Meghan Markle Reportedly Shouted at a Member of Kate Middleton's Staff, Prompting the Fab Four's Split

Saint Kate.

She should receive an honor from the Pope, for all her good deeds.

*PUKE*

I love the word IMPERIOUS.

Hehe. It always reminds me of Prince George, and terror that will ensue after he begins his reign.

This is exhausting.

I’m going to start selling Markle “exclusives” to the media. Obviously anyone can and it appears to be quite lucrative.

Klan Granny thread.

Ignore and block.

Indeed, R4.

I love how none of these "palace insider" sources can ever be named.

They can accuse Meghan of anything, and get away with it.

And this twat can write a book about her, and make millions, by spreading lies about her.

FUCK YOU RACIST STRAIGHT CUNTS

Markle thought her shit didn't stink from the very start.

Markle is such a trashy cunt.

So they were kicked out of Kensington?

Hahahahaha

It was reported before. It has nothing to do with sanctitude, it’s an employer’s basic responsibility to provide their employees with a safe workplace. Meghan’s been consistently awful to people who worked for her throughout her stint in the BRF (exhibit 1: Melissa Touabti). Even TQ had to tell MM not to yell at people during the preparations for the wedding.

[quote]And this twat can write a book about her, and make millions, by spreading lies about her.

If you had bothered to read the original article excerpting from the book you might have discovered that the book isn't about Markle at all In fact, she's a miniscule part.

The topic of the book is Kensington Palace residents with former servants providing details. A lot about Margaret and Snowdon's fights (they tried to one up each other by sleeping with each other's conquests); Diana's lover found half naked hiding behind a potted plant, how Diana would roam all over Kensington looking for new phones so she could stalk her lover, in addition to the Walses numerous rows.

I love how some low information people appoint themselves experts and arbiters of everything under the sun.

Now, shoo along and do some actual reading.

You are most welcome.

Oh, R6. Princess Michael of Kent, a true racist in every sense of the word, is a KP resident. I'm sure the book has some gossip about her, too. Maybe the book might reveal info about her trysts with her Russian lover (he was assassinated, BTW). I have a sneaking suspicion you would not level criticism at the author or "unamed sources" under these circumstances.

[quote] If you had bothered to read the original article excerpting from the book you might have discovered that the book isn't about Markle at all In fact, she's a miniscule part.

The minuscule part they are hoping will sell the book.

She’s so low class, I just can’t get over it.

The BRF is dead.

R13 - If Markle hadn't made such a to do about herself, she wouldn't be used to sell books.

[quote] She’s so low class, I just can’t get over it. The BRF is dead.

When people harp on this idea of “class”’and attach it to the British Royal Family. It really makes me wonder if these people have ever picked up a history book and discovered how these people gained and maintained these ridiculous titles.

Meghan is a upward mobile woman with a big chip on her shoulder. I feel bad Harry was led by his balls out of his own country and has given up so much for so little. They will eventually divorce and Harry will be lost for a long while. Never trust an actress, they know how to lie about so much.

Meghan farted. Saint Kate was distraught. Meghan obviously stole Charlotte's tikka masala. Meghan denied it but pussy whipped Harry had her back. This was the beginning of the end for the fab four.

After all these articles everybody I know even the staunch royalists now believe that Brf family members are involved with the hit campaign against Meghan.

To what end, r19?

To get them to divorce?

Meghan is a typical, arrogant American cunt. The royals are well rid of her. But poor Harry...…..she's got him jumping through hoops of fire.

And Prince Andrew is a typical arrogant Brit. Thinks he is above the law and can pal around with a pedophile and partake of non consensual sex with underage sex trafficking victims.

Harry may have wanted to "step back" from the royal family and some of his duties, but in all likelihood, he didn't want anything as drastic as ending up as a man without a country with nothing to do. Harry is essentially sidelined under the threat of his wife leaving him and his child being taken away if he doesn't agree to all of this colossally expensive and alienating mess.

Sometimes servants need to be chastised. In earlier years, the British monarchs would have disobedient servants flogged or executed

I can see Harry hailing off and slapping her.

Then he’s really finished.

*hauling off

Will H&M be invited to any more family functions, like Christmas?

When do I get to see my cousins?

[quote] Harry may have wanted to "step back" from the royal family and some of his duties, but in all likelihood, he didn't want anything as drastic as ending up as a man without a country with nothing to do.

“In all likelihood” you haven’t a clue what Harry does or doesn’t want. He’s a stranger whom you’ve seen on tv and in magazines. “In all likelihood”, you have no insight to provide here.

It was in the paper that H&M had accepted an invitation from the Queen to visit Balmoral this summer with Archie. That was pre-Covid so who knows now?

I just read that H&M have their own tell-all book coming out. Whatever. Try as hard as they might, they will never beat the Crown.

R24 owns an antique knout and is itching to use it!

Archie: don't ever bring me back to those ghastly racist creeps, especially Auntie Michael.

Who would the other invitees on Sussex week be? The York girls? I'm not sure who else would accept knowing the potential for extreme awkwardness.

What is Will's big breasted lover up to?

Landscaping her rosebush

I'm thinking it's got to be the Wessexes or no one, R33.

And picking turnips from her lovely garden.

I cant imagine Kate and probably Will agreeing to be on the same room with them ever again.

R19, it’s much more likely that once Meghan sued the Daily Mail, that paper and the rest of the tabs decided that they would never let up, that it would be all negative all the time. That was totally predictable.

No way Meghan is going up to Balmoral when they’re in dire straits and have nothing to brag about. There will be a convenient reason they can’t come, something to do with their potato baby.

It's not the royals themselves ratting them out, it's staff.

If Meghan and Harry think they can sit over here and publish a tell-all to attack the Royals and they won't get their asses kicked because they didn't attack the Queen and Prince Philip, they should think harder.

Charles still isn't speaking to them.

I don't think they even wished Princess Charlotte a happy birthday this weekend.

R40 Can you explain the potato baby comment. Genuine question. No snark.

Charles isn’t speaking to them?

I did not know that.

[quote] [R19], it’s much more likely that once Meghan sued the Daily Mail, that paper and the rest of the tabs decided that they would never let up, that it would be all negative all the time. That was totally predictable.

The money that the negative stories earn is what ensures their publication. When they stop selling. Publication will cease.

The baby looks like a potato.

All caught up?

R42 "Potato baby" means time to block this poster.

R41 How do you know that Charles isn't speaking to them. Unless you are family that is just supposition. It is all about a word I hate but it is apt - Optics. A lot of people think that Brf members were a part of the hit articles and it didn't help that they got worse whenever Andrew got himself in the shit. I have listened to to many a conversation from your average Joe on this.

R47 These threads on Markle are full of posters who imagine they have secret insight into the personalities, desires, goals and plans of certain members of the BRF.

These posters are as deranged as the posters on The Haven/Haters Know Nothing threads, in which nutty middle aged fraus propagated the theory that Kristin Steward and Robert Pattison were secretly married, had 2 children and traveled around LA in secret underground tunnels.

R48 I remember those. There has been some cross over between cumberbatches crazy ladies and Meghan's detractors. Hence the fake baby with batteries and the rent a baby scenarios.

Whatever, R47. Who really gives a fuck what Average Joe thinks about this? And why on earth are you eavesdropping on so many people?

I read in the British papers that Charles is still not speaking with them. Did the papers lie? Possibly. I have no way of knowing that.

Supposedly, he is deeply hurt and angry about their past behavior, Megxit, their many lies to him and the family, etc. He is also quite upset (again, this is what I read in the papers) about their on-going behavior, stepping on his and Camilla's speeches/trips and so forth, and hasn't spoken to them in months. Can't say I blame him.

I read Charles tried to be extra woke when she came on the scene and bought her act hook, line, and sinker.

Is Harry low testosterone or have a low sexual appetite?

I get a bi vibe from him.

R49 Yes I remember when DL was severely infested with the Markle loonies. They do creep back in threads like this. I have about half of the posters here blocked. They lack wit and humor and are just filled with a strange rage. I don't understand why they don't rage at Prince Andrew, who preyed on victims of sex trafficking. No, it is al directed at Markle, which does raise interesting questions about these posters.

R47 Exactly my point. You read in the papers, Supposedly Charles is hurt. Then these suppositions are treated as fact. They aren't facts. And they are all taylored to make Meghan and Harry look bad and the other Brf members good. It was too obvious. That's why it is getting talked about so much. And the average Joes of which I am one are the ones that get a vote in whether to stay a part of the commonwealth. It is foolish to ignore this fact.

R29. I keep up. I know.

R49 That's it. The rage. It is what makes some of these threads read and feel different.

Yep, there are some obsessive nasty bitches who hate Meghan Markle and Harry Wales.

And then there are the rest of us who just think she's a gold-digging cunt and enjoy the show.

Yes R56. The rage of the Markle loonies reminds me of photos of Trump rallies, where these people are so full of hate and rage at others different from them.

[quote] I read in the British papers that Charles is still not speaking with them. Did the papers lie?

Oh, no. "The papers" would never, never lie. They always tell the truth.

Especially the Daily Fail. Such a credible publication.

*rolling my eyes to the back of my head*

Yes, yes, yes, we're all very bad and very well dressed and terribly evil. Now, where's the tea?

The Markle loonies don't engage in "pointless bitchery". Nothing beats DLers for their wit and cutting sarcasm. Alas, the loonies are neither witty nor sarcastic. They are simply full of blind rage.

Yeah, I don't know who these freaks are, R60, but they'll leave eventually.

I'm back after months away and I see the Sugars are still pressed as Hell. If H&M were successfull you wouldn't be here whining all day long.

As for OP, I'm not surprised Meghan shouted at Kate's staff. The "mole" said she was insecure and was overcompensating, no wonder she was a nightmare. She's just not strong enough to live at KP without losing her mind.

R40, it’s one of the (only) perks of having a baby: they provide all sorts of excuses from social obligations. “We can’t fly, Archie has an ear infection.” would be perfect.

If you don’t want to see old people, you say he’s got a fever and you’re not sure what it is, but we don’t want to make you sick.

Etc.

[quote]Is Harry low testosterone or have a low sexual appetite?

Come on. A career drunk at a mere 37 is going to have biological issues unrelated to testosterone.

He's always going to be Limp Dicked Harry because he doesn't know when to stop. Or, even worse, his performance is completely encumbered after just a few. It doesn't take a career alcoholic in late middle age to become impotent from booze. This might be one point of respite for Markle, though she probably has to deal with pawing/fumbling before hr fails to penetrate.

^a career alcoholic in EARLY middle age

It’s said here so often, but you can tell everything about a person by the way they treat service people and staff.

Even from a cynical and tactical standpoint, it’s to your advantage. Why inspire spite when you can inspire loyalty?

[quote]Who really gives a fuck what Average Joe thinks about this?

I hate to break it to you, but you're one of the Average Joes. And this is a gossip board, where everyday people talk about gossip.

[quote]I read in the British papers that Charles is still not speaking with them. Did the papers lie? Possibly. I have no way of knowing that.

But you assume it's true and go from there. Sure, that happens all the time on gossip boards, but usually you get a decent discussion of why it's true or why it isn't. Someone brings up a confirmed news story that seems to bolster the gossip claim, for example, or there's something on IG or an old photo that clarifies things. With Meghan and Harry, it's just "she's history's greatest monster and he's an emasculated retard so of course it's true, and if you don't hate them both we'll call you a bunch of weird nicknames that are kind of embarrassing but we pretend are super cool."

I get that you like that kind of thing, but on some level you surely understand that most people think it's juvenile.

Ask yourself this: What if Harry never showed any interest in Meghan and Prince Andrew was gaga for her? Social climbing Meghan would have married him in a heartbeat. Any member of the royal family would have been fine her her as long as she got fame and recognition out of it. She is beyond transparent.

Several things make me question this story: one, that there's an extensive and proven history of insiders and staff lying about what goes on behind the scenes; two, that the royal family cast Harry and Meghan in the role of deflectors and scapegoats and as such we never know what negative things are true and what are spin; and three, that this is just a riff on the biggest anti Meghan story, the one that gets the haters into a huge raving froth.

On top of that, it's impossible for me to believe that this crop of royals don't have cranky, demanding or boorish members among them already. Philip never shouted at staff? Andrew never behaved inappropriately around staff? Princess Michael of Kent was never a diva to an assistant? Princess Margaret never yelled at anyone? Come on now.

Re MM shouting at Kate's staff - I recall it was the bridesmaid dress fitting where she made Kate cry. Charlotte was acting up and MM shouted at the nanny Maria to get her under control. The nanny was very, very offended because her professionalism had never been challenged in the 5 years she had worked for the Cambridges.

Meghan's mistreatment of staff has been obliquely referred to by Royal correspondents before. Here, Richard Palmer specifically mentions that the Queen herself "found their behaviour toward staff and others frustrating and disappointing."

Harry grew up with staff and had never been accused of mistreating them before in his entire life, so the implication is that it was Meghan;s treatment of staff and others that was at issue.

No surprise, if this is the case, that they were moved out of Kensington Palace after mistreating staff. Treating staff well is hugely important to the Queen, and book after book about her mentions this.

Meghan really fucked up if she thought it was ok to take out her egotistical, low-rent diva fury on the Royal family's staff. Staff are not 'nobodies', they are regarded very highly by the BRF and to mistreat them is a sure way to piss off the family - and especially the Queen.

[quote]it's impossible for me to believe that this crop of royals don't have cranky, demanding or boorish members among them already. Philip never shouted at staff? Andrew never behaved inappropriately around staff? Princess Michael of Kent was never a diva to an assistant? Princess Margaret never yelled at anyone?

Actually, yes to all of those, except Philip who was voted best-liked Royal by staff. He was always cheerful and decent with them, apparently. Philip attended his long-time chauffeur's funeral. Who can say that about the Queen's consort?

Andrew's cavalier attitude with staff and attendants has been very well documented, including a derisive shout down at a least one superiorly educated courtier. Charles actually had to intervene and demand that Andrew apologize. Then there was the time an attendant didn't open a hate fast enough do Andy just barrelled his Range Rover thru, causing considerable damage.

Margaret would get back after an evening of drinking, carousing, and fucking and checked the televisions in her KP household to see if the tubes were still warm. She could not abide her maids slacking off and watching TV in the evening while she was out and about.

And, well, what can one say about a bitch who proudly wears Blackamoor slave brooch to the engagement party of a new African American family member? Does it make you feel better to know that HM doesn't like her or her obvious imperiousness, referring to her as "Our Val" alluding not necessarily to her estranged father's Nazi ties as much as her own haughtiness in the face of not just adversity, but everything.

So, again, I beseech you to read about history before you presume its parts.

Thank you.

^attendant didn't open a *GATE fast enough

[quote]there's an extensive and proven history of insiders and staff lying about what goes on behind the scenes

Please tell us more about these people, but exclude the shifty Paul Burrell. We already know about him.

Why would they lie if they're anonymous sources? That's dumb.

[quote] Why would they lie if they're anonymous sources? That's dumb.

It’s called money. You may be familiar with it. People sell stories or the tabloids simply make them up. Were you unaware of this phenomenon. It’s not really new.

Aww, you can’t blame Meghan. She’s just doing what all the other royals do!

Treating other humans with respect is so... common, really.

R77 I'm really not convinced. Maybe if there's only 1 source, but it seems several sources spoke about Meghan's behind the scene behavior.

[quote] [R77] I'm really not convinced. Maybe if there's only 1 source, but it seems several sources spoke about Meghan's behind the scene behavior.

Yes it must be impossible for the tabloids to all publish the same fake stories.

R80, well, given her passion for honesty and integrity, she’ll just sue the tabloids who are lying about her.

I cannot for the life of me, imagine Meghan yelling at BRF staff in front of the queen.

No way.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Maybe Meghan will "set the record straight" on this in her new book.

Yes, R84. Duchess Sussex will set HM QEII straight about her modern monarchial duties as only a Northwestern University communications and theater graduate can amongst our modern times! Especially having boasted a difficult diplomatic posting in Argentina one EXCITING summer!

But no worries whatsoever. Meg will use her "connections" there (did she mention her internship in Buenos Aires involved running the ENTIRE press office like a "modern day" Evita who doesn't have answer to Juan or any goddamn fucker and made it the MOST SUCCESSFUL DIPLOMATIC PRESS OFFICE ever known to mankind which was actually organized and run by Duchess Meghan who achieved a perfect score on the incredibly hard foreign service exam that HENRY KISSINGER himself said. "Only genius passes."

Fortunately, the delicate and "diplomatic" Duchess set HM the Queen straight about what any 94 needs to set her eyes on during her "waning years" - A drool pan and devoted Sandringham attendant with a nice syringe.

[quote]And this twat can write a book about her, and make millions, by spreading lies about her.

How do you know they're lies, r6? Something obviously went badly wrong with Markle's relationship with the royal family and in her commitment to her role as a royal.

No, we don't, r19.

R22, can you actually give the ages of the young women with whom Andrew was allegedly having "underage" sex? I think you'll find there was nothing underage about them.

This new tactic of the Megstans to say "how do you know?" about every story published in the British tabloids is very weak. Are they actually trying to deny that there are problems in relations between Markle and the royal family or that Markle didn't understand or didn't want to apply the behaviour that befits her position as the "royal" she likes to remind everyone she apparently is?

One wonders why, then, Markle is so intent on "setting the record straight" and wants everyone to know that she felt trapped in the royal family but now she's found freedom, although she still wants to proclaim herself a royal and not just any old royal, but the one who's going to "modernise" the British royal family, direct from LA.

[quote] This new tactic of the Megstans to say "how do you know?" about every story published in the British tabloids is very weak.

The fact that it's coming from the "British tabloids" should automatically make anyone question the veracity of the stories they publish.

It's not a tactic. It's actually a very sound practice.

R89 - Do you think the Daily Mail would print a patently false story about her when they're embroiled in a legal case with the Sussexes?

Oddly enough, MM has yet to seriously charge the Daily Mail with lying. She has asserted that the tab mis-described certain renovations made to Frogmore Cottage, but that’s about it. You’d think if the paper was routinely manufacturing stories, we’d hear chapter and verse about it.

[quote] [R89] - Do you think the Daily Mail would print a patently false story

The Daily Mail (a.k.a. Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan, Crazy Mail, and so on) is a reactionary right-wing tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values" middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the second-worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's The Sun is worse). The Mail has been so consistently bad that Orwell called them out in Homage to Catalonia for supporting Franco. The Mail has also infamously supported Oswald Mosley and fascism. The Daily Mail is to the UK what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. Like the Daily Express, it tries to appear more upmarket and respectable than the red-top British tabloids, though it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities (focusing on Muslims), and willfully deceiving and lying.

Much of its content is designed to trigger readers' limbic systems, so articles generate strong emotions of hate, fear, anger, sadness, disgust, and occasionally happiness (usually because a white middle-class person has done something nice, or kittens). Like trout in a fish farm pond, readers wait for the Daily Mail to fling the next story to them about ne'er-do-wells smirking, scruffy women in tracksuits smoking outside court (where they face charges of drunken assault or benefit fraud), brown people and assorted foreigners doing the things that they do, lefties campaigning about something, or working class people enjoying themselves in a non-approved way. Then the readership erupts into a foaming fury that quickly subsides as they wait for the next story. But the fury doesn't completely subside; it leaves a residual anger that simmers in the background and requires another trigger story to allow it to boil over once more.

Overall, we rate Daily Mail Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor sourcing of information.

In review, the Daily Mail tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wordings such as “Woman, 63, ‘becomes PREGNANT in the mouth’ with baby squid after eating calamari”, which is a misleading headline. In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an ‘unreliable’ source. When it comes to sourcing information they use minimal hyperlinked sourcing as well as sourcing to themselves. In general, most stories favor the right, however the Daily Mail will report either side if the story is sensational enough.

A factual search reveals that the Daily Mail has a poor track record with fact checkers.

Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail as an 'unreliable source'

The Mirror, the Mail's arch-rival, printed the same story....

Not only did the Labourite Mirror publish the story, Yahoo news published the story 3 weeks ago:

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, you should always read it with a pinch of salt. But that can be said about every fucking newspaper on earth.

Meghan's Stans also believe all the leaks about the Middletons are true, that Carole controls the press and KP because she's some evil genius, so all is fair I suppose.

More seriously, I think they publish distorted truth that's why Meghan can bitch and whine all she wants, there's always a grain of truth in their stories. It's up to you to try and make your opinion about what is true and what is distorted.

And Meghan's PR itself is not above leaking to tabloids when it suits them. Remember all her PR before the wedding when she was the most adored in the family, how she would change the Monarchy just being who she is, yadda, yadda, yadda. It came from her.

In this sense, she's like Diana, she loves the press when it praises her. Same goes for Harry who doesn't get that his People's Prince image come from the tabloids. Now he doesn't understand why the same tabloids don't kiss his ass anymore and that hurts.

The DM has the knives out for real now, with the article about the ex-servant's book and the new article about the media people who slated MM. I cannot wait for the exposé of her yachting past and YouPorn masturbation video.

Lol, R99 as if someone as self-conscious as Meghan would do porn and yachting.

Didn't you read it? Even before Harry she acted like she was a fucking A-list Star, A-lister don't masturbate for Youporn.

R110, perhaps you don't know, but Harry's former best friend Tom Inskip was the one who introduced Harry to MM; he had used her yachting services and thought Harry wanted the same. Poor Skippy was subsequently banned from the Sussex circle, and not even at the wedding.

Two people on DL claim to have seen the YouPorn video. There's also supposed to be a salad tossing video out there.

We'll just have to wait and see!

^^ R100 not R110

R101 We still don't know how they met. I think there's something fishy here but no reason to believe Skippy introduced them.

I think it's more like they had an open relationship, Meghan keeping her Chef and Harry banging models on the side.

I saw the porn video (need to bleach my eyes), the actress looks like her but after many minutes watching it (ugh) it's not her. The body is too good to be hers.

R103, I think MM became diva when she could become a diva. The slutty suitcase girl pics and the hamburger grilling video show a different side. There's also her request to be introduced to rich, famous Brits.

The story of MM being an extra diva has low-rent C-list Los Angeles actress having her first photoshoot in New York all over it. Her type always overdo it, thinking that's how A-list people behave in New York (the total opposite of that is generally how the NY A-list actors behave).

Just look at her NY baby shower and how she preened and posed during that debacle if you have any doubts on that score.

I've read several biographies on the various members of the Royal family. One thing that has always been glaringly obvious is that all their various staff members are snotty, petty, back stabbing tattletales who think they're better than others because they work for the Royals. They engage in constant in-fighting with other staff members in their attempts to be seen as higher up and more powerful. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the staff member Meghan yelled at didn't deserve to be yelled at. I can just see some of those pompous nobodies acting as if they were doing the little American octoroon a favor by deigning to listen to anything she had to say. Underneath all their renowned reserve, some Brits are some of the most racist people on the planet to this day.

Whatever, R106, you don't get to yell at someone else's nanny about the way she's doing her job.

r106 has all her 'justifications' for workplace abuse of household staff lined up nicely, I see.

R108 has all her 'justifications' for her insane hatred, and jealousy of Harry & Meghan lined up nicely, I see.

r109 has all her justifications for her previous justifications for her Goddess Meghan's creation of an abusive workplace lined up nicely, I see.

It was a member of Kate's staff. If she had a problem with him/her she should have spoke to Kate and let her deal with it.

Plus the staff can speak behind your back but if any of them was disrespectful of a Royal or a Royal spouse they would be fired in the day. It's basically their job to kiss Royal asses.

But obviously this person was just rude to Meghan because he or she couldn't hide how racist he or she was for 5 minutes.

'Obviously this person was racist...'

"Obviously"?

Usually 'obvious' means 'evident proof'.

Any evident proof of your statement, r111?

No?

Thought not.

Poor R110. No matter how much she hates Harry & Meghan it just galls her to know that they will ALWAYS be richer and have far better lives that she could ever even imagine . Then envy is palpable.

R113 Judging people by their bank account says a lot about you.

You're an asshole and probably voted for Trump or your local condidate equivalent.

Of course Meghan mistreats her staff. Just look at the turnover in staff she had. If people loved working for her they wouldn't all leave.

And whatever you may say about the tabloids, she's not suing for slander or libel. If they demonstrably printed something false about her why isn't she suing over that?

The tabloids exaggerate - e.g. Meghan may have been rude towards a member of Kate's staff and raised her voice and that got turned into "shouted at" - but it's very unlikely that they totally fabricate things and much of what they say turns out to have been if not true then completely plausible.

As for the idiot going on about the member of staff being racist, this is so dumb. Do you really think there are people so imbued by hatred for anyone with a slightly darker shade of skin that even if they were a servant to a royal, and hence highly trained and very used to knowing their place, they would be so unable to control their racist hatred that they would make racist remarks to another royal?

The other daft thing about the Megstans is that they always deride the royal family and the idea of royalty, yet they are the ones who are always rushing to remind us that Meghan is a Duchess, or that royal staff have to be respectful to a Royal (with a capital R) or a Royal spouse otherwise thay would be fired straight away and their job to kiss Royal asses, or that Meghan and Harry have millions in the bank.

If the Daily Fail article is to be believed, the tea is not about Meghan yelling at staff but the yelling being the reason why the Fab4 had their fallout.

And I totally believe Meghan can yell at people if she's pissed enough and Kate being territorial enough to be pissed it happened to one of her staff member. The Camb staff is loyal and don't leak about them, they want to keep it this way.

R114, still grasping for straws aren't you shug. Face it, you're a loser who thinks everyone better off than you is evil.

R118 Not everybody kiss rich people asses.

Most rich people are rich because they're assholes, you don't get rich because you have a good heart or care about your community.

There are few good apples, but most of these people are just greedy pieces of shit.

I don't think that was the only part of it R117. Harry was supposedly pissed when Will suggested that perhaps they were moving a bit too fast. Having not even lived in the same country when they got engaged and all. And then Harry was reportedly pissed that Will and Kate weren't sufficiently welcoming to Meghan.

Remember, at the time all of this was happening Kate was pregnant with Louis and she has a very difficult time with her pregnancies. Louis was only a few weeks old when Harry and Meghan got married so when the incident with the nanny and Charlotte took place Kate was either pregnant or had just given birth and was likely a hormonal mess. Oh, and it later came out that Kate's brother was dealing with serious depression at the time and Kate was attending therapy session with him as support.

But as always it's always supposed to be all about Harry's needs and neither of them seemed to be considering that perhaps Meghan wasn't Will and Kate's top priority at the time.

You obviously don't know many wealthy people do you R119.

R121 I've worked for them, so yeah I know them enough for a lifetime.

The New York Times plays on reader emotions the same way the Daily Mail does.

The DailyMail headlines Donald Trump’s foibles “above the fold” every day (or at least five out of seven). They are critical of Trump and his administration.

The DailyMail gets the best photos and reports crime in detail the US media doesn’t.

It’s a tabloid I consume with a grain of salt, but it’s not all “Bat Boy Marries Elvis”

The Daily Fail is doing a good work with the Corona virus pandemic, IMO it's because older, not highly educated people are their readers and they want to keep them alive. But that's just my theory.

The Telegraph is the real Tory ass-kisser, not the DF whose readers are poorer and not part of the "elite".

Why is it so hard to believe that some members of the BRF and their senior staff did not like MM and did not like the idea of her joining their family business and representing them? Her American brand of phoniness and manipulativeness, plus her left wing ideology, outspokenness, and lack of deference could easily be off-putting, quite aside from her ethnic and class background.

I know I wouldn't be to happy if my brother wanted to marry her. Family holidays would be an ordeal.

No one is surprised some BRF members or the staff didn't like her. Just seeing their faces at the Commonwealth service it's obvious they despise her.

The staff gossip a lot, we all do that at our job. Diana hated it. Harry must hate it too, all the others members don't seem to care. But I don't believe one second the staff was openly rude to Meghan.

I can easily imagine how even the younger and less royalist staff members would have hated MM, particularly for her "wokeness." She's busy giving orders in an imperious way behind the scenes whilst doing her SJW act in public with the Grenfell survivors, sex workers and African township residents. Meanwhile, the badly paid palace staff are scrubbing the toilets....

Boy, the nasty tabloid stories against Meghan are coming out fast and furious now:

[quote] Meghan Markle Told Friends “Changes Would Have Been Made” if Kate Middleton Were Bullied by Tabloids

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry recently moved to Los Angeles after stepping away from senior royal duties and leaving England, where there’s no denying that Meghan went through it. According to the Daily Mail, Meghan told friends that she believed if her sister-in-law Kate Middleton had been similarly targeted by British tabloids, the royals would have stepped in.

“[Meghan said] no one would have put up with it, and the broken and outdated system would have been revised. Those outlets responsible for their vicious attacks would have been shut out,” a friend told the Daily Mail, adding that the duchess believes “changes would have been made.”

This all gets a little messy because, ironically, the Daily Mail is one of the outlets that Meghan and Harry have announced they’re having “no corroboration and zero engagement” with.

But according to their source, Harry “constantly” approached Prince Charles and the Queen about Meghan being bullied by the press, and they “wouldn’t do anything to change the protocol.” Apparently, Meghan “said it was infuriating that Harry’s very real and valid concerns fell on deaf ears.”

“Meghan said they made it seem like this is the way it is, deal with it. Harry had been dealing with it far too long,” the source added. “She said he wasn’t going to let this destroy her life and their marriage.”

The source also claims that “Meghan said Harry made it crystal clear that they could not function in good faith under the current system…and that if it wasn’t revised and updated to their liking, they would have no other choice than to break from the royal family. She said no one took his pleas seriously, so they had to take the issue into their own hands. This was about protecting the family and doing right by Princess Diana. She said the British tabloids have haunted Harry since childhood and should have been kicked out of the media pool long ago. The system is broken and Harry wanted to fix it. She said he needed to take a stand and now they are doing it together.”

Source quotes should always be taken with a grain of salt, but there’s no denying that Meghan’s treatment by UK media was incredibly harsh—and the fact that she left England because of it? More than understandable.

[quote] Source quotes should always be taken with a grain of salt, but there’s no denying that Meghan’s treatment by UK media was incredibly harsh—and the fact that she left England because of it? More than understandable.

Don't you just love how these rotten British cunt rags always cover their stink asses, with a statement like "source quotes should always be taken with a grain of salt."

They should burn in hell.

Kate actually had it worse, at least when it comes to actually being harassed and stalked by paps. There are lots of pics of her being completely surrounded and hounded. Meghan never had to deal with that. And please. Di, Fergie, Cam and Kate ALL had to deal with massive amounts of shit from the press. Yes, the press sucks. But Meghan doesn't have it any worse than the others, especially when you consider all of the fodder she's provided.

R129 You can whine as much as you want but the nasty tabloids had a lot of news confirmed.

R101, you’ve brought up an example of the kind of muddy water Meghan creates. I don’t remember what it’s called, but it’s a tactic, and it clouds everything shady she does.

Something as simple as how they met. The back-and-forth about Archie’s birth. His godparents. Just all of it. Nothing is straightforward.

It’s not intriguing, it’s not romantic “mystery”. It’s stupid and shady.

I agree they love to create fake mystery. Nothing is straighfoward, they go back and forth all the time which create more press drama.

It's like their Canada home where they stay about 1 month before flying to LA.

Everybody with 2 brain cells knew they would never stay in Vancouver Island to live a private and quiet life. We all knew LA was the real deal for them but they had to pretend otherwise to get Granny and Daddy money and pretend they care about the Commonwealth....

I think they're holding things back for the inevitable autobiography.. It will have the details of their meeting, the birth, etc.

They could hold things back and be straighfoward about it.

For example Archie, they can't at the same time bitch about his privacy and how the press will never have access to him and name their foundation after him. It's not holding back for their child sake, it's being manipulative.

If the Sussexes are no longer in the BRF, what is to stop the tabs from interviewing numerous people who will spill the tea? It's already started with the NYC photographer. There'd be a lot of tea to spill. Speaking of which, someone who threw a cup (or pot?) of hot tea at a staff member would be capable of saying and doing a lot more ...

The Daily Fail today is essentially two newspapers/outlets. There's the actual Daily Mail newspaper, which is (or, at least, was) nasty and right-wing and then there's Mail Online, in particular the "showbiz" section. These are actually different units, as is the Mail on Sunday.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, simply because that's it's format, but it's for the middling classes. It's not a red top along the lines of the Sun or Daily Mirror. It used to be extremely nasty when the vile Paul Dacre was editor but he was replaced last year by the more reasonable and approximating human Geordie Greig, former Mail on Sunday editor.

MailOnline is separate and is where the celebrity and gossip sections are to be found although royal stories are also part of the Mail and MoS coverage.

Yes, the Daily Fail is mostly shit but that doesn't mean that whatever it publishes is simply made up. As a poster above said, take it with a grain of salt but at the same time be aware that whatever it asserts can be backed up and it cannot simply be dismissed as crazy right-wing lunacy.

R136 Because there's probably no big scandal about Meghan.

She's a nasty social climber with daddy issues who thinks too highly of herself but was lucky enough to meet a dumb and angry ginger Prince.

At most you can say she's not that nice, not that bright and manipulative. It's not Andrew level of scandal or even Charles and Cam.

R129 - If you had been a little more careful when reading the article you might have noticed that the paragraph you quoted was not written by DM staff. It was written by the Yahoo writer (likely American) who was clearly saying that after such treatment from the press no wonder they left.

You should burn in hell for your poor reading comprehension.

Are the entertainment press and paps out and about now with stay at home orders? If not, the Sussexes really had a "soft landing in an L.A.

When things get back to "normal" how are the Harkles going to deal with the hoardes of paps or TMZ style ambushes? The security team can keep a certain periphery, but that's it.

They are not going to be able to enjoy the level of security they did in the UK with police escort whenever they travel on top of their bodyguards, barricades, and the agreements the RF has in place with media there to keep a certain distance.

There's such a potential for them to become a circus side show.

Kate is probably leaking all these stories to the Daily Heil.

She has nothing better to do all day.

“ There's such a potential for them to become a circus side show.”

R140, you say that like it’s a bad thing!

I don't think there was ever a "Fab Four."

It was wishful thinking on the part of the British media.

They wanted it to be a Charles/Diana/Andrew/Fergie foursome, like the good old days.

Unfortunately, this new foursome was poisoned from the start, by William.

[quote]Unfortunately, this new foursome was poisoned from the start, by William.

Please explain.

Harry was pissed at William because William thought that Harry was moving too fast with the wedding, and told him he was making a mistake.

Harry got offended, and thought William wasn't being supportive of Meghan.

It was the beginning of the rift between them.

Or maybe just William had her number after spending 20 minutes with her, as would any one with emotional intelligence.

That' s nothing remotely poisoned, R145.

I love the numerous versions of how they met. Why is it a mystery?

Hmmm.

Why would a regular in a series need to be a yacht girl? Makes no sense. I dislike Meghan because she's phony and fatuous when she thinks she's being profound. But I don't want to keep company with the nutcases who think Archie is an invention or was carried by a surrogate or who say really scurrilous things about her mother. Or the people who denounce her "woke" politics, which is just about the only aspect of her I find palatable although hypocritical. These folk are bizarrely invested in the monarchy, see Kate as the measure of all things and pine because little Archie will never know his cousins. They deny that she's pretty, well-dressed and charming. The amount of ire they have toward her is insane.

The reason Meghan makes me want to throw up was that "Thank you for asking" moment in the South Africa film when she squeezed out a tear. Whining about how you're not thriving when you're miles away from among the oppressed people in the world? Bitch, don't even. I think she's vile. But please don't group me with the klan grannies.

But there is something odd about Archie. In the recent pics, his head is almost as big as MM's. A commenter said he had incisor teeth which come in at 16 months. The birth was shrouded in mystery and obfuscation.

About MM - she blatantly solicited her acquaintances for introductions to famous Brit men. I think it was Wayne Rooney (?) who was considered, but he had a gf. The story of how the Sussexes met is also murky and one of the stories is that she had yachted for a close friend of Harry's. Apparently minor starlets and working fashion models do yacht; the money is irresistible. There are also stories of MM couching for Brett Ratner and Harvey Weinstein.

What gets me about MM is her hypocrisy, trying to embrace extremely disadvantaged people (the SA women, Grenfell survivors, and the sex workers) whilst demanding incredible luxury and special treatment. Also, that people who know her very well, ie her former agent, best friend of 30 years, and sister and brother have spoken out against her so explicitly.

She may well have encountered some racial and anti-American discrimination from the courtiers and Harry's old friends, but she could have overcome that with decent behaviour.

Bringing the horrifically ugly married with children and even dumber than Harry Wayne Rooney who resided in D.C. at time into this story makes you instantly suspect as unread, unreliable, and shifty.

Sorry, sweetheart; it was Ashley Cole.

R101 Skippy was at the wedding. He wasn't invited to the reception.

Why doubt she was a yacht girl when she was a celebrity golf tournament "girl." The woman who ran one that MM was involved in said that MM took care of her assigned celebrity's every need (with a wink).

[quote]Why would a regular in a series need to be a yacht girl? Makes no sense.

Yacht girls are a huge part of the celebrity conspiracy theory racket and the Meghan-hating contingent has always dipped its toes into conspiracy theory. The yacht girl blind items that were popular a few years ago relied heavily on the whole QAnon/COINTELPRO thing, and that's where the Meghan and Harry nuts are headed.

[quote]The yacht girl blind items that were popular a few years ago relied heavily on the whole QAnon/COINTELPRO thing,

Could you please provide a description not based on acronyms or a link, perhaps? Jargon-based contentions that rely heavily on acronyms lack informative content.

For his parents to obfuscate details about Archie's birth was despicable.

Particularly given the rumors about Harry's parentage which must have caused him (Harry) a lot of pain.

Hiding behind the "privacy" claim, the Sussex behavior attracted more publicity with their shenanigans around the birth time and place, godparents, etc.

A quick trip to the steps outside the hospital to give the photogs their pictures would have assured that the aftermath of Archie's birth would have been peacefully handled.

Rather like Princess Anne's recent quotes about there being no need to reinvent the way things are handled as the processes in place have worked for most everyone involved.

To deliberately confuse the events surrounding baby Archie's birth was a shitty thing to do to their baby.

Meghan yachted with the same hope that every other golddigger has: meet a rich man for a long-term arrangement.

Fucking DUH.

And why was she traveling around as a SoHo House “brand ambassador” while she was raking it in as a C-list cable series actress?

Same reason. She wanted access to the Eurotrash money.

"ARCHIE WAS BORN IN KENYA!"

-Psychotic and mentally ill Meghan hating KateStans.

R160 is yet more evidence of how delusional Megstans are.

Funny lil reenactment

R162, I was mildly amused until the violin. Then I lost it. That girl nailed it.

r162, that was hilarious at the end when she pulled cash out her bra ....

R162 - That was perfection.

R162, was a recording of the actual nterview used? I read about it, but never watched or listened to any of the program. I tend to avoid too much info on this pair, but does she actually talk like that for an interview? Yikes!

And a shudder for all the over-emoting. The re-inactment was hilarious.

r162 That was perfection.

That was Meghan’s voice, R166

I believe the Cambridge staff member shouted at was the Cambridge's much respected and liked nanny, Maria, which one reason Meghan's behaviour was so offensive. If the nanny was about, so likely were the children.

There was enough smoke out there re Meghan's diva-esque treatment of staff to assume some fire. The Melissa Tabouti episode had more legs than a spider - that press release the Palace rushed out when she quit after six months when the Harkles returned from their first tour spoke volumes: no denial of the story, and a heaping bucketful of praise for Tabouti's service that you HAD to know was in exchange for an NDA stopping Tabouti from talking about what she'd experienced at Meghan's hands on that tour.

The other incidents, also never denied by the Palace, were Meghan screaming at the chef of her wedding banquet because she thought she tasted egg in the vegan dishes, which turned out to be a very good egg substitute - the Queen allegedly took Meghan aside and said, "Meghan, dear, we don't talk to people like that here." I think that was in Jobson's bio of Charles, as well as the now notorious Tiaragate story, also never contradicted by the Palace, after which the Queen took Harry aside and told him his intended needed some attitude adjustment. Harry: "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!" Her Majesty: "She gets what I give her."

The Harkles have treated everyone in their path badly: they took Canadian taxpayer money at a seven-figure level in six months, and then skipped town quietly without a backward glance.

They're users, both of them. I doubt very much that any of the royals, from the Queen down, have any illusions left about Meghan.

It's Harry about whom their shocked sensibilities are undergoing anguished readjustment. The only question is, how willing are they to let Harry go to cut off any further relationship with Meghan?

And, no, I don't think they did wish Princess Charlotte Happy Birthday last weekend.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Did they not wish Charlotte a Happy Birthday? It takes one line to do that.

What twats.

R171 - If they did, I missed it.

Why does Harry have straight, brown hair with blonde highlights in the above pic? In his previous call it was carrot and curly like it always has been before.

R170 - The Queen is always kept informed of the stuff in the papers - regardless of how distasteful. I very much doubt no one informed HM of Meghan deliberately breaking her agreement with the Wales' not to release her NT and Dagenham school photos until after Camilla made her big speech about domestic abuse. The insult to Charles' wife and future Queen Consort was typical of Meghan's impulses toward immediate jabs regardless of long-term consequences.

I must say I expect Meghan to do anything she can to stick it to the Cambridges, for whom she cherishes a vitriolic, envy-fed hatred of epic proportions.

But I didn't expect her to hurl a churlish, short-lived, but long-remembered spear at Camilla, given that the Harkles need Charles' support.

Perhaps the magnitude of how soon COVID would pull the rug out from under the Harkles hadn't yet dawned and Meghan figured she'd be well on her way to "financial independence" when she stuck it to Chalres' wife.

Looks like the Ginger Whinger is ginger no more...

Whatevs, Harry..life's too short to have hair colour you hate when there are other options.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Harry looks bad in that video.

[quote]Why does Harry have straight, brown hair with blonde highlights in the above pic?

California sun, backyard pool, chlorine.

Poor, delusional R169 and R174.

Concocting these convoluted stories out of their paranoid minds, and always trying to make Meghan look bad.

Mental illness is such a sad thing to witness. As are the ravings of lunatics.

r179, guess that hit too close to home for you huh?

Another Harry video.

Everything Meghan does makes her look like an opportunistic, self-centered grifter who doesn't care what she destroys or who she treats like shit in her quest for self-promotion and delusions of her own importance.

Wonder how many times she’ll try it with the... um... stern-looking Rebecca Mostow.

She’ll cut a bitch. You can tell.

R183 - except for the flowers, she looks like a bag lady.

Another magisterial speech from King-in-Waiting Harry.

Harry’s speech is about as welcome as Don Jr’s, if he’d fled to Mykonos and tried to boost the morale of Bronx kindergarteners.

I’m surprised he had the balls to record that. For shame.

Why would Harry record another video message when the Invictus Games were canceled this year?

Fascinated by the Rebecca Mostow hiring. Jesus H. Christ! She looks like a hardened Mr. Bean.

I wonder if Meghan think she can bamboozle a granny type?

Just try to fling a cup of hot tea at your new hire, MM...she'll tear you a brand new asshole.

[quote] a heaping bucketful of praise for Tabouti's service that you HAD to know was in exchange for an NDA stopping Tabouti from talking about what she'd experienced at Meghan's hands on that tour.

The NDA would have been signed when she started working for the royal family, not upon the return from the tour. What we have here is yet another example of long-winded editorializing that lacks any basis in reality.

R180 - LOL - nailed that one, my son!

R188, me too. I wonder if someone will start a thread about it.

She’s listed as a “Manager” at Simon Fuller’s XIX Entertainment (there’s the Posh Spice link). Seems like more of a handler than “aide”, but who knows. Someone also called her a “fixer”, which has more of a sinister connotation to me.

A comment from the DM intrigued me. It’s so damn random that it made me look twice: “ Did you know Rebecca Mostow's star pupil was Camila Batmanghelidjh !” It could be be bullshit crazy ramblings, of course.

Why on earth would these two unemployed losers need an “aide”? They already have a nanny. What else is there that they can’t possibly do, themselves?

This “aide” that the Mountbatten-Windsors have “hired” (accounts differ) is listed as a “Manager” at XIX Entertainment on LinkedIn.

From XIX Entertainment’s wiki: “ The company manages Now United, Annie Lennox, Victoria Beckham, David Beckham, Andy Murray, Steven Tyler, Carrie Underwood,[3] David Cook, The Spice Girls, Aloe Blacc, Lisa Marie Presley, Roland Mouret and Geri Halliwell , [4] and is in a partnership with Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony for their 2012 production Q'Viva! The Chosen.[5][6] Lewis Hamilton was managed by the company from early 2011 until November 2014,[7] whilst Bradley Wiggins was managed by them from November 2013 to January 2017.[8][9]”

Any names pop out at you?

Merching Meg never stops networking. Gotta hand it to her. If anyone can find a wealthier jump-off, it’s her.

Bye, Harry.

"If only we had paid attention to Princess Michael at that Christmas lunch - she was trying to tell us something with that brooch, but would we listen?!"

Is there a general royal family thread? I need a place to put this capture of Diana in her element

[quote]Concocting these convoluted stories out of their paranoid minds, and always trying to make Meghan look bad.

No one has to "try" very had to do that these days, in case you hadn't noticed.

I guess Meghan dodged a bullet as the queen will not be going to Balmoral this year.

Jeez, their housekeeper looks scary. No wonder Meghan and Victoria hire grannys, less temptations for their brainless husbands.

By the way, Nanny Maria is the last person you should shoot at. She looks hardcore and she's family for the Cambridges.

The Harkles are sinking into darkness: couchsurfing at stranger house at 40 years old, projects postponed, hagiography written by 2 ass-kissers while the world is figthing a fucking pandemic, videos of Archie in his diappers (he's cute but his parents are a mess), Harry's depressing videos in his cupboard, Tina mocking them while the Cambridges are shinning in the UK being relatable and looking great.

They are the most unlucky couple ever, I swear.

R196 - Yes: BRF and Other Royals, Aristos, Socialites Part II

R187 - "Why would Harry record another video message when the Invictus Games were canceled this year?"

To remind the world that he actually used to do real stuff in the real world and he's still Important and Relevant.

R198 - That "invitation" was another made-up story by the tabloids. If the Queen had extended such an invitation, you wouldn't know about it till they showed up and got some paps taken. The tabs also assured everyone that the pair were expected at Balmoral last summer when the Queen was allegedly planning an early August birthday celebration for Meghan.

Meghan never saw Balmoral and Harry stopped going up to Balmoral the moment he and Meghan were married - they didn't even have the courtesy to spend a couple of days with the Queen the way everyone else did, even more "adjacent" types like Sarah Chatto, when they were the newly married couple.

Meghan began prying Harry away from his customs, family, traditions, etc., the moment she got in. That's one way we should have realised earlier that she wasn't planning to stick around.

It's also another parallel with Diana's trajectory: she "adored" Balmoral when she visited as a potential bride of Charles, but hated it (despite her public utterance when she and Charles gave a photo op Deeside when they returned from the Honeymoon from Hell) when she returned. She had to be sent back to London for "counseling" and when asked why she left, said, "Boring. Raining".

Meghan didn't even make a first attempt.

So here’s what I’m wondering. Enough news outlets have reported that the Pair has “hired” Rebecca Mostow that I can believe it’s fait accompli.

What is this woman going to be doing? I get the feeling that a big part of her job is being more of a “handler” than anything else. Who needs the handling? Would Meghan realize if it was actually *she* that needs to be handled? Would she give up control of ANYTHING willingly?

R203 - Maybe she'll be a "babysitter" for Harry.

Why do Harry's teeth look so bad? Diana had nice teeth, Charles has decent ones and escaped the feral look of Andrew's and the horse ones of Anne . . . I don't think they used to look this snaggly.

R173 if you look closely at pictures of the royal men over the yrs you will see they all have their hair curled as young boys then perked as they get older. Most appear to have colored added as well. Harry and William did not have curls until older they both got poodle perms and sets to hide their balding pates.

R205, don’t worry. His teeth are next. It’s a little hard to get cosmetic dentistry done during *these times*, but it’s on Meghan’s to-do list.

Although I don’t know why he wound up with those little chicklet toofs. Those are the teeth of the youngest of five.

Gee, I'd love to go to Balmoral. I follow the place on Instagram, it looks otherworldly. I'm sure for a younger person it gets dull, but still - you're up there being part of fucking history, go with it!

I'm with r203. What is that angry looking lady going to actually "Do" for them? Maybe they are just hiring her for her rolodex? Unless it's that I can't figure out what they would need a "handler" for? It's not like they're both working all day and need someone to do basic things for them.

R206 - I've NEVER seen William with curly hair. Pics?

William isn’t trying to hide shit. He did what sensible and confident men do when they lose their hair; he cropped it off.

R209, the story came from a single source. The same quotes have been repeated in all the duo’s favorite outlets.

One of her least favorites (with whom they won’t corroborate) stuck in a bit about the rocky relationship between Posh and Megs. (Megs accused Posh of selling stories about her to the tabloids!). Since Mostow came from the same agency that managed Spice Girls, I wonder what’s up with that.

Mostow is an housekeeper.

She's there to do the shopping and clean the house, of course Meghan wants the Beckams former housekeeper.

She seems like a lot more than a housekeeper, r213.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R215 - Talk about tone-deaf . . . !

I wonder what Harry is going to do to embarrass himself again?

According to an update three hours ago, Standard UK has said that it’s unknown whether Mostow has accepted the Markle offer of employment.

Sounds like another one of those press releases that Markle sends, in which a wish of hers is presented as something that has happened already. That, and the detail that Mostow works for “high-end” clients. That’s as much Meghan’s wording as “thrive vs. survive” is.

The woman is always telling on herself.

And why was are we even hearing about her minor hires?

Because she needs people to talk about her even if it's about her hiring some granny.

Would be hilarious if this Mostow woman turned them down.

R221, if she’s as discreet and professional as the “source” claims, the stories about Mostow being hired would be a HUGE red flag for her. If she were entertaining an offer, she might be rethinking it right about now.

Not everyone wants their business splashed around the tabloids. Seeing as no one has ever heard of this woman, I’m guessing she prefers to do her job quietly and privately. If she’s in the tabloids before she’s even started working for the Markles, she can only look forward to more exploitation by them.

R221 - According to the press, it's already done and dusted.

What would really be hilarious is if she walked in a couple of months because she was tired of Duchess Divacult's attitude toward the Help.

R223, the most recent thing I’ve seen (an updated story) was that there was no confirmation that the offer was accepted. as per usual, surrounding the Markles, there are conflicting reports. Did she or didn’t she? Is she pregnant or isn’t she? Will they spend $10 million or $18 million? Did she hire this woman or not?

This particular time, she’s using a potential employee to play her little peekaboo game in the press. If Ms. Mostow didn’t know what she was dealing with, prior, she does NOW.

My question is what is wrong with surviving? Americans have always admired those who have made it against many, or all odds. No victims here, we're SURVIVORS.

Thriving is for when you have reached beyond and become successful at the surviving part. Sometimes that's all you get in life and the challenge is the reward and excitement. You make things good for your family, community and the next generation, even if it takes years.

Meghan maybe hasn't gotten that part.

R225 - Actually, it's more the case that Meghan got that part but was incapable of feeling it. - because underneath it all she's insecure, vain, suspicious, competitive, envious, and paranoid, and nothing she gets soothes that for more than five minutes.

"Satisfaction is not in my nature."

[quote] There are also stories of MM couching for Brett Ratner and Harvey Weinstein.

-- and when did she even have a bit part in their projects?

there's PLENTY to criticize about these idiots without going all tinfoil hat, people

It's kinda pathetic really.

I was sure they had some real plan before leaving the UK with their foundation ready to start and a home to live in LA, but it seems it's not the case.

They're couchsurfing, film videos in trashy shorts or in a gloomy cupboard and leak stupid stories to the Daily Fail to stay relevant.

They really should have stay at Frogmore, they could have keep pretending to be too good for the BRF but doing their duty anyway.

That would have given them an opportunity to save face, r228.

They don't deserve such an opportunity, after everything they've pulled, insulting not just the BRF but calling all the British peoples "racist" with zero evidence and after those same people paid $4 mil for Frogmore and continue to pay between $6 and $20 mil annually for their security.

I'm glad they are pathetically couchsurfing with their baby, their nanny, their RPOs and their dogs, and once the world unlocks, will be stuck doing embarrassing "jobs" to justify their existence while sinking lower and lower with every single job until they hit rock bottom and she finds a richer man, he has a full breakdown and he flees back home leaving her with the money and the kid.

It's called karma.

They deserve that after all the unwarranted insults and timult they've left in their wake.

She won't be getting any offers from rich men. She's not attractive has a weird shape and is attention seeking and indiscreet. She got very very lucky Harry was slumming at Soho.