With many photos and articles to be coming in the next few days, I thought it might be a good idea to start an article for the entire BRF here. :xmas4: (Mods please move if you believe it belongs in a different forum.)
12/21/17 The Queen and DoE arrive at King's Lynn Station to begin their Christmas holiday. The couple will be in residence at Sandringham from December 21, 2017 through February 6, 2018. The Queen's father died on Feb. 6, 1952 so the Queen chooses to stay at Sandringham until after that anniversary.
Bilder und Fotos | Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.de/search/events/775094084?assettype=image&family=editorial&sort=best&phrase=#license)
Double post auto-merged: December 21, 2017, 04:58:59 PM
Video of their arrival.
News Production | ITN Productions (https://itnproductions.com/news/video-queen-arrives-in-norfolk-for-christmas-holidays?type=raw)
Royals gather for the Christmas Eve Service at Sandringham.
https://www.rexfeatures.com/livefeed/2017/12/24/christmas_eve_church_service,_sandringham?
:xmas4: :xmas17: :xmas15:
Lady Louise Windsor is going to be a tall woman one day IMO. She's already taller than her cousin Eugenie who is wearing heels. :xmas21:
Royals gather at Sandringham for Christmas Eve service | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5210013/royals-gather-Sandringham-Christmas-Eve-service.html#ixzz52B4ZC2zA)
QuoteThe service included traditional carols such as Once in Royal David's City, O Little Town of Bethlehem, Away in a Manger, When Shepherds Watch Their Flocks by Night and Hark the Herald Angels Sing.
Thank goodness per aristos customs , teenaged LadyLouisevis not wearing white baby tights and black baby MaryJane shoes.
This poor teen still has to wear tights instea$ of pantyhose. I guess she still has to wear a baby shoe such as the ballet flats.
No way should she or any girl her age, in my opinion, be in heels like Beas. Still, flesh colored pantyhose and a chunky heeled shoe is classy and modern in the USA. I know, for her world, that is a non. Like George still has many wears to wear shorts and long pants, at least he is out of th3 girly MaryJanes strapped shoes.
Yes, I think the BRF could modernize the children?s clothing , yet keep it classy, age appropriate.
I assum3 the aristos still dress their kids like a Gorge and LadyL too.
The Queen and Prince Philip joined by family for Christmas Eve carol service
The Queen and Prince Philip in good spirits at Christmas Eve carol service (https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2017122445002/queen-prince-philip-carol-service-christmas-eve-royal-family/)
Double post auto-merged: December 24, 2017, 10:11:51 PM
Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall take their adorable daughter Mia, three, to a Christmas party in Australia - a year after the couple's tragic miscarriage
Zara Philips seen a year after her tragic miscarriage | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5210061/Zara-Philips-seen-year-tragic-miscarriage.html)
I don?t think the couples will attend to Sandringham this year on break news of zara?s Miscarriage last years and Zara wanted kept low profiles
What's up with them going to church Christmas Eve, and never photographed before? They've always gone twice Christmas Day, 0800 and 1000 hours. Somethings cooking?
Whilst Charles and Camilla usually arrive late afternoon the 24th, I understand William, Kate, Harry and Meghan have been in Amner Hall since this past Friday, 23rd.
There's nothing strange about the royal family going to Church on a Sunday. It happens every six years or so, whenever Christmas Eve lands on a Sunday. There's a carol service at St Mary's every year.
Incidentally, several people in the crowd were heard expressing disappointment that Meghan wasn't present. She wasn't there because she, along with the Cambridges and Harry, may have been at Anmer.
I thought this thread was for the Queen's stay after the New Year since it says 2018. :lol:
OMG
@Kritter what on earth was I thinking when I typed in that title??? LOL :lol: :lol:
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:50:34 AM
Quote from: wannable on December 24, 2017, 11:48:22 PM
What's up with them going to church Christmas Eve, and never photographed before? They've always gone twice Christmas Day, 0800 and 1000 hours. Somethings cooking?
Whilst Charles and Camilla usually arrive late afternoon the 24th, I understand William, Kate, Harry and Meghan have been in Amner Hall since this past Friday, 23rd.
It's also the fourth Sunday of Advent today so that could be a possible reason for the church service. :xmas4:
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:50:58 AM
Preview of tomorrow's Christmas message.
Queen to pay tribute to Prince Philip's 'unique sense of humour' in Christmas message (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/25/queen-pay-tribute-prince-philips-unique-sense-humour-christmas/)
QuoteThe Queen will use her Christmas message to pay a rare public tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, praising his ?unique sense of humour? in the year of their 70th anniversary.
In her annual address to the nation, the Queen will deliver poignant thanks to the Duke, hailing his valuable support this year and throughout her record-breaking reign.
The Duke stepped down from his official public duties in the autumn, but has remained by his wife?s side for key moments including Remembrance Sunday.
Good to see that both QEII and the DoE are in better health this Christmas as compared to last year.
Quote from: wannable on December 24, 2017, 11:48:22 PM
What's up with them going to church Christmas Eve, and never photographed before? They've always gone twice Christmas Day, 0800 and 1000 hours. Somethings cooking?
Whilst Charles and Camilla usually arrive late afternoon the 24th, I understand William, Kate, Harry and Meghan have been in Amner Hall since this past Friday, 23rd.
They go to church on sundays...
Meghan's first curtsy: Harry's fianc?e and pregnant Kate stroll side-by-side and bow for The Queen as massive crowds greet Royals at church on Christmas Day
Royal Family out for Christmas Day in Sandringham | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5211253/Royal-Family-Christmas-Day-Sandringham.html)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 03:44:47 PM
Pregnant Kate shines in ?3,000 Miu Mui coat while Meghan wraps herself in a ?1,000 Sentaler coat for her first Royal Christmas
Kate and Meghan stand shoulder-to-shoulder at Sandringham | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5211411/Kate-Meghan-stand-shoulder-shoulder-Sandringham.html)
Without a hitch, like a clock. The whole Windsor family look happy. Merry Christmas to all fellow posters.
See All the Best Photos from Meghan Markle?s First Royal Christmas Walk
Meghan Markle's Royal Christmas Walk 2017: All the Photos (http://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-christmas-walk-kate-middleton-prince-harry/meghan-harry-xmas-walk)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 03:52:23 PM
Meghan's First Curtsy! Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle Expertly Bow to the Queen
Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle Curtsy to the Queen | PEOPLE.com (http://people.com/royals/meghans-first-curtsy-kate-middleton-and-meghan-markle-expertly-bow-to-the-queen/)
Future Sisters-in-Law! Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton Make Their First Appearance Together
Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton Make Their First Appearance Together | PEOPLE.com (http://people.com/royals/future-sisters-in-law-meghan-markle-and-kate-middleton-make-their-first-appearance-together/)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 03:53:32 PM
All of Princess Kate?s Latest Outfit Details ? and How You Can Buy Them for Yourself
Where to Buy Princess Kate's Outfits for Less (http://people.com/royals/princess-kate-outfits-where-to-buy/royals-attends-christmas-day-church-service)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 03:55:46 PM
American Tourist Proposes to Girlfriend Outside Sandringham as They Wait to See Harry and Meghan
American Tourist Proposes to Girlfriend Outside Sandringham | PEOPLE.com (http://people.com/royals/american-tourist-proposes-to-girlfriend-outside-sandringham/)
Congratulations!! 💍
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 03:56:47 PM
Watch Meghan Markle curtsy to the Queen for the first time in public
Meghan Markle curtsies to the Queen at Sandringham (https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2017122544918/meghan-markle-curtsy-queen-church/)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 03:58:40 PM
Meghan Markle Joins Harry, William, Kate, the Royal Family for Christmas Service: Photos
Meghan Markle Joins Prince Harry, Royal Family for Christmas Service (https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/meghan-markle-joins-prince-harry-royal-family-for-christmas-service/)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:05:40 PM
Meghan Markle joins royals for Christmas service
Meghan Markle joins royals for Christmas service - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42477127)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:07:58 PM
Meghan Markle joins Royal family for Christmas Day church service at Sandringham
Meghan Markle joins Royal family for Christmas Day church service at Sandringham (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/25/meghan-markle-join-royal-family-sandringham-christmas-morning/)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:10:19 PM
Meghan Markle joins Royals at Christmas service
Meghan Markle joins Royals at Christmas service (https://news.sky.com/story/meghan-markle-arrives-at-sandringham-for-christmas-11184333)
Royal Wedding spirit with Christmas Day proposal at Sandringham
Royal Wedding spirit with Christmas Day proposal at Sandringham (https://news.sky.com/story/royal-wedding-spirit-with-christmas-day-proposal-at-sandringham-11184321)
💍
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:12:00 PM
Meghan Markle joins royal family for Christmas Day service
Meghan Markle joins royal family for Christmas Day service | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/25/meghan-markle-joins-royal-family-for-christmas-day-service)
Crowds waited for the Royals for hours since before six am. in the cold and dark. Norfolk, where I grew up, can be absolutely freezing in winter.
Everyone, except possibly Sophie Wessex in her 1950s retro dress, looked cosy in coats and gloves. The Queen in orange looked marvellous, Cam looked good in pink. Louise Wessex is getting very tall, she'll surpass her mother soon.
Probably because it was so cold there wasn't an awful lot of lingering with the crowd of well wishers this year. They all probably wanted to get back to a hot lunch. I think Meghan enjoyed herself. She and the Cambridges were chatting as they walked up to the church. She curtsied fine, had probably been practising. The Chattos are here this year and the Phillips family so Sandringham House is probably packed to the brim.
Breaking from tradition! Meghan shows cheeky side as she steals show in royal Christmas
Meghan Markle joins the Queen for Sandringham church service in break from tradition | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/896524/Queen-Elizabeth-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-William-Kate-Sandringham-church-service)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:16:01 PM
Wedding fever hits Sandringham: Moment royal fan pops questions while waiting for Meghan
Royal fan proposes while waiting for Queen, Harry and Meghan at Sandringham | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/896533/sandringham-harry-sky-news-meghan-markle-royal-Christmas)
💍
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:17:50 PM
Meghan Markle joins Royal Family for Christmas Day service
Meghan Markle joins Royal Family for Christmas Day service - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-12-25/meghan-markle-joins-royal-family-for-christmas-day-service/)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:20:16 PM
Meghan Markle spends first Christmas with royal family
Meghan Markle spends first Christmas with royal family - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meghan-markle-spends-first-christmas-with-royal-family/)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:23:50 PM
Royal family Christmas: Meghan Markle joins for 1st celebration with Prince Harry
Royal family Christmas: Meghan Markle joins for 1st celebration with Prince Harry (https://www.yahoo.com/gma/royal-family-christmas-meghan-markle-joins-1st-celebration-123703884--abc-news-topstories.html)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:27:37 PM
Royal Christmas! See Kate, William, Meghan and Harry in their church outfits
https://www.today.com/style/prince-william-prince-harry-arrive-church-their-christmas-best-t120491
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:28:56 PM
The British Royals attend Christmas Day Church Service
The British Royals attend Christmas Day Church Service | Newmyroyals & Hollywood Fashion (http://www.newmyroyals.com/2017/12/the-british-royals-attend-christmas-day.html)
Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 04:31:28 PM
The British Royal Family attended the Christmas Day church service at St Mary Magdalene Church
The British Royal Family attended the Christmas Day church service at St Mary Magdalene Church (http://www.therealmyroyals.com/the-british-royal-family-attended-the-christmas-day-church-service-at-st-mary-magdalene-church/)
The crowds do not seem to be as large compared to Diana's and Kate's. Checking the historical weather 2011 and 2017, Kate's 2011 was 1 degree colder than today's.
I think since Harry and Meghan aren't the future monarchs they don't have the pull crowd factor as to a future POW.
Anyway today's videos everyone seemed to look cheerful and happy.
The crowds were large according to the media. One newspaper described them as 'massive'. None inferred they were smaller than 2011, not even the Fail. Diana drew huge crowds always, but in her day it was completely different, not a digital age.
But the videos also is a tell all, the crowds today are much much smaller than William and Kate's 2011.
Matter of fact the press at that time compared it to Charles and Diana's, which was similar with the massive crowds.
I've been many times to see the royals at St Mary's as I didn't live far from there when younger and crowds numbers can be deceptive around the church walk. However, as it obviously makes you feel happy to think that Harry and Meghan aren't popular with anyone at all, continue on. The correspondents etc who were there today said there were large (and 'massive' ) crowds and I'm happy to believe them.
As in
The Fail's report of 'massive' crowds. And the Fail is not pro-Meghan.
No way the likes of the Daily Mail, ITV, BBC would fail to actually film the entire walk so one can see the alleged massive crowds. It wasn't there, a string of single file.
Versus William and Kate's They did film the entire walk where one Can observe the reality, from point to point, even beyond the paths there were 3 to 5 deep people. Lots of People actually travelled together with the locals who tend to be there yearly.
The ill-will on the DM comments section is shocking. Why not give the girl a chance and see what happens rather than writing her off from the word go? Aren't we supposed to all want the best for a to-be bride?
Videos of the entire walk probably won't come out because unlike 2011, in recent years the trio of 'young' royals have more or less concentrated on the crowds near the Church to chat to, while the other royals go further up and also chat, take flowers etc. However, as virtually no-one is interested in Prss Anne, the Wessexes, Yorkies etc the TV crews don't bother to film further along the walk.
^ ^ Wishing her well yes! Many of those, I have read in all Meghan articles the first 10 best and worst, have their reasons, mostly because she doesn't put the money in her mouth...she has preached one thing and does a contrary. Mostly the press fault though with putting her in a pedestal, aggrandizement of her CV...
I believe time and charity causes may redeem the faux passes, especially the infamous cost of the black dress, which is ok for Hollywood, wear a GBP 56K dress and preach save the poor, but not for the BRF and most of its people.
The fashion mavens on RD who know about outfits, shoes and accessories total up Kate's wardrobe annually. It came in at a bit over $250,000 out of Charles's pocket last year. An awful lot of mental health patients that Kate is so keen on assisting through Heads Together could be helped for that amount.
I do not believe for one moment that Meghan's engagement picture dress cost anything like $56,000. It was from a couple of seasons before, like Kate does there are special deals struck with fashion houses, and the price was in fact probably a quarter of that figure.
That's one year, Meghan isn't married yet and wears a GBP 56K dress no matter if it was loaned or paid for by her, a friend, Harry, whomever, the point is the image is already damaged forever, as its part of history, equated to Harry and Meghan's Formal Engagement Portrait. Season dress of yesteryear, still Rebecca English confirmed her team directly consulted the cost with R&R, that is why the price was and is a scandal.
And also, Kate's 1 year budget should be pricier than Meghan's because of rank, position, who she will be in the British monarchy POW, Queen Consort,mQueen Mother. I do think most expressions of comments in sections of the British press in reference to Meghan's choice of the said black dress was very bad and negative. Time will give her opportunity for damage control,mdepsite the annals of history with that portrait.
Matter of fact, the Queen decidedly did not use that picture in the Christmas speech, nor the informal closed eyes ones, she used a paparazzi picture of their announcement in the sunken gardens. It is telling us a story of disagreement with the OTT black evening cocktail dress with Harry's office charity daytime blue suit, or the too sensual informal picture.
Using a particular photo doesn't mean anything at all, IMO. Royals' assistants tend to dress a room to suit a particular interview or press conference. Most of their private photos are elsewhere.
A main topic for the Queen this year in her Xmas address was her marriage to Prince Philip and so those photos were on her desk as well as a couple of her great-grandchildren George and Char. That doesn't mean that she hasn't got plenty of other family photos of grandchildren and grandchildren's spouses, fiances (including Meghan) and boyfriends of the Yorkies, as well as her other great-children in her more private rooms.
If she disapproved of Meghan so much she wouldn't have had her to tea or given her consent to the marriage.
But the Queen did use the paparazzi picture of H&M at the sunken garden (there were more than 30 photographers there) rather than any of the formal picture portraits, it's telling when the Queen has used past formal pictures of her children and their spouses, grand children and their spouses in past Christmas speeches.
The DM was able to get a wider picture of the setting...
She and Charles have used informal shots of their relatives as well, in interviews etc. What is your contention then? That the Queen absolutely adores William and Kate, cannot see anything wrong with them and she dislikes Harry and can't stand Meghan? All on the evidence of one photograp placement! :hehe:
I would point out that Meghan has actually worked before so she is perfectly entitled to wear nice things if she buying them. Of course if she was on the civil list, people would be well within their rights to inquire about costs. But on this occasion, she is not yet past that.
As for the "firsts" I really think the queen is either fond of Harry and wants to indulge him or quite sensitive about the risk of causing offense to Meghan because of her race. Hence, all the accommodations. It might also be the BRF realizing that when someone marries into the institution, you do your best to make them feel welcome. One of the happy quirks of the British monarchy is that it is able to adopt at a very fast pace depending on the situation.
Indeed with the exception of the royal house of Denmark, the BRF will be the only one that has a fully acknowledged member of mixed heritage. That just shows how clever the Windsors are about adapting to the world as it is. Some of the criticism of "Phillip the racist dinosaur" will now seem a tad ridiculous.
That the Queen preferred the picture of their announcement at the sunken garden rather than the cheesy and OTT formal pictures. That is telling when one compares what the Queen uses in the settings (portrait displaying) of past Christmas speeches.
Well, we will see next year if the Queen has a wedding photo of Meghan and Harry on one of her tables in 2018, won't we. That is if, in your opinion of course, the bride's dress in not too expensive, the poses are not too OTT and the photographer meets with your approval!
Ha ha. I think that is the definition of a "tough crowd". Meghan has her work cut out :hehe:
@Curryong we shall see, but the Queen did use W&K formal picture portrait standing side by side taken by Testino at 2012 Christmas speech and not the announcement picture with her Issa blue dress taken by the photographers gathered there.
This one https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1570345/thumbs/o-PORTRAIT-570.jpg?1
The Queen preferred the sunken garden picture as that is the one that was used in the wider setting.
Well, as I've said, you obviously think that the Queen thoroughly approves of everything the Cambridges do and nothing that Harry and Meghan do, so we shall see, in 2018, subject to your approval, of course, whether their wedding portraits get a pass! :lol:
Each to its own, my opinion is the Queen preferred the paparazzi pictures of H&M versus the formal ones. :shrug:
Why did she not use any of the formal pictures?
The Queen doesn't personally go around dressing these rooms for her Xmas message and so forth. You think the POW or Camilla race around with handfuls of photos in silver frames prior to him doing an interview at Highgrove or CH? Ask whatever assistant did the placing of the photos if you want an answer to that one. It may be as simple as a photo quickly grabbed from a private sittingroom.
But history buffs have said and reported the Queen inspects all formal settings she is involved in. I see no difference of her inspecting the setting of her annual Christmas speech, which will be and is matter of factly viewed by millions.
Each year the Queen's setting is different, just an observation that the paparazzi picture of the couple was used rather than any of the formal pictures. It might not mean anything to you, and it may very well be a telling detail to others.
Oh, goodness! Talk about determined to have the last word in a debate.
Very well. As you obviously believe that the Queen feels that Meghan is a disgusting Hollywood type that she can't stand, and her grandson Harry is a disgrace beyond words who ought to be exiled for even wanting to marry such a ***, she decided to show them both exactly what she thought of them and that photo was the showpiece. (It was going to have a red light shone on it during the message to underscore her thoughts, but the bulb exploded at the idea of being near such a vulgar, vulgar couple!)
:thumbsdown: that is your opinion on Meghan not mine.
My opinion is the paparazzi pictures look more natural and the couple look better combined than the formal pictures, which other than the choice of clothing, the setting looks quite like for an advertisement.
Everything we post on here is just an opinion, including yours. And I would put money on my opinion (and those of members of the royal family) of Meghan and Harry being higher than yours.
The Queen did not use the engagement photo because the Queen's speech was taped weeks ago & the engagement photo had not yet been taken. How could she produce a photo that was not in existence? :loco:
Kate sure is trying to get some recognition for her lazy self by hanging close to Meghan. To bad for Kate but Meghan beat her in the royal style contest today.
Who needs 250,000 pounds worth of clothing when they spend most of the year in hiding? :monkey2:
Some in the press are dubbing the Cambridges, Harry and Meghan as the new "Fab Four."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DR7HQX2WsAE_8ni.jpg:large :xmas15:
https://s19.postimg.org/z2qgm2kjn/1_E541_C0_A-09_C6-4_CA7-83_F8-5_E5_C640_B51_DA.jpg
https://s19.postimg.org/llti37xdf/2_B09484_B-_FEEF-4_B87-_ACF9-_F2627_C5_A23_C8.jpg
https://s19.postimg.org/nqdv4ajkj/73_DB7_AD9-65_C0-4_CD6-8_C0_C-_E9_E1_D7_D6_DB93.jpg
https://s19.postimg.org/j5wa2j4ib/BF813895-2_B22-4_EE7-849_B-_CB715_D2_D38_B2.jpg
https://s19.postimg.org/anmty6q9v/DA00_BAFC-_F3_EC-465_C-_A8_BF-5_FF77_E0_AC017.jpg
https://s19.postimg.org/ju0j8b6ar/E5_EEF6_C0-3_DD0-45_E0-85_F9-55_C9_F5_D5_D0_E0.jpg
https://s19.postimg.org/ou2ktfgkj/FCB63047-13_CC-4523-_A80_B-995_BC24_CCAAB.jpg
Quote from: TLLK on December 26, 2017, 04:49:06 AM
Some in the press are dubbing the Cambridges, Harry and Meghan as the new "Fab Four."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DR7HQX2WsAE_8ni.jpg:large :xmas15:
That will not go down well with the general public who don't care for the monarchy. Frankly, to compare royals who have not earned their own way in life [except Meghan, who is only getting all this praise because of her future husband] with the musical genius and standing of the Beatles does not accord with reality. The Beatles are generally regarded as the most significant pop band in the history of modern music.
That title sounds like the sort of cheesiness beloved by the media. 'Fab', really! :lol: However, I doubt whether people would take it seriously. As for the Beatles, it's been nearly fifty years since that band last played together. There are a couple of generations that can't remember them at all.
Correct, those who support the Beatles would not take this comparison with the royals seriously. However, I don't agree that the Beatles have faded into oblivion. Paul McCartney, one half of arguably the world's greatest songwriting duo, is treated now as one of the biggest musical and popular icons of all time. He's constantly touring, but his solo work is not as revered. I'm not sure how you can dismiss that. His funeral will rival the Queen's. And I'm not particularly a fan.
Double post auto-merged: December 26, 2017, 10:15:23 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 25, 2017, 07:23:57 PM
I would point out that Meghan has actually worked before so she is perfectly entitled to wear nice things if she buying them. Of course if she was on the civil list, people would be well within their rights to inquire about costs. But on this occasion, she is not yet past that.
...
Apparently, KP did not confirm who bought the dress. That is why the perception is negative. It's interesting that this issue has been turned on its head, not necessarily by you. When Kate was just plain Kate Middleton, there was criticism that she didn't work and the only thing that mattered was what happened when she married William. Now, the fact that Meghan worked prior to engagement is used as a positive. It surely matters as to how Meghan is perceived now as Harry's fianc?. And this $100k dress is a shocker. As of now, she is subsidised heavily by taxpayers, including free housing at KP. Hopefully she has learned from this mistake.
Quote from: wannable on December 25, 2017, 08:13:20 PM
But history buffs have said and reported the Queen inspects all formal settings she is involved in. I see no difference of her inspecting the setting of her annual Christmas speech, which will be and is matter of factly viewed by millions.
True, I am sure that she ensures that the setting for her broadcast has the varous items that she wants in it, to convey the message that she wants to convey on that occasion. Of course she does not put the stuff out herself but she will certainly be the one controlling what is set out.
Quote from: wannable on December 25, 2017, 06:57:58 PM
That's one year, Meghan isn't married yet and wears a GBP 56K dress no matter if it was loaned or paid for by her, a friend, Harry, whomever, the point is the image is already damaged forever, as its part of history, equated to Harry and Meghan's Formal Engagement Portrait. Season dress of yesteryear, still Rebecca English confirmed her team directly consulted the cost with R&R, that is why the price was and is a scandal.
And also, Kate's 1 year budget should be pricier than Meghan's because of rank, position, who she will be in the British monarchy POW, Queen Consort,mQueen Mother. I do think most expressions of comments in sections of the British press in reference to Meghan's choice of the said black dress was very bad and negative. Time will give her opportunity for damage control,mdepsite the annals of history with that portrait.
Matter of fact, the Queen decidedly did not use that picture in the Christmas speech, nor the informal closed eyes ones, she used a paparazzi picture of their announcement in the sunken gardens. It is telling us a story of disagreement with the OTT black evening cocktail dress with Harry's office charity daytime blue suit, or the too sensual informal picture.
WHy is it a problem if the dress was loaned to her?
^ Since she hasn't married in yet I think the focus should be on what Kate spends. I bet Kate had something to do with the press going on & on about the cost. :ninja:
Plus Kate's fans have been working overtime trying to destroy Meghan's reputation trying to overcompensate for Kate's reputation being lazy & boring. :mad7:
Quote from: sandy on December 26, 2017, 12:23:40 PM
WHy is it a problem if the dress was loaned to her?
I don't have a problem, and I clearly stated that no matter if purchased or loaned, it's the PR image that is damaged. No Royal engagement portrait has been OTT (clothing wise and posing wise) as Ms. Markle and Harry. Since cameras were invented, do check, no Engagement portrait is so cheesy and Hollywood Commercial advertisement eschew, cringe. Will the couple cringe later in their lifetime? I think they will rock the boat too much causing problems.
I highly doubt any of their official formal portraits will ever be used for a setting of HM, the future King Charles, or William. The pictures are simply too sexually charged, the sheer number fill in the blank, the couple will very likely place the pictures in their night table, family living room.
If any of the pictures are ever used in a setting by the Monarch, I will be the first to say I was wrong.
Quote from: wannable on December 26, 2017, 02:15:03 PM
I
I highly doubt any of their official formal portraits will ever be used for a setting of HM, the future King Charles, or William. The pictures are simply too sexually charged, the sheer number fill in the blank, the couple will very likely place the pictures in their night table, family living room.
If any of the pictures are ever used in a setting by the Monarch, I will be the first to say I was wrong.
Is this the pic with Meghan leaning against Harry, with her eyes closed? I found ti a bit fakey and posed but then I suppose she's an actress...
The photos exhibit the love between them but if some equate love with sex that would be their minds creating it not the photo. :paparazzi:
Ever seen the engagement pictures of Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, with Anne's hair blow-dried to the max, in floaty white gown, Mark in his uniform? Their engagement pics in the 1970s were the first to show a Royal holding hands with a fiancee. They were all in soft focus and air-brushed as well. There was one photo of them in a meadow, with Mark lying casually down beside Anne. They might seem tame now but they were talked about a great deal by the public back then.
That soft romantic look wasn't really Anne, who is a more down to earth character. However, no single person is like another. Not every male Royal person is a William, not every married-in a Kate (and believe me she has had her faux pas.)
It would be horrific if individuality and a certain amount of flamboyance is to be put down as odd or dangerous for the BRF in some way because, as the Cambridges' supporters put it, 'Catherine and William wouldn't do that'. The Cambridges aren't the ultimate examples of Royal behaviour in the BRF, nor among the royals of the world.
In fact, from my point of view, the opposite is true. I very much prefer the ease of public interaction of Harry, the eccentricities of the intellectual Queen Daisy of Denmark and the exuberance of the very intelligent but extrovert Maxima of the Netherlands any day of the week!
Quote from: Curryong on December 26, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
That title sounds like the sort of cheesiness beloved by the media. 'Fab', really! :lol: However, I doubt whether people would take it seriously. As for the Beatles, it's been nearly fifty years since that band last played together. There are a couple of generations that can't remember them at all.
I agree
@Curryong. To be honest, I doubt that this current nickname will stick and that people will forget the iconic status of one of the UK's most iconic bands including the one of the most famous pair of singer/songwriters of the twentieth century.
Double post auto-merged: December 26, 2017, 05:35:22 PM
:P TBH I believe that she was in the midst of licking her lips but it does make for a cute photo yesterday.
Meghan Markle shows playful side as she pokes out her TONGUE during Christmas Day gathering at Sandringham - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-shows-playful-side-11750660)
QuoteMeghan Markle showed off her playful side by sticking out her tongue in front of adoring crowds as she joined the Royal Family at Sandringham today.
Double post auto-merged: December 26, 2017, 05:43:51 PM
QuoteIndeed with the exception of the royal house of Denmark, the BRF will be the only one that has a fully acknowledged member of mixed heritage. That just shows how clever the Windsors are about adapting to the world as it is. Some of the criticism of "Phillip the racist dinosaur" will now seem a tad ridiculous.
@royalanthropologist- Here is some information about Europe's first princess of African descent-Lichtenstein's Princess Angela. Like Meghan, she's a little older than her husband but she's originally from Panama. She's married to Prince Maximillan of Lichtenstein, who is Prince Hans-Adam's second son.
The first princess of African origin: Princess Angela of Liechtenstein ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/the-first-princess-of-african-origin-princess-angela-of-liechtenstein-88593)
Quote from: Curryong on December 26, 2017, 04:06:07 PM
Ever seen the engagement pictures of Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, with Anne's hair blow-dried to the max, in floaty white gown, Mark in his uniform? Their engagement pics in the 1970s were the first to show a Royal holding hands with a fiancee. They were all in soft focus and air-brushed as well. There was one photo of them in a meadow, with Mark lying casually down beside Anne. They might seem tame now but they were talked about a great deal by the public back then.
That soft romantic look wasn't really Anne, who is a more down to earth character. However, no single person is like another. Not every male Royal person is a William, not every married-in a Kate (and believe me she has had her faux pas.)
It would be horrific if individuality and a certain amount of flamboyance is to be put down as odd or dangerous for the BRF in some way because, as the Cambridges' supporters put it, 'Catherine and William wouldn't do that'. The Cambridges aren't the ultimate examples of Royal behaviour in the BRF, nor among the royals of the world.
In fact, from my point of view, the opposite is true. I very much prefer the ease of public interaction of Harry, the eccentricities of the intellectual Queen Daisy of Denmark and the exuberance of the very intelligent but extrovert Maxima of the Netherlands any day of the week!
All those mentioned are tasteful official engagement pictures to be placed in any setting or place of pride, except H&M closed eyes and or black sheer outfit, will be placed in a night table in the couples room, or their study/studio, family living room.
Thanks
@TLLK. Did not know that about Princess Angela of Lichtenstein. You learn something every day. :goodpost:
QuoteTrue, I am sure that she ensures that the setting for her broadcast has the varous items that she wants in it, to convey the message that she wants to convey on that occasion. Of course she does not put the stuff out herself but she will certainly be the one controlling what is set out.
:goodpost:
@amabel.
I agree with your post
@amabel. This is the one time of the year that QEII has her guaranteed largest audience listening to her speak. Therefore everything from her wardrobe/makeup/hair, the setting and to the technical side- the lighting, the sound quality has been carefully selected and produced. ( BTW=QEII is not the only monarch with a Christmas/New Year's televised address. Check the European/Scandinavian forums.) Everything is controlled to produce the best quality address possible from year to year. :xmas4:
HM would have made the final decision as to which family photos are carefully placed in the fore and backgrounds. Yes the Prince of Wales and his family occupy a prominent placement for this public address as they are the future. However we do see his siblings' photos and that of their offspring are often included, because they are part of HM's family.
Now as to HM's affection for her other grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I do believe we've seen evidence that they hold a special place in her heart. https://media3.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2016_16/1057186/queen-elizabeth-grandchildren-today-tease-160420_9e572b5ae5fc9c8d34fcc2a0ae9e4f34.jpg
Very large versions of the the photos from that series taken in 2016 are prominently displayed at the Windsor Castle guest services/ticket offices and are for sale as well. :xmas15:
HM tops the ratings with her Christmas Day speech.
The Queen?s Christmas Broadcast once again tops Christmas TV ratings ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/the-queens-christmas-broadcast-once-again-tops-christmas-tv-ratings-93999)
Quote from: wannable on December 26, 2017, 05:56:39 PM
All those mentioned are tasteful official engagement pictures to be placed in any setting or place of pride, except H&M closed eyes and or black sheer outfit, will be placed in a night table in the couples room, or their study/studio, family living room.
Well, tasteful is a very subjective term isn't it? One person's definition of taste isn't the same as others. You choose to call Harry and Meghan's engagement photos bad taste because you dislike both Harry and Meghan. I, on the other hand, like Harry and Meghan and regard the photographs as romantic and indicative of the love the couple have for each other. And the top Meghan wore for one photograph was brown not black and it was lined at the front not sheer.
Your conclusion of since someone dislikes the couple, the fotos are of bad taste, is way too basic.
There's a list of disliking the three official pictures, I am sure you have read them. You know and can make the list, why do those who have said their reasonings repeat it again.
They could have made pictures without doing or going OTT, and I bet the pictures would have received praising, rather than the best comments in different tabs and broadsheets in the UK with negative remarks liked by way of agreement by thousands.
Quote from: TLLK on December 26, 2017, 06:10:25 PM
:goodpost: @amabel.
I agree with your post @amabel. This is the one time of the year that QEII has her guaranteed largest audience listening to her speak. Therefore everything from her wardrobe/makeup/hair, the setting and to the technical side- the lighting, the sound quality has been carefully selected and produced. ( BTW=QEII is not the only monarch with a Christmas/New Year's televised address. Check the European/Scandinavian forums.) Everything is controlled to produce the best quality address possible from year to year. :xmas4:
HM would have made the final decision as to which family photos are carefully placed in the fore and backgrounds. Yes the Prince of Wales and his family occupy a prominent placement for this public address as they are the future. However we do see his siblings' photos and that of their offspring are often included, because they are part of HM's family.
Now as to HM's affection for her other grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I do believe we've seen evidence that they hold a special place in her heart. https://media3.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2016_16/1057186/queen-elizabeth-grandchildren-today-tease-160420_9e572b5ae5fc9c8d34fcc2a0ae9e4f34.jpg
Ve
HM ral[/url]
I didn't really notice what Photos she had, as I'm short sighted. But its ridiculous to imagine that she doesn't love all her grandchildren, or that she's hostile to any of her children who are divorced..
I'm sure she'd be appalled at this "WIll Versus Harry" stuff, as she knows that both of them are important in their different roles in the RF. and I'm sure she wants both of them to have stable and happy marriages and to have wives who will help in thir Royal roles.
Yes, and I've read a lot of comments from people who do like the photos, as well. I don't take my views of what is appropriate for a couple in love to be photographed from the views of whiners and ranters on Twitter or the Dail Fail comments section, as you do.
IMO you place far too much emphasis on the views of people who may live overseas from Britain, or have nothing to do with Britain or the Commonwealth, but who just like to moan about others. And while those who live away from Britain have a right to live their lives criticising others daily in a rag that is only fit to line a bird cage, ultimately it's the people of Britain to whom the BRF is responsible.
Just one example of the list; that dress purchased or loaned is a negative image, only 1% of British people can buy it. The stats of percentage average income of British citizens is available in the net.
If H&M want to win the majority of the population of UK and commonwealth that are not in the 1%, the dress for starters was a bad choice. The portrait is already there for posterity, and the people know what the price tag is.
I can make the entire list with stat number validity PR image wise without degrading Twitter and tabloid commentators. Thank you.
Can the "average" British person afford ANY royal clothing? Why is Meghan singled out? She could have borrowed it for the photo.I doubt people sit there and shake their fists at Meghan I think it is a very trivial issue. The royals cost taxpayers megabucks so why not criticize the whole bunch of them and moan about not being able to afford the Crown Jewels or Kate's fur hat or the cost of repair to Will and Kate's kitchen.
Yes, the sold out items reported in the past and present, and very likely in the future.
MM Nottingham handbag was a sold out.
And the vast majority of the British population can buy a gown that Kate wears or Sophie or Camilla or the Queen, can they? Like heck! Anyone would think that Meghan was swanning around wearing ?57,000 dresses every five minutes. That dress was a one-off. She usually wears casual clothing and wore a previous coat, skirt and jumper at Nottingham.
And the DF ranters are composed of mosners. The same names come up again and again, delboy, who shouts about a British republic every day, for instance. If you have a look at their pseudonyms every now and again, you get to know them. Surely you don't think that it's new people posting every time?
And the BRF are ultimately responsible to Britons (and to a lesser extent Commonwealth citizens) and no one else. Why, do you think they should place the views of those from the European continent or the US first and foremost?
Quote from: sandy on December 26, 2017, 07:07:05 PM
Can the "average" British person afford ANY royal clothing? Why is Meghan singled out? She could have borrowed it for the photo.I doubt people sit there and shake their fists at Meghan I think it is a very trivial issue. The royals cost taxpayers megabucks so why not criticize the whole bunch of them and moan about not being able to afford the Crown Jewels or Kate's fur hat or the cost of repair to Will and Kate's kitchen.
Only Hollywood would do a GPB 56K photo shoot. To not single her out, the ladies in a state banquet will probably add up to that amount, but the pricey portion is state crowns, tiaras and jewelry that are repeatedly worn and passed to the next generation. But they do not spend that amount in one dress. Maria Antoinette did.
Already you are comparing the woman to Marie Antoinette? Why not give the woman a chance.
And as far as Kate's dresses flying off the shelves that could be media hype and there are knockoffs of the gowns that cost a lot less. Young women purchased "cheap" versions of Diana's wedding gown and certainly would not get one at the exact price Diana's cost.
I recall Kate got flack for getting a "freebie" vacation from her Jigsaw employer and who on earth in Britain could afford the $10,000 a night vacations the way Will and Kate took.
Some perspective please
Double post auto-merged: December 26, 2017, 07:23:49 PM
Quote from: Curryong on December 26, 2017, 07:15:45 PM
And the vast majority of the British population can buy a gown that Kate wears or Sophie or Camilla or the Queen, can they? Like heck! Anyone would think that Meghan was swanning around wearing ?57,000 dresses every five minutes. That dress was a one-off. She usually wears casual clothing and wore a previous coat, skirt and jumper at Nottingham.
And the DF ranters are composed of mosners. The same names come up again and again, delboy, who shouts about a British republic every day, for instance. If you have a look at their pseudonyms every now and again, you get to know them. Surely you don't think that it's new people posting every time?
And the BRF are ultimately responsible to Britons (and to a lesser extent Commonwealth citizens) and no one else. Why, do you think they should place the views of those from the European continent or the US first and foremost?
It is amazing how Meghan when she dressed down for Invictus was trashed for wearing "cheap" looking clothes. Then she gets blasted for wearing a gown she probably did not outright purchase.
Well her first official engagement picture is a PR image disaster, which didn't bode well with the majority.
Although, She can wear the dress again for an evening gala charity, benefit, dinner with Tiara.
I'm not a public figure, but because of my work, I would possibly not be able to wear ripped jeans in any where nor in a stadium, just in case the president or top management, a VIP client crosses my path, very likely.
I don't think that Meghan's clothes are really the issue here. There is something that is causing such a visceral reaction to her. Camilla had similar reactions from certain members of the population but I could understand why because many of those were just trying to be "team Diana" or "anti adultery that breaks up marriages". However, for this one I really don't get it. Seems like a nice girl who has done a bit of acting, smiled for the cameras, and posted some occasionally silly stuff on social media. Surely not a serious impediment to marriage to a man whose past has not always been squeaky clean? Something is not clicking for me on this one. People are normally so enthusiastic about new brides but in this case you get a dark undercurrent of fear and foreboding from the general population (not just on this forum).
We don't know what the Queen's gowns cost. They're never itemised. And Kate's bespoke gowns aren't either.
Plus, we and a ton of people elsewhere have been through this dress of Meghan's that was a one off a thousand times before. People who have been in the fashion industry for years and those who buy designer gowns agreed that there is no way that a 2016 gown was ?56,000. A lot calculated that it was about a quarter of that, with deals and the fact it was from a previous season.
I suppose you are going to drone on and on about the engagement photos and this dress for months are you? On May 19th are we going to hear 'Well that actress's engagement dress was ?56,000' for about the five hundredth time. Are we going to hear about it when the couple become parents and perhaps grandparents? It's getting ridiculous.
Because if you are, then I and probably others can go on for years about Kate's bare bum and her nude on the balcony episode and her other faux pas. We can repeat these for ever, along with her verified lack of ambition, her speech making, Will's weekend in Switzerland, and lot of other goodies!
HEaven Help Meghan if she had walked a catwalk wearing her underwear. Kate did it and not a word of criticism by some.
Double post auto-merged: December 26, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: wannable on December 26, 2017, 07:24:46 PM
Well her first official engagement picture is a PR image disaster, which didn't bode well with the majority.
Although, She can wear the dress again for an evening gala charity, benefit, dinner with Tiara.
I'm not a public figure, but because of my work, I would possibly not be able to wear ripped jeans in any where nor in a stadium, just in case the president or top management, a VIP client crosses my path, very likely.
So who said it was a PR disaster? The Queen? Prince Charles? Just those who call out Meghan for anything and everything she does.
So now the ripped jeans get criticized.
She may not have that infernal gown in her closet it might have been borrowed. I think she will help new designers by calling attention to their gowns and dresses.
Just realized that the Tindalls are not at Sandringham this Christmas. I've read elsewhere that they're in Australia this year for the holidays.
Zara Phillips and husband Mike Tindall celebrate Christmas in Australia with daughter Mia one year after tragic miscarriage - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/zara-phillips-husband-mike-tindall-11748708)
All right, I'll write what I think is causing this reaction.
As a long time Harry supporter I had never heard of Meghan Markle until Camilla outed the Royal romance in October 2016. I have always known that there is a very strong undercurrent of racism in British society. I was born and brought up there. As soon as the news broke the British tabloids went digging. They found Meghan's biracial background and we got the 'straight outta Compton' and 'exotic blood' stories from the tabs. Much of the initial reaction sprouted from that and from her half sister who abused her on social media.
The tabloids also found a dysfunctional group of relatives on the father Tom Markle's side of the family. There was a half sister Samsntha who immediately began abusing Meghan's character and stating she was a social climber who had left her family in the dust. She has now changed her tune and become nicey nicey.
There was a Hicksville half brother who said nice things about Meghan but was once charged with holding a gun to his defacto wife's head. These relatives sold/gave photos of a young Meghan to the British media, attacked Samantha and there was an unedifying fight between Markle relatives. Her mother's side have remained silent except for a few photos sold.
More damaging possibly has been the revelations of a friend who was close to Meghan for thirty years who broke with her over (she said) Meghan dropping her husband Trevor when she got the role in Suits. She said fame changed Meghan and she dropped her friends. Meghan's marriage lasted two years and she and Trevor lived together for seven years before that. She got the role in Suits very shortly after her marriage and of course it was shot in Canada. Trevor lives in LA. It's been said her husband, a producer got her the part, but she kept it afterwards.
On the Tig Meghan merchandised restaurants, food, holidays. That caused people to call her false and money hungry when she began to date Harry. She is an animal activist, and there's been trouble because one of her two rescue dogs got left behind in Canada when she moved to Britain. She posted a lot of self help and Californian psycho babble on the Tig. She also did a couple of visits for World Vision to India and Rawanda, (water, female hygiene) which involved a film crew, and she has made a speech for female equality at the UN. For this she has been attacked because the media has called her a 'humanitarian'.
She dated a Canadian chef until May of last year. The story going around, for which there is absolutely no proof, is that she slipped Harry her phone number when she was at the Trudeaus and her chef boyfriend was cooking dinner at the house. Harty was in Toronto for two days on IG business. She was seen with Harry in the June when she visited England.
At the same time as Harry's KP letter last November there has been a vituperative hate campaign begun by two Tumblr sites. As well as calling Meghan a money hungry social climber who uses people these sites spread poison throughout Twitterdom. They have accused Meghan of posing for nude photos and acting in porn films (no proof whatsoever) of earning extra money in her poorer actress days by being an escort to wealthy men (again no proof) and of blackmailing Harry into romancing her for PR. No proof! And they keep on going. And it's all over Twitter!
And there is the great big deal made of the FA Cup which I find really absurd. These are on some of the DM comments. And some are shocked shocked that a divorcee is marrying into the family, forgetting that a divorcee married into the family 12 years ago.
Well, well
@Curryong. Your last post is a courageous one and will possibly be controversial. I am not saying that everyone "dislikes" Meghan because of her background (professional, national and ethnic) but there is a good deal that may do so. Of course there are those that genuinely object to her lifestyle and situation as a previous divorcee but I think that bridge was crossed long time ago in the BRF and should not be a big issue. I for one wish this girl the best of luck and a wonderful marriage. I think if she plays her cards right, she will be a great support to the monarchy for many years to come. Perhaps 10 years down the line we will all look back on this and wonder "why was ever there a fuss"???
I liked the mention that Elizabeth II had a bunch of daffodils before the Christmas church service. Daffodils are a true sign of Spring!
:xmas10: :xmas10: :xmas10: :daisy: :daisy: :daisy: :daisy: :daisy: :daisy: :daisy:
So Camilla is still leaking things to the press. :eyes: No wonder she looked miserable at the church on Christmas. It was as if those boys have already explained her future concerning them. :whatcanisay:
I always felt that the half sisters motives were racial & the nicey nice act is her trying to protect herself since Harry ask Meghan to marry him. I bet she thought that would never happen.
I also don't get the dress things it is like some expect Meghan to wear rags because she tries to help the less fortunate. Yet no one says anything about the cost of the clothes worn by other royals. :jawdrop:
'Perks of being royal must never outstrip responsibility for Meghan Markle and Prince Harry' - Alison Phillips - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/perks-being-royal-must-never-11754120)
QuoteQuoteSo what adventures will the gang find themselves embroiled in over the coming years?
Inevitably there are always peaks and troughs in the popularity of the monarchy. But the future looks to have more troughs than peaks.
The Queen is now 91 and Prince Philip 96. How much public affection and respect can be retained for the monarchy when they are gone?
There may be some affection for Prince Charles and his wife Camilla among ardent royalists, but in the public at large, far less so.
And certainly much less respect. The foolishness of his marriage to Diana and his behaviour during its collapse remains writ large in the public mind.
And while he may have been unfairly pilloried for ?talking to plants? and caring about architecture and the environment, these vague perceptions of a slightly doolally royal, out of touch with the public, remains.
And so it will be down to this Fab Four to battle public cynicism and anti-establishment fervour in a digital world.
Camilla needs to butt out. She leaked stories to the press for years about Diana. These are not her children and she had no part in raising them. She did this also when she took Kate to lunch (pre marriage) and very loudly gave her advice in the dining area of the restaurant. I don't think Kate cared much for that.She should look to her own children and grandchildren. It's not her place to blab about Harry's girlfriends. She also is busy gossiping with Penny Junor for her books.
Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton Make Their First Appearance Together | PEOPLE.com (http://people.com/royals/future-sisters-in-law-meghan-markle-and-kate-middleton-make-their-first-appearance-together/)
QuotePrince William and Kate, who are expecting their third child in April, are hosting the newly engaged couple at their country home of Anmer Hall, on the Queen?s Sandringham estate.
Glad to see that there has been some confirmation that Harry and Meghan were guests at Amner Hall. The "big" house at Sandringham would have a full house with the Yorks, Wessexes, Phillips, Linley's and Chattos. :xmas7:
Meghan Markle's royal curtsey catastrophe a rare misstep | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214099/Meghan-Markles-royal-curtsey-catastrophe-rare-misstep.html)
Well since Meghan didn't meet Sarah Vine's idea of a curtsy I guess we should just shoot her now & put everyone out of their misery. :sarcastic: :hehe:
As an American I think they should just be glad that she loves Harry enough to curtsy at all. Many Americans would not do the bow, curtsy thing & I seriously doubt that the Queen even pays attention after all these years. :nurse:
Where and when did Camilla leak stories about Harry's love life? Also where and when did Kate say or indicate she was angry at being invited for lunch by Camilla? Any links would be helpful please...otherwise it is just another made up "Camilla the Witch" story. We tend to get one of those from the Globe and Mail from time to time.
On another front, I can see that "she who is merely tolerated" has her photos on the queen's rooms and has been put on the tables before for the Christmas message. Who would have thought? It would appear that the queen is not the bitter prune that some have suggested.
Quote from: Curryong on December 26, 2017, 07:15:45 PM
And the vast majority of the British population can buy a gown that Kate wears or Sophie or Camilla or the Queen, can they? Like heck! Anyone would think that Meghan was swanning around wearing ?57,000 dresses every five minutes. That dress was a one-off. She usually wears casual clothing and wore a previous coat, skirt and jumper at Nottingham.
And the DF ranters are composed of mosners. The same names come up again and again, delboy, who shouts about a British republic every day, for instance. If you have a look at their pseudonyms every now and again, you get to know them. Surely you don't think that it's new people posting every time?
And the BRF are ultimately responsible to Britons (and to a lesser extent Commonwealth citizens) and no one else. Why, do you think they should place the views of those from the European continent or the US first and foremost?
Your criticism of people who post in the DM is interesting, as Wannable has hinted at previously. By your own admission and what is evident is that you spend a lot of time posting on royal forums and elsewhere. Do you think it would be justified or fair for strangers to make personal, unsubstantiated slurs against you? People make plenty of unkind observations about those who post on forums such as this. What makes the world interesting is differing views and lifestyles, IMO.
How I got the shot of the 'fab four' they all wanted... and I hope it will pay for my girl to go to university: Fan tells how she scooped the world's photographers to get the best snap of Meghan and Kate
Norfolk girl on getting the best snap of Meghan and Kate | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5212441/Mum-hopes-royal-picture-pay-university.html)
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 27, 2017, 04:51:15 AM
Where and when did Camilla leak stories about Harry's love life? Also where and when did Kate say or indicate she was angry at being invited for lunch by Camilla? Any links would be helpful please...otherwise it is just another made up "Camilla the Witch" story. We tend to get one of those from the Globe and Mail from time to time.
On
God what nonsense. Kate is CERTAINLY not someone who talks to the press. Camilla - why on earth would she leak stories about Harry and Meghan? THey have nothing to do with her, he is her step son and I'm sure she hopes he will meet someone nice and have a happy marriage. Why on earth would she bother leaking it to the press? What is there to say?
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 27, 2017, 04:51:15 AM
Where and when did Camilla leak stories about Harry's love life? Also where and when did Kate say or indicate she was angry at being invited for lunch by Camilla? Any links would be helpful please...otherwise it is just another made up "Camilla the Witch" story. We tend to get one of those from the Globe and Mail from time to time.
On another front, I can see that "she who is merely tolerated" has her photos on the queen's rooms and has been put on the tables before for the Christmas message. Who would have thought? It would appear that the queen is not the bitter prune that some have suggested.
It never happened ... :teehee: ... said by the people who like someone who leaked like crazy and worked on a book behind everyone's back ... that is something else ...
I've been out all day and part of the evening here, only just got back. In my original post about Meghan and the lies that have been told about her, I said Camilla broke the story in October last. It was Camilla Tominey of the Daily Express I was writing about. I think there's been a misunderstanding and I haven't had a chance to put the full name of the woman in.
Thanks
@Curryong. I new that DOC connection was not credible. What is really alarming is how some people went with it and started expanding it as if it were fact.
Kate looked great and her man was actually holding her hand ... I expected her to "suffer" Megan's presence but boy was I wrong ... Kate has never looked more confident ... she knows Megan's place in the foot chain and soon so will Megan ...
Quote from: Curryong on December 27, 2017, 09:50:45 AM
I've been out all day and part of the evening here, only just got back. In my original post about Meghan and the lies that have been told about her, I said Camilla broke the story in October last. It was Camilla Tominey of the Daily Express I was writing about. I think there's been a misunderstanding and I haven't had a chance to put the full name of the woman in.
:thanks: for the correction. Since Camilla loved to run to the Sun (owned by Rupert Murdoch) the big royal hater I assumed it was her. :lol:
She didn't "run to the Sun" at all, she answered questions to the Sun editor at times...
Why would the Sun editor be asking her questions since she was nothing more than APB's wife as far as the public were told. It is because Camilla would call him to do her bit for propaganda, for Charles & against Diana. :catfight:
I actually remember that journalist and a lot of misinterpretation and mis-characterizations have been made about his writing in order to reinforce people's personal prejudices. What he said is that he used to call Camilla up to ask her about what was true and not true about the rumors in the press. He actually said he used her like a "sounding board" because it was so hard to get any information from Charles himself or the BRF at the time. Then he noted that she was definitely in Charles' corner in her explanations.
He has never ever said Camilla used to call him up to spread rumors or to bad mouth Diana. That is an outright lie...reminds me of that recent unfortunate band wagon effect of misinterpreting someone's post in order to create the impression that Camilla was calling the press about Harry and Meghan. This is exactly why I call BS on some of the stuff posted here...people making up stories and presenting them as fact in order to create wrong impressions.
Junor accuses the dead Diana of phoning in death threats to Camilla while Camilla was "alone in the house." So if she was "alone in the house" and Diana dead, I wonder who told Junor this....Hmmmm. Camilla had absolute contempt for Diana and I would not put it past her to make up stories.
Quote from: amabel on December 27, 2017, 11:26:15 AM
She didn't "run to the Sun" at all, she answered questions to the Sun editor at times...
Answered questions? Certainly not questions like is the sky blue today? She gave "her side" of the story as an "insider."
Double post auto-merged: December 27, 2017, 12:15:50 PM
Quote from: Eri on December 27, 2017, 10:47:54 AM
Kate looked great and her man was actually holding her hand ... I expected her to "suffer" Megan's presence but boy was I wrong ... Kate has never looked more confident ... she knows Megan's place in the foot chain and soon so will Megan ...
"Her man was holding her hand?! Big news: A husband holds his wife's hand. Why is that so earth shattering. Billions of husbands do it. What does it have to do with Meghan. You make Kate sound petty if her confidence is based on feeling "superior." You were a critic of Kate until Meghan came along.
:goodpost:
There will always be excuses made for C&C's actions but what else do their fans have. Their actions were so horrible that in order to see them as the proper royals excuses must be made. :nag: :random39:
If adultery and interfering in other people's marriages was "so horrible" Diana would not be a "proper royal" according to your criteria. C&C are both royal by birth and marriage respectively. There is nothing like "proper royal" in the British constitution. You either are or not.
Diana moved on after Charles ditched her. Charles had his mistress watching him marry Diana. Camilla is not royal by birth. She is descended from Alice Keppel a King's mistress. Diana was an aristo with a title, Camilla is not. Camilla is not a royal by birth.
Who said Camilla is royal by birth? That is just your own statement not mine. Camilla is "royal" because she is married to Charles, that is all. As for moving on, I really wish Diana had. Would have saved her a lot of trouble and heartache. Just accept marriage is down the drain and find love somewhere. Nobody had a problem with that. I am sure Charles would have been delighted if Diana found someone she loved and remained happily married to him. It was not as if he was pining for her or missing her presence in his life after the separation, is it?
This is the sentence you had in a prior post
"C&C are both royal by birth and marriage respectively" Your statement. You did not say Charles is royal by birth and you just used "Cs."
Diana could not have moved on and bolted because like her mother she would have had limited custody of the children.
Charles blabbing about Camilla being his mistress on TV caused APB to divorce his wife.
^C&C broke up two marriages but it was Diana's fault. The best one though; if Diana had just moved on & loved someone. Where was she going to find this "Love" down at the true love shop. :teehee:
Splitting hairs. C&C means Charles and Camilla . Has always been here. The word "respectively" means "in that order". Charles by birth Camilla by marriage. I am certain you knew exactly what was meant.
By moving on I mean accepting that your marriage and relationship has ended. Behaving with dignity and getting on with your life. Not constantly going back to complain to anyone that will listen about your failed marriage as if it was the only event in your life.
As you can see from the postcard, Charles seems to have recovered completely from his previous bad marriage. He is a much happier and contended man today. I am sure that will also make him better at his job.
Double post auto-merged: December 27, 2017, 12:57:57 PM
Quote from: Kritter on December 27, 2017, 12:47:49 PM
^C&C broke up two marriages but it was Diana's fault. The best one though; if Diana had just moved on & loved someone. Where was she going to find this "Love" down at the true love shop. :teehee:
Nobody is saying it is Diana's fault. Just that she is irrelevant to C&C today, certainly not to their Christmas photos in 2017.
As for finding love, Diana was no novice at that. Just ask Khan, Hewitt, Dodi etc. Her problem was keeping love... not finding it. Wish she had figured it out earlier. Would have made her life so much easier. We could now be looking at how beautiful she looked in her own Christmas card...but alas things did not work out for her.
The Queen at least placed the couple in a back table with the divorcee couples in her Christmas speech; C&C and H&M. :xmas3:
When did Harry get divorced? :hmm:
He is marrying a divorcee.
Do people really care whether or not someone is a divorcee these days. Half the population is divorced anyway. I doubt that queen created a divorcee table. She just chose some nice photos of her family as props.
Quote from: wannable on December 27, 2017, 01:07:02 PM
He is marrying a divorcee.
What is your point? She made sure to show a photo of Meghan & Harry. :o She didn't have to she has enough divorcees among her own children if she was just wanting to showcase divorcees. :doh:
She did, but her minions strategically placed Charles, Camilla, Harry and Meghan in a little round table.
They could have done another setting, but this was what was presented, done and dusted.
Looking forward for next year!
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 27, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
Splitting hairs. C&C means Charles and Camilla . Has always been here. The word "respectively" means "in that order". Charles by birth Camilla by marriage. I am certain you knew exactly what was meant.
By moving on I mean accepting that your marriage and relationship has ended. Behaving with dignity and getting on with your life. Not constantly going back to complain to anyone that will listen about your failed marriage as if it was the only event in your life.
As you can see from the postcard, Charles seems to have recovered completely from his previous bad marriage. He is a much happier and contended man today. I am sure that will also make him better at his job.
Double post auto-merged: December 27, 2017, 12:57:57 PM
Nobody is saying it is Diana's fault. Just that she is irrelevant to C&C today, certainly not to their Christmas photos in 2017.
As for finding love, Diana was no novice at that. Just ask Khan, Hewitt, Dodi etc. Her problem was keeping love... not finding it. Wish she had figured it out earlier. Would have made her life so much easier. We could now be looking at how beautiful she looked in her own Christmas card...but alas things did not work out for her.
I know what respectively means. You did not spell out the names, and it sounded to me like both were born into and married into.
Yes, her problem was finding out her husband was attached to his mistress and would not give her up. Oh yes it so easy for women to have a fulfilling relationship with hubby walking around with the C and C cufflinks and whispering endearments to the mistress over the phone.
She dropped Hewitt. She and Khan may have just been having a cooling off period. And who said she was going to marry Dodi?
Charles whinged about his lot over a year before the Panorama interview. Bedell Smith and Junor no matter how they try to write about Charles in a favorable light making him look like a needy baby.
Oh yes Camilla was so dignified playing victim during her interview earlier this year.
Double post auto-merged: December 27, 2017, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 27, 2017, 01:10:29 PM
Do people really care whether or not someone is a divorcee these days. Half the population is divorced anyway. I doubt that queen created a divorcee table. She just chose some nice photos of her family as props.
It's amazing that divorce only seems to be a problem only for Meghan the Meghan bashers keep pointing out she's divorced and ignore that several royals have gotten divorces.
It is a happy season and I doubt C&C are paying any attention to Diana or the tragedy of her life that ended over 20 years ago. They are juts enjoying their time together and with their families.
As for the divorcee debacle...that is 1950s way of thinking. Most people today could not care less whether or not you are divorced. It is just a part of life because we recognize that people make mistakes before, during and after their marriages. Marriage is not a lifelong trap with no hope of redemption.
Isn't Charles at Birkhall at the moment and Camilla at Raymill enjoying a few days with her children/grandchildren?
Probably true and that is what is so clever about their marriage. Give each other space and have happy times together.
I don't think it 'clever' perhaps for expediency, she getting to spend time with her family--children, grandchildren and his not having young children around.
Quote from: Curryong on December 27, 2017, 08:58:14 PM
Isn't Charles at Birkhall at the moment and Camilla at Raymill enjoying a few days with her children/grandchildren?
Yes I believe that they always stay at Birkhall for Christmas and then she departs on Boxing Day to have a second celebration with Tom and Laura with their families. :xmas17:
Quote from: sandy on December 27, 2017, 09:28:25 PM
I don't think it 'clever' perhaps for expediency, she getting to spend time with her family--children, grandchildren and his not having young children around.
Raymill is so they can have time away from each other. They married trying to salvage their reputation & now can never divorce so they live separately unless duty forces them together.
When Camilla is older, her children and granchildren will be visiting her at BP, and sleepovers at Windsor Castle.
I thought that should have been the arrangement since C&C got married. They should stop with the ex may she rest in peace considerations. Seeing what's happening with the negative comments with another divorcee, perhaps Charles is getting ideas.
Why would they? The grandchildren won't be grown up for a while and Charles does not like small children underfoot. Camilla can have the sleepovers with them at Raymill.
The negative comments about Meghan do not come from "everybody."
So what is the clever solution Sandy, so the once divorced married again Camilla can spend quality time with her children and grandchildren, if Raymill is a no no.
I did not say Raymill is a no no. It is just that she and Charles live in separate dwellings. This is a fact. I doubt Camilla can take a suite for Sleepovers with her five grandchildren at a royal residence.
Quote from: wannable on December 27, 2017, 11:28:37 PM
So what is the clever solution Sandy, so the once divorced married again Camilla can spend quality time with her children and grandchildren, if Raymill is a no no.
What is wrong with Highgrove? :doh:
The Parker Bowles children/grandchildren have never "mixed" with Charles' children and grandchildren Only at weddings, did Camilla's granddaughter participate as a bridesmaid. I think Charles pushed for the blended family but it never happened especially since it was found Tom PB was using drugs when Charles was encouraging William to "hang out" with Tom. Plus the biological father and grandfather is still around so more likely he'd spend more time with the children and grandchildren than Charles does.
^I imagine they both dislike each others parents for destroying their home lives & families. :hemademe:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on December 27, 2017, 09:03:29 PM
Probably true and that is what is so clever about their marriage. Give each other space and have happy times together.
Also I would imagine that eventually Raymill will go to Tom and Laura and should Charles predecease Camilla, she'd retain it as a weekend retreat.
If Charles Pre-deceases Camilla I think Raymill & her memories will be all she is left with.
Everyone tolerates Camilla because of Charles but other than the usual play acting of united family I don't think any of them want her around. <_<
Quote from: Kritter on December 27, 2017, 04:35:02 AM
Meghan Markle's royal curtsey catastrophe a rare misstep | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214099/Meghan-Markles-royal-curtsey-catastrophe-rare-misstep.html)
Well since Meghan didn't meet Sarah Vine's idea of a curtsy I guess we should just shoot her now & put everyone out of their misery. :sarcastic: :hehe:
As an American I think they should just be glad that she loves Harry enough to curtsy at all. Many Americans would not do the bow, curtsy thing & I seriously doubt that the Queen even pays attention after all these years. :nurse:
A royal butler weighs in on how the British royals curtsy. From what I have read, apparently the Queen prefers a shorter bob because not everyone is able to rise up again from a deep curtsy. By contrast, Danish and Spanish royals are known for the deep curtsies that more or less require them to hold on to the recipient.
Royal butler reveals how Meghan Markle's curtsy went wrong | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5217333/Royal-butler-reveals-Meghan-Markles-curtsy-went-wrong.html)
QuoteThe royal butler was on the show to discuss the etiquette around re-gifting unwanted Christmas presents, when he was asked to demonstrate the correct way to curtsy by presenters Charlotte Hawkins and Kate Garraway.
He promptly jumped up and explained: 'What you should be doing, for a lady, is the right foot behind the left, and then it is a gentle bob.
'You keep the hands in because you're not a penguin,' he added.
I have no doubt that Meghan will master the art of the perfect bob just like every other lady/girl in the BRF has done over the decades. :xmas4:
Personally I don't think it should matter but to each their own I suppose. :)
Mark CuthbertVerified account @markacuthbert
QuoteQueen Elizabeth II boards her train back to London at King's Lynn Station after the Christmas break at Sandringham. #royal #QueenElizabethII #train
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVbZKltXUAAe-sC.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVbZKlsWAAEtP5W.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVbZKs6WsAA--gQ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVbZKzzX0AAwPI0.jpg
Quote from: TLLK on December 28, 2017, 06:00:37 PM
A royal butler weighs in on how the British royals curtsy. From what I have read, apparently the Queen prefers a shorter bob because not everyone is able to rise up again from a deep curtsy. By contrast, Danish and Spanish royals are known for the deep curtsies that more or less require them to hold on to the recipient.
Royal butler reveals how Meghan Markle's curtsy went wrong | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5217333/Royal-butler-reveals-Meghan-Markles-curtsy-went-wrong.html)
I have no doubt that Meghan will master the art of the perfect bob just like every other lady/girl in the BRF has done over the decades. :xmas4:
that Is what I've understood that the queen goes for teh "short bob". I think a deep curtsty only looks good with a long dress and on very formal occasions. It was said that one of the things about Mrs Thatcher that showed she wasn't "quite quite" was that she "curtsied very low"..
And I agree that if you're wearing a normal day dress or even trousers a deep curtsey just looks silly and it is true that not everyone can get up from it gracefully, so I can understand the queen preferring a simple quick gesture of respect ofr her position.. to an obeisance...
The Queen?s Christmas break officially comes to an end as she leaves Sandringham for London ? Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/the-queens-christmas-break-officially-comes-to-an-end-as-she-leaves-sandringham-for-london-95867)
QuoteThe Queen?s Christmas break has officially come to an end as she returns to London after spending over a month in Norfolk at her country retreat.