Royalty Thread #7: Do They Get Frequent Flier Miles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kate and William are expecting again. Princess Sofia just had a baby. I kind of expected actual royal news to generate more interest than yet another rehash of what went wrong for Diana and Charles.
 
The message from the palace says Kate isn't quite 12 weeks along and is dealing with HG so it seems like it's hit her later than usual or she's been able to manage it until now. With George and Charlotte it seemed to affect her very early in her pregnancy and then calm down after the first trimester. Either way, bless her for enduring being so sick a third time but congratulations on a new baby!! Let the name speculation begin.

Princess Madeleine of Sweden announced she was expecting again, too, so there are royal babies everywhere.
 
SHARPIE said:
William and Kate are expecting baby number 3.


Duchess of Cambridge expecting third child
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41148027
Click to expand...

Congratulations to William and Kate though I must say I expected them to stop at 2 - especially as Kate suffers so from severe morning sickness. Hopefully she will regain her health soon though not soon enough as George starts school this week and I suspect Kate will want to be there for that!!
 
Parsley Sage said:
bolded by me. Novelist Barbara Cartland was the mother of Raine Spencer
Click to expand...

Ah yes, thanks for correcting my mistake. :)

taf2002 said:
Wow, I haven't had anyone obsessed with me for a long time. And he was arrested for stalking.
Click to expand...

Whoa, you do know how to make erroneous assumptions and exaggerations. :drama: I obviously checked up on your recent posts in this thread. I do not see how that equates to me 'stalking' or having an obsession for you personally taf2002. :lol: :p :yikes: :huh: Honestly, sometimes I share similar opinions to yours, but often I don't, which is likely the case for most of us posting here. Why not ask yourself why my comments seem to bother you so much in the first place. Are you imagining having me arrested for taking the time to respond to your uncalled for put-down? :duh: Clearly your above push-back response is a ridiculous distraction from your having no defense for challenging my observation that Diana was deeply affected by her parents' divorce. We are all here commenting on the basis of what we've read, seen, and/or heard, and then forming opinions and judgments that can be called into question, which is fine.

But what's your purpose in trying to aggressively accuse me of something that you do yourself? I can certainly acknowledge when I am factually mistaken. As far as perceptions, based on Diana's own words and anecdotes from people who knew her, quite clearly she was emotionally affected by her childhood experiences (as some human beings generally are). More than that, none of us should be attempting to make clinical judgments re Diana, and that's certainly not what I was trying to do. And therefore, perhaps I should have used the phrase "emotionally damaged, according to most accounts," rather than saying she was "psychologically damaged."

You can perceive the available published information, anecdotes, opinionated gossip, myth, and hearsay in whatever way you please, as can I. Now, if it means so much to you, go ahead and have another go with your own apparent 'obsession.' :revenge:
 
Last edited:
Lorac said:
Congratulations to William and Kate though I must say I expected them to stop at 2 - especially as Kate suffers so from severe morning sickness. Hopefully she will regain her health soon though not soon enough as George starts school this week and I suspect Kate will want to be there for that!!
Click to expand...

Indeed, congratulations to William and Kate. That's happy news! I thought they might have one or two more children, but perhaps wait another year or so. But I suppose they don't want their children's ages to be spaced too far apart. Since Kate is 35, she will certainly be able to safely have at least 2 to 3 more children if she and William so desire.

Since Kate receives the best of medical care, and she fares well in the middle and later stages of pregnancy, apparently those are pluses which make her willing to endure the early discomforts and pregnancy risks. Plus, she and Prince William seem to truly enjoy raising children, and they probably would like to have maybe another of each (boy and girl). :)
 
aftershocks said:
Whoa, you do know how to make erroneous assumptions and exaggerations. :drama: I obviously checked up on your recent posts in this thread. I do not see how that equates to 'stalking' or obsession for you personally taf2002. :lol: :p :yikes: :huh: :revenge:
Click to expand...

You quoted me 6 times in your post & some of them were not all that recent nor were they all on the same subject. Maybe you just have a lot of time on your hands & you're really not obsessed. But can't you make your point without dredging up posts from far back in this thread? Or without writing a book?
 
You seem betwixt, bothered and bewildered. :p ;) Ah well, what do you think the new baby's gender will be @taf2002? :summer: Arguing over nothing can be so tiresome. On the contretemps matter, I've had my say, and you've had yours ... :duh:

Zemgirl said:
I kind of expected actual royal news to generate more interest than yet another rehash of what went wrong for Diana and Charles.
Click to expand...

Yep, it seemingly should have, but apparently the news about Kate expecting came after my posts about Diana, which seemed to excite a few people. ;) In any case, my earlier C&D post simply added my thoughts to the general conversation that had taken place well before this happy baby news. And then the contretemps ensued, which tends to happen on forums that discuss the Charles and Diana marriage. Contrastingly, the royal family, particularly the younger generation, apparently allows bygones to be bygones, and they seemingly prefer to focus on positive memories of Diana. :saint: Yep, it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Vagabond said:
Do you have a source other than a poster on FSU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's very well-sourced.

There are several explanations offered from different sources as to why their relationship ended and that "palace courtiers" (not the Queen) found Camilla unsuitable, but if you read the Wikipedia article carefully, you will see that that isn't thought to be the reason why Charles and Camilla broke up. And the breakup followed Charles's naval posting overseas, which was not something the Queen would have involved herself in.
Click to expand...

Yes @Vagabond, there have been a variety of reasons given. Royal sleuths and independent biographers probably know more. I have read a number of published sources that say it was Charles' uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, who exercised a great deal of influence over Charles, who encouraged him to sow his wild oats with available women, and to marry a virgin. That was a prevailing attitude generally at that time. When Camilla met Charles, she'd already been involved with a number of men during the swinging sixties, including Andrew Parker Bowles. Therefore, Camilla was not seen as 'marriage material' by royal courtiers and by those closest to Charles (Louis Mountbatten, and the Queen Mother). Most royal biographers have indicated that Charles has never been particularly close to either of his parents. What QEII personally feels on issues surrounding her family tends to remain a mystery, amidst a lot of gossip.

In any case, beyond the specifics, it's true that Camilla generally was not seen during the 1970s as someone whom Charles should consider marrying. I happen to think that if Charles had been a strong enough person and if he'd had the courage to back up his desires, he might have made more of an effort to sway the negative opinion regarding marriage to Camilla that existed among his relatives, mentors, and the royal courtiers.

In hindsight, I think the royal family is lucky to have Princes William and Harry to carry on the royal legacy, if indeed the monarchy continues relatively unchanged in Britain post-QEII era.
 
Last edited:
Prince George's first day at school (Duchess Kate was too ill to accompany George):
This picture was taken at KP before Prince George left for school with his Dad (Prince William)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BYvtTarABuP/?taken-by=kensingtonroyal Posing so sweetly, and George seemed in good spirits then, aside from appearing a bit nervous when he alighted from the car later at school later

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/europe/prince-george-first-day-school/index.html
http://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other...f-cambridge-too-unwell-to-take-him/ar-AArrwlA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSpJigZuQ1Y video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiirumPktBs U.S. news report with video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwDGS2xhJ8w ET report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8EcQmNxJ-U Ballet is compulsory at the school for boys and girls

He will be known as George Cambridge...

George's distant cousin, Maud Windsor (daughter of Lord Frederick Windsor and Sophie Winkelman Windsor), started at the same school on the same day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5TBtBPnkc
 
So it appears Prince Henrik of Denmark (the one who claimed back in early August he didn't want to be buried beside his wife, causing a huge scandal) has been officially diagnosed with dementia. My deepest sympathies to HM Queen Margrethe and the royal family for having to watch a loved one go through this. I thought what Henrik said at the time was terrible and made no bones about it, but this does at least give some explanation to his attitude. Watching my Grandmother go through this horrible disease...I don't wish it on anybody.
 
SHARPIE said:
Sorry for Daily Mail link but I'm all "squeeeal" about this interview with Meghan Markle (from Vanity Fair) I don't think we will get an extra days holiday if Harry gets married though? :lol:
Meghan Markle confirms romance with Harry for FIRST time
http://dailym.ai/2eFYDYK
Click to expand...

The interview took place in early June for the October issue of VF. Taking this step was surely thought through and approved by all involved (and kept quiet by Vanity Fair). VF has previously done cover stories on the royals (a 20-something Prince William; married William and Kate; Duchess Kate; Queen Elizabeth and her corgis were featured on the cover last May):

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk99fthIxU1qhe35co1_500.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/284077/WILLIAM-KATE-VANITY-FAIR.jpg
http://media3.onsugar.com/files/201...-Cover-New-Engagement-Photo-Mario-Testino.jpg
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ad_140112269.jpg
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion/daily/2016/05/31/31-queen-elizabeth-vf.w529.h352.jpg

Many have observed that the VF cover is seemingly a strategic roll-out for the next step to Meghan becoming part of the royal family. I think that's a safe bet. Meghan didn't say much that isn't already known (although it doesn't seem that their dating quietly for 'about six months' before the story broke in November 2016, jibes with them having met for the first time in July 2016). More likely they were in contact somehow by social media or texting in June 2016, and then arranged to meet in person via mutual friends when Meghan was attending Wimbledon as Serena Williams' guest end of June/ early July 2016. Reportedly by mid-July 2016, the Harry/Meghan relationship gained solid footing when they made a trip to L.A. together to stay at the home of one of Prince Harry's friends. None of this is mentioned in the VF article of course, but I've been following reports, past interviews, past articles, etc., since last November.

The VF cover story also appears to be a nod to Meghan's acting career on Suits, while at the same time, a denouement. Meghan will surely be departing the show when filming wraps in November on season 7. Unusually, there has been no announcement yet regarding whether Suits will continue for an 8th season. Meghan would not have garnered a VF cover story as simply one of the co-stars of Suits. It's her notoriety as Prince Harry's 'serious' girlfriend coupled with her Suits popularity. Meghan (because of dating Harry) has been pretty much staying undercover for about a year without doing much publicity as she's done in the past for the show. Therefore, the VF cover is helpful publicity for Suits (even as the show may segue into a spin-off series with Gina Torres' character Jessica Pearson).

There's been ridiculous and jealous backlash in some quarters re the VF cover story. British tabs and reporters are upset they didn't get the scoop. :lol: Anyway the VF shoot and cover story were tastefully done, and its an acknowledgement that Meghan and Harry are 'in love,' happy, and still cherishing their privacy. It's also showing that Meghan has a voice, and she's unfazed by the tabloid 'noise'/ vile baseless criticisms of her. The next act will likely be Harry and Meghan appearing together at the Invictus Games in Toronto later this month. I would imagine an engagement announcement might occur by early December or maybe even as late as January or February of next year. However, December may be more likely as I don't think Harry would want to be apart from Meghan on Christmas Day again this year.

I think analysis by Lainey Gossip and by The Fug Girls is on target:
http://www.laineygossip.com/gorgeou...-prince-harry-vanity-fair-cover-profile/47806
https://www.gofugyourself.com/meghan-markles-vanity-fair-cover-may-seal-the-deal-09-2017

Access Hollywood's take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LIX174it4

Report on royal baby news and VF cover shoot with Meghan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKFGowBygas

Brief video of VF shoot behind-the-scenes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiXFy27hAd4

CBS (local New York) news report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY48fZMZP0I

A pre-Harry article feature on Meghan in Miami Living magazine:
http://digital.miamilivingmagazine.com/i/715020-jana-kramer/113?platform=hootsuite
 
Last edited:
^^ It's also highly likely that Meghan and Prince Harry are already engaged. Harry may have popped the question during their travels in Africa in August. But they both apparently have known for some time the direction their relationship is heading. There's a recent article in The Daily Express that suggests Meghan and the royals would have preferred the VF writer to stick to the topic of Meghan's humanitarian work and her career accomplishments. Meghan did not have pre-publication copy approval. Magazines rarely give that to featured personalities. And it's said that Meghan had nothing to do with the cliche cover title either. :P
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...s-Kensington-Palace-Vanity-Fair-interview/amp

Perhaps the anonymous friend who speaks out on behalf of Meghan in the above article is either her best friend from h.s. (who currently lives in London), Lindsay Roth, or her stylist and one of her best friends in Toronto, Jessica Mulroney. Neither of them were mentioned in the Vanity Fair article, probably because Roth is mainly a private citizen and Mulroney (daughter-in-law of former Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney) is known to be a very close insider friend of Meghan's. Acting colleagues and friends more widely known were quoted in VF, including Serena Williams.
 
aftershocks said:
entire post
Click to expand...

Your two posts are full of assumptions/speculations. Why not wait for an official announcement? BTW, I don't think we'll ever know when or where Harry proposed or who the anonymous friend is. And who cares? That's none of our business.
 
^^ Whatever @taf2002. If you're not interested, you're not interested. Indeed, we shall see how things turn out for all the young British royals. :D
 
^^ Yep @taf2002. No one said having an interest makes the unknown and speculative details any of our business (regarding anyone in the public eye). ;) I have been following what few apparently insider-sourced reports are out there regarding Meghan and Prince Harry (and I've mostly given the egregious made-up stories in the tabloids a wide swath).

Since last November, I've viewed many interviews, acting-related promos, lifestyle clips and fashion shoots re Meghan (and I've read articles she's written and feature stories about her). She was widely accessible and in the public eye quite often prior to dating Prince Harry. Her Instagram and her former Tig site provide insights into her charming, down-to-earth character and personality. And that's mainly why I'm interested in her. I hadn't known of her work in Suits previously. So the news of her dating Prince Harry which came out during the week of the terrible U.S. election results, kind of lifted my gloom a bit. It was pleasant news to contemplate. Meghan and Harry have been keeping a very low profile over the past year, which I understand and respect. But it doesn't dampen my interest, enthusiasm and desire to know a few more details, particularly re how they met. I root for Meghan and Harry, as I think they are both grounded and caring young people. And like Meghan, I too enjoy a great love story. :)

Speaking of great and intimate friendships, here's info about the new movie detailing the little known close relationship between Queen Victoria and her young attendant from India (Abdul Karim):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/09/queen-victoria-abdul-karim-royal-family-racism
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7600458-victoria-and-abdul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T504u17Ao9A movie trailer
 
^^ Yes, the opening ceremony for the Invictus Games was held in Toronto (where Meghan lives) yesterday. Meghan was shown sitting in the stands next to a friend of hers (with a Royal Protection Officer nearby). Harry was seated with other dignitaries in a section to the right of Meghan. Harry had arrived in Toronto a few days earlier and he made a surprise visit to see Meghan on the set of Suits:

http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty...ry-visits-meghan-markle-suits-set/?viewas=amp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...Markle-joins-Prince-Harry-Invictus-games.html
https://twitter.com/5_News/status/912378187820257280 Video
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/...-markle-wore-invictus-games-opening-ceremony/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...markle-make-first-public-appearance-pictures/
http://people.com/royals/governor-g...f-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-got-married/
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-09-24/...e-appears-at-invictus-games-opening-ceremony/
http://people.com/royals/markus-anderson-all-about-meghan-markle-friend/
 
Last edited:
ballettmaus said:
Diana may have had mental health issues but I think there are a lot of people and factors which contributed to the unhappiness of many people. Mosty though, I think it's the institution of the monarchy which is to blame. Consequently, the Queen bares some responsibility as well since , unless I'm mistaken, she did not allow her son to marry a non-royal divorcee.
Maybe Diana would not have led a happier life had Charles married someone else and she would still have had her mental health issues.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what mental health diagnosis Diana has received, she was a young woman who found herself in a miserable and untenable situation. She married a man who didn't and never would love her, and that would be horribly painful for anyone, let alone for a princess living out her life in a fishbowl constantly being viewed by the public eye. Many women in that situation would turn to food for comfort - and Diana said that was why she became bulimic in one of the few interviews I've ever watched her do.

I'm reminded of the young Margaret Trudeau, who was likewise thrust into a miserable, untenable situation as the Canadian Prime Minister's wife, and who also developed a mental illness and became a mental health advocate.

But how come there is no mental health diagnosis for Charles and men like him who can be so very cruel and uncaring when in relationships with women where they wield most of the power? There might be, perhaps - (i.e Narcissist Disorder or something close to that IIRC) - but men like that typically aren't perceived as mentally ill.

Back in the 80s there was a popular book called 'Women Who Love Too Much'. It was about the problems why women loved men who were wrong for them and couldn't develop healthy relationships.

I remember a woman point out that no one had ever written a book called 'Men Who Love Too Little', and thought she had made a brilliant point.
 
Last edited:
IMO there doesn't need to be a mental health diagnoses for Charles. Some people are so used to getting what they want when they want it that they ignore the feelings of others. Charles didn't say "Camilla is married so that's that." He basically said "I have a young dumb wife who will keep up appearances while I go after what I want." Camilla bears some blame but I fault Charles the most.
 
Charles struck me as little different from many men of his time and position.

"Extra-curricular" activities were expected; and even, encouraged.
Wives were supposed to "smile" and tolerate such behaviour.
 
Japanfan said:
Regardless of what mental health diagnosis Diana has received, she was a young woman who found herself in a miserable and untenable situation. She married a man who didn't and never would love her, and that would be horribly painful for anyone, let alone for a princess living out her life in a fishbowl constantly being viewed by the public eye. Many women in that situation would turn to food for comfort - and Diana send that was why she became bulimic in one of the few interviews I've ever watched her do.

I'm reminded of the young Margaret Trudeau, who was likewise thrust into a miserable, untenable situation as the Canadian Prime Minister's wife, and who also developed a mental illness and became a mental health advocate.

But how come there is no mental health diagnosis for Charles and men like him who can be so very cruel and uncaring when in relationships with women where they wield most of the power? There might be, perhaps - (i.e Narcissist Disorder or something close to that IIRC) - but men like that typically aren't perceived as mentally ill.

Back in the 80s there was a popular book called 'Women Who Love Too Much'. It was about the problems why women loved men who were wrong for them and couldn't develop healthy relationships.

I remember a woman point out that no one had ever written a book called 'Men Who Love Too Little', and thought she had made a brilliant point.
Click to expand...

Charles doesn't need s mental diagnosis. I think self centered ba$tard will do quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Kostornaya
Replies
0
Views
2K
TAHbKA
TAHbKA
Sylvia
Ice Theatre of New York's 2024 Benefit Gala honoring Davis/White, Belbin/Agosto, Bezic, Blumberg (May 6) & Home Season shows (May 3-4)
Replies
6
Views
4K
Sylvia
Sylvia
Sylvia
Laura Lepistö's autobiography published April 2024 in Finland
Replies
6
Views
5K
Frau Muller
Frau Muller
Sylvia
Brennan: Malinin stirs tensions over perception of male figure skaters with his IG Live comment
2
Replies
55
Views
20K
Allskate
A
Sylvia
The role of commentators in figure skating
2
Replies
41
Views
11K
SkateFanBerlin
SkateFanBerlin
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information