Skip to main content

 Trooping the Colours is almost upon us – an event filled with sparkly military uniforms, horses, parading and precision movement.  It is a dress up even for the women as well (no jeans allowed).

But it will be hard for the Queen.  Last year Prince Andrew did not attend.  Prince Philip stopped attending after 2017 when he retired from official duties.  This will be the first one where she cannot go home and talk about it with him afterwards.  And, it is the real first of many big events for her from here on out.

The first year after a close to you death becomes a series of sad firsts: the first birthday without them, the first anniversary, Christmas and so on.  Who she gets to celebrate her birthday (official or actual) with is not what is used to be.

But also “not there” will be you know who.  What do you think we will be hearing from Montecito which just happens to be announced at the same time?  New photos of Archie or maybe a live shot with his mother?  Or maybe not her but with Dad to make the link back to his family?  Riding his first pony would be darling and could then link back to the one of his mother on her first pony (double points).

Comments

xxxxx said…
I trust the Harry Markle blogger who continually says strip their titles, despite the possible downsides. H/M are chiselers. Like termites, always chiseling away to create their own version of half in/half out. I don't see what the BRF can do to stop this, stop their lies and misrepresentation of their Royal status. Sic their lawyers on them? Will this even work?

So strip titles and after this baby step, after an interlude, remove the Hapless turncoat from the line of succession. The Harry Markle blogger wants this too. This California based twosome are an insult to the British people. The BRF are making a mistake by not acting. They are testing the loyalty of their constituents, the British public.
HappyDays said…
Well, the DM is saying Meghan’s due date JUST HAPPENS to be this coming Thursday, which JUST HAPPENS to be what would have been Philip’s 100th birthday.

Obviously a planted story from Sunshine Sachs, so perhaps if Meghan is truly pregnant, she has either a scheduled C-section or perhaps will be induced. Or maybe the surrogate is scheduled for a C-section or to be induced.

At any rate, this is incredibly tacky and transparent.

Meghan likes all sorts of contrived circumstances to make it seem like there is a cosmic force in the universe that links Meghan to individual members of the RF or at least to make it seem as if becoming royalty was her destiny.

But anyone with half a brain would realize that nearly everything in Meghan’s life is carefully plotted out, staged, and curated to maintain her facade.

I pity her daughter. Because Meghan is so profoundly narcissistic, this little girl is likely to be put under immense pressure to be a mini-me of Meghan.

Archie will likely not be nearly as useful or marketable as his sister, so he may luck out and be shoved off to the sidelines, only to be trotted out for photo ops or to be used as a weapon and pawn against Harry and the royal family, especially HMTQ and Charles.

abbyh said…
What about losing out of the line of succession first off? That might be considered a greater threat to the monarchy (if they lost William and family)?

After that dust settles, then deal with the titles.
SwampWoman said…
I am so over the Montecito Misfits that it doesn't matter what pictures are out there to assault my eyes, I'm not buying it or giving them clicks. I'm completely disgusted by both of them.

How dare the poster child of crazy self-entitlement and greed lecture anybody on mental health? Bitch, PLEASE (and yes, I'm talking about the one with the alleged male dangly bits). You can take your woke bull excrement and cram it right up where the sun doesn't shine.

Anything coming out of Montecito is as false as her face and we all know it.
xxxxx said…
@abbyh
British know better than I do, as far as I know stripping titles is easier than removing Haps from the line of succession. If true, then strip titles first, then do the more difficult later on.
Also, by stripping titles this means that baby Arch and #2 will not automatically get titles when Charles becomes King. And you know M is banking on (literally to make bank on!) her children automatically getting their titles.
SwampWoman said…
abbyh said...
What about losing out of the line of succession first off? That might be considered a greater threat to the monarchy (if they lost William and family)?

After that dust settles, then deal with the titles.


Yes, the Maniacal Misfits of Montecito should be removed immediately due to mental unfitness.
Hikari said…
https://www.tiktok.com/@heavenstoberts/video/6969394171639631109?referer_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpopculture.com%2Fcelebrity%2Fnews%2Fprince-harry-doppelganger-taking-over-social-media%2F&referer_video_id=6969394171639631109&refer=embed

LOL

It’s amazing that for such an oddly assembled, fringe, unattractive collection of attributes, the Royal formerly known as HRH Bumbag has got so many doppelgängers. Who would have thunk it?
Fifi LaRue said…
TOTC: the wife's PR will find something, anything to put out there, trying to steal some thunder. She's predictable.
If either Hazbeen and/or the wife decide to return to the UK for the Diana statue unveiling, or for any other purpose, they will be loudly booed, and perhaps be the objects of thrown rotten tomatoes. Let them ride in their own carriage without the protection of Kate and Camilla.
HappyDays said…
Swamp Woman said:
Bitch, PLEASE (and yes, I'm talking about the one with the alleged male dangly bits). You can take your woke bull excrement and cram it right up where the sun doesn't shine.

@Swamp Woman...
You certainly DO know how to turn a phrase! Kudos and accolades to you:-)
Maisie said…
Greetings. Emails please.
xxxxx said…
@Fifi LaRue
Rotten tomatoes are not enough. Right thinking Brits should be putting eggs aside at room temperature to let them rot. Just in case the Haps/Megs show decides to darken your doors for the Diana unveiling. Realistically, I think if anyone shows it will only be #6. Though I think he will stay in Montecito and try (BRF and William permitting) to zoom it in on a large screen.

So me placing my bet now. #6 will participate via zoom or other video link. #6 has a built in excuse that he must stay and protect (what a cliché and abused word) TW, Arch and their newborn #2. My prediction is that Haps must also stay home to ward off bears with his flashlight, California bears that will invade to go after their chicken flock and who knows, Megs + children too. Protect from what you might ask? Sheer invented nothingness. As in M/H against a cruel Royal driven world. What a laugh for all grounded people, if they are even wasting their time thinking about their grasping to be Royal adjacent shitshow. I will admit to being grounded but interested.

I like to file this under the Divine Comedy, though lived out on the earthly Montecito, California plane. Add in the all too human comedy.
jessica said…
Well, Meghan’s m/o is definitely ‘Press/ ANY press! Keep me in the papers so I can read about myself everyday, with my fake names in lights!’ (Funny that the RF bio pokes fun at this and calls her Rachel)...so we can count on the fact there will be Press of Rachel/Meghan/Ms. Sussex anytime there are Royal events.

I think she creeps most people out, though. I mean who bashes a family then wants to keep associating with them? Tells me she doesn’t care about marketing or selling any product, she just cares about fame. Narc to the Max.

Random House is publishing this Bench book. So, we know they will buy the first million copies to make the NYT list. Why did they do this though?
Procter and Gamble have a deal with her, but we have yet to see what.
Archewell and Netflix.
Spotify sure has gone quiet.
A few charity organizations (the anti media one).
BetterUp in the startup space.

I guess everyone else can worry about the products. Meghan’s just here to be sold to the highest bidder (she’s used to that from yachting I suppose).

Anyway, the Queen and family...Meghan has to keep the Royal connection to keep selling herself to the Press via drama and pretend ‘Happy Families’ with Harry. Everyone in the RF is making it very clear that nothing will happen until the Duo divorce (or like I mentioned earlier, crime).

Maybe Sophie’s giggle is the fact the RF is in on this charade as it’s the only way for Harry to make money. False narratives. And the RF just doesn’t care as none of it is real.

Just trying to make sense of the whole thing.
lucy said…
Apologies for not speaking on current topic but I just finished reading through previous thread and had to bring this here

@jessica shared

Here is the profiles of Archie, and notice the difference for Charlotte:

https://www.royal.uk/archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor

https://www.royal.uk/princess-charlotte

In Archie’s profile, it’s clear Charles and William have never met Archie. They also make clear that the (photoshopped) christening never happened, otherwise why is charlottes mentioned and not archies? Also, no location of birth, nor witnesses.

WOW. This is fantastic! Perfect example of "less is more". I am currently struggling for words.

Bravo RF Bravo!
Enbrethiliel said…
@Lucy and @Jessica

The contrast between those profiles is indeed telling! I imagine a sugar would take offense at the "shortchanging" of Archie -- a complaint that is easily answered by suggesting the profile respects his parents' great desire for privacy.

Fun with shade aside, I'm sure the BRF are deeply regretting the decision to go along with the farce the first time the moonbump inflated (and deflated) in public.

I wonder what kind of profile Baby Charlie Diana Emerald Tiara is going to get.

As I understand it, and have probably said before, it is not legally possible to remove someone from the Line of Succession.

Individuals may renounce their place, as Margaret would have had to have done had she wished to marry Townsend.

Edward VIII was not removed - he may have been `persuaded' to give up the Throne but in his broadcast he made it clear that he could not continue without the woman he loved. The Kents have `removed themselves' by becoming Roman Catholics - the Duchess herself, by arrangement with the Queen, shed her HRH and taught music in schools as `Mrs Kent'.

Edward VIII threatened suicide if Wallis didn't marry him. She agreed reluctantly as, presumably, she believed him.

In H's case, the probability of him departing this life must seem high, whether by accident or his own hand. What spin might Megsie put on that? I think she'd shout to the rooftops that the RF had driven him to his death. She may have obliged H to relinquish his sporting guns but the H$Ms are now in the US where things are different.

Before Edw.VIII, the last king we disposed of was James II. He was usually said to have `abdicated' ie went of his own accord. He may have fled but was about to be faced by William III who didn't step off his ship at Brixham `all nonchalant' as if he'd had a trip around the bay aboard the `Skylark' - he had a veritable armada behind him. James returned and tried to fight it out, unsuccessfully.

The 2 previous kings to be removed were Charles I (1649) and Richard III (1485). Parliament tried to do it `legally' by putting the King on trial for `treason against his people'; Richard died in battle.

Before that, various kings met their end in `suspicious circumstances' ie were murdered.

That is just a brief summary to show the broad picture - detailed accounts would be superfluous.

Lady C now has over 60K signatures. It is highly unlikely that H will do as requested but it may help to demonstrate the strength of feeling against him. It'll put him on the spot anyway.
Enbrethiliel said…
@Nutty
What do you think we will be hearing from Montecito which just happens to be announced at the same time?

I can't top your guesses, but I do think she'll include a fake story including one of the BRF members, smugly believing that they will "never complain" and "never explain" that it is isn't true. Maybe a Zoom meeting between Prince Harry and Princess Eugenie, because the latter is still oh-so-grateful that the Sussexes "opened their home" to her. Otherwise she'd be living on the streets or something. With a new baby and everything!

We may also get a new story about what happened the day "Archie" was presented to his great-grandparents at Windsor. A heartwarming (fictional) anecdote about Prince Philip really wanting to hold him, as if he had a premonition that Archie would be the last great-grandchild he would ever see. And unlike "middle child" George, Archie was always special to him because of that. Despite his awkwardness with new technology, he insisted on checking up on the tot regularly after Prince Harry and his wife moved to Montecito. We may even learn of a gift from him that eclipses the waffle maker! When the truth is plastic, the possibilities are endless!
Magatha Mistie said…

So Li’lbet Pip Squeak will be born
on Thursday?
Could call her Thursty, a nod to mama too!
Magatha Mistie said…

@Enbrethiliel

I’m betting on false(literally) labour pains
announced during TTC.
Blamed on Braxton Hicks,
leaving her open for delivery
July 1st or 4th...



Magatha Mistie said…

Sorry Nutties for not replying
on previous thread.
Time difference is a bugger!
I’m asleep when the majority
of you are at play 🥴

Magatha Mistie said…

Deliverance

Plans are in hand
For Megsies new brand
Snout engaged, like a weevil
Her eyes are dilated
She’s getting frustrated
Heaven help us and
Deliver us from evil


Fairlight said…
@Magatha Mistie said: Heaven help us and deliver us from evil.

AMEN
Magatha Mistie said…

Trapped Wind

I’m not being unkind
The ho’s lost her mind
Dedicating her book to...
Pump Pump
The tart without heart
Filled with air, like a fart
Knows the Queen holds the cards
Trump Trump

Navymommy said…
ToTC will require a display of thirst even larger than the gawdawful wreath at the Iron Duke’s funeral. Perhaps a floral arrangement that wouldn’t even fit on the balcony with a sweet nod to Diana with forget-me-nots? Then she’ll stiff the florist for the bill.
Pump, pump?

We'd all be in trouble if our hearts didn't pump!

I always thought her overall field of interest was rumpy-pumpy.

Who remembers this:

` It goes boom boody-boom boody-boom boody-boom
Boody-boom boody-boom boody-boom-boom-boom,'?

https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/10458332/Peter+Sellers/Goodness+Gracious+Me ?

Of course, nobody now would dare show the Sellers-Loren film without this being cut, nor play the original version of the song, bar the 20+ yr old Irish lip-synch version on You Tube.
SwampWoman said…
Navymommy said...
ToTC will require a display of thirst even larger than the gawdawful wreath at the Iron Duke’s funeral. Perhaps a floral arrangement that wouldn’t even fit on the balcony with a sweet nod to Diana with forget-me-nots? Then she’ll stiff the florist for the bill.


Well. Payment in advance it is, then.
Magatha Mistie said…

@WildBoar

Oh Doctor I’m in trouble
Oh goodness gracious me!!




I'm not sure that `Lily' and `Pip' are `tributes' - they sound demeaning to me, especially if she's planning to inform us that the child's arrival will be timed to cause maximum pain to the RF, when they'll be thinking of Prince Philip.

Roll on the day when loyal subjects of the Crown can mark the `year's mind' of H & M.
@Magatha

I knew I could rely on you! Always `Swift and Sure'!
Magatha Mistie said…

WildBoar

As always Certa Cito
Magatha Mistie said…

Ex-essentialism

The line of succession for me
is the gripe
All other entails, are Just piffle,
and tripe
Nobody cares much,
they’re so far away
Using ex-titles, is so arriviste



Miggy said…
Prince Harry will have his HRH title removed from displays at new Royal fashion exhibition featuring his mother Princess Diana's wedding dress - as he and Meghan are demoted on Palace website.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9656753/Harry-HRH-title-removed-displays-exhibition-featuring-Dianas-wedding-dress.html
Magatha Mistie said…

@Miggy

The mills of God grind slowly...

Here’s a footnote to a post on the Army Rumour Service site:

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/harry-and-megan-how-long-will-it-last.277296/page-762

`The Oath you took to serve your Country as a soldier did not include a contract for the luxuries of everyday society. On the contrary it implied hardship, loyalty, sacrifice and devotion to duty, regardless of rank. So either lead, follow or get out of the fcuking way.'
As I've said repeatedly,

H cannot be removed from the Succession.

He has to go voluntarily or not at all .
Magatha Mistie said…

I know @WildBoar
‘Just’ wishful thinking
You’ve become very bold, hahaha!
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magatha Mistie said…

@CookieShark

She was never a celeb, nor a royal!
That’s what drives her!

Miggy said…
Lady C voices her opinion again...

Prince Harry's televised therapy session on new Oprah AppleTV+ show is as 'inappropriate as having sexual intercourse on television,' Lady Colin Campbell claims.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9656893/Prince-Harrys-televised-therapy-session-wildy-inappropriate-Lady-Colin-Campbell-claims.html
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
SwampWoman said…

Blogger CookieShark said...
Also, it makes no sense that someone who miscarried and now is having a difficult pregnancy would have a home birth. And she wouldn't be discharged from the hospital in 6 hours again.


The only other reason that I can think of for her drama is (1) she ain't got no baby, or (2) she's worried about what a blood test of the child could reveal.
SwampWoman said…
CookieShark said: "Gross misconduct" sounds like a term she heard somewhere else. Was the story put out to explain why there was no night nurse? Most people would just hire someone new.


"Gross misconduct" may have been a term applied to her.
SirStinxAlot said…
Definition of "gross misconduct "
Gross misconduct is an act which is so serious that it justifies dismissal without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, for a first offence. They must be acts that destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee, making the working relationship impossible to continue.

Great article lusting examples at https://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-gross-misconduct-workplace-20540.html

Examples of gross misconduct include:

Fighting or making violent threats in the workplace.
Stealing or vandalizing company property.
Falsifying personal information or work history.
Repeated tardiness or absences.
Chronic insubordination.
Sexual harassment or creating a hostile workplace for other workers.
While gross misconduct is often part of a pattern – recurring tardiness, failure to fill out forms correctly even after being informed of the issue multiple times, repeatedly getting into arguments with co-workers – some extreme behaviors may be considered gross misconduct even if they only happen once. For example, physically attacking a coworker or deliberately sabotaging a workplace project so that your business loses a client both fall under the "gross misconduct" category.
SirStinxAlot said…
I highly doubt there was any "gross misconduct ", merely M interpretation of misconduct by the night nurse. If there ever was one.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/prince-harry-royal-title-dropped-104156528.html

This is referring to labels at an exhibition. I wonder how many `micro-aggressions' like this will be needed to wear away their resolve?
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
More wishful thinking - a tweeked parody of a well-known music-hall song:

`Harry, Harry, the coppers are after you.
If they catch you
they'll give you a year or two.
They'll strap you up with wi-re
inside a Black Mariah,
So ring your bell
and pedal like Hell
On that bicycle made for you.
Hikari said…
@ Cookie,

If we could get full and unvarnished disclosure About the Harkles’ behavior In private and what they said to each other and to staff members from the various people on all of their tours that had to serve them and act as their security, what tales could they tell ... ?

If Archie is a strictly for hire baby (ies) Only trotted out for show, The failure of either of his “parents“ to spend any time with him playing or visiting his room makes total sense. Of course Rachel is not detail oriented at all, Because somebody skilled in deception Of this magnitude, having hired a child to portray “her son” would have made sure to Establish a comfort level with her child actor And be seen often with him doing mommy type things. I’m sure the child had a caregiver with him, Probably his own mother portraying the role of “nanny”. There’s no way that a child that young could have been taken out of the country for an extended period unaccompanied by a parent.

For me, the giveaway is her body language with Archie, whoever is playing him at the moment. She holds him Like she can’t even bear to touch him. Look at the photos of arch on her lap with Tutu—She’s grasping him under the armpits with the minimum number of fingers necessary to keep him upright. She had a firmer grip on him when she was carrying him in, but she had to as she was picking her way over pavement in 4 inch heels. Whatever picture she’s in with a baby, Both she and the child are facing outwards with minimal contact with each other. This baby, whoever he is on any given day, is only an accessory for her. There is absolutely no maternal relationship there. The child tolerates her as the grown-up who has physical control over him at the moment, but he doesn’t know her. There is no bond. I have spent 20 years in a professional capacity reading to children from infant up to preschool age. I have observed babies and small children with their mothers. I’m not a mom, but I have walked into toddler daycare classrooms for a story time and been Inundated with little bodies that crave contact with me. Children respond to loving adult attention, but we’ve never seen any evidence whatsoever that Meg can bond with a child. I hope, in all that is holy, that she absolutely is not and never will be a mother, and does not have responsibility over a child. With Meg for a mother, little lives will be irrevocably ruined. At two years old Archie would already be damaged indelibly If these two are his real parents.

The non-interaction between Archie and Harry is equally damning. Harry doesn’t know the kid(s) portraying his son. “Is it mine?” Harry is a bad liar and the truth slips out at intervals even when he doesn’t mean it to.
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maneki Neko said…
Just seen on the BBC app madam has given birth to Lilibet "Lili" Diana Windsor-MountBatten at a hospital in Santa Barbara.
Maneki Neko said…
Announced a few minutes ago. I did say it would be Lilibet or something similar. I'm sorry she named the child after the Queen.
Snarkyatherbest said…
lilabet? the queens nickname that her parents and husband used. that is just disgusting. so low. using a kids name to stay relevant and score points with the family you just trashed.
Maneki Neko said…
Sorry, I forgot Lilibet was born on Friday at 11.40 - the article doesn't mention am or pm.
This is more detailed:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-birth-baby-girl-lilibet

In a hospital? I don't know what to make of it.
Hikari said…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57378117

Oh my God.

They actually did it.
Teasmade said…
Wait, what about the scam Philip b-day?

Although this name is just as bad.
abbyh said…
So the home birth did not happen as hoped for the second time.
HappyDays said…
So she’s using her daughter’s first name to pander to HTMQ as she desperately attempts to keep her titles. Shameless.
Maneki Neko said…
Teasmade said

Wait, what about the scam Philip b-day?
---------
Maybe that was a distraction or a blind if she was already in labour/ the baby was already born. I cannot remember when the day (this coming Thursday) was announced.

What happened to the home birth? Complications? Did she really give birth?

I still can't believe they went with Lilibet and Diana. William will be incandescent.
Hikari said…
I’m speechless at their gall. Particularly, you know, if this isn’t a real kid.

Lilibet, the Queen’s cherished family nickname, used with her nearest and dearest, by her sainted Papa and her late husband...In the mouth of that whore using it as leverage in her scam? M does not deserve to have that name in her mouth.

As for Diana—that was expected.

Well. Let us await the official Palace statement, shall we?

Megalo the Malignant has no shame, but Harry—Shame shame shame on you, you worthless tosser.
gfbcpa said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggy said…
How disgusting this pair are. They have no shame.
gfbcpa said…
Friday, June 4 at 11:40 AM. The baby weighed 7 lbs. and 11 oz. It appears they will call her "Lili".
Kate Kosior said…
I literally cannot believe the set of stones on these two, to steal HMTQ's nickname. My mouth dropped open. Outrageous.
AnT said…
Sigh. “Lilibet Diana”...

What crass grasping evil idiots they are.

This is done to cause more pain to the Queen too. The press famously noted that Prince Philip was the last person in her life to call the Queen ‘Lilibet’ .......now the sulking narc pig duo snatch this pet name to rub it into her face daily via their press releases and the endless crap stories that lay ahead in the bushes.

They stole Prince George’s private or security nickname from him......now stealing the Queen’s very private name from her. Attached to the next rental kid.

Harry needs flogging for this endless creepiness, or for allowing his psychopath wife to decide this.

Funny she never seeks to honor her own Markle or Ragland families with either child. Just the RF who she and Harry say “abused” her husband’s father, creating the “genetic” awfulness of his poor widdle life.

The one thing I know for sure: they are miserably unhappy or they wouldn’t spend every day trying to insult everyone in the UK.

.

AnT said…



And, they released this tidbit about the “baby being born” in a way that is precisely timed to put the hooey on today’s evening broadcast of the Piers Morgan “60 Minutes” program in which he openly goes after her lies.

So obvious.

.
gfbcpa said…
Uh oh !!!!!!! Thanks for the heads up Puds. I will delete that post.
Maneki Neko said…
The 'best comments' in the mail are negative, same as here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9657501/Meghan-gives-birth-baby-girl.html#reader-comments

I couldn't remember if the Queen needs to approve names. She doesn't but but it would be good manners to make sure she's happy with the choice. I wonder what the Queen and the BRF thought of the choices. Surely the Queen can't have been happy? Which reminds me of Queen Victoria's "We are not amused".

From the Metro re. the Queen and names:
'It’s understood that the Queen doesn’t have to approve of royal baby names, but often her advice and blessings are sought, with her being informed of the proposed name before anyone else.

As royal commentator Kate Williams explained in an interview to CNN, the names chosen by royal parents must first be cleared with the queen, though ultimately the final decision rests with the parents.

She suggests: ‘Of course they have such respect for the Queen that if she says “I really don’t like that name”, they’d definitely take that into account.

Moreover, it’s thought the freedom to choose a name depends on your place in the line of succession.'

If the place in the line of succession has to be taken into account, then this gives H&M some leeway.

HappyDays said…
More doubt on the miscarriage story:

I just counted back 40 weeks, which is a typical full-term pregnancy. Forty weeks before Friday, June 4 is Friday, August 29, 2020 but Meghan claims her miscarriage was in July 2020, a month before Lilibet was conceived. At more than 7 lbs, this baby was full-term, so she can’t claim it was premature.

Getting pregnant at the next menstrual cycle is probably not impossible, but because narcissists are habitual liars, the date of this birth adds fuel to the fire that at near 40, she conceived on her next cycle.

Any nutties with OB-GYN knowledge want to add to thus?

I think Meghan had a IVF procedure that didn’t take, which is known as an IVF failure, not a miscarriage, but she duped Harry into believing it was a miscarriage, and the New York Times.
SirStinxAlot said…
Curious, is it normal for the media to announce a royal childs birth before Buckingham or Kensington palace? Is there a stool out front with the details?
lucy said…
@Enbrethiliel

Crying shame announcement involves child, I'd give my right arm to load page and read "bitch, PLEASE" 🤣🤣

Where is she? No school for Arch? She ever go back and get him? whoopsies
Is she ok? Fingers crossed she is just suffering a broken strap.
As to the question of possible guilt from last thread? Not me. She didn't birth Archie and not birthing this one.

How ridiculous was it to read Thursday after months upon months of "summertime" and bam PP's birthday now we get "Thursday". Well if it's a girl Guy and Bogart are out. Did she own a goldfish? Hamster? ..Whiskers Mountbatten-Windsor?

@WBBM do you feel HM will remove him from line of succession? 🏃‍♀️💨
😜
https://youtu.be/b3qmG9FG_Uw

























AnT said…
@Kate Kosior,

Agree with your comment: “Outrageous” is the perfect word for it.

.
Ava C said…
Oh God that name. How dare they use the name the Queen must associate with her own childhood and her parents and relations long gone. She must still miss them all dearly. Now polluted, like everything else the Sussexes touch.
gfbcpa said…
Maneki Neko - Supposedly Sarah the Dutchess of York wanted to name one of her daughters Annabel and the Queen vetoed it.
Ziggy said…
Somehow stealing the nickname Lilibet is worse than if they had used Elizabeth or Phillipa.
The nerve of them- they are truly psychotic.
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
AnT said…
@HappyDays,

Exactly....re timing....the math doesn’t lie, even if she does. But Megs is magical, right? 🤮. So born Friday, news today....

Again, I simply point to expediency. She had to do something to get attention away from Piers Morgan’s 60 Minutes interview today.

She seems to have decided to sacrifice her Philip’s birthday and Diana’s birthday plans. She will probably claim it was an emergency and the 7 lb 11 oz baby was early, as she knows nothing about reality, just about making stuff up to look like a victim or a holy wine guzzling seer.
Gosh, I go over to my allotment for the morning and all hell breaks loose!
That(the naming) is emotional abuse of the elderly. Those two are the worst kind of people. The world would be better off if they had never been born. And someone needs to call them out on naming their child after a woman they had recently accused of being racist, etc. How does that makes sense?
Congratulations to the surrogate.
AnT said…
@Puds,

We are in agreement! Great minds......

.
Teasmade said…
@Happy Days: re NYT miscarriage story: I have always believed that that was a piece of fiction from the $$$ hands of Sunshine Sachs.
@CookieShark, I agree with you about her rage at HMTQ. It's revenge in the worst, most personal kind of way. She's evil. Pure evil.
Enbrethiliel said…
When I first read the name, I thought y'all Nutties were kidding around! I can't believe it's real!

A friend who was the victim of a narc for years said that their great talent -- almost a (diabolical) gift, really -- is knowing exactly how to ruin anything for anybody.

And if you confront them about it, of course they will gaslight you. Harry's wife has the dubious distinction of getting to do her gaslighting on a platform provided by Oprah.

Ah, I'm still kind of in shock.

My husband just read out the name and I burst out laughing.

I cannot believe she straight up took all their names. What a psycho.
Enbrethiliel said…
Unless the Palace acts soon to contain the fallout from Harry's wife's narc rage, I anticipate a fake story about Harry and his wife informing the Queen of their name choice over Zoom and the Queen getting teary over the unexpected honor.

And perhaps another fake story about Catherine being pettily furious that Meghan stole the baby name she wanted for her next daughter.
Oh Floof said…
I can’t believe they did that. Wow. Just, wow. What a stunt.

They complain that the RF is racist, that the British media and people are racists, and they fled their nation, their responsibilities, their friends and family to protect themselves from…what? Meanies online? But even though the RF was cold and closed off to them, that the RF cut them off financially, and they didn’t make the Sussexes feel safe or loved or protected, the Sussexes insist on being part of the PUBLIC family celebrations and name their kid after these cold heartless people?

They keep going lower.

They should not be allowed on the balcony or at any major public events for the ToC. These two won’t stop attention seeking, ever.

Now we have two Charlotte Dianas and a Lillibet Diana, can we please stop with the Diana stunts?
Ava C said…
What is it with these sugars? "Our hearts are melting with joy and love ..." . I ask you. Are there really this many cretins in the world or are they all the same person?
AnT said…
@ConstantGardener33,

👏👏👏👏👏👏 “congratulations to the surrogate” —— well said.
Unknown said…
So, we also got a new pic of Princess Eugenie and her baby in tow. This would be posting a pic when they knew Rache allegedly gave birth.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9656119/Proud-mum-Princess-Eugenie-shares-sweet-photo-baby-August.html
@charade, there was also one this morning with photos of Bea and Edo out and about, and Bea had a hand on her tummy.
Enbrethiliel said…
Now that it has had time to sink in, I'm kind of surprised she didn't name the girl Lilibet Diana Rachel -- so that she'd be named after all the most significant women in Harry's life. She straight-up missed the chance to put herself on par with the longest-reigning monarch of the UK and the most memorable Princess of Wales in history.

The only way this could have been worse is if she had named the girl Lilibet Doria. But as @AnT pointed out, Harry's wife doesn't care about acknowledging either her Markle or her Ragland side. It's the Mountbatten-Windsors from whom she is demanding her pound of flesh. And although this is the worst offense in a long while, it is far from being the last.
Unknown said…
@Teasmade
I hate saying it out loud but I do think the miscarriage story was a Sunshine Sachs stunt. They demonstrated there is no depth too low they can plunge. Rache and H not mentioning the miscarriage on the Oprah interview is a huge red flag. If they discussed it at all, details would have been scrutinized to the millionth degree. As vague as they were, they still couldn't manage a believable story to anyone paying attention.
notimeforbs4 said…
Trying to connect name--notimeforbs49. Having a bit of a time but just have to say something. Shame on both of them, particularly Harry. To emotionally abuse your 95 yr old grandmother over and over---all I can say is there is a special place in hell for you. Notice that the announcement doesn't say that Lil' Ms Hoochie gave birth, only that child was born. Also, no doctor name just staff. Harvey Levin and the TMZ will be all over this. For God's sake, time to Release the Kraken
AnT said…
@charade,

Extremely good call on the duo not embroidering the miscarriage tale with Oprah.
Enbrethiliel said…
@AnT and @ConstantGardener33

I think the BRF will leak that there was a surrogate this time around. And leave enough hints to make it clear that there was very likely a surrogate used the first time as well.

The spin will be that the BRF were happy to go along with the fake pregnancy because they were so caring and welcoming toward Harry's wife, who would have been humiliated, had the world known of her reproductive sorrows. Besides, does it matter who the "gestational carrier" actually is, as long as the child is truly loved? The Firm circled the wagons around her and dear Archie. And were prepared to do so again for darling Lili. But then the real story broke, oh dear.
AnT said…
@notimeforbs4,

From your comment to TMZ’s ears.... 🙏🏻
Unknown said…
Thanks @ConstantGardner33
Sounds like the BRF want to put the birth of baby Rachel on the backburner. Here's a link for pics of Bea and Edo:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9657135/Princess-Beatrice-looks-glamorous-green-cradles-baby-bump-sunny-London.html
xxxxx said…
With Lilibet Diana how can this baby be denied her rightful title? Just another reason the titles should have been stripped months ago. This BRF complacency has gotten the BRF deeper and deeper under Meghan's spell. Under her sway. The BRF is not smart. They are paralyzed. I have to blame the Queen for doing nothing. Her inaction has created a huge power vacuum that will remain until (sorry to say) she passes.

I am sure M knows this as she plays her Royal cards just right. She is outfoxing the BRF. Making them look like bloody fools.
It also feeds her martyrdom complex 'your family is so awful to me and us, but I will name our daughter after your amazing mother and very wealthy grandmother, because you love them.'

Things must be rocky at the house of Harkle. There is nothing private about this name or event. They are selling everything now.


Extremely pathetic. I went from finding it funny to being completely embarrassed.

JHanoi said…
Boris tweeted congrats.... wonder if the working brf will acknowledge this annoucement or just handle any comments privately if they have any comments.
Seems like a late pr release for any of them to feel forced to respond today.

The name.... an obvious royal suck-up to HM.... must feel like the $$$ flow is is running dry and they need to get in real good with HM
My ex's wife uses Lilibet as a nickname-gave it to herself. She's a malignant narc, too, and thinks she's the queen/world revolves around her. She has done awful damage to her husband's family and ruined his relationships with his siblings and parents. Funny that.
AnT said…
@Enbrethiliel,

Ooh, I like your idea that the RF can turn this into an opportunity to spill THEIR truth! I hope they read here, because your “spin” concept is excellent.

I suppose today, the Queen is (unfortunately) finally learning the harsh price of coddling and indulging a ginger serpent.
Acquitaine said…
The more important question is.......

Has Buckingham Palace acknowledged baby yet?!

I hope they don't.

That will really drive them nuts.

Ps: How crazy is that name!?! I'm stunned. The cheek of it.

She's definitely got balls.

Pity they are not No 6's balls.

You have got to laugh at the audacity.

And then to put out their own press announcement presented as if they are a head of state!!!

I bet everyone in all the royal properties is laughing into their dubonnet.

I know the Tatler lot will ge in tears of laughter.

Let their snarky IG comments begin. That lot never ever hold back on how tacky they find the No 6s.

Unknown said…
At this point Rache and H seemed to have moved to the U.S. so they could have a baby via surrogate without scrutiny, make it impossible for the BRF to ensure the baby was of body and a legitimate heir, and ensured naming the baby to something the palace would veto.

Anyone also think they had the doctors induce surrogate to give birth when it was most convenient for them?

Archie's name makes sense in hindsight. They probably wanted to name him after Philip, Charles, and Harry together but were refused.
CookieShark said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nutty Flavor said…
Just started a new thread to discuss the baby's name.
Enbrethiliel said…
@AnT
I suppose today, the Queen is (unfortunately) finally learning the harsh price of coddling and indulging a ginger serpent.

Although I feel badly for anyone who is caught in a narc's crosshairs, I also have to admit that the Queen isn't completely blameless in this. From the beginning, there were multiple red flags from Harry and his then-girlfriend -- and even if she had been too busy (or too naive) to see any of them, she would have had many advisors banging the drum about it over and over. I'm sure Prince William got a word or two in. This could have been nipped in the bud so early. I hope the Queen at least learns from that mistake.
AnT said…


Also, UK Nutties, isn’t today the day D-Day is being honored in the UK?

Why did Mr Harry “I Love the Military (except Deal, and not more than Netflix” Mouthhoofin-Windsock decide to

drive attention away from those celebrations, speeches and honors with this basic baby news that has been

old since Friday afternoon and could have waited til Monday?

Again: I point to today’s 60 Minutes interview with Piers Morgan going over all Megs’ lies.

.🤨
Enbrethiliel said…
@Aquitaine
She's definitely got balls.

Pity they are not No 6's balls.


Oh, gosh, that reminds me of this clip from the movie The Heat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZwvzbtz5tg

I just watched it again and had a good laugh. Pity no one can do that for Harry.
Pantsface said…
So, no announcemnent as yet from BP bearing in mind the "birth" was 2 days ago? Were they even aware? Do they actually care ? or maybe they are raging with the name choice, perhaps the duo put out their own press release with names of the child so it couldn't be rebuked by the RF? It all seems a bit crass in my opinion, Still smarting over the due date of 1 July, the surrogate must have delivered early, wonder if she will still get paid :)
xxxxx said…
This site says that Lilibet ranks #16,726 in popularity.
https://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-lilibet-271795.htm
.............

Another site says---->>

Lilibeth- Promise of God, LIL-ee-beth, Hebrew on BellyBallot
https://babynames.net/names/lilibeth
Lilibeth is a diminutive of Elizabeth. Elizabeth originates in Hebrew language and means "promise of God". Elizabeth has been one of the most popular feminine given names over centuries and in various languages and various spellings it has almost a hundred different forms.
Enbrethiliel said…
@Puds
Won't Harry get triggered every time Megs yells Lilibet?

I'll give him some credit. I think he was the first person to be horrified by his wife's choice. And he probably believed he had talked her out of it. I wouldn't put it past her to lie to him and then release the name into the wild without any consideration for his feelings.

And that's where my own consideration for Harry ends. For he's going to stand by her after this, of course.

See you all on the new thread!
Spite, pure spite.

The name `Lilibet' is almost sacrosanct - few people had the privilege of calling HM that and now Philip has gone absolutely nobody does. So they not only drag it into their tawdry world but trample it in the mud, if not s*** all over it.

Words almost fail me as I try to describe my utter disgust at these two pieces of excrement.

The only consolation is that this may not even be a real child. If it is, she needs our prayers.

How many websites in that name have they registered already?
Hikari said…
As Happy Days pointed out upthread, Human gestation is 40 weeks, Counting back from the date of the woman’s last menstrual cycle. It’s been colloquially shortened to nine months because anything after 36 weeks is considered full-term. HD did the actual math, But If we generalize and count one month as 4 weeks, what other blessed event occurred exactly 10 months a girl from June 4? Or put another way, what does significant day occurs two months From yesterday?

Ding ding ding! Why, Rachel Meghan’s natal anniversary of course. She wouldn’t have been meticulous enough to do the actual calculation, but just counted back 10 months from her own birthday. Ta da!

Wait, it gets better. What esteemed personage In the house of Windsor shares August 4 is a birthday with RM?

That’s right—The Queen Mother. So, Rachel is essentially equating herself with the QM if she expects us to think she conceived Harry’s Little Princess on QM’s birthday. “Look – – I can make Queens too. I am a queen (in my own mind).” Far-fetched? I don’t think so. This woman has no job and nothing but time on her hands to plot and plan. No doubt by choosing June 4 she can say that it’s a sign: her baby princess born on June 4; America’s birthday on July 4 and her own birthday, and incidentally QM’s too on August 4. Rachel just loves to concoct patterns that_her need for constant cosmic specialness.
Anonymous said…
I am speechless. The unmitigated gall. I just hope and pray that the Queen will see this shameless ploy for what it is and not be touched by the use of her childhood nickname. That’s not possible, is it? Please tell me it’s not possible.
DesignDoctor said…
They are disgusting panderers. Not an original bone in her body. I bet there wasn't a baby bone in her body, either.

@WBBM I agree with you.They deserve to be spit on. 6's wife sticking her tongue out during the Christmas walk when she wore the poop hat comes to mind. She is sticking her tongue out at the RF now.
abbyh said…
Do you think that now (that the baby is here) she will push for being there (with both kids) at the unveiling?
AnT said…

GoDaddy has princesslilibet.com parked.....

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