Meghan Markle: "We're two people who are really happy and in love"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you think you had trouble landing the junior consultant's assistant, try with someone of Prince William's caliber.

Preach! It is not easy!

I don't care who it is, living with someone for 7 years with no commitment makes you pathetic. Hence the British public dubbing her "waity Katie". It was a joke.

Lol! I side-eyed Kate during her "waiting period", but hey they were both in their 20's at the time which can be a rollercoaster period for relationships. It seemed pathetic at the time, but not uncommon. Heck I know women who played house in their 20's with a guy and he stayed a frog, never morphed into a prince and acquired way too much baggage along the way that was accepted out of desperation. I still side eye Kate since all she has to do is show up, wear conservative designer duds and wave since she doesn't seem to publicly speak very often. We all knew, knew of or was that person who waited/hung around for years and it all turned to @#*!. Yes, Kate waited around for nearly decade, but now #goals.

With Meagan I sense the saltiness is due to the why not me!!!! syndrome. With Chuck and Di it was drilled into women's heads that only certain women with a certain pedigree and look are suitable for the royal life, but since then if you look into royal families across Europe, all kinds of women (and men) have married in. The reality is a bi-racial American divorcee with no title or noble background who is marching towards 40 just may have landed one of the most eligible bachelors in the world in one of the most famous families in the world with crowns and castles in her future; whereas others landed a jobless man child with 2 kids, or if you are lucky a GS11 who may be having an affair with a co-worker, a timeshare in Rehoboth, inlaws who hate them and a brokedown minivan!

If this happens, I wish them both well. Marriage is work!

Ha! Love this post!

+2

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you think you had trouble landing the junior consultant's assistant, try with someone of Prince William's caliber.

Preach! It is not easy!

I don't care who it is, living with someone for 7 years with no commitment makes you pathetic. Hence the British public dubbing her "waity Katie". It was a joke.

Lol! I side-eyed Kate during her "waiting period", but hey they were both in their 20's at the time which can be a rollercoaster period for relationships. It seemed pathetic at the time, but not uncommon. Heck I know women who played house in their 20's with a guy and he stayed a frog, never morphed into a prince and acquired way too much baggage along the way that was accepted out of desperation. I still side eye Kate since all she has to do is show up, wear conservative designer duds and wave since she doesn't seem to publicly speak very often. We all knew, knew of or was that person who waited/hung around for years and it all turned to @#*!. Yes, Kate waited around for nearly decade, but now #goals.

With Meagan I sense the saltiness is due to the why not me!!!! syndrome. With Chuck and Di it was drilled into women's heads that only certain women with a certain pedigree and look are suitable for the royal life, but since then if you look into royal families across Europe, all kinds of women (and men) have married in. The reality is a bi-racial American divorcee with no title or noble background who is marching towards 40 just may have landed one of the most eligible bachelors in the world in one of the most famous families in the world with crowns and castles in her future; whereas others landed a jobless man child with 2 kids, or if you are lucky a GS11 who may be having an affair with a co-worker, a timeshare in Rehoboth, inlaws who hate them and a brokedown minivan!

If this happens, I wish them both well. Marriage is work!

Ha! Love this post!

+2

Well said.

Nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

NP, what what her cover have to do with him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

NP, what what her cover have to do with him?

Uh, he's the editor of Vanity Fair

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

NP, what what her cover have to do with him?

Uh, he's the editor of Vanity Fair

Yes, I understand that. And sorry if my question seemed rude, I didn't intend to be. I guess I'm not sure why Meghan would have any connection to him retiring. Is there some history I'm unaware of?

[Anonymous]

I think what you're missing is the fact that Harry is due to be 6th in line to the throne, it really doesn't matter who he marries.

Charles had to marry a virgin for the reason that any "heir"to the throne had to be his, without query.

We all know how that turned out, but these are the royal rules. Known largely to the British public, but not necessarily known over here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what you're missing is the fact that Harry is due to be 6th in line to the throne, it really doesn't matter who he marries.

Charles had to marry a virgin for the reason that any "heir"to the throne had to be his, without query.

We all know how that turned out, but these are the royal rules. Known largely to the British public, but not necessarily known over here.

I don't think these rules apply even to the 1st in line any longer. Do you mean to tell me that Kate was a virgin on her wedding night? Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you're missing is the fact that Harry is due to be 6th in line to the throne, it really doesn't matter who he marries.

Charles had to marry a virgin for the reason that any "heir"to the throne had to be his, without query.

We all know how that turned out, but these are the royal rules. Known largely to the British public, but not necessarily known over here.

I don't think these rules apply even to the 1st in line any longer. Do you mean to tell me that Kate was a virgin on her wedding night? Who cares?

Do you think Diana was a virgin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

NP, what what her cover have to do with him?

Uh, he's the editor of Vanity Fair

Yes, I understand that. And sorry if my question seemed rude, I didn't intend to be. I guess I'm not sure why Meghan would have any connection to him retiring. Is there some history I'm unaware of?

Probably that when the magazine stooped to having Markle on the cover he no longer wanted to be associated with it. He knows they featured a minor American actor known only for being Prince Harry's girlfriend du jour

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you're missing is the fact that Harry is due to be 6th in line to the throne, it really doesn't matter who he marries.

Charles had to marry a virgin for the reason that any "heir"to the throne had to be his, without query.

We all know how that turned out, but these are the royal rules. Known largely to the British public, but not necessarily known over here.

I don't think these rules apply even to the 1st in line any longer. Do you mean to tell me that Kate was a virgin on her wedding night? Who cares?

Do you think Diana was a virgin?

She was. She was 19 and quite horribly they "tested" her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

NP, what what her cover have to do with him?

Uh, he's the editor of Vanity Fair

Yes, I understand that. And sorry if my question seemed rude, I didn't intend to be. I guess I'm not sure why Meghan would have any connection to him retiring. Is there some history I'm unaware of?

Probably that when the magazine stooped to having Markle on the cover he no longer wanted to be associated with it. He knows they featured a minor American actor known only for being Prince Harry's girlfriend du jour

Gotcha. Don't know why I wasn't making the connection.

[Anonymous]

^^ as Editor-in-chief wouldn't the cover be his call, though. I work for a journal publication (non celebrity) and our editor-in-chief gets the final say in these type of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It must be over. This kind of gushing in the press is a big NO with the royals.

It isn't over, it will just linger until Meghan gets her next acting gig. She got her Vanity Fair cover from it, and that's all she needs. Babies are the last thing she wants to wreak havoc on her body.

Most bookmakers in London have suspended betting on an engagement, much less a marriage. Harry took her to Botswana because as he stated, he likes the place. I suspect he will end up with a woman involved in the Invictus games. That seems to be his passion, and I think that is where he will find his true love.

This isn't at all what you think it means.

+1. That means that the bookies think it is a fait accompli, which is exactly what my DH heard from his contacts in the British media. They're already prepping for the announcement.

Do you think there is a connection between her Vanity Fair cover and Graydon Carter retiring in Dec?

NP, what what her cover have to do with him?

Uh, he's the editor of Vanity Fair

Yes, I understand that. And sorry if my question seemed rude, I didn't intend to be. I guess I'm not sure why Meghan would have any connection to him retiring. Is there some history I'm unaware of?

Probably that when the magazine stooped to having Markle on the cover he no longer wanted to be associated with it. He knows they featured a minor American actor known only for being Prince Harry's girlfriend du jour

Gotcha. Don't know why I wasn't making the connection.

Nah. Graydon Carter, I'm sure thought this was a get for VF and approved it wholeheartedly. He probably especially liked sticking it to the British press, especially the tabloids, whom Harry attacked with his press release, and who aren't getting any insider info from Kensington Palace about Harry and Meghan as a result. They are visibly whining (or whinging if you will) now.

[Anonymous]

I still don't know who she is, and I Googled her.