Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised at her being fertile at 39-40.

Please don't derail this again with the geriatric mom BS. It's perfectly normal for women of that age to have kids now. It's not a medical miracle.

Seriously. I had no problem having 2 healthy babies at 38 and 39 and I am not an outlier. If she is pregnant, I wish her a healthy pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised at her being fertile at 39-40.

Please don't derail this again with the geriatric mom BS. It's perfectly normal for women of that age to have kids now. It's not a medical miracle.

Seriously, I’m 40 and debating on having a third. I had my first two at 36 and 38 completely uneventfully. Most of my friends had kids in their mid to late 30s. Both my friends who needed IVF started trying in their 20s.

[Anonymous]

I find it in poor taste/cruel to write the NYT miscarriage column, and then make a televised appearance and this casual appearance, where she is obviously pregnant, without saying anything.

She is either knowingly encouraging a bump watch, or doesn't realize that she is. Either way, it is painful for women who have suffered miscarriages, especially recently, who are not also pregnant again if they'd like to be.

She is entitled to keep her reproductive and family life a secret, but to only share the sad part seems like another form of self-pomotion/cluelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it in poor taste/cruel to write the NYT miscarriage column, and then make a televised appearance and this casual appearance, where she is obviously pregnant, without saying anything.

She is either knowingly encouraging a bump watch, or doesn't realize that she is. Either way, it is painful for women who have suffered miscarriages, especially recently, who are not also pregnant again if they'd like to be.

She is entitled to keep her reproductive and family life a secret, but to only share the sad part seems like another form of self-pomotion/cluelessness.

Seriously? So she had a miscarriage and spoke about..in her own time. So if she is pregnant now and don’t disclose..until she is ready to do so...she is cruel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it in poor taste/cruel to write the NYT miscarriage column, and then make a televised appearance and this casual appearance, where she is obviously pregnant, without saying anything.

She is either knowingly encouraging a bump watch, or doesn't realize that she is. Either way, it is painful for women who have suffered miscarriages, especially recently, who are not also pregnant again if they'd like to be.

She is entitled to keep her reproductive and family life a secret, but to only share the sad part seems like another form of self-pomotion/cluelessness.

Seriously? So she had a miscarriage and spoke about..in her own time. So if she is pregnant now and don’t disclose..until she is ready to do so...she is cruel?

Yes. Selective disclosure for her maximum image enhancement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it in poor taste/cruel to write the NYT miscarriage column, and then make a televised appearance and this casual appearance, where she is obviously pregnant, without saying anything.

She is either knowingly encouraging a bump watch, or doesn't realize that she is. Either way, it is painful for women who have suffered miscarriages, especially recently, who are not also pregnant again if they'd like to be.

She is entitled to keep her reproductive and family life a secret, but to only share the sad part seems like another form of self-pomotion/cluelessness.

Seriously? So she had a miscarriage and spoke about..in her own time. So if she is pregnant now and don’t disclose..until she is ready to do so...she is cruel?

and if not intentionally cruel, totally clueless how it may affect other women who have also had miscarriages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it in poor taste/cruel to write the NYT miscarriage column, and then make a televised appearance and this casual appearance, where she is obviously pregnant, without saying anything.

She is either knowingly encouraging a bump watch, or doesn't realize that she is. Either way, it is painful for women who have suffered miscarriages, especially recently, who are not also pregnant again if they'd like to be.

She is entitled to keep her reproductive and family life a secret, but to only share the sad part seems like another form of self-pomotion/cluelessness.

Seriously? So she had a miscarriage and spoke about..in her own time. So if she is pregnant now and don’t disclose..until she is ready to do so...she is cruel?

Yes. Selective disclosure for her maximum image enhancement.

I hope you spend as much time worrying about your own uterus as you do worrying about some stranger’s.

[Anonymous]

I look forward to more of these kinds of stories from their foundation: https://www.today.com/food/meghan-markle-prince-harry-team-world-central-kitchen-t204423

[Anonymous]

Instead of preaching to the common man, why doesn’t MM sell her $14 million house and use the proceeds for charity? Hypocrite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of preaching to the common man, why doesn’t MM sell her $14 million house and use the proceeds for charity? Hypocrite

Amen! Do as I say, not as I do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of preaching to the common man, why doesn’t MM sell her $14 million house and use the proceeds for charity? Hypocrite

This, and why not donate all proceeds of her stupid coffee to charity. She is insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Christmas card released and everyone up in arms. LOL. I don’t know his to embed but the tweets are cray cray!

They demand to see the child. LOL.

My only question is why are people still wearing tall boots in Cali? Takes awhile for west coast to drop bad fashion trend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of preaching to the common man, why doesn’t MM sell her $14 million house and use the proceeds for charity? Hypocrite

What amount for a home would be satisfactory to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christmas card released and everyone up in arms. LOL. I don’t know his to embed but the tweets are cray cray!

They demand to see the child. LOL.

My only question is why are people still wearing tall boots in Cali? Takes awhile for west coast to drop bad fashion trend?

Tall boots aren’t a trend. They’ve been around forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christmas card released and everyone up in arms. LOL. I don’t know his to embed but the tweets are cray cray!

They demand to see the child. LOL.

My only question is why are people still wearing tall boots in Cali? Takes awhile for west coast to drop bad fashion trend?

Tall boots aren’t a trend. They’ve been around forever.

Bottom line. Card is fine. Tall boats are very outdated.