I am jealous of women like Meghan Markle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is Megan's real first name

You all are being so silly.

Her middle name is Meghan.

Plenty of people go by their middle name, especially men.

You don't get your undies in a wad over a guy going by his middle name. Why so worked up about Meghan doing the same?

There is a lot you do not understand about human nature and interpersonal relationships if you think the issue people have with this woman is her gender or her race. Most people have plenty of respect for Oprah and Condaleeza Rice. Gee I wonder why these hard-working, value-adding women garner more respect than some hustler who uses her beauty and a coquettish demeaner for the chance to prance around in designer clothes with flashbulbs at every corner.

[Anonymous]

I'm reading this thread like it's a train wreck. I can't believe actually spend this much time thinking about and forming opinions about people they don't know. Who cares what the royals do? Who cares if she trapped him, has six toes on one foot, or is wildly happy. How on earth does that impact you? Focus on making your life the best it can be and let others live theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is Megan's real first name

You all are being so silly.

Her middle name is Meghan.

Plenty of people go by their middle name, especially men.

You don't get your undies in a wad over a guy going by his middle name. Why so worked up about Meghan doing the same?

There is a lot you do not understand about human nature and interpersonal relationships if you think the issue people have with this woman is her gender or her race. Most people have plenty of respect for Oprah and Condaleeza Rice. Gee I wonder why these hard-working, value-adding women garner more respect than some hustler who uses her beauty and a coquettish demeaner for the chance to prance around in designer clothes with flashbulbs at every corner.

It is the sockpuppeting anti princess troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t envy anyone who marries into the British royal family. I can’t imagine living life like that.

+1 I don’t curtsy to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Rachel is not that she is boring or unworthy as someone implied above. The problem is that she is an opportunistic narcissist who would throw her own grandma under a bus to get more public adoration She offers nothing of value to society or anyone else. She is not a role model or a person to be celebrated.

Contrast her with the queen, for example, who is a true public servant.

Ooh, look. Samantha found this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is Megan's real first name

You all are being so silly.

Her middle name is Meghan.

Plenty of people go by their middle name, especially men.

You don't get your undies in a wad over a guy going by his middle name. Why so worked up about Meghan doing the same?

There is a lot you do not understand about human nature and interpersonal relationships if you think the issue people have with this woman is her gender or her race. Most people have plenty of respect for Oprah and Condaleeza Rice. Gee I wonder why these hard-working, value-adding women garner more respect than some hustler who uses her beauty and a coquettish demeaner for the chance to prance around in designer clothes with flashbulbs at every corner.

LMAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Rachel is not that she is boring or unworthy as someone implied above. The problem is that she is an opportunistic narcissist who would throw her own grandma under a bus to get more public adoration She offers nothing of value to society or anyone else. She is not a role model or a person to be celebrated.

Contrast her with the queen, for example, who is a true public servant.

Ooh, look. Samantha found this thread.

LOL yes, Samantha is all 4000+ of these people who can't stand Meghan:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6288219/Harry-Meghan-Melbourne-day-royal-tour-Australia.html#comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s a beautiful woman. She hit the jack pit in the looks department. All follows from that.

If you’re not on her level looks wise (and few are), it’s useless to compare yourself to someone like her.

Kate Middleton is married to the future king. She is less pretty compared to Meghan and Will's other exes.

You are kidding, right?

Kate is gorgeous, far more beautiful than Will's exes. She is also darker than the blondes Will dated in the past so Kate (like Meghan) will age better than them.

You're kidding right? She's darker and will age better? WTF...gross generalization.

Yes.

Both of those girls have a little (or a lot) more melanin than the fair girls like the Jecca girl that the royal troll loves so much. The extra melanin will help them fight sun damage. Fair blondes do not have the benefit of melanin.

And in Meghan's case, darker skin from her background tends to wrinkle less. Meghan will be the most fortunate of the bunch in terms of wrinkles and aging.

As a final benefit, look at both Kate and Meghan's moms. They are both gorgeous women who have aged very well, including their skin. Both Kate and Meghan will be blessed in the aging department.

^What a load of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's something to be said about luck. How many of us work so hard to try and find a suitable match with the best most high status man possible so we can give our future children the best outcome.

Despite coming from humble roots and a trashy family she winds up married the most highest status man a woman can find and will now bear children with titles and is secured generations of wealth and financial security.

And the best the rest of us can do is marry a doctor?

not fair!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

She was a C-list actress who would have had a better career waiting tables. She's nothing to aspire to. Though I always laugh how women dream of being British royalty, it's because deep down women don't want to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's something to be said about luck. How many of us work so hard to try and find a suitable match with the best most high status man possible so we can give our future children the best outcome.

Despite coming from humble roots and a trashy family she winds up married the most highest status man a woman can find and will now bear children with titles and is secured generations of wealth and financial security.

And the best the rest of us can do is marry a doctor?

not fair!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

She was a C-list actress who would have had a better career waiting tables. She's nothing to aspire to. Though I always laugh how women dream of being British royalty, it's because deep down women don't want to work.

+1000 Everyone wants to be royal until they realize that only the first year is glitz and glamour. Then it's an endless barrage of boring events with your in-laws who have complete control of every little aspect of your life. Can you imagine? 98% of DCUM hates their in laws and the royal in laws control the purse strings and the freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s a beautiful woman. She hit the jack pit in the looks department. All follows from that.

If you’re not on her level looks wise (and few are), it’s useless to compare yourself to someone like her.

Kate Middleton is married to the future king. She is less pretty compared to Meghan and Will's other exes.

You are kidding, right?

Kate is gorgeous, far more beautiful than Will's exes. She is also darker than the blondes Will dated in the past so Kate (like Meghan) will age better than them.

You're kidding right? She's darker and will age better? WTF...gross generalization.

It is not a generalization.

It is science.

Here is a simple article summing up the role of melanin and collagen in aging. If you want more scientific info there is plenty available:

https://www.aarp.org/disrupt-aging/stories/ideas/info-2017/cliches-that-are-true.html

It's not true though. A lot more goes into aging, esp volume loss, which affects all races equally. I'm an aesthetician and trust me there are plenty of white women who age very well. Black skin gets less wrinkles but black women can certainly look their age or older.

^This--there are a lot of factors involved in how people age and their appearance. Melanin and collagen are part of the equation but not the only factors.

[Anonymous]

If I could have the help, nannies, cooks, security etc and pop out some babies just to shake hands and go to evening events, I would do that in 10 seconds flat.

Meghan got very lucky.

I could think of worse jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I could have the help, nannies, cooks, security etc and pop out some babies just to shake hands and go to evening events, I would do that in 10 seconds flat.

Meghan got very lucky.

I could think of worse jobs.

At a cost of personal autonomy. She literally cannot walk out of her front door without being hounded, has to take security everywhere, and is the subject of tabloid fodder for the rest of her life. Interpersonal relationships are tricky because the person has to be 100% trustworthy. Her children will be subject to the same scrutiny and will not have the freedoms she had (not counting financial of course) growing up. There are a lot of perks that come with wealth in general, but she will live a largely closeted existence hereon out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could have the help, nannies, cooks, security etc and pop out some babies just to shake hands and go to evening events, I would do that in 10 seconds flat.

Meghan got very lucky.

I could think of worse jobs.

At a cost of personal autonomy. She literally cannot walk out of her front door without being hounded, has to take security everywhere, and is the subject of tabloid fodder for the rest of her life. Interpersonal relationships are tricky because the person has to be 100% trustworthy. Her children will be subject to the same scrutiny and will not have the freedoms she had (not counting financial of course) growing up. There are a lot of perks that come with wealth in general, but she will live a largely closeted existence hereon out.

LOL You just described every A-list actress in Hollywood. You think Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie, and Halle Berry would give up fame-and-fortune because they're on the cover of US Weekly and have security?

Hell no.

In fact, I'd argue its every Hollywood actors dream to get that outcome. Meghan just got it for a lifetime and with the love of her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could have the help, nannies, cooks, security etc and pop out some babies just to shake hands and go to evening events, I would do that in 10 seconds flat.

Meghan got very lucky.

I could think of worse jobs.

At a cost of personal autonomy. She literally cannot walk out of her front door without being hounded, has to take security everywhere, and is the subject of tabloid fodder for the rest of her life. Interpersonal relationships are tricky because the person has to be 100% trustworthy. Her children will be subject to the same scrutiny and will not have the freedoms she had (not counting financial of course) growing up. There are a lot of perks that come with wealth in general, but she will live a largely closeted existence hereon out.

LOL You just described every A-list actress in Hollywood. You think Jennifer Aniston, Angelina Jolie, and Halle Berry would give up fame-and-fortune because they're on the cover of US Weekly and have security?

Hell no.

In fact, I'd argue its every Hollywood actors dream to get that outcome. Meghan just got it for a lifetime and with the love of her life.

He is not the love of her life, please. He is a naive doofus. She is over the moon anyway, though, because she has a never ending stream of narcissistic supply pumping her way by virtue of the "role," at least for now.