Great post. It makes me so mad that literally all they have to do is self promotion so that they can keep what they have, yet all they have to do is get one of their arselicking lackeys to say how disappointed they are for everyone to jump to their defence. As an institution they are indefensible. Their entire purpose is the continuation and advancement of The Windsors. All the guff about their ' duty'. They were born into incredible and unearned privelege and all they have to do in return is shut up and turn up to some charitable appointments. Lots of actors/ singers/ tv personalities do charitable works alongside their actual jobs, as do many 'ordinary' people. Their only purpose is as the sosp opera that they are.To be fair, there were articles criticising her workshy ways (Duchess Doolittle, Willnot & Kannot), but since Meghan's arrival the Cambs have had overwhelmingly positive PR. Some bumps in the middle, but still. The tides are destined to turn sooner or later.
I have no doubt if she were working class that the media would be worse, though.
As @Vanillaco points out, the palace PR machine is very well oiled: whenever a critical piece appeared in the papers, a counteractive article would appear in less than 24hrs, spinning all the criticisms of the 1st article as a positive.
Kate was coasting for nearly ten years, many people (incl me) have always said Kate would only kick it up a bit once Harry married due to the direct competition. Prior to Harry marrying, Kate was the only one in a particular position: young senior female royal. Barely anyone pays attention to the other working royals (eg Sophie, Camilla, Anne; Bea & Eug were always hated due to their parents, had an odd dress-sense, not "classically beautiful/pretty" and were always private citizens, never working royals).
Harry's wife would nill that and she did (regardless who she were to be). Turnt out to be Meghan, who, on paper, was far more accomplished than Kate: great uni, a degree, worked as actress (i.e. familiar with the media and has some training in that regard), had a blog, travelled, has written and given speeches. Seemingly a perfect fit (and as reported, Harry thought this would make it easy for her to transition into her royal role). How successful or apt she was is debatable and not the point, so please ignore that, it's a whole other argument.
Anyway, I have no doubt that Kate had some training in speech giving and all that, but look at her speeches and public appearances before ca. 2018 and after. It's like night and day. Even the first joint appearance of the 4 (Meg was still "just" a fiancee) for their then-joint foundation and you see the difference between the women: Meghan is confident, not afraid to speak ad hoc etc, Kate looks in some instances like she wants to melt into the chair, doesn't speak much, leaves it all to Will.
She barely spoke and the palace PR (to counter critics and questions) put out a story how Kate wanted to be like the queen mum: be seen, but not heard. Some of the quotes she said throughout the years were mindboggling ("can you smell the smell by smelling it" at Fortnum's) and her speeches badly read (like she read them for the first time whilst giving them, bumbling all the time) and not well written, either. Particular outrage when in one speech she basically blamed parents for giving kids an unhappy childhood and thus causing mental health problems, worded just as plumply as I wrote it here. Wasn't even packaged in a sophisticated manner.
After ca. 2018 Kate appeared a lot more confident, her giving speeches is a lot better. I think she took (again!) some lessons and finally took those lessons seriously and worked on herself.
Her recently sharing a handwritten note also reminds me of someone *ahem*.
Her wardrobe has also changed a bit since Meghan, and I do think that M has been a (positive) influence. Kate now dresses often in a more "professional (office worker)" style and carries actual handbags occasionally and not just her clutches. Some of her clutches were ridiculous, so freakishly small that you can't convince me she managed to stuff in there more than a tissue and a lipstick.
Meghan's influence on Kate (direct and indirect) is undeniable. I have followed Kate too long to not notice or attribute it to anything else.
Kate sugars won't like it, but either dedicate some time to look into Kate's work performance and wardrobe pre-2018 or live in your lalaland.
Again, most always assumed that Kate would finally step up once Harry married, regardless who she were to be and so it really was.
It was always said that Kate (and Pippa) is competitive and the direct competition of another young senior female royal did it, though sad that she only stepped up in her role and improved for that.
She was coasting as gf for nearly ten years, then she was coasting as royal and it took her nearly ten years to behave like a professional, now I assume it's gonna take another near ten years until she broadens her schedule. She seems to do things in ten-year spans.
I think Harry left for multiple reasons. For the reasons they claim and for the reasons the critics say are "really true", imo both sides are right on the money.
The Sussexes complaining of leaks from the palace smacks true, this has been an issue even in the 1980s and beyond (and for hundreds of years before!). There is plenty backstabbing there behind palace walls and it doesn't matter who it is you're going to backstab/who's going to backstab you, we've had PR wars over the decades between parents and children (I mean even Victoria and her son and heir Ed VII! this stuff is as old as time), siblings etc etc.
The Sussexes are problematic, too, and (Harry and) Meghan's leaked a fair bit as well, so if they're going to complain about leaks they should be fair and say that all the palace walls have holes as big as bear-cave entrances and that backstabbing is flavour of the day, every day.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Vikka, I nestled in with a cup of tea to read your postings and so enjoyed them.
Would love to read more of your insights and views
Would love to read more of your insights and views
Love your posts vikka
So I’m rewatching series 1 of The Crown and I like to look up the people on Wiki while I watch. I’ve just skim read about Porchy (Lord Porchester, the Queens friend) and I think he has a look of Prince William! I’ve read before rumours that Andrew is Porchys son (can’t remember where) but if there’s some truth to it, maybe the similarities in looks ring true? Pic attached of Porchy where I think he looks like William.
Attachments
I honestly don't believe the "Porchy's Andy's dad" gossip, I don't even know where it originated??
Even if that were true, he wouldn't look like Will, Andy's Will's uncle after all.
Will looks a lot like his mum and interestingly he and his cousin Peter (Anne's son) look like twins separated at birth, one became blond, the other brunette.
Genetics/inherited looks are a fun thing. Some people don't look like they're related at all (eg Bea & Eug (& their parents), though they resemble Vic & queen mum loads!) and others look like carbon copies of each other (the Camb kids, esp G & L (who take after the Midds)) and yet some see the exact opposite!
The pic's a good find!
I was hoping you would reply @vikka, I’m enjoying reading your posts
He does look like Peter, you’re right, so maybe he takes after Anne and The Spencer Family. I was unsure about the rumours too but I love a good rumour rabbit hole!
LOL please, you're not the only oneI was hoping you would reply @vikka, I’m enjoying reading your posts
He does look like Peter, you’re right, so maybe he takes after Anne and The Spencer Family. I was unsure about the rumours too but I love a good rumour rabbit hole!
We all love some good gossip, it's what we're all here for!
Some believe the Porchy rumour, incl. on this thread, but I just can't believe it, don't see how it could/would be true and would love to know the origin of it. Physical resemblance isn't the greatest marker (unless you talk about Boris Becker and his lovechild Anna, back then he wanted a paternity test and it's like, bloody heck, all you need is to look at the child!).
Thank you both!
Or rather thank you all!
I didnt think HM would bec so stupid as to get pregnant by someone els, and that she loved Phil despite his indiscretions, but someone said something on this thread that made me doubt myself. They thought it was plausible that her and Phil were going through a rocky patch, she got pregnant and insisted on having it. Andy is so different looking from his siblings and there is something that is being kept secret for 100years. Still implausible I think but intriguingLOL please, you're not the only one
We all love some good gossip, it's what we're all here for!
Some believe the Porchy rumour, incl. on this thread, but I just can't believe it, don't see how it could/would be true and would love to know the origin of it. Physical resemblance isn't the greatest marker (unless you talk about Boris Becker and his lovechild Anna, back then he wanted a paternity test and it's like, bloody heck, all you need is to look at the child!).
Thank you both!
Or rather thank you all!
Certainly intriguing, ultimately we don't know. I mean if we're going to go by physical resemblance, we'd have to go a bit through Phil's ancestry and compare there as well, e.g. Bea & Eug don't look like either York, but bear a strong resemblance to women in their tree a few generations back.I didnt think HM would bec so stupid as to get pregnant by someone els, and that she loved Phil despite his indiscretions, but someone said something on this thread that made me doubt myself. They thought it was plausible that her and Phil were going through a rocky patch, she got pregnant and insisted on having it. Andy is so different looking from his siblings and there is something that is being kept secret for 100years. Still implausible I think but intriguing
That type of reasoning would make sense, but at the same time there are plenty of couples who go through rocky patches and still have ("oopsie") kids.
If we're to stay with the Windsors, Diana said Harry was their "miracle child", as apparently there was nothing happening in the bedroom that year and it took so little to become pregnant..
There might be a secret kept embargoed for X time (is this from death or from which year?), but a secret like an illegitimate child would be kept secret forever. Revealing that there's a cuckoo in any family would be shocking, but in this family it has dynastic and political repercussions. The scale is just much bigger and a whole different ballgame. So by that alone I'd say even if it is true, it'll never be publicly admitted to.
Also Andy is allegedly Liz's favourite, she wouldn't risk him and his daughters lose so much by such a revelation. Even the Epst. stuff didn't waver Liz, she's thrown her support behind him with all she's got (there's never going to give a statement, she does this by appearances and those have been crystal clear).
100 years is a long time, esp if after passing. It would be best to look up what the average time is of things being kept secret, might be that 100 years is normal for monarchs.
Edit: I also think that some rumours are always popular, regardless what century and whether it's about royalty or celebrity. E.g. cheating and cuckoos have always been popular and these days it extends to surrogacy. "Kate used a surrogate 3x", "Meghan used a surrogate"... those are the most BS to me. Micro analyzing pics for "proof".... Oh and people having "secret children", like "Charles and Di's "secret daughter"" or also now popular: "Meghan gave birth before"...
It is also always been rumoured that Phil cheated, no real proof, but that one's believable in my books. (there are accounts by mates which imply Phil "having fun" along with the rest of the guys, most if not all married men...)
I also think it's more likely that Phil has an illegitimate kid somewhere than Liz.
Last edited:
Yes that's true. I think it was due to be kept secret for 50 years and that was extended to 100. I think it may be something to do with Phil and the Profumo scandal, but that's much less juicyCertainly intriguing, ultimately we don't know. I mean if we're going to go by physical resemblance, we'd have to go a bit through Phil's ancestry and compare there as well, e.g. Bea & Eug don't look like either York, but bear a strong resemblance to women in their tree a few generations back.
That type of reasoning would make sense, but at the same time there are plenty of couples who go through rocky patches and still have ("oopsie") kids.
If we're to stay with the Windsors, Diana said Harry was their "miracle child", as apparently there was nothing happening in the bedroom that year and it took so little to become pregnant..
There might be a secret kept embargoed for X time (is this from death or from which year?), but a secret like an illegitimate child would be kept secret forever. Revealing that there's a cuckoo in any family would be shocking, but in this family it has dynastic and political repercussions. The scale is just much bigger and a whole different ballgame. So by that alone I'd say even if it is true, it'll never be publicly admitted to.
Also Andy is allegedly Liz's favourite, she wouldn't risk him and his daughters lose so much by such a revelation. Even the Epst. stuff didn't waver Liz, she's thrown her support behind him with all she's got (there's never going to give a statement, she does this by appearances and those have been crystal clear).
100 years is a long time, esp if after passing. It would be best to look up what the average time is of things being kept secret, might be that 100 years is normal for monarchs.
Edit: I also think that some rumours are always popular, regardless what century and whether it's about royalty or celebrity. E.g. cheating and cuckoos have always been popular and these days it extends to surrogacy. "Kate used a surrogate 3x", "Meghan used a surrogate"... those are the most BS to me. Micro analyzing pics for "proof".... Oh and people having "secret children", like "Charles and Di's "secret daughter"" or also now popular: "Meghan gave birth before"...
It is also always been rumoured that Phil cheated, no real proof, but that one's believable in my books. (there are accounts by mates which imply Phil "having fun" along with the rest of the guys, most if not all married men...)
I also think it's more likely that Phil has an illegitimate kid somewhere than Liz.
The surrogacy rumours are put out about anyone who wants to disparage women who have had the audacity to marry certain celebs. Benedict Cumberbatchs wife gets the same. As if infertility is a personality flaw, or that women who are not as ' pure' as these people think they should be are punished by infertility, or that women over 35 are infertile or that these poor trapped men cant possibly be having sex with their wives but get forced into impregnating a surrogate somehow.
Why would Charles and Di have a 'secret daughter'? It makes as much sense as Kirsten Stewart and RPatz ' 4 secret children'. No one explains why they would be kept secret
LOL exactly! Another typical piece if disparaging gossip I loathe is "X is at least 5 years older than they say!" And by "they" I really mean "she", because it's always a woman who is accused to be older than she really is, even women who grew up in the spotlight get treated that way in comments sections and forums!Yes that's true. I think it was due to be kept secret for 50 years and that was extended to 100. I think it may be something to do with Phil and the Profumo scandal, but that's much less juicy
The surrogacy rumours are put out about anyone who wants to disparage women who have had the audacity to marry certain celebs. Benedict Cumberbatchs wife gets the same. As if infertility is a personality flaw, or that women who are not as ' pure' as these people think they should be are punished by infertility, or that women over 35 are infertile or that these poor trapped men cant possibly be having sex with their wives but get forced into impregnating a surrogate somehow.
Why would Charles and Di have a 'secret daughter'? It makes as much sense as Kirsten Stewart and RPatz ' 4 secret children'. No one explains why they would be kept secret
Kate haters claimed Kate is older than she said (and used a bogus paper as source & proof, forgot the paper's name but they always publish outrageous shyte) and I read the same about Meghan. It's also always the women who marry in who are accused of all these things, at least most of the time. (there is that guy in Oz or Africa I think who fancies himself being Margaret's son and that guy who claims he's Charles's and Camilla's lovechild).
I love your posts.Certainly intriguing, ultimately we don't know. I mean if we're going to go by physical resemblance, we'd have to go a bit through Phil's ancestry and compare there as well, e.g. Bea & Eug don't look like either York, but bear a strong resemblance to women in their tree a few generations back.
That type of reasoning would make sense, but at the same time there are plenty of couples who go through rocky patches and still have ("oopsie") kids.
If we're to stay with the Windsors, Diana said Harry was their "miracle child", as apparently there was nothing happening in the bedroom that year and it took so little to become pregnant..
There might be a secret kept embargoed for X time (is this from death or from which year?), but a secret like an illegitimate child would be kept secret forever. Revealing that there's a cuckoo in any family would be shocking, but in this family it has dynastic and political repercussions. The scale is just much bigger and a whole different ballgame. So by that alone I'd say even if it is true, it'll never be publicly admitted to.
Also Andy is allegedly Liz's favourite, she wouldn't risk him and his daughters lose so much by such a revelation. Even the Epst. stuff didn't waver Liz, she's thrown her support behind him with all she's got (there's never going to give a statement, she does this by appearances and those have been crystal clear).
100 years is a long time, esp if after passing. It would be best to look up what the average time is of things being kept secret, might be that 100 years is normal for monarchs.
Edit: I also think that some rumours are always popular, regardless what century and whether it's about royalty or celebrity. E.g. cheating and cuckoos have always been popular and these days it extends to surrogacy. "Kate used a surrogate 3x", "Meghan used a surrogate"... those are the most BS to me. Micro analyzing pics for "proof".... Oh and people having "secret children", like "Charles and Di's "secret daughter"" or also now popular: "Meghan gave birth before"...
It is also always been rumoured that Phil cheated, no real proof, but that one's believable in my books. (there are accounts by mates which imply Phil "having fun" along with the rest of the guys, most if not all married men...)
I also think it's more likely that Phil has an illegitimate kid somewhere than Liz.
Aren't there rumours that he has one in Australia?Certainly intriguing, ultimately we don't know. I mean if we're going to go by physical resemblance, we'd have to go a bit through Phil's ancestry and compare there as well, e.g. Bea & Eug don't look like either York, but bear a strong resemblance to women in their tree a few generations back.
That type of reasoning would make sense, but at the same time there are plenty of couples who go through rocky patches and still have ("oopsie") kids.
If we're to stay with the Windsors, Diana said Harry was their "miracle child", as apparently there was nothing happening in the bedroom that year and it took so little to become pregnant..
There might be a secret kept embargoed for X time (is this from death or from which year?), but a secret like an illegitimate child would be kept secret forever. Revealing that there's a cuckoo in any family would be shocking, but in this family it has dynastic and political repercussions. The scale is just much bigger and a whole different ballgame. So by that alone I'd say even if it is true, it'll never be publicly admitted to.
Also Andy is allegedly Liz's favourite, she wouldn't risk him and his daughters lose so much by such a revelation. Even the Epst. stuff didn't waver Liz, she's thrown her support behind him with all she's got (there's never going to give a statement, she does this by appearances and those have been crystal clear).
100 years is a long time, esp if after passing. It would be best to look up what the average time is of things being kept secret, might be that 100 years is normal for monarchs.
Edit: I also think that some rumours are always popular, regardless what century and whether it's about royalty or celebrity. E.g. cheating and cuckoos have always been popular and these days it extends to surrogacy. "Kate used a surrogate 3x", "Meghan used a surrogate"... those are the most BS to me. Micro analyzing pics for "proof".... Oh and people having "secret children", like "Charles and Di's "secret daughter"" or also now popular: "Meghan gave birth before"...
It is also always been rumoured that Phil cheated, no real proof, but that one's believable in my books. (there are accounts by mates which imply Phil "having fun" along with the rest of the guys, most if not all married men...)
I also think it's more likely that Phil has an illegitimate kid somewhere than Liz.
It's interesting that he's passed his build and looks on so strongly. Even Anne has that rangey build, as well as Edward, and Charles is only shorter from his mother. As Harry has got older, the more he looks like Charles and Philip around the eyes and high narrow bridge to the nose. I noticed it in George's christening photos when I thought that if you turned Harry's hair grey he'd look so like Charles.
Agreed, he looks far more Windsor than William who is all Diana looks wise
Not sure, but Oz is possible, for sure as he took a whole year off and went sailing around the world with his mates and had "fun", leaving behind Liz and the kids. Quite dodgy behaviour for a married father of 2 (or 4 by then? don't remember). There were native women on camera for a docu giggling about the encounter with Phil and his friends...
Yes, I agree, Will is mostly all Diana and Harry mostly all Charles. Esp their faces. Charles and Harry did a tour together, a few days, before Meghan, and the similarity between them was apparent, how anyone could still say after that that Harry isn't Chuck's is beyond me.
Harry didn't just take face-wise after his father, but on that tour their mannerisms were the same, their poses, all body language. It was crazy. I have seen fantastic pics of that tour, Harry came across like Chuck's clone.
They also have both the close-set eyes passed down from Mary to her sons to Liz to Charles, Eddie, Anne and Harry, Zara and Louise.
I'm not sure now if the DM are just trolling Royalists now. They have one of the Queens cousins or someone complaining that the story about the Bowes Lyon sisters in The Crown was made up. It was well documented after an expose by The News of the World in the 80's! The women's nurses say no one visited them and they were recorded as dead. The cousin reckons that was a genuine mistake! A mistake that was made twice, and one that remained for 50 years or so! He said he spoke to them several times, never that he visited. The only false bit of that story was that Princess Margaret gave a stuff about them! What idiots these people are. They are only complaining because their secrets are not just confined to people who read Royal biographies but are being globally exposed and they are being found wanting.
Precisely, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can recall no one's made this much of a fuss over s1-3. Some, yes, esp. the implication that Phil cheated and Liz was with Porchy and some other stuff, but the protests about s4 are off the scale. Must've touched a nerve (esp as it's more recent history with clear effects on today (eg C&C&D)).
To go out and complain about things so well documented with witnesses confirming the story/stories is just.. brain dead. Must be all the inbreeding showing once again that family's intellectual capacity.
You canNOT "accidentally" mark someone as dead; and when you have a specific date as date of death, that should make you think, no?
The audacity....
I think WIlliam looks like a younger Zac Goldsmith but that opens up another can of worms entirely...
Also, re Australia - doesn’t Captain Mark Phillips have a child there who was conceived whilst he was still married to Anne?
Yes, he does. With that family, many a road seems to lead to Oz...
Affairs galore in that family
Princess Anne's secret affair with her bodyguard lover
The Mail tracked down former UK royal protection officer Peter Cross, now 72, and spoke to his ex-partner, Gillian Nicholls, who was privy to many of his secrets.
I know of the Goldsmith rumour, it's also been discussed on tattle, but if we go by looks alone... Why are Peter and William so similar?
Also Diana, her brother Charles and their father all look very very alike. I find the similarity between Charles and Diana for whatever reason particularly now extremly striking, as Charles is older.
The 3 Spencer sisters don't look too alike on the surface, but when you compare them over the years you can also clearly see the family resemblance.
And it has seeped into the next generation, e.g. Diana's niece, Sarah's daughter, Celia McC. looks a lot like Diana.
Everyone talks about Kitty Spencer, as she seeks the limelight, but Kitty takes entirely after her own mother, Victoria.
When you google their pics, esp through the years, a family/DNA link is undeniable and voids the whole Goldsmith rumour.
I don't buy the Goldsmith fantasy for one second. I'd say cuckoos are far more rare than most would think and especially so before an "heir" (Charles is the youngest, the wife was not to "step out" before securing an heir).
Also, if Diana had been a Goldsmith, that would've been used in the divorce. Even Frances's own mother was against her, because John was the one with the title and influence. What better way to prove Frances to be an awful mother and human than throw an affair at her?
- Status