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

[MARG]

I have always been a BRF fan and have admired their individual hard work and plain common sense. However I no longer feel such admiration. When the press started hammering the POW he had the money and power to fight back and time has proved his crackpot theories about organic farming, sustainability and climate change to be valid.

Now, unless those family members have had a personality transplant, the tail is very definitely wagging the dog. The leaking of old claims of bullying, tiara tantrums and boldly and knowingly flashing blood tainted earrings all make me wonder. The Queen is Harry's grandmother but she stripped him of everything royal (military) that really mattered to him. She did not have to do that, in fact she didn't do that to her self employed cousin. He has always had patronages including military ones. That smacks of hypocrisy and even spite at the very least. Her much vaunted love for Harry and family seems the kind you can do without.

But I am looking to Harry's father to say or do something, anything that would lead one to believe he loves his younger son, daughter-in-law and grandson. Perhaps a reminder that Meghan is having to endure the same vile abuse as during her first pregnancy. But I fear his "Duty" is to his mother and father.

The fact that Harry is treated like a traitor and Andrew like wayward son disturbs me and shows just how clearly the BRF can take care of one member under fire and just as easily throw another under a bus.

Leaks by a senior aide to the older son about allegations of bullying, greed, meanness of spirit all made and presumably dealt with several years ago suddenly appear. Where is his immediate employer's anger, hurt or outrage. Definitely no love lost there.

It makes me wonder who is really in control of the House of Windsor and if not HM or POW then some pretty powerful uncivil servants are feathering their seats of power and padding their resumes to show they have worked for not one but two or more royals.

I know that legally silence does not betoken consent, but real life is different. Silence is speaking volumes.

 

[AC21091968]

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

I've got a question here. All of this about "bullying"charges against Meghan resurfacing now and supposedly an "investigation" to "look into it" is front page news. Correct? Can anyone tell me what judgment or settlement would even come out of any such "investigation"? As I see it, this is a matter being looked into concerning ex-employees and ex-bosses(employer). What are they going to do? Hit the reset button where the ex-employees get their job back or the ex-boss(employer) gets a dressing down from the CEO she worked for years ago? What outcome will ever come of this? It just doesn't make sense to me at all.



Haven't people better things to do than revisit the past hoping to change it? I kind of think that when people start pointing a finger, they forget the the other three fingers on their hand is pointing back at them. [emoji3]

All I could think of the settlement or judgement of this bullying investigation is compensation towards staff if the bullying rumours turn out to be true. Everything else seems to be up in the air in my opinion.

 

[Mbruno]

I think it is questionable whether Meghan knew of the possible connection between the earrings and the death of Jamal Khashoggi. If the Palace knew of the connection, they should have alerted Meghan and her staff to that fact.

Regarding the earrings, there is a story in the Daily Mail with more information:

"Lawyers representing the duchess have told the newspaper all relevant royal staff knew the jewellery was a gift from the Crown Prince, and Meghan was unaware at the time of rumours implicating him in the murder."

"The Gulf State ruler was invited to lunch with the Queen during a trip to the UK in March 2018, a few months before Harry and Meghan wed, and it is likely this is when the gift was presented although there is no suggestion Meghan received it in person."

"The earrings are classed as a gift from a foreign head of state and so are Crown property and were available to be borrowed by Meghan."

"The Times reported her lawyers as saying if the duchess had said they were borrowed, this was what she meant. They have denied she had stated they were borrowed from a jeweller."


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/p...s-Saudi-Crown-Prince-journalist-s-murder.html

So does Meghan still have the earrings now ? If so, she is in possession of Crown property that should have been returned.


The Khashoggi incident made major headlines for a significant period of time both in the US and in the UK (all major English-speaking international news outlets covered it extensively). Having said that, it coincided with the timing of the Sussexes' tour: Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate on October 2, 2018, but news that he had been killed inside did not break until October 15, when I believe the Sussexes' tour began (I am not sure).



If there were diplomatic or political concerns, I find it surprising that Palace aides would not have raised them with Meghan (official visits such as the Australia/Fiji tour are usually coordinated with the Foreign Office and the professional civil service). One possible explanation is that they were indeed unware that the earrings were of Saudi provenance, either because Meghan misled them or because there was some misinterpretation about what she told them about having borrowed the earrings.

 

[Pranter]

So does Meghan still have the earrings now ? If so, she is in possession of Crown property that should have been returned.


The Khashoggi incident made major headlines for a significant period of time both in the US and in the UK (all major English-speaking international news outlets covered it extensively). Having said that, it coincided with the timing of the Sussexes' tour: Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate on October 2, 2018, but news that he had been killed inside did not break until October 15, when I believe the Sussexes' tour began (I am not sure).



If there were diplomatic or political concerns, I a find it surprising that Palace aides would not have raised them with Meghan (official visits such as the Australia/Fiji tour are usually coordinated with the Foreign Office and the professional civil service). Only explanation is that they were indeed unware that earrings were of Saudi provenance, either because Meghan misled them or because there was some misinterpretation about what she told them about having borrowed the earrings.

How could Meghan have misled them? They were given to The Queen by the Ruler of that country as a gift for The Sussexes! They went thru the head office down.


LaRae

 

[fabaunty]

The Duke of Sussex was not told by his family to "get on his bike ", he walked out on them and his heritage . I accept that he had reasons , from his viewpoint , but he jumped before they could even offer an alternative .When they did , he did not like the term's. I regret both his and the Duchesses loss to public service to the people of this country & Commonwealth , as I feel that with a bit of time they could have built up a formidable presence . Our loss is Netflix & Spotify's gain I suppose . Obviously "princing " to use a word coined by the Duke of Windsor, was not fulfilling to either of them .

 

[Alison H]

I think the press are desperate for any kind of news that doesn't involve the pandemic - which, to be fair, is understandable. There are only so many pictures of closed shops and celebs wearing masks that you can print. "News" stories in recent days have included Boris Johnson's plans to redecorate his flat, a train from Manchester to London being delayed by a cat which refused to get off the roof of one of the carriages and a Poldark actor getting a job with Deliveroo.


Royal stories always attract attention, and Harry and Meghan have chosen to open themselves to being the subject of front page attention by doing the Oprah interview. So anything and everything is being brought up.

 

[poppy7]

I think the press are desperate for any kind of news that doesn't involve the pandemic - which, to be fair, is understandable. There are only so many pictures of closed shops and celebs wearing masks that you can print. "News" stories in recent days have included Boris Johnson's plans to redecorate his flat, a train from Manchester to London being delayed by a cat which refused to get off the roof of one of the carriages and a Poldark actor getting a job with Deliveroo.


Royal stories always attract attention, and Harry and Meghan have chosen to open themselves to being the subject of front page attention by doing the Oprah interview. So anything and everything is being brought up.

We all have heartache. Scores to settle. Situations where we weren't heard. Marriages that break down. We don't all go on Oprah to talk about it.

I dont see how the firm are continuing to perpetuate lies about them either. All I see was people continuing with their lives. Denying stories when they were brought up and the fingers were ointed at them by the Sussexes.

Meghan was massively unsuited to royal life. She thought she could do what she liked and that isn't the way it works.

But Harry should have learnt the lessons of his mother. The interview shouldnt have been given.

You fling out words only a saint would say nothing in response and if there is nothing personally involved, such as children, why wouldn't you respond.

 

[texankitcat]

I'm finding all this very sad.


I hope Harry's happy with the damage he's done. If he wanted to leave royal duties and move away to start a new life, fine. But all this nastiness, which is all over the front pages of today's papers, with headlines like "All out war at Palace", could have been avoided - but, oh no, he and Meghan had to do the Omid Scobie book, and now the Oprah interview, and create this ongoing cycle of unpleasantness.


Yes, the Queen's said that they remain much-loved members of the family, but, whilst we can't know what Charles and William are saying about everything that's going on at the moment, I'd hazard a guess that it involves a lot of very rude words.

I agree. Why is any of this necessary? They are the ones that walked away from duty and service to the people of the UK in order to dutifully serve themselves in Hollywood. They are getting their millions from their Royal status , living in a mansion amongst fellow “woke” celebrities. Making guest appearances on talk shows, etc... They are living their dream while the rest of TRF get on with duty and service. Why isn’t that enough for them? What purpose does it serve them to attack the BRF other than to make themselves look like perpetual victims when clearly they are not or to try to turn public opinion against the BRF? It’s just mind boggling what these two are doing....

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I just came across something in my wanderings that made me think of Meghan and all the dredging up of the past that seems to be happening. It's fitting and simple.

"Trying to hurt me by bringing up my past is like robbing my old house. I don't live there anymore."

Simple.

What a hurtful and insensitive comment.

When a person is the victim of an attack and comes forward years later, imagine if we as a society condoned this as the response.

For those who are wondering why many victims of personal attacks, including bullying and other attacks, do not come forward even years later, it is this attitude: "That was me then, but I have changed!" and the people who would brazenly embrace it who shame them into keeping silent.

 

[Claire]

I have always been a BRF fan and have admired their individual hard work and plain common sense. However I no longer feel such admiration. When the press started hammering the POW he had the money and power to fight back and time has proved his crackpot theories about organic farming, sustainability and climate change to be valid.

Now, unless those family members have had a personality transplant, the tail is very definitely wagging the dog. The leaking of old claims of bullying, tiara tantrums and boldly and knowingly flashing blood tainted earrings all make me wonder. The Queen is Harry's grandmother but she stripped him of everything royal (military) that really mattered to him. She did not have to do that, in fact she didn't do that to her self employed cousin. He has always had patronages including military ones. That smacks of hypocrisy and even spite at the very least. Her much vaunted love for Harry and family seems the kind you can do without.

But I am looking to Harry's father to say or do something, anything that would lead one to believe he loves his younger son, daughter-in-law and grandson. Perhaps a reminder that Meghan is having to endure the same vile abuse as during her first pregnancy. But I fear his "Duty" is to his mother and father.

The fact that Harry is treated like a traitor and Andrew like wayward son disturbs me and shows just how clearly the BRF can take care of one member under fire and just as easily throw another under a bus.

Leaks by a senior aide to the older son about allegations of bullying, greed, meanness of spirit all made and presumably dealt with several years ago suddenly appear. Where is his immediate employer's anger, hurt or outrage. Definitely no love lost there.

It makes me wonder who is really in control of the House of Windsor and if not HM or POW then some pretty powerful uncivil servants are feathering their seats of power and padding their resumes to show they have worked for not one but two or more royals.

I know that legally silence does not betoken consent, but real life is different. Silence is speaking volumes.

I complete agree with the first comment - I am a bit over the royals increasingly everyday. I wish Charles would smack a few heads and stop this. Leadership is needed - and severally lacking. But it seems so is cool heads.

I am not at all amazed by the throwing of one royal to the lions while protecting others, I have seen it first hand - and part of me is watching this and going what goes around comes around. However I really don't like watching a group of liars throwing mud around.

 

[Denville]

What a hurtful and insensitive comment.

When a person is the victim of an attack and comes forward years later, imagine if we as a society condoned this as the response.

For those who are wondering why many victims of personal attacks, including bullying and other attacks, do not come forward even years later, it is this attitude: "That was me then, but I have changed!" and the people who would brazenly embrace it who shame them into keeping silent.

ITs certainly an intriguing point of view, sin't it? If someone stole my bag, but wasn't cauaght immediately.. and a year later they were caught and claimed that "it wasn't them now, that was them a year ago" so they should not be punished for it? Well words do fail me...

 

[ACO]

This investigation should 100% happen. No one should be a bully. Honestly my guess that this will expand into the entire BRF. They should have an outside person look at it as a whole and likely well.

I just was watching Good Morning America and Rob Jobson was on saying he fully expects that to happen and that he thinks it might get even messier for the royal family. This will open up a can of worms that can't close.

People should fill safe in their working environment, period. So if the allegations are true than do what is needed to make sure it never happens again. If they are false then deal with that too and still continue to strive for safe environments.

 

[yukari]

I've got a question here. All of this about "bullying"charges against Meghan resurfacing now and supposedly an "investigation" to "look into it" is front page news. Correct? Can anyone tell me what judgment or settlement would even come out of any such "investigation"? As I see it, this is a matter being looked into concerning ex-employees and ex-bosses(employer). What are they going to do? Hit the reset button where the ex-employees get their job back or the ex-boss(employer) gets a dressing down from the CEO she worked for years ago? What outcome will ever come of this? It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Haven't people better things to do than revisit the past hoping to change it? I kind of think that when people start pointing a finger, they forget the the other three fingers on their hand is pointing back at them.

In my company, there's something that had been going on for at least 5 years but kept being ignored or dismissed when someone raised their concern. Until "a big splash" happened and they did an investigation (including for stuff from those years ago). It ended with a new SOP. Many of those that was involved in the past incident are no longer with us, but (hopefully) this SOP can prevent or at least mitigate those kind of incident from happening again in the future.

I don't know how it work at BP, but The Times article mentions Knauf's concern about "nothing done since to protect staff against the possibility of bullying by a member of the royal family." If we see it as "member of royal family" in general, not just Meghan, so maybe after this investigation there'll be some sort of new code of conduct or policy or something so this issue can be prevented or mitigated from happening in the future or something that make the staff feel better at work (better working environment and such). I mean, Lux' Waringo Investigation has not done for something that only happen in 2019 right?

 

[Denville]

In my company, there's something that had been going on for at least 5 years but kept being ignored or dismissed when someone raised their concern. Until "a big splash" happened and they did an investigation (including for stuff from those years ago). It ended with a new SOP. Many of those that was involved in the past incident are no longer with us, but (hopefully) this SOP can prevent or at least mitigate those incident from happening in the future.

Companies can have anti bullying policies but it does not stop bullying... There has to be a culture of taking it seriously adn acting when someone makes a complaint.. and letting them know that they will be treated fairly if they go ahead iwht one..

 

[Osipi]

What a hurtful and insensitive comment.

When a person is the victim of an attack and comes forward years later, imagine if we as a society condoned this as the response.

For those who are wondering why many victims of personal attacks, including bullying and other attacks, do not come forward even years later, it is this attitude: "That was me then, but I have changed!" and the people who would brazenly embrace it who shame them into keeping silent.

I need to clarify something here. I'm all for taking issues and doing something about them that changes the way employee/employer relationships go into the future . Especially with bullying or stepping on someone's head because they hold a senior position or anything that causes discord in a place of employment.

My belief is that this issue should have remained and handled internally though and not leaked to the press and started a back and forth with two sides of the coin at odds with each other over things that happened years ago. I meant it to reflect that my opinion is that in this case of the leaks to the Times and whatnot about previous bullying should involve those people that actually *were* involved in it and not played out in the court of popular opinion.

This is definitely a case of the "Firm" not adhering to "never complain, never explain". It does reek more of backlash towards the Sussexes for what they *may* say in an upcoming interview, to me, than it is resolving an internal problem that has happened within the fold of the "Firm" and needs correction.

JMO

 

[evolvingdoors]

This is a pretty demanning article from Rebecca English.
There are parts of it which actually support theories and points I, and others- not just here- had raised and alluded to before, but as it is a mental health theory I won't go into details (I don't want this comment to be deleted- unless the mods give me the go ahead to expend?).

I'll just say that the below quote is a major alarm for me because it is bang on behavior wise.

Others have indicated to me they were being asked to behave in a manner they did not feel professionally comfortable with, particularly in their dealings with the media. Several aides have also told me that Meghan in particular was very good at 'drawing' staff into her confidence, flattering them as if they were the only person in the world she could trust and asking them to help her with various duties.

Often these were things that were far beyond the scope of their normal work – in one case being instructed to make plans for her father Thomas to be flown from his home in Mexico before the wedding and taken to a fully-stocked 'safe house' in LA for a few days in order to fool any waiting media.

And then, when things didn't go to plan, the sun would no longer shine on them. It was made 'horribly clear' they were out of favour.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-inside-story-fairytale-turned-nightmare.html

 

[yukari]

Companies can have anti bullying policies but it does not stop bullying... There has to be a culture of taking it seriously adn acting when someone makes a complaint.. and letting them know that they will be treated fairly if they go ahead iwht one..

I'm seeing BRF as a firm, and in those frame just like in every company (at least one I've worked for), the highest was policy then more details in form of "guideline", then SOP (standard operational procedure), sometimes somewhere in there it also include the kind of punishment and in some case a new position is created in support. The "culture" is built from it (kind of you are "forced" by the rules). And since you quote the example in my company, in my company's case, with the implementation of new SOP, the accident/incident has dropped drastically since we are "forced" to do things differently and after some time it becomes our new "working culture" (it's not bullying btw). It will not stop the occurence (as the best prevention is not to do the activity), but when the correct measure has been taken, it will mitigate it.

 

[Fem]

I need to clarify something here. I'm all for taking issues and doing something about them that changes the way employee/employer relationships go into the future . Especially with bullying or stepping on someone's head because they hold a senior position or anything that causes discord in a place of employment.

My belief is that this issue should have remained and handled internally though and not leaked to the press and started a back and forth with two sides of the coin at odds with each other over things that happened years ago. I meant it to reflect that my opinion is that in this case of the leaks to the Times and whatnot about previous bullying should involve those people that actually *were* involved in it and not played out in the court of popular opinion.

This is definitely a case of the "Firm" not adhering to "never complain, never explain". It does reek more of backlash towards the Sussexes for what they *may* say in an upcoming interview, to me, than it is resolving an internal problem that has happened within the fold of the "Firm" and needs correction.

JMO

Or it is a case of not The Firm leaking something - as it makes them look awfully bad for covering a case of bullying employees by a senior member of the Royal Family - but of damaged, former employees seeking justice, seeing their bully play victim on an international stage

 

[Denville]

Or it is a case of not The Firm leaking something - as it makes them look awfully bad for covering a case of bullying employees by a senior member of the Royal Family - but of damaged, former employees seeking justice, seeing their bully play victim on an international stage

If people didn't want to make an official complaint, the HR people might not be able to do much... but people often don't want to make a complaint because they think "I still have to work here, so if I make it all official.. the bully may be even worse to me after the initial case.. once they feel secure again..."....

 

[Osipi]

Or it is a case of not The Firm leaking something - as it makes them look awfully bad for covering a case of bullying employees by a senior member of the Royal Family - but of damaged, former employees seeking justice, seeing their bully play victim on an international stage

If it were up to me totally, none of any of this would be in the public domain. Not the leakages, not the interview, not the bazillions of stories and opinions in the written media, social media and everything would just be moving forward with everybody just paying attention to what they need to do to move forward positively.

As it stands right now, we have no clue if a "former employer" is going to "play the victim" or do the macarena while juggling eggs.

 

[ACO]

Over the years we have heard many stories about aides/staff being treated badly by royals. So if that is the environment than it 100% needs to be looked into and fixed.

No one comes out looking good in this situation.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

While I appreciate that some posters feel that the palace or the royal family itself released these allegations at this time to counter any damage the interview will do, and it is possible. However, others can also argue that Harry and Meghan agreed to do this interview as revenge for the removal of their patronages.

For everyone's sake, I hope that the family can start productively discussing these issues privately and come to agreements on how to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The interview was recorded before their patronages were removed - but, yes, after the "War of the Waleses", you'd think lessons would have been learnt about playing out family feuds all over the media. It just ends up causing more hurt.

My theory is that although Harry says he does not want history repeating itself with respect to his memories of Diana, he is insisting on following her footsteps. There are many reports that Diana regretted doing her interview because it also hurt her children, not just Charles. I hope Harry and Meghan don't regret going public because of pain caused to people they don't want to hurt.

ETA to add, I assume that they knew their patronages were being removed before it was announced. Another possibility is that their patronages were removed because of this interview. Either way, Harry and Meghan cannot simply publicly attack others and then be surprised when they are attacked in return.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

But I am looking to Harry's father to say or do something, anything that would lead one to believe he loves his younger son, daughter-in-law and grandson. Perhaps a reminder that Meghan is having to endure the same vile abuse as during her first pregnancy. But I fear his "Duty" is to his mother and father.

Harry, who is an adult, has not been exactly publicly supportive of Charles and one of the clips from the interview is widely perceived as a slap at Charles. A statement of support from Charles may make Harry and Meghan look horrible if the interview has other criticisms (veiled or not).

Anything the royal family says publicly right now will be dissected and misinterpreted by the media. Moreover, Charles and the family have other concerns, especially with Philip's health. I think it is better to wait until after the interview and make decisions then.

 

[Mbruno]

My theory is that although Harry says he does not want history repeating itself with respect to his memories of Diana, he is insisting on following her footsteps. There are many reports that Diana regretted doing her interview because it also hurt her children, not just Charles. I hope Harry and Meghan don't regret going public because of pain caused to people they don't want to hurt.

ETA to add, I assume that they knew their patronages were being removed before it was announced. Another possibility is that their patronages were removed because of this interview. Either way, Harry and Meghan cannot simply publicly attack others and then be surprised when they are attacked in return.

Honestly I don't think Harry and Meghan can make the same potential damage as Diana.

Diana was not royal by blood and was not in the line of succession, but she was the (former) wife of a future king and the mother of another, so in a way she had a direct connection to the main line to the throne.

Harry is Charles' son and William's brother, but once William had children of his own, he became part of a collateral line, thus relegated to a secondary role in the Family. And Meghan is at best only the daughter-in-law of the future king who is married to a son in collateral lne.


As I said, the "Firm" should just ignore them. They don't live in the UK and have no official public role, so they are now actually irrelevant to the people of the UK and the Commonwealth. Creating an image of a row or feud between themselves and "the Firm" only suits their own PR goals of being in the spotlight and playing the role of victims in front of their target audience, which is now the American public.

 

[duchessrachel]

The difference is Queen Elizabeth does not claim/portray to be a humanitarian nor constantly support sustainability or cruelty-free products. It's almost the same argument about climate change, where The Queen has stay out of it. That is what I like about her.

That is what I like about the Queen. She stays clear of politics and hot topics. I hope that Charles and William will do so when they become the Monarchs.

Exactly - I think Harry has worked it out in his head that they are attacking the institution and not the family, but essentially it is the same thing.

I had been told that CBS is trying to find out if video or audio evidence exist and it the Times has it. If they do and it is out there - they might pull the interview. I told you that it was suspicious that CBS and Harpo people were talking to palace staff suddenly. They knew what was happening.

I do wonder if there is video/audio evidence. I have to think that the Times feels strongly enough that they have some kind of proof to publish these allegations, given the threat of a lawsuit by Harry and Meghan. I am an American, but I have always understood that the Times is a very reputable publication. If there is video/audio evidence, I suspect that it won't be released until after the Oprah interview.

I think this interview might have the potential to be their version of Panorama. If it does, it would be interesting to see what would The Queen do. She told Charles and Diana to divorce because of it, is it possible that Harry and Meghan might lose their royal titles because of this interview?

I just saw another preview today of the Oprah interview where Meghan says "the Firm" perpetuated falsehoods about her and Harry. I think they will have to answer to the Queen if that statement is a preview of what the interview will be like.

 

[Denville]

I just saw another preview today of the Oprah interview where Meghan says "the Firm" perpetuated falsehoods about her and Harry. I think they will have to answer to the Queen if that statement is a preview of what the interview will be like.

I think the queen will treat them with total ignoral.. they've been out of the RF for a year, they have done nothing but create dramas.. and IMO she's finished with them....

Over the years we have heard many stories about aides/staff being treated badly by royals. So if that is the environment than it 100% needs to be looked into and fixed.

No one comes out looking good in this situation.

If that's the case, then it is good for it to come out..

 

[Pranter]

If that's the case, then it is good for it to come out..

I agree, if anyone has engaged in inappropriate behavior with staff it needs to be handled.


LaRae

 

[amaryllus]

They should be ignored...Any attention is better than no Attention as they say when dealing with petulant denied overly entitled individuals who are acting out. Not much different than will small children.

 

[Hallo girl]

I do wonder if there is video/audio evidence. I have to think that the Times feels strongly enough that they have some kind of proof to publish these allegations, given the threat of a lawsuit by Harry and Meghan. I am an American, but I have always understood that the Times is a very reputable publication. If there is video/audio evidence, I suspect that it won't be released until after the Oprah interview.

The original e mail is evidence that a member of staff had concerns, as far as I understand it that is what the article is about.
After recent court cases I would expect all media to be careful.