- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Why are these companies pandering to these nobodies? Why should Harry and Meghan influence who we watch on television ? What hold does this pair have on the media channels ? I imagine that Jeremy Clarkson would be bringing in viewers long after this fifteen minutes that the gruesomes would. Another knee jerk reaction that they may regret. It sets a precedent that other deluded celebrities who think they rule the world will use. Clarkson won’t care, he has said so himself. He has plenty of money to keep him going.
304#Haz went silly with Willy over Sausages and Egg and all he got was a frozen todger and Meg
Murdoch owns talk tv.
He can afford to pay Clarkson.
GBNews is a start up. It can't afford him.
He can afford to pay Clarkson.
GBNews is a start up. It can't afford him.
How can Scrotie be a 'Royal Correspondent' - his Wiki bio: 'He became royal editor-at-large at Harper's Bazaar and the royal contributor at ABC News'
Surely in those roles he should be reporting on the Royal Family in a non-partisan way?
Should he be successful (God forbid), through his attacks on the RF as mouth-piece of Harold & TW, in bringing down the Monarchy then not only will he have talked himself out of his jobs - he would effectively have been Markled.
Surely in those roles he should be reporting on the Royal Family in a non-partisan way?
Should he be successful (God forbid), through his attacks on the RF as mouth-piece of Harold & TW, in bringing down the Monarchy then not only will he have talked himself out of his jobs - he would effectively have been Markled.
Good point
Diana would never have been able to wean herself from playing with the press and would have been totally destroyed by social media. Since the time she died look at where the tech for smartphones is her bad behavior would have come out and destroyed her I was such an innocent victim card
OMG! The policy of Appeasement! That didn’t get them too far back then. Find Winston Churchill quickly! Fight to the death of you Harry, you ungrateful little ponce! No giving in to terrorists!
Angela Levin on gb news at 9.20 discussing Clarkson's dismissal despite his apology
She was already on her way. She was being scrutinized over the company she was keeping. The pedestal was getting wobbly.
Don’t forget the people who were invited probably wanted to see the guest list to make sure the Harkles weren’t invited before they accepted the invite
Absolutely, she would have had a massive downturn if she'd lived. As it is she's immortalised when she was very beautiful, never had to go through scrutiny about ageing.
I'd like to think she would have fallen in love again and had a daughter and enjoyed being a grandmother.
I can't keep up with these threads but wanted to share this. In the 80s Alan Clarke dismissed Michael Heseltine as "the type of man who buys his own furniture", the implication being that those of breeding inherited theirs. That is what struck me as completely preposterous, why would Harry buy a sofa of all things? There must be a few hundred around the place! How many castles, palaces and big houses are owned by members of the Royal family and Crown estates. Not to mention Viscount Linsey who ran a bespoke, handmade furniture company. Just seems odd - not to mention second hand high street!?!
Half a million likes and counting. I couldn't upload the whole video but it's hilarious! Go and watch it if you have tik tok. He's become an absolute laughing stock. Ahhh never mind...
Yes, she was a bad mother for a wide variety of reasons, some of them:
Her belief that she is a superior because ''kindergarten '' work, and the complete lack of understanding that a regular aristocratic child and a Royal child which will end in the public eye for life are not the same.
The smugness of her being ''warm'' while others are cold.
She didn't understand the ''creation process '' of Royal children,-there must be a public persona and a private child, she mocked those that lived it before (other Royal women) which gave the world headlines ''William the Tantruming'' and ''William the Basher.''
As we see now, these get used against him, and would be even if he was the most zen person on the planet ,(media)
The ''uncles''
Affairs are one thing, usage of children as ''front'' for affairs are another.
See Spare and kids watching ''courtship '' of another uncle. (St. Tropez)
Carling ''teaching rugby'' and Hewitt , well riding , mostly Diana in hay of Baracks.
Even without the above, the way to early indroductions to ''uncles'', the witnessing of ''break ups'' and the general lack of stability would under normal circumstances give the other parent lots of leverage during custody establishment .
She was a egomaniac , she wouldn't ''improve'' her skills, because she did it ''right.''
She did things intentionally to create problems for the Monarchy it didn't matter if mocking protocol with mismatching gloves , or parenting the children as a form of one upmanship against the RF.
Of course the ''narratives'' her ''sainthood '' are something else.
The luurve, warmth, hugging , the kissing , the jumping on beds are clearly a successful ''polish'' and universally appealing to the emotivist mainstream but the reality is that Charles did similar things, with a difference :
-He didn't reach sainthood
-He maintained the public persona (mostly) towards his children when in public.
The childrens manipulation , the negativity and the (by today's standards ) parental alienation elements are clearly visible .
William succeeded at a certain point in seeing the ''intent'' behind her ''love'' love which would absolutely escalate when it was Charles turn to (have the kids) or do even basic parenting (see history 101, of ''superior '' vacations , ''superior'' outings as documented, always conveniently leaked, to outdo the other parent, leaked by her side)
Harry is now using these things against the RF. Contrary to popular belief he is aware of Diana's games (it was clear in school for him) but ...there is a Monarchy to attack , so it's useful .
Just like mummy.
Could be the shrooms just sayin
Exactly. My grandson is already earmarking furniture in my house that he plans to take with him.
The thing is he is not going to lose his audience because of this column. They won’t give a flying duck. So another channel will pick him up because he comes with a guaranteed audience.
- Status