Meghan Markle was apparently on the shortlist to be a Bond Girl…?

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle undertake their first official engagements together

Meghan Markle is the new Tom Hiddleston! Or something. To be honest, the British papers are always obsessed with James Bond, and dreamcasting the new James Bond and dreamcasting the future Bond Girls. That was a year-long drama with Tom Hiddleston, because the British papers wouldn’t let it go, this idea that Tom was in the running to replace Daniel Craig as James Bond. At the end of the day, Daniel Craig will return for another Bond movie. But he needs some new Bond Girls (because Lea Seydoux was kind of THE WORST) and now The Sun claims that Meghan Markle was – at one point – being looked at by Bond producers.

Meghan Markle was once shortlisted to be a Bond Girl, The Sun can reveal. The actress, 36, caught the eye of 007 producers in her role as Rachel Zane in US legal drama Suits last year. Bosses wanted a glamorous actress for the upcoming films and thought Meghan would be a perfect fit.

Also on the shortlist was Baywatch stunner Ilfenesh Hadera, 32, who they thought could become one of Daniel Craig’s love interest in the upcoming 007 film Bond 25, which will be released in 2019. But Meghan’s then-fledgling relationship with Prince Harry, 33, ruled her out of the role, as producers believed she would be unattainable. She would have joined the long list of previous Bond girls, including Lea Seydoux, 32, and Eva Green, 37.

A film source said: “Meghan fits the role of a Bond girl perfectly. She’s glamorous and sexy and a good actress. The role more recently has gone to actresses deemed to be rising stars, and Meghan certainly was seen as that before her relationship with Harry became public. The brief was to find a glamorous rising star, specifically someone American or Canadian. Producers had narrowed down her and four other actresses on a shortlist last year with Bond 25 in mind. But the minute her relationship to Harry came to light they assumed she was out of the running so it soon became a list of four. Her engagement effectively spelt an end to her acting career too so that was the final blow.”

[From The Sun]

Honestly, I would sort of believe that Meghan was, at one point, on some kind of longer list of potential Bond Girls. Producers of the franchise do like to cast women who don’t have huge profiles and they don’t have a problem with mere “television stars” either. Like, Teri Hatcher was a Bond Girl, peeps. But obviously, nothing happened with Meghan. Producers might have added Meg’s name to a list somewhere, but no one did anything about it because in 2016, no one was even sure that Daniel Craig would do another Bond film and nothing had been put together at all. Still, it’s a good headline: Meghan gave up Bond Girling for the love of a prince! Prince Harry’s Bond Girl!

NBC TCA Winter 2014 Press Tour

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce their engagement

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, PCN.

Related stories

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

267 Responses to “Meghan Markle was apparently on the shortlist to be a Bond Girl…?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LAK says:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    • Katydid20 says:

      Haha that was exactly what I was going to write!

    • Redgrl says:

      Hahaha! News media reported over the holiday that the Bond people were “ uh – no.” Assuming it’s from her camp, rather amateur attempt to get some glitter from an iconic British franchise…

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Probably more likely that it is pure fiction attributable to some random British tab writer.

      • Imqrious2 says:

        Redgrl, totally agree. Tabs will put out any made up dreck to see paper/get clicks. I *seriously * doubt her people put out anything.

      • Not coming from her camp for goodness’ sake. The last thing she wants is to emphasize acting and even when she was in Toronto Bond girl was definitely off message for her, lifestyle wise. Meghan is roasted chickens, margeuritas by the pool and spooning bananas not shaken not stirred, gold bikinis and stilettoes.

      • Redgrl says:

        @notsosocial – that’s why I said “assuming” – I also wouldn’t put it past any of the tabloids to make this stuff up. For a moment this morning I got very “conspiracy theorist” and wondered if it was part of a concerted effort to make her look bad. But the problem with that is her team’s history of oversell (the whole “belle of Toronto” nonsense, for example) makes people’ at the least suspicious that it comes from her. Which if it didn’t must be very hurtful and stressful for her.

        @enoughalready – awesome! Spooning bananas & roasted chicken! Although I
        still think “roasted chicken” is a code word for getting frisky with these guys.

      • @Redgrl
        There goes dinner lol.

      • FLORC says:

        Enough Already
        Spooning bananas? What the what?
        Is she eating bananas out of the peel with a spoon? Because that’s all I got. Besides snuggling aka spooning a banana..

      • FLORC
        Your second guess is correct! She posted a pic of two bananas spooning along with a sweet goidnight wish to a certain someone. Many people thought it was a message to Harry but weren’t certain until after they became official. It was actually kind of cute.

      • FLORC says:

        Enough Already
        Lol ok thank you! She seems like a sweet person.
        This bond girl story is stupid… press is really reaching to dig up anything to write about.

    • Hh says:

      As soon as I saw “glamorous” I knew this was fake. She’s beautiful, but not glamorous. Glamour is a combination of stunning style and looks. A showstopper. Someone who walks in a room and you can’t look away.

      • Rachel says:

        It’s fake but unlikely to have come from her. Tabloids make up stuff all by themselves all the time.

      • WinchesterGirl says:

        So this is the point where everyone comes out with the, “oh, you know we considered her for… role, president of the world, Vogues new EIC.” You name it. All just to say that they were ahead of the curve.

      • LAK says:

        Of all the stuff to make up about her, this one is too funny for words. They need to try harder. And please make it believable.

      • Princessk says:

        Well Harry thinks she is a showstopper and he doesn’t seem to be able to look away.

    • Nicole says:

      Same LAK same.
      Her team is so cringe

      • Louise177 says:

        Why is everybody assuming Meghan made this up? Tabloids lie all the time. It seems a little random.

      • Lobbit says:

        Because it suits their negative biases.

      • magnoliarose says:

        This isn’t her team. It is pure fiction made up because they always cast everyone as a maybe Bond Girl. Probably once someone said something in passing over a sandwich or some nonsense.

    • Midigo says:

      Right? Dumbest PR move ever!

      • Charlie says:

        Fake? Yeah, but given the disaster that W&K’s PR so often is, I keep wondering if someone at KP thought this would make her seem more glamorous in a very ‘British’ way.

    • Peace says:

      Even on pro MM sites, when this story was reported, no one believed it. If MM and her PR people can exaggerate and lie about this, it means many of the pro MM stories may be lies.

      • Greata says:

        @LAK…This woman should be called the PRINCESS OF FIBS.

      • Natalie S says:

        PRINCESS OF FIBS is cracking me up. The combination of all-caps but with the word “fib.” Maybe Princess Meghan will also sit on a throne of lies?

      • Liberty says:

        Natalie S – love your Elf reference. 🌝

      • Princessk says:

        Why are you all so adamant that her PR are behind this. Sounds just like what the moronic trolls on DM are always saying.

    • minx says:

      She needs to fire her PR people, stat.

    • PGrant's Girl says:

      My exact reaction. Sure, Jan!

    • Addison says:

      Glad I’m not the only one with this thought. It’s funny how she’s trying to be sold as a major star when the majority in the US had never heard of her or her show until she stated seeing Harry.

  2. Kimma1216 says:

    She is very beautiful. But..Bond girl is a stretch. It’s going to be funny to see what the news is going to make of her “what if she wasn’t engaged to Harry” stories. Frankly, I had no idea who she was before and she probably would have gone the way of other basic cable TV stars and disappeared in a few years. I’m not trying to be mean, just saying..

    • Astrid says:

      Yeah, I didn’t know who she was either until she got with a Prince.

    • Esmom says:

      Yes. Although to be fair if Teri Hatcher was a Bond girl, which I didn’t remember, it’s not that big of a stretch to imagine. I’d put her in the same category, which is more sweet and wholesome than glam and sexy. But to say they dropped her from consideration just because she was dating Harry is beyond ridiculous.

      • BCity says:

        Denise Richards was a Bond Girl too!

      • Lady D says:

        Eva Green was a Bond girl. It’s not a stretch to think Meghan could do it too.

      • Midigo says:

        Lady D
        Are you comparing Eva Green and MM?
        I can’t believe that, Eva Green had already worked with Bernardo Bertolucci and Ridley Scott when she signed for Casino Royal.
        I mean, not the same league at all. Not even the same planet, IMO.

    • minx says:

      I had never heard of her.

    • Beth says:

      I’d never heard of her or Suits, and I still have never watched the show.

    • BorderMollie says:

      Agree, she’s stunning but more in a classical way, not Bond bombshell like Hallie or Lea were. This story is ridiculous.

  3. sunnydeereynolds says:

    Lol. Her PR team needs to stop.

    • Seraphina says:

      The money spent on her PR team would be better spent on a team to help them polish their image and help them understand that they are taking some very wrong steps. Bond Girl, I don’t think so. Like it’s been said, beautiful yes but not a Bond Girl.

  4. Chef Grace says:

    LOL. The moment I read that header Hiddleston popped into my head.
    And the fans weep. Oh the fun that could have been had.

    • Annabelle Bronstein says:

      Hiddleston as James Bond, a jealous Taylor Swift storming around the set, Meghan the Bond girl as Harry skulks nearby, Hillary is President so we can all enjoy mindless gossip again. I’ll jump into whatever wormhole leads me to that alt-Universe 🙋🏽

    • equalitygadfly says:

      Confession time!

      So, the other day, we were watching “Kong: Skull Island” (How it happened, I couldn’t tell ya). The movie? God awful…so bad we started watching it like a “B-Movie,” which had the effect of making it hysterical. Anyway, the one thing I couldn’t get over was how attractive Tom Hiddleston is in that flick! He was legit hot in Kong! First time I’ve ever found him attractive — and finally understood why he could have been in the Bond running.

      • Redgrl says:

        @equalitygadfly – he was great in the Night Manager too.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No way. He is no Bond. He is much too goofy. Plus his pretty is quickly disappearing especially after the fake Showmance with Tay and that speech he gave at the awards show.
        Not many people outside of gossip know who he is and his buzz has cooled.
        His PR is silly.

      • Redgrl says:

        @magnoliarose – Hiddleston wouldn’t be my choice for James Bond – but he was surprisingly good in Night Manager – and actually had charisma, which surprised me. But I adore Daniel Craig as Bond. There’s just something about him. *sigh*

      • Liberty says:

        Saw Daniel Craig in Layer Cake and said this guy could be the next Bond. So good. Hiddleston is very talented but somehow I don’t get that Bond vibe.

  5. Linda says:

    I read this a couple days ago. What a joke people are saying. Her own team put this out to make her sound like even more of a catch. Instead it makes her sound thirstier. She is not a good actress either.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      What evidence do you have that her PR people put this out?

      • passerby says:

        None. Linda (and others) thought it so it MUST be. Couldn’t just be papers filling up space/coming up with gossip, for gossip sake. Its not like she isn’t bringing in clicks or anything. It MUST be the masterminding gold digger, must be.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        You are very right, Passerby.

        Opinion = Fact.

        I’m rather thick, so i keep forgetting this eternal rule of law. ;)

      • Veronica says:

        YES, opinion = fact
        Like the 75k dress that she got for 5k. For sure. Absolutely.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @ Veronica:

        I missed where this $75,000 figure came from….Would you be kind enough to let me know where YOU got this figure from? Are there receipts, a comment from the designer, a comment from Meghan, KP or any credible evidence that the dress cost $75,000 AND that she paid $75,000?

        I am asking this honestly, by the way…..I’ll wait for your answer. :)

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Veronica
        I am curious how you know it wasn’t? What area of the fashion industry do you work in that makes you think you know more than people who work in fashion or are exposed to the system of celebrity and designer? It is clear you don’t like her, but that is like dismissing what a brain surgeon says because you don’t like the patient.
        Dislike her all you want, but I see no reason to insult commenters who try to explain how it works.

      • PiMO says:

        $75,000 figure is widely reported in the media.

        I know for a fact that cost of luxury goods are actually quite high, much higher than what people except them to be as the quality of materials and labour used are high. So $5,000 for a $75,000 dress is improbable, unless the brand discounted and sold at a loss because it would be used for the engagement photo. The latter is actually not permitted, the royals are not allowed to get discounts or freebies. MM became part of the royal family the moment she got engaged. She has official protection, she lives on palace grounds, all covered by tax payers.

        The $75,000 price tag as reported by multiple newspapers is of course more reliable and believable, over some anonymous people on a celebrity blog saying that it is $5,000 because they say they work in fashion, without providing any backup.

      • LAK says:

        Bella Dupont: that £56K was first tweeted out by a royal reporter. Not a DM reporter. He directly asked KP about it, specifically the estimated £56K cost and KP didn’t deny it. And when pressed further about purchaser they came back with ‘private purchase’.

        The usual palace statement on such matters is ‘We do not comment on private matters / citizen / lives’. That usually kills any royal story / rumour.

        KP not denying outright and deflecting with ‘private purchase’ is tautamount to truth in the royal reporting lexicon.

        And DM and other papers wrote up the story with the £56K figure AFTER KP’s reponse.

        As for the £5000 figure, that is definitely a made up sum which was posted as part of a couture expert opinion on this forum. They offered a guessestimate based upon their knowledge of the couture world and how it deals with PR clients on the level of MM’s current exposure and the fact it was several seasons old.

        They didn’t say the dress cost £5000, only that they wouldn’t be surprised if it cost as little as that based upon MM’s circumstances.

        The £5000 figure is now being posted as the true figure when it’s was speculation rather than fact.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        It was widely reported in the media? That’s your water proof source?

        It was widely reported in the media that they were introduced by Markus Anderson. It turns out a woman actually introduced them.

        It was VERY widely reported that Harry had a huge crush on her from watching Suits. It turns out he had never even heard her name until the introduction.

        It was also widely reported that……..I think you catch my drift here……

        So, you also don’t know where this $75,000 figure came from and whether its credible or not. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence or “backup” either, I’m afraid, so I put the question to you (and Veronica) again…….

        Are there receipts, a comment from the designer, a comment from Meghan, KP or any credible evidence that the dress cost $75,000 AND that she paid $75,000?

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ LAK

        Hi LAK. Sorry, your comment was published a little later.

        KP not denying the figure is not proof of anything. If they denied it, they would suddenly be inundated with requests to confirm/deny this figure, and that figure, and this quote, and that quote…..

        I’m still waiting to see some credible source, confirming how this figure ($75,000) is the cost of this dress and that Meghan paid that for it. Otherwise, it’s just one of the dozens of fake news and info, pumped out there for clicks.

      • PiMO says:

        Usually when these things are reported by newspapers and not by gossip web sites, they are fact checked which is not that difficult. They may have contacted R&R, asked another Haute Couture House or someone in the industry for the price of a similar dress.

        Also you may use logic and deduction. A luxury bag costs multiple thousands, a luxury ready to wear item costs thousands. When you go to more elaborate items, the price goes up. Now we are not only talking about about a luxury item, we are talking about one of the most expensive items for a fashion house, an haute couture gown. So, it is not that difficult to make the math.

        A fact not everyone may know is that there are only so many haute couture houses in the world. Not all luxury brands are haute couture houses, for instance Yves Saint Laurent lost its haute couture status. It is not just luxury for fashion, it is the pinnacle of luxury.

        I also have a friend who works in the luxury industry. She told me how much a bag costs, not retail price, but the actual cost of making it. It was still more expensive than what you would pay for a Michael Kors bag. That is why a haute couture gown, one of a kind, which clearly required hundreds hours of skilled and not cheap labour (we are not talking about sweat shop here) would cost easily many many thousands of dollars.

        I understand not everyone knows everything, but you may google and find these things out. I am baffled by the outright rejection of anything negative about Meghan Markle and accusations that anyone who has non-positive view of her is jealous, racist, a tumblr troll. Again, Kate wore a $300 Reiss dress for her engagement photo and that was the example that I would imagine someone marrying the brother of the future king would find reasonable to follow. But Meghan chose to wear an haute couture gown. She also chose to be on the cover of Vanity Fair, not because her career deserved it, but her relationship with a prince allowed her to be. These are her choices and I make up my mind about her based on her own choices. She loves fame, wants luxury and adulation.

        Read more on haute couture gowns. Based on these articles actually it looks like $75,000 may be a lower estimate than what it may have actually cost:

        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/uloop/all-about-haute-couture_b_6746770.html

        “The cheapest of couture pieces will cost you $10,000, but evening gowns start at $60,000 and can cost upwards of $100,000.”

        http://www.whowhatwear.com/what-is-haute-couture/slide4

        “Daywear usually starts at around $10,000, and the price of evening pieces skyrockets from there.”

        http://stylecaster.com/haute-couture-means-buys-costs/

        “Haute couture gowns can take over 800 hours to produce so it goes without saying that buying haute couture doesn’t come cheap. Daywear can start at $10,000, while a heavily embroidered and intricate gown can cost several hundred thousand dollars.”

        There are two scenarios here, even if you are okay with her choosing this dress, which I am not, based on the fact that royals are public servants subsidized by tax payers and should be responsible about how their lives are perceived by those tax payers, especially when the economy is not performing well, austerity is causing hardship, wages are not increasing and the UK is facing an uncertain future. Kate also set a reasonable example, which would be logical to follow.

        1. She got a discount. Royals are not supposed to get discounts. Don’t say she was not a royal yet, she got the discount because everyone already knew she was going to be marrying and would become one, so she used royal status for the discount. A big no.

        2. She paid the full price, an outrageous price which is not justifiable for a public servant.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ LAK

        KP not denying the figure is not proof of anything. If they denied it, they would suddenly be inundated with requests to confirm/deny this figure, and that figure, and this quote, and that quote…..

        I’m still waiting to see some credible source, confirming how this figure ($75,000) is the cost of this dress and that Meghan paid that for it. Otherwise, it’s just one of the dozens of fake news and info, pumped out there for clicks.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        The problem is that your entire post is based on speculation…….speculation, speculation, speculation.

        I’m at least grateful that you’re not trying to present it as hard fact though…..thank you for that. ;)

      • Liberty says:

        A one page 4 color ad in US Vogue can run upward of $100k -150k US to place, beyond the cost of creating the ad.

        Getting your style impact in every form of media around the world at once at this level: priceless. Would someone discount a gown from a past season for this purpose? Yes, as it will be far less expensive than millions of dollars of worldwide placement costs, and be in prime exposure position.

        Would someone hand over even a $200k gown to a friendly photographer for a tiny price for this million-dollar exposure impact? Yes. This stuff happens. I have been in the rooms when such deals are struck.

        Favors are a tremendous form of currency, too; unusual favors can be called in years later: next week I will shoot the photo of my life, can you help me? Yes. (Photogs and stylists are sometimes the magic workers in the procurement, not the sitter.)

        Would someone say a dress, even handmade for 1000 hours, cost even more than it did on paper. Yes. Is pricing part of the mystique of elite fashion and unattainable style? Yes.

        I was no one at 24 going to a major event and got handed a $9k gown for $800 because they anticipated a photo, and their gamble paid off. If that can happen just to me…. see? I understand why it can seem impossible but, it happens.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Liberty

        You sound like you know what you’re talking about…..do YOU know where that $75,000 figure came from? I don’t doubt that couture pieces can cost that sort of amount and more, but I’m interested in this particular piece.

        Because it seems as though that figure just appeared in the media and now it’s suddenly become gospel, yet I can’t find any credible source that can confirm it. For all we know, the dress may have really been priced originally at $15,000 and $5,000 paid for it, with some tabloid hack calling it $75,000.

        Do you know?

      • Helenw says:

        @PiMO is correct that the $75000 is nothing special for a couture dress. I have no idea about this one and if it indeed cost this but for a couture dress this is not much. I am a proud owner of a Dior couture dress which i paid $33000 for after it had been worn by another person and handed back for repairs. Originally it cost three times this price. So, a $75000 original price is not really that much, considering the intricate embroidery, hand made, labour, fabrics etc. Haute Couture is about the labour and materials as much as it is about the design idea. And being a selfish being, if I ever have the chance to find myself at the dreamed event accompanied by the dreamed person, I’d splash on the most expensive and unique dress I could put my hands on and cherish the moment and the memory for my entire life.

  6. Peace says:

    Looooooooooooooooool. And we only heard about it now when she got engaged to Harry. Even I was shortlisted to be a bond girl (till I woke from my dream).

  7. Nancy says:

    A Bond girl, sexist as it is…..a twenty something, leggy siren. Yep, that sounds like Meghan. Maybe the Bond girl’s sister at home?

    • Mel says:

      Many of the Bond girls were in their late 30s. Monica Bellucci was 50.

      • Tina says:

        Yes, and Daniel Craig is a craggy-looking 49. It would make much more sense to cast Bond girls in their 30s opposite him.

    • Nancy says:

      Maybe so, but I see her more of Gidget goes to England. She seems little and perky, not the smoldering Bond type. Just my opinion, of course….

      • minx says:

        Yeah, I don’t see Bond girl, I see pretty girl-next-door.
        She’s beautiful, I’ve said more than once that Harry is marrying up. I’m American so I like that she is bringing some new blood into the RF, god knows they need it.

  8. Lucy says:

    Yeah, I could have seen it. I must say, I really enjoy her in Suits. But then again, I enjoy the show as a whole, and it features some pretty good female characters, which I wasn’t expecting.

  9. Jussie says:

    Nah, this is just The Sun making things up.

    7 years on Suits and the best work it lead to was two of the lower tier Hallmark movies. Megan wasn’t on any shortlists for blockbusters.

    Bond girls are very rarely A-listers, but they always have a certain level of fame and/or building hype around them (sometimes mostly in foreign markets, but still). Teri Hatcher was primarily a TV star when she did a Bond film, but she was a pretty famous TV star. Megan was…not.

    • LAK says:

      People forget that Terri Hatcher was momentarily an international star during her stint on that Superman TV show with Dean Cain. Even the much derided Denise Richards had a high profile when she landed her Bond gig.

      Saying MM had any chance at Bond is on a par with reporters claiming her career was on the level of Cate Blanchett as they did on the day of her engagement announcement. Apparently she was merely keeping a low profile which is why none of us had heard of her.

      • Rachel says:

        I auditioned to be a Bond girl once (the role Rosamund Pike got) and I wasn’t well known at all, and Rosamund wasn’t really well known. Sometimes they do consider unknowns or less well known actresses.

    • Olenna says:

      Jussie, I agree on all points (especially about the Sun and MM’s fame), but it’s a standing opinion around here that royals, and now MM, routinely leak info to and manipulate the press. Personally, I don’t care who leaks what. Celebrity news is celebrity news, and sites like this one wouldn’t flourish without leaks (and unnamed sources). My issue has always been why people take a negative stance on leaks; one would think a gossip fan would be rejoicing (or at least doing a Birdman handrub), instead criticizing the alleged leaker. But, it’s always a no-win for celebs when it comes to leaks.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They make stuff all the time. Leaks aren’t this stupid. The Sun lies constantly and they know the royals won’t respond so they can. Like I said they took a passing comment and built a story around it.
        It is a tabloid. People choose to believe what they want depending on who they like and who they don’t.
        *shrug*

  10. Erinn says:

    I mean “giving up” would imply she actually had the role which I highly doubt was the case. You can’t give up a career you don’t have for a prince. Chances are she wouldn’t be doing a whole lot after Suits. She’s not some upcoming 20 year old actress. She’s closer to 40 than 30 and we all know next to nobody seems to enjoy writing decent roles for women, especially ones that don’t have the clout or youth on their side. Maybe some kind of USA network show, or the CW but honestly Suits was the only real substantial role she’s ever booked. And she’s not a main character in the sense that the show wouldn’t work without her.

    She’s pretty. But she’s not drop dead gorgeous (subjective I know ) and the vast majority of people didn’t know who she was before Harry.

    What is it with H and W and their love for women who layer on the black eyeliner. It’s such a harsh look. I’ve seen Meghan wearing copper colors as liner and its leaps and bounds better. Or heck, don’t toss it on the bottom lid too.

  11. Idky says:

    She’s so thirsty.

    • Beth says:

      Give her some water! Someone definitely need to quench her and her PR teams thirst quickly, because all of the obviously false Meghan praising stories are starting to make her look a little desperate

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Desperate for what though? She’s already bagged the Prince (despite the many nay-sayers who called her his stalker), so I’m just not sure what else you think she’s desperate for.

        Besides, I don’t see her PR putting this out. It sounds more like one of the dozen bullsh*t stories that random reporters dream up and then all other papers just run with it without verifying.

        But it’s another great excuse to Meghan-bash, so bash away.

        ;)

      • magnoliarose says:

        I know Bella.
        I think it is strange because she really hasn’t done anything to warrant it but ok. At this point she is harmless. I usually roll my eyes at accusations of jealousy, but if it isn’t racism or defenders of Kate (who has a very absurd ax to grind with a stranger), I can’t figure it out.
        Especially from the same people who said they hate Kate stories for this reason and MM hasn’t even been on the scene publicly much!
        It will be interesting to see what happens with the next Kate story. lol

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Magnoliarose:

        It IS baffling. I don’t know where people find the energy to dislike someone they’ve never met so much…..lol

    • Princessk says:

      It seems that there has been an ‘invasion’. I keep thinking I am reading comments on DM.

      Why automatically blame Meghan fro something that may be true or untrue.

      Newspapers like the Sun do print lies at times you know,

  12. Petty Riperton says:

    LMAO They know they lying, sis wasn’t on anyone’s radar.

  13. Deanne says:

    They probably saw her stellar performance in the Hallmark movie “When Sparks Fly” and knew she’d be perfect for the job. Seriously, her people can stop. She bagged her prince. Trying to pretend she was anything but a C-list actress is ridiculous. She was good on Suits. It’s a well written and acted show, but suggesting she was in the running to be a Bond girl is hilarious and they’re just trying to make it look like she gave up huge career opportunities, to marry a royal. Before she starting dating Harry, no one knew who she was.

    • Esmom says:

      Lol. Ouch. I’m only on the fringes of their love story but is it really her people putting this out now? She’s already landed the prince, why would she need to inflate her credentials like this? Has there been some backlash saying she’s not A-list enough for him or something? I feel like I’m missing something.

      • Nicole says:

        Because her people don’t know when to stop. It’s like that cringe story about how everyone in the city of Toronto loved her even though she’s like sixth billed on an average tv show. They see good press and then take it to a level of ridiculous for no reason.

      • Ann says:

        Her team inflates and fabricates as much as she does. Like she alwys mentions working for the US embassy in latin america…whereas she only did an internship for 3 months – an internship is very different than a full time job – even the hiring criteria is VERY different, not to mention the duties and duration will be different too.

      • Deanne says:

        She’s a very pretty, lower tier, working actress, from a decent cable show and some cheesy Hallmark movies, who had a couple of charities she did work for. She had a lifestyle blog, with a couple of thousand followers. The PR spin her “team” has been trying to push, makes her look terribly thirsty. Now she’s supposedly sacrificed a chance at mega stardom for Harry and her charitable interests have also been hugely inflated. If she loves him and he loves her, her prior career status shouldn’t matter, so the obnoxious push to exaggerate it is unnecessary. Other than the luxury lifestyle and attention she’ll get as a royal family member, I don’t really get why Harry is considered such a prize. After that awful interview he gave last year, I’ve come to see that he’s just a more charming and affable version of his lazy, entitled brother. Why people think he rates a woman who combines Meryl Streep with Mother Theresa is beyond me. Who she was when they met, should be good enough.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Ann

        I would bet a nice little sum of money that you were one of those people calling her a liar over the washing liquid commercial story.

        I saw soooo many comments about how much of a liar she was. Until the actual video came out. Now it’s time to find something else to call her a liar over.

        Just remember that reporters are constantly under immense pressure to come up with stories……..70% of the junk you see out there would have been dreamt up by some random reporter and then circulated afterwards. I just can’t see any PR people being so stupid over something so easily verifiable.

      • Bridget says:

        @Esmom: an awful lot of “experts” with absolutely no evidence. They’re utterly convinced that Meghan is a gold digging famewhore who’s people leak all sorts of stories. And they take every single article as gospel.

      • Liberty says:

        Tabloid fodder. You know the writers are paid to make up stories about people in the public eye, right?

      • Ann says:

        Bella- how much money? Coz I will win. You have a lot of free time to defend Meghan. Be on point- this is about her embellishments not some video for her class project – yes it was for the entire class mandated by the teacher….not an initiative by Meghan herself

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @ Ann:

        Your comment:
        “Her team inflates and fabricates as much as she does. Like she alwys mentions working for the US embassy in latin america…whereas she only did an internship for 3 months – an internship is very different than a full time job – even the hiring criteria is VERY different, not to mention the duties and duration will be different too”

        I don’t think it takes a genius to see how you feel about this woman. You’ve left lots of comments up and down the thread, trying to build a case for calling her a liar.

        For instance, you say “her team inflates and fabricates as much as she does”…….what are these fabrications exactly? Did she work for the US Embassy? Yes. Was it in Latin America? Yes. So where is the fabrication here? Are internships not counted as employment in the country you reside in? Because they do in mine. So there is no fabrication here. It’s only in your head, I’m afraid.

        PS: Please endeavour to furnish us with a complete list of her fabrications, so we can see you’re not just fabricating reasons to justify your intense dislike of her.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Stop being absurd ladies.
        EVERY single actress or actor according to the British tabloids was on the list to be a Bond something or other. If it were her people the story would have been planted in the US a long time ago.
        Americans aren’ obsessed with Bond like that, and it isn’t an honor to play a Bond girl who is usually treated like furniture. And they have had mostly lesser known Bond Girls (who are women but called girls in 2018) and some unknown, but in this case I believe the entire story is made up. I just don’t think it is as far out of the realm of possibility as some do.

  14. TheBees says:

    The tables turned for her really quickly. The hate is real….

    • Nancy says:

      I don’t even think it’s hate, more like really? This is a woman who appeared out of nowhere to get a blind date with a Prince of another country, at her age and her profession. People are curious and probably surprised, since this is definitely a different scenario than we’re used to. I can’t envision her at a tea holding up her pinky! She’s been around. Not to say this won’t be a workable relationship, just one we’re going to be reading about on a regular…..

      • Squidgy says:

        “at her age” – really?

      • Ann says:

        actually her age is a key factor for her previous profession of acting.
        WE may not like it….but yes it is not a ripe age for multiple offers unless she was an A++ list actress’
        And her present career of being a royal future wife- age matters there too as she will be expected to have kids – harry has given interview after interview in past few years about wanting kids and a family…so age matters there too. So I dont think ‘age’ in this context is offensive to discuss :)

      • She’s been around?
        Some of these comments are so full of it. The bullshit isn’t even veiled.

      • Olenna says:

        @Enough Already, the envy is real.

      • Liberty says:

        @Enough Already. – thanks for saying what I’m thinking.

      • Natalie S says:

        Why can’t you envision her at a tea holding up her pinky?

        Isn’t it a good thing for a person to have experiences?

      • Just got my hair done = refuse to bang my head against the wall.

        The funny thing is I was so pleased about the Hank & Megs coupling (thanks magnoliarose) because I seriously needed an antidote to the anachronistic, internalized misogyny that often pops up around here. Throw in a few Trumps and Weinsteins and yes, you’ve got me digging into these sparkly Markly posts with abandon. So what the hell happened?

        This is why we can’t have nice things.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Enough Already

        Just ticked on your name…..Oh wow…..are you Erin Lee Daniels??!!

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Enough Already
        You are welcome.
        It is extreme against Meghan, and I am very disappointed. I think the story is terrific and I think it is incredible just like a romance novel. *wink wink*. I would think women would be cheering for the underdog, but then you know.
        But you are right. We can’t have nice things. But I refuse to have it ruined.
        Women of color have a hard time getting roles period, but that is held against her when everyone in entertainment knows success isn’t based on talent. It is connections, luck, hard work and being white and mainly male. So holding her career against her is unfair when out of work actors would do anything to be on a series that long.
        This is why I find the digs against her tinged with racism and a lot of misogyny.
        A part of me is glad she isn’t Jewish because then it would be all about the anti-Semitics screaming all over the place. Israel and money and all up in her spending and feelings about the Middle East.
        But then I think how some women of color must read some of the comments, and I feel angry and also a bit of shame.

      • Lady D says:

        “She’s been around.” I don’t think slut-shamer is your best colour, Nance. Do better.

      • @Bella D
        I am. *curtseys*
        Pleasure to mert you :)

      • magnoliarose
        Lol now you see where my eternal romantic optimism comes from…

        As a woc it is interesting. When Meghan’s relationship with Harry was still unofficial I was smiling to myself – those crazy kids. Longtime followers of Harry already know he has a decades long *cough* appreciation for woc and I found Meghan to be delightful. But then Harry came out swinging with that disastrous Porgy and Bess press statement and I thought uh-ohhhh. It was crystal clear that he really intended to be with this one so I knew the knives were coming out for her.
        Schwing! Out came the knives.
        I’m used to it. Meghan is used to it. But you never become impervious to it.

        Even if you’re detached enough to get a giggle out of the creative new ways people use to tell their racist truth you never quite stop wincing when you hear it.

      • Princessk says:

        I think it is more pure jealousy.

        After all what has she done to get people so worked up. Its because she is beautiful, intelligent, good natured and a warm personality and she has bagged the most eligible bachelor in the world and she is now going to become world famous and an extremely popular member of the RF, and she is going to grace the front pages of newspapers and magazines for many years to come. People need to get over it….and no she is not a blue eyed blonde.

    • minx says:

      No hate, just a lot of eye rolling.

      • Lobbit says:

        “she’s been around”
        “She doesn’t fit in”
        “She’s a liar”
        “She’s a nobody”
        “She’s a narcissist”

        It’s definitely hate. And as I said downthread it’s incredibly ugly.

      • M.A.F. says:

        It’s the same crap that Kate gets but I’m sure someone here will try to argue it’s not the same.

      • Tina says:

        Well I’ll bite, MAF, it’s not the same as what Kate gets. Kate has been a royal for 7 years and has done less work than Sophie did in 3. Meghan hasn’t even married Harry yet. And there is a lot of racism and ageism in the criticism Meghan gets. I guarantee you no one was using the phrase “been around” about Kate in 2011.

      • Natalie S says:

        Kate definitely had a honeymoon period. You can see it in the comments in earlier stories.

      • minx says:

        Lobbitt, I wrote that comment relatively early in the day. Going back and reading, yes, some of the comments are harsh.

      • Sam says:

        Nope.Kate got hate but Meghan is getting and will be getting worse.I remember a lot less negative articles after Kate’s engagement but with Meghan, I really don’t see any difference in the way she’s being treated.Also, Kate gets mostly criticised now because of what she’s done as a royal.She’s been given a lot of chances and has had excuses after excuses being made for her whereas,Meghan from day 1 has had so much vitriol being thrown her way (not just from DF) and I’ll be shocked if she gets the same level of understanding and chances that kate got.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      @ Ann

      “WE may not like it…”

      We? Really? For someone who supposedly doesn’t like it, you’re doing a brilliant job of articulating and promoting the sexist and age-ist agenda – and rather gleefully, as well.

      • Nancy says:

        I think it’s a fair comment. Women in Hollywood continuously are fed up with ageism in their profession. Only a few still get good roles as they get older. Also, if she wants to have children, age isn’t a factor yet, but could be if they wait. Being an actress leaves you wide open to criticism and as the fiancée of royalty, it will be off the charts. She seems like a strong woman, I’m guessing she can take it. *At her age* We have all seen a few things by the time we’re on the dark side of 35. Not snark, truth. Being redundant, but at 36, she is exactly the same age Princess Di was when she passed. Sad.

      • Ann says:

        Bella – Im flattered (eyeroll) that you seek only my comment and attack (hahhaha), Hollywood – meghan;s ex profession is sexist. Deal with it. Things may change but right now it is sexist and it is age-specific for the women.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Bella maybe she will use a walker to get down the aisle.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        @Magnolia:

        lol……For some strange reason, my response to @Ann is not posting. Oh well. :D

    • BorderMollie says:

      Nah, her engagement to Harry was quick and undramatic, especially after a decade of Waity, so a few people in the tabs make a drama out of it to sell papers. The vast majority of people like her, just those that don’t speak loudly.

      • Deanne says:

        I don’t dislike her at all. I think it’s great that she’s lived a life and is educated. She’s had a real career of her own. She had seven years on a cable show. Most actors would kill for that. She also seems like a happy person who enjoys life, which is nice to see. Will and Kate look like sad sacks most of the time. I guess they think they’re being dignified. She and Harry seem to have genuine affection toward each other as well and I hope they’ll be happy. I just don’t buy the retelling of her story and I don’t believe it’s not at all directed by her people or KP. It’s not just tabloid stuff. Suddenly she’s was the most beloved person in all of Toronto and a humanitarian verging on mega stardom. Like I said above. Who she was when they met should be good enough. He’s just a royal. He isn’t finding a cure for cancer or sacrificing himself for the poor. I hope she’s not being made to feel she has to pad her resume, in order to be worthy of him.

      • Redgrl says:

        @deanne – this! I wish them well but can’t help but find the upsell irritating. And more of my frustration is with Hank, who, as I believe you may have posted upthread, is more charming than Will but still fairly entitled and not the hardest worker. He was just better at hiding it. And, as I previously posted somewhere else at least he seems to have genuine interest in his causes, unlike Will & Kate who always look like they’re having teeth drilled. But in terms of optics, he should know better and unfairly she will get the lion’s share of the blame for his entitled attitude. I look forward to seeing how much work they actually do going forward. Hopefully they will contribute and take their responsibilities more seriously than W & K.

      • Deanne says:

        @Redgrl The thing is that she doesn’t need to be upsold at all. Harry’s cute and personable, but he’s very entitled. I’m sure I would be too if I was raised that way. His involvement with the Invictus Games and sweetness with toddlers doesn’t erase it. I’m only an occasional DM reader, but went and looked at comments on some of the stories and there are some pretty thinly and not so thinly veiled racist comments about her.It’s discouraging for sure. Just like Kate, she’ll get the majority of the criticism and blame. I guess getting to prance around in the Queen’s diamonds also has a down side. Honestly, I hope she’ll be a breath of fresh air and put the rest of them to shame by working hard and really using her platform. That being said, the PR bs has to stop You are so right. W and K have looking uncomfortable down to a science.

  15. Rhys says:

    Why is she doing this? She doesn’t need to add some glitter to her resume now. In any case she is way out of his league in my eyes. What has he done? Was born lucky. She has managed to achieve something on her own. She doesn’t need to be pretending to have been considered for the role of bimbo.

  16. Becks says:

    I mean, maybe she was on a list somewhere as potentials, but I doubt it was the “short list” and I doubt she was at the top.

    Her PR team is being really weird lately because I feel like they are just making these obvious mistakes that are not necessary now. Like, the time to put it out there that she was “so almost famous she was almost a bond girl” was maybe 6 months ago, to establish that she was a successful actress and “didn’t need Harry for fame.” Same thing with the expensive dress.* Time for her to wear one was to the TIFF or something to show that she could carry her own weight and money played no role in her relationship with Harry.

    *I don’t really care about the expensive dress, and am kind of surprised at the backlash, but it seems according to the British posters on here and elsewhere that the backlash should have been expected.

    She’s engaged to Harry now. They will be married in May. She just needs to keep her head down for the next 6 months and weather the criticism about being a gold digger or not being that famous or whatever. Her team needs to stop trying to make Meghan happen. She has already happened. That’s why I said this is all so weird to me.

  17. Lila says:

    IMO Meghan being on the short list is an attempt to get publicity for the next James Bond film.

    • Linda says:

      The Bond people say this isn’t true. They didn’t put it out there

    • Jayna says:

      Spare me. James Bond doesn’t need Meghan Markle to get publicity for the next film.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @Jayna – LOL This +1,OOO. This screams another attempt to build up the resume of a C-list actress on a C-list show that was her only real success by 35, so she looks like a bigger deal than she ever was or had any hope of being. She’s no Naomi Harris. As for those people saying, Why do this when she already bagged her prize? Well . . . narcissism is never satisfied, that’s the problem. As the Bond people have denied this, and the tabs have no particular love for her so wouldn’t try to build her up, this looks to me like her PR or “friends” still leaking stuff they think will do her favors. They’re wrong. She needs to tell them to stop it, just stop it. Her brief from hereon in is dignity, public service, and a lid on advertising what a fantastic lifestyle she is going to enjoy from now on, with every whim her heart desires satisfied in an eyeblink.

        OR – The other possibility is that the tabs are doing this because they know it will make her look ridiculous. It’s either her PR or the tabs sweetly sticking a knife in by leaking something that on its face is complimentary so they can’t be taken to court over it, but in reality (they think) damages her.

        All that said, if this is ongoing hunger for attention and narcissism, and I’ve been suspicious on that score since the Vanity Fair cover, I feel sorry for Harry. Because profound narcissism is what Diana suffered from, and you know my theory about this stuff: fate always gives you a chance in relationships to go home in all the wrong ways. I’ve seen it dozens of times among friends, and have experienced it myself. If “home” was a dysfunctional place, it’s really hard not to keep looking for that to get a chance to “fix” it. And, or course, you never can.

      • Hashtagwhat says:

        I’ve always thought Harry’s attraction to Meghan was in part bc she has a lot of similarities to Diana, and not just the “natural and warm” thing.

        Also, and I know we are skeptics of BG, but they are saying that her people did put this out there.

      • Olenna says:

        @seesittellsit, narcissism you say? Wow, isn’t that a DSM-recognized mental disorder? If this is what you’ve diagnosed her with, maybe you should report this finding to KP, you know–for PH’s safety, of course.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Jayna LOL

        And no I don’t believe some hater has insider knowledge of her PR team. She is under KP mostly now.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @Oleanna – actually, I believe it is: try looking up “narcissistic personality disorder”, which many mental health professionals judged Diana suffered from. Sally Bedell-Smith wrote a sympathetic bio of Diana, one of the most balanced I ever looked into, and discussed it at length. It’s hardly a stretch to assume that actors have more than their fair share of this characteristic. Have you ever worked extensively with performing artists? I have. They nearly all display extreme narcissism. They need it. That Vanity Fair cover convinced me of how deeply this woman loves limelight. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree.

      • Olenna says:

        OK, well…I guess the crazy is real, too. I think I’m gonna have to bounce for a while. This shit is getting harder and harder to stomach.

    • AbbyRose says:

      Because those low budget indie Bond films need all the help they can get, right? I’d be more likely to believe she was in line for another Hallmark movie.

    • Merritt says:

      I don’t think either side put this out. Meghan doesn’t need the publicity because she has a royal wedding coming up. The Bond people already have a giant publicity machine. It is a tabloid fabrication for views.

  18. Alexandria says:

    Wait wait I’m very curious (really). How do people know for sure when it is self PR or it is the usual fake tabloid stories because tabloid writers are uh paid to write stuff anyway?

    • Esmom says:

      I asked something similar above, lol.

    • Milla says:

      Murdoch or PR team? Who knows, but it will be forgotten in a split second.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      @ Alexandria

      Thank you. I don’t understand why some people don’t engage the grey matter between their ears sometimes, before posting their abuse.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Meghan is a convenient target as Nationalism rises. So they can sell some extra papers playing into that. Fleet Street is a profoundly cynical place full of people with a lot of ambition and very little scruples.

  19. Beth says:

    Lol. That’s ridiculous! Until she got together with Harry, this woman was unknown to everyone who didn’t watch Suits. If she’d never met him, people wouldn’t know who this “sexy, glamorous, good actress, ” even is. After they’re married for a while, people will lose interest in her and become bored with these silly fake stories

  20. Magdalin says:

    There’s no way her PR team put this out. Isn’t it pretty obvious that her PR team isn’t really HER PR team any longer? There’s a sloppy transition going on, because if she had people (in the way that Jon Stewart once asked about Michael Jackson – “Doesn’t he have PEOPLE? People who will tell him no? People who will tell him he’s making a bad decision?”) the dress wouldn’t have happened and surely they are not silly enough to put out a story like this.

    At this point, the need is for her to be taken seriously and lose some of that hollywood-ness. If I were a betting woman, this is tabloid fanfic. I know people who have worked for top tabloids and yes, sometimes on a slow day, they do sit around and just make stuff up.

    • Liberty says:

      Yes. They make it up — funny how half the time, people here know to employ logic and say “that’s such nonsense, Just look, it came from the trashy Sun/Star/whatever! Not true!”

      — but when they read something dishy they would LIKE to believe, it’s gospel and they “knew it all along, they could tell, this confirms it!”

      This is why the tabs keep making money. And why tab writers can sit around making stuff up 👽👩🏻‍💻 and get paid each week.

    • Nic919 says:

      She has never used the Sun for PR so this is just made up. In the past US Weekly was used, but they were taken over by the same company as the Enquirer and many people left US Weekly. Why would she even release this at this time? She is trying to appear more conservative and a Bond Girl is usually a pretty looking doormat. This goes against the image she wants to project. It’s not her PR doing this.
      For everyone complaining yesterday about how she isn’t a humanitarian despite all her PR pushing that image , it makes no sense that Jason would go to the Sun with a story like this which is contrary to that narrative.

    • Hashtagwhat says:

      I don’t think it’s clear she doesn’t have her PR anymore, not by any stretch. I posted this late yesterday in another post:

      What does everyone make of the Mirror saying she has been “clear” that she will no longer do “paid show biz work” but that she is retaining her agent and PR to “to field calls and offers”. That doesn’t add up to me.

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markle-lined-up-play-11765154

      • HappyXamp says:

        Much like the story about the dog breaking it’s legs, I didn’t understand this one either. I mean why? Everyone knows your off the market for acting/holly wood jobs. If I were Meghan, I would not have allowed this to been leaked/released, it just makes the haters scream that she’s a gold digger even more. It’s just like when they announced the dog broke both its legs and wouldn’t say anymore, it looked bad and just reminded people she dumped another dog.

  21. Sam says:

    If she did have a PR team,wouldn’t she be under KPs now since she isn’t an actress anymore

  22. Peace says:

    Magdalin, the antecedents and the OTT PR push so far either from KP or her people( I believe it’s her PR people) is an indication that this isn’t fan fiction. Its PR, period.

    • Renee says:

      Yep. She supposedly still hasn’t formally parted with her US team. Maybe she will after the wedding but if she’s keeping them around they must be working in some capacity.

      • graymatters says:

        Maybe KP doesn’t handle Megan-specific stuff until after the marriage, so she’s keeping her team intact to handle mail, refusing offers, clarifiying her new address, etc.

  23. Tania says:

    I’m a bit uncomfortable with all the negative comments on MM posts. I usually keep track of names and many seem new or maybe they didn’t get on my radar like other regulars.

    Maybe it’s because so much of today is tinged with racism. So, is this coming from KM people or just angry people they’re not marrying a prince?

    Some of you need to check yourself and your anger. It leads to the darkside.

    • Really says:

      Why is every negative comment about MM thought to be about her race? Why can’t it just be a negative comment because people feel the way they feel. Who cares if she’s white, black, yellow, brown, purple….

      • Tania says:

        Why are you so defensive about where your negativity is coming from?

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Really

        If it walks like a rat and smells like a rat…..people are going to suspect it’s a rat.

      • Really says:

        @ Bella. So every negative comment about MM is due to her race? I beg the differ.

      • Really says:

        @ Tania.

        Don’t be upset with my original comment. It is not personal and is not an attack on you. People feel a certain way about public figures/celebrity and it has nothing to do with race. It is just a personal opinion.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Actually, you’re right. Not every negative comment is racist. I personally tend to have a lot of patience and usually need a lot of evidence to justify calling someone a racist. For instance, I still insist on seeing more evidence before I conclude that Prince Philip is racist. (I know many here disagree with me!).

        But let’s just be brutally honest here. An awful lot of Meghan’s critics are. (Not all, but a good chunk). Of course, it’s considered a bit graceless to be racist, so very few people will admit to it. But you can sense it in the way their comments pulsate with dislike and complete disdain. And in the way they reach and reach, for reasons to justify their feelings…………..until eventually they start fabricating some. It’s fascinating to watch.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Because most of it is.
        She is being called uppity and should know her place but in language that the person thinks minorities can’t read.
        I am not black but I am a minority and I see it and I hear it. This is the same excuse racists use to discriminate. They claim it isn’t racist and about the person, but it is too over the top without merit to be anything but ugly bigotry.
        I feel like I am reading the Fox forums or Breitbart with these comments. Stop thinking we don’t see it because a lot of us do.

      • Natalie S says:

        @magnoliarose. +100

      • Olenna says:

        @magnoliarose, +200. I agree racism is a big factor in how poorly MM is being treated, but envy is a huge motivator, too. I’ve been around here for a few years and can say with some certainty that there are POC (admittedly so) who are having a field day ripping into MM as well. Some are very single-minded and unreasonable about it; others are sly and practiced at manipulating opinions. Either way, envy can be a hellava drug. For their sake, I hope they don’t OD on it before the wedding.

      • Renee says:

        Olenna – It’s an oversimplification to say all the POC who turned on her did so out of envy. I don’t know you’re background but I’m black and I frequent a lot of blogs dedicated to black women. Women didn’t like that she was being held up as a beacon of hope for black women, especially given the issues of colorism in the community. That turned a lot of women off.

      • Olenna says:

        Renee, I did not say all the POC who turned on her did so out of envy and I was not referring only to black women when I said POC. The people I spoke of know who I’m referring to if they bother to read my comments. Also, the exaggeration of her status by any particular group of people has nothing to do with my comments. What I have seen here, however, is people who dislike MM (for whatever reason) have no problem projecting that false belief on anyone who does not criticize her as they do. People are branded fans, sugars, etc. just because some of us do not have anything overtly negative to say about her. She is a human being with hopes and dreams just like the rest of us and deserves the benefit of the doubt. For any one person or group to judge her personal choices but has never walked in her shoes, that is wrong and I’ll leave it that.

      • SlightlyAnonny says:

        Have you met a lot of purple people?

      • Olenna says:

        @SlightlyAnonny, I’m sure you’re an educated person but your comment reflects otherwise. It would have taken you less time to look up the term “POC” than to type some silliness.

    • Beth says:

      What? I just double checked, and none of our comments here had anything to do with race, just a little ridicule for how thirsty she’s starting to look. People of any race can be thirsty like Meghan seems to be, so why are you assuming it is about race? Maybe you’re confusing CB with DM.

      @Really and the rest of us here can be defensive when you’re accusing us of something as serious as racism, when we actually said nothing that would make us guilty of racism.

      • Really says:

        Thank you @ Beth for stating something so well. Maybe I was not able to articulate that point.

      • Merritt says:

        How is she thirsty for something that a tabloid clearly made up?

      • Liberty says:

        “Beth is thirsty!”

        There. It must be true? Right? Right? Uh, no. Tabs and gossip and truth don’t necessarily mix.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You don’t have to be blatant to be racist. That is so 1960.
        2018′s language is much different.
        I bet some comments aren’t, but a lot of them are obvious.
        The leaps to believe any negative that is silly and name calling and insulting a harmless person who has just come on the scene is telling.

    • Tania says:

      @Really don’t presume to think I’m upset. I’m commenting, just like you. I’m not projecting my feelings onto her. She is a newly engaged woman of color to one of the oldest racist institutions in our history. People have come out of the gate making a lot of negative assumptions about her. LOOK AT ALL THESE COMMENTS! You really think a lot of it is not tinged with racism? I’d love to live in your reality.

      • passerby says:

        We see it Tania. Some just refuse to or simply can’t (which,BTW is a great privilege). The comments in this post about how Meghan has “been around,” not being able to picture her holding a tea cup… Like, get real, we know what this is about. Not saying every negative comment is about race, but loads of them are. That’s one of the things about being a POC. You think…hm is it “me” or is it my race? Fun times!

      • hmmmm says:

        @Tania. It is likely there are some people whose comments are tinged with racism. But it is also very likely that the majority are not. And while the monarchy may be one of the oldest racist institutions, I don’t think they and their courtiers are here commenting. Not everything has to do with race, and when people jump to that without proof, it actually can really hurt movements for equality, 1) because it makes people take them less seriously and be more likely to dismiss them because they see many examples where racism is yelled and they know for a fact that it is not, and 2) because it makes certain things impossible to discuss or touch.

        Meghan seems to have fallen into a pretty classic trap, first she was well liked for seeming charasmatic, and then she seemed to like it a bit too much (I too, have fallen for that rollercoaster, thought she seemed sweet and then she looked so incredibly into the pap walk and paparazzi with harry in that one video, that I found it really offputting.

        I mean, if you really think about it is stupid that people are penalized for being happy to have gained a higher socio economic status, while at the same time it is a very common dream to want to gain that status, but that is common, no matter your sex or race. There are certain situations that are very hard to maneuver through in a graceful way, because there is room for attack no matter which way you move (i.e. Kate looks bored and unhappy and like she dislikes being a royal – she’s terrible and ungrateful! Meghan looks delighted by the new set of circumstances – she’s thirsty!).

    • minx says:

      LOL I’m neutral about MM, but even if I slammed her it wouldn’t be because I’m “angry about not marrying a prince.” And if you post on CB as often as you claim to, you would see that KM gets thoroughly criticized, too, some of it fair, some of it not. Why are you presenting it as KM people vs. MM people?

      • Maria says:

        @Minx I agree with you. The Middletons have nothing to do with this, and Kate is criticized for everything from skinny jeans to short skirts to long skirts to her accent. She is definitely fair game.

    • Lobbit says:

      I love that people really think that they’re able to somehow think outside the culture they live in. “ lalalala I can’t hear what you’re saying about race because I am incapable of racialized thinking despite the fact that we all live in an incredibly racialized society!”

      Like, who do you think you’re fooling? It’s like saying you don’t see gender – as if there aren’t a gajillion cultural signifiers attached to gender that we consciously and unconsciously use to navigate the world we live in. It’s ridiculous.

      ETA: and this isn’t me saying that anyone’s comments here are racist – the point is that it’s absolutely ridiculous to claim that race doesn’t matter. It matters a great deal and whether you are willing to admit it or not, it has a very real role in the way we interpret the world. It always has and always will.

    • Rachel says:

      I’ve noticed that sometimes someone will make a comment bashing Markle and then within minutes four or five brand new usernames will pop up to say “what a brilliant post LOL clap clap I completely agree!!!”

  24. Squidgy says:

    I just watched the trailer of “When Sparks Fly” – is this that the movie that made them put her on the Bond Girl list?

  25. Maria says:

    Ok, I’ll bite. I don’t follow James Bond or the Bond girls. And I only watched a few episodes of Suits.
    Why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that she may be shortlisted for this role? She’s 36 not 96,still young. she is beautiful and sexy. She was an actress so she was known by the Bond people. I just don’t see why the idea seems so ridiculous.

    • Tina says:

      I’m with you. The list of recent Bond girls would indicate that while some of them were well known at the time (Halle Berry), others were up and coming English actresses (Rosamund Pike, Gemma Arterton) and there were a lot of sexy Europeans, some well known (Sophie Marceau, Eva Green) and some less so (Catherina Murino, Olga Kurylenko, Bérénice Marlohe). There hasn’t been a North American Bond girl since Denise Richards (unless you count Stephanie Sigman) and a minor, sexy TV star is a perfectly plausible choice.

      • passerby says:

        “The bond girl types are pretty much showstoppingly beautiful..”

        “MM is cute and pretty, but she is not bond girl type, and that’s oK. The world needs cute and pretty.”

        Well aren’t you kind, LAK ;)

        I tend to agree with Tina and Maria. I think Meghan is very beautiful and has tons of sex appeal. But then again beauty is totally subjective… opinions on opinions on opinions.

    • Rva says:

      Because Bond girls are cast in much the same way as Victoria’s Secret models . A Bond girl IS basically a Victoria’s Secret model (physically) with acting talent and a heavy enough resume to still remain somewhat enigmatic . It’s a physical part, they have to be seductive, unattainable , a fantasy of sorts. Many A and B listers have never made the cut because they didn’t have that ‘thing’ that makes a Bond girl . You have to have the figure, the face, and the talent in that order , fortunately or not that’s just how these things work)

      • Tina says:

        Monica Bellucci (Spectre) is stunningly beautiful, but she was 50 in Spectre and doesn’t have the figure of a 20-something. Bond girls are different now than how they used to be, and there hasn’t been a non-white Bond girl since Halle Berry. I think it’s plausible.

      • LAK says:

        You can’t compare the showstoppingly beautiful Monica Bellucci with MM. Monica’s age and figure is completely irrelevant. She has always been showstoppingly beautiful and smouldering irrespective of her figure and age.

        Further, apart from her international profile outside the bond franchise, she is often cast as the showstopping beauty in english language films. The fact that she’s not 20something with a figure to match hasn’t bothered casting agents.

        Monica as bond girl is a case of ‘what took them so long?’

      • Tina says:

        I don’t know, LAK, I think Meghan is really beautiful. She’s incredibly hot in motion, much more so than in still photos. *shrugs*

      • Rhys says:

        Wasn’t Olga Kyrilenko (so), the Ukrainian born French model cast as Bond girl? She hardly had much on her resume.

        I also don’t think that age will be soon a problem. Not after Monica specifically and not in the way movies about hot women of (previously considered) older age dating whomever they want. Maybe it won’t be ever as acceptable as old men with young women but it’s nowhere near the way things were in the past.

      • LAK says:

        The bond girl types are pretty much showstoppingly beautiful, usually cast from modelling or beauty contests or ‘has international profile already’ and afew new British actresses whose looks more than make up for their wooden acting.

        MM is cute and pretty, but she is not bond girl type, and that’s oK. The world needs cute and pretty.

        Rhys: Olga whatshername was a model which is one of the areas the Bond people cast their nets when looking for Bond girls.

  26. Mimi says:

    Meghan’s name in any article seems to be click bait so it’s not surprising that journalists are making up stories about her. She moves dollars. This blog is exhibit A, sometimes posting multiple articles on her in the same day. Let’s not let logic get in the way however of assuming that there is any value to her team putting something so ridiculous out for consumption.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      Thank you. It makes no sense for her, now KP, PR team to put out this story in UK. She would want to move away from being known as a actress. Completely made up fiction.

      And the commenter above who mentioned her age and said, “she’s been around,” disgusting.

  27. whatever says:

    Lmao..this is classic PR spin to make it seem like she is giving up a promising career to marry a Prince a la Grace Kelly. It doesn’t work because the only roles she could get off her ‘Suits’ fame were Lifetime/Hallmark movies.

    • hmmm says:

      Perhaps it’s a PR attempt to elevate her so people would be more in awe of her as a Duchess, like they’re getting bang for their buck. Maybe it’s a way to mitigate disapproval or skepticism about her worthiness by artificially inflating her status as an actress.

      • Guest says:

        Or perhaps it’s a sun rag item that means nothing. Why would her pr team put this out. She’s already trashed for breathing at this point.

      • Luce says:

        @hmmm, this is the best take I have seen on it. Whether it be a misguided attempt by KP (and Lord knows, they’ve had aplenty) or her own team, this would make sense.

    • HappyXamp says:

      I really wish the tabloids would stop trying to spin her. I don’t know If she’s supposed to be the second coming of Diana, Grace, Teresa, or sliced bread some days.

    • Bea says:

      Yes I could see this if Meghan and Harry were still openly dating, but she has the ring and a wedding date set. What she has given up is no longer a concern of hers which she stated in the engagement interview. She’s fully committed to her new life. So this PR is no longer needed or valid, IMO. Which is why I don’t believe this came from her PR team.

  28. Skins says:

    She is much too busy playing the role of the prince’s fiancee to play a Bond girl.

  29. Maria says:

    She wasn’t Harry’s fiancée at the time. And this is only day 4. Doesn’t bode well for her.

  30. tearose11 says:

    Oh damn it’s April 1st already?

  31. Guest says:

    Imao, i’ve never seen a complete 180 on these boards about someone so fast. Meghan posts went from “omg I can’t wait for the wedding” to ” ugh shes fake etc” shes been trashed for really no reason. I thought people would be happy she’s starting to work. I mean she’s done almost 2 events since being engaged. Oh boy I bet Kate is happy. Meghan is getting worse hate atm this she is. Kate’s looking like a saint for the daily mail and royal blogs.

    I kind of love it. She’s got a pretty easy life now and it’s making her haters seeth. The wedding day is going to be great.

    • Milla says:

      You lost me at Kate. Is she gonna be the king or her husband?

      This is cos for some reason people saw Meghan as some kind of supernova. But the reality is she will be able to do more once she’s a royal. She will pick few charities and just walk in designer clothes. Royals should be seen, not heard, as the saying goes.

      The only thing we know is that we don’t know much about her. And that she’s marring into that family.

  32. Ashley says:

    Wow!!! The complete turn around on Megan on this site is just…SMH!!! I guess people were just being fake happy for her and Harry,this is why I don’t trust humans,never will. I wish her and Harry all the best.

    • Guest says:

      Wish them all the best too. Sure they will be fine. This woman hasn’t done anything to receive the hate she’s gotten. Now if the day comes and she becomes lazy then maybe.

    • Jayna says:

      I’m happy for them. I think Harry is adorable, charming. Meghan is beautiful and intelligent. I don’t think she’s the second coming that she was being portrayed as for a while. I had never heard of her. I think they are in love. But I don’t expect much from the BRF. They live a high life and go out and shake a lot of hands as their job and do some more meaningful work in smaller doses.

      When they have a baby, that will be a sweet time to see.

  33. Magdalin says:

    @Sam – Yes, exactly. To clarify my earlier post, I mean that her PR team was/has been quite savvy and smart. So, they either cannot be around any longer at all or at least not in the same capacity as before and KP is ruling the roost. KP PR has often been found lacking and something is just not right with what’s happening now PR-wise.

    In other words, Meghan has better things to do than put out stories like this. A royal wedding to plan, an upcoming event/engagement, a new duty/role to fulfill and Bond girl stories, no offense to anyone, wouldn’t exactly add to public respect. Not for an incoming Duchess. If it was a story about her being almost nominated for an Oscar or Golden Globe, or she passed up an iconic role but a studio totally wanted her for it – okay maybe.

    Something is amiss to me, not necessarily with her and Harry’s actions (if you can afford the dress, get it; if you want to run to Monaco, GO! and have fun) but with how they’re being translated to the media and public incorrectly. I have no horse in this race, obviously, but I feel badly for her. Not him so much.

    Maybe I’m wrong, though. Maybe the problem is that she does still have her team and they’re not able to handle royalty very well and were better suited for Hollywood purposes. Two completely different things that converge in tricky ways, but nonetheless, very different.

    • whatever says:

      A poster pointed out above that she is retaining her agent and PR person on to “field calls and offers” and such. It wouldn’t surprise me if she is doing this , the last half of Suits season 7 is still yet to air, she may have done some publicity/photoshoots to promote the show and her goodbye. They could have been kept on to handle that. Also, lets not forget she’s not married yet she can pay for her own team if she wants to until she becomes a proper member of The Firm.

      There has really been nothing to suggest that she has dump her own team in favour of being solely looked after by the KP PR team.

      • Sam says:

        @whatever The producers said they wrote her out a year ago so she won’t be required to and she didn’t even do any promotions for season 7 and she wasn’t engaged then,why would she for S7b?

      • whatever says:

        …because she is leaving the show, S7b will be her final goodbye. I think she will have done some publicity to acknowledge this but it will most likely be minimal.

    • Addie says:

      The PR company Meghan has (or had) back when her name started to leak as being involved with Harry could count on many high profile clients from politics, entertainment. I mean world famous people. They also represented Sarah Ferguson and if you recall, floated Beatrice as a possible speaker on that particular circuit. They have offices in London and the US. Sorry, can’t recall the company’s name! They also set up the One New World charity and regularly move their clients through it.

  34. Bbelle says:

    Her publicists must hate her. She needs to fire them

  35. HoustonGrl says:

    I felt she had a strong PR game until recently. They need to go in overdrive. Perhaps her Hollywood team isn’t suited or experienced enough to handle issues in the public sector. It’s an interesting comparison, actually. In the world of media and entertainment, you need to be glamorous, rich and talented. In the public sector, you need to be seen as serious, frugal and intelligent (even when you’re not).

    • LAK says:

      Your point is very apt about how MM’s new image is befuddling commentors on these stories.

      On the one hand, you have those that can’t or won’t recognise that the royals are in the public sector, not the entertainment sector. Both sectors as differently navigated as you describe, with different requirements to be deemed a success regardless of the reality.

      Very confusing when some royals cross lines into entertainment sector by offering fashion which isn’t a necessary requirement of their role and or offering only fashion and nothing else.

      Then you have MM coming from the entertainment sector and going about her new life as if she were still in the entertainment sector of glamour and red carpets instead of her new sector of public sector frugality and humility.

      In the entertainment sector, her she’s not put a foot wrong, but that same foot doesn’t play in the public sector. It reads completely differently.

      • HoustonGrl says:

        Thanks, I didn’t really make the connection until Kaiser pointed out the idea of a transition team! I’m sure it’s not easy to suddenly have a new country and a new organization (the Firm) to which you’re now marketing yourself. It will be interesting to see what changes she makes, as Kate had to do as well (remember when Richard Ward started blabbing to everyone and she suddenly stopped going to his salon?).

      • Addie says:

        The PR company Meghan has (or had) back when her name started to be linked with Harry could count on many high profile clients from politics, entertainment. I mean world famous people. They also represented Sarah Ferguson and if you recall, floated Beatrice as a possible speaker on that particular circuit. They have offices in London and the US. Sorry, can’t recall the company’s name! They also set up the One New World charity and regularly move their clients through it.

      • HoustonGrl says:

        @Addie, that’s interesting! I assumed her publicist (Mulroney?) was largely in charge, but I guess she’s more of an image/style consultant.

  36. Veronica says:

    Meghan was a “rising star”? What is the evidence for this?
    This is way too “ try hard,” regardless of whomcame up with it!

  37. M.A.F. says:

    Frankly, I see can this story being generated from all sides. I can for sure see her PR team doing this (how many of you claim Kate does this when her and Will are dragged for not working?). I can also see the royal PR firm doing this (forget about that vacation to the South of France, talk about this). And I can for sure see some bored journalist doing this. And why? Because it gets her on the front page of the internet/cable entertainment news that’s why.

    • Sam says:

      @MAF the story came out last week so I don’t think it’s royal PR trying to distract us from their trip and IMO it wasn’t a big deal and people were just doing too much

      • M.A.F. says:

        You’re right. I seemed to have read about this a few days ago. Not to knock this site but there have a been a few stories that they cover days and/or weeks after it was originally reported else where.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Sells papers and they have skin in this game and need to create a persona to use to praise or beat up for the long haul. They want to build her up to sell more rags when she messes up. If they are too nasty, then KP will strike back and cut them off, so they try to be sly. It doesn’t help them in the future to be too nasty and turn into a villain.

  38. peace says:

    LAK, I agree with you completely. MMs PR is still operating as if shes still in hollywood. The bond story is a response by her PR to those who describe her as a C-list actress in a third rate tv that doesnt have up to 200k viewers whom no one knew until she met Harry. Heck, the general consensus was that her association with Harry landed her the Vanity Fair cover which is usually reserved for A and B listers. In hollywood, how is this type of shade usually handled? Plant stories about how you were been sought after by Stephen Spiegel and how there are plans to make you the next bond girl or the game of thrones main act
    In Hollywood, her PR wouldn’t have been criticised for any of the steps shes taken so far (the $75 dress, partying with Monaco tycoons, etc.) that’s what hollywood is meant for – hype.
    But this is a different ball game. Even before the announcement of her engagement, British taxpayers funds were being used to cater for her. So, the expectations are different.

  39. Ab says:

    Lak , But you are not just criticizing her lack of “ humility “ and frugality “ in the public sector after just two appearances, every thing about her is being attacked now and it’s pretty obvious that a lot of people were just waiting for a reason to tear her down . I get why media outlets like Dm do it, but why do women who deny race, age, physical attributes or anger as motivation , take so much joy in tearing down a fellow woman in a society that is already so misogynistic.?

    • LAK says:

      Firstly, you need to calm down and stop reinterpreting comments based upon your own prejudices.

      Pointing out the different spheres of entertainment vs public sector is not tautamount to misogyny.

      Pointing out that so far MM’s mistakes are taking markers of one sector and using them in another which doesn’t play as well isn’t tautamount to misogyny.

      And by the way, if you think my comments are misogynistic then you don’t know what that word means because nothing in my statement is belittling, exclusionary, objectifying or androcentric.

  40. Lo says:

    I think her PR team threw this out there after being called out on her lies by her half sister. There are already 2 BG about Meghan lying to Harry about her childhood.
    She was never up for a Bond Girl role, she was a Zzzz list actress who never made it big to Hollywood. All she had was a B list cable show nobody watched.
    And she apparenlty leaked a story about Kate to Lainey back in 2017.

    I personally think Harry should have gotten to know her a bit longer before getting engaged. They only were dating for 1 year and it was a long distance relationship as well. She was already divorced and was called out by her best friend for being a social climber.
    I love the double standards here as well. Kate would get criticized if she wore a 75K Ralph and Russo engagement dress and partied with billionaires in Monaco while claiming to be a humanitarian like MM did. I think MM is a a user and an oppertunist.

    • Sam says:

      Loool those blinds came after Harry’s comment and let be real,a lot of them come from delusional crazy MM haters that brag about making up fake stories and posting them on those sites and all of them have been wrong but go on…

      • Lo says:

        I think it says alot about her how she is not close with her family and how she dumped her best friend, husband, dogs, live-in boyfreind to chase money and fame.

        Nobody hates MM. People see her for the social climber and opportunist she is.

      • Natalie S says:

        @Lo. Not everyone is lucky enough to come from an emotionally healthy family. Her family’s antics speak volumes about what kind of people they are. Her best friend and ex-husband are trying to make money off their connection to Meghan.

        I don’t know the time-line on the boyfriend. No one outside of people close to them know it and the ex-boyfriend hasn’t said anything. She took one dog and had to leave the other behind. They haven’t specified the reason, so on that one I have nothing.

        Personally, I’m giving Harry and Meghan a year which was what I gave Will and Kate.

      • Karen says:

        I like the one year give them a chance statement. If they don’t work then give up on them.

        I don’t care who walks her down the aisle. In the Jewish religion both parents walk the bride. I don’t care about the dress because it was purchased at a discount or given for free for publicity. She has one of her dogs with her. I don’t care that they went away for NY Eve. Everyone does.

        Much of this nonsense created by the Daily Fail and creepy family.

    • Maria says:

      Firstly, she was finished with her husband years before she met Harry. And she did not dump her dog. He is with her ex bf’s in Toronto. Her parents divorced when she was 6. So she bonded with her mother. I’m still not keen on the 75k dress but let’s keep the other stuff in perspective

  41. Rva says:

    You know , especially being in a position of such privilege before and after the announcement , it would have been pretty easy to just go out and do humanitarian things and let the work speak for itself. The reason people have so much ammo right now is because we have all been hearing really loud resume accolades for months and no real work to back it up. The reason people loved Diana is because she went into the field and got her hands dirty , she showed genuine interest in others. That’s also why no one really cared about the price of her clothes. But when both your parents had to file for bankruptcy a few years ago for trivial amounts like 15-30k , a 75k dress speaks volumes about where one’s priorities lie. Personally even if I did not have the money to help my parents back then , which was not true in this case, I would know better than to flaunt it here and now considering that bit of past.

    • Maria says:

      She just stopped working a month ago. Was she supposed to throw herself into charity work the day after she arrived in the UK?

      • Rva says:

        Not at all , she hailed as a humanitarian for years prior to this engagement but the extent of the humanitarian work has been a couple of articles, speeches and a photo op with world vision. I mean seriously good for her and her PR team , they’ve clearly done a brilliant job. I’m just playing devils advocate for people who do hands on humanitarian work every week and don’t necessarily toot their own horn for it half as much as has been done here. I hope that again given the privilege and the position it is used to change the world , because I think we’d all much rather have her be another Incredible woman who goes down in history for all that she did for others rather than what many people are accusing her of. Right? But for now I have friends who have hands on done a lot A LOT more days in service to others in third world countries last year who do not call themselves humanitarians, they just let the work speak for itself (nor do they care if anyone even pays them on the back for it), that I can stand behind

      • Lizzo says:

        If she wanted to make a good first impression in her new job (because it is) – especially in the current media climate with the other two – would that be such a bad idea? It would be the savvy play

    • Natalie S says:

      People cared about how much Diana’s clothes cost. She got flak for spending too. There’s a story in the book put out by their housekeeper of Diana getting upset because she had spotted driving a new luxury car.

    • Ann says:

      @Rva-what a thoughtful and beautiful post :)

  42. Sienna says:

    I think Meghan is getting some flack for not being genuine and/or being a social climber by some things that have been reported in the media. I’ve read stories that stated she left her husband for the celebrity chef in Toronto, and then left the celebrity chef (whom she was living with at the time) for Harry. I do think there is some merit to that. In their televised interview she said that they dated a year and a half to 2 years before getting engaged. Their blind date reported took place in mid July 2016 and their engagement the beginning of November 2017. That’s 15 and a half months at best. I’ve read that she actually first met Harry in May 2016 (when she was still living with her celebrity chef boyfriend) which is closer to the 18 months to 2 years that she stated in their engagement interview. I just don’t understand why she felt the need to overstate the time period of their relationship. I’m sure they knew going in what types of questions they were going to be asked.

    I also do put some merit into what her former best friend had to say. They were best friends from the age of 2 until Meghan divorced her first husband. Her former best friend was appalled by Meghan’s behavior when she divorced her husband, and I’m wondering if that had to do with the fact that she divorced her husband for the celebrity chef? Her former best friend also said that she saw a change in Meghan with the more fame she gained. She said she would dump people when she no longer had a use for them for new friends, thus the social climbing label some have given her.

    As for her half sister Samantha, I take what Samantha says about her with a grain of salt. There are however pictures of them together from about 8-10 years ago. Something happened to cause Meghan to become estranged from the vast majority of her family at that time. Samantha seems to think it was social climbing (in that she no longer had use for a family who would drag her down), but perhaps it was something else?

    I think part of what has added fuel to the fire is that all of this has happened so quickly. They haven’t been dating very long at all, and all of that time it has been long distance. Do they really even know each other?

    She’s part of the royal family now, so everything she does is going to be scrutinized from now on. I just remember all the years Kate was dating William and all the scrutiny she had to go through. Meghan’s been through nothing yet in comparison. They’re still going to get some negative comments no matter what, but buying a $55,000 dress for your engagement photos and jetsetting off to Monaco (even for a short holiday) is certainly not going to do anything to silence the critics, imo.

    • HoustonGrl says:

      I agree that they fudged the timeline of their relationship multiple times even throughout the interview. On the one hand they were trying to make it sound like they’d been dating longer than they actually had, and on the other hand it seemed like they wanted to hide the start date. I’m sorry, but how do you not know exactly when you started dating when you met the person on a blind date and they end up being the one? They kept skirting around the issue acting puzzled when they recounted the story of how they met. Like you said, it’s not like they didn’t know they would be asked these questions?! 15 months is not a year and a half. Personally I don’t care if she was married before or if she started dating Harry right after her ex. I do think there was overlap though, and that’s shady.

    • Jayna says:

      I dismiss anything Samantha sells to the Daily Fail.

    • PiMO says:

      The messing up of the timeline is why I think it makes more sense that they met in May and she was still with her boyfriend.

      She said in Vanity Fair interview that they had been quietly dating for about six months before the news came out. May to late October is about six months. July to late October is only three-four months. Then VF had a correction at the end of the article stating they met in July.

      Same mistake at the engagement interview.

      It is not that difficult to get the timeline right. Especially when you know you were going to be asked about that.

      Why not reveal that they met in May if there was no overlap?

      • Sam says:

        Maybe because they didn’t?Harry was in Toronto from 2nd may and then landed in Florida on the 4th while Meghan was still in NYC.

    • Andrea says:

      People dump people for others all the time. I have broken up with every boyfriend I have had for someone else. I know several other women like this also. Non-story.

  43. Paula says:

    Either way, I have a feeling there won’t be a wedding, or if there is, MM and Prince Harry will stay married for 2 years tops. I don’t think they know each other very well and MM has a history of using and dumping people. I think she will walk away with a large lump sum, some of Diana’s jewelry and the world wide fame she always craved.

    • Jayna says:

      You have no idea if she uses and dumps people. She got divorced. No one knows what was wrong with her marriage. And many people get married and they outgrow the person. There were no kids involved. And no one knows about the chef. He could have been someone that was pulling away or not into marriage or kids for many years.

      No one knows Meghan’s heart and feelings.

      I have no doubt there will be a wedding. They are in love. Now, if it lasts, or how long it lasts, no one can predict that this early. Hopefully, a long time. But then I’m someone who thinks Kate and William have a strong marriage, unlike so many of the naysayers on here talking about how miserable they are, or he is.

      For Diana and Charles, the cracks showed and there began to be long separations, so people knew there was trouble.

      • Deanne says:

        They tend to look miserable, but I think that’s their dislike of having the duties they have, rather than not being happily married. I think that they actually have a happy little family. Their closeness to their children is evident and they don’t have to hang off of each other to prove their love. A lot of people who put on a ‘oh God, look how ecstatically happy we are’ on Facebook and Insta, are the unhappiest people I know. I don’t see cracks with Will and Kate at all.

    • seesittellsit says:

      I have no idea how long they will be married, but that wedding will be cancelled over someone’s dead body.

  44. mannori says:

    LOL She was barely in any shortlist for any role at all, less a Bond Girl role! Is embarrassing how this PR people (royal PR or her own?) make it so obvious the fact that this ridiculous news they’re putting out are trying to enhance her profile and her image. She was a very mediocre actress, not even making the C list and is perfect fine that way. I also feel second hand embarrassment when I read her described as a seasoned pro handling the public and press when in reality we all saw how nervous and overwhelmed she was, clinging to her fiancee scared sh*tless. Which is normal for anyone who’s never faced this type of scrutiny. Is not like she’s a Nicole Kidman and has years of dealing with the cameras and the press and public.

  45. Rachel says:

    The hate Meghan gets is a bit different from the hate Kate got and gets. With Kate it was mostly coming from people on the London society scene, and only later did the general public jump on the waity and later lazy do-little train.

    With Kate it was all about her as a royal, whereas with Meghan it’s more just about celebrity culture. The things being said about Meghan are word word identical to the things being said about Cumberbatch’s wife, the wife of that 50 Shades actor, the wives of those two Supernatural actors, and basically anyone who dates or married one of Tumblr’s boyfriends. You know, the girlfriend/wife is ALWAYS a grasping famewhore, the relationship always starts out as fake for PR, then the girl somehow manages to force/blackmail/manipulate the poor helpless lil baby celebrity into agreeing to a fake relationship or marriage. Any kids are faked and either plastic dolls or hired baby actors. Oh yeah and every single hot male celeb is dating/married to a woman with narcissistic personality disorder who is a former sex worker of some variety and has criminal links. And every single time, the only people who know and have insider sources are random Tumblr blogs and CDAN. You could set your watch by it.

  46. Sienna says:

    If it’s no big deal to break up with someone for another person, then why lie about the timeline? Their romance was outed by the media late October 2016. If they had been quietly dating for 6 months, then that would mean they first met late April 2016. If that’s the case, then why the narrative that they first met on a blind date in July 2016? Something is not making sense here. If they don’t want people to speculate, then they should have gotten their story straight. Did they think the public would not question this? If they’re lying about when/how they met, then what else are they lying about? If they can’t be truthful about a simple thing like how and when they first met, then they’re going to appear disingenuous to the public.

    • HoustonGrl says:

      +100000. It just doesn’t add up. The weirdest part was their play acting about how they didn’t remember the details. Hello, it wasn’t that long ago.

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      The roast chicken. The roast chicken was most definitely also a lie!

    • Princessk says:

      It really is just not anyone’s business to know the exact date and hour they met. If they want to be vague about it they can because it is their relationship. For heavens sake allow them to keep some aspects of their relationship under wraps, some of you sound as though you would like to follow them into the bedroom just so you can make critical remarks.

  47. Sienna says:

    I agree, it wasn’t that long ago, so they shouldn’t have that much trouble remembering this aspect of their relationship. It’s just very offputting to me that they can’t tell the truth about this. There was also a part in their engagement interview when Meghan said something like they were dating for a year and a half to 2 years. Well, which is it? There’s a huge 6 months difference between those 2 time frames. Harry even corrected her and said a year and a half which isn’t even accurate going by the July 2016 blind date timeline. If they were dating 2 years (like Meghan was trying to insinuate), then they would have starting dating October 2015. It seems like Meghan wants to exaggerate the length of their relationship. Why? To make the timing of their engagement more acceptable? Even if they were dating 2 years (which they weren’t) it would still be a tight timeline for most people for such long distance dating. I’m sure their high profile, celebrity status exacerbates everything.

  48. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Well this thread is full of racist BS.

  49. Olenna says:

    Yes, really pathological.