Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Curryong

There are some Harrycentric and other royal sites that I have been posting on for years, since they started, royal rob, that have gone absolutely mad in the last few months. Before, they had posters whom I regarded as reasonably sane. No longer. Some have gone feral. So it's not exactly trolling.

Sorry I understand your position but I'm tired of posters complaining about the things said about her. They haven't been said on here and would be deleted if they were. So I do what I'm sure H and M do ignore them.

[Curryong]

Oh, I've left several sites in disgust, not even lurking there any longer. Life's too short. I agree this is an exceptional forum where people are polite to each other, well, most of the time!

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Curryong

There are some Harrycentric and other royal sites that I have been posting on for years, since they started, royal rob, that have gone absolutely mad in the last few months. Before, they had posters whom I regarded as reasonably sane. No longer. Some have gone feral. So it's not exactly trolling.

How unfortunate for those who just want to discuss all things Harry to have to deal with this stuff.

[American Observer7]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

I think all the post 80s relationships should follow the Edward and Sophie example of dating for almost a decade before an engagement. But seeing as how Harry and Megan are so late to the game, I'd say give it 3 years.

Harry and Meghan will not wait three years. They want kids. And I would bet odds they'll start trying to get pregnant soon after they marry.

[Pranter]

I don't think they will do 3 years either. I think they will marry, IF they marry, within/under 2 years from the time they started dating.


LaRae

[royaldreams]

They will be engaged before the end of 2017, married in 2018, and have their first child in 2019.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by TLLK

How unfortunate for those who just want to discuss all things Harry to have to deal with this stuff.

Why do you have an illustration of me (the frustrated me) in your post, TLLK?

[TLLK]

I am a woman of sooooo many talents!!!

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Meghan Markle got the only royal seal of approval that matters - Prince George - Independent.ie

Cute story if true.

Awww, definitely cute. 'Georgie Porgie puddin' and pie', he's the sweetest and cutest. I love how Prince George stared at PM Justin Trudeau, during the Cambridges' Canada tour, and refused to give Trudeau a high five simply because Trudeau expected it. It was as if George was thinking, "I really don't know who you are, man. I don't high five with just anyone."

Whether or not the linked story is true, the pictures are cute. And it really does sound like something that could have happened, since Meghan loves children, as we've seen in pictures of her with her friends' children and during her Rwandan visit.

We all know that Prince George loves his uncle, Prince Harry, so I'm sure that PH's Meghan would fit right in and bring a huge smile to George's face.

[Osipi]

I'm going to be honest here. I do not even lurk anywhere on social media anywhere nor do I care to visit other forums where Harry and Meghan are discussed and, for the most part, Daily Mail links that are posted get passed by.

I enjoy the intelligent conversations and the back and forth of opinions of everyone here immensely. I'll even admit to liking the fact that that through opinions posted here, I feel I get to "know" the people I see posting and I interact with almost on a daily basis and regardless of what the opinions are, I feel all of you are friends I'm getting to know even if I disagree with you sometimes.

The suggestion to just let social media and negative people that post their negativity be something that doesn't affect your own life and thoughts is a very good one and to be honest, I don't want to hear what trolls anywhere else think. If everything around you does affect your life and thoughts, its yourself you have to blame if you go seeking the negatives and no one else. In a general sense, this is the rule of thumb I follow.

Somewhere out there is probably a social media page that really disses and denigrates HM, The Queen but I have no clue where they are or who is on them because I admire HM very much and look up to her as a world icon of what a true head of state is like and I don't need or want to know how people see her negatively. But that's just me.

[Iluvbertie]

I am the opposite - I believe that a rounded person will seek out all views on a person or subject (my Historian's training I suppose) as to ignore views that don't agree with your own means that you are only seeing an issue through a very narrow prism.

There are some sites at there that are very negative - which is no different to this one which only sees the good and doesn't allow negative comments to a large part about any royal anymore. It used to do so and it is that trend that has seen me take a break on a number of occasions.

I believe very much that you should read both the negative and positive to get a true picture of a person.

[Osipi]

On this point of the historical I totally agree with you 100%. To see everything from all sides. The difference is that to be historically accurate, the sources need to be credible ones (such as diaries, letters, video etc). Then we see both the negative and positive and the in betweens as the reality of a person's life and times and the rumors and the gossip and the innuendos have been eradicated.

We all see things from our own points of view and interests. You, Bertie, see it all from a historian's point of view. Its my journalistic training that guides me to seeking the credible information and ignoring the sensationalistic garbage.

[princesslily]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I believe very much that you should read both the negative and positive to get a true picture of a person.

Completely agree!

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

I used to watch 90210 all the time but this is the remake, not the original series.

Meghan Markle is seen performing sex act in a CAR on 90210 | Daily Mail Online

Exactly, an unattributed part in a TV show. Posting a supposedly salacious clip from a 2008 episode of a failed TV show is really quite, quite, strange. Strange in that it is somehow trying to present MM the actress as 'The Gorgeous and Scintillating Miss Meghan Markle' a la the Regency Romance definition of an "actress" being a euphemism for a professional mistress, somewhat ham-fistedly turning her into a woman of ill repute.

The DM have reached an all time low with this (not surprisingly) unattributed article which appears to suggest that MM is a porn star. As another of our poster commented, "Lizzy Borden" she is not! Apart from the article being the ultimate click-bait, it is borderline actionable. And I really would love to see them take action because this is malicious. Delusional, but nonetheless malicious.

[princess maggie]

I do, however, love a good romance and from where I'm sitting, it looks like Harry just may have met someone that bodes for a promising future together.[/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I am the opposite - I believe that a rounded person will seek out all views on a person or subject (my Historian's training I suppose) as to ignore views that don't agree with your own means that you are only seeing an issue through a very narrow prism.

There are some sites at there that are very negative - which is no different to this one which only sees the good and doesn't allow negative comments to a large part about any royal anymore. It used to do so and it is that trend that has seen me take a break on a number of occasions.

I believe very much that you should read both the negative and positive to get a true picture of a person.

There is a difference between seeing both sides of the coin and character assassination, which tends to happen to royal girlfriends.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

There is a difference between seeing both sides of the coin and character assassination, which tends to happen to royal girlfriends.

Very true!
What's amusing is that there is rampant criticism of royal girlfriends- UNTIL a break-up.
Then that gf becomes the epitome of perfection.

Like Chelsy went through a lot of criticism- everything from her looks to her family. Yet now people say Harry shouldn't have let her get away!

Cressida was trashed for her wardrobe and her work ethic; yet now people say she would have made a lovely princess!

If Harry and Meghan do break up, I'm betting the same thing will happen. All those people saying Meghan is unsuitable will turn around and say how perfect she would have been.

[AmberG]

Originally Posted by princesslily

Completely agree!

I agree, also!

[royaldreams]

Exactly, character assassination is a deliberate attempt by trolls and the media entities lacking ethics, to tear down a person they want to dislike. When it comes to the topic of Meghan, the negativity about her is coming from unstable people on the internet hell bent on spreading misinformation about her under the guise to discredit her and harm her reputation. NOTHING can be appreciated or learned from this aspect of "learning about a person" through the ill deeds and words of the demented.

She's not perfect and she's not some virginal ingenue, like most of us aren't either. But Meghan Markle is admirable and deserves some basic respect for the good things she is known for.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

There is a difference between seeing both sides of the coin and character assassination, which tends to happen to royal girlfriends.

[lilacmagnolia]

The pictures were released today and they are CLOSE (both Harry and Meghan AND the camera lens)...Now I see why Harry didn't want them out :( If anyone is curious but is ready to feel really bad after,they should blow up soon somewhere(btw I don't approve of this).