Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Palace looks weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Palace looks weak.

Harry looks like a spoiled brat.

Shrug.

Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Do you think H+M are annoyed that Eugenie named her baby a name that starts with A and honors Phillip?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Palace looks weak.

Harry looks like a spoiled brat.

Shrug.

Who cares?

Both can be true. Palace looks weak. Harry looks spoiled.

[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?

Yes. She looks petty and weak.

I think the BRF is slowly crumbling. Good riddance.

The queen is the queen. She's not weak, she's British royalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Palace looks weak.

How?

Had they let them remain half in and half out (and let’s face it, mostly out since they live in CA and are aggressively pursuing profitable ventures), that would have looked weaker. Actually, it would have looked borderline criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think H+M are annoyed that Eugenie named her baby a name that starts with A and honors Phillip?

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Theatre didn't wan to lose Meghan and Brexit cut them off at the knees. But hey the Royal family says they needed to stick it to her, so off they go.

If Meghan was that concerned she could have stayed.

Since when is living on an island a requirement to be a Patron? Especially in the 21st Century? Should the Queen no longer be the monarch of Canada and Australia because she isn't resident there?

What did Meghan actually do for the National Theatre?

[Anonymous]

If Meghan wanted to help the National Theatre, she could rally her followers. Heck, she could ask Oprah, Maria, and Tyler Perry to make donations.

AOC raised $2M for Texans in Les than 48 hours.

Surely Meghan can do the same.

Otherwise, who needs her?

[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.

totally agree with this. the only thing that made it controversial is Meghan and Harry's passive aggressive statement. if they had just shut up and graciously (at least in public) been quiet the outcome would have been the same but they would have come across looking more grateful and humble. but noooooooo.... they just have to get the last (nasty) dig in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Theatre didn't wan to lose Meghan and Brexit cut them off at the knees. But hey the Royal family says they needed to stick it to her, so off they go.

If Meghan was that concerned she could have stayed.

Since when is living on an island a requirement to be a Patron? Especially in the 21st Century? Should the Queen no longer be the monarch of Canada and Australia because she isn't resident there?

What did Meghan actually do for the National Theatre?

Enough that the begged for her to stay? IDK All I see is Henry & Meghan's patrons fighting to keep them and the other patronages iffy on the rest of the royals. Imagine the Kennedy Center being the sole domain of the President of the United States for 50+ years, then an upstart Congressperson comes onto the Board for 1 year, and they're willing to risk their reputation by publicly begging for that Congressperson to remain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Palace looks weak.

How?

Had they let them remain half in and half out (and let’s face it, mostly out since they live in CA and are aggressively pursuing profitable ventures), that would have looked weaker. Actually, it would have looked borderline criminal.

No. The palace looks weak because this brings a lot of attention to H&M as something the palace is deeply concerned about. If the palace had treated H like the sulking child he is acting like, they would have ignored H&M, let them have their California fun, and waited for H to come crawling back. He would have. He's not bright enough to make it on his own, and he will eventually divorce.

Instead, they overreacted. Worse, they don't act at all when faced with an actual child molester in their ranks but they hurt charities when Harry doesn't fall in line? It's a glaring contrast and it shows just how far the palace has fallen and how out of touch and irrelevant they are. They look petty, weak, whiny, and useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Meghan wanted to help the National Theatre, she could rally her followers. Heck, she could ask Oprah, Maria, and Tyler Perry to make donations.

AOC raised $2M for Texans in Les than 48 hours.

Surely Meghan can do the same.

Otherwise, who needs her?

Megs has already done that for 3 of her patronages - Mayhew, Smart Works, and the Hubb Community Kitchen. She not only raised initial seed money but also gave each of these organization permanent ways to continue raising money independent of her for years to come via her cookbook and clothing collection.

I suspect the Oprah interview in March will be launching Archewell links and community projects for the rest of them -- and the National Theatre if she can keep her ties somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Theatre didn't wan to lose Meghan and Brexit cut them off at the knees. But hey the Royal family says they needed to stick it to her, so off they go.

If Meghan was that concerned she could have stayed.

Since when is living on an island a requirement to be a Patron? Especially in the 21st Century? Should the Queen no longer be the monarch of Canada and Australia because she isn't resident there?

What did Meghan actually do for the National Theatre?

Enough that the begged for her to stay? IDK All I see is Henry & Meghan's patrons fighting to keep them and the other patronages iffy on the rest of the royals. Imagine the Kennedy Center being the sole domain of the President of the United States for 50+ years, then an upstart Congressperson comes onto the Board for 1 year, and they're willing to risk their reputation by publicly begging for that Congressperson to remain.



the daily express? lol

[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 is hilarious but makes for great drama watching the privileged fighting the privileged about silly titles and uniforms. M & H are some pretty silly people and really who needs the royal family. It is funny watching the Brits gets so wound up over people who play dress-up.