Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, at least they admit it now

+100

Have the Meghan haters seen this? Curious why they haven't responded to this (and other takes like it).

[Anonymous]

Agreed
W&K are boring vanilla, H&M are much more interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed
W&K are boring vanilla, H&M are much more interesting

+1

[Anonymous]

If we should believe this Jeremy Vine then shouldn’t Sussex stans also afford Piers Morgan the same courtesy? 🤣😂🤣

[Anonymous]

New Vogue article on Meghan and Naomi:

https://t.co/PQ05JVwtu1?amp=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, at least they admit it now

+100

Have the Meghan haters seen this? Curious why they haven't responded to this (and other takes like it).

Probably because the grammar of the twitter post is so bad as to be incomprehensible. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New Vogue article on Meghan and Naomi:

https://t.co/PQ05JVwtu1?amp=1

Meghan wants nothing short of fawning coverage. There’s no room for any criticism there, regardless of merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they wanted privacy on their Sussex royal website. Meghan was very good when she was “on” as a royal. The issue is she didn’t like being the second tier couple, didn’t like ANY bad press about her (even though most was overwhelmingly positive) and really seems to thrive on drama (with her family, his family, the press,whoever).

What I found most telling were the stories from her first maid of honor and her former manager and her uncle that all pretty much said, in different ways, that she uses people, then ghosts them.

She did the same with the royal family. She and Charles shared such a special bond that he walked her down the aisle. Then he cut off their money and boom - he’s blacklisted.

This is demonstrably not true.

I agree. Meghan had a tremendous problem being second behind Kate and William. This is just the way it is and has been for hundreds of years, it is not personal. Meanwhile, Meghan had no problem pulling rank on all the family beneath her! If she can't be number one or on par with Kate and Willaim, then she is unhappy. Her father spoiled her rotten, despite the fact that he wasn't wealthy.

She also used and dropped her first husband. She has no relationship with her father, sibling, and has nearly no friends from her first 30 years of life. Now, she has alienated Harry's family.

This is also demonstrably not true. Meghan haters seem to have a loose grasp on reality.

This seems unlikely. We don’t know the identity of Archie’s godparents which suggests they are normies.

No it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed
W&K are boring vanilla, H&M are much more interesting

+1. Screwed up people are almost always more interesting to me than well adjusted people.

[Anonymous]

They are self admittedly mental so....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, at least they admit it now

BOOM. Finally, the British pundits are admitting the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Vogue article on Meghan and Naomi:

https://t.co/PQ05JVwtu1?amp=1

Meghan wants nothing short of fawning coverage. There’s no room for any criticism there, regardless of merit.

Britain’s female prime ministers disagree with you. They think the media coverage of Meghan was racist with colonial undertones (their words.) But hey what what does the British parliament know about Britain? Oh wait…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they wanted privacy on their Sussex royal website. Meghan was very good when she was “on” as a royal. The issue is she didn’t like being the second tier couple, didn’t like ANY bad press about her (even though most was overwhelmingly positive) and really seems to thrive on drama (with her family, his family, the press,whoever).

What I found most telling were the stories from her first maid of honor and her former manager and her uncle that all pretty much said, in different ways, that she uses people, then ghosts them.

She did the same with the royal family. She and Charles shared such a special bond that he walked her down the aisle. Then he cut off their money and boom - he’s blacklisted.

This is demonstrably not true.

I agree. Meghan had a tremendous problem being second behind Kate and William. This is just the way it is and has been for hundreds of years, it is not personal. Meanwhile, Meghan had no problem pulling rank on all the family beneath her! If she can't be number one or on par with Kate and Willaim, then she is unhappy. Her father spoiled her rotten, despite the fact that he wasn't wealthy.

She also used and dropped her first husband. She has no relationship with her father, sibling, and has nearly no friends from her first 30 years of life. Now, she has alienated Harry's family.

Another lie spewed by the anti-Meghan harpies. Apparently her sorority sisters were at the wedding.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/meghan-markles-friends-stunned-her-at-her-royal-wedding-in-the-best-possible-way.html/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Vogue article on Meghan and Naomi:

https://t.co/PQ05JVwtu1?amp=1

Meghan wants nothing short of fawning coverage. There’s no room for any criticism there, regardless of merit.

Britain’s female prime ministers disagree with you. They think the media coverage of Meghan was racist with colonial undertones (their words.) But hey what what does the British parliament know about Britain? Oh wait…

British Parliament knows. That's fine.

Mostly here in the US, we're not reading all the British tabloids. So my view of Meghan, at least, is mostly wedding pics, pics at various places, and the famous African interview. And of course Oprah. None of that is racist or colonizing.