Prince Harry and Meghan Markle chose to celebrate Valentine's Day 2024 in Canada, coinciding with their presence in the country for the Invictus Games.
While in Canada, the couple opted for a romantic evening at the upscale Italian restaurant, IL Cetto. Additionally, they made a visit to the culturally rich Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre, where they met with Youth Ambassadors Chief Nelson and Wilson Williams. Recently surfaced photos from their Valentine's Day celebrations have garnered attention, prompting body language expert Judy James to analyze their interactions.
Despite the occasion, James noted a lack of typical romantic gestures between the couple. Meghan wore a wrinkle-free blouse paired with black trousers and gold hoop earrings, while Harry chose a button-down shirt and a dark blue sweater. James observed that their body language seemed more formal and camera-conscious, with little evidence of their usual affectionate displays.
Despite their public appearance, reports suggest that the couple's Valentine's Day dinner may not have been as romantic behind the scenes. While sources initially described the evening as affectionate, other witnesses painted a different picture. Some claimed that Harry appeared sullen, while Meghan exhibited her usual assertive demeanor. Reports even surfaced of the couple arguing throughout the dinner, indicating underlying tensions in their marriage.
One point of contention in their relationship revolves around plans to return to the UK for the Invictus Games. Commentator Tom Quinn suggested that Harry is pressuring Meghan to accompany him, causing strain in their marriage. Quinn emphasized the importance of the Invictus Games to Harry, as it represents a significant aspect of his life beyond the royal spotlight.
However, Megan's reluctance to visit the UK again complicates matters, especially with the games approaching and concerns about her father-in-law's health. The uncertainty surrounding their attendance at the games fuels speculation, with some fans speculating about potential excuses related to security concerns and the privacy of their children.
