Prince Harry spent time with a much younger woman at the Invictus Games

Invictus Games handball Event

One of the reasons why I believe Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are fast-tracking their relationship – fast-tracking in the royal sense, because royals seem to take forever to get married – is because of their ages, and what their ages mean for baby-making. Harry is 33 years old, Meghan just turned 36 in August. My mother even makes comments about Meghan’s age, as in: if Meg and Harry want babies, they need to get this show on the road pretty quickly.

I’m not bringing this up to put my nose into another woman’s reproductive business. I’m bringing this up because I think Harry is Forever Baby Crazy. Harry attended the Sitting Volleyball Finals yesterday, and of course he gravitated to the cutest little girl there. He sat next to Emily Henson and Emily’s parents Hayley and David. Harry spent most of the game playing with Emily and making faces at her and… yeah, he wants a baby. Let’s fast-track this sh-t, Harry. I want an engagement announcement in the next month!

What else? An American athlete at the games asked Harry about how Meghan was enjoying the games. U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Kyle Burnett told People: “I asked him how his girlfriend was enjoying it and he said, ‘She loves it, she’s loving the games.’” Nice.

The BBC also did what is possibly the most British undertaking ever – trying to explain that Meghan Markle’s mother lives in a really nice part of Crenshaw in LA, and that Meghan isn’t really from “the ghetto,” as many British tabloids have claimed. This piece was really funny to me, because it feeds into this notion that… British tabloids believe all African-Americans either live like Oprah or they live in gangland.

Invictus Games handball Event

Invictus Games handball Event

Invictus Games handball Event

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

151 Responses to “Prince Harry spent time with a much younger woman at the Invictus Games”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Maria F. says:

    there was an adorable video online, when she was eating out of his pop corn bag, while he was not looking.

    Harry and kids make up a lot for his ‘i do not like to be a member of the RF’ slip up.

    • QueenElisabeth says:

      I saw that video it was so friggin adorable

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Loved it too!

    • Bug says:

      I just saw it, it’s too cute! In the last seconds, when HE goes searching for her, touching her arm, is more than adorable.

    • Mermaid says:

      Harry looks fantastic and these pictures melt my cold shriveled heart. Harry, you need to get married and quickly! The world is in disarray and we need your wedding to prop us up. I thought that too about their ages. Harry is so good with kids.

    • lavin says:

      He never said I do not want to be a member of the RF.
      He basically said no one wants the to be Queen, to rule, no one wants the job . Why do people pretend he said that in a vacumn. He obviously heard others inside the RF say it TOO and was saying what he heard. Williiam has said as much over the years too but it gets swept under by the press.

      Harry and kids…..make my day. Adorable/

  2. jferber says:

    Adorable. Just get married, Harry. Do it now!

    • Royalsparkle says:

      +1000

      I agree any comments to Meg Sparkle age and babies – need to b…. out!

      Modern medicine allows women at 50s to go on to successful pregnancies – healthy babies.

      • Nikki says:

        I’m sorry Royalsparkle, but it isn’t fair to reassure women they have forever. I have 3 friends who are injecting themselves in the stomach every day, so far nothing.
        Medicine can’t guarantee ANYONE will be absolutely able to have a baby, but the odds are tougher as you age. It’s still each woman’s choice, but one needs the correct facts to decide with.

  3. Aoife says:

    “I think British people believe all African-Americans either live like Oprah or they live in gangland” – firing right back against one supposed stereotype with another of your own.

    • bluhare says:

      I take your point. I do think there are US cultural norms that don’t travel across the ocean well, though. And vice versa. (Brit living in US here)

    • jobo says:

      Actually they don’t Aoife

      • Rose says:

        To be fair Kaiser wrote ‘British tabloids’ not ‘British people’….the tabloids here are trash, the lowest of the low

      • lavin says:

        Dmail is trash. I hate it. They bash her and use subtle and not so subtle racist words and articles

    • Veronica says:

      She was talking about tabloids, dude – the universal lowest common denominator of journalism world. They only see American blacks relegated to those categories rather than being an active participants of society at all levels, not that the author felt that was an accurate reflection of all British.

    • MellyMel says:

      The quote clearly states “tabloids”, not people.

      • Jerusha says:

        The quote stated people four hours ago. It’s been edited.

      • milla says:

        Either way, the Brits have a problem cos she is American.

      • frisbee says:

        @ milla – bollocks, that’s just a blanket statement about 60 million people you don’t know. Some of the tabloids have knocked her but don’t confuse our tabloids with our people, I don’t know anyone who has a problem with her, but then I don’t know very many people who care about who he marries most of us have far better things to worry about than Harry Windsor.

    • Royalsparkle says:

      +1

      I hope Meghan stop the mixed race comment as well -” confused, etc.” To critique your mixed heritahe – comes away as questioning the love of your parents. They created you – honour those beautiful features of having raised multi culture – appreciate the beautiful person you are. Even if cant control others.

      As to those now on the band wagon, laying claim to Meg race, with her changing status – she is neither one nor the other, instead is Mix. These are wonderful advantages and positive beautiful features that is multi heritage – embrace and appreciate.

      • Abs says:

        That’s exactly what she does

      • nessa nessa says:

        Girl what the hell are you talking about? She said growing up she was confused because her teacher said to check the box “white” because that’s what she “looked like”. She refused because of her mother. She spoke of her privilege in looking how she does verses how people treat her knowing she is black or mixed with black.

        That’s her perspective & her journey….

      • frisbee says:

        Nobody know what ‘Royal Sparkle’ is talking about, maybe God knows, I can never make head or tail of this posters word salads

  4. Daisyfly says:

    I’ll give birth to some royal ginger babies if Meghan isn’t too keen.

    • Loopy says:

      Haha i wonder how soon they will if they do, she is not require for an heir and spare right?

    • Bella Dupont says:

      They have the potential to have some really gorgeous babies…..my worry is that they also have the potential to have some hyper weird looking ones as well…….the weirdest i can think of…..bright red hair with dark skin, bright blue close set eyes with the markle ski slope nose……I suppose the most important thing to pray for is that they are healthy, before worrying about what they look like.

      • Sitka says:

        seriously???

      • Bella Dupont says:

        errr…..what have i said wrong now?!

      • Jessica says:

        Bright red hair and dark skin is beautiful. Have you seen Malcolm X in his childhood? Red hair won’t be the issue; it’s the Windsor genes.

      • MellyMel says:

        There’s nothing weird about being brown and having red hair (and freckles). It’s more common than people think and quite beautiful.

      • Merritt says:

        Seriously? Meghan is a light skinned WOC and Harry has fair skin. If they have kids together those kids are highly unlikely to have dark skin.

        As long as they don’t get hit too hard with the Windsor and Glücksburg genes, they should be fine.

      • Rachel says:

        Dark skin isn’t weird looking. It’s not weird looking when paired with red hair, it’s not weird looking when paired with any color of hair. People need to get over their colorism garbage.

      • Royalsparkle says:

        +1

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        Ok, ok…..I stand corrected……I was limited by my own imagination…..just googled black skin + red hair and it’s actually a gorgeous combination, I have to say.

        PS: I did not say black skin was weird for goodness sake…..I meant the combination of all those traits was unusual (weird was admittedly the wrong word!).

      • M4lificent says:

        Genetic diversity is always a good thing, and the Windsors can use all the help they can get in that department.

      • Elaine says:

        Nothing @Bella DuPont. You do you ;-)

        You know who has a very interesting look? The daughter of Boris Becker. She’s a model now, with a mixture of red hair and mixed race skin color.

        And I think we’re all beautiful to someone.
        (but flip that, and we all look like friggin’ weirdos to someone. Probably Aliens. From Mars. They’d see us and be all ‘Two eyes, one mouth?! What is up with these mammals.’ )

      • whatever says:

        @Elaine

        Boris Becker’s model daughter does have an interesting look but the only thing she got from her mother was the texture of her hair. The rest is all Boris!

      • Odette says:

        I laughed.

      • Kitten says:

        Ummmm….the “only thing she got from her mother was the texture of her hair”??
        You really don’t think she got those gorgeous lips from Angela Ermakova?

      • Rachel says:

        @Bella Dupont

        I did take issue with your wording, but I could have been more calm about it. Sorry if I seemed harsh.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Rachel

        …..not at all,……clearly part of my comment was ignorant (I’m shocked, but forced to admit), so I probably deserved a bit of a smack down, which was promptly dished to me, no big deal. 😉😉😘😘

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Elaine:

        I’m not the most PC person, so thanks for being tolerant + patient. 😘😘

        I have to admit, I WAS thinking about Boris Beckers daughter and how unique her look is and wondering if it’s possible to look even more unusual than that…..I really hope we get to see with those two…..😬😬

      • Booboochile says:

        OMG……Please go stand in the corner with the other dotards! You are either a troll or the most tone deaf person EVER!!!!!

    • Snowflake says:

      I’ll take one for the team too!

  5. Sixer says:

    Even funnier, I’m pretty sure the journo, Regan Morris, is an American working for Auntie out of LA. So the whole thing is totally meta – American journo with stereotypical American belief that “British people believe all African-Americans either live like Oprah or they live in gangland” writes article explaining that “not all African-Americans either live like Oprah or they live in gangland” to disabuse stereotypical British people of the stereotypical American view of the stereotypical British view.

    I think we call that dumbing down in action.

    • Suze says:

      It’s a Russian Doll of a mess ; ). The press coverage on these two is all sorts of messed up.

      Yeah, old Harry was totes adorbs here. William was also out charming children yesterday. Just sayin. The Windsor charm offensive is focusing on the kid front this week.

      • Sixer says:

        Excellent coverage for Harry domestically. The Invictus Games are getting an hour’s early evening coverage on BBC1 every night (I love para sports regardless of veteran involvement so even non-military-worshipping types like me are enjoying it). And all very good visibility for Harry.

      • Suze says:

        The Invictus Games are an excellent choice for royal patronage. They should become official -if they are not already – their status is always murky. They are both genuinely worthy and good PR. It might behoove the young Windsors to the channel their patronage to include all para sport. It would be a good fit for all three ( or four; ), given their athletic bent, and it is a serious good cause.

      • SoulSPA says:

        The BBC (in English) had a positive? (I am unsure) article on Meghan yesterday and it was it the top 10 of most read . The title kind of put me off but it kind of depicted her positively. But I don’t know how much is for real or PR.

      • Sixer says:

        Exactly Suze. It’s just perfect. Cause people like to support. Event itself makes good telly (including for your speechifying) and back stories make even better telly (where you can pop up being “normal”).

        BBC1 7-9pm gets 7 or 8 million viewers here.

    • Royalsparkle says:

      ++1
      Totally agree.

      This is more the American baggage.

  6. Merritt says:

    Quite a few white Americans think that black people are either rich or living in a ghetto. They even say it repeatedly. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen some moron say something like “I’m not racist, but I just want live next to Ben Carson not some gangbanger” .

    • Lucy2 says:

      Yeah, and one of them is squatting in the White House at the moment.

    • Veronica says:

      I’m always amazed at how many of them think African Americans go to college for free.

      • IlsaLund says:

        THIS!!!! My daughter worked her ass off to secure a college scholarship based SOLELY on merit. She worked extremely hard throughout her four years of college to graduate with honors and is now studying for a Ph.d. It boggles my mind the white folks who side eye her accomplishments and chalk it up to “affirmative action” while their lazy kids are waiting tables. Un freaking believable.

      • whatWHAT? says:

        or that they’re the only ones on public assistance. more while folk are, just FYI.

      • Merritt says:

        I wish. If that was the case I wouldn’t be paying off a ridiculous amount of student loans.

      • bonobochick says:

        I wish that was true cause my savings would be a lot healthier if I didn’t have student loans to pay monthly.

      • Cookiejar says:

        @IlsaLund

        Just reply back that if a white kid is at a top school, (s)he must be Legacy.

        After all “fair” is “fair”, if they’re going by nasty stereotypes. I am white and I’ll bet you that far more get in through legacy status than through affirmative action.

  7. Bella Dupont says:

    I have a vague recollection of reading something somewhere recently about Harry, that there MIGHT be a reason why he might not be able to father children…..maybe an illness or some other such reason….has anyone heard anything similar please?

    Disclaimer: Its possible I misunderstood the article I read or it might very well be a figment of my imagination

    • Abs says:

      It was one of the tumblr crazies claiming it because of an operation he had as a child

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Thanks Abs……what operation was this, do you know?

        PS: I actually also remember him saying once “I I am lucky enough to have children…..”

      • Abs says:

        it was a minor hernia surgery when he was 3. I think his comment is quite normal. Anyone can struggle with having children. And obviously there are other options like adoption too.

    • Merritt says:

      People on Tumblr starting rumors and then those rumors get repeated as facts. It is gross. I guess he was supposed to pull an Albert II and have a bunch of illegitimate kids to prove people wrong.

    • I thought that he had an operation for an undescended testicle when he was a child.

  8. Millenial says:

    I actually predict that they will adopt children from a country in Africa. They may have biological children, but I’m convinced adoption will definitely happen.

    • QueenB says:

      Is that possible for royals to adopt?

      • Merritt says:

        I guess they can in theory but any adopted kids would not be in the line of succession or able to inherit any titles.

    • jwoolman says:

      I hope they do combine adoption with trying for biological progeny. That way he can have a whole passel of kids guaranteed.

      • SoulSPA says:

        I kind of see them adopting but cannot help thinking of how the adopted child/children would be treated. The British tabloid media is the worst in the world. Thinking of the BRF, the blood princesses B and E and so on. The child/children could be put under enormous stress. I don’t really see this option viable.
        And there’s been talk about the lack of interest by Harry of at least a baby girl in the care of Sentabale. Apparently he had promised to help her and her family but nothing happened. But he had held the baby girl in his arms and talked about her. I saw the video. Of course I do not know what really happened – the criticism came out apparently from the girl’s grand parents. And the fact that Harry does not seem to be serious about Sentabale except from some videos/pictures playing with the kids says a lot. There is a purpose to patronages – make yourself be seen and work with them. Especially that it’s Harry’s own charity.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry founded the charity with Prince Seeiso – that IS how he is helping those children. Together they have committed to helping the children impacted by HIV and AIDS. Neither of them is required to adopt one or two particular children or to personally hand over money for the care of a certain child.

        If Harry singled out one particular child, IMO that could cause jealousy, backlash, and ultimately damage the impact of the charity as a whole. Ditto if he adopted a child, that child would receive no end of abuse from the online haters.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @nota – I was not referring to Harry adopting the baby. Not at all. That’s not what I’ve heard. I also know Harry’s founded the charity with a Lesotho royal but it’s mostly referred to as Harry’s charity. I was slightly wrong with my wording there.
        At the end of the day we have not idea whether they’ll adopt or not. It’s an idea that came from I don’t know where but I’ve only seen it on this site.
        This aside, I am waiting for the official announcement and the engagement interview. Have also started to pre-plan a sort of party with fancy finger food and some Earl Grey awaiting the comments on this site. I am expecting them in at least 400 in the first 12 hours.

      • Enough Already says:

        Harry’s charity is doing amazing work but to be fair he did promise to help that little girl. Last I read she was living in squalor with her sick grandmother in a hut. Harry can’t personally help every child but that baby helped him gain legitimacy, credibility and respect. He owes her that much, imo.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @Enough Already +100000

      • notasugarhere says:

        And my point remains; if he helped that one individual child far more than he helped any others, where would it stop? How many of her relatives, how many years, to what extent, and at the cost of what? Ditto the calls from extremists on some royal forums who insist he HAS to adopt the one boy who has been prominent at Sentebale for years.

        Far better that Harry and Seeiso put their efforts into the charity, and the charity itself helps those children and their families.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “that baby helped him gain legitimacy, credibility and respect.” No she did not. He met many children while he was on that trip, she was one of them who happened to be one who was photographed with him and that photo (one of many) was published. He chose to go home, start a charity against his father’s wishes, stumble, and over 10+ years he and Seeiso have turned it into something vital.

    • Merritt says:

      I doubt that will be the case.

  9. ell says:

    women have been having babies in their 40s since forever. she has time. the whole rushing into children when you’re young thing is just a way to control women.

    • Annabelle Bronstein says:

      This is such a complex issue. The truth is, both men and women are better biologically suited to proliferate while on the younger side of 35. Thereafter, risks DO increase for a healthy mom and baby. But of course it is possible to have a baby in one’s late thirties and forties. It is more difficult to predict fertility in a woman whose first pregnancy is tried for later. These are just facts.

      • ell says:

        but like another commenter pointed out, 85% of women in their early 40s would be able to conceive naturally within a year. that’s loads.

    • Malificent says:

      Women in their EARLY 40s have been having babies since forever. At age 40, 85 percent of women are able to conceive in one year without medical intervention. But by 45, the statistical majority of women have entered perimenopause and that percentage tumbles. Everyone has a cousin or friend’s mom who got pregnant at 48 or 50 without fertility treatments, but statistically those women are rare.

      If Meghan and Harry want more than one or two kids, and don’t want to freeze eggs or do other fertility interventions, they need to get a move on it.

      Biological facts and sociological interpretations don’t always intersect. Biologically, the best time for a woman to conceive and give birth is on her late teens or early 20s. By late 30s, it’s a use it or lose it game.

      • ell says:

        36 to 45 is 9 years. seems like a long time to me, unless they want like a million children.

      • Zeddy says:

        What’s up with spreading this gross paedophile “teens are the most fertile” crap? More and more credible studies have been coming out over the last 10-15 years confirming around 27 a woman’s most fertile. 15-19 years old for pregnancy is actually the biggest killer for girls and young women world wide.

      • Annabelle Bronstein says:

        @zeddy who said anything about teens? The data says that rates of fetal abnormalities begin to increase post age 35. 19 is a LONG way from 33.

      • M4lificent says:

        @Zeddy. There was NOTHING pedophilic about my comment. Please note that I said LATE teens and early 20s, which is true in terms of fertility and physical maternal outcome. There is a big biological difference between 14/15 and 18/19. And many of those early pregnancies occur in areas that have high maternal death rates to begin with for a whole host of reasons. I’m talking about biology — not psychology, sociology, and certainly not about sexuality.

        I had my only child at 39 — so I’m hardly preaching that teenagers should all go get knocked up. And I certainly don’t think that an 18-year-old should get pregnant because she’ll be 2% less fertile when she’s 30. Just because I made an observation about fertility over the course of a woman’s lifespan does not mean that I personally, socially, or politically advocate the sexual abuse of pre-adolescent girls (or girls of any age, for that matter), forced marriage, lack of access to maternal healthcare, or the physical, psychological, educational, and economic damage associated with very young maternal ages.

      • Brittney B says:

        @Annabelle Bronstein “who said anything about teens?”

        Literally the commenter you’re both replying to. Read again:

        “the best time for a woman to conceive and give birth is in her late teens or early 20s”

      • Suze says:

        Oh please, cut the faux pedophilia outrage. Nonsense. The commenter clearly stated a range starting in the late teens.

        And she didn’t say anything about it being the preferred age from a cultural or economic or social context, rather she is talking biologically when a woman is most likely to conceive quickly and have a good maternal outcome.

        Yes, the word teen was in the comment (literally!) but read context please.

      • Maria says:

        It’s ridiculous. What does teen fertility have to do with pedophiles? It’s a biological fact: teens are more fertile than people in their twenties, thirties or forties. Fertility decreases with age. Statistically 36 year-olds have a lesser chance of conceiving. Does it mean that Meghan will not conceive? No. We are just talking about statistics. They are not even engaged. Why are people in such a hurry to add babies to the equation?
        Seems to me that anything at all that might be interpreted as negative or even questionable regarding Meghan is seen as a criticism on this site.

      • magnoliarose says:

        How strange to take such a weird leap into illegal activity from fertility ages.

      • Sylvia says:

        @Zeddy What studies are you referring to? Because 27 is actually when women first start to lose fertility. We really are most fertile when younger, that’s just biology. Mother Nature DGAF about our social constructs and societal conventions, unfortunately.

    • seesittellsit says:

      @ell – yes, they have, but most are not first pregnancies, that is the difference. Most of those unassisted pregnancies in the forties’ are “change of life” babies as they are sometimes delicately termed, born to women who have already had children. My grandmother was full of stories of dismayed women in their mid-forties who thought they were “past it”, ditched the contraception, and found themselves in the club with their “first” set already in high school.

      There’s statistics, which have some validity and shouldn’t be ignored, and then there’s every woman’s individual life, which sometimes defy stats and sometimes conform to them, and you just don’t know till you try.

      All of which is to say, should MM be losing sleep over this? No. Should she be mindful of it as she moves past 35, dating a guy she can’t just elope with and involving a complex road to the altar, including a likely country move, all eyes upon your midsection, etc.? Yes.

    • Kate says:

      It’s really not.

      Some women do get pregnant easily in their 40′s. It’s always been a thing, it’s not especially rare, but it’s very, very far from something you can count on (especially if you’ve had no children before). IVF is also something you can’t count on. There’s also the issue of viability. A lot of older women have no problem getting pregnant, especially just before menopause kicks in, but successfully carrying a healthy baby at that age is a whole other hill to climb.

      For most women fertility begins dropping noticeably by your late twenties, and dives off a cliff just after 35. And that’s assuming you’re otherwise healthy with no other issues that could affect fertility.

      It’s just a fact. Fertility heavily favours the young, for many obvious biological reasons.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I know two women who had their second children at 45, 46. My aunt had her first at 41.

      • Lorelai says:

        For all we know, Meghan has some eggs frozen — she certainly has the resources and after she got divorced she might have started worrying. Who knows.

    • Erinn says:

      Man this whole thing freaks me out. I realized I’m 27 the other day – but had been defaulting to “I’m only 26″.

      My grandmother only started having kids in her 30s (in the late 1950s), and my own parents were 31/33, so I don’t really have THAT kind of pressure on me from them.

      I’d be content to wait quite a while… but my husband wants kids – always has – and I always have that fear at the back of my mind of what if I put it off only to find out I’ll need to seek fertility treatment which will further push me up in age. Adoption IS always an option, too – but I also don’t want to be ‘old’ by the time things work out. I figure I have at least a good couple of years to really get situated and prepared to start trying and still have plenty of time if things don’t go smoothly. But I have so many friends who are just starting to have kids, that it’s sort of always at the back of my mind.

      I don’t really envy MM in this regard – I can’t imagine having so many people wondering about your fertility, or telling you your window of opportunity isn’t very wide. It must be incredibly stressful.

    • Lady D says:

      Okay this is going to sound naive, but why do women stand a better chance of getting pregnant later in life if they’ve already had a child? Does your body create and store a pregnancy chemical to release when your body hits peri-menopasal age?

      • Luna says:

        Good question. I hope you/we get an answer.

      • Luna says:

        ( what next commenter says). Me again. Maybe just that a previous child proves you at some time passed the fertility/carrying to term test. So you do Not Have a genetic Anomoly or scar tissue from STD or surgery To Contend with. (Caps not my idea)

      • Lorelai says:

        @LadyD & @Luna: I was also hoping that someone knowledgeable would answer this question because I’m curious too.

        I’m sure this topic will come up in many, many more MM posts so we’ll get our answer eventually!

  10. Jb says:

    Unassisted fertility drops precipitously at 37. Doesn’t mean she can’t have babies but no woman really knows the status of their ability to conceive & carry for 9 months until they give it a try. There are women in their 30′s facing infertility and women in their early 40′s (me) who can get/stay pregnant without assistance. I hope she can have as many babies as her heart desires.

    • jwoolman says:

      Yeah, a guy like Harry who is so good with kids should have a whole soccer team of children if they can handle them. But wearing out a wife birthing them would be a bit much, especially since there are plenty of already-born kids needing families.

      Perhaps I am overly influenced by some dreadful documentaries about the Tudor dynasty I recently watched. The pressure on royal wives was enormous, and so sad when they had trouble conceiving or carrying. Or producing a boy … Anyway, adoption would take the pressure off regardless.

      • whatever says:

        @jwoolman

        I don’t think adopted children can be in the line of succession because they wouldn’t possess any royal blood. So if by some small chance Harry does become King his oldest child (if adopted) wouldn’t become the heir. I’m not even sure if any adopted children are eligible for HRH Prince/Princess titles.

      • Deedee says:

        Does it matter at this point? The royals are walking anachronisms. To not adopt kids because there might be a .01% possibility that one could be the Top Walking Anachronism on some future date is just a shame.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The abuse an adopted child would get from trolls would be easily 100X what Beatrice and Eugenie get.

  11. Erica_V says:

    The quote was British tabloids not British people.

  12. perplexed says:

    The mom of the toddler seems totally unfazed by Prince Harry.

    • Lorelai says:

      That’s exactly what I was thinking! How was she not freaking out?

      I’m not one of them, but I know there are some rare unicorns out there who are completely unphased by celebrity. A friend of mine was at a party with Tina Fey and it was like the 8th thing she mentioned about the party. I would have been bursting.

      That little girl was adorable.

      • Kitten says:

        It *might* just be a British thing. Every time I’m in London I’m shocked at how composed and unflappable Brits are.
        My American brain expects everyone to be freaking out at all times lol.

      • Skylark says:

        To be fair, Harry’s not really the freaking-out-over type. I mean him no disrespect but he’s a very ordinary looking bloke (ditto William) and the royalty connection isn’t anywhere near as compelling as eg. some famous, hot-to-trot talented actor.

        That mother behaved exactly as I would if I was at an event I really wanted to watch, and a nice man, willing to entertain and distract my squirming toddler, sat next to me, allowing me some time out.

      • Helenw says:

        Well, this is Canada. I dare say Canadians in general are more relaxed. I don’t give a damn about so called “celebrities”. To me as a cormer performer it sounds odd. It’s just a job. Or in his case, birth. I don’t understand the whole “fan” thing. Coming to a place like this to discuss, read some interesting opinions, gossip and chat, sure. But the real fan thing with adoration and love and whatnot, I don’t get it.

      • perplexed says:

        I think I’m just impressed that she’s sitting next to him for an extended period of time, and doesn’t bother him at any point, not even to say “Hey, Harry, what’s up with you and Meghan?” (just kidding — I’d be too scared to ask him that, but she doesn’t try to divert his attention in any way to have a casual conversation with him). Even when her kid is leaning over to get some popcorn, she minds her own business. At that juncture, I could see other people trying to coax some kind of conversation out of him just for the heck of it (even if they’re not one to be overawed by celebrities), but she just lets him be. She’s treating him as another spectator who wants to watch the sports in peace.

      • Lorelai says:

        @HelenW, I was in no way implying that I love or adore Harry — we were noting that this woman seemed completely indifferent to the fact that her child was playing with a British Prince. That’s all. Literally *sitting next to a prince* would be enough to fluster many of us. I’m not about to go traveling the world to stalk him FFS.

        I’m from NY where we see celebs all the time and leave them alone. It was the fact that she was right next to Harry for an extended period of time (and that her child was stealing his popcorn! 😂) that makes this a little different, IMO.

        @Perplexed: exactly.

      • Helenw says:

        Lorelai, I did not at any point state that You were in love or that You were going to stalk Him or anything personally about you. I commented on the fan culture, adoration and on the fact that it may not be a British thing.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Helen: I reread your comment and you are right — I apologize. I don’t know why I took it that way in the first place, must have been reading too quickly or whatnot. 🙄 Something about the Harry/MM posts seems to make people extra-defensive!

    • upstate diva says:

      I am pretty sure that she’s the wife of the previous captain of the UK Invictus team (and Paralympian David Henson), so she knows Harry from prior events. She is British and is definitely laid back about the whole thing.

  13. ickythump says:

    That “Meghan’s not from the ghetto” piece was embarrassing. What a bunch of snobs – I’m ashamed if people think all Brits are like that. My apologies.

  14. bonobochick says:

    I read that BBC article early this morning and was like “WTF?”! Firstly, I have family that lives/lived in that area of LA, so I am familiar enough with it. Secondly, not all Black folks know each other. Finally, what is the actual point the article is trying to make? That she’s Black but not like other Black folks?

    Now I know why KP and company go to USA media with leaks/stories instead of UK media after reading that mess of a BBC story.

    • Suze says:

      Regan Morris is based in LA and has a degree from Pitt, so Its possible that she is an American journalist.

      I think the coverage from the US perspective is as messed up as the Brits

    • magnoliarose says:

      I know. I was shocked when I read the papers. I can’t imagine anyone in the US assuming that about her. Maybe that is why I feel defensive because that is beyond regular criticism.

      • Suze says:

        Lots of people from the US would assume worse things about her.

        That article was bizarro world though. Who was it written for? I could barely get through it.

    • PrincessK says:

      Please give me a link to this BBC story?

  15. Her Higness says:

    as a black woman I am so so happy about this and cannot wait to her MM’s ‘visibly african-american’ (as the tabloids 1st put it) mom waving from the palace of their royal wedding!

    yes yes yes

  16. HeyThere! says:

    Their children would be so beautiful!!!!!

  17. Jay (the Canadian one) says:

    “African-American”? I thought she was British?

  18. Sylvia says:

    I live in Windsor Hills! And it is a very nice, affluent area. The snob in me bristles at it being conflated with Crenshaw, which really is hood. Who first reported that her mom lived in Crenshaw I wonder? Sounds like a shady American did that.

    • passerby says:

      ” Who first reported that her mom lived in Crenshaw I wonder? Sounds like a shady American did that. ”

      Someone like you.

  19. Jenny says:

    It’s hard getting pregnant after 35 so if babies is what he wants out of life he should try to fall in love with a younger woman instead. I really don’t understand why MM would want to marry into the BRF. It must be such a suffocating kind of existence in so many ways.

  20. Sparkly says:

    Harry playing with that little girl is so adorable, heart-warming, and surprisingly hot. I love Harry. He’s so awesome.

  21. Mel says:

    “Harry spent most of the game playing with Emily and making faces at her and… yeah, he wants a baby.”

    It is quite possible that he does, but that certainly cannot be gathered from the way how he interacts with children. I am marvellous with small children – they often don’t want to leave me – but at no point in my life have I thought that or felt that I would like to have children of my own, or that it would be anything less than a disaster for me.

  22. Abby says:

    I saw the slideshow of these photos — ahh so so cute. I’m loving harry’s storyline these days!

  23. ernie says:

    Eh, the original “British people” was perfectly accurate. Most Brits are not nearly as informed as they would like to think they are, while judging Americans for the same thing.