There’s something very curious happening in the British upper-crust society. There are all kinds of people leaving breadcrumbs, in interviews and social media, referencing some big royal scandal which has not been made public yet. It feels like a big secret which everyone knows but no one is talking about in polite society. I bring this up because the Daily Mail’s Eden Confidential column suggests that Boris Johnson’s wife Carrie Symonds is being profiled by an American magazine, and that the profile includes Carrie making some “disparaging comments” about certain members of the royal family.
How fortunate for Boris Johnson’s ambitious wife, Carrie, that she has already had her long-awaited stay with the Queen, because there could have been much embarrassment during those moorland walks and barbecues at Balmoral. For I hear that an American magazine is about to publish a fascinating profile of Carrie that will allegedly include claims that she has made disparaging comments about members of the Royal Family in the past.
The journalist who has written the article, Lara Prendergast, is a protegee of Dominic Cummings’s wife, Mary Wakefield. Cummings quit No 10 last year after falling out with Boris over the influence of the PM’s wife, among other things.
Prendergast has been asking friends of Carrie, 33, about remarks that she’s supposed to have made about senior royals.
‘We’ve been shocked at some of the claims,’ one of Carrie’s pals tells me. ‘We wonder what her agenda is.’
Carrie’s chums insist that she loves the Queen and greatly admires the royals.
The article is also said to report that one of Carrie’s close friends spent Christmas with the couple at a time of strict coronavirus restrictions. Over the festive period, two households weren’t allowed to mix indoors in London unless part of a ‘support bubble’.
Her pals point to a very unflattering article that Prendergast wrote about her last year for The Spectator, where Wakefield is a senior executive. It claimed that Carrie was unsupportive of other women and tried to push her animal rights agenda through government. Prendergast was commissioned by U.S. magazine Harper’s to ‘explain Carrie to a global audience’ and has been trying to get her friends to spill the beans on her thoughts, feelings and personality.
The last glossy magazine profile of Carrie caused uproar. Under the headline, ‘The most powerful woman in Britain,’ Tatler claimed that she was appalled by Theresa May’s ‘John Lewis nightmare’ furniture at No 10.
This is one of many backdoor ways gossip columnists, journalists and royal reporters get information out. It can’t be straight reporting, like “we hear that Prince William is pruning rose bushes.” It has to be “we heard that Kate is trying to cut out her rural rival for some reason, which everyone categorically denies.” It can’t be “there’s a big secret involving senior royals,” it has to be “we heard that the prime minister’s wife has been saying some truly awful stuff about senior royals, so let’s print what we think she’s said.” For what it’s worth, if Carrie Symonds is being used as some kind of pawn in a larger gossip scheme, I do feel sorry for her. But I’d also really like to know if she was gossiping about the Queen. Or Prince Charles. Or the Keens.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
Good God. 2021. Just out with it.
So let me understand this, it’s OK to show the world your family (and establishment) is racist but gossip needs to be “eluded” to.
Kaiser, I felt like I was reading a Jane Austen novel the way you wrote the intro.
Why would you feel sorry for Carrie? Feel sorry for Johnson’s ex-wife.
When the mistress becomes the wife there is always new opening for the mistress, Carrie should be worried.
Right? How you get him is how you get got.
A friend of mine has a similar phrase. She says: If they’ll do it with you, they’ll do it to you.
Exactly. He has shown his character & that is a cheater. I do find it funny when the mistress to wife is shocked when she finds out her previous slot has been “re-cast. You aren’t special & now it’s your turn to reap what you sowed
Yeah, they’re always delusional, like they’re living in their own fairy tale where the man cheated because of true love and what not to excuse the cheating. However it’s just a fantasy, as no man (or woman) who has cheated on his wife will not cheat on his mistress once she becomes his wife. I find they are usually even more in denial their men are cheating on them and ignore all the obvious signs.
Can’t say I feel truly sorry for anyone attached to Boris Johnson. He doesn’t make a secret of what a lowlife he is, in any personal or public arena, on any level.
Exactly. He’s a horrible human being and, given that he’s in his 50s, has been a politician for two decades and she’s his third wife (I think) and is expecting his ..7th? 8th? child, she clearly knows that and is fine with it.
The ex-wife (Wife 2) *was* the mistress – he married her 12 days after his divorce from Wife 1 was final and their 1st child was born 5 weeks later. She stayed with him through multiple affairs and at least one illegitimate child. If we don’t feel sympathy for Carrie, there is no reason to feel sympathy for the ex (unless you mean Wife 1).
I can’t be bothered with this vulture on vulture crime.
“Vulture on vulture crime.”
One of the best descriptions I’ve ever heard.
Perfect description. Find sorry for the people whose lives are affected by these folks.
Adore this!! I shall use it & credit you! @pinella pixie
Sorry I meant @haylie
@ Haylie, this is the most appropriate title of these awful people!! Thank you for your wonderful wit!!
@Haylie, I’m not exactly familiar with the all the details of the non royal vultures. You’re comment felt perfect though. If her comments had anything to do with the Duke & Duchess of Sussex-no comments would be withheld. They would be heralded based on the BM media b*llf*ckery.
Spot on. This comment made me think of the skeksis in The Dark Crystal. Anyone?
I wouldn’t be surprised if she was gossiping about the sussexes to be honest.
But there IS something going on with the royals
She anti- charles articles seem to be dropping almost every weekend now. Then i saw that there was a new article that stated that charles might step aside so william can ascend the throne when the queen dies. (Doesn’t make sense as he doesn’t have to wait until the queen dies— he could just remove himself from the line of succession now).
Than this weird summer of silence around the Cambridges.
Wild speculation time. What if William is living with the mistress in London and wants Kate and the kids in Windsor to make it less awkward? I’m trying to think of an equivalent scandal for Charles. Maybe longtime affair with Fawcett? I have no idea what kind of scandal would stick to either of them.
Charles looks to be up to his eyeballs in the influence peddling thing. Apparently it involved some Russians. That’s a national security threat. As majorly rich Russians are never without ties to the state.
I don’t see Charles voluntarily stepping aside. If he does he becomes what? Just another aristocrat? Dependent on William for living expenses? If he removed himself now would Will become Duke of Cornwall? I think Parliament would have to be involved also so it would be complicated.
@equality: i never said i believed the article lol. Of course Charles wouldn’t step down just so william can be king. Charles wants to be king. He has been waiting for it his whole life (literally).
I just think the timing is curious in regard to all the anti charles articles that seem to dropping lately.
Charles has spent his life preparing to be king. He will never step aside.
Charles will have a relatively short reign once the Queen passes so this stuff about stepping aside makes no sense unless he’s physically unable. Unless he’s selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, how are they going to make him step down? He’s literally above the law. This handshake and wink and nod deals have always happened for the royals. Wasn’t this the plot of that play “ King Charles III” where William gets parliament to oust Charles and take over?
@Pao: the exposes on Charles are nothing but the manifestation of courtiers at BP and CH fighting for influence over the next king.
Prince Charles will never ever step aside for William or anyone else. He is a lot tougher and smarter than people think. I consider him a true Slytherin myself. But it is funny how naming your child Lilibet can generate days of outrage and scandal in England compared to say the more interesting rumors eh?
@Pao I think if it was about the Sussexes, it wouldn’t be getting this kind of coverage. We either would have already heard what she said because the media loves nothing more than publishing a shiny new criticism of Harry or Meghan, or the tone would be gleeful because the people concerned about…whatever is going on here seem to be, for the most part, the very same people who dislike the Sussexes in the first place. Idk why, but ITA with Kaiser that it just sounds like something more is going on here.
And I’m sorry, I know I’ll be attacked over this, but Carrie strikes me as…not bright at ALL. (I could be wrong! Obviously I haven’t met her.) But it just seems extremely plausible that she got carried away and didn’t stfu even when the interview started veering into a direction that she should have known to avoid.
For all we know, she was making those comments about the Sussexes. So I’ll just wait for said profile to come out (if it comes out that is) and judge then.
I very much doubt she said anything critical about any member of the BRF. I think this is a hit piece on Carrier, not the BRF.
Eh you never know. People can and do say things they’re not supposed to say. Or you get caught saying something when you think no one is listening/your mic is off ala Gordon Brown’s “Bigoted Woman” moment.
Maybe? But I just don’t think it’s that scandalous for certain Brits to talk sh*t about the sussexes. That’s just called a regular day. If her friends were shocked by the specific details, it’s something completely out of the public domain that even the awful tabloids don’t discuss.
True true. So I’ll continue to wait for this alleged profile to come out (if Downing Street/BP aren’t successful in quashing it)
It does feel like there’s a specific something a handful of people and journalists know but cannot say. I just really really hope it comes out cuz I’m so v v curious. If something ever does pop up, screenshot right away 😫 cuz it’ll get erased most likely.
This.
I truly think if she was s*** talking about the Sussex’s, they’ve have said it. It’s been open season on H&M for years, so there’s no scandal in revealing that.
There’s something else, or a few here and else’s, about other members of that family that hasn’t been leaked.
@Jais, I know I’m totally exposing my pettiness here, but when it comes to the BRF, I LIVE for the day when someone accidentally (or maybe not-so-accidentally…) posts something that they absolutely should not have, but by the time it’s deleted, the screenshots are out there and it’s too late.
You can’t unring a bell! Isn’t that pretty much exactly how the Rose Hanbury story took off the way it did? Someone in the know said too much. It might have even been more than one person who deleted their tweets (?), but it was too late. Poor Elegant Bill!
We have had an awful couple of years. We deserve someone to make a fckup like this to give us a whole new set of scandalous circumstances to dissect! Our minds need a break from the real world.
For those who are pro-royal, making disparaging comments about H&M is a good thing – that would probably score points for Boris.
@ Sofia, I already have judged her. Look who was sleeping with and ultimately married. Yuck
Wait until he does it to her, as well!!
I’d suspect this is Cummings taking a petty revenge, and trying to undermine Boris via turning the Daily Mail royalists against him. They already hate Carrie for being ‘woke’/’green’/’controlling Boris via his dick’/’insert other misogynist smears here’.
Even if she had said disparaging things about a royal, BFD. Everybody has, because they’re corrupt and awful.
Charles is not stepping aside, after waiting all these years to be King, wishful thinking on Cain’s part or who ever is out there stroking this fire.
Charles is spiteful and he will strike back, the house of Windsor is crumbling, they can’t blame Harry and Meghan for this, but they will try.
Harry in Montecito saying to Archie come on let’s get your swimming lesson in.
@Jan I honestly don’t know how this even became a talking point…there is no way in hell Charles is “stepping aside.” Even if he wanted to, which he does not, that’s just not how the monarchy works. It’s so asinine that someone like Uncle Gary can pull some speculation out of his ass and reasonable people end up debating it. What in the name of all that’s holy would make someone think Charles would do this?! It’s crazy that it even keeps coming up.
Brit establishment – aka Brexit loving folks of alt right wing persuasion- dislike Charles. Charles is serious regarding the environment and he can be very pushy politically…
Willie, on the other hand, is the quintessential performative ally. A couple of twitch’s against racism(in football) and a prize for environmentalists, all to court favour among the younger…
William is the conservative victorian man they wished Charles were.
My guess? They know how succession works and they are committed to supporting another 2000 years of Monarch BUT they would very much prefer Charles reign to be short abd compromised by scavdalsd yo the point the man cannot move with gear the papers will find out. If Charles dies before his time however, it is a bonus .
this comment is very on point
Commenting to appreciate your excellent use of the subjunctive!
Maybe Charles is the one with a mistress.
Charles has always been a cheating dog and it would be double scandelous because the narrative he’s been selling for so many years is that he and Cam are meant to be and therefore should be forgiven for cheating on Di.
@Commenting Bunny, anything is possible, but I feel like at this point, if a new Charles mistress was exposed, it wouldn’t really elicit more than a shrug from most people. He’s one of the most notorious cheaters on earth; there are many people who only even know who he is because of the Diana fiasco. I’d probably be more surprised to learn that he *hasn’t* had any since he married Camilla, lol.
Plus, he’s in his (late?) 70’s now, and people just don’t seem to get that worked up about the personal lives of the older royals…the real scandal would be if William was revealed to have a mistress, especially someone who wasn’t just a one-night-stand or a short fling, but a genuine ongoing relationship, Camilla-style. THAT is what would make the tabloids lose their minds, imo.
I don’t think this has anything to do with the Royals, except they are a convenient topic to use to accomplish the goal of this- take down of Carrie Symonds. Anyone who followed the political intrigue when Cummings was in No 10 knows that he viewed Carrie as his number one enemy and they were constantly briefing against her in really vicious ways. This is about her and to a large degree Johnson, who Cummings is doing everything in his power to get out of office. Cummings is a frightening little character whose Brexit lies and smears show that this is his modus operandi (being carried out by his wife here against Carrie).
Nailed it!
I think Cummings is salty that his committee testimony and blog disclosures didn’t have the effect he thought they would. The man is so completely compromised, the idea that now out of his government position he wants to pretend that he was always trying to “save” the Tories and Johnson from themselves is ridiculous and blatantly false. Because he is such an egomaniac and has a serious savior complex combined with thinking he is the smartest man in the room, I think he really thought he’d be embraced as the brave truth-teller and that Johnson might have to step down. Delusional.
If there is one thing that can be deduced from his character it’s that he carries a grudge and is deeply invested in completely destroying his “enemies”. Dude isn’t going to stop. This article is to me really just more of the same. Will a death by a thousand cuts actually seep in and hurt Boris at some point with the electorate? I don’t know. Maybe. But, that’s what I think this is and there will be more directed at Carrie and Johnson.
“he carries a grudge and is deeply invested in completely destroying his “enemies”. Dude isn’t going to stop.”
He sounds like William. Are they related?
@Lady D haha, you are right, they are very similar! I think Cummings styles himself too much as a rightwing populist, Steve Bannon style, to really fit with the Royals or William who seems like a total snob. Cummings had this whole thing about wearing kind of disheveled clothes and track suits during the Brexit campaign. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that his father-in-law is in the aristocracy (I could be wrong or maybe it’s his father?). I don’t think he and William would get along, but they are both nasty creatures in very similar ways : )
I agree that this is more about Boris and Carrie than the royals. She probably does find that family weird, which isn’t a shocking position, but in the world of Tory supporters, it is anathema to critique the royals.
Yep, just another angle to try to get Tory voters to turn on Boris. If the COVID disclosures didn’t do it, the Marie Antoinette wallpaper stories didn’t do it, suggesting that she gossips against the Royals might finally turn some people. And, yeah like you say, the thing is that I’m sure within closed Tory circles people do laugh about the Royals. But, it’s like a code of silence, don’t tell. So she probably is fairly compromised, but it’s incredibly hypocritical because they all do it and they know it.
@LadyE, I absolutely agree there’s likely a code of silence in Tory circles. There’s certainly one among MAGA believers/supports who worked in close contact with the orange menace.
Carrie probably does know a few things about the RF. And she probably gossips about it. But this story is more about her than getting at the RF through her.
Yes, this doesn’t make sense to me otherwise. Would American tabloid readers even know who Carrie Symonds is, let alone care what she might have said about the royal family? Even the more upscale magazines in the US – do they care about Symonds?
It’s for Harper’s magazine, a monthly publication, not a tabloid. And as politics is routinely covered, I think their readers will at least know he she is.
@BeanieBean – Harper’s magazine or Harper’s Bazaar? There’s a big difference. Harper’s Bazaar did a puff piece on Boris and Carrie when they got married, so I can imagine they’d do a follow-up, like the pressures of being First Lady and how she’s a woman with her own mind and agenda, blah, blah, blah. Plus, Harper’s Bazaar likes to write about the royals. But Harper’s magazine is more like the Atlantic Monthly – they’d interview Boris Johnson, but not his wife.
– I hear that
– Will allegedly
– Claims that she
– Supposed to have
– is also said to
… all about an article that has yet to be published. So it’s an article about rumors about an article about rumors which hasn’t been published. This doesn’t sound any more solid then any of the made up stories the mail posts about the Sussexes based on “sources”
The intertwined Mobius loops of media, BRF, politically powerful in Britain and the seeming Johnson/Cummings/aristocracy proxy wars playing out with women in gossip rags kind of fascinating but also kind of dull because there is rarely any “there” there that anyone will ever truly bring to light. Because if they did, the whole mess would come crashing down on the lot of them.
I know! I kept rereading the excerpt to see what I missed because as far as I could tell, a lot of words were written about…nothing. Nothing solid. And how bizarre is it that a reporter is purportedly the ‘protege’ of the wife of a politician? Why even frame something that way?
That’s the Mail’s way of suggesting that Dominic Cummings is behind this – the journalist writing this profile is a protégé of his wife (who works for The Spectator). I doubt it means anything really (especially as the profile isn’t even.being published in the Spectator) but it allows for some flame-fanning.
WW: way too subtle for me!
@NorthofBoston you’re so right, and if you really dissect most articles about the BRF, they’re ALL written that way. I get so annoyed at myself whenever I fall for it and get all worked up over some story when all it really amounts to is speculation by “sources.”
It sounds like an announcement for an announcement for an announcement. We’ve heard that before.
It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, but perhaps there is a key.
While Carrie is a piece of work herself, it probably wouldn’t be shocking that she met the royals and found them lacking. I’m sure she isn’t so dumb as to go after the Queen, but maybe she found the Balmoral traditions as weird as Thatcher did.
I don’t know if she has met the Sussexes but I do think that if she was going to trash them they would have published it directly. Right now the only people being protected by the media seem to be Kate and William so I suspect it’s about them. Because they aren’t holding off going after Charles.
If she said anything disparaging about Harry and Meghan, she’ll be OK. And if it’s about any other royal she should not be attacked by the British establishment for the mere fact that people are encouraged to attack Meghan and Harry. She is not innocent but she gets a lot of criticism which is based in misogyny and sexism from the British establishment.
Agreed, the British establishment doesn’t care if H&M criticized, or probably Andrew/ his daughters at this point, even Edward/ his family, and Zara and so on if it happened it’s about the core royals ( Queen, Charles, William and their families).
I think if she were (allegedly) talking sh*t about the Sussexes, Eden would just come out and say it. Wouldn’t be the first time a politician and/or a politician’s SO has attacked them. But from the way the excerpt is framed, it seems like the royal(s) she’s supposedly disparaging is someone who’s considered off limits. Only three people fit the bill in that case: Elizabeth and the Cambridges.
Even if she is being used as a pawn, I have zero sympathy. She got what she wanted: a married, oafish goober. And she locked him down with a kid. She knew what she was getting and she enjoys wielding her influence, which she only has because of her husband.
This is to distract from the Charles pay for play scandal and its real crimes. There was also another “Meghan has terrorist blood jewels!” story in the Fail:
“Does Meghan have something to hide about mysterious pinky ring? Questions swirl over $62,000 piece made with ‘diamonds gifted from the Middle East'”
The PR machine is in overdrive to try and smear anyone they can for deflection. H&M aren’t working anymore, so the PM’s wife will do nicely.
Is it so mysterious? Maybe the DM has forgotten how to google. It cost $525 and was designed by a college student – you can buy it online.
I’m thinking they are referring to the other pinky ring. There are two.
Ok, that ring – that’s even less mysterious because they wrote about it a year ago when Meghan wore it in a photo with Harry. Lorraine Schwartz made it from a diamond Harry got as a gift.
These outlets really need to stop yammering on about Meghan’s jewelry. The Queen & other members of the royal family have been gifted jewelry & stones from different Middle East countries since forever. Plus the ones the BRF looted.
The Queen has quite a few pieces that were gifts from Saudi Arabia that Harry Winston made. Maybe Harry Winston operates different now, but in 2018 Human Rights Watch had them listed as Weak for responsible sourcing.
That jewelry story is so obnoxious— I feel like it was purposely written to be confusing, because when the photos were first published, there was no question that the rings were from that site Shiffon, and as Eurydice already said, cost $525.
I remember commenting on one of the posts here that it seemed like the kind of thing Meghan might have received as a gift from one of her friends, since the ring somehow symbolizes women supporting other women.
A couple of days went by, and I guess since they were unable to find any other way to discredit the TIME honor, all of a sudden that story about the “mysterious!” jewelry popped up. They successfully smeared Meghan once already using this tactic, with a piece she wore on one of her tours, so I guess they returned to a tried and true method of distraction.
It infuriates me though, because even if Meghan ended up wearing jewelry that was a gift from some corrupt source, she has NO IDEA where it came from. By design. The family has someone else handling all of the gifts; it’s not as if MBS personally handed it to Meghan and she thanked him with a big smile ffs.
Idk exactly how it works, but they all receive so many gifts that someone else catalogs and oversees them. I think the speculation the last time this happened was that Angela Kelly purposely sent that controversial piece with Meghan on tour? and I totally believe that could have been the case as we all know AK is a sneaky bitch who dislikes Meghan. Meghan certainly has some input in her wardrobe for the tours, but in many cases, she wore what was packed for her. In no way was it her fault, and I’m sure she was disgusted if it was in fact a gift from MBS. She would obviously never willingly wear anything associated with that man. I would also defend Kate if they ever tried bs like this with her because she has no idea where anything came from, either.
And to complicate things further, that family seems to often be taking apart various pieces of jewelry and resettting the stones in new pieces, so it’s hard to trace everything back to exactly who and where every stone came from. (And in many cases, the family *purposely* tries to obfuscate the truth.)
But instead of digging a little deeper on how gifts are handled and who oversees them/doles them out to the royals who end up wearing them, it was easier and more fun for them to have one more thing to trash Meghan for. And all of the idiot racists fell for it.
I find the jewelry stories annoying because the entire Crown Jewels and the royal collection are all either stolen or taken under shady circumstances. Which means the Queen, Camilla, Kate, Anne, Sophie … ALL of them have worn jewels with shady sources but they only target Meghan who has been in the family a few years and has worn very little borrowed jewelry. They did not target Kate when she got jewels as wedding gifts from Saudi Arabia. It was only ever raised to attack Meghan which is just sick.
The stories are annoying but yet mildly amusing. It shows how hard they have to work to actually slander Meghan. And it usually involves a lie coming from a Murdoch or DMGT outlet.
Nope, zero sympathy for her. She’s pushed to get where she is and deserves it all.
Carrie is very tactical and manipulative — she worked her way up through the political system and is desperate to be seen as a political equal and influencer in the lofty echelons of Bojo’s world. She managed to shove out Dominic Cummings, former Chief Advisor at 10 Downing, after one year. As one Tory minister said about her, “All the ambitious wives of chinless wonders are making a beeline for Carrie now”.
For some reason, the first photo reminded me of a description by Dorothy Sayers in Gaudy Night – “moving with the slovenly dignity characteristic of university functions in England.”
Yes!
An American publication could, at any time, drop a story exposing the various royal scandals and not a damn thing could be done. It’s bizarre to me that this hasn’t happened. If I was an editor at the NY Times or the New Yorker, I would be commissioning it. The British press will never tell the truth unless they are forced to.
Apart from the Epstein story and its connections to Andrew, I can’t imagine why the NYT or the New Yorker would spend any time, effort and money investigating the royals. It’s none of their business and doesn’t affect the American public. But I could see how scrutiny into Andrew could lead to something bigger.
The British press lies and covers for the royal family, another country’s press are free to print the truth instead of the palace pr. You’ll notice the daily mail reports on the US constantly, hopefully you are diligent in letting them know it’s not their business.
I mean Andrew and Epstein is big and if we had an independent press that actually cared about news we would have people digging into that more and we would know more about his death and ALL his clients which probably included one or more of our presidents. If we had any pretense to justice in our country he would have been tried a long time ago. The English royal family unfortunately is very prominent in the UK and the Commonwealth, and international politics and foreign relations do affect our lives here. Washington still thinks it has a “special relationship” with England and you’ll hear US politicians claim that all the time. God knows why we think we have to cater to those priggish racists but probably because we are also in a high percentage priggish racists. And finally… Harry and Meghan and their kids fled to the US. Meghan is a citizen by birth. They’re literally here.
@Talie ITA. I’ve often wondered the same thing, since there would be a lot of $ in a huge expose like that. Americans are fascinated by the BRF (in the same sort of way that people are fascinated by exotic animals in cages, if that makes sense), and I think that if it had some substance and some new information, people would eat it up.
We heard that one network reporter say (I think she thought her microphone was off?) that they purposely didn’t cover Andrew because they didn’t want to “lose access” to the Cambridges. As if the Cambridges ever give interviews, anyway. But the point is that Americans are interested and they know it. Weren’t the ratings for the Oprah interview almost as high as the ones for the Super Bowl?
It would be a huge deal, imo, and there’s absolutely nothing they could do about it. The NYT is unconcerned that Bill would cry that his “human rights” were being trampled on if his infidelity was exposed 🙄
I wasn’t fascinated by them previously. I sort of skimmed over things about them. When Meghan married in and was attacked by the media I started looking to see if she was as horrible as they made her out to be. Since then I looked into the pasts of some of the other royals and realized how scandalous many were and follow to see when they are exposed.
I’m with you @Talie. Would love to see an expose done by the New Yorker or NYT. That would sell big time. Americans kind of love seeing why the BRF are sketchy-after all we don’t see ourselves as them. We left. Secretly hope someone is working on it. Recently saw someone claiming the Cambridge’s having donated $22 mil to charities (based on a Murdoch owned story). I’m not a forensic accountant or lawyer, but looking at open 990’s for the American Friends of The Royal Foundation and the Royal Foundation annual reports-$22 mil is almost double or more (could be wrong) than what those reports show for the last 6 years. A lot of obfuscating language happens with the RF reports-even in tax returns they don’t specifiy who received what-it’s languaged as anti-poaching, rhino, and support of the Royal Foundation initiatives. Clear as mud. People don’t know what a charity actually received until or if able to see what they’ve received in their own tax returns. If that makes sense. When Eden Confidential made a grand statement about Americans donating since H & M left, it took about 2 minutes to see that the number he was quoting was actually a cumulative number since 2015. What is a bid odd or curious? not really but somethings changed over the last couple of years for the Murdoch paper to shift lanes. Hmmm. This is from December 2019.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/14/americans-donate-big-to-british-royal-family-charities-which-skimp-on-their-cause/
Might be late to the show, but I’ve watched Ronan Farrow’s Catch & Kill series on HBO, finished last night. Really good. Don’t recall the poster that mentioned Showtime’s Gossip show-really interesting. Cindy Adams(New York Post) plays a big part-she admits and says why she was friends with Trump & Weinstein. Adams & Judge Judy are good friends-they are kind of funny.
The fun thing to see. In the 5th episode of Catch & Kill, about 5 minutes before it ended, they showed a tweet to Kaiser@Celebitchy (something like that). It was one of 2 shown. The person tweeting @ Kaiser was saying something about the women of wealth should have said something sooner. Maybe? Watching both Catch & Kill and Gossip a lot of people were scared to say anything about Weinstein and people working for/with him.
My respect for Ronan Farrow went up leaps & bounds-along with Megan Twohey & Jodi Kantor and the fact checkers who seemed to triple check (minimally) were very interesting & serious about their jobs. I’m mentioning that because a certain person with D&H as initials threated leagal action against Farrow & book stores selling Farrow’s book-especially in the US, Canada and Australia. It was mostly ignored because Farrow was covered by the legal department with what he wrote.
threatened legal, not threated leagal….typing too fast.
My favorite part is the “most powerful woman in Britain” comment. Literally had no idea who this person was until I read this article.
And in any case, wouldn’t the most powerful woman in Britain be the Queen?
Maybe at Royal Ascot or in their own minds? Grey men/courtiers have more power-being antiquated white men. Having the title of the most powerful woman in Britain is one of the last things The Queen owned with the 500 gazillion other things that were “hers”. At the end of the day, all the things claimed to be “her’s/hers”, makes The Queen out to be a pretty selfish, self-involved beyotch-not a leader of a country or Commonwealth countries.
It would be nice if the title of most important woman in Britain wasn’t awarded on the basis of who she is married to.
I have to admit I really like what she’s wearing in that top photo. What exactly is the angle here? Do these people feel threatened by Symonds and want to take her down? Honestly this sounds so convoluted and opaque that it’s not making much sense to me. Whatever she said about the royals , will wait if it comes out. Otherwise, not interested.
I have no opinion or feelings on Carrie. I don’t hate her, but don’t like her either. If she’s being used as a pawn, then I feel sorry for her, but I don’t really care. I feel like she’s well aware of what she signed up for.
The press are hoping for some sort of domino effect with the royals. I agree with kaiser, If they drop the tiniest bit of tea inadvertently , another publication might add something else inadvertently , then another and hopefully someone will burst the door open. Just like when the sun broke Kate’s feud with rose, then the daily heil added a sh*t ton of fuel to the story (although I don’t think they meant to do that) to deny it.
The press are impatient and are sitting ducks at the moment. They have a sh*t load of dirt on the royals and can’t use it.
The tabloids will try anything to deflect from the fact that a senior (or ex senior) royal is a lying rapist who thinks he’s above the law. Who cares if Carrie said they’re weird (or words to that effect). Sheesh.
They ARE weird.
They really are. I think it’s partly a result of previous generations all marrying their cousins and all that jazz.
It’s been hinted at for a while now, I’m surprised it hasn’t leaked. I imagine that threats of a lawsuit are what is keeping everyone silent and why everyone is freaking out about Harry’s memoir. IIRC it involves TOB.
Sorry,.. what’s TOB?
@Bumble: “the other brother,” meaning William. I don’t remember which one it was, but I’m pretty sure some publication referred to him as “the other brother” (which is hilarious, imo!) in an article, and it stuck.
Notice the fat penguin walk of both Boris and Charles. It must be a British old man thing. Sorry, but they should be going after Boris, not Carrie, for God’s sake. At least she cares about animals (and I’m not sure how the “she’s not supportive of other women” narrative actually runs). It’s a go-to “she’s a bitch” card. She doesn’t hold elected office: her fat penguin husband does. Sharpen your knives for him (symbolically, of course). As much as we all despised Melania, we knew who the true and rightful target was: her fat penguin husband. Distractions, people.
Very curious what the big news is that is “known” but not talked about. I agree with a poster above. It’s about the Cambridge’s. If I had to guess they are separated but it’s not talked about. Maybe TOB is actually living with the lawyer mistress. Kind of goes along with all these moving/house hunting
I’m stuck on the “can you image him…” game. Not to mention dumbfounded at the appeal of Boris to any reasonable woman… Never mind. Off to cleanse my brain somehow.
Carrie is a PR genius. If she let something out, rest assured that it was designed to advance her and Boris’ interests. Fascinating.