Royal News and Views

Royal News and Views
[ Royal News and Views ]

March 10 - Sussex Thread

Posted by Susan T on March 9, 2023, 5:28 pm

n/t

This message is locked.

Palace expects them to attend Coronation

Posted by Susan T on March 9, 2023, 5:34 pm, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

Buckingham Palace is making plans for Harry and Meghan to attend the King’s Coronation, The Daily Mail can reveal.

Staff organising logistics for the historic occasion have been instructed to include the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in their programme for May 6, sources have said.

Insiders caution that there has been no word yet that the couple have formally accepted King Charles’s invitation, which their spokesman revealed was recently sent to them in California ‘by email’.

It is likely that negotiations around what events the couple would attend, where they would sit, what they would wear and, of course, their security, will go right to the wire.

Charles the Prevaricator is likely to agree to any and all demands except him being required to apologize.

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Palace expects them to attend Coronation

Posted by karenl on March 9, 2023, 7:19 pm, in reply to "Palace expects them to attend Coronation"

According to Neil Sean, his "sources" have told him that not only are the Sussexes attending, but Meghan has "insisted" Archie and Lili attend the Coronation. If true...that would be a "no" on my part. Maybe Archie..but he'll only just turn 4, Lili..No..way too young.
I really doubt this story.

This message is locked.

Re: Palace expects them to attend Coronation

Posted by Susan T on March 9, 2023, 7:49 pm, in reply to "Re: Palace expects them to attend Coronation"

Ask for the impossible and then bargain down to what you really want, such as appearing on the balcony with the children?

This message is locked.

Let's hope they are made to sit behind a pillar

Posted by Susan T on March 9, 2023, 6:01 pm, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

Yet, of course, they had to be invited, and it would be even worse if they did NOT attend. Had they not been offered an olive branch, Oprah Winfrey & Co would have seen it as the ultimate insult by the Royal Family.

It would be proof that the British Establishment was anti-American, snobbish and racist – the only possible reasons, in Prince Harry's universe, for anyone finding his egomaniac wife a pain in the neck.

Besides, if they had not been invited, or if they had chosen not to come, we would have been presented with the nightmare possibility that Harry would be hired by some American television network to provide a running commentary on his father's big day.

His mixture of stupidity, malice and self-obsession would have come splurging out, dishing yet more dirt on his family and on the institution of the Monarchy.

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Let's hope they are made to sit behind a pillar

Posted by karenl on March 9, 2023, 7:37 pm, in reply to "Let's hope they are made to sit behind a pillar"

Harry and Meghan will be treated by the Royal Family as they were at the Platinum Jubilee and at the Queen's State Funeral, only 10 times worse than at the State Funeral. The public booed and turned their backs on them at the Jubilee and would have done the same, but didn't out of extreme respect for the late Queen at her Funeral.
At the Coronation, there will be no limit for the public, it wouldn't surprise me at an increase in booing, catcalling, turning their backs. Then the reception they'll get at Westminster Abbey. It was terrible at the Jubilee Service of Thanksgiving, it'll be worse at the Abbey.

This message is locked.

Re: Let's hope they are made to sit behind a pillar

Posted by Arlene on March 9, 2023, 10:32 pm, in reply to "Re: Let's hope they are made to sit behind a pillar"

I've been thinking (a dangerous thing for me to do)_ that maybe the Harkles with either arrange to arrive with a group so they would not be singled out for the boos or they will enter by another door to trick the booers. But then, of course, they may do what they did for the jubilee and make sure they arrive on their own so they can strut their stuff unencumbered by the rest of the family because, well, it's all about them.

This message is locked.

HG Tudor discusses the titles

Posted by Susan T on March 10, 2023, 8:40 am, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

He makes some good points, but I don't get the slavish devotion everybody has to the George V LPs. They're treated as if George V received them from God just as Moses received the Ten Commandments.

People keep calling for Charles (and called for his mother) to remove Harry's peerage titles even though that is not in his power to do so. Yet if it suggested that the right to the HRH Prince/Princess style be restricted in some form, some of these same people gasp and reply in a reverend tone "George V LPs".

George V changed the LPs issued by Queen Victoria. If he could amend LPs, so can subsequent monarchs. I'm not saying Charles should change things, I'm saying he could and I don't understand why people refuse that this is one of the few powers he does have.

Link: Harry´s Wife : Is Charles Being Weak About the Titles?

This message is locked.

Re: HG Tudor discusses the titles

Posted by karenl on March 10, 2023, 7:47 pm, in reply to "HG Tudor discusses the titles"

It was a good video with valid points. Harry and Meghan are the hypocrites now...with Meghan's famous statement that titles mean nothing or something to that effect, but she couldn't wait for her kids to use the prince/princess title...but they moved to the US from the horrible UK, we don't recognize foreign titles per the "bonkers" Constitution. Archie and Lili can use their title in private, but not in any legal/legitimate circumstances..so the kids have really gained nothing because they live in the US.
I agree with George V's LP, it is treated as if it's sacred text from the Bible and not to be trifled with.

This message is locked.

Would the Queen have stripped Archie and Lili's titles?

Posted by Susan T on March 10, 2023, 10:14 am, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

Now The Daily Mail's Richard Eden, of Palace Confidential, has questioned whether Charles' late mother would have followed her cousin Margrethe's example, saying: 'I do wonder, if Queen Elizabeth was still alive, whether she would have been more likely to do as her Danish counterpart did and issue Letters Patent stripping Prince Harry’s children of their titles.

(Bangs head against the wall)

If she were still alive, there would be no titles to strip. What she might have done is issue new LPs and worded them in some manner to accomplish them in some manner so that nobody already in possession of the right to use those titles would be affected such as making the new LPs apply only to Charles's descendants.

But there would be nothing preventing Charles from using his own LPs to revert to the rules established by George V.

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Would the Queen have stripped Archie and Lili's titles?

Posted by karenl on March 10, 2023, 7:22 pm, in reply to "Would the Queen have stripped Archie and Lili's titles?"

It doesn't matter what the late QEII would have done regarding the Sussex children's titles, whenever Charles became King, he could revert back to the 1917 LP, whatever changes his late mother/Monarch may have made, he can change IF he so desires.
Can't compare the actions of one Monarch to another....just because Margrethe removed the Prince/Princess titles of Joachim's children, Charles isn't going to think it's a great idea, going to do it in my family. Different personalities, families and situations.

This message is locked.

HG Tudor reads and comments on an article about Harry's wife use of colors to disclose her moods

Posted by Susan T on March 10, 2023, 3:00 pm, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

Took a while for him to get through the sections on what each color means, but when he gets the paragraphs praising her fashion sense, his asides are priceless. And I really needed a good laugh.

Link: 13:04 / 13:04 Harry´s Wife : Colour Me Boll***s

This message is locked.

Re: HG Tudor reads and comments on an article about Harry's wife use of colors to disclose her moods

Posted by karenl on March 11, 2023, 1:21 am, in reply to "HG Tudor reads and comments on an article about Harry's wife use of colors to disclose her moods"

Tudor had me rolling on the floor holding my sides.
Note: According to Leilani on YouTube Caroline Herrera, the designer of the dress Meghan wore at the Trooping the Color and the Princess of Canada wore..has delisted that dress..
I'm sure both Harry and Meghan are both wearing red for rage..they had their 24hr. in the spotlight to now be replaced by Edward and Sophie as Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh in the spotlight.

This message is locked.

OT: Silicon Valley Bank

Posted by karenl on March 11, 2023, 1:30 am, in reply to "Re: HG Tudor reads and comments on an article about Harry's wife use of colors to disclose her moods"

Hope the Harkles didn't have money tied up in SVB, if they did, they're SOL right now.

This message is locked.

Taz

Posted by Hollie24 on March 11, 2023, 11:02 am, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

Some nice stuff about the Waleses and Edinburghs, then right into Meghan's merching, including a visit to a homeless charity wearing thoosands of dollars in clothes and jewelry (and hey, there's a photographer!) and the after-lunch pap walk.

This message is locked.

Re: Taz

Posted by Susan T on March 11, 2023, 12:32 pm, in reply to "Taz"

Once again, the reiteration that there's nothing Charles could do about the children's titles because of the George V LP's.

Thank goodness George VI didn't hold them as sacrosanct, otherwise Charles would have been born Earl of Merioneth.

And if QEII hadn't issued LPs, William's children would have come into the world as Prince George, Lady Charlotte, and Lord Louis.

This message is locked.

Re: Taz

Posted by Hollie24 on March 11, 2023, 1:32 pm, in reply to "Re: Taz"

It's irritating, I know.

This message is locked.

Re: Taz

Posted by Susan T on March 11, 2023, 4:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Taz"

What's irritating is the belief that poor Charles had no choice. Upon reflection, I'm not irritated that he hasn't issued new LPs. I'm irritated that I fell for his slimmed down monarchy rhetoric all those years ago.

Charles wasn't concerned about how many people worked for The Firm; he was concerned about who worked for The Firm.

It was all a smoke screen for his campaign to oust his brothers, those extra children his parent never should have produced, and any children his brothers had.

It's not a coincidence that his idea of a slimmed down monarchy started showing up in the broadsheets at the same time that Mark Bolland was leaking made-up stories that showed his brothers in a bad light to the tabloids.

If he was really concerned about the numbers, he would have been looking for a way to pension off his mother's cousins, but he never attacked them and he never attacked Anne, only his brothers who were born after his mother and father had settled into their new roles and had more time for family life. And Andrew and Edward got the lion's share of that time instead of him.

This message is locked.

Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Susan T on March 11, 2023, 11:07 am, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

n/t

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Hollie24 on March 11, 2023, 11:45 am, in reply to "Diana's sisters attended the christening"

There was a gospel choir at the christening? What? That is beyond absurd. It sounds like it wasn't so much a religious ceremony as it was an extravaganza. I'm betting Tyler Perry shelled out the dough for it, too. It's very, very, very clear who the favored child is, and it's not Archie. Of course Meghan sees Lili as an extension of herself--hello, narcissist--but this is just...wow.

And of course Diana's sisters had to be there. They fulfilled Meghan's fantasy of being Diana. I wonder what they had to say about Harry's book? Was Samantha's daughter ther there? The one Meghan's now best buds with? I'm guessing not.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Susan T on March 11, 2023, 12:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

They didn't have as much control over Archie's christening because they hadn't "found freedom" yet.

They wanted Archie to be christened on July 4, when the Queen was in Scotland for Holyrood Week, and Charles and Camilla were in Wales. The Queen slapped them down and made them change the date to July 6 so that Charles and Camilla could attend, but she snubbed them and went to Sandringham to visit with Philip. The July 4th date wasn't convenient for the Archbishop or Canterbury either, but Harry's wife was hoping to substitute a female cleric and the Queen slapped her down on that demand, also.

The hoopla with a gospel choir wasn't for Lili, it was for Harry's wife. It remains to be seen what she has planned for Archie's birthday.

I'm guessing Diana's sisters were invited because she still doesn't have any Christian friends to ask to be godmother.

It was pretty funny when the media was speculating on who she would tap for Archie's godmothers, but when I checked them out on Wikipedia, they were either Jewish, Jehovah Witness, or members of the Self-Realization Fellowship Temple.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Hollie24 on March 11, 2023, 1:31 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

Oh lord yes, the whole christening was about Meghan, not Lili. That poor girl is just an extension of Meghan.

I'd still like to know if the actual baptism took place at the house or at a church. I can't imagine a an Episcopal (my church) Bishop performing a private baptism at a private home unless under extreme circumstances. Did Meghan and Harry buy a font? Did they clean up a birdbath? Use a plastic inflatable pool? Or did the Bishop bring a portable font? And then there's the water... Evian? (I'm joking, for those who can't tell)

Seriously, I just can't even.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by karenl on March 11, 2023, 2:49 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

I'm glad you brought that up, Hollie. I've wondered about that since the baptism was announced. Catholic church and a private home baptism, no way, unless as you state, it's an extreme situation. I asked my friend from my former neighborhood, he's Lutheran, long pause, then he said, "Of course, not". I was sure Episcopalian/Anglican was the same. A baptism is welcoming, but solemn ceremony in the church/church community.
This probably has had church offices receiving phone calls requesting private home baptisms. If the story is true, the Bishop was incorrect and I' surprised he agreed to it.
If it was held in the church, then Tyler Perry is a hypocrite, after the whole, " I don't do pomp and circumstance..I don't do churches." I used to like him, I can't stand the sight of Tyler Perry now.
Funny, Diana's sisters were there, but Charles Spencer was not. Was he invited and turned down the invitation or was he not invited? I don't think he approved of Meghan or the marriage.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Hollie24 on March 11, 2023, 3:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

Baptismal records are also held at a church, and the baptismal certificate is issued from the church as well. The church closest to Meghan and Harry would be All-Saints-By-The-Sea in Santa Barbara, but that wouldn't be grand enough for Meghan. The whole thing is just bizarre.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by karenl on March 11, 2023, 3:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

Everything Harry and Meghan do is bizarre questionable because their life is built around lies. I just can't see the Bishop of a diocese agreeing to a private home baptism when the parents are perfectly capable of attending the church and there's no extreme situation present.
Meghan doesn't care about the true nature of a baptism as regard to the faith and why we have a baptism. She wanted a huge, flashy event with, ahem, important people and to upstage the Royal Family.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Cynthia on March 11, 2023, 5:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

Well, this kid is a British princess! Must have a bishop! Nothing less would do!

LA doesn't have an Episcopal cathedral, so she had to settle for some other location. A regular church in Santa Barbara wouldn't have been grand enough (only the old RC Mission would be impressive), but she could have used All Saints in Beverly Hills, or St. James on Wilshire, both very grand Episcopal churches.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Hollie24 on March 11, 2023, 7:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

LA has St. John's Episcopal Cathedral. It looks grand enough for Meghan. I wonder if Lili's baptism is going to be part of another Netflix series? We know the whole thing had to have been filmed.

https://www.stjohnsla.org/

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Susan T on March 11, 2023, 4:07 pm, in reply to "Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening"

Charles Spencer wasn't at Archie's christening either.

Weren't there articles claiming that he also advised Harry to take more time to get to know "this girl" before rushing into marriage? That would have made him persona non grata for eternity. I'm surprised he was invited to the wedding.

This message is locked.

Re: Diana's sisters attended the christening

Posted by Maureen on March 11, 2023, 4:46 pm, in reply to "Diana's sisters attended the christening"

I just find it so strange that Lady Jane would attend considering her husband’s (Robert) loyalty to the Queen. Lady Jane sided with her husband and the royal family over Diana. Sarah and Diana considered Robert their biggest enemy within the palace despite him being related to both of them.

Why would Jane go and support Harry and Meghan when it’s obvious news about the christening would be used to upstage the royal family?

This message is locked.

Every time the Sussexes torpedoed The Firm and stole the limelight

Posted by Susan T on March 11, 2023, 11:16 am, in reply to "March 10 - Sussex Thread"

Headline is misleading. The article only mentions nine occasions. That's barely scratching the surface.

They've done it so often, extensive research would have to be done to make sure you listed them all. Not to mention how long the article would need to be.

Link: Dailu Mail

This message is locked.

« Back to index

113

[ Royal News and Views ]