Posted on 07/20/2023 8:12:27 AM PDT by Red Badger
Meghan Markle. A barracuda with lip stick.
I will never be able to understand what Harry was thinking.
There’s no such thing as that good in bed.
I have had numerous “very friendly” women.
I wouldn’t f up my life for any of them.
She’s a first ballot Hall of Fame Whore all the way.
That's because Fergie not only stayed in England, she continued to live on the Queen's estate. Fergie and Andrew have been living together in the Royal Lodge at Windsor for most of the years since their divorce. One assumes it's been an "open" marriage, given the Epstein situation. But Fergie has been a good mother, and she and Elizabeth remained close. Liz willed "custody" of her precious Corgi dogs to Fergie last year when she died.
She was long in the teeth and losing her looks when she married him.
No whore like an old whore.
Ah. Didn’t know any of that. I have to admit I always like Fergi.
Harry may just come out of the closet as Transroyal next week.
“A Man is not Completed until He’s Married”! and then he’s finished.
A narcissist destroys, devalues and discards.
She has him admitting to abusing her in writing.
She has him provoking Islamic baddies and putting the kids at risk.
Now it’s I want half Eddie time.
All for doing nothing except sex bombing the poor kid who was too naive to see the hook.
The issue of "Defender of the Faith" was clearly settled when he took his oaths during the several ceremonies of the coronation, in which he pledged on the Holy Bible to uphold the Protestant Christian church. He has done a lot to live down his earlier uberliberal stance towards religion.
The "Queen Mother" was his grandmother, the widow of King George VI, father of the late Queen Elizabeth. Charles's mother, Elizabeth II, was "Her Majesty the Queen."
The other problems you listed—greenie, globalist: yes.
An Amish football player or rap producer. All she needs to do is hire Momager Kardashian to manage her career and her love life.
“She’ll easily get married again to someone very wealthy.”
Not likely I’m affraid.
Someone wealthy is smart enough to know what she is and she will not accept a sturdy pre-nuptual.
No, there is a lightly monied slob out there she’ll sex bomb next and work for her next %50 all the while banging side pieces every chance she gets like she’s done all along to Harry.
The kids might not be his. Wait for that to drop.
I thought they were already talking about how the girl looks like Diana?
She’s a grifter and a con.
She’s going to be weathy now.
Her five year plan worked flawlessly.
She’s evil and she’s good at it.
I hope the SAS…
This is poor reporting. The custody is not with the person, but with the person who wears the Crown. The British Sovereign has legal custody of all of his or her minor grandchildren, to ensure the line of succession. That is now King Charles.
Neither Charles nor Queen Elizabeth could assert custody of Harry's children when they were born until Elizabeth died. Elizabeth had the royal prerogative over her grandchildren (William and Harry from Charles, Peter and Zara from Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie from Andrew, and Louise and James from Edward), who were all grown by the time Harry's kids were born; but the order did not extend to her great-grandchildren, (she had I think nine, including Archie and Lilibet from Harry).
Charles supposedly has legal custody now that he is crowned. The question is whether he is strong enough to use whatever leverage is necessary to assert physical custody of the children, which cannot happen without a fight, or some rather dramatic subterfuge. Philip would have urged the Sovereign to do what needed to be done. Elizabeth was too indulgent, and Charles seems to be, as well.
As for California law versus the British Crown, it would not be hard for UK to turn this into an international relations negotiation between Ambassadors. It would be ironic justice if any custody suit takes place when Trump is president again! Meghi's worst nightmare! I think Trump's parting words to Harry when he saw him last were, "Good luck. You're going to need it."
I said the same at Post 83...
She’s definately going to latch hard onto custody of Archie. As she said very early on “no matter what happens Archie will always be a Royal” So since sh’s the mother she sees him as her toe hold to the Royal family “wealth”
That’s ok with Megan - as long as she has access to the Royal wealth via Archie. The daughter not so much. She’s tried to reach Charles like she dos any male she can manipulate.
I see what you’re saying, and thanks for clarifying why you mentioned the Queen Mother.
Things were different then; there was the scandal with Wallis Simpson and then the Queen had forbidden Princess Margaret from marrying a divorced man unless she renounced royal duties. That was Church of England standards for the royal family at the time. Even in the 1990s here in the U.S., two divorced friends of mine who were experienced corporate leaders were asked to step down from leadership in the Episcopal Church USA because they were in dating relationships but not yet remarried. No one asked if they were sleeping together; it was just assumed. But I digress.
Camilla had already been around the block a number of times. The thought at the time was that the wife of a future king should be a virgin, so that there would be great loyalty, and no gossip by the commoners, by romantic rivals or by former flames. So because the family already had put duty above romance for Margaret, they would not do so for Charles.
There’s also the matter of Camilla’s ho-hum attitude; Charles went on a navy tour for several months, and she hooked up with Parker-Bowles and before Charles returned, even coverted to Catholic and married P-B. Another constitutional no-no; those in the line of succession are not allowed to marry Catholics.
Many think that theirs is a great love story; it’s more of a calculated social climb by the amoral Camilla; who keeps the introverted, selfish and dweeby Charles happy enough to stick around so she can have the royal life. Even since his divorce, the couple rarely spent a night together because they are only compatible as drinking buddies and socialites; their lifestyles are quite divergent. He stayed in Highgrove, fussing and fuming over his gardens and having everything in the house just so; and she stayed in her house, which was reportedly quite sloppy and full of her cigarette smoke and her grandchildren.
Supposedly they’re not changing their ways too awfully much now that they are crowned and he has had to surrender Highgrove and take “apartments” (dozens of rooms) in Buckingham and Westminster. She has kept her country house.
She’s a crafty poser. And he’s a loner. They have no passionate arguments as do people who have children together and raise them. So they’re “happy.” But they would have been quite miserable if they had married when young and tried to raise kids and put up with each other’s selfish cynicism and Charles’ entitled infidelities. It’s only logical she would have done the same—she broke up his marriage while cheating on her own and putting four children in the middle of their cringeworthy affair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.