MovieChat Forums > Meghan Markle Discussion > You're not a princess, get over yourself...

You're not a princess, get over yourself!

posted 5 years ago by AmeriGirl26 (12299)
115 replies | jump to latest

I've read a great deal about Meghan after the past year, and she's about as much of a princess as Anastasia was in that cartoon movie.

One reason she's been mis-labeled as a "princess" is due to the idiots in the press (as well as the duchess herself) following that childish, fairy-tale belief that once you marry a prince, you automatically become a princess. Doesn't work that way in real life, morons.

First off, the guy she married is 6th in line for the throne, meaning that Meghan will never be Queen of England, much as she'd love to have that kind of authority and wealth. (Thank you GOD it isn't that easy to become Queen in England!) And the more children William and Kate have, the further back Harry gets pushed from ever becoming king. Chances are, he will die with the title of Prince on his tombstone. That also means, Harry is not the wealthiest of the royals, nor is he given the same treatment as William and Charles. In fact, nearly all of the money among the Senior Royals (the Queen's immediate family) is controlled by the Queen herself.

Second, the only way you become a princess in today's British Monarchy, is to be born with the title, and even then, you're not guaranteed a chance to become Queen, or being super-rich and having a lot of power. In fact, there are two princesses who are sisters and cousins of William and Harry, whose family had fallen on hard times financially, and showed up with the Dr. Seuss hats on the day of William and Kate's wedding to get press attention, as well as make a pretty penny selling those hats later.

Third, among British royalty, due to the proliferation of relatives, there's a major pecking order. Being married to a prince (particularly if you're a commoner to start with) does not guarantee you will have the title of Princess. Even Kate Middleton does not have that kind of honor. Best she got was Duchess and "Royal Consort." Even then, she does not wield very much power. Everyone in the immediate royal family is still subject to the whims of Queen Elizabeth II. You don't do anything major without her consent, and that includes getting permission to wear crowns to certain occasions.

Meghan came in, thinking she'd hit the jackpot by securing Prince Harry's hand in marriage, and learned otherwise when it came to being subject to the Queen. She had already been spoiled by fame from Hollywood, raised in a shallow, liberal, leftist environment in so'Cal that treated black and mixed people with kid gloves, and many people have reported on her arrogant bitchiness. Don't be fooled by those smiles she offers the camera. Several of her staff quit working for her in the year after she got married, and on the day of her dress fitting, she actually made both Kate and her daughter Charlotte cry! What kind of a bitch does that to her future in-laws?!

She also demanded a crown with emeralds to wear on her wedding day, and the Queen got very annoyed. She finally put her foot down and said "She will wear whatever I give her!" and the new Duchess got a platinum crown to wear on her wedding day. I find it rather satisfying to hear one of those cousin princesses I mentioned got to wear a crown with emeralds on her wedding day instead. Imagine how much Meghan gnashed her teeth over that one! She then demanded to wear a tiara to some charity event, and Prince Charles told her wearing a crown in front of Filipinos who had suffered from a major earthquake and had lost a lot was very inappropriate, hence why Meg ended up wearing a hat better suited for WWII nurses.

She and Harry have been through at least two nannies so far, claiming they needed to find the right one for their new baby, but the truth is, I suspect the first two left because they couldn't stand Meg. That, and for a while, the Queen "banished" them to a country home so her new daughter-in-law wouldn't clash as much with the rest of the family in London or get as much press coverage. There appeared to be a rift between Meg and Kate for a while, and I can see why. It's basically a showdown between an entitled bitch, and a true lady. You can guess who's gonna ultimately win, considering the entitled one isn't on her home turf in southern CA anymore. She can't just order people around and wave away people she doesn't like anymore, and not everyone in England is gonna kiss her ass just because of her heritage. It's nice to see someone like that get fed humble pie once in a while, and boy does she need a lot of it.

She's made up with the Queen lately, but time will tell if she becomes a better person or not. I doubt it, though.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

You sound jealous.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

Not really. I read what Princess Diana's life was like, and frankly, I would not want to marry into the British royal family. The crap everyone has to deal with is not worth the fame and fortune. I'm just annoyed at the stupidity surrounding Meghan.

I may not be rich or married to a prince, but I have more freedom to do what I want with my life than any woman in that family ever did. I have nothing to be jealous about regarding the Windsors.

It seems you are the jealous one, and projecting onto me.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

I didn´t write an essay length comment attempting to undermine the legitimacy of Megan Markle´s title of Princess. lol

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

She's a legitimate Duchess of Sussex, that is all. They basically did a female copy-and-paste of all of Harry's titles onto her, because she's his wife. She is no princess.

You want a real princess, look up Princess Charlotte, Princess Beatrice, and Princess Eugenie. They are royal by blood and inherited the titles at birth. No matter what idiots like you or the press believe, in this day and age, you don't get a title like that just by marrying a prince, illegitimate or not. There are rules when it comes to granting titles to non-royals. You would know that if you actually did your homework.

I wrote at length to show what I know, something you could easily learn if you were willing to find out about how modern-day monarchies work, and yet the lot of you are obviously Meghan fans and don't need to write much to let me know how low your IQ's all are.

You just blindly fall in love with her because she's half-black and married a prince, and was on a tv show that almost nobody watched. Big whoop-dee-doo! Actors like that are a dime a dozen these days. I've noticed nobody wants to talk about her now that she's done the uncool Hollywood thing and settled down with a family. Imagine how quickly she'll be forgotten in the next year, should she submit to the Queen's leash.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

"There are rules when it comes to granting titles to non-royals. You would know that if you actually did your homework."

I actually don´t care enough to confirm whether she truly is or isn´t a princess, just think its hilarious, you wrote an essay-like rant about the subject. The fact you have gone to great lengths disputing it, makes me curious as to what your motivations are. Just seems like pure jealousy, or personal insecurity, from the outside looking in. Human behaviour interests me more than whether someone is a princess or not.

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

I actually found it very interesting and educational. Seems as if knowledge and learning aren't of real interest to you.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

Good for you. Yes because people who like to learn should unequivocally be interested in royal family gossip. Solid logic there bro.

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

Oh, so the only things you're interested in are completely practical? Sure. I take interest in MANY subjects. Some practical, some whimsical. Why do you watch movies or involve yourself with movie message boards AND why are you reading and posting on a thread about "royal family gossip"? Solid logic there, bro.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

Curiosity mostly. Like what motivates a person to post a 5 paragraph rant about the legitimacy of Markle´s title of Princess. The topic in and of itself is not the part I find interesting. It´s the poster´s motivation for going on such a rant that interests me. I´m not questioning your likes and dislikes, frankly I really don´t care what they are. Im questioning why you assume I have no interest in learning because I am not interested in royal family gossip. They aren´t mutually exclusive. That is faulty logic.

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

I didn't say they were and I don't believe they are. You're not questioning my likes and dislikes but you are questioning those of the OP. I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone likes sports. Some to the point of obsession but I don't criticize others when they post ranting novellas extolling or deriding some millionaire's ability to chase a ball around. They are interested in it enough to want to discuss/rant about it. It's faulty logic to question that. The OP clearly has an interest in a subject that doesn't interest you. Questioning that is also faulty logic.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

No, he's questioning a malignant toxic rant and he has as much right as anyone to be curious and to state his opinion.
Seeing so much venom spewed over a total stranger is odd and gets peoples attention.

You're all right, Billy.

On a side note..No one has the slightest bit of control on whether they're born rich or poor, black or white, female or male ..and that goes for everything else such as intelligence, skills or talents, appearance or even "royal blood".
Birth is a lottery and a matter of good luck or bad. Nothing special.
So why hold such a high regard for "royal blood" anyway. In fact, wouldn't it seem a little inbred after centuries of holding a bloodline on a pedestal? Isn't it even kind of prehistoric to do so?

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

Oh boohooo, a malignant, toxic rant! You need a hug? I never questioned his right. Guess what? The OP had just as much right to their post. Too toxic and malignant for you? Tune out. Simple.

I do agree with you about the whole royalty thing, btw.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

You're very strange.
Logic is not your friend.
I'm not offended by toxic negativity and envy as much as I see it running the world these days in not such a good way. All one need do is speak words and somehow the words become truth. If ever you're a victim of rumors or half truths then you might get it.

I've never been a fan of malicious gossip. But maybe you are.
That is your right.

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

What did I say that is illogical?

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

"I didn't say they were and I don't believe they are."

Earlier post from you.

"I actually found it very interesting and educational. Seems as if knowledge and learning aren't of real interest to you."

Correct me if I´m wrong but from this comment you are implying that I´m not interested in learning because I didn´t find her rant interesting.

Secondly, I did not once criticize her, I just said she seemed jealous, I just wanted to know her motivation for posting her rant. She is welcome to do as she pleases. Also, questioning something has nothing do with logic. Maybe you should look up what logic actually means.

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

I offered an opinion. Never once did allude that they were mutually exclusive.

[–] whoanelly (1558) 2 years ago

Careful chilone. The op has a lot of errors in her rant. Don’t trust or believe it.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well, BS, your taking so much notice of her posts and randomly trying to guess her motives for writing it makes me curious about what your motives are.

Maybe you could apply a bit of your curiosity about "Human Behaviour" to yourself...

And before you start, my motives for responding here are annoyance at seeing someone making negative guesses about someone else, and not elaborating on why.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 4 years ago

Taking so much notice? This is probably the only thread of hers I´ve ever replied to. I already elaborated on why I found the post curious. I also have a background in psychology. Is that elaborate enough for you?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

So, you make negatively-charged guesses about someone else's stated opinions because you, er, have a background in psychology? You've read a book or two by Freud, Jung, et al, have you?

And now you act as if that qualifies you to explore a stranger's personality by asking impertinent remarks, ("You sound jealous"), and delving into her "motives" for holding an opinion with which you evidently don't agree.

In any case, it's a bit unsettling to know that we have on the forum a person with "a background in psychology" who will offer his diagnoses whenever he reads a post that he doesn't understand.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 4 years ago

Her opinion is not relevant to my comment, its her manner of expressing herself. Its rare to see someone go on such a vitriolic tirade about a celebrity they barely know. So yes, I think my opinion about her is valid and whatever my background is, its not really relevant and I would never have mentioned it but I just elaborated for you since you asked why I was interested. Fwiw, I think most laypersons would make that assessment of her.

Your white-knighting a three month old thread of a crazy person is more unsettling tbh.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

And when they move to the US they will be free to change their names, she could change it to Princess Meghan if she wanted to... Of if you prefer she could change it to Queen Meghan... No one in the US really cares, which will be the funny part because I doubt their plans to sell their brand crap will make them the fortune they crave.

[–] whoanelly (1558) 2 years ago

Sure, she should go for it! It’s working out so well for Romana Didulo in Canada.

[–] Burk48917 (10983) 4 years ago

Lol!

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6929) 5 years ago

You seem really mad at someone who's done nothing offensive to you or the general public just for living her best life. Why? Who cares if she's the princess or a princess by title? No one is asking to be educated on royal etiquette. Who even cares if she is a bitch? I'm not friends with her, and neither are you.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

I think Harry could have done better. It makes me wonder if he didn't want a strong, independent woman, but rather a second mommy to boss him around. Had the royal marriage laws not be relaxed in the past 20 years, the Queen would have never allowed Harry anywhere near her.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6929) 5 years ago

Am I actually talking to the Queen right now? Because if not, what you're saying makes no sense. Harry is not your son. You don't need to look on him with rose tinted glasses, like no woman is good enough for your little boy. He and Meghan seem incredibly happy, which is all you can hope for in marriage. How they are as individuals is completely irrelevant. The Queen allowed it and seems pretty pleased with it, so why it bothers someone who doesn't know them makes no sense.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

Wow, you really don't know who you're talking to or what you're talking about at all. I'll send you back to the mirror to keep talking to yourself at your mental hospital. Orderly!

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6929) 5 years ago

You're definitely right about one thing: I don't know who I'm talking to. But I've come to a solid conclusion I don't want to know.

Regardless of your aspersions, I would honestly consider why this subject gets you so bothered. It's unhealthy to harbor this much venom for a stranger. I don't know what's going on in your life that this has become such a point of frustration for you, you had to post about it. But it comes off as serious misdirected anger and I would advise you to seek therapeutic help.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Lol! Another one from the "Billy Slater School of Amateur Psychology."

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"How they are as individuals is completely irrelevant."

smh...

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

You do realize these are "discussion" forums. I found it interesting, so I care. If you do not, you can select a different thread.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6929) 5 years ago

What? This is a discussion forum? Thanks for letting me know.

It's not a matter of whether I find it interesting - you can have reasonable discussions on topics that don't particularly interest you. However, I actually like the royals because I'm technically a citizen of the monarchy.

But what drew me to this discussion - again, thanks for letting me know - is the alarming amount of hate spewing from the OP about a person they don't know, who has not done anything except have a career, get married and have a baby. There's literally tnothing to fault her on. Everything anyone thinks about her personality is conjecture unless you actually know her. She's having no influence on anyone's life because she isn't going to be named Queen. And again, if she is a horrible wife, mother, etc, what's it to the general public? I'm sure Harry's family have it firmly in hand.

[–] chilone (17266) 5 years ago

You're welcome. I'm here to help! ;)

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 4 years ago

Wint3rFir3 You are a serious moron. You actually enjoy that people are "living their best life" by collecting money from the public for no fucking reason. Royalty should only exist in ass-backwards nations. The fact that you think this is just wonderful says a lot about you.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6929) 4 years ago

This is a strange attack. We're discussing one individual, so what you're attacking me over doesn't really apply to this discussion. Yes, I think one woman getting married and having kids is wonderful if that's the woman's choice. But if we're going into the inner workings of monarchies, then Markle isn't (to my mind) the person that requires attacking.

If you have a problem with the system, hate on the Queen. Hate the actual system of monarchy. Why hate on one specific figure in the system who has little to no power to change it?

Also, name-calling isn't my favourite debate tactic, but I guess we all have our own style.

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 4 years ago

I DEFINITELY hate the queen.

[–] PaladinNJ (20310) 5 years ago

Do you write a lot of fiction?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

Why do you ask?

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

I'm not sure why you have such negativity toward this woman. Of course, I don't click on the controversy surrounding her..It just seems gossipy and malignant and I don't have much trust of press concerning these kinds of people.
But mostly I think being a part of royalty anyway as pretty boring. It does not fascinate me.

I think Princess Grace and Princess Diana should have put to rest any romantic notions of "finding their Prince" Both seemed miserable in their bubble and far removed from a Disney fantasy..
And who cares who fathered Harry? It seems to me that the more that bloodline gets diluted the healthier it'll be.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Good luck to her , I hope Harry and her (and Archie) have a happy life together.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

Same here..I wish them nothing but the best.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I'll add my voice here too. Good luck to them both.

[–] LenkoPenko (157) 5 years ago

Why does it matter to you so much?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

She has no life?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

I think it's stupid how the press worshiped her, just because she was half-black. They probably would have completely ignored her if she was white. Many Brits could have cared less about the wedding. My own British pen-pal had better things to do on that day than gape at a guy who's never gonna be king, marrying a woman who wouldn't have had a chance with him 20 years ago.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

"They probably would have completely ignored her if she was white." Just like they ignored Diana. lol.

[–] LenkoPenko (157) 5 years ago

Or the other one who married the other prince, lol.

[–] BillySlater (4097) 5 years ago

Fergie?

[–] [email protected] (48) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] (48) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (31892) 5 years ago

The OP mentioned Meghan's race three times. Obviously a bigot who hates the idea of a black woman marrying a European prince and becoming a princess which is one of the many titles she holds.

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

The funny thing is I bet most of the resident white supremacists still upset over a black woman becoming part of the British royal family and "tainting" the bloodline aren't even British.