Meghan Markle will help the monarchy ‘be seen to be relevant to society’

Barack Obama and Prince Harry attend the Invictus Games

No surprise: People Magazine put Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s engagement portraits on this week’s cover. There isn’t much new information in the cover story, but there are a few things worth discussing. You know how I’ve been wondering for months why it seemed like Meghan Markle is being fast-tracked into royal life? Well, I’m starting to develop a theory. Granted, it’s not just one thing – clearly, The Fast-Tracking of Meghan Markle is a multi-level thing, involving her age (gotta start having babies soon), her career (she’s a natural on-camera and a quick study on royal life), and the Queen’s substantial affection for her ginger grandson. But there’s something else at play too, and I think I know what it is: the Windsors are falling all over themselves to be seen as “accepting” the first black woman to ever marry into the family. Like, the Queen is performing her wokeness. From the People Magazine cover story this week:

Harry, a source tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story, is “cock-a-hoop” at the prospect of their life together. (Translation: Deliriously happy.) As they plan their May 19 wedding, Harry, 33, and Meghan, 36, are “leading the planning process for all aspects,” their spokesman says — with their own unique touch.

The pair are set to wed at St. George’s Chapel on the grounds of Windsor Castle with the blessing of Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That would have been unthinkable in the past: Elizabeth’s uncle, Edward VIII, abdicated the throne to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson. (Like Simpson, Markle is also American and divorced.)

“We are a very much multi-cultural, multi-colored, multi-faith society these days,” says Penny Junor, Harry’s biographer. “Lots of people in Britain were born in other countries and having a royal family reflect that is very helpful. The fact that she is mixed race, a divorcée, a career woman and not a member of the British aristocracy is all very positive for the future of the monarchy, and for it to be seen to be relevant to society today.”

Palace courtiers who have met Meghan (including at the annual staff party at Windsor Castle) note she has lots of new ideas. “She is smart and well-liked,” one staffer tells PEOPLE.

[From People]

Penny Junor was one of the royal hagiographers/biographers who was throwing tantrums about this gauche American woman just months ago, so what’s changed? I suspect it’s the sudden reality that the royals and the “ruling class” of Britain is overwhelmingly, blindingly white. That’s something I’ve realized more and more as I get older – here in America, we always think we have the franchise on racist sh-t, but there are some deep strains of racism and colonialism in many European countries. The fact that Penny Junor can give some kind of speech about the multiculturalism of Britain just days after Princess Michael of Kent wore a f–king blackamoor brooch to Buckingham Palace just shows the cognitive dissonance that still exists in Britain’s ruling classes.

The BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell also spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about the wedding plans and what he’s expecting from the media coverage, and he too made the same kind of “nevermind the grumbling from racists, everything’s fine!” statement too. He was asked specifically about the “unpleasant reactions” on social media and in the British press to Meghan, and Witchell said about Meghan:

“I think she’s entirely accepted already by the mainstream. I think the British society of 2017 is very outward-looking and very forward-looking and positive. She has said she’s a proud woman of mixed race heritage and I don’t think any reasonable person has batted an eyelid. I think the vast majority of the popularity of the U.K. has accepted that as being a thoroughly welcome and positive and commendable development for the royal family and I think it’s the same reaction from within the royal family. I don’t know, but I think we’ve long moved on from 50-60 years ago and an American divorcee and Wallace Simpson and all that sort of stuff. I think everyone is genuinely delighted.

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

Yes, British society is so forward-looking that they voted to Brexit and leaned hard into anti-immigration policies, in what would be a precursor to the triumph of Donald Trump’s nativism and jingoism. I’m not saying that Penny Junor or Nicholas Witchell are wrong, per se. I just think they’re sort of obliviously whitewashing the larger conversations about race, ruling classes, diversity and multiculturalism in a modern society. It’s almost as if they’ll be pointing to Meghan for years to come and saying “we didn’t have a problem with Meghan, therefore we can’t be racist!” Buckingham Palace = the Sunken Place.

The British Royal family arrive at Sandringham to celebrate Christmas Day

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN and PCN.

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

307 Responses to “Meghan Markle will help the monarchy ‘be seen to be relevant to society’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. QueenB says:

    I dont think monarchy should be revelant to society in any way.

    • Addie says:

      It isn’t relevant to anyone, except the principals who want to keep their status and privilege intact. Hence, using MM in any way they can manufacture to prolong the status quo. Pretty shabby but that’s the BRF for you. Harry is a dabbler in things that interest him but relies on his personality to charm people; Meghan’s charity work was part of career profile building. Both are great upwardly mobile networkers, with Meghan using those connections to climb with her affable persona. Whether the couple will do anything substantial with their platform is yet to play out. W+K do very little of substance; it’s waving and smiling, delivering the odd speech. H+M will probably do the same. They just don’t matter, cost too much and the concept is an insult to the rest of society.

      • homeslice says:

        Thank you Addie! I agree!

      • seesittellsit says:

        @Addie – +1,000

      • Hudson Girl says:

        True, but I was getting “what the hell have I gotten myself into” vibes from MM on the Christmas stroll. I never thought I’d see that from her. Is it too late for her to rethink this wedding?

      • Peeking in says:

        I disagree that MM’s charity work was career profile building. She grew up with a mother who was a social worker, from all reports, she has always been involved and interested in social justice.

      • minx says:

        Exactly. It’s a great scam for those who are lucky enough to marry or be born into it. Of course they want to keep it going.

      • FLORC says:

        Yea… the charity work came from her mother imo. Not as a stepping stone. And when you’re not high profile like she is now, xharity work is hard. You work at it constantly and make little impact. It’s the names that carry the message.

        What we have is a history of MM years of charity work. Actual work. And a dedication to it in her free time and own cost.
        People are reaching to poke holes in this girl.

      • Tamaris says:

        @peekingin, and because she is so involved with social justice, she had no issues with choosing a dress worth 75.000$ ? Of course!

      • notasugarhere says:

        So any person who ever does charity work is never allowed to buy a deep discounted nice piece of clothing for a big life event? Go tell Princess Mabel of the Netherlands (#girlsnotbrides) and her goofy designer clothing collection.

        Pick another stick with which to beat her, because that one is broken.

      • Peeking in says:

        Tamaris- what does one thing have to do with the other? Megan wanted that dress for her engagement to a prince, something that’ll happen just once for her. Get over it. It doesn’t mean her interest in, and work on, social issues has suddenly become irrelevant.
        Nota- Exactly! I don’t know why people are taking this line of criticism.

      • Redgrl says:

        @Addie – very good assessment of Harry as a charismatic dabbler. I agree with you on that one. He has gotten away with a lot (their extravagant dating lifestyle while doing minimal work for example) because of his charm. I still have more hope for them than for Willnot & Keen…but not much…In fairness to him, I would be interested to see an actual calculation of the hours he put in for Invictus because, I don’t think that counts in his “work/event” tally, which doesn’t seem fair.

      • Nikki says:

        I think Meghan has been very sincere with her social endeavors and charities. I was so impressed to read that at the age of THIRTEEN she wrote a letter to protest sexism in an ad, and the ad was removed. Actions speak louder than people’s surmises, and her actions have consistently been of a person dedicated to improving society. I don’t see this as social climbing, whereas some people seem to imply all her actions were to get her to this position!

      • SoulSPA says:

        I like Meghan overall. But to say that she was deeply involved in charity is a bit of a stretch. IMHO Meghan has a genuine interest in charity *but* I cannot help not thinking that she, unlike other minor celebs (I never knew of her or Suits until her relationship with Harry), did acting, lifestyle blogs and charity all together. Plus her high connections with celebs like Serena, very good friends with Toronto and London based people involved with the royal milieu and politics and fashion. And Piers Morgan, according to whom, she contacted him and arranged for drinks with at the start of her relationship with Harry. In London. That morning segment with Piers talking about it was an eye opener. And one of her besties, from as far as I remember is a fashion designer and ex wife of one of Harry’s friends. And that video presenting her as Harry’s fiancee with all the right boxes: acting career check, beautiful check, media personality check, entrepreneur check, interest in fashion check, charity public figure check.
        Say all you want, and I don’t want to take away from her professional accomplishments. But all these things scream at least for me a deliberate will and efforts to target Harry. Ditto charity out on video, ditto networking with the right people in Harry’s environment. But she earned her own money, had a life and *did* work unlike Kate who lived off her parents’ and uncle’s money while being “loved” by Will. For a decade.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Redgrl, two trips to Botswana in 18 months, which he was going to be doing anyway. 18 months of her flying to the UK and them staying at his cottage at KP, taking long walks around Windsor.

        Counter that with 10 years of W&K publicly taking up to 10 luxury vacations a year to Mustique, Switzerland, France, with her mother haggling for The Royal Discount for all of them. Nothing H&M have done compares with 1/10th of what those two did for a decade.

        SoulSPA, I just can’t see it. No way on earth was she plotting, planning, targeting a royal prince in this ridiculous family, because that would have been futile. That just reads as so much anti-fan fiction. This marriage is not something people would have expected from a man who known for mostly dating aristocratic blonds.

      • Squidgy says:

        @SoulSPA – I had no idea she actually contacted Piers Morgan and arranged for drinks, that’s hilarious – Markle is a major hustler! Which I kind of suspected but man, that’s social climbing expert that even Wisteria Sisters would’ve taken lessons from!!

      • Squidgy says:

        @Hudson Girl says:
        “True, but I was getting “what the hell have I gotten myself into” vibes from MM on the Christmas stroll. I never thought I’d see that from her. Is it too late for her to rethink this wedding?” – I doubt she would back out even if she is uncomfortable right now. The gig is too sweet and she loves it.
        But just for fun: some astrologers predict the engagement will fall through. Take it for what it’s worth! I think they will get married and though she won’t be as happy as she thinks she would be, being a duchess will be pretty sweet.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Spulspa:

        Thats not entirely accurate though is is? (re Meghan contacting Piers). He said HE reached out to HER, because he was a fan of the show and that she responded immediately. They then began exchanging friendly messages, mainly about the show’s plotline, with her sending his some episodes in advance.

        It was only after months of this, when she was visiting the UK did they agree to go for a friendly drink.

        @Squidgy:

        Yeah, she’s a first class networker, I have to give her that! Given the fact that I used to be mandated by work to take training sessions on building and improving networking skills, I think it’s an asset.

        Not sure why so many people view it so negatively here. I would pay cold, hard cash to go to the classes she went to! :-)

      • SoulSPA says:

        @nota, I get your point. I try to be as little critical as possible in regards to Harry because I have a soft spot for him. I don’t think he’s the smartest in the block and he’s got away with pretty much everything. Snorting booze, showing his jewels, wearing that uniform at a costume party. Nevermind the good things re: army career, visible interest in few charities and causes, cuddles with babies. Unfortunately those things worthy of criticism weigh more heavily than the good he’s done and all those excuses for him because of his mother. He still works little and who knows what he does most of the time other than loving the high life and romancing Meghan, not on his money. Just about four vacays in luxury destinations. That the public knows of.
        Those two known relationships with rich and or ariso girls mean nothing PR wise. He’s 33, his brother is expecting his third child and Harry needs a wife. Meghan fits too well. Harry’s royal life and love struggles dominated the royal narrative. Meghan fits too well and I will not change my opinion. From all Harry’s relationships played out in the public for the last 10 or so years, now comes Meghan and he says publicly that “the starts were aligned”. WTF.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Squidgy, she would have been in London promoting Suits and her other work. Nothing unusual in meeting with a member of the media during that time; it was part of her job. If she was aiming at a royal, meeting with Piers Morgan wouldn’t have been a great idea – ergo no great scheme to aim for Harry but ended up there.

        Astrologers would say that Taurus and Gemini is a horrible match that would never last. Tell it to HM and Prince Philip who just celebrated their 70 year anniversary.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        @Bella Dupont: Are you serious? Meghan has the clout to send Piers Morgan Suits episodes in advance? No way. I might be wrong but I want receipts.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @ Pumpkin:

        Lol…..that’s what HE said, I wasn’t there……lmao….see for yourself:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuU-bfd_Z4c

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        Hahaha, I can’t be bothered. Smoke and mirrors, enjoy! I have no need to watch that. But thank you, very politely.

      • Scarlett says:

        Totally agree Addie , especially the insult to the rest of society part. I just can’t cope with people bowing and curtseying to this mob , they are usually far more accomplished than the BRF member accepting the gesture.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        lol….you asked for receipts, i gave you receipts. ;)

      • Redgrl says:

        @nota – that’s hilarious of you think that’s “all” they did. The trip to Botswana – disguised as “camping” – which was a luxury resort which in my opinion was his colonial cosplay. Flying to Toronto at the taxpayers’ dime with security detail. And if you think all they did was cocoon at his “cottage” and take long walks I’ve got some of their roast chicken for you! Will & Kate are wastrels; that doesn’t take away from valid criticism of Harry & Meghan. Chill a little & stop coming out swinging with apples & orange arguments all the time at people who disagree with you. It’s different ideas that make this website interesting. I’m sure you’ll have some criticism of this too, whatever.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        @Bella Dupont: thank you very much, I appreciate it :) I won’t lie and say I didn’t watch that just for the sake of the argument, which is not necessary – and no, I don’t feel the need to watch that video, my mind is made up. But thank you. I like it when people that stand up for themselves.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Hey, as long as you’re happy Pumpkin…..I’m humbly at your service. :D :D

      • notasugarhere says:

        Redgrl, the majority of their 18 month courtship was her traveling to London to spend time with him on her dime. 2 trips to Botswana, both of which he was going to take anyway and has taken in the past, including “glamping”.

        Even with the injunction in place about photographs in the UK, there was no injunction against photographs over the rest of the globe. If they’d been trotting all over the world together, it would have been caught.

        The majority of W&K’s 10 year courtship was public luxury vacations, 10 times a year, where Carole demanded the royal discount and freebies. 10 years, 10 vacations a year.

        I see a significant difference, even if you prefer not to.

      • FLORC says:

        Peeking in/nota
        Because this is what they have to criticise. They don’t like her. Maybe for racist reasons. Maybe because she took Harry off the market. Maybe whatever. Maybe for days!
        But this is a testament to her imo thst only this is what they have. A leaked number that isn’t even relevant in today’s pricing of a privately purchased gown. How much we do not know at all. But she wore it. And she does charity work. And maybe because she wore this 1 gown all her clothes will be super expensive and sheer.

        Did I get that right?

      • anon says:

        very well spoken and the best assessment of both of them. neither is very far from kardashian territory.

      • Enough Already says:

        Kardashian territory? If this is your take then your tolerance taser for celebs must be set on stun. A selfie obsessed reality star who rose to fame because of a sex tape versus a college educated, articulate professional with a heart for social justice and a sparkling personality? Come onnn lol.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Soulspa, I have no idea if the engagement will fall through or not, but why is Harry’s “the stars were aligned” comment a “WTF” for you? Lots of people feel that way when they meet the right person, especially if it happens when they’re on the older side. Didn’t you? I certainly felt that way when I met my husband. I think most people think it just means they felt lucky.

        And if she was in fact “targeting” Harry, setting up an interview with Piers Morgan was the worst thing she could possibly have done!!

    • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

      Said QueenB, sorry I can’t help it. No need to read it as an insult.

    • HIDI says:

      right on ,nowdays monarchy is totally irrelevant and strange to the british average joe with nuffin to offer ,its just an outmoded institution that continues to exist in the face of british public favor

    • Veronica says:

      Not a sugar, as far as I know, it hasn’t been released as to who bought the gown and if it was discounted at all. I think that is wishful thinking on the part of those who know it was a misstep and want Meghan to be well received, unless I missed a further announcement about it? And if Kate did this, private funds or not, folks would be howling about Marie Antoinette.
      Regardless, the constant back and forth by plane, the African vacations, the vacation supposedly next week, a 75,000 gown – none of these things are going to make her relevant to we common peasants who can’t afford to pay our bills. Add in Harry’s private jetting to go kill for fun, and I would say this hasn’t been the best week for them, PR wise. They need a new PR person, cause Meghan is as clueless as the rest of them. I don’t care what color, nationality, religion she is – she is as tone deaf as the rest of them.
      And of course People is going to show Meghan in a positive light! She is the “American Princess”! It is the British who pay their bills they need to be worried about.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Entire post just disappeared.

        KP stated it was “purchased privately”. Many of us take that to mean she bought it herself with money she earned. If Charles had purchased it, he would have used Duchy money and taken it off on his taxes. Fashion insiders on here have said from their experience, she would have paid no more than $5000 for it.

        She would have paid for her own travel to and from the UK with money she earned. They spent most of their courtship staying in a 2-bedroom cottage at KP and talking walks in Windsor Great Park. Contrast that with 10 vacations a year for 10 years for W&K. All at deep discount because Carole demanded the “royal discount” for her non-royal family.

        Kate Middleton and the Middleton family took freebies for 15 years (they’re still taking them). Not buying things at discount but open freebies from designers in exchange for trading on their public royal connection. The wearing of the ISSA dress for the engagement announcement was a public thank you for the decade of freebies.

        Two trips to Botswana (that he was going to be taking anyway like he does every year) vs. what we’ve seen from the Middletons for 15 years? Little to no comparison.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @nota
        It is driving me bananas about the dress because we have said over and over how it works. There is no mystery.
        Prince Harry is living the life he was born into and that the public has not seen fit to abolish. I have not seen anything extravagant in his lifestyle like a Saudi Prince closing down Cartier to spend millions.

      • Redgrl says:

        Agree with you, Veronica!

      • Liberty says:

        People seem to forget that Meghan was a common girl who went to school and worked to find a way to be able to afford to pay her bills for years, and made a name for herself in the process. That should make her relevant.

        This “we are going to call ourselves peasants, so they should act like storybook peasants, too, so we can relate to them” makes me ask: is the goal to remain ensconced in peasant-ness with more company or is the goal to find a way to prosperity? Maybe a common girl who got herself here could be an interesting worthy. person as she is, versus having to pretend to be poorer?

        She worked for her level of success, quite apart from now being PH’s fiancée. Why try to ignore that success or rip it down with complaints that a “common” woman who accomplished something suddenly can’t understand other common people? Makes no sense to me. At this s rate, any person who is common and finds a way to pay their bills should be maligned too?

    • SoulSPA says:

      @Bella, I hear you but it’s all *optics*. Very subjective. I stand by my opinion. Like, no one knows Piers. Who he is and the work he’s done for the fail. And what the fail means innthe tabloid scene in the UK. Ermmm.

    • Amy says:

      A monarchy like the British one doesn’t make any sense to me anymore. Monarchies are either relevant on religious grounds: the king has been chosen specifically by God to rule the country; or on historical/political grounds: these people have the blood of a hundred successful kings and queens inside of them. Just by being born into the family, they carry some special combination of genes that make them great rulers.

      But when you have a world and country that doesn’t whole heartedly believe in God and subscribe to all the dogma of religion, then reason one makes no sense anymore. And reason two only makes sense if the royal family is actually allowed to govern. Right now, the BRF seems to exist solely for show. And yet people want them to dress, travel, work, and act like regular joes and Janes. What is the point of having Kings and queens and princes and princesses if they’re supposed to be cheap. No expensive ball gowns, no lavish parties, no luxury travel accomadations. You’re basically just watching a bunch of normal people walk around and do charity work poorly.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        We only see the public image of the BRF in terms of all these expensive holidays, royals who don’t work but spend so much of public money. That’s a smoke screen. The question is, what would happen politically if the monarchy in Britain was abolished and what would be the consequences for the Commonwealth members and their subsequent actions as in not under the Crown? Now that’s the relevant part. Also, there are members of the Commonwealth with not so proper human rights record? Questionable democracy?

      • Addie says:

        Commonwealth countries would keep their current systems of government and laws in place. You need to remember that many Commonwealth countries operate independently anyway and have for years except for having an unelected foreigner as their Head of State who can control another country’s destiny. The significant change would be an elected and Head of State who is a national of that country. Currency with the Queen’s image would be eventually phased out. Most countries would stay within the Commonwealth for trade and cultural reasons. The monarchy has no relevance to these countries; there is a celebrity/entertainment quality to them – “As seen on TV!” – but they do not infiltrate our lives as they do in the UK via fawning media etc.

    • Sirius says:

      AGREE

  2. Jussie says:

    The monarchy is utterly irrelevant to society today. It doesn’t matter who the members of the monarchy are, it’s the institution that’s outdated to its core.

    • Indiana Joanna says:

      I was just thinking that too. It’s a monarchy living high off the hog in a country where so many people are struggling to make ends meet.

      People magazine and its usual fairy tale, disjointed spin.

    • Katydid20 says:

      Exactly. It’s such an outdated idea that these people are somehow better than the rest because of birth. I don’t see the monarch lasting long, with or without Markle

    • bluhare says:

      I have such cognitive dissonance about this. I agree with you; it is outdated and irrelevant, and they aren’t there by divine right. However, I also think they really could be a non-political unifying force. I like having something non political representing the country. Plus I’m a sucker for the pageantry. :)

      • Milla B. says:

        Do you think the monarchy is a non-political representation? Genuine question.

      • bluhare says:

        It’s supposed to be! They’re human; they have opinions, but they are supposed to be neutral publicly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That’s something I keep coming back to, given Emperor Baby Fists and Putin. The old days of monarchy by divine right are thankfully gone, but the idea of an apolitical referee rises. Again, annual World Happiness survey, 7 out of 10 of the happiest countries are monarchies. If they understand their role, cut serious amounts of costs, and get to work? There could be an ongoing role.

      • Tina says:

        The difficulty, with Trump in particular but not limited to him, is that the US has become much, much more conservative than other Western democracies over the past 30-40 years. It is difficult for Harry and even the Queen to be neutral when faced with Obama and Trump. Obama is in the mainstream of Western political thought. Trump, and Republicans in general, are not.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Tina:

        I would argue that Trump is an outlier though……the BRF seemed neutral enough with Bush, for example, even with all of his ……(what quaint word can i use here)…….idiosyncrasies.

      • ABC says:

        I’d vote for the vote. I’m sick of seeing William the Smug and would happily vote someone else in for 4 years, and darn the cost. In fact, I’ll happily give away for free William the Smug and his Smug Wife and the whole Smug family if you promise never to bring them back (or put them on magazine covers) ever again. I’m so over William and Kate, I just can’t with them. Bring on the Republic!

      • Tina says:

        @Bella, Trump is an outlier in terms of ignorance (and, oh, how “far” have we come from the despair of the 2000 election) but not in terms of policy. The GOP wants the tax cuts, the Muslim ban, the wall. They want free unlimited gun ownership and no health insurance for the people. None of this is in play in any other western democracy. And @ABC, nothing is perfect. Look at the top 10 monarchies and look at the top 10 republics. On the whole, I’ll take a monarchy.

      • babykitten says:

        @nota, this 7/10 happiest people come from monarchies is repeated over and over again. But if 4 of those 7 countries are the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, I think monarchy has little to do with the reason, and the liberal, more open lifestyle of those countries has everything to do with it. I haven’t read this survey, but I wonder if Finland, a Scandinavian country without monarchy, claim to be as happy as Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

      • Tina says:

        @babykitten, of the top 10, the three countries without a monarchy are Iceland, Finland and Switzerland. Yes, there is a theme, but included in the 7 countries with a monarchy are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. So if you’re going to live in a multicultural English-speaking place, the ones with monarchies are generally happier than the republics.

      • Addie says:

        @Tina
        The egalitarian philosophies of the Scandinavian countries I think contributes to their happiness factor; their royalty is more integrated into society and not held so distant as is the BRF in the UK. Nevertheless, there are rumblings to dismantle the Swedish monarchy as the concept does not sit well with the country’s egalitarian thrust.

        Both Canada and Australia are philosophically wedded to becoming republics at some point after the Queen dies. A line in the sand, no urgency but this has majority support in both countries. New Zealand may follow suit. These countries also hold as essential an egalitarian ideal; a real rejection of class-based society. Many UK expats living here do so precisely to escape the class system that held them back. The monarchy does not play a part in the everyday lives of people living thousands of miles away. They are a curiosity, to be sure, and people will come out to gawk (mainly elderly and kids who’ve been hauled out of school to form a crowd) but the monarchy is rarely mentioned in the news except major news like the engagement. We don’t have any media that does daily reports such as the tabloids in the UK, hence, the royals are not part of our everyday culture. While people are polite when the BRF tour every few years, they don’t fit into the way we think of ourselves anymore, especially the deference they think is their due. Our happiness lies in what we have made of our respective countries, with – granted – a stable parliamentary system of government: independent, clever countries.

      • Tina says:

        @Addie, I am certainly not aware that Canada is philosophically committed to becoming a republic. That would open the box marked “constitutional change,” which I understand that most Canadians prefer to remain firmly closed.

        As to your broader point, I 100% agree that the egalitarian sensibility in all of the countries in the top 10 contributes to their happiness and I similarly deplore the class system. It is one of the reasons that you do not see the UK in that list. But the monarchy is separate from the class system and can exist in a much more egalitarian society, such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

        I would also agree (argue? I’m not sure you are making this point) that it is really the parliamentary system of government rather than the monarchy that contributes to people’s happiness. I think a parliamentary system is better than the US or French systems, for example.

    • Enough Already says:

      Diplomatically and as living repositories of history, the rf is relevant. Otherwise, not so much.

    • Nicole says:

      Agreed. I said this before while I’m glad they are engaged and seem happy it’s still a monarchy. There’s a push and pull for a lot of people about “yay a princess of color” and “BRF is steeped in a racist institution”. Same thing with things like Obama being elected and Hamilton being made with actors of color. It’s hard to celebrate when we know the backlash against Markle was racist af and the monarchy is outdated. It’s like can we be excited about a royal wedding or do we examine the issues here? Or both?
      However I’m not British so I felt that I projected.

      • kaiko says:

        i’m sure there are people who are racist making comments, but i’m not enamored of her simply due to her hollywood aspirations and celeb focused lifestyle. plus the dogs? something fishy and she (or the RF) is putting out tons of PR to deflect. why? being a biracial woman is one of her biggest assets imo.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      That may be true in theory, but the problem with this argument is that it’s all a matter of perception. As long as people *perceive* the institution as relevant (regardless of the reality), they are safe.

      A fairly current YouGov poll shows that something like >60% of the UK population still views them as relevant. These guys will be with us for a while yet.

    • SoulSPA says:

      The BRF are relevant to British and the CW. Whether people like it or not. It’s been there for a thousand years or so and it’s been one constant factor in history and people’s minds. It’s been one of the greatest and biggest and more current empires in the world. They were still an empire at the beginning of the last century. I can’t remember any other country like this. And there is the Commonwealth. Except for the UK I can only remember two monarchies in the world that have realms. The Netherlands with some small-sized countries in the Caribbean and Denmark with Greenland and the Faroe Islands (formerly Iceland too in pretty recent times).

      • Rainbow says:

        How can the British monarchy be around for a thousand years already when the Danish monarchy is the most ancient in Europe? Japan is the oldest continuous (one dynasty only) monarchy in the world, 1100 years and counting. Denmark comes in at 1000+ years. The British monarchy had changed rulers and dynasties many times that its age is hard to define. And just by that fact, can it really be said that the British royals have been around forever and will always be around when there have been several different families who have sat on that throne? This Windsor family have German ancestors, not British. Not to mention the Commonwealth years.

        The Commonwealth of Nations were created precisely because the British Empire is no more. And that means nothing lasts forever. The relevance of the British Royals depend on the Queen and her popularity and her service to crown and country. When she passes, she’d take that adoration and respect along with her. Charles and his descendants will have to work very hard to maintain the relevance and influence the Queen has had during her reign.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Japan is branded as a country of polite and hard working people and their royal family are merely symbols. Denmark may be the oldest monarchy in Europe but they represent a small country in terms of geography, even though it *is* a country with highest standards of tradition, economy, diplomacy, trade and humanitarian endeavours in the world, with more democracy and social welfare and more educated people and highest standards of living in the world. Go see for yourself.
        Getting rid of the British empire *was the thing to do*. Political relations evolve and the reality of the aftermath of those terrible world wars demanded that. Yet there is a CW. The standards are higher for the BRF because of their history, and the history of the world. And I would like to know of any monarchy in Europe, not Japan or Thailand, that did not make alliances with foreign powers.

      • LAK says:

        Rainbow: one tiny thing, the current royal family may have German ancestors, but they have English and Scottish roots via Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry 8.

        However, if that doesn’t satisfy you, William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie are descended from the mainline Stuart line via their mothers who are descended from the illegitimate sons of Charles 2.

        Therefore King Billy 5 will be the first descendant of the mainline Stuarts branch on the throne since Queen Anne.

      • anon says:

        i’m from india, a commonwealth country so please don’t assume the brf is relevant to us. the only relevance is for the u.k. itself, as an upholder of the british way of life and constitutions. most countries unlike the us have a president and a parliament. the president in other countries holds the same role as the brf, to uphold the constitution.

        if they did that, it’s a lot cheaper to have a brf than tens of politicians and corrupt politicians without any moral compass as presidents. what’s odd is that the brf doesn’t focus on that- instead they’ve become celebrities and about social change- instead of upholding the constitution- their only role

      • Nic919 says:

        The BRF is not relevant to Canada. Every time they visit the newscasters have to remind Canadians that the Queen is still head of state, albeit symbolically. The Queen makes no decision regarding Canadian law. This started with the Statute of Westminster and ended with the repatriation of the constitution in 1982. (Canada has a written one whereas the UK still does not).
        Any knowledge about the BRF is based on gossip magazines because they mean nothing in day to day life. There is no cultural connection to them as there might be with persons from the UK. They don’t have residences here and some can’t speak both official languages, unlike all recent Canadian prime ministers.
        The commonwealth is a compromise to save face for the death of the British empire which occurred after WWII and it means less to Canada than our membership in NORAD or the UN. We have better economic ties with the US (at least for now) and our economic treaties were with the EU and not specifically the UK until Brexit became an issue.

      • The Other Katherine says:

        Yes, the continuity still matters to a lot of British people. Not so much the “bloodline” stuff as just the relative permanence of the institution and its immunity to whatever the current political winds happen to be. The fact that the monarch is the head of state without reference to electoral favour also has modern-day usefulness to the prime ministers who actually run the government, as they may get the advice and perspective of a monarch who has had decades of observing and analysing domestic and international politics without being directly involved in formulating (and taking credit or blame for) policy. Multiple prime ministers have commented privately on finding QEII’s counsel surprisingly helpful, even if they didn’t necessarily share her points of view.

        And for those who care about dynastic succession as a token of legitimacy, QEII is a direct descendant of Robert the Bruce — her family are not exactly johnny-come-latelies. I suspect many advocating for the abolition of the monarchy don’t realise the large amount of income-producing property that is owned outright by the various members of the BRF. Unless those properties are to be expropriated and transferred to state ownership, much of the BRF’s inherited wealth will remain intact even if monarchy is abolished. Now, that may be an indictment of capitalism and inheritance laws, but no more so than when the descendants of wealthy non-nobles inherit and live off vast sums of capital. Absent a wholesale re-evaluation of capitalism and inheritance and tax law in the UK, destroying a millennium of tradition and continuity for relatively little improvement in the public finances seems a poor bargain.

      • Tina says:

        The only income-producing properties that are owned outright by any members of the BRF are Sandringham, Balmoral (including Birkhall etc), Anmer, and Gatcombe Park. Balmoral is large geographically, but it doesn’t make any money and is expensive to run, and I understand that Charles is planning to give it to Scotland when he becomes King. I’m no Corbynite – they can keep them when the monarchy is abolished and everything will be fine. They just can’t keep the properties belonging to the Crown Estate or the Duchies.

      • Addie says:

        @ Soulspa
        The BRF is not relevant to Aussies either. The Queen is HoS and has a representative Governor-general here. But we will move to a republic and have our own HoS. Our relationships are principally in Asia. The Commonwealth is perceived as Nic919 says.

  3. emerald eyes says:

    I hope that is way far down on the list, if it’s on there at all. Because as useful as it may be, that is a cynical use of someone who will be a family member.

    Meghan is first and foremost a human being, not a symbol.

    • Hh says:

      THIS x1000. I was trying to the right words to wonder why this “Meghan Modernizing the monarchy” conversation bothered me.

      • Shambles says:

        It’s totally understandable that this would bother you. It smacks of tokenism and it’s gross.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Royal PR often use this line with newcomers, as LAK has pointed out as part of the PR push. Some married-ins to royal families have openly talked about “modernizing the monarchy”, etc.

        Harald of Norway marrying a commoner after waiting out his father to finally agree = modernizing the monarchy.

        Haakon of Norway marrying a single mother in the face of criticism = modernizing the monarchy.

        Joachim of Denmark marrying a woman of Chinese descent = modernizing the monarchy

        Felipe of Spain marrying a divorced commoner = modernizing the monarchy

      • Nicole says:

        Agreed with these comments. I go back and forth between wanting to be excited so I can get a break on something frivolous. And then your brain clicks back in. *sigh*

    • swak says:

      My first reaction was that it is not Meghan’s job to fix the monarchy.

      • emerald eyes says:

        No, it is not. She shouldn’t be expected to be the royal face of multi-culturalism any more than Kate should be the “Epitome of Modern Working Motherhood” or Harry should carry the banner “Typical British Military Vet of 2018″ or Camilla represent “The Plight of British Senior Citizens in the 21st Century.”

        It’s absurd. For one thing, these people have resources to cope with their issues that are beyond the means of almost anyone else. For another, it’s too much for one person to be the symbol for all people of multicultural backgrounds.

        Hopefully the palace is not that stupid.

    • Milla says:

      Yeeees… Some of it really makes her object of their modernization. And BTW, one woman cannot change the whole royal family and their history. She is one person, who fell in love. There’s no masterplan.

      And i always say this. But Brexit is more than that. EU is sinking and it is smart economical move to leave ASAP.

      • Elaine says:

        @Milla
        Yes! Thank you! I think its easy to forget that Britain *is* multi-culti. People watch ‘The Crown’ or ‘Downton Abbey’ and think they’re documentaries.

        What was voted the nation’s favorite dish? Chicken Tikka Masala. Not ethnic dish, simply favorite food.

        And the number one baby name in London (and I think Bradford)? Mohammed.

        The UK has a substantial population from Commonwealth countries. And some of those POC voted for Brexit. Happily, I might add :-)

        As for Meg, I love my girl! Even in her chocolate poo hat! Love her!
        #Megs4Eva

      • Nancito says:

        @Elaine – chocolate poo hat! Hahaha – absolutely spot on description.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        @Elaine: Chicken Tikka Masala was created FOR the British or English to accommodate the English/British palate. Chicken Tikka Masala is a go for dish on Indian restaurant menus, and it’s not Indian.It was created especially for them. I insist, Chicken Tikka Masala is NOT AN INDIAN DISH.

        London and its suburbs are not representative for the population in Britain. Yes in some groups they want boys and they call them after the name of a person we don’t even know he existed. Eff that.

        Brexit is stupid and people voted for Brexit are stupid. They are stupid and uneducated. There are also people who said they voted for Brexit thinking that they can vote for Brexit for the sake of it, and it would go through. It went through. And it has created a nightmare of sorts for the EU. The EU is IMPORTANT. The rights and obligations of States and Individuals are unprecedented. EU is the best concept-project-REALITY there is. No-one can comprehend that, unless they have actual awareness. EU citizens, please, pay attention, be aware, and be thankful for the EU. And the Brexit, anti-EU, who cares, it’s you who will suffer the consequences. Go away. The Brexit result was so close, damn it.

        And no, Britain is not Muslim or made entirely of POC.

      • Milla says:

        @ pumpkin

        EU was a great modern creation. But the draft from the 50s and the actual union are very different. EU as it is puts Europe in vunerable position.

        You cannot say that people are stupid cos you are against it. Can you deny economic fall of Italy or Spain? Or every other European country? It was supposed to be like NAFTA or any other similar contract but it’s not. Europe should stay united but not like this. We are the easy target now, not only for terrorists, but for other forces as well.

        Heres how EU makes decisions: You don’t send papers to Brussel. You send them to USA and Russia. Cannot say more, but you get the idea.

      • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

        @Milla: This is not against you.

        The EU is the greatest thing there is in this world in terms of understanding and commitment by distinct entities, formally enemies, diverse states, to common values, and action. The EU is the guarantee for peace and cooperation for us in the EU, not Europe; and I can tell you for a fact that there are people who want to be EU citizens. It has grown from the 50s and that is normal and forthcoming. The EU now is not the same as it was during it’s conception – 6 states and now there are 28 until GB is formally out. And there are 28 states with one passport so to speak. If anything, the EU provides INCLUSION and GUARANTEES in terms of responsibility and obligations of states and individuals at once. The history of wars in Europe is overwhelming, and the peace we have now it’s because we have **guarantees** for peace, this is not replicated elsewhere and I think those will never be replicated. I want proof that I am not right. Wars in Europe were hell. We have peace. We have rights. We have obligations. We have guarantees. I feel for the people in Italy, Spain, and Greece, but those are the worst examples you can think of. They are highly corrupted. Benefits, not contribution. Faking financial records. Cheat on taxes, businesses and individuals alike. Banks meddle. People are ok until they take the brunt. But hey, it’s not their fault.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Britain will suffer after Brexit. There is a lot that comes with being part of the EU and the people who voted to stay are aware of this. Putin meddled not as a friend but to destabilize the EU because the outcome for the UK will be difficult. :(

      • The Other Katherine says:

        Pumpkin, magnoliarose, I agree. I am very worried about what will happen if/when Brexit is complete.

  4. Maria says:

    And how relevant to society is she when she wears a 75k dress for an engagement pic?

    • K2Squared says:

      Can we move on from the dress?

      • island_girl says:

        Seriously.

      • The Original G says:

        Yes.

      • Nancy says:

        Can we move on from the coat and hat picture??? I’m obsessing on how many times I’ve seen it this week. Change the picture stat…..

      • Lorelai says:

        Seriously!! Enough about the dress, PLEASE.
        Can we not discuss the price tag in every single post?!

      • Maria says:

        I have a feeling that if Kate had spent that, people on this site would still be stewing over it.

      • Ytbtet says:

        Why should we? It perfectly points out how markle does not bring modernization

      • Unoriginal Commenter says:

        The dress is the MM equivalent of “But her emails!”

      • Veronica says:

        Do you think she understand the ruckus it caused? And why? Until Harry and Meghan show a semblance of understanding of how a gown that cost most more than the average British family makes in a year was a misstep, I dont think the people supporting them will move on. And now she is going to be scrutinized for the cost of every single thing she buys and wears.
        Regardless of what her fans say.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Can we? It is beyond ridiculous at this point especially when it has been explained over and over.
        This is getting truly HRC’s Emails level of much ado about nothing.

        You don’t need to be a fan to know the facts about fashion and how it works. I am not a fan but I like her, and if it were anyone else I would retell how couture works and how stylists and designers fight to dress people in the public eye. It is free advertising. Again, that figure is chosen out of thin air because there is no way of knowing the cost unless the designer told it and they didn’t.
        I know what I am talking about because I know people who do pay full price for couture and they aren’t famous. I have been around it professionally and privately.

        Find a new phantom reason to hate her because this horse is dead and buried.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Well said, magnoliarose!

    • Olenna says:

      FFS, please let it go. That f*cking horse is dead, beat to death and defiled by the self-righteous.

      • Milla says:

        But here is what i see. Young woman and her dress for engagement are perfectly normal. But it doesn’t mean she wants or even can modernize sth that is so outdated. She just wants her wedding and her future. So the dress is more than a dress. It is what Markle wants. Cozy life with Harry. At least IMO.

      • FLORC says:

        A cozy life. I agree. And I think they’ve really bonded over their charity work.

      • Veronica says:

        Just because her fans dont want to discuss it anymore, doesn’t mean the people who will support her will forget this.
        Kind of like Kate’s snub of the Irish Guard. And that was after she had been married for a few years and had an”heir.” People here and elsewhere still being it up, cause it shows a lack of understanding of optics and consideration for those they supposedly represent.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, Veronica, she would have paid no more than $5000 of her own money for it (as per fashion insiders on here). The public price of it she may never have been told.

        Contrast that with Kate Middleton $1 million wardrobe paid by taxpayers over 6 years of little to no work, plus her $400,000 milquetoast wedding gown covered in French-made lace.

      • Veronica says:

        Not a sugar, I dont think you can say that as a fact, the 5k price tag. And even if that is correct, people don’t know that. PR is all optics – this is my field, so I’m always gaming how they can do it better, cause this was bad.

      • Unoriginal Commenter says:

        We don’t know if she paid $5k, just like we don’t know if she paid $75k. We don’t know exactly how much the dress cost and we have no proof that she didn’t pay for it herself. I can understand the tone deaf line of thought, but it seems extreme to assume all this negativity about her character based on this one instance. Am I naive to think folks should cut MM some slack? Let’s see if she does this kind of thing a few more times (and for sure on taxpayer dime) before folks get so upset.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Oh, FFS let it go. No one cares. It’s old news.

    • Enough Already says:

      If we’re talking about relevancy vis-a-vis public perception it is a valid topic for discussion. The dress was purchased privately by a private citizen but taxpayers suffering hardship may not see it that way. Fair or not, Harry and Meghan will have to take this into heavy consideration going forward. The rf had to do the same thing during both world wars, despite private consumption, and it worked wonders for their brand. The difference between Meghan and Kate is that Meghan has no wiggle room – that and she is a quicker study and knows how to read the room. She will self-correct, I am certain.

      • Maria says:

        We are talking relevant to society. I don’t see anything that the Royal Family does as being relevant, including the ridiculous amount of money they (and I am including Kate) spend on clothes. Meghan may change that that narrative somewhat but so far she hasn’t. IMO.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Enough Already,
        Russian cousin o’ mine.
        The reason I am not bothered is she isn’t a member of the BRF, and she comes from a Hollywood background where that is the norm.
        She is still a private citizen and not obligated to explain her finances to anyone.

      • Bet I'll Get Banned says:

        magnoliarose
        I agree and feel that people wail about the price tags when they don’t like a royal and justify it when they do. Technically it is insulting to be so up in arms about the dress but since so much of the monarchy is illusion, what people perceive becomes very important. Meghan and Harry will have to dance to this tune – I find it appropriate and quite sad at the same time. The most difficult part is knowing that Meghan is eventually going to knock this out of the park and it still won’t be enough for people.

        On the Christmas church walk thread I saw a few comments about Russian hats and I thought of you with a little squeal! At a Christmas Eve dinner party one of my brother’s colleagues and I were discussing genealogy and he said I have Latvian eyes. Lol not sure what those are but yay?

      • magnoliarose says:

        Oh yes, that is a compliment @ Bet I’ll Get Banned.
        Latvian’s often have almond eyes and can look slightly Scandanavian. They have a reputation for being guarded, so maybe he thinks you are mysterious and he likes your eyes quite a lot!

    • Jessica says:

      I liked the dress and I’m not obsessing over the price because she has her own money but this is a valid criticism. I think it’s interesting that people are telling you to get over it.

      • Squidgy says:

        @Jessica – it’s the cool girl snark. “Oh, I sound so cool when I shut someone up”. You don’t want to read someone talking about something for days? Scroll down to other comments and stop trying to be an a$$.

      • Olenna says:

        @Jessica, the real issue is not the gown. It’s the unmitigated dislike for MM and the taint of hate that I, and maybe some others, don’t like overshadowing every royal post. I’m here because it’s a moderate environment to indulge in royal gossip, not like some royal sites that appear to be outlets for venting deep, personal pain and anger. I’ve stated before that MM’s staunch detractors have likely never taken a minute to complain to Buck House or their legislative reps about all the things they abhor about MM. Yet, they are here post after post with the same complaints and dissertations, knowing they won’t find any help or insider info here. So, ask yourself, are they just trolling or is it something deeper? @Squidgy, just quoting you, “Scroll down to other comments and stop trying to be an a$$.”

    • Tonya says:

      Kate’s wedding dress cost more than 400,000 pounds …I didn’t hear any outrage…waiting…

      • Veronica says:

        It was a wedding gown for the woman marrying the future Queen. Not a gown for engagement pictures. And I do think it is stupid. I also think if Meghan’s wedding dress is 400K, that is ridiculous. Even half that. She is marrying the 6th in line to the throne. You can’t compare their positions.
        Meghan and Harry will fade into the background, just like Fergie and Andrew did, as Kate and William take center stage. I doubt they will do anything, but it will be their show.

      • Penelope says:

        I’m more outraged that Kate paid that much for a wedding dress that did absolutely nothing for her.

  5. Suki says:

    I think they are giving MM too much credit. I didn’t even know who she was until the papers started splashing her and Harry on the covers of papers and most people in my world don’t particularly care about Meghan one way or the other. There certainly isn’t some great passion for her as there was with Diana (that height of public devotion probably never will be again.) If anything the narrative with Meghan is that she is a bit of a climber who swapped one lucrative career for another. If anything though, it will bring in a few American ‘fans’ of the monarchy who might love to see an American as part of the fold. Most people don’t care much about the Royal Family, other than some of the older members. They are very much ‘in the background’ of most peoples thoughts. That said, I don’t like the idea of disbanding the monarchy.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      @Suki

      Considering that just on Netflix alone, there are 6,500 movies and over 1,600 tv shows, do you think it’s reasonable for you to expect to know all the working actors participating in successful shows? No offense but i am so exhausted with seeing this ill-thought out (don’t want to use the word stupid) argument.

      I watched Suits, I knew her. So did/do a lot of people I know.

      The narrative of her being a “climber” is particularly strong with certain types of people (again, I won’t use the R word, I’m trying to be good, new year coming up and all that).

      What would be interesting would be if you could tell us how different you are from Markle. How successful are YOU in your chosen field/socially? What sorts of decisions do you make in your own life to ensure that success? Does that make YOU a climber? Or are you static and happy to remain where you are for all eternity?

      I’m genuinely interested.

    • Lorelai says:

      Suki: No one knew who Diana was until she became engaged to Charles, so this line of thinking makes no sense to me.

      I’m not saying I think Meghan is some next Diana, it just makes no sense to assume that because you don’t know who she was up until now means absolutely anything.

      • notasugarhere says:

        True most recent royal married-ins have been unknown. One exception being Letizia of Spain, who was the top newscaster under 30 in Spain before they surprised everyone with their engagement announcement (when no one knew they were dating).

      • FLORC says:

        Diana was also a lady. English rose. Virgin. 19. The narratives around Diana changed often. And they’re not remembered as they were for the reasons at the time. Hindsight everywhere.

        I’m reading that climber argument in a lot of places. I’m not seeing it. She laid low. Kept to herself. Made the proper low key adjustments to her life for an easier transition. Nothing flaunted. Nothing leaked. Unless you count roasted chicken dinners.
        Feels like there’s aggression towards her and I’m not sure why.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Thank you, FLORC. And I think we know why.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        The climber argument is just a different way of saying she’s not good enough to be a member of the BRF….she doesn’t know her place.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        There you go, Bella — exactly right. So much of this is just codified classism and/or racism.

      • SoulSPA says:

        BRF alone, there is no way not to think of married-ins as social climbers if only in regards to Kate and Meghan. Kate: “middle class” with a life style of the rich because only the rich can pay for a “flat” in Chelsea, London, costing up to a million pounds and maintaining a mansion in the English countryside, expensive education for three children, and hols to Mustique and Switzerland. For a number of years. With three adults namely Kate, Pippa and James out in tabloids and what jobs other than seeing them grinning and smiling while connecting with #thelondonjetset
        Meghan has worked and networked and it’s all out in display. It’s just that she did it by herself while having a job and she was very smart. With no help from her mother and other relatives to sponsor her lifestyle while hustling to bag a prince. From all women out there who wanted to have Harry, and there are quite a few, the one that got the deal was a smart actress and entrepreneur and charity figure and top networker. Go figure. #thestarswerealigned

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Are there 2 SoulSPA’s on this website? I’m struggling to match the constantly conflicting views I keep seeing from you…..(at least in my tiny, slow mind anyway)

      • Carrie1 says:

        @FLORC I think it’s because she is and has been an independent young woman who built a life for herself by herself. Race may be a factor for some too, I’m not discounting that, I just see her independence and gender as having more weight due to her success pre-Harry.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is racism. I am tired of tiptoeing around racist’s and their ignorance. If someone is offended then maybe they need to spend a weekend soul searching and asking themselves what in them is so broken they would dislike someone because of the color of their skin.
        The world would be a better place without racists and bigots and their regressive lack of sophistication and critical thinking skills. They add nothing to the world of value.
        Harry looked around at all the white girls thrown his way and said No Thanks! I pick Meghan. Biracial brown pretty Meghan. Get that. She ain’t white, and he likes it that way. White, wealthy Prince loves not white actress Meghan. He is crazy and besotted for a woman of color and not an English rose. He didn’t want an English rose. He wanted a brown American divorced actress. Not you.
        Let it marinate and then get the F over it.

      • Peeking in says:

        Mag – 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

      • Bet I'll Get Banned says:

        magnoliarose ftw!!
        I could type more if I weren’t cheering wildly lol.

      • Olenna says:

        @magnoliarose, well said.

  6. K2Squared says:

    I really do enjoy all the fashions of the BRF, but I don’t think the monarchy should still be in place nowadays.

  7. Mrs. Wellen-Melon says:

    “here in America, we always think we have the franchise on racist sh-t, but there are some deep strains of racism and colonialism in many European countries.”

    During the Civil Rights Era, my South Carolina mother used to get so annoyed at Northerners who truly believed racism was confined to the Deep South. She was right: it’s everywhere. She used to say: “At least in the South, we admit it.”

    As in, admitting a problem is the first step. I truly feel for Meghan Markle. She’s a retired actress/future aristocrat who is going to be a lighting rod. She’s going to try to be better/bigger/kinder than the meanies and it’s going to be tough.

    Meghan, a piece of advice: living well is the best revenge. Also, a request: please be in the fashion game to win it.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      Hear hear! :)

    • Veronica says:

      If Meghan is in the fashion game to win it, with Charles, thus the British taxpayer, paying the freight, she will be excoriated every day.
      A smart Meghan will pick a professional non-designer wardrobe that is practical and used over and over. Nothing flashy, nothing expensive. I am not very hopeful, though, after her 75k dress showed she may be in this to enjoy all the perks.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Her $5000 dress she likely paid for herself vs. Kate Middleton $1 million wardrobe paid by the taxpayers.

        MM’s day-to-day personal style before all this was classic and low-cost, even though she could afford to pay for much more. Why continue to assume her working wardrobe for this job will be different?

      • Maria says:

        Veronica, you are not to win on this site. The 75k dress is now down to 5k. Heck maybe she bought it used for $50.

      • Veronica says:

        Marie, LOL! Maybe she whipped it up after roasting a chicken and saving the world?
        It is weird that MM can do no wrong here. I like her, but feel like she is human and made a mistake. That is all.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @ Maria…

        Lol….re the $50 dress.

        Yet, I believe Nota’s assessment of the cost is probably more reasonable than any of the other guesses we’ve seen thus far. There is absolutely *no way* on this round earth that Meghan would have spent $75k of her own money on that dress, engagement or not. The on-dits on The Tig is that she created the website as a way to allow her live a highly luxurious lifestyle on as low a cost as possible and also for tax advantages as well…..we’re talking about a savvy, clued on woman here.

        The publicity that brand has got from this is probably worth a good $250k – $500k on generous calculation, so selling the dress for $5000 is not unreasonable to me.

        Having said that, I also think it was a mistake for her to wear a dress that COULD be tagged as $75,000 by any calculation and I think it was a definite mis-step. One she’ll be paying for for a long time as is evident from the continuing commentary on the subject.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Veronica— It is so refreshing IMO that you admit that you like her, but she’s human and you think she made a mistake. That is a reasonable middle ground that I feel we don’t see enough of! 👏🏻

        The dress actually doesn’t bother me…they’re her engagement photos, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. If she wanted a special gown, I have no problem with it. And as people here who know more than I do on the topic have said, there’s likely no way she paid that much. Plus, we will never know who paid nor how much they paid so I personally don’t see the point of bringing it up constantly (not accusing you of this, just saying!).

        I like Meghan. A lot. I’m rooting for her and for Harry. But it is really starting to bother me that no one (here, at least) can express any criticism of her whatsoever without being labeled a racist.

        I do think there is a LOT of racism at play w/r/t Meghan, absolutely. But just as you said, you can like her yet think this gown was a misstep. That does not make you a racist! I happen to disagree with you about the dress, but I just wouldn’t jump straight to “it’s racism!” without some good reason.

        I agree with others who’ve said that Kate would be excoriated if she wore a dress this (even possibly) expensive. And Kate is as lily-white as they come, so.

    • Jessica says:

      I can’t feel sorry for Meghan; as a WOC she knows the game and will be just fine. That’s like feeling sorry for the Obamas (except Sasha and Malia) who are confident and educated and can adapt to weather the storm. As long as they are supportive of one another they’ll be fine.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      ” “At least in the South, we admit it.””

      Hmm. I think it would be more accurate to say in the south, it is more acceptable. There are racist people everywhere in the US, but in some areas it is less acceptable, therefore, people don’t “admit it” publicly.

      A vocal racist isn’t a harmless racist. Admitting it doesn’t remove the threat. The acceptance (or even the appearance of acceptance) of racists views leads to Charlottesville.

  8. Barrett says:

    I really like Meghan’s focus on charity work, and recognize she was doing this work way before Harry. I don’t expect her to be lazy, she will be amazing and always on the go. She’s also well educated but I don’t feel like her role as an actress wearing tight skirts was her career. I am a career women , went to get an exec MBA at night. I prefer when they emphasize her charity work but the focus on suits it doesn’t resonate w a lot of us.

  9. Louise says:

    Lots of comments in the Fail today about Harry’s comments regarding the family she never had etc. I am on the fence about that comment. I can see how an extended family would be lovely if you are essentially an only child with a divorced mum but also Harry pleads for privacy when it suits him.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      I think that was one of Harry’s “foot in the mouth disease” moments. He probably meant that the BRF is and will be a different type of family to any she has ever experienced…which rings true. But he fluffed it. Did you see how he hung his head straight after saying it? He probably knew that would be a headline.

      By the way, has nobody thought of her ex husband? Surely, he would be justified in also feeling slighted by that comment? Afterall, he might think that he had a family with Meghan (however small) long before Harry came along.

      Unfortunately, some Raci……….(clears throat)……some people will blame her directly for Harry’s comments and say she must have lied to him that she had no family. (Completely ignoring the fact that Harry has himself praised Doria and acknowledged her father)

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t think they need to worry about whether the ex-huband’s feelings are hurt. He’s currently shopping around a tv show based on a man who has an ex-wife who marries a prince. I say go ahead and upset the opportunistic creep.

        Mette-Marit of Norway’s ex-boyfriend and father of their son has kept a low profile. He’s an active part of their son’s life, always has been, and has never traded on his royal connection.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        The shameless gossip monger in me would love to see some sort of a show-down between Harry and either one of her exes. In fact, this felt like an inadvertent bit of shade towards the ex ….it tells me Harry doesn’;t see him as relevant in any way.

        Re the ex, I feel a little sorry for him. In fact, I suspect this so called tv show is a way for him to be allowed to really stalk this relationship, in the name of “research”. Four years after their divorce, he hasn’t remarried, no significant relationships (that we know of) and still had his wedding pictures on his facebook page (at least at late last year) and the Ninaki friend tells us he’s still down in the dumps about her……

        Maybe i’m too soft.

      • Veronica says:

        I read some comments on the Daily Fail and they actually were sympathetic to Meghan and her family. Saying things like “Harry will be in the doghouse for insulting her family,” and “Dim Harry insulted Meghan’s mom and dad,” etc.
        I didnt see Meghan getting any blame for this, thank goodness. It was all on Dim Harry.

      • Jessica says:

        @Notasugarhere

        Isn’t Mette-Marit child’s father dead? Not to be blunt but I thought he passed away suddenly.

      • Wisdomheaven says:

        People on certain forums are already pulling the Meghan forced him to say this card or the “manipulative Meghan” pulling on Harry’s heartstrings card to get her way. They fail to see the sexist undertones to these kinds of narratives.

        Given that Harry has spent tiime with Doria and seems both very comfortable with her (he was hugging her casually while watching the IG closing ceremony) and was very open with his praise of her during their engagement interview (he absolutely perked up at the mention of Doria), I think he has a decent grasp and respect for Meghan’s mom, but also on the dynamics of her family.

        His comment was pretty clear to me in the context he gave it as being about extended family that sees each other. Something his family does, no matter their quirks (he mention how complex his family is).

      • Amy says:

        Nota: that seems like one of those instances where somebody thinks whatever is currently happening to them will also be of huge interest to everyone else. Spoiler: it’s not. No one wants to hear this story from the “jilted” spouse’s point of view. And how very American is it to be like “let’s tell the story of the first African American woman marrying to the British royal family” from a white man’s point of view!”?

      • SoulSPA says:

        @Bella, I take my right to change my opinion as per information available and I feel free to express it with all respect towards this site and its commentators. I try to convey some things in all seriousness and a bit of snark and fun here and there. As subjective or objective as it can be. No different from other commentators.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Sincere apologies, SoulSPA, I hope that didn’t come across as an attack on you…..it really wasnt meant to be………. it’s just that, I actually *genuinely* don’t know what you think about Meghan…..whether you think she’s a climber or just a savvy networker…….I’ve seen you express both opinions quite enthusiastically, so just a bit confused that’s all.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I haven’t heard anything about Morten Borg dying.

      • Elizabeth says:

        I haven’t heard anything about Mortem Borg dying, either. I think Mette-Marit’s father’s death was unexpected, but that was a few years ago.

  10. The Original G says:

    I’ve got nothing against any of the individuals here and I wish them well. A US television actress is not going to make them relevant. The monarchy has been irrelevant for decades, if not centuries and that’s a good thing.

    Sorry this is all entertainment and a boost for British Tourism, especially if they break out the pageantry. No personal objection to that either.

    I find the elevation of their importance fascinating though. Like there’s some international significance to the marriage of a mid-level royal and TV star?

    • Mathilde says:

      Yes, I thought this as well. I don’t think many people really understand the monarchy, except the Brits and Europeans with royals. Meghan will be the wife of a royal, who is of very little significance in the longrun.

  11. Shelllley says:

    Make the monarchy relevant how? By giving up all that made her Her to be a royal?
    Yeah.. that’s wicked relevant and progressive.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She’s intelligent, hard-working, ambitious like Letizia, Maxima, Daniel, Mathilde, and many other recent married-ins. People who left their careers because that’s what happens sometimes when you get married – you move because your spouse’s career requires them to be in a certain geographic location. That doesn’t mean you are giving up who you are as a human; you are adapting to new circumstances because of a personal life choice. Millions of people do this every day.

      Those other royal examples have used their personal interests from their careers in their royal roles. Maxima with microfinance, Daniel the gym owner working on campaigns about healthy living and getting kids to be active an hour a day. Letizia’s media training has been incredibly useful, so MM’s will be useful too. She could also use her personal experience to work with theatre charities, etc.

      What she’s exchanging is one career option for a change in her personal life and a new career. I’d much rather see this than someone who never did anything with their life prior to marriage (Kate Middleton, Stephanie of Lux), and who end up doing next to nothing after the wedding (again Kate Middleton, Stephanie of Lux).

      • Mathilde says:

        Most of your examples refer to the spouses of present or future Kings and Queens. Not relevant in this case.

    • Veronica says:

      I agree. And I doubt she is going to outwork Lazy Harry, Wills and Kate. I’d wager she will slip right into their do-little ways.

      And not a sugar, i have read your comments about the royals and Kate for a while, and you are really invested in Meghan. Do you think she will be allowed to outwork the lazy younger royals?

  12. Shelly says:

    This only works if she has a substantial platform which she won’t because of Will and Kate. They might not want to work but they cannot have a newcomer doing more than them for a variety of reasons. Oddly, inviting Obama to wedding would be a step in right direction. It would be seen as inclusive and not kowtowing to racists. Remember Trump modified trip to UK to open embassy already and May is starting tricky part of Brexit. It’s all political, historical and messy but it could signal a change if done right. Just my opinion

    • The Original G says:

      They can’t borrow Obama’s relevance or accomplishments by inviting him to their wedding. That’s not how it works. Just my opinion as well. ;-)

      • Lorelai says:

        They’re not trying to “borrow his relevance” — he and Harry are personal friends! As he is with Michelle as well. Why shouldn’t he be able to invite his friends of his choosing to his wedding?

      • Hazel says:

        Good point, and while I don’t think H&M are doing this, some people do think this way.
        And in another note, as for M having ideas about how to change things…it’s a fine line. An outsider can immediately recognize flaws in a place or process, but offering ideas—unsolicited— on how to improve can sometimes be received as ‘you’ve been doing things wrong all this time.’

      • The Original G says:

        I don’t care who they invite to their wedding. But their wedding guests will in no way confer upon them an importance that they simply don’t have except as tabloid fodder. This situation is profoundly unimportant in any context larger than entertainment.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I can see them have an ongoing personal and professional work relationship with the Obamas in the future. Harry and Michelle obviously connected through work with veterans for several years. Harry was invited to the first conference for their Foundation. Barack Obama gave his first post-White House interview to Harry. I’d like to see an ongoing work relationship here, with Michelle Obama on the board of Sentebale, etc. Use their positions for good.

      • Veronica says:

        Yes, and Dim Harry asked Obama nothing of significance, but DID ask him what Kardashian sister he prefers and about his underwear.
        Lord. Dim is right.

    • Carrie1 says:

      They can if MM follows Princess Anne’s lead, which I have a feeling she could. Will and Kate would be foolish to not encourage Harry and Meghan. The more working together, the better. I could see the BRF failing to continue once the Queen dies. They have to be very careful. Especially with Brexit.

  13. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Every country is racist for the most part. Every culture thinks they alone have everything figured out… always have. I remember telling my boys back in the mid to late aughts that social media would end up toppling careers, inciting everything from discussion to delusion to dissention, and here we are. My middle son is a Middle Eastern linguist in the Air Force and says we’d be shocked at the back-and-forth racism. I’m not shocked at all. He briefly went into the chaos following 45′s capital of Israel announcement. Obviously, as part of our armed forces he can’t say anything, but between the two of us, I can say he and his fellow soldiers were mortified. Maybe the first step is a series of banal national announcements, some follow-through, then rolling out sweeping change at education levels, public service announcements and events. Maybe we all need national holidays established. I don’t know but lip service doesn’t reinforce and it doesn’t change a hardlined status quo ya know? And a royal installment or statement can actually stall improvements.

  14. Serphina says:

    First off, I have a HUGE issue with the words royal hagiographer. Hagio in Greek means holy or saintly and they are anything but. Royal biographers yes; royal hagiographers NO.

    SEcond, if they are using MM as a show that the Firm is modern and progressive, it’s no wonder MM looked unsure at times on Christmas Day. Maybe she’s gotten wind that she is a pawn on the world stage??? Because let’s face it, this Family is all about them selves and saving this archaic institution. It would not surprise me if they use MM as they did Diane. And so history repeats itself.

    I hope the best for her in this marriage. She’s is an adult and many say she knows what she is getting into but if the cards aren’t all on the table then the poor woman really has no clue.

    • Hazel says:

      But that’s the point. Penny Junor’s works on the BRF are essays in sucking up to the great & powerful, as though she will somehow be accepted into their circle. She writes of none of their flaws, nor does she attempt a true analysis of their lives or role in modern Britain.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Serphina, Kaiser can correct me if I’m wrong but I’m almost positive she was using that sarcastically. She’s said the same thing about Katie Nicholls re: Kate and we all know she doesn’t think Kate is a saint! I truly think it is a joke.

      • Serphina says:

        Wow, my apologies. I didn’t catch on. I actually thought that’s what they call the royal biographers. Thanks for the clarification

        My apologies Kaiser!!!

    • SoulSPA says:

      I think that Meghan did very well when awaiting the Queen to leave. The cynical in me thinks that Will and Kate tried way too hard to show friendliness towards Meghan and kind of sabotaged the moment. That was the *one* moment when the public saw them next to her. They kept talking to her whereas Meghan tried to keep her composure and pay attention to TQ. Meghan had the two dolittles on her right side, who kept talking to her and she paid attention to them. Harry on her left side also talking to her but she could have not seemed unfriendly towards the dolittles. It *is* difficult enough to pay attention and engage with three people, right and left, at the same time, *and* focus on the single important thing and curtsy to TQ.

      • Lexa says:

        I don’t think they sabotaged anything. If you watch the video, Charles and Camilla are also chatting with her. I actually thought it was a nice show of inclusion by the Wales family and they were probably trying to put her at ease before the big moment. The thing that really worked against her was standing so close to the step, which limited her range of movement and balance.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Too many people distracted her at *the moment*. Whether intentional or not. This is the way it came across. Meghan nervous, insecure and out of her depth when she tried her best at *the moment*. Not that she’s never been in front of cameras. BRF’s image came first, as welcoming and friendly, so many of them vs. *the new comer* in the space of a minute or two. I felt for Meghan.

      • Lorelai says:

        IMO she did a way better job than Kate, who didn’t lower her head at *all*

    • Lorelai says:

      @Serphina it happens to us all! It’s been a long…year 😞

  15. Heidi says:

    Media and social media can elevate anyone as easily/quickly as they can tear them down, it even happened to Princess Diana

  16. happy girl says:

    I’m going to preface this with “no snark intended.” Meghan is not going change, enhance or elevate anything about the British Monarchy. There is natural interest and hype right now, but it will wear off pretty quickly. She’s not a magical person (generally), the English seem to really dislike her for being a ‘pushing 40 divorcee,” and even worse, a C-list actor. They don’t seem even remotely impressed by her.

    Hopefully, she and her husband remain in love, have a sweet family and live happily ever after.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      @ Happy girl:

      You said: “the English seem to really dislike her for being a ‘pushing 40 divorcee,” and even worse, a C-list actor. They don’t seem even remotely impressed by her”

      Nope…..don’t believe The Daily Fail. They cater to a very specific segment of the country, as LAK calls the “Little Englanders”. Their comments section is also driven towards a very specific agenda; to make you believe she is loathed all round. Its a complete fallacy. Fir a more realistic assessment, see what YouGov website says:

      “With Markle’s official entry to the House of Windsor now just a few months away, YouGov has added her to our approval tracker of prominent Royals. Close to half (49%) of Brits have a positive view of the actress, while only 14% have a negative view. The remaining 37% say they don’t know (a much higher rate than among the rest of the Royals, who are on 7-15%).”

      However, that 14% are trying to be as vocal as they can be online. Here’s the link. Take a look:

      https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/11/29/5-charts-british-reaction-prince-harrys-engagement/

      • happy girl says:

        Hi @Bella….Interesting, but I still take that with a grain of salt for the long haul. It represents, rightfully so, something new and unknown.

        Most of my above thoughts came out of a telephone call two days ago with a close friend who is a British attorney. Her two cents. :)

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Hi @happy girl…. :)

        Fair enough fir your attorney friend, but I would take YouGov’s assessment of any topic, especially in the UK, far above the Daily Fail’s anyday. :-)

      • Tina says:

        I promise I am not being snarky, but we don’t call them attorneys here. They are solicitors or barristers. And I agree with Bella – most people really couldn’t care less, young blokes think Harry’s lucky because Meghan is hot, and some old ladies are a bit perturbed. That’s about it.

      • Veronica says:

        That 49% of people who have a positive view of her? I bet that will be her highwater mark. The tabloids already are tearing her down. It sells papers. Add that she made some missteps already and gave them ammunition, that they always beat up on the spare and his eventual kids, etc etc., and meghan isnt going to have a wonderful life if she reads the papers.
        Americans, however, love this fairy tale! And we don’t even have to pay for it!

      • happy girl says:

        @Tina, I know, it’s an automatic North American title description on my part. :)

        She is, in fact, a Barrister….

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Veronica:

        The very fact that she’s American may be her saviour (to some extent)……they may feel the need to push back on some of the more unfair bits of narrative which may keep things slightly more balanced than they would have been if she had been a British woman of colour (so nowhere to hid or run to for good press).

        I actually think she can push that 49% figure up. She just needs to skip all the posturing, roll her sleeves up and just GET ON WITH IT.

        Give it 3/4 years of visible but quiet, very consistent, not particularly glamorous work and you’ll be surprised what those numbers could be.

      • Redgrl says:

        @happpygirl – attorney is American. In Canada we are lawyers, barristers or solicitors. Or sometimes counsel.

      • notasugarhere says:

        A poll taken a whopping 2 days after their engagement was announced, when many people didn’t know or didn’t care they were seeing each other?

        I’d wait awhile, until people actually know who she is and see how she performs in this role, before stating this is the best numbers she’ll get ever.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Bella: ITA about the DM. It is a rag and its comments sections are cesspools.

        However — and I’m asking this as an American who genuinely has no clue, and as someone who really likes Meghan — does that YouGov site have any agenda of its own, which would put promoting Meghan in its best interest? Maybe it really doesn’t; it just seems that *every* site/source these days does have an agenda of some kind.

  17. Talie says:

    Lainey posted a video I never saw before of Eugenie shoving Kate at her first Christmas. I think it’s good that those two have each other to lean on…that foursome ultimately have more power together than all the most snooty royals and racists that surround them.

    • emerald eyes says:

      Eugenie bumped into her and Kate momentarily glanced up and glared. It was a moment, and there have been many since of them being perfectly civil to one another. And Eugenie was at her sister’s wedding, so it’s in the past for them, obviously.

      No shoving occured. Good grief, that’s how these stories get out of control.

      • Lorelai says:

        I haven’t seen this particular video yet so it’s absolutely possible that it was accidental. However, Kate and Pippa both do have a history of being quite bitchy to Eugenie, IIRC.

    • Svea says:

      Saw it and agree with you. The sisters need to be sidelined.

      • Veronica says:

        This is how Harry’s kids will be looked upon in future years. Spoiled, entitled, sucking up $ from the people. Irrelevant.
        The Spare’s life is useful to build up the Heir. I saw it with Andrew and Fergie and their kids years ago and here we go again.

      • notasugarhere says:

        B&E have been sidelined. If H&M are smart, they’ll prepare their kids for a non-royal future like Anne and Edward.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      Would you have a link by any chance please? (That video would significant cheer me up this evening….lol)

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        I’ll try to post the link, but I’m not sure if it’ll go through, Bella. The video is in the middle of the article attached to a tweet.

        http://www.laineygossip.com/meghan-markle-first-royal-christmas/48747

        ETA: oops, peeking in already posted it ha!

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Thanks loads, ladies! I love this kind of gossip….I’m going to cut myself a slice of cheesecake and settle down to savour this……lol :D :D

      • Cee says:

        A few things:
        - Kate was bowing her head
        - Eugenie does not smirk
        - If that’s a death stare I might have scared a lot of people in my life. She barely looks at Eugenie for more than 2 seconds, probably wondering where the shove came from.

        Honestly, looks like a very innocent missunderstanding. Eugenie as been seen with Pippa and James on several ocassions. Doubt she hates them all.

      • Princessk says:

        I just watched it and no doubt about it that was a very ‘icy’ encounter. Kate took a long hard look at Eugenie, which she did not need to do. Also Eugenie had a satisfied ‘I don’t care’ smirk on her face. Trust me there is no love lost between the York sisters and Kate. Their deliberate pantomime hats at the wedding stole the attention away from the bride. Also the York sisters tried very hard for years to fix Harry up with a stunning woman who would eclipse Kate. I am very sure the York sisters are happy with Meghan as his choice. Eugenie and her bf have been on double dates. Harry is very close to his York cousins.

        I also think that Fergie will be invited to the wedding. Harry gets what he wants.

    • FLORC says:

      Lol it was a bump.
      Accidental at best.
      Can’t really explain away the Kate glares or history of bullying those sisters. But it’s the past. Some people love living there.

      • Unoriginal Commenter says:

        I saw the video last night and couldn’t believe the death stare. Damn, Kate!

      • Mel says:

        What “death stare”? Their eyes met. Period.
        There does seem to be a smirk on Eugenie’s face when she turn away, but that only makes her look bad. And even that smirk could have been something else.

      • Unoriginal Commenter says:

        I saw a death stare. It could have as simple as her being annoyed that she didn’t get an “Excuse me” or “I’m sorry” but she looked pretty annoyed to me. *shrug*

      • magnoliarose says:

        I saw a stare, and I saw Eugenie mutter something. LOL. The fact that she didn’t turn and say sorry or excuse me says it all.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It was an accidental bump because KM wasn’t paying attention and wasn’t getting out of the way. Eugenie had to get through to get to her grandmother. For years, Eugenie and Beatrice have walked with their grandmother as part of that walkabout, holding gifted bouquets for her like ladies in waiting. They’ve done this since there were little, little kids.

    • Enough Already says:

      FLORC
      Kate talked trash to Eugenie at a party and made her cry. One instance of cocktail fueled rudeness is not bullying. The only other possible story out there is a snub at a fashion show over front row seating and there are two published versions of what happened. I really dislike how the term bullying is used so easily these days.

      • notasugarhere says:

        One of the very few charity things Kate Middleton ever pretended to do was a roller disco night out. She was one of about a dozen people who organized it. It was an 80′s theme night. She didn’t tell Beatrice that simple thing, so Beatrice (who is 7 years younger) showed up looking completely out of place. KM also cursed her out at the bar, as admitted by the bartender. Beatrice was so upset she cried about it in the ladies room. Reporters who were there covering the event wrote about it.

        Pippa trying to force her way into B&E’s seats at a fashion show is another issue.

        Honestly stupid move on KM’s part, among her overall poor treatment towards those sisters. Befriend the cousins, don’t bully and alienate them.

        Middleton had no problem crying about bullying at Downe to get a coveted spot at Marlborough, when the bullying at Downe was all proven to be false.

      • Enough Already says:

        notasugar
        1. No one disagrees about the roller disco story. However, if anyone insulted my mother I wouldn’t want them at my party either, especially the daughters of Sarah Ferguson.
        2. The fashion show story has two versions which either favor Pippa or the York princesses. Again, not proof of anything and hardly bullying.
        3. Kate has never claimed she was bullied. She, school officials and her biographers stated she was heavily teased, could not adapt and switched schools where she was much happier. This is backed up by the same reporter who actually witnessed the incident at the disco party.
        4. There are simply no stories to back up Middleton bullying claims.
        5. Eugenie is friends with Pippa and James Middleton independently and is rumored to have facillitated the latter’s relationship with Donna Ayre whom Eugenie has known for years.

        No smoke, no fire. Just some assertions designed to make it seem like Kate and Pippa are ruthless, jealous, spiteful bullies. Yet no backlash from you about the well publicized fac that the Yorks used to openly mock Kate and her sister because they were middle class? Quite silly, imo. People grow up. Kate, Pippa and the Yorks are no exception.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Speaking tangentially of Eugenie, Fergie, et al…..do we think there is a chance Fergie might get invited to Harry and Meghan’s wedding?

        She was not invited to Will and Kate’s (and went on Oprah to say that Andrew was clutching a photo of her at the wedding so she could be there in spirit, because it was at Westminster Abbey where they got married in 1986, etc.). That was also soon after she was got on tape trying to sell access to Andrew.

        Does she have any hope for this wedding because Harry seems a lot closer to Eugenie at least than Will was? I also think there have been reports of Harry staying at Fergie and Andrew’s ski chalet in Switzerland.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’ve never seen any evidence of Eugenie being friends with Pippa. I’ve seen posed shots after W&K’s wedding at public events, but no evidence of them being friendly with each other. They have friends in common in the same set, attend weddings of friends in common, but aren’t buddy buddy from any evidence I’ve seen.

        Where on earth are you getting the idea that teenage Beatrice and Eugenie (who were young teens much of the time W&K were dating) were somehow out beating up Carole Middleton’s reputation?

        The Middletons were labeled the Wisteria Sisters by Tattler magazine, not the House of York.

        The Limpet name came from William’s friends and his brother, not his younger cousins.

        School officials and fellow students denied bullying and teasing claims. If Downe was so awful, why send Pippa there later? That is one big part of the teasing and bullying narrative falling apart. That and Carole calling artistocratic families and asking them to befriend Kate, but never calling non-aristo families for the same.

        A wealthy middle class girl claiming bullying and teasing from aristos getting into Marlborough the year after the huge influx of applications (sister school to Eton when William started there). That’s an interesting twist.

        The stories about Middleton being bullied at Downe (feces in the bed, etc.) and the “doors to manual” were all spun by the Middleton spin doctor, the DM weekend editor. That was part of the Poor Kate narrative the Middletons were pushing after one of the many public breakups where William seemed Too Happy to be free of the Middletons (2007?).

        Tourmaline, I think the answer there is, “Over Philip’s dead body.” If Prince Philip is no longer with us on May 19th, Fergie might be at the wedding. Otherwise, no.

      • Enough Already says:

        I actually think Fergie could be invited. Harry is very close to the Yorks and sadly, his grandfather’s hatred for Fergie will become less of a deterrent as his health declines. I’d love to know where Fergie spent the holidays though…

      • Maria says:

        Nota, Eugenie and boyfriend Jack were at Pippa’s wedding.

      • notok says:

        @nota You are spinning stories yourself. You take tabloid stories (wich you treat as the truth) and twist them to suit your anti-kate agenda. @enough already +1 Exactly

      • magnoliarose says:

        Andrew and Fergie are sleazy. Andrew is a walking scandal whose messes have been covered up for years, and he isn’t that great of a father. If his dirt weren’t covered up, he would be in serious trouble, and it would involve the legal system. He is very skeevy and shady.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Maria that could easily point to Jack and Terribly Moderately Wealthy being friends, not Eugenie and Pippa.

        Sorry to disappoint, notok, but not tabloid stories. I could start spinning a bunch of fan fiction from tabs, but what I’ve listed out was published in multiple places at the time of events happening. The great post-engagement Kate Middleton whitewashing didn’t extend to my memory.

        Andrew is a serious problem. Charles cannot remove him completely after HM passes away, unless he changes the rules governing Counsellors of State. Otherwise, Andrew is staying put. He might be sidelined from royal duties, but he remains a Counsellor.

      • Bet I'll Get Banned says:

        notok
        This happens a lot. Tabloid fodder becomes gospel truth when it fits our narrative but is fan fiction when it upholds a view we disagree with. Celebrities are interesting but there isn’t one alive that would inspire me to such logical gymnastics lol.

      • LAK says:

        The Yorks have never mocked Kate or Pippa for anything and especially about their class. That is one lie too many about the Yorkies. I know we hate the parents, but do we have to make up lies so we can tar and feather the daughters too?!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, LAK, the rash of new and adamant posters on here apparently do have to.

      • Enough Already says:

        LAK
        Whether or not the Yorks have mocked the Middletons is a personal conclusion we’re all free to reach after looking at the scant source material on the web. If it is a truth that the Yorks have not been bullies then it is just as much a truth that they have not been bullied. I despise Andrew but I think Fergie is a survivor and I have a soft spot for her. I can take Beatrice or leave her – I suspect she is addicted to the good life and thought being a working royal would render her set for life. I think Eugenie is absolutely delightful and my fingers are crossed that she’ll be a godmother should Meghan and Harry have children.

        notasugarhere
        I’m certainly not new here but No one needs to be an original fangster on the royal threads to earn the right to express him/herself. You were once new yourself.

      • LAK says:

        Enough Already: it’s not a personal conclusion, it’s fact. Beatrice and Eugenie have never, ever mocked Kate or Pippa about their class or in general. That is not who they are at all. This need to trash them is really sad especially when it extends to making up lies about them.

        And the need to trash them begins with the parents. The parents have given the media and the public enough ammunition to justify their reputations, and the public, without evidence, has extended that disdain to the daughters. Afterall, how can such two people produce lovely progeny. Not possible. Progeny must be like the parents. Even if there is no evidence at all. Will make up lies to justify presumed opinion.

        Btw, when William’s friends were mocking Kate’s class, there was never any whiff that the Yorkies joined in. And when it became known that they nicknamed her the limpet, it was Harry who was said to approve the nickname.

  18. chlo says:

    What is a modern day courtier? I hear “courtier,” and I think of the middle ages, Tudor kings, Outlander, the White Queen, etc. What does a palace courtier in modern times? Thanks!

    • notasugarhere says:

      The civil servants behind the scenes who organizing everything, deal with the correspondence, do the research and prep work, and basically make it possible for the royals to do their jobs.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Too add to what @nota rightfully said. I understand from some words of Diana and Fergie and CB I think, the courtiers *the men and some women in grey* are part of the monarchy’s apparatus. A sort of public servants or government officials could be more or less a comparison. Just that they work for the monarch directly and closely. Their team in different functions. Let us not forget that politics are involved too, the head of state still has some political functions even though they seem to be apolitical. So there you have also analysists and strategists and PR people that deal with a heck more than correspondence and arranging charity visits. Damage control and trying to convey certain messages and help certain narratives that come from BP to protect the interests of the BRF and those of the British people.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, and the courtiers have jobs because the royals continue to exist. They’re human and I’m sure often think of themselves. Courtiers may act to shut down people they think are damaging the institution that supports them (Diana, Fergie).

      • SoulSPA says:

        Yes, @nota, and rightfully so. I think that all the privilege that the royals have by virtue of birth or by marrying-in, and the little visible work they do, make people forget that the BRF are part of an institution. Long-lasting and with its own reason of existence. Sorry I’m trying to translate a foreign idiom. There is so much more to a monarchy than making charity and entertainment appearances and foreign tours. Marital drama and toe sucking and flashing aside. But the BRF do not show nothing else from behind the closed doors. And it’s a pitty I think. Most of what they do must be secret but still, the little they show does not help the idea that they are worthy of anything, yet they cost so much money.

    • LAK says:

      Think of courtiers like the staff at the white house.

  19. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Well black people have been used as tokens to try to prove that progress is real and racism is dead since slavery ended. So this doesn’t surprise me that a country known for its colonizing ways would want to use her as such. But it will take a lot more than one royal falling in love with a mixed race woman to overcome LITERALLY centuries of racism. And it’s not her job to do so. So I hope Meghan focuses on what’s important to HER and ignores the noise of irrelevant royal hagiographers

  20. HoustonGrl says:

    I agree that they are fast tracking her, I also agree that they don’t want to be seen as anything less than completely accepting (thank God). The comments on the Fail are deplorable, and demonstrate that racism is still very present. Meghan is a symbol of shattering these social boundaries, whether she wants to be or not. She’s going to have to be strong, very strong. But she seems to have the right personality for it. She fun and outgoing, she’s got experience, she’s articulate and she likes the limelight.

    • kaiko says:

      Her liking the limelight is not the way to win over the British people. Reticence is in their DNA. Many if not most of the comments have to do with the fact that the royals, and soon an american actress with a celebrity lifestyle, is/will now be a senior british representative, therefore taxpayer funded indefinitely. Austerity in the UK coupled with the 75000 dress and leaving her dog behind (who’s actually not elderly, only about 5-7 yrs old) doesn’t wash well with many salt of the earth, farm/country loving brits. No human is perfect but her PR and palace PR will try to overly deify her just like kate, eventually making most of us despise having her crammed down our throats on news sites/gossip sites.
      She is now fodder for the masses. If harry had met/wooed an upper class, private, low profile, professional African woman, she would’ve blended seamlessly into his sort of society.

  21. sunnydeereynolds says:

    Lol. Do people actually think the monarchy is going to let her fight and champion with real issues and problem that is happening right now? They’re just going to give her some less important charity work once she’s officially married that is good for publicity and photo ops. She isn’t going to change anything. She’ll be doing the bare minimum like her lazy Prince husband and her lazy future King and Queen bro and sis in law and do more vacations.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Do you honestly perceive The Prince’s Trust (helped over 870,000 thus far), Sentebale, Invictus Games, as doing nothing?

      The BRF avoids things perceived as internationally political and religious entanglements, which is why she had to give up her UN work and WorldVision. That doesn’t mean she’ll be able to do nothing relevant. Anne recently gave up her 30-year position as honorary president of Save the Children UK. I can see that as a role for MM to take over in a few years. Oxfam doesn’t have a royal patron right now that I know of.

      Camilla has started doing charity work providing toiletries to sexual assault survivors to use after their forensic exams. That might seem small to some, but it may be incredibly important to the survivors. Something like that would have been unheard of for the BRF to participate in a few years ago.

      • The Original G says:

        None of that is doing nothing. It’s all very laudable, but there isn’t a thing about those actions that can make a monarchy relevant.

        I also can’t imagine why any modern person expects “them” to lead social change? They’re not anyone’s leaders. They’re reality entertainment.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles wouldn’t have done The Prince’s Trust if he wasn’t in the position he’s in. Nor would Harry have done Sentebale or Invictus. Having members who act when they see a big gap in coverage, and do so because they have the ability to do so? I think that can make monarchy relevant; being neutral forces for good in the face of political chaos (when they get off their asses to do so).

      • Princessk says:

        @OriginalG…some of us have a sense of history and tradition. The British royal family is loved and respected around the world. Charles and William will be Kings. The RF have done a huge amount to bring attention to so many issues that politicians and others just can’t. Yes, there is a celebrity angle to them but that has been the case for centuries, but more apparent now because of intrusive social media.

  22. Svea says:

    I think it is actually Prince Charles who cares about this and it is he that has opened the royal doors wide. Right now he is responsible for the future of the monarchy. He does–in his bumbling and raised-as-an-aristocrat way–care. The messaging reflects him. Good intentions but awkward and tone deaf.

  23. Other Renee says:

    I find it ironic that I read dozens and dozens of comments here each week about how the monarchy should be abolished yet these persist in being the most popular stories which receive the most number of comments. Obviously people care enough to comment about these people over and over again and dissect their every move. How many people woke up in the middle of the night to watch William and Kate’s wedding? Like a billion ? I was one of them. For me, the BRF is a living connection to history. In a world where everything is disposable and changing in the blink of an eye (which I find overwhelms at times), it’s a comfort to know that some things stand the test of time even if there is no real political power left in this flawed institution. It may be naive but there you have it. If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be so excited seeing MM marry into this family.

    • FLORC says:

      It’s gossip. A soap opera. Also, it’s sadly real life and funded at the cost of many.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      @Other Renee

      lol…..I always literally laugh when i see comments saying the monarchy is close to being abolished and all that……they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. Look at the absolute frenzy surrounding the wedding….every media outlet from every far flung corner of the earth feels like they have to cover this in some way…..they wouldn’t be persisting if the interest wasn’t there.

      They are the ultimate reality show, just far posher and far better paid than the rest. :-)

    • notasugarhere says:

      Cut out the hype and the true numbers were more like 50 million world wide. Far far less than who watched Anne’s first wedding years ago.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        50 million is still a massive number, no? Especially for an event as boring and monotonous as most weddings tend to be.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not really. More people watched Diana’s funeral. A global population of 7+ billion and only 50 million watched W&K’s wedding? When Anne married in 1973, 500 million watched with a global population of 4 billion.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Well, maybe in 1973, tv was the only possible avenue to see the event…..it would be interesting to see how many people viewed the cambridge wedding overall, online and other avenues included (not just tv).

      • notasugarhere says:

        Those were numbers that touched on things like internet views, etc. The 2 billion figure that was thrown out was OTT PR. There were multiple media outlets that dug into it to find out the facts behind the PR fiction.

      • FLORC says:

        I was catching a flight out of the country for a vacation the day they got married. Every tv that didn’t have a flight listing had that broadcasting. No one was watching. Hundreds of screens had it playing. So… there’s that

    • Princessk says:

      Very well said Other Renee!

  24. Hotsauceinmybag says:

    I just want to point out that she’s not just black, she’s biracial (as she has self identified publicly). There’s a huge distinction there that a lot of people are missing! And I think the royal family uses that as a way to make her “induction” into the firm more palatable. Just sayin’.

    • Veronica says:

      I have to wonder if she looked like the beautiful Lupita, if the royals would be “embracing” her the way they seem to be.
      I’m doubtful they would have welcomed her at all. Especially the Queen.

      • FLORC says:

        I think MM has been accepted more easily than others.
        1. It’s the spare.
        2. Harry is beloved
        3. She’s playing the game well. Meaning she has transitioned her life. Dropped her blog. Left Suits. Remains well spoken when a topic is addressed and composed in public. There’s no party girl, fall down drunk. It’s a woman that is driven in her career a d charitable.

        What the issues are sit with the public and tabloids. She’s not pure white. She’s had a divorce. She’s reached an age that makes conception more difficult.
        Those and the number attached to a dress from last year that no one can confirm a current or sold as price. If that’s all they have to complain about… She’s amazing.

    • Tonya says:

      Why do people play the “what if???” Meghan looks the way she does because that is the way she was born. It wasn’t her choice- she was born that way. The fact that Harry loves her- Great!!!

  25. Bridget says:

    With the response that Meghan has gotten, O think she’s just meeting the challenge head on. I don’t know that anyone could have expected the crazy media frenzy, but she’s clearly prepared and ready. There’s a lot to be said for just getting this part over with, knowing that the craziness will die down as the public gets used to her. And not to be macabre, but this also hedges against Phillip or the Queen passing – she’ll be fully assimilated in the royal family and won’t be stuck trying to find her bearings with a state funeral. Not to mention, QE2 May just want to get to know her while she’s still alive and kicking.

    Not to mention, I assumed that she’s being fast tracked because they want to start a family, which they’ll need to do ASAP.

    • Carrie1 says:

      Ditto pretty much,

      I assumed the fast tracking was due to the Queen loving Harry and also both she and Phillip suffered health issues. If a Harry marries and has children before the Queen dies, it would be nice for her to be here to see it.

      Also, #1 reason fast tracking was even possible is Meghan. She has skills, she’s got this. They know it so no need to wait. Harry and Meghan are in their 30s. This all seems normal speed factoring all these things together.

  26. Sharon Lea says:

    Agree that comments from Junor are a bit of a joke since she has always been the champion of Camilla, going way back to the Diana years, and she was the mistress. Junor was absolutely nasty about Diana. With that in mind, Penny may want to be the cheerleader for divorcees etc, anything to mirror the reason she feels everyone should love and promote Charles and Camilla, and the whole Queen Consort question. Camilla was also Catholic while married to Andrew Parker Bowles, so again, Meghan’s Catholic school in line with Cammie.

    Every new bride is dissected by the press for how they are “different” of the breath of fresh air, so there isn’t anything new to this, they did it with Diana, Fergie, a bit with Sophie but not a huge interest in her, of course Kate. I don’t take those questions of her ancestry etc as any specific barb, it is par for the course and I am happy that the BRF, and courtiers, by all appearances are accepting of her. The courtiers have definitely been known to throw out tough criticism in the past as whispers to the press, did it a lot to Diana and Fergie.

    • Carrie1 says:

      Years ago I recall a report that Junor is basically Prince Charles mouthpiece. She writes whatever he wants. Occasionally she speaks for herself and if Charles takes offence, he lets her know, she spins it differently. She is a strong protector of his public reputation and none of what she writes is necessarily true.

  27. notasugarhere says:

    How quickly Junor forgets Gary Lewis, Maori husband of Lady Davina (Windsor) Lewis.

    • Maria says:

      I think Gary Lewis is too far down the line for Penny Junor to talk about. Her main interests are Charles and Camilla, Diana ‘s mental illness when she was alive, Kate, and now Meghan.
      I do remember Ingrid Seward falling all over herself in 2004 with praising the marriage of Lady Davina to Gary Lewis. Such open-minded ladies!

    • seesittellsit says:

      @Notasugar – No one cared who Lady Davina Windsor married, really – I mean, how far down the line was she?! Harry is a bit closer to the top, so it might have been a bigger deal, but it hasn’t been – I think the assessment is correct: Markle is a gift to the BRF. They get to wave the “relevant to modern Britain” flag, but in the sure knowledge that the throne for the next three monarchs down the line is safely vested in proper white English boys.

      Second, the more open and welcoming they are seen to be of Markle, the less anyone can turn around and blame them if the marriage goes south at some point (and God knows, with their kids’ records in marriages, who can blame them?).

      They’re very shrewd the royals, and their primary goal is their own survival, just as they reinvented themselves in the late 19th century in the shape of “representative monarchy” when their real power finally ebbed. I don’t think you can underestimate their ability to calculate in their own favor. Welcoming Markle as they have is great PR and doesn’t cost them any alarm.

      Sorry to seem cynical, they may also like her perfectly well, I’m not saying they don’t, but no one should underestimate these people’s instincts for survival.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Point remains. Gary has been welcomed into the family fold, which is the part that rankles some people. The family itself welcomed him, they appear to be welcoming her.

  28. betsyh says:

    Could they be fast-tracking her because the queen is quite elderly and they want her to be at the wedding before she dies or is physically unable to attend?

    • Jayna says:

      He’s marrying a 36-year-old woman who will be just a few months shy of 37 when they marry, and I’m sure they want children. Having a long engagement doesn’t make sense.

      Harry probably said he wanted her there at Christmas and part of it. Like many other things, it’s the younger generation in the BRF that drives things like this and causes change to happen, just like when living together before marriage became accepted, when it never was before.

  29. perplexed says:

    It seems most of the “regular” classes are accepting of Markle. In that sense, I don’t necessarily think Junor’s comments are wrong, even if she might be faking her enthusiasm.

    It’s the aristocratic classes I see as being standoffish towards her, but I also think they might be snobby towards everyone. (Are Seward and Junor upper-class? In the end, I think they want to sell their books and magazines and have a personal investment in creating a certain narrative that financially benefits them). I can see the aristocratic classes being snooty towards Kate as well. That seems to me to be more about “class” and “status” than anything else, and whether they perceive you as grasping (whatever that means).

    I also think it’s possible Princess Michael of Kent might be dumber than the average Brit when it comes to wearing brooches. People who live in those rarefied bubbles and don’t study much generally seem tone-death, whether they’re British, American, or any other nationality.

    • Maria says:

      I believe that Junor is part of the Charles set, but @nota can correct me if I’m wrong. Ingrid Seward is a great admirer of Princess Michael. Her late husband, Ross Benson was
      at Gordouston with Charles.

    • Tina says:

      I know she’s lived in the UK for most of her adult life, but can’t we still claim that Marie Christine is German?

      As for class, the real aristocrats won’t care and will likely be very welcoming, because Meghan will never be one of them. It’s the upper-middles and hangers-on who will be snooty about Meghan.

      • SoulSPA says:

        I think she’s Austrian or at least she was born in Austria or their empire. I would not want to think that by marrying-in, a foreigner should forget all about their identity. National, ethnic, language, religion. At the end of the day there are so many layers to one’s identity. And some people think are better than others. So many layers. For as much as some upper class and hangers on could see little of Meghan, there might be others who know that she is just another human being. And worthy. Even if I am critical of her I do like her in the sense that she’s crafted her own life and that she’s worked hard. She’s a lot, lot better than people who are where they are because of titles, inherited wealth and connections in the right places. And their proverbial stiff upper lips living in their own bubbles of privilege and wealth with no tangible particular merit that we know of.

      • Tina says:

        @SoulSpa, Marie Christine Von Reibnitz (aka Princess Michael) was born in the Sudetenland. Then (1945) in Nazi Germany (and her father was high up in the SS) and now part of the Czech Republic. I think she counts as German.

    • perplexed says:

      Sorry, that should say “tone-deaf”, not tone-death (should proofread!).

  30. themummy says:

    I just binge watched both seasons of The Crown in the last two days and now I understand that being divorced was a huge, giant deal. I didn’t understand the surprise at the acceptance of divorced Meghan, but now I get it. I think the drama over being divorced is absurd, but I get it in a historical sense. What I don’t get is why before it was a constitutional crisis and now it’s no big deal. How do they get past that? With Camilla, too? Anyone know what changed?

    • perplexed says:

      With Edward, wasn’t it a bigger deal because he actually was King?Also, didn’t the actual government oppose the marriage, not simply the royal family? I assume that’s where the constitutional crisis came from. Charles isn’t King yet and then can prepare the public for Camilla and Harry is sixth-in-line. It’s also assumed that the women (Camilla and Meghan) love the men they’re marrying whereas it seemed the Establishment assumed Wallis was using Edward for money and position? Maybe once-divorced also sounds less worse to the ear than twice-divorced? Look at how people react to Kate Winslet (as an example) vs someone who has been divorced only once. And we’re no longer in the 1930s. Twice-divorced does sound unusual for that time period. Also, people do subdue with time. The Queen is 90 and would probably have a different perspective at her current age than she might have decades ago. It could be a confluence of factors, rather than just one.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Don’t forget that both Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathizers – that was the REAL clincher for the government in a time where astute people could see that a war with Nazi Germany was very likely.

        The fact that Wallis was a divorvée was hugely controversial but what I find really interesting was that Edward was deeply mistrusted by his own government to an extent that hadn’t been seen since James II in the late 17th century.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Wallis was a scapegoat, not the reason. Edward was feckless, dangerous, unfocused, lazy, temperamental, and Hitler-sympathetic. He was perceived as a danger to the UK and the monarchy. The government replaced him with his younger brother – happily married, two cute little girls, the new family face of the monarchy.

    • Bridget says:

      Edward, asthe King, was the head of the Church of England. Which created the direct conflict of him marrying a divorcee. And of course, there were serious, serious issues with Edward as a Nazi sympathizer, so this created a clean shove out the door.

    • adastraperaspera says:

      Yes, Wallace Simpson gave Edward cover for his irresponsible, playboy ways, such as his many gay encounters. She wanted fame, but got more than she bargained for, including being shunned in the end. Of course, Hitler probably easily manipulated Edward using his vanity. It’s a very good thing that Edward was more interested in playing than leading, as he could have wrecked us all for sure.

    • LAK says:

      It was a gradual acceptance of the times.

      Princess Michael was the first divorcee to be married into the family without public scandal back in 1978.

      Slowly, gradually as divorce became normal for rest of society, so too the family. Anne divorced and remarried without much scandal during the 80s/90s.

      The last hurdle was Charles and not just his marrying a divorcee, but getting him divorced in the first place.

      Henry 8 and George 1 aside, there is no instrument of divorce for the monarch and until Charles, none for the POW. Parliament as well as Constitutional and legal experts had to be consulted to make it happen. And after all that, only a separation was granted. However, after Diana gave that Panorama interview that said terrible things about Charles and the royals, the Queen ordered a divorce.

      After the effort it took to get Charles divorced, marrying a divorcee wasn’t as much of a big deal, BUT the CoE still kicked up a fuss and the way had to be smoothed to make it happen by having Charles and Camilla publicly repent their parts in the breakdown of previous marriages during the blessing of their own.

      The church was 3yrs behind their own ruling given in 2002 that accepted divorced remarriages in church if the vicar was willing.

      In

    • Princessk says:

      In the 1920s and 1930s divorcees were totally shunned, and not allowed to attend certain events and parties. Adulterers, wife beaters , paedophiles were accepted as long as it was kept quiet but being divorced was the ultimate shame among the upper classes. This was a reason why so many of them left to start new lives in Africa and the commonwealth. Quite ridiculous really but that is how it was .

  31. Burdseyeview says:

    we shall see ….remember we wer told kate was going to “hit th ground running” when she joined th BRF, they forgot to mention she was actually running away. I wish harry and meghan all th best but can see problems ahead. not least from harry and th press ….meghan is a real stunner – th press must luv her – harry will get pissed off about th attention she’l be getting, might be a huge issue for them. I hope they can concentrate on work and th amazing contribution they can make to any causes they deem worthwhile.

  32. Enough Already says:

    Meghan will be fine – she’s smart and classy.

  33. NIKKI says:

    @Nikki:
    “I think Meghan has been very sincere with her social endeavors and charities. I was so impressed to read that at the age of THIRTEEN she wrote a letter to protest sexism in an ad, and the ad was removed. Actions speak louder than people’s surmises, and her actions have consistently been of a person dedicated to improving society. I don’t see this as social climbing, whereas some people seem to imply all her actions were to get her to this position!”

    With regards, to the ad, so was I. That’s very impressive. And, I loved her reaction when she was watching the advert. Gave me a laugh, because that’s exactly the facial expression I would’ve given. She seemed quite capable from a young age.

    I have noticed people are ‘covertly’ trying to put her down. Criticising everything she does. My goodness.

    -N

    • Mel says:

      The problem with that story is that there is no record of said actions – no ad of that description has been found so far. Companies as well as advertising agencies do keep records of their projects, even after they are pulled.

      • Mimi says:

        There is video from Nickelodeon discussing this story featuring a young Meghan Markle. Google it; it’s not hard to find. It’s been widely disseminated and discussed all over the internet, twitter, and various message boards so I am not sure how you missed it. Don’t forget to come back here and acknowledge that Nikki was correct.

      • renzii says:

        Of course there’s been evidence, and both Linda Ellerbee and Gloria Allred have both said that they remembered and were so impressed by her.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=tfaGleA4qYo

  34. c says:

    you’ll never get not a sugar here to admit she makes up things up about kate and her family. after all she is rachel from heavy is the crown.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I only wish I knew as much about royals as Heavy. I don’t visit her site much anymore though, mostly because tumblr and DM are the home of the anti-Markle crazies. Hers and the one by someone named Geeky were good for royal history.

  35. TuxCat5 says:

    I think Meghan being fast-tracked into the BRF has something to do with the Queen’s age as well (and Phillip’s); either of them could pass away any day. The wedding can’t be done before the Cambridge baby is born, so it’s scheduled for ASAP afterwards. I have the feeling that Phillip won’t be around at this time next year, and a lot of people believe that when he goes, the Queen will pass soon after. If that’s the case, then things are really on the edge right now.

  36. Kaz says:

    Harry is the Prince Andrew of this generation. He will have to be very careful to cultivate and actually carry out a useful role. He will become less relevant as time goes on. A strong relationship with his brother might keep him up there in the public eye, but he is way diwn the line of succession now. And do Charles’ plans to ‘streamline’ the monarchy include sidelining his younger son? Any children produced by himself and Meghan will have to work, I expect. Harry really is just a wealthy titled aristo who now might be able to escape to the USA more often.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Charles’s plan is to streamline to 6 royals. Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Meghan.

      H&M will be 1/3 of the royal work force for the next 30 years, until W&K’s kids are of an age when they’re willing to start working. Since that age didn’t start for William until 35? H&M aren’t being pushed out of the royal fold any time soon.

  37. DAWN says:

    If you mean relevant to Black people (women specifically?)….negative. They’ve already laughed off those articles. Nice try, though.

  38. Starlight says:

    Talking about visiting the small places and going around the commonwealth in the engagement interview – she isn’t even up the aisle yet.

    • nik. says:

      Yeah, that cracked me up. :D ‘My Commonwealth’ :D This whole int, sounded like Rachel’s fake wedding story from Friends, lol. :D