Prince Charles is celebrating his 70th birthday in style!

On Wednesday, Charles was photographed with his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall moments before heading to his birthday party hosted by his mother Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.

For the special evening, Charles sported a black tuxedo while Camilla chose a stunning off-the-shoulder navy gown and accessorized her look with dangling diamond earrings and a diamond necklace.

Inside the party, Queen Elizabeth made a sweet speech praising her eldest child and heir to the throne, noting that she was honored to be there to experience the milestone.

“It is a privilege for any mother to be able to propose a toast to her son on his 70th birthday,” the 92-year-old monarch began. “It means that you have lived long enough to see your child grow up. It is rather like — to use an analogy I am certain will find favor — planting a tree and being able to watch it grow.”

The Queen continued, “My mother saw me turn 70, of course. And she was heard to observe that 70 is exactly the age when the number of candles on your cake finally exceeds the amount of breath you have to blow them out.”

In addition, she went on to praise Charles’ dedication to saving the environment and raising a family.

“Over his 70 years, Philip and I have seen Charles become a champion of conservation and the arts, a great charitable leader — a dedicated and respected heir to the throne to stand comparison with any in history — and a wonderful father,” the monarch said. “Most of all, sustained by his wife Camilla, he is his own man, passionate and creative.”

Queen's touching tribute to son Charles at his 70th birthday party

Charles and Camilla attended a tea party before the evening party (PA)

The Queen delivered a touching speech to her son Charles as she hosted a lavish birthday party for his 70th at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday night.

Her Majesty described The Prince as “passionate”, “creative” and as “a duchy original,” as she raised a toast to her heir in front of family, friends and members of European royalty.

She also paid tribute to Charles’ passion for the causes he cares about the most, namely conservation and the arts, and mentioned his wife Camilla by name rather than title.

“My mother saw me turn 70, of course. And she was heard to observe that 70 is exactly the age when the number of candles on your cake finally exceeds the amount of breath you have to blow them out.

“Over his 70 years, Philip and I have seen Charles become a champion of conservation and the arts, a great charitable leader — a dedicated and respected heir to the throne to stand comparison with any in history — and a wonderful father.
“Most of all, sustained by his wife Camilla, he is his own man, passionate and creative.

“So this toast is to wish a happy birthday to my son, in every respect a duchy original.

“To you Charles. To the Prince of Wales.”

Charles was joined by his closest family members at the bash, including his sons William and Harry and their wives Kate and Meghan.

His daughter-in-laws were spotted arriving at the palace, both sporting some jaw-dropping earrings and what appeared to be off-the-shoulder gowns.

Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton Looked Glamorous As Hell at Prince Charles’s Birthday

Kate wows in a pink gown and statement earrings (Getty)

The Duchess of Cambridge paired her single-drop earrings — which are a departure from her beloved tiny pairs — with a ruffly, one-shoulder pink dress.Hopefully, the duchesses had a lovely night that included very little movement and quite a lot of sitting, as those pendulous earrings aren’t exactly made for the dance floor.

“It is a privilege for any mother to be able to propose a toast to her son on his 70th birthday,” The Queen said.

“It means that you have lived long enough to see your child grow up. It is rather like —to use an analogy I am certain will find favour — planting a tree and being able to watch it grow.

The Telegraph
California wildfire death toll reaches 71 as number missing rises to 1000

The death toll in California's wildfires climbed to 71 on Friday as the number of missing people surpassed 1000, while authorities continued the search for survivors and victims.

However, Kory Honea, Butte sheriff, said the list of missing people was dynamic, and could contain the names of people who did not realise they had been reported missing.

"We are still receiving calls, we're still reviewing emails," he said.

President Donald Trump is expected to visit the area on Saturday to see for himself the grief and damage caused by California's most deadly wildfires.

But he may face anger from locals for comments suggesting the fires could have been prevented or contained with better forest management.

In an interview recorded on Friday and scheduled for broadcast on Fox News Sunday, Mr Trump said he was surprised to see images of firefighters removing dried brush near a fire. "This should have been all raked out," he said.

Meanwhile, deputies found eight more bodies on Friday, bringing the death toll to 71.

Authorities are trying to reassure an anxious public that the long list of missing names - jumping from 600 a day earlier - may simply reflect the difficulty in trying to account for everyone thought to be in the area.

Some on the list have been confirmed as dead by family and friends on social media. Others have been located and are safe, but authorities have not yet marked them as found.

An exhausted llama lays in a partially burned field in Paradise, California 
Credit: Josh Edelson/AFP

Tamara Conry said she should never have been on the list.

"My husband and I are not missing and never were," she wrote Thursday night on Facebook. "We have no family looking for us. ... I called and left a message to take our names off."

Authorities compiled the list by going back to listen to all the dispatch calls they received since the fire started, to make sure they didn't miss anyone.

In last year's catastrophic wildfires in California wine country, Sonoma County authorities at one point listed more than 2,000 people as missing. But they slowly whittled down the number. In the end, 44 people died in several counties.

Firefighters search a burned-out building in Paradise, California
Credit: David Paul Morris/Bloomber

The wildfire this time all but razed the town of Paradise, population 27,000, and heavily damaged the outlying communities of Magalia and Concow on November 8, destroying 9,700 houses and 144 apartment buildings, authorities said.

Firefighters were gaining ground against the blaze, which blackened 222 square miles (575 square kilometers). It was 45 percent contained and posed no immediate threat to populated areas. Crews managed to stop it from spreading toward Oroville, population 19,000.

This patch of California, a former Gold Rush region in the Sierra Nevada foothills, is to some extent Trump country. The the Republican candidate beat Hillary Clinton in Butte County by 4 percentage points in 2016.

But some survivors resent that Mr Trump took to Twitter two days after the disaster to blame the wildfires on poor forest mismanagement. He threatened to withhold federal payments from California.

"If you insult people, then you go visit them, how do you think you're going to be accepted? You're not going to have a parade," Maggie Crowder of Magalia said Thursday outside an informal shelter at a Walmart parking lot in Chico.

World
Brigitte Macron Wore a Princess-Worthy Gown With the Queen of Belgium

Brigitte Macron might not actually be royalty, but she looked every bit the princess while attending a state dinner at the Royal Palace in Belgium. Joining Queen Mathilde of Belgium for the black-tie affair, Macron wore a sleek black dress with glittering embellishments at the neckline and waist. Queen Mathilde, for her part, wore a pretty velvet number that was a bit reminiscent of Meghan Markle's favorite bateau neckline.

We revel in Macron's tours of other countries just as much as we love when Markle or Kate Middleton travel abroad. So far, Macron has worn a polished all-gray outfit and a cool tweed pantsuit, and we can't wait to see what else she has up her sleeve in Belgium. Scroll down to see everything Brigitte Macron has worn on her tour of Belgium so far.

The Cut
Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton Matched … Again

On Wednesday (American Thanksgiving Eve), our favorite duchesses Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle stepped out, respectively, for two separate royal outings — while doing one of the things they apparently love more than almost anything else. Yes, they were matching … again.

During their separate outings — Kate to the University College London to chat about children’s mental health, and Meghan to the Hubb Community Kitchen to support the Together charity cookbook — the sisters-in-law were photographed sporting similar looks. Kate, 36, was re-wearing her Paule Ka skirt suit, while Meghan, 37, sported an outfit by Club Monaco. But the underlying theme? They were both wearing black tights and mostly burgundy outfits.

Here, look below at Kate’s outfit.

Now, let’s look at Meghan’s attire.

Whether or not Kate and Meghan meant to match (it is autumn and they were both wearing autumn outfits, so maybe it’s a coincidence?) is up for debate (because maybe there are no coincidences in life). But the pair have worn similar outfits and/or accessories in the past. In October, they both wore maroon polka-dot dresses around the same time (wow), and earlier this month, they both wore glamorous statement earrings and updos at the same event (incredible). But it is suspect that they’d show up to events on the same day in eerily similar clothes. Let’s take another closer look.

Here’s Kate:

And Meghan:

Ahhhhh, they both look lovely and elegant, yet my eyes and brain hurt from seeing so much double. But given that Queen Elizabeth wanted to wear matching green hats with Meghan that one time, I can only assume that triplet-ing with her will be the next stop on their royal matching tour.

Meghan’s sister called her a social climber: After the engagement was announced, Samantha Markle took to the tabloids to call her half-sister a “social climber.” She claimed Meghan only wanted to become a princess, and love had nothing to do with her engagement to Harry.

Associated Press
With child coming, it's off to the suburbs for Harry, Meghan
LONDON (AP) — Like many a couple before them, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan are moving to the suburbs ahead of the anticipated birth of their first child.

Officials said Saturday that Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, will move from Kensington Palace in central London to Frogmore Cottage, a house on the grounds of Windsor Estate, early next year.
The couple, who married in a chapel on the Windsor Castle grounds in May, is expecting their first child in the spring. Windsor is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of central London.
The palace statement said that "Windsor is a very special place for their royal highnesses and they are grateful that their official residence will be on the estate."
Windsor Castle is one of Queen Elizabeth II's favorite homes. It is surrounded by horse country where she used to ride frequently in her younger days, and she is known to prefer the castle and its environs to Buckingham Palace, her more formal official residence in central London.
Harry and Meghan have been living at Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace since announcing their engagement last year. They will keep their office at Kensington Palace, which is also home to Prince William and his wife Kate.
Frogmore Cottage is a two-story, stucco-covered house on the Windsor Estate. It is near Frogmore House, the grand 17th century manor house where Meghan and Harry held their evening wedding reception for 200 friends after their nuptials earlier in the day.
The cottage and house were called Frogmore because of the many frogs that resided in the marshy area near the River Thames.
The move means that William and Harry will no longer be living in close proximity to each other now that Harry is starting his own family. William and Kate have three children.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are Officially Leaving Kensington Palace and Moving to Windsor

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are officially leaving their two-bedroom cottage at Kensington Palace for a bigger and more remote home.
According to the Daily Mail, a spokesperson for the couple made the announcement today, saying:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will move to Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Estate early next year as they prepare for the arrival of their first child...Windsor is a very special place for Their Royal Highnesses and they are grateful that their official residence will be on the estate. The Duke and Duchess’s office will continue to be based at Kensington Palace.
If your first reaction to this news, like mine, was, "WTF is Frogmore Cottage?" well, it's a royal home near Windsor Castle and about 20 miles away from London. Frogmore Cottage is on the estate of the Frogmore House, which is the royal palace where Megs and Harry had their private wedding reception and took their engagement photos.
But don't be fooled but the humble 'cottage' title. Apparently, the residence, which was a gift from the Queen to Harry and Meghan, has ten bedrooms and a nursery, which, tbh, sounds more like a luxury home than a cottage.
And not only did the royal couple want to move in order to have more room for their growing family, but apparently this relocation was partially motivated by their desire to put some space between themselves and Prince William and Kate Middleton. According to a royal source, Harry and Meghan were originally going to move into a larger apartment at Kensington Palace, "but there has been a bit of tension between the brothers. Now Harry and Meghan don’t want to live next to William and Kate and want to strike out on their own."
Interestinggggg. Now excuse me while I mull over this drama with a plate of second-day Thanksgiving leftovers.

It Looks Like Doria Ragland May Be Part of the Reason Why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Are Moving

Meghan Markel's mom Doria Ragland has proven time and time again that, unlike *some* of Megs family, she is totally charming and more than able to fit in with the royal fam-there's even speculation that the queen invited Doria for Christmas!
So it makes total sense that once Meghan and Harry welcome their first child, Doria will be all over those grandma duties. And according to the Daily Mail, Doria "is said to want to be a hands on gran" and that "it is believed Doria will stay with the Sussexes on a regular basis when she comes to visit her new grandchild."
But Meghan and Harry's current place at Kensington Palace only has two bedrooms-which means that once the baby comes, there'd be no place for Doria to stay if one of the rooms becomes a nursery. However, now that Meghan and Harry are moving to Frogmore Cottage, a royal residence with ten bedrooms, Doria won't only be getting her own room-apparently, "the couple want her to have a wing of their next home."
There's also been speculation that Doria is planning t0 move to England for good, so it's possible that her grandchild duties are just part of the reason why she would have her own space at Frogmore Cottage. Plus, we know that Doria and Harry get along-this summer she had an "extended stay" at Oxfordshire with the royal couple.
So now that we know how Harry and Meghan are planning to fill two of the 10 bedrooms at their new home-any bets on what they're going to do with the remaining eight?

Queen Elizabeth Finds the Word Pregnant "Vulgar"

A Kensington Palace representative spoke with The Telegraph. This is one question that Clarence House has not been asked by the public for some time, which is why it no longer features. With the title's removal from official communication, if Camilla will be queen is anyone's guess.

In-laws are fun, especially when they double as beloved long-reigning monarchs.

Though most matriarchs have a list of unwritten rules in mind for their families, Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton’s grandmother-in-law has more than a few non-traditional pet-peeves, which include a distaste for wedge heels, potatoes, and men in shorts.

Perhaps the most shocking among Queen E’s laundry list of unique grievances is this: the word “pregnant.” What about it, you ask? Well, according to an Us Weekly “palace source,” she finds the term “vulgar.”

So … does Queen Elizabeth just politely skirt the topic of female gestation, even though she’s a mother of four, grandmother of eight, and great-grandmother of seven (soon to be 8!)? Nah, she still talks about the condition we traditionally call pregnancy, but under a different (and incredibly old-fashioned) guise. Instead of using that vulgar p-word, the queen refers to expectant women as “in the family way.”

World
Ukraine Should Not Be a Member of NATO

Doug Bandow

Security, Eurasia
Washington should stop adding to the Alliance new members who are security liabilities.
Ukraine Should Not Be a Member of NATO

Another day, another crisis in the relationship between Russia and Ukraine—and another powerful reminder why the latter should not be inducted into NATO. Washington has nothing at stake worth going to war over who has access to the Sea of Azov.

The latest confrontation between Moscow and Kiev occurred when Russian vessels blocked Ukrainian vessels from moving into the shallow body of water between the two nations through the Kerch Strait. Kiev charged that Russia prevented lawful passage of its ships and instituted an illegal blockade. Moscow, in turn, claimed that the Ukrainians entered illegally and engaged in “aggressive” maneuvers. A Russian gunboat shot up a Ukrainian vessel, injuring several sailors.

Full-scale war is possible. Both sides had been increasing military forces in the region. Although Russian president Vladimir Putin does not appear to be stoking nationalist fires at home, Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko is an underdog for reelection and might benefit from a crisis. The latter called a war cabinet meeting, warned of possible conflict, and instituted martial law (which would allow postponing the election). The Rada is considering declaring a state of war with Russia. Demonstrators have taken to Kiev’s streets.

The Putin government, which has harassed Ukrainian marine traffic entering what is essentially an enclosed sea, looks mostly to blame. Moscow’s aggressiveness might be a negotiating tactic or part of a campaign to turn the Sea of Azov into de facto territorial waters.

Still, Moscow is not without security concerns. The Kerch Strait Bridge is a possible target. Indeed, in May Washington Examiner columnist Tom Rogan argued that “Ukraine should now destroy elements of the bridge. While that course of action would be an escalation against Putin and one that would almost certainly spark Russian retaliation, this bridge is an outrageous affront to Ukraine's very credibility as a nation.” Worse, Rogan declared: “The U.S. could and should support Ukraine here with confidence in our own military power.” Even if an election-minded Poroshenko eschews taking such a risk, nationalist and neo-fascist militias might not be so restrained.

So far the crisis is contained. The UN Security Council met but will take no action with Russia as a member. Poroshenko requested support via tweet: “We appeal to the partner countries under the Budapest Memorandum, to the EU countries, to participants of the Normandy format in order to coordinate effective measures to protect Ukraine. We appeal to the whole pro-Ukrainian coalition: we must stand united!”

That’s quite a list. It includes, respectively, the United States and United Kingdom, most of Europe, and France and Germany. However, if one thing is certain, it is that the continent will do nothing. The EU did issue a statement: “We expect Russia to restore freedom of passage at the Kerch Strait and urge all to act with utmost restraint to de-escalate the situation immediately.” But most European governments aren’t particularly interested in defending themselves. They certainly won’t launch a glorious crusade on behalf of Ukraine, which they won’t admit to either the EU or NATO.

America is the only nation on that list that matters. Washington would be expected to do the heavy lifting in any war that includes Moscow, handle the nuclear exchange, conduct the air war, resupply the allied combatants, clear the seas, manage the ground campaign, and take the casualties. The UK and France would help out. Poland would contribute. Everyone else would offer advice and hope that Russia fired its weapons over them toward North America.

This should remind us that we are lucky (or blessed) President George W. Bush failed in his effort to add Kiev (and Georgia) to NATO. Had he succeeded Washington would have been obligated to come to Ukraine’s defense if it invoked Article 5 against Moscow. Backed by the United States, Kiev would have been much more likely to take a belligerent approach toward Russia. Poroshenko would have advanced his reelection prospects and possibly triggered the sort of war that only offers the possibility of reclaiming Crimea.

While alliances deter, they also ensnare. If war breaks out, then Washington is automatically involved. And war becomes more likely when governments believe they can borrow the U.S. armed forces for their own purposes, which makes them more reckless.

It is fine to be “pro-Ukrainian,” as Poroshenko put it. Russia’s various assaults on Ukraine were wrong. However, there is no cause for Washington to go to war. First, Kiev is of little security interest to the West. Ukraine suffered as part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, without any meaningful impact on America or Europe. Ukraine’s current travails are unsettling but not threatening to anyone else.

Moreover, Kiev, the Europeans, and America are hardly blameless. Ukraine is no beau ideal of democracy. Moreover, years after backing a “color revolution” in Kiev (which made the disastrous incompetent Viktor Yushchenko president), Washington and Brussels cheerfully encouraged a street putsch against the elected though flawed leader who leaned toward Russia. U.S. officials unashamedly talked about who they wanted to take over as Ukraine’s prime minister. Ukraine’s economic orientation toward Europe and membership in NATO was supposed to follow. That didn’t warrant war by Moscow, but Washington would have taken, shall we say, a dim view if the situation was reversed and Russia intervened in Mexico, installing its preferred leaders and pushing the country toward membership in the Warsaw Pact.

Needed is a general settlement covering Ukraine and Georgia. Crimea won’t go back to Ukraine without Moscow’s defeat in war. Russia is unlikely to stop stirring the pot in Ukraine’s Donbass region so long as NATO membership is a formal objective. The statement would serve as a strategy to bring peace and stability, if not liberalism and democracy, to that part of the world.

The allies close NATO’s doors and drop sanctions, without formally recognizing Crimea’s annexation. Russia ends its support for Ukrainian separatists and halts other destabilizing activities, such as interfering with Ukrainian shipping entering the Sea of Azov. Georgia and Ukraine lean however they wish culturally, economically, and politically, but abandon efforts to become a Western military tripwire. No one is happy. Everyone prospers with the result.

Weirdly, the one policy that appears to unite anti-Trump liberals and neoconservative hawks centers around Russia. Both are intent on making Moscow an enduring enemy, with no gain for America. At times this bizarre alliance appears to wish it could launch the first missile targeting the Russian Federation. If Kiev was a NATO member, then the bipartisan war hawks just might have gotten their chance.

NATO has outlived its usefulness. It risks dragging America into an unnecessary war in which most European allies would do little more than watch. Getting out is more complex than getting in. In the meantime, Washington should stop adding to it new members that are security liabilities. The Trump administration should instead focus on engaging in serious negotiations to end the neo-Cold War that has developed between Washington and Moscow.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire...

Celebrity
This Famous Couple Will Probably Be Godparents to Meghan and Harry's Royal Baby

From Cosmopolitan

Wondering who Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will pick to be godparents to their royal baby? Probably a whole group of lucky friends and family members, but first on the list is potentially George and Amal Clooney.

The Daily Mail reports that the famous couple are "all but confirmed" to be among the baby's godparents, with a source friendly with both the Clooneys and the royals telling the magazine, "Amal and Meghan have been close for years, and Harry and George have become buddies because of that. They're much closer than the headlines let on."

The source also says that George has "told a couple of people he has a strong hunch" they'll be asked to be godparents.

It's clear the couples are indeed super close, as George and Amal were on the guest list for the royal wedding, and Meghan and Harry reportedly visited them in Lake Como shortly after they got hitched. Of course, we won't officially find out if the Clooneys made the cut until next spring, when the royal baby is due to arrive!