Prince Harry to attend coronation without Meghan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

Perfectly said.

She chose to marry into this “weird cult”.

So what, she clearly didn’t realize how toxic it was until after her marriage. Megan was smart and is now living the good life in SoCal. Poor Kate has to play all their games and be humiliated by her husband.’s affairs with their friends. I know who I would switch places with.

We'll see who stays married in the long run. Meghan doesn't have a good track record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

Perfectly said.

She chose to marry into this “weird cult”.

So what, she clearly didn’t realize how toxic it was until after her marriage. Megan was smart and is now living the good life in SoCal. Poor Kate has to play all their games and be humiliated by her husband.’s affairs with their friends. I know who I would switch places with.

Looks like Meghan planned well and got exactly what she wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

Perfectly said.

She chose to marry into this “weird cult”.

So what, she clearly didn’t realize how toxic it was until after her marriage. Megan was smart and is now living the good life in SoCal. Poor Kate has to play all their games and be humiliated by her husband.’s affairs with their friends. I know who I would switch places with.

Meghan does a good enough job of humiliating herself and for good measure her husband too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

Perfectly said.

She chose to marry into this “weird cult”.

So what, she clearly didn’t realize how toxic it was until after her marriage. Megan was smart and is now living the good life in SoCal. Poor Kate has to play all their games and be humiliated by her husband.’s affairs with their friends. I know who I would switch places with.

We'll see who stays married in the long run. Meghan doesn't have a good track record.

Staying married while your husband fairly publicly carries on affairs is no great accomplishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-will-attend-king-charles-coronation-without-meghan-markle/

Good. She would've received a chilly reception.

Good for Harry! He’ll have more fun without her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

Kids are too young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

Is it though? Like, is it?

Like is it really that important for an entire country and the global press to stand around and watch an ancient white guy put on a special hat and hold a special stick and special ball that make him "King" of all his royal subjects. Is that "important" in an actual sense? And like once he has is hat and stick and ball, what will he even do with them? Nothing. That's their whole thing, right? The point of the royal family is simply to exist and endure. They don't actually control policy or make decisions, in fact that studiously do not to the point where it's almost awkward at times. Wasn't that QEII's whole thing?

So really, is a coronation a "way, way bigger deal" than a four year old's birthday? I kind of think they are about the same thing, except the coronation is more embarrassing because everyone is standing around clapping and congratulating a 74 year old man best known for cheating on his wife with his longtime mistress, who he later married, instead of just a cute 4 year old.

I would personally rather attend the kid's birthday party. I bet the food would be better and the conversation would DEFINITELY be better.

Only the most self centered would think a birthday trumps a coronation.

seriously. Meghan appears to have severe NPD. Does she make people mention her birthday at their weddings during the toast? No wonder nobody can stand her.

Along with your horrible misogyny, you have some other serious issues and need therapy. The jealousy over the fact that this nice woman married this damaged man is astounding.

I'm a woman.

I don't need therapy for recognizing that a coronation day should not be a shared day with a 4 year old birthday party. They can and should be separate. I don't try to merge my kids birthday with anybody else's special day. That's rude.

He CHOSE it as his "special day." He chose to have HIS special day, a grown-ass man, be the "special day" of a 4 year old.

[Anonymous]

I’m not convinced they won’t be there. The just might show up.

It’s not a good idea for Charles to shut out Meghan and the kids. That makes it easy for Harry to complain about his awful family and how cruel they are to his wife and kids.

Charles is smart enough to evaluate the optics, which is why I bet Harry’s entire family was actually invited.

If anyone is choosing to stay home, that’s interesting. But again, I’m not convinced they won’t be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

Perfectly said.

She chose to marry into this “weird cult”.

You obviously don't know how cults work.

[Anonymous]

He’ll fly in and fly out. Sadly no one from his family appreciates him or truly loves him. After all, it was an “acceptable risk” if he got killed in Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

Is it though? Like, is it?

Like is it really that important for an entire country and the global press to stand around and watch an ancient white guy put on a special hat and hold a special stick and special ball that make him "King" of all his royal subjects. Is that "important" in an actual sense? And like once he has is hat and stick and ball, what will he even do with them? Nothing. That's their whole thing, right? The point of the royal family is simply to exist and endure. They don't actually control policy or make decisions, in fact that studiously do not to the point where it's almost awkward at times. Wasn't that QEII's whole thing?

So really, is a coronation a "way, way bigger deal" than a four year old's birthday? I kind of think they are about the same thing, except the coronation is more embarrassing because everyone is standing around clapping and congratulating a 74 year old man best known for cheating on his wife with his longtime mistress, who he later married, instead of just a cute 4 year old.

I would personally rather attend the kid's birthday party. I bet the food would be better and the conversation would DEFINITELY be better.

Only the most self centered would think a birthday trumps a coronation.

seriously. Meghan appears to have severe NPD. Does she make people mention her birthday at their weddings during the toast? No wonder nobody can stand her.

Along with your horrible misogyny, you have some other serious issues and need therapy. The jealousy over the fact that this nice woman married this damaged man is astounding.

I'm a woman.

I don't need therapy for recognizing that a coronation day should not be a shared day with a 4 year old birthday party. They can and should be separate. I don't try to merge my kids birthday with anybody else's special day. That's rude.

He CHOSE it as his "special day." He chose to have HIS special day, a grown-ass man, be the "special day" of a 4 year old.

Is it Archie’s actual birthday or just the day Meghan selected for the big catered bash?

Regardless, I actually wonder if the date was chosen for another significant reason? Is it a historically significant date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-will-attend-king-charles-coronation-without-meghan-markle/

Good. She would've received a chilly reception.

Good for Harry! He’ll have more fun without her.

Lol, yes, attending the stiff, formal event with his entire family from whom he is estranged will be an amazing time. He'll probably never return to his nice house in SoCal where his wife, who actually likes him, and his children live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-will-attend-king-charles-coronation-without-meghan-markle/

Good. She would've received a chilly reception.

Good for Harry! He’ll have more fun without her.

Lol, yes, attending the stiff, formal event with his entire family from whom he is estranged will be an amazing time. He'll probably never return to his nice house in SoCal where his wife, who actually likes him, and his children live

Does she like him? If he weren’t royal? I think not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

Is it though? Like, is it?

Like is it really that important for an entire country and the global press to stand around and watch an ancient white guy put on a special hat and hold a special stick and special ball that make him "King" of all his royal subjects. Is that "important" in an actual sense? And like once he has is hat and stick and ball, what will he even do with them? Nothing. That's their whole thing, right? The point of the royal family is simply to exist and endure. They don't actually control policy or make decisions, in fact that studiously do not to the point where it's almost awkward at times. Wasn't that QEII's whole thing?

So really, is a coronation a "way, way bigger deal" than a four year old's birthday? I kind of think they are about the same thing, except the coronation is more embarrassing because everyone is standing around clapping and congratulating a 74 year old man best known for cheating on his wife with his longtime mistress, who he later married, instead of just a cute 4 year old.

I would personally rather attend the kid's birthday party. I bet the food would be better and the conversation would DEFINITELY be better.

Only the most self centered would think a birthday trumps a coronation.

seriously. Meghan appears to have severe NPD. Does she make people mention her birthday at their weddings during the toast? No wonder nobody can stand her.

Along with your horrible misogyny, you have some other serious issues and need therapy. The jealousy over the fact that this nice woman married this damaged man is astounding.

I'm a woman.

I don't need therapy for recognizing that a coronation day should not be a shared day with a 4 year old birthday party. They can and should be separate. I don't try to merge my kids birthday with anybody else's special day. That's rude.

The problem is that people are speculating about her thoughts and feelings, with zero direct knowledge. She hasn't said a word about any of this. All we know is she's not going, and there are several legitimate reasons beyond the birthday issue.

+1

This thread is something else. I find the royal family fascinating and the drama between Harry and Meghan and the rest interesting -- human drama and all that. But it's weird to read all these people assuming they know what these people they don't know AT ALL think and feel about all of this. So much projecting! It's honestly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-will-attend-king-charles-coronation-without-meghan-markle/

Good. She would've received a chilly reception.

Good for Harry! He’ll have more fun without her.

Lol, yes, attending the stiff, formal event with his entire family from whom he is estranged will be an amazing time. He'll probably never return to his nice house in SoCal where his wife, who actually likes him, and his children live

Does she like him? If he weren’t royal? I think not.

None of us care what you think, not to mention, you don’t have a clue what either of them feel.