Prince Harry & Meghan Markle filming a reality show for Netflix

[Gimme More 33,883]

Love Meghan & Harry, good for them 

[Roronoa 6,324]

Did anyone read that essay?  Could you summarize it in simple English? 

[LateToCult 36,438]

4 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

As tacky as this is when contrasted to what they were doing before as royals, it's their right to do whatever they want now...but only if they get their titles and patronages removed. To be living in America and doing all this Hollywood stuff while still holding onto their Duke and Duchess titles despite not being working royals anymore is a farce. This makes the royals look bad for allowing this. They chose to leave and be independent, give them what they want. They apparently hate the monarchy yet use their titles every chance they get (yes, they do choose to put their titles in their videos, that's their choice) and they do so as they know that their titles is what is giving them any sort of clout. Without them, why would we listen to what an ex prince with no qualifications and a D-list actress have to say? The Time 100 made some odd choices this year but I respect them for not putting these two on the list. Even they know that any interest in them comes purely from their titles and nothing else. It'll be interesting to see what offers they get if their titles are taken away. And to be honest, I don't get how they've got any support in the US at all. Americans have never had a concept of royalty, they aren't as impressed by it and think the idea of their taxes funding people they don't know is ludicrous.

It's not baffling at all, if you actually get the full dirt on her. All the information's out there, I don't know how you've bypassed it. In short, she has used men all her adult life to get her higher up the social ladder from her father to her uncle to boyfriends and now her husband. She sent her ex-husbands rings back in the mail and was living with a guy when she met Harry and then quickly dumped him when she realised she was well in. She lied during a speech about paying for her college bills even though her dad paid for it all (who she cruelly cut off merely for the fact that he was manipulated into posing for pap shots). She won't even let her father see his grandson. As I understand, she even had her pet dog put down before she came over to live with the royals because he was apparently too old to make the journey when he wasn't even double figures. Also, she had all her old clothes held in storage in Canada when she joined the royals and judging by when they were in cahoots with journalists and documentary makers to chronicle their "we're leaving" story, it figures that she must have planned to leave the family before she even got married...yet wanted the big white televised wedding with all the pomp and circumstance on the taxpayers dime first (and maybe even secure a child while still being a royal). As soon as she got it all, she left. I don't know how anyone can say this wasn't the plan anymore. And since she's been living in Hollywood and doing "charity work," we constantly hear reports from attendees that she and Harry arrive, pose for photos with their personal photographer, stay for 10 minutes then leave. They just do it to give the illusion that they're doing good for good PR. That's just the short version. She's a gold-digger and social climber, it becomes clearer every day and more and more people are waking up to it.

It's nothing to do with us being British. We're merely outraged that they're profitting off their royal titles (which is against the rules) while no longer being working royals. This would all be fine if they just gave up their titles but they want to keep them. Shows what their intentions truly are. And don't the public deserve to be more than a little bit peeved that they paid all that taxpayer money towards them just for them to leave and that money that we paid into Prince Charles's private fund was used to buy their $14 million Santa Barbara mansion which they didn't pay for?

I'm genuinely curious as to what they did to make people a fan of them. Meghan was royal for little over a year. They didn't set up charities or do anything above and beyond what royals would do and she was struck off her duties for almost all the time she was royal anyway because she got pregnant so soon after the wedding. As for Harry, well, I don't know what people ever saw in him to begin with. He didn't do well at school, was always getting into scandalous scrapes and Meghan certainly wouldn't have approved of the racist statements he made around his army mates. Never was a fan of the cheeky chappie persona that Britons are supposed to love.

It's ironic that being royal was where they were the most protected. Being royal stops the press from intruding on your life, following you around, writing lies about you without serious consequence, etc. Plus, they have round the clock security, the best money can buy. The way they're living now, they're sitting ducks to every bit of press intrusion and have no one to defend them. They made the biggest contradiction saying that they left the royals because they wanted privacy and then moved to the most celebrity-heavy place on the planet, ground zero for paparazzi. You think the British press tear people down? They've got nothing on the American press, especially in LA where the people feed off celebrity gossip and scandal. Just proves that their statement was all stuff and nonsense. They love the fame, they just want it on their terms and don't want to do boring stuff like visiting an old people's home on a wet Monday morning.

I’m sorry but I’m not reading your second novel on this. She married him. Get over it.

[StrawberryBlond 13,290]

3 hours ago, JK Rowling said:

Did anyone read that essay?  Could you summarize it in simple English? 

It's not the long and that was me summarising it. If there's a lot to write, there's a lot to write. People are asking for reasons why people dislike them and then won't read them, so what's the point?

1 hour ago, LateToCult said:

I’m sorry but I’m not reading your second novel on this. She married him. Get over it.

I'm not bothered that she married him but rather about the things she's done. If you'd read it, you'd know. Like I said above, if people want reasons why they're disliked but then won't read what they're provided with, then why ask in the first place (not that you were specifically but the reasons for why they're disliked is asked by their supporters regularly as if they won't do the research).

[Guest]

redownloading netflix omg

[Guest]

6 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

As tacky as this is when contrasted to what they were doing before as royals, it's their right to do whatever they want now...but only if they get their titles and patronages removed. To be living in America and doing all this Hollywood stuff while still holding onto their Duke and Duchess titles despite not being working royals anymore is a farce. This makes the royals look bad for allowing this. They chose to leave and be independent, give them what they want. They apparently hate the monarchy yet use their titles every chance they get (yes, they do choose to put their titles in their videos, that's their choice) and they do so as they know that their titles is what is giving them any sort of clout. Without them, why would we listen to what an ex prince with no qualifications and a D-list actress have to say? The Time 100 made some odd choices this year but I respect them for not putting these two on the list. Even they know that any interest in them comes purely from their titles and nothing else. It'll be interesting to see what offers they get if their titles are taken away. And to be honest, I don't get how they've got any support in the US at all. Americans have never had a concept of royalty, they aren't as impressed by it and think the idea of their taxes funding people they don't know is ludicrous.

It's not baffling at all, if you actually get the full dirt on her. All the information's out there, I don't know how you've bypassed it. In short, she has used men all her adult life to get her higher up the social ladder from her father to her uncle to boyfriends and now her husband. She sent her ex-husbands rings back in the mail and was living with a guy when she met Harry and then quickly dumped him when she realised she was well in. She lied during a speech about paying for her college bills even though her dad paid for it all (who she cruelly cut off merely for the fact that he was manipulated into posing for pap shots). She won't even let her father see his grandson. As I understand, she even had her pet dog put down before she came over to live with the royals because he was apparently too old to make the journey when he wasn't even double figures. Also, she had all her old clothes held in storage in Canada when she joined the royals and judging by when they were in cahoots with journalists and documentary makers to chronicle their "we're leaving" story, it figures that she must have planned to leave the family before she even got married...yet wanted the big white televised wedding with all the pomp and circumstance on the taxpayers dime first (and maybe even secure a child while still being a royal). As soon as she got it all, she left. I don't know how anyone can say this wasn't the plan anymore. And since she's been living in Hollywood and doing "charity work," we constantly hear reports from attendees that she and Harry arrive, pose for photos with their personal photographer, stay for 10 minutes then leave. They just do it to give the illusion that they're doing good for good PR. That's just the short version. She's a gold-digger and social climber, it becomes clearer every day and more and more people are waking up to it.

It's nothing to do with us being British. We're merely outraged that they're profitting off their royal titles (which is against the rules) while no longer being working royals. This would all be fine if they just gave up their titles but they want to keep them. Shows what their intentions truly are. And don't the public deserve to be more than a little bit peeved that they paid all that taxpayer money towards them just for them to leave and that money that we paid into Prince Charles's private fund was used to buy their $14 million Santa Barbara mansion which they didn't pay for?

I'm genuinely curious as to what they did to make people a fan of them. Meghan was royal for little over a year. They didn't set up charities or do anything above and beyond what royals would do and she was struck off her duties for almost all the time she was royal anyway because she got pregnant so soon after the wedding. As for Harry, well, I don't know what people ever saw in him to begin with. He didn't do well at school, was always getting into scandalous scrapes and Meghan certainly wouldn't have approved of the racist statements he made around his army mates. Never was a fan of the cheeky chappie persona that Britons are supposed to love.

It's ironic that being royal was where they were the most protected. Being royal stops the press from intruding on your life, following you around, writing lies about you without serious consequence, etc. Plus, they have round the clock security, the best money can buy. The way they're living now, they're sitting ducks to every bit of press intrusion and have no one to defend them. They made the biggest contradiction saying that they left the royals because they wanted privacy and then moved to the most celebrity-heavy place on the planet, ground zero for paparazzi. You think the British press tear people down? They've got nothing on the American press, especially in LA where the people feed off celebrity gossip and scandal. Just proves that their statement was all stuff and nonsense. They love the fame, they just want it on their terms and don't want to do boring stuff like visiting an old people's home on a wet Monday morning.

Noah fence fellow lana stan but this essay  

[StrawberryBlond 13,290]

1 minute ago, monster said:

Noah fence fellow lana stan but this essay  

That's what happens when you respond to many people, though. It's not a big continuous essay. If you have a lot to say, at least it shows your opinion was based around many reasons and you thought it out well, I always say.

[Guest]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

That's what happens when you respond to many people, though. It's not a big continuous essay. If you have a lot to say, at least it shows your opinion was based around many reasons and you thought it out well, I always say.

I appreciate it though. People just say "lol" or "tea" instead of actually saying something. I was just teasing btw.. No hate.