Meghan and Prince Harry are moving to the U.S./Canada - OFFICIAL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Duke of Sussex just hanging out with the German Minister of Defense. They're planning Invictus Games launch in 2022.

And the Sussex will be in Copenhagen this year for the 2020 Invictus Games.

It's going to be hilarious watching them country hop while skipping over one very obvious island to do so.



I wonder if the other royals will tour Canada since they are in residence though? In 2016 and 2017 the Cornwalls and the Cambridges were there. So its due for one now but with the Sussexs there it kind of makes sense for THEM to do the tour.

https://twitter.com/GermanEmbassy/status/1217855555949289472

Why would they skip the UK? what a stupid assumption. all in your head.

Ask the British press - their stupid headlines seem like they're convinced the Sussexes are never returning and that's what they're telling their readers.

I bet they didn't say the same thing when Princess Elizabeth spent the better part of 4 years in Malta with Prince Phillip.

Or when Charles went and spent a year in Australia or Wales.

Beaming Meghan Markle drives herself to Canadian airport to pick up a friend as speculation mounts among courtiers that she will NEVER return to live in Britain in a 'meaningful way'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7897731/Meghan-Markle-drives-Canadian-airport-Land-Rover-pick-friend.html

Well, an intelligent person would know there's a huge difference between a couple announcing to all and sundry that they're stepping back from their royal roles and moving to another country and a genuine member of the royal family remaining in their royal capacity.

You think Elizabeth was working for Britain while attending parties in Malta? Hell, they were on vacation in Kenya when she became Queen. Charles was in Wale and Australia for schooling purposes about the commonwealth both times. Will + Kate where 'part-time royals' officially for FIVE YEARS.

But Meghan and Harry can't relocate for a bit and still do royal engagements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually I care about Meghan Markle because she was raised by a single mom, was the subject of unrelenting emotional and psychological abuse at the hands of her father and half-siblings, which played out in front of the entire world -- what a shitty and crazy way to treat a daughter, to treat a half-sister!! Crazy and brutal and disgusting -- and yet she prevailed. She succeeded despite all odds, and she succeeded spectacularly.

So that's why I'm in her corner, if you'd like to know.

I think she lived with her father for quite some time, and he paid for her expensive private schooling and gave her a springboard in Hollywood through his connections. I don't think this counts as "unrelenting abuse."

I don't think she succeeded against all odds - she was born to privilege and it must be said, worked tirelessly to grow it.

Her father used her for publicity. Her half-brother said publicly that it was not too late for Harry to back out. Her sister will tell anyone who will listen how horrible she thinks Meghan is.

You try living through that kind of torture. See how you turn out.

It's rather interesting how it's never Meghan's fault. Ever. It's always someone's else's fault. Her father, her half siblings, the presses, racism, the royal family, everyone else except Meghan Markle....

Isn't that an amazing coincidence, eh? I mean, everyone is against Meghan. Wow, how did she cope.

All assholes in Meghan's life have been White. Coincidence? I think not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad they slapped the racists and the BRF on their faces.

Bravo.

Time to dismantle the BRF. Are the British so stupid that they bankroll these waste of space.

The British aren't keen on bankrolling H&M, no.

Why do they Bankroll the pedophile, ugly, BRF?

Serious answer: Because the BRF actually has a lot of cultural value. To the Brits, and to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Duke of Sussex just hanging out with the German Minister of Defense. They're planning Invictus Games launch in 2022.

And the Sussex will be in Copenhagen this year for the 2020 Invictus Games.

It's going to be hilarious watching them country hop while skipping over one very obvious island to do so.



I wonder if the other royals will tour Canada since they are in residence though? In 2016 and 2017 the Cornwalls and the Cambridges were there. So its due for one now but with the Sussexs there it kind of makes sense for THEM to do the tour.

https://twitter.com/GermanEmbassy/status/1217855555949289472

Why would they skip the UK? what a stupid assumption. all in your head.

Ask the British press - their stupid headlines seem like they're convinced the Sussexes are never returning and that's what they're telling their readers.

I bet they didn't say the same thing when Princess Elizabeth spent the better part of 4 years in Malta with Prince Phillip.

Or when Charles went and spent a year in Australia or Wales.

Beaming Meghan Markle drives herself to Canadian airport to pick up a friend as speculation mounts among courtiers that she will NEVER return to live in Britain in a 'meaningful way'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7897731/Meghan-Markle-drives-Canadian-airport-Land-Rover-pick-friend.html

Well, an intelligent person would know there's a huge difference between a couple announcing to all and sundry that they're stepping back from their royal roles and moving to another country and a genuine member of the royal family remaining in their royal capacity.

You think Elizabeth was working for Britain while attending parties in Malta? Hell, they were on vacation in Kenya when she became Queen. Charles was in Wale and Australia for schooling purposes about the commonwealth both times. Will + Kate where 'part-time royals' officially for FIVE YEARS.

But Meghan and Harry can't relocate for a bit and still do royal engagements?

They could. But that's not what they're doing. Hence this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually I care about Meghan Markle because she was raised by a single mom, was the subject of unrelenting emotional and psychological abuse at the hands of her father and half-siblings, which played out in front of the entire world -- what a shitty and crazy way to treat a daughter, to treat a half-sister!! Crazy and brutal and disgusting -- and yet she prevailed. She succeeded despite all odds, and she succeeded spectacularly.

So that's why I'm in her corner, if you'd like to know.

I think she lived with her father for quite some time, and he paid for her expensive private schooling and gave her a springboard in Hollywood through his connections. I don't think this counts as "unrelenting abuse."

I don't think she succeeded against all odds - she was born to privilege and it must be said, worked tirelessly to grow it.

Her father used her for publicity. Her half-brother said publicly that it was not too late for Harry to back out. Her sister will tell anyone who will listen how horrible she thinks Meghan is.

You try living through that kind of torture. See how you turn out.

It's rather interesting how it's never Meghan's fault. Ever. It's always someone's else's fault. Her father, her half siblings, the presses, racism, the royal family, everyone else except Meghan Markle....

Isn't that an amazing coincidence, eh? I mean, everyone is against Meghan. Wow, how did she cope.

Are you fu%%ing kidding me?? That kind of behavior is so over the line it's inexcusable. If her brother thought her sister was not a good match for Harry, don't you think a reasonable person would A) butt out and keep that to himself, or B), talk to meghan about it, or, worst option, C) talk to Harry himself? You think publishing a letter in a newspaper telling someone's fiance, hey, it's not too late to back out is in any way normal?

You are crazy if you think that behavior is normal. No matter what she's like, no one deserves that. No one. Sickens me just to think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who don't understand how much worse Meghan had it than Kate. Here's some data.

Using Brandwatch Consumer Research we found that, in the 365 day period observed, Markle appeared in negative news stories 21.1k times, across 29k tabloid and broadsheet publications.

Meanwhile, Middleton appeared in 4.3k negative news articles from 14k publications.

Looking at this data, Markle received 132% more negative press coverage.



https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-markle-middleton-negativity/

Yes... she was new. That's a 1-year period.

Try comparing it across the many years Kate has been around.

And perhaps more relevant, and this is a very difficult concept for some of you to struggle with, maybe, just maybe, Meghan did and said things that caused press furor over her. Kate has been impeccable because she's learned how to be impeccable. But Meghan made missteps. When one of the most privileged woman in the entire world is complaining about people not caring about her feelings while on tour to some of the most deprived countries in Africa, maybe, just maybe, you deserve some press flak.

Maybe, just maybe, if Meghan had learned to smile politely, keep her thoughts to herself, ignored the tabloids, avoided controversial topics like lecturing on the environment and helping others while taking full advantage of the privileges to live the gilded life, then maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of negative press.

Is this post meant as sarcasm? I hope so.... because you're suggesting she just smile politely and act brainless, then everyone will like her? Um, no. We're not going back in time to that. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who don't understand how much worse Meghan had it than Kate. Here's some data.

Using Brandwatch Consumer Research we found that, in the 365 day period observed, Markle appeared in negative news stories 21.1k times, across 29k tabloid and broadsheet publications.

Meanwhile, Middleton appeared in 4.3k negative news articles from 14k publications.

Looking at this data, Markle received 132% more negative press coverage.



https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-markle-middleton-negativity/

Yes... she was new. That's a 1-year period.

Try comparing it across the many years Kate has been around.

And perhaps more relevant, and this is a very difficult concept for some of you to struggle with, maybe, just maybe, Meghan did and said things that caused press furor over her. Kate has been impeccable because she's learned how to be impeccable. But Meghan made missteps. When one of the most privileged woman in the entire world is complaining about people not caring about her feelings while on tour to some of the most deprived countries in Africa, maybe, just maybe, you deserve some press flak.

Maybe, just maybe, if Meghan had learned to smile politely, keep her thoughts to herself, ignored the tabloids, avoided controversial topics like lecturing on the environment and helping others while taking full advantage of the privileges to live the gilded life, then maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of negative press.

Is this post meant as sarcasm? I hope so.... because you're suggesting she just smile politely and act brainless, then everyone will like her? Um, no. We're not going back in time to that. No.

The BRF is apolitical. She knew that going in but didn't want to follow the rules.

Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who don't understand how much worse Meghan had it than Kate. Here's some data.

Using Brandwatch Consumer Research we found that, in the 365 day period observed, Markle appeared in negative news stories 21.1k times, across 29k tabloid and broadsheet publications.

Meanwhile, Middleton appeared in 4.3k negative news articles from 14k publications.

Looking at this data, Markle received 132% more negative press coverage.



https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-markle-middleton-negativity/

Yes... she was new. That's a 1-year period.

Try comparing it across the many years Kate has been around.

And perhaps more relevant, and this is a very difficult concept for some of you to struggle with, maybe, just maybe, Meghan did and said things that caused press furor over her. Kate has been impeccable because she's learned how to be impeccable. But Meghan made missteps. When one of the most privileged woman in the entire world is complaining about people not caring about her feelings while on tour to some of the most deprived countries in Africa, maybe, just maybe, you deserve some press flak.

Maybe, just maybe, if Meghan had learned to smile politely, keep her thoughts to herself, ignored the tabloids, avoided controversial topics like lecturing on the environment and helping others while taking full advantage of the privileges to live the gilded life, then maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of negative press.

Is this post meant as sarcasm? I hope so.... because you're suggesting she just smile politely and act brainless, then everyone will like her? Um, no. We're not going back in time to that. No.

The BRF is apolitical. She knew that going in but didn't want to follow the rules.

Oh well.

Prince Charles is a huge champion of the environment. Do you not know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who don't understand how much worse Meghan had it than Kate. Here's some data.

Using Brandwatch Consumer Research we found that, in the 365 day period observed, Markle appeared in negative news stories 21.1k times, across 29k tabloid and broadsheet publications.

Meanwhile, Middleton appeared in 4.3k negative news articles from 14k publications.

Looking at this data, Markle received 132% more negative press coverage.



https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-markle-middleton-negativity/

Yes... she was new. That's a 1-year period.

Try comparing it across the many years Kate has been around.

And perhaps more relevant, and this is a very difficult concept for some of you to struggle with, maybe, just maybe, Meghan did and said things that caused press furor over her. Kate has been impeccable because she's learned how to be impeccable. But Meghan made missteps. When one of the most privileged woman in the entire world is complaining about people not caring about her feelings while on tour to some of the most deprived countries in Africa, maybe, just maybe, you deserve some press flak.

Maybe, just maybe, if Meghan had learned to smile politely, keep her thoughts to herself, ignored the tabloids, avoided controversial topics like lecturing on the environment and helping others while taking full advantage of the privileges to live the gilded life, then maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of negative press.

Indeed. Women should be seen and not heard. They should smile politely and nod their heads in agreement. Women should never express their thoughts and opinions out loud. Simply smile and ignore all those who bully and taunt you. That's what a lady is supposed to do. Gag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who don't understand how much worse Meghan had it than Kate. Here's some data.

Using Brandwatch Consumer Research we found that, in the 365 day period observed, Markle appeared in negative news stories 21.1k times, across 29k tabloid and broadsheet publications.

Meanwhile, Middleton appeared in 4.3k negative news articles from 14k publications.

Looking at this data, Markle received 132% more negative press coverage.



https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-markle-middleton-negativity/

Yes... she was new. That's a 1-year period.

Try comparing it across the many years Kate has been around.

And perhaps more relevant, and this is a very difficult concept for some of you to struggle with, maybe, just maybe, Meghan did and said things that caused press furor over her. Kate has been impeccable because she's learned how to be impeccable. But Meghan made missteps. When one of the most privileged woman in the entire world is complaining about people not caring about her feelings while on tour to some of the most deprived countries in Africa, maybe, just maybe, you deserve some press flak.

Maybe, just maybe, if Meghan had learned to smile politely, keep her thoughts to herself, ignored the tabloids, avoided controversial topics like lecturing on the environment and helping others while taking full advantage of the privileges to live the gilded life, then maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of negative press.

Is this post meant as sarcasm? I hope so.... because you're suggesting she just smile politely and act brainless, then everyone will like her? Um, no. We're not going back in time to that. No.

The BRF is apolitical. She knew that going in but didn't want to follow the rules.

Oh well.

Prince Charles is a huge champion of the environment. Do you not know that?

Quietly. He's a quiet champion of the environment.

Flying on private planes gets all green celebs in trouble. Including H&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who don't understand how much worse Meghan had it than Kate. Here's some data.

Using Brandwatch Consumer Research we found that, in the 365 day period observed, Markle appeared in negative news stories 21.1k times, across 29k tabloid and broadsheet publications.

Meanwhile, Middleton appeared in 4.3k negative news articles from 14k publications.

Looking at this data, Markle received 132% more negative press coverage.



https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-markle-middleton-negativity/

Yes... she was new. That's a 1-year period.

Try comparing it across the many years Kate has been around.

And perhaps more relevant, and this is a very difficult concept for some of you to struggle with, maybe, just maybe, Meghan did and said things that caused press furor over her. Kate has been impeccable because she's learned how to be impeccable. But Meghan made missteps. When one of the most privileged woman in the entire world is complaining about people not caring about her feelings while on tour to some of the most deprived countries in Africa, maybe, just maybe, you deserve some press flak.

Maybe, just maybe, if Meghan had learned to smile politely, keep her thoughts to herself, ignored the tabloids, avoided controversial topics like lecturing on the environment and helping others while taking full advantage of the privileges to live the gilded life, then maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of negative press.

Is this post meant as sarcasm? I hope so.... because you're suggesting she just smile politely and act brainless, then everyone will like her? Um, no. We're not going back in time to that. No.

The BRF is apolitical. She knew that going in but didn't want to follow the rules.

Oh well.

Prince Charles is a huge champion of the environment. Do you not know that?

Yes.

But he doesn't lecture people on environmentalism while flying around on private jets to fancy meetings with billionaires.

The simple reality is that there are strong sets of rules governing what the RF does, says and does not say. Look, they are patrons of more than 3,000 charities in Britain. But they approach them as neutrally as possible.

I think the person who said you can't be a royal and a celeb, you can be one or the other but not both, said it best.

[Anonymous]

Just curious, how does Prince Charles fly?

[Anonymous]

I love Harry, but it is very well-documented and stated (even by his late mother) that he does not have a great deal of intelligence. He has EQ, but is lacking in IQ. This is where he might get into trouble about thinking everything through. I am not sure about Meghan she graduated from Northwestern, but the Royal Family is like nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually I care about Meghan Markle because she was raised by a single mom, was the subject of unrelenting emotional and psychological abuse at the hands of her father and half-siblings, which played out in front of the entire world -- what a shitty and crazy way to treat a daughter, to treat a half-sister!! Crazy and brutal and disgusting -- and yet she prevailed. She succeeded despite all odds, and she succeeded spectacularly.

So that's why I'm in her corner, if you'd like to know.

I think she lived with her father for quite some time, and he paid for her expensive private schooling and gave her a springboard in Hollywood through his connections. I don't think this counts as "unrelenting abuse."

I don't think she succeeded against all odds - she was born to privilege and it must be said, worked tirelessly to grow it.

Her father used her for publicity. Her half-brother said publicly that it was not too late for Harry to back out. Her sister will tell anyone who will listen how horrible she thinks Meghan is.

You try living through that kind of torture. See how you turn out.

It's rather interesting how it's never Meghan's fault. Ever. It's always someone's else's fault. Her father, her half siblings, the presses, racism, the royal family, everyone else except Meghan Markle....

Isn't that an amazing coincidence, eh? I mean, everyone is against Meghan. Wow, how did she cope.

All assholes in Meghan's life have been White. Coincidence? I think not!

Well, how dumb was she too marry one, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually I care about Meghan Markle because she was raised by a single mom, was the subject of unrelenting emotional and psychological abuse at the hands of her father and half-siblings, which played out in front of the entire world -- what a shitty and crazy way to treat a daughter, to treat a half-sister!! Crazy and brutal and disgusting -- and yet she prevailed. She succeeded despite all odds, and she succeeded spectacularly.

So that's why I'm in her corner, if you'd like to know.

I think she lived with her father for quite some time, and he paid for her expensive private schooling and gave her a springboard in Hollywood through his connections. I don't think this counts as "unrelenting abuse."

I don't think she succeeded against all odds - she was born to privilege and it must be said, worked tirelessly to grow it.

Her father used her for publicity. Her half-brother said publicly that it was not too late for Harry to back out. Her sister will tell anyone who will listen how horrible she thinks Meghan is.

You try living through that kind of torture. See how you turn out.

It's rather interesting how it's never Meghan's fault. Ever. It's always someone's else's fault. Her father, her half siblings, the presses, racism, the royal family, everyone else except Meghan Markle....

Isn't that an amazing coincidence, eh? I mean, everyone is against Meghan. Wow, how did she cope.

All assholes in Meghan's life have been White. Coincidence? I think not!

Well, how dumb was she too marry one, then?

*to