Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Page Six article is ludicrous. Who’s paying for their security in the US though?

Looks like they have been using Tyler Perry’s house security team:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-report-multiple-drone-flybys-to-lapd-will-now-pay-for-own-security


Paparazzi tailing them when they are out driving? I don’t know. They seem to like the Diana cosplay.

All of the articles detailing the security threats and loudly proclaiming that Charles is not paying for their security certainly sound like a passive-aggressive demand for Charles to pay for their security. The references to "terrorist threats" in another article also seem like they think they think they can guilt the U.S. government into ponying up.

The Tyler Perry security team makes sense, though. As I said upthread, if they had decent security of their own, they would have never let them live in that house. It's way too exposed.

I can't imagine what they thought was going to happen. I can sort of forgive Harry for not knowing what life is like outside of a Royal Palace, but Meghan should have known better. Or maybe they just didn't think.

Beggars can't be choosers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, why was Kate that involved with Meghan's wedding?
Imagine if she had insisted on some change to Harry's or the attire of the best man.
Totally ridiculous. If you are not the bride or the mother of the bride, then attend as a guest

Not if your kid is involved.

So then pull your kids from the event. Not rocket science.

Or, don't marry into royalty if you can't listen to rules.

It’s not a rule. The kiddos in Zara Tindall’s wedding also did not wear tights and the Queen was there. SCANDAL!

[Anonymous]

Cue- Meghan using the catastrophe in Minneapolis. She is married to the waspiest of all time but will use it to her biracial status, even though she listed herself as Caucasian in her CV.i

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cue- Meghan using the catastrophe in Minneapolis. She is married to the waspiest of all time but will use it to her biracial status, even though she listed herself as Caucasian in her CV.i

Not to mention- only dates white men and knowingly married into a racist family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, why was Kate that involved with Meghan's wedding?
Imagine if she had insisted on some change to Harry's or the attire of the best man.
Totally ridiculous. If you are not the bride or the mother of the bride, then attend as a guest

Not if your kid is involved.

So then pull your kids from the event. Not rocket science.

Or, don't marry into royalty if you can't listen to rules.

It’s not a rule. The kiddos in Zara Tindall’s wedding also did not wear tights and the Queen was there. SCANDAL!

Well, Zara is a commoner who married a commoner. She didn't have a Royal wedding. So, apples to oranges comparison. Her parents opted out of the royal title to give her a lot of freedom and flexibility with her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, why was Kate that involved with Meghan's wedding?
Imagine if she had insisted on some change to Harry's or the attire of the best man.
Totally ridiculous. If you are not the bride or the mother of the bride, then attend as a guest

Not if your kid is involved.

So then pull your kids from the event. Not rocket science.

Or, don't marry into royalty if you can't listen to rules.

It’s not a rule. The kiddos in Zara Tindall’s wedding also did not wear tights and the Queen was there. SCANDAL!

Well, Zara is a commoner who married a commoner. She didn't have a Royal wedding. So, apples to oranges comparison. Her parents opted out of the royal title to give her a lot of freedom and flexibility with her life.

How is having a wedding paid for by the royal family not a royal wedding? Also she lives with her mom (a princess) on her estate given to her by the Queen. She seems to pick and choose when she’s a commoner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cue- Meghan using the catastrophe in Minneapolis. She is married to the waspiest of all time but will use it to her biracial status, even though she listed herself as Caucasian in her CV.i

Not to mention- only dates white men and knowingly married into a racist family.

If people of color didn’t knowingly marry into racist families there would be no interracial marriage. I don’t know a single white person with no racist relatives at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cue- Meghan using the catastrophe in Minneapolis. She is married to the waspiest of all time but will use it to her biracial status, even though she listed herself as Caucasian in her CV.i

Not to mention- only dates white men and knowingly married into a racist family.

I bet both of you claim not to be racist! are you of the mindset of the "one drop rule"? What a despicable human being you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cue- Meghan using the catastrophe in Minneapolis. She is married to the waspiest of all time but will use it to her biracial status, even though she listed herself as Caucasian in her CV.i

Not to mention- only dates white men and knowingly married into a racist family.

I bet both of you claim not to be racist! are you of the mindset of the "one drop rule"? What a despicable human being you are.

PP- Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm TF down.

In general asking- did she really list herself as Caucasian on her CV as mentioned above? Damn, she’s a piece of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, why was Kate that involved with Meghan's wedding?
Imagine if she had insisted on some change to Harry's or the attire of the best man.
Totally ridiculous. If you are not the bride or the mother of the bride, then attend as a guest

Not if your kid is involved.

So then pull your kids from the event. Not rocket science.

Or, don't marry into royalty if you can't listen to rules.

It’s not a rule. The kiddos in Zara Tindall’s wedding also did not wear tights and the Queen was there. SCANDAL!

Well, Zara is a commoner who married a commoner. She didn't have a Royal wedding. So, apples to oranges comparison. Her parents opted out of the royal title to give her a lot of freedom and flexibility with her life.

How is having a wedding paid for by the royal family not a royal wedding? Also she lives with her mom (a princess) on her estate given to her by the Queen. She seems to pick and choose when she’s a commoner.

The Queen is still her grandmother but the security costs to protect her high profile guests were a drop in the bucket as far as "royal" weddings go. Meghan wanted all the pomp and circumstance and with that comes many strings attached, something she struggled to deal with. Zara had a very low key, modest wedding that wasn't even televised in a public spectacle. You can argue all you want, but Zara doesn't have a royal title and therefore, is a commoner. Living with your parents and having them pay for your wedding isn't something only royals do, it's pretty typical for all walks of life.

[Anonymous]

Not that it matters, but Zara is not a commoner. She is a member of the Royal family who doesn’t have a title. That doesn’t make her a commoner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Page Six article is ludicrous. Who’s paying for their security in the US though?

Looks like they have been using Tyler Perry’s house security team:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-report-multiple-drone-flybys-to-lapd-will-now-pay-for-own-security


Paparazzi tailing them when they are out driving? I don’t know. They seem to like the Diana cosplay.

All of the articles detailing the security threats and loudly proclaiming that Charles is not paying for their security certainly sound like a passive-aggressive demand for Charles to pay for their security. The references to "terrorist threats" in another article also seem like they think they think they can guilt the U.S. government into ponying up.

The Tyler Perry security team makes sense, though. As I said upthread, if they had decent security of their own, they would have never let them live in that house. It's way too exposed.

I can't imagine what they thought was going to happen. I can sort of forgive Harry for not knowing what life is like outside of a Royal Palace, but Meghan should have known better. Or maybe they just didn't think.

So their plan is to squat in the homes of their new-found wealthy friends and mooch off their security?

[Anonymous]

She didn’t marry into a racist family- Perhaps the British ancestors were, but not the current family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not that it matters, but Zara is not a commoner. She is a member of the Royal family who doesn’t have a title. That doesn’t make her a commoner.

She is not in the top 5.
A daughter of a daughter who was not first born. Royals do not value girls.
The world doesn't need to make a fuss about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that it matters, but Zara is not a commoner. She is a member of the Royal family who doesn’t have a title. That doesn’t make her a commoner.

She is not in the top 5.
A daughter of a daughter who was not first born. Royals do not value girls.
The world doesn't need to make a fuss about her.

OMG do you hear yourself? Queen Elizabeth (girl) has been on throne for more than 60 years!!!! Ultimate feminist.

Rules were changed before Prince George was born to ensure that girls would keep their place in line of succession, thus Princess Charlotte keeps her spot ahead of Prince Louis.

MM fans think she’s the feminist, LOL.