Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[Barbara Manatee]

Yes it is clearly a mud-throwing tactic to bring it up now. Nasty. But why should anyone have had to tell Meghan not to wear a gift from MBS and the Saudi government?

The Court Jeweller
@courtjeweller

The state banquet in Fiji took place three weeks after the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi. By the time the dinner was held, his disappearance was being discussed in prominent news outlets all over the globe, and the Saudi government was linked to the killing.

It should have been obvious to both her and to the Crown how problematic that was.

 

[overedge]

The Saudi government had been identified as being involved, but IIRC MBS hadn't been directly linked to the murder at that point.
But the Royal family doesn't have a very good record of declining gifts from foreign rulers involved in shady activities.

The Queen accepted several horses from the ruler of Dubai after he was accused of kidnapping his daughter

Sheikh Mohammed's daughter, Princess Latifa, says she was beaten on her father's orders and imprisoned after a failed escape attempt.

www.insider.com

 

[MsZem]

The Saudi government had been identified as being involved, but IIRC MBS hadn't been directly linked to the murder at that point.

According to the Court Jeweler thread, Meghan wore the earrings twice (Fiji banquet, Prince Charles's 70th birthday party). Both were before the CIA report that linked MBS to the murder, but after media coverage about his likely role had started. I don't expect Meghan to have been following this news story while on an official trip, but the second appearance with the earrings was after she returned home was unfortunate.

 

[millyskate]

The whole necklace issue seems largely irrelevant.

It's a fact that significant parts of the British Press are racist. Moreover, they are particularly harsh with the royal family.

I also feel that unfortunately, neither Harry nor Meghan are up to the heavy task of becoming global role-models - at least not yet. Specific allegations over their very poor treatment of staff have been persistent over time, and come from a whole host of sources. I don't see much reason to doubt them or reduce them. Timing? Well, the reports of their attitude were always there, it's no surprise that their Oprah interview would have triggered the victims into wanting to do something.

I think it's unhelpful to try and minimise the allegations by saying "others in the royal family must have treated staff worse of made more egregious demands", or indeed put the issues down to cultural differences. Clearly, there was a fairly serious problem.

 

[starrynight]

The allegations don’t look great on the palace either, because clearly they protected Harry and Meghan by hushing up the complaints and making the 2018 report to HR disappear.

I just saw one person on TV dismiss this as the female staff members being ‘too sensitive’ while the other panelists nodded and it makes me very annoyed that in modern times people can get away with saying things like that about what is a common and serious issue in work places all around the world.

Especially when situations of working women are being trivialised to try to protect the images of a bunch of aristocrats.

 

[millyskate]

Just recently the Queen herself came under criticism for expecting staff to spend Christmas away from their families so they could form a social bubble with her. The staff refused and the Queen was reportedly angry.
In that instance though, the staff got their way - even the Queen had to back down on her demands.

 

[MsZem]

Also I need to say this again: Andrew is still being protected and squirreled away in some cottage somewhere. His kids are still treated as working royals even though they don't do much actual work.

They are not working royals. Beatrice and Eugenie have jobs, and rich husbands, so it's not difficult for them to live in style.

Andrew should not be protected from the consequences of his actions.

If she left the Firm because she didn't like her son Archie being called a chimp, then how is that her fault?

Nobody in the BRF called Archie a chimp. It was a tweet from a radio presenter, there was widespread outrage about it, and he was fired. Rightfully so. People can still call her child nasty names, BTW - it's disgusting, but stepping away from the royal family does not stop that, unfortunately.

This is just an obvious smear campaign right before the Oprah interview. It's so transparent. They must want Meghan to have a miscarriage.

WTF?

 

[starrynight]

Public figures can be really manipulative. For example, I think we could all think of a time we where convinced that a politician was fantastic to only find out that they were duplicitous or insincere behind the scenes. Doesn't necessarily mean all their policies are bad etc - but just that full blind trust in them is not wise.

So I can understand that some people would find it difficult to accept that Harry & Meghan are in some ways flawed -- particularly when such an image of perfection was marketed about them. But just like a flawed or duplicitous politician, it doesn't mean that everything is bad or the whole party is cancelled - just that a degree of caution is necessary.

In the same vein, Harry and Meghan being flawed doesn't automatically cancel the importance of equality of the sexes, of racial equality, of workplace equality etc. Those important things don't rely on the identity politics of one pair of celebrities - two celebrities don't have ownership over those important causes.

One of the problems is how lucrative paid charity is for celebrities. When good causes can be monetised and marketed for huge $$$$ and social media kudos how can one tell who is sincere?

 

[skategal]

The whole necklace issue seems largely irrelevant.

It's a fact that significant parts of the British Press are racist. Moreover, they are particularly harsh with the royal family. Specific allegations over their very poor treatment of staff have been persistent over time, and come from a whole host of sources. I don't see much reason to doubt them or reduce them. Timing? Well, the reports of their attitude were always there, it's no surprise that their Oprah interview would have triggered the victims into wanting to do something.

I think it's unhelpful to try and minimise the allegations by saying "others in the royal family must have treated staff worse of made more egregious demands", or indeed put the issues down to cultural differences. Clearly, there was a fairly serious problem.

You've hit the nail on the head of why this whole thing makes me mad.

Yes, she wore a set of earrings and should have known better about it, at least by the second time she did it.

But it's a set of earrings. No one's life was ruined because she did that.

The bullying, on the other hand, is very serious. People may have been harmed by it. Careers may have ended.

All complaints should be taken seriously and investigated.

But no, let's not bother to investigate that and we are only going to mention it now because we are upset about the Oprah interview.

Speaks volumes about what a toxic culture it must be inside the Palace.

 

[taf2002]

@canbelto

It is only difficult for you to understand because you refuse to accept that Meghan might bear ANY responsibility for anything that happens, or that even if something happens, she is excused from culpability because of her race. It's sort of fascinating to read your responses as you twist every which way to excuse Meghan. I guess I wonder... is she a strong, independent woman who should be respected and admired for intellect and agency or is she a victim of forces so powerful there is nothing she can do wrong who lacks agency to change those all-powerful forces (even if you would hold a white person accountable for the same behavior)?

And you twist everything to blame her. She's an evil witch who actually knew where the earrings came from but she really likes murder & dismemberment so she wore them anyway. Does that suit your agenda?

I believe that members of BP, whether royals or staff, set up Meghan to fail from the 1st. Was everyone in on it? Probably not but enough were to make her life a living hell. I think it was probably as much as the fact that she is American as that she is black. IOW not so much racist as xenophobic. Those brash Americans!

 

[millyskate]

Public figures can be really manipulative. For example, I think we could all think of a time we where convinced that a politician was fantastic to only find out that they were duplicitous or insincere behind the scenes. Doesn't necessarily mean all their policies are bad etc - but just that full blind trust in them is not wise.

So I can understand that some people would find it difficult to accept that Harry & Meghan are in some ways flawed -- particularly when such an image of perfection was marketed about them. But just like a flawed or duplicitous politician, it doesn't mean that everything is bad or the whole party is cancelled - just that a degree of caution is necessary.

In the same vein, Harry and Meghan being flawed doesn't automatically cancel the importance of equality of the sexes, of racial equality, of workplace equality etc. Those important things don't rely on the identity politics of one pair of celebrities - two celebrities don't have ownership over those important causes.

One of the problems is how lucrative paid charity is for celebrities. When good causes can be monetised and marketed for huge $$$$ and social media kudos how can one tell who is sincere?

That's really well formulated - agree on every count.

Here's is an interview with the journalist who leaked the bullying story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nnlsiYti48

 

[Jenny]

Agree that her being American, divorced and an actress are definite factors in all this. For that matter her age as well - not the innocent young flower that Harry's mother was. Not saying race isn't an issue, not at all, but it's not the only issue.

Believe it or not, I had no idea she was mixed race until the media and posters here started talking about it.

 

[Lemonade20]

Agree that her being American, divorced and an actress are definite factors in all this. For that matter her age as well - not the innocent young flower that Harry's mother was. Not saying race isn't an issue, not at all, but it's not the only issue.

Believe it or not, I had no idea she was mixed race until the media and posters here started talking about it.

The family may have trouble accepting her, but it sounds like it is a two way street. You can't go around bullying people and then play victim. How disappointing.

 

[Judy]

Well the Royal Family cannot return a gift. Unfortunately all of our countries are forced to deal with Saudi Arabia.

I worked with a muslim girl at my school at the time. She had left her religion and ended up in an abusive relationship (she did press charges and was going through a criminal course case in Toronto).

Due to this she returned and embraced her religion. She was an absolutely beautiful girl, very smart (she was working on her masters) and became engaged and is now married to a muslim. We always felt uncomfortable with him. Arrogant, not 100% sure he respected woman because he was really not friendly to us, couldn’t look us in the eye etc.

She now lives in Saudia Arabia and has about 4 children. I have no doubt she never got her masters.

I have her on my facebook and ultimately it is not my business but .

 

[canbelto]

The family may have trouble accepting her, but it sounds like it is a two way street. You can't go around bullying people and then play victim. How disappointing.

So because of one leaked article you buy the "bullying" claim 100%? You don't see how that's microaggressive?

Diana was infamous for ghosting long-time staff and making them do stuff that wasn't on their job description. No one called it "bullying."

Ask yourself if similar behavior from a white woman would cast THIS must agita and then say it's not racism at play.

 

[Judy]

My take on it, based on the relationship that the Royals have with Saudi Arabia, is that The Crown did not see anything wrong with the gift or with people wearing them. Therefore, it never occurred to them to tell Meghan not to wear them. Now that they are a political football, they are using that to get back at Meghan and Harry.

Oh the Queen/staff def would have known. But they cannot refuse a gift. Whether these truly are earrings from Saudi who knows. They accept gifts worldwide from many questionable countries. There is likely some huge, huge, huge space in the palace for this lol.

 

[canbelto]

I also can't help but feel the suits in BP are taking advantage of Philip's ill health to run wild with the leaks. I imagine many of the senior royals are having some very difficult conversations with Philip's doctors about the best way to proceed.

 

[Coco]

Really bad look for the palace to sit on these allegations until they could use them as an opportunity to publicly lash out at Meghan.

 

[clairecloutier]

It's definitely a PR war at this point, and it's going to be interesting to see who "wins." If anyone.

I think it's a mistake for the BRF to start this "investigation." What is the purpose? They can't punish Meghan--she's living in America and essentially beyond their grasp. And any suggestion that they're just trying to do the right thing or be a better organization in general is mooted by their failure to investigate Prince Andrew and other royal lapses, and also by the blatantly obvious timing of this announcement right before the Oprah interview.

 

[Judy]

The allegations don’t look great on the palace either, because clearly they protected Harry and Meghan by hushing up the complaints and making the 2018 report to HR disappear.

I just saw one person on TV dismiss this as the female staff members being ‘too sensitive’ while the other panelists nodded and it makes me very annoyed that in modern times people can get away with saying things like that about what is a common and serious issue in work places all around the world.

Especially when situations of working women are being trivialised to try to protect the images of a bunch of aristocrats.

The only thing I can guarantee you is that the truth will never be learned from media. It likely lies somewhere in between.

i totally get that the U.S. in general never had the greatest exposure regard to the Queen. I’m in a commonwealth country so I was used to visits from Queen/Charles etc etc. Yes it can be controversial here too. I always watched it on tv but never went in person except when Kate/William visited and I went down on the freaking hottest day of the summer and stood amongst thousands and thousands of people and heard William’s speech.

i’m curious how many people here are from the U.K.? I’m also curious if anyone is old enough to have grown up during the Diana years?

 

[millyskate]

I think it's a mistake for the BRF to start this "investigation." What is the purpose? They can't punish Meghan--she's living in America and essentially beyond their grasp. And any suggestion that they're just trying to do the right thing or be a better organization in general is mooted by their failure to investigate Prince Andrew and other royal lapses, and also by the blatantly obvious timing of this announcement right before the Oprah interview.

They're not investigating, but rather responding with the minimum they could to the allegation they buried a bullying complaint by saying they're going to listen to the staff and learn any lessons that are needed. Meghan isn't going to be targeted or involved. It's basically a response to their own shortcomings.

As for Prince Andrew - as much as in an ideal world one would like him to have to answer for his actions, he benefits from a de facto type of "diplomatic immunity", just like Anne Sacoolas. It may feel terrible unfair to the victims but there's nothing you can do. People with diplomatic immunities (included extended members of royal families from throughout the world) regularly commit offences in various countries and cannot be prosecuted. Diplomatic immunities exist for a reason and it's just pragmatically unrealistic to expect Prince Andrew to face a trial. He was asked to step down from Royal duties and that's a big a sign as could really have been sent.

 

[Judy]

I also can't help but feel the suits in BP are taking advantage of Philip's ill health to run wild with the leaks. I imagine many of the senior royals are having some very difficult conversations with Philip's doctors about the best way to proceed.

I doubt he’ll be listening/watching.

Hospitalized Prince Philip has successful heart procedure

Prince Philip has had a successful heart procedure at a London hospital and is expected to remain for several days of 'rest and recuperation,' Buckingham Palace said Thursday.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[canbelto]

Re: Andrew, if the "diplomatic immunity" were for something white collar I get it. But the charges against Andrew are so grave that it's a horrible look for BP to be protecting him this much.

 

[skategal]

It's definitely a PR war at this point, and it's going to be interesting to see who "wins." If anyone.

I think it's a mistake for the BRF to start this "investigation." What is the purpose? They can't punish Meghan--she's living in America and essentially beyond their grasp. And any suggestion that they're just trying to do the right thing or be a better organization in general is mooted by their failure to investigate Prince Andrew and other royal lapses, and also by the blatantly obvious timing of this announcement right before the Oprah interview.

I think it’s a mistake too. It should have been looked into early but not much point now.

Harry is still the monarch’s grandson and the son of the heir.

Going after Meghan is also hurting Harry.

At a certain point they are only hurting their own selves.

It’s not a good look.

 

[puglover]

Also, Princess Beatrice was married in a dress loaned to her by the Queen. It seemed that connection was quite emphasized. Perhaps a public show of love and support for his daughters who are innocent of any wrongdoing of their father.

They're not investigating, but rather responding with the minimum they could to the allegation they buried a bullying complaint by saying they're going to listen to the staff and learn any lessons that are needed. Meghan isn't going to be targeted or involved. It's basically a response to their own shortcomings.

As for Prince Andrew - as much as in an ideal world one would like him to have to answer for his actions, he benefits from a de facto type of "diplomatic immunity", just like Anne Sacoolas. It may feel terrible unfair to the victims but there's nothing you can do. People with diplomatic immunities (included extended members of royal families from throughout the world) regularly commit offences in various countries and cannot be prosecuted. Diplomatic immunities exist for a reason and it's just pragmatically unrealistic to expect Prince Andrew to face a trial. He was asked to step down from Royal duties and that's a big a sign as could really have been sent.

 

[Karen-W]

So because of one leaked article you buy the "bullying" claim 100%? You don't see how that's microaggressive?

Diana was infamous for ghosting long-time staff and making them do stuff that wasn't on their job description. No one called it "bullying."

Ask yourself if similar behavior from a white woman would cast THIS must agita and then say it's not racism at play.

This isn't just one leaked article. The allegations and whispers about Meghan's treatment/interactions with KP/BP staff (and even some family members) have been out there for a good 2-2.5 years, pretty much since right after their first overseas trip in fall 2018. You know the old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" really does apply to this situation.

Really, the Diana comparison is not a good one, for two reasons - 1) this type of behavior from an employer is never a good look, so excusing Meghan because Diana behaved similarly is not good enough, 2) the accusations about Meghan go beyond "ghosting" former staffers with whom she had a falling out or "asking them to do things they don't want to do" - and, I'm going to go back to earring-gate as an example... if the rumor is true that H&M knew the provenance of the jewelry and, then lied to their staff when asked by those staffers about it because the fashion media was inquiring about them (which they do ALL the time - hence the popularity of the What Kate Wore and What Meghan Wore blogs and other similar sites), well, that is pretty problematic because they are making it far harder to adequately support H&M and manage any bad PR that might result from the poor choice to wear the earrings right then - they are essentially undermining their staff. If that is an accurate version of events, it begs the question - what else did H&M do to undermine the staff and for what purpose?

 

[Lemonade20]

So because of one leaked article you buy the "bullying" claim 100%? You don't see how that's microaggressive?

Diana was infamous for ghosting long-time staff and making them do stuff that wasn't on their job description. No one called it "bullying."

Ask yourself if similar behavior from a white woman would cast THIS must agita and then say it's not racism at play.

She made staff so upset they quit. That's very telling. As for Diana, she admitted to being depressed and feeling alone. The only thing they have in common is that they didn't feel like they belonged there.

 

[canbelto]

This isn't just one leaked article. The allegations and whispers about Meghan's treatment/interactions with KP/BP staff (and even some family members) have been out there for a good 2-2.5 years, pretty much since right after their first overseas trip in fall 2018. You know the old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" really does apply to this situation.

Really, the Diana comparison is not a good one, for two reasons - 1) this type of behavior from an employer is never a good look, so excusing Meghan because Diana behaved similarly is not good enough, 2) the accusations about Meghan go beyond "ghosting" former staffers with whom she had a falling out or "asking them to do things they don't want to do" - and, I'm going to go back to earring-gate as an example... if the rumor is true that H&M knew the provenance of the jewelry and, then lied to their staff when asked by those staffers about it because the fashion media was inquiring about them (which they do ALL the time - hence the popularity of the What Kate Wore and What Meghan Wore blogs and other similar sites), well, that is pretty problematic because they are making it far harder to adequately support H&M and manage any bad PR that might result from the poor choice to wear the earrings right then - they are essentially undermining their staff. If that is an accurate version of events, it begs the question - what else did H&M do to undermine the staff and for what purpose?

I read the rumors of the staff treatment. The book Finding Freedom which is otherwise extremely flattering hints at it -- a nanny was fired in the dead of night on the first day. I believe the book mentioned some other turnover.

However, the reports have been very consistent in one thing -- Harry's fierce and maybe unreasonable defense of Meghan. Which, honestly, sounds like first year limerence when you think your new wife/gf is perfect in every way and can do no wrong. And again, this speaks to a systemic failure. Someone who is unfamiliar with the culture and the unspoken norms was obviously not prepped about these sorts of things. They should have taken care of these complaints while they were happening, not over a year later when they;ve already left the BRF.

 

[Karen-W]

I read the rumors of the staff treatment. The book Finding Freedom which is otherwise extremely flattering hints at it -- a nanny was fired in the dead of night on the first day. I believe the book mentioned some other turnover.

However, the reports have been very consistent in one thing -- Harry's fierce and maybe unreasonable defense of Meghan. Which, honestly, sounds like first year limerence when you think your new wife/gf is perfect in every way and can do no wrong. And again, this speaks to a systemic failure. Someone who is unfamiliar with the culture and the unspoken norms was obviously not prepped about these sorts of things. They should have taken care of these complaints while they were happening, not over a year later when they;ve already left the BRF.

Oh, it's way more than firing a nanny in the dead of night, on her first night on the job no less - there are reports of teacups flung at Admiralty House while in Australia and at least one part time security guard from that same trip who was mistreated.

I'm not disagreeing that these issues should not have been swept under the rug or left uninvestigated by BP when they first surfaced, but I can see how it happened, unfortunately. And I do think you are right about how Harry contributed to the issues - I can't help but wonder if this might be part of what caused the rift between William and Harry. Maybe he saw/heard the staff issues and tried to have a chat with Harry and Harry shut him down because, as a newly married man who was madly in love, his wife could do no wrong. Which, yeah, I get it, but it put the BP HR in a tough spot... how do you handle it when the problem is one of the royals without it going impossibly sideways from a PR point of view?

 

[Jenny]

I think there's another difference between the public reaction to whatever it is Diana did to her staff and what is alleged that Meghan did to hers, and it's nothing to do with race and everything to do with timing.

It was a different world 40 years ago, and aside from the obvious lack of platforms for most people to talk about anything, treating one's employees badly was both viewed and talked about quite differently. Bullying may be what it's called now, but back then it would have been described differently I think.