Us Weekly: Prince Harry already proposed to Meghan Markle in Botswana

Prince Harry Prince Harry attends the Heads Together Campaign Conference in London

Of course there’s still a lot of chatter about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Can’t a prince take his American girlfriend on a posh safari in Botswana without the whole world expecting him to propose?!? But honestly, of course Harry and Meg are on the engagement track. The only questions now are A) when he proposed or when he will propose and B) when they will announce their engagement formally. My theory is that he proposed during this Botswana vacation, but they’ll announce it after the Invictus Games, maybe late September or early October. Us Weekly sort of agrees with me:

Every detail had been meticulously planned. Ahead of their August 4 arrival in Botswana, Prince Harry arranged “a small, surprise celebration” for girlfriend Meghan Markle’s 36th birthday, reveals a Harry pal. And since it was the first time the Suits actress would be meeting his friends in the African nation, the besotted royal went all out. “He was thrilled to bits that he could introduce her to them,” says the pal. “The celebration began almost the minute they touched down.” With a barbecue set up at his friend’s house (“Lots of local foods were prepared,” says the friend) and music playing, everyone partied into the night, says the pal: “Meghan was speechless and so touched.”

And that was only the opening act. Two sources reveal in the new issue of Us Weekly that the 32-year-old intended to ask Markle for her hand in marriage during their three-week stay. While a royal insider says Harry refused to share the details with pals, both the timing — a friend notes he wanted to propose near the anniversary of his mom Princess Diana’s death “so he can associate August with something joyful” — and the location are dear to his heart.

So for months, says the royal insider, Harry’s known this is the trip on which he’d ask his love of more than a year to be his bride. To craft a ring worthy of a princess, Harry worked closely with a jeweler, notes the royal insider, and took a cue from big brother, Prince William. While William used their late mother’s 18-carat sapphire engagement ring to pop the question to Duchess Kate, Harry, says the insider, “had diamonds taken from a brooch he inherited from Diana.” But a source predicts Markle will keep the sparkler under wraps for awhile. “Harry said he would want to enjoy the news between the two of them before word starts spreading out,” says the source. They have plenty of memories to bask in. Adds the source, “This has really been the trip of a lifetime.”

[From Us Weekly]

William didn’t do anything special for the sapphire ring, actually. He didn’t get it re-set or anything. He asked Harry for the ring (Harry had taken it after Diana’s passing) and then William gave it, as-is, to Kate. At least Harry put a little thought into this alleged ring! And I do hope it’s a diamond ring and not a colored stone. Meg’s already going to be compared endlessly to Kate, so she doesn’t need to have a colored-stone engagement ring too.

Meanwhile, Diana’s former chef Darren McGrady believes he has some insight into Harry’s would-be proposal to Meghan. McGrady told Hello that he expects Harry to announce the engagement in December, so as not to interfere with the Queen’s platinum wedding anniversary. I don’t know… wait until December? Doubtful.

AG_105300_011

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Related stories

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

236 Responses to “Us Weekly: Prince Harry already proposed to Meghan Markle in Botswana”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. seesittellsit says:

    And, of course, she asked for time to think about it, right?

  2. Brittney B. says:

    I’m just so happy we’re having these conversations about a biracial American actress who earned her own fame/money and even got divorced before meeting Harry. This family could really use a self-aware, self-sufficient human being who understands prejudice and poverty and life in other countries/cultures.

    • Carrie1 says:

      +1

    • LAK says:

      Have you researched Sophie Wessex?

      • magnoliarose says:

        She is lovely, but we Americans are mounting a coup. It is all about a full circle. WE ran from the monarchy only to run back to the monarchy in the form of a biracial actress. Much better than that ole Wallis lady.
        For some reason, I think Camilla would like her.

        In all seriousness, I do like Sophie. She has substance and recovered nicely from her stumbles and setbacks. But I don’t know a lot about her, she isn’t covered much.

      • LAK says:

        Lol Magnoliarose.

        Surprising discovery afew weeks ago, but i listened to a radio interview Wallis gave during their exile. I was surprised by the warmth, gaiety and laughter in her voice. It was very similar to Audrey Hepburn.She came across very well, and someone who’d be fun to be with.

        Usually when i watch her tv interviews, i’m distracted by all manner of things whilst ignoring her voice.

        On the subject of Sophie, apart from that one gaffe, she’s someone Americans would love if they knew about her. She’s not charismatic, but her background and qualities and reactions to events are things Americans celebrate.

        From middle class parents who weren’t millionaires, to leaving school at 16, joining secretarial college and working until she had her own firm at 30yrs, married the Queen’s son, tried to keep working at her company whilst undertaking royal duties when she could.

        When she stumbled, she resigned from her company and kept a low profile and worked her duties without giving a woe is me mea culpa typical of Diana or Fergie.

        3 very difficult pregnancies, one never made it to term, 2nd nearly killed mother and baby, third was smoothest of all, but still difficult.

        Her oldest child had issues with her eyes and needed a series of operations over ten years to correct the problem, starting at 9mths.

        Sophie has 81 patronages including avoidable blindness and ante-natal complications.

        By the way, it’s a *small thing, but she does her own hair, make up and writes her own speeches which she gives often gives without reading from notes!!!😊

        *it’s such a low bar that we throw a parade for Kate managing to appear presentable/ read a speech despite the professionals hired to help her.

        She appears to be a favourite of everyone in the family and frequently rides with the Queen.

        I think her relationship with the Queen is best summed up by this photo
        https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a0/a4/b2/a0a4b21d3876b8737a283d541b306409–complicated-relationship-princess-anne.jpg

        Ironically, Diana was the bitchiest to her when she was first introduced to the family. Reduced her to tears at their first encounter. The problem being that Diana thought Sophie was common and poor. After their meeting, Diana phoned the press to tell them exactly that Sophie was her replacement in the family hence the media narrative that Sophie was copycating Diana.

        The story of their meeting duly appeared in Majesty magazine
        http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/diana-and-sophie-countess-of-wessex-13466.html

      • Skylark says:

        Eh, LAK, although I don’t care for any of them, that’s a rather lovely summary of Sophie’s character, rise and the good qualities she’s brought to the Windsor table. As is the pic of her and the queen. You can almost feel the warmth.

        That alleged story of Sophie and Diana’s meeting is hilariously awful! If true, it would be more at home in ‘The WIndsors’ rather than the Windsors.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        Very interesting, LAK! Thanks for posting, always appreciate some good background on the royals!

      • Lady D says:

        Love the picture of Sophie with the queen.

      • minxx says:

        I’ve always liked Sophie, she seems so normal, natural and not full of herself. Plus, I had the same exact issue happen to me with the birth of my baby (placenta abruption), so I feel really bonded with her – she never talked about it to the press but it’s a traumatic thing to go through.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @LAK
        Thank you for the summary. It sheds light on her and I like that she isn’t a useless airhead flitting around nonsensically. I am going to pay more attention to her.
        I believe it about Diana.
        Julian Fellowes wrote a book and talked about her negatively but not too strong though I could tell he had plenty more to say if given the opportunity.
        He said she knows when cameras are around and would grab a baby or set the tableau when she knew she would be snapped. I have heard the same from two different people who saw her in person. One said she was just standing there normally and then when she knew a crowd and cameras were on the other side of the door, her face changed and her eyes widened demurely before exiting the room. They were astonished by it.

        The photo shows HM really loves her. It shows on her face and I haven’t seen that from her much.

      • LAK, Thank you for bringing up Lady Louise’s eye problems. I am horrified by the sick, abusive comments I have heard from supposedly intelligent people in England, and read in Daily Fail, about her birth defect. I wish her mother, Sophie, will be more prominently acclaimed for all her work she does to promote awareness and medical care for people with opthamology issues. She is the “real” beauty and star in the BRF. I had a child (killed by a drunk driver, another of my crusades) who was born with divergent strabismus (crossed eyes) that was corrected at age two.

        Sophie is a person I admire. She made a few serious mistakes, was pummeled for it, and thus kept herself out of the limelight. She is a great example of a mature woman marrying into the BRF, working for her causes. She dresses great, too, and is the polar opposite of Doolittle.

    • SoulSPA says:

      ITA on your comments about Meghan. But there is no way that she will have any influence on the BRF. She is a complete outsider as per the elements you mentioned. Not even Diana was well received, despite her background and all of her aristocratic family ties with the BRF. I liked Meghan only as compared to the Dolittle Katie. They are literally worlds apart as per upbringing, work experience and work ethic, world views and so on. Due to the attention on Meghan on this site I managed to see a few interviews with her on youtube. Just managed to see a few of them. IMO she comes across a bit shallow with a super fake and sly attitude. If they get married, it will be fun to watch how their lives will unfold. And the media scrutiny on Dolittle vs. Meghan (what would be a good monicker for M????) will be brutal. It will be interesting to watch. Engagement, wedding and a baby or maybe twins quite soon after the wedding. And it will be a lot worse than Diana vs. Sarah. We are in the age of digital media.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ soulspa:

        Wow…..it’s always interesting to get different perspectives on Meghan….Like you, I only started looking into her after all the fuss begin with her dating Harry. Unlike you however, I find her really likable…..intelligent, articulate and fun. The overwhelming energy I get from her is gratitude with her life…..she seems thrilled with her job, business and life in general.

        I do get a small hint of a “me, me, me” attitude on there, but no more than is expected of someone raised for the most part as an only child.

        You said: “she comes across a bit shallow with a super fake and sly attitude.”

        I’m genuinely curious…..can you be a bit more specific…..what particular videos or interviews did you get this impression from? Maybe it’s something I haven’t seen….

        Re a good moniker for Meghan….I think “Sparkle” is perfect actually. It embodies both sides of how she’s perceived (good and bad) perfectly.

      • WTW says:

        @Bellagio, I think it’s patently false that only children have a “me, me, me” attitude. I’ve known several only children, and I am one myself, and the most self-centered and narcissistic people I know have siblings. I’ve known just one only child who seemed to be all about herself. I think people with siblings tend to be more self-involved because they had to compete with a sibling for their parent’s attention or felt overshadowed by a sibling. According to research, many only children are treated like eldest children, given a lot of responsibility, allowed to hear adult conversations and often treated like mini adults. I was a latchkey kid who came home did homework, made myself a snack, etc., with no adult telling me what to do. Even today, I can be overly responsible and organized. This idea of the only child who is pampered and spoiled by parents is a sweeping generalization, and I think what people with siblings fantasize their lives would’ve been like if they didn’t have brothers and sisters.

      • perplexed says:

        I think she’s articulate, but I do also think she has a way of speaking that can seem a little forced. I’m not sure if that’s an actressy- thing….all of them seem like they’re trying too hard to sound interesting and confident — even Jennifer Lawrence. I’m not sure if that’s a 2017 thing though. Everyone on tv seems so “loud” lately…

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ wtw:

        I stand corrected…..my comment was not off the back of any scientific research or anything, just my own personal perspective observations.

        As one of 10 kids in a humongous, boisterous, rainbow family, it was impossible not to view the seemingly sane, serene, sophisticated lives of my friends and cousins who were only kids through a prism of deep envy and a little spite too! 😁😁😁

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ perplexed,

        Let’s not forget the human aspect of this….these guys are giving interviews in the social-media age where any tiny gaffs have the potential to go viral immediately (depending on how much interest they have in the first place). Look at Trump and his “many sides”.

        Look at Kim Kardashians recent comments on race……shredded completely for comments that I didn’t even think were that interesting/controversial……so I’m not surprised they work hard to try and sound interesting and connected (all whilst trying to avoid any career threatening gaffes).

      • SoulSPA says:

        @bellagio: my apologies but I cannot find the videos except for one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trFWwBjdQFM and it should not be necessarily representative of her. She is an actress and markets herself in a certain way.
        Impressions are subjective so to speak and I only saw of few videos with Sparkle. And my impression of her does not take away her hard work or achievements or the fact that other people like her. It’s subjective, as I say.

      • perplexed says:

        I saw her once on Craig Ferguson, and found her slightly annoying. (On that show, I learned her dad was a DP, so she seems to have some show-biz connections.) Anyway, something about her laugh or something I found off-putting…but, again, it could be an actress-y thing. So many of them are irritating on those kinds of talk shows where they’re expected to flirt with male talk show hosts. In her royal role, she’s probably carry herself differently. It would be interesting to see how she’d have to change to “fit in”, if that’s supposed to be an expectation.

        In her private life where she’s not “on”, I suspect she’s probably someone I’d like though. It’s when she’s being actress-y, I’m kind of like “huh, she’s not that interesting, even though she did go to Northwestern.”

      • A says:

        I read one of her blogs posts after they started dating, and found it to be full of humble brags about herself….how she’s always been so interested in helping people, with the general message being that’s it’s so fascinating and impressive that she’s involved in charity work….she quotes her Mom as saying “I don’t know, Flower, you’ve just always been this way”.

        I’m not sure that truly altruistic people speak this way about themselves. Just saying.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        @A-yes, I totally get that. She did seem sort of fake and full of herself–but that could be part of her self promotion as an actress. I actually think that will be helpful as part of her role in the BRF. If you were shy or hated attention being a royal would be really difficult.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I second what wtw said about only children but at the same time understand what Bellagio said.

        I am much younger than my next sibling, so I grew up as a quasi-only child.
        Only children, in my experience, are often direct in their thinking and communication. The lack of neediness or dependence can appear to be selfish when it is just a product of being fine with being alone. Some times what someone else sees as an inability to share is that they may expect the other person just to ask or let them know what they want. One of the things I like about some only children as they tend to understand when someone asks for space or a desire to be alone. Only children are often less focused on what other people think of them and don’t feel the overwhelming need to be liked by everyone since the fear of being alone is not as acute. These are generalizations but trends I have noticed.
        There are also plenty of positives on the other side too.

      • Bellagio, as the middle of five kids, may I have, please, if you will let me talk, just a little – okay?

        First born children and only children share almost identical personality characteristics. I once read that all the astronauts in the 1960′s were either first born or only children. All of them, to some extent, enjoyed (or endured) one hundred percent of their parent’s attention. These kids are usually leaders, and find it difficult to follow other people (terrible roommates from my college experiences). They have good manners, are many times boring to talk with, and have high expectations of other people to listen to them, low listening skills and socially a bit ackward. The babies get away with everything. The best of the best, middle children (me!) are diplomats. You can’t compete with perfection (oldest) nor with the fun and go-lucky spirit of the youngest. Not that I am opinionated.

    • island_girl says:

      Preach. That.

    • Avery says:

      Well said!

    • IsThisReal? says:

      @Lak

      OMG! That is an AWFUL story. Was Diana really that petty?
      Poor Sophie.

    • Sarah says:

      Does anyone think Meghan will be given a chance by the British public? That she will be happy playing second fiddle to Kate and excoriated in the press every day? Those of you who think Harry will always be loved? Andrew and Fergie were very popular with the press and public when they first got married and look at them now!
      Run, Meghan, run!!! The BRF will destroy you, just like they did to Diana and Fergie!!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Concern trolling.

        Big difference here? Meghan is a self-sufficient adult, which neither Diana nor Fergie were. She knows how to handle attention, understands PR. Just like Sophie, who after her initial misstep, has become a valued member of the firm. Quietly doing her job because at heart she understands this is a PR job. Whomever Harry marries would be smart to follow Sophie’s lead.

      • Sarah says:

        NOTA.
        Sure, I’m a Concern Troll. Just like I was called when I said Trump would beat Hillary.
        People who foresee problems are labeled this way, but maybe we just have clear vision and good judgement? Name calling doesn’t make you right.

      • notasugarhere says:

        You comments are consistently bashing of Meghan Markle, couched in the terms of you being worried about how horrible her life as a royal would be. Concern trolling is the well-known term for that type of behavior, not “name calling”.

        “the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.”

  3. Olenna says:

    Harry needs to make an official announcement ASAP. People have wedding watch parties to plan and I need a diversion from this unprecedented, presidential shit-show we’ve got going on here in the States.

    • April says:

      She has not even been introduced to Zara, his favorite cousin yet?

      • island_girl says:

        Well, Zara’s husband Mike Tindall has met her so I would imagine Zara has too.

      • April says:

        Island_Girl They met in the last few days? As earlier this month Mike said he had not met her (nor had Zara) and they were planning to meet in the ‘next few months’. He said she would do fine in the royal family. That was it.

    • Jessica says:

      The wedding will be no more than 4-6 months after the official engagement. You have plenty of time. I’m still expecting a Spring wedding like William and Catherine.

      • Sarah says:

        Isn’t US Weekly the tabloid that said Meghan would be staying with the Middletons the night before Pippa’s wedding, as she and Harry were already engaged???? I’ll believe this when I see a big hunking ring on her finger!

    • CynicalAnn says:

      I’m with you. I’m hoping for a wedding/impeachment mashup.

      • emma33 says:

        Hahaha…i actually LOL’d at that…here’s hoping!!

      • M4lificent says:

        I’ll need to get an extra-special fascinator for that mash-up event. Maybe one that looks like a toilet lid with “MAGA” spelled out on it in rhinestones.

      • island_girl says:

        That would be glorious! But I’m hoping that the orange demon will resign.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Omg, Cynical Ann! Don’t get me all wound up and excited, I can’t take that kind of anticipation!! I might pee my pants if those two things really do happen! Gaaaah!

      • Maria says:

        Yes! impeachment on Friday, wedding on Saturday. There will be lots of bubbly that weekend.

    • milla says:

      First they have to have few dates in public. It does not really matter when the palace makes it official.

      • Sarah says:

        Yes, isnt that weird? I’m not doubting they are dating, it just is so odd how hidden they have kept it. I recall lots of pics of Harry with his ex-girlfriends in the tabloids,
        BTW, this whole trip of Harry’s smacks of white privilege, “meet the locals, all local food,” Harry the Hero of the african bush. Reminds me of Louise Linton.,

      • notasugarhere says:

        Why on earth do they have follow your rules about how they date, in order to prove anything to you? Very little was known about Rania and Abdullah, and they married within a year of meeting. Felipe and Letizia were a secret until the day of the engagement announcement. Philippe and Mathilde of Belgium dated secretly for three years and the public didn’t know they were dating until the day of the engagement announcement.

        Harry’s been through years of the press and “fandom” attacking his dates. He’s learned important lessons. They choose to be as private as possible with their relationship? Who cares?

      • Sarah says:

        NOTA, why do you respond to every comment I make? Why do you feel so compelled to argue with everything I say? I am entitled to my opinion, as you are.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Funny, I thought I was replying to milla about how royals are not required to date in public prior to an engagement announcement. Gave examples and everything. You’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine.

    • RoyalSparkle says:

      ++1000

      Totally agree. around his birthday Christmas is far out per Royal Chef. September is open. Announcement asap – with a date for Wedding Watch.

  4. Nicole says:

    Why would William change his mothers ring? It’s an heirloom. Makes more sense that Harry changed a pendant stone into one for a ring. I mean I could say Harry was lazy to do an African proposal just like his brother but that’s stupid. I swear the reach to make Harry some kind of saint in comparison is so old *rolls eyes*
    Anyways I hope they are engaged and happy. I don’t expect an announcement for a few months though. Definitely after Suits is done

    • LAK says:

      Assuming that William really proposed in Africa.

      • SoulSPA says:

        We can assume all we want and we’ll never know. We only have the Dolittles’ of Middleton words in the engagement interview. I can’t wait to see the interview with Harry and MEGHAN!!

      • Maria says:

        Well according to Katie Nichol, when they got back together in 2007 after their break up, he told her he would marry her once he finished his military service. So the engagement in Kenya wouldn’t have been a big surprise. Of course Waity acted like she was in total shock.
        As for Harry and Meghan, maybe nothing has happened in Botswana, maybe they are just enjoying each other. I’d like to see a big wedding too, but heck, it’s their life, and no one should be pressured into getting married.

      • LAK says:

        Soulspa: the story he told in the engagement interview was a blow by blow account of the engagement story recountered by one of their friends that appeared in the DM afew days before their engagement interview. Word for word. The only changed detail was the country. Kenya rather than Botswana.

        And immediately after he tells that story, Kate inserts…”when we got back from Scotland” pauses and then switches to a different story about whether her mother knew about the engagement.

        Either it was a coincidence or William and his friends propose to their girlfriends in exactly.the.same.way, with the same details.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @LAK this story is very interesting. We only know “for sure” what they choose to say, nevermind K slipping on details. Everything they say is pure PR (they had to say something) and Will the Ordinary could lie outright due to his spite towards media, the public and for the intrusion in his private life. What I take from here is that he wanted to keep this special moment of proposing to her, private. So maybe he lied.

      • LAK says:

        Soulspa: William frequently lies to the press and to the public. Even where there is no need. A few examples.

        1. Recently, he retold a cosy tale about naughty high jinks at Balmoral with Philip and Zara which ended when the Queen told them off. Cosy in portraying himself as normal guy who happens to be royal prince.

        A few weeks later a reporter repeated the cosy tale to Peter during an interview about the Patron’s lunch. Peter point blank denied such an incident ever took place. When reporter pressed him on the grounds of forgetfulness, Peter repeated his denial.

        2. Last year during the workshy furore,
        KP defended William by saying the CAA didn’t allow pilots to work during their off duty days.

        The CAA immediately released a statement saying they had no such rules and pilots were free to do whatever they liked on their off days. Finished the statement by saying that ‘KP was mistaken in their statement’ which was the closest they got to saying the Palace or William were lying.

        3. Older lies include saying he will take up official duties any given year though it prompted the Queen to undertake an expensive refurb of his residences in readiness only for William to announce that he had a job at EAAA, being caught sunbathing in France after skipping out on paraolympics with a statement from the palace that he was back at RAF base working.

        4. Regarding guarding his privacy, it became the test of loyalty whereby he would deliberately feed a (false) story to a new friend to see if it ended up in the papers. If it did, they were immediately removed from the circle. A habit he can’t break it seems.

      • RoyalSparkle says:

        Bill middleton proposed at middleton home.

        carol middleton PR tried to make wait-y decade waity stalking more well compensated and exciting.

    • Jessica says:

      William proposed in Kenya on his ex girlfriend’s ranch; Harry proposed in Botswana. Not sure how it’s lazy just because it’s on the same (very large) continent.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        @Jessica, such an important point to make.

        They share a continent, but Botswana is as different from Kenya as you could get. We wouldnt say because one guy proposed to his girlfriend in Denmark the other shouldnt propose to his girl in France, would we?

      • Nicole says:

        I’m saying its a dumb comparison just like its stupid to compare the rings they proposed with. My point was to say the comparisons on the proposals are completely stupid

    • Bellagio DuPont says:

      @ Nicole:

      I’ve always viewed Harry as WAY more romantic in general than William…..

      So, given that William used Harry’s (inherited) ring…..(which Harry specifically picked out himself)…..and proposed in Africa, which Harry seems to have a deep affinity for…….. I’ve often wondered to myself if William was just lazy and recreated Harry’s dream proposal scenario for Kate?

      Because if that were the case, I can completely see Harry deciding to stick to his own dream engagement scenario on Africa and ignore what’s gone on before, so to speak.

      • Nicole says:

        Except its just something that is projected onto both boys. If we learned anything from the recent stories is that harry is just as lazy as Will he just gets better press coverage.

    • Lak, when I first saw the interview in full, I caught the same Scotland reference from Kate, and for a split second you can see how Will looked at her – angry. I was struck by how William kept on slumping, and his and Kate’s body language was strikingly like an interview Diana and Charles gave before their marriage. Kate and Prince Charles upright and chippy, but William and Diana turning into their respective bodies, almost as though were resigned and not very happy.

      • Plus, does anyone think that William did propose in Kenya, but to Jecca, instead of Kate? Jecca turned him down, but I think it is a bit weird to propose to your ten-year girlfriend, on a once much-loved girlfriend’s property?

      • wolfpup says:

        Golden Ashley – the royal family is very weird – that is why we enjoy them – like they enjoy us.

      • Wolf pup – sorta like a zoo. But who is looking at whom?

        I watch the Westminister Kennel Club show every year, and have attended it twice. I once saw a pit bull terrier with the second most majestic face and body language I have ever seen. I said he will win it all, and I was right. The most majestic entity I have been lucky to meet was the Grand Champion of all Shetland Sheepdogs, the sire of my first “child” named “E of ..
        ” ;(our Sheltie could spell over 100 words, better than any ape, plus play hide and go seek, and could jump rope, play outfield in softball games, and more). His father, when we met him, was sitting on the top of a hill; he looked down, and then looked away. The Queen comes in third. All three of my examples carried themselves with grace, did not blubber, knew riff from raff, never expressed emotion except faint “why are these people in my presence?”

        Why in the world would any person want to get rid of their most precious of institutions? I enjoy every second.

    • suze says:

      That ring is no heirloom.

      Although William might have very strong associations with his mother through that ring and that is why it wasn’t changed.

  5. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    AHS: so much meh this season. Hasn’t been really good since season 1.

    • LadyT says:

      I loved Season 1. Was really excited to have a new show. Since then though I’ve watched a few minutes then just changed the channel.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Good to have some feedback on the show, LadyT. I might just watch season 1. Had every intention and then my interest failed. I might just watch it now that you said you liked it :) I heard Meghan talking about the plot once, it seems interesting.

      • LadyT says:

        What turned me off of it was a trouble-stirring lawyer named Louis. He was such a smarmy character that I just couldn’t watch anymore.

    • Olive says:

      AHS? American Horror Story? What does that have to do with Harry and Meghan?

  6. snowflake says:

    I will be happy if they do get engaged. I feel for her, though, the racist comments. Couched as she’s not classy enough for him. Please, you’re not fooling anyone

    • Tina says:

      Seriously. She’s beautiful, well-educated and has her own career. He’s the lucky one.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        @ Tina, i am with you . I love Harry and the charity work he is doing, but I was always a big Meghan/Tig fan and I know she will/would bring a lot more to this set-up than people give her credit.

  7. HK9 says:

    After all the craziness in the world I need a good wedding. Is that selfish?:-)

    • MellyMel says:

      Not at all. I’m looking forward to this too. We need positive, happy moments to try to offset all the negative.

  8. littlemissnaughty says:

    I got nothing except she looks f*cking radiant in that pic! The coat, the hair, the lipstick. If he doesn’t propose, I will. Meanwhile, I’m over here looking as professional and classy as a raccoon because my mascara won’t behave.

    • ash says:

      @littlemissnaughty
      girl…. that is me…. i came in today… my lion afro wasnt trying live today thus i looked like a dusted raggamuffin had to pull it together (10000 million bobby pins, mascara, powder and nude lip tint) thats all i have effort for lol

  9. Talie says:

    Will followed the old money rule — you don’t touch heirloom pieces, and there’s no way Kate would’ve wanted it modernized.

    • Nic919 says:

      Diana admitted that she just picked the most expensive and gaudy ring from a catalogue and Charles got it for her. And that marriage ended with one of the most famous acrimonious divorces in the world. The ring isn’t really an heirloom so much as a symbol of everything gone wrong and marrying for the wrong reasons. Not sure why anyone would want that as their own engagement ring. Kate of course would never say no because she is a stage five clinger and never challenges the pouty prince, but it really is the laziest thing he could have done to reuse that ring.
      Harry at least will be doing something different.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @Nic919, he also played the Diana card as per the engagement ring. I think he was either lazy or cheap, or really sick to give her that ring. With all the negative that particular ring entails.

      • Yup, Me says:

        My mother and father had a not great marriage and an acrimonious divorce that was very wounding to me. She gave me her wedding ring from that relationship for my sweet 16 and I love it because I love my parents and because their relationship, fucked up though it may have been, has great significance for me.

        I agree with much of the commentary about Will and Kate being lazy and workshy and largely bland as oatmeal and mayo mixed but MAYBE he loved his mother and, though the ring represents a lot of not great thing to outsiders, it still holds special significance for him. His mother wore it for years and it is associated with her- whatever her reasoning for first chosing it.

    • Maria says:

      Didn’t Camilla modernize her own engagement ring with the Queen Mothers ring or tiara?

      • LAK says:

        Camilla’s engagement ring is a ring that the QM loved and wore often. It wasn’t an engagement ring, but it was a present. Part of the jewels that Mrs Grenville bequeathed to QM.

    • suze says:

      That ring is not an heirloom. It was bought from a shop in 1980.

  10. tracking says:

    I thought the new US had no real sources. I guess we’ll just have to see how this plays out. If they’re on the marriage track, it is likely to be soon since he seems to adore kids and they’ll want to get going on that. They would have the cutest kiddos.

    • US magazine has every other month either Kate Middleton or Jennifer Aniston pregnant, usually with twins. People magazine is a more reliable celebrity magazine, although one’s brain will quickly rot from all the sickening sweet stories.

      • Bess says:

        Jennifer Anniston is 48 years old. If she got pregnant it would be almost miraculous.

      • Yes, but why should that get in the way of a fake story? Aniston has repeatedly said she has no interest in being a mother. But still the stories. I hope that women who think they can become mothers well into their forties, like celebrity women, are being kept by media deliberately delusional and in the dark regarding how easy it is for older women “easily” becoming mothers. Except for a tiny minority, older mothers use donor eggs. It is terribly sad when women put off motherhood thinking it will be “no problema” to conceive.

  11. Merritt says:

    I think the announcement will happen in November or December.

    Colored stones are common in the royal family, so if Harry did go with that it would be the uninformed who would compare that to his brother and Kate (and Diana). The Queen mother, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, and the Duchess of Kent all had sapphires in their engagement rings. Princess Margaret and Fergie had rubies.

    • I don’t care for diamonds. They are overpriced and I don’t see the draw. I have a pearl engagement ring with emeralds. I hope she does get a colored gemstone. IMO diamonds are played out. How they are sourced is also a concern.

      • Felicia says:

        Totally with you ladies who find diamonds boring as sh*t. Same same, just a different size. Meh… except for coloured diamonds which truly are rare. I hope he has access to some of the Burmese rubies stashed in the safe and if or when he gets engaged, his future bride gets a 10 ct pigeon blood ruby in her ring. Red is for passion. And a 10ct untreated pigeon blood Burmese ruby is a lot rarer and much more expensive than a 10ct D flawless diamond.

    • Bellagio DuPont says:

      @ Merritt, I agree totally. Diamonds are soooo…….tired.

      Maybe a coloured diamond. Or something completely off the beaten track for engagement rings, but gorgeous none-the-less: Alexandrite

      https://www.pinterest.com/pin/355080751861589669/

    • Jaded says:

      I have a diamond and emerald engagement ring – plain diamonds are kinda boring IMO.

  12. Enough Already says:

    You can be sure her dress won’t be a fussy, Grace Kelly knockoff.

    • BeamMeUpScottie says:

      @Enough Already, ITA.

      Meghan wears Roland Mouret so well and she likes Lanvin but given neither is British, it would’nt be politick to choose them for that occasion.

      Julian Mcdonald (ex?Givenchy) who is Welsh has already declared his interest as have David Emanuel who was part of the duo who designed Diana’s dress. Her designer friend Mischa Noono who is also close friends with Harry and Beatrice and is reputed to have introduced her to Harry is a possibility.

      As long as she avoids Alexander McQueen/Sarah Brown and dreary Jenny Packman, I am fine!

    • Em' says:

      She is absolutely gorgeous, but have you googled her red carpet looks ?
      I am not holding my breath for the fashion she will bring.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        LOL The red carpet looks are not always a good barometer, to be fair, but the blue Roland Mouret gown she wore to Elton John’s charity a few years was stunning,

        Her best looks are the fashion shoots she has done, IMO. There are some great shots around.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ EM

        Her style is hyper simple and pared down……not a lot of imagination in my opinion (but then I have pretty flamboyant tastes)…..but I think it still suits her.

        PS I HATED that dark Erdem dress she wore for Harry’s friends wedding. The blues, greens and black tones were a bit dreary for a beach wedding to me. But the photo shoots have been divine.

  13. commonsense says:

    just came to state that the plural for the people of Botswana (country) as well as the people is Batswana and not “Botswanans” as was written in the previous article about these two being in Botswana. I am a Motswana (singular) albeit from South Africa. In Setswana (language) we deal with prefixes and not suffixes. Another FYI There are more Batswana in South Africa than in Botswana because Colonialism. Basically the colonialist drew a line between present day Botswana and present day South Africa and most of Batswana ended up in South Africa. We are the same people though and are still relatively close as people separated by an invisible line can get.

    • tracking says:

      I didn’t know that, commonsense. Thanks for the clarification.

    • SoulSPA says:

      That was so interesting, @commonsense!!! I’ve studied languages but not a single African one. I’d appreciate more explanations like the one above if suited and if you’d be willing to share!! :) :)

      • Common sense says:

        Sure, but I don’t know where to start ☺. I’ll start with inanimate objects and animals : plural for anything other than humans you add (Di) in front. For example a cat is katse, plural is Dikatse, car=koloi, cars =Dikoloi. For humans singular add (Mo) and plural add (Ba) , e.g boy = Mosimane, boys =Basimane. Person =Motho, people =Batho.

    • SoulSPA says:

      @commonsense thanks so much for taking the time to answer!!!!

  14. Starryfish says:

    I’m honestly hoping for a ring that features a yellow diamond, they aren’t super common and can be quite beautiful. Most of all I’m just hoping it happens soonish, we could use a fun distraction.

    • LAK says:

      Many yellow diamonds were mined in conflict zones in Africa rendering them blood diamonds. Whilst an effort has been made to stop the trade in blood diamonds, it’s not certain that it has stopped nor can one be sure that your yellow diamond came from a mine in a non conflict region.

      For that reason, please stay away from yellow diamonds no matter how pretty you find them.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Lak

        Agree 100%. I guess one could use a yellow sapphire. Or a citrine if you don’t want to spend as much. 😍😍

      • Starryfish says:

        Well shoot, there goes that idea. Not that I could have afforded one anyway lol.

      • Felicia says:

        I think currently only the Ivory Coast is in non-compliance with the Kimberley Process, so I’m not so sure about what you are saying about yellow diamonds because they come from far more places than just that country.

        The Kimberley Process is pretty much dead anyways. The focus was very narrow and involved cases where diamond mining/sales were being used to fund civil war. It died the day that they decided that Mozambique was in “compliance”. This being mines expropriated from the legal leaseholder for the benefit of a government crony, who used forced local labour to mine. But, since the profits were not funding civil war, and only Swiss bank accounts, they were “in compliance”.

      • I have a lovely yellow diamond, but it was bought in an estate sale. I love it. Anyway, I hope Harry, if he marries Meghan, will have the sense to let her pick a ring that will be worn on her finger for the rest of her life. Or maybe not have an engagement ring. Diana’s ring was ugly from the get-go, but she didn’t wear it all the time like Kate. It is creepy to see that ring on Kate – it should be in the Victoria and Albert museum. I can’t wait to see some real jewels on Harry’s wife – no Kiki McDonough overpriced stuff, but great family “rocks.”

      • LAK says:

        Golden Ashley, Yellow diamonds are like mink coats. Terrible reputation, very beautiful, and difficult to wear without worrying about the procurement of the skins even when you know it was ethically done.

      • wolfpup says:

        Golden Ashley – I find you quite informed! I totally agree!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Starryfish, if you wanted the look, there’s always golden or yellow Labradorite or golden beryl, but I’m not sure of the ethics of their mining and sale. Where’s our gemstone expert? I’m sure there’s better options than those.

    • Lak, I guess this thinking can include almost every jewel mined today, or years ago, or minerals taken from our earth. I no longer buy jewelry, as I like to reset and change, except family heirlooms, most of my goodies, instead of wasting my money on a piece of carbon millions of years old. I am tired of people telling me what I should think or do, especially today in the USA. This site is Celebitchy, and we all need to inject more fun into our lives. I own inherited mink and fox coats. I wear them, and love the quality and warmth. I would never buy them today, as I buy an animal skin Only if I can eat it too. I have never eaten a fox, mink or ermine. I wear cow leather, as I eat the cows, especially a good steak – yummy. Nobody should tell me what I can legally do, say, act or wear. In 2002, at the Somerset House in London, there was an exhibit on JAR jewelry. I bought up everything I could see. I now sell $250.00 earrings bought then, for many thousands of dollars today, some for over $20,00.00. All proceeds go to children’s charities here and abroad. I inherited some “real” JAR stuff, though, which I will donate to a museum. So please don’t judge. We all are innocent of many things now found to be politically incorrect. I think we are owed a good bitchy story these days, about people we have never met.

      • Felicia says:

        Just allow me to say that you are a lucky woman to have JAR pieces. :)

        To the person above regarding substitutes for a yellow diamond: In an engagement ring the only real two viable options would be a yellow sapphire or a chrysoberyl. Anything else that comes in yellow is not really hard enough to stand up to daily wear in a ring.

        Regarding the KP process… diamonds were a convenient target and not so conincidentally, was originally conceived by the big players in the industry. It was a very nice “feel good to the public” way of removing diamonds not controlled by the big players from the market. You’ll note that none of the people who were selling arms to the people involved in civil war ever had fingers pointed at them. It also doesn’t stop anyone from having those diamonds cut in country and then exported because it only applies to rough.

        Call me a cynic, but no one seems to give a cr*p about the civil war in the Congo which is being funded by the sale of rare earth minerals necessary for the cell phones we are all walking around with.

      • LAK says:

        Golden Ashley: Everything on this earth has potential to harm, BUT humans, unlike other creatures, have free will and ability to exercise it.

        I do not knowingly participate in activities or deal with the product of activities that are harmful to my fellow humans.

        And where it absolutely can not be helped, i try to cause as little harm as possible.

        I do not brag about those activities or products of activities that are proven harmful to others. It’s not clever and it’s not nice and it’s a very small person who does so.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks for the info about yellow gems, Felicia!

      • LAK, I very much appreciate your knowledge, and respectful responding comments. I learn much from you, and others, and try to see the side of people I may disagree with – one does not learn anything listening to the chorus. Understanding by hearing about another point of view is how we, as humans, can attain knowledge and respect.

        I hope to learn more from your, and other people, comments on the Royal family.

        Thank you.

  15. Em' says:

    I’m not saying he didn”t propose, but I very much doubt he shared his plan to propose to someone would could become a source. To his brother and very closed friends sure… and the Van Stickinarshales and the Hon. Genevas Crumpet-Marmelade-Jones of this world are very well known to not blab to the press (esp. American press) about their dear dear friend Prince Harry

    • Nic919 says:

      Agree. No actual friend of his would speak to US Weekly. This is pure invention. And it’s unlikely he would tell any of his friends in detail until after it happened.

    • Whaaaaaaatttt? says:

      lol, you mean he wouldn’t share his plans with his mom’s former chef from years ago?! All these articles are getting to be too much.

  16. Bettyrose says:

    Maybe the acted all Millenial and just had a reasonable discussion over a nice wine that resulted in a mutual decision to get married?

  17. rebellia says:

    Anyone here who would run, not walk, from the firm?

    • Yup, Me says:

      From the firm, from that degree of scrutiny on my daily life and every outfit and word and digging up all my past words and behaviors from before I knew I was headed for the princess track.

      No thanks. I’m perfectly happy to continue being The Empress, Her Serene Exaltedness, in the comfort and privacy of my home. Everyone here is quite forgiving when I slip up and forget myself. Especially the puppy.

    • seesittellsit says:

      Not with the level of privilege on offer. Nice thought, but no. As it is, she’s being whisked through airport security – makes a girl feel really special . . . the rot sets in afterward.

      • Sarah says:

        But the adoring masses never seem to resent being held up 1/2 hour so those more important than we peasants get to go ahead of us all.
        I never understood the thinking that anyone is above me, in any way at all. And waiting on a plane for Meghan, Harry or anyone else to get off would piss me off royally. Ifmthey need to avoid the crowds, they can wait and not inconvenience 300 other human beings.
        Where are my torch and pitchfork? I have no tolerance this week especially. See: Louise Linton

    • Sarah says:

      I would never want to be involved with these people. First, they are all entitled, even when they try to pretend to be normal, like Harry does. Second, the relentless media coverage – you will never be able to walk down the street again, have coffee outside at a cafe, have a bad hair day, gain 5 pounds, or have a fight in public. Plus, the press and public will turn on you in a second – see Andrew and Fergie, much loved when they got married, for the truth in that. And third, i would be terrifed for any children I may have for security reasons and because of how the press and public treat Beatrice and Eugenie, the spare’s children. Any kids Harry has will be treated the same exact way.
      So I would run and advise any smart woman who asked the same thing.

      • Maria says:

        You are right. I’ll stick to being a peasant. As soon as they marry, if they ever do, she will be squirrelled away in a palace, spend Christmas in another palace, spend the summer in yet another one. And according to Diana, and also Fergie, they felt very isolated. I still think Pippa has the better deal of the two sisters. She won’t ever have to work or clean her house, and yet she can come and go as she pleases.

      • notasugarhere says:

        So much concern trolling. Nothing equals what Letizia of Spain has faced from the yellow press for the last 13 years, and yet she’s doing a great job. Why? Probably because she was a fully-formed adult human before she entered into a relationship with her royal partner. She knows how to handle public attention and understands PR, much like Sophie and Meghan do.

      • Sarah says:

        Here we go, NOTA calling me names again! A Concern Troll.
        If they get married, mark what I said. Meghan will be miserable. She is an independent American woman, all the rules will drive her batty, the press will be horrendous to her.
        You can’t compare her to Sophie, a white British woman. Meghan will never be given the benefit of a doubt.
        Time will tell.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kindly read the definition of concern troll posted above.

        My opinion, so I can compare whomever I like to whomever I like, no? From what I’ve seen, the people who enter into relationships with royals fare better when they’ve been independent adults prior to that. That is a key part to their success, and if they have that self-confidence, it makes them better-able to deal with whatever is thrown their way – no matter what else factors in.

  18. M.A.F. says:

    Considering how US Weekly got bought out and is now under the National Enquirer brand, I would take any feature issue of theirs with a grain of salt. Even the cover is starting look like Star magazine. They are now just a trashy gossip rag.

    • Lady D says:

      ” They are now just a trashy gossip rag. ” Now???

      • lobbit says:

        Well, they used to be a trashy gossip rag with excellent sources. Now? Not so much

      • freewhitebaby7.0 says:

        I was a naïve college girl in 1981 when a couple of nice-looking young men came to my door wearing suits and neckties (at the beach). So I wound up with a year subscription to US. It sucked then, it sucks now and I see nothing but more suckage in the future.

  19. CynicalAnn says:

    Isn’t it a thing with the BRF that they do colored stones instead of plain old diamonds? I seem to remember that Sarah Ferguson got a big ruby.

    • seesittellsit says:

      @CynicalAnn – colored stone engagement rings are much more common in Europe than here, it isn’t just the BRF, in fact it’s not just royals, it’s more European. Nice sapphires set off by side diamonds are quite common as engagement rings, although I seem to remember that Sophie got a three-diamond ring, and Pss. Victoria of Sweden got a diamond solitaire. Mary of Denmark, however, got a large emerald-cut ruby with emerald-cut diamonds on either side (red and white are Denmark’s colors).

      I pay attention to the important stuff, you see.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        I love that you know that-don’t knock it!

      • Americans were subjected by one of the best advertising schemes in history. A South African cartel owned all the diamonds, but couldn’t figure out a way to boost the popularity of a blah gem. Thus “Diamonds Are Forever” was introduced in America in the mid 20th century, plus the fiction that a man must purchase a diamond worth the same as a two month’s salary. Zoom! sales went up. My mum refused an engagement ring, since she didn’t want to be seen as “bought.” She said enjoy jewelry for artisan skills, and thus my JAR jewelry. I told my husband I wanted two carats of diamonds, and when he proposed, gave me two vegetable carrots! Much better for health and wallet.

    • notasugarhere says:

      HM, Sophie, Zara, Autumn all have diamond-only engagement rings.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @CynicAnn – I am forced to correct myself: Mary of Denmark got an emerald-cut diamond with emerald-cut rubies on either side. I had it reversed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, and she added two more diamonds a few years ago. They might have been to represent the twins.

  20. whatever says:

    If they are getting engaged I think its too soon. How much do they actually know each other when they only see each other for a few days every month or so? It would be better for them to live together in the same city for about a year so they can see each other’s real personalities.

    • SoulSPA says:

      That’s what I’ve though too, @whatever. Was wondering in a previous post how would their marriage be after having a lot distance relationship without spending that much time together. She’s marrying into the BRF, mind you.

    • Merritt says:

      There are reports that she stayed with him for several months last winter when her filming was on hiatus. How much time they actually have spent together is speculation on all sides.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That’s what appears to be happening. When she isn’t working on Suits, she is in London. They haven’t just spent a few days together every couple of months.

      • hmmm says:

        What concerns me is her acquiescence and accommodation to his princeness. I understand it but I don’t think it’s a great choice. Subsuming oneself is almost never a good thing.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That’s an enormous assumption on your part. He has been to Toronto and spent time with her there. Due to security concerns, it is likely far easier for her to be in London at KP than him being in Toronto more often.

    • Bellagio DuPont says:

      @ Whatever:

      She’s 36. If he likes it, he needs to put a ring on it fast, or bounce. She’s not going to be doing a 10 year “Waity Katy”.

      Ain’t nobody got time for that. 💅🏼💅🏼

      • whatever says:

        @Bellagio DuPont – If he is rushing to marry her because she turned 36 this year and her biological clock is ticking maybe she isn’t the right girl for him. Marrying a girl just because her eggs are about to shrivel up is not a great reason to get married (ugh, I can’t believe I phrased it like that sorry!). After all, Charles only married Diana because he was getting old and needed a wife to produce an heir pronto, he barely knew the girl he was going to marry. Both of them should spend time living together and see the not-so-desirable sides of each other personalities. If they can put up with each other when they are being arseholes then they should get married. But right now they are still in the honeymoon stage of their relationship because they don’t spend that much time together.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That is their decision to make, whatever. There are plenty of people who get married and do not have children, whether through choice or circumstance. Harry has no need to have children for the succession. If these two married and could not have children? That might be personally very sad for them, but not a reason for them not to marry if they want to.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        Nope. Can’t see her hanging around and Harry knows that she won’t do a waity. She doesn’t need to.

    • seesittellsit says:

      @whatever – I seem to remember that before becoming formally engaged, Prince Frederik of Denmark had Mary come to live there for a year. Of course, there was the matter of her getting at least somewhat familiar with a new language, but I always thought it was a smart thing to do. She got a low-profile job, had an apartment (instead of moving in right away to the royal digs), got familiar with Copenhagen, Danish ways, etc., and then a year later they did the formal engagement thing with all the hoop-la.

      I think the smart thing to do would be to give MM a similar opportunity – but Mary was a few years younger and there’s always the royal baby clock ticking.

      • Maria says:

        Same thing with Edward and Sophie. They lived together for six years before marrying.

      • Jessica says:

        Mary had to learn a new language and adjust to life in the public eye, Meghan won’t have those obstacles. She can get right into it. And yes Mary was 32 when she got married, Meghan is already 36. Baby clocking is ticking loudly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She moved to France first for about a year before Denmark, and wasn’t really working unlike Maxima. I mean, the school where it was said Mary taught English to French business folks has never come forward or been named. The eventual job with Microsoft was one handed to her by one of Fred’s friends.

        It is up to the individual couple what is right for them. The timing that works for some people may not be right for others.

      • Jessica says:

        Mary’s job history (or how she got them) isn’t that important to seesittellsit’s post. He/she was just commenting that Mary moved to Denmark prior to her engagement to become acquainted with the customs, language, country, etc. which she did and it worked in her favor. She maintains high approval ratings with actual Danish taxpayers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is always interesting to me to see how it is handled, esp as she didn’t move to the country directly. She made a year-or-so detour to France, while mostly still undercover. She wasn’t learning about Denmark or experiencing the culture straightaway.

        After that she moved to the Palace in Denmark with him for a blink of an eye, until Margrethe put a stop to that. Fred then got her an apartment and job in Denmark. That’s why I think her work with loneliness shows us a glimpse of the real her. She spent a year in France, not really working, not speaking the language, just waiting for him to visit. That’s lonely, even if it was in a beautiful city like Paris. I think that’s also why her father and stepmom moved to Denmark – because early on she really needed them.

        It is unlikely MM would move to a nearby county, but instead be headlong in the public eye in the UK. If they decided to live together at KP before an official announcement, they’d face far more questions than Edward and Sophie did when she moved in with him at BP. When Daniel moved in with Victoria, the Palace announced that he was paying rent. It would be interesting to see if MM would be required to do the same.

      • Sarah says:

        Meghan is 37. If they want kids, they can’t wait a year to get engaged.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sophie Wessex had James at 42, and it wasn’t that pregnancy that was the big problem. Angela of Liechtenstein had a son at 41/42. Victoria of Sweden, son at 38. Mary of Denmark, twins at 38. Stephanie of Lux’s mother had her at 43, before the era of IVF.

  21. Jane says:

    Ugh i am already bored of these two.

    • seesittellsit says:

      You’ll get unbored after the engagement and photocall and the ring and we can all start designing the dress for her. And watching Carole Middleton’s face closely . . .

      • frisbee says:

        And that is the only bit I’m really looking forward to, the “I’m not sucking lemons – honest guv” expression on Ma Midds face if this girl ever does get down the aisle 😈 And I’m not putting bets on it, like you I have been wrong about every bloody thing this year (Brexit, Trump, even Angelina Jolie who I don’t actually give a toss about, so now I’m just waiting and seeing)

    • Sarah says:

      Yeah, I’m taking this with a grain of salt.

  22. The Original G says:

    Well then…..Mazeltov!

  23. SoulSPA says:

    Can anyone tell me what Us or US stands for? Us as a pronoun or US for the United States? Please don’t laugh!

  24. DesertReal says:

    Harry always looks… incredibly fuzzy.
    That’s all.

  25. Wow says:

    The press keeps going with this story because they are hoping that one day it will be true. They did the same thing with Kate and William.

  26. Freddy Spaghetti says:

    I hope this is true! I could use something that I think will be lovely after all the constant mess and horror in DC.

    • Joannie says:

      There are always lovely things happening all of the time! Why Harry getting married to his current girlfriend be the one thing? I dont get it!

      • Olive says:

        because it would be a Big Deal, and the only big news events happening now are crappy ones like Donald Trump. People want something big enough to eclipse the Trump headlines, something escapist, something fun.

      • Joannie says:

        That’s ridiculous! Why is your happiness or entertainment based on another’s life? Create your own! Dont focus on Trump.

      • lobbit says:

        Geesh, why can’t a royal wedding be a thing that people look forward to?! Weddings are typically joyous, uplifting occasions as it is – and THIS particular wedding would be a massive spectacle that would dominate press coverage all over the world and generate fun, light-hearted gossip for months on end. PLUS, there will be pretty dresses and tailored suits and there might be tiaras and other shiny baubles involved – can YOU name another “lovely thing” that would produce all of that? I do not think so.

        It would be an epic distraction – don’t shame us for wanting it.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Check your privilege, Joannie. Trump threatens very real changes in quality of life for anyone who enjoys healthcare, civil rights, clean air, etc.

      • lobbit says:

        Joannie, this is a GOSSIP site. We are literally here to be entertained by other people’s lives. That’s the point. If you are so offended by the concept, then what are you doing here?!

      • Olive says:

        @Joannie who said anyone’s personal happiness or entertainment is based on this hypothetical wedding? Please point out where exactly that was said, because I don’t think anyone said anything like that, just acknowledged that this would be a HAPPY news story in a landscape of shitty news. Chill out, read carefully, don’t project your own thoughts onto other people’s words.

      • Joannie says:

        Bettyrose the whole world has been affected by the US voting Trump into power. I need healthcare, clean air, etc just like you!! My point is there is plenty of lovely beautiful things happening all around us every day. Why have such a tiny focus? Is your world that small?
        I dont need to chill out. I already am chill. If your entertainment is living vicariously through another that’s sad to me. All I’m saying is create your happiness. If these two decide not to marry and split up are you going to be depressed?

      • Maria says:

        Because I love royal weddings.

      • Olive says:

        @Joannie absolutely suicidal at the loss of my One and Only True Entertainment and Happiness in Life.

      • Jessica says:

        @Joannie

        I think you took the OP’s comment more seriously then he/she meant it. A royal wedding would be brief escapism.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you find this so uninteresting, and think people find it interesting have something wrong with them? I wonder why you keep showing up all over the Harry and Meghan threads, j.

    • spidey says:

      Actually, given that Meghan is divorced it raises interesting difficulties into the issue of getting married at Westminster Abbey or St Paul!!

      • LAK says:

        A Westminster Abbey spokesperson weighed in afew months ago to say that MM’s divorced status wasn’t a problem for them.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4516848/Prince-Harry-wed-Meghan-Markle-Westminster-Abbey.html

        https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/05/prince-harry-meghan-markle-westminster-abbey-wedding

        Further the church of England changed the rules back in the 2002 to say being divorced wasn’t a bar to remarrying in the church if the vicar was willing to do it.

      • spidey says:

        Yes, but C and C were married in 2005 and not in church! Make of it what you will.

      • LAK says:

        The scandal surrounding their relationship made it impossible for their vicar to acquiesce to marrying them legally though he agreed to the religious blessing part.

        They might as well have been catholics in doing it that way which was rather sly of them, no? A marriage being conducted by the registrer AND the church!!!

        Going back to your point, the General synod put a caveat in their ruling that the vicar has to agree to marry the divorced couple, and if couple found an accomodating vicar, the church wouldn’t object.

        Since then, practically all divorcees marry in church if they want. It’s rare to hear of a vicar refusing to marry them.

        The fact that Westminster Abbey has weighed in to say they have no objection to marrying Harry and MM means exactly that. The vicar at westminster Abbey is prepared to marry them if they choose his church.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was a former archbishop of Canterbury who was publicly urging Charles and Camilla to marry; it wasn’t like the Church was against it in general. I think WA issued that statement to make it clear, to whomever kept contacting them about it, that there was no impediment to their marriage in that CoE church. They even added a part about her father’s religion not being an issue to shut up another section of the anti crowd.

      • suze says:

        They aren’t going to get married in St. Pauls. It’s a freaking cavern, and this isn’t a state occasion.

        Although I personally find it far more beautiful than Westminster Abbey. St. George’s Chapel, too. Even Crathie Kirk would be prettier. But the Abbey is the traditional wedding spot for those royal types.

      • Lurker says:

        Completely not true, just a lie invented by the Tumblr stans. Charles and Camilla could have had a big wedding if they’d wanted, but they obviously didn’t want it. You can’t compare the scandalous marriage of two deeply unpopular and disliked people whose affair broke up the most famous fairytale marriage of the era, to the marriage of two popular young people. The average person has no idea Meghan has been married before and doesn’t care.

        WA basically work for Harry’s gran. They aren’t going to refuse the RM. And there’s no way that statement was not approved by the palace. It’s all part of the roll out preparing the country for the wedding.

      • I watched the wedding of Charles and Camilla on USA tv. Their marriage was postponed due to the Pope’s death? The commentators said C and C wished to be married at a chapel in Windsor Castle, but the law then (now?) made it clear if they married in the chapel, other couples would have the same right. Thus the civil ceremony, and then the blessings afterwards. By the way, I loved Camilla’s gown and hat.

        I will love a royal wedding in the near future. Meghan has such a complicated history and background, which means lots of juicy stories. I think the marriage will be no better or worse than any others, except for the fact that Harry is Harry, with a very vivid and flawed background he created himself. Meghan is a woman with a past that is mostly admired. She is not only a university graduate, but attained two bachelor degrees from one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Her flaws, such as being a divorcee, an actress, and the horror – an American! – is guffawing in comparison to a man-boy she might deign to marry. Bring it on!

        As to engagement info: nobody knows anything. Even if Harry proposed in Africa, why would he be compared to Willie? African countries range from Egypt and Morocco, to Uganda and the Ivory Coast, Kenya to Ethiopia, and South Africa to Tunisia. If William proposed to Kate in Scotland, would Harry copy him with a proposal in Sweden or Portugal?

  27. spidey says:

    Someone up page mentioned charisma. I hate that word, not all people with charisma are good people. In fact many of them aren’t – Tony Blair, Hitler, Rasputin to name but a few. I’m suspicious of many people with charisma.

    • frisbee says:

      Quite right to, sociopaths are highly manipulative and can come across as charming all of which passes for charisma. I’ll take decency and good old fashioned niceness any day of the week over the ‘charismatic’

      • seesittellsit says:

        @frisbee – I think the BRF agrees with you. They got charisma in Diana and look what happened.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I’d say both Michelle and Barack Obama are charismatic, and gee, they don’t appear to have used their power for evil.

      • wolfpup says:

        It is almost as if the entire world is waiting, with baited breath, to see if the us will acknowledge the fact that we all felt safe, and Camelot, really existed…with the Obama’s. I wish that they would stop trolling their daughter. I feel hate and I need to go high, because this is the worst. God bless the Obama’s for their service to what is good in us.

      • spidey says:

        I did say “some people”! :)

  28. notasugarhere says:

    “He asked Harry for the ring (Harry had taken it after Diana’s passing) and then William gave it, as-is, to Kate.”

    @Kaiser, that’s one version of the story.

    • spidey says:

      Giving an engagement ring from a bad marriage was tacky. Giving a ring with the history of the woman who wore it before was beyond thoughtless.

  29. D says:

    I agree with December. She can wait three months that’s not near Waity Katey level and respectful of the Queen. I would do the same would I have been so lucky.

  30. hmmm says:

    If he proposed and she said ‘yes’ then she’s taking on a gilded slacker. He has not had a job since he left the military and he takes a lot a holidays. Last holiday before this lengthy one was at the end of June . He has barely done royal ‘work’ this year. His numbers are just above Kate’s. That she is happy with this situation tells us all we need to know about her and her choices.

    • seesittellsit says:

      @hmmm – well, I don’t like any of them as I’ve said often, I’m here for the fun and the ride (and I like history) but he’s offering her a life as a gilded slacker, too. I hate to say it, but my opinion has always been she’d never have looked at him if here weren’t HRH Harry Windsor and offering her a chance at a life enjoyed by very few on this planet.

      But as long as he IS offering it and she’s clearly salivating to take it, count me in for the ride!

      • Sarah says:

        I agree. Harry is lazy. Can we all admit to that? And seems petulant, from his obvious behavior at the Jamaica wedding. And Meghan is possibly taking on a job women with more money and position rejected, so maybe she should think about thatm and why so many women said No.
        That Meghan may be willing to marry Harry after a little more than a year, living on different continents, without really knowing who and what she is getting into makes me like her less. If Harry was the plumber, and a lazy one at that, she wouldnt look twice at him. I think she is in it for the money and fame.

      • Polly says:

        Yup, I’d say she’s not at all averse to a life of a gilded slacker, just like the rest of them (with the possible exception of Liz and Phil).

      • seesittellsit says:

        @sarah and polly – call me cynical, but I kind of don’t blame MM or any other woman for being unable to resist the tinsel and money. What I object to is haloing her with special virtue because she’s not Cressida Bonas or one of his “own” set. I feel the same way about Kate and her family. I don’t think they’d have put the effort they did into supporting her through her 20s if she were dating a City banker instead of the very top of the social status pyramid.

        But I get it. I don’t respect it, either in Kate and Carole and Pippa Middleton, or Markle, but I don’t see why Markle should be held to a special standard of purity of purpose that Kate and all the other women who would gladly have hooked William, even if he watched the Flintstones with breakfast, were not held to.

        I just reject the “Oh, she’s so wonderful, she earns her own living! She has philanthropic interests! She went to school!” She also has a sharp eye and a realistic view of what her acting career is, where it can realistically take her, and how paltry that probably is next to the “role”, status, security, and fame Harry can give her.

        I don’t believe in hagiography. But I do believe in acknowledging human frailty and hey, not my marriage, not my problem, and I WILL enjoy the fun.

        The girls who turned William and possibly Harry down are those closer to the inner circle and who therefore aren’t as hungry for what is generally seen as the Ultimate Marriage Prize.

        Ironically, it’s the really common folk who are the most entranced by all this. The temptation for the Outsiders to get Inside is irresistible.

        I get it. I’m not blaming anyone for wanting it. I just think it should be out there too along with the cooing and gushing.

      • Sarah says:

        Seesitall,
        Seems true that the further down the fake social ladder that is constructed by those in power, the more desperate one is to join the BRF. Those with money (Chelsea) and status (Cressida) don’t need Harry to be rich and respected. Kate and Meghan both benefit from marriage to these titled men. So let’s not pretend any woman willing to join this most antiquated royal family is independent or enlightened. Letizia is not an apt comparison. Her husband is not a William or Harry.

    • wolfpup says:

      Hmm, I love you, but they don’t give a shit. Personally, I wonder if Megan is more like his mum than all the blondes.

      • suze says:

        You may have hit on something here.

        We shall see.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @wolfpup – astute suggestion, if I may say so. Neither of these boys strike me as particularly introspective types, and it’s amazing how Fate always manages to steer you “home” in relationships. Diana was exceptionally pretty and charismatic – and also narcissistic and wanted a bigger stage to play on. MM is also exceptionally pretty, charismatic, and wants a bigger stage to play on. The fact that her coloring is so different is easy to mistake for a profound inner difference.

        Diana was obsessed with Charles, contrary to her own revision of history when things went bad, from the time she was 15 years old.

        As Mr. Spock once said, “You may find that wanting and having are two different things.” Giving my age away here . . .

    • Hikaru says:

      We’ve already been told that she wishes to quit working to become a full-time philanthropist (with what money, lol?) so she’ll fit right in.

  31. happy girl says:

    The source is likely attention-whore BFF Jessica Mulroney. Angling to have her homely children in the wedding party. Sit DOWN. We get it.

  32. Aerohead21 says:

    Ok I’ve had a couple of drinks so this will probably be an unpopular post.

    1. I can’t decide if he’s handsome or not. Just physically he’s ok but then his charm and smile happen and he gets suddenly infinitely more attractive.

    2. Megan is super pretty and stylish. She also seems smart. Princess material or not, I’m not put off by this relationship except the fact I get the sinking suspicion she would really like to be “royal” over famous…like the distinction of fame as in the Kardashians and fame like Grace Kelly.

    3. I’m a bit over the younger royal family. Too work shy. They’ve been given this gift of freedom from the sucky part of being royal and the British “stiff upper lip” and so on…but now they’re just whiny babies. You have a gift and opportunity to make some real good in the world and you spend the time trying to be “normal” while taking every advantage of the royal privileges.

    Rant done. Americans don’t really know anyway :) we have a potato running our show.

  33. Jo says:

    She cheated on a boyfriend she was living with at the start of her relationship with Harry. It’s great that she’s biracial but she comes across as incredibly full of herself and shallow. Harry is spoilt, sulky and egotistical. Their marriage will be an epic disaster especially for the RF. When Harry gets married and does no more work than the little he does now more people will turn on him. By the way Meghan does not have a degree. Just a “double major.” Everything about the pair of them is seedy. Harry grosses me out to be honest.

    • seesittellsit says:

      @Jo – I kind of agree with your assessments of both of them, but I don’t think the marriage will be disaster, either for them or the BRF. Harry, thankfully, is already well down the line of succession. I suspect Kate will want a third baby (timed around Harry’s and MM’s wedding so she can look good in comparison to the stunning bride). If they end up divorced, she’ll be set up for life, or they’ll muddle on living separate and well-heeled lives. They would hardly be the only pair of royals in Europe putting a happy face on de facto separated lives. Cf. King and Queen of Norway, Sofia and Juan Carlos of Spain (both hubbies serially unfaithful).

      Or they could be blissfully happy in their shared egos, shallowness, enjoyment of their wealth and privilege. Who knows?

      If it were William, they’d never have given permission. But he’s safely stowed with his dull, make-no-waves, attractive English girl, they have George and Charlotte and possibly a third. They’ll survive Harry’s mistake, if it is one.

      • Maria says:

        Do you really mean the King of Norway? The king of Sweden, I can believe. But what about Harry’s own family, like, his father.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think she meant king of Sweden too. I’ve never heard about Harald of Norway straying, but Carl Gustav’s escapades at strip clubs were front-page news.

    • anon1 says:

      exactly! the fact that she’s biracial is protecting her and got her supporters. Otherwise she reminds me of Louise Linton, just not so obvious.

    • Lurker says:

      No that’s been comprehensively debunked and proven to be another stan invention. She gave multiple interviews explicitly stating she’d just broken up with a longterm partner weeks before she even met Harry, there were blog posts strongly hinting at problems at least two months before that, and there was a ton of gossip locally about Cory cheating on her in the months before that.

    • notasugarhere says:

      More lies from the tumblr crowd. As Lurker writes, the facts were already out there in public, before the tumblr queens started spinning their lies.

      Someone who knows how to work for a living, give a speech, and understands PR? She sounds like what the BRF needs.

      • Sarah says:

        How sad! That is a very low bar for entry into the BRF. A career and able to give a speech? That describes hundreds of millions of women. And the day she looks better than Kate will be the day of the last speech she will give on behalf of the Firm.

      • BeamMeUpScottie says:

        Yep! So true @nota, @lurker

        Expect the tumblr crowd to go in total meltdown and start shopping even more unfounded stories about those two should the engagement happen.

    • Gew says:

      @Jo: Maybe I misread, but she absolutely graduated from Northwestern with a bachelors degree. A double major is the course of study, and the degree is conferred upon graduation. She’s a smart cookie! Plus she’s vivacious in interviews and seems a lovely, well-grounded woman. Bring on the wedding!

  34. anon1 says:

    I always thought the royals dating someone like an actress is so obvious and boring. Would have been interesting to see Harry marry a doctor or a banker, someone that had a great career that didn’t need a full time “philanthropist” vanity project. The only full time philanthropist that does any work are bill gates and his wife. The rest of the famous philanthropists are just people trying to get good PR.

  35. seesittellsit says:

    @Maria – both, as it happens. I forgot about Carl Gustaf – he and Harald and Juan Carlos all played around on their wives. For Sylvia and Sofia there was never any question of divorce, especially the latter as a devout Catholic. But there were rumors that Harald’s wife did consider splitting over his infidelities at one time. And yes, Philip’s infidelities were legendary, too.

    Being a royal male confers privileges beyond just wealth and status and women have been expected to shut up and turn a blind eye.

    I’m unsure about William to this point, maybe some of the British posters closer in know something, but I haven’t seen reliable rumors about him stepping out on Kate after they were married.

    But the fact is, infidelity seems to be an unconscious birthright among successful actors, royals, wealthy CEOs . . .

    That’s why I get so irritated at all the “fairy tale romance” verbiage that gets trotted out.

    “Talk to me in ten years,” sez I.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I think you mean Constantine (of Greece) about the infidelities, not Harald of Norway. CG, Constantine, and Juan Carlos.

      William’s track record before marriage was clear, complete with photographs and him dancing on tables when happy to be free of her. Their relationship starting with cheating behind his girlfriend’s back. 10 years of cheating on her before marriage. The likelihood that it leads to a faithful marriage?