Topics about a single subject's Daily Mail experience
:sunglasses: 56.3 % :thumbsup: 18.8 % :grinning: 25 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#531471
Revealed: The subtle difference between all of the Duchess of Cambridge and Meghan Markle's photographs (but can YOU spot it?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... hotos.html



So they've got some photos of Kate not looking at the camera and then compared them with some photos of Meghan looking at the camera.


The insinuation is clear: Fame hungry bitch. Attention seeking whore. Fuck her.


Is It Just Me, Harrogate, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
Yes, I can tell the difference! One is natural, unpretentious and classy (Kate) and the other one is a fake social climber!
+4832 -1124
MrsTomHardy, Palm Cove, Australia, 1 day ago
The difference is that 1 got to know her spouse within 10 years and had a good think about accepting his proposal and the other stalked, hunted and caught her spouse and accepted his proposal by blurting out "yes!" before he even got to finish his question.
+4067 -558
Lancashirelass75, Oldham, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
What do you expect? One loves the limelight the other doesn't.
+3102 -252
Yobbie, Los Angeles, United States, 1 day ago
Both commoners, but at least one is British and wasn't married and divorced before!
+2780 -519
Atomic salmon, Instanbul, Turkey, 1 day ago
The difference between the two photos is that Kate always does her hair and Meghan's hair always look like she has just rolled out of bed, with the messy bun and the bits pulled out around her face.
+1659 -270
SillyMe, Dubai, UAE, 1 day ago
Meghan ACTIVELY SEEKS the camera! She's an attention seeking z list celeb. Not royslty. This destined to fail.
+686 -50
ExMilitaryUKTaxPayer, Anywhere other than the UK, Afghanistan, 1 day ago
The difference is that one is an attention seeking media narcissist, and the other has class, elegance and respect for the organisation she married into.
+515 -43



I suppose one positive that has come of our this campaign of hatred is that Kate is no longer on the receiving end of a stream of pretty vile abuse for now.
#531483
Arnold wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:46 am
There's another bloody royal wedding on the way in 2018 but I'm not starting another topic.

Princess Eugenie, 27, is engaged to her long-term boyfriend Jack Brooksbank, 31, after the former barman turned wine merchant popped the question during a holiday in Nicaragua earlier this month



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... z54uf2H9Dc
You want Kardashians - the Yorks are your noble house for that.
#531545
The hatred for Meghan is so strong that not only has Kate now been pardoned, even Eugenie is being praised. Considering the hate and vitriol aimed at her in the past by the Mail and Mailites, this shows just how much they really despise Meghan:


'Intimate and sensual' vs 'tentative and formal': How Eugenie and Jack's 'choreographed' engagement portraits are a world away from Harry and Meghan's Hollywood-style shoot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ghans.html

Image



Yippyyea, California, United States, 14 hours ago
I liked Eugenie's better. They looked truly connected as companions. I'm afraid Harry's looked staged and artificial.
+3941 -211
BC, Boulder, United States, 13 hours ago
I prefer Eugenie's. Harry's photos look like a 1970's ad for Windsong Perfume in Seventeen Magazine.
+2928 -108
The Loud House, New York, United States, 14 hours ago
Love Princess Eugenie's dress. The ring is beautiful too.
+2399 -45
BG Sawyer, Chicago, United States, 14 hours ago
No contest--Princess E's photos are so much better, more sincere, natural....just beautiful simplicity. Throws serious shade on MM, whether or not intentional. Very refreshing.
+2269 -91
FionaLeaf, Holland, United States, 14 hours ago
Princess Eugenie grew up in the royal family, and as the bride dictated what she felt was an appropriate announcememt. I thought she look youthful and lovely. Whereas, Meghan the hollywood bride unveiled hers that way. PE has been with her guy since 2010, let it sink in Meghan had not even had her first wedding yet, that came in 2011.
+5156 -69
Oolaedo, Nowhere, Nigeria, 14 hours ago
Meghan was overdressed for her shoot
+1763 -66
Herewego..., Doesntmatter, United States, 14 hours ago
Meghan's smug expression ruins.
+1114 -79
#531560
The Brendas at The Mail used to tear into Eugenie and her sister years ago, always a subject of sneering ridicule especially as they weren't stick thin.

I couldn't GAF about the Royals but I admired the two sisters when they turned up at (I think) William and Kate's wedding wearing deliberately absurd favours. They were never going to compete with Kate's wedding dress or Pippa's arse and they gave a less than subtle fuck you to the Press.
#531561
This was as recent as a one month ago:


After the palace… the after-party! Princess Beatrice hits the town with Eugenie and her boyfriend and a handsome mystery man after the Queen’s Christmas lunch (so was it a double date?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... riend.html

P-S, Edinburgh, 1 month ago
So sick of this spoilt, over-privileged family. They are no better than anyone else and we should not bow and scrape to them.
+646 -35
LordBurl, Toronto, Canada, 1 month ago
This family is a danger for the very future of "the firm".... Charles will need to park them all out of the public light as a minimum
+427 -19
escapedtheEU, St Georges, Grenada, 1 month ago
And while they are all partying,their ladies in waiting are packing the ski gear,ready for the annual winter trips. WORK is a four letter word to them !
+354 -11
Madison-ny, london, United Kingdom, 1 month ago
These two are very good reasons for getting rid of the Royals once the Queen has departed.
+294 -23
Massey, Burnley, United Kingdom, 1 month ago
Not the best looking is she!
+264 -36


It's only when pitted against Meghan Markle she suddenly gets more positive comments. Same goes for Kate.
#531562
They are out of the public light. They're not on the royal payroll. They work (albeit in the sort of jobs you don't see advertised down the jobcentre). They're only in the papers because the journos decide to put them there. They have as much choice over their parents as any of us.
#531566
And another thing...

Why do they keep calling Meghan an "ex-stripper"? I have not seen a single photo or video of her stripping and it's not for the want of trying.

Are they just being thick and referring to fictional roles she's played, being an actress and all?
#531598
This sneer-fest is becoming an almost daily occurrence, along with the inevitable underlying racism.

That this has been legitimised by the referendum result is old news, how the Palace reacts is yet to be seen. Sprog H has the warrior gene and this could get nasty. Hopefully.
#532064
Meghan Markle plans to break with tradition by giving a SPEECH at wedding reception after she marries Prince Harry
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ption.html




"We Want Our Country Back" is actually calling for the Mail to dig up dirt on Markle so as to ruin their marriage.

WeWantOurCountryBack, United Kingdom, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
Oh dear, not a politically driven liberal snowflake speech.... lets hope this wedding is STOPPED. DM, Why havent you dug up the dirt on this fame and money grabber yet? Not Our princess or Queen, ever!!!
+2358 -386
StillBrokenBritain, Manchester, 1 day ago
"The want their nuptials to be a toned-down affair". Laughable! The not-so-mystic Meg is making sure that she is in charge and all attention will focus on her. Harry is knowingly bringing an end to the Royal family.
+1763 -100
justiceplease, Reading, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
This woman really is quite revolting.
+1599 -142
idocarenow, Brockport NY, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
There you go she¿ll have been married half an hour then she¿s starting off as she wishes to finish, being the boss and everyone listening to her drivel.
+1249 -73
mwuhaha, London, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
I hope she firstly thanks the tax-payers for funding the protection of her and her monstrous family. We've probably paid to stop them being bankrupt or to pay off their debts too.
+470 -41
KB, England, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
Oh dear, I can see it now: Markles holding court, spouting some sentimental BS, reducing Harry to a blubbing wreck, whilst getting a dig in at Brexit and Trump and all the other things she doesn't like. I cannot believe the Royal family are welcoming this woman into the publicly-funded firm so soon. Harry barely knows her himself and yet we are supposed to love her? I don't think so. Check out "Grilling with Meghan" on YouTube and there you will see the real Meghan, the great feminist, the great humanitarian. She will destroy the House of Windsor.
+441 -16
yoyololo, LONDON, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
Mad globalist divorcee 3rd rate actress to make a speech , thats one to miss .
+379 -15
KB, England, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
The last thing this woman should be given is a platform to spout her left-wing rubbish, especially as a member of our Royal Family! What is wrong with the Queen allowing this to happen? They are so far off track with public opinion that they blunder from one disaster into another. Fact remains if Markles was lily-w h i t e and came from the same background, they would have stepped in and said "no" to Harry. But they are afraid of being labelled with a certain word beginning with "r". What a sad mess our country has become.
+358 -53


KB thinks it's something to do with her skin colour.
#532085
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that Megan was a stripper. It serves to 1, enhance her reputation as wank fodder for the masturbating masses, and 2, generally enable the Mail readers to sneer at her, in addition to the racist undercurrent.

They are just a bunch of twats. A paper produced by twats for twats.
#532121
mr angry manchester wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:47 pm
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that Megan was a stripper. It serves to 1, enhance her reputation as wank fodder for the masturbating masses, and 2, generally enable the Mail readers to sneer at her, in addition to the racist undercurrent.

They are just a bunch of twats. A paper produced by twats for twats.
Look on the bright side.
Demographics ensure that the majority of those twats will be gone in 20 years.
youngian liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 16
The Sun

Also, whenever I hear or read "character buil[…]

The Group of Seven

What if George Osborne joins? That’s the kis[…]

Labour, Generally.

Didn't think this hand grenade would be lobbed. […]

Nothing will ever be the fault of their noble Brex[…]