Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's safe to say that Megan belongs in the same "we can't exactly say why we don't like her" category as Anne ("Annie?") Hathaway.

IT's such a cliche and juvenile term, but "Fake", actually does fit her pretty well.

I'm not going to quibble with people who think she seems fake because it's not like it will change anyone's mind. I don't think it's a meaningful criticism, though. You're judging her as a stranger, through a screen, in a pre-planned comedic TV bit. I don't think she's required to bare her authentic self in these situations. She has a public persona she can put on for this stuff. It's probably emotionally healthy to do so. Look at how she got raked over the coals for her one comment in an interview about no one asking how she was doing. She let herself be honest and vulnerable once, and she was torn apart for it.

Because her “honest and vulnerable” self was not all that nice, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's safe to say that Megan belongs in the same "we can't exactly say why we don't like her" category as Anne ("Annie?") Hathaway.

IT's such a cliche and juvenile term, but "Fake", actually does fit her pretty well.

I'm not going to quibble with people who think she seems fake because it's not like it will change anyone's mind. I don't think it's a meaningful criticism, though. You're judging her as a stranger, through a screen, in a pre-planned comedic TV bit. I don't think she's required to bare her authentic self in these situations. She has a public persona she can put on for this stuff. It's probably emotionally healthy to do so. Look at how she got raked over the coals for her one comment in an interview about no one asking how she was doing. She let herself be honest and vulnerable once, and she was torn apart for it.

Well yes and no. We won't ever know her private self and we don't expect to. What she shows us is her public self, and if it doesn't come across well, that's not going to further her ambition to be a popular well-liked public figure.

Her friends have all been really loyal to her, so I think that says something. Her father and sister are a nightmare, so I sure don't fault her for being controlled and meticulous and hardworking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's safe to say that Megan belongs in the same "we can't exactly say why we don't like her" category as Anne ("Annie?") Hathaway.

IT's such a cliche and juvenile term, but "Fake", actually does fit her pretty well.

I'm not going to quibble with people who think she seems fake because it's not like it will change anyone's mind. I don't think it's a meaningful criticism, though. You're judging her as a stranger, through a screen, in a pre-planned comedic TV bit. I don't think she's required to bare her authentic self in these situations. She has a public persona she can put on for this stuff. It's probably emotionally healthy to do so. Look at how she got raked over the coals for her one comment in an interview about no one asking how she was doing. She let herself be honest and vulnerable once, and she was torn apart for it.

Because her “honest and vulnerable” self was not all that nice, perhaps?

I disagree. There was nothing unkind about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's safe to say that Megan belongs in the same "we can't exactly say why we don't like her" category as Anne ("Annie?") Hathaway.

IT's such a cliche and juvenile term, but "Fake", actually does fit her pretty well.

I'm not going to quibble with people who think she seems fake because it's not like it will change anyone's mind. I don't think it's a meaningful criticism, though. You're judging her as a stranger, through a screen, in a pre-planned comedic TV bit. I don't think she's required to bare her authentic self in these situations. She has a public persona she can put on for this stuff. It's probably emotionally healthy to do so. Look at how she got raked over the coals for her one comment in an interview about no one asking how she was doing. She let herself be honest and vulnerable once, and she was torn apart for it.

Well yes and no. We won't ever know her private self and we don't expect to. What she shows us is her public self, and if it doesn't come across well, that's not going to further her ambition to be a popular well-liked public figure.

Her friends have all been really loyal to her, so I think that says something. Her father and sister are a nightmare, so I sure don't fault her for being controlled and meticulous and hardworking.

Have they though? Has she been loyal to them? I’d venture to guess that they have an interest in being loyal because it benefits them. Who is she loyal to these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's safe to say that Megan belongs in the same "we can't exactly say why we don't like her" category as Anne ("Annie?") Hathaway.

IT's such a cliche and juvenile term, but "Fake", actually does fit her pretty well.

I'm not going to quibble with people who think she seems fake because it's not like it will change anyone's mind. I don't think it's a meaningful criticism, though. You're judging her as a stranger, through a screen, in a pre-planned comedic TV bit. I don't think she's required to bare her authentic self in these situations. She has a public persona she can put on for this stuff. It's probably emotionally healthy to do so. Look at how she got raked over the coals for her one comment in an interview about no one asking how she was doing. She let herself be honest and vulnerable once, and she was torn apart for it.

Well yes and no. We won't ever know her private self and we don't expect to. What she shows us is her public self, and if it doesn't come across well, that's not going to further her ambition to be a popular well-liked public figure.

Her friends have all been really loyal to her, so I think that says something. Her father and sister are a nightmare, so I sure don't fault her for being controlled and meticulous and hardworking.

Have they though? Has she been loyal to them? I’d venture to guess that they have an interest in being loyal because it benefits them. Who is she loyal to these days?

The 5 friends she managed to protect in the lawsuit. Never revealed. Never had to testify. Meghan and Harry have been living in the heart of L.A. and Montecito for 9 months now. No leaks on them from the friends they've made and met with. Very different from the year of 'palace sources' that briefed and lied on everything from a floating yoga room to the tiara she wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's safe to say that Megan belongs in the same "we can't exactly say why we don't like her" category as Anne ("Annie?") Hathaway.

IT's such a cliche and juvenile term, but "Fake", actually does fit her pretty well.

I'm not going to quibble with people who think she seems fake because it's not like it will change anyone's mind. I don't think it's a meaningful criticism, though. You're judging her as a stranger, through a screen, in a pre-planned comedic TV bit. I don't think she's required to bare her authentic self in these situations. She has a public persona she can put on for this stuff. It's probably emotionally healthy to do so. Look at how she got raked over the coals for her one comment in an interview about no one asking how she was doing. She let herself be honest and vulnerable once, and she was torn apart for it.

Well yes and no. We won't ever know her private self and we don't expect to. What she shows us is her public self, and if it doesn't come across well, that's not going to further her ambition to be a popular well-liked public figure.

Her friends have all been really loyal to her, so I think that says something. Her father and sister are a nightmare, so I sure don't fault her for being controlled and meticulous and hardworking.

Have they though? Has she been loyal to them? I’d venture to guess that they have an interest in being loyal because it benefits them. Who is she loyal to these days?

The 5 friends she managed to protect in the lawsuit. Never revealed. Never had to testify. Meghan and Harry have been living in the heart of L.A. and Montecito for 9 months now. No leaks on them from the friends they've made and met with. Very different from the year of 'palace sources' that briefed and lied on everything from a floating yoga room to the tiara she wanted.

I guess that's one interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Interview with James Corden is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harry has been the only one in the relationship that has given up more: his country, his family and history and future of his and their children.

Meghan has only gained and got everything she wanted. One day Harry will realize this and we will have to see how he reacts.

Only thing he gave up was his country. The only future is for the actual heir. The spares don’t even seem to get properties anymore. Just leases. Andrew is a spare and what future do his girls have? None of them will be working royals and will have to have a job to maintain their lifestyle. Same with all the other spares’ kids. Their future is the same as anyone else from a wealthy family. Except Harry and Meghan will likely have more money to leave their children than the previous generation of spares will.

Harry basically asked for a leave of absence from the family business and his family fired him professionally and personally. Can’t blame Meghan for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry has been the only one in the relationship that has given up more: his country, his family and history and future of his and their children.

Meghan has only gained and got everything she wanted. One day Harry will realize this and we will have to see how he reacts.

Only thing he gave up was his country. The only future is for the actual heir. The spares don’t even seem to get properties anymore. Just leases. Andrew is a spare and what future do his girls have? None of them will be working royals and will have to have a job to maintain their lifestyle. Same with all the other spares’ kids. Their future is the same as anyone else from a wealthy family. Except Harry and Meghan will likely have more money to leave their children than the previous generation of spares will.

Harry basically asked for a leave of absence from the family business and his family fired him professionally and personally. Can’t blame Meghan for that.

Not blaming Meghan. Just stating fact. Harry gave up more than Meghan has. He gave up his country and he also gave up his family. His children won't know their cousins like he and William did. And the history. He is one of a rare families and he gave it all up. Sure, spares weren't treated well but, I think once Prince Charles is king things could have been better.

[Anonymous]

He is still on speaking terms with his family, though. It isn't like he cut them off and will never speak to them again. They are still family.

[Anonymous]

Army guy to James Corden: Do you have army experience?
James Corden: very much a member of BTS' ARMY'

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

[Anonymous]

Just watched James Cordon. That was a masterclass in PR right there.

That was a 20 minute segment designed to make everyone fall back in love with Harry (successful), establish that he has not left his family and that they do not hate him (waffle maker! philip's zooming), frame Meghan as an engaged mom, frame himself as committed to service.

And all done without at all seeming like it was trying too hard.

He also, and I think this is the truth, refused to frame his leaving as having anything at all to do with Meghan. He made that choice on his own, because of how it was effecting him, and he would do it again.

People hate her because they think she manipulated him, but in the end, that is very insulting to Harry, and I feel like this was an enormous statement to all of those people, and a continued harsh indictment of the british press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just watched James Cordon. That was a masterclass in PR right there.

That was a 20 minute segment designed to make everyone fall back in love with Harry (successful), establish that he has not left his family and that they do not hate him (waffle maker! philip's zooming), frame Meghan as an engaged mom, frame himself as committed to service.

And all done without at all seeming like it was trying too hard.

He also, and I think this is the truth, refused to frame his leaving as having anything at all to do with Meghan. He made that choice on his own, because of how it was effecting him, and he would do it again.

People hate her because they think she manipulated him, but in the end, that is very insulting to Harry, and I feel like this was an enormous statement to all of those people, and a continued harsh indictment of the british press.

+1 He did an amazing job. He's a great public speaker who easily connected with outside audiences. Diana was the same way and look how the royal family is still desperately trying to change the narrative around her when she's been dead 30 years.

Give em hell Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched James Cordon. That was a masterclass in PR right there.

That was a 20 minute segment designed to make everyone fall back in love with Harry (successful), establish that he has not left his family and that they do not hate him (waffle maker! philip's zooming), frame Meghan as an engaged mom, frame himself as committed to service.

And all done without at all seeming like it was trying too hard.

He also, and I think this is the truth, refused to frame his leaving as having anything at all to do with Meghan. He made that choice on his own, because of how it was effecting him, and he would do it again.

People hate her because they think she manipulated him, but in the end, that is very insulting to Harry, and I feel like this was an enormous statement to all of those people, and a continued harsh indictment of the british press.

+1 He did an amazing job. He's a great public speaker who easily connected with outside audiences. Diana was the same way and look how the royal family is still desperately trying to change the narrative around her when she's been dead 30 years.

Give em hell Harry.

What hell? The BRF may or may not have protected Meghan from the press adequately or the way that Harry wanted. But other than that, what did they do or fail to do? They tried to give Harry what he wanted, gave him options, and he rejected all of them. The friendlier he acts, the better he looks. If he starts trying to give Charles or Will and Kate hell, it won't go well, let alone the Queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched James Cordon. That was a masterclass in PR right there.

That was a 20 minute segment designed to make everyone fall back in love with Harry (successful), establish that he has not left his family and that they do not hate him (waffle maker! philip's zooming), frame Meghan as an engaged mom, frame himself as committed to service.

And all done without at all seeming like it was trying too hard.

He also, and I think this is the truth, refused to frame his leaving as having anything at all to do with Meghan. He made that choice on his own, because of how it was effecting him, and he would do it again.

People hate her because they think she manipulated him, but in the end, that is very insulting to Harry, and I feel like this was an enormous statement to all of those people, and a continued harsh indictment of the british press.

+1 He did an amazing job. He's a great public speaker who easily connected with outside audiences. Diana was the same way and look how the royal family is still desperately trying to change the narrative around her when she's been dead 30 years.

Give em hell Harry.

What hell? The BRF may or may not have protected Meghan from the press adequately or the way that Harry wanted. But other than that, what did they do or fail to do? They tried to give Harry what he wanted, gave him options, and he rejected all of them. The friendlier he acts, the better he looks. If he starts trying to give Charles or Will and Kate hell, it won't go well, let alone the Queen.

Did they really?