Sorry Meghan Markle, the Queen still doesn’t think you’re ‘trusty’ or ‘well-beloved’

Prince Harry and fiancee Meghan Markle arriving at Kensington Palace to announce their engagement

Back in March, there was such a kerfuffle about the Queen’s formal consent for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding. The Daily Mail started the sh-t stirring when they made a big deal over the first consent given to Harry and Meghan, which was a printed statement with no personal descriptors for Meghan Markle. As the DM pointed out, in the Queen’s consent for Kate Middleton and Prince William, Kate was described as “Our Trusty and Well-beloved Catherine.” In the first consent for Meghan and Harry, Meghan was simply referred to by her legal name, with no adjectives. People made it into a big deal, just as people made it into a big deal that the timeline seemed different. The timeline actually wasn’t different – there are two consents, and the Queen followed the same timeline with both. Buckingham Palace released the second consent over the weekend – this is the handwritten/royal calligraphy version. Here you go:

If you follow Kensington Palace’s thread, they describe the details of the formal scroll, like the symbolic references to Meghan, from the rose (the national flower of America) to the golden poppies (the state flower of California, Meghan’s birthplace) to the olive branches from the Great Seal of the U.S. That’s all very lovely and actually really cool. Except… Meghan still didn’t get any descriptors in the formal consent. Kate got “trusty” and “well-beloved” and Meghan got nothing. HARSH.

Meanwhile, I guess we’re still talking about what titles the Queen will give to beloved Harry and No-Descriptors-Necessary Meghan. The Daily Mail did yet another piece about how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are the odds-on favorite for Meg and Harry. Royal historians believe that the Duke of Clarence title just comes with too much baggage and bad mojo, and there could be legal issues with Duke of Cumberland, Duke of Albany and Duke of Teviotdale. Other possibilities: Duke of Avondale (which I like, that sounds nice) and Duke of Kendal.

Windsor Horse Show day 3

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend the UK Team Trials for the Invictus Games

Photos courtesy of WENN, PCN, Backgrid.

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

188 Responses to “Sorry Meghan Markle, the Queen still doesn’t think you’re ‘trusty’ or ‘well-beloved’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Louise says:

    I like Meghan and everything she has achieved but this is getting worse by the day and I dont know what I mean by “this”. Its going to be a disaster. The Markle family make me wince and they have truly embarrassed Meghan and make no mistake, London circles will be sniggering.

    Harry’s light was on and Meghan came into the frame. He was ready to settle down and then some. She was mature, different, hard working. whats not to like? but man this is getting to be a mess. I feel sorry for her with her trash family. Its very embarrassing.

    • Guest says:

      You can’t pick your family. It’s not her fault. Just like it’s not Kate’s fault about uncle. The royal family has no room talking about anyone’s crazy family. With all those pesky rumors about Andrew which are way worse then anything meghan’s family done.

    • C says:

      That’s something about her…..I don’t know how to explain, but I don’t think she is so amazing blah blah (there’s nothing to do with race). She seems to be very calculating. I don’t know.

      • g says:

        Meh..who cares if shes a social climber. They all are. You have to be to live in that life. Men are calculating and do what they have to do to get the life at the top all the time. Seems like when a woman does it shes slammed. She seems to love harry and if she does a good job as a working royal then kudos to her.

      • Talita says:

        I totally agree with you. There’s something about the vibe I get from her.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        When people say “there’s something about …” it’s usually something else. No reason to not have said the same exact thing about Kate.

      • GM says:

        I agree with G. I see this all the time. Women make suggestions or state something but it is blown off until men make the same comment. The way it is viewed when women are ambitious is negatively, much more so than men. I try to be aware and not be part of the double standard, but it is everywhere.

      • Merritt says:

        It is not race but you felt the need to qualify that it is not about race. Um yeah. That is the equivalent of prefacing a statement with “I’m not racist but”.

      • Sara says:

        Kate chased William for ten years so…

      • Lela says:

        I agree with G, I’ve stated this on threads here many times, you don’t go from being a briefcase girl to marrying a prince without leveraging your connections and climbing the social ladder, BUT, meh. Good for her, get it girl and all that, it’s human nature to try and elevate yourself in life and she managed to do it. It takes a smart woman to achieve what she did.

      • Natalie S. says:

        Kate, Diana and Fergie were all calculating. And Kate also had the Middletons willing to help her in her plans.

        The Andrew Morton book has Diana bragging about how calculating she was and then of course we found out that Charles and Camilla were conning her right back. Harry and William and Liz etc. are all calculating as well.

        Meghan needs more help and a better support system. People who won’t end up with their instagram photos in the DM. There have also been silly mistakes like having the registry at Soho House. They are royals not celebrities. I hope Harry and Meghan have a well thought out plan for the next few years.

        Whether I agreed with it or no, Kate, William and the Middletons clearly had a plan that at times they couldn’t live up to but 7 years later, there is Apt 1A, Anmer, Middleton Manor, Pippa’s book and marriage, and still enough good will that Kate gets massively defended against criticism, praise for wearing heels or an outfit twice, and doing any work at all and William still mostly avoids scrutiny.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The gift registry is nothing surprising or shocking, as that’s what other royals did as well. Ask the public to donate to charity instead of sending gifts, but providing a private gift registry for their friends. They might have thought it was more secure to have it through Soho House instead of a shop, but someone (to be fired soon?) betrayed their trust.

        I think she needs to look to Princess Mabel and Princess Madeleine as part of her new network. They live in London or at least they do for now. They understand the royal role and know what it is like to take a lot of tabloid hits. They’re also not main-line royals and have experience navigating that strange in-between position, especially for their kids. They may end up titled, but none of their kids will be working royals and will have to earn a living.

        I could see her working with them in some way with World Childhood Foundation and Girls Not Brides, as the BRF patron to those organizations.

        She needs to avoid the Greek “royals” like the plague.

      • LV487 says:

        @ Sara…Kate chased William for ten years so…

        And that has what to do with Harry and Meghan? When all else fails drag in Kate and slam her because Meghan just got shaded by The Queen. The second descriptor was supposed to be flowery and more personal towards Meghan, and it’s not. Oh well…

      • Sabrine says:

        I don’t like Harry’s choice at all. I can see her bolting once she realizes she might actually have to put some effort into making the marriage work and it’s not all fairy dust and flowers.

      • minx says:

        I like her, I don’t think she walks on water, but as an American I would like to see their marriage succeed. The first year or two should be interesting.

      • homeslice says:

        I think she loves Harry for sure, but I definitely think she wants fame as well. The acting thing was never going to give her the level of exposure she has now. This is definitely what she wants…for now!

      • Natalie S. says:

        @LV487, the context was about being calculating. Kate is relevant.

        @notasugarhere. I figured they would have a registry and there’s nothing wrong with that. I think they previously used Soho House for discreet meetups so they figured the same privacy would apply here. My caution is there’s a lot of money and celebrity around the two of them and I think the best thing for their public image is to sharply downplay that. There’s a feeling of *something *(I can’t figure out the right word -chaos is overstating it) around the whole thing which is strongly not helped by the Markles.

        It’s not fair and I don’t blame Harry and Meghan for it, but things being what they are, I think they’re passing up chances to gain pr capital that they could use for future battles by not minimizing associations with luxury or exclusiveness until the wedding costs are only a memory.

      • SheBug says:

        It has weirded me out how some people she’s known for years have come for her. Or like how Wendy Williams kind of shaded her and said she’d applied for a job with her show and she still had the receipts on her. Even the sister’s e-book. Most sisters would bite their tongue and bide their time, like if they play the game maybe the newly-royal sister will take care of them. But she went right to Amazon with her ebook! Why? Is it all jealousy or is Meghan really a nasty piece of work?

        I feel like they didn’t vet her very carefully. And I don’t know why she would even want this life, she had a nice life in Canada with a border between her and the family mess.

      • Natalie S. says:

        I think it is jealousy. Wendy Williams was once in a position to turn down Meghan and now she would be lucky if Meghan wanted anything to do with her, so if Wendy’s ego can’t handle that, she’s going to claim there’s something off about Meghan. The Markle siblings are the same.

        The Middletons had multiple mortgages on their old Buckleberry house but they still paid for Kate’s wedding dress, rented a lot of space in the Goring hotel, vacationed in Mustique, and paid for their kids to avoid a proper 9 to 5 which served to set the family apart.

        Meghan’s story of working her way up can be found in clips on youtube. She’s not apart from anything and instead of respecting her hustle, I think it rankles some people who use that to say she isn’t special or even that she’s underhanded.

        And I think if Meghan had met a wealthy guy named Harry Wales, who had about 20 million in the bank and liked doing charity work, she probably would have gone for him too.

      • Merritt says:


        The logic is lacking in your post. Wendy Williams is a professional troll, who wants to make herself seem important. If she had anything juicy to share, she would have by now. And considering that Williams just defending known sexual abuser R. Kelly, I don’t know that this is the source you should be pinning your hopes on.

        The half-sister sold out Meghan because the sister is a money hungry jerk. The two women have been estranged for years because sister Samantha is a toxic person. Meghan’s half-siblings always knew they would not be invited to the wedding. That is why they started selling stories to the tabloids months ago. Now they want to play the victim despite being estranged for so many years.

        And what were the royals supposed to be vetting for? Someone without a toxic family member? Those families don’t exist, goodness knows the Royals have their fair share of toxic family members.

      • Newmoon says:

        I like Meghan, but I know what you’re referring to: you can tell when she’s “on.” It strikes me as a kind of performative happiness. Might be an advantage in public life, but it definitely feels practiced. You can see the acting. Thing is: the lady has kind eyes. You can’t fake that. So, ok. / Only time I doubted her was at the engagement photo op in the garden when she came out with that SEXY walk. Thought to myself: “oh no, she doesn’t know her audience. don’t let them paint you with that brush, sweetheart. BRF is not LA.”

      • Jessie says:


        Many of us would say Harry’s “elevating his life, ” by being with Meghan. A big up from his swastika party boy past.

        Just curious…would you see every woman who becomes engaged to a royal family member as trying to “elevate herself,” or does this just apply to Meghan Markle? Why doesn’t she get the benefit of the doubt that she’s a young woman in love with a young man. Harry chased her around, not vice versa. She fell for him. Nice love story. Did you say the same thing about ‘commoner Kate’ (what the disgusting Brit tabloids insultingly called her) as she stood by in the wings waiting for Prince William to marry her? Or is it only Meghan that’s deemed thirsty?

        …if you haven’t gone after other impending brides of royals and grooms of royals…why does Meghan get the treatment?

        Lemme guess….

      • notasugarhere says:

        The vacations in Mustique were often comped or at deep discount, via the Jigsaw couple in cases. Other vacations came from Uncle Gary at Maison de Bang Bang. The multiple mortgages on the house would indicate they lived beyond their means, even if they ended up paying for both of her wedding dresses.

        Royals and celebrities have moved in the same circles for years, ex. Charles is friends with any number of them. Whether or not there are celebrities at Soho House, in addition to all their other members? It was far more likely a store employee would sell that info than an employee at SH. That person may well be fired because a private club is only as successful as the employees are discreet.

      • No Doubtful says:

        I totally agree, I gave this marriage 5 years and lots of drama. I’m shocked the queen even allowed it to get this far.

      • Ex-Mel says:

        “It is not race but you felt the need to qualify that it is not about race. Um yeah.”

        I am not the OP, but I can understand it’s a “preemptive” remark – because so many people MAKE it about race, as if there were no possible other reason for anyone to dislike Meghan Markle (or any non-Caucasian woman).

      • C. Remm says:

        “C says: That’s something about her…..I don’t know how to explain, but I don’t think she is so amazing blah blah (there’s nothing to do with race). She seems to be very calculating. I don’t know.”

        Your post has been haunting me since yesterday. You don’t really say anything, you say it is something you cannot describe, something diffuse, but it is there. She seems to be this or that but you don’t know. I wonder why somebody writes about something they cannot explain. Why don’t you wait and write, when you know what it is that is about her?

        You do know though that what you are doing here is the first step of the Progrom. That is how it started and that is why I react very allergic to it. It starts with the damage to ones reputation without saying anything for which you could be held accountable, because, hey, you just described something which you could not explain, right? If you had said something like she was married four times or her mother was in jail for 6 years, than people could ask you for evidence but so you plant an idea in other peoples heads and phantasy is very powerful.

        The haters of Meghan start rumours like this: One of them says something on twitter, two share this tweet. A third shares it on FB, where it is shared again several times. 2 days later that comment comes back via tumblr to that group on Twitter and the initial person says, hey, see, didn’t I tell you? And then somebody comes here and says, well many opinions on the internet say, that Meghan cannot be trusted.

        Creating a alternative reality.

      • Stace says:

        Yes, agree. The hair-flipping, the coy looks. She’s very thirsty. No matter what others here say, you are not incorrect in your observations. Time will tell.

    • girl_ninja says:

      Meh. There are so many scandals royals, the Markles fit right in…except that they’re poor.

      • homeslice says:

        Yes, but the BRF is the BRF and the Markles are not. This is not what a new member of the family wants to have to deal with the week before her wedding!
        I’m giving the dad a semi-pass because I think he is mentally off. I think MM probably made a poor decision to include him, but hopefully she will be smarter in the future. The guy gives me a very weird “off” vibe…

    • minx says:

      I shrug the family stuff off because I frankly have a lot of dysfunction and drama in my family too, so nbd. I think these two are really in love, she’ll do fine in her role, etc. What I don’t like about the match is that she’ll be in a new country with no personal support except for her new husband. She’ll make friends but it will be tough not having someone who knew her before her marriage. When she and Harry argue, or she just wants to get away from him, who will she confide in? People mock Kate’s relationship with her family, specifically her mother, but at least she has a support system close at hand. Meghan is gaining a lot but also giving up a lot, too.

      • notasugarhere says:

        IMO Carole would pick William and her royal grandkids over Kate in any fight.

      • minx says:

        Well maybe, but she’s still a family member who is close at hand.

      • Carrie1 says:

        Well, take heart. Meghan is very close friends with Canada’s top political families kids of her age group. Including Prime Minister Trudeau and his wife, who also have great rapport with Kate, William, Harry et al. They surely have friends in UK to introduce and encourage to protect Meghan. I bet it’s already underway. Also, her mom seems rock solid and not manipulative. She is her best ally I think and I hope her Mom visits often if not moves close by!

        I tell you, there has to be someone who is not calculating in her life or she’d not be as confident and strong as she is. Thank goodness.

      • minx says:

        Carrie1–Yes. I was thinking more of people who will be living in England. People she doesn’t have to Face Time, lol. Her mother seems like a wonderful person and I hope she does visit regularly.

      • Berry says:

        I agree with you. Megan is going to need to very strong support system and right now it doesn’t seem like she has anyone (apart from Harry) who she is very close to in the London area.

        When Kate is raked over the coals she can run to Buckleberry and her mom. Megan can’t exactly run home to LA and her mother.

    • daisie-b says:

      Many in Prince Philip’s famly were Nazis. The Duke and Duchess of Windso were friends of Hitler. It doesn’t get much worse than that. English royalty have a tradition of decapitating their way to the throne. They claim that they are chosen by God…nonsense. To get an idea of what transpired watch The White Queen, The White Princess, any dramatization of the Tudors, the War of the Roses, Mary Queen of Scots or her son James I.

      In recent memory, from Victoria on, conquering and colonizing the world for fun and profit.


      If the worst things the Markle family has done is stage some paparazzi pics or bitch and moan, they can hold their heads high knowing that at least there is no blood on their hands.

    • MaryRose says:

      Rumor is Andrew prefers teenage girls, and he doesn’t mind forcing them. Google it. Some have talked.

    • citney says:


      My own personal opinion, but I can see how the Queen might not be exactly keen on Harry marrying a divorced woman, especially since the Queen’s own sister was forbidden from marrying her true love because he was divorced.

      Also, look at the scandals divorced women have caused the Monarchy, Wallis Simpson, even Camilla have caused cringeworthy embarrassment for all concerned.

      If MM had been wise, she’d have insisted on a wedding such as Charles and Camilla had, not a big church wedding..aka “circus”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I doubt HM is tearing her hair out over a divorce. Three of the Queen’s children are divorced, two have since remarried. Margaret wasn’t forbidden to marry Townsend. She just couldn’t marry him and keep taking royal perks.

        Charles and Camilla had a registry office wedding with 30 guests. It was followed that day by the blessing service at St George’s Chapel – with 800 guests. Not exactly a small event.

      • lunchcoma says:

        That was many years ago. I’m not claiming the Queen is any sort of progressive, but I think that decades of life and social change and seeing her own children’s relationships falter have taught her some things. Three of her four children have been divorced, and as for scandals, Fergie and Diana had theirs as well. If we’re looking for a common thread, I’d say that it’s not so much divorced women as royal men.

      • jwoolman says:

        Or maybe Meghan didn’t want anything flowery added. Or maybe the queen just knew Kate for a much longer time, while she just met Meghan.

        People are complaining about lack of the word “trusty”? Who even uses that any more? And it’s easy to say someone is well-beloved but not so easy to act accordingly. It just a formality. Why scrutinize every word?

        If the queen really didn’t approve of Meghan, she would not have given consent. Then they would just have to encourage Harry’s brother to have one more child, then Harry would be seventh in line for the throne and entirely off the hook. No queenly consent needed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or as stated multiple places, it is related to her citizenship and nothing else.

      • TuxCat5 says:

        Perhaps “trusty and well-beloved” wasn’t *left out* for Meghan, but was *forced in* for Kate.

        Maybe, before William and Kate’s consent went public, William had a hissy fit when he saw that “most dearly beloved grandson” was written for him, but nothing was written for Kate, and he demanded that something gushy be said for her (so “trusty and well-beloved” was added). And nothing gushy was written for Meghan because Harry and Meghan don’t give a rat’s patootie?

        Maybe no gushy descriptor for the one marrying in is standard/norm, and the “trusty and well-beloved” for Kate was just to placate a wailing William.

      • Mari says:

        FWIW, according to Hello! “trusty and well-beloved” are descriptors used for British subjects, which Kate is and Meghan isn’t, and they appeared in a later document closer to the Wales Middleton wedding. The original consent was said to be almost identical to the one issued for Prince Harry and Meghan.

    • isabelle says:

      Do you know anything about the history of the royal family? Now that is “wincing” beheadings, murder, supporting radical fringe groups, suppression of the poor and truly disgusting things.

      • jwoolman says:

        When the BRF were absolute monarchs, they behaved as such. I was watching documentaries about the Tudor Dynasty a while back, and they were definitely behaving just like Kim in North Korea to both their own relatives and any dissidents or just political competitors. Actually, Kim might be relatively kindly in comparison.

        Which is why absolute monarchies are a bad bad bad idea.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I’m not a huge stan for her, but I don’t see her family being a huge issue after the wedding. They’re a problem for her at this stage because she felt like she had to invite her siblings, but once the big event is past, I think she can pretty much go back to ignoring them. They’ll continue to give weird interviews to the press, but they can only do so much harm if they don’t actually know anything about her life. It’s not like Harry’s life doesn’t have some of that too, with all the people still gossiping about his mother all these years later.

    • DesertReal says:

      Trusty + Well Beloved = Waity AF

  2. Magdalin says:

    British subjects are called “trusty” and “well-beloved.” This actually wasn’t a personal slight to Meghan.

    • Alix says:

      Had a seen this bit of wisdom first, I wouldn’t have rattled on with my own theories. Good call, @Magdalin!

    • Jennifer says:

      Not just UK, overseas realms too. Not Commonwealth. Basically if you’re her subject, you get the superlatives.

    • BFSun says:

      Yes – I wish the yahoos ready to shriek “RACISM” could read properly, then they’d be aware of this.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        It has nothing to do with being a yahoo or being ready to shriek “racism.” It has to do with ignorance of this arcane fact about the language of the British monarchy.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That simple fact doesn’t make for headlines.

    • MrsBump says:

      Anybody has a link for that? I think it’s just a case of the Kate having been in the picture for longer. The only people who see this as a slight against Megan are those who are desperately looking for one. Who cares if she wasn’t referred to as such, she’ll still marry him this weekend

    • SlightlyAnonny says:

      Thank you! I thought this the first time and couldn’t get why it was a big deal. She’s not British or a citizen of the Commonwealth so she is not ‘trusty” and “well beloved.” Frankly, as an American I’m surprised she didn’t get “dirty treasonous rebel.”

      • Cee says:


      • KiddV says:

        LOL! So true!

      • jwoolman says:

        I wonder if she could become a Canadian citizen and retain her US citizenship since they accept dual. She has lived in Canada for a while. It might be nice for them to spend a lot of time there. Then she would eventually be a trusty and beloved subject via Canada.

        Or does the UK allow dual citizenship?

        It seems silly to lose your native citizenship because you’ve married a British sixth-in-line-for-the-throne-god-I -hope-it-never-happens Prince.

    • Enny says:

      Aw, see? That’s so logical and boring and I’m totally sticking with my own (unsubstantiated) theory: the queen is all “burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me” about Kate and her waity lazy ass. Now the superlatives are something you have to EARN g-dammit! Show the queen some spark and gumption AFTER marriage and she’ll declare you trusty and beloved, but g-dang if she’s not gonna have egg on her face again with another do-nothing royal bride! 😉😉😉

      Oh, if only it were this…

    • Carrie1 says:

      Ah thanks for this! I honestly thought it was no big deal as Meghan is very new to all the royals. Kate had been with them for years by the time of her engagement, and they genuinely knew her better. I didn’t see this as a diss or slight to Meghan.

  3. sus says:

    It was explained that only British and Commonwealth citizens get those descriptors. As Meghan is not yet a British citizen, she doesn’t get them. Unfair perhaps but not a personal dig against her.

  4. Mia4s says:

    The descriptors are reserved for British subjects according to proper royal etiquette. She’s American. She’s not the Queen’s subject. It’s as simple as that.

    I’ll try to find the reference if I have the time but given I’m a Commonwealth subject who would like to see the monarchy done away with in my country, I’m not an expert. 😉

  5. Jennifer says:

    Not Commonwealth, but subjects of UK and overseas realms.

  6. Chef Grace says:

    Should have read ” our keen and beloved button wearing Catherine”

  7. Digital Unicorn says:

    ‘Our Trusty and Well-beloved Catherine’ – that makes me think of a description of a favourite horse or a dog, you know the kind of thing you see on a grave stone.

  8. Alix says:

    Deleted my original hypotheses because I’ve just been schooled by those who know better. A tip of my fascinator to these trusty and well-beloved Celebitches.

    • Josie says:

      As others have said, it’s a citizenship issue. Sophie will have been trusty and well-beloved, too.

  9. Mimi says:

    This is a non-story as it has already been explained ad nauseum that the descriptors are used for the Queen’s subjects and Meghan, as an American, doesn’t qualify.

  10. Who ARE these people? says:

    The more I read about this Duke business the more I think about the origins of “entitlement.” Crazy how one rich person giving another rich person a made-up name matters in that world in the modern era. You get a title and boom, you’re special and extra-deserving. Nice work if you can get it.

    • Nilo says:

      Well said. All the Dukedom-business, and what for exactly? Completely undeserved, and without any responibilities attached.

      • Alix says:

        So the kiddies can have the courtesy titles of prince and princess. Since Harry has only a courtesy title at this point, his children would have none at all at this point. A royal dukedom is a “real” title and thus courtesy titles can be passed down to the next generation.

        Which is why, when a British princess gets married, her fiancé is generally offered an earldom, so their kids can be lords and ladies (never on par with their uncles’ kids, heaven forbid).

      • LAK says:

        Alix: the Prince(ess) title is only applied to the child/grandchild of the monarch in the male line as well as the eldest SON of the POW.

        In all other contexts, no one receives a prince(ess) style.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        It’s a leftover from the feudal area, isn’t it?

        And the discussion of having to provide a title just so that the kids can have a title … well, that sort of proves the point. The title remains meaningless unto itself.

  11. OChar says:

    It won’t matter if they stay together for 5 years or 25 years, if they ever get divorced, people will automatically revert to “See, I knew she wasn’t right for Harry!” Every article I read about Megan has commenters, all white women do far (a lot of them older) saying how much they don’t like Megan for Harry. I hope they stay in love & married until they die, just for all the haters. Of course, I’m sure they’ll just decide that it’s fake anyways & he doesn’t really love her. I hate to see comments about their future children, I’m sure people will be hateful towards them as well.

    • Guest says:

      Meghan’s going to need thick skin especially when they have children. Even though their children will be a quarter black DNA is a funny thing and they can come out looking darker then their cousins.

      • Tonya says:

        From Meghan’s Tig blog, articles, RACISM PSA, etc. it seems like she is quite aware of the ‘hatred’ & like many people of African decent- she will continue to survive & thrive inspite of the animosity…

      • minx says:

        Meghan is bringing some much needed fresh DNA into the family. I would bet their kids will be gorgeous, mostly thanks to Meghan, not Harry.

      • C. Remm says:

        @minx Don’t forget, Harry is a male Diana, so if they have a daughter?! Who knows. The same in Monaco. Albert is a male Grace Kelly, got her face, and his daughter has his face so …. the boy is Charlene.

      • Jessie. says:

        As a Black woman, let me just say….many Black women are born with thick skin. I’m sure if anyone slurs what most assuredly will be a beautiful child she’ll treat them with the acorn they deserve as will the rest of humanity.

        Why go there hon? This isn’t loving vs Virginia.

        You do know the royal family already has non-white admixture. East Asian (India) which was reported a few years ago as well as not too distant African (see Queen Charlotte, ‘descended from a black branch of her Portugese family’).

        That said…who cares if they’re children are honey beige or light tan standing next to sandy beige or bisque cousins? They also may not have bald spots and close together beady eyes like Graboa Charles, thanks Meghan! Prince William’s daughter has beautiful epicanthal eyelids that many Asian people have, should she be ashamed because they aren’t round eyes?

      • Masamf says:

        I think what will matter the most is that BOTH parents will love these their kids to death regardless of their color. What other people think will be just chaff.

    • E says:

      OChar- On one of my previous comments that I made (which was anti-Royal Family, rather than anti-Meghan) someone from this board inferred that it was racist, which was ridiculous and offensive. As for your comment, please do not assume that everyone is ‘old and white’ (of which I am neither) when they say anything which is vaguely anti-Royal Family or anti-Meghan. I’m tired of a few people on this board accusing others of being racist when there’s no hint of bigotry in their comments.

      • OChar says:

        I obviously should have explained myself more. I wasn’t talking about anyone on Celebitchy, pretty much everyone here is “normal.” & I don’t care if people don’t like her hair or clothes or whatever, again, not what I am talking about. I have a bit of a soft spot for Harry, being that my brother is a ginger are well, and I have been reading Facebook linked articles as the wedding approaches, when I normally only read celeb gossip here. I’ve been appalled at how gross people are about Megan & because it’s facebook, I can see the pictures of the people commenting & yes, they were all older white women & it definitely wasn’t my assuming racism, they were saying things like “she better know her place” & I can’t see how that is anything but racist. Sometimes I start to leave a comment & then decide not to, today was one of those days I should have just skipped commenting. 🤷🏻‍♀️

    • Mrsjennyk says:

      It’s amazing how you can tell from a comment that the author is an older white woman! Give your head a shake! You’ve never stopped to think for a minute that maybe, just maybe it’s ok for others to have a different opinion or view other than your own?

      • OChar says:

        Good grief, I wasn’t talking about anyone on Celebitchy. 🙄 I can tell they are older white women because all of the horrible comments I see are on Facebook articles in which I can literally see a picture of the person making the comments.

    • HelenTroy says:

      The colour card got overplayed long time ago. I’m Meghan fan but get annoyed by this constant colorizing of other commenters just because they happen to have different opinion. And even when I only disliked her clothes, I had to read some of this. Ridiculous.

      • OChar says:

        I’m taking about women who are saying things like “Megan needs to know her places” not someone who says her clothes are ugly. I don’t typically follow celebrity gossip other then from Celebitchy, and everyone here is usually pretty normal. But I am a sucker for Harry, so I’ve been reading more articles linked on Facebook as the wedding is getting closer & it’s been a bit of a shock to see how disgusting people are about Megan.

  12. LAK says:

    Every dukedome has baggage. The last duke of Sussex had an illegal marriage AND a morganatic one and mistresses galore. His kids couldn’t inherit.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t like Sussex, too much like Wessex and too ripe for inappropriate comments. Still hoping for combined Clarence and Avondale. Bad associations there too but I like the sound!

      • LAK says:

        I remain hopeful for Clarence. Even in combination.

      • notasugarhere says:

        To me Clarence by itself is just, ugh. And boring, because they’d all be two syllable C-titles. Cornwall, Cambridge, Clarence.

      • Tigerlily says:

        Clarence reminds of Edward IV’s brother George, Duke of Clarence. Big loser…so I don’t like that title. What about Duke of Suffolk? That has been extinct for centuries or Duke of Exeter? Not sure if Cumberland has been proposed but that should be a big no as he was monstrous to the Scots. Though even discussing Harry getting a title is ridiculous. In 21 century not sure why there are royals anyway.

      • LAK says:

        Tigerlily: George was indeed a terrible sibling. If that were my brother, i’m not sure i’d have kept him as long as they did.

        Sadly Suffolk or Exeter are extant ie they exist in their lower forms. A title has to be vacant in all it’s forms. Currently they exist as the follows.

        Suffolk = currently held as Earl of Suffolk. Current holder is Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk,_21st_Earl_of_Suffolk

        Exeter = currently held as Marquess of Exeter. Current holder is Michael Cecil, 8th Marquess of Exeter,_8th_Marquess_of_Exeter

        If they were vacant, i would choose Suffolk over Clarence.

        Cumberland is a no no for the Scots, but it is also suspended rather than vacant. It’s heirs retain the right to reclaim it. The current heir / claimant is Prince Ernst of Hanover (married to Caroline of Monaco)

  13. Petty Riperton says:

    *Gasp* She hates her and won’t lend her a tiara for the wedding. *evil laugh*

    People feel Harry doesn’t deserve a dukedom or the whole thing is stupid. Quite interesting how people didn’t feel that way before.

  14. Nic919 says:

    They should have come up with new adjectives like Rebellious and Independent.
    Trusty and Well Beloved seems like how you describe a dog anyway.

  15. Elisabeth says:

    crack open a history book….the windsors aren’t exactly a functional family

  16. Guest says:

    I love this couple. Its definitely made some people go crazy with the amount of hate she gets for really no reason. I was over at the cesspool known as royaldish, those lovely ladies hate Meghan to the point where they are now wishing they don’t have kids. Guess they don’t want the inbred tree of the royal to grow a new limb? I hope harry and meghan do a great job as working royals and I can’t wait until saturday where I’m sure all those haters will be up bright and early sticking pins in their meghan voodoo doll.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      Yeah, I used to tolerate RD, but this weekend they went way overboard with wishing they didn’t have kids. Bye bye, RD! No one needs that kind of negativity in their lives.

    • notasugarhere says:

      RD moderators lost the script and went off the rails a couple years ago. If you could ignore the awful sections, they were one of the most up-to-date about non-BRF royal families. But I couldn’t justify giving that site the advertising clicks.

      • LAK says:

        I haven’t been to RD in years. I used to click for the photos and videos, but the comments were too hateful to endure.

        In the early days of HM’s relationship, before the commentary turned dark across the board on the internet, i was amused by the way people lost their minds over the unicorn that had materialised in the form of MM. The darkness has escalated to a level that makes those early comments seem benign in comparison.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Even The Royal Forums is seeing a fair share of nasty, over the edge comments.

        Part of me expected that, because there has always been an undercurrent of racism in some people’s royal watching. They keep track of bloodlines as if humans were race horses.

      • LAK says:

        I think that’s what is so heartbreaking for me. That in this day and age, the public is the upholder / enforcer of these prejudices. It’s not top-down enforcement or laws forced onto the public.

        It makes me think that if you parachuted those same people back to pre-civil / human rights era, they’d be perfectly fine with the status quo.

    • milky says:

      Eh, all Royal ladies receive hate. None of them deserve it. I read the archives of a Royal forum recently, and they said the same things about Kate. They were wishing she wouldn’t have kids! The Prince’s are taken and the crazy is unleashed. I’m a bit scared of what the Tumblr peeps will do on Saturday! Will they be crying hysterically? Throwing stuff at their screens?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not at this level they don’t. What has been aimed at Meghan Markle has gone beyond anything I’ve seen before.

      • Guest says:

        I’ve been following royal boards for years and I’ve never seen them say they hope they don’t have kids about any other couple. Thats a disgusting thing to say about anyone. On royaldish meghan is on Sophia of Sweden levels when it comes to their hate.

      • milky says:

        Apart from the disgusting racism… there’s been the prostitute, old woman that can’t have babies (lol), scheming plotter, stalker, the bike. But my favourite is, “she’s got Harry under her magic voodoo sex drugs spell. Somebody save poor victim Harry!”

      • Marr says:

        That’s my favourite one too lol. But I also think the voodoo angle pertains to the larger racism issue. I don’t think any other royal fiance has ever been accused of straight up witchcraft before this. It’s funny to me how the same people invoke God and quote from the Bible against MM only to ask for tarot readings 5 mins later… smh

      • LAK says:

        Milky: Do they have an opinion on Princess Angela of Liechtenstein?

    • Beluga says:

      I used to drop in on royaldish now and then a while back to learn more about other royal families. I hadn’t visited for a few years until very recently, but when I did before they basically described their ideal match for Harry as someone age-appropriate with her own career, a history of charity work and some of them were even saying that it would be great for the RF if he married someone non-British and/or non-white! And yet the moment Meghan was in the picture, they decided they absolutely despised her on a level that’s worse than I’ve ever seen before there, to the point where that section of the board was shut down for a while. Bizarre.

  17. Tan says:

    Meghan has been in the picture far less time than Kate

    Considering the things Kate put up with till she got the ring, our trusty and well beloved was the least the queen could do.

    Also, as much as the fans want her to be, Meghan is not the future princesses of wales. She is the spare’s spouse, the future Sarah Fergusson, marrying in 2018( when things are at all time crazy)

    There will be a lot less hu hah over this compared to other royal weddings.

    • Bea says:

      Nice broad stroke you paint to make sure we all know Meghan’s place. I tend to think everyone knows that it will be Kate who will be princess of Wales. Though you may not be looking forward to the attention and praise Meghan will receive on Saturday, there’s plenty of excitement for Harry and Meghan’s wedding.

    • Lady D says:

      Tan, I think you’re wrong about there being less hu hah over this wedding. I think this union will be scrutinized harshly from day one. There will always be interest in this marriage, just like there was with Brad and Angelina. Half hoping like crazy they make it, half bitterly wishing for the downfall of the marriage. I’m afraid there is going to be a hell of a lot of attention focused on these two for a very long time. For the next ten years Meghan is going to work circles around Kate, and she will be hounded and harassed the whole time by the press and those waiting and hoping to see her fail. Really, does she know what she’s getting herself into?

      • notasugarhere says:

        This was always going to be the way, with the traditional heir vs. spare mentality. Adding in the public nature of her career, being bi-racial, and her family-of-betrayers? She’s going to need to be strong like Letizia and just keep keeping on. And I hope Harry is much more supportive of her than Andrew was of Sarah.

    • notasugarhere says:

      What she put up with? Kate chose to debase herself, drop everything for William, never work, and live her life only for the ring. Meghan is being debased by her extended family, family she has chosen to separate herself from for over a decade. Obviously for good reason. I see a difference.

      Fairly certain both she and Harry understand his place in the line of succession. People who support the monarchy are likely hoping that Meghan is going to work hard and be a good fit for the royal team. She’s already worked 5 times more than Kate did during the same period, so that’s a good start.

      These two are going to be a major part of the working royal team for decades. Interested to see what she does with the platform, even if they end up with a ducal title I personally don’t like 😉

      • Veronica T says:

        Meghan dropped a lot more for Harry than Kate did for William. MM dropped her entire life.
        And I know you are knowledgeable, but I absolutely stick to my belief that MM and Harry will not be allowed to work more than Wills and Kate, or outshine them in any way. They will either be abused like crazy, or ignored like Sophie. I put my $$ on abused, cause it will make media more money.
        And you say how much MM worked more than Kate before the marriage, but was Wills even a working royal at the time?? I don’t think he was. And Harry is. Kind of. A very lazy working royal, almost unemployed, but a working one nevertheless.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again with the made-up excuses about full vs part time, it not being William’s job to step up and get to work at age 30, the Malta lie, etc. W&K played games for years, are still playing them, in the attempt to take all the royal perks and do none of the work.

        Kate was known across the country and in the press as a lazy, workshy party girl. Openly mocked for years for doing nothing. Gave lots of promises in the engagement interview about hitting the ground running, then proceeded to do next to nothing during the engagement period. And very little since.

        Meghan did 28 engagements to Kate’s 5, therefore she is already working more than Kate. She has chosen a new career path, just like Maxima, Letizia, Daniel, and many other royals before her. She’s also continuing the nature of her previous charity work, especially regarding girls and women’s rights.

    • Petty Riperton says:

      “There will be a lot less hu hah over this compared to other royal weddings“

      You either don’t watch TV, look at social media or live in a cave. This wedding is everywhere. The TV movie about their relationship was the number 1 trending topic for a while but it stayed in the top 5 last night which is amazing because an NBA playoff game was on at the same time.

    • Natalie S. says:

      hoo-ha. Apparently the plural is hoo-has.

      I’m sorry, not to make a big hoo-ha over it or anything. Or to add to the general hoo-has.

  18. anika says:

    Uhh I really like the “Duke and Duchess of Avondale”.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I like Avondale but I’m not sure it can be used as a solo title. Then again, HM can probably do almost anything she wants regarding these titles.

      • C. REmm says:

        I looked for Avondale but could only find a place in New South Wales and several towns in the US. Avondale sounds similar to Aragon and Guinevere and all romantic long flowing dresses, knights in shining armour …. but I’m getting carried away here … so, where is Avondale. Avon is a former county.

  19. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    I would think this is much ado about nothing because due to line of succession, it is extremely unlikely that Harry and Meghan would ever take the throne, as opposed to Kate and William, who will rise to it after Charles.

  20. Betsy says:

    I read the above comments about those descriptors being applied to citizens of Britain, but I like to imagine it’s because you don’t have to say the obvious. Kate seems neither trusty nor well-beloved.

    Carole Middleton is whip smart though.

  21. WendyNerd says:

    Any chance for a Marquisette? LAK, bluhare, help a girl out here!

    • LAK says:

      There hasn’t been one for a long time. Centuries.

      Sadly, our dear Queen is a traditionalist. It would never occur to her to give less than a royal dukedom unless the couple asked for it. Like Edward did.

      • WendyNerd says:

        I knew Edward asked to have the kids go by Lady and Viscount instead of Princess and Prince, by didn’t know he asked for an earldom over a dukedom. I always assumed it was just because he would inherit Edinburgh someday. Really surprising, given that I always got the impression- from Roy Knockout at least – that he was big on his titles.

        I want Clarence, but Avondale would be nice too. Any word on titles for Eugenie’s fiancé?”

      • LAK says:

        It’s worse than that Wendynerd. The Earldom is from pre-England Anglo-Saxon times, in the Kingdom of Wessex, and was largely forgotten. Until it was used for Colin Firth’s character in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.

        Edward apparently loved the film and the title so much that he asked for it. The Palace retold the story, but spun it as a perfect marriage of modern royalty and Edward’s interest in the arts.

        Earldom was granted with caveat that he would receive the dukedom after Philip’s death.

        Fingers crossed for Clarence too. Avondale reminds me of a soppy teen romance book series i read ages ago. I think the title was Avalon rather than Avondale, but that’s what always comes to mind when i see it.

        No word on titles for Jack, BUT i think they are in a bad position as far as the public + titles for the Yorkies is concerned ie the Queen may offer,but if Jack accepts, it will go down badly with the public who will read it via the prism of Andrew.

  22. A says:

    She’s not trusty or well-beloved but when was the last time the royal family was 100% transparent about their finances again? I don’t think the RF can get on a high horse all things considered, so very little of this stuff bothers me.

  23. Michael says:

    Contrary to popular opinion on this site, I don’t find Megan to be trustworthy. She comes across as disingenuous.

    • A says:

      She’ll be in good company when she gets married then. The RF is all about artifice after all.

  24. jferber says:

    Stop right there, Queen. She is trusty and well-loved to me. So was Diana, for that matter, and look what you and the other royals did to her. She was hounded to her death. Her royal title was taken away. Your dear son was an adulterer and a brute. And you still think he should be king. So just stuff it. There are plenty of skeletons in your closet.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Diana willingly gave up her HRH in exchange for a bigger settlement; her lawyer admitted it.

      Not going to unpack the rest of that.

    • Erinn says:

      Good lord. Did you bother reading any of the explanations as to why it was left off? You’re taking this very personally.

    • SheBug says:

      It’s not a meritocracy, it’s about tradition. I think it’s hard for Americans to understand. It’s all about discipline and protocol, not likability. In one way hereditary titles are cool because it’s so divorced from the often arbitrary standards of who gets what. Someone could be a dishwasher, if he’s next in line for whatever title he gets it. There’s nothing anyone can do to stop him. It does suck with regard to Princes of Wales, they are generally duds ruined by a lifetime of privilege before they rise to the monarchy. Elizabeth has been a gem, and she was a modernizer in her way. She’s been on the throne for so long it’s hard to remember that she broke taboos by doing things like going to Churchill’s funeral.

  25. Petty Riperton says:

    “Trusty and Well-beloved“ are adjectives that describes an old family pet. LoL
    Lilibet can keep that.

    • jwoolman says:

      I dunno about the family pet connection. My mother did trust our cat in the living room when it was off-limits to us kids (he had a favorite sleeping spot in front of a heating vent, and the raggedy wall-to-wall carpeting the house came with were in no danger from kitty claws).

      But none of my feline roommates ever brought the word ”trusty” to mind. Except when one cat kept escaping the cat-proofed yard and so was on house arrest until security holes were plugged, and she was allowed out for yard exercise only under supervision from the Warden (me), who followed her around with the video camera set on the phone to see exactly how she did it. I did refer to her foster dad as the Trusty, he was old reliable and had no interest in wandering the neighborhood beyond the fence. He would serenely watch his daughter through the fence as she had her adventures, though, making it easier for me to know where she was frolicking. He also helped lure her back into the yard as he bounded around.

  26. Nanny to the rescue says:

    I don’t care how anybody calls anybody in the royal family and what titles they hold, but can I just say that the official paper (is this really it or is it a mock?) looks like a kid on coffee drew it. Too many colors, silly pictures (yeah, I know, heraldry, I still don’t care), the initial is ridiculous and the writing is all over the place (not to mention centre-aligned). Geez.

    Could it be even tackier?

    P.S. I actually like the queen and the royal family, but I thought their documents would be more … dignified?

    • notasugarhere says:

      What you’re criticizing is the calligrapher chosen to do the work and their personal artistic style.

      • Nanny to the rescue says:

        Yeah, I know. Calligraphy and personal style can be less tacky too.

    • Ollie says:

      Yes this thing looks childish and surprisingly cheap.
      The different colours, the drawings…so ugly. The calligraphy is excellent, but the whole look of this document is just ugly.
      And the placement of the Queen’s signature… really?

      I’m sure Harry and Meghan won’t look at this thing ever again.

  27. Stephanie says:

    What would happen to Meghan’s titles if Harry passed away? Would children play a role?

  28. Pandy says:

    She will be fine and this will all die away after Saturday. If anyone cuts her dead … Well she’s marrying Royalty and he will protect her

  29. ladida says:

    If I were her, all this crap would make me run the other direction. But to be fair, the Queen has only met Meghan a couple of times. They knew Kate for like a million years before she married William.

  30. Wilma says:

    From what I’ve seen so far of her, Meghan will slay. Hopefully as Duchess of Sussex, because that is one pretty county!

  31. SheBug says:

    Kate was with William forever. Meghan and Harry dated long-distance for less than two years. Of course the older royals are going to be a little reserved, especially when her family has been selling e-books calling her “Princess Pushy,” yapping to the Fail and ranting on Twitter.

  32. Reece says:

    “Trusty” and “Well beloved” sounds like a dog or a pet.
    I think it’s a compliment to not have that label.
    ETA: Might be the American in me.

  33. Ray says:

    Meghan with her chemically straightened hair is so white washed from being in Hollywood that she’ll fit right in with the BRF…..

  34. Swan Lake says:

    I’ll be glad when this over-hyped wedding is over so they won’t get so much coverage. I don’t find them interesting.

  35. jferber says:

    Notasugarhere, With all due respect, the royal family has been trying to discredit Diana for years. She is not here to defend herself, so if a lawyer did or did not “verify” that she gave up her title willingly for a bigger payout, I do not necessarily believe this since the royals have not been “trusty” in all that they claim about her. I do know that when I visited Buckingham Palace and asked a guard why there were no souvenir pictures of Diana to buy, the response I got was “She’s not a royal and she does not live in the castle.” The royal PR machine is very strong in England.

    • notasugarhere says:

      He wasn’t the royals lawyer, he was her lawyer. Why so difficult to admit he told the truth about her? She wanted more money, she gave up the HRH willingly, regretted it later.

      She stopped being a member of the royal family when she and Charles divorced. Why should BP be required to have souvenir pictures of her?

  36. Bumble says:

    oh man. Her dad no longer coming to the wedding. That poor girl.

  37. Em says:

    Trusty = having served for a long time and regarded as reliable . Meg is too new to be regarded as long serving/reliable by the Q. Kate had that 10year wait at Williams beck and call so that probably counts for ‘having served for a long time’.

    Trusty is not exactly the same thing as trusted in royal language, when Kate gets the Queens family order you will know that Kate is finally regarded as being ‘trusted’ a keeper in Queen Speak, 7years on and three kids later and Kate still doesn’t have one. The Q is rather Ent like in that regard and could never be accused of being hasty when dishing out the orders. Meg will have an equally long wait.

  38. raincoaster says:

    Those adjectives apply to SUBJECTS. As Meghan is an American, she’s not a subject of the Queen, and that’s why she didn’t get those descriptors. That’s all.

  39. Nibbi says:

    Meghan and Harry seem genuinely in love to me.
    I think he’s smart to choose her, too, because of the way she is already active with philanthropy, an accomplished public speaker, not to mention camera-ready. She also seems very sweet and to have a lot more personality than demure, waiting-forever-in-the-wings Kate. All of this silliness is not at all Meghan’s fault – she’s handled herself very well throughout all this, I don’t think anyone can question that- and everyone is right to point out that the Windsors really don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to family scandal and embarassments. The only difference is the amount of (unearned…) wealth at hand, and so everyone acts sniffy and fingers their pearls. Snobs and hypocrites, the lot of them.