As is walking around in made to measure designer gear, dripping in jewels, travelling on private jets, eating and drinking the best of everything whilst complaining you’re “not getting paid”.
- 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 doubt there are sources. Even if both sides were silent, good drama always sells the papers (TV). I'm very disappointed by UK media, because they didn't write about HMTQ for these 10 days, about people who met her, about what's happening in the world, but we had 10 days of "Scobie said, palace said "
Oh, I’m convinced there are an abundance of ‘Sources’, real, imagined, sanctioned and un.
As I said in the other thread the article just shows what horrendous people they are. It validates so much we have heard and gives more details. Meghan was always 100% Hollywood and never wanted to stick around. Harry is mentally ill (paranoia?) and she enables his own awfulness and makes it worse.
'Mean girl' come off it! Meghan is out of her depth because she never bothered to learn her role and wanted to be the 'star' of the family. Kate knows her place.
Diana would sit and watch Blind Date with William and Harry. I had a lovely dream of them all the night I read that. It’s weird - I dream of Diana often.
Kate knows her place! I find that statement, in itself, incredibly sad. She’s her own person.
If being a woman, a wife and a Mother is viewed on her knowing her place by that family, then god love Meghan for walking away from it.
If being a woman, a wife and a Mother is viewed on her knowing her place by that family, then god love Meghan for walking away from it.
Meghan walked away for money and tantruming they didn't get their way and weren't #1. She walked away having kept her Hollywood PR people from Day 1. She was no victim of the crown or anything. It's pretty obvious they never intended on some private life but she saw $$$$$$$$ when she nabbed Harry.
That's 1991 - a documentary called Elizabeth R was made for her 40th year on the throne in 1992 and cameras spent a year following her around from November 1990. The whole thing is absolutely fascinating, it's the closest the Queen ever came to doing an interview, I think. The whole thing, 1hr and 45 minutes, is on YouTube here:
People, especially women who marry into the Royal Family really do have to know their place. Shut up, pop out some babies, don't put a foot wrong etc etc. It really is an archaic throwback to a bygone age. Camilla to her credit, does some really Hood work regarding violence against women and has been quite outspoken, maybe because she is older, or maybe because she came in as the mistress etc. Kate is just sticking to bland and inoffensive as possible.
Interesting few facts I learned today from reading ‘And What Do You Do?’: you cannot sit in the presence of a Monarch or be above one (like a balcony). So on walkabouts or visits to community centres or schools, if you need to sit down, tough luck (protocol wise).
Also, when they wanted to change the surname Saxe-Coburg and Gotha due to anti German feeling Plantagenet was put forth as an idea by one Lord (however deemed too ‘theatrical’), Plantagenet-Tudor-Smith (Tudor was too closely linked to Henry and his wives and the Stuarts beheaded on of their own). Guelph was also suggested due to medieval links.
Due to the fact that the Queen inherited the throne and took on her husband’s surname of Mountbatten, Prince Charles and Princess Anne had the surname Mountbatten. However Churchill stopped the Queen trying to incorporate the Mountbatten name and had forced her into a declaration that the royals would be known only as the House and Family of Windsor. An amateur expert on the monarchy said that when her next child would be born, he/she would be a bastard as they had the mother’s surname (he felt very strongly about children being born with their mother’s maiden names). He wrote to the prime minister saying “When the new baby is born, as matters now stand it will bear the Badge of Bastardy namely, its mother's maiden name”. Subsequently to stop any future children being labelled bastards, she made a new declaration saying that she had adopted Mountbatten-Windsor as the name for all her descendants who did not enjoy the title of His or Her Royal Highness 11 days before Andrew’s birth.
this article goes into more detail:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy
Also, when they wanted to change the surname Saxe-Coburg and Gotha due to anti German feeling Plantagenet was put forth as an idea by one Lord (however deemed too ‘theatrical’), Plantagenet-Tudor-Smith (Tudor was too closely linked to Henry and his wives and the Stuarts beheaded on of their own). Guelph was also suggested due to medieval links.
Due to the fact that the Queen inherited the throne and took on her husband’s surname of Mountbatten, Prince Charles and Princess Anne had the surname Mountbatten. However Churchill stopped the Queen trying to incorporate the Mountbatten name and had forced her into a declaration that the royals would be known only as the House and Family of Windsor. An amateur expert on the monarchy said that when her next child would be born, he/she would be a bastard as they had the mother’s surname (he felt very strongly about children being born with their mother’s maiden names). He wrote to the prime minister saying “When the new baby is born, as matters now stand it will bear the Badge of Bastardy namely, its mother's maiden name”. Subsequently to stop any future children being labelled bastards, she made a new declaration saying that she had adopted Mountbatten-Windsor as the name for all her descendants who did not enjoy the title of His or Her Royal Highness 11 days before Andrew’s birth.
this article goes into more detail:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/18/monarchy
Quoting myself like a tit, not sure why the video isn't showing up in the link, but if you search 1992 BBC Elizabeth R on YouTube it'll come up.
First photo of the headstone. The wreath nearest to the camera is the one that was on the Queen's coffin.
I know it was a different time, but God
If even the literal Queen's maiden name was not good enough to stand on it's own and would render a child a bastard, then what chance did any other woman of the era have of being treated as whole beings... I'd like to see the person with the balls big enough to call the Queen's child a bastard, just to figure out how he or she manages to carry them around all day
Re The Times article on H & M. So many people left their employ in a short period of time, choosing to resign rather than work on what on paper must seem an exciting role. Plus one of them was an American so it wasn’t just that Meghan’s way of doing things was at odds with the British way - her compatriot accused her of being a bully and always had someone in her sights to bully. They were described as a couple of teenagers, stroppy and entitled. The fast turnover of staff is indicative that there is truth in the bullying accusations. I think Meghan’s real face showed when she snapped at the aide trying to take the flowers during the walkabout. Then realised the optics of how it would look and swiftly changed to conciliatory. They seem unpleasant and perhaps will never be happy with their lot, perennial victims. Hopefully they will fade from view. There is a limit to how much whinging about the RF people will be interested in listening to, and they are not over endowed with personality, particularly Harry. They behaved well at the funeral. Shame their behaviour isn’t like that all the time.
Normally I’d be totally against comments about anyone “knowing their place” but the Royal Family isn’t about the individuals. It’s about the Crown, and that always takes precedence. The whole family, in public, is about hierarchy. William is unfortunately more important than Kate because he is Royal by birth, in the same way the Queen was more important than Phillip. Phillip knew that the Crown was the top, Camilla knows it. Kate knows it. It’s unfortunate but true. No amount of wishing is going to change a 1000 year old institution any time soon.
There’s a difference between how precedence treats people … it’s totally not personal but I think it’s more the way that incomers are treated … or incomer females. Just imagine if Beatrice was a chap and had married a what amounts to a society butterfly with a child from a previous relationship. Same with Eugenie - If a male member of the Royal family had married a bar manager … would they have been called a barmaid and given the nickname Bet Lynch?
Yes. The York girls husbands have got off remarkably lightly. In Beas case, in favour of stalking the mother of his eldest child.
Camilla has been managing the press directly since at least 1982, when she started calling Stuart Higgins, royal reporter then editor of the Sun, once a week. She did it for 10 years. Then she got Charles to hire Marc Bolland, an idea of her divorce attorney, to be her spin doctor at the palace -- to restore her reputation, get her married, and get her crowned. All this is a matter of public record. Higgins talked to respectable royals biographer Sally Bedell Smith, and Marc Bolland himself has talked and leaked about what he did as Camilla's own sherpa 1997-2002.
There's a huge difference in how the media treat the women that marry in compared to the men. I don't think there's a difference in how the palace treat them though. Philip had to play second fiddle to the Queen the same way Kate and Camilla will have to with Charles and William.
If they don't sue then it will be really telling also. That article paints a nasty picture.
Last edited:
- Status