Meghan Markle will not be allowed to express any political opinions from now on

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle engagement photocall

To be a royal is to be officially and publicly neutral on all things political. This was one of the reasons why then-Kate Middleton was seen as one of the best options for Prince William – Kate had never publicly expressed any opinion on anything “political.” She wasn’t on social media, she didn’t give interviews where she offered up any kind of opinion about anything, really. Meghan Markle is a completely different story though. Meghan is a woman who has lived in the world, worked with charities and social-change organizations, and Meghan has shared opinions on a variety of subjects in interviews and on social media. Well, as you can imagine, all of the fuddy-duddy gatekeepers of British society are balking at the thought that an actress who openly supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential run will now be part of the royal family.

Meghan Markle has previously used her celebrity to back Hillary Clinton, lament Brexit and attack Donald Trump as “misogynistic” and “divisive”. But such strident opinions will be muted by palace protocol that aims to prevent royals from publicly expressing views on political figures and parties. She will be expected to channel her campaigning zeal into supporting the voluntary sector. A seasoned royal observer predicted the restrictions on her free expression could present “an existential problem” for such an engaged and politically vocal woman.

“You have to go back to Prince Philip to think of a recruit to the family who is so evidently feisty and spiky,” said Robert Lacey, a historian and biographer of the Queen. “I can see that this is going to be a real problem in the months and years ahead for her, an existential problem. I don’t imagine the Queen will be in a rush to have Meghan at Balmoral when Trump visits.”

Any hopes that the first American in the senior royal ranks since Wallis Simpson might be able to act as a bridge to the White House look to have already been dashed. Prior to the 2016 US presidential election, Markle advocated voting for Clinton “not because she’s a woman, but because Trump has made it easy to see that you don’t really want that kind of world that he’s painting”.

Royals are expected to understand that party politics and individual politicians are off-limits for public comment. The monarchy’s website states: “As head of state, the Queen has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.” Palace aides pointed out that by convention, other members of the family have followed suit. It is a line that critics believe her soon-to-be father-in-law Prince Charles has sometimes crossed, into political “meddling”.

Encouraging “societal change” through initiatives such as the Heads Together mental health campaign run by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Harry is preferable. Markle is thought to be likely to want to continue campaigning on issues for women and girls.

Dickie Arbiter, a former press secretary to Prince Charles, said: “It’s a bit like going in the goldfish bowl. Everything changes. What she was able to say before she came into ‘the firm’ is very different to what she is going to be able to say now. It all changes. Now she has come into the royal family, she will have to be politically neutral. Harry has probably made that perfectly clear. He knows she has been outspoken, but all that has to stop. She is going to have to adapt. I am sure she is on the road already.”

[From The Guardian]

You could tell me today that I could marry a rich, generous, lovely and kind prince who looks just like Idris Elba and the only thing standing in my way of marrying my dream guy is that I could never talk sh-t about Donald Trump again, and I wouldn’t take that f–king deal. Meghan should not be ashamed of her political views, nor should she have to back down or be silenced in any way. I get that the Windsors are supposed to be politically neutral in normal times – but these are not normal times. Donald Trump is a sexual assailant, a fascist and a white supremacist. It’s Meghan’s duty and everyone else’s duty to say that sh-t all the time. As for the rest of it… now I kind of want Meghan to storm into Buckingham Palace whilst wearing a “Reclaiming My Time” t-shirt and p-ssy hat and waving the EU flag.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce their engagement

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

144 Responses to “Meghan Markle will not be allowed to express any political opinions from now on”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. holly hobby says:

    Ok the picture used on the main page is cropped to a point where her hand looks fake. As in fake “baby hands.” Sort of weird. That’s all I have to say!

    • Gia says:

      Woahhhh I also noticed they really photoshopped her hands. In the original and the papped photos (check out daily star) her hands are DARKER than Harrys and covered in sun spots…why would they make her hands look so white..? She’s biracial. It’s effed up imo to white wash the photos so much. She’s looks great just the way she is! I understand removing spots like acne or under eye bags, but to make her look less dark than she is like there’s something wrong with that?? There isn’t.

      • Plantpal says:

        yes, i expect we’ll see a lot of whitewashing to come.
        We need to get a message to Meghan….she must NOT stop talking. As author wrote these are NOT NORMAL TIMES. The mold for normal is broken, and so must some traditions that maybe once were held sacred but now, no longer serve the monarchy or we the people. IMHO

  2. Ella says:

    Imho after hearing she ditched her elderly dog I don’t care what she does!

    • blogdis says:

      D o you know how stressful it us for an elderly dog to travel in the hold of an airplane or ship for a transatlantic trip that can take hours?
      Like Seriously was that dog heathy enough to endure trip ? My understanding is that she took one dog but left the other in care of friends it’s not like she is pet abandoner or left them at a shelter

      • Hazel says:

        Yeah, I have a friend who moved with her two dogs to Hawaii. She hates her job & wants to move back, but is not putting her older dog through that again. It was just too hard on her.

      • Nick says:

        You know what else is harmful to elderly dogs? Being abandoned.

      • blogdis says:

        They are not abandoned if you have taken care to provide them with a loving home that cares for them as you would
        Or you could be selfish and say well I want my dog with me regardless of the health risks to them even if it’s Ina body bag

      • glass coaster says:

        Yeah it’s not like they have the money to charter a private jet so that the dog could fly in the cabin with them or anything. Oh. Wait.

        This woman is marrying into the family that, had Mr. Wallis Simpson gotten what he wanted, would have been a puppet monarchy under Hitler. Prince Phillip’s sisters weren’t invited to his own wedding because of their Nazi connections. Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party that has been excused away and whitewashed because he was “young.”

        I doubt Meghan will have any problem keeping a lid on her personal political beliefs (or any of her personal beliefs for that matter) if she’s willing to overlook all that.

      • C says:

        A dog can also be sedated to sleep all the way through but probably doctor ruled that possibility out.

      • Jayna says:

        Hopefully, there’ s a different reason they are using for not bringing the dog over, or maybe she’s not as close with the dog and gave it to someone who is. Because they aren’t peons. He is rich. The dog wouldn’t be in some cargo hold on a commercial flight. He would flying on a private jet back with her if she wanted him over there bad enough.

        And then we have George Clooney’s adopted elderly dogs flying private jet from U.S. to London, Italy. His senior dogs are always with him when he is away for months. We have Angelina’s dog flying private jet. Simon Cowelll’s, on and on.

        This is what that looks like.

        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lXKcjv8YCsU/TUA1I9fQktI/AAAAAAAAABs/Av8vvgl_IJg/s1600/dog_days.jpg

        http://taildom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/kevin-costner-dog-daisy-and-jan.jpg

      • Buncihita says:

        @C it is not recommended that dogs are sedated in transit. That is how then can get hurt if there is turbulence or sudden movements. I transported my dog once to the UK, which is how I know this. The dog should be alert when traveling.

      • Gia says:

        @Jayna

        Even if the dog flies private, if she wanted the dog in the U.K. permanently he would could still be quarantined in a kennel for up to 4 months if he appears sick or for other reasons. Maybe she just didn’t want to take a chance as that would be very stressful for the dog.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @glass coaster: ITA your comment re: Wallis and Phillip’s sisters given the political circumstances in that time. I am not concerned personally with the fact that Meghan would not be able to express political views. Everything is politics nowadays. Or at least optics matter. William the Ordinary participating to an event with Green Tower victims? Humanitarian or acknowledgement of bad policy? Meghan speaking out for girls who lack sanitary towels and running water? GOOD FOR HER!!! As a European middle-class woman I have always had proper sanitation and money to buy pads. The first time I had to p*** in a literal shit whole while out on a trip in an unnamed part of the world I was gobsmacked. My horror when I heard that girls were raped because they didn’t have any toilets at school and how lucky I was that I was an adult and was traveling in group. The BBC have had some articles on women in raped and murdered, and hanged on trees because they had to do their business out in the open at night. Victims of male violence.
        I want to see Meghan speaking out. Otherwise she could show, pun intended, roast chicken recipes. Charlene promotes awareness of life skills and swimming. Very good cause and very safe politically for Monaco that have to make money to survive. And she was a top level swimmer. Sylvia and Madeleine work on child trafficking issues. Diana a champion of AIDS victims working to deter stigma and a successful campaign against anti-personnel mines. Even if in her later days she was not a HRH. Harry continued her legacy to some extent.
        I repeat I have high hopes for Meghan to get involved in serious issues. She’s proven she can do it. Present her work from a humanitarian lense. It’s necessary even now in 2017 and later on.

      • fubar says:

        Not all animals travel well. I have see dogs and cats who travel all the time and are fine. I have also see dogs and cats who could die from the stress of a Trans Atlantic trip. Can we just trust that she did what she felt was best for her beloved pets?

      • Nick says:

        @blogdis yes, it is abandonment. You can’t explain to a dog why their owner is no longer a part of their life. Both my father and grandfather died with elderly dogs and it has effected the dogs horribly. My grandmother and mother are still alive and owned the dogs with their husbands. My grandmothers dog has straight up panic attacks if he doesn’t see her. They could be in the same room and everything. My mom and dad’s dog has depression. Her entire demeanor has changed and she stopped eating for a time. Dogs know when their owners leave and it has negative effects on them.

      • glass coaster says:

        @soulSPA sorry I’m not able to reply to you directly but I do agree and wish/hope that Meghan will not just be a shrinking violet. I am just afraid that her (so far) going in lock-step with everything the BRF would ask of her (presumably these requests were from their side, same with shutting down her blog, etc) doesn’t inspire much confidence in me.

      • NJBeachGirl says:

        Come on, they could afford to rent a private plane to get her dog to England!!
        I think she should have said that the dog was very old or sick if that was the case, cause this dog thing has caused lots and lots of people who liked her to turn on her. As a dog rescuer, I have questions, too. Serious questions.

        And getting all those perks, money and financial security for life, clothes paid for, estates paid for, renovations paid for, etc etc, has a price: she can no longer have an opinion. There isn’t enough money or enough of a hot guy to marry in the world for me to shut up. But if she doesn’t, they will make her miserable.

      • Kco says:

        So so true. Our friends just moved to Puerto Rico from Los Angeles, and while they flew with their 12 year old golden retriever, he died at their feet an hour and a half into the flight. They deplaned in NJ, and he had to carry the body through the airport. The airline gave them vouchers to taxi to a vet to have him cremated and hotel stay accommodations. Imagining what they went through breaks my heart.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They had to have known there would have been questions, and took the PR hit to make the decision that was in the best interest of the dog not themselves. If there was a way to safely bring the dog to the UK without the experience endangering the dog, I suspect they would have done so.

    • SarSte says:

      Wow, the judgement – you must have never had an elderly dog. It hurts my heart to think of what move across the ocean would have done to my pups who have passed away, especially as they developed health issues. I can’t imagine that was an easy choice for her. It’s not as if she ditched BOTH her dogs in a shelter and ran off to be a princess.

    • Helen Smith says:

      An elderly dog could die traveling internationally to a new home. The stress and shock is a lot for such an old dog. As long as Meghan knows the people will treat her dog the way she wants him treated he will be fine. That is the best situation for him.

      • Miss Melissa says:

        And then the quarantine afterward.

      • Buncihita says:

        @Miss Melissa, her dog in the UK is not in a quarantine kennel. There is a pet passport system in place now, but the whole process takes seven months. So she must have done it months ago with the one dog… not the other.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or she did the process with both dogs, but seven months later was advised by a vet that one of the dogs would likely not survive the trip.

      • Amy says:

        It could also be that her dog has some disease or condition that prevents him from entering the UK. Maybe he responded poorly to vaccines and is therefore not up to date on them and not able to enter the UK. Maybe he takes certain medications that are not approved or available in the UK. Maybe he sees a certain vet, physical therapist, etc and he needs to continue to be able to see those specific people bc they know him best or he has trouble adjusting to new vets/therapists. I can think of many reasons why someone wouldn’t be able to move a dog and while it would be sad for both dog and owner, I think we need to remember that dogs are not people. They do not have the same exact feelings or psychology that humans have. We are projecting what our feelings would be (abandonment, guilt, feeling betrayed, wondering what we did wrong to make our friend move away and leave us, etc) onto a dog. I’m not trying to say that dogs don’t feel things, but just that their thinking and psychology is different than a human’s would be.

    • phatypopo says:

      I think there’s a good chance the dog is with his other dad

      • glass coaster says:

        That is what I am hoping, phatypopo. It may also be why she didn’t want to reveal the “close friend” who is watching over him. But do you think it’s with her ex-husband or ex-boyfriend?

    • Nick says:

      I’m with you. And before everyone jumps on me about elderly dogs and travel, I’m going to pull a Kayne and stop you right there. I was born, raised, and married in to a military family. Moving across the world is something I’ve dont a lot. Several times it has been with elderly dogs. None of them died en route or shortly after. In MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (caps for emphasis) if you do it right and make a plan with your vet, it doesn’t have to be an issue. And I didn’t have the wealth and resources of the British royal family behind me.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Nick, it’s so good to read a story like yours. I’m happy to know that your pets made the trips and that you could enjoy them. I have made a mental note for the time I will have a pet to check all options :):):) I just love dogs, and now that I am aware with issues regarding pet welfare *thanks to the ‘uuuuge scandal* and am only grateful for your positive comment.

    • Chell says:

      Moving my fifteen-year-old cat from my old house to my new house nearly killed her. The two houses are literally 2.3 kilometres away from each other. That’s a five minute drive on a slow day. I tried everything to make the transition comfortable but she refused to eat for days and just cowered in one corner of a room, thankfully she snapped out of it and is fine now. I could never transport my cat oversees and I wouldn’t have even tried to have her move houses if it weren’t a necessity.
      I think Meghan probably knows her dog better than you do, and knows what is best for the animal. And I’m sure if it were possible for her to be with that dog right now, she would be. She chose the welfare of her pet over what I’m sure she guessed public opinion would be. I am generally neutral in my opinion of her but I applaud her for this.

      • Montréalaise says:

        Thank you for your thoughtful comment. None of the people who are critical of Meghan’s decision not to bring the dog to the UK know what health issues the dog might have or what personality traits he has. He was a rescue dog, wasn’t he? Perhaps he is extremely sensitive and easily traumatized by changes, such as a big move. We don’t know and since we don’t, it seems mean to pass judgment when we have so little information.

      • Plantpal says:

        Bless ya both. I agree. I’ve worked predominantly with adult to senior dogs and tho’ their stories may be similar, their reactions are very different per dog. #itrustmeghanonthisone She loves her dogs, she made the decision that felt right to her and to her dog. What one person does in their situation is their business. What Meghan has chosen for her dog is her business. I trust wholeheartedly the pup is well cared for….probably has his own trust fund, walks in familiar parks, and whilst the dog will miss her, her scent will fade from memory and be replaced with more currently familiar ones that are likely just as happy. If they meet again, she will be greeted as an old friend, but naturally go home with her current person. It’s an adjustment, yes, but not brutal by any stretch of the imagination.

    • another kate says:

      I’m reading these statements such as “She traded in her dog for a prince” or “How dare she choose to move to the UK and marry Prince Harry if it means being separated from her dog” and they kinda make me go “HUH?” Was she supposed to wait until the dog died naturally or something? I love my cat, but she is older and if it had been me that met and fell in love with Prince Harry, I’d carefully think about whether kitty could make the trip and probably end up letting her live with sister who would love her like crazy.

      I also have seen speculation that the dog was co-owned with her ex – don’t know if it’s been confirmed but I think that’s a very likely scenario. Why would she bring one and not the other if there wasn’t a good reason?? Just doesn’t make any sense.

      You’d think Meghan had shot her dog or brought him to a kill shelter by the way some people are reacting.

      • Khymera says:

        Omg yes. I am sick and tired of hearing about this dog. They beat it to death yesterday and brought it back to life today. They act like she put it out of it’s misery it’s a dog she left it with friends. Jesus christ come off the cross these self righteous people need the wood.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        “Was she supposed to wait until the dog died naturally or something” — if the dog is as elderly or sick as people are speculating, then yeah, she should wait because it couldn’t be that much longer anyway. Or, they could make special arrangements (they certainly have the money to make pretty much any option a viable possibility). If the dog actually prefers living with someone else, then that’s an acceptable excuse for giving up the dog (although it would say something about the owner that the dog prefers someone else). But they have the money to overcome any other obstacle.

      • Gatita says:

        I’m so tired of the extreme dog people. There are many circumstances where it’s appropriate to rehome dogs. I have a friend who does dog rescue and she had to rehome a dog after an adoption didn’t work out. She loves dogs, owns four dogs and a cat, but she felt no guilt when the dog had to be placed into a more appropriate environment.

        People project all kinds of crazy emotions onto their pets but in my experience they can adapt very well to a new home. I had to take in my MIL’s elderly cat after she went into a nursing home and he settled in without a problem. It’s not abusive, cruel, heartless etc. to rehome a pet. This isn’t Chris Pratt offering to give away his cat on Twitter. Everyone needs to chill out.

      • NJBeachGirl says:

        Yes, I would wait until my elderly, sick dog died before I left him. Really. Cause if he is so old and sick that he can’t make the trip in a private jet, let’s say, then he should be passing over soon. I would certainly wait, not leave him with friends and separate him from his buddy.
        I think Meghan is not what many of us thought. She seems to be shedding everything she was or did for this unemployed guy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Those of you insisting “Yes I would have waited”? For all anyone knows the dog would have lived for years – but still wasn’t physically able to survive the overseas journey (even in a private jet) for medical reasons. They likely made a decision that was in the dog’s best interest while knowing they’d take a PR hit.

    • Sisi says:

      Meghan has been following Harry and traveling for quite a while and not been home. That dog has probably been living with the fosters for almost a year.
      While I don’t mind the decision to leave the pupper there if that is where he had been comfortable all this time, I do question the press side of things. Because lol we don’t even know if that’s actually the case. How did they not see this criticism coming with the basic details they’ve given? This is so freaking amateurish, it’s embarassing.

      • NJBeachGirl says:

        That is my question. If the dog is really old, frail or anxious, or Meghan shared custody of him with her ex, why not say that? Why say, “It is complex”? What a horrible answer!! Did #poorJason come up with this PR strategy?? Cause it is horrible, shortsighted and really really stupid.

        How could they not see that the reaction would be very, very strong and very, very negative? We dog lovers are crazy!!!

    • Peeking in says:

      C – it’s unadvisable to sedate older dogs, even for life saving surgery, let alone long distance travel. I just lost my elder dog because he was too old for anesthesia. Don’t be so judgmental.

      • milla says:

        If the vet decides so. My senior, 15 almost 16, had surgery this summer. She is still active and likes to jump around.

        But of course, if the vet said the dog is not able to travel… well what could MM do? Yes i understand she gets private planes and best vets ever. Maybe she doesn’t want to be that needy… maybe that breed is not allowed in the uk?

    • Karmen says:

      This dog is NOT ELDERLY! He is maximum 6 years old

      • H says:

        It depends on the breed. Six is ancient for a Great Dane, they only live 7-9 years. I have no idea about MM’s dog, just putting it out there.

    • Nessa nessa says:

      So you cool with her risking her dog by flight…private or otherwise & sedated & harmed so you can say she has both? So if dies it would be ok? At least it died in London? She have the dog with close friends that will love him until his final days. He might be too sick to go through all of that comes with it. And it’s a mixed breed, have a lot of health issues with those dogs. You act like she left him in the street.

    • Erica says:

      When we had to move to the UK for my husband’s job, we left our beloved 12-year old Golden with close friends because we knew she might not live through the 10+ hours flying under sedation (which she would have required due to her panic attacks about the kennel). She lived an additional 13 months in peace with a loving family. In my opinion, re-homing a pet is not the same as abandonment. She didn’t drop the dog at the curb or take it to a shelter, she found it a loving home.

      • still_sarah says:

        @ Erica : I fostered over 30 rescue dogs that went on to new homes-families. They flourished in their new homes with (new) loving owners. I also adopted a cat from the shelter. I had him for three years before he went to live with my friends. He was only supposed to be there for ten months while I was overseas but when I came back, it was clear he was completely happy there and had settled in with the two other cats in the home. He was happy to see me but it was clear I was now an “old friend” who could come by to visit but I was no longer “his” human. I was dumped by my cat!

    • Addie says:

      Bogart is 5 years old – not elderly.

    • Ksenia says:

      How do we even know the dog was “elderly?” I thought people were simply concluding that? Anyway, if the dog is NOT sick and elderly, then unless there is some other completely necessary reason, I don’t especially like her…that’s absolutely, definitively heartless, to desert a pet dog.. Thing is, is she REALLY all that “political?” Sure, she was a typical liberal American, open about disliking Trump, about how awful he is, but what normal, decent American in the public eye doesn’t voice the same thing? I don’t think she was particularly adamant, impassioned, or outspoken and “feisty” about her views…was she? And, if she is willing and able to leave her pet dog behind her, to marry into royalty, I think she’s also able to abandon speaking her true opinions/ convictions about President Trump. I don’t even know that the monarchy—or many people outside of the U.S.—believes that these are “special times”–as in, life or death apocalyptic.. The British have lived, after all, in the last century alone, through two catastrophic world wars. I really don’t believe that Trump is (yet) on that level of gravity to the majority of them.

  3. blogdis says:

    And do it begins, I am happy for her and Kate if that’s what they want but envy neither of them .Living like that is no good for me no matter how much luxury comes with it

  4. Maria says:

    Agree with you Kaiser. It will like being a Stepford wife.

    • DesertReal says:

      I don’t.
      Not posting political views or opinions publicly, doesn’t mean you have to censor yourself privately.
      I’m one of the most outspoken liberal people I know.
      Due to my job, and super conservative in laws- you’d never ever know it on my social media accounts though.
      Just because she can’t post every single thought that runs through her head (frankly no one should) doesn’t mean she’ll be a stepford wife.

  5. palmyrra says:

    She is so gorgeous and well spoken. LOVE HER. I’m sure she knows the Monarchy rules of staying away from politics. the woman is intelligent.

  6. Sarah says:

    I actually don’t think she’s a good fit for the royal family. She’s far too good for them. I worry that they will really try to stifle & reign her in, just like they did to Diana.

  7. ASquare says:

    While they are politically neutral, they get to advocate for great causes such as gender equality, mental health, and anti-bullying. If I had to stop having those opinions, I’d blow a gasket

    • NJBeachGirl says:

      So why was the UN considered too controversial for her?? The UN?? Come on!! That sounded just crazy!!
      I fear they will stifle her, and she will allow it, and then be miserable. I would blow a gasket, too.

  8. Dragonlady sakura says:

    I couldn’t do it even for love! I’m way too mouthy and my hate for Donald Trump must me shown to the world.

  9. perplexed says:

    She has a degree in international relations. She probably knows that the royal family serves a different kind of role.

    We can say what she should have the right to express her political opinions, but anybody who marries into the royal family must know on some level this is how things go when you sign up to be one of them. I think it’s kind of futile to say she should be able to do this or that politically. Everyone and their dog knows that that you’re giving up certain things politically when you marry a British prince. Given what she studied, I doubt she’s shocked by it. Although, yeah, never being able to say anything about Donald Trump….that’s going to be hard.

    • Becks says:

      omg. LOL. We all know she has a degree in international relations.

      I say that because I feel like someone brings it up all.the.time. “She has a degree in international relations, I’m sure she knows…..”

      She has a degree in it, along with thousands of other college graduates. She’s not an expert in every facet of international diplomacy.

      • Peeking in says:

        True, Becks – but unlike many other college grads, she has been very active and involved politically for a number of years. This woman has been politically and socially active since 11 years old.

  10. Donna says:

    And I’m sure she understood that months ago, when she shut down her social media accounts m. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless. She’s marrying into the BRF. New life, new rules.

    • Starfish says:

      I’m kind of getting to the point where I don’t want to be on social media either unless I know it’s a safe place. The past election ruined FB for me and the words we hurl at one another do lasting damage. I think Meghan will do execellent work for the causes she chooses and we know how she feels from her past statements. It’s pretty clear how the royals feel about the Trumps.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        Starfish, the election made me get off social media completely. I don’t want to know that much about people just because we went to school together or used to work together.

        One year, when I was a kid, I asked my mom who she voted for and said, “none of your business, you don’t ask people questions like that, it’s personal.” I didn’t think too much about that, or how much I agreed, until social media, and specifically this last election. It felt like a non-stop word vomit from people who will be rude you because you’re not truly friends. I decided I don’t want these incidental people in my life every day. I deal with this with family but not randoms online.

        Celebitchy is the closest I have to social media because there are some great people here whose opinions I respect, and who express themselves politely and well.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      And it’s not like she’s prohibited from expressing her feelings to her family and friends. Does social media expression do anything anyway?

      • Honest B says:

        No it doesn’t. Agree she can still be herself with her family and friends and that’s all that really matters.

      • Ksenia says:

        Agreed. She can still speak as passionately and truthfully and disgustedly about Tyrant Trump to those to whom she’s close. If THAT option were denied her, it would be a pretty unbearable situation!

  11. DiligentDiva says:

    I think it’s more about the public than the private. I’m sure in private she and Prince Harry sh!t talk Donald Trump all day long. Publicly though they need to remain apolitical. The reason the British Monarchy has survived this long is somewhat do to this, monarchies that become too political eventually topple over.
    I don’t mind the Windsor apolitical nature, I’m sure the British public would hate it way more if they started giving political opinions. They are after all an unelected bunch who live off the state due to birth. I think it would end up being worse for them in the long run if they started giving too many opinions.
    The British public has always been fickle on this, Kings who reached for too much have been ousted before in British History. They want their monarch to be an ideal to aspire too, not to be involved in the government.

    • Toot says:

      Exactly. Harry doesn’t hide his love of the Obamas, he just doesn’t talk smack publicly about Trump. Meghan can and more than likely will do the same through her actions, like her future spouse.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      This. I wouldn’t express how I feel political to people my husband works with-that’s not appropriate. But we talk about it at home and with our family and most of my friends all.the.time.

  12. Helen Smith says:

    I really don’t enjoy discussing politics so I would adapt well to those rules.

    • Maria says:

      I couldn’t adapt to all the curtsying and the rules about how you hold your fork.

      • perplexed says:

        I think that would actually be harder than not talking about politics. In the current climate, not talking about politics almost seems easier. Yeah, it’s our duty to talk about it, but the current climate has made it so exhausting!

      • SoulSPA says:

        In general, problems with curtsying are related to ego in my view. Military obey orders, most of us obey hierarchy in a way or another but curtsying is such a powerful symbol of respect and obedience. But if I were Meghan I would surely advocate for the order of precedence or whatever it’s called to be altered so I wouldn’t have to curtesey to Dolittle or B and E. Meghan is much more accomplished and prepared professionally and personally than either of them. I wouldn’t want her to curtsy to those figures. I know it’s curtsying to the title but the characters in those titles are …. No further comment, I am afraid.

    • Helen Smith says:

      The social rules would grate on me. I would feel awkward if someone curtseyed in front of me and mad if I had to do it to someone else because I’m too American. I feel that everyone is equal so no one should bow or curtsy to another person. I once heard that because our first ambassador to England after the American Revolution refused to bow to King George that Americans don’t have to bow or curtsy to royalty. Of course if you marry into a royal family like Meghan that bet is off.

      • NJBeachGirl says:

        Amen!!! No human being should EVER curtsy or bow to another human being. Americans are really prickly about this!! The whole idea of royalty, that some are better than others cause of their “blue blood,” is just so silly and absurd, I would have to laugh if anyone ever asked me to curtsy to them.
        Although I do love their tiaras.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Order of Precedence is HM’s way of keeping peace in the family, frankly. It is rewritten whenever Princess Anne’s nose gets out of joint for instance.

      No one outside the family is required to curtsy to anyone in the BRF. Plenty of other people from non-monarchy countries have married in to royal families, follow the curtsy rules, and I don’t see anyone attacking them on here.

  13. Lala says:

    I don’t know WHY folks are thinking that she heartlessly DITCHED her dog? Any committed pet owner knows that pets…sometimes require hard decisions in order for your pet to have the best life they can have….Since we know that money ain’t a thang for her…it’s got to be that she has decided that physically/psychologically, going through the rigors of moving overseas isn’t the best for her doggie-baby and I OVERSTAND that!

    • Maria says:

      But it’s nice to see that people really love their pets and want what’s best for them. I’m sure the dog is well looked after and I’m hoping he is with someone he is used to.
      I know the park where Meghan used to walk her dogs so maybe I can go stalk him there.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      I posted several times yesterday that we moved our elderly cat across country, and she died that night after we arrived. It actually makes me really angry that people are being critical of her. From everything she’s said in the past, she loves her dogs. If she didn’t move him, she has legitimate reasons, and I’m sure he’s happy wherever he is.

      • NJBeachGirl says:

        It is really stupid PR on their part to just say they reason she left her dog behind “was complex.” Just explain!! But no, no explanation, so of course dog lovers are upset!! She also took his best buddy away from him.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They aren’t required to give us any explanation for what they do with a personal pet from their personal lives.

      • CynicalAnn says:

        NJBeachGirl: I’m a dog lover too. But I’m also a person with common sense and perspective.

    • Princessk says:

      Oh no not still on the dog business. It is a very modern ‘western’ thing to put personal relationships with animals on a par with human relationships. Most of the world would regard all this angst over Bogart as quite ridiculous. Has Meghan given up a human child for adoption? NO. Has Meghan been accused of animal cruelty? NO. In most parts of the world human needy nieces and nephews would fill the gap if you did not have human children, not dogs and cats. Also there are many orphanages and children’s homes looking for caring people to foster/adopt children.

  14. Pandy says:

    I’m too mouthy as well – would be in constant trouble. Good luck to her!

  15. C says:

    This woman however lovely is not a good fit into the royal family. The Royal family is conservative, traditional, neutral and its members especially the frontline ones are only good as long as they carry the same torch, there’s no place for rebellion – otherwise it would be a madhouse. This is only the beginning for a feminist lioness woman with strong opinions, independent and outspoken. Will she adjust to a self-effacing life, go by rules set by higher powers, refrain from standing out? And second, one can just google and find inappropriate images of her in sexy outfits and sex scenes. Is this what the RF has come down to? Really, it’s like a bad joke.

    • argonaut says:

      the way she’s conducted herself over the last 6 months to a year proves she can adapt. she shut down her website and hasn’t posted to her social media in a long time, almost a year now. we know she can adjust to that life as she’s already given up those platforms that an actress needs but a royal can’t have.

      • C says:

        Excuse me but we know nothing, one can only speculate. Closing your blog and twitter doesn’t compare to her future royal duties and lifestyle.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Images of her wearing sexy outfits in sex scenes are NOT inappropriate because they were appropriate to her job at the time.

      Inappropriate is men in power over women harassing and assaulting them.

      Inappropriate is her future husband’s past wearing of a Nazi uniform for a costume party (though he’s gotten past it, I guess?).

      Given that her future father-in-law was caught on tape saying he wanted to come back as his mistress’s tampon … I think the Brits will survive old pictures of Markle in her undies.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Not to mention what Kate wore in that infamous fashion show where William first saw her!

      • Jayna says:

        LOL Isn’t that the truth!!!!!

      • C says:

        Oh really! They are not inappropriate? Let’s do porn then, cause it’s in the movies, it doesn’t matter right?! Morality matters dude – and it’s existence or lack of it becomes apparent in all the things that you do. She scream cheap from a mile away.

    • Tina says:

      Meghan’s future father-in-Law is anything but conservative and traditional. The man was advocating for the environment long before it was fashionable. All of the things that made everyone think he was nuts in the 80s and 90s (talking to plants, countryside alliance) now look prescient. Charles is a big fan of Islam, as well. If you go beneath the surface, he’s quite subversive.

      And honestly, “what the royal family has come down to?” They are lucky to have her, not the other way around.

      • C says:

        I’m taking about the institution, dude – not some specific person. They don’t exist as persons as long as they have to serve the monarchy and the crown. Learn a thing or two about the monarchy…

  16. ellieohara says:

    Oh, come on!!!

    Firstly, I like Meghan a lot but she (like Kate) is a social climber who is excited to marry into the royal family. She hangs out in royal circles anyway (her best friend runs Soho House London) so she knows EXACTLY what she’s getting into. The idea that she’s an innocent pulled in against her will MAKES NO SENSE. SHE’S A 36 YEAR OLD PRIVATELY EDUCATED DIVORCEE WITH A DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WHO RUNS WITH THE SOHO HOUSE SET. SHE ISN’T A CHILD AND HARRY ISN’T A FAIRY PRINCE.

    Secondly, her politics were very non controversial anyway. It’s not like she was a communist. Nothing she’s done before is out of bounds of basically posh charity work anyway.

    Remember how Kate’s middle class background was going to change the royal family? Remember all the press on her? I can’t wait for a year or so when all this Meghan worship is over.

    • Skylark says:

      Also, it’s not as if Meghan was/is some leading, influential voice that’s now being silenced.

    • Ash says:

      The idea that Meghan is going to be a catalyst for change in the BRF is hilarious. She’ll have to play along like everyone else crazy enough to marry into that family. I think she’s too good for the Royals, but hey, it’s not my life.

      • Nico says:

        Thank you. I don’t dislike her, I don’t like her. I’m meh about the whole thing but the idea that she’s the person to revolutionize the monarchy is silly. First, she’s marrying the soon to be 6th in line to the throne. This isn’t a huge deal and like everyone before her, she will fall in line. She’ll do what’s expected of her and that’s that. The only reason both William and Harry are important is because of Diana. They’re Diana’s sons, and Harry is the baby, her youngest and last child to marry. Plus you add Diana’s personality and some looks, and it makes it more interesting. If it wasn’t for Diana, we wouldn’t be paying attention. She’ll look beautiful at the wedding and we’ll all get to watch a new girl become a princess and then it’ll be over. Wasn’t Kate supposed to revolutionize the monarchy too? She’s much more important and yet here we are 6-7 years later and nothing has happened. Idk man, just my opinion.

      • SoulSPA says:

        But if all costs are added, each member of the working BRF will have costs amounting to about 50 million or so pounds each. The rumor has it at about 600 million altogether for who knows how many. Six working members x 50 mil is around 300 mils. Even 10 or 20 mils per person (children included) is a lot of money for someone who shows up 200 hours a year considering that the average person makes 20-25.000 a year working 200 hours a month.

      • Suze says:

        She’s not Che Guevera. We aren’t looking at a fiery revolutionary voice forever silenced.

        If she’s smart she’ll use her new platform in a savvy and royally acceptable manner. She’s an adult, she’ll figure it out.

    • ByLevin says:

      This thread and its replies are totally refreshing. I don’t dislike Meghan (or Kate, for that matter) but people talking about her like she’s a working class revolutionary who’s here to do REAL work makes me scratch my head.

      • Ksenia says:

        ByLevin: Exactly! She is hardly a great or original or a courageous, important political voice being silenced and snuffed out.

    • ANOTHER DAY says:

      Well said, Plus a kazillion.

  17. JA says:

    There’s a certain kind of power in being a nobody. although I love the idea of having wealth and not having to worry about the future knowing I’d be well taken care of and live a very lovely life, the publicity if it all is too much! However mundane my life is, I live it for me and do as I please and to Hell to what others think of me. I’m the Queen of my life so hope she enjoys being the princess in someone else’s kingdom. She is choosing this so Good luck!

    • perplexed says:

      I think fame seemed like a more interesting concept before social media. Now, you can’t even delete your Twitter account without everyone calling you out for deleting your Twitter account.

  18. Surely Wolfbeak says:

    Um, “spiky”?!

    • jetlagged says:

      Yeah, the whole tone of that article was maddeningly condescending. Brace yourselves everyone, a strident – almost hysterical – woman has a history of expressing articulate opinions about the world around her that don’t don’t involve hair and makeup tips. Oh, the horror. That alone is bad enough, but now she’ll have to exhibit enough decorum and self-control to not blurt out those impolite opinions whilst any innocent bystanders are within earshot. That’s just too much to expect of someone that wasn’t born into the royal family. My God, what was the establishment thinking in allowing this union to go forward? The entire monarchy could be at risk.

  19. Anilehcim says:

    Unpopular opinion: I’m starting to sour on this whole wedding simply because of how much of a raw deal I feel like it is for Meghan.

    Now comes the long list of things that Meghan has to give up in life all so that her life can be built completely around her future husband’s. I heard on the morning news that she can no longer have her own pet projects or involvement with charities so as to make room in her life for her to adopt all of her husband’s interests. Now she can’t have any political opinions. On one hand I get it, on the other hand, the antiquity of it all just seems awful.

    • Jayna says:

      I never thought it was amazing she landed a prince. Marrying into The Firm sounded so stifling to me, even though she is marrying a lower-tier prince who is not in line for the throne anymore, which makes it a less constrained existence than Kate and William. I’m American, so it would all be too much for me. And for all the projects she cares about, there’s also the gazillion outings of just mind-numbing shaking hands, pap visits to places just to represent the BRF, much like the wife of a politician, small talk, cutting ribbons, on and on and on, which would drive me batty, and assimilating your identity into that of the British Royal Family. But I think she has really thought it through and it is okay with her extreme life change as a trade-off to be with Harry and will probably enjoy it. My thought always is, how will she feel after ten years of it. But if the love stays strong, then it will probably be fine. She will give her all to it, it certainly looks like.

      And Meghan is 36. She loves Harry. She understands what she is getting into and is fine with it, so I’m happy for her, them. Although, didn’t someone, maybe Diana, say you never really truly understand what you are getting into until you are in it?

      It would never be for me, ever, so I never got the excitement like she landed some great life. Give me the independence of Angelina Jolie’s life any day where her projects and passion are all her own, and career her own, and I’m including in that when she was happily with Brad in the beginning years.

      • NJBeachGirl says:

        Your comment made me wonder if A Jolie would ever give up all of her own charities and be subsumed into the British royal family? Just to have security, fame, fortune and a bigger megaphone?
        I really don’t think she would.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      She can have political opinions and express them to family and friends but not publicly. Sort of like if we’re with my husband’s colleagues who are conservative, it would be totally inappropriate to discuss my own political beliefs. I really don’t see why this is so earth shattering.

  20. perplexed says:

    I wonder if they’d be able get their disses in without actually explicitly naming Donald Trump. Michelle Obama does it all the time.

    I actually think that’s a more effective method. Donald Trump loves it when people mention his name. If you don’t name him, he can’t use your celebrity to manipulate it for his own gain (and Twitter rants).

  21. Josie says:

    Yeah, the Royals are a figurehead, and QE2 is careful to not express political views – Prince Charles has got into hot water with expressing his opinion in public. This is a constitutional issue, so I’m not surprised she’s been told to keep schtum.

  22. Sisi says:

    The whole reason why Britain still has a royal house is because they realised early on that to survive they had to not interfere with parliament, politics and the democratic process.

    If every royal gets to freely share their opinions on the subjects that interests them personally, then they might as well pack their bags right away, because they’ll create so much division among the people & parliament & themselves that they’ll never have the majority of the country wanting to keep the institution.

    Also while I don’t want to go all godwin’s law in this thread… there was once a country *ahem* with a creep in charge *ahem* and a British royal *ahem* that didn’t mind sharing his opinion about that creep *ahem*. Byebye royal.
    While in the current situation you would want the rule abolished because you agree with Meghan’s opinion, what if there’s a next time and then you disagree with the royals opinion (which history has shown us is a probable situation)?

    Kinda like how Trump meddling with the divides between executive, judicial and legislative and people are screaming “He’s not allowed to do that, this is unconstitutional!”. That’s right, he isn’t allowed to do that.
    Neither are the royals. The separations of power in Britain are also to be respected. And that means they do not speak on matters that belong to parliament.

    The royals aren’t allowed to be the ones to decide if these are not normal times. That is up to parliament.
    They might be ambassadors of the country, but they do not speak for the country. The democratically chosen branch speaks on behalf of the people on politics.

  23. Lol says:

    Nothing new. I think she will be fine. I saw on Twitter people talking about how confident she was in her and Harry interview. I hope she stays like that and doesn’t turn into Kate 2.0 where she looks like the life has been sucked out of her….imo.

    Good luck to her and to harry. I don’t think she’s the evil, golddigger shrew that the dailymail and royaldish are making her out to be. I think shes confident and knows what she wants. Sadly a lot of times confident, assertive women are treated like they are cold heartless shrew. Like I said on the other post, this woman’s done wrong, she knows what she wants, she seems to be a strong woman with a good head on her shoulders. Until she does something that’s warrants negativity I’m going to keep an open mind.

  24. poop says:

    I hope all you guys are strict vegans because otherwise all of you condone the abuse of animals. She didn’t leave her dog on the streets. She left an ELDERLY dog with relative. Y’all get off your high horses.

    • Sg says:

      Seriously. All these “animal lovers” with “fur babies” who more than likely eat meat and wear leather or have a down comforter. Like, get a grip on yourselves people. The dog is being loved and cared for unlike the animals we consume who are treated like actual garbage.

    • Karmen says:

      This dog is NOT ELDERLY! He is maximum 6 years old

      • Shelly says:

        That is elderly for a lot of bigger breeds
        Dalmatians are lucky if they get to 8, they usually die around 6-7

  25. Wren33 says:

    I don’t think it is necessarily a raw deal. She has to tone down what she says in public about overtly political topics, but through charity work she has a public platform that is a million times bigger than it was before.

    As someone who works on policy issues, I definitely censor myself in certain situations. And, for example, most of the teachers I know are not on social media, or are very innocuous about what they post. Just like news anchors need to be silent about what they say about current politics in public. It comes with the job and there are ways to address it more subtly.

  26. Nimbolicious says:

    The stifling is a shame but she’s no innocent. Chica knew exactly what she was getting into. I hope that in the absence of words how she chooses to live and the causes she chooses to support will communicate her opinions and allow her to live her truth. Provided that she has one. Too soon to tell.

  27. Susan says:

    I’m confused. Has Meghan made any comments about British politics or politicians or parties in the past? I don’t see how the “neutrality” required of the Royals has any bearing to Meghan’s statements about USA politicians, especially ones that occurred in her position as a private civilian.

  28. Fabulous says:

    I like Meghan – she seems like an intelligent, accomplished, beautiful and kind hearted woman. It was so nice to see the engagement interview as a couple they seem to be very much in love. I just hope this is the right move for her and she doesn’t let the RF diminish her too much.

  29. Maum says:

    She called Cameron a CLASS ACT?

    After he gambled his country’s future in the name of parry politics and then when he lost promptly resigned (even though he’d said he would stick around to insure a stable transition after the refetendum no matter thr result only a few days before).

    That is a very naive and misinformed tweet. Wow.
    So much for international relations…

  30. Maum says:

    I read the comments on Meghan’ s tweet and it seems the British public is far more eloquent than me in reminding her why Cameron was the least class act PM in recent history.

    But I guess he went to Eton and has the veneer of perfect accent and eloquence that passes as intelligence for Americans.

  31. Redgrl says:

    Ok, I’m going to get slammed for this – but it is a gossip site and we do criticize other people’s clothes… I really hate that coat.

    • Maum says:

      Why should you get slammed for it? I said the same thing on yesterday’s post- I think it’s I’ll fitting and looks like a dressing gown. Or a bathrobe.
      We’re criticising Kate’s clothes all the time, why not Meghan’ s?

  32. aquarius64 says:

    Every one complaing about the dog is trying to turn Meghan into Michael Vick. Give the woman a chance.

    The Firm’s non political stance is known and Harry probably had the talk with her and she understood this, otherwise she would not have shut down her blog.

    Notice Trump has not congratulated the couple, but he hasn’t dragged her either. I think the Orange Menace is afraid the UK state visit will be a no go if he attacks her.

    • Maum says:

      Considering he’s retweeted a British hate group and criticised the Prime Minister and they’ve still not cancelled his visit his opinion of Meghan won’t matter a bit.

  33. Parigo says:

    I think everyone is expecting too much from Meghan. I’m just glad Harry didn’t settle for one of those posh blond gals he usually dated. I really think they’ll have kids within a year or two and not be as « out there » as we think. And you know what, that’s OK, it’s their life.

    • NJBeachGirl says:

      What is wrong with posh blonde girls? I think Chelsea was very smart, maybe smart enough to not want a job that makes you keep your opinions silent. And Cressida seemed quiet, but not stupid. I don’t know enough, but I don’t like when people mock women because they are blonde.

      • Ksenia says:

        I don’t like the assumption that blondes are somehow lesser, either. So what if he’d married a blonde? Would that make her automatically lesser, and worthy of instant, automatic disdain? Princess Diana was blonde, and was—-according to her many, many fans–a kind, passionate, socially aware and intelligent woman. (I wasn’t a fan simply b/c I have never had any interest in the monarchy.) I’m thinking that there are similar qualities in Meghan, perhaps, that Harry appreciates in her.

    • Jussie says:

      Settle? Everyone he’s ever dated has been more attractive than him, far better educated than him, more accomplished than him and in one case, wealthier than him.

  34. SF says:

    Comparing thoughtful opinion to Prince Philip is as insulting as it is absurd. Whenever he opens his mouth, something embarrassing, racist or sexist comes out.

    Meghan is an intelligent, thoughtful and engaged woman.

    I think Harry sees a spark of his Mother’s activism and her joy as rocking the status quo in Meghan and that’s part of the reason he’s attracted to her.

  35. Tan says:

    Well she knew the rules when she signed uo for it.

    And also, is she really that special or different? She is happilygiving up some parts of her core identity to be a royal duchess.

    Plus Le change…..

    She is just one of the same

  36. Nic919 says:

    The royals have been political on occasion but the old white men are bitching because Meghan is American. Charles has actually interfered and read up on the spider memos for more info. He was being political there. The Queen has kiboshed a visit with Dump. And Theresa May ripped on him for promoting a convicted hate crime moron. Nothing Meghan has said about Dump is controversial and other than Nigel Farage and a few racists, most Britons dislike Dump. Being against a racist, sexist, homophobic, moronic lazy fool isn’t exactly being political but it is being sane.

    • notasugarhere says:

      “Being against a racist, sexist, homophobic, moronic lazy fool isn’t exactly being political but it is being sane. ”

      Bless this post.