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

[Mbruno]

Who is behind those bullying accusations exactly though? Are we talking hairdressers / nannies who, according to some posters, are expected to be treated as "family" by the British upper-class, or are we talking high-level aides ? If the latter, my understanding is that they are now generally professionals, possibly drawn from the civil service, the diplomatic service or even the intelligence community (see the new Lord Chamberlain for example, who used to be the head of MI5). I don't think any of the above would have problems with "work ethics" or "laziness” or would mistake a demanding boss for "bullying".


Since I don't have the facts, I am trying to understand the accusations and where they are coming from.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Who is behind those bullying accusations exactly though? Are we talking hairdressers / nannies who, according to some posters, are expected to be treated as "family" by the British upper-class, or are we talking high-level aides ? If the latter, my understanding is that they are now generally professionals, possibly drawn from the civil service, the diplomatic service or even the intelligence community (see the new Lord Chamberlain for example, who used to be the head of MI5). I don't think any of the above would have problems with "work ethics" or "lazyness", or would mistake a demanding boss for "bullying".


Since I don't have the facts, I am trying to understand the accusations and where they are coming from.

Office staff as in the ones who run their public persona. Personal/domestic staff were not mentioned. Although there was a while big thing about running through 3 nannies earlier this year.

These rumours have been around for a while but to see it so blatantly talked about so blatantly is really quite hard and to see Jason asking to know if there policy of good treatment applied to the royals I mean it is bad and bad on BP as well as they appear to have made it go away. Says a it about the generation gap between the prwdoninatel younger staff at KP and BP.

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Who is behind those bullying accusations exactly though? Are we talking hairdressers / nannies who, according to some posters, are expected to be treated as "family" by the British upper-class, or are we talking high-level aides ? If the latter, my understanding is that they are now generally professionals, possibly drawn from the civil service, the diplomatic service or even the intelligence community (see the new Lord Chamberlain for example, who used to be the head of MI5). I don't think any of the above would have problems with "work ethics" or "lazyness", or would mistake a demanding boss for "bullying".


Since I don't have the facts, I am trying to understand the accusations and where they are coming from.

Aides, we don't know right now exactly which ones (except the senior ones mentioned in the article), I imagine they were low to mid level aides and their names are currently being kept under wraps, likely for their protection from: 1) abusive fans of the couple (see example of Sasha Exter who after accusing Jessica M of racial bullying was attack for weeks by Sussex fans) 2) people, perhaps connected to the couple, that can scare them off from speaking. (not an accusation that it will happen, just throwing a potential scenario)

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by jmsrichie

[...]





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.

But it was part of her new job to adjust to the way they did things in England. If five AM emails were inappropriate it was up to her to adjust to that not those around her.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Who is behind those bullying accusations exactly though? Are we talking hairdressers / nannies who, according to some posters, are expected to be treated as "family" by the British upper-class, or are we talking high-level aides ? If the latter, my understanding is that they are now generally professionals, possibly drawn from the civil service, the diplomatic service or even the intelligence community (see the new Lord Chamberlain for example, who used to be the head of MI5). I don't think any of the above would have problems with "work ethics" or "lazyness", or would mistake a demanding boss for "bullying".

Since I don't have the facts, I am trying to understand the accusations and where they are coming from.

The "accusations" (rather an email, describing the staff's views of Duchesses behavior and a formal complaint with the HR) were made/written by Jason Knauf, a senior aid/communications secretary for the Sussexes. Since they left, he became an advisor for Duke of Cambridge and is now chief executive(?) in their foundation.

But from the contents of the article it's clear that it describes a situation of more than one employee and not naming anyone other than Cohen. It was then sent to Simon Case (Prince William's private secretary) and Samantha Carruthers, head of HR. So no, it's not "hairdressers and nannies" (who too deserve respect!), but more on the side of high-level aids.

[Curryong]

Samantha Cohen stayed on with the Sussexes far longer than the six months she was first appointed for. She was on her way to retirement from Royal service. If she was extremely perturbed by Meghan's 'bullying' behaviour she had a strange way of showing it. She was still with Harry and Meghan after baby Archie arrived.

The other PA of Meghan's who left the Sussexes was Amy Pethergill. She turned up by invitation long afterwards at the fashion Pod Meghan held for SmartWorks. Again, strange behaviour for someone who apparently had worked in such a toxic atmosphere.

People Magazine has reported that the earrings Meghan wore at the dinner in Fiji
'were gifted from the Saudi Arabian royal family on March 7, 2018, when the crown prince dined with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Neither Meghan nor Prince Harry were present, and there is no suggestion that Meghan ever met the crown prince personally.'

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Samantha Cohen stayed on with the Sussexes far longer than the six months she was first appointed for. She was on her way to retirement from Royal service. If she was extremely perturbed by Meghan's 'bullying' behaviour she had a strange way of showing it. She was still with Harry and Meghan after baby Archie arrived.

The other PA of Meghan's who left the Sussexes was Amy Pethergill. She turned up by invitation long afterwards at the fashion Pod Meghan held for SmartWorks. Again, strange behaviour for someone who apparently had worked in such a toxic atmosphere.

Pretty sure Samantha Cohen got a very nice bonus for staying on.

[jmsrichie]

The hypocrisy of the palace aides to leak about those earrings is just astonishing.

Are we ready to discuss Elizabeth’s jewels?

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Samantha Cohen stayed on with the Sussexes far longer than the six months she was first appointed for. She was on her way to retirement from Royal service. If she was extremely perturbed by Meghan's 'bullying' behaviour she had a strange way of showing it. She was still with Harry and Meghan after baby Archie arrived.

The other PA of Meghan's who left the Sussexes was Amy Pethergill. She turned up by invitation long afterwards at the fashion Pod Meghan held for SmartWorks. Again, strange behaviour for someone who apparently had worked in such a toxic atmosphere.

People have a different reasons for staying, even when faced with a toxic work environment. I did that twice in my life - once, a long while ago, because I knew if I leave that job I won't have money to pay for the apartment and the medical procedure that I needed. Second time, more recently, because I was in a higher position and I didn't want to leave the people I worked with and liked very much, to fend for themselves with no one from the management to stand up for them.

So sometimes just because it looks like one thing doesn't mean the accusations are not true. The email was written and send in October 2018, after a successful tour of Australia, when the Sussexes were working royals. Jason Knauf didn't get anything from noticing his co-workers were treated badly and going forward with this. I don't see a reason why he would fabricate the accusations with absolutely nothing to gain from this. The rumours were there, we were just ignoring and explaining them...

[yukari]

Originally Posted by jmsrichie

The hypocrisy of the palace aides to leak about those earrings is just astonishing.

Are we ready to discuss Elizabeth’s jewels?

The Times run a story criticising the Queen of accepting horse race as gift from another Arab prince whose wife has fled to London in fear of her life. Most likely this earring story is the continuation of it.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Fem

The "accusations" (rather an email, describing the staff's views of Duchesses behavior and a formal complaint with the HR) were made/written by Jason Knauf, a senior aid/communications secretary for the Sussexes. Since they left, he became an advisor for Duke of Cambridge and is now chief executive(?) in their foundation.

But from the contents of the article it's clear that it describes a situation of more than one employee and not naming anyone other than Cohen. It was then sent to Simon Case (Prince William's private secretary) and Samantha Carruthers, head of HR. So no, it's not "hairdressers and nannies" (who too deserve respect!), but more on the side of high-level aids.

Has this been confirmed by anyone outside the writer of the article?



LaRae

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Alison H

It's certainly interesting that this has suddenly appeared on the front pages of several newspapers 5 days before the Oprah interview, but I agree with Claire - if you're going to wash your dirty linen in public, it's going to attract attention, and more and more stories are going to come out, because anything with your name in it will be front page news. Harry and Meghan just go from one controversy and lawsuit to another. It's not pleasant for anyone.

It would be unrealistic for Meghan and Harry to think they could keep up the narrative of their so called mistreatment by everyone from the British press to palace aides - and to keep up that narrative in very high profile ways, like with Finding Freedom and now also very likely with the Oprah interview - without some people eventually deciding to push back. This has the potential to be an ugly situation. Meghan and Harry should tread carefully.

[jmsrichie]

Originally Posted by yukari

The Times run a story criticising the Queen of accepting horse race as gift from another Arab prince whose wife has fled to London in fear of her life. Most likely this earring story is the continuation of it. But this is Sussexes thread and I'm sure the moderator will put some warning if we start to discuss it here.



(btw, The Duchess of Cambridge also had article questioning one of her earrings provenance so The DoS is not alone in this).

My point is not the Times running it. It’s the Palace leaking that as if it’s any dirtier than HMs own jewels and things that she owns. Just shows hypocritical double standard and clear smear campaign again Meghan.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

It would be unrealistic for Meghan and Harry to think they could keep up the narrative of their so called mistreatment by everyone from the British press to palace aides - and to keep up that narrative in very high profile ways, like with Finding Freedom and now also very likely with the Oprah interview - without some people eventually deciding to push back. This has the potential to be an ugly situation. Meghan and Harry should tread carefully.

Personally I think that all of the staff at Kensington Palace would have water tight NDA's. So they cannot talk - someone might have leaked the email to the Times, but that is suspicion in the timing so I wonder if the Times doesn't have something up its sleeve for Sunday.

[Madame Verseau]

Chris Ship was on GMB saying the alleged victims did not go to the Times or filed a complaint.

[ACO]

Apparently Jason Knauf reported it behind the back and without permission of the aide in question. That seems very odd to me. And when they learned of what he did they actually withdrew the claim. I would be very uncomfortable if someone did that to me.

This is from Chris Ship in ITV.

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1367017141552246785

The whole thing just seems very odd and well timed. I think bullying is disgusting and needs to be dealt with but I also don't fault people for side-eying this story a bit either. We have three articles from The Times and none of them come close to saying what she did. Only that she made them cry.

So now that this is out, I hope we get more to it because right now it is very off and no one comes across particularly well.

[Claire]

Interesting the Sussex's had send a legal letter of rebuttal to the Times.

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."

Okay - If you can read the Times article your will note that the Times is simply reporting that accusation of bulling was made, not that it was truth. They have evidence of the accusation as they have the email. So the question has to be asked - what is the Sussex' rebutting?
The Times is not a tabloid. At this point in time - I think the Times editor is wondering if the email didn't come from the Sussex Team and if they weren't used for some PR and free Oprah advertising.

[yukari]

Just for a note: Jason Knauf, the guy who sent email raising concern about the staff treatment is an American ("An American PR Guru" as per Telegraph headline when he joined the palace), not some "delicate" Briton. So personally I will refrain from making this into American vs British.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Claire

Personally I think that all of the staff at Kensington Palace would have water tight NDA's. So they cannot talk - someone might have leaked the email to the Times, but that is suspicion in the timing so I wonder if the Times doesn't have something up its sleeve for Sunday.

I don't find the timing suspicious, it is timed to coincide with the interview. I'm sure you are correct about the NDAs but to me, powerful people making accusations against those who can't respond is the very definition of bullying.

From what I have seen of Meghan, I find it very difficult to believe that she is a terrible person, but I don't think the employees are either. Another poster, Yukari made an excellent point in post 300 - there was probably a cultural clash. However, a person can't marry into the British royal family and expect to completely upend the institution. Like Yukari, I have also worked in other countries and with people from other cultures and it is much more effective to adapt to their way of doing things.

Personally, I don't see the problem with sending an email at 3:00 a.m. - unless she expected an immediate answer (which I doubt). But if it was inappropriate, I believe the problem could have been solved if someone had politely explained that to Meghan and suggested using the delay send option.

Other issues were probably not easily resolved, such as wanting to change the way the royal family interacts with traditional media. In that matter, I think Harry and Meghan should follow the Queen's lead. After all, they are representing Queen and country. It should not have been the end of the world and they could have revisited the issue when Charles becomes King.

That said, if there was a flung teacup, that is inappropriate no matter where (or who) you are.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by ACO

Apparently Jason Knauf reported it behind the back and without permission of the aide in question. That seems very odd to me. And when they learned of what he did they actually withdrew the claim. I would be very uncomfortable if someone did that to me.

This is from Chris Ship in ITV.

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1367017141552246785

The whole thing just seems very odd and well timed. I think bullying is disgusting and needs to be dealt with but I also don't fault people for side-eying this story a bit either. We have three articles from The Times and none of them come close to saying what she did. Only that she made them cry.

Having work disagreements is not bullying. And I feel like a lot of women (especially those of color) who are in position of power wonder if more is at play here. Many know that anger black woman trope and it doesn't sit well. That is what I keep seeing in a lot of discussion.

So now that this is out, I hope we get more to it because right now it is very off and no one comes across particularly well.

A senior work colleague does not have to have permission of people to express concern about the work culture.

This was all 'a discussion' talking about the fact that it was considered she was bullying them. It was an internal issue. As far as I can tell it does not talk specifically of a complaint....which is a very series HR matter.

Yes they are alleging she is bullying but they are seeking clarity about it.