The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[UglyAmerican]

I don't think it's so hard to believe. Some people are just very intense emotionally, and fluctuate rapidly between highs and lows. That includes being positively thrilled with a friend or colleague, and then being absolutely convinced that they're terrible and out to get them, then back again in the space of a day or two, or sometimes a few hours.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

It seems there were a lot of staffers who, rightly or wrongly, really didn't like her. I've wondered for a while how many of those leaks (Kate crying, the tiara drama, etc.) were done by some of those staffers. It wouldn't necessarily have been a larger conspiracy, just individuals who really hated their boss extracting some perceived revenge. Regardless of who's right or wrong in that saga, life's a lot easier when your staff doesn't hate you.

I would agree. Life is easier when your staff doesn’t hate you. Conversely- life is also easier when your boss isn’t making your work life miserable. I just had that conversation last weekend- about how a boss can literally make or break a job. It’s really a two street where hopefully everyone gets on well enough, functions as a team, and respects each other.

Whatever happened- it seems something wasn’t working out, and Meghan and some of her staff were unhappy.

ETA- yes, I could see some of those stories coming from unhappy staffers. People talk. A lot of stories could have gotten spread all over the office over time…..and hit the right- or wrong- set of ears. And also changed somewhat in the re-telling too.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I definitely agree that hugging is inappropriate as it invades someone's personal space and is not conductive for a good working relationship. I just think that it was strange, in a way, to go from being overly friendly and personal to the employer from hell. There probably is a middle ground here somewhere and perhaps the picture painted of Meghan as the Cruella Deville boss is exaggerated.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree again. I don't think it is incongruent that Meghan went from being perceived as overly friendly to allegations that she was difficult employer. The article about Meghan hugging staff was about one incident reported early on and it may reasonably be assumed that she was on her best behavior that day. The allegations that she bullied staff occurred later and over time. I don't think the two reports are necessarily conflicting.

 

[_Heather_]

I agree that the complete flip from overly personal and touchy feely to boss from hell seems wild and I can see why it absolutely leaves people's heads spinning. I also completely agree that hugging employees is a massive violation of personal space and is just not something that is or should be encouraged in a workplace no matter what type of business one is engaged in no matter how close or friendly one might be with their employees. Off the clock and in a private setting, sure, if you're positive that it's welcomed. But never on business time. That said, this complete 180 in temperament, going from overly touchy feely to demanding, rude, and unworkable does seem to fit with the growing rumors and rumblings of a complete change in personality whenever Meghan didn't/doesn't get her way.

Frankly, I can see why both of the personalities described would be incredibly off-putting to staff, especially British staff who are notorious for being unused to and uncomfortable with the "Americanized" ways of hugging, being overly affectionate, etc. in general. I can also speak from personal experience having had a boss that was exactly like the picture that is being painted here. She was overly friendly, hugged employees, dropped off little random gifts and texted us at random times about her dog, etc. Basically she was trying really hard to make friends rather than be our boss and it got very weird. It really was very much like the "love-bombing" you occasionally read about in relationships with people who can flip personalities on a dime. Then, when she was rebuffed or displeased for any reason, she literally became the boss from hell. Bullying was an understatement, she kept files and written records on everyone and included every single little perceived slight or misstep, called people into her office and screamed at them until multiple staff left in tears, left one staffer packing up her office while convinced she was about to be fired and then the next day behaved as if nothing had happened, etc.

All of that to say that if, and I did say if because we don't really know with absolute certainty, that is the kind of personality flip these staffers were dealing with from Meghan, then they have my sympathies because it's hell. We have absolutely no way of knowing for sure at this point, though the reports combined with rumors and with JK's letter to HR, combined with statements from both Meghan and Harry about how welcoming and warm they found everyone to be vs. the racist, unfeeling, neglectful people they now describe them as certainly lends credence, at least in my mind, to a bit of a volatile boss/work environment when you were a part of Harry and Megahn's team.

 

[A-Bik]

So it appears that Meghan may have struck a deal to advertise for alkaline water. I saw it all over social media but I honestly wasn't sure if it was legitimate so I looked up the company myself. The page currently shows that the post has been removed, however, the cached version of the page confirms that they are using her name, image, titles, and a quote. Now, I have no way of knowing if she really is shilling for them or if they're now going to be the subject of a lawsuit for using those things without her knowledge. However, if anyone's interested, here it is (this is the link to the cached page so hopefully you're able to see it). I know nothing about this brand but it does appear that she used to have some sort of a promotion contract with them when she was acting and running her blog.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....an-markle-loves-it/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

They've deleted the post, so obviously it wasn't legit.

Anyway, the UK tabs would have blazed it across their pages, first thing, along with 'kind' write-ups , if it was.

I would add that it's fascinating how every unpleasant rumour about Meghan from the blogosphere, is accepted as fact.

 

[Moran]

I don't think it's so hard to believe. Some people are just very intense emotionally, and fluctuate rapidly between highs and lows. That includes being positively thrilled with a friend or colleague, and then being absolutely convinced that they're terrible and out to get them, then back again in the space of a day or two, or sometimes a few hours.

I have a friend like this. She's yelling at her staff all the time and then apologizing and explaining that it wasn't personal, just something to do with her temper. And doing things for them to apologize. She can never understand why there's such a constant flood of personnel leaving because in her mind, not meaning anything bad should surely overcome the yelling and the things she says.


If I thought she was Evil incarnated, I would have been out of there fifteen years ago. She isn't. She isn't vengeful, petty or whatever. But she's very hard to put up with. She switches moods like I don't know what.

I fully believe some people can be both charming and rather horrible in turns.

 

[ladyjolene]

I have a friend like this. She's yelling at her staff all the time and then apologizing and explaining that it wasn't personal, just something to do with her temper. And doing things for them to apologize. She can never understand why there's such a constant flood of personnel leaving because in her mind, not meaning anything bad should surely overcome the yelling and the things she says.

If I thought she was Evil incarnated, I would have been out of there fifteen years ago. She isn't. She isn't vengeful, petty or whatever. But she's very hard to put up with. She switches moods like I don't know what.

I fully believe some people can be both charming and rather horrible in turns.

Yikes! I wouldn't want to have to work under someone like that. It would be exhausting and turbulent.

 

[Heavs]

We've seen an example of Meghan going in for a hug with someone who was expecting to curtsey and that woman ended up face first in Meghan's chest.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/10/meghan-markle-hug-onstage-one-young-world

Protocol is there so everyone knows what to do and no one gets awkward or embarrassed. This is especially true with a new boss in a work environment because a lot of people may not actually want someone invading their personal space.

Personally I don't find it particularly paradoxical that she could start off "Hi I'm Meghan, give me a hug!" and still be someone who bullies staff if they don't or can't do exactly what she wants when she wants it.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

I don't think it's so hard to believe. Some people are just very intense emotionally, and fluctuate rapidly between highs and lows. That includes being positively thrilled with a friend or colleague, and then being absolutely convinced that they're terrible and out to get them, then back again in the space of a day or two, or sometimes a few hours.

What you, Heather and Moran said makes a lot of sense to me. All of you make great points.

I can totally see how someone could be very friendly one day- and very difficult the next. Some people are very much driven by their emotions in what they say and do. And it’s extreme highs and lows. And very situational. Other people try to mostly park emotions at the door at work and keep it professional.

I don’t want to generalize or stereotype too much, but aren’t a lot of actors/artists known for being a bit dramatic, temperamental, emotionally driven etc? In both good ways and bad.

Meghan does strike me a bit as someone who is very emotionally driven in general. Actually- so does Harry.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I would add that it's fascinating how every unpleasant rumour about Meghan from the blogosphere, is accepted as fact.

I don't think that is true. Some people believe all negative reports about Meghan, while others immediately assume they are not true. I think most people are in teh middle.

 

[ladongas]

I don't think that is true. Some people believe all negative reports about Meghan, while others immediately assume they are not true. I think most people are in teh middle.

Be that as it may, every unconfirmed rumor that is posted here or on the DM, for example, is read, internalized, and repeated over and over. Even when IMO is added, the story, true or not, is given some sort of credence by many readers and repeaters.

Here’s a non-Meghan example: a rumor about an extramarital affair between two neighbors was noted, discussed, and considered without a single bit of proof. I’ve seen it referred to here and in other places within the last week. The minute a rumor is brought forth, regardless of the source, it becomes a part of the story.

Discretion is the better part of valor- if we can resist passing on a juicy rumor until it has been confirmed, that makes us better people.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

So it appears that Meghan may have struck a deal to advertise for alkaline water. I saw it all over social media but I honestly wasn't sure if it was legitimate so I looked up the company myself. The page currently shows that the post has been removed, however, the cached version of the page confirms that they are using her name, image, titles, and a quote. Now, I have no way of knowing if she really is shilling for them or if they're now going to be the subject of a lawsuit for using those things without her knowledge. However, if anyone's interested, here it is (this is the link to the cached page so hopefully you're able to see it). I know nothing about this brand but it does appear that she used to have some sort of a promotion contract with them when she was acting and running her blog.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....an-markle-loves-it/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Oh my! If this is legit, they are using all her titles which seems like a bit of overkill. The quote is not that great, so I’m wondering if this is legit.

 

[A-Bik]

I don't think that is true. Some people believe all negative reports about Meghan, while others immediately assume they are not true. I think most people are in teh middle.

I disagree.

The completely unproven story of tea-throwing appears to be accepted as gospel here.

I suppose it is part of a misinformation campaign that is a full on cottage industry.
No story too outlandish, as long as it serves an agenda.

For example, this contributing writer for the New Yorker was doing a follow up story, from similarly 'strong internet' sources, about Meghan apparently terrorising staff in Canada.
When Meinzer motioned to said source the validity of her claims based on actual accounts and not hearsay, the twitter page conveniently disappeared.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1407755211846959118

https://twitter.com/x/status/1408168324408741891

But on and on it goes I guess.

 

[_Heather_]

Oh my! If this is legit, they are using all her titles which seems like a bit of overkill. The quote is not that great, so I’m wondering if this is legit.

Personally, I think it's likely that she was affiliated with them during her blogging days and now they're trying to capitalize on that and use that past relationship, likely without her knowledge. I'd be a bit surprised if she were doing promos for them now but I guess anything is possible. Since it's already been taken down by the site there's likely been a threat of legal action.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Be that as it may, every unconfirmed rumor that is posted here or on the DM, for example, is read, internalized, and repeated over and over. Even when IMO is added, the story, true or not, is given some sort of credence by many readers and repeaters.

Here’s a non-Meghan example: a rumor about an extramarital affair between two neighbors was noted, discussed, and considered without a single bit of proof. I’ve seen it referred to here and in other places within the last week. The minute a rumor is brought forth, regardless of the source, it becomes a part of the story.

Discretion is the better part of valor- if we can resist passing on a juicy rumor until it has been confirmed, that makes us better people.

I hear you but it depends on the context. if there was a rumor that Harry and Meghan made a large charitable contribution but was never confirmed by Harry and Meghan, should we refrain from discussing it? When would we consider a rumor confirmed? The royal family rarely responds to any reports, regardless of whether they are true. Meghan claims that Kate made her cry but I don't think that settles the matter.

In this case, Heather saw a report and made an effort to confirm whether it was true. The post had been removed but there is an archive. The problem is we don't know whether it was sanctioned by Harry and Meghan or not - I strongly suspect not. But i think Heather handled the question very responsibly.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I disagree.

The completely unproven story of tea-throwing appears to be accepted as gospel here.

I suppose it is part of a misinformation that is a full on cottage industry.
No story too outlandish, as long as it serves an agenda.

For example, this contributing writer for the New Yorker was doing a follow up story, from similarly 'strong internet' sources, about Meghan apparently terrorising staff in Canada.
When Meinzer motioned to said source the validity of her claims based on actual accounts and not hearsay, the twitter page conveniently disappeared.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1407755211846959118

https://twitter.com/x/status/1408168324408741891

But on and on it goes I guess.

I don't think most people accept the tea throwing incident as gospel. In my post, I specifically stated "if true", the incident was unacceptable. I stand by that. Unless someone on this board is connected to the royal family in some way, none of us knows for sure what is true and what isn't. Each poster has their own point of view, which is what I find interesting about the board.

 

[Somebody]

It might have been but to be fair, William and Harry were never perceived as something quite equal to their counterparts from the past. A good deal of their popularity came from being "Diana's boys" and the BP didn't think it needed or proper to give heavier hints that while Diana, of course, was an important part of their past, their future would be modeled after the RF model. The media was eager to embrace the Diana boys narrative. Andrew was never proclaimed to be less important than Charles because, frankly, there was no need. But the press presented William and Harry as equal for years and the BP never corrected this narrative. I find it rather possible that Harry thought Andrew's situation wasn't *quite* like his own - the fact he was usually included in William and Kate's projects, the speed with which things were spun in action for Meghan, the Fab Four narrative didn't exactly support the Harry as Andrew and Margaret's position in the past thesis.

True, they really tried to give Harry a meaningful position within the system; which is why there was a specific role crafted first for Harry and later to include Meghan for them as Commonwealth ambassadors. A role they clearly embraced at first. However, apparently that wasn't sufficient for them.

Thinking they would be equal while Harry knew all of his life that William would one day be king (i.e., head of state) and he would not, would be taking things way too far - and suggesting an ignorance that is insulting to both of them.

 

[_Heather_]

I would add that it's fascinating how every unpleasant rumour about Meghan from the blogosphere, is accepted as fact.

I would venture to guess that if this were a rumor that was positive about Meghan, the tune might change and you would expect us to swallow it hook, line, and sinker with no verification whatsoever.

What we all need to remember is that rumor is rumor whether it's positive or negative. I attempted to independently verify whether or not this rumor was true and said as much in my post. The fact that this particular rumor happens to be negative or, at the least neutral (they're private citizens, they can shill for whatever products they want), means nothing. But let's be cautious about claiming that all negative rumors are accepted as gospel when you'd be fine with them being accepted as gospel as long as they're positive. Rumors are rumors and should be treated as such regardless of the positive or negative spin.

 

[Somebody]

I disagree.

The completely unproven story of tea-throwing appears to be accepted as gospel here.

I suppose it is part of a misinformation that is a full on cottage industry.
No story too outlandish, as long as it serves an agenda.

For example, this contributing writer for the New Yorker was doing a follow up story, from similarly 'strong internet' sources, about Meghan apparently terrorising staff in Canada.
When Meinzer motioned to said source the validity of her claims based on actual accounts and not hearsay, the twitter page conveniently disappeared.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1407755211846959118

https://twitter.com/x/status/1408168324408741891

But on and on it goes I guess.

Could you please enlighten me on which story about 'tea-throwing' we are treating as gospel here. I have no idea what story you are talking about, so hard to treat it as gospel

 

[_Heather_]

Could you please enlighten me on which story about 'tea-throwing' we are treating as gospel here. I have no idea what story you are talking about, so hard to treat it as gospel

I'm not 100% positive but I believe the poster is referring to the story of Meghan throwing a cup of hot tea at a staffer in the Governor General's residence in Australia or New Zealand while they were on tour.

 

[Osipi]

I hear you but it depends on the context. if there was a rumor that Harry and Meghan made a large charitable contribution but was never confirmed by Harry and Meghan, should we refrain from discussing it? When would we consider a rumor confirmed? The royal family rarely responds to any reports, regardless of whether they are true. Meghan claims that Kate made her cry but I don't think that settles the matter.

In this case, Heather saw a report and made an effort to confirm whether it was true. The post had been removed but there is an archive. The problem is we don't know whether it was sanctioned by Harry and Meghan or not - I strongly suspect not. But i think Heather handled the question very responsibly.

I strongly suspect it wasn't sanctioned by Harry and Meghan too. My gut feeling says that putting it out there as an ad that affiliated the Sussexes with the drink was a move the company saw would get attention to their products and then they'd claim an "ooops" and remove it.

Kind of sneaky and underhand but I'll bet my last jelly roll it has worked.

 

[Sandy345]

I don't think most people accept the tea throwing incident as gospel. In my post, I specifically stated "if true", the incident was unacceptable. I stand by that. Unless someone on this board is connected to the royal family in some way, none of us knows for sure what is true and what isn't. Each poster has their own point of view, which is what I find interesting about the board.

I don't believe it. Because it would have been a cause for legal action which never happened.

 

[A-Bik]

I don't believe it. Because it would have been a cause for legal action which never happened.

More than legal action.
That would actually be criminal assault, thus couldn't be protected by an NDA.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I don't believe it. Because it would have been a cause for legal action which never happened.

I don't necessarily believe it, either. But I'm not sure someone throwing tea and/or a teacup at another person, without (I'm assuming) hitting them or causing injury, is grounds for any kind of legal action. And even if it the teacup-dodger had some kind of legal options, many people would rather keep their job and keep their name out of the papers.

A large part of the reason people are so quick to believe this stuff is Meghan's demonstrated willingness to file legal complaints over all sorts of petty things that no one in their right mind would think were important enough to sue over. The problem with that approach is that when a damaging story comes out and there's no legal complaint filed, people will assume it must be true.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I don't believe it. Because it would have been a cause for legal action which never happened.

I have never believed this story about Meghan.

But let's be real with ourselves, there have been many stories over the decades about members of the Royal Family that could be "cause for legal action" and never resulted in any. This is hardly a reason to believe a story isn't true.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

Deleted post.

 

[ladongas]

This “tea rumor” is from the autumn of 2018. And yet here it is, rearing it’s ugly head once again.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

The Catherine crying story is from the spring of 2018. And yet there it was in the Oprah interview, rearing its ugly head once again.

 

[vulture]

It is possible for a boss to hug you at one point, and insult you and bully you later. I’ve experienced these two extremes from people in both business life and personal life. There are people who exist who seem like two different people living in one body. It’s extremely confusing to have someone like this in your life, and it can cause a lot of trauma. I know, from having been in therapy from it. I don’t know enough about the specific people that are the subject of this discussion to claim this is the case here - I just claim that it’s possible.

 

[kalnel]

I have to wonder if some of these stories have "kernels of truth" in them that get blown out of proportion in order to fit either pro- or negative-Meghan stories.

For instance, I remember reading that the staff felt "bullied" because she fired off emails at 5 AM. I can easily imagine if Meghan is an early morning person that she got a jump on her email long before office hours, which seems perfectly reasonable. The question would be whether the emails said, "When you get into work later, please set up a meeting..." or "I want avocado toast delivered on a silver platter in the next 20 minutes or you're fired!"

Same with the "tea throwing." Was it a case where Meghan grabbed a teacup too hard -- maybe in anger, but maybe not -- splashing some tea? Or did she have a Joan Crawford-level meltdown and throw a cup of tea at someone?

Any minor incident can become "proof" that she's horrible or wonderful.