. Of have you forgotten the hot mess that was marriage of Charles and Diana.

Diana was basically told again and again early on about dealing with Prince Charles and his fancy woman to basically "suck it up". She was wife to Prince of Wales and divorce just wasn't in the cards.

This was all very well for Prince Charles and Prince Andrew for that matter because it simply reinforced "lads will be lads" behavior. But no one bothered asking Diana how she felt about "all lads together" and increasingly the Warring Waleses battles spilled out into public. Diana was increasingly no longer interested in keeping up appearances and rest as they say is history.

I think Charles was actually hot for Diana till after he married her. She had pulled an act like she would be the ideal spouse, a countrywoman who shared his tastes. So she wasn't without fault. She had schemed a lot and it backfired.

You must be American r226.

I think Charles was never going to look great. He’s 74 years old.

The attacks on Diana to justify Charles are gross. She was a 19 year old virgin and he was a 32 year old man who had been living the high life for years. He married her under false pretenses, yet she’s painted as this shrew. Putting blame on her doesn’t do Charles any favors!

I TOLD you that you should have flashed the cameras!

Oh please!

Diana was not exactly some innocent naïf plucked from a convent and forced into marriage.

Lady Diana Spencer was daughter of a bolter and more to fact her family was well aware of court life including the BRF. Finally Diana had full confirmation not long before her wedding was to take place that CPB was still part of Prince Charles's life, but marriage still took place as announced. It was really what such things nearly always came down to; family avarice, the Spencer family long considered themselves more royal than the Windsor/Saxe Coburg-Gotha and having a daughter marry a heir to throne was a plumb that couldn't be ignored.

Life within Diana's own childhood home should have told her a thing or two about men; but apparently those lessons didn't sink in.

Is there blame to go around? Yes; PC, Elizabeth II and Prince Charles along with members of BRF all come in for a share of that. Much of it comes from basically leaving Diana alone after her marriage to sort herself out. Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother stand out for trying to do their best and help the young new Princess of Wales adjust to royal life, then subsequently drama that was her marriage.

As Quentin Crisp famously quipped “She was Lady Diana before she was Princess Diana, so she knew the game."

R279. Once she was no longer a 19-year old virgin she certainly developed a taste for what she accused Charles of.

Once they're broken in there's no keeping them down on the farm.

I don't give a shit about Charles. Never have. Hated him back in the Di days. Since then, I've grown up and I've learned what a schemer Di was: stalking married men, courting the paps and the tabs. The Torygraph was Charles' mouthpiece. All the tabs - and especially Richard Kay of the Mail who was her personal mouthpiece - loved Di and hated Charles.

Now I don't care about Charles or Camilla. I felt a lot of affection for both William and Harry but Harry destroyed that acting like a spoiled brat asshole.

Again, tearing Diana down isn’t going to help Charles at all. She definitely wasn’t a flawless person, but the narrative that she was this femme fatale who lured in Charles to marry her is ludicrous. It’s not working either, she has been dead for over 25 years and still more popular than them all.

It was laughable, ridiculous. Saw only parts - putting a bulky crown on a senior, the man had trouble placing it atop Charles' head, wobbling, just much too horribly expensive, outdated.

Little House On the Prairie reboot?

^ Meghan is so jealous she can no longer wear these lovely frocks.

WTF is this 2023 or 1933?

The Windsors are bloody scary.

r281 Diana and Margaret were very close and got on great for a long time until the Panorama interview. Apparently she had cooled a little towards Diana post her seperation from Charles but not greatly and it is reported Margaret told Charles to his face that she wasnt going to cut Diana off just because they had seperated. But after the Panorama interview her feelings hardened and changed greatly.Margaret was the only royal outside Buckingham Palace who refused to bow briefly as Dianas coffin went past. So ironic given that apart from The Duchess of Kent who is very non judgemental, solid as a rock friendship wise and compassionate, Margaret was previously Dianas biggest ally and supporter in the family.

Who the hell dresses like this anymore.? They look like walk ons in Dowton Abbey. Utterly ridiculous.

[quote]People don't like Harry's wife, but Harry's wife is not the problem.

R233. You are wrong! There may be many other problems in the family, but Meghan Markle is a major fucking problem. She's a lying grifting piece if shit who was in the royal family for all of 10 minutes, which gave her fame and fortune--and all she does is fucking complain and grift off her title and trash the family. She is a liar, sociopath and narcissist. A major problem who should be stripped of her title never to be heard from again.

After Markle claimed she was forbidden from wearing the same colors as the other senior women in the royal family, I have noticed Kate and Sophie delight in wearing the same color to events to take the piss outta Markle.

Daily Express poll Prince Harry wins overwhelmingly.. Welcome to the 21st century Klan Grannies.

OP is licking Markle's pussy while typing from LSA.

It's been over 70 years since the last coronation. These don't exactly happen every year like the superbowl. Not to mention public opinion has greatly changed over that period of time.

Isn't it amazing how the Klan Grannies assume the entire universe is cleanly divided into us/them? If you don't hate the Harkles as much as we do you must work for their PR team!

She's an annoying attention whore [bold]AND[/bold] you lot are racist scum. Both these things can be true.

r297 So you attack generalisation and oversimplified argument in your first paragraph and make your own generalisation and oversimplified claim in your second paragraph?!!

I’m with you r297. I find the BRF a good subject for gossip but have no love for any of them. Why do I need to take sides? And why can’t I call out the racism and not be accused as a sugar? (Although I must say I’m a sweetie pie in real life!)

The LSA clit chicks are widely informed geniuses with marvelous critical thinking skills. teehee

Teehee gran.

"I think Charles was actually hot for Diana till after he married her."

You know, the first man that can think up a good explanation how he can be in love with his wife and another woman is gonna win that prize they're always giving out in Sweden.

[quote]She was wife to Prince of Wales and divorce just wasn't in the cards.

Ironically for your argument, that was exactly what Diana thought. She was ashen when, after the Panorama interview, the Queen wrote demanding that they divorce.

Diana wasn't willing to "suck it up", but she was dead keen to hold onto the separation and not set him free. IMO she had an alternative plan of selling herself and William to the media as an alternative line of succession when W was a little older, for which she needed to hang onto the HRH and Princess titles.

R303 that would never have flown for one second. I agree she wasn't expecting that Panorama interview to blow up so badly

Diana Spencer was a seriously unbalanced woman. It wasn't just Prince Charles and CBP that set her down that rabbit hole, but something in her nature.

Diana must have watched too many episodes of "To Play The King" or "House of Cards" to believe there was ever a chance Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales would never inherit and throne pass over to Prince William.

My opinion is Diana had a passive-aggressive thing with being a royal. She liked the perks and rest far as that went, but then she kept doing things (such as taking serial lovers) in aid of perhaps getting caught and that would get her thrown out (divorced).

When that bit didn't take Diana went on national television and basically told God and the world in opinion Prince Charles wasn't suited to be monarch and things would be better if he didn't inherit, *AND* that she as Princess of Wales has been rolled about by several men who were not her husband.

One either would have to be incredibly stupid or insane to believe as Princess of Wales one could have said what Diana did on national television and emerge unscathed.

I mean in drawing rooms from Buckingham Palace to all of London then out into the country you heard jaws dropping (along with glasses of drinks).

Diana was a conniving cunt, and in that respect, Harry has indeed turned out to be her spawn.

If Diana were such a conniving cunt, she’d be queen today. The fact was, she wasn’t. She decided things totally on emotion (probably why she and Charles didn’t get along). She had affairs with men and wasn’t discreet. She did that interview because she wanted to, not thinking about the ramifications.

I think it’s laughable that people thing she had some sort of rational thinking that was forming her actions. She wasn’t conniving, she was a mess. And Harry thinks and acts just like his mother—all emotion, little logic.

Agree with R307

Diana was a mentally unstable hot mess, but clearly not very clever and certainly not conniving.

Another more experienced and sophisticated woman would have played for the long game. Had Diana thought things through she not only might still be alive today but queen consort of Great Britain.

What couldn't be allowed however was Diana continuing to take on lovers. That would be far to risky and Elizabeth II would never have condoned what amounts to high treason.

Diana was the problem. Harry is the problem. Megan is the problem. It is never the lying, manipulating, cheating, thieving, institution with a known history of lying, manipulating, cheating, and thieving throughout the centuries. This is not a defense of Diana, Harry, Megan or anyone else. I just find it fascinating how some of you fall in line behind these institutions. How these institutions are true and right and just and how anyone who gets on the wrong side of them, for whatever reason, is the problem.

Everything is Diana's fault. Her emotional state was all on her. Harry is betraying his family and turning his back on his duty. What duty? Opening malls and standing on a balcony and waving at crowds twice a year? Megan is lying grifter. Well, if she's a lying grifter she would have stayed in that family and on the public payroll cashing government checks, which is the ultimate grift by that family.

SS is back at it again. You could tell by all the nasty threads started by the about the royal family. SS and smegs are a perfect fit , both vile repulsive and desparate.

R309, I certainly agree. Diana was a bit damaged due to her upbringing—understandable, her parents were terrible—but her marriage and experience with the family damaged her far beyond what she would have been had she had a conventional marriage with someone who loved her.

R310, you’re delusional. The fact is a lot of people dislike the BRF and love to gossip about them, and we certainly pull no punches. And how is SS back at it again when they don’t work for the Sussexes? And there have been far more nasty threads about the Sussexes than the rest of the BRF. This is probably the only nasty one I’ve seen actually that wasn’t about the Sussexes.

I don't even know what SS is, but I have R310 blocked so make of that what you will.

Royalists on DL are complete lunatics. Anyone who can't fathom that republicans (small r) exist is a fucking idiot who lives in a bubble of their own choosing.

Does anyone believe the story that King Charles was early causing him to wait in the rain? Do people really think the British suddenly don't know how to coordinate arrivals? Seems more likely that William and Kate were late and the palace agreed to just call the king early to make all sounds better.

People argue the bishops weren't outside or ready to greet the king. That's because everyone was seated for a long-time waiting for William and Kate to be seated. It made zero sense for everyone else to be seated only for William and Kate to have a 5-15 min delay. Charles was not about to share his spotlight.

Then William and Kate ended up arriving behind the King and Queen, as if they are of a higher rank. People from around the world arrived on-time, before the King. There was no excuse for William and Kate to be late. I simply don't believe that everything in was timed to perfection, yet no one knew thought about the King's arrival time or commute from BP. Just not likely.

The next day, William didn't even bow to the Queen but bowed to his father. He didn't mention the Queen in his speech. Those two camps clearly hate each other.

Good heavens. Camilla's PR team has taken over this thread and they're making things up about Diana.

The median age of this thread is 84 years old.

Camilla got her reputation burnished, the husband she wanted, got the stepson who disliked her the most banished from the kingdom AND the title of Queen & DIANA was the conniver?!?!? LMAO you folks will try anything

You are overlooking one important factor, R313. Charles HAD to wait for the Waleses because they had George, who was one of his page boys.

A possible very good reason for the Waleses to have been late would have been if George had had a last-minute tantrum, nervous vomiting, etc. If it were Louis they could, and would, have just left him with his nanny, but George was indispensable. Not saying it WAS his fault, but if it had been him it puts things in a different light.

Oh boo hoo R309, who thinks the BRF primarily "opens malls". Until very recently Diana was generally considered saint-like, an innocent among the royals. However, thanks to her dim son Harry who hates her as much as he loves her, the lid has been lifted around her affairs; the stalking and harrassment alone would get a guy completely cancelled.

R304, you'd have been surprised. At the time the Queen demanded the divorce, Diana had completely bewitched not only Britain but most of the countries she had visited. To this day, there are memes (which have been on here) about what a pity it's not her on the throne, even though she's been dead nearly 30 years. Imagine what it was like when she was alive. During the War of the Waleses absolutely everyone seemed to be on her side except the Royals themselves. She had already started dropping hints about Charles not wanting the throne and/or not being suited to it. She was making the media zillions with all the lovely photographs, meaning she would always have their ear if she wanted it, and William was her Mini-Me, looks-wise. The Royals, who were seen to be opposing her and making her miserable, were on the nose with the press and public.

All it would have taken was for the end of the monarchy to start being talked about consistently and she'd have had the inside running. People are talking now about how it's a pity Charles has taken the throne when William and Catherine look like a much better bet for keeping interest in the monarchy going: add the Diana Factor, at full force as it was before the Panorama interview, and I think it certainly could have happened. If the Queen had died in 1997 instead of Diana, the succession could easily have turned upside down.

Diana was a 19 yo virgin teenager when she got involved with Charles. Camilla was a 33yo wife and mother who "befriended" said teenager. If you pretend you don't "get" that, you're an amoral soulless cunt like your "evil queen". Nuff said.

"The coronation itself was interesting with traditions thousand years old."

Referring to the people coronated?

Diana had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and had been treated by an eminent psychiatrist in London. He did manage to stop the eating disorder issue but nothing else. BPD doesn't respond well to therapy and there are no meds to help. BPDs are exhausting to be around: constantly alienating their entourage. Either they ADORE you or they hate you and you never know from one day to the next how they'll respond. Markle might be a BPD with a narcissistic comorbidity. Feuding with her family, then feuding with her in-laws? Typical. Diana did the same thing.

Charles and Camilla were committing adultery throughout Diana's entire marriage. Charles was cheating with Camilla before he married Diana. Charles and Camilla intentionally set out to drive Diana crazy undermining her marriage and disrupting her children.

Charles and Camilla may be tottering, likable seniors now but they were ruthless 30-40 years ago. Diana was a strong women and a women of her modern generation and wasn't going to put up with her husband humiliating her openly.

If you're wondering why Harry is so entitled and arrogant now, look no further than Charles who acted just like Harry when he was his age. Charles didn't care who he hurt--or if it hurt the monarchy--in his pursuit of Camilla--and Camilla wouldn't leave Diana's marriage. Charles and Camilla were evil.

R319 Diana did have a lot of sympathy in 1995 and did indeed suggest Charles might not be suited to being King, something that likely stung him more than her other revelations on Panorama but it would be impossible for what you suggest, that he give up the throne in favour of Charles and that Diana lead from behind. Now if HM had died shortly after Diana in 1997 Charles would not be getting such a lot of support being crowned King as her death caused so much negative feeling towards him at the time.

The monarchy slowly worked its way back to favour and by the time of the Golden Jubilee in 2002 they were pleasantly surprised by the huge support HM received from the masses.

And I also believe Diana and Charles had began a more cordial understanding in her last year, with him dropping by KP at least once for an informal tea with her. We will never know for sure, this is just a story from one of her staff (not the stalkerish butler)

One of the main things that clued me in Meghan & Harry were disingenuous in their Oprah interview was her claiming to have been refused mental health support when Diana had plenty, as did Charles, The Queen and Harry himself. There's no way her top-notch private Doctors didn't ask her about her emotional well-being during her pregnancy either.

R325 yeah, one of her more notorious lies. I guess she was inspired by the Crown episode of Di throwing herself down the stairs when she was pregnant with William. The girl has no originality.

Thanks, guys, this thread is a GOLDMINE!

They told so many lies which were easily proven to be lies. It was Trumpesque. And of course Professional Journalist Oprah had done diddly squat in preparation for the interview and didn't bother to contradict their biggest whoppers.

Why lie about the Archbishop marrying you 3 days before the ceremony? That was pointless and just showed up Meghan's total ignorance of the Church of England. And when Meghan claimed the royals - plural - were racist wondering what color Archie would be while she was pregnant and Harry having to contradict her that one relative asked about what their future children might look like BEFORE they were married got torpedoed when Harry admitted he wondered if Meghan's genes would counteract his ginger genes.

Other things that made no sense was their confusion about no titles for the baby

Harry lying about when his dad "cut him off" financially - records later showed it was much later

No passports, even though it's standard procedure for staff to hold them securely Meghan made it sound like she was a prisoner, but it didn't stop her getting on the private plane for her 1/2 million baby shower.

If they were as smart as they think they would tell such glaring lies

r309 The Royal family do not open malls.It is a tired cliche but untrue.

God the Royalists in here are tedious. Harry left. Meghan is quiet and she’s not putting a foot on British soil. You’re not paying a dime for them. What else do you want?!?

Then again Diana was murdered by paparazzi 30 years ago and you’re still complaining about her so apparently there is literally nothing that will satisfy the monarchy bootlickers including the untimely death of anyone who inconveniences your beloved institution

r322 Your first line is completely untrue and yet seems to be the foundation of your argument and narrative.

Harry and Meghan did not lie, they told their side of the story. Whether you believe their version of events is up to the listener. In these types of situations the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. But what I do believe is that there were some, not Charles or the Queen, who were trying to undermine them via the British Tabloid Press and it worked. End of story. Now that same tabloid press continues to write about them, because it gets them clicks and sells their papers and lines their pockets - even though they are thousands of miles away in another country.

r331 Murdered by the paparazzi? Not sure that is a fair characterisation. Very oversimplified with facts and nuance stripped out- creating a narrative I'm sure but an accurate one?

r33 Their point of view, their perspective is a phrase that can be accepted but the rather nebulous phrase, my truth, our truth, the subjective truth is totally illogical and arguably dangerous.

Trump deployed a version of my truth in denying the election result.

[quote]Harry and Meghan did not lie, they told their side of the story. Whether you believe their version of events is up to the listener. In these types of situations the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. But what I do believe is that there were some, not Charles or the Queen, who were trying to undermine them via the British Tabloid Press and it worked. End of story. Now that same tabloid press continues to write about them, because it gets them clicks and sells their papers and lines their pockets - even though they are thousands of miles away in another country.

Even though they are thousands of miles away in another country, saying nothing. And still, hundreds of articles are written about them every week.

Fixed it for you.

R334 they chased the car into a pillar and kept taking pictures of the dead/dying passengers. Harry and William both said they thought the investigation should be reopened, after the files they saw. I stand by my characterization of it

[quote]A possible very good reason for the Waleses to have been late would have been if George had had a last-minute tantrum, nervous vomiting, etc. If it were Louis they could, and would, have just left him with his nanny, but George was indispensable. Not saying it WAS his fault, but if it had been him it puts things in a different light.

R317, they were probably late because they were filming it (their departure) with their camera crew. Although they could have been late because of Louis. Or any of the kids. Kate might have been sick. She looked like she might have been crying when she arrived. She looked so tired too.

I thought George was already with Charles and traveled to the Abby with him and the other train-wranglers.

I figured Bill & Kat were tardy because of the other kids and the usual family bickering getting ready for a big day.

R317 The factor you're overlooking is that The Waleses did not have Prince George with them in their carriage. George and the other Pages of Honour were already standing outside Westminster Abbey with Hot Major Johnny when King Charles and Camilla rolled up.

R339 Posting same time. ;)

Great minds. (Or maybe equally bitchy, petty DL minds)

R333 I agree they likely have their own interpretations about a lot of what happened and not to labor a point but I fail to understand how she was denied mental health support when she was being attended by expensive doctors who regularly check on expectant mother's emotional well-being, they said it wouldn't look good on the RF if she got help but Harry (and others) openly discuss their accessing therapy, Harry co-founded a mental health platform with his brother & Kate, yet he stood by like a limp lettuce when "HR" refused? When he probably has contacts for some of the best MH professionals in London as part of his charity work?

I do believe a lot of what they said may be their own recollection but this one was a proven lie. Meghan even retained a private therapist since before she married.

If they get caught in one lie it makes me question everything else and wonder, what's their goal? Just to add, in 2017 I remember watching a documentary Harry and William made for the 20th anniversary of losing their mum where he said getting help I'd so important and praises his brother and Kate for convincing him to get therapy. Fast forward to his podcast days and he's saying he never got help til Meghan told him he needed to!

Rant over, I just find mental health and lack of support a shitty thing to lie about

[quote]I fail to understand how she was denied mental health support when she was being attended by expensive doctors who regularly check on expectant mother's emotional well-being

I don't know what she was offered or denied. But, assuming that she was offered support, maybe she didn't trust royal family provided therapists and she did not see that as a viable option and wanted her own people and was told no. Again, I do not know. Looking at her side of things, I think if you are in situation where you are not feeling supported, everything becomes suspect. And for some reason that palace seems to leak like sieve, and maybe she didn't want her mental health issues to be reported in the Daily Mail.

[quote]I remember watching a documentary Harry and William made for the 20th anniversary of losing their mum where he said getting help I'd so important and praises his brother and Kate for convincing him to get therapy. Fast forward to his podcast days and he's saying he never got help til Meghan told him he needed to!

As I said above, in these situations the truth is always somewhere in the middle. But the one thing I do believe Harry on is when he talked about the myth of William, Kate, and Harry as some terrific trio. I think a lot of stuff was said back then to push the narrative of the best friend brothers having each other's back.

As stated above, 1997 broke William and Harry. And what we see now is the result of all that. Harry is not the good one or the bad one. William is not the good one or the bad one. It's not about spouses or lies, it's about a reaction to tragedy.

[quote]I don't even know what SS is, but I have [R310] blocked so make of that what you will.

SS is as I dimly recall is Meghan Markle's pr firm. Per the Klan Grannies the universe perfectly divides between racist Tory cunts and Meghan Markle's PR minions. Nobody is allowed to exist in between.

I suspect an under/over dosage of medication is involved in this thinking, though I could be wrong.

They really speak their own language, don't they R345?

Bizarre.

r336 And paid a PR firm to keep them in the media so contradictory in their narrative about the media let's not forget that.

R344 R347

R330 'opening malls" is too regal for their majesties.

^^ 😂

Hsrry is definitely the "bad one," when he gives multipke interrviews and writes books about what his brother thinks and feeks, and worse, about his brother's wife and children. Rot, Haz.

Personally, every single thread pertaining to Megan and Harry, or the Royal Family, should be removed as soon as they are posted. These threads are worse than American Political Threads, and bring out the sheer hate in many people. Sane DLers have had enough. The rest of you will have to find something else to fill your lives with.

That whole thing was laughable.

Zadok the Priest flash mob at the supermarket!

Zadok the Priest supermarket flash mob with hopefully working link!

R340

Thank you!

"Charles and Camilla were committing adultery throughout Diana's entire marriage."

Not quite true.

Though they remained quite close friends (as evidenced by gift to Prince Charles from CPB before his wedding that Diana sniffed out), other side of their relationship ceased from about time PC became engaged or thereabouts.

Again Prince Charles did not totally put away CPB during his marriage, but they weren't intimate. It wasn't until several years later (around middle of 1980's) that Charles and Camilla began sleeping together again. This is widely covered in scores of books and other media chronicling their affair.

PC really did love Diana in his own way when they first married. Would he have gone back to Camilla's bed if Diana hadn't been such a handful? Who can say..

R357, I actually don’t buy that. It’s Charles who says he and Camilla didn’t start up until the marriage was over, but I don’t believe him. They may not have been hot and heavy, but I’m positive they continued to sleep with each other throughout the marriage and they gaslighted Diana. There is no way a guy who’s in love—and in lust—with a woman can keep it in his pants.

At the very least he emotionally cheated, but I believe it was physical and probably never stopped. Camilla was at his wedding! He really is a POS and no revisionist history is going to change that.

So is this what we're doing now? Just totally rewriting the Charles and Camilla story as some tortured lovers kept apart by his crazy wife? Is this the same way we're pretending that William doesn't have a mistress?

R333. Yes, everyone is entitled to his own truth these days—-even if it contradicts the marriage laws of the United Kingdom or requires the sane event to occur at two different points in time

And the truth is really Is usually in the middle. That’s why the earth is neither round nor flat, but oblong. And why, if you are ever accused of rape, you must at least be guilty of sexual assault.

R359. The difficulty is that, if Charles is a POS, so is Diana. She meddled in more than one persons marriage. This has always been the awkward part of the Diana mythology.

And this is, of course, assumes Charles is the one who opened up the marriage, rather than Diana, who was an exceptionally exuberant adulterer.

R362 Bon appetite doll.

Nobody believes that but you, R357. Gullible fool. All signs obviously point to an ongoing, longterm affair that predated, overlapped with and eventually continued after the breakup of the Wales's marriage.

R364 a sugar with those fantasy theory about William leaving kate. Shouldn't you be at celebitchy.

Oh please. Why would William leave Kate. She doesn't care if he's fucking around. And Kate's not leaving this close to the prize. I bet Kate doesn't even have a lover. I respect focus.

r366 I too think after the breakup, long wait, and desperation on Kate's part she probably told him one night over pillow talk that she wouldn't mind if he had fun now and then. Anyone that thinks William is only fucking Kate is crazy. The man would take a number of trips without her where hot women would be allowed near the prince. No one gets close to the prince unless he wants them near him.

Kate is just mature enough to know that cheating isn't the end all be all. Just like masterbating to porn doesn't mean you don't love your spouse. Gays with open relationships learned this long ago.

R367 I honestly can't actually imagine Wills cheating. He doesn't seem that sexually driven. Plus his parents both cheated and it made his and Harry's life hell. I would imagine him going the opposite direction and being super into monogamy and the intact family unit. Maybe I'm wrong though. It just seems like these generations don't play musical beds like the previous generations did. Diana didn't seem to want that, initially, either. The tide was starting to change from the aristocratic debauchery of the roaring 20s and swinging 60s and 70s towards a renewed appreciation in the 80s for monogamy and the Stability of the Nuclear Family.

I just find the drive-by posts like R365 so hilarious. No one is even talking about the Sussexes, but they have to interject. Any criticism of anyone but the Sussexes has to be "sugars." It's epically, stupendously stupid.

And honey, you're the ex-Celebitchy bitch who was run off that site. DL has long made fun of all royals, especially the BRF.

[quote]Harry and Meghan did not lie, they told their side of the story.

R333. They lied. In the Oprah interview alone, there were 17 provable lies. You don't understand that not everything said by these two lying grifters is an "opinion." Many statements were facts--and they lied about them. They were not presenting their opinions, they were stating their responses and other statements as facts. And they lied.

R333. Markle stated the palace took away her passport. Meanwhile she flew on a private plane for a baby shower in New York. Markle stated she was not allowed to go to lunch with friends. Meanwhile, she was photographed out having lunch. Markle implied there was a racist among the royal family. Meanwhile, for two years she never named the person or corrected the record. Then after two years, harry comes out and says it wasn't racism but "unconscious bias," a term that neither of these two liars ever brought up before. Markle stated that her children were not going to be given titles. Meanwhile, both she and Harry knew that great-grandchildren of the monarch not in direct line are not eligible for titles. Archie and Lilibet were great-grandchildren of the Elizabeth at the time. It was only after Charles became king that Archie and Lilibet were eligible for titles, since they are grandchildren of the monarch--not great-grandchildren.

Harry and Markle presented all these as facts--not opinions--to Oprah. Instead, they were lies.

More Americans watched the pageantry of the real horses in the Kentucky Derby than the Coronation.

14.4 million vs. 10.9 million.

Everything Harry said was true. He dodged a bullet bailing on that toxic nest of parasitical vipers aka the "royal family"

The publisher of the Daily Mirror has claimed members of the Royal Family were responsible for revelations about Prince Harry appearing in the press.

Camilla I smell smoke!

Do you think that includes internet streaming? I did all my coronation viewing (ceremony, concert) on my laptop. I'm in the US.

r360 It's actually you who is rewriting the story. The information about the timeline of their relationship has long been chronicled and established by numerous sources, books etc. So it's not being just introduced now as something new to rewrite history. Other people saying they just know that Charles and Camilla based on nothing but emotion are really just illustrating their emotional attachment to a particular fairytale narrative rather than the complicated nuanced reality.

r364 Hiw are we definitely the word all because there is a LOT of well researched and chronicled fact to the contrary of what you are claiming.

r373 He didn't bail to dodge a bullet. He and his wife asked for half in half out. Their whole narrative now is based on pretending that they never did that.

I think it could be argued that there was a pesky enduring emotional connection between Charles and Camilla. I think it was wrong for him to wear the C & C cufflinks to dinner on his honeymoon. I think it was crossing a line for him to have a picture of Camilla in his schedule planner that fell out in front of Diana, also on their honeymoon. And finding the bracelet he had bought for Camilla before the wedding, the Fred and Gladys thing? Total buzzkill. He was selfish and clueless and I don't blame Diana for being upset. He was behaving like someone who was not over his ex, attempting to get back in the game, and then going through the motions with the next person before being truly ready. He needed to cut things off with Camilla completely, and should have done it way sooner than his wedding.

The idea of Diana spotting Camilla in the crowd as she walked down the aisle to wed Charles, has always struck me as really disappointing and awkward. That wasn't fair. It's like she and Charles had never even had conversations with each other about anything of any consequence before the wedding. They didn't know each other at all.

I do wish Diana could have been able to communicate about these legitimately hurtful and frustrating things rationally with her new husband, rather than starting the marriage off with loads of fights, screaming and crying, and vomiting. I think Charles might have been able to hear her better and understand the error of his stupidity, if only she had had the ability to regulate her emotions. If only they both had more tools in their relationship toolbox to actually talk.

She needed DBT and he needed a good smack in the head.

DoI think Charles was fucking Camilla during his engagement and after his wedding? No. No I don't. I don't think that started back up until after Harry was born. By then, his marriage sucked and her marriage sucked, Diana was serially cheating and Parker Bowles was an incurable philanderer. Fred and Gladys were both depressed, trapped, longing for happier days. At some point they had nothing to lose and only everything to gain by resurrecting their love affair. The word on the street is that Charles had become suicidally depressed with Diana and it was mutual friends who called Cam and begged her to reach out to him and attend to him.

[quote] The difficulty is that, if Charles is a POS, so is Diana. She meddled in more than one persons marriage. This has always been the awkward part of the Diana mythology. And this is, of course, assumes Charles is the one who opened up the marriage, rather than Diana, who was an exceptionally exuberant adulterer.

Diana not being a great person and being victimized by Charles don’t have to be mutually exclusive, both can be true at the same time. Not sure why every time the point is made that he married her under false pretenses, humiliated and disrespected her with Camilla, her affairs are brought up. It’s two different things. Her marriage most likely helped turned her into the person she would became.

"Mr Hodgson explained: “His home life with the Princess was dismal; Mrs Thatcher and her government weren’t as receptive to his ideas as he would have liked; his courtiers were always cautioning him against upsetting her; the press ridiculed him; his father was unsympathetic; he had no close relationship with his mother; he still missed the guiding hand of Mountbatten; Anne had drifted out of his life; and his wife had banished most of his friends — and even his dog.”

"The biographer continued: “He knew by his work in the inner cities that it was wrong to feel sorry for himself, but he couldn’t help it as his fragile self-confidence ebbed away.”

Why did Diana make him get rid of his friends? Why his dog? That seems senseless and harsh.

I don’t understand why people are carrying on about Diana. She’s dead. She died almost 30 years ago. Yes the Royal Family would obviously be more beloved and popular worldwide if she was alive, but it’s only a limited factor in why they are so relatively unpopular now.

People don’t like Charles & Camilla, on their own merits. They are dull. They are trashy. They throw Charles’s kids under the bus in the press constantly to make themselves look better. Nobody faults them for being in love or for the fact that it’s only the ridiculous traditions of the monarchy that kept them from getting married in the first place. People just don’t like them because they are boring and they are narcissists.

Elizabeth at least had dignity & you could tell she loved everyone in her family, even if she was a lousy parent. Charles clearly couldn’t give less of a damn about his kin, which is kind of the problem when you’re expecting the public to care about your lineage, and your family as an institution.

Diana thought the dog had a whiff about him so it had to go.

Very long story short Diana resented anything having to do with Prince Charles's life prior to their marriage. So she did what many high riding bitch newly married nobles wives have done; she started getting rid of things that displeased her.

In short order Prince Charles's close friends (some from far back as childhood", the dog , staff.. whatever or whoever Diana didn't want around got the push.

When it came to PC's friends Diana didn't tell PC anything, she simply stopped answering their telephone calls, inviting them down to Highgrove (or anyplace else the couple happened to be), so that was that.

Shouldn't say "newly married noble wives" as plenty of middle class and lower pull exactly same shit. Poor bastards that are married to these bitches are caught between a rock and hard place. If they go against their wife there's bound to be blubbing. If they aren't the sort who blub they become hard and butch which isn't at all attractive. This and of course those two other games females play; the silent treatment and withholding sex.

One thing I recall about Diana is she couldn't ride and didn't like animals. Not very gentry.

Like nearly every other child of the nobility who grows up on country estate Diana's love for animals began young. She did know or at least learned how to ride but falling off a pony (or was it a horse) resulted in a broken arm, after that horses were scratched off Diana's list.

After she married Diana realized how important horses and riding was to her husband, the Queen, most of the BRF (except Princess Margaret), along with her sons Diana again learned to appreciate horses and ride.

Diana out riding with her MIL the Queen.

Since you thick Royalassts love your fairytails. Lets cast one for you so you're able to comprehend how the real world views you once upon a time Royal Family.

PRINCES DI : Beautiful good kind Lady betrayed by her hubby and murdered by evil men.

KING CHARLES: Dotty old git who was a lousy husband and father now under thumb of evil 2nd wife.

PRINCE WILLIAM: Rapidly aging angry frustrated bully who hates his job.

PRINCES CATHERINE: Rapidly aging not too bright neurotic anorexic spurned wife.

PRINCE ANDREW : Sleazy Pedo

PRINCESS ANNE : Nasty Biddy

PRINCE EDWARD: Old Poof

ROSIE WHATS HER NAME: The new Side-Piece

PRINCE GEORGE: Future King Fabulous I

PRINCE LOUIS: Future Harold

PRINCESS CHARLOTTE : Future Anne . MEGHAN: Cool American married well.

PRINCE HARRY: The Hero

QUEEN CAMILLA : The Villain

WINDSOR FAMILY : Cosplay Kardashians

and they lived unhappily ever after.

^ That's not a fairy tale it's a horror story!

R382, I actually think Charles and Camilla are more interesting than William and Kate, more loving too. Definitely more spontaneous. William made a practical choice in taking a wife. She is always literally and figuratively 2 steps behind him, just as he wants it. There isn't anything really known about her, she’s a total blank. What will be her legacy? That’s what’s contributing to their declining support. No one is relatable or interesting, hence popularity decline. Diana might have been a bit crazy and a wild card, but she was a complex person who people related too. That’s why people are still talking and dissecting her life 25 years later.

None of the current Royals will have a hip hop song named after them decades after their death. I was 😳 when I saw this, but she is standing the test of time even amongst different ages and ethic groups.

[quote] None of the current Royals will have a hip hop song named after them decades after their death

Thank God!

I have no issues with royalists or people who support the monarchy. But you can support the monarchy and not have your head in the sand about it. We aren't living in the age where it was believed the monarchy was chosen by God to rule. We know better. These are just a bunch imperfect people with human emotions and human failings. Diana was not perfect, but the woman was used and sold a bill of goods. I never thought I would see the day that we'd have Camilla stans on DL. And Camilla is not all evil, but come on this Saint Camilla crap some of you are trying to sell is ridiculous. One of the major fucking leaks from that palace is Camilla and she been working this crap for decades.

r388 What an extraordinary coincidence that in the real world everybody who isn't a royalist shares the exact same opinions as you on them! Even more extraordinary how you were capable to be so sure of this you can speak on behalf of all non royalists as apparently their an homogenous block of opinion without variery at all.

R388 I can agree with all of your list, except for Meghan and Harry. For them, I'd just refer to Southpark, which nailed it.

Shouldn't William be meddling in some cause by now? When his father was his age he was already founding model villages and railing against modern architecture and the like.

The only thing I've ever heard about Charles is that he's a liberal with all the liberal stuff. He believes in causes and charities and the like. I've never doubted this. I think Charles has been put in difficult positions over the years having to choose between warring factions. Like when people were speculating about who made the comment about what color Archie would be, I knew that wasn't Charles, I just don't think that's who he is. It was either Camilla or William.

William, to me, is an angry bot who is so over this stuff that it shows all over his face. He's gonna step up and do what's required, but anyone who thinks that cat is having a good time is way off. I'm sure he has a charity. Maybe someone can link to it.

Royalist toadies trying to re-brand sweet Charles and Camilla as victims of crazy evil scheming teenage Diana. Utter tosh. My sides.

They're the worst, R397. Gullible fools.

I think William gets on with the job and seems alright, but for the times there is a pap in his face asking if the royal family is racist, or if he's been having an affair. The Paps tip the scale towards intolerable.

[quote] Shouldn't William be meddling in some cause by now? When his father was his age he was already founding model villages and railing against modern architecture and the like.

Isn't the environment/climate change his cause? Earthshot prize?

r397 No this small r royallist thinks they were all victims in a epic love mismatch and love triangle-no pantomime villians and no pure saints of victimhood. Life is complicated and the reason people keep bringing up Dianas misbehaviour is because of the exalted pedestal saint like status she is being given by some in these kind of debates.Not in my opinion to paint her as evil but to bring her back down to the reality of a flawed human who is not blameless.I understand why some may be tempted to just caricature the opinions of those who resist Dianas elevated status. It is regressive and unrealistic to paint one side in this situation as saintly and one as unforgiveably evil. It also does Diana a disservice to deny her moral agency and moral responsibility as a human being by blaming her choice to have affairs with other married men as not her fault because Charles made her that way. Giving Diana this blameless status is actually not really regarding her as human and certainly is not respectful.It is making her into an object onto which people use her as an emotional crutch projecting their fairytale mindset onto her.

R393 What is not an extraordinary coincidence is that you're as big a bore as the people you worship.

r402 Except I dont worship them and you are showing either your malice or stupidity by claiming that I do. read r401 post of mine for instance. You need to move beyond the world of pure saints and evil sinners.It does not speak well of you that you cant.

[quote]there is a pap in his face asking if the royal family is racist, or if he's been having an affair.

If you're not racist and you're not having an affair, the the question should wash over you. I don't think the guy's racist. Maybe some casual, innocent misunderstandings, but he's definitely fucking that Rose chick. And the only reason, they haven't reported on it more is because they traded stories on others to suppress it.

R392 Camilla stan.

R403 Why on earth would I or any sane individual want to read your posts? Your tiresome reputation proceeds you.

Wouldn't it be "precedes you"? Asking for a friend.

As someone who was 7 when Diana died, and I'm probably an outlier in my age range going by Twitter bile. I've never understood the Camilla hate. Everyone was miserable in that marriage because it was an arranged marriage from a different era that was never salvageable however you look at it even without middle aged mistresses. Charles forced it on Diana, Charles family forced it on him. I'm not against Charles marrying the love of his life (which Camilla is for some reason) and if Diana had lived I doubt she'd have been still seething over a miserable marriage this many years since the divorce either.

r406 And yet you very clearly do with zealous regularity.

r408 I broadly agree and aim seem to recall that there was serious talk that privately just before Diana died that she and Charles were increasingly on better terms. Speculation on my part would be that if she were still alive she may have psychologically got to the stage were she realised she was happier not being Queen and any desire she had for the role had fizzled out.

R397 and r398, are you saying the British constitution, the Church of England and the British armed services are gullible, foolish royalist toadies?

I don't mind the money spent on such events. It's all circulated directly into the British economy. All those people getting paid to participate and produce this affair. Think of the man hours involved in this giant circus. I don't see how anyone has been ripped off.

The biggest chunk of money apparently went on security for visiting dignitaries, r411, with people like Macron, the German and Italian presidents, EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel, various presidents and prime ministers, royals and other heads of state, Commonwealth leaders, Jill Biden, Zelenskyy's wife, not to mention the British politicians and former prime ministers all in one place.

The reason the British taxpayer paid for the coronation is because it was a state event.

Save your breath. Americans are too incurious to learn and retain information about other systems.

And R413 is too incurious to learn about how Americans are not one homogenized clump. You intellectually lethargic piece of shit. Many of us on the BRF threads are Americans who are deeply curious about, and supportive of, the Constitutional Monarchy as well as other governments (Bhutan, anyone?). Just shut up.

R413 Always nice to hear from Grand Fenwick.

Prince Harry wins in a landslide yet again. 😂

Harry won the arrivals, but Penny Mourdant was queen of the Main Event.

R41 6 must be an American who doesn't quite comprehend what the Daily Express is.

Jesus Christ, the desperate spin to convince everyone that Charles was perfectly faithful from before his wedding day until after Diana cheated is, well, desperate. No one buys that Charles and Camilla weren't fucking up to and after the wedding, except royalists with their heads up their asses. Everything you're claiming is based on Charles's version of things which no one in their right mind would ever believe.

[quote] It also does Diana a disservice to deny her moral agency and moral responsibility as a human being by blaming her choice to have affairs with other married men as not her fault because Charles made her that way

A 20 year old brain is still not fully formed. Life experiences, especially such traumatic ones, shape you as a person. A fucked up relationship like hers was going to emotionally and mentally damaging. Playing armchair psychologist.... if a man who you thought loved you was cheating from day 1 and you had low self esteem as a result, what better way to prove your desirability and worth than going after unavailable men? I absolutely do not view Diana as some virtuous person. She was clearly troubled, stemming from her dysfunctional childhood and horrible marriage. However, her bad behaviors constantly being used (cheating, stalking lover’s wives) as a deflection to justify Charles using her is preposterous. There is no excuse for him marrying her when he loved someone else and expected her to put up with it. He wouldn’t even allow her to at least have the spotlight as consolation prize because he was jealous. Any shitty behavior of hers towards him was justified.

It's so disgusting how Charles and Camilla, in their 30s, teamed up to gaslight a 20 year old who thought she was marrying a man who loved her.

There is no possible way to spin that to a decent person, royalists, but you sure do love to try.

Anne Boleyn got what she deserved. It was all her fault that she couldn't give Henry a son. She was witch. The Monarchy is never to blame for anything, y'all.

r421 I suspect the messy reality is he loved both women initially . I took moral responsibility for my behaviour as a teenager never mind 20. You cannot put Diana or anyone in a category of I'm not responsible for my behaviour if I cheat with numerous married spouses of married people because of what happened to me at 20. Sorry that is just stretching moral norms beyond anything reasonable basically it seems to try and make a narrative work. Whatever has happened to me in my life I would never expect the kind of freepass you are giving Diana. Messy reality is a much more coherent narrative or approach to take than fairytale villians and saints bollocks.

r422 The monarchy is not blameless but this narrative of evil versus innocence is pathetic and not reflective of reality. I don't think even members of the royal family say the institution is perfect and blameless.

I don’t think Charles loved Diana. Nor do I believe she loved him. I do think Charles tried to make things work with her initially. She is said to have doubted the marriage on her wedding day. Hardly an auspicious start to a marriage.

Camilla did not want to marry Charles. She dropped him for Andrew Parker-Bowles. I think she ran back to Charles as her husband was a complete rounder.

R420 Di's brain was not fully formed at 36 either. She was still paying psychics, astrologers, fortune tellers. Girl was mental.

Diana eventually got her self respect and played by her own rules. She eventually learned that being Queen wasn't worth letting those people drive her mad. Even though I seriously doubt it, let's hope Kate figures that out. No Queen in waiting with any self respect would have allowed her husband's mistress' son such a key role in that coronation.

R426 Diana had Borderline Personality Disorder, no doubt caused by abandonment by her mother in childhood and neglect from her father. There is no cure for that. She would have got more and more desperate.

Diana, Harry and Meghan were the only thing the crumbing Windsor monarchy had going for them and they couldn't wait to kick them out. The blew their chance to enter the 21st century. Now they are just a cheesy tourist attraction.

R427 So what's your excuse doll?

Um no, R425. Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer too. It's an upper class kind of thing. Nice try, though.

[quote]Nancy Reagan ... upper class

Oh, my sides!

[quote]Nancy Reagan... It's an upper class kind

Gurl?!?!

You're both right. If you're the wife of the governor of California and the president of the United States (one of the most powerful people in the world), you're definitely at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Thank you for the correction. What was I thinking?

You were thinking like someone who knows nothing of the American class system. You apparently also think that Ronald Reagan is to be considered upper class.

They were very successful social climbers, my dear R434. I didn't say they were born into prominent old money families.

The UK media was a curse and blessing to the Royal family. The soap opera like reporting and all the spying made them popular. If the media was still the same they would have delved into William and Kate’s relationship. They have a weird vibe, and definitely a lot going on beyond the facade. Places like the Daily Mail try so hard to make them into something they are not and the results are often embarrassing.

[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.]

Bite me R414 and your little mouse. I live in the US and have eyes and ears.

[QUOTE]Um no, [R425]. Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer too. It's an upper class kind of thing. Nice try, though.

Whether born upper class, are upwardly socially mobile, or barely have a pot to piss in, using astrologers is sign of a weak-minded or desperate or crazy person. I give the poor without educations a break. .

But seriously using the cock-gobbling FLOTUS as an example to normalize superstition is just plain nuts. Especially since she was using the astrologer to schedule presidential appearance and important meetings on "lucky " or whatever days.

The Klan Grannies are precisely why the monarchy needs to die.

R439, I agree that astrology / fortune telling is a joke but I'll bet you it's not just ignorant, lower class people who believe in them. Maybe some fortune tellers / astrologers talk a good game.

Didn't Little Edie consult her horoscope in the documentary "Grey Gardens"? I assume she was well educated. Some people really want to believe in this stuff.

R440 but if the monarchy dies, then Harry and Meghan won't have titles and will have to earn their living doing actual work - something neither is equipped to do.

R428 Harry and Meghan got kicked out? Meghan schemed from before the wedding when she saw how famous the royals were, that she was heading back to LA to become a big, fat A list movie star! Still hasn't happened though. She was just a run-of-the-mill supporting actress on a Canadian cable show nobody had ever heard of and tragically, she is still being snubbed by the A listers.

R435, you compared Nancy Reagan to a titled British aristocrat as both exemplifying the same "upper class" behavior (consulting an astrologer). Where class is concerned there's no comparison between those two people, any more than between Donald Trump (who, like Nancy R., came from a rich rightwing family, though Nancy started out much less rich) and Diana—and in any case you're now saying astrology cuts across different classes.

Nancy Reagan and Princess Di typify not 'upper class' behavior but dumb woman behavior.

They do not delve into William and Kate because he is the heir and the storyline is William and Kate versus Harry and Megan. You can't do that storyline without ignoring the individual issues of one couple while elevating the individual issues of another.

Most of the people who hate Harry and Meghan are sheep believing a bunch of lies told by the British Tabloid Press and Royal Insiders who are cashing Harry and Meghan checks.

At least the people who are pro-Monarchy and don't like them have something of a reason for not liking them, but the rest of the sheep are just same trailer park fools who who buy the Weekly World News and believe in Bat Boy.

r446 Laziest argument in the world accusing all or most people who disagree with you of being brainwashed.

When Harry goes on Dax Shepherds podcast or whether and says people can just give up their jobs to be happy if they dont enjoy it then I dont need the tabloids to tell me he is an out of touch spoilt brat.Ditto his complaint on Oprah he was cut of financially by his Dad etc

Nancy Reagan was not remotely the same class as Princess Di. She was pretty low born actually. For one thing, she was an actress at a time when that was still looked down upon by some. For another she was known for... well, we've all heard those rumors. She was at ease with fame, had enough acting skills to move in powerful circles with finesse, and made history for sure, but she was not an upper class woman.

Observers said the friction between Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush was rooted in deep-seated insecurities on both sides. Barbara was jealous of Nancy's feminine beauty and trim figure, while Mrs. Reagan was said to be jealous of Bush's impeccable upper class pedigree.

R447... Actually, I was kind of giving you a pass because I thought you were a Royalist, but I guess you're a sheep too.

I guess what you wrote here, doesn't apply to Harry and Meghan.

[quote][R422] The monarchy is not blameless but this narrative of evil versus innocence is pathetic and not reflective of reality. I don't think even members of the royal family say the institution is perfect and blameless.

R443, Suits was an American show filmed in Canada.

R444, wasn't Diana from a minor aristocratic family? Surely her family wasn't enormously wealthy.

Good ole Nancy definitely knew how to play the part. In the linked photo, she looks like an Upper East Side socialite. Being married to the governor of California and the president of the U.S. is real power. The British royal family only has ceremonial power. Titles don't mean anything these days.

Politicians and their spouses are a means to an end. You invite them to parties, you throw them a check for their campaigns for a to be determined favor at some later date, but are most definitely NOKD.

Diana may have come from an aristocratic family but Charles wasn't impressed with the quality of her education.

r449 I am a royalist ? With a small r. Of course what I say applies to all.I certainly dont go along with the idea Meghan is totally evil and thus made Harry do what he did.He is responsible for his own actions.They seem to bring out the worst in each other.She may have helped bring his poison to the surface but the poison had to be there to begin with

In retrospect, I'm puzzled by Harry's behavior in the joint interview he and William gave for Charles 70th birthday. It was strange in that Harry was thoroughly effusive about Charles and dominated the conversation. IIRC he even cut his brother off. William talked mainly about a future role as the PoW and how might not be exactly like his father managing the Duchy. What a difference a year made. He was so cheerful.

That stunner Beatrice is continuing the legacy of unearthly beauty in the BRF.

R452 The social arbiter of Tower Hamlets.

This is an American board R457. Speak American English, please.

Putting aside the money and power for a minute, being a part of the Royal family seems dreadful. It’s looks like no fun, stodgy protocols and formalities, boring engagements, meeting the unwashed masses etc... even the properties interiors don’t seem all that great. It’s all rather gray. They don’t even get adoration anymore. The women who turned down William and Harry were the smart ones.

Your King is Piece of Shite.

^ Exactly what Harry said in Spare. Charles and Camellia will sell their own family down the river. Absolute scum as are the royalassts who kiss their wrinkled arses.

What kind of amoral cultists support people who would do this to their own wives and children? Waiting for a answer?

Stll waiting.

Waiting...

I love receipts.

Smell smoke Pa?

How do you define an “American board”, R458? And how do you define “American English”?

I’m really rather curious to know!

Not using UK specific references like the Tower Hamlets. That's outrageous. Find an American equivalent.

Just kidding. From the linked photo, it's obvious what the Tower Hamlets are.

[quote]Putting aside the money and power for a minute, being a part of the Royal family.....

What power does the British royal family have, R459? Asking for a friend.

BonniePrinceHarry- I thought you were a Royalist.

The only think worse then this weak adulterous narcissistic manbaby are his toadies,flunkies,arse kisser and assorted grovelers in the media who act as well paid apologists for Charles The Feckless and his Queen Cuntmilla. The British have become a truly servile pathetic lot.

Unreal we've gotten to this point, how many years later, and detractors still cannot come up with something actually witty instead of the usual "bovine/equine-milla" responses? Further proof these threads have been invaded by newly woke, teens and pre-teens who belong amongst their intellectual equals -- junior high school students who think farting at a lunch table is revolutionary.

R473 wants wittier insults.....Grow the fuck up.

Does r474 even realize where it is, thinking juvenility and repetitive adolescent humor is appreciated at Datalounge? Wit, etc...

Let alone go on demonstrating its inferior intellectual capacity for not understanding the stated objectives of this site, if it can possibly find that page in its microcephalic state,?

Childish insults impress no one, Mary. Neither does bad grammar.

The Harkles are a flop.

Grifting, lying duo who trash others: their family, employees, friends and others.

“We want privacccccy!”

Charles pledged loyalty.... which he also pledged when he married Diana.

Ok Meghan @ R478.

How are you, btw? Are you ok?

r461 The aide went freelance and outside of his authority and did not last that long with Charles. It was his aide that did this not Charles. Its also an old story not a new revelation. This has been discussed and circulated pre Harry's book. Harry has also claimed certain published stories about him were from hacked voicemails when the source was a public Buckingham Palace statement or stuff Harry himself said in interview. If he believed his father did this why did he accept the Dukedom of Sussex, why didn't he break free at that point away from royal life? He is too inconsistent and addicted to victimhood.

Harry is spot on the British media is an arm of the royal family PR machine. ROTA's symbiotic relationship with the palace has regular British people in a chokehold of misinformation, lies, and corruption. Royalists lap it all up.

You seriously reckon Harry and Meghan didn't leak to the media and give them of the record briefings? Some royal reporters recollect him giving them gossip in country pubs. You are making him into something he isn't. The court papers in the Daily Mail court case 2021 were Harry and Meghan discussed in texts and emails putting stories about Samantha Markle in a book but making sure it ain't traced traced back to them should tell all thinking people that both of them are adept and experienced leakers to the media.

The only STAR they've got and they cancel him. The BRF like their acolytes are true dolts.😂

r483 They cancelled him did they? Odd I thought the narrative being pushed was that they chose to leave, flee even for their wellbeing? Now it's implied they want to be part of royalty but have now been cancelled? Previously it was half in half out. Honestly pick your lane pick your horse and get the story straight.

r483 They cancelled him did they? Odd I thought the narrative being pushed was that they chose to leave, flee even for their wellbeing? Now it's implied they want to be part of royalty but have now been cancelled? Previously it was half in half out. Honestly pick your lane pick your horse and get the story straight.

Paybacks a bitch bro.

R485 No comprendo Biddyese.

Charles and William aren't calling up Rupert and ratting out Harry to keep William's dirt off the streets, but their staffs are. Those social climbers, the Middletons are. And Camilla is just ratting everybody out, because Camilla is only about Camilla.

The idea that this tragic mulatto actress from LA enters into a centuries old institution and starts tearing shit down because the SECOND SON is pussy whipped is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard and what is even more ridiculous is that people actually believe it.

They were going to live the life, all they wanted was some support. And by support it meant, hey be somewhat cordial to my wife and tell your fucking people to stop leaking negative, untrue, stories about her because it was affecting her mental health.

Some are mad that Harry is telling tales about the family. Well the family has been telling tales and throwing Harry under the bus for a long time. It cost the man relationships. He got tired of it, end of story.

r488 They asked for half in half out. You are rewriting history They definitely wanted lots of money as support hence Harry's tantrum on Oprah about his Dad cutting his money off. Harry and Meghan are both arseholes but they are responsible for their own behaviour. He isn't responsible for her behaviour and she isn't responsible for his bad behaviour.

They asked for half in/half out when the situation became almost untenable, probably for his grandmother's sake and also probably because they both liked the charitable aspects of the work. The money situation, in large part, was for security because the woman was receiving daily death threats. Are we going to pretend like the constant death threats didn't happen? From all the reports I've read Meghan had money of her own, as did Harry. But neither had 24/7 security money - which was necessary, in large part, because the press turned this woman into a villain - aided by Harry's family. And I'm certain that the family has to deal with death threats, but the ones against Meghan were amped up to a whole other level and let's not pretend that we don't know why.

Mistakes were made on both sides, but both sides are not equal.

r490 No they planned half in half out before they were married. They planned the Oprah interview nearly 3 years prior. Its all there in published researched books that they haven't disputed.

What kind of weak scum bag father leaks negative stories about his own teen son to make his own sorry arse look good?If this was my Pa I'd rather be an orphan. If you think Charles PR manager did this "without His Majesty's knowledge" you're either a Royalasst shill or an imbecile. Which is it?

Harold is a whinging liar.

Megs is a sociopath.

^ Google: Feckless Twit

[quote] Feckless Twit

Indeed, R493, “H” is a “Feckless Twit”

Is there anyone else on this thread who thinks they are all the same shit (Charles, Harry, Megs, William, Kate, Cami)?

Does Harry hate/blame the press? Or does he hate/blame his family? Because he tends to throw a bunch of shit at the wall just to see what sticks. Just when you think his problem is with his family, then he says no - it was the press. Then when you think, oh, okay the issue was with the press, then he's bitching about his family. It's exhausting. And none of us can do anything about it. So why is he coming to us with all of it and dumping it into our laps? I'll tell you why. For CASH.

Trolling you biddies is as easy as tying cans to grannies walker but far more amusing.😂

Cannot help you with the Daily Express:

But the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.

The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.

The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country.

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.

The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.

The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Readers of the Sun don't care who runs the country long as she has big tits.

R496 Totally. They all belong in a rundown caravan park in Wales.

“Princes! Kings! You’re all awful!!”

Charles and Camilla cheated on their spouses for years, and now lead the Church of England.

Harry has made it clear that his issue is both with the press and his family's unholy alliance with the press. His issues with Charles and William is family stuff that goes back decades. Who doesn't have family drama and family trauma. Just look at the number of threads on DL about people dreading going home during the holiday season. The issue with Camilla is more personal. She is a nasty, backstabbing whore. Harry is no angel, by any means, but his perspective has changed now that he has a wife and a family. He's clearly trying to break a cycle and protect his family.

"Charles and Camilla cheated on their spouses for years, and now lead the Church of England."

And? You have a problem with that?

R503 "He's clearly trying to break a cycle and protect his family." Giggle. The hell he is. He's trying to make bank the only way he knows how by attacking the royal family under the aegis of his lovely wife who feuds with her own family, her in-laws and anybody she encountered on her road to Fame and Fortune.

R504 They seem perfect for a church founded on divorce and adultery!

Next on Dancing With The Stars!

^When does she bring out her pole?

She can borrow Willy's pole

If Rosie can get it out of his arse

R503 Royalist can't comprehend something so basic and decent as Prince Harry "protecting his family" their King never tried to protect his wife or family. Au contraire Charlie sold them out for quid and giggles. Scum.

R488 — “mulatto”???

Oh, the UK isn’t racist at all. I see.

Harry "protecting" his family. Giggle. Can't wait for Archie's tell-all Mommie and Daddy Dearest.

R512 To these ancient klan grannies "mullato" "blackmoor" "octaroon" are perfectly acceptable British phrases. If it was OK in 1943 why should it no be OK in 2023. It's just "woke rubbish". We can take comfort that like their King and Queen they'll be dead in a few years.

r503 Naive I suggest to believe Harry and Meghan have never and dont continue to leak to the press and other media outlets publications.

r503 I am adding to your point in my above post rather than disagreeing with you or misunderstanding you.

Sorry confused r503 who I do disagree with and I think is attributing motives to Harry that he doesnt have-He is just angry he didnt win in the game of leaking to the media . with r505 who I do agree with.

R513 "giggling"

R514 where da fuq do you live? Cameroon? If you live in the US you are likely aware that the US is THE most racist country on the planet. USA! USA! Number one!! where driving while black gets you killed!

Boom! Goes the dynamite.

Next: Flashing With The Stars

Are they the ugliest royal couple in history

R522 that's mean. Harry can't help it that he looks like Friar Tuck if Friar Tuck was a ferret. And Markle's had so much plastic surgery, she looks attractive - now.

Heard from inside sources that all these guest appearances on TV are leading up to the Bravo announcement of

R512, R488's whole post was sarcastic. He was sticking up for Meghan and Harry. R488 knows that many Brits discriminate against Meghan because she is of mixed race, but they would never come out and publicly say it.

R525 Many Brits dislike Meghan because she's a typical Ugly American who thinks she can dictate to other nationalities how they should lead their lives. As an American who lived in Europe for many years, sadly she's typical of a particularly obnoxious type of California dingbat Europeans start to despise.

Americans can be are so provincial and so limited in their understanding of other countries. But we're the greatest! Pathetic.

Yes, R526, but there's also Britain's vicious, relentless tabloids. We know Rupert Murdoch is willing to stoop quite low to get private info and sell more papers.

There is a certain percentage of the British population who are bothered that Meghan has an African American mother. I wouldn't want to guess how big that percentage is but it's not negligible.

Nobody gives a fuck that Markle's half-black. Everybody gives a fuck that she's an obnoxious American.

[quote]Nobody gives a fuck that Markle's half-black.

You are so naive, R528. No racism in Britain? Yeah sure.

Yes, the fact that she isn't British and was divorced also count. Harry's a rebel.

r529 A Rebel who wants to keep royal titles ,royal privilledges and royal money of his Dad.Doesnt strike me as being a true rebel at all.

Surviving Angel, if Harry weren't a rebel, he would keep quiet and stay in England.

Maybe you Brits will eventually realise that Prince Harry and Meghan are two of the greatest people of our time. I hope it happens soon.

[QUOTE]He's clearly trying to break a cycle and protect his family.

He was clearly thinking of his family's safety when he boasted about killing 25 Taliban fighters.

R520 Silly American rag. You foolish Americans don't understand that just because this reporter swore under oath in a UK court of law that our King Charles press secretary gave him the fake story on Harry being in drug rehab over a pint at the pub .THIS MEANS NOTHING UNDER BRITISH LAW! Of course Our King Charles and Our Queen Camilla were SHOCKED! SHOCKED! to find out this member of their own household did this positively absolutely WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE!. Really think about it, would our noble King Charles do something so despicable to his own son? Would our kindly Queen Camilla permit it?Tosh! Nothing to see here keep moving stupid Yanks.

Hopefully, more of this dirt comes out and the monarchy topples in Charles's lifetime.

If Meghan were serious about being a working royal, and about "hitting the ground running" in the royal family, why did she:

1. Keep a bunch of her clothing and furniture in storage in Canada

2. Hold on to her LA agent and her PR firm Sunshine Sucks

3. Invite only one family member to her wedding, and then a bunch of random A-list American celebs

4. Start negotiating with Oprah, Netflix, Spotify and Bob fucking Iger/Disney WHILE a new member of the RF

4. Bully staff (people were quitting constantly)

5. Act like a total bitch to her sister-in-law and niece

6. Break protocols constantly

7. Refuse assistance and guidance from Edward's wife Sophie as well as from the Queen's own private secretary, Samantha Cohen, who was assigned to help Meghan acclimate but Meghan rejected her help

8. Mock curtsying to the Queen (showing she never had respect for the Queen or the institution)

9. Get quoted as saying "I can't believe I'm not getting paid for this" while on a royal engagement

Diane Morgan on Have I Got News for You. Discussed Prince Charles' diet which apparently calls for him to eat a soft-boiled egg with each meal. She pointed out "there are rumors Princess Di always had a couple of soldiers with her breakfast". lol

Markle's a classic mean girl who wanted to run the table at the school cafeteria and discovered she was outranked.

Sure, R535. The knives were out for Meghan from the start.

I'll bet Charles and his siblings behave badly all the time and get away with it.

Prince Philip was a model of political correctness.

"‘I Can’t believe I’m not getting paid for this’: Meghan Markle Reportedly Got Furious After Realizing She Won’t Be Paid For Royal Family Tours, Mere Months After Marrying Prince Harry"

R538 you are obviously an expert on Palace moeurs, D'Artagnia.

Yes, R540, and Charles had sex with his valet, a Mr. Fawcett.

It's poor style to throw in a French word when an English word would work just as well.

[quote]I'll bet Charles and his siblings behave badly all the time and get away with it. Prince Philip was a model of political correctness.

Really? You're going to compare Meghan Markle to blood royals right now?

She married into the family/business. As a newbie, she was on essentially a probationary period. You have to earn tenure before you get to start being a dick like the founding members of the organization. You don't get to start fucking shit up off the bat. She's not a Prince Phillip or a Charles, or an Andrew. She was a no body who married into something rather amazing and obscenely privileged. She only needed to stay in her lane and earn her stripes and she could have evolved into someone who pushing the limits and toyed with rebelling against protocols. But she didn't. Because she never respected the institution. And we know she has zero respect for family units.

Meghan's press was golden, sycophantic, even, until "No one asks if I'm okay"-GATE. That's when the press took a turn, and rightly so. Because that was utterly ridiculous of her to say in an interview when she was on the clock and surrounded by poverty in South Africa. She needed to save that shit for her therapist.

R541 Link please

Here you go.

Here you go.

More evidence.

The two lovers in question

R544 Thank you. Here's one for you, too.

Omg, R548. Don't you know a cover up when you see one? I guess not.

If Smith had secretly recorded Charles and Fawcett going at it with a tiny spy camera, the film would have been worth an enormous fortune.

R537 Coming from a 10th grader sure you think that profound.

Telling that Princess Diana has been dead for more then a quarter of a century and you cows are still obsessively hating on her. Do you think when this skanky harridan kicks anyone will give her a second thought an hour after they throw her desiccated carcass in the ditch?

I’ve asked this before but tellingly didn’t get an answer. Why do you Americans care?

R531 is either taking the piss OR that's La Markle herself. Srsly, wtf.

^ Or it's Harry.

[quote]She was a no body who married into something rather amazing.....

My god, you royalists are delusional.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't own the Daily Mail. he owns The Sun and the Times. Markle sued the Daily Mail which IMO went over board on reporting on Markle, but she also had numerous stupid PR pices about how she's the Queen's favorite and is doing this and that printed. It seems finally she's not bombarded the media with PR or else their not being printed because interest has waned.

My god, R535. The examples of Meghan breaking protocol in that Cosmopolitan article are truly laughable, eg. crossing her legs when sitting. Beatrice and Eugenie like to wear French designers because they're more prestigious when it comes to women's fashion than British ones but Meghan gets criticised for wearing Dior. I feel sorry for the idiots who spend all their time scrutinizing these laughable protocol breaches. Just goes to show that the monarchy is an ossified, archaic institution that really needs to go.

And, R535, Meghan looks a whole lot better in Dior than Kate does in her prim, twee, old fashioned outfit. Kate's outfit would be more appropriate on a 60 year old woman . And Harry is a whole lot sexier than his dorky brother.

[quote]R538 you are obviously an expert on Palace moeurs, D'Artagnia.

Most pretentious sentence ever written on DL.

Corrections to 556, pices sb pieces and their sb there.

The DM actually has a somewhat interesting story today about Kate not getting along well with Chelsy Davy and wanting to take her shopping. Chelsy turned her down because her boho style was different and Kate was offended. I get the feeling Kate is very hard to get along with and sees herself as a beacon of Royal protocol. The York sisters seem to get along with everyone, but not Kate. While I’m not a Meghan fan, I thought she was in the right with that tights story that came out. It’s her wedding, if she didn’t want the kids to wear tights, who cares? They also mentioned Kate telling Chelsy not to be upset about rumors Harry was ‘playing around’ because it comes with the territory. I said it upthread, Kate is who Charles expected to marry and didn’t get. It’s hard to believe a woman like Kate still exists.

You can’t make this shit up:

William and Kate were late to the coronation because they were busy filming a behind-the-scenes look of their preparation for the big day. It seems extremely brazen and I’m sure with Harry out of the picture, the drumbeat of stories about conflict between Charles and William will grow louder and louder.

r561 Kate mentioned rumours are part of the territory not accepting infidelity is part of the territory. I'm sure you would not wish to misrepresent.

I know many people who are supportive of the Monarchy but there is a huge difference between supporting the Monarchy and having your head up your ass about it.

Kate is a throwback with one goal and that is to get that motherfucking crown. William can fuck whomever he pleases and the press can say whatever they want and make all the allegations they want and she doesn't care. She dresses like a 50s housewife and smiles on cue. She is a well curated creation and it pays off, because she polls higher than everyone else. She's a less pretty Betty Draper. Behind closed doors she probably chain smokes Camels and guzzles Gin, but you'll never see it or a hair of place.

Do La Markle's demented fans think if they trash the royal family enough, Harry and the Starlet will be elected King and Queen of the United States??

R557=Meghan Markle.

Markle called the paps again to get pics of her going somewhere. She's got on a mini-skirt to proudly display those freaky bird legs.

R565 I wish they'd stayed in Canada. .. Southpark crowning them "Prince and Princess of Canada" was so fitting.

Spontanous,unrehearsed ,without an autotune tract over dubbed and production crew of 24. But then Diana was a real Princess . Party planners daughter take note.

R564, it’s good and bad having a throwback like Kate. She plays well to the already indoctrinated, many 65 and older, and within the family, but not so great with everybody else. They needed Kate to be a superstar, but she is just not relatable to modern women or, alternately, revered. I think they’ve finally realized status quo isn’t going to work anymore. Which is probably why they are starting to do documentaries, appearing on competition shows, etc.. they are trying to get themselves out there and seem current.

I’m sure they will be fine at home for a while, but their global reach is diminishing.

r564 Actually its not about me having my head up the royal familys backside but rather not believing that Kate who like her husband is very careful about their social interactions to protect their privacy would make a comment to Chelsy Davy, a woman she wasnt close to and didnt know that well, admitting that her husband cheats on her but she accepts it as its part of the deal.Its inconsistent with how careful they are before taking people into their inner circle and confidence.I just dont buy that she said that to Chelsy .Sorry.

[QUOTE]but she is just not relatable to modern women

Who did you poll for your conclusions? Empirical evidence is always appreciated. TIA!

About the viewership in America, who the fuck else besides retirees or hotflashing menopausal women are supposed to be awake at 3 or 4 a.m.? Or people with shift work or insomnia?

Regardless, it's pretty stellar compared to Trump’s 3.1M during a prime time debate.

Hmm, interesting.

[quote] Which is probably why they are starting to do documentaries, appearing on competition shows, etc.

I tried to tell them!

Americans, if you don't like the British Royal Family, just ignore them like you ignore the Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Belgian, Japanese, etc. royal families. Not really our business, is it?

R573, that is fascinating. Do you think they really don’t know who she is, or they’re expressing dislike for her or the royals by pretending they don’t. Sometimes “never heard of her” means, “and I don’t want to either.”

R575, there aren't 900 threads a day about those other families. The people from those countries are nowhere near as obnoxious about their monarchies as the Brits, either. Americans would be happy to ignore these dumb anachronisms if it were possible to avoid them completely, but it obviously isn't.

Your entire post is incredibly stupid, actually.

A lot of it depends on what’s going on too.

If you live your life with quiet dignity, instead of constantly selling stories to the Daily Mail about your stepson, or son or whatever, no one cares what you do. The truth is, the royals are way too invested in what the gossip rags think of them. Why do they care? Because the only way they can be talked about is about their affairs or lavish displays of wealth. Otherwise no one would ever look at or think of them again. Other royal families just do their duties in public and keep their private affairs to themselves. I wouldn’t know about Rose Hanbury if William wasn’t too busy flinging her in Kate’s face at every opportunity to be discreet. And having her son photographed next to George at the King’s coronation is not a way to make the gossip stop.

These people know exactly what they’re doing, all of them. They are thirstier than Madonna, but have no talent, other than burning taxpayer money.

R576, no idea, but most surveyed knew everyone else in the family. I can see indifference towards her but out right not knowing who she is super strange. Going back to R564’s point, she does poll as the least hated, so there’s that. I assume that’s because no one knows much about her, even amongst the generations who know who she is.

[quote]These people know exactly what they’re doing, all of them. They are thirstier than Madonna, but have no talent, other than burning taxpayer money.

Well said, R578.

R577 - thank you for demonstrating your monumental cuntitude and indifferece to rational thinking.

If you're an American, please step away from the voting booth.

R577 you really need to be in therapy, ya know? Your obsession with people who are literally not our fucking business is pathological.

I thought the same as r562, when I saw the modern Hollywood-style video clip the Waleses produced. There has always been a history of conflict between the monarch and their heir in the BRF, I don't see Charles and William as being different. And now that William is very independently wealthy, since he took over the Duchy of Cornwall and the attendant funds, look to see more of the glossy, high-priced pr he and Kate seem to be into.

My feeling has always been that Elizabeth and Charles weren't exactly cozy comfy. I also believe that William has many of the same issues with his father that Harry does, but won't knows that there is no benefit to him if he went public. Harry can go public with all of his grievances because the minute George popped out of Kate, his job was more or less done.

The truth is simple — Charles and Camilla have always thrown his kids under the bus in the press because that is the only narrative that would mend their reputations and allow them to be together, get married, and now have Camilla get the “Queen” title. He had to be the put-upon single father struggling with his unruly kids and she had to be the pillar of strength he needed by his side. This has been the story they’ve sold since 1998 and they just rinse and repeat.

Now that Harry is not there to be their #1 scapegoat, it’s Will & Kate’s turn to be back in the hot seat. We’re gonna see more tabloid stories about Will cheating, Kate’s wardrobe being too expensive, their kids being brats, Will being lazy, etc. It’s as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

Harry a scapegoat? As he was being touted as the war hero prince by the MoD and later handed Invictus to have something to with himself after leaving the army? He sure got a lot of favorable PR thanks to being Charles' son. He didn't complain about his view beneath the bus then...

I am certain someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember Harry polling extremely well, and it probably helped that he was something of a bad boy. This is probably why he was given Invictus and other goodies. Harry no longer polls well ( they feel like their fun boyfriend broke up with them and went woke and married someone unsuitable). But he's out of the game, so it doesn't matter how he polls.

She's a cunt dear.

The idea that Kate Middleton is the new "star" of the royals and this aging ,stiff ,thick, mumbling,middle age party planner's daughter is the new trend setter with Gen Z is beyond laughable. Gen Z thinks of her as a dowdy mum. If they think of her at all. Another pathetic BRF fail.

Luved another of Kopy Kate's tributes to the Duchess of Sussex exquisite style.

I doubt Gen Z think of Kate at all. But she’s not dowdy.

R568 - WE DON'T WANT THEM.

Kate must have staff working 24/7 checking photos of the Duchess of Sussex elegant wardrobe. Katie seems to wear the same outfits as Meghan approx a month later. Katie has zero personal chic or style so it's understandable. What you'd expect from a stewardess daughter. Seems dowdy Brit fraus are always aping chic American ladies.. How sad for you.

LMAO at the elderly shut-ins of DL who think Kate Middleton is young, millennials are teenagers, and the calendar still reads "2002."

Kate is 41. She was born in 1982, making her among the oldest of the Millennial generation, who are all over 25 by now. If she were born 2 years earlier she would be Gen X.

The current young generation (over 10) is Gen Z. These are today's current teenagers and young adults. Many of them have parents Kate's age, and the youngest have parents even younger.

The idea that Kate even cares what the hell Meghan wears, or wore years ago in the past, is ridiculous. She could give two craps about Meghan and her style. I doubt she or her style team even checks the archived records or googles to see what Meghan's worn - hence some of the dresses or choices that resemble prior items on Meghan.

Sad & Laughable

If Katie want's to be Meghan so badly the first thing she needs to do is find a faithful husband.

Markle and Kate have had zero to do with each other for over three years. Any effort to put them in the same universe has been unsuccessfully undertaken by Sparkles' crap PR.

And her deranged fans, like those posting here, r597.

Kate copies Meghan because Kate is bland as fuck and Meghan actually has a discernible style. Meghan isn't a total cipher like Kate. She doesn't move through the world like a blank slate, an empty vessel to be filled with whatever says "royalty" and "tradition" the strongest. Meghan is a normal person and not a social climbing cipher.

Kate is the future queen, and has no need to be copying the style choices of her exiled sister-in-law. They are on two separate tracks in life and have differing fashion needs.

Meghan is actually luckier in that she has a wider choice of fashion, she doesn't need to be as conservative or restrained as Kate has to.

[quote]Meghan is a normal person and not a social climbing cipher.

This is in jest, right? Not a social climber?