Yes, it’s another Meghan thread... AIBU to think that it’s really disappointing that she left her dog behind?

[MaryPoppinsPenguins]

I’m not a royalist.. or otherwise! Was mildly interested in the news and always happy for a bank holiday (which we probably aren’t getting anyway )

But I have followed her for a little bit recently on social media and she seemed to really love her dogs which I always find a lovely trait in a person

So one dog is here, and one dog ‘is with friends’ and was apparently refused access to the uk / was too old to transport... surely when a dog is old is when he needs his owner the most? I’ve lived through that devastating time of losing a dog and they really find comfort in being with their owners. (I think)

They are rescues which she seems to advocate and I think this really sends the wrong message that they are a bit disposable. She is marrying into arguably the most powerful family in the world and she can’t get her dog here?!

I’m sure people will disagree. But just reading that and looking at my 10 year old dog sleeping on my feet, I could never leave him behind.

This is a Weird thread.

If the question is as simple as you put it - then I think the answer is just as simple.

She loves them both - but clearly loves Harry more!

“He’s Prince Harry, not Harry Potter.”

😂😂😂😂😂

I couldn't leave my pets ever, but different people different choices.

Presumably she has someone who looks after her dogs while she works and travels? And she is going to be hardly static for the next 6 months?

Under her circumstances, I would have left my dog with the life she knew-because that would have been better for the dog

Under her circumstances, I would have left my dog with the life she knew-because that would have been better for the dog

But not without its Beagle friend.

For once I agree with you, Bert , that it's better for the dog

Some posters have said that the dog was refused permission to enter UK. This is only done on health grounds - insufficient rabies prophylaxis, or carrier refusal because of adverse vet assessment.

"Given they are both well off, then the dog doesn't have to fly...he can come by sea, on the QM2"

Can they though? Wouldn't the crossing take too long ie vet certificate expire before arrival.

Though I suppose treating a vet to a cruise so they can recertify within the permitted time-frame is possible. But I think they might be criticised for extravagance if they did that.

What a nasty thread MM is undoubtedly very upset at having to leave her elderly dog. She is clearly a devoted and loving dog owner and this cannot have been easy. The dog CANNOT come so has been left with friends who care for it for large portions of time anyway. Hardly cruel on her part. As for making up shit about the Royal family's power and cottage sizes you deluded dufus you've actually made me laugh out loud.

Reading most posts on this thread explains why there are so many dogs in rescue centres across the country. Dogs are obviously some kind of disposable item!!

If you choose to have a dog then it should be for life (like the famous slogan says). They are not just until you fall in love, have a baby, move house, decide you don't want the hassle anymore etc etc.

Change "dog" to she has left one of her children in the USA and you'd all be up in arms.

I think the way people treat their pets says an awful lot about the kind of person they really are. The more I see and read the more I don't like most people.

"Reading most posts on this thread explains why there are so many dogs in rescue centres across the country. Dogs are obviously some kind of disposable item!!"

Yeah, because leaving a dog with someone who has been looking after it for years is exactly the same as dumping it at a rescue. So much better to subject it to the trauma of uprooting it from everything familiar, a long journey then starting a new life in completely alien surroundings. That is the behaviour of a true dog lover......

Pathetic & I don’t mean MM!

Change "dog" to she has left one of her children in the USA and you'd all be up in arms.

Aye, aye, you're one of those that would pull your dog out of a house fire before the kids. You're the best dog lover and deserve all the dogs.

And if she had a child who had a settled home with it's father or grandmother in the States then there would be an argument for it staying there. A very strong argument.

It is disappointing.

They could have waited for the dog to die.

Yes I would be up in arms if she had left one if her children.
But she hasnt, she has left a dog.
Only a dog, with people it knows who will no doubt take very good care of it.

People who say it's only a dog are so wrong.

A dog is part of the family.

I don’t know anything about her dogs, is it possible that the one left behind is a banned breed in the UK?

It’s a tough choice but if the dog is being well looked after by people she trusts I really don’t understand the problem.

Perhaps it failed the rabies blood test.

I have imported pets from the US. Not straightforward and not to be assumed that all will be well.

I don’t give a fig about the RF, MM or anyone else in it but importing pets from a country with rabies is not easy.

I was just shocked to see that the person who massively pushed foreword her dog living image, has left one of her dogs behind. It’s a fair question, despite the hysteria.

Shocked? If you are that easily shocked please don't ever read a newspaper or watch the news. You may be traumatised for life.

Such a non-issue.

Yeah, sorry, but Prince Harry would have been told to wait while I stayed with my dog.

What Bertrand said, all day long.

She chose stability and familiarity for her dog. Because of her profession, which involves working away a lot, her dog would already have been very comfortable being looked after by familiar friends. I'm sure MM has given this an incredible amount of thought before making such a difficult decision.

Oh my GOD! Some people love to come on these threads to proclaim to the world what an amazing and selfless dog lover they are while inadvertently revealing they don't understand responsible pet ownership at all.

'A dog is for life' means you are responsible for that dog's wellbeing and happiness for its life. Sometimes a difficult decision comes up and the best thing FOR THE DOG is to responsibly rehome it with a safe, caring and happy owner where you can be certain it will be well looked after and settled. Blind sentimentality does not make you a good pet owner. Being able to make fair, rational and well considered choices does.

And she hasn't abandoned her charity work anymore than 'abandoning' her dog. She will be in a position to do a great deal more for charity now!

This thread comes from a very unkind place. And I don't even like the royal family or dogs!

OP, you're really lucky you have never had to face a choice between your dog or your grandchild who is allergic to dogs, as a neighbour of mine did. The alternative for the child was going into the foster system.

It's not fair to hold against this woman something she wrote many years before she was faced with the intractable dilemma she has run into.

I agree completely CaptainBrickbeard.

Agree with CaptainBrickbeard, BertrandR, et al,