Harry and Sparkles Divorce Watch

Cunt.

Can't you cunts stick to one thread at a time instead of trying to destroy the DL with this shit?

50 quid on 5 years max. Plus 2 sprogs.

Seriously, what a bitter cunt.

Really, if she schemed so hard to get this position, why on earth would she want to relinquish it? (And I'm someone who thinks she's a social climber, but it's not exactly a crime and it doesn't mean the marriage won't be reasonably happy.)

The bride's mother is lovely. I hope it works out for her sake.

I'll give them 5 years.

I say 7.

[quote]if she schemed so hard to get this position, why on earth would she want to relinquish it?

Because disappointment and boredom are deal-breakers no matter what you stand to lose. Eventually, you'd rather cut and run, take your chances, then endure a life of dull sameness.

This isn’t a gay couple. There won’t be a divorce.

[quote]This isn’t a gay couple. There won’t be a divorce.

Harry's parents were divorced. Harry's paternal aunt and uncle were divorced. Harry's maternal uncle has been divorced twice. Meghan is divorced. Meghan's parents were divorced. A Silver Wedding anniversary is not in their future.

She’s your princess now, serfs. Bow, bow to the American!

She recited her vows like an audition for Beverly Hills 90210 Reunion

I think they're in love right now but they'll probably divorce in less than 10 years. Half of all marriages end in divorce. This isn't the 1950's. They'll probably want other things in life as time goes by.

She'll play the jilted people's princess from the date of the divorce until the end of time ... get ready.

R8, yes, but I was mostly addressing the poster or posters who were denouncing her as a fraud. Even if she was a dewy-eyed, virginal, light skinned debutante, she'd still be marrying into a dysfunctional family. At least she's old enough and familiar enough with horrible relatives to know, more or less, what she's getting into.

That horrific, disaster wedding sure starts things on an a very menacing note.

There were no red flags, rather a giant red banner, visible from the moon. It was Megan's family who screamed " Gurl NO !!!" to Henry,for months, which is rather unsettling. I say 2 years.

"She recited her vows like an audition for Beverly Hills 90210 Reunion"

And she should have used the script line: "This isn't Beverly Hills! It's Knot's Landing!"

Harry doesn't seem like a cheater. He could barely keep a girlfriend.

I’l give it 5years and 2 kids too

R19 - Harry cheats - either in the Biblical sense or by text,

5-10 years

Got to pop out kids first then the disillusion and divorce. But if they live happily ever after, that's good, too. LOL!

Harry might not seem like a cheater, but Meghan sure as hell does. All its going to take is a fairly attractive Arabian prince who will shower her with jewels and Harry is toast.

After 3 years they'll start living separate lives then divorce around the 5 or 6 year mark.

R24 But not right away. Meghan is not stupid. She needs to produce a royal prince or princess to cement her status.

Are their children going to be Princes.Princesses of Sussex or Lord and Lady?

Andrew and Fergie's daughters are considered princesses right?

R27. If Harry and Meghan have kids, they will be Lord and Lady. I believe that the titles of prince and princess are now reserved for those immediate in line to the throne, which is why Will and Kate's kids are prince and princess.

R28. Yes, Beatrice and Eugenie are born of royal blood so yes they are princesses and have "Princees" before their names and will remain so. However, in today's era with the rules of titles changed, I believe they would be titled "Lady" since they are not in direct line of succession to the throne.

R29 - thanks for the info!

When did they change the rules of titles?

I have a feeling harry might get someone else knocked up and the royal family will try to cover it up. If miss thing don't get pregnant homeboy will impregnate his mistress. She will be harry's camilla and she will be white.

I say immediately they will look as miserable as they often looked during the engagement.

It all depends if she can procreate. If she can, it will go for about 7 years. If she can't, they will be in trouble immediately.

Meg will at least pop out a royal baby or two.

Harry is supposedly a massive cheater. By all accounts he was madly in love with Chelsy Davy but not faithful (they were often on different continents). She wasn't always faithful either. I give them a pass because they were as long-lived as Kate and Will prior to Kate and Will's marriage, and started as young, and very few can meet their soulmate at age 20 without wandering off the reservation at times. Needs to sow the oats.

He dated Sarah Ann Macklin (model and nutritionist and also seems to come from lots of money) at the same time he dated Meghan. He has the same M.O. - bombard the target with texts. Her friends say they didn't last because she was too clean-living for him, which makes me wonder about him and Meghan. Their pupils were certainly enlarged at that one engagement. Some web page came up with all the women he's dated, hit on, hooked up with, snogged with, felt up, propositioned, and got quotes from a bunch of them. Most of the encounters occurred when he was in a relationship. Many were older than he is - up to ten years older. Some he'd just met. Some liked him, some thought he was absurd. But as one comment said, throw a bag over their heads and you can't tell them apart. They were all sort of real house-wifey looking no matter what their age or status (although Sarah Macklin was an exception) - super tan, looking a bit older than their age, very fit, mostly good legs, or at least dressed as if they had great legs. He seems really impulsive, and needy/hit and run at the same time.

Harry's entire reason for being is to be a foil to Will. An unconventional marriage followed by a scandalous divorce is totally on message for the adult spare (see also: Princess Margaret). Most people will feel sorry for Harry, even if it's his fault for cheating, and there will be lots of ink and lots of interest and the insanely dull but apparently monogamous Kate and William will look even better by contrast. In the meantime, the Royal family accepts a biracial American daughter-in-law and gets to look modern. After, Meghan will get a fat settlement and relaunch her lifestyle brand. Everybody wins.

Except maybe for Harry, but he's an overprivileged dimwit with mommy issues so who knows if he would ever have turned out okay.

A lot of people have that Australian billionaire tagged for Meggles. James Packer. Mariah Carey's ex. Celebrity whore. At least in the face, Meghan is his type. Now that she's a royal spouse, even if it's Harry, she's got the celeb pedigree he goes for, and he has way more money than she'll ever see with Harry, although being with Harry is something she'll be able to parlay into money. She and Harry will supposedly be in Australia for the Invictus games.

Meghan has also been making bank since she got engaged. Pap walks, and merching the labels she wears.

The rules about titles did not change. Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses because they are children of a monarch's son (Andrew, son of Queen Elizabeth II). However, in a departure from the norm, Prince Edward (the Queen's third son) chose not to have his children labeled prince and princess, although they are technically entitled to be. So, they are known as Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor. By the current rules, Harry's children won't be princes or princesses until his father, the Prince of Wales, becomes king. Then, whatever children he may have will automatically become princes and princesses (as grandchildren of the monarch through the male line). However, Queen Elizabeth II can make an exception to the rule, as she did for Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, and grant Harry's children the title of prince and princess. (The rules allowed Prince George to be a prince because he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.)

It's true all the spares have been flamboyant fuck ups, except for Elizabeth's dad. With him, it was reversed. His older brother the POW was the fuck up, spoiled, self-indulgent dude who was ALSO hugely popular until age revealed how shallow he was, and his lack of character. Same with Margaret. She was popular for being gorgeous, lovely figure, and for her supposedly thwarted love for the divorced Peter Townsend, although that story is not as it seems. Queen E never blocked that marriage. Margaret would have had to give up her place in succession though, which she chose not to do. Probably because by the time it came for her to make a decision, she was just not that into Townsend anymore. She was big time popular but then became an imperious alcoholic living on Mustique, huge smoker, and kind of an asshole, and the public turned on her.

Andrew was the good looking one (seriously) vis a vis dull Charles, married the energetic "breath of fresh air" Sarah Ferguson who, unlike Diana, loved the horses and the country but was also liked by Diana and a built-in Diana best friend. As he aged he began to look like a toad, had shady associations and affilitions, like his aunt Margaret insisted on his royal perogatives, is/was rude and arrogant and very different from his younger brother and his older sister. Also obsessed with money, like Margaret, and like his great Uncle David.

All the spares follow a pattern. Harry was the lively man of the people, but according to friends who commented anonymously on the demise of his relationship with Cressida Bonas, and and Bonas were/are both massively immature, hugely entitled, and spoiled beyond belief. It made them clash because he expected her to drop everything when he wanted her around and she was in the habit of thinking she came first. Harry pretends to be down to earth but he LOVES his glamping and he certainly spent a fuckton of money on this wedding, which included sweeping the homeless he cares so much about off the streets. He's also very tight with a buck, as is characteristic of Windsor spares, and expects others to foot his bills, which is also characteristic of British Royal spares. He'll just go downhill in public estimation from here on in. Remember Kate was a relatively ancient 29 when she married, and had her first baby after 30. But she and Will are nicely mid-thirties now and seem as if they are where they should be after their very long relationship. They're right on schedule.

Harry and Meghan are more about to hit the wall. She's going to be 37 soon, older than Diana when she died. So it won't be watching her grow up in the role, so much as age in the role. How will the damsel in distress, victim narrative play when she can't play ingenue? Her posing and persona are very young. Ditto her bff's, Jessica Mulroney. Will this sell later on, or will Britain accomodate itself since it's familiar from reality TV.

R19 - now that you've typed it - do you hear it now?

Strange how all the princes of the house of Windsor have now married into trash. Including Charles. Is it the end of that family. Were there many european royals at this wedding, or did they stay away from it, and leave it to the very distinguished clique of La fat Winfrey, La fatter John, duchess of Elton and ' husband ', les spice Girls, Madame la Mulligan aka Daisy Puke-anan, and the countess Clooney and her trannie ?

Are you implying that Harry was high at the engagement because u noted some dilated pupils?

Kate is not trash. Camilla is not trash. Diana by pedigree wasn't trash, but she was batshit crazy and she came by it honestly. So is her little brother, unless we think his histronics at her funeral, his multiple marriages, his multiple children by different wives all the while complaining of money is sane. I also love now how he markets himself as keeper of the flame, but when she wanted to be able to live part time at Althorp, he said no. Diana had a multi-million pound settlement and expansive digs at Kensington Palace, but not enough $$ to purchase an appropriate home of her own away from London. No Amner Hall like Will & Kate, no Birkhall like Camilla has to retreat to and spend time with her grandkids, no more Highgrove. She was basically trapped in KP unless she wanted to yacht around. Or she could go to Scotland and spend time w/her mum.

Kate and Camilla are commoners. = trash.

R43 got caught up in the details and forgot to mention this most important detail to the Sugars ..... Sparkle *is* trash and will also be trapped in KP unless she wanted to spend time with her mum.

Incidentally, her mum is the only family who can be in the same room with her. Because really she's not all that. I know... trust.

Everything about them, including the wedding, was sort of messy so I think the marriage will continue along the same lines. I give it 5 to 10 years with two kids. The rumors of separate living will start way before they actually divorce.

I also think that it will be Harry who will be responsible for the marriage breaking down. He will get bored and start to stray.

The Shands - Camilla's family, were gentry. As much as Diana's, whose family bought the original Spencer accoutrements in the 1600s. If Camilla was a commoner, not only was Di, but so was the Queen Mother.

Harry himself is not a commoner but he's as trashy as it gets. Dumb fuck, enabled.

Camilla is trash. Make no mistake about it.

No she's not, R49. There is nothing Camilla did, including her affair with Diana's husband, that Diana didn't do more of in her own love life. Affairs with married men, torturing and stalking the wives, stalking the men, etc. She's nuts. Her little brother Earl Spencer is nuts. Her mom was probably nuts.

You think Meghan is going back to being a D list actress which was all she was ever going to be? No sir she will hold on to this gig as long as she can, I'm sure she's going to concentrate very quickly, considering her age, on get preggers to ensure a connection to the royal family. She won't be the one to end this unless it's something really embarrassing like Harry knocking up the maid or him getting caught with Live boy/dead girl.

Personally I don't see it lasting either. First off, they haven't even been together for two years and a huge chunk of their relationship was long distance with Harry in the UK and Meghan in Toronto. My sense based on some of the comments people close to Harry have made over the past months for a couple years before meeting Meghan, Harry was increasingly worried he would never meet a woman willing to take him on. He was apparently longing to get married and start a family. I think that is one of the reasons this relationship progressed as quickly as it has.

Watching their interaction today, it's clear to me Harry is more in love with Meghan than she is with him. Meghan did no seems like a woman head over heels in love. Harry needs not just a wife but in a way he is looking for a mother figure to replace Diana. I think Meghan sees this as the role of a life time but now that she's part of the firm I think she'll eventually get bored or feel suffocated by it. Meghan is use to putting herself out there but as a Royal she has to scale back and I think she'll feel suffocated by that.

I give it 2 to 3 years before we start seeing so visible cracks in the marriage.

madame mulatto is paid to pop out 3 kids, then she can skidaddle.

Why was there audible laughter after each said their vows? Were guests drunk or just cynical?

They may or may not divorce because marriage is hard but on their wedding day they look like a couple very much in love.

I was posting this on another thread - Meghan already got what she wants. She does not need an anchor baby. All a baby will do is tie her to the U.K. and put a cramp in what she actually wants, which is an international lifestyle via private jet. She is not married to Charles who has the Duchy of Cornwall, much better quarters in Clarence House than the rest of the London royals enjoy at Kensington Palace, and also has the gorgeous Highgrove. She's not married to William who will inherit control of the Duchy of Cornwall income and has rich in-laws to boot. She's married to Harry, who, although a prince with all of the attendant perks and privileges, has 400k a year in his own income. If the queen gives them a home, it'll be something she chooses that they don't actually own. She won't be able to show off her big baller lifestyle on instagram, and that is her damn lifeblood. Emails and texts to Jessica Mulroney just doesn't give the same buzz as impressing A-listers and the envious public.

Meghan has already gotten the best of being royal - the best to HER, and it's time to move on. She got a royal wedding and wore Givenchy, was chauffered in a rolls, and sported a diamond tiara from the royal vault. She had show biz A-listers at her wedding who showed up when she asked when eight months ago they'd have been "Who?" She gets to be Duchess the rest of her life, like Fergie. That is GOLD. That's a golden ticket to all kinds of James Packer-type billionaires (and Donald Trumpish millionaires). Actually being married to Harry? What is the point. BOOOring. Time to take what she won and leverage it upwards. She's not going to get a gazillion dollar settlement if she waits to have a kid before splitting up. She'll get Fergie money - IF that. And no control over her kid, but if she wants to appear decent she has to stick around the U.K. probably more than she likes in order to have a relationship with said kid. She wouldn't be free.

At this point Meghan can probably match or double Harry's income just by merching. She can get her own 400k a year or more as soon as she's outside the KP gates. No boring royals, no boring ordinary Brits to fawn over and get hugged by in the rain. If she wanted to actually work on something other than branding herself (which I doubt she does), she could get booked as a speaker. Meghan can have her own residuary trust in no time, simply by capitalizing on what she's ALREADY done. Had a royal wedding, married a prince, become a duchess, had the royal family at her wedding, been escorted by Prince Charles. Get out sooner rather than later, and pre-baby, she's not stuck at whatever old pile in the country the queen gives them when she can't show it off on instagram to impress people and so she's stuck with Harry and staff. She wants to be the star, not "compete" with Kate, Harry, Will, the queen, blah blah. She wants it to be HER show when she shows up. That's always been her goal. She has already gotten that best part of being royal - the Big Show. Now she's gonna try and get out as soon and as early as she can. She'll figure it out but it's going to be soon.

R55, I guess you missed Harry's dead face which he wore more than half the time, even looking straight at her as his father walked her into the front of the church. Every once in awhile he and William would be like, "Oh yeah, right!" and throw on big beaming smiles - and btw, both of them know very well the entire world reads their lips to see what they say to their respective brides when she reaches the alter. But the beaming smile lasts a couple of seconds and then the face washes out again.

If that's in love, that's pretty chilling. It's funny though, I kept watching Harry look like he was going to his own execution - but in an "I've accepted it, but don't feel so good" kind of way, but even with his face most people felt he looked more engaged than Meghan, who kept the same expression in her eyes the entire way, like she was modeling.

I just saw the Tindalls. Now that's true love/lust.

Spot on analysis, R56. I doubt she'd hook up with Jamie Packer, as he's even more fucked up than Harry. My guess would be a Euro with big bucks, especially if she's got a sprog or to with Harry, she can remain close enough to them.

Has she seen him in his lizzard form yet ?

Has she had a fucktonne of cosmetic surgery? She looks nothing like she did as a kid, when she was kind of plain and pudgy.

No. She just aged gracefully. Her nose became thinner and pointier through the work of Dame Nature.

"That's a golden ticket to all kinds of James Packer-type billionaires (and Donald Trumpish millionaires)"

Diana was doing just this. Going after various international billionaires (Fayed, James Goldsmith) near the end.

Diana was really trapped. She was looking for an escape, like the Kennedy woman. I have to say, I thought of her this morning. The wedding brought memories back. Poor woman. Don't we feel a little bit for her, all of us who were alive?

[quote]Because disappointment and boredom are deal-breakers no matter what you stand to lose. Eventually, you'd rather cut and run, take your chances, then endure a life of dull sameness.

Agreed. Sparkle wants glamor, glitter, fashion and fame...not living a life of restricted decorum and mindlessly attending one boring social event after another. These social-climber types who love attention grow tired of the monotony pretty fast.

I give it 3-5 years after having her first child.

As soon as she's secured an infinite tie to the Royal family and their $$$, she'll bail and go back to living her old life, only now with an endlessly supply of money and notoriety to live off of, as a former Princess and mother of a Royal. She gets all the benefits of Royal living without having to sacrifice her agency and independence anymore.

Win, win for her.

[quote]Going after various international billionaires (Fayed, James Goldsmith) near the end.

There are two al Fayeds left for Meghan; Karim and Omar.

The one in the middle has a nose that says 'I'm PACKING'

^ too young, too dark. All the guys that she's been with have been pale, light hair types.

All I can picture is Harry partying in Vegas a few yrs back.

Harry is kind of hot though. It's a little bit disturbing.

Diana was young when she married though and still in her prime post divorce. If Sparkle puts in the obligatory 5-10 years plus two kids she's going to be pushing 50 with small children and a post natal body (the older you get the harder it is for everything to bounce back). If this is her long term plan I can see her ending up like Fergie - eternally grifting with no real place to go.

R66 Muslims won't touch Megs. She's an abid, slave, an Arabic pejorative for Blacks commonly used all over the Muslim world.

Bitch, QVC is a real place to go.

Why was miss piggie/Corden invited? Does she still insist that she's straight ? You know it's bad when the Beckhams brings a touch of class to a guest list

I don't know about that R72, Janet Jackson and Rhianna were with Arab men, obviously Janet Jackson got divorced. Besides Meghan doesn't even look black. I don't think she goes for that type anyway.

[quote] Poor woman. Don't we feel a little bit for her, all of us who were alive?

Oh, please. Diana had an objectively decent life - better than most. Money, fame, good looks, good health, plenty of cock when she wanted it. Yeah, it was cut short in a freak accident - but even her passing was relatively quick, which is preferable. Better that than have a prolonged death from illness.

I don't think this marriage will last that long. The $$, Harry's infatuation with Meghan, and keeping up with royal pretense may keep them together longer, but I just don't see them going the distance. He seems much more in love than she does. She seemed more into the glitz and glamour of it all. The problem is that that that same glitz and glamour also can be very isolating. Without close friends and family overseas, she'll have no one to hang with or confide in but the royal fam. After a point, that will wear thin - esp without the ability to keep in touch through social media. At the best , they'll have kids and stay married officially, but live separate lives off doing charity work around the world.

But does she even have real friends ? That guest list seems to have been hastily put together and paid for. It's obvious these people don't know her or each other. Especially the show biz crowd. If they were really friends, wouldn't they have phoned each other to be a little bit coordinated ? And how much is Amal paid for that kind of thing ? Because he/she doesn't make George look so good. Weren't there any european royals at all ? Was it all a big snub affair? Does that account for the strange random makes-no-sense guest list ?

I wonder if the attraction to Harry and the RF is because she really wants to be like Angelina Jolie, a charity queen. A living saint who changes the world for the better. So it might last..

I think she'll try to emulate Diana's people's shtick since she can't compete with Kate as far as hierarchy. Kate doesn't seem to be into all that charity work so it's a good opportunity for Meghan to swoop in and gain public popularity. As an actress you know she craves attention. I still don't think it will last. She can still continue the whole charity thing even without being married to Harry.

Why am I not invited ? Where is my Royal fiancé ? Or my jean Hersholt award ? I'm an actress, I'm a humanitarian, what gives ?

Agree with those who say Harry is just a stepping stone. He looks great on her resume, but he’s not the final stop on the MM tour. And I don’t agree that she’ll stop and have a kid.

Having a kid will tie her down too much. Plus, she can milk the “barren” angle for sympathy and look like a victim. She can blame any marital problems on that.

Everyone gets bored of monogamy & routine eventually. But Markle’s older than even William and is a female preparing for her 40s & last-chance motherhood, so she’s geared up for that. Harry is 33 (and has the brain of a kid, spoiled one at that). So he’s more of a wildcard.

But if she’ll continue to play soothing, caring mother to him, he’ll stay. That’s the Windsor men’s [bold]Achilles heel[/bold]. There’s a family pattern here. Charles, William, Harry - all eventually married women who are slightly older & more mature than them. They like them motherly - because all 3 men are slightly awkward, socially anxious & a bit unconfident (Charles & Harry more so than William). They basically all need a partner who’s a nurser-carer.

Camilla is more mother to Charles than wife. That’s why Charles was out of his depth with Diana & didn’t know what to do with her. He didn’t know how to be a carer to a much younger, psychologically fragile wife (who was almost 13 years his junior). Because he was used to being the one who was cared after (as a Royal Prince) - not the other way round.

When Kate & Wills were dating & going to clubs in their 20s, I was told by a friend Kate would go into a club herself and make arrangements to make William’s visit easier & smoother. So she was mothering him too. (And that’s despite the fact that William is the most confident & mature of all 3 Windsor men).

Harry is more like his dad. Has deep-lying emotional insecurities. Wants to be cared after. Very needy. Both were spoiled, but didn’t receive enough parental love, especially maternal. Somewhat stilted intellectual development, like Charles. Both Charles & Harry are quite dense / slow. Both make many stupid, cluelessly offensive statements when left unsupervised.

That’s where Meghan comes in - like most mother figures, she left behind her profession & many other things to come over & become Harry’s full-time carer. She might not be one naturally, but she caught on that is what Harry was looking for, so she molded herself into that role.

Harry wasn’t as “lucky” in finding his ideal mother-type partner before. Chelsy Davy matched Harry’s doltish fun side, but she was younger than him & building her own career as a lawyer (at the time). She wasn’t going to play carer to him - she didn’t have the time or the right character (more boisterous, independent).

Cressida Bonas was also younger. Likewise too invested in building up a career (acting), she wouldn’t finish it just to marry Harry. Very rich, aristocratic & coddled - so she’d dance to her own tune, and expect to be cared after just like Harry, not vice versa. She wouldn’t put up with an older husband’s immaturity.

Marriages like Harry & Markle’s (guys who faced early family trauma / loss, or just sheltered elitist upbringing, and so wed females, who move in to play mom & carer) tend to last quite long. Because they’re quite convenient for the guy and are based on his constant underlying psychological need for a maternal figure. And a female signing up for this maternal role knows she has to be very accommodating and put the guy & his needs first. Their agreed roles are clear, so less marital tension.

Interesting. Insightful. Is that why she's black?? Also, why do you refer to Charles as 'Harry's father'? I thought it was accepted that Harry is the son of some random horseman of the stables of westminster palace?

Good post, R83. The pattern goes even farther back than Charles: The relationship you describe was exactly the one between Elizabeth's father, Georgie VI, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the eventual Queen Mum).

If Meghan's comfortable playing mummy-wife, she'll keep Harry forever.

[quote]The relationship you describe was exactly the one between Elizabeth's father, Georgie VI, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

R85 And Elisabeth's Uncle David (Edward VIII) and Wallis Simpson. What is interesting is that neither Edward VII nor George V were in wife/mummy relationships. Both men were domineering.

She's going to do the invitro twins route. 1 girl, 1 boy. 5 years , absolute max 7, and out. You heard it here!

R87 - Wouldn't the couple want to try and conceive "naturally" for a while before heading down that route? In vitro is not fun.

I think all the major royals probably use IVF to make sure they get the gender they want and the timing they want. These people don't take a piss without entering it on a schedule: Why would they leave having a baby to chance?

I agree Meghan will have IVF boy/girl twins and then quit. No multiple pregnancies ruining her yoga body.

[Quote]If that's in love, that's pretty chilling. It's funny though, I kept watching Harry look like he was going to his own execution - but in an "I've accepted it, but don't feel so good" kind of way, but even with his face most people felt he looked more engaged than Meghan, who kept the same expression in her eyes the entire way, like she was modeling.

I agree with this. Neither looked very happy to be there.

Meghan is a classic Borderline. If Harry tries to leave her, she will destroy him.

For God's sake R65, why do people think a tie to the royals via a kid means an endless supply of $$$? Fergie has two of Andrew's sprog - does she look like she's been living in clover since the divorce? She lives with her ex husband! Her settlement was a comparative pittance despite having two princesses because ANDREW, on his own, is worth a mere (relative) pittance and that's how these settlements are worked out. Diana made out with much more because she was married to Charles, who is/was very much richer than Andrew, having the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Back in his grandparents' day, his Uncle David managed to divert close to 100k GBP of Duchy Income into his personal bank account, which was discovered when he was negotiating post-abdication maintenance and support with his brother (He told his brother he only had 20something pounds socked away).

No, having a tie to the royal family isn't worth $$ to Meghan - she will not get the kind of direct support that supplies the lifestyle she needs. As said upthread, she's damn close to having enough marketability to match Harry's actual current income now. Her royal family stint gilts her resume and that is worth money on the open boyfriend market. Presumably.

I think Diana was at a loss after the divorce, chasing billionaires, because she wasn't sure what to do with her life, Hasnat Khan didn't cooperate with her fantasy of turning the two of them into global humanitarian celebrities heading their own doctors w/out borders type thing, she had no secure home of her own outside of KP, which was a fishbowl, and I think she was still in love with Charles. God knows why ANYONE is in love with Charles, but there are quotes where she is wistful about it not working - why didn't the queen help, how sad it was it didn't work when they really had much in common - both loving children and family, for instance. She didn't really deal with her own crazy and it's contribution to the marriage's demise, although recently on the web I've seen pictures of them that show much more affection between them in the early days than we were led to believe occurred. The RF believe she was in love with Charles, not Khan.

It's going to be tricky for Meghan. Yes, James Packer has issues, but only a billionaire with issues will take her on, that comes with the game she's playing. She's not going to get a Branson, for example (if any remain unmarried). At best/worst she might end up like Jerry Hall from Jagger to Robert Sangster back to Jagger to whomever to God help us all, Rupert Murdoch. I don't think Markle wants great romance and love. I think she wants global celebrity and to be the main attraction wherever she goes. She wants freedom to change course, to shed associations that no longer serve her interests, and to reinvent herself. That trait is not compatible with children, but we'll see.

I just don't think Harry is Markle's end game. Don't think she has a maternal bone in her body. She instagrammed the hell out of her rescue dogs, claimed the five year old hound was too old to travel to the U.K. and left him with friends (He's better off) and the other dog got two broken legs and then we never saw him again. The guess is he was put down. MY guess is she or a dog walker forgot to look in the right direction crossing the street (I routinely nearly killed myself last summer crossing streets in London. Would remember to look the right way stepping off the curb, but in the middle of the street would look in the wrong direction for the two way traffic).

If Markle wanted to stay married to Harry, then yes, playing mummy is the key, although he has an imperious, spoiled asshole side we don't hear about much but his girlfriends experience. I don't think she wants to remain married to her. She wanted to pass through, appropriating his status, title, global celebrity, and then use that to get where she wants, which is about HER, not him.

Every person in that church knows this marriage will not last; they were there out of obligation (RF and RF family relatives + Doria); they were there for self-promotion (the Clooneys, the Beckhams, the Oprahs, the Eltons, The Suits cast, the designers); and they were there to say 'they were there' when the inevitable 'car crash' happens.

I've said this many times here, the only thing Sparkle will take with her after the divorce are her yoga mats, if she's lucky.

To survive she'll be hitting the 'Reality' circuit ala Countess LuAnn and Lady Morgan.

Oh man, she'd be hated by her fellow reality castmates. Ratings gold.

I’m a bitter old queen, but I do not see what most of you see with them. I see two people in love and who are going to make a life together. I see no reason they won’t go the distance. They seem well-suited for one another. He’s fucked around plenty and is ready to settle down. And she’s done the LA actress thing and has had one marriage go south. I feel they’re lucky to have come together at just the right time. But,I guess they’re two steps away from divorce already.

Uh-oh. Reportedly, Harry refused to sign a prenup. And he's worth ca. $40 million ($27m in assets and $13m inheritance from Diana). So his fortune is about 8 times bigger than Markle's (ca. $5m).

They say that prenups aren't necessarily binding in UK court. But they still can be, unless the judge considers the prenup terms extremely unfair.

He didn't need a pre-nup because he has very little income and no assets of his own, on paper. Everything is tied up in family trusts. Even the jewels that Meghan will be seen wearing (tiaras, big earrings, etc) aren't Harry's personal items. They will be 'on loan' to her, with the exception of her engagement and wedding rings, or any personal gifts of jewelry.

Diana technically was entitled to nothing when she split from Charles, just like Fergie. But in the interest of keeping peace (she was the mother of the heir) and keeping her mouth shut they negotiated a payout with her, and the right to live in KP. Meghan is married to the spare so there will be little payout for her should she ask.

[quote] Diana technically was entitled to nothing when she split from Charles, just like Fergie

I'd have thought that in UK family court, under the law of equity, the judge would award both wives a decent maintenance sum. The UK legal system is quite generous to the dependant-spouse.

But the RF doesn't like court proceedings, so they always settle out-of-court.

You people are crazy, of course she's going to have a kid or two and I don't think she's going into this thinking that Harry isn't her end game. She was a D list actress without many acting options, so this is the best gig she's going to get. I don't personally think it's going to last but, I think it's going to be an organic breakdown. They've had a long distance relationship most of the relationship so, I think that's going to be a very big reality check.

100 replies and not one mention of the beard & merkin?

[quote] And he's worth ca. $40 million ($27m in assets and $13m inheritance from Diana). So his fortune is about 8 times bigger than Markle's (ca. $5m).

No.

Rather than repeat it all, for an more detailed description of Harry's true finances, start reading at about post 399 of the thread named

[quote]Harry's and Sparkle's Wedding - Thread FIVE !!!!!!!!!

You're right, R102. Apologies - I read it in The Metro (don't judge me) and naively believed the misinformed crap that rag wrote about Harry's finances.

Though I still think he might have some considerable undeclared cash investments stashed somewhere offshore, in a tax-free haven. The Panama Papers suggested the Queen was doing it, and Harry probably has the same financial advisers as Liz.

I had NEVER heard that name before, or even the name of her stupid show when I first read about the engagement. It took me a double check to see that she's ' black' ^^. I think she looked pretty, graceful and younger than her years. Yet I am still shocked that Harry married an american divorcee, small time actress, older, and apparently ' black '. It doesn't make sense. WTF ?

He's so pissed right now. He'll find a cause in Africa and they'll claim they lived separate lives. He's done with her!

They'll never have children. He's so moving on...Probably in Africa.

Agree, 2 years tops.

R104, he's got to get the ginger gene out. That's his problem. Probably seen too many gorgeous North Americans in his travels. You know how dreamy black and white mix. Everyone knows. Don't pretend that you don't

R108. To each his own. I don't think that black and white mix is all that tbh, and I feel sorry for these kids, because no matter how pale they look, they will always be reffered to as 'black', not that it's a bad thing, but it's so fucked up. It messes with their mind. I honestly wouldn't have known that Markle was 'black' if I hadn't read it in the news. But then again, apparently, for the U.S., southern europeans such as italians are not white (?) which is honestly CRAZY. I have only been to the states once, it was 4 days in NYC, and honestly I don't feel like I miss much.

R41, Interesting. It seems there are more royal guests at Grimaldi weddings!

Yes! Exactly R110 !

MM showed up with Harry at the Invictus Games, while still trying to snare him, hanging all over him proprietarily, in RIPPED JEANS.

She was thinking in terms of sex appeal, not philanthropy. Seeking camera attention, not offering the warriors her caring attention. Eyes on the prize.

And she won. But to me, Meghan that day and at that event, Harry's own, revealed her true cynical approach to charitable endeavors.

After all, unlike normal people, she actually had previously hired someone to find charities for her, Meghan, to acquire good P. R.

Their wedding may have had a cello, but Harry was the played fiddle.

Charity is included in actors contracts. For tax and image reasons. They choose from a list, submitted by the prod.

For God's sake, OP, let Harry at least wipe off on the drapes before you make those nasty little assumptions!

R104, elitist aristocrats (which Harry is) often lead rather monotonous, insular, over-sheltered, reserved lives. Beautiful, but boring countryside homes. Rich, but boring relatives they constantly have to hang out with. Boring formal processions, snoozefest church speeches, self-congratulatory charity dinners, pompous ribbon-cutting events.

So some young aristocratic men are desperate for EXCITEMENT. Harry was over-the-moon about going to war in Afghanistan (he said piloting a cool-toy deadly helicopter was “a joy”). He went to Vegas and had major fun there (and was reprimanded after by Charles). He often goes to Africa and loves the excitement of seeing wild, dangerous animals on safari trips. Anything to break up the monotony of his sheltered life.

And ultimately he wanted smn he saw as exciting for a partner too. An exotic-looking female that would spice things up for him. An American starlet - because Brits think anyone even semi-adjacent to Hollywood is “exciting” and a “star”. The fact that she’s older might mean she’s more sexually experienced than him.

In addition, Harry & his family spent a lot of time vacationing around Africa, so he probably likes that heritage look. Even his long-time gf, Davy, while not black, was still from Africa (Zimbabwe).

The first half-black bride to recently marry into the British nobility is Viscountess Weymouth (whose father is a Nigerian chief) in 2013. Her British husband’s family were obsessed with Africa too, similar to Harry. The Viscount’s father built the first African-style safari park in Europe on his estate. There is a gigantic historic statue of an African lion in front of their palace. So, given that cultural & regional interest, it came as no surprise that the Viscount married a half-Nigerian.

R113, Even more to add to my jaded opinion.

Moreover, it isn't so much that Meghan is older than Harry; it's that, at least at the altar, she also reads older, her (no doubt rehearsed) attempts at a wide-eyed ingenue visage notwithstanding. One can still see the youthfulness in Harry's face.

IOW, it seems odd that a woman who is as mature as Meghan, a woman who has been not only to Africa but also around a few blocks, would marry, all things being equal, a man-child such as Harry.

But then, marrying royalty means never having to say "all things being equal."

R80, Your last sentence cracks me up!

AS IF she would!

[quote] An American starlet - because Brits think anyone even semi-adjacent to Hollywood is “exciting” and a “star”.

True. They are unbelievably shallow. Tabloïds are a religion. They are the most vapid, brutal, and stupid people in western Europe

Viscountess (soon-to-be Marchioness) Weymouth’s wedding. Now [italic]that[/italic] is how you stage a biracial African bride + British groom wedding. Though of course Markle is not African-African, so she couldn’t use such cool ethnic fashion.

Some 'black' people live in America since the 1700. When are they 'american' and not 'african' anymore ?

R120, they’ll be just “American” when each person & ethnic lobby group state & reiterate they don’t want to be publicly known or referred to as [ethnicity]-American. But most never say that. On the contrary, many openly promote & underscore their heritage & ancestry.

As for country attitudes, do you mean like when Prince Charles incredulously told a journalist from Manchester (but of Guyanese descent) this April that she “doesn’t look like she’s from Manchester”?

Or when Prince Harry infamously called a British-born colleague (of Asian descent) “our little Paki friend”?

Or when Grindr profiles (in many countries) say “no Asians” (meaning “people who might be born here but just look Asian”)?

R120, And you are where? If the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, or the Netherlands, hello, hypocrisy!

Not that I'm a Kate fan - appears many have forgotten that she and her family are scheming arrivistes themselves, but Kate never banged on about being a humanitarian and a feminist while becoming Mrs. Princess Harry, who will walk two steps behind him forever, wearing $270 K wedding dresses with $150 K bangles and clearing homeless off the street for her $30 million, completely unnecessary carriage ride, after decrying that she wanted a small wedding.

Megs' new bio on the official Royal site reiterates yet again her "charity" work starting with her class assignment/ dish soap commercial protest that she never shuts up about despite that it was a class assignment and that it was 27 years ago.

Smug toad, Piers Morgan, types today that Megs told him her triumphant changing-the-world-one-dish-soap commercial at a time story when they first met, more proof that she's a virtue-signaler par excellence. She also told Piers about Harry, even though she and Harry had allegedly just met. We will never know when or where the Sussexes met, much less who actually introduced them, because their story keeps changing.

It's a fairly simple thing to remember- meeting the person you knew was "The One" especially since it happened less than two years ago, but these two can't or won't, or won't tell us. Maybe because Harry was a client? That's what TUMBLR alleges.

Then Megs official bio almost forgets that she ever acted (which, to be honest, she didn't) goes on to brag about a few meetings and Meg's two photo ops with poor brown people, as if she were Mary Magdalene herself.

Not mentioning that except for her soup kitchen photo-ops and the dish soap assignment, her charity work only started in 2014, i.e., after Megs hired Kruger Cowne, the PR agency that specializes in finding charity work to up celebrities' profiles.

R120, "African-American" is not considered racist, it is the current chosen nomenclature. There were other words that were used to refer to Americans of African descent, but are now considered racist.

If all the posts on here claiming this is a lavender marriage are true, why would they divorce? It would be the perfect arrangement for both of them.

R123- I know Kate and her family were accused of orchestrating her meeting William, but I don't believe she married him to get into the royal family. She's not into charity, not very into being a fashion plate, and doesn't seem like she courts attention. She appears content being home with her kids. Yes, she lives a lavish life, but she could have married any wealthy man and had a very similar lifestyle without the scrutiny of the press, attention of the public and monotony of royal duties. She could have had money and freedom. I think she married William purely out of love. Meghan, on the other hand.......

Waity's mom was the one who did the orchestration. Waity's mom came from a Council house, the UK's version of subsidized housing for the poor, and both she and Kate's grandmother were working class, but very, very ambitious.

At the very least, Kate's mom was determined that her kids' spouses were going to be members of the aristocracy, but mom did everything to throw Kate into William's path. And it worked. Got to hand it to Carol)e) - she is the Hillary of modern-day social mountaineering.

To give Kate whatever little credit she deserves, I think that she loves or has learned to love William, who seems difficult and dumb. She seems to very genuinely love her children. And she keeps her mouth for the most part shut, like the Windsors want her to, except to babble inanities at appearances.

And I agree, Meghan on the other hand... Each day brings fresh horrors, such as it appears she gave her wedding-helper friends, including Kate, a bracelet that she helped design, which is now on sale to the general public - imagine that- A member of the BRF merching her bride's gifts!

No wonder Lillibet never cracked a smile.

R125, Are you DAFT?!

Kate will be QUEEN, FGS! Her son will be KING! Of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth!

You think that she changed schools and otherwise did William's bidding for a DECADE if the payoff didn't promise more than some other rich guy could?!

If the Royals were smirking during the Reverend’s lengthy preachfest, I can only imagine the giggles they had to suppress during the Duchess’ “heartfelt” reception speech.

Am I the only one who thought that preacher was just bloody awful? I could never have kept a straight face to the extent the royals did. No wonder Beckham laughed and Elton looked like he was holding in vomit.

Someone posted that the Bishop had been told he had 6 minutes for his sermon. He talked for almost 14.

R128, that's the first really genuine smile I've seen from her except in younger pictures.

Prince Philip looks like death. Prince Charles doesn't look all that well either.

Harpers Bazzar also noticed that the new Duchess of Sussex's bio on the official royal website barely mentions her "acting career." Guess "Hot Girl on Plane" and "Sexy Maid in Lingerie" while right up there with Streep in SOPHIE'S CHOICE, are roles that the RF think best be forgotten.

I just remember Love is, Love is, Love is

R129, I took a break from the wedding when the preacher began gesticulating. What a maroon!

The Court PR minions spent months creating and packaging the Megs image they want to flog to the masses with the media's most willing assistance. Neither reality nor accuracy play a part in the story. Such as, does anyone know more or less accurately, how Ginger and Megs met? Or, why barely two weeks after they met, they're off to Africa on "holiday"? It almost seems like Megs auditioned for an acting gig, got the job and is now playing the role of her life.

Too bad Harry isn't gay. He is hot looking, esp.with the facial hair. Gives new meaning to ginger beef.

Harry's cousin Louis Spencer is THE HOT ONE. A full head of hair helps immensely.

There is no comparison. Louis is the hotter one!

What a jolly lad!

He likes puppies too!

I depaise the cunt but when the time comes i hope she cleans him dry for being stupid tomhave no prenup

R135 early on in their relationship, when they were talking openly among associates about how they met, the story went that Harry had discussed with a friend how she - the actress in Suits - represented his 'ideal woman'. A blind date was set up, they met again the following day and the 'third date' was an overnighter plus in Botswana where he was scheduled to be and she orchestrated to be (while still possibly shacked up with her not so ex then, the chef).

So you could say it was a kind of audition.

R142 - if the actress in "Suits" was his "ideal woman" , why did Harry say that he never heard of her when they met?

This is what I think happened... Ambitious Meghan was on the lookout for eligible bachelors in London and saw an opportunity to entrap an Idiot Prince. She got a friend to set them up (either Soho House Markus or someone else). It was all planned by her. She lied when she said she didn't even know anything about Harry. She followed Diana when she was alive so why wouldn't she keep up with Diana's boys? She knew Harry was dim, insecure and needy. He also desperately wanted to settle down and start a family. She gave him a sob story about her upbringing and family life and he bought. She played him like a violin. Timing and opportunity are everything. This girl had a plan and carried it out. She made sure she was in the right place at the right time and now she's a Duchess.

They have both walked back over their respective stories and history - now in time of #metoo perhaps it was considered best not to admit that he could summon an actress for a blind date at the click of his fingers. Equally she is now less 'actress' and more 'humanitarian' and 'feminist campaigner'. Take a look at her Kessington Palace bio.

Duchess at a Buckingham Palace garden party today. Nice hat, shame about the rest of the outfit. White stockings? Ugh.

Diana will always be "Queen of Hearts". There is no comparison. Neither her sons or their wives have "IT".

Laughing with the in-laws.

I hope that Camilla at least sees through Megs. I think that Kate does, but definitely Carol(e) (takes one to know one). And the queen looked none too pleased at the wedding.

Harry doesn't have anywhere near enough money to keep Meg in the style that she wants so she's sidling up to Charle$. Camilla better shut that down.

While Megs laughs it up at a palace garden party, her father, who did everything for her, is still looking like a hobo in Mexico. Wearing the same raggedy blue polo and (allegedly) driving Megs' old car. She's shameless.

Here's Megs, Ol' Tentacle Hands, stroking Haz's back as she sashays, a la Jessica Rabbit Mulroney, up the garden party stairs.

Well, she cleaned up well. Hard to believe the above and the one in the video below are one and the same:

Harry had a crush on his 'ideal woman'. Will she live up to his fantasies?

What in the world was that grilling thing?

^Something to show Liz and Philip at Meghan's first family weekend gathering with the firm.

Meghan, a woman who wants glamor and glitz and fame, and to be in the spotlight isn't the same type of person who will mother a grown man. They are two different people. Two different types of women. A woman who is willing to mother a needy man is usually subservient and Meghan is more of a free-spirited independent. I just don't see her/her type being a co-dependent to his neediness. Since Harry is immature, and for other reasons already stated, he's going to want/expect nurturing and mothering and to be made to feel comfortable. For Meghan, I think the mommy role to a grown man will get real old real fast.

The other issue is that I've never seen an "I was swept off my feet" (so your partner doesn't have time to change his/her mind) type of rushed relationship that quickly led to marriage work out well, especially not in the long term. I wish them both well but I agree with those here who don't see this lasting very long.

[quote]Harry doesn't have anywhere near enough money to keep Meg in the style that she wants so she's sidling up to Charle$.

They all sidle up to Charles, William and Kate included. He's the one who bankrolls their fancy lifestyles, and pays for all of Kate's (and now Meghan's) clothes. This is nothing new.

Supposedly, Charles doesn't get to see Drippy and Dopeys' kids much because they are with the Middletons, R155. Wills, Kate and family even spend some Christmases with the Middletons, which used to be verboten (spending Christmas away from the queen and RF), so it might give the Dumbartons an edge if they spit out a grandkid available on demand to warm the cockles of Grandpa Charles' heart.

Very true r156.

Your post leads to a slightly off topic question: if/when the Harkles have a son, will he automatically be Earl Dumbarton if the Queen doesn't grant him HRH status like she did for Williams's kids?

Yes, the eldest son will be Earl of Dumbarton (like the Duke of Gloucester's son is Earl of Ulster, and the Duke of Kent's son is the Earl of St. Andrews), unless HM The Queen makes an exception and allows Harry's children to be princes and princesses. If Charles becomes king, then Harry's children automatically become princes and princesses. If Charles should happen to predecease his mother and William succeeds Elizabeth, Harry's kids stay earls, Lords, and Ladies.

You guys are being paid to write this dribble, I assume? No way would normal, well adjusted human beings go on and on about this shit.

My god, don’t any of you bathe, or brush your teeth? What do you do in order to eat, and keep a roof over your heads? This MUST be a job. There really isn’t any other explanation for it. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Russian troll farm, perhaps?

R154, I agree.

If there were billions at that man’s disposal, she might be able to do it. There aren’t, so she won’t.

R159, please look up the term "pointless bitchery". Then jump directly into the nearest grease fire.

I think he's going to injured horribly in a terrorist attack and she's going to be stuck wheeling him around for the last 30 years of his life.

R159, just look at one or two of the royal gossip forums and see how very prolific and extremely spiteful they are. One or a number of their members have obviously migrated here.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R163, what amazes me in the TIME they put into this. That’s a LOT of writing. Don’t these people work? Have hobbies? Really incredible that anyone can do this for so long, without having anything else to do.

Harry didn't have the luxury of finding "his ideal woman". He had to find someone who would "take him on", "him" of course being the Royal family and all that entails. Neither Kate nor Megs were "ideal", but rather 3rd or 4th down the list after the other "ideals" said no thank you very much. Both Harry and William are making do with what they have rather than what they wanted.

Another issue no one's touched on; Harry's investment in the kid biz, producing sprogs. Given Harry's mummy issues and emotional immaturity, I can’t imagine he will be rushing into the kid biz, given that he’s finally got a mummy who will put him and his emotional needs first. Having a kid means he will have to relinquish first place and compete for mummy’s attention. Can’t imagine someone needy going down that path at all. Especially since there is no dynastic reason for Harry to produce sprog, other than everyone else in his family and social circle are doing it. Also given Megs and her penchant for self-aggrandisement and opportunism, kids may tie her down to a place she’d rather not be.

F&F OP. He's starting all these threads and he's disgusting.

Pretty sure Harry wants kids. He has spoken enviously of his brother's family life, he spends a lot of time with their children, and there are numerous photos of him with children in Africa and elsewhere. He's a natural father.

R168 His public image and his private thoughts/desires are two different things.

Don't know about that, R169. Harry has been on view for the last 12 years or so. I don't think ALL those photos of him in Lesotho with his children's charity are staged.

R170 You don't know much about PR do you.

I know that with intense scrutiny, over time, most people's masks slip occasionally. Even the queen's! Meghan Markle, being an actress, is more skilled than the RF family, I'll give her that. Everything I have ever seen with Harry shows that he loves kids.

R165, the anti-fan spends as much time on his/her (usually her) obsession as the super-fan. Which is a LOT. It's probably their only hobby. They congregate in forums or on Tumblr, but what starts as harmless gossip about a common interests develops among the ones with with issues and too much time on their hands into crazy theories and they go forth to Datalounge to spread the gospel.

*interest

[quote] what amazes me in the TIME they put into this. That’s a LOT of writing. Don’t these people work? Have hobbies? Really incredible that anyone can do this for so long, without having anything else to do.

Not everybody types slow with just 2 index fingers like you do, R159 / R165.

Now please go waste 3 hours of your life watching a documentary marathon about the breeding habits of penguins in Antarctica, or talking to headless torsos on hook-up apps, or doing all the other useless things most people spend their free time on.

Aww, and I was waiting for the "pointless bitchery" rejoinder.

[quote] What do you do in order to eat, and keep a roof over your heads? This MUST be a job.

R159 is also oblivious about the demographic of the forum that he himself frequents. DLers tend to be older. Many are retired and playing around on DL, like younger generations do on FB, IG and Snap.

Since R159 is so concerned about finding money to pay for basic things like rent & food - perhaps he shouldn't spend time fooling around on an online forum, and instead go and hustle for that rent dough.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R175, I got up at the crack of dawn, drove to the shore, where I’m currently meeting up with my new surfing instructor 3X per week. I just drove up to the office, where I have a part time job four days per week. When I leave here, I’ll hit the gym.

I have a life. Apparently, you don’t. Shit, I’m even early, since I don’t clock in, as they say, until 9:00 EST.

You’re pathetic, and we all know it, as do you.

Pffft, and yet here you are, R180. On an online messaging board, chatting with anons, reading their "writings", and getting defensive about your lifestyle, to the insecure point that you have to 'prove something' by detailing your entire schedule.

And who cares about your fitness routine? All that trouble, and yet it's still highly unlikely you're anywhere near hot - as you're a DLer (and an insecure one at that).

People from or working in the UK have an absolute right to discuss & debate this Royal wedding & all its participants at length. After all, we (the taxpayers) paid for it - $43 million dollars for those of you abroad.

The poster @ R159, R165 and R180 who says he’s in the US (EST) is just being obnoxious. If his own taxpayer money mandatorily went to fund the weddings of the already super-rich, entitled offspring of e.g. the Bush clan - he’d probably be writing opinion pieces about it as well.

So please don’t come on these threads and lecture posters (many of whom are British) on our discussions about the RF and their hangers-on. We are constitutionally forced to pay for them, their events & their lifestyle - we therefore purchased the right to evaluate & debate it.

R182, yet none of you discuss the monarchy’s effect on you as a taxpayer. All you do is talk shit about individuals, whose private lives you know NOTHING of.

R181, thanks for confirming that not only are you a busybody, but a heinously overweight one at that!

We do discuss the effects on the taxpayers, R183. But apparently you’re too obtuse to notice (see linked thread). And Brits do know quite a lot about the RF’s private lives - because they all choose to be in public view, instead of abdicating and leading private lives somewhere up in Scotland. They also constantly make controversial headlines. Like when both Prince Harry & Prince Charles made public racist remarks, or details of the Queen’s offshore accounts surfaced. So it’s impossible not to notice all that & be privy to many of their outed shenanigans.

And we are justified in discussing their personal character as well - because they purport to “represent” us. And as the monarchy is by definition hereditary and the ‘royal’ spouses & offspring are automatically put on our payroll, we’re perfectly right to discuss the character of their spouses as well.

But it seems you know nothing about the BRF, so please just exit these threads as you have nothing of substance to add besides boringly trolling other posters.

[quote] not only are you a busybody, but a heinously overweight one at that

MARY, clutching her pearls! A busybody? On a gossip site?! Oh MY!

I love how that loony poster thinks I'm Falstaffian just because I made fun of his over-sharing about his own personal life. Hint: DL doesn't care about the life habits of insignificant randos. Come back to us when you're famous or at least infamous, R183.

Many of the straight guys you lust over, Surfer Dude @ R183, spend their free time and dollars on watching sports, then having really inane and endless discussions about it, online, offline and in the office.

So what's your beef if a bunch of queens and purple-haired Fraus gather on a gossip site of all places (gossip on a gossip site -- the OUTRAGE!) to obviously enjoy themselves discussing a very public event?

R186, I’m a straight chick, and not alone (unfortunately- I’m trying to break up with him!)

You're not a "straight chick", R187 - you're a Frau (in a male or female body, irrelevant). You act like you're new to DL, so look it up. But don't worry, it's almost a term of endearment here.

And next time, try not to give your inner Frau away that fast. Here are some Frau signs: Working a part-time job 4x a week - check. Going on about your private life when no on asked and you don't constitute a person of interest - check. Going on a gossip board (known for its sarcasm & criticism of controversial, fame-whorish celebs), but acting clueless about that format and self-righteously defending celebs & their privacy like a hopeless teenage fangurl (à la "Give them PRIVACY! Show some RESPECT, people! Why are you SPECULATING about them? You don't KNOW them! Don't you have anything ELSE to do? Leave Britney ALONE!") - check. Calling out people on a dedicated gossip board as "busybodies" (that observation almost deserves a Darwin award) - check. Not being self-aware and not seeing the cosmic irony in accusing gossipers of wasting their free time, while personally also wasting time on that same gossip forum - check.

I would suggest you try Jezebel's comment section instead of DL. That might be more to your liking.

Bloom is off rose. I give it two years. King Edward though seemed to stay with the hag Simpson.

I agree R188. Very well said.

Mention anything the least bit negative about the DL frauen's idol Oprah or other female celebs whom they worship and they start a war. Or a thread about how wrong you are. It seems that only these frauen are entitled to their opinions, no one else. Disagree with them and they create nasty conflict, complete with childish name-calling and inane accusations that deliberately derails the thread. I just tell them to go back to LSA and then block them. When they return from a different device, punch and delete again.

Instead of trying to change the DL, they really should start their own website.

R188, this straight chick, or “Frau “, has been here since 1998 (off and on), so I’m very familiar with my frauen status, though I am not really into a lot of frauen stuff, like Oprah. Admittedly, I don’t know much about the BRF, and I was under the impression that these Brits are piling on her because she is biracial.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I don't think anyone cares about MM's bi-racial status, given that it is the Caucasian side of the family that has proved to be trashy beyond belief, and her Af-Am mother has been dignity personified. The objections are mainly that she seems false and hypocritical, a grifter and social climber who jettisons friends and family alike when they are no longer of any use to her.

^ and dogs!

R191 -- R192 summed it up very well. Most Brits don’t have a problem with MM’s ethnicity. We already have a half-black (half-Nigerian) Viscountess.

One of the main criticisms of MM in Britain is that she is a glaring hypocrite. In her speech at the post-wedding reception she exalted herself as a “feminist”. But the BRF is a very conservative, right-wing, ultra-religious organisation. It’s basically a CULT. They even use the same brain-washing methods that religious cults use: idolisation of their leader via ostentatious pageantry, ceremony & hymns, for-show charity, mandatory collection of money from everyone to finance their operations.

Progressive, liberal women don’t marry into, or support, a right-wing cult. I’m trying to think of an analogy for the US. It’s like if Malia Obama married the son of the super-rich leader of the Mormon Church, converted into Mormonism just for the marriage & accepted most of their regressive traditions. Examples from the BRF: a female royal consort is encouraged to quit her job / profession, change her religion into Anglicanism / CoE, be a baby-machine, in certain formal situations must walk behind the husband, must curtsy more when she’s not chaperoned by her husband, can’t wear red nail polish, etc.

So far MM fully conformed to most of that. Even if she rebels & doesn’t follow some traditions, there’s a bigger social problem posed by the BRF - it perpetuates & actively promotes the archaic class system in the UK (‘royalty’, ‘nobility’, etc). The result is that England has statistically one of the worst social mobility problems in Europe. But now that Meghan accepted the ridiculous formal title of ‘Duchess’ (which signifies not only land property - the Duchy, but also her position in the ‘nobility’ hierarchy), she’s also propping up that rigid class system.

So her self-congratulatory posturing as a (faux-)”feminist” is a joke and an affront to every real feminist, anti-monarchist or even simple progressive liberal in Britain.

Others consorts (Kate, Camilla, Philip) got a lot of stick too when they married into the BRF. But at least they don’t pretend to be anything more than they are - right-wing conservatives.

Why the ban on the red nail polish? It can look quite nice with the right hair and makeup, especially for evening events, where one wears all black.

Maybe she should hook up with feminist and champion of women, Ivanka Trump.

On her word-salad, GOOP-wannabe, ode-to-herself blog, Megs interviewed and gushed over Ivanka Trump.

What r189 said. If marriage is anything, it's this - hard work. And what is the pay-off for all that work, I've yet to identify. (Perhaps, however, given that monogamy was not my cup of tea, perhaps I'm not the best judge of that.)

Still, the following is still true although it shouldn't be- there are social and financial advantages to marriage.

I think , post-honeymoon, when the hard work of maintaining the marriage kicks in, and it will, I think it's a very uncertain thing if these two make it.

Perhaps they'll stay married and have their side stuff, but somehow it seems more likely that Meghan, while still hot and in her forties, leaves him for an older hedge fund billionaire who wants to fuck on a long-term basis the former wife of Prince Harry.

That's another aspect of how mega-rich straight male billionaires place value on themselves- the status and money of the former husbands of their woman reflects their own.

The only religion Megs hasn't hit yet is Islam, so I'm betting on next husband being a sexy, mega-billionaire Saudi prince. But she'll still be nattering on about her "feminism" from underneath the burqa.

R195 Anything other than a natural/sheer polish is considered Low Class and Tart-ish. Refer to R194 's explanation of the importance for the BRF to maintain their most upper class distinction in the social hierarchy of a firmly entrenched and rather rigid class system in the UK. To reiterate, it is patently impossible to be a 'feminist' and join such an organization when their respective principles are diametrically opposed.

Setting up act 3

They have now hired a senior royal aide to train MM over the next six months in all things royal.

When this checklist has been filled and verified – and she still isn't knocked up – the divorce proceedings will begin. Has Meghan...

Been to Georgia?

California? [bold]√[/bold]

Anywhere she could run?

Taken the hand of a preacher man and made love in the sun?

Run out of places and friendly faces because she had to be free?

Been to Nice? [bold]√[/bold]

The isle of Greece? [bold]√[/bold]

Sipped champagne on a yacht? [bold]√[/bold]

Moved like Harlow in Monte Carlo and showed 'em what she's got?

Been undressed by kings?

Seen some things that a woman ain't supposed to see?

Been to cryin' for unborn children that might have made her complete?

Taken the sweet life, never knowing she'd be bitter from the sweet?

Spent her life exploring the subtle whoring that costs too much to be free?

Been to paradise?

Been to her?

[quote] been here since 1998

I don't believe you.

R203, that song is rather apt for Markle, the [italic]féministe![/italic] royal wife.

“Hey lady, you, lady, cursin' at your life / You're a discontented mother and a regimented wife / I've no doubt you dream about the things you'll never do / But I wish someone had a talked to me like I wanna talk to you”

“Hey, you know what paradise is? It's a lie. A fantasy we create about / People and places as we'd like them to be”

“But I, I took the sweet life and never knew I'd be bitter from the sweet / I spent my life exploring the subtle whoring that cost too much to be free / Hey lady, I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me.”

Even more illustrative video of the song:

Scrap the above, this is the definitive version for MM. Complete with British castle and standard British weather.

R206, R207, this will be MM in 2030....hilarious!

R204, I have been on DL off and on since 1998, when a dear friend, former coworker, who is gay, turned me on to it. So booeeey for you, bitch.

R207, they should remake that video with Duchess Sparkle sadly wandering through Kensington Palace wearing her $17,000 engagement dress.

Not $17,000....£50,000. But she probably did not pay for it.

From R201's link

[quote]"It was their final call, a parting call in which they both acknowledged Harry was moving on," a source told Vanity Fair. "Chelsy was quite emotional about it all; she was in tears and almost didn't go to the wedding." Chelsy eventually changed her mind and ended up going. However, she wasn't invited to the evening reception at Frogmore House and reportedly "promised Harry she wouldn't try and gatecrash the party."

WTF?

Why would Chelsy gatecrash?

Isn't that Sparkle's M.O.?

Nutmeg's new Coat of Arms.

I'm getting Charles/Camilla vibes from Harry and Chelsy. 2 years and I bet they're fucking again.

That would irritate the fuck out of me. If he wanted Chelsy, nobody said he couldn't have Chelsy, and he should've married her and her bags of money to begin with. It's not like it was in 1981, when virginity was a requirement for a royal bride.

R215, Harry supposedly cheated on Chelsy a lot. Like his father before him, he wasn’t ready to settle down. Lots of straight men are like that.

When Kate and William briefly broke up before their marriage, I remember some royal pundit remarking that some feared Kate (like Camilla) could have been Will’s “right woman at the wrong time.” Obviously, Kate and William’s story had a happy ending. But I kept thinking that could have been the case with Chelsy and Harry. They were, after all, together for years. And he’d been long-distance dating Sparkle for what? Less than a year?

Unfortunately, I suspect MM (like Diana) will turn out to be the WRONG woman who happened to meet him at the right time. But it will end in disaster.

R216, O agree.

Is that a Pigeon on Meghan's coat of arms?

What are the creepy flying monkey things supposed to represent?

The question of why the RF must always wear nude or natural colored nail polish was brought up earlier. This video explains this and many other rules even young children must learn, such as the proper "RF Wave." Hope DL will find it as entertaining as I did.

I know I don't laugh enough at life, so thanks DL for the continuous very humorous threads. Please ignore those that try to restrict your super creative talents. There are those of us who really, really appreciate them.

One of the rules on that list, about royal births, seems to negate the comments of the poster who has been claiming that Kate never gave birth to her children.

R221, Many of the rules are obviously regularly broken as the video's hostess readily and repeatedly admits. Now do you really believe everything the Palace claims as they're an authority figure?

Of the for days of the original Saturday Night Live when they'd make light fun of anyone claiming a superior rank.

[quote] Now do you really believe everything the Palace claims as they're an authority figure?

Nope, but then I don't think they are an authority figure.

Nor do I think Kate did not give birth. No way a secret like that (x3) could be kept.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R224, another website mentioned that Emilia Wickstead, who apparently claimed Sparkle's dress resembled one of her own designed, was attacked by a mass of Sugar twitter users.

Apparently on Twitter, it is the one being attacked whose account is shut down.

Has anyone noticed how media made Royal wedding seem charming and quaint? The Church of England has guest from Chicago give fire and brimstone sermon including fire, slavery, fire, Love, loins, and the anchors recap like this is traditional and lovely. I'll bet many if most of the invited guests were both mortified and amused at best.

R224 eh, it's a very basic silhouette, I don't think she can claim it's a copy.

Nothing "stunning" about Sparkle's frock ... unless the article meant to say "boring."

Or maybe boring is the new stunning? I'm only a fashion influencer, not a disruptor.

Emilia Wickstead statement.

Hello UK Magazine cover.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Maybe they can swing by Mexico and visit bride's Dad who was conveniently left out / blocked from wedding festivities along with other blood relatives.

Man Crush Monday - Diana's nephew Louis Spencer. He's the NEW sexy eligible redhead.

If R231's link is correct, Harry and Sparkle should read this thread for some helpful tips.

Wow, R229. Someone in the RF legal department has been busy.

But that begs the question: when will the RF get tired of cleaning up all of Sparkle’s PR messes? This gravy train of legal threats, payouts to exes, etc. is going to come to an end eventually.

Is Harvey Levin still in touch with Sparkle's father?

Much like the designer, Wickstead, who said that Sparkle's wedding dress looked like one of her own designs (it did) and that Megs' wedding hair was messy (it was) and who was savaged on social media by Sparkle fans, the woman who runs the sanest TUMBLR blog on L' Affair Sparkle (she volunteers doing opposition research against Trump, so she must be some kind of professional) has received death threats from Meggy's sugars.

Half of the Insane Meghan Posse must be from Celebitchy, because those hysterical Frauen take Markle Mania to a new level, but seriously DEATH THREATS because these women had the temerity to make some timid comments critical of La Sparkle - who before Harry was a talentless, almost completely, unknown actress / small time hustler?

r237, which medications are you refusing to take?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

So Harry and Megs created a lavish gift registry for friends and family—how considerate! (Apologies if the link to the Sun article doesn’t work, but below is the relevant paragraph):

“However, it later transpired that the couple had also set up a private gift list for their closest friends and family members. The Duke and Duchess curated a personal list with exclusive members' club, Soho House. The Sunday Times discovered the list, which reportedly contained a number of stunning home items, presumably to furnish their future house, the 21-room Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace.”

Wannabe royals trying to grift from who they think will give?

T.A.C.K.Y.

The DL’s gift from the registry

The ones I pinched from your cabinet, R238.

So the Happy Couple is still merching Soho House. Either the BRF is in on the payola - after all Epstein-pal Airmiles Andy is still a free man - or they're giving Megs enough rope to hang herself.

R242, Too, too funny.

R243, Are we sure the RF aren't trying to make the future Queen Camilla look good by comparison? What a train wreck the MM show has become.

If Wickstead got death threats from the MeAgain fraus, she should have published them. Sparkle's gown was in fact a fairly basic design so it wouldn't be miraculous to see that other designers have designs like it on hand. Oddly, the other contender for "It was my idea FIRST!" is Princess Angela of Lichtenstein, the first black (that is, really black) woman to marry into a reigning European family. She had her own design firm and designed the dress herself - and it is much nicer than the hastily put together Kelly/Givenchy number. Also simple and boat-necked but with a fuller skirt, a bit more detail at the shoulders, a bit more sumptuous - you could see the richness of the material in photos, which you couldn't in the Kelly dress for MM. Princess Angela's dress had more substance. In fact, Princess Angela herself has more substance than MeAgain.

There really is a sense of MeAgain that many have, that she is nothing but air, sort of a whipped up meringue, a bit of egg white a bit of air and sugar and vanilla, and presto! Created Public Personality! But there's nothing inside unless you count a ferocious burning desire to be a AAA+ lister.

R245, What is the connection between MM and Obama? Did they just meet at Canada's Invictus Games?

I'm not sure if Wickstead got death threats, but she was savaged by Sparkle sugars on social media, and was reported so much by Sparkle fans on Twitter that Wickstead's account was shut down, even though she'd said nothing that abused Twitter's guidelines. On the other hand, Meghan's fans had.

It was the TUMBLR blogger I linked to who said that she'd received death threats from Meghan's fans. This blogger is innocuous, she is just very analytical and had Meghan's number almost from the beginning.

Both Wickstead and the TUMBLR blogger are mixed-race, but that doesn't stop Sparkle fans from calling them the R word. Meghan used that word from the very beginning, back when she barely knew Harry but was threatening the British press, so it's no surprise that her fans hurl the charge of racism at all and sundry in order to shut critics up.

[247] Jesus. I find all this interesting as gossip (I wouldn't be here otherwise, would I?!) and my specialty was European history, so the royal stuff is particularly interesting as something part of a long chain that I believe is weakening with every generation, but the personal investment of these stans is scary, as is the increasing ability to shut down people whose social views you don't like. I'm not surprised that this causes right-wing backlash to the perception that it is the liberal left suffocating free speech in the name of political correctness. It's a misguided response, but then, most people aren't very bright.

As the man said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

People magazine had the royal wedding on their cover and now Meghan solo will grace it. How would they know anything about her new life when she hasn't been seen since the wedding?

^ correction. I should have typed "she hasn't been seen since Prince Charles' garden party".

R249, R250, Are they going to give the "princess fantasy" version of here "new life" or the more realistic version?

By the way what happened to the rumors in Jan MM was already pregnant and that was the real reason for her short engagement prior to the wedding? Supposedly that was the reason why her wedding dress was loose around her super thin waist.

R221, there are people who believe Kate never gave birth? Do they think she used a surrogate? Why?

The short engagement might have been tied to her visa: the sane TUMBLR blogger investigated and found that if Megs had a certain type of visa it expired something like the day after the wedding.

My guess is that the wedding was rushed because it gave Harry no time to back out. The Happy Couple have now lived on the same continent for a total of seven or so months; bring that factoid up and immediately Sparkle Sugars will mention anecdotal bullshit like that their great-great-grand-uncle and his wife married the day after they met and were happily married for 90 years, but, statistically speaking, outside of arranged marriages, it's better to actually know someone (and their family) before you get married. Living on the same continent would be a step in the right direction.

To reference another post, don't use just brackets of post number.

How to reference another post Per DL Help:

[quote] Please make sure to close the tags properly.

[quote]To reference another post in the same thread, simply type R and the post number. EG.

[quote] You are absolutely correct R10 and you are obviously a lovely person. Thank you for your contribution to the conversation... (well, perhaps in an alternate universe's DataLounge anyway)

[R253] As the BRF would probably have been thrilled if Harry got cold feet, who rushed the wedding?

Not that I don't agree - were I were the Queen, I would have insisted the couple live together in the UK for one year before seeking consent.

In that summer 2017 "Vanity Fair" cover article that Sparkles only got because of who she was dating - at the end she stated something to the effect that, "I'm sure the time will come when we have to present ourselves as a couple and tell our stories, but this is our [private] time . . ." Given that articles in these magazines are done three months in advance of publishing, this statement basically signalled to the public that they were already informally engaged - as of spring 2017. So, all that bullshit about him proposing in the early fall while they roasted a chicken was so much smoke to hide the timing.

So if they were already, between themselves, engaged in spring 2017, trying to get them to delay the wedding further was probably DOA. And then there was the little matter of Sparkle's heading for the shady side of 35 . . .

R252, There are numerous videos online that show a very pregnant Kate sitting down and bending in ways that anyone who was only only a few months along would never be able to do. Yes it would take a lot of time to post all of them as I ran across them searching for a different topic.

However since my initial comments triggered such an extreme backlash I didn't think it fair to OP to continue arguing as this thread is about Harry and Sparkles Divorce Watch.

R255, Yet Prince Harry was seen openly dating a brunette YouTube model/singer until what point?

Yes couples do get happily married after knowing each other for relatively short periods of time. Usually they come from extremely similar backgrounds, have shared values and expectations, and prioritize stability above all other factors.

Harry was dating a Burberry model concurrently with dating Meghan, but the model was (allegedly) too clean-living for him. I think I heard Harry was dating a third woman too.

R225, It's more likely that Megs' VF interview put additional pressure on Harry to pop the question. That's Sparkle's pattern of putting pressure on Harry. For instance, only a few months after they met, Megs claimed press harassment of her mother and herself. Oddly, the paps taking pictures of them were Coleman-Rayner (sp?) the same paps that her dad cut a deal with - a bit suspicious, huh?

Megs also claimed that her house had been broken into by paps, but that never happened. Only a few months after meeting Harry, she sent a legal letter to either the British press or the agency that regulates it, charging racism, and then, I'm guessing under pressure from her because she claimed to be hounded by the press just like his mother- Harry sent that November 2016 letter which forced him to acknowledge her as his "girlfriend." This when he had only met Megs a few months before and had been dating others while seeing her.

Once she was his official girlfriend, Harry could no longer play the field and Sparkle was in. She's quite crafty. She and Carol(e) Middleton should collaborate on a book, but it would probably be handbags at dawn first.

I don’t know if any of you follow Popbitch (it’s a weekly British gossip newsletter), but they’ve had some interesting stories about Sparkle.

Months ago, they did a piece examining the impact of Sparkle and Harry’s legal actions against the media on freedom of the press in Great Britain.

Last week, they pointed out the odd appearance of a lawyer who handled past RF divorces at the wedding, leading to speculation that a prenup was, in fact, signed.

And this week, Popbitch is reporting that Sparkle has been ordered (by the Queen) to undergo six months of Duchess training. Maybe that over the top wedding registry had something to do with it....

Somebody at R202 already posted about the six-month duchess crash course, R259. Try to keep up.

r252, these LSA lunatics thinks every celebrity has IVF because they are all trans and in PR relationships. The only pregnancies they think are real are the ones that never actually happen: If an actress (etc.) gains some weight and then loses it, she's accused of having sacrificed the baby as a blood offering to the illuminati and having conceived for that sole purpose. They, also, believe that whenever a celebrity has a friend or relative die that the celebrity has sacrificed the person, again to the Illuminati, in exchange for fame. Simultaneously, they believe that all of these celebrities are under MKULtra mind-control, their behavior a result of torture-induced multiple personalities, and that they are all sex slaves who have to do whatever their Illuminati "handlers" (i.e. madams, mistresses) want them to do and the only things they ever want them to do are depraved.

tl/dr: They think she faked her pregnancies because they're insane.

Cliff notes on the OTT wedding registry?

R258 - re the Vanity Fair cover article - there are three possible competing narratives on it, one of which you mention: Sparkle did it on her own and that last line suggesting they had already discussed marriage was meant to pressure Harry into actually proposing and stop him from wandering and possibly getting away before she nailed him. Then there's the Celebitchy Frau narrative: the Vanity Fair article was totally vetted and approved by the Palace, and was intended as the first step in rolling out Sparkle as Harry's intended to gauge public reaction. The Celebitchy fraus insist this is well known fact, as all the journos who cover the royals said so - although no one has posted a single statement from a single journalist making such an assertion. And then, last, is the one I mentioned: Harry fell fast and proposed way earlier than the couple said in their engagement interview, and Sparkle's little covert announcement was a signal that this was done and dusted. The gaslighting on the timing presumably served two purposes: kept people from saying Harry had moved too fast with too little consideration of the move he was making, and kept mooted questions about how Sparkle started seeing Harry while still involved with the chef (who by the way is much hotter than Harry).

The only one I doubt is that the article had approval from Buck House - the BRF would abhor this kind of press by an actress clearly using her relationship with Harry to up her public profile. Sparkle probably figured that if she lost Harry, she'd still have gotten an upgrade in profile she couldn't have bought with a Lotto jackpot, and if she nailed him, the BRF could go fuck itself. But I really doubt she and Harry went to the Queen for permission for Sparkle to be on the cover of VF.

It's one of the other two scenarios that is the likely truth - but don't try telling that to Kaiser and the other Celeb Sparkle Stans.

So obvious to anyone who knows anything about the BRF that a Vanity Fair cover prior to a formal engagement announcement from the Palace is not their modus operendi. Why QE II didn't put a full stop right then and there and read MM the riot act and a copy of The Rules is beyond me. Would at least have shown who's in charge if she wants to continue to play the role.

So are the lovebirds on their honeymoon in Canada? MM has been awfully quiet all of a sudden.

Did they ever visit the dad after the wedding?

That hate site Tales of a Con Artist claims she had a child. There are photos there in which she certainly looks pregnant. I can't even imagine the hate that goes into creating and maintaining a site like that. Who could it be?

R266, that photo was crazy. She is thin, but looked pretty far along. That’s not PMS bloat.

But she was out in public like that, clearly not hiding. What’s the story there?

R262 see R240

R266 - Tale of a Con Artist is just like the worst of the Sophie Hunter Is The Devil sites. No fan of Meghan here as should be evident by now, but she's thick in the middle. She's built (you should pardon the expression) like a box, set up on two sticks. She just dresses wrong for her body type most of the time. No child - just Jessica Mulroney's poor styling.

The photo has been taken down from the blog. Anyone save it?

CDAN posts Blinds on MM all of the time. Know CDAN has multiple contributors. Wonder why MM has so many enemies?

From another online site, here's some interesting info... Markle Sr is originally from Pennsylvania and has two older brothers, Michael a US diplomat and Frederick a bishop.

His mother worked at J.J. Newberry's 5 & Dime in Newport, and his dad retired from Olmsted Air Force Base in Middletown. His brothers live in Florida and Oregon.

Tom Markle's family also has roots in the coal regions of Schuylkill County. His great-great grandfather was Thomas Sykes an English immigrant who lived in Mahanoy City. The BBC came to the area earlier this year to explore the family's roots and produced a documentary that aired Oct. 28 on BBC but not yet in the U.S.

The Diplomat Michael, had a profound impact on her early life. The 78-year-old is a retired US diplomat and Air Force veteran who lives in Florida. His wife, Toni, died of cancer in 2012. During his State Department career, he reportedly worked in Ottawa, Bucharest, Berlin and Guam When Meghan was 20 years old, she planned to follow in his footsteps with a potential career in diplomacy. It was through Michael’s connections that Meghan was able to secure a prestigious at the American embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

[quote] It was through Michael’s connections that Meghan was able to secure a prestigious at the American embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Note that her application for the internship was late and past the deadline and her uncle interceded for her. So, she used family influence to push out of the running other candidates who did as required.

Wouldn't her diplomat uncle have been a good and logical choice to replace her ill father at the wedding?

The MM hate site has a new artlcle. And at the end it says, "You know you love me". A clue to the author(ess)? I'm thinking Yvonne Grant aka Samantha Markle.

Doesn't sound like her (the half sister) and she was quoted a lot before the wedding.

I linked another site on the MM Blog thread but I'll link it here as well.

Some of the posts are just too, too much.

Please tell me that's a look-a-like in the linked Celeb Jihad solo sex tape vid.

R270, here’s one where she looks pregnant.

There are other photos from that night in which she doesn’t look as big in the belly. Maybe it’s just a really unflattering dress.

google “Meghan Markle Global Gift” and you can see all of them.

From the same event.

Her legs are scrawny.

Looking at all of the photos from the event, I do not believe she was pregnant.

She sometimes looks pretty, other times cute, but is not beautiful.

Quite a few people have asked why the diplomat uncle who did her such a great favour (part of "the family she never had") was overlooked for an invite to the wedding. He's illustrative of Meghan's long record of ghosting people are no longer useful to her. I remain of the opinion that except for her mother, whom she really couldn't leave out of the picture, Sparkle just doesn't consider her family up to scratch as she reinvents herself yet again from Sexy Suitcase Girl With Obvious Breast Implants to HRH The Duchess of Sussex (implants out, country estate in the Cotswolds in). One is reminded of how Madonna suddenly got teddibly English when she married Guy Ritchie.

Re CelebJihad - the only legit photos they put up are the topless ones already seen on DL. They Photoshop shamelessly. The trumpeted that they had even more revealing stuff on Sparkle that they planned to release closer to the wedding, but of course, they were blowing smoke out their arses.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R281, So Celebrity jihad solo sex tape which they claim to be MM s a fake? Agree with the total reinvention and obvious remake to the extreme. Now t's claimed MM saved an entire Welsh town?

Beyond being a hypocrite ("feminist' who marries into a family that will keep her children in the event of a divorce. "Humanitarian" who lives in palaces and wears a bracelet worth $300 K) Megs also comes across as a bit of a flake. She missed the deadline for the embassy internship application, so her uncle, who she didn't invite to her wedding, got her across the finish line.

She admits that she didn't have her lines learned for her SUITS audition, even though she thought that she was perfect for the part.

She was only wearing a towel when she met the (heterosexual, married and very powerful) PR agent who got her into charity work in order to raise her profile.

Supposedly she followed that self-help regime that was advocated by the AGAPE center, the aforementioned "cult" that she and her mother belonged to. It says something like you have to visualize success and it will come. So, it appears, you don't have to do the hard work, just visualize success.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

From that article at R282, it should be noted that the Queen only loaned her the tiara she wore for the wedding and it does not belong to Sparkle.

Doesn't the IRS get their share from the cost of those bling gifts?

And lastly, I'm reading that during the Queen's birthday concert, Princess Anne was moving chairs or seating around which supposedly put Sparkle and Prince Dim in the back and to the side. Has anyone seen this video?

R283 - that appears to be the size of it. CelebJihad has stuff up there like Kate Middleton with her legs spread showing her twat to the world that is so obviously photoshopped it's comical. But the topless stuff of Nutmeg at the beach is real, those appeared everywhere.

As for her saving a Welsh town - please. Even on Celebitchy some of the fraus are asking when Markle is going to cure cancer.

Here's the story about the police asking for extra funding.

Can someone enlighten me - what house are they talking about? Is this the one that the Queen was supposed to "loan" them that is close to or a part of Sandringham? Or is this some other different house?

Here's the story about the house they are renting in the Cotswolds.

If true, they are leaving Nottingham Cottage at KP and moving to the country. No mention of getting a bigger apartment in KP.

If they want to live in some private cottage while the Queen already gave them a place to live, they should pay for the security. It will never happen cause Harry is cheap as fuck and Meagain has luxury taste, but Chuck or the Queen should not pay for those two famewhore idiots.

Apparently the 20 room apartment where Harry and William grew up is being readied for Harry and MM.

That makes this cottage story even more ridiculous. Meghan just want to be close to SoHo House and all the A listers she has always dream to meet, whatever the additional cost for her little countryside fantasy.

Queen Elizabeth II clams to be a direct relative of the Prophet Muhammad. Will she or the future King of England now incorporate Islamic ceremonies as official duties? I'm assuming MM would be open to this as well. Would MM be more appealing to England's growing Islamic community than previous blond steadies Prince Harry dated?

It's the muslims who claim this kind of BS not the Queen. So fuck off you islamophobic piece of shit.

She's simply too old and been around too many blocks to be suitable for Harry. Before he knows it, he'll be hitched to a 40-year-old broad who's no longer gazing up at him with practiced doe-eyes.

And we'll see how philanthropic Meghan feels when she grasps that her charities, having served their purpose, can be "ghosted," too.

R294, Expect those who identify as Muslim to pull away from Labor and form their own political party very soon. The Royal Family will need to broaden their appeal if they are to survive. I just find MM a very curious choice as she's not very pliable to Palace rules and regulations.

One of the things that is so interesting about MM is how she is literally playing a role of acting like a doe eyed youngster. For being a so called "feminist" - the innocent wide eyed look on her face is in contrast to her age and past. This is part of the reason I think there is such an active dislike of her - that behavior does not read as honest and intuitively you struggle to reconcile all of it - her age/her actions - they are really posturing this couple as if they are 24 at most. Its strange. MM is pushing 40, and Harry is several years into his 30s as well - why is the approach and PR focused so young?

[quote] Expect those who identify as Muslim to pull away from Labor and form their own political party very soon.

R296 Labour has been promoting the Muslim agenda for decades, culminating in a Muslim Mayor of London and staunch Muslim defender and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Why would Muslims want to "pull away" from a major British party that they have subsumed to their agenda?

Or IOW, r297, what I said at r295.

R298 is correct; why indeed? Muslims have been championed by the Left because they've won the propaganda campaign to be viewed as "victims" of Western, and in particular British, perfidy, the zenith (or nadir, if you prefer) of which was the 1917 Balfour Agreement.

R298 - Late to the party as usual, the Tories are now searching their ranks desperately for a nonwhite and/or Muslim for the next mayoral contest - they don't want to run their likeliest white candidate, Justine Greening, for a variety of reasons. This is why I keep repeating the Demographics Are Power And Demographics Are About Numbers mantra. In 50 years, immigration has turned the capital of Shakespeare's land into one less than 50% white, and less than 50% Christian. Ergo: white men are no longer viable candidates for mayor. of London Read 'em and weep.

The Sussexxeesssss took out a two-year lease on the Cotswold place for, I am guessing, a variety of reasons: if the Queen gives them a luxury home in one of the most upscale country regions of England right away, they'll look like they're getting their hands on the perks too soon. But the fact is, by all odds, Harry's father is footing the bill. Whatever apartment they're given in Kensington Palace will undoubtedly need "refurbishment", especially as Meghan needs to get herself in the family way ASAP. So Nottingham Cottage and the Cotswold place will serve until the public has gotten used to their new tax burden, then the Queen (or Charles, if the Queen has been raptured) will gift them with their very own country estate.

When Kate's and William's little 21-room flat in KP was "refurbished", it cost 4 million (pounds sterling) and the money came out of the Sovereign Grant - which is to say, taxpayer money. It was put about that of course no decorative or furnishings were included in that cost, just upgrades to plumbing, electricity, and the asbestos in the roof that KP, as a historic building "vested in the State" was entitled to.

But when ordinary office workers used the spaces, no one cared about the plumbing the electricity or the asbestos in the roof.

And "vested in the State" is one of those tricky euphemisms that suggest "we" all own it, but in practice translates to "we" should therefore rightly pay for its upkeep whilst only royals get to live in it.

Off with their heads.

R298, R300, The reasons should be obvious. London's Muslim Mayor is subjected to the whims of his political party. I'm sure he wishes he wasn't so subservient to Christians as the ideology is just too different. At least that's how I would think if I were in his position. Convince me I'm wrong. I am open to changing my mind given evidence.

[quote] Apparently the 20 room apartment where Harry and William grew up is being readied for Harry and MM.

William and Harry grew up in Apartments 8 & 9 in Kensington Palace.

I don't think there has been a definite confirmation of exactly which apartment (if any) has been reserved for Sparkle and Harry. The only thing I've seen is that Harry moved into Nottingham Cottage (in KP) after William and Kate moved into Apt 1A (which used to be Princess Margaret's apartment) and Sparkle moved in with him. If it is to be Apt 8&9, that would mean they are not next door to William, Kate and their children - so no connecting door and that eliminates any likelihood of any unwelcome visitations which might lead to gossip to the media.

Apt 1 (the one that is allegedly being renovated for the Sparkles) is home to the Gloucesters, and is adjacent to 1A where Will & Kate currently live.

It is being renovated at the moment, but no one really knows who'll be in it after completion. Allegedly the Gloucesters are downsizing to a smaller KP flat, since their children are long grown and gone.

[quote] Allegedly the Gloucesters are downsizing to a smaller KP flat, since their children are long grown and gone.

Possible. But the one pushing that idea seemed to be Princess Michael, who may have been trying to nominate the Gloucesters as the ones to leave in order to protect HER (Princess Michael's) apartment.

It's also true that there is some work being done on KP which was planned (and reported on) long before Sparkle came on the scene that the media is now interpreting as changes being made to accommodate Sparkle and Harry.

OMG how do you guys know which apartment number everyone lived in? I’m not making fun of you, I’m honestly in awe.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r305: totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. But Princess Pushy doesn't have the pull or input with QEII or BP to 'nominate' the Gloucesters or anyone else to vacate anything. She'd be the last person given an ear, trust.

Allegedly the Gloucesters had been thinking about downsizing for a while, the Sparkles engagement gave them the push to go ahead and do it. Or perhaps they were politely asked? by the Queen or her reps. Either way I don't think it's a big hardship for them if true.

Yes, it's apartment 1, with 20 rooms. I was under the impression that H and W grew up there, but now I think it was Diana's apartment after the divorce.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R311 - if anyone needs further proof of what a hard as nails social climber Nutmeg is, one only need to look at the hot hunk she dropped for the balding, dim, gap-toothed Harry.

Does anyone else find it strange that both of MM 2 major exes immediately demonstrated het cred so soon after her wedding?

There's a lot of internet rumors re the real reason behind this speedy marriage, the Palace's choice of MM Coat of Arms vs previous Royal brides, and other relationships.

R314 - Could you be a tad more specific? Like, are the rumours about Nutmeg or about Ginger or about both? Are any of these rumours based on anything reliable?

And, are you telling me the hot Toronto chef sucks dick?!

R315, Every time I try to spill I attract the pro-RF Trolls who want DL to believe the PR lies. Pictures don't lie. Look at dozens of pictures of Kate Middleton with both her husband and Prince Harry. Realize that Prince William goes solo to his friends' weddings where his girlfriends will be in attendance. Then think why Prince Harry needed to have a couple of his ex-gf at his wedding.

Re the Toronto stud and Meg's ex-producer husband, go on Twitter. There are plenty of pictures that explain everything. Then think about how quickly both tried to get obvious het cred. I'd spell t out for you but I'm sick of getting attacked just for sharing.

R316, I hate Twitter. But all right. I take your point. I'm just curious as to which way the wind is blowing as to who gives fuck all enough to rush off for het cred - to do her a favour? Harry a favour? Why would Engelson care at this point? They've been divorced for years, she moved on to, what was it, the ice hockey stud and then the chef . . . I get your suggestion that it's Harry who is being protected by her exes being sure to cover her career of bearding, but . . . why the fuck would they cooperate even if it's true?

Just saying - where are the narrative links that hold this story together?

Because I know this much is true: if she is a pro-beard (and it's entirely possible for a straight woman to prefer bearding if it gets her advancement without having to sleep with men like Harvey Weinstein and Mnuchin and Ratner), the BRF will send the black Mercedes for all of them before they'd let the world find it out. If it's true, there will never be public proof.

Her marriage was not bearding. 100% sure and positive she is primarily, if not fully, heterosexual.

This royal watcher board makes Royal Dish (whose owner, I think, has serious anger issues) look like a gathering of saints. This thread, from fall of 2016, chronicles Meghan's first appearances in the press and you can see how initially some of the posters were delighted (she's a Woman of Color!) but how soon they figure out that Megs is a fame whore/grifter who is just using poor, dim Haz.

If all the hurlers of the charge of "racism" want to actually know the truth about Megs and why she's so disliked, they would read this thread and its sequels. But they don't, they'd rather make a mockery of true racism by accusing everyone who dislikes this woman of racism than see that there's a plethora of reasons why she raises hackles.

R318, I've never read Royal Dish.

Lip readers relayed the conversation between MM and Prince Harry while riding in the carriage after the wedding ceremony. MM was focused on the huge number of well-wishers. Prince Harry kept saying that he wanted a rink and couldn't wait to get to the after-party. That tells me everything I need to know about this love match.

Must disagree with you re the other part of your post. Online videos show tons of pictures of MM out with the gals, PH with his best buds, PH with Kate, Kate with Prince William. Doesn't take a body language expert to figure out what's going on.

R319, I guarantee that her first marriage was not a bearding situation. They might have been swingers - I have NO idea - but they were sleeping together and married because of "love."

Have no idea about Harry, but when he and Chelsy were together there seems to be a very genuine sexual chemistry. Maybe he's bi, or like other upper-class British men had male flings at boarding school, but I think this relationship is heterosexual.

The website I linked to wasn't Royal Dish, it is another one called Royal Gossip. The posters there have been watching the BRF for years; they pretty much hate Kate and were initially delighted with Meghan. Woman of color! Actually worked a job! Humanitarian! Feminist! But very soon they saw the warning signs and now they're all over Megs' bull shit.

Bisexual swingers among their own elite class would make a lot of sense.

Note that everyone LOL when the White minister spoke of fidelity and faithfulness during during their wedding ceremony.

The owner of the Royal Gossip site used to write a very incisive blog about the RF. Shame she apparently abandoned it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R324, Such cruel comments. How will MM last as a Royal? Was Kate Middleton treated the same way when she was 1st married? How about Sophie Wessex?

Is it weird that I think her exes were more appealing than Harry? I would have stayed with the chef.

R325 - Sparkle is getting very much the same treatment that Kate Middleton got: a seesawing back and forth in media like the Daily Mail from gushing treacly stuff and the old tried and true tabloid tearing down process.

The British tabs are meciless and shameless. Building up and tearing down is how they keep their audiences.

Re the rest of us - it's not as if Sparkle hasn't earned at least a goodly portion of it - threatening the British press long before the engagement was formalized, using her relationship with Harry to get herself a Vanity Fair cover and talking about the relatsionship in it . . . it's not as if it isn't fairly obvious that this girl was willing to do anything to get up the ladder. And last but not least, her massive hypocrisy about feminism and activism and changing the world as she joins up with the most inherently unequal system on the planet: inherited monarchy.

The fact that the information isn't all roses and buttercups does not necessarily render it untrue.

Time will tell who was right about Sparkle.

I was reading the article about the Queen's train accommodations (since she and Sparkle are scheduled for 3 events away from London). The description of the Queen's quarters didn't sound all that luxurious and I expect the "guest" compartment won't even be as nice.

I can't help wondering what Sparkle will be thinking once she sees what kind of travel she can look forward to.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Fuck. Not only Ireland, but County Mayo. Some of my people are from there and I still have and am contact with relatives in the area.

This stinks of colonialism.

I hope it's not true.

Whatever would they do in that area? Visit the Famine Coffin Ship Memorial I should hope.

Another

R330 - I wouldn't worry about it being County Mayo - given that in. today's Trooping the Colour Sparkle unwisely wore an off the shoulder number that displayed obvious bathing suit strap marks on her shoulders where her sunbathing hours hadn't reached.

R332, It's almost as if the Queen wants MM to fail. Otherwise she would have made sure she knew the proper dress code. This strikes me as very passive-aggressive behavior.

Yeah, they'll divorce like Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward divorced. Like Tom Selleck and his fugly wife divorced.

Not. Necessary.

R334, Not ever saying this is a love match. After all the Royal Palace Staff reported Prince Harry's in to temporary tattoos as Royal Protocol prevents him from getting real ones. So where do the temp tattoos go? On his butt.

However MM was brought in to widen the popularity of the BRF. If she continuously fails and doesn't appear to be extremely willing to follow all of the many rules her new acting role requires I can't see QE I tolerating her Fergie-like behavior. Wouldn't her high level instructor at Royal Protocol school have warned her about appropriate dress for Trooping of the Colors?

R334 - I don't remember any predictions that Paul and Joanne wouldn't last. Let's see: both actors, both white, both rather intelligent, same similar national identities- settled in CT rather than L.A. - why would anyone have assumed they'd divorce?

Meanwhile, re the Sussexes: the groom's parents are divorced, the bride's parents are divorced, the bride divorced after barely two years of marriage, and the groom's uncle and aunt are divorced.

Do you see a parallel here between the Newmans and the Sussexes? Because I don't.

As for Selleck - are you blind or just obtuse?

R335 - I don't think the "advisors" interfere to quite that extent. They probably wouldn't imagine that even this early in the game Sparkle hasn't seen enough photos of the Family On The Balcony After The Trooping Of The Colour to have an idea of the general dress protocol, and it's not as if the "advisor" shows up to check Sparkle's ensemble before she gets into the limo and heads for Buck House. My guess is that Sparkle's semi-seductive look here is meant for Harry, not the public. The outfit isn't totally wrong, it's just not exactly right, either. And Herrera is an American designer. As Markle is now by courtesy a Princess of the United Kingdom and is applying for UK citizenship (no, she isn't yet and she hasn't been quickly grandfathered in), one would think she would make a point at an event this terribly traditional and so very British, to support British fashion. The only time you see Kate in a foreign designer is if she is doing so as a courtesy to a host country she is visiting. Even Erdem, though Turkish-Canadian by birth, is a London based designer.

Perhaps you're correct, and adding the more pointedly sexual off-the-shoulder, American designer signals to her otherwise correct and predictable type and colour ensemble are a bit of passive-aggressive claw display - and, of course, a bit attention getting. If so, it was the wrong occasion for it: beside Kate today, Sparkle looked decidedly less royal.

Not a big Kate fan, but I thought she looked lovely today and very elegant.

Oh brother. Is this bare shoulder thing going to be her signature look?

Better that than her scrawny chicken legs.

As I put in the Meghan on the balcony (with the knife aimed at Kate's back) (JK!) thread, at the Queen's Trooping event, Meghan was wearing a dress that very much resembled Amal Clooney's dress at the AFI awards only a day or so before.

Megs often imitates the clothing of women she's fan-gurling, so new BFF Amal is It for now.

Harry in the carriage at the Trooping kept clenching his fists. Maybe her voice, that annoying, American-accented whine, has finally gotten to him.

R340 - Harry may have found his next mistress. Doesn't he know that it's not polite to point. How rude.

Ginger may have found another woman in the crowd.

R333

If someone has been notified that they will be "On the Balcony" for a huge RF event, it would take only the barest of looking/asking to find images of previous such events to see the dress code.

To expect that the Queen should have to check the apparel of a 36 year old woman is ridiculous.

Sparkle is responsible for her choice. And certainly Harry saw what she planned to wear before hand.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

So, was Harry there? The article reads:

[quote] Today's appearance is one of William's first since becoming a father for the third time in April, and Harry's first since returning from his mystery honeymoon with Meghan.

R344, How many appearances will Charlotte be making? She's the one that steals the camera's attention. Rumors of MM being pregnant, or trying to become pregnant, better be true if she doesn't want to be quickly eclipsed.

R340, Searching the crowd for the next mistress or mister? DL doesn't believe he ever sleeps with women.

R343, While I certainly don't believe everything this woman says, she does make some very valid points. Don't believe she's psychic per se but she's an excellent observer of body language. Obviously she also has very good sources of solid info. Didn't know Harry & MM went to a fertility clinic before they got married.

Sparkles will end up having an affair with David Beckham. Don't know why she didn't go after him in the first place!

R349< Do you know how many illegitimate kids David Beckham is already supporting? I'm sure it's at least 3 and there's rumors he's got another woman pregnant and ready to give birth. Plenty of better choices around for now world famous Sparkles.

I actually thought Meghan looked really good, albeit maybe inappropriate for the occasion. That said, no matter what she does she will never eclipse Kate. I think the birth of she and Harry's first child will be big, but then they will gradually fade in the background, especially as William's kids grow older. Look how the media salivates over a 3 year old doing cartwheels.

R351 I think the media are doing it deliberately now and its a joy to watch! The naughty British press!

F OFF BACK TO COMPTON, BITCH. London Town aint big enough for the both of us.

R350. Intrigued! Tell all!

I do not understand why so many keep saying "Trooping of the Colour" when it's" Trooping the Colour." If you're really veteral royal observers, you'd know that.

*veteran*

I'm lost. What did Sparkle wear that she wasn't supposed to?

R353, No real proof. A child in England before he married Posh. At least 1 child post marriage he moved to FL along with the baby mama. A currently very pregnant baby mama possibly at his child's private school in England. Numerous abortions Becks paid for as well.

R356, An off-the-shoulder dress while very pretty is clearly not an appropriate choice and was way too showy for an annual BRF event honoring the military. All other BRF members have always dressed very Conservatively on this particular occasion.

Your very existence is an energy leak.

^ meant for the OP

R356, the bare shoulders and chest. Not appropriate for the event/circumstances. It’s a minor distinction, but she should have known. Just as wearing black stiletto heels and sequins isn’t wrong, but this wasn’t the occasion for that kind of look.

R336, I think r334 was making your Mrs. Selleck comment about all three couples.

Harry and Meghan will be touring Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga in the fall as per Kensington Palace. She'll have to get pregnant RIGHT NOW so she can be done with the 3-month morning sickness OR they'll have to postpone it until after the tour.

I remember when Harry's mum and dad toured Oz in 1983. Couldn't be arsed to go down to the CBD to have a sticky when they were in Melbourne. Pity I didn't.

R348 - what's this about a visit to a fertility clinic?

R354 - It's highly doubtful you missed anything. I mean (1) how the fuck would anyone know if they visited a fertitily clinic or not? and (2) most couples wait a couple of years and if they have problems conceiving, they may make a visit to a clinic to see if there's a problem.

Newlyweds rarely visit a fertility clinic unless ONE of the pair has a KNOWN problem. Since I don't think Meghan has TRIED to get pregnant in the past, she wouldn't know if she can conceive or not.

There is nothing that can be done about Meghan Markle. You cannot make an American understand the idea of modesty, decorum, appropriateness, occasion. You can talk to her forever and she will still say "I am going to liven things up by showing some skin."

[quote]There is nothing that can be done about Meghan Markle. You cannot make an American understand the idea of modesty, decorum, appropriateness, occasion. You can talk to her forever and she will still say "I am going to liven things up by showing some skin."

Sweetheart, maybe stop being under the delusion that the British Royal family all shit gold bricks. Stop watching "Downton Abbey" on a loop.

R365 - I don't know where the rumour emanates from, but it's always possible Sparkle was aware of some potential problem. Given Harry's publicly expressed longing for kids, Sparkle may have wanted to be sure and not let herself in for the strains infertility would put on the marriage, not least the unfavourable comparisons to the fecund Kate. Also, adopted children are automatically eliminated from the line of succession. Hell, for all we know, Harry insisted on knowing, given she was 36 when they got engaged. Or "suggested" it and Markle, desperate to hook him, obliged.

Just wondering. The rumour is likely hot air.

R355, I think it has to do more with MM's personality and not willing to understand her new acting role. Perhaps she's t too used to being in a dominant position? Many actors are rather spoiled.. Any sensible American would always do her best to research the appropriate dress for the occasion. For example everyone was wearing pastel colors but not e the same color. Was that really accidental?

R368 - I get the impression that Harry is so dominated by Sparkle that he would NEVER suggest anything that may embarrass her (eg. like a fertility test). She definitely wears the pants in this pairing. No one knows for sure of course but that's just my impression of their relationship dynamic.

R368 - I suspect you're right about the balance of power, but those balances often change as relationships move from the besotted stage of romance to the strains of permanence and domesticity, when sexual infatuation lessens and something else has to take its place. Harry may have been sexually enthralled but he had something MM wanted far more than she wanted his ginger dick (absurd as that may seem to many here - personally I've never been inclined to ginges). Once married and under the strains of MM having to prove herself to the family and the public, as well as produce a child, the balance of power may switch to Harry. In the romance stage, the rest of the family and the public were vague shadows in the background. Now that MM has what she wanted, the family and the public have become part of the relationship. Diana's wry statement that "there were three of us in this marriage" was only partly true: there were at least four if not five: Diana, Charles, Camilla, the BRF, and the public.

That's why I think some were correct who said HM should have insisted on a year's wait with MM living full time in England after a transatlantic affair with not enough time to ease in.

You have to make sure there's something besides heat and fantasies. As Mr Spock once said in an episode from the original show (yes, I'm old), "You may find eventually that wanting and having are not the same thing."

Even some of the deranged, but very WOKE, Celebitches are catching onto Meghan's machinations, accusing her of faking her puppy dogs eyes at Harry. An actress (well, sort of) acting - Ya think?

Although the hard core Celebitches are still screaming racism, and, I am not joking here, accusing Kate of using her height and presence to intimidate Meghan on the balcony during the trooping event.

Kate is about 5'8"; according to her own IMBD, Meghan is 5'7" (excuse me while I dry the tears of laughter rolling down my face) - so the Celebitches march right past the fact that Meghan is lying about her height to accuse Kate of using that extra inch as a weapon against their idol.

Kate isn't up front because she's trying to keep her rambunctious daughter (who as a little person needs to be in the front) from plummeting off the balcony. No, Kate is up front and acting tall in order to put bi-racial Meghan in her place, much like Rosa Parks was forced to sit at the back of the bus.

And some of the old SUITS fans are claiming that Megs looks different - less happy - and that there were tense moments between her and her mark, Haz. I don't think she's taking her claws out until that child is born, if ever, so Haz, you're stuck.

Celebitchies are just butthurt and lash out at Kate for breathing.

This bunch psychopathic fraus told us during months that Meghan would be The Stylish Duchess, that her charisma would put Kate to shame, that she was such a asset she would be front and center in everything BRF.

But nope, her style is terrible, she looks extra fake, her sexy pics won't go away and Kate has no problem competing with her cause she also has charisma.

So they think everything is a conspiracy to bully poor little black Meghan : Kate is too tall, Kate married the Heir, Kate's children are too cute, Kate should not look happy or like a good mum and my personal favs: "Louis was a preventive strike" and "Kate is full of micro-aggression".

Now that she is legally his Harry is going to start getting bored and straining at the leash

She gonna be bored before him and gonna leave him.

Harry will want to prove he was right to marry her, she's free to leave as soon as she finds a billionaire.

Yes r375, once the shine wears off she will realize how dull the Royal family is and how stuck she is.

R373 - pardon? Prince Louis was a "preventive strike"? Good God, they really are Lost In Space.

R368, when the stakes are that high - most couples aren’t worrying about royal lineage - you can bet she was verified as fertile.

It’s like taking a used car to your own mechanic before buying it. Only a fool wouldn’t.

R378, STDs and multiple abortions can affect a woman’s fertility, as well as age. Although if she’s been able to conceive in the past (even if the pregnancy didn’t go to term), she may not have trouble conceiving again.

R379 - fertility does drop sharply after 35 but it hardly disappears (my niece went through a very distressful time after marrying at 35 and starting right away to try to have a baby - it took a year, but she finally did "catch" just before they were about to seek medical help); but it is true that issues like chlamydia, particularly, can also affect it, and as I have no doubt that Working Actress Sparkle of the Magical Boobs Who Loves Sex was promiscuous, as these things are reckoned, perhaps she did have a bout or two of an STD and wanted to make sure. But, as I said, it's the first I've heard of the rumour - likely nothing in it.

I haven't a doubt, however, that both Diana and Kate were subjected to fertility tests before they were allowed to announce the engagement to the heirs.

MM may be nominated for an Emmy Award for Suits per The Sun and CDAN. Or is this just a creative pap stunt?

R381 - Oh, she deserves an Emmy, all right, but not for "Suits".

They should adopt me.

[quote]Kate has no problem competing with her cause she also has charisma.

Oh, my sides!

R384 Charisma = Being black

wheres doria getting the $60k from?

Remember when Fergie was the fun one who brought new life to the royal family? Look how that ended.

[quote]R380 fertility does drop sharply after 35 but it hardly disappears (my niece went through a very distressful time after marrying at 35 and starting right away to try to have a baby - it took a year, but she finally did "catch" just before they were about to seek medical help); but it is true that issues like chlamydia, particularly, can also affect it, and as I have no doubt that Working Actress Sparkle of the Magical Boobs Who Loves Sex was promiscuous, as these things are reckoned, perhaps she did have a bout or two of an STD and wanted to make sure. But, as I said, it's the first I've heard of the rumour - likely nothing in it.

Or, more likely and since she seems intelligent, Meghan practiced safe sex and doesn't have any of risk factors you describe, except for her age. Which doesn't seem like a very big risk factor, given that most women I know had their first child between the ages of 35 and 40 without fertility assistance.

R388 - "most of the women [you] know" are anecdotal, not statistical. If you look it up, any pregnancy in a woman of 35+ is automatically considered high-risk and "geriatric" as my niece can tell you - particularly a first pregnancy. That is why they all have to have amniocentesis. And only condoms offer protection against STDs, and it's not 100%. Birth control pills offer zero protection from STDs and most women use those. Kate Middleton just had a healthy baby at 36 - but she had her first at 32, and that makes a difference as well.

Mind, I'm not making a dire prediction for Sparkle. There is no reason if she is healthy and he is healthy, that they should not become parents relatively soon. But I wouldn't wait if I were them, either.

The statement referred to Kate's supposed charisma, R385, but I ger what you're implying.

Harry looked MISERABLE at the christening today.

BUMPING b/c I actually think it may not last...

I would love to know what's going on behind the scenes. It is now being said the BRF is being blackmailed to prevent the display of a sex tape and dossier of MM's former exploits. When Andrew asked for his daughters to be given an official RF role, Charles turned him down, saying the public would not accept it, and it could jeoparidse the status of the RF. So I wonder if Harry is being told to choose - either his royal status or continuing this marriage.

R392 - Old empty rumours that have been floating around for ages. If there was any such tape, the BRF would have gotten its hands on it by hook or by crook and dispensed with it (and perhaps its owner, as well). God knows they have enough resources to have tracked any blackmailer down and forced the issue with the help of MI6.

More like Harry blackmailed the family: "Either you let me marry Meghan or I resign my place in the line of succession, move to America, and tell the world that you wouldn't let me marry her because she's black. I'll make you look so bad you'll be lucky if riots don't break out in Brixton again."

Ha ha, I doubt Harry would do any such thing, which would permanently estrange him from his entire family and circle of friends. Also, that BI is from CDAN, which has probably been proven right more often than not. The tales of MM's yachting days are not just fantasies, and the rest as well, eg screwing her way into tv roles.

R394 - The "yachting days" wouldn't surprise me (there are on CDAN reliable rumours about Queen Letizia of Spain and Pippa Middleton on that score, as well), but as for that tape existing and being used to blackmail the family: sorry, not buying. The DM has been gunning for Sparkle since she and Harry were foolish enough to threaten the British press in fall 2016, long before the engagement. The DM has very deep pockets and it's a safe bet they keep track of rumoured possibilities like that. It would be a photo finish as to who got to the tape first, MI6 or the DM. And if the DM had gotten hold of it, they would have used it by now, before H&M had an adorable baby and using it made the DM look bad rather than Sparkle.

If Harry were willing to see his family blackmailed it doesn't say much for his affection for them, either, so it's hardly a stretch to think he'd blackmail them himself to let him marry whomever he pleases.

And I don't think the BRF was that set against the match. H&M will never get anywhere close to the Throne, and will become increasingly irrelevant as W&K's offspring mature, command increasing attention, marry, etc. The BRF therefore get to the wave the "diversity/modern Britain" flag without it being too much skin off their noses, and if the marriage fails eventually, they'll look sad but not be held responsible for ruining Harry's life.

No - the blackmail bit just doesn't hold up.

Getting more likely... time to watch closer

I truly hate this bitch.

People have to stop citing CDAN and Enty - all they do is repackage what they read in the DM the previous week. The disclaimer on the site makes it abundantly clear that they make shit up for fun - look at the stuff CDAN printed about Cumberbatch's wife that was ob ciously sent in by the psychos who think Sophie Hunter was a human trafficker, their children photoshopped into pap shots, the pregnancies fake, the marriage illegal, and the CoE on the IoW was in on it, their wedding guests and family were in on it, and Sophie Hunter is blackmailing everyone and everybody to keep this massive secret.

The one denial some "inside source" was quoted as putting out there on T&C and Vanity Fair wasn't attributed to anyone and wasn't much of anything compared to what's out there. The time for the Palace as such to come out and say that there is not an iota of truth in anything the British tabloids have printed in an effort to smear the newest member is long past. The longer they wait, the less persuasive it is, and Tiara Gate and "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets" is in the Johnson bio, with which Charles cooperated as I understand it.

What they can't deny is the Three Queens on one balcony whilst Meghan was put another one with the nameless wife of a German dignitary at Remembrance, the last row at Albert Hall and the family ignoring them that night, the fact that a couple who were expected to function as senior royals are not being given a home base in London, and the press release supporting the P.A. who quit that pointedly never denied the abuse by Meghan.

So the clock is ticking down for the BRF to step up and put a stop to this in any sort of persuasive way, including news of a lawsuit filed against the DM, the SUN, etc.

Lastly, Harry's silence is striking.

I don't know how it all adds up but it's fairly clear just from what we can see, and what we aren't hearing, that Trouble in Paradise set in very early on here.

I can just imagine the BRF huddled behind closed doors trying to decide whether their worst option is letting Harry and Meghan go their own way and just marginalising them as much as possible, or getting rid of the problem much, much earlier than they did with Diana and Fergie.

You know - having the pain now or later. I guess we'll find out as time goes on.

R393 - There may be some grains of truth in your post. I think Harry's feelings toward his family are much more ambivalent than William's or that anyone guessed. He may indeed have threatened them with bad P.R. and it may have worked - but they also may have had a pretty good idea that the marriage would never survive and figured they may as well let it play out. I doubt they'd have cared if Harry chose to exit life as a working royal and waived his and his children's rights to the the succession - he's so far down the line it doesn't really matter, and he's been very much a loose cannon for awhile.

It's Meghan who would have cared because what he would have given up is exactly what she married him for.

So it was all much of a muchness and the BRF figured, probably correctly, that Harry was making the bed and Harry would have to sleep in it and they'd to the best they could with the outcome.

Fergie and Andrew had 6ish years before separation. These two are Fergie and Andrew on steroids. I'm giving them 3 years and one bebe.

R399, yes I agree. It also reminds me of That Woman, Wallis Simpson.

I don’t want MM to go away, because I find her fascinating. I don’t like her, but her pathology is interesting.

R400 - If they give Meghan 3 years it will deux bebes.

IF, and I must keep putting those IFs out there given who the DM and INSIDER really are, IF the TIP (Trouble in Paraside) syndrome has set in this early and Harry really is miserable, the BRF only have two choices: help Harry get shet of her before that second baby has a chance to incubate, or resign themselves to years of this crap in the tabs, and saddling Harry with the financial responsibility, eventually, for child support for two rather than one and a larger settlement on Meghan who will have him then by both balls rather than just one.

R400, unless she’s got twins in there. I think there’s a good chance she does.

But that’s a minor quibble. I agree with you. She’ll make quick work of this thing. *rubs hands together with glee*

R403, I posted before your comment. I think MM figured out that getting IVF Twins would be most advantageous (it would be, for many reasons!)

I’m betting that’s what she did.

R404 - IVF twins at her age would get it all over in one fell swoop and guarantee her a larger settlement and more financial security IF they end up getting divorced. But if she really got pregnant in mid-July (the did announce she'd just has a 12-week scan on the even of Yuge's wedding), then she would have had to have been undergoing IVF for some time earlier.

People don't seem to know what the stats are on IVF: the success rate is 20% or so (perhaps a bit higher but not by that much for a woman under 40) and it often doesn't "take" the first couple of times. It is also accompanied by drug use that produces side effects. At 37 and on her first try, presumably, at getting pregnant, it would be an irresponsible clinic that said, "Sure, we'll be glad to implant twins right away before you can even see if your body will do it naturally!"

It's really not that easy.

Further to my own post above, I just looked up the stats for the success rates of IVF at different ages:

According to America's CDC, chances of getting pregnant on ONE IVF cycle (which is different from having ONE LIVE NORMAL BIRTH from one IVF cycle):

For women under 35: 40-43%

For women 35-37: 33-36%

The stats for ONE LIVE NORMAL FULL-TERM BIRTH as a result of JUST ONE IVF cycle are considerably lower.

So I wouldn't be too certain that Megs has done this. It is painful and has a host of other side-effects and intricate factors.

If she was perfectly healthy, she was probably more likely to get pregnant the normal way than come up with twins after one or two IVF cycles.

R406, you make a good case. I’ll go with your opinion on it.

I’d be curious to know if Mm has ever been pregnant before - not if she’s given birth, but just if she has been. I think that once you’ve been pregnant, it’s easier to get pregnant again. Even if it was accidental and aborted, she’d have an easier time. Just my anecdotal opinion. That’s how it always seems to go, unless there’s some obstruction.