Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

When Did Kate Middleton Get Security?

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

On Saturday night, Meghan Markle attended the Opening Ceremony of Prince Harry's Invictus Games in Toronto, Canada, (and she was at tennis yesterday with Harry!). Royal correspondents reported that it appeared the Hollywood star had been given a PPO. Rebecca English pointed out that one of Harry's Scotland Yard detail stood in the stairwell by Meghan's seat and accompanied her out of the VIP section when she was ready to leave. This has sparked a lot of questions about whether Meghan and Harry are already secretly engaged, because traditionally, you don't get a PPO until the ring is on the finger. It also has raised questions about when Kate got her PPO, so let's look back quickly to find out. 


Many speculate Harry and Meghan are already secretly engaged, but Kate Middleton had a secret engagement of her own. The princess-to-be was on holiday with William in Kenya in October of 2010 when the Prince, who had been carrying the ring around the entire trip in his rucksack, popped the question. Although the death of Kate's grandfather prevented the couple from announcing their engagement as soon as they had initially planned, the couple did wait until November 16, 2010, to announce their very exciting news to the world.



On that chilly November day, Kate Middleton woke up the royal-girlfriend, but as soon as the news was released, her life changed in many ways. One dramatic shift was her security situation; she was immediately assigned her own security detail. Although Kate was pictured in December, her first big debut sans William came on January 8, 2011, when she attended the wedding of friends Harry Aubrey-Fletcher and Sarah Louise Stourton in North Yorkshire. The glowing bride-to-be arrived in a chauffeured Range Rover and trailed by watchful PPOs. 


Prince Harry was also at this wedding, but this was Kate's own security team, and it was our first real taste of the future in which Kate would be afforded full royal privileges. 


Kate did a lot of last minute shopping before the wedding and honeymoon, and we got to see a little more of her new lifestyle. Below is one such sighting. Kate had been shopping at Whistles on Kings Road and was snapped making her way to a waiting Range Rover with her PPO next to her and several more were by the car. 


I have looked around for old news articles on this, but didn't find any. But, I can tell you from recollection that there was talk that William wanted to give Kate security when they were dating, particularly after she was photographed on her 25th birthday.


Of course, that would have created quite the stir, and to my knowledge, Kate never got tax-paid protection. I did hear that her parents had the London apartment they owned, and which Kate and Pippa shared, given a complete security upgrade, and there was talk of privately financing security for Kate, but if they did hire private protection, it wasn't visible.


So where does this leave us with Meghan Markle? Kate was never given tax-paid security before she not only got engaged, but before that engagement was announced to the public. If Meghan had a security officer assigned to her for the night, it would not be indicative of her status. As Harry's very high-profile girlfriend, it was be entirely reasonable to appoint a security officer for her on the night of such a big event when she was expected to turn up and support Harry. I don't think it confirms anything to have had security on that occasion. 

216 comments:

  1. Sadly, the world is different place from when William and Kate were engaged (really not all that long ago). New threats may warrant security earlier than when Kate first had her PPO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking the same thing, Joan. The world is a more volatile and dangerous place now and security arrangements will most likely reflect that.

      Delete
    2. No.
      The world is not 'more dangerous'.
      People have never been this safe.
      Please, people, stop being scared by media and politics, think for yourselves and please(!) open up your history books.

      Delete
    3. Well sure…compared to living in another century people are pretty safe. But the article was comparing  MM’s security situation in 2017 to Kate’s during the dating years including after her 25th birthday (which was nearly 11 years ago) I don’t think its hysteria from the media that would lead those in London to conclude 2017 is less safe than 2006. If Kate was the GF now she might have protection too. It doesn’t make sense to me to say “well if Kate didn’t get it, then no GF of Harry’s should either.”

      Delete
    4. The world is more dangerous in the scope of the last 20 years or so. I think that was the point.

      And yes, I do think for myself. I also lived through 9/11.

      Delete
  2. I wonder too if engaged but unannounced yet, she has been given security because she is so far from London. I bet they were watching Kate (even as the long term gf) from a far. Extra police patrols in her neighborhood, etc.

    What do you make, Jane, of reports that Meghan has returned early her leased Audi. I think getting her a different car was for security. I think there is more to it than their explanation that her car was too recognizable now. I also believe they go on threat levels and Meghan (with some of the backlash) has a higher threat level than Kate did.

    There was also reports that Harry was paying for her to have private security because he was concerned for her safety. Which is a perfect compromise.

    I personally think they are engaged and her safety is paramount to Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Right, I don't think it necessarily confirms anything either. What it does confirm is that Meghan was with Harry on that evening, so the PPOs who escorted her could easily have been an extension of Harry's own detail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From news articles I've read, the PPO that was near Meghan was actually one of Harry's that was just stationed there to escort her back to Harry. I think that when the two of them are in the same location but just in different areas that is very different than her having one on her own if she is out shopping or going to work. I don't think it is a tell for an engagement, however, they very well could be engaged. I wouldn't be surprised if we got an announcement later this fall or winter for summer wedding after Cambridge baby #3 is born.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What I don't understand is why they don't announce the engagement if they are engaged. They could have done so before the games and nobody would have questioned the security. Now it looks as if taxpayers money is being used for a girlfriend. What's the point of being engaged and not announcing it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The baby announcement, the Games, Kate's return, and a very significant 70th wedding anniversary coming 11.20

      All of this could delay the news.

      Just my two cents

      Delete
    2. So many reasons like the list stated above but also to give themselves private time before the madness!

      Delete
    3. Ellen, Only they aren't very private aren't they? The baby announcement cannot be a reason and they had weeks before the games. It would have been nice if she was presented to the world as his fiancée at the games. I see no logic in it. The only reason I can see is that they don't want to announce anything until the arrangements for the wedding ( date and place)are complete and that takes time. If there is no announcement next week, I won't know what to think.
      It may seem ridiculous to speak of taxpayers money but I assure you it is an argument that will be repeated ad nauseam.107

      Delete
    4. I would say they are private. Just because we have seen them out a handful of times together (these games, pap shots at polo, pap shorts of walking to dinner, pap shots at a wedding, pap shots getting on a plane) doesn't mean they are not private. They kept their relationship secret for a while. Yes they have both commented on it once each in the press but I still think they are quite private. Once an engagement is announced madness will start. Look at William and Catherine's as a model. Granted it will be one step down because William was the heir and Harry is the spare but still. She will become part of the firm, they will be doing join engagements, her work may need to stop of slow at that point as well as her personal humanitarian agenda and on and on.... There is a HUGE difference between pre and post announcement.

      I'm not a British citizen but I don't understand why a British tax payer would be upset if a PPO who was already at an event for Harry was stationed in a different area of the same event to help him connect with a guest of his. That wouldn't bother me about a secret service detail here in the United States. As I mentioned previously, it isn't like she was out and about by herself.

      Delete
    5. In this instance I agree it wasn't a big deal, but if they remain much longer in that undefined situation there will be more and more times where she will be seen as using taxpayers money. If she takes an official car to go to the airport, if there is another instance where she gets security, and so on, there will be bad press. They were private until now when they have become very public. If they are being that public they had better announce the engagement before it backlashes.

      Delete
    6. There is no confirmation that she "got security" at this event even of some people want to believe it.

      Delete
    7. To Ellen's comment...👍🏻

      Delete
    8. I think people should stop arguing about why they haven't announced any engagement yet : maybe because they are not engaged ??? I think people are mistaking what they desire (the engagement) and what really is going on. All the fuss around the engagement is much ado about nothing, who cares as long as they are happy ? Yes a royal wedding is something to look forward to but stop yelling at two lovers for not being or maybe being engaged and not telling it to the world. There will be enough for us to feed on if they decide to tie the knot. Meanwhile just be happy for them and let them live their romance to the fullest without judgement or jealousy. It makes me so upset all these negative comments about Meghan. Why can't we just be happy for them and enjoy the pics when we have them ? Isn't that the normal way to act ?

      Delete
    9. If they aren't engaged, they had better be more discrete. Many people like you will only be happy for them, but others will be analysing their every move.For he is a public person, public as representing the UK, funded by the people of the UK.She isn't. She cannot participate of his public life. The boundaries are easily crossed, and until she has an official status they should be careful.

      Delete
    10. Interesting argument Anon 1:52, but how does it work if she can have her picture splashed all over supermarket tabloids because some paparazzi stalked her and Harry with a telephoto lens whilst they attend a wedding in their private life but she should never ever go watch a sporting event with her boyfriend?

      Delete
    11. Anon 1:52..With respect. O personally don't think they have to do anything like you suggest. They are people and aren't doing anything wrong. The prince's girlfriend showed up to two events with him in the city that she lives in. What is the difference between Meghan going to the opening ceremony and Kate going to the Diana concert? What's the difference of other friends joining him at events like when they were at the Olympics?

      Delete
    12. They may not be doing anything wrong, but they should be aware of the fact that they will be scrutinised. This is the same public that shamed Kate for taking an helicopter ride to London, remember. And when Harry was discovered to have flown to Toronto after a tour, the question in all papers was who had paid for it.
      They are in a grey zone. For instance: can she accept gifts now? In theory, why not, but in practice, how will it be perceived? Could it be a kind of corruption? There are a lot of potential pitfalls. And her way of thinking is completely different. She has been getting gifts and using her connections as a matter of course. Which is fine for an actress, not so much for a banker or CEO and out of the question in the RF. Is she only an actress that happens to have a boyfriend in the BRF or is she the influent girlfriend of someone that has to remain politically neutral? What about her own political opinions?
      The starting point of this conversation was the probability of them being secretly engaged. IMO, if it is the case, it would be better strategy to announce it. If they aren't, being too public may work against them in the long term.
      1:52

      Delete
    13. Corruption?! Harry is neither an elected official nor in lie for the throne. Other than having the influence of wealth and lofty connections I'm not sure what power Harry has that someone might try to take advantage of by giving gifts to his gf/maybe fiancé. There might be garden variety attempts to curry favor or the good opinion of Harry but that's standard and to be expected.

      Delete
    14. I disagree. He is as accountable as an elected official or should be.

      Delete
    15. Agreed Anon 10:43. I think corruption etc is a little extreme. She is still a private American citizen who is just dating a member of the royal family. I see nothing wrong with her continuing to live her life. She actually has taken steps back like closing her website which seemed to be a passion project, and not renewing some sponsorships/partnerships with companies.

      Also, why some professions can't accept gifts, many can and hers is one. We do not have a list of what she has or has not paid for so why assume the worst if that is even considered the "worst".

      Delete
    16. Accountable to who Anon 2:01?!

      Delete
    17. If some people are concerned complaining of freebies, please note that the Middleton family were gifted (or at a greatly reduced cost) top of th line Range Rovers. I personally don't blame them bc I probably would accept too if offered. But just want to point out that acceptance of freebies is not limited to Meghan.

      Delete
    18. Accountable to the nation. To the queen, to the government. Questions can be raised about him in parliament. He is not just a rich guy with great connexions and access to exclusive garden parties. I am surprised you don't grasp the concept. The nearest I can put it is that he can be compared to a civil servant. Perhaps there are civil servants on this blog that can explain the
      difference between working for a country and working for a private company.

      Delete
    19. I do grasp the concept Anon 2:01/1:26. Harry is not a civil servant and because he is a Royal he is not at all "like" a civil servant either. He is part of a monarchy and civil servants are part of GB's democracy. Corruption of civil servants is a concern because a government that has civil servants is supposed to be acting for the benefit of the country's citizens in general rather than for the benefit of a particular citizen or the civil servant himself - corruption is an attempt to shift the loyalty of a government official from the intended recipient (citizens generally) to someone else. Actual corruption requires meaningful power. Harry doesn't have that any more than other extremely wealthy people with connections to people in power do. Lavish gifts to Harry might look tacky but it's quite distinct from lavish gifts to the prime minister.

      Delete
    20. The monarchy is part of the democracy in the UK. It is an institution of the State. The head of State is the Queen. When Harry goes on tour on behalf of the Queen he is representing the head of State. When he does so on request of the government, I guess he can be compared to a civil servant. In both cases he has a public role. He could be as poor as a mouse and still have this role. Gifts to him are more than tacky. He may not have the power of a president but he is supposed to be acting for the benefit of the country's citizens in general rather than for the benefit of a particular citizen or himself.

      Delete
    21. So when Kate and Will receive gifts whilst on tour representing the Queen is that corruption? What about when they receive gifts on walkabouts at charities in the U.K.?

      Delete
    22. Anon 11:46, it's not a problem when Will and Kate receive gifts. It seems only Meghan receiving gifts is a problem. Not sure where the logic is in that.....

      Delete
    23. There is a reason why the list of all gifts received by members of the RF must be published annually.

      Delete
    24. Official gifts perhaps, but do they list each time they hop on ride on the Duke of Westminsters private jet?

      Delete
    25. Perhaps I'm mistaken Anon 3:28 but I don't believe those published lists include gifts presented to members of the BRF *within* the UK but only contain tour gifts or gifts sent to the BRF from abroad. So if one were seriously concerned about "corruption" being able to check those lists isn't much of a safeguard. The lists might be helpful in other ways though.

      Delete
    26. 2:34, this discussion arises precicely because members of the BRF, that include William and Kate,and Harry, are not allowed to receive certain kind of gifts. For instance, commercial or publicity gifts are out of the question. All gifts must be published, transparency must be complied with. The gifts Meghan is getting on a regular basis as an actress are forbidden to Kate. As long as Meghan remains a private individual, there is absolutely no problem. Once she has an official status, once they are engaged, things will change drastically, and she must abide by the rules. The situation will be clear.
      There seems to be a move forward in their relationship and she has become an official girlfriend. No status but not completely private person either. The situation is not perfectly clear. All I say is that they should be careful.

      Delete
    27. For a bit of context, law firms typically give away "freebies" too when they are trying to recruit so it's likely that Chelsey was given some "swag" at one point. And there is no way that her relationship with Harry/the BRF wasn't considered by firms interviewing her. So if Meghan is supposed to give up the "freebies" that come to an actress should Chelsey have published a list of the "freebies" given to her or just refused them as well (even if it would have been considered odd or rude to do so)? Meghan is a private person with her own career until the moment an engagement is announced.

      Delete
    28. Maggie - MinneapolisSeptember 30, 2017 at 5:43 PM

      The BRF (and Middletons) receives discounted cars for rental. Kate actually received a discounted Audi while still a royal girlfriend. Kate and William also got free use of a villa at Mustique while dating from her Jigsaw boss. The BRF receives plenty of unofficial gifts too.

      Delete
    29. Does anyone objecting to Meghan also object to James Middletons company? Or are you certain that his marshmallow company and its coverage in US magazines would be the same if he wasn't related to Kate/George/Charlotte?

      Delete
    30. What are you trying to prove 9:53? The Middleton family, specially Pippa and James , have constantly been accused of using their royal connexions. Some people defend them saying they are in an awkward position, others shame them. But it is an issue for all in-laws, Camilla's children for instance. Discretion is the only way to go.

      Delete
    31. My point is that James Middleton has been featured in magazines ostensibly about his marshmallow business and there were no raised eyebrows much less an uproar in this blogs comment section. Now that Meghan is featured in a magazine ostensibly in connection with her career commenters can't shout loudly enough that it's not appropriate/can't possibly be about anything other than her connection to Harry/shameless and shameful self-promotion. Double standards is all....

      Delete
    32. This blog is not about James Middleton. There have been this kind of discussion about Pippa in the past on this very blog. I see no double standard, at least I personally think Pippa should have been more discrete. James is IMO simply not a very clever person. IMO Meghan is obviously a self-promoting person, her choice of career, her blog, the way she seems to relish the attention, what she said in the interview, even her UN speech, points to that. This post is about her, but if you bring up comparisons, I think she has started using the connection with the royal family earlier than Pippa and James. At least it could be said they waited till after the wedding. And I won't say anything about her brother and sister, who are in the same position as James and Pippa.

      Delete
    33. James isn't marrying a Prince of the BRF. (I guess that really would cause an uproar. Ha!) Who knows what avenues he could have explored if he had not come under the royal scrutiny yoke.
      I think that VF piece was promotion for Suits, using Meghan's new=found fame. And why not? PR gurus will use what is available . Self-promotion is part of the deal of being a television/film actor. And that is what Meghan is until her contract expires and maybe beyond that. I think that both those who shame her and those who deny the process of promotion are looking at the situation with blinders on.
      It was a respectable forum and tastefully done, on the whole, for a publicity story.anon1

      Delete
    34. As far as the Meghan vs. James debate is concerned (not that there should be one!), Anon1 is correct; James is not about to marry into the Firm and become a royal. He is and always will be an in-law, just like Meghan's siblings.

      The "should she/shouldn't she" discussion about the VF article was based on the probability that MM is about to become a member of the BRF.

      Delete
  6. Anon 107 I totally agree. If I was a taxpayer and knew I was paying for security for just a gir ok friend I would be pretty mad. It doesn't matter if they are supposedly engaged. No other girlfriends un RF have had royal protection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were a taxpayer that got that worked up based on photographs that show a PPO near and interacting with Meghan while she sits mere feet away from Harry then you have so much time on your hands you probably aren't a taxpayer.

      Delete
    2. That would surely depend on any threat to the girlfriend.
      William and Harry have long been threatened, because they both served in the armed forces and there have been times when Catherine has had very tight security, presumably because there were perceived threats.
      I suspect Meghan was seated close to the stairwell, so she could enter and leave with minimum disturbance, but the media were looking for her.
      I am a British taxpayer, but I am aware that there is plenty of money from the Crown property to pay for protection and things are so different now, that protection must be provided where a danger is perceived.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Nobody has called anybody jealous or racist Anon 8:18.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure why people are saying Meghan has a PPO. One was seen near her at an event that Harry was also at. Not the same thing in my mind. Also, based on when the photos were taken do we know at one point in the event it was? Do we have confirmation (not that it matters in my mind) that the PPO was there for the whole event?

      Delete
    6. Anon 8:18 - you are becoming a bit unhinged. No one has mentioned racist until you did. Stop instigating.

      Delete
    7. Good points Ellen and no we have none of that.

      Also unless you all know all the other facts, pretty foolish to question security. Who knows what kind of threats have been made, or were made for this specific event. So enough with being outraged over something you don't even know.

      Delete
    8. Something just popped into my mind. Towards the end Harry's relationship with Cresidia, she accompanied him to an official event where he was the keynote speaker. How is that different. I'm sure there were PPOs there with them. At the time people thought that was a sign...but then it wasn't because she didn't want the BRF like just like Chelsey didn't.

      Delete
    9. Frankly Im flabbergasted that MM would want the BRF.

      Delete
    10. I don't think MM will want the BRF once she understands the constraints. She is still in a fairy tale and has no idea how it works.

      Delete
    11. I just posted a comment but realize it will end up in the wrong thread so here I go again... ;-)

      I believe it will be an eye opening experience for Meghan. It's one thing to date and devote free time to each other, but living a life where your royal roles and private lives overlap 24/7 is a very different story.

      Delete
  7. I think not to take the focus off the Games? I hope they are engaged, but I expect if they announced prior to the Games, it would have been even more of a madhouse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 107 I totally agree. If I was a taxpayer and knew I was paying for security for just a gir ok friend I would be pretty mad. It doesn't matter if they are supposedly engaged. No other girlfriends un RF have had royal protection.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Jane that this doesn't necessarily indicate a secret engagement. Where Harry was sitting there was security in abundance with the US Secret Service for Melania, the Canadian equivalent for the prime minister and his wife, as well as the rest of Harry's security detail. The security guy in the stairwell could very well have been watching the closest exit if a breech occurred and it was needed. The fact that Meghan was sitting there may have been a coincidence or a strategically planned positioning. I cannot see any situation in which protocol would be ignored for Meghan if it wasn't for Kate - especially on foreign soil.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I may have said this before-I believe I saw an RPO I recognized from W &C's time in Wales with Meghan at the Toronto airport without Harry earlier this year...when she dropped her phone on his foot. She was looking rather frazzled and in a similar outfit, as I recall. I think the fact that his brother's wife went through so much hassle from the photographers without having PPOs insured that things would be different this time; especially considering what Harry has said about the difficulty of maintaining a relationship in that environment. And I think a fella will go all out for "the one." It may be that "must have an announced engagement" to merit RPOs may be an urban legend. Sophie's safety and privacy were insured by living with Edward in the palace, I believe, before an announced engagement. I'm not sure how many appearances Kate made without William at her side in that few weeks between proposal and announcement. I think none. It is a matter of conjecture if she would have had one if she had made an appearance during that pre=announcement time.
    I think they are likely engaged, RPO or not.

    Security was extremely high at the tennis match, however. Apparently there have been specific threats concerning the BRF. anon1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry all you ladies who are freaking out about taxpayer money being wasted on Meghan/the horrifying breach of protocol - but her security is actually be paid for by her employer, NBC Universal - not the BRF and not Harry personally. But by all means, keep hyperventilating...

      Delete
  11. I imagine that the PPO's are in every stairwell. That he escorted her afterward doesn't seem like a confirmation. But remember that Kate did not 'officially' meet the Queen until after William proposed. The palace has not confirmed the tabloid stories that Meghan met the Queen, so perhaps they are waiting to make the announcement because the palace has its own timetable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought Kate herself said she officially met the queen at Peter Philips'snwedding

      Delete
    2. She did. OK Magazine had the pics to prove it.

      Delete
    3. I've never read anything about Kate or her family speaking to the press, but I do remember reading that the palace confirmed Kate had met the Queen at the time of the engagement.

      Delete
    4. I thought that too Ellen. And if so Kate was wearing a rather daring neckline at the time.

      Delete
    5. I always thought the same thing! That was an interesting outfit to meet the Queen in! It isn't one of my favorites. Hopefully she still had the pink jacket on at the time! Although British wedding fashion still confuses me.

      Delete
    6. In the post engagement interview that William and Kate did she says that at that wedding is when she was formally introduced to the Queen.

      Delete
  12. Am I the only one, who actually doesn't see Meghan as Harry's future wife? Of course, she seems like a very nice person, but I don't see her in the Royal Family, as she's too "exotic" and too much of a celebrity. Everyone seems to be hoping for an upcoming wedding, but I just can't imagine it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince Philip was considered "too foreign" & Kate was "too common" & Camilla was "too risqué". And yet they are all BRF spouses...

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by exotic? I really hope it's not what I think you mean.....

      Delete
    3. Natalia I'd love to hear you explain what makes an American from LA "exotic".... I'll sit here and wait.

      Delete
    4. Natalia, I agree that I don't see her as Harry's wife but not because she's "exotic". To me, she's too independent to settle as part of the BRF. She may be happy for a year or two but I just don't see it lasting. I also think Harry is broody--he sees his brother happily settled, with two lovely children (soon to be three) and it's natural that he wants the same for himself. Along comes an actress that by all accounts he's had a crush on for years and who has a charitable streak...it's easy to convince himself he's found "the one". And perhaps she is "the one" and they will live happily ever. But I don't see this lasting, even if they do marry. (I acknowledge that I'm in the minority here.) I will always be Team Chelsy, and maybe that's where my bias comes from. I think she will always be the love of Harry's life and it's unfortunate that she wasn't interested in a royal life.

      Delete
    5. For Chelsey her independence from the restraints of royal life was more important to her than being with Harry Anon 8:27, so are you suggesting that Meghan shares the same quality? You might be Team Chelsy but Chelsy wasn't Team Harry.

      Delete
    6. 5:47,

      👏 Perfect response.

      Delete
    7. Anon 8:27, Perhaps I've not followed this romance closely enough but where is the evidence Harry had "a crush" on MM for years before he met her? You said "by all accounts" as though that notion is a well-known fact. I've never seen that stated before I don't believe. So by whose accounts?

      Delete
    8. Anon 8:27, I don't think Harry has aspirations to follow William's life. It's obvious they're quite different. If he wanted that, he would have found a partner like Kate and be happily settled (as you say). William has a life partner suited to him and now Harry seems to have found his (and btw, I'm both Team Kate and Team Meghan here).

      Delete
    9. Natalia, I don't care for MM. From the beginning she failed to show any discretion. You would never have seen Kate Middleton post two bananas spooning on Instagram or giving interviews and talking about William. And the endless parade of photos of her carrying everything from designer handbags to espresso machines that she got for free in exchange for getting photographed carrying them was opportunistic. She has come across as someone who has a "look at me" obsession. I think she will be a disaster worse than Sarah Ferguson. That said, Harry's no prize himself. His past indiscretions include wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party. Harry's the wild one who can't set limits like William seems able to.

      Delete
    10. 4:32, I wouldn't go into that, it is dangerous ground. For you could get the answer that maybe the British public can only get one thing at one time... Phillip was " too foreign" but not "common" or "risqué" Camilla " too risqué " but never common or foreign, an Kate, " too common" but not risqué at all and not foreign. Using those criteria, Meghan is all 3. And it could be argued she is more foreign than Philip, more common than Kate, only Camilla remains as the most risqué, I suppose,and nobody has ever forgotten her past. Better argue the many qualities of Meghan than draw comparisons.

      Delete
    11. MK I don't think she hasn't been indiscreet. Harry and Meghan are in the early stages of a serious relationship over 10 years after William and Kate were and are almost 20 years older! Different times. I also don't think that regramming a photo of two bananas screams "I'm dating Prince Harry!!!". Also, there is nothing wrong with her accepting freebe when she isn't a member of the royal family. She is a working, B or C list actress where doing things like this is very common place. If I was in a position to accept a free handbag as a normal part of my job I would take it.

      Delete
    12. Anon 2:11 you took my comment too literally. I wasn't proposing a test, I was pointing out that other members of the BRF were considered "too *something*" but with time people got over it.

      Anon 4:32

      Delete
    13. People have not got over Camilla yet...2:11

      Delete
    14. Some people will never get over anything Anon 2:11. Other people realize there are more legitimate things to freak out about.

      Anon 4:32

      Delete
    15. @ Natalia, Sept. 27, 2:26 PM. I agree with you in that I don't see Meghan as a future wife, or rather, she and Harry might marry, but go the distance? I have serious doubts, based mainly upon two things: divorce statistics and Meghan, herself.

      Divorce in the UK is currently running at 42%. Add to that two additional factors: both Meghan and Harry are children of divorced parents; Meghan, herself, is divorced. Add to all of that the pressure which Meghan would face as Harry's spouse to conform and--horrible word--obey the TPTB. They may marry and it may succeed, but I'd put their chances of an "until death do us part" scenario at roughly 30%. Sad, but according to everything I've read, quite probable.

      My advice--not that they care--would be that Meghan live full time in the UK for a minimum of 12 months, without any acting contracts...and see how it goes.

      Harry has always exhibited an impulsive nature; he needs to be checked, IMO, lest he become a typical second son, aka Prince Andrew; if nothing else, he owes it to Meghan.

      Those who worry that Meghan is 36 and that her childbearing years are running out may be forgetting that both Harry and Meghan have the means to cover the cost of medically aided pregnancy. So what's another year-18 months?

      "Marry in haste, repent at leisure."

      JC

      Delete
    16. Wiser words have never been said JC.

      Delete
    17. JC, I've been doing my best to come around as I truly do want Harry to be happy and fulfilled in his personal life, but I do share the concerns you expressed.

      Delete
    18. JC...I totally agree. The divorce situation/discussion is spot on. I too would rather they wait much longer before they marry. Just see how it goes in London for one year. I want Harry to be happy but make sure Meghan fully understands what she is getting into. The honeymoon phase of the next part of their relationship after she finishes filming is so important. I like Meghan and hope for the best it can be. But please I hope they make sure. The royal life is not all roses.

      Delete
    19. I have one other reservation which I am somewhat hesitant to discuss...but here goes. Both Meghan and Harry are almost certainly "high maintenance", that is, both like the limelight, at least when it suits them to steal headlines; neither strikes me as wanting or willing to take a backseat. Evidence, I admit, is rather subjective, but, in Meghan's case, she's an actress...a well-educated one at that, who surely had other means to make a decent living. Hence, I assume that she likes acting, likes the applause and the perks. As for Harry, well, my take is that after years wallowing in his brother's shadow--thru their school years, when he could never measure up to William academically-- he learned to play the class clown; translated, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", or, he gets noticed. Further, as they were growing up, Diana treated the two boys as equals--of course they were equal in human worth, but, they weren't equal within the royal hierarchy and are far less equal now...not that Harry seems to have noticed. He enjoys the limelight.

      Anyhow, my thesis is that two high maintenance individuals who marry enjoy a lesser marital success rate than couples with a high-low or a low-low profile, because things like ego and entitlement keep getting in the way. Just think of all the high-high Hollywood couples who've split or of Charles and Diana.

      But this is just a personal theory--and BTW, I think low-low have the best outcome.

      JC

      Delete
    20. Maggie - MinneapolisOctober 6, 2017 at 2:13 PM

      JC - why does being an actress make someone high maintenance? Imo someone can enjoy or put up with attention without it meaning that they are high maintenance. In fact, if anything, I'd say you have to be particularly low maintenance to be bale to deal with the attention and publicity that comes with being famous. It would be much harder for a high maintenance person to put up with that constant scrutiny.
      Additionally, saying that Meghan must enjoy publicity and attention simply because she chose to become an actress despite being well-educated seems like a big jump. For one thing, one of her degrees was in theater. So being an actress is actually right in line with her good education.

      Delete
    21. Maggie - MinneapolisOctober 6, 2017 at 2:14 PM

      Also for those saying Kate didn't post hints on Instagram and such....I don't blame you for forgetting since social media and the web are such huge parts of our lives now, but when Kate and William were dating -
      beginning almost 2 decades ago - instagram did not exist. Social media barely existed. Myspace was, I think, the biggest deal then. Things were VERY different. It's hard to compare those times with now I think.

      Delete
    22. JC, I very much agree with your theory. Add to that the BRF, where low maintenance is required...

      Delete
    23. Meghan isn't the first actress Harry has dated JC. Did you have the same concerns about Cressida? Or was it less of an issue bc she was less professionally successful than Meghan?

      Delete
    24. Well, JC, this too may not be a popular opinion, but early on I did wonder whether Meghan wasn't more in love with the idea of the relationship than she is with Harry. IMO, he is smitten and will do anything in his power to please her. I only hope that she is equally prepared to make him happy.


      Maggie, if I recall correctly, Chelsey did post on social media back in the day so if it was in Kate's nature to do so, she certainly had the opportunity. IMO, Meghan does appear to enjoy the attention of being Harry's g/f and wants the "proof" to be out there; the Kensington Whole Foods expedition and the salon visit photos (prior to Pippa's wedding) gave me that vibe. Perhaps even the statement from KP can be included in this category.


      HOWEVER, if H&M celebrate their 10th, 20th, or 30th wedding anniversary and both are happy, I will be more than willing to say that I had it all wrong. I truly want Harry to be in a happy and supportive relationship.

      Delete
  13. Natalia I kind of have a little uneasy feeling like that too but just wait, I expect we are going to get loads of criticism on here for our comments

    ReplyDelete
  14. Natalia I don’t take your “exotic” as derogatory toward Meghan. I think it is compliment because I’ve been called exotic and I’m from Asia. Exotic also means that your features make you look beautiful. But of course many take that word as derogatory which it is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Respectfully I find it hard to believe you're truly Asian or you would find that as insulting as I do, a black American. SOME White people have the habit of describing someone different and non-white as "exotic" when we all put our pants on the same way, our legs are just different colors

      She's an American woman from Cali. She has a white dad and a black mom, nothing exotic about that. Save that description for food or locations or pets, not human beings please. Only to some (borderline ignorant) white people does exotic mean anything to do with a persons features, not in any dictionary or educated mind.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 9:51, I think exotic is a universal term used by people of all races. And I do believe that Anonymous at 9:22 is telling the truth about being Asian.

      Delete
    3. I have been called exotic ( an exotic beauty, if you must know) all my life and was rather proud. I live in Europe but have mixed roots, and I have always though exotic was considered as positive and a synonym for attractive. I suppose things are different in the US.

      Delete
    4. I can't know what the original poster meant but in my part of the US our use of the term exotic fits with that of dictionary.com:


      1. of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized:

      2. exotic foods; exotic plants.
      strikingly unusual or strange in effect or appearance:
      an exotic hairstyle.

      The first meaning fits MM as a point of fact. She is not from the UK. But it also can be used as a put-down by xenophobics.

      Delete
    5. I'd like to ask that we move on from this debate. I don't want a racism discussion here. Historically, saying someone was exotic was always considered a compliment. Opposites attract. That's why many Europeans like American accents and Americans swoon at European accents. That's why people want to travel to "exotic" locales, etc. It implies beauty, perhaps mystery, etc. I am disappointed to hear that some now find "exotic" to be offensive, and certainly if someone calls you "exotic" and you find it offensive, I support your right to politely point that out and ask that person not to call you exotic. We should respect people's preferences. I do not think, however, it follows that long-time use of the word exotic to mean unusual in a special and attractive way should no longer be used by the general public. No one had introduced racism to this discussion, and I do not think it is fair to read racism into the use of "exotic' based upon an individual--and by no means universal--interpretation.
      I am going to continue to block comments that attempt to ignite a race debate here. I don't think color plays a part in the reaction to Meghan on this blog. Perhaps elsewhere, but not here. Lots of people aren't excited about Harry & Meghan, and any comment that does explicitly cite race as a reason will be blocked, as well as any comment that alludes/implies, etc race will be blocked. But, not liking Meghan doesn't equal racist, and using the term exotic, without more, does not create a racist statement either. There is a lot of ugliness and racism in the world right now, let's not create it where it isn't in play.

      Delete
    6. Dear self identified white reader from a midwest town, let me briefly explain why I am baffled. You came here and leveled the serious accusation of racism against a fellow reader with nothing to prove it. The word exotic is not historically racist or negative, notwithstanding the personal definition you have imposed upon it. Neither one of us can hear intonation in the reader’s comment, and there is simply nothing to back up your claim she is injecting the word with a racist intent. To make matters even more confusing, when a minority reader chimed in to support the meaning of exotic as a positive word, certainly not racist, you called her a liar! I don’t know what extra powers of perception you possess, but the rest of us have to get on with the ordinary seven, a number of which are inhibited when only communicating via the written word. So, I repeat, without more, the reader’s comment is not racist, and your superior intuition will not suffice to prove otherwise. People may dislike Meghan because they are jealous of her lovely figure, of her success, of her boyfriend, or just plain because sometimes women don’t like other women. I don’t know all the reasons people dislike Meghan, but those are a few, and they don’t have to include racism. I believe in the dignity of every person, I will not tolerate racism on my blog, but I will not allow the slur of racism to be thrown around as a trump card in the midst of a debate.

      Delete
    7. Jane for what it's worth, the word exotic should be used primarily to describe objects or places, NOT people. Those of us who are non-white are all too familiar with how it can be used, most people today would not call any person "exotic".
      No different than the word "oriental" which should be used to describe art or furnishings but NOT used to describe people who are Asian.
      Jane you have shown great understanding in the past in listening to readers who bring up issues you may not have personally experienced in life. I would say to everyone, please take a moment to listen and understand when other people who know and have lived through it, try to point insults and undertones out to you. I would avoid using the word exotic to describe ANY person and Jane I would not publish a comment that did. Up to you all.

      Delete
    8. And just to add Jane, the term exotic has only been historically seen as a compliment by WHITE people. You think that as a young white woman, but I assure you, people of color do not see it that way. If you struggle to believe me please take a moment to research it.

      Delete
    9. I really meant "exotic" in a most positive way and didn't want to open a debate about racism in no way. My apologies for that!

      As a European living in a multicultural society I would never discriminate someone because of their skin color, origin, look or anything else. I simply find it hard to imagine her in the Royal Family and think it's too early to hear the wedding bells ring, that's all.

      Delete
    10. I don't want to continue this polemic but you must be aware that there is a world outside America, people living in other countries, speaking other languages than US English, proud of what they are and who call themselves oriental. Occidental is not a compliment everywhere, you know.

      Delete
    11. Just a reminder to all that words can have different meanings and implications in different cultures. I don't think it's safe to assume that "exotic" has the same connotations in all the different places commenters might be posting from. Why not give fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt?

      Delete
    12. Agreed, Anon. I'm a white woman and I cringed when I read that. Meghan is half black, half white. That isn't exotic by any stretch of the word so that is why I personally thought it was a tad racist even if unintentional. Sorry to disagree with you, Jane! I'm normally right there with you on most things!

      Delete
    13. Well said, Ellen and Anon. I felt exactly the same on both points. On a lighter note! These pictures is Kate were exactly why I became interested in her. She was carrying the Tod's D bag in black, which I had just bought! My first splurge bag. Loved her from then on!

      Delete
    14. I have held all the comments weighing in on exotic until I can respond to them. I'm at work all day and my parents are in town, so it will be sometime tonight or tomorrow morning, but I will approve the majority of the comments and give you my thoughts on the varied responses received. I'm not approving them now, because I want to slow the momentum of this thread, which is a bit off topic and quite divisive, but I will try to tie it up as best as possible and find some conclusions/common ground. All other comments are still going live throughout the day.

      Delete
  15. I agree with anonymous, 7 comments above. I too am one of the few who are on team Chelsey. I think MM will find it flattering for a year or two to be a royal girlfriend. However I think she is an independent woman who is enjoying her career as an actress & will grow tired of not being able to pursue her acting career if this relationship moves on. MM will be put through a lot of pressure as noted in . Earlier comments on her clothing, which by the way were totally on fashion point. Chelsey holds a lot of the qualities Harry adored, Africa, friend connections & she is very well educated. Had Chelsey had security protection she might still be with Harry. I have noticed she is always will to be photographed at events. Maybe there is still hope?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do people on Team Chelsey actually care how Chelsey feels or what she wants? Because it wasn't Harry. And it wasn't because she felt she needed additional security.

      Delete
    2. Im not sure Chelsy didn't want Harry. I think it was more like Chelsy didn't want the BRF. Actually, I think their relationship might work now if not for MM. Harry has worked through his demons and Chelsy has discovered her niche. They may have made it work the second time around.

      Delete
    3. If Chelsey didn't want the BRF how does Harry working through him demons change that? He hasn't become estranged from the BRF and Chelsey would have to give up her niche.

      Delete
    4. Anon 11:25, it doesn't matter if Harry worked through his demons. He's still part of the BRF. And Chelsey didn't want to be a part of the BRF. Thats the point.

      Delete
    5. And if you love someone enough you really could put certain, even big things aside. She choose a private working life not in the brf over Harry. Also, we don't really know anything about their relationship. There could be a whole host of other normal reasons why they didn't work out just like with everyone else on the planet!

      Delete
  16. How insulting anon 9:51. I can send you a picture or show you proof of my citizenship, but do not say that I am not truly Asian until you have been in my situation since I was adopted at the age of 5. Have you ever been called gook, chink, slant eyes. That was my life. So someone referring Meghan as exotic is nothing compared to the derogatory names I have been called and still being called. Meghan is not the only person who is being judged.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ellen, no they can't accept freebies. That's the definition of being opportunistic. She's using the connection to Harry to feather her nest. The Middleton's were criticized for having a range of patriotic flags and other party items for the Queen's 60th Jubilee, so they removed the range from their website. I didn't see anything wrong with offering the same items other sellers had. But I did admire them for removing the items in order to stop it becoming an issue. That's discretion. MM could use a few lessons in that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry maybe I am missing something but is there a verified list of items Meghan has accepted as a "freebie" that was offered in connection with her relationship with Harry? I've seen her give up economic opportunities, including her website, but I suppose that doesn't count.

      Delete
    2. Her vanity fair interview surely wasn't giving up economic opportunities and she would never have featured if she hadn't been his girlfriend. As for a list there isn't a list until she is part of the RF.

      Delete
    3. Agreed Anon. MK can you share the articles you read? Not a challenge...I'm really curious because I like to be well informed and I hadn't read about this behavior from her yet.

      Delete
    4. I'm going to jump in here for **just a second** because I don't want to really be a part of the caustic conversation going on. Jane, you have the patience of Job.

      Regarding the freebies, actors and actresses are always given gifts for attending events including film festivals where they're promoting their own movies and the Oscars where they are promoting themselves. It's called "swag" in "the business" and it's a normal part of their lives. They get very, very expensive things from jewelry to purses to skin care products to clothing to gourmet foods. I've always found it odd because I'm sure George Clooney, Jennifer Aniston, and all the others can afford these things on their own but that doesn't stop them from accepting them. MM is part of this world. Granted she is not an A List actress and may be getting more attention because of her relationship with Harry but she isn't doing anything those on the very top of the A List aren't doing. It's part of her Hollywood life - even if she's living it in Toronto - and she doesn't really have to give it up until/or if Harry puts a ring on her finger.

      I'm not promoting MM because I also believe she would be a restless royal. Princess Grace was a restless royal after giving up her career but given the time in which she lived and the fact that she was a devout Catholic she would never have divorced. The BRF seem to have made a habit of it.

      P.S. Whoever it was several comments above me and used the term Cali - please try not to. For us native folk it leaves an unpleasant taste behind. :-P

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure of the monetary compensation (or lack there of) surrounding either but what is the difference from Meghan's Vanity Fair article or Kate's Vogue shoot and article?

      Delete
    6. Nice to see your occasional posts Robin! I know you may not reply given your desire not to be drawn into back-and-forths but I did want to comment on your mention of MM possibly being a "restless royal." You might be right but Harry also seems to have a restless streak. Some might say that means he needs a more "grounded" spouse and maybe that's true. But sometimes "opposites attract" relationships don't work out so well. The restless one feels controlled by his/her spouse and becomes resentful. And the grounded spouse too often feels he/she is acting as a parent not as a spouse which also leads to resentment.

      I was excited to watch W&K's wedding. BUT if you had asked me back then if I thought the marriage would last I doubt I'd have given it more than a 50:50 chance. Not only is Will a child of divorce (and I expect he and Harry were affected differently given Diana's reported tendency to confide in Will since he was older) the on and off nature of W&K's relationship lasting for so many years, cohabitation followed by break ups, Will's apparent desire to play the field (and reports of his doing that even when not broken up) and some of the more colorful comments Will allegedly made about Kate during break up periods did not bode well for long-term success IMO. Neither did the fact that Kate seemed so much more committed to the relationship than did Will. But it certainly appears they have a successful happy marriage. So regardless of statistics and research about what makes a successful marriage, predictions often aren't accurate. If Harry decides MM is "the one," I guess we'll see! 

      Delete
    7. Meghan interview was to promote herself and her career taking advantage of the notoriety her relationship had brought her. For an actress it is a big deal to be front page in vanity fair.
      You may argue that Kate wouldn't be in Vogue if she hadn't married William. But she didn't get any benefit from the interview, she was well known enough before it.

      Delete
    8. Obviously time will tell but you could make the argument Meghan isn't getting anything out of
      the interview either. I don't think she is more well known than before it came out.....she became a very well known person when her relationship was leaked. Also, she isn't getting more acting gigs or more commercial tie ins she is doing less. She has given up a lot and is just doing Suits. It seems like she is winding down. Also, based on when it was done I really doubt that Kensington Palace or at least Harry wasn't in the know.

      Delete
    9. The Vanity Fair article also coincided with the 100rh episode of Suits so if there was any "doubling up" for self-promotion it was for a project she is already involved in. I also doubt that her profile has risen in the general public as much as it has for people who follow the BRF/Harry - at least no more so than his last actress girlfriend, Cressida.

      Delete
    10. Lizzie, I'm not aware of *multiple* breakups during W&K's courtship. And as for William being a child of divorce, I think the success of his own marriage is determined in part by an understanding of what happened in his parents' marriage, combined with a conscious effort to go down a different path. Also, I do believe the Middletons have provided an excellent example of "what TO do" throughout his relationship with Kate.

      Delete
    11. The Middletons did not remove the Jubilee Celebration items from their site nor should they have. They whole country was selling things like that! That's what Party Pieces, it sells things for celebrations. They were supposed to ignore the largest national celebration that year? No.

      there have been many comments attributed to Carole, yes I believe they're true, stating that they are a company for profit and to stay in business they must sell items that everyone in their industry does. Which IMO makes complete sense.

      Has Party Pieces benefited from Kate's relationship? Of course. Just by virtue of the extra exposure and national coverage of them. But IMO, they haven't taken advantage of the situation.

      People close to power get trickle down benefits, they just do. Pippa got them too.

      I think Meghan has conducted herself very well, as have the Middletons.

      Delete
    12. You might be right royalfan that Will learned how to have a good marriage by understanding his parents' marriage. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to happen often. Children of divorce may avoid repeating superficial similarities perhaps but that's rarely enough. Or they may attempts to be polar opposities of the "bad" parent but that's rarely healthy either. But my saying I wasn't convinced *back in 2010-11* the marriage would last was based on what I knew about Will and Kate back then. To be honest I had not followed the BRF all that closely after Diana's death. But the things I did read about the way Will supposedly treated Kate in his 20's, his "playing the field" (to put it politely) and the things he supposedly said about her during breakups (I thought there were at least two) didn't bode well IMO. Neither did her apparent willingness to put her life on hold for him. But I'm happy to have been wrong. And I hope all the naysayers about H&M are wrong too if they do decide to marry.

      Delete
    13. Can I just say before we castigate "children of divorce" 😡, let me just remind you, Lizzie, that the first wave of divorces in this country came from parents whose parents were NOT divorced.

      Indeed, it was Charles (with no divorced parents) who caused the breakdown of the Wales' marriage, not Diana (a "child of divorce").

      While we can look at data and statistics to determine someone's potential successes in life, one's life is up to the individual and we should never feel controlled by or doomed because of our parents' failures.

      I took such high offense to your assumptions. Sounds like you put people in boxes and that's how you keep order in your world. Sad.

      Here's to William and Harry having healthy, happy families with their one and only wives.😉

      Delete
    14. Good grief, now "child of divorce" is also a highly offensive term? Pretty soon there won't be words left to use that aren't offensive to someone. I'm sorry you were offended anon 10:52 but many individual characteristics possessed by both H&M as well as by W&K have been discussed on this site when giving opinions about probable marital success. Many have talked about the Middletons long-lasting marriage and it's probable positive effects on Kate's development--the opposite side of the divorce coin. Many have talked about the probable effects of C&D's divorce on both W&H. That talk was even more pronounced during the "summer of Diana" when stories of young Will pushing tissues under the door to a crying Diana resurfaced. Finally research has been done that shows a person's background--including factors like divorce may be predictive of marital success. For W&H its not just parents who publicly divorced. The BRF is fairly populated with divorces. Of course we can't predict for every individual. Stats don't work that way. And some with many risk factors do have happy first and only marriages. And as you point out some without a particular risk factor still choose to end their marriages in divorce court.

      Delete
    15. Can I also just chime in to say there's no shame in being divorced Anon? It happens. It isn't the 50's where you have to stay in a bad marriage.

      May William and Harry be happy, like everyone else. They don't need "one and only wives" - sometimes 3rd times a charm! Who knows. Life is hard, don't put expectations or judgements on how people get through it. Everyone deserves to be happy no matter how hard it might be to get there or how long it might take.

      Delete
    16. Royalfan they took several breaks in the final years of uni, and again before "the split". All been documented.
      Read Katie Nichols book.

      Delete
    17. 9:17,

      People that go through marriages like you are describing leave a trail of pain and heartache. What you are describing is, frankly, a mess. Families are grown, nurtured, and sacred for a reason. Is divorce sometimes the only and best option? Yes. But it should be the exception not the rule. And three marriages? 😳 Just no.

      It sounds like you do not understand the repercussions of what you are describing.

      Delete
    18. Thank you 11:04. I agree with everything you say and on the collateral damage of divorce.

      Delete
    19. Lizzie,

      I wasn't offended by the term, I was offended by how you castigated William for being "a child of divorce". William did everything to change the pattern of his father and he spoke at length before the marriage about wanting to have a happy family life. He dated Kate for years, discussing publicly about how he wanted to "get it right". He picked a wonderful girl, waited till they were both mature adults. Yet, all you could see as they walked down the aisle that day was the moniker "child of divorce". As you said, on their wedding day, you didn't think it would last because William was a "child of divorce". You had him shackled to be divorced himself practically before he was even married.

      Stats don't make a person. Individuals do.

      I am 10:52 & 11:04



      Delete
    20. 10:52 & 11:04, I have to agree with you again!11:38

      Delete
    21. Whoa…Sure sounds like you are offended Anon 12:37…. I hardly think I “castigated” Will for his parents’ divorce nor is there anything in my words to suggest “all I could see” on his wedding day was that C&D had divorced. I did have qualms about whether it would last for MANY reasons. (And please do remember this was all in the context of posters making predictions about H&M chances of marital success so it wasn’t out of the blue.) I mentioned reasons in my posts for my wondering about W&K back in 2010-11 although you have focused on only one. None of us know Will personally so using stats is perfectly reasonable. Children of divorce ARE more likely to divorce themselves. Stats and Will’s (and Kate's) PUBLIC behavior were about all we had. We don’t know him (or Kate) personally as an individual. (Or perhaps you do?) I don’t remember Will talking “at length” publicly about marriage before he married. I do recall him blowing off questions about marriage with throwaway lines like that. I also recall his tabletop dancing celebrations after breaking up (“I’m free!”) and other negative things he said about Kate when apart. And there were plenty of stories about his playing around. Those things are not predictive of marital success. As for Kate being ”wonderful"…none of us really knew *back then* what she would be like as Will’s wife any more than we know what MM would be like as Harry’s. In fact, I probably knew less about Kate than I knew now about MM. About all I knew about Kate was she was very pretty, had attracted Will's attention wearing a see-through dress, was known as "Waity Katy", clubbed a lot during break-ups, and didn't have a regular/fulltime job. We can’t use the apparent current state of W&K’s marriage as evidence we should have known back in 2011 it would succeed!

      Delete
    22. Lizzie, I did continue to follow W&H after Diana's death and still recall how hungry the press was for ANY news about W&K. Hungry to the point of making up stories and Katie Nichols was no exception. She wrote her fair share of Waity Katy headlines until the engagement was announced and, suddenly, she was a self-proclaimed royal correspondent. With this in mind, I take everything she writes with a grain of salt.

      No doubt, W&K had ups and downs in their relationship (not unlike most couples who meet in college and continue to grow/learn together before, ultimately, getting married and starting a family). But I do believe that some of the "revelations" were altered (or manufactured!) to keep them in the headlines.

      If William was as horrible as some stories suggested, I have a difficult time believing that Mike and Carole would embrace him with open arms and treat him like a son (my impression of as warmly as they appear to do.

      Delete
    23. riyalfan I totally agree with you about Katie nichols. I do not like her reporting. I also think her and other royal reporters created a lot of negative press about Kate's work ethic which I think is unfairly portrayed to the public.

      Delete
    24. You could be right royalfan. All I was saying was IF I had been asked back then if the marriage would succeed, I wouldn't have been sure much like many are stating they aren't sure if a marriage between H&M would succeed. While of course I hoped for the best (and hope for the best for H), not being personally acquainted with either W or K I didn't see it as a modern "fairytale" despite some efforts to bill it that way. And there were other reasons for my doubts such as some of Will's "friends" supposed attitudes towards Kate. If true, Will couldn't control what they thought/said but he remained close friends with them apparently. I didn't know much at all about Carole and Mike until after the wedding and did take stories such as their offering their own bed for W&K to "make up" with a huge grain of salt. But I'm also not sure what most parents would have done in that sort of situation even IF he had clearly been a jerk. Kate wasn't a teenager and had the right to make up her own mind.

      Delete
    25. It isn't the length of a parental marriage or the occurrence of divorce that most impacts a child's chances of future relationship happiness. It is what leads up to the divorce and the aftermath. Is there a stable parent or relative or friend who can model a healthy relationship to present an alternative. Important also is what happens in the marriage-between the parents and between parent and child.
      Statistics talk about numbers and results. They don't account for more subtle factors. Is there constant tension in that durable marriage; do the parents stay together out of expediency or duty-would divorce result in damage to career, finances, child custody?

      In the time leading up to a divorce, do the parents make every attempt to destroy each other to jockey for advantage in the divorce settlement; are there constant arguments in front of the children? Or do the parents sit down and quietly discuss their options and after time tearfully agree that separation is best-do the parents remain united in parenting and respectful of each other, both in front of, and apart from the children?

      Statistics are useful at times but not so much when dealing with feelings and behavior. They always tell the how many and what but rarely the human heart and soul behind them. That accounts for the seeming paradoxes. It is a reason why we have a 60+ year marriage spawning divorce in three of four children It is the reason the children of those three divorced parents have so far remained in original marriages or long-term relationships. William and Catherine, yes; but there is also Peter and Autumn; Zara and Mike.Beatrice and Eugenie having very long-term relationships. And hopefully, Harry and his choice. anon1

      Delete
    26. Very well said anon1!

      Delete
    27. Lizzie, if you had doubts about W&K's marriage after a lengthy courtship, it should be x100 in Harry's case, no? ;-) H&M may qualify as the Reader's Digest version of W&K's relationship.

      9:12, I do agree!

      Delete
    28. Lol! royalfan, they certainly do qualify as a Reader's Digest version!

      Delete
    29. Actually no, royalfan.

      https://www.sandiegodivorcecenter.com/marriage-success-related-to-how-long-you-dated/

      A longer courtship (as in many many yrs) is associated with a higher divorce rate just as is marrying after a courtship lasting less than a yr. That was part of the reason for my qualms. *IF* H&M were to marry, it seems that could not happen until March at the earliest (probably a bit later) and they would have known each other over 1 1/2 yrs by then. So based purely on research, H&M would be in the "successful marriage" sweet spot timewise (1-3 yrs before arriving at the altar.) At any rate they've already been dating more than a yr. Of course, research findings don't always apply to individuals. I'm sure we've all known couples who had whirlwind romances or rushed wartime marriages that lasted and were very happy. We've likely also known couples with sucessful marriages whose courtships were carried on mostly long distance. But we don't personally know WKH or M so it is a bit hard to judge them the way we see people we actually know and interact with in our daily lives. So we turn to generalizations that may or may not apply  when expressing opinions about WKH & M.

      Anon 1 makes some good points about the effects of divorce on children. But based purely on *what was in the news* I can't really say I think C&D had the sort of relatively calm split that would have been ideal for children. (For one thing, it was in the news including Diana's TV interview...most splits are a bit more private.)  I do think based on what was in the news BOTH C&D tried to be good parents and tried even harder after the split. And I am sure that made a difference.

      Delete
    30. The Charles/Diana divorce was the worst case scenario. However, both William and Harry have had the example of the Middleton marriage. Diana's death also adds a dimension to the aftermath of divorce that further complicated their ability to form stable relationships. Charles's sons and Andrew's daughters have shown a hesitancy to form lasting, committed relationships; but each has finally been able to commit. I think, from the outside, Sarah and Andrew seem to have managed a better divorce than marriage, as far as the relationship is concerned.. They seem to remain committed, at least as parents. Good example for relationships; not so much for marriage. Say what you will about Camilla-but she and Charles seem to have a stable, committed marriage. There is that. anon1

      Delete
    31. 2.27... ;-)

      Lizzie, I understand what you are saying. However, I do believe that slightly different rules apply when one is dating a royal. In dating William for a number of years, and ultimately living with him, Kate was exposed to the reality of living a royal life. (To a degree of course, as I do recognize that things must have changed when she herself became a member of the Firm.)

      But in Meghan's case, how could she possibly have the same level of knowledge regarding what lies ahead? Given the long-distance factor and their separate obligations, I don't think it's a stretch to say that their dating experience has been limited to *downtime* that they have had to devote to one another. That is not day-to-day reality. And no matter how much Harry may share with her when they talk on the phone, realistically, I believe it leaves both of them at a great disadvantage when compared with William and Kate or Edward and Sophie in terms of time in. Just my two cents...

      Delete
    32. I so agree Royalfan. The key factor aside from all else is H&M have only had a long distance relationship which is so different from W&K dating relationship. H&M need to spend time on a day to day relationship before plunging into marriage. It is such a huge step. I so hope they do. Take some time that is necessary to solidify what they now think they have.

      Delete
    33. Agree Anon 1 that the Middletons may have had a positive effect on Will re: marriage. I am not so sure about Harry. While it looks like WKH are close, it seems like every time there is a big event in W&K’s life Harry doesn’t seem to know anything about it before he reads it in the paper! He said something once about wanting to “get to know” Kate but I think that was after they were already married. So I’m not at all sure Harry has hung around with the Middleton family much to observe a lasting marriage.

      You could be right royalfan. Time will tell I guess.

      Delete
    34. I agree Lizzie that it's doubtful Harry has spent the significant amount of time with the amiddletons that William has. Don't forget he was in the military and deployed overseas several times - he wasn't having cozy weekends in Berkshire at his brothers girlfriends parents house. The Middletons aren't the only stable marriage that could be an example for the princes, especially Harry.

      Delete
    35. Lizzie, Harry certainly appears to enjoy a very warm relationship with Kate. I don't think that comes from being the last to know... :-)

      Delete
    36. I don't doubt they are close royalfan. But H was out of the country when Charlotte was born (reportedly met her when she was 3 wks old) and also missed her christening to go on a conservation trip to Africa. Not too long ago (early Sept) he said he had not seen Kate recently but thought she was doing OK. When the engagement was announced he said friends and family weren't sure W&K would ever marry. And when Kate's pregnancy with George was announced Harry was still in the military so he was told by email. So while they likely *are* close I don't think it's the kind of day-to-day closeness that would have led Harry to spend much time hanging out with Kate's family. That's the only point I was responding to.

      Delete
    37. I though it was interesting he said he had not seen Kate recently but thought she was doing OK...for he had seen her just a few days before at the Diana garden memorial. Is it because they are very close and see each other every day so 3 days seems a while? Or that an official engagement is not really seeing her?

      Delete
    38. I wonder how much stock to put in Harry's comment after Kate's announcement. He seemed like he was just trying to dodge the question and not give much info. He isn't terrible smooth at that. :)

      Delete
    39. Jane, you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. :-) Most, if not all, of these responses are nothing more than attempts at a diplomatic "no comment" and I believe far too much can be read into them.

      Delete
    40. Sorry, Lizzie... it's been a crazy weekend and i missed your last comment. I just agreed with and responded to Jane's take on it.

      Delete
    41. *terribly* I shouldn't do anything before I have coffee.

      Delete
    42. You are right, far to much is read into those comments. I also suspect that when William for instance says how much his children or themselves enjoy so and so, be it dinosaurs or Downtown Abbey, it is also a piece of diplomacy...

      Delete
  18. I think this is exceptional given that they are at a public event with lots of people. We don't see Meghan Markle out and about her daily life with a PPO for her to get to work.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I just read that NBC is providing her with security and they've also installed CCTV at her house.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Since this post is about the security Meghan and Kate receive(d) I just read this article in the Daily Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4926934/Prince-Harry-s-girl-Meghan-Markle-gets-new-security-detail.html

    (I know it's the DM and I take it all with a grain of salt but it's an interesting read.)

    I'm Canadian and I thought I was pretty neutral about Meghan. Then I read that if she and Harry get engaged and she stays in Canada for a while, it will be the RCMP (and, therefore, my tax dollars) providing her security.

    NOPE.

    Perhaps I'm not as neutral as I thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't Canada a Commonwealth country? So who pays for security when other members of the BRF visit Canada? Does the RCMP provide the protection and get reimbursed by the BRF?

      Delete
    2. In the DM article, Anon 7:36, it says that the RCMP provide security when the BRF comes to Canada. Not quite sure how the finances work out.

      Anon 6:26, why would covering short term security bother you in this case? Do you really think it would hit your pocketbook that much or even at all? We don't know if, and if that even happens, when they get engaged she will stay in Canada long term.....it could just be to tie up loose ends. As a US citizen, when she is home in the United States, I could care less if some US law enforcement takes care of her. It REALLY doesn't effect me.

      Delete
  21. I posted this earlier but I'm not seeing it so I'll try again. I read earlier that it is her employer, NBC who is providing her security detail. They've also installed CCTV at her house in Toronto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So maybe its not as serious between Harry and Meaghan as is thought.

      Delete
    2. I think it's simply the norm for the RF; she will have protection if/when they get engaged. Until then, it does make sense to me that NBC would step in under the circumstances.

      Delete
  22. Indeed, it seems to be an indication that they are not engaged

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I think the point was to say that Kate got security after the engagement was announced. Jane thinks when they were secretly engaged, Kate didn't have security yet.

      Delete
  23. Yes it looks like Meghan had security just for the event. Any other security seen with her is her own or the Suits production security. Great Article Jane. Answered my question.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I do not think anything indicates anything:):). They do seem "madly in love" yes to them. I also hope they both have enough life experience to see beyond the long distance relationship fairytale that happens when one is not in the same city...Harry and Megan are in a very different place from William and Catherine, their life will be much more relaxed. Much like Anne, Edward and Andrew compared to Charles' and Margaret's compared to Elizabeth's.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think they are engaged and holding the news until the right time. With her still working on the show and living in CA, to announce it would create further chaos for her in a daily basis.

    I'm happy for both of them and wish them the best. I think most are really excited to see this couple marry. To those that aren't....meh.... I skip over those silly comments. Not giving them the air to breathe their ridiculousness.

    Mazel to MM and Harry.❤️

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just saw images from the last night of the Canadian Games. I really, really hope what Megan and Harry have is a long lasting type of love, but I have to say bells are going off for me based on what I have seen over the last year and a half.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Red flags anon? What ones?

      Delete
    2. Me thinks it will be an eye opening experience for Meghan. Dating and devoting free time to each other is not the same as having your private life and royal roles overlap 27/7.

      Delete
  27. I think the true answers lies with in Megan: can she withstand a limited lifestyle .she is an actress who has worked hard to be where is In The entrainment industry. Is she willing to give all that she worked so hard for to just have it come to a stand still? Huge thought process. That is where Chelsey Davy could stepin As she has had time to grow & wou,d be more acceptable. She is love and adored by his friend & family.hope their is still time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Team Chelsey, Do you honestly think that Chelsey is willing to give all that she has worked so hard for to just have it come to a stand still, and give up her privacy and privileges she currently enjoys? Honestly.

      Delete
    2. If you're dating a royal, I think you have to love them a heck of a lot more than you hate the baggage. And in this I'm not sure Chelsea ever qualified...

      Delete
    3. Hee hee, ROYALFAN, no idea about Chelsey, but I do think the baggage is true for so many of the people who "date" members of the BRF.

      Delete
  28. royalfan, this is what I meant by red flags, they seem to always be in the "first blush" of love phase. Every get together is "special" because it is not often and very planned. That does not mean they will not have a wonderful and happy marriage but it does mean both may have some adjustment to the actual living day in and out with each other and adjusting ones way to another. They both are older and probably both used to calling the shots about their lives without real regard to someones else's schedule, needs, living habits etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, 12.05, we're on the same page. :-)

      Delete
  29. When did Mr Security come into the picture Jane?

    ReplyDelete
  30. This may be a repeat. I wrote a longer comment about this but it poofed off.
    KP Twitter has added an engagement. William and Harry will attend an event at St. James Palace on October 10 to recognise HT workers. This is in addition to the event to honor mental health workers at Buckingham Palace in the evening that was previously announced, quoting in essence the invitation and including Catherine. KP said with this new announcement that "TRH" will later attend at BP...since it follows the St. James news which included only Harry and William, it sounds as though only Harry and William will be at BP.
    I got two impressions from the way this information was presented, especially considering the two events are on the same day at palaces not KP and with a similar theme. Why is HT being recognised separately? I speculated that HM may wish to involve herself with mental health efforts to counter the reports that issued following that staff meeting that the RF was to concentrate on

    assisting the Queen and not on individual projects. As I remember, she has made supportive comments regarding their mental health work, I think once at a garden party.
    The other thought that occurred to me was that Kate may not make an appearance October 10. William has made some statements that would support the fact that the HG with this pregnancy was worse than during the other two.
    I guess we will know in less than a week. anon1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it's worse in the mornings.
      William was in Belfast all yesterday, which seemed to me to be the sort of "away Day' they usually do together. It included the Christening of a life boat--reminded me of the first joint engagement they had.

      Delete
  31. PS-I also mentioned in that other comment that Harry is making a two day visit to Denmark in a couple of weeks at the request of the Foreign Office. Also, William is making a solo trip to New Zealand this month.
    for a battle commemoration I wondered if these trips may have originally included Catherine, given that there was speculation by royal reporters that there would be a Fall foreign visit for the Duke and Duchess. I believe the rumor was based on a quip William made to someone in a walkabout or at a reception about maybe visiting Scandinavia at some point. (My memory is sketchy here) There has not been any such announcement that I know of and tours are usually announced at least a month or more ahead of time--usually several months ahead. anon1
    I think KP needs to make an official status report of Catherine's current health. Or announce a due month. The silence is deafening, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do others really feel the public is owed an update on that poor woman's health? I personally don't.

      Delete
    2. There was talk about a Scandinavian tour for the Cambridge, is there still a possibility of it, or is Harry's Denmark tour to replace it?

      Delete
    3. I personally think Kate should be allowed to heal in peace. However, William understands the interest of the public and apparently assumes it issues from concern. That's why he has made some remark about Catherine at nearly every appearance. I think the new St. James announcement including only Harry and William might have included a brief explanatory comment of why Catherine was not mentioned.

      If she does appear at BP Tuesday an update won't be necessary and we are left to speculate why the afternoon HT event announcement did not include Kate. If she does not attend the BP event an update will most likely be offered that day.
      I just think it would be a mistake to let people continue with the assumption that she will be seen then. There are indications, which I have mentioned, that she may not attend. A brief statement that the Duchess continues to be ill and the decision will be made just prior...that would help prevent the build up and sudden let-down. As it stands, she is expected to be there.
      Her appearance was announced only after an invitation was leaked-one that could have been printed months ago and who knows when mailed but KP has not said plans have changed due to her illness..
      There was a recent story in Hello Magazine that her new private secretary would be advising Catherine for this appearance-there is build-up. That story has been picked up and spread by other forums--sometimes with factual errors, which is not uncommon. One stated that Kate would attend the function on the 11th and that it would take place at Kensington Palace, not BP. I can certainly understand an assumption that a mental health event would be at KP--I made the same error; but I'm not writing a news story. The date discrepancy could have something to do with the origin of the site--India. Or maybe just poor fact checking. The story actually credited Hello.

      My main interest is the new St. James Heads Together event that KP announced which William and Harry will host---without Kate, apparently. Since HT is focused on mental health concerns I wondered why it was scheduled for the same day as the BP mental health event. I think that is very strange. The only answer I can think of is HT was not included in BP plans. That is even more strange to me. anon1

      Delete
    4. I think the public knowing that she is pregnant plus sick from said pregnancy is a 'nuff said sort of thing in my mind. Since this is the 3rd time she has been in this situation people shouldn't have expectations. Poor woman.

      Delete
    5. I don't know which organizations will be included in the BP Mental Health Day reception anon 1 so I don't know if it is weird HT wasn't included (if it actually wasn't). One could opine that HT already gets attention from royal patrons so maybe sharing the spotlight is good? After all, it's not a competition hopefully. One assumes all the groups have the same general goals for improving mental health and MH services.

      I have mixed feelings on whether there should be an announcement about Kate. Of course she deserves privacy. But I also don't think Will is *volunteering info* because he understands interest is high. I think he's being questioned because of the public's concern and he has to say something. It has been well over a month (going on 6 weeks) since the announcement about her pregnancy was made. Many have suggested her pregnancy could be fairly far along (I doubt it myself)  If Kate attends the event on the 10th I agree no announcement is needed. But if she doesn't attend and she is well beyond 12 weeks as everyone but me seems to think, I would think it sort of odd if something wasn't said about her general due date.

      Delete
    6. Enough said, indeed. Kate is pregnant and will have good days and bad days. We really don't need to know more than that IMHO. What happened to the days when kindness and common sense filled in the gaps? :-)

      Delete
  32. With all the comments above, I think it’s realistic to look at Harry & Megan’s relationship. Yes it looks lovely from all that we have seen all however....one thing has not been mentioned: this has been a LONG distance relationship unlike Kate &Willams 8year dating relationship & Harry &Chelsy’s 7 year relationship. These two (Harry & Megan) need to spend a major amount of time together to see if this is realistic? I think there still may be feelings as Chelsey skipped Pippa Middleton’s wedding & went home to Africa . that sends sign she still has wonderful deep feelings for Harry . Long distant relationships are always so exciting and wonderful & not realistic. Take your time Harry have Megan live in England for several years to see if this is truly the way she could envision her life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why on earth would Chelsy have gone to Pippas wedding?! You're spinning an utter fantasy Anon 1:42.

      Delete
    2. Why do you think Chelsy was invited to Pippa's wedding? They have mutual friends but even her own uncle (Gary) wasn't invited to the party! Why would an ex girlfriend of her sister's brother in law be invited? That's a stretch. Also, even if they were social acquaintances, why would she want to have her brother in law and his new girlfriend be in the same place as an ex. AWKWARD and necessary. Sometimes it can't be avoided like with the Lady Melissa Percy wedding when everyone there had a legitimate connection to the bride/groom but not in this wedding. Harry and Chelsy isn't going to happen. She isn't his Camilla.

      Delete
    3. I didn't know Chelsy was invited to PM's wedding. It's possible but where is there any evidence of that?  If she was invited though would it have been without a "plus one"? How awkward! I also wasn't aware she went home to Africa at that time. (I knew she did after the 2011 breakup) Anon 1:42 do you have some press links on the PM/CD wedding issue?  There were stories H&C saw each other in Africa in 2015 four years after she dumped him but apparently nothing came of it. I really think she's not interested in marrying Harry.

      Delete
  33. Anonymous 1:42- while I agree that time spent together in a day-to-day reality setting would likely be a more reliable test to the relationship, I do have a question about the remarks about Chelsy. I was not aware that it was known that she had been invited to Pippa's wedding.
    It is possible, of course, that there are some residual feelings involved; however we would have no way of knowing if that is the case.

    The above is an alternative reply to anon 1:42's comment. Hopefully, no direct confrontation or insulting accusations. anon1

    ReplyDelete
  34. Regarding Anon 142, the way I read the comment it was focusing on a need for Harry & Megan to spend time more frequent time near each other to persue their relationship, perhaps with Megan moving to London. . The example was given William & Kate dated 8 years , including living together. Harry & Chelsey dated 7 years. Currently H & M have a long distance relationship, which is charming & exciting. However is that a true way to evolve & grow the relationship? In reference to anon8:56 Chelsey is in that inner circle of friends & quite possibly would have had an invitation to PM’s wedding. As noted by Ellen in her comment. Even Princess Beatrice was absent from the event. Time spent together will be for H & M will be the key factor.

    ReplyDelete

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!