Andrew Morton: Meghan Markle had only become single ‘recently’ when she met Harry

Harry Meghan Northern Ireland

The New York Post has published an excerpt from Andrew Morton’s e-book, Meghan, A Hollywood Princess. I’ve been saying that it sounded like Morton had merely spoken to the people who had gotten dumped by Meghan Markle over the years, from her ex-husband to her tacky friends (who were eager to sell her out). But this excerpt makes me think that Morton had a few sources who are still IN Meghan’s circle, or perhaps Harry’s circle, or perhaps both. This excerpt details how Meghan and Harry were first set up on their blind date, and everything around it. It’s an interesting read, for what it’s worth. Morton actually puts down a good timeline. Here are some details I found notable:

In June 2016, Meghan was flying from Greece to London. She had organized a bachelorette party on the island of Hydra for her college friend Lindsay Jill Roth. Meg was maid of honor, and she organized the long weekend, then she flew to London.

Where Meghan was romantically at the time: Morton writes: “Meghan’s own relationship with Canadian chef and restaurateur Cory Vitiello had recently ended, having withered on the vine as both of their lives became busier and busier, and she likely relished time away from Toronto and the house they had shared there.”

Why she was in London: “She was officially flying to London for a week to promote the upcoming season of “Suits” and to attend Wimbledon as a guest of Ralph Lauren’s fashion house. And, although the newly single actress was open to finding new love, she never expected to be set up with a real-life prince charming.” She attended Wimbledon, watched Serena Williams win, and went out for drinks with “Twitter buddy” Piers Morgan.

It was during that trip to London that she met Violet von Westernholz: “While in London, reportedly from the end of June until early July, Meghan was working closely with Violet von Westenholz, a Ralph Lauren public relations executive. “How much more can I adore this gem,” an effusive Meghan wrote on Instagram of her new bestie. Not only is von Westenholz a well‑connected fashion maven, but her father, interior designer Baron Piers von Westenholz, is a friend of Prince Charles. For years Violet and her sister Victoria had joined Princes Charles, William and Harry on annual skiing trips to Switzerland. In fact, Victoria was once seen as a possible match for Harry. Instead, it seems likely that Violet set up Meghan and the prince on their blind date, which probably took place at Soho House during her visit to the city.

Harry in his 20s: “He [had become] notorious as an angry drunk who lurched out of London nightclubs, ready to throw a punch at the paparazzi who dogged his every footstep….For years, he was carefully protected by highly paid public relations professionals who smoothed over his public escapades….If Meghan had been in his life at that time, she would not have been impressed by his casual racism. Nor were others. “He was a very lost young man,” a former royal official told me. “Harry was deeply troubled, unhappy, and immature, imbued with the slanted, quietly racist views of those from his class and background.”

Meghan’s friend Markus Anderson helped facilitate the first date: “While Violet von Westenholz had the royal connections, Meghan’s friend Markus Anderson, the brand ambassador for Soho House who had just vacationed in Madrid with the actress, was on hand to rustle up a private room at the members-only club for an intimate evening away from prying eyes.”

Harry’s mood for the blind date: Harry had just returned from France, where he was helping to commemorate the Battle of Somme. Morton writes, “He returned to London in somber spirits…Until the day of the blind date. Upon meeting Meghan and learning that she had given a speech at a UN forum, the prince realized — as he subsequently confessed — that he would have to up his game.”

Harry locked down a second date during their first date: They had their first date and said their goodbyes without anyone inviting the other back to his or her place (ie, they didn’t sleep together on the first date). But Harry had asked her out for the next day and Meghan “perhaps wondered if she had been too eager to accept his invitation to meet again the following day.” She was due back in Toronto on July 5. She and Harry reportedly saw each other several days in a row. And then, Morton writes: “When Harry asked if she would be interested in joining him on a safari for a few days in August — mere weeks after their first meeting — she found herself saying, “Yes, please.” And after that, it was love. They were already planning their future together.

[From Page Six]

Several things interest me all at once. One, Morton’s timeline says that Meghan was fully single when she went on her first date with Harry. Other sources, in the past, claimed that Meghan and Cory Vitiello weren’t officially over though. Do you believe Morton? Two, I actually believe that everything was fast-tracked and they just hit it off right away. His light was on (SATC reference). He was ready. He was looking for someone to marry and Meghan was right there and they sparked. Three, how well-connected was Meghan already? She wasn’t even the lead in her cable drama and she was getting invitations to Wimbledon from the Ralph Lauren brand? Wow. And she was close friends with the Soho House guy. Meghan and Harry were already sort of in each other’s circles, it feels like. It was almost as if it was just a matter of time before they met. Destiny.

Prince Harry and fiancee Meghan Markle during a visit to Cardiff Castle as part of their royal duties

Prince Harry and fiancee Meghan Markle during a visit to Cardiff Castle as part of their royal duties

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News and WENN.

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

180 Responses to “Andrew Morton: Meghan Markle had only become single ‘recently’ when she met Harry”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maya says:

    She glows in those pictures and they look well suited.

    As long as she was single even if it was only 1 day then who cares. She was single and ready to mingle. If no children are involved in a divorce/breakup and they broke up before getting together with someone straightaway then that’s acceptable.

    • Rhys says:

      So what about Harry in his 30s? Is he a changed man now or what?

    • Escondista says:

      I met my (now) husband while I was dating someone else. I liked my husband more. I was asked on a date and said no, I went home and dumped my then boyfriend, texted and went out with my husband that night. We were married 4 months later and I love him more every day! We have a 2 year old and another on the way now and life just gets better.
      Did I feel terrible for my then boyfriend? Yeah but why string someone along when you know your heart is elsewhere?

      • magnoliarose says:

        You did your bf a favor. It is kinder in the long run, and he became free to meet someone else or do whatever he wanted to do. I wasn’t technically single either when I met my husband, but I was settled down either.
        I resisted though. I liked my life and was allergic to serious entanglements at the time, but from the first meeting, he was different.
        You just know when someone isn’t like the others.

      • Liberty says:

        @magnoliarose, I agree. Very similar story with Mr L. It can happen when you least expect it, or want it. But, you just know.

  2. RBC says:

    Why all the hit pieces on Meghan? It just seems like every other day there is another person attacking Meghan and her motives for marrying Harry. I don’t recall Diana or Sarah getting so much negative press when they became engaged to Charles and Andrew.
    Is it because she is a divorced American or I hate to bring up the subject because of her ethnic background?

    • Leyton says:

      I think some have a rather biased view on Royals. The mess that occurred in the 90′s seemed to have slipped everyone’s mind because Meghan is some terrible American bringing her black blood into this rather inbred family (so many cousins married cousins and etc.). They don’t think she’s good enough for them for a number of reasons (nationality, ethnicity, past relationships, age, etc) and they are going to take every chance to show that. The media can’t pick their lane honestly, they don’t know which narrative to push, they just want it to be a negative one.

      These bottom of the barrel people who Meghan parted ways with are the only ones willing to talk and even they aren’t saying anything bad but its spun into some huge story.

      • AnnaKist says:

        I completely agree with you, Leyton. I’m confused, though. If MM is chummy enough with Piers Morgan to meet up with him in London, and given his ties to the Daily Mail, does he not have any pull to tone down the stories about Meghan in that rag, or at least not allow comments on stories to do with her and Harry? Every time an article about her and Harry is published, she gets absolutely slammed by her many critics, some of whom say the most disgusting things, disguised with creative spelling or not. Two of my comments, defending this woman on such stories, have been removed because of “complaints”. Both times, I pushed back, emailing DM and questioning why my comments – not racist, homophobic, sexist, not attacking other commenters, not insulting or rude towards anyone – were removed, given the despicable comments they’d allowed. One of my comments was returned to its place, the other wasn’t. I don’t know about other publications, but DM definitely uses Meghan as click bait. I don’t have any particular loyalty to MM or Harry, but what is said about her is very disheartening.

      • PrincessK says:

        Piers Morgan is awful and not to be trusted, I am sure that Meghan has now been warned not to touch him with a barge pole. Piers will say and do anything to grab a headline.

      • PrincessK says:

        It is not the RF itself that has it in for Meghan, its the right wing Brexiteer moronic types.

      • Sage says:

        I’m sure they’re some courtiers that do not want her representing the BRF brand.

      • LAK says:

        Sage: There are enough black courtiers and royal household staff, including the Queen’s Equerry, to disprove your assumption.

      • Peg says:

        @PrincessK
        Piers said, Meghan dropped him after her first date with Harry and he never heard from her again, implied Harry got into her ear.
        They were acquaintances.

    • Citresse says:

      Diana was arguably more blue-blooded than Charles and Sarah had close connections to the royals via her father; old money and of course both were British born and raised. Meghan is seen as an outsider and a maverick to some degree. I think it generates more criticism but it also demonstrates how much the royal family has changed with the times.

    • 42istheanswer says:

      Diana was in her late teens when the engagement with Charles was announced. She had no life to speak of before she got married so the press had virtually nothing to talk about.
      Sarah was 27 so there were at least a couple of former boyfriends of hers the British tabloids could interview/talk about but overall, she too had had a pretty uneventful life prior to becoming Andrew’s fiancée so there wasn’t much to publish.

      The amount of flack Meghan is getting now is pretty on par with what Kate received pre-wedding. In parallel with the fluff pieces (which Meghan is getting as well), Kate was then implicitly called pathetic and/or ruthless for having “waited for” William and her family (especially her mother) was branded as lowly social climbers; now Meghan is implictly called floozy for having divorced and her family is branded as trailer trash. No matter how vile, both their pre-marriage coverages are similar in negativity.

      • LAK says:

        I think it’s on a par sans the racist pieces. Not saying racism isn’t bad, but Kate was called out in classist and sexist and misogynist ways.

        People forget that the overriding think pieces about Kate were not that she was middle class, but that she was descended from coalminers as if her family left the mines a minute before the engagement. Additionally, the nicknames that described her relationship with William in varying degrees of horrifying from Waity to Mattress.

        People also forget that the Middletons hired the editor of the Mail on Sunday to supervise their media presence which went a long way to improving their media standing AND as soon as the engagement was announced, William sent his people to all the media editors with instructions to stop the negative articles about Kate which led to this gloriously disingenuous article from the DM : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2078175/Kate-Middleton-Im-sorry-getting-wrong.html

        The positive PR went into overdrive once the engagement was announced and over corrected to the point we were all expecting miracles because she was repeatedly described as dazzling and super educated and modern and a breath of fresh air with the very good ethics and morals of the middle classes (nevermind the coalminers) etc etc and so forth. Britain, nevermind William, was bloody lucky to have her join the family.

        If they could do it to Kate who should have had heir-adjacent protection, they were definitely going to do it to all the spare-adjacent women. It’s horrifying because of the race aspect, but if you followed how Chelsy was treated, it wouldn’t surprise you.

      • magnoliarose says:

        The racism aspect is what makes it worse, and it gives the coverage a different uglier tone.
        However, Piers has only said nice things about MM. I don’t think his personal beliefs override his lack of values or decency. He’s a yellow journalist, and that is what he does.
        I do remember some of the nasty Chelsy coverage. I felt sorry for her because it was very mean. Basically, they made her out to be a hard-partying, druggy slut who lived a dissipated lifestyle not fit for the BRF. They constantly showed photos of her bad self-tanner looking orange.
        Minus the racist nonsense, they haven’t gone to Chelsy levels of nasty. They shade Pippa all the time though not as hard as some Americans did and do. The Pippa is lucky the British press has been as nice as they have because they have plenty they could publish but don’t.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @magnoliarose
        I find the racism aspect to be more present in the American publications, to be honest. In the UK, it’s mostly unadulterated xenophobia Meghan is targeted with, not that it’s any better of course. Her “foreign-ness” is repeated ad nauseam in some papers and it’s always presented in a particularly negative light : “she’s not going to adapt”, “she doesn’t know us, our customs or our culture”, “this foreigner’s lifestyle is going to be paid by the British taxpayer”, “she’s never going to fit in”…

        I get that the Brits were once traumatised by an American divorcée’s link to a royal but the treatment of Meghan’s non-Britishness goes well beyond that. It’s xenophobia at its worst and is shockingly similar to the sort of nauseating attacks that were thrown at Greek-German Philip in the forties !

        @LAK
        Very true. The awfully misogynistic (I had forgotten about the “Mattress” thing… It makes me shudder to think back on it) and classist (I never understood what was wrong with being a coalminer) attacks on Kate mostly happened pre-engagement, though the attacks on her family’s so-called social-climbing ways continue to this day. Which is both amusing and depressing, as far as I’m concerned. The Middletons are self-made people : they weren’t born into privilege and worked to ascend in society. They (like Meghan’s parents) are, in this regard, far more respectable to me than the Windsors will ever be.

        As for Chelsy, yes. The poor young woman was subjected to lamentable coverage as well. British tabloids have always been misogynistic and female royals (or putative royals), aside from the Queen, are never spared its viciousness. The revolting hit pieces written about Sarah and Camilla over the years could fill several volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Does anyone know what American publications have been racist, even subtly so? I ask because I’ve seen only great coverage over here about Meghan. Town and Country, very upper-crust, is very pro-Meghan.

      • Tina says:

        I think the British press has been worse. Nothing, for me, has approached the Daily Mail’s “straight out of Compton” article.

      • Marr says:

        @Tina
        Or the ‘niggling feeling’ article. Barf

    • MRsBump says:

      We live in the age of rapid, easily consumed information basically junk food media. That didn’t exist in the Diana era. When kate got married, there were plenty of less than flattering portraits of her, her sister, her social climbing mother and her dodgy uncle. Since most people on this site dislike her, the articles about Kate read as accurate news rather than “hit pieces”.
      Meghan is just receiving the same sort of treatment meted out to any woman considered newsworthy, i.e. being attractive and young. Those are sadly the only criteria the media cares about.
      Frankly who cares what stage she was in her previous relationship when she met Harry. Her ex doesn’t mind, so why should anyone? Aristocratic girls might not give a damn, but any regular middle class girl would jump at the chance of meeting a prince even 1 day out of a relationship.
      For all the flak we give Kate here, i’m sure many many women would be Waity Katies if their parents had enough money for them not having to get a job and the guy they were waiting for just happened to the future king of England.

      • Nic919 says:

        Many women actually did not want to wait for William and cater to his whims, especially the aristocratic women who had their own money. Kate was the only one prepared to put her life on hold for him until her decided what he wanted to do. While commenting on her family’s origins is classist nonsense, the comments about her lack of work ethic have proven to be true seven years post marriage.

      • MRsBump says:

        Neither Will nor Harry could pull an aristocratic girl but as i said in my original comment, many (relatively) rich middle class girls would give their right arm to marry the future king of England. Kate may be lazy but she’s hardly the only woman who’d put her life on hold in that situation. Meghan who’s worked so hard to become an actress just dropped it all to marry Harry. I’m not about to take the moral high ground on either of those situations.

      • kloh says:

        This comment is so true. “Since most people on this site dislike her, the articles about Kate read as accurate news rather than “hit pieces”. Kate had it just as bad – not including the racism. Every little piece of gossip is turned into hard facts! There are many accurate stories about Kate but there are also fabricated ones. It’s interesting because people are doing the same to Meghan. Taking the negative pieces as facts.

    • someone says:

      If you read the comments under any Daily Mail story about Meghan you’d think 100% of the general population in England hate her. Comment after comment about what a fake she is, how she will embarrass Harry, how she’s using him……I feel sorry for Meghan. She’s living in a country that seems to hate her existence.

    • Msthang says:

      Hardly anyone had a home computer in the 80′s, but they probably would have been crucified due to social media!!

  3. Roe says:

    It pays to be well connected no matter what

    • Rhys says:

      Most definitely. And wow she is a supreme networker indeed!

      • kloh says:

        She climbed to be connected, in the same way as the Midds did. I don’t see a problem with it, but many on here obviously do.. hence the social climbing nicknames for Kate and Pippa. Meghan climbed and networked in silence, I guess that’s the difference.
        Some people make connections solely for their professional lives, some people make the right connections for their social/personal lives, and some do both.. aka Meghan.

      • LAK says:

        There is a nuanced difference in how the Middletons did it, and it’s that difference that invites mocking.

      • kloh says:

        I don’t disagree, LAK. After reading comments elsewhere, it looks like people are putting down Meghan in the same way. Throw in the fact she is biracial, and it gets ugly pretty fast. In other countries/cultures, social mobility is applauded, but in Britain, it’s looked down upon by many. People seem to think others should stay in their designated boxes, moving up is seen as gold digging and social climbing. They put a negative spin on trying to better your family! I know everyone isn’t like this…but in a way, it’s funny because the Royal families and the aristocracy invented classism and their “subjects” hold steadfast to the same outdated views.
        I saw you explained it better in another post below.

    • Frida says:

      Something shady: Her random drinks with “twitter buddy” Piers Morgan. Um, WTF is this? I love this whole Harry/Meghan thing as much as the rest of you, but how odd that she would meet with the creep editor of the DM JUST before she started dating Harry. As if trying to plant a seed with the UK press, maybe? I duno, it’s weird.

  4. Ankhel says:

    “… she likely relished time away from Toronto and the house they had shared there.”

    Were one or both of them still staying in their home?

  5. Citresse says:

    It’s one thing to be involved with LA-Toronto entertainment connections but the Mulroney family is a closed system. It would take a lot more than a few TV interviews with Ben Mulroney or yoga classes with his wife to break into that circle, I wonder how MM did it?

    • ScottieIsBack says:

      Jessica was initially her stylist.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Those circles aren’t as closed as people think for people like Meghan. I mean they are, but if someone from that circle takes a liking to someone, then they bring them inside. If that person is liked by more people in the loop, they become part of the circle. She had enough money, glamor, looks, and personality to make the most of the opportunity. Toronto isn’t New York or Paris where the social scene can be inside and transatlantic. Fame and celebrity mean very little if the person isn’t interesting or messy.

    • Meggles says:

      I’m not North American but I’m a bit sceptical that some random Canadian TV presenters (yes I know his dad used to be PM, but even still) represent such ‘high society’ it would be impossible to gain access. Most social groups are pretty easy to get into once you have a foot in the door, as long as you’re reasonably personable. I only wrote my first screenplay 8 years ago not having any industry connections, and I pretty much know everyone in the UK TV/theatre scene now. Not because I’m special but because it’s a very tiny world as most social circles are. And people are just people. If you’re nice and treat celebs like anyone else, it’s not any harder to make friends with them than with anyone else.

    • Nic919 says:

      Ben Mulroney works for etalk which is the Canadian version of Entertainment Tonight so he would be in contact with movie and tv people all the time, especially if they filmed in Toronto. I don’t think it would be hard at all to make friends with him or his wife, who is basically a socialite. Ben would have interviewed Meghan once Suits started filming and especially because it was doing well for a cable show.

    • kloh says:

      Her ex Cory the chef was already well placed in those circles. It makes sense that she used that opportunity. She started a fresh new life in Toronto and being with him definitely helped. Girl knows how to network her ass off!

  6. Beta says:

    Cory and his mother gave interviews to the Daily Mail this weekend. Both had only nice things to say about her, especially his mother. Both said that they were single when Meghan met Harry.
    Meghan and Cory’s mum were still in contact a few months later and Meghan actually texted her to say she has met someone new just a while before the relationship with Harry was outed.

  7. Leyton says:

    Corey and his mother gave quotes to the Daily Mail *shudders* and I think it was the mom who said they had been broken up for three months prior or something like that.

    Either way, It’s not my business to figure out a timeline. It all happened quickly but like someone said, she wasn’t married to the guy and there are no children involved. Life happens. She broke up with one guy and end up on a blind date with the man she is now marrying. Life comes at you fast like that.

    I’m sure Meghan never thought in a million years she would be where she is at and yet, here we are! Everyone needs to relax and finalize their plans to watch this wedding in a month!

  8. Shotcaller says:

    There was speculation about the timeline before the engagement. I blame society for giving a toss and I blame Meghan and Harry for at least not getting their stories straight. Meghan’s Vanity Fair piece and their engagement interview was a bit wonky in that area.

    They met in late spring 2016 but their story is summer. By trying to avoid overlap they’re sending the message that royal brides must have absolutely no romantic entanglements to shade their character or motives. Hard eyeroll. The truth is that Meghan’s IG followers noticed she spent Valentine’s Day alone and flooded Cory’s social media feed with gentle protests. A month later they were on vacay in Cabo but all of Meghan’s posts/pics were about the food and drinks.

    Cheating rumors were swirling around Cory before Harry came into the picture. Still, if he checked out of the relationship I think it’s even more romantic that she was swept off her unusually narrow feet by a charming prince. :)

    • Beta says:

      They met in June/July 2016 while Meghan was in London for a week, which is exactly what they said-

      • Whatever says:

        Their answer in the engagement interview….

        REPORTER: ….and this is how long after you first met?

        MEGHAN: It would be a year and a half..2 years…a bit more than that?

        HARRY: No its about a year and a half

        I just have to laugh, how is it possible to mess up this answer? This question would have been the most obvious question to ask in an engagement interview. The couple would have known it was coming and would have been told by couriers/the palace PR to prepare an answer to this question.

        They have themselves to blame regarding the speculation of the timeline because as mentioned above ,they couldn’t get their story straight.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Meg gave the right answer first. It was a year and a half. Why she started babbling on about how maybe it was more is beyond me. Nerves, maybe? But I think they had the timeline down. Meg just fluffed up.

      • llamas says:

        She said they had been quietly dating for about 6 months before it became public which would be April or May – not June or July. Plus a year and a half by the engagement would also be May.

      • PrincessK says:

        Oh geez…what does it really matter? Loads of people meet new partners while still with old partners, that is life actually. People are wringing all they can out of this silly little story which has been repeated time and time again. Basically it is because there are no new interesting stories.

        Once the wedding preparations move into top gear and Doria arrives in London, this story will be relegated to the back room. The wedding dress, the bridal train, Mr Markle Snr, the guests, and the ceremony and the honeymoon will dominate for weeks prior and after, and the gossip columns will not be able to keep up with the deluge of ‘new’ stories. Presently we are in a dry period and its nothing but pathetic rehash, rehash because people are so desperate to make money out of the new cash cow..

      • Masamf says:

        I just don’t get this nonsense about how “oh no, she can’t forget such dates”. If I hadn’t written down my kids birthdays, I wouldn’t really remember them, and I did birth those kids right from my you know what!! Not everyone remembers such details, for some of us just remembering the year is enough, I don’t have to memorize the dates and exact day things happened!! If you can nail something down to the exact hour it happened, then good for you, someone else doesn’t care! That’s why we are so uniquely created, we aren’t clones of one another to do things in exact identical ways.

  9. Citresse says:

    My other comment is about the official matchmaker or who exactly played cupid? Markus played a part for sure but didn’t both H&M say it was a female during their engagement interview? Isn’t the real cupid Jessica Mulroney?

    • Beta says:

      No. Violet von Westenholz works at Ralph Lauren. Meghan was their guest duting Wimbledon 2016. Violet has known Harry since they were kids. She’s the one who set them up, obviously knowing they’d get along.

    • BCity says:

      The Mulroney-Lainey connection is interesting in light of this blind! *cough cough*
      http://www.laineygossip.com/Didnt-offer-a-ride-blind-riddle/46293

      • Mumzy says:

        Isn’t this blind about Kate and Meghan?

      • PrincessK says:

        Thinking about this, if it is true Kate was perfectly right not to offer her a lift, especially since the relationship between Harry and Meghan was still under wraps, and if people had spotted Meghan with Kate it would have been front page news. Kate knows exactly how things work and Meghan probably did not understand. In fact she is totally shocked by the level of interest in her even though Harry said he tried to warn her. It is clear that Meghan never expected her whole life to be picked over so minutely in this way. The reason is not because her own life is so extraordinary but because she is marrying the most popular member of the RF and she has a black mother.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Yes Mumzy it is. It can be made to sound bitchy.
        However, I see it as Kate maybe wanted to shop alone for whatever reason and didn’t want to be bothered. I can’t fault her there. I can be like that. I don’t always want to be bothered with other people when I am running an errand or shopping.
        I have children, a husband, family, others in my house, pets and I am always doing 3 or 4 things at the same time. When I get an opportunity to do something alone and don’t have to entertain someone, make small talk or take their needs into consideration I take it sometimes. I am not always in the mood.
        Recently I went shopping and had lunch by myself on purpose. I didn’t want anyone else’s opinions and I wanted to eat exactly where I did. It isn’t always about anyone else or my feelings about them.
        I imagine Kate feels the same but more so because of her life.

      • BCity says:

        I do believe it is! To me the question of the carpooling etiquette is less interesting than how Lainey got the info in the first place. I’m sure she has royal sources that predate MM by a lot, but on the off-chance MM was the source? That would be funny AF and the blind should have been named Buttons Rides Alone 😂

      • BCity says:

        @Magnolia I have 3 stepkids and sometimes I get really excited to hit up the grocery store solo – glad it’s not just me!! 🤣🤣

  10. Kelly says:

    I don’t care about the timeline, but if this were another couple there would be some suggestions of being on the rebound. Hopefully this couple will be like Edward and Sophie rather than the other three sibling marriages.

  11. Merritt says:

    Morton’s info is just a rehash of old speculations.

  12. Royal Suitor says:

    Andrew Morton’s “inside” sources were Meghan’s own Instagram. She documented her trip to Europe pretty extensively in summer 2016 for anyone who was paying attention. Easy enough to pull the timeline from social media before she shut it down in January.

  13. Rhys says:

    Wow, her networking skills are incredible! I think the fact that she is an extrovert helps. Socializing and people in general overwhelm me. I wonder if this world belongs to extroverts…

    • Kelly says:

      It does. And I’m not one of them.

    • equalitygadfly says:

      It’s because she’s so attractive.

      I’ll say it: For about 5 years, I was attractive. (Conceited, I know; but, the truth.) It was the best 5 years of my life. I lived in the bubble, got invited everywhere…le sigh.

      Then, my face shifted; my looks faded; as did the positive feedback and attention from strangers and randoms.

      Seriously, though: Great looking people do have a much easier time of it when it comes to networking. We normals have to work a bit harder.

      • Snap Happy says:

        Interesting. What age were the 5 years? I feel like my face shifted too.

      • Rhys says:

        If looks were all that’s needed for success half of Hollywood would be out of work.

        Networking. Hustle. Pure luck.

      • A says:

        Disagree, I think it can help, but attractiveness can also bring out the insecurities in others, have others believing that any accomplishments in life must be only on account of that person’s good looks, etc.

      • equalitygadfly says:

        I said they have an “easier” time, not that it was impossible for people who were average looking. As I said in my last sentence, “We normals have to work a bit harder.”

      • magnoliarose says:

        You aren’t conceited. People know if they are attractive or not. The world lets us know, and it is fake modesty to pretend not to know. It rankles feelings when someone admits it but it shouldn’t. Conceited would be I was the most stunning person anyone ever saw instead of I was beautiful at a time in my life.

        Anyway, it is true. It opens the door, but other attributes make someone excel at connecting and networking.

      • perplexed says:

        “Disagree, I think it can help, but attractiveness can also bring out the insecurities in others, have others believing that any accomplishments in life must be only on account of that person’s good looks, etc.”

        I’ve seen people say this, and to be honest, I don’t get it. From what I’ve seen (of others), if you’re good-looking AND nice, people generally like you well enough. I’ve seen myself gravitate towards people who are both good-looking AND nice. For sure, I am guilty of wanting of being in the company of nice-looking nice people.

        The only way I can see people not liking a good-looking person is if they’re mean or conceited or put other people down or talk about their looks all the time. Also, the people who over-estimate their looks AND talk about their looks like we’re supposed to see what they’re seeing are kind of annoying. It’s generally lack of self-awareness that puts people off.

    • ScottieIsBack says:

      Networking as most people understand it will only get you so far. My experience is that if people genuinely like you they will open their social circles to you you.

  14. Harla says:

    As I understand it, the ex-husband has declined to publicly speak out about Meghan or their marriage/divorce. Did he actually speak to Morton?

  15. Cher says:

    Well, on May 19th, 2018, she is marrying Harry.

  16. Jayna says:

    Thanks to those on here for the heads-up about Cory’s and his mom’s interview with Morton or DM, whichever it was they spoke to The mom was effusive in her praise of Meghan. His mom seems like a wonderful person. Cory was very pleasant and didn’t say much, was discreet about their breakup, but was complimentary towards her. It should put to bed the rumors that they were still together. The ex and his family certainly helped to stifle the negative press from her half-siblings, who are complete losers.

    I have to say that Cory is very sexy from one of those photos I saw. She has a type lookswise, that’s for sure, when you look at her ex-husband and ex-boyfriend and Harry.

  17. Lainey says:

    Cory and his mother spoke to the DM. His mother in particular was very positive about Meghan. Why would she be if something bad had gone on between the 2. Corey pretty much said that Meghan wanted more and to settle down and he didn’t, so they split. I’m gonna take the word of someone who was actually in the relationahip, than “anonymous” sources.

    • kloh says:

      His mama said they were serious, in their 30′s, something like that. She spoke as if she thought Meghan would be “the one” for him and her family. Cory was very discreet about their relationship.. kudos to him. He hasn’t commented on why they split up. He said he’s going to leave that up to the public to debate LOL.

  18. Umyeah says:

    Question, how is anyone twitter friends with Piers Morgan?

    • ScottieIsBack says:

      He is a Suits fan and commented on the show. She reached out to him and they became twitter friends.

      • kloh says:

        Piers Morgan is an ignorant, racist, vile man. How anyone can befriend him is beyond me. Meghan obviously stayed in touch because of the Suits promo.

      • LAK says:

        If Wendy Williams was telling the truth that MM reached out to them to promote herself, it’s no surprise that she would reach out to Piers Morgan.

        Regardless of personal opinion, Piers is an influential media editor with a huge audience online, in print and TV, worldwide depending on media platform. Befriending him and or getting him onside is pretty astute move if your job / job prospects requires a media platform.

    • Masamf says:

      Piers stated that he made Twitter friend requests to a number of them top actors on suits but Meghan was the only one that responded to him and they became friends from then on. And Wendy Williams (I loath Wendy but that’s not the issue) said Meghan “applied for a job on her show” applied to work on a show is not the same as “she called my show to promote herself”. Another thing is, once she started on suits, Meghan contacted and was interviewed by a lot of shows/organizations to promote suits, not to promote herself, and I believe this is where the Piers Morgan connection came in. She and Patrick worked super hard and travelled extensively to Suits, it’s no wonder that Meghan saw an opportunity in Piers and made a decision to reach out to him. Piers also said that on the night they had a “pint” it seemed to him like she was just killing time with him since “she kept checking her phone and giggling” etc. It seems like she thought, I’ll meet this guy for a few minutes, see if I can get an interview to promote my show, then be on my merry way.

  19. Sharon Lea says:

    The DM article from yesterday, Cory’s mother says they had been broken up for 3 months by the time she met Harry. And she also says they were close enough that the Mother and Meghan called and texted each other afterwards and that Meghan let her know stories would be in the press about her and Harry. Meghan was going to meet with her in person, but she was on vacation in NC. Seems like there was time off in between etc. I still wonder though, why she was only married to Trevor for 22 months if they dated for 6 years.

    And interesting they were not invited to the wedding, but are Harry’s ex’s invited?

    • graymatters says:

      Perhaps they were good enough not to break up for six years but not great together and thought that marriage would jump-start the relationship up to great. A lot of couples learn that it doesn’t work like that. Maybe they had the talk about starting a family and realized that they weren’t meant to be together forever. It happens. They’re called “starter marriages” for a reason. I expect that Meghan learned a lot about herself and what she wants out of life from ending relationships with Trevor and Corey.

    • PrincessK says:

      Harry’s ex’s may get an invite because his social circle do things very differently and are close knit. It is very likely that Harry and Meghan will be rubbing shoulders with Cressida and Chelsey for years to come and so the sooner Meghan gets used to it the better.

  20. Bettyrose says:

    Wow, Meghan is really not the normal middle class California girl I’ve pictured. She grew up around the industry, attended private schools with – I’m guessing – other industry kids, graduated from a university with well established industry connections…even as a supporting actor on a C-list cable show, she was clearly a pro at building industry connections. Her VIP connections in London are well beyond what her tv job would have provided, so she was clearly working hard at her brand. And good for her. I fully believe she was networking for professional goals, not husband hunting. But those snotty blue bloods better look out. She’s clearly a force to contend with.

    • LAK says:

      If you think about it, the Middletons did the same thing except they went all Jane Austen about it rather than professional route.

      • Bettyrose says:

        The difference – I think – is that Meghan’s parents didn’t scheme and plan on her behalf to improve their own social standing. They provided her with good opportunities and she worked hard to get ahead in an industry that uses up young women and spits them out. Maybe after Suits she was looking to transition to fashion in some capacity? As a manager or publicist or something?

      • magnoliarose says:

        I have to laugh. I picture Carol as a mix of Mrs. Bennet and a character from a Georgette Heyer novel. There is something about them that is begging for a farce about social climbing with some Oscar Wilde witticisms included.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @Bettyrose
        This narrative about the Middletons “using” their daughter is such hogwash. They too worked hard to get the money to be able to give their children the best opportunities they could (good/expensive/exclusive schools leading to excellent social circles leading to networking). Was/is Carol Middleton in favour of Kate’s relationship with William ? Of bloody course, she was/is ! But the idea that she somehow “forced” her into it or schemed on behalf of Kate for it to happen is utter nonsense. As LAK brilliantly pointed out, there’s a bit of Mrs Bennet in Carol but so bloody well what ? At the end of the day, two of the former’s daughters married two extremely wealthy blokes they loved (as per their mother’s wishes=… In this regard, she achieved far more for her girls’ future and safety in a world unkind to women than her laconic and mocking husband ever did #justiceformrsbennet :P

        Kate networked like a madwoman to get where she is. Meghan networked like a madwoman to get where she is. The former did it in the context of the British aristocracy (an “industry” that does use up young commoner women and spits them out on a daily basis), the latter did it in the context of Hollywood (same schtick).
        Some people call it social climbing to make it sound bad but it’s not. They hustled their way up the ladder and good on them. I just wish their ladder hadn’t led them to this monument to stupidity and uselessness that is the British royal family.

      • MRsBump says:

        @42istheanswer
        I agree completely with what you said. Both Carole and Meghan’s hustling skills are phenomenal. i dont understand why we should shade one in order to praise the other, since in the end the outcome was the same : they have both married into the royal family. It takes both knowing the right people and a lot of luck to get there.

      • Deens says:

        Betty Rose I’ve heard from a PR friend on Suits that MM didn’t view acting as the end-goal in her life and was/is quite sincere about her interests in philanthropy, humanitarism, etc. She had bigger picture ideas before Harry came along, which was evident in her UN work and other projects, and now she’s just fast-tracked towards that.

      • Bettyrose says:

        I think there’s a huge difference between meeting/falling in love with someone outside your social circle by way of pursuing international career interests ..and chasing upward mobility through marriage, especially when done at some loss of equal status in a relationship. It’s well documented that Kate was loyal while William pursued other women. Meghan and Harry are adults entering (I hope) into an equal partnership.

      • Bridget says:

        It makes a huge difference when you’re networking with an endgame of working in humanitarian causes vs more acting work/showbiz. People are usually more receptive when you’re looking to get involved and to give, rather than to get something yourself.

      • Deens says:

        Yes the impression I got is that MM is more than capable of taking care of herself and didn’t necessarily “need” Harry to boost her credentials. She was already on her way and would have found it post-acting with a combination of lifestyle branding, social media, fashion, philanthropy, being a savvy networker, etc. Obviously having a comfortable life in palace apartments doesn’t hurt either…

      • kloh says:

        @42istheanswer. Good comment. I completely agree. They both did the same things and good on them for it! Carole wanted better for her 2 daughters, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yes, the Middletons were thirsty for status (maybe they could have toned it down a bit), but the mocking of the Middletons is so classist. It comes across as people thinking “how dare a normal middle-class family make it into the Royal family, they should stay in their lane!”

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @Bettyrose
        We have zero evidence that Kate has lost her “equal status”; that’s just a narrative that was pushed by the British tabloids because they loved their “Watey Katie” storyline. We have no idea how her relationship with William works, just as we have no idea how Meghan’s relationship with Harry functions. The assumption that one relationship is more equal than the other is, as far as I can tell, based on nothing tangible. As for Kate remaining “loyal” to William while he dated others, there are two things : a) we don’t know that for sure. Said “loyalty” is not documented, it’s merely reported by journalists who, until proven otherwise, are far from omniscient… and b) even if she was “loyal” to William, aka didn’t sleep with anyone else while they weren’t together, how is that proof of a loss of agency, independence or “equal status” on her part ? William did what he wanted during their time apart and I have no reason to think Kate didn’t do the same. Whether she decided not to sleep with anyone else or chose to date every single dude in the vicinity is irrelevant. As long as she did what she felt was right for her, she didn’t lose an ounce of agency in the process.

        @Deens
        I’m certain Meghan is a lovely person but let’s be 100% honest here : if humanitarian work were her absolute priority, she would have made it her job a long time ago and wouldn’t have got into acting in the first place. It’s not as if it weren’t possible; many people do dedicate their entire professional life to humanitarian endeavours. Meghan could have studied medicine and worked as a doctor in developing countries and, if she didn’t feel like traveling, she could have worked fulltime for any one of the thousands of American charities that bring relief, help and succor to people who suffer. Hell, she could have become a (court-appointed or international) lawyer, instead of playing one of TV, and helped defend the interests of hundreds of people.

        When somebody absolutely wants to be a humanitarian, they become a humanitarian. On the ground. Day in, day out. Not an actress or a royal.

      • LAK says:

        There is a nuanced difference in how they went about it, and it’s that difference that invites mocking of Carole / Kate.

        It’s the reason Hyacinth *Bouqet* Bucket remains a timeless comedy character.

        It’s a very culturally specific mocking which puzzles others because in their cultures, that same nuanced difference is celebrated.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @MRsBump
        Absolutely. There’s nothing wrong with social ascension or ambition, for that matter, as long as no one suffers from it. In Kate’s and Meghan’s case, as far as I can tell, they didn’t victimise anyone in any way, shape or form. So good on them for achieving their goal !

        @kloh
        I couldn’t agree more. The attacks on the Middletons are fiercely classist and everyone does appear to think that they, as you rightly formulate, “should have stayed in their lane”. For a long while, members of the aristocracy used to loudly whisper “hands to manual” every time Carole entered a room in an attempt to mock her for being a former flight attendant. Because, to people in the Windsor circle, having had a job is a source of shame…

      • kloh says:

        Her humanitarian efforts are on par with what most celebrities do. Travel to an undeveloped country for a few days, take some pics, maybe write about it, and then milk it for all it’s worth. I’m sorry, but that’s what all celebs do. Stars like Angelina Jolie are on another level, but I do believe the majority of celebs do the “humanitarian” shtick for good PR. Wives of wealthy men take up philanthropy, and this is only my opinion, but I do think that’s where Meghan was heading with her brand. If Harry and Meghan hadn’t crossed paths, she would have found someone else to help with her interests. I like that she’s strategic with her planning, she thinks about things as far as 3-4 years ahead. She was building a well-rounded profile during Suits.

      • MRsBump says:

        Whilst i dont doubt that Meghan put her heart into it, like many other actresses, her charity work was linked to promoting her profile, just like her lifestyle blog , instagram or clothes line. Keeping herself relevant was part of her job and is not something to be shaded for.
        I mean, she went so far as to contact Piers Morgan herself , if that’s not dedication to her promoting her image, i dont know what is !
        Like the commentor above said, had she wished to be a humanitarian, that would have been her job in the first place.
        I do believe that this sanctification of MM into the second coming of Diana is doing her a disservice. She is by all accounts a lovely girl, who also happens to be very ambitious and she used all the avenues open to her to make it. She may not have succeeded in being a A list superstar but her name will now be in the history books. Why cant she be recognized for who she is, instead of projecting lofty humanitarian goals upon her ? women shouldnt have to devote themselves to charity in order to be admired.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @LAK
        The only true difference between Kate and Meghan, in re. social ascension, is that the former is British hence inherently “classée” while the latter is American thus fundamentally “déclassée” (as far as most Brits are concerned).

        While it’s true the Brits do have a passion for mocking “commoners” who aspire to waft in the rarefied air of the aristocracy and make themselves look/sound posher than their birth gives them the right to, there is no denying that said mocking is rooted in a laughably feudal mindset that is far from solely British.

        The French too have their version of Hyacinth Bucket in the main characters of Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme and Les Précieuses Ridicules. And many Americans delighted in ridiculing Madonna’s shift to (approximative) RP after living with Guy Ritchie for a couple of years.

        In all those cases, the underlying thought process is the same : how dare this person aspire to become something they’re not ? Something that’s not on par with the social identity and status they were assigned at birth ? As if identity were a fixed object and not a constantly evolving and shifting one ? And, to be frank, that thought process is, to me, infinitely more grotesque than any of Hyacynth’s attempt to convince people her surname is pronounced “Bouquet”.

      • LAK says:

        42istheanswer: “For a long while, members of the aristocracy used to loudly whisper “hands to manual” every time Carole entered a room in an attempt to mock her for being a former flight attendant” this specific claim has been debunked. It was part of the media campaign for the ring that the Middleton PR guy ran in order to frame Kate as a plucky middle class maven who was going to change those mean horrid aristos with their backward attitudes.

        Further, even if you believe it is true, this accusation was levelled at *William*’s specific friends rather than the wider aristo class / Windsor set. The accusation was that William was perfectly aware of his friends’ joke and never stopped it.

        To say that aristos do not have jobs or think it’s beneath them is also incorrect. This attitude went out of the window more than 30yrs ago. Very few of them live the kind of life Kate and Pippa live ie without jobs or utterly aimless and dependant on trust funds or aspiring WAGS. At the very least they are dilettantes pretending to be fashion / art / design / charity curators / muses or working in real estate. All of William’s friends have jobs. Always have.

      • LAK says:

        42istheanswer: Regarding your comment about American vs British, mocking of commoners, i am afraid you fundamentally misunderstand British character and are tarring the country with that misunderstanding.

        Much of what you speak about is ye old attitudes that are not present in modern Britain in the form you imagine they are.

        Carole and Hyacinth character are mocked not because they moved up a social class and wealth bracket, but because they look down on those of the lower class / wealth class they’ve escaped whilst fetishing the class they’ve joined and going to ridiculous lengths in giving the appearance of belonging even if it means self-harm and disrespect.

        By contrast, Uncle Gary who doesn’t pretend to anything, who has oodles more money than Carole is welcomed with open arms. He neither looks down on his previous class / wealth bracket nor fetishises the new social / wealth class he occupies.

        The lesson? Be yourself. That’s something British people applaud. We hate pretention wherever we find it regardless of circumstance. And we make fun of it.

        As for class mocking, it’s equal opportunity mocking. Every class is mocked. It’s not exclusively one class mocking another. It goes in circles where it seems one class is being mocked than another, but all of them are mocked.continuously.

        It’s funny that you should mention Guy and Madonna because they hooked up during a period when it was declasse to be an aristo. This led to mockney culture where posh people pretended to be working class or cockneys. Ritchie is one such person. Then he married Madonna who aspired to be an aristo with RP accent and pursuits. Go figure.

        Finally, commoners in Britain are defined as people without a peerage title. They can be a princess or a plumber. If they don’t have a peerage title, they are commoners.

      • Natalie S says:

        The mocking of the Middletons is also due to them talking out of both sides of their mouths: Are they the middle-class family being mocked or are they arranging these a shoot for William to imitate the Royal Christmas? Are they a down to earth, hard working family or were Pippa and James and Kate when she was a gf trying to use their connection to William to score opportunities and discounts?

        Did we ever learn why Pippa kept doing a pap stroll to George Percy’s office back in 2011? Remember Celebrate, possibly the best book on I suppose celebrating, ever published? Why were there RPOs involved with the promotion and also being used by James at one point to park his car?

        Kate met William through Emilia D’Erlanger’s connection to the Highgrove Club H collection of friends and then again when she switched to St. Andrews. That’s the extent of her networking. It’s not at all comparable to Meghan. Pippa on the other hand is an excellent networker. I don’t know if Kate would have managed that introduction if she hadn’t had Pippa as her sister. Kate supposedly came out of her shell at school around the same time Pippa started at Malborough.

        I realized while writing this that Meghan can network as well if not better than Pippa and has the hustle of Carole.

      • kloh says:

        Mrs Bump, not sure why you thought I was shading her.. I was just trying to point out that she doesn’t seem to have a long-standing humanitarian/philanthropic profile. A few events here and there doesn’t make a celebrity a humanitarian, imo. I think Meghan started to take those interests seriously in 2013/2014, whilst she was branching out and boosting her image. Those words have been attached to her name – by the media and probably by her old agents/pr firms. The media are trying to turn her into Diana 2.0 by comparing everything and it’s getting a bit tedious.

      • Natalie S says:

        I don’t think of it as -if Meghan were serious about being a humanitarian, she wouldn’t have bothered with being an actor- Rather she pursued one of her ambitions and was working on being able to move on to another ambition.

        I don’t know if she was trying to “milk” anything as a dilettante dabbling in charity work for self-promotion and I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt for now.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @LAK
        I was unaware of the debunking of the “doors to manual” and, after some research, cannot find said debunking. I am tempted to believe it considering Stephen Fry claimed to have heard it himself (though Stephen can at times add “colour” to his accounts of things ^^) As for the idea that the story was used as a way to condemn William’s indifference to his circle’s mistreatment of his girlfriend’s family, I’m afraid that is not how this type of journalistic narratives works. The “insult” (doors to manual) was quoted in publication, again and again and again, as was the reasoning behind it. The “William not defending his girfriend” angle was merely tacked on to make the story somewhat palatable, to give it an air of social consciousness. To hide its true intent : to humiliate the Middletons by repeating insults directed at them.

        Hugh Grant beautifully illustrated that camouflaging process during his testimony at the Leveson inquiry ; when British tabloids want to publish the unauthorised pictures of a celeb’s child, they systematically make the article about how cute the aforementioned child is, thus hoping the “nice” angle will hide the egregious violation of privacy the article is entirely based on. Same thing with the Middletons : repeat insults directed at them but, to appear as if we’re not endorsing said insults, pin an “oh, isn’t it awful” conclusion onto it.

        As for me tarring the British nation, I really don’t think I am. Disliking and mocking so-called “parvenus” is far, far, far from an exclusively British activity, as I believe my French and American examples prove. That’s a human activity and, whenever it expresses itself, it shows its fundamental (certainly non solely British) logic : how dare those people want to pretend to be something they’re not ? Or to quote Lady Catherine (since this conversation has an Austen flair to it ^^) : “If you were sensible of your own good, you would not wish to quit the sphere in which you have been brought up”.
        The problem is not the quitting of the sphere; it’s the wishing to do so. The aspiration, the ambition.

        Are all social classes mocked ? Yes, of course. But all social classes were not created equal. Mocking the aristocracy does not “hurt” them; at the end of the day, they’ll still have money, power and influence. They’ll still have the ability to spend the rest of their days in “occupations” cognitively impaired tortoises could perform (while they would never be caught dead in an “real” job). Conversely, mocking lower classes does affect them. Ridiculing “chavs” and their lifestyles does have an impact on how they live because they are structurally dominated and their social standing relies heavily on the rest of the world’s perception of them. I have my (many) issues with Owen Jones but his thesis about the demonization of the working class and its consequences is pretty on the money.
        In this regard, it is quite telling that, out of all the Middletons, the one who is the most heavily criticised for being “ridiculous” is Carole, the one with the coal mining ancestors, whereas Michael, with his belated trustfund and aristo gran, is viewed in a much more positive light…

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @LAK
        On a fundamental level, the obsession with pseudo “realness” (“just be yourself”) is little more than an order to stay in your lane. For it relies on the idea that “yourself” is a fixed entity that does not, should not, evolve with time, context and environment.

        It also suggests that one can live without pretending, which is profoudly untrue. We all, to a degree, “play the part” as we understand it, depending on circumstances. We don’t show up for a job interview in a Hawaian shirt and flip flops no matter how “real” that would be, we don’t go to a funeral wearing bright yellow short shorts regardless of how “true” to our character it may be… Social adaptability is a rule we all live by.

      • Tina says:

        British here, and co-sign LAK’s comment 100%. No one criticises people who stay in their class lane. They can be incredibly rich and successful, such as Alan Sugar, Bernie Ecclestone, Michelle Mone etc, but they are not criticised because they do not pretend to be something they are not (of course they dress appropriately when going to formal events, it’s not to do with that). Alan Sugar has a knighthood. But, like Michael Caine, he has never changed who he is. We admire that. It is also really not acceptable, at least in professional life that I have experienced (in the City, in academia etc) to make fun of someone’s class in a professional context. Perhaps aristos do it amongst themselves, I wouldn’t know.

        But it’s also important to note that aristos really do not represent wealth and power in this country, not any more. They have some residual wealth but are largely brainless and are best suited to jobs teaching foreigners how to pretend to be like them. Real money and power lies in tech, banks, hedge funds, private equity. These are run by clever people of all nationalities and all classes and would never hire a “Tim nice but dim” over a clever working class applicant. (Now, of course, it is still much too difficult for clever working class children to get the kind of education that would allow them to contend for jobs like these, but it’s not at all as simple as naked class discrimination).

      • LAK says:

        42istheanswer: What Tina said.

        Also, it’s funny that you are repeating PR talking points that were ran by the Middletons’ own PR guy to position them as the plucky Middle class / working class mavens vs those horrid aristos. This really happened. And it was a horrible slur against William and aristos in general because right upto them, we as a country, had really started to believe in Tony Blair’s classless society and the entire mockney thing had subsided without being replaced by a society wedded to the stereotype of ye old past. Clearly your view of Britain refuses to get out of the past and see the changes.

        As for Owen Jones….i’m afraid you’ve lost me if he is your source, and as i don’t wish to ever discuss his views on this board, let’s leave it there.

        Finally, dressing appropriately for the situation you find yourself is not a class issue. It’s a getting on with the community issue and being respectful to said community issue. It’s not defined by class and i’m surprised you would think it is.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It wasn’t an issue that “society” had a problem with where they came from. The issue was always Carole having a problem with it, and wanting to become something else. She didn’t embrace the financial success being who she was and thumb her nose at convention; SHE kept trying to be something else which brings on the mockery. The Goldsmith family tradition of wanting to be the top brick in the chimney.

      • Ex-Mel says:

        @42istheanswer:

        for what it’s worth, I agree 100 % with 99 % of what you’ve said so far. (I also like – a lot – the way you articulated it.)

        “(I never understood what was wrong with being a coalminer) ”

        Probably the very fact that a coalminer’s source of money – and a flight attendant’s, and basically any working person’s – is clearly discernible and does not rely solely on the goodwill (or apathetic inertia) of the British people, which is far more than could be said of the Windsors and their ilk. (Even their “private” money is actually revenue from land they appropriated – never WORKED for it.)

        I SORT of understand that not having your hands “tainted” by work was considered ‘gentlemanly’ a few hundreds of years ago (and even then it was not an opinion shared by all, cf. Count Tolstoy in the very decadent Russia) – but that these landed gentry’s good-for-nothing offspring would think so TODAY, deriding someone for making their fortune by work and ingenuity, is beyond the pale, and it made me lose every last shred of (general human) respect that I may have had towards them.

        So, yeah, I wish the Middletons had stayed “in their lane”, too – because their lane of inventiveness and hard work is far above the shady, lazy lanes and backalley stabbing of their in-laws and their ancestors.

      • Tina says:

        I am a fervent remainer, a europhile and a liberal. But I do find it amusing, the number of foreigners attempting to explain the class system of our own country to us.

    • bettyrose says:

      42istheanswer:

      I actually agree with your assessment of Mrs. Bennett. Even though her two older daughters were intellectually superior to their male counterparts, Mrs. B knew that their only hope for happiness was a good marriage and she pursued that for them. The mockery of Carol M. comes into play because the 1990s were not that time. Her daughters were already more privileged than she and in no danger of living in council housing . They attended great schools and had many career opportunities open to them. Choosing marriage into a wealthy family over career is fine, honestly, many people would make that choice, but neither of her daughters married right out of school. They noticeably did very little with their posh degrees other than pursue marriage. For a decade. Maybe Mrs. Bennett would approve of that, but most mothers are grateful that their daughters have better options than waiting and hoping for a husband.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        You are very right. Carole’s “Mrs Bennet” tendencies are frankly antiquated and most mothers nowadays would, rightly so, prefer for their daughters to make their own path instead of “simply” getting married. However, the Middleton way (go to a posh school, pretend to have some sort of “job” for a few years then get married) is not one they invented. It’s a pattern most of the aristocratic or uber-rich youth follows, like most of their parents did before them. Hell, it’s pretty much the pattern Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William, Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice themselves follow(ed). With their mothers’ blessing.
        In this context, I fail to understand why Carole’s viewed as particularly worthy of mockery.

      • LAK says:

        42istheanswer: Firstly, the royal children have a very narrow set of constraints that mean they are pretty unique in their circumstances. No one else in the country can relate though they try. Their circumstances can not be compared to whatever environment present day Carole imagines royal children are supposed to do. If anything, she’s created an environment that is a throwback to a time when women are only good for marriage and nothing else. She’s raised her daughters to be fragrant ornaments in a world long gone.

        In modern times, and within the narrow set of constraints, the royal children *can* break free if they try. B and E are doing it even if the public refuses to acknowledge it and insists on tarring them with a media created bias against them.

        Charles, in the work and gravitas he has created in his POW title has shown that those narrow constraints are not so rigid in the way the public (or WK) imagines. Ditto Diana in her time, for good or bad.

        Even the much loathed Andrew is getting on with creating a legacy for himself. Edward has quietly taken over his father’s legacy. A legacy it was thought impossible given Philip’s status and circumstances at the time of creation. Anne was a sportsman who was nearly an Olympic champion.

        And before that you can read the history of Victoria’s daughters, goddaughters and granddaughters and female inlaws all of whom fought against the narrow constraints of their circumstances to achieve standing legacies eg The Red Cross or Registry of Nursing or Suffragette boost.

        Now of course no one insists that Carole should have raised her daughters to be warriors or else, but it’s mind-boggling that she should raise them to aspire to circumstances that at best are fantasy as every rose-tinted view of the past tends to be, and at worst have been firmly put in the past by successive generations of women who recognised the ergregious reality of women’s lives in the past for a lack of their own agency and determination.

    • Genessee says:

      A few of my old 8th grade classmates attended Immaculate (and I almost did too before changing my mind last min) during the MM years. That is not an industry heavy school. Nor does it mean that if their parents work for the industry they are connected — my friends dad worked on Jaws. Big whoop. She still needed scholarship money to afford the relatively low cost tuition. Hollywood , and most of L.A. is an industry town. Throw a rock and you will nine times out of 10 hit someone in the industry but that doesnt automatically mean “connections.

      The big “Hollywood” private schools with parents working in places of POWER (agents from CAA, WME, UTA, Gershwin, Publicists, Legal, Managers and Exec Producers in tv network or film production studios) are not private Catholic all girls EXCEPT for Marymount in Bell Air. They are the co-ed Harvard Westlake, Oakwood, Crossroads, and Campbell Hall…. of course Beverly Hills High, a spitting distance from CAA.

  21. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    This was such a nice story to read while I’m stuck under the heavy, snowy influence of Xanto. Been snowing since Friday night, not stopping until later Monday.

  22. So Cal says:

    In a nutshell: some people think Meghan is a shady character and are upset with Harry for falling for her. And because Harry is marrying her with so much “baggage,” people are questioning his thinking or lack thereof.

    Obviously, her previous relationships, family drama, acting (simulated sex scenes), attention-seeking (Instagram & The Tig) didn’t matter to Harry. Like all men, what mattered was/is how a woman makes a man feel and she can easily get the “ring to rule them all.” Sorry, I had to make the Lord of the Rings joke!

    • PrincessK says:

      Don’t take any notice of the nonsense being peddled. Some fools actually believe that Meghan has bewitched Harry and has been stalking the RF ever since she was nine years old with the aim of getting inside it. Some even believe that she was really after William but Kate got there first…..I could go on and on with the ridiculous stories. Laugh but some people really do believe this stuff. There are a lot of people out there with serious problems sadly and it really makes me think that the royal princes are really on to something when it comes to the spread of mental health problems.

      • Nic919 says:

        Posing in front of Buckingham Palace while visiting London is totally a sign you are stalking Harry. Come on guys it’s so obvious.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is so strange it took me a moment to catch on because I don’t visit other blogs very much. I thought the Brangelina things was just unique to them, but I learned that is not the case. I heard about Twilight fans, and I just thought it was a bunch of tweens with overactive imaginations. I suppose people have always been that way but with the internet we see them, and they can obsess as much as they want.
        It has to be a form of mental instability.

      • Bettyrose says:

        NIC919- Yep. And by that measure, I’ve been stalking Harry since I was a teenager and he was a little boy. Surpising really that the picture of high school me in front of BP hasn’t appeared in any tabloids. ;-)

  23. Bitsy says:

    Harry was quietly racist? That’s interesting, as he is always portrayed as the “good” one amongst royals and aristos. And in his 20s no less, that’s not that long ago nor young enough to be execused. But being that Megan mostly has white friends, I imagine she is used to casual racism. I’m 39 yrs old and have never, ever, in my life had a white friend NOT eventually show their ignorance through an offhand racist comment. I figure they are just waiting to get comfortable in the relationship. So Meg I’m positive has either ignored these situations or politely corrected them; being that her friends are so high profile tho, I’m going with ignore. I truly hope she doesn’t put up with that from Harry.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Harry’s had some pretty high profile instances of racial insensitivity, if not straight up racist behavior. I think it all gets explained away as “privileged ignorance” rather than genuine hate…but she is marrying into a world of casual racism, and it’s his world. Presumably he’ll be speaking out against this BS from now on?

    • Sage says:

      I think he was more openly ignorant than quietly racist.

      • ValiantlyVarnished says:

        Which are one in the same. He was ignorantly racist lol. A lot of white people are. As a light skinned black woman I have had white friends say casually racist things to me on numerous occassions. Because no one one escapes racial bias. Even people who don’t consider themselves racist can harbor racist ideas and biases. But Harry seems to have grown up quite a bit over the last few years and maybe having a biracial fiancée has helped educate him a bit.

    • Sarah says:

      Very good comment and food for thought.
      Meghan has had to live with subtle or outright ignorant remarks all her life. Her Elle article is about her experience. Like many people with a “non-white” ID whose friends groups are almost exclusively white, putting up with insensitivity is just something that Always happens. She is used to ignore or only gently trying to correct them.

      That Morton emphasis Harry’s open (?) racist attitude in his 20′s quite a bit, is indeed interesting. Who can also forget Harry’s party pics with Hitler signs etc? I can’t help but think that he as a young adult shared for example Prince Philip’s pretty ignorant remarks about other cultures and countries. I do think though that in his 30′s Harry matured up. His official travels to for example India might have changed his views. Maybe he was moved and touched by his encounters? Let’s hope so.

      Because it would a shame if Harry ended up more conservative and narrow minded again when he gets older.

      • Bitsy says:

        @sarah Harry has had way more instances than the Nazi swastika,many of them with his well-known friends and his brother. I’m still shocked they didn’t get more flak for that Out of Africa party when William turned 21. And this site didn’t show it, but the recent Commonwealth thing had African dancers out front from one of their colonized countries. Not horrible but awkward. My issue is moreso with Megan being totally ok with this. I understand her hustle but not her goal. She won’t be breaking any rules or making the monarchy fresh and new, she will be slowly morphing into a British aristo and raising British royals who will have no connection to Black culture or even American culture. Thus making all the praise and hoopla in vain.
        But I’m being hugely cynical,I know, and hopefully she has enlightened her fiance and his circle or maybe they already have been since becoming middle aged…? (Casual shrug)

      • windyriver says:

        @Bitsy

        What’s awkward is the media didn’t identify who these Commonwealth Day performers were, so people are potentially left with the impression, and feelings, you describe.

        As per the Commonwealth Day website, it appears this was One Drum, a collective of professional musicians and dancers from Ghana, based in London. According to the One Drum site, they do workshops and give performances; also, the lead drummer worked with Van Morrison and tours with Ginger Baker (former bandmate of Eric Clapton). In a brief YouTube video he says they were proud to be there representing Ghana, and there’s photos of him being greeted by HM and Prince Charles.

        Likewise, there were supposedly performers from Ngati Ranana London Maori Club, a group that educates and promotes Maori culture. But I don’t remember seeing them shown anywhere, except in the same short YouTube video above.

        So, perhaps things aren’t quite as bleak as first appears, despite how things look in the media. One can hope.

      • Tina says:

        Harry was also in the Army. The Armed Forces have made great strides and some of the most decorated soldiers in recent history have been PoC (I.e. Johnson Beharry VC) but it is not especially known for enlightened attitudes and especially enlightened ways of speaking.

    • kloh says:

      Harry has said some pretty racist and insensitive things. He has wealthy white privilege in his corner so it gets explained away very quickly.

    • PrincessK says:

      Well I heard a rumour that Harry’s very first innocent sweetheart was a black girl, way before he met even Chelsy. If its true she is has a lot of self respect and has kept her mouth firmly shut.

      • sunny says:

        There have long been rumours that Harry dated outside his official gf type(blonde) but much discreetly. Laineygossip for one has been hinting for many years that Harry had a type(women of colour) outside what he was typically spotted with.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Sunny…yes this is true. I believe that there are other women that we have never ever heard about. Maybe Harry felt that he had to live up to public expectations of him being with blue eyed princess types. Even William seemed to want to find that blonde photogenic women who would be the stereotypical Princess/Queen.

  24. Milavanilla says:

    I also think his light was just on and he happened to meet a mature, well connected, educated and nurturing woman who truly wanted him and this lifestyle.

  25. perplexed says:

    Not sure how the rest of the book is going to be, but this review of the book seems to make Harry look bad in his youth, not Meghan. I didn’t know he was an angry drunk guy who was casually racist all the time.

    • PrincessK says:

      @perplexed…”I didn’t know he was an angry drunk guy who was casually racist all the time.” This is an exaggeration. Yes, Harry did go off the rails for a while and used to get angry with cameras being stuck up his nose but his teenage years must have been extremely difficult and the loss of his own mother was a very different scenario from other youngsters who have lost a parent. I have a great deal of sympathy with him for the troubled time he had.

      • perplexed says:

        I’m just citing the interpretation offered by this review/excerpt. This section makes him look bad, not her.

      • LAK says:

        Morton also doesn’t say that he was often baited by the paps in order to get that reaction from him so they could take pictures / videos to sell.

        Paps would call out rude names, words to Chelsy and him. Rude words about his dead mother and or sexual things to Chelsy.

        There was a documentary years ago that talked about how the paps covered celebs that included a section on Harry in which the paos admitted to all these horrible things they said to provoke him.

  26. emerald eyes says:

    It all seems pretty straightforward. Not that I care. They met and they are getting married is about all that matters.

    I think she brings more to him than he does to her, actually. I am pretty sure Harry matured quite a bit over the years but he probably needed an injection of gravitas that she provided to make him seriously mature.

    I harbor a secret fantasy that Meghan is Charles favorite – even more so than the boys. At least I can imagine that he is pleased Harry found someone serious to marry.

    • PrincessK says:

      I agree, I really think that Charles and Meghan will get on very well, much better than Cressida or Chelsy probably. I don’t think Chelsy was willing to show enough deference towards the RF, she is not aristocratic at all but a very rich young lady who can do whatever she wants really.

  27. Natters says:

    The best thing to ever happen to Meghan was having Suits transferred to Toronto. She became a big fish in a small pond which lead to excellent international contacts that led to Harry. Well played!!

  28. Bitsy says:

    @windyriver thank you for the intro to both groups. I actually appreciate that the royal family would have them perform but it certainly should be explained. I find so much regarding that family and their pageantry and mixing with the public is left to the imagination and not properly reported. Propaganda and social engineering have completely replaced journalism but that’s for another thread. I still think the Royals come off extremely insulated and insensitive. But I’m American, so how I feel is irrelevant. (More casual shrugs)

    • windyriver says:

      @Bitsy

      It’s interesting, isn’t it? I watched it via the video replay, starting from when Will and Kate and Harry and Meghan walked through the gate – and I had a similar reaction of, what is that about? So when you mentioned it, I did some research to belatedly satisfy my own curiosity.

      IIRC, we barely saw the performers, because the cameras were all on the “young” royals – i.e., Meghan. Pretty sure there was a thread on here about how much of the coverage was focused on her – and of course, there was that whole deal about Harry and Meghan supposedly giggling after Liam Payne’s song. Certainly at this point in time, she’s drawing all the attention.

      I didn’t watch the whole of the replay, so I don’t know if they showed the RF greeting performers, schoolchildren and other representatives after the service, but there’s pictures on the Westminster Abbey website. Have to agree there was definitely something missing re: actual journalism, but I’m also in the US, and so, what else is new?

  29. Peg says:

    The Markle family excluding the Dad, are just Wacko.
    His brother’s daughter, is saying that Tom don’t know if he is invited, so she wrote to Kensington Palace, to find out where their invitation was, I’m not making this shit up.
    She sent a picture of the family at the grandmother’s party when Meghan was twenty, got no reply, then saw an address for Harry and Fedex the same picture, she said Kensington Palace do not accept packages and returned the package.
    Maybe Markle is so embarrassed with his family antics, that he is not telling them if he is going to the wedding.
    The nephew showed off his marijuana Farm, when the publicity dries up I don’t know what this thirsty family is going to do.
    Meghan former manager said she wrote Meghan asking if she could use a picture and she said Meghan’s lawyer answered the letter, so Meghan’s family (excluding parents) have to go through the lawyers/Kensington Palace, because she wants nothing to do with them.
    The jokes on the Internet for why the Markles are not invited, they would get drunk and start a fight with the Royal family.

    • Masamf says:

      @Peg, I read the ex-manager/publicist article and I wondered: if this person has been in this field and in the UK as long as she says, she sure knows that at this point Meghan is no longer managing her correspondence? I was puzzled by her comment on that email thing.
      Re: the Markle family, it seems that they haven’t communicated with each other in a long time. It seemed to me that mr. Markle himself is not close with any of them, so he sees no reason to give them such intimate information if they haven’t even bothered to ask about his wellbeing or his daughter before she became “famous “

  30. Levin says:

    How is someone who wears a Nazi uniform “quietly racist”?

  31. ladida says:

    Since I’m going through a break up right now, I cannot imagine dating someone new right away. But as long as they were broken up, technically it’s ok. I’d want to untangle myself physically and emotionally first.