Who knew Brenda could be so arch?

English English is it’s own little language. It’s something of a surprise still to find those writing the English newspapers not quite getting it:

In a rebuff to critics of her granddaughter-in-law, the Queen added that she was “particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”.

I take that as Brenda being very arch indeed. That is, this is not a compliment.

26 comments on “Who knew Brenda could be so arch?

  1. I am filled with admiration for HMQ’s decisive, nay incisive, action. As Sir Lancelot Spratt would say, “Cut it out man, cut it out!”

    Harry and the high yeller (© J K Rowling) can now fuck off to obscurity.

  2. Harry and the high yeller (© J K Rowling) can now fuck off to obscurity.

    Optimistic, tho.

    I’m sold on the idea that Meg is a narcissist, she may also be BPD (not uncommon among the sort of broken girls who go into stripping and acting).

    She probably didn’t marry the ginger whinger for his looks or sparkling personality, she married him because he’s a rich and world famous royal.

    So what do we think will happen now that she has his baby as a hostage, and he’s taken a big drop in money and status, and she needs to keep her face in the meeja because narcissist and also because her lifestyle now requires not fading out of the public eye?

    (Cue EastEnders drum solo…)

  3. I think the intended business model is as mendicant wokesters.

    But regardless of that my money is on the mother of all divorces, and I wouldn’t rule out a suicide bid from the party of the ginger part.

  4. Has anyone considered that there might conceivably be some dodgy videos existing of La Sparkle, and the haste with which these changes are being effected might be the sign of a damage limitation exercise?

  5. “She probably didn’t marry the ginger whinger for his looks or sparkling personality, she married him because he’s a rich and world famous royal.”

    There’s always a combination with these things with women, don’t you think? Like, women won’t generally let someone they find utterly hideous shoot a wad into their womb, but they’ll scale down from hot to OK if the money’s good.

    The problem for Harry is that when she’s built her brand, she can switch back from OK to hot. Like, these people wouldn’t be royals today if you were picking people, would they? Go back 500-1000 years and there’s people who gained or kept the crown through wit and guile, alpha males who were the best of the best, but most of them now are bumbling idiots who can’t even figure out how to do PR well, even though it’s about all they have to do and have people advising them what to do. In a more competitive age of monarchy, they’d have had Conan crushing them.

    “So what do we think will happen now that she has his baby as a hostage, and he’s taken a big drop in money and status, and she needs to keep her face in the meeja because narcissist and also because her lifestyle now requires not fading out of the public eye?””

    She’s going to build up her brand and then dump him once it’s done. She’s not a huge actress, but she’s successful enough to know how to play the US media game, in a way that Harry doesn’t. The monarchy are amateurs at being celebs compared to the Americans. What’s his value to the US media? You can put George Clooney on a sofa, and he can talk about his work, he’s handsome and charming. What does Harry bring other than being the Queen’s grandson, which he can barely exploit?

    I give it 2-3 years and he’ll be back on a plane to the UK

  6. Lots of talk about who should pay for his security but none seems to consider that he has a massive target on his back following his well publicised service in Afghanistan. He was sent there on our behalf and it was leaked by the Australian media so he had to be whipped out very quickly, so we at least owe him some protection.

    As it happened, the first flight out was a medvac flight and it was seing those wounded soldiers that made him want to help them With there recover which led eventually to the Invictus games.

  7. Good, bad or indifferent, Harry is an adult. I’m sure he was told more than once not to marry a woke divorcée feminazi actress, but he chose not to listen. Whatever happens as the consequence of his choice is on him and no-one else.

    Even Meghan can’t be blamed for that, since she’s just using the womanly charms that god gave her to increase her status so that when she goes back to HollyWeird she can get more bang for her buck.

    One thing it does highlight is that having these minor royals prancing around on the public dole is neither healthy, nor sustainable. Far better to stop giving them highfalutin titles which prevent them going out, getting a job and having a life of some meaning NOT connected to the public teat.

    …after all, princes and princesses don’t work for a living, do they?

  8. Does she want the baby though? What does she get out of it? I have a pair of friends who both tried to offload the kids on the other one. Might not the divorce be a fight as to who *doesn’t* get lumbered with the sprog?

  9. Bit like the house, jgh. Whether or not she has any interest in it the business of taking care of it, it’s an anchor and a bargaining chip.

  10. Does she want the baby though? What does she get out of it? I have a pair of friends who both tried to offload the kids on the other one. Might not the divorce be a fight as to who *doesn’t* get lumbered with the sprog?

    Baby Archie is not so much a baby as a tool to bind Harry (and to a greater extent the UK Royal Family) to her will. While she has control of Archie, she has control of much more. It’s the same ploy used against fathers time and again. Why wouldn’t it work this time?

  11. I’m not British. I don’t believe in monarchy. But I gotta tell you Brits, your Queen is a very impressive person.

  12. One of the family:

    M: Harry, I’m pregnant

    H: Best we marry then

    … Day 1 of honeymoon

    M: Harry, I’ve had a miscarriage

    @Steve, John Galt

    +1

    @Mr Lud

    Seems they’ve agreed to lose HRH (& Prince?), payback Frogmore cost and rent it. Charles hinting “nout more from me”

  13. If there’s no HRH, what have they got to sell gullible Americans? They’ve already got woke Hollywood Royalty, what’s the Sussex USP? Why is Joe Billionaire going to donate $$$ to the Sussex Foundation, when the same donation to the Clinton one means he doesn’t mysteriously die in a ‘suicide’?

  14. Pcar said:
    ”Seems they’ve agreed to lose HRH (& Prince?)”

    I’ve not heard anything about his title of Prince. These days (since the system was tightened in WWI to remove British titles from the German cousins) in Britain Prince and HRH generally go together (the only exception I can think of goes the other way – Philip was, for a while, HRH but not Prince, but I can’t think of anyone recently who has been Prince but not HRH), so it might be that not using HRH implies also not using Prince. But it’s within the Sovereign’s gift.

  15. The press do seem to be getting excited about this though; even I got ‘phoned by a tabloid reporter this afternoon.

  16. @RichardT

    Palace: official titles now Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

    A new one as terminology previously applied to widows & divorcees (.snort.)

    All to be reviewed in 12 months

    @John Galt

    If they do use them, Brenda will remove them

    Tit-bit: seems Meghan lied about all personal moved to UK, she’s been raiding her Toronto “furniture” storage locker for clothes she wore pre-move. Did she always intend to return?

  17. @RichardT

    Palace says “Mistake, should have been Duke & Duchess, not Harry, Duke….”

    Brenda having a “divorce” dig at Harry for his yet another insulting speech and five year rule not honoured?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.