The Duchess of Sussex: Family and Background

[Madame Verseau]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Tom Snr and Roslyn Loveless got married in 1964 when they were only 20 and nearly 19 respectively. They had met at a University campus party in Chicago the previous year. I think the marriage lasted for just over a decade.

And that would explain the lack of money in the first marriage. Dad wouldn't be able to afford raising those kids unless he had a well paying job at the time. Another question re: Dad - being born in 1944 he was old enough to be drafted for serving during the Vietnam War. Having two kids would not have excluded him from the Selective Service. How did he get out of the draft?

I watched the Piers interview on YouTube. Sharon Osbourne invited him on the show because of the alcohol comment. I think the network's legal department told the showrunners they have opened themselves up to a defamation lawsuit with that comment. Sharon's conciliatory approach I believe is a way to head off a legal fight and that's why the others on the panel didn't push back on Piers. Piers was doing the talking points that Meghan should go talk to Dad (with some applause) and Sheryl countered with Meghan needs to take care of Meghan (with some applause).

Meghan can't afford to see Dad now. The meeting will be recorded and sold, most likely to Piers because he gets a scoop and his "revenge" on the Sussexes in the same token. The royals are holding the line because I believe they think it's part of the Markle end game, along with lifelong financial support. The tabloids may have it wrong about Meghan's solo trip (with RPOs in tow) to the US. The stories may be a means to draw them out and they slip up.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

And that would explain the lack of money in the first marriage. Dad wouldn't be able to afford raising those kids unless he had a well paying job at the time. Another question re: Dad - being born in 1944 he was old enough to be drafted for serving during the Vietnam War. Having two kids would not have excluded him from the Selective Service. How did he get out of the draft?

My first guess would be that even at a younger age, Mr. Markle wouldn't have been able to pass the military physical even if he was drafted. From all the photos I've seen of the man, he never really presented himself as being a fit and trim man and that alone could have prevented the military from taking him into service.

Just a guess on my part.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Osipi

My first guess would be that even at a younger age, Mr. Markle wouldn't have been able to pass the military physical even if he was drafted. From all the photos I've seen of the man, he never really presented himself as being a fit and trim man and that alone could have prevented the military from taking him into service.

Just a guess on my part.

I don't know about that. We have to remember the photos we've seen of him with younger Meghan are mostly when he's in his fifties. Usually people didn't start at that level in their twenties or even thirties. It worsens over time.

He could've just got lucky and had a high lottery number.

[Osipi]

That's one thing we'll probably never know anyways so there's no real need to speculate on it. My hubby was born in 1947 and wasn't accepted into the military service either and classified as 4-F. Forget the reason why. I guess that's why they call it the Selective Service System.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

And that would explain the lack of money in the first marriage. Dad wouldn't be able to afford raising those kids unless he had a well paying job at the time. Another question re: Dad - being born in 1944 he was old enough to be drafted for serving during the Vietnam War. Having two kids would not have excluded him from the Selective Service. How did he get out of the draft?

Regarding the draft: From my own experience, I know that married men were “protected” from the draft until late in 1965 (that’s when my ex got his ‘greetings’ from Uncle Sam). For some time after that, men with kids could be deferred. Markle Sr. had two children by 1966, so he was ‘safe’!

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Sam went to Twitter to attack Meghan on her birthday, screeching that Meghan should take the time to send Dad a belated birthday card. This harangue about the card from both Sam and Dad, I wonder if there is some deal in place with a tabloid - get the card and get a big payout and the tabloid is backing out of the deal because there is no card? They act like their lives depend on the card. Also, the tag team attacks by them is only garnering sympathy for Meghan from the majority of people.

Daily Mail is writing Celebrity Big Brother is teasing the show:

Celebrity Big Brother teases 'liars' and 'frauds' in 'final' series teaser | Daily Mail Online

The teaser is about the contestants being the liars and frauds. I can't see Sam going on the show with her own life and actions being dissected on national tv.

I guess the card or call is proof of contact so they can keep selling them out.

[Osipi]

Anyone remember pet rocks? Basically, the Markles sooner preferably rather than later will go the same way the pet rock did. Into obscurity. All Meghan has to do is keep her barriers up and away from any contact with these people.

The Markles are riding on a tide right now that puts them into the limelight. They forget though that tides go two ways. In and out. Piers Morgan will find something more lucrative to latch onto than the Markle barnyard and the Daily Fail is always looking for something new to latch onto.

Its the way of things.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

As an American I can concur with what AlowVera said. Piers had his own show for about 2yrs and to me he came off as a real professional, a real journalist. I remember his comments about the 2nd amendment the most and it made me think positively of him; nothing I saw at the time screamed tabloid leech. Then I recall hearing he had a vendetta against Madonna because she DARED to lie to him about being pregnant with her son. This started me questioning some things, but it didn't get really obvious to me what he was until a Kate Middleton documentary. Meghan seemed to have been fooled as well but her eye opener came directly from Harry.
His agenda in this whole thing is clear, he wants to bully Meghan into talking to her dad because her dad will then talk to him! My problem is that no one calls him out on this obvious scheme of his. There are clear facts about this situation that could easily be pointed out and I am so tired of no one in the news acknowledging it! A simple: ---~so when was the last time Tom saw his other grandkids"
~So let's talk about Samantha abandoning her daughter for a sex offender
~So Piers you expect us to believe you are on Snr side because he is suffering and not because he is an obvious big mouth who is on your payroll and will spill the beans about everything.
~Snr. didn't even have the decency to speak to Meghan before her wedding and was avoiding her calls
~Emotional abuse and extortion
~The horrible relationships that Samantha has with her children and Jr. has with his children

I suspect that Piers like a lot of UK media where envious of the way TMZ controlled the narrative when they where in cahoots with Tom Sr. So they realized that they could set up a similar deal which they believe will give them control over Harry and Meghan. Once Meghan contacts the father that gives them access and access means they can create the narrative. Which is why Tom Sr. talking about what Harry talked about can be used to drive the political narrative and create headlines regarding the only man Piers loves like Trump and the only topic Piers supports like Brexit. A phone call can be taped or recorded or a phone call can be spun politically.

[Rudolph]

Roya Nikkhah and The Sunday Times is basically reporting the same thing.

From The Mirror: Meghan Markle to reunite with her dad in secret US meeting to heal family rift

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Also Dad and Sam's mom got married in 1964, the same year Sam was born. What's that about?

That is so not a story--I bet a lot of families have babies that were born less than 9 months after the wedding even 50 years ago.

[Terri Terri]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Roya Nikkhah and The Sunday Times is basically reporting the same thing.

From The Mirror: Meghan Markle to reunite with her dad in secret US meeting to heal family rift

So the Times quotes the tabloids? I thought the Times was a serious newspaper! And if the meeting is so secret...how come we are hearing about it?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Roya Nikkhah and The Sunday Times is basically reporting the same thing.

From The Mirror: Meghan Markle to reunite with her dad in secret US meeting to heal family rift

Yeps... that's the ticket. Leak a possible meeting to the press so that every tabloid reporter in the world can tag team Tom, Sr.'s movements to see where he goes and capture the reunion in all its full glory. Yeps.. that's a right royal smart move.

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

That is so not a story--I bet a lot of families have babies that were born less than 9 months after the wedding even 50 years ago.

Someone gets pregnant in January, the baby is delivered before the year is out too.

[ACO]

Yeah I doubt it. The Mirror sounds like Samantha giving quotes. At this point it is pretty obvious when she is the disguised "source" for these articles.

[Rudolph]

Roya Nikkhah isn’t always correct but I doubt she’s relying on Samantha as a source.

Roya’s article is independent of the Mirror.

[ACO]

Roya's article didn't even give quotes. It was like a source of a source. I still don't buy it especially when Roya can't even really vouch. She usually on it and that small blurb tells me everything I need to know.

I really do think this is just the Markles trying to fix the backlash. The Mirror coming out with the same story sealed it for me. They didn't expect that reaction from Tom Sr's interview and trying to save face. IMO, of course.

[Rudolph]

Roya uses ‘former royal aide’, ‘former royal advisor’ in her article. Maybe it’s not true but The Sunday Times reporting it at least gives it the whiff of respectability.

Of all the royal reporters she’s on the best terms with KP.

[ladongas]

I hope this is true. She can’t/shouldn’t have to go the rest of her life without having some contact with her father. Taking the high road is the way to go. Whatever happens, at least she would have tried.

[Terri Terri]

I disagree! She has tried. How many times was he told NOT to talk to the media? Things were put in place to assist him! What came out of all of that? He spoke to TMZ, GMB, Daily Mail etc etc.

If there is to be any meeting, the media should have no idea when OR where it occurs IMO! To me, that defeats the whole purpose of a meeting!

[ACO]

The article inside is someone quoting Morton and such while talking to the "former aid" about what she should do. Not that anything is actually set up. I do think Roya is a decent source but I stand by my thought that this planted via the Markles because they see the the public's opinion of Snr has shifted dramatically.

Also interesting reading the article, they don't seem all that sympathetic with Snr still. They basically said he could have had it all. He screwed up and he is only lashing out now because the Markles see how open and welcoming the royal family is to Doria. It is jealously at play.

So finally the press are opening their eyes to the obvious.

[Rudolph]

Meghan could be the source. There have been commentators who think Meghan should contact her dad. Not all of them tabloids. Ingrid Seward for one.

Maybe Meghan and Harry only see things getting worse. Maybe they think the only way to end this is to bring Thomas snr inside the fold.

That would be as far as he gets though. I can’t see The Queen, Charles or the Cambridges going within a mile of him.