Royal Gossip
October 20, 2018, 10:51:05 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 ... 50   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are engaged II  (Read 49414 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CarryingOn
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2411

http://media.tumblr.com/6fa12932f6e3affcfb7d37c57f


« Reply #780 on: February 17, 2018, 02:51:53 pm »

pure speculation? yeah, god knows why william and kate werent allowed marry in amazing St George's Chapel... and why Charles not picked Westminster Abbey for his 2nd wedding to a divorced woman... why he chose the amazing St George's Chapel ? all pure speculation... comprehension of the obvious?... never mind!

It's always all speculation when what's being said has common sense backing it but goes against what someone else wants to believe.
Logged
dianab
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1976


« Reply #781 on: February 17, 2018, 03:41:15 pm »

^Amen  worship worship worship worship ^
Logged
lesken
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


Live, Love, Laugh


« Reply #782 on: February 17, 2018, 03:55:31 pm »

Andrew was the last to have a huge wedding in his generation. Then again he was the last to marry from a royal circle person. Then the next generation all are having smaller weddings except for Wills the future King (if he makes it). And I thought his wedding was smaller than his father's but I don't remember for sure.  Maybe unless it is Prince George or someone finally lands a prince or princess again, there won't be the huge lavish weddings. But let us face it, even small it is lavish. And totally inappropriate for MM as a divorced woman. Anne, Camilla and my three cousins who married a second time did it in white dresses and smaller affairs. And my cousins all married men the second time who had not been married before. The first time was of course the big typical wedding. I think PH is getting a big privilege for his used goods choice of a wife. But if PC is paying from his minimally taxed duchies, then he can do what he wants for PH ^the articles on the DM online talking about the Chelsey crowd was informative. MM was hanging and infiltrating PH friend base, or at least the girlfriends of his friends, around the time she started dating him. That shows me she was gunning to meet him and most likely knew quite a bit of information before she landed her first date through these friends. The one that set her up said it was more people involved than just her. The date worked out obviously but her "I didn't know anything about him routine" is so typical of her twisting the truth to her advantage.  Just such a bad choice in so many ways. It astounds me.
Logged

The only constant is change.
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4422



« Reply #783 on: February 17, 2018, 04:29:54 pm »

^ Will's wedding was smaller than Charles's, a new term was invented for Bill's: "semi-state", meaning the taxpayer pays and dignitaries are invited but Bill gets to control more than usual & simply doesn't invite everyone (diplomats, dignitaries etc) he should, or something like that.

With them a small wedding is really circumstance and the size of guest list and the guests who are invited and make it, plus location. Even their "smallest" and most "down to earth" wedding would be a gigantic lavish affair with a huge price tag attached compared to regular people.

Charles's 2nd wedding was definitely "small" (whilst his 1st was the biggest and most lavish in recent history) and Harry's will be "small" too, esp compared to Will's "semi-state" London do. Windsor and St George's may be big and important and whatnot & heirs may have married there, but it's really Buck P and Westminster Abbey/ St Paul's that the world knows and the average Brit frankly too. And a foreigener like Meg was most definitely gunning for a London do and not Windsor, which to her is likely "in the boons" compared to London, that type of prestige attached, and let's not forget the Diana connection. Also especially considering that M seems certainly to have circled around certain people to get to a certain place. And when you land what you set out for, reality can be even more disappointing (I bet you anything that she was definitely not banking on a Winds wedding and was let down when told that London isn't happening). The fact that this isn't even "semi-state" but apparently entirely "private" speaks imo volumes.

The guest list will be "poor", barely any dignitaries and officials and royals from the "lower end of the spectrum". Even if some big gun royals could attend I doubt they would, the younger generation seems to have a pitiful and barely there connection and relationship with any other royals. Bill, Waity & Harry ignoring the Bernadottes at the Olympics; and worse yet, Bill & Waity not knowing who the king of Spain is, ignoring him and elbowing their way past him speaks volumes.

But, we'll see who'll be invited and come!
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 37547



WWW
« Reply #784 on: February 17, 2018, 05:15:00 pm »

William's wedding was a tackfest and Charles' wedding was the only dignified one in our time. Harry's wedding will be a horror show of tack and I wonder how much gin HM is going to have to ingest to get through the entire blasphemous parody of a wedding that this will be. The reason for the downgrade is that there isn't anything worth celebrating in this union. Thankfully Westminster is not an option this time around and I cannot fathom the reaction of royalists to Harry's disastrous choice. When Charles married Diana, it was aristocrats getting a legitimate link in, the public was getting a fairy-tale, and the best and top were invited. Diana was also making a huge sacrifice.

Harry isn't making any sacrifice, Meg isn't making any sacrifices, and the public is being milked while being cut out of the main event. This wedding isn't a national bonding, this is Harry and Meg and the BRF partying with the elite and making the public pay and at the same time, making it clear to the public that THEY (Meg and Harry and their guests) are the center of it all, not the nation. The nation isn't invited to the party, they're supposed to remain in the gutter.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
windsor2
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10919


Harryite #21


« Reply #785 on: February 17, 2018, 07:28:01 pm »

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/682497/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-Wedding-fake-sex-video

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5401777/Links-young-royals-Chelsea-cast.html#ixzz57L29KJiq

Meghan Markle's four favourite jewellery brands
https://www.standard.co.uk/fashion/news/meghan-markle-jewellery-a3741001.html

It's a catch-22 because although they're vapid and crass, the royals would be deemed snobs if they didn't associate with them in some capacity since they travel in the same social circles.
I think that MM has done something involving sex and that Camilla has seen it because she kept going on about her being such a star when reacting to the engagement announcement. Why would she say that with such a knowing smirk? The press can buy the rights to MM's dirt and sit on it and then release it at the right moment. IMO, the "grey men" played the long game with her, used her regarding her ethnicity to push the diversity issue and to calm the commonwealth countries regarding them looking at the royal family as being elitist and out of touch with them and now that Charles will most likely succeeed the queen as becoming head of state to the commonwealth, MM can be discarded now. The whole "romance" and "engagement" has been so very odd that to me it would make sense for her to get the boot as they'll be no benefit for anyone if this does go to marriage.
Not good to blantanly merchandise crap like she does. Hopefully Scotland was the last time we see her with Harry as he did seem distant from her. He's probaly fed up with her nonsense and was trying to focus on the homeless issues. She seemed to be only concerned with showing off her clothes and accessories whilst she put on an act of caring with the founder of the cafe that she hugged.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 07:36:24 pm by windsor2 » Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9106


« Reply #786 on: February 17, 2018, 10:19:11 pm »

I have to laugh at the idea of Camilla being judgmental over Meghan. A Bad Joke. IMO. Camilla always smirks in any case, that's her idea of smiling.

I don't see Harry as being distant with her. If he were "distant" he would have dropped her ages ago. And as I said, Harry is no prize himself. To me the idea of his being judgmental is absurd.
 
Carrying On and dianab, re: common sense. Yes it is what people want to believe. And it goes for both opinions. The royals still did not "explain" why Harry was going to be married at Windsor. Of course, some want to believe what they want to believe.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 10:22:24 pm by sandy » Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #787 on: February 17, 2018, 10:49:46 pm »

Charles' wedding was a full 'state- wedding' as was The Queen's. The term 'semi-state' wasn't invented for William's but was used for other royal weddings.

Of course William had to have the grander affair as he is the future King.

St George's Chapel isn't all that small - larger than many churches and even some cathedrals - and the site of a number of royal weddings in the past, including the then Prince of Wales, Edward VII to Queen Alexandra. George V had a smaller venue (and he was in the same position as William) married in the Chapel Royal at St James' Palace.

Harry marrying at St George's reflects his place in the line of succession and his relationship to the monarch - by his wedding he will be 6th (and if Kate has twins 7th meaning he won't even need the Queen's permission to marry - as Andrew won't after the baby is born) and only a grandchild of the reigning monarch who is moving more and more into surplus to requirements - as happened to Andrew and Margaret before him.
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9106


« Reply #788 on: February 17, 2018, 11:00:01 pm »

Harry will be working and not be diminished until the older tots reach their twenties and when the yet to be born child (or twins) come of age.  Charles made it clear Harry would be part of the scaled down monarchy. George or Charlotte will be going to school and George probably to Sandhurst and very likely both will go to University. Giving them to ca. 23 when they start doing royal duties.  George as future King and Charlotte as Princess Royal (down the road) will probably be active. The younger one or ones will probably do less.
Logged
Little light
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1246



« Reply #789 on: February 17, 2018, 11:33:50 pm »

^^

I was under the impression that the reason PC had a full state wedding was because he is the Heir to the Throne.

And because PW is the heir to the heir, his was not a full state wedding. But seasoned posters will probably know more than I. 
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4422



« Reply #790 on: February 18, 2018, 12:11:46 am »

^ That was the reason given I think, yes. Charles's & Diana's wedding was huge though, doubtful another wedding on that insane scale will happen again...  dontknow

Whilst H's line in the succession is dropping further down and the number seems high, he's still the second most important person after the heir (Charles). The succession is set, of course, but you can't really count the children into anything, incl. the scale of H's wedding being as such because he's dropped so low in the succession. In the order of importance is still the adults only, really, so: Charles, Will, Harry. Harry is still pretty high up and will stay pretty high up until his nephew(s?) and niece(s?) can step up. Esp. considering the plan for the scaled down monarchy for the future... His wedding is bound to be the last big one until the next generation grows up (i.e. George, Charlotte and Cambs3 become adults), so that's the last big royal wedding until at least a good 20 years' time (assuming the Winds/ monarchy will prevail and be still intact), and it turns out to be a scaled down affair in Windsor, apparently not even televized..
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9106


« Reply #791 on: February 18, 2018, 01:00:44 am »

There will be of course small scale weddings in future for: Beatrice and later, Louise and James.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4422



« Reply #792 on: February 18, 2018, 01:04:24 am »

^ Yes that definitely, and likely before G or his siblings walk down the aisle, but the next bigshot big gun wedding will be a Camb sprog one's!
And count possibly Andy and Fergie, the second act, into "small scale" too easter-lol
Logged
windsor2
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10919


Harryite #21


« Reply #793 on: February 18, 2018, 01:12:15 am »

“She fits into a black woman’s narrative, but not a British black woman’s narrative.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/Channel4News/status/961555140795863046
 
 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 01:19:22 am by windsor2 » Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
HRH Tiana of NOLA
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785



« Reply #794 on: February 18, 2018, 04:04:40 am »

^She doesn't fit into a black woman's narrative. She doesn't represent black women at all.
Logged

"You just keep your eyes at one of of the biggest gaudiest floats with a Mardi Gras princess about to kissed herself a... a frog." - Princess Tiana
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #795 on: February 18, 2018, 07:41:12 am »

Harry will be working and not be diminished until the older tots reach their twenties and when the yet to be born child (or twins) come of age.  Charles made it clear Harry would be part of the scaled down monarchy. George or Charlotte will be going to school and George probably to Sandhurst and very likely both will go to University. Giving them to ca. 23 when they start doing royal duties.  George as future King and Charlotte as Princess Royal (down the road) will probably be active. The younger one or ones will probably do less.

Harry will become less important as the years go by - not next week of course but even now he is so far from the throne as to be largely irrelevant to the future of the family - not the work but the future.

Andrew is only one place lower in the line of succession and has been regarded as largely irrelevant since William was born in 1982. By that criteria Harry is also largely irrelevant. He isn't going to be King. His children aren't going to be needed as working royals.

The balcony scene from 2012 that some people use to show what Charles sees as the future of the monarchy is putting too much onto that scene - which was simply a re-creation of the balcony from Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee which was only Victoria, her son and his family and nothing to do with making the royal family smaller. There is absolutely no actual evidence of that idea at all. There was a throw away line from a minor staffer in 1992 that he had heard Charles make that suggestion at the now defunct Way Ahead Group meeting - one comment and it has been repeated over and over and over to the point where many people take it as gospel. I have even seen some people suggest Charles intends on stopping his siblings working and only having himself, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Meghan when there is no evidence at all that he would stop his siblings or his mother's cousins from working. What is being made clear is that the children of younger children of the monarch will be expected to make their own way in the world and not expect to live on the hand-outs from the monarch from the Duchy of Lancaster.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3995


« Reply #796 on: February 18, 2018, 11:58:50 am »

Harry and Meghan have an evening out together!

https://mobile.twitter.com/lesliegbowman/status/965003393545703424
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9106


« Reply #797 on: February 18, 2018, 12:06:25 pm »

Harry will be working and not be diminished until the older tots reach their twenties and when the yet to be born child (or twins) come of age.  Charles made it clear Harry would be part of the scaled down monarchy. George or Charlotte will be going to school and George probably to Sandhurst and very likely both will go to University. Giving them to ca. 23 when they start doing royal duties.  George as future King and Charlotte as Princess Royal (down the road) will probably be active. The younger one or ones will probably do less.

Harry will become less important as the years go by - not next week of course but even now he is so far from the throne as to be largely irrelevant to the future of the family - not the work but the future.

Andrew is only one place lower in the line of succession and has been regarded as largely irrelevant since William was born in 1982. By that criteria Harry is also largely irrelevant. He isn't going to be King. His children aren't going to be needed as working royals.

The balcony scene from 2012 that some people use to show what Charles sees as the future of the monarchy is putting too much onto that scene - which was simply a re-creation of the balcony from Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee which was only Victoria, her son and his family and nothing to do with making the royal family smaller. There is absolutely no actual evidence of that idea at all. There was a throw away line from a minor staffer in 1992 that he had heard Charles make that suggestion at the now defunct Way Ahead Group meeting - one comment and it has been repeated over and over and over to the point where many people take it as gospel. I have even seen some people suggest Charles intends on stopping his siblings working and only having himself, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Meghan when there is no evidence at all that he would stop his siblings or his mother's cousins from working. What is being made clear is that the children of younger children of the monarch will be expected to make their own way in the world and not expect to live on the hand-outs from the monarch from the Duchy of Lancaster.

Andrew (and later paired with Fergie) still did royal duties and was not "irrelevant" when WIlliam was a baby. He was still quite prominent and even had the grand wedding at Westminster four years after WIlliam came along.
Logged
dianab
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1976


« Reply #798 on: February 18, 2018, 12:27:57 pm »

and harry is even more prominent than andrew was then and he's getting married at windsor... very obvious why...

There will be of course small scale weddings in future for: Beatrice and later, Louise and James.
who knows what'll be the state of monarchy then? better question: will there be a monarchy in 10/15 years?

« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 12:31:12 pm by dianab » Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9106


« Reply #799 on: February 18, 2018, 12:32:26 pm »

Different times back then. ANd Andrew was and is allegedly the Queen's favorite. I also think they are scaling back today.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 ... 50   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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