There is an old saying never to trust a man whose eyes are close together
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I am pretty sure I remember from years ago reading that a paternity test was done on Harry.
Ooh that's a thought. So if he is illegitimate but is Andrews child ( yes I know I'm making this up as I go along) then he'll still be in line for the throne won't he?
Hypothetical. Totally.
Ugh that goes back to rumours that Smeghead has slept with Andrew. Can you imagine the headache if that was found to have happened ?
The boy" actually makes my skin crawl, no not the kiddie, the way she has addressed him... My dad had a witch of a sister and when she talked about her son she never said his name, "the boy said" " the boy did" etc ... Very very weird , impersonal like you would mention "the shoe" " the dog" "the window" etc .... my parents found it very disturbing too.... fyi "the boy" grew into a real weirdo....won't go there 
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]You are very informative whereas I just react to what all you clever people sayCongratulations
It's because your sweary posts are hilariousI've no idea how it happened to me either
I meant that when Harry was 3rd in line - Andrew was 4th
The majority of the British people still support a hereditary monarchy, which exists by consent of the people.
Without those bits highlighted in bold, what is left? Or, to think of it another way, if you want to undermine the monarchy, those bits in bold are where you'd go on the attack.
1. Hereditary - it's the way we determine who is the Monarch. Surrogacy, and adoption, present some special challenges - not because anyone still believes royal blood is special, but because if you don't stick with a hereditary succession, then you have to find another way to determine who is Head of State. A popularity contest of some sort, perhaps. So it's a bit of an oversimplification to suggest that, because celebrities go in for it, the monarchy must inevitably "modernise" to accept these alternatives with no implications for the succession. And then consider for example that the laws on surrogacy, adoption, embryo selection vary around the world, that the monarchy is peculiarly exposed to risk of blackmail and that the morality of wealthy people buying babies born of underprivileged women is seriously questionnable. And so on.
2. Popular consent - I'm learning not to second guess the Queen's decisions on strategy in the face of a cruel onslaught of insult and lies. She's played a few blinders, and for the rest I'm sure we don't have all the facts to know any better. I feel deeply for her and her family, as I know many of us do, and we just want it to stop. I'm conscious as well that a cynical press and armies of royal commentators are probably not so interested in making it stop and just stoking these fires for their own commercial ends. Sadly, what I would say is that appearing to ignore public opinion, allowing this undignified soap opera to continue and the British people to be slagged off and humiliated in front of the world by Hazza and his wife is an incredibly difficult and risky line for our monarchy to tread and I think it is unsustainable longer term.
The use of titles is a matter for the Queen. The line of succession is a matter for Parliament. That is where the people can legitimately exert its influence through a statutory Code. Forgive me for banging on about the petition. I know chances of getting the huge support required are slim and that even if the idea is taken up the development of a Code is going to take time. However, if you haven't already done so, please go to petitions site where you can read the text in full and consider how such a Code might have helped all parties with what's gone on and bring greater clarity in future:
Enact a requirement for heirs to the Succession to adhere to a statutory Code. - Petitions (parliament.uk)
Without those bits highlighted in bold, what is left? Or, to think of it another way, if you want to undermine the monarchy, those bits in bold are where you'd go on the attack.
1. Hereditary - it's the way we determine who is the Monarch. Surrogacy, and adoption, present some special challenges - not because anyone still believes royal blood is special, but because if you don't stick with a hereditary succession, then you have to find another way to determine who is Head of State. A popularity contest of some sort, perhaps. So it's a bit of an oversimplification to suggest that, because celebrities go in for it, the monarchy must inevitably "modernise" to accept these alternatives with no implications for the succession. And then consider for example that the laws on surrogacy, adoption, embryo selection vary around the world, that the monarchy is peculiarly exposed to risk of blackmail and that the morality of wealthy people buying babies born of underprivileged women is seriously questionnable. And so on.
2. Popular consent - I'm learning not to second guess the Queen's decisions on strategy in the face of a cruel onslaught of insult and lies. She's played a few blinders, and for the rest I'm sure we don't have all the facts to know any better. I feel deeply for her and her family, as I know many of us do, and we just want it to stop. I'm conscious as well that a cynical press and armies of royal commentators are probably not so interested in making it stop and just stoking these fires for their own commercial ends. Sadly, what I would say is that appearing to ignore public opinion, allowing this undignified soap opera to continue and the British people to be slagged off and humiliated in front of the world by Hazza and his wife is an incredibly difficult and risky line for our monarchy to tread and I think it is unsustainable longer term.
The use of titles is a matter for the Queen. The line of succession is a matter for Parliament. That is where the people can legitimately exert its influence through a statutory Code. Forgive me for banging on about the petition. I know chances of getting the huge support required are slim and that even if the idea is taken up the development of a Code is going to take time. However, if you haven't already done so, please go to petitions site where you can read the text in full and consider how such a Code might have helped all parties with what's gone on and bring greater clarity in future:
Enact a requirement for heirs to the Succession to adhere to a statutory Code. - Petitions (parliament.uk)
What's worse in this hypothetical situation though? Andrew sleeping with HW or HW sleeping with Andrew and then going on to marry his nephew?
Nah, it's cos you're the oldest on here .......Lol ....... sorry shouldn't have said that to my elder by a year .... respect!Thanks that's what a big mouth does for you
Wasn't he one of the old wrinkly yacht attendee's after all she has had a full house with all the smutty old gits
Bingo!!
Yes but my made up version is better
Ha I nearly wrote that out myself but thought it was a bit too gross to be recorded
It made me feel sick just writing it
Seriously though, I don't think she and Andrew had a thing before she got with Harry. That would have been way too awkward, even for her standards. Was he ever acting weirdly around her after she married Haz?
I really want to be a "wo(man) in a grey suit" and know exactly what is going on behind the scenes. How does one become a grey suit? Will they allow Tattlers in?
Or a man whose wifey carries their b@lls around in her wig caseThere is an old saying never to trust a man whose eyes are close together
"THE GOSSIP TROLLOP on Twitter: "Funny how the entire point of naming the baby Lilibet was to prove how close they were to the Queen. Now they’re publicly accusing her of being a liar?" / Twitter"
If either/both children WERE carried by surrogates, quite WHY they've chosen to be so secretive and deceitful when they could have done SO MUCH for fertility awareness and taken a lot of the stigma out of surrogacy, is a bit of a mystery. Now, when it all comes out - not if, when - they will just look like liars and nobody will trust a single word that comes out of their mouths ever again. If they'd had a bit of forethought they could have made themselves heroes in the eyes of people who struggle with fertility, MAYBE even changed how the royal babies 'qualified', but noooo that would be far too simple. Much better to lie and try to deceive everyone. Tossers.
Yup totally agree. Plus I think there would have been public uproar that if the bairns were as a result of the surrogate, that they would not get any titles when Charles is king. They missed that boat entirely.
- Status