Clive Irving: Prince Charles is surrounded by sycophants & ‘thinks like an autocrat’

Fiftieth anniversary of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales

Yet another biography has been written about Queen Elizabeth II. This new one is by Clive Irving and it’s called The Last Queen: Elizabeth II’s Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor. Provocative title for royalists, I suppose. To promote the book, Irving chatted with Vanity Fair about what QEII has done right and why Irving thinks the Crown is actually on pretty tenuous standing these days. Irving seems to be intensely critical of Prince Charles and Charles’ autocratic tendencies as Prince of Wales, but he isn’t *as* critical of William and Kate. Some highlights from this VF interview:

The monarchy could go off a cliff with King Charles: “I think we know far more than we would ever really want to know about Charles, right? I think there’s a really real risk that if Charles does succeed her that the monarchy will go over a cliff very fast. This question of the survival of the monarchy hasn’t really arisen since the time of [Edward VIII’s] abdication, but it will come up as a real smack in the face. She’s enjoyed such a command of the role that the whole idea of abolition or republicanism has been beyond reality. Charles has a serious problem. One problem is that he doesn’t look like an invigorating generational shift, does he? That’s what would be needed, something that reinvigorates and sends a sense that they’ve understood the modern world. In some ways, Charles looks older than the queen. He’s a man more suited to the 18th century than the 21st, and I’m not being facetious about that. That’s his deliberate and chosen style, like a younger brother of the queen rather than a son.

Charles thinks like an autocrat: “He’s also run [the Duchy of Cornwall], a separate branch of the Firm, for such a long time, that it’s revealed to us the ways in which he likes to operate, which presumably would be the way he would continue to operate if he were on the throne. He’s talked about the method he’s preferred to use his influence, which he calls his “convening power.” He pulls in groups of advisers he targets for his issues and invariably they’re sycophants. He doesn’t like to be challenged, and he thinks like an autocrat. And he’s shown himself to be a hypocrite. He was an early campaigner for recognizing the importance of climate change and that’s very good—he even lectured [Donald] Trump on the subject, which was pretty brave to do. But at the same time, he flies around on executive jets, uncaring about the enormous carbon footprint of that. If he had been using commercial flights for the same trips, he would have saved about 95% of the emissions. He’s born with such a sense of entitlement that it’s never occurred to him that maybe you can’t continue to do that.

On Meghan & Harry: “If you take the case of Meghan and Harry, it’s been an atrocious act of hypocrisy on Charles’s part to [take the view] that it wasn’t right for them to use a brand, Sussex Royal, to monetize the royal name, because Charles was the first person ever to do that in a serious way, with the Duchy brand of grocery items. He makes about $27 million a year [off of holdings that include] grocery items like ginger biscuits, party crab, and so on. It never seemed to strike him or anybody else in the royal family that it was hypocritical to attack Meghan and Harry for wanting to do their own brand, and in their case not to sell groceries but to do good work. They’re much better understood here in America, mainly because the opinion of them in the U.K. was driven by the right-wing press and all the people who held up an incredible groundswell against Meghan because she was seen as an outsider, or some kind of exotic show-business plant who wasn’t suitable.

Why Meghan got the hell out: “In an odd way, the members of the royal family are the least free people in the nation. They’re like indentured actors in a theater company, and they have to perform the same drama over and over again from birth to death. They have little choice about where they live, their program is fixed in precise details months ahead and the success of the show is not assured. A lot of people wouldn’t want to be trapped in that life to begin with. I think that’s what Meghan discovered very rapidly. As a career actress, it was like being enlisted in the wrong repertory company, and she didn’t want to play in those plays. She wanted to do something more serious. Otherwise, it was like a series of waxworks dummies performing.

The Sussexes are holding up a mirror to the Windsors in the same way Diana did: “The first person to hold the whole family’s feet to the fire on that one was Diana. She went out there and led by example, like in the anti-land-mine campaign. It is deciding that your position enables you to be an influence to get things changed that need changing, and then going out and leveraging it. Diana really did that, and by doing it to the extent that she did, she really did shame them. In a more modest way, Meghan and Harry are doing a similar shaming exercise. Though their move to Hollywood and deal with Netflix sounds like show business, what they’re really intending to do is to leverage their ideas and their philosophy in ways that can be positive. They have these toffs in London pissing on them for doing that, but at the same time, missing the point.

The larger problem: “The [Windsor] family’s good works and their philanthropy is not in line with their wealth and their position. You get a feeling that they’re much more into themselves than they are interested in thinking about what they can do to follow in the tradition of Diana and really do something really good. I think that Prince William and Kate Middleton are probably acutely aware of that problem, but they’re not really able to do much about it. But Charles gets very peevish if people raise the question of, “well, why don’t you do more?” He’s not transparent about his own finances, and he runs a miniature palace of his own, Highgrove; it stinks of privilege and entitlement, and a lack of understanding of what they can really do in a positive way.

Will the monarchy be in okay shape for King William? “That’s probably the key question: Can it survive long enough under Charles for it to be still intact for them to take it over and do a better job with it? We don’t know. Wouldn’t it have been nice if it could just jump a generation and go straight to them. And does it matter in the end? It does to the Brits a lot. I’ve always felt this placebo effect of the monarchy as a head of state. It’s a very valuable thing, not having a politician or a general as the head of state—as we can tell in the United States. If the head of state turns out to be really wrong, things go down the tube very rapidly. As long as the head of state and the people to whom the people swear allegiance and the person that they look up to is not a politician, a church figure, or a general, there’s a healthiness to it.

[From Vanity Fair]

I think Irving raises a lot of solid points, actually. I’ve never really thought of Charles in terms of his autocratic tendencies, but Irving isn’t wrong there. I guess I always think of Charles as someone who means well when it comes to charitable and philanthropic efforts, but doesn’t always know the right way to speak about those efforts so he ends up getting a raw deal. I mean, Charles does so much environmental stuff, he’s got The Prince’s Trust, and a million other charities and issues he’s working on. If anything, even with Charles’ autocratic tendencies (and he is surrounded by sycophants and limited thinkers), he’s still better than William and Kate, who seem lazier and duller by the moment. I especially think Irving makes a really solid point about Meghan and Harry holding up a mirror to the Windsors like Diana did in her day. That’s exactly what’s happened, and if the past is prologue, that means that the Windsors will just copy what H&M are doing, claim that they were doing it from the beginning, and continue pushing H&M further away.

Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, Queen Elizabeth II, Meghan Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry at the 100th Anniversary of the Royal Air Force, Buckingham Palace, London, UK on Tuesday 10th July 2018

News

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Related stories

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

126 Responses to “Clive Irving: Prince Charles is surrounded by sycophants & ‘thinks like an autocrat’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Aurora says:

    That sounds like it could also be William. Who will say “no” to him when he’s prone to bouts of incandescent rage?

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      It’s an heir in waiting thing. All the next in lines do is wait for someone to die so they can ascend a throne which is some sort of limbo in itself. Coupled with being told that you are the best thing since sliced bread and no one is allowed to outshine you, even if you didn’t have autocratic tendencies, it would be very hard not to become one. Add a dollop of laziness and you become like the Cambridges.

      • Joan Rivers says:

        Charles at least has a brain, he’s been very environmental, he thinks about things. That alone is more than some royals.

        His character may not be that good, I don’t know him, neither do anyone of you, but caring about the planet and being intellectual isn’t a BAD thing.

  2. Sofia says:

    I would argue that most (if not all) of the royals are surrounded by sycophants and are autocrats (to various degrees and I guess it lessens the further away from the throne they are). Which you “get” when you realise these are a group of people who believe they are “superior” based on birth therefore want people who would only agree with them.

    • STRIPE says:

      Yep. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start with the understanding that these people believe they are ordained by God as superior beings, and their whole life experience has reinforced that worldview, everything they do makes perfect sense.

      • minx says:

        The entire family is ridiculous. Every one of them.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right, when you are ordained by God, why should you care what a mere mortal has to say?

      • Ann says:

        Exactly. This guy is quite right on how Meghan was treated and why, and a few other things, but I can’t agree that Liz is somehow better than Charles. Certainly I don’t think he looks older than she does? I mean, they’re both old. She’s very old, and she dresses and acts like it. So that part was odd. He doesn’t seem to like Charles, that’s for sure. I’m not wild about him either but I don’t see how William is better. He’s just younger.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        So true. Andrew’s insistence on doing an interview despite being advised not to by his sycophants is a case in point.

      • Mac says:

        If Charles doesn’t see how antiquated and out of touch the BRF is, he deserves to be the last monarch.

      • Yvette says:

        @Ann … “He doesn’t seem to like Charles, that’s for sure.”

        From the moment I read the article title I anticipated a they-should-skip-Charles-and-go-straight-to-William! sentiment … and there is was. “Wouldn’t it have been nice if it could just jump a generation and go straight to them [meaning William and Kate].

    • RoyalBlue says:

      and they all have a superiority complex because of it and their subjects have an inferiority complex.

  3. OriginalLala says:

    I’ll never forget an interview Charles did when he was younger, the interviewer asked me how he saw his role and Charles said that he role was to jump in and help where he thought he could help, even if the people he wants to help don’t want his help, because he knows better. That just stuck to me as such a symbol of the BRF’s oversized sense of entitlement and importance

    • Bex says:

      He was that way because he was raised that way. That’s the same patriarchial attitude his mother used towards the Commonwealth countries when they were British colonies, as well as Prince Philip in how he dealt with his charities in the UK. Philip used to have a TV show about his opinions.

      Charles is his parents’ child and the fact NOW it’s a problem is rich, considering as long as the object of the meddling is poor and/or not white, then it’s fine.

      But they know he’ll turn a critical eye to THEM, and they do not want that. These people aren’t whinging about “woke” culture and angered at the prospect of teaching the whole of English history (that doesn’t gloss over just how intertwined British society was with the slave trade and the atrocities in Ireland).

  4. Lauren says:

    We are always at the same turn point. Yes, Charles might be surrounded by yes men, but so is William, the huge difference is that Charles at least has long time, successful projects to show off. What do we have from Normal Bill who is almost 40?

    • MF1 says:

      Yep, they both have autocratic tendencies. The different it that Charles is an autocrat with a work ethic.

      • Tigerlily says:

        MF1. Very true, Charles definitely isn’t lazy.

      • Christine says:

        Honestly, I am completely baffled that QE didn’t figure out a way for Anne to succeed her. Does anyone believe that any other member of the family works as hard, or as selflessly? The fact that she refused any titles for her kids sealed it, for me.

        The conversations about skipping Charles and letting Wills be the next monarch make me furious. Anne has more than proven that she has ALLLLLLL the guts in that generation.

        We all know Harry has the guts in the next.

        Edited for the third time to add, I forgot about Zara. I hardcore girlcrush her. Harry and Zara could make history if the rf would let them at it.

      • Amy Too says:

        Christine, but I wonder how much of Anne and Harry and Zara’s ability to just do the work and not be a controlling a-hole with family, and have developmental and self identity issues is because they weren’t raised as the heir. Something about being raised as the heir in that family seems to absolutely destroy people’s goodwill, likability, humility and natural humanity. If we could switch right now and have Anne and then when she died suddenly tap Harry or Zara to take over, it would probably work out well and be great and refreshing. Anne and Harry seem more normal and natural than Charles and William and they both seem willing to do the work and do it because a) they want to and b) they feel a need to give back to the people. As opposed to Charles and William, where Charles is definitely willing to do the work but it’s more about his own image and legacy and shaping the nation’s politics and industry in the way he wants them to be shaped so that they reflect his ideals, and William isn’t even willing to do the work but when he does put his name on something it’s all about his own image and legacy and PR. I’m pretty sure that because they know they’re going to be kings and will be in the history books and will be in charge of the family and the commonwealth (to a degree) they see everything they do as an extension of their very important historical royal selves. Whereas Anne and Harry have identities outside of the RF and the work they do isn’t so much about cementing their legacy within the family.

        Honestly I think a lot of the problem is how long lived they all are, so everyone is waiting almost their entire lifetime to become the thing that they’ve been told is the most important aspect of who they are. They’re in limbo for 70+ years just waiting. The prince of Wales used to generally be like 30 years old tops and the Duke of Cambridge if there was one would be an infant. Now we have a 70+ year old PofW and a 40 year old D of C. I think being in these holding positions for so long stints their growth and development.

      • Yvette says:

        @Christina … And plainly Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles have always thought that between Ann and Charles, Ann is the better man.

        Personally, I’ve always liked Charles. Why? Because he’s unashamedly eccentric. The man talks to his plants and vegetables to help them grow, for goodness sake … and he has done so for decades. Moreover, he and his sons truly liked the Obamas. I like to imagine that they had many lively conversations, and Charles didn’t have to lecture Barack once about climate change.

        Rather than being autocratic, I imagine many people in Britain think of Charles as some New Age, free love, hippy. :)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        She hasn’t done that because the entire idea of a hereditary monarchy rests on primogeniture, i.e. that the firstborn (usually firstborn male) inherits all. In the past, elective monarchies existed – but re-introducing this concept in this day an age would raise the question of whether the institution shouldn’t just be scrapped and having an elected Head of State that can be chosen from a larger pool than the Windsor family.

  5. Snuffles says:

    William is also surrounded by sycophants and limited thinkers. And on top of that they are lazy as hell and actively seek to severely lower the bar and expectations of them.

    So, yeah, once the Queen dies the monarchy is in grave danger with Charles AND the Cambridges.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Well you are the sum total of the people you surround yourself with, so with Duke Leaksalot, are we surprised at his behaviour?

  6. ShazBot says:

    “If the head of state turns out to be really wrong, things go down the tube very rapidly. As long as the head of state and the people to whom the people swear allegiance and the person that they look up to is not a politician, a church figure, or a general, there’s a healthiness to it.”

    This one drives me nuts…I do get the value of having a “non-political” head of state (as if the Royal Family haven’t been Tories for centuries) in principle, but “if the head of state turns out to be really wrong” seems A LOT riskier when you have an unearned, hereditary position. It’s a tricky overall question for democracies, but how can you argue that a monarchy is somehow less dangerous than elections or term-limited appointments?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      However, in constitutional monarchies the Head of State doesn’t actually govern so the damage they can do to the country at large is very limited. They are fragile in terms of their own survival because everything depends on the quality of the person inhibiting the office as well as on the quality of their spouse and their advisors. But they can’t damage a country like a head of state with political powers who is doing the actual governing can do, like Trump.

      Britain has survived some really bad monarchs because of Parliament – Denmark survived at least two completely incapable (and absolutist) monarchs because it had a strong civil service and capable people who stepped in to govern on behalf of at least one mentally incapacitated monarch. On the other hand, France barely survived two incompetent monarchs who lived completely insulated from the populace in the 18th century. That was also the major reason why the French monarchy didn’t survive because there were no real checks and balances, even informal ones like in Denmark during the 18th century.

      Modern constitutional monarchies are VERY different from medieval feudal monarchies or early modern absolutist monarchies. It really is apples and oranges – despite the head of the institution having the same title: King/Queen Regnant. Constitutional monarchies are constrained by the elected government – and those constraints are generally enshrined in the constitution. The problem with Britain is that they don’t have a written constitution, probably because the country skipped the absolutist phase due to historical circumstances. They never had to make a clean break with an old governmental system in the same way that we did in fx Denmark.

      • A says:

        @ArtHistorian, I think that a written constitution is something that the Brits will consider with more seriousness going into the future. Brexit has really exposed some of the cracks with their current system, and I know there was some chatter about whether a written constitution might be a solution to some of the issues that surfaced at that time.

        A written constitution would more clearly define the role and responsibilities of a monarch, among a lot of other things. I think that abolishing the monarchy all together is a tall order for the Brits, at present. The monarch is also the monarch of a number of commonwealth countries, there are legalities there that need to be addressed if the monarchy is abolished in Britain. It opens up a lot of work for a lot more parties than just Britain, if that’s something the Brits want to do.

    • Myra says:

      The other problem is where they do not perform their basic function in a democracy. If you exist to safeguard democracy but then you go along with whatever the Head of Government tells you to do (legal or not), in truth you have no real purpose at all. In that case, the only remaining purpose would be to exist just to bestow honours. For palaces and tiaras, it’s quite a good gig. That’s why they need the remaining family members, to be performing monkeys for the masses. Every now and then, they throw a member under the bus for dramatic effect.

    • Dee says:

      Agreed. Wouldn’t it be better to select someone that people like to hold that position for 4 years and then choose another “representative non-political head of state” after that. Kind of like a Miss or Mr. Britain, available to cut ribbons as needed. You could open up royal estates for visitors and make up some money by charging admission. Let the PR rep live in a fancy apartment and lease a car for their term.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I think one of the reasons that makes the idea of a President, even an apolitical one, unattractive in constitutional monarchies is the possibility that such a position will become a position for retired politicians, which would challenge the idea of it being an apolitical position.

  7. Digital Unicorn says:

    William and Charles have inherited negative personality traits from their parents and, in Chucks case his grandmother too. That family would make a great case study in cluster B personality disorders and emotional/intellectual stunting.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      That is probably because the family dynamic of the Windsors is so completely embedded within the hierarchy of rank.

      • HeyJude says:

        Which is terribly ironic for a family line of rulers who by hierarchy of rank where never supposed to get near the throne.

        They have really should absolutely no rank if it wasn’t for the fact their grandfather/great-grandfather’s brother was a complete screw-up and abdicated.

        I’d don’t know how they can feel so superior when all their reigns will have been attained effectively by accident.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Extra ironic considering that Edward’s father himself wasn’t supposed to be King. He only came to the throne because his older brother died as Prince of Wales.

  8. equality says:

    I thought it was the Queen who decided no “royal” branding. It’s still hypocrisy considering she sells gin and socks but according to even H&M’s statement, it came off as QE who decided that. W&K get it? They haven’t even done as much as Charles within the confines of the royal structure. The flying private thing has been done by all of the royals, including W&K; it’s a family issue. (Even the Queen back when she did travel.) I find it hard to believe that Charles built up the Duchy to a billion pound business without listening to advisors along the way. I doubt he tends to all business details himself. I think he also gets that the monarchy needs to modernize (especially in terms of not having an extended family on the payroll) but the Queen is probably resistant to any change.

    • Bex says:

      She’s the one with the power to do it (or acquiesce if she still wanted them to use it). How can Charles deny them use of SussexRoyal when he’s not even the monarch. It makes zero sense, and seems more to be about undermining Charles to uplift the Queen (and tacitly William). ..the hypocrisy begins and ends with Elizabeth, and this author knows it.

    • Golly Gee says:

      Good points. Charles has clearly been open to learning and getting advice. He is right about the private jet though. Although they all use it, Charles’ big issue is the environment, so he is a hypocrite for flying private.

      • tcbc says:

        The private flights are nothing compared to multiple massive palaces all of these people own. How much energy is wasted maintaining these castles which will only ever be inhabited by a couple of people a handful of days out of the year? How much more efficient would it be to turn these stately homes over to the government for conversion to public use, perhaps as office buildings, hospitals, museums?

        I don’t think very rich people ought to be environmental activists unless they’re willing to walk the walk.

    • Esmeralda says:

      I’m starting to think that the Queen and Charles simply did not want a competing royal brand: that might have cut into their revenues.
      And I have the feeling that Charles surrounds himself with yes men because he knows his parents do not like him (I mean, I’m sure they love their children, but they do not especially like Charles: Philip likes Anne and Mummy likes Andy) , his first wife did not like him, even his sons didn’t seem to like him for great while: probably the only person who genuinely liked him is Camilla.

      • Tessa says:

        Camilla has kept her own place. I think she gets tired of Charles and retreats there. I don’t know if Camilla would have liked him that much if he had not been Prince of Wales.

      • Tessa says:

        I think Charles trusts Michael Fawcett the most. HE is in charge of Charles home and plans events for Charles including birthday parties, I think he rules the roost.

      • Amy Too says:

        Esmeralda, which makes what happened with Harry and Meghan having to leave the family even sadder: I think Meghan was probably one of the only people in that family that actually liked Charles and her influence was bringing Charles and Harry closer. But then he was a spineless, weak, cowardly man who refused to stand up for Meghan and Harry to the press or to William and Kate and now they’re gone. I’m wondering if this habit of being cowardly and never expending any energy to protect anyone other than himself is one of the reasons why people in his family dislike him. And I’m wondering if maybe Meghan doesn’t like him (or trust him) as much anymore now either. She’s probably at least no longer prioritizing her relationship with Charles anymore, even if she still does like or respect him. She doesn’t live near him so they can’t visit, she doesn’t work in the firm anymore so they can’t collaborate and she can’t ask for advice, so that relationship, even if it hasn’t been completely cut off is at least not going to progress any further. He squanders the goodwill he has with the people who are actually willing to give him a chance and be friends/family with him and so he continues to perpetuate his own loneliness and his sense of being isolated, pushed away, and not best loved.

  9. RoyalBlue says:

    Is he a William stooge trying to whisper in people’s ears that Charles should be passed over?

    In any case, I have good chuckle whenever I see the word Highgrove. In the Crown that was where Charles went to hide out when he was fed up of Diana. I bought some duchy cookies and they are quite nice.

    • Tessa says:

      Supposedly, Highgrove was Diana’s home too and when he was courting her he asked her to help her decorate it for him. Diana should have had a place to go to when she was fed up with Charles.

  10. Gm says:

    Charles is not popular , W&K are fairly popular Also wk haven’t done much. Charles is an easier target. The point is to sell books.

  11. Mignionette says:

    This pretty much describe’s Chuck’s relationship with Camilla.

    One of the reasons he didn’t get on with Diana is because she had needs he didn’t care for so he just got his met elsewhere.

    I have always thought the only reason these two work is bc Camilla knows how to coddle him.

    • Jaded says:

      He strikes me as being one of the most self-pitying, cold people I’ve ever read about. Yes, Camilla surely coddles him and gives him the mothering he never got from the Queen, and as for Philip, it was probably like having a sergeant-major for a father who insisted on sending him to a school that looks as grim and foreboding as something out of Charles Dickens. No wonder he’s the way he is.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        He’s how old? It’s time he got over his mommy didn’t tuck him in and his daddy wasn’t cuddly. He destroyed a young woman’s life and sat back and said nothing, possibly even assisted in his own son being chased out of the country with his young family.

        Charles is a horrible man and I can’t respect him no matter how much good charity work he does. W/K are zero and will be the cause of their own doom all in good time. It’s Charles who is the disappointment perhaps because unlike his heir, he had so much potential. He had a chance to step up for H/M/A and didn’t, he had a chance to sincerely apologize for what he did to Diana when season 4 of the Crown, (which was much nicer to them than they deserve) came out and whined about being exposed instead.

      • Tessa says:

        Camilla also is able to manipulate him and that’s how she got where she is today IMO. She put down Diana and “traditional mistresses” were not allowed to criticize or put down the wife. Camilla did. Also, he just sat back and did nothing to stop Harry and Meghan and Archie being pushed out. ANd did not rein William in. I think though the person he trusts the most is Michael Fawcett, his courtier who runs the household and plans events for Charles. He’s been around since the early eighties.

  12. M Narang says:

    Interesting points about Charles. I think the exact same things could be said about William. At least Charles created the Prince’s Trust and has monetized the Duchy (as has the Queen with her Duchy) but what has William done, except bemoan his lot in life (like his dad) & trimmed some rose bush(es).

    • HeatherC says:

      Well he has inspired some GREAT fiction from the RRs! All that “William is a true statesman, William is learning to be king and he will be wonderful! William the family man, William the environmentalist, he INVENTED environmental prizes and work!” la la la along those lines.

  13. GuestwithCat says:

    Kaiser’s take on this hits all the right notes. Clive Irving is not wrong on any of the things he says, with the notable exception of surmising Willnot and Cannot are the right answer to anything.

    I can’t imagine how anyone could look at those two and think they could or would want to “fix” what ails the monarchy. They made it amply apparent that they want the perks, not the work.

    Also, he forgot or just is incapable of acknowledging that RACISM is the primary force that drove Meghan out. Yes, there were many other factors and dynamics in play but the intensity of the hatred toward her was unlike anything Diana got even at her most disruptive to the status quo. It was even unlike anything leveled at Fergie, and Fergie got it bad from within the family and from the press and even fled to America for some acceptance (and lucrative endorsements).

    No, this was an intensity of hatred like nothing that should ever be leveled at a human being, let alone a woman in the midst of a late-in-life first pregnancy. This was an intensity of hatred we see reserved for black people entering what have traditionally been white spaces. Like Hank Aaron received breaking Babe Ruth’s record for most home runs.

    So I grow really weary of any analysis of the departure of the Sussexes that pretends racism wasn’t a major contributing factor. The tea on that was amply spilled, the receipts collected and annotated.

    We outside of Britain will not ignore that which the UK media has made the “elephant in the room.”

    We will not forget. We will not let it go.

    • lanne says:

      It’s amazing the contortions they will bend themselves into to deny racism. The UK has wonderful individuals among its citizens, but its culture and media are highly problematic–I would not feel safe in a Brexit UK–I’ve been going there regularly since college but I don’t think I’ll be going back for a long, long time unless I’m compelled to for some reason.

    • VS says:

      Clapping Clapping Clapping…………all those people pretending racism towards Meghan wasn’t a problem

      It was racism and it was her being smarter and more competent that probably all of them combined except Charles.

      You saw the same thing with the Obamas in here. The level of vitriol directed at the Obamas was so unhinged that I feared for their security. Thankfully they are fine, and so is Meghan

    • sunny says:

      Yes to much of this comment. it is wild to see how racism is just seen as a factor as opposed to being one of the primary ones. Over the holidays, I along with my mother watched a documentary on media and the royals. It was fascinating to see how in the section on harry and meghan they experts they interviewed failed to acknowledge racism once! We are black and live in a Commonwealth country and my mother was raised in another Commonwealth country and lived in Britain for years(where she met my father). All this to say is she is familiar with the British racism. We finally had to turn the show off because the analysis was so disingenuous and obtuse.

  14. Kitty says:

    I have a question for y’all, be real with me do you see the royals lasting after The Queen is gone?!

    • Hannah says:

      @Kitty hello, Brit here. I have SERIOUS misgivings about the monarchy surviving once The Queen passes. I’m 30 so I don’t have the benefit of 40 years of royal watching experience. But I can tell you what Millennials and Get Z think. We’re just not interested in them. The whole idea of a Monarchy is outdated and archaic. The Queen has been around since my Nan was a baby so we kinda see her (The Queen) as someone who has always just been there. We ‘accept’ her / it as is. But after her, I give it 5 years – tops. Especially with Scotland & Northern Ireland seeking independence from the union. Once that happens, and I think it will. So will the Monarchy.

    • Pétulia says:

      I can see Charles ascending the throne and even William. But I doubt it will be the whole UK I can see Scotland and Ireland be independent. I don’t see George on the throne

    • Amy Too says:

      I think William is going to be the last King. And I think Charles and William will each be king of a progressively smaller “empire,” as commonwealth countries drop out.

    • Sofia says:

      I think it’ll end up being a “wait and see” thing. I think once the Queen dies, there will be a massive outpouring of grief which will then lead to a renewed sense of patriotism you know? Plus we could also see “let’s give Charles a chance first!!!” and then “well he’s old and could sue any moment so let’s wait for William” and at the moment, William and Kate are still fairly popular.

      Plus this would cause a referendum which no-one likes, too much effort that no-one really wants to put in and most importantly, the abolishment of the peerages which a lot of people actually want to keep.

      Source: am a Brit

      • tcbc says:

        That’s interesting because I suspect that in the Commonwealth a lot of republicans are waiting for the queen to die before leaving.

      • Sofia says:

        @TCBC I was referring to the UK only (mainly England) and not the commonwealth

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        So basically, apathy will keep them in place like always. People the world over sit back and allow all manner of atrocities because of our unwillingness to do the heavy lifting to change things when it’s possible. Like right now, I am going to prepare myself to scram in 4 years if necessary because I know over the months and next few years it will be pick, pick, pick at Biden and 4 years from now there will be mass amnesia about the GOP and an ushering in of someone worse, just smarter. I won’t be caught trapped again.

      • PrincessK says:

        By the time William becomes a King most of the people who support him will have died. William is not popular with the younger generation but Harry is.

    • SarahCS says:

      Also a Brit here and I think it will be a while before we see the back of them but I’m slightly optimistic it may be in my lifetime (I’m 42 and assuming I don’t go under a bus tomorrow).

      They have been exposed more than ever before and more people are questioning the value they bring against what they cost us. However, there is also strong apathy and let’s not forget a biased mainstream media but I believe the biggest blocker is that we just have bigger messes to sort out in the coming years, even without Covid we are getting daily updates on the many negative effects of brexit and it’s only going to get worse. Ugh.

    • Dee Kay says:

      William will be the last King. I think in 30 or fewer years, Parliament will vote to disband the monarchy but will allow folks to keep their lesser titles of Duke, Duchess, etc.

    • Nic919 says:

      I can’t speak for the UK but I think Canada will start to question things more. Right now our GG had to resign because she was awful to her staff and an independent investigation confirmed it. Most people are like “why do we even need a GG?” And the cost of having to pay her an annuity for life even though she didn’t finish her term and left because of her own actions is going to rile people up. At the moment the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is doing the duties of the GG, but it’s more ceremonial and shows how unimportant a GG is to the entire process.

      • ShazBot says:

        Nic, as a fellow Canadian, I totally agree. This whole situation has shown how utterly unnecessary this position is, and how our funds could be better directed elsewhere. Yes, checks and balances are very important to a democracy, but it’s stopped being a check/balance and is purely ceremonial.

    • Becks1 says:

      Not a Brit, but what I anticipate happening over the next few decades is what Charles has said he wants – the “slimming down” of the monarchy – but probably not in the ways that he meant and/or wanted. I can see a push for more financial transparency, a push for fewer working royals, less public funding (i.e. William should not expect the same money from the Duchy of Cornwall that Charles now receives), I think there will be a push to keep the taxpayer funded royals to be just the monarch and the heir, mayyyybe the next heir but that’s it. we’re already kind of there with the last one – as the older Windsors retire, we’ll have Charles and his siblings, and then just William. I think it will end up that Charlotte and Louis are never FT royals. I think more of the royal houses will open up to the public on a more regular basis, especially if Charles holds out and never moves FT to Buckingham Palace.

      I just think in general the idea of a hereditary monarchy is something that people are losing interest in, and while I think apathy will keep the monarchy in place, I think there will be a push against money it costs and the overall attitude of the Windsors.

  15. Cecilia says:

    This man obviously has a score to settle with charles. He raises a lot of good points but many of them can be said about every royal. It’s wasn’t hypocritical of charles to not let meghan and harry utilize sussexRoyal. It was hypocritical of the queen. She is the one that has a veto on anything and everything.

    • Jegede says:

      Exactly.👍👍👍
      It’s personal.

      Seems he’s just gunning for Charles every which way and wants William to supersede him.

      Apparently he’s quite critical of Harry & Meghan in his book, but is overwhelmingly sympathetic to Walmart & Kmart.

      • Cecilia says:

        The book is out already?? And you’ve read it?

      • JT says:

        Charles isn’t the monarch. He isn’t the one making all of these decisions. It the queen who is, so why is this author making it seem like it’s Charles’s fault or his problem? The queen had to be forced by Charles to retire Andrew, and alleged pedophile. The buck stops with petty Betty. We see what her decisions look like : Andrew getting taxpayer funded security despite being fired, keeping his HRH, he doesn’t even have to speak to the French or American authorities. The monarchy’s problems lie with the monarch. She shouldn’t get a pass.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        Ah so he’s another writer saying one thing to certain media outlets while pushing an entirely different agenda in their book. The one who wrote the book on Will and Harry’s feud last fall was similarly two-faced in his interviews.

  16. Nic919 says:

    This guy is using the fact that W and K have done so little to mean something positive. I guess we are going to skip over the fact that William has gotten a media blackout over his personal affairs, something Charles never managed to get. This blackout can’t even be discussed by the UK media, so if that’s not autocratic I don’t know what is.

    William is also much more tied in to the right wing faction of the Tory party and will be more easily controlled by them because they understand they need to flatter him. At almost 40 William has done little with his life and will continue on this path. The only thing he puts effort in is using his staff to leak stories to the press to bash his brother and sister in law.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Charles did enjoy a media blackout. People in the media knew that he was having an affair with Camilla and said nothing. The problem was Diana refused to remain quiet about the whole thing. Charles and William are the same and it’s because they have same attitudes and arrogance, they couldn’t get along until they had a common enemy who was Meghan.

      • Nic919 says:

        The affair was being reported in Canada and the US before it came out in the UK. It was not a court ordered blackout but more of a gentlemen’s agreement kind of like the Wallis Simpson situation. What William has obtained is far more autocratic and it has prevented publication of a few non UK books on the topic.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles himself outed Camilla. He admitted he had an affair. Morton never said Camilla was “mistress” but “friend”. Charles friends rushed out and denied that C and C were more than friends even though they knew the score. Andrew Parker Bowles was willing to put up with facade…until Charles outed Camilla, which forced the PB divorce.

  17. Hannah says:

    Doh! If that wasn’t abundantly clear to anyone during the past +- 25 years, I recommend a trip to your nearest Spec Savers. I genuinely think there is no-one he wouldn’t throw under the bus (Camilla & Liz incl) I have been a ‘blind’ Monarchist all my life. Only actively ‘royal watching’ when H & M came on the scene. And, it’s thanks to Harry & Meg that I’ve seen how truly vile our RF are. They’re like a pack of starving wolves. Wait, wolves are cool. Loathe Charles – spiteful, spineless, petty nincompoop (and PWT William is Charles v2 on steroids) Seriously fvcked up ‘family’

  18. MissMarierose says:

    It’s easier to find fault with Charles because he has a long record.
    It’s easier to project one’s hopes onto William because he has no record at all.

    • Shoo fly says:

      Exactly. These pieces are all premised upon the idea that Charles doesn’t conduct himself like the Queen and that William will not conduct himself like his father. Charles *does* conduct himself like the Queen, but in service to himself and his causes, which are different from hers. Therefore the courtiers gave him up to the press as an attack post many many moons ago – pre Diana. As to William there is not evidence whatsoever he is different than either of them, just evidence that he is right wing and will play happy white nationalist family with his boring pretty wife who has been entirely stripped of any her pre-marriage identity that may threaten the right wing, like playing team sports.

    • Nic919 says:

      This is why he gets a pass. That said no one really looks into why an almost 40 year old doesn’t have much to his name, as compared to Charles.

      • Harper says:

        Doesn’t seem like the old guy has delved into William’s life at all at the same level that he has the Queen and Charles. His idea that Will and Kate “get it” shows the holes in his research. Will’s off the cuff corona jokes, his breaking of Scotland’s covid protocol to get his mask-ess photoshoot with the public, and the reported rages he flies into, coupled with Kate’s detachment from everything except her curling iron and her coatdresses. does not bode well for the monarchy’s future.

      • Nic919 says:

        Billy’s actions in the last six months alone show he is more prone to making arrogant or ignorant comments than Charles has. And of course his covid choo choo tour may have set off another Scottish referendum. I don’t recall Charles fucking up this bad.

    • Sunday says:

      very well said, Miss Marierose.

  19. ArtHistorian says:

    He has some very solid points regarding Charles – but I think that he doesn’t realize how lazy and incurious William is, and how that presents a whole new set of problems, especially his laziness. Liz is dull, uneducated and incurious but her passive nature probably hasn’t really hurt the institution, though she has also been unable to bring it into the 21st century (she is simply too old and insulated). However, she hasn’t been lazy. The royals don’t work THAT much, compared to the rest of us, but William’s laziness is in a league of its own – and it will create problems, especially when he and his wife clearly loves their privileged lifestyle in a world of increasing equality.

    I do not entirely agree with the author’s idea that an apolitical head of state is inherently a healthy thing: “If the head of state turns out to be really wrong, things go down the tube very rapidly. As long as the head of state and the people to whom the people swear allegiance and the person that they look up to is not a politician, a church figure, or a general, there’s a healthiness to it.”

    While I do agree that there are clear benefits to an apolitical head of state, constitutional monarchies are fragile because it all depends on the person inhabiting the office and it is an office that is inherited and you can’t easily get rid of an incompetent one. I say this as someone living in a constitutional monarchy with a very popular and capable monarch – but it could very easily have been a very different matter. Not only is the situation entirely dependent on the quality of the person inhabiting the office but to a certain degree also dependent on the persons surrounding and supporting the monarch.

    Fx, the Danish RF was incredibly lucky that Ingrid of Sweden married the heir and that she was the person that she was. Despite her being born royalty she was a person who had a natural flair for PR and would, according to people who knew her, have been able to make a career in business if she hadn’t been royalty. She helped deeply unpopular king turn around his public image during a time of national crisis and she helped her husband control his alcoholism and become a popular monarch. Whether she played a part in the events that led to her eldest daughter becoming the heir is not clear – but she raised and helped Margrethe II to be an exemplary monarch, the most popular one in modern times. If the Law of Succession hadn’t been changed, I think that it is quite likely that the oldest monarchy in Europe wouldn’t have survived. The future of the institution still depends on how well her son will inhabit this office. He has always been well-liked but he married extremely well because CP Mary has earned a LOT of respect through her work (and Daisy is smart enough to guide and teach her daughter-in-law, something that she learned from Ingrid who personally mentored the current Swedish Queen). While Mary married up in terms of social rank, I think that Fred married up in more personal terms (just like I think Harry married up). Personally, I think that the Danish monarchy is is pretty solid ground because the previous and current generations are a lot smarter and more savvy than the Windsors. And perhaps they aren’t as entrenched in their privilege as the Windsors are.

    The Swedish monarchy has had a more rocky time in the 20th century – mostly because the current King isn’t that great and because in the past the Swedish government has been willing to enact changes to the institution AGAINST the monarch’s explicit wishes. However, CP Victoria is very capable and, as I understand it, quite popular – so they are probably safe for another generation. The British monarchy will probably survive but in a very diminished form (and hopefully, significantly defunded). The Spanish monarchy probably won’t survive.

    • Couch potato says:

      If I remember correctly, Denmark and Sweden don’t have a “house of lords” who are able to influence the politics in an official capasity. One should think the monarchs position there are more “vulnerable” if they misbehave. They don’t have the protection the british monarchy have by a strong aristocracy who knows very well their titles are likely to go down the drain with the monarchy, if Britain is turned into a republic. As you pointed out the monarch and crown prince couple in Denmark (and also in Norway), and the crown princess couple in Sweden are quite popular, so it’s not likely to happen anything in their life span. However, if the next generation misbehaves, I think the citizens are going kick them to the curves.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        That’s right. Denmark dispensed with a two-chamber system a long time ago – and even then it wasn’t comparable to the House of Lords. In fact, in Denmark the aristocracy has become fairly unimportant. However, that isn’t really the reason why the Danish monarchy would be easier to dismantle legally – we have a written constitution and by law the finances isn’t as entangled with the Crown as it is in Britain.

        There’s a very clear separation between public money and private money that there isn’t in Britain. Fx the Danish monarch doesn’t have income from estates like Liz has from the Duchy of Lancaster and Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall. I think that the break from an absolutist monarchy to a constitutional one presented a unique opportunity to transfer a lot of the monarch’s properties to the new democratic state – because prior to that the Monarch was essentially the State. Fx in Denmark almost all the palaces that the royals use are public property, their upkeep managed by the State (thus there doesn’t arise a situation like the current one with Buck Palace that has been mismanaged by Liz’s household). The royal art collection was also nationalized and became the foundation for Statens Museum for Kunst (the national gallery) and their curiosities collection became the the foundation for the National Museum (archeological museum) and several castles/palaces are public museums as well.

        The Danish RF has some private money (don’t know how much – but nothing compared to the wealth of fx the British RF). They are also much less expensive than the British one in terms of public money – probably because there isn’t a ruling class intent on preserving inherited privileges. Modern Denmark is still very much shaped by social-democratism and isn’t nearly as class conscious as Britain is. There’s more transparency when it comes to their public money (I think the only place with less transparency is what their security cost).

      • Couch potato says:

        Yeah, the modern Scandinavian countries are different than Britain when it comes to royal properties, transparency, constitutions, and class systems. It’s going to be a lot harder and much more complicated to get rid of the monarchy in Britain. I doubt that will happen any time soon. As long as the majority are indifferent to the monarchy, and no strong forces are advocating for a change, it’s likely to remain status quo.

        I’m pretty sure the Norwegian royal family are the least wealthy of the royals, and they have a completely different attitude than the British. King Haakon made some smart moves before and after he became king. Insisted on a referendum before he accepted the throne in Norway, he family took part in activities like skiing, which was (and still is) an activity for both rich and poor, and most importantly, he was aware of the poor economy and didn’t flaunt their wealth. Although the royal courts of both Haakon and Olav in many ways was inspired by Queen Victorias ways of doing things, they kept that mostly within the royal palace. King Harald and Queen Sonya (and their family) have gradually “modernised” the monarchy to be more in line with the norwegian society, while the british RF (and the courtiers) are holding on to the old ways for deare life. If anything’s going to be their downfall it’ll be the citizens having enough of their old ways and their insane luxury life.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Couch Potato I am not sure I personally think Brexit is going to be the revolution that the UK never had.

        Of all the European countries the UK is probably the only one where the peasants did not revolt despite possibly the highest level of serfdom which were actually entrenched as law way into the 1970′s.

        Brexit will be a rude awakening to working class Brits who will see themselves increasingly marginalized on all fronts and then they will look to see what is happening elsewhere in the world and the penny will finally drop.

        After that I think the BRF, House of Lords and the Peerage system will all be abolished.

        Paradoxically the above is what Brexit is trying to avoid i.e. people knowing about their rights. This is why the Right Wing Media is so powerful in the UK.

        The Tories have finally cracked the formula for staying in power;
        1. Control the ultra right wing media via cronies and Russian Oligarch’s who are also using their media power to maintain status quo and get even richer (remember Cummings crazy rantings about ‘The Matrix’).
        2. Use of Cronies to control who owns wealth
        3. Remove critical subjects from the school curriculum
        4. Force Universities to teach what they want by withholding funding
        5. Muddy the waters of the separation of powers doctrine by effectively delaying or stopping parliament at will

        And the list is endless.

        The UK has effectively been subject to a right wing takeover since 2015 and the most bizarre thing is that the super rich have convinced traditional working class communities to do their bidding.

        That can only last so long until some other rule maker smells opportunity.

      • Couch potato says:

        @Mignionette Brexit might very well be what sparks the citizens to want changes. I just don’t think it’ll happen in the nearest future. I think it”ll have to reach a really lowe point, and a strong voice (party or carismatic person) before anything happens. It’ll hopefully turn the citizens against the tories, but I’m not so sure the monarchy will be totally abolished in the process. Not unless the monarch are wildly out of touch with the people. Throughout history people have turned to churches, traditions and stable authority figures etc during hard times. If the monarch at the time are behaving well and act in a way to comfort people, they’re more likely to want to keep the monarchy (in a slimmed down more transparent form). I think Charles might be able to pull that off, but I highly doubt Will could, unless he hire someone who actually understands PR and how to read the room (in this case the country), and actually follow this persons advice.

    • Elizabeth says:

      That struck me as well. A monarchy is not automatically healthy, and how could it ever really be apolitical? If Charles is “autocratic,” is he really the best person for this job?

      (This is also why it has never made sense to me that the family expelled first Diana and then Harry and Meghan: the most charismatic, beautiful, modern, beloved royals who would have made the best possible argument for keeping the institution. Meghan especially was enthusiastically ready to use her glamour and celebrity to protect the monarchy. And her realness and pathos, as a woman who had lived in the face of US racism and yet risen up and made a name and a fortune for herself. But they couldn’t accept they needed her help.)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The BRF is so dysfunctional and backward that the kind of royal spouses they need is exactly what they don’t want. They wanted a Kate because she’s willing to let herself be broken down and molded into what they think is desirable – a woman who keeps her head down, fades into the background and lets her royal husband do what he wants. However, what they needed was a Meghan. The BRF really needed that William as heir had married someone intelligent and dynamic – but he (and they wanted an anti-Diana because they are still shaken by her). They can’t seem to look at themselves and ask what could we have done to make things better for Diana and Meghan – but rather they blame them for not submitting completely to their archaic rules and the petty insecurities of those of higher in rank. It is rather strange because it is really due to a previous Queen Consort that the BRF got a renewed lease on life at the beginning of the 20th century. Queen Mary was certainly much more smart than her husband – and she seemed to understand that some kind of change was needed in this new age of revolution. It was on her watch that the current charitable practices of the BRF became the norm. But they need a new model now. Sadly, Camilla may know how to manage Charles but she isn’t going to get him to accept change. Neither is Kate going to help steer her dim-witted husband through the shoals.

        A huge problem for the BRF is that they are unable to present a united front. They can’t seem to truly work together – but instead have three competing courts that spend a lot of time to undermine each other. It is very old-fashioned and almost seem like a throwback to days of the feuding Hannovers of the 18th and early 19th centuries. It really highlights how ineffectual Liz is when it comes to her family as a firm. She’s the boss – the rot starts with her.

      • Tessa says:

        Camilla wanted this life, I doubt she’d ever “advise” Charles on how to change things. Camilla was able to manipulate things to her advantage and was undermining the first wife and probably saying things, Oh Charles I am interested in hearing about your next project. Doesn’t Diana care about your interests? I know I do. She then would proceed to put down Diana calling her “that ridiculous creature.” I think she is out for Number One. ANd she does want to be Queen Consort.

  20. Amy Bee says:

    I know there are some here who think Charles is great but his treatment of Diana and Meghan and Harry says otherwise. Yes, he created the Prince’s Trust which has helped a lot of people but what he does in Scotland with Dumfries House and the Duchy of Cornwall should indicate that he’s not as caring and concerned for others as people think he is. He decided a long time ago, that while he waits for Mummy to die, he will make as much money as he can while pretending to be an advocate for the down trodden and a climate warrior. His climate change initiatives are geared towards enriching the Crown which he hopes to inherit. Therefore, it very hypocritical of him and the Queen to be concerned with how Harry and Meghan earn their money. William will not any better because like Charles is surrounded by sycophants and yes men who are afraid to tell him to get out his own bubble and see people as human beings and not subjects. William stands to inherit a system which protects the status quo and ensures he remains on the throne. It is a system that he believes in and will not any different to the Queen’s or Charles’ court

  21. Pétulia says:

    Charles has two problems.
    First, his rather progressive views and approach to the monarchy that’s why the establishment and the Tories don’t particularly likes him. So he surround himself with people who thinks like him or enables him.
    Second, due to his unpopularity because of Diana he can’t really stand up to the press in an direct way.
    But I think if he would have shown more support of H&M publicly his image would have improved.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles should have gotten HIMSELF a Mark Bolland type when he married DIana. Someone who could steer him into not getting jealous of his wife and learning to be lest concerned about getting attention.

  22. Bettyrose says:

    I’m always amazed by pictures of Meghan from that brief period. It’s so clear how hard she tried to play the part they gave her, wearing bland colors, taking a place in the background. To paraphrase her, it wasn’t easy but she expected it to be fair.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Yes, the photos are actually sad. She doesn’t look like herself, she tried to damped her star power to appease the less vibrant royal women around her. She wore ridiculous hats slapped onto the *side* of her head like the other royal women. She looked stifled. I am so glad Meghan can once again shine.

      I said this when W&K first got married: in a way it’s better that W chose a woman with no career goals, no personality or opinions of her own. Because a woman with a true life outside of William would have had to give up that life, and that would be sad.

      • Tessa says:

        Kate simply to me is an anachronism to the fifties and earlier when a young woman would go to University for the degree in MRS. Like in Titanic when Rose’s Mother said the purpose of University was to find a husband.

      • bettyrose says:

        Hey, I had a male friend in high school in the early 90s who said a college choice was extremely important because you were likely to meet your spouse there. I didn’t, personally, but it is a common place even today to meet one’s spouse. Doesn’t preclude one from being fascinated by their courses, seeking intellectual challenges, and pursuing long term ambitions. (Male friend also didn’t marry his college girlfriend, but point being he was hoping to).

      • Nic919 says:

        Many people meet their future spouse at university. They don’t change their university choice at the last minute to stalk their chosen future husband and then proceed to insert themselves in his life until he finally caves a decade later. Kate did nothing of value once she graduated university either. Nothing. That’s not close to being normal and yet the way the British media tried to spin that as anything but obsessive behaviour is almost amazing. No sane parent would want their daughter to chase a man the way Kate chased William. They would want her to get other interests, maybe a job or an actual career. The fact that Carole and Mike encouraged her to act like this, and also try to insert Pippa in the mix just shows how awful they are are parents. No wonder why James has no clue what to do with his life. His parents only had a place for putting daughters in a regency like marriage market, but no clue how to raise a self actualized adult.

  23. Poppy says:

    The only person fit for the throne is Anne.

  24. AnnaKist says:

    I was watching “The Crown And Us – The Royals In Australia” well, last night. There was a part showing Charles and Diana in Australia, and how much people here loved her. Then all the cracks started to show and things became so dire that Petty Betty eventually WROTE separate letters to Charles and Diana, instructing them to get a divorce and be quick about it.I was pondering this while a former London correspondent said. “… and it’s easier to understand if you remember they are not a family; they are a firm.” It’s no wonder they seem like a bunch of cold, egocentric twats, because that is exactly what they were raised to be.

    To all the Aussie Celebitches – Happy Australia Day! However you spend the day, stay safe, stay well, be happy, be grateful, be kind. 🇦🇺 🦘 🐨

  25. JaneDoesWerk says:

    My gut reaction to this: oh look, William found someone else to pick on and bully in Harry and Meghan’s absence.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      This was my first thought as well, but since I’ve grown to dislike Charles so completely, I say let the games begin. I hope they tear each other apart in service the the Crown they don’t hesitate to destroy others over.

  26. Mia says:

    “Wouldn’t it have been nice if it could just jump a generation…” different trash is still trash. No, William is an entitled, rage layabout and his wife is just a loaf and only cares about being taken care of. Horrid people from horrid parents who in turn make horrid people.
    At some point the British public will have to face the question: What amount of damage has the monarchy and Liz done to the country whereupon they accept classism and nepotism as part of every day (“Because the queeeeen..”) that then leads to accepting every Eton subpar of a human as a prime minster. The infatuation people have in the UK on The Firm and their “kind hearts” (HAHAHAHA) is incredible to watch. Even in down right left wing dinner parties, when you utter the words “Abolish The Monarchy” people take a step back because they simply can’t compute.
    The damage is enormous.

  27. WhoElse says:

    LOL! Everyone here is busy “critiquing” the RF theatre when it’s quite clear you’ve bought into it big time. First of all, you think Charles “tries” and “has a work ethic”. B flipping S.
    Aides run his charities, which don’t actually do very much of significance, and were set up specifically to rehab his image after the Diana fiasco. His climate change yammering was almost definitely focus tested as a cause that would make him seem “in touch” and “conscious”, which is the only reason he digs his head out of his ass long enough to pay lip service to it every three months or so. He IS surrounded by a large number of sycophants who have been telling him for years he’s on the cusp of being king, and it’s all he’s ever really wanted. He’s old school, like his mother, and still has big dreams of empire.
    W&K are very different. They might be boring, but they’re more modern in terms of their ambition. They just want the glamour and attention of an influencer’s life, which is why they quickly became so jealous of H&M. They ARE lazy, but it’s mostly because they’re jaded about the stuffiness of their roles and their failure to generate the “star power” their marriage was engineered to create. Also, their kids are not cute. Sad but true.
    Charles runs the Firm, which handles the business and licensing aspects of the RF business, so he definitely had a big say in blocking Sussex Royal. The queen is really old, and I honestly doubt she’s as involved as anyone around her makes out. She’s just a convenient mouthpiece for a lot of RF decisions and utterances.

    • tcbc says:

      Charles was yammering about climate change before it was testing well. And of course other people run his charities, he is not qualified nor experienced enough to that successfully.

      People here have varying opinions on Charles, from lukewarm to negative.

      And as far as buying into the theater, it seems you have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the queen’s PR. She is ultimately in charge, therefore the blame lies primarily with her. If she is too old or infirm to handle that responsibility, she should abdicate. But as long as she sits on the throne, the buck stops with her.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana was not the fiasco. Charles was. He needed to grow up and stop being jealous. The Queen Mum making him feel like the center of the Universe and too self centered for words. CHarles also lacked humanity and still doesn’t have it considering the way he just sat back and let william oust Harry and his family.

  28. Over it says:

    I don’t agree that Charles should get
    The sole blame for Harry and Meghan not being able to use the S brand. Petty, Charles and more William I believe were all responsible for that decision. Especially willy because he was incandescent with rage that his brother and his brother wife won’t do as he told them and continue to be his punching bag and doormat. William and Kate are lazy . They are the
    Delusional naive ones wanting to live like the Normals while living in palaces stocked with help . I agree that Harry and Meg were mistreated still are but the
    Monarchy treatment if them is a jealousy issue especially with William and his waity

    • Tessa says:

      Charles is capable of standing up for himself. He made Camilla Non Negotiable. But just sat back saying nothing when his grandson Archie was likened to a chimp and just let william run amok doing PR stunts to put down his, brother, even involving the wife and Children.

  29. Jane Doe says:

    The monarchy needs to end.

  30. Nikkitabby says:

    Am I the only one wondering WTF is up with the perpetual “exploding watermelon” hue of Charles’s face?!! Holy cow, what’s up with that?

    • Tigerlily says:

      NIKKITABBEY it looks like Charles has a bad case of rosacea but hasn’t gotten any treatment for it. Which is a shame because while there’s no ‘cure’ the condition can be managed.

    • elle says:

      No, I came here with the same question! I guess I should have asked Dr. Google. Rosacea.

  31. A says:

    I think that he’s fooling himself if he thinks that William is any less autocratic or dictatorial in his tendencies than Charles. If anything, I think William is more that way than Charles is in some respects, simply by virtue of the sorts of people William chooses to surround himself with, and whose opinions he values.

    William seems to me like he’s more of a right wing reactionary than Charles is. Charles, all things considered, will likely pay some type of lip service to the notion of a constitutional monarchy, like the Queen has for all these years. William likely doesn’t have that respect for any of those things. I don’t think he cares about democracy at all. He chums around with people who certainly carry a great deal of contempt for democracy. Why would William magically be any different?

    I think Clive Irving is someone who primarily has most of his sources in and around the Queen/Charles’ camp. I think he doesn’t know too many people who are close to William, at least close enough to know of his views on things like this. And there hasn’t been much reason for William to be public with his view on these things too. He’s only the FFK, the heir to the heir, whatever he has to say isn’t thought to be hugely important to focus on. Him and Kate benefit greatly from the press putting them in this position where they’re really there for the glam, without too much scrutiny of their substance. Because the truth is, it’s not that they don’t have any substance. They do. It’s just that whatever substance they have is not something that is very good or healthy for the country, and the lack of spotlight on that is going to cost people hugely down the line, when William becomes king.

    • Nic919 says:

      I believe Irving stated that he started as a journalist when the queen first came to power in 1952. So he has to be in his 90s like her and I doubt he has any sources under the age of 50 who can give him the scoop on William. Also he mustn’t read much of anything, because just this year alone the covid jokes and then the super spreader tour would show that he’s extremely out of touch. Maybe he doesn’t have the internet?

    • Mignionette says:

      They don’t care what William is or isn’t. Rather they care ‘what’ they can make him.

      Bill and Katie are young, DGAF and are malleable. That allows the media to completely set the narrative and the cast of players.

      Increasingly the BRF are figure heads with no Prerogative powers . UK PM’s keep them around for stability and state visits as other HoS love all the pomp and ceremony – case in point Trump who nearly wet himself getting a State visit.

      The UK media (and by implication the establishment) want Chucky to be skipped bc he’s too opinionated and problematic that is why he is being called an ‘autocrat’.

      This is the same modus operandi as calling WOC loud, aggressive, angry and opinionated. You snuff their chances of success before they’ve even begun.

      • Tessa says:

        The trouble is I don’t think William is malleable. He seems to ignore any sensible advice. I think the Pandemic train tour was his idea and he probably sulked until he got his way and ignored the warnings. Even decided he did not need a mask. William probably can’t be talked out of things that he is determined to do. He did not listen to Harry when Harry told him to mind his own business about Meghan. Kate is busy with the image of “fashion icon” (LOL) “great wife and mother” and she “cares.” That “image” I think has nothing to do with reality especially after she snubbed Harry and Meghan.

      • Nic919 says:

        William is almost 40 and so he’s not young to the population and he’s certainly not malleable. If he was he would have been doing far more engagements than he does. His covid comments and other racist comments about Uber drivers just confirms that’s he’s a rich asshole so unless they have blackmail on him, they aren’t going to get William to do much of anything he doesn’t feel like doing.

        What they like about William is that he’s obviously racist with right wing tendencies and he likes to be given things. He’s quite similar to his great uncle Edward VIII who ended being flattered by nazis because of his weak character and frankly William is no different.

  32. L4frimaire says:

    British monarchy and Britain in general is going through a diminished moment, most of it self-inflicted. The monarchy was just coasting along, lost their damn minds when Meghan showed up and actually wanted to work, and now they can’t move on from their spite and grudge holding. Look at how they’re carrying on over President Biden removing the Churchill bust from the Oval Office and Boris Johnson’s acting like a dog who just got a biscuit because he was the first “European” leader to call Biden. Charles is very old school, William is old school and so far hasn’t shown much interest in even the ceremonial aspects of his job, which are the auto pilot part of his role. All this discussion like there is a crises of the monarchy is just BS. These little projects and efforts to care are just window dressing and “duty”. They’re boring, don’t want anyone upstaging them, and will continue on doing what they do. They’re not going to change and will carry on doing things their musty way, hiding their finances and mess, and the public will acquiesce. Neither Charles nor William will make any major changes apart for putting the women more on the back burner. Neither Camilla nor Kate will do much beyond kinder,küche,kirche and being decorative ornaments decked out in Crown jewels. Charles will be lucky to get 10 years, will be manipulated by courtiers and his heir, and William is a reactionary. This is who they are.

    • Tessa says:

      Camilla is in her seventies, she most likely will cut back on duties due to health reasons, Kate will be still lazy and doing less when she’s over thirty years younger than Camilla. William may work to advance his in laws if his marriage to Kate lasts.

  33. Mignionette says:

    For me these attempts to depose Charles boil down to one thing. The media want to ‘refresh’ the Monarchy so they have plenty of drama and ‘sexy young Royals’ to report on. (Don’t @ me – this is the mindset of the ratchet reporters – they long for the days of squidy-gate, tampon love and toe tucking Fergs – Chucky has had his day).

    Betty has a few more years left in her before a Regency could likely be enforced on the basis of metal competency. Add to that Chuck is from a bygone era that this generation of media does not care for. How often do you see Chuck in a buzzfeed article. Homeboy had to bribe Enniful with a future OBE / Knighthood for a spread in Vogue.

    Also Charles has also never really endeared himself to these parasites, whom he openly referred to as plebs in full view of the world. There are whole generations between the ages of 70 down who despise Chuck and that is problematic as it directly impacts the standing of the BRF and strengthens the republican argument.

    Also they have ALL the tea on Chuck that the public is yet to hear about and it isn’t pretty. Add the Diana era, Camilla as Queen Consort and it’s all messy AF.

    It will never happen but I would not be surprised if the courtiers and UK Govt are also hoping to skip Chuck and his tampon ambitions. He’s just too damaged from a PR perspective.

    BTW I despise them all – Betty, Filip, Chuck, Bill and Katie. I wish we could bin them all off but unfortunately or fortunately (depending on how you see it), Chuck will be the last King of England bc by the time he ascends the throne , the Scots will have effed well off and Ireland will be united.

    The Welsh if they have any sense will also tell Bill to fuk off and that they don’t need a PoW who can’t even speak Welsh or understand their culture.

  34. HK9 says:

    Charles inability to handle someone else’s popularity is staggering. Add racism and lack of vision and it’s the beginning of the end. Charles resented Diana deeply because the people liked her and she was good at charity work. Characteristics you think he would love. Had he been able to get over himself where that was concerned, so many things would be different.

    The fact that he didn’t support his own son, in the great work he was doing, and let his wife be vilified in the press. (one word from him and it would have stopped) shows his lack of vision. The fact that they- Charles, The Queen, William & Kate, allowed this to happen means they won’t fair well in the future. It basically shows that they’re not very bright, and as such, they don’t know the position their in. When they figure it out, it will be too late.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      It’s a complete myth that Charles is intelligent. Dumb as a bucket of rocks, with pretensions. William’s just dumb as a bucket of rocks.

      • Mia says:

        This is so true.. Charles believe(d) that coffee enemas could heal cancer.. what a ridiculous human being.