What? They gave Harry the wrong title, too. Are you saying he divorced himself?
by Anonymous | reply 1 | January 21, 2020 3:44 PM |
Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.
Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.
Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.
Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.
What? They gave Harry the wrong title, too. Are you saying he divorced himself?
by Anonymous | reply 1 | January 21, 2020 3:44 PM |
The solution was explained 20 years ago. If there is no HRH involved and the person is divorced, then the title is: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. If there is no HRH involved and the person is not divorced, then the title is: Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.
These types of titles were made known with Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York, both of whom were divorced. “The” was dropped. If Andrew had remarried, his new wife would be: Jane, The Duchess of York, while Sarah would be Sarah, Duchess of York. “The” being removed.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | January 21, 2020 4:09 PM |
OP, we can only hope.
by Anonymous | reply 3 | January 21, 2020 4:12 PM |
Amazing how you idiots just love your right-wing sources. The overwhelming majority of your sources are scummy, bottom-feeding rags. It suits you guys.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | January 21, 2020 4:17 PM |
^^I beg your pardon. I am a royal expert, not a scummy bottom-feeder reader.
by Anonymous | reply 5 | January 21, 2020 6:05 PM |
THE Duchess of Sussex or simply Duchess of Sussex, either is a better title to have than "That Bitch Who Works The Make-Up Counter at Macy's".
by Anonymous | reply 6 | January 21, 2020 6:23 PM |
The Tell-Tale Comma
by Anonymous | reply 7 | January 21, 2020 6:27 PM |
Meghan, Some Duchess of Sussex or Other.
by Anonymous | reply 8 | January 21, 2020 6:29 PM |
How about: The Temporary Duchess
by Anonymous | reply 9 | January 21, 2020 6:32 PM |
Laugh all you want. Meghan just made a strategic move that will earn her billions and open up the opportunity for a future presidential run. You don't think she was just asking Oprah for hair advice now, do you?
by Anonymous | reply 10 | January 21, 2020 8:58 PM |
The Duchess For Now
by Anonymous | reply 11 | January 22, 2020 9:22 AM |
“Just call me Archie’s mom!” - for a zillion Frau points
by Anonymous | reply 12 | January 22, 2020 9:36 AM |
^Awww!!!!!!
by Anonymous | reply 13 | January 22, 2020 9:38 AM |
Archie is her ace in the whole. Can you imagine the salivating fools on here, who will be swooning over him if he grows up to be even half as attractive as his father?
by Anonymous | reply 14 | January 22, 2020 3:36 PM |
OP, you are divorced from reality.
by Anonymous | reply 15 | January 22, 2020 3:53 PM |
Her latest Instagram post (made on a day that Kate had a scheduled event) features two-week-old pictures. And she uses the Sussex title several times. It's funny. She never used her first husband's name. So why is she using her second husband's name?
by Anonymous | reply 16 | January 22, 2020 4:29 PM |
If she runs for president, I'm moving to Saudia Arabia to live a life of liberation freedom.
by Anonymous | reply 17 | January 22, 2020 4:38 PM |
*liberation and freedom.
by Anonymous | reply 18 | January 22, 2020 4:38 PM |
[quote] Meghan just made a strategic move that will earn her billions
BWAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HA HA HAHA HAHAHAHA!!!
by Anonymous | reply 19 | January 22, 2020 4:40 PM |
Cathy, your man has a side-chick.
BWAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HA HA HAHA HAHAHAHA!!!
by Anonymous | reply 20 | January 22, 2020 11:00 PM |
R14, considering he is such a nondescript cross-eyed baby with ginger hair, that seems highly unlikely.
by Anonymous | reply 21 | January 23, 2020 8:08 AM |
R21, I'm going to bookmark your comment for future reference.
by Anonymous | reply 22 | January 23, 2020 3:10 PM |
Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.
Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!