Was Meghan Markle’s Vanity Fair cover done with palace approval?

Film Premiere The Promise

We’re still talking about Meghan Markle, her Vanity Fair cover and what it all means. I read the VF piece yesterday in a rush, because I was looking for all of the Harry-specific quotes. Now that I’m 24 hours past the initial shock of a “royal girlfriend” covering Vanity Fair, my take is much the same actually: that this cover story was approved of by Prince Harry, his publicity team and likely Buckingham Palace too. Meghan has been “in the fold” for the better part of a year, and she’s been very conscious of the “rules” of dating a prince. While she might be the first royal girlfriend to actually give a cover interview to a major magazine before anything was official, that doesn’t mean that things aren’t very “official” behind the scenes. As the Daily Express’s royal correspondent Richard Palmer explained on Twitter:

I agree with all of this, but I think Palmer is assuming that Meghan will end up as some kind of “I’m so normal, just an average, privacy-obsessed bloke” like William, Kate and Harry. She won’t end up that way, at least I hope not. She’s actually been normal this whole time. She’s actually been middle class, and a struggling university student and a regular, jobbing actress. She understands – more than Will, Kate and Harry – the privilege that comes with being a public figure and what can be done with that kind of platform. In my opinion, that’s why Harry chose her – because he knows she’ll be “good” at the public part of the job.

Photos courtesy of Vanity Fair.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

329 Responses to “Was Meghan Markle’s Vanity Fair cover done with palace approval?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. m says:

    If she wasn’t dating Harry most people wouldn’t know who she is. The old fame by association

    • Abs says:

      Well if Kate didn’t marry William nobody would know about her. Same with Diana and every other spouse marrying into the family.

    • Merritt says:

      That is true about a lot of people. If it wasn’t for being married to George Clooney, no one would know who Amal is despite the fact that she has an interesting and important job. If it wasn’t for Kate Winslet, I would have no idea there was some dude who decided to name himself Ned Rocknroll.

    • BeamMeUpScottie says:

      She was on the cover of Vanity Fair (Mexico) earlier this year, so clearly she is able to get a VF cover even as a mere Suits actress. The fact that it is was in Spanish and published in country with a population of 127 million surely must count for something ..?

    • Cee says:

      Whatever, I’m from Buenos Aires and I’ve known who she is for some time now. I do watch Suits. Many people do, especially outside of the US. TY Netflix.

      When their relationship was “exposed” my first reaction was “Harry is dating Rachel!”

      • Imqrious2 says:

        He is, actually! Her real first name IS Rachel lol. Meghan is her middle name 😊

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is funny. I have never watched it but it wouldn’t have been on so long if no one was. There are shows that are huge in Latin America that no one seems to know.

      • Nessa says:

        Ha! That’s funny! I am from Canada, and when I saw who he was dating I thought ‘Wow, he’s dating the Reitman’s commercial girl!’ Hadn’t heard of suits.

      • Royalsparkle says:

        I agree.

        But lets hope once Princess in waiting Henry sparkles become royal. Thie will stop. People
        e not paying for Royals to be celebrities no matter whiny willnot cannot middletons wanba be. And inspite of how modern POW regular Willlnot from Di talk about how regular his family of five plus middeltons are reaping from the people- mansions palaces luxury lifestyle enjoying millions of tax payers Duchy funds.

        Royalty is not like us nor should they behave like celebs who earn their own way. They represent the people and traditions exclusive to being the RF.

    • Dana says:

      In fairness, while she definitely wasn’t as famous before she met Harry, she had a ton! of followers on instagram and her bog, which generated quite a lot of publicity for her career. I personally hope she doesn’t attempt to maintain privacy. There was some dipshit article in the DM about how the royals are acting like celebrities. NEWSFLASH: THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE! That’s what royals have always been, forever, all through history. That’s why they have the job they do. They are so good at being well-conducted celebrities that they have a government funded job in PR to raise awareness for important causes. William and Catherine need to do a helluva lot more if they ever want people to respect them, but I am hoping that with any luck, Harry and Meghan will ENJOY the spotlight together and try to do more than raise awareness. They need to raise participation. I think that as a power couple, if they actually dedicate themselves to themselves, they can engage people in these organizations and not just occasionally raise a bit of extra cash.

      • PrincessK says:

        Raise a bit of extra cash? Together Meghan and Harry will be able to pull in big charity donations, especially in the US, where people will be falling over themselves to host dinners. The only problem is that Harry does not seem like a red carpet type of guy, he prefers to be in the bush tracking and protecting elephants and stuff.

      • Royalsparkle says:

        I agree.

        The Tig is was quality. Sparkle is smart regal and versatile. Her clothing line talents cooking on Today- The Tig charity alone was turning her into a wealthy professional and household name . All before potential King Henry went public.

    • DanielleStl says:

      It’s true but I also wonder now if she knows what she is doing, meaning – moving to UK and becoming a full-time royal. She seems like a creative, independent woman who has built a career for herself. I get that being married to royalty means comfort and money, family probably eventually, but she is from a completely different background – would she be happy being royal? Kate at least is British and she always seemed kinda old-fashioned, but Markle is a modern and independent woman.

      Does Meghan know what she is doing, really?

      • Dally says:

        I don’t quite get why on the one hand you laud that she is a mature independent intelligent woman, and then proceed to question whether she has any idea what she is doing when she is making her life choices, implying that you have more insight and wisdom than she does in how she should live her life. Of course she knows what she is doing, she is clearly comfortable in the spotlight and has made her own decision on how she wants to live her life.

      • Sarah says:

        Dally, you have no idea if she knows what she is doing. Neither do I. We don’t know her, and we really know almost nothing about her. People seem to have made her up out of their hopes and dreams, put onto her.
        And even smart women fall in love and don’t think things through. Being in love with a prince who assures you will never, ever worry about money or security again in your life can be quite head-turning. She, or anyone, may not actually think things through in this case. The privilege can be quite seductive, I assume, and not lend itself to thinking about five years down the road, when your entitled prince husband is out gallivanting somewhere in the world with his aristocratic friends who look down on you or God-knows-who, and you are alone, in a strange country, far from your family and real friends. THAT is the reality Meghan should be thinking about.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Letizia, Maxima, Mathilde, Sophie, Mary, Marie, Daniel etc. All independent, successful professionals who chose to marry a royal. Some had to learn new languages and have new citizenship too. All do fine in the role, especially Letizia who has had unrelenting attacks and negative attention (some from inside the royal court) for years. As long as they’re a self-confident adult going in, everyday people can do fine in these roles.

        MM has friends in London, and it isn’t like she has to learn a new language and be a woman completely at sea for years. So much of this reads as concern trolling.

      • Eve V says:

        @NOTA Thank you for listing other examples of professionals who gave up their career to marry into the royal family. I don’t understand why there is so much concern trolling, cough) about Megan’s decision and “does she really know what she’s doing” comments.
        She’s a grown woman, guys. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I’m sure she has thought things through and feels confident in her decision on how to proceed with HER life.

      • Royalsparkle says:

        Meghan will be great as a royal. All these fine professional qualities will make her into a wonderful asset for BRF. Another CP Mary SR Princesses – Qn Leticia. Max. Raina in the making.

      • Alix says:

        Yup, this question is legit. I’ve read too many royal gossips and first hand accounts about what life of a royal is in reality to think that someone like Meghan, independent and hard working, will find it wonderful. She makes me think of Princess Grace who was miserable after giving up her freedom and her career. Though maybe Meghan is not all into her art and independence and just wants to be a celebrity ( no shade here, a lot of them enjoy their life very much), rich, royal and you know, support charities and things like that. But Meghan and I are the same age so I’m thinking would I move for a man to another country, gave up my career and just tart breeding and shaking hands with dignitaries ? After all that is still their main job.
        Yeah, not sure she knows why she’s getting into…

    • Seesittellsit says:

      @m – ITA. It’s a bit curious to me that she’s playing it, too. Because if I were sure I were going to marry him, I wouldn’t play the fame game at all, I’d be doing the demure, low profile game. Of course, I’m not her. Official or not, what this makes her look like to me is someone who really loves fame, and if that’s the case, it’s something I’d have tried to hide. This has a little feel of the “I’m taking it every way I can get it!” I’d have kept that under wraps.

      For all we know, she’s covering her bets: if it goes south, she’s gotten a PR boost she couldn’t have bought in a million years. If it doesn’t, she’s got it coming and going.

      I doubt she’d have done this if she thought it would blow her chances of an HRH, but it’s also true if they aren’t officially engaged, the Palace has no say in the matter except “advisedly”. They have no right to tell her not to do anything. But they don’t have to, either, to make their views plain through Harry. So I’m guessing that this is another plank under the engagement platform to bump her up from a D-list actress in what is really a soap to Important Enough To Be A. Vogue Cover.

      But I’d still have played it differently. And my $10 still sez it is a GO.

      • perplexed says:

        I think her answer of “Personally, I love a great love story” was weirder than actually doing the interview itself. The answer sounded like she was promoting a storyline in a movie.

        I think even most actors are generally more cagey when it comes to giving answers about their love life.

        It’s probably the outright openness than actually doing an interview that seems unusual.

    • Crowdhood says:

      I will never understand the hate the the women that date royals receive. Additionally, I don’t even have cable and I knew who she was. Sorry she didn’t grace your radar before stealing your imaginary boyfriend 🙄

      • Seesittellsit says:

        @crowdhood – this is a gossip site, you’re unlikely to find nothing but gushing and cooing over every single celeb discussed here. They do have sites that are devoted to worshipping royals and their gfs and wives and children. They call them “sugar boards”. I have cable, I watch TV, but not stuff like Suits and until the news came out that she was dating Harry, I’d never heard her name before.

        Do we have to worship at her feet or be accused of “hate”? I haven’t exactly been kind to Taylor Swift, either. Does that mean I hate pop stars?

        And believe me, my imaginary boyfriends do not run to Harry Windsor. I’m more the Aidan Turner James Norton Robson Green type. Oh, and that guy who is playing the young Morse on “Endeavour”. I don’t usually go in for weedy types but in his quiet weedy way with that throaty voice he’s more sexually intriguing than Harry Windsor ever was or ever will be.

    • lavn says:

      Love Megan. I will be up all night with Coffee ,on the day the engagement is announced, reading and Laughing out loud at the Meltdown from the HATERS! LOL

      She is a intelligent, beautiful woman with her own Career, paid her own bills, did not love off of her parents, created a career, a life for herself, BEFORE she met Prince Harry.

      As far as ever hearing of her before, so what. Most of the current Princesses were never heard of before.

    • imqrious2 says:

      I don’t agree. I’ve know her for many years, and esp. since “Suits”. I think they should be very grateful she’d even consider joining the RF. She’s smart, accomplished, charitable, and smart. WAY above Harry’s pay grade. But I do like them together. SPARKLE/HARKLE/MARRY (Meg/Harry)? whatever you want to call them…more the power to them. If they love each other and want to take it on: I”m ready for that royal wedding… LET’S GET IT ON! Engagement by Xmas; wedding in May/June. Hootin’ for Marry (Meghan/Harry)

  2. monette says:

    I love Suits and I think she is stunningly beautiful and has some kind of raw sensuality.
    Harry is a lucky guy. Bring on the engagement.

    • Sayrah says:

      Can’t wait for a royal wedding and yes she’s beautiful!

    • mint says:

      I know everyone here loves her. And I would love to be excited about it too, but I find her rather boring and bland :/

      • Snappyfish says:

        @Mint…I’m with you. She seems bland & the photos I’ve seen of them she seems to be the needy grabby draped over him type. I understand he is the stiff upper lip in public but there were a lot of loved up photos with Chelsy. (I know they were young, but still) I get the ‘he wants to settle down vibe & she’ll due’ feeling

      • kdlaf says:

        @Snappyfish there are very few photos of them together – are you a body language expert?? geez

      • Casey says:

        How on earth can you describe a woman you don’t know as bland or needy? That’s odd. Who’s chelsy, some blonde highschool gf you wish he was with instead of Ms.Markle?

        …and do you really think Prince Harry is ‘settling?’

        Seems to me Harry’s doing the opposite, especially since he got an up close and personal look at what and how ‘settling,’ destroys people and relationships when his father Charles settled for his mother Diana, and couldn’t be with the woman he really loved until some 20 years later (“There were three of us in this marriage,” Diana said). He seems happy now. I wish Diana had had a chance to find and live life with her soulmate as her sons (and ex) seem to have found theirs.

      • PrincessK says:

        I think he is the needy one, he needs a mother figure in his life and that could be Meghan. I am tired of seeing him tagging along like the third wheel with W & K.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He’s had Sophie, Anne, his godmother Lady Sarah Chatto, HM as mother figures. I don’t see him looking at MM as a mother figure but as a partner who is capable of taking on this type of role. He’s always dated independent women, this is no exception. I think the Three Musketeers act was because of W&K’s flagging PR, not because Harry needs to be with others on his engagements.

  3. Abs says:

    Agreed- and not only does she know “normal”, she also knows how to work with press. She’s done it for years, for a cable TV actress she has done extremely well looking at prior interviews, photoshoots and charities who wanted to work with her. She obviously knows how to use the press to her advantage when and if she wants to.
    Harry, KP and likely Buckingham Palace knew and were okay about this. The photoshoot even happened in London.

  4. Jessica says:

    It was definitely approved. I can’t believe anyone thinks otherwise. Seems like a very savvy move, dare I say…Diana-esque. But approved. I think the BRF has learned and absorbed the lessons of Diana. This seems like another example of that.

    The media has already generated their own narrative about her and this is her/Harry taking a bit of control for themselves. Jackie O perfected this kind of thing.

    • Algernon says:

      I said this yesterday but I will repeat it, they’ve learned some lessons and are not trying to work against who the royal wives are. Meghan is an actress, she has a natural performer’s ability to “be on” which is needed in public life, and she also, as Kaiser pointed out, seems to understand how her fame and platform can be leveraged for causes. I think the firm realizes this, and they’re working with her. I think, especially given all the work shy talk around Will and Kate, they see that Meghan and Harry can be a real asset. With the other young royals, like the York princesses, largely removed from public life (at least in terms of representing the firm), a charity-oriented and willing couple like Harry and Meghan will be a real asset.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Makes a lot of sense, Algernon. They’ve given up on getting W&K to work more, or to having them show up engaged and prepared. Just get them to as many engagements as you can drag them to, and be thankful if Harry&WhomeverHeMarries have more than an ounce of charisma between them.

  5. Maria says:

    I’d have thought that even they are close to an engagement, she would have kept mum about it. Until she is in the position to make an announcement preferably with a ring on her finger.
    But an announcement, along with an impeachment would be greatly appreciated. And make it soon!

  6. Sunglasses Aready says:

    I like this couple and I like how this young lady has conducted herself. However, the Palace Mafia will see to it that is goes no further than ‘girlfriend’.

  7. A Croatian says:

    I just can’t help to feel like she’s fake humble all this time. There’s something about her that just feels dishonest. And this “we’re just two people in love” thing is giving all kinds of “yes, I am the one who got Harry, hahaha” vibes.
    and I don’t even give a crap about Harry and princes and royalty in general. :-/

  8. Patricia says:

    I feel like these images do not do her justice. They look grainy and she looks tired. I’ve always seen her looking so naturally beautiful. What happened here?!

    The rest of it… I don’t care. The lives of the royals are so boring and predictable (gasp! They don’t work much! Shock! Their clothing is traditional!), I can’t even care about this story much.

  9. Barbcat says:

    I am so excited about this marriage. She is gorgeous and so much more interesting than horrible Kate.

    • Nancy says:

      Kate is rather ordinary and boring, but I’d hardly call her horrible. She is taking Harry further away from the throne by pushing out those heirs, lol, not that he would have been King anyway!

      • LAK says:

        Never say never regarding Harry’s position in the line of succession. More spares than heirs have ended up with the top job, and in some cases really unlikely spares where the heirs’ children were bypassed.

      • Merritt says:


        Typically that happened when the heir didn’t have children of their own.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Crown has gone sideways in multiple ways, from abdication, death, wars, Parliament basically picking which line would succeed, or considering jumping the next brother in line when Uncle David abdicated.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit, not so.

        We tend to hear MORE about the promotions that happen for that particular reason, but there have been lots of reasons for the sideways promotions as listed by Nota in the comment above me.

        At the rate the crown has gone sideways, it’s safe to say that the line has been treated as a suggestion rather than iron clad rule.

      • Merritt says:


        In the modern era that really hasn’t been the case though.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit: firstly the Queen has been so long lived / reigned that it seems impossible and yet in the 100yrs that encompass her 60yr reign, the crown has shifted sideways twice and not because of a lack of heirs. That’s twice in the modern era, and both times unexpectedly.

        1. Her grandfather became King after the unexpected death of his elder brother, Prince Albert Victor. The prince died as an adult from an unexpected bout of influenza.

        2. Her father became King after the unexpected abdication of her uncle. The abdication instrument stressed the exclusion of any children or descendants so the lack of heirs was unnecessary since Wallis was 40something at the abdication and possibly beyond natural childbirth in that era of limited IVF science.

      • perplexed says:

        If a spare ends up with the job, it’ll probably be Charlotte or the new sibling coming alone.

        Would Harry be considered the spare any longer? That’s what Andrew used to be, but after William and Harry were born, I can’t recall him ever being referred to that way.

      • Merritt says:


        1. Her grandfather’s brother died when he was still heir to the heir. Queen Victoria was still on the throne when her grandson died. And since he died unmarried without kids, I’m not sure how this contradicts my original point.

        2, And her uncle abdicated and also did not have kids. Again, I don’t see how this contradicts my original point.

      • LAK says:

        Perplexed: It seems unlikely, BUT in the age of constitutional monarchy, parliament has acted 5 times to change the line. 3 times during the Stuart era, once to bring in the Hanoverians ( no 51 in the line) and once to get rid of a Windsor.

        If it suits them, Harry, or even Andrew, can be made King.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit:It isn’t about who was sitting on the throne at any time. Your comment regarding lack of heirs implies a failure to produce heirs and so throne HAD to go sideways by expectation and planning eg Victoria’s route to the throne.

        Albert Victor, whatever his position in the line, was expected to take up his place, marriage was arranged, full steam ahead to a long life and more heirs from his line. There was no reason to think otherwise.

        His death was an unexpected event which diverted the line to his brother George. George, poorly educated in heir-ing, was quickly shoved into the heir spot, marriage arranged, line of succession changed.

        Then a generation later, the line changes again because the person unexpectedly abdicated. Adding the caveat that excluded any children demonstrates that as unlikely as it was, given her age, they expected David and Wallis to produce children. If those children were legitimate, there was always a possibility they could challenge the diverted succession.

      • Merritt says:


        I never said what you are claiming. My exact post was : Typically that happened when the heir didn’t have children of their own.

        Which was the situation in both cases you just cited. I never once said there was a lack of heirs, but instead that the 1st in line or 2nd in the case of Albert Victor, did not have children. The whole point of having a spare which is what George V was, is the possibility they might succeed if the heir dies or has no children.
        Even in Victoria’s case the throne had gone sideways because George IV’s only legitimate daughter had died in childbirth. The same case for William IV, he had two legitimate children but both predeceased him. After the Duke of Kent, Victoria was next in line. Again, this does not contradict my original statement.

        Also I think it was more about George VI wanting to clarify the line of succession. Which made sense. I think they already knew Wallis was unlikely to have children due to both age and possibly not wanting children. But I can see why they wanted to clarify the “what-ifs”.

      • LAK says:

        Merrit: i think i understand the crux of our mutual misunderstanding.

        Nota (i presume) and i are discussing the no 1 heir expected to inherit aka the person who is born to be the monarch irrespective of siblings, spares etc whereas you are discussing the line to include siblings, spares etc.

        By saying the line has gone sideways, Nota and i are stating that the top job hasn’t always been occupied by the no 1 person heir per popular imagination, but has often gone sideways to siblings, cousins, nieces etc ie the spares.

        In otherwords, even though on paper it’s a straightforward line from no 1 heir to the next in each generation, the reality has been a sideways zigzag to siblings, cousins or nieces etc because of the reasons Nota listed happening to the no 1 heir. That list includes the no 1 heir or monarch not having children as well in some cases. The end result has been the same, a zigzag rather than a straight line from generation to generation.

      • Merritt says:


        I don’t misunderstand you. You keep trying to make it seem like I’m wrong, when I’m not. I’m well aware that the throne has gone sideways and never said anything that contradicted that. But there is no modern example of it going sideways and passing up legitimate children of the 1st in line, which was my point and is not wrong. You have to go way back in history for those instances of war or confusion after the death of Edward VI. Are frankly those examples are not relevant in 2017.

        Also you keep leaving off the second “t” of my name.

      • LAK says:

        Merritt: You should accept it when someone acknowledges a misunderstanding of your point or vice versa.

        I wasn’t attacking you, and when i realised the misunderstanding, i thought i should clarify because we were going round and round in circles without getting anywhere except to dig into our corners and repeat the same points over and over when in essence i think we agree.

        Finally, are you really THIS hurt because i accidentally misspelt your name and then my tablet auto-copied it over with the misspelling intact? Really? Wow.

      • Merritt says:


        You mistake hurt for general annoyance. Once, wouldn’t have been an issue but multiple times starts to feel deliberate. Your additional need to turn it around on me also just adds additional insincerity.

      • LAK says:

        I thought we were merely having a discussion as opposed to a throwdown so i remain flummoxed by your interpretation and the motives you ascribe to me.

        If you noticed it first time, you should have said something instead of working yourself up into a lather of annoyance because i hadn’t noticed that i was doing that.

        I *am* incredulous at the level of hurt or as you point out, annoyance, over a simple spelling mistake easily corrected.


      • PrincessK says:

        This is interesting because Albert Victor was the last Duke of Clarence, it would be nice if Meghan became the Duchess of Clarence, although everybody says she will be Duchess of Sussex….ugh!

      • Odette says:

        This is none of my business, but I’m butting in anyway. Feeling saucy today, and venting at other people on the Internet is having a palliative effect. (So, yes, I realize I’m being a butt-in-ski a-hole, but I don’t care today.)

        Acknowledgement of my inappropriateness in place….

        1) Come on LAK — you’re being stubborn. Yes, you know a whole lot about UK history. Your posts are often informative, insightful, and helpful. But surely you recognize that you’re being stubborn. You “both sides’d” Merritt with that “mutual misunderstanding” line! (Yes, I understand the difference between what 45 did and you did — was just trying to inject a little political humor to lighten the mood.) Seriously though: you misinterpreted what Merritt said, and then doubled-down. It was funny to read, though, honestly.

        2) Merritt — Who cares if people typo your name. :-)

      • LAK says:

        Odette: Honestly I think it’s funny too. I genuinely wasn’t ‘two sides to the story-ing’ her nor was I trying to wrongfoot her.

        I think we both doubled down because I thought I was being clear and she thought she was being clear. That’s what I mean by mutual misunderstanding.

        Turns out it was a blancmange, and we were in the same corner.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I was looking at it as LAK thought I was, that it isn’t always the heir that survives to become the monarch. Clear to me, but I’ve seen how often my words in particular do not translate in text instead of in person.

    • Sarah says:

      I am not a Kate fan, but I really dislike how Kate is bad and Meghan a perfect woman that many here have come to believe as complete truth without any real knowledge of Meghan. Kate is lazy, yes, and workshy, and entitled and may be somewhat rude to people. But we don’t know anything about Meghan except what she has shown on her carefully crafted blog and IG. And really, Kate isn’t a horrible human being – she seems shallow, yes, and all those things I said, but she certainly doesn’t seem like the spawn of Satan!! What has she done to be called “horrible”????

      • notasugarhere says:

        We’ve had 16 years of Kate Middleton showing how lazy she is and how she will never step up and work as she should. What we’ve seen from MM is that she knows what it is to work for a living. She’s not perfect, she’s not a full-time charity worker, but she is a self-confident person who happens to be dating a prince. Only a year in, they aren’t married yet, let’s see what happens.

        Why shouldn’t her blog be carefully crafted? Much better than doing sloppy work, no?

      • liriel says:

        Exactly, we’ve heard some gossips about Kate and her rudeness but from almost every source she’s nice. Always humble and self-demeaning when speaking on official trips. Yep, she was definitely mean to other women around William but that’s kind of understandable. We’re all mean here on celebitchy. With Meghan we only know what she presented other than that we see an actress. Actress are usually egocentric and megalomanic. I speak from experience of knowing some little-known or almost no name. Yet their ego is huge.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “but from almost every source she’s nice.”

        If this were true, we wouldn’t have the stories of multiple women from that set, the girls at the school where she claimed to be bullied, the bullying of the Yorks, the staff leaks about her rudeness, etc.

        It is mostly shopkeepers who leak that she’s nice iirc.

  10. SoulSPA says:

    This autumn/fall is going to be very busy on the gossip front: third offspring for the Dolittles, Harry Sparkle’s likely engagement, possibly another Middleton offspring. Bring it on!!

    • mint says:

      I think a lot of people expect an engagment very soon but I think that would be too quick for the royal family. I guess Meghan Markle will move to London soon (end of the year), will undergo the Princess Training and then they will announce the engagment in spring.

  11. Aerohead21 says:

    Yeah, there is no way this was don without full royal knowledge, not just Harry’s. That or she’d be in mega trouble with the family.

  12. Jessica says:

    I keep hearing people say that without Harry she wouldn’t be anybody but as a woman I want to stand up for her. She obtained a solid education and has been on a successful television show since 2011. (It’s successful because it’s 2017 and it’s still going.) She is a mixed race woman in her mid-30s so there aren’t exactly plentiful opportunities for her in Hollywood. She’s done a lot better than most jobbing actors/actresses.

    Diana wouldn’t have been who she was without Charles. Kate certainly wouldn’t be on Vogue without William. Amal Clooney, despite her professional accomplishment, wouldn’t be walking red carpets without George. It is what it is. So it goes. Doesn’t make them bad people or unworthy. There are a lot of bland white women who get unearned magazine covers so I’m not going to hate on Meghan. I believe the whole thing was set-up to be part of a royal rollout, so her connection to Harry would be the point.

    • LAK says:

      I disagree about Amal Clooney. She joined a fame thirsty Barrister chambers that specialises in cause Celeb type cases, headed up by Geoffrey Robertson, a barrister who has never seen a camera crew he didn’t like, and who frequently uses the media to garner support for his cases. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/geoffrey-robertson-qc-the-great-defender-2157455.html

      She was front and centre on the Julian Assange case, ditto Yulia Tymosheko case. She was giving interviews to tv channels etc long before she met Clooney.

      Pre-Clooney pics and video from 2011 and 2014



      In 2013, she won a ridiculous annual industry poll that rates the ‘hotness’ of London Barristers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2393674/Here-come-girls-The-hottest-women-Bar-measure-Britains-best-looking-male-barristers.html

      Now the question of her level of fame is a different discussion, but she was already on that road.

    • Ceire says:


      I totally agree, I also really admire her. I’ve watched Suits since it started (although it is a bit sh-t), and so I’ve been a little aware of her for a while. The character she plays is barely a character, just some lady qualities in a skirt, but she does it well enough. I really admire her philanthropic and charity work though. She’s smart as f-ck, imo, and love to champion gender inequality and issues affecting women. I loved that she spoke about the need for sanitary products in developing countries, for example. I also think she’s been articulate about being mixed race.

    • Erinn says:

      I have mixed feelings about that. I agree that it’s good to stand up for her… but at the same time I don’t think we should be over-hyping her career, either.

      Yes, she’s done better than many actresses… but at the same time she hasn’t done great. She had a bunch of little guest roles for the most part prior to Suits. From what I’ve seen she’s not playing a character that is absolutely necessary for the show to function. I see Mike or Harvey as the main character ultimately, and (correct me if I’m wrong, I haven’t seen a ton of the show) Louis as well.

      Her charity work is great – and I think that should be stressed more. But her acting career REALLY isn’t something to brag about. She’s popped up on a decent number of shows… but not even a large number of them. She wasn’t working all that steady – only a couple parts a year or so – and for single episodes. The most roles in a year that she’s credited for is 4.

      She was lucky when it came to her upbringing, I think. She got to attend private schools, her mother was a therapist and yoga instructor and I assume she had some connections based on her dad being an emmy winner for lighting direction. She’s also incredibly pretty – which is great considering her chosen field. I do have some doubts that she would have even as many guest spots as she does if she wasn’t so absolutely pretty – but that’s the nature of the business she’s in.

      She doesn’t HAVE to be interested in charity work, or helping people, though. But she still is – and I think that’s something she has a leg up on many people for. Hell, you have to pretty much force William to work, and it’s legit part of his job to be involved with charities. So I think she’s probably a great person, with great intentions, a decent education – but a middling acting career at best.

      • Tina says:

        You can’t blame anyone for having a middling acting career. There are thousands of unbelievably talented actors out there who are completely unknown, either because they haven’t been lucky or because they don’t fit into one of Hollywood’s boxes. Meghan is very lucky to have had the career she has had, given that she definitely doesn’t fit into a Hollywood category.

      • liriel says:

        Tina, think she fits int Hollywood category. Let’s not forget that helping people, charity work is trendy. Even Taylor Swift does it. We should applaud her for working but she didn’t do ambitious niche theatre, she’s just an average actress. Sorry, I personally consider Amal’s career to be way better, more prestigious. Not to mention more intelligent.

      • Jessica says:

        I’m not hyping her career. I know she doesn’t have Grace Kelly’s career (one of the people she is being compared unfavorably to). Very, very, very few people do. Even fewer have Grace Kelly’s career when they’re mixed race/not white and in their mid-30s.

        Very few people have Meghan’s career either, though. That’s true. She has been consistently working in her chosen profession over a period of years. The vast majority of actors and actresses cannot say the same. Earning a steady paycheck in one’s chosen field constitutes success for many/most of us.

        My point wasn’t meant to be a plea for her to be looked at as some kind of superstar (I know she’s not), but rather for her to be given credit and respect for what she has achieved. It’s a bad look to do down other people’s accomplishments and act like they’re not shit. It’s really easy to play the “if x person didn’t have y variable, they wouldn’t be shit” game. We can do it all day, including with all of the royals. I just don’t like it. It’s not helpful for women as a whole. She’s dealt with enough hate for age, race, previous marital status, etc. I just want us to let Meghan live! (And no, I didn’t forget that we’re on a gossip site. I love gossip. I don’t think it always has to be toxic.)

        (And I was also annoyed that people were hating on her for “trading” on her relationship with Harry to get a VF cover when that’s not likely what happened. She would be out the door quick if so. This is royal PR by design and she kept comments related to the relationship pretty non-specific.)

  13. Jegede says:

    She’s popular here for some reason.

    All I see is Fergie Pt 2; who was also originally beloved and lionised as a ‘real breath of fresh air’, compared to ‘shallow’, ‘spoilt’, ‘superficial’, Diana.

    We’ll see.

    • notasugarhere says:

      As long as Harry doesn’t basically abandon his wife (as Andrew admitted he did), I think whomever he marries will have a better shot at success as a working royal.

      • Jegede says:

        The failures of that marriage and myriad Fergie problems were not all on Andrew.

        No matter what Andrew now protests, in his never-ending quest to protect his ex from her **** ups.

      • LAK says:

        You both make valid points, but Nota is right. Andrew never wanted the divorce and fought to stay married. They wanted to go to counselling, but TPTB and the Queen said no. Divorce. End of.

        At the time, despite all the black marks against Fergie, Andrew let it be known that he was responsible and didn’t blame her at all for cheating or subsequent difficulties. He acknowledged that he had essentially abandoned her and never realised that she wasn’t coping.

        As the divorce was forced on them, with no mediation or counselling, they were cunning in accepting it, but continuing to live together as if it hadn’t happened.

        Andrew remains protective for these reasons.

      • PrincessK says:

        I have never understood the reasons for the break up of Andrew and Fergie’s relationship? There are loads of women who stay at home when their husbands are away in the navy or army for months. She had her kids to look after, was she so desperate for a man she could not wait a few months ? Was Andrew not up to much in the sack? I just don’t geddit , they seem to get along so well . On the other hand Andrew being nice to Fergie could be that she could really spill a lot of unpleasant beans on the RF. Without a doubt, she knows all the secrets.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Trying to leave aside some of your nastier portions of this comment PrincessK.

        Andrew abandoned Fergie to a new job, strange new home (apartment in BP) with strict rules, white-hot press attention, and he was gone all but 40 days their first year of marriage. It wasn’t about sex drive, it was about a husband who went off to serve in the Navy without making the effort to ensure his spouse could handle all those changes on her own.

      • PrincessK says:

        Thanks for your view nota…..but I really don’t see that I said anything nasty, just asking honest questions to see how her actions could be justified.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “She had her kids to look after, was she so desperate for a man she could not wait a few months ? Was Andrew not up to much in the sack?”

        You see nothing unpleasant in that? Seriously?

      • PrincessK says:

        @nota…..You seriously seem not to know what Fergie did. Among several other acts of madness she took her kids on holiday with her boyfriend while her husband was away, and was caught semi naked ‘frolicking’ with him by the poolside with her kids nearby. So this makes me ask what made her so desperate to indulge in this type of reckless and to use your word ‘unpleasant’, behaviour .

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again PrincessK, your words repeat the nastiness of your attitude. Andrew abandoned her from day one, two years before Beatrice arrived. He was gone 300+ days a year for two years. Even when he was home on leave, he was photographed out golfing constantly instead of spending time with his wife, then his wife and kids.

        He never spent the time to figure out she was drowning in her new-found royal status — long before any other people entered the picture around the fourth year of marriage. You’re the one who seems to think the only thing she would have wanted was physical companionship – and you condemn her for it when her own husband admitted 1) he was to blame for abandoning her and 2) he didn’t blame her for anything.

      • PrincessK says:

        @nota….I am not saying that she was not lonely, but the way you keep mentioning ‘abandoned’ is really stretching it, her husband was in the navy for heavens sake! I wonder what the world would look like if all women in similar predicaments behaved as she did if it was simply ‘loneliness’. I actually prefer Fergie to Andrew but you have totally avoided addressing the nature of her reckless behaviour, especially around her children. The pair of them have defended each other for reasons best known to themselves, and I firmly believe that there must be more to it that either you or I know. You are really oversimplifying the matter, and trust me I want to have the last word.

    • WTW says:

      Fergie was a disaster. Meghan Markle has it too much together to ever be anything like her.

    • Maria F. says:

      i happen to agree. Everybody is putting her up on a pedestal, an incarnation of Mother Theresa combined with Halle Berry.

      Let’s not forget that she will join the Royal family. There are rules, costums, traditions, that she too will have to abide by. She will not be able to be a free spirit and do what she likes and wear what she wants.

      • Odette says:

        What? Wear what she wants? She is always dressed professionally. As far as “free spirit” goes, she has proven that she is nothing but hardworking and charitable. The royal family WANT stylish, hardworking, charitable members.

      • PrincessK says:

        Exactly, that it why she was allowed to do this last photo shoot with bare shoulders, legs and feet because once the ring is on her finger she will start dressing more prim and proper, albeit in a more interesting style than Kate.

      • liriel says:

        Yep, putting her on a pedestal. Charity work is trendy to do and a great opportunity to mingle with the ‘right’ crowd. Just saying, I believe it’s genuine on her part. Let’s not make her a CEO, a lawyer, doctor. She’s an actress and not super-talented, living, breathing Dostoyevski. She’s Hollywood. And that’s ok. We’ll see what she’ll be like as a royal. She might love the attention, the comments of her outfits, meeting people who will be treating her like god. She’s an actress after all. That’s why I’m not giving Kate such a hard time (she should be working more though!), she doesn’t like the spotlight and she really seems to be happy at home. She doesn’t dress extravagantly, doesn’t want people to talk about her. Even her posture says that. When someone compliments her beauty she’s like “it’s all makeup”.

    • M4lificent says:

      I don’t see any indication that she’s selfish or shallow. Meghan’s been in a profession that plays the publicity game. And she’s about to join a family business that is founded on the publicity game. I see a good fit.

      Even if, for the sake of argument, Meghan only became involved in charity work years ago to promote herself as an actress, she sounds like she is articulate and genuinely helpful to the causes that she supports.

      And I don’t believe for a second that any word in this article wasn’t pre-approved by Harry and The Firm. If she went renegade and did this on her own, the publication date would have been her last day as Harry’s girlfriend.

    • Sarah says:

      Younger readers here probably don’t know what happened to Fergie. When she came on the scene, she and Andrew were amazingly popular, a “breath of fresh air,” as Jegede says. She was not a disaster, WTW – she was beloved. Go look at the wedding video of Fergie and Andrew kissing and fooling around with the crowd!! They loved her!!! Diana was out of favor for a while there, but then the media and public turned on Fergie, and she was one of their’s: a fair English rose. Meghan is not.
      To think the public won’t turn on Meghan if she threatens to upstage Kate is quite naive, in my view. Kate will be Queen, and Meghan will always, always be second fiddle, bowing to Kate and being pushed into the background. And maybe mocked and hated as much as Fergie.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate is no Diana though. She has no charisma and you never hear from her. Whether or not William is to blame for that, no one knows her. By the time Fergie came onto the scene, Diana was already well beloved by the public because she actually met with them and did stuff. Kate has not done that. She has hidden away and only shows up in her old lady outfits and weird grins.
        And since Harry is more likeable than William, Meghan is going to benefit from that goodwill too.
        The establishment may place Kate ahead of Meghan, but the public doesn’t follow those rules.

      • Liberty says:

        Let’s see what happens with that throne. And I think that, in any case, Meghan has enough in the accomplishments and goals lists that she won’t waste a great deal of time stewing about a routine courtesy curtsy to Lazy Middleton.

      • liriel says:

        Exactly, and married to Nazi and naked prince if the press is cruel. Kate always be an english rose to public and Meghan something else. You can’t compare the future queen and mother of the king to a wife of a prince. Upstaging Kate is impossible. She’ll live in her shadow. If she works more people will say she’s show off. That’s just my take.

  14. The Original Mia says:

    This cover is the beginning of the roll-out. It wasn’t done without Harry’s or the Palace’s approval. It not only shows Meghan as a regular gal, but allows her the opportunity to talk about what’s important and interesting to her. We see why Harry fell for her. When have we ever gotten this much from Kate? That’s not a knock, but an observation.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      I agree its part of a roll out prior to an engagement announcement plus I think that if they do marry they will be more accessible to the media and the plebs – which will not go down well with Twit and Twat.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Have to agree Mia, at least we see personality with Meghan. That plain clothes choice, off season, photo shoot Kate did for Vogue’s 100 (A Century of Style no less) was such a complete dud. The comments she made were about driving down the road in curlers? I wanted to see some glitz and glamour from her. What a let down. Meghan at least knows some of the ins and outs of interacting with the public and publicity machine. Like seeing her and Harry working with it and instead of being a plain dud like W&K.

    • BritAfrica says:

      I agree. She needed to bookend that career to start a new one. So it begins….!

      The “it can’t ever happen” brigade are in full blown nervous mode right now. Telling us over and over again why royal marriage is a bad idea for Meghan, why it won’t work for Meghan, why Meghan can never claim she wants privacy ever again, why it’s a bad idea that the mag cover was done…etc…etc.

      I’m finding all this new found concern for her well-being rather entertaining! I’ll say it again……the right-wing implosion is going to be epic! :)

      • LAK says:

        At least they’ve moved on from ‘it can never happen because race, religion, american, divorcee’. The goal posts keep moving and it’s entertaining to read the newest reasons why it can’t happen even though it is happening right before their eyes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes and all it took for them to move on was an official statement from Westminster Abbey! ;)

      • Sharon Lea says:

        That’s a good way to put it, the ‘it can’t ever happen’ brigade, they are in full force on the DM. It is weird to see.

      • Sarah says:

        I laugh at how defensive you all are over a woman you don’t even know!! I never said it can’t happen – I said that I think Meghan should be careful about this. If you are a Brit living in Africa, you may not understand the independence and pride of American women. Meghan may bow to Kate for a while, but at some point playing second fiddle, and she will never be allowed to overshadow Kate regardless of what you wish, to a woman far less accomplished than she is will grate on her. Add in the rumors that royal men always cheat, that she is a foreigner, how the public treated Fergie, and I don’t think it’s fake concern for this woman. I think she is in for quite a ride if she marries Harry.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think she’s shown she already knows how to handle herself with all of this attention, and they know how to handle all of this together. Curtseying to Kate on the rare occasions they see each other isn’t a huge issue, some unforgivable thing she has to do. It is part of the job, and she’s smart-enough to learn the rules, follow them, and not obsess over it.

        Maxima is independent, Letizia is independent, Daniel is independent – and all do fine in their royal roles. In many ways, her role is going to allow her more freedom in the causes she chooses to support than KM. As I wrote elsewhere, she’d be wise to partner with Madeleine and Mabel who are also second-tier royals doing great work.

    • Sarah says:

      So why is that? Why would the BRF approve a roll out and interview like this, while denying Kate the opportunity to do this? That is why I don’t think this was done with the approval of the elders. Maybe harry ran it by Wills, but if this was wanted by the elders, Kate would have done many of these by now. Even if she was terrible at it.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate never had anything to say prior to the engagement because she didn’t do anything but party and available for Will and his libido. She could have given an interview for her sad Vogue cover but didn’t want to. William may be preventing her, but he is the only one besides herself. The Queen doesn’t get involved with that. She didn’t with Diana and won’t with the grandkids.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “Can you test the smell by smelling it?”

        Kate Middleton had to be fed the answer to the Diana question after she muffed it four times in the engagement interview. She was always free to do interviews, but she wouldn’t have been doing herself any favors given what we’ve heard from her thus far.

    • liriel says:

      I truly believe Kate doesn’t like all the hoopla about her, she’s happiest playing tennis and being with her family. She had some personality at uni, now she’s a happy mother and plays it safe. Maybe it’s a wise strategy after Diana..

  15. M.A.F. says:

    “Royal sources have claimed it’s part of her work as an actress”

    Sure but she is on a show that wasn’t on anyone’s radar until she stepped out with Harry. Had it not been for this relationship, no one would be talking about her. And her career will more than likely go the way of Grace Kelly-she won’t have one. Kelly thought she could do both but it was made clear to her that if she married Prince Rainier, her acting career would be over.

    • Jegede says:

      She wishes she had a Kelly career.

      Kelly was already a big star. An Oscar winning actress and leading studio muse pre-Rainier.

      Renowned for her iconic beauty – a la Hepburn and Monroe, – long before she was carted off to be the bride of Monaco, at age 26.

      • Bea says:

        Having the prestige that comes with winning industry awards is awesome but that is not the reality for most actors. Being on a long running television show and/or having continuous movie roles in which one can gain exposure and earn a steady paycheck to be able to live very comfortable lifestyle is the goal of most working actors in Hollywood. Sure Meghan didn’t have widespread notoriety prior to dating PH, but that does not negate the fact that she’s a working actor who achieved a level of success in the career of her choice. I will never understand why being a lesser known actor is always held against her.

        Meghan has mentioned in several interviews that her role on Suits opened up a new chapter and opportunities in her life and I doubt she regrets any of it because it didn’t lead to Grace Kelly level of accolades or A-list status.

      • Amide says:

        You doubt she regrets it, and I say as an actress who had bit lines on movies like Horrible Bosses to a middle cable show as the highest she could go, I think Merkel would have been thrilled with half a Grace Kelly career.

      • Jegede says:

        @Amide –


        We are all making assumptions true.
        And you and I are absolutely on the same page here.

      • perplexed says:

        I think she has achieved success as an actress. I also think it’s easier for her to walk away from her career than it would be for someone like Jennifer Lawrence or even Emma Watson. I don’t think the two points really cancel each other out.

      • PrincessK says:

        So many people have been comparing putting Grace Kelly on a pedestal in comparison to Meghan, but you need to read up on what Grace Kelly was really like.

    • Brittney B says:

      “Anyone” and “no one” are such absolutes. This show has been on the air since 2011. That doesn’t just *happen* on middling cable networks anymore. She wasn’t getting the cover of Vanity Fair for it, but let’s not pretend she was an anonymous nobody. There’s no way Suits would be going strong for THIS many seasons if no one was watching.

  16. Talie says:

    It’s been posted before, but there is a video of her speaking at some UN conference and she is pretty spectacular. Compared with Kate, she has incredible public speaking skills and instincts…I think she’ll be a major asset for the royal family.

    • Mermaid says:

      I agree!!! I think she’s stunning and I hope they get engaged and I will 100% watch this wedding. It will be something happy to focus on while the world burns around us. Literally. Thinking of the US citizens out west today and all the people in the Carribean, Puerto Rico, and Florida today. Thanks for pulling us out of Paris Climate Trump!!! That’s sure working out well-NOT!!!!!🙄

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      I agree. I feel she has a great presence. I really think she’s someone who the RF really need considering the fact that Kate really doesn’t like her public role. I’m not comparing them, just pointing out that the public role should be a strength for Megan, and that’s something they’re lacking right now among the younger royals. Hopefully she’ll get Harry off his duff and more into his work as well, nothing wrong with that.

    • liriel says:

      That’s my hope. She’s an actress, passionate about causes. Kate isn’t comfortable doing that and it’s kind of understandable.

  17. Cat says:

    I don’t mean to be offensive but she is on a television show. She is not Mother Teresa. I find the constant comparison to Kate kind of ridiculous and petty.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She isn’t required to be. There is no requirement that she do any charity work as a non-royal; it is a bonus she has done any at all.

      Kaiser said it so well. “She’s actually been normal this whole time. She’s actually been middle class, and a struggling university student and a regular, jobbing actress. She understands – more than Will, Kate and Harry – the privilege that comes with being a public figure and what can be done with that kind of platform. In my opinion, that’s why Harry chose her – because he knows she’ll be “good” at the public part of the job.”

      • Cat says:

        I don’t think you understood my statement. People are acting like she is some kind of angelic figure. It is ridiculous. I find the constant comparisons of her vs. Kate ridiculous. It is not like she rose from the ashes to be destined to sainthood.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Most people on here aren’t under the impression that she’s Mother T from what I’ve seen. She’s a successful working actress with a career many others would envy. The comparisons with Kate Middleton are often couched in terms of Meghan Markle working for a living and supporting herself, vs. Kate Middleton who has never worked or supported herself. As they *might* both end up as working royals in the BRF, comparisons about self-confidence, experience, work ethic, etc. are natural.

    • BritAfrica says:

      But this is women all over….and again. We pit 2 women against each other instead of talking about what an asset they could be together.

      You had to like Diana and hate Sarah or vice versa. No one seemed to think that you could potentially like both of them or none for that matter.

      These 2 of the new generation will be treated in much the same way because women – however far and advanced we have come – will just not let other women be.

      There…….I said it! (not quite as eloquently as Madge but hey-ho).

      • suze says:

        I am not really onboard with Meghan being the one to school Harry, and by some extension Will and Kate, on the life of a normal person. They have people around them now who could serve as examples of that and they blithely ignore them.

        It’s a bit much to ask of Meghan to do it.

        And no matter how much people claim that the comparisons between Markle and the Duchess are just reasonable, calm comparisons of resumes and work ethic, there is an underlying viciousness in some of the comments about both that belies that.

    • Lorelai says:

      Who here is comparing her to Mother Theresa? Absolutely no one.

      And it is inevitable that *anyone* Harry got serious with would be compared to Kate. This isn’t some Meghan-specific phenomenon.

  18. Lucy says:

    Meghan is going to be an amazing royal duchess, unlike Kate. I can’t wait until she starts showing Waity up.

    Keenness only counts for so much. At a certain point, action means more than words.

  19. Louise says:

    Thoughts: Seeing the photos of Meghan and Amal next to each other on this site made me think. Meghan could REALLY be the next superstar of the Royal Family. She knows how to dress, she can do her hair and makeup. She is not drab. I like looking at pictures of her. I wish I could do yoga etc.

    Also…George. Its been bugging me for a while but I think he wants to be like Warren Beatty. Its not Cary Grant, its Warren Beatty but he wants to take it one step further and maybe run for office. Remember Warren Beatty went political for a while and is ALWAYS asked about running for office, especially 15-20 years ago. He did REDS, etc. THATS what Clooney is aiming for. Elder statesman/politico of Hollywood but in a digital age.

    You feel me?

  20. Kate says:

    I feel like people are really setting themselves up for disappointment here. She might be a perfectly lovely woman, and I expect that given the chance she’ll be far better than Kate (not like that’s a big ask), but nothing suggests she’s going to be some amazing breath of fresh air. She’s a 36yr old actress with a college degree, who’s one and only notable job is being 6th string on a USA network show. I know that in comparison to the younger royals just committing to showing up to work puts you out way ahead, but she’s not the incredibly accomplished person some people are acting like she is, and she seems very comfortable with going long stretches without working.

    End of the day, she’s interested in a man like Harry. An unemployed, spectacularly lazy, exceptionally entitled, not very smart man who spends a great deal of time flitting about fulfilling his weird little colonialist fantasies. She’s totally leaning into that lifestyle. She’s going on the constant vacations, she’s not put off by the fact he spends weeks at a time not lifting a finger for any of his patronages, she’s not put off by his wealthy loser friends, she’s apparently not grossed out by his weird Africa thing…

    The kind of woman people want Markle to be wouldn’t go near someone like Harry with someone else’s barge pole.

    • Idky says:

      So well said! Agree with you 100%! Let’s not make her out to be more than she really is.

    • BeamMeUpScottie says:

      ”…going long stretches without working… ”’
      Are you sure? When was this?

      • BritAfrica says:

        “are white people, even descendants of former colonialists, not allowed to love Africa?”

        No, BeamMeUpScottie, you are most definitely not! :)

        You are supposed to pity us, give us aid (with that pained look of ‘poor things’ in your eyes), tell the world again and again how we were ripped off, slaved and sold (whilst you are still doing it ofcourse), and slag off clueless middle and upper class people for holidaying there!

        BTW, on a separate note, when did Harry become lazy, uninspiring and weird?? Has he always been thought such or is it only being noticed now that he is dating Meghan?

        I am just a tad puzzled because I thought it was generally believed that he had a clue.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        @ BritAfrica, Touché :-)

        As for shifting views on Harry, it could be my imagination, but I have noticed the he gets more criticism these days, moreso since late 2016 when he defended his girlfriend.

      • The Ranter Formerly Known As Amber says:

        It’s always been that way for some people BritAfrica. Here’s an example of me and Locke Lamora talking sh*t about Harry back when such things were allowed. http://www.celebitchy.com/503845/prince_harry_wants_one_thing_for_his_birthday_a_36_million_country_pad/#comment-15206782 And that’s how I would characterize it–You were allowed to say whatever you wanted about Harry pre-Meghan, and no one batted an eye or was dying on that hill, for one thing. Secondly, the truth is, contrary to what people want to pretend, there isn’t consistent traffic around here for Harry unless it has something to do with his personal life. Where and why do you think “Honk For Harry” started? It wasn’t a signal of approval. It was because Kaiser said Harry articles didn’t produce steady interest. Note that article I linked went up at 7 AM and generated 36 comments. And you can take a scroll through the Harry tab to easily observe that. Going back to page 20 takes you all the way to Spring, 2015. But page 10 takes you to last November and nothing but Meghan, Meghan, Meghan, (and a lot of the previous “Harry articles” are actually about Kate or the BRF in general. And yet, did you notice Kaiser didn’t bother with daily coverage of Harry’s tour in Jamaica.) Even articles about Invictus failed to get more than 115 comments. So the conversation about Harry has always been skewed in his favor since people who like him were the main component of the small group who bothered to discuss him. There is no shifting view. People used to regularly bring up the Nazi costume, Harry’s partying, his temperament, his lack of employment, the favors called in by Charles in regards to Harry’s education and military career, etc., any chance they got. If anything these threads have been crowded out, (mostly by names I don’t recognize), there’s been a shift to the overwhelmingly positive, while people like me who never really bothered are still not bothering, lest they be dragged and/or accused of all sorts of things, like being a tumblr looney.

      • Odette says:

        @ Ranter

        1) You can say what you want. You just did. Just because people may not agree with what you’re saying doesn’t mean you’re forbidden from saying it. Sometimes, in life, you’re going to be around people who don’t share your opinions — that doesn’t mean they’re infringing on your right or ability to express your opinion. (The “I’m not ALLOWED to say….” nonsense has to end. Right wingers use this garbage argument all the time.)

        2) Just because there aren’t a lot of comments on a thread doesn’t mean people don’t read the article.

      • The Ranter Formerly Known As Amber says:

        2) No, of course it’s not a rule or a law of physics. But it’s likely a decent indicator. And surely there’s frequently a correlation. And as I said, “Honk For Harry” started as Kaiser asking “do ya’ll care”? And as I also pointed out, there would be more coverage of Harry if it generated traffic. That’s how the internet money works.

        And for 1) Where did I say people couldn’t have an opinion? I thought there was an undertone/suggestion in BritAfrica’s question as to whether people suddenly started disliking Harry when he began dating Meghan… I probably read too much into it, LOL. But, I’m literally talking about the conversation. My point about the environment discouraging dissenting opinions is in direct reference to that. I was refuting the assertion that it started overnight, giving what I think may be a reason you don’t see as much criticism of Harry, and I guess I take issue with that tone. I know that I can say what I want. But you’ve just given an example of the type of comment you receive in return if you do. And it wasn’t that way at all not long ago. So going back to tone, look around these pieces. This is the first Harry article I’ve commented on since last November. I’m more of a Kate expert :D I just haven’t been bothering with her as well. But I’ve seen thread after thread of people doing this sort of thing. If you don’t express adoration of Meghan you’re being vitriolic, you’re a hater, you’re probably a racist. We usually get a recap of what’s being said at the DM and Tumblr even if no one has made any comments relating to or similar to those. Then if you don’t adore Harry, it’s probably because you’re just jealous that you won’t marry him, or you’re jealous in general. And people are acting like they’ve never heard anything negative about Harry before in their lives.

        Hey, maybe I projected! I apologize. But we’ll just have to agree to disagree if you don’t think this sort of thing discourages discourse,
        Here’s an example of it going both ways. http://www.celebitchy.com/519496/prince_harry_is_truly_in_love_with_meghan_will_probably_propose_this_year/#comment-15344323 Someone says something positive about Meghan and Harry. The reply is “Relax Meghan”. Which is obnoxious, but typical. We’ve seen that a million times whenever someone vigilantly defends someone else. If someone passionately defended Kate and there was a reply of “Ok, Carole”, people would laugh. But here hell breaks loose.
        Here people make negative… weird… non factual comments, that I don’t agree with. But the responses get personal. http://www.celebitchy.com/545188/e_meghan_markle_just_returned_to_toronto_after_a_week_in_london_with_her_mother/#comment-15578732
        Again, if I projected on @Brits and @Beam comments, read too much into it, or simply went OT, I apologize. But I’m also not the only one who’s noticed the mood around these parts http://www.celebitchy.com/545247/prince_harry_took_meghan_markle_to_southern_africa_for_a_romantic_birthday_safari/#comment-15580662

      • Odette says:

        @ ranter

        You wrote: “Where did I say people couldn’t have an opinion?”

        I didn’t say that at all. And I think you know that. I was referencing your statements (“talking sh*t about Harry back when such things were allowed” and “You were allowed to say whatever you wanted about Harry pre-Meghan”) — and commented that it’s silly to say you’re “not allowed” to say “bad” things about Harry. You absolutely are — because you just did!

        And I’ll admit, I really don’t understand your point. All I can glean from your “rant”, “Ranter” is that you want to be able to say non-flattering things about Meghan without people commenting on your comments.

        I must say, too, that I think the people who don’t like Meghan exaggerate the level of clap-back they get. It usually goes something like this:

        Anti-Meghan Person: She is so PR hungry, inappropriate, fame-hungry, [insert typical response]

        Respondant: Your arguments don’t really jive because x, y, or z.

        Anti-Meghan Person: Don’t call me a hater! Don’t call me a racist!

        At times, it’s like, wow — project much?

        And let me say, I am not fawning over Meghan. She’s a little too perfect for my, personal, taste. But I’m also not going to pout if someone disagrees with me, and claim that I’m not “allowed” to voice my opinion.

      • Sarah says:

        ranter, you are so right. I actually like Meghan more than Harry nowadays, although I think this VF deals shows she loves the limelight, but every time I say anything negative about her, or them, I get called a tumblr stan (whatever the heck that is, I have never been on tumblr) or a concern troll, etc. There is real bullying going on here in favor of Harry and Meghan, and I think it’s really absurd that people will insult me in order to defend some woman who will never even give them the time of day.
        I guess that is what celebrity does to the little people.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “I guess that is what celebrity does to the little people. ”

        You complain when people disagree logically with your opinions, then you finish it up with bashing folks like that?

        I’ve written many times, I’m not a Meghan Markle “fan”. I don’t watch Suits, didn’t follow her on social media. She’s a person dating a royal prince – and the response to that has been incredibly OTT negative and racist. That has not been the basis of all the negative reaction to her, but it has been a very strong and nasty undercurrent to a lot of it. I feel the need to stand up for her just on principle.

    • WTW says:

      I only agree with some of this. If Meghan were truly woke or whatever, would she get with Harry? Likely not, but sometimes people do have an intense connection with someone who’s completely different from them. I do believe that people can connect on a “soul” level. I don’t know if that’s the case with these two, but that would be the only explanation how someone as seemingly socially conscious as Meghan would be okay hanging with Harry, a man who dressed as a Nazi at a costume party. I would also have been very uncomfortable at his friend’s Jamaican wedding where all the guests were white and the servants black, but Meghan is mixed-race, and I don’t think ever describes herself as “black.” On the other hand, graduating from Northwestern and making a living as an actress (even if on a USA show) is an accomplishment. Most actresses do not become Meryl Streep, or even Gwyneth Paltrow, so the fact that she has been able to support herself as an actress is an achievement. I live in LA and know how many people come here trying to be actors. Most get nowhere; some feel lucky to land a commercial. Being able to make a living as an actor is indeed a sign of success. No one would say a lawyer isn’t successful because she’s not the most famous, award-winning lawyer in the country. We would view the fact that she passed the bar and was able to make a living practicing law as a triumph. The same goes for any profession.

      • Casey says:


        I recently read a terrific essay she wrote a couple years back. She’s comfortable in her skin and identifies as mixed race, both black and white (irish). She seems super close with her African American Mom, who looks as young as Meghan does, and is identifiably black, and cute with natural hair.

        Just curious why would a royal’s buddy’s wedding recep in Jamaica with black staff make her uncomfortable? It’s a black island for the most part. If it were in Norway the staff would have been majority white.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What is uncomfortable is WTW referring to staff as “servants” in 2017.

    • Casey says:


      There’s also a chance Meghan is actually in love with him, and that you couldn’t possibly know her as well as you think you do by what you’ve seen/read on paper. She seems like a nice, grounded person who loves Harry and he loves her.

      Also, what does – “she’s apparently not grossed out by his weird Africa thing…,” even mean?

      I’ll reserve my judgement on your seemingly insulting odd phrasing here, until you share and hopefully explain whatever the f it is you’re talking about.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I know many professional women (multi-degreed ones too), who are married to men who have no university education. Men who work in the trades, aren’t the main bread winners, end up working part-time and doing the majority of house and child care.

        Some consider the marriage “many steps down” for the women. Are they only supposed to want fellow corporate types as spouses? You never know who is going to be the right person for you.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        Co-sign! And waiitng patiently…

      • The Ranter Formerly Known As Amber says:

        The Africa Thing is William and Harry’s noted, colonialist, white-savior-esque, hard-on/obsession/fetishization of all things “African” in their very narrow scope of experience. (And most often very self-centered expression at that. Like, the freedom, and how it feels like home, and saving elephants, going on safaris, staying on their rich white friends’ properties…) AND how they WITHOUT FAIL refer to “Africa” no matter what specific thing, in whatever specific (few) places they’re talking about.

      • Sam says:

        Shes a d list actress in a 3rd rate cable show therefore its ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that shes in love with him because all she see is the fame,jewelry and more wealth than she could possible imagine..love pfttt! only those that are part of the British upper class would be ever suitable for Harry because they already have those stuff but then those people dont want him so he has to settle for someone like her.

      • PrincessK says:

        Harry likes Africa because its an escape, he is not a red carpet type of person, and he seems to like to dress down rather than up. I don’t think he cares for clothes etc. I never forget him being interviewed at Ludgrove around the time he was at Sandhurst and I was really shocked that the shirt he was wearing had clearly just been pulled out of the washing machine and was full of creases. So in Africa he can look as rough as he wants and its more difficult for the paps to track him down. Also he has a genuine interest in wildlife and helping children. What is wrong with that.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ The Ranter:

        I appreciate you’re probably trying to moderate your tone in terms of your opinion on Harry/Meghan/will etc. But here’s the thing…..when you express a cynical view of something (like your view on their affinity for Africa), it just invites cynical views about you back. You’ve got to expect it.

        It’s something Donald Trumps family don’t seem to get…..Ivanka for example, keeps wondering why people are so vitriolic towards her father and family. I keep thinking “????!!!!!!????!!!!!!!?????”

        (Sorry, not comparing you to Trump, just illustrating my point) 😊

        I see lots of comments fairly (and respectfully) critiquing Meghan’s choices or even her motives and I rarely see those comments attacked. People respond in kind. It’s the deliberately belittling, derogatory comments, sometimes heavily laced with long standing lies (and yes, those happen here as well, see the last thread on Meghan)…..Those get attacked and fairly so.

        You can’t call someone out on a public forum such as this for being a “famewhore” and then feign indignation when you’re pushed back on it. It’s not realistic.

    • perplexed says:

      I think the actress/career thing sets apart, but the emphasis on Meghan’s education is a little funny to me. Both Kate and William have degrees from good schools — nonetheless, they’re still pretty useless. That doesn’t mean Meghan will be useless, necessarily. But I don’t think Meghan’s education level sets her apart as unique.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She *is* the only one who has studied something relevant to a royal role – international relations. A degree in Geography and a degree in Art History don’t exactly make W&K well-trained or educated for the role. There are also multiple stories out of St Andrews that both W&K may have been babied through to get those degrees, KM because she was known as his girlfriend.

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, I know, but she has a BA, which in the real world a lot of people have. Her education level isn’t actually unique even in the real world. If she had a PHD, I would get the excitement over her degree, but a Bachelor’s degree nowadays is pretty standard. And American universities, even the prestigious ones like Harvard, are known for grade inflation.

        I also don’t think education level necessarily means anything since Diana had no O levels but was still pretty good at the job. The problem for her is that she didn’t get along with her husband, but the fact that she had no education didn’t hinder her ability to do the job. It’s emotional intelligence that helps out in this kind of role more than anything else, particularly because of the public nature of the job. Maybe Meghan has that; maybe she doesn’t. I have no idea. Only time will tell.

        Charles has a degree, probably in geography (since that seems like a British thing to study), and he’s been good at the job. Kate and William suck at their jobs because they’re Kate and William, not because of what they studied or didn’t study.

      • ariel says:

        Prince Charles has a degree from Cambridge and I agree William and Kate suck because of their personalities and inclinations.

      • LAK says:

        Charles has a degree in anthropology, archeology and history.

      • perplexed says:

        Thanks for the clarification on what Charles studied. I think he’s been good at the job.

      • Tina says:

        Charles has done a good job, and I like him. But he got a third in his degree, and there has been a persistent rumour that he was shown the questions the night before his university finals. They wouldn’t risk sending any Royal to Oxford or Cambridge today.

      • LAK says:

        In my mind, there is always an * next to the qualifications of any royal, but some have genuinely earned their qualifications.

        Ultimately, like everyone, it’s what they do afterwards that is important.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Tina, I hadn’t heard that tea about Charles seeing the questions ;)

      • notasugarhere says:

        Overall the BRF is the least educated of the royal families. My point remains. If she married in, Meghan Markle would be the only one with university studies in a relevant area – regardless of whether it is undergrad or higher level.

        Beatrix of the Netherlands, undergrad in Law and economics

        Felipe of Spain, undergrad in law, Masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown

        Frederick of Denmark, undergrad and Masters in PoliSci with some time at Harvard on exchange

        King Philippe of Belgium, Constitutional history at Oxford, Masters in PoliSci from Stanford

        Haakon of Norway, undergrad in polisci from Berkeley, Masters in Development Studies, London School of Economics

      • suze says:

        Harry posts were barely commented on for a while after the Watercress breakup – they’d get 20, 30 comments.

        And his bad press really started coming in after his famous “Interview”.

      • PrincessK says:

        Very unfair to judge the royals on their academic qualifications given the fact that they live their lives in a goldfish bowl. They cannot concentrate on their studies they way we do and so it is difficult to assess them fairly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        PrincessK, many of those mentioned attended schools outside of their home countries and went unrecognized during their studies for the most part. These people are handed roles in this world, roles that end up having real-world impact on millions of people. That some have taken this seriously-enough to get degrees that might be useful is something to applaud.

      • perplexed says:

        The British Royal Family is more famous than any other royal family on Earth. I do tend to think it would be more difficult to study unnoticed the way members of other country’s royal family members have.

        As for Markle’s qualifications, I still don’t think they’re worth more than Kate’s and William’s, just because she studied international relations (and theatre). A Bachelor’s degree is a bachelor’s degree. They’re all equally educated, just in different studies. I don’t think Kate and William’s education is worth less just because they chose other areas of study (geography has never struck me as useless). What makes them worth less as people, however, is that they’re lazy. That’s the problem with them — their lack of worth ethic.

        I have no issues with what they chose to study, since in real life, most people deviate anyway and take a different path from their initial choice of study. Plus, in real life, 5-10 years after you’ve earned your degree, where and what you studied becomes less relevant, and what you’ve actually done becomes more important. From what I can see, all three of them have decided to take a different route from their initial course of study. It’s not like Markle went on to become a diplomat any more than William went on to become a cartographer or geography professor. If she has intellectual aspirations or has an opinion about various conflicts around the world, one really wouldn’t be able to tell. Charles, from what I’ve read about him, is intellectual and well-read and well-versed in politics (as is the Queen), but whether any member of the royal family is actually allowed to comment on political matters is a different story. The Queen allegedly disliked Margaret Thatcher (good call, Elizabeth!) , but it’s not like she was allowed to say that out loud.

        Harry has no degree at all, and nobody claims he’s the most useless royal. Does the Queen have a degree?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, all I’m pointing out is that of those with degrees (BRF specific here), she’d be the only one with education in a relevant field to the role. She also interned at an embassy. She couldn’t have known years ago that she’d be dating a prince, so she chose something that was of interest to her. William chose Art History than Geography, neither of which remotely prepares him for his role. He hasn’t pursued more education or training in a relevant field, and appears to have failed at completing the custom land management course. At least Charles studied History.

      • perplexed says:

        Because of overlap between subjects, I actually don’t find geography irrelevant to his role. In the last couple of decades, subjects have become interdisciplinary. And geography is no exception. Most subjects make use of theories from different disciplines. But since William has no interest in expanding himself, most of what he has learned (if he bothered to study) has probably gone over his head. That’s on him of course – not the subject itself. But I think geography can be adaptable to a royal role, because you’d have to draw on other subjects in politics and history and international relations (as well as theory) to write your papers. The University of St. Andrews offers an MA in Geography and International Relations, so there does seem to be an interdisciplinary quality to geography.

        Ultimately, what I think you need for this job is the ability to withstand pressure and mental stability, because you’re being watched so much. I can see why a relevant study of choice might seem useful, but if you can’t withstand pressure, you’re pretty much toast in that family (and the media’s eye). There is no predefined set of criteria that really says what you need to study to function effectively as a royal because it seems every royal has brought their own set of useful (or useless) attributes to their position. But the ability to withstand the pressure of being watched seems to be the one point of commonality in terms of preparation.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Notasugarhere:

        Good info…..question for you please…..I’ve often wondered why the BRF is so distinctly non-intellectual (maybe except Charles, of you can call him that). Any idea why that is the case?

      • notasugarhere says:

        perplexed I think interest in the job matters greatly. She has already shown more interest in it (by her choice of degree and voluntary charity work) than W&K have in the years they’ve been working IMO. I see no intellectual or social curiosity out of either of them.

        Bellagio, maybe they just aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer? HM and Margaret were educated at home, Charles was the first heir to go to University if I’m remembering that correctly. The fact that William did only an undergrad in Geography in this day and age? Very surprising given what other royals of similar age accomplished academically.

        William barely applied himself to a custom few week course in land management. Victoria of Sweden struggles with dyslexia, completed her undergrad, and took a year-long course in diplomacy with an internship at an embassy. Even if you aren’t academically gifted, training and higher education in something *useful* is the least these folks can do.

      • perplexed says:

        Yes, interest in the job matters greatly, and I never claimed that William and Kate were actually useful. But I feel that has to do with their overall personalities rather than what they studied or didn’t study. Diana was no great intellect, but she was able to famously tackle the land-mine issue. Again, I think that comes down to personality.

    • Sarah says:

      Exactly!!! This bugs me, too!! How is Meghan such an accomplished amazing woman when she lounges around for weeks and months at a time, with no charity work for, what, a year?? And the one detail you forgot to note about Harry is how spectacularly unaccomplished he is. He is 33, and does a few weeks of charity work a year, no other work really, and those here still swoon over that. (Meanwhile, Daddy Charles had to bail out one of his charities a while back, cause Unaccomplished harry made such a mess of it.)
      A woman who would be happy with a man like that is not a woman who wants to set the world on fire. Although I guess if they marry, we will all see eventually.

      • PrincessK says:

        They are royal princes and not meant to work like me or you otherwise they would not be princes would they? I don’t want my princes to be ordinary, I want to see them elevated and if they need three or four holidays a year, good for them. I also do not want to see them in the news every single day doing charity work. A couple of times a month would be fine, they also need time to be involved in their country estates and networking and engaging in private conversations with important and knowledgeable people.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Sarah:

        Have you considered that he might be a spectacular, 1-in-a-million, mind blowing, earth shattering shag? 😁😁

        On a serious note, I’ve always had the strong view that it’s a fools errand trying to second guess people’s choices in partners because human beings are such complex, contradictory and depraved beings. Short of carrying out a deep, psychological assessment of Meghan and Harry individually and together, any assessment you come to is really just you projecting your beliefs and prejudices onto their story.

        For instance, Here’s my assessment:
        I think she lets Harry be Harry, ie forever young at heart without judging him (possibly because she’s similar herself). Maybe even babies him……those pictures from the wedding in Jamaica looked to me like a young mum trying to placate her toddler. (There’s even one picture where she’s holding his hand and ordering a drink for him, the way you would hold your son in check whilst ordering his ice cream).

        You might be scornful of that, but guess what, for a man who grew up for so long without a mother, that can be an incredibly powerful draw for the man and no amount of outside criticism will weaken it.

        On her part, Harry looks strikingly similar to the 2 other significant men in her life (tall, fair skinned, gingery hair, lads lads). So we can at least guess that she’s most likely genuinely physically attracted to him.

        I also think he adores her – he’s been very protective of her and has moved rather decisively on her (if it’s true that they are anywhere near engaged within a year). Isn’t this enough for her to be genuinely in love with him as well? Despite his many weaknesses?

        As I said, that is all conjecture on my part as well and we can only keep guessing. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we acknowledge we’re just guessing.

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      A most astute observation, @Kate

    • liriel says:

      Exactly! I have nothing against it, but I don’t understand the hype on Celebitchy. We mocked Amal who was way more accomplished. What you said about Harry – 100% true.

  21. JC says:

    Yes, the Palace approved. This is a mega win for all involved. It brings the royal family right smack into the 21st century, where racial diversity is a given.

    What could be a better next chapter for the royals than a photogenic, mixed race member of their inner circle? The camera loves Meghan—and unlike William/Kate—Meghan loves the camera.

    This romance— and potential marriage and kids— is pure PR gold. Hopefully Meghan and Harry are the real-deal, too, and truly love each other.

    • BritAfrica says:

      “Hopefully Meghan and Harry are the real-deal, too, and truly love each other.”

      I hope so too or they are going to find it rather tough. This is the 21st century afterall and the old royal ‘tricks’ will not play. People want to see hard work and appreciation which is why Wills and Kate are struggling so. I’m sure they believe that they ARE hardworking, but they simply cannot present it as such.

      And I agree with the rest of your comments.

  22. Cee says:

    I really hope Meghan lights a fire under Kate’s Keen bum, maybe then she will start working more consistently. I really, really hope Meghan is a good influence on her because as it stands Meghan will outshine everyone, except the Queen and Cambridge children.

    • island_girl says:

      With Meghan around, I’m not really paying attention to Kate.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t see it happening. I think W&K are happy to sit back, do less than the bare minimum, and have other people pick up the slack. I don’t expect that Harry and WhomeverHeMarries to do more engagements each year, because that would make W&K look too bad and cannot have that in the royal PR firmament. I do expect Harry&Spouse to dedicate time to big things that don’t “count” in the numbers game (Invictus, Sentebale, whatever non-profit his wife likely creates).

    • Elisa the I. says:

      According to some commenters on yesterday’s thread, Meghan will have to follow protocol and curtsy to Kate. From what I have read about Kate (= what is posted on CB) she will make sure that Meghan does curtsy and it is quite unlikely that they will be close.
      I find it almost sad that Meghan is portrayed as a free spirit who follows her own rules because she might be in for a rude awakening when confronted with all the royal rules and regulations… and sometimes love is not enough.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Most of us have to follow rules for our jobs, ones we might not like. We’re free to get on with our jobs when the overbearing CEO is away, and free in our personal time. You learn to deal with it and get on with doing your job successfully, thankful that the big corporate events are only a few times a year.

        They don’t need to be close, and given the Middleton track record, KM isn’t going to embrace anyone Harry marries. The royals aren’t together constantly, nor will they be working side-by-side. It is mostly a “set your own schedule, work autonomously, do work that reflects your personal interests” type of firm. As long as she weighted her hems and showed up at the county fair when invited, this wouldn’t be a horrible job for her.

        MM is said to already have friends in London which would help her have some support outside of “work”. As I’ve said before, if she and Harry get married, she should get close with Zara and Autumn. Befriend Madeleine of Sweden and Mabel of The Netherlands, both of whom are based in London. They work in subject areas that interest her, and the three of them could do some good work together.

      • LAK says:

        Nota: also the other windsor cousins of similar age from the Gloucester and Kent side. Ditto the Yorks who seem to embrace all of Harry’s romantic interests.

      • Cee says:

        I doubt MM will have to curtsy to Kate when she is alone, without William there. If Kate is alone and MM is with Harry, then doesn’t Kate need to curtsy to them?

        @NOTA – I really hope she befriends Madeleine and Mabel! Just imagine their joint engagements, how much press they could garner in the UK, Netherlands and Sweden.

      • Jessica says:

        What??? They’ll pretty much be equal rank until she becomes PoW. And I highly doubt she’ll make Meghan curtsey; she already doesn’t seem to be a fan of it and neither does the Queen.

      • LAK says:

        Jessica: Kate has the rank of William, the heir and only when in the presence of William. On her own, she goes to the back of the queue. Wife takes rank of hubby in presence of hubby. If hubby not present, wife goes to the back of the queue.

        Likewise MM would have the rank of Harry the spare in his presence. If you haven’t noticed, Harry walks a few paces behind William and Kate during engagements. That’s not an accident. That’s a protocol think denoting their rankings. MM would walk level with Harry if she joins the family.

        In a group setting of Harry, MM and Kate without William, Harry outranks them all, MM takes Harry’s rank and Kate would have to curtsey to her.

        Situation reversed if William is part of the group. Then Kate takes his rank and MM is at the back of the queue and curtseying to William and Kate.

        And that’s before you factor in the blood princes.

        Due to Anne and Alexandra’s shenanigans, the order of precedence was changed such that blood princes outrank their married inlaws if the ranking royal is absent.

        Meaning, in the absence of William or Harry, Kate and MM have to curtsey to Anne, Alexandra, B and E.

        And btw, if you think Kate or the Queen don’t care for curtsey’d, you haven’t seen the many instances her family members have curtseyed to the Queen in public including Kate doing it during Trooping of the colour, outside a church, at engagements etc.






        Then there are the times people have curtseyed to Kate in public, including our current Prime Minister so obviously Kate hasn’t discouraged anyone from it.




      • Jessica says:


        I said they were pretty much equal in rank not exactly equal. Also like I said Catherine does not seem to be a big fan of curtseying (like the Queen) I didn’t say that no one has curtsied to her or she has actively discouraged. Relax before you rush to comment.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Plenty of pictures out there of Kate Middleton smiling smugly while being curtsyed to.

      • Lorelai says:

        Elisa, I think it could go either way with Kate and I’m very curious to see what happens!

        Given Kate’s track record re: female friends, you are probably right. However, I think it’s also possible that she *could* be glad to have another woman her age around and if Meghan is as friendly and likable as she seems, maybe they’ll actually be friends?

        For some reason I feel as if Pippa may influence how this goes. If she likes Meghan and plans for all three of them to have some girls’ time, I can see Kate warming up to her more easily. (This is obviously ridiculous since Kate is a grown woman, but we know she doesn’t have many opinions of her own and looks to her family always.)

        Time will tell!

        ETA: Kate also might befriend Meghan because of the old, “keep your enemies closer” adage. It would make her look so terribly bitchy and unsympathetic if she wasn’t kind to the newest member of the family, a woman who her BIL clearly adores.

        Best-case scenario is that Meghan is a loyal and trustworthy friend, that Kate will learn this, and they will become allies in a way. Kate would SO benefit from having a friend who understands the unique position they’re in, and having someone to confide in.

        Kate will probably take direction from Carole on this matter (because of course) and Carole is a lot of things but savvy sure is one of them. I’d imagine Carole has been thinking strategy since the moment Meghan entered the picture!

        But I agree with the commenters above: Meghan should (and most likely, it will just happen naturally) get to know Zara, Autumn, and the York girls, if she hasn’t already. Harry is close to them all so I would think they would welcome her with open arms even if Kate doesn’t.

      • Idle says:

        Hi LAK,

        One of the links you provided seems to conflict what you said.

        “In a group setting of Harry, MM and Kate without William, Harry outranks them all, MM takes Harry’s rank and Kate would have to curtsey to her. ”

        but in this link https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cb/38/0e/cb380e753e800b23ae172656dcd4568b–queen-elizabeth-edinburgh.jpg it says “always required to curtsy to Kate” and “his spouse will always be below kate”

        In any case, for someone who doesnt know much about the royals the links and your write up were helpful. Thanks!

      • Vadak says:

        LAK: This is my very first comment after reading the site for several months. I just want to chime in (caffeine-courageous from multiple iced teas) that I value tremendously your many, many informative and educational posts. I feel the need to state this after having recently noticed what I feel might be a disturbing trend of posters making quick, off-hand, sometimes poorly thought-through comments and then reacting negatively, defensively, and sometimes even hostilely to posters who respond with illuminating points. This happened in the previous thread with Merritt unnecessarily pushing back, and has happened again here with Jessica reacting poorly to the educational commentary on the BRF’s hierarchy protocols. I don’t mean to imply that you need or invite posters to “stick up for you,” but I wanted to express my gratitude to you for your numerous posts and emphasise that I for one neither condone, appreciate, nor am amused by the way some posters have been dismissive of your input, and express my fervent hope that despite this unwelcome attitude, you will continue to reply just as you always have, with the knowledge that there is at least one reader who doesn’t comment but who greatly appreciates your posts. So much so that I have been copying and pasting your comments in my iPhone’s Notes app, along with those by A, Algernon, Anare, Arthistorian, Blewis, Bluhare, Connell, Craven, Digital Unicorn, Fluff, Frosted Flakes, Graymatters, Imqrious2, Jetlagged, La Elle, Meggles, Nemi, Notasugarhere, Perplexed, Ramona, Seraphina, SF, Sixer, Spiderpig, Suze, Theotherone, Tough Cookie, Wendynerd, and Where’sMyTiara. Not everyone I listed here always agrees with one another, which actually makes for excellent discussion, but they are respectful and thoughtful in their commentary. I enjoy rereading the copied and pasted comments in my iPhone when I want to review interesting information or share with my friends who don’t follow the site. I can’t express how grateful I am for your informative comments. Thank you!

    • Aurelia says:

      Expect kate to momentarily up her game. Gosh kate even upped her shoe game for a hot nano second after Letizeia came to town on the royal visit a few months ago.

  23. Erica_V says:

    There is no way this would be approved if they weren’t already engaged. I’d bet good money on it.

  24. Bridget says:

    That logic grosses me out. She gives an interview to a publication of her choice, so she automatically forfeits any desire for privacy?

    • Maum says:

      Sadly yes.
      The whole interview is about her relationship (or that’s how it’s pitched anyway) so she’ll be fair game for the UK press.

    • PrincessK says:

      Harry and Meghan complained about racist and sexist abuse in terms of an invasion of privacy, so people should stop twisting the content of the letter issued from KP. Meghan being on the cover of VF and giving an interview in no way negates the statement that was issued as it was mainly because of the abuse.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Bridget/Maum/PrincessK: I totally agree! It is *insane* to me how some people here are conflating Meghan giving a planned, sanctioned interview & photo shoot in which she had time to prepare for and likely had approval before it went to print, with the kinds of horrifying intrusions that Harry referred to in his letter.

      Do people honestly not see the difference between VF, and Meghan being chased down the street by dozens of paps screaming at her to get a reaction? Or are they just using it as more ammunition since they didn’t like Meghan in the first place?

      SMH. All you have to do is look at the photos of both Diana and Kate being literally stalked by gangs of paparazzi every time they stepped outside to understand they are two completely different things.

  25. Penelope says:

    Absolutely love her looks–she’s so sexy in a really unique and lovely way. And in interviews I’ve seen, her personality sparkles as well. She’s going to be a wonderful addition to the RF.

  26. island_girl says:

    With all that is going on in the world: DACA repeal, Harvey, Irma and the orange demon…I’m just grateful for this love story distraction. I am grateful for the Kensington palace/Harry letter released November 8th. It has been a gift and I am here for it and the impending engagement and wedding.

  27. Indiana Joanna says:

    Unlike the Carole and Pippa Middleton who cry victim when criticized for obviously exploiting royal connections for every freebie and most likely tax payer goodies that are cast offs from Kate, Meghan never has played the victim. She knows that she has entered the eye of the storm as Harry’s girlfriend and handles it with aplomb.

  28. Beatrix says:

    i find the line “wild about Harry,” written under her face on a magazine COVER to be completely cringeworthy, anyone deserves better. Aside from that, I hope she and Harry truly work for the advancement of important causes, which it seems like they will…

  29. kdlaf says:

    The vitriol towards Meghan on here is really disappointing to see. She’s clearly trying to take control of the narrative of the relationship the best she can on her own terms (obviously with permission from the palace – COME ON). She has been doing charity work for YEARS, there are no stories about her being some horrible/disingenuine person, and despite her not being Jennifer Lawrence level of fame and success, Suits is a popular show that has been on forever – which 90% of the actors/actress out there in Hollywood would dream of. Lastly, even if you think it’s all for PR, she’s a C-list loser actress trying to catch a break, etc – this woman is harmless!!

    You guys are writing think piece long cruel comments as if this woman wronged you or America personally…

  30. Starryfish says:

    Of course it was, it was shot in London, and there’s simply no way that VF does anything to risk the relationship that they’ve established with the royal family. She’s also not a moron, there’s no way she does this unless there have been promises made in private. This is the beginning of her roll out, they’re beginning to define her public persona and nailing down the details around their official narrative as a couple. Unlike Kate she has a public persona before this relationship so the roll out has to be different, they can’t pull the nonsense that they did with Kate where they tried to convince everyone Will had always called her Catherine. unlike Kate, people will have heard her speak prior to her engagement interview.

  31. Elaine says:

    I think its really sweet that Harry chose a Vanity Fair cover for Megs. Didn’t the boys once say these were their favorite photos of their Mother, photographed by Testino,looking natural in VF?

    And it was timed to debut *right* after 20 years of the Diana death hoopla ended. Timing suggests- Exit Princess Di. Enter Princess Sparkles.

    Wills gave Kate his ring to remind her and the world of Moms. Harry gives VF covers. What else of Diana’s will he bestow on our future Princess Sparkles :-)

  32. Jb says:

    Until you spelled that out – she had a Real Life before the prince – it never struck me how unique that makes her among the extended House of Windsor. It has got to be a huge part of her appeal that she appreciates what she has actually earned – before Harry came along.

    • LAK says:

      That list would include Sophie who was running her own business when she met Edward.

      In a small way, Fergie too. She left school at 15/16 and married at 26. She worked a variety of job for that decade even if she wasn’t established in a settled career.

      • Carey says:

        And Sophie’s father was a tire salesman and her mother was a secretary. Decidedly humble background.

      • Nic919 says:

        And the Queen likes Sophie best. I think she respects people who work and have a sense of duty. She doesn’t need to ask “but what does she do?” Like she did with Kate.

      • suze says:

        People always forget about Sophie, who has worked steadily both before and during her marriage

        And really, both Autumn Philips and Mike Tindall had careers. As did Daniel Chatto, who was both an actor and an agent.

        Lots of the grandchildren of monarchs marry people with jobs, and work themselves.

        It’s nice that Meghan had a good career, and she has, but she is hardly the first ever “normal” person to marry a royal. Heck, Anthony Armstrong Jones is probably the most apt comparison to her,and he came along some 50 years ago.

  33. Vinot says:

    I’m less inclined to believe that she’s of the 99%; she grew up on the set of Married with Children, hostessed and “did calligraphy”. Are those jobs? Sure. But she’s from a show business family in LA, not a Waffle House in Podunk, Kansas.

    What is intolerable is the debate over her race and identity politics; it’s gross and the racism is very clear. I really hope she does stick to ignoring any and all online posts, including mine.

    • Cat says:

      THANK YOU. Finally someone is reasonable about this. Her father was involved in the entertainment industry. It is not like she was on welfare and became the head of a charity organization. She is on a freaking television show.

    • Dally says:

      Hah, you clearly are not from LA, there are a lot of people who are connected to the entertainment industry and they are absolutely normal. They probably eat at IHOP or the House of Pies rather than Waffle House, but they still worry about paying for health insurance, or what to do when their car breaks down, or anything else the 99% worries about. I think you do not understand that “show business” jobs are pretty much just like any other jobs: electricians and cameramen and costume designers and caterers, earning not quite enough to just enough, with long hours and the hope to work your way up the scale.

      • morrigan says:

        Exactly Dally. I was born and raised in the LA area and MY father worked in the industry. I hung out on the sets of shows and films he worked on when I was a kid. If you’re born and raised in LA, that kind of thing really is NBD. It’s not a privileged kind of thing at all, and the hours are atrocious. One time my dad came home at 2 AM, then had to go right back to work at 5:30 AM. (I’m pretty sure Meghan has to work at least 12-15 hours a DAY when she’s on set. TV work is way more grueling than movie work given the pace of shooting tv vs film).

        Heck, I remember going to a preview screening awhile ago – yes, getting passes to go to such things is a regular thing out here in LA as well – and the ushur asking everyone as they entered if they knew or were related to someone working in the industry. I joked that you can’t live and work in the LA area and NOT know someone who does, and the people around me who heard me laughed and agreed.

        Working in the industry isn’t glamorous. My dad always equated it to working in a factory. It’s just that the product is entertainment and – if you work in front of the camera or above the line behind it – it can make you world famous. We didn’t live glamorously. (My mother was a teacher). I grew up regular middle-class in a middle-class house in a middle-class suburb, despite my dad working in the industry. Meghan Markle grew up in the San Fernando Valley which is in NO WAY glamorous, and an area that has always been rather the butt of jokes for us SoCal natives. She was 100% part of the 99%.

        Also, none of us out here eat at Waffle House because there IS no Waffle Houses in SoCal. The place of choice instead would either be IHOP, House of Pies or Roscos. ;-)

      • Cat says:

        No, I am not from Los Angeles. I live in NYC. The irony is that some of you bend over backward to defend some lady you do not know from Adam. If Kate had been divorced, worked on a cable tv show, and was on the cover of Vanity Fair, she would be ripped to shreds. I have nothing against the woman but the hyprocrisy here is ridiculous. Regarding Harry and Markle, you cannot complain about the press and then willingly go on Vanity Fair. That is ridiculous too.

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is so true @ Dally
        I can’t seem to get away from both coasts.
        I have been going back forth forever, but it is interesting because they are very different.
        When we are there, everything revolves around the industry .I didn’t realize how weird it was to people, but I try to tell them it is not glamorous. It can make it harder to enjoy a movie or a TV show. Conversations revolve around it and gossip can be salacious, but it doesn’t seem abnormal.
        In New York, it is much more diverse as far careers so it would appear more unusual and sound more important than some of the jobs are.

      • Lorelai says:

        Dally, your post made me think of the Griddle Cafe and now I’m starving just thinking about it! :)

      • Dally says:

        You are the second person to try to refute one of my comments by assuming I don’t know her. Hah, LA is a smaller town than you’d think sometimes. I also think people are weirdly excessively critical of Kate too so not sure what hypocrisy you are talking about. Also, I think going through someone’s trash, trying to break into their mom’s house, and showing up on the doorstep of someone’s random schoolmates in pursuit of celebrity gossip is pretty noxious, no matter how many magazine interviews that person may give (and one in 6 months, for a working actress, is far from excessive.) I mean, no one was upset that they’d report actual substantive things, or even personal things, about her, but the fact that she has an aunt who lives in Compton is not news, and the way it was reported was really really gross and racist, and I barely know her and was outraged on her behalf.

    • kdlaf says:

      People are saying shes middle-class – aka the 99%. In LA that is a regular middle-class job….And yeah, those are the jobs you take (hostessing, calligraphy, etc) while youre trying to make it as an actor in LA.

  34. Tan says:

    I like Meghan, she is really beautiful and self sufficient. She has enough fame of her own. Its not like she sought out Harry specifically to date him. These people, meet each other because thye move in similar circles. They move in somewhat simikar circle because of who they are, or rather what strata of society they belong too. So Meghan is not really climbing up or Harry is stooping low.
    Let’s just be happy for them.

    And, I also like ans admire Amal Clooney. I bring it up because this thread is full of comparisons of the two and picking up teams to dislike the other. Amal is an extremely accomplished person. Her working for fame hungry firm does not lessen her credentials. So she loves camera and fashion, big deal?

    Aren’t we all full of contradictions? Or rather we are all a mix of different personality traits.

    Aren’t we pigeonholing both these beautiful smart accomplished ladies when we say they can be something but the other facets of their personality do not truly make them bonafide that something?

    I feel a lot of that is going on.

    • Nic919 says:

      Amal was promoted as a unicorn and the top barrister in London and the world even though her actual caseload did not justify this. Because of the overreach, which to be fair could have been Clooney’s fault more than hers, there was push back.
      Let’s just say that Amal isn’t putting the hours in that any other barrister of her vintage has to put in. However, she didn’t actively chase Clooney and instead he adapted to what she wanted, similarly to what Harry has done for Meghan.

  35. Kyliegirl says:

    If this interview was done with Palace approval they really need to tighten their PR game. The recent resignations of staff and reports of disarray at BP, CH and KP have clearly impacted the PR messaging around the image the royal family has been carefully crafting for years. Would the royal family want one of their most popular members labeled “Britain’s iconoclastic royal” in the intro of the article? Stating Harry is the royal attacking cherished beliefs or institutions, the institution he professes to highly value and service to the Queen paramount to him? After the Newsweek article questioning if anyone wants to be Queen/King and this article, if the palace is giving approval to what can be interpreted as a senior member of the royal family questioning the role of the monarchy, they have more problems than questioning if an American divorcee should be part of the royal family. Additionally, if this was meant to introduce Meghan Markle to a wider audience, her quotes make her sound like a vapid, Hollywood actress, not the down to earth humanitarian they were going for. Time for the Palaces to get their PR messaging together. This looks like amateur hour.

  36. suze says:

    There was probably some approval on this, at least at the KP level. Who knows if they bother to run anything by Charles and his crew or The Queen these days. The Young Windsors definitely think they can finesse royal PR on their own. I’m not sure any of it matters, since they are all determined to do whatever they want to do.

    Meghan is beautiful, she has a very good career for an actress, which is a tough gig. She seems to have some genuine charitable interests, and a the makings of a serious portfolio if she gets the job, which seems more and more likely. Yeah, she talks ACTOR which is a bit of a needle scratch in the midst of the royals, but either she’ll adapt or they will embrace it.

    I wouldn’t say she is the most normal person to ever marry into the royal family, though. Her life isn’t normal right now nor was it before Harry entered it. As I mentioned to LAK above, Sophie Wessex probably gets the most normal prize, with Daniel Chatto and Autumn Phillips trailing behind. Meghan is more of a Mike Tindall or Anthony Armstrong Jones type – someone with a higher profile career, more glamorous career, who will have to fit that into a new life. We’ll see how it goes.

  37. maggie says:

    I don’t think her being on the cover necessarily means they’re engaged. They could be two people dating for fun. I don’t see this being long term even if they do marry. Two very different worlds as she will find out when they’re out of the honeymoon stage. She comes off as rather full of herself.

  38. Eve V says:

    For the second day in a row, I got a good chuckle out of “The Bitter Tears of Jared & Ivanka” story.

  39. Helen Smith says:

    I think it needs to be said that a measly 1% of actors in SAG make their living from acting. That already makes Meghan a success in Hollywood. She has beaten out 99% of the actors in Hollywood by the fact that she was able to quit her day job to be a full time actor.

    I hadn’t heard of Meghan before she dated Harry either but that doesn’t mean anything. There are plenty of shows on television and Netflix that I don’t watch and never have heard of.

    I’m too busy to spend a lot of time watching television. I imagine a lot of people here are too. So no shade thrown by me onto Meghan if I haven’t heard of her. I haven’t heard of a lot of hard working actors on cable, Netflix, Amazon or Hulu.

    Anyone have any suggestions for my next binge? Who am I missing?

    • Planet Earth says:

      I will try:

      Meghan hasn’t done much filming. No big movies. She is 36. She graduated 2003. That means she would have had to survive financiall for 14 years on 1 bigger part in a tv series and on small acting parts in small tv series. I doubt she managed to survive for 14 years on such a small tv career especially as she only got paid serious money in her later years. Maybe there were some small-budget modeling jobs, too, but I doubt she could survive for just 1 year from the money from all of her modeling jobs.

      According to wikipedia she was educated at a private school(s) and apparently her university fees were not crippling debts? Who paid that? How was it paid?

      Usually families who can afford to send their children to private schools do have some money. I bet her family supported her.

      Usually actors/actresses do all sorts of work in between acting jobs. Benedict Cumberbatch admitted to waiting tables and other stuff. Michael Fassbender worked in bars / as barkeeper.

      So what kind of work did Meghan do?

      • Planet Earth says:

        A quote from the vanity fair article:

        ” Markle was wearing a red, knee-length floral dress (“Erdem, a designer I’ve been wearing for years”),”

        How did she pay for Erdem designer clothes?
        Erdem skirts retail for more than Brit. Pounds 1.000.
        Cheapest Erdem top retails for more than Brit. Pounds 300.
        How does a struggling actress (small parts and 1 big part) pay for such clothes?
        Erdem is a British brand so I guess Markle tried to oil the machine with the Brits.
        But the comment is pretty vapid: it indicates that Markle pretends to be more successfull than she is or that she got the money from not-acting-work.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Helen: depends on what types of shows you like, but I highly recommend “Catastrophe,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” and “Fleabag” on Amazon Prime, “Master of None” and “Friends from College” (both *hilarious*) on Netflix, and “Difficult People” on Hulu. (Nothing has been able to make me laugh so hard since the election like Difficult People does!)

      I started watching “The Last Tycoon” on Amazon and it is great so far. I also had a friend recommend “The Beginning of Everything” on Amazon, in which Cristina Ricci plays Zelda Fitzgerald, and while I haven’t gotten to it yet, it’s on my list.

      Hope this was helpful!

    • notasugarhere says:

      She has a career that those other 99percent wish they had. No matter how some may try to belittle it, seven years on a tv show that had run seven years counts as being a successful working actress.

      What types of things do you like to watch? I’ve found watching old tv series (10-15 years) I missed the first time around can be good (Profiler, Homicide, Bramwell), Doc Martin since I missed the first few seasons.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you like mysteries, Miss Fisher and Foyle’s War, or Montalbano if you’re willing to read subtitles.

      • Planet Earth says:

        Markle’s acting career likely wasn’t successful enough to support her financially.
        It is fair to ask what she did to support herself. Just wait how she will get scrutinized as soon as she announces her engagement. As she will marry into high political circles it is both necessary and fair to inquire about her past and her employment situation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Try as much as you like, her career was plenty to support her. That “private school” was a Catholic high school. Most of the ones in my neck of the woods have sliding pay scales based on family income. My family isn’t wealthy, I received no scholarships, and yet I have two university degrees and no debt. Own my own home too. Entirely possible she has no debt from her education either and paid for her own home too out of what she earns. So many aspersions being cast about about this woman, so much fake “proof”, when all she’s doing is dating a prince.

        If the shady as hell cashing-in-on-the-royal-connection for 15 years Middleton family can marry-in, a self-supporting television actress has nothing to worry about.

  40. Lorelai says:

    I’m an American, and I disagree. Camilla is also a future Queen and gets only a tiny fraction of the international news coverage that Kate does. Kate has shown her up every single day since W&K’s engagement was announced!

    The media runs with what will sell and make them the most money.

  41. Planet Earth says:

    I wouldn’t expect too much. Sure, Meghan appears to know how to do pr. But so far she has mostly done movie pr. And she likely had professional advisors who worked with all the actors/actresses of her movies.
    So far she hasn’t done much political/social stuff. That requires more than selling movies. So far her political/social stuff aka charity was mostly charity-for-selfpromotion. Not much impact but good for her.
    Upon consideration: that is exactly what Royals do, but on a grander stage.

  42. A says:

    I don’t understand why people continue to say that the royals giving interviews means they can’t complain about their privacy being breached. I never understood their annoyance with that to somehow mean that they don’t like to give interviews or give people a glimpse into their life. They just want to do that on their own terms. They want to give their own message, not one that’s construed from the words of third party courtiers or sanctioned leaks from the palace. They want to be the ones who put their words out there, rather than having to convolute the source just to seem like they’re above it all.

    I get the frustration from royal reporters, because this is their livelihood. And the way things have worked so far has been very specific in terms of how the Queen puts out her information. And the biggest concern for me would be the fact that some royal news that people wouldn’t want to be open about won’t get printed, and I don’t think the royals should get complete monopoly over what gets published. But I don’t see how giving an interview that’s a very careful, controlled glimpse into someone’s life is a thing that means they don’t want privacy anymore. That’s just a reach for me.