To have lost interest in the royal wedding because...

[malificent7]

If the council in Windsor wanting to clear homeless out ?

I mean why don't the royal couple open a shelter instead given they are 'humanitarian' ?

Balloon personally, in my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for an independent woman in her mid-30s to adjust to that life. Diana was told just after she got married that she’d know exactly what she was doing every day three years in advance. She’s going to have comparatively a lot less money than her husband, and she’s going to be hugely constrained with what she can or can’t do, say or wear. Plus the whole staff side of things is incredibly weird, they’re rarely alone and frequently the staff are telling them what to do rather than the other way around. Plus so much of it is based on deference and order and MM will be expected to kowtow to people she doesn’t respect much or even like just ‘because’. A lot of people have described the atmosphere as ‘toxic’. I think she’ll hate it.

Incidentally, a lot of people saw right through Diana and Charles for the car crash they were right from the beginning with his ‘whatever love is’ quote. There were even ‘don’t do it Di’ badges. But of course they were called meanies by they were absolutely right.

Biscuitraider, I completely agree, the whole thing is just crazy. So unjust and just wrong on so many levels. I find myself very interested on the societal side of it and why the hell this mad family still exist.

It's been reported there's no pre nup so I'd doubt they'd make her sign a confidentiality agreement.

I really couldn't care less what happens, I would never wish any couple to fail but looking at it very logically I don't see it lasting. Love alone won't be enough, who knows if that's there or not but her giving up so much, that alone would trouble me. The timeline also and I know marriages work with all sorts of timelines but this is not a simple marriage, not with all that's attached here.

Unless there's a very real smear campaign and that may well be the case, there's something off about this woman.

Saying that with journalism as it is these days, what's the truth? Then you've the palace pr machine. Someone up thread mentioned the daily mail crowd, not being smart but what are they reflective of? I'm genuinely interested to know the real view on the monarchy, what media outlet would give you that?

It'll probably be a disaster for a number of reasons. They haven't known each other very long. Harry is a mixed up kid looking for a mother figure. Meghan won't like the restrictions of royal life as others haven't before her. Meghan's first marriage lasted five minutes. No staying power IMHO. Meghan is not a Kate or a Sophie. They're the ones who've stayed the course so far. I can't see it lasting.

Meghan is not a Kate or a Sophie
I know nothing of Meghan and never seen her TV programme. However as a woman who has earned her own wealth I hope she is the first to recognise inside that Royal menagerie that it’s an unjust expensive pantomime of fools.
Wouldn’t it be great if she wanted to work in proper job, pay market value on the properties she lives in and ultimately joins the call for us to be a Republic at last 😃.

I think a 36 year old marrying for the second time has probably learnt from the first marriage.

And Kate and William knew each other too long before they got married. It nearly didn't happen.

Pre-nups and confidentially agreements are separate things. There can be a confidentiality agreement without a pre-nup. Even if there isn’t one, one can be created at the time of divorce (like Cheryl whatever her name is this week and the Fernandez-Versini chap.

Some people here just come across as jealous tbh. It's the Royal family. ..off course everything is a big fuss with them.

Some people are already camping outside the hospital waiting for Kate to have the baby. Madness I say ...but hey it's a monarchy. That's what happens

celtic, the more marriages you have behind you the more likely you are to divorce again compared to your own age group. Plus if your parents are divorced, you’re more likely you are to divorce. So just speaking entirely statistically and removing any personal opinions, it’s far, far more likely they will divorce than go the difference.

I think a 36 year old marrying for the second time has probably learnt from the first marriage.

I don’t think it works like that. The divorce rate for second marriages is higher than for first marriages.

I wonder if the Royals have confidentiality agreements these days?

Their staff most certainly do, but I don't think they ask those marrying into the family to sign one ... at least, not yet

And can you get US citizenship back if you renounce it?

I'm told it's very, very difficult. Possible in theory, perhaps, (especially if you're loaded), but otherwise there seems to be a view that "you've thrown a winning card back in our faces so don't moan if you regret it later"

And many thanks, BTW, for mentioning those who felt Charles and Diana's marriage would also be a disaster; as it happens I was one of them and I got absolutely pasted for it

The argument is quite straight forward. Royalists love to spout off about the tourism thing. Until we get proof that having a royal family encourages tourists to come here i refuse to believe it

The ONS stats not enough proof?

puzzled, so was my Mum! She was pasted for it too. I was quite small and remember being very cross with her because I believed in the fairytale.

She picked up on the whole ‘whatever love means’ thing and she also thought in the atmosphere of the 80s it was odd for a man in his mid-30s who was a real fuddy duddy to be marrying a girl barely out of her teens who’d never even had a boyfriend.

Of course nobody wishes a divorce on anyone, but if you look at these things objectively, sometimes you do have to recognise that some couples are going to have an uphill struggle to work it out.

Oh, and she also thought the woman who was seen visiting Charles on the Royal Train wasn’t Diana, and she was right too. It was Camilla.

I would love to know what I'm doing every day for.next 3 years! BUT I'm odd.

She picked up on the whole ‘whatever love means’

I don't blame her; among much else, I considered it one of the most chilling things a (supposedly happy) groom to be could have said

What's often forgotten is that the Windsors have very skilled PR staff / spinners at their beck and call, allied to a drive for self-preservation which wouldn't have been out of place in Henry VIII's time ... all of it useful to remember when we're being fed whatever the latest story happens to be

There is something about MM which just doesn’t sit right and I don’t like the way she is behaving as if the general public should feel blessed to be touched my her - shesnot the second bloody coming and it’s all very “unbritish”. The Americans will take her back in a heartbeat if the Royals no longer want her.

I want Harry to be happy though, still remember the “Mummy” flowers

Time will tell.

I too dislike that gushing and faux sincere behaviour. She is acting the little ole me role for all she’s worth. It’s cringeworthy.

I will hold my hands up and say that I was not keen on the way Kate M was so quiet and stayed back from a "role" when she married William,
Ok, I was a right cow and criticised that.
I could not have been more wrong.
I actually now think she did everything right having been watching Meghan.
IMO these ladies are marrying someone, not accepting a role/job offer.
Yes, sure I know it does come as part of the package but the first and foremost part of this is that these ladies have met someone they have fallen in love with and are marrying (or in Kate's case, has married).

What disturbs me is that , on the occasions I have seen Meghan, it is all about "what my role will be" "what I will be taking on" "what I can do to save the world".

Yeah, yeah, I realise some will love that and think what a great gal she is for wanting to do something with the ...er well here it is again...role but hang on luv, you are getting married, not being voted into office.

So far I don't mind her although I'm not a royalist.

I was watching a programme about them yesterday as I was in a hotel for work and I did think that Diana was someone really "special " (hate that word but hopefully ykwim) and the royals were lucky to have her . They can't just replicate that with whoever the young royals decide to marry.

I'd love to know exactly what it is about Meghan that makes people on her psychoanalyse her so much. She's fake/faux sincere/ad nauseum.

Would people be spouting this level of bullshit if she were a dainty little English Rose (vom) who didn't have the sheer temerity to have her own opinions on things?

cleofatra

Yes. Her “role” will be Harry’s wife.

My point exactly.

She’ll be busy popping out a kid pretty soon anyway then her future will really be secured.

Would people be spouting this level of bullshit if she were a dainty little English Rose (vom) who didn't have the sheer temerity to have her own opinions on things?

This just shows a total misunderstanding of what a constitutional monarchy is. The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that they don’t (publicly) have opinions on much and they don’t try and influence politics.

Just because you approve of her opinions doesn’t mean she has a right to express them or try and exercise influence in politics. If she does she would be sailing extremely close to the wind and it could potentially bring down the monarchy.

Charles has got into trouble with this in recent years with his ‘black spider’ letters to government ministers which the Guardian took him to court to release. It’s not done him any good and may cause him problems if he is ever King. But if he can only just get away with it then MM certainly won’t.

As someone above said, she’s getting married. She’s not presented a manifesto or been elected so her opinions don’t matter as she has no democratic mandate to reshape the world or the country. Politicians have that. The entire point of a constitutional monarchy is that it has no opinions, it has no politics. Any member of the RF going against that risks collapsing the entire institution.

There’s bloody good reasons for that, anything else would be a threat to democracy.

Would people be spouting this level of bullshit if she were a dainty little English Rose (vom) who didn't have the sheer temerity to have her own opinions on things?
Most definitely, if she was annoying and fake.