Author Topic: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time  (Read 2883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,577
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2017, 03:55:51 PM »
The British monarchy is well past the moralizing bits when it comes to royal marriages (thank God for that). If Harry and Meghan are inclined to get married, it will be up to them. I doubt that queen will raise objections about a marriage that is currently inconsequential to the succession. The virginal aristocrat woman is no longer a strict requirement. They tried that in 1981 and it was an all round disaster and one they will be anxious not to repeat.

The main criteria for marriage is that the two couples agree. The old exclusions of divorcee mean absolutely nothing these days. They are hypocritical, judgmental and out of sync with modern life. The royal family has adapted accordingly.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 


Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2017, 04:47:53 PM »
^ ^ But the Queen and Prince Charles are taxpayers too. They both pay tax on their incomes each year. It's simply that before medieval times and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall were put in place Kings could tax the bej**** out of the poor peasants and the Heir was completely dependent on his father the King for his expenses and way of life, and that wasn't good either.

In George III's time the income of the King was regulated and George gave up his tax levying abilities in return for a secure yearly income. Parliament was more than happy to oblige, so I don't think they were the losers by it.

Upkeep of the royal palaces and minor royals eventually became the responsibility of the Civil List and this evolved into the Sovereign Grant. It's all supervised by Parliament and audited each year, the accounts presented to Parliament etc. No-one is diddling UK taxpayers out of anything.

And at the moment the British monarchy is popular, so if there is to be a monarchy at all then the sovereign has  to be paid to do his/her job properly and also help support relatives who represent him/her all over Britain and overseas.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 04:51:13 PM by Curryong »
 

Offline lk1957

  • Loyal Subject
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Princess Ann
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2017, 11:43:34 PM »
For the record, Grace Kelly won an Oscar for Best Actress in "The Country Girl" This was before her marriage in 1954. She did not get any achievement Oscar. She was also nominated for another movie. And as to who wins Oscars..... usually it is a certain type of actress but look at Cher. No one would have thought in the 1960s as a Sonny and Bono pop singer or the star of a variety act they did later on T.V. that  Cher would ever win any acting award. If you ever saw the 1960s movie they made, it would have sealed that thought. But she trained, got a good role and won. So you never know. Hilary Swank was a neighbor of mine with Chad Lowe and doing karate movies. I would have never thought in a few years after I met them that she would win two Oscars. So you never know where one's acting career goes. But I see that MM has to give up hers while married to PH. Although who would have ever thought  a senior royal would marry an older, ( I realize it is only three years) divorced, American bi racial actress and get approval.  So who knows what the future will bring. I've learned that now.

Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 11:51:32 PM

And one other thing on my last note is that this is PH's first marriage. Charles and Camy were both divorced. The first marriages for the royals have been with non-divorced persons except Edward VIII.
So even though divorce has been accepted by the RF for marriages, it is remarriages. So this is a changing thing in all respects from any non ousted member of the RF. So anything goes in the future I think.  Next it will be a gay marriage that has to be accepted. Who knows? Except I know change happens.

Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2017, 11:55:02 PM

Okay, what I said applies to post Henry VIII because he invented divorce although all his wives were first time brides and Edward IV married a widow.  But other than them that I am aware of, Royals first marriage are to non divorced persons.

Double post auto-merged: September 10, 2017, 12:10:59 AM

Stand corrected again. Catherine of Aragon was widowed and Henry didn't invent divorce but started it in England with the new church. My only point is that I'm not sure that one can say for sure that MM can't act in the future because of protocol and engagements.  Rules are changing for everything slowly but surely in the UK and RF. We'll see what happens and post.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 12:10:59 AM by lk1957 »
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy


Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2017, 07:18:12 AM »
Princess Michael of Kent was married to Tom Troubridge, an English banker, in 1973. The marriage only lasted a couple of years then they separated. They were divorced in 1977, the Pope annulled the marriage in 1978, and almost immediately Prince Michael (cousin to Queen Elizabeth) then married her. He had never been wed before.

Like Harry he had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of the Troubridge marriage, and the Queen gave him permission to marry. (In those days practically everyone in line of succession to the British throne was required to formally ask permission but few that lived overseas or were connected with other royalty, and there are dozens, did so. Now it's only the first six.)

Charles and then William intend to really slim the recognised Royal family down a lot, to probably monarch, consort, monarch's heir and wife and a sibling and wife, to cover the load. There have been a few rumours that Charlotte and the new baby won't be required when adults for Royal duties in William's reign, so it may be pulled back even further.

I just can't see that happening with Harry and wife, though. Charles will probably be a man in his seventies when he comes to the throne. Camilla is older than Charles and hasn't that much stamina. She has to rest sometimes when on tour and doesn't acclimatise to heat well. She also looks a little bowed, even now. There's a question really as to whether, if she lives into her nineties she would be like Queen Energiser bunny and keep on going with hundreds of engagements a year. Charles probably will, but this couple, elderly when they reach the Throne, will need all the help they can get.

George may well begin full time Royal duties at an earlier age than his father was allowed to do. However it's become a tradition in the BRF over the last couple of generations for the heir to go to university, get a degree and then go into the armed services for at least a few years. Unless there's a disaster, I can't see that being changed. So, for at least 20 years, and probably more, Harry and his wife will be needed on the front line.

Even if everything is simplified, the hundreds of charities and organisations the royals deal with now quietly dropped, and a couple of dozen of the most important put in separate Foundations for each Royal person put in place (like the Dutch and Spanish RF), with all the ceremonial stuff the British monarch and his heir have to do that will all be just too much for four people, Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate to handle, especially as the latter might very well still have a young family.

 So, sorry, but for those practical reasons alone I just can't see Harry AND his wife escaping the Royal round for the foreseeable future. And in another twenty or so years Meghan will be in her mid to late fifties. A bit late to have a return to TV roles!



Double post auto-merged: September 10, 2017, 08:45:20 AM

The Times of London is probably the most prestigious newspaper in Britain. It has high up contacts at Court. It's barely mentioned the Harry-Meghan romance so far. However, it's now printed an article in which Harry would like Meghan to not have to give up the acting she loves for full time Royal duties.

Wouldn't work for the reasons I've already stated, and certainly wouldn't do so in the new reign (I've already gone over those reasons as well.) Meghan will have enough to learn and absorb without taking on occasional acting roles as well. However, this article puts it out there. The reality when it hits will be very very different!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle drop hints of wedding | News | The Times & The Sunday Times
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 08:45:22 AM by Curryong »
 

Offline Yale

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2017, 12:26:02 PM »
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle drop hints of wedding | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

Quote
Sources close to the prince suggest he may be planning “a modern kind of royal marriage” that would allow Markle to pursue her career and charity interests beyond official royal duties.

 
What is in bold here is what caught my attention. :lol:  I have been saying all along that this was the way Harry wants it, for them to have their marriage and Meghan her career along with it!
 
Administrator Comment quote reduced for copyright reasons
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 04:50:51 PM by Jenee »
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2017, 12:47:32 PM »
^ For various reasons, that I've put down in two of my posts today, I don't think Harry's going to get his way on this one, especially in the new reign when his father will need BOTH sons AND their spouses on board.
It might work for a short time while there are a lot of royals to pick up the slack, but longterm, no, too difficult. AND they want a family. There'll be too much for Meghan to pick up and learn about BRF/Royal duties in the first years, for a start.
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Offline Yale

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2017, 08:37:10 PM »
^ For various reasons, that I've put down in two of my posts today, I don't think Harry's going to get his way on this one, especially in the new reign when his father will need BOTH sons AND their spouses on board.
It might work for a short time while there are a lot of royals to pick up the slack, but longterm, no, too difficult. AND they want a family. There'll be too much for Meghan to pick up and learn about BRF/Royal duties in the first years, for a start.

We'll see.  My bet is on Harry.  We'll find out soon enough. Many of you have this girl giving up her US citizenship and her career!  Harry does not want her giving up everything!
 


Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2017, 09:59:20 PM »
And what Harry says goes, does it, goes down the tubes, along with the support he's always given to his grandmother the Queen, the father who still pays him a generous annual allowance, and Britain itself? Just, 'My wife, in spite of the immensely privileged life she and I will lead as members of the BRF, wants to act, so stuff you all!'

In fact, in previous interviews Meghan has hinted that her acting career may well be coming to an end and she wants her charity endeavours to take first place in her life. As I posted before, I don't believe that the Queen would object to short trips to Rwanda or India to help charities. I don't even think she'd care if Meghan did some UN work.

However, British royals do not involve themselves in commercial enterprises (like acting in productions on TV/film.)  Sophie Wessex tried to work at PR in business after her marriage and it ended in absolute disaster.

Actually, I don't believe Harry's said anything of the kind that's been reported in The Times to members of his family in aides' hearing at all. The newspaper may be The Times and therefore more reliable than the Daily Fail. However, the statements you're referring to in the article are replete with 'may be' 'hopes to' 'might' etc etc.
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Offline Duch_Luver_4ever

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,580
  • Activity:
    64%
    • Favorite royal: Diana, Princess of Wales
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2017, 11:47:18 PM »
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will go to Invictus Games | Daily Mail Online

The fact that she is a divorcee also raises the spectre of Wallace Simpson, whose relationship with Edward VIII led him to abdicate, causing a constitutional crisis in 1936.

Really...its HIS potential marriage to a divorcee that raises the spectre...thats bloody rich considering his father and step-mother!!! I think other than the palaces desire to control things, the horse has left the barn in them wanting to fret and fidget over stuff like that, they have no more cards to play thanks to Charles if thats going to be the sticky wicket. As long as she really doesnt put her foot in it, or some scandal tape or something come to light, shes likely past the worst of it.

I think given her celebrity/charity work theyre more worried about a mini-Diana in their midst again.

"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Offline FanDianaFancy

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,997
  • Activity:
    20%
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2017, 12:31:58 AM »
They can do whatever they want.Yes.  BRF do whatever they want. HOWEVER, there are just a very few, small limits on them expected by their country in exchange for all their unbelievable wealth, privilege living in a world of riches and some riches surrounding them are truly priceless, really priceless works of art, palaces, and jewels. RPOs. Etc.Jobtitles. Live ordinary, then be ordinary.

Marrying Camilla, sure. Working just a little for it took the longest time, sure. Marrying MM, ok. Telling all  the dirt about each other in books and interviews...yep. Rebuilding and remodeling KP and then choosing not to make that the full time home, but on hold for later use as full time home,  yeah. Another estate was and more estates to come...fine.. Needing a year to do nothing, I mean learn before stepping into the role, ok.

Working as an actress , a court jester, an entertainer after becoming
HRH, Duchess of -----, The Princess Henry, ...ummmmmm NO,

Yes yes, changes due to time, modernized monarchy, yes. Work for pay and where one can be manipulated, have  loyalty conflict, etc as an actress or any job for pay as anHRH, ummmmmm, NO. Never.

Double post auto-merged: September 11, 2017, 12:40:07 AM

The people, their subjects , will not ever nor will Brit politicians allow that.

For the most part , BRF really does have much freedom.

If one HRH wants his wife to be a working actress, then, fine. Ok. Then, no gifted royal estates to live in. Buy yourself a nice home like Pippas . No priceless jewlels to borrow that are so priceless and selective about who wears them even members of the Brit royal family do not , are allowed that right. Bea and Eug , Zara, Louise, Sophie even will never wear borrowed tiaras of their grandmother, great grandmother, etc and attend an Official State Dinner at Buck Palace.
Yes, Sophie has some minor tiara borrowed for her wedding and for some foreign European royal wedding, but she has limits due to her position, rank.
Yes, B and E like Z, can use a minor tiara for their weddings which should also be reduced in pageantry.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:40:58 AM by FanDianaFancy »
 

Offline Yale

  • Courtier
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2017, 10:04:19 AM »
And what Harry says goes, does it, goes down the tubes, along with the support he's always given to his grandmother the Queen, the father who still pays him a generous annual allowance, and Britain itself? Just, 'My wife, in spite of the immensely privileged life she and I will lead as members of the BRF, wants to act, so stuff you all!'

In fact, in previous interviews Meghan has hinted that her acting career may well be coming to an end and she wants her charity endeavours to take first place in her life. As I posted before, I don't believe that the Queen would object to short trips to Rwanda or India to help charities. I don't even think she'd care if Meghan did some UN work.

However, British royals do not involve themselves in commercial enterprises (like acting in productions on TV/film.)  Sophie Wessex tried to work at PR in business after her marriage and it ended in absolute disaster.

Actually, I don't believe Harry's said anything of the kind that's been reported in The Times to members of his family in aides' hearing at all. The newspaper may be The Times and therefore more reliable than the Daily Fail. However, the statements you're referring to in the article are replete with 'may be' 'hopes to' 'might' etc etc.


Well, that's where you and I differ. I do believe it.  Therefore we agree to disagree.
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,577
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2017, 01:07:46 PM »
Divorce is not and has never been a constitutional barrier to royal titles. That is just a made up protocol as a sop to attitudes in the 1930s. At this stage, nobody would decline a consort on account of her divorce. It is just ridiculous. The queen of Spain is divorced. The crown princess of the UK and Norway are divorced. The objections to Meghan are to do with race, class and profession not the status of being divorced (btw I am not supporting those objections)
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Activity:
    62%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2017, 01:42:20 PM »
That is your opinion.  it doesn't follow that the RF agree. I think that Divorce is still a problem and it took a logn time  for the queen to agree to Charles divorcing or marrying a divorced woman.  It isn't quite the same for Harry as he's a second son, but it will certainly be taken into consideration, IMO in deciding whether to admit Meghan to the RF.  So will her being from a different culture and nationality, and her having a career that she will ceritnaly have to give up... all these factors can make for difficulties in a marriage and IMO the queen will wish to be reasonably sure that this relationship wil be long lasting... so she will taek them al into account.
 


Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,577
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2017, 04:44:10 PM »
If the queen was to object to Meghan on grounds of being a divorce, I would consider her to be a hypocrite. This is a woman with three of her children divorced, a senior daughter-in-law who is divorced and a sister who was divorced. Divorce is practically a family tradition now.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Activity:
    62%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2017, 05:02:38 PM »
the fact that her children have divorced does not mean that she's abandoned her own Christian and moral beliefs.  What I SAID was that I'm sure it was something that she will CONSIDER when deciding about whether to give Permission for H to marry her. There are other issues as well, and I'm sure she will taken them all on board when deciding.
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,577
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2017, 05:09:31 PM »
True... but I think that a puritanical form of monarchy looks like a joke in modern times. Divorce is no longer an acceptable grounds to deny remarriage and the monarchy knows it. The other factors (race, class and profession) are also full of moral judgements that would pretty soon show the monarchy as being hypocritical.  I think many people would be offended that a woman that works is considered to be inferior to women that have never done "real work" in their lives.

For me the pitfalls for Meghan are indiscretion. The moment she begins "opening up" is the moment her marriage prospects start to fade.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Activity:
    62%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2017, 06:19:47 PM »
i have no idea where you are getting all this from so I'm out...
 

Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,577
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2017, 07:57:04 PM »
No worries. It is not really that important.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline FanDianaFancy

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,997
  • Activity:
    20%
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2017, 10:06:49 PM »
Somebody , slap me. :hehe:

:o am agreeing with royalanthro  :eyes:

 :hi:

And yes, amabel, you have a point  about QEII  being concerned, taking into consideration....many  things, but  she is  just a grandmother who loves and  is   loved and is respected by  her grandchildren:  PW, PH, Bea, Eug, all of them.
If  MM is who  PH wants, then  QEII  will  approve. It  is a  formality  .
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 10:11:11 PM by FanDianaFancy »
 

Online amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Activity:
    62%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2017, 05:41:11 PM »
Princess Michael of Kent was married to Tom Troubridge, an English banker, in 1973. The marriage only lasted a couple of years then they separated. They were divorced in 1977, the Pope annulled the marriage in 1978, and almost immediately Prince Michael (cousin to Queen Elizabeth) then married her. He had never been wed before.

Like Harry he had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of the Troubridge marriage, and the Queen gave him permission to marry. (In those days practically everyone in line of succession to the British throne was required to formally ask permission but few that lived overseas or were connected with other royalty, and there are dozens, did so. Now it's only the first six.)

I[hrIt's
Idont believe that Marie C's first marriage was annulled before she married P Michael.  THey were divorced, but she had to wait a time to get an annulment?
And of course Harry and wife, (whoever she is) are going to have to do the royal round.
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2017, 09:15:05 PM »
Idont believe that Marie C's first marriage was annulled before she married P Michael.  THey were divorced, but she had to wait a time to get an annulment?
And of course Harry and wife, (whoever she is) are going to have to do the royal round.

Marie Christine and her first husband Tom Troubridge married in 1971. They separated in 1972, were divorced in 1977 and the marriage was formally annulled by the Pope in May 1978. She and Prince Michael were married on 30th June 1978 at a civil ceremony in Vienna.

Who is Princess Michael of Kent? – Royal Central
 

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,516
  • Activity:
    100%
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2017, 09:16:21 PM »
I think that interview Meghan did was with Harry's full cooperation. If she did not have his approval, she would have been dropped very quickly.

I think the Queen already gave her approval. Just my impression.
 
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2017, 03:40:03 AM »
There are jungle drums beating all over the Internet amid reports that the UK tabloids are expecting an engagement announcement from the Palace in less than 24 hours. The British tabloids are in a frenzy, apparently.

 I hope it's true. However the fact that the news of an announcement seems to have enamated in the first place from a Daily Fail journo gives me pause. However, if it is true it would explain the number of documentaries released about the couple, in the past few weeks especially.

Double post auto-merged: November 24, 2017, 02:35:42 PM

Later. Charlie Proctor is a reliable source. He says announcement Monday.

As a royal reporter, I can confirm we are certainly primed and ready. Once the announcement is made (likely to be Monday), you will be the first to
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 02:35:43 PM by Curryong »
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK

Offline TLLK

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,282
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Gal power!!!!!!
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2017, 08:24:52 AM »
@Curryong_ I am aware that there were those who thought an announcement might have been made today, but I believe that early next week could be a possibility.

Buckingham Palace staff summoned to an important meeting this morning ? Royal Central
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 08:31:14 AM by TLLK »
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,498
  • Activity:
    100%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Meghan Markle confirmed romance with Prince Harry for first time
« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2017, 09:02:43 AM »
I do believe and hope that the engagement of Harry and Meghan will happen before the end of the year (please, an end to the speculating and waiting!) However I think the report you've linked, which emanated from The Star, had today with housekeeping matters, the Queen staying longer at Windsor, her appearance on the religious programme 'Songs of Praise' and a few other little things. Or so I read yesterday.

I had a bit of a busy day yesterday, online for hours, as the media had got it into its head that because the BBC were primed for an announcement it must be to do with Harry and Meghan. Lots of PMs from various people talking about the possibility. Twitter and media outlets got into a frenzy but ultimately it was all a fizzer!

 

 

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites