Prince Harry and Meghan Markle cover the new issue of PEOPLE. It’s a glowing report about their relationship and their future. But is the glow starting to wear off already? I wrote about the vulnerable glow the other day. On Monday there was only glow. Yesterday there was mostly glow. It’s been 48 hours and, well, some people are challenging the glow, mostly in the UK of course. 

Let’s start with the Daily Mail publishing an exclusive photo of Meghan taken when she was 15, on a trip to Europe with a childhood friend, Ninaki Priddy: 

The exclusive photo came with a quote: 

'I'm not shocked at all,' said Miss Markle's childhood best friend Ninaki Priddy. 'It's like she has been planning this all her life.
'She gets exactly what she wants and Harry has fallen for her play. She was always fascinated by the Royal Family. She wants to be Princess Diana 2.0. She will play her role ably, but my advice to him is to tread cautiously.'

Harry is definitely not treading cautiously. We’re way past the point of caution, everyone. Also I, too, have been planning to be Princess Diana 2.0 and marry Harry all my life. It never happened for me. Or you. Or the person sitting next to you. Or her sister. Or her cousin. Or Michael K from Dlisted who was devastated by the news. 

So….Ninaki Priddy is probably not getting an invitation to the wedding? 

But is there a problem here? Well, there’s a suggestion. The suggestion is that Meghan Markle is a royal-digger (prince-digger?) and now that she’s in Harry’s life, she will do and say anything to stay there, that’s how desperate she is. And they suggested the same of Kate Middleton too. Remember? Kate and William met at St Andrews. But Kate wasn’t supposed to go to St Andrews. It wasn’t her first choice. Her first choice for university was Edinburgh. And at some point, without explanation, she changed to St Andrews. LIKE HUNDREDS OF OTHER YOUNG WOMEN WHO FOUND OUT WILLIAM WAS HEADING THERE. The future Queen of England and the mother of the future King of England was a prince-digger too. 

Next, it was confirmed yesterday that Meghan will no longer be continuing her work with the UN and World Vision Canada as she’ll focus her charitable efforts as part of the overall royal philanthropic plan. Given that she’s also quit acting and shut down her lifestyle website, some are wondering if she’s a bad feminist sending the wrong message and why can’t she keep her own charity commitments and relationships? Well, she and Harry kept saying they wanted to be a team during their joint interview on Monday. And this appears to be the plan – to do everything as a team. Maybe not just as a team, Harry and Meghan, but as a team, William, Catherine, Harry, and Meghan. Already Harry joins Will and Kate in several charity priorities. It would only make sense that Meghan rounds out the fourth corner. As for why she can’t support the royal charities in addition to the UN and World Vision, here’s one of my theories: if she manages to do all of that, the royal work and her own work with the UN and World Vision, and the others only focus on the royal charities, does that make the others look bad? (Harry kind of makes Will look bad already every time he’s representing Invictus, non?) Or, does that make her look like the “other”? Does it single her out from a family that typically acts as a unit? 

And finally, it was revealed yesterday that of her two dogs, only one has joined Meghan in London. That would be Guy. Bogart, however, is staying in Toronto with friends because, as palace representatives explained, it would have been too hard on him to make the trip and the transition. Some of you are having a hard time with this and I am too. Is she heartless? Did she throw away her dog because she wanted the prince? 

Jacek and I share our home with two dogs. It would be unthinkable for us to leave one behind. We moved from Vancouver to Toronto with our two dogs. Instead of flying, we decided to drive because we could not handle the thought of putting them in cargo and they’re too big to travel in the cabin with us. That said, Bogart is old and apparently has some health problems. I understand this too. Barney, now our older dog, is very sensitive, very neurotic. To the point where it affects his health. When Marcus died a couple of years ago, Barney’s eyes started swelling and part of his eyelid came loose and obscured his vision. When we take him through the car wash, he trembles so hard we worry he’s going to have a stroke. When we take him on a trip, when we stay at a hotel, when he goes anywhere he doesn’t know, he shakes and cries and generally freaks out. Every time Barney flips out, we fear he’s shortening his life. Some dogs are terrible with change. Putting Bogart on a plane obviously wasn’t an option. Do you put him on a boat which could take days or weeks? Sure, that’s an option. But I’m trying to imagine Barney on a boat right now. He would have the worst time. He would probably be constipated the whole time as he cannot sh-t under less than perfect conditions. And even then, once he got off the boat and had to get used to a new home and new surroundings, God, it’s just so much stress on a dog. And Barney isn’t an old dog. (It’s his birthday tomorrow, he’ll be 7!) For an old dog, that’s a terrible amount of stress. It’s a lot of anxiety. It’s a lot of strain on the body. 

I don’t know what I would have done if I were her. I don’t even want to consider it, that’s how traumatising the thought is. But I also don’t want to assume that she was like, nah, f-ck you Bogart, I don’t want to deal with your sh-t anymore, have a nice life, Guy and I are off to the palace, peace out. I would like to believe that she believed that this was the best option for Bogart. That she was making the best choice for his comfort and wellbeing and his life. What do you believe? Do you agree? Or do you think she’s a f-cking asshole and she’s deleted forever?