Royal News and Views

Royal News and Views
[ Royal News and Views ]

January 14

Posted by Susan T on January 14, 2024, 2:17 pm

n/t

This message is locked.

Scobie's book

Posted by Susan T on January 14, 2024, 2:30 pm, in reply to "January 14"

I can't read it. I tried. After 50 pages, I gave up.

It starts with what he calls a prologue, but what I think is more of a preface. It's full of "I, I, I, me, me, me."

It's disjointed, going backwards and forwards in time. After two chapters, I'm not sure where he's going, but I don't want to go there with him.

Well, I guess I do know where's he's going: TO and TOW = good, everybody else = bad.

This message is locked.

Re: Scobie's book

Posted by Martha on January 14, 2024, 3:11 pm, in reply to "Scobie's book"

From what's been reported, it's just a rehash. The so-called BOMBSHELLS have already been released in the publicity leading up to the release. Meh.

===

This message is locked.

Re: Scobie's book

Posted by Susan T on January 14, 2024, 4:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Scobie's book"

Any bombshells that existed were in the material the publishers made him take out of the book.

I can read rehashes. I can read books written by people who have agendas and/or who have made up their minds before they even begin their research. But his style of writing is soporific.

This message is locked.

Re: Scobie's book

Posted by karenl on January 14, 2024, 7:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Scobie's book"

To state what has been writing here, Scobie is only regurgitating what has been told to him by Meghan and to some extent, Harry. Despite what he calls himself as well as the media, Omid Scobie is not an author nor is he a journalist. He is and always has been a celebrity gossip reporter particularly a mouthpiece for the Sussexes. He lacks talent to be a serious author.

This message is locked.

Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name

Posted by karenl on January 14, 2024, 8:25 pm, in reply to "Re: Scobie's book"

Excerpt from Robert Hardman's book.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12962667/queen-elizabeth-II-fury-prince-harry-meghan-markle-baby-lilibet.html

This message is locked.

Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name

Posted by Susan T on January 15, 2024, 9:22 am, in reply to "Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name"

Which could be described as a rehash, although the book does include some new information.

However, there's nothing wrong with writing a book that repeats what has already been revealed by the media. Having all the information in one place, making it clear in what order things happened beats having to try to remember when something appeared in an online article, tracking it down only to discover that the original article has been updated and it's impossible to determine what was originally reported.

This message is locked.

Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name

Posted by Sylvia M. on January 15, 2024, 3:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name"

My sister works for the public library in our town in the U.S. She says Scobie's book has been on the new books shelf for a while and has not been checked out once. Spare is on the most checked out books list for 2023.

This message is locked.

Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name

Posted by Susan T on January 15, 2024, 4:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name"

Palm Beach County has a population of 1.56 million people. The library system has 22 copies of the book and going by my place in the cue when I first put a hold on it, I'd say less than 50 people have borrowed it.

For comparisons sake, the library system has ordered 71 copies of the newest JD Robb In Death book (release date Jan 23) and 154 people have placed a hold on the book.

This message is locked.

Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name

Posted by karenl on January 15, 2024, 11:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name"

Our library system only had 4 copies of Spare and only one person checked it out. They had the same number of copies of Meet Me At The Lake and only 3 people have checked it out.
Spare copies were put out for the Library weekly book sale last summer. No one has bought any of the copies. I was at the Goodwill last week and they had 11 copies of Spare, since last March or April and haven't sold. It may have been the biggest and fastest selling book, but it's the most discarded book ever since records have been kept. It's been found left everywhere outside, inside or thrown in trash bins/Dumpsters.
I still don't quite believe it's sales number, those numbers came from Penguin.

This message is locked.

Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name

Posted by karenl on January 15, 2024, 11:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Queen's Fury Harry And Meghan Over Lilibet's Name"

In addition, Robert Hardman's book is a rehash, but his book is not blindingly one sided and he's researched the stories and spoken to people with knowledge. He's presented the story as related to him without adding any bias or unnecessary drama of his own, then again, he's a respected journalist.

This message is locked.

'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'

Posted by Susan T on January 15, 2024, 5:12 pm, in reply to "January 14"

Harry and Meghan would not have intended to cause her grief – over this, at any rate.

Barricaded in their Californian cocoon, blanketed by the cosy schmaltz of their new showbiz life, it simply wouldn't have occurred to the couple that such a gesture would cause offence.

No, Rebecca, they didn't care. Didn't stop to ask themselves why none of the other great-granddaughters had been given 'Elizabeth' as a first name. A reasonable person would have looked at all the names of the Queen's children, grand-children, and great grandchildren and concluded that neither she nor Philip wanted a descendant born during their lifetime to share their name.

But keeping making excuses for them Rebecca.

And to add insult to injury, they don't call their daughter that name. They call her 'Lili'.

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'

Posted by JohnW on January 15, 2024, 7:16 pm, in reply to "'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'"

I find it impossible to believe, even for one second, that the late Queen said, "I don't own the palaces, I don't own the paintings, the only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that."

Such histrionics were alien to all that we knew about her.

As we all know, she personally owned Sandringham, Balmoral, her thoroughbred stud farm, the vast collections of silver-ware, art, porcelain and antique furniture that furnished and decorated Sandringham and Balmoral and, finally, an investment portfolio of unknown proportions.

"the only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that." BS.

Which is not to suggest that she was not furious at their presumption and intrusion!

This message is locked.

Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'

Posted by karenl on January 15, 2024, 11:58 pm, in reply to "Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'"

You have a point John, I can't see HM making such a statement given what we've read or heard about her and the facts you've presented.
I'm sure HM was angry to the point of being furious. The Sussexes blatantly disregarded her wishes. I'm of the firm belief that they didn't name their daughter "Lilibet" to honor the Queen, they did it as a huge "F*** you flip off" to the Royal Family and the Queen because they were angry that they weren't getting what they wanted. They knew it would upset the Queen and didn't care.
If they really respected her, they would have not used the name per her wishes.

This message is locked.

Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'

Posted by Susan T on January 16, 2024, 8:24 am, in reply to "Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'"

It's probably a case of a royal aide "cleaning up" what she said. (Think Prince Philip and the "I'm just a bloody amoeba remark - an aide's polite translation of "All I am is a f###ing sperm bank" - supposedly said when Philip was told that his children would use the surname Windsor rather than Mountbatten.)

She may have ranted about never having the freedom to choose where she lived, the bureaucracy involved if she wanted to rearrange the furniture or swap out the artwork, and a dozen other things that Harry's been able to do that she was never able to.

Harry and wife may have even pointed out that "she didn't own the name" just as they pointed out that she didn't own the word "royal", and that service is universal.

This message is locked.

Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'

Posted by karenl on January 16, 2024, 7:26 pm, in reply to "Re: 'The only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that'"

I'm sure HM had some pretty choice words over the Sussex stunt and we may never really know what she actually stated. Harry and Meghan not only went against her stated wishes, did the stunt out of spite/revenge, they then lied about it and had the nerve to want the Palace to back them when going after the BBC.
There was enough there for a grand choice of words.

This message is locked.

ABBA song parody

Posted by Susan T on January 16, 2024, 9:48 am, in reply to "January 14"

n/t

This message is locked.

Re: ABBA song parody

Posted by karenl on January 16, 2024, 7:32 pm, in reply to "ABBA song parody"

Whitney is great, her parodies are a hoot especially concerning the Dimwit Duo.

This message is locked.

Princess Anne raised concerns over 'decent-sized hat'

Posted by Susan T on January 16, 2024, 1:42 pm, in reply to "January 14"

Many online were quick to speculate whether the positioning of Anne's huge feather directly in front of her nephew was a deliberate move to 'punish' Harry, who has been outspoken in his criticism of the Royal Family in his Netflix series and memoir Spare.

But in Robert Hardman's new book, Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story, the Princess defends herself, explaining she had changed seats at the last minute in the hopes of a 'speedy exit'.

Well, that turned out to be just as I speculated. She should have been seated several places further away from the aisle, but because she was going to be riding with the troops after leaving the abbey, she needed to be able to get out quickly and ditch the Order of the Thistle paraphernalia.

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Princess Anne raised concerns over 'decent-sized hat'

Posted by karenl on January 16, 2024, 7:58 pm, in reply to "Princess Anne raised concerns over 'decent-sized hat'"

Absolutely, no matter where Anne would have been seated, the person seated directly behind her would have been obscured from the cameras due to the feather placed in her hat. Her explanation is correct, as part of her Coronation duty, she had to leave ASAP after the Ceremony and so the purpose for that particular seat location.
It's the same for the "infamous" Candle that blocked Meghan at the Queen's Funeral. Anyone in that seat location would have been obscured from the cameras. I've read some accounts that "witnesses" stated that Meghan pushed Catherine and Charlotte aside so she and Harry could get to the seats directly behind the new King and Queen. I don't know if that's true, but the seat Meghan got was the one in direct line to the candle. In the long run both Harry and Meghan's seats at each Ceremony still allowed each views of the Funeral/Coronation.

This message is locked.

« Back to index

204

[ Royal News and Views ]