Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[Osipi]

Eloquent and tasteful way to explain this m'dear.

[AmberG]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

You're suggesting, that she organized a meeting with Piers, and sneakily threw in the little snippet of her being single, because she knew she'd be dating Harry, they'd hit it off, and Piers would write an article about it?! Just so no one (or some Harry fans on the internet) would question when her relationship with her ex ended? I'd say this is definition of reaching.

If she is with him since May, than maybe, why not? All is possible, after all, both of them are from the environment where playing little games is quite normal... especially in acting world...

Why suddenly nobody can presume anything regarding her and poor Kate had the worst treatment ever? Because she is close with her family than her mum is a serial plotter and sister social climber... in that case, Meghan is also social climber ...

No shrinking violet can succeed in royal world... Let's be realistic...

[wyevale]

There is a not uncommon phrase in English parlance that [I think] explains many peoples attitude to Ms Markle, in Britain, and elsewhere. " She is not quite PLU" [People Like Us].

Meaning NOT that we are somehow better, but that her ways, and attitudes are not ours..

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Dman

It means meeting for some bedroom exercise. Which is silly for anyone to apply to this couple and forum.

It's usually a term meant as a way other women downgrade another woman in a sex negative way. Meaning her worth to Prince Harry is not as a full person but a sexual plaything. Again judging by the response from the women in England, why would he spend time and money with someone from North America?

Save

[Rudolph]

Go back and look at some of the comments about Cressida and Harry. People here referred to them as 'friends with benefits' so please spare me the faux outrage over booty call.

We just don't know anything about Harry's relationship with Meghan. We can pretend we know or we can be selective in which tabloid stories we believe and the ones we don't (its all gossip)

So whether they get married or breakup, we'll have to wait and see but all opinions are equally valid especially since we're just guessing anyway.

[Osipi]

One thing we do know is that Meghan has probably passed by now the test of the circle of trust that surround both W&K and Harry. Its been said that they have, at times, given new friends misleading information as a test to see if they "talked" or not. If that information was leaked, they knew what the source was. Since she's been with Harry, Meghan and those she deems to be close to her are as closed lipped as hermetically sealed jars.

Playing mind games and using people can be found in any walk of life anywhere. Its not something that is exclusive to a certain class of people. So far, from all I've seen, there's no indication anywhere that Meghan is anything but a woman of good character, has made a good life for herself, gives back to others through charity work and is well deserving of Harry's interest in her.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

IMO it makes sense to have been causally meeting up socially, then casually dating first, before any announcements as to girlfriend/boyfriend status. To invite in intense media scrutiny when one is only-just flirting and checking the other person out makes no sense. My bet is they have known each other far longer than we (the public) will ever really know, except perhaps in some distant future, but that's my speculation.

And if in the course of events while dating one finds one's eye caught by someone else, it is perfectly okay to change partners. That's the game. Before marriage. I would hope. No scandal.

I agree with this, I know alot of overlap couples who are now happily married and with children. Sometimes messy happens.

Save

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Go back and look at some of the comments about Cressida and Harry. People here referred to them as 'friends with benefits' so please spare me the faux outrage over booty call.

We just don't know anything about Harry's relationship with Meghan. We can pretend we know or we can be selective in which tabloid stories we believe and the ones we don't (its all gossip)

So whether they get married or breakup, we'll have to wait and see but all opinions are equally valid especially sine we're just guessing anyway.

But Harry is with Meghan now so I think we can react anyway we see fit. It was awful then and it is awful now. Why must former bad behavior be used to justify and silence current bad behavior? Just because it happend to Chelsy or Cressida does'nt mean we should be quiet about it now.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

But Harry is with Meghan now so I think we can react anyway we see fit. It was awful then and it is awful now. Why must former bad behavior be used to justify and silence current bad behavior? Just because it happend to Chelsy or Cressida does'nt mean we should be quiet about it now.

So whats the politically correct term? 'Hook-up'? There are people in relationships that do see each other for that reason.

There are people here who think H&M are getting married and people who think they will break up. It can also be anything in between.

Including 'casual'

[AristoCat]

The public has a right to know if she's up to no good.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

So whats the politically correct term? 'Hook-up'? There are people in relationships that do see each other for that reason.

There are people here who think H&M are getting married and people who think they will break up. It can also be anything in between.

Including 'casual'

This has nothing to do with the loaded term politically correct at all. He stated she is his girlfriend, they are pursuing a relationship so I kind of take his cue and say they are dating. Any change in that current status is up to them.

Save

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

So whats the politically correct term? 'Hook-up'? There are people in relationships that do see each other for that reason.

There are people here who think H&M are getting married and people who think they will break up. It can also be anything in between.

Including 'casual'

If he just wants to "hook up", he'd find someone in London. He's making way too much of an effort for that here. And there is no politically correct term to call a woman booty call. That's a term that's been used to degrade her. Again, you can think they'd last or not or they are just casually dating, that's all fine. What I'm taking issue with is using this term to degrade a woman.

As for your earlier comment about how Cressida was treated. I wasn't around then, and I have little interest in Cressida, so I wasn't there to witness that. I'm calling it out as I see it. If someone calls Cressida that today, I'd still say it. It has nothing to do with who she is or was dating, it's because I'm a woman and I don't find it ok to degrade woman by insinuating they are a man's sexual plaything.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

The public has a right to know if she's up to no good.

Up to no good with what? People are calling her names without proof for goodness' sake. This isn't if she has a criminal record and people are taking issues with it. This is degrading a person just because.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

This has nothing to do with the loaded term politically correct at all. He stated she is his girlfriend, they are pursuing a relationship so I kind of take his cue and say they are dating. Any change in that current status is up to them.

Save

Of course they're 'dating' but in my day even that term meant different things depending on when it was used.

But anyway, we don't know how serious they are. Some people seem to think they know, but we don't.

I said this months ago but the thing I really don't like is the Piers Morgan connection. I know, I know, its just a coincidence she met for drinks with the Editor-at-Large for Britain's largest tabloid website just as she was meeting Harry. And it's just coincidence that Piers then tells the story to Mail Online.

Piers Morgan used to be editor of The News of the World and Daily Mirror. He's the current editor of Mail Online.

People are going to be suspicious when you get cosy to him.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Of course they're 'dating' but in my day even that term meant different things depending on when it was used.

But anyway, we don't know how serious they are. Some people seem to think they know, but we don't.

I said this months ago but the thing I really don't like is the Piers Morgan connection. I know, I know, its just a coincidence she met for drinks with the Editor-at-Large for Britain's largest tabloid website just as she was meeting Harry. And it's just coincidence that Piers then tells the story to Mail Online.

Piers Morgan used to be editor of The News of the World and Daily Mirror. He's the current editor of Mail Online.

People are going to be suspicious when you get cosy to him.

A little bit of context here. In US, Piers Morgan used to have a show on CNN, which is a very legitimate news organization. As someone living in US, I honestly didn't know that Piers Morgan is such a problem in UK. I'm assuming that's where Meghan's impression of him comes from as well since we don't regularly get UK programming. In fact, Piers Morgan Live, as the show was called, took over the timeslot for Larry King's show on CNN.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by AmberG

No shrinking violet can succeed in royal world... Let's be realistic...

And a tough shield to weather the storm, which she clearly has. That she is willing to undertake the turbulence, says something about her and her interest. I don't think anything is worth such myself, certainly not a momentary dalliance, nor 'ambition' (social or otherwise, which won't 'play' here in the US for much, anyway, contrary to the UK). Kiss-and-tell among actors is a serious breach.

Originally Posted by wyevale

There is a not uncommon phrase in English parlance that [I think] explains many peoples attitude to Ms Markle, in Britain, and elsewhere. " She is not quite PLU" [People Like Us].

Meaning NOT that we are somehow better, but that her ways, and attitudes are not ours..

It's why I question the long-term. Even if Harry has done some serious maturing and Meghan is a bracing breath of fresh air from the constraints of English Aristocratic expectations (as was Chelsy), the latter winds up being all he knows. Does such survive the every-day of (an aristocratic/royal) married life?

Despite what some in the UK may think of Kate she is English, and 'bred' to the idea of class and class expectations. Would Meghan want to fulfill that 'role' for a lifetime like Sophie Wessex has done? It's a real question. I certainly wish them well. Hope they're having tons of fun. But long-term, even were they to marry? Dunno.....just sayin'.......if I were talking with her and the girls about it. Harry'd have to really sell the deal.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Of course they're 'dating' but in my day even that term meant different things depending on when it was used.

But anyway, we don't know how serious they are. Some people seem to think they know, but we don't.

I said this months ago but the thing I really don't like is the Piers Morgan connection. I know, I know, its just a coincidence she met for drinks with the Editor-at-Large for Britain's largest tabloid website just as she was meeting Harry. And it's just coincidence that Piers then tells the story to Mail Online.

Piers Morgan used to be editor of The News of the World and Daily Mirror. He's the current editor of Mail Online.

People are going to be suspicious when you get cosy to him.

Piers Morgan had no idea Meghan and Harry were beginning to see each other. Meghan and Piers aren't good friends. Piers just put his two cents in on who he think she is and how she could be good for Harry. She told him nothing.

Well, going by Harry's previous official statement, I think he and she are taking their relationship pretty serious and in a respectful manner.

Originally Posted by AlowVera

It's usually a term meant as a way other women downgrade another woman in a sex negative way. Meaning her worth to Prince Harry is not as a full person but a sexual plaything. Again judging by the response from the women in England, why would he spend time and money with someone from North America?

Save

That too!

Women are known to be very quick to tear another woman in a hot second, especially if she's doing well for herself and in the world. I'm always wondering where is the sisterhood support these days? When it comes royal girlfriends, there are a lot of claws coming out but very little support.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by AmberG

If she is with him since May, than maybe, why not? All is possible, after all, both of them are from the environment where playing little games is quite normal... especially in acting world...

Why suddenly nobody can presume anything regarding her and poor Kate had the worst treatment ever? Because she is close with her family than her mum is a serial plotter and sister social climber... in that case, Meghan is also social climber ...

No shrinking violet can succeed in royal world... Let's be realistic...

That logic just simply makes no sense. Meghan simply can't see to the future, and doesn't have the powers to predict other people's actions.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Dman

Well, going by Harry's previous official statement, I think he and she are taking their relationship pretty serious and in a respectful manner.

That he announced her as his girlfriend seems key. What fun! Another wedding! Can we dare hope for a winter wedding finally?

[XeniaCasaraghi]

First let me say I like Megan on the surface. First she's not blonde! Second she's biracial so that's amazing for Harry to even think about going there. But haven't they only been dating a few months? I hope they last but why are people talking about marriage already? Let's have some maturity and perspective people.
Also as an American I only knew Piers from his show on CNN where he came off as a real journalist; it wasn't until it was over that I discovered he was tabloid trash in the UK.