Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sooner or later Harry will regret marrying the vining M and moving to LA.

Very true! How could he give up every man’s dream to third wheel his brother and family forever??????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Don't you M+H haters ever get tired?

First it was 'well they aren't getting married'.

Second it was 'she's not getting a title'.

Third it was 'they can't get pregnant'.

Fourth it was 'the marriage won't last three years'

Fifth it was 'they won't get a house from the Queen'.

Sixth it was 'well they'll just have to suffer'.

Seventh it was 'they can't afford a house/security/etc' on their own.

Eighth it was 'they're going to lose all their lawsuits'.



They keep proving you wrong at every turn. By 2025 this couple will be billionaires with 4 kids and homes in France, the U.K., the U.S. and Kenya and you'll still be screaming about they 'can't/won't'.

Harry says this kid is the last. He promised Jane Goodall they would have only 2
\
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/world/europe/prince-harry-children.html

PP how much are they paying you to defend them? Don't you get tired? They are regular people and don't poop rainbows, ya know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Most of us posting are American (although there are a couple Brits on this thread). Going to Oprah is admission that they're unserious and in trouble. She doesn't have serious guests, she has interesting guests or public interest stories. I guess they feel like they fell down a well...

I mean that’s your opinion. Oprah basically made Tyler Perry’s whole career and now he’s a billionaire who employs more African-American actors than anyone ever. So just because something is unserious to you doesn’t mean it is unserious to everyone.

Sure, and in the day, having Oprah pick your book would guarantee bestselling status. Is that what Prince William and Duchess Meghan want? Do they want to be able to put their book next to Fergie's? I doubt it.

What do they want? Picking Oprah sends a signal. But we appear to be receiving different messages.

Considering that they are doing a production deal with Netflix they probably want the same thing Tyler Perry has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I don’t get: all the gossip rags saying William is furious with Harry for leaving since it means more work/pressure on William and his wife.

I mean, doesn’t Harry stepping aside make it easier to streamline the firm?

Once Charles takes the crown, let’s assume 15-20 years of him running the show. His sister is very active, and they will get by with the current team.

By the time William takes over, his own kids will be adults who can step up.

Why wouldn’t William be furious. The benefits to the job of being in line for the throne are the same either way. So why wouldn’t he want Henry to split the work?

William is the future monarch he gets to do the work. Harry wants to live free of that burden like his cousins.

Someone upthread was literally arguing that they weren’t royalty. Hence in this case it is how it works.
PP. I was actually agreeing with you. The benefits only go to William. Only people in line for the throne get access to the cash. So it’s not reasonable for him to expect others to sacrifice everything for the privilege of getting tossed away for his niece and nephews.

That's how royalty works. "Reasonable" is a strange standard to apply.

Tbh, it's a strange standard to apply to most of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why Harry, who hated the photographers stalking him and his mom, would want to distance his kids and wife from that mess, especially with racially motivated attacks
Especially when he can look at his uncles and see his fate there, relegated to obscurity after being 3rd and 2nd in line for the throne
Edward seems OK with his low-key life, but not Andrew...

His mom INVITED photographers just as often as she didn't.

Wow. Thank you showing us that the same type of person who blamed Diana for the paparazzi harassment that eventually killed her — also blames Harry for the harassment against his family.

Diana paid with her life — and it wasn’t enough for you. Harry was smart to get out.

So I’m confused. Diana toyed with paparazzi and paid with her life so Harry was right to leave England in order to avoid the same fate, but when he and Meghan court the media with interviews, plant stories in the media (hello People mag!) and call paparazzi at their leisure it’s somehow ok? Unfortunately you don’t get to pick and choose that way with the media. It’s always going to be a gamble in terms of perception and safety. You would think Harry would have figured that out by now. Not to mention the zillions of other high-profile celebs that you hear almost zero about because they choose to lead a lower profile life when they claim to want privacy and/or freedom. How is it that they have figured this all out yet H&M haven’t?

European paps =/= American paps. Hence why we haven’t had a Diana incident stateside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Don't you M+H haters ever get tired?

First it was 'well they aren't getting married'.

Second it was 'she's not getting a title'.

Third it was 'they can't get pregnant'.

Fourth it was 'the marriage won't last three years'

Fifth it was 'they won't get a house from the Queen'.

Sixth it was 'well they'll just have to suffer'.

Seventh it was 'they can't afford a house/security/etc' on their own.

Eighth it was 'they're going to lose all their lawsuits'.



They keep proving you wrong at every turn. By 2025 this couple will be billionaires with 4 kids and homes in France, the U.K., the U.S. and Kenya and you'll still be screaming about they 'can't/won't'.

Harry says this kid is the last. He promised Jane Goodall they would have only 2
\
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/world/europe/prince-harry-children.html

PP how much are they paying you to defend them? Don't you get tired? They are regular people and don't poop rainbows, ya know?

PP probably getting paid the same amount that you get paid to bash them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Don't you M+H haters ever get tired?

First it was 'well they aren't getting married'.

Second it was 'she's not getting a title'.

Third it was 'they can't get pregnant'.

Fourth it was 'the marriage won't last three years'

Fifth it was 'they won't get a house from the Queen'.

Sixth it was 'well they'll just have to suffer'.

Seventh it was 'they can't afford a house/security/etc' on their own.

Eighth it was 'they're going to lose all their lawsuits'.



They keep proving you wrong at every turn. By 2025 this couple will be billionaires with 4 kids and homes in France, the U.K., the U.S. and Kenya and you'll still be screaming about they 'can't/won't'.

Harry says this kid is the last. He promised Jane Goodall they would have only 2
\
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/world/europe/prince-harry-children.html

PP how much are they paying you to defend them? Don't you get tired? They are regular people and don't poop rainbows, ya know?

PP probably getting paid the same amount that you get paid to bash them.

Interesting...you consider what I wrote bashing? I just wrote they said they only want two children. Tell me how that is bashing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

This was tweeted by the organization, not Harry and Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

You clearly don't understand how nonprofits work. Good Foundations don't require press for their philanthropic giving. Harry definitely requires it as we have seen time and time again with tiny donations relative to their net worth.

This was tweeted by the organization, not Harry and Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Has this been mentioned yet? Her crazy mean sister Samantha seems to be estranged from her own children and she may not have completely raised them. One of them did an interview and she described Sam as abusive and a terrible mother. Her grandmother raised her once she left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

You clearly don't understand how nonprofits work. Good Foundations don't require press for their philanthropic giving. Harry definitely requires it as we have seen time and time again with tiny donations relative to their net worth.

This was tweeted by the organization, not Harry and Meghan.

Once again, you've proven that you, in fact, don't know how non-profit organizations (who rely on constant, individual donations and do not usually have an endowment) work. Good press is key to their continued success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

The non profit likely wanted to issue the press release because tweeting out that Harry and Meghan gave to them will get them tons of press leading to a lot of other people to donate to them. This is a double edged sword of an issue. The reality is that celebrity attention brings attention from a broad audience and if a celebrity is choosing to say, 'don't tell anyone I did this' then they are, yes, giving the gift, but they are depriving the organization of the waterfall of other gifting that could come from actual advocacy/promotion.