That'll NEVER happen.I don't think she'll try to be a politician. I think she wants them to give her an Ambassador position. Preferably in London where people will have to invite her because she's the American Ambassador.
That'll NEVER happen.I don't think she'll try to be a politician. I think she wants them to give her an Ambassador position. Preferably in London where people will have to invite her because she's the American Ambassador.
If the harkles were smart- bwhahahahahaha! The harkles are greedy, narcissistic, bitter, petulant pussie, but they are not smart. . Smeagol thinks smart is dressing sharply-which is another amusing failure. Reek thinks smart is funny cause it rhymes with fart.and more and more on mainstream Media.
If the Harkles were smart, they would lay very quiet after the new King accession. There was (and is) a lot of people who dislikes him. He will push for his agenda and will divert from his Mother way of doing things. I am convinced that both KC3 and QC would not have an easy reign. There was a consensus around the late Queen that would never extend to the new King.
Had they laid low, they could at the right moment be truly harmful to the Monarchy.
But because we are talking about the Dimwit and the Narc wife of course they had to push it, over and over. Lied and contradict themselves. And totally and completely misread the mood in the UK and US. And now, people are much more sympathetic and forgiven towards the new King and Queen. People are even demanding they act in the name - and to reinstate - the name of the British.
I always thought that after the death of the Queen, Republican movements would grow in the UK. But, and I think also thanks to the clumsiness and fame hunger of the Harkles, Monarchy is very strong as is.
I disagree. Shortly before she passed, my mother showed me her 1st childhood album. There tucked away from sight, behind other photos, were some 1932/33 bathtub pictures of her to age 2. She was terribly embarrased, and said she wished those pictures had never been taken. The album is mine now, and I burned those 3 pictures.It’s a little boy and you only see his chest up. There are weirdos yes, but there is nothing salacious about a picture of a little boy and the upper part of his chest. There is nothing more irresponsible about this photo than any other photo of a little boy. Yes there are inappropriate bathtub shots but this one, in my opinion, isn’t inappropriate. I guess it could be too casual for the royal family that dresses their little boys in shorts and knee socks when in public. And it’s an old photo. Kids faces change so security issues with this photo are different.
Thanks Lady Muck.
Bookworm
Of course notThat'll NEVER happen.
This guy backed the wrong horse and he is trying to run in place as fast as he can. He must have though that he was getting in on the ground floor of something big when he decided to go all out in his support of her. His goose is so overcooked, he really should just shut up and find another idol.Scoobie is being absolutely crucified on his twitter for that comment on KC3's coronation !! go and have a look I scrolled for a while and didn't see any good replies![]()
![]()
![]()
He can't block everyone !!
Omg that would piss me off sooooooooo much. Could the PM veto the choice? A nice little "sorry.. she isn't welcoome here anymore" would be delish..I don't think she'll try to be a politician. I think she wants them to give her an Ambassador position. Preferably in London where people will have to invite her because she's the American Ambassador.
I would argue that it's not that the picture was taken, or even whether it was appropriate, it's that it was circulated on a global platform with no consideration or care of the future of the pictured individual.It’s a little boy and you only see his chest up. There are weirdos yes, but there is nothing salacious about a picture of a little boy and the upper part of his chest. There is nothing more irresponsible about this photo than any other photo of a little boy. Yes there are inappropriate bathtub shots but this one, in my opinion, isn’t inappropriate. I guess it could be too casual for the royal family that dresses their little boys in shorts and knee socks when in public. And it’s an old photo. Kids faces change so security issues with this photo are different.
Sort of proves the point, the adult was embarrassed by childhood pictures & concealed them, this option is no longer available to Archie.I disagree. Shortly before she passed, my mother showed me her 1st childhood album. There tucked away from sight, behind other photos, were some 1932/33 bathtub pictures of her to age 2. She was terribly embarrased, and said she wished those pictures had never been taken. The album is mine now, and I burned those 3 pictures.
How will Arch feel about that netflix bath when he's 19 and on a shrink's couch? If "innocent" bathtub pics bothered my mother so, maybe they are invasive. children need us to protect them. They can't choose the pictures others take of them.
Unbelievable that she spent all that money and still looked like a bag o' shite. But it's amusing to see her in ill-fitting clothes which don't suit her at all and her self satisfied smirk like she looks amazing. Those pants suits are the stuff of nightmares. Actually, everything is.Smeg's clothes:
![]()
Meghan Markle was seen in new clothes worth £79,000 in 2022
Since quitting life as a senior royal and moving to California, it seems Meghan Markle's love of a glamorous wardrobe has accelerated - with the royal donning £79,000 worth of clothing in 2022.www.dailymail.co.uk
It's not dirty, it is over processed, over straightened, and the hair extentions can cause hair strands to bunch and separate. I really really fail to understand why she never wears her hair au naturale.The ratty horrible dirty-looking hair on her!!!!
I'm here and ready to serve (this thread, not Smeg herself)Ferrero Rocher all round![]()
What was the story they leaked?
Interference in the monarchy: if this happens, the RF need to sue for libel and Hawwy tried for treasonThanks Lady Muck.
BookWorm doesn't think things will get much better yet for the Royals, sorry. We'll suffer Live to Lead and B/W refuses to look at it with Greta in it.
Another docuseries "Unforgiven" due in January, Spare due out on 10th January and MM is working on her own autobiography as we speak. An overdose of the Stoats.
The Stoat will be in the UK early January apparently to promote his Memoir, and wants to see C to explain his point of view.
The Stoats seem to be doing their own thing separately and will keep up the pretence until after the Coronation.
B/W reports gossip that even if they're not formally invited to the Coronation they will travel to the UK in a bid to force C to invite them. BP has contingency plans to let them attend a couple of events, no big public appearances, keep them out of sight so they don't steal the focus.
A rumour, but B/W believes a distinct possibility, that "the Memoir is much worse than we think it is". This possibility was then echoed in a DM article which she read, word for word.
B/W wondered if this was a marketing ploy to drum up interest.
But what if it isn't, and there's something really embarrassing? BP will have no control over the distribution or fallout, and will have no time to react with damage control. C's reputation could suffer immense damage.
The below info BookWorm stressed is a rumour, but she believes it is credible.
She has a source who informed her that the Memoir contains information so harmful that C will have no choice but abdicate by the end of March. He will not make his Coronation.
B/W is trying to put all the puzzle pieces together, wishes everyone a happy New Year, and sends her love.
............
The RF contingency plan as outlined by B/W seems dodgy. Keep them out of sight and just let them attend a couple of minor events so they don't steal the show? That didn't work last time either. If theyre not formally invited they shouldn't be allowed to gatecrash like Ngozi did, and they should be banned. One or the other, no half-in-half-out.