But it’s interesting that we all assumed that Givenchy was leaking Meghan’s (or Eug’s or Cam’s) dress fitting for promo purposes and it didn’t even seem odd or anything. That’s how far the brf has sunk. Something like that would have been unimaginable two years ago.
Tom Sykes is now claiming that “nobody knows” who Eugenie is in the UK and people are upset that their perfectly normal royal wedding is a “folie de grandeur.” Oh, get real, Tom. Everyone in the UK knows Eugenie. They’ve all seen her grow up, and her fashion fails and vacations have been covered for years. And this is the standard royal wedding that Edward and Mark Phillips got. the brits are used to this crap by now.
I was unsure before, but now I’m certain Sykes is getting his leaks straight from Meghan. I can’t think of anyone else who would pick “no one knows who she is” as the main problem here.
I’m not going to do an actual reading for Eugenie and Jack’s wedding, but I will just comment that I don’t think there is anything to worry about. There is a Saraswati Yoga happening several days right before the wedding. Then there is a Gaja Kesari yoga happening the day of the wedding. These will likely produce a happy atmosphere for the wedding.
Plus, the Moon is in Anuradha, which is a good nakshatra (lunar mansion) to get married in.
I don’t see any reason to be worried about their wedding. If they were getting married a couple weeks later–on say October 25 or 26–then that might not be as favorable for marriage. But I don’t see any real reason to worry.
I imagine that any of the fireworks that people are anticipating (between Harry & Megs) will start either the week after the wedding or in late October.
Hi plant, the issue of Kate working vs. not and the perceived resentment it brings up is interesting. I’m 32 so squarely in the “old millennial” segment. I’m also a career woman with a MBA living in a high COL coastal city and most of my friends are also high-earning professionals as well. The trend of being very hands-on, even stay-at-home parenting is the ultimate status symbol in my cohort and I’ve known a lot of women who’ve made the conscious decision to leave or significantly dial back their high powered careers for stay at home parenting, at least while the kids are young. Now, a lot of it is an issue of numbers – in the US work life balance is notoriously poor (finance and law regularly requires 90 hr weeks, and that’s if your privelidged; otherwise you’re pulling in 4 fast food shifts just to make ends meet) and child care is prohibitively expensive. But even without those considerations, people in my set love to be “crunchy” in certain ways – organic farmer’s markets, home cooking, going to therapy, etc. I believe it has to do with a very specific generational backlash – from being raised in an era when divorce rates were at its peak, when postpartum depression wasn’t spoken of and parents just drank too much or popped Valium, when very lax parenting and TV dinners were acceptable to kids. So my generation wants to, and understands, the desire to be a very hands on, conscientious, kind parents. This is a very American perspective so we don’t have the burden of feeling like she’s sucking away at our tax dollars -but at least in my circle there is never any judgement of her not working. She seems like a great mother, and as a woman from a wealthy family business she likely would have taken time off to raise kids had she married someone else.
On the flip side, I think she and William may get a lot more judgement from this generation if they did Charles or even QE style parenting – nannies all the time, dragging them out for publicity, and boarding school ASAP. (Of course W+K have lots of help, but I doubt their nannies are the primary nurterer in their lives the way Charles’ or even Will’s nannies were.) This is the type of parental relationship our generation is working very hard to undo. In short, they still remain “aspirational” to us – bc given the same circumstances, I personally don’t think that I would make choices different from their’s.
Thanks for sending this in!
Oh, I don’t think there’s a lot of judgement outside of a few fandom pockets. I obviously have very specific ideas as how things should be done, but they are not widely shared. If work ethic were the be-all and end-all of popularity, then Anne would be the most popular royal, and she isn’t, not by a long shot, even among avowed monarchists.
And, given the royals’ various parenting mishaps and what they’ve cost the crown, a good argument could be made that parenting should be Will and Kate’s number one priority. Also, their mental health work gets a lot more press than any number of ribbon-cuttings would get and their two-week-a-month schedule is optimized for maximum publicity. So they are effective at what they do.
I still believe they should get out more, they should embrace smaller patronages, and they should attend more ribbon-cuttings because I think this is the type of royal work that makes a difference in the long run. Being visible, participating in local celebrations, and supporting small events is, imo, just as important (maybe more) to national cohesion and royal imagery than splashy initiatives like Heads Together. A third of Britons have seen HM in person, compared to 5% for the younger royals. That figure really should go up, imo. One reason HM is so popular is the she has devoted her life to being a visible symbol of the country.
But, I suspect, this is not a widely-held opinion. The work they do is effective and well-publicized and they are more popular than most of the other, harder-working royals. So people seem to like what they are doing. I suspect the work ethic issue is not as much of a negative as people think (although I personally do still feel strongly about it).
This theory will likely be tested in the upcoming months, as I believe KP will make a big “hard-working” pr push on behalf of Megs shortly. I’m very curious to see how that works out.
Thanks! This sounds like it could be accurate based on that recent leak from Thomas” curiously well-educated “adviser,” and that weird Tom Sykes article attacking Charles. Who is the reader? Is it on YouTube?
Naomi Tarot did a recent one. Much of what is said above seems to be in it.
No he wouldn’t. The royal family is about blood. Perhaps when he married they could grant him a title, maybe, but he wouldn’t be given anything. That’s just not how it works. The royal family have a lot of titles because they have a lot of people but they’re actually very strict about who can get what.
Norway doesn’t have titles anymore beyond the immediate royal family. Nobility titles were done away with through legislation in the 19th century.
You’ve misunderstood the question. It relates to an earlier discussion about titles in Britain if Meghan had a child. No one is saying Marius will get a title, we’re talking about the imaginary British title. That’s why it’s tagged with British royal family and not Norwegian royal family
I understood the question quite well thank you. I stated what I had to say because Norway no longer has nobility like Sweden or Denmark. And it’s been that way for a longtime.
I said what I had to say earlier because using Norway in the question regardless of Marius’s status doesn’t make any sense. Marius cannot have a title not just because he’s not born from the royal line, but because Norway does not have nobility at all. There are no earls or duchesses in Norway. Nobility was abolished in the 19th century. King Harald cannot make Marius an earl even if he wanted to. It’s against the law. Literally. Huge difference compared to Sweden and Denmark where Carl Gustaf and Margrethe can bestow titles.
So, OF COUSE, the UK is more title heavy than Norway. The UK gives out honorary titles to those who are not even citizens, e.g. Angelina Jolie. The only people in Norway allowed to have titles are those born into the royal family. Sweden or Denmark would have made a more suitable mention in the question.
No he wouldn’t. The royal family is about blood. Perhaps when he married they could grant him a title, maybe, but he wouldn’t be given anything. That’s just not how it works. The royal family have a lot of titles because they have a lot of people but they’re actually very strict about who can get what.
Norway doesn’t have titles anymore beyond the immediate royal family. Nobility titles were done away with through legislation in the 19th century.
so royals get money through basically 2 main ways.. the Sovereign Grant and a Duchy
Sovereign Grant is a percentage given back to HM from the earnings of the Crown Estate from a previous year. This money goes to fund the majority of the royal family. This next year that money will be going up due to major reno work at Buckingham Palace
The Duchy of Lancaster is a private portfolio of land that was set aside to fund the monarch and his/her family
The Duchy of Cornwall is a private portfolio of land that was set aside to fund the Heir and his/her family. This is the main source of funds for Prince Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Meghan. This funds the CH and KP households.
Note: this funding does not include the cost/source for the security/rpos. that is a whole different thing
Note #2: Royals are not allowed to take freebies and any gifts received while on “duty” are theirs to use for life but are property of the crown.
Note #3: Contrary to recent popular belief, no Meghan is not buying her own clothes, as a working, senior royals all of her expenses are covered by the Duchy of Cornwall.
if anyone wants to correct or add on, please do so
To add on a couple of points as Rosie graciously said we could:
– Rosie mentioned security isn’t included. Neither are the costs of away days or tours. When they go overseas the host country pays. When they go for a whole day to a specific area of the country- an away day as it’s called- the trip is paid for by the local council and can be very pricey (upwards of five figures).
– Also not included in the official figures the royals mention is the cost of the monarchy in the Commonwealth. The Queen is head of state in several countries but doesn’t live there so she has representatives who act on her behalf on a daily basis. These costs are met by the Commonwealth nation and are never included in figures regarding the cost of the monarchy. In previous years Canada have actually spent more on the monarchy than Brits have!
– The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are legally considered private sources of income but should the monarchy be removed, they would return to the public and the income would go to the nation
– If the Crown Estate’s profits decrease the queen’s income is not allowed to decrease. She is not allowed to have her pay cut, essentially, and her income has risen at a rate higher than inflation. This is quite controversial against a backdrop where public sector workers are having their pay slashed by the government or where pay is increasing below the rate of inflation
They seem to have tabled that until the fall, which is a really bad decision, imo. Its hard to argue that she wanted to devote her life to charity when she basically spent her first year as a royal attending celeb events and spending money like crazy.
Sykes is going on and on about how the criticism is racist and classist, but I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. I think the Brits have a very clear view of how they want their royals to behave–they are supposed so be well-groomed representatives who follow the rules and focus on charity and making the UK look good. He talks about how the critics feel that Meghan isn’t “People Like US” but I think the criticism is mostly about Meghan not abiding by middle class rules about behavior, respect and thriftiness. If Meghan had, say, announced right after the wedding that she was picking Reprezent, Social Bite, and Stemettes as her charities (to pick her most high profile pre-wedding appearances), and had then scheduled a bunch of charity visits dressed in Marks and Spencer tops and Strathberry bags and shown up to Harry’s non-celeb polo tournaments in Zara dresses, we would be having a very different conversation right now.
OMG… Thomas Markle Sr’s sold a weekend’s worth of exclusive interview to The Sun [+on Sunday]…
Since Meghan’s not answering him, he’s texting some poor KP staff, and they’re not answering him either. And it’s been months. Yowza. Tom’s more shrewd than I gave him credit for. In one interview, he managed to make out that his Meggy’s terrified and being pressured by the Royal family, and on Sunday, it’s that he’s going to dies soon and doesn’t anybody care?! (That was for you Meg.) Oh and bonus: he ‘opened up his family album’. Oh daddy…
And he complained that the BRF should have seated Doria with them at the wedding, and not sat alone on Meghans freaking side(!!!) because she had nobody but celebrities there and looked like she was alone. In what universe but the Dingle Universe can you turn the tables around like this? Haha, it’s unbelievable.
She has officially ghosted her own father: “The phone number I had been calling Meghan on is no longer picking up.” LOL omg. Not since the day after their wedding. After which she seems to have burned her old SIM and phone and ditched daddy dearest. So, “I sent a text to my palace contact saying I would like to reach my daughter and got no reply.” Cheesus. This is so classy.
I don’t know if you guys know of the long-running soap “Emmerdale”. But the Markles are JUST like the Dingles on that show (including Meg herself, which I ID as Charity Dingle- prozzie, con artist and cold gold digger extraordinaire).
The BRF can bend over backwards, forwards and tie themselves into a pretzle – in the end, these American Dingles will find a way to blame eeeeverything on them when Meg bails in less than 2 years. They just can’t win this one. All they can do is to make sure there aren’t any ‘incriminating’ images out there to illustrate Meg’s coming narrative – so BIG SMILES EVERYBODY!
Thanks for sending this in! She has completely ghosted him. This is supposed to make his interviews worthless to the press because he has no contact with the royals and hence no news to share regarding any Meghan “trouble.” However, he has completely twisted it around so that the ghosting itself is evidence of Meghan’s troubles.
I think they underestimated the Markles. These guys have been in Hollywood for a while. They know the tricks.
I don’t watch Emmerdale, but I’m going to look up the Dingles. It really is interesting how the BRF will always get blamed, no matter how much money or events they throw at this girl or many protocols they allow her to “break.” The old guard is clenching its jaw as she prances around in shoulder-baring outfits, turning her back on the Queen, Charles is wincing as he signs checks for French couture and worthless foreign tours, the entire family is grimacing as they pose for happy pics…and yet they are all going to get blamed when this turns to shit.
I think your last paragraph really nails it, and, yes, they are probably going to go on a huge “happy families” drive this summer, likely at Balmoral. However, it will be for naught. I think the real onslaught will come in the Fall when Meghan unveils some crap “female empowerment” umbrella program instead of the blockbuster innovative whatever that everyone is expecting.
“Meghan & Harry are a prime example of why the British Family really needs to trim its expenses on these irrelevant royal members- the future are Kate, William, their 3 children, and their children’s children, while in the upcoming decades Harry & Meg will be pushed to the side just like Prince Andrew (brother of future King) & his children, so it’s funny to see these 2 prance around wasting millions of taxpayers of money and shaking hands with them in concern shamelessly, just move to the side.“ – Submitted by Anonymous
The graves of both tragic Prince Johns, located at
St. Mary Magdalene Church in Sandringham.
On the left is Prince Alexander John, the sixth child and third son of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark. He was born prematurely on April 6th, 1871, and died the following day.
On the right is Prince John Charles Francis, the sixth child and fifth son of George V and Mary of Teck. John was diagnosed with epilepsy at age 4, and was sent to live at
Sandringham House
to be cared for by his nanny, Charlotte “Lala” Bill, and kept out of the public eye. He was also acknowledged to have had some form of learning disability, and possibly an intellectual disability as well. Some more recent researchers have theorized some of the young prince’s behaviours were consistent with a diagnosis of autism. He died at the age of 13, following a severe seizure.
I’ve loved learning more about John from @firstwindsor and seeing that the public perception of him as being hidden away and a shameful secret in his family is so inaccurate. It’s made me like that generation of royals a lot more to know that they were genuinely doing what they thought was best for a little boy who they loved with all their heart.
CAROLE’S SURROGACY MAFIA! haha. Anyway, unfortunately royal laws haven’t caught up with technology or society so I don’t believe there’s any law about whether a child born to a surrogate could be in the line of succession. I’m quite torn because royals go first and foremost off genetics so it would make me think that they could be in line but in the UK the surrogate is legally considered the mother of the child until she gives up parental rights which is essentially like the royals adopting their own child. And adopted kids can’t be in the line of succession. I don’t know about every other monarchy but I know in Norway surrogacy is illegal as it caused a scandal when MM went to India to look after twins born through surrogacy for a gay couple she’s friends with. I think it’s unfortunately a question without a clear answer. There are so many ways that monarchies haven’t caught up with modern society- there are no title systems for same sex couples for example- and this is one of them
few comments on the IRE tour. The reason royals go to IRE (PC goes at least twice each year) is to advance the reconciliation process. It is hard for someone not familiar with the history to understand the bitterness and ambivalence towards reconciliation with the English especially. But since they share common challenges and a deeply integrated economy it is vital to both countries to move on. PC and HM are admired because they have made serious efforts with some personal cost to advance this very important process. Nothing Harry and Meghan did contributed to this effort. Harry seemed unprepared several times. Meghan seemed more interested in posing. The mistakes made were serious ones – a Brit Duchess commenting on the politics of the Republic? Harry ham fisted insensitive remarks at the Memorial. That was shocking as if none of his aides actually knew what caused almost 2 mil deaths? The extravagant cost of her clothes. Shutting down high traffic tourist sites.
The only reason for this visit seems to have been to allow Markle to march around merching. The novelty of the location perhaps getting her the media coverage that has been lagging. The notion it was an “overseas” tour is absurd – people commute between the two islands for work. It seems to me IRE got chosen cause she wanted an overseas tour and no visa issues because there is no border between the UK and IRE. A trip to the continent would have required visas for the American Duchess.
Thanks for sending this in!
Agree except on the visas for an American. Not true.
this BBC documentary is on royal fashion it’s surely not definitive but is interesting. One of the points made here is that a royal should be concerned with what their clothes communicate but not concerned with what is fashionable. The most fashionable royals were the least popular. Fratelli Prada who is surely the last word on the matter of fashion has said that Queen Elizabeth is the “most elegant woman on the planet”. Yet Elizabeth eschews the “fashionable”. That strikes me as being quite insightful
Yeah! I’ve been banging on about this for years!! I think their annual report should give a better breakdown of what exactly the money is spent on and I think they should give an annual report with the exact cost of the monarchy to society. At the moment they say the monarchy only costs x per person based on the Sovereign Grant. They need to start summarising the cost as a whole which will include the Sovereign Grant, transport, local visits which are paid for by councils, and the costs to Commonwealth nations.
I worked with people who were in those circles in the Diana days. Stories get told. I do not think Diana wanted to take the BRF down. She wanted to take Charles down. And she essentially succeeded. Diana was a very politically astute woman. She “became” whatever the group she was with wanted her to be. If you were a republican crowd Diana would drop hints as to being republican and of course then that group adored her. Which is what she wanted. To be adored. More than Charles. So people projected their own desires on to her. Something she did deliberately. Hence you get these stories about her wanting revenge and taking the BRF down.
Peter Hitchens has a remarkable take on Diana. “ If what I saw on that cold morning had been what the public were used to, her reputation and effect on the world might have been completely different. She looked a good deal more like the formidable natural politician she was, and a good deal less like the breathtakingly pretty but rather lost and lonely young woman most people thought she was. But the camera loved her so much that the world saw the naïve and lovely victim, not the brilliant wielder of public relations skills and tactical genius.”
Harry is not his mother he is not tactical genius but like Diana we project on to him our motives and desires. Harry does not desire the abolition of the monarchy any more than his mother did. I suspect Harry just wants a good time and his father’s attention.
Thanks for sending this in. It’s very insightful and I’m going to have to re-read that Peter Hitchens piece.
Pt 2. Ultimately he thinks this branding approach destroys monarchy. And that is Diana’s real legacy. Whether she want5ed it or not. Her appeal was to those who held a grievance especially women. Not because she was some great humanitarian. So Markle in order to achieve her Diana status must appeal to that same sense of grievance – she was done wrong by the BRF. And that is what the BRF must not let happen. Hence the mil wardrobe and all these gestures of acceptance.
This is very insightful too. It explains the constant “protocol breaches” articles and all the other pieces we are seeing right now (loves garlic but can’t eat it, etc…). I thought the change of title of that NYPost article was interesting. It went from “fashion disaster” to “royal life destroyed her style” and then started getting copied.
I think there is a real thirst out there for the “royal victim” narrative right now. I think the sugars think it’s because of racism and many of my anons think it’s Meghan manipulating the coverage, but I think your “grievance attraction” theory should get a hearing. There seems to be a thirst out there for that particular story. No matter how much money they spend on this woman or how many “bffs with HM” pics they put out there, it simply will not go away.
Thanks! Always good to have an on-the-ground perspective. I do think the “celeb vs. royal” debate has been going on for a while in the UK, though. I’ve seen several articles about it. The Spectator has had a couple and Hilary Mantel did some essays and someone else prominent who I can’t remember right now. I even found an Australian one. This is just another slide down a slippery slope, imo.
Yep. And I’ve never really understood that. I don’t like lots of people but I can recognise when they make important contributions or do something nice. I’m not a Harry fan but Invictus is great. I’m not an Andrew fan but he’s helped a lot of people with Pitch@ the Palace. I’m not a fan of Edward but he works really hard for the DofE award. People aren’t black and white, good or bad, nice or mean. It’s fair enough not to like someone but to assume that means you automatically have to disagree with everything they have done or will do is so narrow minded. The itinerary was decided by the host with input and approval from KP as it always is so issues with it are things to take up with the FCO and Israel/Palestine/Jordan themselves but purely on performance he surpassed my expectations and I am incredibly pleased with his work. I say that as a British taxpayer, which according to the history of this fandom gives me the power to veto anyone’s opinions 😉
The newly-wed Duke and Duchess of York, parents of Queen Elizabeth II, on the balcony of Buckingham Palace following their wedding on 26 April 1923. They are joined by the Duke’s parents, King George V and Queen Mary.
She has a ton of staff now, too. I guess they aren’t as good at propping up people as her prior handlers.
Well, what’s in it for the BRF if she doesn’t succeed? It doesn’t look like she’s putting in much effort anyway. Her previous pr games were a lot easier because she wouldn’t have had to do much interaction with actual people. Royal events mean you have to interact with actual people and have to follow through with something more than a giggle or planned speech.
It’s not about the veracity of the claims- he was also right about weak leadership- it’s about making them in the first place. If he wanted to say that he doesn’t want to be king then fine. But William and Charles’s opinions on it actually matter and Harry totally threw them under the bus by speaking on their behalf. I do this a lot but if you compare it to Victoria talking about taking on the throne, she said “I live in the present and do my utmost to benefit Sweden today. So for me this lies in the future. My daily work is to be relevant in my role here and now.” You can absolutely answer questions about taking on the throne in a diplomatic way. He just didn’t
Agree: MM wants max attention 100% of time.She wants to be in the spotlight always just for being who she is.
IMHO (1) problem is there is ZERO content behind all her communication. There is nothing original, creative or authentic, nothing that is productive or contributes, Whether it was her bad acting in Suits, vapid superficial blog with photos of her hugging black children posted weekly from her 2 outfit Rwanda trip, can’t handle a knife cooking show, photoshopped fashion shoots or her self congratulatory “humanitarian” speeches and articles.
Empty vessels make most noise.
As a society, are we more focused on image and surface appearances than any time in the past? I was at two networking events in the last 2 days and the marketing, branding, image, PR people far outweigh the people who develop, grow, build and create the important stuff. That’s the only explanation for how she got where she is. Or do you have another?
Your blog makes you sound like a really sane and rational person so….what fascinates you about her?
No, I don’t have another explanation. This entire “relationship” has been an exercise on branding vs. substance, imo. Meghan is the Pets.com of the royal world. I mean look at all the fantastic work that Will is doing right now, but all we hear about is Meghan’s fluff. That’s the world we live in.
Two things keep me riveted to this train wreck. First, I’m totally fascinated by the Talented Mr. Ripley aspect of it. I really do think that she is a chameleonic con artist using other people to rise up the fame the ladder. She has done it twice before and this time will be no different. I fully expect her to ditch “violent and controlling” Harry in two years and drive off with a royal toddler and a truckload of “official Di collection” and Cartier diamonds.
Second, I’m baffled by the BRFs actions. Why are they allowing this? Are they really this dumb? They probably are, but, cheesus, this is extreme. They are trying really to inoculate themselves from racism accusations with sleepovers with the Queen and tons of stories about how much Charles loves her, but they must know that it’s not going to help.
Well, this year the State Room tours at Buckingham Palace start on 21 July and go until the end of September. I don’t know if that means the Queen goes somewhere else, such as Windsor or Sandringham, if she’s not done working before she goes to Scotland or not.
Prince Harry on the arms of his mother the Princess of Wales as he waves to the crowd at the balcony of Buckingham Palace for Trooping the Colour | 1987
Honestly that’s her usually stare at the stars in Botswana time maybe she’ll switch it up for somewhere else. It’s her birthday month so I doubt she wants to spend it with the family she never had.
Ooh! Good question! The Queen goes up there in July, I think, before Buckingham Palace is open for tourists.
House of Brat 