Anorak

Royal Family | Anorak

Royal Family Category

The Royal Family, the House of Windsor, in the news and on a horse

Princess Margaret’s absurd morning rituals were ‘such fun’

princess margaret daily routine

 

In 1955, Princess Margaret shared with the world her morning routine. The Queen’s chain-smoking sister’s regimented daily habits, with her “punishing schedule of drinking and smoking”, were revealed in Ma’am Darling by the satirist Craig Brown. “For a while,” writes Brown, Princess Margaret “glued matchboxes to tumblers so that she could strike matches while drinking, but it was a craze that never caught on.’ But worse than her fabled rudeness – an “unstoppable urge to say the first thing that came into her head, just so long as it was sufficiently unpleasant” – and vapid weltschmerz of her rank in life, were the sycophants. As Brown notes:

Receiving a prize from the young Princess Margaret in 1958, the 52-year-old John Betjeman was so overwhelmed by her curvaceous presence that tears came into his eyes, a reaction duly noted by his waspish friend, Maurice Bowra, the chairman of the judges, who lampooned it in a parodic verse:

“Green with lust and sick with shyness
Let me lick your lacquered toes.
Gosh, O gosh, your Royal Highness
Put your finger up my nose …”

Mingling with the obsequious is wonderful, but the morning’s were peak princess:

 

 

They really are not like the rest of us. As JG Ballard noted in Princess Margaret’s Facelift: “Somewhere in this paradoxical space our imaginations are free to range, and we find ourselves experimenting like impresarios with all the possibilities that these magnified figures seem to offer us.” As Mags would say through a tight mouth, her sarcastic eyes a small sign of life amongst the panto Munsters, “Such fun!”

Posted: 15th, October 2018 | In: Books, Key Posts, Royal Family | Comment


Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank order the drinks and leave us with the bill

brooksbank eugenie tequila

 

Jack Brooksbank has ordered the drinks for his wedding to Princess Eugenie but – dang! – he’s left us with the bill. Get a load of the press release and the official drinks:

 

Ladydees and gentallmen, please raise you glasses and charge your official branded Cosa-minga cocktails to the British public. Huzzah!

Posted: 12th, October 2018 | In: Royal Family, The Consumer | Comment


Doors to manual: Meghan Markle shuts that door

Today the Duchess of Sussex closed a car door. Arriving at the Royal Academy of Arts in a chauffeur driven luxury motor, Meghan Markle (Tabloid Rule 11: all Royals keep their maiden names – see Middleton, Kate) stepped out of her car – having had the door opened for her. She then shut it behind her.
 


 

A debate rages?

Is it harder to open the door than shut it? Shutting a door, aka slamming a door, is so simple millions of teenagers do it on a daily basis. Larry Grayson understood its familiarity and made it his catchphrase:

 

 

Opening a door requires knowledge and risk: push or pull? Knock first and enter; knock and wait to be invited in; or just open and walk in? Should you rely on “magic”, as in this clip?

 

 

Shutting the door is what you do on the way out; it’s rarely if ever done on the way in. And are the Middletons hands all over this, it being known that former airline hostess Carole Middleton was greeted with the phrase “doors to manual” by admiring Palace staffers and some of Prince’s Williams’ doorphobic “circle”?

“Etiquette expert” William Hanson explains all in the BBC:

“Usually, if you are a member of the royal family or a dignitary, you have a member of staff to open and close a car door for you.”

Job creation in action, right?

“Now that Meghan is a member of the royal family, there’s no more selfies, no more autographs, she can’t vote and all public social media has to be deleted.”

The door it is, then. You’ve got to keep busy any way you can…

Posted: 26th, September 2018 | In: Key Posts, Royal Family | Comment


The plot to kill Prince George

The National Enquirer’s “world exclusive” is unequivocal: “ISIS Kill Plot Foiled! Sniper Caught Stalking Prince George!” An ISIS sniper in London got that close to the heir? How close? Well, there’s photographic proof. “This chilling image shows the heart-stopping moment that little Prince George cheated death!” thunders the magazine of record. A figure at a window “appears to be holding a rifle and looking down at the two royals.”  The caption chills: “Under the gun!”

 

national enquirer prince george kidnap

 

Well spotted, NE, because to the rest of us the gun looks uncannily like a camera. The ISIS sniper is also disguised. The bearded, gurning loon looks like a bloke with what might be a smartphone. He’s having a gander at George as the lad is trotted off to school surrounded by men with gun that look like guns.

It’s another lucky escape or G. It was only last October that the NE uncovered a plot to kidnap him. Terrorists were going to snatch Prince George and demand a $50million ransom to his safe return. “This is as real as it gets!” a Royal “insider: told the Enquirer. “It could have been the biggest disaster in the history of the monarchy. For Prince William and his wife, it must be a living hell!”

 

prince george isis

ISIs

 

A bigger disaster than Prince Edward’s Royal It’s A Knockout, Princess Diana dying in Paris tunnel, the English Civil War, King Edward VIII being a Nazi, King Harold being shot in the eye, the pathetic sight of King Canute trying to hold back the waves,  Sarah ‘Fergie’ Ferguson? This:

This?

national enquirer apoogy dodi diana sex

 

“According to the information, which is being kept from the public, a small terrorist cell spent weeks hatching a plan to snatch George, either at school or on the 3.5-mile car ride to or from his family’s home in Kensington Palace,” says the source, publicly.

Of course, the NE knows that something might happen. The fantasy needs a kernel of fact to keep the readers reading. After all, Princess Anne was almost kidnapped. In May 2018 an Islamic State supporter named Husnain Rashid, of Nelson, Lancashire, wanted young George to be targeted. He posted a photo of George’s school superimposed with silhouettes of two masked jihadist fighters. He wrote:  “Even the royal family will not be left alone. School starts early.” He also mused on poisoning fruit, vegetables and ice-cream in stores.

Rashid got no closer to George than a post on social media. When police arrested him, the jihadist pretended to faint. He lived with his mum and dad. He was 32.

But it could happen, and should it let now-one say the NE never warned you…

Posted: 28th, June 2018 | In: Celebrities, National Enquirer, Royal Family | Comment


Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson reunited in Mirror and Mail cut and paste disaster

The Mirror is promoting an auction of photographs by “royal snapper” John Scott, who died in 1986. The paper omits to mention where the auction is talking place – you can buy them at Cornwall auctioneer David Lay. But it does lead with a group phots that features “Fergie met Andy…possibly for the first time”. The Mail says is “the moment a young Fergie fixed eyes on Andrew”. No it isn’t. Not unless Sarah Ferguson, for it is she, was boss-eyed.

The paper trills: “A smiling Sarah Ferguson is clearly impressed by Prince Andrew as she claps eyes on him for the first time  in the early 1970s.” Ferguson is described as being “very young” at the time. It was the summer of 1970. Fergie and Andrew was 10 – although the Mirror and Mail say they were “about 12”. The Mail also says they are both 10.

The Mail is clueless:

fergie andy

 

sarah ferguson andrew first meeting

 

sarah ferguson andrew first meeting

 

Having told readers this was not the first time Sarah met Andy, the Mail wonders, er, if it was:

 

sarah ferguson andrew first meeting a

Daily Mail: question asked; question answered

 

The tin lid on the utter balls is when you realise that she isn’t looking at Andrew – who isn’t looking at her –  but towards Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones.

The Mirror: the peril of copying a Press Release

 

Such are the facts.

Posted: 6th, June 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Princess Diana’s ghost has Harry and Meghan’s lives all planned out

Right it is that we finally get to hear from Princess Diana. For some months we’ve been told by experts that Diana “would have” been delighted with Harry for marrying Meghan Markle. “Diana wold have loved Meghan,” says former Royal Butler Paul Burell in the Chester Chronicle. “Princess Diana would have loved Meghan Markle,” says Naomi Capbell on the BBC’s website. “Why Diana would have been so proud of her youngest son today,” says a Telegraph writer. Princess Diana “would have been in tears” at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding, says Andrew Morton. “Princess Diana would have wept with pride,” says Arthur Edward, Sun photographer. And the pick of the bunch: “Princess Diana would have helped Meghan avoid scandal, says former aide.”

But now “Princess Diana has spoken from beyond the grave to reveal newlyweds Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will have at least two children.” No recording of the address, sadly. Testimony is provided by “The Psychic Twins” who have “revealed to Daily Star Online the ‘People’s Princess’ has told them her son and new daughter-in-law will have their first child in 2019.”

This is a “stunning revelation” channelled from Terry and Linda Jamison, “dubbed ‘Nostradamus in Stilettos'”. Can they be trusted? YES! As if Diana would pick a fool to broadcast her message. You want proof? Here goes:

They told us that Diana would attend the Windsor Castle wedding and appear as a butterfly, then during the ceremony a fly was captured on video hitting Meghan’s face.

If you mumble ‘butter’, ‘butterfly’ can sound a lot like ‘fly’. And, sure, whilst colourful butterflies are known to hang around with flowers and sip flower nectar, and flies are more associated with imbibing liquified turds and disease, one can easily be mistaken for the other – especially if you pull their wings off. Anyhow, Diana told the twins: “I feel there may be a pregnancy fairly soon, before the year 2020, and both of them will be wonderful parents. Meghan will be a wonderful mother… another child may follow in a few years. I see at least one girl for them.”

And: “Their children will be very close with Will and Kate’s children, and I see them doing many play dates and activities together.”

Previously:

 

diana kate ghost diana princes kate

 

It’s what Diana ‘would have’ wanted.

Posted: 27th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Harry and Meghan and the modern myth of inclusivity

David Starkey is here to tell Sun readers that when Meghan Markle married Prince Harry the Royal Family modernised. Starkey tells us, and “it’s worth repeating”, that Megan is “mixed-race, American, of uncertain religion, an actress, divorced and with a sexual history”. She’s nothing like Kate Middleton, then, you know, and it’s barely worth repeating, who is a mixed-race Commoner, of uncertain religion, a part-time shop worker and with a sexual history”. Good wedding. Lovely do. But it wasn’t all that new and it wasn’t all that modern.

Undaunted by the repetition of past marriages that also spoke volumes about how modern the Family born to rule had become (yes, and to stop one of us uppity plebs having too much power) Starkey says that any “one” of the attributes on Meghan’s checklist “would have rendered her deeply doubtful as a royal bride”.

Jessica Bouton tells Mirror readers is was very… Well, see if you can guess: “Meghan’s gown was…a modern look for a modern duchess. And her story is a modern Cinderella.” Yeah. Modern. It was a “magical modern wedding,” says the Mail.

The Telegraph says the wedding was “modern”, and in it Britain “sees a mirror image of our times”. And you thought the royals’ job was to transcend the times, to add a divine-given thread of continuity beyond the grasp of prevailing trends, mores, lusts, thrusts and fashions. When did the royals get to be inclusive? When did we raise expectations of their capacity to do anything other than shoot, breed and ride?  If they are just as meaningless as the rest of us, do we all get a go at being one? If they’re just like us, what’s the point of them?

Posted: 21st, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family | Comment


Meghan’s spare wedding dress cost £100,000 (or not)

Thomas who? Thomas Markle… Anyone? Having rolled over Megan Markle’s father, the news cycle gets to focus on the honeymoon and the dress. Not that the new Duchess of Sussex’s dress was a surprise to Daily Mail readers who on April 4 got a sneak peak of her walk-on look. Rebecca English told us:

EXCLUSIVE: Meghan’s £100,000 wedding dress revealed: Royal bride will wear hand-stitched, beaded design made by British couturiers Ralph & Russo (and paid for by Prince Harry’s family)

 

daily mail meghan dress

 

The price then doubled. And the designer changed their name. Although no longer an “exclusive”, the story remained a revelation: “Givenchy’s Clare Waight Keller has been revealed as Meghan’s wedding dress designer.” There had been lots of “speculation” –  surely “exclusives”? – with with “Ralph & Russo hotly tipped”:

 

 

meghan dress daily mail

 

 

But if it’s guff you’re after, step forward and take long obsequious bow, Robin Givhan, who writes in the Washington Post:

…what was most noticeable were all the things that the dress was not. It was not a Hollywood red-carpet statement. It was not a Disney-princess fantasy. It was not a mountain of camouflaging tulle and chiffon.

The dress, designed by Clare Waight Keller, was free of extravagant embellishments. It was not covered in yards of delicate lace. It did not have a single ruffle — no pearls or crystals. Its beauty was in its architectural lines and its confident restraint. It was a romantic dress, but one that suggested a clear-eyed understanding that a real-life romance is not the stuff of fairy tales. The dress was a backdrop; it was in service to the woman.

Weekend in Blackpool, right?

Posted: 19th, May 2018 | In: Fashion, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Prince Harry to Meghan: ‘I’m shitting it’

To the Royal wedding, then, as Prince Harry meets Meghan Markle at the Church. What did he say to her? Well, its looks lot like, “Im shitting it.”

 


 

‘Do you promise… to honour… and forsake all others…” Camera did not pan to Prince Charles and Camilla…

Posted: 19th, May 2018 | In: Royal Family | Comment


Meghan Markle: darts walk-on girls and The Naked Rambler should get the nod

As Meghan Markle straps an inflatable bellend to her neck and brandishes Harry’s loyalty card for for the mother of all hen nights at SophistiCats night club, the papers all lead with the “sad” announcement that her dad, the much-maligned Thomas Markle, will no be walking her down the aisle. Who will is the matter of heated debate, the smart money being on the her mother, darts walk-on girls, Naomi Campbell, the Naked Rambler and Ian Botham, should he be seeking a new sponsorship role: it’s £1000-a-yard for charity. (TV executives, call me I have ideas – Sue Perkins presents The Hard Yards, a pro-celebrity walk down the aisle.)

 

the sun markle harry sex

The Sun plan for the next generation

 

Anyhow, California-gal Meghan stuffed in a plum and issued a statement via the Kensington palace twitter feed: “Sadly my father will not be attending our wedding. I have always cared for my father and hope he can be given the space he needs to focus on his health.” Shades of Adrian Mole’s mother saying she’s “fond” of him. Harry has never met Thomas. But “nothing’s going to spoil our big day,” thunders the Daily Mail’s lead headline – although you’d imagine a few of the paper’s hacks will give it a whirl.

In the Sun there’s lots of gush about Meghan being a “silver-lining girl”as the paper joins “fans” sleeping on the streets of Windsor. Best not get there too early, mind, lest the police give you a kick and move you on. The homeless and rough sleepers have been swept from the town’s streets. “Crazy Corner” looks like the “Calais Jungle”, says the Sun’s man on patio furniture. But there’s no Lily Allen, just people like Skye London  – “People call us mad. Well, we are mad but we always gets the best seats” –  and Terry Hunt – “I’ve been doing this since I was four. I’m at every wedding and outside the hospital at every birth.”

Posted: 18th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Thomas Markle declared clinically sane

Thomas Markle will not be at this daughter Meghan Markle’s wedding to Harry Windsor. The groom’s family is hosting the do, which means Thomas Markle flying from his home in Mexico to London, meeting myriads of strangers, being shackled and shaped by their huge teams of minted PRs, obsequious lackeys and armed goons, and welcomed warmly into the bosom of what absurdly passes for a modern twist on monarchy. All tabloids lead with the news. But none of them know for certain. He might come. He might not.

In this age of fluid gender roles, it’s a gentleman’s prerogative to arrive at the wedding. We used to like the story of the groom being jilted at the alter, now we’re wondering if a 73-year-old bloke can be arsed to go though all that guff to see his daughter married for the second time.

 

Thomas Markle

Get Thomas!

 

The Mail, which “exposed” “fake” photos of Thomas being boring as he looked at screengrabs of his daughter and her Chinger prince, tried on a suit and rode a cheap exercise bike, now invites Richard Kay to says the “world” feels “nothing but sympathy” for a man possessed of a “quiet dignity”. But he is “humiliated” by his “reckless agreement” to broadcast and allegedly flog photos of himself to the Press rather than lettering the Mail broadcast and flog photos of him without his permission. It is “regrettable and sad” that this “basically honourable man” will be absent from Meg’s big day. The Sun calls it a “bombshell”.

The Express says Thomas doesn’t want to “embarrass the Royal Family”, something you’d think impossible to do, given that the clan of feckless ninnies ride around in gold coaches, suck toes, cheat on their spouses, hang out with paedos (allegedly), dress up as Nazis (both real and for larks) and gave us this:

 

 

The Star and Mirror, however, wonder if Thomas has suffered a heart attack. The Mirror also says Thomas “claims” he has “been harassed by snappers”. Or as the Sun notes: “He was pictured driving away from his home last Wednesday and staying the night at a motel in San Diego after crossing the US border. The next day… he lifted two heavy pots of flowering plants on Doria’s [Meghan’s mother] doorstep in Los Angeles with a card. He was then seen driving around LA, visiting the post office, pharmacy and bank before heading bak to Mexico that evening.”

Who’d envy that?

Posted: 15th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


The Prince Harry swimsuit features a Ginger Chinge

It’s the mankini for women – and Stage dos. The Prince Harry swimsuit features a Chinge – a Ginger Chinge, naturally.

 

 

 
prince harry swimsuit minge fail

Posted: 15th, May 2018 | In: Royal Family, The Consumer | Comment


Thomas Markle should profit from Meghan’s wedding like the Royals do

The Daily Mirror picks up the story which first appeared in the Mail on Sunday – the one about Thomas Markle allegedly earning a few quid by posing for photos which can be sold to the Press. Thomas is, of course, Meghan Markle’s father, and when he’s not being door-stepped by Mirror reporters, he’s getting on with his own life. But his alleged staging of a set of photos with British photographers has upset the tabloids, who presumably wanted their men in the bushes to shoot pics of Thomas being a “virtual recluse” for less and syndicate them for more, packaging the album as “The Royals DO Deserve Privacy”, “Has Meghan Inherited Her Dad’s Fat Genes?” and “How Did Thomas Markle Afford A Five-Star Holiday To Thailand?”

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

The paper quotes the father-of-the-bride’s son, also called Thomas, who apparently said: “He’ll apologise sincerely to Meg.” Why? The Royal Family are often caught guffing out photos of their lives and their children, including ones taken by Kate. The no-expense spared PR drive that frames Harry, Kate and Wills as a trio of caring, down-with-the-proles workaholics is not just about us loving absurdly entitled, wildlife slaughtering billionaires when they’re between private islands and ski lifts, but the Royals being able to carry on after Her Majesty waves her last and we’re invited to defy gut feelings and nature by looking up at Prince Charles and Camilla. Princess Diana left such a stain on The Munsters that our view is being directed over the crowns of the two people that cheated and lied to the Windsors’ brood mare, falling instead on her children and Kate.

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

The Standard updates the story by leading with news that Markle’s half-sister is to “blame” for Thomas’s “fake pictures”. “The bad press over my father doing staged photos is my fault,” says Samantha Grant – who is not invited to the wedding. No. It isn’t. The bad press is over the scurry for post-wedding stories, when the Markles become old hat and we crave scandal and division over “love at first sight” tedium and a marriage”destined” ever since Meghan tried on a Disney Princess outfit when she was five and Charles fancied the Three Degrees. Although the Standard does deliver a two-page feature on the “unlikely love story” of an “ambitious girl from LA” and – get this – “the rebel prince”. Oh, do the other one. The only rebel Prince in recent memory was Edward VIII, formerly a Prince of Wales, who rather than merely pratting around dressed as a recreational Nazi, wore the authentic garb and politics of the Herrenvolk; and married a woman with two living ex-husbands who referred to staff as “lazy, thriving niggers”; and advised Britishers to survive the war on roasted terrapin. Harry’s less rebellious than a weather cock.

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

And, reportedly, Grant is here to help stir the pot. She’s rumoured to be penning a rift ‘n’ tell called The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister. “The media can be so cruel,” Grant is quoted by the Daily Star. But at £15 a pop with serialisation rights, a book packs a bigger whack.

 

thomas markle photos newspapers

 

Note: The Daily Mail vowed on 8 September 1997, eight days after the death of Princess Diana:

Mail leads the way in banning paparazzi pictures.

The proprietor of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard announced last night that his papers will not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc said: ‘I am, and always have been, an admirer of Diana, Princess of Wales, and nagged my editors to protect her so far as they could against her powerful enemies. In view of Earl Spencer’s strong words and my own sense of outrage, I have instructed my editors no ‘paparazzi’ pictures are to be purchased without my knowledge and consent.’

Such are the facts.

Posted: 14th, May 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Prince Harry can’t recall meeting Meghan’s dad Thomas in Toronto?

Time to catch up with Thomas Markle, Meghan Markle’s dad. The Mail says the “virtual recluse” has still to meet Prince Harry. In the build up to the wedding, the Queen will be hosting a do at which Thomas will meet Her Maj and the rest of The Munsters. “Remarkably,” says the Mail, “it will be the first time that Prince Harry will meet his fiancee’s father.”

Aside from Thomas Markle being anything but a recluse, the Mail might care to note on January 4th 2017 we read that Thomas and Harry met in Toronto a while back. And where did we read that news? In the Mail:

 

thomas markle daily mail

 

Such are the facts.

Posted: 7th, May 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Prince Crystal Palace: Kate Middleton makes Prince Harry even less employable

Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, has had her third child. It’s a… stinking rich kid born into hereditary privilege that mocks our democracy / man of the people with the common touch. Young Prince Palace was born on the Lindon Wing at St Mary’s, Paddington. It might be the cheapest place he ever stays. Reactions to the birth have been forthcoming and fluid. No word from the PR-reared Prince Harry yet, who is now shunted one leg further down the ladder away from getting an actual job. Prince Andrew, Prince Edward – as you were.

The Indy’s clickbait factory goes with both sides of the story – having its cake and eating it; which though a very royal dish is very crap journalism:

 

 

The Royal Family’s fans were out in force:

 

 

Has the young sir a name?

 

 

 

Posted: 23rd, April 2018 | In: News, Royal Family | Comment


Queen did not shoot her seven dead swans for sport

Because every cause needs a celebrity (and every celebrity needs a cause – ed), the Sun brings news that seven of Her Majesty’s swans are feared killed by bird flu. Until now we’d no face to put alongside the illness. Finding birds to front a campaign to combat bird flu and raise awareness was hampered by the lack of famous birds. Orville, Emu and Bernie Clifton’s ostrich are either resting or no longer seen as big hitters. And Alan Partridge is a work of fiction. But we’ve now got the Queen’s birds, albeit seven dead ones, to shock us into action.

“Everyone fears the worst,” says a swan watcher, words which could pretty much be used whenever fear stalks. It’s hard to fear the best. But “the Queen is upset” and this is no time for nitpicking, nor wondering how swans are mourned but not pheasants, which the Queen has been known to kill with her bare hands when shooting them in the face proves insufficient sport. ” She is an animal lover,” says  a source, and not only because she loves eating and killing them for larks, “and if they have bird flu, it’s horrible.”

The only damper on all this is that the Sun says the Queen’s swans are “mute swans”. So it looks like avian flu must look further afield for a spokesperson…

Posted: 5th, February 2018 | In: News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Get the Prince William haircut: yours for £3 a hair

Prince William did not shave his head into a regulation short back-and-sides. The hair was cut by a “scissors over comb freehand technique”, that, according to the Sun, “results in a softer finish” than clippers.

Anyone itching to get ‘The Wills’ can hire Joey Wheeler, who will set to work on your thatch for a mere £180, roughly £3 per hair. Well, so says the Sun – the reassuringly expensive fee echoed in the Mirror.

 

prince william hair

 

Helping readers spot the new Willis from the old, the Sun presents “before” and “after” shots. The odd bit is that Wills’ hair is less obvious in the ‘after’ than it in the ‘before’, but it is the ‘after’ which dignifies the front-page of the country’s best-read newspapers. Less is more in the world of tabloid sensation and hair.

PS: If you see Sarah Ferguson stretching a pink cap of sliced York ham over her red mane, don’t be shocked. She does what she must to get noticed.

Posted: 19th, January 2018 | In: Key Posts, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Meghan Markle, Princess Michael and the Windsor weirdos

Did you notice that Princess Michael of Kent wore a “blackamoor” brooch, depicting a black person in a turban when she attended a free lunch where Prince Harry and his lover, Meghan Markle, were also dining? The Sun, Mail and Telegraph all did, describing the brooch as “racist”.

That each of those organs couched the word inside inverted commas reveals that they don’t know if it’s racist or not. Is it more racist than dressing up as a Nazi (Prince Harry), having a dad who was an officer in the SS (Michael) or calling a man a “Paki” (Harry again)?

Is it less racist than pointing out that Markle is mixed-race and must therefore be offended by a piece of jewellery worn by a foreign-born divorcee of non-royal birth who married into the weirdest clan this side of the Appalachians? Might Mike and Mark not be kindred spirits who got into bed with people of lower moral worth?

 

 

The Times stirs the bedpan by throwing the matter into the debating ring: “Princess Michael of Kent: racially insensitive – or something worse?”

 

Pricne Harry NAzi

Just larking about

 

The Times informs us that blackamoor tut “is part of a tradition of jewellery and art that was popular in the 18th century, but in recent years has come to be regarded as highly racially insensitive.”

The princess was condemned in a series of posts on social media. One woman wrote: “Ah, the Princess who wears racist jewellery to lunch with Meghan Markle.” Another said: “That looks inappropriate in any setting.”

What else looks inappropriate at a lunch with a woman who rides about in a gold coach and whose eldest son was shagging a married woman while we all simpered at Diana? Poor people? Terry Waite tied to a radiator drinking a glass of urine? Prince Andrew getting a rub down?

A third wrote: “Has no one noticed the Blackamoor pin that Princess Michael of Kent is wearing? Really? #MeghanMarkle officially meets the family and is greeted by THIS? #racism #BritishRoyals.”

And:

Although Ms Markle is not thought to have dined at the same table as Princess Michael, it is likely that they met.

Possibly as Mike handed Mark her coat and asked for a gin and spite.

It’s all huge news, of course. But Harry and his paramour are so much in love no mere trinket can break them. Just get a load of the official photo that shows us how much in love they are (“whatever ‘in love’ means is” – Prince Charles).

 

The official photo

 

Gosh. I’m welling up:

 

harry meghan

 

 

Image: Richard Littler

 

Posted: 22nd, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family | Comment


Thomas Markle gets doorstepped

Turns out that Thomas Markle is’t all that “reclusive” after all. He’s on the Daily Mirror’s front page talking about his daughter, Meghan Markle.

 

thomas markle

 

“I’m delighted,” says Thomas of the wedding. For reasons that are not clear, the Mirror presents Thomas Markle with a bottle of French champagne and some Darjeeling tea. “Thank you, that’s very kind,” says Thomas as a stranger gives him free treats.

Not that Thomas needed a free drink. The Mirror’s says it “tracked him down” to his, er, home, and looked on as Thomas Markle “bought a four-pack of Heineken and cigarettes”. Lest we be disbelieving, the Mirror features a video of Thomas walking from a store.

Lest you think that invasive and not in the least bit newsworthy, the Mirror uses an editorial to tell readers: “Thomas Markle’s eyes will have a little more sparkle than most” when he walks his daughter own the aisle. The booze, right? The Mirror says the “British public” will “instantly take to such a down-to-earth chap”.

That’s the divorcee sat in the gold coach, scarfing booze and puffing on a fag. And that’s Camilla wondering what might have been…

Posted: 8th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


Meghan Markle’s dad Thomas is an international man of mystery

Meghan Markle has a “mysterious dad”. And by mysterious we mean not a man who weaves mysteries, vanishes in puff of smoke or is, as one dictionary defines it, “difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify.” We mean a man who doesn’t much fancy being a celebrity.

The Daily Mirror makes Thomas Markle Senior its front-page story. They say that aside from his family, “no-one even knows where Thomas Markle Senior is.” It might be less a mystery than a question of budgets and being bothered to track down a man who was living in Rosario Beach on Mexico’s Baja California Peninsular. He moved on, says the Mirror, “determined to avoid any chance of public attention”.

 

Thomas Markle

 

Not that the man’s absence detracts from the story. He “gets by on his £1,307 monthly pension”, we learn. How the Mirror knows what money he earns and spends is moot. The ‘facts’ are provided to fit the narrative of the future princess’s dad living if not in poverty then at least in humdrum simplicity. Thomas is “driving around in an old batted blue Chrysler PT Cruiser”. His new family-to-be are “one of the richest and most powerful in the world”. He “devoted his life to his daughter”. He “may” be avoiding the spotlight “due to the humiliation of bankruptcy”.

Thomas Markle’s “solitary life means Harry has still not met his future father-in-law”. Or as the Mail puts it: “EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry has met his girlfriend Meghan Markle’s father.”

 

Thomas Markle

 

 

That’s not to say the Mail isn’t also on the scent.

“Why is Meghan’s dad so determined to hide from the world?” wonders the Mail. “Where is the elusive Mr Markle? Why has this enigmatic man concealed his whereabouts so determinedly?” And: “After all, placed in his position, many fathers would be singing their joy from the rooftops.” Why, because an American – a citizen of the world’s greatest republic, a bastion of freedom and hope to the world – is getting shackled to a man who symbolises inequality? Maybe not because the Sun says Meghan’s dad is “said to be impressed by Prince Harry”.

Shedding light on the international man of mystery is Thomas’s brother Michael, who tells everyone: “Tom is trying to comply with the royal directive to keep a low profile so that’s where he’s coming from. He doesn’t want to upset the Royal Family.” Indeed, there’s nothing like a normal bloke to undo the ‘magic’ of monarchy.

 

Posted: 4th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment


When Harry met Meghan: tabloids deliver the wedding, the dress and honeymoon facts

Prince Harry wedding newspapers

 

By now you’ll be wondering what Prince Harry and Megan Markle are up to. Thankfully, the tabloids understand your thinking and have produced a few words on the prince and his paramour.

The Sun: 25 pages.
Daily Mail: 18 pages
Daily Star: 6 pages, including one of Page 3 stunna “Royal fan Megan”
Daily Express: 7 pages
Daily Mirror: 9 pages

What about the wedding:

THE MOTHER-IN-LAW

“Tourits flocked to Kensington Palace last night to salute the happy couple and tell of their excitement that ‘new Diana’ Meghan’ will become a royal… She’s very appealing to people, like Diana was” – Star

“Diana would have been thrilled – Meghan’s just the kind of woman she wanted to be” – Mail

THE DRESS

“Meghan Markel’s wedding dress with a glamorous red-carpet gown” – Express

“EXCLUSIVE: Fit for a Princess! Will Meghan Markle choose an Australian designer to make her bridal gown for the ultimate modern Royal wedding?” – Mail

“Meghan Markle is likely to opt for a low-key, cool designer to create her wedding dress” – Standard

“She once revealed what her dream dress would be when talking about her character Rachel in legal drama Suits, who wore a wedding gown in one episode.  She revealed the dress worn in the show wasn’t her “personal style”, adding: “I’m a lot more relaxed than Rachel… Classic and simple is the name of the game, perhaps with a modern twist. I personally prefer wedding dresses that are whimsical or subtly romantic.” – Star, “Meghan Markle’s wedding dress REVEALED: Harry’s fiancee’s dream gown PICTURED”

THE COAT

“Did you spot Meghan Markle’s subtle fashion nod to Princess Diana?.. With the photocall taking place in Princess Diana’s former residence, it seems only fitting that Meghan would wear white, a nod to Diana and the memorial white garden that was created in her memory this year to mark the 20 year anniversary of her death.” – Marie Clair

“Meghan wore a white coat…it did slighlty resemble a dressing gown” – Sun

The coat “was not unlike something her future sister-in-law the Duchess of Cambridge would wear” – Mail

“Meghan’s journey to fashion icon status continued yesterday when she wore a white-belted coat” – Mirror

THE WEDDING FOOD

“Roast chicken, sweet potato and white-bean soup” – Mirror

THE HONEYMOON

Bostwana; Croatia; Bordeaux, Athens, Madrid, New York – Mirror

The Seychelles is “the red-hot favourite” – Star

 

Posted: 28th, November 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family | Comment


BBC: Jeremy Corbyn pays tribute to ‘Prince Harry and Hezbollah’

Jeremy Corbyn wants to say a few things about “Harry and his brother”. Or as the BBC’s subtitler puts it: “Harry and Hezbollah.” A typo or is ‘Hezbollah’ the new nickname for Meghan Markle? Bit harsh.

 

harry and hezbollah jeremy corbyn

 

Spotter: Giles Dilnot

Posted: 28th, November 2017 | In: Politicians, Royal Family, TV & Radio | Comment


Viz predicted Harry and Meghan’s wedding to save Theresa May in 2016

Viz 258 of Summer 2016 – “And that’s supposed to be Theresa May on the right,” says @Vizcomic.

 

Viz royal wedding harry Theresa May

Spotter: @vizcomic

 

PS:

Posted: 28th, November 2017 | In: Royal Family | Comment


Prince Charles has Jewish ‘friends’ but they’re all self-serving lobbyists

Jews Prince Charles letter IsraelIn 1986, Prince Charles penned a letter to his pal Laurens van der Post. In it he bemoaned the “Jewish lobby” and the state of the State of Israel. None of what you are about to read suggests Charles is, like some of his fellow toffs in harbouring an intense dislike of Jews. Indeed, the Mail, which publishes the story of Charles’ letter, tells readers: “He has many prominent Jewish friends and in 2013 became the first Royal to attend a chief rabbi’s inauguration ceremony. In a speech that year, he expressed concern at the apparent rise of anti-Semitism in Britain.”

Off hand, I couldn’t name any of Charles’ Jewish pals, and scouring pictures of the perpetual heir to the throne’s skiing hols and shooting jaunts, I’m unable pick out any Jews in the happy throng. Although rumours abound that he did one fancy Barbara Streisand.

The paper also notes, “Charles has always enjoyed a close and supportive relationship with the Jewish community in Britain”. What the Jewish community is can be hard to define, but most often in community matters, it amounts to a few well-appointed, pushy knobs and knobesses serving to represent anyone and everyone who shares their faith, religion or skin tones. It’s a handy shortcut that saves on gentile shoe leather and hand sanitisers.

And so it is that Charles – not a Jew hater – writes:

‘Tried to read bit of Koran on way out and it gave me some insight into way they [Arabs] think and operate. Don’t think they could understand us through reading Bible though!”

Well, so long as you read one of the good bits, understanding an ancient religion need cost you no more than a copy of York Notes. Charles looks up from the text that consumed minutes of his busy day and continues:

 “I now appreciate that Arabs and Jews were all a Semitic people originally and it is the influx of foreign, European Jews (especially from Poland, they say) which has helped to cause great problems. I know there are so many complex issues, but how can there ever be an end to terrorism unless the causes are eliminated? Surely some U.S. president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in U.S.? I must be naive, I suppose!”

“Incendiary,” says the Mail. And it is odd. Was it not the Jews returning to their God-given homeland after being forced to ‘wander’ for eons, taking in lands such as Poland where they were punished for BWJ (breathing while Jewish) with State-sanctioned murder? Was Israel not their birthright, taken from them by enemies that caused them to suffer? Can we include some of Charles’ ancestors in the list of Crusading angels who caused Jews to wander into Nazi death camps in German-occupied Poland?

As for the Jewish lobby, what is that? It’s an old anti-semitic trope of a Jewish cabal running the world for their own advantage. You can be black, white, male, female, transgender, disabled, a peacenik, a veteran or whatever, but if you are a Jew, then in the eyes of Charles your campaign is driven by Jewish self-interest. It’s echoed throughout society, alluded to by the likes of Richard Ingram, who wrote in the Guardian: “I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.”

So much for the deserving Jews, one big shadowy mass of group-think. But what of the royals, specifically the blood and oil-socked kings who rule with an iron fist over many Arabs? Well, Charles rather likes them.

“Much admire some aspects of Islam,” says Charles to his Afrikaans friend. “Especially accent on hospitality and accessibility of rulers.” When they’re not booting out Jews, those Arab toffs are tops. Julie Raven nails him:

He likes Islam because monarchs aren’t answerable for the vilely hypocritical lives they lead (the drinking and whoring of Muslim monarchs compared to the treatment meted out to their subjects who indulge) and because they can divorce at their whim with no comeback. The very worst and weakest Western men are attracted by Islam – he’s no exception.

This is Charles who on Mar. 21, 2006 weighed in on the Muhammad cartoon controversy, telling an audience of more than 800 Islamic scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University: The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others.” No, not freedom of expression, a cornerstone of our democratic right. He didn’t mean that. Charles is all for the sanctity of theocratic Islam, which abhors our hard-won freedoms, stymies womanhood and raises monarchs to the pantheon of living gods. That’s what righteous Charles wants defending: the powerful.

Charles is a weak and feckless sort, a man searching for a legacy but failing to find a purpose.  He’s exactly the type of right-on plodder who eventually reasons that the main cause of trouble are Jews. To wit it’s worth reminding him that his son and heir is married to Kate, of whom Iran’s Mehr News Agency warns:

“This lady’s family roots show that she is considered a Sephardic Jew from her mother’s side. Moreover the timing of the wedding and the way it was held which was based on Jewish culture verify the evidences. William’s marriage as the inheritor of the crown to a Jewish girl will leave the future of Britain to the hands of the couple’s Jewish children.” *

Yeah. They got you Charles. They got you good…

 

 

Posted: 13th, November 2017 | In: Key Posts, News, Royal Family | Comment


Simon McCoy delivers a royal breaking news alert and it’s brilliant

BBC News anchor Simon McCoy has BREAKING NEWS:

“We’ve just got this coming in from Kensington Palace, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted to confirm they are expecting a baby in April.

“Now bearing in mind they announced she was pregnant back in September and it was thought she was around two or three months pregnant, I’m not sure how much news this really is but anyway…

It’s April so clear your diaries, get the time booked off because that’s what I’m doing. That’s news just coming in from Kensington Palace.”

Simon McCoy knows what’s coming. Having delivered the Windsors’ press release that another one of our betters is on the way, he can expect to be reporting LIVE on Kate Middleton’s womb to a captivated nation:

 

Posted: 18th, October 2017 | In: Key Posts, Royal Family, TV & Radio | Comment