Queen Elizabeth really doesn’t want ‘family conflict at this stage of her reign’

State Opening of Parliament

In 2017, I covered a macabre and fascinating article about what exactly happens in the minutes, hours, days and weeks following Queen Elizabeth’s death. As I said, it’s macabre to think about it but the UK and Commonwealth countries have been preparing for it for decades. It even has an operational name: London Bridge. Operation London Bridge is activated the moment the Queen passes, from how the media reports it, to the moments of silence, to the funeral arrangement, to where King Charles goes and what he says. Back in 2015-17, it was looking like the Queen’s reign would probably end on a high note, in a prosperous, peaceful note, without a war or a series of self-imposed crises. But that’s changed because of a combination of Brexit, what looks like an impending Scottish independence, commonwealth countries plotting their exit routes and now, being outed as a bunch of racist neo-colonialists who refused to support or accept a woman of color in the family. So, People Magazine had an interesting little story:

As Queen Elizabeth marks 69 years on the throne this year, she is dealing with one of the biggest blows to the royal family in the wake of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey.

“What she won’t want is family conflict at this stage of her reign,” a royal insider tells PEOPLE.

Many in palace circles say Harry’s criticism of the “institution” can’t be separated from the Queen because she is head of the institution.

While the Queen recently reunited with her husband Prince Philip, 99, after his month-long hospital stay, she dealt with the immediate aftermath of Meghan and Harry’s interview solo. “She is always head of the country and Prince Philip was always head of the family,” the insider adds. “He is not there to be that—so everything is falling on to her shoulders. It must be an incredibly lonely place to be.”

[From People]

People have compared the Sussexit to the “War of the Wales” in the 1980s and 1990s. I think those comparisons are completely apt. Diana was the long-burning fuse and Harry was the bomb. When Harry said he felt like his mother knew this would eventually happen, he really felt that way and I think he’s right. The Queen doesn’t want this family conflict in the late stage of her reign, but let’s just think of it more like… chickens coming home to roost. Decades of dysfunction, racism, poor management and pettiness have led to this moment. As for everything falling on Liz’s shoulders… what’s also been clear is that Charles is in charge. And Other Brother keeps running his own show and he’s f–king it up completely.

Incidentally, Katie Nicholl spoke to Entertainment Tonight about that big plan to hire a “diversity tsar.” She mostly put her own spin on what’s already been reported, but she did add a few new details:

According to Nicholl, the possible new role of a diversity czar “will be someone possibly leading a team, maybe several members of staff, but essentially the diversity chief will be somebody who oversees the workforce at the palace and make sure that it is a modern and a progressive workforce that incorporates people with disabilities, people of color, ethnic minorities.”

“My palace sources have said that while this is a role that they were looking for before the Oprah interview, they have listened to what Meghan and Harry have said, they have listened to the allegations of institutionalized racism. They are taking some of this on board,” Nicholl adds. “But I think at the Palace, there is a realization that more could be done to make it a more diverse workplace. So there is great significance with them finding a chief of staff who’s going to look over specifically diversity at the palace.”

As for the Palace’s reported “listen and learn approach,” Nicholl says it’s a sign they’re “not brushing this under the carpet. The fact is, what Harry and Meghan have said has resonated. Whether or not the Palace agreed with everything they said, we know the recollections may vary, but I think that that message that Meghan clearly did not feel that this is an institution that supported her is something that they are listening and learning from,” she shares. “I think the feeling is that perhaps there have been some mistakes that have been made and certainly as the Palace is concerned, that they learn from those mistakes and move on from them.”

[From ET]

I understand the point Nicholl is *trying* to make and she obviously thinks she’s caping for the monarchy, but can I just point out something? All of these white folks had to do was BE NICE TO MEGHAN. From a technical standpoint, there was no need for a diversity tsar simply to ensure that Meghan had “support.” The white folks could have supported her. They chose not to. And no diversity tsar is going to change that. As I said, chickens coming home to roost.

State Opening of Parliament

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

109 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth really doesn’t want ‘family conflict at this stage of her reign’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. JT says:

    If the royals’ diversity tsar is anything like our coronavirus czar than absolutely nothing will be accomplished. What can be done now? The only diverse person in that family left.

    • Couch potato says:

      Maybe they’ll use this as an excuse for another train tour. Instead of the Covid expres they’ll have the diversity express. Shake hands with a few POC and walk quicly back to the train with their blenda white staff (including their diversity czar).

      • JT says:

        I think the diversity express has already left the station. Say hello to all of the ethics darling.

      • LaraW” says:

        JT- I’m assuming it was a typo but I really like it: say hello to all of the ethics!

        All of them. They certainly could use them. I think they’re well on their way to bankruptcy, with H&M gone.

      • Couch potato says:

        Yes JT, everyone with a common sense knows that, but they’ve proven time and time again, they’re completely shitty at PR. It’s after all the people who thought the covid express was a good idea🤦‍♂️

    • FC says:

      I’m sure he will be a nice old white man with a strong background in Keenness To Diversity.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Oh dear. Katie Nicholl the fan fiction writer strikes again. The whole world witnessed the royal brand of diversity. It was deeply unpleasant and left a huge stain on the monarchy. They can activate as many emergency diversity tsars as they like. No amount of whitesplaining or complaining will work.

      • JT says:

        @Laraw I wish I could take credit for all of the ethnics but that was a Charles quote. Lol.

        A much better strategy would be to just treat Meghan kindly from now on. Acknowledging your wrong doing towards her, publicly apologize, and stop briefing against her. You cannot suddenly treat the POC staff (if there are any) better and then ignore Meghan and Archie.

      • Enny says:

        Possible new role…possibly leading a team…my palace sources say…

        Yeah. She don’t know $hit.

      • North of Boston says:

        JT, for starters, they could just start by focusing on the “not briefing against her” Baby steps, you know? before they try to work their way up to “acknowledging their wrongdoing” and “apologizing” But even the simple “just stop actively being shitty and making stuff up about her” is WAY to much for these people.

        And if they can’t stop doing the things, there is no way they are ever going to come close to acknowledging the things and apologizing for the things. no matter how many czars they announce or offices they staff.

    • Lorelei says:

      LMAO I completely forgot that we even had a “coronavirus czar”

  2. Snuffles says:

    I’m at the point where I’m just going to sit back and watch them implode. At this point the monarchy is a speeding, runaway train that it doomed to crash and burn. I agree, it’s decades in the making and no amount of breaks will stop it. It’s starting to unravel and I think even those nasty courtiers know they are fucked once the Queen dies.

    • Mila says:

      Me too I was just going to say that, I honestly don’t care I just can’t wait for the shit to fall, the rest is just noise.

  3. BayTampaBay says:

    The dude wearing the uniform with two medals in the first picture of the QEII is Marquess David Rocksavage Cholmondeley also known as “Mr. Rose Who?”.

    • JT says:

      That’s Rocksavage? I’ve never looked him up before. He must be extremely important to be involved in this way. And Kate tried to push out HIS wife? How dumb could you be?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Rocksavage holds the hereditary position of Lord Chamberlin and is VERY important at court. The Cholmondeleys attend every official State function by virtue of David’s position.

      • Alexandria says:

        Yes it is. He’s just wearing a uniform and carrying stuff…I guess that’s important to royalty lmao. Ok I’m joking, somebody can correct me.

      • JT says:

        Damn Bay. Kate done f*cked up with that one. She really tried to do something. Why would she think she would’ve succeeded in pushing her out?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Also, “Rose Who?’s” grandmother was a childhood playmate of QEII and was one of her bridesmaids at her wedding to Philip. Kate really f*#ked up on her “phase out” crusade.

        One would think at Top CEO would have more sense than to try and “phase out” a member of a family that has been officially at court by inheritance for generations.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        This truly confirms how dumb Kate is. In her eagerness to get the men in grey suits courtiers on side, she completely forgot about the blue blood countryside ones.

      • Harper says:

        Carole forgot to do the research on the cutting Rose thing. I know that Diana did try and ice out one/some of Chuckie’s playthings. I read it in some bio and realized that if I read it, Carole probably read it too (as I just assume Carole has devoured everything ever written on Di). Carole thus thought that Kate could safely cut Rose, without understanding that even as a duchess, Kate didn’t have Di’s blue-blooded position in the social hierarchy. There was no one to pull rank on Diana but Kate didn’t have the same standing in Norfolk and now it’s messy.

      • Becks1 says:

        So the Great Lord Chamberlain position IS hereditary but it alternates by monarch with another family. So, David Rocksavage will not be GLC when Charles is king. If he is still alive, he will be GLC when William becomes king (or his oldest son will be.) So yeah. Kate really effed up with her handling of that situation, bc she was NEVER going to be able to cut out the Marchioness of Cholmondeley the way she may have wanted to. She’s going to have to face Rose’s husband or Rose’s son at every major state function, every opening of Parliament, etc, for the entirety of her husband’s reign.

        I also read somewhere that the throne for Queen Consort is stored at Houghton Hall, but not sure how true that is.

      • Kalana says:

        How cruel of William to pick a mistress Kate will have to see for the rest of her life.

      • Chica says:

        I don’t know why anyone is thinking Kate’s reaction to wanting to push out arose was anything more than human. Every woman who finds out her man has cheated on her, and worse yet, having done so with her best mate, would want and attempt to push out the mistress. No matter what title they have or not. You would try, even if it was never going to be successful. If any of us were Kate, we would be seeking revenge against Rose. Of course we would. Or, we would be leaving our husbands. But since she’s going to be the future Queen and is the wife of the FFK of England, I’m sure she thought she’d be able to do something to negatively impact rose. Problem for miss keen is like everyone said, she’s a commoner and will never be seen as being in the same level as Rose as far as bloodlines are concerned.

        If I were her, I would have never taken a birthday stroll with Rose after the fall out. That would have been a more effective exercise of control .

      • Becks1 says:

        @chica – well I dont think they were best friends, but I do agree in general that most women would want to push out the other woman that their husband is sleeping with. But, this is a different type of marriage than most of us have and the expectations are going to be different. It sounds like Kate may have reacted to this affair differently than maybe Rose expected – after all, we arent hearing that David Rocksavage is trying to cut out William or anything. My guess is that Rose thought that Kate would shrug and move on, either bc thats what they do in those circles OR because Kate has done it before (or some of both.)

        But regardless, its less what Kate wanted to do and more that she thought she could actually do it. She may have wanted to permanently cut out Rose from Norfolk circles, but it was never going to happen. I go back and forth on who leaked the initial “Rural rival” story, but I do think sometimes it was the Middletons, and that they thought it would put Rose in her place – that she was going to be seen as “lesser” than Kate and that it would show Kate’s social standing – but instead, it was the catalyst for the affair more or less coming out.

      • Mila says:

        Yep! That is why the Cholomondeleys are on the top of the aristo tree they have a power both money and socially.

    • harla says:

      When Charles becomes king then a different family, the Lancasters I believe, will take over this ceremonial role. And then when (if) William becomes king the Cholmondeley’s will have this position back, the two families trade off with each new monarch.

      • LaraW” says:

        That’s interesting they trade off. Is it just tradition or formalized somewhere?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        You are correct on the rotation but not sure about the family as it may be the Earls of Carrington or the Earls of Ancaster It is very complicated but Charles reign will be short so David Rocksavage will be back.

      • harla says:

        @LaraW, I really don’t know but I could imagine that it was a way to balance two powerful families way back when and they’ve just kept it going. The family that currently holds this position also houses the throne that Prince Phillip sits in during the opening of Parliament and has to ship it back there every year for the opening.

      • Becks1 says:

        LOL I should have kept reading for one more comment.

      • Couch potato says:

        @LaraW a former LGC (I think it was the earl of Oxford) died without fathering a son. His two daughters inherited the right to appoint LGC. One of the sister married the marquess of Cholomondeley, and her share has been passed on to a male heir ever since. The other sister’s share was split several times between her descendants. An agreement on the division was made in the early 1900s. Since the Cholomondeleys have 50 % share, they get to appoint a LGC every other reign, while the other shareholders alternates between the Cholomondeleys turns.

      • Emily_C says:

        What silly things royalty and aristocracy are. This is like some overcomplicated game children come up with.

      • Mila says:

        @couch thanks, wow how interesting!

      • Mila says:

        @Emily_C yep it’s just another ritual to feel important and powerful there is no real substance to it but a House of Cards.

    • BarbN says:

      Isn’t that also Rocksavage in the photo with the Queen and Charles walking together? He’s walking ahead of them, carrying the Queen’s crown.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yup. Apparently he used to have to walk backwards, lol, but they changed it and now he can walk straight ahead.

    • anotherlily says:

      The whole Rose affair opens a door on another world. The 7th Marquess (pronouced mahkwus) of Cholmondeley (pronounced Chumley) is a high-ranking nobleman and hereditary Courtier. A Marquess is ranked between a Duke and an Earl. He had the title Viscount Malpas at birth, became Earl Rocksavage at age 8 when his father became the 6th Marquess of Cholmondeley and succeeded his father as 7th Marquess in 1990.

      Rose’s husband is gay and has a long-standing partner with whom he spends much of the year in France. His marriage to Rose is in the long-standing tradition of noblemen who may be gay or who are committed to a mistress they cannot marry. They look for a suitable wife with many childbearing years ahead of her to produce the necessary male heir. Rose is 23 years younger than her husband and she was already pregnant with twin boys when they married. The wedding took place at Chelsea Town Hall a day after the engagement announcement and the boys were born a few months later.

      • Mila says:

        I don’t think he’s gay I think he’s bisexual, but I also don’t think he has any sexual connection to Rose they just have an agreement. And honestly fair play to her she gets an absolutely wonderful life and money for nothing since he’s not there for most of the year she just roams around their estates buying art.

    • Robin says:

      I agree, Chica. I think the affair really hurt Kate, even just the gossip and the press interest, and she must want to chuck him out of the house and change the locks. She is human after all, albeit she is inhumane in some of her actions. But, this is royal life and she is a royal wife; unfortunately for her, she left normal emotive reaction at the doorstep when she married into an outdated system. Sidenote – I always think William’s possible affair is with someone who has a lot to lose, as much as he has and more. So, someone married with children, but also someone whose job and income perhaps rest on keeping her mouth shut and her future employability clean. The days of bed hopping aristocrats is slightly outdated; it’s not all Downton Abbey anymore. I do think it could be someone known to Rose and that set, and the gossip trickled back to Kate via this route. If this is correct, William threw a friend to the wolves in order to hide his behaviour, which is disgusting in itself. One day we’ll know, and I stand to be corrected. It’s just a hunch.

      • goofpuff says:

        I wonder though, what is different about this affair versus the many others that William has been consistently rumored to have had the entire time they’ve been together including their dating years? She didn’t chuck for those then.

      • Becks1 says:

        @goofpuff to me that is the interesting question here.

        Well I do think there are two main points – like Robin said, its very possible the affair isnt with Rose, but someone else, and Rose is being used as a decoy for gossip and maybe THAT’S why the press isnt reporting on it – because they know its not Rose. But then who is it and why is Rose allowing herself to be used as cover like that? Maybe for the reasons we mentioned above – Rose is pretty untouchable, her husband has and her son will inherit a fairly visible position at court (even if its mostly ceremonial), Rose has access, Rose is by all accounts well liked in Norfolk, etc. Maybe this story, if untrue, just makes her laugh and shrug her shoulders. But then of course the question is who is being protected, and why is that person more important to William than his own wife.

        Second – if we accept that William did have an affair with Rose, then I think given his track record while they were dating, it would be safe to assume that this is not his first affair. so why is this the one where Kate tried to run her off? Or is it just that this is the one that became public, but then we’re back to why. Maybe its just as simple as it being with someone Kate knew, not an anonymous lawyer or banker or whoever in London, someone that Kate interacts with on a regular social basis, with kids the same age – maybe that was enough for it to warrant her reaction.

    • Emily_C says:

      These people are all ridiculous, but gotta admit, “Rocksavage” is an awesome name.

  4. Jay says:

    If she doesn’t want family conflict now, perhaps she shouldn’t have nurtured it for 60 years.

    • Mila says:

      Exactly, like what does she expect she sold decades of dysfunction time after time covering up with thin paper.

  5. Alexandria says:

    Eh a bit too late Ma’am. You’ve lost HM and nobody in your UK house is willing to change or apologize. Goodbye.

  6. Lauren says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but the vibe that I’m getting from the articles pushed by BP and KP is that Betty is about to die. Like about literally drop dead any moment now. Is it to get us to pity her? Or is something else at play here (ignoring the fact that she is 94)? They are pushing the “the queen doesn’t want this to be her legacy” like they were pushing the Philip is in the hospital narrative.

    • Sofia says:

      She IS 94 so almost all articles are going to have a morbid tone because it is true that she can die any moment because, again, she’s 94. The whole “Philip is dying!” has honestly been happening for the last 5, if not 10 years. But they definitely amped it up this time round because of the Oprah interview.

      • Snuffles says:

        There is definitely a guilt trip motivation for the “she could die at any moment!” articles aimed at Harry and Meghan. I’m not saying that she won’t because she IS in her mid-90s but I doubt it’s because of anything particular about her health.

        It MIGHT be about her considering stepping down and that’s why CH and KP are at war trying to convince the world who’s more kingly.

      • Mac says:

        The Queen will never step down. She believes she is divinely chosen for the role and will serve for life.

      • Couch potato says:

        I highly doubt she’s considering stepping down, at least not abdicate, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s some talk behind closed doors about appointing Charles to Prince Regent.

      • Sofia says:

        @Mac where did I say that she should step down?

        Edit: upon reading, I see you were replying to @Snuffles so my bad!

      • Lauren says:

        @snuffles I highly doubt that Petty Betty will ever step down. When she said for life she meant it.

    • Mila says:

      Really?? I’m not getting that I don’t think they expect her to die for at least another three to five years. You have to remember her mother lives till she was 104, and her father only died early because he had abnormal health issues and smoked a lot. I think it’s Philip that they know he’s going to die any moment.

  7. EllenOlenska says:

    Not to mentioning hiding Andrew from facing the music. Cause that may well blow up at any time. And no, they won’t delay it if someone dies…unlike Meghan and Harry’s interview.

  8. GuestWho says:

    You reap what you sow. She “raised” a terrible brood. If she had stepped back 5 years ago, she would have gone out at a time where she looked good. Now, as you say, the chickens have come home to roost, and this is her legacy. She let two great people be run out of the country under her watch. And Andrew…

    Did she and Philip reunite after he got out of the hospital, or did he and his mistress reunite?

    I do agree that she must be in a desperately lonely place.

    • JT says:

      I still don’t think she could’ve stepped back even if she wanted to. I used to think that her stepping back for a regency would have been the smartest thing, but now, not so much. Without Philip guiding the family, and Harry’s presence, everything has fallen apart. Charles has only been regent for a few years at best and look what’s happened. H&M have left, William is low key trying to stage a coup, and the monarchy’s image is in tatters. So much of their goodwill depends on the image of the queen, that I just don’t know how it could be possible for her to leave alive.

      • GuestWho says:

        There are also tax implications of transferring properties and such to Chuck if she’s still alive I think. Philip stepping away from wrangling the family was a big blow to the whole operation. That combined with getting rid of Geidt was a disaster for them all.

      • LaraW” says:

        Guestwho- what were the tax implications? I’ve become more interested in this shadow world of royal finances. I thought everything was held in trust by the monarchy; why would a change in monarchs or their consorts complicate that? Or is it a matter of their private properties?

      • GuestWho says:

        @LaraW

        I’m honestly not sure. I just recall reading an article years ago when they were talking about Betty stepping back that mentioned that there were steep tax implications of handing over assets to Charles while she was still alive as opposed to his inheriting them on her death. As with many of my royal family memories, it is vague and fairly uninteresting.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        LaraW, I believe a “monarch TO monarch” transfer of wealth and properties is NOT taxed. If Ol’ Brenda were to give up the crown while *alive*, and Charles takes over the Duchy of Lancaster (for his income), he’d be taxed on that. Also, if she is not reigning monarch at the time of death, all monies, property, art, jewels etc that are *her* “personal” property will be taxed upon gifting/willing to her heirs (whomever she has in the will to get anything).

        As a monarch who is reigning at death, her monies/property/jewels/art can be passed to her DIRECT heir w/out taxing.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think the OG is generally right – her personal properties, if she is the reigning monarch, will not be taxed IF they go to Charles as the next monarch. That includes all the jewels (a lot are crown property but a lot are her personal property), estates like Sandringham and Balmoral that are personal property of the monarch, etc. This is why Charles is going to inherit pretty much everything that she owns personally. And she has a LOT of personal assets. I dont think he would be taxed on Duchy of Lancaster funds, because those are attached to the monarch, the queen isnt going to “bequeath” that to Charles in her will, that’s something that is automatic.

        I do think the QM did this – passed most of her property to Elizabeth – and it was not taxed but that was kind of sketchy. and I said this the other day, but she set up trust funds for her grandkids early enough so that there were no tax implications there either when she died. And apparently Margaret gave her property on Mustique to her son before she died so it wouldnt be taxed, or not at the same rate, and then got pissed because he sold it like a year later, lol.

        The Norman Baker book “and what do YOU do” touches on the royal finances, i would be surprised if its the most in-depth look at them out there, but it was more in depth than I was expecting and also fairly enraging when you read about how much money they have and how they take advantage of the system.

      • LaraW" says:

        Thanks so much for your replies, all. Not that the public would see an account of the taxes (or would they?), but it would be amazing if there was an itemized list of all her personal property and their estimated market value (like the paintings). Also would like to see how much of that was brought in the traditional way: stripping former colonies of whatever caught the royal family’s eye.

    • Marjorie K. Margel says:

      The video showed Phillip being taken to Windsor Castle.

    • Mila says:

      You guys think she’s lonely, I think she doesn’t even have a clue, doesn’t read the papers or watch TV anymore just goes around riding her horses, reading Jane Austen and writing letters to her cousins or whatever.They just use her name to incite guilt and pressure people into doing what they want and she doesn’t know. I think she gave up three years ago, and gave the reins to William and what ever happens happens.

  9. intheknow says:

    These fools are incapable of learning. Their ongoing campaign against Harry and Meghan is proof of that. They CUT off financial support to them. Left them without security while essentially egging on bat shit crazy people who wants to hurt them. That is a choke hold intended to say to Harry ‘come home or die’ imo.

    Then Harry and Meghan went moved on to provide financial support for themselves after being cut off and that was still not good enough for the RF because they are still going after them. These people eat their own/their young.

    In order to change, one must first want to, have some self awareness, the ability for self reflection, the intellect (which they are sorely lacking) and the willingness to change. Nothing will change and I expect to see them abolished in probably during or right after Charles’ reign.

    • Lorelei says:

      I think I was honestly more shocked that they told Meghan she should probably keep acting, as they “couldn’t afford” to take care of her or something like that— it takes absolute balls of STEEL for them to say that when we know the BRF has hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars.

      The AUDACITY of telling Meghan that…it’s breathtaking that they even tried it.

      • Jay says:

        @Lorelei, I’d almost forgotten that weird detail. You’re absolutely right that it’s laughable that this incredibly wealthy family “couldn’t afford” Meghan when we all see them dripping in jewels and pomp.

        I think it was also more revealing of the family mindset in terms of A. They hugely underestimated Meghan’s ability to contribute, and quite clearly did not expect her to hit the ground running the way she did.
        Maybe they expected her to be lazy or a stereotypically “hollywood” film star. They assumed acting was all she was “good for”, in my view, and couldn’t conceive of her actually representing the family.

        B. I have come to believe that they probably found it distasteful to fund Meghan as a full-fledged royal due to racism. There is an emphasis on how much Meghan’s clothes, jewelry, or house costs in a way that is rarely done with Kate, like how dare Meghan have these nice things, while they assume it’s Kate’s right to have nice things. I don’t believe all of that has to do with their status in the family ranks.

        So basically, racism – it’s always racism.

      • FunkyEdema says:

        @Lorelei. And you know if Meghan had taken them up on that “suggestion,” there would have been endless moaning, and articles by the RR, about how demeaning it was to Queen to have her acting. No role she took would’ve been deemed acceptable.

  10. Oh_Hey says:

    Listen – we are watching the last desperate gasp of the monarchy and that’s a good thing. All of these internal implosions are like a mask hiding the even worse problems of Scotland and the Commonwealth and the EU.
    William won’t have to worry about being king – that won’t exist by the time he gets there.

  11. Cecilia says:

    All they had to do was offer meghan the same protection they were offering kate.

  12. Sofia says:

    The “conflicts” wouldn’t happen if she stopped sticking her head in the sand when things get slightly difficult. Yes I know she’s in her mid 90s and she’s most likely not “all there” like most mid 90s people aren’t but she wasn’t exactly known for stepping in when she was younger either.

    • Snuffles says:

      A lifetime of of perfecting to art of “doing nothing”, surrounded by sycophants, employing people based who their family is and not because they are qualified, trying to run a business based on hierarchy and not true corporate management, paying non-Aristocratic staff crap salaries which only motivates them to sell out the family to the press for a little extra cash in their pockets. I could go on an on.

      But just like John Oliver said, it’s an Institution incapable of growing and changing and therefore doomed to become extinct like the dinosaurs.

  13. Myra says:

    So are we just going to gloss over Andrew? We can easily contrast how the palace chose to deal with Andrew versus how she chose to deal with Harry (and Meghan). The guy quietly retired, retained all his titles and his taxpayer funded security, despite not doing any work on behalf of The Crown. That’s the kind of stench on her reign that they would never be able to rid off.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The stench can be smelled all around the world.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        Oh yes indeed and cotton seed!

        I just saw an interview where the interviewee compared the treatment of Meghan (3 year old bullying complaint. Where even the “victims” did not formally complain vs. Andrew. The journalist nervously threw out a sentence stating that the “allegations” of Andrew’s participation in Epstein’s crimes have not been proven.

        I was like – yeah AND neither are the bullying allegations against Meghan either. So, why did the palace allow that non-complaint to even make it to press and why is Meghan being investigated but Andrew’s sins must ALWAYS be handled with kid gloves. Something is really stanky.

      • FunkyEdema says:

        @809Matriarch

        “ The journalist nervously threw out a sentence stating that the “allegations” of Andrew’s participation in Epstein’s crimes have not been proven.”

        Well, that’s just it. The “allegations” about Andrew were never proven, because they were never even investigated. We all know why.

    • Kalana says:

      And the family didn’t throw or his family under the bus to prop anyone else up.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Andrew no longer has taxpayer funded security. The Royals don’t make the decisions regarding security. It’s up to the Police and parliament. The Queen has to pay for it privately.

      Only working royals are entitled to security and only the Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, And Kate have 24/7 security. All the others only get security when they are working. If it were up to the BRF they’d all have 24/7 security including non-working Royals like Beatrice and Eugenie.

      It’s gross that Andrew didn’t lose a lot more though and that the Queen was willing to pay for his security.

      • Cessily says:

        There is no blame but her own and who she surrounded herself with, if she can protect sick Andrew from the press there is no excuse for what happened and continues to happen from the BRF and BP. They could stop this at anytime but instead every positive article generated by the “work and initiative” of H&M is followed by a personal attack by “unnamed entities” while they put out puff pieces on W&K. It is disgusting.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        So…Police/Scotland Yard determine who does/doesn’t get security. Since Pedo doesn’t qualify, Queenie ponies up the couple of hundred thousand a year FOR HIM, yet was unwilling to pony up the costs for HER GRANDSON, HIS WIFE, AND HER GREAT-GRANDSON.

        “Can’t afford her,” says the woman with HALF A BILLION £s of personal wealth. Mhmmmm…. riiiiight.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Ainsley 7 where is it confirmed that Andrew doesn’t have taxpayers funded security anymore? The tabloids said he had kept taxpayer security last year but given sources I’m obviously sceptical. But thought the point was that security info isn’t disclosed?

        Beatrice & Eugenie were reported as having taxpayer security until their 20s when it was cut& Andrew had to take over. I also read that Kate had RPO a few years before marriage. So not sure the taxpayer security for working royals only has been a hard & fast rule although as a taxpayer I support it.

        Are we to believe that Philip’s security is covered by the Queen privately rather than the state now?

        Also curious about Diana’s security post divorce. Who would have been liable for the RPOs that Diana allegedly turned down? Was it the firm or state?

      • Kalana says:

        They tried to take away 300k of Andrew’s funding after he was made to retire and the Queen personally intervened.

      • Becks1 says:

        I’ve read a few conflicting things about Andrew’s security, there was discussion about taking it away and apparently the Queen had a total fit, and so either she pays for it privately or it is still taxpayer funded, I’ve read both in various places. Either way, its a horrible look since she neither nor charles were willing to pay for Archie to have security and didnt want to pay for MEGHAN to have security – lets remember that – they told her they couldnt afford to pay for her security until Harry pushed back.

        Kate definitely had RPOs before she was married.

      • Myra says:

        I haven’t seen that Andrew’s security is no longer taxpayer funded. I have read that his mother intervened at the last minute to ensure that he didn’t lose his taxpayer funded security. Even if she did pay for it privately, what does that say that they were unwilling to pay ‘privately’ for Harry’s (and Archie) knowing that their security risks were the highest.

      • Lorelei says:

        The knowledge that she happily pays privately for Andrew’s security while denying it to Harry, Meghan and their baby is just…there really are no words.

        Both she and Charles are wealthy enough that they could have quietly continued to pay for the Sussexes’ security with spare £ found in their sofa cushions. The cruelty and spite with which these people treat their own close family members is really something.

        Imagine being bold enough to keep paying for Andrew’s protection even when the Epstein story was front + center in the headlines again these past couple of years, Andrew is actively refusing to speak to the FBI to answer questions, and millions of people saw him lie his ass off in that trainwreck of an interview on the BBC.

        But Archie, who was a target before he was even born? Cut him off, no problem. His safety and the safety of his parents simply wasn’t. important. enough. to either the Queen or Charles and they had no problem doing this— even when there was the obvious risk of everyone in the world finding out that they were fine with putting Harry and his family in even greater jeopardy than they already were.

        Even comparing Meghan to Andrew as if they are *in any way* comparable is sick. Meghan is faultless and her name doesn’t even deserve to be in the same sentence as Andy’s. But people actually act as if they’re equal threats to the monarchy.
        Just breathtakingly arrogant and misguided, like everything they do.

      • Nic919 says:

        The threat assessment is also made based on the level of threats and the argument for working royals to be protected is because they have to go out in the public more. But that doesn’t explain why the Cambridge kids get security. They aren’t working royals, so clearly that argument is flawed.
        And we know that there are far more threats against Archie, the first royal child with an admitted biracial background and he’s been targeted by white supremacists.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Also on the security issue there was this article talking about security coordination for this event that Harry& Meghan attended in September 2018. For the ‘Meghan could have hidden her pregnancy to give Eugenie’s wedding more shine’ crowd note that the rota was apparently shouting questions at them on whether she was pregnant https://mitmagazine.co.uk/shorthand/it-broke-my-heart-the-eventprofs-who-worked-with-harry-and-meghan/

        Anyway this article shows pretty extreme measures were required to keep them protected& this was before the smear campaign had started. I find it hard to believe there wasn’t much more hate after they announced they were stepping down especially as there were reports on uptick of racist abuse against Meghan last January when the news came out.

        As security services/police made decision on Harry’s security, I’m curious how threat level was such that Harry’s security could be removed immediately after stepping down from role especially after press had leaked their location. I’m pretty sure ex prime ministers & certain ex civil servants/ministers will typically have security after retiring.

      • Becks1 says:

        @ABritGuest – that’s what I think Harry was expecting. Once they said they would not pay for security once they stepped back, I think he still thought there would be a grace period, so to speak – maybe 6 months or a year so they could plan their next steps and do so safely. I think by that point, February or March 2020, once he knew the royals would not pay for his security indefinitely, he still expected there to be some type of coverage for a little while after they stepped back. And instead, it was just gone. I think that caused a HUGE part of the problem with Charles, bc financial support is one thing, but putting Harry and his family at risk was something else altogether.

      • FunkyEdema says:

        Yes, he does. Mummy intervened to ensure his security was reinstated. It costs approximately 300,000 pounds a year. Lucky British taxpayers.

        “ The Queen has ruled Prince Andrew can keep his $535k-a-year bodyguards, following a bombshell move by the US Department of Justice to summon him for questioning over his links to billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

        The three-member security team were set to be stripped from the Duke of York last Monday, after a review was ordered into his security earlier this year.”

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/prince-andrew-to-keep-taxpayer-funded-bodyguards-after-queens-intervention/UFYRV2DEE6NFLIQS3ZNKHBBAPQ/

  14. Chill says:

    If the Queen did not want this mess in her family she should have brought her children up better. Chickens are coming home to roost.

  15. Amy Bee says:

    Ultimately, the Queen’s poor leadership is the blame for this mess.

  16. Over it says:

    Since according to Katie recollections are still varying, these people still have no plans to stop being racist mean to the bone fools. So stop with the play acting

  17. Christin says:

    I am very doubtful that either Betty or Phil are capable of managing anything at this stage. They are very elderly people.

    You can hide a lot of cognitive issues when your main job is to smile and wave, or be occasionally photographed riding in a car.

  18. Golly Gee says:

    Interesting how easily Katie Nicholl (another tabloid phone hacker according to Byline Investigates) can talk out of the other side of her mouth when she —along with the rest of the tabloid flying monkeys — fueled racist hatred against Meghan to the point where she needs to worry about her and her son’s own physical security.

  19. Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

    The last thing most of these old Etonians want is a more diverse workplace. Look at what happened to the one black employee who worked for Prince Charles! They’ll have to pay lip service to the idea because the world is watching since they announced it, but I would not be surprised if they had a hard time recruiting a more diverse workplace because a) the pay is crap and b) Meghan & Harry just exposed how racist the institution is.

  20. Lorelei says:

    Well maybe she should have thought about that before being a heartless, raging b!tch to her grandson and his wife for years, hmmm?

    She brought this all on herself.

    ETA: their sources can tell us until they’re blue in their faces that they were developing this role in advance of the Oprah interview, but I doubt a single person actually believes that

  21. IRMAVEP says:

    As many of you have noticed, the gentleman in red carrying the crown on a cushion in the second photo here is David Rocksavage Cholmondeley the husband of Rose Hanbury, whose name was [ahem] linked so closely with William’s not that long ago. Their property is less than three miles from Anmer Hall in Norfolk where William and Kate have spend the majority of their time in recent years. They are part of the ‘Turnip Toffs’, the elite aristocratic social set which William and Kate mixes with. If anyone here.read the Tatler article Catherine The Great before it was ‘modified’ due to Kate’s legal letter to the editor, it was the Turnip Toffs who were so offended by Kate’s ghastly social climbing mother Carole, and in particular at her management of the renovations to Anmer Hall. Carole turned Anmer into a McMansion, complete with a vibrant new orangey-red roof which looked, they said, abbrasively vulgar compared with the subtle old brown roof, which blended with the countryside. It’s worth reading the Tatler article just to gasp at the descriptions of pretentious, pushy Carole who was the laughing stock of the Norfolk set. If only these aristo had been able to bring their influence to bear on the Court, they may have been able to clip Kate’s wings. Who knows, maybe it’s not too late now.

    • Harper says:

      @IRMAVEP that info about the Anmer roof is fascinating. I hadn’t heard that before but I can just imagine that the right kind of preservation is so important to the toffs, and here comes middle-class Carole, barging in without giving the home the proper respect. Personally, I always thought Anmer looks like an ugly duckling compared to other old English homes brimming with charm and character.

      • IRMAVEP says:

        Harper, If you google images of Anmer Hall Norfolk UK, you can compare the older discrete slate roof with the garish new ‘red/orange one, which clashes with both Anmer’s exterior walls and outbuildings and also with the buttery stone walls of nearby Houghton Hall [David and Rose’s stately pile]. The short narrow earthen country road between A H and H H would be a doddle for Wills to walk or cycle down, without drawing attention from neighbours [should he fancy a frolic in H H’s elegant ‘rose garden’. Both properties are within a couple of miles of Sandringham House’s 200 acre estate. The Queen and her family used to spend each winter at Sandringham, from Christmas to March but of late – due to waves of covid, the Queen’s great age, and Philip’s post-hospital recuperation, H M has remained at Windsor Castle. Should the Queen find herself unable to return to Norfolk, the Turnip Toffs may exert greater authority over who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ of their inner circle. I fantasise that Kate may be ‘overlooked’ [at least occasionally] on invitations to T T soirees, parties and formal dinners, in the same way that Diana was by the Highgrove set, as Charles’s friends closed ranks against her and pulled up the drawbridge to hide Charles’s and Camilla’s trysts. You might enjoy a look at the following: ‘Look at the Ridiculous House Prince William’s Alleged Mistress, Rose Hanbury Lives In.’ It’s online and has lots of pics.

  22. Miranda says:

    To me, this just adds more weight to Harry and Meghan’s allegations. They went out of their way to exonerate the Queen and Prince Philip, and it was clear that Harry still loved them. You could tell by his pained expression that he really didn’t want to upset his very elderly grandparents, but the hostility towards his wife and child was so egregious that he felt he had no choice but to speak up and defend his family. Just think how toxic that environment must have been to drive him to that.

  23. blunt talker says:

    Some lady friend of Prince Charles just ripped into the Markle family-the part I could read she says the royal family should be grateful the Markle family did not attend the wedding-they are frighteningly common-She called Thomas walking Meg down the aisle would like some type of lump-I could not read the rest .