Harry & Meghan to marry on May 19

Harry & Meghan to marry on May 19

Kensington Palace announced the date for the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The couple will marry on May 19, 2018.

KP issued a press release, saying:

“His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales and Ms. Meghan Markle will marry on 19th May 2018. Today’s announcement follows earlier confirmation of the month of the wedding and its location at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle.”

May 19, 2018 is the third Saturday in May.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, will most likely be marrying the couple come next May. Welby spoke to the press about the couple, saying:

“I am very, very sure after conversations that this is no tick-box exercise of ‘We ought to get married in church’. There is a profound sense of commitment, of seriousness both about faith and about their lives together which is quite inspirational… Of course it’s important because people will look at it and they’ll see a model of how two people commit their lives to one another before God, in the presence of millions of people. That’s going to be wonderful, it’s always a beautiful moment. Every wedding is profoundly beautiful.”


Idris Elba attended a Prince’s Trust event yesterday, at which he spoke to reporters about Meghan, saying:

“Meghan Markle, as a person, regardless of her colour, is a role model. As a strong woman marrying into our Royal Family, she’s going to be a role model for any woman. The point is that of course our society is one of mixed heritage and it’s nice to see Meghan within the Royal Family. It’s great. And of course she’s going to be a beacon and of course she’s going to be someone that people look towards. Our country is built on our monarchy, we love our monarchy and it’s good to be connected.”

[Sky News]

280 thoughts on “Harry & Meghan to marry on May 19

  1. I am surprised it is on a Saturday, as most royal marriages are during the week. I am excited for the fashions and to see what title Meghan will get: hopefully not Duchess of Sussex.

    I did some research and several ducal titles from this list are available, I believe:


    The dukedoms of Surrey, Exeter, Aumale, Hereford, Cumberland, Albermarle, Monmouth, Newcastle upon Tyne, Kendal, Cleveland, Richmond, Southhampton, Berwick-Upon-Tweed, Leeds, Buckingham and Normanby and Montagu are available.

    Besides that, I honestly hope the Middlings are not invited at all. They have no reason to be there and they certainly don’t need to be at yet another royal occasion.

    It would have been nice if the engagement portraits were released today as well, so we can have some new images of the two-I am sick of looking at the Nottingham and photocall pics. We need new photos!

    1. It’s not a real big royal to-do, obviously, so I was figuring it would be a Saturday like Edward and Sophie’s. More low key, and ‘them,’ despite our wishes for a big royal wedding for Harry. I think Meghan being American and a divorcee could have something to do with it but Harry seems connected to St George’s; he was baptized there, Confirmed there, and by all accounts I have read he actually attends church and is serious about his faith much like his father and grandmother.

      I expect the engagement pictures to be released in the New Year.

      I have to admit Welby’s comments however kind make me suspicious as Meghan doesn’t seem herself a religious person (nothing wrong with that). Reminds me of the overly gushing comments of Rowan Williams with William and Kate, and we know they are not very religious people. I hope Meghan doesn’t feel pressured into being baptized and confirmed, as it is not a requirement of the Church of England to be such when you are married, but I’m skeptical judging by how Kate was Confirmed for no real reason other than as a showy thing. I do like Archbishop Welby, though, more than Dr Williams, who sometimes made me go WTF at some of his theological thinking…

        1. I too think Meghan being American and divorced has something to do with the lower profile wedding and it’s a shame.

          1. People, I don’t think Meghan’s country of origin or her skin color or her marital status has anything to do with any decisions for wedding date or venue. Harry loves Meghan warts and all, and he of all people would not let any of that influence his decisions regarding his future wife. I betcha, Harry having seen all the mistakes his brother made, would want to do things differently. That and given the reports that Harry is close to a many of his family members, I think he involved all of the important people that needed to be consulted and the venue and date were all decided upon with everyone put into consideration. Also, I think Harry considered his grandparents, being of advanced age and, being that they’re in Windsor castle at that time of year, its easier for them to be at the wedding than it would be at BP or WA. It also could be that this place holds a more intimate/sentimental value to Harry and he probably feels more attached to it than at WA or BP, thus his decision to wed his wife there. Remember, the queen has to give permission first for them to be married there. The fact that the venue was announced right after the engagement shows that they all were in agreement that this was where they wanted the wedding to take place and it was probably decided upon way before even the engagement was announced. Harry said in the engagement interview that his grandparents had known about the engagement for a long while and “how they managed to keep this secret for so long” is amazing (that is not being engaged for a couple of weeks IMO), so I believe Harry and Meghan were engaged much longer than the few weeks they said they had been. The queen was consulted regarding the wedding plans and the venue etc and she gave her blessings. This has been in the works for a very long time, Meghan mentioned that they had been at Windsor castle “numerous times” these people planned this very, very well, so its not a step down in any way shape or form. I think people thinking that there is something sinister in any of this will hinder y’all from enjoying this sweetness, y’all need to relax, sit back and enjoy the show.

      1. I hope Meghan does not get a title in the usual way the BRF hands out titles.I have long criticized the BRF for their title system.To me just because you marry someone (man or woman) getting an automatic title seems illogical.It can be optional.
        Titles should be given to the monarchs children and should be passed via sons and daughters both onto their children.
        Unfortunately the current title system is devoid of logic and reason.

        1. Candice: the present system is based on patriachy. It makes sense that way. Us regular people can choose to remain Miss my own name on marriage, but if you marry a title, you are merged into the title and lose your identity.

          When they changed the inheritance rules for the crown, they didn’t look at this and parliament seems reluctant to do anything about it despite having ongoing conversations about it for decades now.

          It’s infuriating to read the parliamentary debates because in theory they all agree that system has to change to reflect society, but complain endlessly about the difficulty of getting the peerage laws in the different parliaments and countries of the UK changed. Getting the different peers in the different peerages to accept the new rules. The other unintended consequences of the changes eg system of inheritance

          It seems they can’t just make one universal law that everyone simply has to accept.

    2. I guess the Middletons will attend.They are always friends with everyone, they make sure of it.
      They know Harry very well,Harry was at Pippa’s wedding, so I guess Pippa and her husband gets an invitation.Not sure about James and parents.But they are on friendly terms with Harry,so who knows?
      These are interesting title options.I would be afraid with a Scottish title because you’ll never know if they won’t vote independent someday.But he would get another title for it, of course.

      1. Herazeus:To me patriarchy has never made sense. I fully realise that the system is based on patriarchy. More interesting is how Meghan Markle feels about the system.

      2. I hope the Middlings aren’t there. I don’t want to see Carole’s smug face,. I am sure she is tickled pink Harry and Meghan aren’t having a grand wedding and will be comparing her daughter’s wedding to Meghan’s and thinking it comes up short. And besides, isn’t that Pipp’s own wedding anniversary? Won’t she want to be elsewhere with her hubby?

      1. Harry was invited to the wedding but Meghan was not and they were clearly serious at that point. If space is at a premium they should only invite Pippa and husband to the reception like was done to Meghan. Harry and Meghan have a lot of their own friends and family and don’t need to ensure that Kate’s social climbing family has an invite. Meghan has developed lots of relationships throughout her work and life as a normal 36 year old would so inviting a sister in law’s family is just weird.
        We need room for the Obamas, Trudeaus and Mulroneys.

        1. Honestly, I don’t even care if space is not at a premium…I don’t want Pippa or any of the Middletons invited. I never did see how Harry is supposedly great friends with Pippa or the Middletons so thought it was odd that he was even invited to her wedding at all. Why would the brother-in-law (William)’s brother even need to be invited?! The only reason I actually do think he was invited was so the Middletons could expect an invite to Harry’s wedding…which I sooooo hope is not forthcoming. (Yeah, I’m bitter, so what. 😉 )

          And, I know we all went back and forth on this at the time of Pippa’s wedding – yes, of course, it was her wedding and she could do whatever she wanted – but I thought it was ridiculous that Meghan was not invited to the same parts that Harry was invited to (the wedding and reception). As others have said, she was his long-term, serious partner by the time of the wedding so, IMO, she should have been invited as his plus 1.

          If I were Harry and Meghan, no Middletons would be invited to my wedding. No Pippa, no any of them. Meghan has a large enough friend circle of her own that they won’t need to worry about filling the chapel, so there won’t be any need for in-laws of in-laws. And, honestly, turnabout is fairplay/what’s good for the goose is good for the gander/payback is a b*tch…if I were Meghan and Harry I might still be a bit salty about my significant other not being allowed to come as my plus 1…so no Midds.

          1. Gudgeon: can i join the petty brigade. Failing that, invite the Middletons, but only to the church. Make them feel as small as they did to Uncle Gary at Pippa’s wedding.

          2. Here here. I agree with all. And no matter if Meghan was or was not engaged to Harry at the time of Pip’s wedding, she should have been invited to the ceremony as well as the reception.

            There is no reason on earth the Middlings should be there. I know Meghan is too pragmatic and maybe too laid back to hold grudges, so I will hold one for her. I think she was deliberately snubbed.

            Also, how was uncle Gary snubbed at Pipp’s wedding. Is that wife beater in jail yet?

          3. Leah: Uncle Gary was only invited to church and church reception. The pictures made it look like he was a welcome guest at the wedding, but he wasn’t invited to the celebrations proper.

            He tweeted a photo of himself and his daughter about a couple of hours after end of church ceremony back in London having early dinner in a restaurant.

            I think he also later gave an interview confirming that he had been invited to church and church reception only. Off to wikigoogle to see if i imagined that interview.


          4. I don’t disagree with you on that point. I still don’t understand why a sibling of an in law gets an invite to a wedding when space is at a premium. Harry never associated with Kate’s family outside of joint family events because the Midds would have published that information by now.
            I get along with my sister in law’s family and even went to the same school as her sister, but none of them would actually expect an invite to my wedding outside of my sister in law.
            And again this wedding should be about what Meghan wants and not the Middletons. It shows how much PR they have that they remain a part of this discussion.

          5. I agree about no Middleton’s, and hope Serena Williams and the Obamas get invited and attend. Or at least Michelle.

          6. The Middletons will extend every courtesy to Harry and now to Meghan to make sure that the Middleton clan gets that wedding invite. They’ve perfected the art of social manipulation and know how to manipulate the press to show off their trophies. The “relationship” with Mirka and Roger Federer is a perfect example of how they operate. Use a “lesser” friend like Jane Henman to initiate contact with target then BOOM…it just takes a few calculated Middleton maneuvers before the target finds himself paraded before paparazzi, like the Federers at Pippa’s “intimate” wedding or being papped going to KP. So I have every expectation that we will see the Middletons’ smiling faces at Sandringham for Christmas and at Windsor in May.

            And regarding Serena, the wedding falls on championship weekend for the Rome Open. If Serena sticks to her plans for a comeback this year, she may not want to miss this lead-up to the French Open, which is the following week. But I’m guessing she won’t be able to turn down an invitation to the royal wedding, if she’s invited.

          7. Sounds like the 21st century version of Princess Pushy. It must be tiring to constantly be advancing an agenda that no one else is interested in. Unless the paps are slacking, those folks aren’t seen attending the same number of events as the did earlier in the decade. Why is that?

        2. Harry and Meghan weren’t married or even engaged so I don’t see what’s the hoopla about Meghan not being invited to the church wedding. I’m expecting Pippa and her husband to be at Harry’s wedding; if not then fine.

          1. It’s crappy of the Middlings to treat Gary that way when he basically financed their lifestyles, but the Middlings are not known for class.

          2. The Middlings make me sick. I cannot stand that they have to always be included in or thought of in terms of royal events.

            They make me long for the days when in-laws of married in BRF members were banished.

          3. I assume the Middletons will attend. Harry is in thrall to his brother and William will make demands like that. I don’t see how Harry is close to them, nor do I believe he is (after all he seems to barely see them and has no clue what’s up with his brother and sister-in-law, why would he be close to her family).

            Uncle Gary though was of no more use to Carole and Clan so of course they treat him like that.

            And then you see in-laws like Sophie’s family who are invited to a lot of family things, never make a fuss, and Sophie’s dad is often invited for Christmas as he is a widower and HM I hear is fond of him.

          4. Uncle Gary is a gross, disgusting domestic abuser. Why are we feeling badly for him? He may have given the Middeltons money in the past and he may have lent his mansion to them for vacation but he’s a gross person and I feel no sympathy for him not being invited to Middleton family events.

          5. MMR: Uncle Gary has always been a gross disgusting human being. We’ve known this since he first entered national consciousness.

            Putting that aside, he remains Carole’s only sibling. One that was apparently welcomed at the Middleton table despite all that gross behaviour because of what he could do for them. For years he was allowed to be gross in public and to discuss the Middletons and William without censure. They provided diversions and probably behind the scenes protection to deflect from that gross behaviour.

            He is not needed anymore and very publicly discard him.

            In the context of such blatant using of people, we are pointing out how the Middletons were perfectly willing to look the other way as long as they needed his money.

        3. The Middletons will attend because Harry and Meghan will be the bigger people; they’ll be invited because both Meghan and Harry are not insecure but are rather confident people whose hearts and thoughts will not be on who is attending and therefore taking the lime light but on each other and the vows they make to each other for richer for poor, etc…. As the lovely Michelle Obama once said, “when they go low, we go high”. Pippa might have felt threatened and insecure about Meghan taking the spotlight from her; what Meg needs to do is to invite Pippa and show her that regardless of who attends your wedding the spotlight will always will be on the bride and groom. I don’t think anyone will be looking at Pippa on Meghan’s wedding, I truly doubt it. Also, Meghan inviting the Middletons shows NOT insecurity but strength and confidence in her skin, and Meghan has always been that, so she needn’t be petty just to prove a point.

          1. I never said I felt sorry for Gary or pitied him. But it does show the Middling character. They took his money for years knowing what he is.

    3. Leah: On the subject of dukedoms and your list, Dukedoms aren’t equal. The royals have a set reserved just for them. These are the royal dukedoms. They will never be re-created to anyone outside of the royal circle even if they become ordinary dukedoms like Kent and Gloucester are about to become in the next generation. Due to Kent and Gloucster’s current heirs not being HRH royal, their inheritance of those dukedoms will render them ordinary. Once there are no more heirs to those particular dukedoms, they will merge back to the crown to wait for the next royal claimant to re-create.

      There are afew issues with the list of vacant dukedoms that you’ve picked out;

      1. Some of them are extant or suspended or exist in a different name. Extant means they exist in their lesser form and are currently held by someone living. If a dukedom is extant, the higher title can’t be granted to someone else.

      – Earl of Surrey,
      – Marquess of Exeter
      – Aumale is a duchy in Normandy aka France therefore a non-starter, however, it has an English equivalent extant title – Earl of Albermale.
      – Viscount Hereford
      – Earl of Albermale
      – Baron Southampton

      Suspended means that the title isn’t vacant though it is listed as such, but there are issues stemming from WW1 when they were forfeited under the titles deprivation act 1917 for siding with Germany over Britain. Title was removed from then titleholders, but current living descendant claimants can legally challenge to unsuspend and reclaim the title. Eg Cumberland. This is a royal dukedom whose current claimant is Prince Ernst of Hanover. The title was suspended due to his great grandfather siding with the Germans over Britain during WW1. As the title was vacated rather than merged into the crown, it left a loophole window for descendants to be able to legally challenge for it’s return. Thus it is suspended rather than vacant.

      That said, Cumberland ducal title is a very sore point with Scotland and all Scottish people. It was a Duke of Cumberland (nicknamed Butcher Cumberland) who was in charge of suppressing the Jacobite rebellion culminating in defeating the Scots at Culloden (1746) and clearing the Scottish Highlands. It was brutal ethnic cleansing to an ergregious degree that included banning all practise of Scottish clans, culture, dress and gealic language and if one objected was executed or exiled to the colonies.

      That ban stayed in place until late 18th century. The Scottish culture we see today is a revival driven by romantic notions of what Scotland is supposed to be because Butcher Cumberland was very effective at destroying Scottish culture. Butcher Cumberland is the reason we shall never see that dukedom revived in a UK that includes Scotland.

      Cleveland was created for illegitimate sons of Charles 2. A revival might bring up that rumour about Harry’s parentage which though it’s debunked, still holds.

      Others on your list have current title holders eg Bedford, Newcastle upon Tyne, Richmond, St Albans, Berwick upon Tweed.

      The rest fall in the category of ordinary dukedoms which are/ were increasingly re-created for service to the royals and will never be deemed important enough for a royal. They are generally given lesser status in the heirarchy of dukedoms eg Kendal, Monmouth, Montagu and Leeds.

      Duke of Normandy is a French title and duchy. Can’t revive this one unless we reconquer Normandy in France!😁.

      Finally, yes, Harry will receive a Scottish and Northern Irish title to go with his ducal title. That is the tradition. It’s been a long time since a royal was granted a welsh peerage. Not sure why. Earl of Snowdon is the most recent creation that i can think of.

      Finally, you are right about Connaught. Forgot about that. Definitely vacant and it’s a royal dukedom, but like Avondale, it is in Ireland. Not sure we can claim an Irish title in Britain. Might work if used in Combination like before though not Strathearn as William has that one.

      1. Hey Leah, saw your response in other thread regarding Normanby. Thought i’d put my response here rather than previous thread.

        Normanby is extant. Marquess of Normanby.

        1. Thanks, Herazeus. I want Harry to either be Duke of Clarence or Duke of Avondale. Is Buckingham out of the question? Maybe the Queen can make a new royal dukedom for Harry.

        2. One more thing to point out about Cumberland, in it’s last re-creation, it was handed out at a time when Scottish culture was still banned and no one cared about Scottish sensibilities. That titleholder was sent to Hanover as a young boy and was settled there.

          His support of Germany probably made it an easy decision to vacate his title because it is a very sore point with the Scots.

          Further to your comment above, i want Clarence and Avondale too. If Avondale can’t happen, then Clarence on it’s own will do.

    4. @Leah – I didn’t see it on your list, but I love the idea of Clarence and Avondale, created in 1890 and extinct since 1892 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Clarence_and_Avondale). I don’t know if they would think it a bad omen to give a title that had previously gone to to someone who died in infancy, but I just love the sound of the two names together.

      Other than that, I am still not a fan of Sussex because I think it’s a bit of a tongue twister to say ‘Duchess of Sussex’ out loud. But, I think that’s probably going to be the one.

      I’m hoping the engagement photos will be released next Monday or Tuesday, right before the queen’s Christmas lunch. I don’t think we’d have to wait until the new year (hope not!). W&K’s engagement was on Nov. 16 and the engagement photos released Dec. 15. For H&M, the engagement was on Nov. 27, but I can’t imagine they will release them between Christmas and new year’s since that’s sort of vacation time…so I’m hoping for next week before the big luncheon.

      Speaking of the queen’s luncheon, I cannot wait to see Harry and Meghan driving up together (instead of Harry in the car with Will and Kate). So, even if we don’t get engagement photos next week, we’ll have photos of them going to lunch. Yay!

      1. Gudgeon, I have an awful feeling Harry and Meghan will be in the car with William and his wife on the way to the Queen’s lunch.

        1. I doubt they will all be in same car because George and Charlotte also will ride with them, and possibly their nanny Maria as in the past, which will be too many people.

        2. I hope Meghan enjoys being the 4th wheel. Harry will always defer to his big bro, and that includes inviting every single Midd named ‘not Gary’ to the wedding.

          1. I am hoping with Meghan around he will develop a backbone on that issue. Meghan may defer to royal protocol, but she won’t put up with Middleton nonsense.

          2. @Maventhefirst – I do think there will be lots of work occasions when Harry and Meghan will make up a foursome with W&K, like when they are doing Royal Forum work. However, I firmly believe Harry is ready to begin to focus on his own life and beginning a family with Meghan (even before children when they are a family of two). So, I’m hoping this means we’ll see less of the foursomes and more of two sets of duos. Fingers crossed, anyways…

    5. I would LOVE Duchess of Montagu. But please no Kendal, Cleveland, Richmond, Southhampton or Leeds!

    1. Prince Andrew received Scottish and Irish titles – so there is a precedent – however Andrew is the second son of the Monarch, whereas Harry is grandson. The grandsons of King George V succeeded to Scottish and Irish titles as well as Dukedoms – but those were inherited from their fathers who were sons of the King. I would be surprised if Harry did not receive several titles.

    2. William is Baron Carrickfergus and Earl of Strathern, so I assume Earl of SomethingScottish and Baron SomethingNorthernIrish too.

    3. Harry is on friendly terms with Catherine’s siblings. Pippa and James Mathews invited him to their wedding. It would be rude of Harry to not invite Pippa and James Mathews to his wedding.
      As for Meghan being uninvited to Pippa’s wedding, that could be that Pippa would not have known of the seriousness of their relationship or perhaps Meghan was invited but couldn’t make it.

      1. As close as Pippa is to hers sister, she would have been well-briefed of the seriousness of Harry’s relationship with Meghan.

        And if Meghan made it to the reception, as we know she did, than she could have made it to the wedding. Personally, I wouldn’t have gone to the reception. Don’t invite me to the ceremony, I’m not coming to the reception. I’m that petty.

        1. @Leah – Haha, yeah, I’m petty too because I think what Harry and Meghan should have done was Harry RSVP ‘no’ to attending to the church ceremony, but then ‘yes’ for the two of them to attend the reception. But, I think he probably felt pressure to attend the church part so William could have a woobie while Kate was tending to the children (or whatever she was doing stalking around behind Pippa in all the pictures, lol) and didn’t have to sit there making small talk with strangers (who could then run to the press about what William talked about #paranoidprince)

          I think Pippa wanted lots of extra media attention for the wedding as the press would to try to capture first pics of Harry and Meghan together and all the lead up press attention of ‘would Meghan attend,’ ‘what will Meghan wear’ – but Pippa didn’t really want her there, even as a favor/courtesy to Harry.

          1. Course Pippa didn’t want Meghan at the reception or wedding and neither did The Duchess of Keen! and especially not Carole.

            I am beyond sure the coven of Middling women were horrified Harry was dating Meghan. I’m sure it was beyond their comprehension.

          2. Using Meghan to generate press interest, yet making sure to not have her attend, THAT’s what I hold against the Middletons. Their scheming never bothered me until then. Their scheming is suddenly revealed to not be a victimless behavior. They obviously don’t care who they hurt to get what they want. That’s devious. They need to be called out on such behaviors to discourage future incidents.

  2. Was this wedding scheduled for the weekend so that people can watch it televised without taking off of work? I don’t think the government would declare a bank holiday for the wedding, even if the wedding was scheduled for a weekday.

    1. No one is really going to call out the Middlings, which is a shame. I think how they treated Meghan was despicable and I hope Meghan and Harry are onto them. I really hope Meghan keeps her distance from that clan of chiselers. They are going try to make trouble for her at every turn.

  3. Same day as the FA cup final at Wembley . That’s a lot of work for the police, 2 major events requiring security. I wonder which one Will will attend 😀😀.

    I love the comments by the Archbishop and Idris. I hope H&M take over the Princes Trust, it would keep them busy and it would be a shame to lose the royal figurehead.

    1. I imagine the wedding will be morning so Will can go it, the lunch following, pop into the FA cup for game and presentation and then join the evening wedding events later. It is not as though he has to worry about the logistics !

    2. I’m wondering if the Queen will allow televisions to be set up at least in some of the Windsor side rooms during the reception. Growing up in the American south, totally dominated by college football, you knew never, ever to schedule a wedding on a game day. Particularly a home game day. And heaven forbid someone close dies during football season–several funerals in my family have had to work around the football schedule. For the recent services of one friend’s parent, there was an unusual day’s gap between the “receiving of friends” (or wake) on Friday and the funeral itself on Sunday because, as the obituary stated, “the family will be at the home watching the game.”

      1. Generally speaking, football tends to be seen as a more working class sport in Britain. The upper class tends more toward rugby and cricket. So, I don’t think many in attendance will likely be distracted by the FA cup.

          1. Rugby was founded at a public school and for years most public / grammer schools favoured rugby over football. In terms of society, when you look at teams, even national or club, you can see that delineation. Most footballers are working class whilst most rugby players are middle class and above or at the very least attended public school and are reasonably well educated even if they didn’t go all the way to uni.

    3. And I do hope that Meghan and Harry are putting in as much time and thought into preparing for marriage as they are into preparing their wedding. Based on the archbishop’s comments, it sounds as though they are, but it’ll take much more than just a conversation or two with him.

    1. It’s really close to Pippa’s date.But I guess they won’t care. As long as it’s not the same day x)

      1. Generally, date determinations are based on the queen’s and palaces’s schedule – not the personal choice of the couple unless it fits in with the former. (Kate was married on St. Catherine of Siena’s feast day.) It does seem an odd choice though – there must have been reasons other dates in May weren’t acceptable. They apparently wanted a Saturday – and perhaps the first Saturday was seen as too close to Princess Margaret’s wedding date – not too auspicious. They must have wished to avoid the the bank holiday weekend too – I’m not sure why. That still would leave the twelfth – but maybe that interferes with matches too. It should prove a trifle awkward for William though as he missed the Festival of Remembrance supposedly because it was so important that he attend a match because he was a patron.

        As for the Middletons – there was limited space in the church for Pippa’s wedding, so I don’t see it as quite the same. It doesn’t matter to me whether they are included or not – as the day won’t be about them. I much prefer though how Meghan’s mother has behaved so far -early days, but she does seem like a lovely quiet lady.

        1. The Middlings will find a way to make the wedding about them if they go and I am afraid the Duchess of Keen! will try to upstage as well, but seeing as she has all the oomph and pizzazz of week old roadkill, not sure how this will happen, but I am sure, coached by Carole, she might make an effort.

          And yes, Doria seems great. I do love how Harry’s face lit up when he spoke of her. That says a lot.

  4. While her stage name is Meghan Markle, I wonder why KP didn’t use her full name. In a Suits interview, she stated that her first name is Rachel.

    1. It’s right.They should call her by her birth name, not her actress-name.
      They did the same with Kate/Catherine, didn’t they?
      Although, everyone got used to her as Meghan, but I wonder why they can just ignore her first name here.

      1. I’ve always been known by my 2nd name – to the point that my mother had to describe me by two different name combinations in her will – this is nothing new – I’m Irish Catholic and apparently a name of a Saint always was first name – in my case Mary – and then the name my parents wanted me to be known by – Shannon

        1. So as Australians do – names get shortened – so I’ve been “Shan” for a long time – it is what my remaining family and friends call me. So I’m onside with Ms Markle answering to whichever name feels right to her – I’m guessing Rachael is first name on the birth certificate but generally unused in her life. In any event she will be Duchess or Countess whoever and the rest will fade into the background

      2. Meghan wants to be known by Meghan and not Rachel. Kate went by Kate for a decade until William decided she had to be called Catherine. Even Kate said at one point “just call me Kate”. Outside of official statements Harry goes by Harry and not Henry.

        1. I think they shouldn’t make a differnce.She becomes royal.
          But, I personally prefer Meghan, because we know her with this name and she seems to prefer it,too.
          I just don’t understand why it is so easy to be able to choose here.

          1. I don’t get why you don’t understand why it is easy to be able to choose what name you want to go by. Anyone should be called by the name they want to be.

        2. Couple of things:

          (1) The Kate to Catherine change was driven by William, not Kate herself or royal protocol. And Kate, unlike Meghan, had no personality or presence in the public eye apart from William. She was/is perfectly willing to have her identity molded by him. Meghan comes with an established sense of self and a public persona.

          (2) Catherine is the more formal version of Kate, and not another name altogether (like Rachael and Meghan). People would get confused if suddenly she were called a completely different name. And to add to the confusion, her actual first name is the same as the character she played on a tv show.

          1. William in his ultimate PR genius thought he could override the name she used for 29 years and the last 10 in the media (prior to the engagement) and thought that making her name sound more formal would make them seem more normal. He really sucks at PR.

          2. Reba: “Catherine is the more formal version of Kate, and not another name altogether (like Rachael and Meghan).

            It feels deceptive to use your ‘stage’ name instead of your given name in personal/private life. In my geographic area, people don’t use their second name as their everyday name as is commonly done in the southern US. The only time a second name is used is if you were named after your father and then you become R Ben or just RB instead of Robert Jr. A very close friend called my under emergency circumstances to take her to hospital for treatment. After waiting forever in ER (ACE) I went to the desk to ask about her. That’s when I found my good friend of 10 yrs had never told me her birth name though she knew mine. The deception (because she had plenty of opportunities to tell me of her ‘real’ name) broke the trust and the friendship. We are acquaintances now but it’s not the same. So, yes, the true first name is important. And, I have no doubt that the official records will show Rachel Meghan. If it was so important to eliminate that original first name, she had every opportunity to change it legally a long time ago. Could have changed it to Meghan Rachel. Funny that she didn’t. It is one of the few things that gives me pause about Rachel Markle.

      3. Lovely Blossom, Meghan is her middle name, not her stage name. Her first name is Rachel but it was her parents choice to call her by her middle name, she has always been called Meghan not Rachel.

      4. I remember hearing/reading somewhere that Meghan said she chose to not use Rachel while on Suits to prevent people from confusing her with the character she plays who’s name is also Rachel. But I’ve also read her articles in which she discuses her father, she always quotes him calling he Meg. Meg seems to be her nickname, which could indicate she has always being called Meghan. Which is it?

    2. It’s not her stage name, it’s the name she has always gone by; and KP already address this question to the press … Meghan Markle it will be

    3. Meghan’s middle name is Meghan. It’s not unusual for someone to go by their middle name instead of first name.

  5. Can Meghan Markle receive a title even though she doesn’t have British citizenship. I’m wondering if this is going to be an issue?

    1. Yes – she will take her name from that of her husband – so will at a minimum be Princess Henry and depending on what title he gets on marriage a Duchess or Countess etc. As Harry is HRH then she will get that too unless for some reason the Queen decides not to grant that – but highly unlikely IMO

    1. If you marry someone foreign, you become mrs foreigner. See it with regular people. It’s just more starkly demonstrated with titles.

      1. But she is going to represent Britain. Surely she ‘s got to have the nationality?! Don’t agree with the way regular folks roll either.

        1. I presume she’s get a fiancee / family visa until her nationality is sorted out. You are allowed to work on those types of visas. Happens on reverse too when you marry foreigner and move to their country.

        2. I thought they had announced she was applying for British citizenship.. it’s just the question of giving up the American one that hasn’t been confirmed.

      2. She isn’t being granted a title – she’s marrying one, not the same thing. She has no title in her own right, nor does Kate.

        I would assume her full name will be used in the service – that would be traditional no matter what she prefers to be called otherwise.

    2. Would it really upset Brits if Parliament just gave her citizenship? The Danes did it 3 times with Alexandra, Mary and Marie.

      1. Jessica: it won’t, but it will be seen as jumping the queue which would not be a good pr move. They have to be seen to do the right thing even if her application is already rubber stamped.

        1. They say love makes you blind and I’m afraid that is the case with Meghan and Harry.
          From whatever I can gather about Meghan,she appears to be a patriotic American with firm belief in voicing opinions.Neither are negative in general context,but as a British royal they are negative.
          In the cases of the Danish Royal Family,the three women let go of their previous nationalities.
          On the other hand,it is Meghan’s birthright to keep her American citizenship.She could marry Harry and not be given royal status.That would be the perfect thing to do,but unfortunately these things don’t work like that.

          1. There is nothing wrong with being American or in being patriotic. And there is nothing wrong with firm beliefs and voicing opinions, unless you like mealy mouthed Stepford wives like the Duchess of Keen! who don’t have their own agency and wouldn’t know an opinion if it slapped them in the face.

            I don’t get all this negativity around Meghan and Harry’s union and this undercurrent of thinking they will fail and wanting them to fail. I also don’t get looking down on Meghan because she is American, divorced and biracial.

            It seeems like people are quietly saying “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack” and I don’t like it.

            Meghan gets a title cause she is marrying Harry. It’s like anytime a woman marries a man, she gets his last name (if she wants it). Really, why is that so hard to understand and more importantly, why be so resentful of it?

          2. I don’t know how patriotic Meghan is – didn’t she say something about wanting to become Canadian – but if she is patriotic, that’s nice.

            For most people, it has nothing to do with her skin colour or her birth or people wishing her to fail. It has to do with her learning about and respecting the ways of the country she is not only marrying into but is going to be representing and the fact she plunged in before she knew how things worked.

            The haste is why people have been put off. With Kate, there were years of knowing her as a royal girlfriend – Meghan was treated as if there were an engagement from the start – it was all too quick and didn’t give people time to get to know her and for her to know Britain.

            There would have been far less questioning if they hadn’t moved so quickly and given Meghan a chance to learn a bit more about Britain – at least hopefully now, she knows what the lion and unicorn are! What troubled me about that silly quiz was not that she didn’t know, but she seemed to think it didn’t matter – and she was possibly already dating Harry. Given how educated she’s supposed to be, she seemed a very silly sort of girl.

            I see nothing wrong with Meghan expected to know the customs and ways of behaving in Britain – should I marry an ambassador from a foreign nation, I would expect to have to learn and conform to how things are done. After all, patriotism is permitted on both sides of the Atlantic – and I don’t think most people from the States would appreciate and English girl – coming in and saying ‘well, that’s how we did it at home!’

            If you wish to ‘be yourself’, you don’t marry into the royal family. Too much individuality doesn’t work there – from Sarah to Snowdon.

            There is already feeling about the church wedding by those denied since 2002 – it apparently represents the views of the current archbishop, but he isn’t widely popular amongst church goers. One hopes with immigration – also a hugely sensitive area at the moment, they will follow the rules, at least on the surface.

          3. Kate is the anomaly in terms of waiting years to marry Will not Meghan. Most royal marriages happen in a much quicker timeframe and many of those marriages have lasted over a decade.

            I think the video is being over analyzed as well. If it was made in July 2016 she was just starting to date him and since it was being kept secret, what is she going to say?

            I think she should become a dual citizen because it is not like the US and UK are countries at war with each other. Since Harry won’t be king, it’s not like loyalties would be compromised in this case. The tax requirement from the US is cumbersome but I am sure tax lawyers can work around it. Many people are dual citizens and no one questions them. Has Autumn Phillips renounced her Canadian citizenship? I don’t think she has and really I don’t think it should matter for Meghan either.

          4. All this “they are moving too quick” is extremely rich coming from people who are not Meghan and Harry. They both acknowledged that it seems quick to outsiders, but for them, they just clicked. Just because Kate waited for years (and Sophie) doesn’t mean every bride needs to. By all accounts, Sophie waited for years because Edward kept dithering around and was commitment-phobic. Kate waited because they started dating so young and IMO because William wasn’t keen on someone he pictured as his “escape” from his family becoming part of the Firm.

            Harry and Meghan are both in their 30s and know what they are about. How about we trust their judgement about what is the best choice for them?

            Meghan will take the time to learn the UK and culture. I am often shocked by how much better educated about history and custom naturalize citizens are then those who were born and raised in the US. Similarily, I know so much more British history than my British friends even though I am American. Meghan is smart and a strategic thinker, I think we should give her a few years before judging rather or not she appreciates Brand UK.

            Further, those who feel salty about them having a COE church wedding…well I am sorry that custom has changed. Do those same people feel salty when divorcees in their family or community get to have a COE remarriage? Why should they be salty that Meghan and Harry get to have a COE wedding?

          5. @Wisdomheaven +1000000000. People need to let this “we want to know Meghan more before she marries Harry” nonsense rest, no one needs to “get to know more about Meghan”, she is marrying prince Harry and not the entire British nation. If Harry is alright with the speed his relationship is moving, that’s fine, he is the one in a relationship with Meghan, not any one of us. And if Kate dated Wills for 10 years, that’s nice, it doesn’t necessarily mean Harry has to do exactly like what his brother did, they are brothers, not clones. And William did not date his girlfriend for 10 years so the British people would get to know her “zilch”, it took him that long to propose because he was just not yet ready, period.

  6. Leah: Not everyone is super excited about Meghan Markle becoming a representative of the BRF. I am not. To me her marrying Harry and her becoming a representative of the BRF are two different matters. To me she has all the chances of becoming a bad representative of the BRF and that is because of her certain elements in her past.
    In fact, I would find it surprising if no one questioned how hard she would find it to adjust with the BRF. It does not have to do with biraciality or the fact that she is divorced.
    As far as the title system is concerned , that has been a pet peeve of mine with the BRF-long before Meghan arrived on the scene. That is my personal opinion. It is a criticism of the institution,not of Meghan Markle specifically.

    1. I think people don’t care so much about Autumn as she is not married to a senior royal and also, Canada is part of the commonwealth.

      Maxima, Mary and Letizia also had short engagements and Maxima had to do much to win people over because her dad was/is seriously shady. Didn’t he not go to her wedding so as not to cause drama?

      Most people don’t wait 10 years as did William’s wife to get married. And also Harry and Meghan are in their 30s, not their 20s-they know what they want and want suits them. And if they feel they are ready to take the plunge, it is not our business or place to second guess. Now if Harry and Meghan were in their 20s, yes, I would be alarmed but since they are not, I am fine with the “haste” in which they are marrying.

      Just be happy for them. I don’t get the cynicism around this wedding. I was excited for William’s wedding and happy for them, even though I had serious reservations about his fiancee. And even though I don’t like William or his wife, I will say they are perfectly suited for each other, which is scary in and of itself.

      And I would not compare Fergie to Meghan. Way too different and right off the bat, it’s obvious that Meghan has more sense than Fergie ever did. So does my cat, even on her worst days, but that’s a different story.

    2. The ‘quick royal marriage’ was put aside after the failures of several of those marriages – particularly Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah – although those two marriages didn’t fail for the same reasons. The Sophie-Edward, William-Kate long courtship marriages were seen as offering a better chance for success.

      I’m not sure which ‘quick’ royal marriage has lasted – most of the ones I can think of that have lasted were after long courtships. Felipe and Letizia might possibly be the exception.

      No one expected, given their ages, for Harry and Meghan to wait as long as William and Kate but at least months, if not a year, would have been nice.

      However, the point I was making is that the British public never had a chance to meet Meghan in a gradual way – there was all this marriage hype from the start – as a result and because there have been so many competing narratives given about their relationship, and because she comes on so strong (seen as unbecoming not just in women but men as well) her sincerity is hard to ascertain.

      Bogart was the personal deciding factor for me, and I don’t think I’m alone – there was just an article today about the many reasons given for abandoning dogs who are no longer convenient – but I respect those who are prepared to rationalise that. As someone said, Meghan owes us no explanation – but the converse is also true – unless we are convinced about her – we owe her no allegiance either.

      1. Re Bogart, we don’t know the truth. Yes, you read an article, but you don’t know the real deal surrounding the dog and it seems to me you are looking for any reason to dislike Meghan.

        Look, I get it, I have an 18 year old cat who is my world, although she seriously vexing me at the moment. Unless I have hard and I mean hard evidence Meghan abandoned that dog because he was too much of a pain, she gets a pass.

        There is nothing wrong with being strong. I honestly can’t stand people and don’t get people who want and expect women and men to be nothing but doormats. So what Meghan is strong, so what she has opinions. Yes, good for her! We need women like that. What we don’t need are Stepford wives. Being strong is an asset and something should be praised.

        It is not negative in the least, unless you like doormats.

        And why is being strong seen as unbecoming? Is it because people are threatened by a woman with more than two brain cells? Are you anti-feminist? Do you want to regress to the Dark Ages where women were only to be seen and not heard and only seen as having the sole purpose to have kids and to have to always defer to men? ‘
        That is sickening and insulting.

        And again, you aren’t even giving Meghan a chance. Why you can’t is beyond me. I gave The Duchess of Keen! two year of chances. And if I can do that, so can you.

        1. Leah, you’re a cat person? You are my best friend. My big boy who was 22 died almost 2 years ago and I still miss him so much though he was living with my parents for quite awhile there and became my dad’s best friend…

          I think what happened with the dog is: custody with the ex. So ex took him. I do find it strange, and perhaps a bit cold, but I’m also not a dog person. lol

          1. Yes, Ellie, I am. My 18 year old baby just jumped down from lap. She has to have kidney meds, arthritis meds and blood pressure meds, but she is doing great!

        2. The other Julia, sorry I don’t mean to be rude but Meghan has not asked anyone for their allegiance. We the public are the ones insinuating ourselves in Harry’s relationships thinking we know him as our own and therefore should look out for him and for his best interests. Harry is 33 years old, not 3 so he is an adult male that can make his own decisions and the rest of us just need to gratin ourselves to be alright with the decisions Harry makes in his life, after all like he said “I know people are gonna say this is part of the game but its Meghan’s life, and his”. IMO, Harry was just telling everyone that feels they have a right to judge him to just butt out, this is my life MYOB. Thats why prince Harry when his interviewer asked him about “people who know you” he was very quick to firmly point out “they THINK they know me”. None of us knows these people and they probably don’t know us therefore our opinions matter zilch, and I’m sure if you were in Harry’s shoes, you would not welcome such judgemental and negative opinions. I’m always baffled by “the British public needed Meghan to be introduced gradually” comments. And the “we are paying taxes argument” is really old, the Brits are not the only ones who pay some dues to the monarchy therefore I don’t see why prince Harry has to bend out of shape to accommodate anyone.
          And please not the Bogart (RME) yadda,yadda,yadda again. This is Meghan’s dog, she rescued it when no one wanted it, she nursed it back to good health on her own, she has been the sole parent this dog has known for most of its life and she has the dog’s best interest at heart and she knows her dog better than some strangers that feel they should judge her for whatever decisions she made for her dog. If she thought that leaving the dog in Canada was the best for the dog, then so be it, its her dog, she knows whats best for her dog. No one has any right to judge her for doing what she thought was best for Bogart, just like Meghan would never judge anyone for doing whats best for their own pets.

      2. The other Julia, a lengthy relationship doesn’t necessarily translate into a lasting marriage and vice versa. Prince Harry dated Chelsy Davy for 7 years but he still did not marry her. And Im sure no one can really say at this point (eel other than people in her family and inner circle) that yes we really got to know Chelsy and she is this or that kind of person. The then prince Charles dated Camilla for many, many years but still did not marry her, nor she him, until they both were divorced. Barack took Michelle out on their first date sometime in 1989 and by 1992 they married on their way to starting a family; they still are solid and still counting. These are just a few; there are many more marriages that I could list here that were love at first sight and people marrying just months later and the marriages lasted for decades; yet many dating for years and decide to tie the knot but to divorce right after the wedding. If the two that are in the relationship are not bothered by the time it takes them to fall in love and marry, I don’t see why strangers should have a issue with it.

        1. And who exactly put the “quick royal marriage aside”? People get married at whatever time they want because that’s when they feel ready, not because they feel they’ve fulfilled some protocol of dating for years. William did not marry Kate right away not for no one to get to know his future wife, he was the only one that needed to get to know her better, not some strangers. And when he was ready (after several break-ups and mark-ups) then he knew he was ready to make a mrs William out of this woman so he proposed. If William had wanted to marry Kate right out of college he would have done so, he just wasn’t yet ready, it had nothing to do with lengthy courtships or whatever. No one dictates to nobody who or when to get married, stingers shouldn’t be dictating to Harry nor Meghan when those strangers feel its the right time for the 2 to tie the knot.

          1. Not to forget that William spent a fair amount of those 10 years trying to find someone else. He was with other women but none of them (especially in the aristocracy) would touch the RF with a 10-foot pole. They already had wealth and titles and privacy. He was left with Kate as the only willing one and finally had to settle and do his duty. I don’t exactly consider that to be better than two people who dated exclusively for well over a year.

    3. It was a quiz. It was supposed to be silly and frivolous and I don’t get judging someone off of a short clip where they are participating in a quiz. It is not like doing rocket science.

      1. First of all, lovely about your eighteen year old cat! I wish him more happy years!

        You are wrong about my feelings about Meghan. I liked her at the beginning but was very much put off by all the hype and the Vanity Fair article – but had Meghan appeared with both her dogs – I would have happily forgiven all. As I’ve said, she doesn’t owe and explanation but we don’t owe allegiance to her either – and if there is a good reason, why not say it. Perhaps because she’s afraid it will be contradicted. I also came to doubt the corgi story as a cover for giving up Bogart.

        The reason many are concerned about the actress – Hollywood aspect is because those people lead such frivolous lives – quickie marriages, madly in love, then they’re not – over-the-top lifestyles and a lack of sincerity. People like Gwyneth Paltrow preaching their ways of living. Hopefully, Meghan will put that world firmly behind her.

        There is a difference between being strong and coming on too strong – some of the quietest people in the world are the strongest. And yes, it applies to both men and women – it’s a national difference in how things are done – not a gender one.

        Mary was in Denmark for years before she married – the same with Maxima – they are not good examples – it’s the length of the relationship – not the engagement – sorry if I wrote wrongly. And I hope Meghan is wiser than Sarah – that’s a very low bar!

        1. Meghan is not like Gwyneth, who I abhor like no other. But that is another story. When Meghan-and I followed her before her The Tig-first started the Tig, I was put off. I thought it was GOOP copy and too precious.

          But I realize that The Tig, even though I still think it’s a dumbass name was not Goop, thank goodness. No dangerous medical advice given. And it was harmless and fun.

          I don’t doubt the corgi story nor do I see it as a ploy to deflect fro Bogart. Corgis are nasty little dogs and the Queen’s fondness for them has long made me wonder. But the fact that the dogs liked Meghan says a lot, just like my cat showing extreme dislike for a now former friend of mine said a lot.

          I would not consider Meghan a typical Hollywood actor or actress. I have lived in LA for a while, been around lot of actors, she’s not that type. She is very much the exception.

          In some ways, which I won’t get into, because it would open an avenue onto a discussion that many would not get, Meghan has not had a typical Hollywood career. In fact, now that she is marrying Harry, it is very fortunate her career did not go the way in which it could have.

          There are many that have quickie marriages, have over the top lifestyles and are fickle that are not actors. Being an actor is not a guarantee that you will be that way, either. I love Elizabeth Taylor like no other, but not every actress is her. And certainly Meghan is not, although Taylor’s activism in later life was nothing to sneer at, bless her.

      2. You talk about her having opinions and all and you know what I stand with you.People should have opinions and the confidence to express them.But you are missing the gist of the criticsm Leah!
        Being politically neutral is an essential part of being royal in Britain.This applies to the Queen,Duke of Edinburgh,Prince of Wales,Princess of Wales,Duke of Cambridge,Duchess of Cambridge,Prince Harry,his bride to be and a couple of others.
        Now if you are saying that the BRF should change their politically neutral stance then that is a different thing.
        People are just skeptical about how Meghan is going to adjust in the BRF.When I bring up this point,I express concern for Meghan more than express concern for the BRF.Nobody wants her to have adjustment issues due to the severe restrictions of self expression that she will be subjected to.

        1. Prince Charles is far from politically neutral. He has interfered in gvoernment a lot. Come for him before you come from Meghan. After all, he is a blood royal and the heir. If anyone should know better, it’s him.

          Candice, thank for explaining. I see where you come from and I understand your position a bit better now.

        2. Charles has written to government ministers and such, though has not been party political so I personally have no issue with it as I figure like the rest of us he should be able to write his grievances too. They just get bumped to the front of the line and actually read, but having read a lot of the black spider memos, the man has a good head on his shoulders and often was doing the right thing. Charles doesn’t come out complaining about government policy in public or bashing any government administration, Meghan will have to keep her mouth shut.

          1. The ‘spider’ refers to Charles handwriting which is described as spider scrawls. If he writes with a fountain pen, I can imagine the handwriting.

          2. Oh he has openly criticised government policy and often. For a start look at his comments on planning policies. He is far too political which is a reason so many have issues with him becoming King.

      1. Oh I’m no Prince Charles fan either.But you see Charles gets negative press for the political meddling and just because Charles does something does not provide justification.
        Also,Charles and Meghan don’t make for a fair comparison.Charles was born in the monarchy,so he has that leverage.
        And there is a considerable bit of uncertainty surrounding the era of King Charles.Many people doubt the monarchy’s future because of him and Meghan would add to the uncertainty if she were to parade her political opinions.

        1. Charles is also a white man, which gives him the ultimate leverage.

          I would be more concerned about Andrew before Meghan.

    4. @MASAMF, exactly. And honestly, do we know The Former Ms. Middleton any better for her having been with William for 10 years? No. But that is mainly due to two things: one, The Duchess of Keen! wants us to know nothing about her. She just wants to hide away at Mummy Dearest’s or Anmer. And also, there is no there with her.

      1. I am mystified by this “we have not got to know her” rhetoric…almost no one even knew what Kate’s voice sounded like until the engagement. And while many in the UK had a general “awareness” of Kate before marriage, I doubt folks really cared either way. My understanding from living in the UK is that even with the 7 years of dating most people couldn’t name Kate or pick her out of a line up until AFTER the engagement. And even if you were aware of her, what could you have gleaned from what was reported by the media other than she was a young girl who liked to party, vacation and seemed not particularly keen on work?

        Because Meghan has done so many interviews due to her job, we actually know much more about her (or at least what she wants us to know) than we did Kate before and after her engagement. We know Meghan’s passions, political views and hobbies. We know the sound of her voice, some of her struggles growing up and some of her ambitions. Whther or not those bits represent the ‘true’ Meghan, who knows? We all wear several faces and personas in our lives. My work self is vastly different from my personality with friends which is very much different from how I am with my family.

        To the extent that we can ever know a public person without actually knowing them, Meghan has put plenty out for for the people of the UK and Realms to weed through and learn. Personally, the more interviews I watch and things I read about her either written by her and through recounts and stories from the likes of UN Advisors who worked with her, Cindi Leive (Powerhouse behind Glamour) and her co-stars and people she knew in HS (with the exception of Nnaki) and college, I like what I see!

        1. I agree Wisdom. If you want to know Meghan, look at her Instagram or go to youtube and check out her interviews.

          And yeah, this whole “We don’t know her” thing is strange. I put it down to her being American.

        2. It’s an irony that we know much too much about Meghan, her overly expressed political views, her luvvie comments on her romance, her ignorance on some fairly basic questions, her lifestyle and luxuries; but there was no chance to have her come and settle in Britain – for people to get used to her being Harry’s girlfriend – she was put forward as his fiancee almost from the start – and it looked suspiciously like all the leaks and hype was coming from contacts of hers – perhaps from her, herself, pushing, pushing which is probably necessary for an actress but not at all part of being royal. Then it was ‘here I am, isn’t it wonderful… ” before she was barely off the plane – although the timetable of that romance will take a discerning biographer to sort out.

          Most people could identify Kate, you couldn’t walk into a newsagent even before the engagement – let alone afterwards, without seeing her face – and were fine without hearing too much about her or hearing her voice – it wasn’t wanted or expected. She became an established girlfriend of William – even going through a break. Personally, I was worried that she didn’t hold down any sort of job and didn’t stick with anything such as that boat race, and thought there was much too much clubbing and shopping, but I don’t think most people were. (Again ironically, I don’t think Kate is much of a party girl – I believe she did it to attract and please William.)

          Frankly, I think we have two quite well-educated women neither of whom have used their education to much advantage- one caught up with being a glamourous actress, prepared to take on some less than serious jobs in pursuit of that (which many committed actresses won’t) and loving celebrities – the other just being a girlfriend with too little ambition. I would have been very happy for a middle position. If Meghan had pursued a diplomatic career – if Kate had become a teacher or got a job in a gallery – but probably neither would have been marrying princes if they had.

          As for the corgis – what puzzles me is the queen has only one corgi left – the other two dogs are dorgis – that look like dachshunds – nothing like corgis. That’s why the more I thought about it, that corgi story didn’t seem right to me but there was so much gush and fluff in that interview that it’s hard to say. (And some corgis are quite friendly dogs – although apt to be loud.)

          Meghan is here now – I hope every aspect of her celebrity life and her politics is put firmly behind her and if she doesn’t walk three paces behind Harry – she at least lets him speak without interruption. As for Kate, I hope we continue to see her out there more, speaking more.

          For me it comes down to the waves – Meghan waves like she just won the Miss America pageant which perhaps she thinks she has – Kate has that timid feathery wave – I would just like to see a normal wave somewhere in between.

          1. All these comments and snide remarks are very amusing considering you know absolutely nothing about either Kate or Meghan. Its interesting how some strangers refer to themselves are “we”, “us” “our” with regards to the royal family members and their potential partners, as if you are insiders and/or part of the British royal family!!! IMVHO, the BRF is not interested in what the negative nay sayers have to say about them. That is why Meghan said she made it a point to NOT read any papers or articles good or bad, its too much negativity and strangers that know nothing about you all of a sudden think they have a right to bash, judge you and giving unasked for opinions like they are experts on something that they know nothing about. None of you knew Kate before she married William, and none of you know anymore about Kate now than what she wants you to know. You can point her out when you buy the DM or Sun or whatever, but that’s all you can do. Claiming how you knew Kate and would have wanted her to do abcd is just sheer absurdity. What you would have wanted Kate to do is irrelevant, what William wanted Kate to be or do is what matters, the rest of y’all are just strangers sticking your noses where they are not invited. And the same goes for Meghan, what matters at this point (or really at whatever point in their relationship) is what Harry and his family think of her,; none of any other people opinions and especially those of strangers that know nothing about them matter. Meghan double majored in theatre and politics, so she was well within her line of profession when she worked at the embassy and also as an actress, claiming that she did nothing with her degree just shows how much you know nothing about her but just bashing her for the sake of it.
            The corgis story was brought up by Harry so, now you know more about HM’s dogs than Harry does? (I’m just SMH at all the absurdity). And even if they’re doggies or corgis or pit bulls or Chihuahuas or whatever, what difference does it make that Harry said corgis? I guess they were supposed to name each dog by breed just to please some negative people!
            And it never ceases to amaze how people claim to know nothing about Meghan yet they list every single thing about her thats available on the internet!! And yet, in the same paragraph, claim to know quite a lot about Kate and yet can not name one single thing about her that isn’t available on the internet!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 LOL, very bizarre, and it just shows how people will hate a person they know nothing about regardless of what said person does. It doesn’t matter what Kate or Meghan do right or wrong, those that are hell bent on hating them will hate them regardless. William did not marry his wife in 3 weeks not because he had the public in mind and wanted them to know anymore than what he knew about the woman, he just did not marry her because at that point he wasn’t sure if she was the one he wanted to spend the rest of his life with.
            The general public’s “hopes” that Meghan does this or does that, leaves acting behind or takes it with her, do not matter one single thing. Meghan is marrying Harry and his hopes for her is all she cares about, not everyone that wants to have some say in her life, she doesn’t care, she doesn’t even know us.
            Harry did not marry Chelsy Davy because in his heart, he knew this was not the woman for him; same with Cressida. Harry is marrying his Meghan in a heart beat because he knows in his heart that this is the woman for him and AFAHIC, the rest of us can suck a lemon.

  7. There is nothing wrong with Meghan’s past, unless you look down on her being an actress, which is ridiculous. And if you look down on her for being American, that is xenophobic. For God’s sake, give her a chance.

    Meghan is smart, warm, charismatic. She went to one of the best colleges in America. I was actually thinking of going to Northwestern for grad school, but I knew that there was no way I would get in as the qualifications were strict and I knew I couldn’t make it.

    She worked at the Argentinian embassy. She actually has worked and worked hard and knows the meaning of the word work. She didn’t laze around, waiting for a man, wasn’t at his beck and call 24/7. I don’t know why anyone would admire that.

    Meghan is well-read, well-informed, knows her own mind, can make speeches, speaks in her own natural voice and is personable.

    What is not to like is beyond me. I am amazed that people hold her being American against her, like it is the worst thing in the world, look down upon her for being an actress. She succeeded in one of the toughest careers there is and made a name for herself, however minor. Why her perseverance is sneered at is beyond me. And her being biracial is great, because it makes the BRF more accessible to many.

    1. “if they feel ready to take the plunge,then it is not our business to second guess” I find this bit amusing because there is lots of second guessing done on lots of topics on this blog including Pippa’s wedding guest list and Wills and Kate’s faith.
      Actually,we all including yourself talk about many topics which do not concern us. Ah the sin of gossip…
      Anyway, onto Meghan smart is one thing, sincerity is another.Research in her past reveals a version of Meghan that differs from what she appears to present.Example, claiming to not know about Prince Harry.
      Mostly the criticsm surrounding actors and actresses is due to the fact that a considerable number of people who go in that field engage in undignified behaviours to progress.You must have seen Meghan’s ‘the price is right’ photos.

      1. Candice, what “research in her past”? I have to LOL at all this drivel. People, you don’t get to know anyone by reading some googled articles or some gossip columns or some Wikipedia pages. I still go back to what prince Harry said “they THINK they know me”, none of y’all know any of these people to make any conclusions of who they are as a person. You don’t know Meghan from a hole in the ground, you don’t know Harry, you don’t know Kate, you don’t know none of these folks.

        1. Meghan did not say she ‘didn’t know about Harry” she said she didn’t know “MUCH” about him, and she didn’t. She knew a little from reading some papers maybe, she probably read about his crap in Vegas, but that’s about it, she didn’t know the guy from a hole in the ground. Anyone that claims to know Harry on this board is just deluding no one but themselves. Why people think they know these people or that the entire world knows them or even about them is beyond me. My 30 year old daughter was not even aware that HM has any other children other than POW until I was telling her about Duke of yYork history in the US. Just because some of us obsess over the royals doesn’t necessarily mean every person in this world is doing the same thing.

    2. Very true – everything here and on every blog is speculation – including – respectfully, what may or may not be going on in Harry’s heart, which could be anything from a deep and powerful love that can last decades to a boyish love-at-first-sight infatuation that will fade. We don’t know that, and that is further than I would wish to speculate. I can only hope it is a strong love because royal divorce is awful – nothing like Hollywood – it didn’t work out -so sorry – marriages.

      My only interest outside of a certain admittedly irrational dog feeling (when you follow rescues, that happens – there’s always a ‘great’ reason for abandoning a pet and it leaves a foul taste) is Meghan in her new ‘job’ as a member of the royal family and representing a nation brand new to her – and there we have a right to be interested and to be concerned with how much she knows about that nation – not just facts but subtle things. No one would vote Meghan – or Kate – or Andrew – or even Sophie – or Philip – as ambassador to to a foreign nation – but by reasons of birth and personal romantic choices by those born into the family – we get these people.

      I do support the royal family because there is an amazing history and tradition behind it – but any member of it by definition is asking for allegiance – and even deference. Unlike celebrities or politicians – that’s what royals are about.

  8. It wasn’t Price is Right, it was Deal or No Deal. And yes, I saw them. So what? She wasn’t naked in them. I find Meghan sincere. And I find her past nothing to be looked down on or sneered about. She was a hard working woman who made it as an actress. And Meghan is not every actor and actress. I find such a priggish attitude towards actors to be very Victorian. You and others act like it is the lowest profession in the world. Would you be happier if she was a nun?

    I live in LA and I know a lot of people like Meghan who had parents in the biz and coast on that and do nothing. I can also tell you that a lot of native Angelenos don’t have the drive or curiosity about the world that Meghan has and that is to be praised.

    She said she didn’t know much about Harry, she didn’t say she didn’t know who he was. And honestly, so what? Who cares? It’s nitpicking at this point. Just give her a chance. I gave The Duchess of Keen! two years before I gave up on her.

  9. No title will make a diffrence in the happiness of H&M nor in the success of your marriage. True love is what will keep they together and happy. I am sure tha this is the moust matter to then.(Sorry for erros. I am an inglesh studant)

    1. ‘So what?’
      So,she was being dishonest.That is what!If she is so educated,well travelled,posing outside Buckingham Palace and not living under a rock,she knew very well who Harry was!Why say otherwise?
      The Deal No Deal photos weren’t nudes but her poses were inappropriate.
      But I agree Meghan has many things in her favor too,such as her savviness,articulate manner of speaking ,education and people skills.I hope she beats the odds and suceeds and wish Harry and her a happy existence!

      1. Candice,

        It was quite obvious to me that she meant that she did not know Harry beyond what everyone knows about him. Of course she knew “of” him.

      2. @Candice, so I’m guessing you also believe Kate Middleton should never have married William and has no business being queen consort or having the various titles that she has? I’m assuming you’re up in arms about how inappropriate Kate is as a royal bride for wearing a see-through slip as a dress in that fashion show? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/12/article-0-0B25C75F00000578-101_306x887.jpg

        And another stroll down the catwalk in an outfit of just a strapless, lacy bra for a top and her underwear peeking out of her unbuttoned bottoms? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/21/17/0C198D82000005DC-3548157-Cat_calls_Kate_modeled_on_catwalk_at_student_fashion_show_with_F-m-129_1461255677896.jpg

        Or for having flashed her naked butt – multiple times – to attract/impress/get the attention of boys when she was a uni student? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3548157/How-sexy-Kate-Middleton-flashed-nude-bum-male-students-passed-second-story-dorm-window-90-TIMES-earned-moniker-Kate-Middlebum-revealed-new-book.html

        Not to mention Kate’s bare a$$ flashing while on official duty! I won’t post the links to those NSFW photos but Kate has basically shown as much skin as Meghan has in her acting career, if not more!! I don’t remember so many people having so many objections to Kate Middleton as a royal fiance and bride even as they excoriate Meghan for the same (or lesser) transgressions.

        1. I have a feeling Candice overlooks the many, many, many, many flaws of The Duchess of Keen!. She is fine with William’s wife as she is not divorced, American, not an actress and is not biracial.

          1. Leah – I wonder. Do we get ‘new’ trolls everyday that are really the same person using another name? Or are they completely new trolls? It’s not thee attitude of pointing out all flaws that makes me think troll, it’s the lack of logic behind the diatribe. In either case, I don’t feed trolls. Let’s ignore them.

  10. You think her poses were inappropriate. There was nothing wrong with them. That was a requirement of her job. Your job does not define you.

    And Meghan said she didn’t know much about Harry, different thing.

    1. Well she pursued what she wanted and had to make ends meet.Kudos to her for working to do so.She has nothing to be ashamed of,people have done stuff that when they look back ,it would seriously make them cringe and if her doing deal or no deal is going to be used against her, who cares? I find it admirable that she actually hustled and strived to make it.oh for heaven’s sake! It’s a quiz and I bet if she actually knew It,people would find faults with that as well.You said she lied about knowing Harry even though she never said anything about not knowing him just that she didn’t know MUCH about him and BP is a tourist site.People pose and take pics,I don’t see how that relates to knowing him

      1. Sam, I feel the same way. Meghan’s grit and hustle is extremely admirable. Shows what she is made of. Strong work ethic, that girl.

    2. @GraceH, I wonder as well. I have noticed that some trolls haven’t posted in here awhile and they never go to the KMR board, which is weird, because severaral are pro-Kate.

      1. Guess you’re replying to my post at 10:03pm. 🙂 This MMR reply button scheme is the opposite of the one on KMR. I see so many displaced replies. I wish MMR would put the reply button *in front* of the poster’s name. Then there would be no doubt to whom you are replying. If that’s no possible, use the same posting pattern as KMR. It’s so confusing. So MMR – can you do something about the confusing reply button P-L-E-A-S-E. TY.

    3. GraceH: Awww you can’t handle others who hold different opinions than you:-)
      If you don’t like what I have got to say you could simply scroll by.
      Leah: Don’t rely on feelings.If you feel like discussing things in detail just email me at Candicecevans@gmail.com
      Race appears to be a huge issue for you.You must have had bad experience in the past.I assure you race does not matter to me. I guess in your excitement about a bi-racial princess you are unable to consider any issues that Meghan may have when it comes to representing the BRF.I’ll give her a chance.

      1. I don’t have time to read all the comments but normally Candice, you have one or two liners on KMR. This board I see a change.

        I just want to say that you’re not a troll.

  11. ‘Your job does not define you’. Yes it does! It does not completely define you but to an extent it does. If job does not define you at all, then why do you mention Catherine’s lack of one as a negative thing?
    Re poses
    Well we will have to agree to disagree here.She looked like a frivolous stripper in those shots.
    I acknowledge her positives.I listed them in my previous comment. However, she is not without negatives.
    Have a good day:-)

    1. Ok, I will give you that yes, your job can define you. Meghan was not a stripper, no matter what she looked like and I think what Sofia did was far worse. If there was ever anyone unsuited to be a royal, it’s her.

      I am a Meghan fan and I will always root for her. I feel she will excel in her role and I am will be cheering her every step of the way. Will she make mistakes? Yes, everyone does. But making mistakes in the first few years of royal life is to be expected. I hope people realize that.

      Now if she is making major mistakes 10 years in, there’s a problem.

    2. If you want to look at a stripper marrying into the Royal Family google Sofia of Sweden. Now that is a disgusting gold-digger who’s made comments about women who are raped just don’t have the confidence to say no. Not to mention an old blog of hers, where she wrote about sugar daddies, tossing a coin as to who got up to feed sugar daddy’s child, and her history of filthy night club hopping and probably prostitution.

      1. That is not what Sofia said about rape victims. Sofia commented that the women whom Project Playground works with who have been raped often lack confidence because they’ve been raped. She never said that rape victims are raped because they lack confidence.

  12. I am pleased that Kensington Palace have announced a date for the wedding. It is such an exciting time and I hope Meghan and Harry are taking time out to enjoy this special time before the ceremony. Edward and Sophie got married on a Saturday as I remember because I went to a fete and then watched on the news that the couple had married.

  13. I was so looking forward to a royal wedding, tiaras and beautiful gowns. But this is just depressing. Can’t we just agree to disagree instead that we are being told what to think and feel? I was feeling quite neutral about Meghan, I had not formed an opinion yet. Now it’s starting to be really difficult to form an objective one because the more I’m being told that I have to like her, the less I start to like her. It’s sad, because that’s not her fault.
    But I’m still looking forward to the 19th May and hope that that won’t change here in between. I would like to see plenty of tiaras and foreign royals. The Swedes, the Norwegians and the Danes! I probably shouldn’t hold my breath though.

    1. “I was so looking forward to a royal wedding, tiaras and beautiful gowns. But this is just depressing. Can’t we just agree to disagree instead that we are being told what to think and feel? I was feeling quite neutral about Meghan, I had not formed an opinion yet. Now it’s starting to be really difficult to form an objective one because the more I’m being told that I have to like her, the less I start to like her. It’s sad, because that’s not her fault.”


      1. So on both of your blogs people express strong opinions, neutral opinions, loving opinions, mean opinions. Some strongly disagree, argue and agree even etc on a variety of subjects. There are those who defend and maligned Kate and Meghan with equal fever. It bothers me when people are extreme in their adoration and dislike of both of these women, but hey that’s how they feel. Some like me fall somewhat in the middle for both, (I wouldn’t say I am neutral, but I tend to have a leaning towards one side or the other) with things I like and dislike about both women. But I just don’t understand why it’s deemed as bad thing, when someone defends Meghan as a response to anothers comment. I just don’t see the difference from those who are quick to defend Kate.

        1. I hate the extreme negativity expressed toward Kate and Meghan (and to a lesser extent Sofia and Camilla) and the never ending bickering that happens about them. It makes it unenjoyable to follow and write about them. I get people have different views, but the negativity and bickering is exhausting for me.

          1. I went back and read some of the back and forth here… and I see your point… it’s the “your wrong for feeling this way” tone… so yeah now I get it… What I puzzled by is the extreme dedication to loving or hating, someone that we only see a very small percentage of their life. People most likely never meet and have no true impact in our day to day lives. This should be fun a sort of escape life is hard enough.

      2. @KMR who is telling you to like her? I think its just an excuse not to like her anyway.
        Things I like about MM.
        1. She’s very eloquent
        Things that will cause trouble for MM.
        1.She’s talks too much.
        Anyway i can tell she’s going to have a rough time. I hope she loves Harry enough or learns to be more like Kate. Self preservation.

        1. @AO, +1000000.
          It bothers me very much when I read posts that state that my posting here is “making” people hate Meghan. I feel that that is a passive aggressive way of making me feel guilty and bad about my opinions. No one is “telling” people to feel a certain way. People don’t have to like Meghan if they don’t like her. When I first came to these boards, my assumption was that they were created for people to voice different opinions, I never thought that only people of like minds would be the only acceptable posters. But I find that lately, its starting to look like in order for my posts to not be deemed “hateful” I have to conform to a certain way of posting; I have to not in any way criticize Kate but have to be mostly negative about Meghan. It seems (to me at least) that any time I post something nice about Meghan my post will be interpreted as one that’s “making” people hate Meghan. Its like the expectation is if and when I read negative posts about Meghan, I should just follow suit and add more negativity and/or judgmental material just to make people feel good. I have read a lot of nice, sticky sugary posts about Kate AND some really nasty ones about her as well but none have ever changed how I feel about Kate, I still like her the same. And I don’t feel that my friends that criticize Kate or write the nice things about her are “making” me feel a certain way. Likewise, I don’t like being made to feel bad and guilty about how I feel about either Meghan or Kate, its not fair.

          1. And I don’t like being attacked for saying I think an outfit is boring. I don’t care if people like Meghan (I want to like her, although I still don’t know enough to form a solid opinion), but why do I have to not voice an opinion just because it’s not wholly positive? That’s the sense I get from some people here – that I can’t voice an opinion unless it’s positive. I tend not to voice my opinions of Meghan anymore to avoid getting yelled at. And you may say that if I can’t take the yelling, then that’s on me and I shouldn’t be a blogger, but that kind of negativity is not something I want out of something that is supposed to be fun escapism. In fact, the negativity on KMR is one of the reasons I don’t post as much over there and barely voice an opinion about Kate either. Reading so much negativity – either from super negative people (those who hate Meghan AND those who hate Kate), or from super fans yelling at others (fans of Kate AND fans of Meghan) – is not fun. It’s exhausting. And it puts me in a negative space. And maybe KMR and MMR were always that bad and I just didn’t see it, and if so then that’s on me, but where I’m at in my life now, I don’t want anymore negativity infiltrating my life. Things are negative enough as is.

        2. I got torn to shreds for saying I thought Meghan’s photocall outfit was boring and that I was disappointed in it because I wanted something more interesting. I was very excited the morning Meghan got engaged, then I was disappointed in her outfit and said so, and then I mostly stopped caring about her because I can’t have an opinion without being yelled at by her fans.

          1. MMR I feel that we can all voice different opinions without being catty and nasty both to each other and also to both Meghan or Kate. I started visiting KMR beginning of 2016 and I posted some there for a while till I stopped because I was attacked for saying something positive about Kate and William. But even then, I just self examined and realized that no one’s opinions can make me change how I feel about the Cambridges, I feel how I feel about them because I genuinely like them and that’s that. Now, people are allowed to love or hate the Cambridge’s if they want, I just don’t like making someone feel bad or guilty about liking or not liking Kate just because I feel a certain way, its just not fair. If you don’t like Meghan that’s fine, just don’t say that my posts are “making you hate her” that’s not fair to me either. One’s choice to like/dislike or love/hate a person is not and should not be dependent on how other people feel about said person, its a personal choice and none should be burdened with making others feel a certain way.

          2. @KMR am sorry you got torn to shreds for posting your opinion. I love your blog and your voice don’t let the aggressive love/hate of kate/meghan shut you up.

            I guess this means that you’re getting the duchess treatment because that is what kate/meghan are experiencing. lol

          3. I know what you mean… I for one… will think twice and try to see it from a more objective point of view even if I disagree before posting a response. But FYI I will cut a bitch if anyone says anything bad about Princess Victoria of Sweden, cause she is everything!!! 🙂 Let’s have FUN!!

    2. “I was so looking forward to a royal wedding, tiaras and beautiful gowns. But this is just depressing. Can’t we just agree to disagree instead that we are being told what to think and feel? I was feeling quite neutral about Meghan, I had not formed an opinion yet. Now it’s starting to be really difficult to form an objective one because the more I’m being told that I have to like her, the less I start to like her. It’s sad, because that’s not her fault.”

      I have been thinking the very same thing Summer From Finland.

      1. MMR – you do an excellent job managing and moderating both of your blogs. I hope they can return to being the critical, thoughtful, and respectful sites you had intended.

  14. I know many have jumped all over William and his wife for their lack of warmth and connection to their foreign royal counterparts, but frankly, Harry is guilty of this too. I doubt we will see foreign royals en masse at Harry’s wedding and quite frankly, I don’t think that is what Harry wants.

    1. I don’t get the impression that Charles is that close to many foreign royals either – Edward and Sophie are the ones that turn up to weddings etc. I can see the Greeks being there as they are close to Charles and the Royal Family. And Margarethe of Denmark is close to QE11. I would not be surprised to see a showing of older royals, but would be surprised to see too many who are in their 30’s or 40’s – there does not seem to be any interaction between William, Harry and the royals of their generation.

      1. Charles was close to the King of Romania-he just attended his funeral and he is close to Islamic royals.

        1. Charles is also close to the Spanish Royals. IN fact, I think Felipe’s wedding is the only wedding Charles’ attended of his “peers” in the heir realm. It also explains the big to-do the UK threw for TM Felipe and Letizia. There are of course those famous pics from the Spanish vacation of Charles, Diana and the Boys with the SRF.

          1. Wisdom, thank you for this. I forgot. There is a theory that Charles does not associate with his peers, so to speak cause they some of them have already ascended thrones.

          2. Yeah, and I’m sure Charles feels he has nothing in common considering they are all younger than him. He’s in this weird state of limbo. The Brits are close to the Norwegians and the Spanish. And the Danes. All relations!

  15. Is it actually a sure thing that Harry will accept a title? I remember reading in one of his biographies that he didn’t want a title. This was him in his 20s when he himself stated he went through a rebellious stage, but it is possible that he could turn down a title…just a thought.

    1. Oh dear God, I hadn’t thought of that. I hope he doesn’t turn down a title, I really don’t. We will never hear the end of it. Haters will say it is because the Queen hates Meghan, that Meghan doesn’t get a title due to her race, nationality, being divorced, “Even Wallis got a title”.

      Please God, don’t let Harry turn down a title.

      I am beginning to think Meghan won’t wear a tiara, either.

      1. Meghan understands the semiotics of dress and accessories. HM will lend tiaras. With a bit of hinting perhaps Harry will purchase a tiara with good provenance (with assistance from a good jeweler) that is to Meghan’s taste so she has one that is always hers. Doing this sooner rather than later will help identify her style. There is also the possibility that he could trade stones from the jewelry he received from his mother to create a new piece using gems Meg prefers. And there would be no reason for anyone to know that he used existing jewelry for that purpose.

  16. KMR – Why does the edit function button on MMR appear at times and disappear at others immediately after posting? This doesn’t happen on the other blog. Does it have something to do with the number of replies to an original post?

      1. Also, why does the KMR board tell you something was posted a day ago and this board gives you the exact time? Can we do as the KMR board and go with a post was posted a day ago, instead of the exact time? That way it is easier to skip past the older posts.

  17. I have been following both KMR and MMR for the past year or so, and for the most part I find them to be very thoughtful critiques with informative, logical posts. I haven’t felt I have had anything productive to contribute, so beyond a comment a few months ago, I have been quiet. Recently, I have read some interesting comments that I thought about replying to. However, I refrained as it seems like certain opinions are appreciated more than others. While I would have expected these two blogs to accept varying points of view (assuming a respectful, inoffensive tone), the reality appears to be the opposite in recent weeks.

    For example, I have recently observed comments complimentary to the Duchess of Cambridge to be criticized and comments critical of Megan Markle to be considered racist.

    Is this a fair assessment? If not, please let me know.

    1. And here is the clue to your observation: “…the reality appears to be the opposite in recent weeks.” In recent weeks several British RF forums have closed down topics related to the British Royal Family or closed entirely. Some posters there have migrated here. The attitude they had on those boards are clashing with the attitudes of posters here. You can’t go wrong prefacing or concluding your post with IMO if you believe your comment seems too strong for the thread. It invites conversation instead of retaliation. Perhaps you may want to observe a while to see if new posters calm down or leave. But do keep reading and think about posting. IMHO.

      1. Indeed. Harry and Meghan are polarizing. Really, Meghan is polarizing (three guesses as to why). RD shut down its Harry sub-forum and TRF regularly has to shut down the Harry topics for “maintanence”

        Harry, unlike probably any other royal besides maybe Kate, has a strong following of people who really like him. This never used to be an issue on RD, for example, where the board was able to host both folks who liked Harry and those who were critical. IMO, it changed when a small subset of posters didn’t like who Harry was with in Meghan and it spiraled from there. With the closure of RD’s Harry section means that some of the more…anti Harry and Meghan folks have spread out over different forums and they clash with the pro-Harry and Meghan folks or those who are simply indifferent. I am obviously biased, but I do think there is a difference between fair critiques of them as individuals, and the outlandish shit peddled by some on RD and such.

        At the end of the day, discussion can be kept civil if we all remember that we are talking about real people, with real lives who make mistakes and are not perfect (this applies to Kate and William too). It also relies on all of us being clear with our words and not taking things personally or assuming malice toward each other. After all, this is just the internet and I know I am a royal watcher to escape the bs of the world, not to get into personal arguments!

        1. Garnet P, Grace H, Wisdom heaven: YES! Absolutely lovely sentiments.

          I left RD myself after, shall we say, a disagreement with moderation. That’s what I love about KMR/MMR – fair, reasonable and thoughtful. I was delighted to stumble across once, and have continued coming back ever since.

      2. Garnet P: I agree with you.That has been my own observation as well.In fact anti Meghan posters are called trolls by other posters.It is sad really!

    2. I don’t like the attitude of–how dare you criticize Meghan, you’re racist, etc. Lots of us have differing opinions. We can welcome them here, as well as at KMR, as long as people aren’t aggressive or rude to one another I think. It gives KMR/MMR more to worry about on her blogs and is probably tiresome as hell when this is supposed to be a fun escape not some heated discussion about who likes who, who is policing who, etc.

    3. A lot of it started when some Kate sugars ventured onto KMR and started personally attacking anyone who said a single negative thing about Kate. It didn’t matter that these blogs are critical – meaning we don’t buy the PR and will discuss the good, bad, and ugly about Kate and the BRF – it was pro-Kate or else. They believe a lot of the horsesh*t that is easily disproved and can be as rabid as the uber-Diana fans. These folks were given control somehow and really did a number on more than a few longtime readers who are balanced in their comments.

      I think that, as a result of that, people have become defensive. Almost a PTSD type of thing. I’ve noticed many of the sugars have disappeared here very recently and for the most part it’s settling down, but there are still some knee-jerk reactions from folks who were consistently ripped apart over that period. It might take a little while for folks to let down their guard again and not automatically turn defensive. It will help if the obvious trolls/sugars aren’t given so much room to move here. I think that would require someone to volunteer as a moderator/admin, though, due to the amount of posts here and the speed with which commenting happens.

  18. Reminder to All:
    TROLL: A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
    Don’t feed the trolls.

  19. The abuse that Meghan took on Royal Dish was beyond anything I had ever seen and to be honest, it was driven by racism, pure and simple. Of course, the moderators were in cahoots and did nothing to stop it, until they realized they had to close down the Harry section.

    Also, the mods on that board were awful, esp Maria.

    A lot of people were/are butt hurt that Harry is with Meghan and they hide their racism and nationalism behind microaggressions.

    And there are trolls out there who believe Meghan is blacmailing the Queen and feel that Harry is under some kind of spell and that they aren’t really engaged.

    The only thing I can compare it to is the loonies who feel that Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are secretly married. And Rob’s ex fiancee FKA Twigs took the same amount of racial abuse Meghan did.

    People act up real quick when a woman of color lands a white man. There is no other way to say it.

    And I fear that the worst of the abuse for Meghan is still to come.

    1. The mods play favorites as often happens… So the favorites can do as they please, say as they like and the rest of the plebeians get banned or warned or whatever. It’s poor moderation. I get not wanting to deal with a lot of the nastier subset of, you know, regular commentators but c’mon. I got warned for getting into an argument pointing out someone who is a mod favorite was all over Harry like white on rice til he started dating Meghan then that poster thinks he’s Satan.

      1. IDK, the way Sophia of Sweden is treated on that board and even Mary of Denmark is pretty hard to top. Meghan had plenty of supporters on the board, Sofia and Mary fan are are pretty quickly driven out of town. As someone who likes Mary, I totally avoid the DRF section as a result.

        And as i said, it was a small subset of very zealous posters…most people were either indifferent/wait and sees or fans/at least intrigued. Unfortunately, that small group made it unpleasant for many folks and so they just stopped posting. I myself got into arguments I never should have with folks who had zero desire to actually engage in discussion. I am glad its been closed. I hope it reopens, but I think folks on both sides needed time to cool off, myself included.

        However, its not only an RD thing. Maybe the antis are the same on both sites, I don’t know. But even a board as strictly moderated (WAY too strictly IMO) as TRF has had trouble with the Harry threads since Meghan. People are passionate on both sides.

        I think the royal watcher community is just in totally new territory with Meghan and it shows in the responses.

    2. Royal Dish has always looked like a trash heap whenever I’ve been brave enough to go there. I prefer Celebitchy and LoveLolaHeart.

  20. Well – reading all the posts puts some things in perspective – some people will be “on-side” with Meghan and some won’t. Same as Kate. It is not a competition. These ladies chose to be with very high profile people and will have to live with the positives as well as the negatives – unless they or their husbands decide that things have run the course. IMO Pippa seems to have got the better deal – if that is what you want – married into a very rich family – both her in-laws and her husband – and while she won’t be at every tiara event going she can do as little as she wants or as much. If we were not interested in royals we would not be reading all of the postings. I think KMR does a great job in terms of reporting what is out there with a bit of snark when it is due. Neither Kate or Meghan will always be well dressed for the occasion, or make an appropriate speech, or look interested. But the British Royal Family are a “brand” and they need interest – positive or otherwise – to remain relevant. IMO once QE11 is no longer here things will start to slide. Depending on how long Charles survives I can well see him being the last King. If it is another 20 years I suspect he will outlast me.

    1. Pippa, though, seems hungry for fame. She has the better ‘deal’ in terms of being able to avoid scrutiny as a private citizen and live luxuriously on someone else’s back, but she craves the spotlight. But if a woman makes that deal, there is a trade-off and the man holding the money will ultimately call the shots of your life. I agree with you that Charles will most likely be the last king. The aristocracy will survive without the monarchy, as it has done in Europe, and there is less appetite for funding royalty to the level currently being enjoyed. Apart from occasions of state, there is little real need. Charity work is a relatively new addition and done to increase visibility and relevance, but you’d need to ask whether the BRF should be paid for undertaking it.

  21. I never got the disdain for CP Mary. I got banned from Royal Dish for calling people out. I have no idea if it was a small subset of posters, but they had mighty voices.

    I will admit though that The Duchess of Keen! was roasted on the daily-and people think I’m harsh on her.

    I agree we are in new territory with Meghan-I had just hoped, it being the 21st century and all, people would be more progressive.

    1. The Mary dishing seems board wide. It is the only kind of Mary posting allowed pretty much. I learned that real quick.

      1. Well I guess Maria at RD decides what is OK or not – I responded to a comment suggesting there are many views and she called me out. When I challenged her I was told I could not “argue” with her and got “warned” – after that I stopped being involved. Apparently she – who lives in Europe – knows better about Australian views of royality than those who live in the country – anyway I suspect if I took my “views” of Danish royals on the rubbish press there then I would be no better informed than anyone who reads the Oz equivalent . . . . people who read these sites are interested in seeing photos of clothes and jewels . . . . . and not being told what they can or cannot think or say

      2. Yes – those that came from Titles and Old Money generally suppoted local charities and got involved with them. “New” money didn’t so much unless it would help promote them with those of influence. I suspect these days the recently rich have no interest in the Titled County Set – too busy going to some “destination” in Europe on weekends to want to do the “charity” thing

          1. The creator of RD is Danish and a republican but her hatred of Mary is eerie. It’s not normal to spend that much energy hating someone who isn’t actively harming anyone.

            I think CP Mary is an excellent advocate for women and she’s done a great job with her platform. She used money that she got as a wedding gift to start her own foundation (she was criticized for this but I think it’s great) and they do good for domestic violence, bullying and loneliness prevention.

          2. I don’t know much about the Danish royals but the little I know about Mary seems like she works on actual causes. Of course there is probably PR spin to make the work look more elaborate and outrageous spending on clothing which all royals seem to do, but it’s like she murdered babies if you read RD.

            Considering she moved to Denmark and learned the language, it at least seems like she put some effort into the princess position.

        1. I think part of it comes from her unabashed celebration at becoming a royal and the story of ripping up her debt collection letters because she was becoming a princess and wouldn’t have to pay them off. Something of the sort. She’s always had that Cheshire cat look to me but I haven’t paid enough attention to her to make any kind of real judgment. All I really know is she has a pitiful tiara selection to choose from and I don’t like any of the ones she currently wears.

          1. Yeah, and stalking Frederick, though he was no better sleeping with Mary when he was dating someone in Denmark, left, thought he was rid of Mary, and she showed up! His mother did not want her sons to ever marry a Dane.

        2. It is the same problem that a lot of people have with royals. She was harshly criticised for spending huge amounts of money on (non danish) designer pieces. The public wanted her (and her husband) to work more and party/holiday less. It is just harder to get those informations if they are aren’t mostly in English, as most people speak their own language and English but seldom two or three more.
          For every royal lady there is at least a website that criticises her for these things. And on the baseline this criticism is rightfully earned by everyone of them. They all spent ridiculous amounts of money on designer clothes and accessories that aren’t even promoting their own country and often enough look very ugly. The women in the BRF are no exception.

  22. My conjecture is that If harry is friends with Pippa then she may be invited. Let’s face it, the Middleton girls didn’t get where they are by being unfriendly to the right people. However Harry has now met somebody who is the friendliest, to him, so we’ll see what happens. I expect Pippa will be invited. Meghan is not silly and knows the Middleton’s are a package deal. It would be unwise to offend Kate and William by not inviting Pippa.

    1. I don’t see how not inviting the Middlings would offend William and his wife. The Middlings are nothing to Meghan and Harry is not close to them. I have never heard of in-laws of in-laws going to weddings like that.

    1. I figured Meghan would wear something made by a woman, she has been a champion of women for a long time. But I also thought she might wear something by a not so famous designer, just to give that person a “push” if you may But,. I never thought she might go to Israel; good for her, she’s breaking some of barriers that seemed non breakable a few years back. You go girl!!

      1. This is likely one of the numerous designers she has requested a sketch from. Nothing set in stone yet; we won’t know until much later.

      2. Ingbal makes some daring stuff. Are we sure though, that this is legit? I couldn’t tell from the article and to be honest, I am not sure her wearing a non-English designer will go down well.

        Also, it is not smart of Ingbal to jump the gun and announce this.

        I am, however, all for Meghan shattering that glass ceiling. I was very impressed by the fact that the journalist that did the engagement interview was a woman and person of color.

        1. @Jessica and @Leah, you probably right, to early to tell. I would have loved it if she wore some Canadian designer though, but alas, its not up to me and neither does my opinion matter, 🙂 😉

          1. Regardless of the creativity of the designers, it’s an easy own goal if she doesn’t wear British. A pass if she picks Canadian or USA to honour the 2 countries she comes from by birth and by employment.

            Since the second world war, these weddinfs have become easy PR for the royals and the brides use them to signal to the public.

            Lots of easy points if dress has lots of British elements and is a British designer because it is seen as showcasing British talent.

            It’s not an ironclad rule, but it’s an easy win for all royal brides marrying into the various royal families to showcase the talent of their new country.

            Btw, speculation about dress designer is a national sport and the palace and a few designers play it for maximum self-publicity.

            No one knows for sure until the day of the wedding when bride is unveiled. It’s like the oscar red carpet with more secrecy and more anticipation.

          2. A UK-designed dress, made by local artisans (lace-makers, cloth weavers et al) would be a superb statement. Britain is chock full of great designers, both well-known and starting out. What a boost to young talent if Meghan chose the latter. And similarly, the use of everything local to create the garment, shows support of and confidence in her new country.

            I can well understand a designer making a bold claim, as per the article mentioned. I rarely comment on clothes on this forum, but no, just no to those dresses.

          3. I think it could also add uneeded controversy if she picked an Israeli designer because of current US policy with Jerusalem that is contrary to current UK policy. Whether or not it is fair that a wedding dress would be viewed that way, some parts of the media would make it an issue and it should be avoided. This is where she needs solid advisers to help navigate these kinds of things. I agree with Herazeus that’s it is best to stick with an English, Commonwealth or American designer.

          4. It would be lovely if Meghan got in touch with Sophie and through Sophie’s patronage of London fashion schools and the like, had students do her gown. I’d go that route were I Harry’s fiancee, honestly.

          1. Actually, Ellie, I think the best thing for Meghan is to get in touch with the new editor of British Vogue, Edward Enniful and have him help her. Edward also being the first black editor of Vogue would also have a unique take on the fashion world in London as a person of color.

            I know Diana consulted British Vogue in the early years and I think they led her to the Emmanuels, who designed her wedding gown.

  23. I heard that Anne does not approve of Harry and Meghan’s engagement. Anyone know if this is so or if they have heard anything? I know Anne is close to Harry.

    1. @Leah,
      At this point, anyone that says this or that BRF member fells this or that way about Meghan is just her say, the girl has been engaged to just over a couple of weeks, it’d way to soon for anyone to form an opinion!! Unless of course they disapproved of Meghan even the engagement.

      1. It’s not just her facial expression, it’s how she is. She’s not considered to be warm but I think she’s fine.

  24. Oh I like Princess Anne a lot. No nonsense and down to earth. She does not particularly care for children either. She is a gem to the BRF. Her kids have turned out well too.

    1. For someone who isn’t supposed to care for children, the photos of Anne at horse events show her to be a wonderful granny – I think it’s more she’s just not sentimental.

      Although I deplored the use of Peter Phillips’ firm for the royal birthday – no wonder he is one of the least popular royals – before that I have thought Anne did quite a fine job of raising her children to be relaxed confident people. And the use of his firm was mostly the palace’s fault – they should have made it clear – as most firms do – that there could be no applications from firms with members connected to the royal family.

    2. I love Anne. Her “rags to riches” comment during William & Kate’s wedding was gold. Bless the cameraman who caught that one.

  25. Princess Anne does not need PR. Her numbers speak for herself and one thing that I admire about her is that she has not got lumped into childrens’ charities. Many people associate women with children and she is clearly one of those women who doesn’t go gaga for babies. She knows what she likes and does not let people’s expectations faze her.

      1. Yes,she is.
        But they are not her main focus or in other words her selling point.She is obviously lovely to the kids.Nothing wrong with that,what I meant to communicate is that she is different from many royal ladies when it comes to her image and I dig that about her.

    1. +1
      However Princess Anne did communicate with Kate at the races by showing her something.
      Princess Anne seems to adore her grandchildren. She doesn’t need to spoil them.

    1. I expect J. Mulroney will be the main go-to person for Meghan for her wedding dress and everything style-related, but as a bridesmaid/matron of honor? She seeks the spotlight more than just about any of Meghan’s other friends, so she would really have to tone it down.

      But Jessica’s daughter, Ivy, whom she promotes at every opportunity (child model for at least one clothing line), will definitely be a little flower girl.

  26. I’ve been following a few royal forums and blogs for a while now, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the diehard H&M fans are just as bad as the diehard Cambridge fans. Both fractions are equally bias to the point of bitterness & occasional nastiness. It’s become like a modern day West Side Story and each fan has to choose whether they are a Jet or a Shark!

    When you think about it, there is nothing individually brilliant about William, Kate, Harry or Meghan. Their achievements & accomplishments are average at best, but yet we hype them up as if they were the second coming. We need to remember that these are just four normal people who have been handed a position of privilege, and they will be heavily pampered for the rest of their lives for doing average work at best. They are not pioneers of anything nor will they bring about any real social change in the world. They are mostly ornamental figures who really do not deserve all the praise & adulation they are getting. While it is nice to have a discussion, however we mustn’t get carried away by putting any of them on too high a pedestal.

    1. A sober and correct review of the four, though I would not be so generous to give them an ‘average’ rating; they have a way to go to get there because they do not engage often enough or deeply enough to enact any real change.

    2. Brilliant, All About Eve. And true.

      Because in the end, in this day and age, they are celebrities and are being touted and treated as such. I also agree with Jen, that they are well below average. They are trust fund babies, or royal baby adjacent. They are. Celebrities.

  27. Sorry cant lump Meghan with those other 3. She is not the best actress but has somehow been able to forge a semi decent career in cut throat Hollywood. I think she was planning to work in Dc after her time in Argentina but was approached by an agent at a party and so changed careers.
    She is a driven campaigner and by all accounts very hardworking. I believe that this is the quality that makes her unsuitable for the Monarchy. It’s all good for Ann and Harry to forge their own path within that institution but i think it will be a lot harder for a newcomer.

    1. Meghan’s acting career was average at best. This is why I said there is nothing individually brilliant about it, and as you said yourself her acting talent was not the best. Nothing sets her apart from the other thousands of average tv actors out there. Virtually every actor & celebrity has done some humanitarian work, and Meghan’s humanitarian efforts thus far has been admirable but not outstanding.

      1. Agreed, again. Meghan’s handful of charity interactions have occurred over the last few years, in tandem with ‘Suits’ and her PR representation. The company also established at least one charitable platform itself, One World, through which it feeds several of its clients, including Meghan, to raise profiles. It is what it is.

      2. Being part of a 7yr tv show isn’t average by entertainment industry standards. It’s fairly successful. Btw for every one actor you see on tv there is hundreds more unemployed. Entertainment industry isn’t for the faint hearted

    2. Nuh-uh, AO. She is not a driven campaigner. If she were, there would be truly solid, consistent and constant evidence and I’m not seeing it. She dabbled. Like her husband to be, the dilettante.

      NO, Jen, “It is what it is”? NO. It is misleading, a bit of smoke and mirrors. When have any of them gotten down and dirty? Meghan didn’t either. She fits right in.

      1. Maven, I stand corrected! I was unclear: Meghan has a handful of charity/public interactions on record, but these are PR-driven vehicles to raise celebrity profile, along with the blog. As stated, these are well-trodden strategies and there’s nothing wrong in building a career. But now there is a huge gear change and being spun as Meghan being a driven humanitarian campaigner.

        I have huge amount of respect for the quiet heroes: those who see a need, get stuck in and are hands-on all the way. No cameras, no self-serving gush, just ongoing hard work. The soon-to-be quartet haven’t a damn clue.

        Thanks, All About Eve, for cutting through the spin with clarity and courage; thanks, Maven, for telling it straight, as per usual.

  28. She did the USO tour in the US before any of that world vision stuff that is not talked about in addition to being a working actress. Sorry acting is no piece of cake there is a lot of uncertainty with Jobs and lots of rejection.
    I spend my free time stalking the royals so i cant malign people that spend their time doing any type of charity work.
    Also why are you judging her past as if she were a royal. She was a private citizen campaigning (not enough in your book) but still more than most private citizens.
    Fair is fair.

  29. I forgot about the USO tour. She did do that. I agree-Meghan did her charity work when she was a royal, so I can’t judge what she will be like doing charity as a royal vs what she did as a private citizen.

    Also, her commitment is evident in her speeches. I like her passion when she introduced the young Eritrean activist-it’s on youtube.

    And several of the young women Meghan worked with-I think from India-says she stayed in touch with them long after that charity drive was over. Even the editor of Glamour mag, Cindi Lieve has a post about it on her Instagram.

    I don’t see her as a dilettante.

    1. I saw it on YouTube and thought about watching it. Is it silly? Most documentaries on the royals are borderline sugar-coma and follow the PR line fully…

      1. The dating period was too short for anti-docs to be put together, but following whitewashing tradition of new brides, all docs will be super sugary and pro-Harry and Markle even if they have to make up stuff to suit the narrative.

        And that line will hold for as long as they, or MM, remain in favour.

  30. KMR, you are such a hypocrite. I find your posts to be rather amusing. You have bashed Meghan Markle from day 1. You could not fathom that Henry was dating this random non-blond actress. Moreover, you disdainfully dismissed the Tig, the people she admires, her humanity, etc. How very tedious YOUR blog is!! I find your misogyny to be quite distasteful as we march forward toward 2018. In the end, we really do not know much about Ms Markle, other than the FACT that she clearly knows what it means to stand on her own – yet you mock her.

    You were willing to give Catherine a chance. Why is that not extended to Prince Henry’s bride???

    1. I don’t think KMR/MMR has bashed Meghan from day 1; some posters on here have but I think she is very fair.

  31. To any “stans” of KMR, I invite you to read her first thoughts regarding Ms Markle. She very clearly reveals her prejudice. For example, it is so bizarre that she doubts if Ms Markle was stalked in this tabloid culture we sadly live in. One commenter urged others to ignore those they do not agree with – I try to overlook KMR’s comments because her negativity brings nothing to the conversation. We are all grown here and thus, need to form our own opinions.

    1. “I try to overlook KMR’s comments because her negativity brings nothing to the conversation.”

      I would think that must be difficult to do considering that this is her blog. She literally writes the entire thing. If you think KMR is such a hypocrite and so negative, why do you continue to read her blog?

    2. If you don’t like the tenor of comments made by the blog owner, then please find fora that better align with your perspective. Your two comments insult the blog owner. She has spent several years building up her blogs; her work is both intelligent and measured. It is also respected. A global community of people with diverse views populate this blog; they both support and inform each other and the blog’s intent. Only rarely does conversation become bitter, uncivil and juvenile, in general by individuals/organisations parachuting in with the intention of disrupting/closing the blog. Please move on if the blog does not suit your views.

  32. Stepping away from the vitriol, I have a question for those in the know, if anyone else is still reading this post. Are there any rules or guidelines about royal wedding dresses? Do they have to have sleeves? Diana had half sleeves with long ruffles which made them look longer. What about a colorful bouquet? Does she have to wear a tiara? Before I get excited looking at dresses, I’d like to know if anything is definitely required or forbidden.

    1. Hey Jet Texas the dress has to cover the shoulders and there must be a train. I think she can have color in the bouquet. I think it is tradition to weir a veil of some kind but it doesn’t have to cover her face. And of course it should be modest with no plunging neckline.

        1. Thank you. I dont really want sleeveless, but I do like sleeves covering just the upper arm, or a boatneck neckline pushed out enough to almost be off-the-shoulder. I really don’t like a lot of royal wedding dresses, and the full sleeves and high necklines are usually why.

  33. Yeah, there can be nothing sleeveless and it could be that veils are mandatory.Honestly, I think a bride should be able to wear whatever she wants on her wedding day.

  34. Leah, William leaving the wedding to go present the trophy is not a bad thing, everybody gets to benefit something. I’m guessing he will go present the trophy and rejoin the party, I think those weddings are very lengthy and so Will can afford to do both on the same day. Aren’t there times when they do 2 or more engagements on the same day and they manage perfectly? I think this is doable and I for one applaud them for fulfilling both duties. And I’m guessing Harry and William discussed it and agreed that its alright. I have attended several weddings in my country and I tell you, one can watch a full soccer match in between end of the church ceremony and beginning of the reception itself. If Harry and Meghan get married about 10 am, the reception will be in the evening, plenty of time for patron of FA to present the trophy and rejoin the party later. Its really no biggie.

  35. This is a public blog. Thus, I am quite FREE to state exactly what I think. Too often when others do not like what others are saying, they turn into BULLIES. As has been stated accross social media, KMR/MMR is often seen as “passive/aggressive.” I cringed when she was more angry at Harry for defending MM last year than at the many racist comments that I read here and elsewhere. She is making money off of these women, yet she chooses every opportunity to criticise them. It seems she understands her folly as her most recent posts have been largely unbiased. To “Cooky” etc, you make me laugh when you try to haze another human being into staying quiet. This is 2017 – not thank goodness 1950!!!!!

    1. My comment about the statement last year was this:

      “I said the other day in a comment that if one party in a relationship stays silent and leaves the other out to dry when being harassed the way Meghan has been, it makes the silent party seem like a jerk. So I respect Harry all the more for having KP issue this statement. It shows that Harry isn’t a jerk and is will to publicly protect the people he cares about. Although this new statement has reignited the press and public flame over their relationship, I do hope that it quells some of the sexist and racist harassment that Meghan has been receiving – because she has been receiving it, and it’s not acceptable.”

      How is that anti-Meghan? How is that being more angry at Harry defending Meghan than at the racist comments she received?

      1. On Second Thought: KMR has explained why she blogs about Meghan.Just click on the ‘About the Blog’ tab and you will find out.

  36. Again I refer directly to YOUR comments: “I can’t even keep up with all the stories the press has run about Prince Harry allegedly dating Meghan Markle. It’s ridiculous. . . I am burnt out already and it’s only been four days. This is not how to go about introducing a royal girlfriend to the press and the public. This is tacky. Oh so tacky.” Oh, KMR tell us how you really feel, dear. If you are so burnt out by this relationship, then why do you persist with your blog? £££

  37. As much as I am trying . . . I just can’t wrap my head around why it is an issue if KMR/MMR posts whatever she damn well pleases on her own blog!

    1. I am not going to reply to the content of your comment, but I am going to ask you a question:
      Why is your poster name On Second Thought?

Comments are closed.

Back To Top