Absoluetly right about the “amicably” bit. Maybe I‘m over protective of KC3, but I feel deeply that he has it tough atm. I have to be excused because I’ve had a friend staying for the weekend and she is an ardent Harry and Megan lover. “Have you read Spare then, seen the way he was treated?” Grrr.Thanks for the thread start @Chita , and well done @cjguk
On your post @Kotare last thread
I take your point from a distaste point of view, but without the enablement of the Sussexes by our Monarch we'd not be here and he is part of the contagion. We discuss everything on Tattle but stay on track, and you could say that Rose Hanbury should be discussed on another thread too as a different "theme". Or toast, pets, or difficult relatives. Who decides?
The fact is that our Monarch has a long and sleazy proven association with p...dos, and if the press had no qualms about airing PA's dealings with JE and VG, our King's dealings should be similarly looked at. But the press dare not. Nor should we dare not. We've extensively discussed PA and JE on here. Is the King different? At least PA has to some extent paid for his transgressions but Charles has not.
Any "positioning of King Charles alongside perverts" was his choice, not ours, and he was not a victim of any of them though others were.
The problem is that he's above the law - avoided for example giving evidence in the Peter Ball child sex abuse High Court hearing not long ago though he had a lot to answer for. His son is above the law too, and their abuse of power and privilege comes as naturally as breathing.
But nobody wants to offend anyone on here, so we can leave it at that. It's been openly aired and that's sufficient, so we'll crack on amicably.
Maybe... now hear my out... maybe she misheard and thought he was called Cashley Hole:I blame Ashley Cole.
Thanks for your lovely reply, a perfect example of why this thread works so well. You're totally right to be protective of KC3 and we all have different views. I know mine are batty and irritating at times and I get very annoyed when I read the papers, but I've learned such a lot on here about all sorts of stuff.Absoluetly right about the “amicably” bit. Maybe I‘m over protective of KC3, but I feel deeply that he has it tough atm. I have to be excused because I’ve had a friend staying for the weekend and she is an ardent Harry and Megan lover. “Have you read Spare then, seen the way he was treated?” Grrr.
I do wish there was a reasoned synopsis (that wasn’t a book) that could be given to people like her to explain my position and explain why those of us who dislike them intensely, feel we have good reason. Thing about this friend of mine is that she is just so completely and utterly unaware of everything that’s gone down apart from reading and believing the Harry and Megan interview and his stupid book. She’s not the brightest spark but she’s immovable and I know she wouldn’t read Tom Bower’s book if I gave it to her.
I think that Andrew put himself on that very difficult position by himself. There are tons of important people associated with JE, but prince Andrew was photographed with him AFTER the accusations were public while he was staying with him. Then that absolute disastrous interview.Thanks for the thread start @Chita , and well done @cjguk
On your post @Kotare last thread
I take your point from a distaste point of view, but without the enablement of the Sussexes by our Monarch we'd not be here and he is part of the contagion. We discuss everything on Tattle but stay on track, and you could say that Rose Hanbury should be discussed on another thread too as a different "theme". Or toast, pets, or difficult relatives. Who decides?
The fact is that our Monarch has a long and sleazy proven association with p...dos, and if the press had no qualms about airing PA's dealings with JE and VG, our King's dealings should be similarly looked at. But the press dare not. Nor should we dare not. We've extensively discussed PA and JE on here. Is the King different? At least PA has to some extent paid for his transgressions but Charles has not.
Any "positioning of King Charles alongside perverts" was his choice, not ours, and he was not a victim of any of them though others were.
The problem is that he's above the law - avoided for example giving evidence in the Peter Ball child sex abuse High Court hearing not long ago though he had a lot to answer for. His son is above the law too, and their abuse of power and privilege comes as naturally as breathing.
But nobody wants to offend anyone on here, so we can leave it at that. It's been openly aired and that's sufficient, so we'll crack on amicably.
I'm sure that they are so distressed and so anxious not to have such terrible associations that they will send back all of the gifts they received - and of course, the £1,000,000 they were allegedly paid . . .Now they're blaming the Nigerian government for inviting them
The police are supposedly already investigating.I don't know if the text messages shared on the previous thread were true, but if they are I think the true revelation is the money trail to the SS, the bullying cult.
This is no longer gossip - this is a police matter.
My suitcase is already packed full of VIP room snacks!winning title by @cjguk who is skiving off in the USA.
Hope you bring us back some nice prezzies.
Old thread here - https://tattle.life/threads/harry-meghan-443-arche-not-very-well-at-all.45245/
in which we discussed the Nigeria trip etc
I see you've already eaten the cheesy poofs.
Now they're blaming the Nigerian government for inviting them
I've hidden these at the bottom of the caseI see you've already eaten the cheesy poofs.
Kraft Mac n cheese, Neosporin and Swedish fish are my go to suitcase fillers on the way back from the states!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?