Meghan was a BULLY to palace staff

[quote] Sensationally, the couple's lawyers told the newspaper it was [bold]'being used by Buckingham Palace to peddle a wholly false narrative'[/bold] before this weekend's interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Buckingham Palace is the Queen and the Queen is Buckingham Palace. There is no getting around that.

Their lawyers are actually going so far as to claim the Queen is [bold]LYING.[/bold]

Also, OP's photo makes clear Meghan has had significant work done to her face recently.

She looks awful.

It was 'un-survivable' - staff.

The "wholly false narrative" comment was in specific response to an additional claim made by staffers that in Fiji, Meghan wore a present (of yellow diamond earrings) from a Saudi Prince even though she was by then aware that the same prince just had a journalist (Kashoggi) murdered at an embassy.

Sheesh. If I hit the jackpot the way she did, I'd be pinching myself and nice to everybody! I'd probably also affect an English accent and get very grand, but I'd do it out of sheer enthusiasm.

The claims were made by Meghan's own head of communications, Jason Knauf, in October 2018. Apparently Harry heard Knauf had made the complaint official and personally begged him not to take the complaint further up the chain.

"In his email Mr Knauf also made clear he was concerned nothing had been done, or would be done in future, to protect palace staff.

The Times quotes from his email, which is alleged to say: 'I am very concerned the duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of X* was totally unacceptable.'

He added: 'The duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behaviour towards Y.'

The Palace’s smear campaign begins! They will regret attacking a black woman.

Prince Harry "begged" a member of his staff not to make a complaint?! Ridiculous! Clearly, he is not the sort of man who would beg anyone for anything.

But if you believe this, my kingdom has a wonderful stretch of California coastline I can sell you.

Claim: verb--state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. noun--an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

R2, she is pregnant. Her face is going to look bloated.

There's hard proof of the claims being made in the form of an official complaint having been lodged in October 2018.

If I recall correctly, November 2018 was when they were suddenly denied Apt 1A and it was announced they were moving to Frogmore.

Being pregnant adds filler to your upper lip, R10? Who knew?!

They've done it now, finally gone too far and at least one glove is off at the Palace. They never should have made that snotty, childish retort to the Queen. What did they imagine would happen if they quit and moved to America? Idiots.

Her pregnancy didn't give her lip injections, R10, nor any of the other fillers she's got in that face.

Maybe it's possible that she behaved in a very demanding, American celebrity/business way- eg Ari on Entourage, that maybe she felt was acceptable that was untoward in the BRF?

Here is what was going on when Jason Knauf lodged his formal bullying complaint against Meghan October 5th 2018 Vogue reports they were headed to Apt 1

October 12 2018 Meghan shows up in maternity outfit at Eugenie's wedding

October 15 2018 They officially announce the pregnancy during trip down under (during which she wears the murder diamonds)

November 2018 Sudden announcement that Kate and William, who live in Apt 1A, will also take over Apt 1 for official functions

Remember when they wanted to move in with the Queen and live at Windsor Castle?

Her Majesty said no, here's Frogmore Cottage.

[quote]They will regret attacking a black woman.

lol, nobody in the world sees her as a black woman, least of all Meghan herself, except when its convenient to do so.

The privilege, houses, apartments, money etc heaped on these two is incredible and yet they still say it was all 'un-survivable'. A 21 room apartment in KP, renovated for £1.8m - did they pay that money back?

[quote]Meghan wore a pair of diamond earrings to a dinner in Fiji in 2018 that were a wedding gift from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, said by the US to have approved the murder of Jamal Khashoggi...At the time it was reported the earrings were borrowed. The Times says Meghan does not deny this was what she said, despite being aware of their provenance.

Blood Diamonds! Blood Diamonds!

What new depths of satanic depravity will this venal hellhag will stoop to?

Voodoo, human sacrifice, and an appearance on Dancing With The Stars cannot be far off.

Carry on! :-)

I can see some of her POV, and why she might have held hostile feelings bout the Palace staffers.

Harry's clearly been unhappy and wanting out for some time, and he probably hates the "gray men" at the Palace, the staffers who run the royal families lives. So she may have gone in there thinking of the staff as they "gray men" and hers and Harry's enemies, and that goes double if my theory that she snagged him by promising to take him away from all the Royal shit is correct. She had probably picked up Harry's emnity before she ever set a foot on British soil, and her every interaction with them was colored with Harry's secret (or not so secret) desire to bug out of there, plus her own fears of institutionalized racism.

That said, she was a fucking idiot to be openly hostile to a single one of them! That's the thing about making enemies and bullying underlings, quite a few of them will find a way to get revenge, sooner or later, and it's painfully easy for anyone to use the British tabloids to do so. She was a fool if she failed to be sweet to their faces.

They fucked up. Meghan was loaned the earrings by the brf. A conservator and archivist with Brf conservator knowledge has stated that Meghan was set up. The jewellery worn on tour is presented to Meghan. Meghan then decides which to wear. So is shown 10 and gets to pick 5. Info on the Saudi princes involvement was only known weeks after Meghan's tour finished. So that's false. Also one of the articles main points discussed

Somebody post the text of the article so we can judge for ourselves?

drip, drip, drip

The article says the murder earrings were a wedding present from the Saudi prince, so in her own personal possession, r21. No one set her up.

[quote]They will regret attacking a black woman.

Are you talking about Meghan?

This "black woman" bullshit is getting really tired.

"You! Wash the blood off these lovely diamonds. And don't be slow about it!"

They were wrong. It's already been proven as false. Go read the times comment section on twitter. It is laid out plain to see. The Sussex also released a statement saying the earrings were loaned by the Brf.

We've said all along that she screwed herself out of the big London palace apartment and the grand country estate (the press was saying it was going to be either York Cottage or Adelaide Cottage, both larger and nicer than Frogmore). If she'd played nice, she could have had all the properties and jewels you could imagine: The BRF WANTED a biracial duchess. They wanted Harry to have a strong and intelligent wife who could prop him up. They wanted this thing to work.

Narcissists are often their own worst enemies in the end. They are so busy pushing for more more more, they never take time to appreciate what they've already (or in this case soon would have been) given.

I read she pinched Kate and actually pulled her ponytail when William wasn't looking.

MM probably leaked this shit to help her narrative. You don't now how desperate this woman is. Now she's going to sue again.

Her bullying was so bad that William split the two households up in direct response to it

R28 Oh yay the Tumblr narcissism comments. Armchair diagnosis isn't real dear

She's not going to rest until that shit eating grin is on every headline.

Wearing her blood diamonds was disgusting. BTW wedding gifts belong to the couple not the Crown/state.

This explains why Meghan is so furious at the BRF: They called her on her bullshit and when she wouldn't calm down, they started taking things away: KP Apt. 1, York Cottage, access to the Royal jewels, an HRH for her son, until finally she snapped and took off for North America, dragging Harry with her. If she thinks this Oprah interview is going to sink the BRF, she is sadly mistaken. If Princess Diana couldn't sink them with the Panorama interview, Meghan Markle certainly can't.

OP you just reply to yourself over and over. How sad.

She's no Diana, that's for sure. This interview is a huge, stupid mistake on both their parts.

America is a lot more racist than London.

All the fire is concentrated on Meghan now, none on Harry. That means Harry has told his family he wants to come back to the fold without her.

No one is buying this. One thorough read of the times comments section proves it. The Brf is getting reamed. The article is being ripped to shreds and half of it is already proven false. Take 5 minutes and read the comments. It is an accurate snapshot of what people really feel. And it's global.

The article specifically mentions that once Harry found out that an official bullying complaint had been made about her, and his response was to call for a meeting with Jason Knauf (who outlined the various complaints in an October 2018 email to Palace HR) and beg him not to pursue the claims any further.

In other words, Harry knew all about her bullying. He's complicit in her bullying.

Sure, Jan.

She can try to sue the Times, but it's not like suing the tabloids. The Times wouldn't print it if the story hadn't been triple-checked and verified. There is no invasion of privacy here, so she'd have to sue on defamation of character. If the charges are proved true (and they will be), she'll be unmasked as a bully and a diva and have to pay millions in court costs. I also highly doubt that Prince Charles will be willing to pay the legal bills this time around.

Yes, dumbass who knows nothing about the BRF -- Of course the earrings were "loaned" to Sparkles. All gifts, including the wedding gift earrings, are property of the Crown.

As well as in Fiji, when she lied about their provenance, she wore the Saudi earrings in November to Charles' 70th birthday. I guess she figured no-one woukd notice the murdered journalist.

This is all bullshit. Do you think the palace staff are that fragile?

This is why Harry left - all of this bullshit and harassment. I can't believe you all buy any of it - or are interested.

If this story is "fake", as r39 claims, let's see Meghan sue The Times.

I guarantee she won't.

R40 So by that argument the Brf is also complicit in the bullying as they didn't act on the complaints. See how that works.

I don't think the BRF is weak. She's just that much of a trashy bitch.

[quote] She had probably picked up Harry's emnity before she ever set a foot on British soil, and her every interaction with them was colored with Harry's secret (or not so secret) desire to bug out of there, plus her own fears of institutionalized racism.

According to a few of the royal biographies that came out this summer (there were like 2 or 3), it was pretty consistent across the board that Harry had very much wanted to live in Botswana for a few years. Meghan said how much she loved it when they were dating. Once she was married, she pivoted to LA.

What was the BRF supposed to do about the bullying? Fire her as a royal and send her home?

Oh wait. Maybe they did.

Yes that's true R46, we see how that works. In trying to protect Sparkles they allowed her to continue bullying. They need to examine that

Oh, crap. Here comes miscarriage number two.

She'll time it so there will be red running down her legs at Philip's funeral.

Thanks to R39's suggestion, I actually did try to read the comments in the Times article, but they (and the article, too) are behind a paywall. I did, however, read the comments under the Daily Fail's article, which were hilarious and 90% anti-Meghan. And they're a global paper, too.

pleaselettherebeaudiotapepleaselettherebeaudiotapepleaselettherebeaudiotape...

Seriously, that would be.... *muah!* perfect. Let her deny it and then leak the audiotape.

So, either the BRF is so racist that they would ruin a kind, intelligent biracial woman who dearly loves their son and could have been a real asset to their family, OR the woman is a user and a bully who got so drunk with power once the engagement ring was on her finger that they finally had to draw boundaries, causing her to leave in a narcissistic rage and swear revenge. Both of these things can't be true.

I know which one I think is true, and it's based on Meghan's pattern of using and discarding people over the years, and on the fact that she and Harry can't quit running to the press whining about how badly they were treated. But the Palace learned a thing or two during the Diana years, and this latest bombshell shows that the BRF has well and truly taken off the gloves.

[quote] OP you just reply to yourself over and over. How sad.

Wow, you're right... a lot of the replies in this thread are from the OP. I bet there's just two or three nuts posting over and over.

They did act on the complaints. They separated the households immediately, with some Harkle staff being moved to the Cambridge staff, they kicked the Harkles out of Kensington Palace, denying them the ultra-luxurious Apt 1 they were originally given, and they shunted them down to Frogmore Cottage instead of the much more beautiful Adelaide Cottage/York Cottage they were supposed to have been offered. Later it became known that she had been officially denied any access to the Queen's jewels/ tiaras.

She bullied multiple staff, was punished for it, and was so enraged that they called her out that she then went to war with the BRF for punishing her for her bullying.

This is a fascinating turn of events! The fact that she was awful to staff doesn’t surprise me at all. But the fact that the staff is speaking out—with Palace blessing—is quite something. This is fun!

Doesn't sound that bad.

R39, the fact that you--and other Meghan stans--don't like the article and feel it isn't true doesn't make it untrue. FEELINGS ARE NOT FACTS.

R39 wow promoting the daily mail and admiring the cesspit comments section. Hmmm

I think a lot of the Meghan hate is driven by racism AND she's also a greedy, grifting, bullying cunt. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Someone saying something isn't a fact. Unless they have video or audio it's heresay. Someone calling someone a Stan or sparkles isn't a fully formed adult and sounds like the frequent tumblr

From the Times article regarding Meghan playing the victim card from day 1

Per the Vanity Fair podcast, the main women Meghan bullied was a PA named Melissa. Apparently Melissa was formerly Robbie Williams long time assistant. Melissa lasted 6 months and the quit with an abolsute glowing recommendation from the palace. Palace sources say she was paid off well and signed an NDA. Melissa was with them for the Australia tour as well. I remember listening about Melissa-gate when this happened.

Because racism is like homophobia. It is a cancer that spreads unless you fight it. The now magat infested Dlisted comments section proves that.

The stories of her bullying staff have been around for quite a while. If they are now being backed up by HR reports and emails from the time, that's evidence not hearsay. Evidently there were multiple witnesses to these occurrences.

But again, I pray for audiotape. Since every phone can record we may get lucky.

Fuck all this whispering. Sue the bitch in the Employment Tribunal and see how badly Schillings do there.

R64 So a podcast is proof. Just more heresay. Did the woman in question actually state on this podcast she was bullied. Or was a rumour she was bullied discussed on the podcast

r1 This is foolish burning off the bridge territory par excellence.

There are rumours William was banging his neighbour. I don't believe it. Why. There isn't proof. Do you believe those rumours. Rumours aren't fact. Until actual video or audio is released its just a rumour. Not fact

[quote] The Times wouldn't print it if the story hadn't been triple-checked and verified.

She's a public figure. Ther are different standards. Even if the information published is inaccurate, if the publisher (here the NY Times) can show that they relied on a previously reliable source then she doesn't win. She has to show the NY Times acted with malice which means reckless disregard for the truth. Relying on previoulsy reliable sources is not reckless disregard for the truth.

This is also good, and backs the theory that she wanted to get in, get the fame, and get out:

[quote]More than one source has expressed their view about her wanting to be a victim. One claimed: “She wanted to be the victim because then she could convince Harry that it was an unbearable experience and they had no choice but to move to America.”

That suggests that no matter how big an apartment or grand a country estate she'd been offered, she never would have been happy with it. She went in planning to be victimized and make victimization the platform that would catapult her to worldwide, independent fame. Harry had better step very carefully: Her next logical platform is the abused wife.

Isn't the New York times owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Everybody knows about the Australia stories, nobody can cover up bad behavior forever.

But her face? She is on her way to Melania territory there.

It would be poor timing if Philip died right after their interview. I would hate to see that happen. /s

D65, the all-purpose defender of the downtrodden. One spray of Saint Victim and all personal faults, responsibility and accountability disappear in the name of the Greater Woke Good.

Whatever racist/misogynist bullshit is out there does not deserve the attention given it. Just because someone yells coona coona coona you do not have to give them the power of changing anything or having influence.

If there were racism in the context of life, that's different. But a person of mixed race who already is a minor celebrity with one marriage behind her who is made a royal duchess and welcomed into a family that is neither warm nor really interested needs to find another way to complain about the life she chose. It ain't racism. It's royal prerogative vs. expectations of a deluded dolt.

The Sussexes are making a spectacle of themselves with error after error (in discretion, family feeling, integrity, intelligence, good PR, branding, humility, truthfulness, self-awareness and more). Of course people will watch and comment. It's appallingly fascinating. But the faults are all on the side of the impudent fools and the rabble, not the Palace.

R74 tabloid articles aren't fact. UK rightwing tabloids especially.

Wow. It must be true that this interview is make it or break it for them. SS planting these stories and spending countless man hours defending her on sm.

R76 the overwhelmingly negative comments directed towards the Brf by the average twitter user in the times feed disputes this.

[quote] This "black woman" bullshit is getting really tired.

Yes, dear. Someone wrote it just because we all know how 'tired' it makes all the hags of Datalounge.

AHH sunshine Sachs comments. Next you will mention Soho House and Russian backers.

R61, That hag looks more white than me! I am British, French and Irish per DNA!

She has only dated and married white men. Her friends didn't even realize her mother was black while she was living with her father!

Racism my ass. She needs to find a better excuse for her shitty behavior. Which strangled seems to always happen with her!

I think the BRF dislike Meghan more for being an actress than being part Black.

THE TIMES: Royal aides reveal bullying claims before Oprah interview

By Valentine Low

Royal aides have hit back at the Duchess of Sussex before her television interview with Oprah Winfrey by revealing that she faced a bullying complaint made by one of her closest advisers during her time at Kensington Palace.

The sources approached The Times because they felt that only a partial version had emerged of Meghan’s two years as a working member of the royal family and they wished to tell their side, concerned about how such matters are handled by the palace. The complaint claimed that she drove two personal assistants out of the household and was undermining the confidence of a third staff member.

It was made in October 2018 by Jason Knauf, the couple’s communications secretary at the time, seemingly in an effort to get Buckingham Palace to protect staff who he claimed were coming under pressure from the duchess. Prince Harry pleaded with Knauf not to pursue it, according to a source.

R82 So black or biracial women aren't allowed a preference. Just white women. Wow that says it all. We all have preferences and are attracted to what we are attracted to.

If she really is like this, I feel sorry for Harry. Having to live with that nightmare.

[Times article, Continued]

The Times was approached by sources who stated that they wanted to give their account of the turmoil within the royal household from Meghan’s arrival as Harry’s girlfriend in 2017 to the couple’s decision to stand down as working royals last year.

A spokesman for the Sussexes said they were the victims of a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation. They said the duchess was “saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma”.

Knauf sent an email to Simon Case, then the Duke of Cambridge’s private secretary and now the cabinet secretary, after conversations with Samantha Carruthers, the head of HR. Case then forwarded it to Carruthers, who was based at Clarence House.

I am not on either side between Harry/Meghan and the rest of the Royals, but I do find all the gossip delicious. I think Meghan is very pretty but she is not as shrewd as she thinks she is. It is not that hard to fool dim Harry but most of us see through her.

[quote] If this story is "fake", as [R39] claims, let's see Meghan sue The Times.

Just because a palace employee filed a complaint doesn't mean the content of the complaint is true. Don't you watch "The Crown"?

[The Times, Continued]

In his email Knauf said Carruthers “agreed with me on all counts that the situation was very serious”. He added: “I remain concerned that nothing will be done.”

Sources say they were concerned that nothing was done at the time to investigate the situation, and nothing done since to protect staff against the possibility of bullying by a member of the royal family. Aides also insist that behind the scenes they did more to welcome Meghan and help her to find a role than has been publicly acknowledged.

They believe the public should have insight into their side of the story before watching the couple’s much-publicised interview with Winfrey, due to be televised in the United States on Sunday.

The couple’s lawyers told The Times that this newspaper is “being used by Buckingham Palace to peddle a wholly false narrative” before the interview.

The Palace must already know what's in the Oprah interview and that it's incendiary. Otherwise they would never bother trying to get out ahead of the story.

[The Times, Continued]

However, The Times understands that the palace establishment is highly concerned that the allegations have emerged.

The sources have revealed a febrile atmosphere within Kensington Palace, where Meghan and Harry lived alongside the Cambridges after their wedding until the split between the two households at the beginning of 2019. Staff would on occasion be reduced to tears; one aide, anticipating a confrontation with Meghan, told a colleague: “I can’t stop shaking.”

Two senior members of staff have claimed that they were bullied by the duchess. Another former employee told The Times they had been personally “humiliated” by her and claimed that two members of staff had been bullied.

Another aide claimed it felt “more like emotional cruelty and manipulation, which I guess could also be called bullying”.

But did they ask if Meghan was okay?

[The Times, Continued]

The duchess denies bullying and her lawyers stated that one individual left after findings of misconduct. The Times was not able to corroborate that claim.

The Times can also reveal that the duchess wore earrings to a formal dinner in Fiji in 2018 that were a wedding gift from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, who is said by US intelligence agencies to have approved the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The dinner took place three weeks after the killing.

At the time it was reported that the earrings were borrowed. The duchess does not deny this was what she said, despite being aware of their provenance.

On the same tour sources said the main reason that the duchess cut short an engagement in Fiji was because of her reservations about the organisation UN Women. It is not clear why she is said to have felt so strongly about its presence.

The duchess denies the sources’ claims about the event.

Bullying the staff was Meghan’s way to feel superior to at least someone.

There are a lot of Megan PR hacks around everywhere online lately. The constant defense of her lousy behavior won't help but whatever, do your thing.

She blew it. Aging B-list cable actress grabs brass ring and... blows it. I actually feel more sorry for the Royal Family with every successive game Megan plays. Megan and Harry could have done this the right way, they're doing it the wrong way and the Harkles will fail. Harry should have gone to Botswana the way he dreamed of.

We never really liked Markle much as an actress. That's why she only had a suitcase-holder job on a game show and a supporting role on a cable show. Now she's 40 and apparently she's a raving fucking bitch to staff. Abusing staff is a sure sign of bad character.

[The Times, Continued]

Knauf wrote in his email: “I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of X* was totally unacceptable.”

He added: “The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behaviour towards Y.”

The email, which also expressed concern about the stress being experienced by Samantha Cohen, the couple’s private secretary, concluded: “I questioned if the Household policy on bullying and harassment applies to principals.”

The complaint was sent to the HR department. However, one source said: “I think the problem is, not much happened with it. It was, ‘How can we make this go away?’, rather than addressing it.”

[The Times. Continued]

After Harry was told about the complaint a source insists he had a meeting with Knauf in which he begged him not to pursue it. Lawyers for the duke and duchess deny that any meeting took place or that the duke would have interfered with any staff matter.

Another source claimed: “Senior people in the household, Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, knew that they had a situation where members of staff, particularly young women, were being bullied to the point of tears.

“The institution just protected Meghan constantly. All the men in grey suits who she hates have a lot to answer for, because they did absolutely nothing to protect people.”

Knauf‘s complaint never progressed. Two of the people named in his email are are said to feel that nothing has been done to investigate the bullying claim. The following month Knauf handed in his notice.

When the households split the following March he took up a job as an adviser to the Duke of Cambridge. He is now chief executive of the Cambridges’ Royal Foundation.

[The Times, Continued]

After a newspaper revealed that a PA had left after only six months, it is understood that the duchess became extremely concerned about the number of stories in the press about staff leaving. Her lawyers state that she did not read the press.

The tour of Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga was a difficult one for staff, sources told The Times. When the duchess wore the earrings in Fiji given by the crown prince she told aides who were preparing to brief the media about her outfit for the state dinner that they had been “borrowed” from a jeweller, a source said, an explanation that was widely reported. This was three weeks after the murder of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Lawyers for the duchess said she may have stated they were borrowed but did not say they were borrowed from a jeweller and denied that she had misled anyone about their provenance.

Although Case had no managerial responsibility for the staff mentioned in Knauf’s complaint, he is understood to have taken it seriously. He made sure it was sent to HR, and took a close interest in the welfare of the staff member still employed there.

Poor dimwit Harry. Had it all and could have done some good with his life. He’s only interesting when he’s part of the BRF.

Instead, he’s doing an Oprah special? WTF. It ain’t 1996.

Now she’s pregnant again. He’s stuck. I give it less than 10 years and he’s back in England.

[The Times, Continued]

The issue of staff — their treatment, and the fact that they were shared between William and Harry — became so pressing that William and Case accelerated the process of splitting the two households. “What was a long-term plan became an immediate plan,” a source said.

The spokesman for the Sussexes said in a statement: “Let’s just call this what it is — a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation. We are disappointed to see this defamatory portrayal of The Duchess of Sussex given credibility by a media outlet. It’s no coincidence that distorted several-year-old accusations aimed at undermining The Duchess are being briefed to the British media shortly before she and The Duke are due to speak openly and honestly about their experience of recent years.

“In a detailed legal letter of rebuttal to The Times, we have addressed these defamatory claims in full, including spurious allegations regarding the use of gifts loaned to The Duchess by The Crown.

“The Duchess is saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma. She is determined to continue her work building compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for doing what is right and doing what is good.”

Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

*Names withheld by The Times

Why didn't one of the servants quietly push her down the stairs?

Thank you for posting!

I just want to know what the actual "bullying" entailed.

"This champagne tastes burnt," she cried, hurling the champagne glass at the wall behind Alexis. She hiked up her Nolan Miller skirts as the music swelled, off to see Krystal in the Palace garden to wrestle her in a garden pond.

Wow. What was done to her as a child to make her like this? You can see the smug oozing from her every pore.

Well one story r103 - completely unconfirmed, mind you - that has been making the rounds for years is that, during the Australia trip (in October 2018 - the same month Knauf's official complaint was made) she screamed at and threw hot tea at the staff member who brought it to her.

r105 there was a video of her as a teenager and she has always been a fame seeking smugster

She’s trash.

The email pointed out the Meghan was not only a bully, but specifically a bully to "young women". Meghan, the champion of women's rights, feminism, bullying the young PA's - ha! Thank you Meghan for this!

Even Diana couldn't beat them and she was actually loved.

Meghan has no chance, she's delusional.

Not really shocking. She tends to see young females as a threat.

New wealth, so very common!

[quote] The claims were made by Meghan's own head of communications, Jason Knauf

Guess where Jason Knauf works now? For Prince William

This is a smear campaign. They're scared of what Harry and Meghan are going to say

We know SS is on here, but if there are any gay members of the of the Palace or Cambridge household - release a statement about Meghan taking photos of the children on their first dinner together.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Is she going to wear the Murder Earrings on Oprah?

I wonder if all the bullied women were pretty and had good hair? Both of those traits would set her right off.

The PA was French and pretty, r117.

I was right. It has just been proven that the earrings were gifted to the queen by the Saudis royal family. Months before Meghan was even married. They were then placed into the Brf collective jewellery collection. They were then loaned out.

The fucking hypocrisy. MM stans are so enraged that the BRF would defend themselves against these vultures. Yet it's okay for the sussex cunts to do nothing but trash the BRF.

r113 I suspect you are drawing p the dots in the wrong way or at least trying to encourage people reading your post to do so.So what if Prince William gave a job to someone he believed was bullied? Why is the Meghan Harry tv interview ok and them telling their truth and anybody else truth or having their say a smear? Sounds to me like you are promoting hypocrisy or one sided saintly playing the victim bollocks.

It's weird that yet again her obsession with elaborate jewelry is bringing her down: first the wedding tiara, and now the earrings.

How Meghan must have hated Kate, a beautiful woman of similar age in her immediate vicinity who couldn't be directly insulted or bullied (though Meghan did plenty of that indirectly). Of course, there was also Meghan's behavior towards Eugenie, who is not beautiful but who did get the tiara Meghan wanted.

I hope Meghan's second baby is a boy.

A large part of the bullying article has just been disproven. As in proven categorically to be wrong. What else is made up. Not a good look

I am seriously beginning to think that the troll who constantly refers to Kate as 'replikate' and 'white cunt' and talks about the bags under Kate's eyes and Kate flashing her thong to the press IS Meghan.

MM shit all over Kate in finding freebies. You damn right she's jealous of Kate.

None of this is going to make Markle likable. Give it up, she's trash.

So the article has been proven inaccurate so change in tactic. Make Kate the topic of conversation and the Victim. All while blowing smoke up her ass. How is this about Kate

I’m not surprised Meghan is a Leo just like Madonna and Jennifer Lopez..

The article has been proven to be inaccurate. That's all that matters. It's not about likeability.

The article wasn't proven inaccurate just because you feel it is. You provide no proof but your feelings.

None of this is going to make Markle likable. Give it up, she's trash.

SM comments aren't proof, cupcake.

r129 would love a cat fight between those 3. hissssssssss

It has. It's all timelined on twitter with evidence. Go take a look. Media is openly discussing it.

[quote] Of course, there was also Meghan's behavior towards Eugenie, who is not beautiful but who did get the tiara Meghan wanted.

No she did not. Had Meghan wanted to wear the tiara Eugenie wound up wearing to her wedding to Jack Brookbanks (i. e. the Boucheron Emerald Tiara), she likely would have been able to wear it.

The problem was that Meghan wanted to wear a far grander and more special tiara: the Grand Vladimir Tiara with the Cambridge Emeralds, which only the Queen ever gets to wait. That's the problem. There are certain jewels that only the Queen and the Queen alone can wear, and that tiara is among them. Meghan could not wear it, but neither could Eugenie... but Eugenie would never ask.

Lol. Markle wouldn't show up, she'd just do Oprah again to complain about JLo and Madonna bullying her because she's black.

[quote]New claims she drove staff "to tears"

These aren't new claims, the tabloids have been saying she was mean to staff for years and years now, including making up entirely false stories about her cruelty to staff.

Tired of the lazy gossip bitches who say "it's all proven in verified detail just go look it up" and don't fucking link.

Like we don't know WHY you didn't give a link.

R132 But I thought podcast comments and comments from tabloid articles on Meghan's bullying are evidence. Which is it?

And these aren't new allegations being made by the Harkles. Same bullshit over and over gain.

None of this is going to make Markle likable. Give it up, she's basura.

R138 It will take you twenty seconds. I don't link ever for safety reasons. My posting history proves that. And it's being discussed everywhere. I'm sure you can multitab it.

Eugenie had planned her wedding for months before Meghan and Harry got engaged. She had to give up her spring wedding date to Harry and his bride and put off her wedding for six months. The emerald tiara was an important aesthetic piece in the wedding--the green was picked up in the sashes and cummerbunds of the child attendants and also used on the wedding invitations. It would have already been selected from the Royal collection, and Meghan could easily have found out about it through Harry or general court gossip.

This, and the fact that the tiara Meghan wore was very similar to Eugenie's--minus the huge emerald--makes me suspect that Meghan WAS after Eugenie's tiara. It's just the kind of mean girl one-upmanship move she would try to pull off. Once told no, she settled on wearing the maternity coat to the wedding and telling all the guests that she was up the duff, and then officially announcing it a few days later, stepping all over Eugenie's wedding press. She did the same thing just a few weeks ago when she announced her second pregnancy before Eugenie had announced the name of her newborn son.

Meghan never forgets being told 'no,' that's for sure.

[quote]One royal aide, who anticipated a confrontation with Meghan, is alleged to have told a colleague: "I can't stop shaking."

"I'm shaking" is routinely made fun of on DL, except on these threads apparently where a third-hand recollection of someone saying they couldn't stop shaking is proof that Meghan Markle is evil incarnate.

No one is trying to make Meghan likable so you can stop saying that.

In fact, you don't need to say ANYTHING three times over the course of six minutes, we all heard you the first time.

A recollection that was printed in the London Times.

Markle is harmless. She makes us laugh with her absurdity.

Markle is extremely likable in the states, the British public loath her because of the negative news over there.

Meghan is harmless unless you are a pretty woman with long, silky straight hair in her immediate vicinity.

No she isn't likable. Her squaddies aren't the entire USA. As much as Sparkle dreams it.

She is liked in the commonwealth too.

R149, lmao!!

The Times tried to stir up dirt, implying Meghan and Harry were friends with Mohammed bin Salman, which has already turned out to be false.

They also said Meghan snubbed the U.N. Women's organization, when the truth is that the group is a featured partner in their foundation and she's given a keynote address to them.

But I'm sure the rest of the article is completely true.

Sparkles, squaddies. Dear God is talking like a toddler a requirement in the anti Sussex brigade.

I love you, 149!

Interesting that the PR flack refuses to post any links. I wonder what that's actually about but don't care enough to look into it.

Look, Meganflak, we'll be the judge of what is relevant and what isn't. We'll be the judge of what we consider important and dispositive. HR reports and multiple witness testimony are evidence in every jurisdiction in the country (this country and the UK). You can pretend you don't know that, we certainly know it.

If she was liked in the US she wouldn't have been pushing 40 with only a suitcase holding job on a game show and one supporting role on a cable show as her "acting" resume. We didn't like her before and we like her even less now.

She is extremely likable is America they are fascinated with her.

No, in America she failed as an actress and is now a rich housewife.

r156 The PR shills and overzealous fans are so transparent and effortlessly crap.

Amazing how any opposition is called pr. Any comments on the fact that as R153 has posted even more of the article is proven false. Calling out inaccuracies doesn't make me pr.

No one gives a shit about MM aside from her stans.

I don't have any fucking time in my day for delusional women who think someone who disagrees with them on Datalounge MUST be a well-paid PR flak specifically hired by Meghan Markle to go after them personally.

That kind of shit got old before the Prancing Ponies, I cannot believe there are some grown adult women who still behave this way.

It is over for the royal family when Charles takes over the British public despise him and Camilla.

Maybe some of the article isn’t all true.

The fact is she is extremely unlikeable, and young girls are NOT flocking to her as a role model.

She looks like a bitter harpy and has literally more of everything than 99.999% of the human race.

She’s a ungrateful cow.

I've worked for many, many, many abusive people who left powerless people in tears. Can I cancel them, or do they have to be famous?

Vaca malparida Markle

R162 They live on Tumblr and think Archie is hired. We win every time.

"I don't care if this is true or not, she's unlikeable! I hate her! Also you're all part of her PR staff!"

It's concerning that you guys don't realize how crazy you sound.

Look in the mirror, babe.

She was just angry that they had never seen Suits.

R162, we never said the PR flak was well-paid. Seems unlikely, given that the flak's spelling is worse than a Starbucks barista's.

r162 It is not the fact of disagreeing that raises the suspicion of PR shills but the way and style it is being done. If suggesting a coordinated pr shill campaign accusation is pathetic then presumably the Sussexs statement that this is a campaign to smear her is also pathetic?? I mean you wouldnt have inconsistent or double standards would you? That would be so unusual for their fanclub who think the Oprah interview is their uncritical right but highlighting and speaking out about bullying allegations is wrong.Pathetic and laughable!

Nobody is forcing you to read this thread r168

Go pull your dildo out of the dishwasher and go fuck yourself

LMFAO!!!!! R170

R164 maybe some of the article isn't true doesn't cut it. If media is blatantly going to push falsehoods in an article then the rest of the article cannot be deemed to be true.

Oooh, the Gaslighting Troll is here! It's not narcissistic Meghan and depressive Harry who have mental health issues, it's US!

R119 is still very confused about the Murder Earrings. They were a wedding gift to kind Mrs. Sussex, world renowned humanitarian and compassionate icon, who proudly wore them three weeks after the world was aghast by the journalist's killing. Mrs. Sussex is known everywhere as a sweet angel, so she wore them AGAIN a month later, lying about their provenance on her merching site. Bless

Young POC women worship her, the black females on lipstick alley adored her and believe she is a goddess.

R159, I wouldn't be calling others transparent, you've had a real problem for months with starting conversations with one red name and ending them with another, giving away your sockpuppeting.

You've also been trolling on racist and anti-trans threads, and you're so stupid, you think that just because you unclick the "Sign post as" box, no one can tell who you are.

You're proof that the anti-Markle trolls are also the alt-right trolls. None of you are as smart as you think you are.

Personally? No, honey, this is how it works: PR firms are hired by famous people when they need online pushing for one thing or another. These poor fuckers spend hours online answering every negative comment and trying to flood the various online discussion platforms with their famous person's "side" of things.

They are relentless - for a time - and then they go on to the next assignment/client. It's not rocket science, it's not a plot, it's quite common especially from famous people who want to "break the internet" as their stated personal goal.

Isn't there also an enormous thread at Lipstick Alley that constantly calls out Meghan for her bullshit?

Let's pretend this was taken to court. Umm yes judge we lied about 90 Percent. But the rest is true. Honest. We heard it from an unnamed source. Which we can't disclose. See how it works.

Notasugar needs to be heavily medicated and given ECT every day.

I don't understand why young women of color would worship Meghan. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yes. Kamala Harris, of course. But Meghan? Everything she's gotten, she's gotten by using and discarding men. Nothing admirable about that.

Yes R181, it's the Meg Markle Unpopular Opinions thread, and it's at about 7000 pages. It's lit tonight, that's for sure.

r179 I sign nearly all my posts and I own all of my threads and do not do them witout my name .You are talking complete and utter bulls**t and a grade bollocks. I am also not anti trans but anti legal right being given on the basis of unchecked self identification as well as opposed to under 18s making life changing irreversible medical decisions.

Nuance is your friend.

[quote]It is not the fact of disagreeing that raises the suspicion of PR shills but the way and style it is being done.

It's trivially easy to do an ignore-dar check and see that the same people pointing out that you're all being stupid were ALSO on DL posting about a number of other topics over the course of the last several days.

No PR shill sits on DL and chats away for weeks on end, just waiting to deploy and defend Meghan Markle. Do you think they even know DL exists? Do you think they would give a shit what a bunch of people who talk about dildos and Instahos say about them? Come the fuck on.

Exactly, r184

I don't know, R179, Meghan is repugnant to me and I trash her on the DL all the time. I'm no alt-righter, neo-nazi, anti-trans fucking cunt.

I jdon't like the plastic-faced bitch and I find her behavior reprehensible. I'm allowed.

r187 did you miss the bit were I also said overzealous fans or dont you do nuance?

I think the AA women who live in poverty don't give a rip about Smegs. What I see is the same white frau crowd that worships Oprah.

I hate the royals, I think it's such a ridiculous institution! That being said The Times is a legit newspaper unlike the Daily Fail. They wouldn't have published the story unless it was verified with evidence they could be used in court which the appear in the form of emails that circulated within the Palaces. Also, Meghan's statement today is very telling in what it doesn't say. Her legal team does not deny the story, rather they stick with the more ambiguous "attack on her character" which implies innocence but doesn't specifically state it.

But really you don't need a brain to see that this is probably true. Lets look at Meghan's history here: she's basically ditched everyone in her life except her mother. I don't give a shit about her or Harry or the Queen or Philip etc. Did Meghan get some racist coverage, yes, the right wing nuts in the UK hated her for being both an actress and 'woke.' However, you can be a POC and still be a terrible person .

Gaslight! Da da da da!

R181, they are heretics and are labeled self hating Aunt Jemimas over there.

[quote] I don't link ever for safety reasons.

Unbelievable.

r179 Also I do not have multiple accounts or multiple red lines and I bet you cant back that up one tiny bit.

Defend me!!!! They're killing me!!!!!!!!!!!

R180. Most trolls are foreign. African, Indonesian, Polish or Russian. They are easy to spot because they can't grasp the nuances of the English language. They sound off. I can spot them from a mile off. Also trolls have set scripted answers with some wriggle room. I know lots about trolls. The push to make commenters who post regularly on DL pr trolls is just a convenient diversion. It takes heat way from the fact the article is riddled with inaccuracies.

R184, because they see themselves in Meghan just like those regular girls with Jennifer Aniston.

Yes, kids, it's been verified for many years that PR shills know the datalounge exists and read/post here.

The DL gets a large number of individual visitors every day. Famous people get many, many hits on their names here. Do you imagine that PR flaks don't know how to look for mentions of their clients? That they can't find groups online discussing them and put their own "side" of things in there? It's literally their job to do that. The cheaper celebs hire foreign troll farms to do it. We're a fast way for them to increase the number of posts they make.

They shouldn't bother here because we always tell them to fuck off but whatever. Lately the Megan defenders have been laying it on extra-thick. She's worried about this interview, as well she should be.

This thread is about the bullying article. Not us datalounge rs being pr trolls. You keep diverting. But I guess that keeps us from discussing the article. Which is mostly false.

[quote] I don't link ever for safety reasons.

You're a lying sack of shit.

the infighting is tiresome and lame. who gives a fuck how true these stories are. gossip is fun. the messier the better. if you are sooooo sensitive you can't handle that get a life and unfollow this thread. let us enjoy our trash.

Does she still have those pit stains? Did she ever learn to apply eye make up so her lash glue doesn't show?

Dan Wooton noting that he reported Meghan was bullying staff long ago, and that Meghan's bullying Kate's own staff is why she and Kate fell out.

It's a sad time for Sussex crap PR. The Earring Caper really cuts into their whole premise of a Life Of Service and all that garbage they spout. Meghan flaunting those rocks will not go down well. It's obscene and a slap on the face to people who truly struggle for their lives as opposed to Harkles "almost unsurvivable" drama.

The earring caper that has been proven untrue?. If it's untrue how is Meghan at fault in regards to life of service etc.

Hey when I blocked R201, literally more than half the thread disappeared.

I'm with you r203, I'm just here for the juicy gossip and laughs

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

White woman @R141 Meg is a trashy cunt

And. I am engaged in this conversation. That's how conversations work. But let's start personally attacking us dataloungers.

This well-sourced bullying story is really going to take the wind out of the Sussex sails if they spent most of the interview talking about how bullied they felt.

I'm guessing someone has already sent them a copy of the interview, the Palace knows exactly what's in it, and this piece was laser-targeted to make the Sussexes look like hypocrites and liars.

r210 the Daily Mail has had too many articles about Harry/Meghan so the commenters probably can't keep up

R89 The Crown is largely fiction, you idiot.

This is the top headline on the front page, above the fold, in tomorrow's London Times. It's by one of the Times most famous writers, Valentine Low.

I highly doubt that it has not been fact-checked within an inch of its life and is anything short of impeccably sourced.

Let Meghan sue, if she dares. (She won't)

Comments are deleted as well. But why does this matter to you so much?

R184, Harris and AOC got where they are by being smart, well educated, hard-working, politically apt, and dedicated. Meghan got where she is by being pretty and getting herself a man.

There are a lot of girls who aren't well-educated and who don't really want to work hard, they want to get what they want by getting themselves a primo man! Meghan is living their dream.

The well sourced bullying article that is incorrect. It doesn't matter if it comes from the queen herself. If someone states something and that thing is proven to be untrue it's untrue. Well sourced or not

The article is NOT mostly false you lying sack of shit. You keep saying that but you provide no evidence. Simply whining something over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true, dear.

I have seen no evidence that those earrings weren't given to Markle by Crown Prince Muhammed bin Sawbones, as the London Times (not a shitty tabloid).

HR reports and investigations (if they investigated) are evidence. Multiple eyewitnesses attesting to the same facts are evidence. Deny it all you like, any court would accept it as evidence. Strong evidence.

SurvivingAngel, people can just click on your red name and see your posts, I'm not sure you know that.

Here's one of the anti-trans threads you were spamming with your anti-trans rhetoric. Interestingly, when I went to this thread, which is old, I discovered several of the Markle haters who have been freaking out the last half hour were ALSO being anti-trans trolls on this same thread.

You really need to get a grip, r221. And maybe a muscle relaxer.

Don't worry R210. Wednesday and Thursday are going to be lovely Sussex gossip days.

I hope Meghan enjoys the next few days. It's as talked about as she'll ever be, at least until the divorce.

Are MM fans now like dump supporters? Smegs can do no wrong?

R221 They are a troll crew. Defacto, germangayguy as well. They team up and target posters like me when they get pushback. They were also front and centre in pro magat threads. They post with and without their signatures. Start posts and crosspost on each others threads.

r221 I urge other posters to do that and then establish that linked thread is not mine. Sorry you are either very insincere and dishonest or rather daft.

Cheers r222

R225 when you can prove she has done something wrong. Get back to me. So far all you have proven is yet another article about the sussex is full of falsities.

Meg is desperate. This is sink or swim. She ain't sleeping any time soon.

Here's Jason Knauf, the gay Sussex PR director who blew the whistle on Meghan's bullying ways.

Holy shit is he HAWWWWWT.

Wow, you MM fans are fucking insane. Too crazy for me. Bye now

Well I'm not on their fucking right wing troll crew.

This is thread is brilliant, thanks DLers! (The Markle PR troll aside)

Can’t wait for more stories about how vile MM is.

I’m sure it’s purely a coincidence that these allegations are being published at this exact time.

And by the way “Buckingham Palace” is the queen? Go ahead, pull the other one!

Notasugar's pussy stinks!

Who is notasugar?

It sounds like the Australia tour was a very tense time for Meghan's staff. Not only the rumours of her throwing hot tea (unsubstantiated) but a few months after the tour, Page Six published this:

"...As a result, she is allegedly taking her frustrations out on those around her.

“During their tour, just before they were about to go to the Invictus Games, Meghan was bawling out her hairdresser to get her hair right, while at the same time someone was ironing the bottom of the dress she was wearing,” said a tour insider.

Larcombe said he is “not in the least surprised there’s been teething problems” as the duchess adjusts to her new life and the constraints that come with it.

While her sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, briefly held a position as a part-time fashion buyer before marrying Prince William, Meghan is unprecedented in that she previously had a high-profile acting and philanthropic career.

“As an actress, Meghan expects perfection,” he said. “But when you’re in the royal family, you have to learn that it’s not about you, it’s about what you represent.”

The article also mentions that Harry, having been previously good to work for, was by the Australia tour "reading the riot act to the staff and doing the demanding on her behalf" sounding like he was doing something like bullying too, or perhaps it's just an oblique reference to Tiaragate (which had not been reported yet).

232 replies in three hours. Yeesh. this is some severe gaslighting. Four things:

-This is the troll that CAPITALIZES words in thread titles for DRAMATIC EFFECT.

- Here comes the parade of misogynistic terminology! One right after another! Bitch! Slag! Whore! Cunt! On and on and on and.....

- This troll is taking to itself, over and over.

- This troll is linking to the Daily Mail, which recently ran a story about the steamy love affair between......Jane Krakowski and the MyPillow guy.

Good night.

R236 Most likely the online identity of the crazy bitch calling everybody a "racist Klan Granny."

R237: ‘ As an actress, Meghan expects perfection’

She was hardly Meryl Streep.

First rule of feuding: if you're going to accuse your opponent of something, make sure as hell your slate is clean.

R238

--Who cares how the thread title is capitalized?

--The pro-Meghan people regularly call Kate a cunt. They also call those who don't like Meghan Markle whores and cunts.

--The pro-Meghan people have posted over and over in this thread, too.

--The article ran in The London Times, one of the most prestigious papers in the world.

In Hollywood, you can only be a fucking bitch if you are at the top of the heap, and you'd better be careful to kick DOWN, not UP, or the Powers that Be will kick your ass out the door.

No wonder Meghan's acting career never went anywhere . . .

And she can't act, she's not a stunner in the face or body, and she's mean.

r230 Is he really gay or is that speculation? I'd ride his cock in a heartbeat!😘😍 🔥

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It's interesting--we heard all these rumors months ago, but the Palace, other than paying off the offended parties, didn't support the stories publicly. The fact that the Palace is doing so now speaks volumes about how the Sussexes are regarded. I suppose the Oprah interview really means all bets are off--the Sussexes aren't respecting the terms of the separation, and now the Palace doesn't have to, either.

^^^^ The ninth member of staff to quit was Natalie Campbell, a black woman. She left after just 5 months.

What were the Megstans saying about 'racism'? Again?

This looks just as bad for the palace seeing as they buried it! This is the press (and a prestigious newspaper, not tabloid) fighting back.

It may not have been right of the Palace to bury it, but the bulk of the blame is going to settle on the people who bullied--Meghan, supported by her husband Harry.

Not really, r249, the Queen's not going on Oprah whining about how she's been bullied.

People actually hate whiners. That's all Harry and Meghan turned out to be, perpetual whiners. They will crash and burn.

R148, MM has yet to prove she's likeable in the states. I suspect she won't be, as she comes across as inauthentic and besides marrying into the BRF, has achieved nothing. As of now, her fame is tied to her doings with the royal family.

He core fans seem to be those who buy into the fairy tale romance aspect, but than can't be many. Those who would champion her because it's fashionable to champion "women of color" are stymied by her having married into a very unwoke institution and also being besties with people like Jessica Mulroney.

In any case, the gossip remains excellent.

R248, It will be quite interesting if the black staff member will speak out with an exclusive interview from the media.

In January 2019, just over 2 months after Knauf's official complaint to Palace HR about Meghan's bullying, Vanity Fair published a defense piece for Meghan, using Omid Scobie (then at Elle) as their source, to say that Meghan's staff "doesn't consider her to be 'Duchess Difficult' after all".

Interesting to look back on in light of today's reports.

I know some women who finds Harry leaving his royal family for Meghan to be romantic~ right out of a romance novel.

I wonder if Harry will remain the knight in shining armor once Meghan leaves him for her Next Big Thing? Or will he then become the evil, mustache-twirling villain?

It would be romantic, r255, if Harry gave up everything - including his titles - for her.

Harry's goal was to give up nothing at all, but to keep everything as it was except now he could avoid the tedium of working for the BRF, and now he would be able to make money off his titles.

That's significantly less romantic.

Although there is no doubt that he is very much in her thrall.

Yes Buckingham Palace is code for the Queen, so when Markle says BP is smearing her character she just lit a 10-alarm fire. Simon Case talked about his experiences with the Sussex and HR in the article -- he is now the head of Civil Service, so the government as well as BP are sharpening their tools, as the Sussex sharpened theirs for their "tell all" Oprah interview. It's on bitches! Looking forward to tomorrow's papers

r256. If she ever decides to leave Harry, she will claim he was abusive to her and was abusive to the kids.

She's nothing if not predictable in terms of how she treats people.

If she's going to be Diana 2.0 then Harry does eventually have to become Charles so that she can "escape" the loveless marriage holding her back, silencing her VOICE.

I used to think the BRF would always take Harry back if things went south with Megs, but I'm not so sure anymore. This interview may be his version of Diana's Panorama.

The Sun reported back in December 2018, one month after the Australia tour, that Meg's PA Melissa Toubati had been "Reduced to tears" by Meghan. She quit in November 2018 after 6 months in the job.

"In Hollywood, you can only be a fucking bitch if you are at the top of the heap, and you'd better be careful to kick DOWN, not UP, or the Powers that Be will kick your ass out the door."

Actually, R243, kicking down in Hollywood is also a stupid thing to do. Not as stupid as making powerful enemies, but you never know who'll be able to pay you back for making their life hell when they were nobody.

You never know which lowly gofer is going to make it big someday, or to become the secretary who won't forward your calls, or marry a casting director, or steal your boyfriend, or talk to a reporter, etc. The smart actors are decent to the crew and don't make unnecessary enemies, same as with Royal life. Like I said, Meghan was a fool to be openly abusive to palace staffers instead of fake-nice, she just didn't know which ones will make her pay for her nastiness some day.

^^^^^^ Link to 'reduced to tears' story

William said something interesting when he was interviewed about his mother's famous Panorama interview:

[quote]In 2020, Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge shared his thoughts on it, suggesting he understood but was cautious about whether it was the right choice. “I can understand – having sometimes been in those situations, you feel incredibly desperate and it is very unfair that things are being said that are untrue,” he said. “The easiest thing to do is just to say or go to the media yourself. Open that door. [But] once you’ve opened it you can never close it again.”

Meghan clearly doesn't want that door to ever be closed, but Harry . . . one day he may understand what his brother meant. And that day may come sooner than he thinks.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

^^Full Independent article which quotes William above.

Diana gave the Panorama interview in November 1995. By August 1996, she was divorced. By August 1997, she was dead.

People thought it was really romantic when Edward VIII gave up everything for Wallis. But it didn't work out so well for them: They became useless shadows drifting around cafe society. Perhaps it would have been better if they had lived in the age of Instagram.

There is a second article from Valentine Low appearing in tomorrow's London Times. This one on the same topic of Meghan's bullying, but detailing more specifically nature of the abuse, without naming names.

It isn't rocket science to see what actually happened. MM married PH and believed she was then one of the "principals", a top tier royal. Never having had staff, she believed that anyone working there was obliged to obey her orders to the letter. She did not understand that senior staff are highly respected, have a lot of power, and are not necessarily subservient or kindly motivated. She also did not understand the communication codes, eg, "The Queen will be wearing a hat" (so you should too). It is highly likely that some on the staff looked down on her as much for being an actress of no great distinction, the putative stories of her yachting, being American, having a trashy family, and (possibly) being bi-racial, and had the knives out for her.

So she overcompensated by being dictatorial and demanding, and I think it likely that the staff sabotaged her in various ways, eg leaving a price tag on her dress, leaking stories to the press, etc.

But the facts remain - nine employees quit in 18 months and an official complaint was made to HR by a senior staff member about her abusive treatment of staff.

Clearly this is a pre-emptive strike from the BRF before the big Sussex interview. They are perennially concerned about maintaining their status and image to an increasingly disenchanted public.

2nd Times Article: "Nothing was ever good enough"...Meghan left staff shaking with fear

By Valentine Low

The Duchess of Sussex has always prided herself on being a good boss. When she was in the American TV series Suits, she would sometimes buy the crew pizza. At Kensington Palace there was the occasion, recounted in the pages of People magazine in February 2019, when she paid for an ice-cream stand for staff. “They were remarking how it was the ‘best day of work ever’,” a friend said.

Some of those who worked for Meghan after she joined the royal family have less fond memories. Staff were bullied, according to sources, and some reduced to tears. One said they were humiliated by her on a number of occasions. According to the complaint revealed by The Times today, two PAs were driven from the household. The duchess denies any allegations of bullying.

The first sign that anything might be amiss came when a story appeared in a diary column in a national newspaper saying that Meghan’s personal assistant had left six months after the royal wedding. A week later the assistant was named in another paper as Melissa Touabti. “Meghan put a lot of demands on her and it ended up with her in tears,” a source was reported as saying.

Touabti was not the first member of staff to leave. Before her there was another PA, a young woman already employed by the palace. She did not stay long after Meghan arrived.

Both PAs signed non-disclosure agreements. There is no suggestion that Meghan tried to prevent them from speaking. Lawyers for the duke and duchess stated that she had no knowledge of the agreements and that they believed staff to be comfortable and happy.

[2nd Times article, Continued]

In late 2017, after Harry and Meghan’s engagement was announced, a senior aide spoke to the couple about the difficulties caused by their treatment of staff. People needed to be treated well and with some understanding, even when they were not performing to their standards, they were told. Meghan is said to have replied: “It’s not my job to coddle people.”

There is no doubt that Meghan could be a demanding boss. There were a number of people, allegedly including Harry himself, who suggested that those early problems were partly to do with cultural differences in management style. As Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand put it in their book about the couple, Finding Freedom: “Americans can be much more direct, and that often doesn’t sit well in the much more refined institution of the monarchy.”

However, The Times has spoken to insiders who have argued that it was about more than just American straight-talking. The duchess could be sharp with those she felt were letting her down, sources claim. One former staff member said: “I had unpleasant experiences with her. I would definitely say humiliated.”

[2nd Times article, Continued]

After Jason Knauf, the couple’s communications secretary, made his bullying complaint, another member of staff was worried about spending time with her the next day because she feared that Meghan was about to find out. “This is why I feel sick,” they said.

Another time there was a row about whether Meghan had been told that the media would be present at an event. When she rang the aide, they rang back but she did not pick up. “I feel terrified,” the source said. “I can’t stop shaking.”

Another source said: “There were a lot of broken people. Young women were broken by their behaviour.” The source described one member of staff as “completely destroyed”.

Even before the wedding, staff were feeling the strain. One told a colleague the couple were “outrageous bullies” and said they were considering resigning. The colleague replied: “That’s so dreadful. And they are bullies.”

[2nd Times article, Continued]

The harsh treatment was not confined to junior staff. One source claimed that Samantha Cohen, the couple’s private secretary, had been bullied. Another said: “They treated her terribly. Nothing was ever good enough. It was, ‘She doesn’t understand, she’s failing.’” In fact, the source said, Cohen was “a saint” and the best organiser of royal tours they had known.

Lawyers for the duke and duchess said they remained close to Cohen and grateful for her support and dedication, acknowledging that she had come out of retirement to work closely with them at a busy time. They deny bullying her.

The Sussexes’ autumn tour in 2018, when they visited Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, was stressful for staff, sources say. A senior adviser did his best to reassure them, saying: “You are dealing with a very difficult lady.”

The issue boils down to whether Meghan was a demanding boss with high standards, or a bully. Did her team fail her or did she ask the impossible?

[2nd Times article, Continued]

In court papers for her successful privacy action against The Mail on Sunday, her lawyers said that when she was distressed by the negative stories in the media about her, her friends felt frustrated by the instruction from the palace communications team that they should respond “no comment” to allegations. That left her friends “rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the institution and prohibited from defending herself”, they said.

An alternative view, sources say, is that Meghan craved rejection from the moment she walked into Kensington Palace, and that nothing that anyone did would ever be good enough.

The palace knew that when Harry married a woman who was biracial, American and divorced, they had to go out of their way to make sure the marriage was a success: if it was not, the royal household and their supposedly hidebound ways would be blamed. “Everyone knew that the institution would be judged by her happiness,” a source said. “The mistake they made was thinking she wanted to be happy. She wanted to be rejected because she was obsessed with that narrative from day one.”

Thanks for providing this, R274.

The article is a little vague. I would like to hear more specific descriptions of abuse than 'a lot of demands' and 'nothing was ever good enough' and 'I felt humiliated.' What, specifically, did she demand? What, specifically, wasn't good enough? Why, specifically, did people feel humiliated? I would like to hear more clear examples like the one of her throwing the tea at the PA. Otherwise, it's just rehashing the vague stories we've heard for years. No point playing coy--spill the details already.

I hope Omid Scobie gets anal warts and then gets bludgeoned to death by a frozen horse cock!

[2nd Times article, Continued]

Lawyers for the duchess said this was entirely wrong. The duchess wished to fit in and be accepted and had left her life in North America to commit herself to her new role.

More than one source has expressed their view about her wanting to be a victim. One claimed: “She wanted to be the victim because then she could convince Harry that it was an unbearable experience and they had no choice but to move to America.” Lawyers for the duke and duchess denied this was true. Supporters of the couple have argued that Harry and Meghan were frustrated in their attempts to live their life in a different way.

Finding Freedom quoted a source close to the prince saying that “nothing could convince Harry that some of the old guard at the palace simply didn’t like Meghan and would stop at nothing to make her life difficult”. In her legal case against The Mail on Sunday, the duchess’s lawyers denied that the couple collaborated with the book.

[2nd Times article, Continued]

One source claimed that most of the tensions in the household at the time concerned the Sussexes’ relations with the media. “The way I see it, their view of not getting institutional support was that they were not getting permission to blow up the institution’s relationships with the media.” Again, lawyers for the duke and duchess deny this.

One conversation confirmed to The Times seems to reveal how much the palace was prepared to go out of its way to help Meghan. Before the wedding, the couple had a meeting with a senior aide who told them that the palace was doing everything it could to help and there was no need to think she had to take on her role in a particular way, a source said. If she was passionate about the acting world, they could help her to think about finding a role within the film industry.

The source said: “The entire place, because of everything about her, and because of what Harry’s previous girlfriends had been through, was bending over backwards to make sure that every option was open.” They said Meghan thanked them, but said she had no wish to carry on acting. Instead she wanted to concentrate on her humanitarian and philanthropic work, and to support Harry as a member of the royal family.

[quote]Supporters of the couple have argued that Harry and Meghan were frustrated in their attempts to live their life in a different way.

Which shows how deluded they were. The Palace has a very specific way of doing things. Working Royals are expected to follow the rules. Meghan and Harry were right to leave if they didn't like the rules, but not to whinge endlessly about leaving. That's what the Queen has told them all along: Be working Royals and accept both the perks and the expectations, or leave and go your own way. You can't have it both ways.

[2nd Times article, Continued]

That might have been that, except of course it wasn’t. Part of the problem, according to the source, was that everyone in the palace was so genteel and civil; too genteel and civil: “When someone decides not to be civil, they have no idea what to do. They were run over by her, and then run over by Harry. They had no idea what to do.”

The duchess issued a detailed statement last night stating that the allegations were a smear campaign and an attack on her character.

No problem r276.

I agree with you. Although I wonder if they are keeping some powder dry and withholding details in anticipation of what Harry and Meghan would say in response to it. In order to have more in their arsenal if Meghan were to deny the claims, for example. Her statement doesn't include a denial, interestingly.

I think what's in it is pretty potent stuff though - for example, for them to state that one person who worked for Meghan was "left destroyed" by the experience is pretty strong language.

R226 Stop bringing up my name everywhere. Just leave me alone.

[quote] Finding Freedom quoted a source close to the prince saying that “nothing could convince Harry that some of the old guard at the palace simply didn’t like Meghan and would stop at nothing to make her life difficult”.

Right. Because that's what she told him and he, being a lovesick dolt, bought every word. She played him like a fiddle.

r283, Just block r226 - it's the Klan Granny Troll and a clear lunatic.

Here's an example of MM's bullying - at the fitting for the little bridesmaids' dresses, three year old Charlotte was acting up. MM screamed, 'She's going to ruin my wedding!' and to the nanny, 'Can't you control her?' Kate had given birth only weeks earlier, and started to cry; it is not known if Charlotte did as well. (I doubt it!) The nanny, who had been with the Cambs for 5 years, was very offended. That is when Kate told MM not to speak to her staff.

Third Times article from today's issue:

Robert Lacey, The Queen's biographer, weighs in on the role of the Courtiers [Staff] within "The Firm"

3rd Times article: Meghan bullying claims: It’s the courtiers who shape ‘The Firm’

by Robert Lacey

In a sense the real rulers of Britain’s palaces are not the royal family but their staff, the courtiers. It is the private secretaries, PAs and press officers who shape the melodrama surrounding “the Firm”. They are the show’s scriptwriters and directors, hence the paradoxical humility that characterises the royal family’s most successful members. Meghan is herself a professional performer, schooled in Los Angeles where every production is built on the opposite principle: divas rule Hollywood’s sets.

This inversion of the British system is evidently what Rachel Zane, the heroine of Suits, brought to London in 2017.

Meghan was under pressure to perform and in turn palace staff appear to have come under pressure. We now discover that several hit back. Bullying claims are difficult to referee as there are always two sides to the story, but discretion ruled and this communication stayed out of sight, lodged with Simon Case, the Duke of Cambridge’s private secretary, and his successors.

Prince William understands the power and utility of the courtier. At the time of the crucial Sandringham summit of January 13, 2020, he turned down the Queen’s invitation to the closed luncheon she had intended as a family “chat” to talk through differences that had arisen with his brother. Instead he kept his powder dry for the negotiations that followed, when everyone had their private secretary beside them.

Boris Johnson later headhunted Case to be his cabinet secretary. Then in September the PM also made Case the youngest-ever head of the UK’s Civil Service.

Case demonstrates the steely calibre of staff who have been working behind the scenes in this era of royal rift — which brings us to the question of timing.

Not only have the bullying allegations been let slip but also the case of the Saudi earrings. A wedding gift from Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince, they were worn by Meghan in Fiji in October 2018, the month MBS’s hitmen were dismembering the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. For two years this error of jewellery choice was concealed — until this week, 12 days after the couple’s break from the system and a spat over the meaning of “public service”. Now they are outside the charmed circle, unprotected from this stinging riposte.

/end

I wonder if this will start a #metoo! movement among BRF staff.

Narcissists don't "fit in". They control. Completely. It's their way or the highway. Any opposition to their brutal iron fist is met with outrage, indignation and deflection of the I'm okay, YOU'RE not variety. Megs has exhibited narcissistic behavior her entire life in her dealings with her family, her friends/lovers and now the BRF and the media. Her entire deplorable behavior can be reduced to one dominant, imperious theme: How dare you not worship and adore me! How DARE you!

Both Megs and Ginger are highly insecure children with a wide variety of mental issues. The on-going public attention simply fuels and exacerbates those issues.

Someone whose job it is to help you is not a toilet for you to shit in, Meghan.

Valentine must be the gayest name ever, right up there with Marmaduke.

Whatever's going on with Smug and Dim, it looks as though "Buckingham Palace" has had enough. Meaning the Queen, Charles, William and their spouses have had enough.

Batten down the hatches and think on what Philip may have said to Charles about all this during their little recent visit. Philip's about ready to snuff it, whatever he says now carries even more than the usual tonnage.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Not only is this ragey cunt a narcissist she is most likely a sociopath. Who with a conscience or any empathy could wear those blood diamonds from bin Salman?

Markle is textbook

This bitch is going down. Fast.

I just feel sorry for Harry and the kid(s).

[quote]Who with a conscience or any empathy could wear those blood diamonds from bin Salman?

If that upsets you, you might not want to look into where a lot of the other jewels owned by the Crown came from.

Markle wore the earrings before we even really knew what was going on. Khashoggi disappeared on October 1st, it wasn't until November 16th that the CIA said there was proof MbS had ordered the killing. Meghan wore the earrings on October 23rd.

A lot of people are emotionally invested in proving Meghan Markle is as bad as MbS, but that's a ridiculous claim to make.

It's not about people "being upset", r298.

Instead, it very neatly demonstrates who Meghan really is, as opposed to who she claims she is.

This is who she really is. She's someone who had "Classy Girl" on her license plates...

Valentine Low wrote a separate article on the Murder Diamonds, also published today in the Times

The Times: Meghan’s earrings were gift from Saudi prince accused of murder

by Valentine Low

The Duchess of Sussex wore earrings given to her by Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, to a state dinner while he was being condemned over the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

She told staff that the Chopard earrings she wore in Fiji had been borrowed, rather than stating that they had been a wedding gift from the prince, a source said.

The CIA said in a report released by President Biden last Friday that the prince, known as MBS, approved the 2018 murder of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Kensington Palace press office told the media that the chandelier earrings, which Meghan wore on the first night of their visit to Fiji, three weeks after Khashoggi’s murder, were borrowed. The press office did not say from whom they had been borrowed. The Times has been told that an aide later claimed that the duke and duchess said they had been borrowed from the jeweller Chopard.

Lawyers for the duchess said that although she may have said they were borrowed, every relevant member of staff knew who they were from. She was unaware of the rumours at the time that the crown prince was involved in the murder, they said.

[Times article on Saudi gift, Continued]

A source said that staff in London responsible for registering details of all royal gifts recognised them later. They were confirmed as a wedding gift from MBS, who had lunch with the Queen during a three-day visit to London in March 2018, two months before Harry and Meghan’s wedding. The duchess wore them again to the Prince of Wales’s 70th birthday party at Buckingham Palace on November 14 that year. There is no suggestion that the crown prince gave them to the duchess in person, or indeed has even met her.

As a gift from a foreign head of state, the earrings are officially considered crown property. They were available for the duchess to use, but she would not have been able to sell them. Her lawyers said that if she had said they were borrowed, this was what she meant. They denied she had stated they were borrowed from a jeweller.

Before the Sussexes’ tour the Khashoggi murder was an international news story. As early as October 12, four days before the start of the tour, The Times reported that world leaders had rounded on the crown prince as suspicions grew that he had ordered the killing. On October 20, three days before the dinner in Fiji, Saudi Arabia admitted that its officials were responsible for his death.

Staff in London were concerned when they saw the earrings in the media. They alerted Kensington Palace, which decided not to take it up with the couple while they were on tour. A source said: “We made a decision not to confront Meghan and Harry on it, out of fear for what their reaction would be.”

[Times article on Saudi gift, Continued]

After the duchess wore them a second time, an aide decided to confront Harry, a source said. He is said to have looked “shocked” that people knew where the earrings came from. Lawyers for the duke and duchess deny he was questioned about their provenance, which they said was well known.

Staff were surprised that she wore the earrings, given her views on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. In October 2016, before the world knew that she was dating Harry, she took part in a One Young World summit in Ottawa, where she was photographed with the Saudi women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul, one of the best-known faces of the campaign for women’s right to drive in her home country. Meghan’s desire to champion the cause of women such as Hathloul would, royal insiders believe, make it highly unlikely that she would ever have met MBS.

Four days before Harry and Meghan’s wedding in May 2018 Hathloul was arrested and imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Her family said she was tortured. She was released last month but her sister Lina pointed out that Hathloul was still subject to a travel ban and probation.

The earrings were sent as a wedding gift and not given to Markle personally, she did not meet MbS, and she does not own the earrings.

[quote]The Times story also includes a claim that Meghan wore earrings during her 2018 visit to Fiji that had been a wedding gift from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, who U.S. intelligence agencies have said approved the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. PEOPLE has learned that the earrings were gifted on March 7, 2018, from the Saudi Arabian royal family. Neither the Duke nor the Duchess of Sussex was present when they were given at Buckingham Palace, and as is protocol for any wedding gift of this nature, they remain property of The Crown.

[Times article on Saudi gift, Continued]

While the crown prince, who is the country’s deputy prime minister and day-to-day ruler, has introduced a number of reforms, he has been criticised for muzzling dissidents. Under his rule, arrests of human rights activists have risen, according to campaigners. He has said that he bears responsibility for Khashoggi’s murder “because it happened under my watch” but denied having any prior knowledge of the plot.

Yes, but she wore them after the Saudi Crown Prince had been credited with the murder, r305.

Not just once, but twice.

People keep saying that this isn't a tabloid, but just look at this article. This is hot tabloid mess, full of innuendo.

[quote]At the time it was reported that the earrings were borrowed. The duchess does not deny this was what she said, despite being aware of their provenance.

[quote]On the same tour sources said the main reason that the duchess cut short an engagement in Fiji was because of her reservations about the organisation UN Women. It is not clear why she is said to have felt so strongly about its presence.

[quote]The duchess denies the sources’ claims about the event.

Source: "She didn't stay as long at an engagement while in Fiji as she was going to because she had concerns!"

Press: "What concerns?"

Source: "Eh, I dunno."

I'd also like to know what other pieces the Crown owns that came from MbS. Surely he didn't only send one set of earrings, he must have sent gifts for the Cambridges and perhaps to others as well.

The "Blood Diamonds" accusation is one whale of a red herring. The BRF has received and continues to receive gifts from Gulf and Southeast Asian authoritarian despots whose rule is brutal and absolute, where no one has rights but the ruling despot and family. The entire BRF is guilty of turning a blind eye to murderers, to adorning themselves with "blood diamonds ", not just Megs.

I'm sure the Saudi Royal family give many, many pieces of jewelry, very regularly, to the BRF.

The question is: when are they worn? And by whom?

And, do any of those people claim to be "humanitarian" focused on "building compassion"?

Can you give any examples, r310?

The twits here going on about how "surely" MBS must send gifts to the royal family don't get the point. MBS is a crown prince, he is the counterpart of the royal family. The gift-giving is part of diplomatic policy between states.

What Meghan did was choose to wear diamond earrings that MBS had sent her as a wedding gift when it was widely known/suspected that he was behind the dismembering of a journalist, because she wanted to look glamorous and expensive. It's like she doesn't care. Then she lied and said they were borrowed.

Well, they were borrowed. They belong to the Crown.

r308, do you know what the definition of "Tabloid" is?

Serious question, although I already know the answer. You don't.

And you don't know what a 'broadsheet' is either, I suppose.

These words have actual, defined meanings.

Here's a hint: The London Times is a broadsheet.

So many people on twitter are defending her.

Well, yes, r316. That's where the Megstans congregate, and where the Sunshine Sachs bots operate.

But, as of 10:52 London time, there are 12,000 comments on the DM story, almost all of them against her.

Just think, it's not even noon yet and there are already 12,000 comments against Duchess Bully.

[quote]R20 I can see some of her POV, and why she might have held hostile feelings bout the Palace staffers.

Especially since we don't know how they treated her. Not to draw a comparison between the two women, themselves, but Princess Grace hated the palace staff in Monaco when she got there. They considered her an outsider and closed ranks against the American. I wouldn't be surprised if the Brittish staff resented the foreign MM's sudden appearance. How well did they disguise it?

I mean, I assume they didn't all pin on blackamoor brooches, but - -

There were reports worldwide that the journalist had been likely murdered by order of the Saudi prince pretty much from the moment he didn't leave that embassy - well before any CIA report confirming it.

That's right, r318, I'm sure all the nine staff members who left in under 18 months did so because [bold] they [bold/] treated [bold] her [bold/] badly....

[quote] do any of those people claim to be "humanitarian" focused on "building compassion"

R311 You mean it is irrelevant that the other Royals, the Queen included, happily accept gifts from homo-murdering, misogynist, brutal despots because those royal recipients don’t publicly ascribe to being “humanitarian”?

That’s some motherfucking giganto double standard you’ve got there.

R312 Google gifts to the Queen or Prince Charles or Diana or any of the senior royals from despotic, murdering Gulf and Southeast Asian rulers to find “examples”, a mountain of “blood diamonds”, as well as “blood animals”, specifically horses. Gulf despots, such as the Sauds and the al Khalifas of Bahrain, are well-aware of the Queen’s penchant for horseflesh and have presented her over the years with prized Arabian horses. Criticism in the Brit media about the BRF receiving gifts from Gulf and Southeast Asian despots has been all but non-existent. Though there was one article back in 2017 accusing the Queen of trading human rights for horses from the al Khalifas.

What's also interesting is that the palace is allowing some collateral damage to spill over onto Saudi Arabia.

There have been murmurs recently about rising tensions between the Anglo-American block and their longtime allies in the House of Saud, this could be some of the early smoke signals.

Meghan is a bully, r321, a documented bully, who treated her servants like shit.

And no amount of distraction you try to throw into this thread will change that fact.

#DuchessBully

R323 I'm not interested in whether or not Megs is a bully. I'm interested in the hypocrisy of those who accuse Megs of wearing "blood diamonds" while turning a blind eye to the rest of the Royals that do exactly the same fucking thing.

Meghan left one staffer's life "completely destroyed" per Valentine Low, r324.

I thought all you Megstans were all about "kindness"?

R324 I think the point is any other Royal would be a bit more sensible about wearing something that was such a recent gift from someone so recently associated with murder and they wouldn't then be so stupid as to lie about it.

A gift from a foreign head of state would be the property of the Crown Estate but there's no way on Earth Meghan wouldn't have known where it came from. It was a gift to her and she wouldn't be allowed to sell it or give it away, but it wouldn't have been locked up with the Crown Jewels either.

Like any narcissist, she thinks everyone else on the planet is stupid apart from her.

R317,Sure but all the important people are on twitter and they take the opinions of twitter seriously and believe it’s the public opinion nowadays even though its just a vocal minority in a SM bubble.

I decided to ignore the Harry/Meghan gossip until after the Oprah interview, and now this ....

Thanks to whoever is copy/pasting the Times articles. The main one is interesting for the fact that, unlike the impression you'd get from here, it isn't a clear-cut Palace vs Meghan story. It's framed as the Palace having failed as HR managers, indeed protecting Meghan at the expense of the bullied employees.

R326 ALL of the Royals know that those gifts come from; murderers, human rights violators and brutal despots. It's the height of hypocrisy to take one to task and not take ALL of them to task.

I love that the Times article ends with this gem from Meghan: “The Duchess is saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma. She is determined to continue her work building compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for doing what is right and doing what is good.”

Which is immediately followed by: "Buckingham Palace declined to comment. "

Again, r329, no matter how hard you spin, attempt to distract and to derail this thread, Meghan is a documented bully.

She is the abuser, claiming to be 'the abused'.

She's the lowest form of liar and fake: the domestic abuser.

R296 and others, ffs, enough with the armchair pathologising! Of course MM is a narcissist. Duh! All actors are, or they wouldn't want to act in public. As are models, influencers, politicians, CEOs, professional athletes, circus performers, singers, dancers and porn stars.

These palace staffers are YOUNG people, generally women. Not some sinister old men in “grey suits”.

Anyway, Oprah needs to redo the interview for a third time.

Oprah is busy enough right now, r333, furiously editing out every reference made to 'bullying' in the 2 hour long interview.

A D-lister who scored big was a cunt to the help?

Well, I never in all my life!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma.

Megs support and deep commitment to those who have experienced pain and trauma.

Indeed, r337.

"Emotional and psychological abuse", "Repeatedly humiliated", "in tears", "shaking" leaving at least one former staffer's life "completely destroyed".

It's quite something.

And, with not one accuser, but multiple accusers.

If this isn't true, Meghan had better sue.

But it is true, so she won't.

[quote]What Meghan did was choose to wear diamond earrings that MBS had sent her as a wedding gift when it was widely known/suspected that he was behind the dismembering of a journalist, because she wanted to look glamorous and expensive. It's like she doesn't care. Then she lied and said they were borrowed.

Royals don't accept personal gifts, anything MbS sent became property of the Crown, not of Meghan. They were borrowed. No one here would ever say Camilla owned Queen Mary's tiara that she's so fond of, because she doesn't. The Crown owns all the jewels, not the individual members of royalty.

At the time she wore them, it was NOT widely known that he was behind the murder of Khashoggi.

The whole thing about "she wore a gift she knew was from a psychopathic murderer because she wanted to look glamorous" is just fantasy on your part.

[quote]This is a fascinating turn of events! The fact that she was awful to staff doesn’t surprise me at all. But the fact that the staff is speaking out—with Palace blessing—is quite something. This is fun!

I was thinking that too! When I first heard this "bullying" claim, I just chalked it up to some anon sources in DM - but this story looks like the real deal. I'm not surprised she was awful to staff, though I am kind of surprised that she continued to escalate rather than find some agreeable middle ground. That the Harkles would split from the Cambridges seemed inevitable, but that they left in a huff never to return seems kind of surprising. I mean, yes that's what narcissists do, but even Dump could be slapped down by certain people. Megs sounds as if she ceded to no one.

Where on earth do you get that this has the Palace's blessing? There's no indication of that at all.

Surely if the Palace has been complaining about the timing of the Oprah interview because of Philip's health, then they're being hypocrites by releasing this as he remains in the hospital?

Distract, deflect, distract, deflect r339

Keep going, you're only underscoring the fact that Megstans support domestic abuse.

I would contend that everyone knew that MBS was behind the murder from Day One. Yes, it took awhile to actually make the connection, but who else wanted the guy dead - and killed in such a grisly fashion.

[quote]any other Royal would be a bit more sensible about wearing something that was such a recent gift from someone so recently associated with murder and they wouldn't then be so stupid as to lie about it

She didn't lie, it was borrowed from the Crown as all similar jewels are.

MbS wasn't associated with murder at the time. Remember, for weeks it was speculated that the group of assassins overstepped their orders from one of MbS's aides, news that was reported on the day Meghan and Harry landed in Fiji, which was a trip described as a "mini vacation." It's likely they didn't know the news about MbS's connection at all, and had already decided on the earrings long before they even got to Fiji. It was weeks later before it was confirmed it wasn't just an aide but MbS himself responsible for the murder, and even then there were loads of articles and op-eds saying he was only 'allegedly" involved.

If I saw people on these threads saying that this is the kind of thing royals do all the time (which it is) and there are loads of jewels and gifts in the possession of the Crown that were given under specious circumstances (which there are) then I'd take the complaints in good faith, but this really just seems like more exaggerated fiction designed to make Meghan look as evil as possible, which is ridiculous.

This will hamper Orca's interview quite a lot as I'm certain that Meghan claimed that she was bullied out of the palace. Poor Orca.

R339 Dear Christ, you're dim.

It was a personal wedding gift. It becomes the property of the Crown Estate which means no one single member of the Royal Family can sell it off or give it away. That does not mean it was locked away in some underground vault and that no-one knew where it came from. Meghan would have known full well who bought it for her and that it was 'hers'. Jewels like that don't just 'appear'.

[quote]That does not mean it was locked away in some underground vault and that no-one knew where it came from.

I never said anything of the sort, and it's weird that you think I did. Do you always make up conversations in your head like this?

[quote] Meghan would have known full well who bought it for her and that it was 'hers'

We don't know for sure that she knew, but I would bet she did, and it was worn specifically to acknowledge it as a gift that had been received. I'm sure many jewels and other gifts of the sort are routinely displayed in some way so as to acknowledge that they were given.

As I said, the issue at hand here is this crazy idea you guys have of her knowing bin Salman was an evil bastard who had ordered the grisly murder of a journalist for doing his job, and choosing to wear the earrings given to her by said evil bastard, because she "wanted to look glamorous." That's preposterous. The timeline doesn't match with that, first of all.

It doesn't make any sense to attribute such callous behavior to someone who had tons of jewelry at her disposal that was equally glamorous, and who has been nothing but obsessed with her public image and would never want to be linked to a scandal of this nature.

Everything I've read about the palace staff makes them seem like a pack of hateful trouble makers unless you're a blood relative of the Queen, or you kiss their asses right in the crack if you're a commoner. I think Kate was/is the latter. William probably told her to in order to get the staff on her side she'd have to coat her tongue with Teflon and learn how to lap ass deep and true until she got them on her side. I think Harry probably saw just what kind of people they were long ago and if he told Meghan anything it was to not let them brow beat her because they were all back stabbing, gossip mongers & trouble makers who didn't deserve any better.

So how does that work exactly? Are all gifted jewels locked in a vault and royal women can check them out like library books? Or are they reserved for the royal to whom they were actually given?

Are you insane? Of course she knew where it came from, r347

The Megstans are writhing particularly hard today, I see.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Palace staff are known to be untrustworthy, so I can’t speak to their gossip or what this woman’s character is.

But no doubt she is the most beautiful woman in the BRF, is that why the rest of them hate her?

R348, I don't think that would include throwing a cup of hot tea at an employee in any work environment. But 5 am emails are another story - it's not like you have to be up at 5 am to read them.

I just wonder what kind of staff abuse has occurred in times past. Maids were always getting knocked up by the sons of aristocratic families and having to leave in disgrace. So - did Andrew diddle the maids? Did Edward diddle the footmen? We know Charles had a longstanding r'ship with his valet Michael Fawcett, who has been handsomely rewarded for his services to the Crown.

[quote] Palace staff are known to be untrustworthy

You can trust that any published "talk from the Palace" is fully sanctioned. The BRF "never explains, never complains" - that's why they have their courtiers do it for them.

>>>But no doubt she is the most beautiful woman in the BRF, is that why the rest of them hate her?

That's a pretty low bar.

I would like to know who at Kensington Palace said the earrings were borrowed, and if they did so after realizing they came from MbS. If that statement that they had been borrowed came from Meghan's staff with her on Fiji, I'd be more suspicious, but coming from Kensington Palace as it did, it sounds like it could either have been some quick tossed-off answer that no one gave a second thought to, or a scenario where someone realized too late that those particular earrings were a bad choice.

I'd like to know why no one caught that beforehand, but then again, Kate went around with skirts flying over her head for something like two years before it was dealt with, so maybe the Palace isn't as good at the PR as they should be.

[quote]You can trust that any published "talk from the Palace" is fully sanctioned.

You really can't. The fake news about Meghan not allowing employees to park at Frogmore because she didn't like to look at the help was also allegedly from the Palace, and it clearly wasn't.

Sure r352, you keep telling yourself that Meghan is "the most beautiful woman" in the BRF while you cuddle your live-size Meghan doll

[quote]The following month Knauf handed in his notice. When the households split the following March he took up a job as an adviser to the Duke of Cambridge. He is now chief executive of the Cambridges’ Royal Foundation.

I recall that line from The Crown: in this family you're never really sure if you're in, but when you're out... you're out. Knauf is still in.

[quote]More than one source has expressed their view about her wanting to be a victim. One claimed: “She wanted to be the victim because then she could convince Harry that it was an unbearable experience and they had no choice but to move to America.”

This is a massive blow to her. Two camps and it overshadows the whole interview and is the prism through which everything she says will be seen.

It also presents Orca with a dilemma. Does she re-edit?

Give it a few weeks and Oprah will do a tell all about how Meghan misled her.

How can you look at that pic right above you r352 and say that awkward homely creature is beautiful? Are you blind? The York girls are more attractive then her.

In R352 she looks like she's morphing into Angelina Jolie's work, slapped on top of Kellyanne Conway's face.

But I suppose the truth was always going to out.

R339 is all sorts of wrong and stupid.

[quote] I think Harry probably saw just what kind of people they were long ago and if he told Meghan anything it was to not let them brow beat her because they were all back stabbing, gossip mongers & trouble makers who didn't deserve any better.

Which is ironic, because now that he's out, you can understand the extent to which Harry needed to be "managed" and without skilled people to do so, he appears to be sort of floundering & lost on his own.

It can't be an easy job to try & manage someone who has been told "yes" since Day One - not that they aren't likely a petty, political, backstabbing bunch - but it must be like trying to manage a full grown cranky toddler.

I do love the image of Orca, surrounded by a dozens of oleaginous stress burgers, trying to work out her next move... did she get played by Megantoinette? Does it matter? Is it just a ratings bonanza? But the problem is, Orca doesn't want to look like a fool, I'm guessing, because the interview itself will be reviewed.

"Steadman, turn the jet around!"

I love trolling BRF stans, can’t lie. They’re so easy.

r 367 is r352, just by the by

In the end, Oprah will probably get a good share of the blame for all this shit-stirring. No good can come of it.

R1 - Actually, Knauf, the likely leaker, works for Kensington Palace, not Buckingham Palace.

I rather think that this time, ironically, Meghan is telling the truth, for once: this is a BRF leak, and high time, too. The problem is, Meghan would be utterly unable to prove it, and in my opinion, has walked straight into a trap because she is so predictable.

Without proof, Meghan's accusation rises to the legal threshold of slander. The Palace doesn't sue often, but it does sue, and it always wins. It is obvious from the fact that Meghan calls the story "mischaracterized" rather than untrue, that the accusations by Knauf are also true, including, most notably, Harry begging Knauf not to pursue the matter.

All those people who were paid off and signed NDAs - Meghan knows perfectly well, or should, that if she pushes this far enough, will come out of the woodwork, quietly released from those NDAs by the Palace and willing to testify if Meghan feels like going to court again, as the Palace shrugs helplessly and says it couldn't stop people from violating the terms of those NDAs, those things are really quite worthless . . .

Melissa Tabouti is probably waiting in the wings, so are the Palace Four who were willing to testify in the ANL suit, but, amazingly, never got their day in court because, suddenly, Mr Justice Warby decided there was no viable case here AT ALL (imagine that!).

The Palace Four included Knauf - and Sara Latham, who now works for the Queen. Oh, the stories they could tell!

Not to mention the staffer at Admiralty House in Australia at whom Meghan threw a cup of hot tea. She was also paid off.

Oh, yes, Meghan, dear. Shout your accusations all you like. This time, you'll find yourself hoist with your own petard.

Indeed I am, R368. Indeed I am.

[quote]Give it a few weeks and Oprah will do a tell all about how Meghan misled her.

If she does, Meagan is really, really screwed.

This idiot is so bad at strategy... all ambition, no plan at all. It is wonderful watching her dismantle herself. It would be comic if children weren't involved because those things will grow up raised by this woman.

With her mothering skills and character she's going to reboot the Kennedys.

R356 - Yes, because there's an equivalency between a couple of instances of Kate's skirts flying up, and Meghan wearing the gift of people who sanctioned a brutal murder of a political dissenter.

As Ron said of Hermione in one of the early Potter films, "She really needs to get her priorities straight!"

So will the BRF sue MM if she slanders the BRF in the Oprah interview?

And very , very surprised that Warby stopped the privacy case from going to trial. Was that from BRF pressure? I bet that the ANL request for appeal will now be approved?

Like my granny always said, you can't control the wind but you can pick your earrings.

[quote]It is obvious from the fact that Meghan calls the story "mischaracterized" rather than untrue, that the accusations by Knauf are also true, including, most notably, Harry begging Knauf not to pursue the matter.

The most obvious proof is that he was retained by William after the fact.

The gifts weren't given under "specious circumstances" but by specious regimes. Diana was given a massive suite of sapphire and diamond jewellery by the Saudis. You haven't seen it about in years, though, have you? They retire those jewels and only trot them out if a visitor from said specious regime arrives and the government orders the Queen to host a banquet and smile politely.

You know, kind of the way the Biden Administration just admitted that it wasn't going to do anything, really, about MbS because it wasn't in America's geopolitical interests?

Who do you think is worse morally: a powerful nation's government admitting that morality doesn't matter and that a powerful ally who buys lots of arms from one should get away with the brutal murder of a political dissenter? Or the BRF politely accepting gifts on a toue or for big royal weddings, and then quietly putting them away?

Oprah truly believes she's controlling Megs and Ginger.

Megs truly believes she's controlling Oprah and Ginger.

Ginger looks to the two of them to tell him what to do next.

And no one yet realizes that the iceberg is swiftly closing in on this Titanic disaster.

[quote]Yes, because there's an equivalency between a couple of instances of Kate's skirts flying up, and Meghan wearing the gift of people who sanctioned a brutal murder of a political dissenter.

If Palace staff can't keep skirts from flying up over the head of the future queen, then it's apparently too much to ask for them to keep a princess from wearing ill-advised earrings. That was my point, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Excellent analysis, r370

^*gifts on a tour (the royals are often presented with valuable gifts on tours, and do remember that they only go where the Foreign Office sends them.

[quote]Diana was given a massive suite of sapphire and diamond jewellery by the Saudis. You haven't seen it about in years, though, have you?

Right, so why didn't anyone prevent these earrings from being worn?

bin Salman wasn't known to have ordered the murder at the time, but his name was being brought up in the mess, and it's someone's job to keep things like this from happening, as you yourself said. So why didn't they?

Yes, but Kate's skirts.

LOL... the new Meagain default: Yes, but Kate's skirts!

Megantoinette's Stans are about as smart as she is. And the thing I love is you know that user wouldn't give them the time of day face to face.

[quote]They retire those jewels and only trot them out if a visitor from said specious regime arrives

Rubbish! The Queen, Diana, Princess Magaret and other royal ladies publicly wear jewelry given them by Gulf despots, not just at specious-regime specific occasions.

How could staff prevent her from wearing the jewels when MM was a bully?

Actually, the "Palace" means the royals' staffers in things as mundane as this, and, I do have to repeat, the instances of Kate's skirt flying up occurred only a couple of times, so obviously the "Palace" did do something about it.

In the case of the earrings, I'm inclined to give Meghan a pass, as they would have been requested by her dresser or P.A., and not every such request goes straight up to the Quee4n but to people the Queen has on staff precisely to take care of shit like this, and the event was recent enough to provide a margin.

Kate's couple of skirt flyups have become a convenient whipping post for those conveniently forgetting Kate's years of discretion whilst dating William, and her continued discretion and loyalty to the Crown over ten years as Duchess of Cambridge.

The fact remains that the real issue here is neither skirts nor earrings, but the fact that the Palace has, as in the instant case, actually tried to save Meghan from herself, for which, as with so much else the BRF did for the former Suitcase Girl on Deal or No Deal, Meghan has done nothing but shovel shit at the family that let her in, the Cambridges, and Britain itself.

That's the real issue here. The Palace has, after seeing the trailers for Meghan's Grand Martyrdom Interview, had enough, and is pulling its gloves.

Knauf has proof of the story he leaked. Meghan has no proof whatsoever that Buckingham Palace is behind the leak. She is, therefore, risking a slander suit and the release of what is very likely a great deal of more nasty information about Meghan that those nasty Palace royals have covered up for her. Meghan up to now has assumed, with some justice, that the Palace would never let that stuff out because of Harry.

But after the Corden interview, the Palace has obviously done with Harry, too. The drawbridge is being pulled up and the RF is manning the turrets of Windsor Castle with lots of cauldrons of burning oil to pour over onto the Harkles.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Addendum to R385

Horses gifted to the Queen are indeed trotted out at Royal Ascot among other racing carnivals.

The BRF has no qualms about showing off their gifts from Gulf despots.

R382 - Diana was given the suite in 1981. They were closely identified with Diana, and unlike her engagement ring, watch, bracelet, etc., went back into the possession of the Crown after the divorce. The massive brooch/pendant, the matching bracelet, the earrings - it was what they call a demi-parure (a full parure also has a tiara). Some of it has been dismantled to make smaller pieces, but the signature pieces themselves are out of sight,

The Palace isn't going to sue Monald Mrump.

They have exposed her. That's enough. Campbell's Soup v. Walmart store brand.

R388 - No, I'm suggesting that her staffers didn't do their job properly. That's what dresser's and P.A.'s are for: to keep track of when what was worn in which country, what the customs for female dress are in those countries, what colours to wear, and what jewellery to pull out or not pull out.

The Queen, Margaret and the royal ladies did indeed wear those gifts around in the past. They don't now. Times have changed, Margaret's been dead for how long?

When was the last time you saw the Queen or Kate or Camilla in a recent gift from an Arab despot?

[quote]The BRF has no qualms about showing off their gifts from Gulf despots.

Very true and likely why no one suggested to Meghan that she not wear the earrings. In fact, it was probably suggested to her that she wear them to show appreciation for the gift.

That's why I would love to know who at Kensington said the earrings were "borrowed" and didn't elaborate on where they came from. Someone knew that wearing them would look bad, so why didn't they tell Meghan this?

^* dressers and P.A.s, (not with possessive apostrophe)

Is anyone else tired of her being called black? I've got a stained t-shirt that is darker than her! She's probably 1/8 black, but that cow will be milked to death.

Look, as I said above, most of this stuff about horses, skirts, earrings, etc., are ancillary.

The real issue here is that open warfare has broken out at last between the Palace and the two ingrates who "remain much loved members of the family".

The Palace has really let the two of them get away with endless bits of mud lobbed through that idiotic book, Meghan's pal Lainey, Omid Scobie, et al., precisely in an effort to protect Harry from his moronic choice of a wife, and to refrain from appearing petty and vindictive.

With the Oprah interview, the Palace has finally had to accept that appeasement doesn't work with Meghan.

Kate's skirts and the Queen's horses and who wore what jewellery when aren't the real show shaping up on the world stage: it's Meghan Markle burning the last remaining shreds of any bridge with Harry's family, which will see Harry finally completely cut off from the only real family HE ever had, cost them their titles and HRHs, and quite possibly lead to the release of everything the Palace has been sitting on for the last four years re Meghan Markle's ruthless, cynical, dishonest, and abusive behaviour.

Stay tuned.

Agreed, R396. Things are getting juicy!

Everyone is desperate for this to be "sanctioned by the Palace" but the more I think about it, the less I can accept that the Palace would be this hypocritical.

The bit about the earrings in the article either came from staffers who know full well that other royals wear jewelry from similar despots, or the Times learned this information separately, also knowing full well Meghan isn't even close to the first royal to wear jewels from terrible regimes. Either way, it was a cheap shot.

The Palace surely wouldn't have wanted something like this included, because it would bring up their own similar behavior.

There are different factions within the Palace. It doesn't always work as a cohesive entity. Since it's William's man who is talking, this might be William's doing. Given what he and his family have endured thanks to the Sussexes, I don't blame him.

[quote]r353 We know Charles had a longstanding r'ship with his valet Michael Fawcett, who has been handsomely rewarded for his services to the Crown.

Maybe that's what Diana was really alluding to when she was saying, "There were three of us in that marriage."

[quote]r387 conveniently forgetting Kate's years of discretion whilst dating William

code for abortions?

R397 - Ah, I wondered where you were, juicy poster!

R398 - I think you've brought up a point apparently being lost on many: this story doesn't so any favours for the Palace, as it makes it clear that they backed the abusive royal against the staffers, who, as the Telegraph article points out, felt let down by the Palace's willingness to smooth things over and cover up Meghan's behaviour.

It makes Harry look bad for abetting his wife's behaviour, also. And it makes the Palace look bad, as well.

I wonder if the Palace knew the risk and decided that holding Meghan accountable, finally, was worth it.

Not least as it proves that far from not "protecting" her, as Meghan has been claiming for years, the "suits" and the Palace covered for her atrocious behaviour, and would have to again on the tour Down Under a month later, during which Melissa Tabouti nearly quit before they returned, and Meghan threw a cup of hot tea at a staffer at Admiralty House.

I wonder what Oprah is thinking?

R392 More rubbish. Both Camilla and Kate publicly wear jewels and watches given to them by the Sauds. Jewels are also gifted to (and publicly worn by) the Royal ladies and gentlemen from the al Maktoums, al Sabahs, al Thanis and the Sultan of Brunei, all just as murderous and despotic as the Sauds.

As mentioned in R389, the BRF are not ashamed to publicly flaunt gifts from their despotic Royal “brothers”. That those gifts may remain unidentified due to political considerations does not alter this fact.

Of course the jewels/horses are ancillary to the main event. But let’s stop pretending that the BRF are within lightyears of “humanitarians".

No doubt she was reacting to life in a vipers nest.

R399 - I wouldn't blame William, either, but I don't think even he would have done this without a quiet word with HM. Meghan's pals were the source of the rumour about William and Rose Hanbury, and also for the nasty shit in that Vanity Fair article about Kate, Pippa, and Carol Middleton - some of which, after a legal threat, was withdrawn from the online version of the story.

William is well aware of where the lines of power still are; Knauf wouldn't have done this without William's assent, or the Queen's. William isn't quite in position yet to exercise this kind of muscle unitlaterally.

But he and Kate owe Meghan big time for all the shit she's leaked about them over the last three years - and, as the old saying has it, revenge is a dish best served cold.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R403 - No one asserted that the BRF were fucking "humanitarians". They are, however, political animals who do the bidding of the Foreign Office. They go where the FO sends them, and if they're advised that it might be wise to retire this or that piece of glitter, or, in fact, that it might be wise to wear this or that piece of glitter, they do.

There is no reason they shouldn't wear those things if no current controversy swirls around them. And, do remember that The Kingdom is ALSO still a powerful ally of Britain's, and the West's primary bulwark against Iran in the region. I believe the UK just made another 1bn arms agreement with the Saudis.

Both America and Britain have made it clear there will be no repercussions for MbS orchestrating that horrifying murder. The royals are not remotely real players in this issue.

Gosh, what do you know: European royals have tonnes have fabulous jewellery and wear it. I'd be curious to know what's in Queen Maxima's vaults - her collection makes QEII look poor.

Get real. If you want to get rid of the monarchy, join the republican party and start agitating. But accusing them of doing things every other royal family in Europe does (them that can compete at that level, of course) is just stupid. The governments of America and Britain and France and Germany who are giving the Saudis a pass on this on the real villains.

And, as I said, this is one instance in which I give Meghan a pass.

The real story is just shaping up. The Palace is now clearly gunning for the Harkles and no longer prepared to give them a pass on their sullen ingratitude, massive self-entitlement, lies, and use of their royal connections to make millions whilst at the same time passing themselves off as martyrs to their royalty.

Jesus, talk about a magician's sleight of hand card trick.

If you think this is the end of the Palace's leaks, think again. This was just a warning shot across the Sussex's bows.

Please link to photos of the “publicly flaunted” gifts from despots who personally ordered someone to be hacked to death, r403. Even in the al jazeera timeline above, Markle wore the earrings publicly after MBS was accused of ordering Khashoggi’s execution, not to mention the human rights crackdown that preceded the murder.

R408 All of the Royals have received gifts from despots who have personally had people hacked to death, body parts chopped off, disappeared, beheaded, hanged, flogged and caned. That's the reality of Gulf despot behavior. Saud behavior is in no way exclusive or unique.

[quote]Even in the al jazeera timeline above, Markle wore the earrings publicly after MBS was accused of ordering Khashoggi’s execution

That's not in the timeline, actually. The accusation in the timeline is in November, she wore the earrings in October.

Not who you asked r408 but here's one:

Another for r408:

[quote]r406 Piers Morgan weighs in...

Must he?

(How can he speak or type with his tongue always so firmly wedged up Big Liz's ass?)

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

She wore them in November as well r410.

The Cuntess Woke Bitch's heavy makeup makes her look like the First Whore Melania now. Is she to become a royal whore soon? Rancid cunt.

Hmm, she also wore them for Charles' birthday, it seems. That's really odd, we're supposed to believe Kensington Palace and Markle lied about their provenance in October to hide where they came from, then she wore them again in November?

Completely unbelievable. Meghan cares more about her image than about a pair of earrings and wouldn't have risked wearing them a second time. We're supposed to believe staff knew they were gifts from MbS but didn't think anything of Meghan wearing them in public?

She wore them on 14 Nov and the CIA report was on 17 Nov but it was clear by the 10th that MbS was involved.

The only logical answer is that this was carelessness on the part of staff and she didn't even know who MbS was.

Or staff let her wear these and kept the info as a time bomb to release later, like yesterday, when they were all mad about her upcoming interview with Oprah. That doesn't seem likely, though, because why would staff drop a dime on Meghan for doing the same thing the rest of the royals do?

She chose to wear the earrings. That’s not the staff’s fault.

Staff exists to help coordinate jewels and outfits for the royals, we've already been over this.

If someone at Kensington Palace knew enough to lie about where the earrings came from in October, they didn't keep this incident to themselves. They would have wanted to prevent it happening again.

It doesn't make sense for Meghan to have worn them a second time out of spite or because she liked them so much and didn't care who gave them to her or anything of the sort, because she is OBSESSED with her public image. She wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near the name "Mohammed bin Salman" either then or in the future.

I suppose someone in the family could have convinced her she could wear them and no one would know or care, but that doesn't seem likely, either.

I agree that the Murder Earrings are really a non-issue and would have been better off not being brought up. Everyone in power gives the Saudis a pass for obvious reasons. Wearing a pair of earrings with dodgy provenance is a tiny sin compared to what the US and the British govt. let the Saudis get away with.

No, the real story here is the bullying that Meghan perpetrated and the Palace covered up until now. Meghan is the bigger sinner in that instance, but the Palace definitely let her get away with it for too long because they were worried about being accused of racism and of alienating their beloved Harry. I guess they finally realized that no matter what they do, they'll be accused of racism and that Harry is already lost. May as well let the truth come out.

The earrings are just part of the poo-pourri the palace is tainting Smegs and the Saudis with.

It's politically damaging for President Markle and a part of the PR operation to pivot Western public opinion away from our erstwhile 'ally'.

Megastans, suck it up: your horse has been exposed as a mule and there's no way you're gonna what-about your way out of this.

She is everything everybody says she is. Soak in it.

Yes, but KATE'S SKIRTS!

Do they really think Kate wasn't raked over the coals just as badly during her first couple of years? I remember a big story where Kate got crucified for playing with her hair too much during a funeral. The press loves to take potshots at Royals.

There is no such thing as bad publicity for these two. This is all being done to drive up interest for the interview. They are broke (by Hollywood standards) and really need this interview to make their mark.

Forbes puts their worth at no more than 4 million. That isn't going to pay the bills on that huge mansion.

For or against the couple, people are getting tired of their constant whining. Do they not have anything else to offer other than being professional victims? They found their freedom over a year ago. You'd think they would move on.

R426, they have nothing else that really interests them. Africa and military interest him and she led him away from that by exploiting his vulnerability to damsels in distress and having her anchor babies. She's got what she wants. A lifestyle on her own terms, doing nothing but demanding attention.

^ Oh and forgot: wearing expensive clothes badly.

They can only ride the victim train for so long, though. Even if they come out with headline-grabbing revelations during this Oprah interview, there's a law of diminishing returns when it comes to that kind of thing: The next time they bring it all up, it will have less impact. If they DON'T come out with any revelations, people will feel misled.

Whatever stories they've got to tell, they need to tell them, enjoy the publicity surge, and use that publicity to start accomplishing something real. Otherwise, all they've got left is a divorce and epic custody battle to interest the public.

Define Megastan...

Megastan: opens with Klan Granny, throws in some homophobia, assertions of racism, some ageism, moves on to what-about, Rose Hanbury, Kate's looks, the Middletons' social climbing and ends with something about the Thenardiers as the most popular figures in the world.

Megastan.

This is why the Klan Granny Troll sounds like such a shill: It's the same vicious phrases over and over again, like someone who doesn't care but is using a prepared script.

Either way, it's really annoying.

I wonder if Oprah tapes a special intro, acknowledging as little as she can possibly get away with. She'll know how much bullshit her snag sold during the interview and will presumably do just enough to cover her own ass. Which is no small job on either front.

Today was the day Meghan Markle's collapse began.

[quote] There is no such thing as bad publicity for these two.

That's certainly false.

I liked her when I didn’t know anything about her. I don’t think she’s any great beauty, in profile, she looks like a caricature drawing from the carnival.

I really wanted to like her at the beginning. I thought it was great that Harry was marrying a real grown-up woman who wasn't from his exact background. A college-educated, biracial American woman in her mid-30s was the total opposite of his mother Diana when SHE married in, I thought. A woman like that HAD to know what she was getting into and was prepared for a second career as a public servant. She MUST love Harry and want to do much good in the UK and Commonwealth nations. SURELY she would carve out a unique place for herself in the BRF and help bring the family into the 21st Century.

A woman like that WOULD have been a wonderful addition. Sadly, that's not what Meghan Markle is, and that became clear by the time the Vanity Fair cover was published. It's only become more obvious as time goes on that Meghan's first and only priority is Meghan.

So she just came out of nowhere and declared her love for H via the VF cover?

We are all too quick to judge people by their surface qualities, more so than ever these days. Time reveals character.

We've given it time. She continues to be repugnant.

She's been in the public eye because of the relationship with Harry since 2016. If she had any qualities besides grasping famewhore and professional victim, we'd have seen them by now.

[quote]The earrings were sent as a wedding gift and not given to Markle personally, she did not meet MbS, and she does not own the earrings.

Doesn't matter - she publicly WORE the earrings knowing full well that the giver (MBS) was very likely behind the gruesome murder of an innocent journalist. That was already prominently speculated in the worldwide media within DAYS of that murder. Don't tell us that Meghan - who brags about how well-informed she is - didn't watch/read the news and know about this.

And she also fibbed (lied) about them being "borrowed" to cover this pesky fact up. For those here saying that she wouldn't damage her public image for a pair of earrings, I say yes she would - look at them. They are huge elegant chandelier style in line with some of the grandest pieces the Queen wears. Her ego and hubris over-ruled her normally highly tuned image self-protection.

For r393 and others who ask why her staff didn't warn or tell her about the earrings' provenance - which I believe she knew about anyhow - read the Times piece again, it states they were afraid to tell the Sussexes because of the angry loud blowback they would likely receive from them.

Feeling burned after being refused certain pieces of jewellery before, I think she chose those earrings as she didn't need special permission to wear them since they had been a gift to her.

They are pretty spectacular and I can imagine her thinking "Fuck YOU, I've got my OWN jewellery now and ain't no-one can't tell me not to wear them".

The thing I love about some of the comments above is that Meghan wouldn't piss on her defenders' hair if it were on fire. She cares about Meghan and not much else.

Which says what they post here is suspect, either because they're being paid or because they're deluded.

Remember, the official story for denying her the emerald tiara (whichever tiara that was) was that it had dodgy provenance and was no longer worn publicly. Telling Meghan that she couldn't wear her gorgeous new diamond earrings because they also had dodgy provenance (due to recent events) would very likely have caused a blow-up. If they were afraid of her, and it sounds like they were, I can understand them letting the whole thing go and hoping nobody would notice.

Well exactly r443. She had already been allegedly denied the tiara she wanted for her wedding, and at some point was pointedly told she couldn't wear any pieces that Diana had worn (even though Kate wore plenty of these). She had these grand diamond earrings of her own (technically owned by the Crown, but still hers to wear for the duration of her marriage) and an event to wear them at.

She was hell-bent on showing them off; her ego and insecurity complex overrode her normally high sense of image security. Bad luck there.

[quote]she publicly WORE the earrings knowing full well that the giver (MBS) was very likely behind the gruesome murder of an innocent journalist

Are you serious? Do you think either she or Harry pay attention to the news? Especially when they're on a mini-vacation in Fiji?

As obsessed as she is with her own image of being a caring, liberal woman, does it make any sense to say that she purposely wore the garish dangly diamond earrings gifted by a despotic murderer just because she thought they were "great" and "glamorous"?

Have you been this angry about any other royals and their gifts from similarly despotic nations? That's mostly rhetorical, we all know the answer is no.

This is absurd.

[quote]she also fibbed (lied) about them being "borrowed" to cover this pesky fact up

Someone at Kensington said they were borrowed. We don't know who, but we do know it wasn't Meghan herself, because she was in Fiji, not at Kensington. Was it her staff? Who knows. You don't; no one does.

It doesn't make any sense for Kensington Palace to deliberately avoid mentioning where the earrings came from to avoid a scandal, then have Meghan wear them again three weeks later.

The only way you fanfic writers can explain it is to come up with some ridiculous story about how Meghan just WUVS her GLAMOROUS EARRINGS so much that she threw her entire PR image aside so she could wear them. Nonsensical.

And it doesn't make any sense for the Palace to have released this as a slam on Meghan because all it's done is make everyone talk about all the grotesque shit the Crown owns that came from people even worse than MbS.

Someone, probably that staffer, inserted the earring idiocy into this story to make her look worse. It was a cheap shot and it backfired.

I believe it. The Queen herself had to tell the whore, we don't talk to the staff like that...She cunt whore was questioning the staff about the food for the wedding. She didn't believe the food was vegan coz it tasted too good...but it was vegan.

She is a nasty whore who thinks she should be treated extra special because of who she is.

Breaking: Buckingham Palace is launching an official allegation into the claims of bullying by the Duchess of Sussex.

[quote] Feeling burned after being refused certain pieces of jewellery before, I think she chose those earrings as she didn't need special permission to wear them since they had been a gift to her.

[quote] They are pretty spectacular and I can imagine her thinking "Fuck YOU, I've got my OWN jewellery now and ain't no-one can't tell me not to wear them".

The emerald tiara was not hers to wear, and these earrings were given to her in her role as wife of the queen's grandson, so of course they are the property of the Crown (otherwise she would have had to pay for them--she cannot accept gifts of that price otherwise). So they never were her "OWN jewellery" [sic], and she would have had to have been an idiot to think they were.

[quote]Are you serious? Do you think either she or Harry pay attention to the news? Especially when they're on a mini-vacation in Fiji?

Yes r447 I'm serious. I don't believe that Harry likely reads or pays much attention to the news, but Meghan? Come on. She is far sharper and has built an entire IMAGE on being attentive to current events and well-informed. She absolutely reads and/or watches world news on a daily basis.

FFS they weren't on a "mini-vacation" in Fiji! Stop obfuscating. They were on UK STATE business, sent by the Foreign Office to represent Queen and country there. It's was a diplomatic visit, paid for by the UK. Even more reason to present themselves with great care in public, including what they wore at official events like that formal dinner with the earrings.

R451 Just because they are nominally the property of the Crown doesn't mean she didn't have access to them. As said again and again in this thread, they were a gift to HER. Technically, they belong to the British people and they are held in trust by the Sovereign via the Crown Estate but in reality they wouldn't have been locked away with the priceless jewels. She'd have had access to them without having to ask for permission from the Queen. She could never sell them as they weren't hers, but she could put them on whenever she wanted.

Of course it would happen to a foreigner. No Englishwoman would dream of behaving like this with the service.

r448 who cares what her staff told her? She KNEW where the earrings came from, she and Harry were told about all of their wedding gifts when given. Just because they went into possession and care of the Royal Vault doesn't mean she didn't know about them!

She and Harry would have been given a list of everything received from foreign dignataries, with these huge earrings right at the top, along with the name of the gifter. This is common practice for UK Royal weddings.

Stop lying about what she knew or when she knew it, re these huge jewels. She knew they were from MBS, she had heard the rumors about his involvement in the Khashoggi murder (she would have had to have been under a rock not to have heard). She word them regardless.

Correct r453 and she would have been made aware of them, also Harry, immediately after they were gifted. The couple would have at minimum been given a full list of pricy gifts given at the time of their wedding. Who here believes that Meghan didn't know she had large diamond chandelier earrings lying in the Royal vaults with her name on them, sitting there waiting for the opportunity to be worn? Stop the BS.

I can assure you Brits that nobody in America had ever even heard of Meghan Markle before she hooked up with Harry. When she started dating him, Americans were saying "who the fuck is she?"

word = wore in r455

What a delicious turn of events. Instead of publicity leading up to Oprah interview, now they’re being exposed for being bullies to multiple staff who have receipts. Staff who have been given green light to start spilling the beans on Bean (Meg’s nickname).

BRF doesn’t come off well here too. They’d emboldened Meghan the bully in hopes that she’d eventually stop being a cunt. Well that didn’t work well. How the fuck did they expect William to take that shit knowing that his wife is a public face of bullied victim when she was a student.

I just saw a commercial for the big interview and Oprah is the size of a WHALE!

R457 It was very much the same for us Brits.

[quote]Young POC women worship her, the black females on lipstick alley adored her and believe she is a goddess.

Ironic, because she would never give them the time of day. She's lived as a white woman in a white world her whole life.

Meghan the whore thinks she is better than the Queen!

R462 Yup allegedly in college she hid her mixed-race background to the point that she asked her mother not to visit her on campus.

[quote] [R451] Just because they are nominally the property of the Crown doesn't mean she didn't have access to them.

The earrings, but not the emerald tiara. She did not and never will have access to it--when the queen dies it will go to Camilla, and then when Charles dies or abdicates (even if Camilla is still alive) it will go to Kate.

Does she have access to the Murder Earrings now? She couldn't wear them after this anyway, but I assume she lost access to her wedding gifts when they left last year?

I suppose the Royals are used to a life where everything is 'borrowed'--luxuries you can use but never own, yours to enjoy but not yours to sell, and always with the potential to be taken away. It would be very odd to have to enter a life like that, though. You'd never feel entirely secure.

The shit about the earrings is boring. I want more tea on how the cunt treated the staff. Details and stories preferably with trails of evidence.

You know Kate also had a similar type situation, jewels-wise, early in her marriage. She wore a gorgeous ruby and diamond necklace-bracelet set at a formal event in 2011, shortly after her wedding. (See photo at link). Turns out the set was a wedding gift from a Middle Eastern potentate, and the set hasn't been seen in public since.

The set was by Emirati-Swiss jewel firm Mouawad, who really know how to make beautiful parures that are amazingly intricate. Take a look at their "High Jewelry" page link on their homepage if you're interested in this stuff. Unbelievable.

Those jewels are amazing, R469. I wonder if the necklaces can be put on a tiara frame? That would make the parures even more flexible.

There is no confirmation who gifted those jewels, r469. That suggests it wasn’t another royal family/leader.

Wrong R315, on 1 November 2004 The Times became tabloid. Have you ever read a paper copy?

No official confirmation r471 but strong rumor had it was from a foreign ruler or kingpin, likely Middle Eastern since that is one of their jewelers of choice.

Prince Charles, for example, wouldn't gift her with jewels from Mouawad. He'd use a UK jeweler or one of the better known European firms. None of the British aristo set would be gifting her with something that gaudy and expensive. It screams foreign billionaire money.

And we haven't seen these pieces since. That's telling in itself.

Why is Buckingham Palace investigating Meghan's bullying? What are the odds that Buckingham Palace was in the dark about Meghan's behavior? Did Kensington Palace hush it up? I don't think so.

BP knows of course . But now a full report can be prepared and released to the public . I assume Meghan and Harry are OVAH after this!

[quote] I don't understand why young women of color would worship Meghan. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yes. Kamala Harris, of course. But Meghan? Everything she's gotten, she's gotten by using and discarding men. Nothing admirable about that.

That's exactly why they admire her. She's a grifter who got a dumb rich white guy to cut off his family for her. They don't care about accomplishments.

That's got to suck; good news - the Emir of Whatever said you this fabulous necklace. Bad news - he just beheaded a group of women for driving. Well, maybe I can wear it...just once! It's not like those women are coming back one way or the other!

I love how this thread has devolved into an argument over the Murder Earrings and commentary on how fat Oprah is. I eagerly look forward to the next installment of "The Harkles War"

It's all part and parcel of participating on DL. Goes with the territory, all the minimally related tangential discussions.

I like to think of it as a lively cocktail party discussion, with lots of side conversations and off-topic bickering, but ultimately worth showing up for just for the moments of sheer, giddy, unapologetic bitchiness.

A pattern is starting to emerge: Meghan has a weakness for tainted jewels. First Tiaragate now the Murder Diamond Earrings.

Ya know, if the Palace really wanted to wash its hands of all those tainted jewels, they would break them up, sell off the individual stones and precious metals, and donate the money back to the country. That would be much better than letting them moulder in the vaults indefinitely, doing no good to anyone.

With Andrew the scumbag pedo still running around free I don't know why anyone regards the BRF as anything but suspect in every imaginable way.

The entire Epstein situation is so dirty and dark it's beyond fucked up that no one has called that old bitch the Queen out for her callous disregard for all those young women involved. Protecting her piece of shit son is obstructing justice for many young women who were held as sex slaves. Liz has some fucking nerve and has been using her own grandson and his wife as distraction and bait for the press.

Utterly reprehensible.

I would imagine that for even the average Brit having an American tell you what to do might feel like literal VIOLENCE!

If the insufferable cunt is no longer protected by the palace over past escapades, are we soon to be reading about her yachting?

The Queen is no longer protected by the palace?

R479 - Nailed it, my son, to -the - wall.

The earrings are a side dish to entree: the people who endured Meghan's bitchiness but who never got their day in court are now coming forward. Not that I wish to preen, but how long ago did I say that eventually one of those people with NDAs would show up and start leaking their stories, or write a memoir?

The Palace's latest response is simply brilliant: concerned about how bad the leaked story made IT look for throwing the plebs to the wolves to protect the canny hyena the patrician lions let in, but now, unfortunately, sporting an HRH, ("We're the real victims of this leak!" sez the Palace indignantly), the Palace will now "launch an investigation" - not into whether Meghan was lying her face off and is or isn't a vicious bitch, but whether the Palace itself was at fault for not protecting its staff better from her bullying.

Whoever thought this strategy up should get CBE at least, if not a KCVO.

The earrings are just an extra helping of shade on the side.

Oh, naughty, clever Palace! Your "investigation" doesn't even pretend to cover whether the story about Meghan is true or not, but whether those complaints against Meghan were not taken seriously enough, and instead she was allowed to get away with abusing staff.

Counting down to Melissa Tabouti speaking up, and the staffer who had the hot tea thrown at her, in 3-2-1. . .

The idiots in this thread illustrate clearly just how far the intelligence of the American public has fallen and how easily they are taken in. Trump was no accident.

Very sad.

R484 - I despise Meghan, but frankly I've never believed the yachting stories. Tumblr and Enty tell them about every woman. And, I regret to say that Meghan isn't really the "type" that those Arab yachtsmen are looking for. They have plenty of women at home who look rather like her, and she's no great beauty with big girls. They're looking for busty blondes, supermodels, socialites on a lark, that kind of thing.

[quote]Why is Buckingham Palace investigating Meghan's bullying? What are the odds that Buckingham Palace was in the dark about Meghan's behavior? Did Kensington Palace hush it up? I don't think so.

If only Meghan had just molested a few of the girls from Epstein's sex slave retreat with Uncle Prince Andy she would have gotten better treatment.

Entitled and delusional D-list went to a fashion shoot and was so cunty that the director remembers her as the worst he’d ever seen. I see a pattern here, one that Meghan with the help of sympathetic media was able to successfully not just cover up but lie about to the public. She went a step too far in reframing herself as not merely a fake nice person, but a fake woke humanitarian.

There are only so much that people whom she fucked over and belittled could take. She is her own worst enemy. Good riddance, hopefully this is the beginning of the end for them as influencers.

R474 - The email was sent to Buck House HR, which would handle those matters. Obviously, it was hushed up, it's just not clear who gave the order or how.

I notice Meghan accuses one of the three who left of leaving due to "misconduct". I wonder which one it is? Whomever, Meghan had better be able to back that one up or this time she'll find herself on the receiving end of that subpoena.

Jason Knauf and Samantha Cohen worked for the Harkles. Cohen's leaving was questioned and then it was put about that she had always intended to leave to pursue other opportunities. Sara Latham also worked for the Harkles, but her salary was split between Charles and the Queen - Lathan now works for the Queen. Christopher Jones, the fourth of the Palace Four, left to become sort of investment advisor.

The victims all appear to have been women. Knauf is out, and therefore, Jones, as well. So we're left with Cohen and Latham (both amongst the Palace Four), possibly Melissa Tabouti (praised to the skies by BP upon resigning in a press release, and probably also left with a hefty cheque in her pocket - she's the one who wanted to quit halfway through the Down Under tour, but stayed to the end after Buck House begged her), and possibly some junior staffers whose names we don't know.

R468 - You and me both, mate.

What Meghan wants, Meghan gets! And have I mentioned my dead mum?

R475 - I would never bet on the Harkles being OVAH. But tainted, absolutely, and this news has to come as unwelcome to Netflix and Spotify.

Those bitter staffers have been waiting three years for this moment. As Meghan has so often done in the past, yet never learns to refrain from doing the next time, with the Corden and Oprah interviews with which the two hoped to harpoon all their enemies, they overplayed their hand, inciting those THEY had wronged to say, Fuck this shit, these cocksuckers aren't getting away with this again, let's go for it!

And pounced. The timing couldn't have been more perfect. This story will run for days, and when Meghan shows up on Sunday night with her sandpapered, filler plumped, triple decker eyeliner on, painting herself as a martyred victim, she will look one hell of a fool.

I wonder if Mayhew still want Meghan as a patron?

The question that keeps getting asked is why Meghan wore the Murder Earrings and if some assistant had chosen them for her.

Meghan received the earrings as a wedding gift by MBS. She knew they were from MBS and probably had to write a thank you letter. The earrings are Crown property, however, they are earmarked for her personal use only. Kate or Sophie or Anne will NEVER wear them.

That being said, in the run up to the Fiji tour, it had been reported that the DuchAss had pitched a fit behind the scenes demanding to take a tiara with her on the trip for the dinner. Charles had to tell her no, that tiaras are worn at official State Dinners, and the Fiji dinner for the sixth in line was not a State Dinner. Knowing that 99% of her jewelry is dinky little pieces (like the common, ubiquitous Cartier Love bracelet, or those measly little adolescent rings she favors), she insisted on wearing her largest, blingiest piece, the Murder Earrings. Her staff told her not to, but she didn’t listen and Harry’s mantra was “Whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets. She wore the earrings twice, lying that they were loans from Hong Kong jeweler Butani. This information was disseminated far and wide during the tour via her proxy site Meghan’s Mirror and she thought she had gotten away with the deception.

Yes, the royals of the world get earrings from questionable regimes. The BRF’s collection is full of stolen pieces. BUT a normal person would not have worn earrings from MBS days after the grisly hit on the journalist. No matter when it was officially confirmed, the whole world knew that when the outspoken journalist, critical of MBS, walked into the Saudi embassy and hacked to pieces of with a bone saw, only one person had the incentive to order that. And despite that knowledge, this parvenu chose to wear those earrings because...bling.

This is the same hypocrite who would never, ever stay at the Dorchester because the Sultan of Brunei owns it but stayed at Coworth Park with her mother the days before the wedding. Coworth Park is owned by...the Sultan of Brunei.

Which tiara did Meghan want but was refused? I once knew but my internet searching has not now revealed the one which was refused: it seems it had emeralds but was not the one worn by Princess Euge at her own wedding.

Diana's engagement ring is on Kate's finger. Charles took possession of it from the morticians when Diana died. William asked him for it some time later and eventually made it Kate's engagement ring.

R496 It’s a toss up between the Vladimir Tiara or the Greville Boucheron Tiara worn by Eug. Only the Queen wears the Vladimir and if she asked for that one, she’s dumber than she looks. No one knew about the Boucheron one until Eugenie wore it, so there might be other hidden emerald tiaras, but it’s unlikely.

R496, It's possible it's a tiara that none of the Royals have ever worn or hasn't worn in decades: Before their weddings, Eugenie's and Meghan's tiaras hadn't been worn for decades. The one Meghan wanted might have been one of the jewels that Magpie Queen Mary snuffled up after the Russian Revolution.

H&M are done in the UK, the majority of people hate them, that was 100% certain but that was true even before this story was out. In the America, people will likely fall for their victim mentality though

There is nothing wrong with the provenance of either the Vladimir Tiara or the Greville Boucheron Tiara.

From link: “The Queen also questioned why Meghan needed a veil for the wedding, given it was to be her second marriage.”

That is Queenspeak for "She is a slapper." [Wiktionary says, "This working class term from East London and Essex is probably a corruption of shlepper or schlepper, a word of Yiddish origin, one of whose meanings is a slovenly or immoral woman."]

There was never any confirmation that Meghan wanted to wear the Vladimir, although no one would put it past her. Eugenie had to put her wedding back six months, from May to October, to accommodate M&H, as H outranked her. But Eugenie had already nailed the Greville Boucheron for her wedding, so that emerald tiara was off the table. According to Charles' biographer, Rober Jobson, Meghan threw a fit and Harry went screaming down the corridor with his What Meghan wants, Meghan gets! mantra. According to Jobson, who put it in Charles' biography that came out that year, the Queen took Harry aside and told him his intended needed "attitude adjustment", and that she doesn't get the tiara she wants: she gets what I give her.

Poor Meghan ended up with Queen Mary's bandeau tiara with a diamond the size of a plum in the center.

The Queen's vaults are full of gems that were bought, gifted, and bequested (the Greville bequest to the Queen Mother would have suited a minor Queen, but stolen?!

The veil was silly. It was nearly as long as the one worn by 20-year-old Diana, a first-time bride marrying the Prince of Wales in Westminster Abbey.

Is that why her dress was so plain? She expected a much more impressive tiara?

She also made a speech at the reception. Umm, American brides don't make speeches at their receptions. She is, as we say in America, a piece of work.

Here is a very confused, and confusing, account from the Excess.

The Vladimir does have emeralds, so perhaps it was the one Meghan wanted. Except that the Queen wears it often; I suppose her exalted rank perfects the provenance, if there really are problems in that respect. The linked article says there are problems with provenance but then says what its, entirely respectable, provenance is!

I am starting to feel that Meghan coveted another emerald tiara altogether.

This dude summed up perfectly how I feel about this whole thing.

I doubt the Windsors have any outright stolen jewels. But it is true that after the Russian Revolution, Queen Mary, who adored jewelry, bought the jewels of Russian aristocrats taking refuge in the UK. She bought them for rock-bottom prices from desperate people who needed the cash and the goodwill of the King's wife. So not stolen, but definitely acquired in an icky way. There's also the dodgy provenance of some of the crown jewels, most notably the Koh-i-Noor, which the governments of India, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all claim as their own.

I wouldn't doubt that the Royal jewelry chests are chock full of blood diamonds.

[quote] bought the jewels of Russian aristocrats

They were lucky QM paid anything at all. It was understood in country houses then that when she came to stay, she left again with any items of furniture, painting, tapestry etc she noticed and liked while enjoying your hospitality. And she used her handbag to stash smaller items she picked up around your house.

Yes! I've read accounts of aristocrats hiding favorite family pieces before she came to visit. Magpie Mary also did her research, and if she found that an item owned by an aristocratic family had EVER been in the BRF's possession, she would politely ask for it back. Even if the item in question had been freely given to the family by a previous monarch.

Mary of Teck was the greatest--and most ruthless--museum curator that never was.

R507 The Koh-i-Noor was stolen by Victoria out of the hands of the underage maharaja Duleep Singh of the Sikh Empire. The boy was pretty much kidnapped by the British, taken away from his mother, shipped off to England and forced to convert to Christianity. But hey, the BRF got the Koh-i-Noor out of it, which we’ll see on Camilla’s head when Charles is crowned King.

Mary did love collecting, sorting, and cataloging things. Many of the BRF's impressive collections are in large part due to her efforts, questionable as they might have been in some ways.

The social media reaction appears to be that the American left is taking Meghan's side in this, while British twitter is decidedly more mixed.

What's the gossip on her throwing a coffee/tea at some woman on the Australian tour?

The American left? They are taking notice? What about the minimum wage, Bernie, AOC?

The Boy King After the Second Anglo-Sikh War ended in 1849 Duleep Singh gave the Koh-i-Noor to Lord Dalhousie in the context of the Treaty of Lahore. He was 10 years old and his mother the regent, Jind Kaur, had been taken from him. From there the East India Company agents prepared the Koh-i-Noor for shipment to the British court.

Passage to England John Spencer Login, a British diplomat in India, adopted Duleep Singh to be raised with his wife and family in India. Duleep Singh's mother was exiled to Nepal. Dalhousie organized the shipping of the Koh-i-Noor by boat to England.

The Great Exhibition On arrival in England the Koh-i-Noor was displayed to huge crowds at the Great Exhibition.

The First Cut The chapter describes scientific and professional examination of the Koh-i-Noor and how it was cut. There is a summary of David Brewster's critique of the diamond. Garrard & Co contracted the Dutch diamond company Mozes Coster to plan for cutting the diamond. Maudslay, Sons & Field provided an engine to grind it. James Tennant oversaw the process. The Duke of Wellington made the ceremonial first cut in a media sensation.

Queen Victoria's "Loyal Subject" After requesting to travel to England Duleep Singh joined Queen Victoria's court. When he was 15 he repeated the ceremony of giving the Koh-i-Noor, in this instance to Victoria.

R460 that’s the spokesperson for Weight Watchers to you! (Or whatever they’re calling the program these days so it doesn’t sound like weight loss, so Oprah can be the spokesperson. See how that works?)

We all knew within a couple of days that bin Sawbones had murdered Khashoggi. She wore the blood diamonds three weeks after his murder (in Fiji) and she knew exactly what she was doing and why she had to lie about it, so that's what she did. Then she wore them again at Charles' birthday party a while later.

No excuse for it, absolutely none, she's a phony lying bitch.

Do Fergie and Oprah have WW spokesperson beef? Or, better yet, salad?

What’s wrong with diamond earrings and tiaras?

R518 Meghan also wanted to wear a tiara in Fiji but Prince Charles vetoed that as extravagant. Obviously Meghan's list of grievances is lengthy and one to which ordinary people worldwide will relate compassionately.

"ROYAL INTERVENTION Meghan Markle ‘told not to wear lavish tiara by Prince Charles’ over fears it was ‘too extravagant’ The Duchess of Sussex went without a headpiece for the dinner in Fiji - while Kate Middleton wore a stunning headpiece for a state dinner at Buckingham Palace the same night"

I blame James Corden for all this; anyone who is a "friend" of James is clearly an asshole (except of course for Harry Styles...)

Say what you like about Corden but he would still be a better ambassador for Weight Watchers than Orca!

Official: Meghan is under INVESTIGATION. Why now? Better late than never? All this hinges around the Oprah interview, it seems.

[quote]the Murder Earrings

One of my favourite DLisms ever!

Along with the new: "But Kate's skirt!"

Having a good day, Megtards? You lose. But you're used to that, I'd guess.

Bitch is going [bold]DOWN!!![/bold]

Enough is enough.

No one messes with Queenie.

Lainey today of course wrote up lengthy defense of MM and kept what-abouting the awful Andrew situation as if that diminishes what Harry and Meghan were up to. She is firmly of the opinion that there was no way poor Meghan knew the origins of the Murder Earrings, that they were one of a large list of wedding gifts from foreign dignitaries and how was poor busy Megs to know who gave them what? As if other world leaders were gifting her diamond baubles, lol (it's always been the Middle Eastern sheiks who give large jewels as royal wedding presents).

She also blames the beleaguered KP and BP staff for not guiding Megs properly by informing and advising her about the earrings. Lol! As if Meghan is so dim she didn't know she had this magnificent diamond set sitting in the vaults with her name on them. So unbelievable.

I doubt the investigation will result in any kind of real punishment for the Harkles, aside from muddying the waters around what was supposed to be their grand and glorious media moment with Oprah. Which is entirely the point, I guess.

LOL. The one who’s screaming about abuse is actually the very person who’s doing the abuse. Haven’t we seen how these things are played out before? Meghan is like the fundie preacher who’s always going on about gay people being sinners, while he’s downlow sexually abusing children.

Hubris. That’s Meghan’s downfall as is the case with narcissistic liars. Trump is playing golf in Florida. What does Meghan have to fall back on? Netflix deal to be soon rescinded? Is there a morality clause in their contract with Netflix? Many such contracts do, to allow the company to part ways if you turn out to have done morally shitty things.

[quote] She also blames the beleaguered KP and BP staff for not guiding Megs properly by informing and advising her about the earrings.

In deed, what could they do? Seems that any advice would have been regarded as unwelcome and would have set off a further round of bullying and recriminations.

^Indeed

What exactly did it mean that they wanted their own court?

Tom and Lorenzo, who are usually enormous Meghan shills, wrote an oddly qualified piece today. They think she's innocent because there are no reports of her misbehaving during her acting career (ignoring the gossip that she DID). However, they also think she and Harry should not air grievances during the interview but instead look forward to their brighter future in America, and that continuing to take shots at the Palace will only result in further retaliation.

They also think if anyone goes overboard with grievance, it will be Harry, not Meghan. Oh, and they also think Meghan's black dress is too dramatic a look for the event. I guess they missed the fact that she is channeling Diana with the black clothes, pale face, and heavy black eyeliner. I'm surprised she didn't dye her hair blonde and cut it into feathers.

^^channeling Diana's Panorama interview with the black clothes, etc.

Her face looks weird.

It meant that Harry and Meghan wanted to be treated as absolute equals to Kate and William, with a large staff and private press office organizing equally prestigious events and tours for them. Even though it never works that way in the BRF, Harry and Meghan thought they could get the rules rewritten for them.

Why is the brf flipping out about an interview that hasn’t even aired yet?

They sound like very insecure hysterics.

[quote] Why is the brf flipping out about an interview that hasn’t even aired yet?

A lot of people have already seen it, including ITV1 which bought the rights. The chance that the Palace has not already seen are remote.

She must be creaming herself to see she is trending.

r531 Ooh I'm interested in your thinking behind a possible recinded Netflix deal?

Netflix won't like even the allegation of bullying. Same for Spotify. Forbes reckon the intrepid duo have $4m left, a large chunk of which is being spent on the Montecito aircon alone... They've still got Frogmore, right?

If receipts come out, I can completely see them being dropped.

Shallow cunt presented herself as humanitarian while she was using her newfound position to score free designer clothes which she’d looked terrible in anyways. Shit is now all coming out. Drip by drip.

R542 Morality clause has always been a part of athlete and celebrity contracts, particularly with major companies with a lot to lose should the talent is caught doing something that’s illegal or embarrassing to the good name of the company. The clause basically nullifies the contract without the talent owed anything.

Here’s a link to an article about why companies today are including morality clauses into celebrity contracts.

Apparently losing her voice was nothing more than being told by staff that she couldn’t get designer freebies like Hollywood a-listers.

The "Woke Crowd" on Twitter is baying for the Queen's blood right now.

re link at r547: what an idiot! She knew when she married into the BRF that she couldn't keep the clothes or accept most of the freebies. FFS that's been a core tenet of royal life since whenever. WTF would she be carrying on about, to her staff or anyone else. She's either a selfish dumb twat or just thought if she brayed loudly enough they'd all cave in and she'd have her way. Jesus.

The Woke Crowd can sit down and have all the seats. Their idol is getting her comeuppance and this is only the beginning of it. If H&M's selfish narcissism doesn't stop there will only be more to come....drop by drop.

How is this even a surprise? She fucking encourages her idiot "squad" to bully others on SM.

I don't get why losing the free clothes was a big deal, considering that Charles gave each of his wife's sons a large wardrobe budget. Her clothes were free anyway!

If it gets bad enough, I totally expect her to fake a near miscarriage and have to go on bed rest. Meaning she will now be zooming in bed with full on make up and morticia hair.

Lainey is a no talent cunt.

That is all.

Since when has the Duchess of I Know Best listened to anything the Palace or staff hired to help her ever told her? She blew it all off because she always knows best, a textbook narcissist.

As I recall, bin Sawbones was named in the papers as having been responsible for Khashoggi's murder within days of his disappearance, not weeks. Some held out hope that he'd "only" been kidnapped and brought back to Saudi Arabia but most knew he was dead almost immediately. It was a huge story world-wide.

In the The Times story, didn't they state that staff on the trip advised her not to wear the earrings because they came from bin Sawbones but she wore them anyway? Then she, or they, devised the misleading and one might even say "Clintonian" in the classic sense, ruse. What earrings is Her Smugness wearing? "Oh they're Chopard and they're borrowed."

Was that technically true in some tortuously parsed interpretation? Kinda (not sure about Chopard). Does that mean it's actually true? No. It kept the bin Sawbones connection from getting out at the time, Our Smugs thought she was in the clear, so she wore them again a month later to Charles' birthday do.

But ya know how it goes, shit like that catches up with people like her, especially when she abused the staff she is now attacking. Any way you slice it, so to speak, Smugs is fucked now.

Lainey was full on SMARM tonight. Guess she got told, lol

This thread is an example of why they hate us. All the things in the world to discuss and grown men are fixated on royalty and their rich people problems. Problems that may not even be real.

Good job homos.

The Telegraph: [bold]The Duchess of Sussex wore earrings given to her by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia three weeks after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, against advice from palace aides, The Telegraph understands.[/bold]

The Duchess, 39, had been given the Butani earrings as an official wedding present from the Saudi Royal Family.

When she wore them to a formal dinner in Fiji in October 2018, during a royal tour, the media were told that they were “borrowed” but unusually, declined to offer further information or guidance.

The dinner took place three weeks after Mr Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

The Duchess’s lawyers insisted that at the time of the dinner, she was unaware of speculation that the crown prince was involved in the murder of the journalist.

However, a royal source claimed that palace staff had advised the Duchess not to wear the jewellery.

“Members of Royal Household staff sometimes advise people on their options,” one said. “But what they choose to do with that advice is a very different matter.”

The earrings were accepted as a wedding gift by the prince, known as MBS, in March 2018, when he had lunch with the Queen during a three-day visit to London.

They were among a series of wedding gifts that were then transferred to Kensington Palace in June, the month after the wedding, which was when the Sussexes first knew of their existence.

A source close to the Duchess said members of her staff were aware that the earrings had been chosen as part of the Duchess’s tour wardrobe.

Saudi Arabia admitted on October 20, three days before the dinner in Fiji, that its officials were responsible for Khashoggi’s death.

Staff in London were concerned when they saw the Duchess’s earrings in the media and alerted Kensington Palace, according to The Times.

But it was claimed they decided not to take it up with the Sussexes while they were on tour “for fear for what their reaction would be."

The following month, the Duchess wore them again to the Prince of Wales's 70th birthday party at Buckingham Palace and at that point, an aide is said to have confronted the Duke about the issue.

He reportedly looked "shocked" when approached about the concerns.

Lawyers for the Sussexes’ denied he was questioned about their provenance, which they said was well known.

She fat.

If anyone dare make a new thread, please refrain from posting her smug face.

R522 Yes , because one was a white tie state occasion and the other was not

But Kate's skirt!

Wow she’s 39 already?

Guys - when royals receive jewels and whatever else from foreign leaders and other royalty, it "technically" belongs to the Crown. The recipient is, however, given exclusive use of the gifts for their lifetime. Diana kept many "Crown" pieces that had been given to her as PoW until her death. The Queen retrieved the Crown pieces and they reverted to her.

The jewelry that Harry and William were left in Diana's will were pieces that she bought or had been given by family and personal friends, not heads of state.

Here's your Part II, come the day.

Oprah surely has to do an intro or something to acknowledge the controversy. She'd look like bigger tool than usual if she just gives Monald Mrump a blowie with all this going on. Unless Oprah still doesn't do reality.

The headlines:

Twitter crowd is still strongly defending her, it doesnt really matter if there are 20,000 negative comments in the Daily Mail ..no one important go there to read them but most do have a twitter account and journalist will be weary to reveal anything negative about M because of the public outcry on twitter.

Hahahahaha r567! Weary to reveal anything?? This is the biggest story for most of them in a lifetime - they are going to REVEL in all of the gory details about this idiot and her moron husband. This is manna from heaven for any UK newspaper or royal journo. They are all set to make major bank from every detail.

I'm so afraid of what people say on Twitter - said no one EVER.

OK, I’m completely stoned. So maybe that’s why I’m laughing my ass off at all the comments about the various tiara wars. Just read the comment that linked to news that Price Charles told Meghan that she couldn’t wear a tiara to Figi, and I can’t stop laughing!!! Who the hell fights about fucking tiaras?! God, I love these fools!

R569 nails it. It's fantastic!

She's not only 39 "already", she'll be 40 in early August.

The Mail is the most widely read paper in Britain. Twitter also has lots of paid bots.

The fact is, they're finished in Britain. Put a fork in them, they're done.

She's been outed as a bully. Fuck her and her hamburger-fellating mouth..

R567 Yeah it's ironic that people are defending her because if a rich white guy had done this they would demand his head. Politically, I am left leaning and I'm not really a monarchist at all. But I take issue with this idea that has formed that people of colour cannot be bad people, and that any criticism directed at them is racist. I mean, lets put the pieces together people: Meghan has ditched almost her entire family, a husband, a fiancee, several agents and press people, her friends in the British Media, the British Royal Family, she had the most turn over in office (particularly of female staff) than any other member of the royal family since Charles and Diana divorced etc.

R548 - They can bay like wolves at the moon from now till Domesday. In the end, the Windsors endure, because they are part of a chain of history.

So now the freebie designer clothes grenade has been lobbed.

I wonder what else the Palace has up its sleeve that it's been holding back for the last three years?

Dare we hope . . . no, it couldn't be . . . but really . . . what if . . . if only . . . I mean, it's vulgar and all that but . . .

WHAT IF MI6 FOUND THE TAPE OF MEGHAN GIVING THAT DUDE A RIM JOB AND GAVE IT TO BUCK HOUSE!!!!

Eww. No one wants to see that shit.

Someone is saying there's a new clip out where Meghan attacks the royals directly? Is this true?

SOB! POOR MEG!

[quote] They've still got Frogmore, right?

Nope.

They never actually had it to begin with--it was only going to be leased to them.

R577 I don't want to watch it, summary please!

[quote] The "Woke Crowd" on Twitter is baying for the Queen's blood right now.

What is "Twitter"?

What is "Woke"?

One hears about Twitter but one has never actually seen it for oneself nor is that likely to change.

In a million, billion, trillion years, why would the Queen possibly care what the Woke crowd says about her on Twitter?

She is not a television star, nor is she an elected politician. She is the Queen Regnant of the United Kingdom--the human embodiment of the British nation--for her entire life. There would have to be a political revolution to remove her from that position, and it isn't going to happen through what's trending about Meghan on woke Twitter.

Has Meghan sued The Times yet. If she doesn't that to me says the allegations are true.

Her biggest defenders on facebook seems to be elderly-middle age british/african descent black women.

R584 on twitter it's mostly Americans defending her. The Times story will likely only drive viewership up in America, but in the UK, I honestly don't think people care that much.

They are such a stupid couple. They always react FAR too quickly, and without thinking anything through.

Apparently according to the Guardian they are already trying to walk back their lawyer's blame of "Buckingham Palace" for the allegations of bullying since they cannot prove that. But they've already offended the Queen by blaming the Palace.

I really hope all this ends with them being cut off forever.

R577 Thanks for the new clip. “Your truth” = your lies.

R567 No one gives a flying fuck about Twatter or its users. I’m feeling secondhand embarrassment that you think it’s something to be quaking over. What’s next, an update from Tiktok?

clip at r577: what a liar, a fake. What has "been lost" already, besides their dignity?

What role did "the Firm" have in perpetrating "falsehoods" about the Sussexes. Why the fuck would BP or anyone in "the Firm" give a SHIT about telling lies or truth or whatever about them? Harry is 6th in line for Christ's sake. What makes him such a heat score for the British media, more than Charles, Camilla or even William or Kate? Nothing, that's what. It's all contrived drama for these two, anything for manufactured victimhood and attention.

Hard to believe Oprah sits there with a straight face. But there you have it.

R586 Yeah that have to try and remain cordial with BP because if they don't they might lose Charles' allowance.

R589 Oprah will do anything for money, let's be honest about that.

The word on the street is Philip is not expected to last until next week.

Their antics are clickbait r589, which is why we read so much about them.

The Guardian is suggesting that the reason the staff members went to the Times now is bacause it was widely believed in that world that her court case would call witnesses, including 4 ex-staffers, and that there would be an opportunity to reveal what it was like working for the Harkles on the stand:

"In the short term, it has been suggested one explanation for the story’s emergence now could be the summary judgment in Meghan’s favour in her privacy and copyright case against Associated Newspapers, a legal victory which prevented a trial in which courtiers would have given evidence. A recent Sunday Times story suggested senior royal sources were “shocked” by the outcome."

Really, R591? If Philip goes any time in the next week, the Sussexes will be partially blamed. That's nonsense, of course, but OH, the optics.

One of the the laughable excuses is that Meghan is not a bully but an American and they are more upfront in how they handle the situation.

Which is bullshit: Americans know how to be diplomatic unless they just don't care enough to be.

R593 Which is why Meghan is unlikely to sue The Times.

[quote] The word on the street is Philip is not expected to last until next week.

Would that be the High Street or just Main Street USA?

So Meghan's legal victory isn't such a victory after all . . .

That's all, folks! On to Part 2.

R556: or maybe we just have the ability to discuss multiple things and this one is some light relief. I’m sure there’s a thread to comment on or start about whatever more worthy topic you think we should be talking about as gay men.