Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Meghan Markle Suggests She Will Marry Harry in Vanity Fair Cover Story

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Yesterday we got the exciting news that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her third. Today, it sounds like the royal family will be expanding even more in the not so distant future. Meghan Markle is headline news this morning as the American beauty is revealed to Vanity Fair's October cover girl. The magazines presents a spread of glamorous shots of the royal girlfriend, but it is the interview she gave that has tongues wagging...and royal fans' hearts hoping that an announcement is imminent.


The piece is relatively lengthy, and you can read it in full here. (Meghan wore an Erdem dress for her meet with the journalist, and said she'd been wearing the label for years. Something she can bond with Kate over. :)) Meghan confirmed that she met Prince Harry in London in 2016 when they introduced by friends, and addressed the trolls and naysayers who have critizsed her relationship:
We’re two people who are really happy and in love. We were very quietly dating for about six months before it became news, and I was working during that whole time, and the only thing that changed was people’s perception. Nothing about me changed. I’m still the same person that I am, and I’ve never defined myself by my relationship.
Meghan has turned to some of her fellow celebrities whom she also calls friends for advice on how to handle the stratospheric rise in her fame and the media attention that has followed:
Markle credits the rock-solid support from her close friends for helping to sustain her. The international tennis great Serena Williams (who recently graced the cover of V.F.) is one of those friends. The two met about seven years ago at the Super Bowl. “Her personality just shines,” Serena said about Markle, who asked her advice on how to handle some of the more extreme results of fame, such as paparazzi showing up at her house and chasing her. “I told her, ‘You’ve got to be who you are, Meghan. You can’t hide.’ ”
The article saves the most explosive quote for last. In one of the final few paragraphs, the author describes how the two began talking about Meghan's "boyfriend" and the star remarked:
“We’re a couple,” she explains. “We’re in love. I’m sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time. This is for us. It’s part of what makes it so special, that it’s just ours. But we’re happy. Personally, I love a great love story.”
We all love a great love story, Meghan. :) Obviously this has been taken as a very frank acknowledgment that the couple plan to marry. I agree with several of you who have speculated that Meghan and Harry are already engaged (pre-Africa trip) and are just waiting for the right media window to break the news. 


This interview has caused waves in royal watching circles because it is so out of step with the usual tight-lipped media routine of the royal family, and certainly in sharp contrast to Kate Middleton's absolute and enduring silence throughout almost a decade-long relationship with Prince William. But, it isn't unusual at all for the celebrity (and I do not include reality stars as celebrity here) world from which Meghan hails. An interview like this is not so unusual for the stars that many fans here would agree they like and consider to be reasonably discreet for their position.



Further, Meghan isn't that out of step with Prince Harry's approach to media, or that of his mother Princess Diana. Harry (and Diana in her time) likes the occasional splashy headline, too.  Finally, although opinions may differ, we all know that Harry and Meghan are dating and very likely headed to the altar. They are both public figures in one way or another, and coyly pretending we are all blind to that reality seems a little silly. 



Kate solved the problem by giving no interviews at all. She never had to decide whether she'd shyly dodge the relationship questions, and that was fine, and in keeping with her personality and the more delicate nature of her relationship. But once you agree to do an interview, acknowledging reality, while maintaining specific discretion, seems like the right course of action. Meghan understands media, and she will clearly play the princess part differently, but that doesn't mean it is the wrong way to play it. The royals survive in part on the media and public interest, and it won't be a bad thing to have a glamorous royal who gets that and is happy to accommodate that reality within the bounds of good taste.


The greatest stumbling block I see is that Meghan seems like she could be relatively political in her advocacy, as many American celebrities--celebrities in general--are. Although Meghan appears to be ready and excited to throw herself into charity work, she will also have to be careful to avoid partisan positions, which might be hard for her. The monarchy is apolitical and cannot survive if it abandons that reserved and impartial ground. So, even for Meghan, there will be challenges to being a princess, but I don't think they are anything she cannot meet. And of course, she will get support and guidance from the royal family. All of that is in the future, but right now...

I think we have a very exciting fall coming up!

190 comments:

  1. Personally, I like the coupling of Meghan and Harry. I wish them well (and selfishly, I want a wedding and a baby this year!) I think the relationship is very serious, as they are both in their 30's, and you just don't waste the time if it isn't right. I also think having a more media-savvy princess on his arm isn't a bad thing for Harry. She strikes me as being a strong character and I think she is a nice counterpoint to Kate. I hope they are engaged. Having a happy family life will obviously help William and Harry steer the monarchy in tricky times. To Jane's point, she may have to mute her activism a bit, but I think just by showing up, she will find a "silent" voice on the causes she holds dear. Here's to hoping for some happy news.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. She is beautiful...I think Harry has found 'the One' in Meghan. Looking forward to an announcement soon!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Totally agree with all your comments, Jane. It would be crazy for her to do an interview and not acknowledge the relationship at all. Equally, I'm sure she wouldn't jepordise her relationship with her likely future in-laws by giving an interview they would disapprove of, so I assume that Kensington Palace was aware of what she was going to say and had ok-d it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Prince Charles is a little political. But I like how she said this is "our time". I wonder if she meant it's their turn or if this time before marriage is their time. It's open to interpretation, but Harry is not going to follow royal protocol because he simply doesn't have to. I think this relationship is very important for the monarchy and I know he wants children soon, can't wait for theirs. And as an American Mutt like her, I am so excited to add a little flavor to the palace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Ari about Charles, so the BRF will be ready. Jane, this is a superb post--as usual--but eloquently serious enough and thought-provoking. I love how you handle all your posts, and this one stands alone about Meghan. Congratulations and thanks for another real piece here. I'll be watching for the publication(s) that contact you about reprinting. Katherine USA

      Delete
    2. Ari, I know you are being self depreciating in your comments about being an "American mutt". In the United States, we are a melting pot; and we have the freedom to chart our own destinies. I am impressed that not only is Meghan a striking women, she has degrees from Northwestern University. She appears to have a creative work ethic and interesting life in my opinion.

      I think it is easy to criticize her for her accomplishments and how they were achieved.
      Without passing judgment, in my opinion the Duchess of Cambridge, according to media reports, can be subject to the same criticism as to her status as Prince William's long time, extremely loyal girlfriend.

      As the proverb says, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Just my opinion!

      Delete
    3. What criticism in which comment in this thread does your second paragraph refer to, anon 10:43?

      Delete
  5. Yaaaaaaaay! I am so excited to see someone a little different become part of the universe of the BRF. Yes, this isn't how we've seen things done in the past (at least not in this generation) in terms of press and glamour and celebrity and I would personally approach such a situation in a more Kate-like manner, BUT! I am super excited none the less. For fashion, for expanding racial representation, for a bit of glam - and of course a WEDDING.

    They're in their 30s and I think they likely are already engaged. I have a relationship past that mirrors Harry, and the first person I dated seriously in my early 30s was it. It was just obvious after two months, since the person AND the timing were right, and we spend the next 18 months being super happy and having lots of fun, knowing that eventually things would get serious and we needed to cherish that time. I think maybe that could be happening here too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are a brave woman, Jane. I should have known you would not allow trolls and conflict-seeking posters to dictate what you publish. In my opinion, you are under no obligation to publish unkind or contentious remarks about Meghan's interview; or provocative comparisons to other royals.
    This interview was done in June, just prior to her return after a short holiday break (and quick trip to London-Pippa wedding, Wimbledon etc.)for the completion of Suits season seven filming-which wrapped in August. This may be part of a well-orchestrated lead up to an announcement. She is reportedly now free of her contractual obligations to Suits. (no commitment on record for beyond the seventh season)The new baby and the Kate privacy lawsuit results have been announced. The September Toronto games and Harry's birthday loom. The big staff changes are scheduled for October, for the most part.
    I'd say this publicity about this VF article was exquisitely- timed.
    If the goal of granting the interview isn't to promote the Harry/Meghan partnership then it must be to promote Ms. Markle's career. Maybe a bit of both. The two may be mutually exclusive, however..

    One thing that puzzles me is that she is quoted in the article as saying that they met in July, 2016, and dated quietly for SIX months before their dating became public. The six month timing would fit with some sources quoted as being present at a gathering in May, 2016, where Harry asked about Meghan. I would have to check back to see when her blog commented hinting of the relationship and the media story broke. I do know Harry wrote his plea to the media in OctoberNovember 2016 that
    Meghan be left alone. Obviously, their relationship was known at that time. Not exactly quiet dating. He brought a lawsuit in December, 2015, I believe, concerning privacy of his companions. Not sure of that date. My point is- either Meghan mis-spoke about timing for some reason or VF mis-quoted her. It is such a glaring error I wonder how it got published. Since she states she does not read stories about herself and relies on her close friends for validation, someone should really advise her what is out there so she can at least qualify when she makes statements contrary to both documented fact (KP date of the press release) and reports of supposed friends who facilitated their meeting

    I am 100% behind this couple I know only through the media. I like the idea of it. I, like Meghan, enjoy a good romance story. anon1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't sound "100%" behind this couple. Your comments are full of digs and slaps at them.

      Delete
    2. Anon 1,interesting about the interview being done in June. It explains a lot I didn't understand. While there seems to be a real possibility of them being engaged by now, the interview gave me the opposite impression. Contrary to many of you, I thought it was unprecedented for the RF and typically a celebrity interview, not at all the kind of interview she would do if engaged. IMO, she had this opportunity with VF, asked Harry's opinion, he told her to go ahead and that she might mention their relationship. But this is no interview sanctioned by BP to introduce her to the world as Harry's future wife. That doesn't mean they are not engaged, but clearly they weren't when the interview was done IMO

      Delete
    3. 2:05, I agree that this was not part of any official program on BP's part. I *do* believe that H&M discussed and agreed upon her response to questions about their relationship. As I stated elsewhere in this post, her reference to presenting themselves in the future went a step beyond saying, "yes, I am dating Harry."

      Delete
    4. No "digs or slaps." She says she doesn't read press about herself. I was merely suggesting that she should be informed what is already out there before she gives an interview. I think the magazine should have omitted that remark. I am sure the editor was aware of the discrepancy, if M. was not. With all her media savvy and acting experience, she still exudes a vulnerable sort of innocence to me---not unlike what I see in Harry. It is a part of their appeal.I may be alone in that interpretation. She has faced the American press and celebrity fans, but I have never seen anything to match the ugliness of royal "fans" who tend to build their own construct of what their expectations are and proceed to knock down those who they once elevated. I think Harry wouldn't hesitate to isolate himself from the royal family if he felt it was needed to protect his loved one. The royal family needs him for balance.

      I have no idea what you call digs and slaps. I am not the only person to have the opinion that this reads like a typical celebrity interview...although she seems beyond the typical celebrity mould. More an Angelina Jolie type. Her fashion reminds me of Amal Clooney's taste. Some of her more philosophical remarks remind me of statements they and others like them have made. For Harry's sake, I hope she is sincere about and continues her detachment from the Hollywood world she grew up in. If she does and continues to be the person she seems to be...Harry's caught a keeper.
      I can't help worrying for him. He has apparently just begun to allow his feelings about his Mother's death to surface. I only know the person presented in the media but I just want Harry to be happy. anon1

      Delete
    5. anon 2:05-I think you make some valid points. I think the timing of the interview's publication, not so much the content, was interesting strategically. Their next move individually or as a couple needs to counter the self-promotion aspect of the article. I agree- the interview as published reads more like a step forward in her acting career
      than an introduction to the BRF. Which is fine, if it was meant as a publicity piece.

      The Toronto games are coming up. I think her appearance at his side would be an appropriate introduction as a future member of the BRF, on the other hand. It is not a royal event but has dignity and presents the kind of image that will help Meghan's entry into the royal world.anon1

      Delete
    6. Anon 2:05, agree. This sounds lie a typical celebrity interview which does not really say anything:). Do not think she vetted it with the RF. Think she just did it, may have asked Harry if he cared she mentioned him if asked, but that is about it. Magazine articles are planned months in advance and only pulled if a major major issue at the time of printing.

      Delete
    7. Anon1 i live for your comments and knowledge.

      Delete
    8. Well, thank-you, Ari! But perhaps you shouldn't encourage me. Ha!

      Delete
  7. What a happy couple of days! We get the baby news and now this interview :) I think Meghan is a good fit for Harry. Just as Kate is for William. Kate's role is so different as the wife of a future king and mother to another.

    Thank you for the great write up!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hmm...I do not think Her Majesty will be amused. For that matter, neither will old fuddy duddy Charles. Unless the engagement is already in place and the family knows about it (and they've been given permission because he still has to have that), she has overstepped. All other royal girlfriends have said nothing or said something to the effect of "You know I don't discuss this." I hope Harry doesn't have to take any heat from his family over this. She may be celebrity savvy but the BRF is a completely different ballgame and I'm not sure Serena Williams was the best place to go for advice. Maybe talking to Kate or Zara would have been a better choice for her particular circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - MinneapolisSeptember 5, 2017 at 4:46 PM

      Zara solves her "problem" as a non-titled BRF member without any taxpayer funding by capitalizing on still being in the royal family and thus still a little famous, by regularly allowing Hello to feature exclusive pictures of things like new baby, etc, in return for which she gets paid a ton of money. That seems much more "celebrity" than "royal", whereas this interview leans more the other way. Not to mention that while Kate has maintained her quietness, both Prince Harry and William have already broken a dam this past year in terms of talking about personal lives in interviews and such. It's no different.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure that Kate would actually be able to give Meghan good advice on this one Anon 4:04 because Kate did not have a high-profile or name recognition before she started dating William, whereas Meghan has and is in the position of needing to transition that to accommodate a relationship. Someone like Serena Williams would be able to speak to that much more than Kate could. If Meghan looks to members of the BRF for advice I actually think Sophie Wessex would be most similar and likely to have useful insights.

      Delete
    3. 100% agree, Maggie!👍🏻

      Delete
  9. I love Megan! I hope she dresses the royal press pack better than William and Kate do! I love that she is a self made woman who worked hard for her success. I love that she already does a lot of charity work not because she has to but because she WANTS to! She is going to be an awesome addition to the royal family
    However, as Diana learned, once you let in the press just a crack it can become unmanagble

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, it's a slippery slope and the press will keep greasing it for her. They would love nothing more than to create a controversy. That's why it's best to take W&K's approach and keep them firmly at arms length. I hope MM doesn't have to learn this the hard way.

      Delete
    2. I can't imagine Harry likes the press any more than William does and I can't imagine Meghan would have gone on record without discussing what she would say with Harry. Neither Harry nor Meghan will be able (and may not want to) have the same relationship with the press as W&K. Different approaches for the different couples makes sense to me!

      Ps I am sure Meghan has made note of Diana's relationship with the press just as Kare has made note of her sartorial choices. Both women can find examples and cautionary tales from the experiences Diana had.

      Delete
    3. Sarah you always have an issue with Kate's work ethic and such. Since Willsm was born into this roll and Kate has been attached to William since college you can't say what would do if they led 35 years not connected to the BRF!

      Delete
    4. Let's be clear about Diana and the press. She didn't do anything different than Charles and his crew. Penny Junor, anyone?? And then the Clarence House and Buck House press offices, they talk to the press and give info unsourced ALL. THE. TIME.

      Diana wasn't any different with the press than Charles. She simply had the public's ❤ and that ticked him off.

      And you can bet Harry blessed this cover and interview. MM's no fool, she's not going to jeopardize her future with Harry over this.

      Some just want to pick because they don't like Meghan. Well, get on board kitties because this boat is ready to sail!!

      Delete
    5. Anon princess Diana frequently informed the press of her whereabouts and used the press as a weapon against Charles and then was annoyed when she didn't have privacy. Not to mention that tv interview she did.
      I'm just saying Megan and Harry cant beg privacy and then she does this interview
      She just needs to be careful is all

      Delete
    6. Maturely acknowledging she is in a relationship with a legitimate publication is a far cry from alerting the paps about your whereabouts or doing a secret tell all interview.

      Delete
    7. Regarding Diana, Meghan, and the press. Two different women with very, very different circumstances. It goes beyond apples and oranges.

      I'm with 8:56 here....

      Delete
    8. Press and Paparazzi, although they work together, are two separate entities.

      Diana was hounded by the Paparazzi from the day she was linked with Charles, until the day after her death. Even as she lie dying in that car, they were snapping pictures to sell to the Press for money. She complained throughout her life about the Paparazzi.

      Toward the end of her marriage, as a last resort against Charles and Camilla's attempts to destroy her, Diana spoke to a reporter anonymously, to describe her sad life under the BRF thumb. After Charles' Dimbleby interview, she then gave her Panorama interview, which resulted in her freedom from the BRF. Those interviews were her means to that end.

      Even if she had not given those interviews, the paparazzi would still have stalked and hounded her until the end. She DID NOT ask for, or deserve that.

      Belle

      Delete
  10. I love Megan - she's smart, independent, glam and interesting. I am 100% sure she would have not given this interview w/out checking with Harry, BP, etc. for the ok. I too would not be surprised if they were already engaged... I think she's perfect for Harry!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jane- my eyes may deceive me, and it may just be skin, but in the headshot with the blue sweater, does it look like she could possibly already be wearing a diamond sparkler?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a report going around that Harry used a piece of Diana's jewelry to make the engagement ring. If true, OMG. I just love it! 😍

      I always wondered if Harry would do something like that since Kate got the engagement ring. So, I think, this would be really wonderful. And a great way to honor Diana, too. Time will tell.

      Delete
    2. Do you really think she would wear it for a photoshoot witout a royal announcement??

      Delete
    3. No way. For photo shoots like this the subject of the shoot rarely wears anything that is theirs. You will often see celebrities that are married and always wear their wedding rings wear completely random jewelry in shoots like this.

      Delete
    4. I absolutely believe that Harry would (has!) use(d) a piece of Diana's jewelry to have a ring created for his bride. Like William, I expect that he would want her to be a part of it.

      Delete
    5. Let's hope so, RF! I have to admit that report really struck my heart. So sweet, so lovely!😊

      11:46

      Delete
    6. 11:46, I would bet a cup of tea and a delicious Victoria Sponge on it. :-)

      Delete
  12. This is such a departure from the usual behavior the royals expect. I'm wondering if this is the reason William and Harry's long-standing press person resigned abruptly in the summer. The Daily Mail had an article about it. I immediately thought of Meghan Markle and wondered if she had something coming that the press person argued against and Harry had him sacked. I can see her needing to do publicity for her show, but she doesn't need to mention Prince Harry. Lots of celebrities refuse to discuss their personal lives in interviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you MK Fitzgerald. It seems highly odd to mention the relationship in the press when, as you have stated, many other celebrities consider their relationships out of bounds. Especially considering how the BRF guard their privacy.

      Delete
    2. It would even more odd - and create even more press attention - if she skirted the issue. Instead she acknowledged the reality we all know and drew a boundary ("this is our time") and moved on. It was a pragmatic and mature move.

      Delete
    3. MKF, I understand where you're coming from, but the speculation and anticipation factor here is off the charts. If a typical actor/actress does an interview, I would take any relationship revelation with a grain of salt. But we are talking about a young woman who is dating Prince Harry. The Queen of England's grandson...Princess Diana's son. This is HUGE. :-) And I agree with 8:36 that it would have created even more press attention if she had avoided the subject.

      I also think it's very likely that she discussed her potential responses to this subject with Harry and they agreed on her wording. I say this because her statement did go a bit beyond acknowledging the relationship. The reference to presenting themselves in the future was a loaded comment, IMO.

      Delete
    4. MK, I didn't read any comments before I mine but I basically said the same thing.

      Delete
  13. I don't see a problem with Meghan doing this interview. She is an actress and, officially, she is single. Meghan's relationship with Harry is not a secret; HE made that perfectly clear when he issued the statement in November of 2016. I'm sure she had his blessing and she did not reveal any personal details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with others that this is a departure from being silent and not mentioning the connection with the member of the royal family but I feel this is a different scenario. Harry publicly announced the relationship and Meghan is already a public figure. I'm sure she got the go ahead to slightly comment on the relationship.

      Delete
    2. +1 royalfan. NLopez

      Delete
  14. I wonder, if the rumours are true and they did get engaged / about to be engaged, whether the announcement of the spring arrival of the third baby for Wills and Kate would mean that Harry and Meghan would now have to delay their announcement/ wedding date til after the babies arrival??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually think an engagement announcement would still fit in in the next few months. They could announce their engagement and say that the wedding will be in the summer. That is plenty of time for the Cambridge's to have baby #3 and still be at the wedding. I could see Meghan and Harry having a slightly longer engagement that Kate and William so she has some princess training time. Kate had years of it.

      Delete
    2. I don't see any need for an engagement announcement to be delayed because of Baby Cambridge #3. As a matter of fact, an engagement would take the spotlight off of W&K and give them a reprieve from some of the fuss and bother their joyous news has generated.

      The only consideration I see being made is not to have the wedding within 4 weeks or so of Kate's due date.

      Delete
    3. Why would they have to delay their announcement? One doesn't affect the other. Just more happy news!

      Delete
    4. I thought Harry had an extensive trip to Africa already planned for October? To Sentabale
      and his Wildlife interests. I remember thinking and probably commenting months ago that Africa would be an ideal honeymoon destination for them with Meghan at his side with the AIDs orphans and the elephants. I can envision this so clearly.
      Is the October plan still on the books, now that he has just spent three weeks there, (although in different countries)
      Surely, he wouldn't let his patronages down.
      I don't see them waiting until Spring or Summer to wed.

      Delete
    5. I totally see them waiting until the spring/summer to allow Kate to have the baby and allow Meghan to adjust to life in the U.K. Remember, she still lives in Canada. She isn't just hanging out in Chelsea or Berkshire like Kate was. She has more of an adjustment and learning curve. Plus she probably has some professional obligations to tie up much like Grace Kelly did.

      Delete
    6. I see your points, Ellen. Maybe I was just hoping for an earlier wedding. You are absolutely correct that reason would dictate a slower, more resolute approach to marriage. However, I don't think they --or at least Harry, are necessarily following the dictates of reason at this point.
      I imagine being a royal girlfriend is much more exciting and less stressful than being a royal wife. After Cinderella goes to live at the Palace, the fairytale ends. anon1

      Delete
    7. anon1, did the fairytale end for Kate too once she went to go live at the palace? Or does that apply only to Meghan?

      Delete
    8. Ideally, it would be nice for Meghan to *live* with Harry for at least a year, if not two. However, age is not on their side if they want to start a family, and I assume that they do!

      Right now, they're flying high and it's perfectly understandable. But the reality of life behind palace walls will be different. IMO, they won't be able to be the free spirits that so many fans seem to think.

      Delete
    9. 11:27,

      Ha! Love your your comment. 👌🏻

      Delete
    10. Between diapers, potty training, nursing, HG, hostile "fans," the DM, yes-I would say, although the romance is certainly alive and thriving,the fairytale has ended for Kate.. Prince Charming wears chinos and the same ragged old belt. He has lost his boyish curls. I don't think it has all been happily ever after..in short, an average marriage. But a fairytale no longer.What I really was referring to is that no one wants to hear what happens after the realities of day to day life kick in. People want the fairytale.

      I think the fans who moan about being disappointed don't have a realistic view of the realities and yearn for a beautifully gowned lady bountiful who touches her wand and makes everything perfect.

      Delete
    11. Anon1 thank you for your wisdom

      Delete
    12. Anon1, I agree wholeheartedly. Me thinks that Kate's most passionate critics have reality TV expectations.

      Delete
    13. RoyalFan, I don't think it's reality TV expectations that Kate's critics have (or maybe some do). I like Kate but even I admit now that I am a bit disappointed. She doesn't seem to be passionate about anything other than William, her kids, and her family. And that's fine. She's a wonderful mother and a supportive partner to William. But for those of us that thought we might see a bit more (becoming passionate about a cause, taking some initiative work-wise), we are disappointed. I still follow her though because ultimately I like her (and her fashion!).

      Delete
    14. Let's not judge too harshly. Diana didn't get super passionate about certain causes until she was just a bit younger than Kate and at that point she was done having kids for more than 10 years and had been an active royal for 25 years. Let's give it some time.

      Delete
    15. 11:47, I think it's important to Kate to be very involved with her children. I believe this was her own experience and, surely, it must be important to William. The boys were Diana's priority and I assume he wants his own children to have a similar experience. I fully expect W&K's royal duties to increase as time goes by, but for now I see nothing wrong with them taking the time to concentrate on and nurture their children.

      Delete
  15. Jane, don t you think your headline is a little dareing?! She said nothing about marrying. To come forward and present themselves can be anything from polo match to charity ball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No way. Remember she did this in June and it just came out. They're already engaged. She wouldn't risk giving a big intimate interview and they break up before it's published! No you only do this when you're rock solid.

      Delete
    2. With the'present themselves to the public" remark, I envisioned William and Catherine's engagement interview not a first official appearance as a couple. Especially with the talking about the relationship reference.ano1

      Delete
    3. I have tried multiple times to reply to the accusations that Kate does little as a royal, justifiably or not. It simply isn't true .I have made a strong case for this, including specifics of instances where a parent or organization leader has commented on her quiet work and dedication when cameras are not around to provide the proof that some seem to need. Both with attempts to reply to the 11:47 comment and comments elsewhere- each time my comment either vanishes into ether (here) or just doesn't get published.(elsewhere)
      This time I will merely say: before you complain or remark that Kate is lazy or avoids work take the time to make a list of the charity and RF events Kate has assisted or attended the past year, including meetings and individual appearances on tours. Actual events she was involved in, not just the ones the CC gave her credit for. Just the ones that offer comment or photo proof in the media. Not behind the scenes work. Use a source that writes up each and every event she does. Consider also that one does not just roll out of bed, jump in the car, arrive and wing it at an engagement. William and Harry, maybe. For Kate it is hair, make-up, and fittings. Every detail that isn't perfect gets noted and discussed endlessly. Tours take hours and hours of prep. All this with two little ones who depend on their parents the 12-16 hours Nanny is off duty daily.
      Then look at William's schedule. KP said he would work toward a gradual increase in duties, as they become scheduled, and he has. I have no doubt that Kate would prefer going to a rugby game or visiting with old soldiers or cutting a ribbon to throwing up around the clock. Yet some actually hinted or said outright that she got pregnant on purpose to avoid work. I consider the source when I read such nonsense, but it all must get back to her in some form.
      Please realise when one says it is ok for her to take care of her children instead of perform engagements you are still saying she doesn't yet work enough.
      When Parliament or the Queen publish the definition of "fulltime royal," as well as list who is responsible for X number of hours of duties and under what circumstances---(babies, small children, old age, illness, other employment) When such a definition of full-time royal becomes available, then we can discuss whether Kate does full time royal work. Since the term is not even used by either Parliament or the royal family, I doubt we will ever see that. Perhaps a description of expectations for senior royals instead. That would include Beatrice, Eugenie, at the least, and should include the rest of William's generation. I think it is a mistake to use the term" full time royal" because it is meaningless and ridiculous. First because a royal is a royal 24/7. One is not a part-time royal. Also as it really has no relevance to the type of activities royals do. Not many 40 hour a week jobs require one to leave home, travel for hours and literally abandon any private home life for 10-14 days at a time. Can you imagine the overtime on that? anon1

      Delete
  16. This Vogue article was prepared quite some time ago and just released, so it's okay, I think, to take a breath and know that Harry and his team have screened for every comma ;) . I really wish folks would give this couple more credit. They are not young children, they are both seasoned adults who have a plan and understand the workings of the Royal life in the most personal of ways. Why everyone insists on getting so hung up on their perception of protocol and "what Harry needs" is .... well just puzzling to me. It's not about you. It's about them. Harry was born in to this life and he will lead MM through it as THEY choose right for themselves. Not as the Duke and Duchess did or so and so did, but as THEY want to do. Just enjoy the journey and celebrate that 2 people found love in a world that is too often shaded! It's okay just to relax and be happy for them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5:15, I'd love to include the last few sentences of your comment in every post on W&K. ;-)

      Delete
    2. Thank-you anon 5:15. I feel so much better now. Totally relaxed.

      Delete
    3. Agree with you entirely 5:15!! We can't hide behind our computer keyboards and pretend we know the first thing about being a royal, or what we would do differently in their shoes. As Meghan said in her interview, they're happy and in love. That's all that matters!

      Delete
    4. Anon 5:15, I do not think that Harry and his family or even Meghan got to screen the article for "every comma". No writer/editor is going to allow that, at least not at the level Meghan and Harry are at, which in the US is frankly marginal. Meghan was probably allowed some say in what question could be asked, some over site on final photos and that is about it. The magazine world is very fast paced. This was planned and finished in the minds of the magazine editors probably in March at the latest of 2017.

      Delete
    5. You are probably correct, Ali. One point-the interview was done in June, reportedly, but the photoshoot could have been earlier or later, depending on schedules and logistics. I agree this article was talked about and planned well-before the interview date. By June, M. had apparently been to London again and in the news with Harry. The Wimbledon kiss sealed the deal with the media. Whether the interview came before of after that lucky snap, it marked a new era in the relationship. As I have said, the timing of some of the events almost seems orchestrated. Unfortunately, a public couple almost has to conduct a relationship with an eye to the press.

      Delete
    6. Polo kiss, not Wimbledon kiss. Although she has been photographed at Wimbledon-I believe 2015 or 2016.

      Delete
  17. I was listening to a podcast and one of the ladies said on there that the magazine article might have been tactical and I agree. Vanity Fair is one of the few magazines left that is well respected and Meghan being a divorcee, they might want to clear the way on that one even though it's not a big deal to me. It's a sign that things are really moving forward in their relationship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles, Camilla, both divorced.

      Delete
    2. IMO, Meghan's divorce is a non-issue. 1000%. And Charles and Camilla's situation goes way beyond two divorcees getting married.

      Delete
    3. As is the Princess Royal. They all have remarried. Prince Andrew is also divorced but not remarried. Things have very much changed since the days of Wallace Simpson!

      Delete
    4. I'm still hoping for a second time around for Andrew and Sarah. This new baby might make it possible legally if anyone in the RF has been discouraging their re-marriage. He is the Father of her children. He already lives in the same house. Maybe it just doesn't matter to them but it may mean a lot to Beatrice and Eugenie.

      Delete
    5. Andrew and Sarah intrigue me. With Andrew being pushed so far down in the line of succession where he doesn't need approval hopefully he will consider it! Although does he still date others?

      Delete
    6. :+) Jane.
      Ellen, I think it could be a new start for the whole family. I'm rootin for them.
      He may date. Apparently, nothing serious, though. I don't read around much. I really don't know. anon1
      But again...Angie and Brad!

      Delete
    7. Anon1, I can hear Prince Philip having a cough attack at the very thought. ;-)

      I do believe that they care for each other, but a marriage would mean a complete replay of the antics from the 80's...and every scandal in the decades that followed. Would they want to give Charles the material?

      Delete
    8. I think removing Andrew from the top six would deplete a major chunk of the leverage Phillip has had. Maybe HM could toss a few of her tiresome black shoes at him and knock some sense into his head.I think you are right, royal fan. Just as the Diana anniversary brought out the banshees, I expect the media would feel obliged and possibly encouraged to dredge it all up. Remember all the hateful remarks about Pippa that those who couldn't stand the thought of her being happy spit out? But the furor over Diana and bad-mouthing of Pippa have faded. Diana can rest in peace, Pippa can enjoy her new life, and I think, after a bit of stormy weather, Andrew and Sarah could quietly live again as husband and wife. I think that title matters to some.
      I like much of what I know about Sarah. You have to admit-when she takes something on, she throws her whole self into it. She seems to be kind and have a good heart. Andrew isn't my favorite royal but I think he and Sarah are better together, now that they have grown up. I think it would give the self-images of Sarah and her daughters a boost, more than with them living together and Andrew and Sarah dating others.
      I am sitting here in disbelief that I can get so wrapped up in the lives of strangers.
      Right now it beats thinking about a ton of other stuff.

      Delete
    9. Anon1, I think the current scenario is preferable; the BRF is better off if the scandals are not rehashed and Sarah is not accountable to the suits at BP.

      My apologies to those who are sympathetic with Sarah, but I think she is a loose cannon and the Firm is better off with her at arm's length. I respect her charity work, but she has a way of taking one step forward and five steps back.

      Delete
    10. Then you also think William and Harry should not have broadcast their Diana film since it was bound to fan the flames of the rehashing of the Charles/Diana scandals? Did the Queen drop Phillip when he became an embarrassment?
      It just seems so hypocritical to turn a blind eye to their living together but deny the respect and acceptance into the royal family that marriage would offer their relationship. Having their Mum standing beside their Dad on the balcony might give their daughters encouragement and support. It could actually strengthen the royal family.

      By the way.. Do the laws of marrying as a divorced person count when one remarries the one divorced?
      If the York family is happy with the present form of commitment, that is one thing; but to deny them marriage is unreasonable. I think that episode of influence-peddling( which was a set-up by a reporter and had the taint of blackmail to me)...that was when? Andrew had to have had knowledge of it, yet he still continues as a favorite son in the family.


      What ever happened to redemption? How do we decide who deserves it and who does not?
      (there's a bit of dramatic prose for you, Jane. Ha!)anon1

      Delete
    11. Well, Anon1, it would be easier for myself and others to be more charitable with Sarah if she actually learned from her mistakes and did not repeat them. I did want to believe her when she stated (on multiple occasions) that she learned from her mistakes and it made her stronger, however..........

      Delete
    12. Well, royalfan, I must have missed some of the details in the Sarah saga. anon1

      Delete
    13. I think Andrew is just as bad as Fergie. I think financially she was set-up to fail through a horrible divorce settlement. Yes, she's horrible with money, but so are many royals. The Queen Mother died with millions owing in overdrafts to the bank.

      And I think Andrew is emotionally and verbally abusive to Sarah and the girls. There have been many reports over the years regarding his behavior (remember a few years ago when he purposely hit the police officer with his car at BP because he told him a gate was closed, so he rammed the gate and hit the man?). People like that normally treat their families worse. Plus the girls have spoken at length , very candidly , about their extreme low self-esteem. I think Andrew's a very bad guy. I hope Fergie gets away from him. Doesn't look like she will, but she should.

      Delete
    14. 1:55, maybe the living arrangement is Andrew's way of dealing with Sarah's financial circumstances (?) while at the same time enabling them to live together as a family. On a more personal level, they do appear to live separate lives.

      As for Sarah getting away from him, I highly doubt it. I suspect she'd rather be a divorced duchess than a married Mrs [fill in the blank]. And it *does* put a damper on Andrew bringing anyone home for dinner. LOL.

      Delete
  18. I am crazy excited to follow her fashion! This girl is going to be amazing to me watch!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her fashion may change once she joins the family. Never want to outshine the queen.

      Delete
    2. Errr.. God bless her but the Queen will be gone soon. No one will be looking at Cammie. The stage is Meghan and Kate's.

      Delete
  19. I wonder if she knows what she is doing, meaning – moving to UK and becoming a full-time royal? She seems like a creative and independent woman who has built a career for herself. I get that being married to royalty means comfort and money, family probably eventually, but she is from a completely different background – would she be happy being royal? Kate at least is British and she always seemed kinda old-fashioned, but Markle is a modern and independent woman.

    Does Meghan know what she is doing, really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She already did a lot of charity work she can continue this in a royal role. I think she knows wat she is doing and what royal life means. She is always been hardworking but its time for the next chapter in her life. I bet she desire for a family on her own. It wont be easy but she has a good support system.

      Delete
    2. I think Harry is a modern and independent guy. A good match for Meghan.

      Delete
    3. I am not sure it has to do with being "modern":) but frankly the difference between having your base in the Uk and your base the US is huge over the years of a marriage. I do think it can be an issue especially for someone in the entertainment business. They are both grown ups and I assume they have thought or are thinking this all out, but it is also fun for the rest of us to think through all the issues or non issues.

      Delete
  20. I wish them nothing but happiness as their relationship continues. I do hope they consider pre-marital counseling. They have a number strikes against them. It will certainly be interesting to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I saw on twitter that it is highly unlikely that Kate will be able to take George to host first day of school. I really feel for Kate. Being so ill that you have to miss your Childs first day of school. There are so many people who do not understand hg and most of the comments about Kate is that she needs to buck it up, stop faking she has hg and using hg so she does not actually have to work and calling her lazy and never did anything before and after marrying wills. Just very pathetic comments.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, you are taking comments and twisting them. No one has said any of that. That's why people can't say a peep about Kate. Read the comments without sycophantic glasses on.

      Delete
    2. I was not meaning this blog. Its the comments on DM or the daily mail.

      Delete
  22. I'm not really sure why she did this interview. Certainly, it is unprecedented for a BRF girlfriend to speak publicly about the relationship. If Kate had done this, I can't imagine she would be the DoC today. This move seems to go against Harry's wish for privacy as well her exit from her blog and social media accounts. I'm sure Harry gave the ok but wouldn't be surprised if the Queen is rolling her eyes at this point. Not sure this is the right PR move at this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see your point, Faith. I really think it is more a publicity-type in depth bio than the presenting of a future royal family member to the public. I really, really want this to work out for Harry but I keep seeing red flags.
      I tell myself it may have been to appease the media or thank them for keeping her out of the papers-sort of like Charles did while the boys were in school-an occasional crumb tossed to the media and public. Perhaps it was meant to forestall what may have been negative publicity coming from some other source. Who knows?
      Plus, VF may have known a lucrative deal and snatched her up. VF is a step above DM and probably HufPost. The graphics are gorgeous usually and remind me of Vogue, but I don't think the magazine has the peer respect it once had. I think The New Yorker would have been a better choice. That would have looked like less of a promo piece and a better forum for a possible future BRF member. Who did that Eugenie interview?
      One wonders who initiated the interview. That would tell us a lot.

      By the way, Faith, I need to apologize to you and others who mentioned the KP " busy Fall" thing. I have trouble accessing the comment section at times and have not been able to find my remark. I want to clarify that I was looking for a press release like the ones for baby 3 and other important events. I thought you meant a Fall schedule had been presented. There was a general, non-specific Twitter comment from KP about the sorts of activities in the works and that it would be a busy time; but Kate was actually specifically just given the Monday event, not an entire Fall schedule, while several events were listed for William and Harry. You were justified in your remarks, however. I still don't think it justifies some blaming Kate for deliberately mis-leading the public or scheming to avoid work. The embargoed event (which they didn't even bother to report as cancelled for Kate) was obviously planned within the last three months; but the children's charity engagement could have been planned many months ago. Some are even saying elsewhere that she should not have allowed scheduling for anything if there was a possibility she would conceive. That criticism is so ridiculous I won't even discuss it. It was those sorts of remarks elsewhere that had my hackles up.

      Delete
    2. I think Harry's point was the level of intrusion Meghan was experiencing. Trying to get into her apartment, following her 24/7, for example. He didn't mean complete privacy.

      Delete
    3. I think the interview was unwise. Hints about marrying, their love for each other and that they're "a couple" perhaps should have come first from Harry. Chin-out declarations like "I have never defined myself by my relationship" are both banal and unfortunate.
      Clothing-sense wise, Meghan's a winner

      Delete
    4. You mean like when he released a press statement Anon 11:36? Public confirmation came directly from Harry and KP long before this interview.

      Delete
    5. I also found that remark "never defined myself by my relationship" unfortunate. In the same category as the " whatever love means" of Charles. Not the sort of thing boyfriend likes to hear, saying he doesn't influence you and putting him at the level of previous relationships.

      Delete
    6. I don't think her quote means that at all Anon 11:31 - I think it means her relationship is one aspect of who she is but not the one and only identity she has. Just as Kate is likely not defined in her mind as just Williams wife - she is also a mother and a daughter and a sister and actively involved her in charities. I can't imagine Harry would be bothered by her admission that she - like he - has more than one thing going on in her life.

      Delete
    7. Perhaps, 11:55, but the "just" and " not only "are missing.
      And even if she meant that there is more than one thing going on in her life, her quote is not very romantic. When you're in love the loved one takes centre stage, even if you still have other things in your life...it is so nice to hear that you are the most important thing in another's life, not the cold shower of " you are only one aspect". Granted she couldn't say that in an interview, but no need to rub in " I am independent and interesting, I don't need you"11:31

      Delete
    8. She didn't say that she doesn't need Harry or that her indepence means she does not love and appreciate him - that is your spin on her words, likely colored by the way you think someone in love should talk. It's also true that when in love your beloved takes center stage for a while and while that is romantic it's also naive to believe that your life can revolve completely around that person forever.

      Delete
    9. Hi anon 1. You make valid points. I agree. It does read and look like a publicity piece, not the introduction of a future member of the BRF. I guess that is where I am having a problem. I think if she had declined to comment about the relationship, it would sit better with me. Although they may be privately engaged, until there is a public announcement, she is stii Meaghan, the actress and girlfriend. For her( I'm sure with his permission) to use this forum to talk about herself and Harry brings an sense of celebrity into the mix. Why does she need a magazine spread to introduce herself as a furture member of the BRF? It feels attention seeking. He needs to publicly announce they are engaged and they can do an interview then. I think an American needs to be very careful about coming into the BRF and doing things differently. It's not going to fly too well with the British public imo.

      Quite ok about the busy Autumn topic. I know that specific dates- other than the two- were not given out for Kate but specific references to certain causes and charities were stated to be on her agenda as well as a Fall tour. Also, all three were included in the "busy Fall" statement. KP used the subject THR to encompass the whole trio because the pronoun used was their, not his (as in Prince William singularly). Anyway, Ive pretty much determined that Kate's staff had no idea she was pregnant and were as surprised as we were.I agree that statements about her avoiding work or not scheduling engagements if she were hoping to become pregnant are silly but I will admit, I felt mislead and wish she had not let KP go ahead and build up hopes of a Fall full of engagements for her.

      Delete
    10. Faith-I was at the grocery store today and looked over at the magazines in the checkout line...There she was on the cover of yet another magazine...People Style. What's next? TV Guide? I don't know what to think now. Maybe VF and People are related-same publisher or something. It can't be that the photographer sold the photo to People as it was a magazine photoshoot for VF, not a private sitting for a photographer. I hope M. hasn't mislead anyone, especially Harry. If not, I don't understand how a magazine can put a face on a cover without permission. I understood that people whose faces are recognizable must give permission and be named. I don't think being a person known to the public should negate their right to be consulted. Apparently it does.

      Delete
    11. 3:35, royalfan stated it much better than I tried to do.what if Harry had made that remark? Wouldn't it seem dismissive of her? your points are true and rational but I still feel the remark was a bit out of place 11:31

      Delete
    12. Anon1 the person who owns a photograph of a celebrity makes the choice who to sell it to, not the subject of the photograph (unless they are one and the same). The subject may have some input in certain situations but not in others.

      Delete
    13. Men typically aren't asked about their relationships in interviews as often as women are so I have a hard time imagining Harry being put in a situation where he even could give an answer like the one Meghan gave. There would also be an uproar if he said that his relationship with her is more important than the BRF and his role in it. For everyone upset with what she said - what do you think she should have said?

      Delete
    14. Thats why it would gave been better for her to not discuss Harry in the interview anon 8:26.

      Delete
    15. I agree. Much better say nothing.

      Delete
    16. anon1, Kate has also appeared on countless People magazine covers. Both before and after her marriage. She was also on the cover of People Style right after her wedding (I know because I have this issue and it's one of my favorites). So unless you think Kate also granted People magazine permission to use her image on their cover, your implying that Meghan gave them permission does not make sense. Again double standards here when it comes to Kate and Meghan.

      Delete
    17. "I don't think being a person known to the public should negate their right to be consulted. Apparently it does."
      anon 11:24-I am not implying anything. I said it. I am saying essentially that, although initially confused by the second cover, I don't believe Meghan was consulted about the People cover. I didn't say Meghan gave permission. I did not say Kate did not give permission. Feel free to make inferences all you want. Just make sure you aren't saying more about your opinions than those of commenters you accuse.
      What double standard? You are doing her no favors by continually trying to create a discriminatory issue. You ignore the majority of the comments, which generally praise her charity efforts, her beauty, her fashion, her suitability for her boyfriend...Why not join the majority of commenters here who like Meghan and say what you do like about her instead of accusing people without grounds?
      Please refer to my September 7, 9:40 reply to Roi if you truly want my opinion, as far as comparison between the two women goes.

      Delete
    18. Correction: September 7, 11:42

      Delete
    19. For those who think Meghan should have pretended that nobody knows she is dating Harry - what do you think the reactions would have been to that?!

      Delete
    20. Yes, anon 1, People magazine and others always publish pictures without the subjects' permission. I would think they would have to pay royalties to whomever owns the photographs though.

      Delete
  23. Anon I am not twisting my words. I don't mean this blog. I am talking about the Daily Mail. Read the comments section and you will know I'm not twisting them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just gotta say... I LOVE HER HAIR!!!

    I dare anyone to try and say she should cut it!:)

    ReplyDelete
  25. beautiful post, article and pictures of meghan! amazing, what a wave of comments this has resulted in all over social media... interestingly, everyone seems pretty much to agree that an engagement is more or less imminent.. I read her comments differently: that now is THEIR time and that an engagement will follow later... IMO harry must have given her some kind of assurance, because she is very confident about their future, much like catherine knew after they reunited that their relationship would result in marriage... she just did not know when.. of course I could be wrong but we'll all find out at some point 🤗🍀💚

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jane, P-L-E-A-S-E stop encroaching on your own blog about the Duchess of Cambridge with these stories about Meghan Markle that have absolutely nothing to do with Kate. If you have nothing to report about Kate, then report nothing. The followers of your Kate Blog know that from time to time, for whatever reasons, Kate stops making public appearances. We know that sooner or later, Kate will come out again, and you will then have pictures and comments galore for us. We can wait. P-L-E-A-S-E do not try to fill a void in Kate’s blog with Meghan Markle. It is NOT right! If you are interested in Meghan, do a blog just for her. Those who share your enthusiasm for Meghan will follow your blog for her. Those who are not fascinated by her, will continue to follow your blog about Kate. P-L-E-A-S-E stop being so lazy and satisfy your passion for Meghan Markle and all her comings and goings by doing a blog exclusively about her. P-L-E-A-S-E allow those of your Kate Blog followers who are not captivated by Meghan Markle to continue to enjoy your Kate Blog in peace!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane can put anything she wants on her blog. I bet a lot of readers of this blog, myself included, welcome posts about Meghan because we like hearing things about the young royals. If you don't want to read the post just skip it! Jane seems to be a busy lady. I don't think you should call her lazy! I don't think adding another blog for a post or two at the moment make sense. Why don't you just make your own blog anon 3:48?

      Delete
    2. Wow are you rude and self-absorbed Anon 3:48. This is *Janes* blog - which is an outlet for her own interest in Kate, the Middletons and the BRF - and because of modern communication she is able to *share* it with others who have overlapping interests. This blog is not a product Jane produces to please you - so your comment, which reads like a product review is breathtakingly obtuse. You not like Meghan? Fine. You don't want to have to hear about her? Fine - then you can avoid reading things about her. It is absurd to think that you feel entitled to tell Jane what she may or may not discuss on *her* blog because you would rather be permitted to avoid topics you would rather avoid.

      Delete
    3. OMG-I can't believe what I am seeing here. This is Jane's blog-her creative outlet. I enjoy her point of view and her writing. I enjoy that she likes to follow Kate as much as I do. I usually try to stay above the fray. I was brought up to "not say anything if you can't say something nice." We all have opinions, and as adults, we are entitled to express them. If you're not happy with how Jane conducts her blog, start your own enterprise. I know that Jane is extremely busy these days with real life, and I have missed seeing her writing this summer. If you don't like the post on Meghan, please go elsewhere or just skip the entry. It's that easy....

      Delete
    4. P-L-E-A-S-E (that took a lot of effort to type!) don't spoil our fun on here, Anon 3:48. Who are you to dictate what Jane posts on her blog? We're lucky we get any posts at all with her schedule.

      Delete
    5. Harry and Kate aren't just in-laws; they are also friends. The person he chooses could significantly impact her and her family. Besides, Meghan is an interesting person to read about. One really needs an occasional light respite from the disaster stories.I would actually even enjoy hearing more about Pippa and her husband James as well. However, Pippa has managed to stay out of the spotlight and as far as I know, not much news is available. anon1

      Delete
    6. HOW rude! if you don't agree with the content of this blog which is very popular, just take your views elsewhere... it is absolutely up to Jane to post here about Meghan.. if she wants to create another space for her, she will do it in her own time, I'm quite confident 😉

      Delete
    7. Hmmm... it is JANE'S blog.

      And if MM is in the news, the subject will end up being discussed here anyway. So why not devote a post to it? It actually makes it easier to skip/avoid the subject if anyone wishes to do so.

      Delete
    8. Here's a novel idea Anon 348: If you see a post you don't find interesting, don't read it. You're suggesting Jane should edit according to your specific tastes and wishes? I must have missed the disclaimer on this blog where you're footing the bill? Doing all the research and work too?

      My oh my what a lofty view you must have of your own self importance.

      There are several Kate things I don't really care about, but guess what? It's Jane's house! She can do as she pleases! Fans like you should find another outlet. You're disruptive to the entire community.

      Sorry, but go away.

      Delete
    9. Jane, thank you for publishing this comment above so we can see the kind of ridiculousness you have to put up with! This is your blog - if anyone was calling me the blogger LAZY I would struggle to take them seriously & keep my head together! Oh my golly gosh!!!!! Exhale!
      Peace
      Theresa
      Australia

      Delete
  27. Jane, are you only allowing in your blog comments about Meghan Markle that are in total agreement with your clearly-apparent views that she is all that is wonderful? Why are you not publishing those comments that are not in line with your opinion about Meghan Markle, even when those comments have no personal attacks, no negative speech or vulgarities in them? Is the new comment rule in your blog that one has to be bewitched by Meghan Markle and waiting with bated breath for the announcement of her engagement to Prince Harry? Otherwise, one’s comments are not published in your blog? Please let us know, so we know where we stand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quick answer, I sleep, and work, and study. I don't moderate 24/7. So, I got your several comments this morning. Several I published, several I held because they were a little too dramatic.

      Delete
    2. Jane - this blog is awesome, you're awesome. Thank you!

      Delete
  28. yes, one wonders how Harry and the rest of the family responded to those text passages...

    ReplyDelete
  29. In the Vanity Fair interview, Meghan Markle says that she is not defined by her relationship with Prince Harry. But, the one and only reason, she’s in the cover of VF is because of that relationship. Otherwise she would not be there. She is only a mediocre actress in a silly television show. She has never done any worthwhile acting work in her life. Oh, yes, she is a “humanitarian.” She doesn’t tire of mentioning it. It seems that every single actor/actress/celebrity is involved in some humanitarian work or other. The reason many of them do it is because it benefits them much more than the humanitarian cause/s they sponsor. They become more important than the message and gain enormous popularity. The true humanitarians are the multitude of volunteers who freely give their time to help others, unsung, unpraised, unrewarded while people like Meghan Markle revel in their undeserved acclaim. I cringe to think that she might marry Prince Harry, and I worry thinking of the damage that she can do to Harry’s close and loving relationship with William and Kate. I’m convinced Meghan Markle is only using Harry as a stepping stone to gain all the benefits of having royal status. If they do indeed marry, even if the marriage fails, she will be set for life, which is exactly what she wants. Harry’s playing with fire, and he’s going to get burned. But, he totally deserves what he’ll get for behaving like a total idiot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You put it somewhat strongly, but I am surprised that I basically agree with you, and that I have the same opinion on pseudo humanitarian. I do differ in that I don't think she is cunning. She simply does what is done in the celebrity world. Why shouldn't she?

      Delete
    2. So if she was simply a socialite and didn't have an acting career would her humanitarian efforts "count"?

      Delete
    3. WELL "anonymous"... a lot of hate between those venomous lines... or is it only envy?

      Delete
    4. Neither hate or envy. Simply absolute dislike.

      Delete
    5. What happens is that she never, ever fails to mention her humanitarian work in order to draw attention to herself, and on how “good” she is. If she was a self-promoting socialite it would be distasteful too. Now, she has transcended the celebrity world, she has become Harry’s girl, and many assume that soon, she’ll be his fiancée and then his wife. She is on another level and should stop self-promoting herself. Apparently, Harry has fallen for her hook line and sinker, most of the general public is fickle and only sees what they want to, so why talk so much about her charity to others? There is no need to anymore. The lady has arrived, and whether I like it or not (and I don’t), seemingly she’ll soon storm the palace. So, those like me just have to grin and bear it.

      Delete
    6. Funny thing is that you don't actually have to "bear" anything because you are not actually personally involved in their lives. You also seem to have a very low opinion of Harry for "fan" since you appear to believe he is a gullible idiot with no ability to think for himself. Or maybe the bigger issue is that you are afraid that's Harry is not being tricked and is chosing her with open eyes because *he* believes she is the best match for him and the fact that he is chosing someone other than who your choice is gets under your skin.

      Delete
    7. While it may be popular or politically correct for a woman to state that she is not defined by her relationship, I have often wondered what a gal would think if the man in her life said it...

      I will give Meghan the benefit of the doubt here; perhaps she was trying to dismiss the suggestion that she is eager to become a princess, but there *is* and edge to the statement. What if Harry had said it?

      Delete
    8. If Harry and MM do get engaged and then marry, they’ll be all over the news on paper, on television and online. I don’t live in a cave in the wild, so I’ll be seeing them all over. I won’t like it, so I’ll just grin and bear it. I actually don’t have a choice of bride for Harry. That is his business, not mine. But, I can have an opinion on the person that appears to be his choice. That’s what happens when one is a public figure. Of course, my opinion does not mean anything to anyone. The problem is that when one gives an opinion that is contrary to the views of the majority, one immediately gets attacked. I adore William, Kate and Harry and wish the very best for them. I think that if Harry goes ahead and marries MM, he will regret it someday. But, only time will tell the tale. I am not asking anyone to agree with me. I am simply exercising the right to voice my opinion (and Jane is kind enough to publish it in her blog.)

      Delete
    9. Anon 5:11: I believe in the minority's right not just to speak, but to do so without social castigation. Please always feel welcome to give your feedback here.

      Delete
    10. Has anyone here actually given an in-depth interview? I think it is similar to endless receptions, teas, walkabouts, dinner and garden parties: one often finds oneself saying inane and banal comments. (William and Catherine have both been criticized for this) She did use a number of clichés. However, it is all in the editing, unless the conversation is recorded and repeated verbatim.
      I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    11. of course you are entitled to your different opinion, but why not just admit you don't like MM instead of putting her down... seems more honest or upfront to me... I happen to like the series she plays in, have liked it for years, my favorite actress plays "Donna" but I like "Rachel" (Meghan) as well and was extremely surprised when she got together with Harry, like everyone else.. IMO he was introduced to her at a time in his life when he was almost desperately looking for a partner because all his more serious former girlfriends had shied off from the media glare... whether you like MM or not, I can imagine that he is absolutely fascinated and infatuated; she does have quite a winning personality... quite frankly I don't see him parting with her at all... time will tell of course... best regards to all of you and thank you Jane for allowing a lively discussion on your blog! anna from Vienna

      Delete
    12. What if she had given an entire interview about how her world revolves around Harry? If she had gushed the romantic details to the interviewer as she might to her friends? What tongues would be wagging in judgment then...

      Delete
    13. Royalfan, exactly!!! I tried to formulate the same though in a tread above but couldn't do it as well as you do. IMO, that remark was unfortunate.

      Delete
    14. And royalfan, trying to dismiss the suggestion that she is eager to become a princess is also perilous... It can be seen as hypocrisy, arrogance, dismissal of the importance of the BRF and so on. Better be cautious and not give way to interpretation.

      Delete
    15. Yes, 1:35, that's a very good point. I suppose if Miss Middleton had made this statement, she would have been accused of embarrassing William and disrespecting the Queen. ;-)

      Delete
    16. In the worst ways, women are defined by their relationship, men are defined by their job.

      What MM said wasn't "politically correct" it was a statement that she just doesn't value her worth through her relationship. Which, IMO, is very important, for men and women.

      Even if a man said this, it would be good. Who, in God's name, should be defined by their partner or lack thereof? NO ONE.

      It's very backward, misogynistic to think otherwise.

      Delete
    17. I'm not sure a man would ever say that; to me, by giving this interview where her relationship is clearly the driver for the piece and is the topic of most of the interview, she's sort of doing exactly that. I really like Meghan and think she has a lot to offer the world...but I don't think particular VF story elevated her in any way my eyes.

      Delete
    18. Anna, I can only speak for myself but I don't first dislike and then, because of my dislike, try to put down. I am not critical of Meghan because I dislike her, rather I could dislike her because I find things I am critical of in her. Not that I dislike her really, that is to strong, too personal a word. I didn't know anything about her, hadn't even heard of Suits. Just judging from the interview, I simply don't think she is anything special. The usual celebrity IMO
      Tina

      Delete
    19. 10:13, I will concede that it may not be political correctness, but I do believe that modern women are encouraged to think/act/speak this way about relationships. And I firmly believe that if a man made the same statement he would be thought of as an unfeeling chauvinist with more ego than heart.

      I agree that no one should be defined by a relationship alone. HOWEVER, when you are about to commit (we assume) to *sharing* your life, dreams and goals with someone, it can come across as arrogant, selfish, or self-absorbed to *state* that you are not defined by a relationship.

      I have a fiercely independent spirit and I'm far from needy (likewise for my better half), but if I made a similar comment, I would expect him to be hurt by it. And likewise for me.

      Perhaps it's a generational thing.

      Delete
    20. Perhaps the conflict in opinion is based on different meanings attached to "defined by." Royalfan may mean she is augmented and enriched while another might mean limited or confined to. This second meaning may be what Meghan meant. anon1

      Delete
    21. I think you've hit the nail on the head there anon1

      Delete
  30. Tengo emociones encontradas con Harry y MM, obviamente es su vida y harán lo que mejor les convenga, sin embargo, si pienso como algunos donde la imagen de MM esta cuidadosamente hecha, como decir es un guion que se tiene que llevar para que la gente piense que es humanitaria, buena hija, buena actriz (que no tiene mucho) etc...

    Sin embargo, esta la otra parte en mi que pienso que puede ser una gran incorporación a la familia real, ya que al gustarle ser parte de la cámara, el publico y medios de comunicación, le quitaría una gran carga a WyK. Solamente esta portada, da un paso adelante, se pone ropa elegante y cómoda y hace parecer que es una mas, pero marca una linea... Ella juega bien el juego.

    Amo a Kate, su dulzura, su elegancia, su forma de ser que se ha adaptado a una familia real tan conservadora, pero a veces la quisiéramos ver como lo que es, una Duquesa, esposa del Príncipe, futuro heredero al trono, pero en su lugar en su primera aparición en revista, salio casual, sin tanto glamour. Aunque también tienen ellos la carga de que en ellos recaerá la monarquía, y por lo tanto las costumbres de antaño.

    En este caso Meghan puede llevarlos a dar un paso adelante, o sino, al menos a incorporar un aire fresco a la familia, pero sobretodo, hacer feliz a Harry!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree, De Roi. (I think) I think they each have a unique and valuable part to play, although very different roles and personalities.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey Jane - Did you notice that VF issued a correction to the story to say that MM told them she met Harry in July (and not May), but they kept in her comment about dating for 6 mo before the press got wind? Do you think this story might have been their way to dispel rumors that MM was still with her celebrity chef BF in May when she met Harry? Meeting in July gives space for that? Then it doesn't look like MM dumped one guy for HH or worse, there was overlap? I just found it weird VF issued that correction and then didn't deal w/ the discrepancy...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel vindicated. Ha! Someone at VF must read this blog.
      I don't understand the motivation or purpose behind that correction, Adrian. Actually, it is more of a disclaimer. Was it added to the text of what will be published in October? Where did you hear that news? I think it might have been more to cover possible accusations of sloppy editing.
      It would be beyond sanctimonious for VF to make assumptions or judgements or hints regarding her break-up with her ex. Heck, I'd have dumped the chef for Harry in a heartbeat. People change their minds. And when you find your heart's desire, grab it with both hands.
      I wonder if, not only did BP approve this article as some friends of royal reporters insist, but also they promoted and encouraged it. It was not seen as a judicious move for a potential royal bride.
      Something's not right with that article. They should elope. Seriously. End the speculation. Then, after the dust settles, a great big marvelous reception.

      Delete
    2. End the speculation?!? Who had more speculation than Kate and William FOR YEARS?!?

      But, of course, let's attack H&M and make them elope!🙄😏

      That's ridiculous.

      Delete
  33. For everyone saying that Meghan shouldn't have done the interview or believe it her trying to be self-promoting, have you considers that she might actually have certain contractual obligations to grant interviews (either a certain # or to certain publications)? There was plenty of mentions of Suits 100th episode in that article which is the type of job-related press she could reasonably be expected to do. The BRF doesn't drive everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fine. Then in that case she did not need to mention Harry.

      Delete
    2. She can mention whoever she wants to. Clearly, Harry likes her, a lot. And so do many here. I think you're a table for one.😘

      Delete
    3. So Anon 6:41 let's say Meghan opted for your strict rule. She does the interview and naturally the interview asks "so how are things with Harry?" What does Meghan say then?
      Refuse to reply/stony silence
      "Who is Harry?"/"what boyfriend"
      "Omg I love him so much I can't wait to be his princess!

      I am serious - given the real life context what do you think she should have said instead?

      Delete
    4. She could have said "I don't discuss my personal life" like many other actresses do. You must be young and American. Its an unwritten rule that royal girlfriends do not discuss their relationship with the press.

      Delete
    5. I pick c - "OMG I love him so much! I can't wait to be his princess!"

      That would have been so cool! Never going to happen but I would have clapped for her! 👏

      Honest. Real. Over-the-top. And even corny.😂

      Delete
    6. 10:32,

      Considering Americans are the biggest consumers of royal press, info, etc., I wouldn't be putting our knowledge about the royals down. 8:42 was simply saying that Meg could acknowledge it and move on. Which is exactly what she did.

      MM is in a different position than any past royal gf. Also, she's not dating W, it's H, big difference. Although some might say that she was on the cover simply because she is Harry's gf, I would say that none of his other gfs had careers that would even make them a candidate to be on the cover. Only MM, out of all of them, had a career that would make it possible. Cressinda would have loved to be on the cover of VF as a struggling actress trying to break into Hollywood.

      So, let's give MM credit. She's not on the cover wholly because of Harry.

      Plus, MM and Harry are shaking things up. Good for them!

      Delete
    7. I'm not Anon 10:32 but thanks (?) for thinking so. Let's say Meghan went with the "I don't discuss my personal life line." Then what does she say to the reporter's obvious response - "then why did your boyfriend announce your relationship in a press release?!" Once the cat is out of the bag, it is very difficult to put back in.

      Delete
    8. Your opinion may be the real deal, anon 5:23. One of the Sunday papers said the article was a part of a promo for Suits (and the reason for early release of the article before the October issue) There was a huge publicity campaign promoting the hundredth episode alone. All the primary cast members were involved. Although the filming for season seven that is reportedly her last is complete, as you said, she likely has contractual obligations to promote the episodes she has filmed. It is part of the deal.

      I don't think KP or BP had any part in planning the article as some enthusiastic fans have claimed royal reporters are saying. If they did, it was not a success as such as it was not well-received as an introduction to the BRF. As a publicity piece for an actress it was very good, although the photos and text were pretty standard fare. I don't think the vapid blond bombshell is in favor right now. The successful actress must have purpose and depth now. The article is part of Meghan's job. She's just lucky she doesn't have to make the grueling rounds of talk shows, which is common for promotional purposes. That requires a different type of format than the private, sit down interview she experienced. Embarrassing questions on live television are either answered just left to hang there in the air. Not good for a future princess.
      Since this was not a filmed or live interview, all she had to do was ask that Harry not be mentioned. There would be no follow-up questions. However, her relationship with Harry may have prompted VF to seek out an interview with her and did wonders for the show's ratings and made Meghan Merkley the most googled actress. I'm not saying she couldn't have got there on her own, but Harry did give her name considerable recognition. I had never heard of either her or Suits before her relationship to him was made public. On the other hand, everyone knew who Grace Kelly was; not so much her prince.
      Someone somewhere mentioned that MM had the same law firm as Harry now. I imagine that related to Harry's complaints in November 2016 about the paps harassing his girlfriend.. They would need to be represented by the same firm. anon1.

      Delete
    9. Well Anon1 it's not at all true that Meghan must be represented by Harry's personal law firm if he has complaints about anything - since she isn't him nor does she belong to him any actual legal action would be brought by Meghan's own counsel, who may be also be Harry's if appropriate.

      It may be true that Harry's interest in Meghan made her "known" to this set, but fans of the BRF are only a subset of people, hardly "everyone" - and if she doesn't marry Harry her life and career will go on just fine even if every reader of this blog stops paying attention to her.

      Delete
    10. That's true. She would go on perfectly fine if she doesn't marry him. And her career will have gotten a boost from the relationship. That's what happened with her previous relationships. No need to worry about her.

      Delete
    11. Just like Cressida Anon 11:27 ;)

      Delete
    12. Anon 12:33, I really don't see how she is in a different position than any other royal girlfriend and how that would make a difference anyway.

      Delete
    13. That's what happened with her previous relationships?!? Obnoxious much?🙄

      She's been on a long running TV show for 7 years. She got herself there.

      Sad that you want to attack someone you don't know because you don't like them for whatever misplaced reason. I hardly think she's using Harry. He would be pretty easy to love IMO.

      Just be happy for them. 😊

      Delete
    14. I am sure she loved her former husband and her former boyfriend too. But she doesn't seem the kind to be devastated by a split. She just moves on, and as you say, she got herself in a long running TV show. That achievement defines her better than any relationship.

      Delete
  34. The Daily Telegraph out of AU did a column on Meghan's VF article which said this: Kate has helped shore up the monarchy with stability, love, and a sense of duty. And Meghan's work ethic, diversity, and sense of determination will help the monarchy even more.

    What a lovely thought. I think these two ladies will be dynamite together! And it's a credit to W&H that they picked such great ladies.

    The column was written by Angela Mollard in case anyone wants to read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lovely sentiment. I'm not sure about the "even more" part, though. anon1

      Delete
    2. I knew someone would take it the wrong way. "Even more" as in Kate shored it up and Meghan will too. NOT as in "even more" than Kate but in addition to Kate's contributions.

      Women are harder on women.

      Delete
    3. According to a "source/friend," as published in a US magazine, Meghan has met the Queen.

      The article points out that Kate had to wait five years to meet her. Another way to look at that is Kate met HM in her early twenties. Harry's girl is in her late thirties. Or Kate met HM only halfway through their courtship while Meg only meets her just before (or after?) engagement. Also, William is cautious and deliberate in his decisions. Harry doesn't have the blessing of time on his side. I mention this gushing promotion of the newest royal girlfriend to illustrate the mindset of the media at this point. I think some of them are still trying to justify the unfair coverage of the Cambridge couple. By promoting Meghan they seek to add credibility to their judgement of Catherine.

      The "source" is quoted as saying M. gets along with Charles and Camilla "fabulously."
      I think I might know who the source is.
      I think the most irritating part of the article for me is that it enthusiastically declares that Meghan has met the parents...now the Queen! I wonder what Harry would think of Camilla being (obliquely) referred to as his mother?
      I take it all with barrel of salt and consider the source as far as the content-other than the statement that Meghan has recently met the Queen while she and Harry were visiting at Birkhall. It would certainly explain the Diana death anniversary weekend away after the Africa holiday. (However, sharing that time with Camilla would not have been my first guess as to their destination.) They may have met the Queen while riding horses on the grounds of Balmoral. Actually, that sounds like the perfect introduction-relaxed and natural environment.Or maybe in the throne room with HM in crown and robes and Meghan in gown and tiara.
      But meet they likely did.

      I just want to take Harry and Meghan and wrap them in bubble wrap. My mothering instincts are clanging alarms. I know some of what William and Catherine have endured. I hope the honeymoon period with the press and the internet public is a long one. Right now is the build-up and pedestal raising. I hope the couple recognise it for what it is. This fawning infatuation by the media and royal reporters can turn into viciousness over night. anon1

      Delete
    4. I can just imagine how Harry would feel about Cam being called his mom.😡

      Delete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!