People: Prince Harry is done with Cressida Bonas, they won’t get back together


This week’s Star Magazine has a lengthy story about how Duchess Kate was the one pulling the strings on Prince Harry and Cressida Bonas’ breakup. The gist is that Kate still has a lot of “jelly h8r” feelings about Cressida’s sister Isabella, and in an attempt to not have a sister-in-law just one degree of separation from Isabella, Kate made sure to subtly torpedo Harry and Cressy. Honestly, the whole thing sounds like I wrote it. Did I? Did I get high and forget that I wrote an epic royal conspiracy for Star Mag?! Anyway, the story is nothing we haven’t heard before and discussed in detail. I do believe (as I always have) that Kate’s passive-aggressive fingerprints were all over the breakup (also known as “The Middleton Way”). Some of you disagree. It’s cool.

So, in the wake of Cressy and Harry’s breakup, most Bonas-loyal sources claimed that Cressida simply could not be contained and that Harry would come running back to her because he’s a drama queen who loves the breakup-and-makeup cycle. But People Mag has a different take. And considering they broke the split story, I’m taking this version more seriously:

On a special evening marking the 10th anniversary of his charity, Sentebale, it would have been poignant for Prince Harry to have had a companion by his side. After all, girlfriend-until-10-days-ago Cressida Bonas did join him at a charity event in London in March.

But despite reports and rumors that the prince, 29, and Bonas, 25, may meet to discuss the rekindling of their two-year relationship, sources close to the couple say it’s over.

“She is a lovely girl, and a beautiful girl, but this has run its course,” a friend tells PEOPLE. “It wasn’t to be.”

It has been a difficult week for Bonas since news of their split broke. While she was spotted commuting to and from her office job at Mubi, the online movie company based in London’s Soho, Harry was in the U.S., catching up with old friends at his pal Guy Pelly’s wedding. His weekend began with pool parties in Miami before he headed to Memphis, to join brother Prince William and other guests for the two-day bash. He was in “good form,” a friend at the wedding tells PEOPLE.

A source close to the couple confirmed the split April 29, saying that it was “amicable.” The source added that Bonas was hoping to concentrate on her career – a hint that she perhaps couldn’t do so as a royal girlfriend.

“Cressida has been a bit wobbly about the whole situation for quite some time,” adds Majesty magazine’s editor-in-chief, Ingrid Seward. “Not about him, but about the whole situation and really if it is what she wants.”

A pal who studied alongside Bonas at Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance adds, “She’s just trying to figure out exactly what she wants to do, what niche [of dance] – there’s a lot to choose from.”

The breakup certainly seemed sudden, as the couple had been skiing together in Kazakhstan in March, and Bonas attended her first official function with him that month. But, perhaps as a sign of their growing estrangement, Harry quietly jetted off to Botswana with pals over Easter.

[From People]

Well well well. “She is a lovely girl, and a beautiful girl, but this has run its course.” Translated for the royal-speak, you get this: “She’s really pretty, she has a great body but she was too GD high-maintenance and ill-suited for royal life. He’s done with that.” And if he isn’t going back to Cressy, what does that mean? It means Harry might not even be in a relationship when he turns 30 in September. He’s going to be the most eligible bachelor in the world for a while longer. That should be fun. Seriously! It always interesting to see the girls Harry goes for. I really do wonder if his next girlfriend isn’t going to be someone Duchess Kate knows and/or approves of.


Photos courtesy of WENN, Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

191 Responses to “People: Prince Harry is done with Cressida Bonas, they won’t get back together”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Alarive says:

    This girl gave up a possible career in dancing to go and do a “respectable” job in marketing. I’m happy she’s free. Harry will be fine. Twirl away Cressy!

  2. BeckyR says:

    Chelsy! Chelsy! Chelsy!

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      Let it gooooooo, lol

    • Bohemia says:

      I’m still not ready to let it go either, haha. Plus wasn’t she supposed to be at the Pelly wedding, too?

      • Liv says:

        She was on vacation with Cressida’s brother and her boyfriend. There were pictures and I think Cressida’s family leaked them.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Chelsy’s pics were leaked by Cressida’s family? What makes you say that??? No snark either I’m genuinely curious as apparently all the pics came from Chelsy’s social media.


        The press reported before the wedding that Chelsy was purposely not invited in order to avoid any potential issues.

      • HH says:

        @LS – That bit about Chelsy not being invited is rather interesting. So then, do we think the Percy wedding was awkward?

      • LadySlippers says:


        I have NO idea if it was awkward. I don’t think it was but perhaps the most recent bride and groom didn’t want more press created drama. Who knows? And who knows if the report that Chelsy wasn’t invited was true too.

      • Liv says:

        I believe that her family plays a role in this whole thing. I mean it’s very convenient that the pictures surfaced – Chelsy seems to be friends with Cressida’s brother, so I can imagine that they talked and planned to “leak” them to avoid rumors of Harry and Chelsy again. And I thought the pictures came also from her brother’s instagram. Anyway, it’s very suspicious that we never heard of her boyfriend before but when Harry and Cressida break up there are immediately pictures…

        I can’t decide if I believe that her mother pushed her to be with Harry like the press reported. I think she really loved him and is probably pretty crushed right now, but I also think that she’s not the carefree flower child we are made to see.

      • LadySlippers says:


        The pics of Chelsy actually came a week before the split and in in most reports — the break-up was more sudden than what people had guessed or expected. Even with the acknowledged problems that the two were experiencing.

        My guess is she probably didn’t push her daughter. She dated Charles herself (more of a fling) and knows the circus that surrounds Royals. I think the ‘pushy mum’ is another press creation. Now, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t adverse to the relationship just that she wasn’t pushy.

      • LAK says:

        Liv: DM is always posting pics of Chelsy and her latest boyfriends post Harry break up for years now.

        This particular set of pictures stands out because not many people realised that Cressida and Jacobi are friends with Chelsy and have been for a very long time.

      • LadySlippers says:

        To further what LAK said.

        Tumblr has a few blogs that go out of their way to post both Chelsy AND Cressida’s pictures they illegally acquire from both women’s social media sites. Which isn’t cool at all.

        There are people quite determined to paint any and every person associated with the Royals (and other public people) with a negative spin.

      • Liv says:

        Well, well, I give in! ;-)

        Just kidding. I thought Harry and Cressida split about a week before the news came out? That would make sense then, wouldn’t it? Whatever. You two are better informed about the Royals than me, so I totally believe you. I still have a feeling, like I said, that Cressida and her family are not that carefree like they want us to believe.

      • LadySlippers says:


        No, according to all reports they split shortly before we heard about it and just before taking off to the US.

        I also can’t speak for LAK but I don’t think she and I are saying the Cressida’s side doesn’t tip off the press periodically. But that doesn’t mean they were ‘all up in Cressida’s business’ either. Most families aren’t like that — even ones dating Royals (most aristos run from dating Royals, that includes Cressida’s mother AND older sister. If not one but *two* family members refused to date a prince — why would a third be coerced into it????).

        When it comes to public personalities, always remember the press has an agenda of their own — especially with Royals. This often trumps whatever truth is contained in the story.

        For example, the press is desperate is hold on to Chelsy because turning her into ‘the one that got away’ or ‘Harry’s Camilla’ sounds romantic and sell stories. That’s why we still get ‘updates’ about Chelsy’s life regardless of her involvement in Harry’s. In reality, there’s not much factual evidence he still pines for her day in and day out. If he seriously did that, how many women would date him for any great length of time? They wouldn’t. His status as a prince AND that would chase them off pretty quickly (in his own words plus various other princes have stated that most women don’t find dating a prince appealing. That is a fairy tale in and of itself).

        The press wants to sell papers. That’s their target goal and they’ll slant stories to do just that. The rest is just gravy. So we hear about things that have probably been exaggerated or made up — even if the facts or quotes don’t ‘support’ the story they want.

        I’d just keep that in mind when reading stories about the press when it comes to Royals.

  3. HappyMom says:

    I said from the beginning she wasn’t suited to be a royal. He really needs to pick someone lower on the socioeconomic scale like Kate. Anyone in his “group” doesn’t want the hassle-they already have all the perks. Someone who will be thrilled to dress up, cut ribbons and make small talk while smiling all the while.

    • kay says:

      “someone lower on the socioeconomic scale like kate” Kates family are self made millionaires. im sorry but i think that is rude. and as far as anyone in his group not wanting the hassle, you mean no one in his group wants to take the responsibility to represent the monarchy.

      • kay/lv says:

        above is kay/lv

      • HappyMom says:

        In the US, the Middletons would be respected for making their money. In the UK aristocrat world you’re deemed worthy by who your ancestors were. In that regard, the Middletons are not “higher class.” I’m not being rude-I’m stating a fact.

      • FLORC says:

        You have to understand there’s a lively class system at work here.
        Old money and new money are actual indicators to personality.

        Yes, The Middleton Mother Carole (and her brother Gary) are self made millionaires. Even though their books are closed and finances are quite sketchy.

        And those in the royals circle did not want the job. Prime reasons why girlfriends came and went with William and Harry was simply they didn’t want the man or the job. They had the titles and lifestyle. And if love could overcome those factors Both William and Harry would be with different women. Kate came from a lower level of wealth and social respectability of a sense. A title did play a role.

        I guess, In short, HappyMom is not being cruel, but is quite correct.
        Except for 1 thing. In the USA the Middletons would be about as respected as any relaity tv family that puts their fame on who their daughters sleep with with.

        I must be very bored.

      • bluhare says:

        FLORC!!! If it takes boredom to bring you back I don’t care. YAY!!

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Personality is a latent independent variable. Money acts upon it. It is not causal, only a catalyst or an exacerbater. A jerk will be a jerk. If he has old money he is just an old monied jerk. Prince Andrew, anyone? A person with a noble heart will exhibit those characteristics regardless of the family bank account. Florence Nightingale, for instance. Money can hide a multitude of personality defects, or gloss them over. But it’s the status that old money confers that make the people who have it appear to be so magical and special. No thank you. I will take each person on an individual basis.
        Having said that it is sooooo great to see you! I missed you a lot.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        By your reckoning lower class= grateful for the status elevation and therefore thrilled to play dress up, wear tiaras, cut ribbons and make small talk at charity functions.
        And on the other hand, aristocratic girl= already has wealth and status so why take on royal duties and the headache that come along with them.
        It is quite possible that lower class girls love their country, aren’t that keen on being a dress up doll and derive fulfillment and true meaning from patronizing worthy causes. It is also possible that an aristo girl might not see the royal life as a pain but simply feels no love/attraction for the royal in question.
        It is true that Kate’s miserable showing can and has influenced the broader conversation here. But sweeping class generalizations do no one any favors.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Class had very little to do with why William ended up with Kate. That line has been repeated so often no one even looks at the facts anymore. William’s other relationships didn’t work out for individual, specific reasons. But overwhelmingly it was due to his unwillingness to be faithful, not class. Kate looked the other way. That had more to do with her personality not her class or social standing. The aristo girls William dated or pursued found him to be a cad. Trust me, they would have gladly tried on the glass slipper and all the responsibilities that came with it if William had treated them better. They simply had more self respect, not more status.

      • Ronia says:

        the way most aristocratic children are raised has a lot to do with this mentioned self-respect which Kate lacked. So, Dame Snarkweek, you are arguing that it doesn’t matter but at the same time you give one reason why it does. I said it before: no matter what other people think, aristocratic children are raised with a sense of belonging to somewhere where not everyone is allowed and it gives a very firm self-confidence. Naturally, with some it turns into arrogance but that’s already a personal thing. The positive side is the self-confidence and self-respect which come with the upbringing. (of course many parents raise their children in such a way but here I give it as an example why aristocratic girls would have more difficulty bearing with William’s lack of proper manners or attitude)

      • LadySlippers says:


        Diana never felt like she belonged. And she was firmly an aristocrat that suffered from low self esteem. She is by far NOT the only aristo that had/has issues.

        I stand with Snark on this. Class and SES (socio-economic status) has some bearing on a personality but it’s hardly the only one and not even the most important one. Genetics, by far, is the most important factor followed by other things.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Water is wet but everything that is wet is not water. Kate lacked enough self esteem to avoid a boyfriend with a wandering eye. The fact that she was middle class and not aristocratic doesn’t mean that those conditions caused her lack of self esteem. Your premise would not work empiracally because there are too many other variables that comprise personality and character.
        Princess Diana’s older sister was an aristocratic blue blood who let Prince Charles walk all over her. Camilla Parker Bowles was a blue blood and she threw herself desperately at Michael Parker Bowles until he married her. She didn’t even consider Charles as a serious possibility until it was crystal clear that Michael was never going to be faithful to her.
        Olivia Hunt was from the ‘right’ family and she was perfectly willing to be with William anytime he came home from school for holidays and summers – regardless of whom he was officially dating.
        Even the Queen Mother, Scottish nobility, carried a long and obvious torch for David (Prince of Wales) until he made it painfully clear to her that it was never going to happen.
        And this doesn’t begin to cover the lliterally thousands of examples of old money, privileged children growing up racked with insecurities, psychoses, substance abuse issues and non-existent self esteem because they were given everything *but* love and security.
        Unfortunately, all too often upper crust girls are raised to see themselves as prizes to be politely handed off to the highest bidder after their coming out party. Is that any way to foster self esteem in young women?

      • LadySlippers says:


        Pssst, it’s *Andrew* Parker Bowles that Camilla chased.


      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Aaargh lol. Oops.
        Who in hell is Michael lol?

      • bluhare says:

        That’s an interesting point, Ronia. Hadn’t looked at it in those terms.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Kate, Pippa and James were raised in the same household with the same parents. By all accounts Pippa is bold, outgoing, confident and basically conceited. If her parents” humble beginnings were supposed to give her low self esteem and a doormat mentality then somebody forgot to tell her or her tight circle of friends. Society may have looked at the Middleton sisters as outclassed but their parents raised them to naturally assume that they were amazing and worthy. Kate seems to be the only one who lost this quality along the way.

      • LAK says:

        In support of happy mom and Ronia’s POV, i give you this article that explains the issue clearly. it’s not a money issue, it’s a class one. these two things are completely different and aren’t equal though money helps to grease the wheels so to speak.

        FYI: Taki is a socialite who is friends with royals and married to one. This magazine is his social commentary, and i believe what he has to say because he plays with royals. not just at soirees, but come back to my backyard for bbq – royal edition.

        William AND Charles both had the same problem when it came to marrying. Women of their class simply weren’t interested in the added stresses of being royal when they had the money and the lifestyle already.

        As Lady Jane Wellesley famously said when she the idea of marrying Charles was put to her,’I don’t want another title—I’ve already got one.’ She’s the Duke of Wellington’s daughter.

        anyone who thinks class isn’t an issue clearly doesn’t understand the problem.

        all the examples given are exception and appear in all manner of people whatever their class. Diana’s problems started from the fact that she was born a girl when her parents would have preferred she be a boy. right there, no matter who you are or how much money you have, problems with your self esteem will arise if your parents can’t hide their disappointment of your gender. And that’s before you factor in all the other problems. all the Spencer kids have emotional problems borne of poor parenting. That had nothing to do with class although class did magnify the problem.

        For every shitty Spencer parent, i’ll give you a divine Devonshire [BTW: Cousins of the Spencers] who raised their kids right as far as we know who have thrived. marriage was also great.

        Aristos are brought up to belong. Others wobble because they are too concerned with fitting in. again, it’s not a money issue. it’s an inbred attitude. it’s the reason Mrs Hyacinth Bucket [can't remember the TV show] is so funny.

        Dame: Arabella Musgrave, NOT Olivia Hunt.

        Arabella dated William until he went to St Andrews and chucked him over a combination of distance and cheating. Olivia Hunt was escoused at St Andrews and was next in line, but only briefly before he moved on.

      • LadySlippers says:


        There are way way way too many factors that go into someone’s personality and class alone isn’t going to account for it. There are literally hundreds and thousands of scientific studies that point otherwise. Genetics (nature) has proven by and far, the largest contributing factor. Nature, which class is *merely* one aspect, is just not as powerful as nature.

      • LAK says:

        LS: i know, and that is why i said all types of issues manifest no matter who you are, but i wasn’t talking about personality.

        Further, the discussion is about class not personality. all your examples are personality examples rather than class ones.

        To be clear, class is a nurture thing rather than a nature or personality thing.

        To use hyperbole, if you are raised with the thinking that you are a master of the universe whatever the situation, you will always have that attitude. Others will have to adapt to you and not the other way around. Personality issues will still be apparent, but that attitude that you belong and are a master of the universe will also be apparent.

        the example i gave of Diana is a classic one. despite her personality issues, there are many examples where she pulled the class rank. not as PssOW, but to show others that she was an aristocrat and not some ran of the mill girl of no consequence. eg to the American lady whose child she nannied, to the Fayeds despite partaking their hospitality, to Sophie who she was less than kind to simply for being a lesser class than her.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Arabella dated William openly and ended the relationship because of his wandering eye. Olivia was with William under the radar, including the Jecka overlap period. Her father was strenuously against the relationship. He once openly dressed William down yabout being inappropriate after he caught his giggling daughter sitting on Willam’s lap at a party.r

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        The argument put forth is that class gives confidence and self esteem because those with money and social standing are raised to believe that they are part of a world few people can belong to. Many examples were given to show this is not a given. Class doesn’t completely ensure very much of anything. Your response is to use Diana as an example of what can go wrong due to poor parenting. Isn’t that proving that class and social rank are insufficient to guarantee self esteem and a sense of security/belonging? It proves what LadySlippers said: personality/character development is the result of myriad factors, with class being an influential but hardly the sole determinant. This is pure, empirical science/sociology not popular or anecdotal observances.

      • LAK says:

        Dame: several things:

        1. I posted Arabella Musgrave because your earlier comment was describing Olivia Hunt as the ‘back home’ girlfriend.

        That was a correction of your earlier post.

        2. Both you and lady slippers keep bringing up personality issues when talking about class and I keep saying a person’s personality will be what it is whatever class they are. You bring up examples of Diana and QM’s personality issues and self esteem as proof for your theories and I am debunking those by saying whatever issues they had, Diana especially, were due to poor parenting NOT class. Further I bring up examples of moments that despite those same issues, she was confident enough in her class upbringing to pull rank on people who assumed she was a girl of no consequence.

        3. So to repeat Ronia’s point, aristocrats bring up their kids with the confidence of belonging, BUT (my larger point) their personality is still in there somewhere. And will manifest even as they present their class front. Diana is a very good example of this.

        4. You keep bringing up issues of money and I keep telling you that it’s not about money. It’s a caste system. If it was about money, the billionaire Ecclestones would be aristocrats, they are not.

        5. I will say this again, Class is a NURTURE thing. One isn’t born fully formed of a particular class, one is molded into one. That is my point.

        6. Poor parenting is exactly that. It has nothing to do with class.

        7. Finally, I use popular anecdotes because those are familiar to everyone on this board. Using obscure or esoteric anecdotes doesn’t make my point anymore interesting.

      • bluhare says:

        Thanks, LAK. I totally understand your point. So basically, even though the Middletons are a happy family unit, have a lot of money and raised three fairly well adjusted children, they will never be in the upper classes without some help. Even with Kate married into the BRF, they’re still middle class. The only thing that will elevate them is a title. A hereditary title, correct?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        We consistently bring up personality because self esteem doesn’t form in a vacuum. You yourself have seperated class and personality and, indeed, you should. But that leaves the focus of the development of self esteem squarely in the arena of a variety of influences, not just class. Not even class, primarily. And if you insist that class and.personality are separate then what makes class the determinant in gaining self esteem? and if class is so crucial to the fostering of proper confidence and a sense of self worth then why can’t it overcome the effects of disastrous parenting and a horrible upbringing? Why can’t class trump the hundreds of other variables that create self esteem? Because class is not as much of a heavy hitter as some people believe or need it to be. Ronia states that girls from aristo families are raised in environments that equip them with confidence and self esteem. This is simply not a guarantee. Class is not enough.
        As for being obscure or esoteric, I don’t know. CB readers are a hell of an intelligent lot. ;)

      • LadySlippers says:


        All the examples listed have been personality based traits which aren’t indicative of class. That’s why I focused in on personality.

        Even the things you describe aren’t indicative of someone’s SES (socioeconomic status). Any community can provide one with a sense of belonging. That can start with something as small as your family of origin or as big as the community you come from.

        Plus, someone can ‘pull rank’ on any number of society valued traits — SES is only one of them. Height, physical attractiveness, intelligence, talent, etc., etc. are all attributes that we value and create a hierarchy of, thus allowing someone to ‘pull rank’.

        And what you describe (rather subjectively) is the fact that SES or class creates recognisable social morays or rules that fosters a mutual understanding. That is true, but again, a community can achieve that as well.

        So everything that has been talked about aren’t actually attributed to class alone. It’s mitigated by quite a few other factors and that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along.

      • Ronia says:

        Lady Slippers, I beg to differ. Diana walked out of an unhappy marriage. I know many women who are unable to do that because they lack self esteem. To me it’s enough to know Diana was aristocrat enough and had the same upbringning I know. If you’re focusing on exeptions though, they exist in every group of people. However, I don’t think Diana was such. She was just too young when she married and yet, she showed tons of self esteem both as a public person and as a family member, as a mother and as a woman.

      • Ronia says:

        Dame Snarkweek, the problems you state exist in equal numbers in non aristocratic circles, so I don’t see a point here. And I’ve never said being an aristocratic woman is a guarantee for happiness. I just pointed out that the way we are raised, the subtle mentions here and there of certain things or people, creates with the time a sense of exclusivity, if you wish. For better or worse (both are existent) it does build a self-esteem which may turn itno arrogance if not checked. Same with private schools whcih I observe on a daily basis. The belonging to an exclusive circle does add to the self esteem and again, if not checked, easily turns into arrogance. Note that being an aristocrat myself, I am never defining this or that as good or bad. I simply give one reason why for a typical aristocratic girl to bear with William’s ups and downs would be a greater compromise with herself and with all that her head has been filled with.

      • Ronia says:

        LAK, thank you for this: “Aristos are brought up to belong. Others wobble because they are too concerned with fitting in. again, it’s not a money issue. it’s an inbred attitude. ” Exactly.

        And no, nothing to do with money, really. Because many aristocratic families in Europe were poor. around the times when in many countries peerage was destroyed and land was taken away, so what money??? People just create some fantasies and live in them. But class does exist and I personally wouldn’t destroy it and my children are raised the way I was. It seems to me here, on a predominantly US blog, many readers take it personally and like “monarchy versus our republic” which is funny and far from the truth. Oh, and naturally aristocrats are bad, bad, bad. We know, we know. :) )))

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Diana suffered terribly from poor self esteem, anxiety, loneliness and low self confidence, despite being raised as an aristocrat. The poise and confidence you speak of came with a tremendous amount of determination, practice, having her own children, widening her circle and making a difference in the lives of others. And even with this, she was privately plagued with bouts of insecurity, self doubt and desperation. These feelings often caused her to act out in ways that caused herself and others great pain.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I could not disagree with you more.

        I walked out of an abusive marriage with NO self esteem left. If I would have stayed — I would have ended up dead (no joke). My children also have nothing to do with their father as he was abusive to us all.

        Domestic violence crosses all socioeconomic barriers and women stay and/or leave for a multitude of reasons. Diana had a support system but it was self created as is mine. The aristos were part of her problem too — which was why she fought the system (made up of aristos) so ridiculously hard is because she saw what happened to her own mother.

        Support systems are not a class indicator but are important for anyone to accomplish goals. Diana had a support system which allowed her to successfully leave. I can list plenty of examples where women stayed even though from the outside, circumstances were almost identical to Diana’s.

        •LAK, Ronia, and Florc•

        Everything you’ve brought up has some degree of correlation to class but class isn’t its cause. What you all are confusing is a statistical rule that every social scientist learns from day one of psych 101 (and repeated ad nausium in each subsequent class). And that is:

        Corrolation does not equal causation

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I appreciate you sharing your personal experience. What you’ve experienced is real and true for you. But generalizing your experience to the full scope of human experiences doesn’t work. If the class you were born into gave you a feeling of worth or confidence you give class too much credit. What conveyed that sense? People who instilled certain values to you and encouraged you to see yourself and the world around you in a certain way. That is wonderful but people do that, not class. Experiences and exposure to life events reinforce or oppose those views. Classism can’t work unless people believe it. My nieces attend a private, parochial school. Within their own circle of friends I sincerely doubt you would be able to tell which girl was from an old, blueblooded family and which one was from “new money” or even plain old middle class. I have watched those children grow up and develop over the past 8 years along with my nieces and you really would be surprised at what has the biggest effect on self-confidence and a sense of worth and belonging.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        “Aristos are brought up to belong. Others wobble because they are too concerned with fitting in…”
        Lol. It would have been great if there had been a distinction made here. There are aristos, there are those who want to fit in with them and then there is everyone else.

        you keep stating how being raised as an aristo gives girls a sense of confidence because they are part of an exclusive world. Okay, we get it. But where you consistently err is when you bind self esteem to class. You have said that aristo girls, unlike lower class ones, would find it extremely difficult to put up with William’s crap because they are raised to have self esteem.

        Despite that premise being laughable on a sociological, psychological and scientific level, it is arrogant and insulting to anyone not raised in “your” world. I also am surprised and a little amused that you would pull the ‘most Americans just can’t separate fact from fantasy – anti monarchists that they are, they just don’t get it’ card.

        Ronia, we get it.

      • bluhare says:

        I don’t think you get it. You’ve insulted Ronia six ways to Sunday too. Ronia and LAK were raised in that world. Who are you to say that they don’t get it?

      • LadySlippers says:


        Ronia and LAK are conflating and confusing their subjective experiences and making broad generalisations because of it.

        The very simple fact is: empirical and scientific evidence does NOT support any of their statements. This is not the time or place but I could literally post *hundreds if not thousands* of studies that show SES/class has very little to do with their assertions. Everything they’ve stated, in fact, is a lot more strongly correlated with other variables than SES/class.

        In fact, it was Ronia that made this an ‘us vs them’ statement and then asserting that Americans are living in a fantasy world. How is Snark
        responding to it bad?

        I am well aware both personally and academically of what benefits and downsides class bestows. I’m also certainly not a ‘republics are better’ person either.

        I take more offence at being lumped in with stupid/low class people when it’s not warranted.


        Do you have a psychology background as well? Is that why we are argueing from such similar standpoints?

        Confession: One day I want to get my PhD (probably in neuroscience or psychology). My classmates in my occupational therapy program thought I was NUTS! Lol

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Arguing points back and forth is what people do on these threads. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting them, although you already know that. To be honest, Ronia was the first one to make the argument about the failure of most Americans to understand the oh-so-elevated world of the aristocracy. Not to mention the parting shot that we don’t have enough sense to take every situation on its own merit, but no, we think all aristocrats are “bad bad bad”
        That is insulting.
        I guess this middle class girl isn’t supposed to have enough confidence/self esteem to speak up about it.
        So Ronia and LAK are from that world. That’s great and yes, that gives their observations authenticity and dimension. I never had any difficulty with that. But one personal experience, or two or two thousand etc don’t warrant generalizing the way it has been done here.

      • LAK says:

        LS/Dame: you 2 are making me laugh this sunday because it’s quite clear, beyond a shadow of doubt that you don’t know what class is despite all that book learning.

      • bluhare says:

        Nothing exists in a vacuum, except perhaps you guys’ inability to accept that LAK and Ronia might have a point. They aren’t saying it is the only reason. They are saying that it is part of the reason.

        This is truly an exercise in futility, though. Have fun.

      • LadySlippers says:


        So LAK you’re telling me that social scientists in your own country are equally wrong? They also, clearly, have no idea as to what class is either? Even though they, like you, live in it an breath it just as much as you? And, unlike you, study it scientifically?

        Hmmmm. Interesting.

      • LadySlippers says:


        No, Blu they don’t. They are trying to assert that class CAUSES a number of things. And it doesn’t. It’s pretty simple.

        If they phrased and/or worded their statements differently it might be an altogether different matter. However, they aren’t. And as is — they are wrong.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Actually, LS and I were the ones trying to point out that class is only *one* of countless variables that affect the development of self esteem/confidence. You sort of got it backwards there.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        It is too bad that decades of important scientific research about class, socioecinomic rank, character development and epidemiological findings pale in comparison to your personal experiences. I guess I have wasted my time on ‘book learning all these years.
        And I suppose you really believe I don’t understand class – but I do *try* to display it.

      • Ronia says:

        Lol I admit we were all intelligent people. First of all, I can not word my responses better because English is jot even my second language, it is my fourth. Accept my apologies for that. Second, it is disappointing to see you twisting my words like that. I indeed stated it was only one of reasons and I statef it two times. And third, it is very sensitive for Americans, this thread confirms it. But, obeying tolerance, everyone has the right to exist as they are. I am far from ever being offended or my opinion changed on a topic wjich I lived not theoritized on an internet blog, so feel free to twist my words further. :)

      • Ronia says:

        Ah, the scientific research knocked me down, Dame, I leave you the battle field, as it was said. But when I yry to share experience in relation to a thread, it is mot my own only. Namely due to the fact that this bad bad arisyocratic circle is so close and closed, we all know what is going on inside it between our families. Therefore, I stand by my words about the upbringing and self confidence as an observer of my circle and the circle in my pansionate (boarding school to you I think).

      • Ronia says:

        Bluhare, thank you for actually reading my thoughts.

        Dame Snarkweek, I read your second post and I find it very sad that you had to take my phraees out of context, purely changed them into something I never said and added yo them your own very unpleasant to me meanings. It says more anout you than about me though. When uou habe the time you may acyually read what I wrote, unbiased if possible ay all. Very sad, indeed.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I took each of your statements in the spirit in which they were intended. No more, no less.i argue the merits of whatever conclusions I have arrived at within a debate, but one thing I never have is a hidden agenda or a platform that can only be supported by intentionally misrepresenting the words of someone who disagrees with me. That is not how I learned classical debate and that is not my style. Absolutely nothing else to say here, I think.

      • Ronia says:

        No, it’s obvious classical debate was not learned as it requires, reading, understanding and respect. Personal issues should not be allowed to cloud judgement which is not the case here. Good luck eith holding the palm branches of this very “classical” but not classy debate. Enough is enough.

    • sienna says:

      I totally agree with you. When you already have money and status it is much easier to marry into a rich family where you can shop all day without the public wondering wtf you are doing.

      With Kate she has the money, but she needed the marriage to bring up her family’s social status.

      It’s not rude at all, you will find it is very true if you have ever travelled in the those monied UK circles. I

      • kay/lv says:

        im sorry I still find it rude and those monied circles aren’t so monied.. you are right I don’t understand as to why kate needed the marriage to bring up her familys social standing. basically what you are saying is kate needed the marriage to get “a title”.

    • MinnFinn says:

      I agree HappyMom. Your statement is not rude, sadly it’s true. The BRF and aristos do consider Kate low class.

      Proof of Euro-royals preferring non-aristos or perhaps in their minds being forced to settle for middle class mates is that many in Harry’s age group (25-35 age) seem to have done that. Fred from Denmark married Mary, a college professor’s daughter. The Swedish princess married her personal trainer. Zara Phillips, although she’s not a working royal, married a football player. Zara’s brother Peter married a waitress from Canada.

      • HappyMom says:

        MinnFinn: Peter’s wife is a university grad who was working in marketing though-not a waitress. But you’re right-definitely not in that strata of British aristocrats.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        It is shocking, I know, but even royals can marry for love/compatibility.

  4. blue marie says:

    Like, never ever?

    • HH says:

      Hahaha! That’s what came to mind. Oh Swifty. A song for every relationship occasion.

    • LadySlippers says:

      This made me laugh!


      • wolfpup says:

        Lady Slippers, I don’t want to just butt in here, but I followed the link you posted about the coat-of-arms from the previous article on Harry/Cressida. My goodness, it just makes me feel like British society is so much more complicated than I ever imagined. I really try to wrap my head around it, but it seems very complicated to me. It’s hard to imagine that wealthy people have so much control, such as the house of lords, openly powerful due to (at least previous) wealth. It is such an ancient struggle between the the haves and the have nots. Thank you for that link. Remember that I am just learning, so please forgive any blunder.

        I’m not naive as to believe that the wealthy do not rule pretty much everywhere, however concealed. I think that what is so difficult for me is the idea, that by mere birth, an individual is considered, not just privileged, but superior. Please hold out on the criticism of me (I’m new at posting and was jumped down the ying-yang once before, and so I’m very cautious of giving my opinion), but isn’t this a type of *racism*?

        Also, wouldn’t the BRR be the bedrock of this type of government and economic system? If so, it seems to me that the BRR will not be going away.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I’m in your camp. The aristocracy/nobility get away with being treated like superior beings because those outside their class believe, endorse and perpetuate the myth. I have never been able to understand that. I know there are lots of people with social standing and family wealth that I will never have. Okay, fine. But to actually believe that those same people are *better* than me is laughable. Especially when I have read and observed enough to know how most of them actually accumulated that wealth. Not to mention the often shocking, sad truths of their private lives behind the dazzling facade. Not always a pretty sight.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Blunder? What blunder? I genuinely ask as I honestly see no blunder. Learning and the pursuit of knowledge are things (in my mind at least) very noble pursuits. Always.

        To answer your questions though, privilege and ranking goes hand in hand in any patriarchal society. And British society is very firmly a patriarchal one. I also wouldn’t label it as racism like you did. However, classism certainly fits and is the better word to describe what you want. It still sucks whichever ‘-ism’ word you prefer. (In the US racism is more of a factor and social psychologists are trying to tease out which plays a bigger factor — class or race. No easy answers either)

        But please don’t think we republics escape classism because the truth is — we are just as guilty of it except it’s not as transparent. The US prides itself on being a meritocracy however we have less socioeconomic movement between classes than the UK does. Sad but true. Education, once heralded as the ladder to move out of the socioeconomic status you were born in, is steadily becoming something only those with money can afford.

        You’ve just tapped into part of the reason the BRF probably isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Hierarchy and ranking is deeply imbedded into their culture. As it is in ours.

        If you’ve been in CB Royal posts the ones that struggle with the hierarchy the most don’t come from people that live and work in republics. No, we too are used to the ranking of people because we see it everyday (much like people in the military just get used to all the ranking and associated protocol). The ones that really struggle with it are from the former communist countries. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed seeing their posts (both royal and non-royal) because it shows a radically different viewpoint than what most of us are accustomed to. And I think that’s the kinda large shake-up a society needs to change perspectives. However, most cultures, even communistic ones, have some kind of patriarchal rankings. So perhaps it’s just something we have to come to terms with. I honestly don’t know. That sucks too.

        I cannot fathom how stupid, intangible, and immutable things can determine a person’s — but it does.

      • wolfpup says:


        Possibly you are right that the problem is located in patriarchy. This could be defeatist, if left as an assumption of societal life. (For example, that our governments cannot change to affirm everyone’s life). The women’s movement has done much good in the world. But I do not see the connection between patriarchy and classism.

        I am well aware of classism in society. I see it as a form of bullying.

        When I use the word – racism – I am trying to describe the seeming real belief that there are certain people who have special blue blood. I’m talking about imagination, and imagining, if you will, that someone is biologically superior. I don’t see classicism as accurately describing this phenomena.

        Resistance to factors that inhibit the full expression of individuality and the right to flourish will always seek expression. That is the good thing.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Defeatist! Yes that’s the word that I was trying think of while I was writing! Thank you!!! 😊

        Patriarchy is the basis of feudalism which is the foundation for any Monarcy and Military society that we see today. In socialology (and to a lesser degree — social psychology) this is fairly common knowledge. Men automatically rank things in order of importance (to them and key words are TO THEM). We see this all over the place too but never think to question it. For example,I In the military, there is a TON of junior enlisted in comparison to relatively few senior officers that run the show. There’s a lot of parallels elsewhere.

        That’s how the peerage/feudalism system was created too. Peasants on the bottom (by far the most numerous), trades people above, learned and landed gentry above that, then followed by knights and baronets (not quite peers but well respected), with the peers in the coveted top spot that isn’t the Monarch (ranked — of course — in ascending order: barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses, and dukes) just below the Sovereign. The Soveriegn is at the pinnacle (least numerous at one).

        That model is everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.

        As for ‘racism’ I get what you mean but I think it’s a quality that we imbue a great many people with — not just those with money. We give magical attributes to all kinda of people for all kinds of things. Catholic saints are said to perform miracles like Jesus. Certain artists and/or athletes are respected because of who their parents are/were and so on. So it’s not exclusively tied to SES (socioeconomic status) but can be. Whether or not any if it’s right is certainly open for debate.

        To be honest, we here on CB are mostly women and while we rank — matriarchies typically don’t rank in the same way patriarchies did/do. I think patriarchy ranking can be useful at times but often isn’t. And today’s societies use it way to much and it stifles personal growth and absolutely contributes to bullying.You and I are probably in agreement there.

      • wolfpup says:

        Lady Slippers, I love your name. You obviously have higher education, and state some statistics that are true, but not necessarily as set in stone as one is let to believe. Struggle is not only useful, but necessary. The Revolutionary War is a very good example of this. It is also true that the rich are getting rich faster than other classes currently, and the struggle against this has also definitely begun. The long struggle of the black man has been a huge struggle of character. What the women’s movement has done for women all over the world will continue, and women will eventually be seen as equal as determined by right of equal value. Because this is the truth of humanity, it will be so. We have to resist! We have to struggle! The bigger is not better (you and I know that because of the mere size of the men who used that fact to physically harm us).

        People are not better than other people. George is like every other baby, and would grow into any other adult, unless he was given education concerning a higher status. He’s a baby, he’s a dear…but so are all other babies.

        The use of rank is a fallacy. I understand the military uses ranking primarily so the soldiers listen to their commanders when they say to go to battle, when the normal reaction would be to run. This is pitiful, don’t you think? Do you think that our world will ever be immune to war? I believe that leaders are fundamental, but followers also need education. The drafters of the US constitution, realized that the common man needed education in order to choose their leader. To me, the very marvelousness of their philosophy, is that it allows the individual voice the attempt not only to be heard, but to find justice. Yes, it is a struggle, but we are allowed to try. That is the main thing.

        I personally see class, race, and sex as an evolutionary struggle. Man has occupied the earth for 10,000+ years. We are not finished. Dreams of equality, that is, that all men are created equal, will continue to be realized. The black man has struggled and resisted for hundreds of years. It may take a long time for this to be realized, but what greater gift can we give to the future for the evolution of man on earth itself? We are doomed if our vision is fatalistic to the powers that be. Generally, that would be money.

        That we imbue others with “special snowflake” status goes so far, even to religion, for those who tell us what is “true”. It started with shamans, and burial of the dead. I know that the truth of of the equality of man will be realized, only because it is the truth. Religions evolve, therefore, the struggle must continue.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I think you are thinking I support the facts just because I write them. It might be true for some things but not this.

        Patriarchy has a place in the world, yes, I do agree with this. But I also strongly dislike the fact that it’s also used to subjugate all kinds of others. I think everything, in moderation, is fine. Patriarchy is blindly used everywhere and with almost anything. Not ever a good thing.

        To further my point, war and conflict are almost a natural ‘state of being’ within a patriarchal structure. It’s just not the same for a matriarchal structure, as women (traditionally not influenced by men, however there are exceptions) don’t need to rank themselves and others in such a fashion.

        Subjugated people (regardless of gender, skin colour, ability, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) will continue to struggle and until we throw off the various forms of patriarchal structures, they will continue to do so.

        We all (everyone) have to embrace that everyone has worth, regardless of external or internal packaging, in order for peace and equality to permeate the world.

        PS~ My handle is a nod to my home state of Minnesota– one of the most liberal states in the union. A fact I’m very proud of (especially because I now live in a conservative state).

        I like your handle as well! I love hearing the reasons behind our chosen ‘names’. 😊

      • wolfpup says:

        Peace. I call myself wolfpup, out of respect for the impact that Clarissa Pinkola Estes’ book, “Women Who Run With The Wolves”, produced in me. It was sort of like a bible to me for years.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I will have to check out that book!!!!

        …and I also reflected on your education comment.

        The reason I see patriarchal elements everywhere is based on attending two all women’s colleges. One was very focused on empowering women within a very male dominated world. So once you could ‘see’ what you were up against, it allows you to fight differently. Plus, we got to see feminist and female power as a good thing and not bad (as traditionally presented). Does that make sense? I hope so. But that’s the reason. We talked about the influences of patriarchy in almost every class I had. I wouldn’t say that that experience is typical though.

        Pleasure chatting with you and I’m bound and determined to find that book! 😊

      • Ronia says:

        Wolfpup, if you understand the military yerarchy, uou sjould understand peerage too . If you remember in yhe distant past atistocracy was the army, to a big extend. The guard, the soldiers, those came all from the noble families mostly. Nearly exclusively. So, things were not as simplistic as “my blood color”. Thinking like that is not fair, in my opinion.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      He said he needed space. What?

    • Lori says:

      He likes a leggy blonde………make your move Swifty!

    • Christin says:

      That song started playing in my mind when I read the headline, too.

  5. MonicaQ says:

    How come people are shocked when 2 people break up with no twitter explosion, instagram splooge, or screaming fight like what’s going on below me right now? (I love working from home. And I’m being nosey and eaves dropping but it’s the human fishbowl.)

    • HH says:

      I work from home too. It’s nice but isolating at the same time. I wish I had fighting neighbors to entertain me.

      • Talia says:

        I have plenty of those, so feel free to spend the day at mine.
        My neighbours fight almost daily.

      • kcarp says:

        I work from home too and I think I spend my time reading and commenting on these boards as a means to have someone to talk to.

        I wish I had the action of neighbors fighting. Yoga pants are not your friend when you work from home, I know it feels like you are dressing up because you aren’t in your pajama pants HOWEVER you have no idea how much weight you are gaining.

  6. Cecilia says:

    I didn’t think this would work out. The media jumped the gun.. I just didn’t see any chemistry between Harry & Cressie. Cressie doesn’t seem very lively to me — looks a bit of cold-fish.. Don’t get me wrong…she is pretty but she seems to lack humor & I don’t think that would go over big with Harry.

    • aquarius64 says:

      I agree. The media was jonesing for another royal wedding. There was no rush for Harry – the line of succession was secured with the birth of George. And the way Cressida was/is carrying herself, combat boots and all, she wasn’t willing to go the royal route. And a lot of people (and some on this blog) thought Cressy’s pedigree made her perfect for the job. Bottom line – Cressy looks good on paper but she couldn’t cut it in the end.

    • HH says:

      Ahhhh, the chemistry! That’s the real mystery. Was the chemistry diminished because they didn’t want to attract public attention? Or was it simply not there? I just remember Harry and Chelsy being so affectionate and so open. Now, I want to know if he calmed it down by his own choice? Or because Cressie didn’t like it?

      • LadySlippers says:

        That IS the million dollar question.

        No idea either.

      • Cecilia says:

        You’ve brought up some interesting questions & angles. Let’s ponder.

      • HH says:

        I just kept wondering where it was? It’s what made me doubt their relationship was real until they had gone to a few of those plays together (without even a hint of smile on their faces). They were always pictured in a group, which is smart for trying to avoid rumors, but there were never any pictures of them interacting. I mean if your attempt to avoid the press goes so far that it’s unclear if you even enjoy each other’s company, isn’t that a sign? The chemistry between Chelsy and Harry was off-the-charts. I don’t want a Harry-Chelsy reunion; that relationship has run it’s course. That being said, I would like to see Harry with someone that brings that out in him again (if that’s what he wants).

  7. Tatjana says:

    I’m sure he has a great personality, but he’s not a looker, is he? If he wasn’t royal, I doubt those girls would even look at him.

    • SophiaJames says:

      He’s definitely a butterface but he does seem like a cool and sweet guy.

    • maybeiamcrazy says:

      He is tall, has wide shoulders and i find gingers adorable. I would totally hit it. Then again, i am not really picky.

      • Tatjana says:

        I love gingers. And all my friends say that my taste is weird ( I think Steve Buscemi is really cute, for God’s sake), but Harry looks so unniteresting.

    • HH says:

      I’ve said this before, but I think Harry is attractive, but it depends on certain angles. At times he can look perfectly divine.

      I never find him to be unattractive per se, but certain pictures really do it for me.

    • LadySlippers says:

      I think he’s very hot and that has nothing to do with his parents (or grandparents).

      • fairy godmother says:

        IMO I think it is his personality/charisma that shines through.

        I have to admit my first bf was a tall ginger- but more handsome than Harry. He lacked the warmth that Harry seems to exude although he was terribly mischievous and fun to be with! Guess there can only be one Harry.

        I wish him all the best in life now that he seems to have lightened up a bit and is smiling like his old self!

      • LadySlippers says:

        fairy godmother,

        I don’t know what Harry possesses but he makes me googly eyed at times. And he’s totally not my type. I wish I could explain it. Sadly, I’m just possessed…


      • Ronia says:

        Hot is the word. Animal. Masculine. Ah. :D

      • Liberty says:

        LadySlippers, I agree — he has that something something — nothing to do with his royalness at all. Just that extra sparkly sexy something!

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        This. Meow.

    • JennySerenity says:

      Gosh, I think he’s adorable. But as Kaiser and others have pointed out, Cressy just didn’t want (or need) to take on The Firm. I think she’s lovely as well and don’t blame her one bit.

      I think Harry is destined to go the route of his father. Charles was what, 32 when he married Diana? Plus, no pressure to wed as he is the ‘spare’.

  8. Talie says:

    Maybe he’ll finally follow his brother’s lead and go with a girl who wants to be on the come up.

    Granted, I think Cressida may regret this — you know her her mother is pissed. Another daughter blowing off a royal. Carole Middleton would’ve never let that happen! Ha!

    • aquarius64 says:

      Wait a minute – aren’t there stories that the Bonases are not as well off that they’re portrayed? That the family finances are not that solid? Maybe Cressy’s was on the come – up and Mom’s mad that she blew their chance for the family to come out of debt.

      • Talie says:

        There have been conflicting reports that they aren’t rolling in the money — but that is pretty common in the British aristocracy. Some of them just lean on a family name. But her sister married a Branson, so they can always get loan that way.

      • Ronia says:

        Not only in the British aristocracy. It’s hillarious how people who know nothing or our bank accounts assume and even conclude if we are rich or not. Amusing but often far from the truth. In terms of possibilities, British aristocracy is still at a better place because the land hasn’t been taken away from them which attributes a lot to their wealth but again, not each aristocratic family possesses enough land or has managed it well enough to live on it for generations. Add to this the usually many children and … it melts away.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Mary-Gaye blew off a Royal herself. It must run in the family!

    • Jegede says:

      I don’t buy the she did not want the life rewrite we are now getting
      The Bonas’ and their fans are reeling and rationalising

      This week’s HELLO Magazine which is a reliable but saccharine PR friendly British magazine straight up says two pals close to Cressida says its just a break.

      HELLO is like People no way would they print something if not fed. And they are following the comment narrative of the Mail, Telegraph who were panting for this wedding

      And its interesting they did not say “friends of the couple” or “inside sources” but write in black and white “friends of Cressida”.
      Clearly the Bonas’ talk to the press, very regularly, no matter how often some claim they shun it or are victims of it
      Watch till the Middletons are blamed

      • LadySlippers says:

        Hello, like People, is not always correct. They get stuff wrong too. Again, it’s a matter of evaluating all the evidence.

      • Jegede says:

        Not to me.
        I look at history, likelihood as well as evaluating evidence.

        And both People and Hello are solid in this track.
        Especially Hello who for 20 years have been called Buckingham palace’s mouthpiece.

        Were there similar questions of them being right and wrong in the 1000 other royal stories/ exclusives they have written in the past?

        Eventually you have to accept that Hello and People were fed stuff even if its not what you want to hear. Agree to disagree

      • LadySlippers says:

        Bonas fan? Not hardly.

        I don’t disagree that People was fed stuff. Clearly they put the wrong spin on it judging by the strong pushback from Harry’s camp. Again, I judge each article the same. Please see what I wrote down thread.

        And I’ve just been through the past two weeks of Hello’s articles and from what I’ve read — they had the same info as everyone else. No new quotes. And nothing that suggested or even said it was Cressida’s side or Harry’s side that leaked info. So which article(s) are you referring to? I’m genuinely curious.

      • Jegede says:

        Dunno which Hello you’re reading cause I did not make up what I read.
        I’m a Brit and have purchased Hello as long as I can remember and its leaps and bounds above the other UK celeb titles and is often PR sanctioned.

        As well as getting the royal exclusives info and pics: births, deaths, weddings

        This issue has Clooney’s engagement on the cover.
        The quotes are actually in bold in specifically mentioning a source “close to Cressida” not Harry, or friends of the couple but friends of Cressida as well as reporter Robert James.
        You’ll have to buy the issue

        And I don’t think People put a spin on things.
        Why would they need to when they were first out of the gate with the news?
        They were told what they were told, and then there was backtracking
        Again agree to disagree

      • LadySlippers says:


        The print and the digital issues/articles are different. Not surprising there but a tad frustrating! Lol

        US People’s most recent article stated they were finished which also contradicts the Hello article you mentioned (the online one has the scrubbed version).

        And many quotes even in the two pushback articles I posted before stated they might get back together. I think the most true statement concerning this was the one that said that (right after the split) neither Harry nor Cressida even knew if they would get back together.

        Obviously things might or might not have changed since then — I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they did get back together but I still don’t see them going the distance. They have dissimilar goals and that’s difficult to overcome for anyone.

      • aquarius64 says:

        I agree. The business about some aristos not wanting the royal life is bs. If that’s true, none of them wouldn’t care if a “commoner” married into the royal house. I think that why Kate gets this shade: they think only their crowd should have full access to a royal, including marriage. And considering the root rot that is on some noble family trees, they are in no position to look down on ANYONE. Count that as another reason some nobles don’t want the royal connection: the media will unearth their skeletons. The press would really dig when the engagement is announced.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Naw, I could list a ton of aristo women that have run from Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry. Its kinda a joke it’s that prevalent.

        However, just because the aristo women don’t want it doesn’t mean that the press (or the aristos themselves) aren’t going to make class directed jibes at those in the lower classes. What’s that about having your cake and eating it too?

        Also, the Middleton jokes wouldn’t be as prevalent if several things had turned out differently during the course of Kate’s relationship with William (I mean specifically the perception that Kate was willing to do anything to land William. Not saying it is or isn’t true — the perception she did is what is so damning).

        Case in point, Sophie is solidly middle class (not as wealthy either) and doesn’t have near the same put-downs that Kate experiences.

        Interesting fact: A lot of peers have married have ‘commoners’ (especially true at the lower end of the peerage). It’s stuffy and exclusive sometimes, but there is a joke that dukes still can marry showgirls for a reason.

      • Jegede says:

        @aquarius Agree with you 100%

        And if we are going by what stories to believe or not. The “William pursued but was turned down by Isabella” has been flogged for years by certain parties and accepted as fact despite there not being a scintilla of evidence to support it.

        And there were at least 2 other girls William was heavily interested in when he was apparently pledging his troth to Isabella. (One who lived in Kensington but she did not have the tabs on speed dial).

        There has been no analytical breakdown of the whys/hows or wheres of these stories

        Sophie did not get much put down cause she was marrying the Queen’s 3rd son who was far from throne, and a man considered a wet mop by the press.
        They would have gone in on her if she were set to wed the heir of the throne without being an ‘aristocratic English rose’ of the right stock

        Anytime negative stuff is written about Kate or the Middletons it’s the gospel truth and positive is Carole’s machinations.
        But the overewhelming praise and superlatives attached to Cressida and the Bonas’ are not proof of them playing the PR game but is simply tabloids coalescing evidence and coming to a truth. Huh?

        People interprete things differently and no one can convince me otherwise of this ‘coincidence’

  9. Reece says:

    Good grief the media sure is milking this dead cow aren’t they.
    *hums “Let It Go”*

    • aquarius64 says:

      The media is in deep mourning over the loss revenue a Cressy-Harry wedding would have brought it. It hasn’t begun its gossip 7 stages of grief yet.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I love this!

        Seven Stages of Gossip Rag Grief. It was preceded by Seven Steps to Sabatoge a Royal Romance (anything for a penny!).

        And they are to blame too for their own grief. Makes it all the sweeter. (I must be in a bad mood today lol)

      • Reece says:


    • Olenna says:

      Agree. Enough already. And, goodness gracious, he’s looking more and more like PC as the days go by.

      • bluhare says:

        Yeah, he needs to hurry before those Royal Genes kick in. The Spencers have done their best, but they’re losing now. ;)

  10. DaSariH says:

    I feel like she or her camp leaked that engagement rumors to pressure him and it back fired. They don’t have chemistry anyway.

    • kay/lv says:

      i frankly agree with what you just said. engagement rumors started last year when they went skiing with fergie in switz. i just want to know one thing? did harry actually propose? everyone keeps saying she isnt ready to get married. shes to much a free spirit, blah blah blah. i think the truth is she was never asked at all or did harry even hint at it. but everyone has their opinion. i also dont think kate had anything to do with this. i think its funny that anyone would believe kate would have any influence over harry

  11. A:) old prude says:

    I don’t think Kate have anything to do with the breakup simply because I think Harry is not at all close to her. He might talk to William about it sure but I really really doubt he goes to Kate for relationship advice or anything . Although I can see William advising him to dump Cressida multiple time, then act like a bachelor, hit on other girls , play the field, get back with her then dump her and so on., like he did with Kate. I get so frustrated when royal reporters try to put positive spin on the way Willy treated Katie, you know he was not being a cheating douche bag (and she wasn’t a desperate doormat) but just a responsible prince who was testing her and isn’t she great for putting up with all. They are such great role models!!!

    Am I the only one who is irked by this apparent overuse of ‘needy’ term here? It’s like George Clooney shading his exes. If you make any demand on your royal BF, don’t bend over backwards for him, be at his beck and call, change everything about your personal style and hobbies, let RF walk all over you and try to have any indication of a spine then sorry you are not ‘royal’ material. In every relationship both parties have certain expectations from each other and make demands. But it seems like if you want a prince to give what you want in a relationship then you aren’t ‘royal’ material because being ‘royal’ materials means serving your spouse and not expecting anything in return. Uh this line of reporting is making me want to smack Harry TBH and other the Nazi incident I never this way towards him.

    • bluhare says:

      But didn’t Harry come out immediately after the first “needy” story was published saying she wasn’t? Apparently being needy plays better for page hits on the interwebs.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Harry did come out and was quite assertive/angry over the word needy. Whomever used the term obviously isn’t close to Harry as that was clearly not an okay word to use.

      • A:) old prude says:

        Yes the ‘needy’ part was retracted but then later on it was replaced with ‘not royal material’. It’s a very British thing to do, insult people but do it so eloquently that the person being insulted even realize they are being insulted. Eg, ‘needy’ is a crass thing to say , the more eloquent way of shading someone is ‘not royal family material’ which is meant as a dig at her just like they meant to with needy but it’s more ‘polite’ thing to say. As I said it’s a very British thing to do and can be recognized by one very easily:)

      • fairy godmother says:

        I read somewhere Harry came out and denied it. Later I read it was from her camp. Does anyone know where it was actually reported the first time or link?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Both The Telegrapgh and The Daily Mail had articles that emphatically said that Harry was not okay with the term needy at all. They phrased the break-up by stating that the media frenzy stirred old issues that had plagued the relationship from the get go. The subtle digs didn’t come until after those two articles.

        I posted them right after the split.

      • bluhare says:

        LOL, oldprude. It’s not like the royals don’t have a seat at the bad behavior table themselves!

    • Ronia says:

      I was just going to write about the “Kare connectioN”, thank you for doing it! It’s funny to even assume Harry cares what Kate thinks. Harry, aside ffrom the writings especially for the public and aside from the carefully arranged and worded interviews for the public again, doesn’t give a s..t about Kate’s thoughts and opinions. It’s absurd to think that Harry would let Kate participate in his personal life. LOL

      I don’t think Harry listens to anyone. Even Her Majesty needs quite a bit of time to talk Harry out of an inappropriate relationship, everyone else is just ignored.

  12. The Original Mia says:

    Well that makes it official. They are done.

  13. Suze says:

    I believe they are dunzo…oh,well, on to the next blonde!

    I don’t think Duchess Kate had anything at all to do with it, either. I just don’t think Harry is particularly open to interference in his romantic life.

    I am old enough to well remember when his dad did the same thing – ran through one aristocrat after another during his twenties. Let’s just hope Harry take it in a different direction than Charles did and ends up with a better marriage.

    I am sure the media is in mourning – what a field day they would have had with a Harry/Cressida marriage. The drama! The toe rings! The scrunchies! The oft-married, oft-partying in laws. So sad, it was just not meant to be….

  14. vangroovey says:

    I’ll just head back into my fantasy world, now, where The Hot Prince ends up with Lupita Nyongo.

    • elisa says:

      Now that would be something and what beautiful babies they would make!

      Though I want something more for Lupita, of course, as she is my girl crush of the moment.

    • maybeiamcrazy says:

      It’d be hilarious if he hooked up with Lupita or another popular Hollywood starlet. Media would lose it. Internet would broke.

  15. Talia says:

    I am not surprised– the media were really trying to force this wedding to happen. I don’t believe they were ever as serious as the press made them out to be,– 2 years isn’t exactly a long time.
    And I still have doubts that they were together for 2 years as well, as I believe she only came onto the scene post-Vegas shenanigans.. Which was in August 2012.
    I’d say it was just over a year, maybe.

    • LadySlippers says:

      They might have been serious but not ‘almost engaged’ serious. Make sense?

      I totally agree about the dates too. My guess is they were casually dating prior to his deployment and went exclusive after he came back. However, I give Harry and Cressida tons of props for keeping this under the radar for what — 14 months? (Jan 2013 -Mar 2014) That had to be nice to allow their relationship to grow and do its thing without media speculation.

      • Talia says:


        I totally agree. I think it wasn’t official until just over a year ago, and like you said, most probably when he was back on UK soil.

        And yes, probably working towards becoming a more serious couple, but I guess it’s a question of how serious they could ever have been, if Cressida wasn’t interested in becoming a royal. If she had her reservations, I guess they were never going to be super serious.

      • LadySlippers says:


        Harry prior to his deployment said he didn’t want to get serious about a woman. Very common with military members. But, as strange as this may sound, very few actually like being single on deployments either. Deployments can be lonely.

        My guess is they both hoped something would change with time. Harry was (IMO) quite the gentleman allowing her to, hopefully, see the fishbowl wasn’t as bad as she imagined. Unfortunately, her views on his fishbowl never appeared to alter. Can’t say I blame her.

        My guess is this is a repetitive issue with Harry. I’d bet the women he dates probably like him a ton (not saying all the relationships and/or Harry is/are perfect) but the fishbowl a lot less. He’s got to find someone that likes him AND will put up with the Royal/media crap. A tall order that is.

      • Suze says:

        Harry should have all potential dates fill out a one question survey.

        Are you serious about the royal life? No?

        MOVE ON. Next!

        @LS – I agree. That is the very undramatic take on this whole situation, but I think it’s the truth.

        And for all the grief we give Duchess Kate around here about her work ethic, one thing is always true – she was, is, and always will be willing to take on royal life. She has not wavered.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I really think ALL couples should sit down very early in a relationship to see if they have similar and compatible goals. If they don’t, it’s just easier to break up then rather than wait months/years to see if they change. My divorce taught me that a good relationship is built on love and respect with equal footing given to similar and compatible goals. Love does not conquer all.

        My guess is Harry was okay with letting the relationship develop (as are a good many people). He might want marriage and a family but I don’t see him rushing headlong into it either. I agree though — he does need to find someone that isn’t as adverse to it as Cressida seems. And to be fair to him and her — he should find this out sooner rather than later. But Harry probably fears that’d leave him single though. Poor guy.

        Totally agree — whatever real or imagined faults Kate has, dealing with the fishbowl/gilded cage combo isn’t one of them.

      • Suze says:

        Oh, in my younger years I too did the “let’s wait for months/years to see if this develops in the direction we want” thing too. Now I’m too old for that nonsense. Harry may well be getting there – who knows?

        And, yep, dealing with the spotlight is not something Kate fears, and I say that in the non-snarky sense – not trying to say that she has exhibitionist qualities (which I know has been postulated here before).

        Oh, just listen to us being all reasonable here. I have been no fun lately on the royalty threads.

      • bluhare says:

        All right, Suze, I’ll try and roil things for you.

        I agree Kate does not fear the spotlight. She does, however, appear to fear actually doing something in it.

    • Suze says:

      Oh, Blu, it is to weep! And yes, it would be wonderful if our Duchess Kate would actually make use of her spotlight and platform.

      But she is still in “training”. You’ve heard of those 14 year training programs, right?

  16. Dame Snarkweek says:

    What in the world does Kate have to do with Cressida? Honestly. Not everything is an episode of Gossip Girl.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Where’s your avatar Snarky? Did you losted it?


    • kcarp says:

      If only it was. Kate would for sure be Blair while Cressida is for sure Serena.

    • kay says:

      seriously, eh?
      that kate sure has an amazing span of powers.

      • kay/lv says:

        oops i am a kay as well. i will change mine to kay/lv. im sorry if you have gotten any weird responses because of my posts, i have only been posting here about a month

  17. maybeiamcrazy says:

    If i was an important member of BRF and had that much money, i would never get married. As far as i get Harry’s heirs won’t make a difference for the throne anyway.

    • LadySlippers says:

      But a lot of people still want families and familial stability. That has nothing to do with The Firm.

      • maybeiamcrazy says:

        That’s why i started with ‘if i was’ . :) I never knew much about the firm before i get into gossip blogs pretty recently so i have no idea what he wants. He looks so cute though. Wish him the best.

      • kay/lv says:

        both the telegraph and dailymail have been reporting for a year that they were getting engaged. someone threw the term needy out there and someone shot it down. neither of which i believe harry had anything to do with.

      • LadySlippers says:


        I look at a variety of things before I determine the validity of the article. I had a professor in university that took a rail road tie to beat this concept into
        everyone’s head while evaluating articles.

        First, what’s the source? And who wrote it? Third, does the information support the thesis or hypothesis? Are there named and/or sourced facts or quotes? Fifth, how does the information provided compare to previous studies or known info?

        So using those criteria, the two articles I posted right after the split actually sounded the most true. Granted, both newspapers had put stuff out pushing an engagement but those articles were in direct contradiction to **quoted sources within the same article**.

        That in and off itself is a huge red flag. The vast majority of the quotes stated quite emphatically that Cressida was not at a point in her life that she wanted marriage at all — to anyone. But the authors ignored the quotes and wrote the contrary anyway.

        That’s why I’ve said this whole time that the press is pushing an agenda and not one Cressida or Harry agreed with.

  18. Joanie says:

    Some of these upperclass English girls look so old at such a young age.

    • TG says:

      I agree @Joanie – Cressy always looks like someone’s old and frail aunt or grandmother. If Kate would stop with the eyeliner I think she would look more her age. And Cressy’s sister who married the Branson isn’t aging well either.

  19. Bohemia says:

    Don’t really understand how Kate’s fingerprints are on this. Harry’s a big boy who makes his own decisions–why would he give a crap what his sister-in-law thinks?

  20. someone says:

    I think Harry’s next girlfriend should be American. That would bring a spark to the British Royal Family!

  21. Bread and Circuses says:

    Look at Harry’s face in that first photo, and then tell me that’s not Charles’ son. As the kid ages, the Windsor starts to show.

    Same shape of nose (not as thin as Charles’, however), same cheekbones, same chin, very similar eyes.

    • LadySlippers says:

      If you saw his Spencer cousin (George I think) you’d see the Spencer in him too. He and his cousins are almost twins they look so much alike.

  22. Suze says:

    I am pushing for Princess Theodora of Greece. She’s about his age – a year or so older – she’s blonde, she’s leggy, and she’s *relatively* used to royal life, albeit on a much reduced scale.

    Too bad she took off for Hollywood. But if she’s jonesing for a lifelong acting career, she could do worse than the British royal family.

    • bluhare says:

      I had to go look her up . . . she’s pretty and blonde and in line for the throne too. I imagine not so close that consangwhateverthehellitis would come into play. She must be related to the Duke of Edinburgh as well as the Windsors.

      • Suze says:

        I’m not as up on all the royal bloodlines as I should be,given the time I spend commenting on this stuff, but I think I read they were either fourth or fifth cousins, somewhere in there.

        Fun Fact: The queen and Prince Philip are third cousins.

  23. MlleJuliette says:

    I’m almost 30, Harry’s almost 30. We’re both single. It could totally happen. ;)

  24. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    Christie Brinkley would be the perfect ‘Uptown Girl’ for Harry.

  25. Heather says:

    Yes!! We must celebrate!!! Hopefully, Harry will marry a real sexy American goddess! And then, World Peace!