༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑
@HRHLadyJ • 3,796 subscribers
PR, branding, and marketing business analyst. British and royal historian. Monarchist. 🚫 Sugars blocked. Locked profiles blocked. No DMs.
Shorts
Videos
After seeing a scone recipe posted for Memorial Day, I’ve got a few things to say. And frankly, they won’t be particularly polite. I’m immensely proud to call both the United Kingdom and the United States home. I grew up with traditions from both countries, still split my time between them to this day, and my own children are being raised with that same dual identity. I understand the humour, customs, etiquette, history and cultural differences on both sides of the Atlantic probably better than most people. Which is exactly why this sort of performative nonsense winds up me so much. Because one thing that absolutely doesn’t translate is turning Memorial Day into some twee Instagram aesthetic involving scones, jam and curated “holiday weekend” content. To my fellow Britons, and to others outside the United States who may not fully understand the distinction, Memorial Day isn’t the American equivalent of a bank holiday garden party. Nor is it interchangeable with Veterans Day. Veterans Day in November honours all who have served in the United States military. Memorial Day is entirely different. Memorial Day is for the dead. It exists to honour the men and women who never came home. Just like Rememberance Day. It’s a day rooted in grief, remembrance and sacrifice. That distinction matters. Because of that, my company does not operate on Memorial Day or on Remembrance Day in Britain. That’s always been a hard rule for me and it always will be. The day before, we make one simple memorial post expressing gratitude, remembrance and respect for those who gave their lives. We also explain that we’ll be turning off sales on our website and stepping away from social media entirely for 24 hours. No promotional posts. No sales pitches. No “holiday weekend specials”. The socials go silent because some things deserve dignity rather than being turned into marketing opportunities. Freedom is not free. And reducing remembrance to a sales opportunity has always struck me as profoundly tacky. Which brings me to the scones. Seeing an American woman posting a scone recipe for Memorial Day genuinely made my skin crawl a bit. Not because scones themselves are offensive, obviously, but because the whole thing felt painfully artificial and culturally manufactured. Scones are not associated with Memorial Day in the United States. At all. The average American family gathering for Memorial Day is far more likely to involve a barbecue, burgers, hot dogs or a cookout than cream tea. The eternal British debate over whether the jam or cream goes first isn’t exactly dominating conversation in American cities. And let’s be honest here. Scones aren’t inherently American in the first place. They’re deeply associated with British culture. Tea culture. Country houses. Cream teas. The sort of thing people in Cornwall and Devon still somehow manage to argue about with complete sincerity. Like pineapple on pizza. So when a certain someone, who spent less than two years in the United Kingdom before fleeing back to California at warp speed, suddenly starts presenting herself as the patron saint of jam and scones for an American Memorial Day audience, it comes across as painfully contrived. And somehow even more absurd when the recipe itself was shared in grams and Celsius. I use both systems myself because I live between both countries, so I understood it perfectly well. But the overwhelming majority of Americans bake in teaspoons, tablespoons, cups and Fahrenheit. Marketing a very British-coded scone recipe in European measurements for an exclusively American audience on an American military holiday is such a bizarrely specific level of inauthentic branding that it almost feels like parody. What made it even stranger was the timing of the whole thing. The day before, the Prince of Wales was on a national radio programme being asked, as Duke of Cornwall, how he takes his scones. He said he takes them the same way Queen Elizabeth II did. Then the very next day, up pops an entire promotional post centred around scones, complete with a recipe for Memorial Day. What a coincidence. You could almost admire the opportunism if it weren’t so embarrassingly obvious. Because that’s what this increasingly feels like. Not authenticity. Not cultural appreciation. Branding. Very calculated branding. And very confused branding at that. This is a woman who publicly distanced herself from Britain, criticised the Royal Family, the institution, the press, the culture and the people. She then almost immediately pivoted into selling tea, spreads, biscuits and aggressively British coded lifestyle products. All of it is framed under a title she and her children only possess because of the very institution she claims damaged her. You cannot spend years positioning yourself as oppressed by Britain while simultaneously using British aristocratic styling via a royal peerage to market candles and preserves to Americans on Instagram. At some point the contradiction just becomes ridiculous. Even stranger is the fact this pantry line is only available in the United States while borrowing almost entirely from British imagery and British culinary aesthetics. Tea. Biscuits. Jam. Scones. And now Memorial Day apparently. Which again makes absolutely no cultural sense whatsoever. Memorial Day isn’t a whimsical lifestyle mood board of hers. It’s not a backdrop for curated brunch content. It’s not an excuse to cosplay English tea culture because your brand identity remains fundamentally incoherent. And yes, I feel exactly the same way about all companies running “Celebrate Memorial Day with 20% off!” mattress sales, car dealership blowouts or whatever. The language itself is grotesque. I will not “celebrate” the deaths of American servicemen and women. I’ll honour them. I’ll remember them. There’s a difference and it matters. As President Ronald Regan once said “The American flag does not fly because the wind moves it. It flies with the last breath of each soldier who died protecting it.” The names of those who died serving their country should not be reduced to discount codes, influencer engagement bait or twee social media recipes designed to sell fruit spread. But perhaps that’s the real issue underneath all of this. Nothing ever feels sincere. Every cultural reference, aesthetic choice, every carefully staged lifestyle moment feels reverse engineered for branding purposes rather than rooted in any genuine identity. Which is why the whole thing lands with such a thud. As someone who genuinely loves both Britain and America, I find it exhausting watching someone who barely spent five minutes in the UK attempt to monetise a fantasy version of Britishness whenever it becomes commercially useful. Particularly when it’s attached to a day that is supposed to be about remembering the fallen. It’s tasteless. It’s opportunistic. And it’s entirely on brand for her and her business.
༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑71,045 просмотров • 18 дней назад
Lie detector results are in, and yes — that too was a lie. 🙄 Meghan has an iPhone. She’s had more than a few over the years. And there is absolutely no way that Siri, as she claims, is “not on my phone at all.”🐂💩 Siri isn’t a fancy extra you can take or leave; it’s baked into iOS. You can silence it, restrict it, or kid yourself it’s gone, but it isn’t. Even “disabling” Siri doesn’t actually disable it. Anyone with an iPhone knows that. Apple’s own support pages are littered with people asking why they can’t delete Siri outright. The answer is the same every time: because you can’t. Then she insists she doesn’t have “location services on her phone.” Again, nonsense. Just like Siri, location services are part of the device. You can limit them, you can switch them off for certain apps, but you cannot remove them. They’re hard-wired into the thing. So, once again, Meghan overshares — this time gesturing at her iPhone while wittering on about how the confetti text effect could be her flower sprinkles. And then, in her latest interview, she tries to sound quaint and “old-fashioned” by claiming she doesn’t use AI. The result? She only proves the opposite: she can’t even manage a simple explanation without tripping over something demonstrably false. She’s forever demanding that others “tell the truth” about her, yet she can’t seem to manage it herself on the smallest of details — Siri and GPS included. Meghan says wearing pantyhose made her feel “inauthentic.” No, Meghan — the only thing inauthentic here is you. #MeghanMarkleIsALiar #MeghanMarkleIsTheProblem #MeghanMarkleIsInauthentic #iPhoneFacts #SiriIsAlwaysThere #StopLyingMeghan #TechTruth #Oversharing #AuthenticityCheck #TruthMatters #BloombergMarkled
HRH Lady J 👑124,625 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад
As Ever’s Trademark Truth—What Meghan Doesn’t Want You to Notice On February 17, 2025, Meghan Markle claimed she “secured” the As Ever name back in 2022. That’s a lie. Here’s the truth: Her first trademark filing for As Ever wasn’t submitted until late 2022—and then sat untouched for over a year. She didn’t pursue it until September 12, 2024 under USPTO Serial Nos. 98748479 and 97985404. And no—it wasn’t filed under her name. It was filed by 2022 Trademarks LLC—almost certainly a legal shell tied to her team. That LLC shares an address with Mama Knows Best, LLC—the same entity behind her failed American Riviera Orchard trademark. Is that the “2022” she’s referencing? Maybe—but forming an LLC isn’t “securing” anything. She didn’t seriously pursue the trademark until late 2024—and it’s still not secured. This isn’t brand-building. It’s smoke and mirrors. Here’s What Actually Happened: 1. Her filing for clothing was rejected—blocked by Chinese brand ASEVER. 2. Her lawyers deleted the clothing category to force partial approval. 3. Right now, she holds only a Notice of Allowance (NOA)—which means she doesn’t own the trademark yet. She must prove real sales and file a Statement of Use—or risk losing the trademark. Bottom line: - No trademark. - No legal ownership. - The clock is ticking—and rejection is still possible. The Real Game Behind Those “Weird” Drops: Here’s why her launches felt so strange—why they seemed confusing, contradictory, and rushed: Many brands run tiny product drops—not to build buzz—but to satisfy USPTO trademark rules: - The law only requires minimal sales—just enough to prove “use in commerce.” - And separate proof is required for each trademark class. Once those boxes are checked? The trademark locks in. Now look how perfectly her timeline lines up: First Drop: Teas, spreads, garnishes, baking mixes—all categories in her filing (Classes 29 & 30). Honey was listed—but never existed. Then… Silence. She vanished. No restocks. No updates. Later, she resurfaced in Fast Company, claiming she was “studying customer behavior,” saying she didn’t want to frustrate people with “scarcity drops.” She insisted she wouldn’t restock until 2026. She repeated the same excuse on her podcast with Beyoncé’s mother—promising future drops would be “more accessible.” Yet—within days—she abruptly announced a new drop. Total contradiction. Here’s why: This wasn’t “market research.” It was legal scrambling—plain and simple. Second Drop: Honey finally appears—conveniently just in time to show proof of use for her honey category (Class 30). Third Drop: Wine suddenly appears—another box checked for her trademark (Class 33). Why the Tiny Quantities? Follow the Money—And the Law: Here’s the part she doesn’t want discussed: These products aren’t handcrafted or curated. They’re whites-labeled: - Teas/Flower Sprinkles? From Republic of Tea. - Honey? From a Williams Sonoma supplier. - Spreads—Republic of Tea facility in Illinois. - Wine? Fairwinds Estate (vineyard) and Kunde Family Winery (bottler). And with white-labeling? You pay upfront. That means she likely ordered the bare minimum—just enough to satisfy her trademark obligations. These weren’t exclusive luxury drops. They were legal maneuvers—bare-bones orders sold just long enough to check trademark boxes. The Part She’ll Never Admit: Why is she already promising future launches will be different? Simple: Once her Statement of Use is filed and trademarks locked in, she won’t need these tiny, awkward “drops” anymore. But does she value proof of sales—or the illusion of instant sellouts? She’s already hinting at that—because she knows. This was never about customers. It was always about: getting the trademark secured. These weren’t product launches. They were legal checklists disguised as a brand. Stop watching her posts. Watch her filings. #AsEverGrifting #MeghanMarkleExposed #MeghanMarkleLies
༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑76,224 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад
The Daily Mail’s Royal Vendetta: A Month of Smears on William and Catherine, Followed by Crocodile Tears In the sweltering heat of August and September 2025, the Daily Mail unleashed a torrent of vitriol against Prince William, Catherine, the Princess of Wales, and even King Charles III. What began as whispers about a family home move quickly snowballed into a full-scale assault: accusations of “control freak” tendencies, “underwhelming” duties, a “dark past” tied to slavery, and hints of irreparable rifts. Collages of headlines tell the story — dozens of pieces from the Mail’s royal “hit squad,” peddling speculation as fact, while royal watchers cried “propaganda!” after every drop. This wasn’t journalism. It was SEO warfare dressed up as reporting, cynically timed to ride search trends like “William lazy,” “Kate health,” and “Charles succession,” while dangling glowing comparisons to bait Sussex fans. The Mail’s royal desk has turned itself into a digital sweatshop where outrage is the currency. Every article is deliberately contradictory — William is “too private” one day, “too performative” the next; Catherine is “influential but holding him back”; Charles is “weak but meddling.” Why? Because conflict sells. Rage-clicks fill MailOnline’s coffers. It’s the business model of chaos — and chaos is the coin of their grubby little realm. Now, in a twist worthy of their own soap-opera scripts, two of the Mail’s most prolific royal scribblers— Rebecca English and Richard Eden —have pivoted to pearl-clutching exposés about a “sinister plot” and “calculated wedge” undermining William and Catherine. It’s laughable. These aren’t brave whistleblowers; they’re architects of the very narrative they’re now decrying. The Daily Mail didn’t just report the hate—they manufactured it, weaponised it, monetised it, and now want to wash their hands as if they were bystanders. It’s the Fleet Street equivalent of throwing petrol on a bonfire, then sobbing that one’s eyebrows got singed. The Mail’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. For weeks, they ran columns dripping with Sussex apologia — Griffiths acting as Harry’s stenographer and Platell recycling Meghan’s grievances as “concerns,” and A.N. Wilson psychoanalysing William from his study like some amateur Freud-for-hire. All this while YouTube commenters and even their own readers blasted their Royals channel as “toxic propaganda.” But rather than adjust course, they doubled down — until subscribers fled and advertisers grew squeamish. Only then did the pivot to victimhood begin. One could almost hear the gnashing of teeth in Kensington High Street. Let’s expose the rot at the heart of this tabloid machine — how they orchestrated the smears, gamed the algorithms, amplified Sussex narratives, twisted facts into weapons, and how their financial decline drives the cruelty. The curtain must be pulled back, and the stagehands caught red-handed, script in one hand, calculator in the other. The Hit Parade: A Catalogue of Calculated Cruelty From 1 August to 27 September 2025, the Daily Mail’s royal desk became a factory for anti-Wales ammunition, deploying a multi-pronged strategy: recycle old grudges into fresh headlines, cherry-pick data to misrepresent workloads, sensationalise historical trivia, and frame every decision as evidence of impending royal collapse. The trigger? William and Catherine’s pragmatic decision to relocate from Adelaide Cottage to Forest Lodge on the Sandringham estate — a “forever home” for family stability amid Catherine’s cancer recovery and global threats. What should have been a non-story morphed into “proof” of William’s fatal flaws: too private, too lazy, too “woke,” too everything. In short, too damned convenient for the Mail’s search engine tinkering. This was not random. The Mail runs on click-chains: one “exclusive” generates spinoffs, which are then linked in sidebars, ensuring readers never escape the outrage cycle. Eviction headlines lead into slavery history “revelations,” which link to workload hit pieces, which in turn promote YouTube debate clips. It is algorithmic entrapment sold as news — a kind of journalistic mousetrap baited with bile. Here’s the rogue’s gallery of the worst offenders, their pieces dripping with pro-Sussex favoritism and wild conjecture, broken down by tactic: • Amanda Platell (Columnist): On 20 August, Platell sneered at William’s “puny” 71 engagements, cherry-picking incomplete 2024 figures and ignoring health crises in the family. She compared him unfavourably to Princess Anne and accused him of making the Firm “pure vanilla.” Platell’s column was SEO-stuffed with phrases like “workshy heir” and “royal crisis” — all designed to trend on Google and bait shares. Her follow-ups even recycled Meghan’s old “baby brain” anecdote as if it were fresh ammunition. This isn’t journalism; it’s content farming — and farming in barren soil at that. • Christopher Wilson (Historian/Columnist): On 23 August, Wilson exhumed Forest Lodge’s “dark past,” weaponising obscure history to frame William and Catherine as morally negligent. The piece was algorithmically tied to MailOnline’s “slavery legacy” tag — the same tag used to cover Netflix’s colonial dramas. It wasn’t about informing readers; it was about capturing traffic off unrelated cultural debates. Like a ghoul rifling through parish records for sport. • A.N. Wilson (Royal Author): On 19 September, he declared William “angry and unhappy,” citing outdated stats and palace whispers. But more insidious was the Mail’s packaging: push alerts framed it as a “shock diagnosis,” with sidebars linking to Sussex puff pieces. William’s Earthshot success was buried, Harry’s “fun scamp” antics headlined. Manipulation by design, as brazen as a conjurer’s sleight of hand. • Charlotte Griffiths (Royal Correspondent): On 13 September, Griffiths painted William as the villain blocking Harry’s reconciliation. Her reliance on “anonymous sources” was classic Mail — unverifiable quotes crafted to fuel fan wars online. Each story was cross-promoted under MailOnline’s “Sussex comeback” hub, ensuring clicks from both sides of the aisle. Division is profitable, and she is its clerk of works. • Liz Jones (Columnist): On 5 September, Jones targeted Kate’s “bronde” hair during a visit to the Natural History Museum gardens, mixing sharp critique with grudging praise. Trolls called the lighter shade “washed out” or a “wig,” but Jones framed it as smart and empowering, signalling Kate’s post-cancer confidence. Her long history of nitpicking Kate’s hair — from 2012 bangs to post-2024 hospital styles — fits the pattern: personal opinion masquerading as insight, always driving clicks. She also recently editorialised against William as a future king, questioning his temperament and charisma, further stoking debate and subtly undermining the heir apparent. • Tina Brown (via Mail amplification): Brown’s Vanity Fair critiques were sliced into fragments and drip-fed as “Mail exclusives.” This is another trick: repackaging syndicated content as fresh scoops, maximising monetisation while disguising the recycling. In Fleet Street terms, it’s reheated cabbage passed off as coq au vin. • Rebecca English & Richard Eden: Even before their pivot, both poured fuel on the fire. English questioned the Forest Lodge move as a “taxpayer gamble” (24 September). Eden mocked it as indecisiveness (18 September). Both columns carried DailyMailPlus paywall teasers, designed to convert outrage into subscriptions. This wasn’t reporting. It was a coordinated content strategy: anonymous sourcing (cheap and unverifiable), data manipulation (engagement cherry-picking), and emotional framing (slavery, evictions, family rifts) — all calculated to maximise page dwell-time and comments. It’s the cynical mechanics of Fleet Street turned up to eleven, all brass band and no tune. The Asinine Pivot: From Smear-Mongers to Victimhood By late September, the Mail faced a problem: the narrative it had stoked was now boomeranging. Readers began calling out bias, subscribers fled, and Palace Confidential was haemorrhaging viewers. Cue the pivot. • On 25 September, Eden wailed about a “sinister plot.” • On 26 September, English warned of a “wedge between Charles and William.” Both pieces were smoke and mirrors. They rehashed earlier reporting — their own reporting — while pretending to be alarmed that anti-Wales narratives were spreading. Classic Mail: start the fire, then play the firefighter. They build the echo chamber, harvest the clicks, and when the backlash hits, shrug and blame “external forces.” It is not just hypocrisy — it is fraud. Fraud against readers, against journalism, against public trust. A betrayal wrapped in bunting. YouTube Implosion: Palace Confidential’s Monarchy Meltdown The nadir came mid-September when the Mail’s Palace Confidential channel speculated if William’s reign would “end the monarchy.” The video was a montage of the very print smears their own desk had churned out — workload cherry-picking, rift whispers, Forest Lodge doom-mongering. Within days, subscribers plummeted by the thousands. Comment sections filled with accusations of “hateful propaganda.” Forensic look at the analytics shows watch-time collapsing, click-through rates nosediving. Why? Because even Mail loyalists saw through the con. They were watching for the same reheated slop, dressed up as “exclusive debate.” According to VidIQ data, the Daily Mail Royals YouTube channel currently shows around 482,000 subscribers and has amassed over 313 million total video views. While those are nontrivial numbers, the channel’s estimated monthly earnings do not vindicate the hours of content churn — often in the modest range of £14,580–44,550 depending on viewership and ad engagement. In other words, the editorial excess is not being rewarded by proportionate audience loyalty or monetisation growth — the metrics are flat or weakening under scrutiny. Tubics data earlier in 2025 had placed the Daily Mail Royals subscriber count at ~464,000 with a view count ~292 million, indicating very slow growth — a channel in stagnation rather than ascendancy. This wasn’t content collapse; it was audience striking back. The vox populi spoke — and it said, enough. Follow the Money: The Mail’s Financial Desperation To understand why the Daily Mail behaves this way, you must follow the money. The pathology of smear campaigns is fed by urgent financial pressure. • Print decline: As of June 2025, the Daily Mail’s audited daily circulation stood at ~631,191 copies. That figure reflects a dramatic shrinkage over years — the paper, once selling well into multiple hundreds of thousands more, is now hollowed out. • Yearly comparisons: In 2024, ABC audit figures showed the Daily Mail had a daily circulation of 706,839 — meaning circulation has dropped by over 10% in roughly a year. • Advertiser exodus: In January 2025, the Mail announced it would merge its print and online teams and initiate cost-cutting, as major advertisers increasingly balk at brand adjacency with toxic, polarising content. The memo revealed that Mail+ (the paywall arm) had achieved 100,000 paying subscribers since its launch — a modest number given the scale of MailOnline’s reach. • Staff cuts as symptom: This internal restructuring is not optional — it is a forced retreat. Under the integration plan, job losses are anticipated. • Parent group pressure: DMG Media, the Mail’s owner, has made it clear that the print-online integration is about survival in a hostile advertising environment and declining print returns. In short, the Mail is bleeding. These royal smear campaigns aren’t just editorial cynicism — they’re a press outlet in full panic, scrabbling for clicks, subscriptions, and relevance by flogging scandal, outrage, and division. It’s the frantic thrashing of a swimmer who knows the tide has turned against them. Dirty Hands, No Excuses: Time to Hold the Mail Accountable The Daily Mail’s hands aren’t just dirty — they’re smeared, ink-stained with the fingerprints of manipulation. This wasn’t an accident, not a slip of the editorial pen. It was deliberate. They gamed algorithms like card sharks stacking a deck, pitted fandoms against one another like gladiators in the Coliseum, and weaponised history, health, and grief as if they were trinkets to be traded for clicks. CharlotteGriffiths , Amanda Platell, A.N. Wilson, Tina Brown, Liz Jones Goddess and the rest dutifully acted as stenographers for Sussex spin; Rebecca English and Richard Eden cried about “plots” they themselves had stoked; and editors signed off on every exaggeration, knowing that rage pays the bills. And now, when the wind shifts, they dare pivot to victimhood — as if they were the collateral and not the culprits. It’s theatre. Bad theatre. And the damage? It’s carved into public trust like graffiti on a listed building. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. William and Catherine ride out the storm with quiet resilience, their 74% approval proving that duty and dignity still matter. The monarchy carries on; the Mail only carries on as long as division sells. Readers aren’t fooled. Legacy media is collapsing under the weight of its own duplicity. Advertisers abandoned The Sun after Hillsborough. News of the World collapsed after phone hacking. And the Daily Mail — drunk on its own poison — is staggering toward the same graveyard. This was never “just gossip.” It was calculated sabotage dressed up in broadsheet clothing, a smear campaign masquerading as reportage, a racket that hollowed out the very idea of journalism. They didn’t just observe events; they made them happen. They didn’t reflect public opinion; they twisted it. They didn’t hold power to account; they abused it. The case is closed. The Waleses endure — proof that quiet service and real substance always outlast scandal. The Mail’s hit squad, by contrast, are done. History won’t remember them as kingmakers, only as mercenaries who confused clickbait for craft and outrage for insight, and in the process wrote their own obituaries. They won’t go down as journalists; they’ll go down as clickbait casualties — yesterday’s men and women, swept away by the very tide they tried to ride. #BoycottDailyMail #WeAreTheMediaNow #RoyalSmearCampaign #ExposeTheMail #MediaManipulation #StopTheSpin #TabloidTyranny #FakeNewsFactory #MonarchyVsMedia #FleetStreetFraud #TruthOverClickbait #InkStainedLies
༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑29,572 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад
Ever wonder what those jeweled ribbons & tiny portrait badges pinned to royal gowns really are? They’re called Royal Family Orders—personal honors gifted by the monarch only to female royals. These aren’t state medals—they’re deeply symbolic marks of loyalty, duty, and personal service to the Crown. What Are They? A miniature portrait of the sovereign, framed in diamonds, pinned to a silk ribbon (each monarch picks their own color). Women layer them by seniority—latest monarch’s Order always on top. Who Wears Them? Historic & current female royals alike, including: • Queen Victoria (creator of the Order of Victoria & Albert) • Queen Mary (most honored—five Royal Orders!) • Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, Diana, Princess of Wales • Anne, Princess Royal, Duchess of Edinburgh, Duchess of Gloucester, Queen Camilla & Princess Catherine (current holders) 👑 Orders By Monarch: • King George IV: White ribbon, diamond oak leaves & acorns • Queen Victoria: Order of Victoria & Albert (4 classes, cameo portraits) • King Edward VII: His racing colors—blue/yellow/red ribbon • King George V: Classic white silk bow • King George VI: Rose pink ribbon • Queen Elizabeth II: Chartreuse yellow silk • King Charles III: Pale blue ribbon (inspired by George V), synthetic materials replacing ivory, bordered with loose diamonds from the royal collection & topped with a Tudor Crown in diamonds & enamel Latest Royal Order News: • Queen Consort Camilla was the first to receive King Charles III’s Order in June 2024 • The Princess Royal, Duchess of Edinburgh, & Duchess of Gloucester received theirs in Dec 2024 • Catherine, Princess of Wales, received her Order just before the French State Banquet with President Macron—confirmed just yesterday. Fun Fact: Catherine’s Elizabeth II Order uses glass instead of ivory, honoring wildlife conservation. These aren’t just “brooches”—they’re wearable royal history, passed down through generations. One name you won’t see? She-who-shall-not-be-named. She was never awarded a Royal Family Order—and never likely will be. 👑✨ In honor of Princess Catherine receiving King Charles III’s Royal Family Order this week, here’s a look at every Order worn through the ages. 🎥 Watch the video for close-ups of each Order in royal history. #RoyalFamilyOrders #RoyalInsignia #RoyalWomen #RoyalTraditions #BritishRoyals #Catherine #PrincessOfWales #CatherinePrincessOfWales #CharlesIII #RoyalJewels #RoyalHistory
༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑35,677 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад
If you’re curious how people really feel about the Daily Mail’s endless doom-and-gloom attacks on Prince William and Catherine, Princess of Wales? Allow me... Take a quick detour to the Daily Mail Royals YouTube page and check out the comments on their little drama piece: “END OF THE MONARCHY AS WE KNOW IT?! | PALACE CONFIDENTIAL.” I won’t pollute this post with a link. Out of almost 5,000 comments, roughly 99% are people tearing strips off the Mail — calling the reporting “disgusting,” ridiculing the thumbnail, and declaring they’ve unsubscribed. If the editors or anyone really at Daily Mail bothered to scroll their own comments, they’d see what I’ve been saying all along: this propaganda circus isn’t sticking. It’s backfiring. They puffed up their chests, threw a tantrum like toddlers denied pudding, and in the process managed to alienate the very audience that kept them afloat. Subscribers are vanishing faster than their relevance. Royal coverage online has already shifted, and the tide is only going to get rougher. And if their masterplan is to woo Sussex supporters? Bless them.😆😂 That’s not a market; it’s a mirage. A sliver of "X" noise, not a loyal audience. In short, the Daily Mail has chosen its hill. And it’s the daftest one imaginable to die on. #BoycottTheDailyMail #IStandWithTheWales #WilliamAndCatherine
HRH Lady J 👑13,774 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад
Больше нет контента для загрузки