Harry & Meghan in Nottingham for first appearance since announcing engagement

Harry & Meghan in Nottingham for first appearance since announcing engagement

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made their first joint appearances since announcing their engagement in Nottingham yesterday, December 1.

[Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal]

Harry and Meghan began their day with a 25-minute walkabout outside the National Justice Museum. After arriving arm-in-arm, the couple split to greet the crowds.

At one point, a woman dropped her glove and Meghan bent down to pick it up and hand it back to her. Meghan also met a barn owl named Kim.

Meghan declined a selfie:

“Barbara Miller, 63, from Nottingham, said: ‘She said thank you very much for braving the cold. I said ‘can we have a selfie?’ and said ‘we’re not allowed to do selfies’.’


Meghan gave one woman a heat pack from her pocket:

“Emily Harland, 21, from Australia, a student at Coventry University said: ‘He was going to shake my hand but my hands were cold and Meghan reached into her pocket and gave me a heat pack. I said ‘thank you.’ I thought they were really sweet and it is good that one is from England and one is from America. It unites the two countries.’

[Nottingham Post]

[Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal]

Their first official stop was the Terrence Higgins Trust World AIDS Day charity fair at the Contemporary Exhibition Centre. The couple met representatives from Terrence Higgins Trust Nottingham, the African Institute for Social Development, and Champions for Change – which all support local communities in Nottingham and do specific work around HIV/AIDS.

Representatives from The Food Chain and BHIVA were also at the fair – these two organizations support people living with HIV and work towards eradicating the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS.

[Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal]

Harry and Meghan then traveled to Nottingham Academy where they met staff and mentors from the Full Effect program – which was founded in 2013 and is supported by The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

Full Effect empowers young people to engage their peers and communities in the issues that matter most to them while developing key skills, aspirations, industry networks and employment opportunities through Early Intervention programs and building a wider support network for Young People.

Harry and Meghan stopped by Full Effect’s kickboxing session before watching a Hip Hopera performance.

Hamza Latif, head boy of Nottingham Academy, said:

“They were both really, really friendly and warm. They looked great together. I said I was rooting for her as a princess. We complimented them and also asked them for a wedding invite. He said ‘maybe if you’re good’. It makes me proud and privileged to be head boy of Nottingham Academy and welcome them for the first time. They’re an amazing couple. They really suit each other and look good together. They have similar personalities and seem really nice. She was extremely friendly and kind. She’s beautiful inside and out.”

Leo Wright, who was part of the performance, said:

“We had four rappers together and we did a back-to-back cypher one one beat. Harry and Meghan were clapping and they shook our hands. The reaction from the audience was amazing. Prince Harry was smiling. When he shook my hand, he said it [the performance] was amazing. And when Meghan did she said she was surprised I didn’t run out of breath. They looked happy and smiled all the way through our performances. I’m absolutely buzzing. It was amazing.”

[Nottingham Post]

While at Full Effect, Harry introduced Meghan to Chantelle Stefanovic, who spoke at the Obama Foundation Summit on October 31 of this year. When Meghan met Chantelle, Meghan said: “You were amazing in Chicago.”

[Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal]

During the walkabout, Meghan wore a Mackage Elodie Double Breasted Military Coat which she’s had for a while. The navy coat retails for $790.00 and is currently available for pre-order on the brand’s website.

Embed from Getty Images

Meghan took off her coat while indoors, which revealed the rest of her outfit. She wore a black Wolford Portland Turtleneck, a Joseph Laurel Full Midi Skirt (which originally sold for $895), and Kurt Geiger Violet Over The Knee Boots in black suede (£229.00).

Embed from Getty Images

Meghan carried a handbag – the Strathberry Midi Tote in tri color burgundy, navy, and vanilla ($675.00). Brand country breakdown: Mackage is Canadian; Joseph is British; Kurt Geiger is British; Strathberry is Scottish. As far as I can tell, Meghan didn’t wear any jewelry aside from her engagement ring.

Embed from Getty Images

As far as Meghan’s first official engagements goes, I’d say this is a success, but I’m not as in love with these appearances as everyone else seems to be. I’m not negative about them at all, but I’m more neutral than everyone else and need to see more before I form an opinion on Meghan as a royal. I thought she did well for her first appearance, but we barely got any direct quotes from her, and I thought her outfit was boring.

To be clear: I am not negative on Meghan here. I think she did very well for her first appearance and showed promise for the future. All I am saying is that I want to see Meghan do more engagements before I gush.

Embed from Getty Images

Here is a video of the walkabout.

Here is a video from the World AIDS Day event.

Here is Harry and Meghan with Chantelle.

Embed from Getty Images
Embed from Getty Images
Embed from Getty Images
Embed from Getty Images

432 thoughts on “Harry & Meghan in Nottingham for first appearance since announcing engagement

  1. I’m with you KMR/MMR. This is simply about being present and introduced to society in a country which she has never lived. Nothing wrong with that – but it doesn’t mean it is “work”. She’s keeping Harry company and being friendly. That’s all I expect to see until she’s an official member of the family.

    1. Exactly. Harry’s showing Meghan the ropes, and she’s just there to be friendly. This was her first official royal appearance, and she did her job well, but it’s way too early to be claiming she’s the second coming of Diana, as I saw people doing on Twitter.

      1. IMO there was only one princess Diana and no one can ever be just like her. I think any of these royal women the even tries to be like Diana will fall flat on their face. As far as I have followed Meghan, she stays true to herself and I don’t think she is, in any way, trying to be Diana2, she’s just a warm person, period. There is a vid on YouTube of her and Sarah Rafferty, they were combined from some interview or show or simething like at and the crowd were I ting for them outsid. They both shook hands of people and Sarah walked to their car and sat waiting for Meg. Meanwhile, Meg couldn’t tear herself away from the people that were asking for autographs and selfies and all that. In the end, Sarah got out of the car and literally dragged Megs away and into the car, that’s the kind of person Meghan is. If Meghan doesn’t do much, it won’t be because she didn’t want to, it will be because that that’s all she was assigned to and she did her job but nothing more was offered for her to do.

      2. I think the reason this engagement was so lauded in the media is because compared to the Cambridges, these two together are really a breath of fresh air. The Diana comments are too much but I think they’ve been wanting a new angle than what we’ve had from recent years. This is a good start for her though; at least she didn’t take months before going out there and meeting people. I hope they will be able to keep the goodwill going on here until they’ve established themselves.

      3. I agree with your comment vis a vis Diana2.0.

        Afterall, Kate’s first engagement was met with the same adulation.

        I do think that Harry and William are replaying the Charles-Diana dynamic which is enhanced by the types of people they chose to marry.

        By that i mean that Harry has Diana’s natural charisma that draws people to him. William, even at his best, doesn’t have that charisma.

        William’s high public profile and high ratings are PR engineered because he is the heir. People like him, but most of that is due to PR narratives telling them that he has all these positives blah, blah blah. In otherwords, from the offices of the best PR minds, even if Jason is determined to ruin it with his ineptitude.

        Harry’s high public profile and high ratings come from the public. It caught the establishment, the media and PR mavens by surprise. No matter how many ‘party prince’ articles they write, the public love Harry. They flock to his engagements.

        That is what happened with Charles and Diana and is now playing out with their sons.

        In terms of their SO, they chose people that are extensions of themselves. And royal marriage brings the spotlight on the couple, so if people flock to HM’s engagements more than WK’s engagements, it will seem like the Diana years all over again.

        Let’s revisit in 5yrs.

        I predict it will still be there. The question is whether it will be as potent as Diana’s effect which increased the longer she was in the family, and learnt to use it as a weapon against the family.

      4. Ditto Ditto LadyBlueribbon and Meghanmarklerreview !!
        As HEARZEUS says at the Cambridge engagement also the Diana 2.0 was hyped till PW firmly shut it down by saying nobody was trying to and nobody could do that.
        Rather fine, that, I thought those days.
        I expect we will get a form of that in this case too.
        I agree MASAMF anyone who tries will fall flat whoever they are.
        Afterall, all the Duchy machine and all the Duchy money couldn’t do it all these years.
        It is beyond absurd to continually harp on PH&M getting to work faster – there is a very simple reason. Meghan is 36, PH said they would like to start a family and hopefully soon, and that means an early marriage, an early pregnancy, and so getting the bonding with the people done and done sooner rather than later.
        Also the courtiers organise the schedules and that usually depends on the societal and political advantages/ diversions 😀 Not the royals wishes usually.
        The Waleses had a punishing schedule in case people care to remember.
        Years later on it was felt that the ‘men in the grey suits’ and that schedule also had a part to play in the disruption of the Wales’ fresh relationship. Famously, the popularity of Di eroded the weak self confidence of PoW, and brought relationship tensions.
        Therefore, there was a legal agreement made before the PW+K wedding between the Middletins and Prince William and the court to give the Duchess of Cambridge a 5 year breather and to break her into the role gently – this was really to prevent the grey suits’ demands with a written contract.
        I read that even PoW & C are put off by the sometimes sudden schedule changes the grey suits demand. Grey suits at the end of the day are the ones who got Kings abdicated. They look after their own, mostly political, interests. It’s not a cake walk, there.

      5. Nonetheless a true British American Princess, BAP, in the making! I guess the first real BAP. Nice coverage. Nice blog.

  2. Lovely. Lovely lovely lovely.

    I can see that they colour coordinated ensembles for this morning’s walk about, and it made me smile. Harry looked smart (but then, off came the coat and scarf and he was back to looking – slovenly is too harsh a word, but perhaps unkempt? Good Lord, I despise his faded blue suede shoes and overly baggy trousers).

    Meghan looked wonderful. Loved the outfit, but the best thing she wore all day was her enthusiastic expression. Her smile extends to her entire face, and though she appeared nervous at first, Harry seemed very supportive.

    They both have a certain way with people. Absolutely LOVELY.

    1. Exactly! This first impression of them as a couple in official work mode was a very positive one. I loved, loved, loved her outfit. Stylish, effortless, appropriate for the weather and the occasion, not screaming “Look at me! I’m the star.”

      And I have to thank Meghan already! My daughter (she’s a teenager) showed me a picture of Meghan and said “Mum, her makeup is so cool. I want to do my makeup like her.” Thank God my little girl has found a new role model and the days of Kylie Jenner paint all over the face are (hopefully) over.

      1. I agree that she did a great job interacting with the people but she is an actress so I can’t give her full points for genuinity.

    2. Please may I ask an incredibly stupid question? I often read on blogs about “men in gray suits,” but I have noooo idea who they are or what that means. Please advise me. Thank you 🙂

      1. Not a stupid question. This is largely a euphemistic term for those individuals behind the scenes of Palace activity, whose names are often not promoted to the media, but to whose counsel and wishes the Palace often adheres. The Cabinet behind the Minister, if you will. This is my understanding, of course, and could very well have inaccuracies.

        1. Palace courtiers and senior official staff
          Secretaries/ Private Secretaries who generally tend to be senior public servants at a very high government level. The word Secretary here is not a PA, support staff, typing pool position. It is a term also used for ministerial positions in the UK e.g. Foreign Secretary which means The Foreign Minister. So these are people with excellent education, political connections and sometimes also political ambitions. There is a minister in the current cabinet who was a 2 week summer tutor to the young princes during the time he himself was doing his post graduate studies at OxBridge.
          Equerries are men from the aristocratic circles who provide a more personal loyalty. Sometimes men with senior army positions. More personal binding and bonding to HM (or her family. The ex husband of Camilla was an equerry to Queen Mother. Princes Anne’s present husband was also an equerry to PA herself, I believe.)
          In any case they all serve HM and /OR the British Crown (sometimes against the personal wishes of the Crowned Monarch eg Edward VIII Duke of Windsor). It can also mean against /OR not for the wishes of the Crowned Head’s family. Prince Philip famously had to face many belittling situations. (e.g. decision borne upon HM that their children would not carry his name Mountbatten as their family name. HM later tried to get that changed at least for the younger sons but it was not officially done – Princess Anne signed herself so at marriage, and it is generally said the younger PA and PE use this but it is a personal choice and not official to my best knowledge. HM had had tears in her eyes when requesting the Prime Minister of the time for the change).
          The PM is also a considerable influence and s/he has to kneel in front of HM when taking office after election but later they can impact the life of HM.
          It’s a delicate complex difficult dance that HM has mastered.

          1. Charlotte: Men in grey suits is a euphemism for palace courtiers. The back office of the palace. Like civil servants except they only work for the Royal household or like white house staff.

            It’s a term coined by Diana and Fergie to disparage the staff at buckingham palace, to demonise them and to blame them for their problems. In Diana’s case, this included her own brother-in-law who was the Queen’s private secretary at some point during Diana’s disastrous marriage.

            Kay: That characterisation of the palace courtiers is straight from the middle ages. Pre-Tudor times since Henry Tudor trusted the lower classes over the aristocracy. All the Tudors actively promoted the lower orders over aristocratic ones – see Thomas Cromwell or William Cecil.

            That trend continued throughout history and today though some archaic traditions remain, like kneeling to the monarch when you first meet after appointment to the privy council -see recent row about whether or not Jeremy Corbyn would do this because as leader of the opposition party he is automatically appointed to the privy council.

            Whilst the public hears most about the aristocratic members of staff, it isn’t true that only aristocrats need apply for jobs within the ranks of the palace courtiers or the royal household. It remains a public urban legend that has become accepted as fact even though it isn’t true anymore and hasn’t been true for centuries.

            Further, equerries are sourced primarily from the military. The military is not a strictly aristocratic occupation. It’s given lots of people from varied backgrounds and races to rise to the top and from there to work as royal equerries including the latest equerry to the Queen, Major Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah who is of Ghanaian heritage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/09/queen-hires-first-black-equerry/

            One of the reasons equerries are sourced from the military is principally because many of the royal family functions are militaristic so it’s easier and or more efficient to source a military equerry because it ensures smooth transitions and no training needed.

            If you are of the right rank in the military, you have the opportunity to apply to be equerry regardless of your class or background.

  3. I think the outfit is supposed to be boring – nothing there to get excited about, but nothing to be particularly critical about either.

    It’ll be interesting to see how her royal persona evolves; Kate was excited and enthusiastic at one point too, and sort of got brought into line. Meghan has more life experience and media training, but in a very different context. It’ll be interesting to see if the Royal Family insists on putting her into a box – or does being a member of that family cause people to put themselves in the box? Meghan is more charismatic than Kate, but is that a fair comparison? Would she be more interesting if she didn’t have the weight of the institution behind her?

    1. I don’t think Williams wife was made to heel. I think that she made it so you saw what you wanted to. Remember all that balderdash about how she was gonna hit the ground running and couldn’t wait to get to work?

      Well, yeah, she said that so people would forget her workshy past. But we all know what happened. BUT, I have heard some theories that were floated around 2012, 2013 when people really started to notice her lack of work and that was William really didn’t her to work and that beyond that, the Palace realized that the public presentation of William’s wife and how she was going about things wasn’t working and they needed to rejigger.

      I get a very different vibe with Meghan.

      1. Leah: long before all that engagement ‘hitting the ground running’ gaffe, Kate’s PR told the world that she *couldn’t* work until she had an official position as a member of the royal family. There were lots of articles that claimed the paps made it impossible for her to work and only marriage into the family would make her safe enough to work.

        As we later found out from her Jigsaw boss, that paps excuse was balderdash. They tried to help her avoid the paps and advised her on ways to enter and exit her job without running the pap gauntlet which advise she refused and actually told the boss that she would go outside to give them a picture.

        Same MO when it came to her extra curricullum activities. All those clubs have special VIP entrances and VIP lounges that famous people use to avoid being hassled which they offered to her, but she always turned them down and used the pap heavy front entrances, after making sure she had re-applied her make up before exiting.

        I speculate that it was important to her to be seen ‘hassled’ by the paps because it helped her case with the royals and or the public who didn’t know the behind the scenes shenanigans. She could plausibly make the claim that she was being hassled and retreat or expect special treatment for the hell of being hassled.

        All of it untrue.

        She might be lazier than lazy, but she is cunning like a fox.

        1. I never believed that business about the press. As you say, Kate was seen falling out of clubs all the time.

          Kate said just when she fell pregnant with George that she would have liked to have been a teacher. But there was absolutely nothing stopping her. Many schools have protected grounds. It would have been an excellent career for her, helping her with her weak points – public speaking and lack of confidence.

          She also could have got a job with a gallery with her degree (admittedly because of her royal link.) But we all know influence is used.

          I don’t know whether she is lazy or whether she just thought she needed to be available at all times for William, but she certainly had no plan for what she was going to hit the ground running with – that concerned me a lot in the interview. And she has been ridiculously slow in starting royal work.

          I often think Kate is criticised too harshly on some issues on this blog for things other royal ladies also do – for instance new clothes – where royals like Maxima are given a pass. There would be outrage here if Kate wore a coat as pricey as Madeleine’s was said to be – and Madeleine is no full time royal – and Marie of Denmark seems to spend a huge amount on clothes.

          But I have no excuses for Kate on the work subject. It makes me very worried about the future because her schedule still remains light.

  4. They did good. I like that she took off her coat & with her training, knows where to put her hands when standing. I ha e to laugh at all the Meghan will save the monarchy spin. Just like Diana amd Fergie wit the same language about being a breath of fresh air. The same was said about Kate. Besides, my don’t the born to rule princes save the monarchy? All the pressure on the women.

  5. I think Meghan did a good job today, considering its her first time in this role, but I agree it’s premature to judge her as a royal yet. While I think Meghan did a good job today, there are still things I think she can improve on. But she started, she showed up, she was engaged, dressed appropriately, and appreared comfortable in her new role after the first couple of minutes, so I’m happy with how today went.

    Onto the rest of my opinions about today. I wish her boots were more of a fitted boot. I like that she wore a coat that she has had for a while now, there are pics of her wearing it at an airport last year. Thought her outfit today was appropriate, but nothing really too exciting. I’m hoping as more time passes she’ll find that balance between appropriate but still has some fun with it. Also how were her hands not freezing? I saw the quote about warmers, but her hands were never in her pockets???

    I do love that they took off their coats once inside, and that they rode the train.

      1. People wanted to see the ring that’s not showing off. One girl commented on how huge the diamond was.

        1. Right. Everyone – from the crowd to the press – wanted to see the ring, so Meghan had to not wear gloves so she could show off the ring to everyone because everyone wanted to see it. I don’t see the problem here.

          1. I took your comment ‘showing off’ as meaning she was being a show off, which is insulting. Sounds like I misunderstood your tone. Sorry 😩

      2. She’s also been living in Toronto for seven years. What Brits consider freezing weather may not faze her.

        1. I kept reading about how cold it was in the UK yesterday and when I checked it was roughly about the same temperature as in Toronto. Chilly but not that cold.

        2. Good point! Though as a Californian …. how far 7 years could take Meghan is also an interesting thought 😀

    1. I read that her whole outfit was designed by Ms Mulroney and ordered from Canada and was delivered to Meghan.
      The coat is new as far I know.
      New or old, showing up neatly dressed has to be a given in her situation – no excuses for unravelling seams I would think.

  6. I think she did fabulous and I was all about her outfit but the boots. I cannot remember a better royal debut and I am looking for me. Still waiting on her debut with William and his wife and for her to do engagements/be seen with other senior royals. I am very curious to see the interaction there.

    On a side note, I saw the 20/20 special here in America on Meghan and that gargoyle Ingrid Seward was on and she managed to get in some snide remarks about both Meghan and Americans. She and Dickie Arbiter have been quite nasty about Meghan and I don’t think that insufferable Victoria Arbiter is a fan either.

    1. Why is Ingrid Seward a “gargoyle”? Why is Victoria Arbiter “insufferable”? And how has Dickie Arbiter been nasty?

      1. Dickie Arbiter called Meghan a fling for Harry, he has also said some very nasty things with implied racial undertones. He basically said on Twitter yesterday that Meghan needs to shut up and walk two steps behind Harry. Twitter was so upset that his daughter Victoria had to step in and defend him.

        Ingrid has also disliked Meghan and said things about her being American, implying that Americans aren’t good enough to be royal. There are racial undertones there as well. Both of them are old time fuddy duddies who have been less than welcoming toward Meghan and embody unwelcome attitudes.

        Victoria is very sychophantic and she was very much against Meghan as well, also with microagressions, but she covered up in very sticky sweet way.

        1. Dickie is well passed his sell by date, he’s a stickler for protocol, and doesn’t seem to understand the monarchy needs to move with the times. I e not come across his daughter so will google now.

        2. I hate how any criticism of Meghan is because someone’s racist. That’s not an argument and the word has lost its meaning if you throw it out so much.

          1. Dickie is an old warhorse – but it would be wise not to throw out everything – his comments about staying out of politics was completely accurate and more important than ever these days. Royal supporters aren’t uniform in their political views.

            And there are plenty of old warhorses like him in the palace still and likely to continue to be under Charles at least.

            I wouldn’t toss out Ingrid Seward either – these people have been watching the royals for years. Yes, change is good and needed but it needs to come slowly and carefully.

            Diana didn’t become the Diana people think of now – like her or not – in a night. She started as a conventional royal bride. The reason people accepted what she did is due to the long relationship – most people saw her as sincere because she paid her dues first.

            Fergie was going to be the breath of fresh air, the spontaneous one that loved the crowds at the time of her marriage. More like a sirocco. It’s hard to remember now how popular she was and how popular Andrew, the handsome war hero, was.

            Just some cautionary tales here.

          2. I agree @Ellie.

            However, i see Ingrid as old school classicist. Someone who will always sniff at anyone who is middle class and less. Foreigners are only slightly better, but Americans are non-starters (insert toffee nose emoji).

            Quite funny to witness the pretzel logic she will use to try to rein in her attitude and some of the horrid things she’s said about Americans in order to continue her Majesty brand. Just a month ago she was de-crying American table manners as if they are savages as she pontificated on some of the things MM would have to learn.

          3. Ingrid seems to totally worship Kate, which is hilarious considering. But she is a big brown-noser isn’t she!

            Haha, was she? We are savages! We lick off the knife sometimes and switch hands with our forks and knives! I do get made fun of by using my utensils the UK way vs the US way but that is just how I was raised. My husband loves teasing me.

          4. Some of it really is racist, though. The Daily Mail had a headline referring to her ancestors as “cotton slaves” which is completely appalling.

          5. Well, the Boston Tea Party was a long time ago, but many people have not gotten over the outcome! I resent the idea that Americans are not worthy to marry anyone in the British Monarchy. I guess commoners were resented a while back, too. The idea that the members of the Monarchy are “better” than anyone else is so ridiculous. It’s 2017, nearly 2018. Get over yourselves, those of you to whom upper class pedigree is so important. God Save the Queen, indeed. And spare us all from such outdated and disgusting ideas as Dickie expressed. His name is rather fitting, isn’t it? Or, perhaps, it needs to be shortened — just a wee bit!

          6. I don’t believe that people who aren’t Meghan fans are automatically racist, but I do believe that there are racial undertones to what Dickie and Ingrid have said.

            As a woman of color, I am used to microaggressions and coded language and can spot it from a mile away. I have to in order to read rooms and make my way in the world. It is something that as a person of color, you learn very quickly. So what others may not see as racist, I am able to say what a minute. Do I believe everything is about race? No, but my experience of race is different than that of a white person.

            I am willing to bet that in terms of racial experiences, Meghan and I have a lot in common-only difference is she is biracial, while most people think because of my appearance, I am biracial as well. So I have heard the, “Oh you don’t look black” “you don’t talk black” , “You have good hair.” Those are micro agressions.

            The Daily Fail is openly racist, while Ingrid and Dickie hide it under British veneer.

            And last night again, Ingrid said that Meghan would have to hold utensils the “right way”. Her tone was awful.

            I notice Penny Junor’s been awfully quiet. Anyone got her take?

          7. Are you a person of colour? If not, I don’t think it’s your place to act as the arbiter of what is and isn’t racist. You wouldn’t really know, would you? Racism isn’t just extreme behaviour like white hoods and burning crosses. More often than not, it’s subtle and comes in the form of coded language, like what’s been used so often with Meghan.

          8. Joanna Wallace
            I am bi-racial and I *very* firmly believe, and have observed, racism both ways. This is a comical myth that only the Caucasians are racist. Some awful discrimination, racism, negativity, is practiced by POCs against their own and against bi-racials.
            In Germany as a Cross Cultural management trainer I have seen it practiced by and within different immigrant groups – some braodly similar ethnicities (e.g. Russians vs East Europeans vs Tatar or Persians vs Afgani) and some divergent (Russinas vs Africans).
            The fights in the Asylumn accommodations here in Germany amongs their own because of tribal loyalties have horrified me simply on hearing the levels of brutality. Simple disagreements are dealt with raised chairs – this I saw in a nearby loud German language class where I went to request quiet.
            As against that, I have felt humbled and been filled with wonderment at the enormous unstinting generosity materially and emotionally and with day after day care the Hamburg Germans have practiced towards the immigrants.
            Being a POC doesn’t come with a halo.
            Maybe in the US, I don’t know.
            Even Leah, an ardent fan now, admitted in this blog to being critical of Meghan before she became gilded because MM didn’t get what being POC is.
            Being flawed is a human condition, not a skin colour condition.

          9. Gatita: The DM is always going to use the lowest common denominator.

            They often refer to Carole Middleton’s ancestors as coalminers as if they strolled out of the pit a couple of decades ago. I fully expected Kate Middleton’s maternal grandparents to be soot covered, barely functioning economically, poor health due to back breaking coal mining duties. Hell, i was surprised that we still had open coal mines considering Thatcher closed most of them.

            Turns out, they were coal miners 100yrs ago.

            The subtext being that Kate Middleton, or more importantly Carole, was a commoner of the lowest of the low social AND economic order.

            MM has several subtexts at play. And race is one of them, but never underestimate the British tabloids’ ability to aim low and lower.

          10. Okay, excuse me because I should have read everything prior to posting this, but Joanne Wallace made me see red. I’m whiter than white..well I have Italian in me but did you know the northern one’s are often very Germanic looking. I’m half Norwegian (pure). As people know since I’m no longer a newbie, but still ready to stand up for what is right. My husband was hispanic & I had someone turn around & talk about how expensive Choululu sauce is & those Mexicans will own everything pretty soon. Our conversation didn’t end well. My middle daughter is dating a black phillipino football player & his race didn’t bother me, but his football playing did. They’re close to being engaged. My son is even closer and his girlfriend is the absolutely most adorably, sweet, beautiful, amazing young lady that I could ever hope for my son. They will have mixed race children. My youngest daughter is dating an Asian as well.
            I’m done with all this crap of coded words & non-coded words and think it’s about damn time we call it full out racist. Meghan and Harry truly look in love and if I could I would share a text I received from him, partly regarding Invictus and a tad about his engagement. Yes, I have his phone number and ladies you may not have it otherwise I will lose my job and could be sued.

            To move on. I cannot wait until they have babies and sincerely hope that they have curly hair and are dark complected. The reason I say that is because they are safe and they can give a voice to others around. I’m frightened for my future grandchildren and I believe whether they talk about it or not it will prove that it’s perfectly acceptable.

            I’m not bi-racial but my point is just as valid as anyone’s point including someone who decided to shut down someone else for the heck of it. Just because we aren’t mixed doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility to talk about it or have an opinion about it. It also means we should have a responsibility to respond to it.

            I didn’t know Meghan was biracial. She looked liked a million girls I have seen over and over again, and I loved the skit where they had what 16 girls who all were “white”, but then asked them to pick our Meghan because they all looked exactly like her. She’s beautiful, she appears friendly and thoughtful. She seems to be somewhat stabling for Harry and only time will tell on the rest of it, but to shut someone down on the biracial you can’t talk about it that’s as ridiculous as me saying you can’t talk about Crown Princess Mette-Marit or you’re not american so you can’t talk about orange people.

            Come on! It’s 2017 and nearly 2018 it’s way past time for this convo and besides it’s the holiday season. Can we cut her some slack???

          11. “You’re not American, so you can’t talk about orange people,” has me in stitches! I love it!!

            As to the rest of your post: Here here!! Well said, and thank you for speaking up. That comment bothered me as well, but I have a tendency to put my foot in it when I try to form eloquent dialogue. Best to let others do it better than I.

          12. My comment was directed to Ellie. I’m confused by a few of the replies to my comment, but I stick by what I said. “Reverse racism” IS a myth. It’s not appropriate for white people to try to be the arbiters or what is and isn’t racist. Solidarity is great, but it’s not okay to talk over PoC and question their experiences with racism because it doesn’t look like what you, a person who has never experienced institutional racism, thinks it should look like. Coded language is real AND it is racist. The language that’s being used to talk about MM is very coded.

          13. No @Joanna Wallace, you are walking, living, breathing proof that there’s obviously a reverse racism when you absolutely stated that white people cannot talk about mixed-race couples because we aren’t mixed race. With that “logic” then I can absolutely tell you that you have no idea what you can and cannot say about white people, and everything we say is perfectly acceptable.

            We all have a responsibility to stand up for those who are wrong. And yes, my children will catch me and talk to me about cultural appropriation usually when I do something that I think would be fun. An example would be when we were in Mexico and I had my hair braided like Monica’s from Friends. I had always wanted to do that and I thought that people of color who wore their hair like that was the most AWESOME thing ever! Apparently I wasn’t allowed to do this according to my children, even though I thought it was a compliment of how cool I thought they looked. Well I quickly discovered the real reason a white girl shouldn’t do that…I had a head sunburn from hell!

            We all need to have this conversation, for nothing else then learning from each other. Are we really going to say that someone with Meghan’s curly hair (and her past pics show that it truly was) isn’t allowed to straighten it, because she obviously does and not in a blow out way. Kate’s hair is curly as well, but she can get by with a blow out. So now we can’t do anything with our hair but let it look like it does when you walk out of the shower.

            Bottom line is we need to be reasonable and we need to have conversations and talk about how people feel, but if you tell someone they have no right to talk about bi-racial people then we can say the same thing even if we talk like Archie Bunker or the Orange person in the White House.

          14. Joanna, you are absolutely right, any critical study of race in the Western world will tell you reverse racism is absolutely a myth. It isn’t possible. Racism requires power and privilege. Its institutional. Its the mechanism by which white supremacy has been used to systemically oppress people of color and enforce and solidify anti-blackness. People of color cannot be racist because they do not have the institutional power to exert control and subvert collective and individual gain as a whole.

            People of color CAN be prejudice, which is different. We are all prejudice and hold biases. These can be based on religious, tribal and other factors, but they are very different in the ability to enforce system wide disadvantage.The difference is the power to enforce those biases to the detriments of a whole group. I highly recommend folks read critical race theorists and black and brown scholars on these issues such as bell hooks, Paul Gilroy (for a UK perspective), WEB DuBois, MLK’s speeches and writings outside of IHAD, Kimberle Crenshaw, Howard Thurman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, among many others, to begin to breakdown some of these ideas.

            And folks who say “Oh I didn’t even know Meghan was black” just goes to show how many folks believe the black community to be monolithic. I have family with two black parents, grandparents, etc, who resemble Meghan in features and tone. The black community is very diverse. Unfortunately, there are still debates about the “paper-bag” test in the community and about what it means to be black, but by most any black persons measure in the US and it seems the UK, Meghan is black and her being biracial is simply a subset of the black experience, some of the colorism arguments happening notwithstanding.

            And I saw this with all due respect, but as someone who is biracial and who loves my white family and friends dearly, I will be the first to say they are racist. They would deny it to the moon and back, they will talk about how much they welcomed my mother’s family or my cousins and aunts who are POC, but its their off-hand comments, quiet assumptions and general view of people, those little moments that most people completely pay no mind to, that reveal so much. So to those who say “I don’t have a racist bone in my body/my son or daughter is dating a POC and I just love them, etc” I am just a little suspect of that.

            At the risk of sounding like I am some radical, I do think most folks are kind and good. I do not think having racial assumptions make you a made person. We have this image in America of racism only being the purvey of the most perverse. But to be quite frank, it is the currency of the every day privilege folks enjoy paying no mind to how that privilege was acquired on the backs of black and brown people over the centuries. Good people can say and believe racists things. The best of people can make quiet assumptions rooted in socialized racism without every really noticing it. This is why it is imperative that people listen when black and brown folks share our hurt and feelings when things are said. To both help unpack assumptions on both sides and to come to understandings.

            So that is my novel.

        3. I didn’t see the racist tweet but he did tweet about how he hoped Harry has told Meghan not to speak her mind. I might have called him a misogynistic a**hole. Or that the The tweet made him sound that way.

          1. In a vacuum, that tweet sounds bad, but for the BRF, it is sound advice. It’s not about being silent like Kate. It’s about being careful NOT to express an opinion that might wade into politics. Given the broad church of topics under the umbrella of politics or govt policy, that is a very difficult thing if you are opinionated.

            Since MM came on the scene, i’ve seen a few comments from Americans affronted at the notion of her being muzzled as it goes against their ideals, but that is why you don’t join the royal family as a lark.

            It’s the reason so many *British* and *Aristocratic* women refused to join this circus. You never express an opinion that might drag the family into political waters to maintain the pact of neutrality that is constitutional monarchy.

          2. I get his point but think he needed to phrase it better (or not say anything at all)As written it reeked of the man telling the little woman how it’s done. Especially considering that it’s been Charles caught trying to meddle with politics

          3. Herazeus + 1

            It is hard to explain how important it is that royals not be political – and the reason there is concern about Meghan particularly is that she has been openly political in the past, including posting a photo that would appear to be anti-Brexit.

            It is also something of a contradiction in terms to suggest that royalty should be more equal – because by definition the monarchy is not – it’s about deference. This is the strongest reason that republicans want to abolish the monarchy.

      2. Ingrid Seward is a soup-mouth. She interjects with comments that reek of a** kissing the royals. I was watching a documentary on W&K, with several other journos commenting and had to laugh when Seward stated that Carole Middleton was absolutely more beautiful in person than in pictures. On which mountain was/is Seward living? Anyway, to each his/her own, and everyone is entitled to their opinions so carry-on Ingrid!

    2. I was in London all last week and everyone was complaining about the cold and were totally bundled up. I’m from NY and I was perfectly ok not wearing gloves and I left my coat unbuttoned while I was walking around. At night though I buttoned up and wore gloves.
      So it’s all relative. The cold was most likely not bothering Meghan as much.

  7. For a first engagement? Perfect. If she’s this good now, how awesome will she be in a few years? She seems to do effortlessly everything Kate cannot. That’s going to cause some friction.

    1. I think there was friction there from day one. I don’t believe both women are or will every be friendl and if they are, it will only be for the sake of the camera, most likely.

      I have said before that if Meghan and Harry join the BRF for Xmas service, I bet William and the wifey go to Middleton land. I do not think that the they want the comparison between the two, especially if Meghan has very warm relations with BRF family members, something, that at least publically has been lacking for William’s wife. Hell, William can’t bear to be around his own family.

      1. I still think that Lainey blind was accurate and I haven’t seen anything to suggest otherwise.

    2. Unfortunately, the Middletons haven’t made any effort to hide their aggression towards Meghan.

      The first noticeable aggression was when the news broke out about Meghan’s half brother being arrested for assault; Carole took advantage of that to release a video of Uncle Gary’s wedding to his first wife, showing a wholesome family to contrast Gary to Meghan’s brother. Gary seemed genteel in comparison.

      Most recent aggression is yesterday’s Kate siting at the train station on the day Meghan is making her first public engagement. Except for that one incident of Kate doing Xmas shopping in London in 2015 wearing little make-up, Kate has been able to avoid being seen “openly” and “up close” in public when off duty.

      Meghan doesn’t look like a fool. I’m sure she’s aware they are not interested in being friends.

      I’m very disappointed in the Middletons. I knew they were cunning, but I didn’t know they played dirty. I hope their shenanigans don’t drive a wedge between William and Harry.

      1. Kate looked exhausted – no make-up, hair pulled back – and she was clearly going to Norfolk by train to meet William who had just flown back to Norfolk from Finland. If she had wanted to out-dazzle Meghan she need only have put some make-up on.

        I’m no fan of the Middletons but I’m sure they’re thrilled with Meghan, it could have been so much worse – she’s a Christmas gift to them.

        And Meghan has a great deal more to worry about then the Middletons.

        1. And you know the Middleton were behind the pictures because they told you?

          I don’t understand how you can post these kind of comments without concrete evidence to back them up.

          1. And you don’t have evidence that they did not. Carole Middleton was notorious for calling up the paparazzi in the dating days and had connections to the DM. She still does.
            Normally Kate has not been caught by the paparazzi and the photos be allowed to be printed. It’s not like she doesn’t leave the palace except for official engagements. She brought George to school a few times but those photos only ended up in non UK media. William and Harry have both stopped the UK press from printing photos of them in the papers and so the only unofficial photos that have been seen were taken by regular people and posted on social media. The fact that these photos of Kate were not pulled and were printed in the UK press means that there is tacit approval from William and or Kate for them to be printed. There are always agreements and deals between the royals and the paparazzi and official UK media and so when we see photographs of them it is because they want those photographs to be seen. What are the chances that paparazzi would happen to be at a train station to catch Kate leaving at that time. And to be in the perfect spot to catch that shot? Notice we don’t see the kids and nannies with her?

          2. If…and I mean really IF….that theory was true, why should she want to be pictured like this? If this was a “pap stroll” she would’ve made sure to look fabulous instead of only okay-normal-pregnant. She sure knows that the media is only waiting for something to build a “feud of the princesses” or “Kate is a loser” narrative around. To encourage that kind of news would be plain stupid.

          3. Wasn’t one of the Daily Mail editors formally on the Middleton payroll as their PR rep, advising strategy? I think only the naive would think photos are published in the UK without permission, that the BRF are just stumbled across by photographers no less. If photos appear, they have been sanctioned by the BRF.

            I think the narrative here is: “Plucky, pregnant Kate getting on a train (just like us!) going to Anmer. ” She actually looked fresher without makeup. Given that Kate transports herself more exclusively as a rule – private car, helicopter – the train is a deliberate choice.

          4. The best type of pap stroll is one that looks like it isn’t one. Where the person seems caught unawares. Plausible deniability that it is deliberate.

      2. Fabulous, you are forgetting the most infamous Middleton treachery-that surrounding Pippa’s wedding. I would bet my last dollar that “no ring no bring rule” was put in place to snub Meghan. I think at that point everyone knew that there would be an upcoming wedding for Harry and Meghan.

        In return, I think the Midds should not be invited or if they are, reception only.

        1. Leah, I haven’t forgotten at all. I just accept that Pippa has the right to not invite someone who might possibly upstage her on her wedding day. I do believe that Meghan was being snubbed. She could’ve easily used a side entrance. But, it was Pippa’s big day. She can do whatever she wants. I just wished Meghan hadn’t accepted the invite to the reception or better yet Harry hadn’t attended the ceremony w/o Meghan.

          1. If Harry and Meghan ignore the slights and take the high road, not being spiteful in return, then I think Harry and Meghan will be better off (no negativity in their lives). Also, if the Middletons were being spiteful to Meghan, then I think that’s also the best way to show them that it won’t work and to prevent future attempts.

        2. Nic919, saying “And you don’t have evidence that they did not,” is such a lame response. Unless you or a reliable source can provide concrete evidence of the Middletons engineering the photos at the train station, you’re just propagating inneuendo and gossip. I guess that’s easy to do when you never have to face the people that you appear to revel in defaming.

          1. You have no idea what defamation means, especially not when the Middletons have had DM reporters at their beck and call throughout the years. Can you establish the damages Kate sustained with that photograph? That is an essential element of defamation.

            UK papers do not publish photos of the royal family without their approval because they get complaints, just like Harry did with some of the Jamaica photos. Has Kate placed a complaint yet about these photos? Please let me know because until then this means she authorized the photos.

        3. I think in the Pippa case it was less a slight than the size of the church – that actually is extremely common and very often it’s partners of people who are attending – (as in no ring…) who are omitted. If Pippa got married in a bigger church – there would have been more of an argument. Meghan was invited to the evening party.

          1. There’s no point in trying to talk sense and help hypochondriacs – they are having too much fun wallowing in the self obsessed chemical soup.

          2. THE OTHER JULIA – I do apologise unreservedly for my tone which was absolutely not intended. I have no excuse at all and beg your pardon.
            WEATHERBY – sorry, bad call on my part. Too upset, too tired, too late at night (here) and no excuse. Thank you for the call out.
            MEGHAN MARKLER REVIEW – could you take that post down, perhaps? If so, thank you!

  8. I think she did fabulous and I was all about her outfit but the boots. I cannot remember a better royal debut and I am looking for me. Still waiting on her debut with William and his wife and for her to do engagements/be seen with other senior royals. I am very curious to see the interaction there.

    1. I wonder if they will go with the Middletons (First christmas with Pippa being married : does she go with her in-law or her family) or will they (after last year) go with the Queen?
      I wonder if George will go his first apparence or if they will wait more years.

      1. If William and his wife do attend Xmas service with the BRF this year, I bet they bring the kiddies to take attention from Meghan and Harry.

        1. Kate’s appearance at the train station yesterday failed to take attention from Meghan. If showing up with the kiddies also fails, I can’t imagine the desperate state the Middletons will be in.

        2. Bringing the kids would be highly irregular. Even James and Louise didn’t make their debuts until they were five or six. Not that it’s not a possibility but BRF children aren’t seen with the family at large until they’re older. And it’s the same for the Christmas festivities within Sandringham — they only participate in certain activities and remain in the nursery for many of the events.

          1. The queen takes church very seriously – so children are not usually included until they are old enough to behave – unlike the Swedes.

            But with republican Labour polling well all of a sudden – although that changes constantly, and the nation very restless, I think it’s quite possible we will be seeing a lot more public-friendly activity on the part of the royals and not because of Meghan although she may be part of it – so maybe George at least will appear.

        3. They’ll just do their rival court pap walk again in Bucklebury. It got a lot of attention. I still cannot imagine how cruel they must be to ignore HM and Philip when both were ill and they have a house right on the Estate.

          1. There’s nothing wrong with Kate and the kids spending some Christmases with her family; these are human beings not robots.

          2. I look forward to the rival court pap stroll.

            I wonder if they’ll have a cut price boxing day shoot as well.

            Poor Carole. Having to keep William is expensive business.

          3. I was strongly opposed to the Middleton church business – although I understand that William and Kate might have wished to bring the children. The queen is very elderly and even though she was ill – it seems respectful to honour her way of having Christmas which was compared unfavourably with the ‘fun’ Middletons. I found that whole business very unseemly.

            I hope and expect William and Kate will attend Christmas at Sandringham this year. They can invite the Middletons to stay with them and hopefully Meghan can invite her family too.

            But having said that, as the year progressed, I did think there was tension between William and Harry and Charles – and what was said about Diana in the books that came out – both the biography of Charles and Junor’s biography of Camilla. Both those books were highly critical about Diana – even if part of what they said was true – her sons weren’t going to like it – it was unkind to the living in an effort to promote Camilla.

            I did wonder if that had something to do with that decision.

          4. The BRF walk to church is what I would consider a ‘work’ engagement to them. It’s not a private affair with no cameras etc. Are all of them religious? By no means; it is a duty they are performing on that occasion. If you accept that reasoning, William and Kate should be in attendance. The Queen allows children to attend once they reach an age when they have some understanding of church and can comport themselves accordingly. That is fair.

            If the Middleton’s want to go their local church, who’s to stop them? But they were never church goers until Kate married, and even then, Kate had to be confirmed into the CoE faith only weeks ahead of her marriage. Confirmation is usually c. 12 years of age if you’re part of the CoE. W&K, can go to an evening service with the Middleton’s and children if the desire is so strong. Last Christmas appeared to be more about petulance and having one’s own way than any respect to anyone, let alone to God. And pap strolls in front of cameras. Disgusting.

            The Windsor’s seem to lead separate lives and come together on certain occasions. That’s their choice. To project that they should have family values like some of us have, or desire, to make them the family we should desire to be is unnecessary nor mentally healthy.

        4. Leah ofcourse the Cambridges had kids only so that they can do this.
          Everyone, but everyone knows this, eh?

  9. I think this was a successful first engagement. She really seems to be not shy in interacting with the public/people she doesn’t know. Her career was a great training field. This can only help her in the future.
    I think a lot of the Diana references are also due to the type of charities they visited. AIDS and land mines were Diana‘s big topics. I think it is sad that people still feel the need to bring her up all the time. On the one hand because I feel that those people should stop reminiscing about the past for their own good, on the other hand because I (with a dead parent myself) don’t know if it isn’t extremely painful for them. It would be for me and it is not like they can plain out say „Oh shut up“.
    Her outfit though… sorry big miss for me and reminded me of something Kate would wear (those Vouge shots).

  10. Someone said on the program I watched tonight that one of the reasons Meghan did her first engagement so soon was because the Palace had faith in her ability to represent them. Not sure how true that is, but it makes you think, esp when William’s wife took so long to do her first official engagement after she became engaged.

    1. My theory:

      William didn’t inform his staff of the engagement until the day of, so they did not have time to prepare for Kate to accompany him on his Nov and Dec engagements. He had already been scheduled to do other stuff that Kate couldn’t join him on (like the FIFA thing). It took time for William’s staff to coordinate an engagement for him and Kate to do, and that’s why their first engagements together weren’t until Jan.

      Harry told his staff weeks ago that he and Meghan were engaged. So they had time to prepare engagements for them to do together prior to the announcement. That’s why Harry and Meghan did their first so soon.

      1. Actually, I think William and his then betrothed, did their first official engagement in Feb.

        But I don’t get why this engagement is listed in the court circular for Harry, but not Meghan-is that because they are not yet married?

        1. Meghan won’t be in the Court Circular until she is married. It was the same for Kate.

          1. ?? The royal.uk court circular hasn’t been updated since November 20. I’m not even seeing these engagements for Harry let alone Meghan.

          2. Hi Sun, I don’t know where you saw Meghan in the CC on the royal website as their online court circular has not even been updated since November 20. But in The Times Court Circular, Meghan is not listed for these engagements:

            Kensington Palace

            1st December, 2017

            Prince Henry of Wales this morning met members of the public outside the National Justice Museum, Nottingham, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Nottinghamshire (Sir John Peace).

            His Royal Highness afterwards visited the Terrence Higgins Trust’s charities fair for World Aids Day at the Contemporary Exhibition Centre, Weekday Cross, Nottingham.

            Prince Henry of Wales this afternoon visited members of staff and students from the Full Effect Project at Nottingham Academy, Ransom Drive, Mapperley, Nottingham.


      2. Richard Palmer basically confirmed the last minute nature of William informing everyone about the engagement so this seems about right. So your theory makes a lot of sense.

  11. I thought it was a good first engagement. Her outfit was smart and appropriate and didn’t dominate the situation. They both made an effort to greet and connect with well wishers who had been waiting in the cold. She was confident, smiling and positive and Harry looked very happy. I saw pictures of Kate at KXSP off on a train journey, and I thought she looked relaxed and well.

  12. I thought she did extremely well. The Express had some quotes from when she was talking with some of the performers and they were really happy about her professional feedback saying that’s not what they usually get. Then there are quite a few videos where she was talking and clearly showed her knowledge. One woman from the Aids fair said she was actually the one doing most of the talking and she felt that Harry encouraged that. The head teacher from the Academy was also saying how she was very knowledgeable. Some of the meetings were without the media like the one with Chantelle and the women she works with.

    1. I find it endearing that Harry defers to Meghan. He isn’t just in love with her, he respects her too. It’s refreshing.

      1. It is indeed refreshing that Harry respects his fiancee. And, she, speaking to the performers, was endearing. I so very strongly recall how Kate walked right by some of the costumed actresses who were at the door to greet her when she attended a theatrical performance so many months ago. How disappointed they must have been that she never even looked at them, or shook their hands, smiled, or, God forbid, exchanged some words with them.

        Meghan and Harry look great together and I don’t want to get too overexcited, but I can say that I am pleased with seeing a couple so in love and so willing to give of themselves to the people they meet. It is a breath of fresh air and something Diana must be enjoying!

    2. Harry has called himself a feminist and he seems to view women differently than William, who prefers that his wife be submissive, which I think is sickening.

      1. Submissive people, male OR female, bother me because they are usually very manipulative. They are surprisingly resilient as a result, but will never play fair and you will never see them coming.

  13. I loved the whole outfit, I love the coat, the bag, the boots …everything. One of our staff waited outside for hours and actually shook her hand. When I spoke to her she was so excited she could hardly speak. She said Meghan was ‘wonderful and beautiful and didn’t stop smiling ‘
    While I agree it is early days let’s hope this is a sign of things to come. So much nicer for Harry too to have company at last and someone to share with. Hopefully it will help his anxiety too.

    1. Totally agree that Meghan is the one who will ease Harry’s anxiety with the press. I loved the body language during the engagement photo call. She kept stroking his arm in a calming, encouraging manner. She’s relaxed in front of the cameras & knows how to connect with fans. The group photo shows Meghan & Harry with their arms around the others. IMO, much preferred to the formal stiff fig leaf pose we usually see from William & Kate. I hope she continues to do well & is not stifled by the BRF. She will be a huge asset for them, if they allow her to contribute.

      1. I totally agree. Meghan is a huge asset to the BRF. It’s ironic that many have have scoffed at her career, when in fact, it has given her skills that are essential for being a working royal: comfortable in front of the camera and socially gracefully. I’m also so happy that Prince Harry is happy–they are such a wonderful team.

  14. I have praised Meghan before for how she interacts with the crowd and I still believe that she did a fantastic job.Handling charity is not going to be hard for her.
    But is she going to be a good representative of the BRF?That is to me quite a different matter.It depends on what the BRF represents to you.To a considerable number of people,such as the likes of Dickie Arbiter the element of race is important to the monarchy.I don’t think that Meghan will increase the monarchy’s popularity.To some people she is the antithesis to Britain’s imperial past.No need for sugar coating.Her inclusion as one of the firm’s faces doesn’t make sense to them.There is actually a lot of pressure on her,that is why I believe that she is truly into Harry,because she had a pretty fly life before him.
    Honestly though,who believes that the monarchy is going to survive after ElizabethII?

  15. Hello everybody. I was busy all week long so now I could comment. About Meghan at the engagement, well her coat looked like a bathrobe, the shoes were too big for her and the ring didn’t fit. The interview showed a Harry submissive, hence all the “Meghan wears the pants in the relationship” articles. It seemed a mother with her child. She interrupted his answers many times. Some people said Harry was nervous but really, how many times Harry was in front of a camera? He recently attended Obama summit where he answered question live. About the first engagement together, there are pictures that show Meghan underwear mark. And the couple constant touch touch is embarrassing. Here in Brazil we are used to touch and hug one another but even I thought their tactile too much. Meghan holds Harry with her two hands, to me it shows insecurity. And don’t come with “she is nervous” because it’s not true. She commanded the interview, Harry looked like a puppet. At Nottingham Meghan replied to a woman about selfie ‘we’re not allowed to do selfies’. Really? There are pics of Meghan doing selfies at this event.

    Well I already said my opinion about Meghan Markle at katemiddletonreview (and I was bashed for it), so I won’t waste my time repeating it. At katemiddletonreview we always talked about Harry’s future wife, like she would be always compared to Kate, well here she is. The difference is that no matter if Meghan Markle had a career, is articulated and used to spotlight, she will NEVER have the importance of Kate. Kate has many faults as a woman and as a royal (and we all know them) but she IS the future queen. I don’t believe Meghan will have the same privileges Kate has (ex. Jewelry). Meghan will be like Fergie who had ZERO access to crown jewelry.

    I think Meghan image is like Kate’s when she became engaged to William. Many people say Maghan will “save the monarchy” (we heard this with Kate). Many people say Meghan “is the best prepared royal bride ever” (oh God we heard this with Kate too). I don’t criticize the ones who like Meghan but PLEASE she is NOT a humanitarian. Even her most ardent fan has to admit Meghan works little is he “humanitarism”. Apart from the travel to India in January and the Vanity Fair article about it, WHAT else did Meghan Markle do as a humanitarian this year? She only started doing “charity work” after making part of her new PR agency. You can see her Instagram, it shows her lifestyle. Meghan Markle is a woman with expensive habits (see the prices of her outfit, the bag and boots she wore in Nottingham), in her work hiatus she travelled the world (no humanitarian work), it’s all in her Instagram. The cast of Suits were doing promo for the show and where was Meghan? Nowhere to be seen. As a “hard work” woman she SHOULD have done promo for her show, if asked about Harry she could decline reply but she should do more for her job. She calls herself a feminist but gave up EVERYTHING quickly to become a Royal. And her Vanity fair interview, I’ve never seen a royal girlfriend talk about her relationship in an interview (this put down the “Meghan is discreet” theory). Even if the palace was OK with the interview (what I doubt very much) she should have said nothing. Her relationship should be to her and her boyfriend. “I love a good love story”, she said. Really Meghan? So I repeat no matter if Meghan Markle is articulated and used to spotlight, this is NOT Hollywood. Royal life is NOT a fairytale, it’s a duty and a commitment. And in the royal hierarchy Meghan will be always behind. If there were engagements with her, Harry, William and Kate she will be the last one. Its protocol. Many people are comparing Meghan to Maxima, Letizia and Mary (who gave up their careers to become royals) but those three women married the Heir apparent to the throne (and two of them are already queen). Meghan will marry only the fifth soon-to-be sixth in the line to the throne. Meghan Markle is a free spirit who will have many difficult to follow royal rules. She is used to command (see the interview) and receive orders will be hard for her.

    Well I wish well to the couple but as for Meghan I doubt she will do more than Kate.

    1. I suspect M&H will be front of cameras before the wedding and for some time afterwards. Then they will go behind the hedges at a Cotswolds “pile” and probably spend as much time outside of the UK as they do there – unless of course for her UK citizenship she has some other “stay in the country” requirements. And I say fair enough – they are minor players on the scene – even if/when Charles is King there will be Will and 3-4 children – Harry is going to do the “meet and greet” stuff that the very slimmed down “Firm” is there for. If Charles agrees to have extra Royals do the “smile and wave” then Harry will be even less required to have to show up too often.

    2. Gosh such negativity. I’m glad she’s going to my princess, and I think she has done a lot more with her life than Kate ever did or indeed does. She is well aware of Harry’s position, their choice of venue for the wedding reflects that. Harry has admitted that he has had real problems with his role and suffered huge anxiety. If Meghan can help him with that then everyone benefits.

      You’re probably safe I can’t see them visiting Brazil , but I do think they’ll do more in the Commonwealth once her citizenship is determined.

    3. Actually, Fergie was loaned the Queen’s bow brooch for an early engagement, but the well did dry up later in the marriage.

    4. I think it’s more: Harry hates selfies so I won’t do them.

      I think because it just takes too long considering if Harry is asked for a picture he will pose happily for people during a walkabout, just no selfies. I don’t blame them, it must be tiresome with cameras in your face and phones shoved up to take a picture when you want to interact and meet people. Even HM has said something about the sea of mobile phones and how it is difficult to talk to people when they are doing that.

      1. I think also it is a security issue. Turning your full back to a crowd of people behind you and concentrating your attention on a small device in another direction is a good way to lose awareness of the crowd. Why this logic sounds familiar to me, I don’t know. I held a seasonal internship with the White House once, and if I recall Secret Service was *extremely* restrictive with what POTUS could do in public.

        I don’t see the selfie rejection as a snub, rather following the recommendation of her protection officers.

        1. I think it depends on the situation though. Harry did a few selfies when he was in Toronto during the Invictus Games. Specifically when he visited CAMH he stopped and took a selfie with a few of the kids waiting for him. My parents happened to be there to see him and saw him do that. He didn’t have a lot of time and just did it with those young kids.

          1. Right, because at that point I assume they’d already been through security and had been found of no dangerous weapon? I am theorising here, as I can’t be certain.

            But a throng of strangers piled 20+ deep in the front of a building entrance likely did not all receive clearance from security. At this point, I am prepared to believe that the rejection of selfies has more to do with security concerns than it does a dislike of selfies in general.

          2. No one went through security. There were barricades but people walked up to them from the outside of the property.

            He only stopped for selfies for a few of the kids though. Not adults which seems reasonable.

    5. There are many true things you said, Jamel. But we should stay calm, she is the one who gets trouble if everything is just for show.
      She smiles at people and makes them like her.So, when she lives in a cottage someday with Harry and a luxury life, people won’t criticize her the same way like Kate.
      And with her love of luxury shopping, I noticed this too.I.don’t think she is allowed to spend such numbers when she is Harry’s wife and payed by his father.
      She has great opportunities now for herself.She can rule at home.From what I can see,Harry is reall lovey-dovey and let her do what she likes.

    6. Jamel -Very nasty comments. I appreciate those who say it’s her first time, let’s give her a few more engagements before we call her a success. However your comments are just negative and serve know purpose. We are all aware of PH status in the Royal Family but if the Royal Family is depending on PW/Kate only for the future they are in big trouble! They will need tremendous support from other Royals to stay relevant. The day HM takes her last breath the RF will be on life preserve and PW/Kate and their children will not be enough to save them. It will take a group effort to fill the void. I for one hope that Kate and Meghan become best of friends. That friendship could be a saving grace for the family…IMO.

      1. I agree with SD. Jamel’s comments were very negative and suspect. I do not see a diminished role for Harry anytime soon, esp with high popularity ratings. With the lack of work ethic William and his wife have shown, the BRF will need all hands on deck.

        That said, I don’t see William’s wife ever being friends with Meghan.

        1. Hi Leah, thank you.. why don’t you see the potential of a friendship between Kate and Meghan, you’ve peaked my interest.

          1. Hey SD! William’s wife does not like other women, at least not women she isn’t related to. She has no longstanding female friends that aren’t William’s and really appears to have no friends at all.

            I cannot see someone as closed off as William’s wife relating well to Meghan and I cannot see her relating to Meghan’s racial background at all. I can see her making some snide remarks around it out of Meghan’s earshot and to her family.

            Also, William’s wife was raised to compete with other women and not see them as allies.

          2. Respectfully, I don’t see why there couldn’t be friendship.

            I think Kate is extremely careful now. She certainly had friends before her marriage – we saw her lunching with them. But one of them – I think her name was Jessica – kept spilling information. This is something royals have to be very wary about.

            I think Meghan will be ending a massive amount of friendships too. Unfortunately, being royal is very insular.

          3. THE OTHER JULIA +1
            Also Queen Letizia of Spain cut off ties with her former friends and colleagues even though at first she fully intended to keep working.
            There was a really sad piece of Facebook communication between the siblings and father of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark where the father mocked the ‘one who shall not be named’ and that family planned a meet up in Europe without informing her. After all this came out in the open the FB page was shut down. And this after the Crown Prince himself went out of his way to be a regular son in law cooking breakfast for CP Mary’s stepmother while on holiday in Australia etc – as said by her father himself on public TV.
            So there inevitably are or should be severing of bonds.
            I sometimes wonder if Princess Di would still be married if her former friends had not got her to speak to Andrew Morten.
            Even Fergie started with work, Sophie of Susswx did work – none of that could be continued. How mich more then the more intimate friends – it’s so unequal only a very rare few could overcome natural human jealousies and envy or feelings of inadequacy against the wealth of royals.

            Ditto Fergie –

      2. “The day HM takes her last breath . . . It will take a group effort to fill the void.”

        SD +1 I very much agree. I also think this “group effort” has already subtly begun.

        1. I think Meghan’s willingness to work was a factor that makes Charles favour this match. Camilla as well.

          1. I would not assume that Charles and Camilla favour or don’t favour this match. They spoke nicely – Camilla speaking more effusively as she tends to do (although I thin that ‘star’ comment was a barb – the royals do not favour ‘stars’ and personally I think from years of observing her that the most effusively Camilla speaks the less sincere she is) –

            But I would make no assumptions from their statements how they feel one way or the other.

    7. With regards to saying that Meghan will have a hard time taking orders, I disagree. As an actress, she’s used to taking direction, seeking guidance, and following someone else’s vision. And I also don’t think she’ll have an issue with following protocol and being low in the BRF hierarchy. As an American, I doubt she places such importance on who has to curtsy to whom, who has an HRH before their title and who doesn’t, etc. She’ll just go along with it as she’s asked to, but won’t see it as an indication of her worth as a person or of the value of her contributions. I don’t think she’ll let it take away from her own self esteem. And I think Meghan, much more than Kate, William or Harry, realizes that respect doesn’t automatically come from gaining an HRH or a title, but from what you do and how you do it.

      1. I tend to agree Meghan will be fine at taking advice, but how much she will get is more to the point – as well as having the wisdom to know she needs to ask for it. Diana and Sarah both felt completely lost by their own reports – and Diana had a lot more experience.

        Protocol is extremely important to royals so I believe it will become important to Meghan too. What any of them think of it is another matter – but it is a vital part of royalty. Even independent personalities like Philip understood the necessity.

        Beyond protocol there is ‘how things are done’ especially in the country – which is an important part of royal life.

        1. That is why I hope that Meghan can be friends with Sophie because she knows the protocol now but also was in a similar position and had to learn it.

        2. Oh, I totally agree that Meghan will have to adjust to “how things are done” in her new country, at least to a degree–we all have to do that if we relocate, even if just to a new town or state. But I hope she’ll find a balance of being true to her self and yet mindful and respectful of British attitudes.

          1. LIZZIE well said. Only it isn’t to a degree – marrying a royal is an all or nothing.
            The first wife of Prince Joachim of Denmark gave up her joint HongKong /British nationality and a great corporate Finance career to become a Danish HRH. She remained HRH till her second marriage to a commoner and is now divorced again. So she has given up a lot and what she has got in return is some years as a royal. Prince Joachm has married again as well. She still lives in Denmark…

      2. I have to agree with Leah. Kate has probably never had a biracial/black friend. I can easily see her making casual racist jokes about Meghan to her family. I imagine Kate is not used to having a near peer in terms of unearned status be so capable, charming, and accomplished. It’s got to be a little unnerving. She’s probably telling herself over and over “But I am going to be the future queen!”

        1. Sorry folks but none of y’all know Kate personally or enough to make this assessment and come to such conclusions. Kate might not have PUBLICLY VISIBLE (caps for emphasis), friends but that don’t make her a horrible person or one that will hate Meghan. Give both women a chance to get to know each other, they might surprise you.

          1. I think that if WK show any racial insensitivity, it will be as part of their usual thoughtlessness rather than deliberate act.

            Case in point, having a large blackamoor painting in their drawing room. Complete wwith the plaque ‘the negro page’. And staff realising it’s potential to cause offense minutes before the Obamas walked into the room, and removing the plaque, if not the painting.

            As always with art mistakes, i castigate Kate rather than William because she’s the one with the art history degree. And also, the one who we are told was in charge of the decor.

            Royal art is changed out quite often, and i find it incredible that when shown art in the royal collection to choose from, a blackamoor painting was the one chosen.

            Especially being a blackamoor painting. This type of art is not popular anymore. Up and down the country, it’s being consigned to attics. Auction houses are not selling it anymore. The Queen has removed hrr blackamoor lamps from all public facing rooms – we’ll never know if she has/had any in her private rooms.

            And yet Kate (or her advisors) chose this piece of offensive art to display on their drawing room wall. With that plaque. And only thought about it when an important black person was about to enter the room.

            Not intentionally racist, but definitely thoughtless.

          2. Herazeus, thank you for your constructive criticism. These are the kind of comments I wish mostly dominated these threads, comments and criticism that can be backed up with evidence. Someone up thread posted about Kate picture at the train station and supported their reasoning very well in regards to why they felt this was a pre-approved picture etc etc. I thought you know what? These are reasonable assumptions! So I thank you fellow posters for showing fairness to both Kate and Meghan.
            Hera, may I ask what a rival walkabout is? You commented about it up thread and said how you looking forward to it, what is it? Please forgive my ignorance.

          3. MASAMF, by rival walkabout, Herazeus meant William and his wife going to church at Bucklebury on Xmas, while Harry and Meghan do the church stroll with the rest of the BRF on Xmas day.

          4. MASAMF +1
            Well as for W+K being insensitive how about Prince Harry and his racist comments while serving in Afghanistan?
            Some people have really got it bad with competition for the throne haven’t they?

          5. Kay: what racist comments in Afghanistan?

            If you are talking about Harry’s alleged ‘killing Taliban is like a videogame’ comments, you should know that was a media lie.

            Harry wasn’t beloved at that point and the media were still running negative stories about him. To extent that they made up lies about him.

            As he had no profile or rather useful profile as he does now, the Palace never rallied to hus support and that lie is accepted as the truth.

            If you watch the entire 45min documentary and interview from which this lie was spun, you can see that he said no such thing.

            The video is still up on the British army website and it’s available on youtube.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0muT7nTUgA

            The documentary opens with a voiceover saying the soldiers, including Harry,play alot of videogames in their downtime as they await orders.

            Later, he is shows the reporter the different parts of the helo; when they come to the driving stick thingy, he says that it has been designed to fit in the hand like the console of a video game.

            And presto a headline is born which is misleading and not at all what he said or implied.

          6. HERAZEUS:
            He apologised for comments – one was about P***. They were not nice.
            I didn’t collect them.
            Obviously he’s grown since then – yes he was still evolving and it was his brother who helped him get to grips with his issues.
            Pity his fans don’t OR can’t shed their own biases.
            Poor PH they will destroy the one sure support he has, PW – as the two of them are the only ones in the world who share their unique situation, and are part of the rare 15 person in the world Indian Gene Haplo inherited from Lady Di, though many other aristocrats also carry Indian genes, some unbeknownst.

          7. Kay: the specific incident you memtioned happened before he was sent to Afghanistan.

            It was in training at Sandhurst. That entire regiment gave that soldier that nickname and referred to him ad such.

            The soldier told news media that entire regiment called him that, and he wasn’t offended in the slightest and Harry had nothing to apologise for.

            Still Harry made a public apology for thst incident. As far as we know, he hasn’t used that word again and he hasn’t repeated the ergregious mistakes of his youth.

            As for the rest of your comments eg William helping him, fans’ biases, Diana’s indian ancestry, i’m not sure i understand what point you are making.

            Please would you clarify.

        2. @Binny

          I’m AA and I’m going to have to call you out on this. I think it’s wrong for you assume something like that; if she had a history like Harry and Phillip then yes but no one has every insinuated Kate of ever being racially biased.

    8. Kate’s fans are understandably showing great anxiety and insecurity regarding Meghan’s popularity. The Kate will always be more important than Meghan line of argument doesn’t do anything to calm their anxiety though, for after all, what does importance have to do with popularity, which is based on personality. Case in point, Harry is more popular than William.

      As far as position and status are concerned, I don’t think Meghan gives a toss. She never dreamed of marrying royalty, let alone being a senior royal. She and Harry are drunk with love, so none of those things matter to them right now.

      “She’s used to command … and receive orders will be hard for her.” Really? She’s an actress, not a director. She does nothing but take orders in her career. Who was she commanding in the interview? You mean she was in command of herself (i.e, she was confident)? You mean she has a commanding presence? I wish that Kate would learn to be more in command; take up more space during engagements. I do hope Kate will become motivated to get out of her comfort zone and develop that aspect of her temperament.

      1. Meghan is not yet wildly popular in spite of all the publicity – so I don’t think most ‘Kate fans’ are overly worried. A dazzling twenty-five year old Lady Somebody, born to the cut glass accent and the aristocratic life, would have threatened Kate far more. It’s a little hard to explain just how important ‘class’ is in the royal world.

        Drunk with love sounds rather scary – what happens when you sober up!

        I agree with you, I think Kate is overly cautious and fears making mistakes and I hope Meghan will give her a sense she can step out a bit more. I’ve noticed this change in Kate since her wedding – so I think there may have been external impacts on her – but I do feel Kate takes every correction suggested to her too seriously – that’s come out in interviews she’s given.

        Meghan is almost the opposite – she’s going to need to dial back. Already she’s getting nudges and that will increase. But I tend to agree she’s used to adapting.

        Hopefully it will work out for both of them. Kate’s home advantage will be a huge help to her and Meghan is hopefully a quick learner.

        1. The other Julia, I’m a little confused by “A dazzling twenty-five year old Lady Somebody, born to the cut glass accent and the aristocratic life, would have threatened Kate far more” comment. I’m amazed at how some people are so hang up on class and how Meghan is not a threat because she is in lower class that Kate etc and I’m hoping this your comment does not imply the above.
          The good thing about all this is that what will really matter to Meghan is how Harry feels about this all, what his opinion is of her and whether or not he wants her to “dial it back”, the rest is gonna be for not.

          1. Meghan isn’t lower class than Kate – she isn’t higher class – she’s from a different country – and it wouldn’t matter what different country she was from – even if she were a European aristocrat. (Think Princess Michael whose airs were not appreciated in the royal family ‘she’s grander than us’ the queen said and that is not a compliment!)

            Class remains very important in Britain – it’s pointless to say it doesn’t particularly in the context of the royal family. I’ve seen countless comments here about Kate changing her voice to sound more ‘posh’ – and there’s no question her way of speaking has altered – I’ve been willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that’s because she’s exposed to that sort of accent around her – but to play devil’s advocate and say she did alter it intentionally, why would she if if didn’t matter? The aristocracy and ‘country’ has their own way of speaking, their own humour, their own unique values.

            Now imagine if Harry had married a duke’s daughter – who had. that accent without changing it, who was born to the aristocracy, not in the middle class as Kate was, who was raised in the ‘country’. There is often talk about Carole Middleton and her ambitions here – imagine what a threat that would be to her! Because verbal and social class distinctions are not antique as the song says they should be – they still exist and the royal family is one of the last places they do. It used to be news readers had to speak a certain way – BBC speak. Received Pronunciation. Today regional accents are encouraged – but there are still class considerations if you have an “Estuary” accent or a ‘Brummie’ accent and so forth. And ‘country’ in Britain carries social conduct that doesn’t exist abroad.

            Meghan being from the States is removed from all that. She could be Bill Gates daughter and she wouldn’t be the threat to Kate an aristocrat would be. It would have been exactly the same if Harry had married Chelsy – she wasn’t a threat either. It doesn’t matter who Meghan is – she is from a different country and one that has a completely different social structure. The same would be true if she was like Mary, from Australia, or if she were Spanish or a Swede – it takes her out of a uniquely British world that Kate married into but wasn’t born into.

            Do I think that’s right. Certainly not. This is not only not meant as any insult to Meghan, it’s not meant as an insult to Kate either – although I’ve seen her and her family mocked often here – by people who don’t understand the pressure behind this.

            Both Kate and Sophie have completely embraced ‘country’ life. To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the States or Canada. There’s a different between approving something and saying it exists. But it’s not something to forget.

            I had the dubious privilege of sitting next to a courtier at a charity dinner – a Dickie Arbiter type – and believe me it is a whole different world – one that is hard to imagine unless you experience it. What people are talking about with Dickie Arbiter here or Ingrid Seward, are reflecting those values which are built into the royal family. And William and Harry are born in that world – they may at times pretend to be men of the people but those values are built into them – and are completely represented by Charles and Camilla particularly – who epitomises that world and all the snobbishness that goes with it – whether she shows that openly or not.

            Dialing it back is not directly connected to that – that reflects overall national values which aren’t the same thing. And it is something Meghan has to consider – because it’s a job you marry when you marry into the royal family – and even if your partner loves your excesses – as for instance, I suspect Andrew did with Sarah, it won’t make you a success.

          2. +1 The other Julia.
            You’re completley right with the class pressure.
            I knew a woman who was “new rich”, much poorer before and she felt terrible how her new “friends” of the rich circles talked about people without such wealth. It’s so snobbish and disgusting of people who don’t have a clue what poverty means.

          3. One thing to remember about the aristocracy and ‘country’ is that it isn’t particularly about money. Some of them are quite poor and you can be fabulously wealthy and not be accepted in that set.

            Of course, the royals do love to cultivate people with money who bestow favours on them – not just the Westminster plane but houses put at their disposal and many other things. Charles has used this and is known to pressure rich connections for involvement in his projects – I’m sure William , Harry and Kate’s foundation does the same.

            For those interested in the issue of race and class combined, it’s worth reading about Lady Weymouth who has faced both issues and handled them firmly and successfully – she and her husband are very much favourites of mine for getting rid of that hideous art as tactfully as possible and hopefully (I haven’t been in decades) restoring Longleat to what it should be. I admire anyone who can deal with the insanity of the Baths and the senior marquess who some call eccentric but to me is just vile. It sounds like his wife (chief wife?) is just as bad in her way.

          4. THE OTHER JULIA

            I think for anyone who really wants to understand what awaits Meghan, you have given such detailed, balanced, true accounts that nothing more of the vicious, infantile, mean and small spirited attacks by Meghan fans should take place against the Duchess.

            But I doubt it will end because people read only to hit back and not to learn what lies behind the facade which they till now have had no idea of.

            I feel rather sick with dread for PH and his tranquil happy future.
            The youthful, exuberant, mistakenly over achieving Duchess of York is a cautionary tale of how undiplomatuc behaviour can derail a couple’s contented future, that many seem not to have heard of.

            The two young princely wives are in the same boat, similar outsider situations, and the Duchess just has two advantages:
            her Engkish background even though imperfect (her father’s aristocratic connections, her Public school education, the nurtured support circle available on hand etc)
            and her position as wife and mother to future Kings/Queen (also strengthened by having paid her dues, in establishing credibility and good intent beyond self interest within the RF).

            Will Meghan step on the banana skins under the rugs
            or be wise enough to get help where easily available?
            Are we to await a re-run of the young Baths, which, though an improvemnet on the former one, is not what it really could be, in terms of new comer personality, taste and style (?). I am not terribly impressed. My 2C for all it’s worth.
            I hope to keep off this blog – this upsets me now.

  16. She’s nice, warm, and friendly. She did her job.

    I hate the outfit but am more unimpressed by how blah Harry looked. Wear a tie. Find some nice shoes. Your dad can take you to where he gets his shoes, c’mon, dude.

    I think she will do fine at the meet and greet stuff. I can’t imagine Charles stopping with that–he like HM understands how important it is to go out and engage with the public, small businesses, charities, and so on–but William and Harry have made it clear they especially William and Kate do not want to deal with the plebs. It’s boring see. I found his comment “only if you’re good” re: a wedding invite a bit rude, William-esque if you will.

    1. I truly hope Meghan can help Harry sartorially. He looked so nice in his smart overcoat and scarf, but underneath was the same wrinkly sports jacket, ill-fitting pants (not in the William sense thank goodness) and scruffy shoes. I know they want to look less stiff, but Meghan should be able to help him get the smart casual right.

      I think Meghan is lucky in that her resting, serious face is quite pleasant, unlike say the dour faces of some other BRF members.

      Jamel, I agree there is a lot of mothering in their relationship. Harry’s not the first royal Windsor to seek that out.

      1. The royals tend to marry nanny wives. The Queenmother was a nanny wife type. So are Camilla and Kate. Diana was famously not a nanny wife and we saw the results of that – regardless of other issues in the marriage. Wallis turned out to be a nanny wife too.

        MM being maternal in the relationship is par of the course of the types of wives these men prefer.

        It’s actually funny to think that it’s a family trait as if it’s genetic disposition.

        Personally, i would find it intolerable to be in a parent/child relationship and have ditched any men whose romantic personality skewered to that. It’s only acceptable if i’m dealing with an actual child.

        1. It’s funny and sad, this mother-complex.
          The world noticed the most with Charles. Diana was a free spirit, but also seeked love.They both needed strong,supportive partners, that was a bad mixture. In the end, Diana had William as support(also not the right thing) and Charles Camilla, which broke Diana’s heart.

        2. Herazeus I completely agree about the mothering. The way she rubs his back and pats him is like a mom cimporting her child. But there is something very child like about Harry anyway.

          1. It is often said that some men look for their mother when choosing a wife. I don’t know if that is always true. Harry and William lost their beloved mom at such young ages. I would not be surprised to see that each sought a maternal nature in their wives — and in, William’s case – in his mother-in-law. William, obviously, did not want a charismatic partner in his wife. Nobody exactly like Diana, in other words. Harry, chose differently. And, there are so many personality traits of each of these two women that might be appealing to the men who have chosen them. Meghan does seem to be a maternal type, but she is also very independent and charismatic. I never saw a maternal side to Kate, until she became a mother. I remember viewing the photos of the picnic that William, little George and Kate attended. Photos of her using a napkin to wipe her little boy’s face, finally showed me her maternal side. Prior to that, when walking with him, she seemed totally disconnected. Now, with both her children, she does seem to be maternal.

          2. Jenny, being maternal in a relationship doesn’t negate other qualities of a person. It has nothing to do with whether someone is maternal to actual children nor does it signal any maternal instinct to actual children. And it’s not gender specific. It’s simply how one relates to their partner.

            It’s an aspect of the psychology of human behaviour and the dynamic of people’s romantic relationships.

            The most common relationship dynamic is parent – child where one person in the relationship needs to be taken care of as if they are a child whilst the other one takes care of them as if they are a parent. It’s not necessarily unhealthy if the ‘child’ partner isn’t infantilised and the ‘parent’ partner doesn’t turn into a tyrant.

            It works if the respective partners are naturally inclined to the role they play in the relationship eg Charles is very obviously a child and Camilla is very obviously a parent in that particular parent-child relationship.

            As much as Kate is spoilt rotten by everyone, if you pay attention to little slips, she’s definitely the parent in her relationship with William or she tries to be. The fact that William responds so strongly to that aspect of her personality, even if it’s staged by Carole to look that way, tells you that he is the child in their parent – child dynamic.

            Right from the beginning,
            1. we are told she turned into a domestic goddess to take care of him at St Andrews. The often told anecdotes paint a picture of a bachelor so inept she simply *had* to take over the chores.

            2. There are pap photos of her patting him reassuringly Meghan style at various events during the girlfriend years. She rarely does it post marriage.

            3. When he gave his a speech to the Ark dinner – their first high profile dinner as a married couple – those who attended said he looked to her for reassurance and she mouthed,’well done’, to him.

            4. Famously being caught in the carriage on their wedding day asking him if *he* was happy?

            5.When she shops for him, there are always little asides to the shop assistants that paint a picture of someone -william – incapable.

            6. In the early stages of their marriage, PR would sanction articles about her running his hot bath and cooking him his favourite meals to demonstrate how much she took care of him.

            Etc and so forth.

            Clearly, based on appearances, HM are another parent – child relationship.

            If your romantic inclination is not parent – child and are in a relationship with someone who is thus inclined, it can be hell. Parental types are inclined to be bossy in the relationship because their instinct is to take care of you whether you need it or not. Child types are exhausting because they are inclined to be extremely co-dependent and emotionally needy and require endless reassurance.

            Going back to the royals, often their actual mothers are unavailable due to curcumstances or the way they are raised. The parental figure in their lives is their nanny.

            William recently admitted Diana wasn’t around much and that he often was left alone (with Harry) in the nursery. https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/648005/Prince-William-dubbed-workshy-revelaed-works-80-hours-week-Camilla-Tominey
            We know they were boarding schooled at 8yrs old. So whilst she died when William was 15yrs old, it doesn’t mean she was in his life to extent the public imagine due to all the great photos she gave implying hands on availability.

            If the adage that a person uses their parent as a template for choosing a romantic partner, then both William and Charles have used their nannies as the template because that was the true parental figure to them. We know Camilla resembles Charles’s nanny Mabel, and it was often said in their early relationship that Kate had a passing resemblance to Nanny Tiggy. Some journalists even commented on it:

            It remains to be seen which Nanny, of the team they had, MM turns out to be.

          3. Camilla was certainly a mother/nanny figure and still is. Listen to her talk about Charles in interviews and she is effusive in her praise of how wonderful he is – almost to the point of flattery. That’s why when people say she is good for Charles – I tend to disagree. I think he has a very hard time with people who disagree with him – and Camilla’s praise encourages that to excess. It was one thing that play about Charles really brought out. When you tell someone they’re right all the time, you aren’t giving good advice.

            Diana didn’t have a chance. Whether it could have worked without Camilla is hard to say – but with Camilla as a confident of Charles – she didn’t even have to be a lover – the marriage had no hope. I suspect older, more experienced girlfriends of Charles backed away because of it. Diana was too young to understand until it was too late.

            Harry is seen as very immature (probably because he is – he is very boyish given his age.) That has been part of Harry’s charm – being everyone’s lad, but now he’s marrying, he’s going to need to grow u p.The important thing for Meghan will be to not look like she’s dominating him – to give him importance so to speak. Not talking over him will be a start, but it’s early days yet.

            I don’t see this as sexist. I was watchful when Victoria married Daniel – I wasn’t sure about him – but I now think he has done an excellent job – standing back without losing dignity. Of course, Tim has it easy with Anne – he was an equerry so he understood. More than anything that was the tragedy of Margaret – she needed someone like Townsend who understood the family and how to manage her – Snowdon neither knew how or cared.

            I don’t know how dominant Kate is – some partners seem who seem very passive actually run the show at home. I’ve sometimes suspected that’s the case with them. But it’s hard to say.

          4. I actually don’t read their PDA as maternal from her end. She looks nervous. She digs her nails in and it isn’t possessive or mothering, I think she is extremely nervous and is just good at hiding but it comes out in touching. My best friend is this way. When she gets nervous she likes to have “contact” and will your back or hold on to you. I have had to get used to it because I am NOT a tactile person and do not like to be touched, but the things you do for your friends lol.

          5. I’m not sure I agree that Kate is the ‘parent’ in her relationship. I think her mother told her to act that way to attract William, but I don’t get a naturally maternal vibe from her. She is awkward around animals (the Irish Wolfound at the Irish Guards/the cat at the theater), she is awkward around kids (every event with kids), and she has mentioned several times how much she appreciates being taken care of (engagement interview/Queen’s 90th interview). I think Kate is just as much a ‘child’ as William, and her pretence is showing, which may be why he seems irritated with her sometimes.

            This is also the same thing that happened with Charles and Diana. Diana was sympathetic to Charles after his Uncle’s death, pretended to be interested in him and his hobbies, and dropped the pretence once she was married. Charles was shocked to find she was just as much a ‘child’ as he.

          1. I tried very hard not to have an opinion before the engagement because she could have been a passing thing.

            Mind you, I thought alot of commentary about her was ridiculously OTT. From both sides. She’s the *unicorn that everyone fought over.

            *she fulfilled the impossible criteria required by the Harry fans post-Cressida. She might as well be a unicorn.

            It’s hard to have an opinion of her as an individual because her pre-engagement life was very much the standard life of a hollywood actor. One needs to hustle to make it in the business. You can’t be shy and retiring, you can’t hide your light under a bushell, you have to promote yourself, and network like crazy to get anywhere. Even when you are top of the tree. It’s a neverending battle to sell yourself, to reinvent yourself otherwise you fall by the wayside.

            Therefore it’s impossible to judge her public hollywood life and actions and to say that is the real Meghan. It’s an image as false as that created by the royals.

            Her student life is as impressive as Kate’s student life and we all know how that turned out.

            I think going forward we shall see the real Meghan just as we are now clear on the real Kate. I’m therefore prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

            She did very well at the Nottingham engagement, but Kate did very well at her first engagement, so i think i’ll wait a few more to truly form an opinion.

            Ps: i hate that Kate informs the narrative so much. Kate’s actions are entirely her choice, but it’s also made me very cynical about giving Meghan an unqualified Hurrah!!!

          2. Amen, Hera. This explains why I feel that even now she seems elusive as a person to me. I actually feel like I haven’t gotten to know her any better, have any real sense of her since the engagement and the interview, and certainly didn’t get a sense of her *at all* from the past. It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall.

            I think it’s in the consistent tiny gestures and behaviours that she reveals herself the most, like the soothing. Once she’s out and about more, a concrete pattern of behaviour should emerge.

          3. Oh,well said Herazeus, I feel the same way- just perched on my bit of fence over here waiting for time to tell.

      2. I have Netflix and was watching Kate and William’s engagement and subsequent wedding. In the engagement interview William stated that one of the things he admired about Kate is that he has a humorous side and Kate loves that. Oh my, did William get suckered. LOL And, does he actually believe that he is funny. From just that sentence I get the feeling that Kate tells him what she thinks he wants to hear.

        1. I’m sure she does tell him what he wants to hear! I was just saying above Camilla is the master of that.

          As for William, remember humour is relative – I don’t care for his humour, particularly his comment at Wimbledon about the Tube strike, tasteless, but remember upper class British humour (as I was discussing above) is a whole different thing. You and I may not think he’s funny but his mates might well and not just to flatter him. But what work at a country house party may not play well in public.

          1. I remember reading an article about Jackie O in which they discussed how she flattered men who all went away thinking she was the greatest woman they’d ever met.

            It was all about complimenting them, flattering them and laughing at their jokes. And concentrating on them as if they were the most amazing discovery for Jackie ever!!!

            It all sounded so exhausting.

          2. Herazeus + 1.

            I think that breathless voice of Jackie’s must have been part of that. Odd what men seem to like.

  17. So I wasn’t closely watching the royals when Will and Kate got engaged. But Meghan and Harry’s engagement has brought Kate’s first engagement as a royal back to light so I had an opportunity to see it.
    Honestly, I don’t see any difference between Kate’s first engagement and Meghan’s. Kate seemed just as smiley, happy, and engaged with the people in the walkabout at her first engagement as Meghan looks here. I don’t see any difference. I even like the outfit that Kate wore for her first engagement. The coat may have been a little short above the knee but I think she looked good. Meghan’s skirt was frayed at the bottom but her outfit was pretty much equal to Kate’s in my opinion. Both women were friendly greeting the people during the walkabout. The only big difference is Meghan and Harry do a lot more PDA. But at this point in Kate’s engagement everyone said she was Diana 2.0 as well and that she would save the monarchy. All any of the papers said was that Kate was Cinderella falling in love with a future king at university.
    It is way too early to say that Meghan will be a better royal than Kate. My personal prediction is that they will probably work an equal amount of engagements but because Meghan is more outgoing people will say it seems like she is doing a better job. But no matter what, William and Kate are next in line. And when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King the focus will always be more on William and Kate and their children.
    I think the media didn’t turn on Kate until at least one year after the wedding. Things started to change when those sun bathing pictures got out.

    1. When was Kate’s first engagement? It must be 2010? I didn’t follow her that closely back then.

      1. February 2011. Christening some boat on Anglesey afaik.

        I think they did it then because William didn’t work (heck he hardly worked for the RAF) so they had to scramble to come up with something to do.

        1. Yes christening a boat, and then soon after they did an event at St Andrews University (where they met). I thought Kate was fine at that event too. She told some students during the walkabout “good like with all of the studying”! Then there was some event where she flipped a pancake…can’t remember if that was during the engagement or after the wedding.

          1. They did not meet at St Andrews. They actually met before probably at a party, as Kate made friends with Emilia d’Erlanger who was in William’s circle and went to Highgrove House parties. Kate knew how to make friends in high places to get her where she wanted to be.

            The pancake was in Belfast I think? Where she told someone it was ‘all part of the plan’ to get so thin?

          2. The pancake flipping was in Ireland and I think it was for Shrove Tuesday.
            What was William doing back in 2011? Was he even working?

      2. I think Kate’s many flashing incidents also made people start to question her.
        I know she has a different personality and style. Comparing the two women will, no doubt, always happen, but I doubt that Harry and Meghan will be taking too much of a back seat, even when Charles is King. Charles, is a bright man. He must know that to keep the Monarcy going, there needs to be total interest and love from the people.

  18. I think its too early to think that Meghan is better than Kate .She is been in showbiz afterall !!She would know how to interact with strangers and etc etc.I agree with some comments above that both pairs would put equal amount of work than the later out doing .About comparison between two ladies its gonna be lifelong .

  19. Harry and Meghan did more than spread a little cheer, they seemed to really care about the people who came out to see them. When I was about two, or three, my father hosted a huge event for the then Governor of New York. It was related to a charity that my parents are still very involved with — even now. The Governor’s wife, was supposed to be presented a small nosegay by my sister, who was older, but my poor sis came down with a fever, so the job was left to me. I just remember how sweet the Governor’s wife was and how she plucked a flower from the side of the bouquet and gave it back to me for a remembrance. We pressed it in a book and I still have it! That’s what I could imagine Meghan doing, too!

    The giving of the heat pack to the woman was a lovely gesture and she and Harry really seemed to care about everyone and they truly seem in love. I doubt there will be another Diana, but there is now a Meghan! And, I wish her well. I’ve been swinging back and forth on whether she’s sincere, or not, but when I look at these pictures and see how happy the crowd looked, my spirit rises. Goodbye to Harry’s role as the third wheel. He and Meghan radiate and their brightness lights up the way– wherever they go.

  20. I kind of hope the monarchy falls apart after the Queen passes away and Harry & Meghan become an international super couple doing charity work and being pretty and happy together. I have no real opinions of the monarchy and I’m not a royal watcher at all but I like looking at these two. They have a crazy amount of chemistry and charisma together. It’s a nice respite from all the horrid news in the world.

    1. Lots of speculation but this is one I don’t think will happen – no visible means of support! Harry would have a lot more to think about than doing charity work!

      Should the monarchy end, it would become all about money for the members. If you look at former royals and there are plenty out there lurking around the edges of royal events, that’s the main concern. Supporting themselves. Many hold down jobs in fiance – but Harry without even a uni degree isn’t well suited for that.

      There would be a settlement. Charles has an enormously expensive lifestyle and almost certainly wouldn’t be able to keep the whole of the quasi-public Duchy of Cornwall. It’s hard to say what would happen to the queen’s wealth but Harry would probably be left without a great deal more than what he had from Diana.

      I think for William and Harry it would be about making money to support a lifestyle far beyond their private income. Kensington Palace would be gone. Both men are so used to having their way eased for them in countless ways we don’t even think about, that it would be a huge shock and a very unhappy time. No royal security any more, the single biggest royal expense – and there would be even more trying to lean on rich friends.

      Far from being happy it’s a scenario likely to put extreme stress on royal marriages. So perhaps respectfully not the best thing to hope for.

      1. I’m not sure they would agree, but Harry and William could live comfortably on the income on their inheritance from Diana. If they each have $30 milllion dollars, their income could be a very conservative $1.5 million a year. It wouldn’t be helicopters, designer clothes or super-duper kitchen makeovers, but it would be comfortable. Heck, Meghan could live on her income if she was very careful. But whether royalty could ever adjust is an open question.

        1. I’ve seen various figures out there but 30 million each is much too high – I’ve seen as little as about ten million pounds each. That would be quite comfortable for most of us – but for them that would require purchase of property – including possibly London property, taxes, and all sorts of other expenses. For two men who rarely even pay for their own transportation it would be a major issue.

          I quite honestly think the loss of identity as princes would be just as important as well. There are royals like the Greek Crown Prince who have done pretty well (he married an heiress) but there still is a lack of purpose.

          1. Okay, did some quick research. Harry inherited 13 million (dollars, not pounds) in 2014 when he turned 30. Assuming that amount didn’t grow at all in the past three years, he still would have an interest income of 625,000 (dollars not pounds) at only 2.5%. My point is that one could live comfortably on that. I think he has more, as that is a very conservative return on investment, his expenses are pretty much met by his father and the British taxpayer, and it is unlikely that the amount did not grow in the last three years. Plus there is the rumor that the Queen Mother gave gifts during her lifetime. I’m not saying that it would buy an equivalent lifestyle, just that the wolf at the door scenario is unlikely.

            I agree that identity loss could be devastating. Lack of purpose is often the burden of those who are financially comfortable, royal or no.

          2. 1. It’s known fact that the Crown Greek Prince’s bride brought a £200M dowry to the marriage. The whole thing was quite public at the time. The only way for Constatine to allow the marriage.

            2. William and Harry have more than just the Diana money. They are the recepient of royal family trusts that are created for each individual royal child at birth which become available to them at 25yrs old. Every single member of the family in the immediate circle of inheritance has one. By that i mean the children and grandchildren of each monarch in succession. Depending on their lifestyle, it’s either enough or it is too little. Often, by the nature of their luxurious upbringing, it is too little.

            Additionally, the Queenmother divested 2/3rds of her money and assets to her living great grandchildren in 1994 to be given to them in two batches when they reached 25yrs and 40yrs. That included Margaret’s grandchildren as well. It caused quite the public row at the time because it was seen as a way to avoid inheritance tax. She lived for the rest of her life on handouts from the Queen and her govt pension.

            The ownership of the duchy of Cornwall is not ‘quasi’. It is 100% state owned property. With no equivocation. The terms of it’s ownership have always been clear. The ‘heir to the throne’ can use it’s profits to pay for his expenses incurred in support to the crown, BUT they do not own it. The fact that the ownership papers don’t have a specific name that can claim ownership was done specifically to ensure no one could claim it. It makes transfer between dynasties or entities easier. And should we abolish the monarchy, the profits are simply diverted to the treasury as ‘heir to the throne’ no longer exists. Charles has no recourse to sue for lost income.

            This was demonstrated in his divorce from Diana where her settlement should have been bigger if Charles truly owned the duchy. And Charles struggled to pay her off. He had to empty his *personal* accounts and sell *personal stocks* and borrow from HM. Not a penny from the very rich duchy was touched.

            Same rules apply for the duchy of Lancaster, and the crown estates.

          3. You’re right of course Hera – but I doubt Charles would see it that way – I rather think he’s sees the Duchy as his own.

            Should the monarchy end, I think the government would make a settlement – look how much the present divorce is costing! There wouldn’t be the need for a trade agreement in the same way, but to make the situation go more smoothly, I think there would be a pay-off.

            In theory there would be ample money. In practice – looking at the Duke of Windsor – the best British example, money was constantly on his mind, even though he lived high.

            Royal life is such an insulated bubble – I think it is always difficult for royals who no longer have that support system more than anything.

          4. William’s inheritance from Diana is now much smaller, because he gave 9 million pounds to the Midds to purchase a larger home. It appears that the Midds are very fortunate to receive large sums of money as a handout. First, it was Uncle Gary’s money that got Kate into expensive schools and then now it’s William’s turn to keep the mansion’s afloat..

          5. Well, they also now have terribly rich James Matthews to support them, though how terribly rich he really is is questionable.

          6. Other Julia: You are right about Charles’s attitude to the duchy.

            Recently he made noises about having it transferred to his (the family) private ownership. He was turned down. Then he tried to have the Crown Estates transferred instead. Again shut down.

            His argument was that royal family funding would be much easier if they owned the entire shebang.

            Considering the conservative estimated cost of the royals is approx £350M annually based upon the publicly known funding streams whilst each of those duchies is estimated to be worth billions, that was an audacious suggestion.

            However, you are right regarding our current govt. They have been weak in giving into the royals without pushing for anything in return.

            How i long for John Major’s govt that refused to pay for Windsor castle without the royals agreeing to pay income tax, give up the yacht and open the palaces to contribute to their upkeep.

            Apart from the refusal to transfer ownership, the govt has acquieced to all other royal funding requests without getting anything in return.

            It doesn’t bode well for our Brexit negotiations or the outcome of Charles trying to get those properties as a lasting legacy for his family.

  21. Regarding Meghan’s outfit: Loved the coat and top. I thought the skirt was ok but it would have been better as a pencil skirt. She certainly has the figure for it. I wonder if she thought it would be too Rachael Zane or too form fitting? The thing with her is she has a short torso and wider hips so finding pieces that won’t look too “curvy” may be difficult. Hey I say if you got it flaunt it. Kate certainly flashes those legs of hers!:-) The boots were interesting. Over the knee but she pulled them down for a slouched look which was ok but seemed to be pulled down too much (we could see under the skirt). Personally, I would have swapped the skirt for a pencil skirt (same color) and a good pair of classic knee high leather boots with a heel. She is much shorter than Harry so she could be flexible with heel height.

    Regarding her first engagement: I think she did well. I agree that we need to see more before a solid opinion can be performed. I also agree with comments that HM will always be somewhat secondary to WK because William will take the throne. I think the BRF is very aware of that but also aware of Harry’s immense popularity. They won’t want to waste it especially since there will need to be a solid strategy after QEII dies. My guess is HM will interact with WK for official duties occasionally but spend more time out in the commonwealth. That way the BRF can take advantage of HM’s popularity on the international stage and continue to groom WK on the homefront to take the throne. Basically CC+WK+HM= QEII. It will indeed be a group effort to keep the monarchy relevant after Her Majesty passes.

  22. Here is my take: this was a good start, hopefully there are better things to come in the future.
    1) Meghan nor Kate are not trying to be Diana, if anyone thinks they’re trying, that’s on you, have fun with it, but don’t speak for these women because you are not in their head and therefore have no idea what they think.
    2) I expected Harry and Meghan engagement and subsequent events to be better than Will and Kate because Harry and Meghan are older and wiser and Harry had had the opportunity to learn from his brother’s mistakes. He corrected what he thought went wrong with Kate rollout, and he used the resources around him thus a more finer product. This doesn’t necessarily mean one was better than the other, it just means one was more fine tuned than the other.
    3) For the Brazilian poster and others with same feelings: you probably haven’t been following Harry long enough thus your thinking that these petty things are that important to him. Harry was born in the royal family, he was raised in and by the firm, he knows how things work and where his place is in relation to heir to the throne. He still doesn’t care to be king even if his brother abdicated. He doesn’t begrudge his nephew and nieces, he is quite alright with the way things are and I’m sure his future wife is not dating him with hopes of ever becoming a queen she is dating the guy because she is in love with him and him with her. That’s not such a hard concept to grasp. Kate can have all the jewelry and the money in the world that her future role as queen can give her, Harry will still loves her the same and doesn’t begrudge her either, he knows he is younger and thus can’t be king if at all this monarchy survives after QEII and King Charles (or whatever he chooses to be). There is a indication that the monarchy might nit be around for Will to be king and reigh over, nor Kate be queen so y’all might want put some breaks on all the vitriol toward Harry and Meghan.
    .3) For the PDA haters, please don’t make yr lives miserable, stop clicking on Meghan and Harry related articles, stop tying their names in yr computers to read about them, if a little pop up pops on yr phone just scroll it off yr phone, save yr selves the headache, DO NOT READ.
    4) I’m beginning to think that Meghan wears the pants in this relationship is in the eyes of the beholder. There was a guy that had an issue with Meghan not being 2 steps behind Harry etc, when Harry clearly didn’t mind and was encouraging her being at his side rather than behind him!! Why do people complain about jalapeños they aren’t even eating? Even if Meghan does wear the pants and walked ahead of Harry, my opinion is that if Harry doesn’t mind (he doesn’t seem to in my observation) then why do people care? None of us is married to Harry, again why make it your problem? Until Harry starts to complain I guess it’s just like Meghan said,it’s all noise that they tune out and that’s it.
    Lastly, my wish is for this young couple to survive this, the onslaught is brutal, I’m hoping that their love for each other conquers all.

    1. Well said – I replaced the names of Duke & Duchess of Cambridge when reading 😀
      Fits wonderfully!

  23. If people post any small detail that was off during their appearance it’s called negative and that we should just ignore or accept it – maybe because we are all human and make mistakes?

    But the royals want to be seen as humans who don’t make mistakes, right? I mean, especially if there are certain protocols that have been in place for a long time that you should follow and people there to tell you how things should be.

    Is there a protocol that the born royal shake hands first before the soon-to-be married-in royal? If so, no one on Harry’s staff told Meghan that, and she was running forward to shake hands before Harry. I would only criticize Meghan on royal protocols, if they really exist.

    Not just protocol, but keeping things the same as others in the family, otherwise it looks ridiculous and as if no one has done their research. I’m talking about the engagement photocall, Meghan didn’t research that The Queen, Diana, Sarah, Sophie, and Kate all stood to the right side of their husband-to-be in order to show off the ring. Meghan stood on Harry’s left and then placed her hand awkwardly on his to show the ring. I cringed.

    I dislike the lack of information given to married-in royals about their new station in the, it’s as if they, whoever they are, want you to fail.

    1. Jason Knauf deserves every bit of criticism for that photo call, and perhaps for whatever missteps Meghan took during her first engagement. It is his reputation that has become ridiculous. I sincerely hope that Meghan finds her own Catherine Quinn, who isn’t oh-so-chummy with Jason like the other KP staffers are, who can properly guide her.

      1. Sorry, but I don’t believe that there is a protocol that says who has to stand on which side. They came out to announce their engagement, they looked happy and excited and we all saw the ring. Why all the nitpicking?

        1. Protocol doesn’t have to be rigid and formalised.

          I mean, have you ever thought about why waiters in restaurants serve people the way they do?

          It’s obviously not important for waiters in a cafe, but it matters to a 5star restaurant who train their wait staff to follow the arcane rules.

          1. It’s less the violation of any one rule than an overall impression of disregarding them, that unfortunately fits a stereotype for Americans of not being concerned about manners and just assuming the world conforms to their way of doing things.

            Britain is a more traditionally formal country then the US – and the royal family stands for tradition. Anyone who has encountered a group of lager louts abroad knows there are plenty of rude people – but the royal family is expected to stand for the ideal in public. If Kate’s skirt flies up, that’s not ideal (far from it – that scene at Gandhi’s tomb was mortifying.) If Meghan surges ahead and interrupts, that’s not ideal.

            That’s doesn’t mean either country is right or wrong – it’s just the way it is. Every single country in the world has different rules of conduct, different values and different ways of expressing themselves.

            I know people here don’t like to hear this but when you’re a tourist, it’s nice if you have a sense of the manners of the country but it’s often not expected. (Unless you’re in certain Middle Eastern countries where knowing may keep you out of jail!) When you’re in business, it becomes important to understand that – there are books, videos, and companies do whole training sessions when sending people abroad so they don’t unintentionally violate what are often quite small and arbitrary rules.

            When you’re a diplomat or a member of the royal family representing your new nation – it’s vital you know and follow the rules of your adopted nation as well as knowing those of countries you visit. Likewise, as Herazeus pointed out, every profession has its rules – and in a Michelin starred restaurant, you expect a waiter to behave in a different way than a takeaway.

            I know I sound stuffy to many here but the reason I wanted to see Meghan spend time in Britain before and engagement or at least more time before plunging into public life is so she would have a chance to learn these rules and the nuances of conduct. I don’t think she’ll have any trouble learning – but it takes time.

            This was a first engagement – and some spontaneity was nice – but she will need to understand better on more formal occasions.

  24. +1000 MASAMF…..I too do not know Harry, everybody seems to think they know him but in his engagement interview, he said himself “they THINK they know me”. We are all just speculating on his likes and dislikes but I am guided by visuals – from what I can see, Harry looks like a man in love who is overjoyed to have this beautiful woman by his side. And from what I have seen of his interactions with people, be they high profile or orphans, or his interactions with children, pets, etc. there is no way I can believe Harry will not treat his partner as an equal by his side and allow her to walk 2 steps behind him.

    As for Will and Kate, we all know they are the future King & Queen if the monarchy survives, there is no reason to belittle Harry & Meghan’s contribution which will be to work their magic with the people in a way that the others can’t. They have the personalities and charisma to do it, so let them get on with it.

  25. Carli girl, I never said you shouldn’t point out negative stuff, my post was in response to the “I’m sick of the hand holding” ” enough with the PDA” “stop this and stop that” these were the people I advised to not click on Meg/Harry related stuff and save themselves the headache. It’s one thing to say I didn’t like Meghan outfit and its totally different to go on and on about Meghan is marrying the spare and will never be queen or Harry is just the spare and he will never be king however much the try, William and Kate will always be the center of attention blah blah blah. Stuff like that add nothing to the discussion. And hurtful comments like those posted on here with the hopes that probably Meg or Harry or their people will read them and will feel hurt are just a waste of time and are so unnecessary.
    Critique Meghan and her wardrobe or her performance in Nottingham that’s alright; just don’t be disrespectful and expect to not be called out. We get it, some don’t like Meg or Kate, we get it, but must people be mean and evil toward these women to this extent? People they know nothing about and have never even met? Is it necessary? I don’t think so.

    1. And my post wasn’t in response to yours, I had read someone else’s above yours and so I was just giving my opinion.

      I hadn’t read your post but once I did I agree with you that if Harry doesn’t have a problem with her being first to shake hands or breaking any royal protocols then why should we. He won’t end the engagement with all of the things we nitpick over Meghan lol.

      1. Oh I apologize Cali gurl, I thought you are responding to my post, my bad. 🤗🤗🤗. Can we hug it out?😘😘😘😅😅

      2. For the “brazilian” poster that are not following Harry long enough: Just to answer your passive aggressive message: I give up on my brazilian citizenship for a British one a 22 years ago, so I believe that I am living and experiencing the English life and culture way longer than you do, if you ever did besides read things about the Uk online.
        I wont apologize for not liking PDA in events where people should be working ( events paid with my money btw) Who are you to ‘advise’ what I should or shoud not read? I dont have to agree with something to get informed about it. This blog is not the Meghan’s fan club base and she is going to face the same amount of critics that Kate does in the another blog.
        I dont know how old are you but a mature person can talk directly with me when having a problem with my comments without make the whole middle school issue ” a little message to that certain person”
        Thank you

        1. @Agnes,
          First of all, my post was to the person that identified themselves as “I’m from Brazil” but if you are Brazilian-British, good for you. I too am Afro-Canadian and have been so for the past 15 years and I have no desire whatsoever to move to the UK, therefore the “I know more and Im experiencing the British life” was completely unnecessary. You might know more by living in the UK for the past 20something years but I don’t believe that gives you any right to dictate as who should or shouldn’t comment on the BRF; immigration to the UK or any other commonwealth country doesn’t give one any ownership over the royal family or whatever, though I really have no idea what relevance our respective citizenships have on this blog and in particular this discussion.
          Unlike you, I never asked nor demanded that people apologize for how they feel about Meghan, this is a free blog, people can do whatever they want. As much as you don’t like my advising you to not google Meghan and click on any articles related to her then come here and complain about how she and Harry behave in public, same here; it gets tiresome to read all these posts that complain about Harry and Meghan yet if they didn’t click on them nor read posts about them, they wouldn’t have no problem with the PDA, so why not stop and save all of us the trouble?
          I always laugh at “we are British so we pay our taxes to sustain the royal family” comments……..gosh we all in the commonwealth pay taxes to the monarchy, don’t we? Oh maybe somehow, our taxes don’t count…..because we aren’t British…..
          I won’t even address the “I don’t know how old you are”…..

  26. I have to say, initially I was stoked about the SRF get together and meh okay with this one, and after seeing them switched them. This really worked for me for a first engagement.
    I thought Meghan looked lovely and I might be contributing to the Meghan effect because I’ve already scoped out that purse!! Loved that it was an actual purse and something I would use myself.
    Love that she and Harry still seem to still be glowing.
    My one complaint and I don’t blame Meghan but whoever it was who told her, maybe not say something so easily refuted like “we’re not allowed to take selfies”. When there are numerous pics of the BRF taking selfies!!

    1. I disagree on the selfie issue. I know *everyone* takes them (some people more than others), but it’s low-brow and very emblematic of our self-obsessed, celebrity culture. Selfies are tacky. People who take them are tacky. People who ask celebrities to take selfies with them are tacky. The British royal family shouldn’t be treated like Kardashians. Granted, the last dignity of the institution probably died when Charles was caught on tape wishing to be reincarnated as his then-mistress-now-wife’s tampon, but let’s pretend they’re above it.

      (Yes, I know I’m probably in the minority on this topic.)

      1. I think calling people who take selfies tacky is a wee bit harsh. I think with most everything there is a correct time and place. Did I take a selfie at a concentration camp? No. Did I take a selfie with the Mona Lisa? you betcha!
        You clearly don’t like them and that’s fine. My point was, whoever advised her on this goofed up because there is photographic evidence disproving that statement. Or if was that she just wanted to, she could have said “I don’t do them” but her phrase “we’re. Not allowed to” doesn’t hold up or they’re all violating said rule

        1. Did it occur to you that there actual is a rule about no royal selfies and the royals who have done it in the past were breaking that rule? Just a thought.

          (And no, I do think that jamming your face up to the face of a stranger and demanding that they smile for an awkward photo with you is tacky behavior. I stand by that.)

          1. Would politely asking a stranger to smile for an awkward photo with you while your friend or family member took the photo also be tacky behavior? I would think the way one asks a celeb or royal for a photo would be the tacky part, not who took the photo – whether you took the photo yourself (a ‘selfie’) or someone else took the photo of you and the celeb/royal. It’s the not the selfie itself that’s bad, it’s being rude that is bad.

          2. You are not alone. I don’t understand the need to insert yourself into every situation. It’s as if people have a need to document and validate their existence. But I realize I am an old dinosaur on this one; I don’t even take many photos on trips, but rely on memory and postcards. I don’t want to miss the experience being busy trying to photograph it.

    2. Pretty sure it’s a security thing. There is a video of her on Friday when she was asked for to take a selfie saying “I don’t think we’re aloud to” them looking over to the RPO you said no. But then she offered to have someone take their picture, so I don’t think it’s a time thing but a safety thing.

  27. Anyone want to venture a guess as what Meghan’s next engagement will be and when ? I hope it isn’t the big Star Wars premiere. We will never hear the end of it as in Meghan is doing fluffy engagements and no substance.

  28. I don’t understand this talk about H&M having a smaller roll. Yes, William is the heir. And as such he and Kate *should* have the larger role. But there is A LOT of work to be done if the monarchy is to survive. And yes, William has 3 (maybe more) children, but it will be at least 20 years before any of them are taking up official duties, and if they take after their farther, it could be 30 or more years. The fulltime working members of the royal family will be Charles and Camilla (as King and consort), William and Kate (as the heir and wife), and Harry and Meghan. I don’t see Harry and Meghan fading into the background anytime soon.

    1. If they are to continue with the same volume of work or even reduce it by a third, all 6 will have to keep working for the foreseeable future. Pushing out the Yorkies and the Wessexes is a bad move in light of the workshy nature of WK, the age of CC AND the fact that Harry appears to think he should just do charity work that interests *him* as opposed to doing any bread and butter engagements. I think commonwealth was the first time he showed any interest in that sort of thing and probably only because it was framed to align with his interests AND something MM is interested in.

        1. Me too! Every time I see snippets on them I’m impressed by their work when they ate invited along. And I would really miss Sophie. I love her engagements.

      1. Herazeus, much depends on what the Commonwealth focus means in terms of actual work. The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust has some fine initiatives – no doubt well administered – but what tin-tack action will Harry and Meghan bring? When Harry said there was “so much to do”, what does he mean? Jollying people along as per royal engagements now? If so, that’s just another layer of expense from the bottomless pit of public funds – money not going to those who most need it. Will it comprise travelling around beautiful parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean, Botswana et al, ostensibly to promote the cause but in reality justifying a life of extended holi-tours? Who bears the cost of their upkeep – travels, security and so on? Commonwealth countries? There is so much work to be done in the UK, why don’t they commit to ‘working’ at home? After all, the UK taxpayer is paying their way via Charles’ Duchy funds. What’s the point of doing a 6-month blitz of UK regions/charities if the real plan is to bugger off? No wonder they’re so jazzed.

        This move appears to (a) placate Harry (b) burden Commonwealth countries with the cost of keeping the couple in luxury and lavishly entertained, as these visits ALWAYS default to (c) allow them certain levels of under the radar privacy less available in the UK (d) make accountability a little harder to discern (e) make for a formal continuation of the 18-month plus holiday romance the couple have enjoyed thus far (f) distance any comparison to William and Kate (g) attempt to keep fully functioning, independent multi-cultural nations tied to the monarchy via geeing up the popularity of ‘young’ foreigners and their superiority to rule over them.

        1. Jen: Amen to all that.

          I’m a broken record at this point, but i’m stuck at their commonwealth comments like a tick on my skin.

          I’m afraid it’s soured me on them before they’ve started. Unfair, but there it is.

          1. Herazeus: sadly, I’m in the same boat as you. I need more substantial than the charm these two can turn off and on like a tap.

            I read a while ago that a smaller Commonwealth country had declined to host a royal visit – sorry, can’t recall which it was – citing the cost was too much to bear. Whew! Lucky escape. Years ago, Charles had wanted the Australian government to set him up with land, a palatial residence, servants, the lot… and rejected as the PM of the day said it simply was not a priority for the country. I hope we are not going to see a repeat of such a tactic.

          2. I’m not firmly anti…..just soured.

            Much more aware of what they are selling or trying to sell from the outset especially the magical prince-ing of poor destitute commonwealth people.

            I will give them the benefit of the doubt because everyone deserves a chance.

            I hope that in 5yrs i’m not saying i should have stuck to my original assessment as i have done with WK.

          3. Interesting what you say, Herazeus, when William and wifey got engaged, I had no firm asssessment of them, but I had serious doubts about William’s future wife. There was a famous royal reporter, who had been close to Diana, who died shortly after William’s betrothral who said William’s fiancee was not suited in anyway or shape form to do her future royal role and I agreed.

            Andrew Morton also expressed doubts re whether Diana would have liked William’s fiancee.I have not heard him speak of Meghan.

            I gave William’s fiancee the benefit of the doubt for two years, but my original feeling was right.

            I don’t feel misgivings about Meghan and Harry as a couple. I have known who Meghan was for about as long as she has been on Suits and kept an eye on her-I felt she was unique.

            The only thing that made me think twice about her was The Tig-I thought it was like Goop and anything associated with Gwyneth Paltrow is NOT okay with me. And I thought it was too precious and I felt that way about Meghan until I realized I was wrong.

            As a woman of color, we are often critical of our own and of those who don’t fit our narrative. Very often we black people only think there is only one way to be black and those who don’t fit that are outcast. Meghan does not fit the “traditional” black narrative and I held it against her. I corrected myself, though and now I can’t wait to see what is ahead for her.

          4. LEAH So you are firmly against Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge. Will you give them another chance?

          5. LEAH your last comment is part of the evidence that discrimination/ prejudice /racism is in all directions by all ethnic and national combinations, that I mentioned in another comment.

          6. Leah: i understand 100% what you mean.

            The reporter you quoted vis a vis Kate’s unsuitability as a royal is James Whitaker. He also said 2 other things;

            1. William loved Kate, BUT wasn’t ‘in love’ with her.

            2. Kate would do anything to be the Princess of Wales.

            Actually, he wasn’t the only one to say the later statement. In summer 2010, an article appeared in a gossip magazine ran by a society guy who runs in royal circles. Read for yourself.

            Andrew Morton was rarely complimentary until she married in. Ditto Richard Kay.

          7. Great pity that the Palace doesn’t set up a Marriage Brokering and Counselling Garter of Knights consisting of these eminent marriage guidance counsellors, isn’t it? Imagine how much more interesting the whole thing could be for the world.
            And of course none of the Royal partners were ever in love with any of their partners and were all nasty little gold diggers just like Catherine Middleton was before her marriage. For as far as I know she is not the only one who joined family with a status and financial imbalance.
            Prince Albert was a penniless minor German prince, Prince Philip only difference Greek Prince of German ancestry, Elizaneth Bowes-Lyon minor Scottish Honourable and one of the Benjamins of the family, Mark Philips, Equerry Timothy Lawrence, Camilla Shand/Parker-Bowles, Sophie Ryes-Jones, Meghan Markle. Not forgetting the former Mary of Teck who was only too anxious to catch the next heir to the throne after her betrothed heir to the throne died. This is angle on which the line of reasoning runs.
            OR is it only the Duchess of Cambridge who gains from the marriage to the RF?
            Sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander?
            I feel sick when I see the bigotry expressed here and this blog was meant to be a place not veering into extremes but discussing both sides moderately.

          8. This is just a small
            response to Leah’s point that someone said Diana wouldn’t have approved of Kate. While I do agree, I think Diana was so territorial of her sons’ love and her need to be #1 in their hearts she would not have liked any wife of either. I think being her daughter in law would have been awful. I cannot even imagine what levels of manipulations and shenanigans would have been happening!

          9. Kay: All those people that you’ve listed were very much kampooned for being gold diggers.

            Every biography about each of those people makes a point of bringing up their financial status vs the royals.

            All were considered gold diggers even if they were later beloved. Awful things were said about them too.

            Only Diana escaped that label because she had pedigree better than the royals AND came from a properly wealthy family.

            At the Charles and Diana weddingm the consensus was that Diana had married beneath her and Charles had married up.

            Kateincali: i agree with your point.

            Harry and William have idealised their mother who absolutely adored them and ignored how jealous and exclusionary she was to those who might compete for their love, including their own father.

            Diana would have adored her grandbabies, but she would gave been the MIL from hell.

          10. Herazeus, thank you-it was James Whittaker. I kept thinking Arthur Edwards. I wonder what James would make of Meghan.

          11. HERAZEUS
            RE: the lampooned later beloved partners – I wish that and they had been mentioned at some point, at any point, by one or another, in these discussions to balance out criticism against the Duchess of Cambridge and Meghan.
            RE: Lady Di – That was the very reason I left the name of Lady Diana Spencer out of my above list.
            However there were insinuations by the above reporters, and friends of the PoW including Nicholas Soames, that she was only too eager and also that even as a 16 year old she had had designs on the prince! She likely wasn’t the only 16 year old of the time who fantasised, if she did fantasise, but ‘designs’?
            This above attitude of senseless vilifying is what upsets me, this meanness of spirit whether by hangers-on or independent public. We can criticise and voice our opinions but surely as independent public and as ‘royal’ fans I wish we could be more balanced – wasn’t that the goal here?

          12. Kay: let’s not rewrite history. Diana absolutely had designs on Charles. Go back and read her own words. She was determined to be PssOW regardless of any and all red flags along the path to the title.

            She even tells us how she pretended to be interested in his interests, from country life to tweeds and presented herself to entire family as the perfect country girl who would fit into the family perfectly.

            Boy were they all surprised when on honeymoon she promptly dropped the pretence.

            Further, like the Middletons, the Spencers were also social climbers determined to join the rotal damily despite having a better pedigree than the royals.

          13. The Woodvilles, Boleyns , Seymours etc have all been viewed as social climbers. It is not unique to the Middletons.
            It is interesting to read the Whittaker comments seven years later though. Very interesting.

            I wasn’t a fan of the Commonwealth comment either. I don’t need my taxes to cover for Harry’s larks. The Invictus Games were a worthy cause, but anything Heads Together is a waste of time in countries outside of the UK with entirely different health care systems.

  29. Have you guys heard the conspiracy theories on tumblr saying that Meghan blackmailed Harry into proposing as a part of some “contract” and that the contraCT says they will break up before the wedding date? Where do these people get this stuff? How the heck could you blackmail Harry into marrying you? These people are delusional.

    1. Also, what good would it do either Harry or Meghan to break up before the wedding? It would make both of them look bad.

    2. There are also still people that think that either Meghan or Harry will back out before the wedding. Guys it’s happening. Accept it.

  30. I feel gross reading and to have participated in the picking apart of both Kate and Meghan apart on both of these 2 blogs…. example— Kate shouldn’t wear skinny jeans or walk and talk like this, and Meghan stood on the wrong side of Harry, or that she shook hands first… blah blah. Surely we can have real debate on things that are a little less superficial. Why are we as women so mean to one another and pick another women apart…. I am including myself in this criticism…

    1. So what you saying is that you don’t follow the rules of any institution you have willingly joined and pointing out the ways you have broken those rules is picking you apart?

      I guess you had no codes of conduct or uniform/ dress guidelines at school or at your work?

      The royals’ audience isn’t just the British. They head up 16 countries and are trying to turn another 34 that comprise the commonwealth into a hereditary headship in favour of the British monarchy. Those countries care about protocol, dress and the image of their representatives. And some of those countries are more conservative than the BRF.

      1. Thank you, Hearzeus. That was the point I was making when I said that she stood on the wrong side of Harry to show off then ring – there are certain things you should be told to do when getting involved, or married-in, to an institution like the BRF.

      2. Sunfuntravel, I’ve been thinking about that myself these days. And in my personal life, how to avoid gossip, especially within my role navigating being a scout leader. I think a lot of women and men are taking more personal notice of how they’re treating others. And the icky feeling of it all is helping us make or break our behavior in a new way. In social work the trend is towards strength-based work, where we are reminded to avoid cutting people down while we’re hoping they’ll do better. So why do we all speak to or about each other in such negative ways? Even bosses are being trained to make praise-sandwiches, which is to surround criticism with positive statements. Basically we all (myself included) need to be nicer to one another.

    2. They move the narrative to fit their fantasy…1st they claimed that they broke up in December; then photo of them in feb came out, so the photo shopped theories started; they claimed that she crashed the wedding in Jamaica; she snucked in to polo and Harry kicked her out; Pippa wedding photos were also photoshopped; they said that the African trip was in fact photos that Meghan had in stock and that in fact the pictures were taken in Jamaica, but then they concluded it was photoshopped; after opening night of invictus they say she showed up and that Harry security kicked her out; then Harry showed up with her hand in hand so the blackmail theory started. The. Closing night they said that Meghan mom hates Meghan. And the. That Meghan’s mom is a convicted criminal. That Harry was impotent and that he was a coccain addict. And now after engagement announcements back to blackmail and the NDA that Meghan signed will expire soon so they will breakup. I have to say I am sooo entertained by the creativity …. Cray cray

      1. Those are crazy theories that no one who posts on KMR/MMR boards, including KMR/MMR herself has posted or commented on.

        People might criticise or express reservations, but no one is posting ridiculous theories like the examples you’ve listed on here.

        And i’m confident they would be called out if they did.

        If you have been participating in that type of thing then that’s on you, and i hope that as you object to it here, that you objected to it wherever you found it.

        At the end of the day, every famous person has random strangers who make up fanfiction to justify their love or hatred of the famous person eg There are people who insist that Robert Pantinson (sp) and Kirsten Stewart are still in a relationship and have a secret baby and all their other partners are merely decoys to protect this secret. We ignore such people. And you should too.

        1. Lol I hit reply to the wrong person, so that last comment was not meant for you. but yes I agree with you. LoL I forgot about the Robert and Kristen theories … for me as far as Meghan work is concerned, it’s more like a wait and see attitude…. I mean I was soooo rooting for Kate at the beginning and then disappointed… so I am not going to put all my eggs in the Meghan basket yet…

  31. What I just noticed-on the day that William’s wife made her official debut on Feb 2011, doing her first royal duty-she only did one, while Meghan attended three events. If anything it should have been the other way around. I wonder why William’s wife only did one thing that day.

    1. Because her focus was her man and the engagement and the forthcoming marriage and not world-bettering from the get-go of her own betrothel? Is the word and meaning of being betrothed engaged to be *married* lost its meaning?
      What is going on?
      Surely people can champion their darling without breaking down everything for miles around their darlings?
      I was seriously excited for PH and Meghan and within 1 week Meghans fans have started turning me off.
      Well done!

      1. And what is wrong with wanting to bettter the world, engaged or not. The focus of William’s wife has always been William and nothing else. That is a huge problem.

        1. Can’t you atleast call the lady by her given name if not by her legal name that includes her title? What has she done to you that you hate her so much that you can’t even mention her by her name?
          It’s a ‘Huge’ Problem that her focus is her husband Prince William and their toddler children ? To whom? To would be lovers?
          She is at the moment a young mother and wife to only the second in line to the throne, with a healthy and active Crown Prince ahead of them.
          Even Heir apparant Princess Elizabeth enjoyed her 2 years in Malta and a months long African Safrai with a sick King at the helm.
          Have a heart!

          1. The Queen’s 2years in Malta was made up by KP as an excuse for Kate. She visited twice in two years. TWICE. Otherwise she was helping her very ill father out with engagements and events.

          2. Kay: That Queen in Malta story was exaggerated to excuse Kate’s refusal to work immediately after her wedding. After the engagement PR telling us how much Kate was going to start working immediately, it was a slap in the face for the Palace to announce that she would be a housewife instead. Within days, this rubbish media lie was trotted out to explain the about face.

            It’s such a silly lie when a quick perusal of the national archives debunks the Queen’s time in Malta immediately.

            For a start Philip wasn’t posted to Malta until 2 years AFTER they married, and even then the Queen never moved to Malta wholesale, but visited him. And the kids stayed with grannie Queenmother the entire time.

            And most importantly, The Queen worked throughout this period.

          3. Princess Elizabeth was in Malta FOUR times over long months while she was the Crown Princess. The Duchess is not the Crown Princess and nor is Prince William a Crown Prince. PoW is next in line. Which is my point.
            It is extremely interesting to me and very telling that of all the points I raise over many posts pointing out the double standards and self delusions of some pro-Meghan posters, only a minor detail that fruitlessly seeks to reinforce prejudices against the Duchess is taken up, and that there is not a single word that shows even the slightest self reflection on own words and attitudes.
            Nor do I see moderation, fairness, justice, compassion or decency in the language and tone by some who vociferously defend Meghan by making a bogey man of the Duchess of Cambrisge who hasn’t yet done any thing to deserve such censure..
            However reflection, sobriety, compassion, fairness, justice and decency are all demanded from the others in their treatment of Meghan.
            And in this way we are building a better society?

          4. Kay: You are equally determined to accuse us of abusing Kate regardless of responses to your various points.

            We’ve had 15yrs to observe Kate, 6 of them as a royal. Nothing in her history or actions indicates this work ethic you say she will discover when she becomes PssOW.

            MM has just arrived on the scene. Check in after 15yrs and see if we still have the same opinions. Then make accusations.

            Finally, the idea that Kate will find a work ethic when she is PssOW isn’t based in the reality of her history. In 15yrs she has not shown any inclination to work. Even as a girlfriend she showed no commitment to work. In those days her excuse was that she needed to be a fully paid up member of the royal family in order to work.

            Then at the wedding she claimed she needed to settle into her marriage before she could work.

            Then when the babies came, she needed to raise her family for abit before she could work.

            And now she needs to wait until she’s PssoW before she can work?!

            What if she never makes it to PssOW?

            There is no rule that says she has to wait until she is PssOW before she works. There is no such hierachical rule that says one set have to work more based on status. Heck, Anne frequently tops the engagements table and she’s very low on the totem pole.

            All senior royals are expected to work regardless of their place in the line of succession.

            By your assumptions, all the current working royals except for Charles and Camilla should stop working immediately. Afterall they don’t have important titles and there is no chance of them getting the top job.

            And by the way, the POW title has substance because Charles has turned it into one. What have the Cambridges done with their title? Nothing.

            I am willing to bet that when Harry is given a ducal title, he will turn it into one of substance just as Charles did. Heck, right now he is only Prince Henry of Wales and he has created Sentebale and IG and is strongly associated with wounded veterans issues. What do WK do? Nothing.

            If it all went away, they are the only people in the royal family who would have nothing to fall vack on because they have no work ethic and no passions except their personal pleasures.

          5. Yes, lawd! Get her, Herazeus! I could not have said it better.

            Why people cannot accept that William’s wife is a lazy, shiftless disappointment in her role is beyond me.

            There used to be a TON of tumblrs that were pro-William’s wife about five, six years ago and now the majority of them are gone. I know people get bored and go onto other interests, but I think even some of her most ardent fans are beginning to realized they backed a loser.

            And I think some only like William’s wife to spite Meghan and because one day she will be queen and that is it.

          6. LEAH How charmingly you express yourself. You could not have said it better.
            I am afraid though that my husband has already got me.

          7. HERAZEUS My comments on tone were not made with you in mind. Nor most of Meghan’s fans. Unfortunately they came at the bottom of a reply to you as I wanted to keep them general, and not personally directed at the particular persons. I should have written them in a new thread and I am sorry if they seemed directed at you. That wasn’t intended. Your comments are usuallly so measured that words such as ‘cunning’ grate, but are not impossible to bypass 🙂
            One link you posted on the topic of the Cambridges had an interview with PW, followed by the comment “the Queen understands that Prince William is ‘playing the long game’ “. Which may also be the opinion of most of her subjects, and is also mine.
            We have 2 generations of princes who have commented on their childhoods distanced from their parents care and attention. We have also all observed the results of that. The current more hands-on parenting style of PW maybe worth of a try atleast and is the style most of HM’s subjects follow. Attempts at a lifestyle closer to their subjects was also part of the charm and attraction of the late Princess of Wales. PW mentions that PG has as yet no idea of their common futures. Countess of Wessex once mentioned that her daughter came home from school exclaiming ‘the others are saying that granny is Queen!’. So this attempt at ‘ normalcy’ seems their current trend.
            My own take is that the trade off is acceptable for a more stable lifestyle of the future royals, as the world spins away ever faster from the lifestyle of centuries. It will be a tight rope even more difficult to manoeuvre than now. I can therefore sympathise with a father who will forge tight bonds that will ease the ‘discussions’ later 🙂 I believe he is basing this on his own relationship with HM. Their job has no retirement date and the only time that is somewhat at the personal disposal of PW is the waiting time, which can end suddenly at any given moment. This time then is inexpressibly fleeting and to be made best use of and stored for the future. That’s my take.
            Some of you feel the trade off is a non starter. This difference of opinion is a normal situation. We can agree to disagree.
            But it does not naturally follow that that should be expressed with disrespect – and we ARE discussing the RF which to Brits does mean something special. Again this comment about tone is *not* directed at you nor most of the posters.
            As you point out we have many years observation on which to form opinions on Prince and Princess William but with Meghan we are in fantasy land still. So comparisons are actually only wishful thinking.
            The two princes stand together side by side now as affectionate brothers with almost similar status. Almost being operative which people generally miss or take little note of. They are massively unequal brothers. As time goes on it will unfold to reality. Whether Meghan will then more resemble Duchess if York or HRH Duchess of Wessex is an undertaking and a responsibility her fans should concentrate on. Don’t harm her with your un-reined-in adorations.
            I did not come here to this blog to defend Princess William.
            I came to root for Meghan, till I was appalled by the behaviour of some of her new fans since she became royal.
            I experienced something of the same when I first came to Europe as a person who had never watched a football match in person or TV and yet had to answer queries on English sportsmanship based on the behaviour of over-enthusiastic (?) English football fans. All fans are not the same. Even though those particular fans had absolutely no official connection to the English team or nation, their effect was so negative that the government intervened to prevent loss of repute and contempt for the general English population, and national football team. It worked and the negative situation is forgotten now.
            This is what I mean with Princess William bashing (again, not you specifically!) to enhance the standing of Meghan. Fan behaviour can have an effect on the standing of Meghan herself too.
            It is also unfair to Meghan, because it could mean that the fans unconsciously believe that Meghan is unable to complement the RF or Duchess on her own and must be made to look taller by making those next to her smaller. Sad.
            I particularly liked her own tone in her blog – and the farewell message is a gem and sweetness itself, and worth emulating.

          8. Kay: That’s alot of words to pretend you haven’t repeatedly accused us in your own words,’ making a bogeyman of the duchess of Cambridge’.

            You may not have directed your comment to me specifically, but it couldn’t go unanswered or unchallenged since it is the consistent theme of all your comments on MMR. And since i contribute to MMR as does everyone else, an accusation pointing at other posters points to me as well since i contribute to the discussion, good or bad.

            We are all coming at this from different life experiences and knowledge and to repeatedly insist that to criticise Kate is akin to turning her into a bogeyman with no attempt to understand other person’s opinion is a non starter.

            People are allowed to fangirl MM if they choose. If she disappoints them in 15yrs, that’s their cross to bear. Clearly you don’t like it, and that’s your cross to bear.

            You may be unaware that people fangirled Kate as well. She’s disappointed alot of people and they express their disappointment. That doesn’t turn her into a bogeyman. She’s had 15yrs to turn this ship around. And in the meantime the Palace and other favourable media sources continue to pump out positive PR that has no basis in reality.

            I object to the Palace PR machine spewed out lies. Verifiable lies. That’s my personal bug bear, and that’s the basis of my antipathy.

            Speaking of PR lies, that comment about the Queen understanding William’s long game is hogwash. William went through a period of claiming that the Queen or Charles approved / approves his actions in the same way he used / uses the Diana card to elicit sympathy.

            William understands that most Brits aren’t paying too close attention to his moves and assume that his PR statements are truth. He also knows that neither the Queen nor Charles will publicly rebuke him. One of the aays we know he is telling lies is that they probided him with all the necessary tools to start his official life of royal duties. Buckingham Palace was at pains to explain that his lavish home refurbishments and exclusive helicopter usage were provided because he would start his official royal duties imminently that year. And william immediately got a job with EAAA instead. Classic bait and switch behaviour. Then it was found he was not showing up for his shifts and so sanctioned this article where he pretends the Queen and Charles approve his actions. Not to mention sanctioning the idea that working parents are bad parents. Claiming that Charles or the Queen aporoves his actions is a red flag pointing to obvious lies. Ditto Diana card used for public sympathy.

  32. It’s crazy good how her tan skirt poking out of the blue coat flows w his cream scarf under jacket (in the first photo. ) A stunning/subtle show of solidarity in their first public appearance. I wonder if they planned the detail that way, and if so, if some are judging it as over-planned. At this point, I think there’s a person out there for every possible judgement of any possible situation, bless us all.

  33. This blog has around 95% of American audience so theres a lot of yadda yadda for Meghan and lots of criticism for Catherine. So its hard to give neutral or critical opinions in here because people just dont like it and make it a big deal.

    Well I dislike the whole grabbing his arm thing that she does all the time, and she keeps padding his back and grabbing his hand all the time. Some people like it, some like me does not.

    Reading the paper and some British news in here, I dont see anyone being racist towards her or saying anything bad, but no one is that exited like royal watcher especially american royal watchers.

    The last thing I saw about it on the BBC website: “Royal wedding: A nice distraction for sure. Exiting? Not at all just like the bride”

    1. Agnes, there are a lot of British posters on here, a lot of Canadians, Aussie, NZ and other countries on here and I hope you are not painting us all with one broad “American” brush. As many as there that are not excited about Harry and Meghan there are equally as many that are excited about them as evidenced by many that turned up to greet them in Nottingham.
      Regarding papers, the only articles are online like the DM etc but as a Brit if you are owning the “papers that are not racist toward her” yes you also have to own the online pieces that have been and continue to be very racist towards Meghan and her mother. So you sees? The argument can be taken either way.
      No one is that excited about them? I say why don’t you speak for yourself on this? It okay to say I’m not impressed with and therefore not excited about them, but generalizing your stand as if it’s shared by exert body in the UK is a stretch IMO. And I keep saying, again my opinion, if one doesn’t like Meghan and Harry, if you don’t like her grabbing his arm (it would be nice to acknowledge how HE “grabs” her but that’s another argument), if you don’t like their PDA, why read articles and pieces about them?

      1. Agnes has expressed extreme Anti-American views, has bemoaned and basically said that no one that is not English should comment on or care about the BRF. And she is anti-Meghan as well.

        1. I’m British I love Americans ( well I can think of some politicians…..but I won’t go there) and I love Meghan.

          1. Leah I wont answer you because you bitter and mean and use sexist sentences towards Catherine all the time, so I have no respect for any of your opinions.

          2. American views please quote which one of the ‘american views” that I am ‘anti’ ? Also please show me in which post I said that just English people could comment?I said that makes no sense that people that are not paying taxes in the Kingdom complains and make big deals about how WE are okay to spend our taxes. Do not tell lies about me.
            Also I am not “anti” Meghan, I dont have a compromised view or an agenda based in race or nationality like you do. I see the whole and compliment the things that I find nice and criticize the things that I dont.
            Leah read around, people are ALWAYS calling you out about how sexist, disrespectful, and bitter you are and I can link which one of the 12 people that complained about you you called you out about the way you are just in the last week.
            You sound like someone that doesnt have a life or interests out of the internet so you get super into this like its your life.

        2. Can you please give the link of the sources of real papers being racist towards Meghan and her mother? Because I cant find any serious or remotly serious media saying anything. I see things saying she is boring, attention seeker and manipulative and that comes from some big media, but I never saw a racist one from the UK. I saw in the early stages of dating an aussie and an american paper with the this lines ” Straight out of (almost) ghetto” but that was not from the UK.
          I did not say that 100% of the people in the blog are americans, I said the majority are and its clear the cheering for Meghan.

          1. Agnes, I’m answering to this your post because you asked for links of real papers, and my post was the one that addressed the racism in British tabloids. As I said in my post earlier, I’m not British and therefore can only read online articles like the mail online, sun, telegraph etc. Here’s just one example but you really just have to google and there’s tons of them and posting all links here is a waste of my time. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html
            And no you are very wrong, NOT all Americans are pro Meghan or anti Kate. If you hate Meghan and love Kate or vice versa, that’s on you, don’t generalize your hatred onto every person that posts here, you are not in anyone’s heart and mind and therefore can’t speak for anyone other than yourself.
            I find it strange that you (and others doing the same) are attacking Meghan and defending Kate and all what Kate done, and yet turn around and accuse someone else of doing the same thing that you are doing!! “Don’t attack Kate” you keep saying, and then you turn around and attack Meghan, very absurd.
            And when people comment of factual things about Kate or Meghan e.g.: Kate skirts flew up and exposed her butt in Australia and elsewhere she has had her butt exposed, or when they comment on Kate, William and Harry workload and how its much less than that of HM and POE, or that Meghan appeared on deal or no deal or Meghan did a scene in which her character appeared to come up as having been giving oral sex, those are just facts, they aren’t attacks. What is an attack on a person’s character is claiming that because Meghan acted in said scene, then she is a prostitute etc, a lot of those claims have been posted on here. And comments like because Kate did a half nude cat walk in college, then that means she is a lose woman, that is an unfair comment and an attack on somebody character. Coming on here and ganging up on a poster because they don’t address Kate by her name and then turn around and attack someone else is just hideous!!
            And I never call out people but Agnes you posted on KMR about how Americans shouldn’t comment on “our” royal family because they don’t pay British taxes etc. I didn’t comment on that day but I found it very strange that an informed person like you fails to understand that the BRF is not your property, HM is a ruler of not only the British but also of other commonwealth countries and that all of us in the commonwealth do infact pay our taxes to the British monarchy. So the argument that only British people should comment on the BRF is just absurd.

          2. Thank you, MASAMF. I am the poster attacked for not being a fan of Willam’s wife and who cares if you are American and cheering for Meghan? That doesn’t make you a demon.

            And Agnes, you are going to do everything to deny the hate against Meghan. All you have to do is google Daily Mail and Meghan’s name and you will see the hate she gets.

            Also, you have made anti-American comment after anti-American comment and resent the fact that anyone not from the UK has an opinion on the BRF. Get over it.

            Agnes, I don’t know why you hate Americans and look down on them, but as you yourself, said, a lot of Americans come to this board, so you might wan to check your xenophobia.

        3. So,what if she is anti Meghan? You are anti HRH Duchess.
          So,you two are quits and you have no higher moral ground.

          1. @Leah totally agree. Its so unfair to come and start picking fights with posters and then cry crocodile tears when one picking fight is not winning!!

      2. MASAMF is there anything that could make you impressed by Meghan and Harry and excited for them? Can I ask why you are indifferent?

        1. Leah, I’m not indifferent to Harry and Meghan; I do love both Meghan and Kate and this is because I adored princess Diana and so I love her sons and their wives (one is wife to be). I’m also a huuuuge Rachel Zane fan; I have been such from the beginning and I have followed Meghan on all her journeys that she was kind and generous enough to share with us the public (she didn’t have to). However, I believe in giving a person the benefit and also give a person a chance to prove themselves without raising such high standards, bars and/or goals that are unattainable. My opinion is that the bars are being raised way too high for these women before they even get started, it’s like setting them up for failure. I’m not getting too caught up in what Harry and Meghan might or might not do, im just gonna give them room to figure out what is the best thing for them to do. IOW, I’m willing to wait and just let them surprise me. I’m not sure if I’ve answer yr question, sorry for my rumbling!!😘😘

        2. LEAH Is there anything at all in the world that could possibly make you in the very least be routinely polite when talking about their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge?
          Take it easy Leah we don’t all *have* to think the way you do 🙂
          And anyway you yourself changed your mind about Meghan after first thinking that she didn’t get what being black was all about because she was half white.
          Maybe you will find that what some of us are saying is that it’s more than about being black or white or brown – it’s about being human.
          And anyway why don’t you give us all also a chance to change our minds about Meghan in our own time as you yourself did – or don’t we come under the equality mantle?

          1. That is not why I changed my mind about Meghan. I changed my mind because I realized I was putting her into my narrow box of what it meant to be black.

          2. Kay, please don’t turn our nice forum into a battle ground, there are many of us that find it a a relaxing place to come and have fun and interact with our cyber friends and therefore don’t enjoy these battles you are creating over Kate and/or Meghan. If you don’t like what Leah is posting, why not scroll over it and don’t read? There are lost of pro-Kate posts on here, just read those and let it at that. You seem to have already figured out who posts what you consider anti-Kate, just skip their posts and don’t read instead of getting combative and fighting with posters!!!!

  34. Man, I just gave away my navy military coat which I had for 20 years to the Salvation Army. (After my father died last Christmas, I came back to clean out the house and decided to let go of a lot of baggage.)

    So far, Ms Markle has not disappointed with her eloquence, her commitment to women’s issues…I feel Harry has met his match and it’s a very good match. I actually like her more after the interview.

    However, Prince Harry is only 5th in line to the throne, will they get a lot attention paid to their work? How long will it take when she is decked out in a lot of expensive designer clothes (and I am sure she will not shy away from these perks)?

    Fergie bursted onto the scene with lots of enthusiasm as a down-to-earth person… as compared to Princess Diana. Look at how she’s turned out and she was not 20 y.o when she married Prince Andrew.

    Good luck to Prince Harry and Meghan. And please, please, Meghan, if you do wear a tiara for your wedding, please have an up-do!!

    1. Meghan will wear similar designers that she’s been wearing for the past 5 years or so. She’s a moderately successful actress who already had access to high designers. This isn’t a rags-to-riches, Cinderalla tale and shouldn’t be looked at that way because she’s bi-racial.

  35. Can I just get something off my chest? MMR, please free to delete if you feel so called. Please know I am just trying to be honest and also engage in what I hope is a fruitful discussion. I really enjoy this board and hhow thouggtful people are.

    I am really getting tired of predominantly white posters telling POC posters what is or isn’t racist; telling us to stop with the race card; telling us Meghan’s race isn’t a big deal; saying that THEY have not see anything racist ergo nothing racist is being said, etc.

    I bring this up because I have seen these sentiments or similar expressed here and on other boards. RD had to shut down their entire Harry subforum, the most popular single royal sub-forum on the site, because of race issues.

    I am just going to say it: race matters. In the US and the UK, we have not and do not live in a post-racial society. Meghan’s racial experience matters. Her life as a person of color and experiences are a large part of what makes her who she is and what makes their engagement historic. It is certainly a large part of what is intriguing about their relationship. I have never seen so many POC so interested in the RF before. I have seen so many thoughtful think pieces from POC discussing the pros and cons of Meghan joining the BRF from a Black British perspective. So many POC in the UK in my friend circle and online have commented about how they FINALLY feel represented by their lead family and institution.

    Telling people of color and black posters that we are pulling out the race card when we post our concerns about some the of the Meghan critique is silencing us. It is erasing our voice and it is absolutely a micro-aggression. There are plenty of things to critique Meghan about regardless of race, but at the same time, I know I myself have picked up on some very coded language that mirrors exactly language I hear said about me as a woman of color in my life.

    I think we all are doing our banner best and likely have no malice at heart. But a great deal of racism is in our subconscious assumptions and understandings. I just ask that posters listen to POC posters when concerns or offense is raised and do not rush to discredit us or deny what we are saying because it implicates you or makes you uncomfortable. This is new ground for royal watchers, and I think it has a lot of potential for interesting and meaningful discussion.

    As for their first engagement as a couple: BRAVO! Picture perfect. So excite for these two. I saw this and it both shows why I like Harry and Meghan and why race and representation matters:

    “On BBC Breakfast Lizzie Jordan, HIV campaigner, today told how Meghan instantly knew who she was & her story as Lizzie and Harry were in the same documentary and she had seen it.

    Lizzie hadn’t met either before but was in the same documentary as Harry. Meghan touched Harry’s arm and sort of said “we know her from the programme you were in” and told Lizzie how they remembered her story from there. Lizzie said she was really surprised by this because she didn’t expect it all and was impressed by Meghan’s general knowledge. She said Harry and Meghan were really tactile with each other. Her 12 year old son, who is also bi-racial, was with her and he was really excited too to meet them and obviously Meghan in particular.

    That’s just one of many comments from yesterday that told how Meghan was really prepared and how she knew about the issues and projects. Clearly did her homework and her and Harry have talked a lot about their respective charity work.”

    1. Thank you, Wisdom. I was accused by Emily DeBonneville of being racist and making everything having to do with Meghan about race, when that is not the case. Race is a very big part of Meghan’s narrative and will continue to be. I hope she will address that by reaching out to minority communties in the UK.

      Agnes seems to think the same thing, denying anything racial against Meghan.

      As a woman of color, I know what racism is, I know the coded remarks, the snarky asides meant to be innocent. I know the microagressions that are said against people of color, thing said that the majority want to deny or not see. It is frustrating to be told to shut up or that I am wrong when I post about racism and Meghan.

      It’s just not right and Wisdom, thank for being transparent about this issue. I feel that those of who are POC are made to feel unwelcome a lot of times in royal online circles and now that we have one of our own in the most prominent royal family in the world, many want us to shut up and go away. It boggles my mind.

      1. I am not personally comfortable naming names right now. I just wanted to share my perspective and hope this can be an inclusive space for every royal watcher.

        1. I don’t have a problem calling people out, but I respect you not wanting to. Anyway, thank you for what you said. You were on the nose.

      2. It is impressive Meghan did her homework – she’s a working woman, so she knows how to prepare.
        It seems patently obvious even from my limited experience that the objections to Meghan posted on other news sites are very, very much about racism. It’s all coded and usually in reference to suitable Kate. Her family is unsuitable (see: Kate’s uncle), she’s done ‘nude scenes’ (see: kate in France, kate’s skirts), she’s not ‘british’ (oh, come on), she’s not classy etc etc. Usually it just comes down to, she’s ‘just wrong’. Well, I for one am happy for them and it’s a poke in the eye to all the racists. It’s the same tactic used against feminism or ‘political correctness’, or gun control, it is to shut that kind of talk right down. So I’m glad Harry named it for what it is.

        1. Lisa, I agree. The thing that kills me is that many are offended she was an actress. The way some go on about it, you’d think she was a professional baby killer and but often, it stems from the fact that Meghan is biracial and people just want to claim that her acting is makes her less than a good fit for the BRF.

      3. Your post was great, WH! But we’ve talked a little bit about this over on RD. One thing that does bug me is any criticism of Meghan is immediately racist, and on the flip side people saying it means nothing. No, her being biracial is a big deal and I say this as a whiter than white chick, I’m glad people feel the BRF can be more…reflective of society as a whole, it can only help them IMO. There’s Davina Lewis’s husband, who is Maori (I forget his first name, I’m awful); and now Meghan. It’ll be good for them to have more people be able to wholly identify with the BRF as a more multicultural group that reflects more of our modern society of different kinds of people. I like hearing from you both, WH and Leah!

        1. Yes, look in the old days, being an actress was akin to being a prostitute but those days are long gone. In the old days being a Kings gf for years w/o marriage was also prostituting oneself. So….glass houses!

          1. I don’t know what you’re classifying as “old days” but historically mistresses have wielded more power than wives and Kings were expected/encouraged to have them. They were generally respected and most considered it a great honor. I’d say it’s only recently as post Victoria that the view changed

          2. The acting profession still tends to be seen as superficial – in part because of their constant break-ups and over-the-top lifestyles -someone mentioned Gwyneth Paltrow – a classic example.

            In Britain, as I’ve mentioned there is a way actors and actresses speak – called luvvie talk – and that is something no one wants to see in a royal.

            Here’s a link. http://public.oed.com/appeals/luvvie/

            Most of the concern comes form the importance perceived by royalists (including me) of separating celebrities from royals – in theory royals have a diplomatic/representative royal that should be beyond celebrity – no one want Victoria Beckham seen as representative of Britain – although she probably is!

            Right now, there’s an article that Harry was looking for a celebrity wife because he thinks they can handle the press better – I trust that’s so much more nonsense since the idea in theory is wrong – and that he just was taken with and then fell in love with Meghan.

          3. Other Julia: i really hope that Harry wanted a celebrity wife is made up BS because that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what his family and monarchy are.

            They are not celebrities nor do we want them to be celebrities, but given how these younguns behave, they clearly think they are and we already know they drank the koolaid a long time ago.

          4. A celebrity is just someone who is well-known. Many aspects of life in the royal family are the same as being a celebrity: Having distinct public and private lives, lacking privacy, being scrutinized, being constantly aware of one’s public image. I mean, Mother Theresa and Princess Diana were both celebrities, it’s not an insult, but rather a recognition of, well, being recognizable to the general public.

          5. Sallyho: I understand that, but there is a distinction in that the royal family are public servants before they are celebrities.

            Diana and Mother Theresa didn’t start out wanting to be famous. Prepared to do anything to reach that goal.

            They started out as public servants. The fame came later.

            When Harry wishes for a celebrity wife, it speaks to his misunderstanding that his role and that of his wife is first and foremost to be public servants.

            Sure a celebrity will be able to handle the fame aspects of the role, but that is only about 10% of their function. Being able to handle the other 90% is better.

            A person can learn or be taught how to handle celebrity, the other parts? Not so much.

            He happens to have found someone who can handle both if her PR is to be believed, but we shall see in time if that matches upto reality of the role.

            There is such a thing as empty celebrity.

      4. Leah talking of snarky comments and micro aggressions I guess you could also review some stuff you have said about HRH Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge.
        I was no great fan of hers. She was Di’s daughter in law and I wished them well.
        After the Lady Di situation I was seriously let down by the RF and turned down my RF engagement in a major way – only checking in about her boys now and again.
        But some are of the disrespectful comments about the Duchess, and needless trying to make Meghan look better by pulling down the Duchess for no reason at all, has seriously dampened my enthusiasm for Meghan. It seems we can’t make our slight criticisms made known without being taken to task, and asked to explain ourselves.
        That isn’t very democratic is it?
        The fact that Meghan is *also* a POC among other things such as her social engagement, her holistic lifestyle, her being a better representation of the society in general, all excited me too – but I now see that most POCs will make it a problem for Meghan.
        Meghan may get caught in a maelstrom that polarises the RF fan base and the British society itself. Britain is right now at a sensitive phase where Brexit itself based partly on immigration numbers is going through a period of upheaval.
        Please think beyond the short term racial one upmanship, when you consider this British event.
        Also it’s a marriage and not a political event we are talking about here.
        All you finally achieve maybe turning people who were pro or neutral towards Meghan into anti-Meghan. Seriously, even as a bi-racial I am beginning to feel that way.

        1. The very fact that Meghan is bi racial and American makes her marriage political.

          Also, I said up thread in an earlier post that many POC have an issue with Meghan because she does not fit the “typical” black narrative. There is more than one way to be black, but many of us POC don’t see that. I was guilty of that as well.

          1. I am not entirely sure how you got racial one up-manship from my post or thought that I was saying people cannot critique Meghan?

            Also, this is a political event. Anytime someone in the senior RF marries it is political. Harry’s choice is ESPECIALLY political given the climate of anti-poc climate, anti-immigrant sentiment and the growth of nationalism.

            POC calling out racism isn’t the problem here. People responding negatively to that is actually a perfect example of racism itself.
            If folks get mad about people calling out or gently pointing out language that carries racial undertones, those people should take the time to listen, examine their words and their assumptions and not simply jump to trying to shut down the concerns expressed.

            And let’s not bring “whataboutism” to this thread. Just because some folks on this board treat Catherine horribly in their commentary doesn’t make it ok to in turn dislike Meghan or ignore the awful treatment she has received. Both women deserved to be respected but their experiences and the tenor of the critique they receive is completely different. Meghan faces the double oppression of sexism and racism. People called out the sexist double standards Catherine faces, people should be just as ok to point out the racist sentiment and the sexist sentiment Meghan faces.

          2. “POC calling out racism isn’t the problem here. People responding negatively to that is actually a perfect example of racism itself.”

            I totally agree with this. I don’t always agree with everything Leah says about other stuff, but when she (and others) point out racism and then get told it’s not racism, it’s basically saying white people get to decide what’s racist and what’s not.

        2. Kay, so because someone posts “snarky” comments about the Duchess of Cambridge it makes it okay to hate and be racist towards Meghan in turn just to get even with said “snarky comments”? When exactly have 2 wrongs made a right? And being biracial doesn’t necessarily mean a person can’t be prejudiced against a POC, I’ve heard the “Im not racist I have black friends) so many times its gotten very old. How can another person’s comments turn you and others into Meghan haters, is Meghan making these comments about Kate? I think you are using this forum as an excuse to justify your hatefulness to make yourself feel good about it!!

          1. MASAMF and Wisdom Heaven, YES!!!!

            Edit, and this is random, but whenever I read the acronym MASAMF, I end up seeing it in my head as “Mad As A Mother F***er”. Gives me a chuckle every time.

    2. I am glad you said this. There is a racial element to some of the criticism about Meghan and to pretend that it isn’t there is absurdly naive.

    1. Hmm, this looks different to me. But it is hard to tell. Maybe Meghan’s Mirror would know?

    2. That doesn’t look like the same coat at all. The one in your link is charcoal/black and has a different shape than the navy one Meghan wore in Nottingham.

  36. DM has a rather ugly article today concerning what Meghan has done correctly and incorrectly in her first appearances. Ugh . Harry seems happy with her, but if they are going to make her conform to the very rigid standards that the Royal Family has established, I guess the game is now on!

    I feel sorry for Meghan and Harry. I remember how he complained in years gone by how very difficult it was to find a woman who would be able to go along with all the standards. Well, I didn’t understand that then, but I do, now.

    The DM also published an article saying that on one of her early resumes, Meghan added as one of her skills: Stripping . Now, may we see that resume? I truly am amazed at the creativity of some people And, if she did add that, well, I’m disappointed, but I’m not going to judge. Not when Kate flashed her bare butt back in her college days, roped William by appearing in a rather risqué get up at a college charity fashion show and has flashed us so many times at so many engagements!

    I think Meghan and Harry should run off and live privately elsewhere. I think they are a breath of fresh air for the outdated Royals, but if some comments are worthy of having Meghan address them in those articles, I might agree. However, some of the criticisms of her are plain ridiculous.

    However, I’m an American and we just don’t have etiquette down pat, do we? Ugh.

    1. I wonder what these standards are? Are they listed any where? lol

      It would be common sense as a woman to wear a slip or some form of shapewear that’s tight to your legs under your dress so that if the wind blows the dress up, we won’t see you bare bottom (Kate) or underwear (Queen Letizia of Spain). And it would be common sense to wear your hair half up or in a ponytail on windy days so you don’t have to keep putting your hair behind your ears (Meghan). But not all people have common sense. Perhaps when wearing their hair down, Kate and Meghan feel sexy as if they are models during a photoshoot lol.

      Its funny that if they told Meghan that selfies are not allowed, then they failed to tell her that Harry should be the first to shake hands and not her. It shouldn’t be a problem to tell her that because Prince Philip knows not to do this with the Queen. Its telling if The Firm is not telling Meghan what she should and shouldn’t do: either she is ignoring it, a you can’t tell me what to do attitude like Kate, or they are not telling her hoping to make her look bad.

      As for the waving, its probably not something The Firm will concern themselves with telling her to change, its a celebrity wave.

      You would think that someone as internet/social media savvy as Meghan would’ve researched/observed Kate or the Queen in action while she dated Harry to see how its done or any other royal family for that matter. Heck, there are tons of videos of Diana on YouTube to see how its done.

      1. Cali Girl: Commonsense is apoarently not so common.

        During the spate of Kate flashings, so nany people on various blogs expressed surprise that Kate would have to consider her surrounds or events and dress accordingly. Hem weights, slips, ponytails on windy days, not such mini skirts etc were apparently bews to them!!

        Regarding the protocol around status, Harry doesn’t stand on ceremony, and this wasn’t an official rotal duty where he was representing the Queen. Therefore rules are more relaxed. He didn’t wear a suit or tie, and she didn’t walk behind him or wait for him to shake the hands of officials before her.

        At this engagement, i give her a pass on all those things, but as she’s drawn into the formal life of the family, those are things she’ll learn.

        And i suspect that if she spends christmas at Sandrigham, it will be a steep learning curve because they all observe these rules rigidly even though they are in private space.

    2. Actors tend to embellish their CVs to pretend they have skills they don’t.

      It could be that she sent her CV to a casting agent who was looking for an actor with those specific skills, so she added them to her CV.

      Doesn’t mean she was a stripper or even had them.

      Actors embellishing their CVs with job specific skills is a cliche because tgey all do it.

      I am always suspicious when i receive a cv with juggling, horse riding, sword play as special skills because most of the time it’s BS and the actors hope the production has a trainer who will teach them tjose skills ahead of shooting.

      1. I highly doubt Meghan was a stripper. It would have been found out by now. She added that to her resume to help her get work-unfortunately there are always tons of stripper roles to be filled in tv shows and movies. Didn’t Meghan also add juggling to that same resume?

        1. Leah, my guess is the tabs are just disappointed they can’t seem to find any skeletons in Meghan’s closet so they’re going to make some. Meghan refused to take off her clothes for her roles as an actress, she stopped “entering the room wrapped in a towel” after a could of scenes of that, I find it hard that she was a striper. The tabs are disappointed in a 36 year old Meghan (35 when she met Harry), actress, been in the business for years but they can only dig up 2 guys that she has dated one of whom was an ex who she happened to date for 7 years before marriage, exes that won’t even speak ill of her or even speak to the tabloids, no vids or clips of her falling out of bars or nightclubs, nothing about her doing porn or whatever, no clips of her doing the catwalk half naked, they just can’t find anything on her so far; they’ve decided to make up some stuff and click bait. Meghan’s dad’s picture was in the DM the other day and they were going on and on about how he is fat and old and wearing stained jeans in his house yadda yadda yadda. Its just plain viciousness aimed at this woman. Meghan just needs to keep her calm, this too will die down. She has her prince in her corner and that’s all that counts, she’s gonna be just fine.

          1. Agreed and this dog whistle treatment of Meghan is awful. I again say there is a racial and nationalistic undertone to all of this.

          2. @MASMF

            There are plenty of things on Meghan they just aren’t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Meghan may not have walked down a catwalk in a sheer dress but she has plenty of photos and scenes of her naked and topless from her show. She has a lot of family drama but she still seems like a nice girl so it shouldn’t matter. Her slate is pretty clean as was Catherine’s.

          3. Jessica, there probably are some topless pics or vids of Meghan but as long as they were done in her role as Rachel Zane, then they probably can’t be used against her. In terms of family drama, one doesn’t choose who their family is,(shrugs). That is Meghan’s family members and she can’t change that.Attacking her because of what her brother or sister said or did would be very unfair. Just as it is very unfair to attack Kate due to what her family member do or say about her. Meghan did not walk down the catwalk in a sheer dress, Kate did, but that doesn’t make Meghan a better person than Kate nor Kate a bad person and none of the women should be slut shamed because of the above reasons. I brought up the Kate catwalk because of the posts I’ve read on here that paint Kate as a paragon of virtue and bash Meghan because Kate is this and Kate is that and Kate would never do this etc, none of these 2 some is a saint without a blemish and to claim that one is better than the other is such a stretch.
            The saddest thing is that neither Harry nor William can be viewed as role models due to their past, IMO the women were the catch and these 2 guys were the lucky ones to have got the woman. But interestingly the women have continuously gotten the harshest criticism while no one even mentions the men at all. Very sad.

          4. @MASMF

            I totally agree that neither women should be slut-shamed so I didn’t understand why you brought up Catherine walking down a cat walk when she was 19 and coming out of clubs like any normal person under 30. Most comments on this site are critical towards Kate so I don’t see people acting like Kate is a saint because every single thing she does is over-analyzed.

            Meghan is going through the normal process of a person who has recently ascended into the public eye with the extra dose of marrying a royal. This isn’t a personal attack on her with the exception of some of the racial undertones.

          5. @Jessica, There are equally as many Kate propping posts here that slam Meghan and call her all sorts of names. I have read quite a few that compared Kate to Meghan and stated how Meghan would not even hold a candle to Kate since Meghan is American, an actress and a divorcee. There was a poster that stated here that they didn’t care who Harry marries as long as it is not Meghan, as long as its not an American or an actress. Many have asked why Harry chose Meghan instead of finding a English rose like Kate, someone like Kate who comes from a decent family and is not a actress etc. The point of my bringing up Kate’s past was to show that none of these women is without blemish, they all have their pasts that they are not proud of, so none of them is some paragon of virtue and none is better than the other.

          6. There are no topless photos from Suits. It airs on basic cable and nudity is not allowed. The show doesn’t even have significant swearing on it.
            Had nude photos existed they would be all over the papers by now.

      2. Hera, not just actors, people embellish resumes all the time, dependent on the job being applying for. I wouldn’t judge Meghan based on a resume; I would however judge her based on some clip that showed her dancing on a pole, now THAT is something to go on and on about and if it exists, let’s see it please, but a resume? Naaahhh!! Not a chance.
        Cali gurl, regarding protocols and who is telling who what to do and who isn’t etc, could there be an in-between? I take extra care to not make assumptions with no concrete evidence or even some precedent that can support my assumptions. If could be just like Hera said, that this was an informal engagement and therefore Meg was not required to adhere to any sort of protocol, it could be that Harry didn’t think it was necessary on this outing, or it could also be what you said that she just wasn’t told. I have watched clips oh harry sometimes walking 2 steps behind his brother and sometimes just walking with him side by side. I have seen clips of the DOC sometimes walking 2 steps behind POW and sometimes they walk side by side holding hands. My concern is statement like “its either this or that” “its either Meghan refused to listen or TPTB did not tell her what to do” are placing such a tremendous burdens on this young couple for them to do what we feel they should be doing in these early stages of their relationship and such expectations can be difficult meet. No wonder Harry was wary of introducing his girlfriend, people are extremely scrutinizing and harshly judging them without even knowing them that much. Give these people a chance, let Meghan learn, this is just the first engagement or outing, can we allow them to do their thing, people??
        To Fionamarie, why should Harry let the negativity run him out of his country? Its his country and soon to be Meghan’s too. IMVHO, the public just needs to give these people room to breathe. Just like Kate (and others before her, eg Sarah, Diana etc) was given a couple of years to learn and disappoint people, the same courtesy should be extended Meghan and Harry. Lets discuss Meghan’s behaviour in a couple of years, is all Im sayin.

        1. Again, I agree with MASAMF. I am not going to judge Meghan on a resume. It’s a resume for crying out loud-now if there is footage of her being a stripper, that’s another matter entirely. And lucky for her, she never got a stripper role.

          I am very shaky on my knowledge of the Fergie era, but I don’t think she was given room to fail. I think the knives were out for her immediately and Fergie herself said she was no favorite of the little grey men at the palace. I think she was made a scape goat for Diana, who they couldn’t really go after as she was the wife of Charles.

          I will say that Fergie was not an innocent victim. I think she was never made for royal life and has been one of the most disastrous royals of the past 20 years in any regal family. I always felt for the Yorkies that Phillip can’t even stand to be in the same room as their mother.

          As far as The Daily Fail, they are going after Meghan anyway they can and I wonder how much worse it will get before Harry either issues another statement or goes ballistic.

          I could be wrong, but I know up until the engagement, I know there had been very pointed criticism of William’s wife by the Daily Fail and others and that it seeemed to melt away when the Ring of Doom went on her finger.
          With Meghan, the witch hunt has intensified, despite the fact her approval is going up.


          1. Fergie was loved when she joined they called her a breath of fresh air and the mail doesn’t do favourable articles for kate they’ve getting worse since she married they are the ones who came up with the waity nickname you like to use I’m surprised you are now critizing them

          2. Vickie, the mail doesn’t write nice articles about Meghan either. My point is that yes a lot or british media have written many many racist articles about Meghan and her mother. Whether DM started the Waity name, it doesn’t matter, she did wait for William and that’s a good thing.

          3. The DM knows negative stories will get eyeballs on their site. And if it upsets Harry enough to get a reaction, they win again because it gets their name out even more. No publicity is bad publicity to tabloid journalists.

          4. Vicki: the DM didn’t come up with ‘Waity Katie’. A royal blog called Royaldish did.

            Back in the day, journalists often joined royal blogs to trawl for information and or confirm certain details.

            They often disappeared when they were rumbled, but they took nuggests of information gleaned from royalblogs and used them in articles.

            So far, Kate’s nicknames lifted from blogs – Waity Katie and Duchess Dolittle.

            That is not to say that they don’t come up with their own nicknames eg Throne Idle or Workshy for William, but they also use fan nicknames.

        2. This is in response to Jessica at 7:22pm. Sorry, every time I use Reply the comment goes to different places.

          Suits is broadcast on basic cable which does not allow nudity.
          So, there would be no topless shots of Meghan from that series.
          I think we would have seen the topless shots by now if there were any.

          1. @Binny

            I said topless not nudity. There are scenes where she isn’t wearing a bra or shirt and you can see her entire back and she’s in her underwear. I don’t mind it because I’m not a prude but I hate when people bring up Catherine walking in her sheer dress as if that was the worst thing ever. They both shouldn’t be disparaged for showing a little bit of skin and they both seem like nice women.

          2. Binny / Jessica: i work in the film industry. There is very strict protocol about nudity and sex scenes. Legally, degrees of nudity are negotiated and signed off. For a family show like Suits, the protocol are even more strict than a sexy show like Sex and the city.

            And by the way, just because you see someone’s bare back doesn’t mean they are completely nude. If you don’t see full body shot AND their face, then it’s a combination of clever camera angles, clever editing, and often body doubles.

            Sex scenes are choreographed so everyone knows what is to be captured, when and where body parts touch, what is the best angle to suggest intimacy even though camera is inches away from the couple and actors are moving like a couple in a dance show.

            Unless it is out and out porn, it is the least intimate thing to shoot because of the technical aspects involved.

            It’s like those people who IG themselves on an exotic beach and you later find out they cropped the shot and there was a torch involved to fool everyone.

          3. Topless has a common meaning of showing breasts in film or television and Meghan has not done that.

            As for showing bare shoulder or back in a television scene, . how is this an issue? She did not flash during a royal event.

  37. If you put stripper and massusse on your c.v someone will leak it I’m sure they will ask kp. if its true everyone who lives in the public eye gets judged the british royals actually get better treatment privacy wise than most public figures if you date a prince they will go over your past with a fine tooth comb its not just newspapers gossip sites and forums like this do it someone hears something and spreads it you talk about not judging meghan but then judge kate flashing her bare is a bit hypocritical of you fionamarie

    1. RMILYB, stating facts e.g.. Kate skirts flying up and showing her butt inAustralia is not judging a person, its just stating a fact. Stating facts that Meghan was on deal or no deal is not a judging her, these are mere facts.

    2. Hi Jessica,
      I suppose it is because I don’t like Kate for all the sundry reasons mentioned on this board, but her modeling walk in the sheer outfit to catch William’s attention I found it distasteful. It doesn’t jive with the supposed fairy tale of their romance. One writer described William’s eyes bugging out in lust when he saw her.
      Meghan’s scenes don’t bother me because it’s part of her job and so far, I really like Meghan Markle. So, there is definitely an element of bias. And the character she plays, Rachel Zane, is a sweetheart.

      1. The model walk- that was Kate going for it. She made a snap decision to wear the skirt as a sheer dress and lose the top before she went on stage- and it worked! See, being the girl next dorm and doing William’s homework was only accomplishing so much. She needed to take it to the next level and show a racier, sexier side of herself. The big fish bit! NOW- you can’t tell me, even as a woman 15ish years older than Kate was at the time of her big turning point, that Meghan didn’t have her “moment” with Harry as well. A point in their relationship where she tipped the scales firmly in her favour? Of course she did- these were 2 of the most eligible men in the Western world, accustomed to yes men and people paving their way with gold. I doubt we’ll ever hear Meghan’s secret, though Kate’s was painfully public. I do make them sound like a couple of wily courtesans- but isn’t that what they had/have to snare special snowflake men such as these?

        1. Also, both men are silly, not bright and easily flattered; hubris reigns supreme in the BRF.

          Anyone marrying in to their family has to consciously want that life. The public nature of the role (such as it is), and being under constant surveillance is known to anyone with even a passing interest in royalty. So to pursue a relationship to marriage with a BRF member means the person is no shrinking violet, with eyes wide open and firmly on the prize, whatever public persona is presented.

          That said, Kate suits William’s needs, and he hers. Pegged as unremarkable by her teachers (uni and high school), marrying a prince turns that narrative around, doesn’t it? At least for Kate, whose upbringing has been driven by upward mobility.

          Meghan’s story has yet to unfold. As Herazeus said a few days ago, everything we know up to this point has been in pursuit and maintenance of Meghan’s career, all directed by her PR strategists. It’s a matter of wait and see, though the proposed plan of the couple spreading their royal magic to the Commonwealth is patronising, unwanted and way outdated.

      2. Wait, do you not have any lust in your fairy-tale romance? Or have you not progressed beyond Disney childhood versions? For most adult women, I would think sexual attraction would be an integral part of a romance, fairy-tale or otherwise.

  38. Why must humanity seek to that which divides…race….it’s so sad..why not focus on Meghan’s contribution(s) or lack of to the RF. If everyone could judge her on her merit and the person she is, as has Harry, the conversations/post would be more civil and robust…IMO

  39. I thought it was so funny she had a heat pack in her coat and that she was very upfront about not being able to do the selfie. I didn’t know that they couldn’t do that. She seemed very enthusiastic and happy to be there. I guess we see how she further develops.

    1. “Meghan’s childhood friend is really going overboard.” Jessica +1

      There is a similar item in the DM focusing on Meghan’s relationship with her father.
      Ninaki is seizing her opportunity to make money at Meghan’s expense.

    2. The quotes attributed to her former friend are vicious. She seems to be overly invested in Meghan’s previous marriage, it’s demise and how poorly Meghan treated her long suffering spouse. She’s sold all her childhood photos.

  40. RoyalReporter/status/937293053857058817

    Richard Palmer says Meghan intends to travel and see friends for a few months before coming back to KP. So I guess that one engagement so early after the announcement was just a one time thing and we won’t see her for months. It doesn’t seem that different from Kate, IMO.

    1. It sounds like she’s spending Xmas with friends and family not PH and the BRF. I don’t blame her but I would want to spend the holidays with my fiancee.

      Will she be having RPO’s with her; I think I remember someone saying that Lady Di got her personal protection the day of the engagement.

      1. Kate had RPOs pre-engagement before. So Meghan probably has her own security detail, especially considering she’s proto-royal now.

        It’ll be interesting to see how this ‘tour’ pans out in the new year.

    2. Maybe that’s one of the reasons her first engagement was so early, so that she could be introduced to the UK people before she goes traveling to visit friends and family for a couple months.

      Here is the full link: https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/937293053857058817

      ETA: I know a lot of people have high expectations of Harry and Meghan after it was released that they would do a tour of the UK during their engagement, but I want to point out that William and Kate also did a tour of the UK during their engagement. ‘Tour of the UK’ meaning they did an engagement in each of the four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I expect H&Ms tour of the UK to be similar.

      1. MMR-So Kate did about four engagements before her wedding and it sounds like Meghan will probably do about the same.
        ETA- I honestly don’t think Meghan will work more than Kate. If one of the reasons why M and H got married so soon is because they want children I imagine Meghan will take morning sickness leave and maternity leave just like Kate. I don’t think her numbers will be that high in the CC. Most likely KP will say she is adjusting to her new role.

        1. It was four days, but there were multiple engagements during two of those days, so total engagements would be 6 or 7, not including any walkabouts (I don’t remember at the moment if they did walkabouts during any of these days).

          I’m open to being pleasantly surprised, but I’m keeping my expectations realistic re Meghan because I think she will work about as much or less than Kate, for various reasons.

          1. My thoughts exactly. I actually feel bad for her a bit because I think Meghan is going to have a hard time adjusting just because she had so much freedom and independence before. I am not sure she really knows what she is getting herself into. Diana did a lot of her outspoken charity work after her divorce if I remember correctly. Meghan will not be able to be as political or opinionated as she used to be working with the UN or like what Diana could do after she was no longer a part of the firm. She is going to be a part of the royal foundation of the long name and will probably just go along with whatever William says.
            I had hoped that Harry would crate his own office when he got married and separate himself from William a bit but I don’t see that happening. We all know how controlling William can be and I for one would find it very frustrating to work with him. I suspect Meghan might as well.

      2. MMR I too Im with you, my expectations are almost zilch, whatever comes Im just gonna wait to be surprised. IMO, a lot of what happens is going to depend on in which camp Meghan leans more towards, if she is besties with POW, DOC etc, she might increase her workload since her father-in-law and step-mother-in-law work quite a bit. If she leans more towards the Cambs, she probably will not work any more than they do because their workload is not as heavy so. I’m gonna wait and see, jury is still out on this.
        I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Meghan and Euge are very good friends so far and the York gals have proven to be hard working people. I’m hoping that Meghan cultivates these kinds of relationships and aligns herself with the right people, if she does this, she’ll go a very long way.

        1. MASAMF, where did you learn that Meghan and Eugenie are good friends? That is delightful, I hope it’s true!

      3. The brothers are more similar than not. Their attitude to work and play is pretty much the same and their wives will follow suit. I’d go further to speculate that these particular men would want women who have the same aspirations as themselves in the work department. Neither would tolerate a serious workhorse; complete mismatch.

        1. @Jen, I’m not very familiar with what really goes on behind the scenes, but what if Megs leans more towards POW work ethic than the Cambs, would that still cause friction in her marriage?

          1. Hi Masamf

            This is why we’ll have to wait and see how the game plays out… We don’t fully understand the dynamics, or the inevitable and constantly changing’s undercurrents. My take is that it rests on Harry’s true nature: Does he genuinely want to step up? I’m not sure, simply because (a) the BRF dissembles so effectively with its PR, and (b) Harry uses his charm to fly under the radar – a lot. Does Meghan exert that much influence over Harry, or is she content to fit into the existing pecking order? It puts a helluva lot of pressure on a partner, and potentially a lot of blame, too, if other family members feel affronted.

            Does his marriage become a signal for Harry to finally get serious about working in a consistent manner now that he has a partner? If not, are Harry and William more in sync than we care to acknowledge. Will people tire of two pampered couples not doing much?

            I certainly view the ‘Commonwealth plan’ as a means to avoid treading on W+K’s egos as well as not drawing comparisons between dull and charming. And potentially just a means to disappear while pretending to work full-time. But I also want to know if H+M intend to do more than holi-tour the Commonwealth because Harry still wants to pick and choose an easy life as he has been doing now for some time.

            I’ve said elsewhere on this blog that the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust has some valuable initiatives but these are already well-administered. What will H+M bring in real terms? Harry thinks he brings ‘magic’, a statement that at once reveals both hubris as well as a delusion that Commonwealth countries are still outposts of Britain, with people falling over themselves to see monarchy. They are not. Apart from kids compulsorily dragged out of school to create the illusion of crowds, and a few die-hard monarchists, the interest is flitting as any celebrity passing through. Unfortunately, the costs to accommodate and entertain royals – in this case, 6th in line to the throne for goodness sake! – fall to Commonwealth countries. Guests are great, but they are like fish: they ‘go off’ after a few days.

          2. Harry isn’t too into holi-tours nearly so much so I think if M&H visit other countries there’d be some more interesting work going on.

          3. @Jen, thank you for your explanation Jen. Exactly what I’ve been saying all along, no high expectations from me for this couple; Im just gonna wait and see and also give them a chance to prove themselves before I render judgment. Again, thanks for your contribution.

          4. @Masamf – you’re welcome; I don’t have a crystal ball but let’s hope for the best.
            @Ellie – true, but hopefully there will not be an emulation of brother/father’s expectations. At various points in their lives, both Charles and William expected Australia to accommodate them.

  41. I am more intrigued in the „friend“ now selling stories about how she and Meghan visited Buckingham Palace as tourists and how Meghan was well aware about Harry being a member of the RF.
    I have no idea if that is true and I am inclined to believe that a lot of those stories from „old friends“ are more imagination than truth. This goes for all of them actually. Those stories only come up when people step into the limelight big time, and who really feels the need to comment on someone publicly ( and maybe for money) if you don’t really like them? Those people are not whistleblowers but wretched. I don’t need this kind of „information“ to realise that the young royals aren’t perfect humanitarian angels. And I think it is sad if people treat those stories (and the shiny stories the RF tells about themselves) for facts.

    1. Everyone knows that PH is a member of the BRF; Meghan just said she didn’t know him that well. His likes, dislikes, etc.

      I’m not sure what her friend is trying to achieve but she seems really bitter.

    2. The friend accepted over £100K to sell MM out. That is all i need to know about this so-called friend.

  42. that article from her friend, made me sideye her for sure… it answered some of the nagging feelings I have had about meghan… it feels likes as more comes out, this relationship is going to implode and not make it to marriage.

  43. It is very important to note that best friend said Meghan refused to confide in her regarding her marriage problems but Trevor did tell his side of the story. So from what Trevor told her, she deduced that it was all Meghan’s fault that the marriage broke down and that it was all the big bad Meghan that hurt poor Trevor.
    Me thinks there is a good reason why Meghan would not confide in this Ninaki Priddy; and I believe that this Ninaki is not telling us the whole story because she knows Meghan is not going to go against BRF protocol and counter or rebuttal the the accusations.

    1. Yes. I don’t care if what you’re saying is good or bad, but if you’re going to sell me out at all, you’re no friend of mine. One of the primary tenets of real friendship is keeping each others’ secrets and having enough respect to let each other speak for ourselves. I wouldn’t trust her with the tiniest of secrets. That doesn’t mean that what Ninaki says isn’t true (or that it is), but simply that I wouldn’t trust anyone willing to sell another person’s story like that.

      1. Whilst what she did wasn’t on the same level of evil, this Nikki person is on a par with Linda Tripp for me.

  44. The bummer for me, in the end, is realising that Harry and Meghan are no different than the Cambs. I am irked about their emphasis on the Commonwealth. Why the hell would any one of our countries believe Harry and Meghan are a benefit? How condescending.

    I see exotic holitours in their future; they do love to travel both of them and they will find a ‘humanitarian’ excuse to do it. Just like Harry with the elephants camping under the stars with lackeys and Harry “building houses” in exotic Nepal.

    The one place that Harry doesn’t want to be on a long termed basis is in the non exotic UK.

    1. It’s interesting, isn’t it, how reactions differ? We in Commonwealth countries see H+M’s plan as condescending, patronising and their presence a complete con. It also transfers babysitting responsibility for the couple to Commonwealth countries, all because Harry does not want to be stuck at home.

      We don’t hear too much detail about the humanitarian work in Botswana other than a photo to run in the papers. It’s all a bit hazy. Harry was instrumental in changing privacy laws in Botswana to protect his time there – how very Dark Ages for the so-called modern face of royalty. I can see problems ahead should he try to alter laws for personal benefit in other Commonwealth countries.

      1. @Jen I’m curious, did Botswana really change their privacy laws because of Harry’s time there, or did they change them to muzzle the press regarding anyone including and especially government officials and their shady dealings? I’m asking because I’m Ugandan and I know how our African (third world) countries operate, a person like Harry wouldn’t need to raise their voice or even to lift a finger for our PTBs to silence the press on anything! In most of those countries, everyone is afraid to put their or their family lives in danger so, the press is very selective in what they print lest they get in trouble. I was having a convo with a colleague the other day and I was telling them about how in my country its very, very rare for someone to look a person in the eye while speaking with them unless one knows the other well, and how it was such a challenge for me when I first came to Canada, and especially during job in reviews etc. My colleague was very surprised because here in the western world, not looking a person in the eye could be interpreted negatively while in my country its either a gesture of respect or just fear. Sometimes, especially during those darkest times, one could get killed just because they looked at a somebody. So I’m most curious to know if Harry really had a hand in changing them privacy laws or whether Botswana just happened to change said laws on their own and Harry just benefited from said changes since he goes there on a regular basis.

        1. @Masamf, I really don’t know the ins and outs; I would have read it on this blog so someone here will have a definitive answer. If I recall correctly, Harry’s requests to those who were in a position to tighten privacy laws benefited him, but also others too. I’m assuming it fell into the catch-all of an individual’s privacy vs the public interest, where the press now has less leeway to take pics. William has led the charge in the UK of press photographing his family even when they were in public places, threatening litigation; I think Tanna was an early victim.

          As you say, Harry would have no difficulty in applying pressure to authorities to assure his privacy, regardless of laws in place. My larger point was that it’s galling in contemporary society when an individual can lean on governments to make the press a little less free and where laws favour the interests of the powerful.

          1. Thanks @Jen. Hard to tell exactly what went down and when. Not sure how much clout prince Harry has in these countries, I have read about how close he is with prince Seeiso Bereng Seeiso so his weight in Lesotho could be significant (not sure about that either since king Letsie III is not a political ruler) because of connections to prince Seeiso. Lesotho being in the same geographical area as Botswana and RSA, it could mean that PH might have some influence there; but my gut feeling is that he might just have benefitted from the privacy laws put in place for other reasons other than protecting his personal privacy. If anyone has any more insight, I’m very interested, so please post.

          2. @ Jen / @ Masamf: it was a royal reporter who said via twitter that the Botswana govt had changed the privacy laws specifically because Harry’s people asked them to do so.

            When pressed to explain some more, they said that they heard it first hand, and wasn’t something on the govt’s agenda until Harry’s people asked.

            The end result is a law that benefits everyone was written or updated, but it would not happened without Harry requesting it.

            Therefore those pap pics of Harry and MM at an airport in Botswana? Definitely planned because under the privacy laws, we shouldn’t have those pics at all.

          3. Oh wow, thanks so much Hera. So this shows how much influence AND power these folks still have in their former colonies, I never really thought they still did. I really like Harry but this is troubling to me somehow. But again, even if Harry had not influenced these laws, somehow some top gun high up in the govt would have done so at some point, I guess I shouldn’t be that bothered by it!! I guess I’m trying to self-soothe here ain’t I?, LOL. Thanks again @Herazeus and @Jen.

          4. Masamf: Not just these folks. For whatever reason, African govts are always happy to comply with whatever nonsense western govt ask of them.There is always a sting and or unintended consequences married with venal officialdom. In this particular case, it hasn’t harmed anyone yet, in Uganda’s case, it ended up with an ergregious anti-gay law that had to be swiftly reversed after international outcry.

            And when you dig deeper, most of the time it’s not that these laws aren’t there already, it’s that they are not a priority or those societies don’t have the sort of culture that puts a spotlight on these issues. Then along comes some VIP westerner or a very rich westerner with self interest, nevermind the western govts’ interests, and bam!! A previously unimportant law is updated as if it were more pressing than all the other pressing issues in the country followed by unintended consequences to the detriment of the people.

          5. Hera, greed is what’ll do us in on of these days, our leaders (and by that I mean African leaders, I don’t know much about other 3rd WC) are always eyes bulging out and hands stretched out at anything that looks like money, money and more money from anyone. I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry bribed the PTBs in Botswana to get those laws changed to his benefit.
            Re: Uganda, you think the western world were instrumental in putting those awful anti-gay laws in place? I don’t believe so. There has always been deep seated anti gay sentiment among my people, its just coming to light now because of the little (if I can call it that) freedom of expression that is allowed nowadays. Back in the day, if one was found out to be practicing homosexuality, they would just get picked up by secret service people and never be seen again. The only places where it was semi “safely practiced was in single sex boarding secondary schools and the understanding was that kids were just experimenting and they would out grow those “sinful habits”. I believe there might have been lots of abused children by priests and lay people back in those days but because it was such a shameful thing to even admit to have happened to you and the stigma that would result from it, a lot of people would just not say anything for fear. Back in the day, even rape went unreported because the woman would be blamed for everything; domestic rape and violence were considered a “norm” and so was very very common but the guys would just get away with anything because they were “entitled ” to having their ways with their wives. There’s been quite a bit of change these days with this current regime but its still leaves a lot to be desired for. Back to the anti gay laws, I think the western world was more instrumental in reversing them laws than implementing them. Once Museveni was threatened by withholding funding with such laws in place, he was very quick to have the justice system reverse them and the rest if history. Same with laws prohibiting women wear mini skirts/dresses etc.

          6. Masamf: the new anti-gay law was influenced by an American evangelist. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W41pvvZs0

            The law itself *already* existed on the books, but because of the secrecy that you describe, it wasn’t at the forefront of anyone’s agenda or at the very least, any action against gay people was carried out discreetly.

          7. Get out Hera, OMG thanks for the link. I didn’t know about this, my goodness. Im just shaking my head at what lengths “these people” go to to be the perfect puppet masters. Not saying harry is a puppet master in Botswana or anywhere in the world but…….you know what I mean.

          8. Masamf: i remain as shocked by that video today as the first time i saw it last year. I’ve tried to think it was a lie, but John Oliver has no reason to smear an entire country, does he?

  45. Curious to where PH and M will live once they start having children. Looks like KP is a bit full.

  46. https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5164159/amp/Prince-Harry-flies-Germany-private-hunting-party.html

    So how many vacations has Harry taken this year? Any one keeping score? So much for Harry saying he wanted to find a job after leaving the army. All he has been doing is vacationing this year.
    The more that I follow the royals the more I think Princess Anne should be more praised for her work ethic. How many engagements does she do a year? About 500? And how old is she? 60? So a man half her age can barely do 1/5 of what she does in a year? Sorry but I’m a bit annoyed. Harry needs to be called out for this just like William and Kate. Too many vacations and not enough work.

    1. Are you shocked? He’s a spare party boy Prince. He’s only slightly better than Prince Carl Phillip of Sweden.

      My only critique of Princess Anne is that she’s a little robotic. She may show up 500 engagements but she’s not warm, being a woman it’s even more glaring. Prince Harry coasts because he’s a lot more personable so he leaves a stronger impression.

      Harry and Meghan are also scheduled to go on vacation after Christmas to a warm climate before she dives into wedding preparations.

      1. Wasn’t Meghan spotted buying a bikini and having a facial prior to the engagement announcement; I’m guessing the trip to warmer climes has been planned for a while?

        1. Probably; on one hand I don’t blame them since most wealthy UK people vacation to warmer climates in January on the other hand they could be more considerate of the optics. They clearly don’t care.

          Meghan will clearly defer to Harry and the Cambridges the first 2 years but after that I hope she starts to make her voice heard. She’s clearly hard-working and she needs to implement that.

          1. The optics only jar with people keeping close watch. Most people just accept the whirlwind PR. With all the positive attention they have received, plus being in lurve, I imagine H+M think most are in thrall with them. Certainly, the press is playing it that way – it would be churlish to do otherwise with Diana’s ‘boys’, wouldn’t it?

            Most Britons would have not counted up the number of holidays/down time Harry has had this year, or added up what he actually does with his time. He pops up for royal engagements here and there, charms people and then… well, who knows what he does after that? The KP PR department is at the ready to deflect and praise.

            Whether there is disquiet from Britons about wedding costs and the rest, time will tell. I do wonder what UK people think of W+K and it seems H+M doing more of their ‘work’ (however defined) outside the country.

          2. On another point, Jessica. I really do think that you go ‘all in’ if marrying into the BRF. You have to want it and you have to fit in. Like in any job, the first 6 months or so sets the pace of how a person means to go on. This idea of deferring for two years and then becoming one’s own person falls into the same pattern of excuses given to Kate for years – “she’ll step up when…(fill in blank)” – but it has yet to happen. Two years in and anyone would be so used to the privilege, attention and deference they would not dream of risking it.

            Harry and Meghan have stated they want to get going etc so they need to be held to the promise they have made. The 6-month tour of the UK is first up: will it be full-on or just a repeat of the 4 engagements done by W+K when they were engaged? Then what are the plans beyond their marriage? Touring the Commonwealth on behalf of the Queen because Harry really does not want to be at home, or something genuinely substantial part from meet-and-greets?

          3. @Jen

            Good points Jen but I’m giving them 2 years because I’m expecting 2 kids very early with Meghan being 36. They shouldn’t wait 2 years like W&K because the risks increase every year. I know the said they want to do the 6 month tour but I honestly see them trying for a child and then having to put it off until after she’s given birth and off maternity leave.

          4. She’s going to be preggers, not sick. And why does she need mat leave? From what? I see Kate has set a sugary precedent for royal ‘working mothers’- coddling and avoidance of work, bringing back the idea of ‘royal’ confinement as if royal means ‘snowflake’.

            Meanwhile, Diana had morning sickness during the first tour of Wales and managed to work through most of her pregnancy.

          5. @Maventhefirst

            I’m not trying to argue; but Kate had maternity leave so I assume Meghan will have some time as well.

          6. @Jessica
            I thought the 6-month UK tour was supposed to be more or less immediately? That seemed to be the inference from the “boots on the ground” comment. I may have read that completely wrong!! But even if it’s post-wedding, “so much to do” were Harry’s words to describe the focus on Commonwealth countries post-wedding. As you say, the above will be tempered with family plans though having a voice and amount of work is up to the royal’s discretion, as we are so often told.
            The WK dynamic is unknown, that is, whether Harry (and by extension Meghan) will defer to them in terms of amount of work.

          7. I chuckled a little at Maventhfirst “she’s going to be preggers not sick” comment. @Maven, I’m wondering, are you a nurse? Just curious.

          8. In the engagement interview Harry said about children: ” No, not currently no. No of course…I think one step at a time, and hopefully we’ll start a family in the near future.” It seems that have children is not a plan for H&M (doubt)in the next 2 years.

          9. Ana, I think that was Harry trying to be funny. Or maybe taking a jab at the people who insist she must have trapped him with a pregnancy and that they are currently expecting.

            I also expect they’re going to start trying right after the wedding for children, and hopefully she’ll work steadily through any pregnancies like many other women of the BRF have done.

          10. @Ana

            Meghan will be 37 next August it would be absolutely foolish to put off having kids for 2 years. Kids should be their first priority; I think they just don’t want people obsessing over it because it can be frustrating if it doesn’t happen quickly.

        1. Cookie: You comment crystallised a thought i’ve been having for some time.

          We always discuss the Middletons’ very obvious and admirable work ethic vs their children, but what about Charles vs his children.

          Regardless of the military stints, they are definitely not chips off the old block. Didn’t inherit a decent work ethic from Charles OR Diana.

          Inherited wealth and ultra privileged status didn’t stop Anne, Charles, Andrew or Edward from having a work ethic, so that argument doesn’t hold. Yet, Charles turned out 2 extremely lazy sons.

          Ps: You know how Harry’s work noticeably nosedived in the past 2yrs/ 18mths? I think it’s safe to assume that he inadvertently told us in the engagement interview in the section where he explained that he took out 4days – a week to be with MM every 2wks.

          If few engagements were organised during the 2wks they were apart, then he has been on a week long holiday every fortnight!!!

          1. Isn’t the lack of work ethic a combo of circumstances, nature and innate sense of entitlement bred into the Wales’ sons?
            • Being perpetually referred to as ‘boys’, ‘young’ royals absolves them from stepping up, despite no longer being boys or young;
            • Playing up the guilt felt by their father, grandmother etc to leverage anything they wanted eg delaying work (William), pampering; excessive holidaying leading to directionless (Harry);
            • William’s ‘Spencer’ nature which is just plain unpleasant;
            • Not enough discipline applied when both were growing up, nor sense of responsibility to others.
            • Never being held accountable for their choices or actions.
            It’s really just a matter of both men being spoiled rotten.

            We now know unequivocally that Harry does not have enough to do if he can trot off around the globe for 4 or more days each fortnight. Plus longer holidays on top of that, and wedding in Jamaica. And hunting trips between the conservation efforts…

            Harry is responsible for himself as he is no longer a child, but he is also answerable to the Queen who has been lackadaisical in her expectations of her grandsons. She has acted like an over-indulgent grandmother rather than as head of a family given enormous privileges in return for providing services to the state. Where’s the value in Harry? It was laughable when he said he’d considered throwing it all in: his life would be his own, sure, but how to fund a permanent ‘hooray Henry’ lifestyle on his own resources? I suspect William knows it’s all a sham, but again is caught in the conundrum of not possibly replicating his lifestyle from his own efforts.

  47. He’s got away with going on holiday for far to long at least this has opened peoples eyes to how he disappears I don’t understand the younger royals Imagine much you could do with the spotlight theres so many problems with homeless lack of food bullying and health and environment they could be doing but they make it seem like an inconvenience

  48. Off topic. I really hope H&M choose Avondale and not Sussex. The more I say Sussex the more I’m not feeling it. I think Avondale sounds better for Meghan; Duchess of Avondale.

    1. Avondale is double title, it doesn’t get used alone. It has to be used with something else. Which, they likely will not get. my opinion anyways.

      1. I think it would be cool if they had a double title. I just want anything but Sussex and Windsor.

        1. Jessica: i think Windsor is going to be kept back for a very long time. The title holder remains a disgrace to alot of people who are still living. Not just royals, but the general public too.

    2. I’m with Jessica. I hope they skip SusSEX altogether because the jokes are already writing themselves to go with ‘party prince’.

      Last time, Avondale was twinned with Clarence, so if it’s a a double title, I’d hope for Duke of Clarence and Avondale.

      1. Do you think they would give that to a divorcee? and since this is a toned down affair, do you think that matters?

        1. EDB: The BRF accepted divorcees marrying into the family as long ago as 1978 when divorcee Marie Christine became HRH Princess Michael of Kent on her marriage to Prince Michael.

          Titles handed out have no bearing on the marital status of the incoming inlaw. It’s only a matter of what is available.

          Double titles haven’t been seen for a long time, and this Queen doesn’t seem keen(Ha!) on them.

          Avondale is in Ireland which might affect whether or not it is still acceptable to hand an Irish title to a British royal. That is the only reason we might never sea Avondale again, in combination or singly.

  49. Is The Queem who decides if a Title will be given or not and is she who choices what will give. (It’s my first time comenting here. Sorry for the erros. I’m still learning how to express myself in inglish.)

      1. What EDB said, and yes, it is the *Queen who decides.

        *with the guidance of experts of course.

  50. I still want to know more about how M&H kept their relationship quiet for 6 months. That’s pretty good for a public figure, especially a Prince.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top