Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Guys. The only patronages they lost are ones handed down from the Queen because you cannot have those patronages and make private money at the same time. All of the ones that they chose personally (For example Mayhew for Meghan and Invictus for Harry) are still 100% theirs and they are free to make their mark and put in the work there. I truly don’t understand what’s controversial about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The only patronages they lost are ones handed down from the Queen because you cannot have those patronages and make private money at the same time. All of the ones that they chose personally (For example Mayhew for Meghan and Invictus for Harry) are still 100% theirs and they are free to make their mark and put in the work there. I truly don’t understand what’s controversial about this.

The controversy is that other members of the Royal Family hold Queen’s patronages and make money. See: Prince Michael of Kent.

The Royal Family is stupid because everyone can see the discrepancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The only patronages they lost are ones handed down from the Queen because you cannot have those patronages and make private money at the same time. All of the ones that they chose personally (For example Mayhew for Meghan and Invictus for Harry) are still 100% theirs and they are free to make their mark and put in the work there. I truly don’t understand what’s controversial about this.

The controversy is that other members of the Royal Family hold Queen’s patronages and make money. See: Prince Michael of Kent.

The Royal Family is stupid because everyone can see the discrepancies.

What do you think would happen if he moved to California and wanted no part of Britain or the British Royal Family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The only patronages they lost are ones handed down from the Queen because you cannot have those patronages and make private money at the same time. All of the ones that they chose personally (For example Mayhew for Meghan and Invictus for Harry) are still 100% theirs and they are free to make their mark and put in the work there. I truly don’t understand what’s controversial about this.

The controversy is that other members of the Royal Family hold Queen’s patronages and make money. See: Prince Michael of Kent.

The Royal Family is stupid because everyone can see the discrepancies.

What do you think would happen if he moved to California and wanted no part of Britain or the British Royal Family?

The same thing that happened when the Queen moved to Malta or Charles lived in Australia for months?

Without the benefit of instant communication via the internet might I add.

Nothing.

[Anonymous]

The queen looks bad being so obnoxious about her grandson and his part African American wife. Meanwhile what statements has she made about Andrew bonking underage sex slaves?

[Anonymous]

When Meghan and Harry left my attitude was "good for them." They weren't happy and life is short-- so go do something else! I can't blame them for that. But leaving doesn't seem to have made them happy, either. They still want all the attention, but on their terms only.

Stay or go, but don't go and then continue to complain about it a year later. It's just so tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Meghan and Harry left my attitude was "good for them." They weren't happy and life is short-- so go do something else! I can't blame them for that. But leaving doesn't seem to have made them happy, either. They still want all the attention, but on their terms only.

Stay or go, but don't go and then continue to complain about it a year later. It's just so tiresome.

The saddest (or the funniest, depending on your outlook) thing is to watch two people with every imaginable privilege in life on a relentless hunt for sad things and slights and wrongs done to them to discuss on national TV. Stay tuned for the interview that will no doubt be full of stories of their hardships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Meghan and Harry left my attitude was "good for them." They weren't happy and life is short-- so go do something else! I can't blame them for that. But leaving doesn't seem to have made them happy, either. They still want all the attention, but on their terms only.

Stay or go, but don't go and then continue to complain about it a year later. It's just so tiresome.

The saddest (or the funniest, depending on your outlook) thing is to watch two people with every imaginable privilege in life on a relentless hunt for sad things and slights and wrongs done to them to discuss on national TV. Stay tuned for the interview that will no doubt be full of stories of their hardships.

This!

They lack the resilience they portend to foster and admire in the poor souls they are supposedly dedicating their lives to. Their lack of self-awareness is quite befuddling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The queen looks bad being so obnoxious about her grandson and his part African American wife. Meanwhile what statements has she made about Andrew bonking underage sex slaves?

Nah. She doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The queen looks bad being so obnoxious about her grandson and his part African American wife. Meanwhile what statements has she made about Andrew bonking underage sex slaves?

Her grandson is doing something different and the queen is stuck in tradition. Understandably it’s hard to adjust. Andrew was just doing what Royals have done for generations. The queen is keeping with tradition by protecting him. There really is no discrepancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The queen looks bad being so obnoxious about her grandson and his part African American wife. Meanwhile what statements has she made about Andrew bonking underage sex slaves?

Her grandson is doing something different and the queen is stuck in tradition. Understandably it’s hard to adjust. Andrew was just doing what Royals have done for generations. The queen is keeping with tradition by protecting him. There really is no discrepancy.

Did you just say there's 'no discrepancy' when the man is wanted for having sex with a manipulated underaged girl? Never mind the moral problems with this - its illegal which is why the FBI has been demanding a sit-down for over a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The queen looks bad being so obnoxious about her grandson and his part African American wife. Meanwhile what statements has she made about Andrew bonking underage sex slaves?

Yes. She looks petty and weak.

I think the BRF is slowly crumbling. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should they matter?

You tell us. Why did you open this thread? What makes you care?
Genuinely interested to know the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they matter?

You tell us. Why did you open this thread? What makes you care?
Genuinely interested to know the answer.

Not pp. Why do people always say this? Saying why do they matter is a legitimate point of view.

Why is important for you to respond?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they matter?

You tell us. Why did you open this thread? What makes you care?
Genuinely interested to know the answer.

DP

People like to watch the train wreck?

People can’t stand self-absorbed celebrities and like watching them getting called out for their jerky behavior?

Etc.