Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans love grifters apparently. First Trump now Markle.
SAD!

Americans support non-racists. And PM Johnson needs to think carefully about what he's going to say this afternoon. Thanks to him Britain needs that post-Brexit/I'm-so-racist-I'm-leaving-the-EU-over-migrants deal more than we need anything from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An English clergyman said they couldn’t possibly have been married 3 days early. No second witness and not an approved location so it wouldn’t have been valid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9337999/Church-vicar-says-Meghans-claim-Harry-secretly-tied-knot-earlier-easily-verified.html

she said that was when the made their own vows and that that ceremony was for them not everybody else. the point was not which one was official.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oprah just helped them launch the brand. Pretty sure she is all in.

This was all one big PR stunt and nothing else. Anyone falling for it should get their head examined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very hard and miserable to be an outsider joining the firm, especially with several negative checks (older, actress, divorced, American, new money...)predisposing them against accepting you into a rigid insular group. Plus the horror and racism of the press. Harry did a terrible job of preparing her, and he should have, knowing how awfully his SIL was treated for quite a long time. But given her dramatic temperament and the cold archaic institution, this was never going to work. Hope they put this behind them and enjoy their freedom.

[phone].


Her "naivete" is understandable. His is idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oprah just helped them launch the brand. Pretty sure she is all in.

Don't forget that Oprah attended their wedding when they barely knew each other. She has since socialized with Meghan's mother. She was not an impartial interviewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not surprised by the level of vitriol in the comments sections of the UK tabloids articles, but it’s a bit shocking to see the hatemongering against Meghan here on an overwhelmingly American forum. What is it, if not reaction to her being an ‘uppity’ woman of color?

I’d love to know how many of you reviling her are MAGA voters.

DCUM is riddled with old, white women who have very little love for their husbands. They hold themselves out as progressive liberals, but they are really NIMBYs when the shit hits the fan. Many of the women who label themselves POC are married to white men and they want to be accepted by the white women and say, I am not like those people over there. So I am not surprised by the reactions. I wish I could say I am disappointed, but I have lived a long time and the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how this stuff works but can someone explain how the BRF can just deny support for Harry's child when they're literally protecting williams kids?

"Do what we want and how we want it or you are on your own."

Not really true.

There’s no precedent for giving a prince title to Archie, or separate security. He’s a great-grandchild. The Queen would have to issue a separate letters patent, which Parliament would then have to approve.

People act like Williams’ and Harry’s kids are on equal footing. They are not and never will be.

Got it thanks. Meghan made it seem like her son was stripped of the title. Said something along the lines of why should my son not have what he is entitled to have...That's why I was confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing about this is that they could have discretely had her talk to a psychologist without anyone knowing. She could have gotten help.

It is appalling they decided otherwise.

I’m also disappointed about the fact that they didn’t want to provide security. Is it because the security is more expensive or more racist?

Seriously- it cannot possibly be worth it to have the whole family be destroyed this way.

Finally- i still think it’s HRH Charles that made the skin color reference. I’m gonna be honest- that many is sketchy

I agree with this. You could tell by the way he talked about Charles.

[Anonymous]

I didn't interpret it as a complaint that Archie would not be titled a prince. There are all kinds of honorary titles - duke of this or that, etc. It's all made up anyway so what's the problem? I interpreted that there was a connection between the title and security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing about this is that they could have discretely had her talk to a psychologist without anyone knowing. She could have gotten help.

It is appalling they decided otherwise.

I’m also disappointed about the fact that they didn’t want to provide security. Is it because the security is more expensive or more racist?

Seriously- it cannot possibly be worth it to have the whole family be destroyed this way.

Finally- i still think it’s HRH Charles that made the skin color reference. I’m gonna be honest- that many is sketchy

I agree with this. You could tell by the way he talked about Charles.

Then what do you think caused the "space" between Harry and his brother?

[Anonymous]

This thread is wild. I was telling my husband about how shocking the deep racism on DCUM is, as evidenced by this thread and the bizarre vitriol people spew towards Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find this interesting:

"I guess the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of a bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on bike rides which is something I was never able to do when I was young" - Prince Harry





And this...

He certainly does have his own history, doesn't he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how this stuff works but can someone explain how the BRF can just deny support for Harry's child when they're literally protecting williams kids?

"Do what we want and how we want it or you are on your own."

Not really true.

There’s no precedent for giving a prince title to Archie, or separate security. He’s a great-grandchild. The Queen would have to issue a separate letters patent, which Parliament would then have to approve.

People act like Williams’ and Harry’s kids are on equal footing. They are not and never will be.

Got it thanks. Meghan made it seem like her son was stripped of the title. Said something along the lines of why should my son not have what he is entitled to have...That's why I was confused.

Yea she got some important things wrong about how the royal family operates. My guess is she never cared to learn. I’m predicting the Royals either completely ignore her and her antics or just start slowly releasing embarrassing tidbits about her to the British press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An English clergyman said they couldn’t possibly have been married 3 days early. No second witness and not an approved location so it wouldn’t have been valid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9337999/Church-vicar-says-Meghans-claim-Harry-secretly-tied-knot-earlier-easily-verified.html

she said that was when the made their own vows and that that ceremony was for them not everybody else. the point was not which one was official.

She said they were married 3 days earlier. They were not.

[Anonymous]

Many of you need to read up on the letters patent, which were last updated prior to the birth of George. Long before Meghan. Even if Harry married Cressida or the other one, the baby would not have been a prince or HRH.