I know someone who is pregnant. They are calm. They have their plans about this and that, what they will do and when that will happen. It looks very nice and well spaced out. But all I can think is that the birth is not all that far away. It is flying fast at them and I can tell that there are still a lot of things which need to be on the now list dates instead of the when I get to it list.
That's the problem with a coming at you soon deadline. It suddenly is right there and you are thinking: Wait a minute. This cannot be. I thought I had more time to do X or Y and now I'm suddenly short on time with lots of things left undone.
This coronation could be like that. It seems far away when you aren't in the thick of planning for it as it's not part of your daily, hourly thinking mind. But it's not that far way. 65 days is not much.
So will they come? Will they stay home? Who knows but the news always seems to have space for yet another maybe article. And, it keeps them in play which buys them some time.
I have no crystal ball telling me what they will do but I do know that they will have to come up with an answer pretty soon.
Comments
No-one bought the pregnancy rumours despite Maggot trying to sell it. Lacy C noted she was wearing elasticated trousers to the recent restaurant visit, complete with tipped off paps to photo the carefully staged event! 😂
The Coronation doesn’t look like it will be event the late Queen’s was, this saddens me. I don’t want Maggot or Mole there, it will just be more mileage out of the Royal connection for them, whether we want it or not.🥹
Two in particular stood out for me:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11jy742/_/
Dr Shola What's'erface came up with wtte that CRII & Wm are grossly immature in comparison with the Hs -
and this one pointing out that Doria's `church' is heavily into ayahuasca and alleges that H has been using it for 7 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11k0o88/can_we_talk_about_the_fact_that_the_leader_of/
......
We have a bottle of champers earmarked for some big celebration. I'd hoped to be able to open it for the downfall of the Harkles but we'll use it for the Coronation - and replace it with another - with the most-distant `best before date' we can find.
In he meantime, we shall have to close our eyes and think of Major Johnny.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/king-charles-set-offer-princess-200000434.html
King Charles ‘set to offer Princess Diana’s old apartment to Harry and Meghan if they come to his coronation’
Mon, 6 March 2023 at 8:00 pm GMT
King Charles is reportedly set to offer Princess Diana’s old apartment to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as temporary accommodation if they come to his coronation.
The monarch, 74, has invited the couple to his crowning on May 6 at London’s Westminster Abbey, with Prince Harry and his wife Meghan weighing up whether to attend amid the fallout from their revelations about life in the royal family.
They are said to have been weeks” by Charles to move out of their grace-and-favour” home of Frogmore Cottage in Windsor (eh?) – which may be given to Prince Andrew – but is now thought the king could offer the pair Diana’s old accommodation, The Sun Online reported on Monday. (06.03.23)
The outlet said: “The couple have not been offered a new permanent home following the event but it is understood that they will be given somewhere to stay temporarily as and when they visit the UK.
“This could include suites in Buckingham Palace or St James's Palace, as well as Princess Diana's former apartment at Kensington Palace.”
It was reported at the weekend Charles’ decision to offer the pair luxury accommodation was part of an “olive branch” to the pair.
Harry, 38, and Meghan, 41, now live in a nine-bedroom £12 million house in Montecito, California, after they quit life as senior royals in 2020 and are said to have been told to get their belongings out of Frogmore.
Charles’ offer of an invite to his coronation comes despite sources close to the king and his wife Queen Consort Camilla, 75, saying the couple were “furious” and left “wearied” by the claims in Harry’s autobiography, in which he said his brother Prince William pushed him to the floor.
An insider told the Mail: “His Majesty is furious, as is William. But the King is not a bad man.
“He has no wish to see his brother Andrew homeless or penniless. Nor does he wish to deprive the Sussexes of a base in the UK.
“London is a better fit. The Sussexes have always wanted rooms at Buckingham Palace.
“They could have Andrew’s old rooms there, which are currently being vacated.”
Harry and Meghan say they have been emailed about the coronation, but will not confirm whether they plan to attend.
Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on invitations to the event.
A statement from a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan said: “I can confirm the Duke has recently received email correspondence from His Majesty’s office regarding the coronation.
“An immediate decision on whether the Duke and Duchess will attend will not be disclosed by us at this time.”
see https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11k32a1/hazbeen_needs_random_drug_testing_while_on_crown/
Fergie on manoeuvres for Prince Andrew
She’s the keeper of the Queen’s corgis who says Prince Andrew is a ‘very kind man’ and Her Majesty told her to just ‘be yourself’. The Duchess of York has been unleashed, says Hilary Rose
Stay with me when I say that Sarah Ferguson has said something interesting. “I have been invisible for my own self for a very long time now,” she told an American magazine last week, “and so now I’m just beginning to sort of liberate and sort of test the waters, right?”
Strip away all the words that don’t need to be in that sentence, and what you’re left with is a simple fact: Fergie is on manoeuvres. What could possibly go wrong?
Item number one on her agenda appears to be to invoke Queen Elizabeth II in a flurry of interviews.
“She was my total idol,” she told People magazine last week, in a publicity blitz for her new romantic novel. “She put you at ease straight away, because it’s terrifying, you know? I used to sit there for hours thinking ‘Oh my gosh, this is somebody’s lifetime [wish] to have an audience with the Queen and I’m sitting here having tea.’ ”
Item number two is to bring on the corgis. Fergie and her ex-husband, the Duke of York, gave the Queen two corgis, Sandy and Muick, and inherited them when she died. The dogs are now, Fergie assured her American public, “national icons” and when they bark at nothing it is a sure sign that the Queen is “passing by”. She feels sure that HM is comforted, from beyond the grave, that the magnolia trees in Windsor Great Park are now in bloom and that her dogs “were walking where she walked before”. Fergie’s sense of duty, moreover, stems from wanting “to uphold exactly the way the Queen did it”.
She then went out for lunch with a journalist at the River Cafe. Having drizzled balsamic vinegar over her mozzarella, she reminisced to The Daily Telegraph about long walks with HM, during which the Queen listened but never judged.
“During the last three years,” she explained, “her poor son has been going through such a tumultuous time, and I think HM was very relieved I could help her with him, so we became even closer then.” For good measure she added that HM was “more of a mother to me than my own mother”. Her mother eloped with an Argentinian polo player when Fergie was a teenager.
Now there’s another new interview, this time with Hello! magazine. Alas, Fergie did not invite us into the lovely home that she shares with Prince Andrew, Royal Lodge, or pose with the corgis in the orangery. She did, though, say that whether Andrew moves out is a matter for him and his brother, the King. Andrew, she added, receives no money from the taxpayer since he “stepped back” from royal duties, and she is therefore “pleased and proud to support him”. Her first romantic novel, written with a ghostwriter, met an uncertain critical reception but sold a respectable 11,000 copies in Britain.
“For many years now,” she said, “I’ve really pushed to look after my girls and contribute to York family life.”
It’s 37 years since Fergie bounced onto the national stage, marrying the man who was seen in 1986 as a dashing prince and Falklands war hero. She was greeted as a welcome injection of informality into the royal family and a breath of fresh air, a riot in a sailor suit and big velvet hair bows. In 1988 the happy couple were dispatched on a royal tour of California. It did not go well. The Sunday Times described Andrew as looking like a Third Division footballer on a night out at the Hippodrome. Fergie looked like she’d just won third prize for a Carmen Miranda impersonation at the end of the pier.
At the time courtiers said that she had received £350,000 in cash, £500,000 from the Queen to buy a house for herself and the children, and a monthly allowance. However, she was, she complained at one point, perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy.
Over the years she has been variously an ambassador for Weight Watchers and for the Italian region of Puglia, the latter possibly thanks to her friendship with Nancy Dell’Olio. If you can tell anything about a person by their friends, we could usefully pause here to consider Dell’Olio, once a famous woman about town. I’ve met her, and her relationship with reality was — how to put this politely? — tenuous. She told me that she was looking for a man who would help to look after her children.
“You don’t have any children,” I said.
She nodded.
“I never wanted children. I was very clear.”
In her bid to add value to York family life, Fergie has written books and designed china tea sets. She has flogged blenders to punters on QVC and her ex-husband to the News of the World.
“I very deeply regret the situation and the embarrassment caused,” she said in a statement after a cash-for-access sting in 2010, acknowledging a “serious lapse in judgment”. She put it down to her financial situation being “under stress”.
These days things are sufficiently solvent, somehow, to enable her to pay nearly £5 million in cash for a mews house in Belgravia, central London. Described as a “nest egg” for her daughters, she can’t sell it without their agreement. On the side she has a deal involving “nature inspired” fountain pens that cost £1,600 and another with an online platform selling NFTs. She was paid a fortune in 2019 for being a “brand ambassador” by a Turkish businessman. His company was later described in the High Court as “a front for money laundering” (both Fergie and the businessman deny wrongdoing). Then there was the ski chalet in Verbier, for which Andrew and Fergie found £18 million from goodness knows where in 2014, and bought it off a French socialite who later described him as “an absolute fool”. After many carefree family hols on the Swiss pistes, the chalet was eventually sold around the time of his settlement with Virginia Giuffre.
Today Fergie is said to have a new “friendship” with a wealthy 72-year-old Texan called Trammell Crow Jr, who has a ponytail and many billions in the bank. According to The Sunday Times they are “bonding over environmental issues”. Ten years ago she described Andrew as “still my handsome prince. He will always be my handsome prince.”
“It is really sad to see what Andrew has been through,” she said recently, adding: “Perception is so important. It can make or break someone. I’m living with someone — at least when I’m in England and lucky enough to be a guest at Royal Lodge — and I see what that perception has done to a very kind man.”
“I think it’ll be an extraordinary moment, and I feel really strongly that the King is brilliant,” she has said. “He upholds everything that is good. I mean, what he has done for the environment! What he’s done in his life! How he loves to paint! How he loves to be! He is,” she concluded triumphantly, “a very special person.”
The Queen, she alleges, told her “be yourself. All anyone wants is for you to just be yourself.” We will never know if recollections may vary. Maybe the past 40 years have been a rehearsal. At 63, it sounds like Sarah Ferguson might just be getting started.
I call BS…
the Susseys - what they ordered v’s what they got
GOLD
This is hilarious!
-----
As for the coronation, it seems that emails were sent out because Prince Albert got his ages ago. Since the duo have just received theirs, they seem to be rather low on the list of those invited. Formal invitations have not been sent yet because if they were, the British tabloids would have got hold of one and published it.
As for where the duo could stay ... Frogmore Cottage is supposedly empty. There was a piece about Eugenie packing up the last of their stuff for them. I think this is PR from the duo because she wants to stay in BP, but claims they have been offered the apartment in KP as an alternative (Diana's old apartment). I have thought of a place where they can stay ... Nottingham Cottage. Eugenie and Jack can stay with family so it would be available, and the bus transporting minor royals will leave from KP.
Will they or won't they attend? My guess is that she does not want to but cannot resist the opportunity for global attention ... all those cameras! I reckon that her hold over him is absolute so she has no fear of him attending without her, but he would feel very isolated being there without her. To them, the King holds the key to money, positions, status, so they will want to use him as they did the late Queen (but unconsciously because consciously they think they are superior in every way). All these confused messages in the media is because they are all over the place. They talk up a storm of ideas between themselves, probably while sipping wine and smoking dope, and simply react to bad press with denial and a statement that has no basis in reality.
The royal family are racists because they wondered how dark the baby would be when I was pregnant/before we were married, and they refused to give my child a title and security. No they are not racists and we never said they were. The royal family have unconscious bias and they need therapy.
Whine, whine, whine ... the family must apologise to my wife for how they treated her (endless petty examples given). She collapsed on the floor in tears, wanting to kill herself and her unborn child so we had to flee to save our lives. No, I have never said I am a victim ... but have I told you how damaged I am because I was never hugged as a child (even though I was 12 when my mother died and not only did she hug a lot, but there are heaps of photos of my father hugging me)?
Remember when we had access to the Unpopular Opinions thread on LSA? Batsh1t crazy they used to call her. I think he is as well!
Thanks for the article about Fergie.
Who is lying?
The duchess of Montecito has told the story of meeting the late Queen for the first time at Royal Lodge, and that Fergie taught her how to curtsy in the carpark. Hapless has backed up this story.
Yet, Fergie says she does not know TBW and only really met her and had a brief conversation with her for the first time at the Queen's funeral.
Both stories cannot be true because they completely contradict each other.
Fergie also waxes lyrical about how happy TBW has made hapless. How does she know if she does not know her? Is this what Eugenie and Jack have told her?
Never mind H being drug tested on Crown property, what about being tested in the US or stopped by US Customs on his return (assuming he goes to the Coronation)?
In August 2003, Prince Andrew, Duke of York was granted a lease agreement by the Crown Estate for 75 years. The property leased included the Royal Lodge, a Gardener's Cottage, the Chapel Lodge, six Lodge Cottages, and police security accommodation in addition to 40 hectares of land.
The lease agreement required Prince Andrew to carry out, at his own expense, refurbishments under-estimated at £7.5 million at September 2002 prices, excluding VAT. It also provided for a premium payment of £1 million.
The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the lease agreement stated that the Crown Estate's independent advisors had advised that the refurbishment work would cost at least £5 million and that the prince should be given the option to buy out the notional annual rental payment (set at £260,000) for £2.5 million.
Once the prince committed to spending £7.5 million on refurbishment, it was decided that no rental would be required as he would be treated as having effectively bought out the notional annual rental payment because he exceeded the minimum £5 million required for refurbishment. As a result, only the £1 million premium was paid to the Crown Estate.
There is no provision for any further rent review over the life of the 75-year lease agreement (unlike the rent reviews provided in the case of Bagshot Park, residence of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, also leased from the Crown Estate).
The lease agreement provides that the prince may not benefit financially from any increase in the value of the property as the freehold belongs to the Crown Estate. The leasehold may be assigned only to his widow or his two daughters, Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, or a trust established solely for their benefit.
If the prince terminates the lease, the property reverts to the Crown Estate. He would be entitled to compensation for the refurbishment costs incurred up to a maximum of just under £7 million, which is reduced annually over the first 25 years, after which no compensation is payable.
The NAO report states that having already taken advice from one independent advisor on the transaction, the Crown Estate appointed a second firm of independent advisors to assess the details of the lease deal, given its importance. The second independent advisor concluded that the deal was appropriate having regard to the need to maintain management control over Royal Lodge and because of the security implications (particularly concerning the Royal Family's access to the Royal Chapel). In the circumstances, the Crown Estate considered that the requirement to obtain value for money was satisfied, taking into account the non-financial considerations relating to the lease of the property. The alternative use, to lease it on the commercial market, was not possible.
Gobsie & Bobsie
Vice Versa-tile
Fergie the irrepressible
affable D’ork
Appears to be speaking
in tongues with a fork
Debunking tales
of teaching madam
The correct protocol
greeting Haz’s Grandam
One is reminded of her
sucking of toes
T’others renowned for
the jobs that she blows….
I agree.
I did not realize that it is so big and includes cottages (called cottages but I think they are actually attached to the Lodge on either side) and accommodation for security, plus a lot of land. Why is Eugenie scrounging for a Crown property from the monarchy when her father has an estate with heaps of accomodation?
I always thought he pays rent but he does not: he paid a million upfront but is not liable for paying annual rent for the first 25 years of occupation. Since Andrew has lived there for over 20 years, he is entitled to some compensation if he leaves, but not much. He undertook to spend 7,5 million on repairs and structural upkeep but 2,5 million of that was accepted in lieu of rent (plus the million he paid upfront).
The lease can be passed on to his daughters but not his ex-wife because of the divorce (could if she was his widow).
-----
Questions I have: Did Andrew spend 7.5 million on repairs? Why do his daughters not reside on the estate and help him out by paying rent? It probably would be suitable for William and Catherine, but the optics of removing Andrew and moving in the Prince and Princess of Wales are bad, in my opinion. They may not want such a huge responsibility, but if William is going to be king, he better get used to it!
Apologies for going off track ... it strikes me that the Californian duo must have felt hard done by. They had Nottingham Cottage (as did Catherine and William, when George was born), but then got Frogmore Cottage. The comparisons with other children of a monarch must have made them feel hard done by. But, in reality, all she wanted was a Soho House decorated, California inspired mansion. Still, she would have felt that she was getting less, and that must have been very painful for her.
And why is there a big drama about where they are going to stay if they attend the coronation? Andrew has plenty of rooms. Says something that it is not automatically assumed that they will stay with family, all of who have huge properties. Is this a game and whoever loses gets to put them up for the coronation?
IF Lady C is accurate (and I really don't know but I it looks to me as a disinterested observer that the Todgers are nuts), then the Todgers could very well be a danger to RF members.
on a whole different note. did anyone see the KCIII and camilla coverage today. she kept shaking peoples hand with her left hand and never transferred her purse out of her right. she’s done enough of these that this isn’t a rookie move. hope she’s ok but am thinking her hand has some issue (arthritis?)
Meghan Markle has been dealt a legal blow over her hit podcast as the United States Patent and Trademark Office has refused her application to trademark the word "Archetypes."
In a non-final action filed on January 18, the royals' podcast production company Archewell Audio, was informed that its application was being refused on the grounds that there was a "likelihood of confusion" with a trademark already in existence.
Meghan announced her Archetypes podcast, which aimed to "dissect, explore, and subvert the labels that try to hold women back," in the spring of 2022, releasing weekly instalments beginning that August.
"Archetypes" as a name holds significance to both Meghan and Prince Harry for a number of reasons.
As a product it links directly to the couple's Archewell organization founded in 2020. In a statement announcing Archewell's formation, the couple explained that the name had long been something they considered and, in part, it inspired the name of their son, Archie Mountbatten Windsor.
"Before SussexRoyal [the couple's previous non-profit organization], came the idea of 'Arche' — the Greek word meaning 'source of action.'" they said. "We connected to this concept for the charitable organisation we hoped to build one day, and it became the inspiration for our son's name.
The first podcast series ended in November, winning a People's Choice Award later that year, with no plans for a second yet announced.
Archewell Audio filed an application to trademark "Archetypes" in March 2022, principally in connection with "entertainment services, namely, an ongoing podcast series in the fields of cultural treatment of women and stereotypes facing women."
The patent and trademark office's initial refusal suggests that Meghan's proposed trademark of "Archetypes" is "identical in appearance, sound, and meaning," to one currently held by U.S. based Project Miracle IP Holdings. This was registered in May 2018.
The duchess' production company has until April to pursue the application, extend or abandon it.
Intellectual property lawyer and partner of the Foot Anstey legal firm, Paul Cox, told Newsweek that the duchess now faces an important decision in how to proceed with the Archetypes podcast.
"In simple terms the trade mark application has at present been rejected," he said.
"The deadline to respond to the refusal is 18 April 2023. If no response is filed, the mark will be deemed to have been "abandoned". In order to overcome the refusal, arguments will needed to be filed to persuade the examiner there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark."
If Meghan is not granted the trademark, then the podcast could go ahead without it, with the current holder at liberty to decide if it infringes on their rights.
"It would be up to an earlier rights owner to take infringement action if they were concerned about the actual use of the mark," Cox explained.
"This is usually expensive and as such not something that trade mark owners do without detailed consideration of the legal merits of such action and what the earlier trade mark holder is trying to achieve. If the earlier trade mark holder does not feel that use of the latter mark would cause them commercial damage in the marketplace they may not be willing to invest the time, energy and money to prevent its use even if they are able to do so."
On where this leaves Meghan and Archetypes in general, Cox observed that: "Arguments can be filed to try and overcome the refusal or consent from the earlier trade marks could be obtained, although this may not be accepted by the trade mark office to overcome the refusal.
"The standard response would be to file arguments to try to overcome the refusal. If this fails they may choose to trade under Archetypes without a registration in the U.S. They could of course approach Project Miracle IP Holdings, LLC to see if they could buy the rights to the earlier mark from them."
Foot Anstey is not involved in the case.
Newsweek approached representatives of Meghan Markle via email for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-suffers-legal-blow-podcast-archetypes-1786028
The audacity, to not only mis-use the word, but then to try to trademark it. Not as audacious as Oprah trying to trademark the letter "O', but close.
Someone on Redditt transcribed the entire interview with the doctor.
I attributed the crude dividing responses to the book into two camps and claiming those who are critical have not read the book to hapless but it actually comes from the doctor.
We must not forget that he made millions from the memoir, but he keeps insisting that publishing it was an act of service. Sounds like PR concocted in mudslide manor to me.
What struck me is that he could have gone to his grandmother and father and said that royal life was not for him and he wanted to go and live in the bush in southern Africa. But he never did. However, there was the story that him and his wife were going to relocate to South Africa, but then couldn't because the plan was leaked. He also told some nonsense story in that interview about why the plan had to be scrapped that did not make sense. I think she put a stop to the plan because it was a mansion in an enclave in LA or nothing for her. It just occurs to me that he is still not living the life he authentically wants.
Sarah Ferguson has said she believes 'forgiveness is key' when it comes to 'family unity' with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in a new interview.
During a 60-mintue 'conversation' with Glamour editor Samantha Barry, the 63-year-old was asked about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who are currently living in their $14 million mansion in California.
She noted that Harry's late mother Princess Diana would be 'so proud' of her children and grandchildren - adding that she believes King Charles feels the same way.
She said: 'Diana and I, we played a lot and had a great time and I feel really strongly - and so would the King - [that she would] be so proud of the grandchildren. And of the family.
'And I do believe in family unity. I think forgiveness is key.'
-------
Yes, Sarah, forgiveness is key but who needs to forgive who? Certainly not Charles and William, if this is what she's implying.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11830327/Sarah-Ferguson-believes-forgiveness-key-comes-family-unity-Harry-Meghan.html
Did the doctor ever consider the above and wonder if hapless himself is not the problem?
He made some bad choices in life. Delving into cause and motivation is surely only useful if it prevents one from repeating bad choices?
Teasmade...Harkles did not have a good January.
Evicted
Trademark rejected
Book fell flat
Interviews sucked
South Park
Chris Rock
Fallout from Netflix show in December
No coronation invite?
Another interview sucked
H's immigration status starting to be questioned re: drug use
I was also befuddled by the comment she made about forgiveness.
In her own life, Andrew and the late Queen forgave her for her indiscretions. In turn, one assumes that she forgives Andrew for a major scandal.
Does she expect the royal family to forgive the duo? Can one forgive if the couple believe they have done nothing wrong and also believe they are owed an apology? Or ... Are the royal family supposed to acknowledge that they require forgiveness from the duo, and if they do not acknowledge that they have done anything wrong, should the duo forgive them anyway?
Nice sounding word salad, but what does it actually mean?
Isn't Sarah supposed to be promoting a book? No one is talking about the book. This promo tour is not going to sell books if it goes on like this.
Inside Harry and Meghan's 'private island plans' after being ousted from Frogmore Cottage
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are said to be talking about buying another home, after a tumultuous few months for the pair, with Harry thought to be keen on a private island.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-harry-meghans-private-island-29392521?int_source=nba
This is in the Mirror:
Inside Harry and Meghan's 'private island plans' after being ousted from Frogmore Cottage
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are said to be talking about buying another home, after a tumultuous few months for the pair, with Harry thought to be keen on a private island.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-harry-meghans-private-island-29392521?int_source=nba
Private islands are pretty pricey! Decommissioned oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, converted into a dwelling, now that might be in their budget. They could declare themselves Emperor and Empress of OilRigistan.
To be expect forgiveness, one has to be contrite, acknowledge one's offences, to make amends and to resolve to do better; these two haven't even faked that. For the wounded to pat them on the head, say `That's OK, dear boy. Here are 2 tickets for the best seats at the Coronation' is setting oneself up for another kicking.
In any case, narcs are incapable of working out which party is the offender and which the offended against.
It's a different matter to free oneself of justified bitterness towards the unrepentant offender, to shed the anger that gnaws away at you and to arrange things so they never do it to you again, although some people do call that `forgiveness'.
Like all narcissists, the Harlkes find it impossible to let go of the pettiest of slights and imagined injuries.
`Hush-a-bye Archie on the treetop,
When the wind blows the cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks the cradle will fall.
Down will come Meghan, Harry and all.'
Not quite a case of history repeating itself but close enough.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1633446917999939584?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Prince Harry and Meghan reveal they have christened daughter 'Princess Lilibet Diana' in intimate Californian ceremony carried out by Archbishop of LA - as couple's friend Omid Scobie claims 'King Charles and William were invited - but didn't come'
Because Charles and William have nothing better to do, perhaps?
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's daughter has been christened 'Princess Lilibet Diana' in a small ceremony at their home in California, it was revealed today.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex hosted the religious ceremony last Friday which was carried out by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Reverend John Taylor.
The couple's spokesman said: 'I can confirm that Princess Lilibet Diana was christened on Friday, March 3 by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Rev John Taylor.'
Princess?? Since when? Is that part of her name now?
H wasn't christened Prince Harry!
People magazine reported that there were between 20 and 30 guests at the event, including Meghan's mother Doria Ragland and Lilibet's godfather Tyler Perry. So now we know why he flew over and got changed during the flight.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835047/Meghan-Prince-Harrys-daughter-Princess-Lilibet-Diana-christened.html
Yep, Perry was there for a christening! They want titles for the children so they may go to the coronation just to secure that. Note the intro to the article:
"As grandchildren of the monarch, Archie and Lilibet are afforded the titles of prince and princess"
Nooe it is not automatic. It is up to the King if he issues Letters Patent granting those titles or not. I see no reason why he should do so for American grandchildren that he never sees and who will likely never live in the UK or a Commonwealth realm.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835047/Meghan-Prince-Harrys-daughter-Princess-Lilibet-Diana-christened.html
”Katie Price also calls her daughter Princess. Just saying…”
😂😂😂
I'm sure it was a happy occasion attended by all the family on both sides.
Oh Wait.......
They'll be expecting people to bow and curtsey to their kids next.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's daughter has been christened 'Princess Lilibet Diana' in a small ceremony at their home in California, it was revealed today.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex hosted the religious ceremony last Friday which was carried out by the Bishop of Los Angeles, the Reverend John Taylor.
The couple have been entitled to use 'Princess' for Lilibet since the accession to the throne of King Charles last September - and have now chosen to do so.
Yes, they have been granted the titles. Christening of Lilli was probably a condition.
does that mean that they named her "Princess Lilibet"? or are the DM bestowing titles now?
The duo asked for it, and I suspect that it would have caused major trouble if the King had said no.
Yes, they will be at the coronation as this is a major victory for them. (My prediction.) They will also demand that them and their children are in official photos for the coronation. They will probably get that as well. A special role in the service?
I feel sorry for William and Catherine and their family, because this is going to impact hugely on them.
European royal houses are stripping titles; the King is granting them to Americans. You can't make this stuff up!
I can see them being given an apartment at Buckingham Palace as well, and the King providing security.
What's next in terms of special favours for them?
Of course it is all going to go horribly wrong. That is always a certainty with the couple!
Prince Harry and Meghan reveal they have christened daughter 'Princess Lilibet Diana' in intimate Californian ceremony - as couple's friend Omid Scobie claims 'King Charles and William were invited - but didn't come'
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle today revealed that they have christened their daughter 'Princess Lilibet Diana' in Montecito without Charles, Camilla, William and Kate.
The Sussexes have revealed they have snubbed a British baptism for their youngest daughter and held a Anglican ceremony at their Montecito mansion for between 20 and 30 friends including her billionaire godfather Tyler Perry.
Harry and Meghan invited King Charles, Queen Consort Camilla and the Prince and Princess of Wales to the California ceremony last Friday but they declined, a source close to the couple told People magazine.
'Lili', as she is called by her parents, was christened by the Bishop of Los Angeles, the Reverend John Taylor, who is the top Anglican minister in California.
A statement by the Sussexes' referred to the one-year-old as 'Princess Lilibet Diana' - revealing for the first time that the couple has decide to invoke their right to use 'Princess' for Lilibet since the accession to the throne of King Charles last September.
And the monarch will not stand in their way, Buckingham Palace has revealed, adding the Royal Family's official website will now be updated to call the the children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. It currently refers to Lilibet as 'Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor'.
It is also understood that HRH will be 'held in abeyance', which describes a state of temporary disuse. Harry and Meghan were no longer HRH after Megxit because they quit as working royals.
Buckingham Palace currently refers to Lilibet as 'Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor' - but its website will now be updated to call the the children Prince and Princess.
The title is in line with the precedent created by letters patent issued by George V in 1917 which conferred Prince or Princess on male line grandchildren of the Sovereign.
It is understood 21-month-old Lili's title of princess and Archie's title as a prince will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use by the couple.
At the time of the late Queen's death, a spokesman for the King had pledged to update Archie and Lilibet's names on the website 'as and when we get information'.
The couple's statement referred to Reverend Taylor as the Archbishop of Los Angeles - but he is actually the Bishop of Los Angeles in the Episcopal Church in the US, which is part of the global Anglican Communion.
The Archbishop of Los Angeles is the Most Reverend José H. Gomez, who leads the US's largest Catholic community.
Royal journalist Omid Scobie, who is close to the Sussexes, reported that 'King Charles, Queen Camilla, Prince William, Princess Kate were invited but didn't attend'. It is not known whether any other Royal Family members were present.
People magazine reported that there were between 20 and 30 guests at the event, including Meghan's mother Doria Ragland and Lilibet's godfather Tyler Perry.
The filmmaker had been spotted paying a visit to Harry and Meghan's Montecito home last Friday and at a airport in Los Angeles where he boarded his private jet.
Harry and Meghan are thought to be keen to not deny their children their birthright, but to allow them the chance to decide for themselves when older whether to drop or keep using the titles.
Meghan said in the couple's bombshell interview with US talk show host Oprah Winfrey that Archie was not given the title of prince because of his race.
However, when Archie was born seventh in line to the throne in May 2019, he was too far down the line of succession.
Although he was a great-grandchild of the monarch, he was not a first-born son of a future king, so was not automatically a prince.
The news comes as it was revealed Camilla's brother-in-law Simon Elliot, with whom the Queen Consort was very close, died last week.
Royal journalist Omid Scobie, who is close to the Sussexes, reported that 'King Charles, Queen Camilla, Prince William, Princess Kate were invited but didn't attend'. It is not known whether any other Royal Family members were present.
People magazine reported that there were between 20 and 30 guests at the event, including Meghan's mother Doria Ragland and Lilibet's godfather Tyler Perry.
The filmmaker had been spotted paying a visit to Harry and Meghan's Montecito home last Friday and at a airport in Los Angeles where he boarded his private jet.
Harry and Meghan are thought to be keen to not deny their children their birthright, but to allow them the chance to decide for themselves when older whether to drop or keep using the titles.
Meghan said in the couple's bombshell interview with US talk show host Oprah Winfrey that Archie was not given the title of prince because of his race.
However, when Archie was born seventh in line to the throne in May 2019, he was too far down the line of succession.
Although he was a great-grandchild of the monarch, he was not a first-born son of a future king, so was not automatically a prince.
The news comes as it was revealed Camilla's brother-in-law Simon Elliot, with whom the Queen Consort was very close, died last week.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835047/Meghan-Prince-Harrys-daughter-Princess-Lilibet-Diana-christened.html
[Now I'm just saying...how can there be "No children" when this has happened]
Inside 'Princess Lilibet's' christening where Archie 'danced with his sister to a playlist of Harry and Meghan's wedding songs and guests were serenaded by a gospel choir' - but royals didn't attend
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle hosted a christening for their daughter Lilibet at their $14 million mansion in California, it's been revealed today.
The Duke, 28, and Duchess of Sussex, 41, hosted the religious ceremony, which was carried out by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Reverend John Taylor, last Friday.
People magazine reported that there were between 20 and 30 guests at the event, including Meghan's mother Doria Ragland and Lilibet's godfather Tyler Perry.
They were serenaded by a gospel choir, who performed 'Oh Happy Day' and 'This Little Light of Mine' — a song that was played at Meghan and Harry's wedding.
Meanwhile an insider revealed that after the ceremony, 'attendees were treated to an afternoon of food and dancing — with Archie enjoying a dance with his little sister!'
A spokesman for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (pictured in their 2021 Christmas card with Archie and Lilibet) has confirmed the couple threw a christening for 'Princess Lilibet' last week at their $14.7million Montecito home
A source also told the magazine that Lilibet's aunt and uncle, the Prince and Princess of Wales, grandfather King Charles and step-grandmother, the Queen Consort, had been invited to the stateside event but had not attended.
The news of the christening comes amid speculation over whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will attend the King's Coronation in the UK, after they received an invitation.
A spokesperson for the couple confirmed they had been invited to the ceremony on 6 May (the same day as their eldest child Archie's birthday) but did not comment on whether or not they had accepted the invitation.
Details of the warm ceremony reflect Prince Harry's disclosure last weekend that he 'smothers' his children with affection.
In an interview with controversial therapist Gabor Mate, the Duke said: 'It leaves me in position now, as a father to two kids of my own, making sure that I smother them with love and affection.'
He had been referring to claims he made in his bombshell memoir Spare that the royal family did not often physically touch one another.
It is perhaps no surprise that the couple hosted the party in their own home, as Meghan has previously discussed her attachment to the property as 'free' and full of 'joy'.
Not many details have been given about decorations at the party, although Harry and Meghan's $14 million mansion is reported to be kitted out with chic Soho House candles and the couple boast a grand piano in their sitting room, which was gifted to them by Mr Perry.
Speaking in an interview with The Cut last year, Meghan said of her home: 'We did everything we could to get this house. Because you walk in and go... Joy. And exhale. And calm. It’s healing. You feel free.'
One of the first features of the home that Meghan and Harry saw was two palm trees, connected together at the bottom, which the Duke claimed represented the loved-up couple.
'And now every day when Archie goes by us, he says, "Hi, Momma. Hi, Papa,"' explained the Duchess.
Harry also featured in the magazine interview, and briefly explained that he is in the middle of renovations for the home - fixing pipes, for example.
Mr Perry's involvement in the ceremony and as Lilibet's godfather is also no surprise as the couple have been close friends with him since their move to the US and often speak fondly of him.
The Hollywood titan was spotted flying to Santa Barbara last week to meet Harry and Meghan, and reportedly changed into a suit before catching up with them - suggesting the dress code was smart for guests in attendance.
While the guests and the family - particularly little Archie - reportedly danced the afternoon away to a playlist which contained some of Harry and Meghan's wedding songs, it is unclear exactly which tunes were played.
However, friend of the Sussexes Idris Elba, who played a DJ set at their wedding reception in 2018, has previously revealed some details of the music that may give an idea into what the playlist looked like at the christening.
In an appearance on BBC Radio 1Extra, Elba revealed Meghan had specifically requested he play a mix of Whitney Houston's disco hit I Wanna Dance With Somebody, which he said got the crowd going. Another tune Meghan requested was Still D.R.E by Dr Dre.
A song which was most likely played at the christening party which holds special meaning to the Sussexes is 1960 hit Land of a Thousand Dances, to which the couple had their first dance.
Speaking about their wedding reception in $100 million Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan, the Duchess said: 'I just really wanted the music to be fun – even our first dance.'
However, if it was on the christening playlist, Harry was most likely the person who requested it, as Meghan joked in the documentary that she 'always get[s] it wrong' when she tries to think of the name of the track.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11835141/Inside-Lilis-California-christening-Prince-Harry-Meghan-threw-celebration-home.html?ito=push-notification&ci=dOFS-fQ-1v&cri=Srr45TWoOf&si=iJANmsHQpl66&xi=c3c56fff-5cc1-48ae-bf7c-2ed9417ca9bb&ai=11835141
Until the royal titles comes with confirmation from BP, it’s just more PR fodder the duo want for more press coverage. No photos and story came from plastic face.
Don’t forget about all the so called invites and awards that came to absolutely nothing….the titles are the same thing till we know better. 🫤
did the invites to the Christening come via email the day before 😉
wasn’t Pippa’s daughter’s christening around the same time (stalking much)
was this agreed upon or is there a negotiation and like megixit we get a release ahead of the final to steal the narrative
i’m an ignorant american but we consider prince/princess higher ranked than duchess. does M now have to curtsy to the kids?
isn’t H doing ButterUp today. talk about taking the PR wind out of his sails
is this a way of her linking the kids to him and monarch in a divorce? i speculated he could leave for UK and not be allowed back to US and the “kids” become her problem. by linking them back is it back to his problem?
does anyone have a schedule for the “arch” bishop. is this like a Welby thing for Archie’s christening. in york but miraculously shows up to a christening.
i wonder if suddenly the Oprah and TP thing are because she and he have shown they will talk and have receipts so play ball with the desperate Mrs on this and we will spill more (think whatsapp chats with Mark Hancock in UK)
i’m getting tired of BRF no comments on things.
I agree with one comment I read, that if HM Charles III doesn't shut this all down once and for all, with utter brutal finality, then William should just give up and go back to being an air ambulance pilot. He can succeed in private life with loving wife, precious children, and wonderful honorable in-laws. He does not need this.
Yes at the name of Princess! 😂Did they just name her Princess, they are that stupid, ignorant and tacky! 😂 Micheal Jackson called his son Prince. 🥸😂
Let's say that 10 months from now the Duo come out with a line of Princess Lilibet clothing and baby accessories. I don't see how Charles can stop this. Or maybe Charles prefers this. As in, go make more money in America, so that you don't bother us/BRF in England anymore.
"Until the royal titles comes with confirmation from BP, it’s just more PR fodder the duo want for more press coverage. No photos and story came from plastic face."
__________________________________________________
I so want this to not be true!!!
But I am disturbed by this comment in the Daily mail article:
"And the monarch will not stand in their way, Buckingham Palace has revealed, adding the Royal Family's official website will now be updated to call the the children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet."
I hope a Nuttie will report if the Official Royal website is changed to reflect the new titles.
If it was true, it would come from official BP sources first. 🤗 Until it’s officially stated, it’s just another ploy of theirs to push the narrative. I just roll my eyes when I see their desperate PR pieces. 😃
It occurred to me too that Katie Price's daughter is called Princess!😁
I thought * said she wasn't interested in titles? And what good is the title Princess to a toddler in the US?? As long as this is just PR from Montecito, I don't care but if it's had the official seal of approval from BP, then it's whole different ball game.
@Anonymous,
Yes at the name of Princess! 😂Did they just name her Princess, they are that stupid, ignorant and tacky! 😂 Micheal Jackson called his son Prince. 🥸😂
The *only* American Prince that I recognize was Prince Rogers Nelson, RIP.
It does sound to me as if the word `Princess' has been used as a name - so what else can a spokesman say?
Let's wait and see what Lady C says about it, after all, in Harry and Meghan she made it pretty clear, if one read between the lines, that the doubt about Archie's parentage & birth ruled out titles until such time his legitimacy according to English, not US, law is/can be confirmed... They may not hold the titles for very long.
Incidentally, I see using a sacrament of the church for her own nefarious purposes is entirely within *'s modus operandi. At least she didn't get a chance to gloat over scandalised faces as the words `... I baptise you Princess Lilibet...' were uttered.
Yes, 6 months to the day that the Queen died.
----
BTW, Ngozi's back in the news - coincidence or what?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ngozi-fulani-buckingham-palace-sistah-space-breaking-agreement-125810216.html
Shall post in full later.
If things really were that rosy between His Maj, and he or Wm were prepared to eat humble pie at their table, surely they'd have sent a personal representative to the baptism, no matter how short the notice was that they'd been given?
`Miss Princess Lilibet Diana'?
If some members of the RF were supposedly invited, was this last minute? In any case, they would have needed a lot of notice and planning, they can't just rock up just like that. Maybe the Harkles knew full well that none of the RF could attend, so now they can wail - waaaagh - and complain they were snubbed and, worse still, their precious child was snubbed.
I am sickened by this.
Not much of a reason to hold a coronation if Charles will buckle to his knees to pander to the demands of the Sussexes because there’s a good chance Charles will be the final monarch.
A Hollywood producer who had worked with Meghan had this to say in the Lady Colin Campbell book- Meghan and Harry, The Real Story: "While her admirers commended her for her tenacity and toughness, one producer told me that he regarded her ‘an odiously pushy, voracious piece of work’. She was ‘greedy’, had ‘far too high an opinion of herself’, and was ‘a player who has a compulsion to always push for more. If you offered her California, she’d demand Arizona as well, and, if you didn’t give it to her, you were victimising her."”
It will be sad to watch the King of England be crushed by a z-list actress whose only talent was to ensnare a dimwit prince who fell for a mommy with benefits.
This is just bizarre - the children will be referred to on the line of succession website styled Prince/ Princess, but no formal announcement. And H&M, like E&S, state that at age 18 the children may chose to use the titles if they want.
Okay - so why all the todo about titles if the kid gets to decide at age 18 like Lady Louise, and Lord Severn?
This...was all about the optics of getting the Senior Royals to fly to Montecieto.
To have a face to face meeting. To spin the meeting the way they want. And the royals did not fall for it.
You can call a child anything. Legally is another matter.
I think it is appalling that the King is allowing them to use the titles Prince and Princess. Two steps forward (eviction from Frog Cottage) and three steps back. These children will be thoroughly Americanized. The one and only reason they want the titles for their kids is to monetize them (and possibly enhance their chances of marrying well?)
I am sickened by this.
*shrug* They can use the titles of God Emperor and God Empress of the Milky Way Galaxy if they feel the urge to do so. When people asked me my title while I was working, I gave myself titles like Goddess of All She Surveys, Supreme Being, or Sacrificer of Roosters to the Gods of the Internet. If one must have a title, it should be a good one.
We should probably all choose a title in order to outrank the Duchess of Doom.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1743931/princess-lilibet-prince-archie-title-row-details-spt
It is still allowed (christening at home), but the duo cannot claim exceptional circumstances. Christening the child at home when there are churches available would not be allowed in the UK.
I think this is the first christening of a royal where no other royals were present. Sarah was in LA. Was she invited or does she not count for the duo? Did Eugenie and Jack fly to LA to attend?
Nope. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie do not have taxpayer-funded security. Remember that was said in the Oprah interview - their children would not have security because they do not have prince/princess titles.
The question is, has the King formally bestowed the titles upon the children, in which case they are legally Prince & Princess of the Realm?
Until we know he has, we shouldn't assume it. The H's have probably given the children each an extra name that could be a source of great embarrassment in the future. Miss Princess Lilibet is more unfortunate because under English Civil Law one can't change a baptismal name which has been given under Canon Law. A silly judge once said `it had been given by God' but I seen what he was trying to say.
We may find them listed as
`Master Prince Archie M-W' and `Miss Princess Lilibet Diana M-W'. ie the `title' of Master and Miss but forenames of `Prince Archie' and `Princess Lilibet Diana.'
I too am heartily sick of them and their antics.
`Blogger Sandie said...
"A royal source has since confirmed the King was notified of Harry and Meghan's intention to use the title for their children, saying: “The appropriate conversations have taken place ahead of today's news (of Lilibet's christening).”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1743931/princess-lilibet-prince-archie-title-row-details-spt
Note my emphasis:-
"A royal source has since confirmed the King was notified of Harry and Meghan's intention to use the title for their children, saying: “The appropriate conversations have taken place ahead of today's news (of Lilibet's christening).”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1743931/princess-lilibet-prince-archie-title-row-details-spt
Does it say the King has bestowed the titles? No.
Does it indicate what the `appropriate conversations' were? No.
Did he let them assume he'd go along with it when it was really `Son, just go ahead -- make my day'?
Let's not jump to conclusionss.
Just like HMTQ giving permissioni for her cherished nickname to be used as a child's name when it was broadcast after PP funeral that the name Lilibet would never again be used. "Weel, we told her we were naming the baby after her." Yep, right.
I still stand by my prognosication that the Harkles were going to spin this past weekend for all they could, especially IF the Senior royals showed.
'So, they are further entrenching themselves in California. It suggests that they are not coming to the Coronation, or back to London any time soon.'
The minimum number of people involved would be parent(s) & 2 godparents/sponsors, plus an ordained clergyperson (priest or curate). It sounds like a big party - what's the evidence apart from their say-so?
Maybe CR III's view is `Let them think it's OK to keep them happy for the time being - they have no idea what's going to hit them'.
It they come, will they bring 2 children with them. I incline to the view that they borrow Gavin Gringras for Archie & another child for Lilibet, but she may have been reclaimed. So perhaps A & L have no other existence.
`Ngozi Fulani: Buckingham Palace accuses Sistah Space CEO of breaking agreement
Emma Mackenzie
·Yahoo UK royal reporter
Wed, 8 March 2023 at 12:58 pm GMT·3-min read
(i)Buckingham Palace has appeared to criticise the charity boss at the centre of a royal race row after she appeared on ITV's Good Morning Britain on Wednesday to discuss the abuse she experienced after speaking out.
Ngozi Fulani revealed she has resigned from her post as CEO of Sistah Space due to the backlash to the incident.
A Buckingham Palace spokesperson has claimed that after a reconciliation meeting in December, it was “agreed that no further media comment would be made.”(,i>
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11m1hwo/so_the_worlds_greatest_feminist_and_bff_to_gloria/
@Humor me:
Apparently, they didn't specify to ER2 that they were going to steal `Lilibet' - just let her assume they were going to call thr child `Elizabeth'.
I was christened at home and not in a church ... Anglican (Church of England). It is allowed under exceptional circumstances.
I’m sure the Montecito Madam and court jester demanded a home christening because they are Very Important International Personages who Need Their Privacy.
We should probably all choose a title in order to outrank the Duchess of Doom.
Well then, I declare myself Queen Rebecca of Wisconsin.
Good point re ' the King was nottified'. It this in the same vein as the Queen was told about the sprog being named Lilibet, i.e. being put before the fait accompli?
JAN MOIR: A princess? Is there some mistake here? I thought Harry and Meghan wanted nothing to do with the rotten Windsors!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11837037/JAN-MOIR-Princess-Lilibet-thought-Harry-Meghan-wanted-rotten-Windsors.html#newcomment
“…. the reality is that they want to cling onto the titles and the prestige the way a limpet clings onto the teak hull of a royal yacht; the way a leech fixes onto a thumping, pumping royal vein and sticks its fangs in for the long haul. They will stick to and they will suck on these Windsor connections, because it suits them financially and it suits them socially –and frankly, without them what have they got? She's a television actress, he's a walking ragbag of fashionable neuroses with a mind that we now learn has been 'windscreen wiped clean' by cannabis and hallucogenic drugs.?
Of course we have 5 all excited about his new job Dr.FeelAllBetter
promoting his different drugs that can cure almost everything.
/suck THAT, Montecito Misfits
"Well then, I declare myself Queen Rebecca of Wisconsin."
___________________________________
I like your idea, so I am herefore, announcing I am Empress Texannie of the Republic of Texas!
Her Majesty OCGAL the infinitely August Noble Elegant Dignified Haughty Magnificent Impressive Graceful Great Grand Splendid Poised Stately Respendent Aristocratic Royal Magnanimous Glorious Humble un-pompous Ruler of the Infinite Multiverse.
I answer to "hey, you!"
[# 1] "Meghan attended a Catholic high school in the US, but was baptised and confirmed into the Church of England in a private ceremony conducted by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby before her wedding in 2018."
"Meghan was a Catholic growing up - before being baptised and confirmed into the Church of England in 2018.
[#2. Previously the Daily Mail reported] "As for Meghan, she also grew up Protestant, according to the Daily Mail. Although Meghan did attend Catholic high school as a teenager living in Los Angeles, she never practiced Catholicism."
__________________________________________________
I really resent, that Meghan is described as a "Catholic" growing up!! I am a Catholic and although many non-catholic students are enrolled in parochial (Catholic) schools, that does not confer baptism on them or otherwise make 'them a Catholic'. I hate how simple well known tenets of one of the largest segments of Christianity is mangled (mistaking Catholic school education confer being a Catholic).
Especially since the Daily Mail had previously had written contradictory so-called facts (as demonstarted by the 2nd quote earlier).
May God have Mercy on her soul (regardless of what or any religion she claims.) I find it interesting that she and H are never photographed going to Church at all since the few times they attended in the UK.
May God have Mercy on her soul (regardless of what or any religion she claims.)
Can they be called prince and princess but not have HRH, not be councilors, and not be in the order of succession?
I am assuming the titles and the accomodations are her manifesting again. I'll believe it when the royal family makes official announcements.
Was H's recent " therapy" enough to qualify him for a psychiatric hold and evaluation? His father must be so proud ....HA
The official BP LoS page has not been updated I doubt very much that the title has become official.
May God have Mercy on her soul (regardless of what or any religion she claims.) I find it interesting that she and H are never photographed going to Church at all since the few times they attended in the UK.
I get the impression that she's not going to follow an old established religion. She's going to be something 'trendy' or something that she can taunt better-behaved people with. In the 90s, Kabbala was trendy, and Madonna followed it. New age, crystals, very 90s. Richard Gere became a Buddhist in the 70s; Buddhists were opening a lot of new centers in California in the 90s. I don't think that she believes in karma, the philosophy of what goes around comes around. She's probably some sort of pagan or nature follower.
i still am thinking why now. titles being stripped no invite to the coronation or no invite for the mrs? she hopping mad and to quote fatal attraction “i will not be ignored dan”. and harry who is at butterup and his work is off the front pages. but honey i did this for you because your reputation was being trashed.
oh to be a fly on the wall at heck any of the castles tonight. the wessexes the wales and of course the king.
@Swampwoman ‘What a great way to convince people that they aren't absolute loons. Heh.’ Perfection.
How long do you think TW has had this clanger up her sleeve?
How she thought now would be the best time to drop it?!
Belies any rationality.
CofE parishes vary widely in their practice in all matters. Generally, they have moved to baptising children at the main Sunday service to emphasise the rite as a welcome into the Anglican church, rather than in a separate service on Sunday afternoon.
Whether they baptise /marry in Lent or Advent depends on the parish and how `catholic’ it considers itself. The parishes where I worship/have worshipped in the past wouldn’t dream of it – just as they don’t have flowers in church during these penitential seasons. I don’t know about the other parish in the town where the churches vary between Low Church and very Evangelical.
The early church used to baptise on Easter Eve – when John Sentamu (evangelical) became Archbishop of York he held a mass adult baptism by immersion outside the cathedral which was featured on TV.
There are other` exceptional circumstances’ for the location of baptisms – in the home if it’s an emergency.
I live within sight of the sea and parish maps include some offshore waters. There is a lifeboat station in the other parish and not so long ago my parish priest baptised the baby of a lifeboatman who lives in his parish. This was aboard the big (Shannon class) lifeboat (not one of the RIBs!) as is traditional, using a ship’s bell as a font. I believe they had to sail into the correct parish waters as the lifeboat station is in the other parish!
The other parish has conducted adult baptisms by total immersion – in the sea.
The LA officiant is a bishop, not an archbishop, if that helps you feel a bit better abut it. Under different circumstance, my mother’s funeral was conducted by a bishop and I had snide comments about it from my cousin -she didn’t ask why. Mum had died in August so the rector was on holiday and the retired bishop was doing duty for him on a honorary basis.
The DM has made a lot of mistakes in today’s report; sadly few people are aware of the intricacies of catholic practice. There was a shameful aspect to the last moments of the murdered MP in Southend. He was Roman Catholic and the police refused to let a priest enter the crime scene – so the dying man was denied the last rites.
Daniela Elser turns like a weathervane but this seems a sensible article.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11m2mdq/an_unpopular_view_there_is_no_need_to_freak_out/
Keep calm and carry on.
Remember, `never interrupt your enemy...' and I think I've said before that there can be great power and doing nothing. Don't waste energy by `reacting', just produce a killer response when the time is right.
And, BTW, it's been pointed out that they weren't born entitled to be prince(ess) and ER II was still alive. That may make a difference - have we just assumed they'd get the titles, regardless of the questions about their conception and birth ?
Well then, if if the titles aren’t important and are such a tremendous burden, why are they (actually Harry’s wife, because she runs Harry) so eager to saddle their two kids with titles?
Oh that's right, without titles, they are nobodies!
Harry and his wife need to complete their withdrawal from the monarchy they both hate so much and renounce all titles for themselves including Harry’s birth title of prince and any titles for their kids. Then see how far they get in Hollywood or anywhere in life without them. What a pair of toxic hypocrites.
As anyone who has had a profound narcissist of Meghan’s type infect their family knows, these people bring nothing but acrimony, discord, drama, and destruction into any family or other group or relationship they populate. In my opinion, Meghan is a dangerous person to anyone around her.
I do not believe Charles has the internal fortitude and management ability to be able to deal with Harry and his wife, let alone his brother Andrew too. I do not believe Charles will be able to take on the role of patriarch of the royal family and keep the disruptive people in it in line with a no-nonsense iron fist, which is the only language people like the Sussexes and Andrew understand.
Not that I wish anything bad happen to him, but the longer Charles is King, the more the damage will be done to the institution of the monarchy. I just don’t think he possesses the strength of character and personality to manage and maintain order in The Firm.
I am already looking forward to the day William is King. That is, if the monarchy isn’t shredded, tattered, and damaged beyond repair by the time it is his turn.
As King, William will, as the saying goes, “take names and kick ass”. The first three in line for William to deal with should be Harry, Harry’s wife, and Andrew, and they should be dealt with harshly. They have embarrassed themselves, the monarchy and their country in front of the entire world with their childish pettiness, greed, general treachery, and self interest. “Service is universal” my ass. These three are only out to serve themselves.
My concern is that within a relatively few years, instead of a throne for William to inherit, all that will remain will be a bent-up metal folding chair.
Bring on King William.
...
A spokesman for Harry and Meghan said: 'The children's titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became Monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.'
Sources close to the Sussexes had suggested they were frustrated that Buckingham Palace failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet's titles after the Queen's death six months ago.
...
...
The Prince and Princess of Wales, and their three children, had their titles swiftly changed when Charles acceded to the throne in September. But Archie and Lili's has still not been changed, even today.
Buckingham Palace sources have claimed that they were waiting for Harry and Meghan to make a final decision.
Charles not blocking it - despite the turmoil Harry and Meghan has caused - is seen as an olive branch after reports the couple has been 'obsessed' with the idea that the King might bar the children from being prince or princess. Royal sources said Charles would never have 'punished' his grandchildren like that.
...
For people/* who don't care about titles, they're making a lot of us about their children's titles. I was reading yesterday about Princess Madeleine of Sweden, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia's second daughter, who's been living quietly in the US with her American husband. This is what privacy means (from a real Princess).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11838899/Harry-Meghan-say-Archie-Lilibets-prince-princess-titles-birthright.html
Archie and Lilibet are officially prince and princess: Buckingham Palace finally updates line of succession website - as Harry and Meghan release new statement saying titles 'have been a birthright since their grandfather became Monarch
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11838899/Harry-Meghan-say-Archie-Lilibets-prince-princess-titles-birthright.html
It's official.
Let's just hope the titles are removed.
This article has some 'nuggets' ...
"The Luther actor previously revealed that it was the Duchess, 41, who provided him with a list of all the tracks to be played on the big day."
-----
"And now he has spoken out on who was the best mover on the dancefloor at the event, telling ET Canada: 'I think Meghan was the one that was really like letting it go.
'You know, she was real… She just had a lot of fun. It was her wedding. So she had the greatest time.'"
-----
'A spokesman for Harry and Meghan said: 'The children's titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became Monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.'
Sources close to the Sussexes had suggested they were frustrated that Buckingham Palace failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet's titles after the Queen's death six months ago."
Maggot and Mole have literally shi* on everyone, they’ve insulted, lied and thrown their families and the UK under bus etc, and this is the thank you for that? If the King thinks this is a wise and good move….he can dream on. 😡😤
If the surrogate thing comes to be proven, things can change…
Looking forward to hearing what Lady C has to say later today. 😕
* They reveal how dominating and controlling she is. You can't do that in a royal family, unless you are the monarch and don't mind annoying and alienating everyone in the family.
* That wedding was the peak for her ... she never cared about the history and traditions (in my opinion), but finally she had an unlimited budget and the power to control major celebs and was the centre of attention, globally. By the time Archie was born, she was in a state of frustration and disappointment.
* They lied when they gave reasons for not giving Archie a title when he was born. She wanted the prince/princess titles and would accept nothing less.
* The King seems to have been reluctant to put an official stamp on the prince/princess title and only did so when forced to, when they announced it via People magazine. In my opinion, he knows that it is absurd that the children have titles, but even though he has the power to take the titles away, he cannot use this power without having to face increasingly destructive all-out war. This is the power that malignant toxic narcs have.
Forget William. The damage has been done. William will inherit a declining monarchy at best. Now how long long will the monarchy exist after Charles is almost meaningless. I feel sorry for William, Kate and especially their children. Why should George, Charlotte and Louis not behave like Harry amd get everything. What they inherit has been devak=lued. The Royal family looks to have capitulated to two family terrorists.
I am sorry I am venting. I am beyond sick!! I give up now, There is no hope. I have no interest in respecting a Royal family that can't respect themselves.
Sorry folks. I thought things would turn out better.
Who is Rob Jobson? This is an interesting tweet that reinforces the idea that this was a 'smash and grab' move by the duo, announced through People magazine.
Declaring they are going to start using Prince/Princess for Archie and Lili is just the next step in the game of chicken H&M have been playing. They are essentially forcing Charles to either go along with it or publicly do something perceived as cruel to young children.
-----
By pushing the idea that the children are entitled to these titles and that they want to claim them, it will keep them more royally connected and make the kids more marketable, but discredit them with audiences that applaud them for taking on the monarchy.
-----
They also seem to forget that we all have seen Edward and Sophie do the exact opposite with Louise and James - use the lesser titles and let them decide when they got older. H&M’s reasoning is weak and has way more to do with causing drama than their children.
-----
Someone please tell me what “formal settings” two young children in California will be a part of.
Quote Tweet
Cameron Walker
@CameronDLWalker
·
Mar 8
It is understood Lili’s title of princess and Archie’s title as a prince will be used in formal settings, but not in everyday conversational use by the couple.
https://twitter.com/UKRoyalTea
Why does the public take Harry’s version of his relationships with Charles and Diana as factual, when he has admitted to having huge gaps in his memory from his childhood and was barely able to even write about it in his book?
https://twitter.com/UKRoyalTea
I also think the King is being disingenuous in saying that he was waiting for the duo to make up their minds. They asked about and got confirmation about the titles at the Queen's funeral (tacky), yet the King made no effort to make any official announcement nor update the website ... for 6 months.
Did the King try to stall by asking if Lilli had been christened? Is that why they suddenly held a christening, even though not being christened does not prevent the child from being in the line of succession or holding a title. (Prince Michael of Kent's wife is Catholic and she not only has a title but is also HRH, so although being Catholic bars you from being in the line of succession, it does not affect titles and styles.)
When William becomes King, he needs to make Harry, Meghan and the Sussex children undergo genetic testing to confirm Harry and his wife are the genetic parents of Archieficial and Lillibucks. He also needs to get sworn statements from the physicians who delivered each child that they were born “of the body” of Meghan and not via a surrogate. If the Sussexes refuse, then strip their titles and those of the children, and remove them all from the LoS.
If Meghan was truly pregnant and gave birth to both children, she should not have a problem smugly proving the rumors of surrogacy are false and rumors about IVF that might not have used Harry’s sperm and her egg are also false rumors.
The people's’ faith in the authenticity of the monarchy is at stake.
Now for those who think there are "no children"... it is vcery apparant that KingCIII wants to shove down everyone's throats that not only do the duo have children, He's stating unequivocably there are two live children by his younger son!!
Then the man known now as 'The Monarch' ua[ses his position, to proclaim they are Born of the body from Meghan and biologically fathered by his son by putting them in the Line of Succession.
To further drive it into history for all to accept, KCIII has made them Prince and Princess and they have a valid close claim to the throne! Being only the 6th and 7th from the the current monarch, it could be conceiveable that (heaven forbid) Prince Archie could one day be King of the Kingdom. And through some unplanned? event (or by sinister design), Princess Lillibet could even one day be elevated to be Queen Lillibet. I guess QEII was fine with what Charles intended to do. I saw it coming when Camilla was hailed as the future Queen, not Princess Consort, or even Queen Consort, but Queen outright in title.
I see why some are protesting against Charles and Camilla now before the cornation. What else will Charles do to undermine the monarchy. I would not blame William if He took the money and ran. Let him and his family live a life of luxury and in peace. Give up on doing duties. Why be the good egg? Let his wastrel brother finish what Charles has started..
So many trumpeted Camilla as so deserving (yes she is a much-loved wife and deserved recognition), and QEII was "so Fair" to elevate Camilla, so very, very woke to esteem the once mistress to announce in "fullness in time" 'C' would be Queen, but I knew there was more to portend. It is the same philosophy, the same mentality, and we are seeing where it is going. Changes in the future seem idestined to only get worse I suspect.
Why not give Andrew the right to be a royal, at least he is an avid monarchist compared to his nephew Harry.
Harry and Meghan has brought shame on the King and he has only himself to blame.
They are allowing the titles for it will bite her backside in the end for all her anti royal footage. The royals are smart.
I'm sorry you believe the King is weak, I don't - but he's between a rock and a hard place. He can't be seen to `dispose' of the Harkles when they are prepared to pay vast sums to create positive publicity for themselves and possibly have very rich backers, to say nothing of the the republicans. The days of beheading are over. he can't send in the dragoons or meet them on the battlefield. No UK king can now rule by fear. At the moment, the bitch has got him in a bind, damned whether he does or doesn't act.
`Acting decisively' at this stage would be risking his own cause. He can't appear petty, no matter how much provocation they give him. Diana deliberately sowed the idea that he was indecisive, which was treachery. He may have made his decision - that is, to act only when he is most likely to be successful.
Until then, the Harkles are doing a pretty good job of revealing what thoroughly nasty people they are. The more that the people can see this, the better. We Nutties picked it up early because we known the type from bitter experience.
Deciding to wait and do nothing n the meantime can be a very strong position, as long as one recognises the point at which it's likely to be too late*. I imagine that His Maj, has come across F M Cornford (another Trinity man) who wrote `Time, by the way, is like the medlar; it has a trick of going rotten before it is ripe'. (Microcosmographia Academica, Ch VII, pub.!908) .
At least it may keep them sweet for the next couple of months.
My ideas on the title thing are:
(a) The Montecito Misfits are really hurting financially and are planning to sell their children, more or less, via something like the Walmart or Target Royals clothing collection so that your children, too, can be dressed (or cross dressed) like a little prince or princess. Or maybe it will be the hip hop collection highlighted on Black Entertainment Television if Tyler Perry buys majority shares.
Then there's (b): The titles are part of a divorce settlement currently under negotiation; probably titles in lieu of cash.
It is currently the law under the letters patent; however, (c) KCIII is planning on changing that and the point is moot. He throws the dogs whining in the backyard a bone in the meantime because he has more important problems to worry about. The Harkles are not now, and have never been, important. They were pains in the a**, but not important.
It is probably a combination of the three.
Anybody else want to engage in wild speculation?
I've become a republican. I'm not British but I do live in the Commonwealth.
i think SwampWoman you are right. it’s part of a divorce negotiation. i truly believe if there are kids she doesn’t want them. if there are no kids she needs an excuse as to why she won’t as a “mom” have custody. she needs this to be someone else’s problem not hers. titles helps keep the connection and i will be right when we see stories about how technically custody’s of kids are the crown. she will set up that narrative too.
did you see she was papped by blackgrid today. smiling like a cheshire cat. nothing like the gloating of a narc on a narc high. ugh!!!
My position remains that the Monarchy is a thousand-year-old institution and will persist. No, Rachel will not be bringing it all tumbling down. We've seen evidence of this time and time again. The King plays chess, and the Harkles don't really even understand checkers.
I am very sorry for my hideous oversight of misspellings and not proofreading...I was just so mad about reading that King Charles capitulated to the Suckasses on everything.
I can blame my deterioating eyesight of the growing cataract but to be honest,
it was more that I could not contain myself and needed to blurt out my despair and anger at him.
May God save the Monarchy is the King can't be saved!
I will try to do better on not committing typos.
`My position remains that the Monarchy is a thousand-year-old institution and will persist. No, Rachel will not be bringing it all tumbling down. We've seen evidence of this time and time again.'
Exactly.
Back in '36 there was a strong feeling that the Abdication spelled the end of the monarchy.
It didn't.
There were fears that Prince Albert (ie George VI) would be a weak and feeble king. He wasn't.
Charles I was beheaded in 1649; we got a republic that became a military dictatorship.
Charles II returned by popular demand in 1660.
William IV died in 1837. He had no legitimate children , no surviving brothers, no nephews. The next in line was a slip of a girl of 17.
Victoria.
As the Cathedral Architect said of Winchester Cathedral,
`It won't last for ever but it's not done yet.'
I have just spent enjoyable time reading about medlar fruit and how to use them. Fun snippet below fascinated me, but most importantly, I vow to casually insert the word "bletted" (rotted) into daily conversation as best I can.
"What is medlar fruit?
The medlar fruit is a member of the pome family (related to apples and quinces), peculiar since it is only eaten once it’s been 'bletted', that is, rotted. Not quite purple and not quite red, the vitamin-packed fruit turns brown and soft when edible. And unlike other fruits, medlars are available in winter, making this rather maligned shrub fruit a great seasonal choice.
The origins of medlar fruit
The medlar, or Mespilus germanica, has been cultivated since ancient times and was once a commonly eaten and symbolic fruit described in literary prose. The tree is native to the area surrounding modern-day Iran and was introduced to Western Europe by the Romans. It used to be widely eaten in Britain through the 19th century but fell out of favour when more appealing fruit and sugary sweets came into popularity."
Lots more great info online besides my snippet https://www.finedininglovers.com/article/medlar-winter-fruit-recipes
How would that affect the English throne? Not at all. HE doesn't matter. SHE damn sure doesn't matter. Even the invisible kids do not matter.
What rules? The rules aren’t set in stone etc, Prince Edward’s children don’t have Prince and Princess titles. Lady C has mentioned on several occasions where titles weren’t bestowed or used. 🥴
Regardless, Lady C’s latest videos she states there’s lots to the story going on behind the scenes….it will all come out in due course. 🥴😁 I shall sit it out and wait…
Lilibet's title/exposing Meghan/wound collecting/drugs as medicine and s...
https://youtu.be/iN--Zc4LoJM
https://twitter.com/MeghansMole/status/1633854317081030658?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11840277/Smiling-Meghan-Markle-enjoys-brunch-friends-Hollywood.html
-----
The Body Language Guy has come up with the perfect diagnosis of them ... They are 'wound collectors'!
https://youtu.be/jzTrLc6bchA
-----
They seem to be trying to change the perceptions of them ... at the ButterUp conference he spoke at great length about serving others. The article is worth reading.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11839929/Prince-Harry-tech-bro-Royal-adopts-new-Silicon-Valley-look-worn-Elon-Musk-Larry-Page.html
Hours earlier the Sussexes revealed their 21-month-old daughter, who they named 'Princess Lilibet Diana', had been christened at the couple's £11million mansion in California. It is not known if Meghan toasted the announcement with one of the restaurant's 93 types of tequila.
Today Buckingham Palace confirmed Harry and Meghan's decision and updated the line of succession with the new titles, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.
Due to its popularity, bookings at vegan Gracias Madre can be hard to come by, but the website promises: 'There is always a seat at Love's table'. Its founders Matthew and Terces Engelhart came under fire from vegans in 2016 when it was revealed that they eat meat.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11840277/Smiling-Meghan-Markle-enjoys-brunch-friends-Hollywood.html
****** Weak, sappy Charles just screwed Prince William and his family. By rewarding Hapless' disloyalty. The Monarchy supporting British public sees Charles as being disloyal to them. I sure would if I were English. I am American.
Reward disloyalty and impertinence, and you will get more of both.
I like Megan's Mexican vegan restaurant line of BS. The place must be brimming over with avocados and toasts of all kinds and from all nations.
Robert Jobson is a British journalist, author and broadcaster. He co-authored the 2002 book Diana: Closely Guarded Secret with Princess Diana's Scotland Yard personal protection officer Inspector Ken Wharfe. He and Wharfe also wrote Guarding Diana.
...
Jobson was called "The Godfather of Royal Reporting" by The Wall Street Journal in an article on 9 April 2011 by correspondent Jeanne Whelan. He has reported on the British royal family since 1991 as royal correspondent for British newspapers including The Sun, News of the World, Daily Express and from 2011 the Evening Standard. ... (Wikipedia)
EXCLUSIVE Palace expects Harry and Meghan to attend Coronation: Royal staff are drawing up seating and dining plans for duke and duchess
Note the word 'expect', so it's not a done deal. It's really rude of the duo of they still haven't confirmed or declined the invitation, the Palace has to organise this huge event well in advance.
Unless they leave Archie and Lili in the US, will we have Prince A and Princess L in attendance? I feel sick. Have we not suffered enough? Maybe these events (christening, titles, confirmation of attendance) are all linked. Let's hope they'll be booked loud and clear if they do turn up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11840787/EXCLUSIVE-Palace-expects-Harry-Meghan-attend-Coronation.html
The latest video from Taz is great. She really nails it ... when is hapless going to grow up?
@OCGal
I want to taste Medlar fruit in this lifetime! But nope, I am not going to Iran yo do so.
Oh that guy! He is likely to be reliable then as he has good sources. But I cannot find that tweet on his feed so maybe someone with the same name put out that tweet. ... Update ... It was an interview:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/11ml28k/breaking_jobson_says_that_its_bs_that_shes_not_a/
Thank you for the link to the Daniela Elser article. I agree that she seems to turn like a weathervane (a nice image) but you are right, in this case she is very fair and balanced.
MeghansMole©️
@MeghansMole
How nice of the Royal family to update their website just hours before William and Catherine’s visit to a Muslim centre in Hayes
William and Catherine should throw up their deuces and leave the royal family
They deserve better
What’s the reason behind Harry and Meghan calling Lilibet ‘princess’?
When they have been so critical of the institution to which the titles belong why would the Sussexes want to accept them for their children?
By Camilla Tominey
When the subject of their children’s titles was raised during the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan did not seem entirely sold on the benefits of being a prince or princess.
“I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad,” the mother-of-two told the US chat show host in March 2021.
“And from my experience, a lot of pain,” she added.
Asked whether Archie being called a prince was important to her, the Duchess replied: “I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.”
Yet she went on to describe her dismay at what she claimed were attempts by Buckingham Palace to change the George V “convention” while she was pregnant with Archie “because they didn’t want him to be a prince”.
Baulking at “the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be”, Meghan suggested it would be for her children to decide whether or not they would take their titles.
“It’s not their right to take it away,” she insisted of the so-called palace men in grey suits, adding: “It’s not our decision to make, right? I… wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.”
On Wednesday, the world received confirmation that the choice had indeed been made with the release of a statement from the Sussexes’ spokesman which read: “I can confirm that Princess Lilibet Diana was christened on Friday, March 3 by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Rev John Taylor.”
It appears unlikely that at the age of three and one respectively, Archie and Lilibet will have taken the decision for themselves. So it is Harry and Meghan who have chosen for their children to be known as prince and princess. But why, when they have been so critical of the institution to which those titles belong? And what effect will it have on the King’s plans for a slimmed-down monarchy?
George V’s oft-quoted letters patent of 1917 stipulates that the grandchildren of a monarch automatically become prince and princesses at birth along with the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (Queen Elizabeth II refined this in 2012 to cover all the living children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales – hence why Charlotte automatically became a princess and Louis a prince). Similarly, Archie and Lilibet automatically became a prince and princess when Charles III ascended the throne upon his mother’s death on September 8, 2022 (although they cannot use their HRH style as their father’s is in abeyance).
The King could have only changed that by issuing a second letters patent stripping them of their titles which, despite briefings to the contrary, the palace insists he never had any intention of doing. Sources close to the Sussexes suggest that they made it known to the Firm before Christmas that their children were going to take their titles. As a second statement released on behalf of the couple later on Wednesday stressed: “The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.” Harry and Meghan are thought to have been somewhat put out that the Royal family’s website had not been updated earlier.
Royal sources claim they were waiting for a formal announcement by the couple.
According to one well-placed insider, the royal powers that be were aware the “Princess Lilibet” statement was coming because it followed internal “discussions”.
It is not known whether these conversations extended beyond the different parties’ press offices to become a topic of family discourse but whatever the nature of the talks – the Sussexes’ decision does have implications for the future of the monarchy.
For how is the King to slim down his court when he has got four non-working royals all using their titles, which could attract commercial opportunities?
Whatever the reason behind Harry and Meghan’s decision-making, their children are a cut above celebrity in America, where in the absence of a class system there is a hierarchy of fame and fortune.
But as Dr Craig Prescott, a lecturer in Law at Bangor University, has pointed out: “If they believe that this may benefit Archie and Lilibet in the future, is it worth the cost of an increased public profile?
“Do they risk becoming curiosities: an American Prince and an American Princess?”
Having fiercely guarded their children’s privacy, as well as their personal security, Harry and Meghan do not appear to have fully accounted for the fact that Archie and Lilibet may wish to live lives well out of the public eye. To coin a Sussex expression, how on earth will royal titles enable them to find their freedom?
Princess Anne declined her late mother’s offer of titles for her children Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, later revealing in an interview: “I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles.”
As such Peter, 45, and Zara, 41, have been free to pursue careers of their own – unburdened by the constraints of working royal life.
Despite Queen Elizabeth II’s 2012 tweak, the letters patent of 1917 remains inherently sexist in only applying to the children of sons of the sovereign and any daughters. The King might want to iron out that chink in due course, with Charlotte in mind as well as his hard-earned reputation as a royal moderniser.
Might he also be minded to overhaul the whole system to ensure the likes of George, Charlotte and Louis combine careers with royal duties? That would certainly help to avoid the “spare to the heir” syndrome that has plagued generations of royals – including his own warring sons. The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex are similarly entitled to be a prince or princess but Edward and Sophie declined this in favour of courtesy titles – Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.
The Countess has subsequently said it is “highly unlikely” that will change, amid suggestions the couple will become the next Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
Referring to his girls as “blood princesses” Prince Andrew would often try to pull rank by claiming they needed extra security in a similar vein to Meghan’s Archie-must-have-a-title-for-his-own-protection claim on Oprah.
Yet some may question the wisdom of being associated with the behaviour of arguably the least popular prince in the House of Windsor.
Not so much a pre-emptive strike, as a calculated move to reaffirm their children’s place in the palace pecking order, the timing of the Princess Lilibet announcement is interesting – coming just a week after reports emerged that the Queen Consort’s grandchildren will take a leading role in the Coronation on May 6.
With a save the date email having already been sent to their Montecito home, does the decision to take the titles mean we will not only be seeing Harry and Meghan at Westminster Abbey but Prince Archie and Princess Charlotte? Don’t bank on it.
Summing up the consensus behind palace walls, one royal insider remarked: “The thinking is that only Harry will come.” With Archie turning four on the day of the ceremony, Meghan and the children have the perfect get-out-of-Coronation-free card.
“She doesnt just want the cake and eat if life of royal privilege without responsibility.
She wants both Royal privilege and to monetise attacking royal privilege. She wants Royal privilege to stay in the public eye while screaming for privacy. She wants to keep alive the idea that she is both entitled to it and it is constantly being abused by the Royal family.“
“She wants to steal half their cake and destroy the rest.”
We had the godparents & relatives over for some nibbles & champers after my children's christenings; photos from them are among my most treasured. As they've violated their children's privacy in their Netflix series, surely they should let the public in on this auspicious 'royal' event, at least with one or two pics.
Lady C. says BP was caught off guard, but she implies the game is far from over.
I agree with the PR person who said the Todgers want to make KCIII look mean if he denies the children titles. Stay tuned.
@Sandie, as there have been some comments about restaurants, food & drink today, I just want to say that I've been introduced to some very nice South African wines recently.
I do feel for you Brits. I'm also sorry for the Wales. Certainly is gobsmacking what Harry has done to his blood kin. He really doesn't seem to care too much about being second.
Silly Charles just made the Hapless family more Royal by acknowledging the children as prince and princess. Charles/BRF should never have acknowledged, *plus* Charles should have issued a new letters patent preventing this. Charles caved because he wants his wayward, sabotaging son Hapless to be at his coronation. Just you wait, H/M will get ridiculous King Charles to be photographed with their children and H/M. _____ Cha-Ching!
Maybe this is all staged Kabuki theater. With Charles and Hapless having good giggles and laughs at putting one over on the British public. Maybe William too.
As always, thanks, Rebecca, for posting the Camilla Tominey article.
I haven't had kids but can see that just as siblings often don't much physically resemble each other, one taking more after the dad, the other their ma, I gather from my husband they can have different personalities from the moment they emerge. He has a sensible one (male) responsible, never any trouble and a female one who was always selfish and demanding. When she was 13, the family abandoned a holiday in Spain and came home early because her behaviour was so awful. She still didn't make the connection, or if she did, she didn't care.
Diana was right when she said that H was the one she `worried about' but Wm would be OK as he was `the sensible one'. In response to Swampwoman's point at 7.34pm above, we can only hope. If only it could be shown out that H isn't his father's son but sired by someone else, before Diana met James Hewitt. There were rumours, even then, about her being `romantically linked' with another chap. We know H is a bastard in the common sense, if only he were in the formal sense.
I hate saying it but I fear that the King will endanger his reign if his next actions don't make it clear that he is puts country and duty before placating a slutty blow-in from elsewhere. He reigns by `consent of the people' and he courts disaster if he allows himself to be manipulated further. That consent may be withdrawn. It used to be a pre-requisite of kingship that a king didn't allow himself to be sentimental when removing family members who were threats to his rule.
Doubtless, the next Harkle move will be to yammer for half shares in the Duchy of Cornwall. I trust the MP's for Cornwall and Devon would raise strong objections to any concession on that front - I'll certainly be writing to our chap if there's any sign of Wm being pressured by his father.
Incidentally, does the King ever call William `Dear boy'?
I pray most fervently that Charles puts Country ahead of Family but I'm sure the monarchy will survive, even if he doesn't.
God bless the Prince of Wales!
Perdition to faithless princes!
She mentions Lili's birth certificate 4:25 "which on the face of it appears valid and states that H&M are her parents". She then explains that the father registers the birth, "the child is the placed in the line of succession. I don't want to say more than that at this point, just I think that H&M are brazen, they think they can break any rule and get away with it". I wonder why...
She then goes on to say 8:40 "I have to be careful what I say but believe me there is a lot more to this than meets the eye and don't think that sooner or later the facts aren't going to emerge fully because 'm here to tell you they are going to".
So it sounds like this is not the end of it. Interesting...
https://youtu.be/iN--Zc4LoJM
I think yours is a forlorn hope, I would say is Charles's son. Firstly, I don't think Diana would have been stupid enough to get pregnant by another man during her marriage and IIRC the relationship started to deteriorate after H's birth. Secondly, H does look like Charles, I remember seeing a photo of him in a camouflage helmet and dark 'paint' on his face and thought I was looking at Charles.
Our best hope is if there has been some skulduggery, i.e. surrogacy or IVF using donor sperm/eggs. This is where Lady C's video could be interesting. I hope all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
I sometimes wonder if Ms. Todger is someone who's run one of the longest & biggest cons/trolls in recent history. Whether she takes herself seriously, or is just a huge troll, either way, she's a disturbed individual.
https://twitter.com/Knesix/status/1633881148165062659
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDKBs2JGmlo
And, at the end, he mentions that the Letters can always be revoked at the desire of the King (or Queen).
Tonight I read this article about Rodgers in the New York Post. I wonder if the druggie OSS will make an appearance at this event:
Aaron Rodgers speaking at Psychedelic Science conference in Denver
https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/aaron-rodgers-speaking-at-psychedelics-conference-in-denver/
One can always dream!
Great news after yesterday's news.
Tittle Title
Disappointed with Charles’
decision
Opened himself up to scorn
and derision
Rather confused with this
toing and froing
But apt to believe
he knows ‘Just’* what he’s doing
The devils incarnate fate
we’ll be privy to
Dealt by the hand of the Monarch
and mon Dieu…
*Just-fair-principled
https://preview.redd.it/bgdl5rhvutma1.jpg?width=1504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=5d41ec908bcca47b069f0d493d7cf685fbb963d4
I find it hard to believe that Ty ler Perry enjoys hanging out with the Todger. What does Perry, who grew up in truly difficult circumstances and poverty, have in common with a silver-spoon elitist? This was what I always found curious about the Obamas' invitation to Harry for their inaugural Obama Foundation event in 2017. What does a silver-spoon, brash and bratty elitist who was esconced behind the safe walls of royalty all his life (even in the army) possibly have to speak about the experience of Black Americans who live in truly challenging circumstances? Why would you have the clown prince of privilege at an event for non-privileged youth? (Much less one who wore Na zi regalia?)
How come Harry received a political pass from the Obamas? [I guess they have the same backers.] Maybe because Harry gifted them with an autographed photo of himself in 2016. It was stated as having a value of $450 at the time. I wonder what it's worth now?
Non-privacy privacy. Anti-monarchist royal titles. Elitist mentor to disadvantaged youth. The hypocrisy runs deep with this faction. It looks like they are fine with elitism as long as it meets their viewpoint and in that way they are no different than everyone who has come before.
Maybe the Obamas loved their gift of an autographed Todger photo in 2016? It was given a value of $450 then. I wonder if that would be its value now?
"Prince Harry, listed under his full title His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales, is recorded as giving the President and First Lady a “12” x 10” signed and framed photograph of Prince Henry of Wale” in September, 2015. The photograph, which was estimated to be valued at $450 (£368), was later given to the National Archives and Records Administration." - the Indepdent, Friday 14 October 2016
Great comments Happy Camper and PortCityLass: "He is very lucky they are letting him have a coronation at all."
On his 59th birthday (today) it has been announced that Prince Edward is now the Duke of Edinburgh. Sophie is now the Duchess of Edinburgh and James, Viscount Severn inherits his fathers’ title of Earl of Wessex.
About time too. Sorry can’t post link but it’s just been announced on Sky News.
Stark contrast to how the news broke of the title grab from California!
-----
I don't think the drama is over... this is from a Times article:
However, they will not be HRHs. A palace source said: “The use of the style HRH would come through their father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance.”
Sources close to the Sussexes pointed out that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still have their HRHs even though their parents no longer have theirs. The palace argues that that is because they already had their HRHs when their parents lost theirs.
https://archive.ph/2023.03.09-120446/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/princess-lilibet-christening-harry-meghan-2023-nppf8tc7v
-----
@GWAH
If they are going to be on the cover of Vogue with the children, will they get an invitation to the Met Gala at last?
I sometimes wonder if Ms. Todger is someone who's run one of the longest & biggest cons/trolls in recent history. Whether she takes herself seriously, or is just a huge troll, either way, she's a disturbed individual.
March 10, 2023 at 1:33 AM
I agree - she's in the same league as major tyrants of the 20thC; thank heaven if she ever to become Kween, our Constitution prevents her & H from turning the Army on us.
10th 11am Stop Press; Good News!
The King has bestowed the Edinburgh title on brother Edward, so we now have a Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.
What a relief!
11am News
the subtle press release and change in website immediately are too subtle for the Harkles. this doesn’t burn them too much. they only understand big moves (like frogmore) or invite to coronation for only 1 for no titles to their kids. i still think the palace was played on this. they forced the racist hand with the oprah interview pretty much ensuring the titles would come because you know racism. what they need is a two week spread of the royal family in people with no mention of them. that they would understand.
oh just thought of this. do we think they knew this announcement was coming and tried to make the king reactive by announceing themselves the Lilly and Archie titles? anything to diminish the edinburghs because sophie had her number and had to babysit her in the car for the funeral.
Falsifying birth certificates are provable though. Children born via surrogate or adopted won’t have the same wording on their birth certificates as ones born of body (adoptive or egg donor mother).😏
Harry´s Wife : Is Charles Being Weak About the Titles?
https://youtu.be/Z1bVdRaF8dg
I had a friend who was so into it that she had a library full of books on the subject, communicated with the authors of these books, and had a correspondence going on with the shamans in Peru who were on social media. She knew the Swiss doctor who invented LSD and was good friends with Dr. John Lilly (the guy who tried to live with dolphins to communicate with them and also was a major proponent of hallucinogens). She's the biggest arse hole I know and hundreds of people on social media agree)
I also know a lot of people who talk a lot about hallucinogens (LSD, magic mushrooms, ayahuasca, peyote, etc) and how it changed their lives. In 100% of the cases, these people are the biggest arse holes you can imagine. I can't begin to imagine what they must have been like prior to their so-called life changing experiences.
From my experience simply talking and listening to these people, I think that hallucinogenic drugs are for narcissistic people and live in a world where their interactions with other people are secondary to their fascination with themselves and their own thoughts.
The Todgers will not make any $ from the titles. Their window of opportunity closed a long time ago.
The Todgers have no Q quotient, which is a vital factor when corporations are deciding where to invest their money. There will be no childrens’ lines of clothing. Ain’t gonna happen.
Vogue cover? The Todgers bought it for somewhere close to $750K, or more. Remember that Mrs.Todger has not been invited to any Met Ball. Anna Wintour disdains Mrs. Todger, but will hold her nose, and take Mrs. Todger’s money. Make that Mrs. Todger’s Getty Gobbler money. Besides, Vogue is circling the drain, along with other print media.
_________
Who is paying for King Charles III's Coronation? Critics slam eye ...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/who-paying-king-charles-iiis-29412292
WebMar 9, 2023 · The UK government will be paying for King Charles' Coronation ( Image: Getty Images) As it's a state event, the UK government will be paying for King Charles III's Coronation, unlike royal...
At the O meeting, the claim was that they failed to give titles because of color when the LP expressly covers only the first son of PoW's kids. There it was - in ink and that showed the world that the claim was not true.
If KC changed the LP and would take away the options of the children after the PoW, then the claim becomes true.
Given that they claimed they didn't want titles, none could actually change anything as far as titling until it became clear just what the parents wanted given that they appeared to go back and forth.
River describes it as KC taking the hit given they were now pretty clear about what they wanted.
And, LP can be changed at any point down the road. Should something come out which shows that the kids are not eligible in some way or, there's always PW?
There has been no announcement along the lines of `His Majesty is pleased to confirm that, according to the rules laid down in 1917, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children will henceforth be entitled `Prince Archie' and `Princess Lilibet'.
All that has happened is that the published Line of Succession has been amended, `Delete Master/Miss; insert Prince/Princess'
Charles may not have had much choice in the matter. He can be seen as dragging his feet about it, conceding reluctantly only when he couldn't hold out much longer. It's all very much, `Ok, you can use the titles, (Suckers)'. He didn't jump to it the moment they started whining.
Another `dog in the night' is that there have been no celebratory photos of the newly -elevated youngsters or even of the new member of the Anglican church now she has undergone a Rite of Passage, allegedly.
Yes, it is sickening whenever she manipulates thing her way but I don't think there was any alternative. I believe that Charles signed a document at the Accession Council to the effect that he would uphold the Law
A truly surreal thought has crossed my mind - perhaps she will bring the children to London as her attention-seeking stunt. Only they won't be the children we would expect. Instead of Gavin Gringas, (or his lookalike), and `the Gardener's daughter' they will be completely different kids, with intensely black skins.
You read it here first.
*Apologies, I've got the words of that wretched advert `Sell your car the Motorway way' gnawing it's way around my brain.
That was a risk he couldn't take at this time, before the Coronation. After might be very different.
"The days of beheading are over. he can't send in the dragoons or meet them on the battlefield. No UK King can now rule by fear. At the moment, the bitch has got him in a bind, damned whether he does or doesn't act.
My Observation:
That sounds about right. A lowely D-list American actress used her Narcissist personailty to get the upper hand in getting Charles by the short hairs.I agree with your assessment she could one over on the King; not because he is King, but because he is afraid. My, my, my. What else will she get from the King because she can.
Personally I think the King Can Rule by fear. How about the fear of revealing there are no children? IRC you/or others expressed a sentiment about the duo maybe not really having children. So the fear of revealing that tremendous revelation would devastate the two permanently in the eyes of the world.
WBBM said...
`Acting decisively' at this stage would be risking his own cause. He can't appear petty, no matter how much provocation they give him. Diana deliberately sowed the idea that he was indecisive, which was treachery. He may have made his decision - that is, to act only when he is most likely to be successful.
My Response:
I didnt know that Charles has "a cause'!Unless that cause is to appear appeasement at all costs with the Harkles. KCIII is pretty clear he will take the most profound disrespect from his surly son and TBW.
Diana had an very unique and close association to see Charles 'warts and all' in which to form a substantiated opinion. Rather than 'Treachery', her words were prophetic and she warned that Charles was indicisive (and that is an opinion I and others hold also). Many royal commentators said how much respect Diana had for the Monacrchy. She produced William who has a very solid, strong royal prsesence in protecting the Monarchy while Charles being 'wishy washy' produced Harry, who is weak-willed and sways to an American divorcee's orders and manipulation. I don't think Diana would have supported Meghan's attitude toward the Monarchy while Charles swoons to Meghan's commands. He spent so much on Meghan's clothes in the beginning that it even eclispsed what Katherine received. No wonder William wanted to protect Katherine on many of the duo's actions and how the Monarchy protected Meghan from consequences on her bullyinmg etc...I can clearly see why William is angry (as is reported) because of Harry and Meghan's behavior and words are allowed to harm the Monrachy without repercussions while He and Kate 'toe the line.'
Indicisiveness often is expressed by being weak in actions. Treachery is what her son is doing, and she I believe, would have abhorred that!!. Many royal commentators have said so. If KCIII only acts when he thinks he will be "sucessful" then he is afraid of striking out on a bold path, being courageous, being the "strenght and stay" of the Kingdom, being a King that upholds the institution of ther Monarchy.
WBBM Said...
Until then, the Harkles are doing a pretty good job of revealing what thoroughly nasty people they are. The more that the people can see this, the better. We Nutties picked it up early because we known the type from bitter experience.
My opinion:
What I see, is that nastiness wins. What I see is two toddlers throwing a temper tantrum and their parent is scared and afraid to discipline them. Charles could at least express strong words but he does not. The more nasty things they throw at him, the more they are rewarded for their efforts. Kicking them out of Frogmore is merely 'window dressing'. They may be getting apartments at the Palace, which is what they wanted in the beginning.
I wonder what beautiful crown (to be selected from the Royal vault) Meghan will wear at the Coronation. I wonder what beutiful pictures emerge of the duo grinning like a Cheshire Cat! I wonder if lofty Prince Archie be a page boy alongside Camilla's grandchildren in holding the canopy! It would be such a astounishing sight to see Harry and Meghan with their fine luxurious attire attending all the royal festivities of the Coronation. They won, they truely and completely won. They will get their royal cred on all the pages/screens of the world's media. I envision music will be played to drown out any boos by the public upset with all that has transpired and Charles bending his proverbial knee at his dear boy and his sweet daughter-in-law.
WBBM said...
Deciding to wait and do nothing n the meantime can be a very strong position, as long as one recognises the point at which it's likely to be too late*.
My opinion:
Someone 50 yrs ago, told me "No decision, is a decision". Charles has not just merely waited. The only thing he has waited on, is to sit back and keep letting the duo sling mud at him/Camilla/BRF over and over and over again. He could have been strong and demanded the Harkles need to apologise instead. He could have warned Harry that if he published his Memoir he would assist Parliment in stripping titles Or revealing the "children" that don't exist (IRC you think there are no children like many others here), and maybe not sending a Cornation invitation until the last minute (and say it must have gotten lost in the mail. lol. Beat them at their own game.)
What is Charles waiting for anyway? Waiting for Meghan to write an even more horrifying and scathing attack on the King, BRF and the Monarchy. I can see it coming and I'm no psychic. Charles saw all this shyte coming as soon as they opened their foul mouths in the Ophra interview and its been downhill ever since because he did nothing but Wait for More!.
I and many others are beyond disaapointed that Charles rewarded the duo and protected them from any justice they deserved for their treacherous actions.
I wholeheartedly agree with you (IRC) when you described their actions as "treasonous"!! It is a shame the King has allowed his own flesh and blood to commit treason and get rewarded for it, which will also reward the Harkles progeny and forever alter the Monarchy. William will not be able to undo the mess his father has created; KCIII has set these events in stone and only promise more of the same.
Even so I hope William becomes King soon or else makes as much money as he can in lets say, the next 5 yrs, and refuse to ascend the Throne and take his family out of the line of sucession (idealism here) and let the King Reap What He Has Sown. Both my sister and I are now thinking maybe it would be better to abolish the Monarchy for the sake of the public (allow the public to benefit the millions if not billions the Monarchy has gotten, turn palaces into museuems and give the existing royal family a modest stipend.) I am sure the Republicans can think of better use of the assests for the country. Rather than reward a D-list American divorceee with the privileges of being a Duchess etc...
"The couple had a series of scrapes after they married that saw Sophie boasting to the News of the World's 'Fake Sheik' about her PR firm's royal connections. Edward's film company, Ardent, then made attempts to get around a ban on filming his nephew, Prince William, at university in St Andrews. There was also his disastrous appearance on It's a Knockout at Alton Towers in June 1987.
Both were lambasted for trying to cash in on royal links. But unlike the Sussexes, Sophie and Edward wound down their businesses and dug in to royals duties, rebuilding their reputations within the Royal Family."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11844125/Harry-Meghan-note-Prince-Edward-Sophie-bounced-back.html
Nope, I do not agree at all.
Charles and Diana did give interviews talking about each other in a scandulous way and both collaborated with biographers and planted stories where they trashed each other, and complained about the institution. However they did not do so repeatedly and Charles was always destined to be King. The duo are too irrelevant to get away with such behaviour, and they have shown no sign of reform or growing up.
Sophie and Edward have never done any of the above, nor have they spilled any secrets about the family or the Firm. Nor have they told lies, goaded and accused repeatedly, nor done a smash and grab for titles using People magazine to make the announcement.
Sarah was also caught promising access for cash in a sting operation. She also does promtional press tours where she talks about the royal family, and the books or whatever she is peddling get no coverage at all. But she is very careful to never trash the institution or the family. She does the opposite and gushes about everyone, but lately has been boasting about a special relationship with the Queen. I can imagine the late Queen rolling her eyes!
Andrew was sued for staturory rape (in a private prosecution) and paid off the accuser, plus told a whole lot of porkies when trying to defend himself in the media. This was the only reason he has been exiled. He has never trashed the family or firm or told secrets about them, repeatedly, or made accusations against them. Even his suspect business deals are forgiveable offences for the Firm.
I find the conparison in the above article and suggestions that the duo can be welcomed back in the Firm ludicrous.
sadly i’m convinced she knew and planned the titles thing to take the wind out of the announcement. all the praise on social media today well that was great to see M can’t have revenge on Sophie. ha!
Then, this morning, the Silicon Valley Bank in California suffered a bank run by knowledgeable businesses, went teats up, and was shut down by the FDIC to preserve what was left. This is the second largest bank failure by assets in US HISTORY and that's going to definitely leave a mark in California and reverberate throughout the banking industry. Now there are 8,500 bank employees instantly unemployed, businesses that can't access their accounts to make payroll or pay invoices until maybe Monday, and a lot of people that did not have FDIC insured accounts. Oh, my, no, California will not be concerned at all about the meaningless titles when fortunes are going *poof* and the contagion may spread.
I was wondering what drastic thing was going to happen. I thought it was going to be Sophie and Edward (love them!) but it was much closer to home for her.
KCIII is caught between a professinal victim (MM) and the very rules that govern his Life.
The letters patent made it so that He was locked in to recognized Archie and Lili are a prince/ princess when he ascended to the throne. He kept the promise made by his ancestor. The humor in all this was MM publicizing it in People magazine, instead of having KCIII make the announcement. She looks like a hypocrit of epic proportions given all she has said that is in print and on video.
The Harkles have titles for their children! Hooray! It does not come with anything. And that is the irony. There are many people from european royal family with titles that must earn a living and exist without the money and perks that H feels he is owed as a blood prince. The Harkles and their minions may think they have won, but they haven't. Nothing has changed - they are still living their lives oversea. LOL.
--------------
@Sandie
Re Fergie: "lately has been boasting about a special relationship with the Queen." Actually, the Queen did like her and, I think, even had a soft spot for her. She was barred from Sandringham by Philip but the Queen allowed her to stay at Wood Farm on the estate.
I think the Palace is well aware of how unpopular the Todgers are, & wants to avoid being tainted by them as much as possible. The Palace & the UK gov't both have a lot on their plate right now. The Todgers are akin to finding ants on the buffet tables at the garden party. What to do? A minor pest, but very, very irritating.
Unfortunately, we have laws about not revealing that Couple X's child was born of a surrogate, unless the parents themselves reveal it. It's medical confidentiality. We may speculate as much as we like but it's only speculation, not proof..
It might be possible to follow the line that there are, as far as we know, no credible witnesses for the births to testify that a genuinely pregnant mother gave birth to a child at the time and place given on the birth certificate. It doesn't need the presence of a senior politician sitting at the door to verify that no babe was smuggled in, just the signatures of the 2 authentic, properly qualified, doctors or other qualified medical personnel who were in attendance.
As for their other sins, any case against them needs evidence that will stand up in court. For example, we think she may have stolen royal items but can it be proved? We believe they're too cosy with undesirables - but how is that to be proved? There's bags of circumstantial evidence but that's not strong enough.
I could go on.
To release the dirt at this stage would completely dominate the news and she'd get all the attention which should be on the King. Charles I's death was unusual in that he was charged, tried and convicted in a court; prior to that, there monarchs, court toadies and enemies of the monarch were simply assassinated.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-called-charles-bluff-093806564.html, from the Daily Beast