Page 4 of 6

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:02 am
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Guessing he's too pre-occupied on the Mail comments right now slamming the bitch for stealing Harry away from us.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:24 pm
by RedDwarf 1881
The only problem with resigning from royal duties is they can still be targets for terrorist's. Who pay's to protect them . ?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:41 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:24 pm The only problem with resigning from royal duties is they can still be targets for terrorist's. Who pay's to protect them . ?
They’re going to be financially independent, aren’t they?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:13 pm
by spen666
RedO wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:41 pm
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:24 pm The only problem with resigning from royal duties is they can still be targets for terrorist's. Who pay's to protect them . ?
They’re going to be financially independent, aren’t they?
No - read the weasily worded statement ( Could have been drafted by a lawyer its that weasily worded)....they are going to work towards being financially independent. Thus if they get £0.01 less from public purse, they can say they are working towards financial independence...just v slowly

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:36 pm
by Thor
You have to read between the lines what’s going on here.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:49 pm
by Long slender neck
Whats happening?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:41 pm
by Give it to Jabo
:) :D
Prestige Worldwide wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:04 pm I heard she rates Sam Ling over Judd too.
:D

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:16 pm
by Max B Gold
Ginger cant go mugging off the Her Your Majesty like this. The car crash crew will no doubt be deploying as we speak.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:27 pm
by spen666
Max B Gold wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:16 pm Ginger cant go mugging off the Her Your Majesty like this. The car crash crew will no doubt be deploying as we speak.

Nah, plane crash over Atlantic is so much cleaner - no evidence to find of any sabotage

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:14 pm
by Disoriented
Thor wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:02 pm Flys by private jet, tells us to cut down.
Tells us to become vegans yet today shes wearing leather
Talks about womens equality, shame she never practiced that in the video that harry is trying to bury via legal action

She is a hypocrite of the highest order, I could go on about it, but I'll leave it there.
What video?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:15 pm
by Disoriented
The usual dog-whistling about racism being bandied around on Tw*tter.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:42 pm
by Thor
She has made a couple or a few porno films. On Twitter today people are putting up screen shots of certain actions she's performing.

It's open season now.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:41 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Links please.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:44 pm
by Long slender neck
How do you know they're genuine?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:26 pm
by Disoriented
Prestige Worldwide wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:44 pm How do you know they're genuine?
I am not aware she has had implants. They looked real to me.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 10:26 pm
by Disoriented
Not going so well for her in the High Court.

I wonder if the other one sees sense and backs off.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Sat May 02, 2020 10:40 pm
by Stowaway
First stage. Long way to go. Current opinion amongst legal types is that she has a strong case.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:35 pm
by Currywurst and Chips
Harry and Meghan sign deal with Netflix

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/busi ... tflix.html

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:11 am
by E10EU
Good on Harry & Megan. She was never accepted here by the mass media even though she tried hard to please them.
Harry tried to find an in-between solution but that was not acceptable to those who dictate what kind of puppets the royals should be (such as be of the right kind of social class, have no opinion, smile in the right places, produce compliant offspring).

I reckon the likes of the DM and the SUN are peeved that Harry & Megan have got out of their clutches.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:20 am
by Oiram
RedO wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:06 pm Strange that out of all the Royals, she's the one people seem to be focusing their vitriol towards. I can't imagine why.
Hardly ‘Royal’

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:23 am
by PoliticOs
Is she not a part of the royal family then? Pretty sure she is. Why is she hardly 'royal'?

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:49 am
by Ornchurch
Strategic marriage for her but Harry didn't realise. He may do now, or in the future, but too late.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:33 pm
by Sid Bishop
Ornchurch wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:49 am Strategic marriage for her but Harry didn't realise. He may do now, or in the future, but too late.
What next, Harry and Megan along with Posh and David Beckham on their own American tv talk shows, or Harry and Megan in American tv soaps !

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:44 pm
by PoliticOs
Why not?

The President of the United States of America is a reality tv host. I'm not sure any of it matters anymore.

Re: Rachel Markle

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:32 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Ornchurch wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:49 am Strategic marriage for her but Harry didn't realise. He may do now, or in the future, but too late.
All Royal marriages - and most of those in the higher echelons of society - are strategic. It's only us plebs who marry someone we met in a sh*tty nightclub on a Saturday night.