Harry & Meghan will marry in May 2018

Harry & Meghan will marry in May 2018

Kensington Palace announced the month and location of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle‘s wedding. The couple will marry at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in May 2018.

In KP’s statement to the public, they said:

“The marriage of Hig Royal Higness Prince Henry of Wales and Ms. Meghan Markle will take place at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle in May, 2018. Her Majesty The Queen has granted permission for the wedding to take place at the Chapel. The Royal Family will pay for the wedding. Further details about the wedding will be announced in due course.”

KP/Jason Knauf also issued remarks to the press, saying:

“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are extremely grateful for the warm public response following yesterday’s announcement of their engagement. In a happy moment in their lives, it means a great deal to them that so many people throughout the UK, the Commonwealth, and around the world are celebrating with them.

“The couple are delighted to be able to announce that their wedding will be held in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle in May next year. As with all members of The Royal Family, Windsor is a very special place for Prince Harry and he and Ms. Markle have regularly spent time there over the last year and a half. They are grateful to The Queen for granting permission for the use of the Chapel. The Chapel itself have centuries of Royal tradition and hosted the weddings of many members of The Royal Family. Prince Harry and Ms. Markle are delighted that the beautiful grounds of Windsor Castle will be where they begin their lives together as a married couple.

“The couple of course want the day to be a special, celebratory moment for their friends and family. They also want the day to be shaped so as to allow members of the public to feel part of the celebrations too and are currently working through ideas for how this might be achieved. This wedding, like all weddings, will be a moment of fun and joy that will reflect the characters of the Bride and Groom.

“Prince Harry and Ms. Markle are leading the planning process for all aspects of the wedding. We look forward to sharing these details with you in the months ahead as decisions are made. As was the case with the wedding of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, The Royal Family will pay for the core aspects of the wedding, such as the church service, the associated music, flowers, decorations, and the reception afterwards.”

Some additional information about Meghan’s move to the UK and her joining the BRF:

  • Meghan rehomed her dog Bogart with close friends in Canada and he will not be joining her in the UK. Meghan kept her dog Guy, who is currently with her in the UK.
  • After her wedding, Meghan will join the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry as a patron.
  • Meghan will give up all of her current charity patronages, but expects to continue with similar interests.
  • Engagement portraits are going to be released at some point, but they have not been taken yet.
  • Meghan will go through the process of becoming a UK citizen. It is unclear whether she will give up her US citizenship.
  • Meghan will be baptized and confirmed into the Church of England before the wedding.

KP also announced that Harry and Meghan’s first official engagements together as a couple will take place this Friday when they visit Nottingham.

Harry and Meghan will begin their day with a civic welcome at the National Justice Museum, followed by a walkabout. The couple will then visit Nottingham Contemporary where they will join a celebration for World AIDS Day. They will then visit Full Effect at Nottingham Academy where they will meets Full Effect partners.

KP said Harry “is looking forward to introducing Ms. Markle to a community that has become very special to him”, and that Meghan “cannot wait to meet many of the young people Prince Harry has told her so much about”.

Unfortunately for me, these engagements will take place on a day where I will be fully busy with Swedish royal baptism coverage over on Kate Middleton Review, so my coverage here of the Nottingham engagements may be delayed.

Here’s a cute video of Harry and Meghan after their interview. The mics had been cut off by this point, so there is no sound.

Oh, here are some pap photos of Harry going to the gym.

One last thing: I want to remind everyone to please be polite – polite to each other and polite to the royals, both Meghan and Kate.

People have differing opinions, and that’s great, but we don’t need to be hostile to each other when discussing them. And we don’t need to be hostile to either Meghan or Kate. Yes, neither Meghan nor Kate reads this or my other blog, but WE have to read these comments, and when the tone is incredibly negative it makes it not fun. Both this and Kate Middleton Review are supposed to be fun. Yes, we comment negatively about certain things we dislike or are disappointed in, but we don’t have to be hateful when commenting about the royals and we don’t have to be hateful to each other when our opinions differ. Thank you.

440 thoughts on “Harry & Meghan will marry in May 2018

  1. Two things that I don’t love: 1.) Meghan left one of her dogs in Canada? I’m certain there’s a good reason there, but that’s really sad. 2.) So they’re roping her into the Royal Foundation with William and Kate. Can’t say that I’m surprised, and neither Meghan nor Harry has control over this decision methinks. But how desperate does this make the Cambridge look? I feel disappointed, I wanted to watch Meghan shine on her own with Harry. The wattage would be intense.

    Otherwise, so looking forward to this wedding! I love that Meghan goes by Ms. Markle, rather than Miss (thanks Herazeus for pointing that out!). And even though Meghan is having to drop all of her current charities, I’m excited to see how she chooses her new ones. Women’s rights is a cause for which she has been a strong champion – if she’s having to join the wordy foundation, let’s see both her *and* Kate dive into this issue.

    Love ♡! A royal couple that I’m actually excited about! Hip hip hooray!

    1. We have no idea whose decision it was to include Meghan in the Royal Foundation, so I don’t think it makes the Cambridges look desperate at all since we have no idea if they were the ones behind that decision. For all we know, Meghan made that choice.

      1. I think it’ll be entirely too weird if Meghan was not included in the foundation especially if Harry is in it and doesn’t look like he’s going to leave. After all, he has invested time and effort to some of the foundation’s work – heads together and coach core. I’m just really curious what the name is going to be because they gotta rename the foundation right?

        1. My guess on the name, which will make it even worse to have to type out fully: The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of [Harry’s dukedom].

          1. It will now be the Royal Foundation of the really really long name now?

            And, thank you MMR for your last paragraph in this post. I totally agree with your comment.

    2. Yup, Weatherby, they’ve roped her into the Foundation of Keenness. The Borg are assimilating her; resistance was never an option.

      If Harry has no control over the decision regarding it, then he is merely a cypher and minion and not much of a man. I’d rather believe he agreed to this and so did Meghan, because, really, Harry does what he’s told. Not the kind of man I would want to marry.

      But damn, Meghan really has mega star shine, and I think that’s all any of them want from her. Harry has found his version of Diana.

      ETA: With the dog thing, I can’t even.

      1. Maven, I’m thinking that Bogart might have health issues and/or is elderly so that relocation and all it entails would be detrimental to his well-being. If that is the case it is kinder to re-home him, though it would kill me to be in that position.

        1. I don’t disagree with that, Jen. But in the interview I would have mentioned how my heart breaks that he was too frail to come with me. The actual response also suggests to me a total lack of spontaneity and the importance of the script. The alternate would have been so heartfelt and sympathetic.

          1. Yes, people have wondered about Bogart, so you’re right, better to be upfront about the dog’s health and that the best advice was to keep him in Canada where he can out his days without any stress etc. Maybe Meghan didn’t think people would pick up on that – not to be critical, but just out of concern for Bogart’s welfare and also how his companion dog was coping without him. We all love our pets as family members so these type of decisions touch us all.

          2. Meghan,

            No animal lover would have ripped her apart for the truth. Unless it was unacceptable which I can’t imagine in this case.

          3. Is it possible that one of the dogs was a joint custody with the ex boyfriend? Since a health issue wasn’t specifically mentioned, I am leaning toward that situation.

      2. Maybe they can build a bespoke car that can make space for four people to sit behind. I can see all three of them smiling and waving at the press, while William is frumpy and grumpy.

        1. I can see Kate and Meghan smiling at the press while Harry stares off in the distance and William pouts.

      3. I think Harry and Meghan will eventually inherit this Foundation as Will and Kate move up the heir chain. When Charles becomes King and William Prince of Wales – the Prince’s Trust will need a new figurehead.

  2. I dislike that Meghan is going to join the Foundation of Keeness. She and Harry need to do their own thing and stat.

    I am also severely disappointed that this will not be a Westminster Abbey wedding with pomp and circumstance, a drive down the Mall and a balcony kiss. This is not a royal wedding at all.

    1. Me too on both fronts! I just hope the wedding is televised because we have our party planned already!

        1. Right?! Oooh wedding viewing party! I wonder if someone could set up a chatroom or something on the day of the wedding so that we all could be “together” in real time commenting and observing. That would be so much fun!

          1. I am technically not-upper-savvy but my husband works for one of the giant tech companies here in the US. I’ll ask him. Maybe a FB live chat?

  3. Why is she converting? There’s no requirement for it. I find that really bizarre. I’m not imagining she has any real reason to do it other than she was told she would, like Kate was Confirmed before the wedding for no real reason either. (No, I don’t believe either of them would be sincere making that decision when it’s clearly associated with the wedding, when they don’t even NEED to be Confirmed to be married in an Anglican church. Sounds like a requirement from HM.)

    I’m disappointed it won’t be a big wedding but I don’t think Harry wanted that at all. It’ll be interesting to see how Windsor copes, it’s not a big place at all.

    I also don’t like they are joining under the Royal Foundation umbrella. What a mess that’ll be. M&H will be even more subservient to W&K than I’d imagined. And any work they do, W&K get to take credit for.

    1. Kate’s husband and Meghan’s father(and brother)-in-law will be the head of the Church of England; I think it’s best they are officially apart of the church.

      I think it’s nice they’ll have some joint engagements but Meghan is free to start doing work with her own patrons. No one will stop her from doing engagements; it’s all up to the individual.

      1. What I find is weird is reading how she was baptized Episcopalian? Then she would NOT be required to be baptized, and no conversion either because the Episcopal Church is still under the Anglican umbrella (I think they will be kicked out soon, and rightly so imo but that’s for another time lol). Heck, even baptized Catholic she wouldn’t need to be baptized. It seems like a requirement from HM.

        I do wonder if it means a lot to Harry as there’s talk he is out of the brothers the religious one who does attend church whereas William and Kate never go and don’t care.

        1. That’s interesting, Ellie. I’ve never heard anything about Harry being religious (or comparatively so). I’m curious where you’ve heard that.

        2. I have read that she converted to Judaism for her first wedding. That might explain the need for a baptism and not just a confirmation.

    2. Megan’s decision is even more momentous, since she is being baptized as well as confirmed. Am I correct that her baptism implies that she has never been baptized in any church? My church (Lutheran) recognizes all baptisms, no matter the denomination. I presume that the Cof E would, too. Also the baptism and confirmation would be one ceremony for an adult, would it not? I hope some of you CofE members will enlighten me.

  4. Waity isn’t going to dive into anything with Meghan. Trust. There may be a show of superficial support from The Duchess of Doolittle, but that is as far as it goes.

    Meghan will be better off looking to Sophie or Camilla for support.

    1. Kate will most likely be warm and welcoming to Meghan. It seems like she and Harry have a genuinely close relationship. She seems to have a warm relationship with Sophie.

      In my opinion Kate sees her public role as a support to William. She doesn’t deviate from this and that’s ok (to me at least). Meghan seems like she will be more comfortable comanding a public role that is more equal to Harry. Nothing is wrong with that, either. They are very different women with very different comfort levels.

      It is worth considering that now is the time in Kate’s life that she doesn’t have to work full time. With the DOE retiring there is an expectation that she work more, and she is, but she’s still not at the point where she needs to. When her husband becomes the Prince of Wales she will have a more full time role. And that will continue until she’s well past retirement age.

      Kate is my favorite royal but Meghan seems like she will be fun to watch, too.

      1. Kate has no female friends outside of her family. She doesn’t “do” women friends. And she’ll never work fulltime. She was so keen to hit the ground running and after 6 years is barely walking. I don’t think anyone here realistically expects her to pick up a fuller load down the road. They’ve already said they don’t want the bread & butter engagements. There will be less work for them in the future, not more.

        1. Cathrine does have female friends from college. Her and William were college roommates so a lot of their friends overlap but she does have them.

          1. Not anymore. She pretty much dumped anyone if they weren’t useful in her quest to bag William. I think the last time she saw some friend was years and years ago. She’s never seen socializing with anyone, not with the people they’ve asked to be godparents of their children, nothing. It is all very weird, but people comment on this–people in their circle–so it’s not made up. Kate is only devoted to Pippa and her mum I think insofar as women in her life.

          2. Name one. One the off chance that you have one name, give me two. I’ve been following this woman for, what, six or seven years now, and I can’t recall a single instance of Kate being photographed in a personal, friendly, causal interaction with a woman she wasn’t related to or that works for her. The poster above is right, Kate doesn’t “do” female friends. She spent too long viewing every woman around her as competition for The Ring.

          3. Devil’s advocate: We don’t see 100% of their lives. Kate could very well have friends and hang out with them in private. Just because we don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Case in point, Harry and Meghan’s relationship – they clearly saw each other WAY more than we knew and saw if they saw each other every two weeks and they spent a ton of time with Harry’s family and at Windsor Castle. Lots of us were saying they barely spent any real time together based on what information we saw, but they clearly spent way more time together than we knew, and we didn’t see it because they did it in private.

            Also devil’s advocate: Just because we don’t know the names of their friends does’t mean they don’t have them. Harry has a ton of private friends that we don’t know the names of.

          4. KMR, I’ll grant you that we don’t see all of their lives. But she’s been in the public eye for how long? And we’ve never gotten even one hint of any close female friends? Wouldn’t she be attending their weddings? Like William and Harry do with their friends?

            Who knows? She *might* have a friend, but I wouldn’t put a single penny on that bet.

          5. KMR: For various reasons, i was always aware of Kate. Did truly start paying attention to her until the wedding, but she was there as W’s long term girlfriend.

            All that to say that there is a long public record of ant female friends she has or doesn’t have.

            She once had them. And dropped them. Their wedding guestlist is all William’s friends even if listed as friends of the couple. You dig further and realise that they all have deep connections to William rather than Kate.

            It’s actually one of the reasons i give William the benefit of the doubt occasionally. He has maintained friendships since his early childhood. Regardless of why those people are his friends, *he* remains friends with them for several decades.

            Kate had one friend (gender not important) who had no connection to William who looked like she might have survived the cull, but the last time they were seen together was early during Kate’s first pregnancy. Here they are in Hyde Park, the last time they were photographed together in February 2013.

            Previously, they had last been papped in January 2012 at cirque soleil.

            Infact, i was rather surprised that she wasn’t named a godparent because she appeared to have survived the cull.

            Instead Emilia was named a godparent and we all know she grew up with William and introduced Kate to him.

        2. Which of the current Queens or Queens to be has a well known big circle of female friends? There are two or three where we have some “proof” but these are the exception. But please, feel free to name those friends for me. A high profile makes it harder to find true friends and sadly sometimes old ones show that they haven’t been true friends after all. We have no idea if Kate doesn’t like women or if she has female friends that keep a very low profile or if she would love to have female friends but hasn’t met the right people / has a hard time making friends. Heck, does Meghan has a bff we know about? Do we know about the true bffs of most stars? If those friends aren’t part of the media circus we have no clue about them.

          1. If you mean the Queen and Camilla, they both have a large circle of female friends. In the Queen’s case many include her cousins, but there are many other women with whom she formed long friendships.
            Camilla also has a large circle of friends that she has maintained for decades.

          2. As an introvert who has a hard time making friends, I have a very small circle of friends in general and a very small circle of female friends. So while I understand the assumption that Kate ditched her friends for William, I am starting to wonder why we are judging someone’s worth by the amount of friends they have. HM and Camilla aren’t better people because they have more friends than Kate.

          3. The original statement was that Kate sees other women as competition, looks to have no female friends, generally lacks curiosity about and interest in others, and therefore is not likely to treat Meghan well or become buddies with her. This has nothing whatsoever to do with worth.

      2. Kate has many female friends, some of which are her childrens’ god parents. She is private and always has been so it’s no surprise that the public doesn’t know everything about her. Remember that Kate and Meghan are different people, one is extrovert and the other introvert.

        1. This shows an ignorance of introversion/extroversion. The comment is simply not true, nor are things so black and white. It’s another excuse for Kate’s disinterest in humanity and indifference to forming close female bonds beyond her family.

          As an aside: considering how much the woman shops, one would expect after all these years to see a female friend hanging with her. Nope.

        2. How do people know if Meghan is an introvert or extrovert? Or even Kate? Why are comparisons, assumptions or judgments of character being made of people that y’all barely know but just see in pictures here and there? Can one’s personality or character be told/known by just looking at a few picture in magazines?

        3. Uh when I look at the godparents I see 99% William friends/family. One token kate cousin and the person she went to Marlborough with. So don’t think that’s a good gauge of her friends.

          1. Sarah, that person she went to Marlborough with is William’s friend. Emilia grew up with William and Harry. As teens, Emilia was seen so often with one or the other especially Harry that people thought they were dating.

            She is responsible for introducing Kate to William. Given CM’s known strategy of ensuring her daughters only cultivated useful to her agenda friends, it’s not farfetched to see why Kate befriended this particular person or why the friendship was maintained or why she was rewarded with godparent.

          2. Ha! Let’s make that 99.9% William then! I’m surprised she got the token cousin! It’ll be interesting to see who’s baby #3s who’s left of William’s friends?

          3. I wonder if they’ll ask Harry, Peter Phillips, Beatrice, Eugenie or even Louise Wessex (I know that she’s 14 years old but still). I wonder if they’ll ask another Spencer cousin too.

      3. Sarah1: with respect, everything you’ve just said is not true. It’s not even official PR talking points used by the edtablishment to gaslight the public into accepting whatever the Palace wants the public to believe.

        It is a collection of theories that was cooked up by very sugary fans to justify Kate’s poor work ethic and all the ways she has disappointed everyone.

        It’s repeated so often that people regurgitate it as fact and there is no basis for it beyond the fertile imagination of the fans.

        To wit, every royal since Queen Mary has said publicly that the family need to work. Position in the damily is irrelevant.

        Queen Mary to a lower tier royal trying to wriggle out of a visit,’ We love hospitals, and we are never tired’

        Queenmother,’ Work is the rent we pay for our life’ (paraphrasing)

        Charles, Anne, Edward, Andrew (at various times, worded differently, but the same sentiment that i’m paraphrasing), ‘there is no manual. You have to figure it out yourself.

        Every Royal since forever,’ I have to be seen to be believed’ (various royals)

        Charles,’public indifference is the death of monarchy.’ (Paraphrasing)

        The Prince of Wales title has substance because Charles turned it into one. He is the first POW in history to turn his title into something of substance. The only other notable POW to have given his title meaning is Frederick, son of George 2. His contribution was political and gave the world the concept of ‘government loyal opposition’ that enabled politicians to disagree with govt without being seen as treasonous traitors. What we now see as opposition parties.

        Beyond that, every POW has been a party prince. Charles could have followed his predecesdors and partied and vacationed as he waited. George 4 and Edward 7 waited 60+yrs and partied the entire time. Charles chose not to go that route. And i don’t think Queen Mary, the QueenMother AND Philip would have allowed him to turn into a party prince.

        Kate is waiting to be PssoW to start working. Ditto William. What part of their history shows they would do this? They already have a title and have done sod all with it. It has no substance. Actually, i lie. The previous Duchess of Cambridge, mother of Queen Mary was known for her charity work. That’s the legacy she left to history. An obscure member of the royal family no less.

        Regarding Kate, as a GF she told us she was waiting to be an official member of the royal family in order to work. Then at her wedding she told us that she was waiting to settle into her marriage in order to work. And every year, usually bi-annually, we get that risible article that THIS time, she is filling her diary and is going to work, work,work……followed by crickets.

        So i repeat, what in her history makes you think she’ll start working when she’s PssOW?

        William will need another gap year to decide how to be POW before an excuse is found as to why he can’t carry out more duties or show the same level of dedication as his father OR his brother.

        There are lower tier royals who will never get the top job, who work harder than these two cheshire cats.

        As for inability to work with children, i give you Sophie. A woman who managed to combine a full time job with royal duties in her first year, had 3 very difficult pregnancies of which only 2 went to term, and one nearly killed her and baby was in ICU for 6wks post-birth and Sophie hours away from death. Yet still managed more engagements that same year than Kate has ever done in any given year.

        Expecting DOE to work so hard at his advanced age is elder abuse and it shows the lack of decency these 2 people have that they can watch their older family members work and don’t volunteer to ease their burden until it is forced upon them. All the older royals have been forced to retire due to poor health, from Kent to DoE and these two have not shown any empathy to ease their burden. Infact, William, in his EAAA interview, said he was perfectly fine with all the elders working at royal duties whilst he did his thing. He also said in that interview that he intended to be a part-time King. Something Harry touched upon in his newsweek interview where he said William’s monarchy would have very little work because they had no intention of working like the current lot.

        Meanwhile, Philip said in 2012 he would have liked to retire that year, but the younger members weren’t stepping up and so he could not.

        Ditto Charles said William and Harry flatout refused to take on the Prince’trust. Understandable for Harry because he set up Sentebale as a 19yr old, and has been a very active patron of WWTW, Help for Heroes and Wellchild. Then he set up IG. He even works harder on William’s declared interest, Conservation.

        It’s obvious to see that if it all went away, only William and Kate would have nothing to do because they have no interest in working and apparently no passions that aren’t about their pleasures.

        Kate, specifically, has shown no inclination to work at all. Even as a girlfriend. She told her then employer of the only job she ever held that she would work only if she had as much time off as possible to maintain her relationship with William and could leave her job at any time if he called her. The job offered her 3 days a week which swiftly became 2 days a week and her workmates complaining that she was both never at the job nor committed to it because she was always away with Willuam or consumed by him even at work.

        At every turn, excuses are made for her lacking work ethic, just as excuses are made for William’s poor work ethic.

        As Maya Angelou once said,” When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” A sentiment Kate fans should take on board because she will never increase her work volume and that is something i’m confident in saying based upon her history and actions. 15yrs of showing us exactly who she is.

        1. One of the things that I really appreciate about you, Hera, is that your critiques of The Cambridge’s, and to an extent of Harry, are always based in reported, verifiable fact. Some of the criticisms that I have at times bristled at are things based on conjecture or third or fourth hand intel. But you back your assertions up, both with historical precedent or with information that can be actually sourced. It has certainly taken the sheen off of them for me, and I’m now firmly in the critical camp. But the ad hominem attacks or, “Well, I Think this must be therefore it is” is something that can still be hard for me to give credence. (Though I have gained an affection for many of those posters, in part because several of them are quite witty.) But I feel like I learn at lot from you, and this last post is an excellent example of that.

        2. Excellent summation based on actual occurrences and reported quotes. It is tiresome to read people constantly excusing sheer laziness and selfishness of the Cambridge’s disinterest in anything but the pursuit of their own pleasure.

          1. You guys are too kind. I’m blushing over here.

            I take your love and give it right back to all of you. 🤗🤗🤗

        3. Herazeus, all your posts are much appreciated. And of course you back them up with evidence, brava chicca.

        4. I am afraid I do not agree with this assessment of the Cambrideges at all.
          I am glad and grateful that Kate is concentrating on giving her husband and family a stable & caring home, and that she is a primary factor in rebuilding the public respect for the royal family after the drama brought on by the ego centric behavior of the Cornwalls. In this Kate has single Handels achieved an enormous task for the royal family and her country.
          Prince of Wales is the last person of whom we could boast of as having self-sacrificingly done his duty, though I do respect him for his work on sustainability.
          Kate is a home body and if she is a domesticated woman rather than a woman more involved with the world outside, then she has the right to be herself. There are millions of women in the western world who have made that choice and are fulfilling it well, and are giving back to the society useful young citizens while fulfilling their own inner needs.
          I am a 3G professional woman but I never expect that all other women be the same as myself. Freedom of choice for women also means the freedom to choose a traditional role as well as a non traditional one.
          I adored Princess Diana and have not forgiven those who hurt her. Nevertheless after seeeing how Kate is navigating an arena totally foreign to her where she was (is?) ridiculed by the aristocratic circle of her husband’s crowd (which Lady Di wasn’t at the start as she was one of the aristocrats), and is putting all her efforts on making a success of the marital responsibility she took on, I wish Princess Di had been a ‘cleverer’ wife. Kate is still managing to keep her critics at bay while keeping her marriage a success and is giving Prince William the family life he never had. After all that is her main responsibility as a wife (though not as a woman). We need him to be a stable character unlike his father who almost wrecked all the good work of his mother the Queen because of his emotional insufficiencies. Everyone including church fathers thought so and it is even now a toss up if Duchess of Cornwall is completely accepted. But that is topic for another day.

          Kate employs no chef & has much fewer staff, and they have very much less income than the former Wales and the present Cornwalls. They have only Prince William’s salary and some expense rebates – no vast Duchy income. If Cambridges take on more duties they are beholden to the Cornwalls for clothes allowances etc. In the first years of marriage when Kate did a lot of work and became very popular, in a move similar to what befell Princess Di, Prince Charles’ office put out Kate’s clothes bill to the public. After that exposure Kate even recycled a dress of her mother’s to an official engagement in a silent rebuke, and then that clothes horse game stopped. Now we see Camilla dressed to kill and no expenses are spared. And no expenses are given out. How many engagemenus does she take on? Mark Bollard who was made Private Secretary to PoW (recommended by Camilla to further her cause after ’87) later called Camilla the “laziest woman in the British Isles”!! Even before the Cornwall marriage the divorced Mrs Parker Bowles’ household costs were borne by the Taxpayer & the Duchy surreptitiously! Former Private Secretary to Diana Princess of Wales wrote a newspaper article about this.
          There are other clear reasons for the Cambridges to steer clear of complicating theirs and their young children’s lives by engaging too much with Cornwall court.
          I believe the Princes love their father but that they have mixed emotions about scaffolding a system which in the very minimum damaged their mother’s and their own lives. They, therefore, do their own thing, and keep their distance as much as possible while also protecting the family connection. Indeed that is the only way the family relationship could be saved, and it seems to have worked. Afterall the brief separation of Kate & Wills was also due to the Cornwall court – we cannot forget that.
          The purported ‘accidental’ successful meeting between a teenager William and Camilla a year after his mother’s tragic death was carefully orchestrated, and carefully planted in the newspapers which angered the young prince at that time. There are online articles & reports by the PoW office staff of those days that tell this truth, and that he insisted on knowing how a private meeting at home got leaked to the press, saying William ‘accepted’ Camilla.
          PoW tried to get William to agree to his marriage to Camilla 2 months before Diana’s death which William had resisted – soon it was not needed anymore.

          Diana’s boys are boys no longer and they are not playing the game as the others who damaged their lives want; but they are decent, courageous and loving enough not to rock the boat. Their strength, in this task on the knife edge, is Kate – the wife, and the sister.
          The young Princes are also not egoistically & emotinally dependant on a Royal future, unlike the ‘I am the next-king’ take of the PoW. They are educated and can envisage a life beyond being Royal – which Prince Harry recently alluded to. They have trained themselves and are ready and willing to do their duty if and when the time comes, but that glamour is not the sole focus of their lives. Who can blame them – they who have personally seen and experienced to what depths that focus can bring normal humans to.
          Kate need achieve no other superficial and extraneous hand shaking task when she has done her bit in this most fundamental of family (and therefore the social building block) task. All strength to her, I say!

    2. Leah, I don’t know if you saw my comment on the previous post, so I will restate it here: Please stop using the term ‘Waity’.

      1. Can you add this to the list as well: Mattress, Duchess Dolittle, Cannot, and any names regarding her weight.

        1. +1 is it true, is it necessary, is it kind and does it improve the conversation? something I fail to aspire to often but try to remind myself 😉
          Critical thinking, not withstanding.

          1. Is it true… and necessary..and kind… and improves the conversation? Ugh, if something is honest and blunt it not always is ‘kind’. Kind and ‘what not’ is highly subjective, and it is established on the interpretation of the recipient and is always, and exclusively, the responsibility of the sender(voice).

            Tone policing is never an effective encouragement of discourse.

        2. I totally object to that. KMR does not need the workload and I don’t want micromanaging to that extent. If I’m not able to judge for myself what is socially acceptable language in a community then I shouldn’t be here at all. Context and tone is everything. I don’t need a checklist of phrases I can use before hitting the send button and you will destroy this community if you start policing it to that extent.

          KMR has drawn her line in the sand and that should be enough.

          1. Authoritarianism is not a good look. Yes, it’s guaranteed to destroy a country or a free thinking community.

          2. Brava Mrs BBV.

            I can see why ‘Mattress’ upsets people, ‘Waity’ is factually correct, but as KMR/ MMR has requested that we do not use it, therefore we comply.

            …but Duchess dolittle, Cannot are also factually correct and actually witty and rhymes without impuning Kate’s person. These are her actions rather than who she is. Light years away from ‘mattress’. A witty way of pointing out the truth of her actions.

            William is frequently called ‘Willnot’, ‘Normal Bill’ or ‘Bill Middleton’ based upon his own actions. He turns down events, wants to be normal and has ditched his own family for the Middletons.

            Nothing cruel in pointing that out.

          3. The one thing that I would say, Maven, is that it would help the discourse if someone with a positive viewpoint wasn’t made fun of or criticized. It is not uncommon for posters who still see Kate through rosy glasses to be dog piled or called trolls. They can have their feelings, too, and shouldn’t call you out on really detesting Kate. But it goes both ways. I have learned to see the wit behind your comments (I think it was you who called it the Foundation of Keenness above?) But it took me time on the blog to see past the vitriol and I initially threw out your assertions because you attacked me. Your posts have over time helped me see W&K’s true colors. But I would have bought on earlier if I hadn’t been severely criticized every time I asked a question about the validity of a claim or made a comment that was counter to a poster who had already seen through the KP crap.

  5. I finally googled and saw the inside of the Chapel and think it’s gorgeous! Here’s hoping they don’t choose any shubbery to decorate it with!
    Side note-yay swedes and baby sashes, little chairs and hopefully high energy Leonore! I’ll be bummed if Madeleine and her fam don’t make it

      1. I am still plus/minus on the trees. I think she was trying to soften what she viewed as an intimidating size and features. Walking down that giant aisle would terrify me. But I can see how not appreciating the organic nature would grate on someone. For me it was the idea of Jo Malone candles. That was serious overkill.

    1. The chapel is a stunner. I doubt we’ll be seeing the interior.

      As for paying for part of the wedding- does the BRF always announce that? I’m guessing that’s pretty minor compared to logistics, planning, PR, and security. It’s like the fam rents the hall and pays for the cakes while the really expensive stuff is paid for by the taxpayers who will only be given a peek. If it will not be televised, they need to be upfront about that.

      1. Yep, my thoughts went to the cost of security and logistics. All a bit of a smokescreen not to be upfront about the full costs of a public wedding.

      2. Lauri and I were talking about this on the other post. For WK they said they would pay “their share” which I find ambiguous. I then wondered if they chipped in for OT that accrued for all the security that was needed. I’m going to assume no on the last pt.

        1. I think it’s a solid “no” on that, Sarah. And likely there were lots of other expenses that fell into the “Well, we shouldn’t have to pay for that category.

          Maven: a couple of reporters have said it will be televised so I’m crossing my fingers? I hope the Queen will put her foot down on that one.

    2. I love St George’s it really is beautiful. They are not getting anything less by marrying there.

      1. Different, not less. It lacks some of the grandeur but to me, that would be a pleasant trade-off. I remember watching W&K’s wedding and thinking that the huge high ceilings and the enormous walk down the aisle would terrify me if I was the bride.

    1. I thought it would be St. George’s since he is the second son. Anyone else old enough to remember the criticism Andrew and Sarah received by having the big wedding?

      Especially, with HM and Phillip at their age, and apparently PP is there most of the time, it seems like a considerate decision.

      I am looking forward to seeing what tiara Meghan will wear. With Kate wearing the Halo (did I remember it correctly?), what could Meghan wear on the day that would not be bigger or the same tiara, since Kate married the heir.

      It seems odd, but could she borrow the Spencer family tiara as a way to keep Diana a part of the day, and not have to worry about the size of the tiara from the BRF.

      1. G.

        Meghan would not be able to wear the Spencer tiara seeing as A) it belongs within the Spencer family and B) there is some bad blood between W+H and Earl Spencer so asking him if they can borrow it would be awkward. The next in line to wear the Spencer tiara would be one of the Earl’s three elder daughters: Kitty, Eliza or Amelia.

      2. There is no rule that the heir’s wife has to wear the biggest tiara or jewels in the vault or others can’t wear a tiara bigger than hers.

        It’s clear by now that Kate likes small understated jewels and is uncomfortable with bigger jewels. It makes sense that she chose the smallest tiara because that is her style.

        For similar reasons, Meghan can wear big jewels if she chooses and let’s hope she doesn’t develop a liking for kikis.

    2. Omg, Leah, yes! Wouldn’t he be so adorable with a wreath around his neck? It will never happen but Inlove the image.

      1. I didn’t know things were awkward between Harry and the Spencer’s. They seemed to put on a good show of saying hello at W&K’s wedding. So much for my idea.

        1. It’s one of those relationships that happens when family is dysfunctional (generations of alcoholism, domineering, etc). When Diana and Charles’ marriage was totally fractured she asked her brother if she could stay at Althorpe for a bit and he wrote a scathing letter back telling her she had too many problems. Her sisters were older, their parents divorced, and recriminations happened along the way. But there was still enough warmth that the kids formed relationships, and after D died they tried to watch out for the boys. Harry in particular stayed close.

    1. Probably just a car back to the castle. Five minutes or so, not even. Probably no parade route through Windsor but that would be cool if they did.

    2. Time to lower your expectations, Corgi. The BRF can’t afford an open carriage as they are paying for it. (sarcastic joke).

      It’s a good question. But I’m feeling the “modern” in the modernisation of royalty- a car to the chapel, an open car back to the reception. Quickly.

      At Windsor, I would love it if they walked to the chapel. Hear that, BRF and HM? That would be really ‘pared down’ (cheap) and modern.

    3. Corgi – Edward and Sophie had a carriage ride after the ceremony. Not sure how long it lasted or where they were going (back to Windsor, I guess?)…but an open carriage ride can be done.

      I actually love Maven and Ellie’s idea of walking though! I’m really curious how they will “incorporate the public” (or whatever the language was).

      I was very disappointed with the choice of St. George’s! I wanted the procession down the mall and the balcony kiss. Boo, hiss! Although I do think it’s sweet that they’ve been visiting Windsor regularly. They should be providing lessons to MI5 in incognito international travel!

      Regarding her pooch Bogart, I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt that re-homing him was the healthiest/safest decision for Bogart. She seems to love her dogs and why would she bring one but not the other if they were both able to make the trip? That doesn’t make sense to me so I’m going to assume that it was in Bogart’s best interest to stay in Toronto. IMO, that does not make her a bad person. I’m quite sure he went to a wonderful, loving home.

      1. How about a nice carpet set up for people to walk so the dress doesn’t get dirty, from the Castle to the Chapel? It’s not far! And they can engage with the public. At least do what Edward and Sophie did and have Harry and William walk with Charles or something. That’d be nice. (A show of family devotion! William would hate it!)

        A carriage ride through Windsor would be a lovely idea. Take cues from HM’s birthday ride!

      2. Maybe there still will be a balcony kiss. It will surely be paired down since he is the spare and she is divorced.

        1. What has Meghan being divorced have to do with anything? See, you can’t keep crying about negative Kate posts while you continuously post the same about Meghan!! Your continual reminders of how NOT good enough Meghan is for Harry because she is an American and an actress and is divorced adds nothing to the conversation!!!

        2. How many times do we have to remind people that the churvh of england changed their rules on divorced couples in 2002.

          15yrs!!! Do keep up.

      3. Kimothy, I can’t remember if it was Edward and Sophie’s wedding or the blessing of Charles and Camilla. They had two coaches called Windsor tours to take them to the castle.

        1. The church did change the rules but only to the extent they left it to the discretion of individual vicars. As a result, many have still been denied. It s not a given.

          If it had been a blanket change, Charles and Camilla in 2005 could have had a church service rather than a blessing, a big issue, no small matter, because he is the future head of the church. There was much discussion at the time – it was not necessarily what Charles wanted. Some still (ridiculously) question the validity of their marriage because he’s a future head of the church and the marriage was civil.

          Today more of the divorced people I know have civil services in approved licensed buildings.. But the service of blessing is lovely – because there are people upset with all the special privileges the couple are perceived as getting – which is inevitable – I would have considered a blessing. (And we could have seen a civil service outfit as well as a gown.)

          1. I don’t know where you live, but in my home county no divorcee has been refused to remarry in church and i’ve never heard of a refusal in London.

            Charles and Camilla’s marriage was PR nightmare AND constitutionally complicated and that influenced how it was conducted. The diana fanatics made it impossible for any vicar to marry them ie feeling was still so strongly in her favour that no vicar would marry them. They insisted on going through with it regardless. Though they tried to appease the public by saying Camilla’s title would be the duchess of cornwall and eventually princess consort.

            The Queen couldn’t be seen to condone their scandalous relationship especially being head of the church regardless of the civil service solution.

            And constitutional experts were furious that Charles, as future head of the church, was remarrying in a civil ceremony. There was alot of noise on whether this was constitutional even if it was legal.

            Same reasoning that delayed his inevitable divorce ie no instrument of divorce for the prince of wales and constitutional experts had to be consulted in order to allow the divorce. Likewise no instrument of remarriage in a civil ceremony for the prince of Wales.

            The compromise was to have the church blessing provided the couple offerred an apology during the blessing for the perceived fault of their actions regarding their previous marriages.

  6. A bit off topic, but I hope Meghan has a colorful bouquet. I understand it is tradition for the women/children in the wedding party to wear white/cream colors, and I think it looks beautiful. But the white/cream bouquet is a little too monochromatic for me. One does want a hint of color.

    Also, thank you MMR for staying on top of all this news,

    1. “Also, thank you MMR for staying on top of all this news”

      Thanks for reminding Jet, I would like to add my thanks to MMR as well

  7. “Oh, here are some pap photos of Harry going to the gym.”

    Well, look at that. For 18 months not a single pap shot of Harry or Meghan at the airport, or together, or Harry hitting the gym and yet, eureka- Harry going to the gym. What were the chances?

    The PR spin begins.

    1. What about the invasion of his privacy? Such… selectivity on his part.
      Yep, the PR machine is cranking up.

      1. And I saw one of him coming from the gym too, the story was on TMZ website, Harry picture had been taken by a phone camera. So, people just because you haven’t seen these pictures before doesn’t mean they are not out there. It doesn’t mean now the PR machine is in overdrive, it just proves how little we know about the people we claim to know so much about.

    2. are they meant to be unlucky if you have some colourful flowers inbetween the white or cream flowers? I hope not.

  8. I think that the Chapel is a great idea. Maybe they want a more intimate wedding. Harry being the second son to the heir and Ms. Markle being divorced. Could have played a factor. Who knows though. And I do not think we will be seeing shrubbery this time around. I do think in the statement that the RF will be paying for it was a little tacky. You might have well put in it, but do worry taxpayers you will be footing the rest of the expenses.

  9. Yeah, the part about the BRF paying for the wedding was tacky. I do hope we will see pics of Meghan with the BRF soon.

    There was talk re People magazine, that Harry could spend Xmas in LA with Meghan. I doubt that, but I do think that if Harry and Megan go to the Royal Xmas, Waity and Whiny may decide to go to Middleton Manor instead.

    1. Harry has never missed Christmas except when deployed. He wouldn’t do that. He loves his grandparents. Charles said it was so awful not having him at the holidays that year, especially as Willy ran off to be with the Middletons.

    2. The continuing use of these silly names, Waity .Whiny, etc., is immature and juvenile and more a reflection on the those who use them than those they refer to.

      1. I know Leah irks people.But I’m not seeing a substantial contribution on your part, Beth. As in….I’ve never seen one. Kinda like a troll.

        1. I’m not irked and I’m not a troll. I just do not feel the need to offer constant “substantial contribution.” If I feel strongly about something and feel like commenting, I will. Otherwise, I am content to let others show their a$$ with venomous comments.

          1. Beth is right. The names reflect much more on the name caller. There’s just no need for that level of nastiness.

          2. Beth, I have been reading KMR for ages because when they got married everyone was gushing over how she, being a commoner would change the monarchy. At the time I thought it was ridiculous. No one changes the royal family! You change for them.

            It was a fun critical blog but fair as well. In the past year it has gotten really mean. Not just about Kate but towards any poster defending anything about Kate, and anyone who says anything bad about Meghan.

        2. There is a lot of tone policing going on here and particularly of Leah, who has identified as a woman of colour. Is that just a mere coincidence?

          1. I didn’t get frustrated with Leah because she’s a WofC. In fact, I don’t know if I knew that. I got frustrated with the double standard of “Don’t criticize Megan!”’and “Let’s dump on Kate!”

            I hope that you can take this in the spirit that I mean it: I think you, and Maven, and others who really detest Kate would bring more people to your side if you didn’t attack the (ie. the poster). Call out W&K. Point out their (very abundant) flaws. But the assertion that someone is a troll or throwing out their point of view out of hand serves only to polarize the community. It took me a lot longer to start to understand and align with your viewpoints because I experienced the bullying and became defensive— and perhaps even more wanting to take up Kate’s side— rather than seeing the validity of so much of what you share.

          2. I appreciate your comment.

            I don’t actually detest Kate, but more the fact that she has wasted her platform to do something worthwhile for many years. The continual excuses and massive spending at the taxpayers expense is also grating. I also feel bad for how she gets treated by William, because he really does not treat her well. Frankly he is part of the problem but she is an adult and should at this point stand up for herself or if not herself then for her kids because they will observe how she is treated and internalize many things. But what also bothers me is that the press places her on a pedestal as with any public figure that she is someone to emulate and right now she is a horrible example for young girls and women. It is her lack of a work ethic basically throughout her life that is grating and I don’t really think she will ever change at this point. She is almost 36 and her character is fully formed. And the UK press in particular further infantilizes her especially while pregnant. Maybe this changes when Meghan arrives. Maybe.

            As for Meghan, I don’t think she will necessarily change the monarchy, but right now she is showing that she has done her homework, and she may be able to do some good. It is also nice to see Harry treat her with respect in public. What I will get upset about is when she is compared to basically being a prostitute because she was an actress. If someone is making a misogynist comment like that I won’t stand by silently.

            If Meghan ends up not doing much of anything then I will be the first one to criticize that too. Right now she has potential and hasn’t wasted it.

            As for Kate, I may have stated this here or on KMR, but she has cried wolf so many times that she is going to have to do at least a 200 plus appearance year for me to actually believe that she is stepping up. She won’t have done it this year despite the promises of keenness back in January. Maybe next year.

      2. Oh did he? When Harry wasn’t there? How odd. William doesn’t seem to have much family feeling, for his family, I mean. Perhaps as he grows older.

        1. Yes, William went to the Middletons. Must have been awful for Charles, neither child there, but William doesn’t care and does whatever. He feels the Middletons are his true family, not the family that pays for him or the father who helped raise him…

          I expect if Meghan shows, W&K will go to Bucklebury. They’ll have their own court Christmas walk like they did last time with her parents hovering around like slaves carrying the diaper bags and whatnot.

        2. How many times does KMR/MMR have to ask all of us to be civil? Believe me, I am sure I have not always followed the rules.

          Things are getting fun and exciting with this long awaited engagement. We sure do not want to see KMR/MMR get completely fed up with us.

        3. I think that comment, Nic, is out of line. I don’t care the color, religion, or nationality of any commenter. But, when some words they choose are offensive to others and when the blog’s founder asks for the wording to cease, it bothers me. if the comments continue. All things are not defined as racist, sexist, etc. by all people. I’m offended by your words, but that’s me. Perhaps, others are not. I just wish all people everywhere could get along regardless of obvious differences.

      3. Mean girls comes to mind. They’re like a gang, either hate and bully Kate or get lost.

        1. MMR asked for civility on both sides. She has asked Liah to stop using some names, yet others still feel the need to attack her and now Maven.

          Civility is due on all sides of the discussion, surely?

          1. I think that’s a good point. The nicknames drive me batty, but those who are more moderate (or even those who cheer Kate on) need to rein it in.

          2. There is absolutely NO NEED to continue policing posters, MMR/KMR said her piece, if Leah hasn’t heeded to it oh well, y’all let it go, don’t do the policing. Why is it that people are nitpicking some posts just because they want them to be written a certain way? All posts have the poster’s name on top of them, if you don’t like what the person writes, why not just not read it and continue to read those from your like minded people? And the crying about Kate being called Waity or whatever else they call her but then turning around and continuously refer to other people you don’t like in derogatory terms is getting ridiculous

  10. I don’t know which made me feel worse: reading yet another OTT press release by Jason Knauf or finding out that Meghan and Harry will stay with the royal foundation. But I’m not surprised about either–Jason always shows himself to be a blabbering fool, and there’s no way in hell that the Cambridges would allow Meghan and Harry to compete with their own fundraising. Lorraine Heggessey and the royals themselves must be salivating at the thought of all the donations that will come rolling in from this next royal wedding.

    And please, Jason, hire a proofreader. Hire an editor. Hire someone patient and kind who can gently instruct you on the basics and save you from future embarrassment.

      1. What on earth is the stuff about playing the part of Bride and Groom? Is he writing a school essay about a play? He’s trying to reach a word count I think. Best to stick with the facts and say as little as possible.

    1. They don’t need someone patient and kind. They need someone literate and discerning and mature and *professional*. This PR release is all soap opera. It is, indeed, an embarrassment. And lame.

        1. Great idea Em. And can Catherine Quinn please ask the person/s who posts for KP on Instagram to check their comments before they post?

      1. The pr will be big with these two she’s also dropped her charitys claiming she wants a clean slate apparently I thought she was a humanitarian

        1. Meghan charities are in Canada, she is moving to the UK, how is she expected to carry on Canada based charities while she lives in the UK? She is not “claiming”, this is the realistic thing to do. Does her letting go of our Canada based charities and picking up UK based ones make her a NOT humanitarian? I’m confused as to what it is that you’re alluding to!!

          1. Matilda, Meghan was NOT working with World vision International, her role was with World Vision CANADA. Nuff said on the matter.
            Im sure if World Vision UK gave her an ambassadorial position we would never hear the end of complaints about why British were being bypassed to give Meghan jobs.

          2. Canada is part of the Commonwealth. The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne are all “heads” of regiments in Canada.

            Peter and Autumn Phillips (yes I do know they aren’t royalty) are patrons of Habitat for Humanity in Canada and a palliative care charity in Montreal. So it can be done.

          3. World Vision UK and World Vision Canada are both part of the World Vision partnership. World Vision International oversees the global coordination between all national offices that are part of the partnership. I’m sure that it wouldn’t be a problem for Meghan to switch from one office to another if she was permitted to do so by the BRF.

            I’m quite sure the idea of having a “clean slate” came more from the powers that be than it did from Meghan herself. I hope that she finds some truly worthwhile charities in the UK to replace the ones that she has given up.

          4. Matilda, I do know that WVI and WVC have global coordination, but what y’all suggesting is not as simple as you make it seem. UN, UNHCFR, WHO etc are all global organizations but they never hire any international individuals for jobs that can be done by locals unless there is no locals that meet the job criteria. Meghan was asked to be ambassador and a rep by UN Canada, this is a “volunteer” position, she is not being paid to do the job. Therefore, she can not move to the UK and have her role transferred to the UK, it doesn’t work like that, UN Canada doesn’t dictate to other branches of the UN. If UN Britain wants to give Meg a role in the UK, that would be nice but that has to come from the UN hand over in the UK. The position she vacates here will be given to some other local volunteer and Meg will have find something in the UK.
            I won’t say anything about the BRF because I’m not a BRF member therefore, I won’t speculate.

        2. Kikid, I know Canada is in the commonwealth, no need to remind me. But just like Canada and other commonwealth countries have their own prime ministers and governments separate from the UK, same concept here. Meghan can’t just transfer her UN Canada ambassadorial role to the UK just because, there is a reason this is UN Canada. Giving these roles up and picking up something UK based is the wise, logical and reasonable thing to do.

      2. Maven: Jason’s press releases have always been soap opera.

        We thought he would learn, but every single release he sends out is like this.

        That’s why i wasn’t particularly offended by Harry’s ‘stop trolling my girlfriend’ letter because it was very obviously written by Jason in his usual soap opera style.

    2. Your comments about Jason make me laugh Lizzie!

      And there was I thinking that I was the only one to notice that Jason’s name seemed to be coming up a lot?

      As for that press release which asked for everyone to lay off Meghan? I still think that Harry may have had a word to Jason but it was all Jason’s idea to put out that steamy over flowery release, and it was horrible to read so I agree with your last statement too!

      1. Before we ban the word ‘Keen’, i’m keen to have a contest of poems that include the word. An ode to keen as it were. Be it haiku, free flowing. As long or as short as the keen writer.

        1. There once was a Duchess of Keen
          – who strangely was rarely on scene.
          She was known for her dresses,
          for her long, flowing tresses,
          but her impact remained to be seen.
          (and I did not write this to be mean)

    3. Again, thank you MASAMF. I am a grown woman. I don’t need to be policed. You know the type of stuff I post, so scroll past if you don’t wanna read.

  11. I think she truly loves Harry, and I hope she doesn’t lose herself in this relationship/family. She is clearly an educated woman who took care of herself for many years, and had a variety of interests. I hope her true voice shines through as time goes on.

      1. Your comment is way OTT and I think you completely missed the point. Longterm readers at KMR have been rolling our eyes over all these statements over the years saying how keen W&K are about this and that, how keen they are to increase their workload. Seeing as none of these has ever come to fruition, all that keenness has become something with no meaning. Jason and KP have opened themselves up to much mockery over the word.

  12. I personally love the choice of St. George’s. Rather limits the comparisons to Diana or Kate due to location. I don’t think we’ll see any lace (pleeeeease no lace) and I’m going to be in the minority here and say she won’t wear a tiara. This is scaled down so I just don’t see it. I love tiaras and will be happily wrong if she shows up in one. I’d be all Queen Mary if I had access to those vaults. I would eat spaghetti in my baubles.

    1. There is no way she won’t wear a tiara at some point. She *will* be anointed. The BRF will see to it.

    2. Autumn Kelly wore a tiara to her wedding and I imagine Meghan will too. Hopefully she won’t wear lace – she would suit a dress like Victoria in Sweden wore.

    3. Meh, I don’t think she’ll waste any time picking out her tiara. Her personality comes off as showy to me. Also the rolling out is very dramatic on both her and Harry’s part almost like trying to prove they are so in love. It’s not what I’m used to seeing around that is for sure. They are very image conscious and it seems they will sell the fairytale princess theme with these two.

    4. Someone suggested the Spencer tiara…I really liked that idea. Not too flashy and a link to Diana. I imagine the Spencer’s are close to Harry and would loan the tiara if asked.

      1. Can it work that way? I thought that only women from a said line wore that family’s tiara. Someone mentioned awhile ago the idea of Charlotte wearing it and I thought Hera was skeptical.

        1. The Spencer tiara has my vote. I posted a comment before I read far enough to see others discussing this idea. I would love to see her wear her hair up.

        2. Only the women of a family line along the MALE line and the wives of the sons in the MALE line of the said family can wear the family tiara.

          William, Harry, George, Charlotte are from the Mountbatten-Windsor family. They have family tiaras.

          They are not Spencers in the MALE line. Diana was a Spencer in the MALE line and thus could wear the Spencer tiara. The tiara is the property of her brother (or family patriach). It’s upto him to lend the tiara as often or as little or not at all to his family members.

          Zara and Autumn used Anne’s personal tiaras. Those are the tiaras of their family and in due course, unless sold, will appear on Savannah, Isla and Maya.

          Ditto Sophie.

          Ditto the Yorkies.

          As everyone in the Mountbatten -Windsor ramily also has access to shared family tiaras, there is every chance those can appear on newcomers or any of the daughters eg the Cartier Halo worn by Kate and or the various tiaras worn by the different women.

          It would be unusual as in breaking centuries aristo tradition/ rule for Meghan who is marrying a non-Spencer to wear the Spencer tiara.

      2. I don’t think she will be able to use the Spencer tiara. It has only been used for women born into that family.

        1. As an American I obviously know zero about tiara’s. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

      3. I tend to agree Emily….I found the interview twee and probably not very truthful- they will rewrite their history without compunction. And after all, they won’t be the first in the family to do so.

        1. I don’t think Meghan would wear a bigger tiara than Kate and because of her divorced status, it may be that she won’t wear one at all. (A bit ironic because tiaras used to be reserved for married woman – unmarried wore flowers – often wax – whilst that’s outdated, Sarah did both, removing the flowers to show the tiara after signing the register.)

          There is a pleasing and interesting compromise. There are several beautfiul and historic diamond bandeaus in the royal collection – worn by Princess Margaret, that haven’t been seen in decades. That would be a lovely choice particularly with a more sophisticated, less first ‘bridal’ outfit.

          1. What is it with people harping on about her divorced status as a hindrance to what Meghan can do?

            Kate chose(or was given) the smallest tiara because that is her style.

            It’s like saying Meghan isn’t allowed to wear gobstopper diamonds because Kate wears kikis.

            And by the way, several divorced people in the family. Princess Michael of Kent was a divorcee when she married Prince Michael of Kent. See them below on their wedding day. Tiara worn is bigger than Kate’s tiara.


            Ditto Camilla who wears the biggest tiaras in the family. Probably bigger than any the Queen has worn besides the CLK and her wedding tiara.

            Margaret had the beautiful pontimore tiara at her wedding which was a big tiara.

            Meghan has a few tiaras to choose from that are still sitting in the vault. Her choice won’t be due to her divorced state. And you know what? I hope she gets one of the really big tiaras eg Queen Mary’ fringe tiara so people understand that her divorced status isn’t an issue.

            I mean it’s already not an issue given people who said it would hinder her marrying into the royal family.

            It wasn’t an issue for Westminster Abbey when they offered to marry them back in May and it’s not been an issue for St George’s chapel.

    5. I have been visiting KMR off and on for over 3 years. Just returned after the engagement was announced and read that some words are banned…very surprised…

  13. So many questions!
    Will the royal foundation’s name be changed? I hope they make it a little shorter.
    I’m sad for the dog too. Maybe it’s not possible to bring the dog to England?
    Does that mean she won’t be involved with the UN anymore? I’ve noticed that not many in the BRF (that I know of) become ambassadors for the UN. Maybe it’s too political for them. That said, perhaps she’ll still get to attend or go to events that have to do with that.
    I’m guessing this wedding will be more like the Wessexes except it’ll be televised (hopefully) and that the “balcony kiss” will happen on the steps of the chapel.
    Lastly, I’m curious about her first engagement. Really different from Kate’s too. If I recall correctly, Kate’s first event was the one with the pancake flipping and christening of a boat (?) or something.

    1. My guess on the name, which will make it even worse to have to type out fully: The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of [Harry’s dukedom].

    2. my vote is for the lovers knot tiara. It is a mouthful. They announce the dukedom on the wedding day?

      1. The BRF do not share tiaras like the Swedes.

        Each royal woman is given a *new tiara as a starter or as a collection reserved for her specifically.

        * HM purchased a tiara for Fergie. Others were loaned tiaras from the vault.

    3. Princess Michael, who was both divorced and a Roman Catholic, had a civil registry office wedding in Vienna. She wore a suit and nothing on her head but flowers and a snood. ttps://www.google.com/search?q=princess+michael+civil+wedding&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS710US710&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=vSQMzlr8HlT0QM%253A%252CRGlDU49J6xZiZM%252C_&usg=__vqolhN5_5G7Otis_8BokM5q3500%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisueW3zuXXAhXJJiYKHWEDD6EQ9QEILTAB#imgrc=vSQMzlr8HlT0QM:

      Later at the reception, also in Vienna, she wore the long gown she had first hoped to be married in, with the tiara Michael inherited from Marina. It was her wedding day but not her wedding, it was a party. The queen did not attend. Her marriage had been religiously annulled before her marriage to Michael, and later, according to Wiki – I didn’t remember this – she asked the pope for permission for a blessing and had one in London five years later in 1983. I don’t know what she wore for that.

      Princess Michael has rarely turned down an excuse to wear a tiara – even at events no other royal lady would – even at a dance in America where she was boasting about being a princess and to premieres long after other royal ladies stopped. I wouldn’t use her style as a guide but she can wear it whenever she wants – it belongs to her husband.

      Margaret bought her own tiara. I suspect she was looking for height.

      Camilla did not wear a tiara either at her civil service or at the order of blessing – she wore a headpiece. She is also a future queen consort – no matter what she ends up being called – friends still think it will be princess consort because that’s what they said, but I doubt that. Her main tiara comes from the queen mother – presumably as a loan from the queen who has never worn it. Her husband is next in line to the throne.

      Meghan’s choice will be what the queen offers her, just as I suspect it was with Kate – a combination of taste and what is offered. It’s not impossible a new tiara would be bought for her as it was for Sarah – but I still think there will be a sense of hierarchy between the heir – William, and his younger brother. It’s notable that Sophie – who the queen is known to be very fond of – she lived for years at Buckingham Palace, did not wear a large tiara.

      The only person the queen has loaned the marriage fringe to is Princess Anne. I think it’s quite possible it will be reserved for blood princesses and Charlotte might be the next wearer. But we never know. There are the York girls – and maybe the queen will loan it to Meghan.

      Besides the bandeaus I’ve mentioned, there is the Strathmore rose tiara and the crescent tiara – the latter of which is loaned to Camilla who has never worn it. I suppose it’s a possibility.

      Westminster Abbey would have loved the wedding because it’s wonderful for tourism but it didn’t happen.

      As for the queen, despite all the divorces in her family, we don’t know how she feels about it. She is known to be quite religious.

  14. How big is the chapel? I’ve been there, but many years ago. I think it seemed fairly large for Sophie’s wedding. I think the name chapel is misleading. And I sure hope they televise.

    Meanwhile, we can visually feast on baby sashes.

    1. Well, Harry refers to his large digs as a ‘cottage’. Like WK lived in a mansion like ‘cottage’ in Anglesey. That chapel is a freaking cathedral IMO.

        1. I’m sure they will get a bigger apartment at KP once they start havin kids, just like W&K did.

      1. Maven: What I like about St. George’s, as opposed to Westminster, is that in its architecture it isn’t quite so tall and imposing. Maybe that’s all of the details in the stonework? It somehow manages to feel more intimate or less overwhelming.

    2. I saw somewhere that St George’s seats 800. Just a small, intimate chapel. I think you are right – chapel is misleading.

        1. St George’s is beautiful, I’m glad they chose it though I’m sad we won’t get a big huge royal wedding with a balcony kiss. Maybe they’ll smooch on the church steps, please! lol

    3. The chapel fits 800 people.

      Roughly half the size of Westminster Abbey which managed to fit 1,900people for WK’s wedding and a fraction of St Pauls which managed to fit 3,500people for Charles and Diana’s wedding.

  15. Meghan is the total package. I wish she and PH the best. I’m hopeful she takes it slow, watch and learn. She earned my respect with her kind words about the Queen and her display of love and devotion for PH. Looking forward to watching her growth!!

      1. I think Harry and Meghan are a real love story. They both seem to have kind hearts. I have big hope for these two. My wish is life is kind to them. Status and wealth can only go so far, because heartache can come in many forms.

  16. Dear God, I hope those grasping Middletons aren’t invited. It’s bad enough they seem entitled to show up to every royal occasion now. I can do without Carole smirking and looking like she has a permanent smell under her nose.

        1. But this is Harry’s wedding not William’s. The in laws of the sibling are not required to be invited. Harry isn’t close to the Middletons at all.

      1. But Meghan wasn’t invited to the ceremony. Turnabout is fair play and she should only be invited to the reception. After all she is the sister of the sister in law. If this is a smaller wedding, she wouldn’t need to be included.

          1. I remember hearing from Mrs. BBV (who heard from her source) that they edited out family members, too, in their quest for the “right” people. I think that she didn’t invite her because the focus would have been on Meghan & Harry, and would have stolen her thunder. And we all know that it was all about Pippa. I mean, every bride’s day is, but it seemed to go to a new extreme.

          2. I was frankly surprised that Harry was invited because he was a sibling of a son in law and if the church space is so tight then he doesn’t need to attend. But I suspect Carole was hedging her bets for an invite to an upcoming wedding. At that point they certainly knew Harry and Meghan were serious.

          3. It was a small country church – where it’s quite common for people to be invited for the wedding breakfast/reception only – or sometimes only for the evening party now popular, because there’s simply no room – people understand that.

            St. George’s hugely bigger, is very different.

    1. I loved the engagement interview. While I had high hopes for the two of them before, I am more convinced than ever they will make a good team. I bet they already know what they want to get involved in for their work. Some are criticizing Meghan dropping her current philanthropic work, but I am sure they at least have an idea of the direction they want to take in the next few years.

      1. Nic, is that the real reason? Not doubting you at all (you are one of my fave posters). But really would one person have made a difference?

        I agree, the Middletons should only go to the reception and not the wedding. Personally, I feel they should stay their social-climbing, faux royal, coattail riding butts at home, but that’s just me.

        1. We will never know the real reason, but the church was not very large and then there was the whole no ring no bring debate. Clearly we know now that they were basically engaged when Pippa’s wedding happened so I will be charitable and say that Harry didn’t want to over shadow Pippa’s wedding by bringing Meghan to the church and making it their official appearance.

          That said, the sibling of an in law isn’t a necessary party to the wedding and there is no indication Harry sees any of the Middletons that much.

          1. Leah, my conjecture is above, which is basically that it would have taken the focus off Pippa. Full disclosure: I am *not* a Pippa fan.

  17. I am sure its going to be a beautiful wedding like both deserve.
    I hope its televised, I dont like the idea to pay for something that I am not even allowed to see.

    I did not like the remark they did about ‘The Queen” paying for the wedding because who is really paying is us that lives here. Pay for the wedding of the future King is something but pay for the wedding of the 6 in line is not something that I am happy about.

    I guess Meghan’s parents wont be paying for a thing since both of them file for bankruptcy , I hope Meghan pays at least for her dress like Kate did.

    I fell sorry for the dog and I think she has a good reason because she really looks like she loves the dogs.

    About she becoming UK citizen and being baptized and confirmed by the Anglican church: thats not surprising at all, she would not be accepted at the royal family or the commonwealth if she did not.
    I think people that are expecting much of her in terms of being outspoken, work more than Kate or take any leads, will be disappointing, this is a woman that is ok of given up of everything she is in exchange to get married with a Prince, that includes her religion, her nationality, her dog, her charities, her career and we dont know what else she is giving up to.
    I wish her happiness, right now its all on cloud9 but the day she realizes how much she is giving up its going to hit hard.

    1. Meghan’s parents money problems would have nothing to do with them paying or not paying for the wedding; they both separately filed for bankruptcy years ago and wouldn’t have the issues they did back then.

      1. Hi, first time posing here. Let’s not forget all of this is her choice shes 36 years old and been married before so not young and immature. Infact I would expect her to have her eyes fully open going into this way more than a 20 something with rose colored glasses on. Oh, and leaving the dog behind if she really wanted him she would have found a way to get him over there.

        1. Idk. I’m choosing to believe until I know more she couldn’t bring her other pup with her. I’ve been following her for a while now, even prior to her and Harry, and she seems to love and adore her pups as if they were her babies. So I doubt she just didn’t want to bring him. But couldn’t either because of his age or health. But it does sound like she left the pup in a loving home.

          1. If she brought one dog I think it fair to assume that she didn’t bring the older dog for its own good. Why should she explain the details of her dog’s age or illness? She has made sure it is in a loving home, probably one it has spent time in before when she was travelling.

          2. As someone who has volunteered for many years at animal shelters, rescued and reunited lost animals, taken wild injured animals to the appropriate rehab centers and fostered many orphaned kitten and puppy litters, I see nothing wrong with her leaving a senior pet in a good home.

            We may not have heard a reason from Meghan (on what was supposed to be a happy occasion), but I am sure the decision caused her heartache and was done for a good reason. Of course, I do not know, but she does not come across as someone who abandons her pet on a whim.

      2. Kayla, it amazes me how little folks know about bankruptcy, they continue to talk about it as if it means someone filed for bankruptcy they must be a pauper which can’t be further from the truth!!
        Regarding the Bogart, I remember a while back, before Meg met Harry, something mentioned about one of the dogs being old. But since the Tig is no more and most of her insta is not accessible, I can’t find it anywhere. I too have followed this gal from way back before she met Harry and from the little we gleaned from the Tig etc, she is crazy about both dogs.

        1. I had the snarky idea that maybe Bogart didn’t take to Harry. Sometimes much loved dogs can resent a new romance. Plus she has been traveling a lot the past year, so perhaps the dog had bonded with the new people.

          1. There might be some truth in this (tongue in cheek😚😚)Even the corgis barked at Harry for 33 years but instantly took to Meghan🤓🤓🤓🤓

    2. Great comment, Agnes. Yes, she’s even giving up her religion, for a second time. On a personal level I find that shocking. I guess she finds conversion easy and convenient. Not a good look, IMO.

      Once you listed all she’s given up, I felt uneasy. She’s really giving up her power and control over her life, a depressing thought. What has he sacrificed, BTW?

      The interview came across like a fairy tale with everything so perfect. I’m still brushing the stars out of my eyes. Your comment really helped.

      1. I can’t stop thinking that in the end, she has as much as Kate has.
        Royal status, royal husband, royal children.
        It is not important anymore what she did before this engagement. She just has to fit in this family.Nothing more.

      2. I really hope that she’ll be able to find a way to operate in a way that doesn’t stifle her. In the interview she said she didn’t know much about the royals, which could also mean that she doesn’t understand how much pressure there is to conform to how The Powers That Be want things done (whether that’s the Queen, or the courtiers, or W&K). I worry that she’ll end up feeling stymied and just give in, but that that will take some of her passion away. William definitely didn’t prep Kate, and part of that is due to his do-little tendencies. But I chalk part of that up, too, to that when you’ve grown up around it you just “get it” intuitively. He may not know what to explain or prep because he doesn’t know what he just knows.

        1. It seems like Harry is more aware of what prep is needed. He has already helped her by introducing her to both sides of the family and it looks like Camilla and Charles have met her more than once. If Charles is an ally then maybe the transition will be easier.

          1. It will be in Meghan’s best interests to get along with everybody and leave the family squabbles to others.

      3. Thanks!
        I would be afraid of marrying Harry or any royal actually. What he is giving up for her? The amount of commitment she is doing surpass any thing he might be doing for her, I think its an unfair relationship.
        We will never really know how thats going to affect their relationship unless they get divorced.
        Catherine had many years to get used to what she got give up, and was not not that much like Meghan. Kate was already the nationality, same religion, rich kid without job (besides her work at the family’s company) so in the end of the day Kate had to commit less than Meghan.
        I dont know…if it was me I know I probably would resent someday when I realized I did committed 100% and the guy not. But she is not me and might react in a better way later on.

        1. Agness, Meghan did or is doing everything that she is doing because she is in love with her man. To her, its not a matter of these material things that y’all keep mentioning, its a matter of where her heart lies. We all look at what Meg had and has to leave behind to be Harry wife, but my guess is that she looks at all that being worthless to her without Harry by her side. She is not the first person to give up their job and all their life in some country and move to another country to be with the person they love, people do this all the time, thus the huge amount of spousal sponsorship applications in every nation. I know a girl from a wealthy family here in Canada who was one of a group of Douglas College students that went to Uganda for a consolidation/preceptorship term. She fell in love with a young Ugandan fellow who was 2 years out of med school, they dated and he proposed 6 months later. The guy told her right off the bat that he had no intentions of moving to Canada and today, this young woman lives in Uganda, a married mother of 3 beautiful kids and is very happy.
          Meg will be just fine y’all; this gal has a good head on those shoulders, y’all relax, Meg’ll be alright.

          Speaking of Harry being a husband, did any of you notice Harry reaction when the interviewer said Megahn was “obviously getting a husband”? I was in stitches over his hilarious reaction.

    3. Let’s be honest most of us wouldn’t be able to afford anything for a wedding on this scale. Whatever our financial situations, bankruptcies or not. Plus Meghan is 36 yr old, has been married before and has her own money. So I don’t know why her parents would be contributing anyways. I think the Middleton’s, who supposedly have millions, “made a contribution” so they too didn’t really pay for anything.

  18. Daily Mail is saying that Harry and Meghan will commence a six month tour of various communities and areas in the UK, starting with Nottingham on Fri. So excited to see Meghan in action and hope she doesn’t disappoint by running out of steam soon (which we’ve sadly seen with many other royals).

    1. If this actually happens this is excellent. KP has promised much keenness in the past and W and K never lived up to it. Maybe Meghan really is motivated and will “hit the ground running”. It is a good sign that she is attending something within a week of the announcement.

      1. I brought up, before Harry and Meghan were engaged, whether they would do engagements in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland like William and his wife did before marriage and I was told no, because Harry is not the heir. Therefore, I find it interesting that they are going to do so. I figured they would not be allowed to be this out front this early.

        I hope it includes bread and butter engagements.

        1. It would also may reduce some of the irritation that the younger royals don’t stray from the Home Counties. I know that I’m in the minority here, but having an infant is hard, regardless of having a nanny, and so Kate should necessarily find it hard to be off afar in those first six months or so. (Though they did leave George to go to Mystique?) After that, she should be up to going to other places less close to London for engagements. But if Harry and Meghan could go *now* it would be really nice for those citizens to get some royal attention. And it also would endear them to the public and let them shine.

    2. I believe the dog may be too sick or old to make the trip. I don’t think she left the dog because she didn’t want him.

    3. Fantastic! Meghan’s a very creative, lively, energetic woman. I believe she’ll do great!

      Crown Princess Victoria has recently commenced a multi-year program of nature hikes throughout Sweden. I think it’s such a wonderful idea. I would love for Meghan to be allowed to use her creativity in helping plan innovative engagement activities.

    4. The DM says lots of things, including manufacturing stuff out of thin air. Has there been an official announcement of this plan?

    5. Separating bonded dogs is something to be avoided at all costs. There are many pictures she posted of the two dogs curled up together. Dogs are pack animals. Rescue societies will go out of their way to keep bonded dogs together – which is much harder because it means finding a home that will take both. Being re-homed, even in a ‘good’ home, is particularly difficult for an older rescue dog who has ‘lost’ his environment once already. Dogs accept their situation but wait for their people to come home.

      And as someone who has supported and followed rescue societies and animals charities – people who seem to ‘really love their dogs’ and talk about it a lot – are often the ones who are the most superficial about pet ownership – and they always say ‘it’s better for the dog…’ and sometimes it is, given the owner! Dog ownership is expensive and older dogs often have ‘nuisance’ issues which I suspect is the case here. He’s obviously used to her being gone a great deal – but he just doesn’t fit in with her grand new life.

      I will say no more – Bogartgate is playing out everywhere the story was published, with people prepared to accept anything they would normally deny a royal, from cruise ships to private planes to reunite this poor pup with his owner – a crowd-fund would probably be set up to pay for it – the traditional Britain is a nation of dog lovers. I’ve noticed the story was pulled on several papers – Jason is probably frantic at this moment. He seriously underestimated this issue impact on people and it’s not one dog-lovers will forget.

      It could all have been avoided with an honest reason given if there was a good one – although it would never go over to well – but there was no caring in her voice when she spoke about her dogs – her wonderful new world is just so much more exciting. I would say the main thing people are judging Meghan on is her sincerity, that has been the single biggest issue – it’s all happened so fast and she talks such a good game being an actress, much slicker than Kate, but how much is real and how much is show.

      This isn’t going to help that and I hope for Bogart’s sake and hers that there will either be a proper explanation given or that this decision will be rethought. But not just some tacky photo-op.

      1. It’s very true……the whole issue makes me take a sharp intake of breath because I could / would never have left my dog behind for anything. He’s the total love of my life and even a few days in hospital away from him was just the hardest thing. I could never make him unhappy by leaving him confused, pining for me. What I don’t understand is that by all accounts she FaceTimed those pooches when she was away, she missed them so much. I need to know why she did this to clarify my thoughts about her.

        Brits are a nation of dog lovers and leaving one behind, separating the fur babies without explanation was another own goal by Jason.

      2. You’re right: people will be polite, hope for the best with Meghan, but her determining her sincerity will be what decides her acceptance or not. We are jaded by PR fluff these days; best to believe nothing until you can discern the person’s character through the work they actually do, the difference their efforts make – well beyond the empty rhetoric batted around for us to accept without question.

        I have no idea what H&M mean by saying they had ‘lots to do’ around the Commonwealth but it does beg the question: why hasn’t Harry been making headway with this agenda himself since leaving the army how many years ago now? His official numbers are low, always, with a good deal of his time spent under the radar.

        I hope H&M’s plans comprise more than photo ops with kids and animals with the rest of the trip shrouded in mystery and off-limits. Or luxury holi-tours at the expense of host countries. Both of these have become the norm for royals. But let’s remember that Harry opined that inWilliam’s reign – should there be one – that there would be far less work done by royals. So… what is it to be? We’ll need to wait and see how things transpire.

      3. The fact that she separated her dogs really bothered me as well. Those dogs have been together day in and day out, no matter Meghan’s work or travel schedule, and to separate them seems rather heartless. I know we don’t know the circumstances of her decision, but the thought of that elderly dog grieving the loss of his constant companion really saddens me.

      4. The Other Julia

        I agree with everything you said in your post. However, this bit resonated especially.

        “I would say the main thing people are judging Meghan on is her sincerity, that has been the single biggest issue – it’s all happened so fast and she talks such a good game being an actress, much slicker than Kate, but how much is real and how much is show.”

        I am unsure whether she plays to the camera.

  19. Was pretty bummed to hear she was converting religions. What was the point of making it a law that a Catholic can marry in if she needs to be baptised and confirmed?

    1. Sadly nowadays it seems people’s religions are not important to them people who truly are religious don’t just convert because they have a new partner its like non religious people getting married in church 😅

    1. Yeah, and if she is some Protestant denomination herself–if she was baptized that is–there’s no reason for her to be re-baptized in the Anglican church… It’s all very weird.

  20. Leah is so very funny, Im in stitches about her/his posts.
    Meghan had never been baptized, she went to Catholic school but she hasn’t been practicing any religion.

  21. In talking to some other royal watchers, I think this wedding may still be extremely big. Not WA big in terms of locale, but much bigger than Ed’s and Sophie’s, which was very small because they were not going to be working royals unlike Harry and Meghan.

    Still sad about not being at the Abbey, but I think there is strong potential for this to be an absolutely incredible wedding and maybe in some important ways more “grand” than W/K? I mean Windsor hosted the state funeral of King George VI so it can host massive events.

    Andrews and Palmer both said it will for sure be televised but details are still being worked out.

    I am PRAYING!!! for a Ralph and Russo dress (with some modifications and tweaks to make it royal wedding appropriate). Now that would be a fashion moment!

    I am extremely excited about Friday. I think that will be more telling of their dynamic than the interview even. Also, pleased they will conduct a UK tour in the coming months. Meghan and Harry are doing this very smart (so far).

    1. *part of the state funeral of George VI

      I should say that by grand that I mean it can still have all the pomp and circumstance we want, if slightly scaled down compared to a WA wedding, but the overall feel given how grand the chapel is and the environs of Windsor may feel very grand over all.

      That is a lot of grand lol. Sorry to be so repetitive.

    2. My feeling is, Harry’s wedding will be to William’s as Andrew’s was to Charles’. For what it’s worth.

      As much as I would love for Meghan to have an epic fashion moment with her dress, I think it would be savvier for her to have a simple gown and save the WOW dress for the reception. I believe that would reduce any potential criticisms.

      It would be great if we lived in a world where such things didn’t matter, but sadly they do.

      My hope is she’s clever enough to thread the needle and have a unique and memorable dress and still fit within the fairly rigid expectations of her role in a hierarchical institution.

      Just my opinions…

        1. Well, yes, of course. I would hope that all brides wear what’s true to their taste. There are usually restrictions and requirements for royal brides. It must be challenging to find the right dress under those circumstances. Though I’m sure she’ll look amazing on the day!

          BTW, Does the Queen need to sign off? I know she had a powerful voice in what William wore, but don’t recall anything about her thoughts on Kate’s dress. Kate certainly got away with a fairly risque neckline.

          Since Meghan declared CBK’s dress her all-time favorite, I would imagine something sleek yet simple is in the offing.

          1. Oh really Cady? Carolyn had the most amazing style. I can totally see how she and Meghan have similarities in style. And her dress was breathtaking.

        2. I think if you are getting married, no matter who you are, you should wear what you want. It’s the 21st century and I find all those bridal gown restrictions placed on royal brides to be annoying, old fashioned and make for some of the ugliest, dullest wedding gowns I have ever seen.

          1. Oh I totally agree. The restrictions are there though. That’s why I have two categories for imagined future royal bridal gowns: fantasy and the tamped down reality we’ll likely be stuck with.

            At least Meghan has a clear personal style, an interest in fashion and even some design experience. Hopefully she can help craft the dress more closely to her desires.

          2. Leah: the restrictions on royal bridal wear is actually church rules rather than royal rules.

            Most churches have rules about dress eg covered shoulders and hair. And being a conservative institution, they recommend conservative dresscode.

            That said, those rules aren’t always enforced, but royals are not rebels and err on the side of rules rather than rebellion.

            The result is conservatively dressed royal brides with covered shoulders and hair rather than strapless, sheeth dresses etc.

        3. I think Kate picked exactly the dress she wanted. She was seen going to Sarah’s studio and there was an official McQueen statement that they had worked closely together. It was 100% not my style but I can see now how it followed Kate’s.

        4. There has been talk that it might be a Canadian designer… but that was coming from CBC so they are going to milk all the Canadian content out of this for as much as it is worth.

  22. Some people have said there won’t be a balcony kiss- pardon my ignorance, but why not???? Wouldn’t they still go back to the palace for the photos/brunch? I guess not? Aw, I wanna see them kiss!

      1. Ah, I was assuming Buckingham Palace, silly of me. Wishful thinking! Well, I hope they do a public kiss somewhere!

        1. I do too. I suggested the steps of the chapel! lol Good a place as any, or heck, in the church because no balcony!

    1. Why would her wedding dress cause controversy and what good is an amazing reception dress if no one will see it?

      1. I didn’t say controversy. I said criticism. Surely you must be aware that every aspect of Meghan’s conduct will be noted, critiqued and compared. You do it all the time. Nothing wrong with it, but wearing a visibly ‘grander’ gown than Kate (as a Ralph and Russo would almost certainly be) would open up an avenue of criticism which could easily be avoided. She may not care. Good for her if she doesn’t.

        I think having a reception at Windsor might include photo opportunities. I mean, we all saw Kate’s reception dress. Who knows?

    2. If I’m not mistaken Edward and Sophie kissed outside of the chapel steps as well as Peter and Autumn.

      1. Who cares if she wears a grander gown than William’s wife’? It’s Meghan’s wedding. Not everything revolves around William’s wife and it should not.

        1. Agreed. It’s not all about Kate. Also, anything she wears would look grander by comparison to that dull sea of lace. The person inside it will make it rock.

  23. I find myself looking to other royal family weddings for images of what H&M’s wedding could be. The Swedish Royals have had some intimate yet spectacular weddings. I don’t know what the scale ratios are, but all their wedding venues appear smaller than Westminster and yet they have been my favorite royal weddings of recent years.

    The first royal wedding I watched live was Edward and Sophie’s. I loved it. All of it. I may be biased because of it, but I to my eyes, St. George’s seems more historically ‘royal’. (Yes I know WA is older.)

    It’s a d*mn shame the Windsor dukedom is so badly tainted. It’s such a lovely title.

    1. I know the BRF is famous for it’s pomp and events, but I prefer the SRF way of doing things. Their weddings and christenings are just so lovely and I’m happy they share it with the world.

      I agree, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor sounds so nice… but it is tainted forever now, I suppose. Duke and Duchess of Clarence works well, and fits with the “C” theme (Cornwall, Cambridge).

      I know the backlash would be tremendous, but (as Ellie mentioned) it would be a breath of fresh air if Meghan politely refused a title, like Chris O’Neill. But it seems like the women who marry in are required to be more submissive to the royal customs… or at least happier to take up the tiaras and titles.

      1. That’s a good question. What woman has refused a title when marrying in? Why do some men? Mind you women readily give up their names so maybe that’s the difference.

        Is there anyone here who would refuse it if they could?

        1. I think it’s a reflection of our society. We still live in a world where ‘some’ men don’t like being seen getting benefits from their wives. I know a couple of men who can’t handle a woman who earns more than they do. In Chris’ case, I think his determination to continue his career was the primary factor. Maybe ‘pride’ had a little to do with it. It is cool that his and Madeleine’s kids get titles through her, though.

          On the flip side, there’s still a lingering expectation in some quarters that women take on part of their identity from their husbands. Even now. Gross in my eyes, but it’s there.

          I couldn’t imagine marrying into an institution like that, but I probably wouldn’t have the courage to initiate such a change.

          The rules as they stand are that wives gain their husbands’ title automatically, and the thought of Meghan being referred to as Princess Harry is appalling to me.

        2. Maven: Princess Alexandra’s husband refused a title, then gave an interview years later in which he said he regretted his decision.

          Soon afterward he was knighted which whilst it’s a title, it’s not the same as an hereditary Earldom.

        3. Great question. If you are marrying into a monarchy I’m guessing you have already made your peace with its antiquated and patently unfair nature as well as being its beneficiary at the expense of others. That’s before you even get to a status title. At essence, titles are just a form of currency, a prop to elevate and differentiate, assuming a persona that says, “I’m better than you” because of birth/ marriage. Many people turn down titles offered by the Queen because they don’t believe in the system and the work they did, or do, is reward in itself.

          1. Jen.
            I had to laugh at your trenchant yet clear eyed analysis.

            Thanks! I shall have to look up why he regretted it.

    2. I thought Kate’s gown classic and beautiful – but then I tend to feel most wedding gowns suit the wearer. I’m an old softy that way.

      But less can be very respectful but still lovely. I’m not a fan of Sofia of Sweden, I admit it – but she was wise to choose a beautiful but comparatively low-key gown for her wedding – less striking than her sisters-in-law.

      It is still not considered quite the thing for previously married brides to go with the full bridal look – very footballer and celebrity wives – there is the potential here for something more sophisticated but simpler than Kate’s.

  24. The papers mentioned that H and M are set to tale charge of the Commonwealth Trust next year. Then there is also The Prince’s Trust that Charles needs to hand over at some point. I think they will break off from the Royal Foundation once they get their footing.

    1. That sounds right. The Commonwealth Games* takes place in Australia (Gold Coast, Queensland) from 4 -15 April so the pair might make a visit since the CG is under the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust umbrella. There are some good initiatives in there:
      I hope H&M will do more than the HT model f taking credit for others’ work, and spend decent amounts of time ‘boots on the ground’. I’d imagine it’s pretty well run with administrators and staff as it stands.
      This move also takes the couple away from comparisons with W+K, and maybe the RF and the idea of a quartet. Separation would be a good thing.

      * like the Olympic Games but just for Commonwealth countries. Runs every four years.

  25. As for the wedding and what Meghan will wear, I saw someone mention that she might go the route of Charlene and have jewelled ornaments in her hair, but not go full tiara. That would be nice too.

    I have to admit, I was kinda wishing they’d get married before May, just so we could see if Kate would go heavily pregnant à la Madeleine lol

    I’m hoping very much that the media frenzy doesn’t reach the heights of with W+K.

  26. So Meghan who was deeply committed to her charity work has given them all up for a clean slate what a joke people defending her saying the UN was to controversial are kidding themselves every other royal family has someone in the UN its a rubbish excuse for someone who is apparently independent she’s sure quick to throw it away as for spouses religion they can keep there religions as long as their children are c of e even maxima kept a different religion to her husband and she’s a Catholic and now queen I don’t understand woman who are so quick to give up and change everything for a man

    1. But Sarah, every other Royal family is not the BRF. She is very new, trying to do the right thing and may return to UN agencies at some point when better established. Sure the European royals have a lot to do with the UN, but how is that relevant to Meghan who is marrying Harry?

      Religion is a very personal thing, I am not religious, but surely each person should be allowed to choose for themselves? Charlene converted to Catholicism, and my understanding is she is now genuinely devout and has found a lot of comfort in her new religion. Maybe Meghan didn’t hold much strong belief, but we think Harry does, and maybe he has shown her how much it means to him and she has explored it?

      for the record my comment is more about ‘let’s not judge Meghan on this without knowing her reasons’ than anything overtly religious.

    2. The BRF is not every other royal family and according to their customs, having a member of the royal family be representative of the UN is a no-no. Therefore, Meghan dropped it. As for Meghan becoming Anglican – it also seems she is doing that to please the BRF.

      *shrug* To me, this just seems to prove that the BRF isn’t as modern and groundbreaking as we are being told they are, by accepting Meghan Markle. She is very much joining on their terms.

  27. People on Twitter and celebitchy are railing against for leaving her dog and the fact she getting citizenship for marrying a prince when people can’t get it despite living hear years

      1. Citizenship is a touchy issue because it is often an extremely difficult process for ‘ordinary’ people who marry someone from outside the EU – I don’t think there is any choice here but it was always going to be sensitive.

        The religious aspect is particularly sensitive because many people have been denied church weddings because they were divorced. It would have been wiser to have followed Charles and Camilla’s lead and had a civil service followed by a blessing which could not have been questioned. (Many people marry in civil services so it would not be an issue – nor would it mean a blessing couldn’t be a grand occasion.) Perhaps this will still happen.

        I don’t see any requirement that she join the church unless it’s her choice – the Catholic situation is no longer an issue and she only went to Catholic school – she wasn’t a member. She would need to be a baptised Christian to take communion. She has changed her faith often as far as I can tell – that’s the big issue – the sincerity one I mentioned above.

        And I did that in connection with the Bogart abandonment – which is huge – and which was very badly handled and may do more to her perspective popularity than any single other issue. Jason and his lack of understanding of public feeling strikes again – (think Irish Guards) but personally, like many, I’m thinking more of poor Bogart.

        1. It’s been policy to be able to marry in the Church as a divorcée since 2002. Anyone not able to do so has a rector not following policy, or it happened pre-2002.

    1. This is just plain ignorance on twitters’ parts, people apply for citizenships EVERYWHERE dependent on them marrying a citizen of said country. Its hard to count the millions of people that got American green cards, Canadian PR cards, UK indefinite leave cards, etc and subsequently applied for and got citizenships because they married American, Canadian, British etc citizens. These are simple UN laws, one can’t be denied citizenship of their spouse unless there is good reason to deny them such.

      1. Not true – it’s in the complete discretion of the vicar and they don’t always agree. There is no requirement they do so. The 2002 change just left open the possibility.

        If it had been so easy, Charles in 2005, would have had a full service – being married in a civil service has been an issue for him as I discussed above because he is the future head of the church. It was not what he wished and not done because of any scandal about him and Camilla – the reasons for the divorce aren’t considered.

        Immigration is not always easy either – many from the Commonwealth or outside the EU have faced issues where one spouse was likely to be deported – it can have to do with being able to ‘support’ the spouse, and host of hoops that must be correctly jumped through. It’s led to a lot of strong feeling because people from the Commonwealth are facing deported spouses whilst those from the EU don’t get that scrutiny. Brexit of course will potentially change that – and I don’t think the UN is governing immigration – people with issues usually seek help for their MP.

        1. Charles marrying Camilla in church was a scandal because of the strong feeling of the Diana fanatics. That’s why the church blessing had a special section where they specifically atoned for their sin vis a vis previous marriages.

          It’s the only reason the palace rushed out a statement saying Camilla would be princess consort if she hot any titles at all once Charles was monarch and in the meantime would be called the duchess of Cornwall instead of Princess of Wales.

          The lead upto the wedding was full of constitutional experts, Diana experts, Charles experts, give it a rest experts giving soundbites to any media outlet who would have them.

          The Queen had to navigate a media storm on the level of the recent summer of Diana to not offend people and the solution was for her to be abscent at the actual marriage, and the Vicar at St George’s to give a blessing during which the couple publicly grovelled an apology.

          The fact that the general synod had made the new ruling about divorcees made no difference to the offended public.

          It was not a popular marriage despite the decade of PR to improve Camilla’s image.

          Only the visible positive change in Charles + the public finally seeing Camilla at work turned the ship around.

        2. I wonder if Charles couldn’t just have a secret church service if he really wants it badly. If it’s a religious issue for him, than to be denied that is akin to stopping someone from practising their faith.

  28. I don’t get the uproar about her changing her religion or rather the religious organisation of her religion (it is still Christian after all). As far as I recall she isn’t very religious so maybe she doesn’t care if she is CoE or something else. Maybe she wanted the change because her ties to church are going to be closer now? She will have to attend more services than she might have done before. If she felt strongly about the Episcopalian Church (or whatever she was baptised) she surely wouldn’t drop it. It is really not that big of a deal. I think most Europeans don’t even think about it (if they aren’t VERY religious)- but please feel free to correct me.
    And a question for all British readers/people who applied for the UK citizenship: I thought every partner who marries a UK citizen and
    -is over 18
    – is of sound mind
    – is of good character (no criminal record)
    – meets the knowledge of English and life in the UK (test)
    – has been granted indefenitely leave to the UK OR holds permanent residence
    – meets the residency requirements
    can apply and is likely to be granted UK citizenship. Her process might be accelerated but I thought this option is open for everyone who ticks off the requirements. At least that is what the UK government says on their website.
    Or is she getting the citizenship before she marries Harry? Than there are also requirements about how long she lived in the UK and days spent outside the country. In that case critics would be on point.

    1. Even that turnaround is doubtful if you look at poll numbers – which are always a bit dodgy. The press loves Camilla who has courted them – the public – I wouldn’t bet heavily on that to this day.

  29. To put the religion thing to rest I have read that while Meghan did go to a Catholic school, she is Protestant. That is not uncommon in the US for a religious school of one denomination accepting others outside of the school’s affiliation.
    I do seem to recall that when W & K got engaged that Kate underwent some kind of re-confirmation to the C of E prior to the wedding.

    1. Not reconfirmation but the actual confirmation because the Middletons did not follow religion enough to have their children confirmed. Somehow this gets glossed over, but for Meghan it is a bigger deal.

  30. Does anyone else find it odd that no other senior royals other than Camilla, William and his wife and the Queen and the DOE have offered congratulations? Nothing from Anne, Edward, Sophie or Andrew.

    Also, how soon until Meghan gets added to the official BRF website with her own page?

    1. kate had never been confirmed. I don’t really mind but they had to have a confirmation as William will be head of the Church of England and her son will be one day.

    2. I think she gets her own page once they are married; nothing is official until their wedding day. Remember Princess Madeleine broke-up with her first fiance.

  31. Enough everyone! Stop attacking each other; stop attacking Kate and Meghan. Stop using sexist terms; stop attacking others for using sexist terms; stop attacking others for attacking others for using sexist terms. Stop.

    I understand people may dislike certain royals/royals-to-be and have negative options they want to share, and that’s perfectly acceptable, but be civil to the royals and to the people who have to read these comments about the royals while expressing those opinions.

    I don’t want to threaten closing the blog, but if we cannot be civil with each other, then I am going to have to consider how to move forward because blogging about Meghan is already not fun. Please be civil to each other.

    1. Good luck with everything MMR. If I’ve contributed to incivility, I apologize to you and others here. As I can’t deal with it anymore (Seattle’s comment below as exhibit #1), I’ll take a break from all of this and hope things will cool down.

      1. MMR, I am a long-time reader but have only posted twice. I hope that things turn around, too, because it’s no longer fun reading here. Thank you for all your efforts to keep things civil.

        1. LizB,

          Please, continue to hang around, we need our regulars to add to the conversation.

          I like Meghan and have high hopes for her and Harry. Seattle has the opposite opinion, which I read, but it does not change my opinion of Meghan.

    2. Yes, I agree with you MMR. I like Meghan and I Thank you for your blog. I dont come here or read it as often as I would like to due to the level of vitriol of some of the posts.

  32. I will be the Debbie Downer here, and be the first to say it. This marriage will end in divorce within 6 years, and Markle will make Sarah Ferguson looks classy.

    Don’t forget that Markle is a a D-lister Hollywood actress. That means she constantly craves attention, constantly is “posing”, constnatnly hogging the spotlight from others. In other words, she is THIRSTY. I was not impressed with the interview, and all i saw was Megan keeping the focus on HER. That’s what vacuous Hollywood D-listers do.

    It’s also telling how quickly she dumped her life to marry her prince. She converted to Judaisim for Husband #1, and it’s no big deal to convert to Anglicanism for Husband #2. This shows how impulsive she is. She has NO CLUE what the British press will do to her or what her life will be like, but then again as a D-lister Hollywood starlet, any publicity is better than no publicity. I predict her personality will cause great embarrassment to the Royal Family.

    Meghan Markle is just a thinner version of Kim Kardashian. She is so representative of the shallow LA mindset, and now it’s arrived in the Royal Family. God help them.

    1. No one can cause embarrassment to the Royal Family more than their own behavior; Charles’ affairs, Andrew’s exploits, Harry’s Halloween costume, Phillip’s outdated remarks, William’s workshy ways, even Sophie had an embarrassing slip-up, etc.

      The Royal Family needs to be re-branded or they will become obsolete. I’m not sure if Meghan can save it but I don’t think she’ll hurt it anymore then the fact that a monarchy seems out of place in the 21st century.

      1. How is Meghan Kim Kardashian? Where is her sex tape, her reality show? Her see through clothing? Meghan has done none of those things. You are reaching and it makes no sense.

        Meghan is a classy articulate woman who does not fit the English rose prototype so that pisses people off and it makes them create ludicrous scenarios. This woman is not the second coming of Fergie.

        Thank you for your obsolete opinion and have a whole stadium of seats.

        1. @Leah

          I know you aren’t replying to me but I agree that the KK comparison is too strong. Being an actress that has some racy scenes is not a porn film.

      2. Right now Meghan has a lot of potential and could do many good things. Only time will tell if she lives up to it.

        1. Agree. And part of that is pulling Harry along with her. He will need to shed the ‘can’t work more than William’ mindset or convenient slacker excuse. I wish her luck!!

      3. It’s true that the royals are far from classy at times but they get a pass because they are born in. For those poor souls that marry in, they have to be perfect or else.

      1. I don’t care if she dumped her old life but I would like to have seen her take some time to learn about her new home before plunging so boldly in – with no sense that she has much to learn before going out on engagements. The haste is unbecoming.

        To old time royalists – the core support at this moment of the royal family – it seemed disrespectful to imagine a future princess can be created by a few weeks visit – but it seems very murky indeed how much time she has spent in Britain, how long she and Harry have dated, and whether she knew him when she did that silly quiz. The story keeps changing.

        I do very much mind she dumped a supposedly beloved dog with so many resources at her disposal to bring him safely over and solve any issues concerning his care and health – her heart should be breaking for him and it certainly didn’t sound that way in her interview. Thousands will feel that way judging from the papers unless someone comes up with an extremely good reason – and not just that the dog is old! (Better yet, hire a plane or book a cruise space and bring him over.)

        My personal feeling before Bogart is that she has great potential but that the way this has been handled right up to the very leaky announcement has been badly managed, who is to blame is hard to say but I think she has a lot of indiscreet connections she needs to lose – and probably will if they are no longer of use to her!

        1. As someone who worked as a vet assistant for 10 years before becoming an RN and owner of 2 cats and a golden retriever, I don’t think you are looking at what is most likely the reality with Bogart. Dogs and cats don’t just get old. They become blind and deaf. When people have to work and can’t be home with them, they often need to be blocked in a room or crated- not because of the inconvenience of incontinence, but for their safety. Both my cats lived to 17, both became deaf, one became blind- but if I left them loose in the house while gone they would still try to climb on the couch, ect like they had always done, and fall. I put cushions all over the floor and put my mattress on the floor because they didn’t have the strength to get on my bed where they had always slept with me. They would stumble and fall off the edge of the mattress because they had gotten weak and unsteady.
          I hand-fed them soft cat food and absolutely anything else I could get them to eat nearly every hour because they would eat so little. As long as they had quality of life, all I wanted was for them to be safe, warm, fed, and comfortable. They slept the biggest part of the time. When they weren’t drinking much I could run fluids into them and it would boost them for a few days.
          Unfortunately, the last year I had them I had to travel quite a bit for work. My mother, who had often kept them for me since they were kittens, helped me out here also. They knew the layout of her home, her smell, her voice, her touch. I would guess that the people that Meghan homed her dog with had probably petsat/kept him for her when she was away, probably a great deal this past 18 months. I have no doubt he knew them well. The reality is that Meghan will be going non-stop, day and night, for the next several months, and will probably rarely be home. So her options? Leave Bogart with people who he has probably lived with quite a bit already, where someone he already knows may be around during the day to take him/possibly have to carry him out the multiple times necessary during the day, be around to watch him and make sure he’s safe/warm/comfortable vs bring a probable blind/deaf dog to a completely new and unfamiliar place where a petsitter he doesn’t know would need to come over several times a day to try to get him to eat, give him IV fluids, carry him out, then leave? I would never have done that to my cat.
          You don’t like the way she responded in the interview. I can tell you that for weeks leading up to and after the death of all of my pets, I couldn’t talk about them without starting to cry- knowing what was soon coming and then dealing with them being gone. I wouldn’t have been able to answer that question in detail either. And you don’t know that she’s not on the phone daily with the people keeping Bogart, sending them money for whatever they need to keep him comfortable- like I did when I had to be away. I would bet quite a bit that she still cries over this decision, because I sure did every time I had to leave, but I couldn’t quit my job to hold a months-long death-watch for my cats, and I don’t think she needs to delay her life either, especially if she knows that Bogart is happy and comfortable and being cared for by people she knows and trusts. I think it counts just as much if not more that she RESCUED both dogs, she provided them with a long and happy life, and if she makes sure they are well taken care of at the end if she can’t be there, I applaud her. Because believe me, for both pets and people, I see families that don’t do half as much.

          1. Thank you ZZZ I completely agree with you. And as I said elsewhere she doesn’t owe us an explanation on this. Your view that discussing the detail would upset her is logical and this interview was about her and Harry.

          2. Elderly pets can have a number of issues, as ZZZ said, and need extra special care in their later years. Sometimes, the travel and quarantine requirements of an overseas move would be too much of a strain for the pet so re-homing with friends is the best option under difficult circumstances. Acting in the pet’s best interests – giving them the best quality of life – is the only thing that matters. Vets and responsible pet owners are at one in this.

    2. Seattle, at least for this post, please tone things down in your rhetoric. A lot of us have been a part of this blog for years and would be really, really sad to lose the blog. KMR/MMR closed the blog down once before for weeks. Just tone down the rhetoric, at least a bit. Say you think they’ll get divorced. But not quite so much vitriol please.

      1. I’ve slept on the sofa for months in care of an old dog who could no longer do stairs. I’ve washed up after dogs that have lost control and spent a penny and worse all over my floors, I’ve spent a fortune at a vet – and turned Nurse Julia myself for animals who needed drips. My husband – even though he was travelling for work and working long hours, made up feeds for a beloved old dog who was having trouble eating and I sat on the floor feeding her by hand, bite by bite. We gave up an expensive holiday when a beloved dog fell suddenly ill – and no, insurance won’t pay for that.

        I do know what an old dog means. I admire what you have done, because I’ve done it all too. Because I made that promise to them when I adopted them – I would be there for life, no matter what it took, because of the love and loyalty they gave me in return.

        The queen has a schedule that would make most of us shudder including long tours abroad in the past – and she had people arranged to care for her pets in her absence. I don’t judge you or anyone else struggling to work, but a royal family member has resources none of us can even dream of.

        A dozen princes could ask me to marry them and I wouldn’t give up an old dog. (The only prince I ever had a girlish crush on was Andrew – thank goodness I escaped that!)

        What particularly upsets me is that dogs bond closely, especially if they are left alone together often – and Meghan herself posted photos of them sleeping close together – something seen only in closely bonded dogs. And dogs are deeply attached to their pack, other dogs and owners. They can adjust to new environments. I had to leave an old blind dog at my mother’s house when I travelled on business in the past – like you did – and he adjusted quickly. And I’m not even clear how old Bogart is supposed to have been.

        I saw not a hint of caring in Meghan’s voice – it was all happy gush, not even a wobble – so if she really is heartbroken she is a wonderful actress. No one would have minded if she had showed a bit of honest emotion – she showed enough loved-up emotion.

        In my opinion, she’s having a fabulous time, and Bogart was just too much trouble to fit in – part of his attraction seemed to be a celebrity encouraged her to adopt him – which itself make me shudder. No one should encourage anyone to take on a pet without knowing if they mean to do it for the animal’s life. It sounds all very celebrity-disposable to me.

        With so many stories about people devastated because they’ve lost their dogs to the terrifying Alabama Rot – this lack of explanation – not just by her but in the statement where more details could have been provided – just takes all the pleasure out of this business for me. One of the main attractions to me about Meghan were her wonderful dogs. If there was a better explanation I would have been delighted to hear it – although I’m not certain whether I would believe it now there has been this outcry.

        One of the things that has always – perhaps mostly – endeared me to the royal family was their love of dogs – so I’ll leave off with a more pleasing image, the queen being so thrilled beyond anything because Susan her beloved Corgi was slipped under the blanket in the carriage as a surprise to her on her way to her honeymoon – now that’s a charming royal wedding story. I hope this posts in the correct place. This was for ZZZ.

        1. I suppose I’m in the minority with you, TheOtherJulia. You are eloquent and persuasive and I can’t rule out that she dumped the dog. This is going to be an eternal niggle for me going forward unless the truth is forthcoming. Real truth, not manufactured. I doubt that will happen though.

          I saw on the video what you yourself did- she blew off the dog thing. Frankly it looked like Harry isn’t too pleased about having the one, either. I’m saying this because it surprised me a lot. I imagine the full seductive force of royalty is practically impossible to resist.

          I guess, bottom line, like you, there will always be a question and shadow hanging over her for me, no matter how charming and earnest I find her. How you treat your pets tells me everything about you- that’s my touchstone. You are not criticising her as much as casting doubt. You’ve now made me a doubter too. Fair enough.

        2. I admire your statement- “Because I made that promise to them when I adopted them – I would be there for life, no matter what it took, because of the love and loyalty they gave me in return.” Most pet owners I have known feel exactly the same.
          How nice, though, that you had a husband bringing in additional income. Maybe that helped to give you the freedom to be able to be there “for life”, as opposed to individuals who have no one else to help pay rent/mortgage, bills, ect. In America (if you happen to reside in another country), essentially, if you don’t work, you have no health insurance, as opposed to somewhere like England. I used all my vacation time to be with my pets in their last days and I held every one in my arms as they went across the Rainbow bridge. If it had been my mother instead of me- if they had passed while I was gone- it would have been hard, but I would have taken great comfort in knowing that she would have given them the same love and warmth, even if she wasn’t their primary “owner”. Life turns out differently for different people, especially over 15 years. Some people have support and assistance- especially financial- at times when others do not, and I believe that most people do their very best in whatever circumstances they find themselves.
          Admittedly, the financial aspect above would not apply to Meghan, but I believe she chose quality of life for her pet. Going back to the interview- she and Harry were both on adrenaline highs, giddy, excited- and who wouldn’t be, regardless of what your life role is? I’ve been that much in love and I know that adrenaline. I don’t know if she was expecting that question, or if they sprang it on her, but I believe she passed on it because it wasn’t something she wanted to talk about at that moment. Maybe she will choose to give more detail about her pets later, maybe not.
          But here’s the REAL question for the doubters who believe that she is cold/doesn’t care about her dogs because she didn’t take Bogart- to quote from above: “It sounds all very celebrity-disposable to me.”
          If that were true, and that’s how she is, why would she have even bothered to take Guy? Why not just re-home them both, not look back, and be done with it? Isn’t THAT what a cold, detached, non-caring, self-absorbed person would do? Why bother to make the effort with even the one dog??

    3. Seattle, how can you predict the future of Meghan and Harry marriage, are you God? And what is it exactly that Sarah Ferguson did that was any worse than what other royals have done? You come on here and post innuendo without having no facts whatsoever!! Meghan is a D-lister? Wel, a D-lister that has held a steady job for 7+ years and has her entire fellow actors and the network that was her boss all expressing sorrow for losing her, I’d love to be this D-lister indeed. Meanwhile A-lister actors like (cough, cough) are that idle all they do is cruise sites and blogs yelling themselves horse about the D-lister that has held a stead job for years……go figure. Not impressed by the interview? Well good thing is this lovely couple were not trying to impress any of the Debbie downers of this world, they did the interview, had lots of fun with it and now they are sitting pretty in front of a fire in their little cottage sipping tea with honey making mad crazy stuff with each other, and care zilch about what or how haters think of them…..Aaaaahh the feeling of love!!!!

      Speaking of which, did you see how these 2 look at each other and how they finish each other’s sentences? Uhm hum hum hum!!!!

  33. I’m so excited for Friday. A Swedish baptism and H&M on heir first joint outing. Let’s lighten up and enjoy. I wonder if all the Swedish women will wear the H&M collection of awful florals?

    And it must be the Nobels soon?

    1. Yes! The Nobel ceremony is on Dec. 10th. Soooo close!

      As for Erdem…I hope not! Victoria seems to like them, but I’m hoping for a more classic look overall. That’s usually my preference though.

      Do you have favorite looks from past events? My favorites are Victoria’s purple maternity gown, Madeleine’s aquamarine kokoshnik debut and Sofia in green with the small steel cut tiara.

      And who can resist baby sashes?!?!

      1. KMR (using that because it was on the other blog) did an absolutely amazing post awhile back on former looks. It’s a really fun read.

      2. Some have been amazing but some have been awful! I love all the tiaras though. KMR usually gives us photos of the tables all beautifully laid, the flowers which are stunning and the menus….which make me drool. She really does spoil us Nobel week. And then there are all the amazing people who are being honoured with the prizes. It is just heartbreaking when Nobel Peace Prize winners let the world down.

    2. Vic has sadly been wearing several pieces of the erdem H&M collection. I hope tomorrow she chooses something else! Do we know if Madeleine and fam will be there?

        1. Oh yay! I didn’t realize they already released the names. I thought it was the day of type of thing

  34. I’m truly sorry if my comments offended anyone. Actors aren’t known for being bastions of steady character and I truly hope she leaves her LA D-Lister ways behind her. The “LA Way” will not be compatible with royal life.

    1. I think we should at least give her a chance. Given what happened with Kate and all her positive PR crashing down when she ended up lazy and unmotivated, we might be surprised. People could be cynical and Meghan could end up being everything Kate was advertised to he but never lived up to.

      1. Seattle and here you go again. Meghan was on a successful show. I wouldn’t call her a Dlister. And how do you know what kind of LA D lister ways she does or doesn’t have. And what do you consider the LA way? I live in LA, why don’t you tell me?

        And unless you work in the palace, you don’t know what will or will not be compatible with Meghan’s new life.

        1. I wondered where you lived! For some reason I totally had you pegged as a New Yorker.

          I love SoCal. I live up in Oregon and it’s one of my favorite escapes.

      2. Seattle…You just can’t stop can you! KMR/MMR has the best site(s) and usually a very positive environment…please just think before you post and try not to offend. I don’t like to hear that words are banned but after reading some of your comments well let’s just say relax a little..Have a great Day!!

    1. It’s amazing, Tons of cool (nationally and internationally recognized) restaurants, and known for our food carts! Interesting arts scene. A gigantic bookstore. A park larger than Central Park still in city limits. The beach or the mountains are each an hour away. But I’m biased because I grew up here.

  35. Has anyone listened to Emily andrews bbc 4 iPlayer on her twitter an interview about royal reporting about if they don’t like what you’ve written they freeze you out and bombard you with legal letters and most of the time and don’t give straight answers

    1. Not surprised. I’ve heard this before from others. It’s why W&K, and sometimes H has been there too, have held meetings basically threatening the press with disallowing them from events to cover so basically “You either suck up to us, or you lose your job”. They brought the kids and used that to sweeten the deal. Look at our children you taxpayers never see!

      1. Wouldn’t any threat, no matter how back handed or subtle be against the law? They are attempting to suppress free speech. Surely the media have some recourse. It’s a total abuse of power. How can anybody root for these meshuganas when they sound like a really nasty bunch?

    2. The royal reporters and their editors need a plan to even the playing field. I wonder if having ‘access’ is all it’s cracked up to be since the reporters are just printing press releases; let’s be real, critical insights about the BRF are rare, and anything of consequence is usually written by a journalist not assigned to such things anyway eg Hilary Mantel. The BRF needs to be seen in a positive light to survive. It just takes some guts and press alliances to change the game. That, or find a different job within the media industry.,

      1. Agreed, Jen. It would take a strong, unshakable alliance. But then, what would be in it for them? Really, what would be their incentive when they can be royal adjacent mouthpieces?

        Meghan is perfect for the job. I predict that she will make us forget their ongoing corruption and greed and the almost absolute nasty power they wield and the fact that they get paid (and Meghan will) to do charity.

    3. I thought this was common knowledge. The royal reporters have never been employed to be investigative journalists. They have always been part and parcel of the Palace PR machine, trotting out the Palace line. Despite being employed by the free press.

      From time to time, you have one who goes rogue, but they very quickly fall back in line because the palace threatens their editor or freezes the newspaper from any future royal events even if they are open state occassions.

      One word of complaint from the Palace and paper can be shut down completely, so editors mind what they write and royal reporters are especially mindful of the relationship.

      Depending on the publisher’s politics, the reporters can josh the royals from time to time, but they rarely go too far.

      …but if you notice, when the royals are being criticised, all the papers use other non-royal reporters who rarely cover royals to write the critical pieces. That way the royal reporter’s relationship with the palace isn’t jeopardized due to plausible deniability.

      However, the royals NEED the media too. They can’t push them too far away because if they do, the papers WILL write the necessary critical piece and keep it going long enough to damage said royal. So they woo the reporters and promise them exclusives in exchange for positive press.

      Best example of this approach is Camilla Tominey who was the vinegar royal reporter to Richard Palmer’s sugar royal reporter at the express. Richard mostly writes positive pieces and the occassional jab. Camilla outright wrote negative pieces about the royals. She saved her more nasty jabs for William above all else. Then she was invited to that infamous ‘secret meeting’ at KP of a select set of journalists and editors to meet George ahead of the NZ/AUS tour. No one had seen him properly since his birth and that strange Pa Middleton photo session.

      Camilla has never written a negative word about them since that meeting. And i guess they keep her onside with exclusives because she doesn’t just write positive pieces, she also writes ridiculously OTT defences of the royals, particularly william. Infamously the article during William workshy-gate in which he called BOTH his parents negligent, hands off; called working parents bad parents and was determined to be a hands on stay at home dad.

      On twitter, Richard is much more honest about the royals, saying stuff he wouldn’t put into his column, but he gets reprimanded and falls back to sugar for a few weeks before going rogue again. I think it makes for a more robust conversation with the public because he is constantly challenged on his twitter.

      Camilka’s twitter is the same as her column. An OTT ridiculous defence of the royals like her life depended on it, and when challenged by the public, becomes abusive.

      The reporters who work for Murdoch’s papers are more honest in their papers and on twitter. They know Murdoch is ready to unleash the minute the Queen dies so they will toe the palace line for now, but are unafraid to put their names to critical pieces in their papers. And their papers often draft in guest columnists to write critical think op-eds on the royals all the time regardless of the royal being loved or inloved at any moment.

      1. Hera,

        Is there absolutely nowhere in the UK where someone can freely critique the BRF, expose them, I mean, someone not in bed with the royals? It seems to me everyone, absolutely everyone kowtows to them. What exclusives have they gotten, BTW? How could one tell amidst the steady stream of sugar?

        This meeting where George was used as bait- so they saw the kid; was that like having access to a holy apparition? I don’t believe that merely visiting a child was enough incentive for them to do such a volte- face. More likely, Willy put the screws to them. I bet he had legal help, too, standing there right beside him.

        1. An excellent write-up Hera, I always enjoy your comments even if sometimes I disagree a little.

          My feeling is the vast majority of journalists other than royal reporters tend to be republicans, whether their paper or organisation is openly republican or not. Compared to what it used to be in the past, even as late as the 80’s, royal reporting has been much scaled back too – I think it would be even more so, except for the fact royalty sells.

          The Independent and the Guardian do write critical pieces – there was a harsh piece on William and Kate and Poland in the Guardian not long back and a funny (to my thinking) review of Junor’s biography of Camilla. There have probably been more – I don’t follow too closely.

          As a supporter of the royal family (as an historical institution, not by individual members) I think even their favourable articles tend to carry a sting – I’ve seen that with articles about Kate, and now Meghan – it looks favourable but it’s questioning the institution.

          Hera is completely correct – the royal family needs the media. Royal reporters need their jobs so they are going to be careful. But whilst royalty sells, the press could do without the royal family – even Hello! during the ‘interregnum’ period following Diana’s death and before William and Harry got old enough to be interesting, had relatively few royal articles and still survived.

  36. Calling MM an LA D-lister or a Kardashian type is completely absurd. Los Angeles is a huge, diverse city. Most of it has no connection to Hollywood. MM’s mother lives in View Park-Windsor Hills area, which is one of the most affluent Black communities in the US. It’s all single family homes, suburban in feel and very quiet.

    Meghan has spent most of the past seven years living in Toronto which is physically and culturally very removed from Los Angeles. Before meeting Harry, she seemed to live a relatively quiet life. She wasn’t photographed at nightclubs or staging pap photos. Yes, she did socialize in some highly connected social and political circles in Canada but that’s not an indication of her being a D-lister but of someone with the poise and self confidence to spend time with influential people and hold her own.

    As for her craving attention, I hope anyone marrying into the BRF enjoys attention because they are certainly going to get a lot of it. An introvert would be miserable. It’s better to have someone who blooms rather than wilts in the spotlight.

    1. People often forget how large and diverse American cities are, your reminder is timely.

      I know that regretably much of my royal news comes from the Daily Mail, because they cover royals extensively. We all know to be wary of their gossip. I try to never forget that Rupert Murdoch is an ardent anti-monarchist who works to bring an end to the BRF. Thus all the articles which are sugary on the surface, but have an underlying snark. The DM coverage of Meghan’s family has been awful, and I believe, racist in relation to her mother.

      1. I wish people would understand that the DM is a right wing Xenophobic, obsessed with class paper that is permanently outraged by anything that is different from their target audience of homecounties little englanders. They’ve always been this way since the beginning.

        And going online has found a global audience of like minded people.

        Few people realise that after Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid was shut down, most of those journalists were employed by the DMonline. Piers Morgan, a tabloid editor extraordinaire of a Murdoch paper until he was fired, is it’s USA editor. The whole thing is pure british tabloid culture of sensationalism, click bait articles or headlines and naked ladies. Our regular tabloids come with a side dish of bare breasted ladies on page 3 presented as wholesome good fun. The ticker tape of barely dressed celeb flesh on the side of the dmonline, and the often repeated descriptions eg peachy derriere is its version of page 3 and shows the influence of those tabloid journalists.

        It’s the perfect marriage because our tabloids tend to be rightwing, xenophobic and little englander. Always ready to throw down any foreigners. I suppose people expect better from the DMonline because their target audience is well educated middle class and above people as opposed to tabloid target audience of ill educated working class people.

        The amazing thing is that the print edition is completely different. It has a separate editorial team and looks more like the ‘rightminds’ + ‘news’ sections of the dmonline with no corresponding bare flesh on parade and no inane celeb interviews – never printed a single Kardashian story as an example, and occassional click bait article from female columnist. The print edition frequently wins awards for journalistic content. The online edition is a tabloid along our very best (or perhaps worst) traditions.

      2. The Daily Mail is full of it. It’s better not to give it the time of day, IMO. I learned that from the Brits here. To me it’s likeTMZ and its commenters- beyond scurrilous.

    2. “An introvert would be miserable. It’s better to have someone who blooms rather than wilts in the spotlight.”

      Again, this is not true, not necessarily so. It would be hard on someone with social anxiety (which can be overcome), but that does not describe introversion.

      1. The reason DM draws so many is that it’s free – there’s no paywall unlike the Telegraph for their best articles and the Times – and DM publishes masses of photos.

        The comments are generally awful and mostly I ignore them but occasionally a subject draws people who don’t normally comment and can be a guide to how people are thinking – that was true of Kate and the Irish Guards, and now Bogart – although that article got pulled rather quickly after comments piled up – I think someone had a word there.

      2. I agree that introversion isn’t social anxiety. I still think it would be tough to be an introvert and have a job that requires lots of socializing all day. It would be draining.

    1. Any chance of recording the main points? I have no access to it and it does look very interesting.

      1. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: the wedding planner’s guide to the NotCott set.
        From old chums to the political elite: Matthew Bell on the closest pals of Harry and Meghan.
        • Both like power-players and charity activists.
        • Harry recently palling up with global influencers (Obamas) though keeping old Eton and army friends.
        • Meghan’s friendships forged mainly in last 2 years; makes no secret of her ambition and surrounds herself with go-getting types who can relate to pressures of stardom.
        The club king mentor, Guy Pelly – central to William and Harry’s social life. Not always popular with palace. Landed harry in trouble in 2004 with fancy-dress party (2004) with Harry dressed as Nazi. Has been in the know re. HM relationship early on. Calmer since marrying in 2014.

        Party-loving schoolfriend, Tom “Skippy” Inskip – Harry’s best friend from prep and Eton. Party boy, gets Harry into scrapes.

        The loyal ally, Thomas van Strawberry (sic) – great friend ob both H&W. Divorced from Melissa Percy after less than 3 years marriage.

        Canadian power royalty, Justin & Sophie Trudeau – the new Obamas. Sophie thought to have counselled Meghan on how to deal with fame. Canadian royalty.

        The effervescent Sloane, Violet von Westenholz – might have introduced H&M. Childhood friend of Harry, with Meghan at Wimbledon last year at exactly time of first date. Her father is friend of Charles. She is PR director for Ralph Lauren.

        Mr Fix-It, Markus Anderson – Described by MM as “one of my closest friends in the world”. Assiduous networker, right-hand man of SoHo House owner. Opened SHH Toronto. He and MM regularly holiday together; they went to Spain in 2016. In charge of deciding who is cool enough to join SoHo House.

        The zen New Yorker, Misha Nonoo – could also have brought H&M together. Looks like Gwyneth Paltrow who is MM’s style crush. On fringes of royal circles, married Alex Gilkes, friend of William. Gilkes employed Eugenie at Paddle*, his auction house. Younger brother Charlie Gilkes dated Pippa. Alex Gilkes and Misha divorced after 4 years marriage. Gilkes runs Sloane nightclubs.

        The stylist, Jessica Mulroney – dresses Sophie Trudeau. Married to Ben Mulroney, son of former PM of Canada. In 2016, she and MM went on holiday to Italy. Credited with shaping MM’s look. Runs social media account dedicated to weddings.

        The high-flying sashy, Olivia Palermo – socialite from New York. Worked in PR, now a model/designer/blogger. Friendship with MM based on mutual admiration. Palermo has given MM jewellery.

        The international tennis ace, Serena Williams – Markle’s idol, they met at a charity match in 2014. Markle describes friendship: “We are both the same age, have a penchant for hot sauces and adore fashion, but what connects us more than those things is perhaps our belief in exceeding expectations — our endless ambition.”

        The Pilates Queen, Heather Dorak – MM’s old Pilates teacher.

        The Venice Beach bag lady, Benita Litt – runs a boutique bag firm. MM is godmother to her two daughters.

        The loyal college pal, Lindsay Jill Roth – one of the few friends with whom MM has stayed close. Author, based a character on MM in novel What Pretty Girls are Made OF. Markle was her maid of honour for wedding in Greece 2016.

        1. Oy freaking Vey.

          My gosh, this is revealing! Many thanks, Jen, for your hard work.

          So Harry’s friends are Willy’s friends, largely Hooray Henrys. Meghan sounds like a high flyer and I’m disappointed to learn that she has no basic friends? No basic girlfriends and most of her friends are recent?

          “Ambition” is the operative word. Enough said. Le Sigh.

          1. Maven, I did not editorialise; phrases were as written by the article’s author.
            Yep, I got the same vibe. Not much different to Pippa and Kate in positioning oneself. Oh well.

          2. Yes, of course you didn’t editorialise. These are the facts. Really, one begins to think there is not much difference between her and Kate who also gave up her life in pursuit of a prince. Nothing in her history suggests anything relatable to the average person. The larger picture is starting to emerge. And the Times is no scurrilous rag.

            I’m beginning to feel like that interview was one hell of a snow job.

          3. Maven, aren’t there 2 girls Meg went to college with one who’s wedding she was maid of honour? IMO, she has enough old friends if you ask me, LOL. Im a 56 year old woman (I was a tomboy) who has not even one friend except my kids, not even one. I guess Im considered one mean bad woman de to my lack of friends!

        2. Yowza- well done Jen. I’m sitting square in the middle of the same fence you are- and I want all the facts good, bad and ugly before I make up my mind.

        3. That sounds like Middletons to me, having “friends” to reach the top.
          I’m disappointed of all people today that only reach the top because of “friends” and then smile like crazy how smart they are.
          I want real people. Diana was great, Chelsea married Harry not for the fame . There are just a few people with true characters, their own.Not something that looks good.

  37. One of Meghan’s friends is from her college days and another from her days in LA-Meghan i is godmother to her kids. Why did you overlook that? Also, it is stupid to think that at least in Meghan’s case, this article includes all her friends. That writer does not know her life.

    And honestly I feel we are reaching here. At least we know Meghan can make friends. If you look at her instagram, it shows a much better view of who her friends are. Give her a chance here.

    And I don’t think that interview was a snow job. I don’t think Meghan has a “side.” I think she is who she seems to be. I have followed her for almost ten years now there is nothing Middleton about her.

    Again GIVE HER A CHANCE. And why is ambition a dirty word when it comes to women? We should all have goals.

    1. I’ll be your friend if you ever feel the lack. I went through a nasty bout of depression a few years ago and cut myself off from my friends at the time because I didn’t want to burden them with my misery. I feel pretty good now, have good relationships with my hubby and children, but will be an empty nester in a year or so and am beginning to wonder if I should make an effort to meet other middle=aged women who might like to go hiking or sneak chocolate into a historical movie showing.

      Before I married, though, I had friends from childhood, high school, college, and church that I kept in fairly close contact with. I added new friends as my husband and I moved for his work and then formed close friendships with other mothers. I didn’t shop with any of them, though. Shopping bores me spitless.

      I don’t understand this curating of friends. It seems so empty. Does it remind anyone else of that super-snob of a professor at Hogwarts? I can’t remember his name, but he was instrumental in tracking down a horcrux or two.

  38. And honestly, why does Meghan have to be like an average person? What is wrong if her life is a bit above average. If Meghan had been a royal for as long as William’s wife, then judge away. But there is so much we don’t know about Meghan.

    At least give her a chance. Why are you all trying to dismiss her so quickly? Why dislike her so much? Is it racial, that she is American? I don’t get it.

    The last three women listed as Meghan’s friends she has known for years.

    I guess I am really disappointed that everyone wants to believe the worst in her so fast. Why?

    1. No one is dismissive of her, Leah. I WANT to believe.

      But Meghan was never a regular person. She was born into privilege. She did not struggle (although people would like us to believe that). Her ambitions are social and that may be okay for you, but they are not necessarily okay for others.

      I’m just learning about her, never followed her, didn’t even know it was she in the Reitman ads. People need time to weigh the information. But considering the cynical manipulation of the great unwashed by the BRF and Meghan’s own skill with PR, I err on the side of caution. I give her the benefit of the doubt but with a jaundiced eye.

      And you know? I don’t believe in fairy tales anymore and I don’t like being lied to and manipulated. To elevate gilded slackers to the heights of gods through relentless PR ? Pardon me if I don’t buy it and find it offensive.

      Added information and facts are very welcome to me. So if your information is true, thank you for that. It helps in the assessment.

  39. And last point, I lived in NYC and had tons of friends. I don’t talk to a lot of those people now and I don’t talk to my college friends at all. Plus I am ambitious. Does that make me a bad, social climber too?

    If Meghan displayed years and years of patented Middleton Wisteria behavior, but I don’t think she has.

    I just don’t get the hate for a woman who is intelligent, beautiful, outspoken, biracial, who knows what she wants and is worldly. I just don’t and on top of that, you all want to write her off and it hasn’t been a year yet. Do you all have that intolerant?

    Even I gave William’s wifey two years and we all know how I feel about her.

    1. Maven, having lived here in LA and seen people from Meghan’s background here, she wasn’t born into privilege. Tons of people like her in LA here and they have parents in showbiz. Unless their parents are famous actors, lawyers, the children of mega agents, etc. Well people with Meghan’s background are a dime a dozen out here.

      What is uncommon about Meghan is that for someone born with the parents she had is that she worked to get where she was. I have worked with kids of people who are seasoned showbiz vets who live off their parents and use their connections shamelessly.

      Meghan is not like that. She has hustle and that is not really true of a lot of native Angelenos. The kind of hustle and grit she has is more typical of the East Coast, where I am from. And having known tons of LA natives, the grit and ambition her mother and dad instilled in her is admirable, because out her it is not typical.

      I don’t believe in fairy tales either, but you can’t blame her for palace pr. And as far as Meghan’s own adeptness with pr, good for her. In showbiz you have to have it and also in life to some extent. You are your own best advocate.

      And social ambitions don’t bother me, unless they are all consuming like Carole’s are.

      People think Meghan loves attention, but having followed her for years, I can tell you she was not lying when she said she lived a low key life and NO ONE knew who she was. She wasn’t even really well known in showbiz circles and in other circles that some say she should have been known in, but I will not go into that because it would raise a can of worms and as a black woman, I know other women of color would understand, but those who are not minorities would not get it. And the fact that Meghan was not known in this circle is the reason she has had such a low profile. Was it her choice to stay out of that circle or was she not accepted, I don’t know.

      But like I said, unless I am contacted privately, I won’t talk about it because as I said, unless you are of a person of color, you would not understand.

    2. Nobody wants to believe the worst – I certainly don’t – if she were to bring Bogart over and was seen walking both dogs in Kensington Gardens, no one would be happier than me. I’d give her a happy metaphorical hug and we’d carry on.

      But there are triggers in every country that can result in judgement and strong emotions in people who might otherwise be waiting and seeing. Dogs, the forces, and sacred symbols like the Lion and the Unicorn are three such triggers. We saw what happened when Kate appeared to slight the Irish Guards without giving a valid reason. Bogart was the biggest trigger for me. Maybe it’s unfair – others here are trying to rationalise it – but it’s hard to overlook.

      It runs to another issue I’ve mentioned repeatedly. Countries express themselves in different ways. Whole books are written – and I’ve used them – explaining how etiquette works in different country and, just as important, how people express themselves and how they think. This is extremely important so I can’t stop emphasising it. A British businessman may be just as ambitious and hard-driving as his States counterpart but he won’t come off as open, as pushy, or as outspoken. (Unless he’s Branson who’s seen as something as a celebrity.)

      That’s why I hoped Meghan would come over to live with Harry as his girlfriend for time before assuming a public role. It would give her a chance to pick up the deprecating way that royals speak – just listen to Prince Charles – a classic example. And there are issues of manners – you don’t interrupt – there is a sense of deference. Although it perhaps should be the other way round, someone not from the country is often judged more strongly than someone who is – because it’s much more noticeable.

      But instead there was a quick engagement. Harry is in love with the States, he probably didn’t realise that it would have been better to introduce his girl slowly – as Mary was in Denmark. No foreigner coming in to represent a new country by marriage is going to have it as easy as a native-born. Taking time to learn is helpful.

      I was waiting for Meghan to say she has masses to learn. She didn’t. She surged ahead and it became very hard to tell if she was sincere or not. It can be hard to parse that out of national differences – a lot of people read her as sounding insincere – just too eager to become a princess. And her political past makes people uneasy. Royals absolutely can’t be involved in politics – especially royals who become that by marriage. Even after she met Harry, she stayed involved in politics. The Brexit picture she posted was simply a stupid thing to do as were the coy hints on her blog.

      Being an actress is a double-edged sword. On one hand it has given her confidence and polish. But the acting profession and most importantly – their way of speaking – is not respected. In the end, it became difficult to tell whether she was acting or not – and because people had no time to get used to her, even to develop affection for her – away from a silly quiz when she may or may not have been dating Harry (their timetable completely baffles me) and the Vanity Fair article that turned many off. That was a big turning point to me. She sounded too presumptuous and fake. The press hype about her also was a huge issue to me – and to many – it sounded like it was coming from her – there was too much early talk of an engagement.

      She’s a lovely girl – truly beautiful with a host of gifts. I’m finding it almost impossible to get over the Bogart issue but I’m a huge dog lover. Others will give her more benefit of the doubt and I respect that. But I think she is being brought out too fast before she is really ready. She isn’t surrounded by people who will give her the best advice. (Jason!) and the palace tends to be more reactive than proactive, they let people flounder and make mistakes. If they work out – wonderful. If not, they turn into Sarah Ferguson.

      Still weddings are such a happy event that she will gain good will and hopefully use it wisely.

      I judged Kate fairly severely when she got engaged too. I was extremely worried that she had never held down a proper job, and that in her interview, she seemed very hazy about what work she meant to take on. The problems were different than Meghan but they have proved to matter.

      After Sarah and especially Diana, people don’t believe in fairy tales, and to me that’s wise because we’re talking about human beings. The paradigm that these romances were too hasty – that a long courtship would lead to stronger royal marriages took hold. I still think it is a good one. But it didn’t happen here and that is making it all so much harder – no one wants to make an emotional investment in a silly-crazy love affair. The royal family stands for substance for those who still believe in it.

    3. Leah, no one is writing her off, I think most of us are just trying to see through the PR. She has a crafted image like any other celeb.

      And she may not have been a 1%er growing up, but she still seems privileged to me. My impression was that she had access to a great education and had travelled abroad since she was young. Imo that’s privilege.

  40. And there is nothing wrong with privilege. It is how you use it. As black women, not many of us people of color get privilege. I am all for it. Why slight Meghan for being brought up in privilege and why judge her? We cannot help how we are raised as children. I think people want to judge Meghan and slight her for the decisions her folks made re rearing her. If you have issue, it is with her parents.

    And like I said, people of color do not often have the childhood Meghan had. Because of that, you cannot judge her via the privilege that a white person may have had. It is not the same thing. You cannot judge her background by majority standards. A lot of things about Meghan and her background can’t be understood unless you are a person of color. It is fact.

    As far as interrupting and showing deference-this is not the 1950s. Women do not have to wait for men to speak, nor should they. Women have the right to speak up and they should. Far too many women are silenced and that is a shame. I applaud Meghan for knowing her mind and speaking it. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I am appalled by those who want Meghan to just be a silent doormat like William’s wife.

    Also re Bogart, stop judging her. We do not know the facts, you all assume. We do not know the dog’s health or what the vet recommended. Until you know that, then you have no right to assume that she is cold hearted where that dog is concerned and I say this as someone that has an elderly cat that I have had to make hard decisions for.

    I judged William’s wife as well, but once that ring went on, I put aside very huge doubts and gave her a chance for two years.

    I intend to give Meghan the same. I think Diana and Fergie have jaded people but Megan is not those women.

    1. I’m not slighting her for being privileged. You said yourself upthread she wasn’t born into privilege and I was just pointing out that it didn’t seem like that to me. But I was refering to economic privilege, sorry if it wasn’t clear.

  41. The Other Julia, what do you mean that actors don’t have a respected way of speaking? That sounds of to me. And just because Meghan didn’t say she loads to learn doesn’t mean she knows that. What is wrong with surging ahead and being forward? I find that great, but like Meghan, I am American. I don’t find the need to have false modesty and hang back.

    Meghan is a MODERN woman. That is the point. Good for her that she takes the lead and forges ahead. The world is not made for mealy mouthed wallflowers. I am proud of Meghan and how she took the lead in that interview and had something to say for herself.

    1. You express yourself very well Leah and I respect that – and it’s fine to be a modern woman. I certainly think I’m one.

      But if I married the Prime Minister of Japan, or the king of Saudi, or became the next Mrs Putin (he needn’t ask me!) I wouldn’t expect to behave as I do now – I would study the history, customs and ways of that country – taking time to learn carefully. Maybe I wouldn’t like everything about it (in fact, I know I wouldn’t) but I would respect that there are differences and as a representative of that country I would need to understand and reflect those. I might decide that wasn’t a role for me, but if I took it on, I would accept the limitations. Is that too much to ask?

      It is hard – I’m not saying it isn’t – a delicate balance between being yourself and embracing the new that may not be completely congenial or natural. But it is important.

      As for Bogart – I made it clear it is an issue very personal to me but I accept that others will be more accommodating. Many said the same about Kate with regards to the Irish Guards – but I was extremely critical of her decision there and was heavily criticised for being so. I have friends who have no use for Harry because he once used a very offensive slur – whilst others are prepared to overlook that.

      As I said earlier, I think Meghan has moved to quickly and Kate far too slowly – I would be very happy for them to achieve a middle ground and hope both will do so.

      1. The Other Julia,

        I just want to point out that Meghan is not marrying a future prime minister, king, or president – Harry will be 6th in line for the throne, and while he is the grandson/son/brother/uncle of the monarch, that’s it. I agree with you that it’s important for her to learn about and appreciate the UK, considering all the signs are pointing to her becoming a “working royal” and living permanently there, but I feel like some perspective is needed.

        Upthread I saw you comparing Meghan’s “roll-out” to Mary Donaldson’s, but Mary was marrying the future king. It’s not quite the same thing.

        I feel like you are more nervous/apprehensive about Meghan because she’s not British? I’m not attacking you for that, just making an observation. It’s fine if you feel that way.

  42. Now the Irish Guards thing pissed me off and it was a huge deal that the Daily Mail slagged off William’s wife for what did and rightfully so. HOWEVER, William’s wife has a long history, as does her husband of blowing off engagements and picking and choosing what they want to do. ‘

    Meghan has no history of animal abuse or neglect. Her instagram shows her love of those dogs and so do interviews. I choose to give her the benefit of the doubt on Bogarts.

    I do not believe Meghan to be uncaring or unfeeling.

    1. LizB – Only because of the speed of the engagement. And that would apply to any royal fiancee from any country – even other Commonwealth countries or Europe.

      I certainly wouldn’t expect them to wait three years like Mary – that’s obviously unreasonable – but a year, or even a few months together before getting engaged and starting engagements would have made me more comfortable. It’s hard to tell at this point how much Meghan has been in Britain but it can’t be more than a few weeks at one time at the most.

  43. Hahahaha, this is just incredible. A few months ago Meghan was an “unknown” actress, now suddenly some guy claims to know this much about her and print it and now all of a sudden whatever he wrote is such an eye opener and people are just eating it up with no questions asked I just have to laugh out loud. So whoever has no girlfriends from the past or present is chalked off as some sneaky person? Or whoever has no friends from college or high school is now some social climber because the only friends they have are from about a couple of years ago and happen to be the Trudeaus? My goodness, I must be one of the nastiest people ever because, in my 56 years I have not even one friend. As a single parent of 5 children (not counting other extended family members) I chose to work work work and nothing else but work to raise my kids, I have no time to socialize or make friends. And there are others like me who are too busy to make friends or to even keep up with what’s going on with old ones from HS. When people grow up, the world takes them in different directions, priorities and interests change and all that, and then suddenly, people no longer have the time the things they used to do when they were younger; or even some find that they have nothing in common with people they once thought they were close with!! Does that make them bad people? I’m hoping not.
    Also, why is being ambitious bad? And I’m confused, Kate is being criticized for not being ambitious, and Meghan is criticize for being ambitious, my goodness!!!
    To the other Julia, I apologize if my pst offends, but, you are not Meghan and Meghan is not you. You might have chosen to nurse your old dog and would not marry any prince charming (as you said) and left your dog behind but, that doesn’t make you a better or kinder person than someone else that chose to leave their old dog with close friends to spare it a 5000 mile flight that could probably have killed the dog. You both made decisions that you felt were the best for your dogs, you both dog lovers and one is not necessarily a bad person just because they left their dog behind. And really you have no right to judge and paint others as cruel with your claims that they “abandoned the dog because it don’t fit in with their plan” you don’t know the back story as to why Meghan chose to leave Bogart in Canada but took Guy with her.

    1. We can agree to disagree Masamf – and I don’t go out of my way to take offense, I prefer thoughtful analysis and realise on any topic we may feel differently.

      We are all judging here – I’ve seen people make comments about Kate, everything from her mental health to her marriage, to her relationship with her mum to claims she in fact didn’t suffer from HG – put out here more times than I can count. If that isn’t judgement, I don’t know what is. Not a single person here knows the truth on any of these issues.

      Personally no, I couldn’t leave my dogs – my heart would break – and perhaps travel would put them more at risk because of that – I would travel with them and pay whatever I could possibly afford to transport them safely. Maybe I’m a worse dog owner for it but I’ve seen their crazed excitement when I return from travel, even though they love the house sitter. The heart does funny things so maybe I am selfish.

      But I’ve also been a big supporter of rescue and seen many old pets left with the excuse travel is bad for them – or there isn’t enough time for them, or that they wouldn’t do well in a move/new life, most often by people that would seem otherwise very nice – but it was obviously because they didn’t want to be troubled. And I have met people who didn’t have a great deal of charm but were devoted to their pets. Rescues are filled with sad older pets. So I suppose I’m wary, particularly when it means separating canines who have spent years together.

      We have been offered so far no reason why Bogart was left behind. The claim he is too old is again speculation on the part of people here and the suggestion it would kill him if he was flown in the cabin of a private jet or taken on a ship (they transport dogs) is as much judgement as anything else said, quite honestly and I think from what I know of dogs, rather unlikely.

      Meghan didn’t explain why he was left, Jason didn’t explain although nothing was stopping him from doing so. At this point, when it has become an issue, I don’t know if I would believe an excuse but if it had been said upfront the dog had a dicky heart or something of that sort – I would have reluctantly accepted it.

      So it’s an issue to me, the way the Irish Guards were, where many made excuses for Kate. I don’t pick and choose because it’s one person or another. I’ve often criticised Kate.

      I’m puzzled by the corgi story as the queen has only one corgi now, as well two dorgis who look like Dachshunds, but I don’t go out of my way to doubt people so I’ll take that as said – it was a nice story The queen did apparently adopt a corgi from a friend who died, so perhaps she does have two at the palace.

      1. The other Julia, I admire your commitment to your dogs etc etc, but please don’t judge others based on what YOU do or don’t do for your pets, its unfair. Meghan owes no one no explanations about what really is wrong (or what isn’t) with her dogs or what she chose to do this for Bogart but something different for Guy, these are her dogs. I’m baffled as to why you continue to harp on about “why didn’t Meghan explain…….” this is her personal life and the interview was NOT about her dogs but about her relationship with prince Harry. If she chose to get deeper into that, well that would have been a bonus but she chose to re-focus on the topic of the interview and that too is fine. Why is she branded a cold calculating person based on what she didn’t say about her dogs? This is her private life, she chooses what she does or doesn’t share, she owes no one no explanations about nothing. I’m sure if Harry and Meghan hadn’t been made to sit down and give this interview, they would have happily stayed out of the limelight and just got on with their lives, but again that too would have been something to criticize them about, Meghan can’t catch a break with some!!

        1. “please don’t judge others based on what YOU do or don’t do… its unfair.”

          Isn’t a lot of the vitriol lodged at various royal women (Kate, Sofia, Camilla, etc) this exactly? People* hate Kate because she didn’t work before marriage because THEY worked and hate Kate for choosing not to. People* hate Sofia because she chose to do nude modeling and a reality show because THEY think it’s shameful and hate Sofia for choosing that path. People* hate Camilla for having an affair with a married man and treating his wife poorly because THEY would never do that and hate Camilla for doing so. So much of the hatred directed at these women is because people* hate them for choosing different life choices than they did.

          I’m not saying that, because this happens toward other women, this should be acceptable toward Meghan. What I’m saying is that this is a problem toward multiple women, and if we are going to defend Meghan, we should defend the other women, too.

          * “People” meaning the people who hate her. Obviously not everyone hates her, people in general have differing reasons for disliking her, and not everyone who is critical of her dislikes her. Obviously I’m specifically talking about the people who actively hate her.

          1. I think most people’s problem with Kate (certainly my problem with her) is due to the fact that she has not shown any substantial work ethic after her marriage. If her parents were willing to support her financially before her marriage, well that was their choice and I don’t begrudge her for it even though I personally would not have chosen that for myself. The fact is that after her marriage, she is subsisting on the public’s dime (unless I’m mistaken), a choice that she made with both eyes open. In that case it is her duty to step up her work commitments. I would say the same had it been any of us in her position. To paraphrase the words of Scarlett Johansson, if you choose to be a public advocate, you must advocate publicly.

          2. As I said, I was specifically commenting on the people who actively hate her, who have said they hate her because of her pre-marriage non-working years. Of course other people have other reasons for disliking her or the job she is doing, but those people are not whom I was referencing (I posted my message at the bottom specifically to clarify whom I was referencing).

          3. “What I’m saying is that this is a problem toward multiple women, and if we are going to defend Meghan, we should defend the other women, too.”
            In my posts on these boards, even those upthread, I have been defending both Meghan and Kate. Matter of fact in one of my posts I asked how people could judge Kate and/or Meghan’s characters based on what they seen in newspapers or magazines, so my posts are not just for Meghan; I don’t hate Kate.
            And I only address Kate and Meghan on here because they seem to get the shortest end of the stick more than any other royal woman. And to be fair to other posters really, the comments on Kate, William and Harry’s workload (or lack of) are not based on what posters do in their day to day lives, that is not fair criticism/comparison to make. Neither are the posts on Kate’s wardrobe and/or expenses on said wardrobe, and these posts make the bulk of posts on KMR.

      2. The other Julia +1
        Applause to your caring for these animals.
        My mother also has two dogs flown to us from Greece who need help.
        It’s not always easy in the first years but they are clearly thankful for your love and support.
        I wouldn’t have left my dog in another country.

    2. Well I’ve been a part of the KMR community for a very long time and I can tell you not many of us (if any) thought Kate had no ambition. She would not be where she is now if she didn’t. Not inclined to work or to show anything but a passing interest with little preparation in the work she must do can’t be confused with that.

    3. MASAMF,

      I’ve moved around in my life alot (when I was a child, my father was active duty military) and then due to university/jobs/family events in my young adult life, I can’t say I have that many friends. I now live in a foreign country (having married a man from this country, so I kinda get a bit of what Meghan is facing). If people scrutinized me and my life the way they are doing for MM – or the way it has been done to Kate – I would look very bad. One childhood friend I still keep in touch with… My uni friends I see on facebook, every now and then… because I work full-time and have 2 kids, my social life at the moment is very close to zilch. I have 1 cherished friend I see about once a year for coffee or lunch because we both work… Nobody from my friends and family were able to attend my wedding because it was last minute and in a foreign country…

      I guess that makes me cold and untrustworthy?

  44. I apologize if this shows up twice- I meant to post it here!
    For The Other Julia – I admire your statement- “Because I made that promise to them when I adopted them – I would be there for life, no matter what it took, because of the love and loyalty they gave me in return.” Most pet owners I have known feel exactly the same.

    How nice/helpful, though, that you had a husband bringing in additional income. Maybe that helped to give you the freedom to be able to be there “for life”, as opposed to individuals who have no one else to help pay rent/mortgage, bills, ect. In America (if you happen to reside in another country), essentially, if you don’t work, you have no health insurance, as opposed to somewhere like England. I used all my vacation time to be with my pets in their last days and I held every one in my arms as they went across the Rainbow bridge. If it had been my mother instead of me- if they had passed while I was gone- it would have been hard, but I would have taken great comfort in knowing that she would have given them the same love/warmth, even if she wasn’t their primary “owner”.

    Life turns out differently for different people, especially over 15 years. As you said upthread, you do accept that people will make other acccommodations- so true, and often not the choice they truly wanted/would make in different circumstances. My mother desperately wanted to be at home with her children when we were young. My father abandoned the family and moved across the country, so she had no choice but to work as any money she got from him was minimal. The closest family to the 4 of us was 5 states away- no grandparents, aunts/uncles, no help at all for her. So there were MANY of our sports/school activities over the years that she could not make it to, because she was also an RN and had to work. If she had lost her job we would have been destitute. Neighbors and friends would give us rides to activities. She did her best by us but she was unable to fully live up to her “pledge” to be really involved when we were growing up. Do I judge her for not fulfilling that “pledge” she made when she had children, that she didn’t do “whatever it took to be more at home instead of work”? Of course not! She had no way of knowing how things would turn out, but she did give us a home and whatever time she could.

    Obviously that has shaped my outlook of quality and quantity- having lived it, accepting that life flings curve balls into people’s lives, and knowing that the best-laid pledges /commitments may not work out exactly the way you had hoped, despite every possible effort. And to not be judgemental in those circumstances.

    So maybe that’s why I’m struggling to NOT interpret your commentary of “Well, I made a commitment and 15 years later kept it” as condescending, especially coming from someone who- as you said- had both financial and emotional support. A privileged position to make such statements from, if you will. The Queen? Same thing- endless resources. Meghan did exactly what you praised the Queen for- got a caretaker for her pet. Geography is the only difference. Some people have support and assistance- especially financial- at times when others do not, and I believe that most people do their very best in whatever circumstances they find themselves.

    Admittedly, the financial aspect above would not apply to Meghan, but I believe she chose quality of life for her pet. Going back to the interview- she and Harry were both on adrenaline highs, giddy, excited- and who wouldn’t be, regardless of what your life role is? I’ve been that much in love and I know that adrenaline. I don’t know if she was expecting that question, or if they sprang it on her, but I believe she passed on it because it wasn’t something she wanted to talk about at that moment. Maybe she will choose to give more detail about her pets later, maybe not.

    But here’s the REAL question for the doubters who believe that she is cold/doesn’t care about her dogs because she didn’t take Bogart- to quote from above: “It sounds all very celebrity-disposable to me.”
    If that were true, and that’s how she is, why would she have even bothered to take Guy? Why not just re-home them both, not look back, and be done with it? Isn’t THAT what a cold, detached, non-caring, self-absorbed person would do? Why bother to make the effort with even the one dog??

    1. I apologize if this shows up twice- I meant to post it here!
      For The Other Julia – I admire your statement- “Because I made that promise to them when I adopted them – I would be there for life, no matter what it took, because of the love and loyalty they gave me in return.” Most pet owners I have known feel exactly the same.

      How nice/helpful, though, that you had a husband bringing in additional income. Maybe that helped to give you the freedom to be able to be there “for life”, as opposed to individuals who have no one else to help pay rent/mortgage, bills, ect. In America (if you happen to reside in another country), essentially, if you don’t work, you have no health insurance, as opposed to somewhere like England. I used all my vacation time to be with my pets in their last days and I held every one in my arms as they went across the Rainbow bridge. If it had been my mother instead of me- if they had passed while I was gone- it would have been hard, but I would have taken great comfort in knowing that she would have given them the same love/warmth, even if she wasn’t their primary “owner”.

      Life turns out differently for different people, especially over 15 years. As you said upthread, you do accept that people will make other acccommodations- so true, and often not the choice they truly wanted/would make in different circumstances. My mother desperately wanted to be at home with her children when we were young. My father abandoned the family and moved across the country, so she had no choice but to work as any money she got from him was minimal. The closest family to the 4 of us was 5 states away- no grandparents, aunts/uncles, no help at all for her. So there were MANY of our sports/school activities over the years that she could not make it to, because she was also an RN and had to work. If she had lost her job we would have been destitute. Neighbors and friends would give us rides to activities. She did her best by us but she was unable to fully live up to her “pledge” to be really involved when we were growing up. Do I judge her for not fulfilling that “pledge” she made when she had children, that she didn’t do “whatever it took to be more at home instead of work”? Of course not! She had no way of knowing how things would turn out, but she did give us a home and whatever time she could.

      Obviously that has shaped my outlook of quality and quantity- having lived it, accepting that life flings curve balls into people’s lives, and knowing that the best-laid pledges /commitments may not work out exactly the way you had hoped, despite every possible effort. And to not be judgemental in those circumstances.

      So maybe that’s why I’m struggling to NOT interpret your commentary of “Well, I made a commitment and 15 years later kept it” as condescending, especially coming from someone who- as you said- had both financial and emotional support. A privileged position to make such statements from, if you will. The Queen? Same thing- endless resources. Meghan did exactly what you praised the Queen for- got a caretaker for her pet. Geography is the only difference. Some people have support and assistance- especially financial- at times when others do not, and I believe that most people do their very best in whatever circumstances they find themselves.

      Admittedly, the financial aspect above would not apply to Meghan, but I believe she chose quality of life for her pet. Going back to the interview- she and Harry were both on adrenaline highs, giddy, excited- and who wouldn’t be, regardless of what your life role is? I’ve been that much in love and I know that adrenaline. I don’t know if she was expecting that question, or if they sprang it on her, but I believe she passed on it because it wasn’t something she wanted to talk about at that moment. Maybe she will choose to give more detail about her pets later, maybe not.

      But here’s the REAL question for the doubters who believe that she is cold/doesn’t care about her dogs because she didn’t take Bogart- to quote from above: “It sounds all very celebrity-disposable to me.”
      If that were true, and that’s how she is, why would she have even bothered to take Guy? Why not just re-home them both, not look back, and be done with it? Isn’t THAT what a cold, detached, non-caring, self-absorbed person would do? Why bother to make the effort with even the one dog??

      One additional comment- but significant. Meghan didn’t dump her pet at a shelter. She didn’t dump him into a Rescue organization (which I also volunteer at, and agree with the Other Julia’s assessment of some pet owners). She secured another home for him- there is a major difference between the two.

      1. Yes. There have been commenters who have said they hate certain royals. Not everyone, obviously. In fact, most people don’t come out and say that they hate the royal they are discussing, but there have been some who have.

  45. I was watching an inside edition segment on meghan when she was featured on nick news back in the day. It showed how she wrote to proctor &gamble and they actually changed the commercial. I think she will be a great addition to the royal family.

    1. Yeah, it was a teacher’s doing, they all wrote to the company. I remember the Nick News segment back in the day. But they interviewed Meghan–I assume due to her ties with the ‘biz’ early though her dad. I wouldn’t say it was because of her, as lots of kids wrote complaining. I was one of them because my teacher picked up on it and told us kids to write to the company!

      1. Ellie, the Nick News story did not say that the teacher had them write to the company. Where do you get that from? The story says the teacher had them watch commercials and discuss their message, if I am understanding it. Meghan wrote on her own.

        And please, lighting director in LA is not a big deal. How would that have ANY bearing on her being on Nick News? It is more likely that she got on because she wrote the host about her disgust with the commercial.

      2. Little Meghan is cute!

        I don’t believe her connections put her on the show, but I also doubt her letter alone made the company change the commercial. As Ellie said, probably many other kids wrote them too.

        1. You might not believe that her letter made the company change anything but in the clip above that’s exactly what is said to have happened, no other kid (who might have wrote) is referenced so……
          And my earlier post was in response to Ellie who said she and lots other kids were made by their teachers to write the company, it wast meant for to Leah, sorry about my mistake.

  46. Harry and Meghan are doing their first engagement …..oh my kiddy aunt. She’s incredible. She’s picking up babies gloves, stroking member of the public’s arms, holding Harry’s hand. Having flowers thrown at her. Getting down to eye level with children and people in wheelchairs. She looks like she was born to do a walkabout. And do you know I couldn’t even tell you what’s she wearing except she has no gloves on whet is one of the coldest days of the year so far …..it’s not even relevant. It’s staggering watching her do this.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top