Today Royal watchers will be looking forward to the annual Christmas walk, as the Royals leave the Sandringham estate and walk to St. Mary Magalene church for the 11am service.
Who will be there, and what will they be wearing? Will this be the first Christmas walk for Prince George and Prince Charlotte? Will Edo show up looking handsome - and what will they do with Andrew?
Here's an open post to discuss.
----------
The Cambridges released a black-and-white photo of their family this morning, a shot taken by Kate of her husband kissing their youngest son, Louis, while Charlotte and George look on.
Louis looks adorable and Charlotte looks fine, but George looks as if he'd rather be elsewhere. If Royal photoshopping has now become acceptable, how about 'shopping in a more flattering shot of the son and heir?
Who will be there, and what will they be wearing? Will this be the first Christmas walk for Prince George and Prince Charlotte? Will Edo show up looking handsome - and what will they do with Andrew?
Here's an open post to discuss.
----------
The Cambridges released a black-and-white photo of their family this morning, a shot taken by Kate of her husband kissing their youngest son, Louis, while Charlotte and George look on.
Louis looks adorable and Charlotte looks fine, but George looks as if he'd rather be elsewhere. If Royal photoshopping has now become acceptable, how about 'shopping in a more flattering shot of the son and heir?
Comments
I guess British Columbia would be the most logical place to visit in Canada if she, or they, were already in L.A. to see her mother. I will believe that blessed reunion when I see verifiably authentic photos.
If Harry is presently in a rehab facility, on the one hand it makes sense to get him as far away from England as possible for privacy . .but on the other hand, BC is *really* FaF away from London. I would think that his family would want him to undergo such treatment in the UK so that he could be closer by in case of a medical emergency/paperwork needing to be signed/or the possibility of family visitation or a day pass for him to visit family. Detox can be a brutal process for the long-term addicted, and medical complications are possible. Having him the length of an ocean plus a huge continent away would seem too far for the purpose. I'm sure there are top-notch and discreet facilities in Scotland, for example.
Meg's Canadian contacts/paid 'friends' all seem to be based in Toronto, or Ottawa in the case of the PM. BC is really off the beaten track for anybody that she knows from her former life as a TV actress. It's a weird/odd time of year to be ostensibly taking 'business meetings' about her glorious return to show biz in North America, given the Christmas/New Years/Hanukkah holidays. It'd be a great retreat this time of year for a celebrity couple who enjoyed rustic outdoorsy pursuits in the rain. This does not describe either of the Sussexes to me.
I'm not sure why JT would feel compelled to say anything about the Sussexes visiting; I don't find other world leaders compelled to commentate on foreign-born celebrities who might be visiting their country for the holidays. JT is a known associate of the couple, which is not something I would think that any world leader remotely interested in reelection would want to remind people of at this juncture. Meg and Harry are toxic; particularly her, as more and more revelations about her cosiness with Harvey Weinstein's circle comes to light. But JT was photographed wearing blackface so he must share with Haz the fraternite of 'Socially Insensitive Boneheaded Halloween Costume Wearers.' I know very little about Canadian politics or JT beyond his missteps in the press and friendship with the Harkles, but I suppose he's a case of nepotism triumphing over ability to explain his current post. His judgement seems rather compromised, and if he's still so willing to court the Harkles, as immature as they. Counting them as friends is not going to burnish anyone's reputations now, particularly if one is a head of state. So if I were Mr. Trudeau, I would consider piping down on my words of fulsome welcome for Dimwit and Mercenary Meg.
You've probably gathered I'm English. My last bad encounter with a narc was 18 months or so ago, whereas previous bad experiences had been pre-Internet.
In those days, my `researches' led me to the concept of personality disorders, eg sadists, but no further. Even counsellors were unaware of narcissists' dynamics. So I had little idea of what was really going on - PD husband was clearly hanging on in hope of my buying him out or his cleaning me out, a v.tricky customer. Apart from that, I hadn't a clue what was going on. His mental world was internally coherent but completely different from everyone elses' and 200 years out of date - tho' I did identify gaslighting. Nobody could enlighten me.
This time was v.different. I'd got back in touch with a former friend who I thought had recovered from a breakdown. Nevertheless, she turned on me in a real narc rage at my presuming to criticise her or rather, telling her to stop being mean to me.
Wondering WTF was going on, I went to the Internet. There's an enormous amount there now, mostly originating in the US. All was explained but I still checked my perception out with an excellent counsellor.
It's been impossible to explain it to friends who have never experienced a narc. It's just not on the radar of the average Brit. They cannot believe that someone they think they know well can be a Jekyll & Hyde, especially if the narc makes sure to get his/her sob story in first, turning the tables, smearing the victim.
I think MM wanted a British man because the negative aspects of her reputation had not yet reached our shores, despite the common language, and the average British bloke would be blissfully ignorant that such people even exist. If she targeted the stereotypical Tim-Nice-But-Dim with family wealth, she'd be made for life, all her Christmases would come at once.
She's pure text-book and will live for ever in the medical annals, along with St Martin, the French Canadian trapper with the hole in his stomach!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/cities-boasting-the-most-millionaires-around-the-globe.html
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/image/189876354684
I made a screen grab of this comment from about four hours ago from the article with this headline:
Prince Harry and Meghan celebrate Archie's first Christmas in luxury Vancouver Island hideaway along with Doria Ragland as the rest of the Royals spend time together in Sandringham with the Queen
It reads as follows:
“They were on Air Canada Xmas. Meg is flying to San Francisco Saturday. Aunt works for air”
Odd this person didn’t say her aunt mentioned anything about Harry or Archie. Of course Apple is in the Bay area, so Meghan might be heading down there for something related to the mental health video gig with the folks in Cupertino and perhaps on to LA for New Year’s.
I would add that it's not on the radar of most people. The narc is so sweet, helpful, accommodating, and charming to everyone else, and so cruel to you, that it is crazy-making. To everyone else they are soooo NICE. Too NICE! Total BS personality to what you, their victim or prey experiences.
Your experiences/perceptions are questioned for their validity because they are in direct opposition to what others experience. Sad.
Harry needs help. I hope he is receiving it.
Meghan on The Castle is ghastly. She is an awful actress!
Yes—I have lots of hope! I think it’s a very possible scenario that they are separated. I do not think Harry could have made that Santa video with her in a 5-mile radius, and her oversights seem to be growing larger and more reckless.
That said, I also think it’s possible that the others’ predictions will prove true and we will have to endure another Megnancy.
I hate to give her any credit, but she’s quite the case study.
As I said earlier today, I think her singular skill as a royal is unsteadying the ground beneath us. She blurs the truth so much and via so many channels that it’s hard to know for sure. She has political correctness working in her favor, which compounds the problem because people in her orbit have always hesitated (and still hesitate?) to act. If not for the Queen’s Christmas speech, I would go with my gut and say Meghan is outta there. Not sure anymore, but I am full of hope.
1) Suits is often on repeat when I am at the gym on the little TV on the elliptical machine. They show a bunch of episodes back to back; the premise of the show appears to be Attractive People doing Legal Things & Sneaky Things. It's not like NCIS or Friends with a cult following.
2) I have seen 2 VERY famous people in my life (I'm under 40). One was an A-list musician at CVS without any entourage. Another was an Oscar winning actress at a wedding I went to, she was a friend of the bride's family. What did I do? In both cases I stayed my ass where it was and went on with what I am doing. It's true some stars get mobbed, but generally, worst case scenario some fans come and ask to take pictures or get an autograph.
If MM had manners and class, she would bring positive press to the restaurant where she dined and it would be a win-win for all. I think it's more likely she was on the lookout for more famous friends than Ms. Priddy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_British_princes_and_princesses
"Also, Harry and Meghan declined Archie getting a title so he could have a normal life. "
Agree with everything except this point. Harry may have wanted to decline a title but No way Megs would. It was not offered.
Did I read somewhere on here (by someone much hipper than I) that the title of Prince is something of an automatic for the first and 2nd generation of the direct heir? In other words Archie is great grandson of HM so no title. AsCertaining Charles, it's an automatic once he ascends throne.
I could be wrong. I so often am. :)
@sirstinxalot
That would be a little less annoying if it made any sense
https://www.britishbabynames.com/blog/2017/09/top-100-most-popular-names-in-england-and-wales-2016.html
Thanks for the clarification
I also believe, if Harry felt strongly about it, he would put his foot down. Like he did with inviting Fergie to the wedding supposedly. He is a born royal, he knows the back doors. I am sure if Harry was deeply concerned about MM reaction to him not wanting a title for his children he could have discretely talked to PC and gotten himself off the hook with MM. Just have a high ranking palace aide or PC tell MM it's not not an option as part of the PC slim down plan for the monarchy.
I don't think PC is the pillow some think he is. He loves his sons and grandchildren too, he would take a fall for Harry in that type of situation. He has thick skin after all the years of criticisms from the public and media. Let MM blame PC for Archie not having a title and let Harry focus on his marriage and baby. I don't think one was actually offered due to PC long standing plans to slim down. Nothing to do with the Sussex's disasterous first year behavior. They were allowed to say they declined so Archie could have a normal life. Brownie points from the anti-monarch crowd. It makes Harry and MM look more relatable by being "normal" and not rich snobbish royals looking down on commoners.
Regardless of Harry’s fond associations for the name Archie, If in fact he had some, whether through a school friend, or a military comrade, Harry would’ve been well aware That just calling his son “Archie”, bare and unadorned by either a longer given name or several middle names, was a serious finger in the eye to Royal tradition. His own bloke he moniker of Harry is short for the Princely moniker of Henry +3 middle names besides. As for Meghan, The fact that “Archie” as a name is primarily known in America from two sources: leading 1970s television bigot Archie Bunker,, Who was renowned for his discomfort with black people, or a pop-culture comic book character with blazing red hair, that’s kind of a relic of the 1950s ...Or, as she has proved herself, a leading name choice for household pets, whether a dog or cat ...None of this sounds impressive enough for the firstborn of Her Holy Wokeness for whom Mama mist certainly would have expected an HRH title. The name Archie unadorned by any other names sounds to me like an inside joke, or the petulant place filler by parents Who needed something for the questionable birth certificate, and had been denied and no one certain terms royal styling for the product of anIVF experiment under taken off the reservation and in secret. It’s one thing to have Archie as a family nickname, like his father of record is called Harry for daily use but is actually Prince Harry Charles Albert David, to give him his full due. Why such a plain, bare, bourgeois Sounding name for their firstborn from two people that never waste an opportunity to remind us on their social media that they are to be styled “their Royal Highnesses”? Why didn’t Archie rate a full name, by three or four? He feels like an afterthought in every possible way.
Meg, Harry, Archie and the Christmas tree were all in separate rooms. The feeling of disconnectedness is owing to this not being a real Christmas card with anyone in the same room as each other. Meg got drunk on the Tig, arsed around with Photoshop at 2am, Emailed it to the Queens commonwealth trust, and then a sober light of day, blamed it on her “friend” Janina. Finis. No actual babies were harmed in the making of this Christmas joke. Only exploited from long distance, which is the only distance Meg has. She hasn’t been in the same room with that baby since September, and I marvel that even that happened.
Oh the name Archie. Here in the Midwest, I am surrounded by little baby boys named Archie. Tons of them. (And Atticus, but I digress). It’s a “new hip name” here in the upper-middle-class tundra. Everyone I’ve asked, though, has no idea who MM is...much less named their son after him.
As I previously posted, I’ve been in rehab. A narc ex is the huge reason. So charming. Everyone wanted to be his friend. He was the shining star in every room except our home. He isolated me...I couldn’t have friends. My dad was dying and I wasn’t allowed to visit because my dad “looked fine”. When my dad did die, I went to his house to be with my mom for a week. He would call me multiple times a day, screaming at me. He twisted me to his world views, I would have died defending him. Why did I stay? The mystery of the narc, I guess. He had me good.
I promise I am a normal, optimistic human now lol. I just worry for Harry...an addict to begin with then subject to a narc. It won’t end well for him.
His face color. His wild eyes. The lashing out. The wrinkly clothes and shoes with holes...personal hygiene is the first thing to go when it’s falling apart. The weight loss. The personality change from fun Harry to teeth-gritted Harry. Plus it’s just a feeling from his demeanor. I’ve been around tons of addicts in inpatient and outpatient therapy. They all have a “feeling” to them.
@Hikari, you're right about JT, other prime ministers & political leaders not welcoming celebrities, but I was thinking of PH & Rach as royal / political visitors to CA. Now that I think of it, that seems foolish. They really are more like low-rent cable-tv celebrity types.
I know someone who was considering naming her son Archer. Someone said to her Archer is a nice name, but you have to make sure people don't nickname him Archie. That was the end of the name Archer!
I could not believe it when the Harkles picked the name Archie. The only Archie's I am familiar with are the comic book character, Archie Bunker, and a poodle who lived up the street when I was a kid. So unusual for a baby, much less a royal baby, to have a nickname as a Christian name. I thought it was a joke when I heard it.
@Hilari I would go a step further the disconnection of the three of them on the card is because they are in three different locations or perhaps three different continents. LOL I don't buy their happy family image.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that it's not funny at all. Just sad that an innocent child is being used as a pawn in MM's self aggrandizement and social climbing games. Nothing about them appears to be a normal, loving family providing a stable home for poor Archie.
She has acquired wealth, power and a world stage by marrying Harry, but she is only a beloved and respected royal to her fanatic supporters (and even then, I would not associate the words beloved and respected with them).
1. Her accumulated personal wealth as estimated by and published over and over again is grossly exaggerated. She mixed with the rich and famous by being a hustler. Harry's wealth may be small when compared with the elite of the world, but it is far greater than Meghan has had, and she gets the benefit of dipping into the Sovereign Grant and profits from the Duchy of Cornwall. (Gosh, it did go to her head and she spent wildly!)
2. She does have the power to dominate attention from the media, and the wealth enables her to dominate and control to a ridiculous degree, but she has no power to make change or do anything meaningful. She cannot change legislation, build anything (the money she gets goes to support her lifestyle), create anything. Even her power as an influencer is exaggerated.
3. She most definitely has a world stage. She did so much hustling to get that global platform (even manipulating her way into giving a speech at the UN), but it was only when she outed her relationship with Harry that she got that attention.
Meghan got what she wanted, but what has emerged is that it does not make her happy. Compare her standing on stage at those fashion awards, cupping her belly with a smug look on her face and drinking in the adoration, with those awful interviews she gave in the documentary and the self-pity on her face. As a narc, she wants the attention and power, control and domination, but the more she gets, the more unconscious fear she has that her deep-seated insecurity and inadequacy will be exposed.
But she has serious mental issues and it makes her unable to be happy and contented. She will continue complaining and dividing and eventually people will get completely tired of her. We already see this happening. She also has a counter-Midas touch. Everything she touches flops.
She has access to experts and talented people most would be thrilled to listen to but no......She knows best.
She truly is a legend in her own mind.
I imagine how she must be fuming and licking her wounds after the Christmas card debacle. Meanwhile the royal family must be relieved that the Duke of Edinburgh left hospital and the Christmas day walk went very well. George and Charlotte! Need I say more.
https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dave-obee-welcome-royals-to-our-little-island-corner-of-paradise-1.24042148
Prince Edward’s children however did have the automatic entitlement to be Prince and Princess however he decided that since they were so low down in the line to succession he did not wish them to be burdened with that status; nonetheless he did decide that they should carry the titles of the children of an earl hence Lady Louise and Viscount Severn – Viscount Severn is the secondary title of the Earl of Wessex.
Even though there was no automatic right for the child Archie to be HRH Prince Archie since he is only the great-grandson of HM he could have been given the title Earl of Dumbarton his father’s secondary title. It is decidedly strange that this did not happen.
I can only hope that Canadians are sharp and would not let themselves be manipulated by the "abused Meg" sob PR.
That is the cherry on the pile of PR disasters for the duo.
No need to issue a kill photo decree for a photo that looks just like the original released. The image is already all over them Internets.
If they announce another baby is on the way, as some have speculated, I think it will be obvious if she is REALLY pregnant or if it is another surrogate. (I firmly believe she was never pregnant, because I have been four times) I say that because if she is, she will start showing the clear signs that were missing before.
Lainey actually wrote today that the British tabloids wanted to make a big story about how Meghan and Harry weren't around for the Sandringham Christmas celebrations but they were foiled by HM including Archie in her Christmas Day speech.
Well, Lainey, I have news for you!!! The tabloids DID make a big issue about how Meghan and Harry aren't/weren't around for Christmas at Sandringham! And they will continue to do so as Meghan has no royal engagements for January.
The fact that the editor of the Times Colonist has reported that hundreds of people were aware that the Smirkles were in the Victoria area now makes the story even stranger.
While this new information now leads me to believe that they are in Victoria, the question is how they exert control over these hundreds of people to not reveal this fact, with not one single person spilling the beans. (I know that Canadians are polite, but really.. not one person posted on Facebook?)
The reference in the article to people being confronted by guards is stunning. I can understand guards on an official visit, but how are the guards permitted to block people from circulating freely in their own community when the Smirkles are there on a private visit? This isn't Wimbledon, after all.
It is fortunate for the Queen that few people in Canada are following this story, because it wouldn't boost the already waning support for the monarchy in Canada.
>>>@Elle, thank you for pointing out the Queen's use of "welcomed" in the speech. Very interesting. For me, the fact that his BP birth announcement had NO signatures was a huge red flag. No doctor signed off and it was different than any other I had seen in the past.<<<
I was very surprised, to be honest, that the Queen included not only a mention of welcoming her 8th great-grandchild, but that that portion of the speech was accompanied by a lingering image of the presentation photo with HM, PP and Doria. Meghan was therefore firmly included in the family for her 'achievement' of the year in bringing forth Archie, since the broadcast featured photos of most of the other family members doing various activities throughout the year as well. This seemed to me to be a very generous act on the Queen's part, given all the trouble and heartache the Sussexes and their selfish dramatics have caused to HM and the Royal family since they married.
Perhaps HM was advised that it would look bad and only give Meghan more fodder for her banshee wails of racism and mistreatment if she were excluded, since so many photos of the rest of the family were in it. Or maybe the Queen did not need to take advice and wanted to do this anyway, in the spirit of seasonal love and forgiveness. (A picture of Andrew was not included in the speech, but he did attend Christmas with his family this year unlike the Harkles.)
I say I was surprised on account of the Sussex duo being currently banished, and Harry most likely in rehab, forced to go there by the Queen and his father. Meghan wants us to think that she's at some 5-star resort in BC enjoying family time with her mother and baby, but if that were the case, I think we'd have seen a better (actual) Christmas photo of them together, like normal people. The Queen's speech comes right on the heels of yet another Photoshopping controversy from MM, who cannot be relied upon to be quiet and non-controversial even when 'on a break'. We will never get a break from her, I fear. She will be milking her connection to the Royals for years and years to come, even post-divorce, especially if she trots out another pregnancy. If she and Harry divorce, she will return to America but her reach through social media is global. A divorce will not make her shut up; on the contrary, it will free her up to be an even bigger irritant than she is now, because any such curbs on her as the BRF has been able to employ will be entirely gone. And because people love a really juicy trainwreck, she will garner plenty of spectators to her after-Harry freak show.
So any language 'welcoming' the biggest fraud that anyone has ever perpetrated on the Royal family is indeed an interesting choice of parlance. Because we were all around in May to see that Archie's welcome at his birth was virtually non-existent. No doctors. No title. No gun salute. Her Majesty conspicuously absent at the christening of Harry's first child. No photos of Archie with his Cambridge cousins or anyone else, really, apart from the 'official' ones. Most telling of all to me is that no one, but *no one* **ever** mentions Meg or her baby. The mention by the Queen (unnamed) is the first acknowledgement by any member of the Royal family of his existence since the tepid family reaction the day he was born. That's why it shocked me, kinda.
The Prince of Wales proudly displays framed photographs of his other grandchildren in his home. No Archie. No snaps of him in the Clarence House garden with the bambino. Strenuously odd. Meg might be the Queen in her own mind, but is she in a position to deny Charles a photo with his grandson? Charles doesn't have any photos of Archie because Meg and Harry don't have Archie themselves. If they did, we'd surely have been treated to more glimpses of the tot than we have seen.
So . . .Harry is either a) in rehab at an undisclosed location, b) partying it up with Megs on Vancouver Island c) partying it up *without* Megs at an undisclosed location
I just had a bit of a brainstorm . . .what if he's *supposed* to be in rehab on family's orders but he never showed up, instead enlisting a mate to help him film this cheesy video *as though from rehab* in order to throw his family off the scent? One would suppose that if he were expected at at facility and either checked himself out early or else never arrived, that BP would be getting a phone call. Perhaps they have, but if Haz is loose in North America on his own recognizance, bringing him to heel would be very hard from London. Maybe he's given his RPOs the slip again. It's the shoddiness of the video, plus the fact that Haz appears to be high in it which dissuades me against rehab. If he wanted to broadcast this video to Scotty's Little Soldiers, one supposes that any facility posh enough to cater to a Royal would have had a few more resources . . staff and technology . .to help him craft a better looking video message than this. This effort looks strictly DIY.
Just a few thoughts to further muddy these murky waters . .!
Charles doesn't have any photos of Archie because Meg and Harry don't have Archie themselves. If they did, we'd surely have been treated to more glimpses of the tot than we have seen.
I also agree with you that the virtually total lack of acknowledgment of Archie's birth, the lack of traditional and lack of photos and interaction with other Royals speaks volumes regarding his place in the family. I, too, am baffled by the Queen's mention of her eighth great grandchild. Perhaps it's damage control in the event of divorce.
If Meg is cut loose from the BRF she will make a lot of "noise" and continue her regular shenanigans-- a divorce will not make her shut up -- but I wonder who will pay attention to her if she is not H's wife? And if she does not have custody of Archie? Who really cares what she does/will do?
I've also seen a lot of people praising Charlotte and George for their behavior on the Christmas walk and I don't know if they're just happy to see those kids or are very bad at reading body language, but I did not feel it was a resounding success. Charlotte was also praised for "having Diana's empathy" for hugging the one woman in the wheelchair, but she'd actually refused to shake hands/greet people prior and turned away whenever Kate encouraged her to do so. Not saying she was extremely badly behaved or anything like that, but she clearly wasn't feeling it and that's okay at her age. George did shake a few hands (and apparently also hugged the same woman, according to previous comments in this thread) and didn't look thrilled, just a bit reserved and did what needed to be done.
Now, I know people will say it's very overwhelming for young children and that William and Harry also found it difficult when they were younger, but I'm a firm believer that has more to do with their upbringing/exposure than personalities. Again, look at the other (European) monarchies where many royal children are exposed to the public during (brief) public appearances from a very young age. Overall, they seem to bear the public duties and responsibilities much better than the BRF, even those of William/Harry/Beatrice/Eugenie's generation. I wouldn't be surprised if that's also down to the age/generation of the monarchs though; many in Europe are closer to William's age than Charles, let alone QEII, and it's possible they're therefore more "modern" and know it's important to start at a young age since those children (or their sibling/cousing as heir) will be given more duties and responsibilities in less time.
And @fedde not Fredde
I read that she wasn't visiting Victoria but was trying to get into Vancouver for a possible fertility clinic. Another site suggested DNA testing. *sighs* It seems the saga is never-ending. That said, I highly highly doubt she's out here. She has connections on the East Coast and in Toronto, not BC. Vancouver is not Cali 2.0. BC has some metropolitan areas but most of it is very rural and secluded (ie, private), which knowing Markles, is not what she wants. She wants to be seen and to be adored. Coupled with spotty cell coverage and such, it could interfere with her social media exploits and Lord knows we can't have that.
https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/dave-obee-welcome-royals-to-our-little-island-corner-of-paradise-1.24042148
Also, I have not been able to find anywhere where the male owner of the restaurant denies the story. He said he denied the reservation, given their security was too much.
IMO, skippy is not a source.
She did two Christmases with them and I suspect that at the first one she was very much the newbie who got a lot of attention and 'strokes', but at the second, that she did not fit in was more apparent and it was uncomfortable for her.
To say that she did not want to be apart from Archie is ridiculous (jetted to New York to watch a tennis match and to Italy for a wedding, and that was just the two international jaunts we know of so who knows how many 'at home' trips there were for whatever that took her away from her son, never mind the time she spent 'working' on her Vogue and SmartWorks projects).
The BRF have a magical family Christmas with sparkly things children adore and pressies and great food and servants to take care of everything (whom, unfortunately she cannot order around), and the nanny (who probably knows the child better) would be with Archie and the family would dote on him.
The media should stop putting out the ridiculous Meghan PR without some kind of critical analysis, or even ignoring it!
By the way, the media focus on Charlotte for the Christmas walk was about 'creating a story' to easily hook readers and not a true reflection of the event. They could easily have created a story about George and made him the focus, but it was Christmas Day and there was not much thought put into the choice of photographs and headlines and a story line.
>>>o be honest, I found QEII's speech quite underwhelming. I won't go as far as calling it a word salad, but it sounded mostly like a recount of historical events and then some weird bridge from her great great grandmother to Archie to Jesus like whoever wrote her speech was desperately trying to fit in both Archie's "welcoming into the family" and also needed a link to the Church of England's teachings. The theme was obviously "small steps" but, in my opinion, she barely touched on any relevant issues in the UK. Granted, I haven't paid much attention to her speech in past years so perhaps this is very typical. But it wouldn't hurt for her to listen to the speeches of the continental European monarchs who (again, in my opinion) do a far better job at touching on important events/changes "their" citizens have to deal with and try to advise/unite the people (and some also touch on "personal" events in their Royal house). For example, Felipe, Gustaf, Willem Alexander, Henri and Filip.<<<
As an American, I have only heard a few of the Queen's speeches over the years, Christmas or otherwise. I watched her speech after Diana's death, and I've heard a few of the Christmas messages. This year's was of particular interest, and I'm sure others felt similarly, owing to her 'Annus Horribulus' 2.0 and her public acknowledgment that she was finding this year's speech, unsurprisingly, a struggle to write. I don't have sufficient background to know if this year's speech was typical of her usual output or not. Inserting commentary on political matters of the day seems to be not in her remit as the sovereign above politics . . not surprised that HM did not want to touch upon Brexit in what is supposed to be a comforting seasonal greeting to the nation. The strength of the House of Windsor is in its sense of history and continuity throughout that history. ER has presided over some very bumpy times before now throughout her reign and the seminal events of the latter half of the 20th century. Now she's nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st. Her serene non-involvement, at least vis a vis public statements about current affairs protects her from appearing partisan, however unintentionally. You've got your politicians to speechify about the struggles touching Britons in their everyday lives. Idealistically, it would be wonderful if your Queen could truly 'unite the nation' with her words and example--that is, I believe, her conception of her duty, or was, in the beginning. But in a pluralistic and fractured society where it appears that a growing number of her citizens actually hate her and want to pull her house down, not to mention the fact that the Church she is the head of is scorned, derided or just plain ignored by a majority of her people--these religious tenets which she holds dear, I can well imagine that writing a message to promote unity under these conditions is a challenge indeed.
The British monarchy is unique in its longevity and its attempt to still uphold standards of a bygone age. When HM and PP and Charles pass on and the mantle passes to William, this monarchy will likely look very, very different. Until then, let's not ask ER to change her ways of nearly 7 decades, or rush her off the stage before her time. Her time will eventually pass, and I think the whole world will mourn that passing.
The Christmas message achieved its purpose, I think. It was generous of her to include mention of her 8th great-grand, considering what a mire pit that whole saga is. I do wish that the mention of Jesus had not come so close to the (oblique) mention of Archie--it only reinforces Meg's view of herself as the savior of the monarchy. She doesn't need any more encouragement.
The Christmas message achieved its purpose, I think. It was generous of her to include mention of her 8th great-grand, considering what a mire pit that whole saga is. I do wish that the mention of Jesus had not come so close to the (oblique) mention of Archie--it only reinforces Meg's view of herself as the savior of the monarchy. She doesn't need any more encouragement.
I expect an Archie-is-the-savior drop at any time.
No offense, but the "longevity of the House of Windsor" is not that long compared to some of the other monarchies I referred to. Nor are they "hipster monarchs" and most certainly not comparable to H&M.
You said her Christmas message achieved its purpose... which was what, exactly? To give her Christmas greetings to her "subjects"? She did that with her last sentence and this could have been easily achieved by a Christmas card/greeting.
In both of your messages you appear to make a distinction between QEII and the other European monarchs as if her/UK's situation is very different. It is not. Many of the other monarch's countries have undergone a "bumpy" year, some even more so than the UK. None of those monarchs are allowed to interfere in their country's politics but that doesn't mean they cannot refer to the upheaval certain events/decisions etc have caused or will cause and remind their people they are in this together to unite them, rather than divide.
I'm not in any hurry to have them rush back from 'Break' . . anyone? Wonder if Megs will arrange a 'sighting' of them getting off their private plane, or if she will try to get Heathrow to roll out a red carpet for Herself.
This may be a topic for another open post (Hi, Nutty!) but I'll ask it here:
If you had the opportunity to meet their Royal Highnesses, the Duck and Duckess of Sussex, would you? In the context of an event--a dinner, or perhaps at some charity event, which would entail significant conversation with them? Let's up the ante . . suppose you are working with a charity organization and the Sussexes want to 'participate' in whatever manner that is. So this 'meet' would entail working with one or both of them (gah) and spending several hours at least with them and facilitating their logistics around your organization? Would you take this on? What do you think you would observe?
I look forward to the answers and am gonna pop some corn . .
Tell me about your rehab in Vancouver.....
No offense taken and none back at you, but I am going to decline to be drawn into an argument/debate about the merits/demerits of the Queen's Speech. I have, as already mentioned, not heard enough of her speeches to analyze their content. As an American, I don't feel it's my place to comment negatively on how Her Majesty handles her speeches or her decisions about her reign. I have even less familiarity with current events on the Continent or who's who in their royal houses. It feels like you are attempting to pick a fight and this is not the space, nor am I the person for it. If you are a subject of ER, perhaps you should write to Buckingham Palace with your suggestions. Debating me here seems pointless.
" If the editor of the Times Colonist writes that they are in Victoria and that he knows their address, then I would believe him. I can't see that he would risk his reputation on this "
.
Anybody can be bought, or coerced into saying anything. The bleedin hideous E-Card is indicative, to me, anyway, that they are not together. She is desperate for people to believe that they are together. If they are truly together then I am sure she would have been ' seen ' by the plebs.
Although this is dated back to November I have a sneaking suspicion we are going to hear more of the same come February on. From the express:
One royal commentator has claimed the couple need a confidence boost following their Africa trip and that America could be the best place for it.
Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams told Express.co.uk: “There is no doubt whatever that both Harry and Meghan need a confidence boost.
He claimed the Sussexes’ private trip to the US next month could be the perfect chance for them to plan an official visit.
He said: “My bet, and hope, would be that on this private visit to the country of Meghan’s birth, they will plan an official visit before too long.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1198843/meghan-markle-us-trip-prince-harry-baby-archie-news
MM isn't going to let go of her fantasy of being feted and accoladed as top-tier royalty on American's shores; a narc's wet dream.
She may even time it to be able to simultaneously bump clutch on constant loop to everyone's detriment, God help us.
If a legit publication knows the address of where they are staying, then I tend to believe it’s true and they are in Victoria. Victoria doesn’t really make sense to me, but from that article, they are not only in Victoria, but are being entertained by people they know there.
I only have boys (brothers and sons) so sister-dynamic is foreign to me, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Bea would like it if her wedding date is announced and then Eugenie announces she is pregnant. She wouldn't be able to hide it for too many months. Now I totally believe that MM would do that, but not sure if sisters would?
Why won't she let the rest of the family spend time with Archie?
Why was his big debut in a foreign country to a complete stranger?
We have seen how she cuts off people like friends, a husband, and her own blood family. Why doesn't she want Archie to have a relationship with his cousins? Even if she didn't get along with Harry's family, why not try to put differences aside for a few days so he can visit with them? Because she acts like a selfish lizard face.
I would explain to MM I would love for her to come be part of my CookieShark Charity day. I would need her to be on site at 8:00 AM and would love for her to help me arrange chairs, check people in, and distribute t-shirts for everyone attending. I would tell her there wouldn't be any speeches or photo-ops, and that we request no social media posting about the charity. I would remind her that she agreed to all of this several months ago.
Then I sit back in my chair and wait for her to tell me she's not coming anymore, or that she'll be happy to send "H"
“We have seen how she cuts off people like friends, a husband, and her own blood family. Why doesn't she want Archie to have a relationship with his cousins? Even if she didn't get along with Harry's family, why not try to put differences aside for a few days so he can visit with them? Because she acts like a selfish lizard face.”
IS SO DEAD ON I DEFY ANYONE TO FIND A WAY TO SUGARCOAT IT!
Go ahead, I’m waiting....
How do we know they don’t? I assume they maybe don’t, but how would we know for sure, especially if they really live on Windsor grounds?
I love your explanation of HMTQ's reference to Archie in her speech. Brilliant.
@Fedde,
No offense taken and none back at you, but I am going to decline to be drawn into an argument/debate about the merits/demerits of the Queen's Speech. I have, as already mentioned, not heard enough of her speeches to analyze their content. As an American, I don't feel it's my place to comment negatively on how Her Majesty handles her speeches or her decisions about her reign. I have even less familiarity with current events on the Continent or who's who in their royal houses. It feels like you are attempting to pick a fight and this is not the space, nor am I the person for it. If you are a subject of ER, perhaps you should write to Buckingham Palace with your suggestions. Debating me here seems pointless.
December 27, 2019 at 1:29 PM
I wasn't attempting to "pick a fight". I merely shared my opinion on the speech (and Christmas walk) to which you replied with arguments I did not agree with and asked for clarification. You are obviously free to decline giving clarification or examples, but perhaps you should not be making such sweeping generalizations and present your assumptions as facts if you are not informed on the matter. If you, as an American, don't feel it's your place to comment negatively on QEII's decisions about her reign, then maybe you can courteously extend that favor to the continental monarchs, rather than call them "hipster monarchs" and such. I can also do without your patronizing advice, thank you.
I'm aware there are quite a few Americans on Nutty's forum which is exactly why I gave the examples of other monarchs by name - their speeches can also be found online, even in English. Gustaf even touched on the reason he stripped his grandchildren (except for Victoria's kids) of their royal titles in his speech. Some of the other European monarchs do a speech on New Year's, rather than Christmas so we'll have to wait a little longer to hear what they have to say.
KayeC
@tatty, I went back and looked at Eugenie from Christmas, and you could be right....she has gained a little weight back since marriage, but looks healthy. Bea looks thinner than normal, especially in the face, but it is probably due to getting ready for the wedding (working out, stress, etc.)
I only have boys (brothers and sons) so sister-dynamic is foreign to me, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Bea would like it if her wedding date is announced and then Eugenie announces she is pregnant. She wouldn't be able to hide it for too many months. Now I totally believe that MM would do that, but not sure if sisters would?
December 27, 2019 at 1:55 PM
I don't know if she's pregnant and obviously don't know the ins and outs of Eugenie and Beatrice's relationship, but they've always seemed very close and I can't imagine one of them being mad at the other for sharing good news. Well, unless perhaps Eugenie announces her pregnancy during Beatrice and Edo's wedding... Timing is important for royals.
She's never going away. She wants to be the next Oprah.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7831355/Duchess-plans-turn-Sussex-Royal-brand-global-empire.html
@Hikari, the simple answer is 'no', I would not willingly spend any time with Rach & PH unless W&K asked that of me, but I don't expect that will happen. I think it's much more likely that we'll all just hang out, drink G&Ts, and photoshop Rach & PH "cards" for fun.
I would decline to work with them on a charity or anything professional, though (as fun as @CookieShark’s fantasy sounds!). They are a risk and I would not want beneficiaries of any charity to be Markled, nor would I risk my professional reputation on either of them.
@Fedde, I cannot disagree with you. I wish I could. I also felt the Queen had some non-sequiturs (though perhaps not so much if we back up and take in the year’s events on a whole) in her speech, including the bit about her father knowing a secret (D Day) that he could not reveal. I think we all could be prone to wishful projecting at this time, but I wondered why she chose to highlight that to her public—wouldn’t she always identify with that lonesome state of being in possession of a secret? Brexit status was never a secret, so why did that particularly resonate this year?
Anyway, it’s odd times, so my wish for all of us in the coming year is clarity.
In your comments comparing the House of Windsor to other royals of the Continent, you highlighted their collective youth as a superior feature to the way the British monarchy is run. You advised Elizabeth to look to the younger houses of Europe for pointers as to how to make more effective speeches and be more in touch with her people. Is that a fair assessment? My point is, you appear to value the modernity of these younger sovereign’s over the British tradition exemplified by Elizabeth. There may be value in what you suggest, which I suggested intern would be something that may speak to William as a viable means going forward since he is the same age. Expecting Elizabeth to change her long-held patterns at 93 years of age and having been queen for nearly 70 years seems a futile expectation at this stage. And I still don’t think that the Christmas speech is necessarily the time or place to be as “modern” as you seem to prefer her to be.
The British monarchy goes back to approximately the year 1000; if there is an older monarchy still in operation, that is news to me because it flies in the face of everything that I have read. But I’ve not read everything, which I really admit to. This may get me dismissed as an egocentric American, such as our reputation, and I admit that too . But my primary interest is the history of my own country. I am well read on a number of topics, but I confess that modern European history and politics is not one of those areas. If and when the speeches of modern European royal houses become imperative for me to know… Such as if I plan an extended visit to one of these countries or meet people from them, I will study them. I trust that Elizabeth Regina will do the same if she needs to. I thought her speech this year hit the right notes under incredibly difficult circumstances, but I can understand why you would disagree. That’s really all the more I have to say about this.
From opening remarks, about the legitimacy of the Queen being the Queen: Her Majesty and Prince Philip are both second and third cousins. When the bones of Czar Nicholas, his wife Czarina Alexandra,and four of their five children were found (the fifth child’s bones were found at a later date), it was Prince Philip’s DNA they used to identify the Romanov family. Prince Philip is a descendant of Victoria and Albert, the Danish Royal Family, Czars, and more. His lineage is perhaps more royal than his wife, Queen Elizabeth. Thus, the monarchy is with the right family.
After watching the engagement interview, I noticed that Harry looked down or seemed momentarily unhappy every time Meghan spoke of “fitting into” or being a part of the royal family. When Meghan spoke about change, new things, “like Princess Diana, Harry seemed happy and more engaged.
Meghan has not done anything to Harry. Quite the opposite - now the world sees the real Prince Henry. It is not a pretty sight.
I find it dumbfounding how stupid Meghan was during her pregnancy. I am 100percent certain she was not pregnant. The most unbelievable fact is that she seemingly was playing “Catch Me If You Can” with her bump. Having been pregnant several times, and with family members who are ov-gyns Iknow that the stomach does not deflate or cut in half while sitting or crouching. Meghan, in her classic Sharon 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞 look, wearing a short dress, no stockings, crossing one of her legs high on the other in an obscene way, and her tummy deflating and then swaying like a balloon, must have had quite a laugh with Harry. How daring they are/were to break all the rules and get away with it! Plus silence the press and media with threats of lawsuits or actual lawsuits.
The “baby” shown at Windsor does not resemble the card of the baby half shown in Harry’s arms later. The first baby looked big and pink, and the second baby looked tiny and newborn. I see both Harry and Meghan in the face of the Archie seen in South Africa. Am I the only person who noticed how Harry flinched when the baby, held up on Meghan’s lap, nearly touched him? Odd. Maybe the surrogate or nanny takes care of Archie most of the time - it is common in upper income families to employ nannies, or even working parents’ children are closer to day care workers sometimes.
The Christmas card is so bizarre, it must be an inside joke. Who in the world shows their child to the world in such a bizarre way? Forget about photoshopping - this picture is actually hurtful towards the baby. The baby, instead of being shown as a beautiful little one, looms like a balloon in a most unflattering way. Who does this to their child? If anything, Archie looks photoshopped to appear as uncute as possible. And I saw a nice-looking baby in the S.A. videos.
I am tired of the Sussex pair. They actually bore me now. I know I am commenting, and I read this blog (and amazed by the intelligent and fair commenters), but really? No matter where or what these two do, it is one of the following: improper, boastful, lying, attention-seeking, hypocritical, tasteless, and so on. They are like hamsters who cannot get off their wheels.
Harry for a human shield. I’d like to get Harry on his own as well. Holy grail would be a meet and greet with Archie with either of his parents, or at least some genuine wallet photos… Most new parents love to show off photos of their baby, But I know I’m probably asking way too much. But the whole scenario is fantasy so why not… The point is to get as many of my questions answered as possible and Archie is a big one. The corollary to that big question is whether or not Rachel has a discernible soul.
For those opting out of a close encounter with the Harkles, Imagine that you are invited to make roulades with the Duke of Cambridge. You got to ask him one question about his brother or his brother’s relationship. Everything in the room stays confidential, and he has promised to be candid. Go.
That is how 'paternal' Harry is!! Gimme me a break!
I imagine the Queen's speech was her way of saying encouraging things in a tumultuous year. I am not an avid watcher of her speeches as it is more of a background thing in my family. Most people watch as the speech for a sense of continuity and comfort, not cutting edge modern views.
Actually, I would imagine most would not want modern or cutting edge insights from the Queen. I'm sure we will get them from Charles when the time comes.
@Hikari, always interesting to read your thoughts, indeed everyone's thoughts. Just a small point about longevity of other monarchies. I believe Japan has the longest in the world. Around 2,000 years if I recall.
Good suggestion. Panel interviews are how many companies are hiring these days to get a consensus opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. We could pose as a board of directors wanting to give the Sussex Foundation 10 million dollars but we need her to give us a presentation on how the money would be spent. With charts and photos of her philanthropy in action. No photos from 2014 allowed. Watching Rachel top dance for us should be entertaining…
You are correct…The Chrysanthemum Throne is at least 2000 years old. I lived in Japan for six years, so I’m surprised I didn’t think of it, but I was focusing on European monarchies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7831355/Duchess-plans-turn-Sussex-Royal-brand-global-empire.html
.
Then something is really rotten in Old Blighty.
Smegs may want to be the next Oprah, but even Oprah's popularity has faded in the US. And she did not "pull" all the BS shenanigans that Smegs has--Oprah started out as a legitimate journalist who read news in Baltimore at a major network station. Subsequently, she went to Chicago and hosted her own talk show in a time slot up against the very popular Phil Donahue. She held her own and her show/power grew from there. One key difference between Oprah and Smegs is that Oprah appears to have integrity whereas Smegs appears very sketchy and dishonest in her actions. Not to mention disrespectful of anyone and everyone!
Therefore, I do not see Meg as a global brand/star on the same level as Oprah. She does not have the credibility or style.
Yes, I saw Harry with Archie in his arms, walking or swaying. That video was very careful in portraying Harry as a loving father (although I have no doubts that he is a great father). I also saw his unplanned, unrehearsed look at his son. Granted, I think I would look slightly annoyed if my spouse kept jumping my baby up and down as Meghan did with Archie, and quickly flinch if interrupted rudely as Harry was by Meghan.
>> >You know? In the medical world, its called a review panel (for malpractice claims).<<<
Maybe for some situations but not all. Ha! Ha! Ha! I sued for $500.000 and just walked in for a preliminary settlement talk, stuck to my guns and walked out with $450,000.
With Meghan, I would not trust anything to be asked of her as she is an inveterate liar. That is why I look forward to the court case she has to progress thru the standard discovery, etc....
@Hikari As far as meeting Ginge and Cringe I would not want to do so. I am too familiar with narcs and despise being in their presence.
I would love to cook with W & K. My question to William: What did you advise Harry about (marrying) Markle?
@YankeeDoodle I agree with your statement:" I am tired of the Sussex pair. They actually bore me now. I know I am commenting, and I read this blog (and amazed by the intelligent and fair commenters), but really? No matter where or what these two do, it is one of the following: improper, boastful, lying, attention-seeking, hypocritical, tasteless, and so on. They are like hamsters who cannot get off their wheels."
All I can say is that hamsters never go anywhere on their wheels. LOL
I'm afraid you insult Habsters by describing the gruesome duo as such. I've owned hamsters since I was a little girl (and have has 6 different varieties) and they have always been cute, loveable, and pleasant to be around giving enjoyment on so little money...none of which describes the Harkles! lol But I get your point and I suggest they are more like rats in a maze, going here and there and never accomplishing anything, soiling their surroundings, destroying things and eating their young (figuratively of course).
Sussex Royal Brand -
When I first read the headlines, I thought: didn't I read something about grousing that she was applying the word Royal to something which protocol says should not be? Princess Royal versus Princess.
when I hit the comments section, one of them mentioned the idea that it is a way for them to control others from making money off them.
I think yeah, could be ... yeah but ... what has her past historical behavior been? With her, past behavior can well be indicative of future behavior. This is MM (after all). Nutty was the one who pointed out that her colors tend to be seasonally off (hadn't picked up on that and then wow, in my face). Merching could be described as a way of life which could be back with The Tig - more or less?
(Oh my goodness - narc's wet dream - about snorted out my wine out my nose when I read that). Umm, very descriptively on target (IMO).
I have never owned one, but I do think they are cute, warm, furry little creatures who bring happiness to their owners.
Oh I am so sorry...I was just joking with you! Now I feel bad that you feel bad. Guess I willl be careful now when I joke!
@Hikari, I would ask Will what he learned from Mi6 about Rach that gave him specific concerns about the relationship. Afterwards, W&K & I could have a Pot-de-Creme-off (I would do bittersweet chocolate with cayenne and cinnamon since Kate likes spicy, and I would top it with a rum whipped cream for Will -- W&K, I am available almost anytime :)
I love to make pots-de-creme. Yours sound delicious! I make Dorie Greenspan's recipe. I top them with salted caramel sauce and whipped cream. Delicious! Would love to make anything in the kitchen with W&K and Mary Berry, too!
Well, I and the hamsters of the world thank you! Now I have to watch my back from the rats after I denigrated them. lol
@DesignDoctor
Now I have you two blame as I just went downstairs and made an amateur 'pots de creme' (heavy whipping creme and chocolate) and probably put on 5 lbs on for eating 4 ounces of the concoction! Wished I had the salted caramel tho but it would of added another pound to my frame. lol
And agreed re Kate's clothes, too. Rach's taste is so ticky-tacky!
I liked your 'sugar/calorie' math although I don't think that's how it works...lol
Now you mention creme brulee and darn it...I have a lot of heavy whipping creme and unsalted European butter, so you got me thinking I might indulge on that tomorrow. I hardly ever eat sweets anymore, I just like the act of baking (after all I have to do something with my 300+ cookbook collection).
@Elle Agreed, I am a total fan of all things pots-de-creme--I especially love the little china cups. I also love custard and creme brulee!
I love breaking the caramelized sugar on top and the contrast in texture of the crunch and creamy custard. at Christmas dinner the hostess made Mary Berry's Christmas Pavlova. It was beautiful and delicious.
I would love to know what the Queen serves at Sandringham for Christmas dinner! Does anyone know?
I am in America but have come to love the Irish butter they sell at the store here in Texas.
I wouldn't think it would be profitable at all. But there are a lot of suckers out there....
Funny you ask what the BRF eats at Christmastime. I just read a day by day accounting of what the Royals eat at Sandringham over the days before and following. It was everything from game to roast turkey to ham, to easy meats the day after Christmas. It all sounded delicious.
As a child, my sister and I had a number of hamsters. We learned our lesson with our first two, little female Hamile and big female Henrietta. Two female hamsters in the same cage, one wheel, what could possibly go wrong?
Henrietta bullied Hamile. My parents, seeing their interactions for a day or two, said they would buy another cage to separate them. Well, early the next morning, my sister and I were awakened by a non-stop, squeaky noise. We went downstairs to discover that Hamile, the little one, was crazily running on the wheel,with the decapitated head of Henrietta going around and around on the wheel. Hamile was possessed, and finally my mom was able to stop her wheel, and take out the head and body of Henrietta. Mom, who had to break up the fights between my sister and I every day, said “Now you two should learn not to fight.” I looked at my younger sister, and said do not get near any wheels. She said do not be alone in a room with me. My father said that bullies never have their heads on right.
Never put a weak prince hamster with a fat, greedy hamster. One will end up without their head, spinning forever on a wheel. Or whatever.
Once I bought some French butter in a gourmet shop and it was to die for wonderful!
@SwampWoman I would love to know who her target demographic is and who buys what she is selling!
I’m traumatized by your hamster story and wonder if I’m not going to dream about decapitated hamsters spinning around in a wheel when I go to sleep in a bit. So are you saying that Henrietta was the victim of an industrial accident? The little one must’ve needed a hamster shrink to get over such an experience. My sister had one hamster, “Squirmy”, Who is buried at the side of the garage with the box turtle. I hope Henrietta went quick and felt no pain.
And @CatEyes and @DesignDoctor, I am a loyal devotee of the Irish butter, too. I also love the idea of cows with Irish accents, too!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/what-the-royal-family-really-eats-at-christmas/ss-BBWPcRM?ocid=spartandhp#image=5
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/food/5073402/royal-family-eat-christmas-day-turkey/
@CatEyes The article you posted is much more informative. Thanks!
I have read that W&K have many casual family meals with the children, so a separate table at the holidays is probably not going to bring the future of the BRF to a sordid end. PH & Rach, OTOH...
Not an accident. I think it was a quickly planned murder, made to look like an accident. However, if hamsters can be possessed, I would swear even Hercule Poirot would say Hamile had the devil in her. Her beady eyes were bugging out.
In my opinion, the death was a planned manslaughter murder.
@Yankee Doodle
I fibbed a bit as my 1st experience with hamsters did not turn out well (another decapitation event). My brother got a male and I got a female hamster. Well not too long after, my hamster bit my little finger almost all the way through and that night she attacked my brother's hamster and killed it. My father a physician, got so unnerved by it, as he (not knowing hamsters) thought the crazy female hamster might be rabid. So he had it euthanized and tested for rabies no less. Of course, to test for rabies they have to take off the head, Needless to say, the mean hamster wasn't rabid, just a hamster being a hamster (just a little meanie).
The moral of the story is don't put two hamsters together and wear thick gloves if handling one!
If it was planned it wasn't 'hamslaughter' it was capital 'hammurder'.
FYI all hamsters are beady-eyed..the better to kill in the dark with.
OMG, your story is almost identical to one of mine. One of our many hamsters was being held by a friend of mine, the hamster bit her finger, my friend threw my hamster against a wall, killing little Henry (this hamster was a male). Well, my friend went crying home to her mother, who then, with her husband, walked a couple of doors to say that the hamster must be tested for rabies and/or other diseases. My father had to take a full day off to take this hamster to a lab and be tested. When you only have ten days off a year, plus holidays, taking a day off for a hamster did not make Daddy very happy. However, our neighbors bought us another hamster, to my father’s delight.
I'm beginning to think there is a trend here...maybe there is a need to start a support group for adults traumatized by hamsters as children. lol
Don't get me started on the evils of bunnies!! Murderers dressed in fur and sooooooooooo innocent looking.
I'm partly joking because I do love animals and have had so many different kinds, even unusual ones.
When I read this Her beady eyes were bugging out. it reminded me of Smegs beady eyes frantically looking for the camera!!!!
I forgot to add I'm amazed your story was so similar! At least you got another hamster but my parents would never again let us have any.
@Fellow Nutties
In my childhood (in Texas) when the family got together for holidays we had a children's table but it was for practical reasons. I never felt bad about that since it was fun eating with my cousins.
I will say in my 59's with a bit of time on my hands (and maybe not thinking straight) I decided to raise exotic hamsters because they were popular again. Well, a big fat one got out and for the life of me, I could not find it in time. It was a Siberian hamster that my brother liked a lot. I didn't find it in time before I found its body. My brother asked about it and I lied and said I saw it jump off the balcony heading north toward the wildlife refuge abutting my property. He bought the story and I never had the nerve to tell him the truth to this day. RIP little guy!
You had to bring up bunnies. We had a bunny, named Brownie (because he was brown - duh). He had a nice life during the time he was with us. His own hutch, lots of bunny carrots, a big backyard (fenced!) to play in.
Well, our bunny had a type of Glenn Close murder. I came home from elementary school, looking for Brownie, and my mom said Brownie was killed by a dog. Well, you have to know this dog. It was very old, obese, deaf, nearly blind, was suffering from heart diseaseand was a day from death. Apparently Brownie escaped from his hutch, from the fence, and this near-death dog saw it, got up and chased it and killed the rabbit. The only happy ending was that the dog was not euthanized, due to its incredible recovery in killing Brownie, and lived for another two years.
Our family had enough of rodents, and everybody has dogs still today. An old dog doesn’t need to learn new tricks - it just has to get up!
Oh that is a true bittersweet story. Well if its any consolation, the bunny probably died of freight before the dog technically killed it. Better that than what happened with me..a new rabbit I purchased suffered a seizure and looked dead. I gave it CPR by breathing over its mouth and doing chest compressions only for it to come back and be paralyzed. Needless to say, what was I going to do with a totally disabled bunny. I instantly regretted my life-saving heroics. So when a little bit later it suffered another seizure, I accepted that the bunny had an unwritten DNR order and I let it die naturally.
Oh I am laughing so hard on that one!! As much of an animal lover as I am, I don't think I would have done that, and kudos to you for trying. I bet a bobtail made it cuter too!
I almost died from laughing. Thanks for the stories.
Going to sleep, I have one more story. When my daughter was a little one, we had two goldfish, named Napoleon and Josephine. One day, my daughter came to me and said Mommy, I think something is wrong with N & J. I asked how do you know? My daughter then fell to the floor, on her back, and put her hands and legs in the air and said “Because they look like this!” The fish had died, and went belly up. Too much food apparently kills goldfish.
Not that the horrible animal stories aren't compelling and related to the BRF, and I sure love reading this stuff (not at all lol), I am listening to the podcast about Diana's death, and read some excerpts from Diana's letters to Prince Philip. I noticed that she called him "Pa". Interestingly, Rach called Prince Charles "Pa" at the wedding, and I always wondered why. Now, it seems like more Diana cosplay. If she hadn't done so much of it already, I wouldn't think this. Did anyone else find that Rach & Chas wedding scene bit odd?
Harry called Charles Pa at his wedding to MM.
I thought her doe eyes towards Harry was a complete (not convincing) acting job. I thought the whole wedding was "off."
OMG, O AFI, O FFS, O GMAFB, O GFY
I think that those are good starter names for what Rach would eventually evoke with her journalistic "stylings" lol.
😆
It was the news about the Harkles' ambition to go global and control and merch everything (a commercial empire: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7831355/Duchess-plans-turn-Sussex-Royal-brand-global-empire.html) that prompted me to make the connection. I hope someone senior in the BRF is worried enough to do something. We all know it is going to be messy because everything they do is increasingly becoming messy (can't even get a simple Christmas card right) and the potential for something going wrong is huge, but also they are all talk and very little meaningful action.
Can Meghan keep the HRH/Princess of the United Kingdom/The Duchess of Sussex/SussexRoyal trademarking if her and Harry are cut off and no longer have official status in the royal family?
Also, will Meghan cling desperately to the BRF because she needs those official appearances for her brand, or will she take the titles and a huge settlement and believe she can use the 'royal' for her global brand but does not need the BRF for anything else, or will she be pushed out sooner rather than later and find that without the royal status and privileges Harry is just an annoyance to have around?
Marrying a successful, award-winning Hollywood actress on the level of Grace Kelly would have been fine. But the thick as a plank Harry married an Instagrammer, selfie-taker, and aspiring lifestyle brander. And are we surprised that the hypocritical feminist is turning her title (earned only by marriage to a wealthier man, might I add) into the career and platform she never could have on her own? Meghan's greed is a terrible reminder of how unjust and unfair the aristocratic system is. That is the problem with her. Kate had or developed a careful understanding, as most Brits do, of the delicate game of appearances the royals must play. Meg comes in with her Hollywood attitude - we're richer than most people whilst doing less important work but let us flaunt both our superior wealth and our superior personal skills/intelligence because our opinions MUST be heard. We're not just a pretty face.
I imagine the flight to SF alone, if reports are true, were to consult with lawyers or set up another tech venture for Harry (like that Travelyst...)
Or most importantly when Harry re-marries.
She should be stripped of all her titles, not worthy at all. Here’s hoping the Royal family are way past caring what others would think of treatment of Murky now.
"@Maria, She can't keep the HRH, but she would keep the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex styling until she remarries. ‘
Or most importantly when Harry re-marries."
I think Harry remarrying wouldn't affect Meghan's post-divorce title. His new wife (assuming he found one) would be "The Duchess of Sussex" while Meghan would be "Duchess of Sussex." At least that's my understanding.
I'm not convinced they'll divorce anytime soon but I'm also not convinced they actually live together all the time the way most married couples do.
I can’t see how there could be two Duchess of Sussex’s. Meghan could possibly become, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and the new wife The Duchess of Sussex. However we shall see, I’m hoping they will be retired off like Prince Andrew very, very soon.
Harry will not be cut off. Unless he does sometime very very bad indeed he will be HRH the Duke of Sussex until the day he dies. Even Andrew retains all his titles. So did Uncle David after the abdication. So long as she remains married to Harry, Meghan will retain all her titles too. In the event of divorce and until a possible remarriage, as others have said she will be styled Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, without the HRH.
Regarding the Sussex trademarking, it may not neccessarily mean that Meghan is planning on launching a 'magazine' or other 'brand'. It may just be a way of ensuring that nobody else uses the 'Sussex Royal' name to market anything. The Cambridges did something similar with their foundation. However, with the Harkles, cynicism is often justified so....
I agree it sounds confusing. But I've read that what would happen if the royal remarries first.
For example, see this link talking about Sarah's title if Andrew remarried.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/981697/sarah-ferguson-prince-andrew-wedding-news-latest-title-duchess-of-york
It says "Sarah would keep her title Sarah, Duchess of York, as it is the title decreed for former wives of peers by the most current letters patent.
Therefore it would seem effectively as though there was two duchesses, a confusing turn of events."
They could be retired off but they'd still have titles as Andrew does and as Edward did.
She is going anywhere, she’s staying, having baby 2 who will be her living insurance for a while.
She deseperatly needs good news, positive media coverage. Baby 2 will be her cessez-le-feu during the next couple of months.
After that, even if they live in different locations, she won’t care. She will continue to do her things, taking advantage of the prestige of the Crown, she will still have official commitments until Harry or her decide it’s time (because the kids are not todlers any more, because he or she found someone else...).
Concerning the divorce, she won’t have peanuts. I’m pretty sure unless Diana and Fergie she’ll be able to settle a great deal.
@Fedde
In your comments comparing the House of Windsor to other royals of the Continent, you highlighted their collective youth as a superior feature to the way the British monarchy is run. You advised Elizabeth to look to the younger houses of Europe for pointers as to how to make more effective speeches and be more in touch with her people. Is that a fair assessment? My point is, you appear to value the modernity of these younger sovereign’s over the British tradition exemplified by Elizabeth. There may be value in what you suggest, which I suggested intern would be something that may speak to William as a viable means going forward since he is the same age. Expecting Elizabeth to change her long-held patterns at 93 years of age and having been queen for nearly 70 years seems a futile expectation at this stage. And I still don’t think that the Christmas speech is necessarily the time or place to be as “modern” as you seem to prefer her to be.
The British monarchy goes back to approximately the year 1000; if there is an older monarchy still in operation, that is news to me because it flies in the face of everything that I have read. But I’ve not read everything, which I really admit to. This may get me dismissed as an egocentric American, such as our reputation, and I admit that too . But my primary interest is the history of my own country. I am well read on a number of topics, but I confess that modern European history and politics is not one of those areas. If and when the speeches of modern European royal houses become imperative for me to know… Such as if I plan an extended visit to one of these countries or meet people from them, I will study them. I trust that Elizabeth Regina will do the same if she needs to. I thought her speech this year hit the right notes under incredibly difficult circumstances, but I can understand why you would disagree. That’s really all the more I have to say about this.
December 27, 2019 at 3:33 PM
I did not highlight their collective youth as a superior feature to the way the British monarchy is run, so no, that is not a fair assessment. I made a comparison to several other monarchs whose speeches I felt had a better content, referred to current/ongoing events and the difficulties their citizens had/would endure from those and offered support in order to unite people rather than merely mention a couple of historical events (some of which those monarchs also included) and some weird link to a great great grandparent, a new great grandchild and baby Jesus. The age of those other monarchs had nothing to do with the content of their speech. Their parent (the monarch of the two) have given similar speeches when they were on the throne so it also has nothing to do with being more “modern”, hence my rebuttal of your assumptions. FYI King Gustaf is older than Charles, I figured the mention of his grandchildren would have been enough if you were not inclined to google him.
You specified the house of Windsor in relation to the speech, not the British monarchy in its entirety.
The only reference I made to the age/generational difference and perhaps a more “modern” style was in relation to how the (great)grandchildren of QEII were brought up in regards to public duties and behavior. That was not about it being more modern per se but the fact that due to the age/generational differences those other young royals would be expected to carry out duties for their monarch at a younger age (i.e. their royal station would be higher at a young age since their (grand)parent the monarch is much younger than QEII.
Perhaps next time you can take the time to actually read what I wrote before replying or just skim my comments in their entirety, to prevent another discussion about assumptions you made.
British public is not amused about MM starting media business. It would have been different if Harry married a successful businesswoman who then dropped the business and followed royal ways. This x listed actress using the royal title to get business success is another matter. I can almost touch the public anger. Dont think there is a way back for her.
The thing is, Oprah was an extremely wealthy woman when she started her media ventures and magazine. Good gracious, I can't think of many quicker ways to go broke than starting an underfunded newspaper or magazine. Okay, maybe starting a raw bar and veggie restaurant chain with ethically-sourced seafood and veggies from third-world countries not known for sanitation, but the newspaper/magazine/global media empire is pretty close.
Who is going to provide the money for such a foolish venture? I haven't researched the ROI for various media enterprises, but I wouldn't think that it is overwhelmingly high. (Nutty would be far better researched on such a question.)
The thing is, I think about investing money into a venture for a return. The "return" on an investment into Meghan, Inc., could well be (very) negative publicity for the royal family. It may be worth dropping a few tens of millions to MM and others for a very wealthy somebody or a collection of wealthy somebodies in order to eliminate the monarchy, for example.
@holly
Smegs may want to be the next Oprah, but even Oprah's popularity has faded in the US. And she did not "pull" all the BS shenanigans that Smegs has--Oprah started out as a legitimate journalist who read news in Baltimore at a major network station. Subsequently, she went to Chicago and hosted her own talk show in a time slot up against the very popular Phil Donahue. She held her own and her show/power grew from there. One key difference between Oprah and Smegs is that Oprah appears to have integrity whereas Smegs appears very sketchy and dishonest in her actions. Not to mention disrespectful of anyone and everyone!
Therefore, I do not see Meg as a global brand/star on the same level as Oprah. She does not have the credibility or style.
December 27, 2019 at 4:38 PM
I agree that MM comes nowhere near Oprah in regards to "star power". Was unaware of Oprah's beginnings as a journalist, have only heard about her difficult youth and subsequently know her as the talkshow host. Was never a big fan, but she seemed quite respected. I do think her popularity and star power has diminished in recent years, not only because her audience has aged etc. but also because she's become too much of a (hypocritical) celebrity and associated with Weinstein and such.
SwampWoman
I'm wondering about the negative comments about the royal Christmas having a separate table in a separate room for the children. We aren't royal by any means, but we've always had separate tables (in separate rooms!) for the adults and the children. The children get to eat with paper plates and cups in places with surfaces that are not ruined by spills. The adult meal is more formal.
December 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM
Elle, Reine des Abeilles
I grew up in a somewhat fussy Southern family, and we, too, had children and adult tables for large holiday meals. Who wants to eat with stuffy adults? (I still feel this way, FTR, lol). It is not surprising that the BRF has separate tables, too, esp given the intricate rules of dining with HM.
December 27, 2019 at 7:10 PM
IIRC, the discussion about QEII's Christmas schedule and separating the children from the adults (for more than just meal time) first started when George was born. Probably because that was the first time when it came up as a subject since he was a baby and the first heir to the heir to the throne. So, I'm not surprised it's been brought up again by H&M in relation to Archie. It was more about QEII not allowing time for the young ones since everything was strictly scheduled from meal times to hunting and spending time together as a family. And I don't mean not tolerating or allowing the little ones to spend time with their parents/relatives, but due to the strict scheduling everything had to be done in the alloted time. The public (at least those commenting online) thought was odd and very old fashioned, almost as in children should be seen not heard. George, Charlotte and and their other cousins don't seem to have suffered much during the past few Christmases with the Windsors, though...
The Harkles going rogue is dangerous. Consider what happened to the King of Spain's youngest sister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanta_Cristina_of_Spain).
It was the news about the Harkles' ambition to go global and control and merch everything (a commercial empire: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7831355/Duchess-plans-turn-Sussex-Royal-brand-global-empire.html) that prompted me to make the connection. I hope someone senior in the BRF is worried enough to do something. We all know it is going to be messy because everything they do is increasingly becoming messy (can't even get a simple Christmas card right) and the potential for something going wrong is huge, but also they are all talk and very little meaningful action.
Can Meghan keep the HRH/Princess of the United Kingdom/The Duchess of Sussex/SussexRoyal trademarking if her and Harry are cut off and no longer have official status in the royal family?
Also, will Meghan cling desperately to the BRF because she needs those official appearances for her brand, or will she take the titles and a huge settlement and believe she can use the 'royal' for her global brand but does not need the BRF for anything else, or will she be pushed out sooner rather than later and find that without the royal status and privileges Harry is just an annoyance to have around?
December 28, 2019 at 2:41 AM
Felipe did indeed deprive Infant Cristina of her dukedom for the accusations of fraud and corruption in relation to her company, but that was also something he had privately discussed with her and she requested the forfeiture of her noble title - most likely for the good of the monarchy (something MM and probably Harry either would never do). The royal title of Infanta is still hers though and she also retained her right to succession. She is currently 6th in line to the Spanish throne.
Raspberry Ruffle
@Marie, ‘She can't keep the HRH, but she would keep the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex styling until she remarries. ‘
Or most importantly when Harry re-marries.
She should be stripped of all her titles, not worthy at all. Here’s hoping the Royal family are way past caring what others would think of treatment of Murky now.
December 28, 2019 at 4:02 AM
lizzie
@Raspberry Ruffle,
I agree it sounds confusing. But I've read that what would happen if the royal remarries first.
For example, see this link talking about Sarah's title if Andrew remarried.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/981697/sarah-ferguson-prince-andrew-wedding-news-latest-title-duchess-of-york
It says "Sarah would keep her title Sarah, Duchess of York, as it is the title decreed for former wives of peers by the most current letters patent.
Therefore it would seem effectively as though there was two duchesses, a confusing turn of events."
They could be retired off but they'd still have titles as Andrew does and as Edward did.
December 28, 2019 at 5:01 AM
I also thought the ex would lose her “Duchess of …” if Prince Harry/Andrew were to remarry. It would be very confusing otherwise.
Not sure how credible the linked article is (lots of spelling errors/typos) but it also includes this: “So far it is not known exactly what would happen in this scenario as it has yet to play out in the British Royal Family.”
If, and that’s a big if, PA were to remarry (and to someone other than Fergie) then I’d like to think Fergie would voluntarily give up the “Duchess of York” if it were to become an issue otherwise and perhaps remain styled as Lady Sarah. She and Andrew have always seemed to be on good footing and while PP allegedly can’t stand Fergie, she’s always done her best to please the RF. MM, however, not so much. She’d be more inclined to find a way to off Harry’s fiancée than to give up her title.
I don't think Fergie has ever held the title of 'Lady Sarah'.
I think the saying "What goes around comes around" will eventually be MM's undoing. She's just not smart or appealing enough to win at the game she's playing. As the reporter was overhead to say about her in Morocco...."She's repugnant."
Not having many (or any) long-term friends that aren't a quid pro quo relationship is very triggering. I swear that I hear "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!" echoing in my mind whenever she makes an appearance.
The link I provided may not be the best...I just grabbed the first one I came across that discussed remarriage of a British royal after divorce when there is a living ex-wife. But I have read the same thing lots of places in the past.
It may be there is some ambiguity about what would happen. But my main point was there is no mechanism in place to automatically strip an ex-wife of her post-divorce title in the event her ex-husband remarries. That doesn't mean it can't be done but it's certainly not automatic.
But the issue is kind of moot. There hasn't been a divorce or even an official separation. And if there were, I am not convinced Harry would remarry before Meghan did. While she seems to have spent her life chasing fame and prosperity, I also don't get the idea she would be happy remaining single for years and years. It still seems she is that rare fish who thinks she does need a bicycle.