Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has been following the Royals for more than 30 seconds knows that this is their modus operandi. They leaked a lot of negativity about Diana in order to keep her in line before she learn to play the game and turned on them.

The purpose of these leaks is to remind Meghan not to fly too high or get too big a head. They are going to turn the public against her so that she has to retreat further into the royal family for protection and is thereby under control.

Ah, that makes sense. But Diana was a child when she married Charles. Meghan is a grown woman who knows how to stand up for herself. I think Harry picked her for good reason.

PP here. Even a grown woman is going to have trouble coming up against the Royal machine. They have experts and staff who have done this for decades. Keeping people in line is very important to the royal family and they do it well. Look at this thread and the many other threads on Meghan Markle. You have people here buying all of the leaks and tabloid rumors hook line and sinker, as if they are personally privy to all the goings on.

This is so reminiscent of what they did to Diana. I remember being a teenager in the 80s and reading week after week after week about how crazy, difficult, and controlling Diana was. People have forgotten how Diana was bashed for not being able to get along with Tiggy and the boys’ many nannies. They are using the exact same smear campaign against Meghan, complete with allegations she can’t get along with the help.

Spot on, and exactly right. But even worse here, because it's being directed by Harry's own brother and sister-in-law. What awful people.

You conspiracy theorists are nuts.

PP who wrote about Diana here. It is verified fact that leaks about her came from the royal family. Reporters have confirmed this. Likewise, reporters confirmed that, by the 90s, Diana was leaking stories as well in retaliation. It all came out during the divorce and then more later in the year after she died. You’re clearly new to coverage of the royal family, or maybe just very young.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has been following the Royals for more than 30 seconds knows that this is their modus operandi. They leaked a lot of negativity about Diana in order to keep her in line before she learn to play the game and turned on them.

The purpose of these leaks is to remind Meghan not to fly too high or get too big a head. They are going to turn the public against her so that she has to retreat further into the royal family for protection and is thereby under control.

Ah, that makes sense. But Diana was a child when she married Charles. Meghan is a grown woman who knows how to stand up for herself. I think Harry picked her for good reason.

PP here. Even a grown woman is going to have trouble coming up against the Royal machine. They have experts and staff who have done this for decades. Keeping people in line is very important to the royal family and they do it well. Look at this thread and the many other threads on Meghan Markle. You have people here buying all of the leaks and tabloid rumors hook line and sinker, as if they are personally privy to all the goings on.

This is so reminiscent of what they did to Diana. I remember being a teenager in the 80s and reading week after week after week about how crazy, difficult, and controlling Diana was. People have forgotten how Diana was bashed for not being able to get along with Tiggy and the boys’ many nannies. They are using the exact same smear campaign against Meghan, complete with allegations she can’t get along with the help.

Spot on, and exactly right. But even worse here, because it's being directed by Harry's own brother and sister-in-law. What awful people.

You conspiracy theorists are nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

I read your post, but let's be honest. You would have criticized her if she'd reworn a coat as well. Don't pretend she could ever do anything you would be positive about.

OMG -- I shop at TJMaxx and Target. I would LOVE for MM to show frugality in her clothing choices for more than one or two occasions. THAT would impress me.

How tacky.

Not really. Nice try!

Um, actually yes. A duchess showing up to a charity event for unemployed women in clothes from Target or TJ Maxx is basically the dictionary definition of tacky. It would be condescending and nasty, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

I read your post, but let's be honest. You would have criticized her if she'd reworn a coat as well. Don't pretend she could ever do anything you would be positive about.

OMG -- I shop at TJMaxx and Target. I would LOVE for MM to show frugality in her clothing choices for more than one or two occasions. THAT would impress me.

How tacky.

Not really. Nice try!

Um, actually yes. A duchess showing up to a charity event for unemployed women in clothes from Target or TJ Maxx is basically the dictionary definition of tacky. It would be condescending and nasty, too.

Anonymous wrote:She was making them look bad. She’s coming in like a savior of the people, like an American politician would do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

I read your post, but let's be honest. You would have criticized her if she'd reworn a coat as well. Don't pretend she could ever do anything you would be positive about.

OMG -- I shop at TJMaxx and Target. I would LOVE for MM to show frugality in her clothing choices for more than one or two occasions. THAT would impress me.

How tacky.

Not really. Nice try!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

I read your post, but let's be honest. You would have criticized her if she'd reworn a coat as well. Don't pretend she could ever do anything you would be positive about.

OMG -- I shop at TJMaxx and Target. I would LOVE for MM to show frugality in her clothing choices for more than one or two occasions. THAT would impress me.

How tacky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

I read your post, but let's be honest. You would have criticized her if she'd reworn a coat as well. Don't pretend she could ever do anything you would be positive about.

OMG -- I shop at TJMaxx and Target. I would LOVE for MM to show frugality in her clothing choices for more than one or two occasions. THAT would impress me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So MM's $500,000 extravagant clothing purchases are made up? The resignation of ANOTHER senior aide, this time her top protection officer, are MADE UP?


https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/duchess-meghans-bodyguard-quits-after-less-than-a-year/

Aides quit all the time. And her budget is not unusual for a royal. It's just that it's played up for bad press. You are being manipulated by the palace press machine. Try using independent thought.

And you're saying this in the US after all of the "fake news" stories? No one knows what to believe any longer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

You know the outfit you are carping about included two pieces that were re-worn - the maternity dress she wore to a previously unannounced visit to a patronage (KP later posted the photo) and shoes that she owned before she met Harry? You didn't note those things, or the other pieces she wore from her previous life.

http://meghansmirror.com/

Where is there evidence that this is not a new coat or purse?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief. You really think that Prince Harry is not socially adept enough to notice the traits of a narcissist? You think he went out of his way to find and marry a person with a major personality disorder? I don't.

I think that Meghan has overcome a lot in her life, including some dysfunction in her family growing up. She has learned to put distance between herself and the people who bring her down - not because she's cold but as a way of survival. She wouldn't have gotten where she is today if she had allowed herself to get pulled into the mire.

She and Harry clearly love each. I think that a palace insider is telling tales because the tabloids are paying for dirt.

Oh good grief, Charlie Brown! Many brilliant people get sucked into a narc's life. They get stuck working for them; they stay stuck in marriages for many reasons - children being number 1.

I mentioned upthread that narcs are created. If her childhood & family patterns were a mess, those behaviors could have easily flipped a switch in her.

LOL at the part in bold! Narcs climb all the f-ing time! They will distance themselves from anyone who is viewed as a blemish. anyone . . .

Love is fleeting in these cases. Harry may THINK he's in love, but if she continues on with true narc behavior, he's out.

Harry had his pick of women. He chose someone with an independent streak who can weather being in the public eye and under intense internal scrutiny. Meghan has a strong sense of self and she is self reliant, not easily cowed into doing what others want her to do. She has learned to be that way in order to survive. That is not the same thing as being a narcissist.

Harry is too arrogant himself to be putting up with a narcissist. He loves that Meghan loves him because she isn't the type to give her heart to just anyone and he absolutely adores her right back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So MM's $500,000 extravagant clothing purchases are made up? The resignation of ANOTHER senior aide, this time her top protection officer, are MADE UP?


https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/duchess-meghans-bodyguard-quits-after-less-than-a-year/

Aides quit all the time. And her budget is not unusual for a royal. It's just that it's played up for bad press. You are being manipulated by the palace press machine. Try using independent thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

I read your post, but let's be honest. You would have criticized her if she'd reworn a coat as well. Don't pretend she could ever do anything you would be positive about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and there is this gem:

https://www.marieclaire.com/fashion/a25841580/meghan-markle-surprise-royal-visit/



Meghan visits her new patronage, SmartWorks, an organization to help unemployed women with interview clothing and skills. Tone-deaf MM shows up wearing an Oscar de la Renta coat and accessories costing nearly $4000.

so obnoxious

And if she hadn't dressed nicely you and Will's proxy whisperers in the press would be complaining about how insulting it was that she didn't dress nicely.

MM could rewear an outfit, especially a coat, every now and then, you know. High street fashion (mass market brands from a store like Macy's) don't cost a fortune and would have been more appropriate in this instance. It doesn't take a lot of money to dress well, look nice and know your audience.

I repeat, she is tone-deaf. Especially since the British public is critical of her extravagant clothing choices.

There is literally nothing she could wear that you would not criticize her for.

Did you even read my post? Re-wearing a coat for this occasion would have been appropriate. Wearing a store brand/mass market brand would have worked. No, she wants to always promote some new brand. So obnoxious, as some other PP wrote.

You know the outfit you are carping about included two pieces that were re-worn - the maternity dress she wore to a previously unannounced visit to a patronage (KP later posted the photo) and shoes that she owned before she met Harry? You didn't note those things, or the other pieces she wore from her previous life.

http://meghansmirror.com/

Anonymous wrote:So many assumptions.