Royal Gossip
April 26, 2017, 03:11:21 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 02:03:12 am 
Started by Fly on the wall - Last post by Rosella
^ The vicar can't, because in theory the church should be open at all times for parishioners and others to take a few minutes of contemplation or prayer if they want to. Most people with any common sense would of course know you're not going to get that with a wedding service going on, especially if the church is crammed to the brim with guests.

In my view the Middletons are likely to use the local police in enforcing the security card and thus keeping the public away as much as possible from the church environs. There will be five high profile members of the BRF present at this ceremony and, in spite of the Daily Fail's assertions, my guess is the RPOs and other security will have the final say as to who will be getting near to the building or not.

 2 
 on: Today at 01:28:43 am 
Started by Fly on the wall - Last post by FrederickLouis
Has a date for Stefano's baptism been decided upon?

 3 
 on: Today at 01:23:01 am 
Started by Fly on the wall - Last post by FrederickLouis
Could the the pastor of St. Mark Church on his own state that certain people cannot come? Or does he need his Bishop's approval?

 4 
 on: April 25, 2017, 11:09:58 pm 
Started by dianab - Last post by sandy
With the Mountbatten sisters cackling about saying Diana was "damaged" and Sally Smith blaming Diana for all the problems, it's amazing that Charles weirdness and dysfunction are overlooked.  Maybe WIlliam and Harry are giving a not so subtle message to their dad who apparently condoned Sally Smith's book.

 5 
 on: April 25, 2017, 11:07:43 pm 
Started by karla64 - Last post by sandy
It's sickening how C and C fans are all agog about her being his "soul mate" and it being a great 45 year love affair. What rubbish. Charles could not have even been bothered to tell her they had a future. She even was eager to be with the loser after she married someone else. If wishy washy Charles did not have the title of Prince of Wales I doubt Camilla would have given him the right time. And Charles fans never question why he thought it was OK to be involved with married women. Camilla gave her son TOm the middle name of Charles and the other mistress Kanga named one of her sons Charles. Gross

 6 
 on: April 25, 2017, 11:07:33 pm 
Started by FrederickLouis - Last post by Tatiana
I'm thinking maybe it was a little lower than his nose.  Cool

 laugh

 7 
 on: April 25, 2017, 11:06:09 pm 
Started by Tatiana - Last post by Tatiana
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4438702/The-Queen-Mother-never-allowed-Diana-mentioned.html    thumbsdown


   This is the horrid woman who spoiled Charles and allowed him to use her homes to bed his married mistresses,  when he was married too. 

          Diana had few to turn to in that family.

 8 
 on: April 25, 2017, 11:05:03 pm 
Started by Fly on the wall - Last post by sandy
There's a photo of Charles and Camilla (while married to others) leaving one of the QUeen Mum's properties (which she gave them as a safe house). She made Charles feel like the Center of the Universe which was a very bad thing.

 9 
 on: April 25, 2017, 10:57:04 pm 
Started by Tatiana - Last post by Tatiana
  dm likes to hide articles - they can be found by googling prince charles or diana, princess of wales or whoever,  daily mail NEWS  thumbsup

 10 
 on: April 25, 2017, 10:52:35 pm 
Started by Fly on the wall - Last post by Tatiana
  Charles' grannie allowed him to bring his married mistresses to her home to have rumpy pumpy with them,  he was also married at the time.  The Queen Mother was a horrible woman no matter what the PR says about her.   She is responsible for him being so spoiled and entitled.   thumbsdown

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!