Nicholl: Prince William & Kate are preparing their kids to be half-in, half-out

We knew a few months ago that Katie Nicholl was doing a new royal book, called (obviously enough) The New Royals. Nicholl’s book is one of a dozen tomes set to be released around the same time as Prince Harry’s memoir. All of these royal biographers and commentators will be lamenting and bashing Harry for telling his own story when they’re all clearly trying to profit from telling highly selective versions of his story. For what it’s worth, Nicholl has always been known as more of a Middleton-specific biographer, although from I can see, she’s trying hard to convince everyone that she has sources deep within the new king’s court, as well the royal court of Montecito. Nicholl’s The New Royals got a lengthy excerpt in Vanity Fair, and I’m splitting up the excerpt into two posts. This is Part One: King Charles III and The Heirs.

Charles’s woes. Closest to home are: his youngest son and daughter-in-law’s familial abdication and the complete disgrace of his brother Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, who has been stripped of his honorary titles and royal role. Charles is said to desperately want to reconcile with his son Harry, but it remains to be seen if the rift which caused the queen so much upset will ever be truly resolved. Charles and William, however, are unified in the decision that Prince Andrew will never represent the family on the public stage again.

The Commonwealth & Scotland: Charles is acutely aware that the future of this voluntary group of nations [the Commonwealth] is uncertain, and he has said it is “‘a matter for each member country to decide.” But what worries him more than any of this, according to my sources, is the existential threat to the United Kingdom posed by the Scottish independence movement. “His absolute preoccupation is keeping the union intact,” according to a close friend. “His view is that if he ends up being the King of England, then the kingdom would be diminished and it would become a huge issue in terms of our global status.”

King Charles’s coronation, reportedly code-named Operation Golden Orb: His coronation is expected to be shorter and less expensive than his mother’s, and the new king wants the public to witness the experience just as they did his accession. The ceremony will likely highlight the line of succession, with William, Kate, and their children featured more prominently than other members of the family. Camilla will reportedly wear the Queen Mother’s crown, made for King George VI’s coronation in 1937, with its bewitching central diamond, the 105.6-carat Koh-i-Nûr (meaning “mountain of light” in Persian). In this way Charles will align his wife with his beloved grandmother, the last queen consort to be crowned in the UK, whose memory is still treasured by many Britons.

Charles doesn’t want to see the end of the Commonwealth: “I imagine it is important to Prince Charles that the Commonwealth won’t die with him,” notes constitutional expert Alastair Bruce. “No one wants to be holding the institution when a significant part of its profile is taken away. That’s not going to happen in the next reign, but it’s up to the Commonwealth where it goes in the longer term.”

The photogenic (?) Waleses: They will be showing off their photogenic family, as they are doing more and more. George, Charlotte, and Louis, who had starring roles at the Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June, are being raised by their parents with an awareness of their positions and the roles they will one day carry out in support of the monarchy. George knows that like his papa, he will one day be king, while Charlotte will likely juggle the role of being the spare with a career. Louis could well be a private citizen undertaking occasional royal duties, like William and Harry’s cousins Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips, as well as princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Inevitably, because he is an heir, there will be more pressure on George, something William and Kate are acutely aware of.

Another move coming for William and Kate: They recently downsized, moving from Kensington Palace into the much smaller and more discreet Adelaide Cottage in Windsor Home Park and moving their three children into the private Lambrook School in Berkshire this month. Their next move, I am told, will be into Windsor Castle. Their incarnation of British royalty looks more like today’s Spanish royal family with King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia on the throne, or perhaps Denmark’s, where Crown Prince Frederik and his Australian-born wife, Crown Princess Mary, are poised to succeed. And the appealing prospect of King William and Queen Catherine with Prince George next in line may quell any rumblings of discontent in a country reigned over by an aging King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla.

[From Vanity Fair]

The fact that Charles plans to crown Camilla with the Kohinoor is disgusting to me. India wants it back and Britain has every reason to give back the stolen treasure. It also continues to be profoundly disturbing that Charles truly wants his wife draped in his grandmother’s jewels constantly. The Queen Mum left all of her jewelry to Charles, and Charles in turn gave it all to Camilla. He loves when she wears his grandmother’s pieces. It’s… a lot. And now Cam will wear the Queen Mum’s crown? Nope.

As for Charles’s well-placed concerns about Scotland and the Commonwealth… I agree with the people who say that Charles has pretty much given up on the Commonwealth. He knows he’s going to “lose” most if not all of those countries. Which is why he’s so focused on the United Kingdom – if Scotland gets independence, all hell breaks loose for the monarchy. And for the UK as we know it.

As for William and Kate’s kids… Charlotte will be a spare with a career and Louis will be a private citizen? I thought that the Declaration of the Sandringham Summit of 2020 was that there is no “half-in” for HRH royal princes? And now it turns out that Charlotte will have a career AND be a princess, and Lou will be a private citizen? Huh.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, book cover courtesy of VF.

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

118 Responses to “Nicholl: Prince William & Kate are preparing their kids to be half-in, half-out”

  1. Blujfly says:

    “Will likely.” Aka she has no idea and is basing this entirely off the logical end point of a “slimmed down monarchy” – a logical end point soundly rejected in the Sandringham Summit. Poor Charlotte – what does anyone in her family know about a career? She may need job training.

    • Geegee says:

      So does anyone else think that the cambridges moved into windsor castle this summer and adelaide cottage was just a cover so it didn’t look like they moved into grandma’s house before she was dead.

      • pottymouthpup says:

        @Geegee: I do

      • DK says:

        @Geegee, I’m pretty sure the entire reason they were dragging their feet on this move all summer, and waited until the last minute before school started to actually move, was they thought QEII would pass away this summer and they could move directly to WC without the Adelaide stopover.


      • MrsH says:

        I totally think that. If not all of them then at least William with Khate having the separate cottage home for some distance from each other.

        I also have thought all along that the true reason they wanted to move to Windsor was to keep an eye on the Sussexes and eventually have them booted from Frogmore. Yes there is a lease but this family has bought out leases and booted people before.

      • Blue Nails Betty says:


      • Liz version 700 says:

        I absolutely think this is the case. I think those kids are going around calling Windsor Castle a cottage

      • dark n stormy says:

        Absolutely. She was dying slowly but when you are a parent a move is all about getting in place in time for the next school year.

    • Dee says:

      I could’ve written this drivel from a continent away. It’s all speculation and safe guessing.

      • Lorelei says:

        I love how we’re supposed to praise W&K for being “acutely aware” that things will be different for George because he’s the heir. It’s like, and?? They (and the entire rest of the world) have known this since before George was even born. Do they want a medal? FFS

  2. ThatsNotOkay says:

    The spare is there to support the king, but also must know deep down he/she is not as important and thus must work for scraps too. But also never say a bad word against the king.

    Poor Charlotte. She certainly has been publicly instructing George at every turn–knows his role better than he does. As children. It must be so stressful for George too. This system is inhumane.

    • Emily says:

      Just as Harry would have made a better king, Charlotte may have a better disposition for monarch than George.

      It must be terrible to be raised in a family where there are clear favourites.

      • Bebe says:

        Just as Anne would be better than Charles.

      • Becks1 says:

        I honestly don’t think that line of thinking works. If Harry was first born and not William, Harry wouldn’t be the same Harry, you know? I think Anne likes being under the radar, but if she had been her mother’s heir (and now queen), there would have been a lot more focus on her snobbery, how she may treat staff, etc. People probably wouldn’t view her as positively as they do.

    • Blue Nails Betty says:

      They expect Charlotte to be the new Anne and Louis to be the new Harry. Neither of those children will be given a choice in the matter.

  3. Shawna says:

    First they condemn; then they copy. CopyKate strikes again.

  4. Snuffles says:

    It’s just like everything else Harry and Meghan do. The Firm and the BM give them hell for it, then the Cambridges turn around and copy it. Secretly they know Harry was right about everything but are loathe to admit it.

  5. SAS says:

    How, pray tell, do W&K resemble the Spanish king and queen or the Danish crown couple? I’m absolutely wracking my brains here because it’s surely not in class, charitable work, or glamour.

    • Duchcheese says:

      The BM, the BRF and the RR and all their sycophants are all racists, xenophobes, misogynists, misogynoirs, homophobes are everything else. Why did this woman Nickoles feel the need to writer “his Australian born wife”, what has that got to do with her fkcuin’ book? These people all make me want to puke.🤮🤮.

      • Monika says:

        I think she’s just trying up up the word count by saying ‘Australian born wife’. I used to do that for essays in middle school. I bet there is also a prodigious use of a thesaurus as well. 🙂

      • Iz_Q says:

        Is she referring to the Australian born wife of Scottish descent that just got uninvited from the Queen’s funeral?

      • Isabella says:

        Maybe she mentioned that connection because Australia is pro-crown. It will celebrate a bank holiday on Thursday in honor of Queen. Also Canada and New Zealand.

    • RiaH says:

      The wives are all brunettes.

    • BeanieBean says:

      My guess is, in terms of rank–which is all-so-important to maintaining the class system & all these sycophantic writers care about–is where K&W compare to the Danish crown princely couple (not sure how to phrase that!). Although in no way are they comparable to the Spanish King & Queen. And never will be, even on the odd chance Willie Boy actually gets to become king.

  6. Belli says:

    Fascinating when the messaging was so emphatic a couple of years ago that you’re either in or you’re out.

    I actually hope that Charlotte and Louis do look to their uncle to see what’s possible and choose their own paths. They deserve more than to be George’s scapegoats for their whole lives. William expected it of his brother so I really hope he isn’t pushing that on his own children as well.

    • Alexandria says:

      Sad thing is if Charlotte or Louis needed an escape, it would not be surprising if HM helped them out temporarily like how TP helped them. Their parents are fully capable of freezing them out (like Chuck did to Harry) since they can treat their own sibling and in law like dirt – to the point of allowing Jason Knife to insert himself into a trial for no good reason.

      • RiaH says:

        The wives are all brunettes.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Alexandria, ITA that the Sussexes would absolutely help out Charlotte or Louis if they reached a point where they needed out of that institution. They wouldn’t punish the kids for having such assholes for parents. IMO

    • Snuffles says:

      I’m sure the Cambridge kids are VERY curious about Uncle Harry and Auntie Meghan’s lives. Even if their parents are talking shit about them 24/7, I’m sure they will grow up hearing about them from other sources, like their friends and the internet.

      I’m sure their parents are working overtime to try and brainwash them into never even considering choosing their own lives. But my instinct is that Charlotte is quite strong willed and has a mind of her own. She might want to decide for herself. And I can totally see her or maybe Louis reaching out to Uncle Harry one day.

  7. Alexandria says:

    She really wrote that with a straight face for the white royals huh.

    • Truthiness says:

      Maybe that’s their intended target, aiming for the royals and hoping there’s an audience for this.

      My mind is retching at the thought of Camilla wearing the Kohinoor diamond. The Kohinoor and the many pieces of the Cullinan need to be returned, stat.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    If it’s true, Charles has a very strange of wanting to reconcile with Harry. I think all he did this last week has only ensured that there won’t be any relationship between them and I don’t believe Harry will be at the coronation. As half in half out for the spares, everyone could do it except Harry and Meghan apparently. Although the press is campaigning for Harry to have a semi-role now that the Queen is gone.

  9. The Duchess says:

    They have always known that Harry & Meghan have been right about almost everything when it comes to the firm and that’s why they are filled with resent. Also, already inflicting a ‘half-in, half-out’ working model on children who haven’t even reached high school yet is quite pathetic. Let the kids be kids! The fact the Cambridge’s have already decided that Charlotte & Louis will be ‘ ‘working’ in some formal capacity on behalf of the firm before they’ve even reached the teenage years is nothing short of disgusting. No wonder the kids always look so miserable.

  10. Becks1 says:

    I don’t think Nicholl has any effing clue about Charles, but I think she does have Middleton sources, and so I do wonder if this is the long term plan being discussed – George as the heir and primary working royal, Charlotte with a cushy aristo-type job and then doing the fun royal gigs on the side (the garden parties, the Trooping, the holiday parties) and then Louis as a fully private citizen with very few royal duties.

    But then who is discussing this? Is this just a way for William to let his kids avoid working as long as possible? Why were they given HRH from birth if the plan is for 2/3 of them to not be working royals? And I thought you had to be either all in or all out, that being part time was not possible???

    It just goes to show that the Sandringham Summit “rules” were all about punishing H&M….they really thought if they pushed those two “all out,” then they would come back very soon asking for forgiveness. Well they miscalculated, huh.

    • MsIam says:

      I’m wondering if Charles will “strip” Louis of his HRH and title since he will be a “private citizen”? No need for a title right? Or is that plan only for Archie and Lili? I hope Charles and William both get the reign they deserve.

      • L84Tea says:

        Very good question.

      • First comment says:

        It’s true that history repeats itself. However, I seriously doubt that Kate (and William) would accept anything less from the royal perks for any of their children. They feel entitled that’s why they wanted and therefore, managed to ensure the HRH for all of them from their birth. I don’t think they have any plan for Charlotte and Louis to work in any capacity. Moreover, by the time William would be king, there won’t be any other “working royals” but them.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, it would make sense under these new “rules” they keep talking about, right? But I doubt it, since I think William is encouraging his father to strip Archie and Lili of HRH so that his children are the only “new” HRHs.

    • C-Shell says:

      Half in/half out for Harry and Meghan would have had their inescapable charisma and work ethic on display for real — working royals part time and still outworking, outshining the Lamebridges/Wailses/CIII/Camilla??!! They wanted them all in where they could control them and throw them to the wolves, or all out, as you said, thinking they’d be coming back as failures to be controlled and thrown to the wolves even more. Good for them, I guess, for recognizing that part time Sussexes makes the whole house of cards look lazy, stupid, dull, and a flimsy façade.

      • cws says:

        I think one of the (many) big problems the Firm saw with Harry and Meghan’s plan was the removal of the royal rota from their events and relying on *honest* journalists. With the invisible contract, the Firm couldn’t allow this. Nor could they *allow* Harry and Meghan any agency over their lives, events, or roles. Plus they didn’t think Harry and Meghan would “make it” financially.
        Of course, like @Becks1 said, Harry and Meghan had to be punished to try to make them fall in line. Plus, they were *punished* for so many things… in Charles and William’s mind

    • Aurora says:

      Since all this is speculation… Perhaps they want to prepare the kids for the eventuality of a republican uk? Give monarchy a resemblance of modernity? Learning from the Harry experience, and not swathing their kids on uselessness? Give them the possibility of a life beyond ‘being seen’ or making them kids ribbon-cutters or hand-shakers for life? As much as we despise the obsolescence and privilege attained to royalty, these people are not stupid. Jamaica and the Caribbean tour were eye openers. Maybe they can’t put their fingers on everything that’s not working for them but they have money to pay those who would. They’ll have to compromise between a new strategy and the courtiers’ old tricks.

  11. Flower says:

    Interesting…. hmmm….

  12. Tessa says:

    Camilla has dressed like the queen mum down to the large hats and now will wear her crown rather strange since it seems to be at Charles behest very odd family

    • Fredegunda says:

      You know how they say that men marry their mothers? In Charles’ case it seems to be that he married his grandmother.

    • mazziestar says:

      I don’t know if it’s just copycatting. I think she has no fashion sense and isn’t interested so goes for basic-rich-woman-safe-dress-like-a-royal-woman-have-the-same-12 dresses-in-different-colours style.

  13. The Hench says:

    Some interesting ellipses in this which are, if one chooses to believe Katie has accurate sources, revealing. For example this:
    “Charles is said to desperately want to reconcile with his son Harry, but it remains to be seen if the rift which caused the queen so much upset will ever be truly resolved. Charles and William, however, are unified in the decision that Prince Andrew will never represent the family on the public stage again.”

    In other words, C & W are ‘unified’ about Andrew but they are NOT unified about Harry and Meghan.

    • Lady Esther says:

      @Hench, I caught that, too and I read it in exactly the same way. I also think Charles is far more willing to reconcile with Harry. With William, for a number of reasons it will Never. Happen.

      • Becks1 says:

        Interesting catch. So there is unification re: Andrew (thank god for small favors, I guess?) but not re: harry and Meghan.

        But if charles actually does want to reconcile with Harry, then the last two weeks were not the way to show it. But like I said yesterday, sometimes I think Charles just can’t help himself. This is a petty and toxic family and I think sometimes the members of the Firm don’t realize how petty and toxic they are. IDK.

        I don’t think Charles wants Harry as an “enemy” in any way shape or form and I think he knows that it looks much better for him to be seen as at least trying to reconcile with Harry (or an actual reconciliation, imagine a picture released prior to Charles’ coronation of him with Archie and Lili, not going to happen but lets just play along for this PR game, imagine what that would do for his image.)

        And yet he continues to leak against Harry, to try to embarrass him on a global stage (no uniform at the funeral) and so on……like I have said a few times now, its like he can’t decide which path is the better path. Or maybe he knows that he should try to mend the relationship but then has to have a petty/toxic moment thrown in just to keep Harry in his place. IDK.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks, I think Charles is up sh!t’s creek without a paddle right now. He knows he needs to be on good terms with the Sussexes, but he’s also set the precedent of always caving to whatever Bill wants, and W&K do *not* want H&M back in any capacity that would enable them to be compared to W&K in any way, shape or form.
        Chuck has really dug himself into a hole here by being so spineless for all of these years and letting William tyrannically run the show.

    • Christine says:

      This is such an excellent point, I think you nailed it.

  14. Veda says:

    The Syamantaka diamond (Koh-i-noor) will find its way back home to India and its only a matter of time. This particular diamond has only brought ill luck to its owner since the time it was vandalised from Goddess Bhadrakali, the last being that the Queen Mother was widowed within a few years of her coronation.

    Katie Nicholl knows nothing about anything. Anything she says should be taken with a mound of salt.

    • MsIam says:

      Yeah, lets give Camilla the cursed diamond to wear. And then next it would go to Keen…. Both of them completely deserving of it, imo. But seriously, I don’t think these people would give anything back, they are only takers.

    • Mooney says:

      That’s why the male British monarch doesn’t wear the crown. It is said to bring destruction to the king who wears it. That’s why they have reserved it only for the female ie the queen and queen consorts.

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t think the Queen wore it, did she? I think its just for queen consorts which is why we’re talking about it now.

        The queen’s crown had one of the cullinan diamonds in it though.

    • booboocita says:

      A dear friend of mine, a Muslim from Pakistan, will rail about the theft of the Koh-i-Nur at the drop of a hat, but never presses for its return. I asked him why once, and he said, “Are you kidding me? Who would it go to — India or Pakistan? It would be the cause of a war!”

      Soooo … I guess, better it should stay in St Edward’s Crown, cursing Cow and Keen?

    • Truthiness says:

      The Brits have had the Kohinoor since roughly 1850 and Victoria wore it at times. Victoria had a 63 year reign, dying in 1901 so that curse doesn’t work fast enough! The Queen Mother was the Queen Consort of King George for 16 years and lived past 100 pickled in gin, didn’t seem cursed.

      I 💯 want the Kohinoor returned, like, immediately. If not today, how about tomorrow? Okay okay, end of mourning period. If the idea that it is cursed speeds its way back, then sure, it’s cursed. But so many other reasons as well!

  15. Div says:

    I don’t think Nicholls has any idea….

    That said, the half in, half out concept is flawed from the start and I think the only reason Meghan and Harry considered it was because the BRF and media was so abusive. I think the only reason that Zara and Mike Tindall have a half in, half out deal is that the public is unaware/doesn’t care that taxes are going to support people who are basically doing part time work.

    The monarchy is on its last legs. People aren’t going to want to pay tax payer protection to Charlotte and Louis, just like people didn’t want to pay protection for Eugenie and Beatrice, and even less so if they are basically doing part time work. I really do think the monarchy will be over long before George gets the opportunity to be Prince of Wales.

  16. Lady Esther says:

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Wales. And I’ll eat my hat if William ever permits Louis to be a “private citizen.” Only with the HRH and Prince titles intact!

    William would never suffer the indignity of being a King without his children fully entitled to never have to work a day in their lives. He is a man, in the male line, destined to be a King! He’s not Anne, for God’s sake. Louis may open a furniture store (the male equivalent of a rich family’s daughter “designing jewelry”), or dally and dabble in a rich man’s pursuits like a true aristo (horse racing, car racing, the hunt, photography…) but he’s not going to be an accountant or a dentist, let’s be real.

  17. The Hench says:

    Am also highly amused by the Entertainment Weekly quote they chose to put on the book cover

    “Katie Nicholl has defined herself as an authority on the young royals”.

    Lol – meaning nobody else would define her as such??

  18. Harper says:

    Kate has been doing the half-in royal gig since she married in. She only wants to be there for the pomp and pageantry parts and the rest she runs from.

  19. Over it says:

    One rule for everyone else and something different when black peoples are involved.
    Katie Nichols does know her keenbridges but Charles is not talking to her and she can forget about even knowing Harry and Meghan favorite ice cream flavor.

  20. LovelyRose says:

    I hope all three children engage with their education and work hard towards a career in the real world. The freedom and privilege of a career and a monthly paycheck may well be a necessary reality for them.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Even IF they have to work (and that’s a big if), they will still land cushy, high paying “aristo jobs” just by the worth of their name/title. Look at Bea. There is no way she had the experience to step straight into a VP slot. She was hired for *her* connections.

  21. twoz says:

    “Their incarnation of British royalty looks more like today’s Spanish royal family with King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia on the throne, or perhaps Denmark’s, where Crown Prince Frederik and his Australian-born wife, Crown Princess Mary, are poised to succeed.”
    Tea, meet screen.

  22. Noor says:

    Charlotte will have a career AND be a princess and HRH and Louis will be Prince and HRH and a private citizen?

    They are cruelly denying these options to Prince Harry, Meghan , Archie and Lillibet but trying to profit from Harry’s pain and made available these options to the Wales in the future.

    These royal commentators are speaking from both sides of their mouths.

  23. Ceej says:

    Not sure I understand the commonwealth quotes… the idea that it wouldn’t break up “under his reign” is a bit odd given how many nations are already taking steps to hold referendums. Unless someone is again trying to push that William will soon be king? (Or maybe it’s just white country commonwealth they don’t expect to see go republic in the next couple decades)

    Either way, my mum’s old school friends in the Caribbean were well aware of how the British press treated Meghan not going to Scotland compared to Kate. So KC3 best expect to only be governing white nations in the foreseeable future.

    • Midnight@theOasis says:

      I’m confused as well about the Commonwealth statements. I thought the fear was the Commonwealth Realms removing Charles as head of state was the concern, not the dissolution of the entire Commonwealth League of Nations.

    • Jaded says:

      Once again, Katie Nicholl has shown her utter lack of understanding what Commonwealth means. Countries can remove Charles as Head of State and install their own Head of State, but still remain members of the Commonwealth. But anyway you look at it, Charles the Turd is going to have to deal with a much changed Commonwealth structure in the coming years.

      • Christine says:

        What is the benefit to the Commonwealth countries that don’t have the monarch as the Head of State? I don’t understand why it is beneficial to anyone.

      • booboocita says:

        There’s no “benefit” to Chucky Boy as head of state anywhere. But the Commonwealth as it’s presently constituted does facilitate certain trade and diplomatic functions. So Commonwealth countries will remain in the Commonwealth as long as there some sort of economic or political advantage to it. There’s no advantage of any sort in keeping an elderly, racist white couple around, living in a distant country and having little interest in the people they purportedly represent.

  24. JanetDR says:

    Well, we know this is just speculation but…..would it really be so bad to just be the king of England? The time has certainly come for him to man up and roll with the changes.

    • Fredegunda says:

      Interesting to read that he’s so concerned with keeping Scotland in the fold, but no thought for Wales despite the public reaction to his latest trip. I’d love for Wales to pull a fast one and declare independence when nobody’s looking.

    • booboocita says:

      There’s an article in the latest Atlantic magazine, called (no kidding) “The Hobbit King.” The author writes that Chucky Boy (and the UK) should give up on the notion of the UK or Commonwealth being of any real global importance or influence, and settle for a reduced role in geopolitics and a new concentration on matters at home, like rebuilding the NHS. The author suggests that the UK return to the days of cottage gardens and a semi-pastoral existence — much like the Shire. Not saying I agree with the author (we’re seeing online battles about whether the Shire was all-white, for one thing), but a reduced role for the UK in international affairs and a more home-y role for Chucky Boy sound about right.

      • Truthiness says:

        The “Hobbit King” seems particularly apt since most of the Brit royals look like extras from the Lord of the Rings.

  25. First comment says:

    “They recently downsized, moving from Kensington Palace into the much smaller and more discreet Adelaide Cottage in Windsor Home Park”. Downsized? They just added a 4th residence to the ones they already had.. I mean..the straggle is real to show them as normal, modest and humble…

    • Debbie says:

      Yeah, it’s not called “downsizing” when someone actually adds to their number of residences. I suspect that the writer above knows that, they’re just going along with the game of hide the biscuit the BM plays.

  26. MicMac says:

    There are legitimate arguments for various artifacts within the British coffers that don’t belong to them. The Koh I Nor is a sticky one for how they got it.
    It was essentially used as payment to use East Indian Company forces to keep a specific Indian ruler in power who defaulted on debts, following annexation

    The idea that it belongs to India ignores that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran all make just as legitimate claims to it.

    If the British government said okay we don’t want it anymore, who does it go to?

    • lanne says:

      I’d say India because it was found there, at the Golconda mines (the only diamond mine in the world at the time). It’s as notorious a symbol of bad luck as the Hope Diamond is. As the world’s worst archeologist Indiana Jones would say,


      In Hyderabad. Or even in Delhi.

    • Mooney says:

      It does belong to India. It was found in the Golconda mines in Hyderabad which is still in India. Afghanistan, Pakistan and anyone else has no claim to it because they have seperated from what was once the Indian subcontinent. They’re literally far away from the place of discovery lol.

    • A says:

      I’m Indian. I vote for stuffing it into a cannon, and blasting it into the ocean, because that thing is cursed, and I don’t want it anywhere near India, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iran. All of those countries have suffered enough, thanks to Britain. We have enough problems to deal with today. Britain can keep it. You reap what you sow, assholes.

  27. Anne says:

    I am absolutely sick that Camilla is going to parade around in that crown with that diamond that doesn’t belong to them. The arrogance they show is off the charts!

    • lanne says:

      That’s certainly a “be careful what you wish for.” At the very least, she’s an unpopular queen consort who will be excoriated for wearing it.

    • Christine says:

      But Harry couldn’t wear his uniform to his Granny’s funeral that he EARNED with his own hard work! The gall of Chuck is unbelievable.

      Yes, Chuck, parading your wife around in the Kohinoor at your coronation is another example of how you are effing up your reign, two weeks in. He is utterly tone deaf.

  28. A says:

    As an Indian, I don’t actually like how much oxygen the Koh-i-Noor has taken up in the larger debate about British imperialism in South Asia. The debate has become quite reductive, imo, bc focusing on this means there’s still no proper accounting for what British colonialism actually meant for the world.

    It meant that vast populations around the world were viewed as nothing but potential markets for British industrial goods. It meant South Asia in particular was purposefully kept underdeveloped, and underindustrialized, in order to make sure that it never gained the industrial capacity to produce its own finished goods, with the intention of keeping it entirely reliant on British imports. Forcing South Asians to buy British goods pumped money into the British economy on top of what they were already extracting in terms of raw materials and cheap access to labour.

    India is still struggling to crawl back from the kneecapping it received from 1608, when the British East India Company showed up on its shores, to 1947, when the British finally left. That’s more than 300 years of purposeful deprivation of pretty much everything that has given countries in the west their economic and infrastructural head start. As of this year, India has only put 75 years between itself and its colonial history, and it has a 300 year setback to catch up on, which the British never actually bothered to adequately address or help resolve.

    The economics of all of this went so far beyond the Koh-i-Noor, and the impact of it is being felt right up until today. Britain’s infrastructure and economy even today was financed by their profits from colonialism. And once they were done bilking literally EVERYONE, they shut their doors behind them. The same people who insist that colonialism was not bad are the same people who now tell the people who were colonized, who then immigrated to Britain bc of the deprivations of colonialism in their home countries, that they are the thieves. That they are benefits scroungers, that they are stealing jobs and resources from British people. I guess there’s some truth after all to the fact that the British invented irony.

    So I don’t want the Koh-i-Noor back. I’d prefer an honest accounting, by the British people, about their own history. That would be the least of what they could do to make up for what they took.

    Besides, that musty old rock is cursed. Just look at who’s being crowned as Queen consort with it.

    • Lady D says:

      Thank you for that history, @A. I’m going to share it with a few who need their eyes opened.

      • A says:

        There is truly so much to British colonial history, particularly in terms of its colonization of South Asia, that doesn’t get talked about as much. Learning about it is honestly eye opening. Even as an Indian, you get mostly the broad strokes of it all, without really much discussion as to the details.

        For example: the reason why one of the icons of the independence movement is the spinning wheel has to do directly with the British monopoly over the Indian economy at the time, particularly the monopoly and manufactured reliance on British textiles. The independence movement had the idea to break the back of that monopoly by promoting a home grown textile industry, with the idea being that everyone who can get a spinning wheel and some cotton can spin their own cloth at home. The leaders of the independence movement, many of whom were educated in Britain, made a public pledge to give up their Savile Row tailored suits in favour of Indian made cotton textiles, and they implored the people to do the same.

        There were thousands of public events were people burned their British textiles in bonfires, and switched to khaadi, the name for Indian-made cotton. This is why Gandhi, a British educated barrister, purposefully chose to wear what he wore for the rest of his life–a simple, hand spun cotton loincloth and shawl, which he made himself. It was a statement, not just against the British empire, but the economic might of the British empire.

        Another really fascinating thing is the connections between the colonization of India, and how it mirrored the way Britain chose to colonize America as well. One of the fundamental grievances that the 13 Colonies had against Britain was, once again, the economic impact of what it meant to be a British colony. It meant being the dumping ground for excess British goods, even though this came at the expense of the local economy. That was the back drop to the Boston Tea Party. The colonists preferred to destroy all of that tea rather than let it be sold, which would have put local merchants out of business.

        In fact, one of the entirely unintended fall outs from the American Revolution was that it prompted Britain to change how they ran their colonies. They decided that to avoid a similar revolution, they would completely exclude the local population of India from taking up leadership positions in the colonial administration. It took more than a hundred years for India to finally get some measure of self-rule going before independence, and even that (which was limited to local state legislatures) was subject to the whims of the British govt.

        All this to say: British colonialism was nothing but a scam. A long con. And the sad part is, it’s still fooling people even now.

    • Jaded says:

      That’s a great summation @A. The Koh-i-Noor is merely representative of hundreds of years of painful colonization, plundering and cultural destruction.

    • Becks1 says:

      Thank you, this is all very interesting, and you’re right it does not get talked about enough.

      For the Koh-i-noor, it sounds to me like your concern with it is, in part, if its given back to India then it will just be like a “see? We fixed everything! No more issues! Colonialization never happened!” kind of thing? like because that one diamond is returned, Britain will be able to wash its hands of all its other actions in south asia? (in terms of global PR etc, since so much attention is focused on the diamond?)

      • A says:

        What you’re saying is definitely a part of what I’m trying to get at. I think Christine in the comment below summarized where my thoughts are on this really succinctly. “The issues India has faced because of the British monarchy are so nuanced, it is insulting to boil it all down to one diamond.”

        The only correction I’d make to this is that it’s not even the British monarchy alone that was responsible for British colonialism. The monarchy was just one crucial, and very visible aspect of the machinery that made it all function. They put a respectable veneer over an ugly business, all in the interest of maintaining the status quo, and they’ve been doing that until today, where Queen Elizabeth II’s mere memory has actually provided Charles with a significant amount of padding, much more than anyone thought he’d be treated with.

        But yeah, the Koh-i-Noor alone isn’t the be-all end-all of the wealth and dispossession that resulted from British imperialism. It would be much more beneficial to expand that understanding beyond just one jewel.

        As for what you’re saying, Becks, honestly…the British people aren’t even at that point yet where they can do that. They’re still at the whole, “But it was a GIIIIIIIFT, we don’t mean anything bad by keeping it!!!! Anyway, the British Empire is dead so what does it matter!!! Besides, the British Empire wasn’t even that bad ANYWAY, we built you a bunch of railroads right!!!! Be grateful!!!!” Yeah, well enjoy your cursed and ill-gotten wealth, at least we’re not the ones who have to contend with crowning Camilla as Queen Consort!!!!!

    • Christine says:

      Thank you for this explanation. The issues India has faced because of the British monarchy are so nuanced, it is insulting to boil it all down to one diamond. Honestly, it would behoove Chuck to give it back immediately, in the hope it would make him look magnanimous, but it would just be another one of his attempts to shift the focus from the actual things the British monarchy and government need to answer for.

    • Truthiness says:

      Discussion of the damages of British colonialism is happening daily now that Elizabeth has died. Just not here. The damage is and always was enormous.

      Except the British Empire is long dead. Charles is not government and shouldn’t be conflated with government. He’s a billionaire landholder with a ceremonial role. Charles is fighting just to have a ceremonial role.

  29. Mooney says:

    This makes me so sooo glad that Harry and Meghan’s proposal was rejected. Either way they would have been subjected to abuse and people would have found ways to justify it. At least right now they look ridiculous with their over the top unhinged racist Sussex bashing.

    Regarding the Kohinoor, there’s a myth that it has destroyed kingdoms of whichever king that has worn it. It has a bloody history attached to it. Literally. There’s a reason it has been reserved only for the women,ie Queen and queen consorts. No British king wears the Kohinoor crown.

    That picture of louis will forever be now. It will either be not brought up if louis turns out like Andrew or Margaret or Edward,or will be used as a stick to beat him with if he becomes a mature man like Harry. You know they want the spares to have the magnetic charm but be the court jester, party princes who make their elder brother the heir look good. They will sharpen the knives the moment they are out of their controls.

  30. Blue Nails Betty says:

    “… or perhaps Denmark’s, where Crown Prince Frederik and his Australian-born wife, Crown Princess Mary, are poised to succeed.”

    This passage, which firmly explains CP Mary’s future as a Queen Consort, really highlights how egregious it was to disinvite her from the queen’s funeral.

    I can’t wait for that to get dragged out and slapped across the Wails’ face when they do the Australia tour.

    • Sms says:

      It was an embarrassing misunderstanding but none of the other Crown Prices or Princesses were invited either. Frederick of Denmark was only there as his mother’s plus one. Victoria of Sweden and Haakon on Norway weren’t invited.

  31. Siobhan says:

    I mean – they probably see the writing on the wall and realize that it’s likely that all their kids will be private citizens – does anyone think the monarchy would last past William at most? It’s a good idea to prepare their kids for all possibilities I suppose, but surely it makes sense to set them up so that they could have careers in the future if the monarchy is well and truly done by then.

  32. Nevia says:

    Charles can’t even keep his family together, let alone the whole country. (Or the Commonwealth, for that matter.)

  33. Carolind says:

    My impression at the moment is that George is the best of the ex Cambridge children. Charlotte might have a lot of confidence but that might not be good. A three year old ticking off reporters and sticking her tongue out is not my idea of a nice kid. Louis is a spoilt brat. George reminds me of the young Prince Charles and I am one of the people who likes Charles. As for the breaking up of the UK, I am Scottish and it is still 50/50. The RF need not necessarily go. It was a Scottish king James VI who became England’s king on the death of Englands Elizabeth I and it was one of his descendants who married a German and started the Hanoverian line.

    • Tessa says:

      George did misbehave at times i do not see him as better he did get born first they are all still children Charles was depicted as a sensitive child but look how insensitive he turned out tome will tell I hope George Charlotte and Louis turn out ok

  34. Debbie says:

    “And the appealing prospect” of King William and Kate and the rest of their family may quell any rumblings of discontent in a country reigned by an aging Charles and Camilla.

    Well, if William and Kate are so “appealing” then why don’t they write about them more often and in great detail?

  35. Pam says:

    I, too, find it ridiculous that they are proposing the same working royal model that they rejected for the Sussexes. I hope Charlotte and Louis go to college, educate the **** out of themselves, and go on to have wildly successful lives/careers outside of the family fish bowl.

  36. tamsin says:

    I think England needs its monarchy because it is so tied to its identity and sense of worth. The pomp and circumstance of funerals and weddings and opening of Parliament is to keep people connected to the idea of monarchy. However, I think it will continue to diminish as time goes by, and eventually they will simply have a function as head of state. The sovereign will have a constitutional role, and he/she should not need an entire family on the dole to wander around representing him/her. They are hanging on to the last vestiges of empire, which is the Commonwealth by the fingernails. However, I don’t see why the Commonwealth cannot continue to function as an international body that facilitates trade, educational, cultural and scientific exchanges, etc. As such, there is absolutely no need for a member of the royal family to be head of the Commonwealth.

  37. EllenOlenska says:

    Charlotte, like her uncle before her, will be cannon fodder for the media for as long as it is useful for George ( and it will be tempered by bullshit stories about how he relies on her counsel)..until he spans some kids, doesn’t need her and then chucks her to the wolves. Like his father before him.

    That’s what they mean by half in half out…

  38. Ice Chocolate says:

    Did you guys read this article in the daily fail:
    ‘Princess of Wales took the ‘dominant’ role in parenting Prince George and Princess Charlotte at Queen’s funeral and gave them ‘gentle directions’ while remaining ‘calm and natural’, expert claims’..

    I almost pissed, my pants reading this🤭

  39. Robin Samuels says:

    Who will save this motley crew from totally exploding? William never understood the Half In-Half Out Model, and the proposal’s wording is above his grade level. Because Meghan was involved, he rejected the idea without consideration and convinced Charles it was simply a takeover plot. Once they understood the proposal was a golden opportunity, it was too late. Harry and Meghan had survived the takedown, and their new life was quickly beginning to show potential. William’s ego would never allow him to admit he was wrong, and the smear campaign was afoot. Half In And Half Out is not freedom. Now I’m not sure it would have worked for Harry and Meghan.
    The Pirates with Passes are working overtime to remove the egg from the faces at KP.

  40. NotSoSocialB says:

    “… are being raised by their parents with an awareness of their positions and the roles they will one day carry out in support of the monarchy. George knows that like his papa, he will one day be king, while Charlotte will likely juggle the role of being the spare with a career. Louis could well be a private citizen undertaking occasional royal duties, …”

    The RR are insane gaslighters. Do they ignore/ willfully not read contiguous stories about themselves?? My god. Do they really think anyone actually buys this garbage? Beyond the DF and Sun/Mirror? How very embarrassing, good Gaia. 😳

  41. NotSoSocialB says:

    “… are being raised by their parents with an awareness of their positions and the roles they will one day carry out in support of the monarchy. George knows that like his papa, he will one day be king, while Charlotte will likely juggle the role of being the spare with a career. Louis could well be a private citizen undertaking occasional royal duties, …”
    How in the hell does this comport with the story about their plans to be half in/ half out with their children? I mean, great for them if that is really their plan for their kids, but *somehow* I disagree based on their historical PR past. They are lazy and attention hungry. Let’s be real.

    The RR are insane gaslighters. My god. Do they really think anyone actually buys this garbage? Beyond the DF and Sun/Mirror? How very embarrassing, good Gaia. 😳

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment