royal-confessions:

“I hate how people have this preconceived assumption that Prince Charles is this horrible person, all because of his (EXTREMELY toxic) relationship with Diana that ended decades ago. People really gotta just shut up and do their own research; Diana was just as toxic, possibly more toxic, than Charles. She cheated on him and invited the man she had an affair with into her home and even let him meet her children, and she even went as far as falling down the stairs (purposely) while she was pregnant“ – Submitted by Anonymous

I was watching Diana: Story of a Princess Part 2 on Youtube and around the 1 hour mark her former media consultant who she hired during the divorce to manage the PR quit after 8 months because she said that she couldn’t work in the environment any longer. This wasn’t in reference to abuse but rather that Diana ignored her advise on multiple occasions. She also described her as mercurial. Harry’s taste in women is still as creepy as when he was dating all the blondes….

I don’t find Harry’s taste in women creepy specifically, but he does have his mother’s mercurial attitude. 

Diana – Story Of A Princess – Part 1 (HD Best Version) Documentary

Diana: Story of a Princess – part 2 – first hand accounts of Princess of Wales


OR  The full version:

Documentary 2017 – Diana: Story Of A Princess

OMFG,did you see the new ‘leak’ to Katie Nicholl to Vanity Fair ”Meghan Markle Has a Princess Diana-Related Nickname from Palace Insiders”…”According to a source close to the royal household:”I’ve heard the duchess us referred to as Di 2,because of the similarities to Harry’s mother” Harry has a lot of Mommy issues,MM is soooo obsessed in being Diana

anonymoushouseplantfan:

She mentions the see-through clothing!!!!! LOLOLOLOL.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/10/meghan-markle-princess-diana-nickname

I think Will is defiantly at odds w/ Harry now that MM is wearing Diana’s jewelry. They weren’t talking at the wedding, even the past event they both attended wasn’t the same brotherly love we’ve seen. If I was Will, I’d be pissed too. Those earrings sent even MM’s style nor do they look good on her. 🙄

Defiantly? I see no evidence of that. We have no idea how they interacted at the reception, where there were no press cameras. 

Wearing Diana’s jewelry may be loaned. I seem to recall the huge, aquamarine ring Megs wore in her reception photos was referred to as a loan for the occasion. 

Regardless, her wearing her deceased mother-in-law’s jewelry is kind of gross.

image

cambridgefamily:

The engagement ring consists of 14 solitaire diamonds surrounding a 12-carat oval blue Ceylon sapphire set in 18-karat white gold. It was created by jeweler Garrard and cost at the time, 28,000 pounds sterling. Diana’s selection of this ring was unusual. It was neither custom-made nor unique and was, at the time of her engagement to Charles, featured in Garrard’s jewelry collection and available to anyone for purchase.

The truth behind Diana’s most dangerous infatuation | Daily Mail Online

motherofbulldogs:

Never forget! Diana stalked this man after he ended their affair. Diana was no saint. She portrayed herself as a helpless damsel in distress in the Andrew Morton biography, but there were plenty of twisted truths in that book that anyone should be skeptical of its themes.

The truth behind Diana’s most dangerous infatuation | Daily Mail Online

1/2 – I agree with the anon who said Harry is an user. IMO, what helped his “devotion” to Chelsy was the fancy things she provided, vacations, parties, presents. Cressida had the blueblood appeal, but is more theatre than HW/TV type, had no much money and the biggest fuss was K haters dreaming C sister would become W mistress. As more I think, more I believe he always looked for a woman who could offer him another lifestyle, rather then him take her into royalty.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

2/2 – In a way, he’s not wrong bc his fate is disappear, but his view of good life is trashy, like you all say. I also agree with ‘Diana is snob’ anon. Much of the expectation ppl had for W&H wives is due to D projection, she made ppl believe her sons were would bring glamour and sophistication to the BRF. She would be a bit disapointed with simpleton K, but no way would accept trash M, her reaction would be worse than PC or HM. I would love to see her dealing with her stalker using her tricks.


“[A]lways looked for a woman who could offer him another lifestyle, rather than him take her into royalty” is a very insightful comment. Chelsy offered him and escape to Africa and Cress offered him theater and the Bransons. It also explains the rush into the Soho House sphere. 

I’m going to caveat the “Diana is a snob” argument a bit. She was very proud of her heritage, but she did fall for Hazmat Khan, who, as far as I can tell, was a genuinely kind, hardworking and decent person with not aristocratic or celeb ambitions whatsoever.

How do the Cambridges compare?

duchessofostergotlands:

duchessofostergotlands:

So I hate to do the whole “Kate vs Diana” thing but a lot of people in this fandom hold Diana up as a perfect royal so I thought it would be interesting to compare the number of engagements they were doing in the year they gave birth to their second child. 

The total number of engagements is obviously lower due to the fact they were pregnant, giving birth, and on maternity leave. 

In 2015, the year of Princess Charlotte’s birth, the Duchess of Cambridge carried out 62 engagements

In 1984, the year of Prince Harry’s birth, Princess Diana carried out 52 engagements (x) 

In 2015, Prince William carried out 122 engagements. In 1984 Princes Charles carried out 93 engagements (x). 

It’s up to you to decide what that means for you but it’s interesting to be able to compare the numbers. Thoughts?

Thought I’d bring this back given recent conversation

Submitted:

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I worked with people who were in those circles in the Diana days.  Stories get told.   I do not think Diana wanted to take the BRF down.  She wanted to take Charles down.  And she essentially succeeded.  Diana was a very politically astute woman.  She “became” whatever the group she was with wanted her to be.  If you were a republican crowd Diana would drop hints as to being republican and of course then that group adored her.  Which is what she wanted. To be adored.  More than Charles.  So people projected their own desires on to her.  Something she did deliberately. Hence you get these stories about her wanting revenge and taking the BRF down.  

Peter Hitchens has a remarkable take on Diana.  “ If what I saw on that cold morning had been what the public were used to, her reputation and effect on the world might have been completely different. She looked a good deal more like the formidable natural politician she was, and a good deal less like the breathtakingly pretty but rather lost and lonely young woman most people thought she was. But the camera loved her so much that the world saw the naïve and lovely victim, not the brilliant wielder of public relations skills and tactical genius.”

Harry is not his mother he is not tactical genius but like Diana we project on to him our motives and desires.  Harry does not desire the abolition of the monarchy any more than his mother did.  I suspect Harry just wants a good time and his father’s attention.  


Thanks for sending this in. It’s very insightful and I’m going to have to re-read that Peter Hitchens piece.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/08/some-thoughts-about-the-princess-diana-affair.html

Hitchens has a ton of observations which are relevant to the Markle Debacle. But his notion that Monarchy survives because of successful pr branding rather than an actual understanding of what makes Monarchy positive for Britain is very astute IMHO. HM is now through “branding” the Nation’s Grandmother, Harry and Will are credible because they are Diana’s sons. Hence necessitating the constant playing of the Diana card. Pt. 1

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Pt 2. Ultimately he thinks this branding approach destroys monarchy. And that is Diana’s real legacy. Whether she want5ed it or not. Her appeal was to those who held a grievance especially women. Not because she was some great humanitarian. So Markle in order to achieve her Diana status must appeal to that same sense of grievance – she was done wrong by the BRF. And that is what the BRF must not let happen. Hence the mil wardrobe and all these gestures of acceptance.


This is very insightful too. It explains the constant “protocol breaches” articles and all the other pieces we are seeing right now (loves garlic but can’t eat it, etc…). I thought the change of title of that NYPost article was interesting. It went from “fashion disaster” to “royal life destroyed her style” and then started getting copied. 

I think there is a real thirst out there for the “royal victim” narrative right now. I think the sugars think it’s because of racism and many of my anons think it’s Meghan manipulating the coverage, but I think your “grievance attraction” theory should get a hearing. There seems to be a thirst out there for that particular story. No matter how much money they spend on this woman or how many “bffs with HM” pics they put out there, it simply will not go away.

Submitted:

anonymoushouseplantfan:

the grievance theory is about women who feel aggrieved by mistreatment of some sort from men – who symbolize the “establishment”.  Diana was in this telling the victim of a man Charles and the establishment which rallied around him.  So women who also felt “aggrieved” by men (legitimately or not) identified with Diana hence her winning the War of the Wales.  She successfully manipulated the pr to paint herself as this victim and found herself supported by a horde of well placed females in US society – Tina Brown as an example or the “fashionistas” like Anna Wintour.  Diana the triumphant victim was touted heavily in the pages of Vogue by these women.  MM do note has no such support although she courted it.

Charles could not possibly win.  Those who sought to support him were largely men.  Although he found support in a number of male anti establishment figures such as Christopher Hitchens who happily and I’d suggest accurately railed on about the “cult” of Diana.  PC was never a fashionista LOL and he did not court the media figures in NYC.  He couldn’t.

This is what MM aspires to.  And do note her “sugars” are primarily young women  who use social media to aggressively attack anyone even another woman who dare suggest that MM is lacking in any way.  Providing a whole new twist to the Diana pr war.  Rebecca English gets threatened with an acid attack because she mildly suggest a 56K dress is not appropriate.  Emilia Wickstead gets attacked because she makes the obvious observation that the dress did not fit (although a male designer who made the same observation was not attacked).  Melanie Bromley who by and large is a sugar and even Emily Andrews the super sugar also get attacked for statements of fact.  

This is what the RF faces with Markle – a nightmare I am sure for those in the family who went through the Diana days.  Only with now the additional weapon of social media.  The grievance now is elitism and race potent weapons in the aggrieved victim sweepstakes.

Harry is irrelevant in many ways to this struggle.  My sources say he was trapped by his own  foolishness into the marriage and has deep regrets.  He is certainly no rebel and will ultimately adhere to what the family requires.  The real issue is how does the BRF deal with this nightmarish repeat of grievance politics?  It would seem they have decided to allow her to do whatever she wants – to merch and leak and secure pr to her hearts content. To give her royal and family events to demonstrate how accepted she is.   So under no circumstances can they be accused of failing to support her.  She will of course at divorce carry on about her “grievances” against the establishment stifling her etc.  They can only hope the obvious support she has received will result in her complaints looking like ingratitude and nonsense.  Most of all they are probably hoping she will lose media support.  Without the media she can’t get much traction of whatever grievances she may air.  

I always though if Diana had not dyed her mousy ash colored hair into that vibrant glamorous blonde she’d never have become what she became.  Poor Markle even with hair dye could never equal Di’s ability to project to the camera that beauty and glamour. 

IMHO – I think the media is starting to turn.  This is why her failure as a fashion icon is so important.  If she is not making money for the media she is of no use to them.  And she has failed as a fashion icon.  Her move to “youthful” lower cost fashion is a sign of that failure.  No money making equals no media support which equals no way to air her grievances. Her social media minions are irrelevant then.  This time the RF wins.  Maybe.


Thanks for sending this in!

theroyalsandi:

Happy 57th Birthday Diana!!

I hope she’s looking down [at our family] with tears in her eyes being incredibly proud of what we’ve established. I’m sure she’s longing for me to have kids so she can be a grandmother again … but I hope that everything we do privately and officially, that it makes her proud. – Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex

The first news of the car crash came shortly before 1 am on Sunday here in the UK. The first edition of the News of the World had come out about 3 hours earlier, It’s lead story was about Diana and it was not good. Then came news of the crash and they scrapped the planned 2nd edition and hastily put out a sympathetic front cover. Diana had lots of criticism in the 2 years before she died, including the £ms she got in the divorce settlement. If she had lived it would only have got worse.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Yep.

The more media shows how mm tries to emulate diana the more I’m discovering stuff about diana that I never knew. I was a kid when D died, and I’m not from UK and till last year she was really holier than thou people’s princess for me.. But now I’m discovering that she had some hidden secrets in her closet too.. Like her mental illness, her going against BRF and queen which was uncalled for.. I didn’t know all this. Can you give some walkthrough on this? Or some good articles? Thank you so much!

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I think the last anon did a really good job summarizing it. My favorite “troubled Diana” articles are these:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/07/diana200707

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/royals/2013/09/princess-diana-love-hasnat-khan

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/princess-diana-mental-health_us_599705b4e4b01f6e801e4152

https://www.macleans.ca/society/life/dianas-damage/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/20/princess-diana-deeply-regretted-infamous-martin-bashir-interview/

https://people.com/royals/why-princess-diana-left-her-sons-to-vacation-in-paris-with-dodi-fayed/

1_I remember Diana’s post-divorce life differently. There was a backlash brewing. Her peak pre-death was Morton’s book, “there were three in this marriage”, and people applauded the sale of her gowns (William’s idea) and her “revenge” dress. BUT, the royal side was getting a hearing as well – with the caution that Diana was hardly a long-suffering saint. Her Hasnat Kahn relationship was in the news with hints she was stalking him.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

2_there was some backlash to her Vogue pics by DeMarchelier, how she was now 100% celebrity, mastering the art of (fake) accessibility. Her lowest point was right before her death – remember Dodi was a known coke addict and womanizer, and his dad was persona non grata and a rumored arms dealer. She was playing it up. Nobody thought that would end well.

3_Even back then there was a “what is she doing” attitude about her social life, and how futile her pursuit of true love seemed when you really looked at her temperment, expectations, requirements and circumstances. She’d fall in with the Fayad-types (“Eurotrash” for want of a better word) as she did.

4_also, her antics with Tiggy were well known to the public and very unflattering, particularly as to the position it placed her boys. What elevated her in the end was what she did on AIDs, on mines, and her demeanor engaging the public whilst married to Charles, stuck. Markle’s demeanor with the public is opposite to Diana, try as she might to imitate her. Even if Markle died she’d have no chance at St. Di.


Very good points. Di’s imagine would be very different if she hadn’t died because the criticisms were piling up. 

Submitted:

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Hi, sorry this is a submission!

I completely agree with you that post-divorce Diana is her aim, but I do wonder how she’ll get what she wants. If she’s the more guilty party, she’ll be the most unpopular woman in the UK. If Harry’s the more guilty party, no matter what she says he’s done, he’ll get away with being foolish. I don’t think he’ll ever reach the Charles-like “villain” because so many people see him as the boy behind the coffin. We’ve had these people asking Meghan to look after him, like haribo lady. 

Would it not be the same in the US? Because if she’s not liked, then the only thing she’ll have is fame/media hounding. So is it just for fame or profitability after the RF? I suppose it doesn’t quite compute in my mind because she might be aiming for Diana, but without that level of popularity wouldn’t it be so easy to fall into post-divorce Fergie?! 

I was only about 4 when Diana died, but I know people who have said she only reached this “sainthood” level after she died (I really don’t mean to be offensive, I think it’s quite common for people who die young). So for Meghan to have the Diana life, rather than Fergie, would it just come down to things like photo-ops on the diving board of a yacht?

I think I’m going around in circles here! Sorry about that!


Thanks for sending this in. Diana only reached “People’s Princess” status after her death, but she had a huge post-divorce “princess finally breaks free” pr drive in the US and that’s what Meghan is likely aiming for. 

Di sold her old clothes, cut her hair, toned down her makeup, got papped in jeans and gym clothes, ditched her UK charities and began doing more international humanitarian work, etc… She slammed up, got more sexy and wore the “revenge dress.” She started hanging out with celebs more. 

The whole thing was spun as finally breaking free from the stifling brf and becoming a superstar on her own. That’s the Di that became popular in the US. That’s the Di Meghan wants to be.

Diana also worked the age difference between her and Charles to her advantage in the press before they were divorced.

Regarding mirroring Diana’s facial expressions – there is something there. A certain fetching look that is part natural but certainly played up. I’m sure Harry sees it and it plays to his subconscious.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I’m not sure it’s mirroring per se but Meghan has, like that article said, a very “child-like” way of presenting herself–lots of giggling and “oh gosh” expressions and stuff like that. It’s a bit off-putting on someone who is 36 yrs old.

Diana did something similar with her doe eyes and whispery voice. It was charming when she was young, but it started to look manipulative when she got older. The Panorama interview and the Diana tapes are perfect examples of it.

Re people forgetting Di’s AIDS work was mostly ribbon-cutting & hospital visits. => YES! And the landmine thing was mostly letters, asking for meetings, sometimes just over the phone. The whole stroll down landmine lane photo was basically just the cherry on top picture that illustrated A LOT of quiet work. The nursery, school, sports activities, small groups & organisations visits are the bread and butter of BRFs “work”. Meg’s blasting it all and claiming the post divorce headline Di pronto!

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Exactly. These Di wannabes forget that Di had tons of minor patronages and she did ALL OF THE CRAP work. 

Did people complain about Diana’s clothes or tally everything up when she was Princess of Wales? Was just reading on the Vogue website that in today’s dollars she spent 10 x more than Kate per month. When I google her princess days, she always looked like a (literal) million dollars. If people didn’t mind was it because she WAS P o Wales, not wife of the 3d in line, and because she was young?

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Oh, no, people freaked. There was no way of tallying because almost all her clothes were custom made, but there was a lot of controversy at first. People were used to royals who wore very uniform-looking clothes and reused things over and over again and here was Di with designer this and that, and hardly ever recycling anything. Eventually, she started re-using and altering clothes.

But Di spent tons of money. And there were no discounts back then. Charles paid for everything. The amounts didn’t really come out until after the divorce, though. This is from Diana, The Last Word.

I don’t think that’s 10X what Kate spends, though. I think it comes out to about the same when you do all the conversions.

OMG, I just pulled the old articles from Kate’s first year when people were freaking out that she spent $54k in six months. That’s less money than a pair of Meghan’s earrings!!!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/06/25/kate-middleton-54000-clothing-budget-pretty-pittance-or-royal-pain/#621a70e4744c

I found a historical UK inflation calculator. Basically, £1 in 1994 equals £1.94 in 2018. So, Diana’s £160,000 in 1994 would be the equivalent of £310,400 today. 

In any family, you have someone who is crazy, addicted, just “off,” but you don’t give them the keys to the castle along with family PR power and unlimited funds. Why go to all this fuss over Harry’s girlfriend/wife? Why have they given H/M so much control this far? That trend might change later, but Kate had to jump through major hoops for years. Even Sophie had to, Jack has been dating E for 7ish years. Why is everyone caving to Harry?

anonymoushouseplantfan:

One, I think they are afraid that he will turn full Diana and start doing interview trashing the BRF. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he was doing interviews talking about how they made him walk behind the coffin, Will didn’t take care of him at Eton, and no one wants to be a royal in February/March when he was trying to sell Meghan to the BRF.

I get a lot of anons talking about how Meghan has dirt on the BRF, but I think the one with the real dirt on the BRF, and an amazing platform to spread it, is Harry.

Second, I think Harry has serious issues that make him borderline unmarriageable. Yes, the press attention and mind-numbingly boring royal workload are part of it, but there are likely other personal issues. A lot of people talked about how William had to settle for Kate because “there was no one else.” I think that is actually true about Harry. They’ve been trying for years to get someone decent to step up with no luck. I think Harry told them that this was his only chance and they couldn’t take it away from him.

As it has been said before: like mother like son, same bright mind. Diana’s revenge against the RF has the same lack of logic than Harry rebelliousness: both wanted the perks of being royal, but believed they were above the monarchy due to their charisma and failed to see they should do the best for the instituition for their own sake. I don’t doubt Diana believed she could bring down the Windsors, but save her sons.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

THIS.

I really don’t like those Camilla/M comparisons. What C&C has span DECADES. 2-3 times longer than the average UK marriage. (Google) . PH/M’s whateverthefuckitis spans months, with most of it long distance. I’m not romantic, so all that “Fairy-tale” nonsense doesn’t impress me at all. PC waited, absorbing all the negativity and hatred that went/goes with it, and was FINALLY able to marry the woman he truly wanted. I’m happy for him.

motherofbulldogs:

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I understand this, but he did a TON of harm to the institution. Camilla is still wildly unpopular after a massive pr drive. Ditto Charles,

And Charles’ “I love her and that’s that” intransigence is why we are here today. Because if the future king isn’t willing to put the crown’s interest above all else, why should the 6th in line to the throne do so?

Yes, it’s a love story but so was Paris and Helen and look how that ended for Troy.

Wrong. The damage was done by Diana. Intentionally inflicted. She’s the one that wanted private affairs made public for her own sympathy and vengeance against her husband. Had she never made it public and kept up a good public image, they likely would have carried on being married yet happily in their own lives. And Camilla would never have divorced Andrew Parker-Bowles.

I really don’t like those Camilla/M comparisons. What C&C has span DECADES. 2-3 times longer than the average UK marriage. (Google) . PH/M’s whateverthefuckitis spans months, with most of it long distance. I’m not romantic, so all that “Fairy-tale” nonsense doesn’t impress me at all. PC waited, absorbing all the negativity and hatred that went/goes with it, and was FINALLY able to marry the woman he truly wanted. I’m happy for him.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I understand this, but he did a TON of harm to the institution. Camilla is still wildly unpopular after a massive pr drive. Ditto Charles,

And Charles’ “I love her and that’s that” intransigence is why we are here today. Because if the future king isn’t willing to put the crown’s interest above all else, why should the 6th in line to the throne do so?

Yes, it’s a love story but so was Paris and Helen and look how that ended for Troy.

Can we also mention–just to be fair–that Diana did a lot of damage to the institution? And that maybe–just maybe–holding people to unrealistic marriage standards based on a religious denomination that originated with Henry VIII as its head is completely hypocritical?

On top of all the wise words you have said to the anon who thinks it will take years for Meghan’s dirt to come out, why in heavens name would you think the British press would treat Meghan in any way shape or form the same as they did Diana? Pfft

I did NOT say that the British press would treat Megs in the same way as Diana. That’s why I am laughing so hard.

Re-read it again. Fleet Street isn’t treating Megs like they did Diana back in 1981 even as it stands right now. And they certainly aren’t going to in the coming weeks.

DM: “Germaine Greer claims the royal family ‘never had any intention’ of allowing Meghan Markle’s father to walk her down the aisle – as she controversially claims Prince Philip could ‘scuttle’ Harry’s marriage and ‘drove Diana mad'”

anonymoushouseplantfan:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5730697/Germaine-Greer-says-royal-family-didnt-want-Meghan-Markles-father-wedding.html

Germaine is more of a headline grabber than I thought. Megs didn’t want her father walking her down the aisle. That’s why he’s not in London. Her mother isn’t in London either.

I take umbrage at her saying Philip drove Diana crazy. Diana had a crazy childhood and was terrible to her stepmother. Philip didn’t cause Diana to stalk her married lovers.

image
image

motherofbulldogs:

royalpain16:

Favorite Tiara(s) worn by a Royal Bride(s) 

The Spencer Tiara for me is the most lovely and perfect tiara for a wedding, with it’s “heart” shaped scroll of diamonds, it’s romantic and feminine. Lady Diana Spencer wore this to her marriage to The Prince of Wales on July 29, 1981, the day she became The Princess of Wales.  

She chose this above the Cambridge Tiara that had been “given” to her by the Queen. She often wore the Cambridge, but I read many times, the Spencer Tiara was her favorite.

I believe I’ve heard that the Spencer tiara is lighter in comparison to the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara. (But I also agree on the look of the Spencer Tiara.)

You see folks, here’s the difference! Catherine gives birth (for the third time), has perfect dress, makeup, hair, while leaving the hospital after giving birth a few hours before. She looks professional, a duchess, a future queen, clean, tidy. Meghan today looks a mess…messy hair, no covered shoulders, no stockings again! Totally unprofessional mess. She really must not have a frickin mirror!

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Not only that…it was a Diana tribute outfit!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL, I think Kate is flat-out trolling now.

 http://people.com/royals/kate-middleton-paid-tribute-to-princess-diana-with-her-hospital-departure-outfit/

I’m really sorry if you’ve already replied to this – I’ve been away for a few days (or sorry if you just don’t think it’s interesting enough!) But I was wondering what you/other anons think about the consequences of Meghan’s “interest” in Diana is in relation to Charles/Camilla? I mean, if she had the book, copies her etc, Meghan must have felt something about Charles and Camilla before or even after she met them, right?!

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I actually hadn’t replied to your anon yet because I was still thinking about it.

I don’t think she had any preconceived notions about Charles and Camilla, at least regarding the infidelity. I know it’s going to sound strange, so bear with me.

I’m actually re-reading the Google Books excerpts on Morton’s Diana book to try to remember what that book felt like. I know the public outcry over it was what it revealed about Charles’ infidelity, but the book itself is, imo, not about that.

It’s mostly a huge martyr trip for Di and Charles is not even the starring player. It starts with her dad and mom and the divorce and how different that made her feel. There’s a lot of stuff about her siblings and school. I suspect that would be the part that would draw in someone like Meghan. That and the fame and adulation parts.

So I don’t think Meghan would have much of an opinion on Charles other than “oh, cold fish and cold parent and OMG Harry my parents mistreated me too!!!!!!!!” I don’t think she would resent Charles and Camilla for the adultery. That part of the story likely didn’t make much difference to her. The whole “poor mistreated Di became an icon through fashion and charity work” would be the part that appealed to her.

Check out the newest article from express. Meghan Markle shock admission from biographer: She’s done the rounds. Oh and she liked to call herself Diana 2.0 what a psycho!

anonymoushouseplantfan:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/944410/meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-wedding-lorraine

Thanks! I think he was talking about the acting rounds, but, yikes, that’s a headline.

The most intriguing part of that interview, however, was this:

LOL, all that fake hugging was for naught. I think Morton’s being very insightful here. This is what’s going to sink Meghan. She’s an activist, not a carer, and people can tell. The BF doesn’t have any space for an activist. 

I get why some people may not like Diana’s rings because it was from a catalogue and everything, but a Harry designed Meghan’s ring from Scratch and I would’ve guessed that thing came straight out of 5$ section at your local Claire’s shop, whereas Diana’s looks unique.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

I find the “it’s from a catalogue” critiques so funny. When Di and Charles got engaged that was considered a good thing. There were tons of romantic stories about how he took her to Garrard’s and they took out all of these trays with rings on them, so she could make her choice and she picked the one she liked the best. After that, every cheesy eighties rom com had a scene with the boyfriend taking the girlfriend to a store to pick rings from trays.

It was a big part of the Di legend because it showed how she was a regular, unpretentious girl and how this was a new modern couple.

Who wants Diana catalog ring? There are probably other women out there with the same ring. It has no meaning other than a terrible marriage. I wouldn’t want it to wear another woman’s ring is a joke, especially from a terrible marriage.

anonymoushouseplantfan:

Posting this, just because it gives me an opportunity to post this awesome article from back in December, which I somehow missed. It’s about the royal souvenir business in China.

it turns out everyone wanted Diana’s ring. No one wanted Meghan’s.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2123195/harry-and-meghan-who-chinas-souvenir-makers-not-holding-their