The Royal Family #6

[whathastheworldcometo]

Why are people always accused of "copying" each other?

There is only a limited amount of colours / style to wear, organisations / purposes to support, public things to do - if so, we all would copy someone else all the time.

And frankly: even if they would be consciously "copying" someone else - so what? What if Kate thought:" hey, what Emma Watson does is cool, I will do the same." Are her actions less worth because of it? Is the book less interesting? Will the finders of the books be less pleased to have found it?

 

[Boring Monday]

Anything that encourages more people in general to read books or study photography is great as far as I'm concerned. It has been pointed out that Emma Watson hid books and DoC is copying.

I do the Book Fairy thing. I like to think that both Emma and Kate are copying me.
I also have a red coat.

The Press need to STFU now about Kate V Meghan. They are doing more harm than good. They are the ones reporting things they don't need to. like the above about Kate. Why not just concentrate on what Kate is doing? is it because without the Meghan scandal, they aren't that interesting? Or is it because the DM have lost their court case they are hell bent on revenge? Or is it the usual, that they are misogynistic and racist and like to pit women against each other?

you would be hard pressed to find a publication less misogynistic than the DM. Print a picture of a man in his 50’s and it’s phew, silver Fox, better with age. Print a picture of a woman and it’s alongside a 30 year old picture of her dieted to beggery
and an Editorial on how’s she’s changed and let herself go.

Also, the idea that it is obligatory and indeed compulsory to like each and every one of your random in-laws that marriage has decreed you are now related to has come as something of a shock in our family.

 

[Chita]

I do the Book Fairy thing. I like to think that both Emma and Kate are copying me.
I also have a red coat.



you would be hard pressed to find a publication less misogynistic than the DM. Print a picture of a man in his 50’s and it’s phew, silver Fox, better with age. Print a picture of a woman and it’s alongside a 30 year old picture of her dieted to beggery
and an Editorial on how’s she’s changed and let herself go.

Also, the idea that it is obligatory and indeed compulsory to like each and every one of your random in-laws that marriage has decreed you are now related to has come as something of a shock in our family.

1st bit in bold - Can you sue them for copyright?

2nd bit in bold - I have an in-law that I actually like better than the relative they married.

 

[Merpedy]

On the whole book and photography thing it does feel like they maybe shouldn’t have announced it like this though

Realistically, people are going to be looking for these things just because it’s a “cool” memorabilia item that you can potentially sell later on. It’s just a bit of PR

 

[mindlessness]

On the whole book and photography thing it does feel like they maybe shouldn’t have announced it like this though

Realistically, people are going to be looking for these things just because it’s a “cool” memorabilia item that you can potentially sell later on. It’s just a bit of PR

What do you mean? Why shouldn’t the NPG have released a book and announced it like that?

I commented in the Will and Kate thread almost all major exhibitions have a book released. It’s normal. A way of documenting the exhibit for decades to come. Often they include good academic articles that are useful to future researchers too.
This one certainly has more fuss because of Kate’s involvement. But that’s a good thing - as they are raising money for Mind and the NPG.

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

I understand that if there are any profits from Meghan's book 1% will go to charity. Compared to 100% for Catherine and NPG book. And the 1% re Meghan's book is the publisher's initiative, not hers.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I understand that if there are any profits from Meghan's book 1% will go to charity. Compared to 100% for Catherine and NPG book. And the 1% re Meghan's book is the publisher's initiative, not hers.

OMG, if that's the case then that is really bad. Especially as she published it as "Meghan, THE Duchess of Sussex".
That's worse than "Fergie, Duchess of York" and her children books.

It seems that Meghan is the new Fergie.
She should have given all profits to charity, especially as they advertised it on their foundation site

 

[Blurp]

OMG, if that's the case then that is really bad. Especially as she published it as "Meghan, THE Duchess of Sussex".
That's worse than "Fergie, Duchess of York" and her children books.

It seems that Meghan is the new Fergie.
She should have given all profits to charity, especially as they advertised it on their foundation site

Isn't The Duchess of Sussex the use of her correct title after the Royal Household made a gaffe by making her look divorced by saying that the title Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would be used after they stood down? She is the Duchess of Sussex. Harry is the Duke of Sussex.

The title after the name indicates divorce though some widows do now prefer it to The Dowager Duchess; either way, it indicates that they are not the current holder. Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York both indicate divorce. Should Andrew marry again to someone else, she would be the Duchess of York and Fergie would remain Sarah, Duchess of York as a divorcee.

Incidentally, if they are not using their Royal status and HRH, would they be entitled to be addressed as Your Grace, as are all non-royal dukes and duchesses?

Meghan is actually using her correct title, as is Fergie. It's quite easy to understand really.

 

[EastofHollywood]

OMG, if that's the case then that is really bad. Especially as she published it as "Meghan, THE Duchess of Sussex".
That's worse than "Fergie, Duchess of York" and her children books.

It seems that Meghan is the new Fergie.
She should have given all profits to charity, especially as they advertised it on their foundation site

Although catherine is funded and paid for by us, whereas the Sussexes are now responsible for their own bills, so should be using their income to pay for themselves, as all of us do. Also, the NPG book wasnt written by Kate. She wrote a foreword. Its only being billed as comparable because the DM wanted to frame it as such. Its not Kates book.

 

[FrostyChops]

OMG, if that's the case then that is really bad. Especially as she published it as "Meghan, THE Duchess of Sussex".
That's worse than "Fergie, Duchess of York" and her children books.

It seems that Meghan is the new Fergie.
She should have given all profits to charity, especially as they advertised it on their foundation site

I am afraid that Sarah Ferguson has an air of genuineness that Meghan will never have. Sarah has made some epic mistakes but she always bounces back with a smile and without tell all interviews.

 

[Fishwife]

I went on a tour of Highgrove House Gardens(prince Charles's place). They were beautiful. I just wish I could have taken photos.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Isn't The Duchess of Sussex the use of her correct title after the Royal Household made a gaffe by making her look divorced by saying that the title Meghan, Duchess of Sussex would be used after they stood down? She is the Duchess of Sussex. Harry is the Duke of Sussex.

The title after the name indicates divorce though some widows do now prefer it to The Dowager Duchess; either way, it indicates that they are not the current holder. Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York both indicate divorce. Should Andrew marry again to someone else, she would be the Duchess of York and Fergie would remain Sarah, Duchess of York as a divorcee.

Incidentally, if they are not using their Royal status and HRH, would they be entitled to be addressed as Your Grace, as are all non-royal dukes and duchesses?

Meghan is actually using her correct title, as is Fergie. It's quite easy to understand really.

I do understand, really, but also understood that there was an agreement to not use their Royal titles.
That was my point.
At least Fergie's book made clear that it was not her current status (she was formerly THE Duchess of York), but Meghan chose to use her current title although she left the BRF. Doesn't make much sense to me.
But thanks for the lecture anyway

Although catherine is funded and paid for by us, whereas the Sussexes are now responsible for their own bills, so should be using their income to pay for themselves, as all of us do. Also, the NPG book wasnt written by Kate. She wrote a foreword. Its only being billed as comparable because the DM wanted to frame it as such. Its not Kates book.

As above, I thought the Sussexes agreed not to use their Royal titles for commercial enterprises.
It seems that she did though.

She could have slapped Meghan Markle on the book, just as I would use my civil name, and keep all the money just as I keep my money.

I am afraid that Sarah Ferguson has an air of genuineness that Meghan will never have. Sarah has made some epic mistakes but she always bounces back with a smile and without tell all interviews.

Didn't Fergie also do an Oprah interview? I haven't seen it and don't know what she was talking about though, maybe she didn't talk about the BRF

 

[EastofHollywood]

I do understand, really, but also understood that there was an agreement to not use their Royal titles.
That was my point.
At least Fergie's book made clear that it was not her current status (she was formerly THE Duchess of York), but Meghan chose to use her current title although she left the BRF. Doesn't make much sense to me.
But thanks for the lecture anyway



As above, I thought the Sussexes agreed not to use their Royal titles for commercial enterprises.
It seems that she did though.

She could have slapped Meghan Markle on the book, just as I would use my civil name, and keep all the money just as I keep my money.



Didn't Fergie also do an Oprah interview? I haven't seen it and don't know what she was talking about though, maybe she didn't talk about the BRF

She did. I remember seeing a clip of it. Really why would Oprah do an interview with either of them if she couldn't talk about Royal gossip? And Fergie has spent her time defending her ex husband despite him being a disgusting scumbag. I am willing to bet she is the keeper of his secrets.

 

[thatstupidcat]

I agree, you’d think he murdered a bag of kittens or something.

Well, do protected birds count...

Prince Harry quizzed by police about shooting of rare birds

Prince Harry and a close friend have been interviewed by police after two rare and legally protected birds of prey were killed on the royal family's Sandringham estate in Norfolk last week.

www.theguardian.com

BTW can we all agree that no one apart from critics from t’internet and the MailOnline are going to bother reading either of the duchesses’ books?

I take Markle’s “work of literature” as seriously as anything with a David Walliams’ sticker on it PLUS Middleton rates the same as Dorklyn Beckham’s What I See coffee table “book” which was similarly a product of a lazy, wealthy and connected person.

 

[Alistess]

Apropos of nothing, I’d love to cut Princess Anne’s hair and I’m not a hairdresser.

 

[Blurp]

I do understand, really, but also understood that there was an agreement to not use their Royal titles.
That was my point.

They're not using HRH/TRH, therefore not titled as a royal duke or duchess but rather as nobility. It's rather similar to Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor not using the royal title of Princess Louise of Wessex that she is entitled to as the grandchild of a monarch in the male line but rather the title of a daughter of a non-royal earl.

Buckingham Palace explained this but got it slightly wrong in titling her as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as though she was no longer married. It was then corrected to Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.

She may not be using her title as you think it should be used, but it is correct as Buckingham Palace stated. The Queen as the fount of honour is the ultimate arbiter and this is what she has decreed.

 

[Definitely Maybe]

• • From The Times on insta .......
  • 
    
  • Revealed: Prince Michael of Kent is 'selling access' to the Putinistas
    
    Prince Michael of Kent, the Queen’s cousin, has been covertly filmed at a business meeting in which prospective clients were told he could be hired for ten thousand pounds a day to make representations to the Russian leadership.
    
    The prince’s friend and business partner of 30 years, the Marquess of Reading, told undercover reporters that the prince could take advantage of his role as “Her Majesty’s unofficial ambassador to Russia” to gain access to decision makers in the Kremlin.
    
    When approached for comment, the marquess said he had “over-promised”. The prince said he had not been in contact with Putin or his office for almost 18 years and “would not have wanted, or been able, to fulfil” the marquess’s suggestions.
    
    Read the full investigation via the link in our bio.
    1h
  • 
    
    
    

 

[DCICassieStuart]

Apropos of nothing, I’d love to cut Princess Anne’s hair and I’m not a hairdresser.

Absolutely. She's had that cottage loaf on her head for about 40 years now.

 

[Ellelalala]

 

[freda19]

Didn't Fergie also do an Oprah interview? I haven't seen it and don't know what she was talking about though, maybe she didn't talk about the BRF

She did, and it nearly didn't happen because porka wanted Sarah to wear a tiara during the interview and Sarah refused point blank

when Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, appeared on Oprah following her 1996 divorce from Prince Andrew, Oprah insisted that the Duchess wear a tiara. Prudently, Sarah declined, and, after a bit of friction, was allowed to appear on Oprah with grace and dignity.

Kitty Kelley Claims Oprah Tried to Force Sarah Ferguson into a Tiara

The Prince of Wales will join other world dignitaries in Poland to attend the funeral of Polish president Lech Kaczynski and his wife, First Lady Maria Kaczynska, on Sunday. The couple died last Saturday when a plane carrying a disconcerting number of Poland's top military and political figures...

www.vanityfair.com