Many readers responded to our previous challenge about reviving Meghan's image by saying it is simply too late to do so. Meghan needs to leave the Royal Family and return to the US, they said, possibly taking Prince Harry with her.
But so far, Meghan has shown no inclination to do so.
If you were Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Charles, (who is supposedly in charge at the moment), what would you do to encourage her? What type of "exit package" would you offer?
And would Harry and Archificial come along?
We should probably consider the angle that the Sussexes are currently setting up a foundation which seems to be up to no good, and which could damage the reputation of the Royal Family as a whole.
(This question was suggested by reader BooBigly.)
But so far, Meghan has shown no inclination to do so.
If you were Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Charles, (who is supposedly in charge at the moment), what would you do to encourage her? What type of "exit package" would you offer?
And would Harry and Archificial come along?
We should probably consider the angle that the Sussexes are currently setting up a foundation which seems to be up to no good, and which could damage the reputation of the Royal Family as a whole.
(This question was suggested by reader BooBigly.)
Comments
I'm not sure what other things are out there waiting for Harry.
Mischi, interesting. One wonders who would donate to such causes. If someone donates they want the tax credits, so if it's not a charity, how does that happen? Can donors get tax credits for foundation contributions?
I don't understand how Megs and Harry can have this "foundation" outside of BP and still be working royals who get funded by the monarchy funds. It's looking rather murky. Kind of like Clinton kind of murky.
In the course of my work I had to take a lot of shots. My favorite moments were when people didn't know I was shooting them for publication. The moment they saw me they'd pose, which blows the moment, especially kids who all wanted to be in the newspaper.
/Employees have asked me what I do for fun. When I told them (reading technical manuals and raising livestock), they were incredulous. I suppose I'm really, really boring, too.
1. Royal permission to marry: the 1772 Royal Marriages Act stated that all marriages to a member of the British royal family were subject to the approval of the reigning monarch. This was modified in 2013 with the passing of the Succession to the Crown Act. Now, only the first six royals in line for the throne require permission. Harry was fifth in line when he announced his engagement, but bumped down to sixth after Louis was born.
2. Witnesses at a Royal Birth: In 1688, James II's wife gave birth to a living and healthy boy, who would undoubtedly be raised a Catholic and would be next in line to the throne. James’s enemies later developed an elaborate theory that a live newborn from another mother had been slipped into Mary of Modena’s bed in a warming pan to replace her own stillborn child. This led to the tradition that Home secretaries were required to attend royal births, which was ended in 1948 (prior to the birth of PC).
So, could HMTQ make a case to remove Archie from Megs and/or PH? Certainly; she could lean on "welfare of the child" (esp. if one/both parents are involved in drugs) and grant provisional custody to one of her grandchildren.
When Megs joined the BRF, she became subject to a number of traditions that have the force of law -- she is no longer a private citizen. Here's two that have only recently been modified:
1. Monarch's permission required to marry: 1772 Royal Marriages Act stated that all marriages to a member of the British royal family were subject to the approval of the reigning monarch. This was modified in 2013, and only applies to the first six in line for the throne (PH was fifth in line when the engagement was announced).
2. Home secretaries witness royal births: dates back to 1688 when questions were raised about the birth of James II's son ("warming pan scandal"). This was eliminated in 1948, prior to the birth of PC.
So, HMTQ certainly could exercise her rights under tradition to remove Archie from the custody of his parents, and if she leaned on "welfare of the child," there would be very little outcry. After all, who would leave a child in the custody of negligent/drug-using parents?
Harry and Smegs were not invited to Balmoral last year; leastways, if invited, they did not show. Perhaps there was a movie premiere in London they were more keen on. Once again, as with the "Kate is throwing Meghan a private baby shower" and "Meghan is guest-editing Vogue September issue and is going to be a guest columnist!", etc., perhaps the "Her Majesty is hosting a birthday tea party for Meghan at Balmoral" is another of Smeaghan's fantasias which she releases to her sugar media outlets. She floats ideas out there she *wants* to happen and then they become as good as reality in her mind. This is magical thinking . . .but it also puts her targets in an awkward position. Do they issue statements of vociferous denial, and make it appear that they are ungenerous . . .or even hostile . .to the Duchess of Sussex because of her race? (Her 'bestie' Priyanka took to Twitter to flat-out deny meeting Archie at Fraudmore as was broadcast . . .something tells me that 'friendship' of mutual convenience is now over) . . or, do the involved parties either say, "Wow, that's a great idea! Why didn't we think of that? Get Meghan on the phone!" or else, quietly bow to the perceived pressure to do what Smegs is demanding in order to avoid looking confrontational or 'not-woke'.
Under the current circumstances, if an invite to Balmoral is actually forthcoming, I'll take it as proof positive that the Royal Marbles are scattered. Of course, Smeg could create the impression that she took tea with the Queen in Scotland on her birthday, just as she's creating the impression that she's avidly watching pensioners lawn-bowl from the window of her luxuriously-renovated cottage. Presumably while nursing Archie in the vegan nursery and doing post-natal yoga at the same time.
**************
Two items for your amusement today. Smegs's sugars are still churning out le merde, as Elle would say:
This is Meghan's version of global philanthropy . . .'changing lives around the world' by wearing jeans!!!!
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/fashion-trends/a28198319/meghan-markle-outland-denim-jeans-interview/
************
This one is particularly interesting. Harper's Bazaar is solidly in the tank for Meghan, so I'm thinking that this headline/article was completely un-ironic from their end . . they printed what they were given. So the only conclusion to be drawn is that Smeaghan is taking the p*$$ with the world big-time. And she's laughing all the way to the bank . . .
Here they 'report' on a 'legitimate' story in US Weekly (must be a sister publication??) that "Princess Charlotte treats Archie like a little doll."
Yes, it actually says this. Let us take a moment of silence for American 'journalism'. RIP.
I've had a subscription to Harper's for a couple of years, but I won't be renewing it. After the Meghan debacle, I won't be buying or clicking on American 'lifestyle' mags again, since I know how blithely 'pay to print' is in play. Unless, of course, her money runs out and they start printing stories about her gruesome fall.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a28447878/prince-george-princess-charlotte-archie-bonding/
Right now, I am on the fence about PH. He almost certainly played a role in all of this. I believe the talk about his jealousy of William and his wanting to cash in (ie modernize the RF). Does he not realize that being part of the RF is his currency? That the monarchy will always chose to support the future king (Charles and William) over a minor royal? Was he so naive that he really thought he could get away with all this? If he walks away from his family, he will become the modern version of his great-uncle, Edward, who abdicated the throne and became invisible and irrelevant. At this point, he must be realizing some of these inescapable truths. I feel that PH is the one who will be the big loser in this scenario when it finally resolves because of the poor choices he has made.
MM will walk away with a big settlement and say, "I tried. I guess I wasn't cut out for Royal life." PH will look like a traitor to his family for going rogue and trying to cash in on the privilege of having been born a Royal. The RF will have their hands full in the aftermath trying to resuscitate his image with the British public.
She'll move on eventually, though she may find that she is not going to be able to successfully snare another meal-ticket man after these antics.
What will become of Harry? With his reputation as the lovable royal in tatters, and with the very public shirking of his duty and his appearance, in thrall to his overbearing wife, and this shady Sussex Foundation (which will be revealed for what it is, I believe, though MM may be conveniently gone from the scene by then), recouping the affection he was formerly held in is probably not in the cards. He's burnt too many bridges. That trust will never be reconstructed. He will likely go live abroad (Africa?) quietly and no longer be a working royal. If he stays in London, his profile will be reduced to nothing. He will get the most obscure engagements if any at all. He will be known forevermore as the weak-minded party prince duped by That Woman. He's Edward 2.0.
I really fear for Harry's ongoing mental health. As much as he rails against his family, they are literally all he's got. Being Prince Harry is his only identity . . what else is he good for? What self-sustaining skills has he got? If he's cut adrift from both them and the woman who promised to love him forever, he's not going to copel
Thank you for providing this verse. It's a wonderful comfort to me. :)
Right now, we are still scratching our heads, along with the prophet Jeremiah, who asked God, quite rightly, too, : "I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease?"
(Jer. 12:1)
I'm holding out for your scenario, and for our Proverbs 11:10 moment:
When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
At the time of Thomas's Troubles, several articles came out detailing his financial woes. Despite being a two-time lottery winner, a lightning-striking twice situation that is unbelievably fortunate, Thomas is not living south of the border as the patron of a thriving hacienda, as we are all aware. Bankrupted by bad investment schemes, he's now facing the twilight of his life a broke, sick old man. Thank you for educating me about liens. Is it credible to think that in addition to these, Tom Markle may also have significant problems with the IRS over non-payment of taxes on that lottery income, which it is possible that he lost before he could pay the taxes on it? There is also the possibility that his past/present enthusiasm for controlled substances may play a part in the reason Mexico is a more attractive place for him to live than the U.S. California is a very expensive place to live in. If Mr. Markle has taken refuge in Mexico to escape his problems in el Norte, I wouldn't blame him at this point in his life. All of his children, frankly, are nightmares, but the youngest one has to hurt the most, seeing as she's in a position to help him out now and repay him for all those years he spent subsidizing her education at top schools and her ambitions in show business. My remarks weren't intended as 'accusations', just observations. We can add speculations to the list. I'm sure there are sources out there that would not paint a rosy or perhaps even strictly legal picture of the Markle, Sr. financial picture, but I will leave that to paralegals to dig up.
At the time of Photo Gate, I thought "Poor guy has to sell some photos to be able to afford his plane fare to the wedding." I wondered why his daughter couldn't fly her old dad first class to her wedding out of all those vaunted self-made millions she's got. If you want to hear an *accusation*, now, I've got one for you . . .Meghan herself arranged for these 'photo shoots' (I know the official line was Samantha did it), telling her doting and unsuspecting father that it'd be a good way to 'introduce' himself to the world as her father and he'd be doing her a favor. Who would question the 'OK-ness' of doing such a thing if he hadn't heard the Palace protocols himself?' Then the crap hit the fan, and that must have been quite a shock to Papa Markle. The stress could very well have incited a heart attack in a man with already fragile cardiac health. So we are potentially dealing with a woman who is not above hounding her own father into a heart attack to make herself look good by comparison as a sainted victim.
I've got no proof of these things, of course, which makes them 'accusations.' Tom does not strike me as a media mastermind, given his demeanor during interviews. Those might be Smeaghan-driven as well, just to keep the narrative going. Who knows what kind of blackmail material she may be holding over her own dad? It must be quite a feeling to be frightened of one's own child and realize the extent to which the child of your body and your heart has duped you for years.
Con't . .
Mr. Markle is a rough hewn character, and has made bad choices in his life; we can debate endlessly the 'nature' vs 'nurture' contribution to sociopathy. Tom would seem to have a burden of guilt there no matter which side of the argument one falls on, and Doria, too. But I look at Thomas Markle, and he seems to me now to epitomize that quote from King Lear, "How like a serpent's tooth it is/To have an ungrateful child."
I am having trouble posting a response to you. The first half of my response got eaten; trying this one.
My sympathies have actually come around to Tom from this point a year ago. One of my grievances against Smeaghan is making me swallow the "Poor little me, victimized by my monstrous dad and toxic siblings!" narrative. She played me good on that one. The Markle family does nothing to help themselves in this regard, so they've made it really easy for her . . but the truth, as with most things, is probably somewhere in the middle. My feelings have moderated even toward Samantha, who, though she's done some really stupid ostentatious things like fly to London uninvited and lurk outside the BP gates for attention, turns out not to have been wrong in her assessment of her little sister's character.
At the time of Photo Gate, I thought "Poor guy has to sell some photos to be able to afford his plane fare to the wedding." I wondered why his daughter couldn't fly her old dad first class to her wedding out of all those vaunted self-made millions she's got. If you want to hear an *accusation*, now, I've got one for you . . .Meghan herself arranged for these 'photo shoots' (I know the official line was Samantha did it), telling her doting and unsuspecting father that it'd be a good way to 'introduce' himself to the world as her father and he'd be doing her a favor. Who would question the 'OK-ness' of doing such a thing if he hadn't heard the Palace protocols himself?' Then the crap hit the fan, and that must have been quite a shock to Papa Markle. The stress could very well have incited a heart attack in a man with already fragile cardiac health. So we are potentially dealing with a woman who is not above hounding her own father into a heart attack to make herself look good by comparison as a sainted victim.
I've got no proof of these things, of course, which makes them 'accusations.' Tom does not strike me as a media mastermind, given his demeanor during interviews. Those might be Smeaghan-driven as well, just to keep the narrative going. Who knows what kind of blackmail material she may be holding over her own dad? It must be quite a feeling to be frightened of one's own child and realize the extent to which the child of your body and your heart has duped you for years.
Mr. Markle is a rough hewn character, and has made bad choices in his life; we can debate endlessly the 'nature' vs 'nurture' contribution to sociopathy. Tom would seem to have a burden of guilt there no matter which side of the argument one falls on, and Doria, too. But I look at Thomas Markle, and he seems to me now to epitomize that quote from King Lear, "How like a serpent's tooth it is/To have an ungrateful child."
Was Harry in this kind of incapacitated state when she 'talked him into' a marriage and/or baby? I don't think anyone falls under the malignant 'charms' of Shelob when he is sober and fully in his right mind.
To me the big question is why would the RF allow all this to happen (including the marriage)? But if all of this is deeply rooted in Harry's envy of his brother and his own insecurity regarding his place in the RF, then maybe they had no option but to let him have his way, knowing that it would all end badly, but that by letting him have his way, they wouldn't lose Harry forever.
Also, a first leak from Radar Online about how MM chose the date to announce Archie's birth...
MM Anon
skippyv20
MM ANON …Aggressively malevolent PR. “You can fool some …… “. Family revelation will cause concern”. Tension approaches a forty something. A PRESS-ing question. Denials surrounds a disturbing op-Ed. Another Annus Horribilis?? “Circle the WAG-ons”. A LARGE amount of earlier hush money. … hidden bodies talk. “It’s in the (royal) mail.
Interesting….thank you😁❤️❤️❤️❤️
Source: skippyv20
Their plan might be that they can't or won't suddenly walk away from the life Harry has always known. This whacky foundation is more like some kind of gradual transition to create their own private kingdom.
Combine that with Harry's deep seated envy, Meg's NPD and her jealousy of Wills and Kate and it makes a lot of sense. Harry reminds me of dimwit, inept Fredo Corleoni on steroids. Recall the scene where Fredo, jealous, angry, frustrated and sidelined all those years by his father and later his youngest brother Michael: "... I"m smart Mike. I can run things...." or something along those lines.
Thank you for the link Elle. I'll have to check it out.
BTW I am also Ozmanda, unsure why the site keeps chopping and changing myt name :)
When I want to be wicked (which is entirely too often), I look at the photos of Lord G meeting up with the markle. The grip and the way he leans in and she pulls back says it all. I'm fairly certain that hundreds of years of wielding power at the highest level has taught the BRF a thing or two about dealing with the skanky, sleazy, grasping, greedy, conniving... oh, I need a c-word here... hmmm?? whatever word comes to mind... that is the markle.
Two more questions for Lord G and the corgis:
Is it possible that Archie had already been born when Prince George said that was his name? How did the markle keep baby Archie so still and quiet without sedation?
--Asking for friends with pitchforks
"Anonymous asked:
That Radar article is setting the stage for something. This last line, "decided to announce her son’s birth on her terms, rather than on the same day of his birth." Umm, allegedly Archie was born on May 6 early in the morning. It was announced later that day after the birth, but ON THAT DAY. Unless of course, Archie wasn't born May 6th! This leads to all kinds of speculation that might be in the press soon, so pr is changing the info about WHAT DAY the baby was born. Interesting..."
This would also explain the truly bizarre Christening photo and metadata as well.
Other royal brides who have broken the code of behavior and displeased Her Majesty have paid the price . . .Look at how Sarah Ferguson has been sent to Coventry for more than 20 years, and she was from their circle. For the crime of trying to sell access to Andrew, she was banned from William's wedding, even though the groom really wanted her there. In recent years' Fergie has been invited to Royal Ascot, and was high profile at Eugenie's wedding, so perhaps her exile is over. Still, what she or Sophie Wessex did to run afoul of the Queen pale in comparison to what Smeaghan has gotten away with in just one year. There's definitely a double standard glaringly in play. There's a vast difference between making errors because you don't know better, and are really trying your best vs. flouting rules of conduct and protocol at every turn because you're giving everybody a giant finger.
William, the future King, can't wear a casual shirt to a garden outing without getting reamed by Granny. Smegs and Harry can sell their favors for 3 million dollars to their bogus foundation and lie daily to the world media and refuse to perform long-standing Royal duties . . . and . . .nothing. Big fat goose egg.
So far at least. Maybe matters are finally coming to a head.
@Hikari, I agree about the other women who married in, even Diana was reprimanded for wearing black on her first outing with Charles, and when she and Sarah F did their infamous umbrella taunting. Why is MM allowed to get away with so much, and since it has gone on for so long, how can they expect for her to follow these rules now?? For long-time royal watchers, the mind boggles!!
Perhaps it is as simple as Brexit, Iran seizing British flagged tankers, and other things that we do not/will not ever know about happening behind the scenes that are far more important than protocol breaches by an unknown actress married into the family.
PP's declining health is of much more importance to HM, I'm sure, than the saga of Harry and the Harpy. Time for Big Daddy Chuck to grow a, er, spine, (yeah, that's it), and step up to the plate and take charge of his family.
Smeg does not do 'awe', and nor is she desirous of hewing to codes to please anybody . . .but since she's an American from a sparse background who likely did not discover salad forks until she started dating a chef, one would suppose that the Palace tried to provide basic instruction in How to Be a Duchess. Maybe that's a wrong assumption. It appears that the prevailing mode of thought in the House of Windsor is "Do nothing . . . they either pick it up by osmosis or they don't. If they don't, they should." I am a far softer breed of American than is Smeaghan, but I can see that directness might be the only way to get anything done over there to help oneself, seeing as mind-reading is not really an option.
I would suspect they would continue to try to help teach her (as part of the accepting her) and to help her assimilate.
I would suspect that if she is like the people I know who have supreme confidence within themselves, that they pretty much know anything worth knowing (and you need bask in their worthiness, intelligence, general perfection and accept that you can't or do anything better/smarter and so on) ... any person trying to guide would be swatted away like a mosquito.
There is something sad about watching someone reinvent the wheel. Even more cringing when it is so public.
Kate is smart and as well as educating herself about children's mental health, she is patron of the National Portrait Gallery. A few years ago there was an exhibition on Victorian art photography and she wrote about several of the images in a very insightful and intelligent manner.
https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2019/07/queen-elizabeth-bans-further-pets-castle/
https://www.weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand/fact-check-did-oprah-say-all-white-people-have-to-die
PS I'm not a big Oprah fan, but her size is not the issue.
"rather than on the same day of his birth..." is that a hint at more to come or is it just vague and confusing writing?
If mm intentionally "chose" 5.6, it does seem quite the suck up to George Clooney. And hasn't he been quiet lately about the megster...
This whole situation isn't making sense on many levels and it is being discussed in a conversational tone. Everyone brings different personal history (knowledge) and observation to the table. And it's interesting to read and ponder.
So, I propose a future challenge re MMs lies and hypocrisies, and I do so for two reasons: 1) we'll all feel less gaslighted if we seek it out and document it for future reference and 2) I'm almost certain that our friends in the press read here, so maybe they'll feel compelled at some point to print the truth and call out these absurd lies/delusions/dream sequences/whatever else instead of printing MMs treacle spew.
Many thanks Nutty.
First, this is obviously a big country and we have such polarization right now, it is hard to say what is like most Americans IMO. I've lived in the South and the Midwest and on the West Coast, and what most Americans are like varies significantly. Our values are very diverse. Very.
In addition, I think it is important to remember that those who don't live in the US don't know what "most Americans are like". They don't know about this country's regional and political and social dynamics any more than we know about those in their countries - we have a very broad overview. So, just like us, they only see know about America based on what is in the media and from their interactions with Americans. And right now, some of those optics are unflattering, at best. Also, I've seen more than one American behave in entitled, obnoxious, embarrassing fashion in other countries. In addition, MM does embody many of the negative stereotypes of Americans even though we certainly aren't all like that. So that might be where a little of this is coming from IMO.
What is shown on tv is not the same as what happens in the real world. Years ago, someone pointed out to me that Silver Spoons was a huge shift in how kids were portrayed on tv. Up until that point, kids were just kids and tended to do silly kid stuff. However, that was a turn when kids were shown as the intelligent one and adults were so stupid they couldn't figure out how to get out of a paper bag. It has created a lot of parenting problems in that kids watch these shows and try to emulate those behaviors.
Will the rise of cable, what was news became different (if it bleeds, it leads) for ratings. So the whole focus tilted towards more and more outrageous.
She grew up in a generation of being told they were special and trophies for just participating were and are common so little feelings weren't crushed. So there are a lot people who grew up feeling very entitled because they merely existed.
So people even here grow up watching shows like KUWTK, Three is Company, any "real housewives" and think: this is what my life should become ("reality shows" popped up during a writers strike to fill air time to the best of my recollection).
I think this is why and where a lot of the ugly American values are being reinforced. The news is not really showing ny neighborhood Fourth of July parade or a follow up to children's playground built a couple years ago (showing daily use) but they will do one on how someone is going to all the Free Little Libraries and stealing all the used kids books (selling for drugs?).
So the news is all about ugly. And, what you mentally consume tends to bring out an underlying slant to your world view. It's like a rip tide - you don't realize how far down the beach you've gone because you have lost your track of your landmarks (own values have shifted in a negative way).
I think sometimes the US suffers from solipsism. We expect the world to know, care about, and understand US, and want to be like US. I've known people who went to France and complained that the food was different.
It occurred to me after looking again at the polo mess she made that her "surprise" reason, and she loves to cover her reason for crashing wherever she appears a surprise, is because she found out that Kate and the kids would all be at the match, including cute little Louis on one of his few publicly seen outings, and was hell bent determined to spoil it by using her baby to upstage and disrupt the photo op. Such a vampire. And, what kind of a mother uses her baby as a prop like that?
She couldn't stand the idea of Louis having all the press attention. And, she also can't stand the idea that Harry might have a good time with, or have the opportunity to heal the breach with Wills. Her mind must have been going wild as she raced to grab baby, his blankey and not so much as a bink, let alone a baby kit, threw on that muumuu sans belt, to get to the match post haste. Her muumuu pincer move was so stupid. All she did was make a spectacle of herself and add another spectacular flop to the growing list of crazy, bizarre antics.
I am not a mom. I do have more than 20 years' worth of professional experience working with babies, toddlers and children of all ages, plus baby-sitting and taking care of infants. The baby we saw in the polo pictures is 6-8 months old, not two. He is three times the size of two-month old infants I have personally seen in the last couple of weeks. Who am I to believe . .Megsy or the evidence of my own eyes? I'm sure the mothers here can testify that an infant does not double his birth weight in 8 weeks. MM seems to be holding a 14-pounder there at the least.
Many public figures have been controversial, but I have never encountered anyone so controversial as Meghan Markle. She makes one doubt the very underpinnings of the universe and natural laws like gravity and the time-space continuum. Like Pilate confronted with Jesus, I am asking "What is truth?" with everything concerning her. Why are so many people so unwilling to question her motives or even her grasp on sanity? She's not deserving of this unquestioning devotion.
I'd better lie low on Quora for a while. They make you post under your real name over there and I don't want Megsy siccing her lawyers on me--one of the lone dissenting voices over there.
I only started reading/posting on Quora when I got my new iPhone a few months ago . . it popped up in my Apple News app. I enjoyed it for a while but then decided that not only do they ask for too much personal information (my 'qualifications' field is still blank because I'm not volunteering anything about my location or where I work), but most of the users over there are cranks and agitators.
One poster self-identified as a sadist and shared with us all about his mental processes. And not in that sexy Christian Grey sort of way. I haven't posted much on there such then. I don't need that kind of psychic garbage in my lifeor headspace.
I now equate the "Markle Sparkle" with the kind of sparking Edward Cullen, Vampire, does in the light. She's blinding us with 'Sparkle' *here* so we don't investigate what's in the dark corner over *there*. She's been caught out in so many of her lies already, and I think we've only discovered the tip of the iceberg. So why does she still have millions (that many?) of defenders? And not just the lukewarm ones who don't love nor despise her but are willing to cut her some slack for being an American in a venerable English Firm . . Her defenders leap to the defense of MM's honor and normalcy . .hell, her extraordinariness--like the most devout foot soldiers of Joanne d'Arc.
For the Markle. It beggers belief.
Imagine that Harry had had a whirlwind courtship with a Caucasian yacht girl who got on OK with her family . . or who perhaps was an orphaned only child, and married her. Would a woman like that have so many legions of supporters willing to not only forgive/overlook all her many mistakes but take to the Internet howling that she should be made Queen of Great Britain?
On what merits? Markle has zero merits to be Queen, even if she were eligible by constitutional law. Which she is not. Even if the entire House of Windsor dropped dead of Ebola tomorrow save Meghan (who might have been the one to administer it) . . .she would not be Queen. I would invoke a sentence including 'British public', 'pike' and 'head on' . .but I don't want Megsy to sic her lawyers on me . . .