|
We say good by and Godspeed to the Queen.
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.
Comments
Do not for one minute believe that the jewelry has gone to Catherine. The vast majority will have gone to Charles, as Monarch; not sure if anything even needed to be formally written down. I think there may be some individual, personally owned pieces that will left to daughters and grandaughters, but if you start giving All the Things away, in a few generations there will be no Things left. Much of it may also be State property. But you will remember that the Queen Mum left everything to Elizabeth. Poor Margo had to buy her own tiara, and her children couldn't even afford to keep it; I doubt Catherine could afford the taxes on the entire collection!
I do hope the jewelry will be pooled, for Sophie's sake. She deserves more than the sad, odd little aquamarine tiara she has. If nothing else, they should let her add some pizzaz to it and refigure it with some stones from Her Late Majesty's horrendous aquamarine parure. Elizabeth II was a Queen beyond compare, and Practically Perfect in Every Way, but a jewelry designer she was not.
https://radaronline.com/p/king-charles-iii-begs-harry-cancel-meghans-spotify-podcast/?utm_source=Jeeng
Like I have written several places - the ball is in the Harkle court as to how they are treated in the future by the King et al.
I'm suspicious of Harry all of a sudden being oh-so concerned about observing protocol. I suppose his grandmother's death may have finally broken through the hold his succubus has on him, but I myself smell a rat. I think he's sucking up, hoping to be brought back in to the fold, perhaps even with his wife.
Ok, I am convinced that she is somewhat preoccupied with using the dead, especially those who died in tragic circumstances, for public display.
I reckon she saw a movie sometime in her childhood and she is trying to get the same 'recognition' and attention that she observed. Americans do a lot of 'ceremonial' funerals for presidents and those in the armed forces so I think there are a lot of candidates for the one that influenced her.
New Palace Confidential ... Richard Eden is rightfully sceptical about the wisdom of that 'joint appearance': give them an inch and they take over the entire country are not the words he used but kind of what he meant.
https://youtu.be/xX-UNUYGMnU
Yes, I agree, Karla. it is very telling the lack of respect Oprah paid to HMTQ. No way the BRF is inviting Oprah to the funeral of her lifetime. And again. I don't think Meghan's gonna be there either but, push come to shove, Harry will be there because this is his family and his legacy, not hers. Of course, time will tell. But I think Meghan Markle good an burned any bridge to an invitation when she pulled her stunts at the walkabout. She's just not smart at all.
The NBC News royal commentator told the network's Today show that she believed Meghan needed to have her 'hair and make-up' done and that the walkabout had been 'scheduled to be nearly an hour before they came'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11204039/Royal-expert-says-Harry-Meghan-walkabout-Windsor-Castle-delayed.html
How long does it take to put on makeup and do your hair? Did she have to summon her hairdresser as makeup 'artiste'? Never mind that William and Kate has to wait, madam had to be ready for her public 🙄. Did she do it deliberately? I wonder if William gave her a telling off in the car. That would explain her looking a bit more subdued and sheepish than usual.
I've just watched the vigil at Edinburgh with a lump in my throat and an inability to really express the respect and amazement I have for Charles and Anne in particular. They are in their 70's, grieving and the schedule has been punishing. I pray that the Lord will continue to strengthen them over the coming days.
@WBBM I agree about Andrew and given his bravery during the Falklands war, I couldn't help but feel that to see him walking behind Her Majestys' coffin in a morning suit, with Edward next to him in full military dress looked incongrous. In no way does my opinion condone his stupidity, boorishness or greed, but as you rightly say he has never attacked his family or deliberately disrespected the Queen.
Yes the letters patent was a special change for the then Prince of Wales eldest son, before he (Prince Charles) was a Monarch himself. Maybe bearing in mind the age of Charles, but knowing Catherine at the time was pregnant, she probably wanted all their children to be styled and titled Prince and Princess from birth.
I found the below article and it explains why the Queen issued a letters patent. As per my previous comment, I was right about William’s children all holding their rightful place in the line of succession regardless of gender. If Catherine’s firstborn had been a girl she would’ve been tilted as just Lady and no HRH style or Princess title if no letters patent had been issued. So if Catherine went onto have a second child which was a boy, he would have automatically become the next heir, not the firstborn female.🤗 Specifically it states….
Letters patent allow a monarch to make alterations or proclamations usually involving a person’s title or official status without the need for parliamentary consent.
I’d take this as a change to the The Letters Patent 1917, meaning the Monarch can use their own discretion with status and titles. 🤗 It could therefore take a different turn with Maggot and Mole’s children
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-royals-princess-idUSBRE9090CK20130110
I also found the below. I’m not sure how reliable Marie Claire is…but it’s worth a read. 🫤
https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity-news/queen-exception-for-kate-not-meghan-662735
I doubt that giving *'s children titles is on KC's list of priorities.
Agreed. Manifestly it is not. He's going to let her chill her carbuncles on that for a while yet. Probably will wait even longer than intended as punishment for the pushy letter.
The Crown of Great Britain is not Proctor & Gamble but it doesn't stop her from trying the letter tactic again.
The letters patent state that grandchildren of the reigning sovereign MAY accede to the style of Prince or Princess . . not that they MUST or they WILL. Surely in extenuating circumstances particularly, such as these are . . the granting of any such honors is at the discretion of the monarch? Since Charles is allowed to issue new letters patent, I don't expect him to be held hostage to this clause if there is valid and compelling reason not to grant them.
We here, most of us anyway, believe those valid and compelling reasons exist. *IF* the RF have knowingly assisted in perpetrating a fraud that tampers directly with the line of succession in relation to these children by not publicly refuting a number of assumptions that Maggot has been able to shove through the popular mind--if she has not in fact given birth out of her own body to two children who share Harry's royal blood, and if they do not have unimpeachable PROOF of this in both cases . . in the form of impeccable witnesses, medical records, DNA . .and have been relying on her word alone--then to further perpetuate the fraud by granting titles to ineligible and/or non-existent children that M dreamt up would be a gross violation of the oath which King Charles has just undertaken.
If the RF has played along with the 5s ruses re. the kids up til now, out of a sense of trying to get these two the mental health support/addiction services they so desperately need and thinking that they could get this situation in hand and issue mea culpas later . . they badly underestimated the relentless deviousness of *. It would be a terrible violation of the public trust, to be sure. If * brokered surrogacies or procured babies and dragged the RF into a legal quagmire with potential mothers or human trafficking violations--criminal acts-- I could understand if they pretended at first that everything was normal as they scrambled madly behind the scenes taking legal advice. The presentation of the concept known as Archie, preceded by Harry's 'interview' behind the stables at Windsor . . preceded by the most bizarre 11-month gestation in the history of womankind . .none of this was remotely normal and does not set the mind at ease. Harry's wife has never been truthful about anything, so why are we supposed to take her at her word about these children? She lies for sport; why not lie about something so crucial to her financial future?
King Charles simply cannot confirm that two figments of *'s imagination as Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom without satisfying the public demand for proofs. The Kraken may be nigh. The Queen surprised everyone by slipping away so quickly. No time to get ducks in rows. Maybe * thought she had ample time yet to merch her schemes and come up with some explanation why her invisible children are never seen, or why she failed to celebrate Archie's birthday or mention Lili in her most recent speech or why she had to 'give birth over the phone' or why her alleged doctor in Santa Barbara fled in the night like a criminal.
I can only think it's far, far worse behind the scenes than the iceberg tip we see and that's hellacious enough.
I totally, TOTALLY agree with your thoughts on the two kids.
I also believe that the 5’s have been trying to slither back into the fold. They are not suitable; not to be trusted at all. I hope and pray the. RF closes ranks, pulls up the drawbridges and keeps them out.
I don't believe it. And I don't believe the "insider" could know things like W&K don't want Lili left out or Kate plans to give her "normal childhood" daughter, Charlotte, diamonds soon. I also don't believe Kate is that much of a favorite over ALL the other women in the family. That's not a put-down but I just don't think she beat out everyone else in the family in the Queen's heart. Makes as much sense as the story that keeps surfacing saying Charlotte will inherit "Diana's" tiara from the Spencer family. Right.
I expect QEII probably left some pieces to various people (including Kate) but I suspect most of her personal jewelry will go to the royal collection. I believe that's what she did with the Queen Mother's property that she had to buy to pay her mother's debts. But on the off-chance Kate inherits 110 million pounds in jewels, won't the inheritance tax on that be around 44 million? I'm sure W&K have that much but I wouldn't think it would be just stuffed in a mattress and easily liquid.
Something I noticed myself was the difference between the Waleses' body language during the Christening of Fauxrchie and their body language during the walkabout. Three years ago, they looked visibly tense and unhappy in the car they took to Windsor Castle. And they were out of there so fast, still looking disgruntled (with Catherine definitely not wearing the same dress in the official photo), that it raised a lot of eyebrows. I think we're all clear on what happened: The Waleses had been ordered to play along with the Dollars' ruse and they were not happy about it. (Who could blame them?)
But last weekend at Windsor was an entirely different story. Prince William and Princess Catherine looked dignified, regal and in total control. The Dollars looked uncomfortable and out of place -- and in *'s case, keyed up so tightly that she did snap! Someone else is giving the orders now and this is just the beginning.
Andrew should go off to a Buddhist monastery in Asia for a year. He looks awful and needs to get out of England.
Whew! All your contributions are well-thought out and a fascinating read, however, the most recent at 11:24 PM (on my computer), is IT! The whole enchilada right there.
*sigh* Sadly, I agree completely. The only bright side out of this whole H&M Greatest Sh*tshow on Earth is how many people are being educated about psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and borderline personality disorders.
They'll probably want to be paid for that.
Thank for reiterating this….. The letters patent (1917) state that grandchildren of the reigning sovereign MAY accede to the style of Prince or Princess . . not that they MUST or they WILL.
I noted upthread that the bestowing of style and titles was not a given and at the discretion of the Monarch. Lady C has given examples where the titles weren’t given or used. HG Tudor said he will go into details about the titles (via a video yet to be aired) indicating that titles aren’t automatic and what could be behind the no change to date.🥴
I agree with the sentiment that King Charles also has better things to think about than Maggot and Moles dolly’s. However, I can’t be the only person who noticed that he was extremely quick with bestowing The Prince of Wales title to William, he wasted no time at all. So it makes me wonder….HG Tudor says King Charles is also a narcissist, not Maggot’s kind though…so things could get interesting! 🫤🥴
Charles will do nothing about titles for the alleged offspring, until the book is out.
I'm one of those who thinks that Harry's children (assuming they exist) are automatically Prince and Princess, though having the BRF and official communication actually acknowledge that is a whole other issue. What I think will happen is that King Charles will continue to speak affectionately of "Harry and *," always in the context of their private lives overseas, but will never mention the children. Out of respect for their parents' desire for privacy and a normal childhood for them, of course.
Anyway, I don't think the Dollars worried about their children never getting titles, but I kind of wonder whether they factored in any long term consequences to publishing a revenge memoir. Even if they had counted on the Queen living a few more years, Charles would have inherited the crown eventually. And then they would have been cut off. Especially if the book went after Camilla, which is reportedly does.
But I do agree with you that King Charles will be a lot more decisive toward the Dollars after the memoir comes out. I have no doubt that he already knows what's in it. Perhaps he's also hoping that Harry will still pull the plug (if that's even possible) and he can react to a proper olive branch instead of a gauntlet to the face.
I am fully on board with your theory, and have been since the first pregnancy was announced. That official announcement was made on the day the IP’s left for the South Pacific, during the Zika Virus outbreak in the Southern Hemisphere.
I think KC’s bestowing of the Prince and Princess of Wales titles immediately was a power play in the best sense of the phrase. He bestowed power to them so they could help keep the 5’s in line. They used their new power beautifully and effectively during the joint appearance. Minnie Mouse was thrown off her usual power games with Catherine’s laser look and William was firmly in command. Well done to all the Royal players.
One of the most gratifying results of the walkabout was that Minnie showed her true colors and total unsuitability for a Royal position in The Firm. She just cannot follow directions!
I'm one of those who thinks that Harry's children (assuming they exist) are automatically Prince and Princess, though having the BRF and official communication actually acknowledge that is a whole other issue.
Hopefully, Charles will not acknowledge anything about titles for the Duo's offspring. Only silence. Just leave them twisting in the wind until the Hapless tome comes out. Let the ugly American Megs get more and more pissed off about her precious English (UK) titles. Even if #1 and #2 are automatically now prince and princess, the process seems very simple for King Charles to revoke them via Letters Patent.
For all intents and purposes, Charles' first words in his first public address to the nation, were about his wife and how she will be styled.
Yes, he first paid tribute to his mother, expressed his sorrow, and acknowledged the comfort he and the rest of the family took from the public's great affection for The Queen....but once those niceties and formalities were got out of the way and he got down to brass tacks, Camilla was first and foremost on his mind. She is my darling, and she WILL be called Queen (Consort). I thought that was extremely telling.
He didn't start with his children. He led off with his wife, and I think we were all being put on notice, especially his sons. (I don't think William cares for her either, but he isn't stupid enough to go public with it.)
If the story is true that Hazmat can't stop publication of his memoir, it may explain why he has suddenly developed this new interest in following Royal Protocol, and Nutmeg looked so shook.
So if Oprah didn't know that she was walking into a hornet's nest, and MM said all that stuff unexpectedly, why in the world did she air it?
I am not hasty to assign Narc motives to Charles in the bestowal of the title Prince of Wales upon William so quickly. Quite the reverse actually. It would be understandable if he felt a pang At surrendering the title he has one for so long, since he was 20 years old or half William’s present age. It has been suggested that it was Charles’s intention to wait Until the mourning for the Queen was concluded, But he chose his first address to do so in response to a letter from Harry’s wife demanding that her children be made prince and princess immediately. By acting swiftly, he confirms William’s New stature as his right hand second only to himself, and we can be confident that what William does in regards to the Harkles or anything else has the King’s directive behind it.
Charles has had a rocky relationship with his heir in the past, And perhaps there is truth to the allegations that he rather resented Williams popularity with the people— The son who is so closely resembles Diana, and like his mother, eclipsing Charles again in Q factor. I would like to think we could relegate all that to the past. Now that Charles has ceded to the role for which he was born, let us hope he is beyond any such petty popularity contests. I have to say that I think king Charles has been impeccable so far. His address to the people was heartfelt, Masterfully delivered and 100% himself. It is the type of speech which his mother never would have given, full of the emotion which she found anathema. He may not be as humble a vessel as ER, Who was simply extraordinary for her lack of vanity. I think it’s Charles where I narcissist, he would’ve kept William dangling for that title much longer. He now must delegate huge swathes of responsibility Which has been his oversight for 50 years to his largely untested son. If Charles has huge shoes to fill in succeeding his mother, and of course he does, and I think that he knows that he will primarily be a placeholder King— It must be said also that William has equally large shoes to fill as the new Prince of Wales. I pray that he may be a great help and comfort to his father in these trying times.
I was struck today while watching the processional down the Royal Mile behind the hearse of the Queen how unobtrusive a figure Charles actually was. The camera mostly followed the coffin which was appropriate, but it was several minutes before I even caught a glimpse of the King. Five from being the standout figure, he blended into the crowd of the bereaved walking slowly behind the cortège. I noticed other people more, with Andrew’s white hair and plain suit actually standing out far more than Charles, even with his regalia. Even with the place of honor in the church, Charles did not seem puffed up With his own importance. On the contrary, he seemed bowed with the weight of his grief and his new office. Everyone is sad, but Charles feels it more than anyone in the kingdom, this loss. In his speech he seemed wistful and actually regretful to be having to give up his responsibilities as Prince of Wales—the Duchy and the Scottish titles closest to his heart.
Let us all endeavor to think well of him now, and send prayers and all encouraging thoughts his way. He needs them.
This is four reporters/editors from UK Daily Mail discussing Royal matters. "Palace Confidential"
Thank you! I read the articles and understood the Queen's motives.
...
Title
Viscount Severn and
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (Queen's grandchildren are not prince/Princess)
Who know why?
....
@Este
Oprah
Umm so she’s weaving the story she didn’t know an interview on prime time tv in front of many millions wasn’t going to be a “bombshell” interview. My god please.
So what did I just see here? Did Oprah just throw Hazbeen/MeAgain under the bus.
My opionon
King Charles III positive reception has surprised people. They thought they’d be an outcry. They thought the public would rebel.
They thought wrong. Very wrong.
Expect more snivelling little clarifications to be forthcoming. The blames pass the parcel has begun.
...
Exclusive: Prince Harry ‘insisting’ his tell-all memoir is ‘published in November’, royal author claims to @danwootton
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1569432894254235649?s=20&t=9pZiJTey6BP8bDpbiCnOCA
https://babylonbee.com/news/king-charles-replaces-harry--meghan-with-two-corgis-in-line-of-succession
No, the UK Parliament changed that in the Succession Act of 2013 (other Commonwealth parliaments followed suit) to end the preference for males. The problem the Q's letters patent solved was that a first born girl would have been higher up the order of succession than a younger brother but not have the HRH and Prince/ss titles he did as first born boy under Geo. V's rules.
Also, the younger siblings will find out soon enough that they're spares, no need to rub it in with only one having titles when they're children.
The Wessexes have a house that makes the 5s faux chateau look tacky & suburban.They have two lovely children, & don't seem to arouse much ire in anyone. Sophie is quietly involved in several worthy causes, like support for abused women. She had a misstep involving her business a few years ago, but managed to right the ship. She hasn't embarrassed the RF or herself since. But no,* had to launch her crazed plan for world domination. LOL.
I think we all expected the RF to handle the 5s as expertly as they did during the Jubilee, but the queen's passing seems to have caught people a little bit off guard. Hopefully, they can wrangle * & keep her in the sidelines until the queen is safely put to rest in the manner she deserves.
The walkabout, in which * looked like a scruffy waif, & she actually looked very uncharacteristically unsure of herself, has made me concerned that she will spin the event as an example of how horribly the RF has treated her. She was being bullied! Yeah right. She was the OLDEST person in the group. She has made scathing comments about her husband's family. She recently gave an interview in which she sounded downright sinister. She & her husband are dangers to his family & the institution of the monarchy.They are a divisive influence on the country. I hope that the two miscreants can be disarmed in some way. They've been allowed to be horrible for too long.
I wish Oprah would be quiet, enjoy her wealth & go back to trying to lose weight. America has an obesity crisis. It's a cause in which she could do some actual good. * could get involved in that. She seems quite good at losing weight. It's her one her few talents.
@Karla, Yes, I think there is surprise at the warmth toward Charles from the public. Charles is a very familiar entity. Hopefully, he & the British public can settle into a comfortable relationship.
"LONDON — In his first official royal decree, King Charles has replaced Meghan and Harry in the line of succession with two of the late Queen's corgis.
"Fluffy here shall immediately assume the title of Duke," said Charles, presenting the corgi with a scepter. "There now! Who's a good future King of England?"
The nation of England erupted into celebration upon hearing the news. "After the sadness of the past week, it feels good to have something to be happy about," said citizen Gerald Funderburk. "The thought of the monarchy falling into the hands of Harry or Meghan, those blithering idiots…we can all rest a little easier tonight knowing the kingdom will be in good hands. Or paws."
Although the King's move is unusual, historians say it is not without precedent. "Few people recall that Henry the Eighth actually made his pet goat sixth in line for the throne," said history professor Benjamin York. "He had so many wives and children that he lost count of how to list them. He was also very, very fond of his goat Alfred."
At publishing time, Meghan Markle had responded with her daily tradition of calling everyone in her family racist."
In his speech he seemed wistful and actually regretful to be having to give up his responsibilities as Prince of Wales
-----
I think that KC being so warmly received as king will allow him to put aside anything he might have felt re: PW being popular.
If anything, at the moment KC seems more popular than any of them. Which I don't think anyone saw coming.
And yes, I do think he was sad to give up his POW title.
Agree that he seemed humble, and weighed down by the depth of his responsibilities upcoming.
Vigil of the princes....heartbreaking. But I liked how KC was just one of the children. He didn't pull rank.
I think PW needs to be careful. He's going to be under far more scrutiny than he's used to. I could see his popularity tumbling a few points as adjustments are made.
Initially I was very upset with the walkabout. It made me so angry that all of the papers had pictures of the fab 4 instead of King Charles's proclamation.
But now today all of the pictures are of Charles, or Charles and Camilla. And very nice pictures. So maybe it was OK that all the pictures on Sunday were of the fab four, one of whom was acting up.
Those videos of Harkle being a snot did her no favors. All they did was validate the bullying reports.
I was struck today while watching the processional down the Royal Mile behind the hearse of the Queen how unobtrusive a figure Charles actually was.
I saw the footage just now and know exactly what you mean. King Charles is in mourning for his mother and has been put through a schedule that a man half his age would have found brutal. I can't blame him for not having the "wattage" to shine at this moment. He will have other kingly moments in the future, I'm sure.
I noticed other people more, with Andrew’s white hair and plain suit actually standing out far more than Charles, even with his regalia.
Princess Anne and Prince Andrew very easily stood out. Then I had to keep replaying the video to find Prince Edward, so at least King Charles isn't the most unobtrusive of the four.
I was actually surprised at how much attention Andrew naturally drew to himself and think I caught a glimpse of the star power that he had as a young royal heartthrob, once upon a time. I also didn't expect that he wouldn't be allowed to wear a military uniform after all. (If this was announced beforehand, I missed it.) He seems to have accepted the decision with dignity and understands that this occasion is so much bigger than he is. Indeed, his deportment of late has been the opposite of what I expected. I thought we'd get the smug Andrew of the disastrous interview, thrilled to grab this occasion to be back in the public eye and perhaps to leave a blot on the first days of the new King's reign. But quiet retirement seems to have been good for him; and at Balmoral, his extended family seemed to respect him as the most senior royal among them.
While I don't think he has to be publicly rehabilitated in any way, I also don't think he deserves to be so roundly hated. To paraphrase River: Andrew is clearly hedonistic, arrogant and greedy . . . but it doesn't mean he's wicked. Someone also recently mused to me that Andrew is the only one of Epstein and Maxwell's friends who has been made to pay in some way. (Bill Clinton, et al have not been held accountable for anything.) Virginia has won her pound of flesh. What I wish for her and for all of Epstein's victims now are healing and peace. And what I wish for Epstein's friends are repentance and also peace.
(Apologies if the above paragraph strikes too maudlin a note! I've found all the ceremonies more moving than expected.)
I don't think William cares for her either, but he isn't stupid enough to go public with it.
The one area where I still have deep sympathy for Harry is his resentment over Camilla. I think anyone who has experienced being guilted into accepting a parent's new partner ("But don't you want me to be happy?") understands this. Especially if that new partner was originally an affair partner. As much as King Charles loved his sons, he loved Camilla more -- and he chose her over them time and time again. He is still choosing her over them. It's both an incredible sign of devotion to the love of his life and a wound that may keep being ripped open for his sons.
Prince William had incredible strength of character to put on a smile after Camilla was allowed to take his mother's place, despite the role she played in Diana's misery. I keep using this term, but for William it really applies: He understands that he is dealing with something bigger than his own feelings an opinions. If he didn't accept Camilla for his indulgent father's sake, he did it for the sake of the Crown and all its subjects. William has not behaved better than Harry in this because he is smarter (although that is also clearly true!), but because he has the stronger character overall.
"Warmth" is the right word!
Given all the things said about King Charles for the last few decades, I had worried that he would be unpopular and unloved. That the opposite has happened makes me so happy for him! (Even non-Brits who don't really care for monarchy one way or the other are appreciating old interviews of Charles, in which he stands up for traditional architecture or sustainable farming, and concluding that Great Britain is still in good hands!) My worry was that he would be the Pope Benedict XVI to Prince William's Pope Francis -- one irrationally hated and the other fanatically loved. But the public's feeling for him seems both sincere and balanced. They know who he is, warts and all; they've known it for seven decades! And they've decided to embrace him anyway. It's truly heartwarming.
apparently, the deep 6's are no longer clients of Sunshine Sachs! (still unconfirmed)
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/prenatal-cannabis-exposure-associated-mental-disorders-children-persist-into-early-adolescence
I can summarize for you: These are the published results of a scientific study Which links prenatal exposure to marijuana with psychological disturbance and behavioral disorders manifesting by early adolescence. As Tom Markle Confirmed to Tom Bower what we all knew, Doria was and habitual heavy joint smoker, and There is no reason to suppose that she stopped while she was pregnant. Rachel’s Mother of the Year Marinated her in Doobies. * is likely brain damaged by her mother’s hobby. The apple does not fall far from the tree as the saying goes.
I completely forgot that the sovereign has custody of all children and grandchildren! Do you suppose * forgot, too?
Imagine King Charles alluding to this law by saying that the only reason he isn't insisting on all his grandchildren being in the UK is that Harry and * pleaded so prettily not to have any part in royal life! Cue another pregnant pause.
What if that's it! the way out of the labyrinth of titles and succession - the children.
The 5's are sat down and reminded of current law about custody of grandchildren, none of the family have ever questioned the validity of them, never needed to before but ... to get the titles, remain in the line of succession ... then they would need show proof of born of the body, DNA backed up, medical records to date ... and then you need to raise them here so they could take a throne of a country they know and understand if something were to happen. You have one week to go back, produce all of this and return with it and the kids (DNA to be done here). Don't worry. We'll send you assistants to help collect papers from the house. Or, if something is missing, they can pick it up from where ever and help with the kids on the plane back. You have plenty of bedrooms. They will be with you to help you succeed.
If not, then we drop the kids from the succession as not proven as born of the body and simply tell the world that there have been some validation issues which have not been legally resolved with DNA and paperwork incompletely supplied by the 5's. We accepted their word. and leave it at that.
Even if #1 and #2 are automatically now prince and princess, the process seems very simple for King Charles to revoke them via Letters Patent.
I don't think he has to do this. The silence will be killing enough. With perhaps an annual mention of "Harry and *'s family" at Christmas, to be nice and ambiguous. But yes, no "Prince" and "Princess" before their names in any Royal communication, whether it is on the Web site or out of a representative's mouth.
As one of those who doesn't think the children even exist (or at the very least, that they don't legally belong in the line of succession), I'd also enjoy the implication that he doesn't even say their names because they're not real.
I actually have heard of forged vaccination records via fax so they started requiring it come directly from the office.
I don't think Charles chose Camilla over his sons over and over again.
It's normal for an adult to want to have an adult that they love in their lives. It's also normal for an adult to love and care for his children. These are two different types of love and there is place for normal people to have both in their lives. I think that children should also understand that their parents require the love of an adult.
I think that Hairy was overly possessive of his mother, not wanting to share his grief over her with others. This is not normal. I have grieved over family members and realized that they were loved by many people, some of whom I didn't approve of, but they were as entitled as I was to mourn.
One of my ex' had a son who shares a birthday with Harry, and he was a self-pitying, whining, lazy, back stabbing brat who was overly possessive of both his parents. I can see Hairy being the same way.
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Sunshine%20Sachs%22&src=trend_click&vertical=trends
I confess to feeling a bit worried for Charles. He seemed quite tapped out at the service. As he processed into the church, I couldn’t be sure but it seemed like he might’ve been limping a little bit. Throughout the service, he seemed quite overwhelmed to be in ‘the head chair’. After so many decades riding shotgun next to Mummy … He may have even become resigned to the possibility that she would outlive him … Now suddenly he is in her place, bereft of her, with the world’s eyes upon him. After what must be the longest apprenticeship in history, no one could’ve been better prepared for his promotion, and yet he has an air of Incredulity that it is actually finally happening. Camilla looks equally stunned. Bearing in mind that these are two senior citizens who until just a few days ago were enjoying a nice quiet holiday … Of course they’re completely rung out. I haven’t had a chance to watch the session console meeting yet, or the bit where Charles gets snappy at Major Johnny over an inkwell. In his defense, being that he is a soon to be 74-year-old man, And not the paragon which ER seemingly effortlessly cultivated, Have you ever gone without sleep past the 24 hour mark? I first experienced sleep deprivation like that when I flew across the international date line to Japan And into the next day. With jet lag and commitments, I think I was up for something like 37 hours straight. Zombieville fatigue like that can make one psychotic. And even after you get the chance to lie down— it’s possible to be too tired to sleep. So who knows how many hours of sleep anyone has gotten since Thursday night. Within 24 hours of losing his mother, Charles had to be broadcast ready for the speech of his life to date. He was still running on adrenaline then because he was flawless. I think most of that has ebbed away. After walking a mile at an incredibly slow pace in full dress uniform, sitting through a service, changing into kilt for the vigil… Flying to London changing clothes again to receive condolences from the parliament … All on perhaps a few hours of sleep In the last two or three days…he looked shattered.
I think that Charles is quite fit for his age, with legendary rambles in the countryside, a temperate appetite… Charles was practicing intermittent fasting before it was trendy by allegedly skipping lunch every day… And no real vices Though he and Camilla both seem fond of cocktail hour… But he does seem to have aged quite a bit in the last few days. His sudden promotion Is the shock to the system, so I hope he can marshall his strength for the long week ahead. With the Harkles loitering in the wings like gargoyles… His stress must be off the charts at the moment. Uneasy lies ahead that wears a crown …. Particularly with traitors in the family.
Thanks for picking up on that. To be honest, I wasn't thinking much further beyond blackmail (haha). Every time * demands some royal privilege that she thinks her children are entitled to, remind her that the full set of privileges involve them growing up under the watchful eye of the monarch in the UK. Or at least making regular, extended visits. Including Balmoral a whole month out of the summer. I don't think she'd call that bluff at all.
Then make it seem as if she's relinquishing those privileges because she wants them to grow up as normal as possible. That is, they're not growing up like Prince George & co. because * herself doesn't want them to. She'll have to content herself with more stories about Lili's classmates being in awe of having a real, live princess ("Just like a Disney movie!") in their school and Lili being so down-to-earth and natural that it doesn't matter to her, etc.
Believe me, I know what you mean about single parents needing the affection and support of another adult. I still maintain, however, that an affair partner is wildly different from a new love.
As much as I like King Charles now and have grown to respect Camilla more than even I could imagine, I'm still slightly scandalized that they stayed together after Diana's death. They may have truly loved each other, but if we judge all things by their fruits, then the fruits of their love included two broken marriages, doubt cast on the morality of the future head of the Church of England, widespread mockery of the BRF, and the gruesome death of the mother of two young boys. At the height of it all, Camilla was probably more hated than * is today. That they stayed together despite everyone being against it and many having been hurt by it just means they were as selfish as they were devoted. Prince Andrew wasn't the only brother who thought he should be allowed to have whatever he wanted.
Now, I'd agree that Diana should be held responsible for her own choices. (Whether her mental instability took away some of her agency is up for debate.) I don't think Charles is to blame for anything she did after the divorce -- or even some things she did while they were still married. But this doesn't mean his actions weren't a significant factor. He "helped," we might say. Sure, he didn't know what trajectory Diana was on . . . but let's say he had. If a time traveler told him: "If you stay with Camilla, your sons will be orphaned at 15 and 12, the younger one will never get over it, your ex-wife's death will be exploited for decades, and you yourself will become so unpopular that most of your subjects will believe you unfit to be King" . . . I think he would have stayed with Camilla. My point is not that Charles single-handedly caused this mess (because no one is that powerful) but that you could keep upping the ante to something like millions of deaths and Westminster Abbey lying in ruins, and he'd still let the world burn rather than lose Camilla.
This is what I mean when I say he has been choosing her over his sons again and again. He has been choosing her over everyone else in his life again and again.
I was musing on this today. Seems that maybe the majority of people that are being accused of crimes did not, in fact, commit the crimes and have been set up. Virginia Giuffre did not accuse anybody that could have had her killed without a second thought. (Like Epstein, she wouldn't have killed herself.) Considering that she recruited underage girls herself, I have to wonder whether the accusations are part of the keep her out of jail or the grave deal. Epstein was definitely collecting information.
I think that Andrew was hooked because of his need for money but the accusations and his humiliation indicate that he didn't give somebody what they wanted.
Then there's 5/6.
After what must be the longest apprenticeship in history, no one could’ve been better prepared for his promotion, and yet he has an air of Incredulity that it is actually finally happening.
This is it. He was subdued, but still a bit outgoing, when first greeting mourners outside Buckingham Palace. But when the all the pomp and ceremony kicked in, it must have sunk in all at once and he (and Camilla) started looking like a deer in headlights. Factor in lack of sleep and lack of alone time for an introvert, and he must be absolutely ground down. And it will be nearly a week before it's all over.
But even then, it won't be over, because then his work as King will have properly begun. I can't even begin to fathom it.
When King Juan Carlos of Spain abdicated, it was to escape charges. But one happy effect of it was that his son had the experience of inheriting the crown without first losing a parent. There's no way Elizabeth would have done the same for Charles, of course -- and I don't think any of the other current crowned heads would consider retirement over death, to make it easier for their own heirs. Inheriting a crown from a parent is inherently a bittersweet experience. Though in Charles's case, I think it will be heavy on the bitterness and sorrow for a while yet. This is one reason I'm so glad his subjects seem to love him. Can you imagine how heavy the burden would be if they did not?
Or perhaps the man was just exhausted. His grief is still palpable; all the lovely speeches at Westminster Hall had me weeping. It must have been even more moving in person, and I don't imagine he got the same kind of distraction that I got when Major Johnny popped in and out. My lord, that is a fine specimen of a man!
The public are absolutely pulling for Charles, and I'm so pleased. I reckon he's getting a bit of a grace period, because people know how close he was to his mother, and he's only just lost his father, too. I doubt that will last, but I think he will make a fantastic King.
It seems to me that part of the reason Camilla is looking worse for wear is her makeup. She is overdoing the foundation and blush, and the heavy eyeliner makes her look harsh. (My opinion, of course!) I know she is grieving, too, and very much feeling how upset KCIII is, as well, and we're not used to seeing her in black, which can also make people look harsh. I am also of the opinion that she is completely gobsmacked at actually being Queen Consort; I think she'd have been quite happy to remain Mrs. Windsor-Mountbatten, with some charities to watch over, and a few tiara events now and then.
William does need to work on his resting *itch face. When he is standing in the background, he always looks like he can't to get through with whatever is going on. Maybe it's just his serious look, but his brow is always furrowed when he's standing and waiting.
I know this won't be a well received comment, but I think Andrew and Harry should both be allowed to wear their uniforms. They both served in wartime, (although I do think Harry's role has been greatly exaggerated), and it is beyond ridiculous that Edward, who couldn't make it through bootcamp, gets to wear a uniform but the two combat veterans can't. I totally understand that Harry isn't deserving in light of the way he chose the Lion King premiere over a Marine remembrance event and for choosing to walk away from his military patronages, but he served for 10 years. I suppose of you let him once, he'd want to do it every time.
............
@Fifi
I do recall that Queen Elizabeth ruled the UK
This is a common misconception but maybe this is not what you meant. The Queen or the King does not rule the UK. The sovereign reigns but does not rule. He/she is head of state and has the power to appoint a new prime minister, dissolve Parliament and give royal assent to bills. The sovereign is also Defender of the Faith.
@Karla
You asked why Edward and Sophie's children are not Prince/Princess. When E&S married, the Queen said their children would gain the titles reserved for children of an Earl. I think this could change once they're 18, however Lady Louise hasn't changed her title.
HRH titles at birth which they could choose to use when they turned 18, but so far, Louise has chosen not to do so.
I understand your sentiment re Charles and Camilla but he stated that she was "non negotiable". I don't think he could give her up, she was his true love. They could have married had he not dithered and had Camilla been the virginal bride he was expected to marry. As I explained in my previous post, I do believe that Charles is much stronger than people give him credit for.
Let's not forget that Camilla's first husband was a notorious womaniser so I don't think she could have been too happy and she can't be solely to blame for her own broken marriage. This might not be known outside the UK.
@Enbrethiliel - Hikari has beaten me to re the Letters Patent od 2013 (thank goodness they date from before* arrived on the scene.
Look at the first cousins of Elizabeth II, all grandchildren of GeoV were, princely rank: Edward & Alexandra , Michael,children of George Duke of Kent; William and Richard, sons of Henry Dk of Gloucester.
Edward is now current Duke of Kent, became so as a very young child as his father died in 1942). William of Gloucester was killed in 1972, before his father's death, so Richard became Dk of Gloucester in 1974 - our current Prince Wm was named for him.
In the same generation, Princess Margaret married a commoner who was elevated to the peerage hence her children now being David, 2nd Earl Snowdon (having been Lord Linley until his father died) and Sarah Chatto.
Of the Queen E's children, Anne married a commoner who was offered a title, which was declined. IIRC, she also declined the offer of titles for her children, Peter and sarah. Previously, Alexandra married a commoner, Sir Angus Ogilvy, who also remained untitled.
So there are several precedents for titles not being forced on any one. If the parents say they want their children not to bear titles, this is respected.
I never said King Charles was a narcissist, HG Tudor did, but as he did I’m going to listen to how he thinks King Charles will now deal with Maggot etc . 😂🥴 I wasn’t having a dig at Charles or for bestowing the PoW title so quickly. I actually believe Charles has largely and unfairly been maligned over the years, much of that blame can be attributed to the late PoW. So I agree with your sentiments regarding Charles etc.
What about this letter Maggot was supposed to have written (to Charles) regarding titles? Where has this story come from? I personally haven’t read about this, or is it merely a rumour being touted as fact? 😟
On another note, I’ve noticed today some articles with the possible intention of harming certain members of the royal family with unsaid suggestions. It should be noted that the British press may give the impression they are pro monarchy, when infact most aren’t and others are downright anti-monarchist. 🫤
@Sandie: Preoccupied or obsessed? Is it because the dead can't complain?
@HumorMe: Monarchs don't `beg'. They command. (Their requests are normally interpreted as commands)
@Este: Oprah acting in accord with her view of `white privilege?
@Lizzie: Jewelry is regarded as Crown Property, not personal property. I think it's more a case of who has nominal custody of it , rather than what we normally think of as the transfer of personal assets. Did * walk of with anything, such as the blood-diamond earrings?
@Hikari- yes, that's it - I just couldn't think of the word `oath'. Harry broke his. It was a revelation to watch the Council of Accession at work - and how Charles gave his formal consent to acting by the conditions imposed.
@swampWoman: You have a wicked sense of humour - thank you for the laugh.
------
I too was apprehensive about how Charles would be received when he first met the public as King. I could hardly believe my ears when the cheering started while his car was still in the Mall.
Relief flooded in. Perhaps he won't be dogged by the Curse of the Stuarts, after all Richard Duke of Gloucester doesn't seem to be haunted by the Princes in the Tower.
I did like the moment when the aide who preceded him told well-wishers to `put down their phones and enjoy the moment' - I was glad when the Edinburgh crowd stopped clapping and fell silent, but then realised they were all holding their phones up to take pictures. How sad that they reject direct experience of history being made - it has to be mediated through photography.
It happens, but it appears you didn’t read my comment properly and you missed another comment regarding the changes the letters patent 2013 made. 🥴
I am fully aware that males no longer take precedence over females when it comes to the line of succession. Also, allWilliam’s children would have the style of HRH and title Prince or Princess.I just worded it differently. 🫤
You skipped right past the bit where I wrote:😟
I found the below article and it explains why the Queen issued a letters patent. As per my previous comment, I was right about William’s children all holding their rightful place in the line of succession regardless of gender.
@Karla,
Yes, The Queen issued a Letters Patent for William’s children (I did mention it up thread 🤗). She did so because he was the direct heir after Charles. Otherwise his children would have been Lady and Earl’s etc. She also made changes to equal rights to the line of succession. So that regardless of gender the first born would be the next heir. 🤗
Princess Charlotte was born before Louis, with the changes to the rules of succession, she held her place (in the line of succession) above Louis after he was born.
And…
Yes the letters patent was a special change for the then Prince of Wales eldest son, before he (Prince Charles) was a Monarch himself. Maybe bearing in mind the age of Charles, but knowing Catherine at the time was pregnant, she probably wanted all their children to be styled and titled Prince and Princess from birth.
It’s really no wonder people get confused over rules versus reign. Too much misinformation is abound. Today alone the DM incorrectly stated rules rather than the correct term reigns, in more than one article. 🤨
Parliament took that power from the Crown in 1689 and the 1701 Act of Settlement, which displaced Catholic Stuart descendants from the succession. The Jacobites didn't like it, but they lost. Henry VIII had his multiple succession changes rubber-stamped by Parliament, so he's partly to blame for the Crown's eventual loss of that important power.
When King Juan Carlos of Spain abdicated, it was to escape charges. But one happy effect of it was that his son had the experience of inheriting the crown without first losing a parent. There's no way Elizabeth would have done the same for Charles, of course -- and I don't think any of the other current crowned heads would consider retirement over death, to make it easier for their own heirs.
The Dutch royal family (at least since Wilhelmina in 1948) have a habit of abdicating. I have heard that the family is prone to congenital deafness in later life but have not been able to find anything to back that up. A while back I watched a documentary about Beatrix of the Netherlands (formerly Queen, now Princess) and there was footage of the ceremony where Beatrix was inaugurated, effectively "taking the baton" from her mother, Juliana, who was present in the congregation. It was actually rather beautiful seeing the handover and for Beatrix to have the opportunity to thank her mother in person for her service.
Ex Forces (all three) who have reached the rank of Major or equivalent and retire after serving 20years or more are allowed to wear their uniform on certain occasions.
Ex Forces (all three) who have not reached required rank and resign before their contract expires cannot wear their uniform. They are entitle to wear any medals on a jacket.
PA served 20 years in The Royal Navy, he retired. Hw is being allowed to wear his uniform as he is Chief Mourner (special privilege)
for the vigil only. (PA saw active service in the Falklands War)
PH will wear a suit with his medals.(PH was in Afghanistan, playing X box in a bunker, well guarded and kept away from any conflict). Also re only reached the rank of Captain. (refused the exams which are needed for promotion). Only accepted at Sandhurst because of who Granny was. It caused endless problems.
The other Royals. KC (saw active service, but not in a war zone) Princess Anne and Prince Edward all have Honourary Armed Forces.
Roles as Colonel-in-Chief, hence allowed to wear uniform. KC is now Head of the Armed Forces.
Hope that simplies things.
I think Oprah is simply distancing herself from toxic in her latest flip flop.
https://twitter.com/imagingpdx/status/1569449448547434496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1569513490490212353%7Ctwgr%5E3f4192a8186a11a8bd03140e0e3ac34fbe51bfb9%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fxd30lo%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dfalse
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11205717/Oprah-Winfrey-criticised-saying-hopes-Harry-Meghan-make-peace-Royal-Family.html
Just one more plug for the twitter url above. There's a priceless video embedded in the tweet that lays bare Oprah's rank hypocrisy. It's worth your time and is going viral.
There was definitely something fishy about the business surrounding Andrew. I agree with you the the humiliation he has received (when he probably wasn't even the worst of the bunch) indicate that he is actually being punished for something else. If this was really about justice for victims of sex trafficking, there would have been a wider investigation of more people. I don't admire Andrew, but I don't think he is evil or deserves to be treated so.
Thank you for the information! I don't pay as much attention to the Dutch Royal Family as I could, so of course I missed that obvious and great example.
Well . . we had become resigned to that, I suppose. Particularly Harry . . but with his succubus already in tow, it would have been terrible optics for the family to exclude her. Had both of the traitors not already been in London, perhaps something might have been arranged to preclude the skanky Mrs. .. a sudden visa irregularity perhaps. They could have given her the opportunity to save face by claiming that she was ill or had to watch the bairns or polish her hooves or some excuse.
I have come round to the idea that it is far better for the RF to include her on a short leash and keep a gimlet eye on her every move and breath. Were she allowed to be on her own recognizance and allowed access to all her slimy contacts, she'd get up to all sorts of mischief . . drop a podcast with Oprah on the Queen's burial day, for example. Papp-walk herself 'placing flowers' somewhere with a film crew. Were she in California, it'd be hard to control her but right under their noses, they've got her dead to rights. I do hope they have provided her with all suitable mourning attire and taken away her phone and all devices. If she wants to speak to 'Doria and the kids', she can use the house phone, by appointment. It would be interesting to learn how often or if she has been in contact with her alleged two children and whoever they are allegedly being looked after by. After all, their trip to the UK is stretching two weeks past the original plan.
I doubt strenuously either that they are tucked up in Froggy Cott on their own. With grieving operations shifting to London, they are probably under guard at Kensington Palace. Perhaps in Harry's old digs at NottCott. If they let her go out or make any plans or call whoever she liked, who knows what she'd get up to? I'm sure all the Harkle movements are being reported back to William's staff. That's his job now, at least for the duration of this week . . Assistant Principal of Discipline. It's a cr*p detail but someone in authority has to do it. They are, in my opinion, on posh house arrest to make sure they do not do any more damage to the Crown in this week of all weeks.
The Pentagram drama is far from over but the wind is out of their sails. Now that they can't take advantage of the Queen's distaste for family conflict and will have to deal with the new administration, their arrows are blunt. Harry's revelations about Camilla or his father are not going to be received in the same prurient interest now that Charles is King. These are going to be treasonous allegations now. Even if people regard Hawwy's recollections as partially truthful--'his truth'--the thing is, they are all in the increasingly distant past. Charles and Camilla do have to bear the stigma attached to how they got together and betrayed Diana and the fallout from the divorce and her death. But in this new era, perhaps more people than Hawwy is counting on to keep his ancient grudges alive (and line his pockets with book sales) will be willing to draw a line under the past.
Penguin Random House is going to have an epic stinker on its hands. Only the most hate-filled and voyeuristic people will flock to buy Hawwy's screed savaging his family--which he did not even write himself but only dictated to someone capable of putting full sentences on paper--in the run-up to the festive season. Happy Christmas, let's rake over Diana's bones yet again and hear Hawwy whinge about how he, an adult man and service veteran who has not lived at Highgrove full-time for 15+ years, had 'his bedroom' taken away so Camilla could make it a dressing room. Like Highgrove House only had three bedrooms, Hawwy? As if. And his bedroom there was supposed to be kept in situ as a shrine to a now-nearly 40 year old married man who lives in a different country? And that will be the most benign thing.
Change the sheet music, Hawwy. All your tunes are so stale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA28gSD6AoM
Second the shoutout to St. Meghan Markle on Reddit for the excellent tea they regularly serve.
I've probably said his before but this is for new readers...
James II fled, planning to regroup (with French assistance) and return with a large army.
William of Orange, James's son-in-law was in the resulting hiatus, invited in to take his place. For all that he came in peace, he brought a huge, invasion-scale, force with him. It seems that, despite the opinion of many, he seems not to have come to protect the rights of Irish protestants. He actually came with the blessing of the Pope! Yes, it's a real `Not many people know that!' situation.
Both William and the Pope were motivated by the expansionist policies of Louis XIV, King of France, and William needed British resources in his support.
I already knew this account before I went to Dublin in 2010, when saw the exhibition in the National Museum on `What Really happened at the Battle of the Boyne (1690). This confirmed the account I've just given. The current Wikipedia entry, in my view, is a tad biased towards the idea that WmIII fought for the rights of the Protestants in Ireland.
In England, particularly in the SW, we tend to focus on the 1685 attempt of Charles IInd's bastard son, the protestant Dk of Monmouth, an attempt that ended bloodily in the Battle of Sedgmoore (Somerset) against King James's forces, followed and the Bloody Assize under Judge Jeffreys.
There was no Act of Parliament for Abdication; he was deposed, illegally in fact.
Edward VIII didn't really go voluntarily - the Government made him choose between Wallis and his kingdom.
The attitudes towards the Jacobites in the 18thC was still governed by fears of Continental domination, until that is, George III made his peace with Charles Edward's brother Henry, (according to Compton Mackenzie). George IV was a fan of the Jacobites, especially as it allowed him to dress up as a Highland chieftain,
see https://www.douglasreeman.com/jacobites-legends-of-the-45/
If studying the BRF (and well, my own family's history) has taught me anything, it is that human beings are ineffably complex. I don't think anyone is either pure hero or pure villain (though I certainly have my rose-colored glasses on when it comes to the Prince and Princess of Wales these days), and I was cheered to see virtue turn out to be where I least expected it -- like strength in King Charles and profound humility in Queen Camilla. It's enough to make me hold out hope even for Harry!
Yet I still think that the only appropriate response from Charles and Camilla in 1997 was a break up. I understand why they stayed together and I'm glad that it worked out for the best. (We're judging them by a great variety of good fruits now.) But I believe everyone who puts themselves back in their own late-90s shoes will recall being taken aback (at the very least) that Charles thought it was okay to keep indulging in behavior that contributed to things spiraling so out of control that his ex-wife actually died.
for the vigil only.
I'm glad to hear that he will be able to be in uniform at least part of the time. Chief Mourner is a nice recognition, too. I was not sure, in the current circumstances, if he retained any rank within the family. I know his HRH is in abeyance but is he still the Duke of York? In any case, he is the senior ranking Prince behind William now. I would like to hope that Andrew and Charles can make peace, finally. When the Queen was alive I think their infighting could only be classed as sibling rivalry and who Mummy loved the best. Now that all the Queen's children are both bereaved orphans . . that changes things. When one loses both parents, there's the framework of the childhood family dissolved and one is forced to finally, in every way, become an adult. With no parent around to still mediate squabbles, the adult kids must reconfigure their relationship. Let's hope it's for the better.
Now . . anyone for a betting pool as to whether Andrew and Sarah will quietly get remarried? Not until after the coronation, of course.
for the vigil only.
I'm glad to hear that he will be able to be in uniform at least part of the time. Chief Mourner is a nice recognition, too. I was not sure, in the current circumstances, if he retained any rank within the family. I know his HRH is in abeyance but is he still the Duke of York? In any case, he is the senior ranking Prince behind William now. I would like to hope that Andrew and Charles can make peace, finally. When the Queen was alive I think their infighting could only be classed as sibling rivalry and who Mummy loved the best. Now that all the Queen's children are both bereaved orphans . . that changes things. When one loses both parents, there's the framework of the childhood family dissolved and one is forced to finally, in every way, become an adult. With no parent around to still mediate squabbles, the adult kids must reconfigure their relationship. Let's hope it's for the better.
Now . . anyone for a betting pool as to whether Andrew and Sarah will quietly get remarried? Not until after the coronation, of course.
New Post!
Thanks for linking the "bombshell" video. Oprah and Gayle were laying the buzzwords on really thickly!
I hadn't known about the statements they made in the street that all but called Queen Elizabeth a liar. Did Oprah sincerely expect an invitation to the funeral after saying those things???
Finally, it's richly ironic that O and G don't believe Queen Elizabeth was "blindsided" by *'s allegations but easily accept that *, a savvy Internet user, joined the BRF "naively" not knowing anything about Harry or about tabloids.
But now I think it was the universe having one last laugh.
This could not have been a worse scenario for the Harkles.
If they had been in California they could have been shooting their mouths off and doing whatever they wanted over there. But since they're in Britain, they are on a very short leash and being watched every second.
Now . . anyone for a betting pool as to whether Andrew and Sarah will quietly get remarried? Not until after the coronation, of course.
Call me a big softy, but this would actually be nice. Sarah is incredibly messy as well, but I believe their marriage was a love match.
Would Prince Andrew need permission for this? If so, I hope that Charles, who has the love of his life beside him, will not begrudge him a second chance.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-plan-future-kate-194450983.html
I've looked and have searched the internet but haven't seen anything re * attending the funeral. Let's hope it's just a rumour. Maybe she decided to stay in the UK to force Charles's hand, this wouldn't surprise me.
I used to be a sometime watcher of Oprah's daytime talk show in the '80s and '90s. She was very skilled at portraying an empathetic compassionate listener. Real women all over the country could identify with her weight struggles. She *seemed* (keyword: SEEMED) to be a genuinely caring person who, having come from the humblest of circumstances, was using her resources to do genuine good.
Oprah curdled for me in the year 2000, which is the year she started her eponymous magazine, O. I have no idea if that's still operational, but in 20+ years, over 12 monthly issues, Oprah has made herself the cover girl. Conservatively, that's over 250 covers. So, yeah . .Oprah bought herself a magazine expressly to live out her fantasy of being a model. A handful of times, she permitted someone else to share the cover with her but she's never not been front and center on it--Despite having the platform and the influence to, I don't know--feature other inspirational women of color . . .Maybe?
That wasn't the worst of it. The entirety of the inside is Oprah's echo chamber. Every page is full of Oprah's New Age Divine Goddess musings on how she things women should be living their lives--What to read, what to wear, what to think (Woke, of course.) "Oprah's Favorite Things", a listing of luxury goods far beyond the means of the average woman is in every issue. Kickbacks for plugging $200 casmere pajamas and $130 face creams. A lot of Oprah's core TV audience where struggling single moms on welfare benefits.
Hypocrite doesn't even begin to cover it. O's monstrous ego is as big as Lake Michigan. She is however the premium grade of Narcissist--HG Tudor could only acknowledge her as being in the Ultra class. She's savvy and skilled at honing her presentation. Until she presided over the Harkle interview, maybe she still had legions of people fooled about her true nature. Not me. She's a giant Shelob spinning a giant web. I think she really does think of herself as a woke deity, for all that she pays lip service to growing up in the church singing Gospel. She's a fraud. Smeg and Ellen DeGeneres are amateurs compared to O especially Harry's wife. They let their masks slip; O does not. Until, maybe . .now and her ridiculous denials that she hadn't a clue what was coming in her own interview. O did not get where she is by leaving anything to chance. And by pretending that she didn't know what the Ducka$$ was going to say, she has given Harry's Wife the power in that encounter . .? Harry's Wife is so whip-smart that she completely ran roughshod over the Queen of All Media? Hardly. Harry's Wife is an exceptionally stupid and mentally disorganized woman.
Has the mighty Oprah Markled herself? She's 70 years old and it was a good run but she might've. She also can no longer abuse a devout elderly lady in cahoots with Harry's wife. Gonna be a lot of changes coming down the pike in the next few months.
Narcs are essentially cowards. I'd have respected O more if she'd held the line on her participation in that interview and not lied so blatantly about it. But when Narcs are caught out in unflattering truths, they lie. That is always their first impulse. Deny, deny, deny .. then blame the victim whilst playing the victim.
I see two posts from you, dated two different days in the 400 to 600 post section in the prior topic.
And, one in the near past before that.
There was a fairly recent post from you but it was before these two.
I don't know what else to tell you about deleted posts.
Moderator