Prince Charles displays a photo, at Clarence House, of himself & Meghan at her wedding

For International Women’s Day, the Duchess of Cornwall hosted some notable women and women’s advocacy groups at Clarence House. The photos were, I believe, taken by one of the in-house royal photographers and distributed to photo agencies by Clarence House. In some of the photos of Camilla’s meeting with women rowers, a photo could be seen on display in the background. That photo? A black-and-white image of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Sussex on Harry and Meghan’s wedding day.

Prince Charles has a photo of himself walking daughter-in-law Meghan Markle down the aisle during her 2018 nuptials to his son, Prince Harry, on display at Clarence House.

Eagle-eyed fans noticed the photo on display Tuesday as Charles’ wife Camilla Parker Bowles hosted an International Women’s Day event.

Female rowers Kat Cordiner, Charlotte Irving, Abby Johnston were invited to meet with the Duchess of Cornwall after crossing the Atlantic in 42 days, arriving in Antigua in January. The trio, who were joined by former rower, Tim Christian, beat the previous record by seven days.

Among the framed photographs on the side table was a gorgeous, black-and-white pic of Markle — whose own father did not attend the wedding — with her father-in-law as he escorted her down the aisle of St George’s Chapel in Windsor.

[From Page Six]

This is Prince Charles telling the world: “I can’t be racist because I escorted my Black daughter-in-law down the aisle and I have a photo to prove it!” No, but seriously, this just makes me kind of sad. Charles really was pleased to walk Meghan down the aisle. It’s a reminder that for a moment, Harry and Charles’s relationship was pretty strong. Which might go a long way towards explaining Harry’s anger towards his father now – Charles didn’t back him. Charles threw him away and didn’t fight for him. Charles chose to back William’s unhinged plays. But hey, the photo is nice.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

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

95 Responses to “Prince Charles displays a photo, at Clarence House, of himself & Meghan at her wedding”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. C says:

    Charles is selfish and awful at times but he’s not as stupid as William and he knows Harry and Meghan are the only real star power connected to the BRF. I see these olive branches and stories about them coming back to be half-in-half-out after the Queen’s death as him pleading with them to help their failing institution out. While I am sure Harry is gracious enough to mend things personally, they aren’t coming back.

    • MsIam says:

      Nah, Charles is afraid of what’s going to be in Harry’s book, that’s all. He’s the “soft regent” or whatever but his son has to beg to get security? His son has to beg to PAY for security rather? Nope Charles is the a**hole through and through.

      • C says:

        Of course he is. But he also knows the rest of the family is a bunch of duds. And he wasn’t expecting that although Harry and Meghan have their detractors, everything they touch turns to gold. He’s always wanted popularity – he wants in on that.

      • Chergui says:

        While I can see all of the above being potentially true, I do think sometimes we forget that these are also humans with an emotional side too. Kaiser is right about the fact that Charles did seem genuinely happy to be walking Meghan down the aisle.

        Who know’s what the truth is with what went wrong. Was Charles just a coward and backed down too easily? Was he worried they’d outshine him? Could it be something else entirely? All we can do is guess, but I don’t think every move the royals make is about manipulation, self service and jealousy. I suspect it’s more complicated than that.

      • C says:

        I totally get what you’re saying. But I don’t see it as a lot different from a lot of dysfunctional dynamics in non-famous families. Many, many of us have toxic family members who want to get in on what we have if we get fortunate. Those relationships are often complicated with moments of real tenderness, but offset by really toxic actions.
        I’m sure there was a part of him that genuinely wanted to walk Meghan down the aisle – although it probably became a point of his pride not being hurt and her not being “grateful enough” when she suggested she meet him halfway. Charles has moments of humanity like anyone else. But we saw what happened when Diana became more popular than him. Unfortunately because of his position, he has more power to control his family in a negative way.

      • Pentel says:

        Remember what Meghan said in the Oprah interview….she implied that they believed what “they were being told.” My interpretation of that is that Bulliam and Buttons were the troublemakers doing the telling and Charles (and perhaps the Queen too) were the ones believing the bullcrap. Now they’re all stuck!

    • Ainsley7 says:

      So, Charles did everything he could to crush Diana because of her star power. He does not like to be overshadowed. The only reason he cozied up to Meghan was PR. He knew how good it would look for him to walk her down the aisle and that’s the only reason he did it.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Chergui, I also see what you’re saying, and agree to some extent.

        But when it comes to Charles in particular…it is just so ingrained in him, and has been for his entire life, to view absolutely EVERYTHING through the lens of PR and how he can get more for himself.

        I think he knew *exactly* what the reaction would be when he walked Meghan down the aisle, realized it was a golden opportunity to get him the kind of positive coverage that even money can’t buy, and grabbed it. (And is still milking it now, as evidenced by that photo being so prominently displayed — even as he is currently fcking H&M over re: security.)

        I’m not saying there was no part of him that felt genuinely happy that Harry had found the love of his life, but with Charles, I personally believe everything is secondary to “how will this make me appear in the press.”

      • C says:

        Lorelei, ITA.

      • Colby says:

        I think both can be true with Charles.

        I believe he was happy to do that for her and Harry, I believe he loves Harry very much….but his *severe* entitlement and narcissism, which to be fair, was ingrained in him from birth, just wouldn’t allow him to be happy for them and support them once they started to overtake his shine.

      • joan says:

        I think Charles walked the bride down the aisle for his image.
        Sorry but I must mention this….why does a grown woman need anyone to walk her down an aisle??? Beyond silly…Both Megs and Charles loved the optics…

      • Christine says:

        Lorelei, I completely agree. It’s no accident this photo is being stealthily shown now. We’ve seen Charles and Camilla’s various rooms throughout the pandemic, on Zoom, and I think this is the first one with either Harry or Meghan. I may be blocking something out, but this feels timely and purposeful.

        I’ll admit it, I was charmed when Charles walked Meghan the last bit to Harry. I can’t believe Charles was so dumb to squander all the goodwill from the wedding, including his “warmth” towards Doria. I was hopeful it was an honest gesture, I know now it was not.

    • Off topic. I noticed in the family wedding picture Kate’s pose was like she didn’t want to be beside Doria at all. She seems like she was repulsed by Doria’s presence beside her. “We are not very much a racist family.”

  2. Cel2495 says:

    He is shiit. I think he just put it there to send a message to Harry and Meghan … hey I have no problem, we can fix things. A damn pic will not erase all the shenanigans this family has pulled.

    • MY3CENTS says:

      Yes, this is just performative caring.

    • Couch potato says:

      +1 Cel2495. We haven’t heard anything about this photo on display until now. My guess it’s recently set up.

      • Babz says:

        I think it’s been moved to a more prominent location. If I remember right, early on during lockdown when Charles was doing Zoom appearances from his office, that picture was seen in the background on the table behind him. There were articles about it, with the picture highlighted, just as it is now. That location seemed a more natural place for it, surrounded by other family pictures. The location now seems purely performative.

  3. Sue E Generis says:

    A little off topic, but it really bothers me when these articles refer to Meghan as ‘Markle’. I may be wrong, but I never seem to notice Camilla, Sophie, Kate etc. being referred to by their maiden surname only. I see it constantly with Meghan. Am I mistaken?

    • BW says:

      I see Kate referred to as Middleton and Meghan referred to as just Meghan.

    • Sofia says:

      Kate is still referred to as “Kate Middleton” all the time. It’s just noticeable here about Meghan because this is a Meghan article.

      • Sue E Generis says:

        Yes, I’m aware that they refer to Kate as’Kate Middleton’, what I’m saying is they don’t simply refer to her as ‘Middleton’, whereas they don’t bother to use Meghan’s first name at all.

    • MissMarirose says:

      People magazine used to refer to Kate as “Princess Kate” all the time and had a “Princess Kate” tag on their website for all their stories on her and this went on for at least a year after Meghan married into the family. Meanwhile, she’s never been anything but “Meghan Markle,” never “Princess Meghan.” About a year or so ago, People finally changed Kate’s tag back to “Kate Middleton.”

      So, yeah, they’ve been treated differently, even by American press.

    • Concern Fae says:

      What amazes me is that this is now a second generation of Mountbatten-Windsor wives where whoever comes up with the protocol for titles can’t be arsed to figure out a way for these women to be called something either than a title that erases their name (Duchess of Sussex) or forces the press to use their maiden name, because there isn’t anything else.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Concern Fae I think it’s been an issue since the internet came along, because they continue to use whichever name people are more familiar with/likely to Google for SEO reasons.

        Barely anyone would do a search for “The Duchess of Cambridge,” because everyone (at least outside of the UK) still thinks of her as Kate Middleton and always will.

        William has been trying to make “Catherine” happen for more than ten years now, and even he can’t overtake “Kate Middleton,” lol.

      • Concern Fae says:

        It’s not an internet SEO problem. I’m old enough to remember Charles as “action man,” the dashing bachelor searching for a bride, with his married women friends, Camilla and Kanga, happily helping to make sure he made the right choice.

        When he married Diana, all the papers started calling her Princess Diana, with the fuddybduddies complaining she should either be the Princess of Wales or Princess Charles. Nope, said the world. Princess Di she is.

        Then Sarah Ferguson came along. She became Princess Andrew, the Duchess of York. The press either called her Duchess of York or Sarah Ferguson. Somehow, Sarah Mountbatten-Windsor wasn’t suitable.

        The problem has remained. There isn’t a viable name for the married in wives, because the “correct” name and title is Princess HusbandName, which modern sensibilities revolt at, while the courtiers revel in these women not have a proper married name.

      • tamsin says:

        It seems the British royal family refuses to make women marrying in to the family princesses in their own right, hence the ridiculous and chauvinistic Princess Andrew, etc. The continental royals made the women marrying a prince a princess, Princess Mary, Princess Mazima, etc.

      • Couch potato says:

        Maybe I’m biased, because I’d never change my surname, but at least they get to keep ONE thing of their own in the public eye. The women loose so much of their own agenda/freedom when marrying into the RF. I doubt that’s the reason why though. I think it’s a way for the rota to remind everyone, they’re married-ins, not “blood princesses”. In other countries the married ins are called prince/princess firstname (their own first names, not their spouses).

      • lunchcoma says:

        I kind of like the maiden name convention and think that to the extent there’s a change, it should be to use it more consistently. People who are actually born into the Mountbatten-Windsor family frequently don’t use that name. It also seems like the convention is now that men who marry into the royal family will not be given any sort of a title at all. Or at least none have been since Princess Margaret’s husband, probably in part because the family realized that not all those marriages were going to be forever.

        If we’re going to talk about Mike Tindall and Jack Brooksbank, wouldn’t Kate Middleton be a more appropriate pairing than Princess Catherine?

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        The bigger problem is that men and women who marry into the royal family are treated differently, which is sexist. Men who marry in don’t automatically take titles from their wives, but women get their titles from their husbands. It should be either ALL get a title regardless of gender (like Sweden), or NONE do. I don’t believe in monarchies anyway, so I favor the “none” version. Realistically, only the monarch has a job as head of state, and there’s no reason for any other member to have titles.

      • lunchcoma says:

        I would vote for the “none” option as well.

        And even if the monarchy doesn’t do it, I don’t see why papers would want to bother going on about the Duchess of Wessex or whatever. At least not outside the UK? I don’t think that’s a phrase that means anything to most people, nor should it.

      • Christine says:

        lunchcoma, I can’t love your comment more. I agree, this appears to be the only way for women to keep any identity, other than brood mare, in the royal family. It’s disgusting that Willnot keeps trying to push “Catherine”. Her family gave her a nickname, FFS, let her keep it.

    • Isabella says:

      I can’t remember Kate ever being referred to as “Middleton” instead of “Kate Middleton.” Markle is a deliberate insult. It’s meant to sound cheap and common.

      • bettyrose says:

        You might be right given the context, but there is a *huge* difference. Markle is/was Meghan’s professional name. Middleton is in Kate’s scenario a more traditional “maiden” name in that it was always intended to be dropped at marriage. Did Meghan take her first husband’s last name? If so, she didn’t use it in the credits to her show or in her other professional endeavors. I don’t find it insulting at all to refer to her as Meghan Markle because she used the name herself. And I think the show still credits her that way, not as the Duchess of Sussex, but I could be wrong about that.

      • Macheath says:


        I don’t think Isabella is objecting to the name Markle or it’s usage. Just that Kate is always referred to as Kate Middleton (first and surname) whereas Meghan often just gets Markle without the Meghan attached. in comparison it comes across as rude and dismissive to not have her first name to qualify her identity. She isn’t just Markle, there are many Markles. She is Meghan Markle, a person within her own right. It wouldn’t be an issue if she was also styled as Meghan Markle when they write about her but it’s a deliberate choice to eschew that.

        I agree with Isabella and others – this is how the BM likes to write about people they don’t like, dismissively and disrespectfully. They do it on purpose. Whether they like it or not, she’s at the very least a member of the RF and there are naming conventions for that and for journalistic print in general.

  4. Becks1 says:

    I’m laughing bc it seems things have come full circle and Charles has realized/remember how much credit and goodwill he got for being welcoming to Meghan (at least in public) and walking her down the aisle and is trying to recoup some of that after the past two years.

    You know what would get him more goodwill? Ensuring that his son, daughter in law and grandchildren had adequate protection so they could come to the UK. Or telling the tabloid press to STFU about them once in a while. Not even every time, just maybe one out of every 10 stories. Or hell, just not even using your son to try to distract from your cash-for-access scandal.

    but sure, a picture is the same thing.

    (although we do know that the Windsors put a lot of importance into which pictures are displayed for public events or speeches etc, so this definitely feels intentional.)

    • equality says:

      I agree-intentional. I’m sure what is seen in any of their appearances is very carefully staged.

    • Cessily says:

      I’m sure the photos rotated for events.. a woman’s day event of course they needed a photo of Meghan. They certainly weren’t going to use a photo of Camilla touching her stomach after she passed Meghan to mock her to Kate, that would look bad🙄. So until they exercise that invisible contract to protect the Sussex family more and they are allowed full Royal security (no matter who pays) when they wish to come to Britain then maybe I will believe these people care even a little bit.

    • Debbie says:

      @Becks1: That’s my take on it as well, that the photo is purely performative (as the royals frequently are). The picture reminds Charles of the best press he has ever received across the globe, and he wants to revive it. Since then, he could have done a handful of things to show support for the Sussexes, heck even just for his son, but he didn’t! At this point, and after Charles stood by and let his countrymen and women malign Meghan and endanger the Sussexes without saying a word, displaying the photo is nothing more than a new of saying “I can’t be racist because some of my best friends are etc.” It’s transparent and pathetic.

  5. Sue E Generis says:

    I don’t think he wants them back, or he wouldn’t have blocked them having security. I think he wants the public to THINK he wants them back, so it’s clear that he’s not the arsehole (William is)

    • equality says:

      Or he wants them back but only under his control so he provides the security and they can’t access it without him.

    • Bren says:

      I don’t think he wants them back either. Charles just wants to appear that he’s a caring father. He’s just setting up chess pieces to use Harry and Meghan again when it benefits him.

    • Well Wisher says:

      It seems that Charles wants them back with no pre conditions. He is aware that he has to earn their trust.
      His heir was informed that he,”Bill” will have the eventual responsibility of the Duchy of Cornwall: in the meanwhile, he has had staff reduction, was reprimanded on his excessive spending and reminded that Harry, then Harry and Meghan have had a higher level of productivity.
      They were considered more productive in the administrating of their royal duties, hereditary notwithstanding.

      • Sydney says:

        Charles doesn’t want them back. He doesn’t care It’s all PR and people fall for it every time. The same guy whose staff kicked off the smear campaign with their stories about Meghan in his biography. The same guy who snatched his son’s security and left him and his family vulnerable. The same guy now who doesn’t want his son to pay for his own security so his grandkids can visit but sure he wants them back.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Sue, ITA. He wants it to look like he wants them back, but if they did in fact come back (won’t happen, but that’s another conversation!), they would upstage and outshine him constantly, and he couldn’t handle it —especially since he’s basking in his success of his “Queen Camilla” campaign, finally, and the subsequent rash of glowing stories about her over the past couple of weeks.

      He might think he wants them back, but his jealousy will always get the best of him.

      • Tessa says:

        I would not call the Queen Camilla campaign a success. I think Charles is overplaying his hand especially bringing Diana into it, like that Seward wrote about people “not wanting” another Diana. Big Mistake. ANd the next season of the Crown is coming up. Too much Camilla praise will only remind people of how she got where she is today.

  6. girl_ninja says:

    But of course he would use his daughter in law to make himself look good. What a raggedy old fool he is.

  7. Well Wisher says:

    It was a lovely wedding all around. Prince Charles and Meghan walk was beatific. I love and respect the silence of the Sussexes.

  8. SussexWatcher says:

    But it just looks like a picture we’ve all seen publicly…so not personal or special at all, just like when The Other Brother and Kkkeen have insider views of their home with public pictures of their children. Its weird, to me.

    Nah, this is just Chuck trying to get brownie points. F him and the racist, heartless horse he rode in on.

  9. beff says:

    Kate is constantly referred to as Middleton. I think Camilla is just to old for anyone to care/remember that she was previously married and was hyphenated. The Horrors!

    • Tessa says:

      I’ve seen her called Camilla Parker Bowles. Her children are called Parker Bowles so I think people do remember she had another husband for 22 years and her children and grandchildren are mentioned.

  10. L84Tea says:

    People are saying that isn’t Meghan in the photo. They’re saying that is from when Charles walked Penny Knatchbull’s daughter down the aisle. I honestly can’t tell. My eyes aren’t sharp enough.

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m looking at it closely, I’m 99% sure its Meghan but its hard to be absolutely positive, but it looks like the bride is wearing long sleeves and Penny’s daughter wore short sleeves to her wedding.

    • C says:

      It’s definitely Meghan, the moment she met him at the archway. Horrible quality though.

    • L84Tea says:

      I didn’t even notice the sleeves. Good catch! I still side-eye Charles for having this in his house. All part of the performance.

  11. Brianna says:

    I’m sorry but, I’m calling bull on this one. That “gorgeous black and white photo” looks like someone got it off their home printer that was running low on ink.

  12. Crowned Huntress says:

    What a spineless, despicable man. He had so many opportunities to be a shield for Meghan and Harry and instead he was playing politics with William’s unchecked rage as a cudgel. May his reign be short and unhappy for all the needless heartbreak he’s caused Diana, Harry and Meghan.

  13. Likeyoucare says:

    Charles doesnt want them back. He just want the public think that.
    He doesnt want to be overshadow by anyone. He wants his spotlight and never will be.

  14. Harper says:

    If Chuck and Cams are playing Game of Thrones with William by placing the pic where it would be noticed, then I’m all for it.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles already backed his heir over his spare. I don’t buy into his helping Harry spin.

  15. Over it says:

    Staged photo I believe and how did I never notice that Camilla wore an entire bird on her head to that wedding

    • equality says:

      Somebody has a meme out with that hat saying “somewhere a ceiling is missing its insulation”.

  16. Pentellit says:

    I just love that picture of the Archbishop looking at Meghan and smiling at whatever happened up there. I can see a lot of love in his eyes for her. He too is smitten. LOL

    On another note I see Kate is now parting her hair in the middle like Meghan on their visit to Ukranian Center yesterday.

  17. Zut Alors says:

    Didn’t someone tell him Black History month is over?

  18. Che says:

    Seems the only difference between Charles and Tom Markle is money. The manipulation looks all the same.

    • Dee Kay says:

      Charles and Tom Markle are very similar indeed and both foreground money in their interactions with Meghan and Harry. Tom begs or tries to extort money from Meghan. Charles withholds money from Harry (in the form of refusing to pay for his and his family’s security). Both lack a real father’s generosity and tenderness and empathy towards a child.

  19. L4Frimaire says:

    That photo was brought out and placed on that table for that event,knowing they’d be photographed, then it was put away again. Meghan was the only progressive, feminist person who genuinely championed women in that institution, so put at a photo of her with Chuck to give him some more credibility. Did they take down the blackamoor lamps they have decorating their house? Anything the Royal family do is to benefit them and them only.

  20. Amy Bee says:

    Whatever, that picture has been there since 2018. The staff just hasn’t gotten around to moving it yet. According to Hardman, Charles was peeved that Meghan asked if she could meet him halfway down the aisle.

    • Chrissy says:

      Of course he was peeved. He always gets his own way.. Even at her own wedding he wanted to make it all about him. SMH! What a spoiled pathetic man.

  21. mel says:

    Is this really so strange? Dad (even if he is a bad one) has picture from son’s wedding in home. Film at 11. The weird thing is people paying attention to it, ploy or not. You put a picture out, and you forget it’s there. Keep it moving.

  22. Ceej says:

    Aw I genuinely felt he was delighted to walk her down the aisle. I’m sure he and the aides etc were well-aware of the good press, but I think he really saw it as gallantly stepping in to help her. And given we were getting article after article about how someone never let him see his grandkids, I bet he was also enthused to be part of Harry’s life in a way he wasn’t getting with someone else.

    That said, I bet he also regrets not standing up for Harry more and how things turned out but I can see why it’s ended up where it is is because a) he is his mother’s child which seems to mean stubbornly sticking with a position long after it’s clearly a bad move (Andrew) and b) I can’t imagine how much constant complaining he dealt with from the FFK about Harry and Meghan. If my cat yells enough, eventually I just do what it wants so it stops – and it can’t even use real words.

    I hope they never go back for some half-in, half-out sitch (although I would love the photos of the family which we’d have to get) but I’m sure none of them would object to having a father/son, granddad/grandkids relationship at some stage. Meghan looked delighted that day to have him and Harry for support. And I don’t doubt she considered how her father would react to a royal walking her fully down the aisle – I suspect people with narcissistic parents are well clued in to how they need to behave to prevent their parent’s reactions.

  23. TheOriginalMia says:

    I think that photo has been there. I actually thought the larger one of Harry was new & was placed to be noticed. It’s all performative anyway. Even if they did place the photo there for photographers to see, the relationship is still frayed. Charles still has a lot of work to do to repair it. Harry still isn’t going to bring Archie & Lily to England to see their grandfather and great-grandmother. So, let him put that picture up, it won’t change reality.

  24. Honora says:

    I think they put the photo there long ago and never removed it (idk Charles and Camilla’s feelings but let’s assume they are angry at Harry) because it’s awkward. Like all the staff will know you have family issues and I assume they want to have dignity in front of their staff. I don’t think the truth about the photo frame will ever be revealed though lol

    • Tessa says:

      I don’t get why Camilla would be mad at Harry. Even though there was some spin that she did. She has her own family, Harry was cordial to her. Harry did not even mention Camilla in his interviews. He focused on his father and was clearly upset at him not Camilla. IMO Charles cannot understand why Harry would be angry at him which strikes me as very odd.

  25. Dee Kay says:

    Personally I hope Harry and Meghan never, ever return to the UK. I think it is dangerous for them based on what Harry said about his last visit. And the BRF does not deserve the support and help their appearances would provide. However, I recognize that each person has the right to make the decisions they wish when they are dealing with narcissistic and abusive/controlling non-empathetic family members. Harry may wish for his children to know their British relations and that will be his choice entirely.

  26. kelleybelle says:

    We can’t possibly be racist, see this picture of my biracial daughter-in-law?

  27. Alexandria says:

    All of these can be true at once:
    1) it’s sentimental cos he doesn’t have a daughter. This is his chance to walk someone down the aisle.
    2) it’s PR gold he couldn’t help taking advantage of
    3) he’s still a selfish, racist POS father and grandfather

    • Jennifer says:

      True, but also (4) he’s still doing better than the Queen is at photo displaying. So there’s that, at least 😛

  28. jferber says:

    Crowned Huntress, what you said was perfect and true. It’s not what Charles does for show, but what he does in secret and in the dark, manipulating the levers of power in ways that can cause downfall and death to his enemies, always, with him, members of his own family. Whatever he’s selling, I’m not buying it. Ever. Neither should Harry.

  29. Delphine says:

    Maybe I’m not enough of a cynic but I think Charles genuinely liked Meghan. Yes the optics were good and maybe it was even shrewd for him to walk her down the aisle, but it’s the most chivalrous thing he’s ever done. It was the first time I’ve ever had anything close to admiration for him. It’s really a shame that he effed all that goodwill up. The RF totally blew it with Meghan and Harry.

    • Tessa says:

      I think Charles did it for his own benefit. If he genuinely liked Meghan he would not have allowed William to behave the way he did to Harry and Meghan.

      • Christine says:

        This. It still continues, Charles is *crickets* on anything important to Harry and Meghan. He has never once showed he is proud of the two people in his family making actual, meaningful change in the world.

  30. jferber says:

    Delphine, Charles also chivalrously helped a pregnant Diana when she stumbled as he played polo pony. However, a moment of chivalry does not cancel out his treachery, betrayal and mistreatment of Diana, which ultimately led to her death.

  31. Mia1066 says:

    What’s hilarious is Sussexes are constantly accused of trading off the RF name when it’s the exact opposite. The RF are now trading off the Sussexes stellar rep whether it’s copy keening everything they do or having pics on display. They are shameless.

  32. SUNNYVILE says:

    Oh please! I remember how much the American/International press were talking about Charles “maybe stepping in” before he even decided to do it. There’s alot of revisionist history going on as part of chuck’s pr/image rehabilitation campaign. He’s desperately working to airbrush his part in the VERY PUBLIC bullying of his only biracial daughter in law. I mean he didn’t even lift a finger to show solidarity (publicly at least) when Archie was attacked & portrayed as monkey. That alone would’ve probably shut down any suspicious racism+score few pr points but nope the idiots remained quite =implying they were fine with it😤