The Cambridges might delay their trip to Balmoral to avoid the Sussexes

Fiftieth anniversary of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales

Robert Jobson wrote an interesting piece for the Daily Mail about the Queen’s annual summer vacation at Balmoral, her privately owned Scottish estate. The Queen loves Balmoral. Other people…don’t. Diana absolutely loathed it, and while Prince Charles seems to enjoy being in Scotland, he prefers to spend time at HIS Scottish home, Castle of Mey. For years, William and Kate would avoid anything more than a brief visit to Balmoral, but since Meghan has come on the scene, of course the Cambridges are suddenly very keen to let everyone know that they plan to go to Balmoral for a nice long visit too. The Sussexes’ trip to Balmoral has been on the books for a while, and last year they even spent time at the Castle of Mey with Charles and Camilla (I would guess they have similar plans this year). While other sites are picking up Jobson’s story with an emphasis on the Sussexes and Cambridges, the actual DM story is about how the Queen will be quite busy at Balmoral as she hosts all of these people. You can read the piece here. Some highlights:

Andrew is already there: Prince Andrew arrived yesterday, mired in a fresh set of seedy allegations linked to the disgraced American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell yesterday while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. With Andrew was his former wife, the Duchess of York, who has been re-admitted into the Royal fold after years of exile. Yet relations with her ex father-in-law, Prince Philip, remain decidedly frosty.

Boris Johnson is invited: Balmoral’s courtiers have hosted countless prime ministers – and the mood is clear. As one told The Mail on Sunday: ‘We’ve never had a Boris before.’ The PM is traditionally invited to stay for a weekend in early September but Boris is set to break new ground – in more than one respect. Staff are also preparing to host Carrie Symonds should she choose to join him – the first time a British leader has attended with a partner who is not their spouse. Downing Street has refused to confirm whether the 31-year-old will attend but have also not ruled it out. Her presence is unlikely to pose a problem – as long as Boris refrains from wine-fuelled rows.

The Cambridges may delay their trip: It is understood William and his wife Kate may delay their trip until Harry and Meghan have returned to Windsor. The Duke of Sussex’s latest ‘woke’ outburst, in which he declared that he and Meghan plan to have only two children ‘maximum’ in a bid to save the planet, may well have irked the Cambridges, who already have three. What will have fuelled their disquiet, too, is Meghan’s stint as guest editor on British Vogue’s September issue. The Duchess insisted it would have been ‘boastful’ to appear on the cover – but failed to mention that Kate became the fashion bible’s cover star two years previously.

The Sussexes & Cambridges don’t even stay in the big house: If their stays do coincide, the families could easily avoid each other. The Cambridges and their children will stay at the three-bedroom former gamekeeper’s cottage, Tam-na-Ghar, in the grounds of the estate, which was a gift to William from his great-grandmother, the late Queen Mother. Prince Harry has chosen to take Meghan and baby son Archie to a cosy cottage on the Balmoral estate complete with log fires.

Where Charles will stay: Charles and Camilla stay not at the main castle but at Birkhall nearby, the former home of the late Queen Mother, who referred to it as the ‘little big house’.

[From The Daily Mail]

There’s more stuff about how Charles will probably have a lot on his plate with hosting duties, but that the Queen actually likes to do a lot of stuff when she’s in Scotland, including hosting and attending some of the bigger events. As for the Cambridges avoiding the Sussexes… I mean, clearly, they do not want to put on a show of togetherness if no one’s watching. What would be the point in that? Plus, as I said, the Cambridges practically had to be bribed to visit Balmoral for years before Meghan turned up. Now they’re all about their Future King and Future Queen cosplay. LOL, I hope Meghan and Harry stay up in Scotland for a full month – wouldn’t that be great? Spend time in Balmoral, then have a long visit with Charles and Camilla at Birkhall, then Castle of Mey. William’s veins would be poppin’.

Remembrance Sunday and the centenary of the Armistice

Annual Braemar Gathering 2018

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

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

137 Responses to “The Cambridges might delay their trip to Balmoral to avoid the Sussexes”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tina says:

    Fergie has already left. Philip turned up early, so she was on the first train back to London.

    • Lady D says:

      Yup, daddy is pissed and looking for Andrew. If Phillip’s reputation is true, Andy is not going to have a very good holiday. Booting Fergie out was just the first step.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      That made me laugh, Fergie is desperate to get back into the fold and if it were not for Philip she would have been a long time ago. Its long been speculated that once Philip goes, Andrew will remarry her. Those 2 always were perfect for each other.

    • bamaborn says:

      Lol, Tina! Is this true? I thought they had eased her past Phillip’s radar. Too funny.

  2. Darla says:

    Sometimes I feel as if I am going crazy. Am I crazy? Andrew had sex with underage victims of child sex trafficking. Do you know what that makes him? And they are all meeting him there? And the Prime Minister is going as well? Please stop the madness.

    • runcmc says:

      SAME!!! Like…why are they trying to brush it under the rug? It’s not 1980. The public knows and it’s all over social media, you can’t pretend this isn’t happening. And it’s one of the most horrible crimes possible! How does anyone still associate with him, let alone shelter him???

      I know it’s her son but the queen should not be condoning his behavior.

      • ClearTo says:

        The Queen, who everyone on here pretends is just a nice little old lady, doesn’t care about it because that’s how she is.

      • Seraphina says:

        @Clearto, I agree. I have fallen into the trap thinking TQ is a nice old grandmother but the more I see her in action (or not taking any) the more I lose respect for her. I think she’s just as bad as the rest.

      • ClearTo says:

        She’s far worse. Protecting a paedophile? Allowing him to continue abusing children? It’s revolting.

      • Eyfalia says:

        “The Queen damages her legacy!” What legacy? Avoiding confrontation?
        She should have interfered when the problems between Charles and Diana started and not waited until it was too late. She does not interfere with the hate campaign against Meghan. She did not interfere at an early stage with Williams reluctance to work. She allows that her heir is damaged in public and that the heir to the heir damages himself. So why do people expect her to confront her love child?
        I noticed that Andrew is her spitting image lookwise. What if they also share the same character as far as arrogance and self-aggrandisement are concerned?

      • Maria says:

        Personally I am of the opinion Andrew is Lord Porchester’s child.
        And the Queen, while appearing to be a sweet old lady, has done many, many sketchy things in her life, or allowed them to happen.
        She feels guilt at being a distant parent, so she allows her children to do whatever they want, whether that is to cheat publicly on their wives, or rape children as the case may be.
        If it hadn’t been for Diana and Fergie reacting the way they did to their husbands, I don’t think she would have gotten involved in their marriages at all.

      • Carolind says:

        Do you really think Philip would have put up with HM having a child by another man? Andrew is even called after Philip’s parents. Those rumours started because Philip was not meant to be around when Andrew was conceived but he actually was.

    • Tina says:

      Even Dominic Cummings has enough sense to keep Boris away from Andrew. (And, you know, we’re all acting like it’s true and I’m sure it is true, but Andrew hasn’t been charged with anything and the one time he was named in court, the judge threw it out.)

      • Eyfalia says:

        No, Andrew has not been charged, but Epstein is a convicted pedophile and Andrew was one of his best friends. He was invited to Windsor, he met the Queen, please, who in his normal mind would befriend a pedophile? Andrews daugthers were how old in 2005? They were 15 and 17 years old!

      • Tina says:

        As I say, I believe that it is true. I also believe that a doting mother (especially a very elderly one) would rather believe just about anything than that her son is a paedophile.

      • Maria says:

        Tina–The Queen was fine with Jimmy Savile hanging around. She doesn’t care.

      • Tina says:

        Jimmy Savile hung around Charles, not the Queen.

      • Maria says:

        He was in that circle and she did nothing about that either.

      • Tina says:

        Different generations. Jimmy Savile, like most predators, was very good at showing people what they wanted to see.

      • Maria says:

        “Different generations?” Just, no. Stop.
        Sorry but a man who abused children for sixty years and had around 300 victims — this was not a secret. He would assault the women in St. James Palace when he visited Charles. He did not keep this quiet.
        The Queen didn’t care about that, and she doesn’t care about this. She’ll cover it up, like she did before.

      • Tina says:

        You can assert that the Queen knew Jimmy Savile was a paedophile all you like, but that doesn’t make it true. There were many people who knew, but there are many reasons to believe that she was not one of them.

      • Maria says:

        Oh yes, if the BBC news presenters knew that Savile was enough of a problem that they didn’t want him near their childrens’ charities, the most-informed woman in the world probably had no idea! Poor sausage, she’s just been taken advantage of!

      • Tina says:

        Why on earth would anyone tell her? She’s not the sort of person you gossip to over tea. It’s not like it would have been covered in one of her security briefings.

      • Maria says:

        What kind of things do you think the Queen discusses with her ministers and employees? Whether they prefer Waitrose or Tesco? Why would she be ignorant of something that even basic staffers at St. James knew, about an important figure in her son’s life and in society? If that’s how limited her information is, a republic needs to be reconsidered heavily.

      • Tina says:

        Would you like to be the courtier who brought that particular subject up with the Queen? As I say, I am 100% certain that the only time anything related to sex would ever have been discussed with the Queen would be in the context of national security, I.e. the Profumo affair.

      • Maria says:

        The Queen is not the porcelain figure she purports to be and that image is PR.
        She sent people to vet one of William’s early dates at St. Andrews. If she’s vetting who her grandson hangs about with, she’s vetting Charles’s friends too. And there have been plenty of sex-related scandals she’s dealt with, people are not “too afraid” to bring it up to her. The woman has had four children, she knows how it works. She did nothing about Savile, she did nothing about Andrew. How much more evidence do you need?

      • Tina says:

        How do you know she sent people to vet William’s early dates at St Andrews? And of course she knows how sex works. That doesn’t mean she, or anyone else close to her, actually talks about it. We generally don’t do that, and the upper classes especially don’t do that.

      • Maria says:

        From interviews from said dates who had RPO’s come to their house and question their parents, is where I got that information.
        What is “we generally don’t do that?” The Brits? What a strange and inaccurate thing to say, lol.
        The upper classes talk about sex all the time, just not to people like you and me.

      • Tina says:

        Well, it’s not like Charles was looking to marry Jimmy Savile. And I’ve never read that – link? ETA how convenient that it has disappeared.
        And I’m not upper class (obviously) but I know enough of them. They don’t actually talk about sex, they honk at each other, get rat-arsed, fall into bed and then never, ever talk about it.

        ETA if you’re asserting that the hooray Henrys that I know somehow become loquacious on a subject that most of them cannot bring themselves to utter two (squeaking, red-faced) words about all of a sudden when the plebs leave the room – yeah, sure Jan.

      • Maria says:

        The link disappeared around the time of Will and Kate’s engagement. It was an interview with the father of Carley Massey Birch, to be specific.
        Someone who is in close contact with the Prince of Wales is always a big deal, no matter what their bond is. Of course they are vetted.
        Once again, they’re not talking about it to you, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t talking to each other.

      • Maria says:

        Feel free to search for the link- if you can find it, more power to you.
        Considering the Prince of Wales himself had no issue telling his mistress he wanted to be her tampon in the early 1990′s I am extremely skeptical that in 2019 the aristos are all a bunch of prudes who can’t talk about sex. Not sure who you know, but they don’t sound typical.

      • Tina says:

        Charles was having a joking, private conversation with his longtime mistress. It was neither a serious conversation nor particularly erotic – it is very typical of the stupid aristo sense of humour, actually. But I guarantee you that no one in the Queen’s household would ever speak casually about sex in her presence, let alone paedophilia.

        Oh, and thanks, how kind of you to pass judgment. You don’t know who I am or what I know. But whatever the Queen did about Andrew (which, let’s be clear, none of us know anything about) she had no incentive to cover anything up about Jimmy Savile, and no one would have told her anything about it.

      • Maria says:

        They would, however, inform her about these proceedings if it meant she had to get involved to cover it up, which she has.
        You seem like you want to be in this world, and that you are pretending you are.

      • Nahema says:

        While I believe that The Queen probably only wants to see the best in her son, I’m shocked that nobody else seems to be distancing themselves from him. You’re right that he’s not been convicted but even being friends with a paedophile is shady as hell. In cases of rape and molestation, where events are notoriously hard to prove I don’t think the fact that he hasn’t been convicted says anything.

      • Megan says:

        @Tina – the judge threw out Ghislaine Maxwell’s defamation suit against Virginia Roberts because he found Robert’s claims credible. That was a bad thing for Andrew.

      • Tina says:

        @Megan, as I said above, I have no doubt that Andrew did what he is being accused of here.

      • Me myself and I says:

        Omg, Tina, shut up. Being the devils advocate and trying to argue a point that is on the side of disgusting human behavior is making you look ignorant. These are young girls being victimized. Take a stance where you feel comfortable but then crawl back in to the pits of shit if you want to defend these actions.

      • Tina says:

        I am not defending Andrew’s or Epstein’s actions in any way! All I am saying is that my female, 93 year old head of state is not likely to have known about Jimmy Savile and doesn’t believe her son to be a paedophile. That’s it. I hope Andrew is charged and prosecuted to the full extent the law allows.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        So we’re telling other commenters to “shut up” now? I don’t agree with Tina’s position, but telling her to shut up is a bit much.

    • Maria says:

      @Maria, I always was skeptical about the Lord Porchester connection, but there was almost enough of a resemblance to make me think that there is truth to it.

      • Myra says:

        Maria: Tina is more appalled by banana messages. The Queen and her ilk are perfection.

      • Tina says:

        Oh for God’s sake, I’ve always defended Meghan, here and elsewhere. I haven’t had to here of late because she has such vociferous defenders, which is fine and good. I couldn’t give a toss about the bananas.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If the Lord Porchester story is true then the current Earl of Carnarvon is Andrew’s half-brother.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Queen’s comments to her private secretary and to President Kwame Nkrumah while expecting Andrew put the lie to that. Andrew was the make-up baby after the decade of frostiness. He’s Philip’s, not Porcester’s.

      • Maria says:

        Well, naturally. Whether Andrew is Philip’s or not, why would she tell the President of Ghana her child was her lover’s?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Given how circumspect she was about everything else, including pregnancy and childbearing, she wouldn’t have let the temper out and let that slip otherwise.

        I know people love to think Porcester was involved, but out of all things, she is fiercely loyal-and-obsessed with Philip. Porchie isn’t the father.

        Whether or not Philip has been loyal in return is in question. That’s part of what the whole decade of frostiness was about. He finally came back to the fold, she got her “second family” consisting of her fav (Andrew the makeup baby) and Philip got his fav, Edward.

      • Maria says:

        You could also argue that the years of waiting for Philip to become a family man truly got to her and her statement was meant to cover up any indiscretions on her part as a result of disillusionment and she was happy to return to the status quo.

        But that is pure speculation on my part, I know nothing of that. I really just think Andrew looks more like Porchie than Philip, and the time frame makes sense to me. Also that Edward is Philip’s favorite, rather than Andrew.

      • Becks1 says:

        Look, I disagree with Tina’s defense of the Queen in this matter, but she is a Meghan defender and often calls out the British tabs. for being just that – tabloids. So its not fair to lump her with the people in a tizzy over bananas.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles was the son he had to toughen up and mold into a monarch. Anne was always Anne – too much like Philip for him to like her best. Andrew was QEII’s obsession, the make-up baby evidence of her getting Philip back (shades of Kate and Louis frankly). Edward was the baby, like Philip was the baby of his family, born when Philip was 42. The one kid he could focus on once Philip had matured and made peace with his consort role.

      • Tina says:

        Thanks, Becks1, I appreciate that. I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree with me about the Queen, but I really like Meghan and always have.

      • PrincessK says:

        There is no question. Philip is a serial philanderer and humiliated the Queen terribly. He had a very long love affair with her own cousin, to mention just one. Out of respect for the Queen his numerous affairs are not discussed much.

        The Queen and Philip have led separate lives for years and she is clearly happier now that she no longer has to drag Philip around on engagements.

  3. Margareth says:

    Before William and Kate were indifferent to me but now after all the smear campaign against Meghan I have to admit that I just can’t stand them.

    • bamaborn says:

      Also remember Kate and Wills spent Xmas with the Middletons. Enter Meghan and they catch the first thing smoking to Sandringham. Lol!

  4. Stephanie says:

    Better if William and Kate come after the Sussexes so Harry and Meghan can relax and have fun in peace without then there are “sources” that speak to the various tabloids because I’m more and more convinced that the sources were right from the Cambridges field (in fact since they moved to Fortmore Cottage, the press has practically no knowledge of anything)

    • pinkberry says:

      I don’t believe the Cambridges told Robert that. A few months ago, he said Kate is pregnant. Do you think they told him that? Come on.

    • Megan says:

      I think they are waiting for Pedo Andy to clear out.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think the reason Bill & Cathy do not like Balmoral is because there is nothing else to do up there but enjoy each other’s company and I have come to the conclusion (via my gut instinct) that Bill & Cathy Cambridge really no loner enjoy each other’s one-on-one company anymore.

      • Megan says:

        They just returned from a Caribbean vacation.

      • olive says:

        a caribbean vacation with the middleton clan in tow.

      • Moose says:

        @BTB i agree, i think they just tolerate each other now, they made their bed and all that….
        @Megan, Kate’s family were there with them the whole time to act as a buffer.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Megan & Olive, there is a whole lot more to do in the Caribbean as a family (especially with your in-laws on tow) than there is to do at Balmoral in Scotland IMHO.

      • PrincessK says:

        At Balmoral you will be constantly changing clothes, breakfast, lunch, dinner and outdoor engagements, so plenty to do.

    • bamaborn says:

      Exactly, Stephanie!

  5. Cidy says:

    These stories are just getting to be too much. Like I’m really fully sure that we care more about The Sussexes and Cambridges than they care about each other. All this story is another “look at this feud” while they shuffle Andrew under the rug.

    I highly doubt that Kate and Will sit around wondering how they can win this supposed fued just as much as I doubt that Meg and Harry care about any of this. I think that we have reached this weird point where we cant even see through the forest with these two couples. If they delay their trip it probably has very little to do with any sibling fued.

    And yeah, I said sibling fued because while I get why people arent Keen on Kate, because tbh I dont get it – but I dont think shes sitting around plotting about Meg, I dont think they care about each other that much. They probably never did. They obviously have very different interests and intents and seem to be fine with that. Whatever problems have arose are more than likely between Harry and Will than anyone else. I hate throwing gasoline on media flame that all women hate each other.

    This has been my TED talk.

    • ClearTo says:

      As we all said in the last few weeks, the Palace is going to throw crazy gossip stories around like mad to drown out the Andrew coverage. One would have to be not very bright to believe this story at all; it’s just a simple gossip story that’s easy to disprove but Meghan and Kate draw more attention than Andrew.

    • Nahema says:

      I agree. Lots of people are busy spreading hate but the Cambridges & Sussex’s almost certainly have better things to do than spend all of their time plotting against each other.

    • Yami says:

      I think Meg honestly liked Kate before she knew her. I think Meg was probably impressed by Kate before she truly knew her because on the surface she looks good. Unfortunately, once you scratch the surface there’s not much there and Meg moved on. Duchess Meg is not stupid and I think she went in with good will, but the blow back she got and the cold shoulder would put anyone off. I think Meg’s got a clear vision of what her life is going to be like now, she’s got Archie and Harry and good work and she’s going forward full force.

  6. Pinkberry says:

    The “royal expert” also said Meghan may fake a headache to avoid taking part in blood sport. I don’t believe it.

  7. Digital Unicorn says:

    While I am no fan of the Cambridges, given the space in Balmoral and the constant flow of visitors I can imagine them delaying – plus it means they and the kids get more face time with Great Granny. Saying all that given how prickly William is I can imagine that he doesn’t want to be around the Sussex’s.

    • Megan says:

      William was gifted a cottage on the estate so they have their own space.

      Also, I did not know they owned a property in Scotland, If I did, I would be there all the time.

  8. Nives says:

    All these silly articles are meant to distract from the Andrew scandal but the Royal Family doesn’t understand that we are no longer in the 80s, people know about Andrew even if the English newspapers don’t talk much about it. The more they behave in this way, the more they lose consensus. Yesterday there was a huge backlash against the Queen (I admit myself that I’m disgusted with her)

    • bamaborn says:

      Yes, Nives. That picture of the queen and andrew grinning during the car ride was disgusting! Like they’ve managed to get something over on people. Really hoping karma steps in.

  9. Kittycat says:

    I really dont believe this story since the Sussexes plans to be in Scotland has been known for months.

    And it doesn’t make sense on the Cambridges side. They will be with the Sussexes for years.

    Why would they try to avoid them?

  10. TheHeat says:

    I really don’t think that the staggered travel plans have anything to do with any rift. I don’t put any stock in anything coming from the Daily Fail, anyway.
    I think that the issues with Prince Andrew are going to be taking a huge toll on the Queen. On top of having to deal with it as it pertains to “the firm”, he’s also her son. And she’s a woman in her 90′s. While I’m sure she is going to be hosting plenty of people at Balmoral, I doubt very much that this summer’s festivities are going to be overly festive.
    If we’re going to sit and just speculate, like the DM does, then perhaps William and Harry are spacing out their visits so that each one of them has time with their granny, individually. Perhaps they want to have someone there with her for the duration of her stay, so that she’s got family all around her at all times.
    Not all siblings get along all the time…I have five siblings and there always seems to be a couple of them at odds, at one time or another. I just don’t see why people put so much stock in such a non-issue.
    Honestly, I’m more interested in the justified rift between Charles & Andrew right about now.

  11. TheHeat says:

    Agreed.

  12. ClearTo says:

    It’s a wild circle too – 99% of the stories are just made up to fill column space and get clicks. And yet, the site links to every single one, deciding which is true (when none of them are) and which are made up (anything that doesn’t discuss how shiny Meghan’s halo is).

    • Enn says:

      I’ve said this multiple times.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @ClearTo, Meghan has had plenty of justified criticism on CB. I know this for a fact as I have posted some of it.

      Cathy Cambridge has been defended on many occasions on CB too. I know this for a fact as I have posted some of it.

    • Maria says:

      Your last comment gave your game away.

      • Gingerbread says:

        @Maria Can we stop being so dramatic? We can love Meghan but also roll our eyes at some comments who believe she is the answer to all our prayers.

      • Maria says:

        It’s always the “I love Meghan, BUT” commenters who go on and on about how horrible she is.
        Just be plain and say you don’t like her, it’s your opinion, whatever.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes the ones who include the trademark “halo” comment or call her Rachel are dead giveaways. Escapees from tumblr.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Maria – YUP. Meghan isnt perfect, and I do think we have had a few good convos in the past two weeks about criticizing her. No one here thinks she has a halo.

      • Gingerbread says:

        Me saying I love Meghan BUT I roll my eyes at other people’s comments is giving myself away? It has nothing to do with Meghan, it’s with certain other people. This is an exact example of what I’m talking about.

      • noway says:

        I haven’t seen a lot of Rachel comments for Meghan on here, but it’s interesting that her given first name is an insult. Obviously, Cathy is an insult for Kate, but supposedly she never goes by Kate either it’s Catherine. Wonder if Kate was thrown out years ago as an insult to her or did she really ever use it?

        Seriously, why is it always the women seem to get so much more, but I’m thinking these names they don’t use are very passive aggressive. I know people on here refer to William as Bill for an insult, but are we going to refer to Harry as Henry if we get angry with him or maybe Hank. Yes now we have Hank and Rachel. Kind of silly if you ask me.

    • Becks1 says:

      @Gingerbread I think our responses are in response to the “how shiny Meghan’s halo is” comment, not your comment about rolling your eyes.

      • Gingerbread says:

        @Becks1 Maria quoted me, so I was just responding. I think you can judge certain people who comment here without actually judging Meghan herself. It gets hard to read how different people react to Meghan and Kate here, which I think is the purpose of the original comment. It’s sad because I like both duchesses, and I’ve been a reader here for years. Kate isn’t the most evil person behind H&M’s press, and I like her. Meghan doesn’t have a halo, but she’s pretty great.

      • leena says:

        A lot of folks aren’t actually reacting to the two ladies, but to the articles about them and the reactions of others to those articles.

  13. chunkyla says:

    This is such a non-story, the Cambridge’s usually got to Balmoral from late August onwards. Given the amount of time The Queen spends at Balmoral every year it’s unlikely the Sussex and the Cambridge’s would end up staying there at the same time anyway.

    • Jegede says:

      Exactly. The royal ‘feud’ just gives hacks something to do.

      I mean think about it. Every day there’s a new big royal story. How probable is that?

      And Rob Jobson is the ‘reporter’ who went on live television, claiming Thomas Markle NEVER received a letter from Meghan.🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

      A few weeks later, we have the very letter printed everywhere.

  14. Becks1 says:

    Well, of course they dont want to be there the same time as Meghan. She would insist on sitting next to Harry and doing all the seating arrangements herself. I mean, how can Kate be expected to be around someone like that??!?!?!?!?

    /sarcasm

    I dont believe this story really, my guess is that someone found out that the Sussexes and Cambridges are not going to overlap in scotland for whatever reason, that is probably perfectly reasonable, and decided it make it more about the feud between the two. Actually kind of a smart move for a gossip article, because now if they dont go at the same time, there will be this sense of “avoiding each other” even if its just a matter of schedules etc.

  15. aurora says:

    No, you’re not.
    And I’m mostly only hear to read the comments…

  16. bonobochick says:

    “The Duke of Sussex’s latest ‘woke’ outburst, in which he declared that he and Meghan plan to have only two children ‘maximum’ in a bid to save the planet, may well have irked the Cambridges, who already have three.”

    Ugh at this false narrative still circulating from the media. Harry was asked about how many kids he & Meghan will have and he said two kids. He never mentioned anything about having 2 kinds being about saving the environment / planet or the like… only a number.

    • Peg says:

      Dr. Goodall, said to Harry not too many children, his reply was two at maximum.
      Of course no one is talking about the story, that a local resident wrote that list of rules about how not to approach the Sussexes and their dogs.
      He said all the people at the meeting knew it was a joke, because they live there are accustomed to dealing with Royal.
      He said, the give away in the letter, was putting stuff in the letterbox at Frogmore Cottage, because everyone one at the meeting knew they could not get close to FC, without security arresting you.
      This was another award winning article from Emily Andrews.
      One newspaper was saying the Sussexes are at Balmoral and the Queen had a Tea Party for them Saturday, this could be as true as Doria spending Christmas at Sandringham last year.

  17. 10KTurtle says:

    Or maybe none of them want to be around Andrew?

    • Becks1 says:

      I was thinking this too. I would not be surprised if there was some last minute re-arranging of schedules. Kate and Meghan know they cant avoid him forever but I dont think I would want to risk being photographed RIGHTNOW with him, especially considering Meghan’s advocacy re: women. I know that I personally would not to be anywhere near him.

  18. SippingRoyalTea says:

    Don’t trust Robert Johnson is the best advice I can give you. First of all, the family always staggers their visits to Balmoral because the Queen is there for months and frankly most of them would rather be doing other things during the summer. The other thing is this is another way to take a dig at the Sussexes and misrepresent what was actually said and also continue this feud story. The tabloids have created this narrative where there’s no winning because if the Cambridges and Sussexes show up somewhere together then it’s because they’re faking it to end the rumors and if they don’t then they’re avoiding each other when the truth is they’re adults with their own lives that don’t revolve around the other couple.

    • Peg says:

      Even the Australian morning shows that use to take Robert Johnson word as Gospel are now questioning him.
      One show had Camilla Tominey head spinning when they questioned her lies, and she was trying to dig in, and the Hosts said nothing Meghan done is ever right.

      • Moose says:

        Hooray!! At last their lies come back to haunt them…. about time these awful reporters were held to account.

  19. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    The reach is so far, I’m surprised there aren’t more shoulder dislocations.

    In MY opinion, Meg’s comment on being on HER Vogue cover was that it would be putting *HERSELF*front and center as THE woman as an instrument for change. I think (again, my opinion) that if she was on the cover, that her pic would take focus over and beyond ANYONE else’s on the cover.

    Kate’s cover, as was Diana’s was a FASHION/personal piece. Totally different concept.

    • Harla says:

      That’s exactly what I thought about the “boastful” comment too, it wasn’t some shade against Kate.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Yeah, there’s nothing wrong or boastful about Kate being on the cover — the editor decided that Kate should be on the cover, and that’s that. The difference is, Maghan was a guest editor, so she would have been putting HERSELF on the cover. That’s clearly what she was referring to.

      • Enn says:

        Meghan asked to guest edit rather than being on the cover.

      • noway says:

        Maybe Meghan thought it would be more interesting to edit rather than just pose, and she asked for it. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. It doesn’t have to be she thinks being on a magazine cover is boastful. It’s not like she hasn’t been on a magazine cover before. Give me a break.

  20. Pixie says:

    Yeah, I don’t know how the first paragraph of the original article mentions Prince Andrew’s many allegations of pedophilia, and we are all supposed to keep reading on?! The things you can get away with as a powerful, white man are absolutely nauseating and the fact that man is not being charged and indicted as we speak, is a perfect analog for the messed up world we live in. After all that talk the last two years, about ‘Time’s Up’ and no longer enabling powerful men, only to do it over and over again. I hope the whole ‘firm’ comes crumbling down around them.

  21. Starkiller says:

    And yet here you all are, reading and commenting on them. Strange.

  22. Rogue says:

    There’s a TV documentary coming in the UK soon about the feud between the brothers so there will be more of these stories. It’s just crazy to me that there is genuinely more outrage about Vogue then the allegations that came out on Friday around Andrew. He may well be innocent but not like he will ever face charges and have to prove it.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      ” It’s just crazy to me that there is genuinely more outrage about Vogue then the allegations that came out on Friday around Andrew.”

      When you get down to it…Neither Andrew and especially British Vogue is all that important when the UK IMHO is being destroyed and possibly dismantled due to BREXIT.

      • Rogue says:

        @baytampabay most of this royal stuff is distraction from Brexit but that’s at a standstill due to summer break for UK&EU parliaments& seeing if forced no deal will happen. That will be front page focus nearer UK gets to 31 October.

        I’d argue allegations around Andrew are important- we got further details of alleged criminal acts by someone who represents the UK& now his friend who had connections to current and former US presidents is dead in what immediately looks like suspicious circumstances. Its a huge story and would be if it was eg an MP so just seems like UK press are being deliberately mute about Andrew’s connection to it. Vogue IS frivolous so it’s just crazy the amount of furore there was in UK about that compared to these allegations. just highlights the press agenda against Meghan

      • BayTampaBay says:

        In the USA the specific details involving Andrew in this mess are sketchy based on what I read. All of this needs to come out ASAP. I wonder how long it will actually take to come out. The Daily Fail may protect Andrew and the BRF but the NYT, Wash Post and WSJ will not.

  23. kerwood says:

    Sounds like the Sussex family is dodging a bullet if they don’t have to spend time with Normal Bill and Keen Katie.

    I’m wondering how they feel about spending time with a child rapist but clearly that’s not even a concern.

  24. Mego says:

    Given Williams comments on overpopulation I would think he would be quite supportive of Harry only wanting two children.

  25. Elisabeth says:

    Weren’t the Sussex’s supposed to be in Scotland over Meghan’s birthday? The Queen was throwing her a birthday tea, according to every breathless article about the huge honor. So if they were at Balmoral they’ve probably already left.

    Meanwhile, for the last three/four years the Cambridge’s have been visiting Balmoral with the Tindalls and the Phillips’ at the end of August, before the school holiday starts again. It gives all the young cousins time to play together. So this is a normal scheduling thing that is being twisted into further evidence of a “feud”

    • A says:

      I don’t think the royals really keep to exact dates for birthday celebrations, least of all the Queen, whose real birthday is in April but celebrates Trooping the Colour in July.

  26. Myra says:

    I’m sick of the Brits hypocrisy. First the Duchess of Cambridge’s sister’s father-in-Law now Prince Andrew….yet the Brits are soooo upset over a Vogue cover or banana messages. Photos of TQ smiling with Andrew is sickening. Yet, she has to lecture Meghan on the proper way to sit…please!!

    • leena says:

      Hey, don’t lump us all together and don’t believe everything you read in the paper. Most Brits aren’t even aware of the Vogue let alone a particular cover. And I doubt the Queen lectured Megham on the proper way to sit.

      The D of C is not responsible for the alleged behaviour of herr sister’s father-in-law for goodness sake.

    • bamaborn says:

      Myra, that photo of the two of them grinning did make me sick. Hope karma steps in for anyone that abuses children. Also, children have not developed the nuances for lying like adults, so I believe them.

  27. notasugarhere says:

    The Queen Mum didn’t “give” Tam-na-Ghar to William. It was never hers to give as she never owned Balmoral herself. QEII inherited it from her father, not from her mother, which is how she avoided inheritance tax on the whole thing. Tam-na-Ghar was set aside for the younger royals to use during their twenties, but it is still part of the Balmoral estate and is owned by Elizabeth.

    Charles doesn’t own Castle of Mey. After the Queen Mum died, it was turned into a Trust not owned or controlled by Charles. He stays there for a week each summer, to help the Trust make money and the place stay in business. Mostly he and Camilla stay at Birkhall, also part of the Balmoral estate.

    • Becks1 says:

      I REALLY want to go to the castle of Mey. There’s a B&B on the grounds that looks sweet and the grounds and castle look interesting. It just seems far from England (we are planning a London 2021 trip so I”m trying to turn that into a Scotland trip too lol, but may be too ambitious. It was supposed to be 2020 but we are shifting the schedule a bit.) So I have two fun years to plan!

      • notasugarhere says:

        On my list too, but Pentland Firth is so far north and kind of middle of nowhere. Could be grouped with a trip to the Orkneys which I want to do too. There’s also the Captain’s House on the actual grounds, instead of the B&B.

  28. notasugarhere says:

    And yet you’re here reading them, Bishg.

  29. Becks1 says:

    Sorry this free blog isnt interesting enough for you.

  30. Wadsworth the Butler says:

    Being at Balmoral this time of year might bring up difficult memories for William and Harry. I wouldn’t blame them if they wished to avoid it.

  31. liriel says:

    I’m angry. The press overanalyse whether W&K would avoid M&H yet are happily reported was Andrew and FERGIE were there and no one blinks an eye! Like REALLY?!

  32. A says:

    Here’s an interesting thought: maybe the Cambridges are avoiding Balmoral because they don’t want to spend their time around Andrew. I don’t buy the excuses provided for them here. I don’t think they give a sh-t what Meghan and Harry say, and frankly, the things they say and do probably have nothing to do with the Cambridges anyway. But I doubt anyone wants to actually come out and say that they don’t want to be in the same space as Pedo Andy. I’ll bet even if the Sussexs go to Scotland, they’ll spend the bulk of their time with Charles or at the Castle of Mey or somewhere else.

    I hate how the press is spinning this as another situation in the Cambridge Sussex feud. How disgusting to try and protect a man like Andrew. The fact that the RF is closing ranks around this human being is terrible. Britain should become a republic if only for this sh-t alone. I’ll bet Boris and Andy will have a right old time just sitting around laughing about how they might have gotten away with it all.

  33. Carolind says:

    Surely the Queen invites all of these people to visit. It is not left to the Cambridges or Sussexes to roll up when they choose. The Orkney islands are gorgeous. I live in that part of the world and went on a day trip years ago. As well as the notorious Scrabster/ Stromness crossing, there is also a shorter 45 minute crossing that can be done from near John O’Groats.

  34. Burdzeye View says:

    How ironic that the biggest Royal story for years is happening right now…..and no-one is talking about it. Epstein was a monster. Andrew needs to be held to account.