Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

2.3k Excellent
  1. Apparently, Elizabeth never really looked at anyone but Philip, after they met when she was around 13. There was no one else in consideration.
  2. I can really see Charles going either way. I could understand choosing George, because the two previous King Charles were rather ignominious, and because maybe it can be pushed as a further symbol of what he's always said: that being Monarch is different from being Prince of Wales, and he fully acknowledges that. In this case, I think he'll probably be the last monarch to choose a different regnal name, at least for the foreseeable future. I think the tradition only dates back to Victoria? Or, he could easily follow in his mother's footsteps and keep his name, since that's what the world and the press know him as, and just ignore all Charles III jokes. (I don't see Charles naming himself King Arthur, after one of his middle names, more's the pity. That would be media gold.)
  3. I think it's easy to see that a lot of things went wrong regarding Meghan's introduction to the Royal Family. I don't know much about the power behind the Royal Rota, and what it would take to change it (possibly the involvement of Parliament, since the issue includes both the press and the royals?), but it has been royal policy (official or unofficial) for decades to ignore unfavorable press. And often, when they have broken that policy, it's backfired, thus reinforcing the policy of disengagement all over again. Camilla went through a horrendous time, not too long ago. So yes, I can easily see the palace not recognizing racist dogwhistles because a lot of the stories brought up (such as Meghan during her pregnancy, or the stupid avocado thing) aren't overtly about race, and can just seem like the sexist nitpicking that all the royal women have endured. The one thing I do think the Queen should have publicly responded to was the overtly racist attack on Archie. I still think the timeline of Meghan's royal life was very short, without a whole lot of wiggle room for making adjustments and trying to make it work for all involved. The Queen did seem to take an active interest in Meghan's royal debut, and Meghan herself did seem eager to jump in full-steam ahead and shake things up. In hindsight, that was rather naive (and maybe even a little presumptuous) of her. And while Kate's long pre-engagement relationship with William may seem unnecessary to people, it did give her years of observing and learning that Meghan didn't have. She probably understood more how being royal isn't really a job, as much as a lifestyle. And I don't think Meghan or Harry really accepted that. The one thing that still strikes me as odd is the big People magazine article with Meghan's friends defending her. Sure, maybe I'll buy that none of them mentioned anything to Meghan, and she had no idea. Whether she knew or not really doesn't mean much to me. What I don't get is airing everything in an American publication, when the American tabloids were much more supportive of Meghan to begin with and the barrage of criticism hadn't really gotten much coverage here, unless you were looking for Brit media. And I do wonder if that counterattack further soured relations in England.
  4. My biggest question is why Harry didn't actually decide to step away when he married. That would have been the more natural transition point. The fact that they instead decided to go all-in full-time royal, only to quit after less than two years (of which at least 6 months were spent on official leave), is the weird thing.
  5. Other celebrities have said they feel a marked difference in the level of paparazzi and celeb-watchers when in LA vs New York, where apparently it's easier to go about your business fairly undisturbed. Los Angeles is the worst when it comes to paparazzi chases, because the laws are more lax. And the US in general is worse about photographing children of famous parents than the UK, Europe, or Canada. But, US media may be more friendly to Meghan and Harry than UK media, so I guess it's a toss-up.
  6. Bethenny may be naive or lackadaisical about posting pictures of Bryn, but is she really worse than Leah filming with Kier, or all the kids shown on RHOBH? Is it that B gets more viewers on social media than episodes of RHONY/RHOBH do?
  7. I wonder if the women will come to regret not backing Bethenny when they had the chance. I think she would have been willing to push the issue with Dorinda, if at least one other person corroborated, but two years ago, everyone was too involved in B's split with Carole.
  8. It could be John ended the relationship because, with Bluestone Manor under renovation and everything else, Dorinda's been talking about Richard more and more as time goes on. Even Leah said that she's learned more about Richard than John. I wonder how annoyed Elyse is that she's not a full cast member. Between calling Sonja an accessory, deliberately asking Dorinda about John, and now going after Dorinda and Sonja as they storm away, she's incited a fair bit of drama.
  9. I think the downside to this is the risk of losing your audience. Getting that real could damage their brands, and 2016's election talk seemed to bore the general audience, even though both Carole and Dorinda had real connections to the political world. But those connections don't want to appear on this kind of TV, so it's not as interesting as it could be. These aren't authentic conversations that the women are having, just the fluff or narrative they want to be seen.
  10. We've known Tinsley is terrible at confrontation since her first season, when she confronted Sonja about Page Six and literally stamped her foot like a five-year-old. But, she's really done nothing to provoke Dorinda's ire, and so if the best she can do is try and ignore her entirely, I wish Tinsley well. I thought it was awful how everyone was calling her annoying, and that she thus deserved Dorinda's abuse - even the ones who were defending Tinsley! Ramona in the beginning of the episode saying to Dorinda (and Sonja) that they needed to go easier on Tinsley because Tinsley isn't a "strong woman like them" didn't really match her much harsher THs. She was right later on, when she said that Tinsley wasn't a victim, but was being victimized by Dorinda.
  11. OT, but I remember watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Willow's skirts in high school were as short as Cordelia's and Buffy's, but she always wore them with opaque tights. None of the characters noticed, because the tights gave a different vibe. On Topic, Denise and Garcelle will regret being catty in front of Lisa Rinna. I'll be interested if Rinna turns out to be the villain of the season. Look how easily she riled up Teddi, and how much mileage she got out of that! But I also wonder how long Kyle and Dorit will last against a cast full of people with real Hollywood connections. Even Teddi has an A-list father. Kyle may be enjoying the Halloween resurgence, but that won't last. LVP at least had the wealth and estate (with exotic menagerie!) to stand against name recognition.
  12. I'm not quite sure what Garcelle wants. She complains about Kyle's interactions being superficial, which fair point, but we also haven't seen Garcelle try to have deeper conversations with Kyle. She's had one-on-one moments with Denise and Erika, but not Kyle. She skipped Teddi's event and Rinna's girls' event, and she's often shown filming only with her own circle (and none of the other core cast members). Other than with Kyle herself, she's stayed out of the drama, so it's not even that Kyle overlooked an opportunity to help Garcelle out, the way she has with Sutton.
  13. Yeah, I don't quite understand Denise's claim that Kyle "talks down to them". Talks *over* them, maybe. But they all talk over each other. But it could be splitting hairs, because Kyle was definitely in the wrong when instigating Glamgate or whatever, with both Dorit and Denise. As for Garcelle, I think her main point is that Kyle doesn't really care about her because she doesn't listen to Garcelle or remember what she says? And fair point about the woman who had no clue who Nanny Kay was, after years of close friendship with LVP. Kyle has fawned over Garcelle! She fawned over her at her Welcome Back dinner, both when Garcelle arrived and when they were playing Rinna's inane game at the table. That fawning has been very superficial - clothes/gorgeous/awesome. But in fairness to Kyle, have we seen Garcelle get into deeper conversations with Kyle or anyone else? I don't quite understand Garcelle complaining that her new acquaintance is only superficially nice to her. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that Garcelle is annoyed that Kyle seemed to lump her in with the "fake bitches" last episode and *that's* what is driving Garcelle's irritation, but I don't think Kyle actually meant to deliberately include Garcelle. Garcelle was just there.
  14. I liked seeing Erika rehearse Chicago. She's not the best, but she's also not the worst, and it was sweet watching her tear up at the cast video welcoming her onboard. It's weird how Rinna keeps reacting to Sutton "almost flipping out" as if she'd actually flipped out and caused a scene. Nothing actually happened, and while it's obnoxious for Dorit to bring it up, maybe if Rinna had shrugged it off (seeing as nothing happened), it wouldn't have blown up. Teddi's silence as Kyle keeps spinning is interesting. Teddi backed Kyle up at Denise's event, but only after Kyle left and only to defend Kyle's friendship. I don't think Teddi is really interested in the purported causes of Kyle's arguments. She didn't care about Dorit being late or being glammed up, and she's not really getting into Kyle's thing with Denise or Garcelle.
  15. Some of them, maybe. Garcelle seemed to just want it out in the open. But Dorit has been weird all season about them, repeatedly saying how they "sleep in the same bed". And at the end, Erika said that something about them wasn't right. Although, that was after Kyle slammed Erika's "lack of friends".
  • Create New...

Customize font-size