The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021

[EvaH]

Absolutely love Princess Eugenie video. At around 12:30 the interviewer ask her if she gives a toss about the HRH title before her name and she says "well... Would you have invited me to speak if I didn't have that?" And the interviewer says "no".

This is the truth of the matter. Let us all be honest: no one in the BRF would be invited to speak on any stage if it was not for their birth and it is the case in many royal families. In all honesty, bare Queen Maxima and Queen Letizia who even without titles would have become superstar in their own right on a multi national stage, none of the other could have gotten opportunities of those scales.

WA, Prince William, CP Victoria in Europe could have been good in their field and maybe famous within their sector but I believe that is all?

 

[poppy7]

Except that James Corden is British, is popular with British audiences and has been since his Gavin and Stacey days, winning awards for his comedy. I don't know why it should be thought that the British wouldn't like something light with two old mates having fun. Not everyone in Britain always wants to watch ultra serious programmes.

James Corden is extremely well known in the UK. For many reasons and had been since he left University and joined The History Boys. In many ways he has a similar trajectory to Harry. Was known for being a bit of an idiot falling out of clubs in the early days and then on and on. He must be, or approaching, 40 now.

His show does in the UK, but those types of chat shows are not that popular in the UK. The Sketches on them are though so loads of people watch carpool, the musical crosswalk think.

I also think it is fair to say he isn't as high profile in the UK as he used to be. He was everywhere but fame is fickle but Gavin and Stacey episode last Christmas was huge.

The sketch was very well made but apart from the obstacle course thing thing Harry had nothing to offer. He was good at that. And also to the person who said about Harry, or any royal, not competing with the talent of people like Adele. Well yes...no they don't. It is their modus operandi to promote other people...They rarely talk about themselves. Which is why when you see William with drug addicts or footballers struggling with their mental health and just listening you think: Wow. Their whole life is to be a mouth piece for others.

If Harry was talking about Invictus or his work it would have been really good but Harry as Harry or indeed any of them as themselves are not that interesting.

Are Monarchists really going to spend the next 40/50 years watching his every move and then point out the obvious?

He is gone, he will only be seen again in The UK for family events or specific occasions. Let him go his own way.


LaRae

Of course not. In fact their is already talk in the UK that the York Princesses and Sophie are gaining more interest when writing about. If this is the case the media will be more likely to print their work and they will become more visible.

Harry is just today's royal story. The buck will move, life will change, the Cambridge children will grow up and grap the headlines. He will be reduced to a narrative. The brother who left, probably seen as glamorous and wealthy, while the others run around in wellies with the kids in braces talking to homeless people.

Absolutely love Princess Eugenie video. At around 12:30 the interviewer ask her if she gives a toss about the HRH title before her name and she says "well... Would you have invited me to speak if I didn't have that?" And the interviewer says "no".

This is the truth of the matter. Let us all be honest: no one in the BRF would be invited to speak on any stage if it was not for their birth and it is the case in many royal families. In all honesty, bare Queen Maxima and Queen Letizia who even without titles would have become superstar in their own right on a multi national stage, none of the other could have gotten opportunities of those scales.

WA, Prince William, CP Victoria in Europe could have been good in their field and maybe famous within their sector but I believe that is all?

Love the York girls...and she and practically all of the rest of them bar Harry (I think he did get it once) and Andrew and probably Margaret...definitely Duke of Windsor... get this. But they do become special...some of them...In their own right because of the work they do. Princes Trust, Duke of Edinburgh awards, William and Kate for Mental Health. The Queen just the Queen. Camilla and domestic violence and literacy. You look at that and go they are changing lives and the narrative. And in fairness to Harry, the Invictus game is an amazing thing that gives purpose to many.

 

[Muhler]

Except that James Corden is British, is popular with British audiences and has been since his Gavin and Stacey days, winning awards for his comedy. I don't know why it should be thought that the British wouldn't like something light with two old mates having fun. Not everyone in Britain always wants to watch ultra serious programmes.

Well, that makes him a poor "friend" IMO.

Anyway, James Corden (Like Oprah) is hardly going to miss the opportunity to produce something that is guaranteed to result in a high number of views. That would be stupid.

I'll repeat myself: H&M first job at present is not to suck up to their fanbase, they are already in place. If they want their plans to really take off, they need to convince the general public that what they are doing makes sense, that they are serious and that they won't embarrass the BRF and the Britons too much.

The hardcore detractors can safely be ignored. They won't switch to a positive outlook on H&M unless they personally rescued fifteen children from a burning orphanage. And even then it would be difficult...

Okay, what do H&M have that sets them apart from everybody else?
A special talent? Not really.
A lot of money? No.
Are they famous in regards to the general American public? - Apart from their royal status, not really. They are not movie, rock or sports stars.
Do they have experience in regards to running a successful business? No.

Okay, in what way are royals in general expected to behave, when compared to ordinary celebrities? In the eyes of the average American that is?
A certain dignity perhaps?
If Prince Harry in particular, but also Meghan, become too "ordinary" what makes them interesting in the long run, in the eyes of the average American?

Until H&M - if they ever do - sets up a serious and major philanthropic enterprise from which they work, they will IMO have to do some serious rope-walking!
Once they have set themselves up as serious philanthropists, then they can start acting like normal celebs, because by then their royal affiliation is no longer relevant for what they are doing.
But until then, that royal status is pretty much all they got.

 

[Denville]

Absolutely love Princess Eugenie video. At around 12:30 the interviewer ask her if she gives a toss about the HRH title before her name and she says "well... Would you have invited me to speak if I didn't have that?" And the interviewer says "no".

This is the truth of the matter. Let us all be honest: no one in the BRF would be invited to speak on any stage if it was not for their birth and it is the case in many royal families. In all honesty, bare Queen Maxima and Queen Letizia who even without titles would have become superstar in their own right on a multi national stage, none of the other could have gotten opportunities of those scales.

WA, Prince William, CP Victoria in Europe could have been good in their field and maybe famous within their sector but I believe that is all?

but that's the exact point. The Royals would not have much interest in them, except for their royal status.. so when they go on TV etc it is NOT to talk about themselves or promote themselves, it is to support their country/charities. Harry wants to be free of the obligations of royal life, but he also wants to be on TV etc and make money from his status... which he essentially rejects.. yet he must know that if he weren't HRH P Harry, James Corden wouldn't give him the time of day...

 

[Lee-Z]

...
I'll repeat myself: H&M first job at present is not to suck up to their fanbase, they are already in place. If they want their plans to really take off, they need to convince the general public that what they are doing makes sense, that they are serious and that they won't embarrass the BRF and the Britons too much.

My feeling is that for "general public" (which is definitely not anyone visiting these forums, because we are interested in royals by default, for whatever reason), his "niche" is that of the "good bloke" who is obstructed by what he really wants to do (which is what a lot of people want: just have a nice little family, have freedom to do their own thing) by that mean old royal family (read audience comments on a dutch news site of "his old granny taking away his patronages, just for no reason at all").
Just like his mom was a "lovely gal" who was treated meanly by the same family.

"The crown" and other works of fiction have helped build that image, and Harry is going along with it, building his new profile on that flow.

just imo ofcourse

 

[Mbruno]

Absolutely love Princess Eugenie video. At around 12:30 the interviewer ask her if she gives a toss about the HRH title before her name and she says "well... Would you have invited me to speak if I didn't have that?" And the interviewer says "no".

This is the truth of the matter. Let us all be honest: no one in the BRF would be invited to speak on any stage if it was not for their birth and it is the case in many royal families. In all honesty, bare Queen Maxima and Queen Letizia who even without titles would have become superstar in their own right on a multi national stage, none of the other could have gotten opportunities of those scales.

WA, Prince William, CP Victoria in Europe could have been good in their field and maybe famous within their sector but I believe that is all?

WA's, William's and Victoria's realities are somewhat different because the three of them were (or in the case of William and Victoria are) in a likely position to become King or Queen one day and, as such, their lives were pretty much mapped out for them from a very early age and they didn't have much room for choice. It is impossible to tell how their lives would have turned out if they had not been in that position because their education, upbringing, in fact all their life circumstances would have been completely different.



I guess a point that continental European posters like to make here is that, in some European monarchies, junior royals, namely people who are not in direct line to the throne, are free to pursue careers in the private sector and, many times, they are quite successful in what they do. Strictly speaking however, that is actually true only in the Netherlands, or in smaller countries like Luxembourg and Monaco. Elsewhere, members of the Royal House are still expected to do at least part-time royal duty and there are restrictions on the kind of private activities they can engage in, the caveat being that membership of the Royal House may be, however, quite limited and exclude for example siblings of the current King like in Spain.



Perhaps the latter is what makes the most sense, i.e. define a core group of state-funded working royals to whom restrictions may apply and who are expected to do full or at least part-time royal duty , and let the rest of the Family live as private citizens. What is shocking about H&M baling out is that, even in a slimmed down monarchy, as the youngest son and the daughter-in-law of the future King, they would normally be expected to be part of that core group of working royals, especially in a monarchy with a heavy workload as it is the case of the British monarchy.

 

[poppy7]

My feeling is that for "general public" (which is definitely not anyone visiting these forums, because we are interested in royals by default, for whatever reason), his "niche" is that of the "good bloke" who is obstructed by what he really wants to do (which is what a lot of people want: just have a nice little family, have freedom to do their own thing) by that mean old royal family (read audience comments on a dutch news site of "his old granny taking away his patronages, just for no reason at all").
Just like his mom was a "lovely gal" who was treated meanly by the same family.

"The crown" and other works of fiction have helped build that image, and Harry is going along with it, building his new profile on that flow.

just imo ofcourse

I dont know about abroad but in the UK there is a note nuanced opinion on all of those people. And Diana's legacy now is certainly nuanced and there is a lot directed at the media and not the family. And culpability pointing at her too.

 

[Alison H]

I quite like James Corden. And we've seen William do some of these half-jokey interviews, albeit in a more dignified way, but that's always been as part of a TV charity fundraiser or to draw attention to a cause. But Corden's a well known actor/comedian, and his co-hosts on his A Game Of Their Own TV programme are a former top level cricketer and a former top level footballer. Harry's just coming across as a pure celeb who's only famous for who his family are: he's not a working royal, and he's not famous for his work. There's no law against that, and there seem to be plenty of people these days who are just famous for being famous, but I just find it a bit embarrassing.

 

[Queen Claude]

My reaction to the video was that it was enjoyable. While I enjoy a good tidbit about royals, I was a bit taken aback at how easily Harry dropped the Q Bomb, i.e., the story about The Queen gifting Archie a waffle iron. Harry very willingly offered that information up, along with the tidbit about how Prince Philip ends his Zoom calls, those tidbits cannot be attributed to entrapment by some wily interviewer.

I don't agree with Harry's point about audiences knowing that The Crown is "obviously" fictionalized, the producers and distributor (Netflix) do not put any kind of disclaimer with the program, and while I understand the need for some license, there are some liberties taken that go beyond the pale. Furthermore there have been polls taken that show that most readers do NOT take what is reported by tabloids as fact. So Harry not having a problem with The Crown but having a problem with the tabloid media does not add up.

I don't have a problem in and of itself with Harry doing this skit with James Corden, nor with Meghan and Harry's upcoming interview with Oprah, that does not mean that I can't and won't have problems with specific comments or attitudes displayed.

I don't see it as that big of a deal that Harry and Meghan do interviews and participate in things like the Corden sketch versus something like The Queen doing the James Bond sketch for the London Olympics, by the way I liked that sketch up until the part where James Bond jumps out of the plane with the stunt queen and then cut to The Queen wearing the same dress as the stunt Queen, that took it into cringey territory. Anyhoo, I am not seeing where there is greater nobility or virtue in getting tens of millions each year in duchy income, in addition to Sovereign Grant funds and access to crown/public owned properties and other assets, and doing "public service" as part of the deal versus earning a private income and using that income and your high profile to do good works.

 

[ACO]

The Corden segment seemed to have been a hit. Those who already like Harry will still do. Those who don't will still not. But really this was a nice appetizer for the main dish coming up next week.

Harry had his moment to shine, so to speak. Meghan will have hers. And then I suspect we likely will go back to spontaneously popping up to promote projects but mostly stay to themselves like they are now.

Meghan is quite a bit along in her pregnancy, so I doubt we will see a lot of her but we well see. Either way I am looking forward to next week. Also this week the final piece of the trial concludes.

 

[Dalriada]

Oprah with Meghan and Harry

Can’t find the right forum thread that is open concerning the staff of the Sussexes, but the London Times have explosive story on Megan’s alleged bullying of staff.
“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.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...llying-claim-before-oprah-interview-7sxfvd2c3

 

[Princess Duchess]

This story seems like a repeat to me. I feel like I’ve heard the bullying claims before.

Anyways that’s pretty big accusation.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

Maybe the people who got bullied by her or both should insist to have an investigation started just like it was done in Luxembourg. [...]

 

[jmsrichie]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366887706085773314

This is a really bad look for the palace. [...]

[...]

 

[MARG]

[...]The action of the "Aides" or staff are anonymous and I find the bullying accusations beyond ridiculous. When a royal or celebrity feels something is important in the job, bullying the staff when there are shortcomings is counterproductive. In Meghans case she may be a perfectionist for all we know however, no member of the cast or crew of 'Suits' rushed off to dish the dirt once she was gone. People do not change their character or habits easily so I find the notion that she bulled staff at Kensington Palace highly suspect. To me it comes across as vindictive, malicious bullying and, if anyone had any sense of decency or even self preservation, they would "clean house" pretty smartly. After all, the next person they dish on may be them.

 

[ACO]

The article (and timing) is interesting. I see the words bullying but I didn't see one example of what she apparently did other than allegedly make someone cry. It will be interesting to see how it goes though.

But not surprised by the counter-attacks. I expect the upcoming weeks will be very very fascinating on all sides.

 

[jmsrichie]

[...]

The action of the "Aides" or staff are anonymous and I find the bullying accusations beyond ridiculous. When a royal or celebrity feels something is important in the job, bullying the staff when there are shortcomings is counterproductive. In Meghans case she may be a perfectionist for all we know however, no member of the cast or crew of 'Suits' rushed off to dish the dirt once she was gone. People do not change their character or habits easily so I find the notion that she bulled staff at Kensington Palace highly suspect. To me it comes across as vindictive, malicious bullying and, if anyone had any sense of decency or even self preservation, they would "clean house" pretty smartly. After all, the next person they dish on may be them.

And lazy people who saw her “American work ethic” as bullying, is what I suspect. Remember the complaints about early morning emails from years ago.

 

[yukari]

Ppl need to realise that every country has different working culture. For example in UK you are entitled to have up to 52 maternity leave while in US it's only 12 weeks. So say, when an American becoming a manager in UK, if she/he didn't allow his/her subordinate to take that much leave because it wasn't that way in US, then was the subordinate lazy when she insisted to take 52 weeks leave? That's a written rule, another example for unwritten rule: in Japan, it's very unbecoming for a junior employee to go home before his/her senior (senpai), doesn't matter whether she/he still have work to do or not, they have to wait to leave office when/after their senpai leave (same office, not same company mind you), if they don't then tongue will wage and if it continues they can forget about getting promotion soon.

I'm fortunate to be assigned to work in different countries with different working environment and I learnt that the phrase of "In my country, we do it like this" will get me negative reaction from my crews and thus will only make my working life difficult until my next transfer unless I change my attitude and follow how it's done there instead of enforcing how it's done in my country.

 

[kathl29]

I agree that different people have different expectations based on where they originally come from and these shape their work practices when they move to a new country.

However, I never realised until reading a few of these comments that there were geographical boundaries around treating people with respect regardless of whether you are their superior or not.

 

[jmsrichie]

Oprah with Meghan and Harry

I agree that different people have different expectations based on where they originally come from and these shape their work practices when they move to a new country.

However, I never realised until reading a few of these comments that there were geographical boundaries around treating people with respect regardless of whether you are their superior or not.

I don’t think it has to do with respect here. We haven’t even heard any specifics. Just the term “bullying”.

Interestingly enough, if it weren’t Royal Family, these leaks might be seen as a former employer (Buckingham Palace/the monarchy) bullying a former employee (Meghan).

 

[Madame Verseau]

This was stupid of Knauf with this email, releasing it days before the Oprah interview. Announce to the world KP has the most to fear from this sit down. And the jewelry, it has been debunked. The earrings are not Meghan's; they are property of the Crown.

Wait until the interview airs before countering what is said and with solid arguments. You're proving the Sussexes ' point with this stuff.

 

[Biset]

This was stupid of Knauf with this email, releasing it days before the Oprah interview. Announce to the world KP has the most to fear from this sit down. And the jewelry, it has been debunked. The earrings are not Meghan's; they are property of the Crown.

Wait until the interview airs before countering what is said and with solid arguments. You're proving the Sussexes ' point with this stuff.

Why would he have to wait? It’s not like he’s filing the complaint now. He’s telling what happened three years ago. I guess only Meghan has to right to tell her “truth”. They’ve been telling this story that Meghan was mistreated by so called grey-men for a while now.

 

[Claire]

I think we are going to see a lot of this he said she said storyline in the press for at least a month. I expect some of the palace staff and the Sussex security teams - possibly even some of the team in Australia will do interviews. And I feel that if they are not bound by NDA, let them - they are the ones that might be accused of bullying and racism in the Oprah interview.
I have been told that M&H are under the impression that all of their staff and the rest of Kensington palace staff are under NDA - that is not true. Some were only placed on it after the Sussex's left. There is also people who witnessed several events were are not members of staff - the part time security that was hired in Australia for the tour.

 

[yukari]

According to this article, the issue surrounding the earrings is that in the beginning, Meghan said that it had been borrowed while now it's been revealed that it's actually a wedding gift (given, not borrowed).
Meghan’s earrings were gift from Saudi prince accused of murder

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.

Now, according to BRF Gift Policy (link)

Gifts offered by private individuals living in the UK not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family should be refused where there are concerns about the propriety or motives of the donor or the gift itself.

Gifts in this category may be accepted in the following categories:
- Flowers, foodstuff and other consumable items (within reasonable quantities);
- Copies of books presented by the author, provided the subject matter is not controversial; and,
- Other items of small monetary value, i.e. items costing less than £150.

If gifts outside these categories are given, consideration should be given to returning them to the donor if it is believed that the donor or another body or organisation might be able to make better use of them than the Member of The Royal Family. If they are not returned to the donor, e.g. on grounds of cost, the gifts should be treated as official gifts (see Section 3.2).

And since of course those earrings worth more than £150 (and not returned), according to the policy, the ownership (should) goes to the Crown.

Official gifts are not the private property of the Member of The Royal Family who receives them but are instead received in an official capacity in the course of official duties in support of, and on behalf of The Queen. As such, Members of The Royal Family are responsible for such gifts on behalf of The Queen (in right of the Crown).

Now, we don't know the truth behind this earrings, the fact is
- Fiji tour was not the only time Meghan wore it
- and if it's known as gift (not borrowed as claimed) then it should appears on the 2018 Official Gift Record since

Official gifts should be acknowledged wherever possible, recorded and be traceable at all
times. The key information that should be kept about each gift is recorded on a 'Gift Received Form'. Such information should be recorded as soon as possible after receipt of the gift.

and with Meghan no longer a working royal, CMIIW, the item should be stored together with other Crown's jewels.

However, IF it turns out the earrings was not recorded or it is currently in Meghan's possession in LA, IMO it's fair if questions be raised either to BP or to the Sussexes.

As for the bullying allegation, the following Times' article is worse than the previous one:
Meghan bullying claims: ‘Nothing was ever good enough . . . she left staff shaking with fear’

IMO this allegation is surely worse than Harry's Invictus one (or even the Marine one) so if it's not true, legal action should be raised by the Sussexes either a complaint or even by suing them.

 

[LauraS3514]

According to this article, the issue surrounding the earrings is that in the beginning, Meghan said that it had been borrowed while now it's been revealed that it's actually a wedding gift (given, not borrowed).
Meghan’s earrings were gift from Saudi prince accused of murder

Now, according to BRF Gift Policy (link)

And since of course those earrings worth more than £150 (and not returned), according to the policy, the ownership (should) goes to the Crown.

I thought the definition of "official gift" is that the item was given while on an official duty - the presentation and exchange of gifts that often accompanies royal tours for example - but that things like wedding gifts were personal property?

 

[yukari]

I thought the definition of "official gift" is that the item was given while on an official duty - the presentation and exchange of gifts that often accompanies royal tours for example - but that things like wedding gifts were personal property?

See Section 4 of the attached link on my previous post:

4.0 Personal Gifts
4.1 Introduction
Gifts are classed as personal when they are:
- given by people whom the Member of The Royal Family knows privately and not during or in connection with an official engagement or duty;
- given by public bodies, businesses or private individuals with whom the Member of The Royal Family has an established relationship, such as Warrant Holders, on the occasion of a marriage, birth, birthday or other notable personal occasion (including Christmas), and where the value of the gift is less than £150 (if a gift is given where there is no established relationship, other than on a notable personal occasion or is over £150 in value, the gift should be classified as official);
- prizes won as a result of personal activity; or
- given on other occasions, for example by staff, where there is no connection to official duties.

So the question will be whether Meghan (or Harry?) knows this Arab Prince in personal capacity or has an established relationship with him (which if true, it's still not a good optic).

 

[Curryong]

The Saudi Crown Prince knows many members of the BRF. In fact the Saudi and British Royal Families have been great friends for years. They are generous with their gifts of jewellery. I believe Camilla has been the recipient of some gifts from this family. Charles has visited the Kingdom regularly over the years.

The Saudi Crown Prince came on a lavish State Visit to Britain in March 2018, barely two months before Harry and Meghan were married. He had dinner with Prince Charles and Prince William while he was there and met with the Queen at BP for a meal, and with Theresa May. It's certainly not improbable that he sent these earrings as a wedding gift, having met Harry and/or Meghan on this trip, considering the close relationship both families have.

https://www.arabnews.com/node/1261591/saudi-arabia

 

[poppy7]

I believe it. If it's not true sue. One person's truth does not negate another's.

 

[AC21091968]

The accusation of bullying is very serious and have heavy consequences. John Bercow (former Speaker of the House of Commons) was not granted a peerage (as a life peer) due to ongoing bullying investigation as well as being accused of having anti-Brexit bias (though this could be debatable). Julie Payette resigned as the Governor General of Canada after the Rideau Hall workplace review (2020–2021) has found that she "belittled, berated and publicly humiliated Rideau Hall staff" and "created a toxic, verbally abusive workplace". Priti Patel, the Home Secretary was also accused of bullying twice with two on-going investigations.

Simon Case, who was mentioned in The Times article as the person who Jason Knauf emailed the "bullying" concern. Simon Case is the former then-private secretary to Prince William and now Head of the Home Civil Service (he had previously work as a secretary for David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson). There has been lots of cross-over of staffs between UK government (secretary or civil servant) and Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

The accusation of Meghan bullying staff is nothing new and has been flown around since 2018. Except at that time, it was tabloid/magazine gossip, where most people brush it under the carpet. Dan Wootton (Executive Editor of The Sun) boasted on twitter about publishing the bullying story (involving The Duchess of Cambridge) in which Meghan's staff denied.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366881022692982789

The Sun article, where Meghan is accused of treating Kensington Palace's staff appallingly and Catherine telling Meghan off (if anyone is really interested )
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7870884/furious-kate-middleton-meghan-markle/

There is also the accusation of Meghan being a diva towards a photographer in her acting days at Suits. The Tatler article was published on May 2020.
https://www.tatler.com/article/megh...LQtPZEWNogOexziztjRPsWdb241mnq_toB4x7-gPf45sU

A lot of Times journalist who are political correspondent have retweeted the three articles. Given the ongoing Alex Salmond's inquiry with Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood, COVID-19 vaccination progress and Chancellor's delivery of the Budget on Wednesday (3rd March), they actually have the time to do so (normally they don't).

Here is Chris Ship's take on the bullying allegation:

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
This is in the Times tomorrow [Collision symbol]
A claim from Royal aides that Meghan faced “a bullying complaint made by one of her closest advisers” in what ⁦@valentinelow writes is a sign that the palace has “hit back” at the Duchess before her big interview with Oprah this weekend
9:17 AM · Mar 3, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
This is pretty dramatic stuff. And anyone saying that the Oprah interview was "insensitive timing" because the Duke of Edinburgh is in hospital - will now have to make the same charge of Palace sources, surely?
9:54 AM · Mar 3, 2021·Twitter Web App

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
NEW: A spokesperson for Harry and Meghan says:
“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."
10:08 AM · Mar 3, 2021·Twitter Web App

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
The statement from the Sussex spokesperson goes on:
Meghan "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.”
10:08 AM · Mar 3, 2021·Twitter Web App

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Not surprising that sources in both camps are describing this whole thing as “ugly”.
3 days before Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview airs, and palace sources decide it was time to tell @valentinelow at The Times about a bullying complaint filed against Meghan in 2018.
What next?
7:14 PM · Mar 3, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366875270645448718

Valentine Low (the author of The Times articles) replied to Chris Ship's first tweet:

valentinelow @valentinelow
Replying to @chrisshipitv
I am not sure this is quite right. It is not the palace hitting back. The palace is in fact very concerned about the allegations, because they do not reflect well on them.
9:18 AM · Mar 3, 2021·TweetDeck​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366875539139624961

 

[Claire]

The bullying claims are not new - they have been filtering out the palace for over a year now. But yes the timing of the article is strange , especially from the Times. but I suppose when you feel you can air your dirty laundry don't be surprised if others come along to watch.

Personally I did not think much of the bullying claim - we have all had horrible bosses and team mates and I think many of us have been in situation at work when you either put up with it or leave.

I did however noticed that Meghan was very much of the opinion that the staff worked for her. And that relationship or office culture is not really seen in the palace. Some office - the staff work for the Crown or the Queen you might say. Even for the country they view themselves as civil servants. They work as a team with the higher team at BP. That is not what was going on with that team. Meghan was in absolute power and when that power was questioned, she was angry. There was no team work - among each other or with the rest of the palace. I have been told that this was deliberate - holding out for evidence. We have also not been told how many people moved from one office to another, which apparently did happen.