The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s hard to believe imo that US. Staff would be recreating nicknames used by British tabloids up to five years ago. And I don’t believe personally that there are 5AM emails any more.

I'm not sure the article is alleging that the U.S. staff were also using the "Duchess Difficult" moniker or being emailed at 5 a.m. The sentence you refer to reads:

"But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose reported penchant for noisy tantrums and angry 5 a.m. emails has earned her the in-house moniker ‘Duchess Difficult.’"​

I think the second clause is meant to qualify the "Markle", not the "special bile" – analogous to "But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose title is Duchess of Sussex". So that clause could indeed be referring to the British employees' allegations.

But the article could have phrased it with more clarity (and it could have done with some checking into British royal names and titles as well).

ETA: To the best of my recollection, the "Duchess Difficult" nickname was not used by British tabloids, but (reportedly) by employees of the Duchess in Britain.

 

[TLLK]

It was already reported years ago that many employees or former employees have alleged that the Duchess of Sussex engaged in workplace harassment and abuses of power, but it seems to be a new development that such allegations from former employees are now mentioned in an American entertainment industry publication (although only in a gossip column), and explicitly in reference to her employees in the United States (since many have dismissed prior allegations by attributing them to British or royal culture).

The article refers to several former Archewell employees and one former Sunshine Sachs partner by name, but the quoted sources are anonymous.

[...]​

Why’d they all leave? What explains the churn? “Everyone’s terrified of Meghan,” claims a source close to the couple. “She belittles people, she doesn’t take advice. They’re both poor decision-makers, they change their minds frequently. Harry is a very, very charming person — no airs at all — but he’s very much an enabler. And she’s just terrible.”​

​

In 2018 Markle’s treatment of two royal aides prompted Buckingham Palace to investigate the then-princess for “bullying behavior.” Though the results of the inquiry were never released, Markle denounced the effort as a “calculated smear campaign.” But some of the couple’s stateside staff-members also reserve special bile for Markle, whose reported penchant for noisy tantrums and angry 5 a.m. emails has earned her the in-house moniker ‘Duchess Difficult.’ “She’s absolutely relentless,” says one source. “She marches around like a dictator in high heels, fuming and barking orders. I’ve watched her reduce grown men to tears.”​

[...]​

Why Hollywood Keeps Quitting on Harry and Meghan

Plus, how an Echo glitch turned Alexa into a “commie operative” and Dimitri, the million-dollar maitre ‘d, rides off into the Sunset (Tower).

www.hollywoodreporter.com

This appears to be the reason that the couple have had such a high turnover in staff and why it's taken so long for projects to be launched.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I would agree with you if they were indeed "not royals" anymore in any manner, but individuals who are in line to be head of state (especially, but not limited to, close heirs like the Sussexes for whom reaching the throne remains a realistic though not expected outcome) and for other public offices (such as regency), carry royal titles, and are given royal-level treatment by many official entities, are still (in my view) more than "royal" enough to have a duty of care towards the country and the institution from which they derive these privileges, even though they are "out" in regards to taxpayer funding and official duties.

If either the palace or the British government felt that the Sussexes' likelihood of being called up to the throne or public British offices was significant enough to manage their private behavior, there would have been significant efforts to remove those aspects from them. So far, there hasn't been.

Even if those removals were pushed and successful, Mr. Henry Mountbatten-Windsor with no succession rights is still the son of Charles III of the United Kingdom. Many official entities would still give him royal treatment as long as he's still the son of a king.

In exchange for their duty towards the British people, the working royals receive taxpayer money, police protection, and the privilege to live on incredibly wealthy lands that were granted to their ancestors in agreement with older British governments.

Why is it fair to ask the Sussexes to consider the drawbacks their actions' may cause to the BRF, the British government, and the British people when it has been emphasized over and over again that said BRF, British government, and the British people have no more obligation to them because they're no longer working royals?

 

[Somebody]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Counsellor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Counsellors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

 

[muriel]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Councilor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Councilors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

I think it goes further than that. I don't think the British public would want to see either Harry act as Counsellor of State, or in any form of royal role. That boat has well and truly sailed.

 

[Somebody]

I think it goes further than that. I don't think the British public would want to see either Harry act as Counsellor of State, or in any form of royal role. That boat has well and truly sailed.

What other official measures have been taken since they decided to step away and the queen made very clear that there is no part-time role available next to their commercial endeavors? As far as I am aware, he and his children are still in line to the throne...

 

[HenRach Dominion]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Councilor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Councilors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

I think it goes further than that. I don't think the British public would want to see either Harry act as Counsellor of State, or in any form of royal role. That boat has well and truly sailed.

Which emphasizes my main point. If the BRF, British government, and British people are adamant about the fact that the Sussexes do not represent them or their interests in any way, shape, or form and never will, then none of these entities can expect the Sussexes to take them into account in present or future endeavors. It's essentially "Hey, we want nothing to do with you, but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad. No, we don't want you back and won't do anything for you even if you don't do xyz, but you shouldn't do it anyway."

 

[Somebody]

I'd say it is the other way around. He is still in line to the throne (first adult after the heir) and is still eligible as Counsellor of State - unfortunately, because of how badly he behaved, they have come to the reluctant conclusion that he will not live up to very basic expectations, so they had to find a work-around to the official royal role he still has.

To a child that is naughty/constantly breaking the rules or norms you won't say, well, there are no longer any expectations because we know that you do not intend to keep them anyway. Instead you will try to ensure minimal damage - while still insisting on basic expectations - because it's the right thing to do.

 

[muriel]

Which emphasizes my main point. If the BRF, British government, and British people are adamant about the fact that the Sussexes do not represent them or their interests in any way, shape, or form and never will, then none of these entities can expect the Sussexes to take them into account in present or future endeavors. It's essentially "Hey, we want nothing to do with you, but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad. No, we don't want you back and won't do anything for you even if you don't do xyz, but you shouldn't do it anyway."

Harry does not represent either Britain or the monarchy. That was made clear in the press release Harry put out in January 2020, effectively walking away from his responsibility as a Prince of the UK. His choice.

But not representing the country and the RF does not give him the right to air his laundry in public, or allow a false narrative around his family develop. I will avoid getting into the specifics as we are all aware of what has been said by Harry & Meghan and the people close to them, including Omid Scobie. In the long term, this activities may have generated some cash for Harry & Meghan, but it has also severely damaged their own Sussex brand. Few of these allegations have, IMO, stuck to the RF in any meaningful way.

And I am not sure what you mean by "..... but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad"?

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Harry does not represent either Britain or the monarchy. That was made clear in the press release Harry put out in January 2020, effectively walking away from his responsibility as a Prince of the UK. His choice.

But not representing the country and the RF does not give him the right to air his laundry in public, or allow a false narrative around his family develop. I will avoid getting into the specifics as we are all aware of what has been said by Harry & Meghan and the people close to them, including Omid Scobie. In the long term, this activities may have generated some cash for Harry & Meghan, but it has also severely damaged their own Sussex brand. Few of these allegations have, IMO, stuck to the RF in any meaningful way.

And I am not sure what you mean by "..... but don't you dare do xyz because it might make us look bad"?

I was responding to an earlier poster who stated that Harry and Meghan should be cognizant of how their actions may reflect on the BRF in spite not being supported by the taxpayers. But this conversation has established a couple of things:
1. Harry and Meghan no longer represent the BRF, British government, or British people
2. Harry and Meghan don't want to represent them
3. Those entities don't want Harry and Meghan representing them either
4. Harry and Meghan currently receive no support from any of these entities
5. Harry and Meghan, as private individuals, have been public about their own experiences
6. Sharing those experiences have garnered multitude of different opinions about Harry and Meghan themselves, but have had no real affect on the listed entities
7. In spite of all of the above, there is the expectation among some people that Harry and Meghan follow the same rules they were under when they were working royals (e.g. no politics, no speaking with foreign dignitaries outside of British interest/public philanthropic efforts) without the benefits from it (tax-funded security).

You're right. Harry and Meghan chose to leave as working royals, and therefore cannot expect to receive the benefits that working royals get. But as private individuals, they have the right to put their own interests first with regards to what they say and what they do, even if some uninformed people may accidentally attribute their actions to the greater BRF. If the BRF, the British government, and the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes, then the Sussexes have no obligation towards them.

 

[Hallo girl]

It is not that straightforward, Harry is in the line of succession as are his children. Meghan wanted the titles for her children, making allegations as to why they didn’t have them . While that remains the status quo they will always be linked to the UK. As I say not that straightforward.

 

[Alison H]

If they want to call themselves Mr and Mrs Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor, and ask the authorities of countries they're visiting not to play God Save The King when they attend events (as happened in Nigeria), they can do what they like.

 

[Hallo girl]

If they want to call themselves Mr and Mrs Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor, and ask the authorities of countries they're visiting not to play God Save The King when they attend events (as happened in Nigeria), they can do what they like.

Exactly, nobody has an issue with them leading a private /different life.
They are the ones who still use the titles, and as long as they use them….

 

[Ghost]

Exactly, nobody has an issue with them leading a private /different life.
They are the ones who still use the titles, and as long as they use them….

Exactly that. It’s not the BRF hanging on the Sussexes, it’s the Sussexes hanging on the RF.

 

[SiameseLover]

I personally believe that it's a combination of obtaining footage for future documentaries while doing some charity related visits. They tend to mimic the royal/British Goverment tours because that's the plan that they (primarily Harry) are accustomed to.

The only "tour" MM went on - prior to meeting Harry - was a USO tour.

 

[Ghost]

Harry has given a statement to the BBC on the occassion of his birthday:

Prince Harry: I was anxious about 30, I'm excited about 40

The Duke of Sussex tells the BBC his mission is to continue "doing good in the world", as he turns 40.

www.bbc.com

 

[Alison H]

When I was a history student at university, I had to read John Locke's book about social contracts. (Do not read it - it is extremely boring.) So we have got the idea, going back to the 18th century, that there is a "contract" between a monarch and their people, and that a bad monarch can be removed because they've broken it - which has been used to justify both the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. And presumably that would also apply to other senior royals. So that idea's been around for three and a half centuries ... but I very much doubt that anyone would want to bring it up again. If Harry were to be removed from the line of succession, then people would want Andrew removed as well ... and, once you start, it can be difficult to stop.

 

[Ista]

A number of posts and responses to those posts have been removed as they introduced a discussion that was against Sussex thread rules. Debates about the stripping of titles have been prohibited on this thread for a very long time, and that has not changed. Please review the current rules before posting.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I was responding to an earlier poster who stated that Harry and Meghan should be cognizant of how their actions may reflect on the BRF in spite not being supported by the taxpayers. But this conversation has established a couple of things:
[...]
7. In spite of all of the above, there is the expectation among some people that Harry and Meghan follow the same rules they were under when they were working royals (e.g. no politics, no speaking with foreign dignitaries outside of British interest/public philanthropic efforts) without the benefits from it (tax-funded security).

You're right. Harry and Meghan chose to leave as working royals, and therefore cannot expect to receive the benefits that working royals get. But as private individuals, they have the right to put their own interests first with regards to what they say and what they do, even if some uninformed people may accidentally attribute their actions to the greater BRF. If the BRF, the British government, and the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes, then the Sussexes have no obligation towards them.

To be clear, while I don't agree with the premise that "the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes" and that they are "private persons", and indeed believe the Sussexes (and others in their position) should stay out of domestic and foreign politics, it is not because "their actions may reflect on the BRF". Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to write a proper response, but I appreciate your thoughtful posts and the thoughtful posts made by Somebody and other posters who have responded to you.

 

[Mbruno]

There has been a significant effort to remove the need to call upon Harry as a Counsellor of State: both Anne and Edward were added to the pool of potential Counsellors. It was clear that Harry’s behavior has been such that he can no longer in good faith be asked to take on that role if necessary. It shows that Charles concluded that Harry and Meghan had/have no intent to take the responsibilities Harry still had seriously.

Removing Harry from the line of succession would be, however, exceedingly more complicated because, as discussed many times before in different forums, it would require legislation in multiple countries. In fact, as long as the UK continues to share the line of succession to the Crown with (currently) 14 other countries, and there is a requirement to maintain symmetry in the succession in all those countries, any change to the succession law will be time-consuming. As you may recall, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 took approximately 2 years to come into force, mostly because it was held up in Australia where both each of the six Australian states and the federal Parliament had to pass legislation to give effect to the new succession rules, see the complete legislative timeline in the Wikipedia article on the Perth Agreement.

The solution found in the case of the Counsellors of State was, in my opinion, a pragmatic one. Neither Prince Harry nor Prince Andrew lost their eligibility to be appointed Counsellors of State, but the pool of eligible individuals was enlarged (by adding Prince Edward and Princess Anne) so that, in practice, Harry and Andrew would never have to be appointed. That was possible, in this case, because the King does not apparently have to follow the order of succession when he appoints Counsellors of State, as long as the appointed Counsellors are eligible. That would not be the case, however, if a Regent were to be appointed, or in the case of a Demise of the Crown itself.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

To be clear, while I don't agree with the premise that "the British people have no obligation towards the Sussexes" and that they are "private persons", and indeed believe the Sussexes (and others in their position) should stay out of domestic and foreign politics, it is not because "their actions may reflect on the BRF". Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to write a proper response, but I appreciate your thoughtful posts and the thoughtful posts made by Somebody and other posters who have responded to you.

And I thank you, Tatiana Maria, as well as other posters, for your thoughtful responses as well. This conversation has been very interesting and engaging.

I can understand the argument that both the Sussexes and the different British institutions have obligations towards each other, therefore the Sussexes do have to keep those British institutions in mind because the latter are fulfilling their end of the bargain (although I would ask for examples of such). I can understand the argument that neither the Sussexes nor those British institutions owe each other anything and therefore the Sussexes can operate without keeping those institutions in mind in their future endeavors while said institutions continue moving forward and paying no mind to the Sussexes.

I am trying to understand the argument that the Sussexes have obligations to different British institutions and should take that into account in their private endeavors, but said institutions have implicitly or explicitly shown that they have no such obligations towards the Sussexes.

You and others have pointed out that Harry and his children's positions as 5th, 6th, and 7th in the Line of Succession means that they are one tragedy away from inheriting the throne/being required to possibly act as regent, so Harry should care about what he gets involved in with that in mind. For people who believe this but don't believe the British institutions owe the Sussexes anything, if their positions are that significant, shouldn't they be treated like high-ranking members of the BRF then?

Others have pointed out the Harry and Meghan willingly gave up their positions in the BRF to live independent lives, so the different British institutions are no longer responsible for them anymore, and that leaving everything means everything. No half-in, half-out. Well, leaving everything means leaving the ban on politics, large commercial endeavors, interacting with foreign dignitaries that may or may not be friendly with Great Britain, etc. Many will draw the line there and expect the Sussexes to follow the party line on these issues in spite adamantly refusing to support the Sussexes getting anything they gave up when they left. So it's no half-in, half-out when it benefits the Sussexes, but is so when it doesn't?

Many have argued that the Sussexes' actions have had no effect on any of these British institutions, and the latter have move on with their lives. Others have argued that the Sussexes' actions have led to a decrease in trust and amicability towards said institutions. If it's the former, then why should those British institutions care about anything the Sussexes do in their private lives? If it's the latter, why should the Sussexes?

 

[Ghost]

At the end of the day, Harry is the King’s son. No matter the state of their - Sussexes and the BRF - relationship, implications will exist. Who and how much consideration should give to this is complicated, but he will always be Charles’ son.

 

[soapstar]

Much of this article seems to be repeating British media gossip from about 2018/2019. The ‘Duchess Difficult’ moniker was alleged by ‘Palace sources’ to have been used in those years, as were allegations that Meghan emailed people out of hours.

It’s hard to believe imo that US. Staff would be recreating nicknames used by British tabloids up to five years ago. And I don’t believe personally that there are 5AM emails to her employees any more.

The Co-Editor in Chief of the Hollywood Reporter (Maer Roshan) was interviewed about the story. He mentioned how the reporter talked to about a dozen staff members (both recent and past). He also touched on the “Duchess Difficult” moniker.

“Duchess Difficult is a nickname that’s trailed Meghan Markle for quite a few years. What is new is this notion that coming to America, that a lot of those rumors were manufactured by the Palace. And the reporting we did suggests that probably isn’t true. There is still this undercurrent of fear.”

So the actual nickname probably isn’t being used by the US staff, but the sentiments about her behavior remains the same on both sides of the pond. Some of the people the Sussexes employ think she is difficult to work for. Which might explain why they can’t seem to keep staff.

 

[TLLK]

The Co-Editor in Chief of the Hollywood Reporter (Maer Roshan) was interviewed about the story. He mentioned how the reporter talked to about a dozen staff members (both recent and past). He also touched on the “Duchess Difficult” moniker.

“Duchess Difficult is a nickname that’s trailed Meghan Markle for quite a few years. What is new is this notion that coming to America, that a lot of those rumors were manufactured by the Palace. And the reporting we did suggests that probably isn’t true. There is still this undercurrent of fear.”

So the actual nickname probably isn’t being used by the US staff, but the sentiments about her behavior remains the same on both sides of the pond. Some of the people the Sussexes employ think she is difficult to work for. Which might explain why they can’t seem to keep staff.

Thank you for sharing this information about the background for the Hollywood Reporter story. It appears that there were multiple former staff members who were willing to discuss their own experience of working for the couple.

 

[HRHHermione]

The Co-Editor in Chief of the Hollywood Reporter (Maer Roshan) was interviewed about the story. He mentioned how the reporter talked to about a dozen staff members (both recent and past). He also touched on the “Duchess Difficult” moniker.

This is very interesting to me, that he spoke about this. I thought it might be to other members so I went and found the video of the editor speaking about it:

Meghan Markle & Prince Harry: New Report Details Bombshell Claims Of Employees 'Quitting On' Them | Access

A new The Hollywood Reporter article is questioning "why Hollywood keeps quitting on" Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. According to The Hollywood Reporter Co-Editor in Chief Maer Roshan, the magazine's bombshell report investigates the reported mass exodus of employees who worked under the Duke...

www.accessonline.com

It seems like this kicked up again because of Josh Kettler either leaving or being fired, depending on perspective, and that the specific claim they were investigating is whether those rumors about Meghan being horrible to work for were true, and the reporter does believe they were true and that Meghan is the problem, and Harry merely enables her bad behavior to employees.

The Hollywood Reporter is pretty appreciated as a trade magazine, and this serves as a pretty big warning against working for her for those who might consider it, which makes their path forward on commercial ventures even trickier.

 

[Mbruno]

And I thank you, Tatiana Maria, as well as other posters, for your thoughtful responses as well. This conversation has been very interesting and engaging.

I can understand the argument that both the Sussexes and the different British institutions have obligations towards each other, therefore the Sussexes do have to keep those British institutions in mind because the latter are fulfilling their end of the bargain (although I would ask for examples of such). I can understand the argument that neither the Sussexes nor those British institutions owe each other anything and therefore the Sussexes can operate without keeping those institutions in mind in their future endeavors while said institutions continue moving forward and paying no mind to the Sussexes.

I am trying to understand the argument that the Sussexes have obligations to different British institutions and should take that into account in their private endeavors, but said institutions have implicitly or explicitly shown that they have no such obligations towards the Sussexes.

You and others have pointed out that Harry and his children's positions as 5th, 6th, and 7th in the Line of Succession means that they are one tragedy away from inheriting the throne/being required to possibly act as regent, so Harry should care about what he gets involved in with that in mind. For people who believe this but don't believe the British institutions owe the Sussexes anything, if their positions are that significant, shouldn't they be treated like high-ranking members of the BRF then?

I suppose that succeeding to the Crown (as the 5th line) is most likely a remote possibility. The concerns about Harry becoming a Regent are slightly more serious, especially after King Charles III was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening disease, which raised the possibility (God forbid!) that Prince William might become king while Prince George is still a minor.

I am pretty sure, however, that, in the hypothetical scenario where William became King before George had turned 18, Parliament would amend the Regency Acts to designate a prospective alternate Regent to replace Harry if a Regent were ever needed. It was done when Charles was a minor in the early years of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, when the Duke of Edinburgh was designated the prospective regent replacing Princess Margaret, and it could be done again.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

And I thank you, Tatiana Maria, as well as other posters, for your thoughtful responses as well. This conversation has been very interesting and engaging.

I can understand the argument that both the Sussexes and the different British institutions have obligations towards each other, therefore the Sussexes do have to keep those British institutions in mind because the latter are fulfilling their end of the bargain (although I would ask for examples of such). I can understand the argument that neither the Sussexes nor those British institutions owe each other anything and therefore the Sussexes can operate without keeping those institutions in mind in their future endeavors while said institutions continue moving forward and paying no mind to the Sussexes.

I am trying to understand the argument that the Sussexes have obligations to different British institutions and should take that into account in their private endeavors, but said institutions have implicitly or explicitly shown that they have no such obligations towards the Sussexes.

You and others have pointed out that Harry and his children's positions as 5th, 6th, and 7th in the Line of Succession means that they are one tragedy away from inheriting the throne/being required to possibly act as regent, so Harry should care about what he gets involved in with that in mind. For people who believe this but don't believe the British institutions owe the Sussexes anything, if their positions are that significant, shouldn't they be treated like high-ranking members of the BRF then?

Others have pointed out the Harry and Meghan willingly gave up their positions in the BRF to live independent lives, so the different British institutions are no longer responsible for them anymore, and that leaving everything means everything. No half-in, half-out. Well, leaving everything means leaving the ban on politics, large commercial endeavors, interacting with foreign dignitaries that may or may not be friendly with Great Britain, etc. Many will draw the line there and expect the Sussexes to follow the party line on these issues in spite adamantly refusing to support the Sussexes getting anything they gave up when they left. So it's no half-in, half-out when it benefits the Sussexes, but is so when it doesn't?

Many have argued that the Sussexes' actions have had no effect on any of these British institutions, and the latter have move on with their lives. Others have argued that the Sussexes' actions have led to a decrease in trust and amicability towards said institutions. If it's the former, then why should those British institutions care about anything the Sussexes do in their private lives? If it's the latter, why should the Sussexes?

I hear what you’re saying above about the half in half out and leaving everything. IMHO if the Sussexes truly want to leave everything to do their own thing, Harry should renounce his and his children’s place in the line of succession. As discussed upthread, having Parliament etc go through the process would take way too long. Why on earth does he want to be in the LOS as he’s made it very clear how he feels he was mistreated by his family - and he lives in the US, for Pete’s sake ?

I think he would gain some real respect from both the BRF and the British people (and me- lol) by doing this.

And surely he knows that after all that has happened (Oprah, Netflix, Spare, etc), there is no way the public would stand for H & M to be on the throne should a terrible tragedy occur. So truly, it’s just symbolic.

I’m not suggesting he give up his title - no matter what, he will always be the son of the king and the brother of one.

Just my two cents

 

[winifred]

Whatever was done or not done to employees, Harry's own words in Spare are damning.

"In such a climate there was no such thing as constructive criticism. All feedback was seen as an affront, an insult.

"More than once a staff member slumped across their desk and wept. For all this, every bit of it, Willy blamed one person. Meg. He told me so several times and he got cross when I told him he was out of line. He was just repeating the press narrative, spouting fake stories he'd read or been told."

Surely Harry and Meghan must have realised that this was not normal behaviour and that changes had to be made by them, as employers. It wasn't William or the Press reporting that their staff was being reduced to tears by their employers' demands. It happened and Harry admits it.

 

[tommy100]

I find it telling that reports of difficult behaviour have followed then for some time and in different settings.
Initially it was said to be a culture clash between American Meghan and stuffy British courtiers, now its Hollywood execs and the like so there can be no real culture clash there.
Whilst I still think bullying is perhaps not the way to best describe it- the consistent message is of someone who doesn’t work well with others nor who takes direction well.

 

[Curryong]

I feel sympathy towards Harry in this situation. He is obviously in love with a wife who is determined to have her way with everything in her commercial and business life. There dont appear to be the same complaints about rudeness and bullying from staff about him, but it appears to be a no win situation for Harry.