Join the Bitchfest >>

Breaking: Prince Harry to marry Meghan - Part 2

The first thread is full, my darlings, but we've only just begun. I am impossibly fabulous but I want this to be for and about YOU. So please, tell me everything you adore about me.

--Princess Sparkle
replies 149Nov 28, 2017 6:25 PM +00:00

I don't know why people keep saying she's so attractive, she looks like Pippa Middleton. Her nose is weirdly squished looking and her eyes are too close together. I wouldn't even have known she was mixed race if she didn't say anything, she just looks like a tanned white girl.

replies 1Nov 28, 2017 6:31 PM +00:00

She's pretty. Let's stop pretending and just get that out of the way. She wouldn't be main love interest in TV series if she wasn't. She's not run-of-the-mill or just attractive, she is pretty by Hollywood standards. Maybe not the most beautiful girl ever but she's pretty much the top of the totem pole for the British Royal Family.

replies 2Nov 28, 2017 6:35 PM +00:00

The more I see of her the less pretty I think she is. She looked awful in the engagement pictures, just ragged when outdoors in natural light, and when she turns to one side her nose shape is just bizarre- but a lot like his. Like the Grinch.

Also, her eyes are really close together (just like his) and one kind of angles inward; I think it's called a "wall eye."

Someone on another site also noticed how much they looked alike and did a mashup of their faces superimposed, and it's true - they share many of the same features and proportions, and the shape of their faces are similar.

Then her legs are so incredibly thin and from behind it looks like she has calf implants. The Tumblr freaks call her SpongeBob because of the square torso and pencil legs, and it kind of fits.

I think this might implode before the wedding. The Brits on the DM are grumbling, and they're possibly the most loyal to the RF, so when they get upset I bet even the queen takes notice. Which would be too bad because it is possibly the best opportunity in years for endless snark.

--Full disclosure: I hate actresses
replies 3Nov 28, 2017 6:56 PM +00:00

She needs to STFU. She's way too chatty.

replies 4Nov 28, 2017 7:06 PM +00:00

They don't look anything alike. And he looks very happy. She's not going to be a queen or even a princess, so what's the big deal? She converting to Anglicanism, just like all the Dutch and German families who married into the British Royal family.

King John murdered his nephew, tried to overthrow his brother, raped the wives and daughters of his nobles and took great pleasure in torruring people, like the families of his former best friends,.

Henry VIII had 6 wives. He killed many of them. He and his two daughters killed 10s of thousands of people over religion.

Richard III murdered his nephews.

The list of rotten, incompetent, stupid, venal, treacherous Brotish royals goes on and on through the centuries. But the English people are pissed because someone who will never be King is marrying a divorced foreigner?

Bitches, please. Get a grip on yourselves. Your royals have been marrying foreigners since they came into existence. Eleanor of Aquitane was divorced when she married the King of England (they called it an annulment but come on. She'd been married for 15 years and gave birth to several children before she married Henry II)

--You'll Survive, you whiny little bitches
replies 5Nov 28, 2017 7:28 PM +00:00

She's not that pretty, especially for someone who's biracial. Let's be honest. There are biracial people whose looks are just extraordinary, out of this world, she's meh.

replies 6Nov 28, 2017 7:31 PM +00:00

I can't wait for Tracy Ullman to put her two pence in.

replies 7Nov 28, 2017 7:35 PM +00:00

Richard III did not murder his nephews. That is a "fake news" that the Tudors propagated to bolster their (distant) claim to the throne.

replies 8Nov 28, 2017 7:47 PM +00:00

I think she’s pretty but not stunning especially for an actress. But that’s fine. None of the royals are that good looking.

replies 9Nov 28, 2017 7:49 PM +00:00

Meghan will not be a princess because she was not born royal. Diana was not actually "Princess Diana." She was Diana, Princess of Wales. Only those born royal are allowed to have the title "Princess" before their forename such as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. But Kate Middleton, Sarah Ferguson and Sophie Sophie Rhys-Jones all have their titles after their name: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sarah, Duchess of York and Sophie, Countess of Wessex.

replies 10Nov 28, 2017 7:54 PM +00:00

The couple was just on BBC News on PBS. She is dumb. She said "boots on the ground" when referring to living in the UK. Now that she's "boots on the ground" in Britain she has a lot to learn, she said.

Hon, that's not what "boots on the ground" means.

But... He doesn't seem any brighter than she is.

replies 11Nov 28, 2017 7:59 PM +00:00

Harry is a complete moron. Like, borderline "challenged."

replies 12Nov 28, 2017 8:02 PM +00:00

Maybe she meant "boots on the ground" as in she's in the UK, she's officially engaged, she's got to get to work for the people of the UK.

And I think she's TV pretty, which is pretty much more attractive than anyone who isn't on tv. That being said, at 36, she's not going to get any more attractive.

replies 13Nov 28, 2017 8:06 PM +00:00

The members of royal family are at best very ordinary looking and at worst just plain ugly. Both Kate and Meghan are far better looking than any of that lot, let's be fair. Even if there are far more beautiful girls out there, Harry and William are still punching above their weight.

replies 14Nov 28, 2017 8:46 PM +00:00

I just saw Camilla being interviewed about it, that horse face shouldn't even be allowed out in public!

replies 15Nov 28, 2017 8:54 PM +00:00
Richard III murdered his nephews.

Conjecture. Neither proven nor globally accepted by historians.

--The Princes in the Tower
replies 16Nov 28, 2017 8:58 PM +00:00
I just saw Camilla being interviewed about it, that horse face shouldn't even be allowed out in public!

"Plain" is an overstatement of the Duchess of Cornwall. This family is not known for its beauty.

replies 17Nov 28, 2017 9:01 PM +00:00

I wonder if it's dawned on her that she'll never really ever be alone again. Or even feel like she's alone. Would you ever really believe that someone wasn't watching you or that there wasn't a member of staff around the next corner of your own house or the paparazzi hidden in a hedge outside your hotel room or that your phone wasn't taped. The idea that maybe I was never really alone, not even in my own bedroom, would be suffocating.

replies 18Nov 29, 2017 2:41 AM +00:00

I'm just here to back up R8 and R16.

Justice for Richard!

replies 19Nov 29, 2017 4:42 AM +00:00

r15 Yes, Cammie said ""America's loss is our gain" I thought, "Yeah right bitch, you and Charles are privately having a snit fit over this whole match."

replies 20Nov 29, 2017 6:50 AM +00:00

Has Phillip croaked yet???

replies 21Nov 29, 2017 9:41 AM +00:00

Wow. Meghan will be in for all the doings. Phillip's funeral, The queen's funeral. The coronation of Charles, the installation of William as Prince of Wales. So much pomp and so many dresses!

replies 22Nov 29, 2017 10:26 AM +00:00

Meghan also have to curtesy to every royal and their dog for all eternity. Apparently if Harry isn't there she needs to curtesy to all more senior royals, which would be every other royal under the sun. If Harry is there she'll still need to curtesy to the Queen, Philip, Charles and Camilla. Although apparently Camilla is less stuffy about these things and is prone to tell people she likes not to bother.

replies 23Nov 29, 2017 10:36 AM +00:00

To whom would Meghan have to curtsey? Just the Royals who precede her husband in the line of succession to the throne, right? Because otherwise that sounds like way too much bowing and bending.

--An American
replies 24Nov 29, 2017 10:39 AM +00:00

I wonder if all her phone calls will be monitored? Secretly, I mean.

After Diana and Charles had their cell phone messages snatched, there are certainly ways to do that. And, of course, anything coming out of Kensington Palace could be monitored. There is no way the RF is going to risk any unfortunate leaks.

Probably means then end of the scoops for her gossip column pal, too.

replies 25Nov 29, 2017 10:46 AM +00:00

Would she have to curtesy to baby George? Do they curtesy to children?

replies 26Nov 29, 2017 10:47 AM +00:00

R24, when Harry isn't there, she'll have to curtesy to a whole lot of royal-borns (Elizabeth, Anne, Charlotte, Beatrice, Eugenie, some of the Queen's female cousins, and then Camilla and Kate who are ahead of her in precedence). They changed this to put royal-borns up top a few years ago because Anne hated being behind Kate in royal precedence. When Harry is there then she'll be in line with him. Yes, it is all bonkers.

--not a monarchist
replies 27Nov 29, 2017 10:54 AM +00:00

So when Harry isn't around is she really expected to curtesy to a 3 year old? The indignity of it.

--Non American
replies 28Nov 29, 2017 10:57 AM +00:00

R27- I always thought they changed it because of Andrews girls. I think it was around the same time Charles started talking about streamlining the monarchy. Andrew put up a stink about his daughters getting royal apartments and them being princesses of the blood. When William is not around Kate has to curtesy to those two fuggos.

replies 29Nov 29, 2017 11:02 AM +00:00

There is a really long complicated set of rules on this called Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom. Better to look at The Wikipedia than the actual document.
replies 30Nov 29, 2017 11:03 AM +00:00
Harry is a complete moron. Like, borderline "challenged."

Yeah, she is definitely the comparatively intelligent one.

replies 31Nov 29, 2017 11:10 AM +00:00

Back in the day there was a scandal when it was alleged - by a laid-off teacher, tbf - that the teachers did most of the work to get him to pass the entrance exam at Eton and then again his two A levels that he needed to go to the military academy. One of them was art, and that's the one the teachers helped him with, she said - he painted and they did the explanatory / critical writing bit. He also barely passed geography. And never went to university. He seemed happy as one of the lads in military service. If he weren't born into the RF you could see him being one of the blokes working at the local garage and breaking at 5 for a pint at the pub with his mates.

That's not a criticism of him, exactly, more about how the inherited bloodlines thing maybe isn't the most effective strategy for picking leaders. That's assuming he even has the so-called "royal blood" given persistent rumors about his paternity. The whole British monarchy is a cobbled-together fable anyway, from minor German "royalty" that originally stole the land blah blah blah.

replies 32Nov 29, 2017 11:23 AM +00:00
That's not a criticism of him, exactly, more about how the inherited bloodlines thing maybe isn't the most effective strategy for picking leaders.

Yes, Britain decided that a LONG time ago. That is why the Royal family is a ceremonial tradition that is ultimately meaningless in the actual running of the country.

replies 33Nov 29, 2017 11:25 AM +00:00

The Royal family aren't exactly known for the intelligence or intellectual curiosity, although I'm not sure Harry is as dim everyone is making out. He might have been lazy rather than totally stupid. If you know people will carry you through school and you never have to apply for work or prove yourself in life what motivation do you have to try all that hard. At anything, ever.

replies 34Nov 29, 2017 11:39 AM +00:00
...more about how the inherited bloodlines thing maybe isn't the most effective strategy for picking leaders.

This was also true about military leaders who (in the past, anyway) were from the upper classes. One of the reasons so many of that class were killed in WWI. As the young officers, they died along with their units.

Napoleon's officers, though, were frequently promoted because of their skill, rather than their family.

replies 35Nov 29, 2017 12:33 PM +00:00

Technically Katherine Cambridge has to cursty to Beatrice and Eugenie. Now where's the justice in that?

replies 36Nov 29, 2017 3:02 PM +00:00

Only If The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William) is not present. I doubt that she would meet them socially without him? She doesn't appear to be close to either of 'The Ugly Sisters'

replies 37Nov 29, 2017 3:07 PM +00:00

Are people meant to curtsy for us?? No one ever has! Not Kate, not Meghan, not the butler, not the maid, no one. We can't even get the corgis to heal.

--Eugenie & Beatrice, miffed.
replies 38Nov 29, 2017 3:11 PM +00:00

Harry is quite a dim bulb. When the scandal about him wearing a Nazi armband as part of his "costume" for some party (later his action was explained as a "poor choice of costume") broke, it was said that he had no idea that what Nazis really were and was completely ignorant about them. I tend to believe that. He's done some REALLY dumb things. And maybe getting married to a D-list actress is one of them.

replies 39Nov 29, 2017 3:13 PM +00:00

Wasn't it a "bad taste" costume party r39, where everybody dresses in something shocking or offensive? So he must have had some idea who they were. It was meant to be a private party that the public wouldn't know anything about, but of course some other spoiled rich prat couldn't help taking a photo and selling it to the tabloids. Harry probably thought it was easier to play dumb, then to admit he deliberately wore something so offensive to fit in with his peers.

Apparently Charles was livid.

replies 40Nov 29, 2017 3:23 PM +00:00

As someone said earlier the Nazi thing isn't that unacceptable in The UK (or The US) if it is done in a humorous way (thin Allo Allo!). The Tabloids made a big deal of it.

The music video by Mel Brooks, released in 1983 as part of the soundtrack of the motion picture "To be or not to be".
replies 41Nov 29, 2017 3:32 PM +00:00
That's not a criticism of him, exactly, more about how the inherited bloodlines thing maybe isn't the most effective strategy for picking leaders.

Well, OUR strategy hasn't been working out well for us lately lol!

replies 42Nov 29, 2017 3:57 PM +00:00

Have you ever seen The former Prime Minister's David Cameron's lineage? He was more Royal than The Windsor's, suppose that's how we're in the current mess.
replies 43Nov 29, 2017 4:06 PM +00:00

They are not compatible. she is too fake and putting on an act. If that is the real her, then I would hate her, she is annoying as fuck.

He is gonna be sick of her real soon. I bet you that he's gonna be cheating with one of his former exes within a year or two. He loves blondes, he will definitely stray. He is spoiled and gets what he wants all the time and this girl isn't gonna change nothing.

replies 44Nov 29, 2017 4:55 PM +00:00

I know this is mean, but those two York sisters are just totally fucking useless. They should've taken a cue from Anne's two kids, who stay in the background, have jobs and have their own lives away from the Royal Family.

replies 45Nov 29, 2017 5:15 PM +00:00

I think she'll miss constantly tweeting and blogging about herself. But the press will do all that for her. This is probably a good thing for the royal family. The Queen and even Charles/Camilla are too old for all the official engagements they carry out. William and Kate don't seem to enjoy interacting with the public or even leaving their home; the public considers them to be lazy. Meghan will probably love getting dressed up and attending special events where she's the center of attention. She'll bring back glamour that hasn't been seen since Diana.

replies 46Nov 29, 2017 5:23 PM +00:00

"Well, OUR strategy hasn't been working out well for us lately lol!"

Re American current leadership - so sad and so true, R42. Hope we make it. And then the Brits have Brexit. Maybe we should put these relatively harmless interbred dim bulbs in charge after all. Kidding, I think?

replies 47Nov 29, 2017 5:51 PM +00:00
attending special events where she's the center of attention. She'll bring back glamour that hasn't been seen since Diana.

That all depends. Probably not.

Diana was unique. First, she was a young English girl, shy at first, but eventually, as her personality formed, becoming a confident, striking woman. From the beginning, people were drawn to her, partly because of the "fairy tale" stuff, and the big wedding, etc. But it didn't take long for people to be drawn to her because of herself and her genuine interest in people. Her aura, I suppose one might call it. Unlike the standoffish other members of the Royal Family, she was much more personal to people. Additionally, eventually, Diana had the poise and figure and taste in clothes to become a real icon. Even today, looking at photos of the dresses that were auctioned for charity, her taste and fashion sense shine.

Sparkle is not young, nor is she English, nor is she in the least bit shy. She is a mature, previously married foreigner who will be marrying a man who is held in a special affection by many in his country because of the little boy he was. It is entirely possible that she might be viewed with some suspicion as to her motives by some, but even to those who are more open to her, can she really be so clueless as to expect that she automatically will immediately attain "Diana" status??? As if.

In addition, in the circumstances we have already seen where she appears with Harry, she has not shown any particular interest in anyone BUT Harry. Nor does she project the warmth to people that radiated from Diana.

I suspect Sparkle sees herself as stepping into Diana's shoes. Not going to happen.

Diana was unique. The crowds who gathered when she made appearances were there to see HER. Not even her husband could compete.

If Sparkle thinks she will generate the same kind of interest just by showing up, she is in for a shock.

Diana earned the attention she got and she learned to make the most of it for causes that were important to her.

Sparkle has not earned any such thing, nor will it be automatically given to her.

replies 48Nov 29, 2017 6:19 PM +00:00

Diana wasn't "unique." She was very ordinary, a not very bright girl who had shallow interests like partying and pop music. And her "taste and fashion sense?" Those dresses she wore were hideous! Pure 80s excess, the most glaring example being her horrid wedding gown, a "poufy monstrosity" as one observer put it. She was never "confident"; she always felt put upon and insecure. And she sure didn't have any "genuine interest" in people. When asked why she did charity work she let out an "airhead screech" and shrieked "what else do I have to do?" Diana got attention because she was young and attractive, but as a human being she was nothing more than a very disturbed woman who had no idea what to do with her life. And of course she kept getting involved with the most awful men, which ultimately led to her premature death.

Sparkle just wants to be as popular as Diana. But that won't happen. Poor Di was such a sad case. That was pa large part of her charm.

replies 49Nov 29, 2017 7:12 PM +00:00
[R24], when Harry isn't there, she'll have to curtesy to a whole lot of royal-borns (Elizabeth, Anne, Charlotte, Beatrice, Eugenie, some of the Queen's female cousins, and then Camilla and Kate who are ahead of her in precedence). They changed this to put royal-borns up top a few years ago because Anne hated being behind Kate in royal precedence. When Harry is there then she'll be in line with him. Yes, it is all bonkers.

Sparkle ain't gonna curtsey. She'll be like "... don't let it get you down, girls, I'm only an American."

replies 50Nov 29, 2017 7:27 PM +00:00
I suspect Sparkle sees herself as stepping into Diana's shoes. Not going to happen.

Sparkle doesn't wear hand-me-downs. She could not be more different from Diana. She is about the age Diana was when she was killed, but Sparkle is overflowing with confidence whereas Diana was painfully insecure her whole life. Sparkle has already conquered and she will not be easily handled by those who would thwart her ambitions. However vague those ambitions are at the moment.

replies 51Nov 29, 2017 7:36 PM +00:00
Sparkle has already conquered and she will not be easily handled by those who would thwart her ambitions.

Since Prince Charles has been taking on more responsibility, particularly since his father bowed out, the balance of power is shifting toward Clarence House and Charles' staff.

Sparkle has conquered none of them. As for being easily handled, given his hard won experience with Diana, Charles and his team will have no trouble handling a middle aged actress from a 2nd or 3rd rate cable show.

replies 52Nov 29, 2017 8:38 PM +00:00

Oh look, its one of the deranged anti Diana loons at r49. It identifies with Camilla because it's as hideous as Camilla. The very opposite of Diana!

replies 53Nov 29, 2017 10:15 PM +00:00

^It is the 'handling' that will cause problems r52. You are right. The RF is known as "the firm" for a reason. Millions of pounds of public money are managed by it and spent by it, for the benefit of those key players born into it. These senior royals all have their own staff to run their households as departments which have been well reported to be political hotbeds of protection and promotion of vested interests. During the couple's TV interview Meghan gave the impression of being on Ellen, promoting her show, with Harry following her lead. She may be indulged initially but she too will be managed and will need to adapt. They will not risk loosing the post Diana goodwill (and continuing financial support) they have achieved. No one likes a Pushy Princess.

replies 54Nov 29, 2017 10:20 PM +00:00
To whom would Meghan have to curtsey?

Me, for a start. Oh, and the ugly sisters, too.

--Kate, Doors to Automatic
replies 55Nov 29, 2017 10:25 PM +00:00

The guy who she left for Harry is very attractive. Way hotter than the prince.
replies 56Nov 29, 2017 10:32 PM +00:00

Some of the "fonts" on LSA are upset that Sparkle has an all-white life. They've been going through her social media and claim that the only black "friend" she has is Serena Williams. Can I get a, "Hallelujah!"?

From LSA: [quote]When was the last time this chicken legged square built sway backed heiffer wore her natural curls? The 90s?

She's whitewashed and them lizards can have her! Also I thought her escort tea was spilled on here years ago when she was a nobody...that Soho House dude seems like a of those women are her pimp too.

Meanwhile, some of the anti-Markle brigade on the DM have taken to calling her "Wallis" and the chef she two-timed with Harry has posted a video of a chicken endlessly roasting. The joke apparently being that Me-Again claims that she and Harry, despite her self-proclaimed vegan-ish diet, were roasting a chicken when he proposed.

--"Wallis" -he, he, he, he ,he
replies 57Nov 29, 2017 10:33 PM +00:00

Diana has a natural charm about her, she was real and genuine. This girl isn't. She is putting on an act. really fake. I don't like her and she is too hungry for fame.

replies 58Nov 29, 2017 10:35 PM +00:00

Sorry forgot to post the LSA thread link. Let's try the quote function again. From LSA - got Crazy?

When was the last time this chicken legged square built sway backed heiffer wore her natural curls? The 90s? She's whitewashed and them lizards can have her! Also I thought her escort tea was spilled on here years ago when she was a nobody...that Soho House dude seems like a of those women are her pimp too.
replies 59Nov 29, 2017 10:35 PM +00:00

Cheagan = Cheating Vegan.

--Impure! Impure!
replies 60Nov 29, 2017 10:37 PM +00:00

I agree r49. She was a person with strong points and faults like everyone else. People who make her a saint are being unfair. No one can live up to that. She wasn't especially bright, but her emotional intelligence was through the roof so she could play the public like a fiddle, something Charles never worked out how to do. But she was really just an ordinary woman in an extraordinary situation. That's it.

replies 61Nov 29, 2017 10:59 PM +00:00

Curtsying to a minor born princess is just a little bob. Now when Anne greeted the Letizia, she did the full knee to the floor. It's perfunctory. Truly a NBD.

replies 62Nov 29, 2017 11:46 PM +00:00

Diana was the most beloved human being in the world! There will never be another Diana.

replies 63Nov 30, 2017 6:51 AM +00:00

Would this Z-list actress make the cover of Elle France on her own merits?

Prince Harry's fiance, 36, looks ethereal as she lends her good looks to the cover of the fashion magazine's December 2017 issue - but have her freckles been airbrushed?
Mail Online
replies 64Nov 30, 2017 9:29 AM +00:00

The Markle Family Tree.

Mattie Turnipseed, Meghan’s great-great-great-grandmother, grew up in or around Jonesboro, Georgia, after the American Civil War of 1861-65, which had laid waste to the area.
Mail Online
replies 65Nov 30, 2017 9:30 AM +00:00

Considering publication times, how is it that Elle France already has her on their cover, heralding their engagement?

replies 66Nov 30, 2017 9:31 AM +00:00

A sense of foreboding...the glory of Meghan Markle.

My prediction: with her overconfident swollen head, she'll want to become the new Diana or maybe win the Nobel Prize for her charitable work.

I can’t get rid of a little voice at the back of my mind whispering Meghan has come to our shores with a purpose, which is the greater glory of Meghan Markle, writes STEPHEN GLOVER.
Mail Online
replies 67Nov 30, 2017 9:33 AM +00:00

R67, that is the picture, when i saw that, i thought "wow, so fake!" she is totally acting! she has no boobs, no beauty, merely average in looks. not sure about her ass and she's not his type. he's dated blondes all his life. he's an idiot anyways if he's happy, then fine. she's just another fame whore, typical actress.

replies 68Nov 30, 2017 9:37 AM +00:00

R67 - Wave photo caption=

Hi, I'm Miss Markle and I SPARKLE. Look what I've snagged! You'll be seeing a lot of me so get used to it, bitches! See ya!

replies 69Nov 30, 2017 9:41 AM +00:00

Who the fuck would find her turned up Bob Hope nose attractive?

Plastic surgeon Stephen T. Greenberg, who is based in New York, says he has seen a spike in clients asking for Meghan's nose in the past six months - and since her engagement to Harry.
Mail Online
replies 70Nov 30, 2017 9:45 AM +00:00

If she's so confident and ambitious now, I can only imagine what she'll be like with a royal title and all of the privilege. She already thinks she's a special snowflake.

replies 71Nov 30, 2017 9:49 AM +00:00

R70, it's not her real nose. she got a nose job.

replies 72Nov 30, 2017 10:17 AM +00:00

R72 - I know. It's not even a good nose job and some women are now requesting the "Meghan Nose".

replies 73Nov 30, 2017 10:20 AM +00:00

She's an actress with only bit parts and then lands a producer to help her get bigger parts = TV show Suits. Divorces husband after only 2 years.

She starts dating a chef = creation of a food and lifestyle blog called The Tig.

She's older and realizes that the acting jobs will soon dry up so branching out in philanthropy sounds like a good career move = dump the chef and play a Prince like a violin. Voila royal engagement!

It could all be a coincidence but it looks like a pattern to me.

replies 74Nov 30, 2017 11:22 AM +00:00

Princess Anne looks perfectly deranged. First class bitch, too.
replies 75Nov 30, 2017 11:22 AM +00:00

you bitches are just haters!

--Princess Sparkle
replies 76Nov 30, 2017 6:34 PM +00:00

Hey Princess Sparkle since youre not a virgin maybe you could wear green on your wedding day so that those haters will feel envious all over again.

replies 77Nov 30, 2017 6:52 PM +00:00

I love the Princess Anne curtsey at r75.

replies 78Nov 30, 2017 8:41 PM +00:00

A longtime friend and a maid-of-honor at Meghan's first wedding has a very telling observation about Meghan in this Daily Mail article. Her friendship with Meghan turned cold after she split from her first husband.

"All I can say now is that I think Meghan was calculated — very calculated — in the way she handled people and relationships. She is very strategic in the way she cultivates circles of friends. Once she decides you’re not part of her life, she can be very cold".

"It’s this shutdown mechanism she has. There’s nothing to negotiate. She’s made her decision and that’s it."

As I suspected, she uses men for her own benefit. She said herself that she's "ambitious" and I think we should believe her. I have no doubt that Miss Sparkle wouldn't give Harry the time of day if he wasn't a Prince.

Ninaki Priddy is torn between joy and a deep bewilderment when she remembers the blissfully happy day that her best friend, Meghan Markle, married her ‘eternal love’ six years ago.
Mail Online
replies 79Dec 2, 2017 10:24 AM +00:00

Meghan Markle is just like Grace Kelly giving up her fabulous Hollywood career to marry a prince.

replies 80Dec 2, 2017 10:35 AM +00:00

yes, i can tell she is calculating, from the interview with harry and that photo op. so fake. i don't feel sorry for harry, he's an absolute idiot. she will probably grow to hate being a royal, all day just go to some bs function and shake hands, takes selfies, so fucking boring.

replies 81Dec 2, 2017 1:58 PM +00:00

She'll have children.

Make friends.

They'll have wonderful homes.

They'll travel a lot.

She'll have her causes.

She won't be EXPECTED to do as much as Kate, if she hates functions.

replies 82Dec 2, 2017 2:17 PM +00:00

Hmm, royal dish just closed their Harry and Meghan section due to accusations of racist name calling. Not that there was anything there with much substance, but it was interesting to read the salt vs sugar perspectives from the posters over the last couple of days.

I am in the salty camp. Harry is definitely no prize but his PR seemed to have done a good job rehabilitating his image over the last few years, and now he's gone and let his work be overshadowed by his girlfriend. I've been sort of following the couple since last fall's awkward "LEAVE HER ALONE" statement. The irony is hardly anyone knew her, and she had been the one putting up thirsty "clues" posts on Instagram - ie the bracelet, teapot, bananas etc. I get the same artificial, self-promoting vibe from her that many other posters do. Most celebrities and Instagram "influencers" are like that so I can't complain, but the quasi humanitarian shtick really left a bad taste in my mouth, and the opinion/essay pieces she wrote about the volunteerism and the dishwashing campaign were the final straw. Good luck to the pair, but I won't be watching as I have seen enough cringe to last me a lifetime.

Oh and: even though her former best friend sold her out, I liked seeing those old photos. Meghan looks the same now (still beautiful) but she seemed like a normal human being back then, with a normal friend network. How did she change so massively in couple of years? How does a relatively unknown cable TV actress meet the A+ list? Teach me the game of networking, Meghan!

replies 83Dec 2, 2017 2:28 PM +00:00

i think her series suits was quite popular in the UK.

replies 84Dec 2, 2017 2:40 PM +00:00

Oh look, its one of the deranged Diana fangurl loons at R53. It identifies with Diana because it's as mentally deranged and stupid as Diana. Diana and R53: both mentally ill and imbeciles.

replies 85Dec 2, 2017 3:19 PM +00:00

I'm relieved that the Daily Fail isn't being too harsh on her, and people seem to be welcoming to her. Regardless, I will divert you to the loveliness that is Andrew Chatto.

10.5k Likes, 453 Comments - Arthur Chatto (@artchatto) on Instagram: “#Chatnoleg”
replies 86Dec 2, 2017 3:50 PM +00:00

Good God! - a Royal with a Muscle Mary Instagram page! What next?

replies 87Dec 2, 2017 3:57 PM +00:00

I'm glad she's calculating, I think you need to be with the bunch of narcissists that are The British Royal Family.

replies 88Dec 2, 2017 4:09 PM +00:00

I don't blame Kate & William for being a bit lazy.

Their lives are going to change dramatically in the next 10 -20 years (if Charles lives that long?). When The Queen dies and he ceases to be Heir Apparent and becomes Prince of Wales and then King nothing will ever be the same.

Let them have a normal(ish) family life for a while.

replies 89Dec 2, 2017 4:23 PM +00:00
Meghan Markle is just like Grace Kelly giving up her fabulous Hollywood career to marry a prince.

The only thing Meghan has in common with Grace is that they're both tramps. Grace, however, was a high class courtesan compared to this Wallis Simpson wannabe.

replies 90Dec 2, 2017 5:47 PM +00:00

Meghan spent literal years planning and circling the UK rich society like a vulture.

Producing an iPhone from her handbag, she pointed to the picture of a good-looking British man on her Twitter account, and said: 'Do you know this guy, Ashley Cole? WRITES KATIE HIND.
Mail Online
replies 91Dec 2, 2017 5:59 PM +00:00

Who cares. No one was ever going to meet Harry by accident. He wasn't exactly going to meet Tracey from Wessex at the pub.

replies 92Dec 2, 2017 7:50 PM +00:00

There are theories that she used to be a kept woman of some powerful men in high positions or that she was a high class escort who probably shagged powerful rich men. I will not be surprised if harry was one of her high class hook up client, he just happen to be one of the few men that took it further.

replies 93Dec 2, 2017 9:43 PM +00:00

I hope she starts wearing pants and/or long dresses, because her legs leave a lot to be desired.

replies 94Dec 2, 2017 10:25 PM +00:00
Meghan spent literal years planning and circling the UK rich society like a vulture.

Maybe she got some tips from Waitey Katie, who made sure she enrolled in the same University as William and stalked him relentlessly. All with the help of Mother Dearest, of course.

replies 95Dec 2, 2017 10:27 PM +00:00

That chef she dumped - Cory V. - is gorgeous. I wonder if he gets invited to the wedding?

replies 96Dec 2, 2017 11:20 PM +00:00

yes, i believe she could have been a whore. many actresses esp c listers like her and models are available for sale.

replies 97Dec 2, 2017 11:44 PM +00:00

Now she's a hooker?

I don't get why you're assassinating her to such a degree.

Are you all really THAT jealous?

replies 98Dec 3, 2017 12:00 AM +00:00

R98 Maybe people see through her public image

replies 99Dec 3, 2017 12:18 AM +00:00

No, I think you Bitter Betties are just jealous, and are even going so far as to invent whole scenarios to justify it in your heads. It's not YOU that's horrible, it's her! What, she hasn't done anything particularly bad or off-putting? What about THAT expression, or her thoughts, which I can clearly read from her mind! How dare she think I'm a useless twat! That bitch!

replies 100Dec 3, 2017 12:31 AM +00:00

Chill, R100. This is DL. It's what we do.

It's interesting to speculate how Diana would have reacted to Meghan. Jumping up and down with excitement, as Harry said, or saddened because of the phoniness and the obvious social climbing.

--Bitter Betty
replies 101Dec 3, 2017 12:35 AM +00:00

Wedding Thread, OP.

A surprise to all DL readers.....Sarah, Duchess of York aka Margaret York aka Prince Harry's "Auntie" (according to the DM) is already positioning herself to get on the Royal Wedding Invite List. ...
the DataLounge
replies 102Dec 3, 2017 12:38 AM +00:00

Why has no one commented on her evil plan to wrest control of the crown from Duke Ellington and the Queen and use it for her long term hustle of taking over Western Europe and installing indoctrination schools in every town and village, all teaching the horrible chant that will raise Yog Soggoth from the depths of the abyss to reclaim his dominion o'er the earth!??!!!!

--Unhinged and Probably Racist DL Anti-Sparkle Frau
replies 103Dec 3, 2017 1:12 AM +00:00
Chill, [R100]. This is DL. It's what we do.

No 'we' don't.

'We' do not talk like this about everyone AT ALL. In fact 'we' can be incredibly PRO some people...

This is obviously the way it's always going to be RE Meghan. The Yoko Ono of Datalounge.

replies 104Dec 3, 2017 1:30 AM +00:00
Wedding Thread, OP.

Too soon for that.

They just got engaged.

One step at a time.

replies 105Dec 3, 2017 1:33 AM +00:00

Then I guess you just need to get over it, R104, because it won't stop.

replies 106Dec 3, 2017 1:38 AM +00:00
Then I guess you just need to get over it, [R104], because it won't stop.

Yes. I realise that.

replies 107Dec 3, 2017 1:41 AM +00:00

The escort theory was discussed on lipstick alley and I don't actually think it can't be possible. I don't think most people commenting are envious it is just that there is still a mystery how they met. Something just isn't right about how they started dating. The person who came up with the high class escort theory was specific about how she probably had British upperclass female madam type boss who might have hooked her up with Harry. Now it might not be female madam it might be an agent.

replies 108Dec 3, 2017 5:45 AM +00:00

R108 - both Harry and Sparkle were pretty "coy" on who introduced them. They didn't want anyone to get any ideas that either of them were in a relationship at the time and screwed around (hint: Meghan and the chef).

R79 - it will be interesting to see if she retains any of the friends she made while working in Toronto. She may keep in touch with the Mulroney and Trudeau women because they have powerful connections but I have a feeling that the rest of them are toast. They're no longer required.

replies 109Dec 3, 2017 6:32 AM +00:00

"No, I think you Bitter Betties are just jealous, and are even going so far as to invent whole scenarios to justify it in your heads. It's not YOU that's horrible, it's her! "

Oh shut UP, you blithering buffoon. Go ahead and swoon over Sparkle all you want, but not everyone is as enamored of her as you. Some people see her for what she is; you see her as a fairy tale princess. That is indeed fucked up.

replies 110Dec 3, 2017 6:46 AM +00:00

Black American women celebrate falling barriers as Meghan Markle joins royals:

Prince Harry’s engagement to the actor, from a country where women of color ‘have gone mute’ for centuries, offers hope: ‘There are no words for this joy’
the Guardian
replies 111Dec 3, 2017 8:25 AM +00:00

Harry not marrying until well after thirty plus marrying an old bag of 36 = HARRY IS 'MO!

--Erna (knows 'em when she sees 'em)
replies 112Dec 3, 2017 8:30 AM +00:00

But since Harry was not sired by the royal blood line it probably does not matter much.

replies 113Dec 3, 2017 8:32 AM +00:00

r110 see, you just invented a bunch of shit I didn't say or think. I don't think she's god's gift, but I'm not going out of my way to invent ridiculous stories and look for every flaw and pore like some of you twats. At least wait until she trips and falls or accidentally calls the Queen "mom" before you bring out the pitchforks. I think you, r110, need to get fucked, and bad.

replies 114Dec 3, 2017 8:32 AM +00:00
Meghan Markle is just like Grace Kelly giving up her fabulous Hollywood career to marry a prince.

OK. This comment gives me a chance to ask a question I've been wanting to ask.

Prior to becoming attached to Harry, was Sparkle famous? On her own, famous? Unable to walk the street without crowds gathering famous? I mean really, really famous? Was her career all that? Were motion pictures pounding at her door famous? Or was she a "Aren't you so and so on the TV show, um, what is it called, I'll remember in a moment" famous?

Grace Kelly certainly was famous. She was big time famous. Oscar winning famous. Hitchcock directed famous. Worked with the top male stars (Gary Cooper, Ray Milland, Cary Grant, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, etc. etc.) famous. Cover of Life Magazine famous - and THAT WAS WORLD FAMOUS.

I never heard of Sparkle before the "Stop bothering my girlfriend" comments and then the "We're in Love" Vanity Fair article. Those both struck me as self promotion.

And I never even heard of "Suits" before. Was she the star of that show? Was hers the main character? Were fans demanding more and more Sparkle?

An actress who has not hit the really, really big time by her age is not going to make it that big. She is just too old.

So, did I miss a tidal wave of pre-Harry Sparkle fame?

Or are these claims to fame I keep reading about all BS?

Some of these UK newspaper stories seem to be wildly inflating her accomplishments (and importance).

replies 115Dec 3, 2017 9:12 AM +00:00

r115 and vice versa. Just because you weren't aware of a television show doesn't mean others (and in other countries) weren't. She wasn't particularly famous aside from Suits, but she was a working actress - one of the main characters (and the romantic female lead) - in a long-running (7 seasons so far) TV show that had strong ratings, and she was there since the beginning of the series. She'd hit it big, for TV. The only step up from there would be headlining her own show. She's been in Suits since she was in her late 20's. She's pretty and has a great body, but she's not a typical cover model. She has an interesting genetic background and it gives her a different look than a lot of what's out there.

She's definitely more famous now because of marrying Harry than she would have been otherwise, though. Is that what's troubling you? I'm failing to see the issue here. Was she required to be an A-list Hollywood actress before she would be acceptable to marry Harry?

I'm no raving Suits fan, or raving Meghan Markle fan - I watched the first three seasons before I got bored with it - but she's a major part of it, or was, and was well known for that. And she's done other things as well, which I'm sure you know about. She wasn't going to win any Academy awards for her acting, but she is a decent actress and she seems pleasant enough.

Not sure why you seem so suspicious of her. Do I think she has an agenda? Of course, who doesn't have plans? Does that make her some sort of golddigger who will undermine the British Monarchy while bringing back wooden clogs and nude breakdancing? I hardly think so.

I think the UK press is just excited to have something fresh and new to write about other than Brexit or how lazy Kate and Wills are. And Harry's always been the "fun" prince, so there's that. I am sure that if something sordid turns up in her past that they will be all over that, too, and judging by the bitchy/grumpy/curmudgeonly comments on the Mail Online and here there's a sizable portion of people who hate her already just for existing and being perky.

replies 116Dec 3, 2017 9:28 AM +00:00

No, she wasn't well known. 99% of Americans had never heard of her before Harry. She wasn't even C-list level, promoted on Just Jared levels of fame. She was like a notch above a daytime soap actress.

replies 117Dec 3, 2017 9:32 AM +00:00

R117 since you didn't even know about the show, how do you know 99.9% of Americans didn't know? Maybe you're just ignorant.

Regardless, who the fuck cares? She wasn't an A-List actress. She was a reliable main character on a long-running series. So?

replies 118Dec 3, 2017 9:36 AM +00:00

Comparing this very average and well used old bag to Grace Kelly in 1956 is like comparing a gold purse to a sow's ear!

replies 119Dec 3, 2017 9:38 AM +00:00

R118, you seem to be taking Sparkle VERY VERY seriously. She was a no-name actress on a basic cable show almost nobody had ever heard. Those are the facts. Sorry that seems to be bothering you so.

replies 120Dec 3, 2017 9:41 AM +00:00

R115 Nailed It. Never. Ever. Heard. of. Meghan. Markle. Lived in Ottawa, Canada a few years, traveled the world literally, lived overseas 10 years, on Social Media, 2 University degrees, Use Internet for Work - Never. Heard. Of. Markle. Until Harry arrived on the scene.

So, MM was/is basically unknown. Even today.

replies 121Dec 3, 2017 9:41 AM +00:00

So what you're saying, Canadian, is that you never heard of her? Just wanted to clarify.

Again, who cares?

replies 122Dec 3, 2017 9:43 AM +00:00

r120 it's interesting that you seem so invested in saying no one's ever heard of her, and yes obviously by comparison I am invested in saying you're full of shit. Regardless. They've heard of her now, haven't they?

replies 123Dec 3, 2017 9:51 AM +00:00
Again, who cares?

When people compare Sparkle to World Famous (before her marriage) Grace Kelly - it is completely fair to ask if those comparisons have any validity.

When newspapers write that she is a very famous actress and giving up a big career in the US and/or Canada - it is completely fair to question those comments to determine if there is any truth there.

When an actress is very famous, even those who have not seen her work know who she is. Because the fame itself feeds on itself.

Cable TV shows by their nature have a much smaller audience than TV shows did back when the US had 3 major networks and no cable. At that time, stars of a show could achieve big fame by appearing weekly (for 23 - 26 weekly shows). The audience numbers of any cable shows are significantly lower than that.

So if Sparkle has only become this famous AFTER the "Leave my girlfriend alone" comments, that means her "big fame" is due to her association with Harry.

I know the names of many, many supporting actors and freely acknowledge that many people might find them vaguely familiar without knowing who they are. That is not the kind of big fame that I am seeing attributed to Sparkle from the UK newspaper articles.

replies 124Dec 3, 2017 9:57 AM +00:00

I’m an American and the first I’d heard of her was the engagement. I don’t watch most tv shows.

But that doesn’t matter, and I’m not going to pretend it does. She’s from a mixed race family who were of very modest means, she’s a celebrity in her own right (and not just for being an upwardly-mobile striver like Kate), she does humanitarian work and she’s exquisite (feel free to pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better).

Whether she’s good enough for them is not the operative question here, lol.

replies 125Dec 3, 2017 9:58 AM +00:00

R123, you have many posters, the majority here, saying Markle was a no-name actress, and yet you come off as the fucking hall monitor, screaming that she 'hit it big in TV." The facts aren't on your side.

replies 126Dec 3, 2017 9:59 AM +00:00

Her fame is due to her association with Harry. It is not like she was was on an Emmy winning or nominated show. Anyone that says other wise is a frau. I am familiar with c list actresses and I have never heard of her until she was discussed in the tabloid about been harry girlfriend.

replies 127Dec 3, 2017 10:56 AM +00:00
and she’s exquisite

That’s a funny way to spell “equine”.

replies 128Dec 3, 2017 11:01 AM +00:00

The person comparing her to Grace Kelly was clearly a troll. Clearly they succeeded in causing trouble.

replies 129Dec 3, 2017 11:07 AM +00:00

Many on DL commented that they thought Miss Sparkle's fashion choices reminded them of the late Carolyn Bessette Kennedy. Yep, you guys were spot on.

Meghan, 36, chose a camel skirt and black polo top for her first official engagement with Prince Harry in Nottingham. The ensemble is strikingly similar to one worn by Carolyn Bessette.
Mail Online
replies 130Dec 5, 2017 6:30 AM +00:00

That's amazing when you see those photos. She is channelling Carolyn Bessette. Which I don't see as a good thing. That wedding dress did nothing for her. Could have been a nightgown. Just blech. I like simplicity but it can go too far. A little style, a little warmth, would be nice.

replies 131Dec 5, 2017 7:18 AM +00:00

Carolyn knew how to do streamed down, classic minimalism. Sparkle's beige skirt looked bulky and ill fitting and the boots were a slouchy mess.

Bessette was the perfect convergence of Calvin Klein and NYC simplicity. I don't see that working for royal duties or London. Sparkle seems too fussy and sorority girl fake enthusiasm. And the ripped jeans will be a no-go from now on.

replies 132Dec 5, 2017 7:30 AM +00:00

Never heard of MM, until the Harry thing.

The pro-Markle big push/hype for her in the press is fairly obvious - lots of people fall for it, that's why it's done.

It feels so fake to me. Something just ain't right. It doesn't pass the smell test.

--pushy, loudmouth, stripping masseuse
replies 133Dec 5, 2017 7:47 AM +00:00

R133 - the British press are notorious for praising an individual to the sky in the beginning because they REVEL in knocking them off their pedestals later. You'll see.

replies 134Dec 5, 2017 8:34 AM +00:00

Exactly, what I was as going to say r134

replies 135Dec 5, 2017 9:18 AM +00:00


To top that all off Diana was also the Princess of Wales, a future queen. Even when that part was gone after the divorce, she was still the mother of a future king.

A very specific combination of factors.

replies 136Dec 5, 2017 1:42 PM +00:00

Who said Sparkle thinks she can rival Diana? The gossip rags? Surely Harry has told her how it works.

replies 137Dec 5, 2017 2:10 PM +00:00

WTF is all this curtsy shit? So if Katie Cambridge decides she'll accept an invite to lunch with Princess Beatrice the Raccoon and Eugenie the Fat Sad Girl, and William isn't there, she has to curtsy? Sheee-it. What if she refuses. What if she simply blows it off. WTF can they do to her? Really. Stamp their feet and scream for their Daddy Andrew the Pedo to make Katie curtsy? I mean. This is so much bullshit. I can see people being decorous in the behavior and observe etiquette for the Queen & Prince Philip. Even for Charles. But the rest of them are ridiculous.

replies 138Dec 5, 2017 3:59 PM +00:00

Don't get your pantaloons in a bunch r138, it'll be a cold day in hell before I go to lunch with those two. What if someone sees us?? Ew. No.

--Future Queen Kate
replies 139Dec 5, 2017 4:03 PM +00:00

Back to school for Sparkle - First Lesson: Curtsey Etiquette 101.

A way to confuse the shit out of anyone.

For women, the whole dip-and-bob business is a social minefield: To whom do they curtsey and from whom should they expect a curtsey? When should they do it? How often?
Mail Online
replies 140Dec 7, 2017 6:56 AM +00:00

Fuck, that's all we need...another complainer in the Royal Family.

Sparkles sounds dim as a bulb. She didn't know how difficult show biz was for a woman after living in California all her life and hanging around the sets of TV shows her father was working on? WTF? Doesn't she fucking read?

These younger royals need to take some advice from the Queen: DON'T EXPLAIN and DON'T COMPLAIN. Keep calm and carry on.

Prince Harry's fiancee was born in Los Angeles and had been trying to crack her way into professional acting from her mid-teens, but did not start getting regular TV work for nearly a decade.
Mail Online
replies 141Dec 7, 2017 7:04 AM +00:00
he's an idiot anyways

Someone who says "anyways" is calling another person an idiot? That's rich.

replies 142Dec 7, 2017 7:44 AM +00:00

Ginger couldn't stand to be away from Nutmeg Sparkle when they lived in different cities but now that they're engaged he's off on a private jet to kill some wild boar.

Prince Harry jetted into the country on a private jet, making his way to Berlin's Schoenefeld Airport before driving to sleepy Görlsdorf in the state of Brandenburg.
Mail Online
replies 143Dec 10, 2017 10:28 AM +00:00

While Harry is way, I'd bet Meghan is getting schooled.

replies 144Dec 10, 2017 10:43 AM +00:00

I don't believe this story in the Daily Fail. Meghan supposedly smokes too.

Officially, smoking is outlawed at Nottingham Cottage but Harry tended to relax the rules when a dinner party was in full swing.
Mail Online
replies 145Dec 10, 2017 10:51 AM +00:00

When Harry is away, Meghan retreats to USA or Canada. She's too clever to get hemmed in by the Royal Sows.

replies 146Dec 10, 2017 11:06 AM +00:00

I also think she was a hooker. actresses and models esp low level ones are all available for hire. but they are more expensive, at least 2k-5k a night. but trust me, actresses are definitely available for hire for sex.

they met via mutual friend ....hmmm...ok!

replies 147Dec 10, 2017 12:38 PM +00:00

I gotta hand it to Meghan. That's some genius-level social-climbing, especially considering she's past her prime and not even all that attractive by LA standards.

I feel the same way about Armie Hammer's wife, another LA MAW (model/actress/whatever) who married way out of her league.

replies 148Dec 10, 2017 1:09 PM +00:00
WTF is all this curtsy shit? So if Katie Cambridge decides she'll accept an invite to lunch with Princess Beatrice the Raccoon and Eugenie the Fat Sad Girl, and William isn't there, she has to curtsy? Sheee-it.

If they go to lunch, I'm sure there is no curtsying. It's only for the cameras and protocol at formal affairs. Kate is a duchess by marriage. Beatrice and Eugenie are blood princesses. Big difference in the curtsying hierarchy.

replies 149Dec 10, 2017 2:46 PM +00:00