Imagine tattle back then? Would be amazing! Anne and Katherine were first cousins.. both ended up the same grisly way. Hopefully Kate will escape that fate 
- 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 think a little threat of beheading would get our current RF to behave a little bit...then again many/all of them are so thick that they wouldn’t think of the consequencesImagine tattle back then? Would be amazing! Anne and Katherine were first cousins.. both ended up the same grisly way. Hopefully Kate will escape that fate
You're not the only one. I find a monarchy has no place in today's world.
Countries without a monarch have basically two heads of state: One who runs the government and the other who's "the face". Eg Germany: the Chancellor (Merkel) is the one with power, the President (Steinmeier) is there to look pretty and host.
Having a republic would be no different to the current monarchy, except the people wouldn't have to fund and bear a family in perpetuity and keep them in the lap of luxury for cutting ribbons.
And when scandals etc hit, then the people are simply not re-elected or booted out of office. No chance doing that with royals.
And please no "tourism" argument, I have yet to meet anyone who's come because of the Windsors. Other republics seem to do just fine on the tourism front. Plus if the Windsors were abolished, the people could open the palaces, which would mean more money.
Other monarchies in Europe are a lot more modern, Britain is the most old-fashioned. Others have a monarch & heir only system, spares are raised to join the workforce, curtseys are also abolished. For both look at eg the Netherlands.
Will's work with the air ambulance was glorified. He wasn't even the pilot, but the co-pilot. No other air ambulance had the same arrangement as his. His had a seat for his RPO, taking a seat away from people who are injured and their company. Will nearly lost his wings, because he flew so little. He never worked holidays like others. He wasn't very much present, either. Colleagues didn't exactly love him, partly because they had to constantly pick up the slack. Then there's the cost of the helicopter, which was a special order just for Will (for co-pilot room and whatnot).
Compared to other heirs, Will's preparation has been rather lacking and his presence even more so.
A good career for him would be more diplomacy. Like other heirs are prepped. He could have an arrangement like with air ambulance, but learn the ropes. Though at his age (and his father's and granny's) to argue that Will & Kate are fine to be stay-at-home parents or parents with a "normal" career to be more at home with kids is ridiculous.
The have more than one nanny. What for? The one nanny is the main nanny, but they also have 1 or 2 part time nannies. Enough staff to never deal with their kids. The Waleses worked a lot more and had only ever one full time nanny. What do the Cambs need so much staff for?
It would kill neither of them to do, say, two days per week of engagements. The other days be home, or have their engagements around noon every day, if they really must be with their kids every day. With the fleet of transport available to them, that is not a stretch to be present throughout the country. Their kids are mostly at school anyway.
Kate let slip years ago that Will wasn't much present during George's first 8 months or so.
Kate was also dreadful at engagements with kids, that changed once she had kids and when they became a bit older, she had it easier then. Not everyone is a kid person, that's fine. But they tried to build a "kids' princess" type of image and it didn't work at all.
Old Liz is just a glorified pen-pushing puppet and the reason why she's hailed as such a great queen are two-fold:
1. The more recent reason is that she's seen as "nice old granny", like her mother. It's just the favoured image.
2. The establishment perpetuates that image, because the establishment is happy with her. To be popular with the establishment as British monarch, you just have to sign anything they give you and nod "ok". That's what her father taught her, which is what he did and that's what she keeps doing.
The monarch has actually a lot more power than is widely known, but Liz never uses it.
Why do Liz and George VI sign anything presented by the government?
Because they learnt from Ed VIII. Ed was forced by the government (establishment) to abolish. Wallis wasn't the reason at all, but that was the front of it. The reason were his Nazi sympathies, which weren't too grave, as a lot of the upper class was with Hitler (it was the threat of Hitler possibly taking over UK with Ed as king that had the establishment sweating). What the establishment was really appalled by was that Ed had ideas. He wanted change. He wanted a better life for the little man. He thought too much and was too eccentric. He was in essence the Diana of his day. He visited workers in slums, which was novel and appalling to establishment and his parents. He saw how they lived and wanted improvements (in terms of living conditions and health care as well as wages). The establishment hated that, the old boys club was seething. His Nazi sympathies were fine, but when plans emerged of Hitler taking over Britain and Ed being king of that coupled with Ed's ideas and ambitions which were "out of touch" in terms of the establishment, that's when they decided he had to go.
Wallis was used to sell the abdication. Ed could've easily married Wallis, they had overwhelming public support and love and the establishment didn't at all care about Wallis.
Though Wallis never wanted to marry Ed, but had no other choice after Ed publicly gave up the throne for her.
Anyway, Ed's having ideas and wanting to change things (and I don't mean the Hitler conquers Britain bit) was the biggest crux of why the establishment forced him out. They were unhappy with him as PoW and when he didn't change his views as king had them planning his exit. There's more to Ed's ideas, but I can't remember all right now, in any way, he'd have made for a modern, great king was ahead of his time, I kid you not.
In any case, that's how George VI and Lizzie learnt not to have any ideas and just go along with the establishment.
That's why Lizzie is hailed in the media as such a great queen, never put a foot wrong, sweet old granny, etc.
There are fascinating documentaries on the subject when you look for documentaries on YouTube (if they're all available there) on the abdication crisis, Ed & Wallis, the queen mum, and how the Windsors do spin (there's a docu series on just that, wildly fascinating, eg that's where I learnt that the Windsors leak themselves to eg The Sun to gauge public mood).
I am all for a republic, but like many of you am fascinated by the Windsors and love the gossip, intrigue and history surrounding them, so have fallen quite down the rabbit hole without any intent over time
Last edited:
Catherine Howard’s story was tragic, and if she’d been alive today, she would be considered a victim of paedophilia, child abuse, and victim-blaming.
Her mother died when she was just 5, and as a girl she had grown up in a kind of posh children’s home for upper class but impoverished children. A male teacher in his mid-30’s sexually abused her from age 12/13 onwards. Older girls would also bring men into their bedrooms for “entertainment” and Catherine would join these gatherings.
Aged 15, she was groomed by another male staff member in his 30’s; he gave her wifely duties, and they called each other husband and wife.
At 17 she was married to a morbidly obese, tyrannical middle-aged King. She took interest in one of the king’s courtiers, her cousin in his mid-late 20’s, and they became friends. This aroused suspicion within the household (although the king wasn’t aware yet), and she began to be blackmailed by fellow residents from her childhood home, who had witnessed adult men’s relations with her.
She was executed for treason, as Henry VIII made it treason to fail to disclose to the King previous sexual history.
So basically she’d been repeatedly molested as a child then was executed for it
I was checking to see if someone posted that. It was touched on in a documentary I watched with Dan Snow and Susanna Lipscomb and I went down a rabbit hole online. Such a sad story and so misrepresented in history.Catherine Howard’s story was tragic, and if she’d been alive today, she would be considered a victim of paedophilia, child abuse, and victim-blaming.
Her mother died when she was just 5, and as a girl she had grown up in a kind of posh children’s home for upper class but impoverished children. A male teacher in his mid-30’s sexually abused her from age 12/13 onwards. Older girls would also bring men into their bedrooms for “entertainment” and Catherine would join these gatherings.
Aged 15, she was groomed by another male staff member in his 30’s; he gave her wifely duties, and they called each other husband and wife.
At 17 she was married to a morbidly obese, tyrannical middle-aged King. She took interest in one of the king’s courtiers, her cousin in his mid-late 20’s, and they became friends. This aroused suspicion within the household (although the king wasn’t aware yet), and she began to be blackmailed by fellow residents from her childhood home, who had witnessed adult men’s relations with her.
She was executed for treason, as Henry VIII made it treason to fail to disclose to the King previous sexual history.
So basically she’d been repeatedly molested as a child then was executed for it
Rumours that she had an affair/fling with Dusty Springfield
Yes she is so skinny and she has probably got her own private gym at home and her own tennis courts so that she can invite her friends round for a match followed by a lunch of steamed chicken breast and green salad with a glass of water with a sliceoflemon.
Last edited:
Too many posts to quote but just wanted to respond to a few comments. I can't find any evidence that Kate has had lip fillers, she has pretty thin lips.
The queen and Charles and Diana (who unlike Kate did proclaim that she wanted to bring up her children and be a stay at home mum) all had multiple nannies. I have only ever seen evidence of the Cambridges having one nanny who lives with them, not that I think it really matters if they do, I just find it misleading to single them out as shirkers of the responsibility of bringing up their own kids.
It's weird that Kate has been singled out for "showing her knickers" and clubbing whilst she was apart from William. She was a single girl having fun, we've all been there
the press not reporting on that isn't whitewashing, it's because it's old news and everyone knows about it.
The queen and Charles and Diana (who unlike Kate did proclaim that she wanted to bring up her children and be a stay at home mum) all had multiple nannies. I have only ever seen evidence of the Cambridges having one nanny who lives with them, not that I think it really matters if they do, I just find it misleading to single them out as shirkers of the responsibility of bringing up their own kids.
It's weird that Kate has been singled out for "showing her knickers" and clubbing whilst she was apart from William. She was a single girl having fun, we've all been there
the press not reporting on that isn't whitewashing, it's because it's old news and everyone knows about it.
And we only know about it because they did report on it at the time.Too many posts to quote but just wanted to respond to a few comments. I can't find any evidence that Kate has had lip fillers, she has pretty thin lips.
The queen and Charles and Diana (who unlike Kate did proclaim that she wanted to bring up her children and be a stay at home mum) all had multiple nannies. I have only ever seen evidence of the Cambridges having one nanny who lives with them, not that I think it really matters if they do, I just find it misleading to single them out as shirkers of the responsibility of bringing up their own kids.
It's weird that Kate has been singled out for "showing her knickers" and clubbing whilst she was apart from William. She was a single girl having fun, we've all been there
I think it’s ironic that Henry V11 went to all that trouble so he could have a son, but it was his daughter by Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth, who became arguably our greatest ever monarch.
So much for women can’t rule eh?
So much for women can’t rule eh?
Nothing against becoming a republic, but I will just leave you with this thought....President Boris Johnson!
Speak for yourselfToo many posts to quote but just wanted to respond to a few comments. I can't find any evidence that Kate has had lip fillers, she has pretty thin lips.
The queen and Charles and Diana (who unlike Kate did proclaim that she wanted to bring up her children and be a stay at home mum) all had multiple nannies. I have only ever seen evidence of the Cambridges having one nanny who lives with them, not that I think it really matters if they do, I just find it misleading to single them out as shirkers of the responsibility of bringing up their own kids.
It's weird that Kate has been singled out for "showing her knickers" and clubbing whilst she was apart from William. She was a single girl having fun, we've all been there
This is why I have lot of respect for Anne. She really does graft and has a lot of time for the charities she represents. One of her engagements a few months back was at a sewage works
Can’t imagine the Cambridges accepting a gig like that.
The Queen, Charles and Diana had full time schedules as working royals. The point is that the William and Kate don't and the official line is they want to be around for their children. You can find comparisons of their schedule with the Queen's online and it's shocking. They're senior royals and they barely do anything. As has been mentioned before in this thread, they mostly show up to the red carpet events or big events like the Olympics, Tour de France and Wimbledon.Too many posts to quote but just wanted to respond to a few comments. I can't find any evidence that Kate has had lip fillers, she has pretty thin lips.
The queen and Charles and Diana (who unlike Kate did proclaim that she wanted to bring up her children and be a stay at home mum) all had multiple nannies. I have only ever seen evidence of the Cambridges having one nanny who lives with them, not that I think it really matters if they do, I just find it misleading to single them out as shirkers of the responsibility of bringing up their own kids.
It's weird that Kate has been singled out for "showing her knickers" and clubbing whilst she was apart from William. She was a single girl having fun, we've all been there
Love her or loathe her, I remember watching a documentary on Diana where some of her charities said she deliberately chose the less glamorous charities to patronise as she wanted to give them publicity and she would cut to the chase when it came to funding in a very un-royal manner! She would basically say 'get your cheque book out' to anyone with money!
Yes I went through a Phlippa Gregory phase last year. They were horrifically fascinating! I cant help think the Royals and their courtiers hanker after those days
The position of Prime Minister would not change if we had a republic. It is the position of Head of State that would change. The Queen has no real power at all. She reads out what the government wants her to read out, she rubber stamps laws passed by Parliament and that's it. A ceremonial Head of State would do the same. If they were elected they may have been seen to be a figure who could have brought the different factions of Parliament together for example during the Brexit debacle or even now, but she cant interfere with an elected body in a democracy because she hasn't herself been elected by the people. The US has a Presidential democracy so the President is the Head of State and has power. We have a Parliamentary democracy which is completely different.
Fab post. And remember many of especially Will and Kate's engagements are things most people do for leisure in their spare time - turning up to film premieres, Wimbledon and football matches where they are sitting in the Royal Box being waited on. Sometimes these engagements are split in 2 so meet and greet ( 30 minutes) would be one engagement, watching a film (2 hours) would count as another engagement, even though they are sitting in a cinema watching a film! Will and Kate together in Jan and Feb of 2020 did about 50 between them, compared to Charles, who did 80 on his own aged 71 and the Queen, aged 94 who did 35. They are bone idle and it doesnt bode well for the future of the monarchy.You're not the only one. I find a monarchy has no place in today's world.
Countries without a monarch have basically two heads of state: One who runs the government and the other who's "the face". Eg Germany: the Chancellor (Merkel) is the one with power, the President (Steinmeier) is there to look pretty and host.
Having a republic would be no different to the current monarchy, except the people wouldn't have to fund and bear a family in perpetuity and keep them in the lap of luxury for cutting ribbons.
And when scandals etc hit, then the people are simply not re-elected or booted out of office. No chance doing that with royals.
And please no "tourism" argument, I have yet to meet anyone who's come because of the Windsors. Other republics seem to do just fine on the tourism front. Plus if the Windsors were abolished, the people could open the palaces, which would mean more money.
Other monarchies in Europe are a lot more modern, Britain is the most old-fashioned. Others have a monarch & heir only system, spares are raised to join the workforce, curtseys are also abolished. For both look at eg the Netherlands.
Will's work with the air ambulance was glorified. He wasn't even the pilot, but the co-pilot. No other air ambulance had the same arrangement as his. His had a seat for his RPO, taking a seat away from people who are injured and their company. Will nearly lost his wings, because he flew so little. He never worked holidays like others. He wasn't very much present, either. Colleagues didn't exactly love him, partly because they had to constantly pick up the slack. Then there's the cost of the helicopter, which was a special order just for Will (for co-pilot room and whatnot).
Compared to other heirs, Will's preparation has been rather lacking and his presence even more so.
A good career for him would be more diplomacy. Like other heirs are prepped. He could have an arrangement like with air ambulance, but learn the ropes. Though at his age (and his father's and granny's) to argue that Will & Kate are fine to be stay-at-home parents or parents with a "normal" career to be more at home with kids is ridiculous.
The have more than one nanny. What for? The one nanny is the main nanny, but they also have 1 or 2 part time nannies. Enough staff to never deal with their kids. The Waleses worked a lot more and had only ever one full time nanny. What do the Cambs need so much staff for?
It would kill neither of them to do, say, two days per week of engagements. The other days be home, or have their engagements around noon every day, if they really must be with their kids every day. With the fleet of transport available to them, that is not a stretch to be present throughout the country. Their kids are mostly at school anyway.
Kate let slip years ago that Will wasn't much present during George's first 8 months or so.
Kate was also dreadful at engagements with kids, that changed once she had kids and when they became a bit older, she had it easier then. Not everyone is a kid person, that's fine. But they tried to build a "kids' princess" type of image and it didn't work at all.
Old Liz is just a glorified pen-pushing puppet and the reason why she's hailed as such a great queen are two-fold:
1. The more recent reason is that she's seen as "nice old granny", like her mother. It's just the favoured image.
2. The establishment perpetuates that image, because the establishment is happy with her. To be popular with the establishment as British monarch, you just have to sign anything they give you and nod "ok". That's what her father taught her, which is what he did and that's what she keeps doing.
The monarch has actually a lot more power than is widely known, but Liz never uses it.
Why do Liz and George VI sign anything presented by the government?
Because they learnt from Ed VIII. Ed was forced by the government (establishment) to abolish. Wallis wasn't the reason at all, but that was the front of it. The reason were his Nazi sympathies, which weren't too grave, as a lot of the upper class was with Hitler (it was the threat of Hitler possibly taking over UK with Ed as king that had the establishment sweating). What the establishment was really appalled by was that Ed had ideas. He wanted change. He wanted a better life for the little man. He thought too much and was too eccentric. He was in essence the Diana of his day. He visited workers in slums, which was novel and appalling to establishment and his parents. He saw how they lived and wanted improvements (in terms of living conditions and health care as well as wages). The establishment hated that, the old boys club was seething. His Nazi sympathies were fine, but when plans emerged of Hitler taking over Britain and Ed being king of that coupled with Ed's ideas and ambitions which were "out of touch" in terms of the establishment, that's when they decided he had to go.
Wallis was used to sell the abdication. Ed could've easily married Wallis, they had overwhelming public support and love and the establishment didn't at all care about Wallis.
Though Wallis never wanted to marry Ed, but had no other choice after Ed publicly gave up the throne for her.
Anyway, Ed's having ideas and wanting to change things (and I don't mean the Hitler conquers Britain bit) was the biggest crux of why the establishment forced him out. They were unhappy with him as PoW and when he didn't change his views as king had them planning his exit. There's more to Ed's ideas, but I can't remember all right now, in any way, he'd have made for a modern, great king was ahead of his time, I kid you not.
In any case, that's how George VI and Lizzie learnt not to have any ideas and just go along with the establishment.
That's why Lizzie is hailed in the media as such a great queen, never put a foot wrong, sweet old granny, etc.
There are fascinating documentaries on the subject when you look for documentaries on YouTube (if they're all available there) on the abdication crisis, Ed & Wallis, the queen mum, and how the Windsors do spin (there's a docu series on just that, wildly fascinating, eg that's where I learnt that the Windsors leak themselves to eg The Sun to gauge public mood).
I am all for a republic, but like many of you am fascinated by the Windsors and love the gossip, intrigue and history surrounding them, so have fallen quite down the rabbit hole without any intent over time
When compressed into days, Kate did 80 days work and William did 200 days
When compressed into ordinary working days, Kate did 80 days work in 2019 and William did 150 days in 2019. They have 2 school aged children a nanny and several other staff yet both of them work 1/3 of the year at best.
When compressed into ordinary working days, Kate did 80 days work in 2019 and William did 150 days in 2019. They have 2 school aged children a nanny and several other staff yet both of them work 1/3 of the year at best.
Sorry I dont know why all my edits have posted several times?@Yes I went through a Phlippa Gregory phase last year. They were horrifically fascinating! I cant help think the Royals and their courtiers hanker after those days
The position of Prime Minister would not change if we had a republic. It is the position of Head of State that would change. The Queen has no real power at all. She reads out what the government wants her to read out, she rubber stamps laws passed by Parliament and that's it. A ceremonial Head of State would do the same. If they were elected they may have been seen to be a figure who could have brought the different factions of Parliament together for example during the Brexit debacle or even now, but she cant interfere with an elected body in a democracy because she hasn't herself been elected by the people. The US has a Presidential democracy so the President is the Head of State and has power. We have a Parliamentary democracy which is completely different.
Fab post. And remember many of especially Will and Kate's engagements are things most people do for leisure in their spare time - turning up to film premieres, Wimbledon and football matches where they are sitting in the Royal Box being waited on. Sometimes these engagements are split in 2 so meet and greet ( 30 minutes) would be one engagement, watching a film (2 hours) would count as another engagement, even though they are sitting in a cinema watching a film! Will and Kate together in Jan and Feb of 2020 did about 50 between them, compared to Charles, who did 80 on his own aged 71 and the Queen, aged 94 who did 35. They are bone idle and it doesnt bode well for the future of the monarchy.
When compressed into days, Kate did 80 days work and William did 200 days
When compressed into ordinary working days, Kate did 80 days work in 2019 and William did 150 days in 2019. They have 2 school aged children a nanny and several other staff yet both of them work 1/3 of the year at best.
When compressed into ordinary working days, Kate did 80 days work in 2019 and William did 150 days in 2019. They have 2 school aged children a nanny and several other staff yet both of them work 1/3 of the year at best.
Last edited:
Dodi Fayed's superyacht where Diana stayed goes on sale for £171,000
The St Tropez superyatch belonging to Dodi Fayed, Princess Diana's last partner, was auctioned for £171,000, which shocked royal experts, worried the memory of Diana is 'fading.'
Others have replied well to your questions.Too many posts to quote but just wanted to respond to a few comments. I can't find any evidence that Kate has had lip fillers, she has pretty thin lips.
The queen and Charles and Diana (who unlike Kate did proclaim that she wanted to bring up her children and be a stay at home mum) all had multiple nannies. I have only ever seen evidence of the Cambridges having one nanny who lives with them, not that I think it really matters if they do, I just find it misleading to single them out as shirkers of the responsibility of bringing up their own kids.
It's weird that Kate has been singled out for "showing her knickers" and clubbing whilst she was apart from William. She was a single girl having fun, we've all been there
As Norbs said, everything has been reported on.
They have advertized in The Lady for their nannies. There's a public paper trail.
Charles and Diana had multiple nannies in succession, not concurrently.
Nanny Maria is the main full-time nanny and the one to accompany them in public. The others stay hidden.
The Waleses were hands-on, too, and very "un-royal" in how they raised their children (bathing their own kids, being there for bedtime, taking them to school etc) and yet haven't ever been on record saying "we can't work, we have to raise kids".
A slap in the face also to people who fund them and work 9-5.
I don't begrudge them their nannies, but for doing so little work and claiming to be a hands-on parent you don't need that much staff. It's ridiculous.
She experimented with her lips in around 2012 (or 2014?), noticeable but not obnoxious, but that was a one-off.
She does get fillers and botox in her face and royal reporters have said as much. Which is also noticeable, as her face is notably different during pregnancy (eg the forehead).
Kate is singled out for her flashing, because she's alone in that. Don't remember the York sisters doing that (and the press would be all over that like a rash if it happened) or the others of the same generation. Not even "wild Zara, the first royal with piercings".
Also because she's the future queen. I have high expectations from someone in that position.
No, I have not been there. Not showed my knickers to anyone, always careful to dress so I don't flash, but I have had a hint of cleavage shown and my bra strap has shown at times. I also have never been pissed off my face and never had to be carried to cabs and home, though I love a good drink any time of the day, but I know when to stop.
I don't care for "president Blair" or "president Johnson", they have the power anyway and when unhappy don't get re-elected and in any case can carry out a max of 8 years with their politics. No indefinite luxury and power wielding.
Last edited:
Just here to say that you are awesome!!! And Kate and William need a good slap. I'm stunned the Queen is letting them get away with this. Things really need to change after she passes. I think scrapping them is a good idea personally.Yes I went through a Phlippa Gregory phase last year. They were horrifically fascinating! I cant help think the Royals and their courtiers hanker after those days
The position of Prime Minister would not change if we had a republic. It is the position of Head of State that would change. The Queen has no real power at all. She reads out what the government wants her to read out, she rubber stamps laws passed by Parliament and that's it. A ceremonial Head of State would do the same. If they were elected they may have been seen to be a figure who could have brought the different factions of Parliament together for example during the Brexit debacle or even now, but she cant interfere with an elected body in a democracy because she hasn't herself been elected by the people. The US has a Presidential democracy so the President is the Head of State and has power. We have a Parliamentary democracy which is completely different.
Fab post. And remember many of especially Will and Kate's engagements are things most people do for leisure in their spare time - turning up to film premieres, Wimbledon and football matches where they are sitting in the Royal Box being waited on. Sometimes these engagements are split in 2 so meet and greet ( 30 minutes) would be one engagement, watching a film (2 hours) would count as another engagement, even though they are sitting in a cinema watching a film! Will and Kate together in Jan and Feb of 2020 did about 50 between them, compared to Charles, who did 80 on his own aged 71 and the Queen, aged 94 who did 35. They are bone idle and it doesnt bode well for the future of the monarchy.
When compressed into days, Kate did 80 days work and William did 200 days
When compressed into ordinary working days, Kate did 80 days work in 2019 and William did 150 days in 2019. They have 2 school aged children a nanny and several other staff yet both of them work 1/3 of the year at best.
When compressed into ordinary working days, Kate did 80 days work in 2019 and William did 150 days in 2019. They have 2 school aged children a nanny and several other staff yet both of them work 1/3 of the year at best.
Sorry I dont know why all my edits have posted several times?@
Why thank you
I wouldn't say I was awesome I'm just an annoyed actual working mother who uses childcare while my children need looking after and doesnt need to be hoodwinked by the press and these two and their excuses for not working. If they both sat on benefits because they wanted to 'hands on parents ' they would be absolutely slated!It's pretty much what they do anyway. It annoys me the way they've seemed to hoodwink everyone into thinking they are the love story of the century and the picture perfect family. I know it works for their brand and the 'grey men' love it as it keeps them in a job but it absolutely boils my piss!! They are just posh freeloaders and Kate would have been on TOWIE if it wasn't for that trust fund.Why thank you
- Status