Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

  1. Sign up to become a TPF member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It's free and quick to sign up, so join the discussion right now!
    Dismiss Notice
Our PurseForum community is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker. Thank you!
  1. One's fairytale life is a nightmare to someone else. I'm not surprised that she preferred being simply rich and free to live her life as someone's plus one under constant scrutiny of the press. Plus, they were both very young when dating and just grew apart. It happens. IMO she made a good decision.
     
  2. I’m sorry you all. It was not right to judge someone evil. My apologies to all.
     
    Bag*Snob likes this.
  3. So how soon does anyone think baby #2 will be coming along? My guess, the kids will be 11-13 months apart.
     
    BagLovingMom likes this.
  4. They seem to me like they would love a big family! I wonder if they will adopt like Brangelina. Is the royal family "allowed" to adopt? I think it's a very honorable and admirable thing to adopt, but the royal aspect seems like it would complicate things. I'm American and don't know much about the BRF so I'm just speculating!
     
  5. whew, I thought I was the only one that thought this looked completely contrived. Both look media manufactured and Daddy is going along with it
     
  6. #6141 Feb 11, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    You leave this thread for 5 minutes and :shocked::shocked::shocked:. I don't even want to go back anymore pages because I'm not sure what I just read. lol. I'm sure she looks lovely in whatever the last pic posted was.
     
  7. #6142 Feb 12, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    Meghan wrote the letter (her writing is available to see online) and the 5 anonymous friends giving the interview isn't bizarre it is royal PR. It is clear that the People article was sanctioned with the backing of multiple members of the royal family I don't know why some the past few pages (not both of you) are acting as if it was solely just Meghan's decision or without royal family members knowledge (Actually I do... some have made it no secret they think everything Meghan does is "Hollywood" and the article to them feels like "Hollywood PR"). The People article screamed Royal PR to me (especially when it is known how often the royals have used People magazine to release stories in the past and just last year People was involved with a British Royal Family television special that included close friends of the royals and current as well as former royal staff).

    Like I said in an earlier posts in this thread the People article reminds me of the Vanity Fair interview Meghan did that some thought was attention seeking on Meghan's part but it was clear at the time to many that the Vanity Fair interview was sanctioned by the royal family to better introduce Meghan because in the coming months an engagement was going to be announced and sure enough there was in fact a role out of events and stories that happened leading up to the engagement being announced which was a little less than 3 months after the Vanity Fair article (Harry and Meghan attended his foundation Invictus Games where they made their first official appearance together though paparazzi had captured them before, then October 2017 was filled with stories about how Harry and Meghan were having meetings with Queen Elizabeth II, confirmation that Meghan had filmed her last scenes of Suits in mid-November 2017, and then a week before the engagement was announced it was reported that Meghan had moved out of her Toronto house).

    Thomas releasing the letter one of the friends purposefully made the point to mention in the People article is Thomas "taking the bait" and falling for one of the Royals PR moves and actually helps give validation to the People article. Thomas leaking the letter can actually cause legal ramification for him and the Daily Fail. Under UK law, Meghan owns the copyright of the handwritten letter (though Thomas has sold pictures and notes from Meghan before at the time she wrote the notes and was in the pictures it was years before she was a member of the royal family). An article released today made note (even though the information was known) of how royals have taken legal action on numerous occasions in recent history to prevent the publication of personal details and have sued for breach of copyright (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/02/11/thomas-markles-leaked-letter-duchess-sussex-could-provoke-legal/). In 2006, the Prince Charles won a privacy case after the court of appeal ruled the Mail on Sunday had infringed his copyright and confidentiality by publishing extracts from his 1997 Hong Kong diaries. In the 1980s, the Sun made a payment to charity and apologized for publishing a letter from the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh about Prince Edward’s decision to leave the Royal Marines. In 1993, the paper settled a breach of copyright case over a leaked copy of the Christmas speech with a payment to charity.


    Thomas has shown he will sell information. Doesn't matter if Meghan would've called him (calls can be recorded), texted him (you can get copies of text), sent e-mails (emails can be printed), or sent a letter (which can and in this case were copied then printed) because he has shown he will sell information on Meghan. Thomas giving an interview that accompanies Meghan's letter he sold and also brought up what he said in his return letter to Meghan and in separate letter to Doria doesn't "clear his name" nor does it make Meghan look bad in my opinion it just makes him look worse than people already perceived him.

    All Meghan's letter does in my opinion is show that Thomas has been lying about things he had mentioned in his many interviews he has given about Meghan. Thomas is on record of saying multiple times that Meghan hadn't tried to contact him since after the wedding last May. The letter is dated "August 2018" so that shows Meghan was still trying to contact him and also shows she was still trying to contact him even though he said so many negative many things about not only herself and Harry but he also brought up Doria, Diana, and members of the Royal Family. Thomas has continuously mentioned in his various interviews how Meghan never helped him financially but in Meghan's letter she mentions she has. In Thomas letter back to Meghan that he willing sold he admits Meghan gave him "a couple grand here and there". Thomas provided information from the letter he sent back to Meghan and he makes mention that she, Harry, and him should have a "photo op" (which basically comes across as him wanting a picture with them to make him seem credible for so more outlets will approach him/so he can make even more money off of Meghan). The simple fact that he continues to do interviews with same few (but major) outlets pretty much confirms he is getting paid by them and a picture oh him with Meghan and Harry would've been a "gold mind" for him and like would've had more outlets reach out to him. Meghan didn't address her sister by name (refers to her as "your other daughter) in the letter but essentially said her and Samantha didn't really have a sibling relationship due to their age difference. Samantha has literally said Meghan and her haven't ever had a close relationship yet many outlets gave her a platform to talk about Meghan.
     
  8. Prince Harry at England vs France rugby match at Twickenham Stadium

    9629766-6688315-image-a-44_1549817575536.jpg DzDY8ZKX4AEl9iI.jpg DzEEy7pX4AAsbwi.jpg DzDYAwEX0AADSYA.jpg DzDZ8stX4AIkcWA.jpg DzDZpXRXcAYECgr.jpg DzEFAVHW0AEcGPm.jpg
     
  9. ^ Interesting post. I hope it would be true that the Royal Family sanctioned the People article... she needs her new family in her corner. Poor thing. It's a sh$tty position to be in.
     
    keodi, krissa and Straight-Laced like this.
  10. What stands out the most for me is that when the smear campaign against Meghan was being spread by anonymous sources people didn't mind but suddenly anonymous sources are problematic.
     
  11. You can start a thread where we can discuss all things Chelsy Davy:idea:
     
    lookingforlove, Hobbsy and anitalilac like this.
  12. Haha!! That about sums up the last few pages.
     
    krissa, berrydiva and wee drop o bush like this.
  13. That is why I dislike 'anonymous' sources for everything. If someone won't put their name to something, why even mention it. The same anonymous friends who support her can also be the anonymous friends feeding negative information to the media too. Or, it can all be phony and made up. "Sources" can be completely made up by reporters, it happens all the time, and by big names.
     
    carlpsmom likes this.
  14. I think the fact that her dad told her to fake it for one photo speaks volumes.

    I feel so badly for her. To have family drama and to feel disconnected from your family is bad enough but to have it played out on the world stage with conservative in-laws to boot, that is really awful.
     
    keodi, chessmont, myown and 4 others like this.
  15. #6150 Feb 12, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    Attending gala performance of ‘The Wider Earth’ at the Natural History Museum

    9735606-6696751-image-m-49_1550000717558.jpg 9734320-6696751-image-a-59_1550001354073.jpg 9734392-6696751-image-m-66_1550001914125.jpg 9735602-6696751-image-m-55_1550000802295.jpg DzOkSJtUwAAGFEG.jpg DzO8PPbWkAEbKWY.jpg DzO90GfXgAAXQmR.jpg DzO-QNfXcAA4LuA.jpg