Skip to main content

The Nutty Flavor Challenge: Why doesn't Prince Charles take action?

When questions are raised about why Meghan and Harry have been allowed to get away with so much, all roads seem to lead back to Prince Charles.

Charles reportedly calls Meghan "tungsten", an allusion to one of the hardest metals on Earth. (Only diamonds have a harder rating on the Mohs scale - 9 for tungsten, 10 for diamonds.)

That would suggest that he knows very well that Meghan is not the kind, soft-hearted personality she likes to suggest she is.

Press manipulation

He should also know that she likes to manipulate the press, dating back to the time when she supposedly took photos inside Kensington Palace for sale to the tabloids and he sent her on a plane back to Canada.

And Charles must know that she cannot be trusted, given the drama surrounding the wedding, when she insisted that "everything is under control" with relation to her father's appearance, only for it to become a tabloid drama that overshadowed the ceremony.

Why, then, doesn't Charles take action?

Foundation, merching, Archie

Why does he allow the Sussexes to set up a foundation that will clearly have commercial implications?

Why did he allow Meg to merch cheap jewelry at royal events?

And why doesn't he insist that they publicly unravel the mystery that is Archie, the giant "two-month-old" baby whose face is hidden whenever possible?

As the heir to the throne and the de-facto monarch under his aging mother, his reputation and the reputation of the entire monarchy is endangered by the Sussexes' actions.

What keeps him from doing something?

Comments

Blackbird said…
Because Charles is lazy and doesn't want to be bothered.
Humor Me said…
I wonder - two possibilities:
1) Charles wishes to appear "woke" - hip to the world at large, an knows that the RF will be streamlined, allowing MM's behavior as a means to an end (making money).
2) Charles doesn't care - as one who married/ divorced, he sees the cycle unfolding and knows that MM will leave. All monies are tied up, and he is aware that MM is unable to do damage (blackmail). He will be there for PH when the time comes.
BigFanUSA said…
Humor Me, I agree with you on point number 2!
Tea Cup said…
Maybe Halfwit inherited his shit-fer-brains from daddy. Charles is a piece of work to have dumped the majority of being responsible for his hot headed son onto Prince William. Who can forget William having to apologize for his brother's rotten behavior at a polo match? Charles is weak and pathetic; and hopefully his reign will be brief, at most.
Jdubya said…
And that Nutty, is the question. Maybe (hopefully) we will have the full story and answer to that question soon but somehow, i think this circus isn't going anywhere for awhile.

Humor Me - #2 but..........the amount of damage she is doing now is horrific. the longer she stays, the more damage is being done to the RF reputation.

I guess i feel like the "powers" are getting ready for a big reveal that will totally discredit her on every level. The BUT is, Harry has to be 100% on board with her leaving and i honestly don't know if he is.

I feel like - maybe Harry being unhappy has more to do with things not going as "they" planned vs figuring out she conned him.
abbyh said…
The photograph attempt was a big wake up call about her ability to follow their rules.
Notice: He isn't making an effort to be around her or orbit in her circle. And there was that time to go moment.

Maybe he is afraid of making a bad move which would reflect badly again. His reputation was all not that great leading up to and after the divorce compared to Diana (who almost walked on water). And then, she died and the criticism was thick. Perhaps he fears he might relive that (you are the blame) again and if that happened when he started his reign, that's not how he wants to begin?

Or, personally, I am hoping he is taking his cues from LG and that's the guy with the long game (strategic plan).
OKay said…
I think Charles (and all of them, really) simply don't know how to deal with someone like Meghan. She isn't bothered by the things that would mortify people in their inner circle, like being sent to live with Wallis Simpson (!) They can't shame her because she has no shame, and they just don't know what to do with someone who isn't impressed or cowed enough by the royal lifestyle to fall in line.
Louise said…
OKay: You make a very good point. re: $mirkle feeling no shame about anything.
Humor Me said…
I am going to show my stupidity:
Harry is no longer in the short line to the throne (due to Will's 3). Could that be part of the reason there is no shutdown on Harry's behavior/ actions as in the past with Andrew?
Louise said…
I have to wonder what the majority opinion is regarding $mirkle. I know that we don't like her, but is this the majority public opinion? Maybe Charles does nothing because he reckons most Brits don't care one way or the other.

I know that someone set up a petition on Change.com that called for a end to public funding for Harkle, but the last time that I checked, they had fewer than 6000 signature.

BigFanUSA said…
Charles is at retirement age. He knows he will not be king. He never had control of his sons, the nannies did. Rachel Meghan is shameless, viper like, manipulative, silver tongued, good with men, hyper motivated, and she's biracial. From the beginning of the relationship, racism was being cried. Remember the statement calling out racist bullying at the hands of the British press? That right there sealed the deal for the duration of the relationship and likely beyond. She will forever be pulling the race card, even though she identified as caucasian for most of her life. Back to Charles though, has he ever "done" anything about anything? I think he's as spoiled and petulant as his youngest son.
Ozmanda said…
I get the impression that Charles is completely unable to show any kind of backbone and would much rather be doing his water colours, then make any kind of decision. I don't know how she did it, but MeAgain clearly targeted him to be on her side thinking as long as he liked her, she was safe. If true, this is a gross misjudgement as it seems increasingly clear it will be William who will be King.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
Perhaps, but Charles did dismiss her from his party after 20 minutes and does not seem to have done anything to help or protect her in the past year. I put money on silent but deadly tactic, and in the interim, the BRF is going to stay far away until the coup de grace. Friends close, enemies closer and revenge is a dish best served cold.
Mischief Girl said…
My thoughts, and trying to present different options from other answers:

Charles is too busy to focus on the Sussexes. In no way are they the center of his life. In preparation for when he is King, he is already receiving the "Red Boxes" that the Queen receives. He's got his own work, his charities, and his wife, and he focuses on those things.

Charles is passive and always has been. He's been molly-coddled his entire life, and it would be going against his nature for him to butt into anyone else's private life proactively, especially a marriage, and suggest a course change. He's also, for all the good works he's championed, spectacularly self-centered. I think he would believe his good works, the Queen's 60 years of exemplary duty, and the efforts of the Cambridges will outweigh any chaff a recent arrival to the family can create.

Charles isn't interested in what the public thinks. This is a man who has kept Camilla by his side, legitimately or not, since ... 1980? 1981? Camilla was extraordinarily unpopular, and he stayed with her. I'd imagine he isn't impressed with what the great unwashed think about his second son's wife, if he's even aware of it.

The Sussexes aren't constitutionally important. Yes, they are Senior Royals now, but the focus will be, appropriately, on Charles and then the Cambridges. With each passing year, the Sussexes will become less important. I would imagine Charles believes that the Sussex Foundation will be a clear third behind The Prince of Wales Trust and the Royal Foundation (is that the name of the Cambridges' organization now?) with regards to fund raising, public esteem, and ability to effect any change. And it should be. Why would I give money to the Sussexes when their ability to influence and effect change is going to lessen with every passing year? If it's "pay to play" now, I'd "play" with Charles or William.

Charles may believe that Smirkle makes Harry happy, and he doesn't want to rock the boat (see above re: Charles being passive). Until Harry comes to his Papa and says "What a mistake! HELP!" I can see Charles being completely hands off. He may have learned the hard way, when Harry was wilder in his 20's, that trying to direct his second son's behaviors or actions doesn't end well, and that Harry needs to recognize his mistakes on his own.

If Charles believes at this relatively early date that the Sussexes will end up divorced, he knows Smirks won't get much money. Diana, mother to the heir and the spare to the throne, received (adjusted for today's money) approximately $34 million, after 12 years of marriage. Smirks is married to the 6th in line to the throne and most likely won't make anything close to 12 years of marriage. As a result, her pay out will be relative peanuts. Sure, I'd like someone to hand me a million, but she won't get a lot of money at all. Look up what Sarah got when she and Andrew divorced. It really wasn't much.

All this is my own personal conjecture (except for Charles already getting the Red Boxes. I can't remember where I read that, but it was a legit source).

hardyboys said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louise said…
I've seen the video of her being escorted out of the party, but was never clear on what she did wrong.
Lurking said…
Remember the balcony scene where it was the Queen, Charles & Camilla, Williom, Kate & family. Everyone else was cut out. I think Charles thinks that once he's king (if it happens) he will "streamline" the BRF and there will no longer be a problem. With Harry being 6th in line to the throne, he's pretty much a minor royal at this point. I think they are sidelining the Harkles and hoping they will go away.
fairylights said…
I wasn't really paying attention last Fall for a variety of reasons, why did Charles dismiss her from his party after 20 minutes?
Now! said…
I hear your argument, and I know that many people agree with you. My question is, however, what will the RF do without the minor royals when it comes to appearances and engagements?

Princess Anne does literally hundreds of appearances per year - "The Princess Royal, Patron, Northern Lighthouse Board, this morning visited Papa Stronsay Lighthouse, Orkney." "Her Royal Highness this afternoon visited the Cleveland Way, Saltburn Valley Gardens, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, Cleveland, North Yorkshire, to mark its Fiftieth Anniversary."

You could argue that these appearances are unnecessary, but they are probably very important to the people of Yorkshire. I would even go so far as to say these minor appearances are the backbone of support for the Royal Family.

I've long argued that Charles will have to bring, at a minimum, Bea and Eugenie online to compensate for the retirement of elderly royals when it comes to local appearances.
PaulaMP said…
I personally think that there is something wrong with Charles. In the last year or so he is beet red in the face, has horribly swollen hands/fingers and his nails look like they are fungus ridden. I have heard he likes to drink a lot, no idea if that is what this is about. I don't see him living as long as his parents, not by a long shot. Maybe at this point he thinks his Mum will never step aside for him to be King while he is still able.
Now! said…
Is it really about general public opinion, though, or Royalist opinion? If, say, 30% of the British public strongly supports the Royal Family but is being shaken in their faith by the Sussex drama, that could be something worth worrying about.
Now! said…
Could be - but if Harry starts using his title as a way to funnel money meant for charities to himself and his wife, that would besmirch the entire Royal Family and question their overall commitment to charity.
Now! said…
Great comment. I think Charles has been getting the red boxes for a long time, and William is also probably being exposed to some of their contents.

It's a tough time for the UK right now given Brexit, the new prime minister Boris Johnson, and the recent seizure of a British tanker by the Iranians - how embarrassing that the once-great British navy has been so cut back that they no longer have the firepower to rescue it.

So I agree that Charles has more on his mind than Meghan Markle. Still, he should be able to do many things at one time.

I think Sarah's poor settlement had a lot to do with her own poor negotiating skills. Meg would undoubtedly do a bit better.
Now! said…
Wasn't there talk recently that his mother would give him a full "regency" agreement when she turned 95?

I also agree that he does not look well, and men on the Windsor side of the family (Elizabeth's side, not Philip's) have historically expired in their early 70s if they die from natural causes.

I also believe Camilla has some serious health problems.
Now! said…
Interesting comment about Tungsten!

I also think your phrase about the "slow, deadly poison" is apt.
Now! said…
Charles is more of an aesthete - he's more interested in art, architecture, and gardening than statecraft.

My impression is that his Prince's Trust has done a lot for troubled youth in Britain.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
also, narcs are known to love bomb their victims, so that the attention the victim receives is overwhelming. It's hard for anyone to resist that. However, Harry should be intelligent enough to take advice from others, but he isn't. He reminds me of Fredo in the Godfather movies this way.

As for Meghan, narcs can suffer terribly when they don't get the narcissistic supply they think they deserve. Perhaps the BRF has hired a psychologist who is advising them that the way to ruin Meghan both financially and morally is to keep her away from the limelight. She will not accept this and will act more and more erratically.
BigFanUSA said…
@Nutty I am very curious about this.. what do you surmise Camilla's health problems are?
Girl with a Hat said…
Harry had 5 engagements yesterday - one for Invictus trials, 1 to a hospital, 1 to a university, another to a swimming trial and one to Sheffield for some unspecified reason. He is getting very active. I wonder if he is trying to outdo his brother or trying to improve his image.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
Or trying to avoid going home.
Girl with a Hat said…
I think, Elle, that when you're a Royal, normal rules don't apply. Also for very wealthy or famous people. They know that people don't always have good intentions. One of my relatives won a very large amount in a lottery, and the way people that she knew for decades, and total strangers behaved towards her made her very wary of people's motives. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be constantly surrounded by potential parasitic people.
Beth said…
Charles seems to be taking a page out of his mother's playbook--stay out of your children's personal lives. While most people would think that is a good thing, some intervention on the part of the future King is in order here but I think that Charles is emotionally unable to deal with this sort of unpleasant task. Also, other royals have been relieved in the past when their misdeeds have been swept off the front pages by the even more egregious behavior of another family member. Perhaps he feels that taking the negative focus off of Camilla and on to MM can help in his efforts to rehab Camilla's image and make her acceptable as Queen Consort?
Emily said…
The Cambridge's are on holiday just now, so Harry is doing as much as he can to help get rid of the negativity around him and Meghan, before they come back. The problem is, imo, a little to late to change the public opinion of the two of them.
indybear said…
It doesn't help the public's perception of his marriage when he appears so much happier during his engagements sans wife.
Now! said…
Camilla's mother died young from osteoporosis, and as early as 2007 Camilla was also exhibiting some symptoms of the disease such as back pain. (Pilates reportedly helped.) Camilla's also very passionate about her patronage of the National Osteoporosis Society.https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Duchess Cornwall has history of ill health.-a0159208436

She also frequently cancels engagements for health reasons, and was absent for awhile for health reasons in early 2019, so much so that an Australian tabloid wondered if she and Charles were divorcing.
Now! said…
Although if they had to remove -all- the sadists from upper-class parties, there would be a lot of vacant space, and a lot of hors d´oeuvres left over.
Now! said…
I also think Harry is trying to regain the affections of the British press, which was very angry when he removed a reporter from a recent engagement and just sent a press release afterwords. They refused to report what was in the press release - "Nothing of interest was said" tweeted one of the Royal Reporters.
Now! said…
Could be. In that sense, it's also been great for the Cambridges, who are becoming beloved.
Now! said…
I'm about a month late, but did anyone else notice that The Windsors has been renewed for a third season?

https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/news/5389/the_windsors_series_3/

It will be interesting to see how they handle the Meghan situation. They're usually pretty spot-on.
SwampWoman said…
I'm not sure that it is as much Charles' emotional inability to do anything as is his memory of him being more or less forced into a marriage with a 'suitable' woman. Considering that the marriage was a nightmare for both of him, I would expect that he'd be very wary of getting involved and would allow the children to pick their own marriage partners/make their own mistakes. That doesn't mean that there are not people working behind the scenes to minimize the damage to the BRF; the sons' charity foundation being sundered points to that.
Kat said…
I do wonder if he banned the press that day as a move to keep MM at home. It was the day after her ridiculous showing at the Polo match, and perhaps he wanted the event to be about the event. Not his press seeking wife carrying a random baby she borrowed.
Louise said…
I note that $mirkles is back on "maternity leave" for these less glamorous events.....
PaulaMP said…
Nutty, I believe you are right about when the Queen turns 95, I did see something about that
Louise said…
There would have been more pressure on Charles to "choose correctly" seeing as he was next in line to the throne.

While Harry's choice of wife is less important to the future of the RF per se, it is the inability/disinterest of the RF to contain $mirkle's behaviour/spending/merching/publicity seeking that is problematic.

Harry could have married just about anyone as long as he and his wife lived quietly.

However, the more I read and observe, the more I believe that Charles is ok with $mirkle's behaviour.. The only person who could have fixed this was the late Queen Mother... she was ruthless.

I think that $mirkle is here to stay. We will tire of this before she does.
BigFanUSA said…
Louise, I made a comment on Instagram wondering if Rachel Meghan was back on maternity leave because she didn't visit the children's hospital with harry. Someone replied (very condescendingly) that she is not officially off leave until next month. To which I responded with confusion because we had just seen SO VERY MUCH of her recently. I wonder if she's locked back up again by Lord Geist, or she really just didn't give a rip about how bad it makes her look to be attending star studded events only.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
I'm going w/locked up just because it makes me feel better ;)
Louise said…
Elle, I don't think it was the laughing. I looked at the video... Harry made a joke when he was attacked by a bee and $mirkle, Charles and Camilla (as well as the audience) all laughed.

As for the tongue business, she sticks out her tongue frequently. I have seen photo collages of her tongue somewhere, can't remember which site.
Anonymous said…
It's going to be a looooooonnnnnnnngggggggg day:

LATEST NEWS ON THE ROYALS AND THE BRITISH MONARCHY
Fashion icons and philanthropists who gave the Royal Family a modern makeover: All the ways Meghan Markle is like Princess Diana
Miss_Christina said…
Charles reminds me of a story I once read of a Duke visiting America who called for help when his toothbrush failed to foam as he was using it. Since his valet at home always put the toothpaste on for him, he was unaware his toothbrush didn't foam up on its own. Charles inhabits his own little world and he likes it that way. Puttering around with his watercolors and his organic farming and with just being royal in the abstract. I think between his getting more involved with his mother's job and realising what being king actually will mean, and his son basically marrying an atom bomb about to detonate his family, and possibly even his brother about to involve them in even more scandal, Charles is simply at a loss. He is now responsible for his own toothpaste and he can't yet figure out how to deal. Add to that a healthy dose of divorced parental guilt and a desire not to make MeAgain another martyr in the manner of Diana and it's no wonder the poor fellow looks like he's drinking heavily.
Louise said…
I don't believe whatsoever that anyone other than $mirkle is deciding what events she will attend.

Why would Lord Geist send her out only to red carpet events and tennis games but not to genuine charitable events? And in any event, I don't think anyone has any control over her. As someone else stated, in order to be controlled she would need to feel fear or shame and she seems to exhibit neither of these traits.
SwampWoman said…
Heh, both of them, not both of him. Autocorrect is not my friend!
Suzanne Wilson said…
The toothpaste story is so silly. I don't believe it. Of course he would have had to put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush when he was at school, even if someone else dies it for him now. He wouldn't be unfamiliar with how toothpaste works.
Anonymous said…
Ah, so the Urban Legend now includes a Duke lol. It's funny how these things get started. This may be the source: https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/inside-the-extravagant-royal-lifestyle-of-prince-charles.html/

Unknown said…
So someone, somewhere speculated that Tungsten wasn't a compliment, but a slight dig because Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding is a popular type of welding that utilizes tungsten electrodes to join various metals... so the theory was, when PC google TIG (her stupid lifestyle thingy), that's what came up... and that thought made me smile. Just a little inside prickle under the required austere indifference. I didn't like her from the "I didn't know who Prince Harry was"... it made my skin crawl.
Lurking said…
"what will the RF do without the minor royals when it comes to appearances and engagements? "

They will no longer be appearing at the opening of every envelope. There will be fewer royal patronages and a reduced need for appearances.

I think younger people aren't as enamoured of the royal family as they once were. With the internet it's much easier to find information about what they are up to, how much they are spending/paid, scandals, etc. I think many people are seeing fewer and fewer benefits from the royal family and the outrageous expense. When everyone is being asked to tighten their belts and increased fees and taxes for everything, continuing to fund the royal family is unpalatable. Where once the royals were the epidemy of glamour, class, and style, today celebrities have taken over that roll.

If the royal family is to survive, they need to be seen as providing a tangible benefit, not some wishy-washy "they bring in tourist dollars" kind of thing. This is trotted out, but does anyone actually visit the UK, because they think they are going to rub elbows with a royal? No, they go to see the monuments and places of interest.

Charles would have to do a complete turn around to bring in Bea and Eugenie, that's if they would accept. Not the wealthiest royals, but also not paupers. With one married and the other soon to be married, income may not be their highest priority.
Unknown said…
OMG I LOOOOOVE THAT SHOW!!! I'm Meghan, from suuuuits. hahahaahah!
Unknown said…
Hi
The book on Charles and Camilla, mentioned that he wept when he was told to stop seeing Camilla. What kind of a bubble wrapped future king is this? Royalty have access to a range of women, but yet he wept! What would he have lost, nothing really, but yet he showed signs of losing the plot. Past conduct determines future conduct, especially with royalty. Also after he publicly declared his love for Camilla, whilst being still married to Diana ( after her TV interview ), the newspapers headlines stated .....UNFIT TO RULE..... the church stated that he broke his marriage vows and that was unacceptable....NO FIT FUTURE KING STANDS BEFORE THE CHURCH TO DECLARE MARRIAGE VOWS THEN GOES ON RECORD YEARS LATER TO SAY THAT HE ACTIVELY CHEATED!!! For me ,Charles is just a pawn doing what he thinks is right and he has bagged his queen. He wants nothing more. Everything that is unfolding with Harry is superfluous , better to keep an unhappy child occupied than to be attentive to a parents misdemeanors.
Unknown said…
As I am not American nor British, what seems to be happening here is just like the game of chess. The pawns, bishops, knights, were all out of the way..... the queen being exposed as in Checkmate. I could be wrong . Seems like Harry wanted a trophy wife, and he got it. She agreed, dressed up, showed up, loved up and lived up. Now he is showing up everywhere. Laughable yes. But its happening. The real question is, what is Harry hoping to achieve? No royal member goes through such a hugely drawn out fiasco without hoping for something to happen.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louise said…
Many people have wept when separated from a loved one.

I don't understand your post.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miss_Christina said…
Oh of course it's a silly urban legend, but I find it illustrative of how I think Charles' life is like, and how he seems kerflummoxed when messy reality intruded.
Girl with a Hat said…
Charles reputedly said that he wouldn't stand being the first Prince of Wales who didn't have a mistress in addition to a wife. Maybe that puts in better context for you.
Girl with a Hat said…
Camilla has been called "the laziest woman in England" by courtiers. A few years ago, she flew into NYC with Charles for one event and had to book the flight 3 days previous to the event for her to rest up for it, and then have 3 days rest afterwards. It was in a Vanity Fair article a few years ago. Maybe it has to do with her health issues but none were mentioned.
Maddie said…
I love that show too. Thanks for the heads up Nutty. Yeah the actress playing Meghan is hysterical. Unknown, you beat me to it with suuuuuuuits. LOL. Excellent show.
SwanSong said…
In Charles’s eyes, MM is the gift that keeps on giving. Finally, FINALLY, the RF has someone more unpopular, more despised than himself and Camilla in the months and years following the divorce and death of Diana. He and Camilla now look saintly next to Meghan. C&C are no longer being vilified in the press now that Meghan is on the scene and he actually looked like a hero that saved the day walking her down the aisle. I predict he’ll keep doing nothing and let her and Harry run astray until they implode. It’s the Windsor way.
Girl with a Hat said…
And I am saying that narcs are specialists in getting people addicted to them through love bombing.
Anonymous said…
Wept - yes, maybe he loved her then and does now. And what he would have lost is a loved one.
Anonymous said…
My "Urban Legend" bit was a comment in general following from a previous convo, not actually in argument to you.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
One last thing: "Royalty have access to a range of women" may be true, but we aren't interchangable parts that men just use at their leisure. Or at least not all of us are.
Unknown said…
Hi Louise

I meant that Charles went on record to say that he committed adultery. As a future King, the newspapers and the Church, questioned his capability and ability to rule. Apologies for not stating that clearly enough.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
BigFanUSA said…
Swan Song, this is exactly what I was trying (and failing) to articulate on here the other day! Agree on all levels.
Humor Me said…
O Lawd have Mercy - it has started....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7291079/Harry-Meghan-ban-neighbours-talking-royals-asking-Archie-petting-dogs.html
Girl with a Hat said…
Charles is a narcissist. It's not a romantic thing.
Girl with a Hat said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/03/how-camilla-won-over-the-queen-and-became-the-duchess-of-cornwall
SwanSong said…
It’s such a dysfunctional family, isn’t it....
Anonymous said…
Seriously. Meghan is a failed D list actress, a mediocre fraud, a poser, from a dysfunctional and embarrassing family, and she managed to seduce* a Prince. Just because someone gets extra lucky in who they, well you know... does not mean they're owed any respect or different treatment. As for Harry, who is 6th in line to the throne, just SMH.

*I'm being nice here. "Seduce" is not the word I'd prefer to use to describe this unholy rutting.
Anonymous said…
Regardless, to imply that women are interchangeable parts to whom he has access is offensive and misogynistic IMO. I also cannot speak to Charles' narcissism, but on the surface, he does seem to love Camilla. We will have to agree to sort of disagree on that one.
Girl with a Hat said…
does he love her? You haven't heard the rumours that they are no longer living together and separation was seriously discussed.
Anonymous said…
In the last poll taken (2019 Opinium Monarchy Tracker ) MM's approval rating has dropped like a rock to seventh place with only Camilla, and Prince Andrew below her. Prince William was first 73%. The Queen was second 70%. Harry was third 70%. Kate was fourth 62%. Prince Charles fifth 40%. Prince Phillip 40% sixth. MM seventh 39%. Camilla eighth 24%. Brits are not amused by her antics.
Anonymous said…
Does who love whom, Mischi?
Anonymous said…
Article about this nightmare of a PR disaster will be the front headline on tomorrow's The Sun. They can't seem to stay out of the news and not in a good way.
Louise said…
I also have some questions about Charles' ability to rule, but committing "adultery" has nothing at all to do with a person's ability to govern.

Of course the church has a problem with it, since adultery is a term straight out of the bible. Personally, I find the term archaic.
Louise said…
Buckingham Palace is claiming that the latest set of "rules" came from an employee and not from Harry and Meghan.

I recall that they used the exact same spin to explain $mirkle's "no photos" policy at the tennis match.

Seems too much of a coincidence for this to happen twice.

But even if it was true that these and the previous rules of engagement came from an employee, something is causing employees to believe that H&M need to be shielded from the public even more than does the Queen herself.

So at the root, it's coming from H&M.
Suzanne Wilson said…
Well, Diana claimed that Charles said that thing about not being the first Prince of Wales to not have a mistress. Has it been verified by anyone else, independently? I take anything Diana said with a grain of salt. Even her closest friends admitted Diana liked to tell whoppers.
Anonymous said…
It's absurd that BP would even try to pass this off on an employee. As if an employee of Cruella's evil and bombastic twin wouldn't Tower of London that person immediately. And these sound quite similar to the protocol provided to Bey & J. Same Bey who shaded markle by calling her "princess" and arriving after.

On a related but eye-rolling note, some of MMs fans have taken to calling themselves the #MeyHive because that's as clever as it is original.
Anonymous said…
There is still not one comment at DM on this particular PR tripe. I guess they turned comments off in anticipation of the deluge that would otherwise have begun immediately. It's really an obvious and offensive ploy on mm's and sl's parts.
Rut said…
i just think "the family" have been so worried about Harry that they were relieved he married Meghan. At first they thought she was a strong woman who was going to take care of Harry and keep him out of trouble. And of course, Charles felt sorry for her "having no family" Poor Meghan. Now they know more but now its to late to do anything because they are already married and have a son. I dont think Meghan will ever give up being part of the royal family and I think Harry hates the press and the public so much he will never ever admit he made a mistake. So I think they are going to be married for life and there is nothing Charles can do about that. Of course Charles will always take care of Harry, so will William.
Wut said…
Really? You know Unknown, Henry VIII created the Church of England so he could divorce his wife when the Catholic Church wouldn't let him? Now that man was a philander, never satisfied with what he had - six wives and numerous mistresses. He also had actual power, not the figureheads we see today. And the CoE is worried about Charle's ability to reign? LOL. Clearly they forget their origins and the things they have overlooked in their long and inglorious history.
Wut said…
@ Louise This is the third time actually. You may remember the Lion King premiere were there was also a list of rules handed out to the cast and crew who were to meet the Harkles?
Louise said…
Correct, Wut. There was also that.
Mom Mobile said…
"... because that's as clever as it is original."

I just came here to thank you @Elle for the laugh.

Also, I watched that Royal House of Windsor documentary on Netflix this week. Wow. The Windors have a seriously dysfunctional legacy. Execution of the Romanov royal family? Thank the OG Windsor, King George V. Damn. That is one cold cousin!

All that power and money just because they "won" a birth (or marriage) lottery. Of course the BRF is so messed up.

I can see why people are calling for a republic.
Anonymous said…
You're welcome at MomMobile. I was just trying to snark myself to sleep (it didn't work).
Anonymous said…
Camilla is an alcoholic and a lifelong heavy smoker. Between the emphysema and alcoholism the rumors about her being slow are accurate. It means she tires easily and takes much longer to recover from minor illnesses and travel. Then the crowds (and all those germs) that go with the royal lifestyle don't make it any easier. That she has to fly in early to rest up and then remain behind would give credence to her ill health rumors.
Girl with a Hat said…
Suzanne, it very much fits the profile of the narcissist, where they say horrible things to their spouses to get the most horrible reaction. Charles is not a nice person. Diana also had a personality disorder, but it was worsened by being married to a world class narcissist.
Mischief Girl said…
I disagree that Charles is a narcissist. I think he's world class self-centered, but that's different. I believe he's been coddled and told how special he is since birth, so of course he is self-centered. But I do believe he can have genuine love towards others, feel empathy, etc, which a narcissist cannot do.
Girl with a Hat said…
Mischief, he has all the signs of a narcissist. A typical play for a narcissist is triangulation, which means that the narcissist always keeps a third person in the scenario to make the victim feel insecure. The victim compares her/himself to the third person, and since the narcissist speaks or acts as though the third person is somehow superior to the victim, the victim tries to live up to their perceived better. That fits in perfectly with the "there were three of us in this marriage" description.

Charles as a narcissist also felt quite envious of the attention that Diana was receiving from the public. The narcissist always has to be the centre of attention and lashes out when someone is considered better in some way to him/her.

Charles was also quite cold to Diana's complaints, and had no empathy to her crying. In fact, he made fun of her. He also took any criticism as a personal insult and this caused him to become even nastier. All characteristics of a narcissist.

Some would like to paint the relationship with Camilla romantically, but in fact, Camilla is quite fed up with Charles and they don't spend much time together. He is often at Highgrove when not in London, and she at her family home, which isn't that far away. There's been talk of separation and even divorce, but it wouldn't be allowed because the facade of a desperate love between the two has to be maintained.
JL said…
I think The Meg knows exactly who she’s dealing with: an ailing Crown Prince, who may not have the heart for a fight, especially with Harry, and a Queen at the end of her reign who may not care anymore. She’s taking full advantage of the lack of parental supervision. Markle’s mistake was the alleged fake surrogate baby. She can’t cover her tracks in an age when everyone can see what she’s up to digitally. As for Charles and Camilla, in their early 70s, they are at an age when most people have put their feet up and are relaxing. And the fight is gone because a lot just stops seeming important. That’s what I would want to do. They don’t get to. You can’t compare anyone to the queen and her energy and devotion to duty because she’s one of a kind.
Mischief Girl said…
Mischi, I will defer to your superior knowledge of narcissists to mine (which is extremely basic). I would just say that a spoiled and self-centered person would also feel envious of the attention Diana received, not just a narcissist.

Charles and Diana's marriage produced two fine young men, but my goodness! I don't know that you could have found two parents more ill-suited to be together than Charles and Diana. Both had significantly unmet emotional needs, and neither could support the other to benefit each other. It was an absolute tragedy.

I haven't heard any gossip (other than here) of Charles and Camilla living separately, discussion of separation, etc., but I only read Hello! magazine, and they unrelentantly positive on the royals. NOTHING negative is printed by them. I know that Camilla has her bolt hole in Ray Mill House, but I had no idea she used it so often. As far as I know, Charles continues to call Camilla "my darling wife" in public, which he did exactly once with Diana, in the very, very early days of their marriage. That phrase is my "canary in the coal mine"--once he stops using it, I'll believe there's trouble in the relationship.

I also was unaware of health issues with her, but as I said, Hello! is my only source of information, outside of these blogs. I understand Camilla drinks (a lot?) and I'm not sure if she's still smoking or not. That always stunned me. Charles publicly loathes smoking, and yet the love of his life puffed away for years. I mean, I know you have to compromise in every relationship, and from what I understand through books, Camilla is the one who compromised virtually all the time, so for Charles to put up with her cigarettes truly amazes me.

Anyway, I'm loving all the discussion in Nutty's blog, learning lots and hearing different points of view!
Girl with a Hat said…
Honestly, if you read up on narcissists, this is identical to the same stories you hear from victims (for the sake of brevity and simplicity, I will refer to them in the masculine but there are many women who fit the bill as well) - narcissist comes into a relationship and insists on being able to continue having extramarital affairs, or at least to keep being friendly with exes despite the pain it causes the spouse. Narcissist is envious of the spouse for any quality which the spouse possesses which puts the narcissist in a lesser light, despite the narcissist choosing their partner for exactly those qualities. Narcissist punishes the spouse for anything in life that causes him pain.

Narcissists do not possess empathy and are very envious of everyone else aroud them.

As for Camilla and Charles, it's long been known that they cannot live together, and that Diana was a convenient excuse for them not being able to do so. Charles is such a difficult person that he and Camilla essentially live separate lives.

Like I keep saying, this is not "true love". It's a narcissist finding his narcissistic supply.
KayeC said…
Since Charles is the future monarch, he must be able to separate King from father when it comes to Harry (and William). I think the Queen has had to do this with members of her family, (Margret, Phillip, etc). He should have already created and explained those two roles with them. But I feel he overcompensated since the boys lost their mother (funny enough, so did Thomas Markle). I also agree with others who said above that from his own experience he has decided to stay out of his children's marriages, and he doesn't want to create sympathy for MM by making the BRF look anything but welcoming.

He is in a tough position, I know from experience, you don't want to alienate your children (especially adult children) by telling them you don't like they're boyfriend or girlfriend. However, if it came to marriage, I know I would say something if I thought it was a mistake, and my kids know I wouldn't say it if I didn't care. Parenting is tough, but sometimes you have to let them make their own mistakes, it really is the only way they learn.

History is repeating, but not Edward and Wallis. Harry reminds me of Prince George, Duke of Kent (the Queen's uncle) and Kiki Preston. For some good old-fashion gossip and intrigue read up on those two and the Happy Valley set. Prince George died age 39 in a plane crash and Kiki ("the girl with the silver syringe") died of suicide age 48. She also reportedly had his child. (He is the father of the current Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, and Prince Michael of Kent).
KayeC said…
**their, not they're....I hate typos....
KayeC said…
Just my opinion, but I think Charles and Camilla do love each other, otherwise he would not have married her. Don't know what you mean by "true love," since they could love each other on any kind of level. They seem to genuinely enjoy each others company. I think they're a good match, she being strong willed and he more calm and passive. As far as their living arrangements, I know my mom and her 2nd husband were both single for so long, they never technically moved in together and still keep separate residences after 6 years (this would not work for me, LOL) but they stay together most of the time. My mom, in particular, was too independent.

Once last thought, Charles, IMO, also genuinely loves his sons, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and other family members, so I cannot see him as being a narcissist, just raised a prince who would one day be king.
Girl with a Hat said…
that's a very good analysis.
Girl with a Hat said…
Kaye, the Queen forced him to marry her. They were both perfectly content to just be lovers but the Queen thought it immoral. They used to live together after marriage but Charles started behaving so badly towards Camilla, that she prefers to live separately most of the time. Another sign that he is indeed, a narcissist.
Elopkcats said…
Of topic, but this just showed in my newsfeed. I thought it was an interesting read. Makes me wonder if Meghan wrote the statement for him.

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/lifestyle/prince-william-issued-stern-message-140300097.html
Hikari said…
Finally getting a chance to comment on this rollicking discussion that started off slowly and then just exploded! Many great comments.

I've been thinking about what I would say, viz. the future Charles III (if he chooses that regnal name--despite the bad connotations from history of the Charleses, I don't think I'll be able to cope with thinking of Chas as anything but his given name. At 70+, it is too late for a name change, for him & us. Elizabeth's father's choice of 'George' made sense--continuity with his father's reign, and, on the brink of war with Hitler, the British monarch could not have the German moniker of 'Albert' . . it just wouldn't have done. There's no compelling reason for Charles to change his name at this stage.)

The nadir of Charles' reputation was 22 years ago, walking behind the cortege of his late ex-wife. I believe the tableau of that wretched little trio was Philip's idea . . ? . . .It does not seem like it would have been Charles's, because Chas. expressed the fear that he was going to be assassinated during that walk. While that could be dismissed as a typically self-absorbed preoccupation from Chas, given the public mood at the time, it was a legitimate concern. Charles knew that he was the most hated man, not only in England, but in the world at that time. I also think that as a father, Charles would have spared his boys that trauma, but as per usual, he bowed to the pressure from more forceful personalities (ie, his parents) in agreeing to do it. A visible 'mea culpa' was demanded from the people by the Royals, for their laggardly response to Diana's death and apparent coldness toward her memory. But actually the public furor had less to do with the family's attitude toward Diana's loss than it did the perceived lack of acknowledgement in * the public's feelings of grief and loss* and what their 'People's Princess' meant to them. It was an extraordinary time to be living through. The only event I could possibly equate it to was the assassination of President Kennedy, which is a cultural event I was not around to witness. The histrionic displays of public grief for Diana eclipsed even that, I'm sure.

Hikari said…
Charles may be a self-centered man in many ways . . . when one is treated like a miniature deity from birth and accorded deferences from adults from babyhood on, and have phalanxes of courtiers rushing to serve one, and told constantly that one is special, set apart, destined to be a King . . . an egoistic sense of entitlement is the result. Such a privileged existence is not conducive to character-building. But I disagree that Charles meets the markers for clinical narcissism. We all have narcissistic moments or tendencies from time to time; human beings are intrinsically self-centered creatures. Despite his poor track record as a husband and rather hands-off approach to his parenting, Charles has made a lot of positive contributions as Prince of Wales. The Prince's Trust, which he founded while still in his 20s, a good bit younger than Harry is now, will be his legacy. In all the years of its existence, I do not recall reading of financial scandals surrounding it, or its legitimacy being questioned. Charles created plenty of drama during the Diana years, but that was a two-to-tango situation . . .she was the instigator of the drama, when from his view (and that of the rest of his family), the Waleses marital arrangement was little different than generations of Royal marriages. Ie,. they had dutifully produced their heir and spare, and it was assumed to be a tacit understanding that affairs would be conducted on both sides but with discretion. Diana could not and would not tolerate sharing Charles with Camilla. Had she been willing to do this, I believe they would still be married. Diana was at least as equally narcissistic as her husband, if we are going to fling that stone, and much more adept at manipulating the press to support her narrative as the wronged wife than Charles was at fighting it, as their mutual 'tell all' interviews on television attest to.
KayeC said…
@Mischi, you just nailed it, they were content to just be lovers, and if true, then Charles was forced to marry again. I know these are all rumors, but I read that Charles wanted to marry Camilla but the Queen Mother was so opposed that permission was not given until after her death.
Jdubya said…
Blind Item #4
It took all of a week for the alliterate former actress to forget the royal intervention about how you treat people to wear off. Apparently this week she went to a shop during business hours and had a security team shoo everyone out because she didn't want to have to interact with anyone.
Jdubya said…
This posted today on cdan.
Hikari said…
Anecdotal evidence from people that meet Charles seems to indicate that he is a genial man who exhibits interest in people when at engagements. Like his mother, a buttoned-up or reserved outer demeanor masks a quippy sense of humor which is displayed with closer associates. As he has gotten older, Charles seems to be more relaxed in himself and more likely to let this side of himself out in public. Photographic evidence is that he and Camilla both enjoy their tipples, as Chas. is often photographed with a drink in his hand. Maybe as a younger man, Chas. was more likely to stand on the ceremony of his position, but that appears to be more relaxed now. Compare that with the Sussexes' list of 'rules of engagement' for the public wherever they go, which appears far more narcissistic to me given their relative place in the pecking order.

After the obligatory "Charles is a douche!' whipping-boy period that was the Diana era, and to which I joined in, the passing years have given me a bit more perspective on Diana's contributions to the Wales dysfunction. They were spectacularly ill-suited as a couple. Charles bit the bullet and did his parents' bidding viz. that marriage, for England. His heart was always elsewhere. I believe that his feelings for Camilla are genuine. This liaison with her cost him everything, and were he just in it for the 'king's privilege' of a playmate outside of his marriage, he would have let her go before now, or chosen someone who was less costly. Unlike the staged Harkle 'We two are SOOO in Lurvvve! Look at us!!' photo ops, the ones of Charles and Camilla together depict a genuine delight in each other. This couple are both past 70 years of age; long past the age of faking it for photo ops.

Okay, so I'm three posts in and have yet to address the central question . . why doesn't Charles 'do something' about his younger son, his daughter-in-law and their antics . .?
Girl with a Hat said…
the security team should have orders to the contrary. That's the only way to handle this.
JenS said…
Excellent analysis, Mischief Girl, and I agree. Charles, Her Majesty, and the Cambridges have more important things to deal with just now, Brexit and Johnson being two of them. Yes, definitely Charles, and likely William, get the red boxes and are more hands-on in day-to-day crown affairs than we know.

They likely don't care what the Harkles are up to unless it's blatantly illegal, in which case they will deal with it appropriately when there's plenty of evidence to support legal action (probably behind closed doors). The BRF are simply carrying on, doing their jobs, and not letting Harkle "noise" get in the way. If Her Majesty steps down in 2020 as has been rumoured, they will be incredibly busy behind the scenes preparing for the transition.

We've also got to remember that social media has a way of amplifying everything and making all seem urgent and catastrophic; I very much doubt any of the RF spend much time on it, let alone use it to keep up on the Harkles. They have people for that, and teams of advisors and PR experts that keep them informed of the essentials. They also play the long game; while we foam at the mouth for action right now, they look at what will ensure the monarchy's long-term stability and popularity. Back in the day, I'm sure that Princess Margaret's antics, Diana's tell-alls, Fergie-gate and Charmilla's ongoing scandals all seemed just as threatening. If one looks at the very long game of BRF history through millennia, the Firm has survived far worse than the Harkles, who seem mostly intent on living a celeb lifestyle and making as much private money for themselves in shady ways as they can.

As for Charles personally, we know he's busy, passive, and probably isn't thrilled about intervening in his grown-a$$ son's business. He probably also realises it wouldn't do any good. Even if there have been interventions, we wouldn't know about them. When Harry comes to Charles asking for help, Charles will get involved.

Hikari said…
It's a long wind-up but here goes . .

1. Charles is Elizabeth's son. HMTQ's preferred MO is "Do nothing if at all possible. If One must Do Something, do as little as One can get away with doing." ERII was schooled by her grandmother, Queen Mary, in the art of being rigorously neutral as monarch. A dynamic 'take-charge' approach is anathema. I'm sure it is hoped that unpleasant/potentially dicey situations will resolve themselves, given enough time. Many times in the past, this has worked. But then, they've never encountered a Markle before. Markle may prove to be more intransigent and more of a thorn in the Royal side than President Nasser. The whole family is just constitutionally incapable (in both the literal and figurative senses) of dealing effectively with someone who so completely not only disregards their carefully-constructed codes of behavior which they have been trained for generations to live by, but is determined to take a very public dump all over them. It's one thing to have a chaos agent/anarchist attacking them from outside, like Hitler or Nasser . . but to have a traitor to their way of life from within the ranks, like Markle, aided and abetted by one of their own . . .it's shades of the Abdication all over again, and they just weren't prepared for it. A year on, they are still floundering. Charles is getting the brunt of the criticism for the inaction, but he is merely hewing to the values of the system in which he was raised and indoctrinated.
JenS said…
It's also possible that Charles has intervened in private and the Harkles just continue to do as they please anyway. He may have cut off or reduced the couple's clothing allowance and/or living allowance from the Duchy, which could explain why Harry only seems to own one rumpled set of clothes and battered shoes, and M appears in free samples (which don't fit her and aren't seasonal or occasion-appropriate) that she expenses to the Duchy but later returns or sells. It could also explain why the Harkles are so eager to cultivate celebrity connections and deals.

I wouldn't be surprised if Charles and his team have done a lot. He can't stop them from doing embarrassing but legal things, though.
Silli_emperors said…
DoS does not follow protocol with higher ranking family unless forced but issues (under BP) protocol guidelines for commoners interacting with them, the Royal Sussex. The Sussex Foundation, a US private foundation but Sussex still UK taxpayer funded, even if just partially so a mere $150,000 distribution from that $3M Disney donation helps keeps them in IRS compliance. Speech fee PR already underway to "explain" appearance fees but even that is ignored though Kate botox is addressed.

None of this yet compares to UK politics, Brexit, Iran tankers .... so Prince Charles is doing the "Keep Calm & Carry On' fiddle while "Rome is burning "because his father the Duke of Edinburgh was the family bad cop and if the music is playing maybe no one will notice our little shenanigans. PC perception appears of a man mainly of leisure after education & navy stints, with a few more responsibilities added yearly as his parents aged. His involvement in The Prince's Trust, estate and land management seem to be focus along with more esoteric such as architecture, and the arts but he's never achieved that genuine connection to the people his mother, Her Majesty has. His wife Diana had it & overshadowed him, and his sons overshadow him. After Diana he is not remotely interested in anything that will make him look bad so he does nothing during hi-jinx besides a few wrist slaps to William when they overspent, and of course brother Andrew cut adrift as unnecessary in the "slimmed down royal line". Someone else has always handled the "difficulties" which explains LG returning to HM's service. Very little will be publicly done similar to Prince Andrew and his Epstein contact.



Hikari said…
2. In my view, Charles's current position effectively ties his hands. He is the heir, and is being prepared to assume the mantle from his mother in just a couple of years, God willing she lives that long. He has been quietly assuming more of the monarch's duties, along with all of his siblings for a while now. If the Queen is the CEO of Britain, Inc. than Charles is her VP of Operations, her first lieutenant, and William is in the wings as Second VP-in-training. But this Firm even more than most is entirely set up as a hierarchy. Charles must still defer to the CEO and his ability to have carte blanche in all decision-making would be limited. I'm sure he has had consultations with the Queen and Lord G. and others about the Sussex situation and is deferring to Her Majesty's wishes for the course of 'Least Necessary Action'. Perhaps nothing has been so formally discussed . . but Charles is ever the dutiful lieutenant and would only act in concert with Her Majesty's directives. Even when things with Diana had become intolerable, Chas did not agitate for a divorce; his mother had to order him to get divorced, just as his father had told him it was time to poo or get off the pot over the marriage. Charles' lack of initiative is partly intrinsic to his personality, but we could also argue that initiative has largely been bred out of him because he has been expected all his life to defer to his mother (and father) in all things. Habits of a lifetime are nearly impossible to break when one is in one's seventh decade.
Girl with a Hat said…
Enty's latest podcast is very interesting. He says that Koo Stark was a friend of Ghislaine Maxwell's and that she slept with Andrew to get some secrets from him!!!!
Anonymous said…
Agree, JenS and @Hikari.
Anonymous said…
Agree with all of this @Hikari. Thank you for the sensible assessment. I believe this to be true of Chas, too.
Anonymous said…
I'm with @Hikari on all of this again. Thank you for taking the time to lay this out sensibly. I see a huge difference between the narcissist that is markle and the demigod (in his own mind :) that is Charles. As you point out, we all have narcissistic moment and dysfunctional behaviors are not all markers for clinical narcissism.
Hikari said…
3. I've heard contradictory reports about Charles as a father. I've heard him praised as a wonderful father . . .his mother said as much in her birthday toast to him. I think in the wake of Diana's death, he made his best efforts to be there for his boys as a parent. I feel like whatever Charles' failings, he deserves a bit of compassion for his emotionally arid childhood, which has inevitably influenced his personal relationships as an adult. In his own parents, he did not exactly have a model of how to be openly affectionate, involved and hands-on with his own children. Within his emotional limitations, he's done the best he could. He may have been a distant and/or crap dad when his sons were younger, and it may have been 'too little/too late' to forge a close relationship with them by the time they were teens. I think he did try. Now that William and Harry are both men in their 30s, with families of their own, Charles's ability to influence them seems minimal. William appears to have some unresolved grievances against his father and severely limits Charles's access to his children. William, of course, was his mother's designated protector/crying shoulder, and took her side. I'm not sure how Harry feels about his father. It's too bad that Charles and William are not close, becasue if they had a good relationship, they could present an effective united front in dealings with the Harkles. As the two Kings-in-Waiting, they should be working together from the same page, but Wills is torn between what's best for the family Firm vs. love/support for his brother on a personal level. Does Charles favor Harry over William? It might be easier for Charles to love the son who does not represent the living embodiment of his obsolescence--incidentally, the same reason why his own mother is prickly/distant with him but favors *her* second son. History repeats itself in the next generation . . is Charles self-aware enough to realize that he's repeating his mother's pattern--the same pattern that made him so unhappy?

Be that as it may, Harry is a grown-ass man of nearly 35 years of age that should be able to conduct his life and affairs without paternal supervision. Given Charles's own father's meddling in his personal affairs, from his schooling to his choice of bride, Charles' disinclination to interfere in his sons' marriages is pretty understandable. Having been denied his own first choice of wife by his parents, Charles seems to have been willing to let Harry have his 'love match' (we wish) . . despite the falllout.

But it's the financial shenanigans that are going to force his hand, more than any protocol gaffes over dress code or deference in the Markle Debacle. It's just a question of how bad it's going to get. There's never been a hint of financial malarkey attaching to Charles and it's will be his reputation on the line by extension when the Sussex Foundation is revealed to be shady. Ultimately, though, the Queen has to be the one to give him permission to act. I wonder if we will be seeing any movement on that score in the next couple of months. I hope so, but this whole situation might be playing out for a long time to come . . .especially if Smeaghan attempts to garner more sympathy/play for more time with the announcement of another 'pregnancy'. I can see that barreling down on us in the very near future. Look for 'Baby Sussex 2.0' announcement by Christmas if not before.
Mischief Girl said…
Agree again, Hikari.
KayeC said…
And she has passed that to Princess Anne. I know that the Crown is just a show, and they could not possibly know everything that is said between the royals, but after watching it seems Charles has always been sensitive and Anne was the stronger/tougher child. In old footage, he sometimes seemed shy, but eventually became more confident in public. Anne is more of a combination of her parents.
Now! said…
Interesting! I'll have to check it out.
Now! said…
Yes, great points.

Perhaps taking away the Sussexes income is counter-productive in some way.

It spurs them on to take greater and greater risks in order to bring in money.
MXJ said…
I agree absolutely. It is a revelation to follow C&C on Twitter and see how they work together. They do take delight in each other.
Anonymous said…
I think there was a recent CDan blind about the Koo Stark extortion story. I'm not sure I believe it because Koo could have made a fortune selling her story about dating Andrew and she chose not to do so. There was a DM article recently where Koo defended Andrew against the pedo attacks and her character just doesn't jell with someone who would extort him for info. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953899/Koo-Stark-reveals-truth-Prince-Andrew-32-years-silence-Prince-s-ex-lover-gives-account-affair-defend-sex-slave-claims.html
Suzanne Wilson said…
Charles has his faults, but I do not see him as a narcissist. As I said, I take Diana's stories with a helping of salt. Charismatic people are good at driving the narrative and introverts, like Charles don't stand much of a chance against that.
This may get me some heat, but I agree with Diana's biographer Sally Bedell Smith that Diana had Borderline Personality Disorder. In fact, I've read that a psychiatrist diagnosed her as such after extensive interviews with her. I'm somewhat familiar with this condition myself. A person with BPD is has little to no sense of their own identity or even of their own existence. They feel they have a giant hole inside them. It's a condition that goes back to earliest childhood and is partly genetic. It can't be blamed simply on an unhappy marriage or on stressful circumstances. People with BPD are good at drawing people to them, and they somehow manage to make it look like nothing is ever their fault. They usually pick a scapegoat in their family whom they blame everything on.
Everyone wonders why Charles couldn't fall in love or stay in love with his wife when she was so on piously attractive. I think he simply couldn't deal with her. Yes, Diana was a caring person but her caring came from her own neediness. For someone with BPD, all the love in the world can never be enough. No human love can fill that void inside.
Suzanne Wilson said…
I meant to type "obviously attractive" not "piously".
Suzanne Wilson said…
I think Kio Stark is a class act. She just exudes it.
SwampWoman said…
I'll third it, Hikari! Charles may be an a*****e but that doesn't make him a narcissist. I know that if I were treated to a daily tearful histrionics display, I'd get up and walk out, and I'm not male or raised to be a king.
Anonymous said…
LOL, @Swampy! And agreed. I loved Princess Diana, but she was completely dysfunctional and veering towards a little merde of the bat in the cray-cray department. In my family, that's just a sign of "good breeding" lol, but she was definitely what we'd call "high strung" and "tender" and sometimes, if we were being honest, "just not right".
Anonymous said…
And a little OTT, but Very Important to know how the megster spent her day clearing her cookies and voting again:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1158540/royal-news-royal-family-poll-queen-meghan-markle-prince-harry-diana
Anonymous said…
And I wonder if Chas reads here as well, because I just read an article that said The Sussexers have just been dropped from Clarence House "Vacancies" page, and it is true:

"Welcome to the vacancies site for The Household of TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Household of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."

IDK if the Sussex duo were there previously, but it does appear that if they were, they've been gently and quietly removed. I said slow acting poison is what would do megster in. In the past 48 hours, there have been stories about her providing protocol to the neighbors about how they are to treat a failed prostitute and her favorite customer* and then having customers thrown out of a store so she could shop - that's not even slow poison, so I might have been wrong!

*Also, I agree that this should have been done. Imagine how awkward it is for decent people living on the royal grounds to come upon mm with her clothes on instead of shoved up against a file cabinet or grilling burgers in slutgear... once we saw that we can't unseen it, so best to know how and when to look away.
Anonymous said…
And to clarify, by "favorite customer", I mean Harry. I can see how my vague reference could cause confusion as we reflect back over what it a long list...
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SwampWoman said…
@ Elle, I'd be "Mama" in Miranda Lambert's "Mama's Broken Heart" video. "Run and hide yo' crazy and start actin' like a lady" is always good advice. Bless her heart, it doesn't seem as though Lady Di had any senior female relatives or friends to advise her (or she just didn't listen). Of course, I'm assuming she wanted him back. If she wanted to drive him away, her daily dose of hysterics was spot on.
Lady Luvgood said…
Diana did overshadow Charles and it was quite unfortunate for him to be peeved instead of proud. It caused their relationship no end of harm, I really hate to hear talk of Diana being mentally ill, because the way I understand it is BPD is caused by utter failure of the parents in early infant toddlerhood, it seems unfair to label someone as mentally ill for what happened to them.
Charles is wishy washy and will not move against Megs, someone stronger than himself, perhaps Camilla will have to force his hand.
Found it quite telling there were no $ussex Birthday greetings for Camilla.
I quite enjoyed reading everyone’s thoughts and thank you Nutty for the blog, you’re doing a great job.
Anonymous said…
I had never seen that video, and now I have, and all I can say is: how the hell did someone record me in the privacy of my own home lol? (Just kidding - I don't smoke.)



Anonymous said…
True re the birthday greetings and the latest turn speaks silent volumes.
Aquagirl said…
@jdubya: I do think that they are getting ready for ‘the big reveal.’ Harry needs to be given a choice: divorce her or go live a private life without the support of the BRF. She’s damaging the entire Monarchy.
marjorie said…
I read the majority of comments and not one has stated the obvious reason Charles does nothing re Meg...FEAR. Fear of the "R" word. This FEAR also applies to ANYONE who dares state any objection to Meg. No one likes to be labeled a racist. The RF has a real sticky wicket on their hands.
hardyboys said…
There is a cheesy Instagram post about how the editor of vogue had to convince MM to do an exclusive interview. I laughed at the word exclusive. I'm thinking all he had to do was send her half a txt and she would have jumped. It then said that she refused to focus on her family life bc she wanted to focus on the charity and she refused to be on the cover. She specifically chose Britain vogue and Anna Wintour has been courting her. This is a magazine that had its peak in 1986 upto the early 90s so it made me laugh. MM prolly having sleepless nights as she cant wait. This is the thing with the BRF that you dont see with middle Eastern royal families. They cross the line too much into the celeb foyer and that's why they become fodder. They do not keep in their domain. I think Diana had a lot to do with it. That's why they have lost so much of their gloss and remoteness. They are no different than Julia Roberts but living off taxpayers dime. They had a lot of power but the idea of a democracy and royalty is difficult to mix in a modern state like Britain. Check out the post its Sussex.meghan. take a small dose if gravol before reading tho.
Girl with a Hat said…
the editor of British Vogue is a POC and I've seen it often asked why she doesn't rely on him to become a fashion icon. I think he sees this as an opportunity as well but what he doesn't seem to understand is that she doesn't take advice. Not from anyone.

As for celebrities, the BRF is friendly with a lot of celebrities but they keep these relationships low key. The Queen is friends with ex race car driver Jackie Stewart. Very good friends, in fact.

And, there were a lot of celebrities at Eugenie's wedding, because they are friendly with Sarah, her mother.

The difference between these celebrity friendships and Meghan's is that they are low key. Celebrities and royalty must live discreet lives in order to keep the stalkers and envy at bay, so they do have something in common. However, the more mature realise that flaunting your status and wealth can only lead to problems.
Louise said…
As usual, there have been several versions of this story floating about as $mirkle and her PR folks throw out various ideas and, with their fingers crossed, wait to see what sticks.

I recall that about one month ago the story was that (1) she would pose for a photo shoot dressed in fashion designed by up and coming designers and (2) that she would have a regular , monthly column in British Vogue.


Regarding (1), if this was ever true, and the editors would have changed their minds after seeing her new proportions.

Regarding (2), Vogue itself denied this rumour, which was obviously started by $mirkle herself. (in the style of "Kate will hold a baby shower for $mirkle " and "Doria is spending Christmas with the Queen" rumours).

I don't know why the story now is that Vogue is happy to announce that $mirkle had finally been convinced to do this, when it is actually far less than she had been hoping to do.
SwampWoman said…
I suspect, as with ducks on a pond, that while things look to be serenely sailing along on the surface, just under the surface those feet are furiously moving.
hardyboys said…
I just got blocked from Sussex.markle for making a comment how she did a big spread on Vf when she knew harry for 5 minutes and there is no way she would have to be convinced for anything. Remember when Harry said now I have to see if I can drag my wife up here at that youth forum thing where she was wearing some big hair weaves and acted all coquetteish and shy but was so fake any adult could tell? That was one of the prize fake moments
punkinseed said…
This is off topic somewhat, but fits into discussion about how British aristocracy behave when it comes to inheritance and heir apparent problems when one is on the cusp, in waiting. Very insightful.
The heir, Lord William Seymour and his wife Kelsey, a commoner has been evicted from their home on the Ragley Hall by his aunt, and his parents. The father is incapacitated with atoxia after an accident in the 80's and is in a wheelchair, so even if Lord William wanted to take over the estate and make decisions, like Prince Charles, he can't yet because his mother and aunt are in charge. For PC that would include decisions over Harry and his wife and child, because the sovereign is still in fully charge.
Girl with a Hat said…
from a Daily Telegraph article today on Soho Farmhouse, Meghan's wetdream:

Everyone who was using the gym appeared to be starring in their own workout video, complete with flattering Lycra two-pieces, spray tans and perfectly sculpted abdominal muscles. I arrived in leggings and an old T-shirt and spent 30 minutes scowling on the rowing machine. This is the thing about Soho Farmhouse: it stops short of being truly relaxing because it is so ineffably smug. Everyone seems to be congratulating themselves for being here, part of a self-selecting elite whose shared DNA is 95 per cent oat-milk flat white.
Louise said…
It would be difficult to forget that wig.....
Louise said…
What is Sussex.markle? I googled, but nothing came back. Twitter? Instagram?
Anonymous said…
@MomMobile, I've seen a photo of the new T on Charlatan Duchess, and it is everything we would expect it to be.
Anonymous said…
Celt News has an interesting video up about the possible KP break from the Sussex duo. @SwampWoman, you may be right about the duck action.

I also read that Michelle Obama is going to be interviewed by markle for Vogue. What a poor choice. I'm surprised.
Anonymous said…
@Veena are you watching her newest Twitter account? I think even she's tired of the Sussex Squad drama.
Girl with a Hat said…
Nutty, after 200 comments, no one can see the new comments at all. Your readers are getting discouraged from coming here because of that.
Suzanne Wilson said…
And I think it's unfair that mental illness is stigmatized.
Anonymous said…
Nutty, I know that you are doing this blog for fun and for free, so I am not discouraged from coming here because of "post overflow". Besides, there is a button in the bottom left that shows more posts, if you're using the right browser.
SwampWoman said…
Yes, I'm using Chrome, and I can see the button for more posts when it reaches @ 100. I'm not sure if it shows up if posting on phones, though, since my phone is, er, temporarily misplaced aka lost again.
50 and counting said…
HM, will never retire. She has stated throughout her reign that her life is dedicated to the UK and the Commonwealth. She might slow down but she won't hand over the reigns.
50 and counting said…
I think William once he becomes the Prince of Wales will be a force to be dealt with. Catherine is like the Queen Mother. An iron fist in a velvet glove. The Sussex family will be on the back burner and they know it.
SwampWoman said…
I just read that all of her choices are leftists and anti-royalists. I think she may have gotten on Charles' last nerve and stomped that sucker flat.
Anonymous said…
It's hard to imagine MO is anti-royalist. She and PBO seemed to really enjoy / admire HMTQ and that is why I'm surprised that MO would be foolish enough to jump into this snake pit.

Do you think that Chas has cut them off? Or that mm thinks she can do without them?
Louise said…
She might be using this Vogue gig to set herself up for a political career once she exits from the RF.

I don't think that she realizes that politics is not very glamorous. Although she has what it takes to be a real life Serena Myers from the tv show Veep.
Anonymous said…
Yes, and this post isn't even to 200 yet. And even if it exceeds 200 and one doesn't have the button to show more, it's possible to just get notifications, read them, and then reply from the bottom and @ whomever, so really, not a big deal and this is a fun sideline for Nutty, not her life's calling.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
I'd like to say that even Americans aren't dumb enough to elect that woman, but we all know better. Still, I don't see her in politics, it's the red carpet she wants, but 1) she's a terrible actress; 2) she's past the use-by date of Hollywood unless incredible talent exists (see 1); and 3) by the time she's left the BRF, she won't be able to do the hot girl or the cute girl or pretty much anything other than middle-aged hoochie momma, and not that there is anything wrong with middle-aged hoochie mamas, but I don't see that as a role she'd want. She won't be able to go back to yachts, but maybe some day-trip fishing boats off The Keys?

Also, the Vogue issue is September and mm declined to be on the cover because "it would be boastful". Uh-huh.

I think I'm going to have to quit following this soap opera/trainwreck because it's too frustrating to watch the BRF allow this trashy woman who did nothing but (fill in the blank) the right rich guy then be given a title, unlimited funds, and be allowed to trash an institution.
Girl with a Hat said…
I'm not sure if she wants to monetise her effort here. I think she deserves it.
Thank you for the info.
SwampWoman said…
Sorry, y'all, I meant I can see the button for more posts when it reaches @ 200 posts, not 100. Apparently I'm not as great a multi-tasker as I would like to be.
Anonymous said…
Just a little note TorontoPaper1 has resurfaced with a new tweet. "Silence was a veil. The truth surfaces." I believe this relates to the Express article about MM and Harry being cut loose yesterday. Also just to get this info in place I heard today that MM is staying at an apt in Knightsbridge (sp?) and Harry's back staying at Nott Cott.
The DM just slammed on her, who did she tick off there?! Grab that screenshot before it disappears, it is a zinger!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7295371/JAN-MOIR-cause-Meghan-Markle-supporting-Foundation.html

JAN MOIR: The cause Meghan Markle is mostly supporting is the Me, Myself and I Foundation
Ozmanda said…
And we once again get this -

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-and-prince-harry-may-buy-la-home-so-archie-can-spend-more-time-with-grandma-doria/news-story/28d4d9c2725470c977ef064331ffecf9

This seems to be the PR machine trying to diffuse what happens when they are cut loose.
Ozmanda said…
Wow that DM article is a zinger!
SwampWoman said…
If you feel this strongly about it, I hate to think about how the British must feel.
gabes_human said…
Hello Nutty and Ladies, as you’ll see by my orgasmic reaction on the newest topic, I no longer have to content myself with lurking.

What are your thoughts on Charles and Cam removing the Sussex’ from the recruitment page? The DE and Google are saying they’ve been cut off without a farthing from the royal wallet. “Prince Harry and Meghan in shock split with Prince Charles - ‘Hows he going to afford it’. Have they really been cut off? Is the supposed trip to Balmoral the royal kiss off ? I’m anxious to hear what y’all think.
Anonymous said…
Holy crap the BRF has unleashed the hounds! I don't think dear Meg's birthday party at Balmoral is going to be quite the social event she was expecting. Poor Harry if he hasn't turned sides back to his family he's doomed to some rough days ahead.
Ozmanda said…
I think it is interesting because they are doing the exact things I would do if I wanted to make sure people didn't speak out about any major secrets within the home (eg. A fake baby). By personally selecting staff they can try some semblance of control - or so they think.
Ozmanda said…
Ann - I think Lord G got the go ahead to get things moving - should make for interesting times.
Anonymous said…
Mischi, Nutty has said several times that this is a hobby only, so happy to share :) Of course, she might change her mind. Nutty?
Anonymous said…
True that, @Swampy, but I can't quit watching now. I got a real good feelin' something bad's about to happen lol. (You know what that's from, right?)
Suzanne Wilson said…
"Anti-Royalist" isn't a political position in the U.S. It just isn't. Agree this is really tacky of Megs. Hoping my fellow Americans grow disenchanted with the idea of celebrities and billionaires entering politicd.
Anonymous said…
"You have to wonder how a woman, whose jarring demands for privacy make the ultra-secretive Bilderberg group look like a desperate boy band, can suddenly disport herself across a magazine and a website that is read and devoured by millions." --- perfection.

I am sure glad that the megster doesn't read what is written about her. And oh, what I'd give to be Lord G's date to the Balmoral Birthday Ball. I so want to watch. But it does seem that if the duo hadn't been dissed (or is that ditched) by KP, this would not be running in the DM and the separation would have been explained.
Anonymous said…
@Ozmanda I do too. I think that's exactly what we are seeing. The start of the PR war to separate MM from the BRF. TP and DD kept saying that they had to give her enough freedom to destroy herself and she did it in record time. I still believe Prince William is one of the small group that makes up TorontoPaper1.
50 and counting said…
Koo kept it classy when being hounded by the press back in the 80s. I remember thinking she was a nicer person than Lady Di. Andrew is godfather to her daughter.
SwampWoman said…
@ Elle, happy laugh, Yep, I know where that's from. I agree.
Anonymous said…
@Suzanne, Just to be clear, there was *nothing* political about my statement & I was not trying to take a political position of "anti-royalist". I just have an opinion about the trainwreck. Nothing political about it. And I have grown very weary of the inappropriate and unqualified celebrities and billionaires entering politics, but I'm not here to talk about politics, so I do not address that. My comments are personal opinions about the Markle and should not be interpreted in any other way.
Ozmanda said…
Ann - that is interesting theory re: TP1, I can see that. Elle - I want to be his date also! I have had a similar career to Lord G prior to his current post, so I am very familiar with some of the tactics we are seeing.

I don't think it is coincidental suddenly seeing DM articles tearing her apart - whereas before they were cloying all over everything she did.
Anonymous said…
Oz, that sounds like a badass job, and thank you for letting us know that Lord G is closing the loop. I am encouraged as well.
1 – 200 of 201 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids