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

[Alison H]

Workplace bullying can be very damaging to someone's well-being, and it's not always that easy to leave - it damages your confidence and that makes it difficult to find another job, because it tends to mean that you come across badly at interviews. One person's definition of bullying can be very different to someone else's, and we don't know exactly what was said and done, but it can certainly be very distressing.


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.

 

[Princess Duchess]

I do suspect the bullying claims because a lot of them don’t say what she said or did. It’s always focused on the other person’s feelings, which is important but if you’re going to accuse someone of bullying, you need to say what was said (even vaguely).

And yes, this is clearly in response to the Oprah interview. We truly have no idea what Meghan will say and can only make guesses. And in the past, it’s been Harry who’s said the more “damming” statements - not Meghan.

 

[evolvingdoors]

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

Rumors of this has been going around a few years now, as many of us said in the last 3 years: where there is smoke...

To be fair it doesn't make either party (Meghan or the palace) look good, but I can almost understand the palace, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place here: if they go cover it, well here we are.. if they don't and investigate and it is true.. what do you do, she's still a member of the family. They would have been 100% accused of racism towards her (even if the evidence was clear as clear can be) by her crazy fans plus likely by everyday people.

There seems to be an evidence trail, I hope there is audio trail too to back this up (that's always the best line of defense against a bullying employer). I do however don't think The Times would have actually posted this if they did not had a strong indication that it was true.
The fact Jason's and Samantha Cohen names are mentioned is pretty big!!
Plus we have the many aides who left during her time, a few went back to work for the Cambridges!

I truly hope, for everyone involved it is a misunderstanding, Ie cultural differences in how office environments are run in the US vs. UK. But with Jason, an american himself, being the one who reported on it to HR.. it seems a bit unlikely- since he, better than the UK staff would be able to tell.

It's also interesting to point out the couple lawyers/PR did not actually deny the allegations, now did they...
"Wholly false narrative based on misleading and harmful misinformation"

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.

There was no team work - among each other
This is actually one of the biggest responsibility of a manager/leader (in this case the Sussexes) to delegate and build that team work.

I have been told that this was deliberate - holding out for evidence
will you clarify this further, i'm confused.

 

[AC21091968]

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.

I think you raise a very important point on difference in workplace environment. I remembered Camilla Tominey mentioning in an interview on the supposed clash in workplace culture, when there were rumours about Meghan not treating her staff well. She said that the relationship between Royal and staff is almost colleague-to-colleague or even friendship-like. An example she gave was John Brown (personal attendant) and Queen Victoria.

This is not limited to just the royal family, even in the upper class aristocracy/gentry. A second example of this is how the Rees-Mogg family treated Veronica Crook (the family nanny), who has worked 55 years (turning 56 this year) for them [in two generations]. Jacob Rees-Mogg (described as Honourable Member of the 18/19th Century), who is the Leader of The House of Commons has said "Nanny is part of [our] family" and yes, she was Jacob and his four siblings' nanny as well as his young children's nanny.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-34317549

Another recent example of the friends-like relationship is between Angela Kelly (Personal Assistant and Senior Dresser) and The Queen.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s.../angela-kelly-queen-elizabeth-senior-dresser/

Even now, some people even in Britain find this relationship between upper-class/royal family member and nanny/staff unusual or absurd (i.e. different from the usual employer/manager and employee relationship). So I do understand why Meghan feels frustrated that she does not have the absolute power to tell her staff what to do. And in these three above examples I gave, the staffs do not come from a privilege background like nobility/aristocracy/gentry, in fact, they were/are brought up in a working class family. I understand that they have worked in their field for more than a decade (or even half a century) and hence the development into a very close relationship. And I also assume that the relationships probably starts as boss-employee before becoming friend/family-like.

 

[Mbruno]

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

How does any of the above information change the fact that Meghan is apparently in possession of an item that, per current regulations, should have been returned to the Crown after she left?


As for her wearing the earrings in Fiji, in that particular case I think her aides share the blame. They should have been aware of any potential political or diplomatic concern and advised her accordingly.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

How does any of the above information change the fact that Meghan is apparently in possession of an item that, per current regulations, should have been returned to the Crown after she left?


As for her wearing the earrings in Fiji, in that particular case I think her aides share the blame. They should have been aware of any potential political or diplomatic concern and advised her accordingly.

I thought part of the problem was that Meghan told aides that the earrings were borrowed from someone, when they were actually a wedding gift from the controversial Prince? Aides then passed on the wrong information (= lie) to the press, along with other information on the outfit that is customarily given to press on such occasions.


I really wish the bullying accusations would be investigated by an independent & reputable professional as the situation with Maria Theresa was.

While bullying by bosses & especially very powerful people (to which group royals still belong, even if they don't always possess great political power these days - they are however very powerful in a societal sense) was sadly often prevalent in the past and little was done about it, I think it's a very good development that it's becoming increasingly unacceptable.

Bullying in the work place has a significant negative effect on the mental health & life quality of the employees who are bullied. After all, they have to go to work every day & spend a great amount of time there. Furthermore, it then usually becomes impossible for these individuals to forget about work and relax in their spare time because they are understandably worried about what will happen to them when they return to work.

All of it should be taken very seriously. This is not just an accusation by an unknown source, we have emails by Knauf written in 2018 (not now at the time of the Oprah interview!); the HR person at Clarance House, Samantha Carruthers, was reportedly informed and is said to have agreed with Knauf's assessment.

Working on mental health initiatives should not absolve anyone from bullying accusations. They should still be looked at very closely and again, I believe an independent investigation should be conducted as was done with Maria Theresa.

 

[Alison H]

I don't think that a personal assistant would expect to be treated as a family member in the same way as a nanny or a dresser would. But there are bosses who are pleasant and polite and encouraging, and there are bosses who are aggressive, shout at people and knock people's confidence, and there are bosses at all sorts of levels in between. I've obviously never worked for Meghan so I don't know what she's like as a boss, but I don't see that politeness varies much from one country to another, so I don't think that it's really a cultural thing.

 

[Claire]

It should be noted that the accusation was dealt with by the palace HR department so as far as they are concerned it was dealt with. There were other issues - one that I was told was taken further involving a flung teacup. I believe that was settled as well. If the issue of bullying was not raised with the palace - I do not think that the people in the press will realistically look at it.

Technically you work for the Private secretary, he/she does all that. Yes - the royal sets the tone, but it is private secretary who gives the marching orders

okay - need to give detail. There is a lot of co-ordination between the royal office offices, especially if they have a shared media office. But as Kensington had their own at this point makes it easier. okay - so everything is coordinated. Pics of hats, frocks ect are send out to make certain no one is wearing the same - noone hat is too brimmed for the front row. But far more important is the message from the palace must be coordinated to be streamlined. Royals cannot be at too similar or conflicting engagements. You cannot have the Duchess of Cambridge asking for more funds for early children development at the same time Prince Charles is asking for funds to be spend on environmental policies. You cannot have Camilla opening a dog shelter and Meghan opening a dog shelter during the same week. It is a masterclass in coordination, cooperation and diplomacy within the offices.
But there is a way around it - and well, do what you like - private visits.

You can essentially do any engagement, promote any cause, charity or patronage you want to and don't have to follow the rules of the royal rota.
you can call the media outlet you want and tell them to send the photographer you want.

 

[yukari]

I’m quoting The Times article I’ve attached several post up-thread for those who can’t access behind paywall.

(…)

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. (….)

>>>Several paragraphs mentioning what couple of former staff felt/thought about Meghan: “I had unpleasant experiences with her. I would definitely say humiliated.” Some worried about spending time with Meghan (“I feel terrified. I can’t stop shaking.”). Mention of ‘lot of broken people, young women were broken by their behaviour’ (“completely destroyed” is used). That Samantha Cohen had been bullied. (“They treated her terribly. Nothing was ever good enough. It was, ‘She doesn’t understand, she’s failing.’”) With other staff called Cohen as “a saint” to put up with her. And claim that Fiji tour was stressful for staff and a senior adviser reassured them by saying “You are dealing with a very difficult lady.”<<<

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. (…)

>>>there’s a mention of the Sussexes’ lawyers denying this and that she wished to fit in.<<<

A 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.

(...)

>>>mention how the palace was willing to help Meghan finding a role within the film industry if she wanted<<<

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.

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.”

(…)

Really, this article is very damaging for Meghan (more than the letter on MoS). The palace also doesn't look good here because (if it's true) in a way it can be said that they're hiding this problem.

 

[Mirabel]

Rumors of this has been going around a few years now, as many of us said in the last 3 years: where there is smoke...

To be fair it doesn't make either party (Meghan or the palace) look good, but I can almost understand the palace, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place here: if they go cover it, well here we are.. if they don't and investigate and it is true.. what do you do, she's still a member of the family. They would have been 100% accused of racism towards her (even if the evidence was clear as clear can be) by her crazy fans plus likely by everyday people.

Plus we have the many aides who left during her time, a few went back to work for the Cambridges!

As you say, these rumors have been around a long time.
It almost seemed that at one point, staff were coming and going through a revolving door.

Now that it seems all discretion will be abandoned, we'll have to wait and see what unfolds. I suspect it won't be pretty!

 

[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]

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]

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]

[...]





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]

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]

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

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

Are we ready to discuss Elizabeth’s jewels?

 

[Fem]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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/x/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]

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]

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/x/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.